All-Defensiev teams 1955-1968

[B]1955[/B] - [I][B]Defensive Player of the Year: Earl Lloyd[/B][/I]
Runner-up: Red Rocha
C: Sweetwater Clifton
F: Mel Hutchins
F: Earl Lloyd
G: Paul Seymour
G: Slater Martin

[B]Second Team[/B]
C: Larry Foust
F: Bob Pettit
F: Red Rocha
G: George King
G: Dick McGuire

[B]1956[/B] [I][B]Defensive Player of the Year: Maurice Stokes [/B][/I]
Runner-up: Mel Hutchins
C: Maurice Stokes
F: Bob Pettit
F: Mel Hutchins
G: Paul Seymour
G: Bill Sharman

[B]Second Team[/B]
C: Red Kerr
F: Jack Coleman
F: Red Rocha
G: Tom Gola
G: Bobby Wanzer

[B]1957[/B] - [I][B]Defensive Player of the Year: Bill Russell [/B][/I]
Runner-up: Maurice Stokes
C: Bill Russell
F: Mel Hutchins
F: Jack Coleman
G: Bill Sharman
G: Slater Martin

[B]Second Team[/B]
C: Maurice Stokes
F: Jim Loscutoff
F: Bob Pettit
G: Richie Regan
G: Dick McGuire

[B]1958[/B] [I][B]Defensive Player of the Year: Bill Russell [/B][/I]
Runner-up: Maurice Stokes
C: Bill Russell
F: Bob Pettit
F: Dolph Schayes
G: Tom Gola
G: Slater Martin

[B]Second Team[/B]
C: Maurice Stokes
F: Paul Arizin
F: Cliff Hagan
G: Bill Sharman
G: Gene Shue

[B]1959[/B] [I][B]Defensive Player of the Year: Bill Russell [/B][/I]
Runner-up: Tom Gola
C: Bill Russell
F: Dolph Schayes
F: Tom Gola
G: Bill Sharman
G: Slater Martin

[B]Second Team[/B]
C: Red Kerr
F: Bob Pettit
F: Elgin Baylor
G: Dick McGuire
G: Gene Shue

[B]1960[/B] [I][B]Defensive Player of the Year: Bill Russell [/B][/I]
Runner-up: Tom Gola
C: Bill Russell
F: Bob Pettit
F: Elgin Baylor
G: Tom Gola
G: Gene Shue

[B]Second Team[/B]
C: Wilt Chamberlain
F: Dolph Schayes
F: Frank Ramsey
G: Bill Sharman
G: Larry Costello

[B]1961[/B] [I][B]Defensive Player of the Year: Bill Russell [/B][/I]
Runner-up: Tom Gola
C: Bill Russell
F: Elgin Baylor
F: Tom Gola
G: Hal Greer
G: Gene Shue

[B]Second Team[/B]
C: Wilt Chamberlain
F: Bob Pettit
F: Rudy LaRusso
G: Larry Costello
G: K.C. Jones

[B]1962[/B] [I][B]Defensive Player of the Year: Bill Russell [/B][/I]
Runner-up: Al Attles
C: Bill Russell
F: Rudy LaRusso
F: Tom Sanders
G: Jerry West
G: Al Attles

[B]Second Team[/B]
C: Wilt Chamberlain
F: Elgin Baylor
F: Tom Gola
G: Hal Greer
G: K.C. Jones

[B]1963[/B] [I][B]Defensive Player of the Year: Bill Russell [/B][/I]
Runner-up: Jerry West
C: Bill Russell
F: Rudy LaRusso
F: Tom Sanders
G: Al Attles
G: Jerry West

[B]Second Team[/B]
C: Wilt Chamberlain
F: Bob Pettit
F: Elgin Baylor
G: K.C. Jones
G: Lenny Wilkens

[B]1964[/B] [I][B]Defensive Player of the Year: Bill Russell [/B][/I]
Runner-up: Wilt Chamberlain
C: Bill Russell
F: Nate Thurmond
F: Tom Sanders
G: Al Attles
G: K.C. Jones

[B]Second Team[/B]
C: Wilt Chamberlain
F: Bob Pettit
F: Rudy LaRusso
G: Jerry West
G: Oscar Robertson

[B]1965[/B] [I][B]Defensive Player of the Year: Bill Russell [/B][/I]
Runner-up: Nate Thurmond
C: Bill Russell
F: Nate Thurmond
F: Tom Sanders
G: Jerry West
G: K.C. Jones

