Retro POY '64-65 (Voting Complete)

[mopper8]

[Doctor MJ] has a parade of unusual but mesmerizing avatars.

Indeed.

[Deus_DJ]

Wilt definitely deserves more credit for his play in the postseason. His regular season showed that he played through pancreatitis and/or a heart attack even though he was in rough shape while playing...and if any of you are wondering why his efficiency was so low look no further than this.

[Dr Positivity]

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!!

I disagree. The Warriors half was a disaster. But the Sixers got within a basket of beating the dynasty Celtics. If they'd proven themselves as a .500 team in the playoffs too I'd probably agree Wilt had little impact. But he joined a mediocore team and got them close to a title...

Still I'm definitely putting him behind Russ, West, Oscar this year. No way I consider Greer or Jones over Wilt though

[Dr Positivity]

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...

Well Wilt's teams averaged 54 Ws during his career. In 66 the Sixers had the best record in the league and they were clearly a bag of mediocrity before trading for him. I'm not a huge fan of his, but his stats did lead to good teams almost his entire career.

Those ORTG stats don't look too great. What I'm starting to feel about Wilt is his offensive impact is less than his stats, but his defense is underrated. He blocked as many shots as anyone in history. Now there's more to defense than simply shot-blocking, especially if you step out of position to do it (I'm looking at you, Marcus Camby)... but if he's putting up 6bpg+ or w/e that has to have a big impact, then you add league best defensive rebounding. And his pretty good DRTG results show it

[bastillon]

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!!

I disagree. The Warriors half was a disaster. But the Sixers got within a basket of beating the dynasty Celtics. If they'd proven themselves as a .500 team in the playoffs too I'd probably agree Wilt had little impact. But he joined a mediocore team and got them close to a title...

Still I'm definitely putting him behind Russ, West, Oscar this year. No way I consider Greer or Jones over Wilt though

how do you know Wilt was the reason they got so close ? his boxscore stats were epic in the RS too, but it didn't help his team win any more games.

[bastillon]

Those ORTG stats don't look too great. What I'm starting to feel about Wilt is his offensive impact is less than his stats, but his defense is underrated. He blocked as many shots as anyone in history. Now there's more to defense than simply shot-blocking, especially if you step out of position to do it (I'm looking at you, Marcus Camby)... but if he's putting up 6bpg+ or w/e to go along with league best defensive rebounding, you have to be producing on that end... and his pretty good DRTG results show it

his teams weren't consistently top of the league defensively. they were just above average.

In 66 the Sixers had the best record in the league and they were clearly a bag of mediocrity before trading for him.

the same bag of mediocrity won 55 games without Wilt (and Luke Jackson) in '69. Cunningham wasn't there yet in '65 and they were still .500 team with no center to speak of. put a decent big in there and obviously they're gonna come close to 55 (like they did in '69). Walker, Cunningham, Greer were all-star caliber players to put it mildly... and Jackson was above average starter too. to assume his teammates were a bag of mediocrity is nothing but revisionist history.

[Dr Positivity]

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!!

I disagree. The Warriors half was a disaster. But the Sixers got within a basket of beating the dynasty Celtics. If they'd proven themselves as a .500 team in the playoffs too I'd probably agree Wilt had little impact. But he joined a mediocore team and got them close to a title...

Still I'm definitely putting him behind Russ, West, Oscar this year. No way I consider Greer or Jones over Wilt though

how do you know Wilt was the reason they got so close ? his boxscore stats were epic in the RS too, but it didn't help his team win any more games.

You don't push the Celtics to the limit without a positive impact Wilt this year. Sixers talent without Wilt is miles away from the Celtics

Furthermore in 66 the Sixers won 55 w/ the best record in the league with essentially the same team from the last couple years.

Wilt clearly took the Sixers up a level, it just wasn't immediate in the RS results

[bastillon]

go check those rosters again. that's not "basically the same team". read my post above too.

[ElGee]

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!!

I disagree. The Warriors half was a disaster. But the Sixers got within a basket of beating the dynasty Celtics. If they'd proven themselves as a .500 team in the playoffs too I'd probably agree Wilt had little impact. But he joined a mediocore team and got them close to a title...

Still I'm definitely putting him behind Russ, West, Oscar this year. No way I consider Greer or Jones over Wilt though

Well Wilt's teams averaged 54 Ws during his career. In 66 the Sixers had the best record in the league and they were clearly a bag of mediocrity before trading for him. I'm not a huge fan of his, but his stats did lead to good teams almost his entire career.

