Retro POY '69-70 (Voting Complete)

Manuel Calavera · Post #61 » by **Manuel Calavera** » Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:07 pm

ThaRegul8r wrote:It's the invincible ignorance fallacy: once one's mind is already made up on something, nothing will change it.

Exactly.

Manuel Calavera · Post #62 » by **Manuel Calavera** » Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:09 pm

Sedale Threatt wrote: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.

No you're right, I'm not arguing Wilt should be in the top 5, he's certainly not making mine. I'm only arguing against the same people who discredit him for reasons that aren't backed up by fact.

Manuel Calavera · Post #63 » by **Manuel Calavera** » Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:27 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
Manuel Calavera wrote: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.

That's fair enough, I haven't seen the series outside of a few clips either (and I think I may have watched a full ? game a while back) so I don't know the answers to your questions (or mine either). I don't know if they tried to get the ball into Wilt and he either fumbled it, took a bad shot or passed it off to not mess up his percentages, but nobody ever brings up any proof. They just rely on their own already established idea of Wilt and say he's mentally weak or that he's a choker.

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.

That's a weakness every center has to deal with, one of the ways the Jordan's Bulls were so effective against guys like Ewing and Shaq was that Jordan, Pippen and Rodman were able to deny the entry pass. Centers make up for this by being able to rebound the ball, throw outlet passes and play defense, something Chamberlain did very well this series.

ElGee · Post #64 » by **ElGee** » Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:52 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
ElGee wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote: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.

I would argue that the fundamental factor in those examples is a secondary player's performance was enabled by a star. Neither Westbrook nor Amare were the No. 1 offensive weapon for their teams. Kareem was.

In other words, I'm not sure how much precedent there is for a team "letting the star get his" vs. a strategy that enables secondary players to shine. Maxwell's Finals against Houston come to mind there as well.

Take Wade this year vs. Boston. There is a strange thread on the PC board right now about that series and some people claiming Boston didn't try as hard. Well, having studied that series, they *were* trying to take away Wade the way they do any perimeter star, and their defensive was incredible (comparable to the 2008 version -- in fact they had the best DRtg relative to average after 2 rounds in the 3-point era), only Wade still "got his." It wasn't a strategy thing. It was a "Wade's too quick to guard" thing. My guess, having seen an entire 1971 Bucks-Knicks game, is that Kareem was too tall to be affected by New York's defensive strengths (Reed and Frazier).

ElGee · Post #65 » by **ElGee** » Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:57 pm

drza wrote: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?

I think you're giving Kareem too much of an historical boost. His regular season production is considerably lower than his 1971 and later seasons, and his defensive impact isn't really reflected. Milwaukee's an average defensive team in 1970. In 1971 only the Knicks boast a better defense. I can buy that Lucious Allen and Bob Boozer were defensive upgrades off the bench in 71. I can buy that Costello used more trapping schemes the following year because he was more comfortably with Lew's strengths. But that still reflects a change in Lew's on-court value.

In other words, I actually don't see the argument that says "he's clearly a cut above everyone else," which seems evident in later seasons we've already done.

Post #66 » by **Doctor MJ** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:14 am

ElGee wrote:I would argue that the fundamental factor in those examples is a secondary player's performance was enabled by a star. Neither Westbrook nor Amare were the No. 1 offensive weapon for their teams. Kareem was.

In other words, I'm not sure how much precedent there is for a team "letting the star get his" vs. a strategy that enables secondary players to shine. Maxwell's Finals against Houston come to mind there as well.

Take Wade this year vs. Boston. There is a strange thread on the PC board right now about that series and some people claiming Boston didn't try as hard. Well, having studied that series, they *were* trying to take away Wade the way they do any perimeter star, and their defensive was incredible (comparable to the 2008 version -- in fact they had the best DRtg relative to average after 2 rounds in the 3-point era), only Wade still "got his." It wasn't a strategy thing. It was a "Wade's too quick to guard" thing. My guess, having seen an entire 1971 Bucks-Knicks game, is that Kareem was too tall to be affected by New York's defensive strengths (Reed and Frazier).

Hmm, the secondary star thing is a good point. Not sure I quite buy it with Amare, and Malone & Stockton both had bing numbers.

Your Wade example though makes me clear we just see this very differently though. Boston absolutely shut down Miami. Way better than they shut down any other team in the playoffs, way better than any other team got shut down in the playoffs.