[B]Second Team[/B]
C: Wilt Chamberlain
F: Luke Jackson
F: Dave DeBusschere
G: Oscar Robertson
G: Lenny Wilkens

[B]1966[/B] [I][B]Defensive Player of the Year: Bill Russell [/B][/I]
Runner-up: Wilt Chamberlain
C: Bill Russell
F: Tom Sanders
F: Dave DeBusschere
G: Jerry West
G: K.C. Jones

[B]Second Team[/B]
C: Wilt Chamberlain
F: Luke Jackson
F: John Havlicek
G: Hal Greer
G: Al Attles

[B]1967[/B] [I][B]Defensive Player of the Year: Wilt Chamberlain [/B][/I]
Runner-up: Nate Thurmond
C: Wilt Chamberlain
F: Luke Jackson
F: Dave DeBusschere
G: Jerry West
G: K.C Jones

[B]Second Team[/B]
C: Bill Russell
F: Nate Thurmond
F: John Havlicek
G: Hal Greer
G: Al Attles

[B]1968[/B] [I][B]Defensive Player of the Year: Wilt Chamberlain [/B][/I]
Runner-up: Bill Russell
C: Wilt Chamberlain
F: Luke Jackson
F: Dave DeBusschere
G: Hal Greer
G: Al Attles

[B]Second Team[/B]
C: Bill Russell
F: Rudy LaRusso
F; John Havlicek
G: Jerry Sloan
G: Jerry West

Overall outside of Wilt and Russell who was the best defensive big man of that era?

Excellent Thread
:applause:

I always thought about doing something like this. I agree with practically all your selections. One of the more questionable ones is Russell receiving All-Defensive 1st in 57. Impact and ability-wise, yes he was the best. However, considering he only played 48 games that season, they might leave him out. I'm not sure how many players have been named All-Defensive 1st while playing less than 50 games. Furthermore, he was still a rookie at that point. So he hadn't quite built a strong reputation yet.

How about DPOYs? Though for that you would probably have to go from 55-82 or so. But that also would be very interesting.

[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]Overall outside of Wilt and Russell who was the best defensive big man of that era?[/QUOTE]
Nate Thurmond, easily. He is usually in the best defensive bigmen conversations as well along with Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, etc.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T][B]1955[/B]
C: Clyde Lovellette
F: Bob Pettit
F: Dolph Schayes
G: Paul Seymour
G: Slater Martin

[B]1956[/B]
C: Maurice Stokes
F: Bob Pettit
F: Dolph Schayes
G: Bobby Wanzer
G: Bill Sharman

[B]1957[/B]
C: Bill Russell
F: Maurice Stokes
F: Jack Coleman
G: Bill Sharman
G: Richie Regan

[B]1958[/B]
C: Bill Russell
F: Maurice Stokes
F: Dolph Schayes
G: Bill Sharman
G: Slater Martin

[B]1959[/B]
C: Bill Russell
F: Dolph Schayes
F: Tom Gola
G: Bill Sharman
G: Larry Costello

[B]1960[/B]
C: Bill Russell
F: Bob Pettit
F: Tom Gola
G: Guy Rodgers
G: Larry Costello

[B]1961[/B]
C: Bill Russell
F: Bob Pettit
F: Elgin Baylor
G: Guy Rodgers
G: K.C Jones

[B]1962[/B]
C: Bill Russell
F: Bailey Howell
F: Tom Sanders
G: Richie Guerin
G: Jerry West

[B]1963[/B]
C: Bill Russell
F: Bob Pettit
F: Tom Sanders
G: Jerry West
G: Lenny Wilkens

[B]1964[/B]
C: Bill Russell
F: Nate Thurmond
F: Tom Sanders
G: K.C Jones
G: Al Attles

[B]1965[/B]
C: Bill Russell
F: Nate Thurmond
F: Tom Sanders
G: K.C Jones
G: Al Attles

[B]1966[/B]
C: Bill Russell
F: Luke Jackson
F: Dave DeBusschere
G: Hal Greer
G: K.C. Jones

[B]1967[/B]
C: Bill Russell
F: Luke Jackson
F: Dave Debusschere
G: K.C Jones
G: Jerry West

[B]1968[/B]
C: Wilt Chamberlain
F: Luke Jackson
F: John Havlicek
G: Hal Greer
G: Jerry West[/QUOTE]

I know that Russell had a higher DWS in 66-67, but IMHO, Chamberlain was at his peak defensively that year. And it really showed in the playoffs (he DID have the highest DWS in the post-season that year.)

