Retro POY '62-63 (Voting Complete)

[Sedale Threatt]

This year wasn't as clear-cut to me as it was to many of you, but ironically at the end of the day I don't think my ballot will vary all that much outside of my placement of Wilt. As for Wilt, it goes back to a refrain that I've had to say far too often in the last 20 years or so...I just don't know enough. The dominant impression I get from you guys as I read this thread is that since Wilt's team only won 31 games he couldn't have had that big of an impact...that it's his fault that his teammates regressed to the point they couldn't beat a Summer League team (side note: really? That's pretty awful)...that his style of play was an issue and the difference between him being the consensus #1 player in '64 and being left off of some ballots in '63 is primarily due to Hannum's coaching...

...but to all of that I say, I just don't know. I've witnessed and voted for players on losing teams when I was convinced that their impact was still big but their teammates let them down. Heck, I voted Wilt #2 in '65 and the Warriors team was just as bad for the first half of the year before he got traded. And I just don't know how much blame I can give him for scoring ridiculously at ridiculous efficiency while also dominating the glass. I get the damage in the "pass-it-to-Will" offense, but do I blame the player for a coaching decision?

In the end, I do blame him to an extent because he drops down below Oscar for I believe the first time in this era on my ballot. But I just can't drop him any further. He's still better than Baylor to me. In fact, thanks to Doc MJ's post, we see that without West the Lakers were on 30-win pace just like the Warriors. Do I all of a sudden believe Baylor is better because when you add in West the team is a contender? Some folks on here hate hypotheticals, but I'd be willing to bet that if you added 56 games of West to the Warriors they'd have made the playoffs and had an even better shot at the title. Just can't put Baylor above him.

Well put. Not to mention the fact that injuries were an issue, with three of their top guys missing 100 games or so.

I've been through nearly 50 seasons on this project, and I still don't get the "big numbers, no impact / blame best player for lack of team success" thinking, even with the many good points about over-dominance by one player. But we've also seen plenty of good examples -- Kareem in the 70s, Garnett in the 00s -- where one guys could only do so much.

Russell No. 1 is very, very well deserved, so zero issues there. But to leave Wilt entirely off the ballot, especially for a guy who missed a third of the season in West...I just don't get that.

[bastillon]

Lets take away Russell from Celtics. Lets do the same with every other team in the NBA (take away their best player). Compare all 8 teams without their best players:

Celtics without Russell: Cousy, S. Jones, Sanders, Heinsohn, Hondo, Ramsay, KC Jones, Lovelette
Lakers without Baylor: Selvy, West, LaRusso, Barnett, Krebs, Ellis, Wiley, Hundley
Hawks without Pettit: Barnhill, Wilkens, Vaughn, Beaty, Hagan, Farmar, Jordon, Cable
Natonials without Greer: Kerr, Shaffer, Costello, Walker, Schayes, Gambee, Neumann, Bianchi
Roylas without Robertson: Embry, Twyman, Bockhorn, Boozer, Hawkins, Smith, Reed, Piontek
Pistons without Howell: Ohl, Scott, Ferry, Debusschere, Moreland, Jones, Egan, Loughery
Warriors without Wilt: Rodgers, Meschery, Attles, Naulls, Phillips, Hightower, Lee, Sears
Zephyrs without Bellamy: Dischinger, Green, Sauldsberry, Cox, Hardnett, Nelson, McGill
Knicks without Guerin: Gola, Green, Shue, Hogue, Conley, Budd, Butler, Butcher

So Celtics are clearly better than anyone else.
Auerbach “stole” Russell from Hawks and he also stole many other players from other clubs. People forget how good GM he was, how much way ahead of his time.

how did you come up with this conclusion ? we know for a fact that Celtics were the worst team offensively. do you think they're even average on defense without him ? with two poor rebounding bigs and almost nonexistent shotblocking ? seriously ? Celtics are crap on both ends without Russ - they were crap on offense even without Russell and they were bad defensively without him, too.