Boston was satisfied with what their defense was doing.

Could they have shut down Wade more? I can't imagine there is any doubt. Every player in history can be stopped, it's just a question of whether it's worth it for the opposing team to apply enough pressure to do so, and thereby sacrificing their coverage of everyone else.

Now, is it possible that one player is so good that a team is applying what by normal standards is a lot of pressure and he's still tearing it up while his horrendous teammates are left open and still accomplishing nothing? Yes. However, when that player appears to be doing a hell of a better than he normally does in a series where his team is getting killed, it seems pretty bizarre to conclude that's the most likely explanation.

Post #67 » by **semi-sentient** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 2:46 am

ElGee wrote: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.

Ahhh, thanks. Somehow I overlooked that.

ElGee · Post #68 » by **ElGee** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 3:15 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
ElGee wrote:I would argue that the fundamental factor in those examples is a secondary player's performance was enabled by a star. Neither Westbrook nor Amare were the No. 1 offensive weapon for their teams. Kareem was.

In other words, I'm not sure how much precedent there is for a team "letting the star get his" vs. a strategy that enables secondary players to shine. Maxwell's Finals against Houston come to mind there as well.

Take Wade this year vs. Boston. There is a strange thread on the PC board right now about that series and some people claiming Boston didn't try as hard. Well, having studied that series, they *were* trying to take away Wade the way they do any perimeter star, and their defensive was incredible (comparable to the 2008 version -- in fact they had the best DRtg relative to average after 2 rounds in the 3-point era), only Wade still "got his." It wasn't a strategy thing. It was a "Wade's too quick to guard" thing. My guess, having seen an entire 1971 Bucks-Knicks game, is that Kareem was too tall to be affected by New York's defensive strengths (Reed and Frazier).

Hmm, the secondary star thing is a good point. Not sure I quite buy it with Amare, and Malone & Stockton both had bing numbers.

Your Wade example though makes me clear we just see this very differently though. Boston absolutely shut down Miami. Way better than they shut down any other team in the playoffs, way better than any other team got shut down in the playoffs.

Boston was satisfied with what their defense was doing.

Could they have shut down Wade more? I can't imagine there is any doubt. Every player in history can be stopped, it's just a question of whether it's worth it for the opposing team to apply enough pressure to do so, and thereby sacrificing their coverage of everyone else.

Now, is it possible that one player is so good that a team is applying what by normal standards is a lot of pressure and he's still tearing it up while his horrendous teammates are left open and still accomplishing nothing? Yes. However, when that player appears to be doing a hell of a better than he normally does in a series where his team is getting killed, it seems pretty bizarre to conclude that's the most likely explanation.

re: Amare. He was a beast in that series from what I remember, so fair enough.

re: Wade. Well, I want to relate this to Kareem, but in that particular instance, YES, Wade's teammates played horrendously when left wide open. Only Russell Westbrook's teammates hit a lower% of open shots that he created for them (Heat were 9-27 off of Wade's creations). That doesn't include players like Jermaine O'Neal, independent from Wade, shooting historically bad.

It's 1970. We're trying to infer what happened here. I'm with you to a certain degree when you say "when a player does better than normal and his team gets killed" you're viewing it a certain way. But doesn't that only make sense if the teams are comparable? The Celtics were a drastically superior team to Miami -- that's why they shut them down. And New York was clearly better than Milwaukee. They took four out of five meaningful regular season games. G2 was a 1 point Knicks win. They "broke serve" once in G4 and held in G5.

Post #69 » by **Doctor MJ** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 3:37 am

ElGee wrote:It's 1970. We're trying to infer what happened here. I'm with you to a certain degree when you say "when a player does better than normal and his team gets killed" you're viewing it a certain way. But doesn't that only make sense if the teams are comparable? The Celtics were a drastically superior team to Miami -- that's why they shut them down. And New York was clearly better than Milwaukee. They took four out of five meaningful regular season games. G2 was a 1 point Knicks win. They "broke serve" once in G4 and held in G5.

I don't see what the superiority of the opposing team matters to be honest. I actually think it helps hammer the point home. People are talking about how Kareem killed the Knicks here, and people have talked about how Wade killed the Celtics - in series where the Knicks & Celtics were superior teams, knowing they were on their way to the next round without really breaking a sweat. Can you imagine interviewing Kevin Garnett after they won the series over the Heat, and asking him if he was embarrassed by how bad Wade made the Celtics look? He'd look at you like you were crazy (and then bark at you).

