Bill Russell vs Wilt Chamberlain

[1987_Lakers]

It's been a while since we had a Wilt vs Russell thread, I think it's time to re-visit. I myself am starting to change my views on this topic, have your views changed?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2009/writers/steve_aschburner/01/06/all.time/russell-chamberlain.jpg

[G.O.A.T]

Oh no, I can't take another one...please the ignorance on Russell has reached critical mass.

[BDiesel324]

If Basketball were a 1 on 1 Sport, the answer is clearly Wilt Chamberlain. However, Basketball is not a 1 on 1 Sport, it is a 5 on 5 Sport. I can't think of any players better at that 5 on 5 game than Bill Russell was. If you couldn't understand what I just said there, I said that Wilt was the better individual player, but Russell was the better overall player because team has a large part to do with it.

I am more than positive if you gave both of these guys four random players for a 5 on 5 game against each other. Bill Russell would come up on Top, 99% of the time.

[ThaRegul8r]

Oh no, I can't take another one...please the ignorance on Russell has reached critical mass.

In over three decades now of talking about Russell (and others), the people have changed, but the overall ignorance remains the same. No matter how much I put out there that people previously had no clue about (because of course, they don't actually KNOW anything about him), people are set in their ways and would rather cling to their misinformed preconceptions. Sometimes I wonder what the point is, and think maybe the ignorant should be left to themselves, since no amount of information and truth can break through.

[Al Thornton]

none of us except a few saw these guys play, and yet there are still so many threads. its ridiculous.

[G.O.A.T]

none of us except a few saw these guys play, and yet there are still so many threads. its ridiculous.

I think it's far more ridiculous to use the internet to seek out people to discuss a game that just happened and everyone seen. That's what friends and associates are for.

To understand what you have not seen you need to discuss it.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Looking at the recaps of those playoff series and seeing how Russell raised his game and Wilt's play usually tailed off, I have to go with Russell. The fact that Russell was voted MVP over Wilt in his 50 ppg shows how deceptive the stats were.

In the 1962 Eastern Division Final, Russell basically matched Wilt's offensive output in Boston's wins which shows how much he raised his game and limited Wilt's. And according to the recaps, Russell's numbers came during more crucial moments. And if you look at '66, '68 and '69 it seems that even when Wilt's teams were comparable, Russell would find away to come out on top and Wilt's play would drop.

[Round Mound]

If Basketball were a 1 on 1 Sport, the answer is clearly Wilt Chamberlain. However, Basketball is not a 1 on 1 Sport, it is a 5 on 5 Sport. I can't think of any players better at that 5 on 5 game than Bill Russell was. If you couldn't understand what I just said there, I said that Wilt was the better individual player, but Russell was the better overall player because team has a large part to do with it.

I am more than positive if you gave both of these guys four random players for a 5 on 5 game against each other. Bill Russell would come up on Top, 99% of the time.

Then Bird was better than Jordan and Magic right there too. They where better team players.

The difference is Wilt was also a better passer than Russell when needed too.

[Sarcastic]

Russell was better than Wilt at all the intangibles.

But you know what is better than intangibles? Tangibles!

Better scorer: Wilt
Better rebounder: Wilt
Better passer: Wilt
Better blocker: Wilt

[1987_Lakers]

Russell was better than Wilt at all the intangibles.

But you know what is better than intangibles? Tangibles!

Better scorer: Wilt
Better rebounder: Wilt
Better passer: Wilt
Better blocker: Wilt

Russell was a better passer than Wilt. Wilt probably blocked more shots, but Russell was the better defender overall.

[Sarcastic]

Russell was a better passer than Wilt. Wilt probably blocked more shots, but Russell was the better defender overall.

Wilt is the only center to ever lead the league in assists. You are probably gonna say: "assists don't = good passer". They do mean something though. You don't lead the league in them from the center position, if you don't have a good awareness of the court.

Russell was probably a better overall defender, but not as much as Wilt was better than Russell from an offensive point of view. If Russell is +1 over Wilt on defense, then Wilt is +10 over Russell on offense.

[1987_Lakers]

And there is no excuse for Wilt for losing in '68 & '69. Everyone here got on LeBron for what he did this year in the playoffs, but imagine if ISH existed in '68 & '69, Wilt would get ALOT more bashing & rightfully so. Wilt's own TEAMMATE Jerry West said after the '69 Finals that he would rather have Bill Russell on his team than Wilt. What does that tell you?

[Sarcastic]

And there is no excuse for Wilt for losing in '68 & '69. Everyone here got on LeBron for what he did this year in the playoffs, but imagine if ISH existed in '68 & '69, Wilt would get ALOT more bashing & rightfully so. Wilt's own TEAMMATE Jerry West said after the '69 Finals that he would rather have Bill Russell on his team than Wilt. What does that tell you?

I hate to say it, but winning is overrated when you consider individual players in team sports.

How can you compare Dan Marino to other QBs like Terry Bradshaw and Joe Namath. Marino is light years ahead of them as a QB and has 0 Super Bowls, and those 2 bums have 5 between them. They won because they had great teammates.

[triangleoffense]

Wilt is the only center to ever lead the league in assists. You are probably gonna say: "assists don't = good passer". They do mean something though. You don't lead the league in them from the center position, if you don't have a good awareness of the court.

Russell was probably a better overall defender, but not as much as Wilt was better than Russell from an offensive point of view. If Russell is +1 over Wilt on defense, then Wilt is +10 over Russell on offense.

:cheers:

[1987_Lakers]

Wilt is the only center to ever lead the league in assists. You are probably gonna say: "assists don't = good passer". They do mean something though. You don't lead the league in them from the center position, if you don't have a good awareness of the court.

The reason he led the league in assist that year was because he became OBSESSED to do so. He was so obsessed with his assist numbers & FG% with the sixers that he became too unselfish, taking only 2 shots in the 2nd half in game 7 vs Boston in '68 is one example. Or when he didn't attempt a single shot vs Thurmond in one regular season game in '67 because he didn't want his FG% to go down, bottom line is Wilt cared more about his stats than he did winning & I can't stand players like that.

[PHILA]

:facepalm

[Sarcastic]

The reason he led the league in assist that year was because he became OBSESSED to do so. He was so obsessed with his assist numbers & FG% with the sixers that he became too unselfish, taking only 2 shots in the 2nd half in game 7 vs Boston in '68 is one example. Or when he didn't attempt a single shot vs Thurmond in one regular season game in '67 because he didn't want his FG% to go down, bottom line is Wilt cared more about his stats than he did winning & I can't stand players like that.

In Super Bowl XXI, Phil Simms absolutely DESTROYED John Elway from the QB position.

Is there anyone on the planet who thinks Simms is better than Elway?

[1987_Lakers]

In Super Bowl XXI, Phil Simms absolutely DESTROYED John Elway from the QB position.

Is there anyone on the planet who thinks Simms is better than Elway?

John Elway is the most overrated QB in NFL history.

[PHILA]

In Super Bowl XXI, Phil Simms absolutely DESTROYED John Elway from the QB position.

Is there anyone on the planet who thinks Simms is better than Elway?

Now there is no doubt that Russell is the proper answer as evidenced by his sustained level of consistent dominance compared to Chamberlain from '59-'69. Blame the various coaches, or even Chamberlain himself, or both for his game changing so drastically on numerous occasions. However Chamberlain at his best was 2nd to none in league history.

[Sarcastic]

John Elway is the most overrated QB in NFL history.

Actually it's Favre.

The point is: you have to judge a player over his entire body of work. You can't just use one playoff run, where he had a bad week.

Yea, Wilt had some bad runs in the playoffs. He also was the defensive leader of arguably the best team ever (71-72 Lakers).

Overall, Wilt > Russell.

[1987_Lakers]

Now there is no doubt that Russell is the proper answer as evidenced by his sustained level of consistent dominance compared to Chamberlain from '59-'69. Blame the various coaches, or even Chamberlain himself, or both for his game changing so drastically on numerous occasions. However Chamberlain at his best was 2nd to none in league history.

You think Russell was better?:wtf:

[1987_Lakers]

I will say that Wilt's '67 year was better than any version of Russell, but overall I have to go with Russell.

[Sarcastic]

I will say that Wilt's '67 year was better than any version of Russell, but overall I have to go with Russell.

Only because he won so much. But if you use winning to calculate greatness, then where do you rank Yogi Berra? Where do you rank Ted Williams, who never won at all?

[PHILA]

You think Russell was better?:wtf:

If you are referring to a sustained level of excellence, then yes. Again, blame the teammates, the coaching, the fortune of circumstance, Russell's quickness & intensity, or all of the above. There was a quote from Bob Cousy stating that Chamberlain's "lack of playoff intensity" was overblown and that the main difference giving Russell an advantage was his quickness around the rim.

Unlike most of the anti-Chamberlain posters here and on other boards, I shall not pass off an opinion as fact.

[PHILA]

I will say that Wilt's '67 year was better than any version of RussellIt was also noted by most as better than any version of any other player in league history.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I have to wonder how much different history would look if Wilt took care of business and closed out the '68 EDF with that 3-1 lead. He was having another all-time great season, not far behind his '67 season, but the choke job prevented what was supposed to be a dynasty. If Philly wins that year then Alex Hannum and Wilt probably stay and who knows how many more Philly could've won? After all, the team was good enough to win 55 games the next season without Wilt and with Luke Jackson only playing 25 games.

[PHILA]

I have to wonder how much different history would look if Wilt took care of business and closed out the '68 EDF with that 3-1 lead. He was having another all-time great season, not far behind his '67 season, but the choke job prevented what was supposed to be a dynasty. If Philly wins that year then Alex Hannum and Wilt probably stay and who knows how many more Philly could've won? After all, the team was good enough to win 55 games the next season without Wilt and with Luke Jackson only playing 25 games.
Word is the Hannum originally wanted a 1 year deal to start with (only for '66-67). But would Chamberlain have been appointed as player-coach had he stayed after the '68 loss. Or say they did win in '68, who's to say Chamberlain doesn't jump to the ABA as he nearly did after the '67 season.

I will say had Ike Richman (owner and personal friend to Chamberlain) not passed away a couple years earlier, Wilt and Butch likely never run into each other.


Some quotes on Chamberlain from Tall Tales.


"I maintain that Wilt Chamberlain is underrated. Because of his size, it was always assumed that he would be the best. When he was, people said, "What else do you expect?" But when he fell a bit short, such as at the foul line or when his team lost to the Celtics, he took the criticism. Rather than looking at his accomplishments, people dwelled on the negative because he was so great."

Tom Meschery


Much like what Bill Walton & Frank Deford have said as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5_Udt5uxfM#t=7m27s



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

-Leonard Koppett



And a quote from Wilt himself:

"Modern players put too many limits on themselves. They think that they can only play so many minutes or score so many points. They forget that one of the key things an athlete can have is endurance. To me, it was the sign of a great player to be able to wage battle through the course of an entire game. To do that, you not only must be strong but smart. You can't commit stupid fouls. You can't get thrown out or get goaded into a fight. I take pride in never having fouled out of a game. I knew that grabbing some guy from behind after he stole the ball from me was not helping my team. Modern players forget that. In a sense, I was too big for the game - my talent, that is. In my rookie year, they didn't have the offensive goal tending rule so I was able to catch my teammates' shots and guide them into the basket. Then they put in a rule against that and people said that would hurt my game. Instead, my scoring average went up. I just found other ways to score. As the years went on, my scoring went down only because I wanted it to, because it was what was best for my team. I could always score 50-60 points if it was needed, but I knew that my team was more effective if I sacrificed my scoring and passed and played defense."

[BDiesel324]

Then Bird was better than Jordan and Magic right there too. They where better team players.

The difference is Wilt was also a better passer than Russell when needed too.
In the 80s, Yeah of course Bird and Magic were better than Jordan. But in the 90s when Jordan understood how to play the game correctly, there is no question that Jordan was better than Magic and Bird ever were.

[Psileas]

No, I don't need to reconsider anything. I already knew that Russell was a better team player than Wilt and than any elite player in history, along with Magic, and I know how rabid he was about winning. I wrote in older threads that Russell was a GOAT candidate in a lot of categories and that nobody could provide similar dominance in that combination of categories (a similar argument to the one Jordan fans use for his case). But I can't pretend that his inability to score as easily as any other GOAT candidate doesn't play any role in the final verdict. Or that every time that he was getting outplayed by Wilt and his team still won, it was because he was fooling Wilt into a one-on-one game within the team game that ruined the flow of Wilt's team. Or that every game where Wilt would score more than 30 points against Russell was a pointless blowout when Wilt padded his stats when the game was out of reach. Or that managing to outplay Wilt (a lesser player than Russell for many) for specific games or halves should be big news for the GOAT.


