Basketball Philosophy with Bill Russell

[G.O.A.T]

The thing is, is that in approaching athletes especially, that's something I know about. You could never dissect a player into parts. Each player is a package. You can't say, "If he did this..." or "If he thought..." or "If he didn't think..." or "If he tried this..." Invalid and irrelevant! What you got is what you got. There are certain things that you have to know to be an outstanding athlete in any sport. There's offense and defense and there are things that you can do as an individual to impact the game without having your hand or your foot on the ball.

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes?

[inclinerator]

defense. i win! win!

[PurpleChuck]

The thing is, is that in approaching athletes especially, that's something I know about. You could never dissect a player into parts. Each player is a package. You can't say, "If he did this..." or "If he thought..." or "If he didn't think..." or "If he tried this..." Invalid and irrelevant! What you got is what you got. There are certain things that you have to know to be an outstanding athlete in any sport. There's offense and defense and there are things that you can do as an individual to impact the game without having your hand or your foot on the ball.

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes?

Just wow.Never thought of that, deep and clever. :eek: :bowdown:

[chips93]

The thing is, is that in approaching athletes especially, that's something I know about. You could never dissect a player into parts. Each player is a package. You can't say, "If he did this..." or "If he thought..." or "If he didn't think..." or "If he tried this..." Invalid and irrelevant! What you got is what you got. There are certain things that you have to know to be an outstanding athlete in any sport. There's offense and defense and there are things that you can do as an individual to impact the game without having your hand or your foot on the ball.

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes?


nice post repped

[Rolando]

Basketball I.Q. :bowdown:

[Harison]

What is going on the other 45 minutes?
Cant say Russell doesnt have a sense of humour :roll:

[Derka]

Man, Russell is so cerebral about the game. Would have been something to see him play.

[Maga_1]

it's the second thread that i read about Russell mentallity, the other one was about the shoot blocking and trash talk. Anybody remember that?

I think it was you that posted , G.O.A.T.

[Bird]

The thing is, is that in approaching athletes especially, that's something I know about. You could never dissect a player into parts. Each player is a package. You can't say, "If he did this..." or "If he thought..." or "If he didn't think..." or "If he tried this..." Invalid and irrelevant! What you got is what you got. There are certain things that you have to know to be an outstanding athlete in any sport. There's offense and defense and there are things that you can do as an individual to impact the game without having your hand or your foot on the ball.

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes?

1) Thanked.
2) You never can get enough Bill Russell quotes. One of the greatest in the "basketball smarts" department.
3) (Re:Bolded quote) I really wish ALL superstars understood this. The days of great players setting screens, throwing great outlet passes, defensively stopping 2 on 1's and 3 on 1's are pretty much gone. Very rarely will you see a superstar player work off the ball as well as they used to or even throw a great outlet pass to start a fast break off of a miss (Kevin Love is EASILY the best player in the game when it comes to the "outlet off of a defensive rebound pass", but he is trapped on that terrible Minnesota team).

[Biddy77]

Fantastic quoted segment, GOAT.

Great thread.

[Niquesports]

The thing is, is that in approaching athletes especially, that's something I know about. You could never dissect a player into parts. Each player is a package. You can't say, "If he did this..." or "If he thought..." or "If he didn't think..." or "If he tried this..." Invalid and irrelevant! What you got is what you got. There are certain things that you have to know to be an outstanding athlete in any sport. There's offense and defense and there are things that you can do as an individual to impact the game without having your hand or your foot on the ball.

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes?


In this era of ESPN highlights and all ITs good for these younger fans to be informed about what basketball and all other sports are about. Defense. There is a reason why only 1 leading scorer ever won a Title. KD take note home boy DC loves you but its not the points its the D

[G.O.A.T]

Some more from #6

I played in this dumb number of seventh games. You know -- the last game. Either you win, or if you lose you go home. And I have a perfect record. Won all of them, including college and the Olympics. And so I was talking with the kids at the NBA, and first they asked me, "Were you scared?" I said no. "You weren't scared?" No. So he comes in with five different ways of asking me was I scared. "Didn't this scare you?" No, I was not scared. "Okay, were you nervous?" No. "You weren't scared? You weren't nervous?" No. In fact, Sam Jones and I kid about it all the time. Every seventh game that Sam was there, I came to the seventh game, I had a black suit on. And he says, "Why do you always wear a black suit to these games?" I said, "Because I'm the undertaker. I've come to bury these people!" Sam and I used to kid about that all the time. He says, "You always wear a black suit." "Yep, I'm the undertaker. I come to bury these guys." So finally -- a guy kept asking was I nervous or was I scared. So finally I said, "Listen, there was no reason for me to be scared or nervous. I did not have to play against Bill Russell and the Celtics. What was there to be nervous or scared about?" You probably think I'm really modest, right?

[LastChanceToWin]

Did this guy even play basketball? WTH is he talking about?

[jlauber]

Did this guy even play basketball? WTH is he talking about?

You are obviously joking, right?

[Yung D-Will]

Did this guy even play basketball? WTH is he talking about?
:banghead:

[jlauber]

20-30 years from now, there will be some goofball questioning just what Jordan accomplished in his career, as well. And they will also say that the players in an eighth grade church league would run all over MJ.

[Harison]

I said, "Because I'm the undertaker. I've come to bury these people!"

"So finally I said, "Listen, there was no reason for me to be scared or nervous. I did not have to play against Bill Russell and the Celtics. What was there to be nervous or scared about?" You probably think I'm really modest, right? [/I]
Russell is the man :roll: :applause:

[OhNoTimNoSho]

The thing is, is that in approaching athletes especially, that's something I know about. You could never dissect a player into parts. Each player is a package. You can't say, "If he did this..." or "If he thought..." or "If he didn't think..." or "If he tried this..." Invalid and irrelevant! What you got is what you got. There are certain things that you have to know to be an outstanding athlete in any sport. There's offense and defense and there are things that you can do as an individual to impact the game without having your hand or your foot on the ball.

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes?
I'm def 2x as smart having read that.

[G.O.A.T]

Russell is the man :roll: :applause:

Imagine the confidence that would inspire in you. The guy who never loses shows up that focused and that confident, how could you lose?

Satch Sanders has a couple of my favorite quotes explaining Russell's mindset:

"He thought he was so good. And that we should win every single game he played in. How could we lose? He wouldn't let us."

"The reason Bill believed in us is he knew he had to or we wouldn't believe in ourselves. He understood that basketball was a five man game but more importantly how one player could impact the other nine. "

[Rose]

Everytime you post about Russell I rank him differently in my top 10 for some reason. He just seems smarter and like he understood the game in it's truest and purest forms. He broke down the game to it's basic terms to learn what it took to win the games that mattered. And knew exactly what to do, how to do it, and when to do it.

[G.O.A.T]

Everytime you post about Russell I rank him differently in my top 10 for some reason. He just seems smarter and like he understood the game in it's truest and purest forms. He broke down the game to it's basic terms to learn what it took to win the games that mattered. And knew exactly what to do, how to do it, and when to do it.

That's how he moved up so high on my list. My uncles and my high school teachers always tried to tell me how great he was, but I loved stats, knew all of them and wasn't buying it.

The more I read and the more I listen, the more obvious it becomes he's the greatest center of all-time if your goal is to win the game.

There have been others who had better ability and better seasons, but no one ever understood what it took to win and did it as consistently as Russell.

[Niquesports]

That's how he moved up so high on my list. My uncles and my high school teachers always tried to tell me how great he was, but I loved stats, knew all of them and wasn't buying it.

The more I read and the more I listen, the more obvious it becomes he's the greatest center of all-time if your goal is to win the game.

There have been others who had better ability and better seasons, but no one ever understood what it took to win and did it as consistently as Russell.

Here in Dc yesterday they played a replay of an old Red interview.
He told a story of a game against Wilt not sure which team. But the Celtics were up by a good margin so Red took Russ out the game. Wilt goes on to score 20 pts. with Russ on the bench. Celtics win . The Philly paper says Celtics win Wilt out duals Russ. Point is Wilt as Great as he was had 1 flaw he felt he could carry a team to victory Russ felt he needed to lead his team for them to win.

[jstern]

20-30 years from now, there will be some goofball questioning just what Jordan accomplished in his career, as well. And they will also say that the players in an eighth grade church league would run all over MJ.
Probably

I once heard a teen say that if Jordan played in this era, people like Kobe Bryant and Lebron James would just take the ball away from him every time he dribble. No idea that Jordan played as a 40 year old not too long ago.

I also heard something very similar about Magic on youtube, and I responded that I just saw a video of Magic running down court, full speed with the ball, while looking back and to his left, and then making this incredible pass without looking. (It was more impressive than I could explain) How could he say that Kobe would take the ball away from him every time he touched the ball. That's why a lot of people don't like Kobe, because of his fans. People are superficial, it's probably the short shorts.

[jlauber]

Here in Dc yesterday they played a replay of an old Red interview.
He told a story of a game against Wilt not sure which team. But the Celtics were up by a good margin so Red took Russ out the game. Wilt goes on to score 20 pts. with Russ on the bench. Celtics win . The Philly paper says Celtics win Wilt out duals Russ. Point is Wilt as Great as he was had 1 flaw he felt he could carry a team to victory Russ felt he needed to lead his team for them to win.

A couple of points about this. One, Russell had as many as SEVEN HOF teammates on his team's, and never less than than three other's. Wilt played on team's in which he was the ONLY HOF player. I have said it before, but when Jordan's '86 Bulls were swept by the 67-15 Celtics and their FIVE HOFers, he was still hailed as "heroic" in defeat (he even had a 63 point game in an OT loss.) Yet, when Wilt took a 49-31 team up against a 60-20 Celtic team that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers, and got that team to a game seven, two point loss, it was somehow reported that Russell outplayed Chamberlain (even though Wilt had a clear edge in almost every statistical category.) Same thing in '65, when Chamberlain took a 40-40 76er team up against the 62-18 Celtics, who had a 5-2 edge in HOFers (and a team that many rank as Russell's best)...to a game seven, one point loss. In that series, Wilt outscored Russell by a 211-109 margin, and outrebounded him by a 221-177 margin, and more than likely outshot him (Russell shot .451 against Wilt....and then .702 in the Finals against the Lakers.) You guessed it...Russell was "clutch", and Wilt "failed again."

Secondly, Russell seldom came out of any game against Chamberlain. He did everything in his power to stay on the floor against Wilt. Not only that, but we even had a poster who found a game in which Wilt scored 47 points, in a comeback win, in which his team had been down by 21 points in the second half.

Wilt generally did whatever his coach asked. And, he played on some absolutely putrid rosters. He came to a last-place team, and immediately took them to a 49-26 record, and a two point game six loss against Russell's heavily-favored Celtics in his very first year. Chamberlain's 62-63 roster may very well have been the worst group of misfits in NBA history. How bad were they? Their new coach in the 63-64 season, Alex Hannum, had that roster play a group of rookies and retreads, without Wilt, none of whom were expected to make an NBA roster, and they beat Chamberlain's teammates. Russell NEVER EVER had a poor supporting cast, while Chamberlain had mostly miserable teammates in his first six seasons, and somehow nearly beat Russell's Celtics in two of them, and then took that SAME 63-64 roster to a Finals.

I have no problem with those that claim Russell as the greatest ever, but I will always defend Wilt against those that claim he was a "stats-padder", or a "failure", or a "loser", or a "choker", because, clearly NONE of that was true.

[ThaRegul8r]

I have said it before, but when Jordan's '86 Bulls were swept by the 67-15 Celtics and their FIVE HOFers, he was still hailed as "heroic" in defeat (he even had a 63 point game in an OT loss.)

It made no difference on the big picture. Jordan had a chance to win it in regulation, but didn't. The Bulls would have won the game, yet Jordan wouldn't have had the 63, and, oddly enough, no one would be talking about it as much. And no one ever talks about the game afterward that either.

And why does no one ever talk about Elgin Baylor's 61 against Boston, which all came in regulation, to lead the Lakers to a WIN, and a 3-2 series LEAD?


Russell seldom came out of any game against Chamberlain. He did everything in his power to stay on the floor against Wilt.

What exactly is this based on? What evidence did you draw this from?

[jlauber]

It made no difference on the big picture. Jordan had a chance to win it in regulation, but didn't. The Bulls would have won the game, yet Jordan wouldn't have had the 63, and, oddly enough, no one would be talking about it as much. And no one ever talks about the game afterward that either.

And why does no one ever talk about Elgin Baylor's 61 against Boston, which all came in regulation, to lead the Lakers to a WIN, and a 3-2 series LEAD?



What exactly is this based on? What evidence did you draw this from?

First of all, take a look at Russell's seasonal mpg average and his playoff mpg average, neither of which are very far behind Wilt's (especially his PLAYOFF mpg.) Hell, he was in the game in which Chamberlain scored 62 points against him, even though his team was ahead by as much as 31 points, and the only reason he came out was because he FOULED out. Russell averaged 48 mpg in his ENTIRE 61-62 post-season, and yet Boston won game one of the ECF's by 28 points.

[ThaRegul8r]

First of all, take a look at Russell's seasonal mpg average and his playoff mpg average, neither of which are very far behind Wilt's (especially his PLAYOFF mpg.) Hell, he was in the game in which Chamberlain scored 62 points against him, even though his team was ahead by as much as 31 points, and the only reason he came out was because he FOULED out. Russell averaged 48 mpg in his ENTIRE 61-62 post-season, and yet Boston won game one of the ECF's by 28 points.

I asked you what EVIDENCE you had, not what speculation you'd made. I thought perhaps you had some statement from someone saying this. I see now that you do not. When people said Wilt had no competition, I challenged, that and provided evidence, not biased speculation, which dispelled the notion, which I showed you. Now, why would I accept unsupported statements from you anymore than I did them, especially seeing how you already have a history of making zealous statements which end up being proven false, because in your zeal you didn't bother to verify whether they were truth or not, because they confirmed what you believed?

First, of all, I don't know if you know anything about statistics, but years ago, I ran a statistical test on Russell and Chamberlain's regular season minutes, and the difference was statistically significant. So your statement that Russell's regular season minutes "weren't very far behind Wilt" is factually false.

Furthermore, for someone who brings up Wilt's records all the time, you should know this. Wilt blows everyone else away as far as minutes played. Wilt has the top five single season totals and seven of the top ten. Wilt has nine seasons in his career in which he played more minutes per game than Russell's highest single-season mpg average (45.2). Since I can't imagine there's an aspect of Wilt's career you aren't aware of, this would lead me to suspect this is flat-out deliberate misrepresentation in trying to prove your point.

Do not do this when talking to me. I am not ignorant, my knowledge of the NBA is not confined to the 1980s on, unlike the majority of people, and I WILL call out any divergence from the truth, which will lead me to question the truth of any future statement.

For the postseason, Chamberlain averaged 47.2 minutes per game for his career over 160 games, and Russell averaged 45.4 over 165 games. When I have the chance, I will run a statistical test to determine whether or not the difference here is also significant. Because I am interested in objective truth, not what I, or anyone else, "thinks."

Secondly, you've failed to provide a shred of proof validating your claim. If Russell played 48 minutes in the entire '62 postseason, how in the world do you extract from that that Russell did "everything in his power to stay on the floor against Wilt"? If he played 48 minutes against everyone, I find it odd that you somehow construe it to single out Wilt. And that '62 postseason includes a game in which Russell had to play every minute of the game and overtime because Elgin Baylor fouled out his entire forward rotation, leaving him as the only big man Boston had.

Again, I hate misinformation. I don't care who says it. I don't care who it's in favor or against. The only thing I care about is whether something is true or whether it is not true.

[jlauber]

I asked you what EVIDENCE you had, not what speculation you'd made. I thought perhaps you had some statement from someone saying this. I see now that you do not. When people said Wilt had no competition, I challenged, that and provided evidence, not biased speculation, which dispelled the notion, which I showed you. Now, why would I accept unsupported statements from you anymore than I did them, especially seeing how you already have a history of making zealous statements which end up being proven false, because in your zeal you didn't bother to verify whether they were truth or not, because they confirmed what you believed?

First, of all, I don't know if you know anything about statistics, but years ago, I ran a statistical test on Russell and Chamberlain's regular season minutes, and the difference was statistically significant. So your statement that Russell's regular season minutes "weren't very far behind Wilt" is factually false.

