Retro POY '65-66 (Voting Complete)

[Deus_DJ]

1. Wilt - 33/24/5 with blocks is more impressive statistically than any non Wilt season. Anchored a 55 W team thanks to what seems like very good defense. This is a Lebron 09 like year, IMO. By far the most impressive player in the league and it translated to wins. Just didn't win the title.
2. Russell - Easy #2. The Celts amazing DRTG and piss poor ORTG shows Russ basically carried this team to contention. But with Wilt playing good d, I don't think it's enough to make up for the mammoth offensive difference this year
3. West - As impressive as Oscar statistically despite sharing ball with Baylor + better defense + better teammate and leader
4. Oscar - Just behind West but these are clearly the top 4
5. Sam Jones - By far best scorer on title team, great teammate, willing to sacrifice stats for good of team, and very clutch. Glad to put him on a list somewhere

Dr. Mufasa,

I'm not sure where you pulled the 5 block figure from, but he had a similar amount of blocks per game for the rest of his career. In 1962 and 1963(or maybe 1961) the philly statistian Pollack says he's certain Wilt must have had double digit blocks per game...will you give him credit for that too?

[Deus_DJ]

Jordan did best when put in a system thath forced him to work with his teammates and not when he was at his peak volume scoring

It reenforces the idea if anything

He was still scoring a lot dude...look at his career scoring average. To say that Wilt was shooting too much this year when they played in a year that had a slightly faster pace and he averaged 33-34 ppg, which is only 3-4 ppg above Jordan's CAREER average, shows that the foolish argument, ie the emperor, is wearing no clothes.

He was scoring a lot but within a team concept, this isn't black and white it's a million shades of gray and when Jordan bumped down couple shades his team bumped up

Check out the 67 sixers offensive success with Wilts reduced scoring role and get back to me

Hehe...

On the one hand you say it's not black or white and on the other hand it's you, not me, making it into a black and white issue. Sorry dude, the emperor has no clothes.

[Jimmy76]

Hehe...

On the one hand you say it's not black or white and on the other hand it's you, not me, making it into a black and white issue. Sorry dude, the emperor has no clothes.

How am I making it black and white? Enlighten me

An offense will peak or falter based on how close to the equilibrium point (what I mean in this context is the ideal number of shots taken by each player) their players are

I can force shots down Wilts throat and the offense will still be effective but a the farther from the equilibrium point I push him the worse the offense gets. Im not suggesting that 3-4 ppg make the difference between league worst and league best but it can be the difference between good and better though the relationship probably is exponential.

The emperor has no clothes?

[Optimism Prime]

1. Wilt - 33/24/5 with blocks is more impressive statistically than any non Wilt season. Anchored a 55 W team thanks to what seems like very good defense. This is a Lebron 09 like year, IMO. By far the most impressive player in the league and it translated to wins. Just didn't win the title.
2. Russell - Easy #2. The Celts amazing DRTG and piss poor ORTG shows Russ basically carried this team to contention. But with Wilt playing good d, I don't think it's enough to make up for the mammoth offensive difference this year
3. West - As impressive as Oscar statistically despite sharing ball with Baylor + better defense + better teammate and leader
4. Oscar - Just behind West but these are clearly the top 4
5. Sam Jones - By far best scorer on title team, great teammate, willing to sacrifice stats for good of team, and very clutch. Glad to put him on a list somewhere

Dr. Mufasa,

I'm not sure where you pulled the 5 block figure from, but he had a similar amount of blocks per game for the rest of his career. In 1962 and 1963(or maybe 1961) the philly statistian Pollack says he's certain Wilt must have had double digit blocks per game...will you give him credit for that too?

I think you're misinterpreting what he said. "33/24/5 with blocks" means 33 points, 24 rebounds, 5 assists, plus whoknowshowmany blocks. He's not trying to estimate the number which is pretty impossible.

[Deus_DJ]

Hehe...

