Retro POY '67-68 (Voting Complete)

[ronnymac2]

Can't wait to get to reading this tomorrow. I think I'll have my answer to the question I posed in the beginning of the thread. There is something about this time period that just makes it really cool. We have little video footage, and the stats are wacked out. Advanced stats can't be trusted really. We have the legends of the game, the titans of the league, the first guys to do what our basketball heros do today. Wilt and Russell is like if Shaq and Hakeem kept facing each other for a decade in their primes. Then West vs. Oscar on top of that...and West has Baylor, too.

You use your imagination to combine the footage with the stories and stats...I don't know....it's just enjoyable.



My only analysis right now is: WIN SHARES BABY!!! Get at me!!!

[ThaRegul8r]

Re: Wayne Embry.

Before Game 7:

There are several keys to the game. The Chamberlain vs. Russell duel always is a factor in a Boston-Philadelphia game. The shooting of Hal Greer and Wally Jones outside has to be consistent to keep the Celtics from sagging on Chamberlain. Havlicek and Sam Jones have to provide the Boston offensive power. These all are obvious factors. The real key, however, may by Boston’s veteran substitute, Wayne Embry.

Embry has been very successful over the years, both at Cincinnati and Boston in using his bullish tactics to keep Chamberlain away from the offensive backboards. This allows Russell to roam, blocking shots, triggering the fast break and keeping the 76ers from more than one shot by grabbing offensive rebounds. The Russell/Embry combination has triggered two Boston victories in this series.

While the Wilt Chamberlain-Bill Russell duel always plays a vital part in a Philadelphia-Boston meeting, the key to the game may rest on the shoulders of an unheralded Celtics’ substitute, Wayne Embry. The 6-foot-8 Embry has triggered two Boston victories in this series with a fine defensive job on Chamberlain.

[shawngoat23]

1. Connie Hawkins - Won League MVP and the Title, Led in win Shares, Win Shares PER 48 Minutes, PPG, PER in the season and playoffs.

2. Wilt Chamberlain - League MVP, Led in Win Shares, Win Shares PER 48 Minutes, PER, RPG, APG in the season, 3rd in Win Shares in the playoffs, 4th in Win Shares PER 48 Minutes, 3rd in PER in the playoffs.

3. Oscar Robertson - 2nd in Win Shares, 2nd in Win Shares PER 48 Minutes, 2nd in PER

4. John Havlicek - 2nd Team All NBA, 2nd in Playoff Win Shares, 1st in Playoff Points

5. Bill Russell - Won Title, but didn't much else.


HM: Elgin Baylor, Jerry West missed too many games this year to be considered.

Sorry, man, I don't see how you can logically have Connie Hawkins at #1 and Bill Russell at #5. Everything you said is technically true, but it just feels so wrong.

[Warspite]

1. Connie Hawkins - Won League MVP and the Title, Led in win Shares, Win Shares PER 48 Minutes, PPG, PER in the season and playoffs.

2. Wilt Chamberlain - League MVP, Led in Win Shares, Win Shares PER 48 Minutes, PER, RPG, APG in the season, 3rd in Win Shares in the playoffs, 4th in Win Shares PER 48 Minutes, 3rd in PER in the playoffs.

3. Oscar Robertson - 2nd in Win Shares, 2nd in Win Shares PER 48 Minutes, 2nd in PER

4. John Havlicek - 2nd Team All NBA, 2nd in Playoff Win Shares, 1st in Playoff Points

5. Bill Russell - Won Title, but didn't much else.


HM: Elgin Baylor, Jerry West missed too many games this year to be considered.

Sorry, man, I don't see how you can logically have Connie Hawkins at #1 and Bill Russell at #5. Everything you said is technically true, but it just feels so wrong.

You know hes playing defense of the MJ legacy here. Even Connie would bitch slap Jordans Bulls for this but i hope he reads this and is flattered. Connie is battleing cancer right now. Had the oppertunity to see him almost 2 yrs now and I hope you all say a prayer for him. Would love to see him in public again.

[TrueLAfan]

One thing that hurts Wilt pretty badly in terms of perception is that everyone knew he could score at a tremendous level. Which is why when he scores 21 ppg in the final three games of a series his team loses, it's regarded as a “historic choke”...even though he averaged only 24 a game in the RS, and his teammates/coach didn't get him the ball at all in the second half of the last game. In that sense, I side with Wilt. He was doing what had worked; he was doing what he was told to do. And it's got to have stung him that the people, who for years had said “Why do you shoot so damn much? You're hurting the team!” suddenly turned and said “Why don't you shoot more? You're hurting the damn team!” There's a sad irony in that.

