Felton vs. Norman (The Chamberlain\Russell Thread)

[G.O.A.T]

http://www.geocities.com/michaeljordangallery5/photo6/6768PhilaBillRussellWiltChamberlainRebound.jpg

Russell shuts down Chamberlain holds him to just 38 ppg

Russell Talk about Wilt, their friendship, their era and their battles. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZpMZ5rAc8)

http://www.nelsonguirado.com/media/blogs/asymmetric/wilt.gif

Bill owns Chamberlain so much he eats his Moms food and Sleeps in Wilts Bed...


Wilt on Russell: The Video Russell Mentioned (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CqQ4x3klT4&feature=related)

http://images.dailyradar.com/media/uploads/ballhype/story_large/2009/08/03/bill_russell_and_wilt_chamberlain_photograph_c130. jpeg

Russell's Take on the Same Things (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpABZqq9PxQ&feature=related)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/17/20043052_68b3faa092.jpg

1964 NBA Finals Game Four (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZMw_B8srw&feature=PlayList&p=EED4487773731D99&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=71)

(7 Parts all listed to the right.)

http://angrycelticsfans.com/Bill_Russell_vs_Wilt_Chamberlain_1970.jpg

Wilt talks about the Celtics and beating them in 1967 with Philly. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku_9_lxx3-0&feature=related)

http://www.sportsmemorabilia.com/files/cache/wilt-chamberlain-bill-russell-8x10-photo_3666d6391c227b296a80f292c53e58dc.jpg

Russell and Chamberlain Interviewed Together by Bob Costas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eIE5cznPS8&feature=PlayList&p=E3C433CF163B3EDD&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=35)

http://www.achievement.org/achievers/rus0/large/rus0-013.jpg

The Beginning of Russell vs. Chamberlain and Beyond (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2iR470UVh4&feature=related)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3572/3443995196_8c62d783aa.jpg

Classic Confrontations Wilt vs. Russell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UsLn9IjEhc)

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/0807/greatest.individual.rivalries/images/wilt-chamberlain-bill-russell.jpg


1967 ECF Wilt's 76ers and Russell's Celtics:: Game 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWNzHgG94XM)

Playlist - 5 Parts (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=1967+ECF&search_type=&aq=f)

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0905/this.day.sports.history.may26/images/chamberlain-russell.jpg



Links to Other Wilt and Russell Threads (Please merge mods or admin)

Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153453)

[ShaqAttack3234]

Bump: Got lost in the Weekend Clutter

No thoughts on the two greatest Big Men ever or reaction to the the videos or game links included in this thread?

My only thought is that the bolded statement is incorrect. Kareem is number 1 and either Shaq or Wilt is number 2.

[quasimoto]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/0807/greatest.individual.rivalries/images/wilt-chamberlain-bill-russell.jpg
Funny that they were already saying that in 1988.

[GP_20]

My only thought is that the bolded statement is incorrect. Kareem is number 1 and either Shaq or Wilt is number 2.
I agree. And it's Kareem and Wilt for sure. Russell and O'Neal and Hakeem are all pretty close to each other.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I agree. And it's Kareem and Wilt for sure. Russell and O'Neal and Hakeem are all pretty close to each other.

I disagree, Shaq and Wilt are right there with eachother in my opinion. I alternate them all the time, I can't really decide between them.

[G.O.A.T]

C'mon you two, obviously that's not the point of this thread and if you're both too stubbrun to acknowledge that there is an equally (if not more) valid argument for Russ and Wilt over any other two centers ever than there is no reason to ever talk to either of you about hoops.

In the interview with Payton, Webber and Steve Smith Russell says "It's more important to Understand than to be understood"

Advice you both need to bear in mind going forward if you ever want to get smarter and not just convince other people how smart you think you are.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'd love to hear a valid argument for Russell over Kareem or Shaq other than 11 rings.

[G.O.A.T]

I'd love to hear a valid argument for Russell over Kareem or Shaq other than 11 rings.

That's all you need, if you don't understand that do some homework.

But I'd say 5 MVP's and constantly being in the top four his entire career is pretty good.

Also second most rebounds ever and would easily have the most blocks if it was a stat

Highest APG in the postseason ever for a center

More top 10 assist finishes in the season than any other center

watch the videos do some homework and get back to me.

Going forward I'd really like to turn this discussion away from all players except Wilt and Russ for the the sake of the thread.

[RedZiggyZag]

Russell was the better 5 on 5 player and Wilt was the better 1 on 1 player. How many players does a game of basketball consist of? 5 Correct? So Russell is the better choice for me. Now you factor in the awards, accolades and the championships. It becomes clear who's better....Russell.

Something Coach Herm Edwards said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

[1987_Lakers]

I'd love to hear a valid argument for Russell over Kareem or Shaq other than 11 rings.

The thing is you just can't ignore Russell's 11 rings. Not to mention he does have 5 NBA MVPs. The fact that Russell won the NBA MVP in 1962 in a landslide considering Wilt averaged 50 PPG & Oscar Robertson averaged a triple double that year just tells you how good he was. I'm not saying Russell was a better player than Kareem or Chamberlain, but an argument can definitely be made.

Top 5 Centers in NBA History
1. Kareem
2. Wilt
3. Russell
4. Shaq
5. Hakeem

[ShaqAttack3234]

That's all you need, if you don't understand that do some homework.

But I'd say 5 MVP's and constantly being in the top four his entire career is pretty good.

Also second most rebounds ever and would easily have the most blocks if it was a stat

Highest APG in the postseason ever for a center

More top 10 assist finishes in the season than any other center

watch the videos do some homework and get back to me.

Going forward I'd really like to turn this discussion away from all players except Wilt and Russ for the the sake of the thread.

I did watch the videos and from watching them it seemed laughable to suggest Russell was better than Shaq and Kareem who truly dominated. He can have all of the assist numbers in the world, but he was not a better passer than Shaq or Kareem. Both were capable of more difficult passes from what I saw and because of their scoring ability, they drew far more double teams.

Then we have scoring which is what makes the comparison laughable. Shaq and Kareem were hands down top 3 scorers at their position and truly unstoppable. Russell was not even a top 20 scorer.

Russell has the edge as far as defense, but consider the huge advantage that guys like Ben Wallace and Mutombo have over guys like Daugherty and Yao defensively. But not one GM would take the former over the latter. Hell, you have a guy like Zo who was one of the best defenders ever and a great scorer himself(20-23 ppg), but no GM is taking him over Shaq. The bottom line is it's easier to build around a great low post scorer who is still a defensive presence than a great defender who is merely good offensively.

Russell won 11 titles with 1/4 the amount of teams and he played on a stacked team that is far beyond anything Shaq played with or even Kareem during his actualy pime('70-'80).

Despite Russell's pace advantage(which is the main reason for his rebounding and assist advantage) Shaq and Kareem are still more impressive statistically and both won a ton of titles themselves. Hell, Kareem won more MVP's than Russell as well.

[L.Kizzle]

They played over 160+ times I believe.

[G.O.A.T]

They played over 160+ times I believe.

Basically every year in the 1960's they had a playoff series, plus they used to play each team 7-12 times a year. So it wouldn't be entirely impossible.

I'll never understand how so many people can see a guy like Russell who comes to a franchise with no rings, wins his rookie year then 9 of the next 11 years watches ever player on the team when he got there leave and be replaced, than wins in his last season and then the next season his team misses the playoffs for the first time since he got there.

The goal of the game is to win titles. Russell won more, by far than any other superstar ever. He was more MVP's than his contemporary Wilt who put up better numbers than any player ever and it's not even close, Wilt admits that it was because of Russell the Celtics won the titles and that with him in Bill's place they'd not have won as many or even close and still people want to argue about his greatness because he didn't score as much.

Newsflash, he didn't need to or want to. He understood that the team as a whole plays better when each player could stick to their greatest strengths and he made that happen.

Russell is the Greatest center ever and to me it's not debatable. That said, I can see the arguments for others, but I've yet to hear anyone on here make anything close to a valid argument.

Just a lot of people citing stats and showing how little they know and are willing to learn about the NBA before 1980.

Again, the goal is to win anyway you can, the Celtics were not a dramatically better team at any point than their competition, yet everyone says how stacked they were. Numerous teams have had better players and every superstar in the history of the NBA has had a better cast than Russell in '68 and '69 and yet few if any carried their teams to titles.

Russell was the Coach while he was an MVP candidate, imagine how insane that is.

He was the first Black coach to win a title in any major sport, the first Black coach period in the NBA. The first Black MVP, the reason they created the All-Defensive Team and the guy who the NBA Championship Trophy is named after. He's Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, The Heisman and the Cy Young wrapped in one athlete.

The greatest winner ever in a business where the bottom line is winning.

Kids...

[ShaqAttack3234]

Russell is the Greatest center ever and to me it's not debatable. That said, I can see the arguments for others, but I've yet to hear anyone on here make anything close to a valid argument.


That's fine and to me it's the exact opposite. I haven't seen a valid argument for him being the greatest. Great player and defintley top 10 all time, but to compare rings with Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem ect. is unfair considering the situation.

[MMKM]

A little off topic but an interesting little factoid;

I've heard people say 1000 times that Wilt dominated because there were no other tall centers in the league back then (aside from Russell), basically saying he was a giant for his time. I did a little research and in Wilt's era the average height for a center was 6'11. Last season the average height was 6'10. It turns out human beings haven't evolved a whole lot in 50 years despite people's misconceptions.
:hammerhead:

[GP_20]

I disagree, Shaq and Wilt are right there with eachother in my opinion. I alternate them all the time, I can't really decide between them.
Yeah it's definitely still close. You're a smart poster, most of what you say is right. But there are small things that make the separation line clear.


Russell is the Greatest center ever and to me it's not debatable. That said, I can see the arguments for others, but I've yet to hear anyone on here make anything close to a valid argument.

Please tell me he did not just say that. I haven't seen any close to valid argument for Russell over Wilt.

[G.O.A.T]

Please tell me he did not just say that. I haven't seen any close to valid argument for Russell over Wilt.

That's because you're an idiot though. Also stay out of my threads at all times, if I can't have you on ignore you owe me that as a moderator, even if it is of a different forum.

I don't ever want to hear your opinions on anything; don't ever respond to me, the previous post and all after will be reported.

[G.O.A.T]

A little off topic but an interesting little factoid;

I've heard people say 1000 times that Wilt dominated because there were no other tall centers in the league back then (aside from Russell), basically saying he was a giant for his time. I did a little research and in Wilt's era the average height for a center was 6'11. Last season the average height was 6'10. It turns out human beings haven't evolved a whole lot in 50 years despite people's misconceptions.
:hammerhead:

Great point about height, a common misconception, it's was Wilt's athleticism that separated him much more than his 2 or 3 inch height advantage he usually had.

The evolution is more in terms of explosiveness. Athletes today are more explosive because of the training, supplementation and nutritional advances. Also the style taught and portrayed is a more athletic one.

[G.O.A.T]

Can we get a merger here...

[Abraham Lincoln]

Bill Russell against Wilt Chamberlain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIc73FUXVF0)

[jlauber]

Bill Russell against Wilt Chamberlain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIc73FUXVF0)

THE greatest rivalry in Sports HISTORY!!!!!!

[32jazz]

I'd love to hear a valid argument for Russell over Kareem or Shaq other than 11 rings.


There isn't one honestly. BUT as we all know with championships(no matter how good you are as an individual) people begin to view you differently. Just like JOE DUMARS being a 1st/2nd ballot HOF'er ,but ;Adrian Dantley waiting nearly two decades, Gilmore still not in:mad: ,etc....( Just imagine Gilmore playing with Magic & winning titles in the 80's. He would have been no doubt a first ballot HOF'er)

One commentator pointed this out after the Pistons beat the Lakers in '04. There is no way in hell that 4 time DPOY was better than Shaq individually(just as Wilt>Russell) ,but his TEAM won. Just imagine if Wallace & the Pistons won 4 or 5 titles during their impressive run(6 straight ECF ?/2 NBA finals/1 championship). Would people suggest their defensive anchor/heart & soul was the best Center in the League?

I AM NOT SAYING WALLACE is as good as Russell just making an analogy.

I must admit that Russell won every place he went & revolutionized defensive strategy. Although someone said they went from Champions to NO PLAYOFFS the year immediately after Russell retired they forget that the great Sam Jones retired also.

[jlauber]

There isn't one honestly. BUT as we all know with championships(no matter how good you are as an individual) people begin to view you differently. Just like JOE DUMARS being a 1st/2nd ballot HOF'er ,but ;Adrian Dantley waiting nearly two decades, Gilmore still not in:mad: ,etc....( Just imagine Gilmore playing with Magic & winning titles in the 80's. He would have been no doubt a first ballot HOF'er)

One commentator pointed this out after the Pistons beat the Lakers in '04. There is no way in hell that 4 time DPOY was better than Shaq individually(just as Wilt>Russell) ,but his TEAM won. Just imagine if Wallace & the Pistons won 4 or 5 titles during their impressive run(6 straight ECF ?/2 NBA finals/1 championship). Would people suggest their defensive anchor/heart & soul was the best Center in the League?

I AM NOT SAYING WALLACE is as good as Russell just making an analogy.

I must admit that Russell won every place he went & revolutionized defensive strategy. Although someone said they went from Champions to NO PLAYOFFS the year immediately after Russell retired they forget that the great Sam Jones retired also.

Very valid points. One-on-one, Wilt probably would have destroyed Russell. BUT, basketball is 5x5. Quite often it comes down to the best chemistry. I honestly believe that Shaq, Kareem, and Wilt would make lousy teams better than Duncan or Russell. However, players like Russell or Duncan make good teams better than what those three would have.

Even Wilt, himself, said that Russell blended better with his Celtic teammates, than he (Wilt) would have.

[32jazz]

Great point about height, a common misconception, it's was Wilt's athleticism that separated him much more than his 2 or 3 inch height advantage he usually had.

The evolution is more in terms of explosiveness. Athletes today are more explosive because of the training, supplementation and nutritional advances. Also the style taught and portrayed is a more athletic one.

People fail to realize that Magic Johnson had a far greater size advantage at the overall guard postion in the 80's than Wilt ever had at Center(MJ/Drexler as well).

Also the SG position was very different in the 80's OVERALL & was not as EXPLOSIVE with shorter(6'3/4 or shorter) jump shooting specialist like Ainge, Andrew Toney,Byron Scott, Joe Dumars, A. Robertson(great defender),Sleepy Floyd,World B Free, Moncrief, Fat Lever,etc... & even taller Jump shooters like Dale Ellis,Reggie Miller,etc....

Magic/MJ/Drexler feasted on these guys & they(Magic more than anyone else) revolutionized the guard positon.

I see no one dismissing their (Magic/MJ/Drexler)accomplishments like some do Wilt & he had less of a size advantage at Center than they overall at Guard.

[G.O.A.T]

I don't understand why 11 rings isn't enough of an argument...

No one else in te history of North American pro sports has done anything like it.

They never won before him, won 11 out of 13 when he was there and became one of the leagues worst teams the second he retired.

He was the one constant on those teams and is universally credited as the most important factor in the dynasty.

His teams were good, but in no way dominant. They went to a seventh game more than 10 times and never lost when Russell was healthy.

etc etc etc.

you all have heard this, I guess I just don't think you appreciate how significant it is.

[jlauber]

People fail to realize that Magic Johnson had a far greater size advantage at the overall guard postion in the 80's than Wilt ever had at Center(MJ/Drexler as well).

Also the SG position was very different in the 80's OVERALL & was not as EXPLOSIVE with shorter(6'3/4 or shorter) jump shooting specialist like Ainge, Andrew Toney,Byron Scott, Joe Dumars, A. Robertson(great defender),Sleepy Floyd,World B Free, Moncrief, Fat Lever,etc... & even taller Jump shooters like Dale Ellis,Reggie Miller,etc....

Magic/MJ/Drexler feasted on these guys & they(Magic more than anyone else) revolutionized the guard positon.

I see no one dismissing their (Magic/MJ/Drexler)accomplishments like some do Wilt & he had less of a size advantage at Center than they overall at Guard.

In Wilt's 61-62 season, the average height of a starting center in the NBA was 6-10. By 1970, it was 6-11. In 2009, it was 7-0. So, in 40-50 years, we have seen the average starting center grow a full two inches. Not only that, but take Wilt out of the equation, and how many 7-1+ centers have won a rebounding title? And how many seasons TOTAL?

7-2 Kareem won ONE rebounding title. 7-2 Motumbo won two. 7-1 David Robinson won ONE. 7-2 Gilmore won three in the ABA, but in two of those seasons, his average per game was less than the NBA leader (Wilt and Kareem.) That's it. A TOTAL of FIVE NBA seasons, in NBA HISTORY, in which a 7-1 player, aside from Wilt, has won a rebounding title.

[jlauber]

I don't understand why 11 rings isn't enough of an argument...

No one else in te history of North American pro sports has done anything like it.

They never won before him, won 11 out of 13 when he was there and became one of the leagues worst teams the second he retired.

He was the one constant on those teams and is universally credited as the most important factor in the dynasty.

His teams were good, but in no way dominant. They went to a seventh game more than 10 times and never lost when Russell was healthy.

etc etc etc.

you all have heard this, I guess I just don't think you appreciate how significant it is.

Hopefully more-and-more readers here WILL come to appreciate what Russell accomplished. NO ONE IMPACTED the TEAM game of basketball, more than Russell.

[32jazz]

In Wilt's 61-62 season, the average height of a starting center in the NBA was 6-10. By 1970, it was 6-11. In 2009, it was 7-0. So, in 40-50 years, we have seen the average starting center grow a full two inches. Not only that, but take Wilt out of the equation, and how many 7-1+ centers have won a rebounding title? And how many seasons TOTAL?

7-2 Kareem won ONE rebounding title. 7-2 Motumbo won two. 7-1 David Robinson won ONE. 7-2 Gilmore won three in the ABA, but in two of those seasons, his average per game was less than the NBA leader (Wilt and Kareem.) That's it. A TOTAL of FIVE NBA seasons, in NBA HISTORY, in which a 7-1 player, aside from Wilt, has won a rebounding title.

Not only that Jlauber the heights from the 1960's/70's were far more accurate & not these 'fudged' heights today in an era obssesed with numbers/camps/combines.

Players lie so much about their heights today that there is serious confusion over their actual heights. The funniest/oddest one was Akeem Olajuwon who announced out of the blue in the 90's that his name was actually spelled Hakeem & he was 6'10 & not 7'0.:oldlol:

I did this average for '68(Wilt's best season), '78, '88,'98,'08 once & starting Centers were relatively the same height:confusedshrug: (especially adjusting for players/agents/colleges 'routinely' lying about a players height today).


I have always dismissed this notion that Wilt only won rebounding titles(11) because he was tall(7'1 legit) when in 60 years of NBA Basketball only 4 true 7 footers have actually won rebounding titles & only Wilt & Mutombo(4) multiple ones( Plus Gilmore in the ABA).

'Statistically speaking' The Dipper was at a disadvantage when it came to rebounds & assists as well , but he also led the League in assists.

[jlauber]

Not only that Jlauber the heights from the 1960's/70's were far more accurate & not these 'fudged' heights today in an era obssesed with numbers/camps/combines.

Players lie so much about their heights today that there is serious confusion over their actual heights. The funniest/oddest one was Akeem Olajuwon who announced out of the blue in the 90's that his name was actually spelled Hakeem & he was 6'10 & not 7'0.:oldlol:

I did this average for '68(Wilt's best season), '78, '88,'98,'08 once & starting Centers were relatively the same height:confusedshrug: (especially adjusting for players/agents/colleges 'routinely' lying about a players height today).


I have always dismissed this notion that Wilt only won rebounding titles(11) because he was tall(7'1 legit) when in 60 years of NBA Basketball only 4 true 7 footers have actually won rebounding titles & only Wilt & Mutombo(4) multiple ones( Plus Gilmore in the ABA).

'Statistically speaking' The Dipper was at a disadvantage when it came to rebounds & assists as well , but he also led the League in assists.

I haven't been able to find the original quote, but I recall Kiki Van de Wege making the claim that Wilt, in his mid-40's, ABUSED 7-4 Mark Eaton in a summer league game in the mid-80's. Can you imagine what Wilt would have accomplished against the likes of 7-2 clods like Ostertag, Breuer, Longley, Neavitt, Bol, Muresan, and SO MANY others...NONE of whom would have made an NBA roster back in the 60's and 70's? Even players like Smits and Eaton would have no chance against Wilt's athleticism and power.

[32jazz]

I haven't been able to find the original quote, but I recall Kiki Van de Wege making the claim that Wilt, in his mid-40's, ABUSED 7-4 Mark Eaton in a summer league game in the mid-80's. Can you imagine what Wilt would have accomplished against the likes of 7-2 clods like Ostertag, Breuer, Longley, Neavitt, Bol, Muresan, and SO MANY others...NONE of whom would have made an NBA roster back in the 60's and 70's? Even players like Smits and Eaton would have no chance against Wilt's athleticism and power.