In the end, I do blame him to an extent because he drops down below Oscar for I believe the first time in this era on my ballot. But I just can't drop him any further. He's still better than Baylor to me. In fact, thanks to Doc MJ's post, we see that without West the Lakers were on 30-win pace just like the Warriors. Do I all of a sudden believe Baylor is better because when you add in West the team is a contender? Some folks on here hate hypotheticals, but I'd be willing to bet that if you added 56 games of West to the Warriors they'd have made the playoffs and had an even better shot at the title. Just can't put Baylor above him.

so what's your argument for Wilt over Baylor ? why do you think he's a better player ?

1.Russ
2.Oscar
3.Baylor
4.Pettit
5.West

Second, Russell's defensive impact was great, but Celtics great DRtg numbers were in very weak offensively league, so more impressive is what Robertson was doing with Royals offense. You know, for example it's easier to have a dozen blocks or 20-30 rebs when everybody is shooting quick and from bad position, but it's harder to have effective offense in this environment.

what does the league has to do with it ? Russell's defense dominated more ... relatively to league average. Oscar's team was +4 on off, Russell's -8 on def. it's not harder to have effective offense because you're comparing this offense to inefficient ones. see my point ?

[Doctor MJ]

Second, Russell's defensive impact was great, but Celtics great DRtg numbers were in very weak offensively league, so more impressive is what Robertson was doing with Royals offense. You know, for example it's easier to have a dozen blocks or 20-30 rebs when everybody is shooting quick and from bad position, but it's harder to have effective offense in this environment.

what does the league has to do with it ? Russell's defense dominated more ... relatively to league average. Oscar's team was +4 on off, Russell's -8 on def. it's not harder to have effective offense because you're comparing this offense to inefficient ones. see my point ?

This is pretty much what I was about to reply with.

Now to be clear, certainly there's a difference between the star and the team. The team is what did this, and the star's contribution is another wrinkle. However, sees pretty inarguable to me that a defense that if far further above the median than an offense is doing the "harder" thing. If Cincy's offense were as valuable as Boston's defense, then Cincy would have won some titles instead of largely been mired in mediocrity. The state of the league (blocks, shooting, etc) is entirely irrelevant.

[drza]

In the end, I do blame him to an extent because he drops down below Oscar for I believe the first time in this era on my ballot. But I just can't drop him any further. He's still better than Baylor to me. In fact, thanks to Doc MJ's post, we see that without West the Lakers were on 30-win pace just like the Warriors. Do I all of a sudden believe Baylor is better because when you add in West the team is a contender? Some folks on here hate hypotheticals, but I'd be willing to bet that if you added 56 games of West to the Warriors they'd have made the playoffs and had an even better shot at the title. Just can't put Baylor above him.

so what's your argument for Wilt over Baylor ? why do you think he's a better player ?

For this season Wilt scored more, scored more efficiently, and dominated the glass (Baylor's other strong point). Also from this year, as I pointed out above, when Baylor's squad dealt with injuries that weakened his cast they were on pace to struggle as well, weakening the team success line of thought. Plus, I know that Wilt was the consensus #1 player a year later when Baylor wasn't even getting votes, and I don't see any evidence to suggest that within that 1 year Baylor was suddenly way better.

Again, as I pointed out before, I'm dealing with a dearth of info that I would have otherwise had if this were 2002-03 instead of 62-63. In the absence of that additional info, I see no reason why Baylor should be ranked ahead.

[bastillon]

what consensus thought he was #1 ? he was 2nd in MVP race and Russell would've surpassed him in the playoffs had the award existed for the whole year. the consensus was that Wilt was TOP3 player in the league... but that's it.

I see your point though. I also think Baylor was overrated, but Wilt had the same cast he had in '64 and we know they weren't THAT bad. he was just a lot worse, despite the gaudier stats.

[drza]

what consensus thought he was #1 ? he was 2nd in MVP race and Russell would've surpassed him in the playoffs had the award existed for the whole year. the consensus was that Wilt was TOP3 player in the league... but that's it.

I see your point though. I also think Baylor was overrated, but Wilt had the same cast he had in '64 and we know they weren't THAT bad. he was just a lot worse, despite the gaudier stats.

I meant consensus in our project. But even to your point of consensus at the time, in '64 Russ and Wilt were both clearly separated from Baylor to the basketball world as far as I've ever heard.