On the other hand...look, do you really need to be told to shoot more? This is the problem I have with Wilt Chamberlain. There were times when Wilt took over games/series, whothey were sporadic. I know it wasn't in his mental makeup to complain about Alex Hannum, hwo he genuinely liked and respected--well, before Game 6, at least. (This also shows the loathing for and incompetence of Butch Van Breda Kolff...the only guy Wilt publicly criticized at the time.) Still, I don't know how you can't have Wilt at number one.

This is one of Oscar's best years, when his team impact is clear--this is the season, not 1969, when his team went 3-14 without him, and 5-20 when Oscar was out or not playing at full strength (according to SI—and thanks to ThaRegul8r for posting those comments and game logs). Oscar and Russell are fighting it out for #2 here.

The other two spots are an open field. Nice pull by penbeast0 on Connie Hawkins, who was devastating this year—and was close to that in the only season and a half in the NBA when his knees were on the way out. Jerry West was his usual self...but only for 51 games. Still, his playoffs were devastating. But, on the whole, I'd go with Baylor over West this year. Lenny Wilkens, Earl Monroe, Dave Bing, Bob Boozer (a good player who had his best year)...there are some interesting people to consider for those last two spots.

[bastillon]

"I remember they were calling us old when I came in, and that was six years ago," Havlicek had said. "We were fighting that then." Havlicek has now played on more championship Celtic teams than Bill Sharman did, and remember, Sharman's retirement was going to be the first crack in the dynasty. Everybody said so. Now they're all gone but Russell. He has outlasted every player in the league who was there when he came in. Just consider the Celtics who played with him, won their championships and have gone: Cousy, Heinsohn, Frank Ramsey, K. C. Jones, Jim Loscutoff, Andy Phillip, Arnie Risen, Jack Nichols, Gene Conley, Gary Phillips, Carl Braun, Clyde Lovellette, Jack McCarthy, Willie Naulls and Auerbach, too, of course, and Buddy LeRoux, the trainer. The owner, Walter Brown, died, and the owner after him, Lou Pieri. The team was sold and still has gone on, so that now Howell and Embry have their championships with Russell, too.

great quote from regular's article.

I wonder if you could check out Lakers record without West this year. it should tell us a lot about his value.

I see Wilt as the absolute clear regular season MVP, and if it's a matter of some bad luck & a little slump in the playoffs, I'm inclined to give him the nod for #1.

I don't know if his impact was as huge as pure boxscore numbers would suggest. after all, 76ers didn't regress all that much the next year (7.96 to 4.79 SRS) and not only they lost Wilt but also Luke Jackson who played only 25 games. so what we have here is 76ers losing both starting bigs and replacing them with Imhoff and some guys that weren't supposed to play as bigs at all (like Cunningham)... and Sixers didn't even regress offensively in '69, the difference was on the defensive end, but that's kind of what you'd expect if you lose your bigs and have no one to replace them, resulting in small ball, which never helps your defense.

so that's a bit damning for MVP's value if his team doesn't regress all that much without him and, of course, in some way it's important to look at the context of Lakers '69 not improving at all with Wilt and then not suffering when they lost him in '70 either. how can you be so sure his numbers translated into impact ?

[ThaRegul8r]

One thing that hurts Wilt pretty badly in terms of perception is that everyone knew he could score at a tremendous level. Which is why when he scores 21 ppg in the final three games of a series his team loses, it's regarded as a “historic choke”...even though he averaged only 24 a game in the RS, and his teammates/coach didn't get him the ball at all in the second half of the last game. In that sense, I side with Wilt. He was doing what had worked; he was doing what he was told to do. And it's got to have stung him that the people, who for years had said “Why do you shoot so damn much? You're hurting the team!” suddenly turned and said “Why don't you shoot more? You're hurting the damn team!” There's a sad irony in that.

On the other hand...look, do you really need to be told to shoot more? This is the problem I have with Wilt Chamberlain. There were times when Wilt took over games/series, whothey were sporadic.