Those ORTG stats don't look too great. What I'm starting to feel about Wilt is his offensive impact is less than his stats, but his defense is underrated. He blocked as many shots as anyone in history. Now there's more to defense than simply shot-blocking, especially if you step out of position to do it (I'm looking at you, Marcus Camby)... but if he's putting up 6bpg+ or w/e that has to have a big impact, then you add league best defensive rebounding. And his pretty good DRTG results show it

First, my posts were strictly about offense, since the box score stats of this time are all offensive. I agree that, at times, his defense seemed quite good. I've discussed this in past threads and it was the reason I had him where I did in 1966.

(As an aside, we have no way of knowing how many shots these guys blocked. We've had 5 years of Russell and 8 years of Wilt, and between the reports and the film, I'm of the opinion Russell was blocking way more shots (again, blocks aren't the be-all-end-all). My point is, if you play with the numbers, or if you're familiar with large sample-size data, I don't think Wilt was blocking 6+ shots during the period we've gone over. I'd guess that's closer to where Russell hovers. Those 0, 1, 2 block games add up a LOT. It seems Russell has very few of those. Here's a 4 block per game sample: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... elog/1987/ Anyway, it's hard to even attempt statistical inference because low block game totals aren't usually noted.)

Back to the offensive side. I think you've taken leaps in your points here.

re: 54 wins per. That's not necessarily a reflection of his offensive stats. It very well could have his defense, or some other combination of factors. Also, I'm really trying to understand 60-66, a period in which he averaged 44 wins per year (~.592%)

re: 66 Sixers vs. 65 Sixers.

65 team's top 7 was old Red Kerr, old Costello, Gambee, 2nd year Walker, rookie Jackson, Hal Greer.

66 team's top 6 was Greer, 3rd year Walker, 2nd year Jackson, rookie Cunningham, Wali Jones.

You don't think that's a much improved team anyway outside of Wilt Chamberlain? Their SRS jump was 4...I certainly wouldn't think to give the lion's share of that credit to Chamberlain just based on the team on paper.

re: A basket of beating Boston. That's just an arbitrary way to weigh sample size. He plays one half of the season with one team, and there are little results. He plays the next half with a better team, and there's almost literally no statistical change (at least that we know of, other than perhaps pace). And you want to credit them for being elite because of a close series?

Why not credit Cincinnati for being elite in 1966 based on that logic? Or the 2009 Houston Rockets?

And I'll even agree with you that it seems likely Wilt played better in the playoffs (shot the ball less, assists and TS% went up). But why conclude that he had a large overall impact based on one series in the spring? Isn't it just as likely that young Chet Walker improved by then (as we see so often) and Greer had a big series (as statistics would suggest) along with Wilt's likely improved play in the series?

[Dr Positivity]

I'm not seeing a huge gap in talent between the 64, 65 and 66 Sixers. Walker is already a 17/10 player by 64, by 66 he's 17/8 per 36, clearly the rebounding dropped cause of bigs but otherwise is similar. He breaks out to 20ppg level in 67

Jackson's numbers are actually far better in 65 (16/14 per 36, 15 PER) than 66 (12/12/2.5 per 36, 12 PER). Playing beside Wilt hurt his numbers, but at best it's a push anyways

Greer is an established by 64, no change there

The biggest change is a rookie Cunningham who's great right away in 6th man minutes. With that said, this Sixers team is clear 40 W mediocrity without Wilt. With the Celtics, Lakers, etc. in the league you're not going to compete with a Greer, rookie Cunningham, Walker core. Talent wise they're complete also-rans in this stacked up 8 team league. I know they did great in 69, but Cunningham did an amazing job filling the MVP contender hole that year, they played great team ball, and in the playoffs they got blasted. That team still had weak talent and no title shot. Sometimes surprise years without stars happen. Look up the Bill Simmons Ewing theory article for examples. I'm not killing Wilt cause his team did great the first year without him - He still made those Sixers contenders from 65 onward with a team would be 40-45 W level in talent without him

[bastillon]

He still made those Sixers contenders from 65 onward with a team would be 40-45 W level in talent without him

that's ridiculous. that's the same team that won 55 games in 69 without their main big.

they played great team ball, and in the playoffs they got blasted

they lost to champions who also happened to beat other strong teams (Knicks after Debuscherre trade, Lakers with Big Three). that's hardly "blasted".

[Dr Positivity]

re: A basket of beating Boston. That's just an arbitrary way to weigh sample size. He plays one half of the season with one team, and there are little results. He plays the next half with a better team, and there's almost literally no statistical change (at least that we know of, other than perhaps pace). And you want to credit them for being elite because of a close series?

