Retro Player of the Year 1967-68 UPDATE — Wilt Chamberlain

[penbeast0]

Deciding on a 4/5 order for Baylor/Oscar (Hawkins 3).

Full faith in Oscar as the better player (West as well), but missed games and didn't actually lead the Royals anywhere. The path was easy but Baylor was still the one there for the Lakers (50 win pace without West). I think I'm leaning Oscar.

Any strong thoughts?

Since you ask ...
Oscar easily.

He's probably still the most productive guard in the league. He's still got a big impact signal. His team don't make the playoffs but they're fine with him in around that era. If we were going into a quick and dirk version of why they suck without him I don't like any of the rotation teammates bar Hairston. Lucas has an awful WoWY around this time for someone of his status/production. Smith is (to the extent he's anything) a shooting specialist who doesn't shoot that much or do much of anything else. Dierking is a forward playing center against a bunch of players that are much better than him (if he were a bench forward, maybe this is a nice peak/short prime, but it isn't so it isn't). Hairston's the next guy though he was gone after 48 games. Rodgers can pass, but can't shoot at all, I don't think he can defend otoh. Love ... at this point in the roster has nice name recognition ... has a solid defensive rep ... will shoot rather than pass too much for a player who doesn't make shots.

Baylor has a nice WoWY but off a tiny sample (at least Ben's spreadsheet version). He has a fairly good playoffs.

I just think Robertson is in a different class as a player to Baylor at this time (still prime Oscar, versus revived but away from apex Baylor), I think in either location the team does better with Oscar than with Elgin. Baylor plays more, I just don't think it's nearly enough.

Oscar is clearly superior to Baylor; West is the only guard in the league (until Frazier enters his prime) that is a reasonable comp. I think West is clearly superior to Baylor when playing too. I would actually think Baylor is reasonably comparable with Jerry Lucas who gives you better efficiency, rebounding, and spacing while Baylor gives you more explosive and versatile scoring, better playmaking, and possibly better defense (not sure about that).

[AEnigma]

Jerry Lucas had a 6-26 (.188) record without Oscar on the Royals, then a 10-32 (.238) record without Thurmond on the Warriors. No, I would not positively compare him to Baylor and his 105-146 (.418) record without West from 1959-68.

For a closer Lucas comparison, Neil Johnston had a .288 win percentage without Paul Arizin from 1953-58. Even closer still: Walt Bellamy had a .270 win percentage in those first two years with the Packers/Zephyrs.

In other words, if you go even lower than a pair of players who at that point had led some of the worst teams in league history, then you have a good analogue for Jerry Lucas.

[Paulluxx9000]

Too many people voting for noted assist hunter and returning to his choking ways Wilt Chumperlain.


1. William Felton Russell (notably the first year where Russell actually takes a cut out of his minutes they immediately get surpassed on defense but are still clearly the best playoff defense when he ramps it back up)
2. Hawkins (Clear best player and title winner in ABA putting up great numbers)
3. Robertson (GOAT level offensive player, still in his prime)
4. Chamberlain(drop immediately in offense because wilt decides to assist hunt)
5. Baylor (led a great team to the finals)

[ShaqAttac]

RUSSELL

Russ only guy who can beat a superteam with mid and be voted under the ppl he beating. Celts miss playoffs when he leaves, miss playoffs when they got another C, but they win b2b title with him and he's not the best? Thats crazy to me. Maybe if u only care about the reg szn, but thats not me. Also he was literally the coach too.

OSCAR
tbh i was thinking i should put him lower because he missed the pos but his impact actually looks pretty crazy and he basically just got punished because the east was unfair and his team sucked when he didnt play. tbh if he wasnt going against the goat maybe hed be 1.

CONNIE

NBA stronger than ABA so I guess I wont put him 1 but he the best player in his league and wins the chip as his teams best scorer and playing the best d.

WILT

If you say he was the best rs player, okay, but he choked with a superteam when it mattered. Winning wouldnt have meant he was the best so losing definitely doesnt do it.

gonna edit my vote to REED. Best D and best player on the 5th best team and took Wilts superteam to 6. Thurmond probably missed too many games tbh even though hed prob be top 5 if he was healthy.

THURMOND
Statmuse says Warriors were 32-19 with Nate and 11-20 without. Idk what exactly the win pace for that is but that looks like crazy impact for me and if its okay to vote for West when he misses games then it should be okay to vote for Thurmond. He was 2nd best last year and im not gonna hate on him this year just because his team wasnt good enough to carry him.