Everyone knew he could score at a tremendous level because he'd go on scoring binges whenever people started to doubt if he could:

The 76ers began the 1967–68 season well again, winning their first five games easily, with me passing off, and Hal and Billy and Chet doing most of the scoring. Then, in our eighth game—against San Francisco—I passed off so much, I didn’t take one shot the whole game. We won the game, but the way the press wrote it up, you would have thought I’d just been found guilty of raping my sister or something. When we lost five of nine games at the end of November, the howl in the Philadelphia papers became unbelievable. It was all my fault, they said. I had to score more if the 76ers were going to repeat as world champions. So, the next day, I went out and scored 52 points and got 37 rebounds. I was really mad that night; I hit 22 of 29 from the floor, including my last 15 shots in a row—even though half the Seattle team was hanging on my back.

We won that game, and when I reverted to my playmaking role, we continued to win. We won 15 out of 16. But the fans were accustomed to seeing me score, and so they grumbled about my averaging “only” 20 points a game or so. In mid-December, one of the Philadelphia sportswriters got to talking to Alex, and they decided I wasn’t scoring because I couldn’t score any more. I was too old, they said; I’d lost a half-step, and couldn’t beat my man anymore. That’s just the kind of challenge I like. The day that story ran, we were in Chicago, and a friend back in Philly called me and read it to me. I got 68 points that night. The next night, we played in Seattle. I scored 47. Three days later, we played Seattle again. I scored 53. I figured I’d proved my point, and I went back to being a passer.

The question that I have that really bothers me—and which no one has of yet been able to answer—is why Wilt was capable of scoring seemingly at will for completely meaningless reasons, but not when it's necessary for winning championships? Proving a doubting sportswriter wrong was "just the kind of challenge he liked," but he couldn't score when the team needed it? No one told him to go out and score 68, 47, and 53—he went out and did it on his own. So if he could "flip the switch," why not do it when it actually matters?

That's one of the differences between Wilt and Russell. Russell said, “In order to win you have to get yourself past a lot of things that may not be vital to winning but make you feel good […]. You have to forgo the pleasure of proving a point, because what somebody else wants you to prove may be inconsistent with the way you should play to win.” Why he is even paying attention to what other people are saying if—as he said—the team is winning in the first place? Focus on repeating and doing whatever it takes to make it a reality. How about taking on that challenge?

After that three-game splurge in mid-December, I only had one other game all season where I scored more than 40 points. That game was against Los Angeles in the last week of the regular season. I got 53 points—and I wanted every one of them; I’d pretty much decided I’d like to play for the Lakers the next season, if possible, and I wanted to show them I could still score—just in case they had any doubts.

See? It's all about proving a point. You can't have it both ways. You can't make it a point to not let anyone forget you can score points whenever you choose to whenever you're so inclined, and then when the team needs it, not do it and not expect to be criticized. Maybe you shouldn't have made it a point to beat it over everyone's head that you can score whenever you want, but then not when something's actually riding on it apart from ego. That's one of the things that's so frustrating about him. He even said this himself:

BOSTON (AP) — Wilt Chamberlain, the greatest scorer in National Basketball Association history has bad news for rivals today—he’s going to do more shooting.

“If I need to shoot in order to win, I will shoot,” the 7-foot-1 Chamberlain said Friday night after scoring 52 points in the Philadelphia 76ers’ 133-109 victory over Seattle at Boston Garden.

“My offense has not really been good,” he admitted. “I have been chastised for not shooting more. And I think we may have lost a couple of games because I didn’t shoot.”

Chamberlain, who concentrated on playmaking as much as scoring in leading the 76ers to the NBA championship last year, hit on 22 of 29 field goal attempts against Seattle en route to his biggest point production of the season. He managed only eight of 30 free throws, setting an NBA record of 22 misses. He held the old record of 18, set against Syracuse in 1960.

“If we are losing, it rests squarely upon me to do something about it,” he said. “Of course, I can’t do it alone. I need help from the other guys. The thing is I’m going to have to shoot more when necessary.”

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=w_ ... 02,3202235

So why didn't he, when he himself acknowledged this was a problem? We saw this recur later in the past years we've looked at.

[bastillon]

any SI articles for this season ?

regular, I love your work. could you perhaps find out what was Lakers record without West ?

[ThaRegul8r]

any SI articles for this season ?

