Retro POY '69-70 (Voting Complete)

[bastillon]

I guess some people will see what they want to see.

[fatal9]

1. West
2. Kareem
3. Frazier
4. Reed
5. Billy C

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Wow. Honestly, I hope to see others comment on what they saw. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about in the conclusions I reached?

With that said, I didn't make up Wilt's numbers - so any take down's of my conclusions, I'd really like people to address why those numbers are evidently misleading. The 5 points in 14 used possessions when they used him as a first option, I think can only be interpreted one way - so that's just obviously terrible. The 7 pass outs Wilt did, maybe someone could argue that those passes were more valuable than I thought they were. Wilt only had 4 assists in the whole game - so when I talk about how I only saw one "attacking" pass from Wilt, everything seems to line up to me. Maybe Wilt got credited for one or two assists that didn't seem like clear assists to me, but the number clearly isn't huge.

The idea that "Outside of him creating the offense there were maybe 3 or 4 possessions where the Lakers were able to score", I just don't know what to say. The non-Wilt Lakers scored 31 points, and Wilt was absolutely not acting as point-center. He was positioned close to the basket, and virtually every time he got the ball, he was clearly looking to attack Reed. The non-Wilt Lakers certainly produced offense and significantly more than 3 or 4 possessions, and would have produced far more than that if not for the fact that the game plan was clearly to get the ball to Wilt immediately whenever possible.

[Doctor MJ]

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 ?

First, I'd really recommend you read the last few threads, and come back with any objections you have to logic given there.

Re: Responsibility for the Knicks defense. I think it's clear that both Frazier and Reed deserve a good amount of credit (along with DeBuss). The best defense comes from a teams that work well together, and the Knicks are a fantastic example of that.

With that said, reference to Reed as a shotblocker & crazy rebounder seems strange. Reed's always seemed like a not fantastically athletic short center who got by with smarts. If he were blocking tons of shots on the league's premier defense, I'd imagine he's have been talked about as the key to the defense. Crazy rebounding - what makes you think that? He made the top 5 in RPG once in his career.

As far as what made the Knick defense good, from what I can tell, it has very little to do with shotblocking. It's about forcing turnovers first and foremost - which is more a perimeter player thing.

Re: general disrespect. I'll refer again to other threads.

Re: Finals MVP. Doesn't make sense to quote per game averages. Frazier had the bigger production - that doesn't clinch his worthiness of the Finals MVP necessarily, but it means Reed really has to be superior based on the intangibles. Reed's intangibles are huge, but intangibles are also a think helped by every minute you're out there - Frazier played a hell of a lot more than Reed in the finals.

It's also important to remember what happened in game 5. The Lakers had the early lead, Reed got hurt and left, the Knicks came back and won with a hyperaggressive attacking defense. Reed deserves his credit for the game 7 defensive impact, but if the Knicks were incapable of winning without Reed, the series would have already been over.

Then there's the matter that Frazier was just unspeakably awesome in game 7. We shouldn't get too carried away. That wasn't at all normal for him - however, the Lakers offense in game 7 wasn't as bad as the Knicks offense was good, and that was largely Frazier.

Re: What am I missing? Again to the other threads. There's always been a sentiment among the "guys who were there" on these boards that Frazier was tremendously underrated. After having really analyzed these years now, it's hard to argue with them.

With that said, I do think Reed isn't getting enough credit. There seems to be a feeling of "Frazier was the true star of the team", but the reality is that there was a handoff. The Knicks had the best SRS in the league in '69 with Frazier playing a definitely sizeable role, and Reed finishing second in the MVP. I think what happened is that Reed got not unreasonable established as an MVP candidate level guy, and people tended to regard Frazier as a sidekick even after roles had switched partly because that's what people always do. Think of Shaq in '05, who almost won the MVP simply because people attributed much of Wade's rise to Shaq.

