Retro POY 1961-62 (Voting Complete)

[bastillon]

if you could find that, please, I'd be extremely grateful. I'd like to refer to that post in the future.

sorry about the tone trueLA. I think at this point we know each other well enough so that you know I'm sometimes behaving a bit out of control and at the same time I respect you as much as anyone on this board. I didn't mean to attack you, which I specifically said in that post.

my point is that it's hardly "controversial to put it mildly" when there's no video evidence. if you trust people's eyes some dude watching Allen Iverson in 2001 would say he was no doubt a TOP2 player in the league and some guy named Kobe wasn't even in his class and that this comparison was "controversial to put it mildly". see my point ? when it comes to aesthetics video evidence is the only valuable argument. in this case certainly we'd have to watch this play.

as a side note, though, could you find the comments about that call in your books ? you seem to be the owner of all so you wouldn't have to waste that much time as someone like me, who doesn't possess them at all. or you can just do what Sedale or Mopper (forgot who it was) did the other time - quick summary of each.

[ronnymac2]

Doc can you post that ECF stats from the other thread ? you made an analysis in that thread.

Y'know not sure where it was, but ThaReg's post in this thread seems to me to have all the same info and then some.

To summarize though:

7 games
2 40+ (games 2 & 4) point games where I'd give Wilt the clear "win", and his team won
4 games with 30 to 33 points, none of which were that impressive for Wilt. 3 of those games had Wilt really being shut down in the first half where the game tended to be decided, and the 4th game Wilt went for 33 & 29 while Russell did 31 & 31. Boston wins 3 of those 4, and I'd give Russell the nod for superior play in each.
Game 7 Wilt only scores 22, Russell 19. Philly almost wins, but I have a hard time looking at that as any kind of victory for Wilt.

On the whole Wilt's scoring goes down from 51 in the regular season (even more if you don't count the Boston games) to 33 in this series on almost certainly much worse efficiency.

When Russell is neutralizing Wilt, are Wilt's teammates stepping up like Russell's do? I know that this is the hardest part of this whole project- Wilt vs. Russell, deciphering how much Russell, the GOAT at helping teammates and hurting opponents, is responsible for hurting Wilt's teammates and Wilt himself, and how much better Boston's support was- but I think that question forces people to stop looking at Wilt as some sort of super-man who should have done more. We need to realize that this guy, like any megastar player, needed help come playoff time. Did he get it? If he didn't, was it because of Russell, or because his teammates weren't that great (or at least...better than Boston's)? Or maybe because of Wilt (I believe this maybe to an extent, but it gets waayy overblown)?

One can can outplay the other and still have his team lose. Others guys can step up and be the hero. That's usually what the playoffs are.

[bastillon]

I don't think Russell helped his teammates much. he just disemboweled opps.

[Doctor MJ]

Doc can you post that ECF stats from the other thread ? you made an analysis in that thread.

Y'know not sure where it was, but ThaReg's post in this thread seems to me to have all the same info and then some.

To summarize though:

7 games
2 40+ (games 2 & 4) point games where I'd give Wilt the clear "win", and his team won
4 games with 30 to 33 points, none of which were that impressive for Wilt. 3 of those games had Wilt really being shut down in the first half where the game tended to be decided, and the 4th game Wilt went for 33 & 29 while Russell did 31 & 31. Boston wins 3 of those 4, and I'd give Russell the nod for superior play in each.
Game 7 Wilt only scores 22, Russell 19. Philly almost wins, but I have a hard time looking at that as any kind of victory for Wilt.

On the whole Wilt's scoring goes down from 51 in the regular season (even more if you don't count the Boston games) to 33 in this series on almost certainly much worse efficiency.

When Russell is neutralizing Wilt, are Wilt's teammates stepping up like Russell's do? I know that this is the hardest part of this whole project- Wilt vs. Russell, deciphering how much Russell, the GOAT at helping teammates and hurting opponents, is responsible for hurting Wilt's teammates and Wilt himself, and how much better Boston's support was- but I think that question forces people to stop looking at Wilt as some sort of super-man who should have done more. We need to realize that this guy, like any megastar player, needed help come playoff time. Did he get it? If he didn't, was it because of Russell, or because his teammates weren't that great (or at least...better than Boston's)? Or maybe because of Wilt (I believe this maybe to an extent, but it gets waayy overblown)?

