Bill Simmons on the Wilt "Trades"

[jlauber]

In Bill Simmons' "The Book of Basketball" he devotes an entire chapter on the Russell-Wilt rivalry, and his "myths" on Chamberlain.

I have addressed them before in another thread, but I thought I would rehash a couple of his falsehoods, of which there are MANY.

One point he makes is that Wilt was twice "traded for pennies on the dollar."

To understand the first trade, you need a little background info first. Wilt came to the Philadephia Warriors in a territorial draft. What is that you ask? In the 50's the NBA owners decided that to help keep up local fan base interest, that they would allow owners to lock in a player if he were more of a "local" favorite. I won't get into the rules, which were somewhat complicated, and it is unneccessary for this topic anyway. In any case, Chamberlain, being from the Philadelphia area, and still in high school at the time, was "locked in" by the Philly ownership group. Remember, he was in HIGH SCHOOL. So, he was WAY ahead of his time in terms of those that supposedly broke the barriers of jumping right to the NBA out of high school. Of course, at the time, a player still had to go to college, or at least had to wait until his class would have graduated before he could play in the NBA.

BTW, for those that may have read Red Auerbach's many blistering attacks on Wilt (i.e. that he wasn't a team player, or that he was only stats conscious, etc.) how about this...

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

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

[jlauber]

Still, despite making the Finals, the city of San Francisco never took to the Warriors. Their attendance was just horrible. And their ownership was in financial trouble to boot. And to make matters MUCH worse, Wilt did not feel well before the start of the 64-65 season. He missed the SF's first seven games...and as expected, they went 1-6. He mysteriously lost weight, and he was in a weakened condition. The Warrior team physicians ran a battery of tests on him, and they concluded that he had a heart ailment. The Warrior ownership was now in panic mode. They were in financial straits, and now their lone meal ticket was a walking time bomb.

To Wilt's credit, he PLAYED. Not only that, but the NBA had decided to widen the lane before the start of the 64-65 season, in hopes of curtailing his overwhelming dominance. In Wilt's 63-64 season, he averaged 36.9 per game on .524 shooting. In the first half of the 64-65 season, and with the now widened lane, Chamberlain was averaging 38.9 ppg on .499 shooting (and BTW, he would averaged 33.5 ppg on a then record .540 FG% the very next year.) So, despite every effort to contain Wilt's dominance, he was still laying waste to the NBA, and this, despite being nowhere near 100%.

The panic-stricken Warriors, and with a putrid roster that was 11-33 at the time, finallly decided to pull the trigger and trade Wilt. BTW, as a sidenote, the Warriors were a terrible 10-27 with an ill Wilt...and would go 7-36 without him.

I mentioned that, primarily because of Wilt, the Warrior franchise sold for a then whopping $850,000 in '62. Well, a new group of investors in Philadelphia bought the failing Syracuse franchise for $500,000 in 1964. As you can see, Chamberlain's true impact carried beyond the basketball court.

The Warriors traded Wilt to the new 76er team at mid-season, a team that had gone 34-46 the year before in Syracuse, for THREE players, two of whom were decent players...Paul Neumann and Connie Dierking...AND a staggering (at the time) amount of $150,000.

So, that was the first "pennies on the dollar" trade that Simmons mentions in his book.

BTW, when Wilt went back to Philly, he went to his personal physician, who diagnosed Chamberlain's ailment as a case of pancreatis. Soon Wilt was back to a 100%, and the result was amazing. Chamberlain took another bottom-feeding roster, that would finish the 64-65 season at 40-40, to a first round 3-1 series romp over the 48-32 Royals, and then, playing brilliantly the ENTIRE series (he would averaged 30 ppg and 31 rpg in the series), Chamberlain nearly led his team to perhaps what would have been the greatest upset in NBA playoff history. His 40-40 76ers took the HOF-laden (SIX of them) 62-18 Celtics, at the apex of their dynasty, to a game seven, ONE point loss (and had Havlicek not stolen their last ditch inbounds pass, who knows?)

Incidently, Simmons never goes into much detail in these trades for "pennies on the dollar", but think about this...