As for Yung D-Will's question...we know that Reed was 1st team all-defense in '70, and Thurmond was 1st team all-defense in '71. Of course, Wilt was first team all-defense in his last two seasons (71-72 and 72-73.)

[QUOTE=jlauber]I know that Russell had a higher DWS in 66-67, but IMHO, Chamberlain was at his peak defensively that year. And it really showed in the playoffs (he DID have the highest DWS in the post-season that year.)[/QUOTE]

How can you assign defensive win shares when there were no defensive stats available for that era? I will say this, though, Wilt was a monster defensively in that '67 game on youtube, I can't speak on who was the better defender that season, but it wouldn't surprise me if either Wilt, Russell or Thurmond was deserving.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]How can you assign defensive win shares when there were no defensive stats available for that era? I will say this, though, Wilt was a monster defensively in that '67 game on youtube, I can't speak on who was the better defender that season, but it wouldn't surprise me if either Wilt, Russell or Thurmond was deserving.[/QUOTE]

Well, Chamberlain CRUSHED Russell and Thurmond in the playoffs that season. He outscored both, and outshot Russell, .556 to .358, and Nate, .560 to .343.

[QUOTE][B]1967[/B]
C: Bill Russell[/QUOTE]

According to Alex Hannum, Chamberlain's defense was unparalleled this season.

4:52 mark

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJdSJQvwpIY[/url]



And Bill Sharman:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJdSJQvwpIY#t=02m05s[/url]

[I]"I consider Nate right in the same class or kind of in between a Russell or a Chamberlain. Bill Russell now who's a little quicker than either one of them will go to the corner & block a shot or get back underneath & get the big rebound, or again pick up the cutter. Where Nate won't go out quite as far but he will go out a little bit farther than Wilt. Now of course Wilt is much stronger than both of them so he will muscle and do a better job in close."[/I]

I have to call myself out of something here.

I should not gave gave the first team to Russell in both '57 and '67.

In '57 he was clearly the best defensive player, but if the players or media had voted, Stokes would have been left at the center position and Pettit would likely have gotten the nod at forward.

In '67 Wilt was probably (I think so anyway) the more effective defensive player, but Russell had the higher win shares, the better reputation and the title at the time so he probably would have got the nod even if Wilt was deserving.

Bottom Line, I am changing 1967 to Chamberlain.

[QUOTE=Gifted Mind]
How about DPOYs? Though for that you would probably have to go from 55-82 or so. But that also would be very interesting.[/QUOTE]

I have a file dedicated to that, but I have Russell winning too many for anyone to stay on topic if I posted it.

My personal favorite is my Sixth-Man Award back history...that was a ton of fun to research.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Well, Chamberlain CRUSHED Russell and Thurmond in the playoffs that season. He outscored both, and outshot Russell, .556 to .358, and Nate, .560 to .343.[/QUOTE]

Thurmond did do a good job of containing Wilt offensively. Wilt had a legendary EDF series vs Russell, but averaged something like 17 ppg on 56% shooting vs Thurmond.

And can someone explain to me how the hell you could have defensive win shares for seasons before blocks, steals and defensive rebounds were officially tracked?

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Thurmond did do a good job of containing Wilt offensively. Wilt had a legendary EDF series vs Russell, but averaged something like 17 ppg on 56% shooting vs Thurmond.

And can someone explain to me how the hell you could have defensive win shares for seasons before blocks, steals and defensive rebounds were officially tracked?[/QUOTE]

I don't pretend to understand those stats, I know they are flawed, because guys like Heinsohn and Cousy rank highly despite being admittedly poor defenders. I based my selections more on reputation and their teams defensive ability. I did however use win shares to narrow down or expand my candidates in some cases.

In terms of Defensive Win Shares, Russell dominated the stats from 1958-1967, usually doubling up the second place finisher. That seems accurate based on all I've read and come to understand about Russell. Chamberlain's Win Shares went up right about when his team mates and coaches seem to say he started making more of a commitment to defense.

Still without Blocks and Steals (which Russell and Wilt would likely have averaged near double figures of combined) it's hard to see specialists and guards inparticular getting sufficient credit.

