GEEZUS, what am I doing? Typing with my FEET!!??!?

In the 1962–63 NBA season Eddie Gottlieb sold the Warriors franchise for an amount of $850,000 to a group of businessmen led by Marty Simmons from San Francisco, and the team relocated to become the San Francisco Warriors under a new coach, Bob Feerick.[47] This also meant, however, that the team broke apart, as Paul Arizin chose to retire rather than moving away from his family and his job at IBM in Philadelphia, and Tom Gola was homesick, requesting a trade to the lowly New York Knicks halfway through the season.[48] With both secondary scorers gone Chamberlain continued his array of statistical feats, scoring 44.8 points and grabbing 24.3 rebounds per game that year.[40] But despite Chamberlain's individual success, the Warriors lost 49 of their 80 games and missed the playoffs.[49]

In the 1963–64 NBA season Chamberlain got yet another new coach, Alex Hannum, and was joined by a promising rookie center, Nate Thurmond, who eventually would enter the Hall of Fame. Ex-soldier Hannum, who later entered the NBA Hall of Fame as a coach, was a crafty psychologist who emphasized defense and passing. Most importantly, he was not afraid to stand up to the dominant Chamberlain, who was known to "freeze out" (not communicate with) coaches he did not like.[50] Backed up by valuable rookie Thurmond, Chamberlain had another good season with 36.9 ppg and 22.3 rpg,[40] and the San Francisco Warriors went all the way to the NBA Finals. In that series they succumbed to the Boston Celtics team of Bill Russell again, this time losing 1–4.[51] But as Cherry remarked, not only Chamberlain, but in particular Hannum deserved much credit because he had basically had taken the bad 31–49 squad of last year plus Thurmond and made it into a NBA Finalist.[52]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Looks like you had it all in 1963:
team moving
team breaking up
secondary scorers leaving, 1 before the seaosn, the other halway thru
Chamberlain being difficult
head coach not strong enough to deal with Wilt...

Then they get a new coach who DOES emphasize defense and passing and stands up to Wilt & they add rookie Nate Thurmond (still didn't have Arizin or Gola)-----------and they're in the Finals!

http://espn.go.com/espn/elias?date=20110527
From Elias: Derrick Rose made only nine of 29 field-goal attempts in the Bulls' loss. It was the first time that an MVP missed 20 or more shots from the field in the game in which his team was eliminated since Bob McAdoo went 16-for-36 as the Buffalo Braves were closed out by the Washington Bullets in 1975.

I really sound like I'm taking it to Rose, I know. I'm not blaming Rose for Chicago losing as much as I'm holding Rose responsible for being part of the problem. Tough to tell Rose to stop doing what got the Bulls 62 wins and home court in the ECF, I know-----so you live or die with what you have been all year in late May. Going forward, the Bulls obviously need to move away from Rose taking so many of the shots. He doesn't make enough of them for Chicago to go farther. Who should be taking them? Maybe that guy isn't even on the team. But the plan cannot be for Rose to keep taking them.

If Rose made shots and the Bulls still lost, I wouldn't 'blame' Rose's offense. If Miami made more shots to counter Rose's made shots------I'd look at what they were doing on defense... but I won't shy away from my philosophy that there are inherent benefits to more people being involved on offense.

With Wilt, there are similarities, as you've illustrated-------but there are some fundamental differences. First, Chicago was a very good defensive team. The 1963 Warriors allowed the most ppg. With WILT. They should have been better. But they chose to deploy Wilt a certain way. I don't know what the pace was for that team----but the argument could be made that whatever it was (and AYC suggests it was the league's fastest pace), it should have been SLOWER. More should have been done to reap the defensive capabilities of a half court defense anchored by a monster that was Wilt. The Bulls were 62-20. Whatever they were doing was working. At least well enough to get them to the ECF. The 1963 Warriors were 31-49. No playoffs. With WILT! They were doing something wrong. Wilt MADE a good % of his shots. Do I KILL Wilt, then? NOT 'kill' him for his OFFENSE, no. But, again, I won't shy away from my philosophical belief that there are inherent benefits to involving other players on offense. Wilt was supposedly difficult----or I read that at least the coach that year was unable to control him. Perhaps he wanted a slower pace. Maybe he wanted Wilt's role to be altered and the team's philosophy to be different. He would have been CORRECT. Because 31-49 in 1963 with Wilt was an indication that you were doing something WRONG. The 1963 Warrors didn't give a darn about defense. They should have. Perhaps Wilt's need to be so individually offensive contributed to that. I'd actually like to read a book(s) on Wilt's earlier years-------actually his entire career---------but I don't want one written BY Wilt. Maybe one written by him, and another by someone else to compare viewpoints. I think his career is fascinating.

How did the Bulls fubar the trade? The story I heard was that Memphis' GM doesn't like the Bulls front office and turned down their deal to take a WORSE deal from Indiana. Only they didn't call it into the league on time and so it was disallowed. This is the first I heard that the Bulls did something wrong.

http://xkcd.com/904/