The reason Wilt Chamberlain was traded from Philly to L.A (according to Jack Ramsay)

[PHILA]

From Dr. Jack Ramsay's 2004 book, Dr. Jack's Leadership Lessons Learned From a Lifetime in Basketball.


Another "do-over" decision I still think about was more of a delayed decision, but nonetheless had a negative result. It centered on the man I regard as the most talented, intelligent, complex, and interesting of all the players I've known - Wilt Chamberlain. Prior to the 1966-67 season, in Philadelphia, Wilt had set all kinds of scoring records (he had been the league's perennial leader in scoring and rebounding, at one time averaging over 50 points a game for a season), but he had won no championships.

The Boston Celtics ruled then, having won eight titles in a row. Wilt seemed to sense that this Sixers team had the player personnel, in addition to new coach, Alex Hannum, that together could reach that goal. Under Hannum's influence, Wilt became a true team player, scoring a modest - for him - 24 points a game, grabbing 24 rebounds, and dealing just under 8 assists. The Sixers set a league record at the time for most wins with a 68 and 13 mark, and went on to win the 1967 championship, Wilt's first in his eight seasons in the NBA.

I was general manager of that Sixers team and got to know Wilt quite well. When Alex Hannum left the Sixers to coach Oakland in the ABA, I talked with many candidates to replace him. Among them were Frank McGuire, John Kundla, and Earl Lloyd, each of whom could have had the job, but declined it for various reasons. Chamberlain often stopped by the Sixers office to inquire how the coach search was going. When time went by without a selection, he told owner Irv Kosloff and me that he'd be interested in becoming player/coach if I would help him with the Xs and Os. The suggestion took us both by surprise and we said that we'd give it some thought. We agreed to meet again in a week, after Wilt had returned from a trip to the West Coast.

I liked the idea. I thought that Wilt would play with added intensity knowing his name was on the line, and I was confident that I could help with the technical aspects of the job. Koz and I talked it over and agreed that we'd make a deal with Chamberlain to be the team's coach. But when Wilt returned, he said that he had changed his mind, that he was not going to play in Philadelphia again, and he demanded a trade to a West Coast team - to Seattle, Los Angeles, or San Diego. When we indicated that we weren't interested in trading him, he said that he'd jump to the ABA team in Los Angeles. (The ability of NBA players to leave their existing teams began in 1967 when Rick Barry, a free agent at the time, left the San Francisco Warriors of the NBA to join Oakland of the newly formed ABA. Barry was forced by a court order to sit out a year, but then played for Oakland in 1968-69, and played three more years in the ABA for other teams before returning to the NBA with the Golden State Warriors in 1972. With that precedent established, NBA players who were not under contract looked to enhance their bargaining position by threatening to "jump" to the ABA. Chamberlain knew that he was playing with a strong negotiating chip.)

I could hardly believe what I was hearing. I had come to the meeting brimming with enthusiasm, prepared to fill the coaching void, and suddenly found myself, still without a coach and with the prospect of losing the most powerful player in the game. Koz, who was accustomed to Wilt's negotiating ploys (he only did one-year contracts, had no agent, and did all the negotiating himself), tried to push the discussion aside. But Wilt said that he was serious about his decision and that in now way would he play for Philadelphia again. He walked out of the meeting leaving me with my mouth hanging open.

We eventually worked out a deal with the Lakers - the only team Wilt later said he would go to - and moved on. Had Luke Jackson not torn and Achilles tendon, the deal might not have been so detrimental. (Jackson was a powerhouse rebounder, who could score inside and from the perimeter; but he never regained his ability to run and jump like he once had, and the Sixers started a downward trend.)

Thinking back, I've often wondered what the outcome would have been if I had jumped on Wilt's first offer to coach the team. Might we have finalized a deal before he went to the West Coast? Or, when Wilt visited the Sixers office to ask about the progress in hiring a new coach, could I have suggested become player/coach to him? Or, could the Sixers have kept him if we had not caved in when he threatened to jump to the ABA, and told him instead that he was staying in Philly and that the player/coach opportunity was still open?

[EarlTheGoat]

Curious, so he went from "coaching" the team to wanting to leave to the West Coast in a couple of weeks? Lol, something changed in his mind.

I think that trip to the West Coast the article talked about was the decisive factor in Wilt`s decision, it might sound stupid, but when he looked at the weather, the culture and lifestyle in places like California and all the marketing machine the LA Lakers was turning into he practicly made his decision.

[jlauber]

From Dr. Jack Ramsay's 2004 book, Dr. Jack's Leadership Lessons Learned From a Lifetime in Basketball.


Another "do-over" decision I still think about was more of a delayed decision, but nonetheless had a negative result. It centered on the man I regard as the most talented, intelligent, complex, and interesting of all the players I've known - Wilt Chamberlain. Prior to the 1966-67 season, in Philadelphia, Wilt had set all kinds of scoring records (he had been the league's perennial leader in scoring and rebounding, at one time averaging over 50 points a game for a season), but he had won no championships.

The Boston Celtics ruled then, having won eight titles in a row. Wilt seemed to sense that this Sixers team had the player personnel, in addition to new coach, Alex Hannum, that together could reach that goal. Under Hannum's influence, Wilt became a true team player, scoring a modest - for him - 24 points a game, grabbing 24 rebounds, and dealing just under 8 assists. The Sixers set a league record at the time for most wins with a 68 and 13 mark, and went on to win the 1967 championship, Wilt's first in his eight seasons in the NBA.

I was general manager of that Sixers team and got to know Wilt quite well. When Alex Hannum left the Sixers to coach Oakland in the ABA, I talked with many candidates to replace him. Among them were Frank McGuire, John Kundla, and Earl Lloyd, each of whom could have had the job, but declined it for various reasons. Chamberlain often stopped by the Sixers office to inquire how the coach search was going. When time went by without a selection, he told owner Irv Kosloff and me that he'd be interested in becoming player/coach if I would help him with the Xs and Os. The suggestion took us both by surprise and we said that we'd give it some thought. We agreed to meet again in a week, after Wilt had returned from a trip to the West Coast.

I liked the idea. I thought that Wilt would play with added intensity knowing his name was on the line, and I was confident that I could help with the technical aspects of the job. Koz and I talked it over and agreed that we'd make a deal with Chamberlain to be the team's coach. But when Wilt returned, he said that he had changed his mind, that he was not going to play in Philadelphia again, and he demanded a trade to a West Coast team - to Seattle, Los Angeles, or San Diego. When we indicated that we weren't interested in trading him, he said that he'd jump to the ABA team in Los Angeles. (The ability of NBA players to leave their existing teams began in 1967 when Rick Barry, a free agent at the time, left the San Francisco Warriors of the NBA to join Oakland of the newly formed ABA. Barry was forced by a court order to sit out a year, but then played for Oakland in 1968-69, and played three more years in the ABA for other teams before returning to the NBA with the Golden State Warriors in 1972. With that precedent established, NBA players who were not under contract looked to enhance their bargaining position by threatening to "jump" to the ABA. Chamberlain knew that he was playing with a strong negotiating chip.)

I could hardly believe what I was hearing. I had come to the meeting brimming with enthusiasm, prepared to fill the coaching void, and suddenly found myself, still without a coach and with the prospect of losing the most powerful player in the game. Koz, who was accustomed to Wilt's negotiating ploys (he only did one-year contracts, had no agent, and did all the negotiating himself), tried to push the discussion aside. But Wilt said that he was serious about his decision and that in now way would he play for Philadelphia again. He walked out of the meeting leaving me with my mouth hanging open.

We eventually worked out a deal with the Lakers - the only team Wilt later said he would go to - and moved on. Had Luke Jackson not torn and Achilles tendon, the deal might not have been so detrimental. (Jackson was a powerhouse rebounder, who could score inside and from the perimeter; but he never regained his ability to run and jump like he once had, and the Sixers started a downward trend.)

Thinking back, I've often wondered what the outcome would have been if I had jumped on Wilt's first offer to coach the team. Might we have finalized a deal before he went to the West Coast? Or, when Wilt visited the Sixers office to ask about the progress in hiring a new coach, could I have suggested become player/coach to him? Or, could the Sixers have kept him if we had not caved in when he threatened to jump to the ABA, and told him instead that he was staying in Philly and that the player/coach opportunity was still open?


Excellent post. This is one thread that explodes Simmons' MYTH's that Wilt was traded twice for "pennies on the dollar."

And while this is perfectly plausible, the main reason, according to Chamberlain himself, was that the previous Sixer owner, Ike Richmond, had verbally promised Wilt a share in ownership. Unfortunately, Ike had a sudden heart-attack during a Sixer-Celtic game in 1965, and passed away. The new Sixer ownership told Wilt that they would not honor that verbal agreement.

Wilt was also dealt in the middle of the 64-65 season. Why? How could a Warrior team, that had been to the Finals just the season before, trade a player of Chamberlain's caliber? Wilt had a mysterious aliment during the off-season, and the Warrior team physicians ran some tests which seemed to indicate a heart condition. In fact, they advised that he take several months, if not the entire season, off. Wilt did come back, very early (the Warriors started 1-6 without him.) He was not 100%, and it showed in his play (although he averaged 39 ppg on 50% shooting.) Wilt was so frustrated with the diagnosis, that he went to his personal physician who declared that he had pancreatitis. The Warriors took no chances, however, and shipped him off. All Wilt did in teh second half of that season, was take another mediocre roster (the Sixers had gone 34-46 the year before) to the playoffs, where they wiped out a 48-32 Royals team, and then took the 62-18 Celtics to a game seven, one point defeat. And, Wilt was maginificent in that series, posting a 30-30 series, and thoroughly outscoring, outshooting, and outrebounding Russell.

Of course, the rest was history. Over the course of the next three seasons, Philly had the best record in the league. In the 66-67 season, they set all kind sof records, and crushed the NBA en route to a championship...including a 4-2 pounding of the Warriors. And had they not been decimated by injuries, they probably would have easily won the title in 67-68.

BTW, after Philly "traded" Wilt to LA, they went on an immediate decline, and by Wilt's last season, in 72-73, they finished with the worst record in NBA history. Meanwhile, all Wilt did in his five years in LA was to take them to FOUR Finals, and their first-ever championship in Los Angeles, in the magical 71-72 season...a season that was culminated by a Finals MVP for Wilt.

[PHILA]

It also could have been to be closer to his father living in L.A. (who apparently was terminally ill). Did Wilt mention in any of his autobiographies the reason for this trade? In addition to the broken ownership agreement, I've heard stories that Ramsay and Wilt had a very strong dislike for each other (after Wilt realized Ramsay would badmouth his game behind his back). Truth or fiction?

[jlauber]

It also could have been to be closer to his father living in L.A. (who apparently was terminally ill). Did Wilt mention in any of his autobiographies the reason for this trade? In addition to the broken ownership agreement, I've heard stories that Ramsay and Wilt had a very strong dislike for each other (after Wilt realized Ramsay would badmouth his game behind his back). Truth or fiction?

I believe all of those were among the reasons.

When Wilt was traded to the Lakers, the media immediately proclaimed that not only would LA win the championship, but that they might go unbeaten (which was shattered by an 0-2 start.)

Personally, I was devastated. The Sixers were on the brink of a "mini dynasty." They had had the best record in the NBA over the course of the three previous seasons. They had crushed the league in 66-67, and easily won a title. And, in 67-68, they were well on their way to a repeat. They ran away with the best record in the league, beating Boston by eight games. BUT, they were decimated by injuries in the post-season. Despite not having HOFer Cunningham, they still led Boston, 3-1. But then Luke Jackson injured his leg in game five, and was worthless the rest of the way. And, Wilt, himself, was nursing a variety of ailments. And with Chamberlain's teammates firing blanks (33% combined) all game long in that game seven, Boston managed to eke out a 100-96 win.

IMHO, the Sixers might have won 4-6, or more titles. Cunningham and Walker were just becoming great players, while Jackson, Greer, and Wilt were all in their primes.

Instead, Wilt engineered that deal to LA, where he encountered an incompetent coach, and a team with virtually no depth. Not only that, but while West was in his prime, Baylor was in a rapid decline. In fact, that first season, was the ONLY full-season in which Wilt and Baylor played together in the next four seasons. Wilt was injured in 69-70, and was never quite the same afterwards, while Baylor missed almost the entire 70-71 season. And then Elgin retired early into the 71-72 season (and the Lakers immediately won 33 straight games.) West was also fighting injuries for much of the five seasons that he and Wilt were paired together. He missed the last fourth of the '71 season (including the playoffs), and he had TWO injured wrists in the '70 Finals. He also had aching knees in the 72-73 post-season.

So, instead of Chamberlain probably amassing 4-5, or more rings with the Sixers, he was only able to garner one more (albeit, four finals in five years), with the Lakers.

[ThaRegul8r]

Curious, so he went from "coaching" the team to wanting to leave to the West Coast in a couple of weeks? Lol, something changed in his mind.

I think that trip to the West Coast the article talked about was the decisive factor in Wilt`s decision, it might sound stupid, but when he looked at the weather, the culture and lifestyle in places like California and all the marketing machine the LA Lakers was turning into he practicly made his decision.

Wilt had decided before the end of the '67-68 season that he wanted to play for the Lakers if it was at all possible:


After that three-game splurge in mid-December, I only had one other game all season where I scored more than 40 points. That game was against Los Angeles in the last week of the regular season. I got 53 points—and I wanted every one of them; I’d pretty much decided I’d like to play for the Lakers the next season, if possible, and I wanted to show them I could still score—just in case they had any doubts.

He decided to have a big scoring game against them to make him more attractive to them. It was March 18, 1968, the 76ers' third-to-last game of the season.

[jlauber]

Wilt had decided before the end of the '67-68 season that he wanted to play for the Lakers if it was at all possible:



He decided to have a big scoring game against them to make him more attractive to them. It was March 18, 1968, the 76ers' third-to-last game of the season.

