Retro POY '68-69 (Voting Complete)

[ElGee]

Jerry West

Because he missed so much time, we have decent samples of how his team performed without him. I've run the standard point differential test as an estimator of +/- in 1971 and 1968.

In 1971, LA was -6.5 without West and +4.6 with him, for a huge +11.0. (Competition was well above average.) That's comparable to numbers I've seen from Walton, Jordan and James using the same analysis. I'm not asserting West's peak is as good as those players, but it's certainly a little piece of evidence indicating that it was really strong.

In 1968, he missed 31 games. I tried and tried but couldn't track down all 31 games, so I was left with 24 games he missed compared to sample of 7 games he missed and 51 games he played. Ugh.

In the 24 games he missed, LA was +1.3. In the other 51 games, they were +7.5. That's 6.2 worse in the games without West, another really good +/- number.

My take on West compared to, say, Russell, is that West may be the best offensive player in the game at the time. It's not earth-shattering elite offense, like Jordan or Magic, but he's got a huge edge there. Macroscopically, consider LA's offense before Wilt arrived:

Year ORtg (Pts/100 Rel to avg.) -- rank

1964 98.0 (3.5) -- 2/9
1965 97.5 (4.2) -- 2/9
1966 98.5 (3.7) -- 1/9
1967 97.5 (1.4) -- 5/9
1968 102.8 (5.8) -- 1/9 *Tied 68 Philadelphia for highest ORtg ever at the time

Defensively, I think West is behind a guard like Frazier in terms of impact, well behind bigs and miles behind Russell. But when I put that in a blender in 1969, their seasons are pretty comparable. This may be Jerry West at his very best (1965 was his statistical peak) and Russell is past his prime. So for me, they are on similar plains here and tiebreakers will come into play. West's missed time is a negative, his Finals performance is a positive...

Oscar Robertson

While were analyzing the decade, Robertson's offensives must be mentioned. Look at this decade, same format as above:

1961 95.5 (4.0) -- 1/8
1962 98.7 (5.4) -- 1/8
1963 100.0 (4.0) -- 1/9 *Jerry Lucas added, first offense ever over to hit 100 pts/100
1964 99.2 (4.7) -- 1/9
1965 98.2 (4.9) -- 1/9
1966 97.6 (2.8) -- 3/9
1967 98.6 (2.4) -- 2/9 *Behind highest ORtg ever (Philly) at time
1968 101.9 (4.9) -- 2/9 *Behind highest ORtg ever (LA) at time
1969 100.9 (5.2) -- 1/9

I've never studied Oscar's career under a microscope, and West on film always impressed me more, but that jumped out at me. Looks like he has a number of really good offensive names on the team in the second half of the decade, but regardless that's a pretty impressive run. Then he went to Milwaukee and ran one of the most dominant offenses ever...

[Doctor MJ]

More good posts ElGee. Love seeing those numbers that b-r doesn't list.

I think the best offensive player of the 60s comes down to West vs Oscar. I prefer West for my team because I think he has the defensive and intangible edge, but I may very well side with Oscar on offense by the end of this, and maybe I'll change my mind about the rest.

One thing that's amazing to think about. We're talking about reaching the 1 point per possession plateau, which is so low by today's standards. Yet, the other star on the Lakers spent most of his career south of 1 point per shot.

[Sedale Threatt]

I think this project has given love to mid-late 70s Kareem. He did almost as well in those years as his Milwaukee ones and regarded as similarly impactful, just without championship caliber help. Pre 66 Wilt will likely be treated the same way, but more unlucky to face Bill Russell instead of Walt Frazier and George Gervin...

Absolutely. And he deserved it. Which is what I'm trying to say -- if we had just gone by team records, instead of looking at all the circumstances, then he could have been written off, or certainly minimized to a large degree. Which is why I don't think that's an entirely accurate gauge of this nebulous quality we call "impact."

But as you've said, a lot of this stuff I'm harping on isn't applicable this year, and probably not for the next couple of years, when he played for some legitimately great Sixers teams. The Lakers not only should have won the title, they frankly should have done so pretty easily. So it's hard to make any real case for Wilt in this particular season. It's either West or Russell. I'm seeing really good cases for both.