One can can outplay the other and still have his team lose. Others guys can step up and be the hero. That's usually what the playoffs are.

Are you reading ThaReg's posts? He's using the same sources I am. Newspapers at the time talk about Russell neutralizing Wilt, and they post how little Wilt scored in the first half, his FG vs FGA, etc. The information is not complete, but I'm not just assuming stuff here. Read up and maybe you'll find some ammo to throw back my way.

Re: star needed help come playoff time? As ThaReg mentioned, these problems weren't really new. Wilt struggled most of the time against the Celtics. I mean you can always say "weaker supporting cast", but there are some basic truths here: 1) a team built around a mega-volume scorer, is going to struggle when that volume scorer misses his shots, and 2) a team built around a mega-volume scorer can have a tendency to lose it's ability to make good use of the supporting casts talents when they're actually needed.

Part of me honestly wonders what the big dilemma is here. We typically credit players for stepping up in the playoffs, and knock them for falling off. For example, until he later redeemed himself at least partially, Dirk scoring going down to 80% of regular season value against Golden State was considered incredibly damning. Now we're a little kinder, and talk about matchups, but still, no one considers Dirk a POY candidate in '06-07. In the Philly-Boston series this year, Wilt's scoring went down to 65% of his normal levels, with no indications that the team was trying to use him in a different role. If someone takes the numbers Wilt did in the regular season against non-Boston opponents, we may be looking at something approaching 60%. This is massive, massive dropoff - why wouldn't it be considered a big knock against Wilt?

[Warspite]

The last paragraph of DrMJs post is what realy angers me in any anti Wilt rant. To stand up and say that Wilt played bad and was a underachiever because he didnt put up 50ppg is realy beyond the pale.

[YvesSmith1]

Hello everyone...don't mean to intercede here but I'm new here and I happen to know a lot about the 1962 playoff series featuring Chamberlain and Russell. If it were up to me, I'd definitely have to pick Chamberlain over Russell this year. Chamberlain purposely toned down his scoring in the 1962 series, so looking at his decreased production as an indication of russell "neutralizing" him is, to put it mildly, incorrect(a knock against the newspapers, to be sure). One thing I've noticed missing here are some other newspaper accounts of quotes from Cousy about the fear Chamberlain struck against both Russell and the Celtics. I've tried looking for them just now but for some reason they are gone...which is very odd. Chamberlain was a defensive specialist in that playoff series, which is why they almost won.

Another thing I've noticed missing is that nobody expected, coming into the series, that Philly would beat Boston...nobody. Everybody thought Boston would win in a breeze. Those characterizing it like it was supposed to be close and that Philly was given a chance to win are WRONG! Plus, I'm not sure if that regulator guy is a homer but he seems to bold every single positive thing said about Russell in the newspapers in every year...when in fact it should be known that the Celtics were said to win by every analyst. The very fact that Philly got so close to winning was all because of Chamberlain, and so much did this loss sting that Chamberlain said that it was his worst loss as a pro(of all his losses, and there were plenty of em)...and that should tell you just how hard he worked to win it for Philly this year. Despite the fact that this year wasn't his most complete year in terms of efficiency on both sides of the court, I find it his best because he focused on defense in the playoffs and did his superman offense in the regular season. This did have the perverse effect of making him look worse in the playoffs, however...but for those that actually did their homework on the year understand this very well.

[ThaRegul8r]

Hello everyone...don't mean to intercede here but I'm new here

Sure you are.

[YvesSmith1]

Hello everyone...don't mean to intercede here but I'm new here

Sure you are.

Mr regul8r,

I've noticed you're one of the judges. Do you claim to be objective in your analysis or is that just assumed to be a given? Given how you bold every positive thing said about Russell like it's the holy grail I was just wondering.

[ThaRegul8r]

Hello everyone...don't mean to intercede here but I'm new here

Sure you are.

Mr regul8r,

I've noticed you're one of the judges. Do you claim to be objective in your analysis or is that just assumed to be a given? Given how you bold every positive thing said about Russell like it's the holy grail I was just wondering.