Wilt gets ripped here by some, when they look at the second half of his career. In the first half, he averaged nearly 40 ppg over the course of his first seven seasons...COMBINED. But in the last half of his career, he "only" averaged about 20.

I actually break Wilt's career into THREE sections. The first being his "scoring" seasons. The second came from the 66-67 thru the 68-69 seasons, when he basically cut back his shooting and led quality teammates to the the best records in the league. And then the last one was from 69-70 thru 72-73, which was his "post-injury" seasons.

And even 69-70 season was deceptive. Why? Because in the first nine games of that season (just before his devastating knee injury), his new coach had asked him to become the focal point of the offense. He responded with a 32.2 ppg average over those first nine games (which included games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43 points...and another game in which he outscored, outshot, and outrebounded Kareem.)

After his knee injury, which affected his lateral movement, and along with arthritis in his other knee, he was never quite the same offensively again. However, he also bulked up to over 300 lbs., and he had moments in games in which he played like Shaq, and just over-powered his opposing center. He still would put up a few 30+ point games, and in fact had the last two of his staggering 109 30-30 games in the 71-72 season (one against Lanier BTW.)

In any case, Regul8r mentioned that Wilt put up a 53 point game near the end of the '68 season to impress the Lakers. He led the NBA in assists that season, but he still had the FOUR highest scoring games, which were games of 52, 53, 53, and 68.

In the 66-67 season, which was the year after his last "scoring" season, he "only" averaged 24.1 ppg. BUT, he had the highest game of the season, with a 58 point outburst (on 26-34 shooting), as well as a 42 point game, which came on 18-18 shooting. EVERYONE knew that Wilt could have led the league in scoring that year. In fact, Rick Barry, who did lead the NBA in scoring at 35.6 ppg, "thanked" Wilt for "letting" him win the scoring title.

As Regul8r mentioned, Wilt put up that 53 point game to show the Lakers that he could still score. He was subsequently traded to LA. However, his new coach, Butch Van Breda Kolf, preferred Baylor to shoot, and asked Wilt to play the high post. He even BENCHED Chamberlain during the course of that season. It got so bad, that Sports Illustrated ran an article claiming that Wilt could no longer score. Wilt got wind of that article before it hit the newstands, and the night before it came out, Wilt poured in a 60 point game. He followed that up with a 66 point game (on 29-35 shooting) a few days later. In fact, over the course of the next 17 games, he averaged 31 ppg, which included a 35 point game against Russell, which was his highest against him since his 46 point playoff game in '66.

So, when someone mentions that Wilt was "only" scoring around 20 ppg in the last half of his career, ...keep in mind that he COULD have scored MUCH more.

[PHILA]

http://i53.tinypic.com/2w2k9pz.png
http://i53.tinypic.com/jgo6xk.png
http://i51.tinypic.com/3304p6d.png

[chips93]

the more i hear about wilt the more interesting he seems

could anybody recommend any books about wilt, preferably not an autobiography, he seems very biased

[PHILA]

the more i hear about wilt the more interesting he seems

could anybody recommend any books about wilt, preferably not an autobiography, he seems very biased

http://i54.tinypic.com/2d10fau.jpg

[jlauber]

http://i54.tinypic.com/2d10fau.jpg

Great post. IMHO, the best book on Wilt. Cherry certainly views Chamberlain in a much more favorable light than say, Simmons, who had an obvious anti-Wilt agenda. Of course, the facts back up Cherrys take, as well.

[Psileas]

It's reasonable. Cherry doesn't have any specific bias for any athlete. If you read the introduction, he doesn't even care about athletes more than he does for other categories of people. He just found Wilt a very exciting person to search and write about and that was the main reason for this book. On the other hand, Simmons is a guy with very distinctive likes and dislikes and as a Celtics' homer, he really dislikes anything linked with the Lakers. With Wilt, he has more reasons to hate on, since a lot believe that he was better than the GOAT Celtic, who played in the same era and dominated the rings - so he would dislike Wilt whatever his team would be. Distort/exaggerate also some of the things Wilt got blamed about (including things that he shouldn't get blamed at all, like competition level) to write a few quick-witted lines, and that's Simmons for you.

[puppychili]

Drinking Game: Every time JLauber says what Wilt COULD have or SHOULD have done, drink a shot. You'll be drunk in 10 minutes.

[jlauber]

Drinking Game: Every time JLauber says what Wilt COULD have or SHOULD have done, drink a shot. You'll be drunk in 10 minutes.

Very true.

As was Wilt's career.

[jlauber]

It's reasonable. Cherry doesn't have any specific bias for any athlete. If you read the introduction, he doesn't even care about athletes more than he does for other categories of people. He just found Wilt a very exciting person to search and write about and that was the main reason for this book. On the other hand, Simmons is a guy with very distinctive likes and dislikes and as a Celtics' homer, he really dislikes anything linked with the Lakers. With Wilt, he has more reasons to hate on, since a lot believe that he was better than the GOAT Celtic, who played in the same era and dominated the rings - so he would dislike Wilt whatever his team would be. Distort/exaggerate also some of the things Wilt got blamed about (including things that he shouldn't get blamed at all, like competition level) to write a few quick-witted lines, and that's Simmons for you.

Simmons' goes out of his way to disparage Wilt, the Sixers, Kobe, and the Lakers.

He has almost nothing good to say about Wilt, and ranks him sixth all-time. He doesn't even have the '67 76ers in his top-10. At one point he had Kobe 15th all-time, but even he realized how ridiculous that made him look, so he reluctantly dropped him to 9th. Then, he ripped Kobe for pulling himself out of the Mavs game in which he had scored 62 points...BUT...he rips Kobe's 81 point game because he firing away late in the game. THEN he praises Bird in his 60 point game, in a meaningless rout.

The man has an obvious agenda...and most all of it has little supporting facts.

Cherry is critical of Wilt somewhat in game seven of the '68 ECF's, although, he, like myself, blames Wilt's coach and teammates, as well. He also blames Wilt for the Lakers game six loss in the '69 Finals (although he does NOT blame him for the game seven loss.)

Still, even he was amazed at Wilt's basketball career and his incredible athleticism...hence the title...'Wilt: Larger than Life.'

[heyhey]

Simmons' goes out of his way to disparage Wilt, the Sixers, Kobe, and the Lakers.

He has almost nothing good to say about Wilt, and ranks him sixth all-time. He doesn't even have the '67 76ers in his top-10. At one point he had Kobe 15th all-time, but even he realized how ridiculous that made him look, so he reluctantly dropped him to 9th. Then, he ripped Kobe for pulling himself out of the Mavs game in which he had scored 62 points...BUT...he rips Kobe's 81 point game because he firing away late in the game. THEN he praises Bird in his 60 point game, in a meaningless rout.

The man has an obvious agenda...and most all of it has little supporting facts.

Cherry is critical of Wilt somewhat in game seven of the '68 ECF's, although, he, like myself, blames Wilt's coach and teammates, as well. He also blames Wilt for the Lakers game six loss in the '69 Finals (although he does NOT blame him for the game seven loss.)

Still, even he was amazed at Wilt's basketball career and his incredible athleticism...hence the title...'Wilt: Larger than Life.'

I believe Simmons even insinuate that Wilt was a homosexual by talking about how despite his bombastic claim of sleeping with 1000 woman you never saw wilt with a girl in public. :facepalm

Can't believe the dude gets a paid gig to sprout hate and garbage. lol you can get ISH posters to do that sh!t for free

[jlauber]

I believe Simmons even insinuate that Wilt was a homosexual by talking about how despite his bombastic claim of sleeping with 1000 woman you never saw wilt with a girl in public. :facepalm

Can't believe the dude gets a paid gig to sprout hate and garbage. lol you can get ISH posters to do that sh!t for free

I hate to get involved in non-basketball related activities, but Wilt's womanizing was well known throughout the NBA. If you read Cherry's book, Cherry even brings up how Wilt came up with that "20,000" number. Chamberlain had a frined who owned a hotel in Hawaii. In one ten-day stay at that hotel, his friend counted 23 different women going up to Wilt's room (sometimes more than one BTW.) Wilt was nearly 50 at the time, so his friend multipled two women per day times 30 years. BTW, even Wilt apologized for the comment (although he did not refute the actual number.)

I have said it before, but Wilt was never accused of rape, or brutality against women, or of cheating (he was never married, but as far as he knew, he never slept with a married woman.) And Cherry points out that those knew Wilt attested to the fact that women flocked to Wilt. Chamberlain seldom even initiated the liasons.

Nate Thurmond told a story that, after a game in the mid-60's, Wilt asked him what he was doing the rest of the evening. Thurmond replied that he was probably going to watch a Kim Novak movie (just google her...she was hot.) Wilt told Thurmond that he had a better idea. They hopped into Wilt's car and they drove to a home about a half hour away. To Nate's surprise, Kim Novak came out and gave Chamberlain a hug.

Wilt was also romantically linked with several other beauties like Joey Heatherton (google her), and Elke Sommer.

But, if Wilt were indeed gay, he did a great job of hiding it. In any case, I'm sure that Simmons' had no idea.

BTW, and I have mentioned it before, but when comparing the lives of Wilt and Russell (who it appears that Simmons' idolized)...there was no doubt who was more well liked, and who led a much better life after basketball. Wilt invested wisely and was a millionaire who enjoyed his post-basketball career, while Russell was a bitter man who was nearly broke a few years after he retired. He was even accused of being a racist. I don't want to delve into that topic any more than that, but you can google Russell and Wilt, and you will see who was considered a much better human being.

[G.O.A.T]

I have to take exception with some of you dismissing Simmons analysis of the Chamberlain/Russell debate as bias hyperbole.

It's actually the best laid out case for Russell above Chamberlain or vice versa I've ever seen. Much better than any case anyone had laid out in my years touring the forums and boards.

Now yes, there are some elements of the debate that he present's in a very one-sided manner, but I don't see how that devalues the numerous excellent points he raises.

You have to remember he is not just making the case that Russell is better than Wilt, but that it's not even close. So he's not going to present any more pro-Chamberlain data than is absolutely necessary.

I re-read the chapter last night and again today and here's my take on it.

First the stuff in it (anti-Wilt) that I would consider "subjective interpretation" or just down right wrong.

1) As Simmons puts it "Myth No. 4: Wilt was a great guy". Simmons tries to shoot down the perception of Wilt as a more easy going jovial guy by arguing that he was a bad teammate. To me, it's two different things. Wilt was a great guy by almost all accounts I've read, considerate, thoughtful, easy going etc.

2) When listing Wilt's annual excuses for his teams shortcomings, which actually is a very good anti-Wilt point, Simmons neglects to mention Cunningham and Jackson's injuries in 1968. Instead he only cites the MLK assassination.

3) When listing Wilt's greatest playoff clutch moments, he covers a few good ones but misses some obvious ones including game five against Syracuse in 1962 when Wilt scored like 58 and had 35 or so rebounds (I'm guessing sorry if off)

4) He says no one has a story of a great clutch Wilt moment which is just not true. There is Wilt 's play in the series against Boston in 1967, his numerous playoff triple doubles (a lot of quadrupole doubles if they kept stats). And he never mentions all the times WIlt played great individually in defeat.

Beyond that however, it's an absolutely stone cold case for Russell over WIlt that really can't be countered.

The strongest points he makes in my opinion.

1) The team mates argument. Simmons points out that Russell played with just two more all-stars in his career than Wilt. He also shows that Wilt actually played with equal or better teammates in four seasons and Russell for equal or better teams in six seasons. HJe also shows that Wilt played on a legit contender for 10 straight seasons from 1964-1973 and won just two titles in that span.

2) Russell's offense: Especially the quote from Havlicek about when Russell retired: "You couldn't begin to count the ways we missed him. People think of him in terms of defense and rebounding, but he was the key to our offense. He made the bets pass more than anyone I ever played with, That mattered to people like Nelson, Howell, Sanders, Siegfried and myself. None of us were one on one players....Russell made us better offensive players. His ability as a passer, pick-setter, and general surmiser of the offense has always been overlooked."

3) He annihilates the statistical argument with a few simple points.

#1 - regular season stats head to head vs. playoff stats. Russell's numbers all go up, Wilt's all go down...that is huge.

#2 - Wilt's record in the conference finals and beyond is 48-44, Russell's is 90-53. and Elimination games, Wilt 10-11, Russell 16-2.

#3 - A quote from Bill Bradley - "Wilt played the game as if he had to prove himself to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed to his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his basketball ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant certainly nonessential. The point of the game is not how the individual does, but rather the team wins."

#4 - Two huge game sevens. 1962 when Wilt had averaged 50 during the regular season and Russell 19, Wilt outscored Russell 22-19 and the Celtics won. 1968 when Wilt was MVP and outscored Russell just 14-12.

4) The Clutch argument...endless examples of Russell having huge clutch games and his numbers always going up in the postseason.

5) The quotes...they sort of close the book on who was considered the better player by their peers. Also they show exactly why Wilt was not a winner (though I don't agree with Simmons assertion that it makes him a choker) Here's a few of the better ones.

From Butch Van Breda Kolf (who coached Wilt)

"The difference between Wilt and Russell was this: Russell would ask, what do I need to do to make my team mates better? Then he'd do it. Wilt honestly thought the best way for his team to win was for him to be in the best possible setting. He'd ask, What's the best situation for me?"

From Jerry Lucas

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

From Bill Bradley

"I have the impression that Wilt might have been more secure with losing. In defeat, after carefully covering himself with allusions to his accomplishments, he could be magnanimous."

From Wilt enforcing Bradley's take

Again from Wilt

"I was 30 years old when the 1966-67 season began and I was maturing as a man, and learning that it was essential to keep my teammates happy if I wanted my team to win...I was just learning that lesson in 1966 and it reflected in my statistics"

Still more Wit

"To Bill, every game--every Championship game--was a challenge, a test of his manhood. He took the game so seriously that he threw up in the lockerroom before almost every game. But I tend to look at basketball as a game, not a life or death struggle. I don't need scoring titles of NBA Championships to prove that I'm a man.

and Finally Jerry West summing it up best

"I don't want to rap Wilt because I believe only Russell was better, and I really respect what Wilt did. But I have to say, he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him."


