Was Wilt Chamberlain robbed of a couple of Mvp's during his career

[coastalmarker99]

I don't see his case in any season other than 1964, but both Oscar and Russell were excellent candidates then as well. 1962 was also great, but so was Russell's season.

1961 was a clear Russell win.
He had no case in 1963, 1965 and 1969.
He missed most of the season in 1970.
He was clearly worse player than prime Jabbar in 1971-73 period.

At most I can see him having 2 more MVPs, but then again - Russell was probably better in 1960.

Wilt had case in 72 similar to Unseld, Reed, AND Cowens winning, was probably hurt by 1, presence of West, and 2 fact he had multiple wins already. If he did not have an mvp he would have won it in 72. Additionally, no West and 60 wins he also probably wins. 71 was clearly Kareem’s award and his play in 73 was maybe the worst of his career as he virtually refused to shoot. Had he not been hurt in 70 he looked to maybe win that year.

I personally think Wilt should have won the Mvp in 1972 but Kareem should have won it in 1973 sorry Cowens as Wilt in 1972 was playing as if he was peak Russell on the defensive end while also being far more efficient offensively and he lastly was the key player on maybe a top 5 team in history that year.



Also If I have one regret about Wilt's time as a Laker it is that Bill Sharman was not the coach of the Lakers from the moment Wilt was traded there in the 1968 offseason as I seriously believe with the genius of Sharman and the way he could get through to Wilt that the Lakers would have won back to titles in 1969 and 1970.

[feyki]

Rather than post 80, players was giving the votes. When Wilt had higher impact than Russell, he had the mvp. Could you say Wilt was clearly better than Russell in 61,62 and 63 or than Oscar for 64?

Yes for 1964 as here is Wilt Chamberlain's 1963-1964 Season

Regular Season
-36.9 PPG (League leader)
-22.3 RPG
-5.0 APG
-52.4% FG
-31.6 PER
-.325 WS/48 (Career high and league leader)
-14.4 OWS
-10.6 DWS (Career high) *For reference, Olajuwon's career high was 8.7

He so deserved to win the Mvp that year over Oscar as he outperformed him in everything besides assists and his team also won 48 games.



Also in the playoffs for Wilt

Playoffs
-34.7 PPG (League leader)
-25.2 RPG
-3.3 APG
-54.3% FG
-31.3 PER (Career high and league leader)
-.323 WS/48 (Career high and league leader)
-2.3 OWS (League leader)
-1.5 DWS


Finals (Against the greatest defender ever, Bill Russell)
-29.2 PPG
-27.6 RPG
-2.4 APG
-51.4% FG

His teammates shot a combined 34.8% and the Warriors lost in 5.

Wilt : 37 Pts, 22 Reb, 5 Ast, %53.7 TS and 25 WS.

Oscar : 31 Pts, 11 Ast, %57.6 TS and 20.6 WS.
There are two things which favors Wilt; 6 Points per game and defence. Oscar's efficiency and playmaking - which are make him GOAT level offensive player - put him tiers above compared to Wilt, offensively. You could see this in the reading of WS numbers. WS is almost a basically scoring volume+efficiency and plus rebounding on offence. Compare it to TS add, you could see they're very much parallel. It has .6 or .7 value per assist, like PER. And both PER and WS( I would take WS over PER anyday,btw) are too bad on calculating assisted/non-assisted points. WS is not much high on playmaking at the end, that's why ATG point guards low on WS. And still Wilt and Oscar are same on WS in these conditions.

Defence is, of course, Wilt has a huge gap on the aspect. But really that year was Wilt's peak defensive year, or was Nate Thurmond factor there? When you look at past years, it's 8,6,6,6 respectively. 8 at best. And If we adjust WS's playmaking issue, probably it gonna favor Oscar by 4 or 5 Ows. Oscar has 4.5 Dws which compared to Wilt's 8 ( NT adjust). Also, Oscar had played in 45 minutes a game. If we also adjust it.

