Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE — Bill Russell

Moderators: penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063

User avatar
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,094
And1: 5,931
Joined: Jul 24, 2022
 

Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE — Bill Russell 

Post#1 » by AEnigma » Mon Aug 26, 2024 4:44 am

General Project Discussion Thread

Discussion and Results from the 2010 Project

In this thread we'll discuss and vote on the top 5 players and the top 3 offensive and defensive players of 1964-65.

Player of the Year (POY)(5) — most accomplished overall player of that season
Offensive Player of the Year (OPOY)(3) — most accomplished offensive player of that season
Defensive Player of the Year (DPOY)(3) — most accomplished defensive player of that season

Voting will close sometime after 00:00 EST on Thursday, August 29th. I have no issue keeping it open so long as discussion is strong, but please try to vote within the first three days.

Valid ballots must provide an explanation for your choices that gives us a window into how you thought and why you came to the decisions you did. You can vote for any of the three awards — although they must be complete votes — but I will only tally votes for an award when there are at least five valid ballots submitted for it.

Remember, your votes must be based on THIS season. This is intended to give wide wiggle room for personal philosophies while still providing a boundary to make sure the award can be said to mean something. You can factor things like degree of difficulty as defined by you, but what you can't do is ignore how the player actually played on the floor this season in favor of what he might have done if only...

You may change your vote, but if you do, edit your original post rather than writing, "hey, ignore my last post, this is my real post until I change my mind again.” I similarly ask that ballots be kept in one post rather than making one post for Player of the Year, one post for Offensive Player of the Year, and/or one post for Defensive Player of the Year. If you want to provide your reasoning that way for the sake of discussion, fine, but please keep the official votes themselves in one aggregated post. Finally, for ease of tallying, I prefer for you to place your votes at the beginning of your balloting post, with some formatting that makes them stand out. I will not discount votes which fail to follow these requests, but I am certainly more likely to overlook them.

Current Voter List
Spoiler:
AEnigma wrote:
Aleco wrote:
Ardee wrote:
Bastillon wrote:
ceofkobefans wrote:
Djoker wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Dr. Positivity wrote:
Dutchball97 wrote:
Eminence wrote:
falcolombardi wrote:
IlikeSHAIguys wrote:
LA Bird wrote:
Narigo wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:
Paulluxx9000 wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:
rk2023 wrote:
ShaqAttac wrote:
Special_Puppy wrote:
theonlyclutch wrote:
trelos6 wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:
ZeppelinPage wrote:
70sFan wrote:
________________________________________
Layaway Voters
* B-Mitch 30
* Bad Gatorade
* McBubbles
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,538
And1: 16,335
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#2 » by Dr Positivity » Mon Aug 26, 2024 7:46 am

This is a crazy Wilt year, his passing regressed and he went 10-28 in his first 38 games including a 11 game losing streak with him in the lineup (barely sure how that's possible) and then lost G7 by 1 point to the Celtics after which he would've just needed to be at Baylor less Lakers team in the finals. He also had an SI article come out in the middle of the Celtics series where he threw the owners and his coach under the bus.

Spoiler:
Wilt Chamberlain - "My Life in the Bush League" wrote:Oh, man, this is going to be better than psychiatry. In the first place, I am much too big to get comfortable on that crazy couch. In the second place, I am all fired up about speaking for myself this one time and have it come out the way I said it. I have a sort of special, savage reason for all this: there are a lot of people out there who will be surprised that I can write, because they are usually astounded that I can even talk.

I know this is true, because I get the old routine all the time. I stopped getting angry about it years and years ago, but it still drives all my friends crazy. Whenever we're standing around together—man, I mean any place—crowds of people come up and just stare at us. Then someone will nudge one of my pals slightly and say, "Hey, who duh big guy?" or, "So that's old Wilt the Stilt, huh? How tall is he, really?" they say. And then, "Will you ask him can I have his autograph for my kid?" And then my friends sort of sidle away from me—they want to stand clear to show everybody I'm not on a leash or anything like that—and they say. "Come on. Wilt can talk, you know. He's a real human, man. How come you don't ask him yourself?" Then, once they get over that hurdle, people are always a little disappointed I don't say, "duuuhhhhhh." And that, in part, is what this story is all about. This is life inside a giant, baby. I know that how I feel is not too important.

All right. What is important is what has happened to make me feel the way I do and all of the psychological hammering and tugging and pulling that got me into this frame of mind. This is more than life inside a giant. This is the story of my life inside professional basketball—the greatest game ever played, a game that suffers from being bush when it doesn't want to be bush, a game that may always be bush unless some basic changes are made. And when we get to the end of this chapter, the part where they say, "Tune in next week," or the end of the story, where they say, "Can this poor monster from Philadelphia really find happiness?" You'll know just how it feels to be Goliath. How it feels to be seven feet and 1.06 inches tall with no place to hide. After all, you remember in the Old Testament that David had all the best of it, right? Nobody even thought to say or even ask how Goliath must have felt just sort of standing around there. Goliath didn't get any of the good lines, you know?

The timing of my story is important for three reasons.

Reason No. 1: I'm at the top of this game and I'm thinking of retiring. I will be perfectly honest and say I'm thinking of not retiring, too. But I have now racked up all the all-time scoring and playing records—all the ones that count—and what else is there? Final standings at the end of this season: Chamberlain leads the scoring, with 2,534 points, for the sixth year in a row. Chamberlain shoots 2,081 and hits 1,063 for a .510 average. or 34.7 points a game. And that's in 73 games: I didn't play them all. See what I mean? Man, I have fulfilled everything I wanted in pro basket-ball except winning the NBA title. And I can't do that all by myself, right?

Money has nothing to do with the way I feel. I have been investing my money under smart counseling for years. And even though my accountant, Alan Levitt, calls me every single day from Philadelphia and says something like "Run for the hills, baby, we're broke." It is still not critical.

I also have a sore stomach. Because of my size it is more sore stomach than you ever heard of. My doctor, Stanley Lorber, is considered the best internist in Philadelphia, and he can't find out what's wrong with it. But he gets a real kick out of examining me, and he uses me as a subject for lecturing his students. I think pretty soon I am going to start charging him. Ike Richman, part owner of the Philadelphia 76ers, feels so bad about my stomachache that he got real desperate last week and said. "I know. Let's go to a hypnotist." Man, a hypnotist—who, me? I thought I'd put Ike off, so I said. "Man, how much will you pay me to go and get hypnotized? A hundred dollars an hour?" And Ike said he'd do it. Anything to get me feeling back in shape. That's the kind of guy he is. But no matter what we do it keeps getting worse instead of better, and my health is going to figure big in my future. This is my summer of decision.

Reason No. 2: I'm thinking of doing a lot of things other than playing basketball. I am thinking of living my own life, for one thing. I could take life easier and manage my apartment house properties and my nightclub in Harlem and the six corporations I'm tied up in—and be a business executive in a size-IS collar, button-down oxford-cloth shin and the biggest hotdamn gray flannel suit you ever saw in your whole life. I have all kinds of other offers, including a role in a civil rights movie based on the new book Look Away. I could go into boxing. And don't think for a minute I couldn't be heavyweight champion of the world. You hear me out there. Sonny Liston? You don't believe me? Look at that picture on the cover again, baby. I am also considering—but not too seriously—standing offers to enter professional baseball or football. But we've got to face it. I would fall with one hell of a crash on a football kid (even though it might take more than one guy to bring me down). And while I might be hot stuff catching high ones in the outfield, even the wildest pitcher in baseball would murder me at home plate because I have got such a big strike zone.

Reason No. 3: Finally. I am tired of being a villain. It is not the role I had in mind when I entered this sport. I don't feel like a villain, and I don't think like a villain. And there are girls out there who insist I don't exactly look mean, either, you know? Never mind the mustache and beard, man. My mother thinks it looks awful, but the overall vote is in favor of it. And I think I have spotted a trend away from that sort of thing. Villainy, I mean. In the old-time days there was no sympathy for the big guys. Remember Bluto, the big, fat one in the Popeye cartoons? And he would always grab old Olive Oyl and run off with her, and Popeye would eat all that crazy (ugh) spinach and then kick the hell out of Bluto? Well, Bluto is pretty much out of it now. And take the case of Frankenstein's monster. He used to be a real heller and now even he has been gentled up on TV.

Then, finally, there is a new kindly hero: the Jolly Green Giant. It's a trend, you see? Now, I don't exactly see myself as the Jolly Bronze Giant—I don't dig that leafy little costume, for one thing—but you get the theme. Boy, I don't know. How does a guy get to be a villain in the first place? Not all at once. I promise you. It is a cumulative series of little things—like little jabs from sportswriters—that have a way of adding up over the years to make the total picture of a bad guy. They have a way of slowly filling in an image that seems to stick in people's minds. I don't know of any athlete in the world who has had to prove himself so many times. Over and over again, fighting off the image. give you an example: "That Wilt. He just stands there and dunks the ball," says one writer. So I work hard and perfect a jump shot. "That Wilt. He shouldn't fade away from the basket when he's shooting the jumper." they say. So I try some other shots. And I concentrate on defense. "That Wilt," they say this time. "He just plays one end of the court."