Again, it's a brilliantly researched and well laid out case. I think a lot of people are blinded by the snarky one-liners and the obvious Celtic-fandom that typically drives him. If you really look at the meat and potatoes of his case, it's bullet proof.

[jlauber]

I have to take exception with some of you dismissing Simmons analysis of the Chamberlain/Russell debate as bias hyperbole.

It's actually the best laid out case for Russell above Chamberlain or vice versa I've ever seen. Much better than any case anyone had laid out in my years touring the forums and boards.

Now yes, there are some elements of the debate that he present's in a very one-sided manner, but I don't see how that devalues the numerous excellent points he raises.

You have to remember he is not just making the case that Russell is better than Wilt, but that it's not even close. So he's not going to present any more pro-Chamberlain data than is absolutely necessary.

I re-read the chapter last night and again today and here's my take on it.

First the stuff in it (anti-Wilt) that I would consider "subjective interpretation" or just down right wrong.

1) As Simmons puts it "Myth No. 4: Wilt was a great guy". Simmons tries to shoot down the perception of Wilt as a more easy going jovial guy by arguing that he was a bad teammate. To me, it's two different things. Wilt was a great guy by almost all accounts I've read, considerate, thoughtful, easy going etc.

2) When listing Wilt's annual excuses for his teams shortcomings, which actually is a very good anti-Wilt point, Simmons neglects to mention Cunningham and Jackson's injuries in 1968. Instead he only cites the MLK assassination.

3) When listing Wilt's greatest playoff clutch moments, he covers a few good ones but misses some obvious ones including game five against Syracuse in 1962 when Wilt scored like 58 and had 35 or so rebounds (I'm guessing sorry if off)

4) He says no one has a story of a great clutch Wilt moment which is just not true. There is Wilt 's play in the series against Boston in 1967, his numerous playoff triple doubles (a lot of quadrupole doubles if they kept stats). And he never mentions all the times WIlt played great individually in defeat.

Beyond that however, it's an absolutely stone cold case for Russell over WIlt that really can't be countered.

The strongest points he makes in my opinion.

1) The team mates argument. Simmons points out that Russell played with just two more all-stars in his career than Wilt. He also shows that Wilt actually played with equal or better teammates in four seasons and Russell for equal or better teams in six seasons. HJe also shows that Wilt played on a legit contender for 10 straight seasons from 1964-1973 and won just two titles in that span.

2) Russell's offense: Especially the quote from Havlicek about when Russell retired: "You couldn't begin to count the ways we missed him. People think of him in terms of defense and rebounding, but he was the key to our offense. He made the bets pass more than anyone I ever played with, That mattered to people like Nelson, Howell, Sanders, Siegfried and myself. None of us were one on one players....Russell made us better offensive players. His ability as a passer, pick-setter, and general surmiser of the offense has always been overlooked."

3) He annihilates the statistical argument with a few simple points.

#1 - regular season stats head to head vs. playoff stats. Russell's numbers all go up, Wilt's all go down...that is huge.

#2 - Wilt's record in the conference finals and beyond is 48-44, Russell's is 90-53. and Elimination games, Wilt 10-11, Russell 16-2.

#3 - A quote from Bill Bradley - "Wilt played the game as if he had to prove himself to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed to his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his basketball ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant certainly nonessential. The point of the game is not how the individual does, but rather the team wins."

#4 - Two huge game sevens. 1962 when Wilt had averaged 50 during the regular season and Russell 19, Wilt outscored Russell 22-19 and the Celtics won. 1968 when Wilt was MVP and outscored Russell just 14-12.

4) The Clutch argument...endless examples of Russell having huge clutch games and his numbers always going up in the postseason.

5) The quotes...they sort of close the book on who was considered the better player by their peers. Also they show exactly why Wilt was not a winner (though I don't agree with Simmons assertion that it makes him a choker) Here's a few of the better ones.

From Butch Van Breda Kolf (who coached Wilt)

"The difference between Wilt and Russell was this: Russell would ask, what do I need to do to make my team mates better? Then he'd do it. Wilt honestly thought the best way for his team to win was for him to be in the best possible setting. He'd ask, What's the best situation for me?"

From Jerry Lucas

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

From Bill Bradley

"I have the impression that Wilt might have been more secure with losing. In defeat, after carefully covering himself with allusions to his accomplishments, he could be magnanimous."

From Wilt enforcing Bradley's take

Again from Wilt

"I was 30 years old when the 1966-67 season began and I was maturing as a man, and learning that it was essential to keep my teammates happy if I wanted my team to win...I was just learning that lesson in 1966 and it reflected in my statistics"

Still more Wit

"To Bill, every game--every Championship game--was a challenge, a test of his manhood. He took the game so seriously that he threw up in the lockerroom before almost every game. But I tend to look at basketball as a game, not a life or death struggle. I don't need scoring titles of NBA Championships to prove that I'm a man.

and Finally Jerry West summing it up best

"I don't want to rap Wilt because I believe only Russell was better, and I really respect what Wilt did. But I have to say, he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him."


Again, it's a brilliantly researched and well laid out case. I think a lot of people are blinded by the snarky one-liners and the obvious Celtic-fandom that typically drives him. If you really look at the meat and potatoes of his case, it's bullet proof.

I don't have time right now, but I will argue some of those "exceptions" later (like Wilt played with as many HOFers), and the anti-Wilt quotes. BTW, Jerry West, sometime after 1999 claimed that Wilt was the greatest basketball player ever. So, we have to take some of those quotes as merely momentary. Even West later apologized for claiming that Russell was better (I will have the quote later.)

Real quickly, Russell played with HOF teammates TWICE as much, in terms of minutes on the floor, as Wilt did. Furthermore, Wilt played with Baylor in only ONE full season (and Baylor was on the decline as well), and Thurmond, in Nate's rookie season, when he played part-time, and out of position.

If you want to read my full take on Simmons'...here it is...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=160893

I'll cover this later...

[G.O.A.T]

I don't have time right now, but I will argue some of those "exceptions" later (like Wilt played with as many HOFers), and the anti-Wilt quotes. BTW, Jerry West, sometime after 1999 claimed that Wilt was the greatest basketball player ever. So, we have to take some of those quotes as merely momentary. Even West later apologized for claiming that Russell was better (I will have the quote later.)

Real quickly, Russell played with HOF teammates TWICE as much, in terms of minutes on the floor, as Wilt did. Furthermore, Wilt played with Baylor in only ONE full season (and Baylor was on the decline as well), and Thurmond, in Nate's rookie season, when he played part-time, and out of position.

If you want to read my full take on Simmons'...here it is...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=160893

I'll cover this later...

I've seen people cite the later West quotes, but I've never actually seen them on video or in a book, I think they are made up.

I never mentioned the HOF thing as a good point, but as we've gone over, without Russell half of his HOF teammates would just be teammates. All-star selections during their playing careers with Wilt or Russell really sums it up. it was pretty much equal for 13 years in terms of the number of high level players in their prime each played with.

I read your take, I still think Simmons makes a much much stronger case and shows no more anti-Wilt bias than you show pro-Wilt/anti-Russell bias.

That post is far more anti-Russell than most anything else you post. You call him a "horrible offensive player" and say Wilt was "always" a better passer. I don't think Wilt was ever for sure a better a passer, in fact in 1968, I'd argue he hurt his team more than helped it with his passing. Again not sure Wilt was ever than Russell based on what I've read and the fact that Wilt's offenses were always based around him during the 60's and statistically they are very even.

[jlauber]

I've seen people cite the later West quotes, but I've never actually seen them on video or in a book, I think they are made up.

I never mentioned the HOF thing as a good point, but as we've gone over, without Russell half of his HOF teammates would just be teammates. All-star selections during their playing careers with Wilt or Russell really sums it up. it was pretty much equal for 13 years in terms of the number of high level players in their prime each played with.

I read your take, I still think Simmons makes a much much stronger case and shows no more anti-Wilt bias than you show pro-Wilt/anti-Russell bias.

That post is far more anti-Russell than most anything else you post. You call him a "horrible offensive player" and say Wilt was "always" a better passer. I don't think Wilt was ever for sure a better a passer, in fact in 1968, I'd argue he hurt his team more than helped it with his passing. Again not sure Wilt was ever than Russell based on what I've read and the fact that Wilt's offenses were always based around him during the 60's and statistically they are very even.

I have changed much of my Russell take since I made that original post last year. But, the facts remain, Russell played with more all-star teammates, per season, than Wilt did. And, his HOF teammates were on the floor TWICE as much as Wilt's HOF teammates were.

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


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

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

All-Star teammates?


Here we go:

1959-60:
Russell, Cousey, Sharman
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1960-61:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1961-62:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Arizin

1962-63:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Rodgers, Meschery

1963-64:
Russell, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Rodgers

1964-65:
Russell, S. Jones
Wilt, Thurmond

1965-66:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Walker, Greer

1966-67:
Russell, Havlicek, Howell
Wilt, Greer, Walker

1967-68:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Greer

1968-69:
Russell, Havlicek
Wilt, Baylor, West

Furthermore, Tom Meschery and Tom Gola were very questionable in their appearances. Some might question Bailey Howell, but in his 66-67 season appearance, he averaged 20 ppg on .512 shooting, which was considerably better than what Meschery or Gola had in their all-star seasons.

Wilt did play with nine different teammates in that 10 year span, while Russell only played with six, so if that is what Simmons meant when he said that Wilt played with more all-stars, then he was correct. HOWEVER, Russell's teammates had more APPEARANCES.


Regarding the West quote, here it is, some time after Wilt's death...

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


"You just don't think things like this are going to happen to people of his stature," echoed Jerry West, the Lakers executive who played against Chamberlain for many years, then with him on the great '72 Lakers squad.

"He was the most unbelievable center to ever play the game in terms of domination and intimidation. There's no one that's ever played the game better than Wilt Chamberlain. This was a man for all ages."



I could post quote-after-quote by teammates and peers that would validate Chamberlain's dominance. Even veteran referee Mendy Rudolph, in a quote from Cherry's book, claimed that Wilt was the superior player. Or how about Oscar Robertson?

http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html


As Oscar Robertson put it in the Philadelphia Daily News when asked whether Chamberlain was the best ever, "The books don't lie."

Simmons' also quoted players like Lucas and Barry, who ripped Wilt. Interesting, though, that Lucas was criticized by teammate Wayne Embry, who claimed that Lucas asked him to defend the perimeter so that he [Lucas] could get more rebounds. As for Barry, another interesting take. Why? Because of Wilt's CLUTCH defensive play on Barry in the waning seconds of the clinching game six win in the '67 Finals. BTW, I have also used a quote by Barry that claims Wilt was a much better center than Shaq. So, while he may have had an agenda back in the 60's against Wilt, he at least felt that Chamberlain was a better center than Shaq in 2004.

Regarding Van Breda Kolf's quote...

You can take that idiot's quote with a grain of salt. He didn't like the Wilt trade from day one. He asked Wilt to play the high-post so that Baylor could fire blanks. He benched Wilt during the regular season. And, at the most critical point of game seven, he left the greatest scorer in NBA history, on the bench, and let Mel Counts play in the last five minutes. The same Counts who would shoot 4-13 (while Wilt went 7-8.) In any case, Van Breda Kolf was fired shortly after that game, and his career nose-dived after it.


As for "clutch" play...how about Russell and Wilt's four game seven's, two of which Wilt had far inferior teammates. In the '62 ECF's, Wilt had two other HOFers, against Russell, and his FIVE other HOFers. Not only that, but Russell had a HOF coach in Auerbach. Furthermore, here were Wilt's two HOF teammates. One was Paul Arizin in his LAST season. The other was Tom Gola, who has as much business being in the HOF as I do. BTW, how did those two HOF teammates play in the '62 post-season? Arizin shot .375 and Gola shot .271. In any case, that game seven came down to a controversial goal-tend against Wilt, and a time-keeper error at the end of the game... in a two point loss. Wilt only outscored Russell in that game, 22-19, and there is some question as to if Russell outrebounded him (it was either 22-21, or 22-22 depending on what info you are using.) Wilt only went 7-14 in that game seven (and we don't know what Russell shot), but we do know that Tom Meschery scored 32 points. Why is that significant? OBVIOUSLY Boston was swarming Wilt, and Meschery had free looks all game long.

How about game seven of the '65 ECF's? Wilt, with only one HOF teammate (Greer) took a 40-40 Philly team to a game seven, ONE-point loss against Russell, his FOUR other HOF teammates, and his HOF coach, on Boston's home floor. In that game, Wilt outscored Russell, 30-15. He outshot Russell, 12-15 to 7-16, and he outrebounded Russell, 32-29.

We have both discussed game seven of the '68 ECF's, but the bottom line was that the Sixers were devastated by injuries, and they lost that game by FOUR points. Wilt's teammates collectively shot 33% from the floor. Wilt, while not shooting in the second half, outscored Russell, 14-12, and outrebounded him, 34-26. We don't know what Russell shot, but Wilt had his only game seven of less than 50% in his career, going 4-9.

And in Russell's final season, in the '69 Finals, while Wilt was benched in the last five minutes of that game, his team lost it by TWO points, on a mircaulous shot (the second in that series by a Celtic to win a game.) Wilt still outscored Russell, 18-6; he still outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7; and he still outrebounded Russell, 27-21...all despite playing five minutes less.

So add up those four game seven's. Russell's team went 4-0, BUT, by a COMBINED NINE points. Furthermore, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 21.3 to 13.2, and outrebounded Russell, per game, 28.5 to 24.5. We only have Russell's shooting percentages for two of those four games, but it is only .391. Meanwhile, we have Wilt's FG% in all four, and it was an astonishing .652.

I could give you excuse after excuse (and you have read them here before.) Injuries, incompetent coaches, bone-headed plays by teammates, poor officiating, miracle shots by opponents (several BTW), and poor play by his teammates. No great player has ever been more "snakebit" than Chamberlain. He was within an eyelash of beating Russell in four game seven's.