Chamberlain came to a crappy Philly team, and nearly led them to a shocking upset of the vaunted Celtics in his very first season there. In the following season, Wilt would lead the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a FG% mark, AND take the Sixers to the best record in the league. Two years after that trade, the 76ers would post a then record 68-13 mark (which is STILL a team record), en route to a dominating world title, that included a 4-1 annihilation of the 60-21 Celtics in the ECF's. And, in his last season in Philly, he would lead the NBA in assists and take the Sixers to the runaway best mark in the league again, at 62-20. Unfortunately, a RASH of injuries just DECIMATED that team, and they subsequently dropped a game seven to the eventual champion Celtics, by FOUR points.

In any case, that "pennies on the dollar" trade became a HUGE money-maker for the ownership of the 76ers.

Next...the other "pennies on the dollar" trade...

[jlauber]

Wilt was traded twice in his career, and somehow Simmons came to the conclusion that he was traded for "pennies on the dollar."

I have covered the first one, and now I will address the second one. Here again, we need a little background first.

Wilt and the 76er owner, Ike Richmond, became great friends after the first trade. Chamberlain considered him somewhat of a "father" figure. And according to Wilt, the two came to a verbal agreement in which Wilt would eventually be able to acquire part ownership of the franchise.

However, in a game in Boston in 1965, Richmond suffered a heart attack, and was declared DOA.

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

[QUOTE]In the 1967

[BlackWhiteGreen]

OK, didn't read, but I don't want to be a prick with one of those stupid .gifs, just wanted to ask: Wilt was putting up monster double-doubles nightly, yet you seem to take exception to the comment he was traded for pennies in the dollar. Surely a player THAT good and THAT much better than the rest of the league could only be traded in such a fashion?

I'll admit to having not yet reached the part in TBOB of Wilt/Russell, however.

[jlauber]

OK, didn't read, but I don't want to be a prick with one of those stupid .gifs, just wanted to ask: Wilt was putting up monster double-doubles nightly, yet you seem to take exception to the comment he was traded for pennies in the dollar. Surely a player THAT good and THAT much better than the rest of the league could only be traded in such a fashion?

I'll admit to having not yet reached the part in TBOB of Wilt/Russell, however.

I'll make it simple. In Wilt's first trade, the Warriors were fearful that Chamberlain had a heart ailment and that his career was threatened. And Wilt basically FORCED the second trade.

And a quick summarization, as well. The Warriors frachise would become a pretty good one after they moved Thurmond to center and then drafted Rick Barry. But they only made it to one Finals from the time they traded Wilt until Chmaberlain retired...and it came against Wilt's 66-67 76ers, who beat them 4-2 in the Finals. They would also face Wilt's team's two more times in the playoffs, and with Wilt crushing Nate (as he did in all three), Chamberlain's teams blew out those Warrior teams.

As for the 76ers...Wilt led them to the best record in the league in three of his 3 1/2 years there (and a near shocking upset of Boston in the playoffs in that half season), and a dominating world title. Incidently, that 66-67 team went 68-13, which is STILL a franchise record.

Then, after Wilt forced his trade to LA, he led the Lakers to FOUR Finals in his FIVE seasons there (and a WCF's in the other), and their first ever title in LA...and with a team that would go 69-13...which again, is STILL a franchise record. In the meantime, the Sixers steadily declined each season after that "trade", and by Wilt's last season, they had gone 9-73...which is the all-time record for futility.

[kaiiu]

Poor mans Tyson Chandler:sleeping

[jlauber]

Poor mans Tyson Chandler:sleeping

Thanks for taking the time to not only read the thread, but to make an educated comment on it.

[G.O.A.T]

^ You disgust me.

Most of the trolls here are just not very smart and don't know much about the game.

You have a wealth of knowledge, but you constantly misrepresent the facts to suit your agenda and push your opinion. Even when I agree with you, and most of the time I do, I can't stomach reading one of your posts in it's entirety because eventually I see the same false and/or misleading information that I and many others have called you on before.

You know damn well the Warriors and 76ers got squat for Wilt.

Wilt, as we agree, is the greatest individual player ever. The Warriors traded him in the heart of his physical prime for a 6'9" back-up center who never averaged double figure rebounds in a season, a rotation player at guard who had career averages of 11-3-3 and Lee Shaffer, a player of moderate promise who never played another game after the trade.

