Retro POY '64-65 (Voting Complete)

[Dr Positivity]

Like last year, this vote was refreshingly easy and straight forward

1. Russell - Celtics won almost solely cause of their defense, had a good playoffs. MVP, best player on title team. Russell's year throughout
2. West - I considered putting him above Russ for a sec. Amazing PS taking his team to the Finals.
3. Oscar - Similar RS to West, worst playoff play, worse intangibles. Default #3
4. Wilt - As I said there's no way I could put Jones or Greer above Wilt's gaudy production. Weak RS, but did very well in the playoffs and almost pulled the upset, which could've led to a title with the West only Lakers waiting in the finals. Second best player in the league still, but understandably RS problems put him below West and Oscar
5. Jones - Best scorer on title team, again. Philly's .500 record after the Wilt trade effects both Wilt and Greer here for me

HM: Pettit - Not enough games. Next season will be his first of many appearances

[Doctor MJ]

[Doctor MJ] has a parade of unusual but mesmerizing avatars.

Indeed.

Oh where have you gone Wizzle?

Glad you like the avatar. I've had a lil bit of a crush on Jackson for a while now.

[Doctor MJ]

My vote:

1. Russell
2. West
3. Oscar
4. Wilt
5. Sam

Virtually identical to my '66 vote, except Wilt's lower, and other than Wilt, the choices seem pretty clear cut.

West went nuclear in the post-season which really cements him above Oscar, but they lost to Boston relatively easily. I picked Russell over West in '69, this isn't as tough as that one.

Giving Sam Jones again for the 5 spot. That's a place where I feel a little uneasy because it doesn't seem like it should be straight forward picking Jones over the rest of the league, but the arguments for other guys really don't get traction in my heads.

Okay, so Wilt, what to do with him. First, much props to ElGee for his calculations. I hope everyone in the project realizes how lucky we are to have people doing research like they are (ThaReg, fatal, sentient also come to mind, apologize to others I'm not thinking of).

What I see with Wilt is someone who really has very little impact on either of his two teams in the regular season, but has a strong playoffs. I can really see Wilt at anywhere from 1 to unranked here. I didn't put Wilt ahead of Russell in more complete Wilt years, so it should be clear why I side with Russell here. I have a really hard time lifting anyone over West due to playoff performance alone this year, so West's the clear #2.

On the other side of things, Jones is great, but Wilt was the star of a team that beat Oscar's team in the playoffs and almost beat Boston. I just don't see Jones being able to compete with that even with the regular season edge.

Wilt vs Oscar is the one I'm left really debating. However, it's not totally clear to me even in the playoffs that Wilt is the more valuable player, and I'm not someone who totally throws out the regular season based on the results of one series. There's not much doubt in my mind that Oscar contributed more net lift across all games than Wilt did this year, the end team playoff results for Philly isn't anything that extraordinary, and I do factor in the matter that the Warriors felt they needed to trade Wilt because of the lack of performance with him as well. All in all, Oscar's year carries more weight for me.

[Doctor MJ]

Just another followup note on the 69 Sixers. In 94 the Bulls won 55 games. I don't think any of us hold that year against Jordan. Also similarly, both the 95 Bulls (pre Jordan) and 70 Sixers fell back to the mediocre records you'd expect. There's been other teams like the '10 Hawks where it doesn't look like they should win 53 games+ but everything goes right, but then proved weak in the playoffs

I'm not saying we should ignore the Sixers winning 55 without Wilt. Just that we shouldn't use it to conclude "Ok they'd have contended without him". The team in 64, 65 pre Wilt, is clearly fringe playoff talent to me. They have a 2nd team All-NBAer as their best guy and solid, not great help after that. In an 8 team league meaning the teams average a top 8 player and 3 all-stars, that's pretty weak. The team's success in 69 with Cunningham going off isn't changing my opinion on the 65, 66 teams being fringe playoff caliber without Wilt. 67 and 68 maybe they get close to 50 but that's still a big dropoff

I think you're making good points here, but I do feel compelled to make some counterpoints:

-It's not really fair to talk about the '94 Bulls and '69 76ers both as teams that weren't as good as their record. The Bulls SRS was 2.87, the 76ers was 4.79. Big difference, Philly wasn't lucky to win their games.