[Doctor MJ]

My vote:

1. West
2. Kareem
3. Reed
4. Frazier
5. Cunningham

West gets the top spot relatively easily. In some ways it feels like a year where the "best in the world" title is vacant, since West doesn't seem as mind blowing as he was in '69, and yet I still don't see how you put anyone ahead of him.

Kareem shows too many flaws to surpass West, but still he's a solid #2.

The Knicks had the best team, and what I think was a 2-headed monster with Reed & Frazier. The team was so impressive at times that I'd like to have a star from the team at #1, but I think it's wrong to give too much credit to anyone guy on the team. I give Reed the nod over Frazier in what's almost a coin toss. I'm completely sold that Reed got too much credit and Frazier not enough, and it's infuriating in years after this won - but at this point I think they were roughly equal, and I'm inclined to give the tie to the guy contemporaries gave the nod to. I would give Frazier the nod for Finals MVP though.

Cunningham gets that 5 spot. Blows me away that Wilt in Philly had a guy on his roster that would prove to be more valuable than Wilt over the first two years of their separation. He's still not peak Wilt good, but damn impressive.

Honorable Mention

Unseld. Looks like he won't ever make my top 5, and that's rough. I thought I might find space for him this year, but competition is just too much.

Connie. Amazing player, who is possibly the ultimate What If in basketball history. Good enough for HM, but I can't put him in the top 5 right now.

Haywood. Dominates the ABA, but his subsequent slide to at best borderline superstar in the NBA career also keeps him from actually getting some POY shares from me.

[ThaRegul8r]

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 ?

First, I'd really recommend you read the last few threads, and come back with any objections you have to logic given there.

Re: Responsibility for the Knicks defense. I think it's clear that both Frazier and Reed deserve a good amount of credit (along with DeBuss). The best defense comes from a teams that work well together, and the Knicks are a fantastic example of that.

With that said, reference to Reed as a shotblocker & crazy rebounder seems strange. Reed's always seemed like a not fantastically athletic short center who got by with smarts. If he were blocking tons of shots on the league's premier defense, I'd imagine he's have been talked about as the key to the defense. Crazy rebounding - what makes you think that? He made the top 5 in RPG once in his career.

As far as what made the Knick defense good, from what I can tell, it has very little to do with shotblocking. It's about forcing turnovers first and foremost - which is more a perimeter player thing.

I'm led to believe this is more conception of what a big man is supposed to bring rather than knowledge about Willis Reed's game specifically. Reed was not a shotblocker on par with the Russells, the Chamberlains, the Thurmonds, the Alcindors/Kareems of the league. Walt Frazier said, "We’re a good, sound defensive team, with a purpose behind most things we do. I would say that Boston had a scrambling defense with Bill Russell, going out and gambling all the time because he was back there as backstop. Willis is adequate, but we’d get killed if we tried to play the way the guys around Russell did." They couldn't play like Boston, who had Russell behind them. Reed was adequate, but shotblocking was not a big factor in the Knick defense.

One weakness of the Knicks was that they weren't a big team, and they weren't a good rebounding team. As I posted, in the Eastern Division Semifinals, Unseld had a game where he outrebounded the entire Knick team by himself. That was why Frazier's rebounding was valuable, because he helped out Reed and DeBusschere on the boards. In Game 5 of the EDSF, Frazier had 16 rebounds which was specifically remarked as "an unusual total for a backcourt player." "Since we're basically a small team, we need that rebounding help," Reed said.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm led to believe this is more conception of what a big man is supposed to bring rather than knowledge about Willis Reed's game specifically. Reed was not a shotblocker on par with the Russells, the Chamberlains, the Thurmonds, the Alcindors/Kareems of the league. Walt Frazier said, "We’re a good, sound defensive team, with a purpose behind most things we do. I would say that Boston had a scrambling defense with Bill Russell, going out and gambling all the time because he was back there as backstop. Willis is adequate, but we’d get killed if we tried to play the way the guys around Russell did." They couldn't play like Boston, who had Russell behind them. Reed was adequate, but shotblocking was not a big factor in the Knick defense.

