Retro POY '68-69 (Voting Complete)

[Sedale Threatt]

Wilt felt like Hannum left him out to dry after the Game 7 debacle in 68. Everybody blamed Wilt for not shooting enough -- Simmons describes him as "repeatedly passing the ball" -- in the fourth quarter when in fact he only touched the ball two times.

As usual with Wilt, it's a complex situation. He should have stepped up and demanded the ball. No other course of action is acceptable. But at the same time, the team went off on this weird tangent, and neither the coach or his teammates -- who shot something ridiculously awful like 25 of 65 or 70 -- did anything about it. So the press just hammered him, while everybody else got off scot free. He deserved blame, but he didn't deserve to be the fall guy.

I actually think they got to be pretty close later on after they were both retired.

[Manuel Calavera]

It'd be a nice story if Wilt punched Hannum in the face and threatened Greer with a chair if he didn't get the ball every possession, then scored 40 in the fourth quarter and won the game by himself but I don't know if I'd want my player being so insubordinate.

[fatal9]

Wilt felt like Hannum left him out to dry after the Game 7 debacle in 68. Everybody blamed Wilt for not shooting enough -- Simmons describes him as "repeatedly passing the ball" -- in the fourth quarter when in fact he only touched the ball two times.

I think the source of Wilt's passive play can be traced back to what happened in game 6. He shot 6/21 FG, 8/23 FT while his teammate Hal Greer had 40 pts on 15/24. I think Wilt absolutely hated being a scapegoat and in his head he might have thought that if he was uninvolved, he couldn't be connected to the loss (this would be a very defeatist attitude). This is part of the reason why I won't entirely rule out that Wilt wanted to come out in game 7 of the finals because he felt the Lakers were going to lose and it gives him another "what if" situation. We'll discuss this more come the '68 voting though. West for example in a post-finals interview (posted on last page), said Wilt's shouldn't have been critical of West playing a "one man" style when Wilt wasn't making himself available to get the ball.

I am aware the touches count was low in the '68 game 7 (I remember reading as high as 7 touches and 1 or 2 shots), but his play puzzled everyone from Hannum to the players to the fans:

"Wilt's failure to shoot a puzzle"
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-3 ... 82,5371865

[mopper8]

I think the source of Wilt's passive play can be traced back to what happened in game 6. He shot 6/21 FG, 8/23 FT while his teammate Hal Greer had 40 pts on 15/24. I think Wilt absolutely hated being a scapegoat and in his head he might have thought that if he was uninvolved, he couldn't be connected to the loss (this would be a very defeatist attitude). This is part of the reason why I won't entirely rule out that Wilt wanted to come out in game 7 of the finals because he felt the Lakers were going to lose and it gives him another "what if" situation.

Normally, I enjoy your posts, but here you're questioning player motivations (something I don't like to see or do in general) based on pure assumption, and then using those assumptions as evidence for other assumptions. Its really sloppy thinking. It seems like you're pulling all this stuff out of thin air.

See here:

I think the source of Wilt's passive play can be traced back to what happened in game 6.

I think Wilt absolutely hated being a scapegoat

This is part of the reason why I won't entirely rule out that Wilt wanted to come out in game 7 of the finals

It sounds more convincing than it actually is. All you're really saying is that you don't think cared as much about winning as he did about not being scape-goated for losing, and you're not supplying much evidence for that assertion. Its a bit of a house of cards logically. You don't really provide any support for the notion that Wilt hated being a scape goat (not that anyone likes being a scapegoat) nor the idea that he hated that more than he liked/needed winning.

[Dipper 13]

I think the source of Wilt's passive play can be traced back to what happened in game 6. He shot 6/21 FG, 8/23 FT while his teammate Hal Greer had 40 pts on 15/24.

Not sure if this game was televised or not, but if it was to ever become available I would be interested in seeing just what happened this game. This looks really bad as they should have closed it out then.

I think Wilt absolutely hated being a scapegoat and in his head he might have thought that if he was uninvolved, he couldn't be connected to the loss (this would be a very defeatist attitude).

Unfortunately, this may be true to some degree. He seemed to care about perception an awful lot without realizing that he would never be able to escape the critics. Apparently the tension was high between him and Hannum that '68 season.


The Bulletin's George Kiseda recounted one episode that he witnessed, which had them at odds during a flight home after a December loss to the Celtics:

"Hannum was talking in parables about the importance of winning and Chamberlain listened for a while, a smirk lurking behind his goatee.

"'I think there are more important things than winning,' barked Wilt. 'I think you have to learn how to lose, too'"

"Then Chamberlain got something off his chest that obviously had been itching there for some time.

