My analysis of the Sixers vs Celtics 1967 footage(Prime Wilt vs Russell)

[ShaqAttack3234]

My honest analysis of Wilt in the second half of that 1967 game vs Boston. The positives and the negatives. Plus, my analysis of Russell, as well.

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

Russell catches the ball in the post at 0:29, look at how he looks for the cutter first and quickly spots the defensive mistake and throws an easy pass to Sam Jones for an easy jumper.

Pretty ugly looking fadeaway attempt by Wilt at 0:44. His footwork didn't look quick or fluid and the shot was a brick, good post defense by Russell, though.

Great entry pass by Wali Jones at 4:44, and as you can see, Wilt's 4 inch height advantage, superior strength and athletic advantage makes fronting Wilt unsuccessful. Wilt does look mobile here.

They called a goaltend on Wilt at 6:10, but you can see his defensive presence and that looked like it was a good block to me

Missed the finger roll at 7:36, but to his credit, he did hustle and get an easy tip in. Solid post defense by Russell, but surprisingly he got a little lazy after the shot missed and Wilt made him pay.

Great offensive rebound by Russell at 7:48 and nice pass after. He makes up for his lazy play at the other end with a terrific hustle play.

Nice catch by Wilt and you see a glimpse of his strength as he gathers himself and overpowers Russell with an impressive dunk right in his face at 9:04. Nice mid-air pass by Hal Greer as well.

At 9:14, you see the duo of Jackson and Chamberlain on the boards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiVAFBZzTac&feature=related

Another goaltend by Chamberlain to open up the video, but it shows that he was contesting everything.

Another missed finger roll by Wilt at 3:23, but his footwork looked a bit better that time, still nice defense by Russell. Great left-handed tip in by Wilt at 3:49, it's set up by his excellent rebounding position. Shockingly the under-handed free throw is good after hitting the back rim, too.

Great pass by Russell at 4:56 to Bailey Howell, for the easy lay up. Russell shows off his offensive rebounding skills at 6:21.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K9RJXAdZYw&NR=1

Great sequence at 0:27, Russell gets another offensive board, but Wilt blocks his shot and battles on the boards. Of course he proceeds to brick a free throw demonstrating perfectly why he was a 44% free throw shooter that season.

You can see Chamberlain alter Havlicek's shot at 2:02.

Hell of a block by Russell at 5:25, notice he keeps the ball in play, but on the other end, Chamberlain blocks 2 straight shots and also keeps the ball in play. Incredible sequence for these 2 centers.

Russell alters the shot at 9:41, but Chamberlain capitalizes by getting the offensive rebound, the put back and the foul(though he'd brick 2 free throws)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHXG3koetzA&feature=related

The video opens with Chamberlain bricking the aforementioned free throws. Russell goes for the steal at 0:59, but recover nicely to prevent Wilt from getting an easy basket, Chamberlain goes to the foul line and again, he'd miss the free throw badly. The free throw was so bad that it hit off the backboard and Wilt immediately committed a lane violation in a desperate attempt to make up for it.

Great block by Russell at 2:08 as Chamberlain went up for another finger roll attempt, a shot that hardly looks like the go to move many made it out to be.

Wilt scores off of a broken play at 4:30, a lucky break, but part of it is due to Wilt's physical advantage. He finally makes a free throw, but again, he didn't swish this one, but atleast he had a soft touch on this one. Another amazing Russell vs Chamberlain sequence at 5:50, Russell has an amazing offensive rebound, but Wilt has another monster block, and again, he kept the ball in play. Wilt alters another one of Havlicek's shots at 6:14 and comes away with the rebound.

Another fadeaway attempt at 9:17, not particularly close, but atleast his footwork looked better than it did on the first fadeaway attempt, again, good defense by Bill Russell. At 0:30, Wilt comes away with a rebound despite 3 guys around him and then throws a good outlet pass that leads to a basket. At 0:50, Russell surprisingly hits a short baseline jumper.

The Good: You can see throughout the footage that Wilt is quite mobile for his size. He is an absolute beast on the defense end. He blocked several shots in that footage alone, altered several, goaltended a couple more and dominated the boards. His defense was much more impressive than his offense in this footage. This footage told me that when he focused on defense, he was most likely among the best defenders ever, and I'd probably have to rank him as a top 3 rebounder of all time along with Rodman and Moses Malone. His offensive rebounding was very impressive and ended up accounting for a good percentage of his points, but his dunk on Russell showed impressive strength and it was also proven that fronting him wasn't the way to stop him. Plus, throughout the video he made solid, if unspectacular passes, but we know from the footage available from his Laker days that he was among the most skilled passing big men ever.

The Bad:In this footage, Wilt's offensive game wasn't that impressive with him going 0 for 5 on post moves(1 for 6 if you include the dunk on Russell where he kind of backed him up, but more or less caught the ball close and gathered himself and went up) and 2 of 6 from the foul line, though he was 5 for 10 total in the videos, however all of his points came on dunks where he caught the ball around the basket or put backs. He was 0 for 3 on finger rolls and 0 for 2 fadeaways(neither of which were close). The 2 moves we here the most about, yet neither looked that good. I don't know, it could have just been an off night for him offensively.

Russell: He played excellent post defense on Wilt, mostly single coverage too. Like Wilt, he was a beast defensively, and of course he usually kept the ball in play after blocks. He was a solid passer, not flashy, but right on the money throughout the video and he seemed aware of his limitations as an offensive player, yet he did show he could handle the ball well for a center and he appeared very mobile. Made some great hustle plays, he also proved to be one of the best rebounders and for the most part, he played smart basketball throughout the video. Of course, from his one-handed free throw form, it's easy to see why he shot 56% from the line for his career.

Other Observations: Players back then were much more basic as ball handlers, but they seemed to have pretty good range on their jumpshots and surprising range and accuracy on bank shots. They were also fundamentally sound passing the ball into the post. Chet Walker had the best moves of any perimeter player in the game while Bailey Howell was very active, Havlicek played excellent around basketball, but in general most of the perimeter players games did seem somewhat primitive, atleast off the dribble. Luke Jackson's rebounding in the footage is a lot more impressive than the numbers suggest.

Wilt was more impressive in game 5 of the 1972 finals, actually. I'll have to go back and watch that game that's partially available of Wilt vs Russell in the 1964 finals again.

[King Lebron LBJ]

Wow that is a great analysis

great read :cheers:

[dough]

I think if you'd make more of these topics after analyzing the head to head games, more people will start to agree that Russell was actually a better basketball player than Wilt.

Thanks, good topic.

[G.O.A.T]

Cool post Shaqattack

A couple of notes...

Wilt had his best season shooting underhand free throws at over 60% very early in his career but never went back to it again full-time for whatever reason. Many speculate he didn't like the way he looked doing it.

Important to remember that none of those players are palming the ball like all of todays players do. Try to dribble without palming it against pressure and you'll see why it may have looked like it did.

In 1967 Alex Hannum asked Wilt to stop shooting so much and play fewer minutes because the team around him was better. Wilt bought in because he trusted Hannum who also coached him to the Finals in 1964 while with the Warriors. Wilt led the league in FG% at nearly 70% that season, still averaged 24 and 24 and over 7 assists.

His 1 for 6 performance was not typical and probably has a lot to do with it being late in a game against Russell that the Celtics won. Russell usually played his best vs. Wilt late in games. having conserved energy.

On the play you called Russell lazy, I agree and while I don't think it was the case on that play, Russell and Red as well as other Celtics all claim Russ used to let Wilt get some points when it looked likely he'd score or rebound anyway. Bill knew he couldn't stop Wilt everytime so he conserved energy against the Dipper more than any other player and picked his spots to try and stop him, usually late.

Wilt started the '67 Series against the Celtics with a 24-32-13 in game one and ended it with a 36-20-13 in game. According to statistican Harvey Pollack Wilt averaged 11.4 blocks per game in the series as well. Meaning for the series he averaged 22-32-10-11 for the series. Russell posted 11-23-6-8 according to Pollack.

[plowking]

I think if you'd make more of these topics after analyzing the head to head games, more people will start to agree that Russell was actually a better basketball player than Wilt.

Thanks, good topic.

I think you'll find the exact opposite.

Wilt was both a better offensive and defensive player than Russell. What more is there?

In most their match ups Wilt played better on both the defensive and offensive end, and did the things Russell was praised upon as great at better than he did.

I constantly hear all this "Wilt was a better individual player, though Russell was a better team player", which I think again is completely false. If you give Wilt that talent that Russell had around him, that team would have gone on to win 15 titles, let alone 11 in my opinion. Sure he was selfish, though he was the best in the league at just about everything. Scoring, passing, blocking, stealing... He needed to be selfish. His team mates were no better than Wade's today, and a guy like Wade is criticized to take more shots, yet with Wilt, he's criticized for taking to many. The fact of the matter is, with a team like that, you really can't win, and Wilt simply went one fail route over the other fail route.

And as history shows us, when Wilt finally did get some talent (still not to the level of Russell's team IMO) he was able to lead them to a championship, while also arguably being the best team to ever do it.

Wilt was essentially a slightly weaker Shaq, though at the same time being quicker, more mobile and more polished offensively. Though Wilt was a better all round player (possibly the best ever) and it allowed him to dominate more so than Shaq since he was able to do it in damn near every area.

[jlauber]

Excellent analysis.

One thing, though, was that Wilt seldom intentionally used his massive strength to full advantage. AND, as much as I hate to say this, I also believe that Wilt seldom played all out, either.

And, of course, that was one game...and his WORST of that series. There is a TON of footage available illustrating Wilt's 10-15 ft. bank shot range, 10-15 ft. jump shot range, and 10+ft hook shot range. There are some here who were critical of Wilt's .525 FG% in his first seven seasons. Look, the guy was not abusing his incredible massive edge in strength. AND, he was shooting MANY of his shots from 15 ft away. Finally, while Hakeem, Robinson, and Duncan are regarded as great offensive players, their numbers, at their BEST, was no better than Chamberlain's, at his WORST.

By the mid-60's, Wilt had refined his game, and he became a far more efficient scorer. He cut back his mid-range game (although, as you can see, he still had it), and concentrated on post moves closer to the basket. And by the 66-67 season, he dramatically cut back his shooting. Still, he had the high game from 66-67 thru the 68-69 seasons, including games of 58, 60, 66, and 68 points.

One more time, though, take a look at this video...and tell me that Dwight Howard was a better offensive player...

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

And for those that believe Howard is a better shot-blocker...

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


Anyway...great post ShaqAttack!

[dough]

I think you'll find the exact opposite.

Wilt was both a better offensive and defensive player than Russell. What more is there?

In most their match ups Wilt played better on both the defensive and offensive end, and did the things Russell was praised upon as great at better than he did.

Yet Wilt never understood what it took to win. Basketball is about winning, not chasing personal accolades. Russell was the reason the Celtics came out on top most of the times, and won those rings. IF Wilt would've understood 'winning', there would be no doubt he'd be considered the greatest ever. Where some players threw away legendary status or all star status by chasing alcohol or drugs, Wilt might have thrown away GOAT status by chasing personal accolades, statistical records etc. That's where Russell comes into play. Not the athlete or individual player Wilt was, Russell made more than up for it by being smart, understanding the game and exactly doing what was needed to defeat Wilt. And that's what makes him greater in my opinion (in my opinion because, when battles are this intense and styles are so different, I like to look at what a player did to achieve the ultimate goal in (team)sports, getting those wins, and even a higher goal: getting that ring. So basically, that's the reason why I said Russell will probably prove to be the winner when watching this material. Their head to head record: 84-58. I like to quote Simmons when comparing them in this case too: Wilt's record for Conference Finals and NBA Finals: 48-44. Russel: 90-53. Game 7's: Wilt 4-5, Russel: 10-0. Wilt in elimination games: 10-11, Russel: 6-2. Russel 11 rings, Wilt: 2.

I won't disagree when you claim Wilt was the best individual player in the history of the NBA. But basketball is a team game. And it's about winning. Wilt was obsessed with stats and how he looked in boxscores. It took him 7 years to understand he needed teammates to win, and actually had the tools to make teammates better. If you don't understand how to win games, you can not be the greatest player ever, in my opinion. Where Wilt was chasing records, Russell was focused on one thing, and one thing only: How can we get that win? In a discussion like this, I don't think you can actually use the individual statistics, seeing as one guy was obsessed with them and the other couldnt care less about them.

Edit: I don't agree about Wilt being the better defensive player. Russell was much smarter than Wilt.

[Dresta]

Wasn't this the first year that Russell was actually his team's coach also? You forget to mention that.

edit: no plowking, Wilt was not a better defender then Russell.

[jlauber]

Regarding Russell's play...

One-on-one, I think Chamberlain would have killed him.

But, statistical analysis just does not do him justice. While I give kudos to Wilt, early in his career, when he basically carried much weaker rosters to near upsets of Russell's Celtics...I also have to give Russell kudos for taking inferior teams, from '66-'69 to three titles...ESPECIALLY that '69 season.

The botton line, though, is that Russell made his teammates better, and his opposing teams worse. He came to a good Boston team and made them great. And when he retired, the Celtics nose-dived.

As GOAT has alluded to...Russell was almost universally acknowledged as the best player of his era, and by his peers and media alike. He was voted the greatest ever in 1980, and by a large margin.

I was a HUGE Wilt fan...but even I have come to accept that Russell was the better player. I do believe that Wilt COULD have been better...but it was just not in his makeup to commit himself to making his teammates better. IMHO, his 66-67 season was not only his greatest, but was perhaps the greatest in NBA history. And I truly believe that he played "Russell-like" in the 71-72 season. Had he played like that his entire career, and we might be talking about Wilt with 4-5 rings, or more.

[jlauber]

Yet Wilt never understood what it took to win. Basketball is about winning, not chasing personal accolades. Russell was the reason the Celtics came out on top most of the times, and won those rings. IF Wilt would've understood 'winning', there would be no doubt he'd be considered the greatest ever. Where some players threw away legendary status or all star status by chasing alcohol or drugs, Wilt might have thrown away GOAT status by chasing personal accolades, statistical records etc. That's where Russell comes into play. Not the athlete or individual player Wilt was, Russell made more than up for it by being smart, understanding the game and exactly doing what was needed to defeat Wilt. And that's what makes him greater in my opinion (in my opinion because, when battles are this intense and styles are so different, I like to look at what a player did to achieve the ultimate goal in (team)sports, getting those wins, and even a higher goal: getting that ring. So basically, that's the reason why I said Russell will probably prove to be the winner when watching this material. Their head to head record: 84-58. I like to quote Simmons when comparing them in this case too: Wilt's record for Conference Finals and NBA Finals: 48-44. Russel: 90-53. Game 7's: Wilt 4-5, Russel: 10-0. Wilt in elimination games: 10-11, Russel: 6-2. Russel 11 rings, Wilt: 2.

I won't disagree when you claim Wilt was the best individual player in the history of the NBA. But basketball is a team game. And it's about winning. Wilt was obsessed with stats and how he looked in boxscores. It took him 7 years to understand he needed teammates to win, and actually had the tools to make teammates better. If you don't understand how to win games, you can not be the greatest player ever, in my opinion. Where Wilt was chasing records, Russell was focused on one thing, and one thing only: How can we get that win? In a discussion like this, I don't think you can actually use the individual statistics, seeing as one guy was obsessed with them and the other couldnt care less about them.

Edit: I don't agree about Wilt being the better defensive player. Russell was much smarter than Wilt.


Well said!

[G.O.A.T]

I think you'll find the exact opposite.

Wilt was both a better offensive and defensive player than Russell. What more is there?

In most their match ups Wilt played better on both the defensive and offensive end, and did the things Russell was praised upon as great at better than he did.

I constantly hear all this "Wilt was a better individual player, though Russell was a better team player", which I think again is completely false. If you give Wilt that talent that Russell had around him, that team would have gone on to win 15 titles, let alone 11 in my opinion. Sure he was selfish, though he was the best in the league at just about everything. Scoring, passing, blocking, stealing... He needed to be selfish. His team mates were no better than Wade's today, and a guy like Wade is criticized to take more shots, yet with Wilt, he's criticized for taking to many. The fact of the matter is, with a team like that, you really can't win, and Wilt simply went one fail route over the other fail route.

And as history shows us, when Wilt finally did get some talent (still not to the level of Russell's team IMO) he was able to lead them to a championship, while also arguably being the best team to ever do it.

Wilt was essentially a slightly weaker Shaq, though at the same time being quicker, more mobile and more polished offensively. Though Wilt was a better all round player (possibly the best ever) and it allowed him to dominate more so than Shaq since he was able to do it in damn near every area.

Almost nothing in this post is accurate. Wilt went 1-3 with better talent (based on HOF'ers, stats, all-stars, age, perception, regular season wins) around him then Russ and Wilt was in his prime and Russ past his.

Ironically the only one who agrees with you is Wilt himself who as you noted tended to brag and exaggerate.

"Boston just wasn't much of a team until Russell showed up"

Slater Martin

"If Wilt thinks that with all the Hall of Famers on our team we'd have waited for him to get his ass down the court on offense the way Philly did, forget it. We wouldn't watch anyone shot it everytime he got it. Nor would we have wanted to watch all that garbage he did in the pivot with the ball"..."I don't mean to criticze Wilt, we probably would have won a couple titles with him. But Russ remains the most productive center ever because the ultimate production is winning titles."

Bob Cousy

"Russell was the greatest impact player in any sport. No one evrer dominated the sport the way Russell did with the Celtics"

Jack Twyman

"I've heard Wilt say, "If I had all those guys around me like Russell did then I'd have won all those Championships"...I don't Buy that. Wilt was a great player. But he was there to be an indivdual , to draw fans and be the center of attention. I believe he liked that role, while Russell was more comfortable blending in and winning."

Tom Hiensohn

"Wilt was the strongest man ever to play basketball, but he always took a fallaway jumper. It was the darndest thing. He played basketball the hard way. For that reason alone he couldn't carry Russell's jock"

Charley Eckman

"Wilt was too consumed with records: being the first center to lead the league in assists, or to set a record for field goal percentage. He'd accomplish one individual goal, and then go onto another. Russell only asked himself one question: "What can I do to make us win?"

Jerry Lucas


Yet Wilt never understood what it took to win. Basketball is about winning, not chasing personal accolades. Russell was the reason the Celtics came out on top most of the times, and won those rings. IF Wilt would've understood 'winning', there would be no doubt he'd be considered the greatest ever.

You get it.

[plowking]

Wasn't this the first year that Russell was actually his team's coach also? You forget to mention that.

edit: no plowking, Wilt was not a better defender then Russell.

More blocks, more steals, bigger body, more rebounds, bigger presence...

Everything tells me he was. Reading up about it, many say Wilt would have led the league in both steals and blocks had it been recorded at the time.



Yet Wilt never understood what it took to win. Basketball is about winning, not chasing personal accolades. Russell was the reason the Celtics came out on top most of the times, and won those rings. IF Wilt would've understood 'winning', there would be no doubt he'd be considered the greatest ever. Where some players threw away legendary status or all star status by chasing alcohol or drugs, Wilt might have thrown away GOAT status by chasing personal accolades, statistical records etc. That's where Russell comes into play. Not the athlete or individual player Wilt was, Russell made more than up for it by being smart, understanding the game and exactly doing what was needed to defeat Wilt. And that's what makes him greater in my opinion (in my opinion because, when battles are this intense and styles are so different, I like to look at what a player did to achieve the ultimate goal in (team)sports, getting those wins, and even a higher goal: getting that ring. So basically, that's the reason why I said Russell will probably prove to be the winner when watching this material. Their head to head record: 84-58. I like to quote Simmons when comparing them in this case too: Wilt's record for Conference Finals and NBA Finals: 48-44. Russel: 90-53. Game 7's: Wilt 4-5, Russel: 10-0. Wilt in elimination games: 10-11, Russel: 6-2. Russel 11 rings, Wilt: 2.

I won't disagree when you claim Wilt was the best individual player in the history of the NBA. But basketball is a team game. And it's about winning. Wilt was obsessed with stats and how he looked in boxscores. It took him 7 years to understand he needed teammates to win, and actually had the tools to make teammates better. If you don't understand how to win games, you can not be the greatest player ever, in my opinion. Where Wilt was chasing records, Russell was focused on one thing, and one thing only: How can we get that win? In a discussion like this, I don't think you can actually use the individual statistics, seeing as one guy was obsessed with them and the other couldnt care less about them.

Edit: I don't agree about Wilt being the better defensive player. Russell was much smarter than Wilt.

I don't think you can blame a guy for being drafted into an unfortunate position and then praise another for being drafted into an extremely fortunate one.

When Wilt finally had adequate talent, he beat Russell's team, and there really wasn't anything Russell could do about it, even though the talent was still not evenly matched. Wilt made up a huge difference between the teams.

[jlauber]

Almost nothing in this post is accurate. Wilt went 1-3 with better talent (based on HOF'ers, stats, all-stars, age, perception, regular season wins) around him then Russ and Wilt was in his prime and Russ past his.

Ironically the only one who agrees with you is Wilt himself who as you noted tended to brag and exaggerate.

"Boston just wasn't much of a team until Russell showed up"

Slater Martin

"If Wilt thinks that with all the Hall of Famers on our team we'd have waited for him to get his ass down the court on offense the way Philly did, forget it. We wouldn't watch anyone shot it everytime he got it. Nor would we have wanted to watch all that garbage he did in the pivot with the ball"..."I don't mean to criticze Wilt, we probably would have won a couple titles with him. But Russ remains the most productive center ever because the ultimate production is winning titles."

Bob Cousy

"Russell was the greatest impact player in any sport. No one evrer dominated the sport the way Russell did with the Celtics"

Jack Twyman

"I've heard Wilt say, "If I had all those guys around me like Russell did then I'd have won all those Championships"...I don't Buy that. Wilt was a great player. But he was there to be an indivdual , to draw fans and be the center of attention. I believe he liked that role, while Russell was more comfortable blending in and winning."

Tom Hiensohn

"Wilt was the strongest man ever to play basketball, but he always took a fallaway jumper. It was the darndest thing. He played basketball the hard way. For that reason alone he couldn't carry Russell's jock"

Charley Eckman

"Wilt was too consumed with records: being the first center to lead the league in assists, or to set a record for field goal percentage. He'd accomplish one individual goal, and then go onto another. Russell only asked himself one question: "What can I do to make us win?"

Jerry Lucas



You get it.

Even Wilt, HIMSELF, stated that Russell blended better with his teammates, than he (Wilt) would have.

[G.O.A.T]

Even Wilt, HIMSELF, stated that Russell blended better with his teammates, than he (Wilt) would have.

Wilt did spend most of the 80's and 90's trying to convince people he was better than Russell though.

[jlauber]

The HOF is littered with Celtic players...but most of them are in there BECAUSE of Russell. Does anyone really believe that KC Jones, or Bailey Howell, or Frank Ramsey deserving of being in the HOF?

[G.O.A.T]

More blocks, more steals, bigger body, more rebounds, bigger presence...

Everything tells me he was. Reading up about it, many say Wilt would have led the league in both steals and blocks had it been recorded at the time.


Most historians believe Russell averaged more blocks for most of their careers. Harvey Pollack (Philadelphia statistican) said it's the only stat that Russell consistently beat Wilt in. Pollack does however think the 29 blocks he once recorded Wilt having in a game were an NBA record.

Never read anything where anyone said Wilt led the league in steals but would love a reference if you have one.

Russell averaged more rebounds in the playoffs and also keep the majority of his blocks in play.

No one besides Wilt himself would ever say he was a better defender than Russell the questioned greatest ever on that end.

[plowking]

Almost nothing in this post is accurate. Wilt went 1-3 with better talent (based on HOF'ers, stats, all-stars, age, perception, regular season wins) around him then Russ and Wilt was in his prime and Russ past his.

Ironically the only one who agrees with you is Wilt himself who as you noted tended to brag and exaggerate.

"Boston just wasn't much of a team until Russell showed up"



Now you're arguing Wilt had better talent around him? Point out which years exactly you believe this holds true.

And Boston were a very good team before Russell showed up.

[jlauber]

Wilt did spend most of the 80's and 90's trying to convince people he was better than Russell though.

That is true. I was doing the same thing. But, even Wilt, later in his life, and after he and Russell patched up their 20 year hatred, came to accept that Russell made those Celtic teams great...and begrudgingly admitted that Russell blended better with them thatn he would have.

Chamberlain also was on record, even when the two were not speaking, that Russell was more consumed with winning, than he (Wilt) was.

[plowking]

Wilt did spend most of the 80's and 90's trying to convince people he was better than Russell though.