Originally Posted by 1987_Lakers
The reason he led the league in assist that year was because he became OBSESSED to do so. He was so obsessed with his assist numbers & FG% with the sixers that he became too unselfish, taking only 2 shots in the 2nd half in game 7 vs Boston in '68 is one example. Or when he didn't attempt a single shot vs Thurmond in one regular season game in '67 because he didn't want his FG% to go down, bottom line is Wilt cared more about his stats than he did winning & I can't stand players like that.

While Wilt's love with stats can't be denied, I don't think these explanations are the correct ones for these examples. 1968 was the season Wilt led the league in assists. But such a category didn't "officially" exist in the playoffs. Nobody recognised playoff leaders and even today few do. In that 2nd half, it is known that Wilt got very few touches, especially if you take out offensive rebounds, so it seems implaucible that he only took 2 shots in the second half because he wanted to add to his assists.
That game against Thurmond was in 1968, not 1967 and there was no mention about his FG%'s during that period. Actually, Wilt started the season taking very few shots and I remember having read a couple of years ago that it was more of a statement to Hannum that he wanted to shoot more. That's why, when later, asked to comment, about not shooting at all, he replied something like "but we won, didn't we?", which of course meant more than that. It was still an extreme behavior (Wilt seemed to love everything extreme), but didn't have to do with FG%'s. Instead, it mostly had to do with the "worry" he shared with the majority of star players in NBA history, his direct participation to his team's offense. Maybe even with his assist numbers, since in that game he had 13, although his averages in the beginning of the season were less impressive than the season before (I'm pretty sure he averaged a triple double in the last 30 games or so of that season).

[PHILA]

And there is no excuse for Wilt for losing in '68 & '69. Everyone here got on LeBron for what he did this year in the playoffs, but imagine if ISH existed in '68 & '69, Wilt would get ALOT more bashing & rightfully so. Wilt's own TEAMMATE Jerry West said after the '69 Finals that he would rather have Bill Russell on his team than Wilt. What does that tell you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF6sBJtIAwk

I wonder how many touches he got in the 6th game, as it seems the Celtics turned the game tempo in their favor as an up and down track meet. When the Lakers were in half court sets, it was more than likely a clear out isolation on the wing, as they were known to do throughout the era with West & Baylor.

God knows what the hell little Johnny Egan was thinking at the 1:29 mark.

[G.O.A.T]

Wilt is the only center to ever lead the league in assists. You are probably gonna say: "assists don't = good passer". They do mean something though. You don't lead the league in them from the center position, if you don't have a good awareness of the court.

Russell was probably a better overall defender, but not as much as Wilt was better than Russell from an offensive point of view. If Russell is +1 over Wilt on defense, then Wilt is +10 over Russell on offense.

Russell was easily the better passer. He has the higher career assists average in the post season, touched the ball about 1/3rd the amount of times Wilt did on offense and still has a higher career assist average if you take out the 1968 season when Wilt sacrificed a title in essence to prove he could lead the league in assists.

Russell was also the better shot blocker, not because he blocked more, although he did initially Wilt eventually became the one who probably put up the bigger numbers. But Russell blocked his shots to himself or team mates. In addition he was better at the physiological aspects of shot blocking, knowing how to intimidate players and how to present what looks like an opening only to block or alter the shot and cause it to miss.

Russell was also the better rebounder without question, although both Wilt and Russell have said the other is the greatest, for the 10 years they competed I have Russ as superior rebounder, he has the higher postseason average and finals average and single game record plus he spent less time chasing down meaningless boards.

And it the +1 vs. +10 thing were true, Wilt would have beaten Russell when he had equal o better teammates 1966-1969.

I just wish you'd research or ask questions about the topic a little more before having such a definite contrarian opinion.

[nbacardDOTnet]

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/VS/Rivalry/01%20Bill%20VS%20Stilt/----1-1.gif

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/VS/Rivalry/01%20Bill%20VS%20Stilt/Finger--Roll1vsrussell-.gif

[PHILA]

He has the higher career assists average in the post season, touched the ball about 1/3rd the amount of times Wilt did on offense and still has a higher career assist average if you take out the 1968 season when Wilt sacrificed a title in essence to prove he could lead the league in assists.

Indeed, who knew that a regular season assist title would impact his postseason play. :facepalm

[PHILA]

A proper criticism would be regarding his performance in Game 6 of the '68 series as opposed to Game 7.


According to Vince Miller after the game Chamberlain got five touches in the fourth. Whether it two touches or five in the final period, all accounts agree that he got 7 touches in the 2nd half. This after 23 touches in the 1st half.



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

"What would I have looked like if I had said, 'Hey, we lost because my teammates didn't get the ball into me? If Alex Hannum didn't have enough guts to lay it on the line and accept a certain amount of responsibility for the loss and name the reasons why, then I've lost a lot of respect for him, which I have and I will tell him that when I see him. You can't shoot the ball if you don't have the ball. But you know something, after the game, not one writer came up to me and said 'Hey, how come the ball didn't come into you?' Not one. But all of them did ask me, 'How come you didn't shoot more?'"






A Bill Russell interview from 2008:

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/printmember/rus0int-1

Before we leave 1968 altogether, can we talk about game seven for a minute? In 1968 you limited your friend Wilt Chamberlain to two shot attempts in the entire second half of game seven.

That's not true at all. That was a coach's decision. There was a forward on their team named Chet Walker, and he was hurting us badly, okay? So I had my backup center, it was a guy named Wayne Embry. Now Embry had been in the league seven or eight years, and he played against Wilt all those years. So at half time I said to him, "Wayne, I'm going to try something. It's not new. I want you to guard Wilt. Okay? I have to take care of Chet Walker." And see, when I made that substitution everybody thought it was trying to stay out of foul trouble, something like that, which was to me the best part of that because I made adjustments that they didn't know what I was doing. So they couldn't make a counter adjustment. You see if you make an adjustment, and they know what you're doing, well they can just counter it. But I made an adjustment, they thought it was to get off of Wilt. They didn't know it was to get on Chet. Now Wilt had a game plan, but his game plan was counting on me trying to guard him. When we put Wayne on him, he guarded him a completely different way.


He was used to you guarding him.

Yes. To me, the pretty part of it was -- I hate to use the word beauty -- is that Wayne had enormous experience guarding him. So it wasn't like you took some guy out of the stands and put him on Wilt. Here's a guy who's been guarding him for years. That adjustment was for Chet Walker, it wasn't for Wilt.


Can you talk us through the last minute of the 1968 Eastern Finals?

It was a close game, but we were in charge. So they got to the place where they've got to foul us. So they fouled, and we make free throws and they go down, and they score and make three fouls. So they get down to 12 seconds to go. That's when the thing with Sam came up. It was going to that series. After we got down three to one...

I'm the coach, okay, and so I'm talking to my guys before the fifth game. And I says, "We're going to beat these guys, and this is how we're going to do it." And we had a rookie on the team who's now a judge in Boston, because he had an ailment, he had to retire, but he told me a few years ago, he said, "You know, I was in the locker room when you said that. That's the most disciplined situation I've ever been in my life, because I had to discipline myself from falling out on the floor laughing, when you said we're going to beat these guys." He says, "They're going to kill us!" And he says, "We haven't got a chance!" And he sat there and watched the whole thing happen. And he says that's one of the wonders of his life, because I said it with complete confidence. And then I said, like I said earlier, "We don't have to win three games in a row. We've just got to win one." You see, after we won two of them, the pressure completely shifts. The pressure is on them. You're up three to one, and how do you lose three straight?

So it was basically routine.

I think that that move that I made at half time was the most important move I made as a coach in that series, because it worked, and we got accomplished what we wanted to get accomplished without them knowing what we were trying to accomplish. See everybody still talks about the fact that Wilt only took two shots. They still almost won the game, right? And the key was that Chet Walker had been killing us. And I knew that I could guard him. And the reason I knew I could guard him is his moves were very deliberate. As part of my teaching myself, I learned -- we had six plays and nowadays they number those positions. One is point guard, two is shooting guard, three is a small forward, four is a power forward, five is a center. Well, I made a point to learn how to play all those positions on all six plays. Now not that I ever wanted to or hoped to play in those other positions, but in knowing those positions I know the problems that go with that position. So that if my teammate needed help I can help. And on defense I watched these guys, how they play defense, and I know how to guard almost any position. And I physically took over Chet.




An except from The inside game: race, power, and politics in the NBA by Wayne Embry:


http://i35.tinypic.com/11i35ug.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/vdmpop.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/2iarin5.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/opy54o.jpg
http://i38.tinypic.com/3448vub.jpg
http://i38.tinypic.com/2mmztzs.jpg
http://i34.tinypic.com/25z3uvl.jpg
http://i34.tinypic.com/20iv0x5.jpg
http://i34.tinypic.com/nbc9io.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/5kj434.jpg

[G.O.A.T]

Only because he won so much. But if you use winning to calculate greatness, then where do you rank Yogi Berra? Where do you rank Ted Williams, who never won at all?

You're going about it backwards. First you figure out who the elite players are as evidenced by statistics and individual awards. Then you try to understand how they used their elite talents to help their teams win. Football and Baseball don't translate as well individually because for at least half of the time, you have no impact on the play depending on your position. In basketball a star player has an impact on every play in the game he is on the court for.

The Yogi Berra argument is silly. Obviously Berra wasn't an elite talent or the best player on those Yankee teams. He was on those great teams with DiMaggio or mantle leading the way. Those guys were the Russell comparison on those teams. In that it's a good point you make for the pro-Russell argument, because even though guys like Willie Mays and Ted Williams have considerably better stats than Mantle or DiMaggio, they are usually ranked in the same tier because of how much those Yankee teams won.

The fact that you think Wilt was better than Russell for his career is absurd. If you want to talk about individual peak sure, I might even give you team peak with the '67 Sixers, but for sustained excellence, it's not even close. How does Russell beat Wilt 7 of 8 times in the playoffs regardless of who has better team mates, is in their physical prime or home court advantage?

[G.O.A.T]

Indeed, who knew that a regular season assist title would impact his postseason play. :facepalm

A fair point, and I read the post under this. My criticism is more along the lines of this. Had Wilt not needed another individual goal to motivate him for the 1968 season and just remained focused on playing that style that saw him and the Sixers dominate the NBA in 1967 I don't see anyway the Celtics/Sixers series gets to six or seven games. Russell would never have let something so petty obsess him. Wilt has made SO many excuses for this series. He even said once that the Sixers were up 3-1 when Dr. King was shot, it was the first game of the series though, Philadelphia won the next three without Billy C. I understand the value of Luke Jackson, believe me I do, but even with him and Billy out the 76ers top three of prime Wilt, entering prime Walker, prime Greer was equal or better to the 33 year old Russell, 34 year old Sam Jones and Hondo just entering his prime.

[ShaqAttack3234]

A fair point, and I read the post under this. My criticism is more along the lines of this. Had Wilt not needed another individual goal to motivate him for the 1968 season and just remained focused on playing that style that saw him and the Sixers dominate the NBA in 1967 I don't see anyway the Celtics/Sixers series gets to six or seven games. Russell would never have let something so petty obsess him. Wilt has made SO many excuses for this series. He even said once that the Sixers were up 3-1 when Dr. King was shot, it was the first game of the series though, Philadelphia won the next three without Billy C. I understand the value of Luke Jackson, believe me I do, but even with him and Billy out the 76ers top three of prime Wilt, entering prime Walker, prime Greer was equal or better to the 33 year old Russell, 34 year old Sam Jones and Hondo just entering his prime.

I can't find many(if any) negatives about Wilt's 1968 regular season other than the fact that it's unnecessary to play 47 mpg when your team is outscoring teams by an average of 8.6 ppg, but the team won 62 games and he didn't get hurt so no harm, no foul.

24.3 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 8.6 apg, 59.5 FG%

He led the team in all of those categories. And because team leaders were still handed out to the players with the highest totals, not averages, he led the league in rebounding and assists and finished 3rd in scoring. He also led the league in FG%.

Even going by averages, he was 1st in rebounding, 2nd in assists and 4th in scoring. His team also had the best record in the league.

That ranks right behind his '67 season as one of the greatest regular seasons of all time, but.......here's where it was ruined.

EDF Game 6- 20 points, 6/21 FG, 8/23 FT

A horrific offensive game from Wilt with a chance to clinch. His teammate Hal Greer went out and scored 40 too.

Now in game 7, his teammates also deserve blame, but there's no excuse for Wilt not being asserting and trying to take over the game when his teammates weren't getting it done. In that situation, he has to call for the ball and trying to make something happen. But as it was, he wasn't putting the ball in the hoop at a great rate when he got it at 4/9 from the field and 6/15 from the line which meant he shot 10/30 from the field and 14/38 from the line in the last 2 games. That's how you blow a 3-1 lead.