Furthermore, for someone who brings up Wilt's records all the time, you should know this. Wilt blows everyone else away as far as minutes played. Wilt has the top five single season totals and seven of the top ten. Wilt has nine seasons in his career in which he played more minutes per game than Russell's highest single-season mpg average (45.2). Since I can't imagine there's an aspect of Wilt's career you aren't aware of, this would lead me to suspect this is flat-out deliberate misrepresentation in trying to prove your point.

Do not do this when talking to me. I am not ignorant, my knowledge of the NBA is not confined to the 1980s on, unlike the majority of people, and I WILL call out any divergence from the truth, which will lead me to question the truth of any future statement.

For the postseason, Chamberlain averaged 47.2 minutes per game for his career over 160 games, and Russell averaged 45.4 over 165 games. When I have the chance, I will run a statistical test to determine whether or not the difference here is also significant. Because I am interested in objective truth, not what I, or anyone else, "thinks."

Secondly, you've failed to provide a shred of proof validating your claim. If Russell played 48 minutes in the entire '62 postseason, how in the world do you extract from that that Russell did "everything in his power to stay on the floor against Wilt"? If he played 48 minutes against everyone, I find it odd that you somehow construe it to single out Wilt. And that '62 postseason includes a game in which Russell had to play every minute of the game and overtime because Elgin Baylor fouled out his entire forward rotation, leaving him as the only big man Boston had.

Again, I hate misinformation. I don't care who says it. I don't care who it's in favor or against. The only thing I care about is whether something is true or whether it is not true.

So, when DID Russell come out in "20" point routs against Wilt? I get a kick out of those that claim that Wilt was a "stats-padder" for playing 48 mpg, on putrid teams, and yet, here was Russell (and even Kareem in '72) playing 45-46 mpg on 60 win teams. Whether it was against Wilt or Imhoff. Once again, Russell was PLAYING with a 31 lead in a game against Chamberlain. We already KNOW that Wilt played nearly every minute of every game in his career, even well after his "stats-padding" seasons.


especially seeing how you already have a history of making zealous statements which end up being proven false, because in your zeal you didn't bother to verify whether they were truth or not, because they confirmed what you believed

Other than the '64 Finals, in which I did claim that read a poster who claimed that Wilt shot .521 in the previous round against the Hawks, which meant that Wilt would have then shot .590 against Russell, I can't think of any other "zealous" statement. Yes, I have provided EDUCATED speculation. I have stated that there was a very good chance that Wilt outshot Russell in EVERY post-season series. based on the fact that, a) in the games that we do have their FG%, Chamberlain outshot Russell in a HUGE majority of them, and b) when YOU challenged my statement that Wilt outshot Russell, H2H, in the entire '60 season by a .465 to .398 margin, I provided YOU the very link that proved it (albeit, it did not include their 11th game...so if you honsetly believe that somehow Russell could have raised that stat significantly in that 11th game, I will let you provide ME with the proof.)


First, of all, I don't know if you know anything about statistics, but years ago, I ran a statistical test on Russell and Chamberlain's regular season minutes, and the difference was statistically significant. So your statement that Russell's regular season minutes "weren't very far behind Wilt" is factually false.


Wilt averaged 45.2 mpg over his regular season career, and 47.2 mpg in his post-season career. Russell averaged 42.6 mpg in his regular season career (which included a 37.9 mpg season in 67-68), and 45.4 mpg in his post-season. How is that NOT " weren't very far behind?" You are using a small percentage as FACTUALLY FALSE? Seems like it is YOU who has an agenda here.

So, by all means, give me some other examples of my "over-zealous" statements.

Once again, ANY TIME someone brings up a MIS-REPRESENTATION in the Russell-Wilt discussions, I WILL point it out.

[ThaRegul8r]

So, when DID Russell come out in "20" point routs against Wilt? I get a kick out of those that claim that Wilt was a "stats-padder" for playing 48 mpg, on putrid teams, and yet, here was Russell (and even Kareem in '72) playing 45-46 mpg on 60 win teams. Whether it was against Wilt or Imhoff. Once again, Russell was PLAYING with a 31 lead in a game against Chamberlain. We already KNOW that Wilt played nearly every minute of every game in his career, even well after his "stats-padding" seasons.

I didn't say it, so I couldn't care less what other people say. I've already said this before. I find it hilarious that you'll praise my "great stuff" when I post something that dispels a misrepresentation that regards Wilt, and then turn around and lump me with people who make claims I didn't make. You did that once before and apologized for it, yet here you are relapsing again.

I DON'T CARE WHAT ANY "OTHER" PEOPLE SAY, IF I MYSELF HAVEN'T SAID IT. I don't know how much clearer I can say it.


Other than the '64 Finals, in which I did claim that read a poster who claimed that Wilt shot .521 in the previous round against the Hawks, which meant that Wilt would have then shot .590 against Russell, I can't think of any other "zealous" statement.

It's irrelevant what you can recall. (And since when does a poster's "claim" represent evidence? You CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF, and then confirm it as true or dispel it as false. That's one step you never take. I never take a poster's claim for it. I always verify it for myself. It's because people just take people's word for it that you have people repeating the myth that Wilt played against 6-6 white guys, because they don't bother to do any research) When people talked about Thurmond in the past, you've said on multiple occasions Wilt hung 60 on him, only to finally have it pointed out that Thurmond didn't even play in the game Wilt scored 60 against the Warriors. FACT. When talking about the '61-62 season before, you've included the back-to-back 50-point games Chamberlain had against the Celtics in which Russell didn't even play due to injury. FACT.

These are two instances that immediately jump to mind without even giving it much thought. So since it's been proven you'll make statements without bothering to check their veracity, yes, I will question whether or not a particular statement is substantiated by evidence when considering your track record.


Yes, I have provided EDUCATED speculation.

One doesn't speculate. One goes on evidence. One speaks only on what one knows. Other posters "speculate" that players of the past wouldn't be stars today. So what makes that "speculation" any different when not based on fact?


Wilt averaged 45.2 mpg over his regular season career, and 47.2 mpg in his post-season career. Russell averaged 42.6 mpg in his regular season career (which included a 37.9 mpg season in 67-68), and 45.4 mpg in his post-season. How is that NOT " weren't very far behind?" You are using a small percentage as FACTUALLY FALSE? Seems like it is YOU who has an agenda here.

Get educated on statistics, then do your own test. Don't take my word for it. See, that's the beauty of science. One of its central tenets is "replicability." It means other people can do the same thing you did and see if they get the same results you did. No one's expected to just take someone's word on it, which is why it's peer reviewed. That's how inaccuracies get exposed. If it's not true, one of the many people who are scrutinizing what you said will find out.

And yeah, I do have an agenda. It's called the truth.

Again, I find it funny how you'll applaud me in one breath (if it happens to support something you believe), then accuse me of having an agenda in the next. People are so fickle.

[jlauber]

I didn't say it, so I couldn't care less what other people say. I've already said this before. I find it hilarious that you'll praise my "great stuff" when I post something that dispels a misrepresentation that regards Wilt, and then turn around and lump me with people who make claims I didn't make. You did that once before and apologized for it, yet here you are relapsing again.

I DON'T CARE WHAT ANY "OTHER" PEOPLE SAY, IF I MYSELF HAVEN'T SAID IT. I don't know how much clearer I can say it.



It's irrelevant what you can recall. (And since when does a poster's "claim" represent evidence? You CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF, and then confirm it as true or dispel it as false. That's one step you never take. I never take a poster's claim for it. I always verify it for myself. It's because people just take people's word for it that you have people repeating the myth that Wilt played against 6-6 white guys, because they don't bother to do any research) When people talked about Thurmond in the past, you've said on multiple occasions Wilt hung 60 on him, only to finally have it pointed out that Thurmond didn't even play in the game Wilt scored 60 against the Warriors. FACT. When talking about the '61-62 season before, you've included the back-to-back 50-point games Chamberlain had against the Celtics in which Russell didn't even play due to injury. FACT.

These are two instances that immediately jump to mind without even giving it much thought. So since it's been proven you'll make statements without bothering to check their veracity, yes, I will question whether or not a particular statement is substantiated by evidence when considering your track record.



One doesn't speculate. One goes on evidence. One speaks only on what one knows. Other posters "speculate" that players of the past wouldn't be stars today. So what makes that "speculation" any different when not based on fact?



Get educated on statistics, then do your own test. Don't take my word for it. See, that's the beauty of science. One of its central tenets is "replicability." It means other people can do the same thing you did and see if they get the same results you did. No one's expected to just take someone's word on it, which is why it's peer reviewed. That's how inaccuracies get exposed. If it's not true, one of the many people who are scrutinizing what you said will find out.

And yeah, I do have an agenda. It's called the truth.

Again, I find it funny how you'll applaud me in one breath (if it happens to support something you believe), then accuse me of having an agenda in the next. People are so fickle.

I have ALWAYS stated that Wilt scored 50+ points against Russell in FIVE games, including one in the post-season, which, last time I checked, IS correct.

Here is my VERY FIRST post on ISH...

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


Russell had three 30+ point games in his CAREER against Wilt (37, 31, and 31 point games), and was outscored by Chamberlain in each (47, 35, and 41.) Two of those 30+ point games by Russell were in the playoffs. Meanwhile, Wilt had a staggering 69 30+ games against Russell, including 29 in the post-season. How about 40 point games? Well, Russell never had even ONE against Chamberlain, while Wilt had 24 against Russell, including FIVE in their H2H post-season matchups. Chamberlain also had FIVE 50+ games against Russell, with a high game of 62, and one 50+ game against Russell in the post-season.



And when you challenged my point that Wilt HEAVILY outshot Russell in the 59-60 season (in fact, he scored MORE and shot BETTER against Russell, than against the REST of the league), I gave you the EVIDENCE. As for "speculation", there is EDUCATED speculation, in which we can SAFELY make an assumption. I have said that Wilt PROBABLY outshot Russell, and by PERHAPS a HUGE margin in the '64 Finals. Why? Because, a) Wilt shot .543 in his 11 post-season games that year, and five were against Russell; b) Russell shot .356 in his ten post-season games that post-season, and five of them (HALF) were against Wilt; and c) in the VAST MAHORITY of the games in which we do have their H2H FG%, Chamberlain not only outshot him, he outshot him by as much as nearly 200 points in ONE COMPLETE SERIES. In fact, I have yet to read ONE statline in a post-season game between the two, in which Russell outshot Chamberlain! I'm sure there were some, since they faced each other in 49 post-season games, but I have yet to read ONE.

"Get educated on statistics?" Just what in the hell does that have to do with me making the VERY FACTUAL claim that Russell "wasn't very far behind Wilt" in mpg in BOTH the regular season (Wilt had a 45.2 mpg to 42.6 mpg edge...and once again, in 67-68 Russell only played in 37.9 mpg), and post-season (Wilt held a 47.2 to 45.4 mpg margin)?????? What is "close" to YOU? A fraction of a second?

And yes, I WILL praise someone when they are CORRECT about Chamberlain, and if they go out of their way to DISPARAGE Wilt, I will take exception to it.

And yes, there are some here who DEFINITELY have an "anti-Wilt" agenda.

[ThaRegul8r]

I have ALWAYS stated that Wilt scored 50+ points against Russell in FIVE games, including one in the post-season, which, last time I checked, IS correct.

Here is my VERY FIRST post on ISH...

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

I'll try to see if I can find the post then. And no mention of Wilt hanging 60 on Thurmond, huh?


And when you challenged my point that Wilt HEAVILY outshot Russell in the 59-60 season (in fact, he scored MORE and shot BETTER against Russell, than against the REST of the league), I gave you the EVIDENCE.

(rest of unrelated tangent snipped.)

THAT instance was backed by evidence. Congratulations. :applause: If more people would do that, there wouldn't be any problem. I note you failed to do so with the statement in question that started this in the first place.


"Get educated on statistics?" Just what in the hell does that have to do with me making the VERY FACTUAL claim that Russell "wasn't very far behind Wilt" in mpg in BOTH the regular season (Wilt had a 45.2 mpg to 42.6 mpg edge...and once again, in 67-68 Russell only played in 37.9 mpg), and post-season (Wilt held a 47.2 to 45.4 mpg margin)?????? What is "close" to YOU? A fraction of a second?

Learn about statistics first before making an uninformed statement. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, don't comment, go educate yourself for your own edification. Chamberlain played statistically significantly (not sure if that's even a word) more minutes in the regular season than Russell. Russell's career high in minutes per game would only be 10th-best for Chamberlain. The funny thing is that if someone claimed that Jordan "wasn't far away" from Wilt as a scorer, you would talk about how Jordan didn't come close to Wilt's scoring output. Which would qualify as a "double standard" you talk so much about it.


And yes, I WILL praise someone when they are CORRECT about Chamberlain, and if they go out of their way to DISPARAGE Wilt, I will take exception to it.

And yes, there are some here who DEFINITELY have an "anti-Wilt" agenda.

Which isn't me, so I couldn't care less. You saw the date of the post I referred you to that I wrote, giving MY take. It was January 2008. Which, as you yourself noted, was YEARS before any of the stuff you've been saying here recently regarding that. I've written stuff like that well before then, but they've been pushed out of the archives because they were too long ago. That's the work of someone with an "anti-Wilt" agenda, isn't it?

:rolleyes:

[jlauber]

I'll try to see if I can find the post then. And no mention of Wilt hanging 60 on Thurmond, huh?



THAT instance was backed by evidence. Congratulations. :applause: If more people would do that, there wouldn't be any problem. I note you failed to do so with the statement in question that started this in the first place.



Learn about statistics first before making an uninformed statement. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, don't comment, go educate yourself for your own edification. Chamberlain played statistically significantly (not sure if that's even a word) more minutes in the regular season than Russell. Russell's career high in minutes per game would only be 10th-best for Chamberlain. The funny thing is that if someone claimed that Jordan "wasn't far away" from Wilt as a scorer, you would talk about how Jordan didn't come close to Wilt's scoring output. Which would qualify as a "double standard" you talk so much about it.



Which isn't me, so I couldn't care less. You saw the date of the post I referred you to that I wrote, giving MY take. It was January 2008. Which, as you yourself noted, was YEARS before any of the stuff you've been saying here recently regarding that. I've written stuff like that well before then, but they've been pushed out of the archives because they were too long ago. That's the work of someone with an "anti-Wilt" agenda, isn't it?

:rolleyes:

The Thurmond "gaffe" was once again, based on an EDUCATED assumption, albeit, incorrect. Wilt scored 62 points on the Warriors in a game in the 65-66 season, and Nate missed seven games, out of 80 that year. Yes, a gaffe. And because of that, I have since claimed that Wilt may have only had one 60+ game against Bellamy, although, he had two against Bellamy's team in the 61-62 season. Bellamy missed ONE game that year, so there is a minute possibility that Wilt only had one 60+ point game against him, instead of two.

BTW, I just watched the entire second half of game four of the '64 Finals, and, while it may not mean much, Chamberlain shot 7-10 in that second half against Russell. He also had Russell with five fouls (three in the second half), while he, himself, only had one. To Russell's credit, he did tip in the winning shot, when Chamberlain went out on the shooter (here again, Chamberlain had to guard EVERYBODY.) Furthermore, at that time, you could not double a player who did not have the ball, but, in the several instances in that second half, Boston would front him, with Russell behind him, BEFORE he received a pass. And, in several instances, they collapsed on Chamberlain once he did get a pass. I also found it interesting that when Russell picked up his 5th personal foul with about six minutes left, the Warriors only passed the ball into Wilt TWICE after that. In fact, they seemed to ignore him in much of that half.

And, also BTW, I have found a serious blunder on this link...

http://www.nba.com/history/finals/19691970.html


He stepped into the circle against Wilt for the tipoff but remained immobile during the jump. That changed once play began. Reed scored New York's first two baskets and played incredibly active defense.

Seventeen times the Lakers jammed the ball into Chamberlain in the post. Reed harassed him into shooting 2-for-9. Reed finished 2-for-5 with four fouls and three rebounds, but it was enough


I watched that entire game on YouTube, and LA went into Chamberlain some 25 times in that first half, and in the majority of them, Chamberlain was doubled or swarmed. On the rare occasions when Reed attempted to guard Wilt, one-on-one, he fouled him three times. Yes, Wilt missed TWO shots against single coverage, but overall, in that first half, Wilt shot 5-10, with 11 points (1-8 from the line), and 12 rebounds. The rest of his team shot 33%. Those numbers were confirmed during halftime, as well.

