Retro POY '67-68 (Voting Complete)

[Doctor MJ]

So he isn't accountable in some form or fashion for what went down? That doesn't seem fair to me. It isn't a matter of what his relationship with Wilt was.

It was the fact that he said one thing -- paraphrasing, "We played the way we have all year" -- when in fact something entirely different happened. He isn't entirely to blame, nor is Wilt, nor is the supporting cast.

With a catastrophe of that magnitude, there is plenty to go around. But make no mistake -- he deserves his share.

I won't go so far as to say that Hannum can't possibly deserve blame, I just think it's really important to realize what Hannum did for Wilt - and when I hear stories of Wilt showing his independence by not liking Hannum's handshake policy, and going on and on about how "there is more to life than basketball/winning", it really makes me shake my head and think how hard it must have been to deal with Wilt as his coach, let alone then also deal with keeping the rest of the team's morale high.

[bastillon]

we know that Wilt's teammates were so damn nasty that they were contenders even without him.

Really? They won 55 games the first year without him, but they were spanked by the Celtics in the first round. That kicked off a downward slide, aided by Greer's aging and the terrible trade of Walker, that culminated with them recording the worst record in history in 1973, 9-73. That's not serious contention. Indeed, you can argue that getting rid of Wilt damned the franchise.

losing to a team of Celtics caliber (who stepped it up big time in the playoffs) is no shame and you know that. whether or not it was a serious contention, the fact remains untouched that they were an excellent team with more than enough talent to make the playoffs and stay competitive. meanwhile Russell's teammates proved incapable of making the playoffs.

'69 Sixers vs '70 Celtics this is pretty much the comparison of their supporting casts. Wilt just had a lot more on his team and it's evident:

69 Sixers 55W 4.8 SRS
70 Celtics 34W -1.6

that's a 21W or 6.4 SRS differential i.e. "nowhere near".

I don't know why so many of you are ignoring just how stacked this 76ers team was, with or without Wilt.

An SRS drop of 3+, when a former teammate goes from 6th man to MVP candidate, really doesn't sound so bad to me. That's basically Jordan's first retirement, without the excuse of Cunningham stunning the world with his emerging talent. When you consider also that the SRS with Wilt was so damn good there wasn't any motivation to dominate harder, it becomes more impressive still.

Also, Philly had the best DRtg in the league this year over Russell's Celtics, clearly Wilt was involved.

context is important: Philly had the best DRtg not because they were so great but because Celtics underperformed. Celtics didn't just have a down year, but they simply coasted at the end of RS to get themselves ready for the playoffs. this is the adjustment regulator's articles specifically talked about: Russell said he would limit himself and Hondo to unusually low 36 MPG. what happened with their defense without the presence of this two:

points allowed (per game)
first 64 games - 110.8
last 18 games - 116.6 (last month of the RS)

they were just a lot worse in the 2nd half of the season, because of how Russell prepared his team for the most important part of the year. the same thing this year's Celtics did.

so Sixers were a very good defensive team, but more like Unseld's Baltimore in '69 rather than at Celtics epic level:

Sixers '68 - 4.9 under lg average
Bullets '69 - 4.1 under lg average

so I'll give Wilt credit for making this team so efficient on defense, but at the same time acknowledge that his impact wasn't anywhere near vintage Russell as he was resting for the playoffs. Wilt's impact didn't seem to extend to the offensive end though, as Sixers offensive rating remained the same without him.

I'll that you one thing though, Luke Jackson was in the league specifically because of his size and defensive skills. on the games from the 60s I watched he stood out as one of the most impactful defenders (they may be online, so...) on the floor. undeniably his loss contributed to Sixers regress on the defensive end. not only he was a valuable defender, but they didn't have that position filled at all. they were forced to play small which caused their defense to collapse, understandably so.

that's part of why I remain sceptical of Chamberlain's numbers translating into wins:
1) they regressed only because of their defense
2) they lost 2 guys, one of which was considered a defensive specialist
3) they didn't have any bigs so they went small

it seems perfectly logical that 2) the loss of Jackson and 3) small ball impacted 1) defensive regress. now don't you think it wouldn't be an overstatement if you said that it was critical ? you lose one of the best defensive PFs in the game (the best as far as I know) and insert SFs to fill the void, the defense is gonna collapse unavoidably.

what's left for Chamberlain ? well, by my guess, not enough to think of him as someone who's better than Bill Russell.