The '68 and '69 series are particularly damaging to his argument vs Russell when you consider the talent around him and Greer's big game 6 with a chance to clinch or Jerry West's historic 1969 finals.

[jlauber]

In Wilt's defense here...

He and Russell played in the league 10 years together. In those ten seasons, Russell had much better surrounding talent in six. In the other four, Wilt really only had a solid edge in two ('67 and '68.)

In '66, Philly beat Boston out by one game during the regular season, but Boston had a 4-3 edge in HOFers, and as ALWAYS, a much deeper bench. Not only that, but they had just won seven titles in a row, while Philly was a young team that had their first winning record. Furthermore, you can't blame Wilt for that 4-1 blowout loss. He averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509 in that series. Meanwhile, how about his teammates? Greer shot .325. Jones shot .325. Walker shot .375. Jackson shot .429. And Cunningham shot .161.

In '69, LA had a better record at 55-27 to Boston's 48-34. But, the facts were these: The Lakers were basically a prime West, a declining Baylor (who was awful in the post-season), and a shackled Wilt (by his incompetent coach.) Boston had four HOFers, and a huge edge, player-for-player after the top-3 (and as bad as Baylor was...after the top-2.) Furthermore, Boston needed TWO miraculous shots, in two separate game, as well as a blown play by Johnny Egan in game four, three god-awful games by Baylor in the the middle of that series (two losses BTW), and a horrible coaching decision in game seven (keeping Wilt on the bench in the last few minutes)...to win a game seven by TWO points. And, before someone says that Russell was more "clutch", Wilt outscored him in that game, 18-6, outshot him in that game, 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him in that game, 27-21...in five less minutes.

So, that gets back to the two seasons in which Wilt clearly had better teammates, 66-67 and 67-68. Ok, I have covered this before, but in '68, the Sixers ran away with the league's best record, at 62-20, to Boston's 54-28. But, in the post-season, they lost Cunningham in the Knick series (a series in which Wilt dominated BOTH Reed and Bellamy BTW), and he did not return. Then, in game five of the ECF's, Luke Jackson injured his leg, and while he played, he was worthless. And, this was not a deep team. The Sixers were basically a 7-8 man roster...and their one HUGE edge, at the forward position, was gone. Despite that, the Sixers still opened up a 3-1 series lead. Of course, Jackson was injured in the fifth game. In game seven, Wilt hardly touched the ball, and his teammates shot 33% (the same teammates that led the league in FG%.) With all of that, Wilt's Sixers lost that seventh game by FOUR points.

Now, IMHO, a HEALTHY Sixer squad repeats the 4-1 series romp from '67. Secondly, let's reverse the scenario. How do you think that series would have gone, had Philly been completely healthy, and Boston had been without Havlicek in the entire series, and then lost, say Bailey Howell in game five?

That brings us to the 66-67 season. Wilt finally had a team that was probably slightly more talented than Russell's (Boston still had a 4-3 edge in HOFers, and was still much deeper.) As always, Wilt statistically outplayed Russell. But, instead of having to put up huge numbers just to keep his team in the game, his teammates neutralized Russell's. It was an epic blowout. Wilt crushed Russell in every category, and only a 4 point win in Boston in game four prevented a sweep. In the clinching game five win, Boston jumped out to a 17 point lead late in the first period, but Wilt kept Philly in that game with 22 first half points, to narrow the margin to one at the half. In teh second half, the 76ers pulled away, and with four minutes left, they were up 131-104. From late in the first period, to late in the 4th period, they had outscored Boston by 44 points. Chamberlain outscored Russell, 29-4, outshot Russell, 10-16 to 2-5, outassisted Russell, 13-7, and outrebounded Russell, 36-21.

Clearly, when Wilt had a healthy quality roster, he could beat Russell's Celtics. But what about the other six years the two played in the league. Wilt's 62-63 was so bad, they didn't even make the playoffs, but during the regular season that year, in their nine H2H matchups, Wilt outrebounded Russell, and outscored him, per game, 38-14. In Wilt's second season, his team was upset by Syracuse, although Wilt played well (37 ppg, 23 rpg, and .469 shooting.) His teammates were AWFUL in that series BTW. Arizin shot .328 and Gola shot .206.

So that leaves four other seasons...59-60, 61-62, 63-64, and 64-65. In all four Russell's Celtics had a HUGE edge in talent. In the 59-60 series, Wilt injured his hand in a fight, and had two bad games because of it. Still, in a must-win game five (down 3-1), he put up a 50-35 game in a 128-107 win. And, as always, he outscored (by a large margin), and outrebounded Russell.

In the 61-62 ECF's, as ShaqAttack pointed out, Russell played well in four games. Still, Chamberlain buried him in the other three. Furthermore, this was a 49-31 Warrior team that was basically the same last place roster that Chamberlain joined in 59-60. Chamberlain outscored Russell by 11 ppg, and outrebounded him by two per game, and his TEAM lost a game seven by two points. Keep in mind that Russell's Celtics had gone 60-20, and had a 6-3 edge in HOF teammates. Furthermore, one of Wilt's HOF teammates, Arizin, was in his LAST season. The other, Gola, has no business being in the HOF. So, with all of that going against Wilt, his Warrior's lost a game seven, by TWO points.

In the 63-64 Finals, Wilt took what had been a last-place team the year before (a very deceptive 31-49 record BTW, as they only had a 2.1 ppg differential)...to a 48-32 record. His Warriors faced a 60-20 Celtic team with a 7-2 edge in HOFers. It was no contest. Russell's Celtics won 4-1. BUT, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 29-11. He outrebounded Russell, per game, 27-25. And I believe Wilt shot .590 (still trying to confirm, but it appears that was the number.) Meanwhile, we don't know what Russell shot against Wilt, but in his ten post-season games, Russell shot .356...and half of those games were against Wilt.

Wilt was traded to Philadelphia mid-season in 64-65. He came to a bottom-dwelling team, and took them to a 40-40 record. in the playoffs, they routed a 48-32 Royals team, 3-1. They then faced a Celtic team that was at it's zenith in their Dynasty era...having gone 62-18 and with HCA. They also held a 5-2 edge in HOFers, and again, a much deeper bench. Still, Wilt got that Sixer team to a game seven. In that last game, Boston led 110-101 with about three minutes left. Chamberlain scored six of those last eight points, including 2-2 from the line, and a thunderous dunk on Russell with five secs left, to cut the margin to 110-109. Russell hit a guidewire with his inbounds pass, and that gave the Sixers a chance, under their basket, to win the game. However, "Havlicek stole the ball", and Boston averted perhaps the biggest upset in NBA history. In that last game, Wilt outscored Russell, 30-15; he outshot Russell, 12-15 to 7-16; and he outrebounded Russell, 32-29. For the series, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 30-15; he outrebounded Russell, per game, 30-25; and we know that Russell shot .451 (he would go on to average 18 ppg, 29 rpg, and shoot .702 in the Finals against LA), but we don't know what Wilt shot. Howeer, in the post-season, Chamberlain shot .530.

So, while Russell held a 7-1 edge in H2H playoff series wins, it must be pointed out that Wilt's TEAMs lost FOUR game seven's by a TOTAL of NINE points. This was not some complete domination by Russell over Wilt. And, Wilt outscored Russell in EVERY series, some by HUGE margins. Chamberlain outrebounded Russell, in EVERY series, some by HUGE margins (in '67 he outrebounded him by a 32-23 margin per game.) And there is a very good chance that Wilt outshot Russell in EVERY series...and some by HUGE margins (in 67 he outshot Russell .556 t0.358...and I would venture an educated guess that in '64, it was probably about a .590 to .350 edge.)

[jlauber]

Continued...

They faced each other in 142 games. In those 142 games, Wilt averaged 28.7ppg to Russell's 14.5 ppg. And Wilt outrebounded Russell by an average of 28.7 to 23.7 rpg. Wilt had FIVE 50+ point games (including a high of 62) against Russell (while Russell's high against Wilt was 37...and Wilt outscored him in that game.) Chamberlain had a 24-0 edge in 40+ point games. Russell had three 30+ point games against Wilt in his career, and Wilt outscored Russell in all three. Wilt held a 7-1 edge in 40+ rebound games, including an NBA regular season record of 55, and an NBA post-season record of 41 (Russell's high against Wilt was a 40 rebound game.) AND, Wilt held a 23-4 margin in 35+ rebound games. Wilt outscored Russell in 132 of their 142 games, and outrebounded Russell, 92-42-8 in those 142 meetings.

And, while Russell slightly outplayed Wilt in a few of their 142 games, Chamberlain outplayed him, statistically at least, in the vast majority of them.

And how about this...

I have pointed out the some 40 games in which Chamberlain just hammered Russell, and here they are again:

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

[BDiesel324]

I will say that Wilt's '67 year was better than any version of Russell, but overall I have to go with Russell.
Sure, but at the same time Hakeem's '93-'94 season was better than any version of Russell. Nobody is going to take Hakeem over Russell, unless they live in Houston and never watched the 60s.

[jlauber]

I always found it fascinating that Wilt was held to a much higher standard than virtually every other player who ever played.

There have been those that pointed out some of the poor HALVES that Chamberlain played in the post-season. Their argument was that, Wilt played poorly in the first half, and then "padded his stats" in the second half, when the game was already decided. Think about this, though...it was a no win situation for Wilt, unless he played brilliantly for ENTIRE games. Had he played well in those first halves, and then played poorly in the second half...well, he would have been called a "choker."

Russell played well in many of those games. That should be no surprise, since many at the time considered him the GOAT. But, the facts were, Wilt outplayed Russell in the vast majority of their H2H games, and some by HUGE margins. And, why does Wilt get ripped for playing 48 minutes, and doing all he can in the second halves of those games, while no one mentions that Russell played all 48 minutes in them, as well.

BTW, while Russell outplayed Wilt in four halves of that '62 ECF's, Wilt absolutely crushed Russell in three FULL games, including one game in which he outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20.

ShaqAttack pointed out that awful game six in the '68 ECF's. Other's have pointed out his lack of shooting in that game seven. In the first five games of that series, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 24-13, and outrebounded him, per game, 23-22. In game seven, despite not shooting at all in the second half, he STILL outscored Russell, 14-12, and he beat Russell pretty badly on the glass, 34-26.

Wilt got ripped for "only" averaging 23.5 ppg on .490 shooting in the first four games of the '66 Finals. In the clinching game five loss, he exploded for a 46-34 game (Russell was at 18-31 BTW), but his TEAM still lost the game. So, Wilt's final series numbers looked like this...he outscored Russell, per game, 28-14, and outrebounded Russell, per game, 30-26. Meanwhile, how about Chamberlain's teammates? Greer shot .325, Jones shot .325, Walker shot .375, Jackson shot .429, and Cunningham shot .161.

There have been those criticized Wilt in that series, including that 46-34 game five...but at least Chamberlain did all he could. In the clinching game five loss for Russell, in the '67 ECF's, he scored 4 a total of FOUR points (on 2-5 shooting), while Chamberlain poured in 29 on 10-16 shooting (including 22 points in the first half...which kept Philly in the game.) Where were/are Russell's critics?

Wilt took a TON of abuse following his game seven in the '69 Finals, and even Russell publicly blasted Chamberlain after that game. Yet, take a look at the footage of that game seven. Where was Russell in that last period? You won't find him. He hid the entire 4th quarter. And, for those that blame Wilt...take a look at the numbers from that game seven: Wilt outscored Russell, 18-6, he outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7, and he outrebounded Russell, 27-21...despite playing five minutes less.

The facts were...Wilt HAD to DOMINATE games. Anything less, and he was considered a "failure" or a "choker." Furthermore, Wilt DID dominate Russell in many of their H2H encounters. Furthermore, you will only find a small number of games in which Russell even enjoyed a slight statistical edge, but I have already shown some 40 games in which Wilt CRUSHED Russell. You won't find ONE game in which Russell brutalized Wilt by a large margin...but there were MANY in which Chamberlain just buried Russell.

[jlauber]

Russell was a better passer than Wilt. Wilt probably blocked more shots, but Russell was the better defender overall.

Wilt may not have had the total impact at the defensive end that Russell had, and many (including myself) have used Wilt's offensive numbers to support Russell's defense...virtually no one brings up Wilt's defense on Russell.

For example, in the 62-63 season, Russell averaged 16.8 ppg. Against Wilt, it was 14 ppg. In the 63-64 regular season, Russell averaged 15 ppg. In the Finals that season, Russell averaged 11 ppg. Furthermore, Russell shot .433 in that regular season, as well, and we don't have the H2H against Wilt in that Finals, but we do know that Russell only shot .356 that post-season, and half of those ten games came against Wilt.

Russell had a sensational Finals in the 64-65 season. Against the Lakers he averaged 18 ppg, 29 rpg, and a staggering .702 FG%. Against Wilt in the previous round? He averaged 15 ppg, 26 rpg, and shot .451.

