Was Wilt as selfish as Bill Simmons alleges?

[Roundball_Rock]

I just got his new book and his chapter on Wilt vs. Russell is scathing. He basically alleges all Wilt cared about was stats and looking good in the eyes of the public, not winning (which he contrasts with Russell's obsession with winning--Russell would throw up before playoff games due to nervousness!). There has to be some credence to this idea since he backs it up with quotes from Wilt's contemporaries and even Wilt himself. However, did he exaggerate? He is a Celtics fan and very anti-Wilt and anti-Kareem. Is this coincidental? These are the two chief rivals of the greatest Celtic for the title of greatest center ever so it fits with a likely agenda.

[Pursuer]

I really do believe that Wilt was more selfish than Russell. But not that much selfish as Simmons may claim. I certainly think that if Russell possessed the frame and the offensive skills of Chamberlain, he would've been more selfish than he really was.

[stephanieg]

Wilt was a stat chasing ego maniac.

The secret is, so are most other star players.

Bill could do the same thing for LeBron, except he has a man crush on him.

[puppychili]

Wilts stat chasing was off the charts. Simmons really broke it down. Especially when he pointed out the season where Wilt wanted to lead the league in assists. That season Wilt would hardly shoot and only pass to guys that he was sure would make the basket so he could get the assist. The fact that he was traded twice in his prime for pennies on the dollar is telling along with the fact that barely any of his teammates celebrated with him after the 100 point game.

This isn't just Simmons opinion though. He backs it up with numerous accounts from players and others who were there when it happened.

The Book of Basketball is one of the best books I've ever read.

[G.O.A.T]

I loved the chapter, so many things put together, notice how high he ranked Kareem and Wilt despite his obvious and admitted disdain for them.

He certainly laid out an undeniable case that Russell was the superior player and should be regarded as such.

The quotes from Wilt and Russ contemporaries really sealed the deal for me after reading all the evidence in one sitting.

[Roundball_Rock]

What I found the most damning is the result of the Lakers' player poll. The owner was considering trading for Wilt and he asked the players to vote on whether they wanted to do it. This was at a time when Wilt was either the best player or the second best player behind Russell. The Lakers had come close to winning a ring and this was an opportunity to acquire a top 2 player. What was the result? 9-2--against trading for Wilt. Wow! Can you imagine any team's players vetoing a trade for Wade or Lebron today, let alone by such a lopsided margin?

[Hammertime]

Paging Abraham Lincoln. Paging Abraham Lincoln.

[D-Rose]

Paging Abraham Lincoln. Paging Abraham Lincoln.
:roll: :roll:

[Poodle]

I believe Wilt was very selfish

[branslowski]

Paging Abraham Lincoln. Paging Abraham Lincoln.

Please no...Alls he has is excuses...Seriously..:ohwell:

[iamgine]

That season Wilt would hardly shoot and only pass to guys that he was sure would make the basket so he could get the assist.

I'm not sure that was a bad thing.


What I found the most damning is the result of the Lakers' player poll. The owner was considering trading for Wilt and he asked the players to vote on whether they wanted to do it. This was at a time when Wilt was either the best player or the second best player behind Russell. The Lakers had come close to winning a ring and this was an opportunity to acquire a top 2 player. What was the result? 9-2--against trading for Wilt. Wow! Can you imagine any team's players vetoing a trade for Wade or Lebron today, let alone by such a lopsided margin?

Umm, whenever there is a vote: "Hey, would you like for us to get Wilt Chamberlain, but some of you have to leave town. I know we have built a championship worthy team together and you guys have bonded so well, but come on, it's Wilt Chamberlain!"

I'd vote for against too.

[EricForman]

I just got his new book and his chapter on Wilt vs. Russell is scathing. He basically alleges all Wilt cared about was stats and looking good in the eyes of the public, not winning (which he contrasts with Russell's obsession with winning--Russell would throw up before playoff games due to nervousness!). There has to be some credence to this idea since he backs it up with quotes from Wilt's contemporaries and even Wilt himself. However, did he exaggerate? He is a Celtics fan and very anti-Wilt and anti-Kareem. Is this coincidental? These are the two chief rivals of the greatest Celtic for the title of greatest center ever so it fits with a likely agenda.


Simmons ranked Magic over Bird in his all time rankings (and this is DEFINITELY arguable) so lets put aside any notion that he is a super biased homer. When you admit to being a homer openly and even go out of your way to make jokes about it--that's a sign that you're not really a homer and you can judge the game fairly.

That chapter does indeed end the wilt/russell debate for me oncea nd for all.

the thing is, even if simmons tried to be biase, all the quotes from former teammates and opponents cant be faked.

the fact is everyone whos played with or against russell have wonderful things to say abuot his unselfishness, and more than a few former teammates and opponents have trashde wilt's desire to win.

throw in the fact his "never foul out" record is about as stupid a record as you can imagine (think about it... everytime he had five fouls he'd have to be less aggressive on defense to keep his record intact, right?)

there is no argument for wilt over russell, whatsoever.

[Abraham Lincoln]

What I found the most damning is the result of the Lakers' player poll. The owner was considering trading for Wilt and he asked the players to vote on whether they wanted to do it. This was at a time when Wilt was either the best player or the second best player behind Russell. The Lakers had come close to winning a ring and this was an opportunity to acquire a top 2 player. What was the result? 9-2--against trading for Wilt. Wow! Can you imagine any team's players vetoing a trade for Wade or Lebron today, let alone by such a lopsided margin?


The MDE indeed had his flaws, being psychological versatility and emotional problems related to his killer instinct, as hinted here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eIE5cznPS8) (3:39 mark) in his own words decades later. Selfish is not as accurate a description as misguided. It would have been a wonder to see Jabbar, O'Neal, & Olajuwon all lose year after year to Russell as well.





Sports Illustrated (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1081687/1/index.htm)

October 14, 1968




A player of Chamberlain's caliber does not get shuttled around without reason, and there is reason in Chamberlain's case. He often acts like a big spoiled kid?he sulks, he refuses to go hard in practice and he has an insidious way of demoralizing a team. The Lakers last season were a happy group, with Van Breda Kolff performing the difficult trick of being both boss and buddy. But harmony can be a fragile thing among pro basketball troupers, especially on their inhuman road trips.

On the record, Laker players are optimistic about the trade, yet not one of them seems genuinely enthusiastic. "I don't think there will be any problems," said West. "We've always gotten along well and that's one reason the Lakers have always had good records in Los Angeles. Last year if we played well, we had a chance to win. Now if we play well, we're going to win."

Chamberlain talks as if it is a fraternity reunion. "Some of these guys I know so well," he said. "I played with Hawk [Tom Hawkins] when I was with the Globetrotters and he was with the College All-Stars. I've known Elgin who knows how many years. I've known West since he was a rookie. Freddie [Crawford] and I go back to when we played in the schoolyards in New York. I feel relaxed with these guys. This has been a much easier transition than from San Francisco to Philly. After six years with one team, it kind of hurt me. I had friends on the 76ers, too, and I'll miss them, but I've known these guys and it's been easier to adjust to them."










And later in the '69 season the infamous "high post vs. low post" dispute.





Sports Illustrated (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082021/index.htm)


January 27, 1969



The main problem on the court is not that Chamberlain, Baylor and West do not get the ball enough. It is that Chamberlain will not or cannot go to the basket when he does get it. In other words, the fantastic Laker juggernaut lacks a sufficient offense to carry it; the team has been reduced to depending on its defense.

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 or maybe even on the bench. "We are all much better off now," van Breda Kolff says, "and I would hate to see anything blow it up again. We're in a better frame of mind and we have a better outlook on playing the game."

Though the atmosphere may indeed be improved, the morale is still reminiscent of Christopher Robin's spelling. "It's good spelling," he told Pooh, "but it Wobbles and the letters get in the wrong places." In its transparency, van Breda Kolff's statement points up the Lakers' dilemma: Chamberlain or van Breda Kolff. Invariably, one or the other is blamed for everything. There is some justice in this, since it is their continued inability to compromise that is at the base of the team's problems, and there is some injustice. "The way we ***** about Wilt," says one Laker, "it would never occur to you that anyone else on the team ever even misses a foul shot."

Chamberlain, the most punctual member on the team, is never late for practice?but he does not like to practice basketball. He prefers instead to run laps, which van Breda Kolff lets him do while the rest of the team scrimmages. Chamberlain is leading the league in rebounds, and this has freed Baylor from the major responsibility under the boards. But the Lakers have lost their fast break because Chamberlain does not look for an outlet pass. "This is a very old team," he says, "and we are simply not much of a fast-breaking team anyway. We don't have the players conducive to that type of play."

So the Lakers walk the ball up the court, get arranged and then, as VBK says, start "to grind it out." The Lakers do not often make 100 points now. "Defense is the thing we're really living on," van Breda Kolff admits, and Chamberlain has been superb, sometimes even awesome, on defense. In a recent game on national television he blocked 23 shots against Phoenix.

Van Breda Kolff's problem in dealing with Chamberlain is often one of matching stubbornness. Hannum consulted with Chamberlain, listened to his ideas, sometimes compromised, sometimes gave in. But the Dutchman does not lean in this direction. Perhaps it is really more a conflict of life styles than of playing styles. Van Breda Kolff is a boisterous, gregarious man who bounds through the Eastern winter without an overcoat just because it is a nuisance to bother with one. "All he needs is a turtleneck and a throat lozenge," Baylor declared one day as the coach came out of some north winds. Chamberlain is a loner, sensitive to criticism and comparison to Russell, plagued by the mental derelicts who find in his size only humor and a license to pry.

"You know, we've gotten along fine from the first," West says, "and I've never cared where Wilt played or any of that. The thing that has amazed me?I just didn't have any idea how put upon he really is."






All in all, the criticism is deserved, especially in comparison to the ultimate team player Lor Hmself Bill Russell. It was and still is by some however, severely exxaggerated. He was the league villian. A loner like Bryant attracting the disdaining perception that Iverson has now or Bryant had in 2005. Wilt was simply an easy target, partially due to his own faults.




After Baylor made a free throw a few days ago at Atlanta the game was stopped and it was announced that he had passed Bob Pettit to become the second-highest scorer in NBA history. Applause began, then swelled, and soon everyone in the building was standing and roaring for a man most of them probably had never seen play before this season. Chamberlain, very graciously, came out from under the basket and was the first to shake Baylor's hand. When at last the applause subsided, the P.A. went on: "...and now Baylor is second only to Wilt Chamberlain." Suddenly boos rang down, covering the cheers.






Russell obviously had the better career & sustained level of overall dominance for a number of years. I have never disputed such creedence. However, when the switch clicked in '67 Hannum & Chamberlain reunited in Phiily and humiliated Russell out of the playofs. Wilt that year alone was the most dominant of anyone in the history of professional basketball. His peak season that is.


What Bill Simmons has done is brilliant. He has taken advantage of the lack of knowledge amidst the modern fan & used their misguided creedence against them. How many folks honestly know of Chamberlain besides his stats? I mean really know? To them he is a skinny ball player holding up a "100" sign in a black/white photo. The same reason why Russell is also disrespected on the boards, for who really knows Bill Rusell the basketball player besides "11 rings".





To conclude, the wise man's accurate assessment of Wilt Chamberlain is that relative to perception and talent, he was inarguably the biggest underachiever the sport has ever seen. At the same time he is still arguably the top player to ever play the game at his absolute peak in the spring of 1967. Forever misunderstood, for "nobody roots for Goliath."






And to think if not for his own self motivation to play against the best, Wilt may have very well been a Globetrotter legend rather than an NBA legend.



http://i36.tinypic.com/180qw3.jpg

[plowking]

The man only cared about stats. Any top tier player could put up incredibly dominant number if he was treated like the only player on the team, and the rest of the guys were a sideshow.

[Abraham Lincoln]

throw in the fact his "never foul out" record is about as stupid a record as you can imagine (think about it... everytime he had five fouls he'd have to be less aggressive on defense to keep his record intact, right?)

Tis true, yet not as if Russell was innocent of such acts as well in big games, notabily Game 7 of the Finals both men were guilty.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3k9eWPEbXE


At the 2:38 mark, Russell picks up his 5th foul barely into the 4th quarter.

At the 3:36 mark note Chamberlain & the Lakers attacking Russ attempting to foul him out.

At the 4:32 mark again note Chamberlain is also not guarding Russell for fear of foul trouble.

[purple32gold]

bill simmons is nothing more than an attention horn. over the years he has done nothing but tread on great players for small flaws and take them completely out of proportion. i cannot understand why some people are so intent on literally hating certain players the way he does. these guys give their lives to the sport and some dbag writer tries to make a few bucks by stirring the pot.

[godofgods]

Wilt is truly the precursor of Shaq. Selfish and liked to sulk if he didn't get his way.

The scary thing is, Wilt isn't even half as selfish as Kobel

[phxsuns4life]

Can't say for sure as he was a bit before my time *badum-tish*. But he scored 100 points in a game with no three-point line. Maybe it could be classed as dominance and not greed, dunno. But as greedy as some suggest, maybe not by todays standards.

Either way, Abe Lincoln's thread made for good reading.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Would have indeed loved to see the '68 & '69 Celtics vs. 76ers/Lakers series' and determine what really happened. For apparently they were heavier underdogs than modern creedence would suggest, due to the psychological impact of the '67 team.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N4YGNFmx6M




Red even spoke of Russell in the past tense as recalled at the 2:15 mark.

And yet agin the next season, Chamberlain spoke highly of new teammates at the 4:03 mark, yet it was a wonderous just how well Wilt/Elgin really meshed as together as teammates, beit on or off the court.

[Niquesports]

I loved the chapter, so many things put together, notice how high he ranked Kareem and Wilt despite his obvious and admitted disdain for them.

He certainly laid out an undeniable case that Russell was the superior player and should be regarded as such.

The quotes from Wilt and Russ contemporaries really sealed the deal for me after reading all the evidence in one sitting.

I didnt read the book and more than likely won't but its just so easy to show favor for your guy if your so bias and subjective as Bill is. I have read and heard Oscar call WIlt the best he has ever seen. Im sure if some one was a Wilt guy they could write a book that would be subjective towards Wilt. That being said I do believe that Wilts personality hurt his legacy if he was just a litle more humble this wouldnt be a discussion. I have read people knock Wilt because he wanted to lead the league in assist :confusedshrug: The amazing thing is that he did it not that he wanted to. Thats like saying Shaq wants to lead the league in FT % and does it or Chris Paul wanting to lead the league in rebounding this would be amazing no a problem no matter how they did it.

[Disaprine]

who cares what bill simmons thinks, He doesn't know sh*t about basketball.

[Abraham Lincoln]

who cares what bill simmons thinks, He doesn't know sh*t about basketball.
Simmons is a well educated & intelligent basketball fan, however strongly biased at certain times.

[G.O.A.T]

A few thoughts on Wilt

I'm not sure Wilt was intentionally selfish.

He probably figured "I'm the best player, I shoot the highest percentage, I should take all the shots."

Not untrue. And while he was ALWAYS the best player based on skill (Maybe except vs. Lew Alcindor, maybe) he never understood how best to use it.

When he decided he would never foul out of a game for his career he probably thought, "if I foul out my team has no chance."

When he scored 100 he probably thought, "the crowd is chanting it, it's what they want"

When he set out to lead the league in assists and did so at the expense of his team he assumed "this will show them I'm not selfish"

He never meant to hurt his team, he always wanted to win.

However because of this*; his Ego was too big (I think) to let him listen to others and be guided. Because he was better, he thought (probably) "I know better"

Because of this* Russell outsmarted him "letting" Wilt amass points and rebounds in a certain way all game long while keeping the score close knowing how he'd stop Wilt when it mattered most and that Chamberlain would not have prepared a counter.

Because of this* his teammates quickly tired of him and he was traded for way below his value. Winning two titles from 1960-1972 is no small feat. Only five teams did it; Russell's Celtics 9 times and four others once; half of which were anchored by the Dipper. (The others by Willis Reed and Alcindor)

Because of this* his teams blew 3-1 leads in the conference finals and 2-0 leads in the NBA finals to vastly inferior clubs (based on skill).

The greatest mystery is 1967. 1972 makes sense, West willed that team to the title and took a defensive minded Wilt with him. Don't get me wrong, Wilt was still the most important player and best player on that team, but West was their leader.

But 1967; WTF (do I say that?)

Wilt becomes a leader completely flexible from game to game and hell bent on doing...get this, whatever it takes to win! In the finals he does an amazing Russell impression flipping back and forth from 10-15 point 10+ assists 30+ rebound guy to 20+\20+ dominant scorer. Having three games of triple double over very near and three of 20+\20+ with 5 apg.

He has his moments where he chases assists, but scoring is no longer his main goal. He continues to rebound with the same hunger and power but now starts becoming a real defender, not just a shot blocker, but a guy who stays back to stop breaks and throws outlet passes instead of slowing it up so he doesn't get tired and have to come out of the game in pursuit of a minutes played record.

Anyway during that season Wilt may have been the best ever (probably was) and he replicated that performance on and off for much of the rest of hsi career, but rather it was assists in '68 or FG% in his last two seasons Wilt was always chasing records as much as wins. Once he realized he couldn't have both, he took what was easier and as amazing as it is that he could break records so easily, it's more amazing to me that that is the goal he chose.

[RoseCity07]

Bill Simmons is a loser. He thinks Drexler played for Detroit.

http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/11/17/1157838/the-bill-simmons-typo-that

[Abraham Lincoln]

When he set out to lead the league in assists and did so at the expense of his team he assumed "this will show them I'm not selfish".Partially, for he was indeed sensitiv to the often unjust criticism at the time. But also I read sometime ago in his own words that prior to the season he set it as a goal to also stand out in a different way. Often times he could get bored during the regular season, as has been the case with nearly all supreme legends.


The greatest mystery is 1967. 1972 makes sense, West willed that team to the title and took a defensive minded Wilt with him. Don't get me wrong, Wilt was still the most important player and best player on that team, but West was their leader.

But 1967; WTF (do I say that?)

Wilt becomes a leader completely flexible from game to game and hell bent on doing...get this, whatever it takes to win! In the finals he does an amazing Russell impression flipping back and forth from 10-15 point 10+ assists 30+ rebound guy to 20+\20+ dominant scorer. Having three games of triple double over very near and three of 20+\20+ with 5 apg.

Not only Wilt sacrificed that year, Luke Jackson also moved to the PF spot and sacrificed individual numbers.



But this man was the key difference.



http://i50.tinypic.com/n2l66f.jpg





Russell's Celtics lost twice during his 13 year career. Both times were at the hands of Coach Hannum, who indeed brought forth a certain discipline and commanding respect to the team. Much in the way Michael Jordan respected teammates that were not psychologically mushy and stood up to him, the same holds true for Chamberlain and Hannum.




"Prior to the 1966-67 NBA season, the friendly but unassertive Dolph Schayes was replaced by a familiar face, the crafty but firm Alex Hannum. In what Cherry calls a tumultuous locker room meeting, Hannum addressed several key issues he observed during the last season, several of them putting Chamberlain in an unfavorable light. Sixers forward Chet Walker testified that on several occasions, players had to pull Chamberlain and Hannum apart to prevent a fistfight. Fellow forward Billy Cunningham observed that "Hannum showed who was the boss" and "never backed down", and by doing this, won Chamberlain's respect. When emotions cooled off, Hannum pointed out that Chamberlain and him were on the same side, trying to win a championship ring; but to pull this off, the center - like all others - needed to "act like a man" and behave accordingly on and off the court. Concerning basketball, he persuaded him to change his style of play."

[824]

Yes Wilt was very selfish and drooled on his own nuts, but insanely good. I don't even want to think about how much he'd rape in today's league.

[Abraham Lincoln]

From his 1996 interview.

http://www.nba.com/history/chamberlain_50.html


They gave me a chance to run a lot, and I really liked running. I came into the NBA as a defensive player. I used to like to go up and grab balls in the air. Everyone was afraid of my defensive game more so than my scoring game. Like it is today, and always will be... whomever can hit the most home runs, has the highest batting average, or can score the most points gets the headlines. Defense was secondary in the minds of the press. Many of the people came out to watch the score. I really enjoyed playing defense more. Scoring was a secondary thing, but it was also very natural to me.




The Celtics were so supreme as a team. They always brought the best out of everybody. But no one really feared them... they weren't overpowering. You must realize, the New York Knicks were the doormat of the league when I first came in, but their percentage was like .440, .450. And the Celtics as great as they were, were only playing .640 ball... they weren't playing .800 or .900 ball. So everybody was kind of right in there, pretty even. And you're playing each other 11, 13 times a year and so we know we can beat them. But they just end up beating us more than we could beat them, and at the right times, deciding games. There wasn't a great fear of the Celtics. There certainly was a great deal of respect. In my third year, Coach (Frank) McGuire was coaching us and we actually played better than the Celtics for the last half of the year. We were about ready to dethrone them as the perennial champions. Unfortunately, the team was sold from Philadelphia to San Francisco. Coach had a son, so he stayed here in the East. He didn't want to go out there and things fell apart.


I look back at my career...and there were five 7th games in playoff series. Five times I lost, four of them by a total of nine points. Now think about that. Nine points going the other way, and I might have had four or five more championship rings. So I sometimes get a little frustrated when I hear people talk about, "Yeah, well you only won two." I could have won seven, but I've been the same player. When (John) Paxson goes out and shoots a 3-point shot that wins the game for Chicago (in 1993), no one takes anything away from Jordan because he just won the championship. But if Paxson missed that shot, they would have lost that championship. Well, that has happened to me five times... and that's frustrating. You know you're playing as well as those guys who won. I remember one series exactly: I scored the last ten points, we were behind, within one, with a few seconds to go. And one of the other guys on my team threw the ball inbounds and its the famous, "Havlicek stole the ball!" It was just one of those things that happened. Ball slips out of his hand, he throws it right to Havlicek, and we lose a game that we could have won. It was the seventh game so you know that you had the ability, but the end result was that we lost. And that's the way it goes.



The worst was in 1968 when I was playing with the 76ers and we lost to the Celtics in the famous 7th game and they blamed me for not shooting the ball because I only took two shots in the second half. Well, during those years, I was passing off a lot. I won the assist title. The Celtics were smart, they put all four guys on me and let the rest of the guys shoot. Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, Chet Walker and Wali Jones -- all fantastic shots -- had a bad, bad day. 8-for-24, 8-for-25 and 8-for-22 and I'm giving them the ball. So when the game is over people say, "Why didn't you shoot, Wilt?" Well, I got four guys on me and here are four of the best shooters in NBA history -- we had just won 62 games that year -- but they were missing that night. I was accused of not doing my job, not putting the ball in the basket, even though I had 38 rebounds, 15 blocked shots and had scored twenty-something points in the first half. But because I only took two shots in the second half, I get blamed. I think that sometimes that's a little bit unfair.

[ShaqAttack3234]

From his 1996 interview.

http://www.nba.com/history/chamberlain_50.html


They gave me a chance to run a lot, and I really liked running. I came into the NBA as a defensive player. I used to like to go up and grab balls in the air. Everyone was afraid of my defensive game more so than my scoring game. Like it is today, and always will be... whomever can hit the most home runs, has the highest batting average, or can score the most points gets the headlines. Defense was secondary in the minds of the press. Many of the people came out to watch the score. I really enjoyed playing defense more. Scoring was a secondary thing, but it was also very natural to me.




The Celtics were so supreme as a team. They always brought the best out of everybody. But no one really feared them... they weren't overpowering. You must realize, the New York Knicks were the doormat of the league when I first came in, but their percentage was like .440, .450. And the Celtics as great as they were, were only playing .640 ball... they weren't playing .800 or .900 ball. So everybody was kind of right in there, pretty even. And you're playing each other 11, 13 times a year and so we know we can beat them. But they just end up beating us more than we could beat them, and at the right times, deciding games. There wasn't a great fear of the Celtics. There certainly was a great deal of respect. In my third year, Coach (Frank) McGuire was coaching us and we actually played better than the Celtics for the last half of the year. We were about ready to dethrone them as the perennial champions. Unfortunately, the team was sold from Philadelphia to San Francisco. Coach had a son, so he stayed here in the East. He didn't want to go out there and things fell apart.


I look back at my career...and there were five 7th games in playoff series. Five times I lost, four of them by a total of nine points. Now think about that. Nine points going the other way, and I might have had four or five more championship rings. So I sometimes get a little frustrated when I hear people talk about, "Yeah, well you only won two." I could have won seven, but I've been the same player. When (John) Paxson goes out and shoots a 3-point shot that wins the game for Chicago (in 1993), no one takes anything away from Jordan because he just won the championship. But if Paxson missed that shot, they would have lost that championship. Well, that has happened to me five times... and that's frustrating. You know you're playing as well as those guys who won. I remember one series exactly: I scored the last ten points, we were behind, within one, with a few seconds to go. And one of the other guys on my team threw the ball inbounds and its the famous, "Havlicek stole the ball!" It was just one of those things that happened. Ball slips out of his hand, he throws it right to Havlicek, and we lose a game that we could have won. It was the seventh game so you know that you had the ability, but the end result was that we lost. And that's the way it goes.



The worst was in 1968 when I was playing with the 76ers and we lost to the Celtics in the famous 7th game and they blamed me for not shooting the ball because I only took two shots in the second half. Well, during those years, I was passing off a lot. I won the assist title. The Celtics were smart, they put all four guys on me and let the rest of the guys shoot. Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, Chet Walker and Wali Jones -- all fantastic shots -- had a bad, bad day. 8-for-24, 8-for-25 and 8-for-22 and I'm giving them the ball. So when the game is over people say, "Why didn't you shoot, Wilt?" Well, I got four guys on me and here are four of the best shooters in NBA history -- we had just won 62 games that year -- but they were missing that night. I was accused of not doing my job, not putting the ball in the basket, even though I had 38 rebounds, 15 blocked shots and had scored twenty-something points in the first half. But because I only took two shots in the second half, I get blamed. I think that sometimes that's a little bit unfair.

That was a hell of a post, Abe. :cheers:

[plowking]

Can't say for sure as he was a bit before my time *badum-tish*. But he scored 100 points in a game with no three-point line. Maybe it could be classed as dominance and not greed, dunno. But as greedy as some suggest, maybe not by todays standards.

Either way, Abe Lincoln's thread made for good reading.

If Wilt did play in the 3pt era, what difference would it make?

Huge, seeing as he was a center who got about 95% of his points in the key... I doubt he hit a shot from 3pt distance in his career apart from maybe a full court heave, etc... Point is, he would have been 0-0 even if there was a 3pt line.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Indeed, the absence of the 3 point line would alter wings rather than bigs.

[G.O.A.T]

Indeed, the absence of the 3 point line would alter wings rather than bigs.

it changed the game for bigs too. The three is as valuable at 33% as the 2 at 50%. This is why there are so many face-up bigs today. Also it helped post players initially (but more so dribble penetraters by opening up the lane.

[Abraham Lincoln]

it changed the game for bigs too. The three is as valuable at 33% as the 2 at 50%. This is why there are so many face-up bigs today. Also it helped post players initially (but more so dribble penetraters by opening up the lane.Yes, also the new era lazy sag defense has much to do with the extinction of true post centers that have become near 3 point specialists. As Larry Bird said recently, the 3 point shot is being relied on too much. However th original point being that Wilt would not have been affected in that particular game.

[G.O.A.T]

Yes, also the new era lazy sag defense has much to do with the extinction of true post centers that have become near 3 point specialists. As Larry Bird said recently, the 3 point shot is being relied on too much. However th original point being that Wilt would not have been affected in that particular game.

Dig it.

I suspect if the three point line was around Wilt would have eventually tried to set some sort of record related to it. Or maybe just dunked from it or had sex with it; never know with Wilton Norman Chamberlain.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Kind of irrelevant to Wilt's stats, but 3 point shooters and a dominant center inside make for a deadly combination. Look no further than the mid 90's Rockets team with Olajuwon in the middle. It's also worked extremely well for Orlando recently with Dwight Howard in the middle. Prolific 3 point shooting can open things up for dominant centers. It would have been very interesting to see Wilt with a bunch of good 3 point shooters. Especially when you consider his passing ability.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Dig it.I suspect if the three point line was around Wilt would have eventually tried to set some sort of record related to it. Or maybe just dunked from it or had sex with it; never know with Wilton Norman Chamberlain.

Rumor has it that Chamberlain would defeat his ABA players on the Conquistators quite often in three point contests.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Kind of irrelevant to Wilt's stats, but 3 point shooters and a dominant center inside make for a deadly combination. Look no further than the mid 90's Rockets team with Olajuwon in the middle. It's also worked extremely well for Orlando recently with Dwight Howard in the middle. Prolific 3 point shooting can open things up for dominant centers. It would have been very interesting to see Wilt with a bunch of good 3 point shooters. Especially when you consider his passing ability.
Not 3 pt shooters as there was no line yet, but to an extent this was the mold of the '67 Sixers. Everyone including Chamberlain himself had a respectable outside touch up to 15 feet. Greer was as good a shooter as has ever played in the league, often using the regular season games to practice his bank shots from the corners and jump shots at the free throw line. Mostly was just rotations. The defense is not the stationairy sagging soft **** we see now, for if you did that with Philly they would have a field day, beiing both Chamberlain and the rest of the team. Chet the Jet would tear it up, as seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWNzHgG94XM)(9:55 mark) converting a strong drive and baseline leaner over Hondo & Russell. Another marvel Luke Jackson as well was a brutally strong F/C, like Dwight Howard today, yet also had the softest shooting touch ever seen as demonstrated here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKWsELSogUo)(0:38 mark) with his shot over Russell.

[momo]

Lots of great content and posts in this thread everyone :D Thx.

[jlauber]

So many myths and misconceptions regarding the Russell-Wilt rivalry...where do I begin?

Well, I have to start somewhere, so it might as well be with Mr. Simmons himself. First of all, Simmons was born in Sept of 1969...or several months AFTER Russell and Wilt played their last H2H game. Why is that important? Because Simmons NEVER saw either of them play against each other. Secondly, Simmons has been a Boston"homer" from years ago. He has been anti-Wilt, anti-Kobe, anti-Magic, and anti-Laker in almost every one of his writings, while at the same time, praising the greatness of Bird, Russell, and the Celtics.

I was born in 1954 and I had the pleasure of watching many of the Russell-Wilt H2H battles live on TV (although I never was fortunate enough to have seen them play in person.) And while I did not see all 142 of their matchups, I did see many of them. And, I can honestly say that I never ONCE came away thinking that Russell was the better player.

Unfortunately, the media at the time controlled the opinions of the sports' masses...most of whom never saw either of them play either. The PERCEPTION of Russell was the he was a "clutch" winner, while Chamberlain feasted on helpless, uncoordinated, skinny, 6-6 white centers, and was a selfish ball-hog loser that choked against Russell.

Before I continue...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6k539HSbXM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=849_WdqJ8o8&NR=1

There is much more footage of Chamberlain that exists on YouTube, and more is becoming available as the years go by.

How about this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1R6UI738MI&NR=1

Why are the videos important? Because they show REALITY. Chamberlain was not some frankenstein dunking on wimpy midgets, but perhaps the strongest, fastest, highest-jumping, and most skilled big man the game has ever seen.

Continuing, ...the perception was that Wilt played against small, stumbling geeks. The FACT was, the average height of an NBA starting center in 1960 was 6-10. Furthermore, the average height of a starting center in 1970 was 6-11. In 2008, the average height was 7-0. So, in the 50 years since Chamberlain dominated basketball, the average starting center has grown all of 2". Not only that, but Wilt built his astonishing records against the likes of Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Hayes, Unseld, Lanier, Lucas, Kareem, and Russell...all in the HOF...as well as 6-11 Walt Wesley, 6-10 Neal Walk, 7-3 Swede Holbrook, 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle, 7-0 Henry Finkel, 7-0 Mel Counts, 6-11 Darrell Imhoff, 6-10 Connie Dierking, 6-11 Leroy Ellis...and many other 6-10+ centers.

Ok, back to the Russell-Wilt rivalry. Once again, the media made Russell out as the clutch winner, and Chamberlain as the stats-hungry loser, who folded like a tent against Russell, especially in big games. Well, thanks to the miracles of archival retrieval, we now have access to EVERY one of their 142 H2H games...thanks to NBA stats-maven Harvey Pollack, who recorded them all.

What did we learn? Well, in their 142 games, Russell's CELTICS beat Wilt's TEAMS, 85 times, including a 7-1 edge in playoff series wins between the two. What does that tell us? That Russell played on better TEAMS. How do I know that? How about this fact? Russell played alongside EIGHT other HOFers, and a HOF coach. Russell never had less than three other HOFers at his side, and had as many as FIVE (making a total of six of course.) Chamberlain played with several HOFers, as well, but never more than TWO at one time (excluding the beginning of the 71-72 season in which Wilt played with West, Goodrich, and a washed-up Baylor who was forced to retire after nine games...but more on Baylor later.)

So, if Russell is considered a winner, and Wilt a loser..what do we make of Michael Jordan, who played on FIVE losing teams in his career. If Wilt was a "loser", and MJ a "winner", why couldn't MJ carry the 30-52 '85-86 Bulls to a series win over the 67-15 Celtics? And don't give me this nonsense that MJ had to battle FOUR Celtic HOFers. Why? Take a look at the roster that Wilt played alongside in the 61-62 season. He did have two HOFers, but take a closer look. One of them, Paul Arizin, was a good player, in his last season. The other was Tom Gola. Gola a HOFer? PLEASE...take a look at his career stats. He was an ordinary player who averaged a CAREER 11.3 ppg, with 7.8 rpg, and shot .431 from the floor. In that 61-62 season he averaged 13.7 ppg and 9.8 rpg.

The rest of Wilt's roster was pretty much what he had when he was joined them in the 59-60...a previous last-place team...that he immediately turned into a winner and took them to the playoffs.

Aside from Guy Rodgers and Al Attles, who were nothing more than decent their entire careers, along with a washed-up Arizin and a never-was Gola...Wilt single-handedly carried that mediocre roster to a game seven, two-point loss to the 60-20 Celtics,...a TEAM that had SIX HOFers. Cousey, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, KC Jones, Ramsey, and Russell.

How did Wilt play against Russell in that series? He averaged 35 ppg and 29 rpg...all while being swarmed and abused by a Celtic roster that knew Wilt was the only player that could beat them.

Once again, I bring that point up to comparing what Chamberlain's roster looked like, in comparison to what MJ had in '85-86. Yes, MJ was brilliant in that series, including that famous 63 point OT game...but his Bulls were swept in that series. Why? Quite simply because Boston was a better team. Same as what Chamberlain faced in '61-62.

But I'm not done yet. Chamberlain was traded to the 76ers in the '64-65 season, and he carried that team, which had been 34-46 the year before, to a 40-40 record. And, in the Eastern Conference Finals, against the 62-18 Celtics, Wilt led them to a 110-109 game seven loss.

As was the case in EVERY H2H playoff series against Russell, Chamberlain outscored and outrebounded him...by a HUGE margin. In fact, Wilt outscored Russell 211-109 (30.1 - 15.6 ppg) and outrebounded him 220-177 (31.4 - 25.3 rpg) in that series. But, surely Wilt must have "choked" down the stretch? In that game seven, Boston, on their home floor, led 110-101 with a little more than two minutes remaining. Chamberlain proceeded to score Philly's last eight points, including going 2-2 from the FT with 36 secs left, and a thunderous dunk over Russell with five secs left. With the score 110-109, "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbounds pass, giving the ball back to Sixers underneath Boston's basket. Unfortunately, for Philly fans, "Havlicek stole the ball!" In that game seven, Russell had played well, scoing 15 points on 7-16 shooting and 1-2 from the line, with 29 rebounds. Chamberlain played brilliantly, scoring 30 points on 12-15 shooting, with 6-11 at the stripe, and 32 rebounds. Yet, Russell was the "winner" and Wilt was the "failure."

I already mentioned Chamberlain's rookie campaign, when he took a last-place team the year before at 32-40, to a 48-32 record, and that two-point, game six loss to the Celtics. Wilt was injured in that series, but in game five he poured in 50 points againt Russell in leading his team to a 128-107 win.

Chamberlain took the 63-64 SF Warriors to a 48-32 record and the championship against Russell's 59-21 Celtics. The Celts prevailed easily, 4-1...but Wilt outscored Russell 29-11 per game, and outrebounded him, 27-25 per game.

Wilt finally had a quality supporting cast in the 65-66 season, playing with HOFers Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham, as well as Luke Jackson and Chet Walker...and in fact, his Sixers edged the Celts for the best record at 55-25 to Boston's 54-26. However, that Sixer team was a year away from greatness, and the veteran Boston club paced themselves..and the Celts dispatched Philly 4-1. Was it Wilt's fault? All Wilt did was average 28.0 ppg, and 30.2 rpg, on .509 shooting against Russell's 14.0 ppg and 26.2 rpg. ( I could not find Russell's FG% in that series, but for the entire playoffs that year, he shot .475, which was unusually high for him.) In the clinching game five loss, Wilt scored 46 points on 19-28 shooting, with 34 rebounds, while Russell put up an 18-31 game. Yet, Wilt was ripped by the press afterwards because he only went 8-25 from the FT stripe.

Ok, we have covered the Russell-Wilt playoff series up to the 65-66 season. I'll cover their last three playoff serues next...

[DarkSephiroth]

I agree with the poster above. Wilt's greatness was diminished by the media perceived "Lack of Winning", when that's really not the case at all.

Watching those and many other Chamberlain videos, I noticed something very interesting. I never see Wilt celebrate in any way on a single play! He doesn't stare people down after thunderous dunks / blocks, or even glance at anyone. He simply turns his head and runs back the other way. I like that, I think our game is too littered with bad attitude nowadays.

In addition, he had a great inside touch. Those fallaway bank-shots on a full elevation and high release are things that most centers today can not do. I mean, just look at Dwight Howard. Can you imagine him consistently hitting contested fadeaway 12-15 footers? If he could, he would probably average 30 a game with ease, considering his immense power inside. I really think Wilt would dominate today's game as well, even if you literally plopped him in today's society. Had he been trained in today's ways since a young age... well our current fanbase would have been in for a treat to watch possibly the greatest center of all time.

[jlauber]

Darksephiroth,

Your comparsion to Howard is interesting. Most "experts" believe that Howard is the best center in the game today. Howard is 6-11 and around 260 lbs. He wowed the All-Star viewers with a dunk on an 11-foot basket with an assist from an alley-oop pass. Well, take a look at his overall skills and compare those with Chamberlain's. Wilt had a deadly 12-15 ft bank shot that would put Duncan's to shame. He also had a sweeping hook shot, a beautiful finger-roll, and amazingly, a solid 15 ft jump shot (take a close look at that first video...he is hitting jump shots from the FT line and beyond, as well as leading a break with a behind-the-back pass.)

Here is an interesting link about Wilt's leaping skills (Wilt won the Big-8 high-jump championship three years in a row BTW.)...

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

Here is another...

"Wilt Chamberlain was known to have dunked on an experimental 12-foot basket set up by Phog Allen at the University of Kansas in the 1950s.[4] Michael Wilson, a former Harlem Globetrotter and University of Memphis basketball player, matched this feat on April 1, 2000 albeit with an alley-oop. Dwight Howard dunked on an 11ft6in basket in the 2009 NBA dunk contest also off an ally-oop."

And still another...

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Slam_Dunk

"Jim Pollard, Wilt Chamberlain, Julius Erving, Clyde Drexler, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Stromile Swift, Shawn Kemp, Darrell Griffith, Korleone Young, Edgar Jones, LeBron James, James White, Vince Carter, Kobe Bryant, Jamario Moon, Dwight Howard, Mike Conley, Jr., Brent Barry and Al Thornton have each dunked while jumping from around the free throw line, which is 15 feet from the basket. Unlike the others, Wilt Chamberlain did not require a full running start, but instead began his movement from inside the top half of the free throw circle. [4]"

As for his incredible strength...just google Wilt's bench-press...and you will get results up to 550 lbs. Here is a link in which there was an eye-witness account of Chamberlain benching 465 lbs...at age 59!

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/chat.htm

I hope to post some more stories of his extraordinary strength, as well. But how about his speed? Wilt was not only a marathoner in High School, he was also a sprinter. He was on Kansas' 4x100 yard relay team (among his many track events.)

How about this fact...Chamberlain was invited to a Kansas City Chief try-out in the mid-60's by Hank Stram. The fastest player on the field? Wilt. Stram was awe-struck and proclaimed that Wilt would have been an All-Pro at not one, but THREE NFL positions (TE, DL, and LB.)

Want more? How about the FACT that Chamberlain was offered a legitimate title shot against Muhammed Ali. None other than Cus D'Amato felt that he could have trained Wilt to beat Ali for one fight. The fight actually almost took place twice, but for a variety of reasons, never came about. Still, it was a LEGITIMATE offer.

After Wilt retired from the NBA (well he never actually retired...he just never returned) he went on to become a world-class volleyball player.

In any case...the bottom line is that Wilt was bigger, stronger, faster, could jump higher, and was more skilled than Howard. So, what would he do to today's NBA?

I could go on for hours about what a gifted athlete this guy was, but for now, I will get back to his career...particularly the Russell-Wilt debate.

[Dresta]

So many myths and misconceptions regarding the Russell-Wilt rivalry...where do I begin?

Well, I have to start somewhere, so it might as well be with Mr. Simmons himself. First of all, Simmons was born in Sept of 1969...or several months AFTER Russell and Wilt played their last H2H game. Why is that important? Because Simmons NEVER saw either of them play against each other. Secondly, Simmons has been a Boston"homer" from years ago. He has been anti-Wilt, anti-Kobe, anti-Magic, and anti-Laker in almost every one of his writings, while at the same time, praising the greatness of Bird, Russell, and the Celtics.

I was born in 1954 and I had the pleasure of watching many of the Russell-Wilt H2H battles live on TV (although I never was fortunate enough to have seen them play in person.) And while I did not see all 142 of their matchups, I did see many of them. And, I can honestly say that I never ONCE came away thinking that Russell was the better player.
.So Simmons is so anti-Magic and pro Bird that he rated Magic over Bird in his rankings? rigghhht...

I'm also sure he watched plenty of archived footage of them playing each other as research, i would argue that watching the games like that rather then 40 years ago would give you just as good an idea if not more so of what went on. There's a reason that most historians right about stuff before there time, and its because its easier to form a more objective and well rounded opinion that way.

[jlauber]

Back to the post-seasons involving Russell and Wilt...

Many observers have rated the 66-67 among the greatest NBA team's of all-time. Early on that team made a statement by obliterating the Celtics 138-96, and then proceeded to run out to an unbelieveable 46-4 mark, en route to a then-record 68-13 W-L record. Boston had one of their best season's during their "Dynasty", at 60-21...and yet finished a distant second to that great 76er squad.

As for Wilt that year...for the first time in his career he did not lead the NBA in scoring, finishing fifth at 24.1 ppg. However, Rick Barry, who led the league in scoring at 35.6 ppg, "thanked" Wilt for "letting him (Barry) win the scoring title." Chamberlain cut back his scoring, not because he was losing his skills (geez,he was in his physical prime), but because he was finally surrounded with a supporting cast that could rival the roster that Russell had in Boston. For those that might have thought Wilt was losing his scoring ability, he would still occasionally put up a huge game, as evidenced by the NBA season game of 58 points that season. In fact, Wilt, despite having his scoring average drop from 33.5 ppg down to 24.1 in '66-'67, 24.3 in '67-'68, and 20.5 in '68-'69, still put up the high scoring games each season. He had that 58 point game in '66-'67, and had the FOUR highest games in '67-'68 with games of 52, 53, 53, and 68. And in '68-'69, he put up the TWO high games with games of 60 and 66 (more on that '68-'69 season later, though.)