One weakness of the Knicks was that they weren't a big team, and they weren't a good rebounding team. As I posted, in the Eastern Division Semifinals, Unseld had a game where he outrebounded the entire Knick team by himself. That was why Frazier's rebounding was valuable, because he helped out Reed and DeBusschere on the boards. In Game 5 of the EDSF, Frazier had 16 rebounds which was specifically remarked as "an unusual total for a backcourt player." ""Since we're basically a small team, we need that rebounding help," Reed said.

Good stuff.

I also think it's important to recognize that while the Russell shotblocker is the gold standard for defense, and the narrative of only shotblockers have global impact makes sense, the cat has been skinned in many ways (albeit not quite as effectively as Russell's Celtics did)

In recent times, look to the '08 Celtics. Dominant, dominant defense, blocked less shots than the average team in the league.

[bastillon]

In recent times, look to the '08 Celtics. Dominant, dominant defense, blocked less shots than the average team in the league.

great shotblocking doesn't mean you're actually blocking shots. by shotblocking I mean guys who can blocks shots and thus force opponents to miss shots around the basket. Celtics had by far the best interior defense that year, not even remotely close. I remember they allowed like 20-30 points in the paint in the last 3 rounds of the playoffs. that's crazy.

as for Reed, his rebounding rate is a lot better than his raw numbers, I suppose... and his shotblocking wasn't epic given he was undersized, but he was still the only shotblocker (and honestly the only one capable of defending the paint) on the best defensive team in basketball and that says a lot.

As far as what made the Knick defense good, from what I can tell, it has very little to do with shotblocking. It's about forcing turnovers first and foremost - which is more a perimeter player thing.

any evidence ?

[Doctor MJ]

As far as what made the Knick defense good, from what I can tell, it has very little to do with shotblocking. It's about forcing turnovers first and foremost - which is more a perimeter player thing.

any evidence ?

Well, that's the reputation as I understood it, and the small amount I've watched has not contradicted that.

[Manuel Calavera]

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.

With that said, I didn't make up Wilt's numbers - so any take down's of my conclusions, I'd really like people to address why those numbers are evidently misleading. The 5 points in 14 used possessions when they used him as a first option, I think can only be interpreted one way - so that's just obviously terrible. The 7 pass outs Wilt did, maybe someone could argue that those passes were more valuable than I thought they were. Wilt only had 4 assists in the whole game - so when I talk about how I only saw one "attacking" pass from Wilt, everything seems to line up to me. Maybe Wilt got credited for one or two assists that didn't seem like clear assists to me, but the number clearly isn't huge.

I'm pretty sure he had the most assists on the Lakers by the half and since they were down by 30 at half-time I suspect there was a lot of padding in the second half by some Laker players so I stand by what I said in that Wilt was the most impactful offensive player for the Lakers. 5 points in 14 possessions isn't great but when you consider the rest of the Lakers who were doing significantly worse against the Knicks it isn't terrible either.

The idea that "Outside of him creating the offense there were maybe 3 or 4 possessions where the Lakers were able to score", I just don't know what to say. The non-Wilt Lakers scored 31 points, and Wilt was absolutely not acting as point-center. He was positioned close to the basket, and virtually every time he got the ball, he was clearly looking to attack Reed. The non-Wilt Lakers certainly produced offense and significantly more than 3 or 4 possessions, and would have produced far more than that if not for the fact that the game plan was clearly to get the ball to Wilt immediately whenever possible.

3-4 possessions is an exaggeration but it isn't a big one. The Lakers were barely able to get the ball up to the court most of the time and any time they couldn't it was a guaranteed transition basket for the Knicks. The times they could they either dumped it off to Chamberlain or they'd take an ill advised shot (sometimes West or Baylor were able to get a clean look which I think resulted in about 10-14 points by the half). Even some of the misses were caught by Chamberlain who was able to get a high percentage shot, like the play where West was on a breakaway and was blocked by Frazier but Chamberlain got it back and dunked it. If they got it into Chamberlain he'd either attempt to score and get Reed in foul trouble (which worked, Reed had 2 fouls at the end of the first) or he'd pass it off, sometimes leading to an open shot (which his teammate would probably miss) and sometimes forcing the Lakers to reset the play.