-Philly only won 1 playoff game? Well, they met the Celtics. They didn't accomplish anything in the playoffs, but they only could have accomplished something buy beating a team that Wilt only beat 1 series out of I believe 573. So the playoffs aren't damning, they just don't tell us anything.

-Re: Bulls. It's also crucial to understand that the Bulls the previous year were 3-peating, and that in the year before their last title, they had a SRS of over 10. Maybe an argument can be made that the '92-93 Bulls were nowhere near as good as the first two Bulls championships, but repeating champs have a habit of coasting through the regular season and raising their game as needed. I don't take it that seriously, and I'd say the dropoff for the Bulls is bigger than it looks.

[Deus_DJ]

arrghhh...just a comment, don't let Wilt's season this year impact your decision on him overall, just FYI. Remember, heart attack....heart attack.

[bastillon]

But don't you take postseason into your account too? Oscar was a better regular season player than West throughout the decade; West, however, had several really impressive playoff runs including this year in which Oscar was slightly below his regular season numbers (still good but not as good) -- not even including defensive rep.

Oscar averaged 28/12/5 to West's 40/5/6. both 53% TS.

I don't see how 12 more pts on 53% TS is better than 7 assists. I think playmaking seperates Oscar from West very clearly. Royals almost consistently had a better offense than Lakers despite much worse offensive teammates. Oscar always averaged a lot more assists than West. Mr Clutch was at 5-7 level for most of his career meanwhile Big O was regularly 10+ APG player. it's not just that season.

also, West has a history of not-MVP impact when he wasn't playing. I'd appreciate his value more if he lifted his team more. +5-6 isn't good enough for me when Oscar was over +10 in '68. I could change my opinion if West proved to be a more impactful player this season. (he missed 6 games, Oscar 5)

and, as I already told you, this is kinda 2-year voting. Oscar was IMO better in '66 too.

[Doctor MJ]

and, as I already told you, this is kinda 2-year voting. Oscar was IMO better in '66 too.

Eh, don't do 2-year make-up voting. Not expecting you to change your votes since it seems like you prefer Oscar both years, but this is meant to be independent year to year.

[TrueLAfan]

^^ Exactly. You have to go year by year.

My thinking and vote seems like it's largely the same as many others who have have given reasons I largely agree with, so..

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

[bastillon]

Just another followup note on the 69 Sixers. In 94 the Bulls won 55 games. I don't think any of us hold that year against Jordan. Also similarly, both the 95 Bulls (pre Jordan) and 70 Sixers fell back to the mediocre records you'd expect. There's been other teams like the '10 Hawks where it doesn't look like they should win 53 games+ but everything goes right, but then proved weak in the playoffs

I'm not saying we should ignore the Sixers winning 55 without Wilt. Just that we shouldn't use it to conclude "Ok they'd have contended without him". The team in 64, 65 pre Wilt, is clearly fringe playoff talent to me. They have a 2nd team All-NBAer as their best guy and solid, not great help after that. In an 8 team league meaning the teams average a top 8 player and 3 all-stars, that's pretty weak. The team's success in 69 with Cunningham going off isn't changing my opinion on the 65, 66 teams being fringe playoff caliber without Wilt. 67 and 68 maybe they get close to 50 but that's still a big dropoff

95 Bulls fell back because Grant went to Orlando. Magic improved by 7 wins.
69 Sixers lost Chet Walker to Chicago. 70 Bulls improved by 6 wins.

neither of those teams "proved weak" in the playoffs either: Bulls almost beat a better RS team (Knicks) and should've had it not been for that phantom call; Sixers lost to eventual champions who were clearly a more dominant team. they proved just as good as their RS record suggests.

they were fringe playoff team BEFORE Wilt joined them (that's a fact). that's also BEFORE Cunningham and Wali Jones joined them. BEFORE Chet Walker and Luke Jackson matured a year. you have a 40W team with an all-star in his prime and maturing young prospects in Walker and Jackson. now these guys develop and then you bring 2 crucial players to your rotation, one of whom had been all-rookie 1st team the year before (Wali Jones) and the other who went on to become an all-NBA caliber player later in his career (Kangaroo).