Last year ESPN came out with an article ranking the greatest individual Pro season's ever, in all Pro sports. Wilt's '61'62 season ranked #1 (incidently, despite smashing record-after-record that season, and averaging 50.4 ppg, with 25.7 rpg amd shooting .506 from the field...Bill Russell won the MVP award with marks of 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and shooting .457 from the floor.) Having said all of that, I personally rank Chamberlain's '66-'67 season as his greatest. While his scoring dropped, he proved he could still score almost anytime he wanted to. Not only that, he shattered his own FG% mark with a remarkable .683 percentage...and a record differential margin of .162 over the next runner-up, Walt Bellamy at .521 . En route to that staggering FG%, he had THREE perfect games of 15-15, 16-16, and 18-18, and set a still-record of 35 consecutively made FGs.

Chamberlain also ran away with the rebound title that year (he would win 11 rebound titles in 14 years...and 8 in 10 H2H seasons against Russell) with a 24.2 mark...which was well ahead of Russell's 21.0 rpg.

And Wilt also finished third in the league in assists with at 7.8 apg. (of course he would go on to lead the NBA in that stat the very next year.)

But it was in the playoffs that Chamberlain really shined. After demolishing the Royals in round one, the Sixers crushed the Celtics 4-1 in the Eastern Finals, and then easily dispatched the pesky Warriors 4-2 in the Finals.

In that Eastern Conference Finals, Chamberlain overwhelmed Russell in EVERY statistical category, as did the Sixers to his Celtics. Boston managed to avoid a sweep by edging Philly in game three, 121-117, but that was all they could do against a far superior team. In game four, the Celtics valiantly rushed to a 17 point first period lead, but Wilt kept the Sixers in the game by scoring 22 first half points. In the second half, Chamberlain's teammates took over, and by late in the 4th quarter, the 76ers led by a 131-104 margin, en route to a 140-116 win. In that clinching game five win, Chamberlain scored 29 points, on 10-16 shooting from the field, with 36 rebounds, and 13 assists. Meanwhile, "clutch" Russell went meekly with 4 points on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and 7 assists.

For that series, Chamberlain outscored Russell 21.6 -10.2 ppg, outrebounded him by a staggering 32.0 - 23.0 rpg (including a still post-season record of 41 in game three), out-assisted him 10.0 - 6.0 apg, and outshot Russell from the floor by a crushing .556 - .358 margin. All of those stats are courtesy of Wayne Lynch in his book, "Season of the Sixers" BTW.

In the Finals, Wilt outscored HOFer Thurmond, 17.5 - 14.3 ppg, outrebounded him (in a phenomenal series by both) 28.5 - 26.7 rpg, and outshot Nate by an amazing .560 - .343 margin.

Clearly, Wilt was the best in the game at the time...and his season may have been the best ever...by anyone.

Next up...the stunning '67-'68 Philly collapse...

[jlauber]

Here is another interesting take on Bill Simmons' "expertise"...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=120113

[browntown]

He wasn't selfish with the ladies.

[IBLEEDGREEN20]

Wilts stat chasing was off the charts. Simmons really broke it down. Especially when he pointed out the season where Wilt wanted to lead the league in assists. That season Wilt would hardly shoot and only pass to guys that he was sure would make the basket so he could get the assist. The fact that he was traded twice in his prime for pennies on the dollar is telling along with the fact that barely any of his teammates celebrated with him after the 100 point game.

This isn't just Simmons opinion though. He backs it up with numerous accounts from players and others who were there when it happened.

The Book of Basketball is one of the best books I've ever read.

just finshed it and now onto " when the game was ours".. book of basketball was incredible, so in depth its filled with knowledge.

[vert48]

After Wilt retired from the NBA (well he never actually retired...he just never returned) he went on to become a world-class volleyball player.Wilt was an amazing athlete, but he was NEVER a world class volleyball player. He was no where near good enough to compete for a spot on the US Olympic team at that time.

[ThaRegul8r]

thanks to the miracles of archival retrieval, we now have access to EVERY one of their 142 H2H games...thanks to NBA stats-maven Harvey Pollack, who recorded them all.

Where can these be found? I've contacted both the NBA and Harvey Pollack in the past but have never received a response. Through searching I've managed to find some numbers, but I haven't as yet been able to get the numbers from all 142 games.

[b4ball]

Hell yes Wilt was selfish. He never let anybody touch his "girls" until he was done with them, regardless of if he was full, or empty....

[jlauber]

The Regul8r,

I was going to save the Pollack H2H games for another post, because if anyone believed that Russell "neutralized" Wilt, Pollack shoots that down.

Here it is...

http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Pollack_200607_Stats.pdf

It is near the bottom (about 270 or so)...

You can obviously see the numbers for yourself, but I will post 40 games in which Chamberlain CRUSHED Russell.

Here are some quick FACTS...

Russell and Wilt faced each other 142 times. Chamberlain outscored Russell in 132 of them. Russell scored 30+ points against Wilt three times, with a high of 37 points. However, in each of those games, Chamberlain outscored him. On the other hand, Wilt scored 40+ points against Russell, 24 times, and 50+ points FIVE times against Russell...including a HIGH of 62 points (on 27-45 shooting BTW.)

In terms of rebounding, Chamberlain outrebounded Russell 92-42, with 8 ties. Russell had ONE 40 rebound games against Wilt (exactly 40 BTW.) Meanwhile, Chamberlain had SEVEN 40+ games against Russell, including an NBA regular season record of 55...AND a post-season record of 41. Not only that, but Chamberlain held a staggering 23-4 edge in 35+ rebound games against Russell.

In terms of career scoring, Chamberlain averaged 28.7 ppg to Russell's 14.5 ppg. However, Wilt's scoring dropped dramatically as the quality of his teammates increased. Chamberlain had several SEASONS (and most of the seasons were 15-19 game matchups), in which he averaged nearly 40 ppg against Russell and the Celtics. In his first six years in the league, Chamberlain averaged about 35 ppg against Russell.

Wilt absolutely crushed Russell on the glass. He held an eye-popping 28.7 rpg - 23.7 rpg edge vs. Russell. During Russell's 10 years in which they played H2H, Wilt won EIGHT rebound titles (obviously Russell won the other two.)

Here is another interesting rebound fact...Russell is the all-time career post-season rebound leader at 24.9 rpg (Wilt is next at 24.5 rpg BTW), BUT, H2H, Wilt outrebounded Russell in EVERY post-season series (all EIGHT of them) in which they faced each other.

There is not a lot of H2H FG% statistics available between the two, but what there is shows Chamberlain with a HUGE edge. I mentioned the '66-'67 Eastern Playoffs, in which Chamberlain outshot Russell by a staggering .556 - .358 margin (and followed that up with a .560 - .343 edge over Thurmond in the Finals.)

Here is one interesting link, though, that showed Chamberlain's defensive domination over Russell...

http://www.brainyhistory.com/topics/c/chamberlain.html

In that 1965 game, Chamberlain held Russell to an 0-14 game from the field.

What we do know about their FG% is that Wilt was among the best in NBA history with a career .540 mark, which includes the top two records of all-time, and three of the top-5 (.727, .683, and .649.) Conversley, Russell was a mediocre shooter, with a career .441 mark (and an even worse .430 in the post-season.)

The fact is, Wilt was swarmed by Russell and his teammates (even Tom Heinsohn admitted to that), while Russell was only a 3rd or 4th option on almost every Celtic team he played on.

Once again, in their 142 H2H matchups, Russell may have held a slight statistical edge in a handful of their games. However, Chamberlain had an overwhelming edge in the vast majority, and on top of that, he had at least 40 games in which he CRUSHED Russell. I will post them later, but suffice to say, they will open up anyone's eyes on this topic.

George Kisida, a veteran beat writer covered both of those two in their entire careers, and he made the comment that "Wilt outplayed Russell in one-third of their games. Russell outplayed Wilt in one-third of their games. And Wilt DOMINATED Russell in one-third of their games."

John Wooden made the comment that had Chamberlain been surrounded by Russell's supporting cast, that it probably would have been Wilt with all of those rings. Esteemed NY Times sports writer Leonard Koppett carried that even further, saying that had Wilt had the same teams that Russell had, in his 13 years, that he would have gone 13-0 in Finals, instead of Russell's 11-2.

In any case, I am pressed for time tonight. Inicidently, I will address some of Simmons' comments, as well as that Sports Illustrated article that was released on January 27th 1969...which basically said that Wilt could no longer score. You will find an interesting development regarding that article (in which Chamberlain was made aware of it's release just before it hit the news-stands. It was almost comical.

[jlauber]

Russell held a slight statistical edge over Wilt in a handful of H2H games, while Chamberlain had an overwhelming edge in the vast majority of their encounters, including MANY in which he just crushed Russell...

once again, this was taken from Harvey Pollack's 142 H2H breakdown the Russell-Wilt battles...and here are the 40 or so games that I mentioned in which Wilt KILLED Russell...

http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Pollack_200607_Stats.pdf


For reference, the first number of the pair next to each player's name is points in that particular game, while the second is rebounds. An example would be the first one, with Wilt scoring 45 points, and grabbing 35 rebounds (45-35), while Russell's numbers were 15 points, with 13 rebounds (15-13.)


Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13
Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21
Wilt 43-39

[jlauber]

Vert48 writes:

"Wilt was an amazing athlete, but he was NEVER a world class volleyball player. He was no where near good enough to compete for a spot on the US Olympic team at that time."

Vert,

When it comes to volleyball, I am certainly no expert. I merely quoted my take from this article:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Muhammad-Ali-vs-Wilt-Chamberlain-The-Fight-That-Almost-Was

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"For Chamberlain, fighting Ali represented the pinnacle in his quest to conquer not only his own sport, but the entire sporting world. His accomplishments on the basketball court were already legendary. His records of 100 points scored in one game and 55 rebounds grabbed in another remain untouched, and many observers (then and now) considered him to be the greatest ever to play the game. With an NBA championship trophy and multiple MVP awards on his mantle, Wilt felt he had little left to achieve in basketball. However, Chamberlain was a driven man whose accomplishments spurred him to continually seek greater glory. In the off-season, Chamberlain was a world-class volleyball player and avid weightlifter who possessed enormous physical strength. With nothing left to prove in basketball, Wilt intended to prove that he was one of the greatest all-around athletes of all time. Naturally, there could be no better way to establish this credential than to switch sports and dethrone the man known to the world as

[nycelt84]

Wilt would have never have won all the titles won because as Red Auerbach said himself he never would have coached a player like Wilt Chamberlain. That's the main reason nobody wore number 13 on the Celtics for over 30 years. Wilt was everything that the Celtics were not.

[jlauber]

Abraham Lincoln quoted this from that Sport's Illustrated article which appeared in news-stands on January 27th, 1969:

"The main problem on the court is not that Chamberlain, Baylor and West do not get the ball enough. It is that Chamberlain will not or cannot go to the basket when he does get it. In other words, the fantastic Laker juggernaut lacks a sufficient offense to carry it; the team has been reduced to depending on its defense."

That was an interesting article. Nowhere did the author mention that it was Wilt's idiotic COACH, Butch Van Breda Kolf, who came to Chamberlain before the season even started, and suggested that due to the fact that Elgin Baylor was a baseline-to-baseline player, that he wanted Chamberlain, THE greatest low-post center in NBA history, to play in a high-post offense. And, as Wilt had done with every coach he had played before, he complied.

What transpired was a Laker team with no identity. The FACT was, Baylor was on a severe downslide by the time LA acquired Chamberlain. And for those that argue that Chamberlain played alongside two of the greatest players ever, in West and Baylor,...that was only partially true. West was indeed in his prime when Chamberlain came to Los Angeles, but Baylor was washed-up. Yet, Van Breda Kolf stuck by him, and asked that Wilt sacrifice his scoring, for Baylor's (and supposedly the team's) sake. Baylor put up good, but not great numbers that year, but was a complete flop in the post-season, averaging 15.4 ppg on .385 shooting.

Wilt had several bad coaches, but Van Breda Kolf was THE worst. It was Van Breda Kolf who kept Chamberlain on the bench in the last five-plus minutes of that game seven, two-point loss to the Celtics in the '68-'69 Finals. I will go into that season more thoroughly, including the ridiculous assumption that Wilt was "traded for pennies" (nothing could be further from the truth.)

But my main point about this post was that the writer of that Sport's Illustrated article basically questioned Wilt's ability to score. Remember, that story hit the news-stands on January 27th. However, word had leaked to Wilt a couple of days before that hit the news-stand, and on January 26th, ...the night before it came out...Wilt poured in 60 points against Cincinnati, and followed that up a couple of weeks later with a 66 point outburst (on 29-35 shooting BTW) against Phoenix. In fact, from January 26th thru Feb. 23rd, Chamberlain averaged 31 ppg in that 17 game stretch. Incidently, both of those 60 point games were NBA highs that year.

Here is the link to those numbers BTW:

http://www.apbr.org/wilt.html

I will get into Van Breda Kolf later, but suffice to say, he was fired for his coaching incompetence after that season, and his career was basically ruined because of it.

But, regarding Chamberlain's "lack of offense"...the Lakers brought in a new coach for the '69-'70 season, Joe Mullaney, and the first thing he did was to go to Wilt, and ask him to become an offensive force again. Remember, Wilt's last great scoring season had been in the '65-'66 season, when he put up a 33.5 ppg season. Over the course of the next three years he cut back his scoring due to much better quality rosters.

In any case, Chamberlain responded to Mullaney's request by averaging 32.2 ppg in his first nine games of that '69-'70 season. Then disaster struck. Wilt was having another monster game, having scored 33 points on a perfect 13-13 shooting night, when he went down with a horrific knee injury. It was such a severe injury that the most optomistic medical opinion had him missing the remainder of the season, and many felt that his career might be finished.

I will go into more detail about that season, as well as cover his '67-'68 thru72-'73 seasons later on.

But once again, no one could have been more embarrassed by that ridiculous article, than the editor's of Sports Illustrated...

[jlauber]

puppychili writes:

"Wilts stat chasing was off the charts. Simmons really broke it down. Especially when he pointed out the season where Wilt wanted to lead the league in assists. That season Wilt would hardly shoot and only pass to guys that he was sure would make the basket so he could get the assist. The fact that he was traded twice in his prime for pennies on the dollar is telling along with the fact that barely any of his teammates celebrated with him after the 100 point game."

The year that Wilt led the league in assists was the 1967-68 season. For Simmons to assert that Wilt only cared about stats was ridiculous...Chamberlain's Sixers had the best record in the league that year, at 62-20...by a wide margin over the 54-28 Celtics.

No, the Sixers did not win the title that year. I will break that season down later, but let's clear up why they did not quickly...

During Philly's first round playoff series against the Knicks, the Sixer's lost HOFer Billy Cunningham to a wrist injury, and he would miss the rest of the season. Not only that, but Chamberlain, himself, was nursing a variety of ailments including arthritis in his knees.

Still, despite having no Cunningham, the 76ers took a commanding 3-1 series lead over Boston. It looked so bleak that even Auerbach himself conceded the series was over, making the famous statement, "It is too bad, because will forget just how great he [Russell] was."

However, in game five, Sixer PF Luke Jackson went down with a knee injury, and while he gutted it out in game's six and seven, he was basically worthless. And in that game seven 100-96 76er defeat, Wilt's teammates fired blanks all game long...shooting just 33%. That game was remembered for Chamberlain not taking a shot in the second half, though.

In his biography on Chamberlain, Robert Cherry pointed out that strangely, Wilt only TOUCHED the ball on the offensive end, TWICE, the entire second half, and those came on offensive rebounds.

I will get into that game and series in more detail when I have more time, but the bottom line was that the Sixers were without Cunningham, Jackson was reduced to a shell, and Wilt was not at 100%...and yet, that Sixer team lost a game seven, by FOUR points.

I was stunned when the Sixers traded Chamberlain away following that season (actually, Wilt engineered that trade, and I will cover that later.) I firmly believed that the Sixers were building a Dynasty to rival Boston's. Hal Greer, Luke Jackson, Chet Walker, and Wilt were all in their primes, while Billy Cunningham was just vecoming a great player. Meanwhile, the aging Celtics were on a steady decline. Had Philly been able to keep that team intact, I truly believe that they would probably have won at least 3-4 more titles.

[jlauber]

Here are some commonly used ratings to evaluate player perfromance...


http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/leadersseason.htm?stat=eff&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/leadersseason.htm?stat=av&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/leadersseason.htm?stat=vi&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/leaderscareer.htm?stat=eff&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/leaderscareer.htm?stat=av&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/leaderscareer.htm?stat=vi&lg=n



Here is an explanation of those ratings...

http://www.databasebasketball.com/about/aboutstats.htm



Here is another site, with some more statistical breakdowns...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ows_season.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_season.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_season.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_season.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_career.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ows_career.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_career.html




These are interesting statistical breakdowns, and some are questionable (MJ, Kobe, and Lebron's best seasons seem quite under-rated in at least a few of them.) But one aspect is consistent...Chamberlain rates highly in ALL of them. The only area where Russell has an edge is in the Defensive Win Shares. But it is interesting, even in that rating, that Chamberlain is still among the best ever.

The WIN Shares rating is informative, as well. Kareem ranks #1, with Wilt at #2, Karl Malone at #3, Jordan at #4, and surprisingly, John Stockton at #5. Malone and Stockton, of course, never won a title. Shaq only ranks at #12 BTW, and Russell is #14, with West at #16, and Magic at #19. Magic's rating is surprising, except to the extent that he played alongside Kareem and Worthy, which probably hurt him in the rankings. IMHO, Magic HAS to rank as one of the greatest "winners" of all-time. If ANYONE made his fellow teammates better, it was Magic. Of course, one could argue that these "WIN Shares" do not take into account the POST-SEASON, in which, perhaps, Russell would have scored much higher. However, this rating does take into account the overall quality of teammates, in which Wilt then scores much higher based on the fact thathe played with some mediocre rosters.

Once again, these statistical analysis' do not encompass everything about the game, and as we have all conceded, some of what Russell brought to the table was immeasureable (just as the intangibles that Starr brought to the table in leading GB to five world titles..and being extraordinarily "clutch" in the process), but taken as a whole, it is hard to argue Chamberlain's place in NBA history. When you factor in the video footage, the record book, the H2H breakdowns, the rule changes, the two world championships on teams that many consider the greatest in NBA history, ...or these ratings...Chamberlain was not only the most dominant player ever in NBA history, he was probably the most dominant athlete in professional team sports history.

[MiseryCityTexas]

What I found the most damning is the result of the Lakers' player poll. The owner was considering trading for Wilt and he asked the players to vote on whether they wanted to do it. This was at a time when Wilt was either the best player or the second best player behind Russell. The Lakers had come close to winning a ring and this was an opportunity to acquire a top 2 player. What was the result? 9-2--against trading for Wilt. Wow! Can you imagine any team's players vetoing a trade for Wade or Lebron today, let alone by such a lopsided margin?

racism heavily influenced the whole lakers team on their decision not to want wilt to come to LA at the time.

[ThaRegul8r]

The Regul8r,

I was going to save the Pollack H2H games for another post, because if anyone believed that Russell "neutralized" Wilt, Pollack shoots that down.

Here it is...

http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Pollack_200607_Stats.pdf

It is near the bottom (about 270 or so)...

Thank you. I've been looking for this for years. For over a decade I've been trying to get the complete numbers. I already had the complete 1961-62 scoring numbers for both for the regular season and playoffs, the '66-67 playoffs numbers thanks to Wayne Lynch's book, a handful of games from '59-60, '62-63, '63-64, '64-65 and '68-69, and the averages of all 142 games broken down separately for regular season and playoffs (Pollack just lumps all the games together), but I didn't have all the data for each season. Although I wish he had kept track of field goals and free throws. I have the complete FG and FT numbers from their first game, but going through box scores in the newspaper, they usually just list FGM and FTM and not the attempts, so I haven't been able to fill in that data.

[ThaRegul8r]

Russell and Wilt faced each other 142 times. Chamberlain outscored Russell in 132 of them. Russell scored 30+ points against Wilt three times, with a high of 37 points. However, in each of those games, Chamberlain outscored him. On the other hand, Wilt scored 40+ points against Russell, 24 times, and 50+ points FIVE times against Russell...including a HIGH of 62 points (on 27-45 shooting BTW.)

To be fair, in that 62-point game, Boston was leading by 31 by the fourth quarter, so it didn't really matter how much Wilt scored, because it didn't have any impact on the game. If Boston already had the game in hand, then Russell probably couldn't care less how many points Wilt scored so long as it didn't affect the bottom line. One doesn't usually clamp down on an opposing player when your team is up huge.


In terms of career scoring, Chamberlain averaged 28.7 ppg to Russell's 14.5 ppg.

Again, to be fair, Russell wasn't a scorer, so Russell's effectiveness can't be evaluated by the same standards you'd use to evaluate Wilt. Russell himself said: "He always outscored me by huge margins—by twenty or thirty points a game—so I could never hope to compete with him in scoring duels […]. I couldn’t allow myself to get suckered into a game within the game." If I had Dikembe Mutombo, or Nate Thurmond, or Mark Eaton or another defensive center and my team were playing Wilt, I would hardly expect them to outscore Wilt. That's not how they would help me win.

Russell said that he tried to make Wilt less efficient: "If he got 40 points, it wouldn't hurt us that much if he had to take 42 shots to get them. I wanted to make sure that he didn't get those 40 points with 20 shots. So I tried to neutralize the impact of his points." Which is why I wish Pollack had kept FGM/A, because just the raw point totals don't tell the whole story. Like in their first game Wilt outscored Russell 30-22. Yet if you look further, you'll see it took him 39 shots to score those 30 points (30.8%). A modern example comes to mind when I think of a game Kobe Bryant had when he scored 41 points. You hear that and think, "Kobe goes off for 40 again." But then you see he took 47 shots to get those 41 points, and it changes your perception. So more data is needed to see what happened.


There is not a lot of H2H FG% statistics available between the two, but what there is shows Chamberlain with a HUGE edge. I mentioned the '66-'67 Eastern Playoffs, in which Chamberlain outshot Russell by a staggering .556 - .358 margin (and followed that up with a .560 - .343 edge over Thurmond in the Finals.)

I've said that Wilt Chamberlain in 1966-67 had the greatest season of any player in NBA history. Some people may be infatuated with '61-62 with the 50-point average and hundred point game, but '66-67 was his best season. And no one has ever had to face the defensive caliber of centers in the conference finals and finals to win a title than Wilt did, having to face Russell and Thurmond in back-to-back series, a fact which I have pointed out on numerous occasions in Wilt vs. Shaq debates.


John Wooden made the comment that had Chamberlain been surrounded by Russell's supporting cast, that it probably would have been Wilt with all of those rings. Esteemed NY Times sports writer Leonard Koppett carried that even further, saying that had Wilt had the same teams that Russell had, in his 13 years, that he would have gone 13-0 in Finals, instead of Russell's 11-2.

We don't know how the chemistry would've worked. Players are not equations that can be plugged in and substituted, and they don't exist in a vacuum. Since they're human beings, personality and mindset factor in. We don't know that Wilt could have led a team to championship after championship after championship as we've actually seen other greats do. He didn't beat a Knick team with an injured Willis Reed, when Wilt exploded for 45 and 27 the previous game, I believe. Wilt admitted he didn't have a killer instinct, and had varied interests outside of basketball that he wasn't obsessed with winning titles:


I didn’t go into the 1967-68 season with any great enthusiasm. I’ve always been the kind of person who needs specific concrete goals and challenges; with them, I’m the most competitive guy in the world; without them, I tend to be lackadaisical. I’m just not naturally competitive and aggressive. I don’t have a killer instinct. In the past, I’d always been able to set challenging goals for myself--whether it was selling $200 worth of junk in one day as a kid or leading the league in scoring as an NBA rookie. But by my ninth year in the NBA, there really weren’t many goals I hadn’t already reached. I’d led the league in damn near everything more times than I could count. I’d broken my own records year after year. I’d even been on a championship team. What else could I do? With my attitude toward Philadelphia and [Philadelphia 76ers owner, Irv] Kosloff, I just wasn’t in the mood to work hard at dreaming up some goal. I couldn’t just go through the motions, though; I had too much pride in myself--and too much affection and respect for my teammates to do that. So I decided I’d lead the NBA in assists. That was the only category, except free throws, that I’d never led the league in, and it was the one category that no other center had ever led in either. For basketball’s greatest scorer to lead the league in assists would really be something, I thought. It would be like Babe Ruth leading the game in sacrifice bunts or Jim Brown leading the league in blocking.

He felt he had done everything there was to do now that he'd won a championship, and decided to set a goal to lead the league in assists rather than set a goal to repeat. Russell himself said:


It’s much harder to keep a championship than to win one. After you’ve won once, some of the key figures are likely to grow dissatisfied with the role they play, so it’s harder to keep the team focused on doing what it takes to win. Also, you’ve already done it, so you can’t rely on the same drive that makes people climb mountains for the first time; winning isn’t new anymore. Also, there’s a temptation to believe that the last championship will somehow win the next one automatically. You have to keep going out there game after game. [...] Rarely will you see an athlete who hasn’t put on ten or fifteen pounds over a full career, but even rarer are the ones who don’t put on the same amount of mental fat. That’s the biggest killer of aging champions, because it works on your concentration and mental toughness [...].

It Wilt did win a couple titles with the Celtics, how long before he would have gotten bored? What goals would he have to invent for himself to stay interested? As ultracompetitive as Jordan was, even he took a break after the first threepeat and then came back. Russell was able to keep it up for an eightpeat. And Russell went 11-1 in the Finals. He only lost in '58 because he sustained an injury:


If Russell had not sprained his ankle and had been in the lineup—and I don’t mean to take anything away from our ball club—I really don’t think we would have won the title. The guy was that important.

Since we know that Wilt was injured in the '69 Finals, we don't know what could have happened if he had played longer into the postseason more often.

I want to reiterate what I've said elsewhere that I am by no means trying to take anything away from Wilt—I've come to his defense on many occasions. However, it isn't as simple to just say "Give him Boston and he wins every year," because it's not like simply running a WhatIf simulation.

[jlauber]

Regul8r,

I will be the first to admit that Russell was a great player. To say anything less would diminish Wilt's accomplishments. Even Wilt, himself, said that Russell probably would have blended better with his Celtic teammates than Wilt would have.

Having said that, though, even Russell said that Wilt would do a much better job playing his [Russell's] role, than Russell would have playing Wilt's. And Wilt was able to adapt to any teammates, as he proved in Philly and LA.

One of my biggest arguments in the Russell-Wilt debate was, what would have happened in the '61-'62 season, if the two had switched teams? Take a close look at Chamberlain's roster. There was really only one truly great player, Paul Arizin, and he was at the end of his career. There was not one other player that EVER averaged 20 ppg in season (and only Guy Rodgers was over 16 ppg in a season, with a high of 18.) Then take a look at Russell's roster. Cousey, with FOUR 20+ ppg season's in his career; Heinsohn with THREE 20+ ppg season's; Sam Jones, with FOUR 20+ ppg game season's; and then there were Frank Ramsey and KC Jones, both in the HOF.

And before that there was Bill Sharman, with THREE 20+ ppg seasons. And after that '61-'62 season, there was Havlicek, with EIGHT 20+ seasons' in his career (and two titles AFTER Russell retired), and Bailey Howell, with FOUR 20+ ppg seasons (and FOUR more 19 ppg seasons.) Finally, players like Don Nelson and Satch Sanders, who were quality players for years.

The fact is, Russell was drafted by a winning team, and always was surrounded with a talented supporting cast. Meanwhile, Wilt was drafted (in high school BTW), by a last place team, and played with mediocre rosters for the first half of his career.

I just can't believe that Wilt would not have been able to adapt to that Celtic roster of the '61-'62 season. Meanwhile, could Russell have carried that cast of clowns that Chamberlain had that same season. There was nothing with that group that would suggest that Russell could have brought out some kind of greatness in them.

When Wilt was finally surrounded with a quality supporting cast, he and his teammates crushed "they Dynasty." And they were well on their way to two in a row in that '67-'68 season, when a rash of injuries, and untimely bad shooting cost them in that Eastern Finals series. I have no doubt, though, that had Cunningham not been out for that series, that Philly duplicates it's 4-1 series victory of the previous season. Not only that, but they had a hobbling Jackson from game five on, and Wilt, himself, was nursing a variety of injuries. Do you honestly believe, that had the roles been reversed, and Russell would have been without Havlicek for the entire series, and an injured Howell, as well as fighting his own injuries, that Boston would have beaten a healthy Sixer squad?

I mentioned it previously, but no one was more upset about the Chamberlain trade to LA, than I was. Most everyone in the media conceded the Lakers the title in that '68-'69 season, because Wilt would be joining West and Baylor. I KNEW better. Wilt, along with Cunningham, Greer, Jackson, and Walker, were forming the next great NBA dynasty. What few "experts" realized at the time, was that the Lakers sent two quality players, in Clark and Imhoff, and a decent Chambers, to Philly for Wilt. That trade stripped LA of any real depth. But even worse, was the fact that Baylor was long past his prime...and it showed at the worst possible time, in the playoffs...when Baylor averaged 15.4 ppg on a horrific .385 shooting.

To be honest, it was really Wilt and West carrying that team, and Baylor actually detracting from it. And for those that have suggested that Chamberlain played with West and Baylor for several seasons...Wilt was injured early on in the '69-'70 season, and Baylor was injured for almost the entire '70-'71 season, and he retired (forced out actually) early in the '71-'72 season (and LA immediately went on their 33 game winning streak after that.)

Once again, though, how did Wilt, leading the league in assists in the '67-'68 season, HURT the Sixers? Even if it were for some selfish reason, the FACT is, the 76ers ran away with the best record in the league.


As for Russell making the comment that he could not keep up with Wilt's scoring. No doubt about that. Russell was simply an awful shooter, who padded his relatively poor career FG% with offensive put-backs. But for those to suggest that Wilt should not have shot as much early in his career...that wa spure nonsense. Even Wilt's coach in that famous '61-'62 season, Frank McGuire, took a look at that group of misfits, and told Wilt that they had no chance with Chamberlain only scoring 30-40 ppg...and that Wilt would have to score much more to be competitive. Once again, Wilt did whatever his coach asked of him. And the result was, Chamberlain almost single-handedly carried that pathetic team to within an eyelash of beating the vaunted Celtics, with SIX HOFers, in a game seven 109-107 loss.

There is so much for me to cover, and I apologize for getting side-tracked, and I will cover the '69'-'70 season, and that Knick series in more depth. HOWEVER, Reed winning that serie's MVP was one of the biggest disgraces in NBA history. Reed, who sprained his knee in a game five (and with his team down by double-digits) was virtually worthless in the last three games of that series. Meanwhile, the media conveniently forgot that Chamberlain had suffered a devastating knee injured himself, and was just four months removed from major knee surgery, and was nowhere near 100% in that series. On top of that, while Reed, in the last three pivotal games of that series, scored a TOTAL of 11 points (on 4-10 shooting) with a TOTAL of THREE rebounds. How about Wilt in those last three games? He scored 88 points, on 39-55 shooting, with 71 rebounds. In that seventh game, Wilt put up a 21-24 game, while Reed had a 4-3 game, and yet, Reed was the "hero", and Wilt the "failure." The FACT is, Wilt put up the ONLY 20 ppg, 20 rpg, .600 FG% series in NBA Finals' history (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 from the field.) Meanwhile, Reed checked in with a 23.0 ppg, 10.5 rpg, and .483 FG%...and won the MVP award. What an absolute disgrace!

I will go into much more detail on all of that later. But one more thing. A poster here said that it was West that carried that '71-'72 Laker team. He had better check the facts first. West was mired in the worst shooting slump of his career in the playoffs that season, and it was Wilt who dominated Kareem in the Western Finals (particularly in the clinching game six win in which he took over the game in the 4th period, and rallied the Lakers from a 10 point deficit.) Time Magazine hailed Wilt's performance as decisively outplaying Kareem. (Incidently, in that series, Wilt blocked FIFTEEN of Kareem's "sky-hooks") AND, it was an injured Wilt, who took over in the clinching game five win over the Knicks, when he played with two badly swollen wrists, and proceeded to score 24 points (on 10-14 shooting), with 29 rebounds (the entire Knick team had 39 BTW), with 10 blocks. His performance in those Finals earned him the Finals MVP.

Once again, I will cover all of that soon.

And, BTW, thanks to all who have followed along...

[Abraham Lincoln]

Very nice to read the perspective of one who witnessed that era of basketball as it took place. I have read that Wilt shut Kareem out in the 4th quarter of Game 6 in '72, but I did not know he blocked 15 Kareem skyhooks.


Time Magazine hailed Wilt's performance as decisively outplaying Kareem. (Incidently, in that series, Wilt blocked FIFTEEN of Kareem's "sky-hooks")




Particularly, Chamberlain was lauded for his final Game 6 performance, which the Lakers won 106?100 after trailing by 10 points in the fourth quarter: he scored 24 points and 22 rebounds, played a complete 48 minutes and outsprinted the younger Bucks center on several late Lakers fast breaks. Jerry West called it "the greatest ball-busting performance I have ever seen." Chamberlain performed so well in the series that TIME magazine stated, "In the N.B.A.'s western division title series with Milwaukee, he (Chamberlain) decisively outplayed basketball's newest giant superstar, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, eleven years his junior."


:cheers:

[jlauber]

Abe, (if I may call you that),

I will dig those 15 blocks somewhere in my archives. I may have gotten that from Cherry's biography on Wilt, but here is the Time Magazine quote...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"In the post-season, the Lakers defeated the Chicago Bulls in a sweep,[84] then went on to face the Milwaukee Bucks of young superstar center and regular-season MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar again. The matchup between Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar was hailed by LIFE magazine as the greatest matchup in all of sports. Chamberlain would help lead the Lakers past Jabbar and the Bucks in 6 games.[84] Particularly, Chamberlain was lauded for his final Game 6 performance, which the Lakers won 106

[jlauber]

LOL!

You beat me to it by TWO minutes!

[jlauber]

http://www.amazon.com/Wilt-Larger-Robert-Allen-Cherry/dp/1572436727

"In the twilight of his career, a 35 year old Wilt led the Lakers to victory over the Bucks and a 25 year old Jabbar during the 1972 playoffs. Even more astounding, was wilt blocked 20 shots in two consecutive games in that series, and 11 of those blocked shots were on Kareem. Who the heck ever did that to Jabbar. Makes you wonder what Wilt would have done in his prime. As great as Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson were, none of them had the impact or dominance of Wilt Chamberlain. The rules of the game were altered upon Wilts arrival into the league. Modern day fans talk of Shaq being the greatest center of all-time. Does anyone out there think Shaq could have blocked 11 Kareem shots in two games? Shaq wouldn't have been able to leap high enough to block a skyhook. That statistic alone, should be enough to convince anyone of Wilts athleticism."

I do believe that Cherry stated in his book that Wilt blocked 15 of Kareem's sky-hooks in the entire series.

[Roundball_Rock]

Interesting stuff, jlauber. I hope you share more of your insight, not just on Wilt but other 60's players. :cheers:

[jlauber]

Roundball,

Thanks for the kind words. I am not naive enough to believe that the average players, or athletes, of the 60's and 70's, were better than the players of today...but there were certainly quite a few who would have been great today.

I am going to bed for the night, but I caught your request, and I will throw in my full take another time, but I will say that, aside from Chamberlain's incredible athleticism, there was Pistol Pete, who was a true magician with the ball. Go to YouTube and do a search on Maravich...you will see what I mean (and his 68 point game against Frazier and the Knicks was unbelieveable...it was estimated that had the 3pt shot been in effect at the time, he would have had an 81 point game.)

And for those that believe that MJ invented the dunk, Gus Johnson, Connie Hawkins, and Dr. J were doing the same things 30-40 years ago.

And regarding 3pt shooting, I actually went to a Warrior-Knick game in Oakland in 1973, and during the pre-game warmups, Jerry Lucas hit 20+ straight shots from between the circles...some 25+ feet away. It was his long-range howizters that labeled his shot as a "Lucas Layup."

I will post some other greats, too, but I really do want to basically wrap up my Wilt "history lesson" here soon.

One more time, though...IMHO, in all of the MANY games that I actually watched between the two...I never witnessed ONE game in which I felt Russell was the better player. Even the available footage on YouTube confirms that. You just will not find much in which Russell looked more dominant, even for a few minutes. However, there is a TON out there in which Wilt just abused Russell.

(Incidently...take a look at the third video footage in my original post. It was recorded in the very first NBA-ABA All-Star game. Wilt only played a handful of minutes, but he thoughly outplayed Artis Gilmore in that limited time. As a side-note, notice that Chamberlain, who was listed at 7-1, DWARFED the 7-2 Gilmore...both in height, and bulk.)

[Roundball_Rock]

Thanks. Yeah, this thread should stay on topic but if you get time later a thread about older greats would be informative to 99% of posters here who didn't see them live.

[jlauber]

I could have just posted the link, but it would lose it's true impact...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Career_achievements_of_Wilt_Chamberlain

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"NBA scoring records
See also: List of National Basketball Association top individual scoring season averages
See also: List of National Basketball Association top rookie scoring averages
See also: List of National Basketball Association players with 60 or more points in a game
See also: List of individual National Basketball Association scoring leaders by season
NBA Record - Most Points Per Game in a season (50.4 in the 1961-62)
Chamberlain also holds the next two highest with 44.8 in 1962-63 and 38.4 in 1960-61.
NBA Record - Most Points in a season (4,029 in 1961-62)
Chamberlain holds the next highest with 3,586 in 1960-61
NBA Record - Most Points Scored in a Game (100 vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962)
NBA Record - Most Points Scored in a Half (59 in the 2nd half vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962)
NBA Record - Most 50 Point Games in a season (45 times in 1961-62)
Chamberlain holds the next most with 30 in 1962-63. No other player has had more than 10.
NBA Record - Most 40 Point Games in a season (63 times in 1961-62)
Chamberlain holds the next most with 52 in 1962-63. Michael Jordan holds third with 37 in 1986-87.
NBA Record - Most Consecutive Seasons Leading League in Points Per Game (7)
Record shared with Michael Jordan.
NBA Record - Most Career Regular Season 60 Point Games (32 times)
Kobe Bryant is in second place with 5.
NBA Record - Most Career Regular Season 50 Point Games (118 times)
Michael Jordan is in second place with 31.
NBA Record - Most Career Regular Season 40 Point Games (271 times)[19]
Michael Jordan is in second place with 173.
NBA Record - Most Consecutive 50 Point Games (7 times from December 16, 1961-December 29, 1961)
Chamberlain also holds the next three longest with 6 in 1962, 5 in 1961, and 5 in 1962
NBA Record - Most Consecutive 40 Point Games (14 times from December 8, 1961-December 30, 1961 and also 14 times from January 11, 1962-February 1, 1962)
Chamberlain also has the next most with 10 from November 9, 1962 through November 25, 1962
NBA Record - Most Consecutive 30 Point Games (65 from November 4, 1961-February 22, 1962)
Chamberlain holds the next two longest streaks with 31 in 1962 and 25 in 1960.
NBA Record - Most Consecutive 20 Point Games (126 from October 19, 1961-January 19, 1963)
Chamberlain holds the next most with 92 from February 26, 1963 through March 18, 1964.
NBA Record - Most points per game by a rookie (37.6 in 1959-60)
NBA Record - Most points by a rookie (2,707 in 1959-60)
NBA Record - Most points by a rookie in a game (58 on January 25, 1960 and 58 on February 21, 1960)
NBA Record - Fewest Games Played to Reach 20,000 Points (499 achieved in 1966)
Michael Jordan, at 620 games, took the second fewest games.
NBA Record - Fewest Games Played to Reach 25,000 Points (691, achieved on February 23, 1968 against the Detroit Pistons)
Michael Jordan, at 782 games, took the second fewest games.
NBA Record - Fewest Games Played to Reach 30,000 Points (941, achieved on February 16, 1972 against the Phoenix Suns).
NBA Record - Most consecutive seasons leading the league in field goals made (7 from 1959-60 through 1965-66)
Shared with Michael Jordan
NBA Record - Most Field Goals Made in a season (1,597 in 1961-62)
Chamberlain holds the next three spots with 1,463 in 1962-63, 1,251 in 1960-61, and 1,204 in 1963-64
NBA Record - Most Field Goals Attempted in a season (3,159 in 1961-62)
Chamberlain holds the next four highest with 2,770, 2,457, 2,311, and 2,298.
NBA Record - Most Field Goals Made in a Game (36 vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962)
Chamberlain holds the next highest with 31, and is tied (with Rick Barry) at third with 30
NBA Record - Most Field Goals Attempted in a Game (63 vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962)
Chamberlain holds the next two most with 62 and 60.
NBA Record - Most Field Goals Made in a Half (22 in the 2nd half vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962)
NBA Record - Most Field Goals Attempted in a Half (37 vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962 (2nd half)
NBA Record - Most Field Goals Attempted in a Quarter (21 in the 4th quarter vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962)
NBA Record - Most Free Throws Made in a Game (28 vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962)
Record shared with Adrian Dantley
NBA Record - Most seasons leading the NBA in free throw attempts (9)
NBA Record - Most consecutive seasons leading the NBA in free throw attempts (6 from 1959-60 through 1964-65)
NBA Record - Most Free Throws Attempted in a season (1,363 in 1961-62)
Chamberlain also holds the next four spots with 1,113, 1,054, 1,016, and 991.
NBA Record - Most Free Throws Attempted in a Game (34 vs. the St. Louis Hawks on February 22, 1962)
Chamberlain also holds second place with 32 on March 2, 1962.
NBA Playoff Record - Most points by a rookie in a game (53 vs. the Syracuse Nationals on March 14, 1960)
Pulled down a rookie playoff record 35 rebounds in the same game.
Chamberlain also scored 50 as a rookie against the Boston Celtics on March 22, 1960.
NBA Playoff Record - Most field goals in a seven game series (113 vs. the St. Louis Hawks in 1964)
NBA Playoff Record - Most field goals in a game (24 vs. the Syracuse Nationals on March 14, 1960)
Record shared with John Havlicek and Michael Jordan
NBA Playoff Record - Most field goal attempts in a game (48 vs. the Syracuse Nationals on March 22, 1962)
Record shared with Rick Barry
NBA Playoff Record - Most field goal attempts in a half (25 vs. the Syracuse Nationals on March 22, 1962)
Record shared with Elgin Baylor and Michael Jordan
NBA Playoff Record - Most field goal attempts in a three game series (104 vs. the Syracuse Nationals in 1960)
NBA Playoff Record - Most field goal attempts in a five game series (159 vs. the Syracuse Nationals in 1962)
NBA All-Star Game Record - Points in a game (42 in 1962)
NBA All-Star Game Record - Field goals in a game (17 in 1962)
Record shared with Michael Jordan and Kevin Garnett
NBA All-Star Game Record - Field goals in a half (10 in 1962)
NBA All-Star Game Record - Free throw attempts in a game (16 in 1962)
Chamberlain also holds the second most attempts in an All-Star Game with 15 in 1960.
[edit] Other selected scoring facts
2nd highest career scoring average (30.06)

[jlauber]

Continued...