With a correct reading of metrics, it could have seen that Oscar total impact was not worse than Wilt's at least.

Could we really call that clear?

[70sFan]

I don't see his case in any season other than 1964, but both Oscar and Russell were excellent candidates then as well. 1962 was also great, but so was Russell's season.

1961 was a clear Russell win.
He had no case in 1963, 1965 and 1969.
He missed most of the season in 1970.
He was clearly worse player than prime Jabbar in 1971-73 period.

At most I can see him having 2 more MVPs, but then again - Russell was probably better in 1960.

Wilt had case in 72 similar to Unseld, Reed, AND Cowens winning, was probably hurt by 1, presence of West, and 2 fact he had multiple wins already. If he did not have an mvp he would have won it in 72. Additionally, no West and 60 wins he also probably wins. 71 was clearly Kareem’s award and his play in 73 was maybe the worst of his career as he virtually refused to shoot. Had he not been hurt in 70 he looked to maybe win that year.

I think that Kareem had GOAT-level RS in 1972, so I don't see Wilt's case over him in that season.

I agree that he could have won in 1970 had he played.

[coastalmarker99]

I don't see his case in any season other than 1964, but both Oscar and Russell were excellent candidates then as well. 1962 was also great, but so was Russell's season.

1961 was a clear Russell win.
He had no case in 1963, 1965 and 1969.
He missed most of the season in 1970.
He was clearly worse player than prime Jabbar in 1971-73 period.

At most I can see him having 2 more MVPs, but then again - Russell was probably better in 1960.

Wilt had case in 72 similar to Unseld, Reed, AND Cowens winning, was probably hurt by 1, presence of West, and 2 fact he had multiple wins already. If he did not have an mvp he would have won it in 72. Additionally, no West and 60 wins he also probably wins. 71 was clearly Kareem’s award and his play in 73 was maybe the worst of his career as he virtually refused to shoot. Had he not been hurt in 70 he looked to maybe win that year.

I think that Kareem had GOAT-level RS in 1972, so I don't see Wilt's case over him in that season.

I agree that he could have won in 1970 had he played.

Wilt also had a goat level season in 1962 yet Russell won the award so, therefore, using that logic that voters used in 1962 then Wilt should have won the award in 1972 over Kareem. As he was the better defensive player, rebounder and also more efficient plus he lead the Lakers to the longest win streak ever and up to that point the best team record in Nba history.

[70sFan]

Wilt had case in 72 similar to Unseld, Reed, AND Cowens winning, was probably hurt by 1, presence of West, and 2 fact he had multiple wins already. If he did not have an mvp he would have won it in 72. Additionally, no West and 60 wins he also probably wins. 71 was clearly Kareem’s award and his play in 73 was maybe the worst of his career as he virtually refused to shoot. Had he not been hurt in 70 he looked to maybe win that year.

I think that Kareem had GOAT-level RS in 1972, so I don't see Wilt's case over him in that season.

I agree that he could have won in 1970 had he played.

Wilt also had a goat level season in 1962 yet Russell won the award so, therefore, using that logic that voters used in 1962 then Wilt should have won the award in 1972 over Kareem. As he was the better defensive player, rebounder and also more efficient plus he lead the Lakers to the longest win streak ever and up to that point the best team record in Nba history.

Sure, but Russell led far better team than Wilt in 1962. Bucks were only marginally worse than Lakers in RS and Kareem sustained Milwaukee excellence even without Oscar.

[coastalmarker99]

I think that Kareem had GOAT-level RS in 1972, so I don't see Wilt's case over him in that season.

I agree that he could have won in 1970 had he played.

Wilt also had a goat level season in 1962 yet Russell won the award so, therefore, using that logic that voters used in 1962 then Wilt should have won the award in 1972 over Kareem. As he was the better defensive player, rebounder and also more efficient plus he lead the Lakers to the longest win streak ever and up to that point the best team record in Nba history.

