Retro POY '72-73 (Voting Complete)

[ronnymac2]

Don't have the quote handy, but to add fatal9's post, Wilt said he thought Thurmond was a tougher matchup than Russell.

Yes he did. Jabbar and Wilt said Thurmond was the best defender they ever faced. Dude was a beast.

[shawngoat23]

Don't have the quote handy, but to add fatal9's post, Wilt said he thought Thurmond was a tougher matchup than Russell.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this was sometime after Wilt and Russell had their feud in 1969 before they repaired their relationship decades later. He wasn't going to give Russell any credit during this time.

That being said, helpful (and impressive) information about Thurmond in this thread.

[mopper8]

Don't have the quote handy, but to add fatal9's post, Wilt said he thought Thurmond was a tougher matchup than Russell.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this was sometime after Wilt and Russell had their feud in 1969 before they repaired their relationship decades later. He wasn't going to give Russell any credit during this time.

That being said, helpful (and impressive) information about Thurmond in this thread.

I'll double-check sometime tomorrow, but I actually think it was pre-feud.

[Dr Positivity]

After seeing those boxscores I'm leaning Wilt and Walt 1/2, Cowens 3, West 4, Kareem 5

[Doctor MJ]

Don't have the quote handy, but to add fatal9's post, Wilt said he thought Thurmond was a tougher matchup than Russell.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this was sometime after Wilt and Russell had their feud in 1969 before they repaired their relationship decades later. He wasn't going to give Russell any credit during this time.

That being said, helpful (and impressive) information about Thurmond in this thread.

Honestly, Thurmond as the best man defender makes sense. Russell would be the best help defender. Thurmond was stronger, Russell was more agile and smarter.

[ThaRegul8r]

This is going to be really tough. Was Kareem really THAT injured? He needs to get a spot, because I don't think his injury is enough to put him off a list or anything. I think he's the best player, but this might cost him something. Not sure how much.

Wilt IS looking like a good choice here. I was going to post the same ideas as Mufasa regarding Cowens vs. Chamberlain. I'd take the Stilt, too.

Wait, for #1? I don't see how. Wilt's gonna be my #1 for next season, but I don't see how he can get it here. As I posted in the article on the second page, the Lakers were the favorite over the Knicks. Before the series, one of the deciding factors was the fact that the Knicks had no one to match up with Chamberlain.

The biggest problem for the Knicks will be stopping 7-foot-1 Wilt Chamberlain, who controlled the boards in last year’s series. New York has Jerry Lucas at 6-8 and injury-prone 6-10 Willis Reed, who didn’t see playoff action last year.

They had an undersized Jerry Lucas, and an injured Willis Reed who only played 69 games at 27.9 minutes per during the regular season, and was averaging 28 minutes a game in the postseason prior to the Finals. Yet Chamberlain wasn't the deciding factor, averaging 11.6 points, 18.6 rebounds and 3.8 assists. In fact, in the last three games—which New York won, Reed averaged 20.3 points on 52.8 percent shooting, 11 rebounds and 3.3 assists to Chamberlain's 13.7 points (55.6% FG), 17.7 rebounds and 4.3 assists.

Frazier was the Knicks’ work horse that series […]. Still, Reed was awarded the finals MVP. One rationale for Reed winning the award was that he shot 28 for 53 from the field over the last three games. He outscored Chamberlain 61-41 in those games, all won by the Knicks.

So—as penbeast0 said, since Chamberlain didn't dominate a hobbled Reed despite the fact that this was one of the advantages LA had over New York—making this the SECOND time in two meetings that Wilt didn't dominate a less-than-100% Reed when the matchup was in his favor, and the Lakers were upset when they were the favorites, I don't see how there's a case for Wilt at #1.

Wilt averaged 18.6 rebounds in the Finals, and led the playoffs with 22.5 per game. But prior to the Finals, Wilt was averaging 24.2 rebounds a game in the postseason. So he was grabbing over 5 boards a game less against a hobbled Reed and a Knick team that wasn't even a good rebounding team—they were next to last in the league during the regular season. In those aforementioned last three games, Wilt out-rebounded Reed 17.7 to 11, but then you have to take into consideration the fact that Reed was only playing 32 minutes a game, while Wilt always played the full 48. 11 rebounds in 32 minutes is 16.5 rebounds in 48. So seeing how this was supposed to be LA's biggest advantage, again, I can't see it.

And if Wilt's elite defense put you over, Reed averaged 20 on 53% shooting over the last three games which NY won, and averaged 16.4 points on 49% shooting overall. Prior to the Finals, Reed averaged 10.8 on 45.1 percent shooting. So against Wilt, Reed—a hobbled Reed—averaged more points on a higher percentage than he did in all of the postseason prior to the Finals. I don't see how it's a plus that a hobbled player does better against you offensively than he did in the entire playoffs before facing you, and again, you're supposed to be your team's biggest advantage.

I'm sorry, I don't see any rationale for Wilt as #1. I'll make the case for him next year, but I see no logical argument this year.

[lorak]

1. KAJ
2. Archibald
3. Dr J
4. Wilt
5. Thurmond

[lorak]

Wilt averaged 18.6 rebounds in the Finals, and led the playoffs with 22.5 per game. But prior to the Finals, Wilt was averaging 24.2 rebounds a game in the postseason. So he was grabbing over 5 boards a game less .

Possessions... rebs per game don't say much. Better check TRB%.

[JordansBulls]

1. KAJ
2. Archibald
3. Dr J
4. Wilt
5. Thurmond

Wow, so no Frazier?

[lorak]

No Frazier. It's about the best PLAYER, not the best player on the best team.

[JordansBulls]

No Frazier. It's about the best PLAYER, not the best player on the best team.