Can't remmber off hand about that one(Eaton), but I'll do some research.
I do remember very well the story Larry Brown tells about the pick up games at UCLA with Magic in the early 80's.

Magic was crying about fouls & made a few layups & Wilt got pissed. Said" No more layups in this gym today' & there were no more lay ups as Wilt swatted/intimidated everything else & pretty much shut up Magic in his mid 40's.:eek:


Also read a story that he was offered the oppurtunity to return as a 'back up' Center in the early 80's by the Lakers & maybe the Cavs(?) wanted him. With the Lakers it was alleged he was offered the oppurtunity to play home games only in the regular season, but eventually rebuffed the offer(Wilt was VERY successful/well off finanacially & didn't want to be some publicity stunt).

I'll try to find that for you.

[Disaprine]

respect the goats people :cheers:

[jlauber]

Can't remmber off hand about that one(Eaton), but I'll do some research.
I do remember very well the story Larry Brown tells about the pick up games at UCLA with Magic in the early 80's.

Magic was crying about fouls & made a few layups & Wilt got pissed. Said" No more layups in this gym today' & there were no more lay ups as Wilt swatted/intimidated everything else & pretty much shut up Magic in his mid 40's.:eek:


Also read a story that he was offered the oppurtunity to return as a 'back up' Center in the early 80's by the Lakers & maybe the Cavs(?) wanted him. With the Lakers it was alleged he was offered the oppurtunity to play home games only in the regular season, but eventually rebuffed the offer(Wilt was VERY successful/well off finanacially & didn't want to be some publicity stunt).

I'll try to find that for you.

I have read them, but yes, if you can find it, please post it. Incidently there was a post about Wilt here a while back, after he "retired" from the NBA (he never technically retired)...and I found a remarkable comment from Wilt, saying that, at the time, he was in the best shape of his life. He even said that his arthritis had cleared (if that is possible?)

When people talk about Wilt's greatness, I almost never read about his LAST year in the NBA, and at age 37. He led the Lakers to the Finals (60-22 record BTW)...and four CLOSE losses (all games decided in the last minute.) He was voted first-team all-defense (for the second year in a row.) He averaged well over 20 rebounds per game in the post-season (as he did EVERY post-season.) He led the NBA in rebounding (for the 11th time in 14 seasons.) And he set a FG% mark of .727...that will probably not be approached, much less broken.

IF there was ever a player who could have played well into his mid-40's, it would have been Chamberlain. One of the most fascinating accounts of Wilt's physical condition, was the fact that there is an eye-witness account of him bench-pressing 465 lbs... at age 59! In Robert Cherry's book on Wilt, he interviewed hundreds of people who frequented with Wilt...and the stories of his physical prowess abound.

AND, as I have said MANY times...for all of the non-believers out there...where are the legitimate eye-witness accounts that DISPUTE his enormous strength, and staggering leaping ability???

[G.O.A.T]

I have a friend who contends Wilt retired because he didn't want his scoring average to dip below 30 for his career. he knew in the slower paced game with better athletes and defense that he couldn't average 30 anymore and win, so he called it quits. I am a little skeptical about that, but it's something to think about, he certainly could have kept playing if he wanted to. He was still a top center in 1973 and the only guy who could rotuniley match or outplay Alcindor.

[jlauber]

I have a friend who contends Wilt retired because he didn't want his scoring average to dip below 30 for his career. he knew in the slower paced game with better athletes and defense that he couldn't average 30 anymore and win, so he called it quits. I am a little skeptical about that, but it's something to think about, he certainly could have kept playing if he wanted to. He was still a top center in 1973 and the only guy who could rotuniley match or outplay Alcindor.

Probably as good as any theory out there. Wilt, himself, said later in his life, when he was offered contracts to play in his 40's...that he knew he could be competitive with the current players, but that he knew he was nowhere near the player he had been.

I am actually glad he never came back. I think, like Koufax and Jim Brown...they left with many fans wanting, and expecting more...even if it was probably unrealistic.

[ThaRegul8r]

I have a friend who contends Wilt retired because he didn't want his scoring average to dip below 30 for his career. he knew in the slower paced game with better athletes and defense that he couldn't average 30 anymore and win, so he called it quits. I am a little skeptical about that, but it's something to think about, he certainly could have kept playing if he wanted to. He was still a top center in 1973 and the only guy who could rotuniley match or outplay Alcindor.

Here's what someone from the Association of Professional Basketball Research said in 2006:

[quote]Without a doubt Wilt could have played in the NBA in his 40s' and
50s'.
In his final season he averaged a league leading 18.6 rebounds per
game. He average a respectable 13.2 ppg while shooting an
unbelievable .727 from the field. That is not a typo. Read my
lips .727 from the field. All of this at the age of 36. That same
year a young lad by the name of Kareem Abdul Jabbar was fourth in
rebounds at 16.1 per game. He was prime time talent his fourth year
as a pro and this old man Chamberlain is out hustling and out
rebounding him. Three years later Kareem would lead the league in
caroms at 16.9 per. Wilt would have then been 39 years of age and
Kareem 28 years of age. When Kareem was 36 and playing for LA his
rebound average was 7.3 per game a far cry from Wilt's 18.6 rebounds
at the same age. Two stars of two eras but look at the differance.
In Wilt's last season Elvin Hayes was No. 7 in the league at 14.5.
Four years later Elvin was still in top 10 at No. 6 with 12.5
So if we do guesstimate work at age 40 Wilt would get say two less
boards a game giving him a still league leading 16.6. Second in the
league would have been Bill Walton at 14.4 per game. Could you
picture a scrawny Bill holding back the muscle bound Wilt?
What about the other top rebounders of that year Bob McAdoo, Larry
Kenon? Wilt would have bowled them over.
Now at 50 years of age it would be a different story for Wilt.
Let's see? The top rebounder that year was Charles Barkley. Just
imagine Barkley at 6-foot-4 trying to hold back the aging Wilt who
at 50 was still in tip top shape playing and dominating scrimmages
with current and future NBA stars.
And if we look at development of the game in 5 years prior to Wilt
entering the NBA the top rebounder had 15.1 per game. In Wilt's
rookie year he averaged 27.0 boards per game. Five years after his
retirement the top player averaged 15.7 per game. So...five years
before Wilt came into the league top rebounders were at 15 per game
and five years after retiring they were back down to 15 per game.
His rebounding stats show that he was in a league of his own.
At age 40 Wilt would have still been the best defensive player in
the NBA.
At age 50 Wilt in the NBA?
Of the 23 teams I honestly believe he would have been the starting
centre for at least half of them.
Atlanta

[jlauber]

Regul8r,

I don't think any of that is the least bit far-fetched. Half the centers in the NBA in the 80's were 7-0+ footers who could barely score, or rebound, ...and passing and dribbling were an adventure. I swear that some of them could not dunk. I did a study a while back, and the "tallest" period in NBA history was in the late 80's...something like 35 seven-footers. In fact, I believe it was in the year that 6-3, 170 lb. Fat Lever not only led his team in rebounding, he was in the top-20 in the league.

In Wilt's first book, there is a picture of him, probably in his late 30's, playing volleyball...and in it, his waist is above the top of the net. Jazz already mentioned the Larry Brown story...in which an amazed Brown witnessed Chamberlain taking over a summer league game that had the likes of Magic Johnson and Marques Johnson playing in it...and Wilt would have been in his mid-40's at the time. Hopefully someone can dig up Van de Wege's story about Wilt outplaying Mark Eaton...in the mid-80's.

Many of the current generation just believe that so much that has been written about Wilt is pure exaggeration. The fact is, the vast majority of those that played with Wilt, or were among his friends, had some eye-popping, eye-witness accounts of his incredible strength or leaping ability. I have given several here before, so no need to bore the readers again, but needless-to-say, as Robert Cherry wrote...he was "Larger than Life."

[magnax1]

I did watch the videos and from watching them it seemed laughable to suggest Russell was better than Shaq and Kareem who truly dominated. He can have all of the assist numbers in the world, but he was not a better passer than Shaq or Kareem. Both were capable of more difficult passes from what I saw and because of their scoring ability, they drew far more double teams.

Then we have scoring which is what makes the comparison laughable. Shaq and Kareem were hands down top 3 scorers at their position and truly unstoppable. Russell was not even a top 20 scorer.

Russell has the edge as far as defense, but consider the huge advantage that guys like Ben Wallace and Mutombo have over guys like Daugherty and Yao defensively. But not one GM would take the former over the latter. Hell, you have a guy like Zo who was one of the best defenders ever and a great scorer himself(20-23 ppg), but no GM is taking him over Shaq. The bottom line is it's easier to build around a great low post scorer who is still a defensive presence than a great defender who is merely good offensively.

Russell won 11 titles with 1/4 the amount of teams and he played on a stacked team that is far beyond anything Shaq played with or even Kareem during his actualy pime('70-'80).

Despite Russell's pace advantage(which is the main reason for his rebounding and assist advantage) Shaq and Kareem are still more impressive statistically and both won a ton of titles themselves. Hell, Kareem won more MVP's than Russell as well.
You don't have to be dominant to be great. Magic, KG, Nash, Stockton, Walton, and Russell all weren't dominant, but had more impact then 90% of players.
Not really arguing with you statement that Kareem and Shaq were quite a bit better, but Russell has a logical argument for 2nd best player ever. He made his team mates better because he was amazing at everything except scoring. He didn't need to dominate the ball to have a huge impact.

[jlauber]

You don't have to be dominant to be great. Magic, KG, Nash, Stockton, Walton, and Russell all weren't dominant, but had more impact then 90% of players.
Not really arguing with you statement that Kareem and Shaq were quite a bit better, but Russell has a logical argument for 2nd best player ever. He made his team mates better because he was amazing at everything except scoring. He didn't need to dominate the ball to have a huge impact.

I think that is VERY true. If it weren't, Wilt would have won about 10 rings, Kareem about 15, and Shaq probably somewhere around 10. Some players not only blend better (Rick Barry on the 74-75 Warriors), but they make their own teammates better (Russell...on almost any of his teams.)

Even Wilt, himself, admitted that Russell made his (Russell's) teammates better than he (Wilt) would have.

[magnax1]

I think that is VERY true. If it weren't, Wilt would have won about 10 rings, Kareem about 15, and Shaq probably somewhere around 10. Some players not only blend better (Rick Barry on the 74-75 Warriors), but they make their own teammates better (Russell...on almost any of his teams.)

Even Wilt, himself, admitted that Russell made his (Russell's) teammates better than he (Wilt) would have.
Very true. The great thing about Russell from what I've watched of him (which sadly isn't that much) is that he combines the huge offensive impact a great point guard can have with the huge defensive impact a center can have.
While I don't think if he was stuck on Wilt's teams hed have 11 rings, He probably would have 5. However, 67 Wilt and 72 Wilt were better then any year of Bill Russell. So I'd have to put Wilt over Bill.

[jlauber]

Very true. The great thing about Russell from what I've watched of him (which sadly isn't that much) is that he combines the huge offensive impact a great point guard can have with the huge defensive impact a center can have.
While I don't think if he was stuck on Wilt's teams hed have 11 rings, He probably would have 5. However, 67 Wilt and 72 Wilt were better then any year of Bill Russell. So I'd have to put Wilt over Bill.

I don't think you would too much of an argument from even the most ardent Russell fans on Wilt's 66-67 and 71-72 seasons...especially the 66-67 season. When Wilt played at his highest level, there was none better, nor more dominant. Problem was, I don't think Chamberlain had the same focus, or intense desire to win, that Russell did (in fact, even Wilt would admit as much.)

I will never forget one of my first visits to the forum, and I read a comment by Abe Lincoln, in which he said that Wilt was basically an underachiever. I was livid. Here was the greatest record-holder in probably not just basketball, but in any major professional team sport...being called an underachiever.

BUT, the more I read, the more I had to agree. The fact was, Wilt COULD have been more dominant. Even on one leg, he should have crushed Reed in that game seven. Robert Cherry blamed Wilt's game six (not his game seven) in the 68-69 Finals, for LA losing to Boston.

Not all of it was Chamberlain's fault. He had some mediocre teams early in his career. He also had some teams that suffered injuries at the worst possible time. And, he even had some remarkable bad luck. But, as great as he was, he should have been able to overcome much of that, particularly later in his career, and CARRIED those teams to wins.

I have long maintained that Wilt was EXPECTED to do more than anyone else. Was that fair? Probably not, but the fact was...he was such a skilled player, and such a physical specimen, that he was probably CAPABLE of accomplishing more.

When it came to the desire to win...no one was as obsessed as Russell. And deep down, I think Wilt "settled" far too much in his career. Maybe that is a bit harsh, but when you consider things like him getting upset with an SI article criticizing his ability to score...and he responded with a 60 point outburst...well, where was that when it was absolutely critical?

[magnax1]

I don't think you would too much of an argument from even the most ardent Russell fans on Wilt's 66-67 and 71-72 seasons...especially the 66-67 season. When Wilt played at his highest level, there was none better, nor more dominant. Problem was, I don't think Chamberlain had the same focus, or intense desire to win, that Russell did (in fact, even Wilt would admit as much.)

I will never forget one of my first visits to the forum, and I read a comment by Abe Lincoln, in which he said that Wilt was basically an underachiever. I was livid. Here was the greatest record-holder in probably not just basketball, but in any major professional team sport...being called an underachiever.

BUT, the more I read, the more I had to agree. The fact was, Wilt COULD have been more dominant. Even on one leg, he should have crushed Reed in that game seven. Robert Cherry blamed Wilt's game six (not his game seven) in the 68-69 Finals, for LA losing to Boston.

Not all of it was Chamberlain's fault. He had some mediocre teams early in his career. He also had some teams that suffered injuries at the worst possible time. And, he even had some remarkable bad luck. But, as great as he was, he should have been able to overcome much of that, particularly later in his career, and CARRIED those teams to wins.

I have long maintained that Wilt was EXPECTED to do more than anyone else. Was that fair? Probably not, but the fact was...he was such a skilled player, and such a physical specimen, that he was probably CAPABLE of accomplishing more.

When it came to the desire to win...no one was as obsessed as Russell. And deep down, I think Wilt "settled" far too much in his career. Maybe that is a bit harsh, but when you consider things like him getting upset with an SI article criticizing his ability to score...and he responded with a 60 point outburst...well, where was that when it was absolutely critical?
Well, the real difference between 67 and 72 season from what I've read and watched was that he was most motivated in those years, mostly from coaching, and it showed up in the record. Both of those teams records broke the win record, and I don't think Russell, no matter his motivation was good enough to do it with those teams. I think thats what really seperates Wilt, the fact that he had absolutely gargantuan impact on his teams when he was really in to it. I think when hes really in to it, he was in a league of his own, and really only Jordan had a similar impact prime vs. prime. They were both just leagues ahead of everyone as far as athleticism and skill, and for Wilt everything except motivation.

[jlauber]

Well, the real difference between 67 and 72 season from what I've read and watched was that he was most motivated in those years, mostly from coaching, and it showed up in the record. Both of those teams records broke the win record, and I don't think Russell, no matter his motivation was good enough to do it with those teams. I think thats what really seperates Wilt, the fact that he had absolutely gargantuan impact on his teams when he was really in to it. I think when hes really in to it, he was in a league of his own, and really only Jordan had a similar impact prime vs. prime. They were both just leagues ahead of everyone as far as athleticism and skill, and for Wilt everything except motivation.

:applause: Well said!

[G.O.A.T]

HEY STRO-SHOW PLEASE MERGE THIS WITH THE WILT vs. RUSSELL thread.

THANKS

[MakeHistory78]

G.O.A.T said to me in another thread this.
"Just start by telling me why you rank Wilt above Russell despite Russell almost always beating him head-to-head."


Wilt from his rookie season had good games against Russell's Celtics.
He had 53 points against him in his rookie season.

Wilt was much better offensive player,he could score with fadeaway shots,with finger rolls,with monster dunks.Also he was a better passer not by far but he was.And he was scary dominant.Rebounds was very close but I give a little edge to Chamberlain.
Russell was a better defender.Not by far but he was.Chamberlain was also a very good defender.
So I heard people or players like Magic Johnson who said that Russell was the best winner of all time(11 rings).But I've never heard people said that Russell is the GOAT.
Even the great Red Auerbach changed his mind in the 80s and he said that Bird was the GOAT not Russell anymore.

Wilt most of the times is at least in the Top-3..Russell not always.
IMO Russell is a top 6-8 of all time player.

As I said before I respect Bill Russell but IMO he isn't so good as Wilt or MJ or Kareem..It's my opinion.

[G.O.A.T]

Wilt from his rookie season had good games against Russell's Celtics.
He had 53 points against him in his rookie season.

Yet Russell's teams won 84 times and Wilt's 58 and Russell won seven of eight playoff series against Wilt despite them each having the better teammates in those series a total of four times.


Wilt was much better offensive player,he could score with fadeaway shots,with finger rolls,with monster dunks.Also he was a better passer not by far but he was.

A better score, undoubtedly, more skilled on offense for sure. A better offensive player, yes but not by as much as people like to assume. Russell was the superior passer as well. The have the same career average for assists and Russell's numbers go up in the playoffs while Wilt's go down. Russell also touched the ball about one third of the amount of times Wilt did, so he was a much more efficient passer form the post. Plus Russell was a tremendous outlet passer which doesn't show up in the stats.


And he was scary dominant.Rebounds was very close but I give a little edge to Chamberlain.

I would tend to agree, but Russell did average more rebounds than Wilt in the playoffs and has the NBA Finals record with 40 in a game.


Russell was a better defender.Not by far but he was.Chamberlain was also a very good defender.

Agreed mainly as far as skill goes, but Russell was a much smarter defender and had a MUCH greater impact on the game defensively. Russell blocked shots to teammates, Wilt blocked them out of bounds. That makes Russell's blocks twice as valuable. Russell was a vastly superior help defender, Chamberlain TRIED not to foul out of games, Russell would murder you to win, that's really the difference between the two there.


So I heard people or players like Magic Johnson who said that Russell was the best winner of all time(11 rings).But I've never heard people said that Russell is the GOAT.

In 1980 the NBA selected it's 35th Anniversary team and Russell was voted the Greatest Player. As I mentioned all the players and coaches of that era favor Russell to Wilt.


Even the great Red Auerbach changed his mind in the 80s and he said that Bird was the GOAT not Russell anymore.

Auerbach also said he'd never have wanted Wilt on the Celtics. And in his autobiography he says they'll never be a greater winner in all of sports than Bill Russell. Winning is the goal of the game.


Wilt most of the times is at least in the Top-3..Russell not always.
IMO Russell is a top 6-8 of all time player.

As I said before I respect Bill Russell but IMO he isn't so good as Wilt or MJ or Kareem..It's my opinion.

Just offering a different opinion and some information you may not have been aware of.

[MakeHistory78]

Yet Russell's teams won 84 times and Wilt's 58 and Russell won seven of eight playoff series against Wilt despite them each having the better teammates in those series a total of four times.



A better score, undoubtedly, more skilled on offense for sure. A better offensive player, yes but not by as much as people like to assume. Russell was the superior passer as well. The have the same career average for assists and Russell's numbers go up in the playoffs while Wilt's go down. Russell also touched the ball about one third of the amount of times Wilt did, so he was a much more efficient passer form the post. Plus Russell was a tremendous outlet passer which doesn't show up in the stats.



I would tend to agree, but Russell did average more rebounds than Wilt in the playoffs and has the NBA Finals record with 40 in a game.



Agreed mainly as far as skill goes, but Russell was a much smarter defender and had a MUCH greater impact on the game defensively. Russell blocked shots to teammates, Wilt blocked them out of bounds. That makes Russell's blocks twice as valuable. Russell was a vastly superior help defender, Chamberlain TRIED not to foul out of games, Russell would murder you to win, that's really the difference between the two there.



In 1980 the NBA selected it's 35th Anniversary team and Russell was voted the Greatest Player. As I mentioned all the players and coaches of that era favor Russell to Wilt.



Auerbach also said he'd never have wanted Wilt on the Celtics. And in his autobiography he says they'll never be a greater winner in all of sports than Bill Russell. Winning is the goal of the game.



Just offering a different opinion and some information you may not have been aware of.
I've always had the opinion that Chamberlain was the best regular season player ever and MJ the best playoff player ever.

I accept that Russell is the greatest winner..The 11 rings speaks.
But my point is that he never been such a good player as Michael,Wilt or Kareem were.

If your points is only the rings then yes he maybe is the GOAT.But to me is not only about the rings.Is about the best player.

And I have a question to you.
Is in your opinion Russell the GOAT?I guess yes......