Anyway, I WISH we did have Russell and Wilt's FG% in that '64 series. Even without them, I am CONVINCED that Chamberlain badly outshot Russell.

[Fuhqueue]

So finally -- a guy kept asking was I nervous or was I scared. So finally I said, "Listen, there was no reason for me to be scared or nervous. I did not have to play against Bill Russell and the Celtics. What was there to be nervous or scared about?" You probably think I'm really modest, right? [/I]
:oldlol: Russell :bowdown:

[ThaRegul8r]

The Thurmond "gaffe" was once again, based on an EDUCATED assumption, albeit, incorrect.

No, it wasn't. It was based on confirmation bias. With all due respect, "educated" would be checking to make sure that Wilt and Thurmond indeed even played in the same game at the same time before citing it as evidence. It's not particularly difficult. If someone can know something about everything else, it's inexcusable to not know about that as well. It's sheer laziness as far as I'm concerned. Anytime I cite something that happened on the court between two players, you better believe I checked it first to make sure it was so before I start stating it as fact. If I didn't check the facts on one thing, then it can also be true that I didn't check the facts on other things. Credibility is something I take very seriously. Other people don't hold it in as high regard.

(BTW, there's a saying about "assumptions." I don't know if you're aware of it or not.)


Wilt scored 62 points on the Warriors in a game in the 65-66 season, and Nate missed seven games, out of 80 that year. Yes, a gaffe. And because of that, I have since claimed that Wilt may have only had one 60+ game against Bellamy, although, he had two against Bellamy's team in the 61-62 season. Bellamy missed ONE game that year, so there is a minute possibility that Wilt only had one 60+ point game against him, instead of two.

CHECK!!!! Is that so freaking hard to do?!? :facepalm Don't claim ANYTHING until you've CHECKED IT FIRST. It's infuriating to me how no one is ever willing to do any research for themselves on anything, but is quick to run with anything that might confirm what they think about something without any idea whether it's true or not. That's why for years I've posted research I've done, because few very people are willing to do any. Most people on the internet merely regurgitate misinformation that's been proliferated.

And I've always invited anyone to check to make sure everything I claim is true. I don't just expect people to take my word on it. I've done so ON THIS VERY BOARD before. So I find it patently absurd, that someone like me, who researches everything thoroughly to ensure that everything I say is true before publicly making a statement, tells people not to just take my word on something, but other people who DON'T take the time to do the research to simply fact check everything before making a statement, take offense when questioned as to what evidence a given statement is based on. Especially when they've been proven wrong before, or that it's been found that a claim they've made, when it boils down to it, wasn't based on any real evidence other than speculation from hearsay.

EDIT: In Chamberlain's 61-point game against Chicago 12/9/61, “Rookie Walt Bellamy, who found it impossible to guard the gigantic Chamberlain, had 39 points to lead the Packers” (AP). Bellamy also played in Chamberlain's 73-point game against Chicago 1/13/62, which broke Baylor's record for most points scored in an NBA game in regulation, but was less than his 78 scored in triple overtime.

This took less than 5 minutes to find out. Which is why I say it's inexcusable to not find out for one's self when it's easy to do. More information is available at the fingertips of the average joe or jane than at any point in human history. There is ZERO reason to "assume" anything, when ANYONE can find out the answer. Researching for one's self is educated. "Assuming" is not. I have no sympathy for those unwilling to do the former.

[jlauber]

BTW, Regul8r, I was wrong, my very first post was on 12/18/2009, and it was I that gave you the link to Russell and Wilt's 142 H2H games...

Adn I first mentioned the FIVE 50 point games on 12/19/2009

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153447&page=4


Here are some quick FACTS...

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

[jlauber]

This took less than 5 minutes to find out. Which is why I say it's inexcusable to not find out for one's self when it's easy to do. More information is available at the fingertips of the average joe or jane than at any point in human history. There is ZERO reason to "assume" anything, when ANYONE can find out the answer. Researching for one's self is educated. "Assuming" is not. I have no sympathy for those unwilling to do the former.


Then by all means, find Wilt's FG% against Russell in the '64 Finals. I will even give you more than five minutes.

[G.O.A.T]

To anyone who is still having conversations relating to Russell and statistics...

You haven't figured it out yet.

[ThaRegul8r]

This took less than 5 minutes to find out. Which is why I say it's inexcusable to not find out for one's self when it's easy to do. More information is available at the fingertips of the average joe or jane than at any point in human history. There is ZERO reason to "assume" anything, when ANYONE can find out the answer. Researching for one's self is educated. "Assuming" is not. I have no sympathy for those unwilling to do the former.

Then by all means, find Wilt's FG% against Russell in the '64 Finals. I will even give you more than five minutes.

LOL at the irony of after me going on about how people don't do any research, you want me to do research for you.

:oldlol:

LOL again at the nerve of you being condescending when YOU were in the wrong. In September, I told PHILA the very same thing I just told you about making sure to verify first before citing anything. His response?

[QUOTE=PHILA][QUOTE] This is why you VERIFY a statement before accepting it as truth. As a scientist, it's infuriating to see people cite things without even bothering to verify its authenticity. They just look for things to back their belief rather than searching for the TRUTH, whatever it may be.

So since these are three confirmed mistruths, why would anyone think he's a credible source when it comes to describing what happened? INVESTIGATE whether it's true or not, don't just accept what he

[jlauber]

LOL at the irony of after me going on about how people don't do any research, you want me to do research for you.

:oldlol:

LOL again at the nerve of you being condescending when YOU were in the wrong. In September, I told PHILA the very same thing I just told you about making sure to verify first before citing anything. His response?



You? You respond with excuses and rationalizations. I treat every instance in which someone states something that isn't true the same. So I don't know what makes you think you're any different if you should happen to fall on the wrong end of the truth.

I'm still waiting for your verification of me stating that Wilt had SEVEN 50+ point games against Russell...especially when it was I who gave YOU the Harvey Pollack link to ALL of their H2H games in the first place.

[ThaRegul8r]

I'm still waiting for your verification of me stating that Wilt had SEVEN 50+ point games against Russell...especially when it was I who gave YOU the Harvey Pollack link to ALL of their H2H games in the first place.

When did I say you said Wilt had seven 50 point games against Russell? I said you once included all Wilt's 50-point games against Boston in '61-62 as having come against Russell when Russell did not play in all those games just as you counted the 60-point game against the Warriors as being against Thurmond when Thurmond didn't even play in that game. I am looking for the post.

(Still refusing to admit it might perhaps be a good idea to check to make sure a player even played in a game before using it as proof of being dominated. :oldlol: )

[jlauber]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153447&page=4


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


The Regul8r,

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

Here it is...

http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Poll...0607_Stats.pdf

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

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

Here are some quick FACTS...

Russell and Wilt faced each other 142 times. Chamberlain outscored Russell in 132 of them. Russell scored 30+ points against Wilt three times, with a high of 37 points. However, in each of those games, Chamberlain outscored him. On the other hand, Wilt scored 40+ points against Russell, 24 times, and 50+ points FIVE times against Russell...including a HIGH of 62 points (on 27-45 shooting BTW.)
In terms of rebounding, Chamberlain outrebounded Russell 92-42, with 8 ties. Russell had ONE 40 rebound games against Wilt (exactly 40 BTW.) Meanwhile, Chamberlain had SEVEN 40+ games against Russell, including an NBA regular season record of 55...AND a post-season record of 41. Not only that, but Chamberlain held a staggering 23-4 edge in 35+ rebound games against Russell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

[Rose]

That's how he moved up so high on my list. My uncles and my high school teachers always tried to tell me how great he was, but I loved stats, knew all of them and wasn't buying it.

The more I read and the more I listen, the more obvious it becomes he's the greatest center of all-time if your goal is to win the game.

There have been others who had better ability and better seasons, but no one ever understood what it took to win and did it as consistently as Russell.
I used to be like there was only what 8 teams in the league at the time? So yeah while he was good and all that it was just 7 other teams, and he played with tons of HOFers. But then I got older and wiser, and read some basketball books and such. and my list really changed. Russell used to not even be in my top 10, but now he's comfortably inside it.

[ThaRegul8r]

And? Yes, I already had the complete scoring numbers from the '61-62 season, but I didn't have field-goal percentages to go with them. That was the only thing I got that I didn't have before, since the actual boxscores only show field goals made, not attempts. I had the complete averages from every regular and postseason meeting, but not all the individual games. All of this was attained through my own research (painstakingly going through the actual newspaper accounts, and NOT at home on my computer as researchers are able to now), which predated the archived data we have now which makes research MUCH easier now that it used to be back in the day.

And I never said this occurred on InsideHoops. You "assumed" that. I've posted the numbers for the '61-62 season here before (sans field-goal percentages), and that Wilt had two 50-point games against Boston in which Russell did not play on this very board, so you couldn't possibly have stated that on this message board, since I am a regular here, and my information on it would have been quoted by someone, as it was when juliazer, I believe it was, found an error in Pollack's stats regarding '61-62. You've posted other places than on this board. But, in the interest of fairness, until I can find out where it was, I will retract that instance until I can confirm specifically. The Thurmond instance still stands, since you admitted to it, and I actually found an instance you said it which came before you started posting on InsideHoops, though you've said it here as well.

What I should have done was use the instance you claimed Willis Reed was "100% healthy" in the 1970 NBA Finals, which I addressed again recently, since the post is readily available.


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

I explained this to you for the second time here, just a week ago:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4992170&postcount=119

(Still doesn't change the fact that Reed continues to be overrated for that series, or that change the fact that he did NOT deserve Finals MVP, but I'm only interested in facts being stated about what happened.)

You've stated this before:

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]And? Yes, I already had the complete scoring numbers from the '61-62 season, but I didn't have field-goal percentages to go with them. That was the only thing I got that I didn't have before, since the actual boxscores only show field goals made, not attempts. I had the complete averages from every regular and postseason meeting, but not all the individual games. All of this was attained through my own research (painstakingly going through the actual newspaper accounts, and NOT at home on my computer as researchers are able to now), which predated the archived data we have now which makes research MUCH easier now that it used to be back in the day.

And I never said this occurred on InsideHoops. You "assumed" that. I've posted the numbers for the '61-62 season here before (sans field-goal percentages), and that Wilt had two 50-point games against Boston in which Russell did not play on this very board, so you couldn't possibly have stated that on this message board, since I am a regular here, and my information on it would have been quoted by someone, as it was when juliazer, I believe it was, found an error in Pollack's stats regarding '61-62. You've posted other places than on this board. But, in the interest of fairness, until I can find out where it was, I will retract that instance until I can confirm specifically. The Thurmond instance still stands, since you admitted to it, and I actually found an instance you said it which came before you started posting on InsideHoops, though you've said it here as well.

What I should have done was use the instance you claimed Willis Reed was "100% healthy" in the 1970 NBA Finals, which I addressed again recently, since the post is readily available.



I explained this to you for the second time here, just a week ago:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4992170&postcount=119

(Still doesn't change the fact that Reed continues to be overrated for that series, or that change the fact that he did NOT deserve Finals MVP, but I'm only interested in facts being stated about what happened.)

You've stated this before:

[hon]

Morgan Freeman in a Bill Russell biopic...directed by Clint Eastwood

http://blog.veryfinebooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bill-russell.jpg

http://www.kurvmag.com.au/site/images/stories/arts/kurv%20magazine%20image%20net%20clint%20eastwood%2 0morgan%20freeman%202010_palm_spr.jpg

[jlauber]

It isn't difficult to come up with other instances in which you state something about a player which you don't check first, which turns out to be not actually true. You have a pattern of doing this.

Let's see here...I have made nearly 4000 posts here. And in many of them I give TONS of links, stats, and quotes...and I have a "pattern" of some kind of deceit?

You have found an example with Thurmond, in which PHILA caught my error immediately, and for which I admitted my mistake (albeit, it was a game in which Wilt played the Warriors, in a season in which Nate played 73 games...and not some completely made up stat line.) You have found one of my quotes in which I said that Reed was 100% healthy (when OBVIOUSLY at playoff time, EVERYONE has their share of nicks and bruises), and in at a point in which he was certainly in MUCH better shape than Chamberlain, who was just four months removed from major knee surgery (and BTW, Cherry stated that Reed was about the worst possible matchup for Chamberlain in that series, because of his pop-up shooting from up to 15 ft.) And you questioned my take on the fact that Russell seldom came out of games against Wilt. I gave you two WELL-KNOWN examples, AND, I also pointed out that Russell's mpg, in BOTH the regular season and post-season, were not much less than Wilt's (Wilt had a 45.2 to 42.3 edge in the regular season...and once again, Russell had one season, in 67-68, in which he only played 37.9...and Chamberlain had a 47.2 to 45.4 mpg post-season edge.) You said that it was a "statistically significant difference." Hmmm...Wilt is the all-time leader in MPG, and ...Russell is SECOND!

You also accused me of somehow attempting to make Wilt's scoring against Russell in the 61-62 season, as MORE impressive than the actual 39.7 ppg that it was, by adding the two games that Wilt scored 50+ against Boston, in which Russell missed. Even though I gave you the links in which I showed you that Wilt had FIVE games of 50+ against Russell in his CAREER...and furthermore, I gave you the link which Pollack had everyone of their 142 H2H games. Why would I be trying to "embellish" Wilt's scoring against Russell, by "lying" about his 50+ point games, and then giving you the link which clearly shows them all?

You also questioned me on Wilt's FG% against Russell in the '64 Finals, when I stated early on that IF another poster's numbers were right, that Wilt would have shot .590 in that series. Of course, since you have already stated that you can find anything on the internet in five minutes, I am still waiting for you to give me their EXACT FG%. In any case, I will stand by my statement that Wilt probably outshot Russell by a HUGE margin in that series.

You also questioned my post in which I claimed that Wilt had an entire season, (well almost...it did not include their 11th game), in which Wilt outshot Russell by a .465 to .398 margin in their H2H games. I gave it to you, and you never responded back.

In any case, I will CONTINUE to post here...and you can feel free to jump in whenever you think that I have somehow distorted the facts. Once again, my posts generally contain VOLUMES of EVIDENCE supporting MY claims. In fact, I seldom use "quotes from peers" because they seldom PROVE a thing. For instance, if Auerbach honestly believed that Russell was a better player, so what? (BTW, I always take Auerbach's "opinions" on the Russell-Wilt battles as a little more than him merely backing up his own player. He wanted Chamberlain badly while he was still in HIGH SCHOOL, and Chamberlain basically ignored him.

And the same goes for so many other players at the time, many of whom were EMBARRASSED by Chamberlain's utter domination of them. Instead, I would prefer to see some actual PROOF that Russell was a better player...and PLEASE, don't give me this W-L crap. It is a TEAM game, and as such, the better TEAM generally wins. I will give Russell his due, he did what he had to do...but he was never asked to do as much as Wilt.

[ThaRegul8r]

When talking about the '61-62 season before, you've included the back-to-back 50-point games Chamberlain had against the Celtics in which Russell didn't even play due to injury. FACT.


I have ALWAYS stated that Wilt scored 50+ points against Russell in FIVE games, including one in the post-season, which, last time I checked, IS correct.

Here is my VERY FIRST post on ISH...

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



I'm still waiting for your verification of me stating that Wilt had SEVEN 50+ point games against Russell...especially when it was I who gave YOU the Harvey Pollack link to ALL of their H2H games in the first place.

When did I say you said Wilt had seven 50 point games against Russell? I said you once included all Wilt's 50-point games against Boston in '61-62 as having come against Russell when Russell did not play in all those games just as you counted the 60-point game against the Warriors as being against Thurmond when Thurmond didn't even play in that game. I am looking for the post.


I never said this occurred on InsideHoops. You "assumed" that. I've posted the numbers for the '61-62 season here before (sans field-goal percentages), and that Wilt had two 50-point games against Boston in which Russell did not play on this very board, so you couldn't possibly have stated that on this message board, since I am a regular here, and my information on it would have been quoted by someone, as it was when juliazer, I believe it was, found an error in Pollack's stats regarding '61-62. You've posted other places than on this board. But, in the interest of fairness, until I can find out where it was, I will retract that instance until I can confirm specifically.


Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg to Russell's 14.5, and Wilt also outrebounded Russell, an incredible 28.7 to 23.7. Wilt's offensive production, though, came down later in his career, and he had several 50+ games early against Russell (4 in the 61-62 season...including high of 62.) He also set the all time record of rebounds in a game, 55, against Russell (and also the playoff record of 41, against Russell, as well.) And as I have documented here several times, Wilt would completely outshoot Russell from the field, in terms of FG%.

- JLAUBER, MAY 10, 2006, 10:34 PM

THERE'S your verification. I NEVER publicly say anything I don

[observ]

Learn about statistics first before making an uninformed statement. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, don't comment, go educate yourself for your own edification. Chamberlain played statistically significantly (not sure if that's even a word) more minutes in the regular season than Russell. Russell's career high in minutes per game would only be 10th-best for Chamberlain. The funny thing is that if someone claimed that Jordan "wasn't far away" from Wilt as a scorer, you would talk about how Jordan didn't come close to Wilt's scoring output. Which would qualify as a "double standard" you talk so much about it.



Well, to be fair, something being statistically significant is not the same as it being large. It just means that it's probably not due to chance. It could still be a small or modest difference. You know that, of course; I just thought I'd toss that in for the sake of clarification.

[observ]

Imagine the confidence that would inspire in you. The guy who never loses shows up that focused and that confident, how could you lose?

Satch Sanders has a couple of my favorite quotes explaining Russell's mindset:

"He thought he was so good. And that we should win every single game he played in. How could we lose? He wouldn't let us."

"The reason Bill believed in us is he knew he had to or we wouldn't believe in ourselves. He understood that basketball was a five man game but more importantly how one player could impact the other nine. "

I suppose this is pretty key to one's understanding of basketball. If we view a basketball team as a mere collection of individuals, we see it very differently than if we view it as a single entity consisting of interdependent parts.

Russell characterized the Celtics' success by saying, "We won, because of comradeship, friendship and teamwork." Those sort of intangibles make sense if we believe a team is a fluid, interdependent community of sorts. Otherwise, that sort of talk sounds like nonsense.

[ThaRegul8r]

It isn't difficult to come up with other instances in which you state something about a player which you don't check first, which turns out to be not actually true. You have a pattern of doing this.

Let's see here...I have made nearly 4000 posts here. And in many of them I give TONS of links, stats, and quotes...and I have a "pattern" of some kind of deceit?

Interesting you use the word

[ThaRegul8r]

[B]JLAUBER

[ThaRegul8r]

[I]

[ThaRegul8r]

Four days ago, I posted a link to a post I

[sixerfan82]

I have a great idea guys, let's fight on the internet about things that happened over 40 years ago!

[G.O.A.T]

[I]In our league I promise you that any team can beat any other team on a given night. The difference a lot of the time is all psychological. We use every little trick, every pressure, every mental gimmick we can. And there are certain rules that I live by. We'll call them Russell's Laws.

Russell's First Law: You must make the other player do what you want him to do. How? You must start him thinking. If he is thinking instead of doing, he is yours. There is no time in basketball to think: "This has happened; this is what I must do next." In the amount of time it takes to think through that semicolon, it is already too late.

Russell's Second Law: You got to have the killer instinct. If you do not have it, forget about basketball and go into social psychology or something. If you sometimes wonder if you've got it, you ain't got it. No pussycats, please. The killer instinct, by my definition, is the ability to spot

[Harison]

^ Thats pure gold :applause:

[G.O.A.T]

bump (two posts up)

[Fatal9]

jlauber....mind responding to regul8r here or...?

[jlauber]

jlauber....mind responding to regul8r here or...?

Why should I? Those posts were made in 2005 and I suspect that much of the info was gleaned from other sources. Of course, the vast majority of the "mistakes" were MINUTE. Ok, so Wilt "only" had FIVE 50+ point games against Russell, instead of SEVEN (which I have NEVER posted here.) Ok, so Kareem shot .457 against Wilt in the '72 WCF's, instead of 40% (of course, we do KNOW that Kareem shot .414 over the course of the last FOUR games of that series, too.)

AND, aside from the Thurmond miscue, FIND my mistakes on THIS FORUM, and in the last year-and-a half (when I joined it.)

And, as I have said all along, only a complete CLOWN would rank Wilt at #10 on any all-time list. Talk about losing credibility.

[che guevara]

:oldlol: Wow. Props to regular for that, must have taken a long time.

[Fatal9]

But wait, you've been watching basketball for 40 years, what made you go from bashing Wilt's contemporaries to praising them (did your agenda shift?).

Now all of a sudden Russell is GOAT, even though you describe him as "Ben Wallace but a better passer", just a few days ago you mentioned how West/Oscar would be superstars in this league but here we have you saying there is no way West would even be an all-star. Here we have you rambling on and on about how Wilt's '62 season actually wasn't that impressive because he faced undersized centers who couldn't consider dealing with him, but now you write pages saying the opposite. Back then defense wasn't apparently that great, but when people take shots at Wilt? It's suddenly the best defensive era in the league due to shooting percentages (I guess the 50s were even better defensively then). It's not like you didn't know any better, you claim to have been watching basketball since the 60s. Either you haven't been watching as long as you claim (doing a complete 180 on half your opinions in a matter of months) or something in your agenda changed (maybe feeling a bit insecure that people don't respect Wilt, because they don't respect his contemporaries?).

It all shows a pattern to misrepresent facts over time and the fact you mislead people through selective stats (the more ignorant the other person, the better for you). Numerous other posters have said the same thing to you.

But...eeh...continue copy and pasting your crap...

[jlauber]

Posted by Fatal9 less than a year ago...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=165643

Now, you have Wilt at 10TH????

How about this quote...


Russell pulled a ***** move imo. I think it was right after the game ended when he made those comments so he didn't know what was going on. He just assumed Wilt quit, when he didn't. You have to be delusional to think Wilt would sit out in a game 7 vs. Russell. It's well documented that he wanted to go back in but the idiot coach had a feud with him. Russell also seems to take every chance he can get to place himself over Wilt. He seems a bit insecure about his legacy, because he's always had to hear "Wilt would win those rings on the Celtics too". You can see it in interviews, he gets almost defensive and sometimes goes out of his way to prove his worth to those teams.

I won't take the time to find your quote about Wilt FAKING that injury just a few months ago, but perhaps later.

Or this quote...


He had to have Magic over Bird or him valuing rings, heads up matches etc etc would throw his whole book out the window. Dude had one thing in mind when he sat down to write the book, prop up Russell over Wilt, by finding every quote, every story that supports his point. In something as opinion based as sports, you can find that type of stuff to make just about any point. He was flat out lying in some of his "facts" (like Wilt never won anything before NBA). Kept using arbitrary stats from selected games to make his point while ignoring Wilt's side of the argument. Tried to pretend like Russell didn't have the supporting cast edge in most of the matchups (navigated around this by using Wilt's teammates when he got old...who he barely played any matchups against Russell with). Used very selective quotes all throughout the chapter. No one with any sort of knowledge is falling for shitty arguments like that.

Simmons already did get ripped apart on ISH. There was a detailed thread a while ago exposing his huge bias and misinformation on the Wilt/Russell topic.

Or this one...and it is interesting that a while back YOU posted the SAME recaps and RIPPED Wilt for it...


He mentions every great performance by Russell in big games and ignores Wilt's great performances completely. Only in a little blurb above does he mention like two Wilt games, as if they were some sort of an anomaly. You could say Wilt's individual performances in big games are even more impressive, especially considering how much more he was expected to do than Russell. I put Wilt's performance in EVERY elimination game he played...but why doesn't Simmons if he is trying to be fair?

at completely ignoring Wilt's rebounding and assist numbers in these games. at him presenting it like Russell held Wilt down himself, when the KEY for Wilt's lower point totals vs. Celtics was ball-denial (reason for lower shot attempts vs. them). Watching even 10 minutes should make anyone realize this. Notice he doesn't even mention Wilt's statline in the 1965 G7 . If you scroll lower you will see him fail to mention Wilt outrebounded Russell again in '68 series. Are people actually trying to present this dude's opinion as legitimate when he is selectively ignoring anything pro-Wilt?

Or this...


Bill Simmons:

"No one has any clutch stories on Chamberlain. If they existed, I'd pass them along."

Yea sure you would

I guess 45/27 to save team from elimination, multiple 30/30 games in same situation, 57/35, 39/26/12, 30/27/11 and all these other performances in do or die games never happened. Either he is ignorant or has an agenda. It's probably both.

NOW, do you want me to WASTE my time and go thru every thread here to point out post-after-post spewing "anti-Wilt" crap here in the last six months, and in USING the OPPOSITE arguments???

[ShaqAttack3234]

not to diminish guys like Russell and West, two great defenders...but defense back then was nowhere near as good as it is today.

JLauber, I've said this to you before. I find it strange that someone who supposedly watched 60's basketball would change their mind 40+ years later. What footage came out since then that could have convinced you to change your mind?

[Fatal9]

NOW, do you want me to WASTE my time and go thru every thread here to point out post-after-post spewing "anti-Wilt" crap here in the last six months, and in USING the OPPOSITE arguments???
That's the exact point I am making. I didn't even research Wilt's career up to that point (and I damn sure don't claim to be alive in the 60s unlike you). It was only after I did a year by year look at his career that I discovered how overrated he was. So me changing my opinion after actually learning about his career is bad...how? It shows how I had no reason to be "anti-Wilt" (lol I couldn't care less), as I started out a fan. I'm not the one who claims to have watched all the 60s, say those stars couldn't play today, and then shift around my stance because Wilty is getting criticized.

This would be like me twenty years from now telling kids one thing about this era, and then saying something completely opposite just because it helps my agenda (and then using selecting stats, and completely misrepresenting facts on top of that).

[jlauber]

JLauber, I've said this to you before. I find it strange that someone who supposedly watched 60's basketball would change their mind 40+ years later. What footage came out since then that could have convinced you to change your mind?

Many of my opinions have changed in the last five years...even some here. BUT, I have been pretty damn consistent with the vast majority of them HERE, and in the last year or so.

I have CONSISTENTLY praised the players of the 60's here...in ALL major sports.

And, while I have changed my rankings here, they have also been very consistent. I have always had Shaq and Kareem in my top-6. Yet, I see you ranking players like Bird and Hakeem over both Wilt and Russell, and based on NOTHING. There is simply no shred of evidence that could be generated to possibly rank them over either.

Once again, you find something I have posted HERE, and I will be more than glad to discuss it with you.

I bet most everyone here has changed their minds in the last SIX YEARS. My god, Fatal9 went off the deep end about 6-7 MONTHS ago.

[jlauber]

BTW, I find it fascinating that someone would take the time to find quotes from me on another forum that were posted SIX years ago. I amost take it as a compliment that someone would go to that trouble. I didn't know that I was that important.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Many of my opinions have changed in the last five years...even some here. BUT, I have been pretty damn consistent with the vast majority of them HERE, and in the last year or so. I have CONSISTENTLY praised the players of the 60's here...in ALL major sports.

But what doesn't make sense to me is if you saw them and that's why you think they're great(and some were great), then why would you be saying they weren't 5 years ago? Did you lose your memory of 60's sports 5 years ago and suddenly remember when you joined this board?

And you didn't answer my question about why you suddenly think defense was better then when you said it wasn't even close back then. What footage came out to change your mind about defense? You must've seen more 60's games than what's available now if you started watching in '64, so if your impression of defense in the 60's in 2005 was inferior based on watching 60's basketball back then, what came out since then that was more convincing than years of watching 60's basketball?


And, while I have changed my rankings here, they have also been very consistent. I have always had Shaq and Kareem in my top-6. Yet, I see you ranking players like Bird and Hakeem over both Wilt and Russell, and based on NOTHING. There is simply no shred of evidence that could be generated to possibly rank them over either.

I'm not even getting into this again with you.

[jlauber]

But what doesn't make sense to me is if you saw them and that's why you think they're great(and some were great), then why would you be saying they weren't 5 years ago? Did you lose your memory of 60's sports 5 years ago and suddenly remember when you joined this board?

And you didn't answer my question about why you suddenly think defense was better then when you said it wasn't even close back then. What footage came out to change your mind about defense? You must've seen more 60's games than what's available now if you started watching in '64, so if your impression of defense in the 60's in 2005 was inferior based on watching 60's basketball back then, what came out since then that was more convincing than years of watching 60's basketball?



I'm not even getting into this again with you.



Then why should I respond to you?

But yes, DEFENSE was much better. And BTW, MY reasoning changed because of one of the few decent posts that Fatal9 made...when he posted Kareem just torching Hakeem to death in the 85-86 season. A near 40 year old scoring 35, 42, and 46 points (and on 21-30 shooting) against Hakeem...and then burying Ewing with a 40 point game (while holding Patrick to 2-16 shooting.)

Meanwhile, as I already KNEW, Chamberlain, in the twi-light of HIS career, by ALL accounts (even the Milwaukee writers BTW) outplayed a statistically PRIME Kareem. And, before Wilt's knee injury, he battered Kareem in EVERY facet of the game. I have said it before, but it was really too bad that we didn't see a PRIME Chamberlain against Kareem at any point in his career. I have no doubt that Wilt would have not only outshot and outrebounded him (and by even greater margins), but easily outscored him, as well.

But, beyond that, Thurmond CONSISTENTLY held Kareem WAY down in BOTH scoring and shooting. Kareem struggled to get to 30 against him, and now, thanks to Alexreben, we know that Kareem was held to under 20 points nearly as often as he scored 30. Meanwhile, a PRIME Chamberlain, in his "scoring" prime, had games as high as 45 points against Thurmond (outscoring him 45-13.) AND, even later in his career, he was not only KILLING Thurmond on the glass, he was outshooting him by as much as 200 points (and Wilt ALWAYS shot over 50% against Thurmond, and ALWAYS held Nate to below 40% shooting.)

And, then I researched the numbers. Players that played in the early 60's thru the late 60's and into the 70's, shot considerably worse, almost player-for-player, in the early 60's, than they did in the late 60's. AND, that trend was pretty consistent from the late 60's into the 70's. BUT, even more remarkably, they EXPLODED in the 80's. And that is why it is SO IMPORTANT to take LEAGUE AVERAGE into account. Much like comparing dead ball pitching to the steroid-era pitching...comparing shooting percentages (and BTW, FT shooting has changed very little in the last 50 years or so) between eras is vitally important. Those that diminish Wilt's ppg because of pace, had better acknowledge that had he played in the defenseless 80's, his shooting percentages would have sky-rocketed. My god, Kareem is a great example. Especially when you factor in that he could absolutely BURY Hakeem H2H, as the OLDEST player in the league.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Then why should I respond to you?

But yes, DEFENSE was much better. And BTW, MY reasoning changed because of one of the few decent posts that Fatal9 made...when he posted Kareem just torching Hakeem to death in the 85-86 season. A near 40 year old scoring 35, 42, and 46 points (and on 21-30 shooting) against Hakeem...and then burying Ewing with a 40 point game (while holding Patrick to 2-16 shooting.)

Meanwhile, as I already KNEW, Chamberlain, in the twi-light of HIS career, by ALL accounts (even the Milwaukee writers BTW) outplayed a statistically PRIME Kareem. And, before Wilt's knee injury, he battered Kareem in EVERY facet of the game. I have said it before, but it was really too bad that we didn't see a PRIME Chamberlain against Kareem at any point in his career. I have no doubt that Wilt would have not only outshot and outrebounded him (and by even greater margins), but easily outscored him, as well.

But, beyond that, Thurmond CONSISTENTLY held Kareem WAY down in BOTH scoring and shooting. Kareem struggled to get to 30 against him, and now, thanks to Alexreben, we know that Kareem was held to under 20 points nearly as often as he scored 30. Meanwhile, a PRIME Chamberlain, in his "scoring" prime, had games as high as 45 points against Thurmond (outscoring him 45-13.) AND, even later in his career, he was not only KILLING Thurmond on the glass, he was outshooting him by as much as 200 points (and Wilt ALWAYS shot over 50% against Thurmond, and ALWAYS held Nate to below 40% shooting.)