It's just hard for me to totally condemn the man when you read certain accounts, especially what Van Breda Kolff did in Game 7. Who knows if the Lakers would have won or not? They didn't, so that's all that really matters. But I'm trying to think of a better example of gross negligence by a coach in NBA history, and I can't.

Certainly Wilt invited a lot of the problems he had with coaches, and to a lesser extent teammates -- most will defend Wilt, but he was not universally loved and respected like Russell -- with his personality. The way he dominated team rhythms was appalling at times, like living in insisting on living in N.Y. when he played in Philly. That was just flat-out selfish.

Far more appalling, however, was a coach benching his star center for the last five minutes of a championship game in order to fulfill a personal vendetta. Like I said, Wilt was no angel. And it certainly doesn't minimize what the Celtics did, which was incredible. But that? That was worthy of a lifetime ban from coaching, on any level.

And look at that Times piece Regulator posted: not a single mention of that in the entire thing. Just like how, jumping ahead, everybody crapped on Wilt for not shooting enough in Game 7 of the 68 ECF, when in fact he only touched the ball seven times in the entire second half.

[bastillon]

LOVE your analysis, Elgee. keep em coming.

Interestingly, this dude Neil Payne that you just referenced from Basketball Reference came up with a formula that determined that Russell had the 10th best support in history, and 3rd best among Top 50 players behind Sam Jones and James Worthy. So I was a little off.

The same numbers he came up with show that Wilt Chamberlain, who never helped most of the teams he played on according to some, was the second-most impactful player in history.

this is boxscore analysis, whereas large part of data is missing (TOV, ORB/DRB difference, steals, blocks...). if you trust boxscore on this undeveloped level then alright. I don't, especially in this case, when this guy has proven time and time again that his numbers don't correlate with team success.

re: Coaching. I can't speak for everyone else, but I've given players boosts even if I think circumstance helped. I thought of this as the Nash Conundrum. How different was he in 2005 than 2004 (rule changes aside)? Not that different, but I think he was better utilized, and I give him that credit. Similarly, Russell won't be mentally curved down because of circumstances.

yeah, exactly. how can we punish Russell for being used the right way ? did we punish Jordan for shooting the ball a lot ? did we punish Magic for playing on a fastbreak team ? did we punish Moses for playing close to the basket which enabled him to get offensive rebounds ? this is a ridiculous accusation.

re: Teammates. I'm high on Sam Jones. Going to push for him in his prime. Cousy is a no-brainer in the HOF, but he retired in 63. Havlicek is a HOFer due to longevity, not peak (and he was 6th man for most of those years?) and his peak was post-Russell. Sharman was a great shooter, no doubt, but he retired in 61. KC Jones is solid defender, but not close to a HOF IMO. Heinsohn, I'd actually argue, was a negative. I have a very low opinion of him as a player. He never earned any Tommy Points from me. Satch can defend really well, he should get a sliver of credit there.

I'm not sold on this great supporting cast at all. defensively, they were nowhere near above average as a group. Havlicek was great and Sanders was alright (kinda poor man's Mbah a Moute), but Heinsohn was god-awful and the rest was just average. overall this is a decent group of defenders, but hardly great. now offensively supposedly they were great... but then look at their ORTG rel to lg average and what jumps out is that Celtics pretty much sucked offensively. basically, they won entirely with their defense and that was caused by Russell's dominance. those offensive stars that Mufasa talked about led them to nowhere. also, they were the fastest paced team in the league and the only reason they could run like this was Russell so you can think about how much his defense translated into offense and how that helped the team. IMO without Russ they were 30-35W team, which is actually exactly what happened when he retired.