Cool, you should put up a second team also.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Thurmond did do a good job of containing Wilt offensively. Wilt had a legendary EDF series vs Russell, but averaged something like 17 ppg on 56% shooting vs Thurmond.

And can someone explain to me how the hell you could have defensive win shares for seasons before blocks, steals and defensive rebounds were officially tracked?[/QUOTE]

I have to disagree about Thurmond's defense on Wilt in the Finals. Wilt was asked to facilitate. The 66-67 season was the first season in which Chamberlain was a "pass-first" center. BUT, I found a game between Nate and Wilt that took place early in the season (courtesy of Lynch's book on the Sixers), in which Hannum told the 76er players at halftime, to abandon their normal offense, and to feed Wilt. Chamberlain responded with 24 second half points (30 in all), and Philly pulled the game out. BTW, Wilt also had 12 blocks in that game.

In the Final series, whenever the Sixers needed a basket, it was Wilt that gave it to them. In the clinching game six win, Chamberlain outscored Thurmond, 24-12, outrebounded him, 23-22, and outshot him, 8-13 to 4-13. Defensively, Wilt held Nate to games of 10-20, 3-14, 6-13, 4-18, 7-21, and 4-13.

Furthermore, and as I have pointed out before, but Wilt had several 30+ point games against Thurmond in his "scoring" seasons, including a game in which he outscored Thurmond 45-13, and in another game, Chamberlain had a 38 point, 31 rebound game. In addition, in the Finals that year, Chamberlain outrebounded Thurmond in five of the six games, including a 38-29 edge in one of them.

Clearly, there was NO center in the league that could stop Wilt in his "scoring" seasons. Russell did as good a job as any in terms of efficiency, but even then, in several post-seasons, Wilt had well over 50% shooting against him.

And, back to the '67 playoffs...while both Nate and Russ held Wilt to well under his season FG% (.683)...Russell held him to .556 and Thurmond to .560...Chamberlain also held Russell, who shot .454 during the season, to well under his, at .358, ...and Thurmond, who shot .437 during the season, to well under his, at .343.

Here again, opposing centers were "credited" with playing Chamberlain effectively when they "held" him to 30+ ppg and 50+%, while Wilt was routinely crushing those same players on the defensive end. There was almost always a double-standard when it involved Wilt.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]Cool, you should put up a second team also.[/QUOTE]

I was adding those while you requested.

It's done now.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I don't pretend to understand those stats, I know they are flawed, because guys like Heinsohn and Cousy rank highly despite being admittedly poor defenders. I based my selections more on reputation and their teams defensive ability. I did however use win shares to narrow down or expand my candidates in some cases.

In terms of Defensive Win Shares, Russell dominated the stats from 1958-1967, usually doubling up the second place finisher. That seems accurate based on all I've read and come to understand about Russell. Chamberlain's Win Shares went up right about when his team mates and coaches seem to say he started making more of a commitment to defense.

Still without Blocks and Steals (which Russell and Wilt would likely have averaged near double figures of combined) it's hard to see specialists and guards inparticular getting sufficient credit.[/QUOTE]

I do believe Russell was the best defensive player of that era, but I don't see the point in using stats you don't understand. In general, I don't like advanced stats, but I think they're even more pointless in the case of defensive win shares in the 60's for the reasons stated.

However, regarding defensive stats at the time, I do find the blocked shots from newspaper articles at the time interesting. I try to research them from time to time.

Apparently, Wilt averaged over 5 bpg in the '73 season while Elmore Smith averaged 3.9 that year(Psileas found an article that had Smith's blocks for the season before blocks were officially kept). I'd guess atleast 7 bpg for the 1972 season. I know he averaged 7.3 bpg in the 4 games from the '67 EDF where blocks were listed in the recap.

I'll try to add the block numbers to this thread when I find more games.

I don't think that blocks are really representative of how great a rim protector a player is. Both Hakeem and Robinson's Blocked shots #s are a bit inflated compared to how good they were. I think that Duncan, who I don't think ever got 3+ blocks per game was actually a bit better rim protector because he stayed on the ground, and didn't go very far from the rim to get blocks. It's still interesting to know Russell and Wilt's insane block #s though.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I do believe Russell was the best defensive player of that era, but I don't see the point in using stats you don't understand. In general, I don't like advanced stats, but I think they're even more pointless in the case of defensive win shares in the 60's for the reasons stated.