[LA Bird]

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

Seeing many crediting Russell for being the head coach and while that is indeed very impressive, I think it is more relevant in a wider sportsman of the year award. Coaching doesn't factor into a player of the year award for me. Other than 1967, I have voted Russell every year of the last decade because he had anchored the best defense which dominated the league in either the regular season or playoffs or often both. This year though Boston fell to 2nd on defense for the only time in Russell's career, 3rd in overall SRS even when healthy, and while they still won the title, neither of the series against Philly and LA were crushing victories like say 1964. I have Russell retaking the #1 spot next year but I got him just behind Wilt this year. Totally fine with flipping the order too but I feel like some people are overreacting heavily with this "choking" narrative and putting Wilt at 4. If he lost to a superior player in the playoffs, why should he fall below someone who didn't even make playoffs in the first place?

Based on results from the last project, I thought I would have to push hard to get Hawkins in the top 5 ahead of Baylor/Havlicek but instead he is getting votes as high as 2 and 3 already. Even as a fan of his, this seems quite optimistic given the level of competition in the ABA in its inaugural season. No offense but it's basically a league with zero relevant player with NBA experience. The only star comparison we have for ABA Hawkins is the half season of Barry the following year and while Hawkins did appear to be the better player, there is a massive gap between prime Oscar/West and early Barry. Could Hawkins theoretically have been better than even those two based on his skillset and athletic gifts? Possibly. But there is just too much uncertainty for me considering how bad the rest of the league was. Hawkins' ABA was closer to Arvydas Sabonis' Euroleague than Dr J's ABA which means there is a lower limit to how high I can comfortably place him. But still, a top 5 spot in one of the most stacked years yet. Baylor had his best season post-injury and Thurmond could still have made the list in a weaker year despite the missed games.

This leaves the two usual guards of the 60s at #3 and #4. I feel like people are focusing too much on the number of missed games while ignoring how good they were when they actually played this season. Oscar led the league in points per game, assists per game, FT%, and was 2nd in TS% to only West by 0.2%. The Royals were +2.7 MOV in his healthy games and -11.1 MOV otherwise. And the insane thing about these off numbers is that they have All Star assist leader Guy Rodgers as the backup and the team still collapsed without Oscar. West had a career year in FG% (0.514 RS, 0.527 PO) and the Lakers were +8.9 MOV in the games he played, or #1 in the league ahead of even the Sixers. They were still the #2 SRS team in the regular season overall despite the massive dropoff in 31 games without him and had already won enough to qualify for the playoffs in just the games West played. 50 games is not as great as 80 games obviously but at the level he was playing at, it's still good enough to make the ballot. For example, if a guy scored 30 at halftime but missed the second half due to injury, he still scored more points than someone who played all 48 and only scored 25. I left West off my list last year due to missed games because neither he nor the team was that good even in the games he played but this year is completely different under VBK's offense.

[eminence]

Player of the Year
1. Bill Russell
Back to his winning ways. Believe his experience as a coach helps him perform better in the playoffs this go around, and is also a little less banged up. I generally agree that Wilt (under Hannum) was a 'better' player at this point, but that's not all a POY vote is. I'm going with the guy who just won his 10th in 12 tries.

2. Wilt Chamberlain
Wilt is comically talented and has a great season 99% of the way through. If the season had ended on an even slightly better note I might've picked him even with Bill winning his 10th. But unfortunately this series and game 7 will always be what stands out in my mind when I think of Wilt. Denying culpability to the very end.

3. Connie Hawkins
Hawkins is *probably* less impactful than Oscar/West and more on par with the next group down (perhaps at the top of it), but he plays the whole season and leads his team to a title. Split league years are hard as hell to parse, but for me Hawkins winning the first ABA title is more notable than Oscar missing the playoffs or West falling out of bed into the NBA Finals.

4. Oscar Robertson
I've been pretty consistent with Oscar being (slightly) better than West, and this doesn't seem like a season to mix it up. Games played tips regular season value further towards Oscar and Jerry has perhaps the most uninspiring trip to the Finals ever. I agree with other replies I received that Oscar is notably better than Baylor at this point.