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"After critics called him a one-dimensional (or even selfish) player, Chamberlain defiantly promised to lead the league in total assists the next season, which he did in 1968 at a rate of 8.6 per game.
[edit] NBA durability records
NBA Record - Most seasons leading NBA in minutes played (8)
NBA Record - Most consecutive seasons leading NBA in minutes played (5, from 1959-60 through 1963-64)
NBA Record - Most career minutes played per game (45.8)
Bill Russell is second at 42.3
NBA Record - Most minutes played in a season (3,882 in 1961-62)
Chamberlain also holds the next four most with 3,836 in 1967-68, 3,806 in 1962-63, 3,773 in 1960-61, and 3,737 in 1965-66
NBA Record - Most minutes played per game for a season (48.5 in 1961-62)
Chamberlain holds the top 7 spots in this category
Chamberlain's 3,882 minutes played out of the team's possible 3,890 left an average of six seconds rest per game.
NBA Record - Most complete games in a season (79 out of 80 games in 1961-62)
NBA Record - Most consecutive complete games in a season (47 in 1961-62)
NBA Playoff Record - Highest average minutes per game in a playoff series (49.33 (296/6) against the New York Knicks in 1968)
NBA Playoff Record - Most minutes played in a three game series (144 against the Syracuse Nationals in 1961)
NBA Playoff Record - Most minutes played in a four game series (195 against the Cincinnati Royals in 1965 and 195 against the Atlanta Hawks in 1970)
Record shared with Jerry Lucas and Oscar Robertson.
NBA Playoff Record - Most minutes played in a six game series (296 against the New York Knicks in 1968)
NBA Finals Record - Most minutes played in a five game series (240 against the New York Knicks in 1973)
Chamberlain never fouled out of a regular season or playoff game in his 14 years in the NBA.[1]
[edit] NBA accuracy records
See also: List of National Basketball Association top individual field goal percentage seasons
NBA Record - Most consecutive seasons leading NBA in field goal percentage (5, from 1964-65 through 1968-69)
Tied with Shaquille O'Neal
NBA Record - Highest Field Goal Percentage in a season (72.7% in 1972-73)
Chamberlain also holds the second highest percentage with 68.3% in 1966-67
NBA Record - Most consecutive field goals (35 from February 17, 1967 through February 28, 1967)
NBA Record - Most field goals in a game without a miss (18-18, Philadelphia 76ers vs. the Baltimore Bullets on February 24, 1967)
Chamberlain also holds the next two most with 16-16 (March 19, 1967) and 15-15 (January 20, 1967)
[edit] Other selected accuracy facts
2nd most seasons leading NBA in field goal percentage (9) [record held by Shaquille O'Neal (10)]
2nd lowest career free throw percentage in NBA history [record held by Ben Wallace]
2nd most free throws attempted in a game with none made (10 vs. the Detroit Pistons on 11/04/1960)

[mattevans11]

wow, this was one of the most insightful threads i have ever read on ISH. good arguments made on most parts here.

wish there were nmore out there like this. was a true pleasure to read.

it has kind of turned into a statistical comparison but some great info in here all together. well done...especially the guy that should be deemed the "insightful old dude"

[ThaRegul8r]

In terms of career scoring, Chamberlain averaged 28.7 ppg to Russell's 14.5 ppg. [...] Wilt absolutely crushed Russell on the glass. He held an eye-popping 28.7 rpg - 23.7 rpg edge vs. Russell.

Any knowledgeable fan of the game is familiar with the total numbers Pollack listed for the Russell/Chamberlain rivalry. But now that I have the numbers in front of me, after going through every season

[ThaRegul8r]

Russell said that he tried to make Wilt less efficient: "If he got 40 points, it wouldn't hurt us that much if he had to take 42 shots to get them. I wanted to make sure that he didn't get those 40 points with 20 shots. So I tried to neutralize the impact of his points." Which is why I wish Pollack had kept FGM/A, because just the raw point totals don't tell the whole story. Like in their first game Wilt outscored Russell 30-22. Yet if you look further, you'll see it took him 39 shots to score those 30 points (30.8%). A modern example comes to mind when I think of a game Kobe Bryant had when he scored 41 points. You hear that and think, "Kobe goes off for 40 again." But then you see he took 47 shots to get those 41 points, and it changes your perception. So more data is needed to see what happened.

What I have now found is exactly why I said more data was needed in order to form a picture of what happened. The 1961-62 season was the zenith of Wilt's scoring powers, as Wilt averaged a record 50.4 points per game. Wilt averaged 39.7 points in 10 games against Russell that season, which was the highest Wilt averaged against Russell during the regular season. Here are Wilt's regular season games against Russell that season, with points, FGM and FGA included:

#1) 11/3/61: 28 pts, 12-31 FG (38.7%)
#2) 11/11/61: 41 pts, 17-40 FG (42.5%)
#3) 11/23/61: 31 pts, 12-34 FG (35.3%)
#4) 12/13/61: 52 pts, 22-43 FG (51.2%)
#5) 12/30/61: 41 pts, 17-34 FG (50%)
#6) 1/14/62: 62 pts, 27-45 FG (60%)
#7) 2/9/62: 48 pts, 15-32 FG (46.9%)
#8) 2/10/62: 38 pts, 16-33 FG (48.5%)
#9) 2/24/62: 26 pts, 11-24 FG (45.8%)
#10) 3/7/62: 30 pts, 13-38 FG (34.2%)

So, with the FGM and FTA numbers to go along with the points, we see that Wilt had games against Russell of 28 points on 31 shots, 41 points on 40 shots, 31 points on 34 shots, and 30 points on 38 shots. He had three games in which he shot 50% or higher, shooting 60% in the 62-point game.

Wilt averaged 50.4 points on 50.6 percent shooting for the season. Against Russell, Wilt averaged 39.7 points on 45.8 percent shooting. He only scored less than 30 points in a game during the regular season twice, both times coming against Russell. Against everyone else, Wilt averaged 51.9 points on 51.2 percent shooting. In the two games against Boston that Russell missed with a sprained ankle, Wilt had 53 points on 21-for-28 shooting (75%), and 50 points on 17-for-31 shooting (54.8%). Russell stated that his goal was to make Wilt less efficient; in Wilt's highest-scoring season, the data shows that Russell accomplished exactly what he set out to do. This is exactly why I said raw point totals didn't tell the whole story.

[ThaRegul8r]

I am not naive enough to believe that the average players, or athletes, of the 60's and 70's, were better than the players of today...but there were certainly quite a few who would have been great today.

The greats will be great in any era. I can't stand when people claim that past greats would be scrubs today, as it shows complete disrespect to the players who paved the way for the league to be what it is today.


There is so much for me to cover, and I apologize for getting side-tracked, and I will cover the '69'-'70 season, and that Knick series in more depth. HOWEVER, Reed winning that serie's MVP was one of the biggest disgraces in NBA history. Reed, who sprained his knee in a game five (and with his team down by double-digits) was virtually worthless in the last three games of that series. Meanwhile, the media conveniently forgot that Chamberlain had suffered a devastating knee injured himself, and was just four months removed from major knee surgery, and was nowhere near 100% in that series. On top of that, while Reed, in the last three pivotal games of that series, scored a TOTAL of 11 points (on 4-10 shooting) with a TOTAL of THREE rebounds. How about Wilt in those last three games? He scored 88 points, on 39-55 shooting, with 71 rebounds. In that seventh game, Wilt put up a 21-24 game, while Reed had a 4-3 game, and yet, Reed was the "hero", and Wilt the "failure." The FACT is, Wilt put up the ONLY 20 ppg, 20 rpg, .600 FG% series in NBA Finals' history (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 from the field.) Meanwhile, Reed checked in with a 23.0 ppg, 10.5 rpg, and .483 FG%...and won the MVP award. What an absolute disgrace!

I still don't know how Reed won that Finals MVP.

[jlauber]

Regul8r,

Good stuff. No doubt that Russell, and Thurmond, were the best in the league in containing Chamberlain (although Wilt's high game against both was 62), but even Tommy Heinsohn said that it was not Wilt vs. Russell, but rather Wilt vs Boston. The Celtics swarmed Chamberlain, while Wilt had to concern himself with not only Russell, but the rest of the Celtic players on the defensive end. In fact, Heinsohn stated that the Celtics ABUSED Wilt. Their theory was that the refs were not going to call everything, and even if they did, Wilt's FT shooting was not great (more on that when I have time BTW...needless to say that Wilt currently ranks 17th, All-Time, in FTs MADE..while Russell ranks 129th.)

Still, while Russell slowed Wilt down, even to your 45.8%, the league average was .426. In the entire 66-67 season, when Wilt averaged 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting, Russell "held" him to 20.3 ppg and .549 ...in a league that averaged .441.

What we also do not know, is just how effective Wilt was against Russell's offense. In the few games in which that stat exists, Chamberlain BURIED Russell. I have already given you Russell's .358 in the '66-'67 Eastern Finals, and also a documented game in 1965, in which Wilt held Russell to an 0-14 game. We do know that Russell was an average shooter, at his best, though...and given the fact that Chamberlain shut him down as well as anyone, the assumption has to be that Russell probably shot less than 40% against Chamberlain...maybe way less.

And once again, take a look at the existing video footage on YouTube. There are even near full games out there, and once again, I stand by my point that I have never seen ONE game in which Russell looked to be the better player.

Many "experts" point out that game seven of the '68'-'69 Finals. Take a look at it. Russell did very little in the 4th quarter, while Wilt pulled down TWO rebounds on his injured knee. Wilt was on the bench in the last 5-6 minutes of that game...and yet, his replacement, Mel Counts shot a horrid 4-13 from the field, with several misses down the stretch. How did Wilt play, in arguably one of his WORST post-season games? He scored 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds (in 43 minutes), while the "clutch" Russell scored five points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds, in all 48 minutes. Incidently, in game five, Chamberlain outrebounded Russell by a 31-13 margin (and late in that same regular season, Wilt outrebounded him, in Boston no less, by a 42-18 margin...in a 108-73 beatdown of the Celtics.)

As for the career numbers, even if they are off by some decimal points, the fact is, in Wilt's first six years in the league, he averaged 35 ppg against the Celtics. Russell may have done the best job on Chamberlain, but he he hardly "contained" him.

And, why there was a lot of controversy in that game seven in the '67-'68 Eastern Finals, when Wilt did not take a shot in the second half (and only touched the ball twice on the offensive end), I always found it comical that Wilt was ripped for only scoring 14 points in that game...and yet, Russell only scored 12. No one ripped Russell for only scoring four points (to Wilt's 29) in the clinching game five of the '66-'67 playoffs (or in fact, in so MANY post-season games against Wilt), yet Chamberlain was EXPECTED to score 30+ against Russell, or else he was a "failure."

I have to take off now, but more on this later...

[vert48]

Vert48 writes:

"Wilt was an amazing athlete, but he was NEVER a world class volleyball player. He was no where near good enough to compete for a spot on the US Olympic team at that time."

Vert,

When it comes to volleyball, I am certainly no expert. I merely quoted my take from this article:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Muhammad-Ali-vs-Wilt-Chamberlain-The-Fight-That-Almost-Was

"For Chamberlain, fighting Ali represented the pinnacle in his quest to conquer not only his own sport, but the entire sporting world. His accomplishments on the basketball court were already legendary. His records of 100 points scored in one game and 55 rebounds grabbed in another remain untouched, and many observers (then and now) considered him to be the greatest ever to play the game. With an NBA championship trophy and multiple MVP awards on his mantle, Wilt felt he had little left to achieve in basketball. However, Chamberlain was a driven man whose accomplishments spurred him to continually seek greater glory. In the off-season, Chamberlain was a world-class volleyball player and avid weightlifter who possessed enormous physical strength. With nothing left to prove in basketball, Wilt intended to prove that he was one of the greatest all-around athletes of all time. Naturally, there could be no better way to establish this credential than to switch sports and dethrone the man known to the world as “The Greatest”.

Here is another one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

"After his basketball career, volleyball became Chamberlain's new passion: being a talented hobby volleyballer (albeit due to lack of technique, not as excellent as volleyball All-American Lakers team mate Keith Erickson) during his Lakers days,[89] he became board member of the newly founded International Volleyball Association in 1974 and became its president one year later.[6] As a testament to his importance, the IVA All-Star game was only televised because Chamberlain also played in it: he rose to the challenge and was named the game's MVP.[6] He played occasional matches for the IVA Seattle Smashers before the league folded in 1979. However, Chamberlain had promoted the sport so effectively that he was named to the Volleyball Hall of Fame: he became one of the few athletes who were enshrined in different sports.[6]"

Speaking of volleyball, here is an interesting quote from Pat Powers, 1984 Volleyball Gold Medalist:

http://volleyball.org/people/wilt_chamberlain.html

"From Pat Powers, 1984 Olympic Volleyball Gold Medalist, 10/14/99 -
A lot has been written about Wilt the last several days here in So Cal. He is receiving more attention now than he has for the last fifteen years--he would have preferred it this way, Wilt was never one for the spotlight off the court.

Here are two stories that I just attached names to yesterday:

One day big Wilty (a notorious card cheater) was playing a game off VB down at Muscle Beach in Santa Monica. To say Wilty was competitve in all sports would be a minor understatement. An argument broke out over the correct score and Wilty was not giving ground to anybody on the court. One of the players, Amon Lucky, made the mistake of stepping under the net to further the point, when Wilty picked him up and threw him over the net!!! Now understand the "Amer" weighs something on the order of 225lbs, so the rumor is Wilty "taped"him on the throw over. needless to say Wilty won the argument, and if memory serves me correct, the game.

Wilty was one of the strongest guys I have ever seen. I once was sitting on the steel fence at Rosecrans taking in the Rosecrans open with Wilt and several cohorts back in the late 70's. A player from Muscle Beach was standing beneath us and told us he was going to walk around so he could come join us up on the rail. Wilty told him there was "no no reason to walk," and reached down and picked him up by one arm and hoisted him over the bar. Mike weighed ~240lbs!!!

I have been around some athletes in my day. But nobody and I mean nobody was stronger than Wilty. He was a man's man!!!

I haven't seen him in recent years, but I am sure everybody who hung with the big guy at Sorrento, Muscle and State Beach will miss him....."

As a sidenote, in Wilt's first auto-biography, there is a photo of him spiking a ball, and his waist is ABOVE the top of the net.

In any case, Wilt took up volleyball late in his life. One can only wonder how really good he could have been had he dedicated himself to that sport...As you said, you just quoted some website. I am an expert on Volleyball, and saw Wilt play several times. Wilt could certainly have been a great volleyball player had he devoted his life to it, but he didn't.

Did you notice that Pat Powers said he was one of the strongest people he had ever seen, and incredibly competitive, but did not say that Wilt was a great volleyball player?

By the way, the Pro volleyball league he played in was Co-Ed. The difference between men and women in volleyball is equivalent to the difference in basketball.

Wilt was about as good at volleyball as MJ is at Golf.

[insidious301]

Yes, it's been documented that he would pad his stats (purposely used to play mediocre defense when he was in foul trouble just so he would get the record). A great player, but Shaq, Hakeem, and even Kareem would make minced meat out of the dude quick.

[ThaRegul8r]

Yes, it's been documented that he would pad his stats (purposely used to play mediocre defense when he was in foul trouble just so he would get the record). A great player, but Shaq, Hakeem, and even Kareem would make minced meat out of the dude quick.

See, this is what I'm talking about when people go to these extremes. I could say something about the former, but the fact is we've already seen an old Wilt against a young Kareem, and Kareem didn't make "mince meat" out of him. Old Wilt was a better rebounder and better defender than Kareem, and Wilt could (and did) block the skyhook.

Wilt Chamberlain was an NBA All-Defensive First Team selection in 1971-72 and 1972-73, his final two seasons in the league, while Abdul-Jabbar didn’t make the All-Defensive Team at all. During the time they were both in the league at the same time, Chamberlain had 2 All-Defensive First Team selections to Kareem’s 0 First Team All-Defense selections and 1 Second-Team All Defense selection (Kareem was Second Team All-Defense in ’69-70, but Wilt played 12 games). Chamberlain outrebounded a young Abdul-Jabbar 18.2-16.0 in 1970-71, 19-2-16.6 in ’71-72, and 18.6-16.1 in ’72-73. This was a 34, 35, and 36 year-old Chamberlain at the end of his career, and a 23, 24, and 25 year old Abdul-Jabbar. During the ’71-72 season in the middle of the Lakers’ 33-game winning streak, a 35-year old Chamberlain blocked eight shots in a game against the Milwaukee Bucks, five of them against Abdul-Jabbar, two of which were skyhooks, both of which came on the same possession. There used to be a YouTube video of this, but it's been removed for TOS violation. Jlauber already posted on the '72 Western Conference Finals. I'm still trying to get complete stats, but I do have that in Game 5 Wilt held Kareem to 13-for-33 shooting (39.4%) and outrebounded him 26-16 in a 115-90 LA win. Seeing how Kareem was the league's leading scorer at 34.8 ppg during the regular season, Wilt's defense on Kareem was huge, and was the reason the Lakers advanced to the Finals.

I dislike when mistruths are spoken, whomever they're spoken about.

[jlauber]

Regul8r,

You're point is well taken. There was, and continues to be so MANY misconceptions and flat-out fallacies regarding Chamberlain. The stupid stat about Wilt never fouling out was a complete joke. The FACT is, Wilt was thrown-out of two games in his career. One of them for decking the dirtiest player in the league at the time, Clyde Lovelette. The incident came in the '64 championship series. Lovelette had elbowed Wilt a couple of years before, knocking out a couple of his teeth, and a resulting infection that nearly killed Wilt. In any case, Lovellette was up to his old games, throwing elbows again, and Wilt finally told him to stop. Lovelette raised his fists, and Wilt took one swing...knocking the 6-9 240 lb. Lovelette to the floor, where he lied for several minutes. He promptly retired after that series.

In the pivotal game four of the '72 Finals against the Knicks, Chamberlain picked up his 5th foul in the 4th quarter. The game went into OT, and Wilt, who played all 53 minutes, blocked two key shots late, and LA went on to win that game, and then won the series in the next game.

Insidious mentioned Kareem (and you so knowledgeably blew up his "theory" that Kareem would have made "mince meat" out of Wilt.) Kareem is what I call "the Bridge." Why? Because Kareem played in the decades of the 60's, 70's, and even into the late 80's. There was no question that Kareem was the best player in the league in the decade of 70's. But he remained one of the best, if not the best, into the mid-80's...despite being well past his prime. In the '84-'85 NBA Finals, Kareem had an awful game one (in that famous Memorial Day Massacre loss to the Celtics), and the media wrote him off as washed-up. Well, he went on to DOMINATE that series, blowing up the Celtic front-line in the process, and went on to win the Finals MVP. He was 37 years old at the time.

As a sidenote (and I will get back to my original point here soon), Kareem DOMINATED the '80 Finals, as well. In game five, late in the 3rd period, and after having already scored 26 points against the Sixers, he badly sprained his ankle. He came out briefly, but despite the swelling and pain, he returned in the 4th quarter, where he poured in 14 more points, leading the Lakers to a 108-105 win, and a 3-2 series lead. Thru that point in the series, he had averaged 33 ppg, with 16 rpg, and shot .554 from the floor. However, he couldn't go in game six, and of course, Magic had that sensational game, which was reminicent of Walt Frazier's game seven in the '70 series. However, unlike Frazier, Magic won the Finals MVP,...while a virtually useless Reed won the '70 Finals MVP (and PLEASE, don't bring up the ridiculous "inspiration" story...I am SICK OF IT. If these professional players can't get up for a game seven, and need a player to play like a statue for half the game, to get "inspired" then there is something tragically wrong with professional athletes.)

Back to my original point. Kareem was among the best centers in the NBA in the 80's. Moses Malone outplayed him in the '83 championship, but it was hardly a clear-cut win. Kareem also held his own against Olajuwon, who would go on to be the best center in the NBA for most of the decade of the 90's...until Shaq came into his prime. And clearly, Shaq was the most dominant center of the 00's (at least the first half of the decade.)

Yet, in their H2H battles, it was generally considered that Chamberlain, who was 11 years older than Kareem, won the majority of them. True, Kareem put up some big games on Wilt (including a 50 point outburst), but, much like Russell did to Wilt, Chamberlain made Kareem work for his points. I believe I did the math on the games in the '72 Western Finals (thanks to Charley Rosen's book on that year), and from what I recall, Kareem only shot 43% in the series. Not only that, but Chamberlain thoroughly outplayed him down the stretch in that clinching game six win.

The two also battled in the '71 Western Finals, and while Kareem's Bucks blew out Wilt's Lakers 4-1, (who were without West, Baylor, and then lost Erickson during that series), it was generally accepted that Wilt held Kareem to a draw. Remarkably, as Chamberlain left the floor late in the final game of that series (LA was being crushed)...he received a standing ovation. Even more remarkable, however, was the fact that the game was played in MILWAUKEE.

In Wilt's final season, the 72-73 campaign, he was even more dominant against Kareem, although his own scoring dwindled. And, in one game between the two, he even outscored Kareem, despite only taking 14 shots (10-14) (to Kareem's 10-27.)

Wilt not only held Kareem way below his normal FG% (much like Russell did against Wilt)...he outrebounded him in almost every game between the two, as well as leading the league in every year in which Kareem played (except the '70 season, in which he was injured...but WOULD have led had he continued at his pace.) The significance of that was, while Kareem was never a great rebounder, he was a very good one for most of the early years in his career, and in fact, led the league one year in the mid-70's.

The bottom line is that Wilt was well past his prime when he battled Kareem, who was near his peak, and Chamberlain probably won the majority of their H2H games. And then Kareem went on to dominate the 70's, and was among the best centers in the league in the 80's...including holding his own against Olajuwon. And Olajuwon was the best center in the 90's.

Well, you can gather my point...Wilt probably would have been every bit as great in the current NBA, as he was in his era.

More to come...

[jlauber]

I don't want to hijack this post, but for those that equate winning, or rings, with greatness,...and hold that against Wilt...

Once again, Michael Jordan played on FIVE losing teams in his career. His first three playoff teams went 1-9, and it took six years before he played on a title team. And it wasn't until he was surrounded with the best roster in a very watered-down NBA, that his TEAMS won championships. How good were those players? Well, when MJ retired the first time after the '92-'93 season, the Bulls went 57-25 the following year WITHOUT him. Not only that, but that Bulls team lost a game seven to the Knicks, who went on to lose a game seven to the Rockets in the Finals. AND, the following year, Jordan returned, and could not carry that team to another title. Of course, when the Bulls added Rodman, Kerr, and Kukoc to Pippen and Harper, and a quality bench, along with MJ, the Bulls went on another three-peat.

I have already mentioned the EIGHT other HOFers that Russell was surrounded with his ENTIRE career (never less than three, and as many as FIVE other HOFers), as well as a HOF coach. In fact, Russell was drafted by a winning team, and had quality teammates (and usually very deep benches) his entire career. Many of the players played together for most of it. Here again, breakdown those players, and there were several of them that had several 20+ ppg seasons in their careers. Did Russell make them better? Sure he did. But the opposite was true as well. Not to diminish Russell's greatness, but a friend of mine stated that Russell was the greatest ROLE player in NBA history. He was not knocking Russell, but the fact was, Russell was very limited on the offensive end. Even Heinsohn said that Russell "couldn't hit a bull's a$$." Russell's greatest weakness, his offensive skills, were in fact, among his greatest strength. He knew that he could not dominate a game on the offensive end, so he concentrated on defense, rebounding, and the outlet pass. His teammates benefitted in a variety of ways. Obviously, with Russell taking a small percentage of the shots, there were many other shots to go around. Secondly, with Russell's great defense, his teammates could gamble more for steals, and with Russell's great rebounding, his teammates could "cheat", and take off on the break sooner.

However, that same friend brought another great point: How would Russell's career fared had he been drafted by the Pistons? In his estimation (and I am inclined to agree BTW), Russell would have been considered a very good player, on teams that he would have made better, but probably far from championship caliber.

Chamberlain, on the other hand, was drafted (actually in High School...the NBA had a territorial draft at the time...and no one screamed louder against it than Auerbach, BTW, who had seen Wilt at a basketball camp...and wanted him for himself)...by a last place team. He immediately turned the franchise around, and led that rag-tag group to a game six, one point loss to the vaunted Celtics in his very first year (a year in which he averaged 38 ppg in 19 games against Boston BTW.)

I have already documented Chamberlain's monumental '61-'62 season, in which he basically took that same roster to a game seven, two-point defeat of the heavily-favored Celtics.

Incidently, that brings me to another side-track...

In that '61-'62 season,... a season that an ESPN panel of "experts" just recently ranked as the greatest individual season in professional sports' history...Wilt did NOT win the MVP award. No, his 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, .506 FG% season, was not good enough to beat out Russell's 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and .457 shooting (incidently, Russell won by a big margin.)

Ok, so despite single-handedly carrying a cast of players that were probably not as good as basketball players as the cast from Gilligan's Island,...to within an eyelash of knocking off the great Celtic Dynasty...Chamberlain did not win the MVP. Ok, so how come Wilt did not win the MVP award in the '71-'72 season? Instead it went to Kareem. All Wilt did in that '71-'72 season, was take an aged roster that had gone 48-34 the year before, and lead them to 33 straight wins, and the best record in NBA history (at the time.) And in the process, Chamberlain led the league in rebounding, by a wide margin, FG%, by a wide margin, and was voted first-team all-defense. No, instead it went to Kareem, whose team declined from their 66-16 championship season in '70-'71, to a 63-19 mark in '71-'72. Yes, Kareem did lead the league in scoring, at 34.8 ppg...but what criteria changed from the '61-'62 season?

The botton line, IMHO, is that when Wilt scored 40 ppg, with 25 rpg, and shot .520 from the field, and carried his mediocre team's to the brink of beating the Celtics...he was a "failure." YET, when Jordan, or Kobe, or Lebron, play brilliantly on losing teams...well, they were considered "heroic." WHY? I will tell you the real reason. Chamberlain so completely DOMINATED the game (geez, they had to put SEVERAL rules in place in an attempt to curtail his overwhelming dominance)...that he was EXPECTED to carry his team's to championships.

I mentioned the '69-'70 Finals...in a series that is remembered by a stumbling Reed coming from the dressing room...and watching his teammates hit 15 of their first 21 shots en route to a convincing win over the Lakers. The fact is, had the Lakers had five MJ's that night, they still would have lost against a Knick team that just could not miss. I have witnessed several games like that in my lifetime (the opening game of the '72 Finals, in which the Knicks hit 60% of their shots from all over the floor...and the opening game of the '85 Finals, when Boston buried the Lakers, 148-114.)

But, while everyone considered Reed "heroic", only Chamberlain could be considered a "failure" in a game in which he outscored his counterpart, 21-4, and outrebounded him, 24-3. Not only that, but virtually everyone forgot that Chamberlain had just come back, WAY ahead of schedule, from major surgery just four months before.

If Wilt put up a 30-20 game against Russell, while Russell put up a 15-20 game against Wilt...and Boston won the game..."well, Russell sure outplayed Wilt." If Chamberlain put up a 40-30 game against Russell, and Russell had a 10-15 game, and Wilt's team won..."well, geez, Wilt is 3-4 inches taller, 50 lbs heavier, stronger, faster, and can jump higher...he SHOULD outplay Russell."

The fact was, no matter what Wilt did, it was never enough. If he scored 50 points, and his team lost..."well, he was selfish". If he scored 20 points, and his team lost, "well, he sure 'choked'."

When Wilt was given a comparable roster to what Russell had, like '66-'67 (and '67-'68...but that team was decimated by injuries in the playoffs), his team destroyed Boston. And in the process, Wilt crushed Russell.

But, IMHO, Wilt's greatest achievements were not his rings, nor his 72 records, but the fact that he came so close, so often, in carrying his team to victories over those great Celtic teams. Yet, most everyone else considered him an underachieving "failure." Having said that, though, those that considered him a "failure" were in actuality, recognizing just how great he was. They EXPECTED him to carry those teams to championships. He was EXPECTED to dominate the game.

MJ's brilliant play in the '85-'86 playoff loss to the Celtics was considered "heroic", despite the fact that his team was swept. Yet, when Wilt carried a pathetic roster to within two points of beating the heavily-favored Celtics...he was a "failure."

[ThaRegul8r]

I don't want to hijack this post, but for those that equate winning, or rings, with greatness,...and hold that against Wilt...

Once again, Michael Jordan played on FIVE losing teams in his career. His first three playoff teams went 1-9, and it took six years before he played on a title team. And it wasn't until he was surrounded with the best roster in a very watered-down NBA, that his TEAMS won championships. How good were those players? Well, when MJ retired the first time after the '92-'93 season, the Bulls went 57-25 the following year WITHOUT him.

It doesn't make sense to go down this road while arguing for Wilt, seeing how after Wilt was traded from the Sixers to the Lakers for Jerry Chambers, Archie Clark, and Darrall Imhoff, the Sixers went 55-27—a mere seven less wins than they won the previous year with Chamberlain, finishing with the second best record in the Eastern Division and two games back of the Baltimore Bullets for the best record in the league, and the exact same record as the Lakers with Wilt. It's not wise to use something that can be turned right back around on you by someone with a knowledge of the history of the game, though admittedly those people seem to be few and far between on a whole.


I have already mentioned the EIGHT other HOFers that Russell was surrounded with his ENTIRE career (never less than three, and as many as FIVE other HOFers), as well as a HOF coach. In fact, Russell was drafted by a winning team, and had quality teammates (and usually very deep benches) his entire career. Many of the players played together for most of it. Here again, breakdown those players, and there were several of them that had several 20+ ppg seasons in their careers.

Before Russell arrived in Boston, the Celtics’ playoff record was 11-17 (.393 winning percentage). The following was said about Red Auerbach:


He had Cousy, Sharman and Ramsey. [...] But they couldn’t move ahead in the playoffs. Red Auerbach had been coaching ten seasons in the pros and he’d made it to the finals only once where he’d lost in six games. In Boston, he had won only three of nine playoff series and had never made it to the finals. After a full ten seasons as a head coach, no small tryout, the book on Red Auerbach was that he couldn’t win the big one.

Copied and pasted from something I'd written years ago on Russell's Hall of Famers because people bring it up so much:


Prior to 1980, only two other Celtics besides Russell were in the Hall of Fame—Bob Cousy, elected in 1970, seven years after his retirement in his second year of eligibility, and Bill Sharman, elected in 1976, 15 years after his retirement in his ninth year of eligibility. After 1980—when Russell was voted the greatest player of all time, six Celtics from those teams were inducted to the Hall: Frank Ramsey in 1981, 17 years after his retirement in his 11th year of eligibility; John Havlicek in 1984, six years after his retirement in his first year of eligibility; Sam Jones in 1984, 15 years after his retirement in his ninth year of eligibility; Tom Heinsohn in 1986, 21 years after his retirement in his 15th year of eligibility; K.C. Jones in 1989, 22 years after his retirement in his 16th year of eligibility; and Bailey Howell in 1997, 26 years after his retirement in his 20th year of eligibility. (Hall of Famer Clyde Lovellette played on Boston in 1962-63 and ’63-64, but played only 9.3 and 9.7 minutes per game—he made the Hall for his play on Minneapolis and St. Louis.)

K.C. Jones had career averages of 7.4 points, 3.5 rebounds and 4.3 assists per game, shot 38.7 percent from the floor, and 64.7 percent from the line, never averaged more than 9.2 points, 4.7 rebounds, or 6.3 assists in a season, and was an 88 on databaseBasketball.com’s (formerly BasketballReference.com) HOF Monitor, with a score over 135 being a likely Hall of Famer. Similar players were Al Attles, Johnny Egan, Al Bianchi, Bob Weiss, Darrall Imhoff, Jack Mcmahon, Jack George, Wali Jones, Bob Harrison and Andy Phillip, none of whom are in the Hall of Fame. He never once made the All Star team. So how can you not even be an All-Star during your career, but a Hall of Famer after it? :confusedshrug:

Another Hall of Famer, Frank Ramsey was never an All-Star, and had a score of 81 on databaseBasketball.com’s HOF Monitor.

Only a few knowledgeable posters are even aware of this. After Russell was named the G.O.A.T. for the NBA's 35th anniversary, suddenly a wave of his former teammates were inducted into the Hall. Havlicek is unquestionably a HoFer, but did the r

[ThaRegul8r]

The botton line, IMHO, is that when Wilt scored 40 ppg, with 25 rpg, and shot .520 from the field, and carried his mediocre team's to the brink of beating the Celtics...he was a "failure." YET, when Jordan, or Kobe, or Lebron, play brilliantly on losing teams...well, they were considered "heroic."

Dunno about Kobe, other than Kobe stans. This is what ran after last year's finals:

[QUOTE]MVP? More like MIA

Kobe Bryant made just seven of 22 mostly wild shots. He had just one assist. He had four turnovers. The league MVP was unable to carry a team that needed carrying.

June 18, 2008

BOSTON

[ThaRegul8r]

Kareem is what I call "the Bridge." Why? Because Kareem played in the decades of the 60's, 70's, and even into the late 80's. There was no question that Kareem was the best player in the league in the decade of 70's. But he remained one of the best, if not the best, into the mid-80's...despite being well past his prime. In the '84-'85 NBA Finals, Kareem had an awful game one (in that famous Memorial Day Massacre loss to the Celtics), and the media wrote him off as washed-up. Well, he went on to DOMINATE that series, blowing up the Celtic front-line in the process, and went on to win the Finals MVP. He was 37 years old at the time.

An amazing accomplishment. In the four Laker wins, Kareem averaged 30.3 points on 62.8 percent shooting, 11.3 rebounds, 6.5 assists and 2 blocked shots per game.


As a sidenote (and I will get back to my original point here soon), Kareem DOMINATED the '80 Finals, as well. In game five, late in the 3rd period, and after having already scored 26 points against the Sixers, he badly sprained his ankle. He came out briefly, but despite the swelling and pain, he returned in the 4th quarter, where he poured in 14 more points, leading the Lakers to a 108-105 win, and a 3-2 series lead. Thru that point in the series, he had averaged 33 ppg, with 16 rpg, and shot .554 from the floor. However, he couldn't go in game six, and of course, Magic had that sensational game, which was reminicent of Walt Frazier's game seven in the '70 series. However, unlike Frazier, Magic won the Finals MVP,...while a virtually useless Reed won the '70 Finals MVP

It makes no sense. Kareem was averaging 33.4 points on 54.9 percent shooting, 13.6 rebounds, 4.6 blocked shots and 3.2 assists in 40.6 minutes per game through the first five games, and he was the reason the Lakers were up 3-2 in the first place. Then Magic has the ONE game and he's MVP? The Lakers were already up 3-2 and still had one more game left. In contrast, Reed goes down in the first quarter of Game 5, and Frazier had a team-high 21 points on 68.5 percent true shooting, seven rebounds and 12 assists in 46 minutes in that game, and averaged 23.7 points on 62.8 percent shooting from the floor and 89.5 percent shooting from the line, 6.7 rebounds and 12.7 assists in 44.3 minutes per game in Games 5, 6, and 7 AND had one of the greatest big-game performances in NBA history in Game 7. And unlike in the case with Magic, the Knicks HAD NO MORE GAMES LEFT. If the Lakers had lost Game 6, there still would have been a Game 7. For Frazier, that was it. Frazier was the 1970 NBA Finals MVP.

[vert48]

An amazing accomplishment. In the four Laker wins, Kareem averaged 30.3 points on 62.8 percent shooting, 11.3 rebounds, 6.5 assists and 2 blocked shots per game.



It makes no sense. Kareem was averaging 33.4 points on 54.9 percent shooting, 13.6 rebounds, 4.6 blocked shots and 3.2 assists in 40.6 minutes per game through the first five games, and he was the reason the Lakers were up 3-2 in the first place. Then Magic has the ONE game and he's MVP? The Lakers were already up 3-2 and still had one more game left. In contrast, Reed goes down in the first quarter of Game 5, and Frazier had a team-high 21 points on 68.5 percent true shooting, seven rebounds and 12 assists in 46 minutes in that game, and averaged 23.7 points on 62.8 percent shooting from the floor and 89.5 percent shooting from the line, 6.7 rebounds and 12.7 assists in 44.3 minutes per game in Games 5, 6, and 7 AND had one of the greatest big-game performances in NBA history in Game 7. And unlike in the case with Magic, the Knicks HAD NO MORE GAMES LEFT. If the Lakers had lost Game 6, there still would have been a Game 7. For Frazier, that was it. Frazier was the 1970 NBA Finals MVP.Yep, I remember that Lakers series really well, and went to game 1 at the Forum. Still one of my all time sports memories.

That Knicks series must have been fun to watch. Did you get to go to any games, or did you have to watch all of it from home?

[jlauber]

Regul8r,

Very good points. Regarding my comment about Jordan and comparing his TEAMS having FIVE losing records in his career...EVERY team Wilt went to became better, and every team he left became worse. The Lakers did not dramatically improve (although they did win three more games) in that '68-'69 season because of their COACH. Incidently, Philly not only lost seven more games, without Wilt...they could not even make past the first round of the playoffs...and within a few years were the worst team in the league. Same with the Warriors. They fell from being in the championship, to a 17-63 record (Wilt was traded in mid-season, and more on that later, but he also missed 21 games at the beginning of the year...and the Warriors were 5-16 in them.) And Wilt not only improved the Sixers from a 34-46 mark to a 40-40 record...he carried them to within ONE point of being the 62-18 Celtics in the Eastern Finals, in that famous game seven.

This fallacy that Wilt was traded for "pennies on the dollar" is just that. How about this? The owner of the Philadelphia Warriors sold the franchise to San Francisco after the '61-'62 season. Why? The previous record for a franchise being sold was for the Rochester Royals, who were sold to Cincinnati for $250,000 in 1957. The owner of the Warriors had purchased the franchise for $25,000 in 1952. He sold it to the SF group for a then staggering $850,000.
Not only that, but a couple of years later, in 1964, the Syracuse franchise was sold to the Philadelphia group for $500,000...or $350,000 LESS than what Chamberlain's Warriors brought just two years before. Why? You tell me.

Chamberlain was traded by the Warriors in the middle of the '64-'65 season. Why? Chamberlain was sick before the '64-'65 season. After a battery of tests, SF doctors concluded that he had a serious heart problem, and maybe even a bad pancreas. No doubt he was ill, but he went to his own Dr., Dr. Stan Lorber, found he had pancreatis, not a hear attack as was diagnosed by the SF doctors. The Warriors' principal ownership took no chance, though, and traded him to Philadlephia. Once again, this was not a decision based on "team chemistry", but rather of desperation.

Chamberlain was traded to the Lakers after the '67-'68 season. Why? When the Sixers traded for Wilt, their owner, Ike Richman, took an immediate liking to Wilt, and supposedly promised him a part of the team. It was never done in writing, but Chamberlain had no doubt that it would occur. Richman suddenly died in 1965, and the new Sixer ownership basically told Chamberlain that he was out of luck. There was even specualtion that that decision may have impacted how either Wilt played in that game seven of the Eastern Finals, or perhaps how his teammates may have been told to play.

In any case, Wilt was disgusted with the new ownership, and with the advent of the ABA, Chamberlain had the option of jumping from Philly to the ABA...and leaving the Sixers with nothing in return. He basically engineered his trade to LA, for three decent players. I certainly wish that it had not taken place, but in any case, Wilt left the Sixers...not that they traded him.


As for your comparing the '61-'62 Warrior roster with the '61-'62 Celtic roster. PLEASE! Rodgers was a good player, and I acknowledged that. Arizin was a deserved HOFer, but he was in his last year, and his shooting percentage was awful that year. Your assertion that Gola was a HOFer, while correct, is a complete JOKE. Gola's career numbers were average at best. I could come up with hundreds of NBA players with far better credentials. My only assumption HAS to be that Gola was elected into the Hall based on his COLLEGE perfomance.

How about Russell's squad. I won't take the time to rehash the numbers again, but several of those HOFers had multiple season's in which they averaged 20+ppg. These were legitimately great players. The FACT was, Russell had much better supporting players EVERY year in the league, with the possible exception of '66-'67 and '67-'68. Even though that '68'-'69 Laker team had West and Wilt... Baylor was actually a liabilty...and there was no depth on that team. But, not only that, their COACH was an even bigger liabilty.

I am out of time this morning, but that Sports Illustrated article that Abe posted earlier mentioned that the '68-'69 Laker offense had no fast break offense...which was true. YET, Bill Sharman had FOUR 30+ year old players running the most devastating fast break offense in NBA history in the '71-'72 season. You tell me what the difference was.

Enjoying these discussions BTW...

[ThaRegul8r]

As for your comparing the '61-'62 Warrior roster with the '61-'62 Celtic roster. PLEASE!

I didn't compare them with the '61-62 Celtics. I addressed your statement that Wilt played with no one better than the cast of Gilligan's island. As I said, I address mistruths, whomever they're spoken by, and whomever they're spoken against, and have been doing this for years on various venues.


Rodgers was a good player, and I acknowledged that.

You never said Rodgers was a good player, you merely mentioned him in passing:


Take a close look at Chamberlain's roster. There was really only one truly great player, Paul Arizin, and he was at the end of his career. There was not one other player that EVER averaged 20 ppg in season (and only Guy Rodgers was over 16 ppg in a season, with a high of 18.)



And in your first post on this thread you said Rodgers was "nothing more than decent":


Take a look at the roster that Wilt played alongside in the 61-62 season. He did have two HOFers, but take a closer look. One of them, Paul Arizin, was a good player, in his last season. The other was Tom Gola. Gola a HOFer? PLEASE...take a look at his career stats. He was an ordinary player who averaged a CAREER 11.3 ppg, with 7.8 rpg, and shot .431 from the floor. In that 61-62 season he averaged 13.7 ppg and 9.8 rpg.

...

Aside from Guy Rodgers and Al Attles, who were nothing more than decent their entire careers

As I showed you, Wilt regarded him as considerably more than "decent." As I've said, there's no need to make people out to be worse than they were in order to make a point.


Arizin was a deserved HOFer, but he was in his last year, and his shooting percentage was awful that year. Your assertion that Gola was a HOFer, while correct, is a complete JOKE. Gola's career numbers were average at best. I could come up with hundreds of NBA players with far better credentials. My only assumption HAS to be that Gola was elected into the Hall based on his COLLEGE perfomance.

You can't have it both ways. I pointed out that two of Russell's Hall of Famers were never even All Stars during their careers yet somehow Hall of Famers after it, and posted K.C. Jones' numbers (which are even worse than Gola's), which make you raise an eyebrow and wonder how this guy was ever voted into the Hall. His assist numbers aren't even impressive and he was the point guard. Russell as a center averaged as many assists for his career as K.C. did. He specifically had to pass more because he knew K.C. couldn't run an offense like Cousy did. So why is Gola a "joke," (five time All-Star to K.C.'s zero) but K.C. one of the many HoFers Russell played with on a stacked team?:


Then take a look at Russell's roster. Cousey, with FOUR 20+ ppg season's in his career; Heinsohn with THREE 20+ ppg season's; Sam Jones, with FOUR 20+ ppg game season's; and then there were Frank Ramsey and KC Jones, both in the HOF.

