RealGM

So, I was looking at quality of teammates and I started (trying) to find in depth information on Walt Bellamy:

ESPN did not name Big Bell a top 75 player of all time:
https://www.interbasket.net/news/espns-nbas-top-75-players-full-list/34035/

Nor did the NBA itself as part of their 75th Anniversary:
https://www.nba.com/75/team

Nor did the NBA name him Top 50 in 1997:
https://www.nba.com/history/nba-at-50/top-50-players

And, only twice in the past 10 years has Real GM even elected him even top 100!!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HWQLTqFcJdJJNvMFDAwikJXujuh75uajUPrE0eF2XXc/edit#gid=27027932

He's 37th in career Win Shares, all time, and 22nd in WS/48. You guys all know the numbers and rankings by heart. He was a tremendous offensive player, at least. I don't know about anything about his defense, since I'm not an expert.

Here's an amazing "scouting report" of him:


Against HOF Centers:
Vs. Wilt (100 games!!): 22.9/15.1/3.0 on .434 FG%
Vs. Russell (75 games): 23.8/17.3/2.1 on .483 FG%
Vs. Kareem (24 games): 17.8/12.7/3.1 on .622 FG%

The guy barely has a Wikipedia page, doesn't have a biography (book), what's the deal?

What type of person was he?

Any interesting stories about him?

Why was he traded frequently? Does anyone know the details behind the trades?

Also, does anyone have worst teammates (OVERALL) among all HOFers? It really looks like he did, in the aggregate.

Why is Bellamy so overlooked/unheralded, and (perhaps) underrated?

Well he starts out with a bang but then sort of fades after his first 4 years and then as you said plays on bad teams so he doesn't get much distinction in terms of winning and I don't think had much of a defensive reputation either in an era that really favored having a defensive anchor. So that's basically why he isn't thought of as a true atg or top 75 player imo.

ty 4191 wrote:He's 37th in career Win Shares, all time, and 22nd in WS/48.

BRef has him 76th in WS/48 for NBA only and 80th for NBA/ABA...

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_career.html

Walt was before my time, but I would guess he gets overlooked because he was never the dominant center during his career, the position is just soooo deep historically and he never really had any postseason success to speak of.

He is the original good stats bad team case, great on offense with modern style athletic skill game for a big, but seems like he was bad on D. The early 60s is one thing but being on the wrong end of the Knicks improvement trading him for DeBusschere looks bad for him. They were .500 midway through 69 season and then were basically at 1970 champion pace the rest of the season after getting DeBusschere. It's like if the Warriors had Cousins and were 18-17 midway through 2015 and then traded him for Draymond and then they became the 2015 and 2016 Warriors.

Some of it may be unfair, and it's not toally his fault the fit with Reed wasn't good, nonetheless I still think he's closer to players like Blake and Amare all time than top 75. His stats weren't as good with the Knicks either once he had to share the ball more.

Bellamy's last season was 1974-75.

At the end of that season he was 5th in the NBA all-time in minutes played (38940), 7th all-time in points scored (20941), 3rd all-time in rebounds (14241), and 3rd all-time in highest FG% (51.6%).

Sounds awfully good to me.

There are a couple bits of circumstantial evidence that could be suggestive that he was a bad teammate or bad locker-room presence:

*I don't have the source or passage handy, but I recall reading somewhere that Red Holzman was fairly well dancing with delight when Bellamy was traded [along with Howard Komives] to Detroit for Dave DeBusschere.

**After one season in Detroit, the Pistons basically gave him away to Atlanta, receiving in return only John Arthurs: a scrub guard who'd played just 86 minutes in the NBA.


Make of it what you will.

kcktiny wrote:Bellamy's last season was 1974-75.

At the end of that season he was 5th in the NBA all-time in minutes played (38940), 7th all-time in points scored (20941), 3rd all-time in rebounds (14241), and 3rd all-time in highest FG% (51.6%).

Sounds awfully good to me.

This does NOT sound like someone who Real GM shouldn't have ranked in their top 100 every single time (99th last time). That's ridiculous.

This does NOT sound like someone who ESPN left off their 76 best players of the first 75 years in NBA history.

This does NOT sound like someone who the NBA left off their top 75 at 75 team.

This does NOT sound like someone who the NBA should have left off their top 50 at 50 team.

At ALL.

ty 4191 wrote:

kcktiny wrote:Bellamy's last season was 1974-75.

At the end of that season he was 5th in the NBA all-time in minutes played (38940), 7th all-time in points scored (20941), 3rd all-time in rebounds (14241), and 3rd all-time in highest FG% (51.6%).

Sounds awfully good to me.

