RealGM

Wilt Chamberlain MVP vote finishes by year. 1960(Rookie): 1st 1961: 4th 1962: 2nd 1963: 7th 1964: 2nd 1965(Traded midway through the season): 5th 1966: 1st 1967: 1st 1968: 1st 1969(On the Lakers now): DNP 1970(Injured): DNP 1971: DNP 1972: 3rd 1973: 4th Retires

1960: Comes into the league, as a rookie, averages 38 points(led league)/27 rebounds(led league)/2 assists on 46% shooting, the 6th highest in the league. Led the Warriors to a 49-26 record, the second-highest in the league, and a 17 game improvement from the year prior. Wins MVP and Roy along with all-star game MVP and is voted first team.

1961: Wilt averages 38/27/2 on 51%, leading the league in ppg, rpg, and FG%, leading the Warriors to a 46-33 record, third in the league. The MVP, Bill Russell, didn't even make the all-NBA first team, and Wilt did. Unfortunately, this would be the first of many Mvp robberies that Wilt suffered during his career.




1962 Wilt leads the Warriors to a 49-31 record, third in the league, averaging 50/25/2.5 on 51%, leading the league in ppg and rpg. The next closest guy in scoring, Walt Bellamy, was behind by 19 ppg. Again, Wilt made 1st team all-NBA over the MVP, Bill Russell. Highway robbery and Wilt should have been the Mvp this year over Russell.

1963 After losing Tom Gola(injury) and Paul Arizin, the Warriors move to San Fransisco, and also lose their coach, Alex Hannum. This season, Wilt puts up 45/24/3.5 on 53%, leading the league in ppg, rpg, and FG%. However, the Warriors had lost much of their offence with Gola and Arizin, and their next high scorer was Guy Rodgers, averaging 14 ppg on 39%. Due to having no offensive threat other than Wilt, the Warriors went 31-49, finishing 3 games out of the playoffs, and Wilt finished 7th in MVP voting. Not a robbery, but I do think he was the best player this season.

1964: Wilt averages 37/22/5 on 53%, leading the league in ppg, and second in RPG and FG%, and leads the Warriors to a 48-32 record, the best in the West, with no other players even shooting 46%. Wilt again makes the all-NBA first team and finishes behind Oscar Robertson, who averaged 31/10/11, on 48%, on a team with a 55-25 record, second in the conference, but with a far better supporting cast. Not the worst robbery, but this is another MVP that should've gone to Wilt.

1965 The Warriors start the season 11-27, and they need to make some changes. They trade Wilt, currently averaging 39/24/3 on 50%, to the Philadelphia 76ers. The Warriors would finish 17-63, going 6-36 in games Wilt didn't play. The Sixers had gone 36-44 the year previous and were 21-24 so far without Wilt.

They didn't see immediate success, as it took them a while to gel, but they ended up going 19-16 in games Wilt played, and he averaged 30/22/4 on 53%. Russell won MVP leading the Celtics to 62 wins and to be truthful I do think Russell deserved this one as Wilt's impact dropped this year as a result of the heart attack he suffered that offseason.

1966 Wilt averages 34/24/5 on 54%, leading the league in ppg, RPG, and FG%. The Sixers go 55-25, the best in the league. Wilt was by far the best player in the league, and playing on the best team. He definitely deserved this one, and this time they couldn't deny him the Mvp.

1967: Wilt averages 24/24/8 on 68%, insane efficiency, leading the league in RPG and FG%, and leads the Sixers to a 68-13 record, by far the best in the league. He ran away with the MVP this year, and this showed what could happen when you finally got a team around him.

1968: Wilt averages 24/24/9 on 60%, leading the league in RPG, assists, and FG%, averaging almost a triple-double, leading the Sixers to a 62-20 record, 6 games better than second place. Again, Wilt could not be denied this Mvp.

1969: Wilt was traded to the Lakers in the offseason. They won 52 games the year before, powered by Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. This year, with West missing time from injuries and Baylor taking a step down from his knees degrading further.


It was up to Wilt to hold them together He put up 21/21/5 on 58%, leading the league in RPG and FG%, Baylor put up 25/10/5 on 45%, West put up, 26/4/7 on 47% in the games he played. The Lakers won 55 games this year. Of all the Lakers, Baylor was the only one to get MVP votes. I do think however that Wilt should have got some Mvp votes as well or at the very least been voted all Nba second team that season.

1970: In a season with high hopes for the Lakers, Wilt shreds his knee in the 9th game of the season. He had been playing very well up until this point, and while he would return for the playoffs, he was not the same player. Obviously no MVP votes this year. Lakers go 46-36.

1971: On his first year back from his knee injury, Wilt puts up 21/18/4 on 55%, first in rpg and third in FG%. The Lakers go 48-34 in a tough west. With his knee injury, Wilt was done dominating like he did in his prime, but was still a very effective player.

1972: Wilt averages 15/19/4 on 65%, leading the league in rpg and FG%. The Lakers went 69-13, rampaging through the league. Wilt finished 3rd in MVP voting behind Kareem and West, his teammate, who averaged 26/4/10 on 48%. Wilt also led the league in defensive win shares.



1973: Wilt averages 13/19/5 on 73%, first in rpg and FG%. The Lakers go 60-22, tied for best in the west. Wilt finishes 4th in MVP voting, as he plays his role, the Bill Russell role, to perfection, as good or better than Russell did. Impressive how great he was at the age of 36.