5. Elgin Baylor
Jerry's the better player, Elgin gets it done when he's out. I'm not really bothered by most possible orders 3-7 (including Hondo). One last shoutout to Elgin (he might get a shout next season, but don't think he'll be on my ballot).

Don't really see the Zelmo case this season, had a very good/deep team behind him.

[Djoker]

VOTING POST

I see the ABA as a far inferior league to the NBA prior to around 1973 so I can't see Connie Hawkins making my top 5.

POY

1. Wilt Chamberlain - MVP. 1st Team All-NBA. Led the league in rebounds, assists and anchored the #1 defense while playing on by far the best team in the league in RS. He created such huge separation that it would be tough for anyone to surpass him in the playoffs despite me being someone who rates the PS postseason more than the RS. Wilt was fantastic in the first round dominating the Knicks but had a rough two games as his very injured Sixers lost in 7 games to the Celtics. It was a disappointing loss but IMO not quite enough to move him down. 24.3/23.8/8.6 on 55.7 %TS (+5.9 rTS) in the RS and 23.7/24.7/6.5 on 51.1 %TS (+1.3 rTS) in the PS.

2. Bill Russell - 2nd Team All-NBA. Russell had a mediocre RS then stepped it up in the PS and won the championship. However, his scoring game has dropped off quite a bit to the point where I just don't think he matches Wilt's two-way impact. 12.5/18.6/4.6 on 46.1 %TS (-3.7 rTS) in the RS then 14.4/22.8/5.2 on 45.8 %TS (-4.0 rTS) in the PS. He would have had to outplay Wilt in their playoff matchup to get the nod here considering Wilt's major edge up to that point and while Russell did so in the final two games, he didn't do so over the entire series.

3. Jerry West - 2nd Team All-NBA. Missed quite a lot of games in the RS or he probably would have been my #2 given how strong his PS was. Best guard in the league by this point. Very good defender as well. 26.3/5.8/6.1 on 59.0 %TS (+9.2 rTS) in the RS then 30.8/5.4/5.5 on 59.6 %TS (+9.8 rTS) in the PS.

4. Oscar Robertson - 1st Team All-NBA. He missed the playoffs but I still can't have him below #4 given how much better he is than anyone else remaining on the list. Metronome of efficient scoring and playmaking for eight straight seasons at this point.
Averaged 29.2/6.0/9.7 on 58.8 %TS (+9.0 rTS).

5. John Havlicek - 2nd Team All-NBA. Mediocre RS but really stepped it up in the PS where he matched Russell in minutes played and carried the Celtics' offense in an impressive way. Fantastic defender as well. Looking purely at the playoffs, he has a case as the best Celtic. Averaged 20.7/6.7/4.7 on 48.6 %TS (-1.2 rTS) in the RS then 25.9/8.6/7.5 on 52.1 %TS (+2.3 rTS) in the PS. He especially excelled against the Sixers which was the team's most difficult series in their title run.

HM:

Nate Thurmond - too many missed games
Dave Bing - too little team success; not sold on his impact
Hal Greer - probably #6, superior scorer but not as good all-around as Havlicek

OPOY

1. Jerry West - Terrific scoring and good playmaking that went up a notch in the PS.

2. Oscar Robertson - Still the best combo of scoring and playmaking. Missed the PS.

3. Wilt Chamberlain - A slightly lesser all-around version of 1967 Wilt.

DPOY

1. Wilt Chamberlain - Anchored the #1 defense. Plays many more RS minutes than Russell.

2. Bill Russell - Anchored the #2 defense. Career low minutes in the RS.

3. Nate Thurmond - Missed a bunch of games but still a class above anyone except the first two names.

[Narigo]

1. Wilt Chamberlain- Anchored number 1 defense and was far away the best player in the regular season. Unfortunately injuries to the team derailed their ps

2. Bill Russell- declined about about on defense this year. But still a solid 2

3.Oscar Robertson- Solid as always but has a bad supporting cast

4. Jerry West- missed 30 games this year. Despite that he was probably more impactful than most other players
5. zelmo Beaty

[OhayoKD]

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

Seeing many crediting Russell for being the head coach and while that is indeed very impressive, I think it is more relevant in a wider sportsman of the year award. Coaching doesn't factor into a player of the year award for me.

Even if you ignore Russell's impact as a coach, I'd say it's still relevant that Russell the player had to coach himself while Wilt the player had an excellent coach who he was mostly unable to replicate this impact without(including the following season). Unless you don't consider coaching as part of the "help" a player has, I would say Wilt having about as big of an advantage as you can get at that front should be relevant, even if it's only a player-only evaluation.