Once again, I have come to appreciate Russell's greatness here, but there is simply no way that I am going to accept ANYTHING that Simmons' wrote in his book. It was the most one-sided, anti-Wilt book ever written, and it is a factual farce.

[G.O.A.T]

I read that and I can't understand how you can still post things about Tom Gola not deserving to be in the HOF (Complete BS based on all accounts of him I've read) Rodgers being an all-time poor shooter (but not mentioning Cousy was actually worse) and you still use the HOF argument.

Anyone who uses the HOF argument against Russell I can immediatley peg as reaching. You cite 1962 and Russell's five HOF'ers which were as follows:

Bob Cousy in his second to last year
washed up Frank Ramsey
Sam Jones in his first season as a starter and all-star
KC Jones still as primarily a back-up
Tom Heinsohn in his prime.

So you have a washed up legend (no better, in fact very likely worse than Arizin for the Warriors), two guys off the bench who we both agree don't sniff the hall without their rings and don't get their rings without Russell, Sam Jones before he was Sam Jones and a 6'8" forward who was one of the leagues best pure scorers, but who couldn't defend anyone.

I'm certainly not going to compare that to the teams Wilt had around him from '65-'69.

You write off a basketball expert like Van Breda Kolf because he and Wilt couldn't get along. Butch won before Wilt and he won after Wilt, I happen to think he was a bonehead for his handling of Wilt in 1969's game seven, but I can't call him a moron. I mean the guy went to Princeton and won almost 300 hundred games as an NBA coach.

And as for moving Wilt to the high post...Hannum did that in 1966-67, that's the example Van Breda Kolf was following.

On the West quote, like I said, I think the things about him taking the quote from the Bill Libby book are made up. I see nothing in the quote you posted other than a man with great respect for a peer who's past honoring his memory.

Of course Wilt was more dominant, Russell was better/greater though as West said.

I didn't even mention the Barry quote, he shredded Wilt, annihilated him. Said his teammates hated him, called him a choker and a loser. Regardless of rather I or anyone else agrees, you'd never see one of their peers say that about Russell.

It's fine if you don't like Simmons, a lot of folks here don't and I can see why. However I still think he made a great case on this one. I don't think he made a great case for Wilt as the 6th best player or Shaq at 11 or certainly the '67 Sixers outside the top ten teams, in fact I downright disagree. He is an entertainer, but that book is overall one of the more interesting reads on the subject of the 100's I've sifted through. Take that for what it's worth.

[jlauber]

I read that and I can't understand how you can still post things about Tom Gola not deserving to be in the HOF (Complete BS based on all accounts of him I've read) Rodgers being an all-time poor shooter (but not mentioning Cousy was actually worse) and you still use the HOF argument.

Anyone who uses the HOF argument against Russell I can immediatley peg as reaching. You cite 1962 and Russell's five HOF'ers which were as follows:

Bob Cousy in his second to last year
washed up Frank Ramsey
Sam Jones in his first season as a starter and all-star
KC Jones still as primarily a back-up
Tom Heinsohn in his prime.

So you have a washed up legend (no better, in fact very likely worse than Arizin for the Warriors), two guys off the bench who we both agree don't sniff the hall without their rings and don't get their rings without Russell, Sam Jones before he was Sam Jones and a 6'8" forward who was one of the leagues best pure scorers, but who couldn't defend anyone.

I'm certainly not going to compare that to the teams Wilt had around him from '65-'69.

You write off a basketball expert like Van Breda Kolf because he and Wilt couldn't get along. Butch won before Wilt and he won after Wilt, I happen to think he was a bonehead for his handling of Wilt in 1969's game seven, but I can't call him a moron. I mean the guy went to Princeton and won almost 300 hundred games as an NBA coach.

And as for moving Wilt to the high post...Hannum did that in 1966-67, that's the example Van Breda Kolf was following.

On the West quote, like I said, I think the things about him taking the quote from the Bill Libby book are made up. I see nothing in the quote you posted other than a man with great respect for a peer who's past honoring his memory.

Of course Wilt was more dominant, Russell was better/greater though as West said.

I didn't even mention the Barry quote, he shredded Wilt, annihilated him. Said his teammates hated him, called him a choker and a loser. Regardless of rather I or anyone else agrees, you'd never see one of their peers say that about Russell.

It's fine if you don't like Simmons, a lot of folks here don't and I can see why. However I still think he made a great case on this one. I don't think he made a great case for Wilt as the 6th best player or Shaq at 11 or certainly the '67 Sixers outside the top ten teams, in fact I downright disagree. He is an entertainer, but that book is overall one of the more interesting reads on the subject of the 100's I've sifted through. Take that for what it's worth.

I don't want to take the time to go thru everything you posted. Things like Cousy was a worse shooter than Rodgers. Cousy was a much better scorer, and he shot much closer to the league average than Rodgers ever did (In fact, Rodgers shot mearly 100 points less in one season, which is almost an impossibility.)

Regarding Van Breda Kolf...his record with Wilt was his best ever. But how about AFTER Wilt? He coached some NBA and ABA teams for the next eight seasons...

31-51, 45-37, 6-4, 3-4, 21-63, 22-44, 38-44, and 14-12. The facts were, (and even Cherry said as much), that Van Breda Kolf ruined his CAREER by leaving Wilt on the bench. That '69 season was his ONLY chance of winning an NBA title...and he completely BLEW IT.

BTW, Hannum knew HOW and WHEN to use Wilt. Van Breda Kolf had no clue. All anyone needs to know about Van Breda Kolf's job in that '68-69 post-season, was that Wilt averaged 13.9 ppg (which was WAY below his previous low...on .545 shooting), while Butch's "fav" Baylor, averaged 15.4 ppg on .385 shooting. (And I still marvel at how Baylor finished fifth in the MVP voting that season, and Wilt was nowhere to be found, even though Wilt was CLEARLY a FAR better player.)

I would also like to know WHEN Barry made his trashy quote. Why? Because, as I mentioned previously, it was WILT who made the CLUTCH defensive play in the deciding game six of the '67 Finals...on BARRY. Furthermore, Wilt's teams BURIED Barry (and Thurmond's) teams after that season. In the 72-73 WCF's (and after the Warriors upset the 60-22 Bucks), Wilt led LA to a near sweep of Barry's Warriors. I was at game three when the Lakers routed the Warriors 126-70 in OAKLAND. Chamberlain dominated that series defensively (he held Thurmond to under 40% shooting...as he ALWAYS did...and outrebounded him by seven rpg.)

And. back to Simmons'. He praises Russell for his "clutch" play, but in all of the great games that Russell played in the post-season (and there were many), there were very FEW in which he outplayed WILT. However, I can find Wilt with a 50-35 game (in an elimination game win in the '60 ECF's), or a 46-34 game in a clinching game five loss in '66.

Simmons's doesn't mention either of those games in his perspective on Wilt's post-season play. Nor Wilt's 56-35 game five in a win against Syracuse in a best-of-five series. He does mention Wilt's GREAT game seven against Russell in the '65 ECF's, and his overwhelming display over Russell in the '67 ECF's. But what about his BRILLIANT play against Kareem in the '72 WCF's, particularly the clinching game six win, when he led LA back from a 10 4th quarter deficit, and completely outplayed Kareem in that last game. Or how about Wilt, playing with one hand badly sprained, and the other FRACTURED in the clinching game five win over NY in the '72 Finals (with a 24 point, 10-14 shooting, 29 rebound, 10 block game)?

I could cite game-after-game in which Chamberlain mauled Russell in the post-season. In those '62 ECF's, in which you and Simmons's applaud Russell's efforts for "limiting" Wilt (never outplaying him, though)...in game two, Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him 37-20. Find ONE game in all of their 142 H2H battles in which Russell outplayed Chamberlain by that margin. I will save you the trouble...you WON'T.

And that was, once again, part of the DOUBLE-STANDARD. A Russell "win" over Wilt was "only" being outplayed by a few points or rebounds. Hell, Russell could "win" even if he was CRUSHED by Chamberlain, if Boston, and their always loaded and much deeper rosters won. The only way anyone would acknowledge a Wilt "win" was if he POUNDED Russell statistically, and HIS team won.

I have long given Russell credit for elevating his team's play. And, for whatever reasons, Wilt's teammates seldom outplayed Russell's (although, in the first half of Chamberlain's career, it was a hopeless mismatch.) BUT, Simmons' does not bring up any of the LEGITIMATE excuses that Wilt had for his team's losing four close game seven's to Russell's Celtics. If you were to believe Simmons, you would think that Russell shredded Wilt, and that Boston blew out Wilt's teams. And that Wilt was a "choker." YET, the FACTS suggest otherwise. I have already given you Russell and Wilt's H2H stats in those game seven's...and Chamberlain just dominated him. There was no "choking" by Wilt.

AND, while Simmons' takes delight in Van Breda Kolf's decision to bench Wilt in that game seven...did Simmons' mention that Russell was nowhere to be found in the 4th quarter of that game. A game in which Boston had a 17 point lead with about 10 minutes left...and had to hang on for a two-point win (on a miraculous shot by Nelson)? Wilt had as many rebounds, in two successive possessions with his injured knee, as Russell did in the entire period.


I personally rank Russell's career over Wilt's. And I have agreed with many of the points that YOU have made for Russell. However, I have found NOTHING in ANY of Simmons' writing that is even close to being correct. Even his ridiculous comment that Wilt was traded twice for "pennies on the dollar" was an absolute falsehood. And, BTW, EVERY team Wilt was traded to improved, and EVERY team he left, declined. Furthermore, if you take a look at those trades after several SEASONS (plural), you will see that the team that Wilt went to became GREAT...and the team's he left either were a non-factor, or were, like the Sixers, a JOKE within a few years.

Simmons' made a comment that the Lakers voted 9-2 AGAINST acquiring Wilt in the '65 season. I am not sure if that is really true (WEST wanted Wilt badly)...BUT, in any case, take a look at what happened next. Wilt went to a bottom-dwelling 76er team, and IMMEDIATELY almost led that rag-tag team to one of the greatest upsets in NBA post-season history (Wilt's 40-40 Sixers lost a game seven, by ONE point, to the 62-18 Celtics.) From the '66 to '68 seasons, Philly had the BEST record in the league, and they WON a TITLE in '67. AND, after LA finally pulled the trigger, and acquired Wilt, they went to four Finals in five seasons. They won 60+ games twice. And they won a TITLE (the first ever in LA history) in the '72 season (and not coincidently, after Baylor was gone.)

The bottom line...Simmons had an anti-Wilt agenda...and it was the most baseless opinions that I ever read on the subject.

[G.O.A.T]

We need to consolidate this discussion.

I feel like were going in circles.

Here are the areas of contention I have with you.

Cousy vs. Rodgers

For the purposes of our disuccsion it's only relevant to look at them from 1959-1963; they both played in the same league, one with Wilt one with Russell.

Rodgers posted the following seasons:

11-6-6-39%
12-6-7-39%
13-7-9-39%
8-5-8-36%
14-5-10-39%

While Cousy posted:

20-6-9-38%
19-5-10-38%
18-4-8-37%
16-4-8-39%
13-3-7-40%

They basically shot the same percentage and added the same thing to their teams with the exception of scoring. However when you consider that Rodgers center took 15 more shots per game, it stands to reason why Cousy scored more, his team needed him to. Rodgers is also usually considered an above average defender, whereas Cousy was considered a bit careless on that end.

As for shooting percentages, almost a dead heat, as I have always stated.

I'd say that overall paints a picture of two fairly equal players. I'd give the edge to Cousy, but I can't dismiss Rodgers as some scrub as I feel you try to.

Russell didn't dominate Wilt head to head

Statistically, no he didn't and if that's all your point is than I concede it. However in game seven of the 1962 EDF when Wilt who averaged 50 gets 22 or 28 points below his average and Russell hits his season clip with 19...which team do you think has the edge? That's a 28 point advantage to Russell...that's domination.

What makes Wilt's 1967 season so spectacular was that he was able to dominate statistically at an even greater clip than he and his team was accustomed to that year. Wilt was almost always fantastic in the playoffs, especially big games. I cited that in my opening post about Simmons argument as one of the clear biases he showed.

Most of the time, Wilt couldn't keep up his regular season dominance against Russell for an entire series. That put his teammates in spots they weren't used to in the biggest moments of the season. A leader can't do that and expect to win. It's not Wilt's fault his team lost, without him they usually wouldn't be where they were, but they didn't win because of him either and that's the point.

From 1960 to 1965 Wilt was on teams with worse records than Russell's and Russell was the leagues MVP in four of six seasons. Russell won all four of their playoff meetings. That is to be expected and can not be held up as proof that Russell was better or that he dominated Wilt for his career.

From 1966 to 1969 Wilt had a team good enough to finish with ahead of Russell's Celtics and gain HCA in the playoffs. Wilt always had two of the NBA's greatest 50 players on his team, the same number Russell had. Wilt won three MVP's in four seasons. They played four playoff series and Russell still won three of four. That's domination plain and simple.

7 out of 8 total and 3 of 4 without an edge in talent or the home court and with three more years on his body.


Anyway...I'll start with those two. Feel free to through one or two in if you feel the need to.

[jlauber]

Cousy vs. Rodgers

For the purposes of our disuccsion it's only relevant to look at them from 1959-1963; they both played in the same league, one with Wilt one with Russell.

Rodgers posted the following seasons:

11-6-6-39%
12-6-7-39%
13-7-9-39%
8-5-8-36%
14-5-10-39%

While Cousy posted:

20-6-9-38%
19-5-10-38%
18-4-8-37%
16-4-8-39%
13-3-7-40%

They basically shot the same percentage and added the same thing to their teams with the exception of scoring. However when you consider that Rodgers center took 15 more shots per game, it stands to reason why Cousy scored more, his team needed him to. Rodgers is also usually considered an above average defender, whereas Cousy was considered a bit careless on that end.