1974: Wilt retires, and in their first year without him, the Lakers go 47-35, a 13 game dropoff. Quite impressive how valuable he was to his team even at 36 on one good knee.

Wilt led the league in Rebounding: '60, '61, '62, '63, '66, '67, '68, '69, '71, '72, '73 FG%: '61, '63, '65, '66, '67, '68, '69, '72, '73

Scoring: '60, '61, '62, '63, '64, '65, '66

Assists: '68

Placement in win shares each year 1960: 1st 1961: 1st 1962: 1st 1963: 1st 1964: 1st 1965: 4th(team switch year) 1966: 1st 1967: 1st 1968: 1st 1969: T-1st 1970: DNP(injured) 1971: 4th 1972: 2nd 1973: 2nd




Safe to say there were definitely some robberies during those years Wilt's MVP voting did not correlate to how valuable he actually was, and I'm guessing a large part of this is because the players were the ones who voted back then, and a lot of the players were jealous of Wilt and his insane physical dominance over them.

Other than that one Oscar MVP which could have gone to either Wilt or Russell, the two great bigs basically shared the MVP award over their decade in the league together. I would say that while Wilt was the greater individual player and maybe gets more 1st team ALL-PRO type awards because you just can't ignore a guy putting up 50/25 every night, Russell was probably the more valuable team player. So, my answer is no, Russell should have gotten the lion's share of MVPs during their shared decade and 70-74 Wilt may not have been the league's MVP anymore with Kareem, West, etc.

Although you hear that Wilt played the Russell role "better than Russell" in 73, I don't buy it. Wilt had the rebounding (a bit less than peak Russell), the rim protection (though he still liked the highlight block instead of the tapping the block to teammates), the man post defense (Wilt could hold position BETTER than Russell but didn't seem to have Russell quick hands to knock away entry passes), but he didn't ever have the away from the basket help and recover game that Russell was so good at.

I don't see his case in any season other than 1964, but both Oscar and Russell were excellent candidates then as well. 1962 was also great, but so was Russell's season.

1961 was a clear Russell win.
He had no case in 1963, 1965 and 1969.
He missed most of the season in 1970.
He was clearly worse player than prime Jabbar in 1971-73 period.

At most I can see him having 2 more MVPs, but then again - Russell was probably better in 1960.

So short answer: No, Russell was robbed. Basketball is a team game and Wilt never really understood it.

If we peel back into history, I think it's quite telling that Wilt won the MVP as a rookie and then didn't win it again for many years. Basically, everyone assumed that Wilt was about to render Russell and after thought - that Wilt's team would shortly be winning all the titles - and when that didn't happen, he stopped being handed awards.

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '59-60? Possibly. His offense was wildly overrated, but he clearly had defensive impact and while that impact didn't match Russell's, you could make the case Wilt's overall impact was higher? Yup.

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '60-61? Well the elite team defense is gone so no. Prior to '66-67, if Wilt wasn't putting in the effort to lead an elite defense, he wasn't accomplishing all that much, because you were never getting very far with him as a volume scorer.

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '61-62? Same story as the previous year.

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '62-63? Literally a below average defense. Get outta here Wilt.

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '63-64? Absolutely, though I think Russell had a case too. Thank Hannum for making Wilt play like an MVP!

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '64-65? No, but Wilt was clearly not 100%.

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '65-66? Not if you saw what that roster was capable of in '66-67. He clearly wasn't getting as much of his teammates as Russell was.

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '66-67 & '67-68? Absolutely. Thanks Alex Hannum!

The end. Wilt's out of the conversation after that.

So I'd say that Wilt deserved 2-4 MVPs. He got 4. He got what he deserved at the very least.

coastalmarker99 wrote:Safe to say there were definitely some robberies during those years Wilt's MVP voting did not correlate to how valuable he actually was, and I'm guessing a large part of this is because the players were the ones who voted back then, and a lot of the players were jealous of Wilt and his insane physical dominance over them.

coastal I'm sorry, there's much here I have a problem with, but probably the biggest thing is you trying to dismiss assessments from half a century based on the assumption that they were literally jealous of the player you're championing. You need to rip these tendencies out of your process if you want to get anywhere real.

This is part of broader trend where I'm seeing homer/hater type talk infect people who were with data, history, and video. Literally, when you talk in terms of homer/hater, you're essentially wearing a hat that says "I'm a fan, don't take me too seriously." You clearly don't want that, so I'd say you should stop it cold turkey. You're putting way too much time into this to just dismiss those who disagree with you as emotionally biased.

But I'll note this as well:

Have you ever examined how players tend to vote? I have. I've never seen anything that really points to jealousy as a major factor. Players tend to think more in terms of what I'll call "perceptions of absolute goodness" rather than value add. They tend to pay less attention to who was leading the best team and pay more attention to whoever put up the biggest numbers, and whoever they believe to be the more talented player - which tends to have a lot to do with physical appearance.

In other words, when players vote, you would expect someone like Wilt to get overrated, not underrated.

Incidentally, I'm not saying that journalist voters always get it right. Journalist voters do tend to keep up with details and innovations better than players, they also tend to take the voting more seriously, but they can overrate things based on narrative.

I would argue that in soccer, player/coach voting has often been the better voting pool than journalists because of the horribly destructive impact that the World Cup has dislodging narrative from playing ability. Imagine if in basketball the only thing that traditionally mattered was a single elimination tournament every 4 years that threw players onto random teams...and then remember that soccer games are oftentimes decided with scores of 1-0 where the only go is based on a penalty kick, or 0-0 or 1-1 where the game literally ends on "penalty kicks" instead of soccer. It's a massive problem for soccer analysis that the World Cup is so important, and I say that as someone who loves the World Cup.