4. Wilt Chamberlain. You can't pin the Game 7 loss on Wilt. Wilt, who had come out of the game after banging his knee hard, asked to go back in less than two minutes later. The Lakers didn't win because Butch Van Breda Kolff wouldn't let him go back in. At the time, Wilt was 7-8 from the field and had 18 points and 26 boards (Russell finished with 6 points and 21 rebounds, and went 4-13 from the field.). I think Russell was really great in the run up to Finals, and more or less played Wilt dead even up to Game 7. But I think Wilt had a (much) better Game 7 and was kept out by a circumstance beyond his control.

nice manipulating. what ACTUALLY happened was that Wilt, a proven iron man at the time, who had played nearly every possible minute of his career, suddenly "banged knees" (nowhere to be found on video evidence which, unfortunately for Wilt supporters, exists). don't you find that interesting that he never had to go off the court his entire career and then one of the biggest moments of his career comes and when his team is down (the game was pretty much over) he leaves the floor with some mysterious injury ? now this looks like a Paul Pierce impersonation to me, because once they lowered the deficit, Wilt is now healthy and wants to play. if Bron did this today, media would call him "LeQuit".

now this isn't telling you everything. the lone fact: Wilt was benched and suddenly Lakers made a run. there was no f'uckin way they could've made that run with him, playing as they were prior to his so-called injury. it should tell you more about Wilt's value in the crunch time.

one more thing jumps out at me, if you don't blame Wilt for quitting or for that his team played better without him, how can you not blame him for losing G7 by a wide margin up until the injury ? I mean it wasn't really close IIRC. do you REALLY think that Wilt's choker presence in the crunch time would change anything for the better ? this is a guy who has shown time and time again that he is no longer reliable at the end of the game, and suddenly Celtics look like this lucky group who just happened to win because Chamberlain's injury, as if they hadn't torched Lakers' asses up until that moment...

I'm sick of these excuses.

I'd be interested in hearing some discussion about Oscar. I feel like he's getting terribly disrespected so far in this project. I mean seriously some of you chose Billy freakin Cunningham over this guy ? I don't think there was one person in the world in '69 who would made the same choice, not even his own mother. Billy himself would probably laugh his ass off.

[Sedale Threatt]

this is boxscore analysis, whereas large part of data is missing (TOV, ORB/DRB difference, steals, blocks...). if you trust boxscore on this undeveloped level then alright. I don't, especially in this case, when this guy has proven time and time again that his numbers don't correlate with team success.

So wait...this guy's work is cited in a previous post that you praise as "great stuff" -- and I agree, it was -- whereas this particular material, because it does not support your world view, is dismissed, in typically arrogant fashion, as "boxscore analysis."

Sure, some data is missing; that's the era. But do you seriously think Wilt is going to come up short in most of the areas you're referencing? Especially rebounds and blocks. He outrebounded Russell head-to-head in every single series of their career, regular season and postseason, so how badly do you think he's going to fare there?

And if proving "time and time again" you mean by simply referencing team records, then yeah, I suppose you're correct. But you tried the same tact months ago with Kareem, to minimize his performance in the mid- to late-70s. And as you would have seen during those years if you'd participated in the vote, that pretty much got picked apart.

[NO-KG-AI]

The more I read about Russell, the more I am put in awe at how he controlled games.

[Sedale Threatt]

this is a ridiculous accusation.

It's not an accusation, it's an observation.

Adding Bill Russell put the Celtics over the top. And why wouldn't it? Not only did they bring in a Top 5 player ever, they brought in a Top 5 player who gave them exactly what they needed in a player who, as Auerbach simply put it, "could get me the ball." It was an absolutely perfect fit -- on both sides.

Again -- and I'll say this as many times as it takes -- it does not minimize what Russell did. Nobody can dispute what he did as a leader and a defensive player. Looking at the respective supporting casts simply underscores that Wilt, far more often than not, was not in a commensurately fortunate position.

As Kareem -- no fan of Wilt's -- said, "Chamberlain played the game the same way Russell did...But his teams had to get more points from him. He'd score 45 points and his teams would still lose.

"There he was, this great dominating player, and his teams didn't win championships. Well, Wilt wasn't playing for the right team. As an individual, he was in a class by himself, but his teammates -- they were OK, but not the supporting cast Russell had."

I'm not sold on this great supporting cast at all.