And Russell had a great scoring Finals in the 65-66 season. He averaged 23.6 ppg against LA. In the ECF's against Wilt? 14 ppg.

In the 66-67 regular season, Russell averaged 13.3 ppg on .454 shooting. In the ECF's against Wilt, Russell averaged 10.2 ppg and shot .358.

And Wilt held Thurmond in three H2H playoff series, to FG% of .343, ..392, and .398.

Chamberlain also held Kareem, a career .559 shooter, to a .464 FG% in 28 H2H meetings. In their last ten games, he held Kareem to .434 shooting. And in their final six regular season games, Wilt's last season, Chamberlain outshot Kareem, .637 to .450.

Furthermore, as more research comes forth, it has become fairly obvious that Chamberlain was the premier shot-blocker in NBA history. Pollack estimated that Wilt had SEASONS of 10+ bpg. He also had him with 25 blocks in one game, and there was a recorded game in 1969 in which Wilt blocked 23 shots.

And Wilt was voted first team All-Defense in his last two seasons. And, I suspect that, had there been a DPOY, he would have at least won it in the 71-72 season. And had the award existed before the 68-69 season, I suspect that Wilt would have won it in the 66-67 and 67-68 seasons.

[Poochymama]

[QUOTE=jlauber]Continued...

They faced each other in 142 games. In those 142 games, Wilt averaged 28.7ppg to Russell's 14.5 ppg. And Wilt outrebounded Russell by an average of 28.7 to 23.7 rpg. Wilt had FIVE 50+ point games (including a high of 62) against Russell (while Russell's high against Wilt was 37...and Wilt outscored him in that game.) Chamberlain had a 24-0 edge in 40+ point games. Russell had three 30+ point games against Wilt in his career, and Wilt outscored Russell in all three. Wilt held a 7-1 edge in 40+ rebound games, including an NBA regular season record of 55, and an NBA post-season record of 41 (Russell's high against Wilt was a 40 rebound game.) AND, Wilt held a 23-4 margin in 35+ rebound games. Wilt outscored Russell in 132 of their 142 games, and outrebounded Russell, 92-42-8 in those 142 meetings.

And, while Russell slightly outplayed Wilt in a few of their 142 games, Chamberlain outplayed him, statistically at least, in the vast majority of them.

And how about this...

I have pointed out the some 40 games in which Chamberlain just hammered Russell, and here they are again:

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

[ThaRegul8r]

And Russell had a great scoring Finals in the 65-66 season. He averaged 23.6 ppg against LA. In the ECF's against Wilt? 14 ppg.

One thing I've always found curious... with the talk about being healthy and injuries... is that in the 1965-66 season, Russell played with a broken bone in his foot and a chipped elbow since February. But Russell swore Auerbach and everyone else to secrecy, because he didn't want there to be any alibis if Boston didn't win the NBA championship that year. If he lost, he lost. He wasn't going to say, "Well, I had a broken foot, and my elbow was injured as well." Played from February through the NBA Finals with it, and played Cincinnati, Philadelphia and the Lakers with it. That's 3 of the top 4 teams in the league, with the Celtics being the fourth. When people talk about healthy and injuries, I've never heard anyone mention this about Russell. We know Kevin McHale played the 1987 postseason with a broken foot. Anyone else? Injuries didn't matter either. Russell just won.

But again, I'm just curious that in over three decades now of talking to other people about Russell that this fact never comes up. I mean, people remember Jordan missed most of the 1985-86 season with a broken foot and scored 63 in the playoffs against Boston. I just find it interesting that people are only aware of what they want to be aware of, if there's a certain advantage to be had by pointing it out.

[jlauber]

good post.

IMO

Wilt > Russell though it's close.

I tend to go the other way...and it's close. My main point being in all of this, was that while Russell was probably the better all-around player, especially if you count team success, that it was much closer than guy's like Simmons' would have you believe. Even that 7-1 edge in H2H post-seasons, was VERY CLOSE. A play here, or there, or a few points, here, or there, and it would have been Wilt with a 5-3 edge.

Still, I have long acknowledged that Russell made his teammates better, and while Wilt certainly made his team's better, just by dominating the games individually, that, other than '67 and '72, I just don't think he made his teammates better. And, Russell's overall defensive impact made his opposing team's worse, than Wilt's defensive impact...except in '67 and particularly in '72.

In fact, the more I study Wilt's career, the more impressed I am with his 71-72 season. His coach, Bill Sharman, got him to emulate a prime Russell in his all-around game, and because of that transformation, Wilt led a team that had gone 48-34 the year before (and with Baylor, who retired early in '72) to a remarkable 69-13 record. Not only that, but Wilt really stepped it up in the clutch, particularly in the clinching game six of the WCF's, and then in the clinching game five of the Finals. And, not only did Wilt play like a prime Russell, his efficiency was much better (.649 FG%.)

In any case...when Wilt was at his BEST, he was probably better than Russell. Unfortunately for Wilt, as great as he was individually, he just did not elevate his team's like Russell did.

Still, as great as Russell was,...Wilt was right there with him.

IMHO,

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

Kareem and Shaq are tough. At their peaks,...probably the equal of MJ and Wilt at their peaks. Then, in the next level, for PEAK play, I have Bird, Olajuwon, and Kobe. But, in terms of CAREER success and consistency, Duncan, Magic, and Russell were probably the best ever.

[jlauber]

One thing I've always found curious... with the talk about being healthy and injuries... is that in the 1965-66 season, Russell played with a broken bone in his foot and a chipped elbow since February. But Russell swore Auerbach and everyone else to secrecy, because he didn't want there to be any alibis if Boston didn't win the NBA championship that year. If he lost, he lost. He wasn't going to say, "Well, I had a broken foot, and my elbow was injured as well." Played from February through the NBA Finals with it, and played Cincinnati, Philadelphia and the Lakers with it. That's 3 of the top 4 teams in the league, with the Celtics being the fourth. When people talk about healthy and injuries, I've never heard anyone mention this about Russell. We know Kevin McHale played the 1987 postseason with a broken foot. Anyone else? Injuries didn't matter either. Russell just won.

But again, I'm just curious that in over three decades now of talking to other people about Russell that this fact never comes up. I mean, people remember Jordan missed most of the 1985-86 season with a broken foot and scored 63 in the playoffs against Boston. I just find it interesting that people are only aware of what they want to be aware of, if there's a certain advantage to be had by pointing it out.

I'll be honest with you...I was not even aware of Russell injuries that year. Which makes his season that year all the more remarkable. That was the first time in the decade of the 60's, up to that point anyway, in which Boston did not have the best record in the league. Still, he played BRILLIANTLY in the post-season, holding Wilt in check for the first four games of their playoff series, and leading Boston to a dominating win. And then he was even BETTER in the Finals, with a couple of amazing games, and an overall 23.6 ppg average which LED his team.

Quite possibly his finest season.

BTW, as you I both know...but maybe other's here don't, but he was injured in the 57-58 Finals, and while he played, he was nowhere near 100%, and his team lost in six games. Who knows...a healthy Russell probably wins 12 rings!

[Gifted Mind]

Some debates never will have a general consensus or resolution. This is one of them. 2050 the same question will be asked with the same argument and same disagreements.

[jlauber]

Some debates never will have a general consensus or resolution. This is one of them. 2050 the same question will be asked with the same argument and same disagreements.

I don't have a problem with supporting either of them. It is guy's like Simmons that I have a problem with. It is one thing to deservedly praise Russell, but it is quite another to bash Wilt. He basically calls Wilt a "loser", a "failure", a "choker", and a "quitter", when the OVERWHELMING evidence suggests otherwise.

In fact, there are far too many of these debates, where a poster claims that Player A was CLEARLY better than Player B. IMHO, when you dealing with a top-10 list that the majority of intelligent posters agree with, there is NO such thing as a CLEAR-CUT anyone.

[ThaRegul8r]

there are far too many of these debates, where a poster claims that Player A was CLEARLY better than Player B. IMHO, when you dealing with a top-10 list that the majority of intelligent posters agree with, there is NO such thing as a CLEAR-CUT anyone.

I agree with this. It's ridiculous the degree to which people resort to utter hyperbole, making such grandiose statements as, "IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE!"

:rolleyes: :facepalm

[Jordan23GOAT]

These players are both phenomenal players. I don't see how you could choose between them.

[PHILA]

A fair point, and I read the post under this. My criticism is more along the lines of this. Had Wilt not needed another individual goal to motivate him for the 1968 season and just remained focused on playing that style that saw him and the Sixers dominate the NBA in 1967 I don't see anyway the Celtics/Sixers series gets to six or seven games.

In other words what if Wilt had a killer instinct. He realistically could have been the Wayne Gretzky of basketball, or close enough. The head to head match ups between him and Russell in the playoffs certainly wouldn't have been so lopsided.

[PHILA]

here's where it was ruined.

EDF Game 6- 20 points, 6/21 FG, 8/23 FT

A horrific offensive game from Wilt with a chance to clinch. His teammate Hal Greer went out and scored 40 too.

Now in game 7, his teammates also deserve blame, but there's no excuse for Wilt not being asserting and trying to take over the game when his teammates weren't getting it done. In that situation, he has to call for the ball and trying to make something happen. But as it was, he wasn't putting the ball in the hoop at a great rate when he got it at 4/9 from the field and 6/15 from the line which meant he shot 10/30 from the field and 14/38 from the line in the last 2 games. That's how you blow a 3-1 lead.
How about Game 5?

Sixers had a chance to close it out 4-1 and Chamberlain came out very strong with a 30-30 game. 31 points, 30 rebounds, 7 assists. Reading an old recap this game was close through 3 quarters. Matt Goukas hit a jumper at the start of the 4th to give Philly an 84-83 lead. Then the Celtics went on a furious run, hitting 16 of 26 field goals. The Sixers shot 7-29 (24%) in the 4th. This was with Embry guarding Wilt down the stretch and Russell likely playing Chet + roaming and disrupting the Sixers offense even more. Whether the 4th quarter collapse can be blamed on Wilt or not can't be determined without the game footage. After the game Russell was quoted as saying, "This was the best defensive game we played all year." Of course Jones and Hondo combining for 66 points didn't hurt either. As for Game 6 I have no clue what happened. Perhaps it is mentioned in one of Wilt's biographies? He was definitely playing injured in that series as Russell noted, "A lesser man wouldn't be out there." But this is still inexcusable. By all accounts the Celtics were in complete control despite Hal Greer's 40 point outburst.

As Game 7 was concluding the "choker" was hustling, forcing Nellie into a jump ball with 32 seconds left. Unfortunately it was too late. Celtics win 100-96. :banghead:

http://i54.tinypic.com/10yoyn6.jpg

[G.O.A.T]

In other words what if Wilt had a killer instinct. He realistically could have been the Wayne Gretzky of basketball, or close enough. The head to head match ups between him and Russell in the playoffs certainly wouldn't have been so lopsided.
[I]
"You got to have the killer instinct. If you do not have it, forget about basketball and go into social psychology or something. If you sometimes wonder if you've got it, you ain't got it. No pussycats, please. The killer instinct, by my definition, is the ability to spot

[necya]

dude, the day where you will see someone just running with a broken bone in his foot, call the tv, it's impossible.

JLauber...how can you think that 2 of the best 6 players who have ever played basketball are not able to put 2 straight FT ?? i asked imo there is no way shaq is a better center than Hakeem.

in the Russell-Chamberlain thing i would go with Chamberlain for some reasons : i think if Chamberlain had the same cast, Russell would not have all those rings. so i ask myself which player would feet better in other teams and i think chamberlain would bring more to a scrub team. anyway, it's tough to compare those 2 bigs, no big advantage here.

[PHILA]

Sports Illustrated - April 29, 1968 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1081109/index.htm)


Not to denigrate Boston's efforts, but the fact is the series with Philadelphia was extremely close most of the way and was decided in the end when the 76ers suddenly, unaccountably, forgot how to shoot. In the second half of the fifth game they started missing, and they never stopped missing.

"If I were Russell," Alex Hannum said, "I'd have my defense take credit for it." But it was not readily apparent that the Celtics' defense, always superb, suddenly improved part way through the fifth game. "Maybe we did help each other a little more," Bailey Howell said, trying to assist expert analysts in perpetuating the myth that all errors in professional sport are the result of vast strategic enterprise. Philly just went cold.

For the first four games and half of the fifth the 76ers shot 44%. For the balance of the series the figure was 35%. That means about 50 points less (10 per half) than they would have scored had they maintained the 44%. Of all the 76ers, only Hal Greer, who had been shooting less than 40% anyway, improved in accuracy over those last 2 games. Wilt Chamberlain, an injured leg hampering his movement, made 36% of his shots; Wally Jones made 25%, Chet Walker and Luke Jackson 31% each, Matt Guokas 37%, Johnny Green 39% on only 13 attempts. There was no one to turn to.