Both of the latter who, as I've pointed out, were never even All-Stars. (And Bob Cousy had one 20 ppg season while playing with Russell. Bill Sharman never averaged 20 ppg until Russell came. Could it be that Russell enabled him to score more points? Bailey Howell had one 20 ppg season and two 19 ppg seasons while playing with Russell. As far as Don Nelson:

Earl Strom: For years, the Celtics lived off other teams' castoffs. Larry Siegfried wasn't good enough for the Hawks, but ended up starting for Boston. Bailey Howell was supposed to be too old for Detroit. Wayne Embry was supposed to be washed up in Cincinnati. Don Nelson wasn't good enough for the Lakers, all they saw was a guy who couldn't dribble, who was slow and not much of a leaper.

Don Nelson: I was in Chicago for a year [1962-63], then played two years with the Lakers. The Lakers thought I just didn't have enough natural ability to be a forward in the league, and they cut me.

Interesting though that Tom Gola is an "ordinary" player at about 14, 10 and 5, but Don Nelson is a "quality" player at around 12, 6 and 1 during the time he played with Russell, and lower career averages than Gola. The use of double standards doesn't help an argument.

And what I don't get, is that if Wilt was averaging 39.6, then where exactly were the other 20 point scorers supposed to come from?)


Wilt single-handedly carried that mediocre roster to a game seven, two-point loss to the 60-20 Celtics,...a TEAM that had SIX HOFers. Cousey, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, KC Jones, Ramsey, and Russell.

Since you made the statement that Gola being a Hall of Fame is "a joke," could you please explain to me how a player can not ever be good enough to be an All Star for his career, but after he retires makes this transformation into a Hall of Famer? Because I know that's something that has long puzzled me, and the passage of time hasn't imparted any understanding to me on that.


How about Russell's squad. I won't take the time to rehash the numbers again, but several of those HOFers had multiple season's in which they averaged 20+ppg. These were legitimately great players. The FACT was, Russell had much better supporting players EVERY year in the league, with the possible exception of '66-'67 and '67-'68.

From 1965-66 to 1968-69, Wilt's teams had better records than Russell's. You can make the argument before that point, but after Wilt came to the Sixers, from then until the end of his career he had the necessary talent to win titles. And West has for years said that the Lakers were the better team in '69. West and Baylor are both better players than anyone Russell ever played with, and were two top TEN players OF ALL TIME at that time. Name another team from another sport that ever had three of the top ten players to have ever played that particular sport together at the same time. And all playing at an elite level: West 25.9 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 6.9 apg, 4th in OWS, Second Team All-NBA, Second Team All-Defense; Baylor 24.8 ppg, 10.6 rpg, 5.4 apg, First Team All NBA, 5th in MVP voting; Chamberlain 20.5 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, 2nd in PER, 3rd in OWS.


I am out of time this morning, but that Sports Illustrated article that Abe posted earlier mentioned that the '68-'69 Laker offense had no fast break offense...which was true. YET, Bill Sharman had FOUR 30+ year old players running the most devastating fast break offense in NBA history in the '71-'72 season. You tell me what the difference was.

Sharman convincing Wilt to play like Russell, who was the starting point for the Celtics' fearsome fast break for years, and with whom he won four NBA titles? :D

lol, just messing with you


Enjoying these discussions BTW...

As am I. By the way, last June you posted your all-time top ten list as this:


1. Wilt
2. Shaq
3. Kareem
4. MJ
5. Russell
6. Magic
7. Duncan
8. Kobe
9. Bird
10 Oscar

Does this still reflect your opinion as of now? And if so, you could elaborate?

[jlauber]

Wow!

I have never met anyone else that could "out-post" me.

I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, I will reiterate that Russell's TEAMS were better than all of Wilt, except the '66-'67 and '67-'68 76ers. Yes, the '65-'66 Sixers had a better RECORD, but Boston was still near their peak in the "Dynasty" years. The 76ers just were not yet experienced enough to handle them...although, once again, Chamberlain thouroughly outplayed Russell in that five game series (28.2 ppg, 30.1 rpg, and .510% shooting), including a 46-34 effort in the clinching game five loss. The fact was, aside from Wilt, Chamberlain's teammates were just not up to the task.

The '68-'69 Lakers were so poorly coached, that that eliminated any edge in talent. To say Baylor was a HOFer at that time was wrong. Baylor's regular season performance came on .447 shooting...and in the playoffs, he was awful, scoring 15.4 ppg on .385 shooting. He HURT the Laker offense, especially by taking shots away from Wilt, who shot .545 in the playoffs that year. No question that West was brilliant. I would even argue that both he and Wilt were more deserving of the '70 Finals MVP than either Reed, or Frazier. Up until game seven, West had torched Frazier. More on that topic later, though. That '69 Laker team was poorly coached, had no depth, and were unlucky in not one, but TWO games in that series. In game four, and leading the series, 2-1, LA had an 88-87 lead, AND the ball. But Johnny Egan (now that a typical teammate of Wilt) lost the ball, and Sam Jones, while falling down, threw up a prayer that went in. And in game seven, Don Nelson hit that shot that went straight up for eight feet, and fell back in, in their 108-106 win.

You are right...not all of Russell's teammates were HOFers, even if they were elected. KC Jones has no business in the HOF (although he was avery good defender), but Tom Gola being in the HOF is just as bad, if not worse. My point about the QUALITY of personnel in that '61-'62 season was that, had they somehow swapped rosters, there was no way that Russell could have carried that team offensively, and looking at the careers of the other players on that team, NONE of them, aside from an aging and over-the-hill Arizin could score consistently.

The bottom line is all of these discussions is that Wilt could single-handedly carry teams, while Russell was an integral part of a many great rosters. Not only that, but H2H, Chamberlain DOMINATED Russell in EVERY statistical category. And don't tell me that Russell COULD have scored more. His career FG% speaks volumes about his offense (and believe me, his FG% against Chamberlain was MUCH less than his career mark.) Wilt could adapt to any teammates, but Russell never had to, and he most certainly could not have taken over a game on the offense end. Russell had a brilliant game seven in the '62 Finals...with a 30-40 effort. Find ONE game like that against Chamberlain, though. In fact, in that same season, Wilt had a 78-43 game against those same Lakers, and averaged 51.5 ppg against them.

I have already mentioned that Russell had a total of three 30+ point games against Wilt, with a high of 37. Chamberlain outscored him in all three of those games. And I posted the 40 games in which Wilt just crushed Russell. Russell did as well as anyone against Wilt, but he hardly "contained" him. On the other hand, Chamberlain had MANY games in which he just abused Russell.

Incidently, the statement that Sharman got Wilt to play like Russell...I always get a kick out of that one. Wilt was BETTER, at playing Russell, than Russell himself was. Wilt did everything Russell did in his BEST seasons, only BETTER. In that '71'-'72 season, Chamberlain easily led the NBA in rebounding, and was first-team all-defense. HOWEVER, he also led the league in FG%, by a wide margin...something Russell never did. In fact, Russell only had one year, in his career, in which he shot better than any of Wilt's 14 season's...and that was Chamberlain's rookie year (.467 to .461.) After that, Russell was even in the same area code.

As for MY Top-10 (and thanks for reading my posts on other forums BTW):

I wouldn't change a thing.

1. Wilt...and no one else is even close.
2. Shaq. Take a look at his career numbers. But even more impressive was his play in the Laker "three-peat"...perhaps the most dominating post-season performances ever.
3. Kareem. Unstoppable offensive game, and a decent rebounder and defender for most of his career.
4. MJ. Great post-season career, but he was surrounded with a TON of talent (relative to the rest of the NBA) in his championship seasons,
5. Russell. Hard to argue with 11 titles in 13 years, even with a TON of help. Regarded as the greatest defensive player of all-time (which is REALLY a testament to Wilt's greatness), and the second-best rebounder ever.
6. Magic. Made all his teammates better, and could take over a game.
7. Duncan. Not great at any one thing, but good at all of them.
8. Kobe. He will surely rise by the time he is done, though.
9. Bird. Great shooter and passer. Made his teammates better as well.
10. Oscar. Hard to beat his near career triple-double average. I would rate his offense with both Kobe and MJ, although he did not have the range that Kobe has.

Now, how about your Top-10?

Jeff

[Bizz]

Wow!

I have never met anyone else that could "out-post" me.

I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, I will reiterate that Russell's TEAMS were better than all of Wilt, except the '66-'67 and '67-'68 76ers. Yes, the '65-'66 Sixers had a better RECORD, but Boston was still near their peak in the "Dynasty" years. The 76ers just were not yet experienced enough to handle them...although, once again, Chamberlain thouroughly outplayed Russell in that five game series (28.2 ppg, 30.1 rpg, and .510% shooting), including a 46-34 effort in the clinching game five loss. The fact was, aside from Wilt, Chamberlain's teammates were just not up to the task.


I disagree bigtime with you there. The talent was virtually equal a lot of those years above. You didn't even bother to mention Wilt's Laker teams up there that was better than the aging Celtics at the time or shall I say had more talent. Wilt had the talent where he could almost always outplay Russell, but he didn't have the heart to do so. Wilt in a lot of those games would get his numbers (although if you check out his career stats, his numbers generally decrease in the POSTSEASON, where great players usually INCREASE their production whereas Bill Russell's numbers INCREASE across the board almost). Wilt was routinely stopped in the 4th quarters of a lot of games because he the C's would let him get his numbers in the first 3 quarters because they knew once the 4th came, he wouldn't pass the rock. And it often worked. It is a reason why Wilt never fouled out of a game. Once he got to 5 fouls, he usually tanked on defense and in turn gave up basket after basket at the rim because he was proud of that feat he had. That is not good basketball. Wilt had the talent to be the best at almost anything he ever did. Remember he beat Jerry West in a shootout before a Laker game and he outran Jim Brown with a freaking tuxedo on! Wilt played with 5 or 6 HOF players, if not more IIRC. Nate Thurmond, one of the best big men in the league at the time played with him in the frontcourt. Played with Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Gail Goodrich and etc. Wasn't about the quality of his teammates, it was about Wilt's approach to the game. Wilt cared about numbers, whereas Russell did what the team "needed" out of him to win games. Russell was even blocking shots to his teammates that led to a lot of fastbreak buckets.



The '68-'69 Lakers were so poorly coached, that that eliminated any edge in talent. To say Baylor was a HOFer at that time was wrong. Baylor's regular season performance came on .447 shooting...and in the playoffs, he was awful, scoring 15.4 ppg on .385 shooting. He HURT the Laker offense, especially by taking shots away from Wilt, who shot .545 in the playoffs that year. No question that West was brilliant. I would even argue that both he and Wilt were more deserving of the '70 Finals MVP than either Reed, or Frazier. Up until game seven, West had torched Frazier. More on that topic later, though. That '69 Laker team was poorly coached, had no depth, and were unlucky in not one, but TWO games in that series. In game four, and leading the series, 2-1, LA had an 88-87 lead, AND the ball. But Johnny Egan (now that a typical teammate of Wilt) lost the ball, and Sam Jones, while falling down, threw up a prayer that went in. And in game seven, Don Nelson hit that shot that went straight up for eight feet, and fell back in, in their 108-106 win.




I wouldn't say they were poorly coached. In fact, they were a very disciplined bunch actually (I watched them at the time and been a fan since 1963). I do agree that Van Breda clearly had it in for Wilt (mainly because he had heard of Wilt's reputation with teammates and coaches before he came to LA and Van Breda was an old school guy that hated primodonnas like Wilt. Their relationship was tarnished from the start because of his comments about Wilt when he first signed. Lakers blew a lot of leads in a lot of those Finals games, even rallied for a few of them. But Wilt claiming injured wanted to come out of the game (lacked heart which is what I said earlier since this is a Game 7, he later went 4-15 I believe in the game and Mel freaking Counts even came in and gave the Lakers a better game and even cut the lead down to a few in the final minutes). Then wanted back in, Russell stated years later that he thought Wilt should have never went out of the game especially in that situation (Game 7 of the Finals). I won't even touch his FT numbers in a lot of closeout games.




You are right...not all of Russell's teammates were HOFers, even if they were elected. KC Jones has no business in the HOF (although he was avery good defender), but Tom Gola being in the HOF is just as bad, if not worse. My point about the QUALITY of personnel in that '61-'62 season was that, had they somehow swapped rosters, there was no way that Russell could have carried that team offensively, and looking at the careers of the other players on that team, NONE of them, aside from an aging and over-the-hill Arizin could score consistently.


Wilt never really "had" to carry a team offensively aside from his first few years. And I think that is where the criticism comes from with Wilt. He often showed flashes of being a team player (led the league in assists just because sportswriters got on him about not passing the rock). But Wilt often carried the burden because he wanted the fame (said that himself that he wanted the team to win on his terms). I agree about the guys in the HOF above. Have no business there, but there because of Bill Russell IMO.


The bottom line is all of these discussions is that Wilt could single-handedly carry teams, while Russell was an integral part of a many great rosters. Not only that, but H2H, Chamberlain DOMINATED Russell in EVERY statistical category. And don't tell me that Russell COULD have scored more. His career FG% speaks volumes about his offense (and believe me, his FG% against Chamberlain was MUCH less than his career mark.) Wilt could adapt to any teammates, but Russell never had to, and he most certainly could not have taken over a game on the offense end. Russell had a brilliant game seven in the '62 Finals...with a 30-40 effort. Find ONE game like that against Chamberlain, though. In fact, in that same season, Wilt had a 78-43 game against those same Lakers, and averaged 51.5 ppg against them.

I have already mentioned that Russell had a total of three 30+ point games against Wilt, with a high of 37. Chamberlain outscored him in all three of those games. And I posted the 40 games in which Wilt just crushed Russell. Russell did as well as anyone against Wilt, but he hardly "contained" him. On the other hand, Chamberlain had MANY games in which he just abused Russell.



I don't agree with you here. Russell is actually the one that showed he could adapt. He won with totally different Celtic teams year after year almost. Wilt in LA helped destroy Baylor's game because he clogged up so much of the middle whereas the knee injury and Wilt totally killed his chances at driving to the hole. Bill Russell collected 5 MVP's and 11 rings and Wilt Chamberlain collected 4MVP's, 2 rings (and only one against Russell, during Russell's rookie year as player-coach by the way). Now, I like Wilt better personally since he was a Laker and I hate anything green and def. hate Russell and the Celtics, but I really think Russell is better than Wilt. Even Jerry West did at the time (WHILE PLAYING WITH WILT LOL). First, in 1972, when Wilt submerged himself into a Russell-like role a la low scoring, outlet rebounding and defensively focused game (which he didn't want to do anyways, but turned out successful) and the Lakers, under the guidance of Bill Sharman, Russell's former Celtic teammate, his team went on a 33 game winning streak with a 69-12 season record, enroute to the championship. In retrospect, Russell's unflashy style of play is more effective in bringing in the hardware than Wilt's statistical lovefest.

Second, despite of Wilt's impressive talents, the man was a pain in the butt to work with. These explains why his former teams like the Warriors and 76ers was willing to trade him for LESSER talents, just to get rid of him. Russell had a much better attitude and despite of his aloof manner in public and private life, he exudes a sense of camaraderie whenever he steps into the court or inside the locker room and wasn't like Wilt and quit on his teams when he got to 5 fouls.


Incidentally, the statement that Sharman got Wilt to play like Russell...I always get a kick out of that one. Wilt was BETTER, at playing Russell, than Russell himself was. Wilt did everything Russell did in his BEST seasons, only BETTER. In that '71'-'72 season, Chamberlain easily led the NBA in rebounding, and was first-team all-defense. HOWEVER, he also led the league in FG%, by a wide margin...something Russell never did. In fact, Russell only had one year, in his career, in which he shot better than any of Wilt's 14 season's...and that was Chamberlain's rookie year (.467 to .461.) After that, Russell was even in the same area code.



Jeff


Some of Wilt negative attributes which could be traced to his primadonna personality includes the constant disrespecting and criticizing his coaches publicly (eg. Neil Johnston, Alex Hannum, Dolph Schayes, and of course Van Breda Kolff all had bad memories working with Wilt). Also demanding a high salary (eg. One third of the Warriors gate receipts goes to Wilt's salary but Wilt doesn't even want to do publicity gigs to boost ticket sales LOL which is totally wrong and selfish). He always complained like a baby to the media (eg. threatening to quit but not carrying it out). Rarely practiced and traveled with his teammates (eg. Wilt had had feuds with Baylor and Hal Greer). Hell lol, Alex Hannum had to challenge Wilt in a fight just to get his respect. Now, you have to ask yourself what kind of a basketball player would push his coach to such lengths just to earn the player's respect??? Its not worth it having him on the team unless his talents are programmed in an android devoid of his personality.

[Bizz]

The problem with Wilt is that he played with talented teammates, he just didn't gel well with his teams which is why their performance are not commensurate of their talents. If Russell was playing with Paul Arizin (one of the best jumpshooters in the game at the time), Tom Gola and Guy Rodgers in Wilt's Philly Warriors, they would be Final contenders if not champions as much as I hate to say that considering I hate Bill Russell more than anybody in the world. Arizin was a sharpshooting genius like Sharman and Rodgers while not as flashy as Cousy, is sorely underrated as a passer and is a very fast ballhandler. Gola was a more offensively talented version of Celtic defensive specialist Satch Sanders at the time. If Russell was with the Warriors, he and Nate Thurmond would form a two headed monster that would be the scourge of everybody else in the League. Although for the first couple of years, I don't think they would win the hardware but once Rick Barry comes on board the team would be unbeatable. Again, if Russell was with Wilt's LA Lakers and Syracuse Nationals/ Philadelphia 76ers team, no question, they would WIN rings, lots of rings actually lol. These teams were loaded with talents.

West and Baylor's LA are capable of pushing the Celtics to 7 games, while Greer and Walker's Nationals/76ers could beat Wilt and the Warriors on their own, even without HOF Billy Cunningham. Putting in Russell (and theoretically, Wilt) on those teams would be overkill. On the flip side, if Wilt with his gigantic ego intact was playing in the Celtics, he would have quarreled right off the bat with that confrontational, authoritarian ba$tard Red Auerbach (heck he was way worse than Van Breda). Red would trade him the first chance he got and that I can personally guarantee. Assuming that Wilt did stick around, the dynasty Celtics live and die with the fastbreak. Red's gameplan is unchangeable. They are not going to wait for Wilt to come down the floor and score. They just just need him to get them the ball like Russell. The Wilt Chamberlain as we know it today a la the guy who once averaged 50pts and has seven scoring titles would not exist playing for the Celtics. He would get his rings alright (if he did a 180 on his attitude) but he would be pigeonholed playing Russell's game with the Celtics. Now I have learned to love Russell after he led the Lakers to a title in 1972, but I won't rewrite history for him. I am a very unbiased fan and I call them as I see them, and I try not to let my hate for everything Boston and Bill Russell get in the way of that.

[jlauber]

Bizz,

Despite your attempt to hide it, you are very much ANTI-WILT. And I have already addressed EVERYTHING you just typed. But here goes one more time...

"I disagree bigtime with you there. The talent was virtually equal a lot of those years above. You didn't even bother to mention Wilt's Laker teams up there that was better than the aging Celtics at the time or shall I say had more talent. Wilt had the talent where he could almost always outplay Russell, but he didn't have the heart to do so. Wilt in a lot of those games would get his numbers (although if you check out his career stats, his numbers generally decrease in the POSTSEASON, where great players usually INCREASE their production whereas Bill Russell's numbers INCREASE across the board almost). Wilt was routinely stopped in the 4th quarters of a lot of games because he the C's would let him get his numbers in the first 3 quarters because they knew once the 4th came, he wouldn't pass the rock. And it often worked. It is a reason why Wilt never fouled out of a game. Once he got to 5 fouls, he usually tanked on defense and in turn gave up basket after basket at the rim because he was proud of that feat he had. That is not good basketball. Wilt had the talent to be the best at almost anything he ever did. Remember he beat Jerry West in a shootout before a Laker game and he outran Jim Brown with a freaking tuxedo on! Wilt played with 5 or 6 HOF players, if not more IIRC. Nate Thurmond, one of the best big men in the league at the time played with him in the frontcourt. Played with Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Gail Goodrich and etc. Wasn't about the quality of his teammates, it was about Wilt's approach to the game. Wilt cared about numbers, whereas Russell did what the team "needed" out of him to win games. Russell was even blocking shots to his teammates that led to a lot of fastbreak buckets."

While Wilt DID play with quality teammates throughout his career, he never had as many as Russell did at any one time, except for the '66-'67 and '67-'68 76ers. And, had Cunningham not missed the '68 Eastern playoffs, Wilt's team would have won titles in BOTH years.

But let's go down the list. Paul Arizin. HOFer to be sure. He played him in his first three years, but Arizin was nearing the end of his career. Tom Gola (one of the least deserving HOFers EVER...he was not even a good player.) Nate Thurmond. Wilt only played with him in Nate's rookie year, and Thurmond played out of his natural position. Elgin Baylor. Washed up by the time Wilt joined LA. He lived off of his reputation for the last few years of his career. And, by the way, he and Wilt only played together for ONE semi-full season, in that '68-'69 season. Wilt missed nearly all of the '69-'70 season, while Baylor missed almost all of the '70-'71 season, and was forced to retire after nine games in the '71-'72 season (and it was no coincidence that LA immediately won 33 straight games following his "retirement.") And Baylor was awful in his two post-seasons alongside Wilt.

When Wilt was assisted by Cunningham, Chet Walker (who should be in the HOF), and Greer, his teams were the best in the league. Those four under-performed in the '66 Eastern Finals, and Cunningham missed the '68 Eastern Finals altogether.

Wilt also played with West and Goodrich for two years. The Lakers won a title in one, and lost four close games in the '73 Finals (by 4,4,5, and 9 points...and were in all of them inside the last minute.) And in those '73 Finals, West was hobbled (and Hairston had just returned from a season-long injury, and was nowhere near 100%)

So, when Wilt was given a solid supporting cast, that was healthy, his team's not only won, they were the best in NBA history (along with the '96 Bulls.)

"I wouldn't say they were poorly coached. In fact, they were a very disciplined bunch actually (I watched them at the time and been a fan since 1963). I do agree that Van Breda clearly had it in for Wilt (mainly because he had heard of Wilt's reputation with teammates and coaches before he came to LA and Van Breda was an old school guy that hated primodonnas like Wilt. Their relationship was tarnished from the start because of his comments about Wilt when he first signed. Lakers blew a lot of leads in a lot of those Finals games, even rallied for a few of them. But Wilt claiming injured wanted to come out of the game (lacked heart which is what I said earlier since this is a Game 7, he later went 4-15 I believe in the game and Mel freaking Counts even came in and gave the Lakers a better game and even cut the lead down to a few in the final minutes). Then wanted back in, Russell stated years later that he thought Wilt should have never went out of the game especially in that situation (Game 7 of the Finals). I won't even touch his FT numbers in a lot of closeout games."

You are SO wrong...on EVERY statement. Regarding Van Breda Kolf, Robert Cherry summed him up best...when he kept Wilt on the bench, and refused to bring him back in in that game seven of the '69 Finals, he basically ruined his career. The FACT was, this was Van Breda Kolf's best team. But, in his determination to prove that he could win without Wilt, he basically cost himself his career. He was fired shortly after that series (by the way, it was Jerry West who was furious when he found out that Butch had kept Wilt on the bench, not because of injury, but because of his own stubborness.) He was out of the NBA within a couple of seasons.

As for Wilt's and Count's shooting...

Wilt went 7-8 from the floor, while Counts went 4-13, including missing two shots down the stretch. The FACT was, Wilt's play in the 4th quarter had sparked LA's comeback from a 17 point deficit to nine, when he injured his leg...and he stayed on the floor to grab one more rebound, which led to two more points, and reduced Boston's lead to seven.

Furthermore, take a look at that final quarter in that game seven. Russell was hardly a factor. He was "choking" far more than Wilt was. For the game, Russell went 2-7, for six points, with 21 rebounds in 48 minutes. Wilt scored 18 points on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds, in 43 minutes. And while Wilt missed nine FTs, he still made four, which was two more than Russell (Wilt made DOUBLE the amount of his FTs over Russell in their careers BTW.)

Regarding Wilt's "lack of heart"...Wilt is the CAREER minutes played per game leader in NBA history. And he returned to play in the '70 Finals, which shocked virtually every medical opinion at the time.

As for Russell's claim that Wilt "faked" his injury in that game seven in the '69 Finals. Even Van Breda Kolf came to Wilt's defense on that ridiculous comment. Russell's statement caused a rift that lasted for 20 years...and he finally apologized years later.

"Wilt never really "had" to carry a team offensively aside from his first few years. And I think that is where the criticism comes from with Wilt. He often showed flashes of being a team player (led the league in assists just because sportswriters got on him about not passing the rock). But Wilt often carried the burden because he wanted the fame (said that himself that he wanted the team to win on his terms). I agree about the guys in the HOF above. Have no business there, but there because of Bill Russell IMO."

ONE MORE TIME, take a look at the rosters Wilt had to work with in his first six seasons, and compare them with Russell's. If you HONESTLY believe that they were comparable, you need your head examined. Maybe not all of Russell's HOF teammates were true HOFers, but CLEARLY Cousey, Heinsohn, Sharman, Sam Jones, and Havlicek were. Not only that, but Russell had a beavy of quality role players, like Bailey Howell, Don Nelson, Wayne Embry, KC Jones, and Satch Sanders (one of the best defenders of his era.)

Meanwhile. Wilt came to a last place team, and when he left them, they immediately became a last place team ( a year after being in the Finals). In between, he had a close game seven series loss in the '61-'62 Eastern Finals, a championship series defeat in the '64 Finals, and a one-point game six loss in his rookie year.

The FACT was, you take Wilt off of those teams, and they were awful. WILT made them competitive.

Regarding the rest of your posts. Chamberlain played with several TERRIBLE coaches in his career, and really only TWO good ones...Hannum and Sharman. Russell had Auerbach for most of his playing career. Would Wilt have been able to play for Auebach? Why wouldn't he have. You seem to blame Wilt for selfish play, when it was his COACHES who asked him to score. And when his coaches ask him to concentrate on defense, rebounding, passing, the outlet pass, and scoring in a half-court game...he did ALL of it. Even when he disagreed with them...like Van Breda Kolf asking him to play the high-post (what a ridiculous request...the single greatest post player in NBA history being asked to play the high-post.) AND, virtually EVERYONE of Wilt's coaches had their BEST seasons coaching Chamberlain. On top of all of that...virtually EVERY team that Wilt joined became better, and virtually EVERY team he left, became worse...from his rookie year to his final season in the NBA.

Now I know you are NOT a Wilt fan. But I think it might interest you to know that Wilt was a FAR better human being than Russell was. If you want to get into that argument, I would be more than happy to.

[jlauber]

Bizz continues...

"The problem with Wilt is that he played with talented teammates, he just didn't gel well with his teams which is why their performance are not commensurate of their talents. If Russell was playing with Paul Arizin (one of the best jumpshooters in the game at the time), Tom Gola and Guy Rodgers in Wilt's Philly Warriors, they would be Final contenders if not champions as much as I hate to say that considering I hate Bill Russell more than anybody in the world. Arizin was a sharpshooting genius like Sharman and Rodgers while not as flashy as Cousy, is sorely underrated as a passer and is a very fast ballhandler. Gola was a more offensively talented version of Celtic defensive specialist Satch Sanders at the time. If Russell was with the Warriors, he and Nate Thurmond would form a two headed monster that would be the scourge of everybody else in the League. Although for the first couple of years, I don't think they would win the hardware but once Rick Barry comes on board the team would be unbeatable. Again, if Russell was with Wilt's LA Lakers and Syracuse Nationals/ Philadelphia 76ers team, no question, they would WIN rings, lots of rings actually lol. These teams were loaded with talents.

West and Baylor's LA are capable of pushing the Celtics to 7 games, while Greer and Walker's Nationals/76ers could beat Wilt and the Warriors on their own, even without HOF Billy Cunningham. Putting in Russell (and theoretically, Wilt) on those teams would be overkill. On the flip side, if Wilt with his gigantic ego intact was playing in the Celtics, he would have quarreled right off the bat with that confrontational, authoritarian ba$tard Red Auerbach (heck he was way worse than Van Breda). Red would trade him the first chance he got and that I can personally guarantee. Assuming that Wilt did stick around, the dynasty Celtics live and die with the fastbreak. Red's gameplan is unchangeable. They are not going to wait for Wilt to come down the floor and score. They just just need him to get them the ball like Russell. The Wilt Chamberlain as we know it today a la the guy who once averaged 50pts and has seven scoring titles would not exist playing for the Celtics. He would get his rings alright (if he did a 180 on his attitude) but he would be pigeonholed playing Russell's game with the Celtics. Now I have learned to love Russell after he led the Lakers to a title in 1972, but I won't rewrite history for him. I am a very unbiased fan and I call them as I see them, and I try not to let my hate for everything Boston and Bill Russell get in the way of that."

Once again, where are you getting this from?

Yes, Baylor (in his prime), and West pushed Boston the brink on a couple of occasions. But Wilt, with practically no supporting cast, carried mediocre teams to within an eyelash of beating them as well. So, Wilt, by himself, basically accomplished as much as Baylor and West did in tandem.

Greer's Nationals upset Chamberlain's Warriors in the '60-'61 season. So, you are discounting the fact that Wilt's Warriors made it to the Finals in the '64 season, while Greer and Walker's 76ers went 34-46 and did not make the playoffs? And here again, you are using TWO of the greatest players in NBA history, Greer and Walker, against ONE, Wilt.

Regarding Boston "having to wait for Wilt to come down the floor and score"...it was widely acknowledged that Chamberlain was THE fastest player in the NBA in the mid-60's. Just watch footage on YouTube. There is even one titled (ungrammatically) the "speedness of Wilt."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Paex9-VxPbA

As for Wilt and "your" '72 Lakers...

Yes, it was WILT who was the most instrumental player on that championship team. Jerry West was mired in the worst shooting slump of his career in the playoffs, while Wilt almost single-handedly won game six against the Bucks, and then went on to win the Finals MVP...despite playing with one badly sprained wrist, and the other wrist with a fracture.

How about Auerbach...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

[COLOR="Navy"]"During summer vacations, Chamberlain worked as a bellhop in Kutsher's Hotel. Red Auerbach, the coach of the Boston Celtics, spotted the talented teenager there and had him play 1-on-1 against Kansas University standout and national champion, B. H. Born, elected the Most Valuable Player of the 1953 NCAA Finals. Chamberlain won 25

[jlauber]

Back to the '61-'62 MVP Award...

http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/leadersbyseason.htm?stat=av&lg=n&yr=1961

Chamberlain rated a 24.8, which is the highest that this ranking system ever had BTW, and of course was #1. Oscar put up a 20.2, which finished second (which, aside from Wilt's EIGHT, Kareem's four, and McAdoo's once, is the only other season to ever reach a 20.) Where was Russell? He finished FIFTH!

Or...

http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/leadersbyseason.htm?stat=eff&lg=n&yr=1961

Chamberlain had a 52.29 rating, which once again, was the highest ever recorded, while Oscar was at a distant 40.51. Where was Russell? SIXTH!

How about Win Shares that season?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_progress.html


Having said all of that, I have long maintained (and Regul8r agrees) that Wilt's '66-'67 season was the best in NBA history. No, his ratings were not as high in these categories, but his dominance was overwhelming in almost every category. His FG% of .683 was an astounding .162 higher than the runner-up, Walt Bellamy's .521...and the league average was .441. (Russell was at .454 BTW.) Since I have already covered this earlier, I won't go into any more details about that season, though.

Incidently, using the above ratings, Wilt was the best player in the league almost every year of the decade of the 60's, in all of them. Oscar slides in with a higher rating in one year, Reed in one, as does West in another, but in some of them, Wilt sweeps the decade.

Regarding the MVP awards, Wes Unseld won it in the '68-'69 season. He averaged 13.8 ppg, 18.2 rpg, 2.6 apg, and shot .476 from the floor. How about Wilt? In arguably one of Chamberlain's worst years (of course, at his worst, he was still the best player in the league), Wilt averaged 20.5 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, and shot .583 from the field.

Granted, Unseld's stats, much like Russell's, did not reflect his full contributions, but even H2H, Chamberlain outplayed him that season, including a league high game of 38 rebounds in one game.

All of this is interesting from the standpoint that, no matter what Wilt did, it was just accepted as ho-hum. Darrell Imhoff had an interesting story. He was one of the slew of centers that tried guarding Chamberlain when Wilt poured in his 100 point game. A couple of days later the two teams met again, and in Imhoff's words, he busted his tail the entire game, doing everything in his power to stop Chamberlain. The crowd so appreciated his efforts, that he received a standing ovation as he left the floor late. He had played so brilliantly, that he had "held" Wilt to "only" 54 points.

Wilt's career achievements have long been, IMHO, under-appreciated. For Wilt to be regarded as only the 2nd to the fifth greatest player of all-time (or sixth by the knowledgable Bill Simmons) in so many "expert" polls is just bewildering. Babe Ruth was perhaps baseball's greatest player, but most all of his slugging records have been eclipsed. Even Wayne Gretzky's 61 career NHL records pales in comparison to Chamberlain's 72 NBA records. On top of that, many of Wilt's records will never be approached, much less broken. And in many cases, Wilt holds the next best mark as well.

H2H, Wilt outplayed, or even dominated the likes of Russell, Thurmond, Hayes, Lanier, Reed, Bellamy, Lucas, Unseld, Kareem, and even Gilmore in their limited time on the floor. Yet, if he only outscored and outrebounded an opposing center by say a solid margin, he was considered a "failure."

For instance, the '69-'70 Finals are one of the many examples. As I have already mentioned, Chamberlain suffered that devastating knee injury in the ninth game of the season. Medical opinion ranged from an optomistic missing the rest of the year, to perhaps never being able to walk normally again. Yet, Wilt rehabilitated on his own, and came back near the end of the regular season. He was rusty, and nowhere near 100%, but he still had several dominating performances in the playoffs, and led LA into the Finals against the heavily-favored Knicks.

That Knick team had FOUR HOFers, including reigning MVP Willis Reed, along with Cazzie Russell, and a deep bench. They also had home-court edge, and were healthy. Yet, Chamberlain, basically on one leg, battled a healthy Reed to a draw in the first four games, and the series was tied at 2-2. In game five, Chamberlain came out on fire, and poured in 14 1st quarter points against Reed. Late in the period, and with LA leading by 10 points, Reed went down with HIS leg injury, and did not return. The Lakers led by 13 at the half, and many of the NY fans had conceded that the series was over. But, the Knicks came back, with a swarming defense (and officiating that even NY Times writer Leonard Koppett called "suspect"), and stunned the Lakers to win that game. Wilt and West combined for only five shots in the second half (and here again, the Knicks got away with murder in "guarding" them.) In game six, Chamberlain played arguably, one of the greatest games in Finals history, scoring 45 points (on 20-27 shooting) with 27 rebounds, as LA crushed the Knicks, 135-113. Yes, Reed did not play in that game, but it still does not diminish what Chamberlain accomplished. Of course, Reed stumbled out late for that game seven, and the rest was history. The Knicks hit 15 of their first 21 shots, and harrassed Wilt anytime he got the ball. Meanwhile, West picked the worst time in his career to have a bad game. I have long maintained that not even a team of MJ's would have beaten that Knick team that night. And, the reality was, the Knicks were a better team.

Many "experts" have stated that Chamberlain was "intimidated" by the presence of Reed that night. Nothing could be further from the truth. The great Dick Shaap summed it up best. He beleived that Wilt may have eased up a bit because of Reed's injury. In any case, I doubt a huge game by Chamberlain would have made a difference. As it was, Chamberlain scored 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds, while the "MVP" Reed managed four points (on 2-5 shooting), with three rebounds. Yes, he did a gutty job in defending Wilt, but make no mistake that the Knick TEAM was not going to let Wilt beat them. And the reality of that series was that the Lakers really only had West, in his prime, and a hobbled Wilt, along with a washed-up Baylor, and virtually no one else...and yet they battled the heavily-favored Knicks to a game seven. And had NY not been aided by questionable officiating in that game five, it would have been Wilt's performance in that game six that everyone would be remembering.

Instead, Reed was the "hero", and Wilt, despite thoroughly outplaying him, as the "failure." Had ANYONE else played like Wilt in that series, they would still be calling it one of the greatest performances in NBA history, despite a losing cause. But, since it was Wilt...well, he SHOULD have taken over the series and won that game by himself...no matter if he was far less than 100%.

And that was Wilt's legacy. No matter what he did, or accomplished, it was never enough. The fact was, that Chamberlain's teams came within a TOTAL of NINE points, in beating Boston in FOUR series (losing game seven's by 1, 2, 2, and 4 points.) Not only that, but Wilt's teams were victims of bad luck (I have documented several games in which a Boston player hit a miraculous shot, or made a miraculous steal.) Chmaberlain's teammates had several meltdowns, as well, especially in '65-'66, and '67-'68. On top of all of that, Wilt's teams were poorly coached in so MANY of them. And, Wilt was brilliant in EVERY post-season in which he played...usually outplaying his opposing center by a significant margin. A case could be made that Chamberlain was the best player on the floor in every post-season series in which he played. Yet, he was considered a "choker" and a "failure"...despite the overwhelming amount of evidence which suggested otherwise.

[ThaRegul8r]

Wow!

I have never met anyone else that could "out-post" me.

That

[jlauber]

Regul8r,

Wilt's DOMINANCE over Russell is there for all to see. H2H it was NO CONTEST. Yes, Russell's TEAMS, much like Jordan's TEAMS, won more titles. Incidently in that playoff game in which Russell put up that 31-31 game, Chamberlain had his USUAL 35-29 game. Russell also put up a 31-30 game in the next game. Of course, Wilt had ANOTHER 41-34 game at the same time. The FACT was, Russell, in his best statistical games against Wilt, was outplayed by Chamberlain. And those were two of Russell's three 30+ point games. Meanwhile, Chamberlain had 24 40+ point games vs Russell. Not mention the staggering 23-4 edge in 35+ rebound games, as well.

As for the Kareem-Wilt argument. Chamberlain, despite being well past his prime, outrebounded him in the vast majority of their games, and while he seldom outscored him, he outshot him from the floor in most of them. The same could not be said for Russell in his H2H matchups against Wilt.

Not only that, but as I have pointed out several times, while Wilt statistically outplayed Russell in the vast majority of their 142 games, he put up some 40 games in which he absolutely buried Russell.

Wilt outscored, outshot, and outrebounded Russell, by HUGE margins his entire career. NO ONE did that to Wilt, though, (although the great Kareem did certainly outscore him.) However, I have laways wondered how Kareem, in his prime, would have fared against Wilt in his. Chamberlain was stronger, faster, and could jump higher, and as the video footage I illustrated in my first post depicts, Chamberlain was probably even more skilled offensively.

As for Russell's edge in titles...once again...BETTER teammates, who played BETTER than Wilt's. And, when Wilt's teammates played on par with Russell's, as in the '66-'67 playoffs, Chamberlain's domination of Russell, as he ALWAYS did in the post-season, resulted in a demolition of the Celtic Dynasty.

[jlauber]

Regul6r writes...

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"Game 3 of the Eastern Conference Finals that very season: 31 points and 31 rebounds in a 129-114 Boston win. That didn

[jlauber]

"However, I must point out the inconsistencies and flat-out contradictions I’ve noticed."

Reg,

I have been CONSISTENT in my arguments. I have maintained that Wilt DOMINATED Russell. That is a statistical FACT. I have maintained that Russell had BETTER players, and MORE of them, as well as DEEPER rosters, EVERY year in which they played, with the POSSIBLE exception (clearly not a significant edge) of '66-'67 and '67-'68. Russell played had a minimum of THREE to as many as FIVE HOFers playing with him EVERY year in which the two played. Wilt only had a MAXIMUM of TWO (unless you would count the nine games in which Baylor did nothing in the '71-'72 season.) Yes, Ramsey and KC Jones were not true HOFers, any more than Gola was an All-Star or HOFer. And one more time, Baylor DETRACTED from the Laker teams in which he and Chamberlain played together. Geez, he was awful in the '68-'69 Finals, and not much more than a bit player in the '69-'70 Finals.

Regarding my take on Russell vs Wilt and Kareem vs Wilt...

I merely mentioned that if Russell won the MVP award in the '61-'62, playing alongside FIVE other HOFers, and on the team with the best record...despite Wilt setting a scoring record that will never be approached, much less broken, as well as leading the league in rebounding by over two per game, and finishing second in FG% (as well as outshooting Russell by a .506 to .457 margin)...

Then how could Chamberlain not win the MVP award in the '71-'72 season, in which he was the ANCHOR of a team that set a W-L record that last for over 25 years, playing alongside TWO HOFers. Yes, Kareem outscored Wilt, 34.8 ppg to 14.8 that season, but Wilt's edge over Russell in the '61-'62 season was 50.4 to 18.9. AND, while Russell finished second in rebounding in '61-'62, Wilt LED the league. Not only that, but Wilt LED the league in FG% (by a sizeable margin), AND, he was considered a better defensive player (he was 1st team all-defense in '71-'72.)

Chamberlain alos took over games at BOTH end of the floor against BOTH Russell and Kareem. That was certainly NEVER the case involving Russell against Wilt.

I have been on record (on the forums you seemed to have caught my posts on) as saying that Russell was a great player, who made his teammates better. But, the reverse was also true...Russell's teammates, like Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Sharman, Cousey, and Havlicek certainly contributed heavily in those 11 titles. And I have also CONSISTENTLY said that Russell would never have taken that '62 Warrior squad to a game seven two point loss against Wilt and thed Celtics. I seriously doubt they would even have made the playoffs.

When Wilt had as good as players surrounding him, as Russell did, in '66-'67 and '67-'68, his TEAMS were the BEST, by a wide margin. And I have already documented why his '68 team did not win it all.

And while I would argue that his '65-'66 were CLOSE to Boston's, in terms of talent, they were not as good. And it showed in the playoffs, when they collapsed, while Chamberlain once again crushed Russell. And Wilt's '68-'69 team was not nearly as deep as Boston's, and Baylor was a detractor, especially in the post-season. On top of all of that, Wilt's COACH cost them the title that year. Had he focused on Chamberlain's offense, instead of washed-up Baylor's, or had he just sent Wilt back in the last 3-4 minutes of that game seven, I have no doubt that LA would have won the title.

Look, Wilt could do everything Russell could do, only BETTER. He was a FAR better shooter. He was a FAR better offensive player. He was a better rebounder. He was a better passer (4.4 to 4.3 apg in their careers, and Wilt had a season in which he led the league, and finished 3rd in another.) There are many who consider Russell the greatest defensive player of all-time. But Wilt had to rank a CLOSE second. In fact, H2H, Chamberlain shut down Russell...while the same could not be said in reverse.

Not only that, but in BIG games, Wilt either outplayed, or DOMINATED Russell in the vast majority of them. While Wilt put up a 46-34 (to Russell's 18-31) effort in a clinching game five loss to the Celtics in the '66 playoffs, Russell put up a 4-21 game (to Chamberlain's 29-36 effort) in a clinching game five loss to the 76ers in the '67 playoffs. That was by far the RULE in their H2H matchups. Chamberlain could offset poor play by his teammates, while Russell could not.

[Bizz]

[QUOTE=jlauber]Bizz,

Despite your attempt to hide it, you are very much ANTI-WILT. And I have already addressed EVERYTHING you just typed. But here goes one more time...