In basketball though, with scoring so high that even coaches didn't understand that shooting 3's was working until decades after they started using them, the players in general are not equipped to gauge value all that meaningfully. They can tell you what it was like to play with or against a guy, and that's incredibly useful, but there's much they are blind to as well.

I'm just gonna say that Pettit was robbed of a couple more just because.

He should have never won an MVP while Bill Russell was in the league. Bill Russell might not be the best player ever, but he had more value to a successful team than any player in history, and by a mile. For that era and for that Boston team, I think he offered something like 2X more value per season than the next most valuable players in history. The data shows this.

Doctor MJ wrote:So short answer: No, Russell was robbed. Basketball is a team game and Wilt never really understood it.

If we peel back into history, I think it's quite telling that Wilt won the MVP as a rookie and then didn't win it again for many years. Basically, everyone assumed that Wilt was about to render Russell and after thought - that Wilt's team would shortly be winning all the titles - and when that didn't happen, he stopped being handed awards.

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '59-60? Possibly. His offense was wildly overrated, but he clearly had defensive impact and while that impact didn't match Russell's, you could make the case Wilt's overall impact was higher? Yup.

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '60-61? Well the elite team defense is gone so no. Prior to '66-67, if Wilt wasn't putting in the effort to lead an elite defense, he wasn't accomplishing all that much, because you were never getting very far with him as a volume scorer.

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '61-62? Same story as the previous year.

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '62-63? Literally a below average defense. Get outta here Wilt.

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '63-64? Absolutely, though I think Russell had a case too. Thank Hannum for making Wilt play like an MVP!

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '64-65? No, but Wilt was clearly not 100%.

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '65-66? Not if you saw what that roster was capable of in '66-67. He clearly wasn't getting as much of his teammates as Russell was.

Did Wilt deserve the MVP in '66-67 & '67-68? Absolutely. Thanks Alex Hannum!

The end. Wilt's out of the conversation after that.

So I'd say that Wilt deserved 2-4 MVPs. He got 4. He got what he deserved at the very least.

Tbf, i do feel that sometimes big statistical accomplishments are fine for an mvp award even if they arent neccessarily the most valuable, like westbrooks triple double season for example (although im not hating on westbrooks value here).

Was he hurt in 64-65/was that roster similar as the year before out of curiousity? If it was then id say thats a good argument for him being impactful

On coaching, ive heard stories of how he went assist hunting on 67-68 but i feel that while coaches deserve credit for putting players in better roles or schemes for their skillset players shouldnt get the blame for that/playing in a "suboptimal" role, barely anyone i can think of legitimately played in a different way a coach told him to play, although i get with wilt the situation is different because theres evidence he prioritized individual accolades and stats and that hurt his team rankings

I think with wilt i think most would agree as a player overall he was better than russell but rather than it be a schematic or luck thing there were personality reasons that he was worse

MyUniBroDavis wrote:Tbf, i do feel that sometimes big statistical accomplishments are fine for an mvp award even if they arent neccessarily the most valuable, like westbrooks triple double season for example (although im not hating on westbrooks value here).

I'd note that in '19-20 the Thunder tried to tank and still ended up performing better than they did in any other post-Durant year. When you give awards to players for playing stupid individualist basketball that gets in the way of team play, you make the game worse.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:Was he hurt in 64-65/was that roster similar as the year before out of curiousity? If it was then id say thats a good argument for him being impactful

As I've said, the telling thing is that Wilt still got his numbers while losing his impact. The general stance of those who can't believe how overrated Wilt is is "How could he put up those numbers and not have impact?", so seeing those two things diverge is uniquely telling. I never said that Wilt never had great impact, but it must be understood that you can't really peg what that impact is from the box score, partially because the box score doesn't cover everything and partially because Wilt was obsessed with the box score. Once a player begins to try to make his box score productivity look good, his impact can start to lag way behind that productivity.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:On coaching, ive heard stories of how he went assist hunting on 67-68 but i feel that while coaches deserve credit for putting players in better roles or schemes for their skillset players shouldnt get the blame for that/playing in a "suboptimal" role, barely anyone i can think of legitimately played in a different way a coach told him to play, although i get with wilt the situation is different because theres evidence he prioritized individual accolades and stats and that hurt his team rankings

I think with wilt i think most would agree as a player overall he was better than russell but rather than it be a schematic or luck thing there were personality reasons that he was worse

I certainly understand the principle that you shouldn't penalize a player for bad coaching, but do understand that "normalizing for bad coaching" is not the same "assume that each point he scored would have been supremely impactful under good coaching". If your sense of Wilt's ability to impact is in any conceivable way tied to his volume scoring, untie it, because that's not where his impact came from.

If you want to say "Based on '66-67, I think Wilt could have been the true MVP every single season", I get that, but you then do have to think about why after half a dozen years of watching Russell's Celtics win the title every year, after winning just one title he fell to those Celtics two more times. If '66-67 represents his true peak, then there are major issue to consider as to why he couldn't sustain it at a time where we'd expect most to be hungry to keep on winning titles.

The argument in favour of Wilt winning more MVPs is the same as for James Harden winning more MVPs: they shoot the ball a lot. It is not a compelling argument in what is a team game.

It remains telling that Wilt enjoyed his greatest success as a player when he focused less on scoring and more on doing team-oriented things. Also that he was traded twice in his prime, which seems unusual for all-time greats.