[bastillon]

Game 5: 28 pts, 30 rebs. 11/21 FG, 6/11 FT. Rest of the team struggled, Greer/Jones/Walker combined for just 12/44. Russell had 8 pts, 24 rebs.
Game 6: 20 pts, 27 rebs. Shot 6/21 FG, and 8/23 FT. Hal Greer had 40 pts on 15/24. Sixers should have closed it out here. There is no excuse when your teammate gives you 40 pts. Russell had 17 pts, 31 rebs.
Game 7: 14 pts, 34 rebs. 4/9 FG, 6/15 FT. Russell had 12 pts, 26 rebs. Dead even the whole away, and Wilt becomes mysteriously passive in the second half. "Wilt's failure to shoot a puzzle"

I generally couldn't care less if Wilt lost a 3-1 lead or was 3-0 down to come back tied at 3-3 and then lost a game 7. the only thing that matters is how he performed overall. I'm not gonna punish Wilt more for losing just because he lost a lead. well, first he had to win some games to get that lead, right ? I doesn't make much sense to penalize him additionally.

what I have a problem with is that, aside from that G7 choke, Wilt got really locked up by Embry. ever since Russell switched onto Walker and put Embry on Wilt, Sixers offense sucked and Chamberlain didn't really help at all.

team that had averaged 122 PPG in the RS, suddenly averaged 104.7 throughout the last 3 games while Wilt scored 20.7 PPG on 43% TS. it's not just that game 7, it's the whole period G5-7 that I have a problem with. Wilt's team struggled because Russell focused on putting the pressure on everyone but Wilt while Embry was busy guarding him. Wilt just couldn't take advantage of that situation and it hurts his value as a playoff performer. 20 pts per 48 mins is pretty much average of nearly every starting center today. 43% TS is nothing short of awful.

I also don't see why so much complaining about Hannum not going to Wilt. well, first of all he was known for being vulnerable under pressure. second of all, they tried going to Wilt in game 6 and it turned out to be a disaster performance by Chamberlain (20 pts on 32% TS). third, Chamberlain was inefficient in that game 7 as well. there's no reason to put so much blame on the guy just because he didn't go with inefficient solution as his primary choice.

and it's not like Chamberlain wanted any part of the ball. as he beautifully put it: "in some ways, I like it better when we lose". that's all I need to know about this guy honestly.

put yourself in Hannum's position. after going up 3-1, Boston comes as motivated as ever and pretty convincingly takes 5th game with the newest adjustment of Embry on Chamberlain. Hannum reacts in the 6th game by playing through Wilt as he apparently perceived Embry as a liability in this situation. so Chamberlain comes in and puts up the worst offensive performance he could. Hannum still goes through Chamberlain in the first half of G7 but as nothing's working for Wilt as Embry keeps him relatively quiet, he tries some other ways to salvage the series as momentum was on Celtics side and playing through Chamberlain against Wayne Embry proved ineffective in the series. so what's wrong with going with perimeter players in this situation ? it's not like they weren't premier offensive players. Russell on Walker is what made the difference in the end, because Greer was just off had a quiet night after going for 40 pts in the previous game.

[bastillon]

Chamberlain averaged 22 points and 25 rebounds against Boston. he shot 43% TS the last 3 games, but I don't know what were his shooting figures before then. I thought it would be good to lay it out.

[ronnymac2]

Barry sat out for the year. Thurmond got injured and couldn't play in the playoffs. He's out. Bellamy isn't good enough. Reed was a legit contender the last few seasons. He had a great season, but he's not there. No to Hal Greer and Dave Bing, though as I said before, Bing will get an HM. Not feeling Hawkins over the other guys. Unlike his teammate, Lucas isn't good enough of a player to be considered without tiebreakers and a playoff run.

It's Russell, Hondo, Wilt, Baylor, West, Robertson that are left.