Needless to say I didn't see Chamberlain play a "terrible game", I saw the Lakers play horribly and the Knicks play amazingly. They were making offensive shots they had no business making and swiping the Lakers guards on every possession which only lead to even more easy baskets.

[bastillon]

As far as what made the Knick defense good, from what I can tell, it has very little to do with shotblocking. It's about forcing turnovers first and foremost - which is more a perimeter player thing.

any evidence ?

Well, that's the reputation as I understood it, and the small amount I've watched has not contradicted that.

have you paid attention to that in particular ? because I felt like they were missing shots, not turning the ball over.

[ElGee]

^^^My take on Reed is that he's a good shot blocker [i]for his size/[i]. I've seen him make some tremendous defensive plays in that regard in the games available online. And he does strike me as a really good rebounder, although I've never crunched the numbers.

So Reed might not have the impact of the great interior defenders of all-time, but in my mind, I give him a pretty large share of the credit for New York's defensive success, Consider his career (in which his defense might not have been constant):

He joins the Knicks in 65. They go from dead last in the league in defense (-6.8) to near the middle of the pack (-2.6). But they are a bad defensive team until 1968, when players like Frazier and Phil Jackson join the team.

He misses most of 72 and 74 -- when the Knicks defense is still good -- and the Knicks have the best defense in 73 when he plays (I'm missing 72 and 73 pace estimations for the whole league, but I can do them later if someone wants.)

So I think he's having a sizeable defensive impact in these years, but it's not, for instance, 72 Wilt or Nate Thurmond.

EDIT: Knicks defense in 1972 was 1.8/100 better than league with Reed injured and in 1973 4.9/100 better, with a raw improvement of 4.0 In 74 they were 3.0 better (IMO, some credit goes to Jackson playing big minutes on that team).

Bastillon, I now have the league numbers all the way back to 1956 (will be posting them in each RPOY thread), but let me know if you specifically want 72 and 73 for the entire league.

[bastillon]

(I'm missing 72 and 73 pace estimations for the whole league, but I can do them later if someone wants.)

I do. yes, please.

[Doctor MJ]

any evidence ?

Well, that's the reputation as I understood it, and the small amount I've watched has not contradicted that.

have you paid attention to that in particular ? because I felt like they were missing shots, not turning the ball over.

Actually before I get into that, something that didn't pop into my mind before: Lakers were shooting WAY less shots than the Knicks in that series.

Knicks shot 722 FGA, Lakers 611. Even if you factor in FTA as the equal of .44 FGA (like in TS%), the Knicks end up with about a 10 shot per game edge in shots.

There are two ways to get a big edge in shots taken: 1) Offensive rebounds, 2) Forced turnovers.

There are two things that help you get the edge in offensive rebounds: 1) Shoot at a low percentage, 2) Simply be much better at rebounds. However, the Knicks shot really well compared to the Lakers, and I don't think anyone really buys that the Knicks were clearly superior rebounding team.

The conclusion is that the Knicks forced a lot of turnovers.

I can also state that the Lakers committed 30 turnovers in game 5, where it was clear that the Lakers weren't prepared for the Knicks unleashing of an extremely aggressive trapping strategy.

In game 7, I can say that the Lakers were turning the ball over a fair amount, but it was not THE story like it was in game 5. Frazier & the Knicks offense was the #1 story, Wilt's struggles were #2.

[Manuel Calavera]

1. Jerry West
2. Lew Alcindor
3. Willis Reed
4. Walt Frazier
5. Billy Cunningham

[TrueLAfan]

^^^My take on Reed is that he's a good shot blocker [i]for his size/[i]. I've seen him make some tremendous defensive plays in that regard in the games available online. And he does strike me as a really good rebounder, although I've never crunched the numbers.