So I dash around and hustle down to the other end of the court. "He's hogging all the action." So I try more team play, and I feed the ball off like mad. "That Wilt," they say, fresh out of criticism. "He's a fink." Man, how can I win? Look: I know I'm getting well paid for this sort of jazz, and everybody shrugs and says, "Well, old Wilt can laugh all the way while he's walking to the bank." Actually, it's better than that. I can laugh all the way while driving to the bank in my 527.000 baby-lavender Bentley Continental convertible. But that doesn't help the hurt piled up inside. Let me put it another way: I get paid big money for playing basketball, and I play it. But I do not get paid big money for being hounded and instigated and called a lot of things I am not, right? In a funny way, name-calling is one of the key things that makes professional basketball a bush-league affair when it doesn't have to—it shouldn't —be that way at all. You don't see that sort of thing in other sports. Does the owner of the New York Giants say bad things about Jimmy Brown because Jimmy plays for the Cleveland Browns? Never. Big-league owners know that inter-league sniping gives the whole game a bad name. And the fans expect better conduct. You won't hear Al Lopez calling Mickey Mantle a bum. Unfortunately, the fans don't always get such conduct in pro basketball.

I ask you: Where else but in professional basketball do you get 1) owners, 2) players and 3) coaches all knocking each other? How can Ned Irish of the New York Knicks say "I wouldn't have Wilt on my team?" Never mind Ned's personal feelings about me: how he might feel personally doesn't matter. But in sniping at me—or at anybody—can he be helping the NBA? He's knocking it down. It creates a strictly bush atmosphere. And when this sort of thing happens you start to wonder if the people involved really want to improve basketball or maybe just get their names in the papers. They have money and what they really want is fame. I guess. I think some NBA owners regard having their own basketball team as sort of like an executive yo-yo: you know, like a toy. They like the idea of really owning something in sports and maybe they can't afford a whole football team. (It's nice to have something to kick around at the country club. "Yeah, man, as I was telling my team the other day.. ..")

All of which is fine. Man, I don't care what these people spend their money on. But don't forget, they're trading in the lives of real people here. How about Franklin Mieuli, who owned about 10% of the San Francisco 49ers, and he had a hold of that little piece of action and then he got the Owners' hots. So when Eddie Gottlieb sold his share of the Warriors, Mieuli dashed right over and bought it all up, and now here he is, really able to get in there and mix it up. Frankly, I doubt if Mieuli knows very much about basketball. But he wants to speak up about it, and now that he is an owner, now he can. Oh, man! And what do you get in situations like this in the league? I'll tell you what you get: I was sitting in my apartment in San Francisco one night looking out at the view, and a newspaper reporter knocked at my door. He said something cheery like. "Hello. You have now been traded. Goodbye." And do you think the owner had the courtesy to even talk to me about it? Hah. (In this case, though, I figured something was coming up. Some time before, Gottlieb had talked to me and kind of asked how I'd like going back to Philadelphia to play. And I was honest and warned him that if they signed me it would have to be with the understanding that it might be my last season.

How about Barry Kramer coming in for practice one day, and about the time he gets down to his undershorts someone says something like: "By the way, man, don't bother undressing any further. You don't play for us anymore." Just like that. And Wayne Hightower. He walked into the locker room in New York: "Hightower? Oh. yeah. Hightower. You've been traded to Baltimore."

It's the old yo-yo. Like the owners have a little game of their own going that we don't know anything about. You know, a secret league where they say. "Look. I'll give you two forwards and a regulation basketball and a couple of rolls of tape for a big center and a pair of sneakers." And what about the image to the public? Oh man, never mind the image. And if that isn't bush, baby, I don't know what is.

Now. I don't want to sound like rhythm and blues. You don't have to set this story to music. But there is a reason this action has such a crazy impact in basketball that it does not have in other sports. Look, we all know there must be trades and player cuts and drafts. We all know there must be owner wheeling and dealing. Fine. All sports wheel and deal. And we don't even want to know all the owners' business. You follow me? But basketball is a kind of special case because the players get so close to each other playing this game. The game demands close, instinctive relationships. We're more sensitive about teammates than, say, linebackers, who are bought and sold by the pound like hamburger. Basketball players build strong friendships and respect on and off the court.

So we understand the owners have to deal. But it doesn't have to be this bush. They could call the players in and let them know what's cooking. I don't mean ask the players' opinion. But at least let them know, see? And then you wouldn't have those kids out there all jumpy and not playing 100 % basketball. In football and baseball also most of the trading is done in the off season, and by the time the regular season comes around the shock has worn off. The top players, all the ones I know who are serious about this game, are all trying to improve it, to get the bush image out of it. But, man, it's tough.

That's just the beginning. Let me take you inside a secret practice session of the Philadelphia 76ers and we'll see how this grabs you: We're divided up into two squads for scrimmaging. We're inside Convention Hall and it is big and dark and cold and empty, and when the ball slaps into your hands it makes a ringing, hollow sound up against the ceiling. We're wearing a sort of catch-me-come-kiss-me collection of bits and pieces of old uniforms, and we look like the orphans' picnic. Coach Dolph Schayes is trying to teach us basketball fundamentals (and I think we'll agree right here that it is a little late for shut sort of thing. If we don't know the fundamentals by now. we're all dead). Suddenly, on a fast break or a play under the basket. Dolph sees something none of us can see. He stops everything. "All right.- he will bark. "Yellow team take three laps around the court." And off we go—five big, hulking, grown-up men—loping around the basketball court like a bunch of junior high school kids. Our technical practice on play patterns has been interrupted for this punishment, and the pace of our game has been thrown off. This is Schayes's way of spanking us. Then we get back to work and get a furious scrimmage going and a nice sort of rhythm starts to take shape. "Wait! Hold it," says Schayes. "Blue team take three laps around the court.

There we go again. Everything stops. And the secret in all this is that the blue team hasn't done anything wrong. Dolph is just so soft-hearted that he's been thinking about it for a few minutes and has decided that they ought to do it, too. And any punishment value of the laps is nullified, right? It's almost the same thing in actual league play. Schayes is so tender-hearted that someone sitting on the bench can look over at him with those big wet eyes, and he'll put them into the game—even if the man replaced is having a big night. You see? In the dressing room one day a couple of weeks ago, Dolph came up with another idea. "We've got to fake those fouls more," he said. "Let's throw up our hands and stagger backwards and really make it look real to the referee." "But. Coach," said Dave Gambee, "This only works if you're a good actor. A lot of us can't pull it off. We just don't look innocent." "All right." says Schayes. "I guess we'd better play it straight. But fake them when you can, huh?"

Now. whatever you do, don't get me wrong, there is a hardcore moral hidden away in here, baby, and it goes right down to one of the really fundamental things that is wrong with professional basketball. The coaching system is right out of bushville. It's one of those things that went wrong with the system years ago. Here is a guy who has played long and well and faithfully. And he comes up with a bad knee or something like that and the owners say. "Well. we've got to do something nice for good old Whoever." So what do they do? They make a coach out of him, and next season he suddenly turns up coaching his old cronies, the guys he used to play with. And playing the game does not necessarily qualify a man to coach it, right? Take Dolph. Here is a genuinely good guy. He is tall, handsome: he dresses well, he is soft-spoken and he is nice to the wife and kids. And right now that makes him almost too nice a guy to coach a bunch of hardened basketball professionals. Schayes knows all the plays and strategies well—and if he had any legs left he could run them—but he has a tough time passing this information on to the players.

Meanwhile, here are the NBA owners, with diamond rings on their little fingers and cigars in their mouths, and they want winners. "Do what you have to do, coach, but boot me home a winner. Don't talk to me about personality problem", "Coach, just show me that big box score. Don't come to me with the song and dance about a tired team.", "I know the season is too long, but what the hell, baby, win, win, win." A gentle, soft-hearted coach against this kind of background is like a little old lamb in there with the hungry lions. Schayes, for one, has that woolly look, and there are plenty of others. We could have won at least seven or eight more games than we did this season with fierce eat'em-up coaching.

There are examples of this through the association. I'm not in a position to comment on the Detroit situation: man, I've got enough problems of my own. But here it is again: they take Dave DeBusschere, a second-year man in basketball, and they make him a coach. It's a waste of Dave's talents and worse than that: it's bush, baby. Pro basketball has created a lot of jumpy coaches. The poor guys, it's a wonder some of them don't sort of fall off the bench and maybe foam at the mouth a little. I promise you that some coaches in this association get word that they've lost one player and picked up two—or some combination like that—and they're absolutely dumbfounded. And very, very few of them can speak up or talk back.