You guys do know that Hondo outscored Elgin Baylor in the finals, right? And how Havlicek dropped 40/10/7 at Los Angeles in game six of the NBA Finals to eliminate the Lakers? 40/10/7. Dude dropped 27 a game against LA.

Robertson was amazing this year. I'll just say that. I don't think he can get knocked off.

[mopper8]

Anyway, I think he probably took too much flack throughout his career, just like Kareem after him, but it doesn't change the reality that he marched to a different beat than what is normal for most athletes. That also doesn't prevent him from being the best player in the league in a given year.

The Kobe comparison is an interesting one, and has me re-thinking things a little. Something to chew on.

As for the above, I think that's probably why you'll find me arguing so vehemently on his behalf. As someone else noted, he's polarizing...you see some posters on here absolutely trashing the guy, suggesting he had little to no impact on team success, which would have to make him the luckiest SOB the league has ever seen considering the consistent high level of success his teams had. I feel almost like I have to over-argue the case just for balance, lol, though I admit that's probably not the right approach to this discussion.

At the same time, it's hard to even know where to start with some of this discussion. I'll just re-iterate: his teams won over 60% of their games, 55% of their playoff games, 17 of 27 playoff series, 2 titles, 9 straight years in the Conference/Division Finals or NBA Finals, 2 titles, centerpiece to one of the greatest teams of all-time. Whether or not he was mentally checked-in the way we want our athletes to be, he was incredibly effective on the court, and I'm astonished that anyone would argue the contrary.

[bastillon]

for the record, his teams post '65 were indeed ridiculously talented. his supporting cast from '68 was pretty much a 60W team with Luke Jackson... and I honestly don't know why would you bring his CAREER accomplishments to this as he's very inconsistent year-to-year.

[Dr Positivity]

1. Wilt
2. Russell

Came into this thread with Russell 1st, but some comments, particularly by TLAF and ronnymac made me change my mind. What really swings Game 7 isn't Wilt's lack of shots. It's the other Sixers shooting like crap. Wilt grabs 34 rbs, has monster passing pedigree, and seems like in fine defensive form. Feels like this is the closest Russell and Wilt were defensively, according to ElGee's stats this is Boston's worst defensive year of the Russell era pretty easily, meanwhile Philly had the #1 DRTG. Even with his OK for him series Wilt's offense was still miles ahead of Russell's, and defensively it may not be a grand canyon gap - arguably Wilt still was the better player in the series. I'm not ready to proclaim that, but it's enough of a wash for me to give Wilt the edge based on CRUSHING everyone in the regular season. He seems like the best basketball player in the world right now. And again if the Sixers win that series I don't think anybody blames him for Game 7 more than Russell got for Game 7 in 69. They might even praise him for knowing to let his teammates carry the show off the attention he creates. I'm sure Russell had a lot of important games where he scored only a handful of points in the second half - with his teammates doing the offensive work while he played d, rebounded, and passed. The difference is Wilt happened to lose this one.

3. Oscar - Might be the second best player in the world, but 65 games combined with Russ's title puts him in 3rd. Still 30/10/6 is huge, the ORTG was near league best, and the team definitely missed him.

4. Havlicek - Decided to put him over Baylor. Came down to I prefer Havlicek upstairs and as a winner. He was more willing to sacrifice for what the team needed. Judging by 69, I don't think the same can be said of Baylor.

5. Baylor - Big time year with 26/12 and carrying the Lakers without West, then 28/14 in the PS. He'll have a tough time in this project, unfortunately there's just not many points available after Russ, Wilt, West, Oscar.

[mopper8]

for the record, his teams post '65 were indeed ridiculously talented. his supporting cast from '68 was pretty much a 60W team with Luke Jackson...

Sure, they were talented, but you don't see Greer getting any votes for RPOY here like you do Hondo, right? And Luke Jackson, top talent, sure, but better than Sam Jones? And that's not even to mention Doc MJ's reply to this specific point already that I think pretty much refutes your point about him leaving having a small impact

and I honestly don't know why would you bring his CAREER accomplishments to this as he's very inconsistent year-to-year.

