Retro POY '65-66 (Voting Complete)

[Deus_DJ]

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.

Somehow I think I was waiting for this line; oh, and it is completely reasonable. For if we were talking about any other person in history, it would have been reasonable...but because it's Wilt and because he failed to win in many big games, it isn't.

Wilt was considered the greatest scorer in history, coach Hannum asked him to change his role, and the team got way better.
And unbeknown to you Hannum also told him to do this in the 1964 playoffs and if you watch the tape you'll see that it probably hurt the team vs. the Celtics(there actually is some tape of the 1964 finals vs. boston). In 1968 his team didn't deliver and because they didn't want Chamberlain to deliver they lost again. Hannum deserves credit but he also deserves blame.

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.

Coming up with an explanation is not a bad idea, but logical conclusions matter. If a conclusion does not fit the total circumstances(which people conveniently ignore: think 1965 conf finals, 1962 conf finals, 1960 conf finals) and does not fit the total idea with regards to the Jordan analogy I was talking of earlier then it is simply wrong.

[Deus_DJ]

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.

What, you don't like a judge on the sidelines? You're as bad as Wilt!

[Doctor MJ]

Somehow I think I was waiting for this line; oh, and it is completely reasonable. For if we were talking about any other person in history, it would have been reasonable...but because it's Wilt and because he failed to win in many big games, it isn't.

What gives you the idea that every other player in history has been judged by only their box score stats? You think we've gone through a many month long project just as an excuse to bash Wilt?

[ThaRegul8r]

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.

What, you don't like a judge on the sidelines? You're as bad as Wilt!

[Deus_DJ]

Somehow I think I was waiting for this line; oh, and it is completely reasonable. For if we were talking about any other person in history, it would have been reasonable...but because it's Wilt and because he failed to win in many big games, it isn't.

What gives you the idea that every other player in history has been judged by only their box score stats? You think we've gone through a many month long project just as an excuse to bash Wilt?

No, actually I've read the threads and I have been very, very impressed by the diverse opinion of thought and the various quotes you guys managed to pull up. But Yes, every other player is judged by their box score stats...win or lose.

oh and just FYI this posting spree I'm going through is just getting rid of this baggage I've carried after having read these threads for a few months now...I had to release it at some point and that point is now. We'll be good after a few days.

[Doctor MJ]

What, you don't like a judge on the sidelines? You're as bad as Wilt!

I don't like when people are rude, and you are being rude.

Understand Deus, it's not like we haven't had people come in part way through the project and take issue with points that were made. A couple of those people are on the voting panel right now.

[Deus_DJ]

What, you don't like a judge on the sidelines? You're as bad as Wilt!

I don't like when people are rude, and you are being rude.

Understand Deus, it's not like we haven't had people come in part way through the project and take issue with points that were made. A couple of those people are on the voting panel right now.

I'd have to disagree that I've been rude(ok in retrospect a few times I may have been, my apologies either way). No, I think you just don't like that a ballboy has come in here and disrupted the natural order of things

[ThaRegul8r]

[Sedale Threatt]

To me, the only real factor here is how much anyone wants to penalize Wilt for his detrimental impact on team chemistry. Skipping practices and lording over the team with his insistence on living in NYC, etc. And to be honest, that seems a little bit flimsy. It's just too hard to prove.

The whole "system" argument is interesting but ultimately does nothing for me. He was just going out and playing basketball -- dominating -- and doing presumably what everyone figured was the best interest for his team. Granted, I don't know how much clout Schayes would have had to get Wilt to play a different style even if he'd wanted to. But with apparently everybody on board, it's hard for me to blame Wilt for that.

It's also a little difficult for me to blame him for his teammates sucking (again), no matter how much sense the whole "anarchy" theory makes sense. And it truly does. Primarily because, to bring this up again, Jerry West intuitively came up with the same conclusion in his biography, wondering if he and Baylor screwed up by scoring as dominantly as they did instead of taking a step back and getting the rest of the team more involved.