He upset two teams with better records. He made them the best team. He essentially had double the WS than anyone on his team in the season, and 33% more in the playoffs.
Basically it was no contest on who the best was on the team.

[lorak]

No Frazier. It's about the best PLAYER, not the best player on the best team.

He upset two teams with better records.

He? I always thought it was KNICKS who upset these two teams.

He made them the best team.

He made DeBusshere, Bradley, Monroe or Bradley? Really? It's amazing how powerfull was Frazier...

[ThaRegul8r]

Wilt averaged 18.6 rebounds in the Finals, and led the playoffs with 22.5 per game. But prior to the Finals, Wilt was averaging 24.2 rebounds a game in the postseason. So he was grabbing over 5 boards a game less .

Possessions... rebs per game don't say much. Better check TRB%.

And how exactly would one do this?

[JordansBulls]

No Frazier. It's about the best PLAYER, not the best player on the best team.

He upset two teams with better records.

He? I always thought it was KNICKS who upset these two teams.

He made them the best team.

He made DeBusshere, Bradley, Monroe or Bradley? Really? It's amazing how powerfull was Frazier...

And those other guys couldn't win with who they had. Wilt had West, Goodrich,McMillian etc. Kareem had Oscar, Dandridge, Allen and was out in round 1.

[lorak]

He upset two teams with better records.

He? I always thought it was KNICKS who upset these two teams.

He made them the best team.

He made DeBusshere, Bradley, Monroe or Bradley? Really? It's amazing how powerfull was Frazier...

And those other guys couldn't win with who they had. Wilt had West, Goodrich,McMillian etc. Kareem had Oscar, Dandridge, Allen and was out in round 1.

Yeah, you discovered fundamental basketball truth: better team will win with worse team. In 1973 NYK were better than any other team, but Frazier wasn't the only reason why it was that way and "these other guys" had less help than Frazier (check all rosters if you don't belive me).

Besides Frazier's situation was very similiar to Billups in 2004 - and in Pistons then Ben Wallace was more valuable to that team than Chauncey and in 1973 probably DeBusherre was more valuable than Walt.

Possessions... rebs per game don't say much. Better check TRB%.

And how exactly would one do this?

Maybe try check the box scores?
Besides my point is - you can't tell that Wilt rebounded worse in the finals, because 5 rbs less could be inflated by pace or even by better shooting.

[Sedale Threatt]

After seeing those boxscores I'm leaning Wilt and Walt 1/2, Cowens 3, West 4, Kareem 5

Here's the thing though.

Frazier follows up with an average Finals (for him) against a pretty substantial favorite, and the Knicks still ended up crushing the Lakers 4-1. That's not meant to take away from what he did against the Celtics, but to illustrate again just what a great team the Knicks were.

They were much greater than the sum of individual parts, which is pretty amazing considering the individual parts included five Top 50 players. At varying stages of their careers, of course, but still. A lot of accomplished, intelligent players who fit together like a glove, managed by one of the very best coaches in history.

[Sedale Threatt]

Orlando Bloom played Legolas; and it's spelled Gimli.

Sorry, Tolkien fanatic here.

LOL. Nerds, unite. I'm actually re-reading LOTR for the third or fourth time, and first since the movies all came out. Only through the first 200 pages, but with the exception of the settings and a few significant plot points it's significantly different. It's giving me more respect for how Jackson and co. streamlined and in many cases improved the story.

[Optimism Prime]

Orlando Bloom played Legolas; and it's spelled Gimli.

Sorry, Tolkien fanatic here.

LOL. Nerds, unite. I'm actually re-reading LOTR for the third or fourth time, and first since the movies all came out. Only through the first 200 pages, but with the exception of the settings and a few significant plot points it's significantly different. It's giving me more respect for how Jackson and co. streamlined and in many cases improved the story.

Heh. Yeah, in college, I actually did an independent study on The Silmarillion--check it out if you ever have time. It's pretty much straight mythology as opposed to the epic quest setting of LOTR. Good times.

Back to your other point--PJ did a fantastic job translating it onto the big screen. Keep in mind that in the books, Frodo had the Ring and sat around the Shire twiddling his thumbs for seventeen years before getting off of his ass and starting things off. Movies need a sense of urgency, and... the books just didn't have that at first.

I could go on for a while, but this needs a thread of its own...

[JordansBulls]

Yeah, you discovered fundamental basketball truth: better team will win with worse team. In 1973 NYK were better than any other team, but Frazier wasn't the only reason why it was that way and "these other guys" had less help than Frazier (check all rosters if you don't belive me).

Besides Frazier's situation was very similiar to Billups in 2004 - and in Pistons then Ben Wallace was more valuable to that team than Chauncey and in 1973 probably DeBusherre was more valuable than Walt.

No it was not similar to Detroit in 2004. Billups and Wallace WS and PER were pretty much identical in the playoffs while Frazier was heads and shoulder more productive than anyone else on the Knicks. Not only that but Frazier also finished much higher in MVP voting than anyone else on the Knicks while Billups in 2004 wasn't even top 20 in MVP voting.

[lorak]

[
No it was not similar to Detroit in 2004. Billups and Wallace WS and PER were pretty much identical in the playoffs while Frazier was heads and shoulder more productive than anyone else on the Knicks.

You know that these "advanced" stats prior 1978 are only ESTIMATED?

And DeBusschere for example was better defensive player than Frazier so it's very possible that overall he was more valuable to the Knicks - and keep in mind that NY offensive schemes limitated Frazier's playmaking ability, so his advantage on the offensive end wasn't as big as many think. Oh, and there's also of course Jerry Lucas. Vey underatted player, maybe even better than DeBusschere.