Because he was? Though I'm guessing you're one that believes Russell was better?

[dough]

If you give Wilt that talent that Russell had around him, that team would have gone on to win 15 titles, let alone 11 in my opinion.

This is false. People will bring up the fact that Russ played with so many Hall of Famers. A couple of things: KC Jones might be the worst HOF player (9 year career starting 4 of those, never being an All Star, carreer averages of 7.5 points, just over 4 ast and shooting under39% from the field)...., and he's one of those 'great' players. Simmons once again put this on paper quite well. "Over a ten year span, Russell's teams clearly had more talent than Wilt's teams for four seasons (61, 62, 63 and 64), and a slight edge in Wilt's first season (60). In 65, Phi and Bos were a wash. From 66 through 69, Wilt played for stronger teams, making the final record 5-4-1, Russell."

And for six seasons of those 10, the teams weren't that far apart. It's a fable which has grown stronger over the years, like so many stuff which reaches 'legendary' status. In the years after Russell retired, the Lakers went to the Finals first, then lost to the eventual Champions when losing West to an injury and became champions in 72. In 73 the lost the finals against the Knicks.

Wilt's career: Playing in 64 finals and losing. Then played on teams which were close to the finals or a ring for 9 years. And won two. Only two rings, because Wilt did not understand the game of basketball well enough to win it all, untill he realized it was a team sport. For only one year, after which he set a silly personal goal again.

Another thing to point out when you're talking about Wilt's teams supposedly not being good enough: loads of people did not want to play with him. Red Auerbach went on record to say he wouldnt want to coach a 'prima donna' like Wilt. West and some other Lakers blocked a trade which wouldve sent Wilt to LA earlier. They didnt want to play with him, even though he could be had on the cheap. Which brings me to another point. Would the greatest player be traded as many times as Wilt was?

Also, although the NBA Top 50 list is a bit flawed, you can 'only' find 4 players on the list to play with Russell. While Wilt played with six players on that same list. All Stars? From 57-69 Russells teammates made up for 26 all star selections. Wilt's teammates from 60-73? 24. Not too far off either. The whole 'worse teammates' has been hugely exaggerated.


He needed to be selfish. His team mates were no better than Wade's today, and a guy like Wade is criticized to take more shots, yet with Wilt, he's criticized for taking to many.
False. Bob Petit, Macauley, Slater Martin, Jack Coleman, Cliff Hagan, Arizin, Guy Rodgers, Tom Gola, Sauldsberry, Meschery, Attles, Naulls, Thurmond, Greer, Lucious Jackson, Chet Walker, Costello, Cunningham... hardly trash, and surely no need to be selfish. Wade however plays with Beasley, a washed up O'Neal, a chubby Qrich etc. You really want to go on record saying Wilt didnt play with greater players than those?


And as history shows us, when Wilt finally did get some talent (still not to the level of Russell's team IMO) he was able to lead them to a championship, while also arguably being the best team to ever do it.
No, when Wilt realized he didnt do what it takes to win. When Wilt suddenly saw he had talent on his team and started trusting teammates, making his team better, he won.

[dough]

I HAD to look up this short anecdote.

San Fransisco shopped Wilt in 1965, and the Lakers management was intrigued. Then-Owner Bob Short asked his players for a vote to decide whether or not they'd bring Wilt on board. The Lakers players voted 9 against, 2 pro. They would just have to BUY Wilt, and the players voted against it. Wilt thought Baylor and West were afraid Wilt would take their shine or glory. :oldlol: Ask those Lakers to vote for the same opportunity to bring Russell aboard and the tally is 0 against, 10 pro.

Alos a nice read: The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor.

[plowking]

I disagree about Wilt ever having a better team bar when he got to the Lakers. Greer and what not are great though I'd take Sam Jones and Havlicek over just about all of them.

You mentioned he had better talent in 65, yet his team only won 17 games I believe. I doubt Wilt's impact is that negative...

[G.O.A.T]

Now you're arguing Wilt had better talent around him? Point out which years exactly you believe this holds true.

And Boston were a very good team before Russell showed up.

How do you have 14,000 posts and not know this stuff?

1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 Wilt had better supporting casts.

In 1966, Wilt's first full-season in Philadelphia the 76ers finished with the best record in the NBA, one game ahead of the Celtics. Wilt played with two all-stars in their prime. Another Hall-of-famer and future ABA MVP off the bench and very good role players like Wali Jones and Luke Jackson each 24 years old and in their prime. They also had veterans with chmapionship experience in Dave Gambee and Al Bianchi off the bench at the end of their rotation.

The Celtics had lost Cousy, Sharman, Ramsey and Hiensohn to retirment over the previous three seasons and Russell and the Jones boys were all in their thirties. (Old by 1960's NBA standards).

The Celtics had four future HOFers and one of them in their prime (Hondo, barely) and the 76ers had three plus Chet Walker and all except Billy C were in their prime.

The Celtics role players were Larry Seigfried (unsigned free-agent), Don Nelson (cut by Lakers) and Willie Naulls (32 years old)

In 1967 and '68 the Celtics got older, KC retired and only Havlicek got better.

Wilt closed out his prime and the other five top players for Philly were still in theirs. The Sixers won 8 more games then Boston each of those seasons and btw had the leagues MVP, Wilt all the while.

In 1969 Chamberlain joined Elgin Baylor (1st team all-NBA in '68 and '69) and Jerry West (1969 Finals MVP) to form what many thought was the greatest team ever.

Boston won 44 games that year and the next after Russell won the title they fell off the earth.

Also Boston was NOT a great team before Russell. They never won anything. Never got to the Finals let alone won it. They lost to the Knikcs three straight times, then to the Nats three straight times, Russell showed up and they never lost to a team without the guy who retired as the games all-time leading scorer on it again in the playoffs. (Pettit in '58, Wilt in '67)

[G.O.A.T]

I disagree about Wilt ever having a better team bar when he got to the Lakers. Greer and what not are great though I'd take Sam Jones and Havlicek over just about all of them.

You mentioned he had better talent in 65, yet his team only won 17 games I believe. I doubt Wilt's impact is that negative...

No, no, no

Wilt was traded from the Warriors to the Sixers in the 1965 season. No team had a better record than Philly once Wilt got there.

[plowking]

Howell, Havlicek and Jones are quite easily better than Greer, Walker and Cunningham. Not to mention the Celtic players were better defensively and as a unit.

[plowking]

No, no, no

Wilt was traded from the Warriors to the Sixers in the 1965 season. No team had a better record than Philly once Wilt got there.

If better record was all that mattered people would have declared the Cavs better than the Lakers last year, but hardly anyone jumped the gun.

Boston was a better defensive side as a unit and it showed down the line.

And enough with the superiority stance, you look like an ass dude.

[dough]

Howell, Havlicek and Jones are quite easily better than Greer, Walker and Cunningham. Not to mention the Celtic players were better defensively and as a unit.
:oldlol: WHAT?

[dough]

And enough with the superiority stance, you look like an ass dude.

Actually he doesn't. He looks like he knows the game and it's history. You on the other hand....claiming Jones is greater than Hal, Billy or Chet. Or Wilt was superior to Russell defensively. That's just nonsense.

[BlueandGold]

Wilt along with Michael are considered to be two of the best basketball players ever.

[G.O.A.T]

If better record was all that mattered people would have declared the Cavs better than the Lakers last year, but hardly anyone jumped the gun.

Boston was a better defensive side as a unit and it showed down the line.

And enough with the superiority stance, you look like an ass dude.

Sorry for giving that impression to you, but if you didn't even know he was traded, why comment, why not ask a question.

The Celtics were the leagues worst defensive team the year before and after Russell btw...


Howell, Havlicek and Jones are quite easily better than Greer, Walker and Cunningham.

Really?

Because that's not what anyone else would say. That's a pretty close comparrison career-wise and in 1966, the Sixers trio was easily better.

[plowking]

:oldlol: WHAT?

The guy that's on your side in this argument ranks Walker,Cunningham and Greer both below Jones on the all time rankings...

[dough]

The guy that's on your side in this argument ranks Walker,Cunningham and Greer both below Jones on the all time rankings...
I don't care. KC Jones is one of the most overrated HOF players.

[plowking]

Really?

Because that's not what anyone else would say. That's a pretty close comparrison career-wise and in 1966, the Sixers trio was easily better.

Havlicek was an 11 time all NBA selection and 8 time all defensive selection.
Jones was a star, and Howell was great while playing with the Celtics although probably not up to the level of the best of Wilt's cast.

I'd still take the Celtic's three over the 76er's three outside of Wilt and Russell.

[BlueandGold]

How do you have 14,000 posts and not know this stuff?

1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 Wilt had better supporting casts.

In 1966, Wilt's first full-season in Philadelphia the 76ers finished with the best record in the NBA, one game ahead of the Celtics. Wilt played with two all-stars in their prime. Another Hall-of-famer and future ABA MVP off the bench and very good role players like Wali Jones and Luke Jackson each 24 years old and in their prime. They also had veterans with chmapionship experience in Dave Gambee and Al Bianchi off the bench at the end of their rotation.

The Celtics had lost Cousy, Sharman, Ramsey and Hiensohn to retirment over the previous three seasons and Russell and the Jones boys were all in their thirties. (Old by 1960's NBA standards).

The Celtics had four future HOFers and one of them in their prime (Hondo, barely) and the 76ers had three plus Chet Walker and all except Billy C were in their prime.

The Celtics role players were Larry Seigfried (unsigned free-agent), Don Nelson (cut by Lakers) and Willie Naulls (32 years old)

In 1967 and '68 the Celtics got older, KC retired and only Havlicek got better.

Wilt closed out his prime and the other five top players for Philly were still in theirs. The Sixers won 8 more games then Boston each of those seasons and btw had the leagues MVP, Wilt all the while.

In 1969 Chamberlain joined Elgin Baylor (1st team all-NBA in '68 and '69) and Jerry West (1969 Finals MVP) to form what many thought was the greatest team ever.

Boston won 44 games that year and the next after Russell won the title they fell off the earth.

Also Boston was NOT a great team before Russell. They never won anything. Never got to the Finals let alone won it. They lost to the Knikcs three straight times, then to the Nats three straight times, Russell showed up and they never lost to a team without the guy who retired as the games all-time leading scorer on it again in the playoffs. (Pettit in '58, Wilt in '67)

Although those facts are true.. they are a little distorted. Russell had the advantage of having the more constant and consistent playing atmosphere. He had the advantage of being a celtic his entire career, vs Wilt having to adjust to new teammates, new coaches and a new environment in LA. And let's not forget that Wilt kept it competitive the entire time. If it were not for some heart breaking game 7 and overtime finals losses then Wilt would have around 5-6 rings and russell around 7-8.

And when he finally found a coach that he really connected with and after they finally won it all in Philly(Hannum) he ended up retiring the year after.

And let's not forget some of the ridiculous things chamberlin did that Russell simply could not do athletically that will likely never be repeated again. Leading the league as a center in assists, dislocating a player's(gus johnson) arm during a blocked shot attempt, and his ridiculous scoring titles (50+ points over multiple years) as well as a 100 point game and ridiculous numbers in the high jump and decathlon.

[plowking]

I don't care. KC Jones is one of the most overrated HOF players.

Sam Jones. There is no way in hell I meant KC.

[jlauber]

I DO take exception to several of Simmons' assertions.

One, that Wilt's 1959-60 team had more talent that Russell's. That was Wilt's rookie season, and he came to a team that finished LAST the year before. Meanwhile, while you can argue some of them, Russell and his teammates comprised SEVEN HOFers that season.

Secondly, Wilt's '65-'66 team was, IMHO, NOT a better team...not yet, at least. True, they finished ONE game ahead of Boston that year...but the Celtcis were seven-time defending champions. In any case, Wilt played brilliantly in the post-season that year against Russell, averaging 28 ppg on .509 shooting, and grabbing 30 rpg.

And, yes, Wilt's 67-68 76er team was more talented. They ran away with the best record in the league that year...just as they had the year before, when they crushed "the Dynasty" en route to a title. HOWEVER, before the ECF's, they lost HOFer Billy Cunningham for the rest of the season. AND, even without him, they went up 3-1 in that series. Then, Luke Jackson went down with a leg injury in game five. On top of that, Wilt's teammates shot blanks (33%) in that game seven, FOUR point loss. Does anyone really believe that Boston beats a healthy Sixer team that season?

And finally, Wilt's COACH cost the Lakers a title in the 68-69 season. The idiot never did get along with Wilt, and had him, arguably the greatest post player in NBA history, playing a HIGH POST. He even BENCHED Wilt at various times during the season. And, of course, in that pivotal game seven, TWO-POINT loss, he left Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes...while Chamberlain's replacement, Mel Counts went 4-13 from the floor.

As for the point about the Laker players voting 9-2 against a Wilt trade in the middle of the '65 season...

Wilt wound up being traded to the 76ers...and he took a near last place roster to a 40-40 record, AND, a game seven, ONE-POINT defeat against the 62-18 Celtics that season. Not only that, but Wilt led the 76ers to the best record in the league over the course of the next three seasons, and a world championship. On top of that, LA DID finally acquire Wilt, and despite an incompetent coach, he led them to their best ever (at the time) regular season record, and a near championship. AND, a few years later, he DID lead them to a world championship. One can only wonder if the Lakers didn't make a HUGE mistake by NOT trading for Wilt in the '65 season.

One more thing...for those that say that Russell and Wilt played with comparable talent...

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

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

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

[plowking]

I DO take exception to several of Simmons' assertions.

One, that Wilt's 1959-60 team had more talent that Russell's. That was Wilt's rookie season, and he came to a team that finished LAST the year before. Meanwhile, while you can argue some of them, Russell and his teammates comprised SEVEN HOFers that season.

Secondly, Wilt's '65-'66 team was, IMHO, NOT a better team...not yet, at least. True, they finished ONE game ahead of Boston that year...but the Celtcis were seven-time defending champions. In any case, Wilt played brilliantly in the post-season that year against Russell, averaging 28 ppg on .509 shooting, and grabbing 30 rpg.

And, yes, Wilt's 67-68 76er team was more talented. They ran away with the best record in the league that year...just as they had the year before, when they crushed "the Dynasty" en route to a title. HOWEVER, before the ECF's, they lost HOFer Billy Cunningham for the rest of the season. AND, even without him, they went up 3-1 in that series. Then, Luke Jackson went down with a leg injury in game five. On top of that, Wilt's teammates shot blanks (33%) in that game seven, FOUR point loss. Does anyone really believe that Boston beats a healthy Sixer team that season?


Funny you'd think GOAT with 2000 odd posts would know this, particularly the bolded...

[dough]

He had the advantage of being a celtic his entire career, vs Wilt having to adjust to new teammates, new coaches and a new environment in LA.
Read my post about this. Russell was not traded around like a hot potatoe, when Wilt was basically given away. Would MJ be traded like that? Bird, Bron, Kobe? Russell? Nope.


And let's not forget some of the ridiculous things chamberlin did that Russell simply could not do athletically that will likely never be repeated again. Leading the league as a center in assists, dislocating a player's(gus johnson) arm during a blocked shot attempt, and his ridiculous scoring titles (50+ points over multiple years) as well as a 100 point game and ridiculous numbers in the high jump and decathlon.
Like I said earlier. Wilt was obsessed with personal accolades and records. Did he make his team better or get them a ring while going for those records? Nope.

[dough]

Sam Jones. There is no way in hell I meant KC.
Wow, brainfart, sorry about that.

[plowking]

Wow, brainfart, sorry about that.

I kinda shoved KC to the side seeing as he wasn't very relevant. Bad on my part too.

[jlauber]

Wilt was never traded for pennies on the dollar as Simmons asserted. In fact, the Philadelphia Warrior owners sold that team to a San Francisco group, for $850,000 before the 62-63 season, which shattered the previous record of $250,000. Not only that, but the Syracuse franchise was sold to Philadelphia a couple of years later, for only $500,000. Can anyone guess why?

Yes, Wilt was traded during the '64-'65 season...largely because of a health scare, for THREE players and an unheard of then $150,000.

And, Wilt was traded again, after the 67-68 season. Why? Because he was frustrated with a new Philly ownership that would not honor the previous owners verbal commitment to sell part of the team to Wilt. Wilt threatened to jump to the fledging ABA, and the Sixers were forced to trade Wilt, or get nothing at all for him. As it was, they received THREE players for Chamberlain, including all-star guard Archie Clark and journeyman center Darrell Imhoff. On top of that Wilt was rewarded with a contract for a then unheard amount of $250,000...which was considerably more than Jerry West's Laker contract of $100,000.

So, NO, Wilt was NEVER traded for "pennies on the dollar" as Simmons has suggested.

[BlueandGold]

Read my post about this. Russell was not traded around like a hot potatoe, when Wilt was basically given away. Would MJ be traded like that? Bird, Bron, Kobe? Russell? Nope.


Like I said earlier. Wilt was obsessed with personal accolades and records. Did he make his team better or get them a ring while going for those records? Nope.

Just because a team shops a player around doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the given player. Look at Shaq's career. Or when the bulls traded Scottie Pippen, Or even when Dallas traded Nash or when Barkley was shipped out of Pheonix. And as far obtaining a ring I would say that the accomplishment is more circumstantial than it is based on talent. If so then why are players like Stockton, Malone, Reggie, and Barkley all without rings?

i can see why G.O.A.T is bashing you, some of your arguments are ridiculous and plain stupid. It's pretty sad when a forum's 10000+ post members are the worst. I don't really see the need to argue with someone who's only knowledge of russell and wilt is off youtube videos and espn articles.

[Dresta]

More blocks, more steals, bigger body, more rebounds, bigger presence...

Everything tells me he was. Reading up about it, many say Wilt would have led the league in both steals and blocks had it been recorded at the time.


.
You won't find many people with you that agree with you on that one. Wilt stopped playing defense altogether after he picked up a couple fouls, not to mention his blocks weren't as valuable as Russell's, because he didn't keep them in bounds.

[dough]

Just because a team shops a player around doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the given player. Look at Shaq's career. Or when the bulls traded Scottie Pippen, Or even when Dallas traded Nash. And as far obtaining a ring I would say that the accomplishment is more circumstantial than it is based on talent. If so then why are players like Stockton, Malone, Reggie, and Barkley all without rings?

i can see why G.O.A.T is bashing you, some of your arguments are ridiculous and plain stupid. It's pretty sad when a forum's 10000+ post members are the worst. I don't really see the need to argue with someone who's only knowledge of russell and wilt is off youtube videos and espn articles.
Where is GOAT bashing me?

Nash was traded because the Suns had a shitload of pgs and he didnt look as good as he does now back then.
Shaq has been traded because he demanded so.


Wilt was never traded for pennies on the dollar as Simmons asserted. He was to be had quite cheap though. Fact remains, how many teams wouldve jumped on the chance to get Russell, where they left Wilt on the table? Even going by short anecdotes and quotes, like the ones mentioned earlier in this thread, Russell was the guy people wanted to play with in order to win. I even think a lot of players have been trying to sound a bit more respectful towards Wilt than they really thought of him. Even in some of those quotes you'll find remarks about him not playing to win or achieve anything but personal goals. That, at least for a large part, has been the reason teams did not value him as much as they did Russell.

[jlauber]

Where is GOAT bashing me?

Nash was traded because the Suns had a shitload of pgs and he didnt look as good as he does now back then.
Shaq has been traded because he demanded so.

He was to be had quite cheap though. Fact remains, how many teams wouldve jumped on the chance to get Russell, where they left Wilt on the table? Even going by short anecdotes and quotes, like the ones mentioned earlier in this thread, Russell was the guy people wanted to play with in order to win. I even think a lot of players have been trying to sound a bit more respectful towards Wilt than they really thought of him. Even in some of those quotes you'll find remarks about him not playing to win or achieve anything but personal goals. That, at least for a large part, has been the reason teams did not value him as much as they did Russell.

I don't believe Wilt was ever had for "cheap." Not only that, but he was paid a huge sum, as well.

But, yes, the general consensus was that Russell was a better teammate. Why? For a variety of reasons, of course, especially all those rings...but Russell was also not an offensive player, either. Most players on that Laker team were probably more concerned about the number of shots that they were going to lose if they acquired Wilt. As it turned out a few years later, it was WILT who sacrificed HIS offense, while an over-the-hill Baylor kept firing blanks...especially in the playoffs.

I won't argue with those that claim Russell was the greatest ever. Hard to argue with those that played and covered the NBA during that time...and overwhelmingly voted Russell as the greatest player during the NBA's first 25 and 35 years.

Still, Wilt's critic, like Simmons, seem to go out of their way to portray Wilt as a selfish loser and choker, when in fact, he was neither.

[BlueandGold]

Where is GOAT bashing me?

Nash was traded because the Suns had a shitload of pgs and he didnt look as good as he does now back then.
Shaq has been traded because he demanded so.

He was to be had quite cheap though. Fact remains, how many teams wouldve jumped on the chance to get Russell, where they left Wilt on the table? Even going by short anecdotes and quotes, like the ones mentioned earlier in this thread, Russell was the guy people wanted to play with in order to win. I even think a lot of players have been trying to sound a bit more respectful towards Wilt than they really thought of him. Even in some of those quotes you'll find remarks about him not playing to win or achieve anything but personal goals. That, at least for a large part, has been the reason teams did not value him as much as they did Russell.

Not to be an instigator but you asked

How do you have 14,000 posts and not know this stuff?

1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 Wilt had better supporting casts.

And yes, those are exactly the reasons why those players are traded, not because they were not great players. So you just proved my point, success in the NBA, especially championship success, is more circumstantial than it is about talent.

I'm not arguing against the point that Russell was not a better team player, I'm just saying that Wilt is the better individual player, and if you go by athleticism, talent, and personal accolades alone it's not even close.

[dough]

Not to be an instigator but you asked

And yes, those are exactly the reasons why those players are traded, not because they were not great players. So you just proved my point, success in the NBA, especially championship success, is more circumstantial than it is about talent.

I'm not arguing against the point that Russell was not a better team player, I'm just saying that Wilt is the better individual player, and if you go by athleticism, talent, and personal accolades alone it's not even close.
GOAT's not talking about me. You're confused. Read back. Your last paragraph is basically exactly what I said on page 1.

[G.O.A.T]

Funny you'd think GOAT with 2000 odd posts would know this, particularly the bolded...

GOAT does know that and also knows that Cunningham was actually injured in game 4 against Boston.

[BlueandGold]

GOAT's not talking about me. You're confused. Read back. Your last paragraph is basically exactly what I said on page 1.

ohhhh my bad.. it was about plowking. Sorry your names are strangely very similar.

[jlauber]

GOAT does know that and also knows that Cunningham was actually injured in game 4 against Boston.

Actually Cunningham was injured in game six of the Knick playoff series that year, and did not play against Boston in the playoffs that year. Jackson was injured in game five, and while he played, he was hobbled and was basically worthless.

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


"Winning 62 games, the Sixers easily took the first playoff berth of the 1968 NBA Playoffs. In the 1968 Eastern Division Semifinals, they were pitted against the New York Knicks. In a physically tough matchup, the Sixers lost sixth man Billy Cunningham, who broke his hand, and Chamberlain, Hal Greer and Luke Jackson were struggling with inflamed feet, bad knees and pulled hamstrings, respectively. Going ahead 3–2, the Sixers defeated the Knicks 115–97 in Game 6 after Chamberlain scored 25 points and 27 rebounds: he had a successful series in which he led both teams in points (153), rebounds (145) and assists (38).[68]

In the 1968 Eastern Division Finals, the Sixers yet again met the Boston Celtics, again with home court advantage, and this time as reigning champions. Despite the Sixers' injury woes, coach Hannum was confident to "take the Celtics in less than seven games": he pointed out the age of the Celtics, who were built around Bill Russell and guard Sam Jones, both 34.[69] But then, national tragedy struck as Martin Luther King was assassinated on April 4, 1968. With eight of the ten starting players on the Sixers and Celtics being African-American, both teams were in deep shock, and there were calls to cancel the series.[69] In a game called as "unreal" and "devoid of emotion", the Sixers lost 118–127 on April 5. After attending Dr. King's funeral, Chamberlain called out to the angry rioters who were setting fires all over the country, stating Dr. King would not have approved.[69] In Game 2, Philadelphia evened the series with 115–106, and in Games 3 and 4, the Sixers won, with Chamberlain suspiciously often played by Celtics backup center Wayne Embry, causing the press to speculate Russell was worn down.[69] Prior to Game 5, the Celtics seemed dead: no NBA team had ever come back from a 1–3 deficit.[69] However, the Celtics rallied back, winning Game 5 with 122–104 and Game 6 with 114–106, powered by a spirited John Havlicek and helped by a terrible Sixers shooting slump.[69]

What followed was the first of three consecutive controversial and painful Game 7s which Wilt Chamberlain played. In that Game 7, the Sixers could not get their act together: 15,202 stunned Philadelphia fans witnessed a historic 96–100 defeat, making it the first time in NBA history a team lost a series after leading 3–1. Although Cherry points out that the Sixers shot badly (Hal Greer, Wali Jones, Chet Walker, Luke Jackson and Matt Guokas hit a combined 25 of 74 shots) and Chamberlain grabbed 34 rebounds and shot 4-of-9, the center himself scored only 14 points.[69] In the second half of Game 7, Chamberlain did not attempt a single shot from the field.[63] Cherry observes a strange pattern in that game: in a typical Sixers game, Chamberlain got the ball 60 times in the low post, but in that Game 7, only 23 times, and only seven times in the third and only two times in the fourth quarter.[69] Chamberlain later blamed coach Hannum for the lack of touches (i.e. scoring opportunities), a point which the coach conceded himself, but Cherry points out that Chamberlain, who always thought of himself as the best player of all time, should have been outspoken enough to demand the ball himself.[69] The loss meant that Chamberlain was now 1–6 in playoff series against the Celtics."