Here are the NBA previews:

WEST
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

EAST
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

regular, I love your work. could you perhaps find out what was Lakers record without West ?

Thanks. Yeah, I can do it. While he missed 31 games, meaning a lot of games to account for, since he missed the first four weeks of the season, that'll be a big chunk of it right there.

[ThaRegul8r]

Hmmm. Was said of Nate Thurmond this year:

“Thurmond quietly was becoming the best center and the most valuable player in the league before he suffered his annual injury in January.”

“Wilt […] drove off in his $12,000 Maserati, carrying beside him in the front seat like a good companion the regular season's Most Valuable Player trophy. It was fairly won, but Wilt, as much as anyone, knew that not only were the great Russell-Chamberlain duels almost at an end but that the trophy itself was merely in safekeeping for another. Nate Thurmond of San Francisco had been on his way to winning that cup before his kneecap snapped to pieces in a game in January.”

Averaged 20.5 points, 22.0 rebounds and 4.2 assists in 51 games.

[semi-sentient]

Final Rankings

1) Wilt Chamberlain
2) Bill Russell

The two best bigs in the game get the top 2 spots. Wilt had probably his best overall season, and while he had his hand in allowing the Celtics to come back, I can't in good conscience put anyone over him. He was a dominant force and no one (outside of Oscar, who missed time and the post-season) was really close. When we include intangibles, however, it gets closer. He meant everything to his team and statistics in this case don't do him justice. While this isn't a COY thread, I find it fascinating that he was able to out-coach Hannum and still play at a high level on the court. Great, great leader. I may end up changing my mind on these two when it's all said and done, but for now I'll give it to Wilt.

3) Elgin Baylor
4) John Havlicek

The next two spots to go Baylor and Hondo. Initially I had Baylor as an HM, but after seeing how well he carried the Lakers in West's absence it's pretty clear to me that his numbers weren't meaningless. He had a significant impact, and he maintained his level of play from start to finish. Havlicek gets the #4 spot for having a very nice post-season run and for playing a complete season. He especially picked it up in the Finals.

5) Jerry West

West had a pretty fantastic post-season run, but he just missed too much time. In keeping consistent with how I've knocked past greats, I'm going to have to drop West down to #5 for being out an extended period. What's damaging to his case is the fact that the Lakers didn't miss a beat when he was out.

HM: Robertson, Hawkins, Baylor, Greer, Wilkins, Lucas

[Sedale Threatt]

The question that I have that really bothers me—and which no one has of yet been able to answer—is why Wilt was capable of scoring seemingly at will for completely meaningless reasons, but not when it's necessary for winning championships? Proving a doubting sportswriter wrong was "just the kind of challenge he liked," but he couldn't score when the team needed it? No one told him to go out and score 68, 47, and 53—he went out and did it on his own. So if he could "flip the switch," why not do it when it actually matters?

That's one of the differences between Wilt and Russell. Russell said, “In order to win you have to get yourself past a lot of things that may not be vital to winning but make you feel good […]. You have to forgo the pleasure of proving a point, because what somebody else wants you to prove may be inconsistent with the way you should play to win.” Why he is even paying attention to what other people are saying if—as he said—the team is winning in the first place? Focus on repeating and doing whatever it takes to make it a reality. How about taking on that challenge?

It's a question that can't really be answered, and that's what makes Wilt such a polarizing, and fascinating, figure. There were enough extenuating circumstances in both Game 7s that it isn't a cut-and-dried issue of blaming him for what happened.

You can easily question his heart, his will and his mentality in both situations, and in general. We wouldn't be doing this project properly if we didn't. There's a comparison between Russell and him that I can't shake: Russell used to throw up before games, while Wilt ate small banquets and lobbied the stat keeper at halftime.

And while I'm not a huge fan of hypotheticals, there's a second thought I can't ignore: if a combined total of three or four minutes had unfolded in his favor, out of the roughly 55,000 in his career, you're looking at an entirely different legacy. Wilt doubles his championship rings, retires with four titles in his last seven years and the comparison between him and Russell is pretty much over, in my opinion.

I don't give him any extra credit for that. He is far from the only player whose career would have been seen in a different light but for a few bounces of the ball. Like Bill Parcells said, you are what your record says you are.

And the record says that while he was the anchor of arguably the two best teams in basketball history when he retired, it also says he played a key role -- but far from the only -- in two of the game's biggest choke jobs.