As for shooting percentages, almost a dead heat, as I have always stated.



Cousy was past his prime in those five years (he was already 30 by then), and he STILL put up better overall numbers. BUT, Cousy in his PRIME, in the mid-50's, was shooting very close or exceeding the league average. Rodgers never shot the league average in his entire career, and once again, he had seasons in which he was WAY BELOW the league average. I can't imagine shooting .347 in a league that only shot .446, but Rodgers pulled it off in the '67-68 season.


Russell didn't dominate Wilt head to head

Statistically, no he didn't and if that's all your point is than I concede it. However in game seven of the 1962 EDF when Wilt who averaged 50 gets 22 or 28 points below his average and Russell hits his season clip with 19...which team do you think has the edge? That's a 28 point advantage to Russell...that's domination.


That was a low point total for Wilt's entire season. BUT, interestingly, if you read the write-up on that game, it was observed that WILT was dominating the game DEFENSIVELY. Furthermore, take a look at what Chamberlain's teammates shot in the '62 post-season. All of them shot poorly during the regular season, and ALL of them shot either worse, or MUCH worse in the playoffs. True, Wilt' scoring was down (my god, he averaged 50 ppg during the regular season), but he "only" averaged 38 ppg on .471 shooting against Russell during the regular season, so 33 ppg on .469 shooting was not a big decline.

BUT, the real bottom line in that '62 ECF's...how do you explain Wilt taking a vastly overmatched team, player-for-player, to a game seven, TWO-point loss? WILT was the ONLY reason that Philly made a series of it.


Most of the time, Wilt couldn't keep up his regular season dominance against Russell for an entire series. That put his teammates in spots they weren't used to in the biggest moments of the season. A leader can't do that and expect to win. It's not Wilt's fault his team lost, without him they usually wouldn't be where they were, but they didn't win because of him either and that's the point.


Wilt was EXPECTED to do MUCH more than Russell...plain-and-simple. Russell could put up a 10-20 game, and he was basically playing a normal game. If Wilt had a game like that, he was considered AWFUL. Jeez, in game two of the '62 ECF's, Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20...and Chamberlain's TEAM eked out a seven-point win.

Furthemore, while Wilt put up a 28 ppg, 30 rpg, .509 series against Russell in the '66 ECF's, Wilt's TEAMMATES shot the following: Greer was at .325. Walker was at .375. Jackson was at .429. Jones was at .325. And Cunningham was at .161. And, it was WILT who was considered the "goat" in that series loss????



From 1966 to 1969 Wilt had a team good enough to finish with ahead of Russell's Celtics and gain HCA in the playoffs. Wilt always had two of the NBA's greatest 50 players on his team, the same number Russell had. Wilt won three MVP's in four seasons. They played four playoff series and Russell still won three of four. That's domination plain and simple.


I hate having to go thru these again, but here goes. In the '66 season, Philly won their last 11 regular season games, to edge out a veteran Boston team by ONE game (55-25 to 54-26.) Furthermore, Boston had just won seven straight NBA titles. Does anyone really believe that the Sixers were a better team? In any case, as I posted above, it was CLEARLY not Wilt's fault that Boston beat them in that series. Not ONE teammate played well.

In the '68 ECF's, Philly was already without HOFer Cunningham. Then Luke Jackson went down with an injury in game five (and while he played, he was worthless.) We also KNOW that Wilt was hobbled in game six (he was noticeably limping with a deep thigh injury), and then it appears that Wali Jones was playing hurt as well. On top of ALL of that, Wilt's teammates did not PASS the ball to Wilt in that game seven, and they shot a combined 33%...and Boston pulled out a four point win.

Let's get real here. Had the '68 Sixers been healthy, it would have been a repeat of the '67 ECF's when they just destroyed Boston. Furthermore, let's REVERSE the scenario...and say that the Sixers had been healthy in that series, and Boston was playing without say Havlicek for the entire series, and then have maybe Howell go down in game five (and I doubt the series would have even gotten that far BTW)...how does Russell's Celtics fare in that case?

As for '69, I have long maintained that the Lakers were NOT a better team. Yes, they had a better record that season, 55-27 to 48-34, but Russell missed several games to injuries. And I really believe that the aged Celts were pacing themselves in that season. BUT, take a close look at the two rosters. The Lakers had a prime West, an over-the-hill Baylor, a shackled Wilt, and virtually no one else. Boston could go TEN deep. Even if we would have given a slight edge to LA in players 1-3, Boston CLEARLY was better 4-10.

On top of that, take a look at that series. LA won the first two games, to go up 2-0. It was still 2-1 when, in game four, in Boston, the Lakers had an 88-87 lead AND the ball, with only seconds remaining. Now remember, they traded all-star Archie Clark to get Wilt (one of THREE players traded for Wilt), and they had lost HOFer Gail Goodrich to the expansion draft before the season. So, it was Johnny Egan who was handling the ball in those last seconds, and he lost the damn the ball. Sam Jones, while falling down, hit a miraculous shot at the buzzer to win the game for Boston, 89-88. In game five, Wilt dominated Russell, and the Lakers won easily, 117-104. Had Egan been able to hold onto the ball in game four...ONE STINKIN' PLAY...and the Lakers would have romped to a 4-1 series win.

And we all know how game seven went. Van Breda Kolf LOST the game, and the series for LA...and Russell was nowhere to be found in the last quarter.

So, NO, NONE of that is "DOMINATION." The facts were, when Wilt had a healthy and equal supporting cast, as was the case in '67, he CRUSHED Russell (as he almost always did), and his teammates neutralized Russell's edge...and the result was a resounding 4-1 series blowout win over Russell and the "Dynasty." BTW, while Wilt was putting up a 46 point game in the clinching game five loss in the '66 ECF's, Russell was putting up a FOUR point game in the clinching game five loss in '67.

Now...THAT is DOMINATION.



7 out of 8 total and 3 of 4 without an edge in talent or the home court and with three more years on his body.

Here again, Wilt was statistically outplaying Russell in ALL of those series...some by HUGE margins ('64, '65, and '67.) Furthermore, FOUR of those EIGHT series came down to a TOTAL of NINE points...COMBINED. Once again, with everything that went against Wilt...the poor rosters; the poor officiating and miracle shot in '62; the poor rosters in '65 and a sensational steal by Havlicek to save the win for Boston; the horrible play by Wilt's teammates in '66; the incredible rash of injuries in '68; the bone-headed play by Egan in game four of the '69 Finals, or Baylor scoring a TOTAL of 24 points in games three thru five (two of the close losses), or the stupidity of Van Breda Kolf, or the TWO miraculous shots in that series by Boston players...

that is how close Wilt was to having a 5-3 edge in rings. Furthermore, have Wilt and Russell swap rosters from '60 thru '65, and Wilt probably has a 6-0 edge in rings in those years.


Once again, I am not debating the greatness of Russell, but there was clearly NO domination between the two.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

As a matter of fact, I will show you domination:

[QUOTE]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

[G.O.A.T]

This is why Bill Bradley was almost President

"Wilt played the game as if he had to prove himself to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed to his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his basketball ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant certainly nonessential. The point of the game is not how the individual does, but rather the team wins."

that says it better than I can.

[jlauber]

This is why Bill Bradley was almost President

"Wilt played the game as if he had to prove himself to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed to his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his basketball ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant certainly nonessential. The point of the game is not how the individual does, but rather the team wins."

that says it better than I can.

Here again, are you blaming WILT for Russell's 7-1 edge in rings??? My god, a play here-or-there, or a made shot, here-or-there, or a better decision by a coach, here-or-there...and Wilt could have had a 5-3 edge in rings (and swap rosters, and who knows, but clearly Wilt would have had an edge.)

Once again, if we were to believe Simmons' take on the Russell-Wilt rivalry, one would come away thinking that Russell completely dominated Wilt, and that Wilt "choked", and that Russell's teams romped to that 7-1 edge. The FACTS were, Wilt not only usually outplayed Russell, there were many games in which he crushed Russell. Even in game seven's. And, Chamberlain's TEAM's came within an eyelash of knocking off Russell's TEAM's in at least FOUR of those EIGHT series. And, maybe Wilt deserved a smidgeon of blame in some of them, but the truth was, without Wilt, those team's would have had no chance.

[jlauber]

This is why Bill Bradley was almost President

"Wilt played the game as if he had to prove himself to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed to his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his basketball ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant certainly nonessential. The point of the game is not how the individual does, but rather the team wins."

that says it better than I can.

Here again, an interesting take by Bradley. considering that Chamberlain overcame the poor play by West in the '72 Finals, and dominated the Knick team, winning the Finals MVP in the process.

How about Walt Frazier's take on Wilt in 2010?

http://nba.fanhouse.com/2010/07/16/walt-frazier-if-wilt-chamberlain-was-playing-today-hed-averag/


FanHouse caught up with Frazier to get his take on the LeBron move, who the best players in league history are, and why Wilt Chamberlain would average 75 points per game if he was in the NBA today

[G.O.A.T]

Here again, are you blaming WILT for Russell's 7-1 edge in rings???

No, I am celebrating Russell for his seven one edge over Wilt head to head. The fact that no matter who had the better talent around them or the home court advantage it was the less physically gifted and traditionally skilled Russell who emerged victorious.


My god, a play here-or-there, or a made shot, here-or-there, or a better decision by a coach, here-or-there...and Wilt could have had a 5-3 edge in rings (and swap rosters, and who knows, but clearly Wilt would have had an edge.)

And if Red stays one more year or the Warriors are healthy in 1967 Finals and Oscar doesn't get hurt in 1972 maybe Wilt wins zero titles.

If and buts are such weak arguments for someone with as much knowledge of the game as you.

And if you swap rosters for their whole careers, Russell still gets more rings than Wilt.


Once again, if we were to believe Simmons' take on the Russell-Wilt rivalry, one would come away thinking that Russell completely dominated Wilt, and that Wilt "choked", and that Russell's teams romped to that 7-1 edge.

I didn't come to that conclusion. You are not being fair to the argument because the person who made it has a bias against Wilt. (I agree he does btw)



The FACTS were, Wilt not only usually outplayed Russell, there were many games in which he crushed Russell.

No facts there unless you are speaking statistically. Russell's game was about winning. The only way to crush him was to win on the scoreboard. He didn't care about anything else.


Even in game seven's. And, Chamberlain's TEAM's came within an eyelash of knocking off Russell's TEAM's in at least FOUR of those EIGHT series.

And yet never won once in those game sevens...at some point it stops being coincidence.


And, maybe Wilt deserved a smidgeon of blame in some of them, but the truth was, without Wilt, those team's would have had no chance.

With the exception of the '69 Lakers, I don't think anyone in their right mind would disagree.

I have never tried to "blame" Wilt for anything except not having the right attitude about what was important in basketball.

Wilt was not a great winner for two reasons.

The first is Bill Russell, the second is Wilt Chamberlain.

Early in his career he'd have won sometimes regardless, he was just so much better. Later he prevented himself from reaching his potential by being distracted by stupid goals and statistical accomplishments.

When winning was most important to him, he won or came damn close. The problem was it usually wasn't most important.

[PHILA]

This is why Bill Bradley was almost President

"Wilt played the game as if he had to prove himself to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed to his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his basketball ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant certainly nonessential. The point of the game is not how the individual does, but rather the team wins."

that says it better than I can.
As noted by Sonny Hill, "Wilt was an athlete first, and a basketball player second." It is unfortunate in a sense, he'd likely be hailed a hero and higher than he is now if not for playing during Russell's day.



I think a lot of people are blinded by the snarky one-liners and the obvious Celtic-fandom that typically drives him. If you really look at the meat and potatoes of his case, it's bullet proof.
Bill Simmons has excluded the '67 Sixers from his top teams all time list (and blatantly lied about when Billy Cunningham's rookie year in an attempt to support such opinion). He has also stated that Chamberlain would have gone out of his way to lead the league in turnovers had the stat been recorded then.

A disgraceful quote from the book. :facepalm

"76ers owner Ike Richman died of a heart attack while sitting at the press table next to Philly's bench. If you had to pick a superstar whose owner might drop dead during a big game, you'd have to pick Wilt right?"


Never mind his implication that Richman died during a big game (when it really was a regular season game in December). And of course his only claim to ranking Abdul-Jabbar ahead of Chamberlain was to statistically compare their 1961-62 & 1971-72 seasons.

When discussing the '72 Lakers he had absolutely nothing positive to saym dismissing their 33 game win streak and championship as a "diluted" era, while singing nothing but harmonious praise towards the '71 Bucks. Of course as expected the Celtic fan had nothing positive to say about the '83 Sixers either.


Another gem below:

"Of course, that stupid Silver Anniversary Panel voted for the '67 Sixers over the '71 Bucks as Best Team of the First 25 Years because ... umm ... I couldn't possibly tell you why."

:facepalm

[magnax1]

Team's that wilt played on competed with Russell's team when they definitely shouldn't have. Like the 62 Warriors. That team just had no business going to 7 games against Boston.
In the end Russell vs Wilt is fairly close. I think Wilt was better, but it's difficult to compare such different players, and I haven't seen enough games to make a 100% fair assessment.

[jlauber]

Team's that wilt played on competed with Russell's team when they definitely shouldn't have. Like the 62 Warriors. That team just had no business going to 7 games against Boston.
In the end Russell vs Wilt is fairly close. I think Wilt was better, but it's difficult to compare such difficult players, and I haven't seen enough games to make a 100% fair assessment.

You hit the nail on the head. They were VERY CLOSE. YET, in reading Simmons' book you would think that Russell just abused Wilt. Simmons' ENTIRE chapter on the subject is flawed.

[jlauber]

A disgraceful quote from the book.

"76ers owner Ike Richman died of a heart attack while sitting at the press table next to Philly's bench. If you had to pick a superstar whose owner might drop dead during a big game, you'd have to pick Wilt right?"



Here again, Mr. Simmons obviously knows very little about that game, except, as Abe pointed out, that Wilt's BELOVED owner died.