[julizaver]

Very good analysis ... I also watched this half-game recently.

But, let's be objective:

1. It was the worse game of Wilt Chamberlain during that series and the only game in the series in which Russell outrebounded Wilt.

Wilt - 20 points, 22 rebounds, 10 assissts, 5 blocks (counted for the second half only) and shooting 8 from 18 FGA, 4 from 10 FTA.
Russell -9 pts, 28 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 blocks (counted for the second half only) and shooting 2 from 7 FGA.

2. It was the only game the Sixers lost to Celticks.
3. Still in this game it seems that Wilt was impresive in defence.


According to statistican Harvey Pollack Wilt averaged 11.4 blocks per game in the series as well. Meaning for the series he averaged 22-32-10-11 for the series. Russell posted 11-23-6-8 according to Pollack.

Never find such evidence - according to archive newspapers - Wilt and Russell blocked numbers are:

Game 1 - Wilt 12 blocks, Russell 1 block
Game 2 - Wilt 5 blocks, Russell 3 blocks
Game 3 - Wilt 5 blocks, Russell 4 blocks
Game 4 - Wilt 5 blocks, Russell 2 (source - youtube SH only)
Game 5 - Wilt 7 blocks, Russell - DNA

According to newspapers in the first four games of 67' finals against Warriors Wilt blocked at least 40 shots, including 15 blocks in game 4, 10 in Game 2 and 9 in Game 1 . For the Game 5 - not able to find any shotblocking data and in the last Game 6 - Wilt blocked 6 shots (all of them in second half).

And one last coment - all the availabe game footage is from second halfs of the 1964 game (which he lost with Wariors), that game from 1967 ECF against Boston, the last quarter of 1969 7th game against Boston (Wilt injured 5 minutes before end of the game), the 1970 finals game 7th (again a game considered one of Wilt' greates failures) and Game 5 of 1972 finals.
Wilt Chamberlain had over 120 games with more than 50 points, he averaged 40 ppg in his first seven seasons. And all we have are parts of a games in which Wilt doesn't score more than 27 points - I find this unfair, why they did not show us the final game 5 against Boston in which Wilt 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists, 7 blocks and shot 10/16 from the field ?
The only good game we can watch is a game in which Wilt is in his 13th season, almost 36 years of age and with injured hands - common isn't it funny ... I am sure that a lot of footage exist - but for some reason they do not release it. As I know Kansas University has footage of almost every basketball game they played during Wilt't years (1955-1958) - they even had a guy who counted 302 blocked shots by Wilt during his two seasons with them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCsOZRQoA8&playnext_from=TL&videos=I5pj6eLSZZ8

Watch some of Wilt post moves - that's one of the last clips from WiltatKansas. The game in which his leg is bandaged is from 1968 (his last season with Sixers receiving his final MVP award).

[Fatal9]

You can also see the crazy amount of touches Wilt would get. A lot of the offense simply seemed to be a pass to Wilt and Wilt does a simple pass back to teammate on perimeter (which players seem to deny horribly back then), and collect an assist. That was one thing I was surprised by, the number of touches he got as a center. good post btw shaqattack.

Agree on Wilt's post moves. They fail to impress me, and I think I've seen every Wilt game available. Here btw is game 4 from '64 Celtics/Sixers series back when Wilt was in his scoring prime: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZMw_B8srw. If anyone watches the game, let me know what you think. Some things I remember being clear to me were:

- how much better Russell's teammates were at just about everything
- how Wilt desparately needed a guard who could shoot to avoid being triple teamed (you see that happen a lot in the video). I believe this is one of the reasons why Wilt had big rebounding nights vs. Boston, because they denied him the ball so well
- Wilt's post game seems very basic and not fluid. really was hoping to be impressed by that part of his game more
- rookie Thurmond in that game as well but I don't remember much from him. would kill to see a full game of him defending Wilt/Kareem though.

[jlauber]

Fatal9,

I know that you have seen this video before...but I certainly can't see anything in it that is a disappointment to me...

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

I see a FULL arsenal with a variety of post moves that would put Dwight Howard to shame. 15 ft fall away bank shots, 15 ft JUMP SHOTS, 10 ft sweeping hook shots...even leading a fast break and finishing it with a behind-the-back pass.

[Fatal9]

I'm just going by the game footage I've seen. I know someone's mentioned that for some reason, Wilt's worst games are the only ones released, but just the attempts themselves don't impress me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak < this is btw the best Wilt mix I've seen. from watching something like that alone, he looks unstoppable.

[jlauber]

Fatal,

All I can tell you is that I SAW Wilt play...and in his PRIME. I have seen all the greats since, as well. Kareem and Shaq were exceptionally gifted centers too, but IMHO, neither were the all-around athlete, or basketball player that Wilt was.

Of course, that is just MY opinion...but at least, im my mind, I have never seen anyone like him.

[G.O.A.T]

And when he finally found a coach that he really connected with and after they finally won it all in Philly(Hannum) he ended up retiring the year after.

Actually Hannum didn't retire, he left for the ABA to coach and be the GM of the Oakland Oaks (featuring Larry Brown, Doug Moe and Rick Barry). He did so because Philly had hired Dr. Jack Ramsey as GM and Dr. Jack wanted to coach or so Hannum felt. Wilt played for Hannum in '64, '67 and '68 not just '67.

JLauber,

According to my notes it was a broken wrist in game four of the Celtics series, but it could be wrong. I have Terry Pluto's Tale Tales as the source of this one too. Here's the quote:

The league would hear a lot from this group in the 1970's and they were good enough in 1968 to force the Sixers to six games before shutting down MSG for the season. Meanwhile Boston also needed six games to dust off Detroit led by young stars Dave Bing and Debusschere. So it was Philly vs. Boston, Chamberlain vs. Russell in the second round. The first game of the series was April 5, 1968. It was the day after Martin Luther King was killed. The players agreed to play the opener, won 127-188 by Boston. The two teams then took five days off to honor the King's memory. When the series resumed it was more of what people expected-for a while. The Sixers took the next three games. Boston looked old and weary and wondering if this was indeed the end. The only negative for Philadelphia was that Billy Cunningham suffered a broken wrist in game four and would miss the rest of the playoffs.

Obviously that could be wrong, but without video evidence how do we even know Cunningham was on that team??? (kidding)

Either way I don't think there is any excuse for Wilt in seven of that series. Just look at how Bill Russell handled an equally bad if not worse situation.

Game Two 1962 NBA Finals

Boston and LA are tied at three games a piece.

For Boston in the game Bob Cousy goes 3-13 from the field and 2-10 from the line. Sam Jones goes 12-32 from the field including a 1-10 start. Tom Hiensohn shot 3 of 14 and finished with 8 points. Satch Sanders and Jim Lustocuff both foul out early trying to guard Baylor. Then Heinsohn switched to Elgin fouled out with 4 minutes to go in regulation and Baylor having scored 37 points.

So did Russell blame his teammates for their poor game, or did his lack of "offensive game" stop him. Of course not...He simply had the finest game seven in NBA Finals history. 30 points 40 rebounds 6 assists and anywhere from 7 to 14 blocks depending on who's account you believe. And and also after Heinsohn followed out they put 6'5' veteran Carl Braun in the game, he played Baylor for a few possessions then Red said to him "Take it easy Carl, Russell will take care of Baylor now" The game went to overtime, Bayor finished with 40 (just three in the last four minutes plus OT) and the Celtics won their fourth straight title.

--------------------------------------------------------

Finally in regards to Wilt being traded. It was never strictly for Basketball reasons. In 64-65 it was because of money. The Warriors had a young Nate Thurmond and Wilt and could not afford to keep both. They had just been bought from original owner Eddie Gottlieb (sp?) and moved from Philly to San Fransisco so money was tight. Wilt wanted to go home and the 76ers made it possible. The Warriors ended up with Rick Barry in the next seasons draft and were back in the Finals in 1967 so it was a good trade for both teams.

The Lakers trade was more forced by Wilt who was unhappy with 76ers management for letting Hannum leave and some shady dealings he percieved to be going on. The 76ers got housed in that deal, taking Darall Imhoff (The Knicks starting center when Wilt scored 100) Jerry Chambers (Who never even played with Philly after the trade) and Archie Clark (a solid young guard who turned into a nice player and was an all-star for Baltimore in '72.) The 76ers were still solid without Wilt initially, but never won a playoff series and eventually bottomed out as the worst team in NBA history at 9-73 just four seasons later.

So while I AGREE 100% that a lot of people give Wilt a bad rap about the trades (Simmons especially) I still can't ever Imagine guys like Bird, Magic, Michael or especially Russell ever being traded for any reason.

Does that mean those guys are better, more skilled or should be ranked higher, no not necessarily, but it does tell you something about how much of their talent they each maximized and what their teammates thought of them.

[jlauber]

GOAT,

Regarding Cunningham's injury, it must have occurred in game three of the Knick series. He was credited with only playing three games in the post-season in 67-68...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/cunnibi01.htm

Having said that, though, I have quoted some sources that were wrong, as well. I always assumed that Wilt scored 62 points on Thurmond, but as was pointed out by several posters, I was incorrect.

In any case, your points are valid. Russell NEVER needed excuses. He simply carried his teams to titles, no matter the circumstances. We have had this discussion in another topic before, but Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, MJ, and others, all played on teams that were capable of winning the title, and yet did not. Yes, there were some valid excuses, perhaps, for many of them, but still...how could Russell take an aged 48-34 team to a championship with three playoff series, and none with home court edge? I'm sorry, but the other stars I just mentioned, never accomplished that feat.

You have educated me on Russell I(as have some other's here), and you don't have to defend your opinion on the subject to me. IMHO, he was the game's greatest player. I just can't agree with those that label Wilt a "loser" or "selfish", or a "choker." Wilt's biggest weakness was, quite simply,...Russell. As you, yourself have stated,...had Russell not played in the Chamberlain-era...we would be talking about Wilt with anywhere from 6-10 rings...and clearly as the greatest ever.

[G.O.A.T]

Seems like no one can agree on when Cunningham got injured.

http://theclevelandfan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4695&catid=4:cavs-archive&Itemid=5

1968 Eastern Division Finals: Boston (54-28) 4, Philadelphia (62-20) 3

Story: Philadelphia had snapped Boston's string of eight straight titles the previous year and was one win away from beating the Celtics in the postseason for the second consecutive year. They never got that win. Boston won the last three games of the series, including two in the Spectrum, and completed their rally with a 100-96 Game Seven triumph. The 76ers were done in by a late-series shooting slump and an injury to Billy Cunningham that knocked the star sixth man out of action for the finale.

http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2009/06/hal-greer-productive-consistent-and.html

In 1967-68 the 76ers had the best record in the league for the third straight year, 62-20. Greer won the 1968 All-Star Game MVP after scoring 19 points in one quarter, a record that stood until Glen Rice had a 20 point quarter in the 1997 All-Star Game. Greer posted the highest regular season scoring average of his career (24.1 ppg), just trailing Chamberlain (24.3 ppg) for the team lead. Cunningham broke his wrist in the first round playoff series versus New York, but the 76ers beat the Knicks and took a 3-1 lead over the Celtics in the Eastern Division finals. The Celtics rallied to win three straight, eliminated the Sixers 100-96 in Philadelphia in game seven and went on to win the championship.

I tend to think you're right based on the stats though, basketball reference is pretty accurate in my experience.

[Abraham Lincoln]

The Bad:In this footage, Wilt's offensive game wasn't that impressive with him going 0 for 5 on post moves(1 for 6 if you include the dunk on Russell where he kind of backed him up, but more or less caught the ball close and gathered himself and went up) and 2 of 6 from the foul line, though he was 5 for 10 total in the videos, however all of his points came on dunks where he caught the ball around the basket or put backs. He was 0 for 3 on finger rolls and 0 for 2 fadeaways(neither of which were close). The 2 moves we here the most about, yet neither looked that good. I don't know, it could have just been an off night for him offensively.


The entire team was lethargic in that 2nd half. Of course had they played great the NBA wouldn't have released it. From such a brief sample anyone can look unimpressive in the pivot by your apparent standards like this fat stiff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdVS5bcBIqs#t=4m50s) or this skinny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VguaYh5Gofk#t=1m55s) twig.

His baseline spin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dd89mkHoy4#t=0m26s) move that many attribute to Shaq was at least as good. His finger roll shot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAaaWpt3qDc#t=2m8s) was the best in league history from the position and while his footwork was exceptional if need be, performing moves that I have never seen from any other great center, even a nice fake move (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRpS5fq4GVo#t=0m19s) never before seen from most other top post players as well as a fake pass quick baseline spin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCsOZRQoA8#t=0m21s). O'Neal indeed was quicker on his feet at his size and Jabbar more graceful as his step move into the hooking motion is more aesthetically pleasing to most people than Wilt Chamberlain's footwork. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAaaWpt3qDc#t=2m47s) what appears to be a rebound drop step into the middle with a fake pass and lay-in. He also had the best power one-dribble (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3k9eWPEbXE#t=3m35s) move in NBA dribble. I understand the fascination with post moves and what not as well as the ranking players based on the assumption of how great they'd be today. A nice thought indeed, but a player can only be judged against his own competition. What makes today's league the standard? It may be worst in NBA history as far as pivot play is concerned. Ten years ago when folks were bitching about the lack of great centers against Shaq I don't think they ever dreamed it would get this bad.


Was Pat Ewing a better offensive big man the Wilt or Kareem?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTOpaODzRfY#t=2m10s





You can also see the crazy amount of touches Wilt would get. A lot of the offense simply seemed to be a pass to Wilt and Wilt does a simple pass back to teammate on perimeter (which players seem to deny horribly back then), and collect an assist.

What about the passes to cutters in the paint? Or the fake passes getting defenders out of position? As noted they were lethargic in that 2nd half, understandably as they were on verge of dethroning the Celtics. He was the play maker from the post. Or are we stuck in the mindboggling mindframe of most today that will automatically equal more touches to a less impressive performance?

Do you not see any deny defense at the 4:30 mark?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5_nba-vault-the-1967-sixers-rick-kaml_sport

Assists back then were strictly governed as well. Under the rules of the last 20+ years he may have averaged 10 per game had he made a conscious effort. That handed flip pass back to Wally Jones would be counted as an assist today. Is the Dream still superior to Chamberlain, in addition to "several other centers" in your words. Can you really Chamberlain getting shut down in single coverage by a 6'7 guy for the time he was on him? In the NBA Finals?



More blocks, more steals, bigger body, more rebounds, bigger presence...

Everything tells me he was. Reading up about it, many say Wilt would have led the league in both steals and blocks had it been recorded at the time.

Indeed, however Russell's quickness and anticipation under the basket was second to none as he is still the top defensive player in league history at all positions. If not mistaken he said something of the sort that he could take no more than two steps in the half court and block a shot from any position on the floor.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The entire team was lethargic in that 2nd half. Of course had they played great the NBA wouldn't have released it. From such a brief sample anyone can look unimpressive in the pivot by your apparent standards like this fat stiff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdVS5bcBIqs#t=4m50s) or this skinny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VguaYh5Gofk#t=1m55s) twig.

His baseline spin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dd89mkHoy4#t=0m26s) move that many attribute to Shaq was at least as good. His finger roll shot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAaaWpt3qDc#t=2m8s) was the best in league history from the position and while his footwork was exceptional if need be, performing moves that I have never seen from any other great center, even a nice fake move (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRpS5fq4GVo#t=0m19s) never before seen from most other top post players as well as a fake pass quick baseline spin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCsOZRQoA8#t=0m21s). O'Neal indeed was quicker on his feet at his size and Jabbar more graceful as his step move into the hooking motion is more aesthetically pleasing to most people than Wilt Chamberlain's footwork. Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAaaWpt3qDc#t=2m47s) what appears to be a rebound drop step into the middle with a fake pass and lay-in. He also had the best power one-dribble (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3k9eWPEbXE#t=3m35s) move in NBA dribble. I understand the fascination with post moves and what not as well as the ranking players based on the assumption of how great they'd be today. A nice thought indeed, but a player can only be judged against his own competition. What makes today's league the standard? It may be worst in NBA history as far as pivot play is concerned. Ten years ago when folks were bitching about the lack of great centers against Shaq I don't think they ever dreamed it would get this bad.


Was Pat Ewing a better offensive big man the Wilt or Kareem?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTOpaODzRfY#t=2m10s


Abe, with all due respect, you bring up 5 second clips of Shaq, Kareem and Ewing for comparison. I posted my opinion of a whole second half of a game where Wilt had 10 shot attempts and had 6 free throws. I did say that it could have been a bad day as well. But again, mixes and highlight reels don' t tell us much, they don't tell us how consistent he was with any of the moves.

If I'm impressed with his offensive game in the 1964 footage when I go back and watch it, then I'll say so. This wasn't a post to bash Wilt, as you can see I constantly praised his defense and rebounding.

[Abraham Lincoln]

A convenience indeed that we can't see any games from his top scoring years where he was not a primary passer under Hannum.

Zero seconds of actual game footage has been made available from the early 60's Warriors or mid 60's Sixers prior to Hannum (or even the '67 & '68 teams save for a stagnant black/white half of play). No shock that they haven't released any games from '69 under Butch, so not to let the fans realize just how mis-used Chamberlain was in the offense and that the coach (dare I say it?) actually deserved some of the blame for that team's under performance and eventual loss in the Finals. Imagine Phil Jackson complaining that Shaq circa 2000 was clogging up the paint for Kobe to drive as Butch did with Elgin. Not to necessarily say he was a bad coach, but he did have a deep hatred for Chamberlain and preferred a smaller team stapled on five man ball and player movement with the big man up high & relegated to screen setting and scoring on garbage baskets. He'd be a perfect fit to coach today.

[Doctor K]

I don't know how you can argue that Wilt had a better starcast in 66. It's actually a ridiculous suggestion.


Russell's Team:

2 All-Stars
3 HOFs
2 All-NBA Team Members

Wilt's Team:

2 All-Stars
2 HOFs
1 All-NBA Team Member



Just at first glance, you would have to say Russell's starcast is more accomplished. And really, in evaluating starcasts, the really good players make more impact. And in that I mean the 2 All-NBA Team members Russell was playing with.

Billy Cunningham was a rookie in 66. That was the worst season of his career besides the final season of his career. He was nowhere near as good as "Billy Cunningham" usually is. Nowhere near the levels of Havlicek or Sam Jones. Tell anyone that rookie Billy was even close to All-NBA 2nd Team members Havlicek or Jones in 66, and they'd laugh at you.

Chet Walker was dropping 15ppg while shooting the 3rd lowest in his career, and in 66 was more in the bottom half of his career in seasons and not top. And this is from a Non-HOF. Sam and Havlicek were clearly regarded as better players.

Greer was good I'll admit that.

After all those players, KC Jones, also from Boston, was probably the next best player. He was a premier playmaker finishing 3rd in the league in assists and was also considered the best defensive guard in the league. It was arguably the best season of his career, and this is coming from a HOF.


The Celtics were also much deeper, having 7 guys in double figures, while the 76ers had only 4.







Russell's 66 starcast was better by a landslide

[G.O.A.T]

I don't know how you can argue that Wilt had a better starcast in 66. It's actually a ridiculous suggestion.

Russell's Team:

2 All-Stars
3 HOFs
2 All-NBA Team Members

Wilt's Team:

2 All-Stars
2 HOFs
1 All-NBA Team Member



Just at first glance, you would have to say Russell's starcast is more accomplished. And really, in evaluating starcasts, the really good players make more impact. And in that I mean the 2 All-NBA Team members Russell was playing with.

Billy Cunningham was a rookie in 66. That was the worst season of his career besides the final season of his career. He was nowhere near as good as "Billy Cunningham" usually is. Nowhere near the levels of Havlicek or Sam Jones. Tell anyone that rookie Billy was even close to All-NBA 2nd Team members Havlicek or Jones in 66, and they'd laugh at you.

Chet Walker was dropping 15ppg while shooting the 3rd lowest in his career, and in 66 was more in the bottom half of his career in seasons and not top. And this is from a Non-HOF. Sam and Havlicek were clearly regarded as better players.

Greer was good I'll admit that.

After all those players, KC Jones, also from Boston, was probably the next best player. He was a premier playmaker finishing 3rd in the league in assists and was also considered the best defensive guard in the league. It was arguably the best season of his career, and this is coming from a HOF.


The Celtics were also much deeper, having 7 guys in double figures, while the 76ers had only 4.


Russell's 66 starcast was better by a landslide[/B]

I'm surprised and disappointed in you Doctor K...let me try to shine some light on this thing. I'll Break it Down.


http://www.nba.com/media/celtics/Champs_65_66.jpg


VS

http://www.nba.com/media/playoffs2004/challenge_photo_sixers1967.jpg

Center: Russell vs. Wilt. For the sake of this argument we'll call it even, but Wilt was always the more talented player.

Power Forward: Luke Jackson for Philadelphia vs. Satch Sanders for Boston. Two of my favorite players of the late sixties. Sanders averaged 12-7 shooting 43%, he was a strong lean 6'6", undersized, but relentless a defensive specialist. Jackson was a monster, 6'10" and over 250 LBS, a physical specimen and one of the strongest players in the league. Another rebounding and defensive specialist, he averaged 8-9 on 40% shooting. Edge: Slight edge Philly

Small Forward: John Havlicek and Chet Walker. For their career it's Hondo by a good bit, but in 1966 both were still very raw. Each in their fourth year and making their first all-star apparence in 1966, Havlicek averaged 18-6-3 on 40% shooting and Walker 15-8-3 on 45% shooting. Edge: Slight edge Boston

Shooting Guard: The two most underrated guards of the sixties. Hal Greer at age 29, had a great season; averaged 23-6-5 and shot 45%. Sam Jones, age 32; averaged 24-5-3 and shot 46%. The difference is Greer's impact on the defensive end. Edge: Slight edge Philly

Lead Guard: Edge: Again the match-up is very similar. Wally Jones for Philly averaged 9-3-4 for the 76ers and was a staunch defender. He was 23 and in great shape. KC Jones was 33 and fading, but still posting 9-4-6 and solid defense and leadership in the Boston back court. Slight edge Boston

Sixth Man: The Days of having a hall-of-famer off the bench were over for Boston, but Larry Siegfried, cut by the Hawks and the ABA, was a serviceable sixth man in Boston who could score and provided a nice punch for the Celtics. He averaged 14-3-2 shooting 42% in 24 minutes. However, Philly, rather they knew it or not, had a hall-of-famer off the bench. Rookie Billy Cunningham averaged 15-8-3 in 27 minutes. He was a game changer because he could score in multiple ways and meshed well with Wilt. Edge: Sizable edge to Philly

Bench Depth: Boston had Willie Naulls (10-5 on 40% shooting in 20 mpg) in his final season. Don Nelson (10-5 on 43% shooting in 24 mpg) who was cut by the Lakers and Mel Counts who posted 8-6 on 40% shooting in 15 mpg. A solid bench, but mostly castoffs. Philadelphia's depth consisted of veterans Dave Gambee (7-4 on 38% shooting in 14 mpg) and Al Bianchi (6-2-2 on 39% shooting in 15 mpg) in his last year. Edge: Clear edge to Boston

So overall you got at worst a draw or a slight edge to Philly player by player. It stands to reason that they won 55 and 54 games during the season. Knowing that the Sixers were the favorite going into the series should tell you why so many people claim Wilt had a better team in '66.