This does NOT sound like someone who Real GM shouldn't have ranked in their top 100 every single time (99th last time). That's ridiculous.

This does NOT sound like someone who ESPN left off their 76 best players of the first 75 years in NBA history.

This does NOT sound like someone who the NBA left off their top 75 at 75 team.

This does NOT sound like someone who the NBA should have left off their top 50 at 50 team.

At ALL.

um...why? everyone in the top 100 did something great.

ty 4191 wrote:

kcktiny wrote:Bellamy's last season was 1974-75.

At the end of that season he was 5th in the NBA all-time in minutes played (38940), 7th all-time in points scored (20941), 3rd all-time in rebounds (14241), and 3rd all-time in highest FG% (51.6%).

Sounds awfully good to me.

This does NOT sound like someone who Real GM shouldn't have ranked in their top 100 every single time (99th last time). That's ridiculous.

This does NOT sound like someone who ESPN left off their 76 best players of the first 75 years in NBA history.

This does NOT sound like someone who the NBA left off their top 75 at 75 team.

This does NOT sound like someone who the NBA should have left off their top 50 at 50 team.

At ALL.

If Bellamy had as good a career in a time period like the 80s-00s he probably would have been closer to players like Dantley, Carter, English, etc. on the all time list but those guys did it in stronger eras than early 60s. You can make a case for Bellamy being higher but it's not really that big of a crime considering his ok longevity putting up those high stats seasons. He was never top 10 MVP so even in his own time people recognized putting up stats on bad teams is not as meaningful. Look at how much better a player like Kevin Love's stats were in Minnesota.

1975 was almost 50 years ago now.

For as impressive as his counting stats might have been then, they never really resulted in anything of consequence. 440-603 record in games played, 238th in career MVP Shares & he doesn't even crack the Top 250 in playoff Win Shares.

Dr Positivity wrote:If Bellamy had as good a career in a time period like the 80s-00s he probably would have been closer to players like Dantley, Carter, English, etc. on the all time list but those guys did it in stronger eras than early 60s.

What makes you sure than the 60's were weaker than the 80's and 90's?

ty 4191 wrote:

Dr Positivity wrote:If Bellamy had as good a career in a time period like the 80s-00s he probably would have been closer to players like Dantley, Carter, English, etc. on the all time list but those guys did it in stronger eras than early 60s.

What makes you sure than the 60's were weaker than the 80's and 90's?

As the league became more popular it improved its talent pool, became more athletic, more international, strategy improved, 3s made the game more complex, etc. The 60s left some great talent on the table cause they listened to their dad when he told them to become a lawyer instead or an accountant, or some players who went into baseball and football. By the 90s generation the popularity of people like Magic, Bird and Jordan would have had an impact of more athletes playing basketball.

With that said I'm actually probably one of the biggest proponents that the 60s and 80s is closer than people realize, but largely based on the late 60s teams. I think the 67 Sixers, 68 Celtics and 69 Celtics could compete with any champion as is up until about the Rockets when the 3pt shooting difference becomes too big. I do think however, that the early 60s is weaker and less athletic than late 60s. There is a reason players like Wilt, Baylor, Oscar, etc. had crazy statistical accomplishments around this time.

I think Bellamy is largely forgotten by most fans, but I wouldn't say he's very underrated here. He put up massive stats on horrible teams, but once he went to better ones, his production dropped rapidly.

He had a nice skillset for a bigman - solid midrange jumper, powerful post game, decent passing (though he might be turnover prone?). Quite athletic as well, with big frame. Defensively, he was probably around average, with some better and worse seasons.

I'd say Zelmo Beaty is more underrated of the two and you can make a reasonable case that Beaty had a better career than Bellamy.

Dr Positivity wrote:

ty 4191 wrote:

Dr Positivity wrote:If Bellamy had as good a career in a time period like the 80s-00s he probably would have been closer to players like Dantley, Carter, English, etc. on the all time list but those guys did it in stronger eras than early 60s.

What makes you sure than the 60's were weaker than the 80's and 90's?

As the league became more popular it improved its talent pool, became more athletic, more international, strategy improved, 3s made the game more complex, etc. The 60s left some great talent on the table cause they listened to their dad when he told them to become a lawyer instead or an accountant, or some players who went into baseball and football. By the 90s generation the popularity of people like Magic, Bird and Jordan would have had an impact of more athletes playing basketball.

With that said I'm actually probably one of the biggest proponents that the 60s and 80s is closer than people realize, but largely based on the late 60s teams. I think the 67 Sixers, 68 Celtics and 69 Celtics could compete with any champion as is up until about the Rockets when the 3pt shooting difference becomes too big. I do think however, that the early 60s is weaker and less athletic than late 60s. There is a reason players like Wilt, Baylor, Oscar, etc. had crazy statistical accomplishments around this time.