[G.O.A.T]

I've always had the opinion that Chamberlain was the best regular season player ever and MJ the best playoff player ever.

I accept that Russell is the greatest winner..The 11 rings speaks.
But my point is that he never been such a good player as Michael,Wilt or Kareem were.

I disagree for several reasons. Russell had huge games all the time, especially in the finals where's had a closeout game triple double (quadruple-double if you count blocks) and a 30-40 game in game seven.

His total stats were not as great as Jabbars because that wasn't his style. There is statistical analysis on this site available that shows Russell's impact on defense is at least as great as Jordan's on offense.


If your points is only the rings then yes he maybe is the GOAT.But to me is not only about the rings.Is about the best player.

I agree and on Wilt vs. Russell, when I consider all the factors, stats, titles, supporting cast, opinions of peers, etc etc. I come up with Russell everytime and it's not even close.


And I have a question to you.
Is in your opinion Russell the GOAT?I guess yes......

I won't spoil the suspense of my list thread, but I can tell you he is in my top four.

[unbreakable]

That's all you need, if you don't understand that do some homework.

But I'd say 5 MVP's and constantly being in the top four his entire career is pretty good.

Also second most rebounds ever and would easily have the most blocks if it was a stat

Highest APG in the postseason ever for a center

More top 10 assist finishes in the season than any other center

watch the videos do some homework and get back to me.

Going forward I'd really like to turn this discussion away from all players except Wilt and Russ for the the sake of the thread.

:bowdown:

Only a homer like Shaqattack could disagree

[ShaqAttack3234]

:bowdown:

Only a homer like Shaqattack could disagree

:oldlol: at this butthurt moron.

[ThaRegul8r]

So I heard people or players like Magic Johnson who said that Russell was the best winner of all time(11 rings).But I've never heard people said that Russell is the GOAT.

In 1980 the NBA selected it's 35th Anniversary team and Russell was voted the Greatest Player. As I mentioned all the players and coaches of that era favor Russell to Wilt.

I don't understand people who make statements such as MakeHistory78 did seeing as how that happened. And a decade earlier, Russell was named Basketball Player of the Decade:

[QUOTE]Bill Russell, who revolutionized modern pro basketball with his defensive wizardry and who was an inspiring winner in college, the Olympics and pro ranks, was named basketball

[jlauber]

I don't understand people who make statements such as MakeHistory78 did seeing as how that happened. And a decade earlier, Russell was named Basketball Player of the Decade:



I can only attribute it to a lack of knowledge. (On a side note, what one "never heard" doesn't necessarily mean anything. It doesn't mean one is knowledgeable, it just means they were unaware of it, which is a different thing from "it didn't happen." Just means one needs to do more research.)

There is probably no one here who is more of a Wilt fan, than myself. And I applaud MakeHistory for suggesting that Wilt might have been the greatest. A few months ago, I would be completely agreeing with him, too.

But, guys like Regul8r, G.O.A.T, Abe Lincoln (who is probably as much a Wilt fan, as myself), and other's here (sorry if I left you out...I am typing this while falling asleep)...have made so many valid points.

The fact is, the INTELLIGENT posters will agree that Wilt was a GREAT player, and most of them would probably agree, that at his BEST, he may have been the best ever. But, the simple fact was, Russell rose to the occassion, and led his teammates to wins...and it was usually at Wilt's expense.

While I disagree with Bill Simmons', who seems to want to bash Wilt, as much as he wanted to heap praise on Russell...there is simply no defense against 11 rings in 13 tries, or being undefeated in game seven's, or taking a good team, and making them great, and then after leaving, they return to ashes...

it goes on-and-on. And, as Reg and G.O.A.T gave stated...Russell's peers recognized him as the greatest ever...and it wasn't even close. The ultimate goal, in a TEAM game, is simply, to WIN. Throw out all the stats, or records, or flashy high-lights,...because, in the end, Russell was the game's greatest winner. And by extension, the game's greatest player.

[MakeHistory78]

I don't understand people who make statements such as MakeHistory78 did seeing as how that happened. And a decade earlier, Russell was named Basketball Player of the Decade:



I can only attribute it to a lack of knowledge. (On a side note, what one "never heard" doesn't necessarily mean anything. It doesn't mean one is knowledgeable, it just means they were unaware of it, which is a different thing from "it didn't happen." Just means one needs to do more research.)

Why you don't understand my friend?I heard a lot of people said that Wilt was the best.

Dan Issel said
"He might have been the greatest to ever play. He didn't win the championships that Bill Russell did, but he didn't have the supporting cast that Bill Russell did. The stats that he put up might never be erased."

And listen to Bill Russell his big rival that's important!
"He’s probably the best player to play the game. I mean,not even close. He was physically bigger, stronger, faster than everybody who’s ever played."

Warren Jabali said that
"Because Russell won all the championships he is supposed to be the greatest player. Well, he's not the greatest player. Chamberlain was the greatest player. You take that team away from Russell and let Russell play with some mediocre players, what is Russell going to do? If you put Chamberlain and Russell with the same mediocre players, Chamberlain's team would win more games."

KC Jones,Bill Russell's teammate
"Wilt was the strongest guy and best athlete ever to play the game."

Connie Hawkins also
"In my humble opinion,(Wilt) the greatest basketball player that ever lived."

I'm a big fan of MJ and I don't like that Spencer Haywood said.
"Michael was not the best player ever. I know you all think he was, but…Anyway Wilt was far greater."

Also 2003 Slam Magazine top 75 NBA players in the History and Wilt was the 2nd greatest only behind Michael.


So let me say this.
Russell IMO is one of the 6-8 greatest players ever.But IMO Michael Jordan was the greatest ever play the game.In the GOAT descussion i put there 3 players.MJ,Wilt,KAJ.
I don't take anything from Russell he is great and probably the greatest defender ever.
But Wilt was a beast and MJ also.
That's an opinion.I respect if you have a different opinion..

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]Why you don't understand my friend?I heard a lot of people said that Wilt was the best.

Dan Issel said
"He might have been the greatest to ever play. He didn't win the championships that Bill Russell did, but he didn't have the supporting cast that Bill Russell did. The stats that he put up might never be erased."

And listen to Bill Russell his big rival that's important!
"He

[MakeHistory78]

MakeHistory,

Your opinions, especially as well documented as they are, are every bit as good as anyone's here.

IMHO, the problem with Wilt was that I think, at his PEAK, and playing his best TEAM basketball, he was probably the best ever. BUT, there is just so many frustrating losses, some on teams that were every bit as good as Russell's. Individually, IMHO, NO ONE was a great. As Oscar said..."The Record Book does not lie."

And, there is no question in my mind that many of Wilt's "failures" were due to mediocre personnel, injuries, bad luck, bad coaching, bad officiating, or a combination of all five. Still, despite so MANY brilliant post-season performances...some in critical games...it just seems that there were too many games in which he did not sieze the moment, as MJ or Russell did, and take over. Robert Cherry made the comment that it was not Wilt's fault for that game seven debacle against Boston in 1969. BUT, had Wilt put up a normal game in game six, the Lakers would have won the title that year. And there were some questionable circumstances surrounding Wilt's game seven in the '68 ECF's...BUT, had Wilt decided to take over the game offensively (even demanding the ball), especially when the Sixers were missing some of their offensive firepower...that he could have made a case for an even greater career.

As for Russell...too often we get caught up in individual stats. I have said it before, but those that diminish Russell's offensive skills (which, IMHO, were better than believed)...are not factoring in Russell's offensive CONTRIBUTIONS. He would tell you that HIS offense came in the form of his TEAM's offense. His teammates would certainly concur. He made the right pass to the right player, in the right circumstance. He was a fierce offensive rebounder, which led to more offensive baskets. And his defensive rebounding and outlet passes led to easy offensive baskets. And none of that even comes close to his defensive impact...which as Regul8r has pointed out, has been compared to Jordan's offensive impact.

One-on-one, I am convinced Wilt would have killed Russell. But in terms of making his TEAMs better...very few would argue that against Russell. Ultimately, it was the difference in an 11-2 advantage in rings.

I respect you..You have good points.

Except of Wilt dominance I like more Wilt's offensive skills because he could score with fade away shots,with finger rolls and monster dunks..I've seen Russell also in some games and liked me some hook shots he made.

My point is that Russell is the greatest winner ever(11 rings) but he isn't the greatest player ever because he wasn't so good as Michael or as Wilt,KAJ were..
For the same reason Sam Jones(10 rings) never was as good as Baylor or Jerry West were.He is a greater winner but he wasn't better player..

I know that some people thought that Bill Russell is the greatest.I don't have problem with this.He is a great player don't get me wrong..

But to me is not only the Rings.Is a combination of rings and to be the best player..
Russell has the (rings) but IMO he wasn't the best.Wilt was the best but he hasn't many rings..But i still believe is greater than Russell.

This is one of the reasons I believe MJ is the GOAT.He had it all..

But I respect all these legends..Especially Wilt and Russell..They did a lot for the game of basketball!

[ThaRegul8r]

Why you don't understand my friend?

That you can say that you've heard Russell described as the greatest winner but never heard people say Russell is the GOAT, when he was named the GOAT in 1980. That's a fact. Perhaps you weren't aware of this.


I heard a lot of people said that Wilt was the best.

Wilt is one of the players with a case. Which still has no bearing on your implication that no one ever said Russell was GOAT when as I said, he was OFFICIALLY named the GOAT in 1980. Your knowledge of something has no bearing on whether it happened or not.


KC Jones,Bill Russell's teammate
"Wilt was the strongest guy and best athlete ever to play the game."

Strongest guy and best athlete. Can't really disagree. Doesn't fit with the rest of your quotes, though.

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]I'm a big fan of MJ and I don't like that Spencer Haywood said.
"Michael was not the best player ever. I know you all think he was, but

[jlauber]

That you can say that you've heard Russell described as the greatest winner but never heard people say Russell is the GOAT, when he was named the GOAT in 1980. That's a fact. Perhaps you weren't aware of this.



Wilt is one of the players with a case. Which still has no bearing on your implication that no one ever said Russell was GOAT when as I said, he was OFFICIALLY named the GOAT in 1980. Your knowledge of something has no bearing on whether it happened or not.



Strongest guy and best athlete. Can't really disagree. Doesn't fit with the rest of your quotes, though.



What does Michael Jordan have to do with an Chamberlain/Russell thread?

:confusedshrug:

Is it possible for people to refrain from bringing up his name in a thread that has nothing to do with him?



SLAM Magazine. Who also have Kareem ranked #7. :rolleyes:

People there at the time ranked Russell higher, which is also reflected in the fact that Russell was named Basketball Player of the Decade for the 1960s "by a landslide" in 1970, and was named the Greatest Player of All Time in 1980. That's a fact. It's only later, when a new generation of people who never saw either came along, that general opinion changed, when people just looked at the stats and then denigrate Russell, saying he was nothing more than a "Dikembe Mutombo" or "Ben Wallace."



As I previously said, Jordan has nothing to do with this discussion. It shows insecurity to keep bringing him up in a thread talking about other greats as if afraid it might change some people's opinions on him.



When was it ever said this wasn't the case?



The obligatory MJ inclusion. :rolleyes: See previous comments.



I've never understood why people feel the need to say "that's my opinion" as if that isn't evident, or perhaps people might not know what an opinion is.

Regul8r,

Just curious...can I see your Top-10? (I know...slightly off-topic but here again...I have the utmost respect for your opinions)

[G.O.A.T]

MakeHistory78,

I understand opinions are what they are, but if you don't see the argument for Russell over Wilt as a BASKETBALL player, then you don't understand the game or Russell and Wilt's rivalry.

I can see having MJ or KAJ ahead of both of them, not the discussion here, but thinking Russell is not in the same class as MJ, Wilt and KAJ means you don't get it. (In my opinion)

[MakeHistory78]

That you can say that you've heard Russell described as the greatest winner but never heard people say Russell is the GOAT, when he was named the GOAT in 1980. That's a fact. Perhaps you weren't aware of this.



Wilt is one of the players with a case. Which still has no bearing on your implication that no one ever said Russell was GOAT when as I said, he was OFFICIALLY named the GOAT in 1980. Your knowledge of something has no bearing on whether it happened or not.



Strongest guy and best athlete. Can't really disagree. Doesn't fit with the rest of your quotes, though.



What does Michael Jordan have to do with an Chamberlain/Russell thread?

:confusedshrug:

Is it possible for people to refrain from bringing up his name in a thread that has nothing to do with him?



SLAM Magazine. Who also have Kareem ranked #7. :rolleyes:

People there at the time ranked Russell higher, which is also reflected in the fact that Russell was named Basketball Player of the Decade for the 1960s "by a landslide" in 1970, and was named the Greatest Player of All Time in 1980. That's a fact. It's only later, when a new generation of people who never saw either came along, that general opinion changed, when people just looked at the stats and then denigrate Russell, saying he was nothing more than a "Dikembe Mutombo" or "Ben Wallace."



As I previously said, Jordan has nothing to do with this discussion. It shows insecurity to keep bringing him up in a thread talking about other greats as if afraid it might change some people's opinions on him.



When was it ever said this wasn't the case?



The obligatory MJ inclusion. :rolleyes: See previous comments.



I've never understood why people feel the need to say "that's my opinion" as if that isn't evident, or perhaps people might not know what an opinion is.
Russell was officialy GOAT 1980..Ok but even his former coach Legendary Red Auerbach changed his mind and considered Bird as the GOAT.

I didn't dispute that Russell back to 1980 condidered as the GOAT...I said i've never heard old players and basketball people who said that Russell is the GOAT.

Of caurse I don't agree with SLAM's KAJ ranked #7 but that was a list by a very important Magazine.Also I don't agree with Big O ranked #3 but is another story..
However was a list.

Any one who saying he(Russell) was nothing more than a "Dikembe Mutombo" or "Ben Wallace." is a sciolist..
Ι watched Russell in old games and of caurse was special..

At the end I don't understand why you are so abrupt..We talk about basketball,right?

Please don't advise me if I feel this:
"I've never understood why people feel the need to say "that's my opinion" as if that isn't evident, or perhaps people might not know what an opinion is."

Ιf you don't like this I don't care...But don't advise me!

Stay in basketball talks with me.

[Niquesports]

MakeHistory78,

I understand opinions are what they are, but if you don't see the argument for Russell over Wilt as a BASKETBALL player, then you don't understand the game or Russell and Wilt's rivalry.

I can see having MJ or KAJ ahead of both of them, not the discussion here, but thinking Russell is not in the same class as MJ, Wilt and KAJ means you don't get it. (In my opinion)


Russell like so many other Greats did things that dont show up in the box scores . Only those that take the time to learn about how great the 60's Celtics were can understand how Great Russell was. There may have been more skilled players than Russell ie: Wilt KAJ but no player in the history of the game had the leadership and IQ of winning like Russ.

[MakeHistory78]

MakeHistory78,

I understand opinions are what they are, but if you don't see the argument for Russell over Wilt as a BASKETBALL player, then you don't understand the game or Russell and Wilt's rivalry.

I can see having MJ or KAJ ahead of both of them, not the discussion here, but thinking Russell is not in the same class as MJ, Wilt and KAJ means you don't get it. (In my opinion)

I haven't problem with that.
As I said before as a Basketball player to me wasn't in the same class with MJ,Wilt and KAJ..These 3 to me are the 3 greatest...

Russell to me is a 6-8 ever..I don't feel that I dispute him because I don't put him in Top-3...So simple

I watched him play in old games..I don't speak about stats

[Niquesports]

I haven't problem with that.
As I said before as a Basketball player to me wasn't in the same class with MJ,Wilt and KAJ..These 3 to me are the 3 greatest...

Russell to me is a 6-8 ever..I don't feel that I dispute him because I don't put him in Top-3...So simple

I watched him play in old games..I don't speak about stats


If I was a GM and needed a player I would want the guy that won 11 times in 13 years over a guy that had stats now maybe if Russ played for the Hawks he wouldnt have the 11 rings who knows but what we do know is that he was a winner

[MakeHistory78]

If I was a GM and needed a player I would want the guy that won 11 times in 13 years over a guy that had stats now maybe if Russ played for the Hawks he wouldnt have the 11 rings who knows but what we do know is that he was a winner

Ok no prob..But think..Why Red Auerbach at the middle of the 80's said that
''If I had to start a team, the one guy in all history I would take be Larry Bird.Ηe is the greatest player who ever played the game.''

Even former Russell teammates like Don Nelson don't consider him as the Greatest player..
"The question didn't seem relevant. But Larry Bird came along with all the skills, all the things a basketball player has to do. I think he's the greatest"



I'm not the only who don't consider him as the GOAT but even people who were with him and built the Celtics legacy didn't consider him as the GOAT..

[G.O.A.T]

Only those that take the time to learn about how great the 60's Celtics were can understand how Great Russell was.


I haven't problem with that.
As I said before as a Basketball player to me wasn't in the same class with MJ,Wilt and KAJ..These 3 to me are the 3 greatest...


But what is the goal of basektball?

What is the reason the skills MJ, KAJ and Wilt had are so Great?

It's about winning...that is every players goal.

Some players want to score, others want to rebound, others are content to defend, but all want to win.

Russell scored 50 points in a game, he grabbed 40 rebounds, he blocked 20 shots, he had 10 assists...none of them however were his primary goal. Like all players (in this discussion) his goal was to win, and he did it more than anyone else. Rather that took scoring or rebounding or defending or outsmarting his opponent, he was going to win.

I understand liking Jordan's visual competitiveness and grace or Wilt's Power and Dominance or Kareem's refined perfection and understated mastery as a style better than Russell's workmanlike psychological warfare. However not seeing the guy who won as nearly as many Championships as Michael, Wilt and Kareem combined can't possibly not be in the same class; it is an insult and it is ignorant rather it's your opinion or not.

[MakeHistory78]

But what is the goal of basektball?

What is the reason the skills MJ, KAJ and Wilt had are so Great?

It's about winning...that is every players goal.

Some players want to score, others want to rebound, others are content to defend, but all want to win.

Russell scored 50 points in a game, he grabbed 40 rebounds, he blocked 20 shots, he had 10 assists...none of them however were his primary goal. Like all players (in this discussion) his goal was to win, and he did it more than anyone else. Rather that took scoring or rebounding or defending or outsmarting his opponent, he was going to win.

I understand liking Jordan's visual competitiveness and grace or Wilt's Power and Dominance or Kareem's refined perfection and understated mastery as a style better than Russell's workmanlike psychological warfare. However not seeing the guy who won as nearly as many Championships as Michael, Wilt and Kareem combined can't possibly not be in the same class; it is an insult and it is ignorant rather it's your opinion or not.

Again..How did you explain that?
''If I had to start a team, the one guy in all history I would take be Larry Bird.Ηe is the greatest player who ever played the game.''Red Auerbach

And something else!
Russell has 11 rings..
Sam Jones has 10 rings,right?Is he greater than Jordan or Jerry West,or Kobe Bryant,or Elgin Baylor(0 rings)?

Don't try to prove me that Russell is the GOAT.I know very well the History of the game.I Know very well all the greats even underrated past Legends like Falks or Mikan.I watched the History of the game!

Russell to me is a 6-8# ever..So simple.I explained the reasons.

I respect if you or anyone else consider him as the GOAT or better than Wilt.
But IMO he isn't..
I'm not kid to change my mind..I know the history

[jlauber]

Wilt is almost unquestionably the most dominant player to have ever played the game. Statistically, he crushed Russell, which is remarkable considering that Russell was universally accepted as the best defensive player of his era (and maybe of all-time.) I can see an argument for Wilt based solely on H2H individual play. But, Russell's impact went beyond the individual stats. Probably the best answer I can give is that Russell made his teammates better, and his opponents worse. IMHO, only Duncan and Magic can come close to Russell in overall impact on their teams...and while Duncan was a very good defender, Russell was the best.

[theguru]

1.) Wilt
2.) Kareem
3.) Shaq
4.) Russell
5.) Hakeem "The Dream"

[G.O.A.T]

Again..How did you explain that?
''If I had to start a team, the one guy in all history I would take be Larry Bird.Ηe is the greatest player who ever played the game.''Red Auerbach



I would guess he said that because Bird was going to be a free agent the next summer.

He was written or said many times that no one will ever be a greater leader, winner or player than Russell.

Here's another good quote.


“If we played Boston four on four, without Russell, we probably would have won every series. The guy killed us. He's the one who prevented us from acheiving true greatness.”
--L.A. Lakers forward "Hot Rod" Hundley

Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you're opinion lacks credibility in this instance because it ignores some pretty basic facts. And you never really explained it beyond saying t's your opinion. It's not about questioning your knowledge or the validity of your opinion. Still I'm not sure I've ever heard of Joe Falks.