The jealousy argument is nonsense too. Are you really trying to argue that players were jealous of Wilt's physical dominance but not jealous of Bill Russell winning the championship every year?

Doctor MJ wrote:I'd note that in '19-20 the Thunder tried to tank and still ended up performing better than they did in any other post-Durant year. When you give awards to players for playing stupid individualist basketball that gets in the way of team play, you make the game worse.

I mean tbf its not the same roster whatsoever lol, and I think thats being to stiff about it lol, its not hard to argue that he wasnt the most valuable guy in 2017 but i dont think anyones gonna argue him winning it made the game worse, he accomplished something someone hasnt done in 45 years, he was at least up there in impact, lets give him something for it, i dont really think you can argue it made the game worse thats really overdramatic lol. I get what he did when you add contextual factors there are like caveats to what he did but like, i dont think anyone sat there and cared when he did it.

As I've said, the telling thing is that Wilt still got his numbers while losing his impact. The general stance of those who can't believe how overrated Wilt is is "How could he put up those numbers and not have impact?", so seeing those two things diverge is uniquely telling. I never said that Wilt never had great impact, but it must be understood that you can't really peg what that impact is from the box score, partially because the box score doesn't cover everything and partially because Wilt was obsessed with the box score. Once a player begins to try to make his box score productivity look good, his impact can start to lag way behind that productivity.

I dont disagree with any of this, and i agree that you can put up crazy numbers and still have low impact

That being said, Im curious if there was any evidence of a change in approach between 64 and 65. Effeciency dropped a good amount, given the era he was in im not even sure if he was above average relative to position in 65, whereas he was far above it the years before

Like i think its fair to say his impact wasnt negative offensively given the team did worse around him, and teams werent "built around" offenses like they were later on at the time since scheme was still really early

45.23TS with him vs 43.77TS without him, and i think its fair to say that offensive rebounding probably went down without him as well, maybe turnovers too but not sure about that. Thats pretty substantial even though both mark as worst in the league still.

I think that its possible he might have had a different approach offensively, or that maybe that gap in his effeciency genuinly is enough to explain why his impact lessened so much

Im fine with assuming wilt's impact wasnt as impactful as his box scores would indicate, but from 1962-64 his TS was 54.1, in 65 it was 49.5, which is the equivilant of a
Top 5-10 most effecient scorers vs a pretty much positionally average effeciency scorer

I get what youre saying but i dont think we can use his 1965 results to generalize the rest of his years, esp when it seems that his offense impact wasnt neccessarily negative despite this.

Its a bit more sus that wilt never had a top leading offense pre 76ers but that 50ppg season they were above average, and i think its fair to say he had pretty good offensive impact then. I dont know much about those who surrounded them but I dont think the fact that wilts teams ranked 7/6/4/5/7 means that wilts offensive impact isnt a good positive, unless his supporting c ast was solid without him or something

I dont disagree with the point your making but basing it off that one season where his box score is significantly less impressive in the ways we can measure it I think is overstepping it

I certainly understand the principle that you shouldn't penalize a player for bad coaching, but do understand that "normalizing for bad coaching" is not the same "assume that each point he scored would have been supremely impactful under good coaching". If your sense of Wilt's ability to impact is in any conceivable way tied to his volume scoring, untie it, because that's not where his impact came from.

If you want to say "Based on '66-67, I think Wilt could have been the true MVP every single season", I get that, but you then do have to think about why after half a dozen years of watching Russell's Celtics win the title every year, after winning just one title he fell to those Celtics two more times. If '66-67 represents his true peak, then there are major issue to consider as to why he couldn't sustain it at a time where we'd expect most to be hungry to keep on winning titles.

Huh? Thats not what i meant at all lol. Its just when u said thanks alex hannum or wtv his coach name was, i think that the best a coach can do is put a player in a system or use them the best they can be used. Theres that element of maybe a guy is lazy or stat whoring and a coach gets them out of that but if its wilt using his passing more than his scoring = him being a better player i think its fine that he does that, goes to another team and doesnt do that

There are other elements like how they can respond to adjustments in the olayoffs but well never know how that stuff worked out and it wasnt nearly as important back then due to less complicated schemes

But players can be put into roles perfectlybsuited for them go to a different team and be put in a different role.

But thats not what i was referring to. I think that ita fair to say things like intangibles are why russell>wilt, and i probably have russell above personally, (i mean i arbritarily value rings to an extent regardless of performance but i get thats blasphemy here lol) but at the same time i think that if youre telling me pick a guy to build a team around id pick wilt in any era, because i think wilt was definately the better player in a vacuum.

Like even ifbyou think wilt wasnt an effective offensive player thats different from saying he couldnt be one. Its fair to say he wasnt one but its kind of insane to say he couldnt be one in his era.

Like me thinking that wilt is a better player doesnt mean i have him higher all time or anything, even outside of intangibles its kinda just weird to rank wilt above russell considering how theyre careers went to me but i think if youre talking about whose more talented in a basketvall sense, and not in the way they say talent as in potential but who was better in bball in a vacuum it has to be wilt

Rather than post 80, players was giving the votes. When Wilt had higher impact than Russell, he had the mvp. Could you say Wilt was clearly better than Russell in 61,62 and 63 or than Oscar for 64?

feyki wrote:Rather than post 80, players was giving the votes. When Wilt had higher impact than Russell, he had the mvp. Could you say Wilt was clearly better than Russell in 61,62 and 63 or than Oscar for 64?