Aren't you one of the people on here who's brought up multiple times the impact (or non-impact, as the case may be) of Wilt leaving/joining a team? And not just for him leaving this season, but for leaving other teams in other seasons? Isn't Wilt's overall "mentality" constantly up for debate here? I don't see how one could ignore career accomplishments. If the argument is that he has little impact on his team, and that he doesn't get how to win and this is just another example, I think its very much worth noting that for all his inconsistencies, he went deep in the playoffs 9 straight years (starting, mind you, with a trip to the Finals in 63-64, before by your own admission he was surrounded by talent). How is that not relevant?

Or do we only get to talk about career issues with Wilt when its bad for him?

[bastillon]

76ers—A dynasty of Hannums
Celtics—Closer to third than first
Knicks—Close to something, finally
Bullets—An Earl for Lord Baltimore
Pistons—Plenty of coaching, anyway
Royals—The O and a lot of trouble
Warriors—Great with Nate. Rick who?
Lakers—Will JKC leave VBK alone?
Bulls—Red is always good for a laugh
Hawks—Hudson is in the wrong uniform
Rockets—You tell me your dream...
Sonics—...I'll tell you mine

[bastillon]

for the record, his teams post '65 were indeed ridiculously talented. his supporting cast from '68 was pretty much a 60W team with Luke Jackson...

Sure, they were talented, but you don't see Greer getting any votes for RPOY here like you do Hondo, right? And Luke Jackson, top talent, sure, but better than Sam Jones? And that's not even to mention Doc MJ's reply to this specific point already that I think pretty much refutes your point about him leaving having a small impact

and I honestly don't know why would you bring his CAREER accomplishments to this as he's very inconsistent year-to-year.

Aren't you one of the people on here who's brought up multiple times the impact (or non-impact, as the case may be) of Wilt leaving/joining a team? And not just for him leaving this season, but for leaving other teams in other seasons? Isn't Wilt's overall "mentality" constantly up for debate here? I don't see how one could ignore career accomplishments. If the argument is that he has little impact on his team, and that he doesn't get how to win and this is just another example, I think its very much worth noting that for all his inconsistencies, he went deep in the playoffs 9 straight years (starting, mind you, with a trip to the Finals in 63-64, before by your own admission he was surrounded by talent). How is that not relevant?

Or do we only get to talk about career issues with Wilt when its bad for him?

I've already responded to that post on this page (p.6).

what would you say about my comparison - 69 Sixers vs 70 Celtics ? largely the same supporting casts Wilt and Russell played with, only without them. seems like Wilt had much better teammates, doesn't it ?

your point about his team winning a lot of games is fair in looking at the context. I'll remind you about it when we get to early part of the 60s. Sixers averaged 40 wins in 60-65. is that proving his big impact ? it's late 60s that he started to play on 50-60W teams almost every season. but I think I've made myself clear about his great teammates in the latter part of his career... and of course if you want to look at how great his supporting cast post-65 was, you can look at team performance without him... again, it was great.

[TrueLAfan]

In one sense, it's pretty damning. You knew Wilt could do so much that you wondered why he didn't just turn on the gas all the time. I don't think Wilt changed his game just to silence his critics. He played for so many different coaches and kept coming so close that teams kept tinkering with things. What's interesting (to me, at least) is that Wilt was asked to change his game in small ways throughout his career, and in large ways more than once. That's just unheard of for an elite player. Nobody is going to tell Kobe Bryant to lead the league in assists and be the best defender in the league, and put only 40% of the shots he took before. Nobody is going to tell Dwight Howard that he should try taking 25 or 30 shots a game and sacrificing some D to be more potent on offense. Wilt handled that amazing assortment of skills with something less than perfection...I like ElGee's comments about Wilt. The guy is just different. But Wilt wasn't just different...he was handled differently too.