[G.O.A.T]

[jlauber]

The fact that there is still so much discussion involving Russell and Wilt, is testament to their enduring greatness.

As I have stated many times, there probably has never been a player, in any major professional team sport, that was as dominant as Chamberlain. I believe Gretsky holds something like 63 major hockey records. Babe Ruth used to hold many. But, not only does he still hold some 130 records, many of them will never be approached, much less broken. AND, in many cases, Wilt holds the next best mark, or marks.

Still, despite being the most dominant indivdual player in sports' history, one man stood between Chamberlain, and perhaps as many as 10 team titles. As GOAT has said many times, had there been no Russell, there would be no debate as to who the greatest player, probably in ANY team sport, would have been. Wilt would not hold the lion's share of the record book, he would also have been basketball's greatest winner (and perhaps all of sports' as well.)

Wilt had a 46-34 game against Russell in game five of the '66 playoffs...just one of many overwhelming statistical efforts that he put up against him...and yet Russell's team won the game, and the series. In the 61-62 season, Wilt shattered a multitude of records. ESPN recently ran an "expert" poll which labeled that season as the greatest season in professional team sport's history. In his 80 games, Chamberlain was held under 30 points, three times...all by Russell. Even more importantly, in game seven of the ECF's, a game in which Boston won by two points, Russell held Wilt to 22 points. What does that mean? Simply...Russell did whatever it took to win. Russell's IMPACT was such that he could surrender a 40-30 game to Chamberlain, and still LEAD his team to a win...or he could hold him to a 22 point game, in a season in which Wilt averaged 50. AND, in that 61-62 season, despite ESPN's take...Russell was voted the league MVP.

Statistics never meant anything to Russell. He was not interested in whether he was outscored, or outshot, or outrebounded, or outanythinged...he was only interested in the scoreboard...and what it would take to have the higher score at the end.

Along the way, Russell was almost universally accepted by his peers, as the greatest basketball player ever. As the years have gone by, Russell's legacy has diminished. You can see it in so many fan polls, or in forums like this. ESPN Sport's Century ranked him a ridiculous #18 (Wilt was at #13 BTW...and MJ was #1.) And I suspect that if they were to run a new series (the original took place in 1999), that both Wilt and especially Russell, would drop further. Why? Because the casual fan just looks at numbers. In Wilt's case they simply just don't believe them. In Russell's case, they look slightly better than ordinary, at least in offensive production. Never mind that Russell was a winner at every level. Never mind that he made every team he joined a champion, and when he left them, they would drop off dramatically.

Never mind that he was sport's greatest winner...

[julizaver]

I don't see this as debat - as Russell admits Chamberlain was the better individual - and not only the number shows it. And yes Russell is a winner, but the reason for him to be in Boston is Red Auerbach - and Red is the main reason for building Celtics dinasty, simply because he assembled that team piece by piece for several years. It was something like destiny for Felton to be a winner.

[G.O.A.T]

I don't see this as debat - as Russell admits Chamberlain was the better individual - and not only the number shows it. And yes Russell is a winner, but the reason for him to be in Boston is Red Auerbach - and Red is the main reason for building Celtics dinasty, simply because he assembled that team piece by piece for several years. It was something like destiny for Felton to be a winner.

You're right not to see it as a debate, anyone who can read final scores knows it's Russell.

[julizaver]

You're right not to see it as a debate, anyone who can read final scores knows it's Russell.

And I dont know in which game Russell scored 50 :). Simple as that - the Celtics were the better team. Of course Russell is a winner, but I can not agree that Wilt is a loser, in the 7 th games that Wilt's teams lost it was not his fault. Someone said that Wilt should crashed one leg Reed in 1970 - OK, and Wilt scored 21 points (on 10 from 16) and 24 rebounds and 4 assists against 4 points (2 from 5 ) and 3 rebounds of Reed. It was the Frazier's best game (36 points, 7 rebounds and 19 assists ) who outplayed completely Jerry West.

[G.O.A.T]

And I dont know in which game Russell scored 50 :). Simple as that - the Celtics were the better team. Of course Russell is a winner, but I can not agree that Wilt is a loser, in the 7 th games that Wilt's teams lost it was not his fault. Someone said that Wilt should crashed one leg Reed in 1970 - OK, and Wilt scored 21 points (on 10 from 16) and 24 rebounds and 4 assists against 4 points (2 from 5 ) and 3 rebounds of Reed. It was the Frazier's best game (36 points, 7 rebounds and 19 assists ) who outplayed completely Jerry West.

It's not Wilt's fault his team always lost to Russell and it's not because of Russell that the Celtics won.

How does that sound?

Pretty silly right?

What about in 1966 1968 and 1969 when Chamberlians team was clearly better than Russell's?

[G.O.A.T]

Here's the immediate reaction to and impact of Wilt joining the NBA.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1133889/index.htm

[julizaver]

It's not Wilt's fault his team always lost to Russell and it's not because of Russell that the Celtics won.

How does that sound?

Pretty silly right?

What about in 1966 1968 and 1969 when Chamberlians team was clearly better than Russell's?

No,depending on what you mean as "better team" - better coach, better team spirit, deeper bench, more individuals or greater tallent.
1. Red is maybe the greatest coach in pro-basketball history
2. In 1968 ECF Sixers lost key players prior to leading 3 to 1 Celtics.
3. The team spirit of 1966 Sixers and 1969 lakers was not good if you try searching through the net for some info.

I agree that 1967 and 1968 teams of Sixers bested slightly those of Celtics - due to aged Celtics roster.

[G.O.A.T]

No,depending on what you mean as "better team" - better coach, better team spirit, deeper bench, more individuals or greater tallent.
1. Red is maybe the greatest coach in pro-basketball history
2. In 1968 ECF Sixers lost key players prior to leading 3 to 1 Celtics.
3. The team spirit of 1966 Sixers and 1969 lakers was not good if you try searching through the net for some info.


1. Red never won a title without Russell; Russell won titles without Red
2. Injuries are a part of the game, they lost Cunningham and that was it. They built that 3-1 lead without him.
3. That is Wilt's fault not an excuse. The team Spirirt on Russell's Celtics never changed and Russell is 100% the reason why.

[jlauber]

No,depending on what you mean as "better team" - better coach, better team spirit, deeper bench, more individuals or greater tallent.
1. Red is maybe the greatest coach in pro-basketball history
2. In 1968 ECF Sixers lost key players prior to leading 3 to 1 Celtics.
3. The team spirit of 1966 Sixers and 1969 lakers was not good if you try searching through the net for some info.

I agree that 1967 and 1968 teams of Sixers bested slightly those of Celtics - due to aged Celtics roster.

I have always maintained that the 65-66 76ers were not truly better than the 65-66 Celtics. True, they edged them by ONE game during the regular season. But Boston had won seven straight Eastern titles and world championships prior to that season, while Philly was a losing team prior to that year. The Sixers had gone 40-40 in 64-65 to Boston's 62-18 (although they mearly beat Boston in the playoffs that year.) Boston was much deeper in 65-66. On top of that, Wilt played brilliantly in the 65-66 playoffs against Russell, averaging 28 points and 30 rebounds per game, while shooting .509 from the field. In the clinching game five loss, Wilt outscored Russell 46-18, and outrebounded him 34-31.

As for the 68-69 season, West was in his prime, but Baylor was just a shell. Elgin had a decent regular season, probably due more to Wilt just being on the floor with him...but he was AWFUL in the post-season, only mscoring 15.4 ppg on .385 shooting. That Laker team had virtually no depth, either. On top of that, they lost TWO games to Boston on miracle shots in that series. BUT, the biggest reason that the Lakers lost that series, was that they had a complete idiot for a coach. He had no idea how to use Wilt (the fact that Chamberlain only averaged 13.9 ppg...on .545 shooting...in the playoffs, is all you need to know), and of course, he left him on the bench in that game seven, while Mel Counts went 4-13 from the field (Wilt had scored 18 points on 7-8 shooting prior to pulling himself out of the game.)

IMHO, the only team in which Wilt enjoyed an edge over Russell's, were the 66-67 and 67-68 76ers. His 66-67 team anninhilated Boston in five games (only a close 121-117 loss in game four prevented a sweep.) His 67-68 team held a 3-1 series lead, WITHOUT Cunningham. Then Luke Jackson went down with an injury, and was useless the rest of the series. On top of all of that, Wilt's teammates fired blanks all game long in that game seven (they collectively shot 33%), and with all of that, Boston eked out a four point win. Had Philly been healthy, I have no doubt that they would have easily dispatched the Celtics that season.

[julizaver]

1. Red never won a title without Russell; Russell won titles without Red
2. Injuries are a part of the game, they lost Cunningham and that was it. They built that 3-1 lead without him.
3. That is Wilt's fault not an excuse. The team Spirirt on Russell's Celtics never changed and Russell is 100% the reason why.

1. Russell won all his titles with Celtics and Red as GM behind him. Russell quit Celtics and go coaching Seatle and Sacramento and winning nothing.
2. Look at Jlauber post, and furthermore Wilt played injured in that series.
3. The team spirit is something which begin with the coach - if the coach can not gone alone with the players - no way to have good spirit. When Alex Hannum replaced the friendly but unassertive Dolph Schayes in 1966 it was the first thing to do and the result is obvious. And in 1968-69 Wilt went to LA Lakers, and also have problems with his coach, which limited Wilt offensive game in favor of Baylor (the later just a shadow of himself).

[julizaver]

I have always maintained that the 65-66 76ers were not truly better than the 65-66 Celtics. True, they edged them by ONE game during the regular season. But Boston had won seven straight Eastern titles and world championships prior to that season, while Philly was a losing team prior to that year. The Sixers had gone 40-40 in 64-65 to Boston's 62-18 (although they mearly beat Boston in the playoffs that year.) Boston was much deeper in 65-66. On top of that, Wilt played brilliantly in the 65-66 playoffs against Russell, averaging 28 points and 30 rebounds per game, while shooting .509 from the field. In the clinching game five loss, Wilt outscored Russell 46-18, and outrebounded him 34-31.

As for the 68-69 season, West was in his prime, but Baylor was just a shell. Elgin had a decent regular season, probably due more to Wilt just being on the floor with him...but he was AWFUL in the post-season, only mscoring 15.4 ppg on .385 shooting. That Laker team had virtually no depth, either. On top of that, they lost TWO games to Boston on miracle shots in that series. BUT, the biggest reason that the Lakers lost that series, was that they had a complete idiot for a coach. He had no idea how to use Wilt (the fact that Chamberlain only averaged 13.9 ppg...on .545 shooting...in the playoffs, is all you need to know), and of course, he left him on the bench in that game seven, while Mel Counts went 4-13 from the field (Wilt had scored 18 points on 7-8 shooting prior to pulling himself out of the game.)

IMHO, the only team in which Wilt enjoyed an edge over Russell's, were the 66-67 and 67-68 76ers. His 66-67 team anninhilated Boston in five games (only a close 121-117 loss in game four prevented a sweep.) His 67-68 team held a 3-1 series lead, WITHOUT Cunningham. Then Luke Jackson went down with an injury, and was useless the rest of the series. On top of all of that, Wilt's teammates fired blanks all game long in that game seven (they collectively shot 33%), and with all of that, Boston eked out a four point win. Had Philly been healthy, I have no doubt that they would have easily dispatched the Celtics that season.

And in my opinion had Hannum and Wilt stayed in Philadelfia they would have won 2-3 more tittles. And recently I watched Bill Russell on youtube explayning that in that final game of ECF he did not guarded Chamberlain in the second half (the game in which Wilt attempted only 2 FG after the break), instead he guarded Chet Walker, who according to Russell "was killing us" in the first half. So Russell overpowered Walker, and Wilt was guarded closely by Russell back-up Wayne Embry (who was able to comit more fouls). And yes Wilt do what he does all season - fed his teamates, rebounding and shotblocking. Wilt was anything, but not shut down by Russell, for god sake he even not guarded him in the second half, according to his own testimony.

[jlauber]

I think Wilt got a bad rap for some many of those "failures." If anything, he played brilliantly, with mediocre personnel, for the first half of his career. It was testament to his greatness that he could CARRY what was basically a last-place roster to a game seven, two-point, defeat to the 60-20 Celtics in 61-62. Not only that, but he CARRIED a 40-40 76er team past Oscar's best team of the 60's, (48-32) in the 64-65 playoffs, 3-1, before then taking that team to a ONE-POINT, game seven loss to the 62-18 Celtics. And in that game, he dominated down the stretch.

IMHO, you can find fault with some of Wilt performances in the post-season, from 66-on. Unfortunately, a relatively poor game (poor being along the lines of a 15-20 game) in the middle of a crucial playoff series would ultimately lead to a game seven defeat in which he usually played well, at the very least.

Robert Cherry does not blame Wilt for that game seven defeat in 1969. However, as he stated, had Wilt played a normal game in game six of that series, that series would never have gone to a game seven.

On the other hand...Russell deserves his place in history. He never had to have any excuses for his, or his team's, play in the post-season (unlike Wilt, Kareem, and MJ.) He simply led his teams to titles.

To me, it's not a case of Wilt being a "failure", nothing could be further from the truth, but that Russell, and his teams, just played better, when it mattered most. And you can't diminish the fact that Russell's teammates outplayed Wilt's. Russell deserves the credit for much of that. He made his teammates better, while, for whatever reasons, Chamberlain's generally always under-performed.

As G.O.A.T. stated in another thread...if Russell had not played in the Wilt era...there would be NO discussion as to the greatest player was. Wilt would have won a plethora of rings, and owned the record book, as well. You just can't discount what Russell did, however. He did it not only to Wilt...but to the rest of the NBA, as well.

[G.O.A.T]

jlauber,

A few things regarding 1966 and 1969.

First 1969. There is no way the Lakers weren't a more talented team. A couple reasons why I've drawn this conclusion.

The Celtics went from 48 wins and a World title in '69 to 34 wins and out of the playoffs ijn '70. The difference Bill Russell retired.

The Lakers went from 55 wins and the top seed in the West to 46 wins in a two seed. Their difference they lost Wilt for nearly the whole season.

There is no doubt Wilt has a more talented and superior individual player in 1969. So why did Russell's team fall off more when he left then Wilt's if they had the better all around cast?

Without Wilt the Lakers will still a playoff team, without Russell the Celtics were one of the worst teams in an NBA with multiple expansion frnachies.

As for Baylor; First team All-NBA is not an okay season, it's an elite season. 25-11-6 and he only missed six games due to injuries or fatigue.

He played poorly in the playoffs but I don't see that as an excuse at all. Maybe Havlicek's defense with Russell's help is why he struggled in the Finals so much. Wilt should have been able to carry them anyway especially with West playing out of his mind. Meanwhile Russell has Don Nelson (Cut by the Lakers) and Em Bryant (aquired in a trade for a 2nd round pick) playing major roles along with a brokedown Sam Jones who lost his starting spot.

Heck Boston's third best player on that team was a 32 year old Bailey Howell. Elgin on crutches is better than that. And you can't tell that West isn't more talented than Hondo and Wilt more so than Russ at that point either.

As for 66, the Celtics may have been a better team, but the Sixers were way more talented. Young but the same core from '67 and '68 was in place. A prime Hal Greer and Chet Walker with Cunningham, Wali Jones and Luke Jackson all in their early twenties and phenomanal athletic shape. Throw in veteran Al Bianchi and Dave Gambee who had been with the team since the 50's mostly as starter and you got a team as good as any the Celtics ever won with on paper.

Now consider this. The cast and crew for Chamberlian were young and green, however in the postseason Wilt's points, assists, field goal and free throw percentage all dropped noticably. Despite having homecourt advantage the Celtics steamrolled them.

A quick note on 1965, the Sixers record is not a reflection of their talent that season because they acquired Wilt midway through the year.

[julizaver]

jlauber,

A few things regarding 1966 and 1969.

First 1969. There is no way the Lakers weren't a more talented team. A couple reasons why I've drawn this conclusion.

The Celtics went from 48 wins and a World title in '69 to 34 wins and out of the playoffs ijn '70. The difference Bill Russell retired.

The Lakers went from 55 wins and the top seed in the West to 46 wins in a two seed. Their difference they lost Wilt for nearly the whole season.

There is no doubt Wilt has a more talented and superior individual player in 1969. So why did Russell's team fall off more when he left then Wilt's if they had the better all around cast?

Without Wilt the Lakers will still a playoff team, without Russell the Celtics were one of the worst teams in an NBA with multiple expansion frnachies.

As for Baylor; First team All-NBA is not an okay season, it's an elite season. 25-11-6 and he only missed six games due to injuries or fatigue.

He played poorly in the playoffs but I don't see that as an excuse at all. Maybe Havlicek's defense with Russell's help is why he struggled in the Finals so much. Wilt should have been able to carry them anyway especially with West playing out of his mind. Meanwhile Russell has Don Nelson (Cut by the Lakers) and Em Bryant (aquired in a trade for a 2nd round pick) playing major roles along with a brokedown Sam Jones who lost his starting spot.

Heck Boston's third best player on that team was a 32 year old Bailey Howell. Elgin on crutches is better than that. And you can't tell that West isn't more talented than Hondo and Wilt more so than Russ at that point either.

As for 66, the Celtics may have been a better team, but the Sixers were way more talented. Young but the same core from '67 and '68 was in place. A prime Hal Greer and Chet Walker with Cunningham, Wali Jones and Luke Jackson all in their early twenties and phenomanal athletic shape. Throw in veteran Al Bianchi and Dave Gambee who had been with the team since the 50's mostly as starter and you got a team as good as any the Celtics ever won with on paper.

Now consider this. The cast and crew for Chamberlian were young and green, however in the postseason Wilt's points, assists, field goal and free throw percentage all dropped noticably. Despite having homecourt advantage the Celtics steamrolled them.

A quick note on 1965, the Sixers record is not a reflection of their talent that season because they acquired Wilt midway through the year.

Not agree - Wilt regular season numbers for 1967/68 were: 24.3 ppg , 23.8 rpg, 8,6 apg shooting 59.5 % FG
- in playoffs against NY Knicks in 6 games his numbers were 25.5 ppg 24.2 rpg 6.3 apg (the opponent center was Walt Bellamy 20 ppg 16 rpg 3.5 apg 42,1 FG % (54,1 FG% in reg.season))

- in playoffs against Celtics in 7 games his numbers were 22.1 ppg 25.1 rpg 6.7 apg (the opponent Russell has 13.7 ppg 23.85 rpg)

Not so different from the regular season.

[G.O.A.T]

Not agree - Wilt regular season numbers for 1967/68 were: 24.3 ppg , 23.8 rpg, 8,6 apg shooting 59.5 % FG
- in playoffs against NY Knicks in 6 games his numbers were 25.5 ppg 24.2 rpg 6.3 apg (the opponent center was Walt Bellamy 20 ppg 16 rpg 3.5 apg 42,1 FG % (54,1 FG% in reg.season))

- in playoffs against Celtics in 7 games his numbers were 22.1 ppg 25.1 rpg 6.7 apg (the opponent Russell has 13.7 ppg 23.85 rpg)

Not so different from the regular season.

I never mentioned 1968. Basically it looks like his numbers were the same (scoring and assists slightly down) from the regular season.

Great Players bring their play up in the regular season.

I want to be clear about something too, I don't dislike Wilt, I don't think he was a loser, a choker or that he's overrated (unless he's rated over Russell). I just have a hard time hearing arguments that are invalid or uninformed used over and over again to support a faulty premise.

[julizaver]

I never mentioned 1968. Basically it looks like his numbers were the same (scoring and assists slightly down) from the regular season.

Great Players bring their play up in the regular season.

I want to be clear about something too, I don't dislike Wilt, I don't think he was a loser, a choker or that he's overrated (unless he's rated over Russell). I just have a hard time hearing arguments that are invalid or uninformed used over and over again to support a faulty premise.

OK, I have no problems with your opinion that you rated Russell over Wilt. It's up to you of course. I just think that Wilt was a better player and can argue that with people. And I also like watching Bill's interviews. So if i thing that Wilt is better player than Russell it doesn't mean that I am going to slate or hate him :).

[Niquesports]

I never mentioned 1968. Basically it looks like his numbers were the same (scoring and assists slightly down) from the regular season.

Great Players bring their play up in the regular season.

I want to be clear about something too, I don't dislike Wilt, I don't think he was a loser, a choker or that he's overrated (unless he's rated over Russell). I just have a hard time hearing arguments that are invalid or uninformed used over and over again to support a faulty premise.