However, regarding defensive stats at the time, I do find the blocked shots from newspaper articles at the time interesting. I try to research them from time to time.

Apparently, Wilt averaged over 5 bpg in the '73 season while Elmore Smith averaged 3.9 that year(Psileas found an article that had Smith's blocks for the season before blocks were officially kept). I'd guess atleast 7 bpg for the 1972 season. I know he averaged 7.3 bpg in the 4 games from the '67 EDF where blocks were listed in the recap.

I'll try to add the block numbers to this thread when I find more games.[/QUOTE]

I agree with advanced stats...especially when we just don't know many of the stats. Having said that, though, we do know that Russell (and Thurmond) generally reduced Wilt's efficiency and scoring, and we also know that both Wilt and Nate did the same to Kareem.

As far as blocks go, I would love to read more on ANY of the greats. Regarding Wilt's numbers, even in my limited research, there appears to be many games in which he blocked several shots over the course of a few minutes. And, I just have to believe that there were many games in which no one even attempted to record his (or Russell's) blocks. Still, they do make for a fascinating read.

[QUOTE=magnax1]I don't think that blocks are really representative of how great a rim protector a player is. Both Hakeem and Robinson's Blocked shots #s are a bit inflated compared to how good they were. I think that Duncan, who I don't think ever got 3+ blocks per game was actually a bit better rim protector because he stayed on the ground, and didn't go very far from the rim to get blocks. It's still interesting to know Russell and Wilt's insane block #s though.[/QUOTE]

Blocked shots are a much more important defensive stat than steals, IMO. You're right that you have to watch the game to decide how representative blocks are of a player's defense.

I'll use Shaq and Duncan as an example, Shaq's block numbers were more impressive, but Duncan was one of the best at blocking shots and not biting on fakes while Shaq did bite on a good amount of fakes.

When Hakeem was younger that was a real problem with him, though not as much later. Robinson was always a fantastic defensive player and still one of the best in the league through most of his years with Duncan.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Blocked shots are a much more important defensive stat than steals, IMO. [/QUOTE]

I don't think that can ever be true, because a steal results in a change of possession every time, whereas a block only does in best case scenario. Possession is the most important thing i basketball.

I'll agree a shot blocker is a more valued player than a ball hawk, for a number of reasons. They stand closer to the rim, the effect more players, they change as many or more shots than they block etc.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Blocked shots are a much more important defensive stat than steals, IMO. You're right that you have to watch the game to decide how representative blocks are of a player's defense.

I'll use Shaq and Duncan as an example, Shaq's block numbers were more impressive, but Duncan was one of the best at blocking shots and not biting on fakes while Shaq did bite on a good amount of fakes.

When Hakeem was younger that was a real problem with him, though not as much later. Robinson was always a fantastic defensive player and still one of the best in the league through most of his years with Duncan.[/QUOTE]
I agree steals are much a more important defensive stat then steals. Steals really aren't representative of how good you are at all. Actually now that I think of it now, Robinson probably was at least equal to Duncan, because in 99 he was just a defensive best. Despite the fact he was way past his prime I'd say that was his best defensive year since he worked in tandem with his team, especially duncan, almost perfectly.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I have a file dedicated to that, but I have Russell winning too many for anyone to stay on topic if I posted it.

My personal favorite is my Sixth-Man Award back history...that was a ton of fun to research.[/QUOTE]

Do you have a list of DPOYs from 55-82? That would be extremely interesting.

[QUOTE=Gifted Mind]Do you have a list of DPOYs from 55-82? That would be extremely interesting.[/QUOTE]

Funny you should ask...

I have a list with some candidates from each year and the guy I'm leaning towards based on what I've found out so far, I'll put something together and get that up before too long.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Funny you should ask...

I have a list with some candidates from each year and the guy I'm leaning towards based on what I've found out so far, I'll put something together and get that up before too long.[/QUOTE]

That would be nice. I think these award projections help in evaluating 2 players from different eras by putting their respective accomplishments into perspective. I mean, that is part of the reason why some old-timers are so underrated. The average fan likes to quickly look at a player like Jordan and think, [I]oh he has 6 titles, 6 final MVPs, a DPOY, 9 All-Defensive 1st, etc. [/I] For Russell, all that is said is 11 titles. That's it. But when you realize that Russell should have 11 titles, at least 9 Final MVPs, 8 DPOYs (my count), and 13 All-Defensive Selections including 10 or 11 All-Defensive 1st, then you truly realize how great he has been. And it's not like we are just speculating all of this here, he truly would have received all of those awards if they existed and deserves them. Some fans think it's outlandish to have Russell as GOAT. But all they see is 11 titles. When they see 11 titles, 9 Final MVPs, 5 MVPs, 8 DPOYs, and 13 All-Defensive selections, I'm sure no one would considerate outlandish to have Russell as GOAT.