The word was all around the league that when Paul Seymour was coach at St. Louis he protested about some owner moves and he got fired. And Seymour, baby, was a very very good coach. A real loss to the game. On the old Warriors. Neil Johnston came up late or something like that, and Gottlieb made him a coach. Another one of those things out of sympathy. In our first year together—it was 1960. I think-we had a good year and took second to Boston. And I don't think this was a reflection of Neil's coaching so much as that we just had a great team, you understand?

Then when the second year came along we lost to the Syracuse Nationals in the semifinals of the playoffs—and then Neil was dismissed, and he kind of lashed out and made some very unfair statements. He made out like Wilt Chamberlain was a prima donna and he couldn't talk to me. And as I remember the two years with Johnston we had one disagreement. Just one. But I guess he had to blame losing his job on somebody instead of his coaching. It all weaves into this image we've got. Since professional basketball began, owners have been hiring the wrong kind of coaches—then firing them for not winning. There are enough ex-coaches around to form their own Old Cats League or something.

Take Owner Ben Kerner of the St. Louis Hawks: he is known around the league for the ability to tire a coach before the coach can get the laces tied up on his sneakers. Cincinnati eased Charley Wolf out because he didn't produce a winner right away. In San Francisco, Bob Feerick decided he wasn't ready for coaching, and he got out of it gracefully by becoming general manager. But, you know, what do the owners expect—that maybe there will be nine winners in the season? And if not. what is the remedy: Firing eight coaches? Sometimes that seems to be the idea around here.

Good college coaches arc usually too smart to come into the professional ranks. They take one look at this snake pit, and they say. "Who me? Man, are you kidding me?" Happily, this system doesn't go flat across the board in the NBA. The owners who have a feeling for a coach will go out and buy him a good team and give him the chance to build it into a powerhouse, and they leave him alone. Know what I mean? I mean, look at the Boston Celtics and Auerbach. You know the real key reason why they are so good as a team? Man. those guys have been together for an average of nine years now. They're so close they're like Siamese sextuplets. How about me? Would I coach if they asked me? I happen to think I would make a pretty good coach. But don't ask me.

That Red Auerbach. Now, isn't he too much? With that cigar and the look like he would snap you in half. I mean mean. But what a guy. I can remember the first time we met—and maybe you don't know this, but he was my coach at one time. It was back in 1953 and I was a high school freshman then. Maybe about ... oh, 6 feet 10 1/2 or so ... I had been playing a lot of basketball already against some pretty tough older players, and I thought I was pretty hot stuff. And Haskell Cohen, the public relations guy for the NBA—man, he was really looking into the future—had spotted me down at Overbrook High in Philadelphia. And he got me a summer job bell-hopping at Kutsher's resort up in the Catskills. It was a sort of breeding ground for future professionals. Haskell was looking beyond high school and college, I guess. So I turned up on the circuit carrying suitcases and waiting on tables and sort of standing around all bones and eyeballs and teeth. Every summer resort up there had its own basketball team made up of college kids who needed jobs for the summer. They worked a little and played a little. And who was the coach at Kutsher's? The man with the cigar.

Looking back on it. I think maybe it was my attitude that first touched off Auerbach. You know, I wasn't exactly the most modest kid in town, and I had a lot of moves for a high school (rattle playing with the big boys. And when Red would call practice he would sort of talk to me in that voice that catches you right here, right between the ribs. He especially didn't like the way I played defense.

"Don't you think, Chamberlain," Red would growl. "that it might be sort of a good idea to defense your man from in from of him instead of behind him? What the hell are you doing back there?" But I went on defensing from behind the guys, reaching around with my arms to get the ball, waiting to fall on them when they wheeled around to shoot.

"We are going to play Shawanga Lodge next." said Red, looking through me. "And you are going to have to defense B. H. Born. I think it only fair to tell you, Chamberlain, that B. H. Born has just made All-America from the University of Kansas. And I think it only fair to tell you that B. H. Born is going to make chopped chicken liver out of you." So we played Shawanga.

At the half-time break I had scored 30-some points and Born had scored exactly two. And I came ambling back into the dressing room and flopped myself down on the training table and folded my arms behind my head. I was whistling. you know, doe de doo de doo, and sort of looking side-wise at old Red while he looked back at me with a steely stare. Finally he grinned a little trace of a grin at me. "Now about the second half." he said. Then, "Now, Mr Chamberlain, may I please have your attention for a moment?" Suddenly we understood each other. Red and I. And I learned to play defense on both sides; I play it a lot in front now. After that. Red would let me serve him drinks and cigars in his room when he was up all night playing poker, and he later got me aside to talk about future schooling. "Why don't you go to Harvard. kid?" he said. "And then I'll be able to pick you off in the territorial draft for the Celtics." But other forces were already at work, a bunch of things that would change my entire life. After that summer, life began to get tougher.

From that summer when I was a gangly kid I looked forward to playing professional basketball. I mean, hot dam, all that glamour. World travel and like that. Big money and cheering crowds and beautiful girls sort of jammed all around the dressing-room door. Now, there is a boyhood dream gone to pieces.

Pro basketball is traveling, all right. But not from country to country or even city to city. It is traveling from locker room to locker room. And dressing rooms all seem to have that same stale smell about them after a while. It is sweat and sneakers and soaking wet uniforms and wrinkled clothes, and there is the steady hiss of showers. Listen, you kids out there. Listen, Lew Alcindor, for one. Defeat and victory all smell exactly the same in a pro basketball dressing room alter a while. You get so you don't feel elation. You just feel beat. And there is no crowd of beautiful girls waiting outside a dressing room door- -nor much time for dating, anyway. Last week I was sitting all lonely in the Sheraton Hotel in Philadelphia—the rooms there arc like little bitty boxes —and pawing through the stuff in my bag. I came up with the phone number of this girl—I mean, she is a dish--and called her for a date. When the phone started ringing I suddenly remembered that I hadn't called her in like, four years. And what would I say if her husband answered the phone? (It turned out she wasn't married. Whew. But it also turned out that she had another date that night. See what I mean?)

What I'm telling you—you, Alcindor, and all you long-armed kids out there—is that basketball burns you out. And if you make it in the pros you had better save your money and be ready to retire at any hour. It can all end like snapping your fingers. Pro basketball burns you faster because you play a faster game than anybody else and pretty soon—zap! You start to lose your desire. It isn't always playing the game that gets to you —the real pros love the game and, man, they love to play it—it is some of the hush things that will finally nail you. They have nailed me. And sometimes I don't want to retire tomorrow: I want to retire yesterday. You follow me?

Let me put it this way: You can play baseball until you're 45 (if you can stand the lack of real action and that 162-game season) and you can play football until you're pretty well up there, too. But not basketball. The saddest thing about this is that there are some remedies close at hand for all this. Put them all together and they don't spell mother, baby. They spell money.

Pro basketball is still the most exciting thing going on. But it is sadly overexposed. Man, by the end of the season the public has got basketball up to here. Since it got going good, the game has been dominated by some owners who have got big money worries and little reserves. Know what I mean? They're forced to be competitive and too businesslike about this game, and they can't let up and relax for long enough to give it the help it needs. In the National Football League the owners can go first class all the way and not worry about the right-now revenue. Can the owners look for a long-term, five-year gain in basketball? Why in five years many of them won't be around.

I'm in my seventh year and I guess I'm lucky to have held all of me together this long. It's at the point now where I lose eight to 12 pounds during each game, and sometime my stomach hurls so bad out there under the basket that I sort of have to lean on the guy guarding me and gasp to catch my breath. I used to drink a half gallon of milk right alter every game and about seven other quarts of milk during the day. But now Dr. Lorber has got me cut down to one bottle of milk a day and has me on a diet so bland that it doesn't even have hot dogs on it.

Man, I have lived on hot dogs for years. So now I sit in the locker room after coming off the floor, and I start to polish out a quart of ginger ale or Seven-Up, and Ike Richman—Ike is a very dramatic small guy—comes in and sort or staggers backward and slaps his hand to his forehead. "That stuff will kill you!" Ike says. Will you for once stay on your diet?"' And he snatches the bottle away from me and splashes it on his hands and the floor and all over my bare feet. "Look here." he says rubbing his hands "This stuff is so strong it will clean my hands. No wonder you've got a sore stomach. What am I going to do with you?"

Well, honest, Ike, I don't know what you're going to do with me or what I am going to do with you. But whatever it is, you'll be the first to know.

First I am going to get well, I don't know, maybe I'll go to the Mayo Clinic - if they've got a bed out there big enough for me and get this stomach all fixed up. Then I will go back to my apartment and sit there and play my electric guitar (I don't play melodies too well, but I can chord like crazy!) until it drives the neighbors out of their minds. I will put on my Day-O! hat (you know "Day-O! Daylight come and me wanna go home") and my dark shades and take my conga drum and go over in Central Park and sit there and play it and figure out the future.

I've gotten psychologically punchy over the years I've played basketball. People have been snatching and pulling at me since I was little ... well, since I was a kid, not a little kid. I've been stared at, laughed at, insulted, investigated and generally turned inside out.