Absolutely nothing else changed. It was reminiscent of one of those mysteries in which the thief steals only one item and leaves all else in the vault undisturbed. Boston continued to shoot just as accurately as before, but no better. The rebounds remained in the same ratio, so did the free-throw percentages and the number of shots. Boston kept up its running game and Philadelphia kept setting up off Chamberlain in the low post and weaving off the picks. All exactly as before. Only the 76ers kept missing.

In retrospect' it now appears they had at last come to feel the absence of the injured Billy Cunningham, the extra shooter. Boston's Satch Sanders left the series with a muscle pull in the fifth game, and while Russell needs him desperately to contend with Baylor, the loss of Sanders' defensive play against the 76ers did not turn out to be very significant. Philly wasn't hitting over anyone's outstretched hands.

Finally Philadelphia may have been more fatigued than Boston. The Knicks had pressed them full-court in their first-round games. The Celtics continued that pressure, with Havlicek operating at both ends, alternately throwing and catching passes in the manner of a single-wing tailback. Russell, as brilliant as ever though 34 and in his 12th pro year, restricted Chamberlain in a manner few believed possible. In the last half of the critical final game Wilt took only one shot and batted up only one errant attempt by a teammate.

Both teams seemed out of sorts in the beginning, and one would have thought that any second-rate pickup team—say, for instance, the U.S. Olympic squad—could have given either a battle. The players were tight with tension, and the hesitant, slow action should have worked to Philadelphia's advantage. In the broadcast booth Red Auerbach, serving as TV color man, exhorted his men over the air (though the words were only heard 300 miles away in Boston): "Don't hold the ball...! We've got to foul to win!" Often he just counted one-two-three, like a dance instructor, pointing out alleged three-second violations by the 76ers.

After a short burst by Philadelphia at the start of the second half, the Celtics took the tempo away from the home team and kept the lead almost all the way. They were ahead 97-95 when Sam Jones was trapped and lost the ball to Wally Jones with 0:54 left. The 76ers set up, and Walker drove down the key. Don Nelson, who had a magnificent series, found himself slightly beaten and gave way to avoid fouling. Walker flicked up the short try. It rolled around, teetered and then dropped away. There were no 76ers on the boards. Russell took the rebound, dribbled the length of the court and was fouled by Wilt. He made the free throw that clinched the game, which seemed only fair considering his contribution to the victory. When it ended officially—100-96—he threw his arms high in triumph, straining them against the din. In Los Angeles the Lakers watched the final game on TV, rooting for Boston.

[magnax1]

I'd take Wilt by a little. Wilt took teams that had no business competing with Boston only a few points away from the championship. It's definitely really close, but even though I'd generally take the distributor/team player instead of the ball hog scorer, I still have to take Wilt.

[Round Mound]

Name me 1 skill that Russel was better than Wilt at?

One?

Don`t give me this shit tha the made others better: he was no Bird, Pippen, Magic, Lebron whom are multi positional players.

He won 11 rings cause he had 7-8 HOFs FOR ALL OF HIS PRIME with Him.

Wilt outplayed every game against Russell: Points, FG%, Rebounds, Assists, Blocks.

[G.O.A.T]

[B]Name me 1 skill that Russel was better than Wilt at?


Passing, defensive rebounding, shot blocking, perimeter defense, outlet passes, understanding of individual tendencies on both offense and defense, ability to adjust, leadership, killer instinct, drive, foul shooting, elevating his play in crunch time, winning.

Every time you post you just further expose yourself as someone whose understanding of the game does not extend beyond stats.

[Micku]

Russell is consider the better team player.

Wilt had more talent. Better individual and more dominating player.


The Celtics beat Wilt's team with a mixture of teamplay and luck I heard.

Wilt was criticize for a lot of things that he did. Wilt was also consider the "bad guy" for some reason. Regardless, a great rivalry with those two. Rivalries are so rare to find with individual players in the NBA. Especially if they meet playoffs.

[OMG its McLovin]

Chamberlain. His stats are incredible, even if stats don't matter to some of you his stats are enough to make up for what he lacks in team work. 30.1 ppg, 22.9 RPG and 4.4 APG career, Chamberlain beat Russell in all of those. Russell wasn't even listed in the 50 Greatest Players of All Time List while Chamberlain was. Chamberlain has incredible accomplishments such as his 100 point game, 50ppg season, 55 rebounds in a game and 72% FG season. Russell was a great player, Chamberlain was greater.

[PHILA]

Russell wasn't even listed in the 50 Greatest Players of All Time List

:facepalm

[Pointguard]

Looking at the recaps of those playoff series and seeing how Russell raised his game and Wilt's play usually tailed off, I have to go with Russell. The fact that Russell was voted MVP over Wilt in his 50 ppg shows how deceptive the stats were.

I don't think it had anything whatsoever to do with deceptive stats and everything to do with politics. The players are voting and if you really think they are some high sophistication on how great a defensive player is versus an all around player please, give me another example where they are this way. They weren't even in to defense then - they didn't value it. Wilt averaged 31.5 more ppg in 62 (an average night of Durant), 1.5 more rebounds, Wilts favor of 506% to 457% in shooting percentage. Wilt won 49 Russell won 59 games.

In Chamberlain's best statistical years he can't win an MVP the second the numbers dip in half then he gets votes??? In Wilts three monster years he averages 44.5 ppg and 25.7 rebs. Russ wins a sweep of MVP's at 17.5 ppg and 23.9. Wilt spent three years averaging more points per game 27ppg - more than Russell. Even if we are generous for Russell and cut that in half for padding, its still a very high number.

[G.O.A.T]

I don't think it had anything whatsoever to do with deceptive stats and everything to do with politics. The players are voting and if you really think they are some high sophistication on how great a defensive player is versus an all around player please, give me another example where they are this way. They weren't even in to defense then - they didn't value it. Wilt averaged 31.5 more ppg in 62 (an average night of Durant), 1.5 more rebounds, Wilts favor of 506% to 457% in shooting percentage. Wilt won 49 Russell won 59 games.

In Chamberlain's best statistical years he can't win an MVP the second the numbers dip in half then he gets votes??? In Wilts three monster years he averages 44.5 ppg and 25.7 rebs. Russ wins a sweep of MVP's at 17.5 ppg and 23.9. Wilt spent three years averaging more points per game 27ppg - more than Russell. Even if we are generous for Russell and cut that in half for padding, its still a very high number.

you're making his point. If it was player politics than how come Russell also won the media vote, Sport Magazine award and a private poll of players those same years?

If it's politics than why did Russell finish on second team all-NBA (voted by writers) as often as first?

As far as being "into defense" Russell is the player who changed that. Because of Russell defensive strategy evolved dramatically.

I could link you to literally hundreds of articles that explain what I mean but here is just a few.

"Defense is the word around the league and Russell is the reason." (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=o5QlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DPMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3731,4008748&dq=bill+russell+defense&hl=en)

"Russell was the key, his defense and rebounding" (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4eogAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rW8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=2982,326416&dq=bill+russell+defense&hl=en)

"If Wilt Chamberlain played half the defense Bill does, you'd have to vote him MVP." (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=v5I8AAAAIBAJ&sjid=7SkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2394,30957728&dq=bill+russell+defense&hl=en)

"Bill Russell, the games greatest player: No measuring stick for defense." (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-swfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mNgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1011,5282509&dq=bill+russell+defense&hl=en)

"Defense is the hinge on which Boston's playoff hopes rest" (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KCAiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=v3EFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2352,233170&dq=bill+russell+defense&hl=en)

[Pointguard]

you're making his point. If it was player politics than how come Russell also won the media vote, Sport Magazine award and a private poll of players those same years?

If it's politics than why did Russell finish on second team all-NBA (voted by writers) as often as first?

As far as being "into defense" Russell is the player who changed that. Because of Russell defensive strategy evolved dramatically.

I could link you to literally hundreds of articles that explain what I mean but here is just a few.

"Defense is the word around the league and Russell is the reason." (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=o5QlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DPMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3731,4008748&dq=bill+russell+defense&hl=en)

"Russell was the key, his defense and rebounding" (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4eogAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rW8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=2982,326416&dq=bill+russell+defense&hl=en)

"If Wilt Chamberlain played half the defense Bill does, you'd have to vote him MVP." (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=v5I8AAAAIBAJ&sjid=7SkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2394,30957728&dq=bill+russell+defense&hl=en)

"Bill Russell, the games greatest player: No measuring stick for defense." (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-swfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mNgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1011,5282509&dq=bill+russell+defense&hl=en)

"Defense is the hinge on which Boston's playoff hopes rest" (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KCAiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=v3EFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2352,233170&dq=bill+russell+defense&hl=en)
I think the media lead the players. They were the ones that had trouble with with whom Wilt was dating. When staggering numbers are hit they become folklore in any sport. Guys still wake up today and know what 714 is. If you were in sports and you didn't know what 714 was you weren't considered American. With all the hoopla a year or two before Wilt sets these unbelievable numbers, Roger Maris and the Mantle caught the eye of the nation with 61. There was not a BASKETBALL player that wasn't transfixed by these numbers. Every sports writer knew these numbers were sacred and above all other stories. It was getting front page above four or five countries testing nuclear bombs and Kennedy is telling people to build fall out shelters! So after we were force fed with a month of seasoning and conditioning about record numbers that all the basketball stars know - Wilt makes basketball's stand. Was Stan as good as Mickey that year? Noo. Did Stan win MVP. YES. Ohhhh Yes!

Wilt's numbers were unfathomable. 40 point games were extremely rare. 50 point games perhaps a couple of times. Mikan's 61 points in double overtime... WOW! But 50ppg and a 100 point game were on the level of going far beyond any other record in any other sport. Plus its a magical number - century mark. Even if Wilt was devoid of defense scoring a whole superstar player more than Russell and getting the rebound title over him should win him over. Fact was, Chamberlain was swatting shots away back then too, and he wasn't a poor defender. The league had set a premium on offense and defense wasn't heralded to the level of these articles.

There was nothing in the basketball game that said teams or individuals valued defense (Boston had a strength in it and invested more than others tho). In fact one can make a very good argument that the psyche' of the nation, moreso the sports nation, was mesmerized by offense and numbers. In sports it was straight across the board: Pele, Sonny Liston, Maris & Mantle and now Wilt were offensive and in the minds of everybody watching. And with the nuclear proliferation our security was that we had this strike first mentality. We were transfixed on offense. Defense isn't a national, sports or basketball state of mind. But hating on Goliath! Can do some mighty strange things.

So in the game that has the most points of all other sports, is entranced by the novelty of defense and heralds that despite the game, all sports are celebrating offense. Defense never was the hype and criteria of MVP before or after but we should believe it is so then. Dikembe Mutombo or KG didn't get MVP when they moved their teams in that direction and they won. So Wilt's neglect to win MVP those years was about defense? Politic's had nothing to do with it? Its all fair voting? and defense indeed factors in for everybody???

In the Missouri Newspaper you provided an amazing thing jumped out at me that proves my point: Wilt averaged 44.8 and 24.3 in '63 a little more than 10 ppg and 10 boards per game on Elgin. Wilt was 15 ppg and 9 rebounds better than Pettit. Wilt's defense was superior to those guys for sure yet in '63 yet Wilt finishes 5TH in MVP voting????? I could have the years mixed up but it would be far more criminal if it was '62 which is the only other realistic possibility. The article describes it as a lack of support for Chamberlain, LOL. Yeah right.

[G.O.A.T]

I think the media lead the players. They were the ones that had trouble with with whom Wilt was dating. When staggering numbers are hit they become folklore in any sport. Guys still wake up today and know what 714 is. If you were in sports and you didn't know what 714 was you weren't considered American. With all the hoopla a year or two before Wilt sets these unbelievable numbers, Roger Maris and the Mantle caught the eye of the nation with 61. There was not a BASKETBALL player that wasn't transfixed by these numbers. Every sports writer knew these numbers were sacred and above all other stories. It was getting front page above four or five countries were testing nuclear bombs and Kennedy is telling people to build fall out shelters! So after we were force fed with a month of seasoning and conditioning about record numbers that all the basketball stars know. Was Stan as good as Mickey that year? Noo. Did Stan win MVP. YES. Ohhhh Yes!

Wilt's numbers were unfathomable. 40 point games were extremely rare. 50 perhaps a couple of times. Mikan's 61 points in double overtime... WOW! But 50ppg and a 100 point game were on the level of going far beyond any other record in any other sport. Plus its a magical number - century mark. Even if Wilt was devoid of defense scoring a whole superstar player more than Russell and getting the rebound title over him should win him over. Fact was Chamberlain was swatting shots away shots back then too, and he wasn't a poor defender. The league had set a premium on offense and defense wasn't heralded to the level of these articles.