Yes for 1964 as here is Wilt Chamberlain's 1963-1964 Season

Regular Season
-36.9 PPG (League leader)
-22.3 RPG
-5.0 APG
-52.4% FG
-31.6 PER
-.325 WS/48 (Career high and league leader)
-14.4 OWS
-10.6 DWS (Career high) *For reference, Olajuwon's career high was 8.7

He so deserved to win the Mvp that year over Oscar as he outperformed him in everything besides assists and his team also won 48 games.



Also in the playoffs for Wilt

Playoffs
-34.7 PPG (League leader)
-25.2 RPG
-3.3 APG
-54.3% FG
-31.3 PER (Career high and league leader)
-.323 WS/48 (Career high and league leader)
-2.3 OWS (League leader)
-1.5 DWS


Finals (Against the greatest defender ever, Bill Russell)
-29.2 PPG
-27.6 RPG
-2.4 APG
-51.4% FG

His teammates shot a combined 34.8% and the Warriors lost in 5.

Doctor MJ wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:Safe to say there were definitely some robberies during those years Wilt's MVP voting did not correlate to how valuable he actually was, and I'm guessing a large part of this is because the players were the ones who voted back then, and a lot of the players were jealous of Wilt and his insane physical dominance over them.

coastal I'm sorry, there's much here I have a problem with, but probably the biggest thing is you trying to dismiss assessments from half a century based on the assumption that they were literally jealous of the player you're championing. You need to rip these tendencies out of your process if you want to get anywhere real.

This is part of broader trend where I'm seeing homer/hater type talk infect people who were with data, history, and video. Literally, when you talk in terms of homer/hater, you're essentially wearing a hat that says "I'm a fan, don't take me too seriously." You clearly don't want that, so I'd say you should stop it cold turkey. You're putting way too much time into this to just dismiss those who disagree with you as emotionally biased.

But I'll note this as well:

Have you ever examined how players tend to vote? I have. I've never seen anything that really points to jealousy as a major factor. Players tend to think more in terms of what I'll call "perceptions of absolute goodness" rather than value add. They tend to pay less attention to who was leading the best team and pay more attention to whoever put up the biggest numbers, and whoever they believe to be the more talented player - which tends to have a lot to do with physical appearance.

In other words, when players vote, you would expect someone like Wilt to get overrated, not underrated.

Incidentally, I'm not saying that journalist voters always get it right. Journalist voters do tend to keep up with details and innovations better than players, they also tend to take the voting more seriously, but they can overrate things based on narrative.

I would argue that in soccer, player/coach voting has often been the better voting pool than journalists because of the horribly destructive impact that the World Cup has dislodging narrative from playing ability. Imagine if in basketball the only thing that traditionally mattered was a single elimination tournament every 4 years that threw players onto random teams...and then remember that soccer games are oftentimes decided with scores of 1-0 where the only go is based on a penalty kick, or 0-0 or 1-1 where the game literally ends on "penalty kicks" instead of soccer. It's a massive problem for soccer analysis that the World Cup is so important, and I say that as someone who loves the World Cup.

In basketball though, with scoring so high that even coaches didn't understand that shooting 3's was working until decades after they started using them, the players in general are not equipped to gauge value all that meaningfully. They can tell you what it was like to play with or against a guy, and that's incredibly useful, but there's much they are blind to as well.

Doctor

I know I have touched on players not liking Wilt but there is a reason why just look at ...the MVP voting in 68-69 as it was very interesting. Wilt, who had averaged 20.5 ppg, led the league in rebounding at 21.1 rpg, and led the league in FG% at .58.3,...was nowhere to be found in the Mvp voting. Why was that.?

I have said it before, but there were several more seasons in which their was a clear "anti-Wilt" bias in the MVP voting, as well. Keep in mind that it was the players who voted back then. The MVP voting process changed after the '79-80 season to a panel of sportswriters, and is what is currently used today.

Opinions vary on this topic, too. One side claims that since the players play against each other, that they are more qualified to select MVP award winners. Other's argue that sportswriters not only cover a wider variety of games, but they share their knowledge with other sportswriters.

In these Russell-Wilt discussions, it is fascinating that the players tended to be more favorable to Russell, while the sportswriters, who voted for the All-NBA teams, were definitely pro-Wilt.

In their 10 seasons in the league together, Russell and Wilt each won four MVPs, with Russell coming in 2nd once, 3rd twice, 4th twice, and not in the voting in 67-68. Meanwhile, Wilt came in 2nd twice, 4th once, 5th once, 7th once, and not at all in the 68-69 balloting.

In the All-NBA voting in their ten years in the league together, Chamberlain waxed Russell by a 7-2 margin, with the other always coming in second, except in that 68-69 season.

As you can see, the voting discrepancies were considerable between the players and the writers. So then, who was more "right?" Willt himself brought it up before in his books and I whole-heartedly agree with him...I suspect as Wilt did himself suspect that there was a strong resentment towards Wilt, and his crushing domination of his peers in his 14 seasons in the league.

How else do explain these oddities?

In Wilt's rookie season, he carried what had been a last-place roster, to a 49-26 record. In the process, he just obliterated many records. He averaged 37.6 ppg, 27.0 RPG, and shot .46.1 from the field (which would be the only time in his career in which he would fail to shoot at least .50.6 from the floor. Meanwhile, Russell led his Celtics to a 59-16 record, which was a solid improvement over their '59 record of 52-20. And in that '60 season, Russell averaged 18.0 ppg, 24.0 RPG, and shot a career-high .46.7 from the floor. In the MVP voting, Chamberlain won by a huge margin.