I find the contrast, and resulting debate, fascinating. Really, other than Kobe, can you find a career that compares in terms of peaks and valleys?

[Sedale Threatt]

Hmmm. Was said of Nate Thurmond this year:

“Thurmond quietly was becoming the best center and the most valuable player in the league before he suffered his annual injury in January.”

“Wilt […] drove off in his $12,000 Maserati, carrying beside him in the front seat like a good companion the regular season's Most Valuable Player trophy. It was fairly won, but Wilt, as much as anyone, knew that not only were the great Russell-Chamberlain duels almost at an end but that the trophy itself was merely in safekeeping for another. Nate Thurmond of San Francisco had been on his way to winning that cup before his kneecap snapped to pieces in a game in January.”

Averaged 20.5 points, 22.0 rebounds and 4.2 assists in 51 games.

Wilt outdid him in all those categories as Philly was chugging along toward the league's best record. So I'm not sure if this is a legitimate opinion by whoever wrote it.

[mopper8]

"You have to forgo the pleasure of proving a point, because what somebody else wants you to prove may be inconsistent with the way you should play to win.” Why he is even paying attention to what other people are saying if—as he said—the team is winning in the first place?

I have to disagree with this point. Maybe Wilt looks bad in this regard in comparison to Russell, but look at Russell's main competition when talking GOAT---Michael Jordan. MJ was always happy to prove a point to some journalist, to his critics, to himself, to another player--that had nothing to do with winning, even when his team was winning, and winning a lot. Some guy talked trash about he held MJ to "only" 20 or whatever? Jordan goes and drops 35 in a half. Sports writers say he's selfish? He goes and averages a tripe double on a west coast swing (IIRC the details correctly, this stuff is all hazy to me). The list goes on.

I think its fair to criticize Wilt for not stepping up in big games (though again, there's limited blame for a big man who didn't get the ball from his teammates; not no blame, mind you, but limited blame. I've seen the same thing happen to Shaq in Miami and nobody called him a quitter), but I don't think its fair to criticize him for "proving a point."

It's the classic case of Monday Morning QBing, or even any # of cognitive biases. We already consider Jordan this great competitor, so anything he does is just another way he got motivated for the regular season and is, as such, to be admired and studied and copied. Wilt is viewed (somewhat unfairly IMO) as a "loser" and as such anything he does is just more evidence of that, even if some of those things are the same as what MJ did.

[drza]

The Russell/Wilt stuff is fascinating. Of course I've heard/read these things referenced before in passing, but seeing the increased level of detail in these threads really brings it home that in this case, it's not just hype or historical legend-making. Wilt and Russell really WERE opposite sides of the coin, the ridiculous talent that didn't get it and the not-as-talented-but-WOW-did-he-get-it.

It makes them extremely hard to compare in many years, including this one. On the one hand, how on earth do you go against what Wilt DID accomplish this year? On the other hand...Russell just keeps winning, and are you REALLY sure that if they would have swapped teams this season Russ wouldn't have found a way to come out on top anyway? Fascinating dynamic, and still very unsure how I'm going to vote.

This is also another very interesting chapter in the Baylor/West group. In '69 I vote West 3rd and Baylor not at all, despite Baylor finishing top-4 in the MVP vote and West missing games. But this year, West missed a LOT of games and Baylor was pretty clearly dominant in both the regular season and (unlike last time) the postseason as well. I, too, am curious about what the Lakers looked like when West was out. So far, it seems to me that Baylor should get the vote this year.

[bastillon]

I see people are giving #1 to Wilt pretty easily. if you stop right here for a second, clear your mind, and try not looking at the boxscore, would you even consider giving #1 to Wilt at all ? granted his team regressed the following season, that is absolutely connected to the loss of not one but both starting bigs. as the story of Elgee's great analysis told us, each and every player who has gained some media recognition in MVP shares had sizeable impact when changing teams. everyone... but two guys. first one is Tracy McGrady who clearly was affected by injuries and who has proven to have positive impact on his team (multiyear +/-). the other is Wilt who changed teams not once, but twice and each time there was no impact on team performance.

there has always been an ongoing debate as to whether boxscore stats can show one's value when there are so many factors involved and contributions not measured by the simple statline. I'm supporter of +/- stats, so even if they're not available, I'm trying to get a picture of one's impact through team performance with/without and such.