Why not credit Cincinnati for being elite in 1966 based on that logic? Or the 2009 Houston Rockets?

And I'll even agree with you that it seems likely Wilt played better in the playoffs (shot the ball less, assists and TS% went up). But why conclude that he had a large overall impact based on one series in the spring? Isn't it just as likely that young Chet Walker improved by then (as we see so often) and Greer had a big series (as statistics would suggest) along with Wilt's likely improved play in the series?

Mainly because of the Sixers success before and after this season. Greer establishes himself as the man in 62 (when they were the Nationals), they win 41, 48, 34, then start at 40 W pace first half of 65. They're a mediocore 1st/2nd round knockout led by perennial All-NBA 2nd teamer, non MVP candidate and some other decent players. Dunno about a present day comparison, maybe like Pierce when he was the Celtics best player from 00-07. Would say Joe Johnson Hawks, but 10 Hawks are > any of Greer led teams, and Greer is > Johnson. Anyways when you have to play Russ's Celtics, Wilt, West/Baylor, a Greer team will get bounced every year just like a Pierce led one

Wilt goes to the Sixers and they have the best record in 66, 67, 68 + give the Celtics hell in 65. It's pretty clear he turned the Sixers from mediocore also-ran to contender... and that the 40 W pace of his first half season in Philadelphia is the anomaly, not their play in the PS. Wilt is an MVP candidate at this time, putting up as impressive stats as anyone ever, and his teams are consistently good. You give him a good 2nd banana in Greer and some other good players and you'd expect a contender which is what he did. The Sixers underperformed for half the season in 65, they didn't over-perform in the playoffs. If they did the 66-68 success wouldn't have happened, they'd just have stayed in the 62-65 Greer led also ran stage

[Dr Positivity]

He still made those Sixers contenders from 65 onward with a team would be 40-45 W level in talent without him

that's ridiculous. that's the same team that won 55 games in 69 without their main big.

No it isn't. Rookie Cunningham isn't producing at nearly the level as in 69. Part of that is having less opportunity for shots, but the point is Greer, Walker, Jackson and a great 6th man is the type of talent that is a 40s Ws also ran by themselves, not a 55 win one. The team in 69 isn't convincing me. Greer/Walker/Jackson is mediocre talent in this 8 team stacked league compared to say, the Russ Celtics, West/Baylor Lakers, Oscar/Lucas Royals. In 65 Pettit/Beaty/Wilkins is pretty awesome too. Greer, Walker, Jackson, rookie Cunningham isn't going to compete talent wise with teams who have an MVP candidate and another top 10 player. They're just not at that level. Like I said it's like comparing Paul Pierce/Antoine Walker combo to the Shaq and Kobe Lakers, Webber Kings, and Duncan Spurs

[bastillon]

No it isn't. Rookie Cunningham isn't producing at nearly the level as in 69.

yeah, but Greer is still in his prime unlike in 69, Luke Jackson plays a full season and is an all-star in 65 as opposed to being injured most of the season in 69. it's not like Cunningham needs to take many shots on a team with Greer, Walker and Jackson.

The Sixers underperformed for half the season in 65, they didn't over-perform in the playoffs. If they did the 66-68 success wouldn't have happened, they'd just have stayed in the 62-65 Greer led also ran stage

that's bad analysis. you forgot about 2 factors:
*Wali Jones and Cunningham joined the team in 66
*Jackson and Walker were older, Jackson had been a rookie, Walker had been a soph

that's the reason why they improved in 66. in 67, though, Hannum played a significant part as no other piece changed in that season and he had had a history of improving teams while coaching.

and of course there is no evidence that Wilt was responsible for their postseason improvement. it's not like he improved very much individually (if at all).

[penbeast0]

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 ?

But don't you take postseason into your account too? Oscar was a better regular season player than West throughout the decade; West, however, had several really impressive playoff runs including this year in which Oscar was slightly below his regular season numbers (still good but not as good) -- not even including defensive rep.

[Dr Positivity]

Just another followup note on the 69 Sixers. In 94 the Bulls won 55 games. I don't think any of us hold that year against Jordan. Also similarly, both the 95 Bulls (pre Jordan) and 70 Sixers fell back to the mediocre records you'd expect. There's been other teams like the '10 Hawks where it doesn't look like they should win 53 games+ but everything goes right, but then proved weak in the playoffs

I'm not saying we should ignore the Sixers winning 55 without Wilt. Just that we shouldn't use it to conclude "Ok they'd have contended without him". The team in 64, 65 pre Wilt, is clearly fringe playoff talent to me. They have a 2nd team All-NBAer as their best guy and solid, not great help after that. In an 8 team league meaning the teams average a top 8 player and 3 all-stars, that's pretty weak. The team's success in 69 with Cunningham going off isn't changing my opinion on the 65, 66 teams being fringe playoff caliber without Wilt. 67 and 68 maybe they get close to 50 but that's still a big dropoff

[Sedale Threatt]

Not only is the Bulls comparison spot-on, the bottom line is that the Sixers won a grand total of one playoff game and was eliminated in the first round that year. Only in some bizarre alternate universe is that serious contention.