Man, the FBI grabbed me while I was still in Overbrook High School in Philadelphia, and word was getting around that I was getting some pretty fabulous offers from colleges around the country. Like tens of thousands of dollars under the table and hidden away in caves and secret funds. Offers of big cars and like that. There I was, still a young, impressionable boy who didn't want to do anything in the world but just plain play basketball. And they were on me like I was the biggest criminal in the country. From that day on, basketball got better, but my life got tougher.


I will definitely be voting Russell over him this year.
Liberate The Zoomers
trelos6
Senior
Posts: 539
And1: 220
Joined: Jun 17, 2022
Location: Sydney

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#3 » by trelos6 » Mon Aug 26, 2024 8:24 am

Some Team and Individual metrics from ElGee:

ElGee wrote:Estimated Pace-Adjusted Numbers 1965

ORtg

Code: Select all

1.  Cincinnati    98.2
2.  Los Angeles   97.5
3.  Baltimore     97.1
4.  St. Louis     94.1
5.  Philadelphia  93.7
LEAGUE AVG.       93.4
6.  New York      92.8
7.  Boston        90.2
8.  Detroit       89.8
9.  San Francisco 86.8


DRtg

Code: Select all

1.  Boston        83.5
2.  St. Louis     91.5
3.  San Francisco 91.9
4.  Detroit       92.6
LEAGUE AVG.       93.4
5.  Philadelphia  93.9
6.  Los Angeles   95.8
7.  New York      96.0
8.  Cincinnati    96.3
9.  Baltimore     99.0


Code: Select all

         Pts/75  Reb/75 Ast/75 Rel TS%
======================================
West      23.5   4.6    3.7    9.3%
Oscar     20.7   6.1    7.8    8.2% 
Jones     20.7   4.1    2.2    2.6%
Baylor    20.6   9.7    2.9   -1.6%
Wilt      20.1   14.9   2.5    3.4%
Greer     16.3   4.1    3.6    1.6%
Lucas     15.3   14.3   1.7    7.2%
Russell   9.1    15.6   3.4   -0.7%


There were 3 standout offenses. Cincy, Lakers and Baltimore. They were led by my clear top 2, Oscar and West. I'm just not sure who is 1 and who is 2. Oscar was a better distributor, but West the superior scorer. And come playoffs, West turned into the wolf. 40.6 ppg, (46 vs Baltimore, 34 vs Celtics). There are a few options for Baltimore. Bellamy and Howell. Bellamy was 18.6, +8, and Howell 16, +10.3. Both scored decent volume and efficiently. There is also Jerry Lucas, who was 15.4, +7.2, though he no doubt benefits a lot playing with Oscar. I can't get there with Elgin, he was below league average efficiency. For now, I'll go Oscar, West, Bellamy, though I'll see what others think and I may change my mind.

OPOY
1.Oscar Robertson
2.Jerry West
3.Walt Bellamy

HM: Jerry Lucas

Defensively, there is only one name. Bill Russell. The Celtics defense was again so far ahead of the pack, I want to reward them with at least 2 of the nominees. I kind of have to go Wilt at #2, because even him sitting under the rim is a huge deterrent, and elite rebounder. I give Tom Sanders the edge in HM over DeBusschere or Zelmo Beaty, just because Celtics were that much of an outlier.

DPOY

1.Bill Russell
2.Wilt Chamberlain
3.KC Jones

HM: Tom Sanders

Overall, Russell edges out West for my #1. And a lot of it is his passing chops, he basically led the Celtics in assists. West was an absolute beast this year. Oscar is a deserved 3rd place. Leaning Wilt for 4, because even a bad Wilt season is still world class. Sam Jones had a terrific year, as did Zelmo Beaty, and the final year of Bob Pettit, which was good, but not up to the Pettit standard (whilest only playing 50 games, and being a shadow of himself in the playoffs).

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

HM: Zelmo Beaty
User avatar
Narigo
Veteran
Posts: 2,779
And1: 872
Joined: Sep 20, 2010
     

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#4 » by Narigo » Mon Aug 26, 2024 8:35 am

Dr Positivity wrote:This is a crazy Wilt year, his passing regressed and he went 10-28 in his first 38 games including a 11 game losing streak with him in the lineup (barely sure how that's possible).



Wilt was rumored to have a heart attack right before the 1964-1965 season

https://www.espn.com/nba/news/1999/1012/110895.html
https://www.espn.com/nba/news/1999/1013/112169.html

ESPN wrote:Chamberlain's health became an issue in the 1960s, when his former coach with the then-San Francisco Warriors was quoted as saying Chamberlain might have had a heart attack before the 1964 season. Chamberlain denied it


ESPN wrote:Chamberlain was hospitalized seven years ago with an irregular heartbeat and was said to have complained of an arrhythmia since he was in his early 20s.
Narigo's Fantasy Team

PG: Damian Lillard
SG: Sidney Moncrief
SF:
PF: James Worthy
C: Tim Duncan

BE: Robert Horry
BE:
BE:
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 90,826
And1: 30,569
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#5 » by tsherkin » Mon Aug 26, 2024 10:55 am

Narigo wrote:
ESPN wrote:Chamberlain was hospitalized seven years ago with an irregular heartbeat and was said to have complained of an arrhythmia since he was in his early 20s.


That I believe more than the heart attack story. It'd be extremely unlikely for him to be capable of playing competitive basketball after any kind of consequential MI, whereas an arrythmia could be intermittent, or at least far less severe than what an MI actually represents. SVT or atrial fibrillation or something would be a lot more palatable as something which would be symptomatic and an issue for him without actually mostly compromising his body's ability to function effectively over time, particularly as a competitive athlete.

Is it possible? Sure. But given his level of performance, that he played over 70 games, all those minutes... it seems hiiiiighly unlikely that he stressed his body like that after a heart attack. Only Oscar played more minutes per game (a whole +0.4 mpg!) that season.

I'm not Wilt's doctor, but that doesn't really strike me as likely.
Djoker
Starter
Posts: 2,108
And1: 1,814
Joined: Sep 12, 2015
 

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#6 » by Djoker » Mon Aug 26, 2024 3:04 pm

Wilt eventually died from heart failure in his 60's IIRC. It's not implausible that he had a heart issue. As tsherkin said, an actual heart attack is unlikely but a less severe condition is very possible

Anyways it's tough to have him over Russell this season because of how relatively poor his regular season was and how Russell was back to being solid offensively in the postseason unlike 1964. Still Wilt had a monster postseason and if he had somehow gotten past the Celtics and he was ridiculously close, he probably gets #1 easily. But yea.. margins are very thin sometimes.
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 16,846
And1: 11,683
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#7 » by eminence » Mon Aug 26, 2024 4:25 pm

Worst to First '65.

Warriors (17-63): 10-28 with Wilt, 7-35 without (22 vs 14 win pace). Them being worse after trading an MVP candidate for pennies on the dollar isn't much of a revelation, them stinking so much with Wilt to start with is the notable thing. Team adds rookie Rick Barry and goes 35-45 next season with a similar cast. Anywho, the point - an atrocious start to the season for Wilt despite the box-score continuing to look elite. If he'd stayed in San Francisco he'd be off my ballot, we'll see how far Philly can take him.

Pistons (31-49): Dischinger looks like the only competent scorer, but 24 year old DeBusschere anchors the defense and coaches the team. Curious how that dynamic worked. Don't see a POY contender.

Knicks (31-49): Rookie Willis Reed is here and has a strong season leading the squad, but well short of POY level. Good sign of things to come.

Bullets (37-43): Howell/Bellamy still appear to be a dangerous scoring duo incapable of authoring a good defense. Don Ohl really shows up in the playoffs as they beat the Hawks and give the Lakers a decent series. Fairly balanced among the top guys, don't think Bells/Howell will push for top 5 even this year.

Sixers (40-40): 18-17 with Wilt, 22-23 without. Greer slides into a more fitting strong #2 role, Walker a capable #3. Playoffs is where the trade pays off, as they 'upset' the Royals and then push the Celtics to the edge. Greer looked particularly strong vs the Royals. Wilt does enough in the playoffs to get into my top 5, but I'm really not sure where I'll put him yet. Greer probably my #2 guy over anyone prior.

Hawks (45-35): 30-20 with Pettit, 15-15 without. With Pettit in decent form they look to be the same old borderline contender, but they drop to pretty mediocre without him, not too surprising to me they get upset in the playoffs with Bob on his last legs. Lenny/Zelmo are both good players I'd be happy with on my team, but I don't see top 5 contenders. Pettit maybe if he'd had a full season and been healthy in the playoffs, but not close as is.

Royals (48-32): 41-25 with Lucas, 7-7 without. 47-28 with Oscar, 1-4 without. Team plays pretty darn well when the stars are healthy, Oscar still clearly the lead. They get 'upset' by the Sixers, but I'll attribute that more to the Sixers taking a bit to adapt to Wilt than a real negative for any of the Royals. Another interesting Wilt vs Oscar year, do I take Oscars steadier year or Wilt rounding into form by the end?