CLEARLY, they improved by a lot. how much ? well, the same team without Jackson won 55 games in 69. you chose to ignore it, that's fine. just stop saying they were fringe playoff team when in fact they were worse before 66 outside of Wilt.

seriously you're making up things to suit your theory: some magical drop off from Sixers and Bulls, ignoring that they lost key players, then ignoring the personnel changes in Philly's make up between 65 and 66, then again ignoring how well they did in 69 and then ignoring that the Lakers didn't improve upon his arrival and didn't regress when he lost a year either. not to mention that Warriors didn't feel his impact either and in fact got better the year after he was traded for some replacement level players.

Sixers were clearly a 50+W talent and Wilt's impact was poor on those teams, but all the evidence I've just presented can be dismissed if you opt to. whether you're seeking the truth or trying to make Wilt look great is your own choice. I'm not gonna ignore poor impact on many different occasions.

isn't it telling you a lot for whom Wilt was traded for ? would you really give up the superstar for replacement level players like the Warriors did ? nah, I guess not... but when your own fans hate you, you're hardly a true superstar.

[Doctor MJ]

95 Bulls fell back because Grant went to Orlando. Magic improved by 7 wins.
69 Sixers lost Chet Walker to Chicago. 70 Bulls improved by 6 wins.

Yeah, I think the whole "but the year after the year after" argument is pretty weak here. It really only make sense if you're saying "they weren't really that good the first year, they just had some luck", but if that's the case then we should see a relatively weak SRS in their "lucky year", and a comparable SRS with worse record the next year. That's not at all what happened with Philly.

Interestingly, it is EXACTLY what happened with Chicago.

[ElGee]

^^^This was the year the Lakers team voted against trading for Wilt Chamberlain, correct?

[Deus_DJ]

Bastillion...let's have everyone understand where you're coming from here. You are anti-Wilt, for whatever reason, and have since I saw your first post found any possible way to diminish any impact Wilt has ever made to say that he isn't even in the top 6 players of all time.

Now let's hit your argument. You look to this year more than any other to judge Wilt's impact on the team. Never mind the fact that this was his worst year in terms of efficiency due to health problems, and if you had bothered to read, just for example, Robert Cherry's book on Wilt you would realize that Wilt himself knew he was in a huge funk due to his health.

Further, despite the fact that you said earlier that you weren't trying to compare Wilt to Iverson, that is in fact exactly what you do every time you mention him. Only in your fantasy world is contributing 30 rebounds a game negligible to team impact because it involved Wilt...your basic argument in all of this, what are you implying that is, is to say that Wilt is selfish when it came to rebounding(that are you simply overlook it, which with you I wouldn't doubt it). There may be an ounce of truth to it but when you think about the fact that the opponent wants to grab the rebound too it starts to become ridiculous. You could theoretically look at his FG% but even then you simply don't have a case. We already know he was a huge shot blocker at the time even if his other defensive maneuvers were less engaged. Thus, you don't have a case.

If people want to find someone with an agenda to smear(as opposed to an agenda to tout someone's good points) look no further than bastillon

Oh, one more thing:

isn't it telling you a lot for whom Wilt was traded for ? would you really give up the superstar for replacement level players like the Warriors did ? nah, I guess not... but when your own fans hate you, you're hardly a true superstar.