On the one hand you say it's not black or white and on the other hand it's you, not me, making it into a black and white issue. Sorry dude, the emperor has no clothes.

How am I making it black and white? Enlighten me

An offense will peak or falter based on how close to the equilibrium point (what I mean in this context is the ideal number of shots taken by each player) their players are

I can force shots down Wilts throat and the offense will still be effective but a the farther from the equilibrium point I push him the worse the offense gets. Im not suggesting that 3-4 ppg make the difference between league worst and league best but it can be the difference between good and better though the relationship probably is exponential.

The emperor has no clothes?

How can you know how a 30 ppg contribution and a 34 ppg contribution differed without actually having watched every game individually? How you cannot understand how you're making this into a black and white issue is beyond me. There are so many variables and so many factors that neither you or anybody else could say that Wilt lost because of the amount of points he was scoring, "which hurt his team". What I'm saying is that your argument is empty, and that much should be clear to you by now...if you're intellectually honest. If you want to bring up the argument that one of them won and the other lost, that further proves that you want to make this Black and White.

[Jimmy76]

You're stll seeing things in black and white

I'm not saying it hurt the team im saying it's not as effective

These are just arbitrary numbers for illustrating the point,

Maybe 34ppg Wilt is an 8/10 on offense and 26ppg Wilt is 10/10, that doesn't mean 8/10 is bad

This is really dumbed down obviously but you seemed to be insisting that I was presenting things in a black and white way

[Deus_DJ]

You're stll seeing things in black and white

I'm not saying it hurt the team im saying it's not as effective

These are just arbitrary numbers for illustrating the point,

Maybe 34ppg Wilt is an 8/10 on offense and 26ppg Wilt is 10/10, that doesn't mean 8/10 is bad

This is really dumbed down obviously but you seemed to be insisting that I was presenting things in a black and white way

Well you said that Jordan "reinforced the idea" of what that author said about Anarchism in Basketball when that is not necessarily true. Who's to say Chamberlain played any differently than MJ? How can anyone with a straight face say that a 1966 Chamberlain who scored 33-34 ppg shot too much while an MJ who averaged 30 ppg, still averaged at or near 30 even in his later years wasn't? Unless we have game tape to see how Chamberlain and his teammates played around each other the argument simply cannot be made. You then of course said that Chamberlain won in 1967 and lost in 1966 and this is thus PROOF! that he was probably hurting his team(this is what you implied anyway when you told me to "get back to you").

[Jimmy76]

I didn't say a lot of those things

I'm defending the concept of the paradox not attacking wilt

Where did I point to the championship in 67 as proof of anything?

The get back to you comment meant look at how successful the 67 offense was

[TrueLAfan]

1. Wilt. Too good during the regular season, only player on his team to show up in the playoffs, had a monster final game trying to stave off elimination. Too much to be offset this season.
2. Russell. Best player on second best team; did so much that can't be seen on paper. His teammates (hurt or not) all played well in the PS too, and I give Russell a boost for that...but not enough to overcome Wilt's better RS and, honestly, better series against Russell.
3. West. The logo again. The Lakers weren't so much bad as hopelessly imbalanced...no interior rebounding, little low post scoring, below average interior D. Baylor was not himself this year. Actually, the Lakers had some okay supporting pieces (Bob Boozer, Hazzard/Abdul-Rahman), but they were a poor team without West this year. With him, they went to the Finals and lost in 7...and West averaged 34-63-5.6 on 52% shooting in the postseason, including a heartbreaking game 7 loss by 2 points where he had 36 points and 10 rebounds...but the rest of the team shot 21-61. Or you could say that the Logo missed four free throws in that game 7 so he was a major contributor to the loss. But I won't.
4. Oscar. Great numbers, took the Celtics to 5 games. Shot badly in the postseason (under 41%) but was still very productive. Pretty much a dead heat with West in the RS; Oscar loses a bit for “only” being decent in the playoffs.
5. Sam Jones. Good in the RS; better in the postseason (a hair under 27 a game in the Eastern Conference playoff series). His a 25 footer with 25 seconds left in Game 7 to put the Celtics ahead. Great player; probably his best year.