[Doctor K]

Good arguments G.O.A.T.

It's closer than I thought.


But I think Havlicek has the clear edge over Walker. Granted their stats might be similar, but Havlicek was also clearly the better defender, and stat's don't account for that. And this is supported by him making All-NBA 2nd. Thus, peers during the time also regarded him being better.

Also you have to give KC Jones more credit. He was selected in the HOF (maybe he didn't deserve it), and this was arguably his best season. He was 3rd in the league in assists and probably the best defensive guard at the time. Maybe he is not HOF worthy, but he is in the HOF, and that was his best season. So you at least have to say he was clearly better than some guy who never made the All-Star team.


It's closer than I thought I admit. But here is how I see it


Havlicek/Sam Jones/Sanders = Luke/Walker/Greer
While, KC/Larry = Billy/Jones.

After that, you have a deeper bench of Boston, which gives them the edge by the hair imo.

[jlauber]

A convenience indeed that we can't see any games from his top scoring years where he was not a primary passer under Hannum.

Zero seconds of actual game footage has been made available from the early 60's Warriors or mid 60's Sixers prior to Hannum (or even the '67 & '68 teams save for a stagnant black/white half of play). No shock that they haven't released any games from '69 under Butch, so not to let the fans realize just how mis-used Chamberlain was in the offense and that the coach (dare I say it?) actually deserved some of the blame for that team's under performance and eventual loss in the Finals. Imagine Phil Jackson complaining that Shaq circa 2000 was clogging up the paint for Kobe to drive as Butch did with Elgin. Not to necessarily say he was a bad coach, but he did have a deep hatred for Chamberlain and preferred a smaller team stapled on five man ball and player movement with the big man up high & relegated to screen setting and scoring on garbage baskets. He'd be a perfect fit to coach today.

Well, of course, they did release almost the entire game seven of the '69 Finals...probably Wilt's lowest point of his career. Heaven forbid that they could have shown game five of that series, when Chamberlain outrebounded Russell 31-13.

It amazes me, as well. You can find that game seven, or game seven of the '70 Finals (the Reed game), or the game when Milwaukee broke LA's 33 game winning streak (but not EIGHT other Laker WINS against the Bucks that year.) Or game four of the '67 ECF's (and not the other FOUR games...all Philly wins. Geez, they even have much of a playoff loss to the Bulls in '71 forcryingoutloud (at least Wilt played spectacularly at times in that game.)

I must say, I wonder how the clinching game five WIN over the Knicks for the '72 Finals ever leaked out. That is about the extent of anything close to Wilt's best games.

[julizaver]

That's my point jlauber, unfortunately we are not able to see a complete footage of "prime" Wilt and it is not appropriate to excerpt general conclusions about from what we have (his worst games maybe).

About all the other posters, who said that Wilt could lead NBA in blocks and steals also - this is not true. In fact the ONLY department in which Russell is better (without arguing) than Chamberlain are STEALS. I always try to be objective and the limited info about that category shows it. Russell was one of the quickest (like cat)and smartest centers to play the game - he stole a lot of balls in addition to blocking many shots. Of course during the games Wilt also steal some balls, but Russell was better in that.
About shots blocked - I am sure that Wilt blocked more shots than Russell - even Russell admit himself when asked - how many shots he blocked - and he said that he don't know exactly - then the interviewer suggest 10 blocks per game - and Russell said that maybe in his first seasons he blocked something closed, but after that the opponents doesn't take so many shots over him (cause he intimidate him). Wilt was consider also profilic shot blocker when arrived in NBA and Celtics used unorthodox tactics to delay him - used fast breaks and have a guy with a task to prevent Wilt from returning fast from the offensive end to the defensive end (cause they feared Wilt notorious for his speed will blocked their lay ups, by constantly tripping and elbowing him on a run) - the source are former Celtics players -like Heinsohn). According to what I have read and data collected - in his early years maybe Wilt and Russell blocked similar numbers - but the late Wilt (after 1966) blocked more shots than the late Russell (after 1965). Somewhere I also read that Russell admit that in his later years he blocked maybe around 3 -4 blocks per game. But Wilt in his later years blocked far more - I collected some data game by game using google news archive and can conclude that in his 1971-72 season Wilt averaged over 6 blocks per game, and as someone here stated that he find a statistic data (again from archive newspapers) in which Wilt had 272 blocks (corresponding to 47 games) and 392 blocks (corresponding to 70 games) for his final career season 1972-73. I belive that such info exist and it is known fact that statistician were recording regulary blocks one year before it became official. I find the prove, cause in a game from his final season "Wilt was credited officially with 15 blocks - his high for the season, since statisticians were aware of that stats". In another game from that season when reporters told Wilt that he was credited with 11 blocks, he insisted that they were 14 (or 15), cause he counted it. I know the dates and the games and in future will post in seperate thred maybe with a lot of other Wilt games.
That's why I consider Wilt's shot blocking average higher than that of Russell and highest of all-time, and Russell bested Wilt on steals only.

[G.O.A.T]

I suspect early Russell probably holds the blocks in a season record. I'd be willing to guess he got close to a 1,000 one of those first few years when he was at his most nimble and the competition it's least athletic. However there is much evidence to suggest that Wilt may have in fact become a better shot blocker in the second half of his career. I would think he probably has the all-time record and that he would have led the league every year from at least '64 on.

It's all speculation, but the numbers you see sometime with these guys, how frequently double digits come up in blocks, it's staggering.

[O.J A 6'4Mamba]

My honest analysis of Wilt in the second half of that 1967 game vs Boston. The positives and the negatives. Plus, my analysis of Russell, as well.

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

Russell catches the ball in the post at 0:29, look at how he looks for the cutter first and quickly spots the defensive mistake and throws an easy pass to Sam Jones for an easy jumper.

Pretty ugly looking fadeaway attempt by Wilt at 0:44. His footwork didn't look quick or fluid and the shot was a brick, good post defense by Russell, though.

Great entry pass by Wali Jones at 4:44, and as you can see, Wilt's 4 inch height advantage, superior strength and athletic advantage makes fronting Wilt unsuccessful. Wilt does look mobile here.

They called a goaltend on Wilt at 6:10, but you can see his defensive presence and that looked like it was a good block to me

Missed the finger roll at 7:36, but to his credit, he did hustle and get an easy tip in. Solid post defense by Russell, but surprisingly he got a little lazy after the shot missed and Wilt made him pay.

Great offensive rebound by Russell at 7:48 and nice pass after. He makes up for his lazy play at the other end with a terrific hustle play.

Nice catch by Wilt and you see a glimpse of his strength as he gathers himself and overpowers Russell with an impressive dunk right in his face at 9:04. Nice mid-air pass by Hal Greer as well.

At 9:14, you see the duo of Jackson and Chamberlain on the boards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiVAFBZzTac&feature=related

Another goaltend by Chamberlain to open up the video, but it shows that he was contesting everything.

Another missed finger roll by Wilt at 3:23, but his footwork looked a bit better that time, still nice defense by Russell. Great left-handed tip in by Wilt at 3:49, it's set up by his excellent rebounding position. Shockingly the under-handed free throw is good after hitting the back rim, too.

Great pass by Russell at 4:56 to Bailey Howell, for the easy lay up. Russell shows off his offensive rebounding skills at 6:21.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K9RJXAdZYw&NR=1

Great sequence at 0:27, Russell gets another offensive board, but Wilt blocks his shot and battles on the boards. Of course he proceeds to brick a free throw demonstrating perfectly why he was a 44% free throw shooter that season.

You can see Chamberlain alter Havlicek's shot at 2:02.

Hell of a block by Russell at 5:25, notice he keeps the ball in play, but on the other end, Chamberlain blocks 2 straight shots and also keeps the ball in play. Incredible sequence for these 2 centers.

Russell alters the shot at 9:41, but Chamberlain capitalizes by getting the offensive rebound, the put back and the foul(though he'd brick 2 free throws)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHXG3koetzA&feature=related

The video opens with Chamberlain bricking the aforementioned free throws. Russell goes for the steal at 0:59, but recover nicely to prevent Wilt from getting an easy basket, Chamberlain goes to the foul line and again, he'd miss the free throw badly. The free throw was so bad that it hit off the backboard and Wilt immediately committed a lane violation in a desperate attempt to make up for it.

Great block by Russell at 2:08 as Chamberlain went up for another finger roll attempt, a shot that hardly looks like the go to move many made it out to be.

Wilt scores off of a broken play at 4:30, a lucky break, but part of it is due to Wilt's physical advantage. He finally makes a free throw, but again, he didn't swish this one, but atleast he had a soft touch on this one. Another amazing Russell vs Chamberlain sequence at 5:50, Russell has an amazing offensive rebound, but Wilt has another monster block, and again, he kept the ball in play. Wilt alters another one of Havlicek's shots at 6:14 and comes away with the rebound.

Another fadeaway attempt at 9:17, not particularly close, but atleast his footwork looked better than it did on the first fadeaway attempt, again, good defense by Bill Russell. At 0:30, Wilt comes away with a rebound despite 3 guys around him and then throws a good outlet pass that leads to a basket. At 0:50, Russell surprisingly hits a short baseline jumper.

The Good: You can see throughout the footage that Wilt is quite mobile for his size. He is an absolute beast on the defense end. He blocked several shots in that footage alone, altered several, goaltended a couple more and dominated the boards. His defense was much more impressive than his offense in this footage. This footage told me that when he focused on defense, he was most likely among the best defenders ever, and I'd probably have to rank him as a top 3 rebounder of all time along with Rodman and Moses Malone. His offensive rebounding was very impressive and ended up accounting for a good percentage of his points, but his dunk on Russell showed impressive strength and it was also proven that fronting him wasn't the way to stop him. Plus, throughout the video he made solid, if unspectacular passes, but we know from the footage available from his Laker days that he was among the most skilled passing big men ever.

The Bad:In this footage, Wilt's offensive game wasn't that impressive with him going 0 for 5 on post moves(1 for 6 if you include the dunk on Russell where he kind of backed him up, but more or less caught the ball close and gathered himself and went up) and 2 of 6 from the foul line, though he was 5 for 10 total in the videos, however all of his points came on dunks where he caught the ball around the basket or put backs. He was 0 for 3 on finger rolls and 0 for 2 fadeaways(neither of which were close). The 2 moves we here the most about, yet neither looked that good. I don't know, it could have just been an off night for him offensively.

Russell: He played excellent post defense on Wilt, mostly single coverage too. Like Wilt, he was a beast defensively, and of course he usually kept the ball in play after blocks. He was a solid passer, not flashy, but right on the money throughout the video and he seemed aware of his limitations as an offensive player, yet he did show he could handle the ball well for a center and he appeared very mobile. Made some great hustle plays, he also proved to be one of the best rebounders and for the most part, he played smart basketball throughout the video. Of course, from his one-handed free throw form, it's easy to see why he shot 56% from the line for his career.

Other Observations: Players back then were much more basic as ball handlers, but they seemed to have pretty good range on their jumpshots and surprising range and accuracy on bank shots. They were also fundamentally sound passing the ball into the post. Chet Walker had the best moves of any perimeter player in the game while Bailey Howell was very active, Havlicek played excellent around basketball, but in general most of the perimeter players games did seem somewhat primitive, atleast off the dribble. Luke Jackson's rebounding in the footage is a lot more impressive than the numbers suggest.

Wilt was more impressive in game 5 of the 1972 finals, actually. I'll have to go back and watch that game that's partially available of Wilt vs Russell in the 1964 finals again.

weak era

[Abraham Lincoln]

A few corrections after reading..



Great block by Russell at 2:08 as Chamberlain went up for another finger roll attempt, a shot that hardly looks like the go to move many made it out to be.
It was a dunk attempt.


Great entry pass by Wali Jones at 4:44
Hal Greer


Nice mid-air pass by Hal Greer as well.
Chet Walker

[Abraham Lincoln]

Well, of course, they did release almost the entire game seven of the '69 Finals...probably Wilt's lowest point of his career. Heaven forbid that they could have shown game five of that series, when Chamberlain outrebounded Russell 31-13.
Indeed I meant the regular season games. But from what I have seen nothing exists of Game 7 in '69 besides the 4th quarter on the Lakers DVD.

[ShaqAttack3234]

good post btw shaqattack.

Agree on Wilt's post moves. They fail to impress me, and I think I've seen every Wilt game available. Here btw is game 4 from '64 Celtics/Sixers series back when Wilt was in his scoring prime: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZMw_B8srw. If anyone watches the game, let me know what you think.

Thanks and here's my opinion on that game.

Good job by Wilt fighting for position on the offensive boards at 2:12, he draws the foul on Russell, but doesn't even come close on the free throw.

At about 3:00, Wilt gets an easy basket, he does a good job of using his strength to get position, this is an example of Russell being overmatched physically by Wilt.

Terrible defense by Wilt at 3:15, how he lets Russell score that easily is beyond me, particularly after Russell missed the shot, yet Russell was able to get the easy tip in. Not much of a move, but lazy defense by Wilt.

Great sequence at 4:00, Wilt hands off to a guard, Russell blocks the shot, but Wilt gets the offensive rebound and goes up in a crowd with 3 players around him, plus he gets the foul, but again, Wilt misses the free throw. Good fake by Wilt to get Russell off his feet after the offensive board and a nice job finishing the play.

Wilt does hit a pretty tough fadeaway bank shot at 5:53, but the basket didn't count because of a 3 second violation, good defense by Russell.

Amazing play at 7:00, Wilt goes up after an offensive rebound and Russell blocks his shot, but he still throws it in! Good defensive by Russell at 7:23, though, to force Chamberlain to travel after he eliminated Chamberlain's move.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvZAhQ8ra5k&feature=related

Russell has an impressive block on a rookie Nate Thurmond who tried scoring after an offensive rebound at 0:32. Russell's block leads to a fastbreak and a basket.

You can see how easy it was for Chamberlain to get deep post position against Russell because of his strength at 1:14. He draws the foul and shockingly looks good on both free throws.

At 3:09, Chamberlain gets the ball in the post and splits the double team well, but he misses the shot.

At 6:46, we see that like the 1967 game, fronting Chamberlain is not the way to defend him. Wilt gets another easy dunk thanks to his overwhelming size and strength.

At 7:30, we do see Wilt beat the double team with a fadeaway bank shot.

At 8:32, Wilt misses badly off the side of the backboard, in fairness, he was doubled and it looked like there may have been contact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4t_HI2tWsY&feature=related

Great job by Russell at 5:31 to come out to the perimeter and block or alter the shot.

Excellent work on the offensive glass by Wilt at 5:56, free throws look a bit better this time, went 1 for 2, but one of them was in and out, not a brick like most of his free throws in the 1967 game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCiOuGRLNIE&feature=related

Great putback dunk by Wilt at 0:56.

Interesting lob attempt to Wilt at 3:53, he misses the tip in, but you don't see many plays like this in these videos.

Phenomenal tip in by Wilt at 6:03

Anyway, my final analysis is this. Wilt proved to be an amazing rebounder again, I was shocked at how much of his offense came through his rebounding. He was 7 for 10 overall, I believe, but I think he was 1 for 3 on post moves, and that was a fadeaway bank shot, however he made another one that didn't count due to a 3 second violation. This shot was probably better than it looked in the 1967 game, although in this game, I think he was taking them closer, more in his range. His footwork looked better in this game, but it seems to me that a lot of his offense came because of size, strength and rebounding rather than a truly great and versatile post game. I also noticed that he had a bad habit of bringing the ball down low and exposing the ball. His defense wasn't nearly as good as the 1967 game, though and he didn't impress me that much on that end in this game, while he was a beast defensively in the 1967 game. Truly dominant on that end in that game. His teammates really were inferior to Russell's and Wilt was doubled and tripled a lot in this game, while he saw a good amount of single coverage in the 1967 game. It seems likely that Wilt carried this Warrior team on a regular basis. He does seem quite mobile for a man 7'1" and 290 lbs.

Russell worked hard defensively and did what he could, but in this game, it appeared that Wilt's strength was too much to stop him consistently. Russell still played excellent defense, though. He blocked and altered a ton of shots, plus he showed great mobility and versatility to get out to the perimeter a few times. However, I didn't see that much from him offensively.

[jlauber]

Indeed I meant the regular season games. But from what I have seen nothing exists of Game 7 in '69 besides the 4th quarter on the Lakers DVD.

Speaking of the regular season games between the two that season (68-69)...

On 3/7/69, Wilt put up a 12-42 (yes, 42 rebounds) against Russell's 11-18.

On 3/16, and in a nationally televised game, played in BOSTON, Chamberlain led the Lakers to a 108-73 win. In that game, Wilt put up an 11-21 game to Russell's 2-8. Here again, it was nationally televised...yet, no footage exists?

Finally, I have mentioned the SI article that hit the newstands on 1/27, which essentially claimed that Wilt could no longer score. Well, from 1/26 thru 2/23, Wilt averaged 31.2 ppg, including TWO games of over 60 points (60 and 66.) That streak covered 17 straight games, and on 2/21, Wilt put up a 35-19 game to Russell's 5-16.

I already mentioned one of their post-season games, in which Wilt hung a 13-31 game against Russell's 7-13.

Where are THOSE games?

[Duranthebest]

Lol @ Hondo being better than Paul Pierce. That dude wouldn't be able to get a job today.

[julizaver]

Very good and interesting article about Wilt - regarding his 1965-66 season and domination over Thurmond, Russell and Bellamy. Answer a lot of questions and confirm to myself that after 1965 Wilt was better defensive player than Russell. Also put some sight upon his health and weight :).

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_YIwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lUQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6660,4738422&dq=wilt+thurmond&hl=en

[Abraham Lincoln]

Indeed I often wonder if Chamberlain from late '65 or '66 was as good if not better than he was under Hannum as younger legs cannot hurt at all.



Beginning of the video a couple seconds in. Poor quality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpiRo8-aKJc

A tremendous explosive power step to the rim demonstrating his mobility.

[Abraham Lincoln]

"I've been doing a lot more jumping and the strain on the thigh muscles somehow settled in the knee."

Indeed he partially tore that knee tendon after so much wear in '69 Finals Game 7 on a rebound, and completely ruptured it early in the '69-70 season. Had he and Elgin enjoyed modern trainers, shoes, & luxurious padded hardwood floors (as opposed to often rock hard courts in Chucks) they may have not suffered career threatening injuries.

[jlauber]

"I've been doing a lot more jumping and the strain on the thigh muscles somehow settled in the knee."

Indeed he partially tore that knee tendon after so much wear in '69 Finals Game 7 on a rebound, and completely ruptured it early in the '69-70 season. Had he and Elgin enjoyed modern trainers, shoes, & luxurious padded hardwood floors (as opposed to often rock hard courts in Chucks) they may have not suffered career threatening injuries.

I was always amazed at just how little attention was paid to the fact that Wilt returned only a few months after major knee surgery. I won't take the time to find the article(s) that I have found on the net about that injury, but virtually EVERY one of them ranged from Wilt missing the rest of the 69-70 season, to perhaps never playing again (the man was around 300 lbs at the time.)

And yet, he did return, and in the playoffs...and obviously hobbled and rusty, he completely turned the Laker post-season around with three incredible performances against the Suns...and rallied LA back from a 3-1 deficit to a 4-3 series win. I won't take the time to look up the rebound numbers, but he had games of 29 and 36 points...and in one of the games he was credited with 16 blocks.

Then, after sweeping the Hawks, he led a huge under-dog team to a game seven against the 60-22 Knicks. In the first four games, and at considerably less than 100%, he battled MVP Reed to a statistical draw. In game five, he outscored him in the 1st period, and when Reed pulled up with a knee injury, the Knicks were down by 10 points. In a game that NY Times writer Leonard Koppett described as the officials allowing the Knicks to brutalize LA, the Knicks, without Reed, came back to win that game. In game six, Wilt put up one of the greatest (yet seldom mentioned) games in Finals history, with a 45 point (on 20-27 shooting), 27 rebound game, in leading the Lakers to a 135-113 win. True, Reed did not play, but I always found it amusing that casual observers just shrugged Wilt's performance off because of that. You would be hard-pressed to find one other game, in Finals' HISTORY, that was the equal of that one. And, while Reed was given all the credit for "inspiring" his teammates in that game seven...the fact was, a team of five Jordans would not have beaten NY that night. They came out on fire and hit 15 of their first 21 shots. The game was clearly over by halftime (69-42)...and yet, Reed, with his paltry 4-3 game was labeled a "hero", while Chamberlain, with his 21-24 game was considered the "goat." I do believe that, as Dick Shaap commented, Wilt let up on Reed in that game, but I have long maintained that had Wilt put up a huge game, it probably would not have made a difference. The Knicks just had a game for the ages.

Regarding Wilt's injury in that game seven of the 68-69 Finals...Russell basically called Wilt a "quitter" after that game. And another falsehood was that after Chamberlain picked up his fifth personal foul, that Boston blew open the game.

The facts were, when Wilt was saddled with his fifth foul, late in the 3rd quarter, the Lakers were already down by 15 points. Boston extended their lead to 17 early in the 4th stanza, but LA, behind West, came roaring back, and when Wilt came up lame on a rebound, his outlet led to a basket that cut the deficit to nine. Chamberlain stayed in for one more sequence, and grabbed yet another rebound, which led to two FTs that cut the lead to seven, with a little over five minutes remaining.

So, why would Wilt have "quit" at that point? Why not when his team was down by 15? Meanwhile, after Russell picked up HIS fifth personal a short time after Wilt was nailed with his, Russell was nowhere to be found the rest of the game. Chamberlain probably had as many rebounds on those two straight possessions with that injured knee, that Russell had the entire quarter. Had it not been for another "miraculous" shot, in the final minute, it might have been Russell who would have been the "goat" (since Wilt was kept on the bench by Boob Van Breda Kolf.)

[PHILA]

I was always amazed at just how little attention was paid to the fact that Wilt returned only a few months after major knee surgery. I won't take the time to find the article(s) that I have found on the net about that injury, but virtually EVERY one of them ranged from Wilt missing the rest of the 69-70 season, to perhaps never playing again (the man was around 300 lbs at the time.)
Any player today with an injury of that magnitude (with the modern luxuries available) would have sat out the entire season. It is much like most folks think the Warriors lost the game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w03Iq2WvZnE#t=1m30s) when he scored 100, there are some who believe he never beat Russell at all in a playoff series.

[jlauber]

Abe,

There are so MANY myths surrounding what Chamberlain accomplished in his career. What amazes me is those that question his vertcal leaping ability ( he was a high jump champ...and was only a couple of feet off the world record in the long jump at the time), or his strength (he was benching 500+ lbs at a time when the world record was a little over 600.) They claim those are "myths" despite eye-witness accounts and the fact that the internet is littered with his incredible feats.

No, the REAL "myths" regarding Wilt are these:

1. He played against skinny, white, uncoordinated 6-6 centers.
2. He was selfish and only cared about personal stats.
3. He was a "loser" and a "choker."
4. Bill Russell "owned" him.

1. The average starting center in Wilt's record-setting 61-62 season, was 6-10. AND, there were NO 6-6 starting centers in the league at the time. Furthermore, by 1970, the average starting center in the NBA was 6-11 (and only HOFer Wes Unseld was under 6-8.) Finally, by 2010, the average starting center was 7-0...and in the last few years we had 6-7 Ben Wallace and 6-6 Chuck Hayes playing center.


2. Wilt did whatever was asked of him. His COACH asked him to score in the 61-62 season, because he knew that that was the only chance that that mediocre roster had. Another COACH asked him to pass, and he led the NBA in assists. Another COACH asked him to play the high-post and let an over-the-hill Baylor roam the baseline and take horrible shots. And finally another COACH asked him to dominate at the defensive end, grab rebounds, and start the fast-break...which resulted in one of the most devastating fast-break teams in NBA history.

Regarding being selfish...Wilt was the ONLY player to ever be criticized for leading the league in assists (and the best record in the league.) He was also the ONLY player to have ever been criticized for putting up a 40-30 playoff game. AND, he was also the ONLY player to have ever been criticized for making 35 straight FGs.


3. Wilt only played on ONE losing team in his career. And all he did that year was lead the in scoring, at 44.8 ppg, and in rebounding at 24.6 rpg...and he set a then-record .528 FG% mark...AND he led the league in Win Shares at 20.9. He also played on 12 teams that made the Conference Finals; and on six teams that made it to the Finals; and on seven division winners; and on six 50+ win teams; and on three 60+ win teams; and on two world championship teams.