And, then I researched the numbers. Players that played in the early 60's thru the late 60's and into the 70's, shot considerably worse, almost player-for-player, in the early 60's, than they did in the late 60's. AND, that trend was pretty consistent from the late 60's into the 70's. BUT, even more remarkably, they EXPLODED in the 80's. And that is why it is SO IMPORTANT to take LEAGUE AVERAGE into account. Much like comparing dead ball pitching to the steroid-era pitching...comparing shooting percentages (and BTW, FT shooting has changed very little in the last 50 years or so) between eras is vitally important. Those that diminish Wilt's ppg because of pace, had better acknowledge that had he played in the defenseless 80's, his shooting percentages would have sky-rocketed. My god, Kareem is a great example. Especially when you factor in that he could absolutely BURY Hakeem H2H, as the OLDEST player in the league.

:oldlol: How does what Kareem did in 1 game vs Patrick Ewing in his rookie year mean anything about overall defense?

Kareem didn't always go head to head with Hakeem either. Sampson faced Kareem a good amount as well. Of course, if you watched these games you'd also know that Hakeem was an undisciplined defender when he was younger.

Most importantly, you seem to think that defense is all 1 on 1, which couldn't be farther from the truth, team defense is more important.

And certain players have more success against others and it doesn't always prove who the best individual defender is, but also, how well they match up physically and how good their team's defensive schemes and personnel are.

As far as league averages? Fatal hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that 50's shooting percentages were lower than 60's. I'll only start in the shot clock era.

1955- 38.5 FG%
1956- 38.7 FG%
1957- 38 FG%
1958- 38.3 FG%
1959- 39.5 FG%
1960- 41 FG%
1961- 41.5 FG%
1962- 42.6 FG%
1963- 44.1 FG%
1964- 43.3 FG%
1965- 42.6 FG%
1966- 43.3 FG%
1967- 44.1 FG%
1968- 44.6 FG%
1969- 44.1 FG%

So I guess 50's defense>60's defense? And 50's defense>any era?

[G.O.A.T]

Well this is certainly what I hoped to read when I saw this thread had new posts...awesome

[jlauber]

:oldlol: How does what Kareem did in 1 game vs Patrick Ewing in his rookie year mean anything about overall defense?

Kareem didn't always go head to head with Hakeem either. Sampson faced Kareem a good amount as well. Of course, if you watched these games you'd also know that Hakeem was an undisciplined defender when he was younger.

Most importantly, you seem to think that defense is all 1 on 1, which couldn't be farther from the truth, team defense is more important.

And certain players have more success against others and it doesn't always prove who the best individual defender is, but also, how well they match up physically and how good their team's defensive schemes and personnel are.

As far as league averages? Fatal hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that 50's shooting percentages were lower than 60's. I'll only start in the shot clock era.

1955- 38.5 FG%
1956- 38.7 FG%
1957- 38 FG%
1958- 38.3 FG%
1959- 39.5 FG%
1960- 41 FG%
1961- 41.5 FG%
1962- 42.6 FG%
1963- 44.1 FG%
1964- 43.3 FG%
1965- 42.6 FG%
1966- 43.3 FG%
1967- 44.1 FG%
1968- 44.6 FG%
1969- 44.1 FG%

So I guess 50's defense>60's defense? And 50's defense>any era?

First of all, Kareem not only torched Hakeem (and even the recap mentioned that Hakeem was going for blocks, while Kareem was going around him for easy baskets)...in ONE game, he did it in THREE games...all as the oldest player in the league. Then, take a look a Kareem's numbers vs Hakeem and Ewing in his LAST three years in the league and in his 40's! He was basically battling them to statistical draws...and they were certainly far closer to their primes, than Kareem was to his.

I can't speak for defense in the 50's, ...I didn't see any of it. BUT, and YOU know this as well, since I have posted it NUMEROUS times. There was something more to the poor FG%'s of the early 60's than just defense. Some arenas had no heating, and were freezing cold in the winter. All of us have played in cold weather, and it has a HUGE affect on shooting. Some had BREEZES going thru them. Here again, all of us have played outside in windy conditions, and trying to estimate just how the ball will react to the wind is damn near an impossibility. Some had "dead spots" on the floors (and before someone asks how does that affect shooting...it certainly affects the shooter as he is getting ready to pick up his dribble and shoot.) And, as GOAT brought up...and this is HUGE...the BALL was NOT uniform until something like 1970. I remember playing in city leagues, and before each game they would bring out a rack of balls for the shoot-around. NONE of the balls were identical. Some were lighter, some were heavier, and some were LOPSIDED. And, you never knew which one that they would select for the actual game, either. On top of all of that, I remember attending games in which the smoke from cigarettes was so bad, that you could hardly see the floor by the 4th quarter.

As for defense, my god, as YOU know, it was NEVER Russell vs. Wilt. The Celtics SWARMED Chamberlain. So, no, Kareem, nor Hakeem, nor Shaq were the first to get doubled or tripled.

Look, I could go on-and-on. The longest HR hitter of all-time, and it is well documented, was 5-11 190 lb. Mickey Mantle. Perhaps the fastest pitcher of all-time was Nolan Ryan. The fastest LEGITIMATE NFL player of all-time was Bob Hayes, who played over 40 years ago. Jeez, Darrell Green was playing in the NFL in the early 80's. At age 50, he just ran a 4.43 40 yard dash, which would have blown away just about every college player at the NFL combine last year. The world record in the long jump is 29' 4". Bob Beamon jumped 29' 2" in 1968. Furthermore, give all of the athletes the same benefits of modern technology, and while we don't know just how much better they would be...we do know, that they would ALL be better. And, take all of the current athletes back into the 60's, and in their childhood, and raise them under the same conditions that the greats of that period were raised in, and while we don't know how much worse they would be, we do know that they would ALL be worse. Can you imagine what Shaq would have looked like on the diet, training, and medicine of that era? Hell, with his poor shooting skills he might have been no better than Darryl Dawkins.

I will be the first to agree that the AVERAGE athlete of today is better than those of yesteryear, BUT, they are not SIGNIFICANTLY better. AND, once again, give all of those athletes of the 60's, 70's, and 80's the same benefits, and the differences would be marginal. Take a look at baseball. If I told you that Babe Ruth would be great today, the vast majority of the "ESPN Generation" would run me off the forum. BUT, take a look at Ted Williams, who, like Kareem, was a "bridge." Williams was a rookie in 1939 (and before integration.) Now I won't look up the numbers, so yes, I might be off a few points or HRs or even a couple of years...but follow along. In his rookie year Williams hit .327 with 31 HRs. Jimmy Foxx played in William's rookie year, and batted .360 with 35 HRs. Just the year before, in 1938, Foxx hit 50 HRs. Just six years before that, Foxx hit 58 HRs...in a year in which a way over-the-hill Ruth hit 41. And just five years before that, and in his prime, Ruth slugged 60 HRs.

Ok, so what does that have to do with today's players...especially since it all occurred before integration? Well, two years later, in 1941, Williams hit .406 with 37 HRs (the last player to hit .400 BTW.) Now, fast forward to 1957, and in a league that had been integrated for over 10 years. Williams, at age 38, hit .388 with 38 HRs. In 1956, Mickey Mantle, and against almost the exact same pitchers, hit .353 with 52 HRs. And a year before that, Willie Mays hit 51 HRs. Ten years later, in 1965, Mays won the MVP with 52 HRs. BTW, in Williams '57 season, young Hank Aaron hit 44 HRs. 16 years later, in 1973, Aaron hit 40 HRs in only 392 ABs.

Now you get the point. Williams was facing many of the same pitchers that Ruth had faced in his career. And Mays, Aaron, and Mantle faced many of the same pitchers that Williams faced in their careers. And Aaron in the 70's faced many of the pitchers that Mike Schmidt was hitting 48 HRs off of in 1979. Or George Foster hit 52 against in 1976. You can follow that all the way to today.

Or, take Nolan Ryan, who pitched in FOUR decades. Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH (on a SLOW gun BTW) in 1974, in the eigth inning of a game in which he had thrown 162 pitches. In his LAST season, and at age 46, and on his very LAST pitch (and on an injured arm), he was clocked at 98 MPH...in the early 1990's! And, Ryan pitched alongside of Marichal and Gibson, who along with Koufax, dominated the 60's. They were BETTER than Ryan, in fact. And yet, Ryan was one of the best pitchers of his era.

So, that is why I believe that Ruth would be great today. Just as I believe that a healthy Sayers, or Jim Brown, or OJ (who would STILL be among the fastest backs, of THIS era) would be great today. And for those that believe that Chris Johnson is the fastest...take a look at his 100 meter time (without looking it up, I believe it was 10.5 or so), and have him run against Hershel Walker, OJ, the aforementioned Green (who ran a 10.08 BTW)....and Bob Hayes, who ran a 10.0 in 1964!

So, yes, Wilt, Oscar, West, Thurmond, Russell, Barry, Hawkins, Frazier, Lucas, Reed, Bellamy, Havlicek, and then later, Kareem, Lanier, Gilmore, Archibald, Hayes, Unseld, Maravich, McAdoo, Dr. J, Cowens, Gervin, Moses, David Thompson, and MANY others...would be GREAT today, too.

[jlauber]

Well this is certainly what I hoped to read when I saw this thread had new posts...awesome

Well, even though you and I don't always agree...I think we BOTH agree that Russell and Wilt were FAR better players than 9th and 10th all-time.

[ThaRegul8r]

BTW, I find it fascinating that someone would take the time to find quotes from me on another forum that were posted SIX years ago. I amost take it as a compliment that someone would go to that trouble. I didn't know that I was that important.

Since you wanna refer to me without mentioning my name, I will respond. I have not commented on this until now.

You were the one who questioned me:


I'm still waiting for your verification of me stating that Wilt had SEVEN 50+ point games against Russell

I gave you the verification you were waiting for. And you didn't even have the dignity to apologize or admit you were wrong. Which has already been noted.


I have ALWAYS stated that Wilt scored 50+ points against Russell in FIVE games

Lie. As I've proven.

You were the one who opened Pandora's box:


So, by all means, give me some other examples of my "over-zealous" statements.

You asked for it, so I gave it to you. As I said, the examples I provided should be more than enough to suffice. And they were by no means exhaustive. I gave you the reason why I have questioned certain statements you have made, because

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Since you wanna refer to me without mentioning my name, I will respond. I have not commented on this until now.

You were the one who questioned me:



I gave you the verification you were waiting for. And you didn't even have the dignity to apologize or admit you were wrong. Which has already been noted.



Lie. As I've proven.

You were the one who opened Pandora's box:



You asked for it, so I gave it to you. As I said, the examples I provided should be more than enough to suffice. And they were by no means exhaustive. I gave you the reason why I have questioned certain statements you have made, because

[Funnyfuka]

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes?

advertisement?

[ShaqAttack3234]

First of all, Kareem not only torched Hakeem (and even the recap mentioned that Hakeem was going for blocks, while Kareem was going around him for easy baskets)...in ONE game, he did it in THREE games...all as the oldest player in the league. Then, take a look a Kareem's numbers vs Hakeem and Ewing in his LAST three years in the league and in his 40's! He was basically battling them to statistical draws...and they were certainly far closer to their primes, than Kareem was to his.

Neither were particularly close to their primes. Kareem was still a hell of an offensive player in '86, he averaged over 23 ppg and 3.5 apg on 56% shooting and 26 ppg and 3.5 apg on 56% shooting in the playoffs. That's why he was still the number 1 scoring option on a 62 win team.

Plus, this has nothing to do with overall defense, just how a player matches up with another. And mid/late 80's defense was weaker than 90's/00's defense(particularly late 90's/early 00's).


I can't speak for defense in the 50's, ...I didn't see any of it. BUT, and YOU know this as well, since I have posted it NUMEROUS times. There was something more to the poor FG%'s of the early 60's than just defense.

Yeah, but if you saw the 60's and thought the era was much weaker defensively as recent as 5 years ago, then what changed your mine on defense at the time wasn't based on what you saw, therefor, your opinion on how good defense was at the time was no better than mine.

My point is that players becoming more skilled is a better explanation for the league's FG%, which would also explain why the 50's was so much lower than any other era.

[Disaprine]

:applause:

[PHILA]

My point is that players becoming more skilled is a better explanation for the league's FG%, which would also explain why the 50's was so much lower than any other era.The playing conditions as well.


'"How many layups do you think there were in the last Laker game? Forty-eight. People will tell you guys shoot better now. No doubt they shoot a little better, but not like you'd think from looking at the percentages. Mike Cooper is shooting 59 percent. You want to bet some money he'd outshoot Jerry West? I'll bet my house against him (Cooper) on Dolph Schayes. I'll take Larry Costello and give you any Laker with the exception of Wilkes.

Players just get to the basket (layups) more. It ups their percentage. There's no defense inside. When I played, if the other team ran a fast break two or three times, the coach would assign a forward to break back on defense as soon as the ball went up. I never see a coach doing that now. There were no uncontested layups.

My last two or three years I shot 69 to 73 percent. You think I was a better shooter? No, the defenses got worse and I was able to dunk every damn ball I wanted to. It was easier to get there. When I played against guys like Johnny Kerr . . . He was 6-10 and couldn't jump, but I'll tell you, you didn't get to the basket on him."'

-Wilt Chamberlain, 1982


"It's a run up and down the court and dunk the ball game now. These are speed merchants and jumping fools. That's why their shooting percentages are going way up. I led the league 11 times in field goal percentage and my lifetime average was 54%. There are now five billion guys shooting over 54%. Can you imagine playing when your hands are so cold and the ball is as hard as a brick? I can remember going to Detroit and playing the old Detroit Arena and there's about 3000 people in this big old huge thing. Every time they opened the door, the wind blows through. I can vividly remember Paul Arizin blowing into his hands and the smoke was blowing out of his nose. Guys were shooting 37%, and these were great shooters. People look at that any say, 'Is that a basketball player or was he on a blind team?' They don't know how to put that into perspective."

-Wilt Chamberlain, 1985




From The Big O: my life, my times, my game. (2003)

"While there's no shortage of charismatic young guys who can jump and dunk, nobody has captured the public's imagination the way Michael did. Nor are there any rivalries like Magic's Lakers against Bird's Celtics in the 1980s, or Michael's Bulls against Isiah Thomas's Bad Boys. Meanwhile, in its drive to accrue television money and ticket revenues, the league has abandoned free television in favor of cable deals. They've priced out most people from seeing a game - except corporate America.

In the last two years, professional basketball has seen two major trends: one, an influx of European player who coaches and commentators say are extremely well versed in the fundamentals and understand the game; two, the hyping of physically gifted high schoolers who eschew college for a chance at the pros.

Watch an NBA game tonight. You'll see players who can't make a reverse pivot. Can't make a crossover dribble. And the NBA's answer hasn't been additional coaching for these young guys. Rather it's been to welcone top-notch high schoolers with open arms and shoe contracts and their own commercials.

The best players get to sit on the bench for three years or so, and if they have the work ethic and commitment (like Kobe Bryant or Jermaine O'Neal), they'll work hard and begin to figure things out for themselves.

Maybe I am coming from a different mindset. The current NBA is a multi million dollar business. Teams travel in their own private planes, with luxury seats and individual DVD players set up for each team member. When I played, the job wasn't a routine one, but there was a routine to it. Every city was an adventure. The courts weren't like today's lacquered, standardized basketball courts. There were screws sticking up out of the old Cow Palace floor in San Francisco. Boston Garden's parquet was noted for, among other things, its dead spots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=9m45s). Celtics players used to lead you to them, and when you dribbled on a dead piece of wood, they'd be waiting; the ball would bounce low, or spring off to the side, and a Celtic would pounce.


We ushered in the modern era of basketball. You wouldn't have the game of basketball as we know it without us. We were cornerstones in building the game and the way it is played today. Today's player, whether he knows it or not, wouldn't be where he is without us.

We had Bill Russell & Wilt, the two most dominant players in the history of the game. Jerry West was the best clutch player I ever saw, the best shooter, and one of the best competitors. His biggest talent, perhaps, was emerging at the right moment to take advantage of a well-timed pick or pass. Jerry hated to lose so much that you could see it transform him. Jerry and I were friends, but our rivalry was intense.