No, it isn't. Mieliu, the owner of the Warriors, knew secretly that Wilt really had a heart attack. The doctors told him Wilt probably wouldn't live another year. Wilt himself was thinking about retiring after the year...and Wilt was having his worst year of his career. The fact that he was traded for **** not only in 1965 but in 1968 says absolutely nothing unless you look at the circumstances. In 1968 he was ready to jump for the ABA and for the 76ers to get nothing in return.

Oh, Mieliu was asked about the trade much later on and said "I was young and dumb, I should have gotten more for Wilt"
Oh, and if you really wanted to use this argument of yours to it's logical conclusions, Wilt wouldn't be the highest paid player every single year.

[bastillon]

No, it isn't. Mieliu, the owner of the Warriors, knew secretly that Wilt really had a heart attack. The doctors told him Wilt probably wouldn't live another year. Wilt himself was thinking about retiring after the year...and Wilt was having his worst year of his career. The fact that he was traded for **** not only in 1965 but in 1968 says absolutely nothing unless you look at the circumstances. In 1968 he was ready to jump for the ABA and for the 76ers to get nothing in return.

Oh, and if you really wanted to use this argument of yours to it's logical conclusions, Wilt wouldn't be the highest paid player every single year.

in 68 he decided he would join the Lakers before the playoffs. ABA was hardly an option. his payroll was another factor why he was traded, not the things you mentioned since nobody at the time talked about it.

historical research proves that you get paid for your stats. no wonder why Wilt was highest paid player. on the other hand it seems strange that even Warriors fans were glad he wasn't there anymore when they traded for some junk.

[Manuel Calavera]

Bastillion...let's have everyone understand where you're coming from here. You are anti-Wilt, for whatever reason, and have since I saw your first post found any possible way to diminish any impact Wilt has ever made to say that he isn't even in the top 6 players of all time.

His name's Hakeem Olajuwon and he's a worse player than Chamberlain, and it drives bastillon crazy.

[ElGee]

My 1965 POY Ballot:

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

Monster year from Russell. Epic defensive numbers. Great comments/reports about him (thanks Regulator, again!). The dude even had great individual stats for once:

vs. Phi
G1 11 pts 32 reb 6 ast
G2 12 pts 16 reb 5 ast
G3 19 pts 26 reb 8 ast 3 steals
G4 18 pts 25 reb
G5 12 pts 28 reb 7 ast 3 steals 12 blocks
G6 22 pts 21 reb
G7 15 pts 29 reb 8 ast 6 blocks

15.6 ppg 25.3 rpg .447 FG%

Then, in the Finals vs. LAL:
G1 18 pts 28 reb
G2 23 pts 25 reb 10 ast (10-11 FG)
G3 14 pts 19 reb
G4 12 pts 23 reb
G5 22 pts 30 reb 4 ast

17.8 ppg 25.0 rpg 33-47 FG (.702)

Jerry West is a worthy No. 1 to me. What a crazy performance. Russell was just clearly better. Robertson comfortably goes third, and then it gets tricky.

I agree with Doctor MJ about the league structure changing things slightly in the 60s. Wilt's regular season wasn't good. But, it doesn't take much to make the playoffs. And, while I'm not placing (or haven't place) more emphasis on the playoffs due to that difference, it means that someone having a clunky or injury-plagued regular season is going to be downgraded less if they display they can play at a superior level in the playoffs.

I'm not sold Wilt's playoff performance was that good. I am assuming some people just considered Philly dangerous with Wilt, given his weird MVP vote, and that it never manifested itself in the entire 35 game stretch he played. (Because of an injury down the stretch? They were coasting/experimenting? Philly closed 4-11 and lost 6 of final 8). Frankly, I'd have him higher if I thought he was 67-Wilt good in the playoffs. But the whole package is still enough for me to take him over the rest of the all-stars, and even Sam Jones. Despite the lack of hard evidence, it does seem like he brought it against Boston in the playoffs. And, since beating Boston was almost literally the name of the game then, I'm going to boost Wilt up based on that.