That '65 game took place in Boston, where the 76ers had NEVER beaten the Celtics. As Cherry pointed out...for those that were into eerie conicidences...the score was tied 13-13, when Richmond suffered the massive coronary. Richmond was rushed to the hospital, but was pronounced dead on arrival. Richmond's wife, Clare, also rushed to the hospital, and it was she that called the 76er trainer Al Domenico, to relay the news to the team. She also told him in a soft voice, "Tell them that if they were ever going to win a game, to win this one."

Wilt was devastated by Richmond's passing, but he DOMINATED the game that night. Philly routed Boston 119-103, and Wilt was blocking everything they threw up. He outrebounded Russell by a 30-10 margin, and after the game, a visibly shaken Chamberlain said, "I owe that man all I have today."

[bdreason]

My only beef with Wilt is that he placed individual goals over winning. I don't want to hear a guy talking about how he wants to lead the league in assists, or score 100 points a game. I respect players that play to win the game, that's all. If you have to score 100 to win? Fine. If you have to lead the league in assists to win? Fine. But statistical achievements should be a means to an end... not the main goal.

What's sad about Wilt is that when he actually decided to pull his head out of his ass, and play ball to win... he actually won. If Wilt had maintained the right mindset through his whole career, he would probably be considered the GOAT today.

[jlauber]

My only beef with Wilt is that he placed individual goals over winning. I don't want to hear a guy talking about how he wants to lead the league in assists, or score 100 points a game. I respect players that play to win the game, that's all. If you have to score 100 to win? Fine. If you have to lead the league in assists to win? Fine. But statistical achievements should be a means to an end... not the main goal.

What's sad about Wilt is that when he actually decided to pull his head out of his ass, and play ball to win... he actually won. If Wilt had maintained the right mindset through his whole career, he would probably be considered the GOAT today.

I don't see an issue with wanting to lead the league in any category...especially assists. Simmons' brings up that point BTW...saying that Wilt went out of his way to lead the league in assists in '68. OK, but, Simmons' doesn't complete the statement. Yes, Wilt led the league in assists in '68, however, his Sixer TEAM ran away with the best record in the league (62-20 to Boston's 54-28.) AND, had they not been DECIMATED by injuries in the ECF's they would have repeated their title of '67.

[bdreason]

I don't see an issue with wanting to lead the league in any category...especially assists. Simmons' brings up that point BTW...saying that Wilt went out of his way to lead the league in assists in '68. OK, but, Simmons' doesn't complete the statement. Yes, Wilt led the league in assists in '68, however, his Sixer TEAM ran away with the best record in the league (62-20 to Boston's 54-28.) AND, had they not been DECIMATED by injuries in the ECF's they would have repeated their title of '67.


That's the point. He wanted to lead the league in assists, and his team winning lots of games was a product of that... but he didn't do it for his team. And all this single season did was emphasize the fact that the years preceding were also just Wilt trying to gain recognition for his individual statistics (PPG, RPG), instead of just trying to win games. It just so happens that leading the league in assists is more conducive to winning games than leading the league in scoring and rebounding.

This is why people respect Russell more than Wilt, because Russell placed team achievements over individual achievements. Like I said earlier, it's sad, because if Wilt had the same mindset as Bill, he probably would have gone down as the undisputed GOAT.


And just for the record, I'm not an expert on either player... but it's easy to see where Wilt's motivation was by simply reading his own words. He seemed obsessed with breaking and setting individual statistical records.

[jlauber]

That's the point. He wanted to lead the league in assists, and his team winning lots of games was a product of that... but he didn't do it for his team. And all this single season did was emphasize the fact that the years preceding were also just Wilt trying to gain recognition for his individual statistics (PPG, RPG), instead of just trying to win games. It just so happens that leading the league in assists is more conducive to winning games than leading the league in scoring and rebounding.

This is why people respect Russell more than Wilt, because Russell placed team achievements over individual achievements. Like I said earlier, it's sad, because if Wilt had the same mindset as Bill, he probably would have gone down as the undisputed GOAT.


And just for the record, I'm not an expert on either player... but it's easy to see where Wilt's motivation was by simply reading his own words. He seemed obsessed with breaking and setting individual statistical records.

I won't argue with some of your conclusions. Wilt WAS proud of his statistical accomplishments. BUT, let's put some things in perspective. First of all, Wilt did whatever his COACHES asked of him. When his COACH looked at the Warrior roster in the '61-62 season, he knew that the only hope that team had, was for Wilt to SCORE. So, Wilt not only scored, he SHATTERED scoring records. And, his TEAM, which had been in last place two years before when he joined them, went 49-31...AND lost a game seven, to the 60-20 Celtics and their SIX HOFers, by TWO-points.

Secondly, while I will concede that Russell's offense was very under-rated, the simple fact was, Russell could never put up the kind of scoring numbers that Wilt did. Russell was a career .441 shooter (and a career .430 in the post-season.) He could occassionally score 30 points on the weaker Laker centers of the 60's...but Wilt had SEASONS of 51.5 ppg against those Laker rosters. Furthermore, Wilt shot .540 in his career (and .522 in the post-season.)

In fact, Wilt not only heavily outscored Russell in their 142 H2H matchups (132 of them to be exact), he OUTSHOT him in the vast majority of the recorded games, and based on several post-seasons, it was dramatic. For instance, in Wilt's rookie season, Chamberlain averaged 37.6 ppg on .461 shooting (the ONLY season in which he shot less than 50%.) Meanwhile, Russell averaged 18.2 ppg on a career high .467 FG%. However, H2H, in their regular season games, Wilt averaged 38 ppg on .465 shooting against Russell, while Russell averaged 16.5 ppg on .398 shooting against him. And there are entire post-seasons in which Wilt outshot Russell by margins of .556 to .358 (and possibly worse in the '64 Finals.)

I have already posted some 40 games in which Chamberlain just CRUSHED Russell statistically. The fact was, there were only a few games in which Russell even enjoyed a marginal edge over Wilt, while Chamberlain not only outplayed him in the vast majority of their games, there were many in which Wilt just buried Russell.

And, in their 142 H2H games, Wilt outrebounded Russell by a 92-42-8 margin...and FIVE per GAME (28.7 to 23.7 .) Chamberlain outscored and outrebounded Russell in EVERY post-season series. And he probably not only outshot him in EVERY series, but it was, more-than-likely, by a large margin.

The bottom line was that Wilt was EXPECTED to do MUCH more than Russell. And, even when he did, and his team still lost, there were those that claimed it as a "win" for Russell. I just don't think history gives Wilt a fair shake in the Russell-Wilt debates.

[DCL]

wilt banged about 3,000 groupies in the west coast during his week long trip so he wanted to get over here.

[G.O.A.T]

As noted by Sonny Hill, "Wilt was an athlete first, and a basketball player second." It is unfortunate in a sense, he'd likely be hailed a hero and higher than he is now if not for playing during Russell's day.

Bill Simmons has excluded the '67 Sixers from his top teams all time list (and blatantly lied about when Billy Cunningham's rookie year in an attempt to support such opinion). He has also stated that Chamberlain would have gone out of his way to lead the league in turnovers had the stat been recorded then.

A disgraceful quote from the book. :facepalm

"76ers owner Ike Richman died of a heart attack while sitting at the press table next to Philly's bench. If you had to pick a superstar whose owner might drop dead during a big game, you'd have to pick Wilt right?"


Never mind his implication that Richman died during a big game (when it really was a regular season game in December). And of course his only claim to ranking Abdul-Jabbar ahead of Chamberlain was to statistically compare their 1961-62 & 1971-72 seasons.

When discussing the '72 Lakers he had absolutely nothing positive to saym dismissing their 33 game win streak and championship as a "diluted" era, while singing nothing but harmonious praise towards the '71 Bucks. Of course as expected the Celtic fan had nothing positive to say about the '83 Sixers either.

Another gem below:

"Of course, that stupid Silver Anniversary Panel voted for the '67 Sixers over the '71 Bucks as Best Team of the First 25 Years because ... umm ... I couldn't possibly tell you why."

:facepalm

I've stated before in this thread that he did a horrible job rating the '67 Sixers, I too found it a sad attempt to minimize greatness.

I do agree that the Lakers 33 game streak is owed in part to the diluted 1971-1976 NBA and they would not have been able to do that in the 60's or 80's. However it's still amazing and that's still an all-time great team.

I also said that Wilt was underrated by Simmons and his case for him at #6 was pretty weak.

I think Bradley hit the nail on the head though. Wilt just didn't get it. He wasn't selfish, he wasn't egotistical really, he was insecure and losing with humility came more natural to him than winning with pure domination.

[G.O.A.T]

Team's that wilt played on competed with Russell's team when they definitely shouldn't have. Like the 62 Warriors. That team just had no business going to 7 games against Boston.
In the end Russell vs Wilt is fairly close. I think Wilt was better, but it's difficult to compare such different players, and I haven't seen enough games to make a 100% fair assessment.

How much do you know about the 1962 Warriors?

[Psileas]

That's the point. He wanted to lead the league in assists, and his team winning lots of games was a product of that... but he didn't do it for his team. And all this single season did was emphasize the fact that the years preceding were also just Wilt trying to gain recognition for his individual statistics (PPG, RPG), instead of just trying to win games. It just so happens that leading the league in assists is more conducive to winning games than leading the league in scoring and rebounding.

This is why people respect Russell more than Wilt, because Russell placed team achievements over individual achievements. Like I said earlier, it's sad, because if Wilt had the same mindset as Bill, he probably would have gone down as the undisputed GOAT.


And just for the record, I'm not an expert on either player... but it's easy to see where Wilt's motivation was by simply reading his own words. He seemed obsessed with breaking and setting individual statistical records.

A problem with Wilt's character when he grew up is that he was being more honest than he should. He admitted that he wanted to lead the league in assists whereas he could very easily claim that he only cared about winning. He admitted that he cared about being the best at everything whereas he could say he never did. He was so confident that he was a bad "diplomat" and pressed people to dislike him for speaking out his mind, instead of remaining to the typical "I only care about wins" crap.

The matter with Russell and people's appreciation is, if they really respected Russell the way you are claiming, he should still remain the GOAT or, at least, be the choice of a lot more people, because there hasn't been any player since him with the same team mindset, except maybe Magic and Bird-and even they cared about themselves more than Russell did and won less championships (even combined). Bring up Russell to the GOAT discussion and a lot of these "Russell > Wilt" guys will start mentioning his limited scoring abilities. So, I'd probably expect Russell to polarize people more than he does - say, get a lot of #1's and also many "below top-5" picks. Instead, he only gets very few #1's, few #2's, a lot of #3-6's and some below #6.
The irony is that a lot make the diplomatic choice and pick Jordan as the GOAT player and Russell as the GOAT winner. And then, 8-9 out of 10 pick the GOAT player over the GOAT winner.
Sometimes you have to wonder, if Jordan/Magic/Bird/Shaq/Kareem/Wilt were tested in front of a lie detector and they were asked if they would rather reduce their personal stats so that they would match Russell's in order to get as many championships as him, what the results would be. If they answered "no", this would verify that they don't have the same mindset or that they value more things than just the team winning. If their answer was "yes", this means that they think they could do better and that they probably rank Russell above themselves. And in this case, I wonder how this would affect most fans' minds.

[jlip]

Has anyone ever done a thread on how many of Russell's teammates may not have made the Hall had they not on winning teams with him? If so, can I have a link or someone give me their list?

[G.O.A.T]

Has anyone ever done a thread on how many of Russell's teammates may not have made the Hall had they not on winning teams with him? If so, can I have a link or someone give me their list?

I haven't done a thread but the answer is three to as many as five.

Cousy and Sharman were for sure before Russell. Havlicek seems likely to have been great regardless.

KC Jones and Frank Ramsey have no chance without him.

Clyde Lovellette, Willie Naulls, Carl Braun, Wayne Embry all came to Boston well past their prime, winning with Boston put all their resumes over the top in my opinion. Regardless they were not at their HOF level in Boston.

Tom Heinsohn, Bailey Howell and Sam Jones all have inferior statistical and individual resumes compared to a number of players without multiple Championships who aren't in the HOF.

Jones and Heinsohn are the real question marks. I think Jones might have got in on his own. The biggest obstacle would have been mental, Jones hated the limelight and needed a bigger star (black star specifically) to make him feel comfotable in his role. Heinsohn was so one-dimensional, he was basically Bailey Howell on a good team his whole career and not just the end. If guys like Rudy LaRusso can't get in, I can't see him in without the seven rings.

[jlauber]

One of the best examples of a double-standard that I can give was their two playoff series in '66 and '67.

In the '66 ECF's, Chamberlain's teammates were just awful. I have posted their numbers, and they were pathetic. Meanwhile, Wilt put up a 28 ppg, 30 rpg, .509 series. In the clinching game five loss, Wilt outscored Russell, 46-18, and outrebounded him, 34-31. Who took the brunt of the blame for that series loss? Of course it was Wilt.

In the '67 ECF's, Wilt's teammates finally outplayed Russell's. And, as always, Chamberlain easily outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell. The Sixers nearly swept Boston, only losing game four in Boston, 121-117. In the clinching game five loss, Russell scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and seven assists. Philly swamped Boston in that game, 140-116, and Wilt had a 29 point, 10-16 shooting, 36 rebound, 13 assist game. And while Wilt finally received some respect, there was no criticism of Russell.

My main point being, that for years I have heard this argument that Russell COULD have scored more if he would have HAD to. If that were really true, why could he only muster FOUR points in a game in which his teammates desperately needed him to put up a huge game?

I will be the first to admit that Russell's offense was very under-rated. Take a look at some of his post-season games, and you will find a 30-40 game seven, or a 30-38 clinching game win, or a series in which he led Boston in scoring at 23.6 ppg. Or another series in which he shot .702 from the field. BUT, you will not find those games or series against Wilt.