"He said he did not like Hannum's habit of going around the dressing room shaking hands after every victory but never after a defeat. He said he did not expect a handshake when he played badly in a victory.

"'It makes me feel like a hypocrite,' said Chamberlain. 'I think you're a hypocrite when you do it.'

"'I have to place a premium on winning,' Hannum said as the compartment iced up. He said he was sorry to learn that Chamberlain found it difficult to shake hands with him. He said he would continue to offer his hand to Wilt to take it or leave it. From that moment on it was hard to imgine that the relationship between Hannum and Chamberlain would ever be the same."'

[fatal9]

....

If you look at the time line of Wilt's career, it makes sense to a certain extent. Earlier in Wilt's career, he did get touches and try to dominate several big games. He was still labeled the scapegoat however one way or another (sometimes unfairly). He had a 40+pt/30+reb game in the elimination game vs. Celtics in '66 for example, but he got grilled in the press for shooting 8/25 from the FT line in that game, even had to be restrained from fighting a reporter. He has in fact come out several times in the press during his playing days and declared how sick he is of being blamed for every loss.

With that in mind, later in his career, we see him time and time again play passively in big games (game 7 in '68, leaving game 7 in '69 and game 7 in '70). It suggests a lack of confidence in his own game. Knowing everything we know about Wilt, I can't think of any other explanation. Every time it's at the most crucial point of the season where something just happens. Suddenly his teams start to have problems finding him on the offensive end even though they didn't all year, suddenly he pulls up lame as his team is about to be upset despite playing nearly 48 minutes in every game up to that point. That's just how I try to explain it, and I think there's evidence pointing towards this trend. It's of course not fact, I'm not presenting it as such, it's a possibility I've reached through researching his career. No one likes to be blamed for losing, but it might have bothered Wilt to the point where it affected his performance on the court.

Quotes from his contemporaries also don't help this defeatist image either. I'm sure people have read Simmons' book, I skimmed through it mostly, disagreed with a lot of it, but he did have quotes about this:

Rick Barry wrote:

I’ll say what most players feel, which is that Wilt is a loser…. He is terrible in big games. He knows he is going to lose and be blamed for the loss, so he dreads it, and you can see it in his eyes; and anyone who has ever played with him will agree with me, regardless of whether they would admit it publicly. When it comes down to the closing minutes of a tough game, an important game, he doesn’t want the ball, he doesn’t want any part of the pressure. It is at these times that greatness is determined, and Wilt doesn’t have it. There is no way you can compare him to a pro like a Bill Russell or a Jerry West … these are clutch competitors.

Wilt himself said:

“In a way, I like it better when we lose. It’s over and I can look forward to the next game. If we win, it builds up the tension and I start worrying about the next game.”

Bill Bradley:

I have the impression that Wilt might have been more secure with losing. In defeat, after carefully covering himself with allusions to his accomplishments, he could be magnanimous…. Wilt’s emphasis on individual accomplishments failed to gain him public affection and made him the favorite to win the game. And, simultaneously, it assured him of losing.

[ThaRegul8r]

^^
PHILA?

[Dipper 13]

Indeed.

[Mean_Streets]

hey, it's an insidehoops party.

[Sedale Threatt]

"Wilt's failure to shoot a puzzle"
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-3 ... 82,5371865

You're right about one thing -- this is probably better left for the 68 thread.

And certainly, one can draw a lot of different conclusions about Wilt in terms of his intangibles -- leadership, confidence, competitiveness. That's what makes the debate so interesting.

But while we're on the subject, I know one thing -- that story is pure crap, and a prime example why it's so difficult to reach a concensus about Wilt.

The quote underscores exactly why Wilt was pissed at Hannum in the first place. Hannum is talking about playing "center-in" basketball, or something or other. Which is BS; according to Cherry's biography, Wilt touched the ball -- not shot, but touched -- a total of seven times in the second half of that game. Five in the third quarter, twice in the fourth.

And Hannum is throwing up his hands, asserting that the Sixers didn't do anything different. There's plenty of blame to throw around when you blow a 3-1 lead. I totally accept that he should have done something -- anything -- to exert his influence. But at the same time, the coach is nothing less than a liar if he honestly tries to assert it was business as usual.

The referenced Kiseda, one of the great NBA reporters of his era, viewed it as one of his biggest failures that he didn't assess and address the situation accurately, as opposed to piling on Wilt for not shooting like everybody else.

The far better question would have been, why didn't he touch the ball?