During the '69-70 season at the age of 35 Elgin Baylor averaged 24 ppg 10 rpg, and shot almost 49% from the field ( the best of his life) against a considerably more athletic NBA than when he started in the late 50s or had high stats in the early sixties.
Ditto for Oscar Robertson who had amazingly consistent stats of 30 ppg, 10 apg, and around 50% from the field through most of the sixties.
During his championship season with the Bucks 70-71 Oscar averaged only about 20 ppg but at the age of 32 could still have easily average 5 ppg more. But of course he was playing with KAJ, and Oscar's job was to get him the ball and not score as much as had to score for the Royals.
The Wilt Chamberlain of the Sixers title could easily have averaged 40 ppg as he proved in during the following season when he scored a ton of points one week after some sportswriter said he couldn't score anymore. Then Wilt went back to scoring a modest 24 ppg while shooting over 60% from the floor. His severe knee injury the following season might have cut down his athleticism the rest of his career. But if called upon to score more even the Chamberlain of the early seventies could have scored more.
The problem with Bellamy is that a number of coaches viewed him as a dog who only played hard when he felt like it. Which wasn't as often as it should have been.
Red Holtzman couldn't wait to dish off Bellamy. The next season after getting rid of Bells the Knicks won the title. The idea that Bellamy was unfortunate to play on weak teams ignores that he played with the Hawks of Hudson and Maravich and still didn't produce.
Maybe a lot of the problem was Bellamy.

Johnlac1 wrote:The problem with Bellamy is that a number of coaches viewed him as a dog who only played hard when he felt like it. Which wasn't as often as it should have been.
Red Holtzman couldn't wait to dish off Bellamy.

Thank you for affirm [anecdotally, anyway] what I'd said previously about Holzman's delight in the Bellamy trade.

Johnlac1 wrote:The idea that Bellamy was unfortunate to play on weak teams ignores that he played with the Hawks of Hudson and Maravich and still didn't produce.
Maybe a lot of the problem was Bellamy.

The season [half-season] before Maravich it was Joe Caldwell at SG, and had Walt Hazzard at PG too [not a bad player at all]; so the backcourt was pretty solid for those first 1.5 years.
Then he had Bill Bridges along with Lou Hudson in the frontcourt with him (and Jim Davis was a pretty nice back-up C, too).

I mean, yeah.....those Atlanta teams had talent [on paper]; A LOT of it.

But they never got anywhere.

I wouldn't say he's very underrated here. He put up massive stats on horrible teams, but once he went to better ones, his production dropped rapidly.

For as impressive as his counting stats might have been then, they never really resulted in anything of consequence.

Walt Bellamy was the 1st round pick of an expansion team - the only expansion team in the NBA that year (1961-62).

Of the eight NBA veterans the Chicago Packers drafted in the expansion draft, only four ever played for them - 6-4 Ralph Davis, 6-5 Andy Johnson, 6-3 Slick Leonard, and 6-5 Dave Piontek.

The Packers traded for veterans 6-2 Sihugo Green, 6-7 Woody Sauldsberry, and 6-8 Charlie Tyra.

Yet of those 7 NBA veterans not one had a career scoring average better than 11.5 pts/g (Sauldsberry) at the start of that expansion season, and 5 of the 7 had career scoring averages less than 9 pts/g.

And the other 3 rookies that played on that Packers team never played again in the NBA.

So to say the least this was a team completely denuded of talent.

Even the second season (as the Chicago Zephyrs) the best player Bellamy played with was a rookie - Terry Dischinger, who scored 25.5 pts/g.

And only 2 players other than Bellamy - Green and Leonard - played on the Zephyrs that had played on the Packers.

So despite the fact that he had very little talent surrounding him, Bellamy those two seasons still managed to dominate the NBA. He was 4th in the league in per game scoring those two seasons at 29.7 pts/g (only Chamberlain, Baylor, and Pettit scored more) and he lead the league in highest FG% at 52.2% - despite playing on an awful team - those two years. He also grabbed the 3rd most rebounds next to only Chamberlain and Russell.

Russell was drafted by a Celtics team that played better than .500 ball the year before, and had several HOF players on it. I wonder how Russell would be looked at today had he started off on a team so lacking in talent as Bellamy did.

Magic Johnson was drafted by a team that had still had one of the league's top Cs (Jabbar). Larry Bird in just his second season played alongside two HOFers (Parish/McHale) and soon a third (Dennis Johnson).