There are just too many other observers that completely refute this. I don't even know what to say at this point. Look at the accolades. Read the accounts. At some point, it's just willful ignorance.

nice manipulating. what ACTUALLY happened was that Wilt, a proven iron man at the time, who had played nearly every possible minute of his career, suddenly "banged knees" (nowhere to be found on video evidence which, unfortunately for Wilt supporters, exists). don't you find that interesting that he never had to go off the court his entire career and then one of the biggest moments of his career comes and when his team is down (the game was pretty much over) he leaves the floor with some mysterious injury ? now this looks like a Paul Pierce impersonation to me, because once they lowered the deficit, Wilt is now healthy and wants to play. if Bron did this today, media would call him "LeQuit".

now this isn't telling you everything. the lone fact: Wilt was benched and suddenly Lakers made a run. there was no f'uckin way they could've made that run with him, playing as they were prior to his so-called injury. it should tell you more about Wilt's value in the crunch time.

No, here's what happened. It was a nine-point game, then down to seven with two free throws from West earned on the play Wilt was injured, with 5:45 remaining. Seven points, almost six minutes left, and the Celtics, according to Lazenby in his "History of the NBA Finals," are "out of gas."

Does that sound like a game that's "pretty much over"?

Then it's down to 1 with three minutes left, and Van Breda Kolff tells Wilt to sit back down, that the team is doing well without him. There are multiple sources that support this -- the Lazenby book, Cherry's biography, "The Rivalry," etc.

Does it mean that the Lakers definitively would have won had he played? Of course not. I don't support that argument at all. The Celtics won, period.

I do know this -- a coach who never worked in the NBA again, with whom Wilt had feuded with for the better part of two years, decided to sit his second-best player, who was ready to go back into the game, because he thought the team had played better without him for a three-minute stretch with a world championship on the line.

I also know this -- the key play is widely regarded to have had nothing to do with Russell. Rather, a loose ball poked free by West, then picked up by Don Nelson at the file line, where he threw up an off-balance jumper that hit the rim, bounced up over the backboard, then back down through the hoop.

And I definitely know this -- Chamberlain outscored, outrebounded and outshot Russell in that game.

[fatal9]

I also think it's a bit disingenuous to give Wilt a pass for being unlucky. What about the previous 6 games? Could Wilt, who averaged 20.5 ppg on 58% during the regular season, not have contributed more to the team than averaging 10.7 ppg (on poor efficiency) in the games up to that point? In the game 4 when Sam Jones hit the famous game winner, what about Wilt's 2/11 FT shooting? Is that not something which contributed to the narrow 1 point loss that allowed the Celtics to stay in the series? The "luck" factor exists because Wilt, like in many series before this, allowed it to exist.

As for game 7, it was 91-76 at the start of the fourth. Wilt left at 103-94. Mel Counts came in for him, and the Lakers immediately went on a 8-0 run which ended with a jumpshot by Counts. They held the Celtics scoreless for long stretch, and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Counts was a big reason why. As commentators point out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyYlq28YLWI&#t=7m45s, Counts was actually going out and covering the picks and screens, and according to the announcers playing more aggressive on defense than Wilt had been earlier in the game (he was in foul trouble iirc). He also forced Russell into several misses and turnovers. So for those who think a different outcome was likely had Wilt been in the game, it's hard to imagine the Lakers playing any better on the floor in that stretch.

For whatever reason, this was a very disappointing year for Wilt from start to finish. The regular season was a disappointment, the first round vs. Warriors could have been disastrous had their leading scorer not been injured, and his performance in the finals was very poor.

[Dipper 13]

nice manipulating. what ACTUALLY happened was that Wilt, a proven iron man at the time, who had played nearly every possible minute of his career, suddenly "banged knees" (nowhere to be found on video evidence which, unfortunately for Wilt supporters, exists). don't you find that interesting that he never had to go off the court his entire career and then one of the biggest moments of his career comes and when his team is down (the game was pretty much over) he leaves the floor with some mysterious injury ? now this looks like a Paul Pierce impersonation to me, because once they lowered the deficit, Wilt is now healthy and wants to play. if Bron did this today, media would call him "LeQuit".