I would certainly not use these series to knock Kareem or Wade. It's just, if I'm trying to evaluate how good a player actually was, how much of a boost am I really going to give a guy's entire season, based on a short, team unsuccessful, series?

ElGee · Post #70 » by **ElGee** » Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:27 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
ElGee wrote:It's 1970. We're trying to infer what happened here. I'm with you to a certain degree when you say "when a player does better than normal and his team gets killed" you're viewing it a certain way. But doesn't that only make sense if the teams are comparable? The Celtics were a drastically superior team to Miami -- that's why they shut them down. And New York was clearly better than Milwaukee. They took four out of five meaningful regular season games. G2 was a 1 point Knicks win. They "broke serve" once in G4 and held in G5.

I don't see what the superiority of the opposing team matters to be honest. I actually think it helps hammer the point home. People are talking about how Kareem killed the Knicks here, and people have talked about how Wade killed the Celtics - in series where the Knicks & Celtics were superior teams, knowing they were on their way to the next round without really breaking a sweat. Can you imagine interviewing Kevin Garnett after they won the series over the Heat, and asking him if he was embarrassed by how bad Wade made the Celtics look? He'd look at you like you were crazy (and then bark at you).

I would certainly not use these series to knock Kareem or Wade. It's just, if I'm trying to evaluate how good a player actually was, how much of a boost am I really going to give a guy's entire season, based on a short, team unsuccessful, series?

I see what you're saying with regards to a gap in the teams. When viewing it like that, I understand why you're coming from, I just don't agree with it. If Alcindor is clearly Milwaukee's best player, then limiting him should give New York the best *chance* to win. They had just gone 7 games with Baltimore and G2 was a close victory. They lost G3. Milwaukee was the 2nd best team in the league. I find it hard to believe they were "comfortable" with Kareem going off if it was making the games competitive.

I guess you're saying because they were confident with the strategy (based on win after win), you aren't overly impressed by the individual performance of the loser, because if the superior team were uncomfortable they would have increased defensive pressure/shifted defensive strategy. Correct? To that I still say:

(1) How many individuals can put up that kind of performance? It's not like opponents spoon feed Alcindor/Wade/Iverson 01/whoever points just to keep a series close. It's still a display of individual skill.

(2) What is the superior team thinking when the opponent wins? It seems to me Miami, Milwaukee, etc. are only competitive because of these great performances. Boston won G3 at the buzzer. New York G2 by a bucket. Each team lost the subsequent game. Heck, Miami led by 14 in the 3rd Q of G1, Wade scored 1 point in the next 17 minutes and Boston went on a +24 run. I think if you asked KG about Dwyane Wade after G4, his response would probably be "we need to **** shut that **** down." Then he'd bark at you.

All that said, if your only contention here is with giving one series too much credit, I agree with you that none of these series should have a huge impact on how anyone views those players.

ElGee · Post #71 » by **ElGee** » Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:42 am

Warspite · Post #72 » by **Warspite** » Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:03 am

Everytime I read a SI article from the past I seem to always have 2 statements

1. Thats not what I remember

2. 99.9% of there conclusions/predictions are wrong.

Post #73 » by **penbeast0** » Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:24 pm

Good point. The Sporting News was a lot more reliable; but SI was a fun read -- and not just for the swimsuit issue.

bastillon · Post #74 » by **bastillon** » Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:42 pm

hi, haven't been here for a while.

what I remember from analysing that season before is that Reed torched Kareem's ass in that series (on offense). Reed scored 24, 36, 21, 26, 32 and was like WAY above his average. it says a lot about Kareem's defense in that series. he averaged just 21.7 PPG that year and 27.8 against KAJ in the playoffs. that's the main reason why Knicks won so easily against them, despite being very close in RS wins.

drza, given this and this:

Elgee's chart for estimated pace-adjusted drtg

Code: Select all

    1.  New York      92.9
    2.  Baltimore     96.9
    3.  San Francisco 97.4
    4.  Philadelphia  98.0
    5.  Boston        98.5
    6.  Chicago       98.8
    6.  San Diego     98.8
    8.  Milwaukee     98.9
    9.  Los Angeles   99.2
    LEAGUE AVG.       99.2
    10. Cincinnati    100.4
    11. Seattle       102.4
    12. Atlanta       102.6
    13. Detroit       103.5
    14. Phoenix       103.6

there is absolutely no reason to make it seem like Kareem was anything like a great defender. he played on a team with decent defenders and they were average. he wasn't recognized as great defender at the time either and in the most important moment of the season he didn't seem to handle Reed at all, in fact Willis played against him a better series than against anyone else.

there's very little evidence supporting that rookie KAJ > West on defense.