I don't think that absolves him from blame, and I think Doctor MJ is dead on about how ridiculous Wilt's little dustup with Alex Hannum was. This is a coach Wilt admired and liked, and the big guy still felt he should start little feuds and be contrary. That's ridiculous. That's where Wilt's being “different” hurt his team. But I don't think Wilt's petty outburst was quite as big of a deal as maybe it's being made out to be...the whole “things would never be the same afterward!” is a little dramatic. I think Hannum and Wilt retained tremendous respect and liking for each other into the 1968 playoffs and afterward. According to Cherry, Hannum conceded that he should have called for Wilt to get the ball more in the second half of Game 7 in 1968. Wilt didn't say much at the time, and Hannum left Philadelphia for reasons other than Wilt (mainly because Jack Ramsey came onto the scene). So, yeah, I think Wilt should have asked for the ball more. But I'm baffled as it how it got that far...how did Hannum not call a time out and say, “Our shots aren't falling. Pass it to the guy who led our team in scoring and led the regular season and is leading the post season in field goal percentage.” Seriously, how does that not happen?

And I also think Sedale Threatt has a point...there are maybe 20-25 minutes of Wilt's career that totally screwed him up in terms of legacy...20-25 minutes that he didn't have a whole lot of power over. Wilt had zero to do with Mendy Rudolph's goaltending call in Game 7 of the EC Finals in 1962. Wilt had close to zero to do with Van Breda Kolff not putting him him for the final three and a half minutes of Game 7 in 1969. I agree that Wilt should shoulder some blame for the last 18 minutes of Game 7 of the 1968 EC series...but how much? It's not 50%, IMO. If two out of three of those go differently, Wilt's legacy is massively different.

But they didn't. And, yeah, part of that has to go on Wilt. Enough to not make him #1 in 1968? Not for me.

[bastillon]

CINCINNATI
Frustrated for so long in their pursuit of Boston and Philadelphia, the Royals developed some sloppy habits, especially on defense. They have a new coach, Ed Jucker, who appears intent on correcting those habits, but this is essentially the same team as last year's, while Detroit and New York have strengthened themselves immensely. If Jerry Lucas has another so-so year—his knees were very bad during the exhibitions—and the caliber of play at center doesn't improve, Cincy may well be chasing five Eastern teams instead of two. [b]The middle will continue to be a headache no matter who coaches.[/b] Connie Dierking, a six-year veteran, is as good as he ever will be, which is decently competent but not in a class with the supercenters. Walt Wesley has a tendency, to use Jucker's kind word, to play "spasmodically." Others say he is simply indifferent. Something of a surprise in the Royal camp is Jim Fox, who played center at South Carolina and spent two years in Europe's pro leagues. He is 6'10" and fast for his size, and Jucker used him in a corner during exhibitions. But he may well end up in the pivot. Opposite Lucas up front, Happy Hairston seemed a changed man for a while, but he is back to sulking and may never realize his potential. Defense is Jucker's specialty, of course. He won two NCAA championships at the University of Cincinnati chiefly with his defense and with a deliberate, cautious offense to complement it. In the pros the offense will have to be scrapped in favor of a running game, which is fine with Jucker. "If I had had Oscar," he says, referring to his college-coaching days, "we would have run then, too." For a while, it looked as if the Royals would not have Oscar Robertson this season, either. He held out for more than 5100,000 and probably got it, despite the fact that no one believed Oscar would try to jump to the ABA. His strong bargaining position stemmed simply from his immense talent. As his backcourt partner Adrian Smith said, "Oscar doesn't pick up a ball all summer, and then he comes in and kills you." Jucker hopes to relieve Oscar of some of the ball-handling responsibility he has assumed over the years. "I'd rather he finished a play than started it," Jucker says, but then he would have to find someone else to do the starting. He won't find his man on the bench; as a matter of fact, he won't find much help there at any position.

really TLAF ? good frontcourt players ?

[TrueLAfan]

really TLAF ? good frontcourt players ?

Yes, bastillon. That's a season prediction for 1968. The reality was different. Connie Dierking had averaged 9 and 8 in 1967--he went on a three year run where he average 16 and 9 as a 31 mpg player for the next three years. Walt Wesley was markedly better in 1968-70 than he was in 1967. And those two guys were teamed withi Jerry Lucas, who was first team All-NBA in 1968 and still damn good in the next two years and averaged 19-19-3.5 in 1968-70. So, yeah, I call that a "good frontcourt."