Actually he twisted it on a rebound as can clearly be seen below, perhaps partially tearing his patella tendon before completely rupturing it early the next season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbyznRapTlE#t=1m38s



And he had knee issues as far back as 1966. Never mind his annual shin splints and playing in flat converse sneakers on often rock hard courts. His skinny legs couldn't support his massive upper body any longer and it seems that his knees took a lot of stress. He just wanted to gather himself for a minute or two before re-entering and was not given the chance to do so.

now this isn't telling you everything. the lone fact: Wilt was benched and suddenly Lakers made a run. there was no f'uckin way they could've made that run with him, playing as they were prior to his so-called injury. it should tell you more about Wilt's value in the crunch time.

Yeah they only slashed a 17 point deficit to 7 in that 4th quarter with him on the floor. The two pivot touches he got resulted in an easy score where Russell clearly let him go as he had 5 fouls (of course Bill Simmons would have you believe Wilt was the only one in league history who has ever altered his game to stay on the floor with foul trouble. Others are playing "smart" while Chamberlain is "selfish." But this is beside the point.) and the other one he caught Sam Jones cheating off West, who pump faked Sam into his 6th foul and disqualification.

As soon as Russell picks up foul number 5, Chamberlain goes down low next possession attempting to take him out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3k9eWPEbXE#t=2m40s


And after Wilt left, the Celtics did force a couple of bad outside shots after Russell initially got a bit excited with Mel Counts guarding him. They could have fed Chamberlain every time down as Bill Russell was clearly sagging off him, in hopes of fouling him out, therefore giving the Lakers a more decisive advantage on the glass at the end. The point is that Chamberlain was not given an opportunity to help his team win the championship. He wouldn't need to be the go to guy at that point in his career as West was having an all time level performance.

do you REALLY think that Wilt's choker presence in the crunch time would change anything for the better ?

I'm sure that a rebound or two, or at least someone who could go down low and draw a foul on Russell would have given them a better chance. Mel Counts drove on Russell and laying the ball up into the bottom of the back board with under a minute to play. I am sure the ball would have went into Wilt more often (especially after the Celtics started doubling West) and chances are he would have scored easily or Russell would have fouled out.

this is a guy who has shown time and time again that he is no longer reliable at the end of the game, and suddenly Celtics look like this lucky group who just happened to win because Chamberlain's injury, as if they hadn't torched Lakers' asses up until that moment...

He scored the last several points in the 4th quarter of the '62 EDF Game 7 against Boston before what apparently was a blown goal tending call at the end or a Sam Jones game winner that KC passed off.

In '65 he took over in the 7th game again as noted by Chet Walker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESDFppbQ2zM#t=2m32s


The only video footage of this I could find of this game below. A clutch free throw from Wilt? It has to be doctored film, eh?

http://www.megavideo.com/?d=WJYZJVCA


And once again, the Lakers run started before Wilt subbed out. However a couple key Laker turnovers inside of 2 minutes followed by the Don Nelson shot helped the Celtics hold on at the end.

[Sedale Threatt]

I also think it's a bit disingenuous to give Wilt a pass for being unlucky. What about the previous 6 games? Could Wilt, who averaged 20.5 ppg on 58% during the regular season, not have contributed more to the team than averaging 10.7 ppg (on poor efficiency) in the games up to that point? In the game 4 when Sam Jones hit the famous game winner, what about Wilt's 2/11 FT shooting? Is that not something which contributed to the narrow 1 point loss that allowed the Celtics to stay in the series? The "luck" factor exists because Wilt, like in many series before this, allowed it to exist.

As for game 7, it was 91-76 at the start of the fourth. Wilt left at 103-94. Mel Counts came in for him, and the Lakers immediately went on a 8-0 run which ended with a jumpshot by Counts. They held the Celtics scoreless for long stretch, and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Counts was a big reason why. As commentators point out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyYlq28YLWI&#t=7m45s, Counts was actually going out and covering the picks and screens, and according to the announcers playing more aggressive on defense than Wilt had been earlier in the game (he was in foul trouble iirc). He also forced Russell into several misses and turnovers. So for those who think a different outcome was likely had Wilt been in the game, it's hard to imagine the Lakers playing any better on the floor in that stretch.

For whatever reason, this was a very disappointing year for Wilt from start to finish. The regular season was a disappointment, the first round vs. Warriors could have been disastrous had their leading scorer not been injured, and his performance in the finals was very poor.