[ElGee]

You're stll seeing things in black and white

I'm not saying it hurt the team im saying it's not as effective

These are just arbitrary numbers for illustrating the point,

Maybe 34ppg Wilt is an 8/10 on offense and 26ppg Wilt is 10/10, that doesn't mean 8/10 is bad

This is really dumbed down obviously but you seemed to be insisting that I was presenting things in a black and white way

Well you said that Jordan "reinforced the idea" of what that author said about Anarchism in Basketball when that is not necessarily true. Who's to say Chamberlain played any differently than MJ? How can anyone with a straight face say that a 1966 Chamberlain who scored 33-34 ppg shot too much while an MJ who averaged 30 ppg, still averaged at or near 30 even in his later years wasn't? Unless we have game tape to see how Chamberlain and his teammates played around each other the argument simply cannot be made. You then of course said that Chamberlain won in 1967 and lost in 1966 and this is thus PROOF! that he was probably hurting his team(this is what you implied anyway when you told me to "get back to you").

How do you explain the change in Philadelphia's offense from 1966 to 1967?

I also haven't really seen anyone -- and it's certainly an open question-- address the issue of how (seemingly) small of an impact he has an on offense during this period.

Deus, you are correct in discussing the number of variables and what would be needed to really "know" anything...but that's not what we're doing here. We're working with imperfect information. And it's hard to see how Chamberlain style of play was incredibly effective in the first half of the decade. It's NOT hard to postulate why those statistics don't have the impact we'd expect them to based on the NBA of the last 25-30 years. (eg They tracked very few stats, or strategies and rules were different, or teams were constructed differently then)

[Deus_DJ]

I didn't say a lot of those things

I'm defending the concept of the paradox not attacking wilt

Where did I point to the championship in 67 as proof of anything?

The get back to you comment meant look at how successful the 67 offense was

.........

He was scoring a lot but within a team concept, this isn't black and white it's a million shades of gray and when Jordan bumped down couple shades his team bumped up
Check out the 67 sixers offensive success with Wilts reduced scoring role and get back to me

When you say things you also imply things. You imply that MJ wasn't scoring too much and you then imply that the previous year Wilt was, even though their raw averages are pretty much identical(taking to account pace, shot selection etc, MJ actually probably shot a larger % of his team's shots, and don't forget Chamberlain played almost every minute of every game). Thus the argument IS NOT A GOOD ONE!

[Deus_DJ]

You're stll seeing things in black and white

I'm not saying it hurt the team im saying it's not as effective

These are just arbitrary numbers for illustrating the point,

Maybe 34ppg Wilt is an 8/10 on offense and 26ppg Wilt is 10/10, that doesn't mean 8/10 is bad

This is really dumbed down obviously but you seemed to be insisting that I was presenting things in a black and white way

Well you said that Jordan "reinforced the idea" of what that author said about Anarchism in Basketball when that is not necessarily true. Who's to say Chamberlain played any differently than MJ? How can anyone with a straight face say that a 1966 Chamberlain who scored 33-34 ppg shot too much while an MJ who averaged 30 ppg, still averaged at or near 30 even in his later years wasn't? Unless we have game tape to see how Chamberlain and his teammates played around each other the argument simply cannot be made. You then of course said that Chamberlain won in 1967 and lost in 1966 and this is thus PROOF! that he was probably hurting his team(this is what you implied anyway when you told me to "get back to you").

How do you explain the change in Philadelphia's offense from 1966 to 1967?

I also haven't really seen anyone -- and it's certainly an open question-- address the issue of how (seemingly) small of an impact he has an on offense during this period.

