Retro POY '64-65 (Voting Complete)

[Optimism Prime]

Bastillon. Obviously Oscar is a worthy candidate. I'm the only other one to post a top 5 this year so far and I have him third but . . . how do you pick him over West this year?

That's easy enough to figure out. Oscar came up huge in these +/- figures a few threads back, so he's reached the conclusion that West was overrated and O was the second coming. And he just might have been; Oscar was obviously great. But that's where it's coming from.

sort of. plus I didn't vote in '66 when I feel Oscar got disrespected and should've been over West. consider this a 2-year voting in that regard.

but yeah, I just think Oscar was measurably better player. not a huge gap, but clear.

btw. West played 74 games that year. Elgee ? Regulator ?

That just means he missed six games. I think players have only been hurt in the voting when they've missed a dozen or more.

[ElGee]

I don't like looking at net point differentials when a player only misses a few games (eg West this year). In 2010, if a player averages 40 mpg, over the course of the season he's on the bench for ~650 minutes, or about 14 full games. Only, in that case, the balance of the team's lineups are different (and sometimes consistent) without that player, as is the opponent's lineup/strategy. It's really not an equal way to compared missed time IMO, and I think for smaller sample sizes like 5 games we should just look at individual games/summaries.

I ran Wilt's 65 season a few years back, and lost the details but still have the results. I remember going through the season and getting all his missed games, so I hope this is accurate (only possible error would be missing a Warriors game):

San Francisco
First 5 w/out Wilt: 101.2 ppg 106.0 opp ppg -4.8 point differential
38 Games w/Wilt: 108.9 ppg 114.2 opp ppg -5.3 point differential
Season w/out Wilt: 102.9 ppg 109.9 opp ppg -7.0 point differential

Wilt: +1.7

10-28 with Chamberlain.
7-35 w/out Chamberlain.

Philadelphia
Pre Wilt: 111.8 ppg 112.1 opp ppg -0.3 point differential
With Wilt: 113.9 ppg 113.7 opp ppg 0.2 point differential

Wilt: +0.5

18-17 with Chamberlain
22-23 w/out Chamberlain

[bastillon]

That just means he missed six games. I think players have only been hurt in the voting when they've missed a dozen or more.

I meant that West missed games and I'm curious how his team performed without him. it's valuable data.

[Sedale Threatt]

What can you possibly determine with any certainty from such a small sample size?

For example, L.A. went 6-3 without Kobe this year, 51-22 with. Average those figures out to a full season, and the Lakers would have won a grand total of two less games, 55 instead of 57.

Which would lead one to think, hey, maybe he wasn't that important. When in fact the Lakers might not have gotten out of the first round.

So again, this is nice info to have, but if you're basing your entire judgement on them, that's no different than using PER or win shares or any other measure. It's flawed.

[bastillon]

that's why I won't be concluding anything, just putting it in the bigger picture... remember it wasn't the first or the last time he missed games. it's important to know whether his impact was steady and how big was it.

btw. I think Lakers are 50W team without Kobe quite easily.

[Sedale Threatt]

that's why I won't be concluding anything...

You won't? You already seem to have concluded that West was overrated in comparison to Oscar based on one small batch of +/- figures.

[ElGee]

I haven't had a lot of time, or energy, to weigh in more lately. I was shocked to see Wilt won in 1966. Just shocked. I probably would have put him 3rd if I came back to the thread and re-evaluated his postseason in comparison to everything else. He played a great game 7, but I think there was way too much emphasis placed on that. Wilt does seem to get a "yeah, but it's Wilt, look what he COULD do" bonus, and I'm even trying to fight that off myself in correctly evaluating him from year-to-year.

But this year really illustrates something quite profound that a lot of people have been unable to wrap their heads around. He played in two different situations, with good sample sizes, and his play seems to have almost NO impact on team results. And yet...look at his stats!!

Granted, it's one of his weaker years statistically, but it should be clear that good raw stats don't always translate to good basketball. I've often felt like referencing players I've found this to be the case with in the past -- Stephon Marbury, JR Rider, Ricky Davis(!) to name three-- but I don't think of Wilt as a negative like them and didn't want to go there.

The point, which should be illuminated here looking at Chamberlain, is that yes, there can be some very real and simple basketball reasons why 21 pts/14 reb per 75 possessions on +3.4 TS% isn't having the same impact as 10 pts/15 reb per 75 possessions on average TS%.