In the end, though, you're talking about a guy who put up a 46/34 in a deciding game. That's basically the equivalent of spotting a football team a 10- or 14-point lead. You just have to figure out a way to do something, anything, to contribute. And they couldn't.

So even with some legit criticisms, they're still vague enough that I can't make up the ground for a guy who was pretty clearly the best, most dominant individual player in the league.

[Sedale Threatt]

What, you don't like a judge on the sidelines? You're as bad as Wilt!

I don't like when people are rude, and you are being rude.

Understand Deus, it's not like we haven't had people come in part way through the project and take issue with points that were made. A couple of those people are on the voting panel right now.

I'd have to disagree that I've been rude. No, I think you just don't like that a ballboy has come in here and disrupted the natural order of things

Since this is a voting thread, I have to say that yes, you have definitely been rude. And obnoxious. And insulting. It takes a lot to get MJ's hackles up, and you do managed to do it in about five posts. Well done.

[Deus_DJ]

Since this is a voting thread, I have to say that yes, you have definitely been rude. And obnoxious. And insulting. It takes a lot to get MJ's hackles up, and you do managed to do it in about five posts. Well done.

Ooh, I'll definitely keep that in mind then when it comes to "voting threads". My apologies...I've said my piece anyhow, GL with the rest of the voting.

[ElGee]

Deus, I'm finding it hard to discuss anything with you. You seem to have a pretty clear agenda. It's not very productive, and on top of that, what's your big complaint? That we don't know if we're 100% right so we can't have any analysis?

I ask you about 1966 and you give me 1968 and some line about being Wilt's "fault."(And Wilt was the POY in 1968 ) You didn't understand the anarchy point and you didn't understand my next point, and I don't know how to make it any clearer. Replace "MJ" with "Wilt Chamberlain" or "Deus_DJ" and see if that helps, because the point had nothing to do with Michael Jordan...

My guess is, at this point, you have no interest in understanding it, and I think we're done here. And yes, you come across as rude.

PS Go read the extensive arguments about players like Walton, Nash, Russell, Pippen, Magic, Garnett, Kobe, etc. that have nothing to do with the box score.

[Sedale Threatt]

Since this is a voting thread, I have to say that yes, you have definitely been rude. And obnoxious. And insulting. It takes a lot to get MJ's hackles up, and you do managed to do it in about five posts. Well done.

Ooh, I'll definitely keep that in mind then when it comes to "voting threads". My apologies...I've said my piece anyhow, GL with the rest of the voting.

Thanks. And thank you for your "contribution."

[Deus_DJ]

Deus, I'm finding it hard to discuss anything with you. You seem to have a pretty clear agenda. It's not very productive, and on top of that, what's your big complaint? That we don't know if we're 100% right so we can't have any analysis?

I ask you about 1966 and you give me 1968 and some line about being Wilt's "fault."(And Wilt was the POY in 1968 ) You didn't understand the anarchy point and you didn't understand my next point, and I don't know how to make it any clearer. Replace "MJ" with "Wilt Chamberlain" or "Deus_DJ" and see if that helps, because the point had nothing to do with Michael Jordan...

My guess is, at this point, you have no interest in understanding it, and I think we're done here. And yes, you come across as rude.

PS Go read the extensive arguments about players like Walton, Nash, Russell, Pippen, Magic, Garnett, Kobe, etc. that have nothing to do with the box score.

Ok, one last post then. I honestly don't understand why you don't understand my rebuttals..

You said:
ElGee wrote:
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.)


First of all I don't have this overarching thesis as some of you are trying to find it...but I am arguing that you ARE INDEED! penalizing Chamberlain for what is in reality a design flaw. Blaming someone for losing despite the fact that he put up huge numbers is something that only happens with Chamberlain(though not to the extent as I'm portraying it, you still list him at at least rank 2). I just don't find it appropriate to put Russell over Chamberlain because Russell happened to play under a better design. The point is that it's more appropriate to say that "the 76ers didn't have AS COHESIVE an offense in 1966" than to say it was Chamberlain's scoring that hurt the team(and it was certainly more cohesive when there is more team assists, including more from Chamberlain's part). The reason it's hard to say that Chamberlain's scoring hurt the team is that for some odd, inexplicable reason Chamberlain's 1968 play was just like his 1967 but for some odd, inexplicable reason his teammates were shooting just as badly as they did in 1966. The real scandal here is that in 1968 Wilt was robbed by Hannum's insistence on continuing to give the ball up.