As far as being a "choker"...he had a 50-35 game against Russell in a must-win game five of the '60 ECF's (a Celtic team that had SEVEN HOFers.) He had a 56-35 game in the clinching playoff win over Syracuse in '62. He averaged a 34-29 game in the '62 ECF's against Russell, and led what had been a last-place roster before he arrived, to a game seven two-point defeat against the 60-20 Celtics and their SIX HOFers. In the '63-64 Finals, he outscored Russell, per game, 29-11, and outrebounded him, per game, 27-25. In the 64-65 season, Wilt took a 40-40 team (a horrible team before he arrived in mid-season) to a game seven, one-point loss to the 62-18 Celtics. In that game seven, he scored eight of Philly's last ten points, and brought the Sixers back from a 110-101 deficit to 110-109 with a few seconds left. Had Havlicek not stolen the inbounds pass, the 76ers might have had one of the biggest upsets in NBA history. In that last game, Wilt put up a 30 point game, on 12-15 shooting, and grabbed 32 rebounds. For the series, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 30-15, and outrebounded him, per game, 30-25.

In the clinching game five loss in the 65-66 ECF's, Wilt put up a 46-34 game. For the series, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 28-14, and outrebounded, per game, 31-26.

In the 66-67 ECF's, Chamberlain crushed Russell in every category, outscoring him, per game, 22-10; outrebounding him, per game, 32-23; outassisting him, per game, 10-6; and outshooting him from the field, .556-.358. In the clinching game five win, he outscored Russell, 29-4, outshot him, 10-16 to 2-5; outassisted him, 13-7; and outrebounded him, 36-21.

In the 67-68 ECF's, the Sixers were without HOFer Billy Cunningham, but still jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. Then Luke Jackson went down with a knee injury, and in game seven, Wilt's teammates fired blanks the entire game, and Boston eked out a 100-96 win. In that game, Wilt outscored Russell, 14-12, and outrebounded him 34-26. For the series, Wilt outscored Russell, per game,22-14, and outrebounded him, per game, 25-24.

In the 68-69 Finals, Wilt's Lakers suffered TWO losses on miracle shots. In addition, they were poorly coached. And, while Wilt sat on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven, two-point defeat, Chamberlain still outscored Russell in that game, 18-6; outshot him, 7-8 to 2-7; and outrebounded him, 27-21. Once again, had Johnny Egan been able to hang on the ball in the last few seconds of game four, and had Sam Jones not hit a jump shot at the buzzer, while falling down...LA wins that game, and goes up 3-1 in the series. AND, they blew out Boston in game five, 117-104. So, except for a miracle, Wilt's Lakers would have beaten the Celtics, 4-1.

In the 69-70 playoffs, Chamberlain returned from that horrific knee injury, and led LA back from a 3-1 deficit against the Suns, with three straight HUGE games. Then after sweeping the Hawks, 4-0, Wilt led the heavy-under-dog Lakers to a game seven against the 60-22 Knicks, and their FOUR HOFers. In the process, Wilt easily outplayed the Finals MVP Reed, outscoring him per game, 23.2 to 23.0; outrebounding him, per game, 24.1 to 10.5; and outshooting him from the floor, .625 to .483. In the game seven, which is remembered for a "heroic Reed", who scored all of four points with three rebounds, Chamberlain put up a 21-24 game, and shot 10-16 from the field. Oh, and BTW, had the officials not given game five to the Knicks, it would have been Wilt being remembered for his 45-27 game six (on 20-27 shooting.) So, here again, without a horribly officiated game, and Wilt's Lakers win that series, 4-2.

In the 70-71 WCF's, and playing without BOTH an injured Baylor and West, Chamberlain battled Kareem to a statistical draw. AND, in the clinching game five loss, Wilt received a standing ovation as he left the court late in the game...and the game was played in Milwaukee.

In the 71-72 WCF's, Time Magazine hailed Wilt's performance against Kareem, as a "decisive win", and in the clinching game six, Chamberlain took over in the 4th quarter, and led the Lakers back from a 10 pt deficit to a 104-100 win. Jerry West called it "the greatest ball-busting performance he ever witnessed." And, in the clinching game five of the Finals, Wilt, playing with two badly swollen (and heavily-wrapped) wrists, scored 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, grabbed 29 rebounds (the entire NY team had 39), and blocked 10 shots...en route to leading LA to their first world title. And for his efforts, Wilt was rewarded with a Finals MVP.

And in his final season, 72-73, Wilt crushed Thurmond (who had outplayed Kareem the series before), and led the Lakers to a 4-1 romp over the Warriors. In the Finals, and with West nursing two injured knees, Wilt's Lakers lost to thge Knicks, and their SIX HOFers, 4-1...but all four losses came in the last minute (4,4,5, and 9 point losses.) AND, in his very last game, he put up a 23-21 game.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

4. Yes, Russell held an 85-57 edge over Wilt in H2H wins. And, yes, Russell's Celtics held a 7-1 post-season edge. BUT, Wilt was saddled with mediocre teams in the first half of his career. Furthermore, Wilt's TEAMS lost FOUR game seven's to Russell's Celtics, by a COMBINED NINE points. Had Wilt's teammates been able to hit a shot, here-or-there, or had Wilt's teammates been able to hold onto the ball at crunchtime, or had Chamberlain's opposing team's missed a couple of miracle shot attempts...and it could have been Wilt with a 5-3 edge over Russell.

Furthermore, Wilt outscored Russell in their 142 H2H games, 28.7 to 14.5 ppg, and outrebounded him, 28.7 to 23.7. Chamberlain had FIVE 50+ point games against Russell (including a high game of 62 on 27-45 shooting.) He also had a total of 24 40+ point games against Russell. Russell had three 30+ point games against Wilt, with a high of 37...BUT, Wilt outscored him in EVERY one of those games. In fact, Wilt outscored Russell, 132-10 in their H2H games.

As far as rebounding goes, Wilt outrebounded Russell 92-42-8 in their 142 games. He also ourebounded him in EVERY post-season series. Wilt had SEVEN 40+ rebound games against Russell (Russell had ONE ...an even 40 against Wilt), including a 55 rebound game, which is an NBA record...AND a 41 rebound game in the post-season, which is also an NBA record. Furthermore, Wilt had a 23-4 edge in 35+ games. Chamberlain also had 17 40-30 games against Russell (and obviously, Russell had zero against Chamberlain.)

You want statistical domination...how about these 40 H2H games?

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

[magnax1]

The Bad:In this footage, Wilt's offensive game wasn't that impressive with him going 0 for 5 on post moves(1 for 6 if you include the dunk on Russell where he kind of backed him up, but more or less caught the ball close and gathered himself and went up) and 2 of 6 from the foul line, though he was 5 for 10 total in the videos, however all of his points came on dunks where he caught the ball around the basket or put backs. He was 0 for 3 on finger rolls and 0 for 2 fadeaways(neither of which were close). The 2 moves we here the most about, yet neither looked that good. I don't know, it could have just been an off night for him offensively.
You have to give him slack because he was being guarded by Russel, and most players go to moves aren't that extremely efficient anyway. I bet Kareem didn't shoot more then 35% on his sky hooks against Wilt, and if you just watched that game you'd think it was a terribly move.


Russell: He played excellent post defense on Wilt, mostly single coverage too. Like Wilt, he was a beast defensively, and of course he usually kept the ball in play after blocks. He was a solid passer, not flashy, but right on the money throughout the video and he seemed aware of his limitations as an offensive player, yet he did show he could handle the ball well for a center and he appeared very mobile. Made some great hustle plays, he also proved to be one of the best rebounders and for the most part, he played smart basketball throughout the video. Of course, from his one-handed free throw form, it's easy to see why he shot 56% from the line for his career.
Lots of people say Shaq and Wallace, and other terrible FT shooters should be shooting way higher then their FT%, but when you have that bad of form, you just can't really get past a certain point. One of the few guys like that that obviously could have shot better was Rodman. He just ran up to the line and shot it as fast as he could (while fading away sometimes) Rodman was actually a pretty good offensive player, just never wanted to shoot and was never very focused.


Players back then were much more basic as ball handlers, but they seemed to have pretty good range on their jumpshots and surprising range and accuracy on bank shots. They were also fundamentally sound passing the ball into the post. Chet Walker had the best moves of any perimeter player in the game while Bailey Howell was very active, Havlicek played excellent around basketball, but in general most of the perimeter players games did seem somewhat primitive, atleast off the dribble. Luke Jackson's rebounding in the footage is a lot more impressive than the numbers suggest.

Wilt was more impressive in game 5 of the 1972 finals, actually. I'll have to go back and watch that game that's partially available of Wilt vs Russell in the 1964 finals again.
If you can share that 1964 finals game I'd appreciate it.

[jlauber]

What we really need is just ONE of Wilt's MANY overwhelming games. The man had 55 of the 61 40-30 games in NBA history, including the only four 50-40 games.

Or how about his last 60 point game, which came well after his big scoring seasons (1969) ...and in which he shot 29-35 from the field?

Of how about his 23 blocks in a game in 1969? Or outrebounding Russell 42-18 in a game that same season?

How about his 29-36-13 game in the clinching game five win over Russell's Celtics in the 67 ECF's? Or his 24-32-13-12 game against Russell in game one of that series? Or his 38 rebound game against Thurmond in the Finals that year?

Or how about one of his three "perfect games" in the 66-67 season (15-15, 16-16, and 18-18)? Or perhaps his league-best 58 point game that same season, in which he shot 26-34 from the field?

Maybe his 45 point game against Thurmond? Or his 38-31 game against Thurmond? Maybe his 62 point game against Russell (on 27-45 shooting)? How about one of his TWO 60+ point games against Bellamy? Or his 31-31 game against Lanier? Or either his 58 or 52 point games against Reed?

You would think that at least SOME of his HUNDREDS of BIG games would exist out there someplace...

[Psileas]

Apart from the apparent really low rate of new original footage being shown, the video that Abe posted (the one with Attles) showed a play that reminded me of something more that I find annoying: The large number of old-time plays played at low speed. Yes, I know that this was a trend of the day, but how about showing the play as it really happened, just for a change? You know, when people view so many plays (including a lot of typical, non-highlight stuff) in slow speed, they'll naturally tend quite a bit more to call players "slow". Even if they know that obviously it's the video that is played at low speed, I feel that they subconsciously grow an overall "slowness" picture.

[PHILA]

^Indeed it might also be a lag as they have been converted from tape to digital video.

A somewhat proper demonstration of Hal Greer's lightning quick release.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpiRo8-aKJc#t=2m11s


And another outstanding post from jlauber. :applause:

[jlauber]

Here is a sample of real time footage...

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

Or this...

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

[PHILA]

This as well (2:22 mark)

http://www.megavideo.com/?d=W40Y3RI9

[PHILA]

^2:53 mark as well on the offensive rebound in the above link.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Here are Wilt's stats game by game for the series and his final averages.

Game 1- 24 points, 32 rebounds, 12 assists, 12 blocks (Greer had 39 points, Jones had 24 and Walker had 18)
Game 2- 15 points, 29 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks ( Walker had 23, Jones had 22 and Greer had 17)
Game 3- 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists, 5 blocks (Greer had 30 points and Jones had 21)
Game 4- 20 points, 22 rebounds, 10 assists, minimum 3 blocks
Game 5- 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists, 7 blocks

21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 9.8 apg In games 1, 2, 3 and 5, he averaged 7.3 bpg based on the newspaper articles and I counted a minimum of 3 blocks in the second half of game 4 which at worst would give him 6.4 bpg, though he almost surely had more.

[jlauber]

Here are Wilt's stats game by game for the series and his final averages.

Game 1- 24 points, 32 rebounds, 12 assists, 12 blocks (Greer had 39 points, Jones had 24 and Walker had 18)
Game 2- 15 points, 29 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks ( Walker had 23, Jones had 22 and Greer had 17)
Game 3- 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists, 5 blocks (Greer had 30 points and Jones had 21)
Game 4- 20 points, 22 rebounds, 10 assists, minimum 3 blocks
Game 5- 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists, 7 blocks

21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 9.8 apg In games 1, 2, 3 and 5, he averaged 7.3 bpg based on the newspaper articles and I counted a minimum of 3 blocks in the second half of game 4 which at worst would give him 6.4 bpg, though he almost surely had more.

I'll carry those numbers a step further, thanks to Wayne Lynch's, "Season of the 76ers"

Game 1: Russell 7-14, 6-7, 15 rebs, 4 ast, 20 pts.
Wilt 9-13, 6-10, 32 rebs, 13 asts, 24 pts.
As a sidenote, Chamberlain grabbed 32 of the total of 120 rebounds in that game. 27 %.

Game 2: Russell 5-14, 4-6, 24 rebs, 5 ast, 14 pts.
Wilt 5-11, 5-9, 29 rebs, 5 ast, 15 pts.

Game 3: Russell 3-13, 4-5, 29 rebs, 9 ast, 10 pts.
Wilt 8-14, 4-8, 41 rebs, 9 ast, 20 pts.
As another sidenote, Chamberlain grabbed 41 of the total of 134 rebounds, or 30%!

Game 4: Russell 2-7, 5-9, 28 rebs, 5 ast, 9 pts.
Wilt 8-18, 4-11, 22 rebs, 10 ast, 20 pts.

Game 5: Russell 2-5, 0-1, 21 rebs, 7 ast, 4 pts.
Wilt 10-16, 9-17, 36 rebs, 13 ast, 29 pts.
Wilt also snared 36 of the total of 128 rebs or 28%.

[jlauber]

Incidently, for all of Greer's points, he shot 53-122, or 43%.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'll carry those numbers a step further, thanks to Wayne Lynch's, "Season of the 76ers"

Game 1: Russell 7-14, 6-7, 15 rebs, 4 ast, 20 pts.
Wilt 9-13, 6-10, 32 rebs, 13 asts, 24 pts.
As a sidenote, Chamberlain grabbed 32 of the total of 120 rebounds in that game. 27 %.

Game 2: Russell 5-14, 4-6, 24 rebs, 5 ast, 14 pts.
Wilt 5-11, 5-9, 29 rebs, 5 ast, 15 pts.

Game 3: Russell 3-13, 4-5, 29 rebs, 9 ast, 10 pts.
Wilt 8-14, 4-8, 41 rebs, 9 ast, 20 pts.
As another sidenote, Chamberlain grabbed 41 of the total of 134 rebounds, or 30%!

Game 4: Russell 2-7, 5-9, 28 rebs, 5 ast, 9 pts.
Wilt 8-18, 4-11, 22 rebs, 10 ast, 20 pts.

Game 5: Russell 2-5, 0-1, 21 rebs, 7 ast, 4 pts.
Wilt 10-16, 9-17, 36 rebs, 13 ast, 29 pts.
Wilt also snared 36 of the total of 128 rebs or 28%.

I have to get this book, interestingly you said he had 13 assists in game 1? I believe that was in the Robert Cherry book as well, but the newspaper articles all said 12.

My guess is this book focuses on the '67 Sixers? If so, it sounds like a must read because the great teams always interest me('67 Sixers, '72 Lakers, '83 Sixers, '86 Celtics, '87 Lakers, '96 Bulls ect.)

[jlauber]

I have to get this book, interestingly you said he had 13 assists in game 1? I believe that was in the Robert Cherry book as well, but the newspaper articles all said 12.

My guess is this book focuses on the '67 Sixers? If so, it sounds like a must read because the great teams always interest me('67 Sixers, '72 Lakers, '83 Sixers, '86 Celtics, '87 Lakers, '96 Bulls ect.)

The book is an interesting read about both the 76ers and Wilt. It does include the box scores of the 76ers entire post-season (Royals, Celtics, and Warriors.) It also includes each individual player's numbers against every teamduring the regular season that year (for instance, Wilt averaged 20.3 ppg against Boston, on .549 shooting, and 20.7 ppg against the Warriors on .562 shooting.)

I have also read Charley Rosen's book on the '72 Lakers, of which there is a ton of it devoted to Wilt. Interesting, too, in that Rosen was never a big fan of Wilt (he even calls him El Foldo)...but even he admits that Chamberlain was the main reason that LA won the title that year. As a sidenote (and I have mentioned it here before), I actually listened to, or watched, EVERY Laker game in that magical 71-72 season.

As far as great team's go, I would add the 69-70 Knicks, and the 70-71 Bucks to your list. The Bucks not only went 66-16, but they outshot their opponents by a record margin of .509 to .424. And, they also had the highest point differential in post-season history, at +14.5 ppg. IMHO, that was Kareem's second greatest season (if you include the post-season, it might have been his best), just behind his 71-72 season.

[PHILA]

Here are Wilt's stats game by game for the series and his final averages.

Game 1- 24 points, 32 rebounds, 12 assists, 12 blocks (Greer had 39 points, Jones had 24 and Walker had 18)
Game 2- 15 points, 29 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks ( Walker had 23, Jones had 22 and Greer had 17)
Game 3- 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists, 5 blocks (Greer had 30 points and Jones had 21)
Game 4- 20 points, 22 rebounds, 10 assists, minimum 3 blocks
Game 5- 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists, 7 blocks

21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 9.8 apg In games 1, 2, 3 and 5, he averaged 7.3 bpg based on the newspaper articles and I counted a minimum of 3 blocks in the second half of game 4 which at worst would give him 6.4 bpg, though he almost surely had more.
Also too note his statistics against the Royals in the previous series. It appears he had a field day down low.


Game 1: 41 points, 23 rebounds, 5 assists, 63% FG

Game 2: 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists, 67% FG

Game 3: 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists, 62% FG

Game 4: 18 points, 27 rebounds, 9 assists, 50% FG


Coach Hannum's comments following Game 2:

"Wilt showed why he should be recognized as the greatest player in the history of the game. We also tried to key in on Oscar Robertson a little more tonight and since Wally Jones is smaller we tried to shift other men on him too. We've got two tough ball clubs, but I feel Philadelphia is physically stronger than the Royals."


Royals Coach McMahon's comments following Game 2:

"I was not at all surprised at their going into Wilt. We knew what to expect. We just didn't play well enough."

"You know, I know and all the rest know that Philadelphia plays zone defense at least partially and the basic adjustment against zone defense i to move the ball. In the final analysis, it was the shooting that killed us."




One can only imagine how a scary a defensive team the Sixers really were, with tremendous defensive players like Jones, Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Costello, & Jackson playing a "zone" defense like one might see today, only with much, much more physical play allowed and a behemoth like Chamberlain anchoring the middle without the defensive 3 second restriction. :cheers:





A fine piece from LIFE Magazine following the Sixers victory over the Celtics that year.

LIFE - April 21, 1967 (http://books.google.com/books?id=GFYEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA82&dq=wilt+chamberlain&hl=en&ei=_jRFTJvuDMP48Aa35LClBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)

[jlauber]

Also too note his statistics against the Royals in the previous series. It appears he had a field day down low.


Game 1: 41 points, 23 rebounds, ? assists, ? FG %

Game 2: 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists, 67% FG

Game 3: 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists, 62% FG

Game 4: 18 points, 27 rebounds, 9 assists, 50% FG


Coach Hannum's comments following Game 2:

"Wilt showed why he should be recognized as the greatest player in the history of the game. We also tried to key in on Oscar Robertson a little more tonight and since Wally Jones is smaller we tried to shift other men on him too. We've got two tough ball clubs, but I feel Philadelphia is physically stronger than the Royals."


Royals Coach McMahon's comments following Game 2:

"I was not at all surprised at their going into Wilt. We knew what to expect. We just didn't play well enough."

"You know, I know and all the rest know that Philadelphia plays zone defense at least partially and the basic adjustment against zone defense i to move the ball. In the final analysis, it was the shooting that killed us."




One can only imagine how a scary a defensive team the Sixers really were, with tremendous defensive players like Jones, Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Costello, & Jackson playing a "zone" defense like one might see today, only with much, much more physical play allowed and a behemoth like Chamberlain anchoring the middle without the defensive 3 second restriction. :cheers:





A fine piece from LIFE Magazine following the Sixers victory over the Celtics that year.

LIFE - April 21, 1967 (http://books.google.com/books?id=GFYEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA82&dq=wilt+chamberlain&hl=en&ei=_jRFTJvuDMP48Aa35LClBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)


Just to fill in game one. Wilt went 19-30, 3-9, 22 rebs, 5 ast, 41 pts.

I touched on it earlier, but Chamberlain had some monster rebounding games against Russell in the ECF's that year. In game one, he outrebounded Russell, 32-15, and he had 32 of the 120 rebounds in the game. In game three, Russell had a sensational game, snaring 29 rebounds...BUT, he was outrebounded by 12 boards! Chamberlain grabbed 41 of the 134 rebounds in that game. And in the clinching game five, Chamberlain ourebounded Russell, 36-21, and those 36 rebounds were out of a total of 128.

In the Royals' series, in game two he had 27 of the 99 rebounds (as well as scoring 37 points on 16-24 shooting.) In game three he pulled in 30 of the 127 rebounds, and handed out 19 assists.

The Finals must have looked like a track meet that year...

Game 1: Thurmond 10-20, 4-5, 31 rebs, 3 ast, 24 pts.
Wilt 6-8, 4-9, 33 rebs, 10 ast, 16 pts.

Game 2: Thurmond 3-14, 1-3, 29 rebs, 2 ast, 7 pts.
Wilt 4-10, 2-17 (yikes!), 38 rebs, 10 ast, 10 pts.
Those 38 rebs were impressive, to be sure, but they came out of a total of 169!

Game 3: Thurmond 6-13, 5-6, 25 rebs, 4 ast, 17 pts.
Wilt 12-23, 2-9, 26 rebs., 5 ast, 26 pts.

Game 4: Thurmond 4-18, 0-2, 25 rebs, 5 ast, 8 pts.
Wilt 3-6, 4-9, 27 rebs, 8 ast, 10 pts.

Game 5: Thurmond 7-21, 3-7, 28 rebs, 1 ast, 17 pts.
Wilt 9-15, 2-12, 24 rebs, 4 ast, 20 pts.

Game 6: Thurmond 4-13, 4-8, 22 rebs, 5 ast, 12 pts.
Wilt 8-13, 8-16, 23 rebs, 4 ast, 24 pts.

Chamberlain's defense on Thurmond was simply amazing... 34-99 shooting (.343). Having said that, though, Wilt was absolutely pathetic at the line in that series... 22-72 (.306) Wilt's (and Nate's) rebounding totals were impressive, but there were simply an eye-popping number of rebounds in that series. In game one there were a total of 159. In game two, as mentioned, 169. In game three, 130. In game four, 143. In game five, 135. And in game six, 124.

[PHILA]

Just to fill in game one. Wilt went 19-30, 3-9, 22 rebs, 5 ast, 41 pts.

I touched on it earlier, but Chamberlain had some monster rebounding games against Russell in the ECF's that year. In game one, he outrebounded Russell, 32-15, and he had 32 of the 120 rebounds in the game. In game three, Russell had a sensational game, snaring 29 rebounds...BUT, he was outrebounded by 12 boards! Chamberlain grabbed 41 of the 134 rebounds in that game. And in the clinching game five, Chamberlain ourebounded Russell, 36-21, and those 36 rebounds were out of a total of 128.

In the Royals' series, in game two he had 27 of the 99 rebounds (as well as scoring 37 points on 16-24 shooting.) In game three he pulled in 30 of the 127 rebounds, and handed out 19 assists.

The Finals must have looked like a track meet that year...

Game 1: Thurmond 10-20, 4-5, 31 rebs, 3 ast, 24 pts.
Wilt 6-8, 4-9, 33 rebs, 10 ast, 16 pts.

Game 2: Thurmond 3-14, 1-3, 29 rebs, 2 ast, 7 pts.
Wilt 4-10, 2-17 (yikes!), 38 rebs, 10 ast, 10 pts.
Those 38 rebs were impressive, to be sure, but they came out of a total of 169!

Game 3: Thurmond 6-13, 5-6, 25 rebs, 4 ast, 17 pts.
Wilt 12-23, 2-9, 26 rebs., 5 ast, 26 pts.

Game 4: Thurmond 4-18, 0-2, 25 rebs, 5 ast, 8 pts.
Wilt 3-6, 4-9, 27 rebs, 8 ast, 10 pts.

Game 5: Thurmond 7-21, 3-7, 28 rebs, 1 ast, 17 pts.
Wilt 9-15, 2-12, 24 rebs, 4 ast, 20 pts.

Game 6: Thurmond 4-13, 4-8, 22 rebs, 5 ast, 12 pts.
Wilt 8-13, 8-16, 23 rebs, 4 ast, 24 pts.