To be fair, Russell did have two 30-30 games against Wilt in the '62 ECF's (he scored 31 points in each.) In fact, he had three 30+ point games against Chamberlain in his 142 games against Wilt (his high was 37.) BUT, Wilt outscored Russell in ALL three. Here was Russell at his absolute scoring best, and STILL being outscored by Chamberlain.

And, I could accept those limited scoring games, if Russell had been EFFICIENT in his career against Chamberlain. However, most of the evidence that exists suggests that Russell struggled to shoot even 40% against Wilt, and perhaps he might have shot even less than 40% against him in the total of those 142 games. Meanwhile, Wilt had several series in which he shot well over 50% against Russell. There is even a possibility that Wilt might have shot as high as .590 against him in the '64 Finals, and scoring 29.2 ppg in the process. We KNOW that Wilt outshot Russell in the '67 ECF's by a .556 to .358 margin, and as always, he outscored Russell (22-10 ppg), and outrebounded him (32-23 per game.)

NYCelt provided their regular season numbers during Wilt's rookie season, and they were eye-popping. Over the course of the entire season, Wilt averaged 37.6 ppg on .461 shooting (once again, the only time in his career that he failed to shoot at least 50%.) BUT, against Russell in the regular season, he averaged 38 ppg on .465 shooting. How about Russell? Over the course of the entire season, Russell averaged 18.2 on a career high .467 shooting. Against Wilt...16.5 ppg on .398 shooting!

The bottom line was that Chamberlain was capable of scoring 50+ points against Russell (he did it FIVE times, with a high of 62.) In fact, Wilt had 24 games of 40+ points against Russell. Meanwhile, while Russell had three games of 30+ points against Wilt, he was outscored in all three. And, over the course of his career against Chamberlain, Russell only averaged 14.5 ppg. And, once again, the overwhelming evidence suggests that Russell probably shot somehwere around 40%, and there is a good chance it was even less. However, Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg against Russell, and the vast majority of evidence suggests that Wilt was probably over 50% against Russell.

Think about that...Wilt and Russell went H2H in 142 games...and not only did Wilt outscore, outrebound, and outshoot Russell, he nearly AVERAGED a 30-30 game EVERY time the two took the floor...and all the while holding Russell to half his point total, and perhaps outshooting him by over 100 points from the floor.

[G.O.A.T]

In the '67 ECF's, Wilt's teammates finally outplayed Russell's. And, as always, Chamberlain easily outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell. The Sixers nearly swept Boston, only losing game four in Boston, 121-117. In the clinching game five loss, Russell scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and seven assists. Philly swamped Boston in that game, 140-116, and Wilt had a 29 point, 10-16 shooting, 36 rebound, 13 assist game. And while Wilt finally received some respect, there was no criticism of Russell

You have to at least tell the truth. Russell took a TON of criticism.

He was booed loudly during game two at home despite having won eight consecutive titles.

His decision to stay with his pressing line-up in that game was questioned all-off season. People said he couldn't coach and play and keep winning.

Numerous articles were written saying it was Auerbach that was the key to the Celtics titles, not Russell.

The Boston Globe called for Russell to step down as coach and stop his "political stunt"

The reason people don't criticize him anymore is because he came back the next two years as a major underdog and won the title both times as player/coach.

[jlauber]

You have to at least tell the truth. Russell took a TON of criticism.

He was booed loudly during game two at home despite having won eight consecutive titles.

His decision to stay with his pressing line-up in that game was questioned all-off season. People said he couldn't coach and play and keep winning.

Numerous articles were written saying it was Auerbach that was the key to the Celtics titles, not Russell.

The Boston Globe called for Russell to step down as coach and stop his "political stunt"

The reason people don't criticize him anymore is because he came back the next two years as a major underdog and won the title both times as player/coach.

I meant that there was no criticism of Russell's OFFENSE in that series, particularly that clinching game five loss.

[G.O.A.T]

I meant that there was no criticism of Russell's OFFENSE in that series, particularly that clinching game five loss.

I apologize, I misinterpreted.

I don't think anyone ever expected Russell to outscore Chamberlain or carry the Celtics with his offense for consecutive games. If anything I'd expect his inability to limit Chamberlain during key stretches of games in that series the way he had in the past would be called into question.

[kizut1659]

GOAT - I find the quote about Wilt's not adopting by West bizzare. Not counting his 6 games in 1969-1970, as a Laker, Wilt averaged 10.8, 12.2. 7.9 and 6.8 FGA a game - this is LESS FGA than Russel averaged throughout his career! For the playoffs Wilt averaged 9.8, 16, 15.5. (with boty west and baylor injured) 9.5, and 6.8. Again, how is this being selfish? At the same time, West averaged ahout 20-23 FGAs. . . basically anywhere from 1.5 to almost THREE times as much as Chamberlain! So whose fault was it that the Lakers came short most of the years? Why should Russel get credit for winning when scoring 13-20 pts a game on 45% and Chamberlain should be blamed for losing when scoring 13-20 pts a game on 55% (or higher - see 72-73% percentage?)

I frankly think that if if Wilt would have been given 20 FGAs a game during his Laker years, they would have won at least couple of more championships. (e.g. in 1973 finals - where Wilt played poorly by his standards but still for 22 for 42, by comparison Jim McMillian shot 41 for 104. 3 games were decided by less than 5 points. Don't you think that the Lakers could (and I am not saying would) have won if they played smarter?)

[G.O.A.T]

GOAT - I find the quote about Wilt's not adopting by West bizzare. Not counting his 6 games in 1969-1970, as a Laker, Wilt averaged 10.8, 12.2. 7.9 and 6.8 FGA a game - this is LESS FGA than Russel averaged throughout his career! For the playoffs Wilt averaged 9.8, 16, 15.5. (with boty west and baylor injured) 9.5, and 6.8. Again, how is this being selfish?

I think your missing the point West is making. It's not about how many shots Wilt takes, it's about the number he takes is on his terms, not the teams. In some games they needed him to shoot more, in others he was more valuable as a defensive anchor and the outlet pass for a transition game...the problem was, Wilt usually decided before the season what his individual goal was and that trumped the team goals that may have been set.



At the same time, West averaged ahout 20-23 FGAs. . . basically anywhere from 1.5 to almost THREE times as much as Chamberlain! So whose fault was it that the Lakers came short most of the years?

I'm not sure what shot attempts have to do with anything.



Why should Russel get credit for winning when scoring 13-20 pts a game on 45% and Chamberlain should be blamed for losing when scoring 13-20 pts a game on 55% (or higher - see 72-73% percentage?)

Because stats don't matter as much as the final score. Russell's main contributions were not his scoring or shooting percentages. Now if he had focused really hard on it one season he probably could have averaged 25 a game on 50%...but the Celtics would not have been world champions, so what would have been the point?

Also I don't think Wilt should get blamed necessarily


I frankly think that if if Wilt would have been given 20 FGAs a game during his Laker years, they would have won at least couple of more championships. (e.g. in 1973 finals - where Wilt played poorly by his standards but still for 22 for 42, by comparison Jim McMillian shot 41 for 104. 3 games were decided by less than 5 points. Don't you think that the Lakers could (and I am not saying would) have won if they played smarter?)

History has always suggested that the fewer shots Wilt takes, the better his team does.

In his five seasons with the Warriors their greatest success came in 1964 when they won 48 games and Wilt's first division title and reached the Finals with Wilt averaging his lowest PPG, (36.9) and FGA (28.7) totals in a Warrior uniform.

In Four seasons with the 76ers their greatest success was when they won the Championship in 1967 when he averaged his lowest PPG (24.1) and FGA (14.2) totals in a 76er uniform.

In his first four seasons in Los Angeles their greatest success came in 1972 when they won the Championship while Wilt averaged his lowest PPG (14.8) and FGA (9.3) totals to his career at that point.

So, no you don't want Wilt taking 20 shots a game, but that doesn;t mean you don;t want him taking 20 shots in some games...like say the 1973 NBA Finals.

In 1973 the Lakers returned to the Finals and for some reason Wilt decided not to end his career by dominating against the Knicks and instead made Goodrich, McMillan and West try to score against Walt Frazier and Dave Debusschere, probably the best two defenders in the NBA and the guy who went against them everyday in practice NBA legend Earl Monroe. The trio took nearly 60 shots per game in the series. Meanwhile Wilt, still a superior athlete capable of battling a 25-year old Kareem and playing against a broke down 6'9" Willis Reed and a broke down 6'8" Jerry Lucas took just 8 shots per game and just seven combined in losses in games two and three.

[Psileas]

In his five seasons with the Warriors their greatest success came in 1964 when they won 48 games and Wilt's first division title and reached the Finals with Wilt averaging his lowest PPG, (36.9) and FGA (28.7) totals in a Warrior uniform.

This was his most efficient season up to that point, but I don't think it explains by itself the fact that Wilt made the Finals. The Warriors were in the West, so there would be no Celtics in front of them before the Finals. Once they got there, it was one of the same-actually the Celtics won the series more easily than any time before. Neither were 48 wins unprecedented for his teams-they won 49 games in 1960 (in fewer games as well) and in 1962 (while sending the Celtics to 7 games as well).


So, no you don't want Wilt taking 20 shots a game, but that doesn;t mean you don;t want him taking 20 shots in some games...like say the 1973 NBA Finals.

In 1973 the Lakers returned to the Finals and for some reason Wilt decided not to end his career by dominating against the Knicks and instead made Goodrich, McMillan and West try to score against Walt Frazier and Dave Debusschere, probably the best two defenders in the NBA and the guy who went against them everyday in practice NBA legend Earl Monroe. The trio took nearly 60 shots per game in the series. Meanwhile Wilt, still a superior athlete capable of battling a 25-year old Kareem and playing against a broke down 6'9" Willis Reed and a broke down 6'8" Jerry Lucas took just 8 shots per game and just seven combined in losses in games two and three.

The '72 Lakers won with Wilt taking few shots against a weaker frontline than the '73 Knicks' (OK, maybe not as few as in '73, but still nowhere near 20). I haven't read anywhere that Wilt did something against the team plan when doing this. I haven't read blames from his teammates about him not shooting 20 times a game and neither have I read about his coach suddenly telling him to shoot a lot more.
Wilt might have statistical agendas (much like a lot of superstars after him), but he didn't do things that went against his coaches' will (even if, at times, he disagreed with the plans). He didn't enter, for example, the '62 season intending to average 50 ppg-instead, we read that his coach asked him to, and similarly, his coach asked him to cut down his shots in the playoffs. The only time that he might have done something different to what his coach would want to, may be the time he led the league in assists, but then again, he came close to doing this in 1967 as well. Maybe he even intended to do so in '67 as well, but the fact that he ended up "only" third, as well as the fact that he won the championship, not only took all blames from him, but it's widely considered the GOAT season, or, at worst, among the very best. And honestly, so would 1968, if things in the end ended up a little different.

[kizut1659]

I think your missing the point West is making. It's not about how many shots Wilt takes, it's about the number he takes is on his terms, not the teams. In some games they needed him to shoot more, in others he was more valuable as a defensive anchor and the outlet pass for a transition game...the problem was, Wilt usually decided before the season what his individual goal was and that trumped the team goals that may have been set.[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]


Thats probably true of early Wilt but i doubt he had any specific goals during his Laker days. Do you think he "decided" before the 1971 season to only average 8 shots per game? No, he was convinced to do it by Bill Sharman.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T] I'm not sure what shot attempts have to do with anything.[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]

Yes they do, its hypocritical for a player average twice as many shots attempts as the guy shooting a much higher FG% and yet accuse the other of selfishness.


[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
Because stats don't matter as much as the final score. Russell's main contributions were not his scoring or shooting percentages. Now if he had focused really hard on it one season he probably could have averaged 25 a game on 50%...but the Celtics would not have been world champions, so what would have been the point?

Also I don't think Wilt should get blamed necessarily [QUOTE=G.O.A.T]

Both stats and final score matter. Russel did not average 25 on 50% not because he was so unselfish but because he couldn't. He never shot higher than 46% and had many seasons of 42-43% so why are you assuming he could have shot 50% taking even more shots?

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T] History has always suggested that the fewer shots Wilt takes, the better his team does.

In his five seasons with the Warriors their greatest success came in 1964 when they won 48 games and Wilt's first division title and reached the Finals with Wilt averaging his lowest PPG, (36.9) and FGA (28.7) totals in a Warrior uniform.

In Four seasons with the 76ers their greatest success was when they won the Championship in 1967 when he averaged his lowest PPG (24.1) and FGA (14.2) totals in a 76er uniform.

In his first four seasons in Los Angeles their greatest success came in 1972 when they won the Championship while Wilt averaged his lowest PPG (14.8) and FGA (9.3) totals to his career at that point.

So, no you don't want Wilt taking 20 shots a game, but that doesn;t mean you don;t want him taking 20 shots in some games...like say the 1973 NBA Finals.

In 1973 the Lakers returned to the Finals and for some reason Wilt decided not to end his career by dominating against the Knicks and instead made Goodrich, McMillan and West try to score against Walt Frazier and Dave Debusschere, probably the best two defenders in the NBA and the guy who went against them everyday in practice NBA legend Earl Monroe. The trio took nearly 60 shots per game in the series. Meanwhile Wilt, still a superior athlete capable of battling a 25-year old Kareem and playing against a broke down 6'9" Willis Reed and a broke down 6'8" Jerry Lucas took just 8 shots per game and just seven combined in losses in games two and three.


The reason Wilt's teams lost during the first 7 seasons was that his supporting case was worse - plain and simple. I agree with LJabauer on that point. The 1966-1967 Philly won BOTH because Chamberlain shot less and because he finally had a good supporting cast. I am not saying they would have won if Wilt would have averaged 50pts (even though 1962 team came close) but if he would have averaged 20 FGA from 1966 through 1968 - heck yeah, they would have won. Bill Russel averaged 16 FGAs frtom 1959 through 1963 on FG% ranging from 42 to 46% - so why would it be terrible for a superior scorer to average 20 FGA?