Particularly when considering Wilt's track-record without Hanum

[Dutchball97]

Player of the Year
1. Wilt Chamberlain - A bit disappointed but not surprised at the seemingly tactical voting going on here as I see no other explanation for multiple posters putting him below Hawkins and Oscar. Like I said previously I find Oscar over Wilt completely indefensible here as Wilt had a better regular season so did people legitimately find Wilt's play-offs so bad it actually detracts from his regular season? Doesn't make a lick of sense. Russell over Wilt is another headscratcher to me as Russell wasn't even better on defense this year. Winning the head to head match up matters but I do think people are massively underrating Havlicek's contributions here.

2. Bill Russell - There seems to be some people simply voting Russell first for a lot of things that did not happen on the court in the 1968 season. Prior defensive reputation, despite this season being a far cry from the defensive dominance of 61-65. Coaching, which seems really weird to include when evaluating play on the court. And lastly of course the narrative that has completely taken over the board about how the Celtics look without Russell in 2 years time, which seems about as relevant this season as the time it takes a potato to grow. However, I'm not going to join the club of people trying to manipulate the voting outcome and will keep Russell solidly in 2nd as there is a big drop-off afterwards. Overall a very weak season in terms of top talent.

3. Connie Hawkins - Probably a bit higher than I initially expected but like I said, there isn't a whole lot of strong competition around with Oscar not even making the post-season and West missing a significant chunk of the regular season. Hawkins did about as much as was possible to make his case in a weaker league as he absolutely dominated. Him leading the top offense in both the regular season and post-season is a pretty big deal and puts him over the guys I just mentioned in both POY and OPOY for me even if the ABA at this point isn't on the level of the NBA.

4. Jerry West - Baylor held up well in his absense but at this point it's still clear West is the driving factor for the Lakers. This was especially evident in the play-offs where West makes a very strong case for himself. That said, the opposition the Lakers faced in the west is likely worse than what the Pipers faced in the ABA despite the difference in quality of the leagues overall. This combined with West missing about 30 games makes it hard for me to justify him over Hawkins here but I still have him ahead of second bananas like Baylor and Havlicek.

5. John Havlicek - Stepped up big time in the play-offs in minutes played , matching Russell's minutes and barely even coming off the court. He led the Celtics in PPG and APG every series this post-season, while also providing plus defense. Baylor was a close call here but I find Havlicek's contributions across the board a bit more valuable. Mel Daniels is someone I considered as well but he falls a bit short in the play-offs. Oscar wasn't nearly dominant enough in the regular season to have a realistic shot at my ballot without a post-season.

Offensive Player of the Year
1. Connie Hawkins
2. Jerry West
3. Oscar Robertson

Hawkins led the top offense in the ABA all year around and was a clear standout player in the league. Usually It'd be a hard sell to have him over Oscar and West but with neither of them having a particularly impressive season I do think it's the right thing to reward Hawkins here. West led the top offense in the NBA but it stands to question how much credit he deserves there with Baylor also doing a lot of work in the regular season and further stepping up in the play-offs. Oscar leads the second best offense and for the regular season only I'd probably have him first for having less help than West/Baylor. I'm more lenient for OPOY and DPOY in terms of missing the play-offs so he still makes the ballot.

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

The 76ers had the top defense in both the regular season and play-offs so unless you believe Wilt had a much better supporting cast on that end than Russell I'm really not sure how you could explain flipping them around. Thurmond led the 3rd best defense in the regular season and was sorely missed there in the post-season. Honorable mentions go to Dave DeBusschere who got the Pistons to the 2nd best defense in the post-season and Mel Daniels who was the best defender in the ABA this season.

[OhayoKD]

Player of the Year
Coaching, which seems really weird to include when evaluating play on the court.

Because coaching situation apparently does not affect play on the court...isn't your whole thing looking at context?

Wierd to me Wilt voters apparently do not care about that when "context" puts Russell at a massive disadvantage while Wilt is in the optimal (and evidently inreplicable situation) he notoriously failed to replicate his impact of the very next season.

Like I said previously I find Oscar over Wilt completely indefensible here as Wilt had a better regular season so did people legitimately find Wilt's play-offs so bad it actually detracts from his regular season?