Two years later, in 61-62, Wilt had a historic season. He took that same basic roster, but which was now older and worse, to a 49-31 record, or a similar record as to what they had had in his rookie season. He averaged a staggering 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, and shot .506 from the floor. Russell's Celtics went 60-20, which was actually a slight decrease from their 59-60 record, and in the process, he put up nearly identical numbers as he did in '60, averaging 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and shooting .457 from the field. How did the MVP voting go? Now it was Russell winning by a huge margin, and Wilt coming in a distant second

(in fact, Oscar had more first place votes than Wilt did.) Again, though, take a close look at both seasons ('60 and '62.) Russell's Celtics put up almost identical records, and his stats in both were nearly the same. Wilt's Warriors had almost identical records, BUT, Wilt had a far more dominating season. Just what changed in the voting, then? And, as I alluded to earlier, Wilt was voted first-team All-NBA over Russell by the writers.

Wilt's Warriors really struggled in 62-63. Even with Wilt being a one-man wrecking crew (and that literally was the case, as his cast of clowns teammates contributed absolutely nothing), his Warriors fell to 31-49. Still, the record was deceptive, as they lost 35 games by single digits, and had a ppg differential of -2.1 ppg. And in the process, Chamberlain led the NBA in 15 of their 22 statistical categories, including Win Shares, and with a PER of 31.8, which is still the all-time record.

Ok, so how did Wilt do in the MVP balloting? Russell easily won the award in that '63 voting, and even I would not have argued against it. However, Wilt came in SEVENTH, which was completely absurd. How bad was it? Red Kerr, who averaged 16 ppg and 13 rpg, finished ahead of Wilt. Which was a complete joke, since, in their seasonal H2H's, Chamberlain outscored Kerr by a 43 ppg to 19 ppg margin, which included beatdowns of 60-21 and even 70-14. Oh, and rookie Terry Dischinger, playing on a 25-55 team, had more first place votes than Wilt.

That brings us to 63-64. Chamberlain would finish second behind Oscar (with Russell coming in third.) Now, if Wilt was punished in '63, because his team had fallen to 31-49, and Oscar came in well ahead of him with a 42-38 team that had far better surrounding personnel...how come Oscar beat out Wilt in '64, when his Royals improved by 13 games, while Chamberlain single-handedly carried his putrid roster to a 48-32 record, and with an overall improvement of 17 games? In a season in which Wilt was considerably more statistically dominant?

Chamberlain did go on to win three straight MVP from 65-66 thru 67-68. Clearly, there was just no way to NOT vote for him, since he was not only statistically crushing the league, but also carrying his rosters to the best record in the league each season. The only question would have been, why wasn't he winning them all in a unanimous fashion? (BTW, and to be honest, and I am not sure if the player voting at the time, precluded players from voting for their own teammates, which might have explained why no one was winning unanimous MVP's.)

The 68-69 voting was again, "interesting." For the first time in four years, and only the second time in their last six seasons in the league together, Russell finished ahead of Wilt in the voting. Again, Wilt was nowhere to be found. Russell finished 4th, and behind Wes Unseld (who also won ROY), Willis Reed, and Billy Cunningham. BTW, Baylor finished 5th behind Russell.

Taking a closer look at that voting, and it was a complete sham. First of all, Baylor beating Wilt out was a joke. He did average more ppg, at 24.8 to Wilt's 20.5 ppg, but Chamberlain was a much better rebounder, far more efficient, was a near equal passer, and was a far better defender. Furthermore, Baylor missed six games, and LA went 5-1 in the games he missed.

I don't have a problem with Cunningham coming in third, since he had a remarkable season, and his play enabled his Sixers to at least come reasonably close to the team that Wilt had left. But the rest of the voting was somewhat eye-raising.

Doctor MJ wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:Safe to say there were definitely some robberies during those years Wilt's MVP voting did not correlate to how valuable he actually was, and I'm guessing a large part of this is because the players were the ones who voted back then, and a lot of the players were jealous of Wilt and his insane physical dominance over them.

coastal I'm sorry, there's much here I have a problem with, but probably the biggest thing is you trying to dismiss assessments from half a century based on the assumption that they were literally jealous of the player you're championing. You need to rip these tendencies out of your process if you want to get anywhere real.

This is part of broader trend where I'm seeing homer/hater type talk infect people who were with data, history, and video. Literally, when you talk in terms of homer/hater, you're essentially wearing a hat that says "I'm a fan, don't take me too seriously." You clearly don't want that, so I'd say you should stop it cold turkey. You're putting way too much time into this to just dismiss those who disagree with you as emotionally biased.

But I'll note this as well:

Have you ever examined how players tend to vote? I have. I've never seen anything that really points to jealousy as a major factor. Players tend to think more in terms of what I'll call "perceptions of absolute goodness" rather than value add. They tend to pay less attention to who was leading the best team and pay more attention to whoever put up the biggest numbers, and whoever they believe to be the more talented player - which tends to have a lot to do with physical appearance.

In other words, when players vote, you would expect someone like Wilt to get overrated, not underrated.

Incidentally, I'm not saying that journalist voters always get it right. Journalist voters do tend to keep up with details and innovations better than players, they also tend to take the voting more seriously, but they can overrate things based on narrative.