According to the book I just referenced, Lazenby's History of the Finals, West hit two free throws on the play Chamberlain went out, bringing it down to seven.

There is no mention of what Counts did or didn't do, other than the jump shot he hit to bring it to one. So I can't definitively speak to that. I do remember reading in at least one book that he played well. I'll also ask this -- forcing Russell into misses and turnovers can't have been all that difficult, could it?

Let's say he channeled his inner Hakeem Olajuwon. Why not just keep him in at PF and still bring back Wilt, then? This is your second-best player, your leading rebounder and shot blocker, still one of the best players in the game. I don't give a isht what's going on, 99.9 percent of the coaches in basketball -- then, now, and forever -- wouldn't even think twice about this.

I think it's far easier to conclude that Van Breda Kolff, who never coached in the NBA again, had an axe to grind.

All that said, I'm still not saying the Lakers would have won that game. Not at all. It just goes back to the whole issue of supporting cast. Here it is Game 7, world championship on the line, and Wilt's coach is settling a score. Ridiculous.

For whatever reason, this was a very disappointing year for Wilt from start to finish.

I think this is the one statement all of us can agree on, for or against Chamberlain. They should have won the title this year, and they should have won it easily.

Like West said, "Most of the years they beat us they were better than we were. But they were not better in 69. Period. And we didn't win. And that was the toughest one."

Was it Chamberlain's fault? Not even close, in my opinion. But he was on the team, and they failed to live up to expectations -- something that could never, ever be said of any of Russell's teams -- so he deserves to shoulder a substantial portion of the blame.

As such, he shouldn't be a candidate for No. 1 this year.

EDIT -- and great points about Wilt's lower moments of the series, and how he generally underperformed in comparison to his RS performance. As we can all agree, it wasn't his finest moment.

[bastillon]

this is boxscore analysis, whereas large part of data is missing (TOV, ORB/DRB difference, steals, blocks...). if you trust boxscore on this undeveloped level then alright. I don't, especially in this case, when this guy has proven time and time again that his numbers don't correlate with team success.

So wait...this guy's work is cited in a previous post that you praise as "great stuff" -- and I agree, it was -- whereas this particular material, because it does not support your world view, is dismissed, in typically arrogant fashion, as "boxscore analysis."

Sure, some data is missing; that's the era. But do you seriously think Wilt is going to come up short in most of the areas you're referencing? Especially rebounds and blocks. He outrebounded Russell head-to-head in every single series of their career, regular season and postseason, so how badly do you think he's going to fare there?

And if proving "time and time again" you mean by simply referencing team records, then yeah, I suppose you're correct. But you tried the same tact months ago with Kareem, to minimize his performance in the mid- to late-70s. And as you would have seen during those years if you'd participated in the vote, that pretty much got picked apart.

1) those were team stats, pace-adjusted. although not perfect, they help a lot in team stats analysis. your stats is trying to calculate player's value on boxscore alone. let me stop here for a second. one thing you need to know about statistical analysis and how I perceive it is that there are 2 ways of measuring player's value. first is through +/-, the other is boxscore. while I certainly don't dismiss boxscore and take it into account, at the same time I understand there are so many contributions not captured by it, that I can't rely on this solely. so you can say that, in general, I'm not a fan of boxscore. sometimes it's a good tool, but I always have to put it in some context. now when boxscore is not even full and it's lacking several crucial elements, I'd imagine its value is not really that high.

2) rebounds are available and it's not the point I was making by refering to off/def, but nvm bc it's not even relevant to this discussion. what I'm suspicious about is his turnovers. every game I've seen of Wilt, he seemed to be on pace for like 7 TOV. I can't use it as an argument because the footage is extremely limited and I can't make an assumption based on that small sample, but anyway WS pre-78 is useless tool for me.

3) can't argue with that until I read these discussion. however, nobody presented any evidence justifying Wilt's poor impact on the Lakers so I really don't care about other examples as long as this one has no back up.

[Dipper 13]

I think this is the one statement all of us can agree on, for or against Chamberlain. They should have won the title this year, and they should have won it easily.