There is nothing in the basketball game that says teams or individuals value defense (Boston has a strength in it and invest more than others tho). In fact one can make a very good argument that the psyche' of the nation, moreso the sports nation, was mesmerized by offense and numbers. In sports it was straight across the board Pele, Sonny Liston, Maris & Mantle and now Wilt. And with the nuclear proliferation our security was that we had this strike first mentality. We were transfixed on offense. Defense isn't a national, sports or basketball state of mind. But hating on Goliath! Can do some mighty strange things.

So in the game that has the most points of all other sports, is entranced by the novelty of defense and heralds that despite the game, all sports are celebrating offense. This has never been the case before or after but we should believe it is so then. Dikembe Mutombo or KG didn't get MVP when they moved their teams in that direction and they won. So Wilt's neglect to win MVP those years was about defense? Politic's had nothing to do with it? Its all fair voting? and defense indeed factors in for everybody???

In the Missouri Newspaper you provided an amazing thing jumped out at me that proves my point: Wilt averaged 44.8 and 24.3 in '63 a little more than 10 ppg and 10 boards per game on Elgin. Wilt was 15 ppg and 9 rebounds better than Pettit. Wilt's defense was superior to those guys for sure yet in '63 yet Wilt finishes 5TH in MVP voting????? I could have the years mixed up but it would be far more criminal if it was '62 which is the only other realistic possibility. The article describes it as a lack of support for Chamberlain, LOL. Yeah right.


The reason is because his team collapsed and missed the playoffs. That's why he finished fifth. People had learned that as amazing as the numbers were, they didn't equate to wins.

Wilt didn't win his first title until he stopped leading the league in scoring and focused more on defense. He didn't even reach the Finals until Alex Hannum introduced him to defensive positioning and effort in 63-64.

Wilt's numbers are amazing and the margin of his stats over his top competition illustrates just how unique his dominance was.

However the fact that he didn't win the MVP in his three greatest statistical seasons does not suggest that the voters got it wrong, but that stats are meaningless in determining a players value, they only determine the type of player he is and the role he plays for his team.

[jlauber]

The reason is because his team collapsed and missed the playoffs. That's why he finished fifth. People had learned that as amazing as the numbers were, they didn't equate to wins.

Wilt didn't win his first title until he stopped leading the league in scoring and focused more on defense. He didn't even reach the Finals until Alex Hannum introduced him to defensive positioning and effort in 63-64.

Wilt's numbers are amazing and the margin of his stats over his top competition illustrates just how unique his dominance was.

However the fact that he didn't win the MVP in his three greatest statistical seasons does not suggest that the voters got it wrong, but that stats are meaningless in determining a players value, they only determine the type of player he is and the role he plays for his team.


Wilt took a LAST PLACE team to a 49-26 record in his very first year...by leading the league in SCORING. He dominated Russell H2H that year, as well, nearly scoring 40 ppg against him, outrebounding him, and outshooting him by a .465 to .398 margin. In the playoffs that season, had he not injured his hand in retaliation for Boston's brutal team defense, he might have beaten the vaunted Celtic dynasty. In game five of that series, he put up a staggering 50-35 game in leading Philly to a 128-107 win in a must-win situation. The Celtics, with their 7-3 edge in HOFers, won game six by two points to wrap up the series. But, as usual, Chamberlain outscored and outrebounded Russell, despite his injured wrist. During the regular season, Wilt shattered the scoring record with a 37.6 ppg mark. And he shattered Russell's rebounding record with 27.0 rpg. His FG% was a career low .461, which was the only time in his career that he failed to shoot at least 50%, but it was still WAY ahead of the league average of .410. Meanwhile, Russell averaged 18.2 ppg, 24.0 rpg, and shot a career best .467 from the field. Russell's Celtics, as usual, had the best record in the league, at 59-16. Who won the MVP? Chamberlain (as well as the ROY.)

Ok, now, in the 61-62 season, Wilt took that same basic roster to a 49-31 record, while Russell took his five HOF teammates to a 60-20 record. Wilt's COACH knew that the ONLY hope his TEAM had was for Wilt to SHOOT. Chamberlain put up what an ESPN panel labeled as the single greatest individual season in professional team sport's HISTORY. He averaged 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, and shot .506 from the field. Meanwhile, Russell averaged 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and shot .457 from the field (in a league that shot .426.) Now, Russell did have a 4.5 to a 2.4 apg edge over Wilt, but that was it. YET, with Chamberlain putting up even BETTER numbers, and with Russell putting up the SAME numbers that he did in his '60 season...it was Russell winning the MVP????

In the playoffs, Wilt carried that team to a game seven, TWO-POINT loss to the heavily-favored Celtics, and their 6-3 edge in HOFers (and a HOF coach, as well.) Wilt's numbers dropped slightly (he averged 38 ppg on .467 shooting against Russell during the regular season) to 33 ppg and about .460 shooting. BUT, as ALWAYS, he outscored and outrebounded Russell in that series. Furthermore, EVERY one of his teammates shot less than 40% in the post-season. Meanwhile, Russell had THREE teammates that not only shot better than 40%, they also shot better than the league average of .426. Despite all of that, Wilt nearly carried that FAR inferior roster to a stunning upset of the Celtics.

I have long maintained that Wilt's 62-63 season was arguably the best statistical season in NBA HISTORY. He LED the NBA in 15 of the 22 statistical categories, or nearly 70%. He not only led the NBA in scoring, he was light years ahead of the next guy, Baylor (44.8 ppg to 34.0 ppg.) He led the NBA in rebounding at 24.6 rpg. And he not only led the NBA in FG%, he set a then-record of .528 (in a league that shot .441.) Wilt not only led the NBA in Win Shares, he also set a PER RECORD of 31.8. True, his TEAM, with perhaps the worst roster in NBA history (16 different players) only went 31-49. BUT, their scoring differential was only -2.1 ppg. Furthermore, H2H against Russell, Chamberlain not only outrebounded him, he outscored him 38 ppg to 14 ppg. This, despite being swarmed by Russell and his SEVEN other HOF teammates (Wilt had ZERO HOF teammates BTW.) MVP voting? Wilt, as Pointguard stated...FIFTH! Yet, Kareem, playing FAR less dominant, won the MVP award in the 75-76 season, on a 40-42 team???

Ok, so how about the 63-64 season, then? With the only addition being rookie Nate Thurmond, who averaged 26 minutes per game, and playing out of position, while scoring 7 ppg and grabbing 10 rpg on .395 shooting, Chamberlain carries THAT team to a 48-32 and to the Finals, where by all accounts he destroyed Russell, by outscoring him, per game, 29-11, and outrebounded him, per game, 27-25 (and probably outshooting him...Wilt shot .543 in his 11 post-season games, while Russell only shot .356 in his 10 playoff games...half of which were against Wilt.) So, who wins the MVP. If you said Wilt, you would be wrong.

For those that have said that Wilt's scoring did not translate to wins (which had already been proven completely false) he would lead the league in scoring in his 65-66 season...AND, the best record in the league at 55-25. True, his teammates completely collapsed in the post-season, while Chamberlain once again crushed Russell, but it was clearly not Wilt's fault.

Chamberlain did cut back his scoring in his 66-67 season, but his supporting cast finally played well, and Chamberlain, as always, buried Russell in the post-season, and the Sixers romped to a title. For those that have claimed that Russell was the better player...why couldn't Russell step up in that series, when clearly his teammates were neutralized by Wilt's teammates? If anything, Russell played like a lamb going to slaughter. In the clinching game five loss, Russell put up a meek FOUR point game (while Chamberlain scored 29 points), AND, watched as Wilt killed him on the glass, 36-21. And for those that have claimed that Russell was a better passer...Wilt outassisted Russell, per game, in that series, 10-6 (with a 13-7 edge in that clinching game five win.) Oh, and BTW, Wilt outshot Russell in that series, .556 to .358, as well as outrebounding him, per game, by a staggering 32-23 margin.

And, had the Sixers not been DECIMATED by injuries in the 67-68 ECF's, they most certainly would have repeated as champions. Despite SEVERAL injuries, which had Chamberlain NOTICEABLY limping in that series, he still easily outscored Russell, as well as outrebounding him.

Now, what I really find interesting, though, in all of these MVP discussions, was Chamberlain's 71-72 season. Wilt led a Laker team, that had finished with a 48-34 record the year before, to a 69-13 mark in 71-72. He only scored 14.8 ppg, but he led the league in rebounding (as he nearly always did), and led the NBA in FG% by a large margin at .649. He was also first team all-defense, and had the DPOY award existed back then, he would have won it easily. Meanwhile, Kareem's Bucks, who had won the title in 70-71 with a 66-16 record, dropped slightly to a 63-19 mark. He did lead the league in scoring, at 34.8 ppg, but that mark was WAY less than Wilt's 61-62 season. YET, Kareem goes on to win the MVP. What changed in the voter's criteria? And, in the post-season, Wilt, by virtually all accounts, outplayed Kareem, holding him to .457 shooting (and only .414 over the last four pivotal games), and then Wilt dominated the Knicks in the Finals...en route to winning the Finals MVP.

In Wilt's final season (72-73), he led the Lakers to a 60-22 (same as Kareem's Bucks), and led the NBA in rebounding, was voted first team all-defense (again), and not only led the NBA in FG%, he set a record of .727 that STILL stands today.

The bottom line....there was definitely an anti-Wilt bias in the MVP voting. IMHO, Wilt should have won the MVP in 61-62, 62-63, and 63-64...as well as 71-72. Instead, he was shut out. Just a disgrace!

[AlFarouqAminu]

Wilt better individual player
Russel better winner and team player

[jlauber]

Passing, defensive rebounding, shot blocking, perimeter defense, outlet passes, understanding of individual tendencies on both offense and defense, ability to adjust, leadership, killer instinct, drive, foul shooting, elevating his play in crunch time, winning.

Every time you post you just further expose yourself as someone whose understanding of the game does not extend beyond stats.

Passing? Wilt LED the NBA in 67-68 (and his TEAM had the best record in the league by a wide margin.) He also was THIRD in the 66-67. Furthermore, in the post-season in that 66-67 season, Wilt averaged 9.2 apg...AND, in his H2H playoff series with Russell that year, he outassisted him, per game, 10-, including a 13-7 edge in the clinching game five win. My god, even when Wilt was scoring 40+ ppg he was only narrowly behind Russell in assists. AND, in his 65-66 season, in which Wilt led the NBA in scoring (and rebounding, and FG%), he out assisted Russell, per game, 5.2 apg to 4.8 apg.

Shot blocking? We don't have the actual numbers, but in the evidence that we do have, Wilt probably had a significant edge. Pollack estimated that Chamberlain had SEASON's of double digit blocks. He also had him with a 25 block game. And someone here posted a game in the 68-69 season in which Wilt blocked a recorded 23 shots. Furthermore, Wilt was knocking Kareem's "unblockable" sky-hook all over the gym in the 71-72 and 72-73 H2H games.

Defensive rebounding? We don't have the numbers, but considering that Wilt holds virtually every major rebounding record, as well as outrebounding Russell H2H by FIVE rebounds per game in their 142 H2H games...the logical assumption would be that Wilt was the better defensive rebounder. My god, Wilt had playoff series against Russell in which he outrebounded him by a 32-23 margin, per game. He also had HUGE games against Russell. He held a 7-1 edge against Russell in 40+ rebound games (Russell's high against Wilt was exactly 40 BTW.) In fact, in one H2H game, Wilt outrebounded Russell by a staggering (and an NBA record) 55-19 margin. Chamberlain also held a 23-4 edge against Russell in H2H 35+ rebound games.

Perimeter defense? I'll give the edge to Russell. And perhaps even in overall defense. BUT, the margin was very close. In terms of H2H defense, I would have to believe that Wilt outshot Russell by a HUGE margin. In the limited FG% stats that we do have, Chamberlain crushed Russell. In the entire '60 regular season (excluding their last regular season game), which covered 10 H2H games, Wilt outshot Russell by a .465 to .398 margin. In the 66-67 ECF's. Wilt outshot Russell by a crushing .556 to .358 margin. In four H2H game seven's Wilt shot .652 against Russell (and while we only have two of Russell's performances in those four games, he only shot .391 against Wilt.) There is even a regular season game in which Wilt held Russell to a 0-14 game from the field.

Outlet passes? Russell was outstanding, but when Wilt was asked to ignite the break, in his 66-67 and 71-72 seasons, his TEAM led the NBA in scoring, by sizeable margins (AND they romped to titles.)

Foul shooting? C'mon. Both were horrible (Russell's career mark was .561 to Wilt's .511), BUT, Wilt currently ranks 17th ALL-TIME in NBA HISTORY in FT's MADE...while Russell is 129th. Chamberlain was FAR more of a force at the FT line. Only Moses and Kareem made more FT's among centers, and Wilt averaged 432 MADE per season, over his career, compared to Kareem's 335.