Sure, but Russell led far better team than Wilt in 1962. Bucks were only marginally worse than Lakers in RS and Kareem sustained Milwaukee excellence even without Oscar.

What 70's fan the 1972 Lakers were a far better team then the 1962 Celtics and if they had met each other in the finals they would have killed them.


Here are some 1972 Lakers team stats to remind you how good they truly were that year

PTS/G: 121.0 (1st of 17) Opp PTS/G: 108.7 (6th of 17)

SRS: 11.65 (1st of 17) Pace: 116.9 (1st of 17)

Off Rtg: 103.1 (1st of 17) Def Rtg: 92.6 (2nd of 17)

Expected W-L: 67-15 (1st of 17)


And in the Playoffs that year they only lost 3 games and two of them were suffered at the hands of a legendary Bucks team also the 1972 Bucks were a far better team than any team the 1962 Celtics faced on there way to a title.



Therefore the 1972 Lakers were better than the 1962 Celtics as they were far more dominant in both the regular season and playoffs.

[70sFan]

Wilt also had a goat level season in 1962 yet Russell won the award so, therefore, using that logic that voters used in 1962 then Wilt should have won the award in 1972 over Kareem. As he was the better defensive player, rebounder and also more efficient plus he lead the Lakers to the longest win streak ever and up to that point the best team record in Nba history.

Sure, but Russell led far better team than Wilt in 1962. Bucks were only marginally worse than Lakers in RS and Kareem sustained Milwaukee excellence even without Oscar.

What 70's fan the 1972 Lakers were a far better team then the 1962 Celtics and if they had met each other in the finals they would have killed them.


Here are some 1972 Lakers team stats to remind you how good they truly were that year

PTS/G: 121.0 (1st of 17) Opp PTS/G: 108.7 (6th of 17)

SRS: 11.65 (1st of 17) Pace: 116.9 (1st of 17)

Off Rtg: 103.1 (1st of 17) Def Rtg: 92.6 (2nd of 17)

Expected W-L: 67-15 (1st of 17)


And in the Playoffs that year they only lost 3 games and two of them were suffered at the hands of a legendary Bucks team also the 1972 Bucks were a far better team than any team the 1962 Celtics faced on there way to a title.



Therefore the 1972 Lakers were better than the 1962 Celtics as they were far more dominant in both the regular season and playoffs.

I meant that 1972 Bucks were much closer to 1972 Lakers than 1962 Warriors to 1962 Celtics.

[coastalmarker99]

Sure, but Russell led far better team than Wilt in 1962. Bucks were only marginally worse than Lakers in RS and Kareem sustained Milwaukee excellence even without Oscar.

What 70's fan the 1972 Lakers were a far better team then the 1962 Celtics and if they had met each other in the finals they would have killed them.


Here are some 1972 Lakers team stats to remind you how good they truly were that year

PTS/G: 121.0 (1st of 17) Opp PTS/G: 108.7 (6th of 17)

SRS: 11.65 (1st of 17) Pace: 116.9 (1st of 17)

Off Rtg: 103.1 (1st of 17) Def Rtg: 92.6 (2nd of 17)

Expected W-L: 67-15 (1st of 17)


And in the Playoffs that year they only lost 3 games and two of them were suffered at the hands of a legendary Bucks team also the 1972 Bucks were a far better team than any team the 1962 Celtics faced on there way to a title.



Therefore the 1972 Lakers were better than the 1962 Celtics as they were far more dominant in both the regular season and playoffs.

I meant that 1972 Bucks were much closer to 1972 Lakers than 1962 Warriors to 1962 Celtics.

Oh ok sorry for that misunderstanding but I still feel that Wilt should have won the Mvp in 1962 as that was one of the greatest carry jobs in Nba history on both ends by a single player and if was not for Sam jones shot in that game 7 we would be saying nowadays that is the goat season by a player even better then Wilt's goat season in 1967.

[70sFan]

What 70's fan the 1972 Lakers were a far better team then the 1962 Celtics and if they had met each other in the finals they would have killed them.