[ElGee]

Following up on Oscar Robertson, put the 14 games Regulator provided for 1968 into the +/- Magic Ball (included the game in which he left in the opening moments), and in those 14 games:

without Oscar - 108.1 ppg 119.6 opp ppg (10 H, 8 A, opp SRS 0.78)
with Oscar ---- 119.0 ppg 116.9 opp ppg

That's +13.6 (Updated) and a direct reflection about what is being postulated about Oscar's impact on offense (enormous) and defense (neutral). Of course, that's assuming pace is roughly the same, but either way, that team was lost without Oscar.

It should also be pointed out that it's possible Cincy's roster was void of someone to step into Robertson's role and the offense seriously suffered because of it. (An older poster could explain this dynamic if they are familiar with it).

I'm also going to assume that no, I can't vote for Lew Alcindor.

[ThaRegul8r]

Following up on Oscar Robertson, put the 14 games Regulator provided for 1968 into the +/- Magic Ball (included the game in which he left in the opening moments), and in those 14 games:

without Oscar - 108.0 ppg 118.4 opp ppg
with Oscar ---- 118.4 ppg 117.3 opp ppg

That's +11.6 so far (will update this when Regulator updates)

All of Oscar's missed games for 1967-68 are now accounted for.

[ItsMillerTime]

Probably going somehing like

1. Russell
2. West
3.Reed
4. Roberston
5. Wilt

HM: Hondo, Hayes, Baylor, Unseld

[JordansBulls]

Jerry West - Finals MVP, Led in Playoff Win Shares, Win Shares PEr 48 Minutes, Led in Playoff PER. Led in Season PER as well.

Willis Reed - Led in Win Shares on the Season and Win Shares PER 48 Minutes, Was 4th in PER, 4th in Playoff Win Shares, 3rd in Win Shares Per 48 Minutes, 2nd in Playoff PER,

John Havlicek - 3rd in Playoff Win Shares

Don Nelson - 5th in Playoff Win Shares, 2nd in Win Shares PER 48 Minutes, 3rd in Playoff PER

3. John Havlicek*-BOS 2.8
4. Willis Reed*-NYK 2.2
5. Don Nelson-BOS 1.8

1. Jerry West
2. Willis Reed
3. John Havlicek
4. Wes Unseld
5. Elgin Baylor/Bill Russell

[lorak]

Great posts guys!

1. Russell
2. Big O
3. Unseld
4. Reed
5. West

[bastillon]

in case you haven't seen this:

?Well, how'd you beat 'em in that one game in Milwaukee?

We just went out there and did our thing and beat 'em easy, playing our own game. Oscar [ Robertson] made a lot of difference.

?Yeah, that's the understatement of the year. You guys racked up the second-best season record in NBA history, so it looks like Oscar might have helped you a little.

Funny about Oscar. I used to think he's such a hard guy, a very hard guy, grumpy and all. First time I ever met Oscar was a couple of years ago in an exhibition game in the Catskills, and Oscar and I got put on the same team.

?What happened?

He got the ball and he drove, and I cut the wrong way. Man, he yelled at me! He said, "Listen, you got to do it this way!"

?What'd you do?

What'd I do? I listened, man, that's what I did! When Oscar Robertson talks, you listen! And it helped me. The next time he drove, I cut the right way, and he got the ball to me and I scored. And I said to myself, "Well, well! You've just met Oscar Robertson, and already he's taught you something!" So I've got to like him. Another good thing about Oscar: he wants that championship! Me, I've got some time, but Oscar wants it right now. Right this year! And he's got us all feeling that way.

?What does Oscar do for you, and you for Oscar?

The main thing we've done is change our attitudes. Oscar knows he doesn't have to do it all, and vice versa—I know I don't have to do it all. I know that Oscar's gonna be consistently proficient in bringing the ball up and setting up plays and making the outside shots. I know I'm gonna get him the ball, and he knows that I'm gonna put the ball in the hoop when he gets it to me.

?Last year you were a lot less relaxed, you were a little grouchy and truculent yourself. I'm not so sure you and Oscar would have worked last year.

Oh, yes, we would! Oscar respects people that can perform. Sometimes I think that's all Oscar respects. If you don't put out, you lose Oscar's respect fast.

?He must put the fear of God into you out there.

He does! He curses guys out right on the floor! For not putting out. For acting flaky. He tells 'em. And that's good. Because a team has to have somebody like that. I won't do it, myself. I'm a little too humanitarian. But Oscar doesn't have that problem.

? - reporter
the other guy is Kareem.