[QUOTE=Gifted Mind]That would be nice. I think these award projections help in evaluating 2 players from different eras by putting their respective accomplishments into perspective. I mean, that is part of the reason why some old-timers are so underrated. The average fan likes to quickly look at a player like Jordan and think, [I]oh he has 6 titles, 6 final MVPs, a DPOY, 9 All-Defensive 1st, etc. [/I] For Russell, all that is said is 11 titles. That's it. But when you realize that Russell should have 11 titles, at least 9 Final MVPs, 8 DPOYs (my count), and 13 All-Defensive Selections including 10 or 11 All-Defensive 1st, then you truly realize how great he has been. And it's not like we are just speculating all of this here, he truly would have received all of those awards if they existed and deserves them. Some fans think it's outlandish to have Russell as GOAT. But all they see is 11 titles. When they see 11 titles, 9 Final MVPs, 5 MVPs, 8 DPOYs, and 13 All-Defensive selections, I'm sure no one would considerate outlandish to have Russell as GOAT.[/QUOTE]

Excellent post. Russell's perception has always been a lack of offense. But, as G.O.A.T, Regul8r, and other's have pointed out, his offense was actually better than average for much of his career, and he would elevate it in the post-season.

Furthermore, Regul8r has posted some great statistical analysis' that confirms Russell's DEFENSIVE impact. He was the anchor of several of the best defensive teams (per 100 possessions) of all-time. And, we know that he routinely reduced Wilt's offensive numbers. In fact, I would sure like to know how he did against players like Bellamy, Reed, and Thurmond, too.

And, let's not forget about his rebounding, which was brilliant in the regular season, but an all-time best in the post-season.

IMHO, Russell's INDIVIDUAL defense was probably worth 5-10 ppg, depending on who he was guarding. And, his TEAM defense was probably worth anywhere from 5-10 ppg. All of that, coupled with his defensive rebounding, which limited opposing teams to one possession, and his relentless offensive rebounding, which gave his team extra possessions...with his better than average offense, and I think you can easily give him over 30 ppg...maybe even closer to 40.

[QUOTE=Gifted Mind] 8 DPOYs[/QUOTE]

I have him for 9-12

I would guess you have him coming up short in '57, '67 & '68

Also '69 maybe...

What's the fifth? (If I in fact got the first four right)

I guess Jerry West would be all-D in pretty much every season between 1962 and '68, at least judging from what happened in 1969 to '73. Maybe 2nd All-D in 1963 and '68 because of his missed games. K.C would be another regular.

Not sure I agree on '64 Thurmond, especially for All-1st team. He was just a rookie that played 26 mpg, alongside the most dominant player of the league, who had arguably his best season up to then, maybe even defensively.

[QUOTE=Psileas]I guess Jerry West would be all-D in pretty much every season between 1962 and '68, at least judging from what happened in 1969 to '73. Maybe 2nd All-D in 1963 and '68 because of his missed games. K.C would be another regular.

Not sure I agree on '64 Thurmond, especially for All-1st team. He was just a rookie that played 26 mpg, alongside the most dominant player of the league, who had arguably his best season up to then, maybe even defensively.[/QUOTE]

The Thurman choice was based on a few things. #1 His tole that season was exclusively defense. He had developed a reputation prior to the start of his pro career as "the next Russell". Sport Magazine wrote a feature early in the season about he Thurmond's presence had re-energized Wilt and the Warriors who missed the playoffs the year prior.

San Fransisco had the worst defensive in the league in 1963, in 1964 they brought in Thurmond and they had the best defense in the league and were back in the Finals.

Thurmond also ranked higher than Wilt in defensive win shares than the rest of the Warriors except Wilt and exceeded all non-centers in Win Shares per 48.

So while I certainly see your point, a part time playing rookie would never qualify for an all-defense team today. But today we have 30 teams and 60-75 forwards in competition for those two spots. Then their were only 18-20 forwards in the running and Thurmond had comparable stats to most, a better defensive reputation already and I have the luxury of knowing how everything would play out which made him an obvious choice for me.