Reed was not a good rebounder--really, the Knicks were just a lousy rebounding team. They had rebounding strength at one position—PG...and unless you're Magic Johnson, that's the wrong position to have rebounding strength at. DeBusschere was pretty good for a SF/PF. Pretty much everyone else was below average. And it's not as though they were boxing out either; the Knicks got outrebounded something awful in the early 1970s. The 1971 team was just awful on the boards. It's the worst rebounding differential you can imagine for a good team—worse than, say, the worst rebounding Suns team of the late 2000s.

Here's an example for Reed... in the 1970 finals, before he got hurt, Willis Reed outscored Wilt Chamberlain by a lot—over 11 points a game. But Wilt averaged almost 9 more rebounds a game more. Nine rebounds a game is an awful lot. That was when Reed wasn't hurt and Wilt was coming back off an injury. Willis Reed was a (very) good defender...but he was not a good rebounder at all.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm pretty sure he had the most assists on the Lakers by the half and since they were down by 30 at half-time I suspect there was a lot of padding in the second half by some Laker players so I stand by what I said in that Wilt was the most impactful offensive player for the Lakers. 5 points in 14 possessions isn't great but when you consider the rest of the Lakers who were doing significantly worse against the Knicks it isn't terrible either.

I'm not talking about something that could be skewed by 2nd half stat padding for other players. Wilt only had 4 assists in the entire game. When Wilt was acting as point center for the 76ers, he was dropping more than double that. Wilt simply was not acting as point center here, he was acting as first scoring option, and the fact he made so many passes is just a reflection of him deciding he couldn't score.

As far as the other guys being even less effective, I think you're wrong. Let me break down some numbers.

As first option, Wilt scored 5 points in 14 used possessions. He also scored 6 points off offensive rebounds. So, 11 points, in 17 used possessions. 64.7 points per 100 possessions.

The team as a whole (including Wilt) scored 42 points in 55 possessions. 76.3 points per 100 possessions.

Wilt-ended possessions dragged the efficiency down. There's no way around that.

3-4 possessions is an exaggeration but it isn't a big one. The Lakers were barely able to get the ball up to the court most of the time and any time they couldn't it was a guaranteed transition basket for the Knicks. The times they could they either dumped it off to Chamberlain or they'd take an ill advised shot (sometimes West or Baylor were able to get a clean look which I think resulted in about 10-14 points by the half). Even some of the misses were caught by Chamberlain who was able to get a high percentage shot, like the play where West was on a breakaway and was blocked by Frazier but Chamberlain got it back and dunked it. If they got it into Chamberlain he'd either attempt to score and get Reed in foul trouble (which worked, Reed had 2 fouls at the end of the first) or he'd pass it off, sometimes leading to an open shot (which his teammate would probably miss) and sometimes forcing the Lakers to reset the play.

Needless to say I didn't see Chamberlain play a "terrible game", I saw the Lakers play horribly and the Knicks play amazingly. They were making offensive shots they had no business making and swiping the Lakers guards on every possession which only lead to even more easy baskets.

As you can see by my numbers, the idea that the Lakers could barely get up the court is a huge exaggeration. Even factoring in such turnovers, playing through the perimeter players was more efficient. And of course there's also the matter than turnovers like those, while a bad thing, are neither here nor there in terms of who was more successful at actually scoring - a good chunk of those possessions, had they avoided the early turnover, would have just result in more blown possessions by Wilt.

Regarding Laker scoring at half time, here's my count:

West 13
Wilt 11
Erickson 10
Baylor 4
Hairston 2
Garrett 2

[ElGee]

Doc - really enjoyed your first half analysis from earlier. Just re-watched the 1st half and I wouldn't really argue with any of your conclusions. Man, the Knicks were on fire.

LA had 14 turnovers at halftime, btw. (6 for NY)

TrueLA - We've talked about impact rebounding before, so I trust your take. I should have been more specific in saying that Reed's defensive rebounding looked good to me, because he floats to the perimeter so much on offense, from what I can tell, that that is obviously a trade off for offensive boarding. Surprised to hear you say he wasn't "a good rebounder at all" though. His individual numbers are pretty strong...