Why would I hate Wilt? I was a Laker fan then and I am now lol if anything wouldn't I hate the C's and Russell more? And you haven't addressed my main points. You are making excuses as to why Wilt often came up small when it mattered the most. That my friend is a FACT and not opinion. Stats that you like to use don't lie. Why did his production go down in the postseason over the course of his career while Russell's went up? Yet you make him out to be a victim of not having good enough teammates. No offense but I think you are out to dinner here on this topic despite having some knowledge of what went on then.


While Wilt DID play with quality teammates throughout his career, he never had as many as Russell did at any one time, except for the '66-'67 and '67-'68 76ers. And, had Cunningham not missed the '68 Eastern playoffs, Wilt's team would have won titles in BOTH years.

But let's go down the list. Paul Arizin. HOFer to be sure. He played him in his first three years, but Arizin was nearing the end of his career. Tom Gola (one of the least deserving HOFers EVER...he was not even a good player.) Nate Thurmond. Wilt only played with him in Nate's rookie year, and Thurmond played out of his natural position. Elgin Baylor. Washed up by the time Wilt joined LA. He lived off of his reputation for the last few years of his career. And, by the way, he and Wilt only played together for ONE semi-full season, in that '68-'69 season. Wilt missed nearly all of the '69-'70 season, while Baylor missed almost all of the '70-'71 season, and was forced to retire after nine games in the '71-'72 season (and it was no coincidence that LA immediately won 33 straight games following his "retirement.") And Baylor was awful in his two post-seasons alongside Wilt.

When Wilt was assisted by Cunningham, Chet Walker (who should be in the HOF), and Greer, his teams were the best in the league. Those four under-performed in the '66 Eastern Finals, and Cunningham missed the '68 Eastern Finals altogether.

Let me ask you something..where were the C's before Bill Russell got there and how was their record? Yeah not too good....usually one and done in the playoffs. Bill Russell is very underrated and it is said to see because I never thought I'd see the day he was underrated. He won 11 championships in 13 years. He would have averaged a triple double with points/rebounds/blocks had blocks been a stat back then. He was MVP 5 times, which, in that era, was huge because the MVP was voted on by players, not media. That means that people who played against Russell thought he was so great and important that he was the MVP. Which is why they voted him as the GOAT in 1980 I believe. The part you are not getting is Wilt often did the things his teams "didn't need" him to do and Russell did the things his teams "needed him to do". I think Wilt was far more talented than Russell on the floor. But talent doesn't equate to being better. How you use your gifts and make them effective on the floor and nobody in the history of the game has did that better than Russell. Russell didn't need to score because he was a team player. Read anything about him and his offensive game. His job was to play great defense, rebound, and throw an outlet pass. He was the greatest of all time at all of those things. He didn't need to be like Wilt and dominate on offense.

Wilt also played with West and Goodrich for two years. The Lakers won a title in one, and lost four close games in the '73 Finals (by 4,4,5, and 9 points...and were in all of them inside the last minute.) And in those '73 Finals, West was hobbled (and Hairston had just returned from a season-long injury, and was nowhere near 100%)

So, when Wilt was given a solid supporting cast, that was healthy, his team's not only won, they were the best in NBA history (along with the '96 Bulls.)


I LOVE the fact that you conveniently left off the fact that he got outplayed by the Knicks front court too in those years. I've posted about this too many times. Wilt was one of the worst playoff chokers in history. His ppg would routinely drop by 10-15 once the playoffs started. He was unstoppable in the regular season, but was very stoppable in the postseason. Wilt also said in his own autobiography that he intentionally went for the assist crown the year after his team won the title. He said he passed up giving the ball to certain teammates in favor of others. LOL how is that good basketball??? Not to mention, he said he changed the way he played. What happened????... despite having virtually the same team as the previous season when they won the title easily... the team didn't repeat. Wilt treated the ball like a hot doorknob in crunch time of close playoff games because of his FT shooting. For his CAREER, he shot .465 from the line in the playoffs, including 5 straight seasons when he never shot over .412. I mean WOW....and finally, he was so "proud" of never fouling out of a game that he was virtually useless on defense once he got 5 fouls. Since he played every minute of the game (averaged 47.2 minutes per playoff game), that happened a lot. See you have to remember it wasn't just Russell who got the best of him. He was also 1-2 against the Knicks in the Finals..Wilt just never understood how to make the game easier for his teammates (unlike Russell). And you can't overlook how important never fouling out was to Wilt and how it impacted his defense late in games. Knicks beat him with a banged up Willis Reed for crying out loud! He should have killed that frontcourt. Who was guarding Wilt on the Knicks after Reed went down? It was 6'6 Dave Debusscherre!!!! LOL come on man. Stop making excuses. What was his excuse for 1969? When Jerry West played his heart and souled out on a sore freaking hamstring and won Finals MVP! While Wilt was busy crying on the sidelines for crying out loud about a little leg injury...that he eventually wanted back in for when the game got close.





You are SO wrong...on EVERY statement. Regarding Van Breda Kolf, Robert Cherry summed him up best...when he kept Wilt on the bench, and refused to bring him back in in that game seven of the '69 Finals, he basically ruined his career. The FACT was, this was Van Breda Kolf's best team. But, in his determination to prove that he could win without Wilt, he basically cost himself his career. He was fired shortly after that series (by the way, it was Jerry West who was furious when he found out that Butch had kept Wilt on the bench, not because of injury, but because of his own stubborness.) He was out of the NBA within a couple of seasons.

As for Wilt's and Count's shooting...

Wilt went 7-8 from the floor, while Counts went 4-13, including missing two shots down the stretch. The FACT was, Wilt's play in the 4th quarter had sparked LA's comeback from a 17 point deficit to nine, when he injured his leg...and he stayed on the floor to grab one more rebound, which led to two more points, and reduced Boston's lead to seven.

Furthermore, take a look at that final quarter in that game seven. Russell was hardly a factor. He was "choking" far more than Wilt was. For the game, Russell went 2-7, for six points, with 21 rebounds in 48 minutes. Wilt scored 18 points on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds, in 43 minutes. And while Wilt missed nine FTs, he still made four, which was two more than Russell (Wilt made DOUBLE the amount of his FTs over Russell in their careers BTW.)

Regarding Wilt's "lack of heart"...Wilt is the CAREER minutes played per game leader in NBA history. And he returned to play in the '70 Finals, which shocked virtually every medical opinion at the time.

As for Russell's claim that Wilt "faked" his injury in that game seven in the '69 Finals. Even Van Breda Kolf came to Wilt's defense on that ridiculous comment. Russell's statement caused a rift that lasted for 20 years...and he finally apologized years later.


I already said that Van Breda was a very stubborn guy and you could get on him for a lot of things. But that wasn't one of them. Wilt had been playing like a scrub the entire game. As I said before, Wilt was so proud of his never fouling out feat that he played tentatively when he got his 5th foul of the game which was a 3 pt. play by Russell on Wilt (like he did often by the way I know I watched those teams). With his play the C's increased their lead to 15 points. He is the main reason why the C's got up that far in the first place. And I really believe that he wasn't as hurt as he led on. Just wasn't playing well overall and you would have to watch the game to know that and not look at the statsheet alone. Look at Russell's statline and you would think he was worse, but he was ten times better mainly on defense. It is like some of you give the "intangible part of the game" zero credit. West later said after he won the Finals MVP that he would have preferred to play with Bill as opposed to Wilt Chamberlain and said Bill was the best player he had ever seen. Funny considering Wilt was on his team when he said it lol

[Bizz]

ONE MORE TIME, take a look at the rosters Wilt had to work with in his first six seasons, and compare them with Russell's. If you HONESTLY believe that they were comparable, you need your head examined. Maybe not all of Russell's HOF teammates were true HOFers, but CLEARLY Cousey, Heinsohn, Sharman, Sam Jones, and Havlicek were. Not only that, but Russell had a beavy of quality role players, like Bailey Howell, Don Nelson, Wayne Embry, KC Jones, and Satch Sanders (one of the best defenders of his era.)
Meanwhile. Wilt came to a last place team, and when he left them, they immediately became a last place team ( a year after being in the Finals). In between, he had a close game seven series loss in the '61-'62 Eastern Finals, a championship series defeat in the '64 Finals, and a one-point game six loss in his rookie year.



What was Wilt's excuse in 1969 again? The C's may have been deeper which I disagree on again. But why couldn't he beat that team on their last legs. They were clearly aging if you seen the regular season.....that was an old team yet Wilt still came up small and had no answer for Bill Russell? I mean stop making excuses. Wilt played with as many legit Hall of Famers almost as Russell. Difference is, one upped his production when it mattered and the other dipped his production. Care to guess who did what?


The FACT was, you take Wilt off of those teams, and they were awful. WILT made them competitive.

Regarding the rest of your posts. Chamberlain played with several TERRIBLE coaches in his career, and really only TWO good ones...Hannum and Sharman. Russell had Auerbach for most of his playing career. Would Wilt have been able to play for Auebach? Why wouldn't he have. You seem to blame Wilt for selfish play, when it was his COACHES who asked him to score. And when his coaches ask him to concentrate on defense, rebounding, passing, the outlet pass, and scoring in a half-court game...he did ALL of it. Even when he disagreed with them...like Van Breda Kolf asking him to play the high-post (what a ridiculous request...the single greatest post player in NBA history being asked to play the high-post.) AND, virtually EVERYONE of Wilt's coaches had their BEST seasons coaching Chamberlain. On top of all of that...virtually EVERY team that Wilt joined became better, and virtually EVERY team he left, became worse...from his rookie year to his final season in the NBA.

Now I know you are NOT a Wilt fan. But I think it might interest you to know that Wilt was a FAR better human being than Russell was. If you want to get into that argument, I would be more than happy to.[/QUOTE]


I don't care for the better human side of the equation. Both guys had their faults there. But one guy never let it bother a team and one guy often distracted the tea with the bs. Care to guess who again?? Stop with the excuses already about coaching and etc. You seem to forget Russell was the head coach the latter years and the C's still won again. Wilt didn't live up to expectations. I saw his entire career and he was very impressive and a freak of nature that I doubt we would ever see again. But he was also very unimpressive when it counted and that is usually when the best are at their best. I like Wilt, way more than I like that darn Bill Russell. I HATE him and had joy in my eyes when I saw Kobe snatch that Finals MVP right out of his hands, but I'd be a fool to say Wilt was better or anyone for that matter was better than he was. No one impacted a game better than Russell and it hurts me to say that but it is the truth. His impact went well beyond numbers. Chemistry goes a long ways in this league, and one guy often fit in perfectly and made it work while the other often disrupted it. Care to guess which one again???

[Bizz]

[QUOTE=jlauber][COLOR="DarkRed"]"However, I must point out the inconsistencies and flat-out contradictions I

[Bizz]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]That

[jlauber]

Bizz,

Once again, I have addressed ALL of your points here several times, including Chamberlain's production dropping in the post-season, while Russell's increased. Here again, that is almost laughable.

Did you not read my post in which I illustrated Wilt's HUGE statistical edge over Russell in BOTH the regular season, AND POST-SEASON???

You are being contradictory. Wilt's scoring in the '71-'72 season was at 14.8 which was substantially less than his regular season average of 30.1, and his POST-SEASON average of 22.5 ppg. So, at one of his lowest ppg averages, he led his team to the best-record in NBA history at the time.

However, had he not scored 50 ppg in the '61-'62, even his own coach admitted that they would not have had a chance.

As for his production dropping...his rebounding went UP in the post-season, from 22.9 to 24.5 rpg. Yes, Russell's did too, from 22.5 to 24.9 rpg. BUT, in the regular season, OR the post-season, H2H, Chamberlain just waxed Russell. As I have noted many times, Wilt not only outscored Russell in every post-season series, he also outrebounded him in every post-season series. And in several, he crushed Russell on the glass.

Russell's scoring increased from 15.1 to 16.2 in the post-season. Wilt's dropped from 30.1 to 22.5. HOWEVER, that too is deceptive. During the 10 years that Russell and Wilt went H2H, Wilt averaged 26 ppg in the post-season, and in his first six seasons he averaged 33 ppg in the playoffs combined. CLEARLY, he was capable of scoring more.

And WHY was EXPECTED to score, while Russell was not??? I mentioned it before, but Chamberlain's '69 Finals were probably his worst. His idiotic coach reduced Wilt's offense, although Chamberlain led the league in FG% at .583, and then he shot .545 in the post-season. In the Finals, Wilt only averaged 11.7 ppg, but Russell was only at 9.1. And Wilt outrebounded Russell 25.0 to 21.4 rpg. In that 7th game, in which you said it was Wilt's fault that his team dug a hole, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 18-6, outshot him 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him, 27-21 (despite missing the last five minutes of the game.)
So, YOU would have EXPECTED Wilt to score more? Here again, why is Russell given a free pass when Chamberlain shreds in the '67 Finals clinching game five, by outscoring him 29-4??? (and he outrebounded him 36-21 as well.) Where was Russell when his teammates NEEDED him to score???

Wilt had 20 30+ point games against Russell in the post-season, including FIVE 40+ games, and one 50 point game. Russell had just TWO 30 point games against Wilt (and both were 31 point games...in games that Chamberlain outscored him.)

Once again, I harken back to the '65 Finals game seven, when Chamberlain scored the last eight points to bring Philly back from a 110-101 deficit to 110-109. After being dunked on by Wilt, with five secs left, "clutch" Russell then hit a guidewire on his inbounds pass, turning the ball back to Philly. Had Havlicek not stolen the ball on the next play, Russell may very well have been one of the biggest goats in Finals history. For that pivotal game seven, Russell scored 15 points, on 7-16 shooting, with 29 rebounds...while Wilt scored 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds. Who was more "clutch" in that game???

I mentioned Russell's ineptitude against Wilt in the '67 Finals, particularly in that game five when he meekly scored only four points, while Chamberlain racked up 29 (including 22 in the first half, when Philly rallied from an early 17 point deficit, to a one point deficit at the half.) Why was Russell not chastized for his ROUTINE inability to score on Wilt??

Conversley, Wilt's post-season "failures" against Russell were epitomized by his 46-34 game in game five in the '66 Eastern Finals.

Regarding your ridiculous assertions on WILT's 1-2 record against the Knicks in the post-season...wait a second, it was actually 2-2 (as he led the Sixers past the Knicks in the '68 Playoffs, in which he led BOTH teams in scoring, rebounding, AND assists in that series.)

First of all, like most historians, you fail to mention Wilt's bum leg, while you bring up Reed's. Secondly, that Knick team was an overwhelming pick to win in the Finals that year. They had ran away with the best record in the league, at 60-22, while LA limped in with a 46-36 record. That Knick roster had FOUR HOFers, all in their primes, as well as Cazzie Russell, and a much stronger bench. That that series even went seven games was a miracle, much less the fact that Chamberlain overwhelmed Reed statistically. Of course, it was WILT's fault that his TEAM lost, despite him having the only 20 ppg, 20 rpg, .600 FG% in Finals history (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 from the field.) AND, if the Knicks had not benefitted from some suspicious officiating in game five, the Lakers might very well have won the championship in game six, when Wilt poured in 45 points with 27 rebounds. As it was, Reed, with a paltry 4-3 game in that game seven, was lauded as heroic, while Wilt, just four months removed from major knee surgery, was considered a "failure" with his 21-24 game.

And as for the '73 Finals...the Lakers were hobbling. West had two bad knees, and Hairston had just come back from nearly missing the entire season. Not only that, but NY had SIX HOFers (Monroe, Frazier, Bradley, Reed, Lucas, and Frazier)...and yet, LA was in every loss until the final minute of each game. Reed won the MVP award again, but was hardly deserving once again, with a 16 ppg, 9 rpg average. Wilt's scoring was at his all-time low by that time, as he only averaged 11 ppg, but he garnered 18 rpg. In his final game of his career, Chamberlain put up a 21-23 game. Yep, it was HIS fault.

The bottom line is, ONCE AGAIN, no matter what Wilt did, it was never enough. If he put up a routine 40-30 game, and his team lost, well, it was Wilt's fault. Never his teammates, though. Meanwhile, if Russell put up a 10-20 game, and if his team won, well, it was because of Russell. Even if Russell put up a 10-20 game, and his team lost, no one ripped him, though.

Why was that??? ONCE AGAIN, Wilt was so dominant in his career, that everyone EXPECTED him to be Superman. Only Wilt, though.

[ThaRegul8r]

Don

[Cermet]

He had a 100 points in one game... WTF... Of course he is selfish for god sake... How many UNSelfish players even had 60 point game?

[ThaRegul8r]

He had a 100 points in one game... WTF... Of course he is selfish for god sake... How many UNSelfish players even had 60 point game?

That's too simplistic. Even Wilt later said he didn't hold the hundred point game in as high a regard as other people. Incidentally, Larry Bird has a 60-point game, and I think you'll agree that he's as unselfish a player as there was?

[Bizz]

Bizz,

Once again, I have addressed ALL of your points here several times, including Chamberlain's production dropping in the post-season, while Russell's increased. Here again, that is almost laughable.

Did you not read my post in which I illustrated Wilt's HUGE statistical edge over Russell in BOTH the regular season, AND POST-SEASON???

You are being contradictory. Wilt's scoring in the '71-'72 season was at 14.8 which was substantially less than his regular season average of 30.1, and his POST-SEASON average of 22.5 ppg. So, at one of his lowest ppg averages, he led his team to the best-record in NBA history at the time.

However, had he not scored 50 ppg in the '61-'62, even his own coach admitted that they would not have had a chance.

As for his production dropping...his rebounding went UP in the post-season, from 22.9 to 24.5 rpg. Yes, Russell's did too, from 22.5 to 24.9 rpg. BUT, in the regular season, OR the post-season, H2H, Chamberlain just waxed Russell. As I have noted many times, Wilt not only outscored Russell in every post-season series, he also outrebounded him in every post-season series. And in several, he crushed Russell on the glass.

Russell's scoring increased from 15.1 to 16.2 in the post-season. Wilt's dropped from 30.1 to 22.5. HOWEVER, that too is deceptive. During the 10 years that Russell and Wilt went H2H, Wilt averaged 26 ppg in the post-season, and in his first six seasons he averaged 33 ppg in the playoffs combined. CLEARLY, he was capable of scoring more.

And WHY was EXPECTED to score, while Russell was not??? I mentioned it before, but Chamberlain's '69 Finals were probably his worst. His idiotic coach reduced Wilt's offense, although Chamberlain led the league in FG% at .583, and then he shot .545 in the post-season. In the Finals, Wilt only averaged 11.7 ppg, but Russell was only at 9.1. And Wilt outrebounded Russell 25.0 to 21.4 rpg. In that 7th game, in which you said it was Wilt's fault that his team dug a hole, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 18-6, outshot him 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him, 27-21 (despite missing the last five minutes of the game.)
So, YOU would have EXPECTED Wilt to score more? Here again, why is Russell given a free pass when Chamberlain shreds in the '67 Finals clinching game five, by outscoring him 29-4??? (and he outrebounded him 36-21 as well.) Where was Russell when his teammates NEEDED him to score???

Wilt had 20 30+ point games against Russell in the post-season, including FIVE 40+ games, and one 50 point game. Russell had just TWO 30 point games against Wilt (and both were 31 point games...in games that Chamberlain outscored him.)

Once again, I harken back to the '65 Finals game seven, when Chamberlain scored the last eight points to bring Philly back from a 110-101 deficit to 110-109. After being dunked on by Wilt, with five secs left, "clutch" Russell then hit a guidewire on his inbounds pass, turning the ball back to Philly. Had Havlicek not stolen the ball on the next play, Russell may very well have been one of the biggest goats in Finals history. For that pivotal game seven, Russell scored 15 points, on 7-16 shooting, with 29 rebounds...while Wilt scored 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds. Who was more "clutch" in that game???

I mentioned Russell's ineptitude against Wilt in the '67 Finals, particularly in that game five when he meekly scored only four points, while Chamberlain racked up 29 (including 22 in the first half, when Philly rallied from an early 17 point deficit, to a one point deficit at the half.) Why was Russell not chastized for his ROUTINE inability to score on Wilt??

Conversley, Wilt's post-season "failures" against Russell were epitomized by his 46-34 game in game five in the '66 Eastern Finals.

Regarding your ridiculous assertions on WILT's 1-2 record against the Knicks in the post-season...wait a second, it was actually 2-2 (as he led the Sixers past the Knicks in the '68 Playoffs, in which he led BOTH teams in scoring, rebounding, AND assists in that series.)

First of all, like most historians, you fail to mention Wilt's bum leg, while you bring up Reed's. Secondly, that Knick team was an overwhelming pick to win in the Finals that year. They had ran away with the best record in the league, at 60-22, while LA limped in with a 46-36 record. That Knick roster had FOUR HOFers, all in their primes, as well as Cazzie Russell, and a much stronger bench. That that series even went seven games was a miracle, much less the fact that Chamberlain overwhelmed Reed statistically. Of course, it was WILT's fault that his TEAM lost, despite him having the only 20 ppg, 20 rpg, .600 FG% in Finals history (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 from the field.) AND, if the Knicks had not benefitted from some suspicious officiating in game five, the Lakers might very well have won the championship in game six, when Wilt poured in 45 points with 27 rebounds. As it was, Reed, with a paltry 4-3 game in that game seven, was lauded as heroic, while Wilt, just four months removed from major knee surgery, was considered a "failure" with his 21-24 game.

And as for the '73 Finals...the Lakers were hobbling. West had two bad knees, and Hairston had just come back from nearly missing the entire season. Not only that, but NY had SIX HOFers (Monroe, Frazier, Bradley, Reed, Lucas, and Frazier)...and yet, LA was in every loss until the final minute of each game. Reed won the MVP award again, but was hardly deserving once again, with a 16 ppg, 9 rpg average. Wilt's scoring was at his all-time low by that time, as he only averaged 11 ppg, but he garnered 18 rpg. In his final game of his career, Chamberlain put up a 21-23 game. Yep, it was HIS fault.

The bottom line is, ONCE AGAIN, no matter what Wilt did, it was never enough. If he put up a routine 40-30 game, and his team lost, well, it was Wilt's fault. Never his teammates, though. Meanwhile, if Russell put up a 10-20 game, and if his team won, well, it was because of Russell. Even if Russell put up a 10-20 game, and his team lost, no one ripped him, though.

Why was that??? ONCE AGAIN, Wilt was so dominant in his career, that everyone EXPECTED him to be Superman. Only Wilt, though.



On other words, it is always his coaches fault for his shortcomings and woes at the free throw line that proved costly just like him quitting most games after he gets 5 fouls on the defensive end. We'll just agree to disagree because we're clearly aren't going anywhere here. I think people just want an excuse machine like him to win and leave it at that. Russell never needs any excuses meanwhile Wilt is always the guy that needs them.

[Bizz]

[I][QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Don

[Bizz]

He had a 100 points in one game... WTF... Of course he is selfish for god sake... How many UNSelfish players even had 60 point game?



Well his teammates lobbied him to do so and besides, many guys have scored over 60 pts. that weren't selfish players. David Robinson comes to mind here.

[jlauber]

Bizz says

"I LOVE the fact that you conveniently left off the fact that he got outplayed by the Knicks front court too in those years. I've posted about this too many times. Wilt was one of the worst playoff chokers in history. His ppg would routinely drop by 10-15 once the playoffs started. He was unstoppable in the regular season, but was very stoppable in the postseason. Wilt also said in his own autobiography that he intentionally went for the assist crown the year after his team won the title. He said he passed up giving the ball to certain teammates in favor of others. LOL how is that good basketball??? Not to mention, he said he changed the way he played. What happened????... despite having virtually the same team as the previous season when they won the title easily... the team didn't repeat. Wilt treated the ball like a hot doorknob in crunch time of close playoff games because of his FT shooting. For his CAREER, he shot .465 from the line in the playoffs, including 5 straight seasons when he never shot over .412. I mean WOW....and finally, he was so "proud" of never fouling out of a game that he was virtually useless on defense once he got 5 fouls. Since he played every minute of the game (averaged 47.2 minutes per playoff game), that happened a lot. See you have to remember it wasn't just Russell who got the best of him. He was also 1-2 against the Knicks in the Finals..Wilt just never understood how to make the game easier for his teammates (unlike Russell). And you can't overlook how important never fouling out was to Wilt and how it impacted his defense late in games. Knicks beat him with a banged up Willis Reed for crying out loud! He should have killed that frontcourt. Who was guarding Wilt on the Knicks after Reed went down? It was 6'6 Dave Debusscherre!!!! LOL come on man. Stop making excuses. What was his excuse for 1969? When Jerry West played his heart and souled out on a sore freaking hamstring and won Finals MVP! While Wilt was busy crying on the sidelines for crying out loud about a little leg injury...that he eventually wanted back in for when the game got close."

Virtually EVERY sentence is a complete falsehood.

""]"I LOVE the fact that you conveniently left off the fact that he got outplayed by the Knicks front court too in those years."

Once again, in the '68 playoffs against the Knicks, Wilt led them a 4-2 series win, and in doing so, he was the leading scorer, rebounder, AND assist man in the series. In the '70 Finals, he averaged 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625 from the field. Debusschere and Reed COMBINED averaged 23.1 rpg in that series (and Chamberlain thoroughly outrebounded Reed in EVERY game)...all on a knee that was operated on just four months before.

How about Wilt's MVP award in the '72 Finals? Sure, Reed did not play, but the Knicks added Jerry Lucas that year, who was a much better career rebounder (and player) than Reed. That Knick team had FIVE HOFers (Lucas, Frazier, Monroe, DeBusschere, and Bradley.) Yet, the Lakers crushed them 4-1. AND, in the clinching game five, and with two badly swollen wrists that were heavily-taped, Chamberlain score 24 pts, on 10-14 shooting, with 10 blocked shots, and 29 rebounds, which was just ten less than the ENTIRE Knick team!

"His ppg would routinely drop by 10-15 once the playoffs started. He was unstoppable in the regular season, but was very stoppable in the postseason."

Two things. One, his scoring dropped SOME, but only ONCE did it drop 15 ppg, and that in the '61-'62 season, in which he could "only" score 35 ppg, instead of the 50 that he averaged in the regular season. Incidently, I have always wondered how much he would have averaged in the Finals against LA that year, had his team been able to beat Boston in that game seven, instead of losing by two points? Wilt had averaged 51.5 against the Lakers that year, including THREE 60+ games (and a monumental 78 point, 43 rebound game.) Of course, one of the reasons that Chamberlain's scoring dropped was the fact that he almost always faced the Celtics, and Russell. Of course, YOU seem to believe that Chamberlain should have averaged 50 ppg against him, as well. And "very stoppable"??? In his first six seasons, Wilt averaged 33 ppg in the post-season. Yes, it was slightly lower than his 40 ppg regular season average, but it was considerably higher than Russell's numbers!!!

"Wilt also said in his own autobiography that he intentionally went for the assist crown the year after his team won the title. He said he passed up giving the ball to certain teammates in favor of others. LOL how is that good basketball???"

You tell me!!!! How about the FACT that his Sixers RAN AWAY with the best record in the league that year??? Yep, Chamberlain was selfish, and it sure cost his team. Just a ridiculous assertion!

" Not to mention, he said he changed the way he played. What happened????... despite having virtually the same team as the previous season when they won the title easily... the team didn't repeat."

The SAME team in the regular season, yes, when they RAN AWAY from the league with the best record AGAIN. But certainly not the same team in the playoffs against Boston. As I have now stated ad nauseum, HOFer Billy Cunningham missed that entire series due to an injury in the previous Knick series. Despite his absence, the 76ers still jumped to a 3-1 series lead. Then, Luke Jackson went down with a leg injury, and while he played, he was virtually worthless. On top of that, Chamberlain was nursing two arthritic knees. And, with all of that, and Chamberlain's teammates shooting an absymal 33% in that game seven, the Sixers lost that game seven by FOUR points!!!

Had the Sixers had the SAME team in that playoff series, it probably would have been a repeat of their 4-1 romp over Boston the previous year...maybe even a sweep. Clearly, had the roles been reversed, and Boston would have played without Havlicek, with Howell being useless in the last three games, and Russell nursing a variety of ailments...do you HONESTLY believe that Boston would still have beaten a HEALTHY 76er team????

"Wilt treated the ball like a hot doorknob in crunch time of close playoff games because of his FT shooting. For his CAREER, he shot .465 from the line in the playoffs, including 5 straight seasons when he never shot over .412."

No question about it, Wilt was a horrible FT shooter. Two things though. One. I can't recall an important playoff game, in which he choked at crunch time. yes, he had some horrific games (like an 8-25 game in game five of the Eastern Playoffs...of course, he shot 19-28 from the field, en route to a 46 point game.) In the '65 Eastern Finals, Wilt went 2-2 at the line with 36 secs left, and then followed that up with a thunderous dunk over Russell with five seconds left to move Philly within one point. In his dramatic game six against Kareem and the Bucks in the '72 Western Finals, Wilt went 8-8 from the line in a 104-100 clinching win.

Secondly, Russell was not much better than Wilt. His career FT% was only .561, which was not much better than Chamberlain's .511. HOWEVER, Wilt OUTSCORED Russell, in his CAREER, from the FT line, by a 6057-3148 margin!
And in the post-season, Wilt OUTSCORED Russell from the line by a 757-667margin.

"and finally, he was so "proud" of never fouling out of a game that he was virtually useless on defense once he got 5 fouls."

I have shown evidence that that was NOT the case at all. In fact, take a close look at the game seven in the '69 Finals. Russell was the one "shying" away in the last quarter. And, in game four of the '72 Finals, Wilt picked up his fifth foul in the 4th period. The game went into OT, and he blocked TWO critical shots near the end of the game which ensured a Laker win. And one more time, Chamberlain was ejected from two games in his career.

"Since he played every minute of the game (averaged 47.2 minutes per playoff game), that happened a lot."

Huh???? That is a NEGATIVE??!! You are ripping Wilt for playing ENTIRE games?? My gosh. First you rip him for not scoring as much as he did in the regular season, but applaud him for "playing like Russell" later in his career, when his scoring dropped significantly; then you rip him for leading the league in assists, even while he also led his team to the best record in the league in the process. And now you rip him for playing nearly every minute of every playoff game???

"He was also 1-2 against the Knicks in the Finals."

See above.

"Wilt just never understood how to make the game easier for his teammates (unlike Russell). "

Nope. Just leading the league in assists one year, and finishing third in another. Just being the top defensive player in the league for several seasons. Just being the best rebounder in the league for 11 of his 14 seasons. Just taking over in the playoffs, as he did countless times, even in several close game seven losses, and often playing hurt in the process. Of course, Russell made it easier on his EIGHT HOF teammates. Those teammates were worthless without him, though, and not the other way around. (Incidently, Havlicek played on TWO more title teams after Russell retired.)

"Knicks beat him with a banged up Willis Reed for crying out loud! He should have killed that frontcourt. Who was guarding Wilt on the Knicks after Reed went down? It was 6'6 Dave Debusscherre!!!! LOL come on man. Stop making excuses."

See above...but one more time...Wilt was just four months removed from major knee surgery, but you conveniently forget that FACT.

"What was his excuse for 1969? When Jerry West played his heart and souled out on a sore freaking hamstring and won Finals MVP! While Wilt was busy crying on the sidelines for crying out loud about a little leg injury...that he eventually wanted back in for when the game got close."

Let's see, Wilt outscored, outshot, and outrebounded Russell in that series. As for "crying on the sidelines"...interesting fact, he would reinjure that SAME knee early the following season, which would require major surgery. Coincidence? As for the game getting close...Wilt was on the floor when LA mounted their comeback. In fact, he was clearing rebounds, while Russell stood around and watched him in that 4th quarter, and LA had cut a 17 point deficit down to seven, with a little over five minutes left. Why would Wilt suddenly "fake" an injury and want to come out in a game that was no withinh his team's grasp? And for the last time, his replacement, Mel Counts "choked" down the stretch. I have no doubt that had Wilt been on the floor in those few minutes that the Lakers would have won their first title in LA. As for Russell...what did he do in that last quarter? Absolutely NOTHING. Yet, he was the "hero"??? For the umpteenth time in his career, it was his TEAMMATES making the key plays and shots at crunch time, not Russell...especially in his battles with Wilt.

[jlauber]

And, for those that keep harping on West's take on Wilt. Here is what he ACTUALLY said, following that game seven loss, courtesy of Robert Cherry's biography, 'Wilt: Larger than Life:' (page 223)

Asked if given the choice for one game, if he would pick Wilt over Russell, West answered, "I think Wilt Chamberlain is the better basketball player than Bill Russell, but for one game I think I'd rather have Bill Russell." He went on to elaborate: "It would be hard to explain without hurting somebody's feelings. I think Chamberlain is a better rebounder, a better scorer, and a better shooter. I think Wilt blocks more shots than Russell. But, if I had to pick one guy, for one game, it'd be Russell...It's incredible what he does for his team. It's hard to imagine how one guy can do so much for his teammates...When they see him on the court, they're different players."

HOWEVER, continuing on the same page (223):

In an interview with the author in 2003, as the above quote was read to him, West interjected, "Probably the dumbest thing I ever said in my life. I said it out of frustration. It was the low point of my career. It was probably the dumbest thing I ever said in my life. It is something I am sorry of to this day." Given the opportunity to recant, West that he would not choose Russell over Wilt...or Wilt over Russell. They were both great and forced opponents to alter their game, he said.

As it was, West would not have won his one ring without Chamberlain dominating the '72 post-season, while West himself was mired in a horrible shooting slump. Clearly, it was WILT who carried that Laker team to their first title in LA.

[Bizz]

And, for those that keep harping on West's take on Wilt. Here is what he ACTUALLY said, following that game seven loss, courtesy of Robert Cherry's biography, 'Wilt: Larger than Life:' (page 223)

Asked if given the choice for one game, if he would pick Wilt over Russell, West answered, "I think Wilt Chamberlain is the better basketball player than Bill Russell, but for one game I think I'd rather have Bill Russell." He went on to elaborate: "It would be hard to explain without hurting somebody's feelings. I think Chamberlain is a better rebounder, a better scorer, and a better shooter. I think Wilt blocks more shots than Russell. But, if I had to pick one guy, for one game, it'd be Russell...It's incredible what he does for his team. It's hard to imagine how one guy can do so much for his teammates...When they see him on the court, they're different players."

HOWEVER, continuing on the same page (223):

In an interview with the author in 2003, as the above quote was read to him, West interjected, "Probably the dumbest thing I ever said in my life. I said it out of frustration. It was the low point of my career. It was probably the dumbest thing I ever said in my life. It is something I am sorry of to this day." Given the opportunity to recant, West that he would not choose Russell over Wilt...or Wilt over Russell. They were both great and forced opponents to alter their game, he said.

As it was, West would not have won his one ring without Chamberlain dominating the '72 post-season, while West himself was mired in a horrible shooting slump. Clearly, it was WILT who carried that Laker team to their first title in LA.


I'll go by his true feelings. Of course being a teammate of Wilt kind of swayed his opinion years later because he was such an emotional guy and he knew that caused a rift between the two. Now I'll give you Wilt leading those LA Lakers to the title. His stats. weren't "Wilt like" but he was as effective as he ever was to a team. West was kind of shot by the time they won it and was contemplating retirement. Wilt was brilliant that year and that is where a lot of frustration lies with Wilt. Had he played like that sooner, you bet he would have more hardware. If you are going by his book, lol well good luck to you because he was very bitter in it and he said some things in there that wasn't even true such as Chick Hearn never criticizing Jerry West when he did so numerous times. lol

[Bizz]

Nope. Just leading the league in assists one year, and finishing third in another. Just being the top defensive player in the league for several seasons. Just being the best rebounder in the league for 11 of his 14 seasons. Just taking over in the playoffs, as he did countless times, even in several close game seven losses, and often playing hurt in the process. Of course, Russell made it easier on his EIGHT HOF teammates. Those teammates were worthless without him, though, and not the other way around. (Incidently, Havlicek played on TWO more title teams after Russell retired.)



You are not too bright with all due respect if you go by strictly assists or number of assists to determine if a player is disrupting team chemistry. Clearly you have to be brighter than that. It goes beyond assists. Usually requires great ball movement. Especially coming from the inside, think of Russell and Hakeem Olajuwon as examples. Both of those guys knew how to make the game easier for teammates and themselves. Wilt didn't quite figure that out IMO until 1971. Even when he won it all in 67 I thought that was more to Russell adjusting to the player-coach role which is VERY difficult to do, just ask Lenny Wilkens. Russell played with great players as did Wilt. But the buck began and stopped with both of those guys. No one said their surrounding players were garbage. They BOTH played with great great players, but one got it done with all types of great players and the other one had difficulties doing so with his playing style and approach to the game. Russell knew how to let the game come to him to avoid chemistry issues, whereas that was Wilt's main weakness. (I watched him for years in LA!!)






See above...but one more time...Wilt was just four months removed from major knee surgery, but you conveniently forget that FACT.


It clearly wasn't bothering him up until that point of the Finals so let the excuses go please.




Let's see, Wilt outscored, outshot, and outrebounded Russell in that series. As for "crying on the sidelines"...interesting fact, he would reinjure that SAME knee early the following season, which would require major surgery. Coincidence? As for the game getting close...Wilt was on the floor when LA mounted their comeback. In fact, he was clearing rebounds, while Russell stood around and watched him in that 4th quarter, and LA had cut a 17 point deficit down to seven, with a little over five minutes left. Why would Wilt suddenly "fake" an injury and want to come out in a game that was no withinh his team's grasp? And for the last time, his replacement, Mel Counts "choked" down the stretch. I have no doubt that had Wilt been on the floor in those few minutes that the Lakers would have won their first title in LA. As for Russell...what did he do in that last quarter? Absolutely NOTHING. Yet, he was the "hero"??? For the umpteenth time in his career, it was his TEAMMATES making the key plays and shots at crunch time, not Russell...especially in his battles with Wilt.

You are fighting a losing battle here my friend. Wilt almost ALWAYS beat Russell nearly everywhere on the statsheet. But anybody who follows this great game should know there is no stat. for pure impact and "intangibles" a guy can bring to a team. Russell often got his guys in good position on the floor and often blocked shots to get their transition game going. I know because I watched in horror as it happened time and time again. Wilt never did those things. Wilt was trying to send your shot out of bounds and into the stands. Russell was trying to send your shot to his man. Those little differences between the two literally sums up their careers. Russell, as a young man, played the greatest game 7 ever played, with 30 points and 40 rebounds vs. my Lakers in 1962. Russell was 10-0 in game 7's and that is a crazy statistic right there. It sickens me how I of all people have to sit here and defend Bill Russell. In 1969 Game 7, Russell was all over the floor. Sure he didn't score much, but he clearly helped in every single other department you can name. Wilt.....not so much aside from scoring early on and rebounds.

[jlauber]

Bizz and Reg,

Wilt did whatever was asked of him. That has been my point since the 60's. And I actually SAW many of the Russell-Wilt battles, H2H. And, IMHO, I never witnessed ONE game in which I came away thinking Russell was the better player.

And while I get accused of being a stats hound, they are what-they-are. Statistics don't tell an entire story, but the fact is, virtually EVERYONE uses them. Geez, Vegas bookies crunch numbers down to miniscule levels.

But, throw out the stats, and go with just the post-season W-L record in their series. Yes, Boston, and Russell came out on top, 7-1. BUT, the Celtics won FOUR game seven's by a TOTAL of NINE points. Had Chamberlain's teams somehow managed to score a few more points in those eight series, and he would have held a 5-3 edge over Russell and the Celtics.

I know they say excuses are for losers...but if there was ever a "snake-bit" player, it was Wilt. He endured close losses with mediocre rosters. He endured post-season injuries to himself, and his best players. He endured "miracle shots" going against his team. And he endured coaches that had no clue how to coach him, nor his teams.

But, the bottom line is this. Take a close look at the "expert" statistical rankings that I have provided, in which Wilt is at, or near the top in EVERY one of them (while Russell is nowhere to be found in many of them); or the video footage I provided (or you can go to YouTube and see the MANY clips of both Wilt and Russell...and I can guarantee you, that in the majority of them you will come away just as I did...Wilt was CLEARLY the better player);or the 142 H2H games against Russell, in which he held a staggering statistical edge over Russell; or Wilt's RECORDS, which took TWO posts to get them all in; or the several RULE Changes which were aimed strictly at Wilt; or the fact that when Wilt was surrounded with quality players, he led two teams to arguably the best seasons in NBA history.

Yes, Russell was a great player. I personally have him at #5 on MY all-time list, behind Wilt, Shaq, Kareem, and MJ. I think those are very reasonable, given the fact that Russell just could not carry a team on the offensive end. But, Wilt is CLEARLY #1, and I just don't see how anyone can argue what he accomplished.

I appreciate the discussions, but I have presented about all I can. And to be honest, I have not read anything posted here, nor anywhere else, that changes my mind. Here again, that is just MY opinion, and we are all entitled to them.

[Bizz]

Bizz and Reg,

Wilt did whatever was asked of him. That has been my point since the 60's. And I actually SAW many of the Russell-Wilt battles, H2H. And, IMHO, I never witnessed ONE game in which I came away thinking Russell was the better player.

And while I get accused of being a stats hound, they are what-they-are. Statistics don't tell an entire story, but the fact is, virtually EVERYONE uses them. Geez, Vegas bookies crunch numbers down to miniscule levels.

But, throw out the stats, and go with just the post-season W-L record in their series. Yes, Boston, and Russell came out on top, 7-1. BUT, the Celtics won FOUR game seven's by a TOTAL of NINE points. Had Chamberlain's teams somehow managed to score a few more points in those eight series, and he would have held a 5-3 edge over Russell and the Celtics.

I know they say excuses are for losers...but if there was ever a "snake-bit" player, it was Wilt. He endured close losses with mediocre rosters. He endured post-season injuries to himself, and his best players. He endured "miracle shots" going against his team. And he endured coaches that had no clue how to coach him, nor his teams.

But, the bottom line is this. Take a close look at the "expert" statistical rankings that I have provided, in which Wilt is at, or near the top in EVERY one of them (while Russell is nowhere to be found in many of them); or the video footage I provided (or you can go to YouTube and see the MANY clips of both Wilt and Russell...and I can guarantee you, that in the majority of them you will come away just as I did...Wilt was CLEARLY the better player);or the 142 H2H games against Russell, in which he held a staggering statistical edge over Russell; or Wilt's RECORDS, which took TWO posts to get them all in; or the several RULE Changes which were aimed strictly at Wilt; or the fact that when Wilt was surrounded with quality players, he led two teams to arguably the best seasons in NBA history.

Yes, Russell was a great player. I personally have him at #5 on MY all-time list, behind Wilt, Shaq, Kareem, and MJ. I think those are very reasonable, given the fact that Russell just could not carry a team on the offensive end. But, Wilt is CLEARLY #1, and I just don't see how anyone can argue what he accomplished.

I appreciate the discussions, but I have presented about all I can. And to be honest, I have not read anything posted here, nor anywhere else, that changes my mind. Here again, that is just MY opinion, and we are all entitled to them.


And that's the thing..I also think Wilt "could have" won a lot of those games against Russell if he played "smarter". That was the thing about Bill Russell, he was the smartest player I have ever seen on a basketball floor at a time where the scouting films and etc. wasn't as prevalent. What team do you root for just out of curiosity? I think you're a great poster, but we just disagree here.

[ThaRegul8r]

He had a 100 points in one game... WTF... Of course he is selfish for god sake... How many UNSelfish players even had 60 point game?

Well his teammates lobbied him to do so and besides, many guys have scored over 60 pts. that weren't selfish players. David Robinson comes to mind here.

