bastillon wrote:what did I say to oversell Wilt's cast ?
The fact that you want to give equal if not more credit to Thurmond for the Warriors' defense even though Wilt played nearly twice as many total minutes and Thurmond was 7th on the team in MPG as basically the 3rd forward (behind Mescery and Hightower) while Wilt was far and away the leader in MPG (46, next most being Rogers at 34 and then Hightower at 32) and total minutes played.
Add in that per-36 minute production and efficiency suggest that Thurmond was nowhere near the player he would be in his prime, and yeah, I'd say you were overselling his impact big time. And considering the thrust of your post was that (a) Thurmond had as big an impact as Wilt defensively and (b) Wilt + Thurmond < Russell, therefore Russell is the best, and it should be obvious how sloppy the thinking is.
As for Hannum's impact, what makes you so confident that its not the case that his impact was
precisely because he could get Wilt to play better defense? And as such, Wilt, not Thurmond, should share credit for that improvement? Or does Hannum's impact only count for changing the level of play for everyone else but Wilt? Since Hannum himself isn't playing, he's impacting the game by getting guys to play better. Apparently, according to you, that couldn't possibly include changing Wilt's impact.
Of course, aside from being absolutely ridiculous and/or fallacious logic, its also incorrect.
Hannum felt Wilt needed to become more aggressive. He was also determined that Chamberlain play a complete game. [...]
As the team continued to win, sportswriters began talking about the "new Chamberlain" and the "new Warriors."
"You've got to bow down, Wilt," [Guy] Rogers told Chamberlain. "Admit it, cat, that we're a much better club with you feeding us part of the time and then getting back to protect our basket."
That's John Taylor's
The Rivalry. In nearly 25 pages on the 63-64 season, nearly a third of which were dedicated to the Warriors' and their coach, the dynamic between Chamberlain and Hannum, their changing style of play and resultant success, you cannot find a single mention of Nate Thurmond, who gets his introduction when discussing the 64-65 season.
If you can find some articles from that time talking about how Thurmond's addition has changed the face of the team, by all means, post it here, but most contemporary accounts credit Hannum's ability to change Wilt's style of play, and the resultant increased impact he had on the team both offensively and defensively.
edit: you need look no further than MVP voting to see the perception that Wilt was to credit for the team's success. In 62-63 he received 0 first place votes and finished 7th in MVP voting; in 63-64 he finished second, with 19 first-place votes to Russell's 11.