As someone who did not vote Oscar over Wilt, I'm going to guess it has to do with yet another impressive impact signal over a large-sample. Personally I do not really buy the concept of a one-way offensive guy topping wilt in the era of defense, but that is largely theoretical. I'm also guessing the people voting Oscar aren't that worried about missing a fraction of regular-season games. There also seems to be some disagreement about how good or not good Wilt's team was for the season and the playoffs which is understanable given Wilt and his teams' proclivity for unexpectedly good or unexpectedly bad results as well as there not really being any clean-samples to go off.

[Dutchball97]

Player of the Year
Coaching, which seems really weird to include when evaluating play on the court.

Because coaching situation apparently does not affect play on the court...isn't your whole thing looking at context?

Wierd to me Wilt voters apparently do not care about that when "context" puts Russell at a massive disadvantage while Wilt is in the optimal (and evidently inreplicable situation) he notoriously failed to replicate his impact of the very next season.

It's player of the year, not coach of the year.

[OhayoKD]

Player of the Year
Coaching, which seems really weird to include when evaluating play on the court.

Because coaching situation apparently does not affect play on the court...isn't your whole thing looking at context?

Wierd to me Wilt voters apparently do not care about that when "context" puts Russell at a massive disadvantage while Wilt is in the optimal (and evidently inreplicable situation) he notoriously failed to replicate his impact of the very next season.

It's player of the year, not coach of the year.

Okay, so let me make this clearer. Do you not think Russell - the player, was hindered by also having to be his own coach and Wilt - the player, was not significantly bolstered by playing with the one coach who figured out yield sustained results with him?

[Dutchball97]

Because coaching situation apparently does not affect play on the court...isn't your whole thing looking at context?

Wierd to me Wilt voters apparently do not care about that when "context" puts Russell at a massive disadvantage while Wilt is in the optimal (and evidently inreplicable situation) he notoriously failed to replicate his impact of the very next season.

It's player of the year, not coach of the year.

Okay, so let me make this clearer. Do you not think Russell - the player, was hindered by also having to be his own coach and Wilt - the player, was not significantly bolstered by playing with the one coach who figured out yield sustained results with him?

Unless I'm missing something, Russell did not have to be his own coach. That he did decide to take on that responsibility does not earn him extra points as a player in my book. Could Russell have been better than Wilt this season if he didn't have to coach the Celtics as well? Maybe but as it stands in the actual reality of things I do think Wilt had a comfortably better season. It's similar with Oscar. Could he have been a real POY candidate in a better situation? Possibly, but that's not what actually happened.

[OhayoKD]

It's player of the year, not coach of the year.

Okay, so let me make this clearer. Do you not think Russell - the player, was hindered by also having to be his own coach and Wilt - the player, was not significantly bolstered by playing with the one coach who figured out yield sustained results with him?

Unless I'm missing something, Russell did not have to be his own coach.[/quote]
Unless you think that his team would have been better off without him as coach, this is not really relevant to anything.

That he did decide to take on that responsibility does not earn him extra points as a player in my book. Could Russell have been better than Wilt this season if he didn't have to coach the Celtics as well?

Maybe but as it stands in the actual reality of things I do think Wilt had a comfortably better season.

Well i'm guessing russell voters do not agree wilt's season was "comfortably better", but sure, that's an approach.

That said, this does seem to mark a significant depature from your previous framework. One that highly valued entirely hypothetical considerations like whether ball-dominance is scalable.

It's similar with Oscar. Could he have been a real POY candidate in a better situation? Possibly, but that's not what actually happened.

In the "actual reality" of things Oscar's team improved with him by a historically unusual margin...as it has repeatedly before. That is probably a big reason Oscar voters are backing him.

[ardee]

PoY

1. Wilt Chamberlain: he's worse than 1967, but it's by a smaller margin than Russell, and he was already above Russell in '67, so I don't see why he shouldn't be number 1 here. He could've shot better in the closeout game, but that's not enough to override a body of work of 95 games. Probably his defensive peak as well.

2. Bill Russell: Still chugging along. His offense basically never rebounded to prior levels from 1967 onward, and his defense was worse this year too. Hondo was also a fully-fledged star by now and likely the best teammate Russ ever had. Why is he number 2 then? Quite honestly because the next guy had durability issues primarily.