Baylor's injured. Jerry Lucas is an option but I'm not wild about him. No Hawks jumped out to me. I'll take Jones over Greer for the typical Sam reasons.

[Mean_Streets]

Final Rankings

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

[ThaRegul8r]

1. Bill Russell. 14.1 points, 24.1 rebounds (1st in the league), 5.3 assists (5th in the league [behind Oscar Robertson (11.5), Guy Rodgers (7.2), K.C. Jones (5.6), and Lenny Wilkens (5.5)]) in 44.4 minutes per game (3rd [behind Robertson (45.6) and Chamberlain (45.2)]). Led league in defensive win shares (14.4—2nd highest ever recorded, 8.2 above runner-up K.C. Jones in the largest margin in NBA history) anchoring the league’s best defense (est. 83.5 DRtg), finished second in win shares by 0.08, with 16.87 to league-leader Oscar Robertson’s 16.95, and third in win shares per 48 minutes (.234 [behind Jerry West (.261) and Oscar Robertson (.234)]). First Team All-NBA, NBA Most Valuable Player.

In the postseason averaged 16.5 points on career playoff highs of 52.7 percent shooting (3rd in the playoffs [behind Gene Wiley (.559) and Wilt Chamberlain (.530)]) and 54.0 percent true shooting, 25.2 rebounds (2nd [to Wilt Chamberlain (27.2)]) and a career playoff-best 6.3 assists (2nd [to Oscar Robertson (12.0)]) in 47.9 minutes per game. Led playoffs in total rebounds (302), assists (76), minutes (561), win shares (3.34), defensive win shares (2.36–set NBA record) and win shares per 48 minutes (.286); finished third in PER (20.9 [behind Chamberlain (27.1) and West (26.7)]). In the NBA Finals averaged 17.8 points and 25 rebounds, and set a still standing NBA Finals record for highest field-goal percentage in a five-game series at 70.2 percent.


2. Jerry West. Averaged 31.0 points (2nd in the league) on 49.7 percent shooting (4th) and 57.2 percent true shooting (2nd), 6.0 rebounds and 4.9 assists (6th) in 41.4 minutes per game (5th). Led league in offensive win shares (14.8) and win shares per 48 minutes (.261). Third in PER (25.0) and third in win shares (16.3). Finished third in MVP voting.

In the postseason averaged 40.6 points (led playoffs), 5.7 rebounds and 5.3 assists in 42.7 minutes per game. Led playoffs in offensive win shares (1.9). Averaged 46.3 points against Baltimore, and 33.8 points in the NBA Finals.


3. Oscar Robertson. 30.4 points (3rd in the league [behind Wilt Chamberlain (34.7) and Jerry West (31.0)]) on 48.0 percent shooting from the floor (9th), 83.9 percent shooting from the line (2nd [to Larry Costello (.877)]) and 56.1 percent true shooting (3rd [behind Bailey Howell (.583) and Jerry West (.572)]), 9.0 rebounds and 11.5 assists (1st) in 45.6 minutes per game (1st). Led league in offensive win shares (17.0) anchoring the league’s best offense (est. 98.2 ORtg), finished second in PER (26.7) and win shares per 48 minutes (.238).

In the postseason averaged 28.0 points, 4.8 rebounds and 12.0 assists (led playoffs) in 48.8 minutes per game (1st) against Philadelphia.


4. Wilt Chamberlain. 34.7 points (1st in the league) on 51.0 percent shooting (1st), 22.9 rebounds (2nd to Bill Russell [24.1]) and 3.4 assists in 45.2 minutes per game. Led league in PER (28.6).

In the postseason averaged 29.3 points (2nd to Jerry West [40.6]) on 53.0 percent shooting and 55.2 percent true shooting (3rd behind Bailey Howell [.582] and Gene Wiley [.572]), 27.2 rebounds (led playoffs) and 4.4 assists (6th) in 48.7 minutes per game. Led playoffs in PER (27.1), finished second in win shares (2.5 [behind Russell (3.3)]), offensive win shares (1.7 [behind Jerry West (1.9)]), win shares per 48 minutes (.222 [behind Russell (.286)]), fifth in defensive win shares (0.8).