Exactly. Which is why I said it's too simplistic to just look at the stats, see he had a 100 point game and then come to the conclusion, "Well of course he must've been selfish!" :rolleyes:

As I've said, I will speak out against any mistruths spoken, regardless of whom they're said by or whom they're regarding.

[Bizz]

Exactly. Which is why I said it's too simplistic to just look at the stats, see he had a 100 point game and then come to the conclusion, "Well of course he must've been selfish!" :rolleyes:

As I've said, I will speak out against any mistruths spoken, regardless of whom they're said by or whom they're regarding.


I agree and I try to do the same thing myself. I try to not let my emotions get in the way of the truth.

[G.O.A.T]

Wilt never did "whatever was asked of him"

No one could stop Wilt, not on the court, not off it.

As Jerry West said; "You had to adjust to Wilt, he didn't adjust to you"

He did what he wanted; when he wanted to score 50 a game he did, when he didn't want to risk picking up a foul to keep his ridiculous streak alive he didn't. When he wanted to lead the league is assists he did, when he wanted to be traded he got himself traded (for pennies on the dollar) When he wanted to set the fg% record, he did. When he wanted to bang a lot of women to "prove" he wasn't gay he did and than greatly exageratted the number to emphasize his point. To a certain extent when he wanted to win, he did...except against Russell...

In 1967 he finally bested Russell and then somehow in his prime blew consecutive series strangleholds (3-1 in '68 2-0 in '69) with vastly superior supproting casts to a broken down Bill Russel shouldering player\coach duties for an over the hill Celtics bunch.

Me being a big fan of Bill Russell, I'd like to assume it's because the Wiley Russ found away to outfox Wilt and legenday team mates Hal Greer Billy Cunningham, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, but more likely maybe it's that Chamberlain lost focus on winning, because he didn't want to anymore.

Wilt can never be ranked above Russell in a career context because they shared an entire decade and in that time Russell's team's dominated Wilt's head to head and the entire league leading to players like Bailey Howell, KC Jones, Frank Ramsey and Tom Heihnsohn becoming Hall of Famers.

Wilt should have been the unquestioned greatest player of all-time, but he didn't want to do it the right way, and no one could make him see otherwise.

[jlauber]

GOAT says:

"In 1967 he finally bested Russell and then somehow in his prime blew consecutive series strangleholds (3-1 in '68 2-0 in '69) with vastly superior supproting casts to a broken down Bill Russel shouldering player\coach duties for an over the hill Celtics bunch.

Me being a big fan of Bill Russell, I'd like to assume it's because the Wiley Russ found away to outfox Wilt and legenday team mates Hal Greer Billy Cunningham, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, but more likely maybe it's that Chamberlain lost focus on winning, because he didn't want to anymore.

Wilt can never be ranked above Russell in a career context because they shared an entire decade and in that time Russell's team's dominated Wilt's head to head and the entire league leading to players like Bailey Howell, KC Jones, Frank Ramsey and Tom Heihnsohn becoming Hall of Famers."

Once again, I have addressed these same comments several times.

But let's get the bottom line here. Basically you are saying that Russell's TEAMS won JUST because of him, and Wilt's TEAMS lost JUST because of him.

Then what of Jordan? How come he was LOSER for FIVE years, and a WINNER for SIX? What changed? Was he a significantly better player from '91-'98, than what he was when he was scoring 63 points against the HOF-laden Celtic team in '86 ? Why did HE go 1-9 in his first ten playoff games?

You mention Bailey Howell, who was a very good player (maybe not a HOFer), but very good (EIGHT seasons of 19+ ppg.) Heinsohn had several 20 ppg seasons. Where is Cousey? Where is Sam Jones (and his multiple 20-25 ppg seasons)? Where is Havlicek (and his multiple 20 ppg seasons...and later nearly 30 ppg seasons)?

BUT, you mention Baylor, who was a shell of what he was by the time he played with Wilt, and was awful in the two post-seasons in which he played with Wilt (and they only played together for ONE semi-full season.) If anything Baylor, and his stupid coach, HURT those Laker teams. AND, once you took West and Wilt out of the equation, the rest of the Laker roster could not match up with all of the depth that Boston had...even if it was aged group.

And ONE MORE TIME, the Sixer squads that Wilt played with in BOTH the '67 and '68 seasons were CLEARLY the best teams in the league. They blew up the "Dynasty" in '67, and ran away with best record in '68, but were decimated by injuries in the post-season, and lost a game seven by FOUR points.

So, while Chamberlain was absolutely crushing Russell statistically, somehow, despite Russell being the ONLY reason that Boston won, the Celtics were able to beat WILT, who, of course was the ONLY reason that his TEAMS lost. Makes perfect sense to me.

[jlauber]

These Russell-Wilt arguments ultimately come down to either statistical debates (in which there is NO actual debate...Chamberlain OWNS the record book), and the value of those player's in terms of wins.

Once again, the first debate is not debateable...Chamberlain not only set the most records, by anyone, in any professional team sport, he absolutely CRUSHED Russell in virtually every statistical matchup.

But with these WINS arguments, how do we REALLY KNOW who had what impact, other than just looking at W-L records, or championships? Russell held a 7-1 edge over Wilt in championships. BUT, how much of it was due to Russell, and how much was due to his teammates? Same with Wilt?

I have already posted the yearly WIN SHARES stat, and even Regul8r has mentioned regarding Gola (who somehow managed a 6th one year), but here is the link which explains how the number is derived:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

Using that rating, here is what I found for the decade that Russell and Wilt played against each other (from '59-'60 thru '68-'69):

'59-60: Wilt 17.0 (1), Russell 13.8 (2)
'60-61: Wilt 18.8 (1), Russell 13.0 (5)
'61-62: Wilt 23.1 (1), Russell 15.5 (4)
'62-63: Wilt 20.9 (1), Russell 13.5 (6)
'63-64: Wilt 25.0 (1), Russell 17.3 (3)
'64-65: Wilt 15.1 (4), Russell 16.9 (2) Oscar with 17.0 was (1)
'65-66: Wilt 21.4 (1), Russell 11.7 (4)
'66-67: Wilt 21.9 (1), Russell 12.2 (4)
'67-68: Wilt 20.4 (1), Russell 8.2 (NR)
'68-69: Wilt 14.7 (1), Russell 10.9 (7) Reed tied with Wilt at (1), and as a sidenote, Baylor was NR at 8.5, and West (9), at 10.8.

As a sidebar, Kareem ranked #1 in the '71-72 season at 25.4, while Wilt was #2 at 15.8.

The formula is obviously very complicated, but it does take into account BOTH offensive and defensive win shares (which are complicated as well.)

Just some food for thought.

I'm sure Wilt would gladly have traded his much higher rating for Russell's seven rings, but in using this formula, at least, Wilt was FAR more important to his TEAMS, than what Russell was to his.

[G.O.A.T]

Wilt was FAR more important to his TEAMS, than what Russell was to his.

Any stat that leads you to this conclusion is greatly flawed no?

I mean no one would ever say Wilt (even if you believe he was the better player) was more valuable to his teams, that's absurd.



But with these WINS arguments, how do we REALLY KNOW who had what impact, other than just looking at W-L records, or championships? Russell held a 7-1 edge over Wilt in championships. BUT, how much of it was due to Russell, and how much was due to his teammates? Same with Wilt?


To me looking at stats is the flawed argument because one player was trying to pile them up and the other didn't care. How is that a fair judge? Meanwhile they both were trying to win by all accounts (I am suspicious of Wilt's will to win all the time) and though Russell had better team mates early in his career (though Wilt went to a team just four years removed from a title with 5 of the top 7 players from that team still on the roster) Wilt had better team mates for the last half of the 1960's and the Celtics and Russell kept winning. Here's how I came to my conclusion:

There is a lot we can do to answer the questions about how much of an impact each had on their team winning or losing.

We can look at history and listen to what those who played with and against them said.

We can see the Celtics started winning titles the second Russell arrived, won 11 of 12 seasons he was healthy and became the worst team in their conference the second he left.

We can read Thousands of quotes from former players and coach Auerbach talking about how much Russell meant to the team and how much respect and admiration they have for him.

We can look at the history of the NBA and see that the Greatest players have ALWAYS won more titles than the other great players of their era.

We can look at Russell's teams and Wilt's teams and find out that Wilt played with more All-stars than Russell and almost as many HOFers despite winning only two titles and their being a direct correlation between titles and gaining entry to the HOF for players of the 1950's and 1960's.

We can look at quotes from Chamberlain that say he'd never have won as much as Russell if he was on the Celtics instead because Russell made everyone so much better.

We can read about how Russell knew everything about every player in the league before he played his first game and twice as much about the Celtics. We can read how he used this knowledge to shape the way he approached his role on the team.

We can read about how Russ puked before every game because his team mates needed it for motivation sometimes. He cared that much, Chamberlain could barely be bothered to stop humping the tramp de jour and suit up for the game, let alone throw up because he was so excited for the game.

In basketball more than any other team sport, one player can make a good team great. Russell did this with greater consistency than any other player in the history of Hoops and in particular dominated Wilt head-to-head. He befriended Wilt, got Wilt to trust him and then repeatedly ripped his heart out. He goated him into a style of play for three quarters that he could shut down in the fourth. He played possum allowing Wilt to score in stretches and countering those same moves when Boston needed stops.

I've never read or heard a single team mate of Chamberlain say "without a doubt, the best ever." You won't find a team mate of Russell's who wouldn't tell you Bill was the better player and the one they wanted on their team every time.

[jlauber]

GOAT,

I will ALWAYS argue your assertion that Chamberlain had better teammates in all but the '66-67 and '67-68 seasons. For anyone to use Baylor as an example of Wilt playing with a HOFer is a joke. Baylor WAS a great player (albeit, an average shooter...much like Iverson), but he was well past his prime whe Wilt came to LA. And, whatever you make of some of Russell's teammates, Tom Gola being in the HOF is another joke. Here is Gola's career numbers, 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 4.2 apg, and a .431 FG%. If he is in the HOF, then I should be as well.

Yes, Wilt played with Goodrich, but AFTER Russell retired. He also played with Nate Thurmond, in his rookie year, and Nate had to play out of his normal center position, so he can be eliminated. So, subtract Baylor, Goodrich, Thurmond, and Gola, and Wilt played with West, and Arizin. That is essentially the only quality players he played with in his career, SANS his stint with the 76ers. And, he played with those two on separate occasions. So, aside from his stint with the Sixers, he played alongside ONE HOF teammate the rest of his career against Russell.

Now, regarding the Sixers, he joined them in mid-season, in '64-'65. They did not yet have Cunningham, and finished the year, 40-40, while the Celtics had their best record during their "Dynasty" at 62-18. Despite being a HUGE under-dog, Wilt led them to a game seven, ONE point loss, in Boston, no less.

The '65-66 Sixers added Cunningham, and they edged a loaded Boston roster, FIVE HOFers, with Larry Siegfried and Satch Sanders, by one game during the regular season. Now, while Philly had the best record, were they really the best team? In any case, Wilt's teammates played horribly against Boston, while Chamberlain once again crushed Russell, outscoring him 28 ppg to 14 ppg, and outrebounding 31 rpg to 26 rpg. I don't know what Russell shot in FG% (his total during the playoffs was .475...which was high for him), but Wilt shot .509 against Russell. And, in the clinching game five loss, Wilt outscored Russell, 46-18, and outrebounded him 34-31. So, you certainly could not blame Wilt for that playoff loss.

And, by now you have read what happened the next two years, in which Philly was CLEARLY the best team in the league, running away with the regular season best records (including an all-time best at the time in '67.)

In the '67 Eastern Finals, Wilt's teammates negated Russell's, and Chamerlain just obliterated Russell so thoroughly in EVERY statistical category (and there is no doubt he had far more blocks...in fact, in games one and five he was believed to have recorded quad-doubles.)

And, the Sixers were well on their was to a duplication in the '68 Eastern Finals, when they lost Cunningham before the series even started, and yet still were up 3-1. Then Luke Jackson injured his leg, and was worthless after that. And with Jackson's demise, Philly's huge edge at the forward position was gone. Not only that, but Wilt was nursing arthritis in both of his knees. And, despite ALL of that, Boston had to eke out a FOUR point in game seven.

So, while history records that Boston won the championship in the '68 season, they were NOT the best team...not even CLOSE.

The '69 Lakers were NOT a more talented team that the aging Celtics. I have maintained that LA may have had a slight edge, but once again, Baylor's presence was WAY over-rated, and he proved it in the post-season, when he averaged 15.4 on .385 shooting. That Laker team had no depth (thanks in part to shipping off three players to Philly for Wilt, including all-star Archie Clark), and it was basically the great West, and Chamberlain, whose hands were tied by his own idiotic coach. Not only that, but the Celtics needed TWO miraculous shots to win TWO games. And, for those that blame Wilt for their game seven loss, ONE MORE TIME, take a look at the video footage available on YouTube of that game. In it, you will not find Russell doing ANYTHING. Wilt was at least rebounding, (he even grabbed TWO rebounds on his injured leg), and in one sequence he goes right around the stature Russell for an easy layin. The FACT was, Wilt outscored Russell in that game, 18-6, outshot him 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him 27-21...despite sitting on the bench in the last five minutes (thanks to his brilliant coach, who was determined to win the title without Wilt.)

And, even YOU cannot argue that Russell had an OVERWHELMING edge in talent in their first six years in which they faced one another. And in two of those, Wilt single-handedly carried what were basically last-place rosters, to within one and two point game seven defeats...and as ALWAYS, he dominated Russell in the process (and NEVER the other way around, as you have asserted.)

As I have mentioned before, Wilt was "snake-bit." He played on medicre rosters, that lost close game seven's TWICE. He played on good teams that in which his teammates had a complete meltdown, or lost on a miraculous shot or play (and NEVER by Russell BTW), or were poorly coached. And he played on a great team that decimated by injuries at the worst possible time. AND, he played on a great team that just destroyed the "Dynasty" in a series in which Wilt CRUSHED Russell.

As for your "expert" opinions (and I get so tired of those BTW...they are nothing more than opinions), I offer you John Wooden's take...who said that had Wilt been surrounded by Russell's teammates, in his career, it would probably have been Wilt with all the rings. And the great sports writer, Leonard Koppett carried that even further, saying that had Wilt been on the same rosters as Russell, and at the same time, Wilt would have gone 13-0, instead of 11-2. And Oscar Robertson, when asked who he felt was the greatest basketball player of all-time, said, "The record book does not lie."

And while you flippantly discount those WIN SHARES, I counter that they showed the TRUE value of Russell to his teams, and Wilt to his. The FACT was, Wilt had to do everything that Russell did, as well as CARRY his teams on the offensive end. Even Jerry West said that he believed Wilt to be a better scorer (NO ONE would argue that), a better shooter (here again, NO ONE would argue that), a better rebounder (Chamberlain crushed Russell H2H in their 142 games), and a better shot blocker (Harvey Pollack, who recorded every game will attest to that as well.) Wilt was also CLEARLY a better passer, as evidenced by his career edge in assist (despite having to score, as well.) So where do YOU see Russell being a better player? Maybe a SLIGHT edge in defense? Once again, Wilt did everything Russell did (only better), AND, he CARRIED his teams on the offense end.

In any case, there is NO evidence that Russell EVER dominated Chamberlain asyou have stated. If anything, Wilt treated Russell like George Foreman treated Joe Frazier.

[G.O.A.T]

Elgin Baylor was a first team all-NBA when Wilt got there and averaged 24-10-5 the next year.

The rest of your post is just excuses and tired arguments filled with holes.

I disagree with your assesment and find little else other than opinions (which you claim to be tired of) to support your case.

As noted before Wilt played with more all-stars from 1960-1969 than Russell. That sort of says it all far as I'm concerned.

Wilt was traded twice, would anyone ever trade Magic, Bird, Jordan, Russell?

[jlitt]

I hope people don't look too much into Bill Simmons book about Wilt. He doesn't say one good thing about him in the whole book. He was probably the most dominate figure in all of basketball and can't find one good thing to say about him.

Now i Know his love for Russell is unparalleled, but so is his hatred for Wilt. There are so many misconceptions about Wilt its mind boggling that they have built up so much momentum.

Silly things like Wilt was traded Twice, or How come he never won more have been used as reasons to fault his character. Just fyi he was traded over monetary disputes each time, and the last being because the owner promised wilt a percentage of the sixers when he retired and when the owner passed , the new owners would not agree to that deal with wilt.

It would be nice to listen to Bill Simmons give his insightful opinion on players and have it be meaningful, but frankly its no more meaningful than anyone on this board....his opinion just has a much wider audience.

Instead read these quotes and see what his peers thought of him.




"We'd go into a dressing room and see a box score from the night before where Wilt had 55 or 60 points. No one would think twice about it. Getting 50-some points, or even 60-some, wasn't news when Wilt did it."

--Kevin Loughery, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 326


"Wilt is playing better than I used to -- passing off, coming out to set up screens, picking up guys outside, and sacrificing himself for team play."

-- Bill Russell, Great Moments in Pro Basketball, (by Sam Goldaper) p.24




"The first time I guarded Wilt, I stood behind him and he was so wide that I couldn't see the rest of the game. Then I saw him dunk a ball so hard that it hit the court and bounced straight up back through the rim again."

--Bob Ferry, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 326



"One-on-one he [Wilt] would've murdered Russell and everyone. But playing five-on-five, Wilt was consigned to a specific role because of his ability to score so easily, whereas the Celtics fit Russell into their team concept better."

--Red Holzman, A View form the Bench, p. 78




"The greatest play I've ever seen was one of the last games of the 1966-67 season and were playing Baltimore. We [Philadelphia] were going for the best record in NBA history. There was a play earlier in the game where Gus Johnson had dunked one over Wilt. Gus was a very strong player. I weighed 220 pounds, and with one hand Gus could push me out of the lane. The man was a physical specimen [6-foot-6, 230 pounds], all muscle. He loved to dunk and was a very colorful player. When he slammed it on Wilt, he really threw it down, and you could tell that Wilt didn't like it one bit.
Later in the game, Gus was out on the fast break, and the only man between him and the basket was Wilt. He was goin to dunk on Wilt--again. Gus cupped the ball and took off--he had a perfect angle for a slam. Wilt went up and with one hand he grabbed the ball--cleanly! Then he took the ball and shoved it right back into Gus, drilling Gus into the floor with the basketball.
Gus was flattened and they carried him out. It turned out that Gus Johnson was the only player in NBA history to suffer a dislocated shoulder from a blocked shot."

--Billy Cunningham, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 236






"I still remember the time when one of our strongest men, Gene Conley, decided to fight Chamberlain for the ball. He grabbed it and hung on and Chamberlain just lifted him and ball right up towards the rim."

-- Bill Russell Go up For Glory, p.126.





"I have great respect for Wilt. When I was with the Lakers, he never missed a practice or a game, or was late for a plane. If I asked him to make an appearance, he did it. This man has gone through life with a bad rap. We are talking about a very good person."

--Fred Schaus, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 334

"People lose sight of the fact that Wilt was a 440 champion, a guy with great coordination. He also was so strong that the double-teaming defenses used today wouldn't bother him."

--Wayne Embry (GM for the Cleveland Cavaliers), Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 327



[Carl Braun said] "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers."
"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then."

--Red Holzman. A View from the Bench. P.70

"Wilt was one of the greatest ever, and we will never see another one like him/" -- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

"If [the referee] is calling [the game] loose then everyone gets away with more. So, you have to handle your own man accordingly, unless it's Wilt Chamberlain. Him, you just don't handle. He's too strong. The best you can do is make him work hard."

-- Bill Russell, Go up For Glory p.100.



"I had a habit of getting a running start toward the boards on every shot. Wilt used to zone it up and he'd be standing under the basket on most possessions. After I had run up his back a couple of times on made shots, Wilt gave me an ultimatum with that deep, deep voice.
'Tamjanovich, don't come in here anymore.'
'Wilt, I've got to do my job,' I responded.
Let me just say that I didn't make that statement with a lot of conviction. After all, I happened to be talking to one of the strongest men in the world. Late in the game, I went barreling in to grab a loose ball. Wilt grabbed my arm and was called for a foul. As I was starting downcourt, Wilt wouldn't let my arm go. He spun me around and said, 'I told you not to come in here anymore.'
At that tenuous juncture, I threw a finger up into Wilt's face and he let me go. When I got back to the bench, everybody was saying how great it was that I had stood up to Wilt.
But what I was really saying--and I never told my teammates this--was, "Please give me one more chance."

--Rudy Tomjanovich, A Rocket at Heart, p. 77






"Once Wilt got upset with me and dunked the ball so hard it went through the rim with such force that it broke my toe as it hit the floor."

--Johnny Kerr, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 237



"I call Wilt Chamberlain a very honest workman. By that, I mean he always did what his employer wanted. No star athlete has ever given his boss more for the money than Wilt did during his career. Eddie Gottlieb [owner of the Warriors] wanted Wilt to score like no man ever had, so Wilt did. [Alex] Hannum and some of his other coaches wantedhim to pass and play defense, so he did that and he played 48 minutes a night. Those who criticized Wilt -- first for his scoring, then for not scoring more -- really should have criticized his employer."

--Leonard Koppett, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 329



"I said, 'Wilt isn't such a tough guy. I can guard him.' He backed me down and dunked the ball. And I was so far under the basket, and he dunked it so hard, that the ball came through the net and hit me in the forehead twice! Bang! So I said, 'You know, I think he is that great.'

--Spencer Haywood, The NBA at 50 p.169




"When I coached the San Francisco Warriors, I thought Al Attles was the fastest guy on our team--by far. We used to gamble a lot--which player could jump the highest and run the fastest. So I set up a series of races, baseline to baseline. In the finals, it was Wilt and Al Attles and Wilt just blew past him. I'm convinced that Wilt Chamberlain is one of the greatest all-around athletes the world has ever seen."

--Alex Hannum, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 327




"I can't have a nightmare tonight. I've just lived through one."

--Darrell Imhoff, the starting opposing center the night Wilt scored 100 points.

"He can score anything he wants. There is no way to stop him. How can you defense him? The only way I know is to lock the door to the dressing room before he comes out."

--'Easy' Ed MacAuley



"I would talk to Wilt about all the players pounding on him. Sometimes, he said he didn't notice it--he was so strong. But I also believe that there were two sets of rules. By that, I mean because Wilt was so strong, the officials let the man guarding him get away with more--almost trying to equalize the game. I also believe that Wilt just took it because he didn't want to get thrown out, and because ithad always been like that with him. But I'd watch it and I'd get mad. It takes me a while to get my temper going, but when it does--look out. I'd see what the other players were doing to Wilt and what the officials were allowing, and I'd get more upset than if it were happening to me. So I jumped in there. It wasn't that Wilt couldn't defend himself. If he ever got really hot, he'd kill people, so he let things pass. But I didn't have to worry about that. I was strong for my size, but I was not about to do anything like the kind of damage would."

--Al Attles, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 242

[Think about that the next time you see opponents get whistled for breathing on Michael Jordan]



"As I grew up, Wilt the Stilt was the player. Just the things he was able to do. I guess one year they told him he couldn't make as much money as he wanted because he couldn't pass the ball, so he went out and led the
league in assists. Watching Wilt, you always kind of got the idea he was just playing with people. That he was on cruise control and still 10 times better than anybody else that was playing at that time.""

--Dan Issel



"Obviously, he was both literally and figuratively a larger-than-life sports figure of the 20th century. He dominated his sport like almost no one else."

-- Atlanta Hawks president Stan Kasten



"He was the NBA. He was the guy on the top. Wilt was the guy you
talked about -- he and Bill Russell. He was the most dominating center -- the best center to ever play in the NBA."

-- Johnny Kerr



"One time, when I was with Boston and he was with the Lakers, Happy Hairston and I were about to get in a scrape. All of a sudden, I felt an enormous vise around me. I was 6-7, 235, and Wilt had picked me up and turned me around. He said, 'We're not going to have that stuff.' I said, 'Yes sir.' -- Paul Silas "He [Wilt] stopped me dead in my tracks with his arm, hugged me and lifted me off the floor with my feet dangling. It scared the hell out of me. When I went to the free-throw line, my legs were still shaking. Wilt was the strongest guy and best athlete ever to play the game." -- KC Jones




"I don't think it's fair to compare players in different eras, but he was about as dominant as any one player could be in any sportd. I looked at him like he was invincible." -- Larry Brown

[G.O.A.T]

Very good quotes.

I disagree with your take on Simmons in his book.

He is fair to Wilt except in the Chapter where he compares him to Russell and oinly provides the case for Russell and against Chamberlain only mentioned the counter arguments for the purposes of debunking them.

He still ranks Wilt 6th all-time and acknowledges that he was the most dominant force ever and that Wilt was so much bigger, stronger, faster, better than other centers not named Russell (he was still bigger, stronger and more skilled than Russell) that Wilt didn't dominate as much as he could of because it was too easy for him to do.

Anyway, it would be a shame to lose sight of Wilt's greatness when comparing him to Russell. Wilt was the master of the tangible, Russell the intangible. Depending on your predisposition, the comparison is very one-sided one way or the other. Wilt's dominance and potential are indisputable, but as sure as those amazing gifts made him great, his mindset hampered him.

[jlitt]

I think it's funny how people are trying to comment on intangible things like Wilt's mindset. What was Wilt's mindset? or better yet What is your Mindset? how do you measure a mindset?

Stick with what you know, with what can be debated and your argument will always be valid because you give your opinion, but when you enter into these arguments that have no basis you will not be taken seriously.

[G.O.A.T]

Couldn't disagree more. That's the most interesting part of sports, the intangible.

[ThaRegul8r]

And while I get accused of being a stats hound, they are what-they-are. Statistics don't tell an entire story, but the fact is, virtually EVERYONE uses them. Geez, Vegas bookies crunch numbers down to miniscule levels.

Argumentum ad numerum. A popular fallacy. Whether or not “everyone does X” is irrelevant, and means nothing on its own, in and of itself. There are many instances in history in which many (a majority) did/believed something, but were wrong. This is basic logic. It should be a requirement for people to take a logic class before making an argument.


I know they say excuses are for losers…

Then why continue?


but if there was ever a "snake-bit" player, it was Wilt. He endured close losses with mediocre rosters. He endured post-season injuries to himself, and his best players. He endured "miracle shots" going against his team. And he endured coaches that had no clue how to coach him, nor his teams.

You’re just unintentionally making Wilt look bad now. Was Wilt Chamberlain then the unluckiest man ever to walk the face of the earth? Just a victim of bad luck wherever he went? Did he get on someone’s bad side, and someone make a voodoo doll and put a curse on him? And conversely, Bill Russell must have been the luckiest man who ever lived then, who just “happened” to be in advantageous circumstances wherever he went. Consecutive NCAA titles and a then-record 55-game winning streak for a USF team that didn’t even have a home gym and did nothing before Russell and nothing without him, a still-record 53.5-point margin of victory for the U.S. Olympic basketball team, 11 NBA titles in 13 seasons, coaching two of them…

Did Russell make some kind of Faustian bargain where he sold his soul to the devil in exchange for becoming the greatest winner in the history of American professional sports during his lifetime? Do you see how ridiculous that is? Look up internal and external loci of control and tell me if it relates in any way to what you’ve been saying. Why are there more qualifications for Wilt than for any other player with a legitimate case for Greatest of All Time? Why is he alone of all the greats, the biggest hard luck case in the history of sports?

:rolleyes:

Second devil’s advocate situation regarding the 1971-72 Bucks. I am now looking at my copy of Total Basketball: The Ultimate Basketball Encyclopedia, which is open to page 176.


Even with Oscar Robertson slowed by muscle pulls, the Bucks managed a split of the first four games, but the Lakers then won two straight to move on to the championship series heavily favored over New York.

*closes book*

Wait… what? You mean the Bucks weren’t at 100 percent? You mean their Hall of Fame point guard was battling an injury? If only Oscar hadn’t been hurt! The Bucks would have repeated if not for that! Man, what luck for Kareem to have his second-best player injured!

You see? Why is there always something with Wilt and Wilt alone? Should anything be taken away from Wilt’s season, then?

But wait, there’s more!


A bad knee knocked center Willis Reed out of action for most of the campaign, so the Knicks had to use 6-foot-8 Jerry Lucas, obtained from the Warriors in a trade for Cazzie Russell, in the middle.

…

The Knicks won the first game, 114-92, with superb outside shooting, but the lack of a New York center strong enough to cope with Chamberlain could not be denied any longer.

What? Willis Reed played 11 games the 1971-72 season? Reed didn’t play a single minute in the postseason? And he was never the same player afterwards?

Let’s say I grant you Chamberlain suffered injuries.

*leans forward*

Do you then give the same consideration to the Knicks who lost their captain and Hall of Famer for 87 percent of the 1971-72 regular season and the entire playoffs? After all, they did win every Finals they played in in which Willis Reed actually played. A fan who is as much a fan of those Knick teams as you are of Wilt might posit that the Knicks were robbed of a repeat and three titles in four seasons because of injury.

Your objectively is riding on the answer. After all, you’ve been quick to point out injuries Wilt sustained, but have been mum on anyone else. Now that you’ve been presented with these facts, if I grant you Wilt sustained injuries, do you admit he also had some luck on his side in that magical 1971-72 season with his opponents in the Western Conference Finals and Finals also having injuries to MAJOR players?

Let me direct you to the 1970 NBA Finals against the Knicks, which you mentioned.


In the '70 Finals, he averaged 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625 from the field.

Since you’re selective with the stats, let’s see what happened through the first four games (but you already know this):

Wilt

17 pts, 8/14 FG (57.1%), 24 rebs, 5 ast L 112-124
19 pts, 9/20 FG (45%), 24 rebs, 2 ast W 105-103
21 pts, 7/10 FG (70%), 26 rebs, 4 ast L 108-111
18 pts, 7/13 FG (53.8%), 25 rebs, 7 ast W 121-115
----------------------------------------------------------------
18.8 ppg, 31/57 FG (54.4%), 24.8 rpg, 4.5 apg, 48.5 mpg

Reed

37 pts, 16/30 FG (53.3%), 16 rebs, 5 ast W 124-112
29 pts, 12/29 FG (41.4%), 15 rebs, 5 ast L 103-105
38 pts, 17/30 FG (56.7%), 17 rebs, 3 ast W 111-108
23 pts, 10/23 FG (43.5%), 12 rebs, 2 ast L 115-121
----------------------------------------------------------------
31.8 ppg, 55/112 FG (49.1%), 15 rpg, 3.8 apg, 47.8 mpg

Wilt shot 54.4 percent—not 60+%—when Reed was "healthy" (quotations marks will be explained). Reed and Wilt were going back and forth. Reed would outscore Wilt, Wilt would out-rebound and out-assist him. Reed had big games in the two Knick wins during the first four games, Wilt had the better games in the Lakers wins. Scorecard is 2-2.

(By the way, since you like to bring up injuries, how about this:


Round 1 in the highly anticipated Willis Reed vs. Wilt Chamberlain matchup went to Reed, who led the Knicks with 37 points on 16-of-30 shooting. Instead of battling Chamberlain in the low post, Reed unexpectedly settled for midrange jumpers; Chamberlain often did not come out to guard him, and Reed continued to knock down outside shots. Reed's 16 field goals were a Knicks playoff record. He also added 16 rebounds and five assists, despite injuring his left shoulder on a first-half dunk.


In what would become a theme for the 1970 Finals, Willis Reed was nursing an injury entering Game 2. His shoulder was sore after he collided with Lakers forward Happy Hairston during a dunk in Game 1.


Game 4: Knicks star Willis Reed had another injury of his own to contend with, as he was kicked in the knee at some point during Game 3 and suffered swelling.


Before Game 5, Willis Reed was still feeling the effects of a left knee injury aggravated during Game 3. Reed originally injured the knee in November of 1969, and the pain was exacerbated after the same knee was kicked during the Finals. Reed received frequent cortisone injections to dull the pain, and between Games 4 and 5 he underwent sound therapy and whirlpool baths.


Then, the Knicks' worst fears were realized. Willis Reed, already slowed by his knee injury, collided with Wilt Chamberlain on a drive to the basket and tripped. Reed lay on the floor as play continued the other way, but went to the locker room eight seconds later. It turned out that Reed had severely damaged the tensor muscle in his upper right leg, near his hip.

And you’re on record as saying this:


Everyone looks at Wilt's STATS, and just accepts that he was healthy. He was FAR from 100%. Still, going up against the league MVP (and a great player), Chamberlain more than held his own. While everyone points to Reed's game seven...how about the first FOUR games of the series, when Reed was 100% and Wilt was not??!!

I’ve just proven that’s flat-out FALSE, as Reed suffered an injury in the very first game which he was nursing, and the injuries compiled as the series went on. (But no Knick fan has ever used that as an excuse. I’ve never even heard it mentioned) Looking at your history, I’d suspect a deliberate prevarication here (it also raises the question as to how many other times you’ve done this to ignorant souls who didn’t know any better), but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you simply weren’t as interested in doing as much research on Willis Reed as you did Wilt (everything I just posted is out there for anyone interested in the truth rather than a one-sided story), because it would suit your agenda better for Wilt to be heroically battling back from injury while his opponent was completely healthy. Of course, it’s easy to pull that with someone who doesn’t know anything and wouldn’t know whether what you’re saying is true or not. But I’m not someone who doesn’t know anything, and as I’ve said, I will expose agendas by WHOMEVER. I’m equal opportunity.

Then Reed goes down in Game 5.

Wilt

22 pts, 9/12 FG (75%), 19 rebs, 3 ast
45 pts, 20/27 FG (74.1%), 27 rebs, 3 ast
21 pts, 10/16 FG (62.5%), 24 rebs, 4 ast
----------------------------------------------------------------
29.3 ppg, 39/55 FG (70.9%), 23.3 rpg, 3.3 apg, 46.3 mpg

WOW!!!! What a difference! Before that last injury which was the straw that broke the camel’s back, Wilt averages 18.8 on 54.4 percent shooting. Reed gets hurt and Wilt goes off for 29.3 on 70.9 percent shooting.

Yet even though Reed was injured, the Knicks won anyway. (Wait! Shouldn’t that have devastated the Knicks? How could they possibly have won despite an injury to the league MVP and First Team All Defense center?)

The Knicks that Finals are the counterargument. Frazier STEPPED UP TO DO WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO WIN. Magic, when Kareem went down in 1980, STEPPED UP TO DO WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO WIN. Jordan, in the Game 6 of the 1998 Finals when Pippen—his second-best player—suffered the back injury and afterwards had 8 points in 26 minutes, STEPPED UP TO DO WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO WIN. See a recurring theme here? Great players, who didn’t make excuses, but rose beyond adversity. A sign of greatness.

(cont.)

[ThaRegul8r]

So why can all these “lesser” players rise above the circumstances to do what needs to be done to win, but Wilt—the undisputed greatest of all time—couldn’t? “Oh, it’s this, oh, it’s that. Poor Wilt, always something happening to him.” Victim mentality. It’s not about stats, it’s about doing what needs to be done to win. Frazier had 36 points, seven rebounds, 19 assists and five steals BECAUSE IT WAS WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO WIN. The stats just happen to look nice, but the reason it’s a historic game is because Frazier did what needed to be done for his team to win despite the injury to Reed. Magic had 42 points, 15 rebounds and seven assists BECAUSE IT WAS WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO WIN. The specific stats are secondary. Doing what needed to be done is why it was so great. He played center—which doesn’t show up in any “stat” because it was what needed to be done. DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. Jordan scored 45, stripped Karl Malone and hit the game-winning shot BECAUSE IT WAS WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO WIN. With an injured Pippen, the Bulls couldn’t take a chance on a Game 7, why is why Jordan took matters into his own hands and made sure it never got to a Game 7.

Why couldn’t Wilt do this?

Throw away the stats. DO. WHAT. NEEDS. TO. BE. DONE. Other greats did it. Wilt’s not the only one who’s ever had things happen to him, but he’s the only one for whom fans need to make a bunch of excuses. Wilt could do WHATEVER ELSE he felt like doing if it was statistically related—lead the league in assists, score 68, 47 and 53 should someone dare make the suggestion he can’t score anymore, etc., etc., but he can’t look at an injured Reed coming back, see everyone get excited, and say, “Eff this, we will NOT lose this game tonight.” CRUSH the spirit of the Knicks and win the ring that eluded you last year, with no Russell standing in the way this time who always seemed to “get lucky” against you. You won’t find a statistic for that.

Okay, I’m going to be harsh here—which I hate to do, as I’ve come to Wilt’s defense on many occasions, and this could be potentially be used as ammunition in Wilt bashing. I expect The Greatest of All Time to have the sense enough to look at the situation and do what needs to be done to bring his team a victory. I want The Greatest of All Time to look and see the advantage he has and to exploit it to win his team a title. Do you need a coach to tell you this? Do you need to have it explained to you? Why could so many other greats just SEE what needed to be done and do it? He went for 45 and 27 the game before, so what happened? This is Game 7 of the Finals here. 21 in a seventh and deciding Game 7 against an injured defender after you just had 45 in Game 6 is simply not good enough. These are your own words:


I think that Wilt, subconsciously, probably felt it was a huge handicap, and didn't want to beat up a "cripple." And […] Russell probably would have blocked Reed's first two shots...and perhaps demoralized the Knicks that night. Instead, Wilt backed off...Reed hit both of them...and the inspired Knicks ran away with the game. […] Wilt finally started to assert himself in the 2nd half of that game...but it was 69-42 at the half, and the game was already over by that point.

And therein lies the difference. (Which is not captured by stats, BTW) I want The Greatest of All Time not to wait until the second half to assert himself in an elimination game for the title. What the hell are you waiting for?!?? I don’t want The Greatest of All Time to be tentative when a title’s on the line. I don’t want The Greatest of All Time to be more concerned with how he would look “beating up a cripple” than with winning a title—so he’s more concerned with his own image than in letting down his own teammates in a big game. Wilt electing to back off had NOTHING to do with his teammates and was completely within his own control. You said yourself he “finally” decided to assert himself after the game was already over (Jordan would demand the ball in such a situation.) Treat an injured Reed the same way you treated Nate Bowman and Bill Hosket (who???) in a game in which the entire season is riding on. (So he could exploit a bunch of nobodies, but not an injured man when a championship hangs in the balance?) He would have big games in the regular season just to show he could, right? So do it in the Finals, in the seventh game against a center you know cannot guard you. Simple. If you can do whatever it is you put your mind to, decide to have a big game when your team needs it most. And I repeat, when you KNOW the man guarding you can’t do a blessed thing about it. You won’t find a stat for that.


Reed couldn’t move, but he leaned on Chamberlain and kept him away from the basket.


Despite his limited mobility, Reed was instrumental in holding Wilt Chamberlain to just 21 points and 10 field goals.

Simply disgraceful for “The Greatest of All Time.”


So while I would rate Wilt the greatest player ever, I would probably take my chances with Russell or MJ in a game seven.

This is completely contradictory—and damning. By what standard would you NOT want the Greatest of All Time in a deciding Game 7 for the championship? I don’t know what your qualifications for Greatest of All Time are, but The Greatest of All Time is the man I WANT in a game seven. I want to have confidence knowing that The Greatest of All Time will deliver when it matters most, in whatever way it needs to be done. If you’d rather not take your chances with The Greatest of All Time in a seventh and deciding game for the championship, then he’s not The Greatest of All Time. Simple as that. All the stats in the world can’t change that, and they mean absolutely zero if you don’t have complete confidence going to war with this guy. The Greatest of All Time does not mean “the guy you can plug into some statistical simulation and get the best-looking numbers.” (I’ll grant you this: Wilt was the greatest fantasy league player the league will ever see. In an all-time fantasy league, you pick Wilt first. And then you can pull for him to have big stats, because wins are irrelevant.)

As I’ve said before, Reed wasn’t Finals MVP because the series was tied at the time he went down, and it was Frazier who took the Knicks to the title, whereas in the case of 1980, the Lakers were up 3-2 because of Kareem. However, you look at those first four games Reed was "healthy," and you tell me that his injury in ’71-72—after which he was never the same player—had no impact on the Knicks.

But wait, you did mention this, after all:


Sure, Reed did not play, but the Knicks added Jerry Lucas that year, who was a much better career rebounder (and player) than Reed.

Okay. So let’s see how a healthy Lucas compares to a "healthy" Reed against Wilt:

26 pts, 13/21 FG (61.9%), 7 rebs, 4 ast
16 pts, 6/14 FG (42.9%), 11 rebs, 5 ast
23 pts, 11/21 FG (52.3%), 14 rebs, 6 ast
25 pts, 11/22 FG (50%), 8 rebs, 11 ast
14 pts, 5/14 FG (35.7%), 9 rebs, 5 ast
----------------------------------------------------------------
20.8 ppg, 46-92 FG (50%), 9.8 rpg, 6.2 apg, 46.6 mpg.

So Lucas was the better rebounder according to you, yet Reed averaged 15 rebounds against Wilt before he went down, and Lucas averaged 9.8. Hmmm. Lucas was also the better player than Reed. You said this in perfect seriousness. To even make that statement further exposes a biased agenda. Wilt was plagued with injuries, yet you completely minimize the loss of Reed, and state something which is out and out false to make your idol look better. Tell us who other than you considers Jerry Lucas a better player than Willis Reed? I will make a concerted effort to LOOK for what players said about the two to see if there’s anyone other than you who thought Lucas was a better player than Reed.

This is what I mean by contradictions. You’ll mention something if it helps Wilt, but nary a mention in the case of anyone else. Apparently they only happen to Wilt. When Wilt lost it was due to some external circumstance, but when he won, it was due to the dominance of Wilt. You’re actually HURTING Wilt with the approach you’re taking when you say it to someone who knows something and can point it out. A player’s merits should stand on their own without the use of deceptive tactics.


But, the bottom line is this. Take a close look at the "expert" statistical rankings that I have provided, in which Wilt is at, or near the top in EVERY one of them (while Russell is nowhere to be found in many of them)

It’s already acknowledged that Chamberlain is the most statistically dominant player in NBA history. Why would you need a new stat to tell us what we already know? Russell never cared about statistics, and Wilt was very proud of his. Russell cared about doing whatever it took in order for his team to win. Both men accomplished what they set out to do. And I’ve been aware of advanced basketball statistics for years, thank you. I’ve been a member of APBR for six years.


or the video footage I provided (or you can go to YouTube and see the MANY clips of both Wilt and Russell...and I can guarantee you, that in the majority of them you will come away just as I did...Wilt was CLEARLY the better player)

You’re presuming neither one of us have ever seen Wilt and Russell. Because of course, otherwise we couldn’t possibly help but share your (biased) opinion. That’s condescending, and you’re exhibiting your projection bias that everyone MUST think as you do. I find it interesting that when I said something favoring Wilt, refuting the notion that he would be “made mincemeat of,” that’s a point well taken, but if I’m not all the way on board, I evidently need “educating.”


or the 142 H2H games against Russell, in which he held a staggering statistical edge over Russell; or Wilt's RECORDS, which took TWO posts to get them all in

Not that I want to bring Jordan into this, because lord knows there are enough people here who talk about him already, there’s this guy on another forum who has this long manifesto about Jordan that he cuts and pastes whenever Jordan is mentioned. I’ve seen people plagiarize his stuff here without giving credit.

(cont.)

[ThaRegul8r]

or the several RULE Changes which were aimed strictly at Wilt; or the fact that when Wilt was surrounded with quality players, he led two teams to arguably the best seasons in NBA history.