I would argue that in soccer, player/coach voting has often been the better voting pool than journalists because of the horribly destructive impact that the World Cup has dislodging narrative from playing ability. Imagine if in basketball the only thing that traditionally mattered was a single elimination tournament every 4 years that threw players onto random teams...and then remember that soccer games are oftentimes decided with scores of 1-0 where the only go is based on a penalty kick, or 0-0 or 1-1 where the game literally ends on "penalty kicks" instead of soccer. It's a massive problem for soccer analysis that the World Cup is so important, and I say that as someone who loves the World Cup.

In basketball though, with scoring so high that even coaches didn't understand that shooting 3's was working until decades after they started using them, the players in general are not equipped to gauge value all that meaningfully. They can tell you what it was like to play with or against a guy, and that's incredibly useful, but there's much they are blind to as well.

Wes Unseld won the '69 MVP award along with winning the ROY(he and Wilt are the only two players in NBA history to accomplish that feat BTW.)

Unseld's play went beyond his statistics, of course, which were very good. He averaged 13.8 ppg, 18.2 RPG, 2.6 APG, and shot .47.6 from the field. But his biggest strength in the MVP voting came because his Bullets went from a last place 36-46, to a best record in the league, 57-25.

Still, you have to remember that those Bullet teams before he arrived were actually quit good in terms of talent, but they were always under-achieving. In the 68-69 season, Earl Monroe averaged 26 ppg, Kevin Loughery averaged 23 ppg, and Gus Johnson averaged 18 ppg and 12 RPG. Those were three excellent players, as was Jack Marin, who averaged 16.



In any case, the only real criteria in which Unseld had over Wilt in '69, was the fact that his team finished with a slightly better record (57-25 to 55-27.) In their six H2H games, the two teams split the season series, 3-3. In those six contests, and to Unseld's credit, he outrebounded Wilt in four of them. However, Chamberlain wiped the floor with him in one game, outscoring him, 25-4, and outrebounding him by a staggering 38-9 margin. Overall, in those six H2H's, Unseld averaged 11.0 ppg and 20.7 rpg, while Chamberlain averaged 21.5 ppg, 22.2 rpg, and shot a spectacular .626 from the field against him. And, of course, Wilt held a solid edge in their overall seasonal numbers, (20.5 ppg to 13.8 ppg; 21.1 RPG to 18.2 RPG; 4.5 apg to 2.6 apg; and a .58.3 FG% to Unseld's .47.6 mark.)


Reed came in second in the MVP voting in '69. His Knicks went 54-28 (just behind Wilt's Lakers, who went 55-27.) However, the Knicks conducted a mid-season trade in which they shipped out Bellamy in return for DeBusschere, and the results were a 36-11 record after the deal.

Reed's numbers were excellent all season (21.1 ppg, 14.5 rpg, 2.3 apg, and on a .521 FG%.) He was also second-team all-defense. But after the trade, Reed averaged 24.3 ppg and 15.6 RPG.

However, Wilt's Lakers enjoyed a 5-1 W-L record against those Knicks, including a 2-0 mark when Reed was their center. In their entire seasonal H2H's, covering all six games (again, with Bellamy at center in four of them), Reed averaged 15.0 ppg and 12 RPG, while Wilt averaged 23.7 ppg, 22.3 rpg, and shot an amazing .712 from the field. In their two H2H's when it was Reed vs. Wilt, Reed averaged 20.0 ppg and 9.5 rpg, while Wilt averaged 28.0 ppg, 22.0 rpg, and shot an eye-popping .688 from the floor. Clearly, Wilt dominated Reed in their career H2H's before his knee surgery, and this was yet another example.


And that brings us to Russell. Just how Russell finished ahead of Wilt in the MVP voting that year was a complete mystery. There was virtually no criteria in which he had any edge over Wilt. Russell's Celtics went 48-34 (and 2-3 without him) to Wilt's Lakers' 55-27. In their six regular season H2H's,



Wilt's Lakers enjoyed a 4-2 edge, which included that nationally televised beatdown in Boston late in the season by a 108-73 margin. In their six H2H's, Chamberlain easily outplayed Russell. He outscored Russell, 6-0, which included one game by a 35-5 margin. And he outrebounded Russell, 5-0-1, which included staggering margins of 21-8 and 42-18. Overall, in those six H2H's, Chamberlain outscored Russell by a 16.0 ppg to 6.7 ppg; outrebounded Russell by a 24.0 rpg to 17.0 rpg margin; and Wilt outshot Russell from the field by a .493 to .340 margin. Russell did hold a slim 35-29 assist edge, though.


There you have it. His teams went 3-3, 5-1 (2-0), and 4-2 Unseld's, Reed's, and Russell's. Only Unseld enjoyed an overall better team record (57-25 to Wilt's 55-27,...while Wilt held a 55-27 to 54-28 edge over Reed's, and a 55-27 to 48-34 margin over Russell's.) And Wilt basically clobbered Unseld, Reed, and Russell in their H2H's.

BTW, and again, West missed 21 games for LA, and the Lakers went 12-9 without him. And also again, Baylor missed six games for the Lakers, and they went 5-1 without him.

And yet... Unseld finished first, Reed finished 2nd, Russell finished 4th...and Wilt? Nowhere to be found in the MVP voting.

feyki wrote:Rather than post 80, players was giving the votes. When Wilt had higher impact than Russell, he had the mvp. Could you say Wilt was clearly better than Russell in 61,62 and 63 or than Oscar for 64?