Or, if you prefer the raw numbers, it's quite real for someone to average 35/23 on good efficiency and not make much of an impact in 1965. And no one addressed that in the last thread... viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1051182&start=30#p24910044

And we will cross this road again with Chamberlain. Look at the team results during this period:

Year ORtg (relative) -- rank
1959 85.3 (-3.8) -- 8th of 8
-----------------------------------
1960 87.9 (-2.4) -- 7th of 8 *Wilt joins team averages 38 on +3.0 TS%, wins MVP
1961 90.8 (-0.7) -- 5th of 8
1962 94.5 (+1.9) -- 4th of 9 *the 50-point season
1963 95.4 (-0.6) -- 5th of 9
1964 93.0 (-1.5) -- 7th of 9
1966 95.5 (+0.3) -- 5th of 9
1967 102.8 (+6.7) -- 1st of 10 *Shoots only 14 FGA's/game
1968 99.1 (+2.1) -- 2nd of 12

We all know many of those teams weren't particularly good. But it's not like they were epically bad without Wilt.

I will post estimated numbers for 1965 shortly...

[bastillon]

that's why I won't be concluding anything...

You won't? You already seem to have concluded that West was overrated in comparison to Oscar based on one small batch of +/- figures.

based on like, what, 60 games ? not that small. it was couple of seasons of data.

[lorak]

West > Oscar is kind of revisionist history. Rather nobody at the time thought that West was better. It was clearly Robertson who was the better one, and he was the only player who could compete with two bigs - Russell and Wilt - for "the best player in the league" award. Ask Writerman, he remembers these times


1. Russell
2. Robertson
3. Wilt
4. West
5. Jones

[ElGee]

Estimated Pace-Adjusted Numbers 1965

ORtg

Code: Select all

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

DRtg

Code: Select all

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

Code: Select all

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


[Doctor MJ]

West > Oscar is kind of revisionist history. Rather nobody at the time thought that West was better.

What makes you say that? This year, Oscar received 21 MVP votes, West received 20, and West finished above Oscar in '66.

What's definitely the case is that Oscar was much more respected in the early 60s. Partly that's warranted, but partly there's just the matter that Oscar was handed a team to start out with, while West got put on a team with an established superstar he was expected to play sidekick to.

[ElGee]

West > Oscar is kind of revisionist history. Rather nobody at the time thought that West was better. It was clearly Robertson who was the better one, and he was the only player who could compete with two bigs - Russell and Wilt - for "the best player in the league" award. Ask Writerman, he remembers these times


1. Russell
2. Robertson
3. Wilt
4. West
5. Jones

Yes, I've read that as well. But a few things to consider:

In 1961: Oscar was clearly better. Jumped out of the gate while West really didn't.
In 1963: West still really hasn't taken a jump, at least not statistically. So, Oscar was still not only quite clearly ahead, but he had just averaged a triple-double.
In 1964: West DOES take a jump, only it probably takes people a few years to give West appropriate credit, especially relative to Oscar, because he was playing with Elgin Baylor.

But then when Baylor had the year he did in 1966, it started to change perception. I think it's likely that West was just as good in the year or two prior to that.

So, the revisionism isn't necessarily bad here.

EDIT: I'm just going to let Doc say it next time. Didn't even know he was awake.

[TrueLAfan]

^^. Yup. Oscar was considered better than West from 1961 to 1964 or so. After that, they swapped back and forth for a few years...although West had (in general) better postseason records during that period. I think if MVP voting had been done after the postseason, West might have had more of an advantage. After about 1969, West was generally considered the better player. Oscar will be picking up (a lot) more votes in the next few seasons.

I think the point about Oscar being handed a team is a good one too. He had a good frontcourt (Boozer/Embry/Lucas), a HOF swingman in Jack Twyman, and a capable high rotation players with guys like Tom Hawkins and Hub Reed and Adrian Smith. Still, the Royals had their peak in 1964 and 1965, but were a sub-.500 team on the whole in Oscar's first 3 years.