Chamberlain's defense on Thurmond was simply amazing... 34-99 shooting (.343). Having said that, though, Wilt was absolutely pathetic at the line in that series... 22-72 (.306) Wilt's (and Nate's) rebounding totals were impressive, but there were simply an eye-popping number of rebounds in that series. In game one there were a total of 159. In game two, as mentioned, 169. In game three, 130. In game four, 143. In game five, 135. And in game six, 124.
Indeed, fixed in the post above. Truly astounding how some folks can rank his peak at 4th behind a couple of players who did not end up winning the championship or even reaching the Finals during their alleged peak seasons. For all the obsession on the various sports forums with team rings determining how great an individual player was, one would at least have hoped that this double standard be not used against Chamberlain.

[jlauber]

Indeed, fixed in the post above. Truly astounding how some folks can rank his peak at 4th behind a couple of players who did not end up winning the championship or even reaching the Finals during their alleged peak seasons. For all the obsession on the various sports forums with team rings determining how great an individual player was, one would at least have hoped that this double standard be not used against Chamberlain.

IMHO, if you include the post-season, Wilt's 66-67 is BY FAR AND AWAY the greatest in NBA history. He absolutely DOMINATED two of the greatest centers in NBA HISTORY in the process. And his rebounding in that post-season was also FAR-AND-AWAY the greatest ever...particularly those three games against Russell ( 32 of 120 TOTAL rebound...while Russell only had 15; 36 of a TOTAL of 128...and Russell only had 21; and then his staggering 41 rebounds in game three out of 134.)

He held Russell to .358 shooting, and Thurmond to an even worse .343 along the way.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Indeed, fixed in the post above. Truly astounding how some folks can rank his peak at 4th behind a couple of players who did not end up winning the championship or even reaching the Finals during their alleged peak seasons. For all the obsession on the various sports forums with team rings determining how great an individual player was, one would at least have hoped that this double standard be not used against Chamberlain.

Truly astounding how you can rank Oscar Robertson above guys like Olajuwon, Kobe and Duncan or Dr. J above Kobe and Olajuwon. I know the Dr. J ranking is because you're a 76ers fan, but that's no excuse, you don't see me ranking Ewing above Olajuwon.

Regarding Wilt's dominance of Russell and Thurmond. I'll agree that he dominated Russell, but Thurmond? I'm sure he did a good job defensively, but I'd think he'd need more than 17 or so ppg on 56% shooting to qualify as dominating him completely and Thurmond was typically a low percentage shooter.

[PHILA]

Truly astounding how you can rank Oscar Robertson above guys like Olajuwon, Kobe and Duncan or Dr. J above Kobe and Olajuwon. I know the Dr. J ranking is because you're a 76ers fan, but that's no excuse, you don't see me ranking Ewing above Olajuwon.
I'd prefer a peaked Walton ahead of Olajuwon or Bryant to start. Big O was a terror as most would call the top all around player in league history, and not strictly because of his statistics for there was no one thing this man could not do on the floor. Not flashy, not particularly dependent on his athleticism. This man was as legit a floor general and point guard as one could be in an era where there was no distinction between either position. Extremely versatile as well. Magic may arguably be the best overall, but Oscar was at least his equal in the half court. A very strong guard and amongst the top post players ever as well as the most fundamentally sound offensive player to ever play the sport. His jumper alone is evidence of this, as there was no over reliance on his supporting hand in his shooting motion. Indeed as beautiful and effective a touch as has ever been seen in the history of professional basketball. In the words of Wilt Chamberlain, "If I had my pick, I'd select Oscar first."

He not only mastered the game from a psychological perspective, but also from a spiritual one. He would routinely and instinctively react to the defense and make the proper play more often than not. Robertson also was a ball dominant guard due to the coaches understanding his supreme play making & orchestrating abilities. In the words of Bill Russell he was a quarterback and a coach on the floor, for the Big O was the only player to have had Russell uncertain on the defensive end, not knowing when to double. Robertson was the prime master at sizing up the defense, reading it, and feeling it's cracks and openings. The true essence of basketball and the wise philosophy of Robertson was to milk a situation or a mismatch to it's fullest and get guys off at the exact proper moment during the game.

In the words of your idol Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, "Oscar had a knack of getting me the ball in the right place at the right time. Not too high, didn't want to go up and lose the ground you fought for. Not too low, didn't want to bend for the ball and create a scramble down there. Never wanted to put the ball on the floor where some little guy could come in and steal it away. Oscar knew all of this, and his genius was, whether two men were in his face trying to prevent him from making a pass or in mine trying to prevent me from receiving it, in getting me the ball chest-high so I could turn and hook in one unbroken motion."


He was very skilled with the ball as well as off the ball, as evidenced by his excellent attributes here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YNXx6bsrQ) such as his:

*his supreme touch on a pass (1:42 mark)

*turnaround jumper (2:00 mark)

*hard drive & hesitation move followed by a jumper over Hondo (3:43 mark)

*his instinct even in an isolation to use screens to his benefit with a beautiful jumper (5:05 mark)

*low hard protective dribble drive & jumper on K.C. (5:30 mark)





Also here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe3zWQqV554) one can see more of his spectacular play:

*His hard drive right and pull up jumper on Hondo, much like that of Jordan or Bryant in later years (3:30 mark)

*His brilliant stutter dribble and jumper on Nellie off the screen (3:55 mark)

*Another fall away jumper over Hondo (5:21 mark)

*And everyone's favorite, his brilliant use of the Lucas screen and tough jumper with Russell in his face. Again, a sampling of the "tough shot making ability" that eveyone so often admires in Jordan & especially Bryant. (5:33 mark)





And a mix again as can be seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecgwZVnvPIc):

* Jab foot fake followed by a dribble and jumper (0:20 mark)

*His baseline jumper off the gorgeous finger roll pass from Wilt demonstrates how difficult it was to block his jumper with his unique but proper release of the ball. (0:38 mark)

*Flawless bounce pass off a pick & roll through traffic to Embry (0:43 mark)

*Hard drive to the right and fall away jumper, again much like that of Jordan or Bryant. (1:12 mark)

*Magnificent rebounding ability demonstrated by his wrestling with Chamberlain of the ball (1:50 mark)

*His marvelous aerial drive & dish (3:05 mark)





And finally here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3RYStydczE) throughout the video one can see his numerous turn around fadeaway jumpers, much in the mold of Jordan or Bryant. Ray Allen also speaks in high regard of the legend.




http://i48.tinypic.com/280lcah.gif


All the skills in the more modern athletes including Jordan or Bryant's fade away jumpshot & Magic's protective dribble isolation back down & spin for a layup. All that was done by Oscar beforehand, for he understood as well as anybody that the game was won and lost in the paint. If you gave him a 12 footer, he'd work for a 10 footer. And so on until he was at the rim in accordance to his signature move where he would spin by the defensive player with his arm in a lightning quick motion. And Oscar was very strong at the guard position, to the point where some opponents related incidental contact with him to being hit by NFL legend Jim Brown.


An example of Robertson's supreme yet demanding leadership can be evidenced by Wayne Embry's first fist fight in the NBA. The Royals were playing the Pistons, & Embry was being illegally held up by Ray Scott with the ref missing the foul two times on two pick & roll attempts. Oscar slapped his hands together and said, "Dammit Wayne, how long are you going to let him mess up our plays?" The next trip up the floor, Scott held him again, and Embry cold cocked him. He would later say to a friend, "You know what it's like to have Oz on you." Much like Michael Jordan in later years, Robertson was a leader by his mere intimidating presence.



One can imagine the racism the older legends endured in the 50's/60's that hasn't been publicized, as how many so called greats of more recent generations would even want to play the sport for much less money under such hostile conditions? Receiving death threats as a college schoolboy for playing in a game. Playing for a racist organization that made the Clippers look like a model franchise (in addition to Stokes' unfortunate accident and the Royals conference switch from West to East) was almost entirely the reason Big O didn't have much team success in Cincinnati.


Despite West's statistics, early in their careers Robertson was easily considered the superior player.

"I played like a rookie my first year, he did not."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLJXqmBos9g



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4piRZ8_7GY#t=1m13s


"He was the Michael Jordan of his day. In a lot of ways."

-Red Auerbach


"If Oscar were playing today against Michael, we would have a huge argument going on."

-Chuck Daly


"I really found out how good Oscar Robertson was when I was trying to accomplish the same feats as him."

-Magic Johnson



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkhlN8fA8W8#t=3m7s

"I got a letter from the Ku Klux Klan, saying they was going to shoot me if I came to play at North Carolina."

[PHILA]

'Running a team is a business for them. Well my business is playing. I'd performed as well as any player ever had, and the team needed to pay me accordingly. If they couldn't, then they shouldn't be in business.

I was told the matter wasn't up for negotiation.

If there was another league (this was a couple years before the ABA formed), I might have jumped to it as soon as I left the office. Instead, I did what I could do, which was to hold out. I didn't call them. They didn't call me. It was a cold war, and it stretched for days. For a week. Two. "Listen," one anonymous Royal told Sports Illustrated, "they can cut me 25% and give it to Oscar if it means bringing him back. That's how important he is to us." It's probably a good thing that the guy did not identify himself or repeat that sentence around the front office. They might have done it.

I called one of the reporters I knew in New York and said I wanted to be traded.

The way the Royals front office dealt with negotiations angered me more than their ridiculous contract offer. At this point in my career, I said I deserved respect, not ultimatums. They had refused to negotiate. They'd come to the table with a crazy, ridiculously low offer and refused to budge. They were the ones putting pressure on me. If I want to make any deal at all if I want to play ball and help the team, now I'm the one who has to cave. On top of this, management starting leaking untruths in the press, inflating my demands and publishing my salary. In one statement, management would say it was unethical to discuss contract negotiations in the press. In the next sentence, the same general manager would discuss the details of my existing contract.

I wasn't going to be bullied or blackmailed by the Royals management. I told the press I was negotiating a barnstorming tour. I said I was going to play locally, out on the West Coast, maybe in Florida. It wasn't true, but the Globetrotters were still around so there had to be some money made in touring. Why not find out?

Five days before the season opened, I came to contract terms with the Royals. I signed for about $70,000, various bonuses based on the gate, and the use of a car.

Two seasons later, we went through the entire standoff again.

That year I ended up missing training camp and the entire exhibition season. The press in Cincinnati started to heap abuse on me. Greedy was the word they chose.

When I sat down with Pepper Wilson that year, I said, "If I am greedy, I learned from you."

Management just looked at me. What could they possibly say? Who is greedier - the guy who wants to get paid what he is worth, or the team that indentures its players through perpetually unfair and rigged contracts and refuses to pay those players what they are worth?

The truth is, management in Cincinnati wasn't very effective. Before I ever came into the league, they had a chance to draft Bill Russell, and they chose not to do it. They whiffed on Willis Reed. They had the #1 draft picks for two straight years - Bob Boozer and Jerry Lucas. Those guys signed with other leagues; hell; the only reason they ever came to the Royals and made us a decent team was because the ABL folded and they had nowhere else to go. In 1967, when the ABA first formed, the first pick of their draft was a 6'9 forward named Mel Daniels. Mel ended up being one of the best players in the ABA. I believe he won their MVP award in the league's second year, and I know that his jersey was among the first to be retired by the Indiana Pacers. Well, guess what team he abandoned so he could join a league that, at that point, did not even exist?

Reporters always called Pepper Wilson one of the most popular general managers in the league. He was a nice man, but maybe all the other GM's loved him so much because he couldn't make a good draft pick, couldn't swing any shrewd trades. If I gave you a list of the player Cincinnati drafted while I was with them, you'd have to be a hard-core basketball fan to recognize any of them.

By contrast, the Celtics would reload and restock. Tom Heinsohn's gone? Here comes Don Nelson. Sam Jones is retiring? Here comes John Havlicek. Here comes Jo Jo White. Some of it was luck. One year Tom Wood was sitting next to Red Auerbach at a draft meeting in New York. Boston had won the title again, so naturally they had the bottom choice. Auerbach turned to Wood and said, "What am I going to do? This is a pretty frail group left. . . There's some kid from Ohio State here with a funny name - Havlicek - what do you hear about him?"

Wood told him, "All I know is that our scout claims he's a better ballplayer than Lucas, but we've already got Lucas. So it doesn't make any difference."

"Well," says Auerbach, "he's only 6'4 and awfully short for the pros. I guess I've got no other choice. What the hell. I'll take him."

So help me, that's how the Celtics stumbled onto Havlicek.

If you look at professional basketball and how a team builds a winning franchise, it's pretty simple. You have to restock your team with good draft picks, and you have to make key trades. The teams that don't, don't win. Flatly put, we could not do it. After we traded Bob Boozer, we traded other key players. We got rid of Tom Hawkins. Fought with Happy Hairston. Management kept bringing in guards to replace me when we needed forwards and centers. We got rid of one forward, Bob Love, because he had a speech impediment. The team thought he was dumb, so they traded him to Chicago. Of course he became a superstar there. We had one pick, Larry Chaney from Arkansas, who wasn't married. But we drafted Dave Zollner, who was married. Larry Chaney was a far better player, but we kept Dave, because he was white and was married. That's how the Cincinnati Royals did things.'

[jlauber]

Abe,

I'm torn with Oscar. Originally I had him #9 ahead of Bird. Then the more I read on Olajuwon, the more respect that I had for his game. Still, those that rank Olajuwon much higher have to accept that one of his rings came in a year in which Jordan abdicated his throne. AND, while he was brilliant in several of his post-seasons, he was also involved in EIGHT first-round exits.

Oscar may very well have been the greatest all-around player...ever. He could score 30 ppg (on over 50% shooting in an era of .440 shooting.) He could lead the league in assists. And he was a great rebounder (albeit, in an era of more available rebounds.) His biggest flaw is in regards to team success. He played on many awful ones, and his only ring came when he was well past his prime, and when Kareem dominated the league.

Having said that, though, he took a very good Buck's team to a championship in his first year. He was injured in the next three post-seasons, and missed some key games, and the Bucks could only get to one more Final. AND, after Oscar retired, the Bucks IMMEDIATELY fell to a losing record.

And, Oscar's 63-64 season has to rank among the greatest in NBA history. He took that team to a 55-25 record, and of course, he nearly averaged a triple-double (something he would do SEVERAL times.) He was always among the leaders in TS% as well.

Individually, Oscar is probably as high as 6-7. When you factor in team success, he drops considerably. Chamberlain "only" won two titles, but he NEARLY (and I mean NEARLY) won as many as FIVE more. Oscar just cannot make that claim.

[PHILA]

Indeed, however the Royals very nearly defeated the Celtics twice in '63 & '66.

In Game 7 of the '63 series, Sam Jones saved the day with 47 points on 67% shooting. Not to neglect Heinsohn's 31 points, Cousy's 23 points & 16 assists, & Russell's 20 points. Despite Robertson's 42 point effort, the Royals came up short. It appears that a technical foul on Red Auerbach was what set off the Celtics powerful 3rd quarter surge, during which they scored 40 points and put the game out of reach.


"This was our toughest series ever," said Celtics coach Red Auerbach. "The Royals were really ready and we were ripe to be taken. But they couldn't quite pluck us."




As for the '66 series, there is game footage available. Even had they beaten the Celtics I see absolutely no way they get by Philly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX8urOgwEBM

[ShaqAttack3234]

I praised Oscar in my thread about the footage of the 1970-1971 Bucks, but really? Over Olajuwon, Kobe and Duncan?

That's just overrating and I suspect the primary reason for this overrating is his stats which are partially due to the era, particularly rebounding. I mean due to the pace, stats were off the charts back then. I mean I think Bob Pettit had 30/20 seasons, Baylor had a 35/20/5 season and a 38/19/5 season season and Lucas had 20/20 seasons.

In reality, Oscar simply doesn't have much of a case for top 10. And Dr. J? I love Dr. J, efficient scorer, unselfish, led teams well, very good rebounder and an underrated passer, but no way is he top 10 either.

[ThaRegul8r]

Big O was a terror as most would call the top all around player in league history, and not strictly because of his statistics for there was no one thing this man could not do on the floor. Not flashy, not particularly dependent on his athleticism. This man was as legit a floor general and point guard as one could be in an era where there was no distinction between either position. Extremely versatile as well. Magic may arguably be the best overall, but Oscar was at least his equal in the half court. A very strong guard and amongst the top post players ever as well as the most fundamentally sound offensive player to ever play the sport. His jumper alone is evidence of this, as there was no over reliance on his supporting hand in his shooting motion. Indeed as beautiful and effective a touch as has ever been seen in the history of professional basketball. In the words of Wilt Chamberlain, "If I had my pick, I'd select Oscar first."

At the time, while the debate raged over who would you take, Russell or Chamberlain, there were some people who said they'd take Oscar over either of them. As you know, it was Oscar who broke through the MVP domination by Chamberlain and Russell, as he was the only player in a nine-year stretch to win MVP other than Chamberlain or Russell. It would be 17 years before a non-center was MVP again.

[Yung D-Will]

LoL That was quite an interesting thread to read through

[PHILA]

At the time, while the debate raged over who would you take, Russell or Chamberlain, there were some people who said they'd take Oscar over either of them. As you know, it was Oscar who broke through the MVP domination by Chamberlain and Russell, as he was the only player in a nine-year stretch to win MVP other than Chamberlain or Russell. It would be 17 years before a non-center was MVP again.
:applause:

[PHILA]

It turns out that Chamberlain had severe pain in both knee joints that affected him in Game 4.

NY Times (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B15F63C5E137A93CAA9178FD85F43 8685F9)

'The Philadelphia 76ers' star center, Wilt Chamberlain, who has sparked his team to three consecutive play-off victories over the Boston Celtics, did not practice today because of severe pain in both knee joints.'




Hannum had the most physically imposing front line in NBA history: Chet Walker, Luke Jackson and Chamberlain were tall, wide and rippled with muscles. They formed a wall in front of the basket that no team could penetrate, unless a player wanted to eat the ball or count his bruises.

Six players averaged double figures. Wilt still scored 24 per game, but he only shot when he knew he'd make it; he led the league in field goal percentage at .683. Consider that New York's Walt Bellamy was second at .521, and you can put Wilt's marksmanship into context.

Chamberlain's critics were speechless.





Regular Season Statistics:

24 ppg, 24 rpg, 8 apg, 68 FG%


A couple of notable performances from the regular season.


Sarasota Journal (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=uf4eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EIwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3823,2058474&dq)

Chamberlain scores 58 points and grabs 25 rebounds shooting 76% from the field to help lead the Sixers to victory, snapping a 2 game losing streak.


The Spokesman Review (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2AAzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zOgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1311,3623523&dq)

Chamberlain scores 42 points on 18/18 shooting from the field (100% FG) in a 76ers rout of the Bullets 149-118.


NBA Record - 35 consecutive field goals without a miss 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)






In the playoffs it appears Chamberlain had a field day in the first round against the Royals. :applause:


Game 1: 41 points, 23 rebounds, 5 assists, 63% FG

Game 2: 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists, 67% FG

Game 3: 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists, 62% FG

Game 4: 18 points, 27 rebounds, 9 assists, 50% FG


Series Averages: 28.0 ppg, 26.8 rpg, 11 apg, 61% FG



Coach Hannum's comments following Game 2:

"Wilt showed why he should be recognized as the greatest player in the history of the game. We also tried to key in on Oscar Robertson a little more tonight and since Wally Jones is smaller we tried to shift other men on him too. We've got two tough (http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1050536&sid=b49859b584455ed76ea4e09a273f7288#) ball clubs, but I feel Philadelphia is physically stronger than the Royals."


Royals Coach McMahon's comments following Game 2:

"I was not at all surprised at their going into Wilt. We knew what to expect. We just didn't play well enough."

"You know, I know and all the rest know that Philadelphia plays zone defense at least partially and the basic adjustment against zone defense is to move the ball. In the final analysis, it was the shooting that killed us."



A bit on Hal Greer written during the Sixers/Celtics series.

The Palm Beach Post (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=s2wyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mrUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1228,591341&dq)

"Greer plays the complete game,' said Hannum, "He's an offensive threat every minute he's in there. He has the perfect disposition, is well liked by everybody. We wouldn't have near the record this team has without Hal. You hear about our powerful (http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1050536&sid=b49859b584455ed76ea4e09a273f7288#) front line of Wilt, Luke Jackson, Chet Walker and Billy Cunningham, but Greer's outside shooting helps make this possible."

Greer admits that the toughest guard in the league against him is Boston's K.C. Jones, but denies the rap placed on him by some writers that he gets "K.C.-itus"

"The three best games of my career have been against Boston," he notes. "I scored 50 points against them my first year in the league, 45 against them here, and 38 this season in Boston."

While he is recognized generally as one of the top offensive players in the game, few people are aware that Greer can play defense with the best. Often, Hannum will send Greer after Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Rick Barry, or Sam Jones, at least until the 76ers' guard gets into foul difficulty.







Wilt & Russell head to head in the Eastern Divison Finals (couldn't find the block totals for Russell)


Game 1:

Wilt - 24 points, 32 rebounds, 12 assists, 12 blocks, 69% FG (Hal Greer had 39 points as well)
Russell - 20 points, 15 rebounds, 4 assists, 50% FG

Times-News (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=hG4dAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cSQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4657,46592&dq)

"Wilt broke it open. He was their whole defense, giving us only one shot when he wasn't blocking out shots," Russell admitted.


The Evening Independent (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2NkLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LVcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4124,65029&dq=)

"Greer, who shot 17-for- 35 from the field and 5-for-5 from the free throw line, said he was surprised in the early minutes that "Boston laid back on me. I don't know what they were trying to do, probably bottle up the middle and tie up Wilt. It threw me off at first, and then I got going."



Game 2:

Wilt - 15 points, 29 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks, 45% FG
Russell - 14 points, 24 rebounds, 5 assists, 36% FG

Eugene Register-Guard (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XOQQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6766,663452&dq)

Even with the 2-0 lead, Chamberlain was taking nothing for granted. "I'm a firm believer that all things are possible," he said. "I think they're going to come out just a little bit tougher in the third game."


The Miami News (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EWMzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EeoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=743,348697&dq)

"It's all over. I really think so, I really do," said Hal Greer after the 76ers won a 107-102 nationally televised thriller at Boston Garden to take a commanding (http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1050536&sid=b49859b584455ed76ea4e09a273f7288#) 2-0 lead in the best-of-seven Eastern Division final playoffs.

"We're not going to let up just because we're two up," the veteran backcourt star added. "We're going to bear down even harder than ever."

[PHILA]

Game 3:

Wilt - 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists, 5 blocks, 57% FG
Russell - 10 points, 29 rebounds, 9 assists, 23% FG

The Free Lance-Star (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cxoQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CYsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3522,2535851&dq=)

The 76ers moved the Celtics closer to the brink by whipping them 115-104 Wednesday night for a 3-0 lead in their best-of-7 series as Wilt Chamberlain controlled everything.

Chamberlain took the game in Philadelphia into his own big hands, scoring 20 points, assisting on nine baskets, blocking 5 shots and pulling down a playoff record 41 rebounds. He shared the old mark of 40 with Boston's Bill Russell.

It was big Wilt's dunk in the final period that put the 76ers ahead to stay 100-99, and when Wally Jones followed with three baskets and Chet Walker one for a 108-102 spread, the game was over. Chamberlain had help from Hal Greer, who scored 30 points, and Jones, who hit 21.



Game 4:

Entire 2nd half: http://www.youtube.com/user/NBAFan1426# ... BA403B08DC (http://www.youtube.com/user/NBAFan1426#grid/user/03567BBA403B08DC)

Wilt - 20 points, 22 rebounds, 10 assists, at least 3 blocks, 44% FG
Russell - 9 points, 28 rebounds, 5 assists, 29% FG

The Tuscaloosa News (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kXwhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pIoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3668,1777477&dq)

"We expect to wrap it up in Philly," Hannum said in a dressing room interview shortened because of an earlier threatening telephone call. "We won't be back to Boston." added veteran guard Hal Greer. "I don't think Boston can put games back-to-back like this one today."

Russell's work against Chamberlain was also a factor. The 7-foot-1 Philadelphia superstar had 20 points and 10 assists, but was not as dominant as in earlier games and lost the rebound battle to the 6-foot-9 Russell, 28-22. Luke Jackson led the 76ers with 29 points and Greer had 28.

Game 5:

Highlight of this game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCaMsm9AOag

Wilt - 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists, 7 blocks, 63% FG
Russell - 4 points, 21 rebounds, 7 assists, 40% FG

The Pittsburgh Press (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sWocAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YU8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7167,5365013&dq)

"I told the fellows I wouldn't exchange this team for any bunch of players in the world," Russell said. 'We lost. But this was my most enjoyable year in basketball. This is not the end of the Celtics."