3. Jerry West: tbh, this year may have been his peak in terms of per game impact. Outrageous efficiency in both RS and PS, leading the Lakers to a +5 offense, which was honestly historic for that time period (only the '67 Sixers were better). That Laker team was honestly really underrated, probably the best of the 60s and would've for sure broken 60 wins if West had been healthier. I don't hold the missed games against him too much given he was healthy in the Playoffs, but it's enough to knock him down one spot.

Again, we're talking a 6'2 guard not named Steph Curry leading the league in TS%. And that efficiency directly led to a historic offense... Then he followed it up with 60% TS in the Playoffs... +11 to the league.

Again, games missed is the only reason he's not higher.

4. Oscar Robertson: not much separating these two. This is the point I start to really feel bad for Oscar. He watches everyone else team up and win Finals while he's slaving away on this awful Royals team that misses the Playoffs from '68-'70 until he FINALLY gets the trade he deserves to Milwaukee.

5. Connie Hawkins: I won't lie, I am usually a bit suspicious of how well ABA impact translates, but Connie was still a beast his first year in the NBA, so I am more impressed by what he did this year. That being said, still hard for me to rank him over four of the 15 greatest players of all time when three of them are near peak level, so he gets this spot.

Super SUPER HM: Baylor. REALLY wish I could include him here. He makes a hell of a late career comeback after an injury which many would have thought was impossible to come back from.

OPoY

1. Jerry West
2. Oscar Robertson
3. Wilt Chamberlain

DPoY

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

[AEnigma]

Votes are tallied. I recorded 16 voters: Djoker, AEnigma, Dutchball97, Dr. Positivity, Ardee, LA Bird, eminence, ShaqAttac, Penbeast, OhayoKD, IlikeShaiGuys, One_and_Done, Paulluxx, Falcolombardi, Narigo, and trelos. Penbeast, OhayoKD, Eminence, Paulluxx, Narigo, LA Bird, One_and_Done, and ShaqAttac abstained from voting for Offensive and Defensive Player of the Year. Please let me know if I seem to have missed or otherwise improperly recorded a vote.

1967-68 Results

(Retro) Offensive Player of the Year — Oscar Robertson (8)

Code: Select all

Player       1st   2nd   3rd   Points  Shares
1. Oscar Robertson    4   3   1    30     0.750
2. Jerry West   3    3    1    25    0.625
3. Connie Hawkins   1   1   3    11    0.275
4. Wilt Chamberlain   0   1   3    6    0.150

(Retro) Defensive Player of the Year — Bill Russell (12)

Code: Select all

Player         1st   2nd   3rd   Points  Shares
1. Bill Russell   5   3   0     34    0.850
2. Wilt Chamberlain    3   5   0    30    0.750
3. Nate Thurmond    0   0   7    7    0.175
4. Mel Daniels    0   0   1    1    0.025

Retro Player of the Year — Wilt Chamberlain (2)

Code: Select all

Player      1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts  POY Shares
1. Wilt Chamberlain 10  3  0  3  0   130  0.813
2. Bill Russell  6  9  1  0  0   128   0.800
3. Connie Hawkins   0  2  8  1  3   60   0.375
4. Oscar Robertson  0  1  4  8  1   52   0.325
5. Jerry West  0  1  3  4  2   36   0.225
6. Zelmo Beaty    0  0  0  0  4   4    0.025
7. Elgin Baylor    0  0  0  0  3   3    0.019
8. John Havlicek    0  0  0  0  2   2    0.013
9. Willis Reed    0  0  0  0  1   1    0.006

In the prior project, there were also 16 votes, with Dr. Positivity and penbeast overlapping. With their prior ballots removed, these are the aggregated results of the two projects across 30 total ballots:

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

Player   1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts  POY Shares
1. Wilt Chamberlain 18  8  1  3  0   250   0.833
2. Bill Russell  11  17  1  0  1   235   0.783
3. Oscar Robertson  0  1  14  11  1   111  0.370
4. Connie Hawkins   1  2  8  4  3   79   0.263
5. Jerry West  0  2  4  6  5   57   0.190
6. Elgin Baylor    0  0  2  1  9   22    0.073
7. John Havlicek    0  0  0  5  6   21    0.070
8. Zelmo Beaty    0  0  0  0  4   4    0.013
9. Willis Reed    0  0  0  0  1   1    0.003

1969 thread will open shortly.