That's giving him away. It's the equivalent of Orlando trading Dwight Howard to Houston for Chuck Hayes and Courtney Lee. The fact that someone as informed as you refuses to acknowledge this is very disappointing.

The second trade was perhaps worse. The 76ers, fresh off posting the leagues best record three consecutive seasons sent Wilt to the only NBA team with more talent than the 76ers, the Lakers. What did the Sixers get for the man who had won the last three MVP awards? Archie Clark, an excellent all-star caliber guard. They also got Darrall Imhoff, the man who started at center for the Knicks seven years earlier when Wilt scored 100 points and Jerry Chambers, who never played a single game for the 76ers.

So again, giving him away. The equivalent of the Spurs trading Duncan following the 2004 season for Sam Cassell and Michael Olowakandi. Is that a good deal?

Again, it'd be one thing if you were some idiot who didn't know these things, but you do. You have such a high standard for players that you don't think guys like Tom Gola and Guy Rodgers, who were among the best players in the league at their position and five-time all-stars were any good, yet somehow, players of considerably less ability are good enough to warrant the trade of one of the three, in my opinion two greatest centers of all-time.

I challenge you to step up and stop this madness.

[jlauber]

Once again, in my research, I find it fascinating that following the "trade" in '68, which brought Wilt to LA, and Clark and Imhoff to Philly, that Wilt would lead the Lakers to a narrow seven game defeat (and while on the bench in the last five minutes),...while those two players in trade to the Sixers played exceptionally well in the five game series against Boston.

Think about this, Wilt only scored 11.7 ppg in the Finals that season, mainly because his jackass of a coach had no idea how to use him. In fact, PHILA found a quote from Van Breda Kolf in which, and I'm paraphrasing now, that "When we passed the ball into Wilt, he would score. But it was an ugly offense to watch." So, instead, he preferred Baylor to fire blanks...and Baylor obliged by scoring 15.3 ppg on .385 shooting in the post-season (while Wilt was at 13.9 ppg on .545 shooting.)

Meanwhile, Wilt's two "replacements" combined for 37.6 ppg and 20.2 rpg on about .510 shooting in that first round series, in which they were wiped out by Boston, 4-1.

One more time...this completely disproves the theory that Chamberlain's stats were "empty." Chamberlain's IMPACT could clearly be seen in those two examples. The two players that Wilt was "traded" for played exceptionally well in that Boston series...and yet the Sixers had NOWHERE near the success that they had the two previous post-seasons WITH Chamberlain.

Meanwhile, Chamberlain, despite being shackled by his incompetent coach, STILL carried that Laker team further than they had been the season before...and with Wilt only averaging 11.7 ppg. Furthermore, Boston had TWO miraculous shots to win games in that series; as well as Johnny Egan's gaffe in game four; Baylor contributing absolutely nothing in games three thru five (two of the losses); and with Van Breda Kolf keeping Chamberlain on the bench in the last five minutes of a two-point loss.

[kaiiu]

Thanks for taking the time to not only read the thread, but to make an educated comment on it.
You're right. Poor mans Ryan Hollins is more accurate :hammerhead:

[jlauber]

^ You disgust me.

Most of the trolls here are just not very smart and don't know much about the game.

You have a wealth of knowledge, but you constantly misrepresent the facts to suit your agenda and push your opinion. Even when I agree with you, and most of the time I do, I can't stomach reading one of your posts in it's entirety because eventually I see the same false and/or misleading information that I and many others have called you on before.

You know damn well the Warriors and 76ers got squat for Wilt.

Wilt, as we agree, is the greatest individual player ever. The Warriors traded him in the heart of his physical prime for a 6'9" back-up center who never averaged double figure rebounds in a season, a rotation player at guard who had career averages of 11-3-3 and Lee Shaffer, a player of moderate promise who never played another game after the trade.

That's giving him away. It's the equivalent of Orlando trading Dwight Howard to Houston for Chuck Hayes and Courtney Lee. The fact that someone as informed as you refuses to acknowledge this is very disappointing.