Series averages:

Wilt - 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 6+ bpg, 56% FG
Russell - 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, 36% FG



LIFE Magazine (http://books.google.com/books?id=GFYEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA82&dq=wilt+chamberlain&hl=en&ei=_jRFTJvuDMP48Aa35LClBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)

In the locker room the reporters pop the big question: will this series prove he's the greatest? Wilt denies it: "If I'm the greatest player ever, I''m the greatest win or lose." It is something he has said before.



After the 76ers won the series, everyone in the locker room except Chamberlain was excited and celebrating with champagne. Chamberlain was the one who reminded the team that they needed to win 4 more games to be the champions.

http://i38.tinypic.com/2a6pceb.gif





NBA Finals between the Warriors & Sixers. Wilt & Nate head to head.

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1967.htm


Game 1:


Wilt - 16 points, 33 rebounds, 10 assists, 75% FG
Nate - 24 points, 31 rebounds, 3 assists, 50% FG


Chamberlain has a game saving block on Nate Thurmond to send the game in OT, where the Sixers pulled out with the win.

[I]'After the 76ers couldn

[PHILA]

Game 5:

Wilt - 20 points, 24 rebounds, 4 assists, 60% FG
Nate - 17 points, 28 rebounds, 1 assist, 33% FG


[I]'SF jumped to a 9-6 lead but the 76ers pulled ahead 24-19. They maintained their slim lead in the 2nd quarter behind Walker

[triangleoffense]

Excellent analysis.

One thing, though, was that Wilt seldom intentionally used his massive strength to full advantage. AND, as much as I hate to say this, I also believe that Wilt seldom played all out, either.

And, of course, that was one game...and his WORST of that series. There is a TON of footage available illustrating Wilt's 10-15 ft. bank shot range, 10-15 ft. jump shot range, and 10+ft hook shot range. There are some here who were critical of Wilt's .525 FG% in his first seven seasons. Look, the guy was not abusing his incredible massive edge in strength. AND, he was shooting MANY of his shots from 15 ft away. Finally, while Hakeem, Robinson, and Duncan are regarded as great offensive players, their numbers, at their BEST, was no better than Chamberlain's, at his WORST.

By the mid-60's, Wilt had refined his game, and he became a far more efficient scorer. He cut back his mid-range game (although, as you can see, he still had it), and concentrated on post moves closer to the basket. And by the 66-67 season, he dramatically cut back his shooting. Still, he had the high game from 66-67 thru the 68-69 seasons, including games of 58, 60, 66, and 68 points.

One more time, though, take a look at this video...and tell me that Dwight Howard was a better offensive player...

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

And for those that believe Howard is a better shot-blocker...

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


Anyway...great post ShaqAttack!

rep'd for truth

[ShaqAttack3234]

Good posts about the '67 finals, Abe.

[Psileas]

The Spokesman Review

Chamberlain scores 42 points on 18/18 shooting from the field (100% FG) in a 76ers rout of the Bullets 149-118.

The link includes another interesting stat: The second highest performance ever in FG made in a row (by Wilt again) was almost as impressive (31 straight) and happened earlier that season.
He also had some monstrous FG% games even in some of his previous seasons, despite not getting as high percentages. What stands out is a game from the 1964 season, when Wilt played only 3 quarters, but ended up with 38 points on 18/19 FG's.
Also, the game in which he became the all-time leading scorer in 1966 (you may have seen the photo of him standing next to a huge trophy presented to him) was insane: He finished with 41/32/13 and made 16 shots in a row (I guess plenty of dunks). During the same game, with his 32 rebounds, he also became the second leading rebounder of all time.

[PHILA]

Good posts about the '67 finals, Abe.
Actually it was a copy & paste from:

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1967.htm (http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/home.htm)

[jlauber]

For the regular season, and against the Warriors, Wilt averaged 20.3 ppg, 26.0 rpg, 8.8 apg, and shot .562 in nine games. I couldn't tell you if Thurmond played in all of them, but from page 69 of the book, 'Season of the Sixers'...


November saw the 76ers push their winning streak to 18 straight with wins over the Hawks and San Francisco. The victory over the Warriors gave the 76ers a new NBA record for consecutive wins, breaking the mark of 17, jointly held by Boston and the old Washington Caps. (note: The Celtics and Caps won consecutive games in a season, rather than over two seasons, like Philadelphia. As a result, the 76ers had an asterick in the record book next to their straight wins.)

San Francisco, featuring the deadeye shooting of Rick Barry and rebounding power of Nate Thurmond, gave the 76ers major trouble. So much so that early in the second half, Hannum had to abandon his plan of Chamberlain as playmaker, pushing his team to send assists Wilt's way and turn him into a big scorer again.

It worked. Wilt slammed home 24 points in the second half, finishing with 30 overall, plus 26 rebounds and a dozen blocked shots to spark a 134-129 win.

"He was our last hope," smiled Hannum. "Our other things weren't going well at all, so we had to go to him. We were dead if he didn't come through, but he did. Magnificently."

Incidently, Wilt only played Thurmond in a handful of games in his "scoring seasons." And Nate missed some games due to injuries, but Julizaver found one game in which Wilt outscored Thurmond, 45-13. In another, Wilt had a 38 point, 31 rebound game.

In their three post-season series, Wilt always shot well over 50%, while Thurmond never came close to 40% against Chamberlain. Wilt outrebounded him in every series, including a seven rebound per game advantage in the 72-73 WCF's. BTW, I attended game three at the Oakland Coliseum that year, and Wilt crushed Thurmond and the Warriors in a 126-70 win. In fact, in every post-season series between the two, Wilt's teams had at least one huge rout. In the 66-67 Finals there that 126-95 win. In the 68-69 WCF's, and after the Warriors had jumped out to a 2-0 series lead by winning the first two games in LA, the Lakers came back to win four straight, and won the last game 117-77. And, of course, that 126-70 win in 72-73.

And I have mentioned this a few times before, but Wilt scored on point blank dunks on close to five straight possessions against Thurmond in a 71-72 regular season win by a margin of 162-99. The Laker players waited patiently for Wilt to overpower Nate in the lane (yes, as big as Thurmond was, he was NO match for Chamberlain's incredible strength), and Wilt either outleaped him for dunks, or merely overpowered him for them.

[jlauber]

The link includes another interesting stat: The second highest performance ever in FG made in a row (by Wilt again) was almost as impressive (31 straight) and happened earlier that season.
He also had some monstrous FG% games even in some of his previous seasons, despite not getting as high percentages. What stands out is a game from the 1964 season, when Wilt played only 3 quarters, but ended up with 38 points on 18/19 FG's.
Also, the game in which he became the all-time leading scorer in 1966 (you may have seen the photo of him standing next to a huge trophy presented to him) was insane: He finished with 41/32/13 and made 16 shots in a row (I guess plenty of dunks). During the same game, with his 32 rebounds, he also became the second leading rebounder of all time.

Chamberlain had the three highest "perfect games" in NBA history in that 66-67 season, with games of 15-15, 16-16, and that 18-18 game. He also set a record for consecutive FGS with 35 straight that season.

[PHILA]

Also, the game in which he became the all-time leading scorer in 1966 (you may have seen the photo of him standing next to a huge trophy presented to him) was insane: He finished with 41/32/13 and made 16 shots in a row (I guess plenty of dunks). During the same game, with his 32 rebounds, he also became the second leading rebounder of all time.

Indeed. That after scoring only 10 points in the first half acting as a playmaker. :applause:


http://i56.tinypic.com/2pq10ls.jpg

[ShaqAttack3234]

Actually it was a copy & paste from:

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1967.htm (http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/home.htm)

I meant the links, recaps, information ect. I researched recaps of the '67 EDF and found it fascinating, and the same holds true for any series from back then, so I appreciate the posts.

[Fatal9]

Incidently, Wilt only played Thurmond in a handful of games in his "scoring seasons." And Nate missed some games due to injuries, but Julizaver found one game in which Wilt outscored Thurmond, 45-13.
Thurmond was in foul trouble (and fouled out) in that game, so I doubt most of the points were on Thurmond, especially considering his usual low ppg vs. him in all their matchups. Warriors also won that game, so I'd like to see his efficiency as well.


In their three post-season series, Wilt always shot well over 50%
He also averaged only 12.8 ppg (on 53%) in those series. Post all the facts please.

[Yung D-Will]

What exactly were the official height measurements on Wilt?

[ThaRegul8r]

What exactly were the official height measurements on Wilt?

7'1 1/16"

[jlauber]

Thurmond was in foul trouble (and fouled out) in that game, so I doubt most of the points were on Thurmond, especially considering his usual low ppg vs. him in all their matchups.


He also averaged only 12.8 ppg (on 53%) in those series. Post all the facts please.

Well, of course you would TRY to diminish Wilt's domination of Thurmond. Hopefully we will get more of Wilt's "scoring season" games against Thurmond, but I am confident it was close to 30 ppg.

And CLEARLY, had he just overpowered him, as he did on occassion, Nate would have had no chance. Nor Kareem for that matter (there is YouTube footage of an angry Wilt just blowing right by a helpless Kareem after Abdul Jabbar had suck-punched a teammate.)

[jlauber]

Unfortunately, this link does not provide Wilt's numbers vs the Warriors before the 66-67 season, but here are a list of some of their games. And, again, I couldn't tell you which games Thurmond missed.

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

11/4/66 30 points and we KNOW that Thurmond played that game. BTW, Wilt scored 24 points on him in the second half, after Hannum abandoned Wilt as a playmaker...and 26 rebounds with 12 blocks.

11/24/66 27 points
2/4/67 23 points
3/2/67 24 points
3/14/67 21 points
4/18/67 26 points (playoff game and Nate DID play.)
4/23/67 20 points (again, playoff game against Nate.)
4/24/67 24 points (clinching game of the series...completely crushed Nate.)

11/10/67 20 points
1/19/68 20 points
2/27/68 33 points

2/2/69 23 points (this was in a scoring binge by Wilt after SI ran an article claiming that he could no longer sscore. Over 17 straight games, Wilt averaged 32 ppg, with games of 60, 66, and even 35 against Russell.)

3/31/69 22 points (playoff game and Nate played.)

Of course, Wilt suffered a knee injury after that, and was never the offensive force that he had been. AND, all of the above games were in seasons in which Wilt had cut back his shooting.

I mentioned it already, but in the nine regular season games against the Warriors in the 66-67 season, Wilt averaged 20.3 ppg, 26.0 rpg, 8.8 apg, and shot .562.

[Poochymama]

After reading this entire thread, I'm finding it harder and harder to see an argument for Russell over Wilt. Wilt very well may be the G.O.A.T. I honestly can't say the same for Russell.

2nd/3rd best scorer of all time
Best rebounder of all time
great defender
2nd/ arguably 1st best blocker of all time and the 3rd best is WAY worse in this cat.
great passer
:bowdown:

Russell

below average scorer
2nd best rebounder of all time
best defender of all time
1st/2nd best shot blocker of all time
great passer


The only thing he clearly has over Wilt is defense, which in all honesty, while he was quite a bit better than Wilt on defense, Wilt absolutely CRUSHED Russell on offense.

Sure Russell has more rings, but G.O.A.T. is an individual accolade, not a team measurement.

The only knock I can see on Wilt is that he was so obsessed with his individual stats that it often hurt his team, but in his later years, once Wilt stopped taking as many shots, he started winning(plus he put up a better % which is always good).

Put it this way, if I'm in an all time draft, my first pick is gonna be either Wilt or Jordan, not Russell.

[Pointguard]

Great thread. But wowa, I gotta say that is the worst footage I ever saw of basketball. Wilt had to have been hurt. No in fact he had to have been hurt, constipated, heard the commisioners daughter was pregnant and receiving death threats. Wilt scored more than a point a minute for a year and this pathetic nonsense is all we get? Incredible. This is a guy whose block shots and rebounds numbers were like 32 or more for 10 years and we get the the turtle races the tortiose video??? WOW, that video sucked.

Its like a worst of .... . But this is the type of thing I noticed about the release of Wilt films and Wilt treatment. Show him at his worse. Don't count blocks. Don't show the hammer chops, piggy back riding and trips on the gentle giant. The Celtics would go as far as they could go to get wins.

I seen videos where every minute Wilt was doing three or four things while getting around sacrifical lambs - I seen footage of Wilt in 61-63 in the Lincoln Center Library in NY. I don't know if they still got it but what you saw here was useless in gathering what he could do. You would definitely believe things were orchestrated if you compare videos.

[jlauber]

After reading this entire thread, I'm finding it harder and harder to see an argument for Russell over Wilt. Wilt very well may be the G.O.A.T. I honestly can't say the same for Russell.

2nd/3rd best scorer of all time
Best rebounder of all time
great defender
2nd/ arguably 1st best blocker of all time and the 3rd best is WAY worse in this cat.
great passer
:bowdown:

Russell

below average scorer
2nd best rebounder of all time
best defender of all time
1st/2nd best shot blocker of all time
great passer


The only thing he clearly has over Wilt is defense, which in all honesty, while he was quite a bit better than Wilt on defense, Wilt absolutely CRUSHED Russell on offense.

Sure Russell has more rings, but G.O.A.T. is an individual accolade, not a team measurement.

The only knock I can see on Wilt is that he was so obsessed with his individual stats that it often hurt his team, but in his later years, once Wilt stopped taking as many shots, he started winning(plus he put up a better % which is always good).

Put it this way, if I'm in an all time draft, my first pick is gonna be either Wilt or Jordan, not Russell.

I would take a PEAK Wilt over any player. Having said that, though, Wilt lacked a "killer instinct", and his "Goliath Complex" was a liability as well. Russell, on the other hand, and MJ, were the two best players of all-time at "going for the jugular." Shaq, as well.

Russell's value extends well beyond personal stats, though. And his offense has become very under-rated by the current generation. He generally always came up BIG in BIG games. He was also the consumate teammate.

[Pointguard]

After reading this entire thread, I'm finding it harder and harder to see an argument for Russell over Wilt. Wilt very well may be the G.O.A.T. I honestly can't say the same for Russell.

The only thing he clearly has over Wilt is defense, which in all honesty, while he was quite a bit better than Wilt on defense, Wilt absolutely CRUSHED Russell on offense.

Sure Russell has more rings, but G.O.A.T. is an individual accolade, not a team measurement.

The only knock I can see on Wilt is that he was so obsessed with his individual stats that it often hurt his team, but in his later years, once Wilt stopped taking as many shots, he started winning(plus he put up a better % which is always good).

Put it this way, if I'm in an all time draft, my first pick is gonna be either Wilt or Jordan, not Russell.

Welll said!!!

[Pointguard]

GOAT Bill Russell will play Wilt Chamberlain tonight:
"Tonight expect Wilt to out rebound, out block, out assist him and perhaps double the GOAT's scoring output." Which is true on an average night in their peaks.

"So what do you think if they played a one on one game to a 100 points."
"The GOAT would get about 35 points."

"What advantage will you give the GOAT."
His team will piggy back Wilt, karate chop Wilt, Run cannonball interference when the Celtics have a fast break. Wilt will still more than likely have a better game than the GOAT but his team will loose."

Sorry it doesn't add up for me.

Now Jordan will outscore you and his defense was superb as well. He was consummate.

[jlauber]

GOAT Bill Russell will play Wilt Chamberlain tonight:
"Tonight expect Wilt to out rebound, out block, out assist him and perhaps double the GOAT's scoring output." Which is true on an average night in their peaks.

"So what do you think if they played a one on one game to a 100 points."
"The GOAT would get about 35 points."

"What advantage will you give the GOAT."
His team will piggy back Wilt, karate chop Wilt, Run cannonball interference when the Celtics have a fast break. Wilt will still more than likely have a better game than the GOAT but his team will loose."

Sorry it doesn't add up for me.

Now Jordan will outscore you and his defense was superb as well. He was consummate.

Cousy was on record as saying that had Wilt played with just one-third of Russell's intensity, that there would have been no stopping him.

IMHO, had Wilt just overpowered his opponents, that there would be no question as to who the GOAT was. But, I honestly believe that the NBA would never have allowed Wilt to do it. They would just have enacted more rules. They may have even enacted rules actually attached specifically to him alone (perhaps a rule that would have kept just WILT out of the lane.) Who knows? In any case, Wilt seldom intentionally overpowered anyone, but instead preferred to use his athleticism and skills. Ultimately, it probably cost him as many as seven titles.

[Poochymama]

I would take a PEAK Wilt over any player. Having said that, though, Wilt lacked a "killer instinct", and his "Goliath Complex" was a liability as well. Russell, on the other hand, and MJ, were the two best players of all-time at "going for the jugular." Shaq, as well.

Russell's value extends well beyond personal stats, though. And his offense has become very under-rated by the current generation. He generally always came up BIG in BIG games. He was also the consumate teammate.

I don't know, I just think Wilt is criticized too much for his lack of team success. He is better than Russell at ever facet of the game other than defense and blocking(I would say their equal in this regard), yet somehow Russell is the better player? I don't buy it.

Unfortunately Wilt usually was worse in the post season than he was in the regular season, which causes idiots to label him as a chocker.What they don't get is that getting slightly worse, when your so damned good to begin with is no where near chocking.

I used to think Jordan was the clear cut G.O.A.T., after seeing just how freakish Wilt was on the boards and at blocking shots, I'm starting to lean more towards Wilt as the G.O.A.T.

Even adjusting for pace he is still an absolute monster. Wilt Chamberlain's best season adjusted for pace is still

30.7 ppg
15.7 rpg
7.1 bpg (an estimation, but probably not far from the truth)
1.5 apg
53% TS

Honestly I don't know if anyone can top that as far as a single season peak.

Kareem? maybe at first glance, but remember Kareem's best season was in the early 70's so you still have to adjust for quite a bit of pace. Unfortunately I could find no mention of the Laker's pace during Kareem's peak, but just for a comparison here is his 74-75 season

27.0 ppg
12.6 rpg
3.0 bpg
3.7 apg
55% TS

comparing stats, even after adjusting for pace, Wilt is clearly ahead of Kareem. Kareem did have more of a killer instinct/will to win than Wilt, which does improve this comparison in his favor a little bit, but IMO, not enough.

[G.O.A.T]

Put it this way, if I'm in an all time draft, my first pick is gonna be either Wilt or Jordan, not Russell.

I hope we can be in the same league then.

Anyone who passes on Russell ignores history. No one in the history of sport has better understood how to win.

There may have been better athletes, more dominate athletes, more skilled athletes, even better basketball players, but never a greater winner than Bill Russell.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I hope we can be in the same league then.

Anyone who passes on Russell ignores history. No one in the history of sport has better understood how to win.

There may have been better athletes, more dominate athletes, more skilled athletes, even better basketball players, but never a greater winner than Bill Russell.

Honestly, I'd have to go with Kareem. The big man first theory I believe in is the tiebreaker for drafting him over Jordan. If Shaq could've played at 2000 or 2001 level for longer or Wilt could've played at 1967 level longer, they might be my picks.

[G.O.A.T]

Honestly, I'd have to go with Kareem. The big man first theory I believe in is the tiebreaker for drafting him over Jordan. If Shaq could've played at 2000 or 2001 level for longer or Wilt could've played at 1967 level longer, they might be my picks.

Then you too would lose to my Russell led team, as history has proven.

As great as Kareem was he was not a winner. He needed a winner on his team in all but one occasion for an entire decade.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Then you too would lose to my Russell led team, as history has proven.

Russell never faced Kareem and it would all depend on the supporting cast.

:roll: at Kareem not being a winner, you can't win 6 championships without being a winner.

[jlauber]

Then you too would lose to my Russell led team, as history has proven.

As great as Kareem was he was not a winner. He needed a winner on his team in all but one occasion for an entire decade.

I do know this much... (and quoting you BTW)...if Russell had not played in the NBA, Wilt would have won anywhere between 6-10 rings.

Hard to argue with 11 rings in 13 years, and 27 post-season series wins in 29 tries.

[G.O.A.T]

Russell never faced Kareem and it would all depend on the supporting cast.

:roll: at Kareem not being a winner, you can't win 6 championships without being a winner.

To an extend yes. But if they are at all close Russell wins 7 or 8 out of 10.

Even if you think Kareem is greater than Wilt it took both of them more than a decade to do what Russ did in three years.

Even when Wilt had the better teammates Russell won three of four.

Even when Kareem had the best supporting cast in the NBA his teams won "just" 5 of 10 titles.

For Russell winning just five Championships in 10 years would be a colossal failure. Let alone one in ten years.


I do know this much... (and quoting you BTW)...if Russell had not played in the NBA, Wilt would have won anywhere between 6-10 rings.

Recently I put a good deal of thought into the NBA without Russell...here's what I came up with:

This is assuming all draft picks, trades etc. stayed the same

NBA CHAMPIONS S.F. (sans Felton)
1957: St. Louis
1958: St. Louis
1959: Boston
1960: Philadelphia
1961: Syracuse
1962: Los Angeles
1963: Los Angeles
1964: Cincinnati
1965: Philadelphia
1966: Philadelphia
1967: Philadelphia
1968: Philadelphia
1969: Los Angeles

That gives Wilt six in the 60's plus the '72 Lakers for seven total, which would be one more than Kareem and Jordan and most all time for an elite player without the Celtic dynasty.

Hence (among 10,000 reasons) Russell is the greatest center of all-time.

[ShaqAttack3234]

To an extend yes. But if they are at all close Russell wins 7 or 8 out of 10.

Even if you think Kareem is greater than Wilt it took both of them more than a decade to do what Russ did in three years.

Even when Wilt had the better teammates Russell won three of four.

Even when Kareem had the best supporting cast in the NBA his teams won "just" 5 of 10 titles.

For Russell winning just five Championships in 10 years would be a colossal failure. Let alone one in ten years.

I disagree, I think Kareem's defense is closer to Russell's defense than Russell's offense is to Kareem's offense.

Kareem may be the best offensive big man of all time, he's clutch and his defense gets underrated.

[G.O.A.T]

I disagree, I think Kareem's defense is closer to Russell's defense than Russell's offense is to Kareem's offense.

Kareem may be the best offensive big man of all time, he's clutch and his defense gets underrated.

I wouldn't dispute any of that, except your conclusion. It's not about A+B+C or who's advantage on one side of the ball is greater.

Kareem has such an amazing individual advantage over Russell in so many areas both physically, and in terms of skill where Kareem is better in every facet technically. If you take away basketball acumen and sheer will, which allowed Russell to become twice the rebounder Kareem was, a greater shot blocker and a greater passer, Russell has no advantage at all in any conventional skill.

Both had the luxury of playing with other truly great players in their prime for the vast majority of their careers. Russell in 9 or 10 of 13 seasons and Kareem in 14 of 20. Yet Russell always won and Kareem sometimes won. Russell was always credited as the primary reason why his team won and Kareem, well even when he was clearly the best player on the floor, he wasn't always considered the key to their success.

Russell burnt out, Kareem faded away. It's appropriate that both of their final games were played in the NBA finals and that Russell's was as a winner on the road in game seven, and Kareem's a loser, in a sweep, at home. Kareem was a great great great player, the fourth best all-time in my opinion; but as valuable as he ALWAYS was, he was along for the ride. Russell never let anyone else steer the ship.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I wouldn't dispute any of that, except your conclusion. It's not about A+B+C or who's advantage on one side of the ball is greater.

Kareem has such an amazing individual advantage over Russell in so many areas both physically, and in terms of skill where Kareem is better in every facet technically. If you take away basketball acumen and sheer will, which allowed Russell to become twice the rebounder Kareem was, a greater shot blocker and a greater passer, Russell has no advantage at all in any conventional skill.

Both had the luxury of playing with other truly great players in their prime for the vast majority of their careers. Russell in 9 or 10 of 13 seasons and Kareem in 14 of 20. Yet Russell always won and Kareem sometimes won. Russell was always credited as the primary reason why his team won and Kareem, well even when he was clearly the best player on the floor, he wasn't always considered the key to their success.

Russell burnt out, Kareem faded away. It's appropriate that both of their final games were played in the NBA finals and that Russell's was as a winner on the road in game seven, and Kareem's a loser, in a sweep, at home. Kareem was a great great great player, the fourth best all-time in my opinion; but as valuable as he ALWAYS was, he was along for the ride. Russell never let anyone else steer the ship.

There weren't many teams to really challenge the Celtics in the way that the 80's Celtics challenged the Lakers and the Bad Boy Pistons as well as the '83 Sixers are widely regarded as some of the greatest teams ever.