Lakers (49-31): Really struggle in games without their stars, but no longer the elite team they were prior to Baylor slowing. The playoff run from West is tough to weigh, good job getting it done without Baylor vs the Bullets. But the Bullets were not inspiring competition at all and the Celtics flattened them. I'd say the 4th best playoff squad, got lucky to play in the West. Oscar/West/Wilt feel pretty reasonable for any order 2-4 this year.

Celtics (62-18): Another dominant Celtics season, Russell with another #1. Sam a more clear #2 for the Celtics than they have in a lot of years, he'll be a serious candidate for my 5th spot. The Sixers gave them a serious series, but that was the only stumble in an excellent season. 7 in a row.

Russell #1, Oscar/West/Wilt 2-4 in some order, Sam Jones/Hal Greer/??? for #5
I bought a boat.
User avatar
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,094
And1: 5,931
Joined: Jul 24, 2022
 

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#8 » by AEnigma » Mon Aug 26, 2024 4:26 pm

Offensive Player of the Year

1. Oscar Robertson
2. Jerry West
3. Sam Jones


Top two self-explanatory, and here I will reward Sam Jones in his peak season for shouldering a heavy scoring (and minute) load for the league’s best team.

Defensive Player of the Year

1. Bill Russell
2. Nate Thurmond
3. Wilt Chamberlain


Cannot find it in me to reward anyone else this year. Bill Bridges was my other consideration if I for whatever reason wanted to exclude one of Thurmond or Wilt because of the Warriors’ -6 offence.

Player of the Year

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Jerry West
5. Zelmo Beaty


Lifting the below quoted comments from the 2010 thread, because I sense few people click the links to read through. :lol:
mopper8 wrote:I was thinking I would transcribe the section of The Rivalry on this season for you guys cause its not available on Google Books, but it's just way too long. The gist of the story:

Wilt stayed in great shape in the offseason. Working out, playing with the Globetrotters, etc. He started getting stomach pains when he came back to NY, tried to get his diet right (cut out hot dogs, which he apparently loved lol), but nothing. Before an exhibition game, the team Dr told him he needed to come to the hospital because of an irregularity on his EKG, and that the stomach pains might be related. He spent 3 weeks bed-ridden in the St. Mary's hospital, the doctors unable to figure out his condition.

Frustrated, he calls his Dr Stanley Lorber, who'd treated him before, and Lorber says its common for black athletes to have irregularities on their EKG and that Lorber had found the same issue in the past, its not big deal, white doctors had trouble with it. Wilt checks out of the hospital and flies to Philly to see him. Transcribed from the book about the impromptu press conference upon his departure from the hospital:

The team physician admitted that he and the other doctors had been unable to find any signs of a tumor, ulcer, or gallbladder problem that might explain Chamberlain's stomach pains. "It's a little strange," he said.
Chamberlain, who had lost weight, was weak, irritable, and depressed, with no sign of the humor he had shown when he'd first entered the hospital.
"How long will it take you to get into shape once you've been given permission to play?" a reporter asked.
"I have no idea," he said.

Goes on to say both Hannum and Mieuli were legitimately concerned about Chamberlain, for all his fauls he'd never shown signs of malingering before, especially considering the punishment he'd take in games. Hannum moved Thurmond back to C (where he played in college) from F to adjust during the preseason. Wilt gets diagnosed with pancreatitis in Philly, gets put on some meds and cleared to play. Again, The Rivalry:

Even before leaving the hospital, Chamberlain started working out, but he flew back to San Francisco in a terrible mood. After his four-week stay in two different hospitals, he was thirty-five pounds underweight and his muscle tone had deteriorated. He had missed training camp and the exhibition games, and he felt weak. He was irritated at the San Francisco doctors who had failed to diagnose his condition, and he was irritated at the Warriors management for failing to find a doctor who could make the diagnosis.

Mieuli makes a gesture to Wilt to make up for it, got him a diamond stickpin (something Wilt had suggested in lieu of rings for a championship), but Wilt, pissed, told him essentially to shove it. At this point, basically Hannum and Mieuli agree that Wilt and the Warriors are done. He's not into doing the publicity things they need to do to make money, they don't like him for it, he blames them for his extended hospitalization...they just don't get along.

They start the season without him:

In addition to Chamberlain, a number of the other Warriors were ill or injured. Tom Meschery had a broken hand and a sore ankle. Gary Phillips was recovering from an ankle operation. Guy Rogers came down with the flu. Al Attles had been playing with an excruciating charley horse. "At times," Stu Herman wrote in the Chronicle, "the Warriors look like out-clinic patients at St. Mary's Hospital."

Wilt comes back probably too early cause they're losing. Only scores 16 in his first game, only able to play 33 minutes, legs look shaky. Still plays the full 48 the next game, drops 37, and seems to get into shape fairly quickly, drops 50+ 6 times in his first 6 weeks back. Still, the Warriors don't win; they're out of sorts in large part because they'd been playing with the defensive-minded, offensively-limited Thurmond at C for almost 2 months at this point. The chemistry is all off. Then, there's this (referenced in the 63-64 thread):

Another troublesome fact was that the other teams had responded to Hannum's slow-paced offense by speeding up their own game. What worked against San Francisco, opposing coaches had discovered, was the fast break. The Warriors, with their injuries, and their ragged defense, and their unrehearsed offense, could neither counter nor contain it.

Also, San Fran seemed to win on the road with ease: they'd sell out crowds of people who came to boo and heckle Wilt ("nobody roots for Goliath"), but in San Fran, the stands were empty, the raucous road crowd firing up San Fran and the empty seats at home depressing them. Bizarrely, at one point in the season, they were undefeated on the road and winless at home. Then, Dec 4, after SF opens up a 30-point lead on Boston, Red sends in the reserves, and a rookie John Thompson elbows Wilt in the face and shatters his nose. He misses time and then has to play in a mask, as does Hightower with a similar injury that happened in the same week.

Why was Wilt traded for pennies on the dollar talent-wise?

The fact of the matter was that, less than three months into the season, Mieuli had become desperate to get rid of Chamberlain. His main concern was money. Chamberlain was making $85,000 a year, an astronomical sum at the time. When the team had drawn big crowds during its run at the championship the previous year, the additional revenue Chamberlain had been able to generate for the club had more than offset the cost of paying for hiim to play. But now, with the team in last place, attendance had slumped down below even what it had been during the team's first year in San Francisco. Some nights barely a thousand people bothered to show up, giving the Warriors the worst attendance in the league. As a result, almost one-third of the team's gate revenue was going to pay Chamberlain's salary. Chamberlain was a big draw on the road, but the NBA stipulated that all the gate revenue went to the home team, so Mieuli got nothing from his star player's out-of-town appeal

Minority owners were antsy, wanted to move the team to Oakland. Mieuli thought he could move Chamberlain to lower over-head and survive until the team built up a reliable fan base (he had weathered a similar storm with his 49ers football team). Some owners were skeptical of acquiring him, but others thought if you were smart you could probably generate an extra ~300,000 at the home gate from his presence. Knicks, Sixers, Hawks, and Lakers were all in serious talks.

With the team losing, and trade rumors very public, the team basically fell apart. The wheels came off. Player became convinced within a month they'd be playing on basically a different team. Wilt made matters worse; when he stopped trying, that meant shooting a lot, not getting anyone else involved, which only compounded the problem. They go into a tailspin. Nate Thurmond, tired of playing forward, demands a trade. Last quote and then I'll leave it at that:

As the all-star game and mid-season break approached, Hannum felt the Warriors had 3 options. One was to stand pat, keeping both Chamberlain and Thurmond, but that made no sense with so much money going out and so little coming in. Either Chamberlain or Thurmond should go. The question was whether the Warriors should trade Thurmond for a top-notch shooter and hope that once the team's injuries healed, they could recover their fire and bring home a championship this year, jump-starting ticket sales for the following year. Otherwise, the Warriors could accept the fact that Chamberlain was simply not drawing a large enough gate to justify his salary, trade him, and rebuild the team around Thurmond, who was earning approximately $13,000, less than one-quarter of Chamberlain's salary. That was the financially prudent move, but it meant accepting as well that it would be a few years before the Warriors were championship contenders again.

Hannum personally felt the team should not trade Chamberlain, who was, after all, the leading scorer in the history of the game and the man who had gotten his team to the finals the year before. But the decision was not his to make. It was up to Franklin Mieuli, the man Chamberlain had publicly insulted at the beginning of the season.
Dipper 13 wrote:Sixers went 11-3 in the first 14 games Wilt played. Don't know exactly how games Greer, Costello, & Jackson missed in the 2nd half of the season due to injury.