Here are some 1972 Lakers team stats to remind you how good they truly were that year

PTS/G: 121.0 (1st of 17) Opp PTS/G: 108.7 (6th of 17)

SRS: 11.65 (1st of 17) Pace: 116.9 (1st of 17)

Off Rtg: 103.1 (1st of 17) Def Rtg: 92.6 (2nd of 17)

Expected W-L: 67-15 (1st of 17)


And in the Playoffs that year they only lost 3 games and two of them were suffered at the hands of a legendary Bucks team also the 1972 Bucks were a far better team than any team the 1962 Celtics faced on there way to a title.



Therefore the 1972 Lakers were better than the 1962 Celtics as they were far more dominant in both the regular season and playoffs.

I meant that 1972 Bucks were much closer to 1972 Lakers than 1962 Warriors to 1962 Celtics.

Oh ok sorry for that misunderstanding but I still feel that Wilt should have won the Mvp in 1962 as that was one of the greatest carry jobs in Nba history on both ends by a single player and if was not for Sam jones shot in that game 7 we would be saying nowadays that is the goat season by a player even better then Wilt's goat season in 1967.

I think that Wilt got better as a player around 1964, but it's another debate! I hope to get new Wilt footage tomorrow by the way

[DQuinn1575]

I don't see his case in any season other than 1964, but both Oscar and Russell were excellent candidates then as well. 1962 was also great, but so was Russell's season.

1961 was a clear Russell win.
He had no case in 1963, 1965 and 1969.
He missed most of the season in 1970.
He was clearly worse player than prime Jabbar in 1971-73 period.

At most I can see him having 2 more MVPs, but then again - Russell was probably better in 1960.

Wilt had case in 72 similar to Unseld, Reed, AND Cowens winning, was probably hurt by 1, presence of West, and 2 fact he had multiple wins already. If he did not have an mvp he would have won it in 72. Additionally, no West and 60 wins he also probably wins. 71 was clearly Kareem’s award and his play in 73 was maybe the worst of his career as he virtually refused to shoot. Had he not been hurt in 70 he looked to maybe win that year.

I think that Kareem had GOAT-level RS in 1972, so I don't see Wilt's case over him in that season.

I agree that he could have won in 1970 had he played.

I'm not saying Kareem wasn't the better player in 72, saying that based on voting at time he had a very strong case.

Best player on best team in the league, but not the best player:
Unseld
Reed
Cowens

Wilt's 72 season is superior to all 3. But when we pick 71-75 first team center I'm going with Kareem first team, just a question of the year. Kareem should have been MVP 1970-1974 each and every year.
The 60/70s were like baseball, giving the MVP to best player on best or most improved team.

[ThaRegul8r]

These kind of discussions are all so pointless.

A player plays the way he plays during a given season. And when the season concludes, he has no awards for his performance, he only has however he played. Season awards and accolades don't come until after the fact, some months after the season is over.

Here's something most people who post on basketball forums don't seem to understand:

After the NBA regular season is over, however a player played doesn't become better for having received an award or accolade for it months later, nor does however a player played become worse for not having received an award or accolade for it months later.

I'll repeat:

After the NBA regular season is over, however a player played doesn't become better for having received an award or accolade for it months later, nor does however a player played become worse for not having received an award or accolade for it months later.

A player's play stands on its own. Awards don't come until after the fact. People act like they're incapable of evaluating how a player played until the awards come on. "Hold on, I'm going to suspend my rating of this player until after the awards come out. Then I'll be able to tell you how I think he played."

The only reason people actually care is so they have ammo to argue their favorite player against other people's favorite players.

"MY favorite player won x awards and x accolades."

"Oh yeah? Well MY favorite player won y awards and y accolades!"