[ElGee]

The Bullets went from last place in the East to first for two reasons. The lesser one was a full year by Gus Johnson who had been injured much of 68, the main one was rookie Wes Unseld who became one of two players to win MVP and ROY in the same year (Wilt). However, the playoff sweep tarnishes this a bit. Wes’s scoring numbers aren’t spectacular (14/18/3), just his impact on winning and Russell’s was greater.

Was Gus' 68 season like Dwyane Wade's 08 season?

I'm surprised you, nor anyone, mentioned Gus' huge injury during this (1969) season. He shredded his knee at the beginning of February and missed the last 27 games. Baltimore had a +5.5 point differential in the first 55 games (40-15) and just +1.8 after the injury (17-10).

If Johnson struggled in 68 and rebounded in 69 (before the injury), I'm guessing that would be a fairly large factor in Baltimore's turnaround (and the playoff sweep)...Can anyone weigh in on this?

[penbeast0]

Damn, memory betrayed me, I thought he went down in 68, not in 69. Yeah, losing your second best player probably does make a big difference once the playoffs roll around. (Though Earl Monroe might argue but Gus's defense and rebounding weigh in heavily in addition to his backboard shattering dunks on the pre-Elvin Hayes Bullets.) Good catch.

I don't remember him struggling in any year other than to stay healthy. He was a superstrong leaper who loved to dunk and played good defense; crowd favorite type with a playground game (so was Earl Monroe before going to NY). But just from the numbers, he looks pretty consistent from 64-71 before he finally broke down completely.

[bastillon]

I'm surprised you, nor anyone, mentioned Gus' huge injury during this (1969) season. He shredded his knee at the beginning of February and missed the last 27 games. Baltimore had a +5.5 point differential in the first 55 games (40-15) and just +1.8 after the injury (17-10).

so I guess this is a great justification for Bullets sweep in the playoffs and thus Unseld's value is even more impressive. I thought rookie leader just wasn't ready for the playoffs, but it seems like other factors decided. not only Bullets' injuries, but NYK being the best team in the league after Debuscherre trade. it has nothing to do with Unseld though and his playoff performance shouldn't bring his value down in anyone's eyes.

Following up on Oscar Robertson, put the 14 games Regulator provided for 1968 into the +/- Magic Ball (included the game in which he left in the opening moments), and in those 14 games:

without Oscar - 108.1 ppg 119.6 opp ppg (10 H, 8 A, opp SRS 0.78)
with Oscar ---- 119.0 ppg 116.9 opp ppg

That's +13.6 (Updated) and a direct reflection about what is being postulated about Oscar's impact on offense (enormous) and defense (neutral). Of course, that's assuming pace is roughly the same, but either way, that team was lost without Oscar.

It should also be pointed out that it's possible Cincy's roster was void of someone to step into Robertson's role and the offense seriously suffered because of it. (An older poster could explain this dynamic if they are familiar with it).

I'm also going to assume that no, I can't vote for Lew Alcindor.

man +13.6 and 3-14 without him speaks for itself... enormous impact. I hope this will put an end to those ridiculous comments by respected posters that Oscar's boxscore value was overrated. if anything, his intangibles seem underrated and especially the way he run those teams.

Mufasa or Ronnie brought up an excellent point about his so-called ballhogging. from the video evidence it certainly doesn't seem like he was ballhogging at all so what probably happened was that in the 60s players weren't nearly as ball-dominant as today and standards were drastically different. what Oscar was doing back then wouldn't be considered ballhogging today by any means.

and the same poster said an interesting thing: in an era when players put up random ill-advised bricks in semi transition, one should wonder about PG's role in this type of offensive scheme. certainly from all accounts it seems like Oscar was this fundamentally sound guy with epic basketball IQ and very much like Stockton played the right way for a PG and controlled the flow of the game, looking for best shot possible, not by over-pushing the tempo like most guards at the time. Oscar's ballhogging was actually a good thing (or, in fact, a great thing considering Cin's offenses dominated entire decade easily, and then Bucks dominated as well) because it kept random idiots (and 60s certainly never lacked these) from firing up low percentage shots. Oscar worked with the ball more, but it resulted in high percentage opportunities for his teammates and the whole team, which is exactly what you want from your offensive star. think about it, would you want Michael Jordan with the ball or rather Harper and Rodman making plays for your team ? I hope the answer is obvious.

also, from what I've learnt by reading comments about Oscar, Cin teammates hated him because they sucked. if you actually remember Lakers back in the day when Smush and Kwame were starters, there was some talk about how they disliked Kobe. he couldn't stand their scrub presence on his team and I believe it was the time when Kobe said things like "teach these mother****** how to play". seems like Oscar was hard on his teammates as well, and because they sucked so badly, nobody really liked him. once he played for the Bucks, opinion about him changed drastically and that's probably because of team quality, he no longer played with scrubs.

this probably gives you a better idea:

-He got the ball and he drove, and I cut the wrong way. Man, he yelled at me! He said, "Listen, you got to do it this way!"