I could bring up that Jordan went 72-10, 69-13 and 62-20 and won titles each year

[ThaRegul8r]

Anyway, it would be a shame to lose sight of Wilt's greatness when comparing him to Russell.

I agree.


Wilt was the master of the tangible, Russell the intangible. Depending on your predisposition, the comparison is very one-sided one way or the other. Wilt's dominance and potential are indisputable, but as sure as those amazing gifts made him great, his mindset hampered him.

Frank Deford wrote after Chamberlain's death: "people always argued about whether Russell or Chamberlain was better

[ThaRegul8r]

I hope people don't look too much into Bill Simmons book about Wilt. He doesn't say one good thing about him in the whole book. He was probably the most dominate figure in all of basketball and can't find one good thing to say about him.

[QUOTE=Bill Simmons]Imagine you became GM of your favorite team and were given the power to pull any NBA center from a time machine, then stick that player on your team

[jlauber]

Reg,

I am going not going to take the time to respond to EVERY one of your posts, since I have ALREADY covered all of them.

Russell played with BETTER players. He came to a playoff team that ADDED quality players year-after-year. He had a great coach. Wilt came to a last place team, and immediately made them a contender. Within two years, he took a place roster (and that includes Guy Rodgers BTW...who I just looked up...a CAREER .378 shooter over a LONG career, and NEVER a season ABOVE .400. For that guy to average 18 ppg one year must have been among the worst shooting exhibtions ever), and guided that last place roster to a game seven TWO point defeat. And it was Sam Jones that hit a controversial shot as time expired.

Regarding Reed and Lucas. Lucas was a CAREER 15.6 rpg, and aside from Wilt, he is the only other player in NBA history to have TWO 20-20 seasons. Reed was a career 12.9 rpg player.

And in that '70 Finals, in game five Chamberlain outscored Reed 14-7 in the first period, in which Reed went down, with his team DOWN by 10 points. The fact that the Lakers did not win the game was the FACT, as reported by a NY TIMES writer, Leonard Koppett, who stated that the officials "looked the other way" in the second half of that game while the Knick players mauled Wilt and West.

But, aside from all of that, Wilt had battled a FAR healthier Reed to a draw (which I have acknowledge MANY times), in the first four games. And YOU conveniently over-look Wilt's ONE-MAN domination of Reed in the '68 Playoffs, when Chamberlain led ALL players in points, rebounds, AND assists.

And, no matter WHO guarded Wilt in that game six of the '70 Finals, how many other players in post-season NBA history, have EVER put up a 45-27 game? YOU conveniently over-look that FACT.

And, as I have said MANY times, no matter if Wilt had put up a 40 point game in that game seven, it would NOT have made a difference. With the "statue" Reed, and a SWARMING KNICK TEAM all over Wilt, and with Frazier FINALLY shutting down West, and with the Knick players hit shots from all over the floor, it was a rout...and a team of MJ's or Russell's, would not have beat them that night.

And of course, when Wilt puts up a 21-24 game, on a knee in which he had major surgery just FOUR months before (and NO ONE believed Wilt would return that season), yet he is a "failure". and a WORTHLESS Reed is the "hero."

Just RIDICULOUS.

Magic did play well in that game six BTW. But even YOU admitted Kareem was the MVP.

As for Magic, or Kareem, or MJ DEMANDING the ball, where is your esteemed Russell??? And don't give me this NONSENSE that Russell COULD have scored more. If he COULD have, he SHOULD have in the '67 playoffs, in whic he was treated like a red-headed step-child by Chamberlain (as Wilt did in EVERY post-season series BTW.)

Now, WIN SHARES significantly point out Wilt's OVERWHELMING contributions towards his team success. The FACT is, Russell played with LOADED and DEEP rosters every year in his career. How good were those players? Well, as I have pointed out numerous times, they had several that had several 20 ppg seasons. John Havlicek is a great example. In his long career with Russell, he had a HIGH season of 21.6 ppg. AFTER Russell, he played on TWO more title teams. Not only that, but he had FIVE seasons in which he averaged MORE points per game than he did with Russell. In fact, he had one season at 28.9 ppg and another at 27.5. Those two seasons approach Jerry West's best seasons. AND, using the "Russell Apologist's" theory that he made his teammates better...well evidently in Havlicek's case, that was NOT true, Havlicek had much better seasons WITHOUT Russell. Furthermore, players like Sam Jones (who averaged nearly 26 ppg one year WITH Russell), and Heinsohn, and Cousey, were probably ALL capable of scoring much more. But, on those LOADED rosters, and with Russell ONLY rebounding and playing defense, and only scoring on putbacks...the CELTICS as a TEAM, won 11 championships. These were not a bunch of clowns like Wilt had in the first six years of his career, NONE of whom were 20 ppg scorers with, or WITHOUT Wilt. No, Chamberlain CARRIED crappy teams to near titles.

As far as INJURY excuses go...it has been pointed out that Russell was injured in one of the seasons in which he did NOT win a title. How about Wilt? He was injured in SEVERAL years, one with a horrific injury that affected his lateral movement the REST of his career. AND, he played with one FRACTURED wrist, and the other BADLY sprained in the clinching game five of the '72 Finals. Unlike Reed, who did NOTHING in his game seven performance, Chamberlain DOMINATED the Knicks in his. 24 points on 10-14 shooting, 10 blocks, and 29 rebounds...which again, was only ten less than the entire Knick TEAM.

And unlike Russell, who put up a paltry FOUR points in the clinching game five loss to the dominating Wilt and Sixers in the '67 playoffs...Wilt put up a HUGE 46-34 game against Russell in his clinching game five loss in the '66 playoffs.

And I have pointed out MANY times, Wilt TOOK OVER the game seven in the '65 playoffs when he scored the last eight straight unanswered points, while a shell-shocked Russell could only throw an inbounds pass OB. Had Havlicek not stolen the ball, Wilt may very well have won a title...with a 40-40 team!

Of course, YOU also failed to bring up Chamberlain thoroughly outplaying Kareem in the FOURTH quarter of that game six of the Western Finals.

YOU have used WIN SHARES. If YOU are going to use them, I will too. And, they CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that Wilt was FAR more valuable to HIS team, than Russell was to his. In fact, looking at the research on Russell's teammates, I think Russell was the beneficiary of THEIR play, more than they were of HIS, despite whatever OPINIONS are given.

And, NO ONE can question Wilt's ABSOLUTE statistical DOMINATION of Russell. He outplayed Russell in the vast majority of their H2H games, in EVERY category, and in MANY of those H2H games, he DESTROYED Russell. The same could NEVER be said in reverse, though.

[jlauber]

Regarding Simmons...no I have not read his worthless book. Once again, I have read his MANY diatribes on Bird's Celtics being better than Magic's Lakers, or his anti-Kobe articles (incidently, even he just recently had to admit he was wrong...he did not have Kobe in his top-10, but just now finally moved him to #9.) He has Shaq ranked at #13 now, behind Moses Malone forcryingoutloud (Malone would not get within ten feet of the basket against Shaq). Nowhere on his greatest NBA team's list do we find the '67 76ers. AND, he has Wilt at #SIX all-time. PLEASE!!!!

He was born AFTER Wilt and Russell played, and evidently he never looked at ANY video footage, a TON of which exists, and the vast majority of it shows Wilt CRUSHING Russell.

[jlauber]

Regarding the "intangibles" debate...just what are they? Did Russell watching make Sam Jones miracle shots go in? Did Russell getting ABUSED by Wilt for FOUR quarters enable his teammates to outplay Wilt's?

The "intangibles" were that Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's...and the reason was obvious for the vast majority of those games...they were BETTER. There was NO "intangibles" in that FACT.

Russell could be outscored 40-10, and outrebounded 30-20, and yet he was considered a "winner", while Wilt a "loser" because his TEAMMATES outplayed Wilt's. Those are the "intangibles." Nowhere did we find Russell "taking over a game at BOTH ends" against Chamberlain in the post-season. Yet, on MANY occasions, Wilt did just that to Russell.

Those are the INTANGIBLES.

[jlauber]

"Frank Deford wrote after Chamberlain's death: "people always argued about whether Russell or Chamberlain was better

[jlitt]

One.



Two.

To paraphrase Sean Carter: "Do you read the book or do you just skim through it?"

It's just too easy. *shakes head*

[QUOTE=jlitt]Instead read these quotes and see what his peers thought of him.



Those are not the only quotes from his peers, as there are others. And incidentally, I wish people would give credit when they copy and paste Air Judden's website verbatim, acting like they've done any independent research on the matter. This guy is a Wilt fan who did his own research and put together the best site on Wilt I've ever seen on the internet. The problem about the internet though is that it makes people lazy in that they don't do their own research, and just copy and paste someone else's work.

Are u kidding? do you know how research works? someone does reaserch on a topic, and then its a piggy back affect from then on, until science , research and, experimentation are used to advance what can't be written about any longer and then the process continues.

Im not trying to take any sort of credit, just trying to find some real way to get across to you that we can discuss. If you want me to quote former celtics and sixer players i would, art heyman etc...family friends, but i wanted something that was already written.

Every compliment is a backhanded one in that book. the greatest performances that actually meant something Russ first, Wilt second. Whenever he can't put Wilt down he Glorifies russell to diminish Wilt. So congrats you found two noteworthy things that he said about wilt. The nicest things written about wilt were by chuck klosterman in the book.

Overall the book was a decent read, learned about many things i never knew before....but the Russell glorification and the Wilt bashing ruined this for me.


The guy ranked larry bird over Wilt....thats all that needs to be said.

[jlauber]

Reg,

You bring up Wilt's "luck" in the '71-'72 Western Finals with Oscar having an injury problem. LA also caught a lucky bounce in game two. Still, over the course of the ENTIRE season, LA went 8-3 against the Bucks. And I have always maintained that the '70-'71 Bucks were among the greatest teams ever...and they were nearly as good again in '71-'72. That is why I rank that Laker team as the greatest ever. They DOMINATED EVERY opponents that year. They went 8-3 against 63-19 Milwaukee, 5-1 against 51-31 Golden St., 8-2 against the Eastern champ Knicks. 4-1 against the 56-26 Celtics. 7-1 against the 57-25 Bulls...right down the list. And they had at least one blow-out win against EVERY team in the league. I could, and have, gone on for a hours on just how great that team was (all of which came about after "HOFer" Baylor was forced to retire BTW.)

But, as far as Wilt being "snake-bit"... how about these facts. Russell gets a pass when his team does NOT win a title when he has an injury. Yet, Wilt had personal injuries, including a MAJOR injury, in FOUR post-seasons (actually five, because he injured his hand in a fight in the '59-'60 Eastern Finals, and played poorly in two games, before coming back with a 50 point game, in a 128-107 game five win.)

He had arthritic knees which were hobbling him badly in the '68 Eastern Finals (and even Russell acknowledged the heroic effort that Chamberlain put forth in THAT series.)

Of course, he went down with a leg injury in the '69 Finals (an injury that even his incompetent coach acknowledged), AND he still played well on it for TWO series, before coming out. Of course, he asked to go back in within a couple of minutes, but the idiotic Van Breda Kolf refused, and the Lakers' lost that game by TWO points (on a miraculous shot BTW.)

Chamberlain's horrible knee injury in the following season was believed to be, at the most optomistic medical opinion, a season-ending injury, and many thought it would be a career-threatening injury (particularly on a 300 lb. man.) Yet, he came back, at FAR less than 100%, and even played brillantly despite that fact. Yet, when Reed sprains his knee, he is looked upon as a "hero" , and despite being a non-factor in the last three games of that series, is voted MVP, while Chamberlain puts up the only 20-20 .600 series in Finals history.

Finally, as I have documented before, Wilt suffered one badly sprained wrist, and the other was FRACTURED, and yet he not only played, he CARRIED his team to a win in a DOMINATING performance.

So, let's go thru these "excuses" again..one-by-one, and YOU tell me if he was not the unluckiest GREAT player ever. And I will skip the '60 Eastern Finals, despite his injury, because, while he took a previous last place team to a game six in the Eastern Finals, they still lost in six games.

1. The '61-62 Eastern Finals. Sam Jones hits a controversial shot as time expires, and the huge under-dog 49-31 Warriors lose a game seven, on Boston's home floor, to the 60-20 Celtics, by TWO points.

2. The '64-'65 Eastern Finals. "Havlicek steals the ball!" ONE PLAY separates the 40-40 76ers from the '62-18 Celtics, again, on Boston's home floor, in a game seven ONE point loss.

3. The '67-'68 Eastern Finals. Once again, Philly was the BEST team in the league (one of only two teams on which Wilt played with that was clearly better than Russell's.) HOWEVER, they lose a LEGITIMATE HOFer, Billy Cunningham, before the series even starts, and still jump to a 3-1 lead, Then they lose Luke Jackson to a knee injury, and he is a non-factor whe he does play. On top of that, Wilt is nursing arthritic knees (INJURED). AND, Wilt's remaining teammates have a horrible shooting game at the worst possible time. With ALL of that, Wilt's Sixers lose a game seven by FOUR points.

4. The '69'-'70 Finals. I have acknowledged that that Knick team was a better team than Wilt's Lakers. They went 60-22 (LA went 46-36). They had FOUR HOFers, all in their prime. They had Cazzie Russell, and a much deeper bench. And, they had home-court edge. On top of all of that, Wilt was NOWHERE near 100%, and it was a MIRACLE that he even played in the post-season, much less as brilliantly as he did. AND, had the Knicks not been aided by very suspect officiating in their game five comeback (without Reed BTW...who left with his team in a double-digit hole)...we would probably still be marveling at Wilt's incredible game six, in which he SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried that Laker team to a 135-113 win...with a 45-27 game. (Wilt had MANY such games in his career, both in the regular season, and in the post-season...but very few others', in the entire HISTORY of the NBA, have ever duplicated that feat, much less in the Finals.)

BUT, continuing with that season...what would have happened if Wilt had not been injured that year, and had been 100%. He started out the season with a 32.2 ppg average, and was injured in game nine, in a game in which he scored 33 points on 13-13 shooting. His head coach had ditched Van Breda Kolf's preference for the washed-up Baylor being a factor in the offense, and instead wanted Wilt to become the focal point. Unfortunately, Wilt went down, and was NEVER the same again (although he was still among the best ever, despite that.) I think almost all logic would indicate that LA would have easily won that series with a healthy Chamberlain. Speculation, yes, but very much educated speculation.

5. The '72-'73 season. LA went 60-22, and was probably the best team in the league again, after their dominating '71-'72 season. However, Jerry West is hampered by TWO bad knee injuries, and Happy Hairston returns from a season-long injury, and he is nowhere near 100%. Despite that, the Lakers lose four games by scores of 4, 4, 5, and 9 points (in Wilt's last game and in which he puts up a 21-23 game.) AND, EVERY game is decided within the last minute. Here again, how would a healthy Laker squad have done?

The botton line? Wilt played on two title teams (arguably the two greatest ever), AND, he nearly won FIVE more. He could EASILY have won SEVEN championships (and which would have reduced Russell's down to eight BTW), and then what "excuses" would the "experts" have regarding Wilt's legacy? You can bet they would STILL have considered him a "failure." After all, he was Superman...and he should have won EVERY game in which he played.

[ThaRegul8r]

"Frank Deford wrote after Chamberlain's death: "people always argued about whether Russell or Chamberlain was better—it almost showed what kind of person you were, by which one you chose."

Have you studied the lives of Wilt and Russell????

*sigh*

You continually take things out of context. Calm down, read the quote and the context in which it was posted. In response to this:


Wilt was the master of the tangible, Russell the intangible. Depending on your predisposition, the comparison is very one-sided one way or the other.

G.O.A.T said, "Depending on your predisposition, the comparison is very one-sided one way or the other."

To which I posted the Deford quote. But you go off into a complete unrelated rant into "who's the better human being." As if you or I personally know these people. I can tell you from first hand experience that people are not always what they appear to be, not that that has anything to do with anyone being discussed in this thread.


Meanwhile, Russell despised the city of Boston and his own FANS

Do you know what Russell went through as a black man in Boston at that time? (I'm presuming you're white. If I'm wrong, I apologize.) Do you know one time he had his house broken into, vandalized, and his bed was defecated on? While he's winning them titles. I'd have to get the book as I don't have it right now, and I prefer to have the exact quote rather than try to go from memory, but Bob Cousy said that he could understand why Russel felt the way he did, and if he went through what Russell did, he might very well be a bomb-thrower or something. Do some research on racism in Boston. It's not as simplistic as you paint it out to be. A person's environment helps shape their personality. Wilt and Russell had entirely two different upbringings, and as a result as two different people. People do not come up in a vacuum. You're just continually exposing your bias.

EDIT: More on Russell's experience in Boston: When Russell tried to move to a new neighborhood across town, neighbors there filed a petition to block Russell from moving to their neighborhood. When that failed, other neighbors tried to come together to buy the home Russell wanted to buy just to keep Russell from moving in it. Tom Heinsohn said that two Boston sports writers wouldn't vote for Russell as the NBA MVP because he was black.


Russell's achievements during his days in Boston, from 1956 to 1969, never drew national acclaim, but never won local fans' hearts the way later Boston sports heroes did, from hockey player Bobby Orr to baseball player Carl Yastremzski to basketball player Larry Bird.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=19990526&id=8tELAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0FUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6857,5935703

[jlitt]

I think Reg that your last post just realy speaks volume about the type of athlete Wilt was.

He faced a very minimal amount of Racism in his lifetime compared to Russell. That could be part of the fact that he lived in New York, or it could be because of that fact that he was the first athlete to truly become bigger than Race.

People were in Awe of Wilt. He transcended racial tensions, and became the first Black man to be the face of basketball. If any one athlete, beside jackie robinson, did more to advance the opportuinities of black men across the United States than Wilt I would be very surprise.

[ThaRegul8r]

Are u kidding? do you know how research works?

Yes I do. And I'm very good at it.


Im not trying to take any sort of credit, just trying to find some real way to get across to you that we can discuss.

It's not directed toward you specifically, just something I noted that just about every single person does.


If you want me to quote former celtics and sixer players i would, art heyman etc...family friends, but i wanted something that was already written.

Nah, it's cool. It was a sample of convenience since there was a bunch right there. As I said, it is the best Wilt site I've ever seen. I apologize though for coming off like I'm coming down on you.


Every compliment is a backhanded one in that book. the greatest performances that actually meant something Russ first, Wilt second. Whenever he can't put Wilt down he Glorifies russell to diminish Wilt. So congrats you found two noteworthy things that he said about wilt. The nicest things written about wilt were by chuck klosterman in the book.

I was just looking to see if it was true, since I have the book. I was about to say that to be fair, Russell's Game 7 did come before Wilt's Game 5 chronologically, but then he lists Pettit's '57 Game 6. Since it's not in chronological order, I wonder if they're in order, or if he just listed them in the order they came to mind?



The guy ranked larry bird over Wilt....thats all that needs to be said.

I have to agree with you here. That's one of the problems I have with this book. Wilt at #6 is inexcusable. I can't possibly see how he can be ranked that low.

[jlauber]

Simmons in a quote by Regul8r...

"The big redhead deserves credit for peaking on the ultimate stage: the '77 Finals, when he averaged a 19-19-5 with 4 blocks and slapped up an ungodly 20-23-8 with seven blocks in the deciding game"

For god's sake man...those numbers were "failures" for Wilt. He ROUTINELY had post-season series with those kinds of numbers (unlike Russell BTW.)

As for your take on Russell's reverse racism...INEXCUSEABLE!!! He is/was not the ONLY Black man to have lived through it. WILT went thru it. But, unlike Russell, Chamberlain treated EVERY person he met as a HUMAN BEING.

Since YOU are big on quotes...here we go...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Russell

[COLOR="DarkRed"]" Days later, 30,000 enthusiastic Celtics fans cheered their returning heroes, but Russell was not there: the man who said he owed the public nothing ended his career and cut all ties to the Celtics.[48] It came as so surprising that even Red Auerbach was blindsided, and as a consequence, he made the "mistake" of drafting guard Jo Jo White instead of a center.[50] Although White became a standout Celtics player, the Celtics lacked an All-Star center, went just 34

[jlitt]

Im friends with an ex celtic Ron watts, a former celtic player. Ron is white and jewish and happens to be one of Wilt's few close friends. Him and Red were apart of Russells inner circle. Its hard to be racist, and narrow minded when your two closest friends are jewish and white. So let's not get crazy here. Russell had his issues with boston but in no way shape or form was the man ever racist.

[jlauber]

http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/wilt/article10.html

"You can have Bill Russell, a great defender who scored occasionally and by the power of his personality drove the Celtics to 11 NBA championships in the late '50s and '60s.

Give me Wilt. Then give us Red Auerbach on the bench. Give us Bob Cousy, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, K.C. Jones, Sam Jones and Tommy Heinshohn. Then we'll see who wins all those titles.

Wilt would agree to all this, of course. Which was his problem, image-wise.

Russell became the media pet, cast as the selfless winner. In the media's need for easily packaged stories, Chamberlain became the selfish loser more interested in his own feats than his team's.

Russell's ego was no smaller than Chamberlain's; they simply satisfied those egos in different ways. It's my experience that most people who dealt with both men much preferred Chamberlain. He, unlike Russell, treated human beings as if they were human beings."

http://www.kusports.com/basketball/history/wilt/

"Wilt Chamberlain was a giant among giants. His years spent at the University of Kansas marked the beginning of a career that spanned decades, changed the game of basketball, and set records that will probably stand forever.

When Wilt finally returned in 1998 to see his jersey retired to the rafters of Allen Field House, he was overwhelmed by the reception he received and showed himself to be a truly gracious, and very human, hero. "

http://www.news.ku.edu/2003/03N/NovNews/Nov20/wilt.html

"The legacy of the legendary Wilt Chamberlain will continue at the University of Kansas through a $650,000 gift from his estate, Kansas University Endowment Association President Dale Seuferling announced today. "

AND, I don't have the time to quote from Robert Cherry's book, 'Wilt: Larger than Life" right now, but there is a chapter in there that brought tears to my eyes involving a dying 14 year-old girl.

He also contributed heavily to girls' athletics, as well as anonymously donating to many other charities.

At his Kansas retirement ceremony in 1998 (and in which he was already dying..although it was unknown at the time), he received a standing ovation that lasted for over a minute. Afterwards, when Kansas officials had a limo ready to take him back to the airport, he stayed around for over two hours and signed autographs until there was no one left to sign for.

He was a gentle giant, and a FAR greater human being than Russell...

[ThaRegul8r]

Simmons in a quote by Regul8r...

"The big redhead deserves credit for peaking on the ultimate stage: the '77 Finals, when he averaged a 19-19-5 with 4 blocks and slapped up an ungodly 20-23-8 with seven blocks in the deciding game"

For god's sake man...those numbers were "failures" for Wilt. He ROUTINELY had post-season series with those kinds of numbers (unlike Russell BTW.)

It's always numbers with you, isn't it? For the last time: IT'S NOT ABOUT THE NUMBERS!!! IT'S ABOUT DOING WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE!!! NUMBERS ARE SECONDARY. GETTING THE JOB DONE IS PRIMARY. I swear, it's like talking to a brick wall. And it shows you evidently didn't read what I posted, or selectively read certain parts.


As for your take on Russell's reverse racism...INEXCUSEABLE!!! He is/was not the ONLY Black man to have lived through it. WILT went thru it.

You asked me if I've studied the lives of Wilt and Russell. (Incidentally, I've graded a psychobiography a student wrote on Wilt Chamberlain) I asked you if you knew what Russell had been through as a black man in Boston at that time. When the libraries re-open, I will look for Wilt's autobiography to see if in the city in which he lived and played for, his house was broken into, vandalized, and his bed defecated on, if neighbors tried to keep him from moving into their neighborhood and tried to buy the house he was going to move to keep some "n" from moving into their neighborhood, among other things, and I will look to see if local sportswriters refused to vote for him for MVP simply because he was black. I don't recall Wilt ever speaking of having such situations, but I will not comment until I can verify it.

I said that people are shaped by their environment among other things. Do some research on personality development. If you don't understand how it comes together, then don't comment on what you don't understand. I make it a practice not to.


Since YOU are big on quotes...here we go...

Like you've never quoted from books that support your Wilt agenda before.

:rolleyes:

You've been doing that long before you ever encountered me.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Russell

:oldlol:

I find it hilarious when people quote Wikipedia. Do you realize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source since anybody can edit it? One can look at the sources at the end and use that if one is doing research, but any serious publication would laugh at you for attempting to use Wikipedia. They tell students that in colleges today that Wikipedia is not a reputable source and thus cannot be used for papers. I could go onto Wikipedia right now, edit an entry and then refer you to it.

Incidentally, you've taken this thread in a whole different direction with a "Who's the better human being" all because you misconstrued a post. (You've done this same thing before, incidentally.) This thread was originally about Wilt the basketball player. Stay on topic.

[ThaRegul8r]

Reg,

I am going not going to take the time to respond to EVERY one of your posts, since I have ALREADY covered all of them.

Except the stuff I brought up. You always respond in detail to everyone else.


Regarding Reed and Lucas. Lucas was a CAREER 15.6 rpg, and aside from Wilt, he is the only other player in NBA history to have TWO 20-20 seasons. Reed was a career 12.9 rpg player.

You said Lucas was a better career rebounder and player than Reed:


Sure, Reed did not play, but the Knicks added Jerry Lucas that year, who was a much better career rebounder (and player) than Reed.

That Lucas was a better career rebounder is a fact, though at that particular point in time he came to the Knicks, his rebounding had dropped to slightly less than Reed’s was before he missed 71 games in 1970-71. However, it is also a fact that Lucas did not match Reed’s rebounding against Wilt in the last finals the Knicks played them before that final injury. The assertion that Lucas was a better player than Reed—not at that particular point in time, but career, you said, however, is completely out of left field. I want to know who other Jeff Lauber has ever stated that Jerry Lucas was a better player for his career than Willis Reed. I will do some research. If there’s anyone who agrees with you, then I will post it on this forum.


And in that '70 Finals, in game five Chamberlain outscored Reed 14-7 in the first period, in which Reed went down, with his team DOWN by 10 points.

In the first period? An NBA game consists of four period, does it not? There’s still a long way to go. We’ve seen double-digit playoff comebacks in the fourth period, let alone the first.


The fact that the Lakers did not win the game was the FACT, as reported by a NY TIMES writer, Leonard Koppett, who stated that the officials "looked the other way" in the second half of that game while the Knick players mauled Wilt and West.

Of course.


But, aside from all of that, Wilt had battled a FAR healthier Reed to a draw (which I have acknowledge MANY times), in the first four games.

No, no, no. You said Reed was 100% healthy and Wilt was not. I have the post. I have proven that to be untrue. Now you’re resorting to saying Reed was “far healthier.” (If neither one is at a hundred percent, is it then some macho contest to see just who’s less healthier than who?) You could at least have the decency to say you were mistaken, or say, “I wasn’t aware of that.” It’s no disgrace to say one doesn’t know something. But what was that someone said? “You are obsessed with two things: Wilt and always being right?”


And YOU conveniently over-look Wilt's ONE-MAN domination of Reed in the '68 Playoffs, when Chamberlain led ALL players in points, rebounds, AND assists.

Overlooked it? No one had mentioned the Philadelphia/New York playoffs in ’68 in this thread. If you wish to do so now, awesome. And the Sixers won that series. What does that have to do with the ’70 Finals? Why didn’t he do the same then to a Reed who was two years older then? Why didn’t he dominate an injured Reed in Game 7 with the NBA Title on the line when Wilt dominating Reed had brought a playoff win before? The stats won’t answer that question.


And, no matter WHO guarded Wilt in that game six of the '70 Finals, how many other players in post-season NBA history, have EVER put up a 45-27 game? YOU conveniently over-look that FACT.

Not many. And I overlooked the 45-27 game when I brought it up? Dominate Reed the same way you did those nobodies. Pointing to what you did last game means nothing the next game. You’ll hear players say that. That’s done and gone, now it’s time to focus on Game 7 and make sure we win.


Game 6 -- Lakers 135, 113

Willis Reed accompanied the Knicks back to Los Angeles for Game 6, but it turned out to be just a formality. Reed had added a severely strained hip to his already painful knees, and despite the Knicks' trying every treatment under the sun, he would be unable to play in Game 6. The decision was left right up until game time; Reed's teammates took the floor not knowing whether he would play. Ultimately, New York decided to give Reed an extra 48 hours to rest in case of a Game 7.

With no Reed in the lineup, Wilt Chamberlain was unleashed for a monster game. Chamberlain recorded 45 points and 27 rebounds in a game that was never in question. Knicks coach Red Holzman again deployed Nate Bowman and Bill Hosket against Chamberlain, but to no avail.


And, as I have said MANY times, no matter if Wilt had put up a 40 point game in that game seven, it would NOT have made a difference.

You’re still not getting it. It’s all stats to you. The number doesn’t matter. It may not have had to BE 40. WHATEVER IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN TO WIN is what needed to be done. The Knicks were inspired when Reed hit his first couple shots.


Game 7 of the 1970 Finals went down as one of the greatest games in Knicks franchise history. Entering the game, Willis Reed had been given a "50-50" chance of being able to play. As in Game 6, Reed's fellow Knicks had no idea whether he would play, right up until game time. Reed suffered through multiple pain-killing injections throughout the day of Game 7, and his status was still unclear after a pregame examination. Reportedly, teammates Dave DeBusschere and Bill Bradley convinced Reed to give them just one half of basketball.

And so Willis Reed limped out onto the court for pregame warmups, sending the 19,500 fans in attendance into a frenzy of excitement. The Lakers even stopped warming up to watch Reed gingerly make his way onto the floor. Bill Bradley would later be quoted as saying, "When Willis Reed stepped onto the court, it gave us a 10-foot lift just to have him."

Reed made the first two field goals of the game, and Madison Square Garden went crazy. The resulting roar gave the Knicks a spark that they would carry throughout the contest. […] Inspired by Reed's effort, his teammates put forth one of their best games of the season.

Had Wilt crushed Reed, it would have been demoralizing, and completely deflated them.


Yes, he should have put up a Shaq-type performance and just physically crushed Reed.

This cannot be captured on a stat sheet, so it might be hard to understand. (On an aside, I don’t think Shaq—your #2—is better than Wilt—and have argued this on numerous occasions, but this is one case where he has the advantage on Wilt. Shaq didn’t care about what people thought of his game, but just did his thing. Shaq would have destroyed an injured Reed.)


With the "statue" Reed, and a SWARMING KNICK TEAM all over Wilt, and with Frazier FINALLY shutting down West, and with the Knick players hit shots from all over the floor, it was a rout...and a team of MJ's or Russell's, would not have beat them that night.

Biased conjecture. MJ and Russell were the two most competitive players in the history of the NBA. Jordan wouldn’t have any problem with ripping the heart out of the Knicks, and Russell never lost a Game 7 in his life. That’s what we know. And Russell just beat the same Knick team the previous year. If Wilt had the “put your foot on their throat, rip their heart out of their chest” mentality some of the other top ten greats did, that “energizing spark” never would have happened.


And of course, when Wilt puts up a 21-24 game, on a knee in which he had major surgery just FOUR months before (and NO ONE believed Wilt would return that season), yet he is a "failure". and a WORTHLESS Reed is the "hero."

Save the Reed tangent. I’m on record as saying Reed wasn’t the MVP of that finals, remember? You and I are in agreement on that matter. You’re preaching to the choir.


Magic did play well in that game six BTW. But even YOU admitted Kareem was the MVP.

Yes I did. Once again, you miss the point. It’s frustrating when someone sees only what they want to see and doesn’t see what’s there. Follow with me:

Magic is a top ten player of all time—as is Chamberlain.

(With me, so far?)

Magic suffered an injury to a key player on his team in the playoffs—as you’ve said Chamberlain has.

(Still with me?)

Magic did what needed to be done for his team to win, rising above the situation and putting up one of the all-time great performance. As did… wait.

AND MAGIC WAS A ROOKIE!!! As a ROOKIE Magic could see what needed to be done and do it. Everyone’s feeling down after the league MVP won’t be playing, hoping he’ll be able to play Game 7, they’re anxious, nervous, and here this 20-year-old rookie tells them, “Never fear, E.J.’s here!” He steps in the center circle to jump for the tip, has one of the greatest games ever (the stats are irrelevant), and did what needed to be done so that the Lakers didn’t have to take any chances on a Game 7 with Kareem doubtful.

THAT CAN’T BE CAPTURED IN A STAT SHEET

(I’m still not saying Magic was MVP of the series. I’m saying he’s a top 10 player of all time who had an injured teammate and did what needed to be done so they won anyway.)


As for Magic, or Kareem, or MJ DEMANDING the ball, where is your esteemed Russell???

When did I say Magic or Kareem should demand the ball? I said Jordan—whom you said you’d rather take your chances with in a Game 7—in Wilt’s situation would have. As for “my esteemed” Russell (what’s the reason for that? Reliving having to defend Wilt against all the talk about Russell? Don’t transfer that onto me, please. That’s your issue to deal with.), we’ve already seen him go for 30 and 40 in an NBA Finals-deciding Game 7 (14/17 from the line in a 110-107 win—since it was a close game, free throws needed to be made to win, so that’s what was done). When has Wilt had a performance like that in a seventh and deciding game of an NBA Finals for a championship?


Now, WIN SHARES significantly point out Wilt's OVERWHELMING contributions towards his team success. The FACT is, Russell played with LOADED and DEEP rosters every year in his career. How good were those players? Well, as I have pointed out numerous times, they had several that had several 20 ppg seasons.

Yes, you’ve said this ad nauseum.


As far as INJURY excuses go...it has been pointed out that Russell was injured in one of the seasons in which he did NOT win a title. How about Wilt? He was injured in SEVERAL years, one with a horrific injury that affected his lateral movement the REST of his career. AND, he played with one FRACTURED wrist, and the other BADLY sprained in the clinching game five of the '72 Finals.

And I’ve asked you why you act like only Wilt has been injured. (Kevin McHale, for example, played the entire 1986-87 postseason with a broken foot) You never acknowledged any injury any opposition may have had, and you still never admitted you were wrong that Reed was “100%.” And while it was laudable that he wanted to be on the court all the time, maybe he shouldn’t have tried to play every minute of every game after all. One reason coaches rest superstars is to avoid injury. I wonder if all those minutes and all that wear and tear might have had an adverse impact.

(cont.)

[ThaRegul8r]

Unlike Reed, who did NOTHING in his game seven performance, Chamberlain DOMINATED the Knicks in his. 24 points on 10-14 shooting, 10 blocks, and 29 rebounds...which again, was only ten less than the entire Knick TEAM.

Great performance. But why is it both ways? If he wins, it’s because he was so dominant he won in spite of injury, but if he loses, it’s because he’s injured. And since Reed did nothing in his Game 7 performance, why did he not exploit it?


Of course, YOU also failed to bring up Chamberlain thoroughly outplaying Kareem in the FOURTH quarter of that game six of the Western Finals.

LIE!!! That’s a flat-out lie, and I don’t appreciate it. I STATED that Wilt outplayed Kareem. And even when I talked about Wilt and Kareem (which was only to ask a question, not start a Wilt/Kareem debate), I specifically started out by saying:


First of all, it’s not an argument. Point out to me where I said Kareem outplayed Wilt. I praised Wilt’s defense and said it was the reason the Lakers won.

But of course you didn’t pay attention to that. I told you we had no argument on the fact that Wilt outplayed Kareem, yet here you are trying to stir one up, which I already foresaw and tried to defuse before it could even begin. I suggest you read more carefully. I responded to the poster who said Kareem would make “mincemeat” out of Wilt and said that Wilt outplayed Kareem—did you forget that?


During the ’71-72 season in the middle of the Lakers’ 33-game winning streak, a 35-year old Chamberlain blocked eight shots in a game against the Milwaukee Bucks, five of them against Abdul-Jabbar, two of which were skyhooks, both of which came on the same possession. There used to be a YouTube video of this, but it's been removed for TOS violation. Jlauber already posted on the '72 Western Conference Finals. I'm still trying to get complete stats, but I do have that in Game 5 Wilt held Kareem to 13-for-33 shooting (39.4%) and outrebounded him 26-16 in a 115-90 LA win. Seeing how Kareem was the league's leading scorer at 34.8 ppg during the regular season, Wilt's defense on Kareem was huge, and was the reason the Lakers advanced to the Finals.

Yep! I’ve definitely got an “anti-Wilt” agenda. Seeing how I’ve defended Wilt a couple times in this same thread. Seeing as how I BACKED YOU UP with what you’d already posted on the ’72 WCF, POSTED ANOTHER GAME IN WHICH WILT OUTPLAYED KAREEM, and said I was getting the complete stats together because I’ve got so much stuff scattered around, and that way I could have it for future use should anyone else make the same comment. Yeah, I was trying to overlook Wilt’s accomplishments to bash him.

Stop being so paranoid.


YOU have used WIN SHARES. If YOU are going to use them, I will too. And, they CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that Wilt was FAR more valuable to HIS team, than Russell was to his. In fact, looking at the research on Russell's teammates, I think Russell was the beneficiary of THEIR play, more than they were of HIS, despite whatever OPINIONS are given.

Despite the "opinions" of the men who were actually on the court with him night after night, the coach who coached them night after night, and the opponents who played them. Jeff Lauber’s opinion holds more weight than theirs.

Right.

:rolleyes:

With all due respect, get over yourself.

(On an aside, have you ever played basketball? I have. A player can lift your game and make you feel more confident out there, which causes you to play better. It’s something that can’t be captured in stats.)


And, NO ONE can question Wilt's ABSOLUTE statistical DOMINATION of Russell. He outplayed Russell in the vast majority of their H2H games, in EVERY category, and in MANY of those H2H games, he DESTROYED Russell. The same could NEVER be said in reverse, though.

I said Wilt was the most statistically dominant player in the history of the game. Russell never cared about statistics, but the win. I once had written something that explained this, but unfortunately I lost it in a computer crash, which means I will have to re-do the research, and some of the materials are out of print.

You were right when you said you tend to get carried away. (And do you post in a non-Wilt thread here? I’m just curious. I see you’ve just joined here.)

[jlauber]

Reg,

How about this source:

http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Pollack_200607_Stats.pdf

Harvey Pollack was THE stats maven of his period. He saw them both play, and he would tell you that Wilt was greater than BOTH Russell and MJ.

You should be familiar with this one...

http://www.apbr.org/wilt.html

There are MANY examples of Wilt's DOMINATION on that site.

How about this WIKIPEDIA site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Basketball_Association_players_wi th_60_or_more_points_in_a_game

If you can, go ahead and find flaws in it.

I have posted these here TWICE before, and all you can say is that Russell did not care about stats? Yet these are statistical analysis that even YOU should be familiar with. I admit that I don't completely agree with everyone of them, but they OVERWHEMINGLY show the TRUE greatness of Wilt.

Here are some commonly used ratings to evaluate player perfromance...


http://www.databasebasketball.com/le...?stat=eff&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/le...m?stat=av&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/le...m?stat=vi&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/le...?stat=eff&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/le...m?stat=av&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/le...m?stat=vi&lg=n



Here is an explanation of those ratings...

http://www.databasebasketball.com/about/aboutstats.htm



Here is another site, with some more statistical breakdowns...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ws_season.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ws_season.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ws_season.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...er_season.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ws_career.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ws_career.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ws_career.html


The BOTTON LINE, though, in MY research has been the OBVIOUS. Russell played with BETTER teammates, who played BETTER than Wilt's. That explains why Russell held a 7-1 edge over Wilt in rings.

Look, we KNOW who the better boxer is, or the better tennis players, or even the better golfer is. These are individual sports. But how do we determine who the better player is in a TEAM game? Well, the most OBVIOUS answer are the ones used most COMMONLY...statistical breakdowns. Geez, how would even know who WON the game without a score?

I have LONG based my statistical OPINIONS as much on EFFICIENCY, if not moreso, than RAW stats. Allen Iverson could score 30 ppg, but he shot .400 to do it. Even YOU have argued, and I have agreed, that there were games in which Russell held Wilt to below average precentages (of course, you seldom acknowledge the FACT that Chamberlain just buried Russell's offense.) But, as we have already read, there are MANY games in which Chamberlain shot a HIGH percentage against Russell (he even had a documented SEASON in which he shot over .550 which included BOTH the regular season, and the POST-SEASON.)

Once again, all YOU can fight back with, regarding Russell, is the "intangibles", or the fact that his TEAM won. While I have given you numerous instances where Wilt took over a game, at BOTH ends, even in a game seven...where are your examples in Russell's favor?

Why is Russell credited with a WIN (ring) in the '68-'69 Finals, when he was cowering the ENTIRE 4th quarter of that game seven? Wilt, who I have acknowledged did not play well in that game, still outplayed Russell in every category...and despite not playing in the last five minutes, he still had more impact in that quarter than Russell did.

Why is Russell credited with a WIN (ring) in the '64-'65 Eastern Finals, when he was blown up by Chamberlain in the last two minutes, in a game in which Chamberlain crushed him statistically? This, while playing on a 62-18 team, while Wilt toiled on a 40-40 team.

The more RESEARCH I do on this topic, the more inclined I am to come away believing that Russell was the most OVER-RATED player in NBA history. He played with GREAT teammates, who I have shown were capable of being 25-30 ppg scorers WITHOUT him. Yes, he won 11 titles, but Sam Jones played on 10 of them. Havlicek played on six of them (and two afterwards)...you can go right down the list...Cousey, Heinsohn, Sharman...all of them were more than just "bystanders."

I have brought up MJ. Using your logic (and other's) he was actually a LOSER for over half of his career. I have already given examples of just how good those Bulls teams were WITHOUT him. He was just enough to make them a champion. But at no time did he take a losing team, on his OWN (he didn't win anything without Pippen, Grant, and others.) Yet, Wilt CARRIED teams with LAST-PLACE rosters to within one or two points of beating the greatest DYNASTY (made up of numerous HOFers, and a HOF coach, with a load of talented players on their bench every year) in NBA history.

YOU and Simmons have brought up Russell's game seven against the Lakers in '62. Yes, it was great...but how do you think Wilt would have performed in that series, had he been able to get three more points in his game seven against Boston that year? Russell had a 30-40 game...Wilt had THREE 60+ point games against LA that year, including a monster 78-43 game. And, judging by what I have read on Wilt's career, the "experts" would have found fault with Wilt "only" putting up a 30-40 game against LA. They would wanted to know what was wrong with him...and why he couldn't duplicate his 78-43 game.

I also asked you to show me a game in which Russell put up a 30-40 game on Wilt. You couldn't do it, yet I gave you THREE in which Wilt did it against Russell, or the 15 40-30 games he had against Russell (including FIVE in the post-season.)

Once again, Chamberlain was labeled a "loser" for his 46-34 effort against the "valiant" Russell, despite Russell having an 18-31 game in the clinching game five of the '66 playoffs. How did Russell's TEAM win that game, when he was so thoroughly outplayed by Chamberlain?

And, once again, why is Russell not chastised for his FOUR point game against Wilt in the '67 playoffs??? In a game that Wilt put up a 29-36-13 game against him. Why couldn't the GREAT Russell take over that game, when it was OBVIOUS his teammates no longer had their USUAL advantage over Wilt's?