As to your last line, again, I don't know enough to say that. It's been pointed out that the Warriors had major injury issues in '63, we also know there was a coaching and philosophy change. So it's not like nothing changed between 63 and 64, so the only possible explanation is a worse Wilt. I think you have to make some logic leaps I'm not comfortable making to say that conclusively.

[lorak]

Second, Russell's defensive impact was great, but Celtics great DRtg numbers were in very weak offensively league, so more impressive is what Robertson was doing with Royals offense. You know, for example it's easier to have a dozen blocks or 20-30 rebs when everybody is shooting quick and from bad position, but it's harder to have effective offense in this environment.

what does the league has to do with it ? Russell's defense dominated more ... relatively to league average. Oscar's team was +4 on off, Russell's -8 on def. it's not harder to have effective offense because you're comparing this offense to inefficient ones. see my point ?

I see, but I’m talking about something different, more complicated than simply “relatively to league average”.
If whole league is offensively minded (and in this case offense = many, many bad and quick shots), nobody really cares about defense, and one team(A) changed style and focus more on D and this team DRtg relatively to league average would be very impressive, let say it would be -9. On the other hand, in different era, when whole league is defensive minded, the best team (B) in DRtg have -7. Is this team (B) worse on D than team A?

[bastillon]

I see, but I’m talking about something different, more complicated than simply “relatively to league average”.
If whole league is offensively minded (and in this case offense = many, many bad and quick shots), nobody really cares about defense, and one team(A) changed style and focus more on D and this team DRtg relatively to league average would be very impressive, let say it would be -9. On the other hand, in different era, when whole league is defensive minded, the best team (B) in DRtg have -7. Is this team (B) worse on D than team A?

your example isn't the same as we're discussing here. team B is competing against a better league (in terms of the defense) meanwhile Royals and Celtics are playing against the same league. as much the Celtics benefit from having poor opposition on offense, boosting their DRtg, Cincinatti is still playing against the same teams and thus boosting its offense since other teams are poor offensively. (if other teams are poor offensively, lg average will be lower -> Oscar doesn't have a lot of competition -> ORtg rel to lg average is higher)

so in your example competition of one team is better. not the case here - equal opposition.

As to your last line, again, I don't know enough to say that. It's been pointed out that the Warriors had major injury issues in '63, we also know there was a coaching and philosophy change. So it's not like nothing changed between 63 and 64, so the only possible explanation is a worse Wilt. I think you have to make some logic leaps I'm not comfortable making to say that conclusively.

Warriors didn't have major injury issues in comparison to 64. minute distribution was more or less equal. things that changed are Hannum, Thurmond and Wilt. you yourself credited Wilt with that turnaround because of his defensive effort. now however great Wilt was playing in 64, that means Wilt 63 is worth about 15 wins less. you can't have it both ways. either Wilt improved in 64 and played relatively poorly in 63 or he didn't improve but then you credit Thurmond and Hannum with that turnaround and Wilt's value in 64 is lessened. that's how it works IMO.

I think the truth lies in-between. Wilt was a top3 player in 64 with a legit shot at #1 and now lowering his conitrbutions by 7-10 games (I value Thurmond and Hannum a lot more than other posters do so "only" about a half of that turnaround is caused by Wilt IMO), he becomes a borderline top5 player. this year's strong though because of West's playoffs... so he's not getting any points from me.

Wilt can't be a top2 player in 64 and then top3 in 63. there has to be major seperation between these players because Wilt 64 was a lot more valuable. if he wasn't then Thurmond and Hannum get all the credit for their improvement. unless players outside of top3 really suck... but it's not the case here with Baylor, Pettit, West and also Greer having strong years.

[bastillon]

West's +/- must have been ridiculous. his team was on 31W pace without him and 64W pace with him. that's 33 games difference, Wilt's team didn't even match it. now I guess it WAS possible that Wilt's teammates were so bad they'd win 0 games without him... but how much sense does it make honestly ? Lakers won 53 games with West's injury and that means he transformed 31W team into 55W team EVEN WITH ALL THESE GAMES MISSED. that makes him a legit MVP candidate, if he was really responsible for over 20 games differential. while I think some of it is connected to small sample, he was still undeniably great regardless of MP or GP.

[semi-sentient]

What did the schedule look like when West was out? Was it road heavy? Against who? Those things matter.