The second trade was perhaps worse. The 76ers, fresh off posting the leagues best record three consecutive seasons sent Wilt to the only NBA team with more talent than the 76ers, the Lakers. What did the Sixers get for the man who had won the last three MVP awards? Archie Clark, an excellent all-star caliber guard. They also got Darrall Imhoff, the man who started at center for the Knicks seven years earlier when Wilt scored 100 points and Jerry Chambers, who never played a single game for the 76ers.

So again, giving him away. The equivalent of the Spurs trading Duncan following the 2004 season for Sam Cassell and Michael Olowakandi. Is that a good deal?

Again, it'd be one thing if you were some idiot who didn't know these things, but you do. You have such a high standard for players that you don't think guys like Tom Gola and Guy Rodgers, who were among the best players in the league at their position and five-time all-stars were any good, yet somehow, players of considerably less ability are good enough to warrant the trade of one of the three, in my opinion two greatest centers of all-time.

I challenge you to step up and stop this madness.

I have already addressed this TWICE now.

The Warriors were in a panic. THEIR own physicians had determined that Wilt was a walking time-bomb, and they subsequently traded him. Yes, they "only" received THREE players (one of whom then retired), BUT, they also received $150,000...which was a considerable sum back then. Hell, they paid $850,000 for the entire franchise just a couple of seasons before.

And, Wilt FORCED the second trade. Given the fact that Wilt threatened to jump to the rival ABA...which would have left Philadelphia with NOTHING...I think they did quite well to accommodate Chamberlain's request.

They basically received 29.2 ppg and 15.1 rpg for Chamberlain in that deal. And, of course, with Goodrich being lost in the expansion draft, the Lakers had to replace not only those 29.2 ppg and 15.1 rpg...but a TOTAL of 42.0 ppg and 17.6 rpg.

And one more time...those two players (Clark and Imhoff) averaged a combined 37.6 ppg and 20.2 rpg on .510 shooting in the Boston series...and that team was still blown away, 4-1. As you can surmise, Wilt's IMPACT went well beyond his staggering stats.

[jlauber]

The bottom line with Chamberlain...

EVERY team he joined became MUCH better, especially when given a couple of seasons...and EVERY team he left became MUCH worse.

[Nash]

Territorial picks are awesome. Imagine hometown heroes playing for their cities. Would be great for the passion of the game.

[Kurosawa0]

Just curios op, how old are you?

[blablabla]

Territorial picks are awesome. Imagine hometown heroes playing for their cities. Would be great for the passion of the game.
and then taking their talents to south beach in FA


jk

[STATUTORY]

Just curios op, how old are you?
http://www.volusion.com/demo/37408/upload/uploadedFiles/older%20man%20using%20computer.jpg

[BlackWhiteGreen]

The bottom line with Chamberlain...

EVERY team he joined became MUCH better, especially when given a couple of seasons...and EVERY team he left became MUCH worse.

In which case, the pennies in the dollar argument seems to be valid? Unless Simmons was arguing it the other way round?

[Kurosawa0]

http://www.volusion.com/demo/37408/upload/uploadedFiles/older%20man%20using%20computer.jpg

He actually seems like a kid who read a book on Wilt and saw some stats and fell in love.

[jlauber]

In which case, the pennies in the dollar argument seems to be valid? Unless Simmons was arguing it the other way round?

Well, in a sense YOU are correct. Chamberlain made his new team's instant title contenders, and the team's he left were immediate also-rans.

BUT, Simmons is attempting to insinuate that Chamberlain's teams thought he was some kind of a cancer, and that they were willing to just give him away. He NEVER brought up the REAL reasons why Chamberlain was traded, and his "pennies on the dollar" comments were ultimately completely false. Wilt was traded for THREE players on each occasion, and a TON of cash in one deal (and without looking it up, I believe a TON of cash on the second "trade.")

Once again, in the first "trade" the Warriors, who were fearful that Wilt's career might be over...not only received those three players, but $150,000. To put that in perspective, the Warriors paid a TOTAL of $850,000 for the ENTIRE team just a couple of years before.

And the second "trade" was not really a trade at all. Wilt was going to leave Philly no matter what. He FORCED the Sixers to trade him...or risk getting NOTHING for him.