Also, Kareem joined the Bucks in their second year who were coming off of a 56 win season, they added Oscar in '71, who was great at first, but Oscar was then injured in the '72 WCF and during those last 2 years, could you really call Oscar a great player? Kareem led the Bucks to game 7 of the '74 finals thanks to his game-winning sky hook in double OT of game 6 and that was without Lucius Allen who had been one of the team's best players during the '74 regular season.

He was traded to a 30-52 Laker team after that and he didn't really have a championship cast until 1980 and he won that year, but the following year, Magic was injured and horrible vs Houston and Kareem's prime was over after that. Kareem didn't have consistently good casts until he was well into his 30's.

I was impressed after researching how Russell played against Wilt, but if we're just ranking players by championships then it's a lot easier than people make it(no I'm not counting players like Horry).....the all-time list would be something like Russell, Havlicek, Jordan/Kareem, Kobe/Magic, Shaq/Duncan, Bird and Wilt/Olajuwon in that order.

[Pointguard]

When you see Jordan you see a guy that wasn't going to let another player be better than him. A guy that wasn't going to let another player win. Jordan would have won 8 out of 8 in an era that featured a center that Russell could have only watched. Heck it was the age of the great centers. And Jordan found his was around every single one of them. Russell didn't distinguish himself in his time its not fair to say he would in the 90's when the gollden age of centers was there. Much less against a guy that de-centered the game in the golden age of centers.

If Wilt is considered a head case with winning issues it further dimishes Russells claim to greatness: His only obstacle had no will to win yet somehow outplayed him 90% of the time.

Jordan was absolute in his dominance: Wins, personal accomplishments, defense, offense, influence, efficiency, originality, stature, globalization, impact, exerted his will on the game unlike any before him and his unquestioned domination.

Being that I could ask Russell to have shown he could play a game as good as a contemporary - you have no question at all for Jordan.

Then as the best individual player I have Wilt. Mind boggling consistency of greatness.

[ThaRegul8r]

When you see Jordan you see a guy that wasn't going to let another player be better than him. A guy that wasn't going to let another player win. Jordan would have won 8 out of 8 in an era that featured a center that Russell could have only watched. Heck it was the age of the great centers. And Jordan found his was around every single one of them. Russell didn't distinguish himself in his time its not fair to say he would in the 90's when the gollden age of centers was there. Much less against a guy that de-centered the game in the golden age of centers.

If Wilt is considered a head case with winning issues it further dimishes Russells claim to greatness: His only obstacle had no will to win yet somehow outplayed him 90% of the time.

"Only obstacle"? Find out who Bob Pettit, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor are. Who the hell were Jordan's consistent rivals? He won nothing when the Showtime Lakers and the Celtics were dominating the league. What top 10-15 players all-time were Jordan facing at their peak year in and year out to test him?

[Round Mound]

No one here will convince me that Russell was better than Wilt.

Wilt is a Top 10 Player of All Time and among the most dominant in PER, EFF and +/-

He usually outplayed Russell but Bill had too many gunners in his teams

[G.O.A.T]

When you see Jordan you see a guy that wasn't going to let another player be better than him. A guy that wasn't going to let another player win. Jordan would have won 8 out of 8 in an era that featured a center that Russell could have only watched. Heck it was the age of the great centers. And Jordan found his was around every single one of them. Russell didn't distinguish himself in his time its not fair to say he would in the 90's when the gollden age of centers was there. Much less against a guy that de-centered the game in the golden age of centers.

If Wilt is considered a head case with winning issues it further dimishes Russells claim to greatness: His only obstacle had no will to win yet somehow outplayed him 90% of the time.

Jordan was absolute in his dominance: Wins, personal accomplishments, defense, offense, influence, efficiency, originality, stature, globalization, impact, exerted his will on the game unlike any before him and his unquestioned domination.

Being that I could ask Russell to have shown he could play a game as good as a contemporary - you have no question at all for Jordan.

Then as the best individual player I have Wilt. Mind boggling consistency of greatness.

Jordan six titles in 15 years
Russell eleven titles in 13 years

And who was more complete in their dominance?

Really that entire post is extremely ignorant though, so there is no reason to bother.

[G.O.A.T]

No one here will convince me that Russell was better than Wilt.

Wilt is a Top 10 Player of All Time and among the most dominant in PER, EFF and +/-

He usually outplayed Russell but Bill had too many gunners in his teams

Read a book and try to understand the game beyond stats. ONLY in 1967 did Wilt outplay Russell.

Otherwise Russell understood what he was up against and made sure his team was in a position to win the game.

No one has to convince you that Russell is better than Wilt, he proved it for ten seasons.


There weren't many teams to really challenge the Celtics in the way that the 80's Celtics challenged the Lakers and the Bad Boy Pistons as well as the '83 Sixers are widely regarded as some of the greatest teams ever.

Also, Kareem joined the Bucks in their second year who were coming off of a 56 win season, they added Oscar in '71, who was great at first, but Oscar was then injured in the '72 WCF and during those last 2 years, could you really call Oscar a great player? Kareem led the Bucks to game 7 of the '74 finals thanks to his game-winning sky hook in double OT of game 6 and that was without Lucius Allen who had been one of the team's best players during the '74 regular season.

He was traded to a 30-52 Laker team after that and he didn't really have a championship cast until 1980 and he won that year, but the following year, Magic was injured and horrible vs Houston and Kareem's prime was over after that. Kareem didn't have consistently good casts until he was well into his 30's.

I was impressed after researching how Russell played against Wilt, but if we're just ranking players by championships then it's a lot easier than people make it(no I'm not counting players like Horry).....the all-time list would be something like Russell, Havlicek, Jordan/Kareem, Kobe/Magic, Shaq/Duncan, Bird and Wilt/Olajuwon in that order.

Excuses are common and many for Wilt, Kareem and Shaq and the many times their teams lost to opponents with worse records or seemingly less talent. Russell never needed any excuses.

As for ranking players by titles. If you limit it to titles won as the bets player on the team, it's actually the most accurate stat, or at least the one that gives us the rankings as close to common perception as possible.

Since 1954...

1. Russell 9
2. Jordan 6
3. Duncan 4
4. Jabbar 3
5. Bird 3
6. Magic 3
7. Shaq 3
8. Wilt 2
9. Kobe 2
10. Hakeem 2
-------------------
The you got guys like Hondo with 1 or 2
Cowens with one or two
Isiah with one or two

throw in some stats to balance it and you've got a version pretty close to most peoples top ten.

[Yung D-Will]

Everyone seems to pick apart Kareem's rebounding

[Pointguard]

Jordan six titles in 15 years
Russell eleven titles in 13 years.
Really that entire post is extremely ignorant though, so there is no reason to bother.
I expect certain things from younger posters but not from you. I'll take it as a bad day this time. To be honest this type of talk hypes me, reminds me of the game. I'll break this down with help... from actually you!

Point A
The best stands out even among the exceptional. You know it and I know it. It would have been 8 for 8 once Jordan got help and a little bit of experience. In an era that had a vast majority of guys in the top ten all time in a list you quoted this week. (And you were in favor of keeping Oscar out in favor of a Jordan era guy) Jordan was unquestionably the best. If fact 8 of 10guys in the top ten touched Jordan's era (Kareem, Jordan, Shaq, Bird, Magic, Wilt, Hakeem, Kobe, Duncan and Russell). Russell's career overlapped with one guy whom many are claiming had winning issues. Winning is Russell's main claim to fame.

Point B
No man is an island. Jordan might have played with only one HOFer. Russell had seven on one team. Do you really think, in all honesty that if Jordan had two HOFers around him at all times that he would have lost in any season? Russell was averaging three and a HOF organization. Who looses with three HOF and a top five player? How do we even know if he is a top five player.

Point C
My son would be the best one on the court. Pick a series where between 84 and 97 where there was a better player on the court in a series with Jordan that outplayed him when he was healthy or not coming back from baseball. Sure there might be an exception but he was as thorough as they come in his domination. No he isn't the guy Wilt set an amazing rebound record on, that will likely not be broken. He isn't the guy that was usually outplayed by Wilt to the tune of like 80% of the time.

Point D
How do I stop thee. Jordan is coming tonight. He will outscore you and anybody on your team. In fact if you outscore him, its not worth it as he will likely crush you the next time around.

Point E
If I outscore you, you loose.
Russell was not a very good scorer. For all practical purposes Russell averaged half of what Jordan averaged career wise despite Russell playing in an era where Wilt averaged 40 ppg over six seasons. One time while Russell was in his prime another player averaged 31 more ppg (no typo) than him while out rebounding him and shot 40% points better than him from the field. Russ never averaged 19ppg or higher in any season. And he was one of the fastest runners in the league in an up-tempo league. Huh??? If we adjust his numbers to today's pace he’s practically Ben Wallace in 05. Cept Ben won without HOFers.

Point F
I believe I can fly Impact. Jordan has globalized the game and has songs, movies and inspired the next generation of great ballers to wear his number and imitate his style.

I could go on…

[nbacardDOTnet]

Great Thread.

I will check later.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Excuses are common and many for Wilt, Kareem and Shaq and the many times their teams lost to opponents with worse records or seemingly less talent. Russell never needed any excuses.


Russell never needed to carry teams like Kareem did in '74 and '77. In the playoffs, Kareem averaged only 1 fewer ppg than his second and third leading scorers combined in '74 and got to game 7 of the finals. In the '77 playoffs, he easily averaged more points than his second and third leading scorers combined. You think Russell is winning titles in a situation like that?

Again, look at the Bucks record or the Lakers record the year before Kareem joined. You have to look at the situation each of the players were in.

[G.O.A.T]

I expect certain things from younger posters but not from you. I'll take it as a bad day this time. To be honest this type of talk hypes me, reminds me of the game. I'll break this down with help... from actually you!

Point A
The best stands out even among the exceptional. You know it and I know it. It would have been 8 for 8 once Jordan got help and a little bit of experience. In an era that had a vast majority of guys in the top ten all time in a list you quoted this week. (And you were in favor of keeping Oscar out in favor of a Jordan era guy) Jordan was unquestionably the best. If fact 8 of 10guys in the top ten touched Jordan's era (Kareem, Jordan, Shaq, Bird, Magic, Wilt, Hakeem, Kobe, Duncan and Russell). Russell's career overlapped with one guy whom many are claiming had winning issues. Winning is Russell's main claim to fame.
Point B
No man is an island. Jordan might have played with only one HOFer. Russell had seven on one team. Do you really think, in all honesty that if Jordan had two HOFers around him at all times that he would have lost in any season? Russell was averaging three and a HOF organization. Who looses with three HOF and a top five player? How do we even know if he is a top five player.

Point C
My son would be the best one on the court. Pick a series where between 84 and 97 where there was a better player on the court in a series with Jordan that outplayed him when he was healthy or not coming back from baseball. Sure there might be an exception but he was as thorough as they come in his domination. No he isn't the guy Wilt set an amazing rebound record on, that will likely not be broken. He isn't the guy that was usually outplayed by Wilt to the tune of like 80% of the time.

Point D
How do I stop thee. Jordan is coming tonight. He will outscore you and anybody on your team. In fact if you outscore him, its not worth it as he will likely crush you the next time around.

Point E
If I outscore you, you loose.
Russell was not a very good scorer. For all practical purposes Russell averaged half of what Jordan averaged career wise despite Russell playing in an era where Wilt averaged 40 ppg over six seasons. One time while Russell was in his prime another player averaged 31 more ppg (no typo) than him while out rebounding him and shot 40% points better than him from the field. Russ never averaged 19ppg or higher in any season. And he was one of the fastest runners in the league in an up-tempo league. Huh??? If we adjust his numbers to today's pace he’s practically Ben Wallace in 05. Cept Ben won without HOFers.

Point F
I believe I can fly Impact. Jordan has globalized the game and has songs, movies and inspired the next generation of great ballers to wear his number and imitate his style.

I could go on…

^The idiots guide to how to get on an ignore list

Bolded are the parts that made me realize it'd be impossible and never worthwhile to reply.

Better to stay silent and let people think you might be an idiot than speak up and erase any doubt.

[Psileas]

If fact 8 of 10guys in the top ten touched Jordan's era (Kareem, Jordan, Shaq, Bird, Magic, Wilt, Hakeem, Kobe, Duncan and Russell).

A) What?
B) Russell faced and beat all-time greats in their primes: Wilt, Oscar, West, Baylor. The vast majority of Kareem's, Duncan's and Kobe's legacies were written outside Jordan's era and so did the biggest part of Shaq's one.



Point F
I believe I can fly Impact. Jordan has globalized the game and has songs, movies and inspired the next generation of great ballers to wear his number and imitate his style.

That is a matter of a lot of factors. Era is 100% relevant with this. Jordan in Russell's era would still have to eat in black men's restaurants, stay out of white men's hotels and hear the N word every day in every arena, especially in St.Louis.

How about adding Point G, called "three-peat in not enough"? Russell didn't lose interest/retire when the Celtics broke the Lakers' NBA record of 3 in a row or the all-pro record of 6 in a row.

[Gotterdammerung]

^The idiots guide to how to get on an ignore list

Bolded are the parts that made me realize it'd be impossible and never worthwhile to reply.
It's allright to have different opinions, and different arguments to support them. None of us have to agree.

I think Wilt was the GOAT but my reasons aren't the same reasons why you think Bill Russel was the GOAT, or why Pointguard thinks MJ was the GOAT.

The GOAT doesn't have to be the all-time champion winner because basketball is a team sport (need 4 quality players, quality coach, quality organization, etc) that places intangibles and factors beyond the player's sphere of influence. But he must be the best player in the league without any doubt - the most dominant in most aspects of the game - the first player picked in a hypothetical all-time draft, and so forth.

Those reasons are more important than who we think is the GOAT, and from there, we can debate why that's the necessary criteria, and forget WHO we think the GOAT is for a second, and whether we agree. That will lead to a productive thread. Maybe not here. :facepalm


Better to stay silent and let people think you might be an idiot than speak up and erase any doubt.
Now that paraphrase is just shy of plagiarizing the esteemed Mark Twain, but I doubt anyone else would recognize. :no:

[Poochymama]

Ranking players with rings as the primary concern has got to be the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Guess Derek Fisher is greater than Wilt, so is Scottie Pippen. Who knew?

The point is, had Wilt, Jordan, or Kareem played for the Celtics instead of Russell, all three of those guys would probably have 13 rings.

Had Russell played for the Bulls in Jordan's era, he'd have 2-3 rings tops.

[Poochymama]

I disagree, I think Kareem's defense is closer to Russell's defense than Russell's offense is to Kareem's offense.

Kareem may be the best offensive big man of all time, he's clutch and his defense gets underrated.

Kareem's defense is WAY closer to Russell's defense than vice versa, it's not even close. Kareem was great on both ends of the court, Russell...not so much.

[Poochymama]

It's allright to have different opinions, and different arguments to support them. None of us have to agree.

I think Wilt was the GOAT but my reasons aren't the same reasons why you think Bill Russel was the GOAT, or why Pointguard thinks MJ was the GOAT.

The GOAT doesn't have to be the all-time champion winner because basketball is a team sport (need 4 quality players, quality coach, quality organization, etc) that places intangibles and factors beyond the player's sphere of influence. But he must be the best player in the league without any doubt - the most dominant in most aspects of the game - the first player picked in a hypothetical all-time draft, and so forth.

Those reasons are more important than who we think is the GOAT, and from there, we can debate why that's the necessary criteria, and forget WHO we think the GOAT is for a second, and whether we agree. That will lead to a productive thread. Maybe not here. :facepalm


Now that paraphrase is just shy of plagiarizing the esteemed Mark Twain, but I doubt anyone else would recognize. :no:


One of the best posts so far.

Calling someone an idiot for disagreeing with you over a topic that is easily debatable(Russell vs Jordan), makes you seem more idiotic than the person you're insulting. Only a fool would claim that Russell was clearly better than Jordan and not acknowledge the fact that it could go both ways.

[G.O.A.T]

It's allright to have different opinions, and different arguments to support them. None of us have to agree.

I think Wilt was the GOAT but my reasons aren't the same reasons why you think Bill Russel was the GOAT, or why Pointguard thinks MJ was the GOAT.

I'm not making a case that Russell was greater, just that his accomplishments are far greater and more significant than people hear understand.

No one needs to convince me that MJ has a case for greatest player ever, but his case for Russell not being a candidate for that same title is so ignorant and lazy.




The GOAT doesn't have to be the all-time champion winner because basketball is a team sport (need 4 quality players, quality coach, quality organization, etc) that places intangibles and factors beyond the player's sphere of influence. But he must be the best player in the league without any doubt - the most dominant in most aspects of the game - the first player picked in a hypothetical all-time draft, and so forth.

Winning is the primary function of sport. Within winning you can't get in the conversation in basketball. Yes it's a team sport, but one that is heavily dependant on the very best players.


Those reasons are more important than who we think is the GOAT, and from there, we can debate why that's the necessary criteria, and forget WHO we think the GOAT is for a second, and whether we agree. That will lead to a productive thread. Maybe not here. :facepalm

No dispute, but without some common ground to work from, debate deteriorates into argument, which is really boring to read if your not involved.



Now that paraphrase is just shy of plagiarizing the esteemed Mark Twain, but I doubt anyone else would recognize. :no:

I had no idea who said it first, but I've repeated it numerous times.

[G.O.A.T]

Ranking players with rings as the primary concern has got to be the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Guess Derek Fisher is greater than Wilt, so is Scottie Pippen. Who knew?

The point is, had Wilt, Jordan, or Kareem played for the Celtics instead of Russell, all three of those guys would probably have 13 rings.

Had Russell played for the Bulls in Jordan's era, he'd have 2-3 rings tops.

This doesn't bother me because I disagree with it. It bothers me because it's insanely ignorant.

Auerbach, all the Celtics players and Wilt himself have stated on numerous occasions that Wilt could not have produced nealy as many titles as Russell because his game would take away way too much from everyone else.

Kareem had just as good of a team in the 1980's and faced no better competition at the top and only came up with five titles, Russell got nine.

And before you play the competition card, Kareem also won one title in the 1970's, the weakest era in the history of the sport post shot clock.

As for MJ, hard to say because of his position he would not have fit with the Celtics, but that's not the point. He needed Phil to learn how to win, but once he did he was unstoppable just like Russell, no matter who had the more talented team.

[ThaRegul8r]

How about adding Point G, called "three-peat in not enough"? Russell didn't lose interest/retire when the Celtics broke the Lakers' NBA record of 3 in a row or the all-pro record of 6 in a row.

EXACTLY. I don't hear this talked about. Jordan was bored with basketball when he retired the first time. There's a quote out there somewhere that he was going to retire whether what happened to his father happened or not, but I lost it and have to find it again. Russell didn't get bored with winning. Winning never got old for Russell. (And why is it a given Jordan would win 8 in a row when he couldn't sustain the drive after three? Only one man in the history of the game has PROVEN to have the necessary sustained drive year in and year out, without complacency and ennui setting in. He didn't need to "take a break to recharge.") And he walked off into the sunset the same way he enter—a champion.

Jordan had the opportunity to go out a champion as well, but he had to spoil it by coming back.

[Pointguard]

^The idiots guide to how to get on an ignore list
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought you had a bad day. But you insist on having men half your age or 30 years younger lead you in terms of respect. Have it your way. I have not said anything to offend you or that was disrespectful, but you insist. Ignore me if you want but others will advance my point and I assure they will not grant you the patience.


Bolded are the parts that made me realize it'd be impossible and never worthwhile to reply.
Winning is Russell's claim to fame. You, Mr. GOAT, make the claim yourself. "He beat him (meaning Wilt) everytime." "Winning is the function of the game." Are you telling me it is impossible and not worthwhile to reply to thoughts that were generated by you? Did you bold the wrong part?

Jordan is well known for being spiteful if you outplayed him. He writes about that in his book, and said as much in his HOF speech. If you got away with outplaying he made sure you were looking over your shoulder. Heck Byron Russell is trying to play him now to settle an old score that the whole nation seen.



Better to stay silent and let people think you might be an idiot than speak up and erase any doubt.
Oh and then you go silent, so its autobiographical? Why are you confessing to me?

[Pointguard]

Being that Russell's offensive game is significantly weaker than anybody in the top ten or possible top twenty you have to factor in that they didn't have scouting reports back in the day like they do now. The speed of defenders is a bit faster and help defenders are quicker as well. Its very different with guys that are prolific scorers because they are used to finding ways to score. Not so with average scorers.

Plus Russell was overly left handed which means he would be much more susceptible to scouting reports. Left handed preferred players (guys that actually used their right hand ) like Beasley, Walter Berry, and Derrick Coleman and several others who were projected high scorers, never lived up to their billing (Beasley still has time, tho). And these guys were skilled scorers very unlike Russell.

David Robinson would be the exception but he was a very skilled ball handler and a prolific scorer. Russel would be undersized, offensively challenged and overly one handed.

[jlauber]

Russell was the greatest "winner" in NBA history. But, it must be acknowledged that basketball is a TEAM game.

BUT, the reality is/was...how do you rank players, INDIVIDUALLY, in a TEAM game?

For example, MJ averaged 42 ppg in the '86 playoffs against the Celtics. However, his TEAM was swept 3-0. Why? Maybe the fact that Jordan's Bulls went 30-52 (and MJ was injured for much of it), while Boston had FIVE HOFers on that roster.

Wilt had several post-seasons, in which his TEAM's were horribly outgunned by HOFers, and still almost took those rotten teams to within an eyelash of upsetting the greatest dynasty in professional sports history. Not only that, but he either statistically outplayed Russell, or absolutely CRUSHED him in EVERY post-season series between the two.

Don't get me wrong,...I have come to believe Russell was the greatest all-around player ever. But I get so sick-and-tired of having to defend Wilt in these discussions. It would be one thing if Russell were outscoring, outrebounding amd outshooting Wilt in the majority of those H2H battles, but, it was the exact opposite. Chamberlain had 50 point playoff games against Russell (in wins BTW), as well as 40 rebound games. He had game seven's in which he shot 80% and 87.5% against Russell. He had 46-34 games in losses against Russell. His numbers against Russell in their four game seven's? 21.3 ppg, 28.5 rpg, and .652 shooting. Meanwhile, Russell averaged 13.2 ppg, and 24.5 rpg against Wilt in those game seven's, and while I could not find all of his FG% numbers, in the two that I could, he shot .391 against Wilt.

He also BURIED Russell in the '67 ECF's. He pounded Russell in EVERY facet of the game, in that series. And then he swamped Thurmond in the series afterwards.

And, once again, Wilt played BRILLIANTLY, even in EVERY post-season he played in...some more than other's. My god, he was criticized for a 14-34 game seven (in which Russell put up a 12-26 game.) He was ripped for a 46-34 game, because he only shot 8-25 from the line (and 19-34 from the floor.) BUT, does anyone criticize Russell for his wimpy game five in that clinching loss in the '67 ECF's? And Wilt got shredded by many after his game seven in the '69 Finals, including Russell. BUT, did anyone mention to Russell that he was nowhere to be found in that 4th quarter? Or that Wilt completely outplayed him, despite missing the last five minutes of that game?

Wilt missed FIVE rings by the narrowest of margins. We are not talking about someone that folded in those post-seasons, but a player that DOMINATED in them. He was considered a "choker" against Reed in that game seven for cryingoutloud, despite the fact that he outscored Reed, 21-4, outshot Reed, 10-16 to 2-5, and outrebounded Reed, 24-3. I could see an argument had it been the other way around, but it was NEVER like that, in ANY of Wilt's post-seasons. He was considered a "failure" when he BURIED his opposing centers.

Why??????

[Pointguard]

Don't get me wrong,...I have come to believe Russell was the greatest all-around player ever.

I don't know about that. He was uncomfortable offensively. No jump shot. No comfortable offense outside of 10 feet except to pass. Was a bad free throw shooter (56%). I think Shaq Attack scaled Wilt down to 25 and 12 in his prime that would reduce Russ down to 9 and 11 per game in his prime LOL, which is why I brought up the Ben Wallace similiarity but that would be a disservice to Ben. Really there is no excuse for Russ to have averaged 15ppg when he was so fast. He wasn't a good dribbler or a man with moves. His field goal percentage was crap (44%) despite taking safe shots usually within very close range. Scouting reports were crap back then too. The quicker help defenders pretty much started with Walt Frazier so he was lucky.

You really do Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan, KG, MJ, Kobe and David Robinson a disservice by suggesting Russell was more well rounded then they were.