In reading this thread I was waiting to see someone point one thing out . Games arent won by what shows up in the box scores.In comparing Wilt and Russ I find the same problems wgen people compare Magic and Bird. ITs not what shows up in the box scores that wiins games. ITs the way a palyer carries himself. His pride and determination to win carries over to the team. There is a reason Russell never had a down year. Wilt did, Jabbar did, Hakeem did Shaq did moses did Russ never did. Most of the other top 6 C went into games with the m ind set that they would dominate so much their team would win. IT worked sometime often not. Russ went into the game with the mind set what do I have to do for US to win. Score 25pt,get 30 rebounds,block 15 shots,get 8 asasist, feed Sam the ball, feed Hondo the ball, Help KC out on D. He never went into a game think he had to carry the team . He always just felt he had to lead the team. This is why he is the Goat and the 11 rings dont hurt.

[G.O.A.T]

^eloquently and accurately stated.

[04mzwach]

Close the books on these players who played in a non-pro league. Might as well eat a jelly donut before a game when everybody else is 2 feet tall and can jump about a centimeter off the ground.

[G.O.A.T]

Russell on Wilt and their rivalry; From his biography "Second Wind"

"He was by far the toughest center I ever played against. He was awesome, and no matter what anyone says about his lack of team play, his teams alwaysended up in the playoffs staring at us. He always outscored me by huge margins- 20 or 30 points a game- so I could never hope to compete with him in scoring duels any more than I could make twenty footers from outside. I couldn't allow myself to get suckered into a game within the game; I had to do whatever it took to help us win. One season (1962) Wilt was averaging over 50 points per game, while I was averaging sixteen or seventeen. In that same year his team averaged 112 points per game and the Celtics 110. So I figured if I knocked a few points off his average we'd win most of those games. So that's what I did and that's what happened. "

"Off-hand, I can't think of any two players in a team sport who were cast as antagonists and personifcations of various theoris more than Wilt and I were. Almost any argument anyone wanted to have could be carried out in the Russell\Chamberlain debate, and lamost any virtue or sin was imagined to be at stake. If we weren't a metaphor for something we were at least a symbol of it."

"In 1967 Wilt and the 76ers beat us because they were better. They almost ran us off the court and I got an instant taste of the "loser" syndrome. Though the Celtics had run off an unprecedented string of eight consecutive championships before 1967, the Boston fans hooted me that summer in the streets. "What happened to you guys last year?", "All washed up, eh?", "I knew it wouldn't last, you guys don't have it no more" I had to blink my eyes. Never had a felt happier that long ago I'd trained myself to discount the cheers and the boos. During the winning streak I could easily gotten an appetite for the cheers. At last I understood why Wilt had begun hinting that the loser label had started to bother him. To be bombarded with such abuse for years is enough to nettle anybody. To Wilt's credit, it never seriously damaged our respect for eachother while we were playing."

"With five minutes left in the game, we were ahead by thirteen, Wilt banged his shin and took himself out of the game. A few minutes later when the Lakers had whittiled out lead down to nothing he tried to put himself back in. But his coach left him on the bench, the two of them finished the game arguing and we won.
For my own selfish reasons, I was offended the instant Wilt left the game. I didn't think he'd been hurt badly and even if he was, I wanted him in there. We were close, oh so close to finishing with a great game. I was almost moaning; "oh my don't do that, don't leave." I said to myself. This is my last game, make me earn it. Wilt's leaving was like finding a misspelled word at then end of a cherished book. My anger with him that night cuased great friction between us later. I could not control it, even though Wilt had no way of knowing how special that game was to me, and that in any case, he had no obligation to care"

[jlauber]

Russell on Wilt and their rivalry; From his biography "Second Wind"

"He was by far the toughest center I ever played against. He was awesome, and no matter what anyone says about his lack of team play, his teams alwaysended up in the playoffs staring at us. He always outscored me by huge margins- 20 or 30 points a game- so I could never hope to compete with him in scoring duels any more than I could make twenty footers from outside. I couldn't allow myself to get suckered into a game within the game; I had to do whatever it took to help us win. One season (1962) Wilt was averaging over 50 points per game, while I was averaging sixteen or seventeen. In that same year his team averaged 112 points per game and the Celtics 110. So I figured if I knocked a few points off his average we'd win most of those games. So that's what I did and that's what happened. "

"Off-hand, I can't think of any two players in a team sport who were cast as antagonists and personifcations of various theoris more than Wilt and I were. Almost any argument anyone wanted to have could be carried out in the Russell\Chamberlain debate, and lamost any virtue or sin was imagined to be at stake. If we weren't a metaphor for something we were at least a symbol of it."

"In 1967 Wilt and the 76ers beat us because they were better. They almost ran us off the court and I got an instant taste of the "loser" syndrome. Though the Celtics had run off an unprecedented string of eight consecutive championships before 1967, the Boston fans hooted me that summer in the streets. "What happened to you guys last year?", "All washed up, eh?", "I knew it wouldn't last, you guys don't have it no more" I had to blink my eyes. Never had a felt happier that long ago I'd trained myself to discount the cheers and the boos. During the winning streak I could easily gotten an appetite for the cheers. At last I understood why Wilt had begun hinting that the loser label had started to bother him. To be bombarded with such abuse for years is enough to nettle anybody. To Wilt's credit, it never seriously damaged our respect for eachother while we were playing."

"With five minutes left in the game, we were ahead by thirteen, Wilt banged his shin and took himself out of the game. A few minutes later when the Lakers had whittiled out lead down to nothing he tried to put himself back in. But his coach left him on the bench, the two of them finished the game arguing and we won.
For my own selfish reasons, I was offended the instant Wilt left the game. I didn't think he'd been hurt badly and even if he was, I wanted him in there. We were close, oh so close to finishing with a great game. I was almost moaning; "oh my don't do that, don't leave." I said to myself. This is my last game, make me earn it. Wilt's leaving was like finding a misspelled word at then end of a cherished book. My anger with him that night cuased great friction between us later. I could not control it, even though Wilt had no way of knowing how special that game was to me, and that in any case, he had no obligation to care"

Russell, like so many other's that I have read, was way off in his take...which is amazing considering that he played in that game.

First of all, when Wilt finally left the game, LA had cut an early 4th quarter 17 point lead down to seven. Secondly, Wilt injured his KNEE, the same knee that he would reinjure at the beginning of the next season...and that would require major knee surgery.

And, why would Wilt pull himself out of the game at that point? Why didn't he pack it in after picking up his 5th foul late in the 3rd period, and his team down by 15?

As for Russell saying that the Laker's whittled the lead down to nothing...almost true, but with Wilt in the game, they had knocked ten points off that deficit. AND, Wilt's replacement, Mel Counts missed a couple of key shots down the stretch, and finished with a 4-13 game, while Wilt had gone 7-8 (incidently, Russell was only 2-7 in that game.)

And finally, where was RUSSELL in that 4th quarter? Take a look at the video footage that is out there. Russell, while playing, was nowhere to be found. And while Wilt was wrongly criticized for his play after he picked up his 5th foul, very few mention that Russell did not do ANYTHING after he picked up HIS 5th foul a couple of minutes later. Wilt grabbed as many rebounds, on two consecutive possessions, and with an injured knee, as Russell did in the entire period.

Final stat line...Russell with six points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds in 48 minutes. Meanwhile, the "quitter" had 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds, in 43 minutes.

Incidently, even Wilt's incompetent coach defended Wilt on his injury.

Russell was WAY out of line for his comments after that game.

[G.O.A.T]

Russell, like so many other's that I have read, was way off in his take...which is amazing considering that he played in that game.

First of all, when Wilt finally left the game, LA had cut an early 4th quarter 17 point lead down to seven. Secondly, Wilt injured his KNEE, the same knee that he would reinjure at the beginning of the next season...and that would require major knee surgery.

The lead was 11 when the injury occured on a defensive rebound, 9 when Wilt left the game, you're both wrong.



And, why would Wilt pull himself out of the game at that point? Why didn't he pack it in after picking up his 5th foul late in the 3rd period, and his team down by 15?

As Russell explains in the chapter, it's not as though he thought Wilt quit, just that he was upset he didn't get to finish the game with the best players on the floor.


As for Russell saying that the Laker's whittled the lead down to nothing...almost true, but with Wilt in the game, they had knocked ten points off that deficit.

Six really, he didn't even make it up the court on their last two offensive possesions before a dead ball allowed him to check out.


And finally, where was RUSSELL in that 4th quarter? Take a look at the video footage that is out there. Russell, while playing, was nowhere to be found. And while Wilt was wrongly criticized for his play after he picked up his 5th foul, very few mention that Russell did not do ANYTHING after he picked up HIS 5th foul a couple of minutes later. Wilt grabbed as many rebounds, on two consecutive possessions, and with an injured knee, as Russell did in the entire period.

Russell had a few blocks and offensive rebounds in the quarter, he was primarily setting screens on offense. He did try to post Counts and forced double teams when Wilt went out. As usual Russell was letting the game flow and doing just enough to win.


Incidently, even Wilt's incompetent coach defended Wilt on his injury.
Russell was WAY out of line for his comments after that game.

Van Breda Kolff said he didn't put Wilt back in because the team was playing better without him in that game. I think that's absurd and why he quit/was fired after the season, but that is what he said.

I don't think Russell was out of line, he was acting out of emotion and he was offended by Wilt not being in there. As he said it was for "selfish" reasons and Wilt had "no obligation" to him.

As Russell acknowledges, that was the main cause of the friction between the two post-career.

[julizaver]

The lead was 11 when the injury occured on a defensive rebound, 9 when Wilt left the game, you're both wrong.




As Russell explains in the chapter, it's not as though he thought Wilt quit, just that he was upset he didn't get to finish the game with the best players on the floor.



Six really, he didn't even make it up the court on their last two offensive possesions before a dead ball allowed him to check out.



Russell had a few blocks and offensive rebounds in the quarter, he was primarily setting screens on offense. He did try to post Counts and forced double teams when Wilt went out. As usual Russell was letting the game flow and doing just enough to win.



Van Breda Kolff said he didn't put Wilt back in because the team was playing better without him in that game. I think that's absurd and why he quit/was fired after the season, but that is what he said.

I don't think Russell was out of line, he was acting out of emotion and he was offended by Wilt not being in there. As he said it was for "selfish" reasons and Wilt had "no obligation" to him.

As Russell acknowledges, that was the main cause of the friction between the two post-career.

It's good that we can watch that 4th quarter in youtube - and it is obviously that Wilt was out, cause he hurt his knee on rebound and he was took out to have medical. In that case it is unfair to blame Wilt cause (unlike in 1966 when he missed some practices during playoffs series with Boston), cause he sacirficed his offensive game in Baylor's favour and was concentrating on defence. I think that was stupid cause with aging Russell, Lakers should be better go with Wilt instead of Balyor, but it is only "what if situation". And Baylor was the captain of that Lakers team, while it was Wilt first year.

Jlauber, you often cited that last game 5 from 1966 against Celticks, in which Wilt scored 46 points and grabbed 34 rebounds - in that particular game Wilt shot 19 from 34 from the field, but to be honnest was so awful from the free throw line, that a Philadelfia reporter pointed out that to him after the game angrying Wilt to the point that he was going to beat the reporter.

[jlauber]

GOAT,

The lead was nine when Wilt left, during a timeout, BUT, before the timeout, there was foul that would send West to the FT line. After the timeout, West hit both FTs...so in reality, the lead was SEVEN when Wilt left the game.

I counted TWO rebounds by Russell in that quarter, and I don't believe he had any after Wilt left.

And once again, Wilt was criticized for his play after picking up his fifth foul and his team trailing by 15 points...yet, after Russell picked up HIS fifth, he did virtually nothing. There is even one play in which Wilt catches the ball and Russell virtually steps out of the way to let him score. If Van Breda Kolf had been any kind of a coach at all, he would have milked Wilt immediately into the 4th quarter. And on top of that, he left Mel Counts in (yes MEL COUNTS) instead of allowing Wilt back in the game...and despite the fact that with Wilt on the floor, he had knocked ten points off of a 17 point deficit. In any case, Counts missed a couple of shots down the stretch, and finished at a miserable 4-13, while Wilt was at 7-8. Only a complete IDIOT would have played out the last five minutes like Van Breda Kolf did...and it not only cost LA their first ever title...it basically cost Van Breda Kolf his career.

I have the utmost respect for Russell, but he was completely wrong in his account of Chamberlain in that game...AND, some 20 years later he privately, and then publically, apologized to Wilt...and thus ended a 20 year feud that should never have happened.

[jlauber]

Jlauber, you often cited that last game 5 from 1966 against Celticks, in which Wilt scored 46 points and grabbed 34 rebounds - in that particular game Wilt shot 19 from 34 from the field, but to be honnest was so awful from the free throw line, that a Philadelfia reporter pointed out that to him after the game angrying Wilt to the point that he was going to beat the reporter.

Wilt shot 8-25 from the line that game, and his team lost 122-108. The reporter basically blamed Wilt for the loss...completely ignoring the fact that Wilt was the ONLY Sixer who did anything in that game. But, then again, that was typical...no matter what Wilt did, he was always to blame. He had just put up a MONUMENTAL 46-34 game in the post-season, one of several 40-30+ games that Wilt had in his post-season career...and was being CRITICIZED for it. I have never taken the time to research it, but I suspect that no other player in NBA history has ever put up a 40-30 game in the post-season (although Russell had a 30-40 game)...and YET, he was being ripped for it.

The only comparison I could possibly make, would have been the MJ 63 point OT game against the Celtics in the playoffs. Can you imagine a reporter, in a packed interview room, telling Jordan, that if he had not missed two FTs in that game, that Chicago would have won the game?

That 46-34 game was just one of MANY examples of the EXPECTATION level for Wilt. He was also blamed for the game seven loss against the heavily-favored Knicks in the 69-70 Finals. Reed put up a 4-3 game, and was hailed as the "hero", while Chamberlain, only four months removed from major knee surgery, and who had just put up a 21-24 game, was considered the "goat."

[julizaver]

Wilt shot 8-25 from the line that game, and his team lost 122-108. The reporter basically blamed Wilt for the loss...completely ignoring the fact that Wilt was the ONLY Sixer who did anything in that game. But, then again, that was typical...no matter what Wilt did, he was always to blame. He had just put up a MONUMENTAL 46-34 game in the post-season, one of several 40-30+ games that Wilt had in his post-season career...and was being CRITICIZED for it. I have never taken the time to research it, but I suspect that no other player in NBA history has ever put up a 40-30 game in the post-season (although Russell had a 30-40 game)...and YET, he was being ripped for it.

The only comparison I could possibly make, would have been the MJ 63 point OT game against the Celtics in the playoffs. Can you imagine a reporter, in a packed interview room, telling Jordan, that if he had not missed two FTs in that game, that Chicago would have won the game?

That 46-34 game was just one of MANY examples of the EXPECTATION level for Wilt. He was also blamed for the game seven loss against the heavily-favored Knicks in the 69-70 Finals. Reed put up a 4-3 game, and was hailed as the "hero", while Chamberlain, only four months removed from major knee surgery, and who had just put up a 21-24 game, was considered the "goat."

However to score 46 points on 19 from 34 against the best defender in the league in the clutching playoff game is a remarkable feat, not to mentioned the game high 34 rebounds. For comparision Kareem has a game with 40 points (18 from 31) against Wilt in 1972 playoffs, but was outrbounded 17 to 7 :no: by older Wilt and Bucks lost the game.

[jlauber]

However to score 46 points on 19 from 34 against the best defender in the league in the clutching playoff game is a remarkable feat, not to mentioned the game high 34 rebounds. For comparision Kareem has a game with 40 points (18 from 31) against Wilt in 1972 playoffs, but was outrbounded 17 to 7 :no: by older Wilt and Bucks lost the game.

I will acknowledge the greatness of Kareem (and I ALWAYS have BTW.) IMHO, he could have easily scored 40 ppg in his best seasons. And, had Shaq been used properly in his career, and had he been as motivated as he was in the post-season, I think he could have easily been a 35 ppg in his era (at his PEAK, of course.) Both Kareem and Shaq SHOULD have been better rebounders and defenders, though. Physically, they were much better than their competition (sans Wilt, of course.) Yet, neither seldom dominated. Kareem actually gave Wilt the most trouble, albeit, Wilt still outrebounded him, and that was when he was nearing the end of his career. And, Shaq, when motivated, was the BEST rebounder of his era. He dominated Motumbo, who was the league's leading rebounder, in the Finals. And, I would have taken a motivated Shaq over Rodman anyday.

The best PURE rebounder, though, was Russell. He had the best timing (even Wilt stated as much), and was a world-class high-jumper. Here again, it just makes what Wilt accomplished all the more amazing. Chamberlain just BURIED Russell H2H in rebounding. At his PEAK (in 66-67) he CRUSHED Russell in the playoffs, by a staggering 32-23 margin per game (including a playoff record of 41.)

In terms of rankings...here is MINE...

1. Wilt




2. Russell


3. Rodman (although he should drop considerably based on his post-season mediocrity.)

4. Thurmond
5. M. Malone
6. Lucas (at his peak anyway.)

After that, you can mix-and-match anyway you want.

[alexandreben]

I would have taken a motivated Shaq over Rodman anyday.

I couldn't agree with you anymore.
And personally, I'd prefer Shaq in Orlando era rather than the Lakers' in which he had the weight and illness problems.



In terms of rankings...here is MINE...
1. Wilt
2. Russell
3. Rodman (although he should drop considerably based on his post-season mediocrity.)
4. Thurmond
5. M. Malone
6. Lucas (at his peak anyway.)


I absolutely agree with your ranking for Wilt and Russell, and I would like to pick Thurmond over Rodman with or without considering his post-season performance. What do you think?

[jlauber]

I couldn't agree with you anymore.
And personally, I'd prefer Shaq in Orlando era rather than the Lakers' in which he had the weight and illness problems.



I absolutely agree with your ranking for Wilt and Russell, and I would like to pick Thurmond over Rodman with or without considering his post-season performance. What do you think?

Yes, you could make a strong case for Thurmond over Rodman if you include the post-season. Thurmond had a monstrous rebounding series against Wilt in the 66-67 Finals, with a 26.7 rpg average...although, once again, Chamberlain outrebounded him (28.5 rpg.)

I have Russell ranked over Rodman, despite Rodman winning more rebound titles (7-5), because of two reasons. One, if Wilt had not played (and beaten Russell eight times in ten seasons), Russell would have won several more rebound titles. And, two, Russell has the highest post-season rebounds-per-game average in NBA history (although Chamberlain outrebounded him in EVERY H2H post-season matchup.)

Rodman certainly had some dominating regular season rebound titles. He also holds the record, by a wide margin, for rebound percentage. Still, Chamberlain had some seasons with a huge edge over the next guy in terms of rebounds per game (in the 67-68 season, Wilt averaged 23.8 rpg, and the next guy, Lucas, was at 19.0 rpg...or a +4.8 rpg margin. And I contend that Wilt faced much stronger rebounding centers than those that played in the Rodman era. And, once again, in the post-season, Chamberlain was FAR more dominant than Rodman was.

[G.O.A.T]

Game Seven 1965 Eastern Finals

"Havlicek stole the ball"

But before that...Bill Russell, who retired the greatest player of all-time, almost ended up being a whole different kind of Goat.

As has been discussed here and everywhere else before. The Sixers were clsoing in on the Celtics. Wilt, who had been traded by the Warriors earlier in the season had just slammed home two points over Russell to close the Celtic margin (which had been ten earlier in the quarter) to just one point, 100-109 with five seconds remaining.

Bill Russell set to inbounds the ball.

"I wouldn't let anyone else take the ball out but me, cause I would make sure I could make a good pass"

Russell however through the ball off a basket support and it went back to Philadelphia and timeout was called.

In the huddle, Russell asked his teammates for help.

"Guys, we gotta do something"

As Tom Hiensohn put it:

"He has saved us so many times and we felt so good about what Bill Russell did and how he dealt with us as people, that we went out there and tried to get him off the hook."

Of course, we know what happened after that. Philadelphia ran a play for Chet Walker to get a jump shot because they were afraid Wilt would not make the free throw, knowing the Celtics would foul. Hal Greer's inbounds pass came up a little short of Walker and Havlicek deflected it right to Sam Jones and the Celtics took off down the court and on their back to the NBA finals.

The Play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdMPSYtQeIQ)

"Havlicek stole the ball. Havlicek, how lucky can you be"

Wilt Chamberlain

"I told Havlicek, I made you famous. If wouldn't have messed up, nobody would have ever heard of you"

Bill Russell

[alexandreben]

Game Seven 1965 Eastern Finals

"Havlicek stole the ball"

But before that...Bill Russell, who retired the greatest player of all-time, almost ended up being a whole different kind of Goat.

As has been discussed here and everywhere else before. The Sixers were clsoing in on the Celtics. Wilt, who had been traded by the Warriors earlier in the season had just slammed home two points over Russell to close the Celtic margin (which had been ten earlier in the quarter) to just one point, 100-109 with five seconds remaining.

Bill Russell set to inbounds the ball.