[jlauber]

BTW, Simmons also asserts that when the Warriors were "shopping" Wilt around the league at mid-season in '65, that the Lakers ownership was an interested party. Supposedly, the Laker owners went to their players and asked them to take a vote to determine if they wanted Wilt. According to Simmons, the Laker players voted 9-2 against.

Now, I have never read anything, anywhere, which substantiates that assertion, and I suspect that it is a flat-out lie, but in any case, let's assume that it were actually the case.

Chamberlain ultimately wound up in Philadelphia, where he carried a previously bottom-feeding Sixer team to a 3-1 series romp over 48-32 Cincinnati, and then took his 40-40 team to what might have been the greatest playoff upset in NBA history. His Sixers lost a game seven, by one point, to the 62-18 Celtics, and their SIX HOFers. And, in that series, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 30-15; outrebounded Russell per game, 31-26; and while we don't know what Chamberlain's FG% was in that series (in the only game I could find on that series, Wilt went 12-15 from the floor)...we do know that Russell shot a respectable .451 against Chamberlain (which was probably his career post-season high against Wilt.)

However, in the '65 Finals, and without an injured Baylor, Boston slammed LA, 4-1. In that series, Russell averaged 18 ppg, 29 rpg, and shot an eye-popping .702 from the field. I'm not sure if Wilt and West, alone, would have been capable of beating Boston that season, but we do know that Russell would not have put up those kind of numbers against Wilt.

In the '66 ECF's, with Wilt's teammates just playing awful, Boston easily beat Chamberlain's 76ers, 4-1. However, in that series, Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509. We don't know what Russell shot against him, but Russell averaged 14 ppg and 25 rpg in that series.

In the '66 Finals, though, Russell averaged a team-leading 23.6 ppg, and the Celtics won a game seven, by a 95-93 margin. Now, while Baylor was no longer in his prime, he was still a force, and in that series, he averaged 25.0 ppg. And, West was entering his prime, and in fact, he averaged 33.9 ppg in that Finals. I just HAVE to believe that a prime Chamberlain would have easily led that Laker team to a title in '66.

We already know that Wilt took his '67 Sixers to an overwhelming title, including a 4-1 rout of the 60-21 Celtics (which ended their title streak at eight.) Now, West, who had an injury-riddled career, missed a ton of games in '67, and then only played a few minutes in one game of the playoffs, and the Lakers were swept by the Warriors...so there would be some doubt that Chamberlain, on THAT Laker team, would have been able to lead them to a title, but in any case, we will never know.

Finally, in the 67-68 playoffs, Wilt, playing injured, and with his teammates just ravaged by injuries, could not quite lead his Sixers past the Celtics, losing a game seven by FOUR points. BUT, Boston would go on to beat a healthy Laker team, 4-2 (although most of the games were close.) This is where I believe that Chamberlain, playing with that healthy Laker team, would have made enough of a difference to lead them to a title.


We also know that Chamberlain ultimately WAS "traded" to LA, in the 68-69 season, and that, due to an almost unfathomable amount of circumstances, the worst being an incompetent coach...that Boston was able to edge Wilt's Lakers in a game seven, and by two points (and with Wilt saddled on the bench in the last few minutes by his coach.)

We also know that, in Wilt's five seasons with LA, he took them to FOUR Finals, including a dominating world title in '72. We also know that Baylor only played ONE full season with Wilt in those five seasons, and that while West played five years with Wilt, that Chamberlain was injured for nearly all of one season, and was nowhere near 100% in the post-season. And West completely missed the '71 post-season, and was played with two injured knees in another one (and retired the next season.) And, even in the title season, West played poorly.

Still, the Lakers waited four years before pulling the trigger on a trade for Wilt. And, by the time Wilt did arrive, Baylor was on the decline, and would ultimately be washed up just a couple of years later. IMHO, had they actually made the deal in '65, and I suspect that LA would have added two more titles in the 60's.

[Scoooter]

I like Wilt too.

[jlauber]

I like Wilt too.

Simmons obviously hated Chamberlain. He devoted an entire chapter disparaging Wilt. Most all of it filled with lies and untruths. He labeled Wilt a "choker", a "loser", that his stats were basically "empty"; that he played with comparable rosters as Russell; and then asserted that Russell dominated him. Virtually NONE of those assertions were even remotely close to reality.