[coastalmarker99]

1963-64 NBA MVP Writers Voting; Wilt Chamberlain Places First

Wilt - 253 points
Oscar - 225 points
Russell - 186 points
Pettit - 109 points
West - 108 points

(May 1, 1964)

Read on Twitter

The more I look at it I think Wilt should have won the MVP in 1964 over Oscar as his two-way dominance was insane

[coastalmarker99]

Looking at Wilt's career you can make a great case that he should have won 5 to 6 MVP's

He was clearly the most valuable player in 1962 as Lebron was in 2018.

As take Wilt off that 1962 team and they struggle to win 20 games.

In 1964 he lead a historical defence while averaging over 35 and he was also getting 5 APG as well not to mention the countless BPG he was getting.


In 1972 he was the best player on a historical team that won 33 straight games.

And he averaged 15/19/4 on 65% while leading the league in rpg and FG% plus blocked shots and also in defensive win shares.


And looking at the voting criteria for prior years.

If Russell won the award over Wilt in 1962 because of seeding then Wilt should have won it over Kareem in 1972.

As someone should explain to me how did Dave win it over Kareem the next season due to seeding.

But Wilt doesn't and he had a far better season than what Dave had in 1973.

[70sFan]

Looking at Wilt's career you can make a great case that he should have won 5 to 6 MVP's

If you really want, you can make that case to a lot of all-time greats. I don't see any robbery in Wilt's career though.

He was clearly the most valuable player in 1962 as Lebron was in 2018.

As take Wilt off that 1962 team and they struggle to win 20 games.

Well, I also think that team without Wilt wouldn't be too hot, but we don't have any evidences of how well they'd play without Wilt.

Russell was extremely valuable in 1962 as well and without him they wouldn't have sniffed the success they had. It's definitely not a robbery, but two ATG players having amazing seasons.

In 1964 he lead a historical defence while averaging over 35 and he was also getting 5 APG as well not to mention the countless BPG he was getting.

1964 have three legit MVP candidates: Wilt, Oscar and Russell. You have Wilt with ultimate carryjob, Oscar with one of the best offensive seasons ever and Russell with the best defensive season ever with extremely bad offensive team. If we look at the RS, I can see a strong arguments for all of them and I'd probably rank Oscar last here.

Either way, it certainly wasn't a robbery.

In 1972 he was the best player on a historical team that won 33 straight games.

The problem is that Kareem anchored basically as good team as Wilt in 1972 and he was unarguably better player at this point. Even Oscar's injury didn't slow them down. 1972 is easily for Kareem.

If Russell won the award over Wilt in 1962 because of seeding then Wilt should have won it over Kareem in 1972.

It's not a good analogy, because 1972 Lakers and 1972 Bucks had very similar RS success, Lakers were only slightly better. Meanwhile 1962 Celtics were far superior compared to Warriors.

As someone should explain to me how did Dave win it over Kareem the next season due to seeding.

Nobody expected Celtics to have ATG season and they did. In reality, Kareem should have won that award as well.

But Wilt doesn't and he had a far better season than what Dave had in 1973.

I don't agree with that, I'd take 1972 Wilt over 1973 Cowens, but Chamberlain had worse season in 1973 and it's definitely not "far better" than peak Cowens.

[G35]

If the narrative is "basketball is a team game" and that is who should get the MVP's is the best teammate, then there should be some recounts on some MVP's.

Naming names:
Iverson
Harden
Westbrook

[prolific passer]

Meh. Pettit should have won the 61 mvp because i says so.

[capfan33]

Looking at Wilt's career you can make a great case that he should have won 5 to 6 MVP's

If you really want, you can make that case to a lot of all-time greats. I don't see any robbery in Wilt's career though.

Pretty much this, outside of a few egregious cases like Cowens in 73 or Iverson in 2000 you can definitely argue that insert all time great player should have won more MVPs than they actually did but in most cases I don't think it's that bad.

[penbeast0]

I'd say Russell should have won it a few more times; Wilt was the greater talent but Russell was more valuable to his team performance and probably a bigger impact on winning year in and year out. It's closer since it's just regular season performance, with playoffs included, I'd have Russell almost every year.