His first four years in the league the best player Bellamy played with was Gus Johnson (great defender/rebounder).

And those four years Bellamy scored far more points (27.8 pts/g) than did any other C in the league (no other C averaged even 20 pts/g over the four years) except for some tall skinny runt that played for the Warriors/76ers.

I wonder how people would consider Michael Jordan today had he not eventually gotten to play with talent like Pippen, Grant, and Rodman. Because I remember all the negative things that were said about Jordan (not a team player, only looked to get his numbers) before he finally won a title.

Had just one single player - Chamberlain - not existed they'd be talking about Bellamy as being the greatest scoring C in the league after Mikan/Johnston and before Jabbar.

I wonder what fans would have thought of him then.

kcktiny wrote:

I wouldn't say he's very underrated here. He put up massive stats on horrible teams, but once he went to better ones, his production dropped rapidly.

For as impressive as his counting stats might have been then, they never really resulted in anything of consequence.

Walt Bellamy was the 1st round pick of an expansion team - the only expansion team in the NBA that year (1961-62).

Of the eight NBA veterans the Chicago Packers drafted in the expansion draft, only four ever played for them - 6-4 Ralph Davis, 6-5 Andy Johnson, 6-3 Slick Leonard, and 6-5 Dave Piontek.

The Packers traded for veterans 6-2 Sihugo Green, 6-7 Woody Sauldsberry, and 6-8 Charlie Tyra.

Yet of those 7 NBA veterans not one had a career scoring average better than 11.5 pts/g (Sauldsberry) at the start of that expansion season, and 5 of the 7 had career scoring averages less than 9 pts/g.

And the other 3 rookies that played on that Packers team never played again in the NBA.

So to say the least this was a team completely denuded of talent.

Even the second season (as the Chicago Zephyrs) the best player Bellamy played with was a rookie - Terry Dischinger, who scored 25.5 pts/g.

And only 2 players other than Bellamy - Green and Leonard - played on the Zephyrs that had played on the Packers.

So despite the fact that he had very little talent surrounding him, Bellamy those two seasons still managed to dominate the NBA. He was 4th in the league in per game scoring those two seasons at 29.7 pts/g (only Chamberlain, Baylor, and Pettit scored more) and he lead the league in highest FG% at 52.2% - despite playing on an awful team - those two years. He also grabbed the 3rd most rebounds next to only Chamberlain and Russell.

Russell was drafted by a Celtics team that played better than .500 ball the year before, and had several HOF players on it. I wonder how Russell would be looked at today had he started off on a team so lacking in talent as Bellamy did.

Magic Johnson was drafted by a team that had still had one of the league's top Cs (Jabbar). Larry Bird in just his second season played alongside two HOFers (Parish/McHale) and soon a third (Dennis Johnson).

His first four years in the league the best player Bellamy played with was Gus Johnson (great defender/rebounder).

And those four years Bellamy scored far more points (27.8 pts/g) than did any other C in the league (no other C averaged even 20 pts/g over the four years) except for some tall skinny runt that played for the Warriors/76ers.

I wonder how people would consider Michael Jordan today had he not eventually gotten to play with talent like Pippen, Grant, and Rodman. Because I remember all the negative things that were said about Jordan (not a team player, only looked to get his numbers) before he finally won a title.

Had just one single player - Chamberlain - not existed they'd be talking about Bellamy as being the greatest scoring C in the league after Mikan/Johnston and before Jabbar.

I wonder what fans would have thought of him then.

Bellamy had opportunity to play with talented team when he got on the Knicks and it didn't work. Some of it is that their best player was a center, but nonetheless.

Bellamy didn't always play with poor teams - he played in NYK with quite a lot of talent and Atlanta teams were also talented (though he was past his best at that point). 1965 Bullets team was also very promising and full of young talent, but they had poor RS and lost in the playoffs against LAL without Baylor.

If Bellamy had continued to put up big numbers on poor teams like his first 4 years for another 4 years, he'd be rated a lot higher. He'd be Bob Lanier, the closest match to Bellamy in my head.
The trouble was that his NY and ATL teams tried to fit him into reasonable talent and it never produced much in terms of improvement. We never got to see prime Lanier with a team better than Detroit, he was pretty broken down by the time he went to Milwaukee so we don't know if Bigfoot would have had the same type of results.

A guy who peaked in his rookie season and got worse every year after underrated? Tough call. In the right situation I think he would have been good.

Here's a what if. What if the lakers trade for Bellamy instead of Wilt? Probably wouldn't have to give up as much as they did for Wilt and have that all star center to compete with Russell in the finals.