[LA Bird]

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

Seeing many crediting Russell for being the head coach and while that is indeed very impressive, I think it is more relevant in a wider sportsman of the year award. Coaching doesn't factor into a player of the year award for me.

Even if you ignore Russell's impact as a coach, I'd say it's still relevant that Russell the player had to coach himself while Wilt the player had an excellent coach who he was mostly unable to replicate this impact without(including the following season). Unless you don't consider coaching as part of the "help" a player has, I would say Wilt having about as big of an advantage as you can get at that front should be relevant, even if it's only a player-only evaluation.

Particularly when considering Wilt's track-record without Hanum

The thing with Hannum is that I think his Wilt years get a little overrated because of 1967. He coached him for 3.5 seasons and other than that one outlier year, the teams were, on average, a below league average offense. Most of the success of the 64 and 68 team came on defense and while you could credit the coach for that too, Wilt had anchored many elite defenses without Hannum.

Also for this season specifically, I don't think it's necessarily a given that Hannum did a better coaching job than Russell. It would appear he got clearly outcoached in the second half of the series with the Walker cross match. But then again, if Russell is the only player who could pull off that adjustment guarding a SF, maybe it is Russell the player who should be getting more credit for it than Russell the coach, especially considering Russell's coaching career as a non-player is pretty mediocre.

[Owly]

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

Seeing many crediting Russell for being the head coach and while that is indeed very impressive, I think it is more relevant in a wider sportsman of the year award. Coaching doesn't factor into a player of the year award for me.

Even if you ignore Russell's impact as a coach, I'd say it's still relevant that Russell the player had to coach himself while Wilt the player had an excellent coach who he was mostly unable to replicate this impact without(including the following season). Unless you don't consider coaching as part of the "help" a player has, I would say Wilt having about as big of an advantage as you can get at that front should be relevant, even if it's only a player-only evaluation.

Particularly when considering Wilt's track-record without Hanum

The thing with Hannum is that I think his Wilt years get a little overrated because of 1967. He coached him for 3.5 seasons and other than that one outlier year, the teams were, on average, a below league average offense. Most of the success of the 64 and 68 team came on defense and while you could credit the coach for that too, Wilt had anchored many elite defenses without Hannum.

Also for this season specifically, I don't think it's necessarily a given that Hannum did a better coaching job than Russell. It would appear he got clearly outcoached in the second half of the series with the Walker cross match. But then again, if Russell is the only player who could pull off that adjustment guarding a SF, maybe it is Russell the player who should be getting more credit for it than Russell the coach, especially considering Russell's coaching career as a non-player is pretty mediocre.

Won't claim to know how good Hannum was to any great degree of accuracy as a coach.

I will say.
1) 76ers lost
2) It is "about" that Russell switched up to himself on Walker, Embry on Wilt ... I was/am of this belief - think I may have read it in a few places though couldn't otoh cite a particular source, though one version such a point is quoted in this thread (post 4).

But ...
1) to what extent did it happen ... in all but one game Embry's minutes are in the 10-12 minute range (one game at 17). So the version with Embry on Wilt is ... either misleading or very limited in scope. And more speculatively if we're saying Russell is on Walker for beyond these short stretches ... who is covering Wilt? By listed weight (not perfect) the next biggest guys are Nelson, Sanders and Howell all 210lbs, and the former two 6-6, Howell 6-7 (non-rotation Johnny Jones is 205, 6-7)? I don't know if this was happening or not. Nor if so how "straight" it was played, nor how exactly Hannum responded if these were used.
2) To what extent did it happening (related to pt 1) turn the series. The series turned. Without full series video it's hard to infer tactical developments as causes of changes in points dif. How much is luck, or other causes ... leading us into ...
3) To the extent we're looking for a "cause" of a Philly loss/Boston win (and overall it's a moderately tight series - Boston outscore by 17 over the series [circa 2.43 points per game], going to 7 games with all but one game won by less than 10 points, though most towards the upper end of that range) ... is this the best explanation. It's multi-causal of course and an aspect of point 2 (and in-turn to point 1). My impression is every 76ers rotation player was out or dinged up for that series. My guess is that's the largest factor at play. But it's hard to be know.

Fwiw, as I've noted in another recent post, the 76ers front-office/coaching situation that year wasn't stable at this point and Wilt alleged after the fact ... something like Hannum's head wasn't all in ... take that for whatever you will.