"I wouldn't let anyone else take the ball out but me, cause I would make sure I could make a good pass"

Russell however through the ball off a basket support and it went back to Philadelphia and timeout was called.

In the huddle, Russell asked his teammates for help.

"Guys, we gotta do something"

As Tom Hiensohn put it:

"He has saved us so many times and we felt so good about what Bill Russell did and how he dealt with us as people, that we went out there and tried to get him off the hook."

Of course, we know what happened after that. Philadelphia ran a play for Chet Walker to get a jump shot because they were afraid Wilt would not make the free throw, knowing the Celtics would foul. Hal Greer's inbounds pass came up a little short of Walker and Havlicek deflected it right to Sam Jones and the Celtics took off down the court and on their back to the NBA finals.

The Play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdMPSYtQeIQ)

"Havlicek stole the ball. Havlicek, how lucky can you be"

Wilt Chamberlain

"I told Havlicek, I made you famous. If wouldn't have messed up, nobody would have ever heard of you"

Bill Russell
Havlicek stole the ball at the final moment in the NBA finals G7 in 1969 too... I think he really is something instead of just lucky.

[L.A. Jazz]

both teams couldnt inbound the ball to their own men in the last seconds of the game. just bad. :roll:

[jlauber]

Game Seven 1965 Eastern Finals

"Havlicek stole the ball"

But before that...Bill Russell, who retired the greatest player of all-time, almost ended up being a whole different kind of Goat.

As has been discussed here and everywhere else before. The Sixers were clsoing in on the Celtics. Wilt, who had been traded by the Warriors earlier in the season had just slammed home two points over Russell to close the Celtic margin (which had been ten earlier in the quarter) to just one point, 100-109 with five seconds remaining.

Bill Russell set to inbounds the ball.

"I wouldn't let anyone else take the ball out but me, cause I would make sure I could make a good pass"

Russell however through the ball off a basket support and it went back to Philadelphia and timeout was called.

In the huddle, Russell asked his teammates for help.

"Guys, we gotta do something"

As Tom Hiensohn put it:

"He has saved us so many times and we felt so good about what Bill Russell did and how he dealt with us as people, that we went out there and tried to get him off the hook."

Of course, we know what happened after that. Philadelphia ran a play for Chet Walker to get a jump shot because they were afraid Wilt would not make the free throw, knowing the Celtics would foul. Hal Greer's inbounds pass came up a little short of Walker and Havlicek deflected it right to Sam Jones and the Celtics took off down the court and on their back to the NBA finals.

The Play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdMPSYtQeIQ)

"Havlicek stole the ball. Havlicek, how lucky can you be"

Wilt Chamberlain

"I told Havlicek, I made you famous. If wouldn't have messed up, nobody would have ever heard of you"

Bill Russell

That game seven may have brought out the best in both Russell and Wilt. Take away the last five seconds, and you had Russell with a 15 point, 7-16, 29 rebound game (and I believe a boat-load of blocks), and Wilt with a 30 point, 12-15, 32 rebound game.

Russell was in his prime, and Chamberlain was nearing his, and IMHO, they battled each other to the very end. Once again, Russell led his team to a title, while Chamberlain, who was unfairly considered a "choker", took a 40-40 team on his back, and played brilliantly down the stretch, and came up an eyelash short of perhaps the biggest upset in NBA history.

[G.O.A.T]

First of all, there was a study done about this fact...and Russell had QUALITY teammates TWICE as often as Wilt did in their 10 year battles...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229

"Now you can see Russell's "score" is more than twice that of Wilt,"

"Obviously this is just a fun exercise, and far from scientific, but you can still see that Chamberlain's teammates were in fact significantly less talented than Russell's, by both our Quality of Teammates metric and even by Bill Simmons' own ranking method. So I don't think it's quite fair to say, "let's never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain," because it's still pretty obvious that Wilt's supporting cast was inferior to Russell's by a good margin."

This study is based off statistics. I would suggest that the difference shown in this study is a reflection in the difference between quality of supporting casts but rather a reflection in the difference of styles between the two men.

Perhaps the reason Russell's teammates have better stats not because they were better as much as it was because Wilt was taking such a high percentage of his teams shots and getting so many touches.

I mentioned in my previous post how similar the Warriors and Celtics were in the years leading up to Russell and Chamberlain arriving for them. Here it is again:

In the four seasons prior to Russell joining the Celtics, Boston won 57% of their games and two playoff seires (both best of three).

In the four seasons prior to Chamberlain joining the Warriors, Philadelphia won 53% of their games and three playoff series (including an NBA title).



Let's examine the rosters: In that '59-'60 season, Wilt played with HOFer Paul Arizin, HOFer Tom Gola (who has much business being in the HOF as I do), Guy Rodgers (a quailt passing guard, but one of the worst shooters in NBA history), and a bunch of no-names. How about Russell? He combined with SIX other HOFers (SEVEN total)...Cousey, Heinsohn, Jones and Jones, Ramsey, and Heinsohn. Granted KC Jones and Frank Ramsey are probably not deserving of the HOF either, but Ramsey was certainly better than Gola.

Ramsey was better than Gola? How? Ramsey was a one-dimensional player, Gola was one of the most complete players of his era. He was an all-NBA player, made five straight all-star games (all with Wilt) and even got MVP votes in multiple seasons. Ramsey averaged 13-5-2 for his career on 40% shooting and peaked at 17-7-2 on 42%. Gola 11-8-4 on 43% shooting and peaked at 15-11-6 on 43%. Plus Gola was an excellent defender and Ramsey a liability more than an asset.

Guy Rodgers one of the worst shooters of all-time? Okay, but his career percentage is higher than Bob Cousy's, plus Wilt played with Rodgers in his prime and against Cousy on the edge of or past his.

As for Wilt's remaining teammates, I mostly agree, but a couple quick notes.

Woody Sauldsberry was the 1958 rookie of the year and an all-star in 1959...then Wilt ruined him away from his strengths at both ends of the court.

Andy Johnson was by no means a great or even good NBA player, but he did average 8 points and shoot 38% with Wilt as a teammate for three seasons, then averaged 14 on 45% shooting in one season with Chicago before excepting a job as a gym teacher.

Meanwhile guys like Nellie and Siegfried who were deemed not good enough to be in the NBA, thrived with Russell and the Celtics around them.



So, after we re-examine the first six years of the Russell-Wilt rivalry, it is CLEAR that Russell had FAR superior teams in ALL six of them. Yet, Wilt guided two of those mediocre rosters to game seven defeats, one by ONE point, and the other by TWO points.

That's not the conclusion I draw at all. I don't think it's as close as Simmmons suggests, but not as wide as you suggest either.


Continuing, Simmons states that Wilt had superior rosters from the '65-'66 season thru the '68-'69 seasons (four years), and yet, Russell's TEAMs still went 3-1 in that span. Let's examine that statement further, shall we...

I completely agree and think that only 1966 is even debatable.


Yes, Wilt's '65-'66 76ers added HOFer Billy Cunningham, and went 55-25, while Boston dropped to 54-26.

The '66 roster is identical to the '67 one with the exception of 35 year old Larry Costello replacing retired 34 year old Al Bianchi at back-up guard. The Celtics were a year younger and that helps, but they also were without Wayne Embry and Bailey Howell who they added for the 1966-67 season.


How about the '68-'69 season (Russell's last year in the NBA), in which the 48-34 Celtics stunned the favored 55-27 Lakers, 4-3?

This is the season where Wilt had the greatest edge.


I have mentioned it many times, but when LA acquired Wilt in a trade, they gave up THREE players (and a boatload of cash), including all-star guard Archie Clark, and a decent journeyman center, Darrell Imhoff...which really hurt the Lakers depth.

This is such a misrepresentation of the truth, at least as bad as anything you accuse Simmons of doing.

They gave up two players and even that's pushing it. Jerry Chambers (the third name) didn't even play for the Lakers in 1968 (they went to the Finals), he also never played for the Sixers who he was traded to. Even at his peak he averaged 9 ppg of the bench for a last place team. As for Imhoff (The starting center for the Knicks when Wilt scored 100); how did losing him hurt their depth? Wilt played 45 minutes a night and Imhoff was exclusively a center even in his younger days. So in essence what it was, was a swap of Archie Clark for Wilt Chamberlain. Clark was a two-time all-star and a very solid guard for nearly a decade, Chamberlain is one of the five greatest players ever and the reigning league MVP. (It's be like if Shaq was traded in 2002 to the Kings for Mike Bibby and Scott Pollard)

So a Lakers team, that in 1968 had gone 8-1 through the Western Conference playoffs and lost to the Celtics in six games in the Finals swaps Clark for Wilt and all they get is one more playoff win better?

Look at it this way; Take Russell off the '68 Celtics and Clark off the '68 Lakers...who wins that series? Because that's Wilt's supporting cast in '69 against Russell's.

Phew...that one bugged me.


Not only that, but Elgin Baylor was on a severe down-slide.

No.

1968: 26-12-4 44% 1st team all-NBA averages 24-10-5 in the Finals.
1969: 25-11-5 45% 1st team all-NBA averages 18-13-5 in the Finals.

It was about to happen, he was hurt in the playoffs according to West, so in that sense you have a point but 18-13-5 isn't exactly hurting your team.


And, finally, the Lakers had one of the worst coaches, EVER, in Butch Van Breda Kolf. I have documented that series many times, but clearly, Van Breda Kolf COST LA a title that year. His determination to have Chamberlain sacrifice his offense (and even play the high-post, as well as benching him in some games)

History suggests Russell still would have won.

As for the High Post, it was Alex Hannum who first moved Wilt there, he was hailed as a genius cause it worked, Butch a dope cause it didn't.


In terms of rosters, Boston had a MUCH deeper roster...Russell, Havlicek, Howell, Sam Jones, Nelson, Sanders, Siegfried, and even rookie Don Chaney.

you conceded they were aging, but look just how rag-tag this bunch was.

Russell- physically spent had by far his worst year statistically, retired the year after
Havlicek- A stud.
Howell - Considered washed up in Detroit two years prior
Sam Jones - Lost his starting spot during the season, retired after it.
Nelson - Cut by the Lakers
Sanders - On the verge of retirement
Siegfried - Cut from the NBA, the ABA wouldn't pay him. Hadn't played in two years when the Celtics signed him.
Chaney - He averaged 4 pts and 1 ast shooting 32%.

That same team minus Russell and Sam Jones, last place the next season. Missed the playoffs for two straight.



CLEARLY, had the Sixers been healthy, it would have been another easy series win for Philly.

Nothing about Russell and the Celtics suggest this. I got a huge list of excuses for the Celtics losing in '67, I just don't think they matter, they lost, that's it.


So, Russell's 7-1 H2H post-season margin was achieved with six heavily more talented teams, one marginally more talented, one slightly less talented, and two considerably less talented

Russell gets the edge in four ('60, '62, '64, '65)
Wilt gets the edge in three ('67-'69)
'66 is too close to call on supporting casts, but the Sixers are clearly more "talented" if you factor Wilt and Russell in.

I really have a hard time calling 1966 even. The Celtics got deeper and more talented in 1967 and Havlicek took a big step up but got annihilated by the exact same Sixers roster. I can only attribute it to the wear on Russell and the Jones boys plus Auerbach's absence.


(and without injuries, horrible coaching, and miracle shots), could just have easily have been a 5-3 edge for Wilt.

Without Auerbach retiring and Russell's broken foot it could have easily been 8-0 Russell too, but it's not either, it's 7-1.

[G.O.A.T]

Both Wilt and Russell are credited with playing with eight other HOFers. There are some discernable differences, however. At some points in his career, Chamberlain played with Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, Nate Thurmond, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, and Gail Goodrich. Meanwhile, Russell played alongside Bob Cousey, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Bailey Howell.

Take the Russell away and only Cousy, Sharman and Havlicek are in the Hall. Sam never becomes the player he was, same for Heinsohn. Howell doesn't have the resume and KC and Ramsey don't even get consideration.

Gola, Goodrich and Greer might not get in without Wilt, Thurmond wasn't HOF Thurmond yet when played with Wilt and he only had Baylor for one year.

So pretty even if you ask me.


in game seven Chamberlain only TOUCHED the ball TWICE on the offensive end in 4th quarter (and those were on offensive rebounds), and his teammates fired blanks all game long (they shot 33% in that game)...

see game seven 1962 NBA Finals for what Wilt COULD and SHOULD have done.

Also, ask yourself if you can see that scenario playing out with Magic, Bird or MJ.


Now, how about Russell's supporting cast? Unlike Wilt, who was drafted by a last-place team (that he immediately turned into a 48-32 team...and a close six game series loss to Boston in the playoffs)

Every time you post this it is a direct misrepresentation of the situation.


...Russell came to a playoff team. Yes, he was the final piece of the puzzle that took them over the hump.

A playoff team that had won exactly the same amount of playoff series in the three years before Russell got there that the Warriors had in the three years prior to Wilt arriving.


But, Auerbach also added more quality players each year. I have mentioned it many times.

Players other teams didn't want. They had the last pick of each round from 1958 to 1966. Cincinnati could have had Havlicek with their territorial pick for example.


Cousey had four 20+ ppg seasons in his career

None after Wilt joined the league


Sharman had three 20+ ppg seasons

None after Wilt joined the league


Heinsohn had three 20+ ppg seasons

And took over 20 shots per game to do it each time


Howell was an under-rated player who played with Russell for three years

He was considered washed up when Boston acquired him.

The stuff I didn't respond to, I either agree with or understand your side of it. As always I respond to you because I enjoy these conversations, the respect you've shown is mutual.

[jlauber]

G.O.A.T.,

You present solid arguments, as always, (and much better than Simmons' does BTW.)

We will just have to agree to disagree. IMHO, Wilt's first six teams were considerably inferior. After that, I believe that while Wilt's front line players were better in 65-66 and 68-69, Boston was much deeper. So, IMHO, those two seasons were a wash. True, Boston won in five in 65-66...although you could hardly fault Wilt, who put up a 28 ppg, 30 rpg, .509 series, including a 46-34 game in the game five loss. Of course you already know how I feel about the 68-69 Lakers. Their COACH butchered that series. In addition, Boston won two games on miraculous shots. Granted, luck ALWAYS seemed to go against Wilt, but had Johnny Egan been able to hold onto the ball in game four in the closing sconds, instead of losing it, and allowing Sam Jones to hit a shot while falling down...LA would have been up 3-1 in that series. Furthermore, in game five, Chamberlain finally came alive, and outrebounded Russell 31-13 in a romp. THAT was just how close LA was to winning THAT series, 4-1. Instead, Van Breda Kolf put the shackles on Wilt (how else do explain Wilt averaging 13.9 ppg in the playoffs...on .545 shooting), and allowed Baylor to throw up nothing but bricks (15.4 ppg on .385 shooting.)

The only TWO seasons, in which Wilt had better rosters, IMHO, were 66-67, in which they crushed Boston (almost swept them)...and in 67-68, when injuries wiped out them out in the post-season. They could overcome losing HOFer Cunningham (they built a 3-1 lead without him), but after Luke Jackson went down with a knee injury, they no longer had enough firepower at the forward position. And, once again, Wilt's teammates melted in the crunch, shooting 33% in a game seven, four-point loss (a team that led the league in shooting at .483 BTW.)

So, IMHO, Wilt carried two much-less talented rosters to within a total of THREE points, in the 61-62 and 64-65 post-seasons. And, with bad luck, poor coaching, and miserable play by his teammates, Wilt had two other teams lose in game seven's by a combined six points. So, the reality was, Chamberlain came within a few points, or bounces, of having a 5-3 record against Russell. In their decade long battle, IMHO, Wilt only had ONE team that was superior, that did not win...and that was his 67-68 Sixer squad, which was decimated by injuries in their playoff battle.

Still, as I have said many times, Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's. The only time they did not, Wilt's Sixers crushed them. Having said that, though, Russell MADE his teammates better, and MADE Wilt's worse. Russell put his teammates in successful positions, covered up their flaws, and made clutch plays when he had to. Wilt seldom meshed with his teammates, for whatever reasons. And even Chamberlain, himself, said that he would not have blended as well with Russell's teammates, as Russell did.

The bottom line, though, is that Russell's 7-1 edge was not nearly as one-sided as the media portrayed it. And, Wilt was EXPECTED to dominate, while Russell was not. You mentioned the game seven of the 61-62 ECF's, when Wilt "only" scored 22 points (his SEASON LOW BTW), on 7-14 shooting. Yes, it was disappointment, but how many BIG games did Russell put up that type of offense, against WILT? Wilt "let down" his teammates with a 22 point game. He also "let down" his team in the game seven of the 67-68 ECF's, when he did not take a shot in the second half. BUT, he STILL outscored Russell, 14-12, as well as outrebounded him, 34-26. And, one more time, Wilt was the "goat" when he had a 46-34 game in the clinching game five loss in the 65-66 ECF's...but where was the criticism of Russell the following season, when he could only put up a four point game in a clinching game five blowout loss to Wilt and the Sixers?

Wilt was EXPECTED to have 40-30 games...and his TEAM was EXPECTED to win, no matter the talent level of his supporting cast. If the two did not occur, at the same time, HE was considered a "failure."

Look, Russell was the sport's greatest winner. Only a fool would argue that. In fact, I find myself DEFENDING Russell's greatness here. I have read TOO MANY opinions here that rank Russell near the bottom of the top-10 all-time...and that is just ridiculous. It also diminishs what Chamberlain accomplished, as well. NO OTHER player IMPACTED the game of basketball, as much as Russell did. Those that argue statistics, alone, are being delusional, and do not know the true value of TEAM basketball. As you have stated, Russell was a "winner" in college, with two straight NC's, and then led his NBA teams to 11 titles in 13 years. This just simply cannot be a coincidence. Not only that, but Boston did not win a championship until Russell joined them, and then after he retired, they fell to a 34-48 record.

I will agree that Russell was the game's greatest player. I just don't accept that Wilt was a "choker" or a "failure."

[Abraham Lincoln]

Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - ProQuest Archiver - Mar 15, 1967 (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=Red+Auerbach+opines&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=1966&as_user_hdate=1967&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a)

'Basketball's volatile Red Auerbach opines that some of Wilt Chamberlain's records are "silly and ridiculous. It's the biggest joke in the history of all statistics to count field goals by a man who is dunking the ball."'

Chamberlain's rebuttal: "Red Auerbach is a stupid, silly man."





The Evening Independent - Apr 28, 1967 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=79kLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LVcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7146,5149170&dq)


'Instead, I asked Russell. "Wilt's attitude has not been as bad as people thought," said Bill. "It's just that he's come to realize that this is the way to play to win. When he first came into the league he had a different concept of the game than I had. Now his is the same as mine. He's been playing the way I played for the last 11 years. He did it better than I used to do it, but it's the same game - passing off, coming out to set screens, picking up guys outside and sacrificing for team play."'

[jlauber]

Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - ProQuest Archiver - Mar 15, 1967 (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=Red+Auerbach+opines&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=1966&as_user_hdate=1967&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a)

'Basketball's volatile Red Auerbach opines that some of Wilt Chamberlain's records are "silly and ridiculous. It's the biggest joke in the history of all statistics to count field goals by a man who is dunking the ball."'

Chamberlain's rebuttal: "Red Auerbach is a stupid, silly man."





The Evening Independent - Apr 28, 1967 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=79kLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LVcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7146,5149170&dq)


'Instead, I asked Russell. "Wilt's attitude has not been as bad as people thought," said Bill. "It's just that he's come to realize that this is the way to play to win. When he first came into the league he had a different concept of the game than I had. Now his is the same as mine. He's been playing the way I played for the last 11 years. He did it better than I used to do it, but it's the same game - passing off, coming out to set screens, picking up guys outside and sacrificing for team play."'

I believe that Auerbach was referring to Chamberlain's mark of 35 straight made FGAs, which is just another laughable comment on Wilt. Chamberlain had had three perfect games that year (15-15, 16-16, and 18-18), and I couldn't tell you which one(s) were involved, but to criticize a player for having 43 point games on 18-18 shooting was just ridiculous.

Simmons' ripped Wilt for leading the league in assists, too, suggesting that Chamberlain was doing so for purely statistical reasons (which, Wilt himself admitted was a goal that he had set before the season.)

What was comical about these pot-shots was that in the year that Wilt made those 35 straight FGs, Philly went 68-13, and ran away with the best mark in league history (at the time.) And Simmons failed to mention that in the year that Wilt led the league in assists, the Sixers again ran away with the best record in the league at 62-20...outdistancing 2nd place Boston by eight games.

It just amazed me that Chamberlain was so often criticized for the most ridiculous reasons. He was considered a ball-hog in the first half of his career, particularly the record-setting 61-62 season, but the FACT was, his COACH asked him to shoot the ball. He felt that that was the Warriors' best chance of winning...which it was, since he had virtually very little help.