now you can assume that Wilt was the player boxscore assumed he was, but given both anecdotal and factual evidence about his stat-padding and historically small impact when changing teams or going down for a year I'm sceptical whether boxscore tells us anything at all about his true value. he has proven time and time again that boxscore stats misvalue him...

now sure, you can look at his stats, ignore his actual performance (since neither of voters have seen him play) and just go with that. or you can look at the context of his stats and see some valuable informations about his impact. first team change that didn't seem to make much of an impact (as Elgee pointed out, it stands out in history of top players), then him going down for a year and Lakers not really suffering, then him going back and the same story - low impact.

there are some cases in which I don't like to operate with boxscore. guys like David Lee, Troy Murphy today are primary examples and people are gonna see no impact from Amare the next season too. if you look at team performance with and without these guys, it makes much more sense about their true value. but it's just me and +/- supporters.

now what if Luke Jackson didn't go down for a year in '69 ? isn't it quite obvious they would've been a 60 win team with another quality big to help Imhoff ? they were 55W team even with one big (and not really of the best quality either). what does that tell you about Wilt's value in '68 ?

it's the same story that Elgee's story tells you. the same thing that happened in '65. or 70. or 71. or with David Lee. or with Jerry Lucas. sometimes, boxscore isn't the best way to look at things, and those of you who blindly limit yourselves to only one type of analysis while there are other ways to look at things should maybe think about this.

we know that Wilt's teammates were so damn nasty that they were contenders even without him. we also know that Russell's teammates were nowhere near playoffs when he retired. so that should tell you about their supporting casts.

and Russell won despite all of this. screw the boxscore. raw numbers don't mean sh*t without context. Russell's easily ahead of Wilt this year.

[drza]

"You have to forgo the pleasure of proving a point, because what somebody else wants you to prove may be inconsistent with the way you should play to win.” Why he is even paying attention to what other people are saying if—as he said—the team is winning in the first place?

I have to disagree with this point. Maybe Wilt looks bad in this regard in comparison to Russell, but look at Russell's main competition when talking GOAT---Michael Jordan. MJ was always happy to prove a point to some journalist, to his critics, to himself, to another player--that had nothing to do with winning, even when his team was winning, and winning a lot. Some guy talked trash about he held MJ to "only" 20 or whatever? Jordan goes and drops 35 in a half. Sports writers say he's selfish? He goes and averages a tripe double on a west coast swing (IIRC the details correctly, this stuff is all hazy to me). The list goes on.

I think its fair to criticize Wilt for not stepping up in big games (though again, there's limited blame for a big man who didn't get the ball from his teammates; not no blame, mind you, but limited blame. I've seen the same thing happen to Shaq in Miami and nobody called him a quitter), but I don't think its fair to criticize him for "proving a point."

It's the classic case of Monday Morning QBing, or even any # of cognitive biases. We already consider Jordan this great competitor, so anything he does is just another way he got motivated for the regular season and is, as such, to be admired and studied and copied. Wilt is viewed (somewhat unfairly IMO) as a "loser" and as such anything he does is just more evidence of that, even if some of those things are the same as what MJ did.

It seems to me that the big difference between MJ and Wilt was that he DID step it up on the big stage as well. I've got no problem with Wilt going out to prove a point when slighted, or when he perceived a slight...all great competitors get themselves going in different ways. But I think Regul8tor had a great point (that he's mentioned before, but that didn't really become crystallized for me until his Wilt quotes in this thread): if Wilt COULD choose to go off seemingly at will (which he states to be the case, and demonstrated that year) then it seems odd for him to choose to do it in meaningless games but not in the Finals.

If MJ were dropping 35 points in a half in January to shut up a critic, but then going scoreless in a half in game 7 I'm quite sure he'd be criticized roundly as well. Or at the very least, the circumstances that surrounded the event would be held up to pretty intense scrutiny for all to figure out how they feel on the subject.

[mopper8]

-snip-

Thing is, I'd be more sympathetic to this point if Wilt's teams weren't so consistently successful by any measure other than against Bill Russell. Winning teams all but 2 years of his career, 4 (IIRC) years with 60 or more wins. Played in the Division/Conference Finals or NBA Finals for, what, 9 straight years? He won more playoff games than he lost, won nearly twice as many playoff series as he lost, won two titles and was a key piece on two of the greatest teams of all times (undisputed centerpeice of one of those), and of the ten playoff series he lost, 4--nearly half of them--were in decided in the final minutes of game 7s.