Elevating his play in crunch time? In his nine game seven's Wilt averaged 24.4 ppg, 26.5 rpg, and shot an all-time high (for great players) of .626 in those game seven's. H2H, in game seven's against Russell, Wilt outscored Russell, 21.3 ppg to 13.2 ppg; outrebounded him, 28.5 rpg to 24.5 rpg; and in those four game seven's, Wilt shot an astonishing .652 against Russell. Here again, we only have two of Russell's FG% numbers in those four games, but he was only at .391 against Wilt in those two games. Wilt had a 50-35 game against Russell in an elimination game in game five of the '60 ECF's. He also put up a 46-34 game against Russell in a clinching game five loss in the '66 ECF's. Meanwhile, when Russell was faced with the samew circumstances in the '67 ECF's, he put up a FOUR point game (Wilt outscored Russell in that game, 29-4; outshot him, 10-16 to 2-5; outassisted him, 13-7; and outrebounded him, 36-21.)

Russell had some HUGE games in the post-season, to be sure, but he never put up huge games against WILT. Meanwhile, Chamberlain had some crushing post-season games against Russell. The fact was, H2H, it was no contest. Chamberlain either outplayed, or downright buried Russell in almost every H2H post-season game.

Winning? True, Russell, with an edge in HOFers in EVERY single season that they two played against each other, won more games. BUT, when Wilt was given a comparable talented supporting cast, his team annihilated Russell's team (in the 66-67 season, they nearly swept Boston, beating them 4-1.) And, overall, Russell's Celtics won FOUR of their H2H series by a COMBINED NINE points. With a few points, here or there, and Wilt would have held a 5-3 edge in rings H2H. In any case, that 7-1 margin was very deceptive.

[G.O.A.T]

I'm only doing this for the sake of new people coming into the thread. Don't bother responding because I won't.

I'm so shocked that you'd present an unbalanced argument...

I'll ignore the specifics of your arguments primarily because it's gotten so bad that most people are dismissing you now as crazy when it comes to all things Wilt.


Passing? Wilt LED the NBA in 67-68 (and his TEAM had the best record in the league by a wide margin.) He also was THIRD in the 66-67. Furthermore, in the post-season in that 66-67 season, Wilt averaged 9.2 apg...AND, in his H2H playoff series with Russell that year, he outassisted him, per game, 10-, including a 13-7 edge in the clinching game five win. My god, even when Wilt was scoring 40+ ppg he was only narrowly behind Russell in assists. AND, in his 65-66 season, in which Wilt led the NBA in scoring (and rebounding, and FG%), he out assisted Russell, per game, 5.2 apg to 4.8 apg.

Russell averaged more apg in seven of ten common seasons, averaged more assists per game in the postseason and more assists H2H for their careers and did it while probably touching the ball 1/3 as much as Wilt in the offensive end. So yes, Russell is the better passer.


Shot blocking? We don't have the actual numbers, but in the evidence that we do have, Wilt probably had a significant edge. Pollack estimated that Chamberlain had SEASON's of double digit blocks. He also had him with a 25 block game. And someone here posted a game in the 68-69 season in which Wilt blocked a recorded 23 shots. Furthermore, Wilt was knocking Kareem's "unblockable" sky-hook all over the gym in the 71-72 and 72-73 H2H games.

By the end Wilt was probably blocking more shots per game, but Russell revolutionized defense with his shot blocking. Russell blocked his shots to teammates to start the fast break. Wilt blocked his as hard as he could in whatever direction they went. Also Russell understood it's not about blocking every shot, but about making people think you can block every shot. There are ten times as many mentions of Russell's shot blocking in the news archives I've searched from the era and he is much more revered for his shot blocking in the books on the issue. So yes I give Russell the edge here.


Defensive rebounding? We don't have the numbers, but considering that Wilt holds virtually every major rebounding record, as well as outrebounding Russell H2H by FIVE rebounds per game in their 142 H2H games...the logical assumption would be that Wilt was the better defensive rebounder. My god, Wilt had playoff series against Russell in which he outrebounded him by a 32-23 margin, per game. He also had HUGE games against Russell. He held a 7-1 edge against Russell in 40+ rebound games (Russell's high against Wilt was exactly 40 BTW.) In fact, in one H2H game, Wilt outrebounded Russell by a staggering (and an NBA record) 55-19 margin. Chamberlain also held a 23-4 edge against Russell in H2H 35+ rebound games.

In total they averaged nearly the same amount of rebounds for their career, again Russell has the edge in postseason. Wilt said Russell was the better rebounder, but in total I'd give Wilt the edge. However Wilt was much more interested in offensive rebounds early in his career; Russell controlled the defensive backboard and allowed the Celtics to start their past break.

Perimeter defense? I'll give the edge to Russell. And perhaps even in overall defense. BUT, the margin was very close. In terms of H2H defense, I would have to believe that Wilt outshot Russell by a HUGE margin. In the limited FG% stats that we do have, Chamberlain crushed Russell. In the entire '60 regular season (excluding their last regular season game), which covered 10 H2H games, Wilt outshot Russell by a .465 to .398 margin. In the 66-67 ECF's. Wilt outshot Russell by a crushing .556 to .358 margin. In four H2H game seven's Wilt shot .652 against Russell (and while we only have two of Russell's performances in those four games, he only shot .391 against Wilt.) There is even a regular season game in which Wilt held Russell to a 0-14 game from the field.


Outlet passes? Russell was outstanding, but when Wilt was asked to ignite the break, in his 66-67 and 71-72 seasons, his TEAM led the NBA in scoring, by sizeable margins (AND they romped to titles.)

Wilt did a nice job twice, Russell did a nicer job eleven times.


Foul shooting? C'mon. Both were horrible (Russell's career mark was .561 to Wilt's .511), BUT, Wilt currently ranks 17th ALL-TIME in NBA HISTORY in FT's MADE...while Russell is 129th. Chamberlain was FAR more of a force at the FT line. Only Moses and Kareem made more FT's among centers, and Wilt averaged 432 MADE per season, over his career, compared to Kareem's 335.

Russell was known for raising his FT% in the postseason, twice he raised it over 70% and had finals games where he was 8-10,9-10,10-12 and 8-8. His free throw percentage, like all his numbers, goes up in the playoffs (over 60%) Wilt's, like all his numbers, goes down in the playoffs to under 47%.


Elevating his play in crunch time? In his nine game seven's Wilt averaged 24.4 ppg, 26.5 rpg, and shot an all-time high (for great players) of .626 in those game seven's. H2H, in game seven's against Russell, Wilt outscored Russell, 21.3 ppg to 13.2 ppg; outrebounded him, 28.5 rpg to 24.5 rpg; and in those four game seven's, Wilt shot an astonishing .652 against Russell. Here again, we only have two of Russell's FG% numbers in those four games, but he was only at .391 against Wilt in those two games. Wilt had a 50-35 game against Russell in an elimination game in game five of the '60 ECF's. He also put up a 46-34 game against Russell in a clinching game five loss in the '66 ECF's. Meanwhile, when Russell was faced with the samew circumstances in the '67 ECF's, he put up a FOUR point game (Wilt outscored Russell in that game, 29-4; outshot him, 10-16 to 2-5; outassisted him, 13-7; and outrebounded him, 36-21.)

All of Russell's numbers go up in the playoffs, the go up again for the NBA Finals, they go up even higher for game sevens and other single elimination games, in which Russell was undefeated in College, the Olympics and the Pros.

All of Wilt's numbers go down in the playoffs (except rebounding).


Russell had some HUGE games in the post-season, to be sure, but he never put up huge games against WILT. Meanwhile, Chamberlain had some crushing post-season games against Russell. The fact was, H2H, it was no contest. Chamberlain either outplayed, or downright buried Russell in almost every H2H post-season game.

Russell won seven of their eight head to head match-ups. In 1962 Russell outplayed Wilt (even statistically)in four of the seven games. Most of the time however, part of Russell's strategy to beat Wilt's teams was to let Wilt pile up his numbers in meaningless moments, because Russell understood that if Wilt got his numbers the outcome was secondary to him and Russell could achieve his goal of winning. As Bill put "I never got caught up in a numbers game with Wilt, because that was his game, and I would lose and so would the Celtics, my game was winning."


Winning? True, Russell, with an edge in HOFers in EVERY single season that they two played against each other, won more games. BUT, when Wilt was given a comparable talented supporting cast, his team annihilated Russell's team (in the 66-67 season, they nearly swept Boston, beating them 4-1.) And, overall, Russell's Celtics won FOUR of their H2H series by a COMBINED NINE points. With a few points, here or there, and Wilt would have held a 5-3 edge in rings H2H. In any case, that 7-1 margin was very deceptive.

From 1960-1964 Russell had clearly a deeper team, though from 60-62, Wilt's teams had just as strong of a starting five. After Wilt was traded to Philly in '65, he had equal or better talent around him for the rest of his career.

He had HCA four times against the Celtics and lost in three of them.

His team built 3-1 and 2-0 leads against Boston and blew them both times.

The Celtics always found a way to win close games, they were constantly riddled with injuries, but it was never an issue, every did as much as they could and to this day they all say they owe it all to Russell.

[Pointguard]

The reason is because his team collapsed and missed the playoffs. That's why he finished fifth. People had learned that as amazing as the numbers were, they didn't equate to wins.

Wilt didn't win his first title until he stopped leading the league in scoring and focused more on defense. He didn't even reach the Finals until Alex Hannum introduced him to defensive positioning and effort in 63-64.

Wilt's numbers are amazing and the margin of his stats over his top competition illustrates just how unique his dominance was.

However the fact that he didn't win the MVP in his three greatest statistical seasons does not suggest that the voters got it wrong, but that stats are meaningless in determining a players value, they only determine the type of player he is and the role he plays for his team.

By reading that article, dated as March (I notice that post WW2 that periodicals were dated early and almost never later) MVP had to have been voted on after the regular season and not after or during the playoffs. 5th in voting is just insane. Yeah, the MVP votes were reflective of something else, not good basketball. Obviously the players were resenting his dominance.

A team would feel that they shut Wilt down if he got the numbers of the Baylor and Petit, whom he was defensively superior to. A team would feel absolutely estatic if he got Russell's numbers. Those two years it wasn't an MVP race.

[G.O.A.T]

Yeah, the MVP votes were reflective of something else, not good basketball. Obviously the players were resenting his dominance.

Not only is it not obvious, it's completely baseless.

Why no resentment in his rookie year when he won MVP?

If you want to believe that the basketball media, players and relevant press all had an anti-Wilt agenda, have fun with that.

I am going to base my opinion on the countless first accounts I've read that say Russell won the MVP because he was the guy NBA players most wanted on their team.

[Pointguard]

I'm only doing this for the sake of new people coming into the thread. Don't bother responding because I won't.

I'm so shocked that you'd present an unbalanced argument...

I'll ignore the specifics of your arguments primarily because it's gotten so bad that most people are dismissing you now as crazy when it comes to all things Wilt.

As of late Jlauder is the most appreciated poster here and definitely not to be dismissed as crazy. Be fair GOAT: a legit argument is a legit argument. When he is wrong he admits it and he's humble on top of it.

[Pointguard]

Not only is it not obvious, it's completely baseless.

Why no resentment in his rookie year when he won MVP?

If you want to believe that the basketball media, players and relevant press all had an anti-Wilt agenda, have fun with that.

I am going to base my opinion on the countless first accounts I've read that say Russell won the MVP because he was the guy NBA players most wanted on their team.

If you read it, and the basketball player is not a journalist, isn't it second or third hand account? And didn't you just admit that the MVP race was more so who you wanted on your team??? Would you want Wilt on your team if you had a nice girl? Then there are other guys who might not like him because its their job to stop him and that wasn't happening much. Notice how much more popular his votes were when he had more human numbers.

Was there some social phenomena going on back then that made people want the less efficient guy that scored closer to 1/3rd the points and was definitively way more stoppable.

[Pointguard]

Not only is it not obvious, it's completely baseless.
Why no resentment in his rookie year when he won MVP?
If you want to believe that the basketball media, players and relevant press all had an anti-Wilt agenda, have fun with that.

Do you honestly believe that Wilt should have gotten little or next to no votes, in the most statistical dominant season in all sports, yet he was the games most well rounded player as well, in a time when the entire sports world was transfixed on numbers??? Do you really think this is even an argument. Do you really believe that Wilt was behind Petit and Baylor in any human way for MVP???

That monster, is the same ugly monster that reared its head in the 50ppg season. The hate Goliath numbers thing was in full effect. If there are players that even wish or dream for Pettits, Baylors and Russell's personal numbers over Wilts, they should be lobotomized on the spot.