I give credit where I feel it's due, and I give criticism where I feel it's due. No one escapes criticism where I feel it's due—even Russell hasn't been exempt, as those who have regularly participated in this project know.

And seeing how you are hardly objective at all, I find it rather funny that you attempt to throw some aspersions as to my objectivity. That I should even have to defend myself to someone who has resorted to lying to "chime in"—as if everyone here is stupid, is laughable.

[Doctor MJ]

The last paragraph of DrMJs post is what realy angers me in any anti Wilt rant. To stand up and say that Wilt played bad and was a underachiever because he didnt put up 50ppg is realy beyond the pale.

First, let me make it clear if it isn't already: I'm not saying Wilt's a scrub, I'm making points for why out of billions of people in the world at the time, Wilt was only having the 2nd most impact. Because the debate is largely whether he's #1 or #2, obviously I'll be saying negative things about Wilt. That doesn't mean I think he was playing "bad".

So I guess I'm not really sure what you take issue with other than the fact that there is negativity being directed toward Wilt. Surely you'd agree the fact that Wilt was less effective against Boston than he was against others is a feather in Russell's cap?

I supposed it's inevitable that someone would say "He's still scoring 30+, Jordan would call that a good day!". I analyze these things with more nuance than that though. Personal efficiency is big, and ability to make use of teammates is big. Simply put, if Wilt's efficiency is being held in check, and he's not doing wonders distributing the ball, is net value decreases rapidly.

[YvesSmith1]

I disagree with the dichotomy mentioned above. You're not comparing apples to apples if by consensus(at the time) opinion one team is better than the other. To then take that down to how 2 individuals impacted the whole team(when it's not comparing apples) is very misleading. I think there's a tendency to want to do this with Chamberlain every year when it should be noted his teams were NOT what they were later.

[Dipper 13]

(btw … with regard to Wilt's play and production in the Boaston playoff series, in the 11/25/68 SI, Alex Hannum is quoted as saying the following about the 1962 Philadelphia team: “In the playoffs McGuire asked for more balanced team scoring, and Chamberlain responded agreeably, going over 40 points in only three of 12 playoff games to help bring the Philadelphia team to within a bounce of the ball of beating the Celtics.”)

From The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor.


One reason for Russell's success against Chamberlain was his uncanny ability to anticipate Chamberlain's moves. "All season long Russell has known just which way Wilt was going to turn," Frank McGuire complained to an acquaintance as the playoffs began. But under McGuire's direction, Chamberlain was now playing out of the pivot at the top of the key. As a result, reporters were writing about a "new" Wilt Chamberlain - "Warriors' Wilt to Display New Style Against Celtics" was a headline in The Philadelphia Inquirer before the series began - and McGuire was hoping that, since Chamberlain had more option in the pivot, Russell might be forced to play him more conservatively, which in turn could free up Chamberlain to shoot.

Once the series began, Chamberlain was able to score more frequently. In fact, the Warriors' five starters - Chamberlain, Paul Arizin, Guy Rodgers, Tom Meschery, and Tom Gola, who was playing with a sprained back - outscored the Celtics' five starters - Russell, Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and Satch Sanders. But this advantage was offset by the fact that Boston's top three relievers - Frank Ramsey, K.C. Jones, and Jim Loscutoff - outscored their Philadlephia counterparts - Al Attles, Ed Conlin, York Larese - by an even greater margin.




Not only the goaltending call, but following the Sam Jones game winner:


When the ball fell in, three seconds remained on the clock. The Warriors immediately called time-out, but once the clock actually stopped, only one second remained. On the sidelines, Frank McGuire was enraged. He was convinced the timekeeper, a Celtics employee, had let two crucial seconds run down, and he demanded that referee Richie Powers restore them to the clock. Powers refused.

[Doctor MJ]

I disagree with the dichotomy mentioned above. You're not comparing apples to apples if by consensus(at the time) opinion one team is better than the other. To then take that down to how 2 individuals impacted the whole team(when it's not comparing apples) is very misleading. I think there's a tendency to want to do this with Chamberlain every year when it should be noted his teams were NOT what they were later.