In any other era, or by any metric other than against the winningest player/team in history, that's a story of someone with an incredibly successful career. Somehow, a guy who's teams won something like 60% of their games and 55% of their playoff games and 63% of their playoff series and were regularly in the Conference Finals or NBA Finals and actually won two titles...gets branded a "loser" or a guy who didn't know how to win.

Part of some epic choke jobs? Yes, without a doubt, no question. But the overall body of work is hard to deny unless you're trying really hard, like way too hard IMO.

It seems to me that the big difference between MJ and Wilt was that he DID step it up on the big stage as well. I've got no problem with Wilt going out to prove a point when slighted, or when he perceived a slight...all great competitors get themselves going in different ways. But I think Regul8tor had a great point (that he's mentioned before, but that didn't really become crystallized for me until his Wilt quotes in this thread): if Wilt COULD choose to go off seemingly at will (which he states to be the case, and demonstrated that year) then it seems odd for him to choose to do it in meaningless games but not in the Finals.

Well, that was kind of my point--if you want to criticize Wilt for not stepping up, I think that's fair and a good discussion worth having. But I don't see the point in also criticizing him for getting up in the regular season to prove some point or another. Evidence that he can step up when he wants? Definitely. But not evidence in and of itself that he was some sort of loser that didn't get it (which IMO was what was implied if not outright stated by that quote ThaRegul8r put in there, that I put in my quote box).

[Sedale Threatt]

It makes them extremely hard to compare in many years, including this one. On the one hand, how on earth do you go against what Wilt DID accomplish this year? On the other hand...Russell just keeps winning, and are you REALLY sure that if they would have swapped teams this season Russ wouldn't have found a way to come out on top anyway? Fascinating dynamic, and still very unsure how I'm going to vote.

I am very sympathetic toward Wilt, but one thing I'm fairly certain -- plug him into the Celtics, and they wouldn't have won 11 championships. Probably seven or eight, at least, but they would have stumbled in a few instances where Russell's didn't.

I'm also fairly certain that Russell was the ultimate beneficiary of being in the right place at the right time. And another thing I'm pretty sure of -- not even Russ could have done much if his teammates had crapped on themselves like Wilt's did in Game 7.

[ronnymac2]

Embry is Kendrick Perkins and Russell is Kevin Garnett in that Philly-Boston series. At least the the end. Embry/Perkins uses his bulk to push the dominant, physically imposing C out of his comfort spots. Russell/Garnett essentially shut down his own man while being the key to shutting down the main perimeter threat, and really the whole offense.

This stuff about Wilt is fascinating. To be honest, from everything I've gathered in this thread, it isn't Wilt's fault. His team inexplicably became dumb- with Boston's guiding hand of course. Russell made an effective counter that Hannum didn't react to accordingly. Philly's teammates failed to pick Wilt up.

Wilt was bad in game six, but it seems he was very good in game five, an elimination game. The series could have ended right there, but Boston won. Don't think that is Wilt's fault. Wilt didn't play badly in game seven. 34 rebounds and, by all accounts, very good defense is pretty damn good.

I've studied that Philly team a lot, especially the 67 version. That team was so stacked offensively that if Wilt was a 30 ppg scorer, I'd call Hannum the worst coach ever. I can buy that Wilt was trying to play the way he was in 67 (a successful year), and that his guys failed him in game seven.

Wilt isn't without fault here. He SHOULD have acted out and pulled a Shaq and said "Give me the **** ball, you little nothing. I'm Wilt Chamberlain." He shouldn't have actively tried to lead the league in assists in the REG SEA- that was a stupid and trivial pursuit.

I don't think it is enough to take him down this year though. Russell was flat-out dominant in an all-around sense, the best defensive player on the planet, and wins a tiebreaker with a title. Contributions to his own team in the REG SEA, he'd likely be my Most Valuable Player since Wilt's team was so stacked with talent.

Russ has a chance to knock down Wilt. I've got Wilt in first for now.

Oscar, Hondo, West, and Baylor are my other candidates. Thurmond, too. Dave Bing is guaranteed an HM for what he did vs. Boston, according to Regulator's articles. That impresses the **** out of me. I'll look at Hawkins, but I doubt he'll make it this year.