[bastillon]

So, yeah, I think Wilt should have asked for the ball more. But I'm baffled as it how it got that far...how did Hannum not call a time out and say, “Our shots aren't falling. Pass it to the guy who led our team in scoring and led the regular season and is leading the post season in field goal percentage.” Seriously, how does that not happen?

might have something to do with Wilt sucking balls against Embry. 43% TS in G5, G6 and 1st half of G7 is just not good enough and understandably led his coach to believe that it was better to go to other players instead. after all he tried to go to Wilt two games in a row and that was one of the reasons why they lost.

[bastillon]

really TLAF ? good frontcourt players ?

Yes, bastillon. That's a season prediction for 1968. The reality was different. Connie Dierking had averaged 9 and 8 in 1967--he went on a three year run where he average 16 and 9 as a 31 mpg player for the next three years. Walt Wesley was markedly better in 1968-70 than he was in 1967. And those two guys were teamed withi Jerry Lucas, who was first team All-NBA in 1968 and still damn good in the next two years and averaged 19-19-3.5 in 1968-70. So, yeah, I call that a "good frontcourt."

so what happened when Oscar went down ? I'm curious.

[TrueLAfan]

? About what? The Royals lost their leading scorer and playmaker, a guy who was a top 3 player in 1968. Seriously, what do you think is going to happen to a team when that happens? It doesn't change the fact that in 1968 and 1969, Lucas/Dierking/Wesley was a frontcourt combo that averaged 42 points, 31 rebounds, and 6.4 assists a game.

As a serious reposnse to your question, you might want to have a look at the guy the Royals were forced to play at PG in those games. Guy Rodgers had been a good to very good player at one time, but...

p.s. Wayne Embry? You mean Oscar's other "not good" front court player that played alongside Jerry Lucas? The one who finished in the top 10 of MVP voting one year, and made 5 All-Star games playing alongside Oscar? So he got good as an old player on the Celtics, but was not good with Oscar and Lucas?

I will defer to your expertise in matters involving sucking balls, though.

[bastillon]

? About what? The Royals lost their leading scorer and playmaker, a guy who was a top 3 player in 1968. Seriously, what do you think is going to happen to a team when that happens? It doesn't change the fact that in 1968 and 1969, Lucas/Dierking/Wesley was a frontcourt combo that averaged 42 points, 31 rebounds, and 6.4 assists a game.

As a serous reposnse to your question, you might want to have a look at the guy the Royals were forced to play at PG in those games. Guy Rodgers had been a good to very good player at one time, but...

well, I'd imagine that a team with a good frontcourt and a TOP3 player would win more like 50+ games in the first place. someone's overrated in this equation. Oscar's not, he made a huge difference and all comtemporary accounts appreciated his huge contributions. meanwhile their bigs were called a bunch of nobodies, so what do you think I'm gonna think ?

oh, and Guy Rodgers was '67 all-star so you know...

I never said Embry was good. I just acknowledged that Wilt played very poorly against him. 43% TS is sucking balls, it's the same Ewing shot against Hakeem in '94.

[Dipper 13]

And I also think Sedale Threatt has a point...there are maybe 20-25 minutes of Wilt's career that totally screwed him up in terms of legacy...20-25 minutes that he didn't have a whole lot of power over. Wilt had zero to do with Mendy Rudolph's goaltending call in Game 7 of the EC Finals in 1962. Wilt had close to zero to do with Van Breda Kolff not putting him him for the final three and a half minutes of Game 7 in 1969. I agree that Wilt should shoulder some blame for the last 18 minutes of Game 7 of the 1968 EC series...but how much? It's not 50%, IMO. If two out of three of those go differently, Wilt's legacy is massively different.

Indeed, also the last 3 or so seconds of the '65 series "Havlicek stole the ball", where Chamberlain did take over down the stretch of Game 7 and in Chet Walker's words, "made Russell look like a college player."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESDFppbQ2zM#t=2m32s

http://www.megavideo.com/?d=WJYZJVCA

[Doctor MJ]

so what happened when Oscar went down ? I'm curious.

bastillon, chill a bit man. You've been jumping all over people since you began participating again.