5. Sam Jones. Averaged a career-best 25.9 points (5th in the league [behind Chamberlain (34.7), West (31.0), Robertson (30.4) and Elgin Baylor (27.1)]) on 45.2 percent shooting from the floor (15th), 82.0 percent shooting from the line (6th), 5.1 rebounds and 2.8 assists in a career-high 36.1 minutes per game (16th). Fifth in win shares (12.8), defensive win shares (5.5) and win shares per 48 minutes (.213), sixth in PER (20.7), eighth in offensive win shares (7.3). Second Team All-NBA. Finished fourth in MVP voting behind Russell, Oscar Robertson and Jerry West.

In the postseason averaged 28.6 points (3rd behind Jerry West [40.6] and Wilt Chamberlain [29.3]), 4.6 rebounds and 2.5 assists in a career playoff-high 41.3 minutes per game (10th). Ranked fourth in minutes played (495), second (to Jerry West) in points (343), field goals attempted (294) and field-goals made (135), third in free throws made (73), third in points per game (behind West [40.6] and Wilt Chamberlain [29.3]), third (behind West and Chamberlain) in offensive win shares (1.2), third in win shares (2.0 [behind Russell (3.3) and Chamberlain (2.5)]), fourth in win shares per 48 minutes (.195 [behind Russell (.286), Chamberlain (.222), and Bailey Howell (.199)]), fifth in free throws attempted (84), sixth in defensive win shares (0.8).

[Warspite]

Reading this thread I think Wilt was given a fair shake by most voters. I have openly thought about what it would be like to be on a team with an allstar C and SG and a good scoring wing player and then trades basicly nothing for who is on paper the most staticaly dominate player to ever play. We now have to incorperate a C (when we already have an allstar C) into our team forcing Jackson to play PF and this guy who we have to adjust to avged 39FGA just a few yrs ago.

On top of that we just moved from Syracuse to Philly and we are still trying to win fans and Wilt whos coming in is already a fan fav because he played here before we did and this is his hometown.

The Syracuse Nationals and there players were the most disliked players in Philly (The Oakland Raiders/Riley Knicks of there era) and now they are trying to win over philly fans. Now Wilt is returning to Philly. The Cities savior and golden child. Ill bet theres friction and alot of resentment.

It must have been a very tough adjustment and I can see why the team would have some problems adjusting and not winning as much as they should. They still should have won more but I can excuse more of there losses than most. I just think todays voters are missing some historical perspective and are blaming Wilt. Wilt said himself that he hated the Nats with a passion and having to learn to life them and play with them was a tough adjustment.

[shawngoat23]

Just another followup note on the 69 Sixers. In 94 the Bulls won 55 games. I don't think any of us hold that year against Jordan. Also similarly, both the 95 Bulls (pre Jordan) and 70 Sixers fell back to the mediocre records you'd expect. There's been other teams like the '10 Hawks where it doesn't look like they should win 53 games+ but everything goes right, but then proved weak in the playoffs

I think a lot of people do hold that against Jordan. Ironically, the first place I've seen that is on "Air Judden's" Wilt Chamberlain fan site, because an almost identical case could be made about Chamberlain.

[shawngoat23]

Top two are easy:
1. Bill Russell
2. Jerry West - What a beast in the postseason.

I was tempted to put Wilt at #3 because his Sixers trumped Robertson's Royals, but in the end, Robertson was better throughout the regular season, and his team performed better than the Sixers (plus the Warriors underachieved hugely even before his trade). I have to dock Wilt for that, just as I would anyone else; still, his statistics and impact on the game is enough to merit a top 5 selection:

3. Oscar Robertson
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Sam Jones