Remember too that the Warriors were so enamored with Thurmond during his rookie season that they decided Wilt could become expendable a year later.

As for West, the Lakers were one of the leagues worst defensive teams through much of the 1960's. A lot of this can be attributed to their lack of a true quality center but I also think that it might suggest that defense wasn't a huge focus for West until later in his career.

At first I had him on the first team all the way. But I really can't find anything written about his defense or the steals he may have been averaging prior to 1966. Even in his biography he acknowledges that playing defense was something became more important to him the older he got and the more his hunt for a title frustrated him.

Some very good points you raise, I hope my response shines a light on my line of thinking for you.

Νιce points, G.O.A.T.
About West, references about steals seem to increase in general after the early 60's. Same with blocked shots, I remember, for example, reading more references about Russell's blocks in the late 60's or reading little about Wilt's blocks before 1965 and I find it hard to believe that someone would only post elite steals/blocks numbers after his physical prime. Regarding what he said, West always seemed a bit harsh about himself. In an interview about a decade ago, he had claimed that his career had mostly a tragic side because of all those lost finals. In the same interview, he claimed that he wasn't a good dribbler early in his career, but he improved later on. When watching footage of him, you can tell that, while he did improve as he matured, he wasn't as bad earlier as he claimed he was.

Here's something interesting that I found in a "basketball 1963 Complete Sports Publications" archive that existed at nba.com (Blazers' Media Guide):
[B]
[I]West was the same type of player in college. He led West Virginia to three consecutive Southern Conference finals. But what was almost lost in his point production was his defensive prowess. Some experts claimed he was as good defensively as he was offensively. One even went further. He claimed Jerry West would be an All-American even if he didn't score a point.
"Jerry is a complete ballplayer", remarked Schaus. He plays both ends of the floor. How many guys around do that?...He has tremendous reflexes and just about the quickest hands around. Chuck Noe (currently coaching at South Carolina) once told me that if West was in with a mongoose and a cat, he'd bet on West.[/B][/I]

I'd like to see that article about Thurmond. Not because I don't believe you of course, but out of interest. However, if you look at it, Wilt was actually far ahead of Thurmond (and any of his teammates) in DWS and stayed ahead when adjusted for minutes, both R.S and P.O. Not that it's necessarily all that important, especially if we put ourselves in the voters' place, when there was no such thing as "win shares".

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]The Thurman choice was based on a few things. #1 His tole that season was exclusively defense. He had developed a reputation prior to the start of his pro career as "the next Russell". Sport Magazine wrote a feature early in the season about he Thurmond's presence had re-energized Wilt and the Warriors who missed the playoffs the year prior.

San Fransisco had the worst defensive in the league in 1963, in 1964 they brought in Thurmond and they had the best defense in the league and were back in the Finals.

Thurmond also ranked higher than Wilt in defensive win shares than the rest of the Warriors except Wilt and exceeded all non-centers in Win Shares per 48.

So while I certainly see your point, a part time playing rookie would never qualify for an all-defense team today. But today we have 30 teams and 60-75 forwards in competition for those two spots. Then their were only 18-20 forwards in the running and Thurmond had comparable stats to most, a better defensive reputation already and I have the luxury of knowing how everything would play out which made him an obvious choice for me.

Remember too that the Warriors were so enamored with Thurmond during his rookie season that they decided Wilt could become expendable a year later.

As for West, the Lakers were one of the leagues worst defensive teams through much of the 1960's. A lot of this can be attributed to their lack of a true quality center but I also think that it might suggest that defense wasn't a huge focus for West until later in his career.

At first I had him on the first team all the way. But I really can't find anything written about his defense or the steals he may have been averaging prior to 1966. Even in his biography he acknowledges that playing defense was something became more important to him the older he got and the more his hunt for a title frustrated him.

Some very good points you raise, I hope my response shines a light on my line of thinking for you.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1075691/1/index.htm[/url]

According to Hannum, it was WILT who was the defensive anchor of that 63-64 Warrior team.

Interesting, too, in that article, about the roster that Wilt had in 62-63 (and much of it the same in 63-64)...