[drza]

As to your last line, again, I don't know enough to say that. It's been pointed out that the Warriors had major injury issues in '63, we also know there was a coaching and philosophy change. So it's not like nothing changed between 63 and 64, so the only possible explanation is a worse Wilt. I think you have to make some logic leaps I'm not comfortable making to say that conclusively.

Warriors didn't have major injury issues in comparison to 64. minute distribution was more or less equal. things that changed are Hannum, Thurmond and Wilt. you yourself credited Wilt with that turnaround because of his defensive effort. now however great Wilt was playing in 64, that means Wilt 63 is worth about 15 wins less. you can't have it both ways. either Wilt improved in 64 and played relatively poorly in 63 or he didn't improve but then you credit Thurmond and Hannum with that turnaround and Wilt's value in 64 is lessened. that's how it works IMO.

I think the truth lies in-between. Wilt was a top3 player in 64 with a legit shot at #1 and now lowering his conitrbutions by 7-10 games (I value Thurmond and Hannum a lot more than other posters do so "only" about a half of that turnaround is caused by Wilt IMO), he becomes a borderline top5 player. this year's strong though because of West's playoffs... so he's not getting any points from me.

Wilt can't be a top2 player in 64 and then top3 in 63. there has to be major seperation between these players because Wilt 64 was a lot more valuable. if he wasn't then Thurmond and Hannum get all the credit for their improvement. unless players outside of top3 really suck... but it's not the case here with Baylor, Pettit, West and also Greer having strong years.

That's your view, and you're certainly welcome to it. Especially since your criteria from jump was that if you don't make the playoffs you can't be int he top-5. That works for you, and makes this especially easy. There's more than one way to skin a cat as far as this project goes.

But for me? Not comfortable with it. For instance, in '64 all of their top-5 players played in at least 70 games and their top 4 all played in at least 79 games. In '63, on the other hand, 3 of their top 5 players played 21, 47 and 64 games respectively. That's a big difference.

Also, having not watched, I don't know how much those players were slowed even when they played. For example, Meschery played 64 games in '63 but at what level was he playing? Sam Cassell played 59 games in '05, for example, but even when he played he was nowhere near healthy enough to be who he was in '04 or '06. So what was Meschery? I don't know.

Similarly, I saw how going through 4 coaches in 2 years had a hugely negative impact on the Wolves from '05 - 07. I don't know what for sure what impact going from McGuire to Feerick to Hannum had, but it certainly seems like Feerick could have been a big negative. Do I know that he's Randy Wittman? No, I don't. But I do know he was criticized by the quote in this thread as being an awful coach, and one year later he was replaced. I didn't blame Garnett for Casey and Wittman, so barring more evidence I'm not going to blame Wilt for Feerick.

It's not about having it both ways. In fact, just the opposite, I don't feel comfortable dramatically shifting someone's value one way or the other without very compelling evidence. The Warriors as a team struggling in an injury-riddled year with what seems to be a bad coach may be enough for me to drop Wilt a notch or 2, which I did, but I'm not dropping him much further than that.

[Doctor MJ]

Last call.

[bastillon]

look at minutes played instead, they're more relevant here. not really seeing this big difference. Meschery played 200 MP more in 64, big deal, that's 2.5 MPG per 80 games. Guy Rodgers actually played a lot LESS in 64, Gola (who you brought up as top3 Wilt teammate I don't know why) played 800 MP LESS in 64, as did Naulls (1200 LESS). if you look at MP there's no way to justify how Wilt's teammates are much worse in 63 than in 64.

coaching is important but how do you know whether 63 coaches were net NEGATIVES or Hannum was a huge POSITIVE ? if it's the latter, Wilt doesn't deserve a credit for being coached by awesome tactician because that has nothing to do with him as an individual and his impact as an individual (in terms of a constant if you know what I mean, Wilt was still the same).

Wittman was epically bad because he thought Ricky Davis was a better offensive distributor than Kevin Garnett. that's idiotic obviously and hurt their offense a lot. nevertheless, they still sucked outside of KG and wouldn't be a lot better with a better coach.

I'm Berri's supporter in this case. I don't think coaching influences players as it is perceived to be doing.