People always ask who was better: Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or Michael Jordan? But they forget that those three never played against one another in matchups. Wilt Chamberlain played against Bill Russell. I guarded Jerry West. Our rivalry was especially entertaining, both to watch and to be a part of, because I played with such efficiency and calculated focus, while Jerry was a great shooter. Bob Ryan, the renowned basketball writer for the Boston Globe has said that I developed more skills than any other basketball player he ever saw, whereas Jerry may have had more desire.


I played against some of the greatest defenders in the history of the game - Russell, Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy - but still the scoring was a lot higher than it is today. Some so-called experts will tell you it's because of the coaches and athletes. I've seen basketball analysts say that the principles of help defense are more advanced now and take advantage of all the athleticism. I say that's bull. If Jerry West was on his game, you couldn't stop him. I don't care what defense you were in.

I don't want to sound like a dinosaur: "In my day we knew how to play, to dunk; we had to walk uphill both ways to get to the basketball court, and then when we dribbled, we the ball rolled down the hill." Dunking's been part of the game for a long time. Many players I knew when I used to play at the Dust Bowl could dunk a ball. Gus Johnson tore down rims more than 30 years ago. I could list guy after guy who was a great dunker. It never meant anything to me but two points. A lot of them never dunked because it embarrassed a defender, and he'd take it out on them the next play. I rarely dunked, but I did do it once in a while in practice, just to show people I could.

But it you can dunk a ball, you are now the greatest player in the world. Gone by the wayside is the ability to make a play or think about the game of basketball. Street lingo today translates "skills" as the ability to dribble the ball behind your back or off your knee. But knowing how to run a good fast break is a skill. So is busting your hump and getting out on the wing and filling the lane at the proper angle. Teams don't run the way we did anymore.

Knowing how to rub off a defender when you use a pick is a skill. Knowing how to feel a defender with your body and read the court to see where help is coming from is a skill. Knowing how to stay in control, pace yourself, and not use all your energy too early or give away all your tricks, that's a skill. Setting solid picks and knowing how to get yourself open from them; knowing how to hit a guy with a pass the exact moment he frees himself and how to get him the ball in a place and at a time that allows him to shoot in rhythm; getting position low on the post; boxing out; playing solid man to man defense while also knowing where the ball is - those are skills. Certain players in the game today have them - Jason Kidd and Tim Duncan are two, off the top of my head. But most younger players don't, not by a long shot.

Shaquille O'Neal is one of the greatest players of all time. He's big, strong, and fast. Shaq's go-to shot is a dunk. There's no doubt he would have gotten his share of dunks on Bill Russell. There were times he'd get position close to the basket, and there's nothing anyone could do about that. Bill was six ten, and had long enough arms where he might have been able to front Shaq. He may have been able to deny him the ball from the side. He was smart enough and competitive enough that he could have played against him. Bill could exploit anything, make you rely on the weakest parts of your game. Shaq doesn't have much of a jumper. He has a jump hook shot but doesn't have the full kind of hook that would be unstoppable. (Hell, his jump hook might be unstoppable if he used it more.)"





NBA teams didn't always have priority at the home venue if there was a scheduling conflict (regular season or playoffs). Imagine shooting a long distance high arc shot in such a building as below in 1967, where you can see a rookie Phil Jackson make a move against Chicago's Bob Boozer.

http://i55.tinypic.com/262tzi9.jpg

[cteach111]

i always stay away from any play comparison involving Bill Russell. The way he approaches the game and his mindset are very different from pretty much any other player that has played in the NBA.

I guess I just have trouble believing that someone could dominate a game on intangibles, defense, and mind games. Then again, he's got 11 championships, so what can I say?

He's one of the hardest to rank because I don't understand his impact.

[ThaRegul8r]

I won't apologize for something that I posted SIX years ago.

Of course you won’t. You’re too stubborn to do so, and your pride won’t let you.


As for YOU, I gave YOU the information on the Wilt-Russell matchups.

And I gave YOU a hell of a lot more information.

The efficiency you’ve cited of Adrian Dantley?

It came from me. (From MY original work, not someone else’s, I might add) Though if you’d been watching basketball then, you should have known about Dantley. None of that should have been new to you.

Article you’ve repeatedly quoted about Kareem’s matchup against Wilt and Thurmond in the ’72 playoffs?

Came from me. You hadn’t seen it until I posted it.

I’ve told you things from the era you’ve said you watched that you never knew, which again, I find odd if you were watching basketball when it happened.

I showed you statistical studies that have been done which you didn’t know existed until I showed them to you.

Please.


And I find it almost eeriethat someone would go to the trouble to find posts of mine from six years ago.

I can understand your chagrin considering the results. But the truth is impregnable and will withstand the strongest scrutiny. You can go back a HUNDRED years, and the truth will still be the truth. It’s only when you’re speaking from a position of UNtruth that you have to worry about what someone might find.

If you were on trial, and I presented evidence before the court that you are a habitual offender of the crime you’ve been charged of, it would be relevant. Diagnostic criteria for personality disorders is a pervasive pattern which can be traced back to early in life.

You challenged the wrong person. Sucks for you.


In any case, yes, SOME of my positions have changed in the last six years.

Some people have expressed curiosity as to why you would throw every single one of Wilt’s contemporaries under the bus, but then do a 180 and defend them. How’d THAT change? I haven’t seen anyone who’s done such a radical change. I’m reminded somewhat of a former poster here by the name of BULLS who claimed to allegedly have grown up in that era, but said it was WEAK. That was his shtick.

Judd Vance (Air Judden), renowned defender of Wilt, never in TWENTY PLUS YEARS bashed Wilt’s contemporaries and then did a 180. He’s been consistent. I know of other Wilt fans who have never done so. You’re the first I’ve seen. So the question is how’d your take come to be drastically different? (I’m still curious on PHILA’s opinion on this.)


“I know both you and I will get some flak from "old-timers" about how great some of them were . . . , but realistically, todays basketball players, although many lacking in fundamental skills, are far superior to the players of the 60's.”

I find those choice of words curious, because if one is an old timer one’s self, then why would one use that term to describe others, who would presumably be your peer group? This sounds like a younger person talking.


But, once again, when I post something, I usually back it up 10 fold.

Lie. I’ve thoroughly demonstrated that you’ve had a history of pulling things out of your behind without a shred of evidence to suit your agenda. Or misrepresenting the facts.


And I have challenged you and anyone else here to find my misquotes HERE.

Lie. I said you did the same thing to Russell than you did to Thurmond, crediting 50+ point games Wilt had against Russell’s TEAM in which Russell HIMSELF didn’t actually play as having been accomplished against Russell. You said you’d never done so. Perhaps you need to review the meaning of “never.”

Hell, you were misrepresenting the facts the VERY FIRST TIME you picked an argument with me on this forum:



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

Rodgers was a four-time All-Star who finished in the top two in assists for eight years straight from 1959-60 to 1966-67. (When I have the time, I'll look to see just how many point guards in league history have done that to put it in historical context.)


During Wilt Chamberlain's first three years in the NBA, two debates raged among basketball fans in Boston and Philadelphia. The loudest and most captivating debate involved the merits of the two centers warring in the pivot—Philadelphia's Wilt Chamberlain and Boston's Bill Russell. The other was a secondary debate: Who as the better playmaker, Philadelphia's Guy Rodgers or Boston's Bob Cousy?


With Guy feeding him for 30 shots a game, [Chamberlain] led the league with 37.6 scoring average—the best in pro history. Wilt also led the NBA with 27 rebounds a game. On occasion, Guy would toss up a shot purposely short of the rim and Chamberlain would guide it into the basket with one hand. This was an early version of the alley-oop, which the two later perfected in San Francisco.


Over the years, Guy’s exclusion from the Hall of Fame puzzled many of the players who made it to Springfield. He tried to be philosophical about it, speculating that for some reason the “powers that be” didn’t want him enshrined. Years later, his old nemesis, Cousy, was shocked when he was told that Guy was not in the Hall of Fame. To Cousy, it was a no-brainer.

One of Guy’s biggest proponents, Chamberlain, openly questioned the Hall of Fame’s inaction, pointing out that, in his opinion, Guy was as a ballhandler and passer “better than Cousy or Jerry West or Robertson or Walt Frazier or Pete Maravich or anyone.”

Wilt Chamberlain: "He was as good a ballhandler and passer as anyone, and that includes Bob Cousy."

Pat Williams: "Wilt Rodgers and Wilt, you had the ultimate passer and the ultimate scorer. Guy was about 6-foot-1 and built like Kevin Johnson. He was an imaginative passer in the middle of the fast break with a flair for the dramatic—some of his passes took your breath away."

Tom Meschery: "On the fast break and getting the ball to Wilt, no one was any better."

I’m not the only person who’s pointed this out to you.

(cont.)

[ThaRegul8r]

And then there was this:


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


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


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


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


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


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

And you’re on record as saying this:


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

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

Continuing your pattern of misrepresenting the facts which I have documented. And you’ll note that I referenced your history THE VERY FIRST TIME I ENCOUNTERED YOU on this board. I let you know up front that I knew what was going on. You had to begrudgingly acknowledge the level of basketball knowledge I had. And yet you would pull THE SAME FREAKING THING later, which was AFTER I’d already corrected you:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4992170&postcount=119

You’re on record as saying it in 2008, repeated it again in 2009 once you got to InsideHoops and said it AGAIN in 2010 even AFTER being told it wasn’t true. Because you don’t let the truth get in the way of your agenda. As I demonstrated when I documented your pattern.


I am sure I have made some minor errors

“Minor.” LOL. If you verified what you were going to say before you say it, you wouldn’t have made ANY errors. But you’ve made a hell of a lot of them. Only, there usually weren’t any knowledgeable people to correct you.

Until you came here.


but in between I have supported my opinions with VOLUMES of evidence.

I destroyed this assertion the first time you made it. Stop embarrassing yourself.


BTW, I still haven't read your FG% numbers from the '64 Finals. I suspect that either you can't find them, or they will confirm what I already have an educated estimate at...that Wilt probably outshot Russell by some 200 points. In any case, you told me that you could find anything in five minutes.

Lie. You’re providing fresh instances of misrepresentation of the facts, proving my point and the relevance of everything I posted, since you continue to do it. And it’s a slap in my face to lie RIGHT TO ME about what _I_ said.

And LOL again and wanting other people to do your research for you right after claiming to support your claims with “VOLUMES” of evidence. (And again trying to turn things around.) FYI, people PAY ME to do research for them and provide them with information they want. As a matter of fact, I just collected my fee today from a client for my services.

[jlauber]

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





Reeds' supposed injuries were never mentioned. Good enough for me. Of course, I could have brought up the fact that Wilt had been suffering from lingering arthritis in BOTH knees, as mentioned by Cherry in page 243. Or that the writers who covered the series noted that Wilt had lost his quickness and spring in that series. Do you want to COMPARE Reed's injuries, which were never publicized, EXCEPT his sprained hip muscle, which ran to his knee, in that series to a player who MIRACULOUSLY came back from major knee surgery just a few months before. Of course, when Wilt played with MULTIPLE leg injuries in '68 he was ripped for his poor play in game six (shin splints, arthritis, injured feet.) In any case, I suppose 100% healthy would NEVER be accurate with athletes, but Reed was in considerably better shape than Chamberlain. Not only that, but Reed's performance on one leg was far worse than Wilt's performance on one leg.

As for Guy Rodgers...arguably the WORST shooter in NBA history. How bad was he? He shot 99 points less than the league average in the 67-68 season...in a league that shot .446. Rodgers was CONSISTENTLY well below the league average. And for those that value PER, in the year that Wilt suffered a losing season with a cast of clowns (62-63) Rodgers had one of the lowest PERs of ANY guard in the league. Had he NEVER shot the ball, I would have said he was decent, but alas, he not only shot, he shot far too often.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
BTW, I still haven't read your FG% numbers from the '64 Finals. I suspect that either you can't find them, or they will confirm what I already have an educated estimate at...that Wilt probably outshot Russell by some 200 points. In any case, you told me that you could find anything in five minutes.


Lie. You’re providing fresh instances of misrepresentation of the facts, proving my point and the relevance of everything I posted, since you continue to do it. And it’s a slap in my face to lie RIGHT TO ME about what _I_ said.

And LOL again and wanting other people to do your research for you right after claiming to support your claims with “VOLUMES” of evidence. (And again trying to turn things around.) FYI, people PAY ME to do research for them and provide them with information they want. As a matter of fact, I just collected my fee today from a client for my services.

Interesting...


Originally Posted by jlauber
Quote:
This took less than 5 minutes to find out. Which is why I say it's inexcusable to not find out for one's self when it's easy to do. More information is available at the fingertips of the average joe or jane than at any point in human history. There is ZERO reason to "assume" anything, when ANYONE can find out the answer. Researching for one's self is educated. "Assuming" is not. I have no sympathy for those unwilling to do the former.


Then by all means, find Wilt's FG% against Russell in the '64 Finals. I will even give you more than five minutes.




Of course you didn't. Not because you don't have the time (my god, you have the time to look up posts that were written six years ago), but because you CAN'T find them. However, I do hope you prove me wrong, because I am convinced that it will PROVE that Wilt outshot Russell by some 200 points in those Finals.

[jlauber]

Neither were particularly close to their primes. Kareem was still a hell of an offensive player in '86, he averaged over 23 ppg and 3.5 apg on 56% shooting and 26 ppg and 3.5 apg on 56% shooting in the playoffs. That's why he was still the number 1 scoring option on a 62 win team.

Plus, this has nothing to do with overall defense, just how a player matches up with another. And mid/late 80's defense was weaker than 90's/00's defense(particularly late 90's/early 00's).



Yeah, but if you saw the 60's and thought the era was much weaker defensively as recent as 5 years ago, then what changed your mine on defense at the time wasn't based on what you saw, therefor, your opinion on how good defense was at the time was no better than mine.

My point is that players becoming more skilled is a better explanation for the league's FG%, which would also explain why the 50's was so much lower than any other era.

I stated that Kareem, from '87 to '89, and in his 40's, battled Hakeem and Ewing to a draw in their H2H games. Once again, in those years, Hakeem and Ewing were far closer to their primes, than what Kareem was to his.

Furthermore, Hakeem in his 85-86 season, averaged 23.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, and shot .526. Not his prime season, but not that far from his best seasons in the mid-90's. How about Kareem in '86? 23.4 ppg was not only way below his peak seasons (as high as 34.8 ppg...in a year in which BOTH Wilt and Thurmond outplayed him in the post-season)...but he averaged a measley 6.1 rpg (WAY below his high seasons of 16-17 rpg.) He was nowhere near his physical prime in '86.

And I gave you the reasons why defense was better in the 60's...just ask Kareem, who struggled against both Thurmond and Wilt, AND, he NEVER faced Russell, either. Yet, at nearly 40 years of age, he was abusing Hakeem and Ewing.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I stated that Kareem, from '87 to '89, and in his 40's, battled Hakeem and Ewing to a draw in their H2H games. Once again, in those years, Hakeem and Ewing were far closer to their primes, than what Kareem was to his.

Furthermore, Hakeem in his 85-86 season, averaged 23.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, and shot .526. Not his prime season, but not that far from his best seasons in the mid-90's. How about Kareem in '86? 23.4 ppg was not only way below his peak seasons (as high as 34.8 ppg...in a year in which BOTH Wilt and Thurmond outplayed him in the post-season)...but he averaged a measley 6.1 rpg (WAY below his high seasons of 16-17 rpg.) He was nowhere near his physical prime in '86.

And I gave you the reasons why defense was better in the 60's...just ask Kareem, who struggled against both Thurmond and Wilt, AND, he NEVER faced Russell, either. Yet, at nearly 40 years of age, he was abusing Hakeem and Ewing.

Yao Ming played better against Dwight Howard than Tim Duncan did, I guess Yao>Duncan defensively by your logic?

An old Arvydas Sabonis guarded Shaq better than Alonzo Mourning(or pretty much any great center did), I guess he was the best defensive center of his era?

Do you not get the point I'm making?

I did not see the Kareem vs Hakeem regular season games in question, so I can't comment on them until I see them and see how much each of them were matched up with each other, nor have I seen the Kareem vs Ewing game.

And Hakeem wasn't nearly as good of an overall player in the mid 80's as he was from '93-'95, regardless of numbers.

Also, I've been wondering something, you've argued with me whenever I've said that Russell outplayed Wilt in a series, and state that Wilt always outplayed Russell, and that their teammates were the difference. If that's the case, then how could you rank Russell ahead of Wilt?