Deus, you are correct in discussing the number of variables and what would be needed to really "know" anything...but that's not what we're doing here. We're working with imperfect information. And it's hard to see how Chamberlain style of play was incredibly effective in the first half of the decade. It's NOT hard to postulate why those statistics don't have the impact we'd expect them to based on the NBA of the last 25-30 years. (eg They tracked very few stats, or strategies and rules were different, or teams were constructed differently then)

Look, there is no doubt that the 67 team played better, but to say that it was because Wilt took his scoring average down is impossible to know and probably wrong given the large amount of factors. I'll I'm trying to do here is say that if you have imperfect information then don't state things as being most likely true when the very reasoning you use to prove it is proven wrong elsewhere.

Saying Chamberlain's play in the first half of the decade hurt his team is INCREDIBLY foolish, and that is something you will learn as we go all the way down to 1959. In 1960 Chamberlain is completely abused by the Celtics(regular fouls were really flagrant fouls and the refs didn't bother to call them to "even" the game) and thus they lost in 6 games. 1961 I never really understood why they lost to the Nationals but it was only one of two years he didn't make it to the conf finals or finals. 1962 a goaltending call made by a ref named Mendolph was a bad one and he basically stole game 7 from Chamberlain and the Warriors against Boston(where they lost to a buzzer beater by Sam Jones). This was a series where not ONE ANALYST thought the Warriors would win...and everyone gave the credit where it was due and said it was because of Chamberlain that they got so close to winning. Look at the comments made by the celtics after game 7 and after game 4 vs. LA. They were scared **** of Wilt and said it was the toughest series they ever had to play(Cousy: If Chamberlain plays like that all the time...forget it(and don't forget Cousy is saying this in the same season Chamberlain averaged 50 ppg, so obviously he's referring to Chamberlain's defense). Russell was scared of Wilt in the LA series even though he wasn't in the game anymore...Wilt had blocked and defended Russell so well that he was afraid to drive to the rim the same way he was accustomed to(Cousy said this BTW). A funny thing to note is that the Celtics hard(and I'd say flagrant at the time) defense of Chamberlain which caused him to pass the ball up rather than shoot it(which is why his scoring average dropped SO MUCH) actually caused Chamberlain to play defense to his full capabilities, and this is what really caused the Celtics to almost lose(then again if you just let Chamberlain shoot the ball you then make it an offensive game and you have to keep up with his scoring)
1963 the team moved to San Fransisco and the greats on the team like Paul Arizin and others retired, and his coach McGuire didn't follow him there...his team in 1963 was horrible, as Wilt played consistently the same this year as he had the last but didn't make the playoffs. 1964 was his first season with coach Hannum and it was this year that Hannum told him to bring his scoring average down(especially in the playoffs, which is why he scored less this year). Wilt made it to the finals but lost to the celtics...and I argue Hannum actually hurt his team this year by asking Chamberlain to shoot less in the playoffs...with the Celtics certain about how Wilt is going to play and not having to worry about double teaming him it makes their defense that much easier to do. Indeed this is why he got so close to beating the celtics in 1962 and 1965 but not in 1964). Read the newer thread about his 1965 season, where he def. deserves props. Actually, Hannum should also be blamed for their loss in 1968 for the very same reason.

[Doctor MJ]

I honestly think a lot of this is just nonsense. The game is far too fluid to simply state that anarchy on the part of an individual player will disrupt the whole team, particularly when the same story occurred with MJ except that he was successful. It's true to an extent, but it's not the golden rule, and that should be obvious to anyone after Jordan acme along.

Okay, so first thing: "price of anarchy" is a game theory concept referring to the difference in success that could be achieved with ideal strategy and what actually was achieved. It's existence in basketball is not up for debate, and is not really about one player making boneheaded decisions.

Second, the idea here is not that volume scoring is inherently bad. The point made is simply trying to illustrate a way where common sense strategy can go wrong using an example that intuitively makes a lot of sense to a lot of people who now a lot about basketball.

[Jimmy76]

When you say things you also imply things. You imply that MJ wasn't scoring too much and you then imply that the previous year Wilt was, even though their raw averages are pretty much identical(taking to account pace, shot selection etc, MJ actually probably shot a larger % of his team's shots, and don't forget Chamberlain played almost every minute of every game). Thus the argument IS NOT A GOOD ONE!