[lorak]

I see, but I’m talking about something different, more complicated than simply “relatively to league average”.
If whole league is offensively minded (and in this case offense = many, many bad and quick shots), nobody really cares about defense, and one team(A) changed style and focus more on D and this team DRtg relatively to league average would be very impressive, let say it would be -9. On the other hand, in different era, when whole league is defensive minded, the best team (B) in DRtg have -7. Is this team (B) worse on D than team A?

your example isn't the same as we're discussing here. team B is competing against a better league (in terms of the defense) meanwhile Royals and Celtics are playing against the same league.

Against the same league but different on offensive and defensive end. Well, technically speaking in every given season league quality on offense and defense is equal because ORtg and DRtg are always the same. But that’s the nature of these rankings (ORtg/DRtg), they are calculated that way. But anybody really thinks that for example in 1987 league was the same on offense and defense? And that’s the case with 1962 NBA (for example) and Celtics: On one hand nobody cares about D, everybody wants to attack. On the other hand one team don’t care about offense and want to play D. That was offensive minded league, so it was easier to be dominant on defense than on offense.

[bastillon]

Against the same league but different on offensive and defensive end. Well, technically speaking in every given season league quality on offense and defense is equal because ORtg and DRtg are always the same. But that’s the nature of these rankings (ORtg/DRtg), they are calculated that way. But anybody really thinks that for example in 1987 league was the same on offense and defense? And that’s the case with 1962 NBA (for example) and Celtics: On one hand nobody cares about D, everybody wants to attack. On the other hand one team don’t care about offense and want to play D. That was offensive minded league, so it was easier to be dominant on defense than on offense.

disagree, if nobody cares about the defense, it's easier to score points. works both ways.

[Doctor MJ]

'62-63 Results

Code: Select all

Player             1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Pts   POY Shares
1. Bill Russell     11   1   0   0   0 117   0.975
2. Oscar Robertson   1  11   0   0   0  87   0.725
3. Elgin Baylor      0   0   8   4   0  52   0.433
4. Wilt Chamberlain  0   0   4   2   4  30   0.250
5. Bob Pettit        0   0   0   6   6  24   0.200
6. Jerry West        0   0   0   0   2   2   0.017


[drza]

look at minutes played instead, they're more relevant here. not really seeing this big difference. Meschery played 200 MP more in 64, big deal, that's 2.5 MPG per 80 games. Guy Rodgers actually played a lot LESS in 64, Gola (who you brought up as top3 Wilt teammate I don't know why) played 800 MP LESS in 64, as did Naulls (1200 LESS). if you look at MP there's no way to justify how Wilt's teammates are much worse in 63 than in 64.

coaching is important but how do you know whether 63 coaches were net NEGATIVES or Hannum was a huge POSITIVE ? if it's the latter, Wilt doesn't deserve a credit for being coached by awesome tactician because that has nothing to do with him as an individual and his impact as an individual (in terms of a constant if you know what I mean, Wilt was still the same).

Wittman was epically bad because he thought Ricky Davis was a better offensive distributor than Kevin Garnett. that's idiotic obviously and hurt their offense a lot. nevertheless, they still sucked outside of KG and wouldn't be a lot better with a better coach.

I'm Berri's supporter in this case. I don't think coaching influences players as it is perceived to be doing.

1) Why would I look only at total minutes? You don't think having a different line-up every game makes a bigger difference than having the same line-up but playing 30 minutes instead of 35? If not, then I'll just agree to disagree with you there.

2) That's my point. I DON'T know exactly to what extent the coach deserves credit or blame. I didn't watch the games. I didn't live through it. Thus, when I look at it 50 years later I'm not going to say that I know what's going on well enough to discount both the box score and the anecdotal history that I do know. From the info that I have seen, I believe that Wilt was a better basketball player in this time period than Baylor was. I also know that to the extent that the box score stats measure, Wilt was a better scorer than Baylor (both volume and efficiency) and he was a much better rebounder. Since scoring and rebounding are Baylor's primary claims to fame, that seems especially relevant to me here. And again, the way the Lakers looked when it was Baylor alone doesn't change my view. So, barring some major revelations in the unknown info, I'm left with Wilt ranking over Baylor.