The distinction between stars and teams is clear, but when there's more credit to go around, the star of the superior team is often going to warrant more credit than the star on the inferior team. This regular season we've got a huge gap between the two teams, and it doesn't seem at all fair to say that Wilt's team was crap without him, since we saw in the next year how much worse the team got without that same supporting cast. I don't think Wilt on that SRS 2.63 team was having more net impact than Russell on his SRS 8.25 team.

And as I say this, obviously the playoff series between them was quite close. I completely understand if that sways some people. I however am quite wary of giving too much weight to "almosts" in the small sample size of the playoffs even when the player with the "almost" looks vastly superior to his regular season self (which clearly isn't the case here).

[semi-sentient]

* = led the league

Regular Season

Code: Select all

Player            GP   MIN    PTS    TS%    REB    AST
=======================================================
Bill Russell      76   45.2   18.9   .489   23.6    4.5
Wilt Chamberlain  80   48.5*  50.4*  .536   25.7*   2.4
Oscar Robertson   79   44.3   30.8   .554   12.5   11.4*
Elgin Baylor      48   44.4   38.3   .492   18.6    4.6
Jerry West        75   41.2   30.8   .524    7.9    5.4

Post Season

Code: Select all

Player            GP   MIN    PTS    TS%    REB    AST
=======================================================
Bill Russell      14   48.0*  22.4   .519   26.4    5.0
Wilt Chamberlain  12   48.0*  35.0   .508   26.6*   3.1
Oscar Robertson    4   46.3   28.8   .519   11.0   11.0*
Elgin Baylor      13   43.9   38.6*  .503   17.7    3.6
Jerry West        13   42.8   31.5   .544    6.8    4.4

Awards Recognition / Misc

Code: Select all

Player            MVP     All-NBA   Team Record
===============================================
Bill Russell      1st     2nd       60-20*
Wilt Chamberlain  2nd     1st       49-31
Oscar Robertson   3rd     1st       43-37
Elgin Baylor      4th     1st       54-26
Jerry West        5th     1st       54-26

[YvesSmith1]

And seeing how you are hardly objective at all, I find it rather funny that you attempt to throw some aspersions as to my objectivity. That I should even have to defend myself to someone who has resorted to lying to "chime in"—as if everyone here is stupid, is laughable.

If you feel uncomfortable defending yourself to a new poster then that's fine, I don't mind...but I've only mentioned facts not mentioned here, whereas you bold facts you'd like people to get a hold of.

[YvesSmith1]

I disagree with the dichotomy mentioned above. You're not comparing apples to apples if by consensus(at the time) opinion one team is better than the other. To then take that down to how 2 individuals impacted the whole team(when it's not comparing apples) is very misleading. I think there's a tendency to want to do this with Chamberlain every year when it should be noted his teams were NOT what they were later.

The distinction between stars and teams is clear, but when there's more credit to go around, the star of the superior team is often going to warrant more credit than the star on the inferior team. This regular season we've got a huge gap between the two teams, and it doesn't seem at all fair to say that Wilt's team was crap without him, since we saw in the next year how much worse the team got without that same supporting cast. I don't think Wilt on that SRS 2.63 team was having more net impact than Russell on his SRS 8.25 team.

And as I say this, obviously the playoff series between them was quite close. I completely understand if that sways some people. I however am quite wary of giving too much weight to "almosts" in the small sample size of the playoffs even when the player with the "almost" looks vastly superior to his regular season self (which clearly isn't the case here).

Quote from Bill Russell: "How can anyone be criticizing Wilt? What more could you ask him to do?"--1962 (I agree, 50 ppg 25 rpg and countless blocks)

Quote from Bill Russell after 1962 season: Wilt's "the greatest"

The guy you want to give credit to disagrees with your assertion.

[Doctor MJ]

Quote from Bill Russell: "How can anyone be criticizing Wilt? What more could you ask him to do?"--1962 (I agree, 50 ppg 25 rpg and countless blocks)

Quote from Bill Russell after 1962 season: Wilt's "the greatest"

The guy you want to give credit to disagrees with your assertion.

Quotes like that aren't all that helpful. You can't trust the bias. Players say things for effect, or just to be nice, they don't take the questions seriously and have no qualms about contradicting themselves. Beyond that, there's a Wilt quote about him not believing he could have had as much success with the Celtics as Russell did.