[Manuel Calavera]

On the flip side the Bulls were one horrible play from making the ECFs and having a good chance at the finals.

[semi-sentient]

Regular Season

Code: Select all

Player            GP   MIN    PTS    TS%    REB    AST
=======================================================
Bill Russell      78   44.4   14.1   .472   24.1    5.3
Jerry West        74   41.4   31.0   .572    6.0    4.9
Oscar Robertson   75   45.6   30.4   .561    9.0   11.5
Sam Jones         80   36.1   25.9   .505    5.1    2.8
Wilt Chamberlain  73   45.2   34.7   .513   22.9    3.4

Regular Season

Code: Select all

Player            GP   MIN    PTS    TS%    REB    AST
=======================================================
Bill Russell      12   46.8   16.5   .540   25.2    6.3
Jerry West        11   42.7   40.6   .534    5.7    5.3
Oscar Robertson    4   48.8   28.0   .528    4.8   12.0
Sam Jones         12   41.3   28.6   .518    4.6    2.5
Wilt Chamberlain  11   48.7   29.3   .552   27.2    4.4

Awards Recognition/Team Record

Code: Select all

Player            MVP     All-NBA   Team Record
===============================================
Bill Russell      1st     1st       62-18
Jerry West        3rd     1st       49-31
Oscar Robertson   2nd     1st       48-32
Sam Jones         4th     2nd       62-18
Wilt Chamberlain  5th     2nd       -----

1) Bill Russell - Russell's Celtics were head and shoulders above everyone else, not to mention that Russell won the MVP and Finals MVP that year as well as the rebounding title and unofficial DPOY. That's a pretty dominant season. Overall, the Celtics were the best defense by a wide margin, and Russell deserves the bulk of credit for that. He wasn't too shabby on the offensive end either, at least as far as setting up teammates is concerned. In the Finals, he set an NBA record for FG% with 70.2% while scoring a cool 17.8 per game.

2) Jerry West - OK. West was absolutely (Please Use More Appropriate Word) in the post-season, and this after having a pretty damn good RS where he led the Lakers to the 2nd best record (and 2nd best offense in the league just behind Cincinnati). Dude averaged 46.3 per game against Baltimore without his #2 (Baylor) who went down with an injury. He wasn't too shabby in the Finals either, averaging 33 per game. At the time, it was the most points scored in a 5-game series in the NBA Finals. Without Baylor though, the reality is that the Lakers didn't stand a chance, but West did what he could regardless and played like a winner.

3) Oscar Robertson - Had a great regular season, finishing 2nd in MVP voting and running the best offense in the league, as well as the 3rd best record. He had a better RS than West, but his post-season play just wasn't up to par with what West did and getting upset in the 1st round doesn't help his case any. I'll put him above Wilt simply because I think his numbers had a bigger impact, although that situation seems to reverse a little in the post-season where Wilt's defense is pretty impactful.

4) Wilt Chamberlain - Wilt put up some gaudy, empty numbers once again, HOWEVER, he played great against the Celtics in the conference finals after upsetting his first round opponent to even get to that point. It sounds to me as though he did all that he could, but at the end of the day, the Celtics as a team were just too damn good. I don't know what more he could have really done? He had a fantastic post-season and that gets him up to #4 despite the lack of team success in the RS. The only other candidate I see in the 4/5 range is Sam Jones and there is no way I'm putting 2 Celtics above Wilt. That would be crazy right there.

5) Sam Jones - Not a lot of talk about Jones outside of the articles posted, but he clearly was an important piece of the Celtics championship puzzle. Had a great (consistent) RS/PS and finished 4th in MVP voting, so I don't see anyone else worth considering over him.

[mopper8]

Not only is the Bulls comparison spot-on, the bottom line is that the Sixers won a grand total of one playoff game and was eliminated in the first round that year. Only in some bizarre alternate universe is that serious contention.

Also has been noted that after that 1 season, the Sixers basically regressed back to the mediocrity you'd expect (42-40) just like the Bulls were sitting at 34-31 when Jordan came out of retirement the following year.