-What'd you do?

-What'd I do? I listened, man, that's what I did! When Oscar Robertson talks, you listen! And it helped me. The next time he drove, I cut the right way, and he got the ball to me and I scored. And I said to myself, "Well, well! You've just met Oscar Robertson, and already he's taught you something!" So I've got to like him.

interesting thing about Oscar: Kareem said in an interview that he had that winning mentality, that drive that motivated the whole team...

Another good thing about Oscar: he wants that championship! Me, I've got some time, but Oscar wants it right now. Right this year! And he's got us all feeling that way.

doesn't remind you of somebody ? two words:
Kevin Garnett.

repeatedly accused of putting up empty stats in Minnesota, joined forces with quality players in Boston, gives them that fire and drive to win, makes them the most competitive team of the decade and suddenly his intangibles are noticed by everyone. I'm seriously doubting the notion that Oscar put up empty stats. if anything his impact went way beyond stats, as evidenced by this quote. probably his role on '71 Bucks is underrated, too.

[Doctor MJ]

Jerry West

Because he missed so much time, we have decent samples of how his team performed without him. I've run the standard point differential test as an estimator of +/- in 1971 and 1968.

In 1971, LA was -6.5 without West and +4.6 with him, for a huge +11.0. (Competition was well above average.) That's comparable to numbers I've seen from Walton, Jordan and James using the same analysis. I'm not asserting West's peak is as good as those players, but it's certainly a little piece of evidence indicating that it was really strong.

In 1968, he missed 31 games. I tried and tried but couldn't track down all 31 games, so I was left with 24 games he missed compared to sample of 7 games he missed and 51 games he played. Ugh.

In the 24 games he missed, LA was +1.3. In the other 51 games, they were +7.5. That's 6.2 worse in the games without West, another really good +/- number.

My take on West compared to, say, Russell, is that West may be the best offensive player in the game at the time. It's not earth-shattering elite offense, like Jordan or Magic, but he's got a huge edge there. Macroscopically, consider LA's offense before Wilt arrived:

Year ORtg (Pts/100 Rel to avg.) -- rank

1964 98.0 (3.5) -- 2/9
1965 97.5 (4.2) -- 2/9
1966 98.5 (3.7) -- 1/9
1967 97.5 (1.4) -- 5/9
1968 102.8 (5.8) -- 1/9 *Tied 68 Philadelphia for highest ORtg ever at the time

Defensively, I think West is behind a guard like Frazier in terms of impact, well behind bigs and miles behind Russell. But when I put that in a blender in 1969, their seasons are pretty comparable. This may be Jerry West at his very best (1965 was his statistical peak) and Russell is past his prime. So for me, they are on similar plains here and tiebreakers will come into play. West's missed time is a negative, his Finals performance is a positive...

Oscar Robertson

While were analyzing the decade, Robertson's offensives must be mentioned. Look at this decade, same format as above:

1961 95.5 (4.0) -- 1/8
1962 98.7 (5.4) -- 1/8
1963 100.0 (4.0) -- 1/9 *Jerry Lucas added, first offense ever over to hit 100 pts/100
1964 99.2 (4.7) -- 1/9
1965 98.2 (4.9) -- 1/9
1966 97.6 (2.8) -- 3/9
1967 98.6 (2.4) -- 2/9 *Behind highest ORtg ever (Philly) at time
1968 101.9 (4.9) -- 2/9 *Behind highest ORtg ever (LA) at time
1969 100.9 (5.2) -- 1/9

I've never studied Oscar's career under a microscope, and West on film always impressed me more, but that jumped out at me. Looks like he has a number of really good offensive names on the team in the second half of the decade, but regardless that's a pretty impressive run. Then he went to Milwaukee and ran one of the most dominant offenses ever...

I've really enjoyed the work you've done on this stuff. It's really making me think more about Oscar. I confess I had bought into his selfishness getting the way on offense, and that really seems an unfounded assumption.

Interesting with your estimates, here's the stars who've been on the most #1 ORtg teams:

Oscar 9 (6 Cincy, 3 Milwaukee)
Kareem 9 (3 Milwaukee, 6 Lakers)
Magic 7
Nash 6 (3 Dallas, 3 Phoenix)
Jordan 4
Dirk 4