[QUOTE]So are the Warriors, a [B]team that lists on its roster some of the slowest players and worst shooters ever to play in the NBA[/B]. With just 14 games remaining in the regular season, San Francisco—in next-to-last place this time last year and until recently the obvious choice to finish there again—is in first place, ahead of the St. Louis Hawks and the defending Western Division champions, the Los Angeles Lakers. There is a related phenomenon: the curious fans of early last year are back, along with quite a few brand-new ones. When they press the horn now they get a sturdy, melodious toot for their money.

[/QUOTE]

Continuing...

[QUOTE]Hannum's next task, then, was to convince Wilt Chamberlain—the greatest scorer in history, the man who once scored 100 points in a single game, the man who holds eight of the 10 major scoring records—to let someone else shoot once in a while and to play defense with as much enthusiasm as he did offense. [B]"For us to win," said Hannum, "Wilt has to play like Bill Russell at one end of the court and like Wilt Chamberlain at the other end of the court[/B]."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]For those who insist that all this is just so much talk, there was a game in Philadelphia last month in which the Warriors came on the floor at half time trailing the 76ers by 15 points. [B]In the next three minutes Chamberlain blocked four shots, picked up seven defensive and three offensive rebounds and was the playmaker[/B], controlling the ball in one gigantic hand until a teammate was clear for a shot. Finally Hannum had to call a time-out so that his big center could stop laughing. The Warriors had outscored the 76ers 20-3, and Wilt's contribution was four points. Said Hannum, "He didn't exactly look like a man who was disappointed."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Baltimore's Terry Dischinger has a recurring nightmare. It was born the recent night the Warriors beat the Bullets 120-118. Dischinger got away from his man and went in for the last—tying—shot of the game. "I don't know whether the shot would have gone in," he said, "[B]and I never found out. Wilt jumped up and grabbed it with both hands, and that was the game." To San Francisco's way of thinking, that is the game[/B].[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I have him for 9-12

[b]I would guess you have him coming up short in '57[/b], '67 & '68[/QUOTE]

I disagree with this. Even despite the fact he only played 48 games due to participating in the Olympics, it was clear he was the best defensive player in the league (ever) from Year One:

[quote]NEW YORK (AP)

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I disagree with this. Even despite the fact he only played 48 games due to participating in the Olympics, it was clear he was the best defensive player in the league (ever) from Year One:



Russell was 1956-57 Defensive Player of the Year.[/QUOTE]

I'm with you. But I was quoting him saying he had Russell with 8 defensive MVP's. That would mean he didn't win it five times and I was trying to figure out which years he'd be most likely overlooked.

I think Russell probably deserved the award in every year except '67 and '68. In those seasons Wilt was playing the best defense of his career (at least to that point) and Russell was a little more selective with his efforts because of age and the added burden of coaching the team.

I am not disputing that Russell was the greatest defensive center, (and probably the greatest defensive PLAYER), of all-time, but I do believe that Wilt's defense was very under-rated, even early on.

Why?

[url]http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain[/url]

[QUOTE]When challenged, Wilt could do almost anything he wanted. In 1961 a new star named Walt Bellamy came into the league. [B]Bellamy was 6-foot-10, and was scoring 30 points a game[/B]. First time they played against each other, they met at half court. Bellamy said, 'Hello, Mr. Chamberlain. I'm Walter Bellamy.' Chamberlain reached for Bellamy's hand and said, 'Hello, Walter. You won't get a shot off in the first half.' [B]Wilt then blocked Bellamy's first nine shots.[/B] At the start of the second half Wilt said to Bellamy, 'Okay, Walter. Now you can play.'" [1][/QUOTE]

I am not sure just accurate that quote was, but Bellamy did say that he did not score a point in the first half.

And, by the 66-67 season, Chamberlain was DOMINATING both ends of the court. He absolutely crushed all the centers in the league that season. And in the post-season, he held Russell to .358 shooting, and Thurmond to .343 shooting.

In the 67-68 season, according to DWS, Chamberlain was also #1 in the league. In the first round of the playoffs, against the Knicks, with Reed and Bellamy, Wilt led all players in scoring, rebounding, AND assists (the Knicks had Frazier by then.) And he held Bellamy, who had shot .541 over the course of the regular season, to .421 in that series. I couldn't tell you what Russell shot against him in the ECF's that season, but in his 19 post-season games, Russell only shot .409...and seven of those games were against Wilt.

OP has been updated

Great thread. I want to hear more about Wilt's year in 1967. I heard many say that Wilt hit his defensive peak with the Lakers in the early 70's, was Wilt in 1967 just as good defensively?

Solid thread .