[Horatio33]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Waf0kv0KSWc/TJsXdEDByzI/AAAAAAAABHM/L9JSsQVUUUI/s1600/27842-beating_dead_horse_what.jpg

[kaiiu]

Just curios op, how old are you?
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/old%20man%20teeth01.jpg

[BlackWhiteGreen]

Simmons obviously hated Chamberlain.

Simmons' gimmick as a writer is to be a homer though, so it's hardly surprising... Doesn't mean his work is in any way bad, I find it enjoyable; you should just perhaps take his statements/points of view with a pinch of salt.

[jlauber]

Simmons' gimmick as a writer is to be a homer though, so it's hardly surprising... Doesn't mean his work is in any way bad, I find it enjoyable; you should just perhaps take his statements/points of view with a pinch of salt.

His take on Chamberlain was complete trash, and filled with out-and-out lies. In fact, I can't recall ONE opinion, of his "myths", that was even remotely close to the truth.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

According to Simmon's book, Wilt wasn't that great of a guy. Teammates hated playing with him. I remember that a coach benched Wilt intentionally for the 4th quarter of a Game 7, knowing that if the Lakers lost, he'd get fired. And he did. That's how much he disliked Wilt.

And when Wilt was shopped around the league, the Lakers owner asked his players to vote on whether to bring Wilt in or not. But it turns out it was 9 to 2, against! They playoff contender that had no answer for Russell had the chance to acquire him for nothing, and everyone voted against it!
That's probably why a lot of people disliked Wilt.

But Bill Russell > Wilt Chamberlain,
First of all, Wilt's stats are not that impressive considering the era it was in. And also Wilt was obsessed with stats, Bill cared more about winning.
That's basically what the book said.

[jlauber]

According to Simmon's book, Wilt wasn't that great of a guy. Teammates hated playing with him. I remember that a coach benched Wilt intentionally for the 4th quarter of a Game 7, knowing that if the Lakers lost, he'd get fired. And he did. That's how much he disliked Wilt.


First of all, I could pull up a TON of quotes from teammates, peers, coaches, and the media that would be contrary to what Simmons posted. He even quoted West as saying that Russell was a better player.

But, how about this quote, which was taken sometime after 1999, and well after the one that Simmons quoted...

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


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

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





And once again, for every quote that Simmons could dig up, I could counter them with many more.

As for being liked...Russell may have been respected by his teammates, but there were at least some that did not like him, including Tommy Heinsohn. Furthermore, if you would have polled almost anyone that knew the both of them, the vast majority would have told you that Chamberlain was much more "likeable", and that Chamberlain treated nearly everyone he knew like a human being.

As for Van Breda Kolf benching Wilt in the last few minutes of that game seven. It basically not only cost LA a title...it pretty much cost him his career, as well. He was done a couple of years later.

BTW, when West was told after the game that Van Breda Kolf had benched Wilt, and that Wilt had requested to go back in, he was furious. It was no coincidence that Van Breda Kolf was fired shortly thereafter.



And when Wilt was shopped around the league, the Lakers owner asked his players to vote on whether to bring Wilt in or not. But it turns out it was 9 to 2, against! They playoff contender that had no answer for Russell had the chance to acquire him for nothing, and everyone voted against it!
That's probably why a lot of people disliked Wilt

You obviously didn't read my previous take on this just a few short posts ago. IMHO, by waiting four years to acquire Chamberlain, it ultimately may have cost the Lakers as many as two titles.



But Bill Russell > Wilt Chamberlain,
First of all, Wilt's stats are not that impressive considering the era it was in. And also Wilt was obsessed with stats, Bill cared more about winning.
That's basically what the book said

This is truly laughable. Wilt was the ONLY player that put up those stats. Kareem played in the Wilt-era, and he was nowhere near as dominant. Chamberlain's numbers, transferred to ANY era, and reduced by that era's averages, STILL blow them all away.