1960-61:

Wilt and Russell went at it an amazing 13 times in the regular season. Here were their overall numbers in those 13 H2H's:

Russell: 18.8 ppg, 25.4 rpg, .398 eFG%, and 3.6 apg
Wilt: 35.5 ppg, 30.6 rpg, .492 eFG%, and 1.8 apg.

Wilt outscored Russell in those 13 games, 12-1 (and Russell's margin in his lone "win" was 28-27.) Included were scoring margins of 30-13, 34-17, 44-20, 46-19, 39-6, and 46-13.

Chamberlain outrebounded Russell 9-4 in those 13 H2H's. Russell did have a 40-25 margin in one of them, however. Meanwhile, Wilt had margins of 30-19, 35-14, and get this... 55-19!


Russell did an outstanding defensive job on Wilt in their first six H2H games that season, but here were Chamberlain's numbers in their last seven straight H2H games:

38.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, and on a .580 eFG% !!!!

Included were four games of 44, 46, 46, and 47 points.

And how about this one game against Russell on 1/14/61:

He outscored Russell, 44-20; outrebounded Russell, 35-14; outshot Russell, 17-27 to 10-20; and he even found time to block 15 shots! BTW, Chamberlain's Warriors won that game, 116-113.

That may very well have been the most dominant seven straight games in their long rivalry.

And for the second straight season, Chamberlain shot well over the league average against Russell, .492 in a league that shot an eFG% of .415, while holding Russell below it, at .398. And there would be entire seasons in which Wilt outshot him by considerably larger margins, as well.


Wilt deserved that Mvp in 1961 over Russell.

1961-62:

Russell vs Wilt 10 regular season H2H's:

Russell: 18.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, .383 eFG%, and 4.4 apg.
Wilt: 39.7 ppg, 28.8 rpg, .468 eFG%, and 2.1 apg.

Wilt outscored Russell in all 10 H2H's.
Wilt outrebounded Russell in 7 of the 10 H2H's.
Wilt outshot Russell from the field in 8 of the 10 H2H's.

Wilt with 5 games of 40+ points
Wilt with 2 games of 50+
High game of 62 points (on 27-45 FG/FGA, with 28 rebounds.)

Chamberlain had scoring margins of 41-28, 31-17, 26-11, 48-21, 38-11, 41-11, 52-21, and 62-23.

Wilt had rebounding margins of 30-19, and 31-18.

And for those that believe that Russell was "letting" Wilt score...how about these two B2B games:

2/9/62:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...202090BOS.html

2/10/62:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...202100PHW.html

Chamberlain rallies Philly back from a 20 point 4th quarter deficit in one game, with a 48-29 game, and then a come-from-behind 4th quarter game in which he outscored Russell, 38-11 and outrebounded him, 31-18.


And speaking of B2B games:

Wilt vs Bellamy on 11/13/61: 73 points, 29-48 FG/FGA, 36 rebounds
Wilt vs Russell on 11/14/61: 62 points, 27-45 FG/FGA, 28 rebounds

Another interesting game: 3/7/62:
Boston routs Philly, 153-102. Wilt, as always, played every minute, while Russell played 40 minutes. (It was 113-78 going into the 4th quarter.)


Russell vs Wilt in the EDF's (Boston wins game seven, 109-107.)

Russell: 22.0 ppg, 25.9 rpg, .399 eFG%, and 4.6 apg.
Wilt: 33.6 ppg, 26.9 rpg, .468 eFG%, and 2.9 apg.

Wilt outscored Russell in all 7 games. They went 3-3-1 in rebounds.

Russell with two consecutive games of 31-31 and 30-31 (and Wilt outscored him in both.)

Wilt with 6 games of 30+ points.
Wilt had two games of 40+ (41 and 42 points.)

In game two, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 42-9; outrebounded Russell, 37-20; and outshot Russell, 16-31 to 4-14.


And for the third straight season, Chamberlain shot way over the league eFG% against Russell (.468 to the league eFG% of .426), while holding Russell WAY below it (.383.) And in their second straight playoff series...more of the same. Wilt shot .468 in their 7 game playoff series, in a post-season NBA that shot .411, while holding Russell to a .399 eFG%.

I have to say that 1969 voting seems strange indeed for me. It's extremely inconsistent and not having Wilt anywhere is truly bizzare.

70sFan wrote:I have to say that 1969 voting seems strange indeed for me. It's extremely inconsistent and not having Wilt anywhere is truly bizzare.

I think otoh it's in line with MVP (/award) conventions.

Hard to get votes if you get worse (especially as defending MVP).
Hard to get votes if there isn't surface-level team impact on arrival (and sometimes too easy to get if there is - Kidd).

I'm not the most pessimistic on '69 Wilt here but even if one likes his year, I think it's not hard to see how he wouldn't get MVP votes.

70sFan wrote:I don't see his case in any season other than 1964, but both Oscar and Russell were excellent candidates then as well. 1962 was also great, but so was Russell's season.

1961 was a clear Russell win.
He had no case in 1963, 1965 and 1969.
He missed most of the season in 1970.
He was clearly worse player than prime Jabbar in 1971-73 period.

At most I can see him having 2 more MVPs, but then again - Russell was probably better in 1960.

Wilt had case in 72 similar to Unseld, Reed, AND Cowens winning, was probably hurt by 1, presence of West, and 2 fact he had multiple wins already. If he did not have an mvp he would have won it in 72. Additionally, no West and 60 wins he also probably wins. 71 was clearly Kareem’s award and his play in 73 was maybe the worst of his career as he virtually refused to shoot. Had he not been hurt in 70 he looked to maybe win that year.