Sports Illustrated - April 19, 1965

I Love The Game, Baby... but It Can't Go On This Way

Because of his pride in the sport and his own contributions to it, Chamberlain proposes remedies for the flaws he feels are ruining pro basketball and answers the critics who say he has always been a loser

Wilt Chamberlain, Bob Ottum

Sorry if I've sounded like a know-it-all. But this comes from a guy who loves the game, despite his gripes. It used to make me mad—mad, hell, I mean it really burned me—to hear someone say I was a born loser. That I've never played on a winning team. But I've calmed down a lot lately. It all depends on what you call a winner. If you mean it one way, you're on a winner if you're playing .500 ball. Also it can mean that you win the number of games you should with the players you have on hand. Take the 76ers. We had a real winning look. Then Hal Greer got hurt. Then Costello. Then Greer and Costello. Then Lucious Jackson. On other teams I've been on, let's face it, all the personnel did not always measure up. Thus one high-scoring center can only do so much, right? Don't forget—I can dunk baskets all night long if they'll get the ball in there to me.


Hartford Courant - Mar 3, 1965

Hal Greer scored 24 for the losers, who played without Larry Costello in going down to their fourth straight defeat. Costello suffered a pulled hamstring muscle Sunday.


The Telegraph - Mar 6, 1965

Image

The Sun - Mar 7, 1965

76ers Tumble Celtics, 103-98

With its two regular guards Larry Costello and Hal Greer benched with injuries, Larry Jones, a rookie from Toledo, and the veteran Al Bianchi, teamed with Chamberlain to keep the 76ers in front.


Mar 24, 1965

The 76ers have always depended heavily on Costello to direct their running game and Costello is out for the remainder of the season with a leg injury.


Christian Science Monitor - Mar 30, 1965

The 76ers also have some injuries and particularly miss the playmaking and defense of Larry Costello.


The Sun - Mar 15, 1965

WILT SCORES 51 POINTS IN LOSING CAUSE

Coach Dolph Schayes was even more handicapped since his two starting guards Hal Greer and Larry Costello were sidelined with leg injuries.
drza wrote: The logic (as I understand it) is that Wilt isn't worthy of a top vote because his numbers didn't translate to the Warriors/Sixers being good; that West is worthy of a top vote because his numbers increase kept the Lakers elite even after Baylor went down, and that Oscar is a step below West because despite putting up comparable numbers his team got upset by an inferior team in the first round.

So, let me examine that logic. And I'll start in Philly, who was a fringe playoff team the year before (34 - 56, -4 SRS, 1st round playoff exit). They were 21 - 20 before Wilt got there and finished the season at the same pace, looking like a slightly better team on paper than they had been the previous season (40 - 40, 0 SRS). Then, in the postseason they comfortably beat Cincinnati (48 - 32, 2 SRS) and played the mighty Celtics (62 - 18, 7 SRS) to a virtua-draw before losing at the buzzer.

Now, you guys know I love the +/- impact-style stats, and I appreciate the work of those that have pointed out that Wilt's numbers didn't translate to as big of an impact as you'd have expected historically (and this year seemed to do almost nothing IN THE REGULAR SEASON). However, to me the postseason makes it incredibly clear that Wilt had a huge impact on Philly for the 1965 season as a whole. Had they lost a close matchup with Cincy, or even if they had somehow surprised Cincy then got blown out by the Celtics then maybe I could buy that their postseason was lucky. But instead they beat Cincy convincingly, and then compounded that by playing the Celtics down to the wire. The Celtics, who at that time were 6-time defending champions and finished 13 games higher than the 2nd best team in the regular season. The Celtics who went on to easily win the Finals. To me, that all adds up to Wilt having a tremendous impact on the Sixers in 1965. As Warspite and a couple of others pointed out, there were serious chemistry / positional / strategy / style issues that needed to be worked out when Wilt got to Philly. But at the end of the day, adding Wilt took Philly from a fringe playoff team to a very, very legitimate contender. That's impact.

Now, let's look at the Lakers. They had the second best record in the league with 49 wins, and as Doc MJ pointed out they beat the Sixers 4 out of 5 times in the regular season. The problem that I have is, though, that those accomplishments came with Baylor in the line-up. (Remember, right now I'm looking at the Lakers as a team, not West as an individual). As a team, the Lakers seem to be reasonable contenders with both West and Baylor (still probably wouldn't have beat the Celtics, but you never know I guess). But after Baylor went down, the Lakers beat only a 37-win team and then got the HOLY TERROR beaten out of them by the Celtics in the Finals (their four losses were by an average of more than 21 points).

Now, the Royals. About the only thing that I can say confidently about them in the postseason is that they clearly weren't as good as Philly. If you take Philly as a 40-win upstart then that would reflect extremely poorly upon the Royals. If, on the other hand, you believe Philly to be in a virtua-tie as the best squad in the league then all that says is that Cincy lost to a better team. It's not clear-cut, but Philly's postseason performance (especially with the hindsight knowledge that Philly would have the best record in the league for the next 3 seasons, including a title 2 years later) strongly suggests to me that in the postseason the Royals just ran up on a better team, one that was one of only 2 legitimate championship contenders that year.



The way those Sixers handled the Royals, followed up by the way they went at the Goliath Celtics, followed by my point 3 below is enough to make me very comfortable in my assessment that the postseason '65 Sixers were a huge step forward from the late regular season '65 Sixers.

As Warspite pointed out, Philly had to reconfigure their entire scheme in order to fit Wilt in, including displacing what had previously been one of their best players to another position. I'm not going to completely re-quote Warspite's post, but just in a vacuum it is extremely logical to me that fitting a player of Wilt's style onto a team that already had a style and personnell of its own might take some time. To me, it is to their credit that they figured it out after only 30-something games, in time to put it together for the postseason.

Given the hindsight advantage that is one of the key tenets to the project, we know that this Philly team would have the best record in the league for the next 3 seasons in a row and that they would win the only non-Celtic title of that period. Of course there were some changes from year to year, but the foundation of the team was in place by the postseason of '65 and to me it makes a lot of sense that postseason '65 Philly was much more similar to 66-68 Philly than regular-season '65 when they were getting used to life with the Dipper.

All this makes me mostly disregard the regular season, and when I look primarily at the postseason, Wilt seems like a secure #2.

Oscar stays ahead of West because I think he is still the more impactful player. I prefer the rest of the Lakers to the rest of the Royals, yet the Royals were the ones with the higher SRS and were only one win behind despite playing in the much more difficult conference. West performed superbly against the Bullets, but I am not inclined to reward him for thriving against weak defences/teams en route to the Finals. Overall, still a season early for me to consider changing this order.

The 1964 Hawks went 35-24 (+2.2) with Pettit and Beaty, and went 11-10 (+0.0) with Pettit and no Beaty. The 1965 Hawks went 30-20 (+4.3) with Pettit and Beaty, and went 15-15 (+0.9) with Beaty and no Pettit. The 1966 Hawks went 36-44 (-0.5) with Beaty and no Pettit. With that all in mind, their dynamic this year seems like something of a 1a/1b situation to me, and with Pettit in diminished playoff form, I think I will be taking Beaty as the team’s most notable player for the season. And because I prefer both him and Pettit as talents compared to anyone on the Bullets, and also as compared to Sam Jones and Hal Greer, Beaty takes my #5 spot overall.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,614
And1: 3,132
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#9 » by Owly » Mon Aug 26, 2024 10:39 pm

tsherkin wrote:
Narigo wrote:
ESPN wrote:Chamberlain was hospitalized seven years ago with an irregular heartbeat and was said to have complained of an arrhythmia since he was in his early 20s.


That I believe more than the heart attack story. It'd be extremely unlikely for him to be capable of playing competitive basketball after any kind of consequential MI, whereas an arrythmia could be intermittent, or at least far less severe than what an MI actually represents. SVT or atrial fibrillation or something would be a lot more palatable as something which would be symptomatic and an issue for him without actually mostly compromising his body's ability to function effectively over time, particularly as a competitive athlete.

Is it possible? Sure. But given his level of performance, that he played over 70 games, all those minutes... it seems hiiiiighly unlikely that he stressed his body like that after a heart attack. Only Oscar played more minutes per game (a whole +0.4 mpg!) that season.

I'm not Wilt's doctor, but that doesn't really strike me as likely.

Fwiw Wilt's long-term doctor Stan Lorber thought it was pancreatitis and that the chronic stomach pains were brought on by a "toot" (ie Wilt going out and drinking too much). Wilt was saying in the papers that he had a heart irregularity but that it had never given him any trouble (seemingly implying something predating this?). Lorber seems to suggests Wilt's naturally low pulse rate was misleading (presumably to those not familiar with him) and that (1) if you just got his heart rate faster it looked normal and (2) his ECGs looked the same as they had before. You're getting the following 4th hand (me from Cherry from Meuli from SF doctor) but purportedly the San Francisco doctor said the team wouldn't be able to get insurance for Wilt and "I'll bet my job on it - he won't last a year".