As for Wilt caring more about stats than winning...well, he sure did a good job of winning despite having no interest in it. 14 seasons, 13 playoffs, 12 winning records, 12 CONFERENCE Finals (BTW, Bird's Celtics went to eight in his 13 seasons), SIX conference titles, FOUR teams with the best record in the league, FOUR teams that won 60+ games, TWO dominant title teams, and TWO teams that went 68-13 and 69-13 en route to overwhelming titles.

He was also never outplayed by an opposing center in 29 post-season series, and in the majority of those, he just CRUSHED the opposing center. In fact, he faced a HOF center in about TWO-THIRDS of his post-season series, and outplayed them all. He was only outscored in a few; outshot from the field in one; and was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of them.

But, yes...all he cared about was his stats.


Now, if you want to argue that Russell was greater than Wilt...fine. But, please, no more of this other trash. The fact was, Wilt was a TOTAL of NINE points, in FOUR game sevens, from holding a 5-3 edge over Russell in their eight post-season H2H's. Considering that Russell usually held a HUGE edge in surrounding talent, I can't accept that Russell "dominated" Wilt...especially when there were MANY games in which Wilt just statistically OVERWHELMED Russell.

[jlauber]

I brought this interesting point up in another thread, and I never really received an answer, but it is indeed fascinating...

There have been those, either former players, or perhaps it was Auerbach, that claimed that Russell "let" Wilt "pad" his stats. I won't take the time to look up those quotes (or perhaps it was in a video?) but according to whoever it was, Russell would "let" Wilt score in the first three quarters, and then, when least expected, he would shut Chamberlain down in the critical 4th period. Conversely, there was another "theory" that Russell would dominate Chamberlain in the first halves of games, and when the game was no longer in doubt, he would "let" Wilt get some meaningless points.

First of all, Russell was a proud man. I just can't imagine Russell "letting" Wilt, or anyone else, pile up stats, even when the outcome was no longer in doubt. All anyone needs to look at was the fact that while Wilt has been accused of "stats-padding" by playing 48 mpg, even in blowouts, it must be pointed out that in many of their H2H series, Russell was playing 48 minutes, as well...even in blowouts.

Secondly, while Russell's teams won the majority of their H2H games, they certainly didn't win ALL of them. Nor did they win 80% of them. In fact, in both the regular season, and in the playoffs, Russell's teams won about 60% of the time. And think about this...FOUR of their eight H2H playoff series were decided in the final seconds, of game seven's, and by scores of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. And in another post-season series, Chamberlain just crushed Russell, en route to leading his team to a 4-1 rout of the vaunted "Dynasty." Game seven of the '65 ECF's was a classic example. Chamberlain scored six of his team's final eight points, in bringing the 76ers back from a 110-101 deficit to within 110-109, including a thunderous dunk on Russell with five seconds left. And then, the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbounds pass, giving the ball back to the Sixers with a chance to win the game. And had Havlicek not stolen the inbounds pass, Wilt's 40-40 Sixers might have pulled off one of the greatest upsets in the history of the NBA. As it was, Chamberlain outscored Russell in that game seven, 30-15; he outrebounded Russell, 32-29; and he outshot Russell from the floor, 12-15 to 7-16. I'm sorry, but I just have a hard time believing that Russell was just "letting" Wilt get his team within an eyelash of winning that game.

Of course, as some posters here have pointed out, Russell DID have a FEW H2H playoff games against Chamberlain, in which he outplayed Wilt in the first half, and Wilt did pile up some points in the second half. BUT, it must also be pointed out that Wilt simply played nearly every minute of every game...win, or lose, close game or rout. However, he also had games like game two of the ECF's, when he outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded Russell, 37-20...in a seven point win. He also hung a 50 point, 35 rebound game against Russell in a must-win game five of the '60 ECF's...in yet another win.

And, if Russell could so easily just "turn it on" whenever he wanted to, why couldn't he stop Chamberlain in the '67 ECF's. In fact, in the clinching game five win for Chamberlain's Sixers, Wilt outscored Russell, 29-4 (with 22 first half points when the game was still in doubt); Wilt outshot Russell from the floor, 10-16 to 2-5; Chamberlain just CRUSHED Russell on the glass, 36-21: and he even outassisted Russell, 13-7 ...and obviously a triple-double in the process (with seven blocked shots.) What happened in that series?