Here again...so many current "historians" attempt to rationalize Wilt's numbers. They argue pace and competition. Yet, why was it ONLY Chamberlain that was putting up those HUGE games and seasons? As for competition...Kerr, Reed, Bellamy, Lucas, Thurmond, Lanier, Hayes, Unseld, Russell and Kareem...all in the HOF. The FACT was, when Chamberlain came into the league, he SHATTERED the existing records. Before he came into the league the scoring record was 29.2 ppg; the FG% record was .490, and the rebounding record was 23 rpg. He set records several times over, but by the time he left the game, he had set a scoring mark of 50.4 ppg; a FG% mark of .727; and a rebounding record of 27.2 rpg. Interesting too, that NO ONE has even come remotely close to ANY of those marks since.

The fact was, Wilt was a TRUE once-in-lifetime player. He STILL holds something like 130 records, and in many cases, he holds the next mark(s), as well. Many of those records will never be approached, much less broken.

There was Wilt...and then there was everyone else.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Simmons' ripped Wilt for leading the league in assists, too, suggesting that Chamberlain was doing so for purely statistical reasons (which, Wilt himself admitted was a goal that he had set before the season.)

What I do not understand is how one can correlate Chamberlain's regular season assist record to the 7th game loss at the Spectrum in '68.



Gettysburg Times - May 9, 1968 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nTUmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cf4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=2336,4748497&dq)

'Idle conversation between a reporter and Vince Miller, scout-statistician for the Philadelphia 76ers, may have solved the mystery of why Wilt Chamberlain took so few shots in the seventh and final game of the Eastern final against Boston. Miller told George Kiseda of the Philadelphia Bulliten his chart showed Chamberlain got the ball in the pivot just seven times in the second half - twice in the third period, and five times in the fourth quarter. In the first half the ball went into the pivot 23 times.'



Whether it was 5 touches in the fourth or merely 2 touches in the final period like Robert Cherry has said, that is still a staggering difference from the 1st half. As Wali Jones said, "The fact that he was our center piece, and not to get the ball into him was an error. You can't perform without the ball." I have also read that the Celtics used "The Wall" Wayne Embry as the primary defensive man on Chamberlain with the rest of the Celtics (Russell included) sagging back into the paint. That is one of the games I am interested in seeing should it be released.




I believe that Auerbach was referring to Chamberlain's mark of 35 straight made FGAs, which is just another laughable comment on Wilt. Chamberlain had had three perfect games that year (15-15, 16-16, and 18-18), and I couldn't tell you which one(s) were involved, but to criticize a player for having 43 point games on 18-18 shooting was just ridiculous.
One can only wonder just how much influence Auerbach had on some of these close games. Not to imply any sort of cheating or fixture at all, as Bill Russell has proven to be the most dominating team player in basketball history as the sustained Celtic excellence cannot be neglected. I just happen to believe that Chamberlain as a Sixer (notably under Hannum) was the best in basketball history. Funny how Red said that about Chamberlain, who as a pivot man played closer to the basket than a guard or forward. Chamberlain would have a similar opinion on Michael Jordan's game decades later.



[I]"I'm not a big fan of Michael Jordan's because he never led the league in field goal percentage. If you take the dunk out of his game, his percentage will be even lower."

-Wilt, 1997




"Wilt was big on stats. One time he called me up and said, 'You know, Harvey, Michael Jordan can't hit a shot beyond 15 feet?'

I said, 'How do you know that?'

He said to me, 'Don't you watch the games?'

I said, 'I don't watch stuff like that. How do you know?'

He said, 'I watch it.'

So, during the height of Michael's career, I got the play-by-play of the first 20 Bulls games and I checked the distance of every shot Jordan took during the season and sure enough, he was shooting 38 percent from 15 feet back. So, I did 20 more and came up with the same result. So then I said, if I did 40, I might as well do 82. Wilt

[G.O.A.T]

"I'm not a big fan of Michael Jordan's because he never led the league in field goal percentage. If you take the dunk out of his game, his percentage will be even lower."

-Wilt, 1997

Doesn't that tell you exactly why Wilt was not a winner.

[Abraham Lincoln]

I wouldn't look to deep into it as Chamberlain would routinely say these things about any player who approached him as a great ball player on the all time ranks. Not too often did he give a player after his era a positive review. His favorite target before Jordan was Kareem, and even Shaq in the late 90's a bit. I would agree Chamberlain may be the only player in basketball history who can be called the biggest underachiever in the history of the game as by some as well as the best player in the game's history by others.

[alexandreben]

Not too often did he give a player after his era a positive review. His favorite target before Jordan was Kareem, and even Shaq in the late 90's a bit.
Where did that come from? Actually he give a comment on Shaq that Shaq might have a chance to become a better player than himself, check out the interview, his comment on Shaq were nothing but positive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW17r...lated#t=04m13s

[Abraham Lincoln]

Indeed that was during Shaq's rookie year. However as some of the writers and even some former players were basically declaring O'Neal a "rich mans Wilt" in the late 90's, the feud was alive. Jabbar & Chamberlain also criticized Shaq's leadership in the '99 season.


"If Shaq has been chosen as the team leader then he need to do it more by example. He needs to get down the court and play defense instead of cherry picking by the basket for all those dunks. Too often the other team is on offense and Shaq is not even at half court. Everybody talks about his points when we should be looking closer at his rebounds and blocked shots and defense."

-Wilt, 1999




Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - Apr 30, 1999 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9-MdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Oi8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6459,5311741&dq)

'In an interview with The Associated Press, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said the Lakers were underachievers who lacked chemistry. Abdul-Jabbar said Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant lacked leadership and Kobe Bryant showed immaturity on the court.

Abdul-Jabbar's comments were reported Thursday, two days after the Los Angeles Times published comments by Wilt Chamberlain that focused on O'Neal as the source of the Lakers' problems. Chamberlain, who helped the Lakers win the 1972 title, said the team's biggest problem was O'Neal's inability or refusal to play defense. He said Bryant had been unfairly cast as a "whipping boy" when more of the blame should go to O'Neal.

O'Neal dismissed the comments by Chamberlain, 62, by saying Thursday, "My mother told me to leave the elderly alone."'

[alexandreben]

Indeed that was during Shaq's rookie year. However as some of the writers and even some former players were basically declaring O'Neal a "rich mans Wilt" in the late 90's, the feud was alive. Jabbar & Chamberlain also criticized Shaq's leadership in the '99 season.


"If Shaq has been chosen as the team leader then he need to do it more by example. He needs to get down the court and play defense instead of cherry picking by the basket for all those dunks. Too often the other team is on offense and Shaq is not even at half court. Everybody talks about his points when we should be looking closer at his rebounds and blocked shots and defense."

-Wilt, 1999




Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - Apr 30, 1999 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9-MdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Oi8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6459,5311741&dq)

'In an interview with The Associated Press, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said the Lakers were underachievers who lacked chemistry. Abdul-Jabbar said Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant lacked leadership and Kobe Bryant showed immaturity on the court.

Abdul-Jabbar's comments were reported Thursday, two days after the Los Angeles Times published comments by Wilt Chamberlain that focused on O'Neal as the source of the Lakers' problems. Chamberlain, who helped the Lakers win the 1972 title, said the team's biggest problem was O'Neal's inability or refusal to play defense. He said Bryant had been unfairly cast as a "whipping boy" when more of the blame should go to O'Neal.

O'Neal dismissed the comments by Chamberlain, 62, by saying Thursday, "My mother told me to leave the elderly alone."'

you know what? regarding to that season in 1999, somehow, i agree with Wilt and KAJ... what do you think?

[Abraham Lincoln]

Indeed it was also a bit wild with the lockout IMO and the signing of Rodman, that was a roster with talented players. In 2000, they were a team, in large part due to Coach Jackson and O'Neal's full commitment to both ends, winning a near unanimous MVP.

[alexandreben]

Indeed it was also a bit wild with the lockout IMO and the signing of Rodman, that was a roster with talented players. In 2000, they were a team, in large part due to Coach Jackson and O'Neal's full commitment to both ends, winning a near unanimous MVP.
Do you have source about how Bill Russell comment on Shaq?

[Abraham Lincoln]

Besides calling Shaq the most improved player in '00?



Sep 14, 2000 (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/60307216.html?dids=60307216:60307216&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Sep+14%2C+2000&author=Oscar+Dixon&pub=USA+TODAY&desc=Best+center+ever%3F+Russell+steps+up&pqatl=google)


"A guy asked me if Shaq was the greatest center ever. I said no. He then asked me who was and I said I was. I'm probably Shaq's biggest fan, but false modesty is not a virtue."

[Abraham Lincoln]

Coach Hannum with some high praise for those who have not seen it yet, calling Chamberlain the greatest player ever after the '67 season as well as the top defensive man in the league.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJdSJQvwpIY#t=4m19s

[alexandreben]

Besides calling Shaq the most improved player in '00?



Sep 14, 2000 (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/60307216.html?dids=60307216:60307216&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Sep+14%2C+2000&author=Oscar+Dixon&pub=USA+TODAY&desc=Best+center+ever%3F+Russell+steps+up&pqatl=google)


"A guy asked me if Shaq was the greatest center ever. I said no. He then asked me who was and I said I was. I'm probably Shaq's biggest fan, but false modesty is not a virtue."
The greatest center ever? of course it's Russell... the guy had 11 rings, he is indeed the greatest center ever, and Wilt shall be the best individual and dominant center ever...

I'm more interested in his comment on Shaq's offensive and deffensive skills, domination, comparison with himself or other centers, like Wilt, KAJ, Hakeem, etc.. do you happen to have some sources please?

[alexandreben]

Coach Hannum with some high praise for those who have not seen it yet, calling Chamberlain the greatest player ever after the '67 season as well as the top defensive man in the league.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJdSJQvwpIY#t=4m19s

I remember I saw somewhere that Coach Hannum called Wilt is the best athlete ever in sports.

[Abraham Lincoln]

The greatest center ever? of course it's Russell... the guy had 11 rings, he is indeed the greatest center ever, and Wilt shall be the best individual and dominant center ever...

I'm more interested in his comment on Shaq's offensive and deffensive skills, domination, comparison with himself or other centers, like Wilt, KAJ, Hakeem, etc.. do you happen to have some sources please?

Jan 17, 1995 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=op0zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RPEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6795,4272783&dq)

'"Shaquille (O'Neal) is certainly a force to be reckoned with," says Abdul-Jabbar, not necessarily responding to Russell's recent praise of O'Neal. "And he's going to be around a long time. But I think Hakeem is clearly a better player. He can do more things on the court."'



April 21, 1997 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/features/shaq/flashback/shaqs_world/)

'"He doesn't have a good touch with the ball," says Abdul-Jabbar, the Lakers' last monster center before Shaq. "Any shot that he takes from more than two feet that he can't jam seems to lack touch. He's not selfish, he plays hard, he plays for the team, but there's just not much progress with the soft touch."'



May 11, 1997 (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=Kareem+wrote+about+Shaq&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=5%2F1%2F1997&as_user_hdate=6%2F1%2F1997&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a)

'Hall of Fame Lakers center Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is not impressed. "His offensive play is one-dimensional and predictable," Kareem wrote about Shaq in Men's Journal. "He's a good defensive player only in certain situations. He doesn't understand teamwork, and if you foul him, he can't make free throws."'



Oct 7, 1997 (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=%22No+dunks+or+short+stuff%2C+just+outside+ shooting%2C+two+hours+a+day+by+myself.%22&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=10%2F7%2F1997&as_user_hdate=10%2F8%2F1997&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a)

'"Wilt and Kareem, they dog me every day, I never say anything," Shaq said. Instead, this summer, he did something. "I didn't work on anything but shooting, free-throw extended. No dunks or short stuff, just outside shooting two hours a day by myself."'



Apr 23, 2000 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=VrsyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OfIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6562,1930318&dq)

'"Shaquille O'Neal has played as well this year as anybody who has ever played," Bill Walton said in an interview with Jay Posner of the San Diego Union-Tribune. "I voted for Shaq as most valuable player. I voted for Shaq for defensive player of the year. I voted for Shaq for most improved player of the year."'

[Abraham Lincoln]

I remember I saw somewhere that Coach Hannum called Wilt is the best athlete ever in sports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdHJOFCbUhg

1:02 mark

[Abraham Lincoln]

May 10, 1999 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/centurys_best/news/1999/05/06/russell/)

http://i40.tinypic.com/2zg69ew.jpg


'When it comes to rating basketball players, I never put myself into that mix, ever -- I never have. And the reason for that is I decided early in my career the only really important thing is to win the games. I wanted my career to be such that people would say, He won championships, and that's a historical fact, that's not anyone's opinion. I think Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain, Bob Pettit, Elgin Baylor, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan -- all these guys, I call it a tie, in that there's no one any better than these guys, and all these guys were as good as anyone could be. Because you can't say -- or at least I wouldn't say -- that one guy's better. The only way you can make any kind of judgment is how much they dominate their contemporaries. There are maybe half a dozen good centers in the league. But they'll play each other and won't guard each other. When Wilt [Chamberlain] was young, if they'd have told him he couldn't guard me, they probably would've had to arrest him for assault! [Laughs.] To his coach!

Like I say, I think Shaq's very good, to start with. There is no prototype for a good player, at his position. What his talent is, he uses it quite well. Here's what I mean: They'll take a stat and say, As long as he's doing this, he's not a great player. So you go back 10, 12 years, Magic Johnson was at his heyday, and their marketing gimmick was his triple-doubles. This is the standard. And they still talk about guys' double-doubles now. It's starting to sound like baseball, with all the stats! [Laughs.] So now you can say the standard for a guard is the triple-double. Last year, the No. 1 guard in the league, Michael Jordan, I think he had one triple-double. So then that stat doesn't hold up, does it? So when a guy starts to tell me about these numbers, I know right away he doesn't know what he's talking about. Because every player develops his own key stats. His stats will determine how well he's playing, but his key stats may not compare to the guy before or anybody else.

Like when I was playing, one of the stats that no one talked about is that I averaged about five assists a game. But the offense was not centered around me; offensively, I was not what you'd call a dominant center. I could play high post and low post -- from the high post I did passing, from the low post I did shooting. And so a guy will develop his own stats as his career goes. Basically to me two things have happened: First, people try to predict who's going to win. So much so now that it becomes bigger than the game. I always liked to wait and watch the game! [Laughs.]

You know they [the Orlando Magic] did go -- although they got swept -- to the Finals. To me, it is not a bad year if you're in the Finals. I was almost appalled by the way they talked about the Buffalo Bills losing four straight Super Bowls. Getting into four straight Super Bowls itself is quite an accomplishment. That's like a writer saying you're not a good writer unless you win a Pulitzer. So if you write for 10 years and don't ever get a Pulitzer, you're a loser? That dog won't hunt. [Laughs.]'

[alexandreben]

[I]

[G.O.A.T]

[QUOTE=alexandreben][I]

[Abraham Lincoln]

KAJ and Jerry West

He must have neglected to mention them.

[G.O.A.T]

From 1989:

Almost immediately Russell was thrown into personal conflict with the awesome 7'1" 275 pound Wilt Chamberlain when he later entered the NBA in 1959. It was offense vs. defense, differing styles, a clash of strong personalities, a natural rivalry that delighted fans.
Chamberlain managed to outscore Russell in their personal confrontations but it was usually Russell's team that came out on top. In the 10 years Russell and Chamberlain stalked each other the Celtics won the NBA Championship nine times and held an 84-57 edge over Chamberlain's, Philadelphia, San Fransisco and Los Angeles teams.
This was frustrating for the hulking Wilt the Stilt who rationalized "I outscored him in head-to-head meetings 440-212 out-rebounded him 333-161 and even blocked more of his shots than he did of mine."
Russell countered: "Only the first year against Wilt was a challenge. Then it became clear that he was great - but I was better."

[G.O.A.T]

"What fun is it to discuss Bill Russell without mentioning his rivalry with Wilt Chamberlain? Yes, basketball is a team game, but within that context, Russell and Chamberlain were the most celebrated individual rivalry in the history of the sport.

More fuel was dumped on the fire in the fall of 1967 whe harve Pollack, a 76ers executive who was the public relations man for both the Philly Warriors and the 76ers ffor most of the past 42 years, issued the definitive statistical comparison of the rivalry in his 76ers press guide. Harvey's numbers revealed that Chamberlain outscored ad outrebounded Russell. According to Harvey that settles it. Chamberlain was a better plyer than Russell.

Harvey is wrong.

Russell had much more intensity than Wilt and skills better suited to playing basketball. Russell made us all better players. Wilt, in my opinion, had the opposite effect on teams. Wilt was such an individualistic plyer that, rather than help his teammates, he would often generate petty jealousies. Teammates were told to wait until Wilt came downcourt, to get it inside to Wilt etc, rather than look for their own scoring opportunities. There was resentment on the part of the other players who thought they shot better than Wilt or had talents that weren't being exploited. It was just the opposite with Russell because he took care of himself only after helping us out. We didn' have to take care of him.

There's a postscript to this. The question has oftenbeen asked, "What would have happened to the Celtics if Wilt had played for them instead of Russell?" First, it's never clear if Russell is to be factored into this equation by playing for another team against the Celtics. Let's say he isn't. We can assume te Celtics would have won something with Wilt. If Wilt had been surrounded by our talent we would have won some Championships. Wheter that number would have been three, four, five or six is anybody's guess. But it defintley would not have been eleven of thirteen.

I know it's difficult for some people to comprehend how you can say a guy who was capable of scoring 50 points a game for an entire season and 100 points in a single game, isn't better tha Bill Russell who never scored 40 points in an NBA game.

You've got to understand the game. The Chemistry we had with Russell as a running team would not have been there with Chamberlain. I would not have waited for Wilt to gt set up so we could pass him the ball. I wouldn't have cared if he could score 100 points every game.

Maybe you had to see Wilt and Russ play against each other to understand the difference. The fact is that Wilt was bigger and stronger, and could take it to the basket t will-except against us. Russell intimidated him. Wilt ca say what he wants, but I used to watch Wilt muscle in against everyone else, but not against Russell. He would never do tha. That's how his fadeaway jump shot was born. Russell forced Wilt to develop that shot.

In our games, Russ's strategy was simple: Force Wilt just a little bit on the sides so he couldn't muscle in with a spin move, using one or no dribbles. If Wilt got Russ under the basket, he could, in fact, overpower him.

The psychology between them was fascinating. Russ would dig in from the start. He didn't have to be told the importance of this rivalry. Wil would get his offensive rebounds and power stuff, an once in a while make an individual move, but Russ wouldn't let him sustain it. He might even do it for a game, nd maybe he'd do it with the fadeaway, but there was no way he would be Russ over a period of time using the fadeaway as his basic weapon.

Wilt was a paradox. Becausehe was so effective, coaches wantd him to score 40 points a game or more. But he still had to play with four other people. Wilt was a complete individualist, but you ca't use that as an excuse. I don't think Wilt ever understood that basketball is a team sport and unless all five players participate, you can't win. One year Wilt averaged 50 points a game, by the end of his career all he did was pass. He never seemed to catch on.

Basketball is a true team sport. The success of the whole is predicated on all five individuals reacting to one another, as opposed to one guy hitting eighty-eight home runs and the others tagging along. Wilt's incessant search for individual records wheter it was scoring, rebounding, or assists, indicates to me that he never really understood how the game should be played to win those championships he always talked about.

That brings us to the fact that Russell was the catalyst for our teams. He molded the team and made the talents blend. We had out share of letdowns and mood swings, although probably not as many as teams have today. One reason we had fewer than ayone, I am sure, was the nature of Bill Russell' game. I suspect it caused us to overachieve more than the Philadelphia players.

None of this may make any sense to Wilt. He has the numbers for now. Russell will always have the rings. It was no accident."

[G.O.A.T]

Gonna bump this. Above is Bob Cousy's take on the debate.

[Bring-Your-Js]

All kinds of gems in this thread.

[jlauber]

"Had Wilt been surrounded by the playing cast that Russell was with the Boston Celtics and had he had a Red Auerbach as coach, his team might have won all those championships."

John Wooden

[L.A. Jazz]

"Had Wilt been surrounded by the playing cast that Russell was with the Boston Celtics and had he had a Red Auerbach as coach, his team might have won all those championships."

John Wooden
nobody knows.

[G.O.A.T]

"Had Wilt been surrounded by the playing cast that Russell was with the Boston Celtics and had he had a Red Auerbach as coach, his team might have won all those championships."

John Wooden

And Cousy, Auerbach, Russell, Havlicek, Heinsohn, both Jones boys and Sharman (who coached Wilt) are all on the record saying it wouldn't be 11 of 13) (Satch pretty muchh says it too, but not directly so I excluded him)


So you can take their no ways...

or the "might" of a great coach who hardly ever saw them play.