From Cherry, Robert; Wilt: Larger than Life; 2004, pp 131-132

About 10 pages later it mentions it flaring up again late in the season, initially such that Wilt ended up taking himself out of a game.
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,594
And1: 3,332
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#10 » by LA Bird » Mon Aug 26, 2024 11:28 pm

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


I feel like some people automatically give Wilt a high ranking just because his name is Wilt. This first half of the season on the Warriors is literally one of the biggest black mark for any all time great. And for anyone saying he was only 1 point away from beating Boston, how much did you care about playoffs results when he got crushed in 5 games both last and next year? Whether Wilt had a heart attack or pancreatitis also doesn't really affect his ranking IMO. For instance, whether Baylor fell out of the top 5 because he had issues with his knee, or foot, or hamstring is irrelevant - poor health is just poor health. Wilt had a down year and despite his box scores, had fairly mediocre impact signals (2 SRS lift on both Warriors and Sixers with Greer+Costello). The 11-3 start post-trade seems cherry picked when they went 2-7 right after with most starters still playing. Heinsohn missed 13 games this year because of a foot injury which led to his retirement aged only 30 but nobody really talks about it because Russell doesn't need excuses for lack of success.

Boston blew everyone away in the regular season (again) and won the title on the back of a historic defense (again) so it's not exactly surprising Russell goes #1 again. West surpassed Oscar in both scoring volume and efficiency and had a historic postseason so he goes higher for me this season. Could see the argument for Beaty at 5 if there is stronger evidence of his defense but I'll be lazy and go with Sam Jones in what was his peak volume scoring year by a large margin if we account for availability.
User avatar
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,094
And1: 5,931
Joined: Jul 24, 2022
 

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#11 » by AEnigma » Mon Aug 26, 2024 11:59 pm

LA Bird wrote:I feel like some people automatically give Wilt a high ranking just because his name is Wilt.

“I feel like some people automatically give Russell a high ranking just because his name is Russell.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Oscar a high ranking just because his name is Oscar.”

“I feel like some people automatically give West a high ranking just because his name is West.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Pettit a high ranking just because his name is Pettit.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Mikan a high ranking just because his name is Mikan.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Kareem a high ranking just because his name is Kareem.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Bird a high ranking just because his name is Bird.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Jordan a high ranking just because his name is Jordan.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Lebron a high ranking just because his name is Lebron.”

I feel like some people automatically give Schayes a high ranking just because his name is Schayes.

See how productive this is?

And for anyone saying he was only 1 point away from beating Boston, how much did you care about playoffs results when he got crushed in 5 games both last

… What exactly did Oscar and West do last year?

and next year?

I think it reflects negatively on him that both Oscar and West came closer to a title, yes. 1966 Wilt certainly does not play as well against the Celtics as 1965 Wilt did.

Heinsohn missed 13 games this year because of a foot injury which led to his retirement aged only 30 but nobody really talks about it because Russell doesn't need excuses for lack of success.

How many people do you expect to place Wilt above Russell this year.
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,594
And1: 3,332
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#12 » by LA Bird » Tue Aug 27, 2024 1:03 am

AEnigma wrote:
LA Bird wrote:I feel like some people automatically give Wilt a high ranking just because his name is Wilt.

Spoiler:
“I feel like some people automatically give Russell a high ranking just because his name is Russell.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Oscar a high ranking just because his name is Oscar.”

“I feel like some people automatically give West a high ranking just because his name is West.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Pettit a high ranking just because his name is Pettit.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Mikan a high ranking just because his name is Mikan.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Kareem a high ranking just because his name is Kareem.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Bird a high ranking just because his name is Bird.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Jordan a high ranking just because his name is Jordan.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Lebron a high ranking just because his name is Lebron.”

I feel like some people automatically give Schayes a high ranking just because his name is Schayes.
See how productive this is?

Nice of you to crop out my very next sentence. Do I really need to explain in detail how bad it is to be leading a -5 SRS team in the middle of your prime as a GOAT level player and how we shouldn't gloss over it? Do you think nobody would crucify Jordan or LeBron for it for eternity if either led a team just as bad? Not sure what point you think you are making by listing all those names but it serves zero purpose.

And for anyone saying he was only 1 point away from beating Boston, how much did you care about playoffs results when he got crushed in 5 games both last

… What exactly did Oscar and West do last year?

Who said anything about Oscar and West? I ranked Wilt above them myself last year.

and next year?

I think it reflects negatively on him that both Oscar and West came closer to a title, yes. 1966 Wilt certainly does not play as well against the Celtics as 1965 Wilt did.

We are in agreement here.

Heinsohn missed 13 games this year because of a foot injury which led to his retirement aged only 30 but nobody really talks about it because Russell doesn't need excuses for lack of success.

How many people do you expect to place Wilt above Russell this year.

Not many this year but I do expect many for next year. I'm just tired of seeing 'Wilt would go #1 if he beat Russell' whenever he had a close series while ignoring the regular season and when the playoffs wasn't close. Nobody says 'West would go #1 if he beat Russell' even though he lost in close G7 too.
User avatar
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,094
And1: 5,931
Joined: Jul 24, 2022
 

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#13 » by AEnigma » Tue Aug 27, 2024 2:01 am

LA Bird wrote:
AEnigma wrote:
LA Bird wrote:I feel like some people automatically give Wilt a high ranking just because his name is Wilt.

Spoiler:
“I feel like some people automatically give Russell a high ranking just because his name is Russell.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Oscar a high ranking just because his name is Oscar.”

“I feel like some people automatically give West a high ranking just because his name is West.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Pettit a high ranking just because his name is Pettit.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Mikan a high ranking just because his name is Mikan.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Kareem a high ranking just because his name is Kareem.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Bird a high ranking just because his name is Bird.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Jordan a high ranking just because his name is Jordan.”

“I feel like some people automatically give Lebron a high ranking just because his name is Lebron.”

I feel like some people automatically give Schayes a high ranking just because his name is Schayes.
See how productive this is?

Nice of you to crop out my very next sentence. Do I really need to explain in detail how bad it is to be leading a -5 SRS team in the middle of your prime as a GOAT level player and how we shouldn't gloss over it?

I care about as much as I do about 2007 Garnett leading a -5.7 net rating team over his last forty games — and Garnett did not have massive health offsets. If hypothetically we push the timeline a little and those forty games occur at the beginning instead of at the end, and the Garnett gets traded to the… Wizards and looks good in the postseason, should we be committed to what we saw in that forty game stretch?

If people want to penalise Wilt for the regular season, they can do so. I do not have criticisms of his postseason play, and that is what matters most to me and to many of us.

And for anyone saying he was only 1 point away from beating Boston, how much did you care about playoffs results when he got crushed in 5 games both last

… What exactly did Oscar and West do last year?

Who said anything about Oscar and West? I ranked Wilt above them myself last year.

So who is the comparison then?

and next year?

I think it reflects negatively on him that both Oscar and West came closer to a title, yes. 1966 Wilt certainly does not play as well against the Celtics as 1965 Wilt did.

We are in agreement here.

Heinsohn missed 13 games this year because of a foot injury which led to his retirement aged only 30 but nobody really talks about it because Russell doesn't need excuses for lack of success.

How many people do you expect to place Wilt above Russell this year.

Not many this year but I do expect many for next year. I'm just tired of seeing 'Wilt would go #1 if he beat Russell' whenever he had a close series while ignoring the regular season and when the playoffs wasn't close. Nobody says 'West would go #1 if he beat Russell' even though he lost in close G7 too.

I think West would be the favourite if he won, yes, as would Oscar. And generally the people who reward postseason success are not the ones voting for 1964/66 Wilt above Russell, nor are most of those who will penalise 1965 Wilt also prioritising postseason performance above all else.
One_and_Done
General Manager
Posts: 8,688
And1: 5,449
Joined: Jun 03, 2023

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#14 » by One_and_Done » Tue Aug 27, 2024 7:30 am

I am also going to go:

1. Russell
2. Wilt
3. Oscar
4. West
5. Zelmo Beaty

The first 4 are pretty easy. Those were the best 4 guys in order.