[BarberSchool]

Both are overrated, but I'll take Russell. Russell was not only a more reliable anchor figure during long post-season runs....but Russell's just so much cooler than Wilt's fake wall of incredulity. Plus, Wilt got alot of those crazy numbers when the game still sucked big time. Russell was dominating and winning titles when the game was finally becoming great.

[jlauber]

Russell averaged more apg in seven of ten common seasons, averaged more assists per game in the postseason and more assists H2H for their careers and did it while probably touching the ball 1/3 as much as Wilt in the offensive end. So yes, Russell is the better passer.



Russell had a MARGINAL edge in assists in the seasons in which he had a higher apg average. Wilt crushed Russell in the years in which he had a higher apg, as well as outscoring him by a sizeable margin, and outrebounding him, and outshooting him.

Even Simmons' stated that Boston's offense ran thru Russell, yet he could barely outassist Wilt, while Chamberlain was outscoring him by 20+ ppg? When Philly's offense ran thru Wilt he was getting 8-9 apg...AND he could still score 20+ ppg.


By the end Wilt was probably blocking more shots per game, but Russell revolutionized defense with his shot blocking. Russell blocked his shots to teammates to start the fast break. Wilt blocked his as hard as he could in whatever direction they went. Also Russell understood it's not about blocking every shot, but about making people think you can block every shot. There are ten times as many mentions of Russell's shot blocking in the news archives I've searched from the era and he is much more revered for his shot blocking in the books on the issue. So yes I give Russell the edge here.



Russell was a great shot-blocker, but from the evidence that we have, Chamberlain probably blocked more shots. There are articles which credit Wilt with incredible shot block numbers as well. In game one of the '67 ECF's, Wilt not only put up a 24 point, 32 rebound, 13 assist game against Russell...he had a RECORDED 12 blocks...or a KNOWN QUAD-DOUBLE.


In total they averaged nearly the same amount of rebounds for their career, again Russell has the edge in postseason. Wilt said Russell was the better rebounder, but in total I'd give Wilt the edge. However Wilt was much more interested in offensive rebounds early in his career; Russell controlled the defensive backboard and allowed the Celtics to start their past break

Wilt CRUSHED Russell on the glass. In their 142 H2H games, Wilt held a 92-42-8 edge. He also held a 28.7 rpg to 23.7 rpg margin in those 142 games. He had a 7-1 H2H edge in 40+ rebound games, and a staggering 23-4 edge in 35+ rebound games. He had games in which he absolutely murdered Russell on the boards, including a 55-19 game, and even a 42-18 game in their last season together, as well as a 31-13 margin in game five of the '69 Finals. Russell holds a slight edge in post-season rebounding, BUT, not during their 10 years in the league together. Wilt's post-season numbers dropped slightly after Russell retired, although he never averaged less than 20 rpg in the post-season. And finally, Wilt outrebounded Russell in EVERY H2H post-season series.


Russell was known for raising his FT% in the postseason, twice he raised it over 70% and had finals games where he was 8-10,9-10,10-12 and 8-8. His free throw percentage, like all his numbers, goes up in the playoffs (over 60%) Wilt's, like all his numbers, goes down in the playoffs to under 47%.




All of Russell's numbers go up in the playoffs, the go up again for the NBA Finals, they go up even higher for game sevens and other single elimination games, in which Russell was undefeated in College, the Olympics and the Pros.

All of Wilt's numbers go down in the playoffs (except rebounding).




Russell won seven of their eight head to head match-ups. In 1962 Russell outplayed Wilt (even statistically)in four of the seven games. Most of the time however, part of Russell's strategy to beat Wilt's teams was to let Wilt pile up his numbers in meaningless moments, because Russell understood that if Wilt got his numbers the outcome was secondary to him and Russell could achieve his goal of winning. As Bill put "I never got caught up in a numbers game with Wilt, because that was his game, and I would lose and so would the Celtics, my game was winning."



First of all, I get a kick out of those that point out how Wilt's scoring dropped in the post-season, while Russell gets credit for elevating his scoring. He also gets credit for being the "better" player, despite being heavily outscored, for getting outrebounded, and for probably getting heavily outshot in the vast majority of their H2H games. So, in essence, if player "A" averages 50 ppg, and player "B" averages 1 ppg...and if player "B" "holds" player "A" to 49 points, while scoring 2 points himself, he is a "better" player. Makes perfect sense to me.

Incidently, not all of Russell's numbers went up in the post-season. His FG% went from a pedestrian .441 during his regular season career, down to a .430 in his post-season play. Wilt's FG% declined a little, too, in the post-season, but from .540 to .522, which was WAY AHEAD of the LEAGUE AVERAGE during those years (which ranged from .410 to .456...and in many around .440.) And against Wilt, Russell had at least one post-season of .358, and probably another in the '64 Finals, in a post-season in which he shot just .356...and five of his ten playoff games were against Wilt. I seriously doubt Russell came close to 50% shooting in ANY playoff series against Chamberlain, and I suspect that he did not shoot much better than 40% against him in his post-season career.

As for the '62 ECF's, Russell outplayed Wilt in THREE HALVES of those seven GAMES. He even gets credit for outplaying Wilt in a game in which Wilt outscored him 33-16. In three FULL games Wilt absolutely buried Russell, including one game in which he outscored him 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20.

The BOTTOM line, though, in that '62 series, was that Russell, with a 6-3 edge in HOFers, beat a Philly team, in which EVERY one of Wilt's teammates shot less than 40% in the entire post-season, in a game seven, by TWO points. BTW, Russell had THREE teammates who not only shot better than 40%, they outshot the league average of .426...and of course, Wilt had ZERO teammates accomplish that.

Furthermore, I have read where Russell "let" Wilt score in the first half of games, and then "shut him down" in the second halves. Hmmm. like the '62 ECF game seven, when Wilt converted a three-point play to tie the game going into the last minute? Or how about game seven of the '65 ECF's, when Wilt scored six of the last eight points of the game to pull Philly to within a one point margin? I guess Russell then hit the guidewire on his inbounds pass on purpose so that Havlicek could steal Philly's last second attempt at a win, too.

It is also interesting, that Wilt seemed to heavily outscore Russell in the SECOND HALVES of the '62 ECF's. In any case, it certainly appears that Russell could not contain Chamberlain in the vast majority of their FULL games together. However, there were a TON of games in which Chamberlain completely dominated Russell for ENTIRE games.


From 1960-1964 Russell had clearly a deeper team, though from 60-62, Wilt's teams had just as strong of a starting five. After Wilt was traded to Philly in '65, he had equal or better talent around him for the rest of his career.

He had HCA four times against the Celtics and lost in three of them.

His team built 3-1 and 2-0 leads against Boston and blew them both times.

The Celtics always found a way to win close games, they were constantly riddled with injuries, but it was never an issue, every did as much as they could and to this day they all say they owe it all to Russell.

OK, here is the rundown...in the '60 season, Russell had a 7-3 edge in HOF teammates. In the '61 season, he had a 7-3 edge in HOFers. In the '62 season, he had a 6-3 edge in HOFers. In the '63 season, he had an 8-1 edge in HOF teammates. And in the '64 season, he had a 7-2 edge in HOF teammates. You also did not include the '65 season, in which Wilt took a 40-40 76er team, that had been a horrible team the year before, to a game seven, ONE-POINT loss against the 62-18 Celtics, and their 5-2 edge in HOFers. Wilt also averaged a 30-30 game in the post-season against Russell that year, as well as putting up a 30 point, 80% FG%, 32 rebound game in game seven (while Russell scored 15 points on 7-16 shooting, with 29 rebounds.)

[jlauber]

Now, how about those last four seasons, in which Wilt played on team's with a better W-L record? The '66 76ers had to win their last 11 games to edge Boston by ONE game, 55-25 to 54-26. The Celtics were still the seven-time defending champs, and I would venture a guess that they were favored in their post-season series. In any case, while Wilt put up a 28 ppg, 30 rpg, .509 series against Russell...outscoring Russell by a 2-1 margin, and outrerbounding him by five per game. Meanwhile, Wilt's teammates shot horribly. Greer shot .325. Walker shot .375. Jones shot .325. Jackson shot .429. And Cunningham shot .161. But, of course, you would give Russell an edge in that series wouldn't you?

I have addressed the '69 Finals a hundred times now. The Lakers were basically a prime West, a severely declining Baylor (who was just awful in the post-season), and a shackled Wilt (by his COACH, who preferred Baylor firing blanks to Wilt's offense, despite the fact that Chamberlain had outshot Baylor during the regular season by a .583 to .447 margin (and .545 to .385 in the post-season.) Meanwhile, Russell's Celtics had a 4-3 edge in HOFers, (he had an edge in HOFers in EVERY season BTW), and a much-deeper bench. Still, if Johnny Egan had not lost the ball in game four, the Lakers, behind Wilt in game five, would have won that series, 4-1. As it was, Egan lost the ball, and Sam Jones hit a miraculous game-winner at the buzzer, while falling down. Or, if Baylor had not completely disappeared in games three thru five (24 TOTAL points), two of which were losses, who knows? Of course, Wilt's COACH probably cost LA the series, and particularly game seven, when he left Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes, while Chamberlain's replacement, Mel Counts shot 4-13...in a two point loss. In that game seven, Wilt outscored Russell, 18-6; he outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7; and he outrebounded Russell, 27-21.

That leaves the '66-67 and '67-68 seasons, in which I would acknowledge that Wilt had better teammates (although Russell still had an edge in HOFers.) In the '67-68 regular season, Philly ran away with the best record in the league, and were prohibitive favorites going into the post-season. However, in the first round of the playoffs, the Sixers lost HOFer Cunningham to a wrist injury, and he would miss the rest of the playoffs. Still, despite his loss, the Sixers were able to forge a 3-1 series lead against Russell's Celtics. And even Russell made a concession by having backup center Wayne Embry guard Wilt. However, Wilt, who was already nursing a variety of injuries going into the post-season, reinjured his calf in game three, and was noticeably hobbled the rest of the series. Then, in game five, Luke Jackson injured his leg, and he was worthless the rest of the series. In addition, Wali Jones suffered an injury, and he too, was worthless. On top of all of that, the Sixers forgot to pass the ball to Wilt in that game seven, and instead chose to shoot an abysimal 33%..all of which led to a game seven, four point loss.

Clearly, that '68 76er team that lost that playoff series, was NOT the same Sixer team that terrorized the league during the regular season. But, let's carry this further. Le\t's completely reverse those scenarios. What if Philly had been healthy in that series? What if Russell would have lost Havlicek before that series began? What if Howell and Siegfried had been hurt in game five? And what if Russell's teammates would have shot 33% in that game seven? Let's get real here. If Philly had been healthy, they probably would have repeated the previous season's romp to a title. But, had Boston had to overcome all of those injuries that Wilt's team had, the Sixers probably would have swept them by 20+ ppg in every game.

That brings us to the 66-67 season. Wilt had a remarkable season, and his teammates played brilliantly. And with his teammates finally neutralizing Russell's, Chamberlain destroyed Russell H2H, and it led to a near sweep, and a 4-1 obilteration of Russell's 60-21 Celtics. One can only wonder how many more rings Chamberlain would have had, had he enjoyed a healthy roster like that his entire career.

[Pointguard]

Both are overrated, but I'll take Russell. Russell was not only a more reliable anchor figure during long post-season runs....but Russell's just so much cooler than Wilt's fake wall of incredulity. Plus, Wilt got alot of those crazy numbers when the game still sucked big time. Russell was dominating and winning titles when the game was finally becoming great.
Hey Barber, if you do anything great you aren't overrated. If you dominate you aren't overrated. If people dream about the things you accomplished you aren't overrated. If you got a record of wow, and others still go wow 60 years later, you are underrated. Whenever people build their dreams on your high level of accomplishment you deserve the best rating because you really can't go higher than a lot of what Wilt/Russell did.

[jlauber]

Both are overrated, but I'll take Russell. Russell was not only a more reliable anchor figure during long post-season runs....but Russell's just so much cooler than Wilt's fake wall of incredulity. Plus, Wilt got alot of those crazy numbers when the game still sucked big time. Russell was dominating and winning titles when the game was finally becoming great.

Huh???

Wilt played FIVE years AFTER Russell retired. He faced the likes of Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, Lanier, Hayes, Unseld, Cowens, Lucas, Lovelette, Embry, Russell, and Kareem...ALL in the HOF.

As for being over-rated...he STILL holds some 130+ records...which is about DOUBLE of what Gretzky holds in the NHL. In many cases, he also holds the next mark or marks. And, in many cases, his record will not be approached, much less broken. Against Russell he averaged a CAREER 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg...or a near 30-30 game in 142 H2H games. Think about that...a 30-30 game AVERAGE for a CAREER, against a player that many consider the greatest defensive player of all-time, and the second best rebounder in NBA history.