[jlauber]

And Cousy, Auerbach, Russell, Havlicek, Heinsohn, both Jones boys and Sharman (who coached Wilt) are all on the record saying it wouldn't be 11 of 13) (Satch pretty muchh says it too, but not directly so I excluded him)


So you can take their no ways...

or the "might" of a great coach who hardly ever saw them play.

Who really knows? Wilt, himself, said that Russell probably blended better with his teammates than he (Chamberlain) would have. Still, I am convinced that Wilt would have won around a minimum of seven titles had the two swapped rosters in their ten H2H seasons.

Furthermore, I have often wondered how many titles Wilt would have won had he had his Sixers roster for 10+ years. (I know...he only won one title with that group, in three full seasons, but in '68 that roster was DECIMATED by injuries.)

[L.A. Jazz]

with the same roster he had, Wild could have won 5 more rings. if i remember correctly he had 5 game 7s decided by a total of 9 points, all against him. thats bad luck. no need for Cousy, Jones or Havlicek on his team, just the basketball god.
:pimp:

[jlauber]

with the same roster he had, Wild could have won 5 more rings. if i remember correctly he had 5 game 7s decided by a total of 9 points, all against him. thats bad luck. no need for Cousy, Jones or Havlicek on his team, just the basketball god.
:pimp:

Close. He had four game seven's against Russell, in which his team's lost by 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. And in the '70 Finals, his Lakers lost a game seven to the Knicks, but by even the account of NY TIMES writer Leonard Koppett, the refs handed NY game five...so Wilt's game six of 45 points and 27 rebounds should have been the clincher.

And I have documented the SEVERAL "excuses" that Wilt's TEAMs had in those close series' losses, as well.

In any case, for those that question my ranking of Chamberlain (at anywhere from 1-4) because of "only" two rings...it must be put in proper perspective. He was an EYELASH away from winning as many as FIVE more. It was not as if his team's were getting blown out in the first round of the playoffs, or because Wilt played poorly or was outplayed (which almost never happened BTW.)

[WillC]

I've been reading this thread for the last hour and it saddens me how many people overlook Russell's talent and ability.

Sure, he didn't put up gaudy scoring numbers like Wilt Chamberlain.

Sure, he wasn't a 7 foot giant like Kareem or Shaq.

But the aim of basketball is to win games (and championships), and nobody did that better than Russell.

He's a winner, a leader, an inspiration, an enforcer, a legend.

He's the best center ever.

[jlauber]

I've been reading this thread for the last hour and it saddens me how many people overlook Russell's talent and ability.

Sure, he didn't put up gaudy scoring numbers like Wilt Chamberlain.

Sure, he wasn't a 7 foot giant like Kareem or Shaq.

But the aim of basketball is to win games (and championships), and nobody did that better than Russell.

He's a winner, a leader, an inspiration, an enforcer, a legend.

He's the best center ever.

Excellent post. I have grown to admire Russell in the last few years, and I have no problem with those that claim him as the G.O.A.T.

My problem has been with those that disparage Chamberlain's career. Those that claim he was a "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in his biggest games, and whose career was considered a "failure."

[WillC]

Excellent post. I have grown to admire Russell in the last few years, and I have no problem with those that claim him as the G.O.A.T.

My problem has been with those that disparage Chamberlain's career. Those that claim he was a "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in his biggest games, and whose career was considered a "failure."

Oh, I'm not saying that. Please, let me make it clear, I think Wilt Chamberlain is one of the greatest players ever.

Just not as good as Bill Russell.

[RobertdeMeijer]

Bill Simmons uses twenty-seven pages to explain why Russell is greater than Wilt in his Book of Basketball. I can't copy paste that all, but here is a summary:

You cannot defend that Wilt is better with these arguments:

1. Russell had a better supporting cast:
Only half true: If you look close enough at the rosters, you'll see that between 1960 and 1969, five times does Russell have a better cast, four times does Wilt have a better cast and one time it's a tie. Also: Russell's teammates were elected to 26 all-star games, Wilt's teammates elected to 24.

2. Russell was not a very good offensive player
Bill Simmons uses 500 words to write how Russell's passing has been neglected, quoting Hondo and describing how important Russell was for the fast break.

3. Wilt has better stats
Head to head games:
Wilt: 28.7 ppg, 28.7 rpg / Russ: 14.5 ppg, 23.7 rpg
Win/Loss:
Russell:: 84-58
Playoffs:
Wilt: 22.5 ppg, 24.5 rpg, 4.2 apg / Russ: 16.2 ppg, 24.9 rpg, 4.7 apg
Record for conference finals and NBA finals:
Wilt: 48-44, Russ: 90-53
Record in game 7:
Wilt: 4-5, Russ: 10-0
Record in elimination games for his team:
Wilt 10-11, Russ: 16-2
Championships:
Wilt: 2, Russ: 11

4. Wilt was a great guy:
Simmons uses a thousand words to describe how few teams wanted Chamberlain. In 1965, nine out of eleven Lakers players voted no to the idea of Wilt being traded to him, for example

5. A couple of plays different and Wilt would have won as many titles
Simmons writes 2000 words on how Wilt had no clutch and cared more about his own stats than winning. Rick Barry and Bill Bradley are quoted, saying how much Wilt is a loser, not a winner. There's also a list of six games where Wilt could have beaten Russell for the title, but instead got owned.

6. People from that era are split on who's greater.
Simmons writes quotes from these guys, all clearly choosing Russell: Butch van Breda Kolff, Jerry West, Jerry Lucas, Jack Kiser and Bill Russell. On top of that, even Wilt admits to not caring as much about winning than Russell.

The chapter ends with this paragraph:
"...I'd rather have the bathroom puker on my team, the most beloved teammate of his era, the guy who didn't care about statistics, the guy who always seemed to end up on victorious teams in close games, the guy who finished his career as the greatest winner in sports, the guy who was singularly obsessed with making his teammates better and doing whatever it took to prevail. I'd rather have Bill Russell. And so would anyone else in their right mind. The defense rests."

[G.O.A.T]

Which folder is this one in jlauber...please refrain from replying, we already have all read it in this very thread.

[PHILA]

In the 61-62 season, Wilt shattered a multitude of records. ESPN recently ran an "expert" poll which labeled that season as the greatest season in professional team sport's history.

Jon Teitel: In the 1962 Eastern Division Finals you had a two-point loss to the eventual champion Celtics in Game 7 after a game-winning shot by Hall of Famer Sam Jones. Do you think you should have won that series, and where does that Celtics team rank among the best you have ever seen (Bob Cousy and Bill Russell called it the greatest Celtics team of all-time)?

Tom Meschery: Yes, we should have won. During a timeout in those last seconds Tom Gola asked McGuire if he could guard Sam, but McGuire kept Guy Rodgers on him even though Guy was not a good defender: voila! If we would have won, we would have slaughtered the Lakers in the Finals. The Celtics were much better the following year with the addition of John Havlicek.

[PHILA]

Robert Cherry made the comment that it was not Wilt's fault for that game seven debacle against Boston in 1969. BUT, had Wilt put up a normal game in game six, the Lakers would have won the title that year. Wilt: Just Like Any Other 7-Foot Black Millionaire who Lives Next Door - Wilt Chamberlain

[I]His answer was something like, "I can handle him." Well, I've always thought you "handled" horses; you work with human beings. But "handle" is exactly the way van Breda Kolff looked at it. He was an ex-Marine, and he had this compulsion to prove he was the boss.





In the third quarter alone, the Lakers missed 15 straight shots, and the Celtics jumped into a 17-point lead. Then we started to rally. With five minutes left in the game, we cut their lead to nine points. I had 18 points and 27 rebounds, but when I came down with number 27, I banged my knee into something hard. It hurt bad, like when you bang your crazy-bone against a wall as hard as you can. I had to be helped from the floor. Frank O'Neill, the Laker trainer, sprayed some local anesthetic on it

[PHILA]

Sports Illustrated - January 27, 1969 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082021/index.htm)


[I]Moreover, there is discontent, which was not altogether unexpected. The Lakers, for so long one of the most comfortable, relaxed teams in sport, have become critical of one another and confused. General Manager Fred Schaus had to call a secret meeting to urge the players to keep their disagreements to themselves. That was in December, when a controversy between Chamberlain and Coach Butch van Breda Kolff first raged publicly over where Wilt was to line up: low post or high post

[ThaRegul8r]

In the 61-62 season, Wilt shattered a multitude of records. ESPN recently ran an "expert" poll which labeled that season as the greatest season in professional team sport's history.

Jon Teitel: In the 1962 Eastern Division Finals you had a two-point loss to the eventual champion Celtics in Game 7 after a game-winning shot by Hall of Famer Sam Jones. Do you think you should have won that series, and where does that Celtics team rank among the best you have ever seen (Bob Cousy and Bill Russell called it the greatest Celtics team of all-time)?

Tom Meschery: Yes, we should have won. During a timeout in those last seconds Tom Gola asked McGuire if he could guard Sam, but McGuire kept Guy Rodgers on him even though Guy was not a good defender: voila! If we would have won, we would have slaughtered the Lakers in the Finals. The Celtics were much better the following year with the addition of John Havlicek.

[I]The Warriors had appeared to be the stronger team throughout the game. Twice in the third quarter they had 9-point leads, and two of the Celtics

[jlauber]

Which folder is this one in jlauber...please refrain from replying, we already have all read it in this very thread.

Huh????

Are you referring to RobertDeMeijer's quotes from Bill Simmons? And yes, I have trashed ALL of Simmons take here several times. I won't bother "copying-and-pasting" my replies to each of those "myths" again. They are probably located somewhere in this thread.

[Psileas]

1. Russell had a better supporting cast:
Only half true: If you look close enough at the rosters, you'll see that between 1960 and 1969, five times does Russell have a better cast, four times does Wilt have a better cast and one time it's a tie. Also: Russell's teammates were elected to 26 all-star games, Wilt's teammates elected to 24.

I always find it a bit strange and hypocritical when Wilt had supposedly this often a better cast than Russell and it's used against him, while Wilt usually was the one who was outplaying his opponent, not his teammates Russell's ones. Not only this, but it's not even used as an argument that the overall Celtics' teams were better equipped, more ready, better coached and more overall clutch than Wilt's teams. It's always a Wilt vs Russell matter, even though both Wilt and Russell clearly played minimal roles in a lot of crucial situations that could have changed the history if they had different endings (see, Sam Jones and Don Nelson in 1969 - at best you can claim that Jones, by his admission, momentarily thought that Russell was still playing (he was on the bench), and you still know that this isn't the most important feature of that play).


3. Wilt has better stats
Head to head games:
Wilt: 28.7 ppg, 28.7 rpg / Russ: 14.5 ppg, 23.7 rpg
Win/Loss:
Russell:: 84-58
Playoffs:
Wilt: 22.5 ppg, 24.5 rpg, 4.2 apg / Russ: 16.2 ppg, 24.9 rpg, 4.7 apg
Record for conference finals and NBA finals:
Wilt: 48-44, Russ: 90-53
Record in game 7:
Wilt: 4-5, Russ: 10-0
Record in elimination games for his team:
Wilt 10-11, Russ: 16-2
Championships:
Wilt: 2, Russ: 11

I guess that after the first line everything else is supposed to go Russell's way, but I hope the playoff stats are not put there for this reason, other than to claim that Russell increased his productivity in the playoffs, which still doesn't bring them to Wilt's ones' level.
Apart from this, yes, the Celtics were the better team. Nobody argues this.


4. Wilt was a great guy:
Simmons uses a thousand words to describe how few teams wanted Chamberlain. In 1965, nine out of eleven Lakers players voted no to the idea of Wilt being traded to him, for example

Wait. I thought from a previous thread that Wilt's unpopularity did not play a role in MVP votings (and millwad was mocking Wilt's unpopularity, calling this another "Wilt myth") and that he was more liked throughout the league than Russell. Let's get to a logical conclusion some day, shall we?


5. A couple of plays different and Wilt would have won as many titles
Simmons writes 2000 words on how Wilt had no clutch and cared more about his own stats than winning. Rick Barry and Bill Bradley are quoted, saying how much Wilt is a loser, not a winner. There's also a list of six games where Wilt could have beaten Russell for the title, but instead got owned.

Simmons was the one who quoted that if Wilt's clutch moments existed, we'd know about them, right? Funny, because up to the early 2000's, we "knew" of no clutch moments of Russell, either (only during the last years did we obtain better info on certain plays, like the "Coleman play"). And I bet you, Simmons and 99.99+% of the rest of the world don't have a clue that Wilt had 11 game-winning shots in his career (I mean real game-winners, not the criterion-travesty that 82games.com uses), more than any center ever not called Kareem and Hakeem, including 2 such shots during playoff games, neither of which came during a won championship season (actually, he didn't make any game-winning shot in any of his won championship seasons - as if they needed them, lol).
And there can't be 6 games when Wilt "could have beaten Russell for the title", since his team lost 4 times in Game 7 to the Celtics, let alone 6 games when he "could have beaten Russell for the title, but instead got owned".


6. People from that era are split on who's greater.
Simmons writes quotes from these guys, all clearly choosing Russell: Butch van Breda Kolff, Jerry West, Jerry Lucas, Jack Kiser and Bill Russell. On top of that, even Wilt admits to not caring as much about winning than Russell.

Simmons doesn't care to compare Wilt to Russell. Simmons wants to show that Russell was better. Given that Wilt has either been called either the GOAT or at least the best player of his era from people of all eras, I'd say that people even from that era (and I don't mean necessarily players) are split on who's greater.

[ThaRegul8r]

Simmons was the one who quoted that if Wilt's clutch moments existed, we'd know about them, right?

Which was an unfair statement.


Funny, because up to the early 2000's, we "knew" of no clutch moments of Russell, either (only during the last years did we obtain better info on certain plays, like the "Coleman play").

That's because the ever-referenced "most people" know nothing about Wilt and Russell other than they're "the guy who averaged 50 points a game for a season and scored 100 in a game" and "the guy who won 11 rings." It means that "the majority of people" are ignorant, which a preponderance of evidence has already told us.

[jlauber]

3. Wilt has better stats
Head to head games:
Wilt: 28.7 ppg, 28.7 rpg / Russ: 14.5 ppg, 23.7 rpg
Win/Loss:
Russell:: 84-58
Playoffs:
Wilt: 22.5 ppg, 24.5 rpg, 4.2 apg / Russ: 16.2 ppg, 24.9 rpg, 4.7 apg
Record for conference finals and NBA finals:
Wilt: 48-44, Russ: 90-53
Record in game 7:
Wilt: 4-5, Russ: 10-0
Record in elimination games for his team:
Wilt 10-11, Russ: 16-2
Championships:
Wilt: 2, Russ: 11

I could go on for hours about how far off Simmons was in his take on the Russell-Wilt debates (and I have BTW)...but I highlighted the above for a reason.

Why does Simmons' use their CAREER post-season numbers, and not their post-season numbers when the two were in the league together for ten seasons?

Of course, without looking them up (I am too tired), then Chamberlain's numbers would look more like 28 ppg, and 26 rpg. Thanks to ShaqAttack, we KNOW that in his post-seasons from '60 to '68, Chamberlain averaged 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and shot .518 from the floor (again.... in league's that shot anywhere from .410 to .446.) And, unfortiunately for Wilt, his teammates were so awful in the 62-63 season, that his TEAM didn't make the playoffs that year...in a season in which Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg, 24.3 rpg, and shot .528. The natural assumption being...that Wilt would have ADDED another 2-3 ppg, or more to his post-season averages.

[ThaRegul8r]

Excellent post. I have grown to admire Russell in the last few years, and I have no problem with those that claim him as the G.O.A.T.

My problem has been with those that disparage Chamberlain's career. Those that claim he was a "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in his biggest games, and whose career was considered a "failure."

Oh, I'm not saying that. Please, let me make it clear, I think Wilt Chamberlain is one of the greatest players ever.

Just not as good as Bill Russell.

It irritates me that so many people posit false dichotomies. If someone should say they happen to rank one player above another, then that somehow means the other player is a "bum."

:rolleyes:

It's like they're incapable of anything more than simplistic thinking.

[ThaRegul8r]

[QUOTE]In the 61-62 season, Wilt shattered a multitude of records. ESPN recently ran an "expert" poll which labeled that season as the greatest season in professional team sport's history.

Jon Teitel: In the 1962 Eastern Division Finals you had a two-point loss to the eventual champion Celtics in Game 7 after a game-winning shot by Hall of Famer Sam Jones. Do you think you should have won that series, and where does that Celtics team rank among the best you have ever seen (Bob Cousy and Bill Russell called it the greatest Celtics team of all-time)?

Tom Meschery: Yes, we should have won. During a timeout in those last seconds Tom Gola asked McGuire if he could guard Sam, but McGuire kept Guy Rodgers on him even though Guy was not a good defender: voila! If we would have won, we would have slaughtered the Lakers in the Finals. The Celtics were much better the following year with the addition of John Havlicek.

[I]The Warriors had appeared to be the stronger team throughout the game. Twice in the third quarter they had 9-point leads, and two of the Celtics

[Pointguard]

Duplicate Delete please

[Pointguard]

When looking at the youtube clips '62, 65 and one in the later years, of Celtic playoff games the thing that I noticed was that Sam Jones and Hondo played a role very similiar to Dirk. They hit key shot after key shot in clutch moments. And they were looked for to do such. And that it aparently wasn't Russells' role. While both admit Russ was the man I wonder with todays mentality if a primarily defensive center, great rebounder whose role offensively was decoy and facilitator on a team with guys like Dirk would he be considered the man?

While Russ was indeed a clutch player - moreso the whole game and not like Jordan, a take over player at the end of games, or a deadly feed into the post. He functioned differently.

[RobertdeMeijer]

I always find it a bit strange and hypocritical when Wilt had supposedly this often a better cast than Russell and it's used against him, while Wilt usually was the one who was outplaying his opponent, not his teammates Russell's ones. Not only this, but it's not even used as an argument that the overall Celtics' teams were better equipped, more ready, better coached and more overall clutch than Wilt's teams. It's always a Wilt vs Russell matter, even though both Wilt and Russell clearly played minimal roles in a lot of crucial situations that could have changed the history if they had different endings (see, Sam Jones and Don Nelson in 1969 - at best you can claim that Jones, by his admission, momentarily thought that Russell was still playing (he was on the bench), and you still know that this isn't the most important feature of that play).



I guess that after the first line everything else is supposed to go Russell's way, but I hope the playoff stats are not put there for this reason, other than to claim that Russell increased his productivity in the playoffs, which still doesn't bring them to Wilt's ones' level.
Apart from this, yes, the Celtics were the better team. Nobody argues this.



Wait. I thought from a previous thread that Wilt's unpopularity did not play a role in MVP votings (and millwad was mocking Wilt's unpopularity, calling this another "Wilt myth") and that he was more liked throughout the league than Russell. Let's get to a logical conclusion some day, shall we?



Simmons was the one who quoted that if Wilt's clutch moments existed, we'd know about them, right? Funny, because up to the early 2000's, we "knew" of no clutch moments of Russell, either (only during the last years did we obtain better info on certain plays, like the "Coleman play"). And I bet you, Simmons and 99.99+% of the rest of the world don't have a clue that Wilt had 11 game-winning shots in his career (I mean real game-winners, not the criterion-travesty that 82games.com uses), more than any center ever not called Kareem and Hakeem, including 2 such shots during playoff games, neither of which came during a won championship season (actually, he didn't make any game-winning shot in any of his won championship seasons - as if they needed them, lol).
And there can't be 6 games when Wilt "could have beaten Russell for the title", since his team lost 4 times in Game 7 to the Celtics, let alone 6 games when he "could have beaten Russell for the title, but instead got owned".



Simmons doesn't care to compare Wilt to Russell. Simmons wants to show that Russell was better. Given that Wilt has either been called either the GOAT or at least the best player of his era from people of all eras, I'd say that people even from that era (and I don't mean necessarily players) are split on who's greater.


Good points! :cheers:

[PTB Fan]

A case can be made for both sides, however i will go with Russell.

He's a team superstar who does everything what a team needs and even more plus he makes everyone around better, is a better leader, defensive player, has the clutch and mental edge etc.

[jlauber]

A case can be made for both sides, however i will go with Russell.

He's a team superstar who does everything what a team needs and even more plus he makes everyone around better, is a better leader, defensive player, has the clutch and mental edge etc.

Of course, I could counter-argue that Chamberlain was the greatest offensive player of all-time, a much more efficient offensive player, a better rebounder, a better passer, had many more HUGE playoff games (even against Russell, himself), and when given a comparable supporting cast was able to easily beat Russell's eight-time defending champions.

I will agree that Russell teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's, but, despite a 7-1 H2H series edge, FOUR of those wins came in game seven's, and by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. It was not as if Russell and his Celtics were pounding Wilt and his team's in those eight post-season series.