Yes there is no question Russell got the better of him in nearly all the games, except perhaps Game 5. It was a bad fit from the start for the style of play Butch preferred and how the Lakers had played in '68. Apparently this bad blood began sometime during the 67-68 season when Butch said that Wilt could have been "Two Bill Russell's on defense" but would always coast and "didn't know the meaning of work" & had "always been celebrated." Something of that effect.

I don't know much about Butch but he apparently was trying to coach the pros the same way he did college kids, on and off the court, going as far as checking each individual room for the player's curfew. It seems that it was more a personality clash than anything else between the two. 'After Van Breda Kolff was gone, Chamberlain criticized his heavy drinking, his penchant for conducting farting contests, and his failure to prepare for games.'

Unfortunately, all this could have been avoided had Wilt accepted the player-coach offer the 76ers made him just before the trade. Had his good friend and owner Ike Richman (with whom he had an agreement of part ownership of the team) not passed away a few years earlier, chances are Wilt would have stayed a 76er, Luke Jackson would have stayed healthy (as opposed to ballooning to 272 and suffering an Achilles injury) and they could very well have had a dynasty into the early 70's. Actually Luke Jackson's injury in addition to losing Wilt in '69 makes Billy C's year that much more impressive.

[Sedale Threatt]

Yep, that's a great point. It's little strokes of fate like that -- Richman's death, and the ensuing fallout with management when their handshake agreement did not come to fruition -- that repeatedly plagued Wilt's career. Obviously, he had a massive ego, and he played a hand in a lot of them. But the whole thing with Van Breda Kolff...what an inept buffoon.

EDIT -- one thing to note about VBK, I stated that he never coached in the NBA again after that. He actually did, for eight more years. He was terrible (how does 21-63 with the 73-74 Memphis Tams sound?) but still -- I was wrong on that one.

[bastillon]

The more I read about Russell, the more I am put in awe at how he controlled games.

so why don't you watch him instead of reading ? it's kinda more compelling evidence.

Adding Bill Russell put the Celtics over the top. And why wouldn't it? Not only did they bring in a Top 5 player ever, they brought in a Top 5 player who gave them exactly what they needed in a player who, as Auerbach simply put it, "could get me the ball." It was an absolutely perfect fit -- on both sides.

as evidenced by his poor adjustment in college which led them to nowhere... oh wait.

what I'm saying is that Russell would be a great fit EVERYWHERE. the only way to minimize his impact is to either bench him or flat out tell him not to play defense/rebound. now maybe Shaq would tell him to do that if he was a coach and Bryant was on that team as well, but I can see no other situation that would lead coach to such desperate and idiotic decisions.

the only way you could argue he was a perfect fit would be if you proved that he was put to offensive team that could run the fastbreak very well... (I'll get back to that) and it was the case at first with Cousy and Sharman. but guess what, they retired and Russell still won. then next guys kept retiring and Celtics won and won. and then Russell retired and they didn't make the playoffs. just as in this article Regulator referenced to, "the wheel keeps rolling" and it kept, until he retired.

he played with too many different players, with too many different roles (low usage finisher with Cousy at first, then more of a scorer, then point center after Cooz retired, then even more reduced role on offense as Hondo developed and he became a pick-setter, finally he was even a damn coach) to just call him "lucky" in that he was a "great fit". he was a great fit because he put himself in position to be just that. he'd be a great fit everywhere else.

it reminds me of Steve Nash. first when he came to the Suns there were like TONS of people who questioned his value, they kept saying Amare is the MVP, that Marion is even more important, then Amare went down and they still praised D'Antoni and his idiotic small ball system as the reason of their success, then D'Antoni became a failure in NY and there are still a lot of people who think that Nash is just a great fit. yeah, I mean if you give him the ball, he is indeed a great fit.

with Russell it's even less complicated. you just have to play him and he knows what to do. he doesn't need shots to make impact. he doesn't need to make passes to make impact. hell, he doesn't even have to touch the damn ball. that's the beauty of playing all-time defense. how can you blame a guy for that ? defense is a great fit on every team. well... on every team that isn't coached by Mike D'Antoni and Don Nelson

now, getting back to Celtics offense. it's a mistruth that Russell had all-world offensive support. first of all, Celtics were most years below average on offense, sometimes just downright league's bottom IIRC. (that's if you look at their ORTG, not PPG inflated by pace) if those stars were really as good as advertised then Celtics would be at least above average, and more likely, one of the league leaders in that regard. that was just... not what happened.