[ElGee]

My 1970 POY Ballot:

1. Jerry West
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Willis Reed
4. Walt Frazier
5. Billy Cunningham

West for reasons given in the thread by others.

Then it was either Kareem or Reed. Going with Kareem based on the same logic behind Magic's rookie year. I think he was definitely a better NBA player by the spring than he was in the fall. Frazier pretty clearly the 4th best player after that per the usual reasons, although I do think Frazier is a better player in the following years.

[Manuel Calavera]

I'm pretty sure he had the most assists on the Lakers by the half and since they were down by 30 at half-time I suspect there was a lot of padding in the second half by some Laker players so I stand by what I said in that Wilt was the most impactful offensive player for the Lakers. 5 points in 14 possessions isn't great but when you consider the rest of the Lakers who were doing significantly worse against the Knicks it isn't terrible either.

I'm not talking about something that could be skewed by 2nd half stat padding for other players. Wilt only had 4 assists in the entire game. When Wilt was acting as point center for the 76ers, he was dropping more than double that. Wilt simply was not acting as point center here, he was acting as first scoring option,

I never said Wilt was acting as a point center but he did initiate most of the offense in that first half.

and the fact he made so many passes is just a reflection of him deciding he couldn't score.

I don't know what this is supposed to show other than Wilt was making the right decisions at the right time. He turned it over 3 times in the first half, all 3 (and there was a fourth but Chamberlain got it back) from ball swipes which as I've said was extremely common in that game given that New York was creating a turn over every other possession. Other then that, I don't see how you can say he made the wrong move. He took the shots he was supposed to take, and other times he passed it off (I counted one assist but I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the numbers, I find it hard to concentrate on the game and keep score at the same time) because of a double team or he was just in a bad position.

As far as the other guys being even less effective, I think you're wrong. Let me break down some numbers.

As first option, Wilt scored 5 points in 14 used possessions. He also scored 6 points off offensive rebounds. So, 11 points, in 17 used possessions. 64.7 points per 100 possessions.

The team as a whole (including Wilt) scored 42 points in 55 possessions. 76.3 points per 100 possessions.

Wilt-ended possessions dragged the efficiency down. There's no way around that.

Possession stats are a lot more useful in the grand scheme of things over an entire season where statistical deviations are taken out, and even then I don't find them that useful, for one, my team the Portland Trailblazers were the #1 offensive team in the league two years ago according to ORTG but you'd be hard pressed to find a Blazer fan who actually likes Nate McMillans offense. So I don't like using them in this instance.

Also where are you getting the 42 points in 55 possessions stat? Did you count them yourself or is there a boxscore?

The per possession stats don't accurately represent Chamberlain's impact on the offense that night. Many times down the court if a shot was missed Chamberlain would get the rebound, you mentioned 3 times he was able to score, I don't if that counts Frazier's block of West and Wilt's recover but let's say you did. IIRC he still got more rebounds offensive rebounds then that and if you're just looking at points generated per possession you won't see that. There's also the times they went to Chamberlain where he'd pass it off and then the second pass resulted in a score, again you wont see that. I think it happened twice and while seemingly unimportant we're talking out of 21 times so it's worth mentioning anyway.

I'm not saying he played great offensively and his team just sucked. He played decently, and certainly not "terrible". The blame shouldn't be on him at all, it should be on the Lakers guards for turning it over so many times. It was hilarious (and I bet really maddening if you were a Lakers fan then) to watch Jerry West commit a backcourt violation to single coverage. I believe the announcers even said Frazier had 10 steals midway through the second (I think 14 TO's is a bit on the light side ElGee but I don't have any stats to argue). Walt Frazier, Bill Bradley and Dave DeBusschere scored their 15 field goals on their first 21 attempts. I really really find it hard to see how this is Wilt's fault.