I love hearing players and coaches talk about nuances of the game, but hearing them talk about player and team comparisons is often worse than a waste of time.

[ThaRegul8r]

And seeing how you are hardly objective at all, I find it rather funny that you attempt to throw some aspersions as to my objectivity. That I should even have to defend myself to someone who has resorted to lying to "chime in"—as if everyone here is stupid, is laughable.

If you feel uncomfortable defending yourself to a new poster then that's fine, I don't mind...but I've only mentioned facts not mentioned here, whereas you bold facts you'd like people to get a hold of.

Stop the "new poster" crap. You're insulting my intelligence. I don't like when people do that.

The bold has nothing to do with "what I'd like people to get ahold of." So don't speak on what you don't know. When I give my vote, some of the reasons for the vote are made evident in the post. It has nothing to do with impressing anything on other people. Everyone on this site is literate, so they can read and make their own decision. Which they have done, and will continue to do. When I voted for Thurmond over Russell in '66-67, I posted on Thurmond the same I did for Russell, and I bolded things that was meant to give some insight on my own vote. Most didn't share my opinion, but it was to give the reason for MY vote. Instead of making a long post, the rationale is contained in what happened during the season.

So don't falsely attribute things to me, presuming you somehow know my "motivation." (Of course, people don't point out things like in this thread like when I both bolded and italicized when Wilt did exceptionally well in terms of efficiency against Russell in the regular season AS WELL as when we was held to below-par efficiency. I pointed out both, not one over the other. Nor do they point out when I pointed out that it was said that Wilt perhaps had his finest series against Boston in '65. People only bring up what supports their agenda.)

[ThaRegul8r]

Quote from Bill Russell: "How can anyone be criticizing Wilt? What more could you ask him to do?"--1962 (I agree, 50 ppg 25 rpg and countless blocks)

Quote from Bill Russell after 1962 season: Wilt's "the greatest"

The guy you want to give credit to disagrees with your assertion.

Quotes like that aren't all that helpful. You can't trust the bias. Players say things for effect, or just to be nice, they don't take the questions seriously and have no qualms about contradicting themselves.

I find it funny, because it shows that people only confirm their bias. If they knew anything about Russell's psychology, and actually did some deeper research rather than just looking for what supports their belief, they would have found that Russell did say things for effect. It was part of his psychology not to antagonize Wilt. By publicly praising him, Wilt would feel confident that he did his part and thus wouldn't try harder. (If he said something like, "Wilt isn't as good as me," that could have potentially made him mad and motivated him against him, which wouldn't help the team win) I once had the exact quote, but I lost it a couple decades ago in a computer crash. I'll have to see if I can find it again, since I like having the direct quotes from the players themselves, since people shouldn't just take anyone's word for it.

[YvesSmith1]

Quote from Bill Russell: "How can anyone be criticizing Wilt? What more could you ask him to do?"--1962 (I agree, 50 ppg 25 rpg and countless blocks)

Quote from Bill Russell after 1962 season: Wilt's "the greatest"

The guy you want to give credit to disagrees with your assertion.

Quotes like that aren't all that helpful. You can't trust the bias. Players say things for effect, or just to be nice, they don't take the questions seriously and have no qualms about contradicting themselves. Beyond that, there's a Wilt quote about him not believing he could have had as much success with the Celtics as Russell did.

I love hearing players and coaches talk about nuances of the game, but hearing them talk about player and team comparisons is often worse than a waste of time.

Anyone suggesting that Wilt could have been as successful as Russell was with the Celtics has to be fooling themselves. I'm of the opinion that if Wilt had been with the celtics, and had there been no Bill Russell on another team, Wilt probably would have won as many championships as Russell did(who would oppose him and the celtics with Red Auerback coaching Wilt? The lakers might get lucky just as they were unlucky a few years vs. the celts). The fact is that Russell did give the celtics just what they needed, and Wilt certainly would have made them worse had he wanted to score a lot like he did in the real world.
I personally wouldn't give too much credence to the second quote as russell probably wanted to be nice...but the first one I doubt he made as a point to be on Wilt's side...and as a response to regul8or as well, it's really kind funny for you to be judging intent beyond words and supposing that your version is probably correct. My supposition is that you're wrong and Russell meant the first quote quite literally.