Zelmo gets criminally underrated. I think he was probably a better player than Pettit to be honest, and his best Hawks teams were likely better than any team Pettit was on. Very good defensive and offensive anchor for the time to my eye, and the results back it up.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,538
And1: 16,335
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#15 » by Dr Positivity » Tue Aug 27, 2024 8:27 am

I can’t get behind the Beaty over Jones picks. Jones had fantastic year at 26ppg and 29ppg in the playoffs and they needed him to step up vs Sixers, Beaty is 16/12 with physical defense and floor spacing, pretty weak passing, it’s not like this is his peak year or anything. The difference is pretty significant on offense to me, while Jones is also good on D, unlike Bellamy (although credit to him, he actually came within 2 games of the finals for a famously good stats bad team guy, but lol West scored 46ppg in the series). He plays on great supporting cast with Pettit, Wilkens, Guerin, Hagan, Bridges so it’s hardly a carry job to me though by the playoffs is probably their best player. I’m going to consider him more in 68 when the Hawks have a shocking 56 W season for non Russell/Wilt/West/Oscar team with them all in the league.
Liberate The Zoomers
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 90,826
And1: 30,569
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#16 » by tsherkin » Tue Aug 27, 2024 10:56 am

Owly wrote:Fwiw Wilt's long-term doctor Stan Lorber thought it was pancreatitis and that the chronic stomach pains were brought on by a "toot" (ie Wilt going out and drinking too much). Wilt was saying in the papers that he had a heart irregularity but that it had never given him any trouble (seemingly implying something predating this?). Lorber seems to suggests Wilt's naturally low pulse rate was misleading (presumably to those not familiar with him) and that (1) if you just got his heart rate faster it looked normal and (2) his ECGs looked the same as they had before. You're getting the following 4th hand (me from Cherry from Meuli from SF doctor) but purportedly the San Francisco doctor said the team wouldn't be able to get insurance for Wilt and "I'll bet my job on it - he won't last a year".

From Cherry, Robert; Wilt: Larger than Life; 2004, pp 131-132

About 10 pages later it mentions it flaring up again late in the season, initially such that Wilt ended up taking himself out of a game.


Low heart rate for a dude that fit makes sense... but could also be some kind of AV block, which could cause all those fun symptoms and eventually worsen enough to be life-threatening. Makes much more sense than an MI that he magically recovered from with all haste in the 60s.

But who knows, right? 4th hand is tough, heh. Hell, doing it on the road WITH my cardiac monitor is tough sometimes.
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 16,846
And1: 11,683
Joined: Mar 07, 2015

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#17 » by eminence » Tue Aug 27, 2024 12:59 pm

Stats for guys I'm giving consideration for #5.

Sam Jones: 62-18, 25.9/5.1/2.8, 50.5 TS%/106 TS+, 12 PO games, 28.6/4.6/2.5, 51.8 TS%
Jerry Lucas: 41-25, 21.4/20.0/2.4, 55.1 TS%/115 TS+, 4 PO games, 23.3/21.0/2.3, 54.9 TS%
Zelmo Beaty: 45-35, 16.9/12.1/1.4, 53.7 TS%/112 TS+, 4 PO games, 19.3/13.8/0.3, 55.0 TS%
Hal Greer without Wilt: 21-23, 19.3/5.1/4.1, 48.1 TS%/100 TS+
Hal Greer with Wilt: 15-11, 21.7/5/5.1, 51.8 TS%/108 TS+, 11 PO games, 24.6/7.4/5.0, 52.1 TS%

A seemingly notable improvement from Greer when shifted into the #2 role for the Sixers.

Greer vs Lucas in Sixers vs Royals (not positional)
Greer: 28.5/7.3/6.0, 50.9 TS%
Lucas: 23.3/21.0/2.3, 54.9 TS%

Greer vs Jones in Sixers vs Celtics (positional matchup)
Greer: 22.4/7.4/4.4, 49.6 TS% (the individual series stats have Greer taking 10 more FGA total than the playoff totals do, so IDK)
Jones: 29.1/4.4/2.4, 51.1 TS%
I bought a boat.
Djoker
Starter
Posts: 2,108
And1: 1,814
Joined: Sep 12, 2015
 

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#18 » by Djoker » Tue Aug 27, 2024 1:31 pm

It's always very hard evaluating players who have poor regular season and then very strong postseasons. Based on PS only, Wilt is a definite top 3 this season possibly even #1 but his RS was quite rough. Health issues or not, it's hard to give someone credit for something they didn't do and the RS is most of the year percentage wise so it has to count for quite a bit.
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,594
And1: 3,332
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#19 » by LA Bird » Tue Aug 27, 2024 3:20 pm

AEnigma wrote:I care about as much as I do about 2007 Garnett leading a -5.7 net rating team over his last forty games — and Garnett did not have massive health offsets. If hypothetically we push the timeline a little and those forty games occur at the beginning instead of at the end, and the Garnett gets traded to the… Wizards and looks good in the postseason, should we be committed to what we saw in that forty game stretch?

The problem with 65 Wilt is that not only was the on-court figure uninspiring, so was the on/off. If we use WOWY as a proxy since Wilt played almost the entire game, we can break down his 2 SRS lift a little further.

With Wilt: -4.97 MOV
Without Wilt (pre trade): -7.33 MOV
Without Wilt (post trade): -7.25 MOV

Now if we compare that to your last 40 games from 07 Garnett (per 48),

With Garnett: -2.92 MOV
Without Garnett: -16.11 MOV

The difference in impact is night and day. Oscar also missed the playoffs on some bad teams which I don't criticize as harshly because we still see some strong impact numbers. With 65 Wilt, for health reasons or otherwise, there was little impact signals. The closest example of a team being so bad even with their superstar on court would be 08 Heat and literally no one would rank Wade top 5 that season.

If people want to penalise Wilt for the regular season, they can do so. I do not have criticisms of his postseason play, and that is what matters most to me and to many of us.

If postseason play really matters so much to most voters, 61/63 Wilt probably wouldn't have been ranked over Baylor.

So who is the comparison then?

Russell

I think West would be the favourite if he won, yes, as would Oscar. And generally the people who reward postseason success are not the ones voting for 1964/66 Wilt above Russell, nor are most of those who will penalise 1965 Wilt also prioritising postseason performance above all else.

I don't see how a single shot makes West a better player than Russell if he wasn't already before. And just because his team won the series doesn't definitively make them a better postseason performer. Otherwise, it is no different from a ring counter saying Ray Allen saved LeBron with his one 3.
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,406
And1: 5,001
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: Retro Player of the Year 1964-65 UPDATE 

Post#20 » by Dutchball97 » Tue Aug 27, 2024 3:25 pm

Player of the Year
1. Bill Russell - Possibly the final time Russell will top my list, although he will at least be in contention for the rest of his career. This was the second best defensive year for the Celtics behind only the previous season and despite having a bunch of plus defenders on the team, this is still mostly because of Russell. He deservedly won MVP again by a clear margin leading the Celtics to have 13 more wins than the next best team by having a defense that was just multiple levels higher than the rest of the competition. It also helps that he stepped up his scoring and playmaking in the play-offs, while maintaining the defense. Wilt had a bit of a weird regular season, Oscar got eliminated early and while West puts up a valiant effort it wasn't enough to beat a prime Russell year where he was immaculate in both the regular season and post-season.

2. Jerry West - West and Oscar were pretty much 2a and 2b in the regular season, although Oscar was probably the better of them. However, I do think West did more than enough in the post-season to put him comfortably over Oscar this season. West vs Wilt is an interesting one but while I prefer Wilt's post-season slightly, this difference isn't enough to overcome West's regular season advantage here.

3. Wilt Chamberlain - Probably the toughest choice for me on this ballot was deciding on Wilt vs Oscar for the #3 spot but while I don't think Wilt did enough in the play-offs to pass West, I do think it's the case for him vs Oscar especially as Wilt eliminated Oscar head to head with Oscar not [particularly having the best performance of his career. I might be a little lenient on Wilt's regular season but that post-season performance weighs heavier in my eyes.

4. Oscar Robertson - Due to an early exit in the play-offs, Oscar ends up behind West and Wilt for me despite being ahead in the regular season. Even though Oscar draws the short straw in this group of players, the top 4 are still way ahead of the rest of the field this time around as Oscar was every bit as good of an offensive player as he's been for about half a decade at this point.

5. Sam Jones - He undeniably became the 2nd star on the Celtics this year as he came in 4th in MVP voting and played significantly more minutes than anyone on the team outside of Russell. Jones was a solid defender and his scoring this season was very impressive, upping both volume and efficiency in the post-season. He was 5th in PPG in the regular season and 3rd in the play-offs. There's a couple others in contention here but I don't think any of them had as good of an all around season as Jones had.

Offensive Player of the Year
1. Jerry West
2. Oscar Robertson
3. Sam Jones


This might be a bit controversial but my reasoning for placing West over Oscar are similar to why I put them like this for POY as well. Oscar was the top player on offense in the regular season but West wasn't all that far behind in my opinion. Oscar then had a decent but overall unconvincing early exit, while West stepped up his scoring massively in the absence of Baylor. For the last spot I though about Bellamy as the Bullets were the 3rd best offense in both the regular season and post-season but I don't think he was individually as impactful as Sam Jones with his scoring. Even though the Celtics are still not a great offense, they went from dead last by a good margin to 7th and I believe an important part of that is Jones' jump this year.

Defensive Player of the Year
1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Nate Thurmond


I'm not sure if anyone can challenge Russell for the #1 spot in the next coming years but nobody really comes close this time. I included Wilt and Thurmond as I don't see anyone else really stepping up to knock them off this ballot. The Celtics have a couple guys who deserve a mention but I don't think any of them individually had similar impact to Wilt and Thurmond.

Return to Player Comparisons