And, btw, there were headlines about Oscar threatening to “retire” in 1965 too, after the RS. (He actually threatened to sit out, nor retire, but in the old pre-labor contract era, it might actually have meant exile from the NBA.) Oscar's reasoning was simple; he wanted more $$. “If I can't get my contract, I don't intend to play here … There is a stalemate in our negotiations and the way things stand now, I intend to be a holdout.” He missed almost all of camp and signed a contract about two weeks before the season started.

[lorak]

West > Oscar is kind of revisionist history. Rather nobody at the time thought that West was better.

What makes you say that? This year, Oscar received 21 MVP votes, West received 20, and West finished above Oscar in '66.

I'm saying about whole decade (60s)

MVP is rather popularity contest (and we all know that Big O wasn’t very likeable person, while West was loved by everybody) so it doesn’t tell us much about who was better, but look:

Points In MVP voting
Big O – West
1961 70 – 5
1962 135 – 60
1963 191 - 19
1964 362-39
1965 21 - 20
1966 93 - 101
1967 93 - 0
1968 93- 0
1969 0 – 0

So the whole decade Robertson has clear advantage.
Of course in 70s it was different story, mainly because Robertson’s role in Bucks was smaller than in Ciny.

BTW, I wonder how different results would be if we do this project from the beginning of the NBA to the present.

[mopper8]

BTW, I wonder how different results would be if we do this project from the beginning of the NBA to the present.

I asked a very similar question in the RPOY project thread last night. You should go answer it!

[TrueLAfan]

West > Oscar is kind of revisionist history. Rather nobody at the time thought that West was better.

What makes you say that? This year, Oscar received 21 MVP votes, West received 20, and West finished above Oscar in '66.

I'm saying about whole decade (60s)

MVP is rather popularity contest (and we all know that Big O wasn’t very likeable person, while West was loved by everybody) so it doesn’t tell us much about who was better, but look:

Points In MVP voting
Big O – West
1961 70 – 5
1962 135 – 60
1963 191 - 19
1964 362-39
1965 21 - 20
1966 93 - 101
1967 93 - 0
1968 93- 0
1969 0 – 0

Actually, the MVP hasn't been a popularity contest at all...it's a pretty good system with generally fine results. I think most MVP voting is pretty good; the main differences between it and our voting here hinges on player performance in the postseason. (Again, MVP voting was/is done prior to the playoffs.)

And I think that would be the case here too. I think West's postseasons would have put him ahead of Oscar in at least some, if not all, of the years 1965, 1968, and 1969...which would be four years of the decade.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm saying about whole decade (60s)

MVP is rather popularity contest (and we all know that Big O wasn’t very likeable person, while West was loved by everybody) so it doesn’t tell us much about who was better, but look:

Points In MVP voting
Big O – West
1961 70 – 5
1962 135 – 60
1963 191 - 19
1964 362-39
1965 21 - 20
1966 93 - 101
1967 93 - 0
1968 93- 0
1969 0 – 0

So the whole decade Robertson has clear advantage.
Of course in 70s it was different story, mainly because Robertson’s role in Bucks was smaller than in Ciny.

BTW, I wonder how different results would be if we do this project from the beginning of the NBA to the present.

Well the thing causing the problem with your conclusion is that West missed significant time in each of the last 3 seasons. He fully achieved Oscar-peer status in '66, and from that point to '69 his rep only went up, but if you're injured too much, you aren't an MVP candidate.

Beyond that, the two things that cause Oscar to really be rated ahead of West are 1) peaking at the time of maximum pace, thus allowing his triple double average to be reiterated through the ages, 2) actually winning the MVP while West didn't (though he easily could have, his 2nd best MVP share year is better than Oscar's 2nd best, and if West had been healthy in '69 he'd have been quite close.

[Doctor MJ]

EDIT: I'm just going to let Doc say it next time. Didn't even know he was awake.

The Doctor never sleeps, he puts toothpicks on his eyelids to stay alert.

[mopper8]

EDIT: I'm just going to let Doc say it next time. Didn't even know he was awake.

The Doctor never sleeps, he puts toothpicks on his eyelids to stay alert.

LOL.

Who is that in your new avatar?

[Doctor MJ]

EDIT: I'm just going to let Doc say it next time. Didn't even know he was awake.

The Doctor never sleeps, he puts toothpicks on his eyelids to stay alert.

LOL.

Who is that in your new avatar?

The lady GOAT, Lauren Jackson.