You have obviously followed my posts...and have gone out of your way to quote me. As far as my saying that I would take MJ or Russell over Wilt in a game seven...I may have said it. But, if memory serves me right, the reasoning behind it was that, all of Wilt's game seven's ended in defeat (not all, BTW, he did engineer a comeback from a 3-1 series deficit against Phoenix in the '70 playoffs, despite coming back so quickly from major surgery.). NONE of them were HIS fault, though. He did what he ALWAYS did....he outplayed his opposing center. BUT, for whatever reasons, (and as I have already documented, there were many)...his TEAMMATES were ALWAYS outplayed.

I have also been on record as saying that I would take MJ, or Kobe, over Wilt, in the last two minutes of a BIG game. The reason is obvious...Wilt was just not a very good FT shooter. But having said, I would not take Russell, or Shaq, either.

And you mentioned that I have fluctuated on MY Top-10 before (and thanks for reading BTW.) That may be true, as well. I have ALWAYS had Wilt at #1. I do believe that I have had either Shaq, or Kareem, at 2-3, or the reverse. Kareem was a more skilled player, but Shaq was more dominant. I could go either way on those two. But, like you, I have "tiers." Wilt is on page one, and no one else is even on the same page. Shaq and Kareem are on the next level. After that, you can take MJ, Russell, and Magic in any order. Kobe is definitely climbing, and LeBron will probably be on my list in a couple of years. I feel bad not having West in my Top-10, as he and Jordan were the greatest post-season scorers. But, West would never have won a titles without Wilt.

Which brings me to another reason why I have now placed Shaq at #2. True, Kareem has SIX rings, but he only had ONE, until he was paired with Magic. And, yes, Kareem was the reason that LA won their titles in th early 80's (even into the mid-80's), but he certainly needed Magic's (and later Worthy's help.) Shaq had Kobe, but very little else. Those Laker rosters from 00-02 were average, at best, but Shaq, and to a lessor extent, Kobe carried those teams.

And, as far as the Kareem-Wilt matchups went, I have always felt that Kareem was the more dominant player during the short time in which they played. But, unlike Russell, Wilt could take over a game at BOTH ends against Kareem. And, in their biggest matchup, in that game six in Milwaukee, it was Wilt who dominated that fourth quarter,...again, at BOTH ends.

BUT, the bottom line between Kareem and Wilt, was the FACT that Wilt was well past his prime, while Kareem had his greatest seasons early in his career. Had Wilt been in his prime, circa 1967 or so, he would have been far more of a force on the offensive end (and yes, he was CAPABLE of scoring 50 points a game in that '67 season...he just didn't NEED to.)

Once again, though, in comparing Kareem-Wilt, and Russell-Wilt, was that Wilt was a better rebounder, and a far more efficient shooter against Kareem, than what Russell was against Wilt. Furthermore, Russell-Wilt was fought mostly with BOTH players in their primes.

[ThaRegul8r]

You bring up Wilt's "luck" in the '71-'72 Western Finals with Oscar having an injury problem.

I said I was taking nothing away from the

[jlauber]

Reg,


I KNOW that you posted the Kareem-Wilt series before. But, in your long-winded response on the "greats" doing WHAT HAS TO BE DONE, you failed to mention that fact.

I grew up in the 60's. I KNEW what I SAW. The MEDIA, many of whom NEVER saw Russell and Wilt play, ASSUMED what had been spread by other members of the media...and I have mentioned it early on...

That Wilt put up huge stats against weak, skinny, uncoordinated, white, 6-6 centers. That Wilt had no skills, but used his massive size to dunk on them. That, when he faced the "clutch" Russell, he "choked."

For instance, in their very first encounter, Russell did slightly outplay Wilt. The sportswriters at the time, that covered that game, stated that Wilt could not use his size against Russell. I won't take the time to look it up, but there are at least a couple of books which pointed that out. In Cherry's book, he quotes a sportswriter who basically called it a victory for Russell. What is SELDOM mentioned, and I am CONVINCED was not well known, was that in their very next H2H battle, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 45-15, and outrebounded him 35-13. The writers that covered that game were in AWE of Chamberlain's DOMINATION of Russell.

The FACT was, Russell seldom even "contained" Wilt. I have, of course, provided YOU with Pollack's breakdown of ALL of their H2h games (I know, I wish we had FG% too for all of them)...and the FACT was, Wilt OUTPLAYED Russell in all but a handful of games, and OVERWHELMED him in over 40 of them.

Not only that, but most observers that I have "discussed" this topic with, had not seen any real actual footage of Wilt. Here again, the ASSUMPTION was that Wilt was dunking on helpless 6-6 centers, and that Wilt had no real skills. Well, after viewing the footage that I have posted here, and elsewhere, these same observers were absolutely STUNNED by just what a skilled basketball player was, as well as just how gifted he was athletically.

What is also SELDOM acknowledged, although it is becoming more frequent, is the FACT, that Russell had BETTER players, and MORE of them, in all but TWO years. And, as I have stated, Wilt's TEAMS, in BOTH of those years, were the BEST. No question about it. Even Auerbach gave up after Philly beat the Celtics in game four in Boston in that '68 series. Had disaster not befell the Sixers that post-season, they WOULD haver repeated. Here again, how many basketball fans even know that FACT? The common read is that Wilt did not take a shot in the entire second half of that game, and he "choked." Yet, as Cherry noted, Wilt only TOUCHED the ball TWICE on the offensive end, in the entire fourth quarter, and those were on offensive rebounds. That game was suspicious, and I have my theories, but in any case, two points. One, if the Sixers were healthy, the series would have been over in four or five games. Secondly, Wilt, despite not shooting at all in the second half, OUTSCORED Russell, 14-12 (and outrebounded him, as he almost always did, 34-26.) BUT, Wilt was criticized for not scoring. WHY? Why did the "experts" in the media believe Wilt SHOULD score, and yet NEVER EXPECT Russell to score?

And that is the basic crux of the issue. Wilt was ALWAYS in a LOSE-LOSE situation. He had a 60 point game, and his team lost. He also had several 50 point games in which his team won. And a TON of 40 point games in which his teams won and lost. His TEAM lost when he outscored Russell 46-18, and he was considered a "loser." When he did not shoot, and his team lost, well, why couldn't Wilt score?

Russell's TEAMS and TEAMMATES were BETTER, and not only that, they played BETTER against Wilt's TEAM. I have documented games in which Russell was just a helpless bystander, but his TEAM won the game. How does he get credit for being a "winner" in those games? I SAW it. Why couldn't these so-called "experts" see it???

Anyway...once again...I have not read anything, in my 40+ years of RESEARCHING this very topic, that would change my mind. In FACT, the more information that comes out, and the more footage that seems to becoming available each year, just CONFIRMS what I already KNEW.


As for my posts on other topics...YOU have read my takes elsewhere...YOU tell me?

But, in closing, I am impressed with your knowledge. You are among the most knowledgeable that I have come across. I applaud most of your takes on Wilt by-the-way...although I am a little suspicious of your statement that you are "neutral" on the topic. It almost always come down to Wilt "apologists" having to explain why Wilt did not win more often O(and as I have stated, he was only a few points, or bad calls, or plays, ofr key injuries, from winning EIGHT rings)...and never the Russell "apologists" explaining HOW he won. They can't. They can only come up with "intangibles." They can't even argue "clutch" play, because, in most of the BIG games against Wilt, he was NOT "clutch." In fact, in the vast majority he was downright KILLED. I KNOW why Russell's TEAMS won. And amazingly, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand it. His TEAMS won because they had BETTER PLAYERS, and in several, if not many games, they won DESPITE the play of Russell. And the same could most certainly be said in reverse for Wilt. His TEAMS lost so MANY games in which Wilt played brilliantly. BUT, the "experts" blamed Wilt, and praised Russell.

[jlauber]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"Russell had a game plan and executed it. He knocked off enough points from Wilt

[ThaRegul8r]

Reg,

How about this source:

[snipped]



You’re just reposting stuff you already did before. I fail to see how it adds anything to the discussion to repost what was already posted.


Look, we KNOW who the better boxer is, or the better tennis players, or even the better golfer is. These are individual sports. But how do we determine who the better player is in a TEAM game? Well, the most OBVIOUS answer are the ones used most COMMONLY...statistical breakdowns. Geez, how would even know who WON the game without a score?

Stats do not encompass everything. I’ve played the game, so I know there are things that make a difference on the court that simply aren’t covered in a stat sheet.


I have LONG based my statistical OPINIONS as much on EFFICIENCY, if not moreso, than RAW stats. Allen Iverson could score 30 ppg, but he shot .400 to do it. Even YOU have argued, and I have agreed, that there were games in which Russell held Wilt to below average precentages (of course, you seldom acknowledge the FACT that Chamberlain just buried Russell's offense.)

When I brought up Wilt and Kareem, I asked you why you emphasized it with Wilt, but not for Russell. I praised Wilt’s defense on Kareem, and I pointed out Russell’s defense on Wilt in ’62. You praised Wilt for his defense on Kareem, then pointed out that Wilt averaged over 30 on Russell. I wondered about the double standard.

And “burying Russell’s offense” wasn’t the key to winning the game. There are certainly players who can make an impact even without scoring. Russell was one of them. Make sure Russell can’t roam and switch off on players coming to the basket. Keep him off the defensive backboards so he doesn’t get those quick outlets to get Boston’s fast break going. Keep him off the offensive boards for easy putbacks. Those are the kind of things you want to do for starters, and they aren’t covered by stats.


But, as we have already read, there are MANY games in which Chamberlain shot a HIGH percentage against Russell (he even had a documented SEASON in which he shot over .550 which included BOTH the regular season, and the POST-SEASON.)

I’ve said ’66-67 was the greatest season ever.


The more RESEARCH I do on this topic, the more inclined I am to come away believing that Russell was the most OVER-RATED player in NBA history.

And now we see the agenda. You put up a pretense that Russell’s great, but he’s really the most overrated player in NBA history.


I have brought up MJ. Using your logic (and other's) he was actually a LOSER for over half of his career.

He was. But when he finally got it, he won and never stopped. After getting beat by the Celtics and the Pistons every year, he made sure it never happened again.


I have already given examples of just how good those Bulls teams were WITHOUT him. He was just enough to make them a champion. But at no time did he take a losing team, on his OWN (he didn't win anything without Pippen, Grant, and others.)

I’m not arguing for Jordan. There are enough people here and elsewhere who do. If you’d like, I could direct some here so you can take it up with them.


YOU and Simmons have brought up Russell's game seven against the Lakers in '62. Yes, it was great...but how do you think Wilt would have performed in that series, had he been able to get three more points in his game seven against Boston that year?

You still don’t get—and are incapable of getting—that the specific numbers don’t matter. It’s whatever’s needed to win. “Well, Russell got 30-40, how much do you think Wilt would have gotten?” You miss the boat.


And, judging by what I have read on Wilt's career, the "experts" would have found fault with Wilt "only" putting up a 30-40 game against LA. They would wanted to know what was wrong with him...and why he couldn't duplicate his 78-43 game.

If it was in an NBA Finals-winning effort, what difference would it have made? If you’re worried about what other people are saying when you put up a game to WIN the NBA Finals, then you have your priorities mixed up.


I also asked you to show me a game in which Russell put up a 30-40 game on Wilt. You couldn't do it, yet I gave you THREE in which Wilt did it against Russell, or the 15 40-30 games he had against Russell (including FIVE in the post-season.)

Hmm.



Russell had a brilliant game seven in the '62 Finals...with a 30-40 effort. Find ONE game like that against Chamberlain, though..

Game 3 of the Eastern Conference Finals that very season: 31 points and 31 rebounds in a 129-114 Boston win. That didn’t take very long.

You said “like that,” I didn’t know you meant those exact numbers, but a performance “like that.” One more point, nine less rebounds.


And, once again, why is Russell not chastised for his FOUR point game against Wilt in the '67 playoffs??? In a game that Wilt put up a 29-36-13 game against him. Why couldn't the GREAT Russell take over that game, when it was OBVIOUS his teammates no longer had their USUAL advantage over Wilt's?

As I’ve said, ’66-67 was the greatest year ever by a basketball player. But he probably isn’t chastised because he won again the very next year and the year after that. Just as “Magic” was “Tragic” until he won, and hardly anyone remembers that because he redeemed himself.


You have obviously followed my posts...and have gone out of your way to quote me.

Nothing you haven’t done with others. I’m a long-time basketball fan, and I’ve been to many forums over the years.


As far as my saying that I would take MJ or Russell over Wilt in a game seven...I may have said it.

You did, unless you’re saying I made it up. Which I have no reason to do.


I have also been on record as saying that I would take MJ, or Kobe, over Wilt, in the last two minutes of a BIG game. The reason is obvious...Wilt was just not a very good FT shooter. But having said, I would not take Russell, or Shaq, either.

Russell did have the 14/17 FT game in Game 7 of that ’62 Finals. Shaq had some games in the 2002 postseason:


In Game 6 he had 41 points on 14-for-25 shooting (56%), 17 rebounds, and made 13 of 17 from the free throw line (76.5%) to tie the series at 3-3. In the deciding Game 7 O’Neal had 35 points and 13 rebounds, making 11 of 15 free throws (73.3%).

That’s one area in which Kareem has an edge in that he has the skyhook and is a better free throw shooter, such as when in Game 6 of the 1988 NBA Finals against the Detroit Pistons, at the age of 41, Abdul-Jabbar was fouled by Bill Laimbeer with 14 seconds left and the Lakers down by one, stepped to the line and hit both free throws to give the Lakers a 103-102 win, tying the series at three games apiece and sending it to Game 7.


And you mentioned that I have fluctuated on MY Top-10 before (and thanks for reading BTW.) That may be true, as well.

I wasn’t arguing with you, I was just wondering if it was still the same. Sometimes stuff happens that causes you to re-evaluate. And I enjoy basketball, and you’ve had some interesting posts.


I have ALWAYS had Wilt at #1. I do believe that I have had either Shaq, or Kareem, at 2-3, or the reverse. Kareem was a more skilled player, but Shaq was more dominant. I could go either way on those two. But, like you, I have "tiers." Wilt is on page one, and no one else is even on the same page. Shaq and Kareem are on the next level After that, you can take MJ, Russell, and Magic in any order. Kobe is definitely climbing, and LeBron will probably be on my list in a couple of years. I feel bad not having West in my Top-10, as he and Jordan were the greatest post-season scorers. But, West would never have won a titles without Wilt.

This is true.


Which brings me to another reason why I have now placed Shaq at #2. True, Kareem has SIX rings, but he only had ONE, until he was paired with Magic. And, yes, Kareem was the reason that LA won their titles in th early 80's (even into the mid-80's), but he certainly needed Magic's (and later Worthy's help.) Shaq had Kobe, but very little else. Those Laker rosters from 00-02 were average, at best, but Shaq, and to a lessor extent, Kobe carried those teams.

I dunno. I just have some problems with Shaq. For all his size, he never dominated the boards like Wilt or played defense like Wilt. He’s the only one of the greats who never led the league in rebounding and blocks. Wilt led the league in rebounding and would have led in blocks were the stat kept. Russell ditto. Kareem led in rebounding and blocks. Hakeem. David Robinson. Bill Walton. Moses Malone led in boards. How come Shaq for all his physical advantage didn’t? I don’t mean for statistical accolades, but the fact is that ALL the other centers in the top ten did more than Shaq on the boards and defensively. And I could show you a post I once made and saved in a debate about Wilt vs. Shaq if you’re interested in seeing it.


And, as far as the Kareem-Wilt matchups went, I have always felt that Kareem was the more dominant player during the short time in which they played.

Because Kareem scored more points? Wilt showed he could D Kareem when necessary to win. Is dominance only point scoring? Wilt dominated defensively.


BUT, the bottom line between Kareem and Wilt, was the FACT that Wilt was well past his prime, while Kareem had his greatest seasons early in his career. Had Wilt been in his prime, circa 1967 or so, he would have been far more of a force on the offensive end (and yes, he was CAPABLE of scoring 50 points a game in that '67 season...he just didn't NEED to.)

Agreed. We saw Moses give Kareem problems (though to be fair, Kareem was old), and a prime Wilt would be even more of a handful, in addition to giving him even MORE problems defensively. And agreed he could score 50 in ’66-67, but it wasn’t what was needed to win. I prefer that season over the next one because it came naturally rather than forcing the assists next season. He set an NBA record for most consecutive triple doubles in the same NBA postseason, scored when needed, and when it wasn’t, was putting up 10+ point, 30+ rebound, 10 assist triple doubles in the Finals against San Francisco. He did what needed to be done to win, which is what I’ve been saying all along. He got it, put it all together, and had the greatest season in NBA history.

[jlauber]

LOL!

Reg,

I am about to wave the white flag...

I repeat...I have NEVER met anyone that could "out-post" me, but I have finally met my match. Kudos to you on that one.

I will take back my statement of Russell being "over-rated" right now. I just have a difficult time anytime comparisons are made with Wilt, simply because I SAW them both play...and I HONESTLY never came away believing he was a better player in any of the games I witnessed. And in many, Chamberlain just crushed him. But, to his credit, and as you have alluded to, his teammates seemed to rise to the occassions. I will never concede that he didn't have a better roster for eight of the ten seasons in which they played, but, there were years in which they were close to comparable ('66, and '69), and yet his TEAMS won in BOTH of those years, as well as the '68 season, in which he clearly played with an inferior team (but, injuries, and untimely poor shooting just wiped out the Sixers enough to allow that inferior team to edge the Sixers.)

And, I will stand by my statement that Wilt HAD to do more for his TEAM to have any chance of winning. In many cases he thoroughly outplayed Russell, and even that was not enough.

But, as you have said (and I have agreed here, and on other venues) that there was something to the fact that Wilt's teammates almost always failed at the worst possible times, while Russell's teammates had a confidence that Russell would will them to a win...if that is even possible...and somehow, it occurred.

Regarding my take on Shaq (and incidently, you and I BOTH agree that had Wilt played like Shaq his entire career, instead of having his "Goliath" complex...which caused him to try to out-finesse and outskill his opponents, instead of just overpowering them...that he would have won many more, if not all, of the titles, when he played)...

Shaq was an under-rated, albeit not a great defensive player. He did manage a couple of second-team all-defensive awards. And, he was not a great rebounder, at least for his size and athleticism. BUT, in the post-season, he was seldom outrebounded.

I have mentioned his "three-peat" Finals as perhaps the best in NBA history (and BTW, his playoffs, in those years were great, too.) What was especially interesting was his performance against Dikembe Motumbo, whom Philly brought in specifically to "neutralize" Shaq. Motumbo had seasons in which he led the NBA in rebounding, and in that season, alone, he was the Defensive Player of the Year. HOWEVER, Shaq just buried him on the offensive end, averaging 33 ppg, on something like .560 shooting (I am too tired to look up any numbers tonight), with 15 rpg. Shaq not only crushed Motumbo offensively, he also outrebounded him by a considerable margin, AND he even "outblocked" him in that series, including a then-record, eight in one game.

There was also a story that Larry Bird felt that Rik Smits, with his 7-3 height would give Shaq problems. However, he was horrified when he saw Shaq and Smits stand up a center court before the opening tip...when he realized that Shaq was just as tall. And after Shaq easily won the tip, Bird knew he had no chance. Shaq had some 40-20 games in those playoff series in the "three-peat", and I believe he had at least one against Smits, who was in foul trouble the entire series, and was outscored 38-10, and outrebounded 16-4, while being outshot .611 to .465 in that series.

Hack-a-Shaq was put in place, not so much because Shaq was such a poor FT shooter, but because the fact was, no one could stop him. I was always amazed that Jackson just didn't have his players wait until Shaq moved into the lane, without the ball, and feed him passes at point-blank range all game long. As it was, they would do that 5-10 times a game, and it was almost a guaranteed dunk, and in many cases, a futile foul.

I have almost always taken Kobe's side in the Shaq-Kobe feud (and in fact, I have long believed that it was Jackson's fault...which was interesting, because Jerry West was able to keep those two together), but in the '04 Finals, Kobe kept firing blanks. However, in the first game of that series, Shaq just murdered the Defensive Player of the Year, Ben Wallace, scoring 38 points, on 16-21 shooting (and most all of them dunks), yet, Kobe and his teammates kept shooting, despite the fact that even Jack Ramsey believed that Shaq could have hung 60 on Wallace.

Interesting too (and like I said, I am too tired to look up the numbers...in fact, I will let you find them...

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1967.htm

(just in case you didn't already have it)

most observers, and even Shaq himself, said that Olajuwon outplayed him in the '95 Finals. Here again, I won't take the time to look them up, but their numbers were actually very close, and in fact, Shaq outshot Olajuwon by a sizeable margin. From that point on, though, Shaq usually outplayed Olajuwon. Same with David Robinson. In fact, Popovich used to load up his rosters with centers, just to give fouls on Shaq, because he knew Robinson could not stay out of foul trouble trying to guard him. And Shaq dominated the Spurs (Kobe played well too BTW), in the '00-'01 Western Finals, and then again in the '01-'02 Western Finals.

Anyway, I really do enjoy these discussions, and I wish I could stay awake to continue them, but I just have to go to bed.

In closing, I really respect your knowledge and intellect...your points have been very valid, and at least you are not a Wilt-basher, as I have so often encountered. I think we both agree that he was truly great. Our differences really come down to you believing that he could have done more (and I will agree that had he played like Shaq he would have won more), while I was of the opinion that his teammates could have done more((or in some cases, no matter what they did, they were just not talented enough to have made a difference), AND, that he was also the victim of an incredible string of misfortune.

Good discussion though...

Thanks again, and Happy Holidays...

[Duncan21formvp]

Well Wilt didn't show up when it mattered.

[jlauber]

I have already stated that Wilt did not have too many memorable game sevens, but to say he didn't show up when it mattered would mean that his teams would never have made it to six Finals. Along the way he had a slew of 40 point games, and 30 rebound games, including a 50 point game, against Russell no less, (and in a win BTW) and as I have stated, he was never outplayed in ANY of those game sevens, either.

Wilt was considered a faliure when he put up a 21-24 game against an opposing center who had a 4-3, on one leg. He was also considered a failure when he took a 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss to the 62-18 Celtics, in a game in which he scored the last eight points, and outscored Russell 30-15, outshot Russell, 12-15 to 7-16, and outrebounded Russell, 32-29. He was considered a failure in the game seven los to the Celtics in the '69 Finals, even though he missed the five minutes, and still outscored Russell, 18-6, outshot him, 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him, 27-21. He was considered a failure when he took a 49-31 team down to a two-point game seven loss against the 60-20 Celtics, in a game, that admittedly, Russell battled him evenly in, but over the course of the ebtire series, he averaged 35 ppg and grabbed 29 rbg.

And those don't count his brilliant play in the '67 post-season, against both Russell and Thurmond, nor his great post-seaosn play in the '72 post-season against Kareem and Lucas...BOTH post-season performances led to championships.

I guess if that is what you mean by Wilt not showing up when it mattered most, I can't argue with you.

Duncan was a FLOP in a few series, if I recall, as well, and I believe he even had a 5-3 game in one of his games. Neither of those comments could ever be attributed to Chamberlain, despite some frustating playoff series.

[jlauber]

Once again, I find it interesting that Wilt was considered a "failure" when his teams almost always encountered better teams in the post-season. While I have always believed that he only played on three great teams ('67 and '68 Philly, and '72 LA), he was EXPECTED to carry ALL of his teams to titles.

His teams routinely faced Celtic teams that had more HOFers (4-6 every year, whether you want to argue KC Jones, or not), and that were deeper as well. His '68 Sixers lost to Boston in that game seven, by four points. As I have pointed out, though, they were without HOFer Cunningham (and still led 3-1), and then lost Jackson in game five (and while he played in games six and seven, he could hardly move), which effectively eliminated their huge edge at the forward position. That 76er team, despite being one of the greatest teams ever, was not a deep team, and it showed following Jackson's injury.

Chamberlain's team also lost to the '70 Knicks, a MUCH better team, that had FOUR HOFers (here again, I suppose you could argue against Bradley...but he was a at least, a good player), and Cazzie Russell, and a deeper bench. His Lakers also lost four close games against the '73 Knicks, which had SIX HOFers. And, in that series, West was hampered with two bad legs, and Hairston was not close to 100%.

His '66 76er team routed the 60-21 Celtics, with FIVE HOFers (Russell, Havlicek, Howell, Jones, and Jones), and players like Don Nelson, Wayne Embry, Satch Sanders, and Jim Barnett. They then beat the Warriors, who only had two, Thurmond and Barry. And his '72 team blew-out a Knick team with FIVE HOFers (Monroe, Frazier, Bradley, DeBusschere, and Lucas.)

I have mentioned the perception that Jordan is credited with carrying those Bulls' teams to six titles. Yes, he certainly the main reason, but as I have pointed out earlier, those Chicago teams were LOADED (not so much with HOFers, but with generally the deepest roster in the league.) Here is a proof of that assertion...MJ led the '92-'93 Bulls to their third straight title, and then retired. That '92-'93 team went 57-25. The following year, withOUT MJ, Chicago once again went 57-25, and lost a game seven playoff series to the Knicks, who lost a game seven to the Rockets in the Finals. The Bulls added Toni Kukoc, who averaged 10.9 ppg, and slightly upgraded by replacing John Paxson with Steve Kerr. That was essentially the difference between the '93 and '94 Bulls.

Reg pointed out that Wilt's Sixers did not drop off much after they TRADED him to the Lakers before the '68-'69 season. But TRADED is the key. They sent three players to the Sixers, all-star Archie Clark, a decent journeyman center Darrell Imhoff, and Jerry Chambers. So, that Sixer team at least acquired two quality players...and they still dropped seven games from the previous season (from 62-20 to 55-27.) Wilt did not improve the Lakers dramatically, (they went from 52-30 to a then best-ever LA mark of 55-27), but much of that could be attributed to their coach. And, while his Lakers dropped a game seven by two points (with Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes), it was an improvement over a Laker team that lost in six games the year before. Meanwhile, his former Sixer team, were easily eliminated by the Celtics, 4-1, in the first round of the playoffs.

The fact was, Wilt improved every team he joined, and every team he left, declined. He came to a last-place team, and in his rookie year, his team improved from 32-40, to 49-26 (and a close game six loss to the eventual champion Celtics.) He led the '64 Warriors to a championship series loss to the Celtics. He missed the first 21 games of the 'next season (SF went 5-16 BTW), and was traded at mid-season to the 76ers. His Warrior team finished the year at 17-63 (down from 48-32 the season before.) Meanwhile, he came to a bad Sixer team that had gone 34-46 in '64. He carried that team to a mark of 40-40 (I am not sure what their record was when he arrived), and then they blitzed the 48-32 Royals, 3-1, in the first round of the playoffs. Of course, I have documented their near shocking upset of the 62-18 Celtics before, a game seven ONE point loss.

I covered Wilt's trade to the Lakers in '68-'69 season. He finished his career with LA, and in his last year they went 60-22 (and lost 4-1 to the Knicks in the Finals...but all four losses were in the last minute.) He never officially retired, but that was his last season. The Lakers added Elmore Smith to replace him in '73-'74, but LA still dropped all the way down to 47-35 (or a 15 game slide.)

Once again, Wilt played on two championship teams, but he was so close to winning another 5-6 more rings. His '61-'62 team lost to Boston by two points ikn a game seven. His '64-'65 Sixers lost a game seven to Boston by one point. His '67-'68 76ers (and decimated by injuries) lost a game seven to Boston by four points. His '68-'69 Lakers lost a game seven to Boston by two points. And while his '69-'70 Laker squad had no business beating the Knicks that year, with a 46-36 team going against a 60-22 team, and with Wilt at far less than 100%, they still battled them to a game seven. And had there not been some questionable officiating in game five, they would have won that series in six games. And, finally, Wilt's last team, the '72-'73 Lakers, despite another series of injuries, lost four close games to the Knicks in the Finals. Who knows how that series might have gone had LA been healthy. In any case, Wilt came within a few points, or a couple of plays, or a key injury (ofr injuries), or some bad calls, of winning as many as six more rings.

The bottom line is that Russell's Celtics 7-1 edge over Wilt's TEAMS was not nearly as one-sided as the record indicates. In fact, here again, his TEAMs lost FOUR game sevens to those Celtics, by a TOTAL of NINE points. Wilt could very easily have held a 5-3 edge over Russell.

And even Regul8r pointed out that Russell did not outplay Wilt. He merely "contained" him just enough, to allow Boston to eke out those titles. Chamberlain outplayed Russell in EVERY H2H series, some by HUGE margins, but he still came up empty in seven of them. We NEVER saw Russell take over a game at BOTH ends, while Chamberlain HAD to play well at BOTH ends for his team to win (and even in dominating performances, it was still not enough.)

Reg pointed out Russell's greatest statistical game against Wilt, a 31-31 game. That would be a great game for anyone, but even in that game, Wilt put up a 41-34 game. Not only that, but think about this fact...using Reg's numbers, Wilt AVERAGED 28.2 ppg and 28.5 rpg in his 142 CAREER games against Russell...or almost the equivalent of Russell's BEST SINGLE game against Wilt. And, of course, I have pointed out the fact that Wilt outplayed Russell in the vast majority of their 142 games, and crushed him in well over 40 of them.

I will agree with those that have said that Wilt had some disappointing game sevens in his career, but once again, he was never outplayed in any of them. And, the fact was, Wilt had to play brilliantly for his teams to win. Still, Kareem played for about half of his career, and in his prime, with only ONE ring. It wasn't until he was paired up with Magic, and some LOADED LA rosters, that he played on five more champions. To his credit, however, much like Wilt, he came to a last-place team, and immediately turned them around. In fact, in only his second season, his Buck team just blew out the league en route to a title.

And, while there is no question that MJ had many great post-seasons, it could be argued that he played on the best team in all of them. He came to a last place team, and languished on three losing teams. It wasn't until the Bulls added Pippen (as well as Grant and others), that he was finally able to play on a winning team. And he had several playoff frustrations before he finally played on a championship team. I have already documented just how good those teams were in the first "three-peat", but ot could be argued that his roster on the second "three-peat" was even better. No doubt MJ carried them in the playoffs, but unlike Wilt, he could not carry mediocre teams to anything close to a title. And, while Wilt had narrow misses against the "Dynasty", MJ's Bulls never beat a superior team (and that includes the '93 Suns, who had a better record, but were under-dogs.)

So, while Russell played on 11 title teams, and MJ six, they were both blessed with great supporting casts. Wilt, on the other hamd, seldom had the best teams. In fact, IMHO, he only played on three teams that did, and had one of them not been hit with a rash of injuries, he would have gone 3-0 in those years. And, of course, his other teams came so close, so often...for a variety of reasons, but never because Wilt played poorly.

In terms of individual greatness, there is simply no comparison. As Oscar Robertson said, "the record book does not lie."

MJ holds a slight career edge over Wilt in career scoring aveage (by a few decimal points), but the fact was, at his best, Wilt was overwhelmingly a better scorer. In his first seven seasons, COMBINED, Chamberlain averaged 39.6 ppg...which was higher than MJ's best SINGLE season of 37.1. Wilt has an unbelieveable edge in 40 point games 271-173; in 50 point games, at 105-39, and a 32-4 margin in 60 point games (in fact Wilt has more 60 point games, than all of the other NBA players, in NBA history COMBINED!). Chamberlain also scored 70+ SIX times (MJ's high game was 69), and of course, Wilt had the 100 point game. Chamberlain holds the top-4 scoring seasons in NBA history, as well.

MJ had a career edge in assists per game, but Wilt led the league one year, and finished third in another.

Of course, Wilt was the greatest rebounder in NBA history. Game, season, career, he holds them all. And he dominated the game's second greatest rebounder, Russell, by a huge margin.

MJ never led the league in FG%, while Wilt won NINE titles in that category, including the top-two in NBA history, and three of the top five single season marks.

MJ had a career .327 3pt shooting percentage, but take away the seasons in which the NBA moved the line in, and his career percentage drops down to .288. Meanwhile, had the NBA officially recorded block shots in Wilt's era, he most certainly would have led the league in several years, and would probably be the all-time leader.

Yet, despite all of that...Bill Simmons has Wilt at #6 all-time????

[El Seano]

The way Simmons explained the Russell didn't have a better supporting cast confused the **** out of me because he basically explained that Russell did have a better supporting cast and that Wilt played with some like 4 more all stars because he got traded a few times and in Simmons own words "most teams had allstars back then". But he happily placated me when he started arguing that Wilt didn't have better stats but readily admitted Wilt was by far the better Regular Season player there's just much more value to playing in the playoffs because both point are inarguable and he stated both.

An amazing book so far though, even if there are points where he seems to be a little blinded by his love for the Celtics he still usually argues it very well. Everything not involved with the Celtics is incredible.

[jlauber]

I justcan't accept that Russell played better than Wilt in the post-season. The numbers certainly don't support that fact. Chamberlain heavily outscored and outrebounded Russell in the playoffs, and what little evidence we have indicates that Wilt probably outshot him from the field, as well (and maybe by a HUGE margin.)

Regul8r said it best...Russell was able to reduce Chamberlain's overwhelming dominance just enough for his Celtic TEAM's edge in talent to allow Boston to win those close game sevens. And it was not just a question of Russell having better players, but more importantly, they PLAYED better, too. Maybe that is a testament to the "intangibles" that Russell brought to the table, but it was pretty much a fact.

Had Wilt folded in the post-season, or never played on a title team, you could make a case against him. But, he anchored two of the greatest teams in NBA history. But, IMHO, his finest moments actually came in the fact that he was able to take two relatively bad teams to within a whisker of beating vastly superior Celtic team, and in the process, he crushed Russell.

Once again, you just won't find very many games, if any, in which Russell took over a game at BOTH ends. And, as I have stated many times, Chamberlain would put up a 40-30 game in close losses, while Russell had games in which he barely scored at all against Wilt, in blowout losses.

Wilt was ripped if he had a 40-30 game, and his team lost, or he was ripped if he had a 10-30 game, and his team lost. Meanwhile, Russell was praised no matter how he performed. And you just can't minimize the talented and deep rosters that he played on. I have already mentioned the fact that Havlicek played on two championship teams AFTER Russell retired, and that he had FIVE seasons following the "Dynasty" in which he scored more than when paired with Russell, including two at nearly 30 ppg. Sam Jones had a couple of years, with Russell, in which he was at 25 ppg, so the assumption has to be that he could have posted bigger numbers as THE guy on other teams. Heinsohn, Cousey, Sharman, and others were probably better than their stats indicated, as well, since they were involved a more balanced offense.

Aside from his 66-67 and 67-68 Sixers, and his 71-72 and 72-73 Lakers, Wilt never had nearly the balanced attacks that Russell's Celtics had. And the two of those teams that did not win the title were plagued by injuries in the post-season.

Russell came to a playoff team, with a great coach, and instantly made them a champion. But they were talented when he arrived, and as the years went by, they added more-and-more pieces to them. No one would question Russell's value to those teams. He was arguably the greatest defensive player of all-time, and not only was he a great rebounder, but he was one of the best ever at initiating the outlet pass, too. Still, he was never asked to carry a team on the offensive end.

Meanwhile, Wilt was arguably better at everything Russell could do (with a possible exception of defense...and that would be debateable), as well as being a FAR more skilled offensive player, who generally HAD to score for his teams to win.

I SAW enough of those two, though, to say that Wilt was the better player. And, as more-and-more information and footage becomes available, we are seeing confirmation of that fact.

[jlauber]

For the record, from the '59-'60 season thru the '68-'69 season, Bill Russell played with 19 other teammates in the All-Star game, while Wilt played alongside 16 all-star teammates. Both Russell and Wilt made the All-Star game every year in those ten years, making Russell and teammates with 29 appearances, while Wilt and his teammates made 26 appearances.

I didn't research any all-star teams before, or after, those ten years, because those were the 10 years in which Russell and Wilt went H2H.

Here we go:

1959-60:
Russell, Cousey, Sharman
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1960-61:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1961-62:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Arizin

1962-63:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Rodgers, Meschery

1963-64:
Russell, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Rodgers

1964-65:
Russell, S. Jones
Wilt, Thurmond

1965-66:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Walker, Greer

1966-67:
Russell, Havlicek, Howell
Wilt, Greer, Walker

1967-68:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Greer

1968-69:
Russell, Havlicek
Wilt, Baylor, West

Furthermore, Tom Meschery and Tom Gola were very questionable in their appearances. Some might question Bailey Howell, but in his 66-67 season appearance, he averaged 20 ppg on .512 shooting, which was considerably better than what Meschery or Gola had in their all-star seasons.

Wilt did play with nine different teammates in that 10 year span, while Russell only played with six, so if that is what Simmons meant when he said that Wilt played with more all-stars, then he was correct. HOWEVER, Russell's teammates had more APPEARANCES.

As a sidenote, here are Russell and Wilt's numbers in their all-star games in those ten years:

1959-60:
Russell 3-7, 0-2, 6 pts, 8 rebs, 3 ast
Wilt 9-20, 5-7, 23 pts, 25 rebs, 2 ast

1960-61:
Russell 9-15, 6-8, 24 pts, 11 rebs, 1 ast
Wilt 2-8, 8-15, 12 pts, 18 rebs, 5 ast

1961-62:
Russell 5-12, 2-3, 12 pts, 12 rebs, 2 ast
Wilt 17-23, 8-16, 42 pts, 24 rebs, 1 ast

1962-63:*
Russell 8-14, 3-4, 19 pts, 24 rebs, 5 ast
Wilt 7-11, 3-7, 17 pts, 19 rebs, 0 ast

1963-64:*
Russell 6-13, 1-2, 13 pts, 21 rebs, 2 ast
Wilt 4-14, 11-14, 19 pts, 20 rebs, 1 ast

1964-65:*
Russell 7-12, 3-9, 17 pts, 13 rebs, 5 ast
Wilt 9-15, 2-8, 20 pts, 16 rebs, 1 ast

1965-66:
Russell 1-6, 0-0, 2 pts, 10 rebs, 2 ast
Wilt 8-11, 5-9, 21 pts, 9 rebs, 3 ast

1966-67:
Russell 1-2, 0-0, 2 pts, 5 rebs, 5 ast
Wilt 6-7, 2-5, 14 pts, 22 rebs, 4 ast

1967-68:
Russell 2-4, 0-0, 4 pts, 9 rebs, 8 ast
Wilt 3-4, 1-4, 7 pts, 7 rebs, 6 ast

1968-69:*
Russell 1-4, 1-2, 3 pts, 6 rebs, 3 ast
Wilt 2-3, 0-1, 4 pts, 12 rebs, 2 ast

* denotes that Russell and Wilt played on opposite teams.

[Rake2204]

Just began a second read-through on Simmons' book last week. Once I hit the Chamberlain chapter, I instantly thought of the folks here who so vigorously argue in his regard, so I searched to see if this topic had been covered (Simmons vs. Chamberlain). Lo and behold... this thread is like a book in and of itself.

Five years later, does anyone have any modern day cliff-noted counterpoints to Simmons' allegations?

[knicksman]

wilt, oscar, lebron are on the same mold. Greatest statpadders of all time. Yet lebrons impact when paired with stars +2.8

[ILLsmak]

Just began a second read-through on Simmons' book last week. Once I hit the Chamberlain chapter, I instantly thought of the folks here who so vigorously argue in his regard, so I searched to see if this topic had been covered (Simmons vs. Chamberlain). Lo and behold... this thread is like a book in and of itself.

Five years later, does anyone have any modern day cliff-noted counterpoints to Simmons' allegations?

all you need to know is when Wilt was matched up with Kareem, who was later matched up with Hakeem... lol.

-Smak

[AirFederer]

ThaRegul8r putting Jlauber/LAz to shame here :applause:

[senelcoolidge]

Come on we all know that Bill Simmons is a celtic biased bitch. Anything Celtics is the best and anything that threatens anything Celtic is evil.

[kshutts1]

Just began a second read-through on Simmons' book last week. Once I hit the Chamberlain chapter, I instantly thought of the folks here who so vigorously argue in his regard, so I searched to see if this topic had been covered (Simmons vs. Chamberlain). Lo and behold... this thread is like a book in and of itself.

Five years later, does anyone have any modern day cliff-noted counterpoints to Simmons' allegations?
Probably not.

But I read through the first four pages (well, read everything but the essays) and didn't see a single person mention this very, very important fact:
Facts can be used any way one wants to use them. Facts can be used to make a case, while different facts can be used to make the exact opposite case.

So while what Simmons said about Wilt is likely true, I'm sure there are just as many facts that would "clearly show" that Wilt was superior to Russell.

As an example, here's an excerpt from Matthew Berry's annual "100 facts" column...
""QB1" was a fantasy stud last year. He finished as a top-10 quarterback and had more 30-point games than any quarterback not named Peyton or Drew. In fact, according to Tristan H. Cockcroft's 2013 consistency rankings, those two quarterbacks (Peyton Manning and Drew Brees) were the only two who had more "stud" games than this guy. ("Stud" being defined as a QB who was top-two at his position for the week). His attempts, completions, touchdowns, yards, QB rating and QBR have improved every year he's been in the league. He has one of the most talented receiving corps around, including the leading wide receiver in end zone catch percentage (among qualified wideouts). Top 10 in the NFL in pass attempts last year, he's the leader of a high-octane offense that was sixth in the league in total points. And he has started every game of his career, so it's easy to see why this 4,000-yard passer was a high draft pick. He's coming off his best professional year ever, and considering he's still fairly young, the best is yet to come. Draft him high, and ride the wave.

On the other hand, "QB2" is being drafted well outside the top 10 this year, and it's no shock why. Per Tristan's same consistency rankings, Geno Smith, Eli Manning and Chad Henne were the only quarterbacks who were "stiffs" more often last season. ("Stiff" being defined as someone who ranked among the worst at his position, thus making almost any waiver wire option a better choice.) His interceptions have increased every year he has been in the league, his completion percentage decreased from the previous season, and his QBR was just four tenths of a point better than Ryan Fitzpatrick's. I repeat: Ryan Fitzpatrick. It's not just fantasy owners who have questions about this quarterback. His own team hasn't signed him to an extension yet, and in fact, he will be a free agent after this season. Considering how QB-starved the NFL is, it speaks volumes that his team is willing to let him walk. With the fifth most interceptions in the NFL last year, it's not surprising his team just hired a new offensive coordinator known for running the ball; in his latest job as a playcaller, this coach was top four in the NFL in rush attempts and rush yards. Hand the ball off and don't lose this for us, they seem to be saying. Something you don't want them to say about your quarterback as a fantasy owner. Look elsewhere.

Now, everything I wrote about for each player is 100 percent true. So tell me ... which QB do you want?

Before you answer, you should know that both quarterbacks are Andy Dalton."

[They Won]

Of course he was selfish. It is both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.

[CavaliersFTW]

How selfish does he sound in his interviews?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pksKGvv_MZ4

The Media and the Boston-Bill Russell Rivalry storyline = / = reality.

[Marchesk]

Wilts stat chasing was off the charts. Simmons really broke it down. Especially when he pointed out the season where Wilt wanted to lead the league in assists. That season Wilt would hardly shoot and only pass to guys that he was sure would make the basket so he could get the assist. The fact that he was traded twice in his prime for pennies on the dollar is telling along with the fact that barely any of his teammates celebrated with him after the 100 point game.

The two seasons Wilt averaged 7.8 and 8.6 assists, the 76ers won 68 games and a title, and 62 games and a tough 7th game loss to the Celtics.

I'm not sure how stat padding on assists hurt the 76ers. Wilt averaged 9 assists in playoffs for their championship run.

Looks to me like it helped the team. Might as well argue that Curry is stat-padding three pointers.