3) The Wolves were their own mess, almost a perfect storm of badness. They could have been better with Casey instead of Wittman (which they were in '07), they could have been better with Wally instead of Davis (which they were in '06). They could have been better with, you know, reasonable anything in that period. But whatever. That wasn't my point in bringing them up. My point was that I know all of the extenuating circumstances of those Wolves because I watched them every game. I didn't watch the Warriors in '63. So I'm not going to pretend that there's no way that Wilt could have had similar extenuating circumstances, which I'd have to do in order to put all the blame on him.

[Doctor MJ]

Against the same league but different on offensive and defensive end. Well, technically speaking in every given season league quality on offense and defense is equal because ORtg and DRtg are always the same. But that’s the nature of these rankings (ORtg/DRtg), they are calculated that way. But anybody really thinks that for example in 1987 league was the same on offense and defense? And that’s the case with 1962 NBA (for example) and Celtics: On one hand nobody cares about D, everybody wants to attack. On the other hand one team don’t care about offense and want to play D. That was offensive minded league, so it was easier to be dominant on defense than on offense.

Your thinking is interesting. I definitely disagree, but I see where you're coming from. Two things I'll say:

1) The viewpoint of "Russell's team won because of a superior strategy which was formulated by the GOAT coach. The advantage of having Auerbach as coach has to be factored in when considering Russell's success" makes sense. With that said, on the court, Russell was by far the reason for the defensive domination, and that wasn't something Auerbach created. The great dynasty in all of history is not actually the Celtics '57 to '69, but rather Russell's teams '55 to '69. Auerbach rebuilt his Celtic team off of what USF did, which itself was based off of what Russell did in high school (remember that the USF coach was tried unsuccessfully to change Russell's style). So then what we're talking about in taking some credit away from Russell because of the Celtics strategy amounts at least partially to Russell instinctively playing smarter than other players. Doesn't make sense to me.

Of course there's also the matter that Oscar and Russell weren't the same type of player and that athletic bigs were considered the holy grail even then because they were more rare than great offensive perimeter players, and thus had a tendency to have more value over replacement.

2) The idea that teams only cared about offense back in the day is pretty ironic consider how impotent the offenses were. Measuring the league's offense vs defense doesn't mean you rate ORtg vs DRtg, it means you look at the ORtg/Rtg (which are of course the same) of that league against other leagues. The "legendary" offenses Oscar led back in those days, would be considered pathetic today if they had unchanged success. So quite literally, crediting offensive players more than defensive because of perception of an offense-oriented league is wrong.

Now of course, it's more complicated than that. Both offensive and defensive strategies have gotten smarter over time, and there have been rules put in place to make it easier for offenses. I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable giving defensive players in general a boost simply because of how successful defenses were back then - but however crazy that would be, I think giving offenses a credit-boost is a little bit crazier.

[lorak]

2) The idea that teams only cared about offense back in the day is pretty ironic consider how impotent the offenses were. Measuring the league's offense vs defense doesn't mean you rate ORtg vs DRtg, it means you look at the ORtg/Rtg (which are of course the same) of that league against other leagues. The "legendary" offenses Oscar led back in those days, would be considered pathetic today if they had unchanged success.

Yes, but here I want refer to what TLAF was talking about in all these discussion about differences between eras – stylistic. One of the main differences is stylistic. Sure, from our – modern/ORtg – point of view 60s offenses were very bad (or maybe defenses were so good? ). But they were that way because they choose to play quick, shot quick and so on. That was considered the right thing do to at the time.
So what was easier in that kind of environment – became dominant defensive team or dominant offensive?

In other words – it was easier to change the way people (Robertson'steammates in this case) were looking at offense or to - like Celtics defense - take advantage of what teams were already doing on offense?

[Doctor MJ]

So what was easier in that kind of environment – became dominant defensive team or dominant offensive?

In other words – it was easier to change the way people (Robertson'steammates in this case) were looking at offense or to - like Celtics defense - take advantage of what teams were already doing on offense?

Yup.

If you had an incredibly athletic big man, you dominate on defense.
If you didn't have an incredibly athletic big man...well, no one dominated anything.

Remind me again why this is an argument for Oscar?