Yea looking at the usg% Jordan isn't the best example

I think the Wilt example works though considering his team offense peaked when he dropped to a then career low in points and then career high in assists

[Deus_DJ]

I honestly think a lot of this is just nonsense. The game is far too fluid to simply state that anarchy on the part of an individual player will disrupt the whole team, particularly when the same story occurred with MJ except that he was successful. It's true to an extent, but it's not the golden rule, and that should be obvious to anyone after Jordan acme along.

Okay, so first thing: "price of anarchy" is a game theory concept referring to the difference in success that could be achieved with ideal strategy and what actually was achieved. It's existence in basketball is not up for debate, and is not really about one player making boneheaded decisions.

Second, the idea here is not that volume scoring is inherently bad. The point made is simply trying to illustrate a way where common sense strategy can go wrong using an example that intuitively makes a lot of sense to a lot of people who now a lot about basketball.

OK intuitively that is of course correct, but don't apply haphazardly and subjectively.

[ElGee]

Look, there is no doubt that the 67 team played better, but to say that it was because Wilt took his scoring average down is impossible to know and probably wrong given the large amount of factors. I'll I'm trying to do here is say that if you have imperfect information then don't state things as being most likely true when the very reasoning you use to prove it is proven wrong elsewhere.

Saying Chamberlain's play in the first half of the decade hurt his team is INCREDIBLY foolish, and that is something you will learn as we go all the way down to 1959

They had very little roster turnover from 1966 to 1967 (apologies Al Bianchi). There are two major factors, from what I can tell: (1) Cunningham is a year older and (2) Chamberlain shoots the ball 11 times less per game.

If you are suggesting it's possible that they used a completely style of play, implemented by Hannum, to get easier shots for other players and that was the major contributing factor for the change, then that only reinforces the point that Chamberlain wasn't doing much to boost a team's offense in 1966. (Also, I don't think I've every heard anyone say he actually *hurt* his team.)

I also don't know what you mean by "the very reasoning you use to prove it is proven wrong elsewhere."

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like you're referring to your tangent about MJ and FGA's/game. That's not really what the anarchy idea is about at all. There isn't a fixed number of shots that's "wrong." MJ shooting 40 shots per game might be best for a certain offense. JR Rider shooting 40 shots per game is most likely horrific for any offense. Similarly, I might not mind Dale Ellis taking 7 good 3's a night. I'd lose my hair if Antoine Walker took 7 3's a night.

It's a counterintuitive idea to most people because Wilt was also the most efficient scorer on the team. But the way he played offense with his teammates (basketball is a team game!) wasn't the most efficient approach for the team.

[Deus_DJ]

When you say things you also imply things. You imply that MJ wasn't scoring too much and you then imply that the previous year Wilt was, even though their raw averages are pretty much identical(taking to account pace, shot selection etc, MJ actually probably shot a larger % of his team's shots, and don't forget Chamberlain played almost every minute of every game). Thus the argument IS NOT A GOOD ONE!

Yea looking at the usg% Jordan isn't the best example

I think the Wilt example works though considering his team offense peaked when he dropped to a then career low in points and then career high in assists

No it doesn't, because it's not "black and white", remember?

I'll stop playing with you and say that I definitely agree that Chamberlain changing his style to focus more on the defensive end definitely helped his team(which is an automatic considering he doesn't focus on offense), but it's still hard to say that Chamberlain scored too much the previous season. The fact is that we're talking about a 9 ppg difference and the 67 team played at a faster pace than the 66 did, but that may have also been because with the ball focused on getting to his teammates and with Wilt still being a superb rebounder they changed their entire style of play.

It's not hard to say that a changed style of play was better but it's completely unfair to attack someone for not having played a certain way when they are good at doing what they do...and then to exaggerate how much extra he was doing the previous year with regards to scoring further makes bringing in the whole anarchic dynamic a bit unfair and incorrect.