As to your last but important point, it doesn't disagree with what I said. It is possible to look at MORE than the boxscore when it comes to seeing a player's impact, but to look at a great statsheet but then say it hurt the team is...in a word, unfair. I have seen this standard applied to no other person in history except Chamberlain. I can see this argument fairly if you're talking about Chamberlain's 50 ppg season, but then again in that season he lost in game 7 to a buzzer beater, with Sam Jones shooting the ball OVER CHAMBERLAIN....

[TrueLAfan]

Ooh, I'll definitely keep that in mind then when it comes to "voting threads". My apologies...I've said my piece anyhow, GL with the rest of the voting.

In this case, the voters in "voting thread" asked to be part of a long term project about which most of have been courteous and committed to something that is fun...but takes a great deal of time and effort.

On the other hand, I'm suspicious of posters that suddenly appear on RealGM with a clear and obvious agenda (every post you've made has to do with Wilt). We've had other posters that did the same thing; it's unnecessary and disruptive. Your "apology" falls in that category too. Since your input is not worth the issues it's causing, it's good that you've chosen to stop posting on the threads involved in this project.

[ronnymac2]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWZ0gJ0HAyA[/youtube]

We've been invaded by Darkjaws people..........

[Mean_Streets]

Final Rankings:

1. WIlt Chamberlain
2. Bill Russell
3. Jerry West
4. Oscar Robertson
5. Sam Jones

[ronnymac2]

No Hawks vs. Lakers, but four pages of people being antagonized by a former poster who is going to be banned within 24 hours....guess I'll work with what I have though.


Final Rankings:

Wilt Chamberlain
Bill Russell
Jerry West
Oscar Robertson
Sam Jones

[lorak]

1. Wilt
2. Russell
3. Robertson
4. West - against Celtics he wasn't better than Big O.
5. Sam Jones

[ElGee]

My 1966 POY Ballot:

1.Bill Russell
2.Wilt Chamberlain
3.Jerry West
4.Oscar Robertson
5.Sam Jones


This is the start (or end) of Russell's defensive peak in terms of team results. He battled a bunch of nagging injuries this year, including the aforementioned broken foot, but still had a pretty amazing playoff run on both sides of the ball. I think the injuries and his shoddy TS% (lowest of his career) probably hurt him in the eyes of MVP voters – that, and everyone seemed obsessed with the notion that they were all old men in Boston. Which is ironic, because when I watch Russell in that Cincinnati game, at 32 (gasp!), he looks like a freak of an athlete.

Reading through the reports of the season and seeing what he did in the playoffs – 19-25-5 and better shooting than Wilt Chamberlain -- I'm fairly comfortable with Russell at No. 1.

The second spot was between Wilt and Jerry West. (I wasn't entirely comfortable with where to slot Wilt, as I think he could be as low as 4th.) I like West's offense better than Chamberlain. Elgin Baylor has a horribly down season and misses 15 games, and without exactly a loaded offensive squad, LA has the best offense in the league...again. I don't think West facilitates or draws as much pressure as, say, Jordan or Wade (or maybe even Oscar), but nonetheless his offense is really really impressive and has an impact reflected when he's missed time before. Chamberlain is clearly better defensively, despite West's steals. Neither of them can match Russell's overall impact (mostly from his defense).

The postseason really clouded this for me, as West was ridiculous and Wilt's numbers (again) dipped in the playoffs. It's weird, but that Boston series is almost more lopsided than the series was the other way in 1967. Then West plays Boston and continues his monster postseason.

Robertson's not far off and a really easy No. 4. He might have been better in 65, but still a good year. Sam Jones was a pretty easy choice over the rest of the field.