Same for the Lakers. I think the Lakers won in 1971-1972 because of retirement of Baylor and superior defense under Bill Sharman - not because Chamberlain shooting so little. I do not see how you can blame Wilt for the 1973 finals. Given how egotistical the guy was, do you think he wanted to shoot so little? He is a center, not a point guard - so it was not under his control how much he got the ball. I saw one of the games actually and was shocked how little he touched the ball. So he didn't make "Goodrich, McMillan and West" try to score - they tried to do it all by themselves and lost.

[jlauber]

I apologize, I misinterpreted.

I don't think anyone ever expected Russell to outscore Chamberlain or carry the Celtics with his offense for consecutive games. If anything I'd expect his inability to limit Chamberlain during key stretches of games in that series the way he had in the past would be called into question.

I agree with this 100%. Once again, it is somewhat of a double-standard. Wilt was EXPECTED to score, rebound, pass, and play defense. Russell was expected to rebound, pass, and play defense.

I am not arguing the fact that Russell "held" Wilt down much better than anyone else, but from '60 to '66, Wilt HAD to score 30+ points to even have a chance of winning. And there were games in which Chamberlain scored 40, 50, and even 60 points, and his TEAM STILL lost to Russell's Celtics.

Perhaps he should have shot more later in his career, but he did whatever his COACHES asked him to do. I always found it fascinating that from '67 thru the '69 seasons, Wilt "only" averaged 24.1, 24.3, and 20.5 ppg. But, before the '69-70 season, Wilt's NEW coach, Joe Mullaney, asked Wilt to become the focal point of the offense. And Wilt responded by averaging 32.2 ppg over the course of his first nine games (with games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43 points), but in that ninth game, he suffered that devastating knee injury, and he was never quite the same after that (although, just using his power, he still had many games of 30+ points.) Even at nowhere near 100%, he still put up a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 series in the '70 Finals.

And some here criticize Wilt by saying that his play "dropped" in the post-season. First of all, his rebounding increased considerably in the post-season...and he was outrebounding players like Russell, Thurmond, and Kareem...and in some series, by HUGE margins.

Secondly, Wilt faced a HOF center in about two-thirds of his 160 post-season games. And, out of those, he faced Russell 49 times.

Finally, Wilt had two distinctly different halves of his career (in fact, it was three, but I won't use the post-injury portion as separate.) So, in the first half of his career, he had his "scoring" seasons, and in the second half of his career, he cut back his shooting (for a variety of reasons...but mostly because his COACHES asked him to.) Now, in the first seven years of his career, he averaged 39.4 ppg...COMBINED. However, in the first half of his career, he only played in SIX post-seasons. He missed the post-season in his 62-63 season, which was a year in which he averaged 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting. Why is that important? Because, for one, he averaged 33 ppg in those six post-seasons, (but here again, he missed that high-scoring 62-63 season.) And secondly, he only played in 52 of his 160 post-season games during his "scoring" seasons. Let's conservatively estimate that Wilt would have averaged 35 ppg in the 62-63 post-season, had he been able to play.,,and over the course of a normal post-season. It would have raised his post-season scoring to nearly 26 ppg, instead of the 22.5 that it is now. So, instead of scoring at 8 ppg less than his regular season average, it would have only been at a little over 4 ppg.


But, back to the original point, which was that Russell was never expected to score...BUT, Wilt was. And he DID. Once again, Wilt was EXPECTED to put up 30-30 games against Russell, but Russell was only expected to put up 15-20 games against Wilt. AND, Wilt nearly averaged a 30-30 game against Russell over the course of their 142 H2H games. Yet, his team's only went 57-85 against Russell's.

I won't dispute that Russell elevated his team considerably more than Wilt did his...but, for at least six of their ten seasons together, Russell had superior rosters. And, even in the last four years, the differences in talent were not significant. Russell NEVER had a roster like Wilt did in his 62-63, 63-64, and 64-65 seasons, either (particularly that awful 62-63 roster.) In fact, Russell's teams held anywhere from a two to SEVEN edge in HOFers for the majority of their 10 seasons together, and furthermore, Russell had an edge in HOF teammates EVERY year they played together.

I have grown to appreciate Russell's true impact, thanks in large part to your posts, but Simmons goes out of his way to disparage Wilt at every opportunity...and he was clearly wrong in the vast majority of his writings on the subject.

[G.O.A.T]

Boston 1969
John Havlicek 22-7-5-41% - 13x all-star (prime)
Bailey Howell 20-9-2-49% - 6x all-star (late prime)
Sam Jones 16-4-3-45% - 5x all-star (past prime)
Larry Seigfried 14-4-5-38% - Cut by multiple teams
Don Nelson 12-6-1-49% - Cut by Lakers
Tom Sanders 11-7-1-43% - (past prime)

How is that significantly better than what Wilt had in 1962 or 1964

In '62 he has Arizin, Meschery, Attles, Gola and Rodgers and Andy Johnson.

In '64 He still has Attles, Meschery and Rodgers and adds Nate Thurmond, Gary Phillips and Wayne Hightower.

Those are not discernibly different teams.

[kizut1659]

Boston 1969
John Havlicek 22-7-5-41% - 13x all-star (prime)
Bailey Howell 20-9-2-49% - 6x all-star (late prime)
Sam Jones 16-4-3-45% - 5x all-star (past prime)
Larry Seigfried 14-4-5-38% - Cut by multiple teams
Don Nelson 12-6-1-49% - Cut by Lakers
Tom Sanders 11-7-1-43% - (past prime)

How is that significantly better than what Wilt had in 1962 or 1964

In '62 he has Arizin, Meschery, Attles, Gola and Rodgers and Andy Johnson.

In '64 He still has Attles, Meschery and Rodgers and adds Nate Thurmond, Gary Phillips and Wayne Hightower.

Those are not discernibly different teams.

I think 1969 Celtics are slightly better than what Wilt had in 1962 and 1964 just because of Havlicec - top 15 player in his prime. That said, Lakers should have won but they were a dysfunctional team with an idiot coach. Somewhat similiar to 2004 Lakers/Pistons where a team wins in significant part because the other team self-destructs.

[jlauber]

Boston 1969
John Havlicek 22-7-5-41% - 13x all-star (prime)
Bailey Howell 20-9-2-49% - 6x all-star (late prime)
Sam Jones 16-4-3-45% - 5x all-star (past prime)
Larry Seigfried 14-4-5-38% - Cut by multiple teams
Don Nelson 12-6-1-49% - Cut by Lakers
Tom Sanders 11-7-1-43% - (past prime)

How is that significantly better than what Wilt had in 1962 or 1964

In '62 he has Arizin, Meschery, Attles, Gola and Rodgers and Andy Johnson.

In '64 He still has Attles, Meschery and Rodgers and adds Nate Thurmond, Gary Phillips and Wayne Hightower.

Those are not discernibly different teams.

Not sure if you were addressing this post to me, or not, but here was Russell's cast in '62:

Heinsohn 22.1 HOFer
S. Jones 18.4 ppg HOFer
Cousy 15.7 ppg HOFer
Ramsey 15.3 ppg HOFer
S. Sanders 11.2 defensive specialist
KC Jones 9.2 ppg defensive specialist HOFer

And, in the post-season, the Celts had Russell at .458, then S. Jones at .444, Sanders at .431, KC Jones, at .431, Heinsohn at .399, Ramsey at .375, and Cousy at .357.

The Warriors had Wilt at .467, Meschery at .397, Arizin at .375, Attles at .368, Rodgers at .359, and Gola at .271.

So, despite sthe HUGE difference in talent, scoring, and shooting, the Warriors lost a game seven by TWO points.


How about '64?

The Warriors had TWO HOFers...Wilt, and rookie Thurmond who averaged 26 mpg, shot .395, and was playing out of position.

How about Boston? Russell, Havlicek, Heinsohn, S. Jones, KC Jones, Lovelette, and Ramsey...ALL in the HOF. Not only that, but they had S. Sanders and Naulls. Player-for-Player they were CLEARLY better than the supporting cast that Wilt was saddled with.


Now, how about '69, when there are those that say that the Lakers were "heavy" favorites.

Boston's roster:

Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones, Howell...ALL in the HOF. THEN they had Nelson, Siegfried, Sanders, E. Bryant, and even Don Chaney for 20 games. That is NINE quality players.

The Lakers had West, in his prime, Baylor who was well past his prime (and don't give me his fifth in MVP balloting...he was AWFUL in the post-season, and would be third-bit player in the post-season the next year)...and a Wilt who was shackled by his incompetent coach. After that was journeyman Mel Counts, who Van Breda Kolf chose to play over Wilt in the last five minutes of game seven. Johnny Egan, who would have not played a minute had the Lakers not traded all-star guard Archie Clark for Wilt (along with Darrell Imhoff, Jerry Chambers, and a boatload of cash)...and then lost HOFer Goodrich to the expansion draft. The rest of those that played significant minutes were the oft-injured Keith Erickson, and Bill Hewitt. Tom Hawkins played about 10 mpg in the post-season. IF LA had an edge in players 1-3, the Celtics were DRAMATICALLY better in players 4-9. In fact, the Lakers basically played SEVEN players in the post-season.

When fans look at the two teams, they see a Laker team that went 55-27, and a Celtic team that went 48-34. BUT, the aged Celtics were obviously pacing themselves for the post-season.

And here again...take a look at everything that went against the Lakers in the Finals that year: Boston hit TWO miraculous shots to win two games. Egan, who should not have even handled the ball in the waning seconds of game four, lost the damn ball, which led to one of those miraculous shots at the buzzer. Had Egan been able to hold onto the ball, LA probably wins that series, 4-1.

Then, Baylor, who was Van Breda Kolf's personal favorite, averaged 15.4 ppg on a .385 FG% in the post-season, AND, in games three, four, and five, he scored a COMBINED 24 points. And two of those games were close losses.

Then, we have Van Breda Kolf not even having a clue on how to use Wilt. In the post-season, Wilt 10 shot FGAs per game, and scored a by-far-and-away (at the time) career low 13.9 ppg (albeit, on .545 shooting.) There was no offensive game plan at all for Chamberlain...the game's greatest scorer.

Finally, we had the brilliant Van Breda Kolf keeping Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of a game in which Boston was fading fast, and riding Mel ****ing Counts to a TWO-point loss.

The more I study that series, the more amazed I am that LA even made it to a game seven, much less only losing it by two points. And, had any ONE of the above mentioned not occurred, and LA wins that series...perhaps in as little as five games.

[jlauber]

BTW, let's clear up a couple of issues with Wilt's 68-69 Lakers.

Wilt was traded from the Sixers for all-star guard Archie Clark, journeyman center Darrell Imhoff, part-timer Jerry Chambers, and a boat-load of cash. BUT, Philly did NOT want to trade Wilt. Chamberlain more-or-less forced their hand. The ABA was waiting, so the Sixers traded him to at least get something in return.

Furthermore, the Lakers also lost HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft. That was HUGE. That forced LA to play journeyman Johnny Egan...who may have ultimately cost the Lakers the title by losing the ball in the last seconds of game four.

Continuing, Wilt STILL led the Lakers to their then-best record in LA, at 55-27 (previous best was 52-30.) And, they came as close to winning a title as they ever did in Los Angeles that season.

And, for those that claim that Sixers "only" dropped to 55-27, from 62-20 the year before...that was still a seven game decline. BUT, that was just the beginning. Philly had lost a 3-1 series lead in the '68 ECF's (because of a HUGE rash of injuries), and lost that series, in a game seven, by FOUR points. Not only that, but the previous season, in 66-67, they overwhelmed the NBA with a 68-13 record, and a dominating world championship.

How about the '68-69 Sixers? They were promptly dispatched in the first round of the playoffs, by a 48-34 Celtic team, 4-1.

AND, the Sixer slide would continue, to the point that by Wilt's last season, in 72-73, they went a record 9-73.

Meanwhile, after that trade to LA, Wilt led LA to four Finals in five seasons (and a WCF in the other)...and a first-ever world championship in Los Angeles in that magical 71-72 season.

AFTER Wilt retired following the 72-73 season (a 60-22 record and another Finals appearance), the Lakers dropped to a 47-35 season (even with Elmore Smith at center), and a 4-1 blowout loss in the first round of the playoffs. In the very next season, 74-75, the Lakers went 30-52. And they would not sniff the finals until Magic arrived in the 79-80 season.

Just a little better perspective on that FULL picture of that trade. The trade that Simmons called "pennies on the dollar." That "pennies on the dollar" trade ultimately made the Lakers a true power for the five seasons that Wilt was there, and crippled the Philly franchise for years.

[jlauber]

As a sidenote, I have often wondered how many more seasons that Wilt could have played at a high level. He was 37 years old when he retired, but in his LAST season, he led the NBA in rebounding at 18.6 rpg, was voted first-team all-defense for the second year in a row, and set a FG% record of .727 that will probably never be approached. Not only that, but he averaged 47.1 mpg in his 18 post-season games, and snagged 22.5 rpg in the post-season (including outrebounding Thurmond by seven per game.)

Furthermore, in the early 80's, no less than Larry Brown witnessed a summer league game that included Magic Johnson, in which Chamberlain just dominated the defensive end of the floor. Wilt was in his mid-40's at the time. And later on, in another summer league encounter, Kiki Vandewege witnessed Chamberlain overpowering 7-4 Mark Eaton.

In fact, there were teams that were making LEGITIMATE offers to Chamberlain in his late 40's, and even into his 50's!

[PHILA]

[quote=ThaRegul8r]Wilt had decided before the end of the '67-68 season that he wanted to play for the Lakers if it was at all possible:

[quote=Wilt Chamberlain]After that three-game splurge in mid-December, I only had one other game all season where I scored more than 40 points. That game was against Los Angeles in the last week of the regular season. I got 53 points

[jlauber]

Obviously Ramsey and Wilt never got along. Which pretty much explains his less-than-stellar take on Wilt's place in NBA history.

Although, to his credit, he did make this comment in his 2004 book...


It centered on the man I regard as the most talented, intelligent, complex, and interesting of all the players I've known - Wilt Chamberlain