I wonder who was responsible for NYK's dominance on defense. was it Frazier or was it Reed ? I'd imagine that a shotblocker with that crazy rebound rate (vast majority on defense because he was a jumpshooting big who never really attacked offensive boards) would be much more valuable to team defense than a perimeter defender without astronomic steal numbers. (we have data of Frazier's steals post '73 and there was nothing to brag about).

I've got no idea why Reed is being so disrespected here. the consensus seems to be that Frazier was retro finals MVP while Reed still outscored him 23-17.6 and then obviously he was the one limiting Chamberlain which is obvious by the game in which he was absent (45/27...). Frazier played excellent finals but he wasn't more valuable to that team. Reed was still more impactful defender too as a shotblocking/rebounding big, and which is evidenced by 135 points Lakers put up in G6 in his absence.

I have no idea why Frazier is getting so much love on this board. at the time he wasn't recognized as TOP5 player. raw stats don't recognize him as anywhere near TOP5 player. team success doesn't make him a TOP5 player either if you look at what he has done post '73. seriously what am I missing here ?

Post #75 » by **CellarDoor** » Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:11 pm

TrueLAfan wrote: snipped rankings

You know that old saying "I've forgotten more about x than you know"?

It was made for people like TLAF

Sedale Threatt · Post #76 » by **Sedale Threatt** » Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:55 pm

bastillon wrote:seriously what am I missing here ?

The last 10 or 15 votes.

JordansBulls · Post #77 » by **JordansBulls** » Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:41 pm

bastillon wrote:hi, haven't been here for a while.

what I remember from analysing that season before is that Reed torched Kareem's ass in that series (on offense). Reed scored 24, 36, 21, 26, 32 and was like WAY above his average. it says a lot about Kareem's defense in that series. he averaged just 21.7 PPG that year and 27.8 against KAJ in the playoffs. that's the main reason why Knicks won so easily against them, despite being very close in RS wins.

drza, given this and this:

Elgee's chart for estimated pace-adjusted drtg
Code: Select all
1. New York 92.9 2. Baltimore 96.9 3. San Francisco 97.4 4. Philadelphia 98.0 5. Boston 98.5 6. Chicago 98.8 6. San Diego 98.8 8. Milwaukee 98.9 9. Los Angeles 99.2 LEAGUE AVG. 99.2 10. Cincinnati 100.4 11. Seattle 102.4 12. Atlanta 102.6 13. Detroit 103.5 14. Phoenix 103.6

there is absolutely no reason to make it seem like Kareem was anything like a great defender. he played on a team with decent defenders and they were average. he wasn't recognized as great defender at the time either and in the most important moment of the season he didn't seem to handle Reed at all, in fact Willis played against him a better series than against anyone else.

there's very little evidence supporting that rookie KAJ > West on defense.

I wonder who was responsible for NYK's dominance on defense. was it Frazier or was it Reed ? I'd imagine that a shotblocker with that crazy rebound rate (vast majority on defense because he was a jumpshooting big who never really attacked offensive boards) would be much more valuable to team defense than a perimeter defender without astronomic steal numbers. (we have data of Frazier's steals post '73 and there was nothing to brag about).

I've got no idea why Reed is being so disrespected here. the consensus seems to be that Frazier was retro finals MVP while Reed still outscored him 23-17.6 and then obviously he was the one limiting Chamberlain which is obvious by the game in which he was absent (45/27...). Frazier played excellent finals but he wasn't more valuable to that team. Reed was still more impactful defender too as a shotblocking/rebounding big, and which is evidenced by 135 points Lakers put up in G6 in his absence.

I have no idea why Frazier is getting so much love on this board. at the time he wasn't recognized as TOP5 player. raw stats don't recognize him as anywhere near TOP5 player. team success doesn't make him a TOP5 player either if you look at what he has done post '73. seriously what am I missing here ?