[NO-KG-AI]

I have watched plenty of him.

[bastillon]

I have watched plenty of him.

then nothing you read about him should amaze you.

[NO-KG-AI]

*facepalm*

[semi-sentient]

You're not going to fully appreciate him until you move in with him.

[Sedale Threatt]

so why don't you watch him instead of reading? it's kinda more compelling evidence.

Because so little of it exists, something like two complete TV broadcasts from the entire decade. Unfortunately, the lion's share of historic material from this era is the written word.

...

Some good points, especially about his shifting role, and a good comparison with Nash. Some players contribute far beyond their numbers, even when those numbers are excellent, and Russell has to be at the top of the list.

I'm not trying to say that any team wouldn't love to have a historically great defensive center who didn't need shots to dominate, was a tremendous leader and competitor, and also excelled as a passer and dirty worker. There is a role on every team like that.

I guess it all comes down to how you assess the support. Certainly, it absolutely cannot be denied that the one constant was Russell. The cast, in my opinion, was usually great, but no question he was the foundation of everything.

That said, I'm more than a little surprised that several of you are trying to downplay those teams. Hey, it would be great to watch a bunch of footage if more than 0.1% of that stuff was left. But there isn't. All I can go on is what I've read, and I've never heard anybody say that guys like Sam Jones and Tommy Heinsohn were anything less than great.

If you accept that Cousy and Sharman were also great -- again, to me, no-brainers -- then you're looking at top flight players at multiple positions virtually throughout his career. We won't even go into all the other quality supporting guys they had. Many years, especially earlier in his career, I'd be 100% confident to wager the Celtics were going to battle with four of the top 20 players in the league, led by their irreplaceable center.

Obviously, as ElGee pointed out, those teams won with defense first. But at some point, you still have to put the ball in the basket enough to win, and if they'd had to rely on Russell for that -- which is something almost all centers were expected to do at the time -- the Celtics would have been in big trouble.

Again, I don't say that to downplay Russell, but rather to argue again that, yeah, the supporting cast did matter, especially as it relates to other guys who didn't have that luxury of having teammates who complemented your weaknesses. You couldn't have just stuck him on any team and had the same results, or anywhere even close. Absolutely impossible.

And again, nobody ever wants to comment on the impact Auerbach had. Forget the Xs and Os, and personnel management -- at both of which he was formidable.

The thing that stands out to me is that he had the foresight to project what Russell could do. Before anyone scoffs at that, consider that Bill's coach at San Francisco actually tried to teach him NOT to block shots, because it was thought to be poor fundamentals to leave your feet. Sounds ridiculous now, but for the era, he was actually way ahead of his time.

Four short years later he's in the pros, where centers -- especially those taken high in the draft -- are expected to score points and put fans in the seat. Which is why Russell fretted that he wasn't doing well during his first couple of months with the Celtics, until Red Auerbach pulled him aside and told him, basically, don't worry about scoring. I will never, ever pay you according to your scoring average. Play defense, and rebound, and we're good.

Now, I have to assume most coaches would have figured out Russell's strengths at some point. But I can also virtually assure you that a lot of coaches, and especially owners, wouldn't have understood his value, and his career would have suffered for it.

Look at Nate Thurmond. He can't have been substantially worse than Russell -- not as good, obviously, but not substantially worse -- and most fans don't even know who he is. I can easily imagine scenarios where that could have happened to Russell.

At some point I imagine the cream would have risen to the top. He'd already proven in college he was great. But his career wouldn't have been the magical fairytale it was.

Again, I don't bring that up to belittle Bill. You're supposed to play to your strengths, and few did it any better than he did. I'm just saying that he was incredibly fortunate to step immediately into a situation where all that was possible, especially compared to guys like Wilt and Robertson.

[Dipper 13]

so why don't you watch him instead of reading ? it's kinda more compelling evidence.

Indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAYFRHxV43M