[jlauber]

Yao Ming played better against Dwight Howard than Tim Duncan did, I guess Yao>Duncan defensively by your logic?

An old Arvydas Sabonis guarded Shaq better than Alonzo Mourning(or pretty much any great center did), I guess he was the best defensive center of his era?

Do you not get the point I'm making?

I did not see the Kareem vs Hakeem regular season games in question, so I can't comment on them until I see them and see how much each of them were matched up with each other, nor have I seen the Kareem vs Ewing game.

And Hakeem wasn't nearly as good of an overall player in the mid 80's as he was from '93-'95, regardless of numbers.

Also, I've been wondering something, you've argued with me whenever I've said that Russell outplayed Wilt in a series, and state that Wilt always outplayed Russell, and that their teammates were the difference. If that's the case, then how could you rank Russell ahead of Wilt?

INDIVIDUALLY, it was no contest. Having said that though, and I have mentioned this many times before, Russell's TEAMMATES almost always outplayed Wilt's...even with comparable rosters. Russell deserves much of the credit, and Wilt probably deserves at least some of the blame.

In terms of TEAM success, IMHO, Russell, Magic, and Duncan were the greatest "winners" in NBA history. Especially Russell. Had he not been injured in the 57-58 Finals, he probably would have won 12 titles in his 13 year career. Using TEAM success as a measuring stick, what more could he have done (other than go 13-13 I guess)?

I do have MJ right with him, because, IMHO, he was the greatest "winner" among the greatest INDIVDUAL players. That group includes Kareem, and Shaq. But, why is Wilt at #4? Because, as I have posted many times, he nearly won FIVE more titles. True, Kareem can probably claim '74 and '84, but my problem with him, and I know that you will disagree, is that IMHO, it was Magic who led the Lakers of the 80's. Kareem could only win one title in the decade of the 70's, and while I agree that it was certainly not his fault in several of those seasons...the same argument could DEFINITELY be used for Wilt. Once again, though, Wilt lost four game seven's, to the greatest Dynasty in NBA history, by a combined NINE points. Factor in that he and the Lakers were robbed in game five of the '70 Finals by the officials, and Wilt could EASILY have had SEVEN rings. And, with Wilt having seven, Russell would have dropped to seven, as well. And let's be honest here...IF Russell and Wilt were tied with seven rings (which would be the most by any player), who do you think would be ranked as the GOAT?

I could even carry Wilt's argument further, with his '71 season (injuries to West AND Baylor in '71, both of whom missed the entire post-season), and his '73 season (when West was playing with injured knees, and Hairston was just coming back from missing nearly the entire season...in addition to losing four close games...all in the last minute.) But, using those arguments, I'm sure you could come up with excuses for other players as well. But, in those other five seasons, we are talking about RAZOR-THIN margins (and with several excuses like injuries, crappy rosters, poor play by his teammates, bad officiating, and incompetent coaching.)

Shaq has four rings, with three as the main dawg, but even in those three, Kobe was instrumental in at least a couple (and as we have seen in the last several years, Kobe, himself, is probably a top-10 player.) And not only did Shaq suffer some embarrassing playoff sweeps, I just can't compare his competition to Wilt's, particularly in 2000. Now I know that you can, and probably will argue these points, which is fine, but IMHO, his career, in 18+ seasons, is just not as impressive as Wilt's.

So, my top-10 has Russell/MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq/Duncan (with a slight edge perhaps, to Shaq)...and then comes the next tier of Kobe/Hakeem/Bird (all interchangeable.)

Of course, in terms of absolute INDIVIDUAL domination, I just don't see ANY player within a country mile of Chamberlain. My god, he was not only winning scoring titles, rebounding titles, and FG% titles, he was winning them by HUGE margins...and in some seasons, he was winning all three. AND, the NBA legislated Rules aimed directly at him, because they were afraid he was going to make a mockery of the game.

[G.O.A.T]

why argue with jlauber, regulator and Shaq...he only has one agenda and despite all the knowledge he's acquired, it still seems like he is a bit of a liar, or at best delusional.

The guy disappeared for months after Reg embarrassed him, then came back on a rep gaining (through IM promises) mission...that tell's you a lot.

Those old posts tell me all I need to know. Either he watched that era and came to the conclusion that Russell sucked, which makes him an idiot, or he lied from the start about his age etc, which also makes him an idiot.

[ShaqAttack3234]

INDIVIDUALLY, it was no contest. Having said that though, and I have mentioned this many times before, Russell's TEAMMATES almost always outplayed Wilt's...even with comparable rosters. Russell deserves much of the credit, and Wilt probably deserves at least some of the blame.

When I say who outplayed the other, I don't mean who put up the better individual numbers, I mean who played the best all around basketball which includes intangibles such as clutch play, letting your teammates shine and making them better, in other words, contributing the most to your team winning.

Who do you believe did that more in those match ups? Russell or Wilt?

I guess to simplify it, what do you think would be the result if you have them identical rosters for their entire careers?


why argue with jlauber, regulator and Shaq...he only has one agenda and despite all the knowledge he's acquired, it still seems like he is a bit of a liar, or at best delusional.

I'm just trying to understand why he argues with me whenever I say Russell outplayed Wilt in a certain series if he ranks Wilt over Russell?

[G.O.A.T]

When I say who outplayed the other, I don't mean who put up the better individual numbers, I mean who played the best all around basketball which includes intangibles such as clutch play, letting your teammates shine and making them better, in other words, contributing the most to your team winning.

Who do you believe did that more in those match ups? Russell or Wilt?

I guess to simplify it, what do you think would be the result if you have them identical rosters for their entire careers?



I'm just trying to understand why he argues with me whenever I say Russell outplayed Wilt in a certain series if he ranks Wilt over Russell?

U mean Russell over Wilt, he did that to garner my, and other posters here, respect, he still wants to argue Wilt over Russell and more specifically anyone else.

Russell is the only one who Wilt does not have a case against amongst the big four...that's his motivation.

[jlauber]

why argue with jlauber, regulator and Shaq...he only has one agenda and despite all the knowledge he's acquired, it still seems like he is a bit of a liar, or at best delusional.

The guy disappeared for months after Reg embarrassed him, then came back on a rep gaining (through IM promises) mission...that tell's you a lot.

Those old posts tell me all I need to know. Either he watched that era and came to the conclusion that Russell sucked, which makes him an idiot, or he lied from the start about his age etc, which also makes him an idiot.

One, I could not care less about "reps." And two, are you going to tell me that you have not changed any of your opinions in the last 5-6 years?

As for Regulator "embarrassing" me...let's see, he had to go back to posts I made six years, to find MINOR issues. Wilt with either FIVE or SEVEN 50 point games against Russell (and 24 of 40+ including a high of 62) is not significant. Nor did I make that claim HERE. AND, as I have stated previously, I would have to see where I gleaned that info from.

Even he admitted that the Reed and his supposed injuries in the '70 Finals were not publicized, nor do I really care. I stated all along that Wilt, on basically one leg, battled MVP Reed (and in his prime) to a draw in the first four games of that series. He was torching Reed in game five, when Reed went down (LA was ahead by 10 points), and had the officials not handed NY that game five, Wilt's game 45-27 game six would have iced the series. In any case, Wilt, on one leg, was far more dominant, than Reed on one leg.

Of course, YOU have claimed that Wilt's rosters were basically as good as Russell's in his first six seasons...which is complete nonsense. Player-for-player, Russell's Celtics were significantly better in those years. HOF player margins of 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2 is all anyone needs to know. And even in their last four seasons, they were very close (Russell not only had more HOF teammates in each year of those four years, he had deeper teams.)

[G.O.A.T]

One, I could not care less about "reps." And two, are you going to tell me that you have not changed any of your opinions in the last 5-6 years?

As for Regulator "embarrassing" me...let's see, he had to go back to posts I made six years, to find MINOR issues. Wilt with either FIVE or SEVEN 50 point games against Russell (and 24 of 40+ including a high of 62) is not significant. Nor did I make that claim HERE. AND, as I have stated previously, I would have to see where I gleaned that info from.

Even he admitted that the Reed and his supposed injuries in the '70 Finals were not publicized, nor do I really care. I stated all along that Wilt, on basically one leg, battled MVP Reed (and in his prime) to a draw in the first four games of that series. He was torching Reed in game five, when Reed went down (LA was ahead by 10 points), and had the officials not handed NY that game five, Wilt's game 45-27 game six would have iced the series. In any case, Wilt, on one leg, was far more dominant, than Reed on one leg.

Of course, YOU have claimed that Wilt's rosters were basically as good as Russell's in his first six seasons...which is complete nonsense. Player-for-player, Russell's Celtics were significantly better in those years. HOF player margins of 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2 is all anyone needs to know. And even in their last four seasons, they were very close (Russell not only had more HOF teammates in each year of those four years, he had deeper teams.)

My opinions change all the time, but I never compared Russell to Wallace, or made any type or comparison as absurd amongst players I've actually watched play.

I never saw Russ and Wilt, my opinion is based on hundreds of books and articles I've read plus the opinions of those who did watch them. No one ever diminished Russell anywhere near the way you have.

You have never been interested in anything but oyour agenda, I am sorry I spent so much time (despite your obvious knowledge) talking with you, as I see now, none of our conversations were about furthering knowledge, and all were about furthering your agenda.

[jlauber]

When I say who outplayed the other, I don't mean who put up the better individual numbers, I mean who played the best all around basketball which includes intangibles such as clutch play, letting your teammates shine and making them better, in other words, contributing the most to your team winning.

Who do you believe did that more in those match ups? Russell or Wilt?

I guess to simplify it, what do you think would be the result if you have them identical rosters for their entire careers?



I'm just trying to understand why he argues with me whenever I say Russell outplayed Wilt in a certain series if he ranks Wilt over Russell?

In terms of "clutch" play, IMHO, and H2H, Chamberlain was considerably more clutch. Take a look at their game seven's. Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 21.3 ppg to 13.2 ppg, but he outrebounded him by a 28.5 rpg to 24.5 rpg margin. AND, we have Wilt's FG% numbers for all four games...an astonishing .652. We only have Russell's for two games (as far as I know anyway), and Russell was at .391 in those two games.

But, Wilt also had a 50-35 game against Russell in a must-win game five of the '60 series. Not only that, and this is significant,...Wilt, in a clinching game five loss in '66, put up a 46-34 game (Russell had an 18-31 game.) In the following season, when Russell was faced with the same situation, he could only muster a FOUR point game (on 2-5 shooting) with 21 rebounds. How about Wilt in that same game? 29 points (with 22 coming in the first half), on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, and 13 assists.

Intangibles? No player in NBA history more exemplifies "intangibles" than Russell.

Making his teammates better? No question, Russell. Not a knock on Wilt, though. I think players like Russell, Magic, and Duncan were the best ever at that...while players like MJ, Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt certainly made their teams better...but not necessarily their teammates better. You can find many examples for all four of them, where they played brilliantly, but their teammates played horribly.

Equal rosters? This is interesting. Clearly, if both players were saddled with poor rosters (as Wilt was for about half of his career), then I think Chamberlain's individual dominance would overwhelm Russell. BUT, with equally great rosters, I am not so sure. Russell PROVED that he could win with great rosters. Wilt, for a variety of reasons (and many not his fault) could only win two titles with good-to-great rosters in his last eight seasons. Granted, Wilt faced GREAT teams in those last eight seasons, and once again, there were legitimate excuses for not winning in some of them, AND, in those two titles, his team's were overwhelming...but still, 2-8 makes you wonder.

I will say this, though. Had Wilt and Russell had equal rosters in their ten years in the league together, I am convinced that Russell would not have had a 9-1 edge in rings in that period. Wilt's '67 season confirmed that.

[ThaRegul8r]

Reeds' supposed injuries were never mentioned. Good enough for me.

Of course it's good enough for you. You're not interested in the truth. If you'd been watching then, you'd have known. If you picked up a paper, you would have known.


[QUOTE=jlauber][QUOTE]Originally Posted by jlauber
BTW, I still haven't read your FG% numbers from the '64 Finals. I suspect that either you can't find them, or they will confirm what I already have an educated estimate at...that Wilt probably outshot Russell by some 200 points. In any case, you told me that you could find anything in five minutes.


Lie. You

[G.O.A.T]

^ It's just sad, you've SHOWN him the TRUTH, in his own words, and he still clings to the FANTASY de jour.

[jlauber]

Of course it's good enough for you. You're not interested in the truth. If you'd been watching then, you'd have known. If you picked up a paper, you would have known.




:roll:

Me finding a particular bit of knowledge I told you you should have checked yourself in less than five minutes = me telling you I could find anything on the internet in five minutes?

LIE

You've got a serious problem with misrepresenting the truth. Now I know why you brought up the word "deceit."

And I didn't bother to look. I will not be manipulated into doing your research for you that you didn't bother to do before making a statement just because you're too sorry to do it. I didn't make a statement I didn't verify first. (Because I NEVER do.) I've been gathering information for paying clients. LOL at the idea that I run and do your bidding.

Get off yourself.

I didn't think so...

[ThaRegul8r]

why argue with jlauber, regulator and Shaq...he only has one agenda and despite all the knowledge he's acquired, it still seems like he is a bit of a liar, or at best delusional.

I'm not going to. I only responded in the first place because he referenced me. Truth has no meaning for him.


Those old posts tell me all I need to know. Either he watched that era and came to the conclusion that Russell sucked, which makes him an idiot, or he lied from the start about his age etc, which also makes him an idiot.

Regarding the former, I got him to expose his agenda HERE the first time he got into it with me:



The more RESEARCH I do on this topic, the more inclined I am to come away believing that Russell was the most OVER-RATED player in NBA history.

And now we see the agenda. You put up a pretense that Russell’s great, but he’s really the most overrated player in NBA history.

First it was "a friend" who said he was a roleplayer, but then the truth came out. As it always does.

Regarding the latter, the choice of words in using "old timer" still has me curious, and it has of yet not been addressed.


As for Regulator "embarrassing" me...let's see, he had to go back to posts I made six years, to find MINOR issues. Wilt with either FIVE or SEVEN 50 point games against Russell (and 24 of 40+ including a high of 62) is not significant. Nor did I make that claim HERE. AND, as I have stated previously, I would have to see where I gleaned that info from.



“not to diminish guys like Russell and West, two great defenders...but defense back then was nowhere near as good as it is today.” – July 22, 2005

:wtf:


“I know that this is getting away from the original post some, but most people tend to diminish Wilt's accomplishments because he was so much bigger, taller, stronger, and more athletic than his opposing centers. And it is true, that when Wilt was scoring 50 ppg, it was Russell at 6-9 and Bellamy at 6-11, and the rest were pretty much 6-8 or 6-9 "stiffs." – January 24, 2006

:wtf:


“Wilt's competition in that 61-62 season was not stellar. Basically only Russell and Bellamy were anywhere near his ability...and neither could approach him in terms of statistical domination.” – May 5, 2007

:wtf:


“I know both you and I will get some flak from "old-timers" about how great some of them were . . . , but realistically, todays basketball players, although many lacking in fundamental skills, are far superior to the players of the 60's.”

:wtf:

I myself find it downright MIND-BOGGLING that you could make such statements and yet no one had the sense enough to call attention to this disparity between this and what you would later say. It’s like there must have been no analytical thinkers. It never even OCCURRED to anyone that there was a discrepancy between the above statements and statements like this:


“Centers of the 60's and 70's, so many in the HOF BTW, [had] size, athletic ability and certainly the skills of today's centers.”


“Look, if you want to believe that today's CENTERS, almost all of which YOU have NEVER heard of, are better than the GREATS from the 60's, 70's, and 80's...go right ahead.”

First your take is that modern players “far superior” to players of the past, and then you do a complete 180 with no one thinking anything of it.


“I am getting sick-and-tired of the assertion of the quality of players he faced.” – November 9, 2008

I find this statement downright baffling considering you were guilty of disparaging them yourself.


“the athletes are better today, no question”


“My personal opinion on athletics today is that, yes, today's athletes are generally bigger, stronger, faster, better trained, and better fed than those of 20 years ago or more.” – August 30, 2007


“You say today's big men are bigger, more athletic, and more skilled. Yes, they are slightly bigger. More athletic? Prove it.” – November 9, 2008

Two days later:


“The arguement that today's players and athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, better trained, better fed, have better equipment, better medical care, and yes, even better illegal performance enhancers, is indisputeable.”