Where you been man?

bastillon · Post #78 » by **bastillon** » Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:49 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=232oykDQfJc[/youtube]

Post #79 » by **Doctor MJ** » Thu Aug 26, 2010 7:25 pm

I've watched game 7 of the finals through half time (by which time it was over), and the bits of game 5 i could find on youtube. What I saw:

In game 5, the glaring trend is that with Reed out the Knicks work to double team and trap the Lakers like crazy, and it works amazingly well. Desperate bad passes all over the place. The biggest question in my mind was whether modern players could be rattled like this. Wilt seems passive, not moving around a lot to make it easier for the Lakers to pass to him - but I'd still be inclined to put more blame on the perimeter players.

Game 7 was completely different. The Knicks still have active hands, but they are staying at home more, and the Lakers have some breathing room. One might ask why the Knicks went with such different strategies, but seeing as how they both worked fantastically, I think Red Holzman deserves credit as a very smart dude.

Now, what I was most in was watching Wilt and the Lakers on offense, but before I get into that: The Knicks were just on fire this day. Hitting jump shot after jump shot - with Frazier being the big guy: 15/4/4 in the first quarter, 23 points by half time. This was not a normal day for the Knicks, and even the best teams in the world lose more than 10% of the time - much of what happened there then, is just terribly bad luck for the Lakers.

However, Wilt Chamberlain was terrible.

The strategy very clear was to get the ball into Wilt and have him dominate. The announcers even commented that it was a continuation of their game 6 strategy. So here are the numbers, of getting the ball into Wilt:

Times the ball was passed into Wilt in the post in the first half: 21
Made field goals: 2
Missed field goals: 5
Fouled: 4 times, 1-8 shooting
Turnovers: 3

So the tally: 5 points in 14 used possessions.

The other 7 passes into Wilt, resulted in Wilt making another pass. To break this down: 1 time it was an instant double team, Wilt had to pass. 1 time, Wilt made a great pass to a guy cutting to the hoop. 5 times though, Wilt worked with the ball, and then just gave up and passed the ball out essentially re-booting the possession, without re-booting the shot clock.

Also to be clear, I'm not counting other times when Wilt touched the ball in this tally. Defensive rebounds, touches at the top of the key, offensive rebounds, not mentioned here. Now, Wilt also scored 6 points off of offensive rebounds, which is why he had a double double by half time. I'm not saying Wilt's rebounding was terrible, but Wilt's effectiveness when working to score against a set defense was non-existent.

Getting into the nuances of Wilt's offensive strategy. Typically, he's one on one vs Reed, and he's 5+ feet from the basket. He tends to keep the ball in one hand and move it all around trying to throw his man off, this normally has no effect, but it did result in a couple turnovers when men who weren't on him saw the ball in front of them, and just knocked it out of his hand. He doesn't dribble, and thus couldn't back Reed down even if he'd have otherwise been able to. Announcers comment about how Reed's strength was forcing Wilt to set up shop further from the basket than normal. Tell you what though, Wilt was still getting looks that weren't that terrible - they just didn't go in.

I end up saying with some confidence: The Lakers would have had a better chance if Reed had been healthy. Reed's injury led the Lakers to change their strategy to have Wilt be their first scoring option - and even with an injured Reed, that proved a significantly worse strategy that what they normally were capable of achieving against the healthy Knicks.

Manuel Calavera · Post #80 » by **Manuel Calavera** » Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:32 pm

I just watched the first half and I have no idea what you're talking about. Chamberlain may have been the only decent player on the Lakers that night. The only success they ever found on offense was through him, otherwise it was a turn-over or an air-ball by one of the Lakers guards.

The Knicks won for two reasons, their swarming defense and just plain lucky jump shots. They shot 72% in the first quarter and 56% for the half (but by the middle second quarter they were stretching the lead to 30).

All this talk from post game journalists of Wilt being the cause of the loss for missed free-throws or whatever are just plain lies. Outside of him creating the offense there were maybe 3 or 4 possessions where the Lakers were able to score, all of which came from either chucking a shot at the beginning of the shot clock or from West breaking down the defense, some of which Chamberlain was still able to grab an offensive rebound and score. As for the defense, the strategy was to move Reed outside so that Chamberlain couldn't come to help or to prevent a defensive rebound. I don't think it was very effective since their shots all came from the outside and Chamberlain was still able to get the rebound most of the time. As for free-throws, when you shoot 45% of your free-throws you're bound to have games that are really bad and this was one of them, it certainly wasn't the cause for the loss.

This game really doesn't change my opinion of Chamberlain, and after reading your post I really thought it would.