[Doctor MJ]

Look, there is no doubt that the 67 team played better, but to say that it was because Wilt took his scoring average down is impossible to know and probably wrong given the large amount of factors. I'll I'm trying to do here is say that if you have imperfect information then don't state things as being most likely true when the very reasoning you use to prove it is proven wrong elsewhere.

If you don't want to try to come up with explanation for things that happened in the past because there are facts we don't know, that's your right. We in this project enjoy doing it even though we know we're not perfect.

Now clearly, you think that the right thing to do given our limited knowledge is to give the guy with the stats the benefit of the doubt. Personally that doesn't seem most reasonable to me. Wilt was considered the greatest scorer in history, coach Hannum asked him to change his role, and the team got way better. Put yourself in Hannum's place. Why on earth would you ask Wilt to drastically change how he plays unless you see problems with how the team is working with Wilt in his old role? Maybe you come to different conclusions, but I think it's completely wrongheaded to think that trying to come up with an explanation is a bad idea. To go through a project like this and not try to come to a conclusion as to why Hannum asked for the change is to be cautious to the point of uselessness.

[Deus_DJ]

They had very little roster turnover from 1966 to 1967 (apologies Al Bianchi). There are two major factors, from what I can tell: (1) Cunningham is a year older and (2) Chamberlain shoots the ball 11 times less per game.

If you are suggesting it's possible that they used a completely style of play, implemented by Hannum, to get easier shots for other players and that was the major contributing factor for the change, then that only reinforces the point that Chamberlain wasn't doing much to boost a team's offense in 1966. (Also, I don't think I've every heard anyone say he actually *hurt* his team.)

So what happened in 1968 then? Oh that's right the same thing that happened in 1966, his teammates were horrible. Same roster? yep. Different Chamberlain? yep

And that is exactly what is being implied...that it was Chamberlain's fault rather than simply being a simple "design flaw". Because if you want to admit that it was a design flaw and not Chamberlain's fault then Chamberlain should be ranked #1 almost every year, including this year.

I also don't know what you mean by "the very reasoning you use to prove it is proven wrong elsewhere."

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like you're referring to your tangent about MJ and FGA's/game. That's not really what the anarchy idea is about at all. There isn't a fixed number of shots that's "wrong." MJ shooting 40 shots per game might be best for a certain offense. JR Rider shooting 40 shots per game is most likely horrific for any offense. Similarly, I might not mind Dale Ellis taking 7 good 3's a night. I'd lose my hair if Antoine Walker took 7 3's a night.

It's a counterintuitive idea to most people because Wilt was also the most efficient scorer on the team. But the way he played offense with his teammates (basketball is a team game!) wasn't the most efficient approach for the team.

This is completely intellectual dishonesty. Saying that MJ was probably best for a certain offense while Chamberlain's wasn't is so completely arbitrary and subjective that it completely betrays any real analysis and history.

[Doctor MJ]

I honestly think a lot of this is just nonsense. The game is far too fluid to simply state that anarchy on the part of an individual player will disrupt the whole team, particularly when the same story occurred with MJ except that he was successful. It's true to an extent, but it's not the golden rule, and that should be obvious to anyone after Jordan acme along.

Okay, so first thing: "price of anarchy" is a game theory concept referring to the difference in success that could be achieved with ideal strategy and what actually was achieved. It's existence in basketball is not up for debate, and is not really about one player making boneheaded decisions.

Second, the idea here is not that volume scoring is inherently bad. The point made is simply trying to illustrate a way where common sense strategy can go wrong using an example that intuitively makes a lot of sense to a lot of people who now a lot about basketball.

OK intuitively that is of course correct, but don't apply haphazardly and subjectively.

Huh. Dude, you're wearing on my nerves already.

I'm all for people coming in here and participating in the conversation even if they aren't on the voting panel, but no one on here needs you telling them what to do.