Wait... first your demand for proof that modern athletes are more athletic than in the past, then two days later you say it’s indisputable? What? So vacillating.


“The players of today are generally, and probably considerably, bigger, stronger, faster than previous eras (obviously the further back you go, the bigger the differences.)”

Can’t even stay consistent for a couple of days. Speaking of consistency, though:


“There is no doubt in my mind that Wilt would be an all-star player today. I certainly wouldn't expect him to score 50 ppg, or grab 27 rpg...but perhaps 30 and 18, in his prime, would have been possible...which would place him above all the centers of today. I think someone on this forum said, or read something to the effect, that Wilt was a cross between Garnett and Shaq. That would be worth about $40 mil a year today.

How many other basketball players could you say that about? Perhaps Russell would be another Ben Wallace, albeit a better passer...but that is not saying much. Sure, West, Robertson, and maybe a handful of others would be good players today, but all-stars?”

WOW.

:eek:

Let me reiterate: Russell would be “another Ben Wallace with better passing, which isn’t saying much,” (a sentiment which you have expressed on NUMEROUS occasions in the past) and West, Robertson and maybe a handful of others “would be good players today, but all stars?” You are on RECORD as stating that some of the greatest players ever to have played the game would be good, but you question whether they would be all stars in the modern era. This is only a slight step up from the people who claim they would be benchwarmers today. Except, of course, Wilt, who would not only be an all star, but the best center in the league.

Defend Wilt to the hilt but throw his contemporaries under the bus.

:facepalm

You should APOLOGIZE to people like PHILA, who fights against this, and has been CONSISTENT for every post I’ve read of his. At the same time I was DEFENDING Wilt and the competition he played against against people who bashed them on various forums across the internet, lo and behold, jlauber is ON RECORD as being AMONG that number—yet paradoxically still praising Wilt, somehow not grasping the inherent contradiction in stating that while Wilt was the best, it’s doubtful as to whether anyone else of that era would be an all star in the modern game. Perpetrating THE VERY STEREOTYPE that I made a point to officially debunk 2 5/6 years ago in that post I linked to what I’d been hearing for YEARS by actually giving an in-depth look and providing FACTS. I’ve been CONSISTENT. I have NEVER ONCE at any point in life disparaged the players of the past, but have tried to educate people who don’t know as much about the men who paved the way for the game today.

I think of Wilt fans such as Judd Vance (Air Judden), who put together what is to this day the best Wilt site I’ve ever seen—which every Wilt fan I have ever seen has referred to at some point or other, and he NEVER made any statements like those you’re ON RECORD as making.

Address this. I'd LOVE to hear just how your opinion changed to that extent, and I'm sure others would too.

[jlauber]

The playing conditions as well.


'"How many layups do you think there were in the last Laker game? Forty-eight. People will tell you guys shoot better now. No doubt they shoot a little better, but not like you'd think from looking at the percentages. Mike Cooper is shooting 59 percent. You want to bet some money he'd outshoot Jerry West? I'll bet my house against him (Cooper) on Dolph Schayes. I'll take Larry Costello and give you any Laker with the exception of Wilkes.

Players just get to the basket (layups) more. It ups their percentage. There's no defense inside. When I played, if the other team ran a fast break two or three times, the coach would assign a forward to break back on defense as soon as the ball went up. I never see a coach doing that now. There were no uncontested layups.

My last two or three years I shot 69 to 73 percent. You think I was a better shooter? No, the defenses got worse and I was able to dunk every damn ball I wanted to. It was easier to get there. When I played against guys like Johnny Kerr . . . He was 6-10 and couldn't jump, but I'll tell you, you didn't get to the basket on him."'

-Wilt Chamberlain, 1982


"It's a run up and down the court and dunk the ball game now. These are speed merchants and jumping fools. That's why their shooting percentages are going way up. I led the league 11 times in field goal percentage and my lifetime average was 54%. There are now five billion guys shooting over 54%. Can you imagine playing when your hands are so cold and the ball is as hard as a brick? I can remember going to Detroit and playing the old Detroit Arena and there's about 3000 people in this big old huge thing. Every time they opened the door, the wind blows through. I can vividly remember Paul Arizin blowing into his hands and the smoke was blowing out of his nose. Guys were shooting 37%, and these were great shooters. People look at that any say, 'Is that a basketball player or was he on a blind team?' They don't know how to put that into perspective."

-Wilt Chamberlain, 1985




From The Big O: my life, my times, my game. (2003)

"While there's no shortage of charismatic young guys who can jump and dunk, nobody has captured the public's imagination the way Michael did. Nor are there any rivalries like Magic's Lakers against Bird's Celtics in the 1980s, or Michael's Bulls against Isiah Thomas's Bad Boys. Meanwhile, in its drive to accrue television money and ticket revenues, the league has abandoned free television in favor of cable deals. They've priced out most people from seeing a game - except corporate America.

In the last two years, professional basketball has seen two major trends: one, an influx of European player who coaches and commentators say are extremely well versed in the fundamentals and understand the game; two, the hyping of physically gifted high schoolers who eschew college for a chance at the pros.

Watch an NBA game tonight. You'll see players who can't make a reverse pivot. Can't make a crossover dribble. And the NBA's answer hasn't been additional coaching for these young guys. Rather it's been to welcone top-notch high schoolers with open arms and shoe contracts and their own commercials.

The best players get to sit on the bench for three years or so, and if they have the work ethic and commitment (like Kobe Bryant or Jermaine O'Neal), they'll work hard and begin to figure things out for themselves.

Maybe I am coming from a different mindset. The current NBA is a multi million dollar business. Teams travel in their own private planes, with luxury seats and individual DVD players set up for each team member. When I played, the job wasn't a routine one, but there was a routine to it. Every city was an adventure. The courts weren't like today's lacquered, standardized basketball courts. There were screws sticking up out of the old Cow Palace floor in San Francisco. Boston Garden's parquet was noted for, among other things, its dead spots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=9m45s). Celtics players used to lead you to them, and when you dribbled on a dead piece of wood, they'd be waiting; the ball would bounce low, or spring off to the side, and a Celtic would pounce.


We ushered in the modern era of basketball. You wouldn't have the game of basketball as we know it without us. We were cornerstones in building the game and the way it is played today. Today's player, whether he knows it or not, wouldn't be where he is without us.

We had Bill Russell & Wilt, the two most dominant players in the history of the game. Jerry West was the best clutch player I ever saw, the best shooter, and one of the best competitors. His biggest talent, perhaps, was emerging at the right moment to take advantage of a well-timed pick or pass. Jerry hated to lose so much that you could see it transform him. Jerry and I were friends, but our rivalry was intense.

People always ask who was better: Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or Michael Jordan? But they forget that those three never played against one another in matchups. Wilt Chamberlain played against Bill Russell. I guarded Jerry West. Our rivalry was especially entertaining, both to watch and to be a part of, because I played with such efficiency and calculated focus, while Jerry was a great shooter. Bob Ryan, the renowned basketball writer for the Boston Globe has said that I developed more skills than any other basketball player he ever saw, whereas Jerry may have had more desire.


I played against some of the greatest defenders in the history of the game - Russell, Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy - but still the scoring was a lot higher than it is today. Some so-called experts will tell you it's because of the coaches and athletes. I've seen basketball analysts say that the principles of help defense are more advanced now and take advantage of all the athleticism. I say that's bull. If Jerry West was on his game, you couldn't stop him. I don't care what defense you were in.

I don't want to sound like a dinosaur: "In my day we knew how to play, to dunk; we had to walk uphill both ways to get to the basketball court, and then when we dribbled, we the ball rolled down the hill." Dunking's been part of the game for a long time. Many players I knew when I used to play at the Dust Bowl could dunk a ball. Gus Johnson tore down rims more than 30 years ago. I could list guy after guy who was a great dunker. It never meant anything to me but two points. A lot of them never dunked because it embarrassed a defender, and he'd take it out on them the next play. I rarely dunked, but I did do it once in a while in practice, just to show people I could.

But it you can dunk a ball, you are now the greatest player in the world. Gone by the wayside is the ability to make a play or think about the game of basketball. Street lingo today translates "skills" as the ability to dribble the ball behind your back or off your knee. But knowing how to run a good fast break is a skill. So is busting your hump and getting out on the wing and filling the lane at the proper angle. Teams don't run the way we did anymore.

Knowing how to rub off a defender when you use a pick is a skill. Knowing how to feel a defender with your body and read the court to see where help is coming from is a skill. Knowing how to stay in control, pace yourself, and not use all your energy too early or give away all your tricks, that's a skill. Setting solid picks and knowing how to get yourself open from them; knowing how to hit a guy with a pass the exact moment he frees himself and how to get him the ball in a place and at a time that allows him to shoot in rhythm; getting position low on the post; boxing out; playing solid man to man defense while also knowing where the ball is - those are skills. Certain players in the game today have them - Jason Kidd and Tim Duncan are two, off the top of my head. But most younger players don't, not by a long shot.

Shaquille O'Neal is one of the greatest players of all time. He's big, strong, and fast. Shaq's go-to shot is a dunk. There's no doubt he would have gotten his share of dunks on Bill Russell. There were times he'd get position close to the basket, and there's nothing anyone could do about that. Bill was six ten, and had long enough arms where he might have been able to front Shaq. He may have been able to deny him the ball from the side. He was smart enough and competitive enough that he could have played against him. Bill could exploit anything, make you rely on the weakest parts of your game. Shaq doesn't have much of a jumper. He has a jump hook shot but doesn't have the full kind of hook that would be unstoppable. (Hell, his jump hook might be unstoppable if he used it more.)"





NBA teams didn't always have priority at the home venue if there was a scheduling conflict (regular season or playoffs). Imagine shooting a long distance high arc shot in such a building as below in 1967, where you can see a rookie Phil Jackson make a move against Chicago's Bob Boozer.

http://i55.tinypic.com/262tzi9.jpg

Excellent post. IMHO, these are certainly some of the main reasons why the players of the 60's (and probably before) shot as poorly, on average, as they did. Also, as GOAT stated, the BALL was NOT uniform. I have also read where the fans use to shake the basket structures. In addition, players not only routinely played back-to-backs, in some instances, they played 5+ straight games (Wilt had that in '62, as well as numerous 4-in-a-rows.) Cold, breezy arenas. Just so many negatives.

[catch24]

Damn, I feel bad for JL. He's like the little fat kid in grade school who gets constantly picked on.

If the dude wants to think Wilt is his savior, let him. No matter how many stats and facts you've got on your side, sometimes people can't handle the truth. At that point there's nothing you can do about it. Let them live in their own little fantasy world.

[catch24]

BTW - fantastic posts by both Regul8r and Shaqattack.

Will rep when I can.

[jlauber]

I'm not going to. I only responded in the first place because he referenced me. Truth has no meaning for him.



Regarding the former, I got him to expose his agenda HERE the first time he got into it with me:



First it was "a friend" who said he was a roleplayer, but then the truth came out. As it always does.

Regarding the latter, the choice of words in using "old timer" still has me curious, and it has of yet not been addressed.





Address this. I'd LOVE to hear just how your opinion changed to that extent, and I'm sure others would too.

I HAVE addressed ALL of those, and HERE, MANY times. Why don't you post all of them, as well? My opinions have changed in the last 5-6 years, and they will probably continue to evolve, as well.

You amaze me. Once again, I wouldn't waste five minutes looking up your posts, and yet, you will obviously spend HOURS and even DAYS looking up mine. And, it will not change ANY of my CURRENT opinions, either.

Of course, you can't find Wilt's FG% in the '64 Finals, which also amazes me. In any case, I think I have a cyber-stalker on my hands. Not sure if I should be flattered.

BTW, would you mind posting my ENTIRE posts above. I have started MANY of them off with "the players of today are generally bigger, stronger, faster,etc." It would be nice to read the ENTIRE post. AND, the LINK as well. I look at some of those quotes, and I sense someone who is distorting my take by OMITTING the rest of the post.

[imlmf]

what the f*ck?

offense doesn't equal the second you take the shot, also the time a play is ran

whoever came up with that idea is a dumbazz

at any point of time, one team is playing offense while the other is playing defense, both are equally important

[Pointguard]

why argue with jlauber, regulator and Shaq...he only has one agenda and despite all the knowledge he's acquired, it still seems like he is a bit of a liar, or at best delusional.

The guy disappeared for months after Reg embarrassed him, then came back on a rep gaining (through IM promises) mission...that tell's you a lot.

Those old posts tell me all I need to know. Either he watched that era and came to the conclusion that Russell sucked, which makes him an idiot, or he lied from the start about his age etc, which also makes him an idiot.

Be fair. This turn the world on who you disagree with is not cool. You disagree with him and that's all it is. Why must you always go at the person? Those that study a lot will have differences based on preconceptions. The more you know, the more you hype who you like. With GOAT its Russell, I think Regulator its Russell too, Shaq - Kareem, and JLauder - Wilt (Russell was ranked #1 with him since I've been on tho but he likes Wilt better which makes sense). You all are pretty much set in your ways.

Since he is talking about a different era, well an era that most of you have your favorite player in, it's good that he talks a lot about it. Others will be educated and learn something more about that time period. Its a real good time to educate and build. Since I know yall know this, JLauder a little better at handling disagreements than yal are and he's more accessible on each point. We know his preferred topic but he answers questions about everything, and in a civil manner I might add. Since his post are long, there are more opportunities to see inconsistencies. And his GOAT list is not set in stone either. I disagree with his list but we all have a different top ten. You know he's not crazy or delusional. You just disagree.

[G.O.A.T]

Be fair. This turn the world on who you disagree with is not cool. You disagree with him and that's all it is. Why must you always go at the person? Those that study a lot will have differences based on preconceptions. The more you know, the more you hype who you like. With GOAT its Russell, I think Regulator its Russell too, Shaq - Kareem, and JLauder - Wilt (Russell was ranked #1 with him since I've been on tho but he likes Wilt better which makes sense). You all are pretty much set in your ways.

Since he is talking about a different era, well an era that most of you have your favorite player in, it's good that he talks a lot about it. Others will be educated and learn something more about that time period. Its a real good time to educate and build. Since I know yall know this, JLauder a little better at handling disagreements than yal are and he's more accessible on each point. We know his preferred topic but he answers questions about everything, and in a civil manner I might add. Since his post are long, there are more opportunities to see inconsistencies. And his GOAT list is not set in stone either. I disagree with his list but we all have a different top ten. You know he's not crazy or delusional. You just disagree.

Read the things he's wrote, me and you disagree, that's fine, I respect your opinion and feel you show respect to mine, he just makes crap up and as Regul8tor exposed, probably not just about basketball. I have no problem with Jlauber's list or anyone's that's not what this is about.

[observ]

Jlauber, shaqattack raises a question I've wondered myself as I've followed your conversations. On the one hand, you rank Russell higher, but on the other, it seems generally the case that you argue for Wilt and against Russell. If I hadn't seen your rankings, I'd be certain that you rank Wilt above Russ. Given that you rank Russell, i'd expect more of your arguments to sound like "I do value Russ' contributions to the team even more than Wilt's (or certainly no less), but I feel people tend to rag on Wilt a little excessively. Let me explain...."

So my question is, who do you rank higher, and why? Clearly both players are out-of-this-world talented, and few would rank either outside of their top 5 or 10. (Incidentally, ranking someone 10th out of roughly 4000 NBA players all-time places them in the 99.775th percentile; so it's hard to call that much of an insult, right?) I've assumed you've been addressing perceived slights to Wilt, and so you've been defensive of him. If we set that aside for a moment, who would you rank higher, Wilt or Russ?

One last thought: I think you tend to call Wilt the greatest individual player and Russell the greatest team player. if, however, we combine those categories, who do you rank higher overall?

So.. again, who do you rank higher overall and why, keeping in mind that it's not necessarily an insult to either to call the other greater?

[dunksby]

http://i55.tinypic.com/262tzi9.jpg
They were having a dance off or something? WTF is up with the rest of the players? :oldlol:

[-23-]

The JLFakkit ownage here is staggering. Must be kept alive. :pimp:

[dunksby]

J-Lau loves bumping up old threads.

[-millwad-]

Is Jlauber still active on ISH?