Finally, while I have either read, or perhaps heard these quotes, from OTHER players or coaches, I don't recall Russell, HIMSELF, ever claiming that he "let" Wilt pad his stats. Maybe he did, and if so, I would sure be interested in the link.

[Psileas]

OK, I'd really want to know the details behind this supposed Wilt "almost" trade that the Lakers' players cancelled. When did it happen? What players did the trade involve? Was Wilt even tradeable? Who were the players that wanted Wilt and why didn't the rest of them do so? Could this mean that they tried to show team spirit and trust between teammates, instead of meaning they disliked Wilt?
Why did the voting happen in the first place? Did Philadelphia players also vote for Wilt in 1965? Did the Lakers vote again in 1968 and suddenly they changed their minds and voted for Wilt to come?

All I know is that this story started from Bill Simmons, which is a good start to call BS from the beginning. Why haven't I found any details outside Simmons' account? But if this is true, it surely ranks as one of the biggest blunders of all-time. You already have a team which, when healthy, was one center away from winning championships, and they voted against? Did they love LeRoy Ellis and Gene Wiley that much?

[kentatm]

Territorial picks are awesome. Imagine hometown heroes playing for their cities. Would be great for the passion of the game.


it would suck if your region had weak basketball though.

and what would you do about foreign players?

[G.O.A.T]

His take on Chamberlain was complete trash, and filled with out-and-out lies. In fact, I can't recall ONE opinion, of his "myths", that was even remotely close to the truth.

Let people read the chapter and decide for themselves. To anyone who hasn't read it, I promise you Jlauber is painting a MUCH MUCH more biased picture than Simmons does.

[jlauber]

OK, I'd really want to know the details behind this supposed Wilt "almost" trade that the Lakers' players cancelled. When did it happen? What players did the trade involve? Was Wilt even tradeable? Who were the players that wanted Wilt and why didn't the rest of them do so? Could this mean that they tried to show team spirit and trust between teammates, instead of meaning they disliked Wilt?
Why did the voting happen in the first place? Did Philadelphia players also vote for Wilt in 1965? Did the Lakers vote again in 1968 and suddenly they changed their minds and voted for Wilt to come?

All I know is that this story started from Bill Simmons, which is a good start to call BS from the beginning. Why haven't I found any details outside Simmons' account? But if this is true, it surely ranks as one of the biggest blunders of all-time. You already have a team which, when healthy, was one center away from winning championships, and they voted against? Did they love LeRoy Ellis and Gene Wiley that much?

First of all, I am inclined to agree with you about Simmons. I think his statement was pure nonsense. BUT, if it were somehow true, what kind of owners would let their players decide who they should acquire??? That would have been the height of stupidity...especially given the fact that they had come so close, so often, and with nothing more than mediocre centers.

Secondly, I was taking a look at the Kareem trade from Milwaukee to LA. Did Simmons mention that the Bucks basically gave away the most dominant player of the decade (along wuth journeyman center Walt Wesley) for rookie Brian Winters, who had a decent career, but only averaged 11.7 ppg on .443 shooting in that rookie season; Elmore Smith, who was a decent shot-blocker, but provided little else; and two just-drafted rookies, Dave Meyers, who never amounted to anything, and Junior Bridgeman, who did have a good career, but he was still an unproven, just drafted rookie at the time. I would say that that trade was not much different than the Wilt "trades."

No matter what, those Wilt trades were overwhelmingly one-sided. Once again, wherever Chamberlain went, his teams became IMMEDIATE title contenders (and invariably posted team records for best ever W-L records... TWO of which STILL stand today)...and virtually every team he left immediately became an also ran. And looking at those "trades" over a 5 year period, or longer, they became even MORE one-sided.

[jlauber]

Let people read the chapter and decide for themselves. To anyone who hasn't read it, I promise you Jlauber is painting a MUCH MUCH more biased picture than Simmons does.

Here were Simmons "myths"

1. That Russell had a better supporting cast than Chamberlain. He proceeds to point out that they played with a similar number of HOF players. Of course, he doesn't mention that Russell played WAY longer with his, NOR does he mention that Russell ALWAYS had SEVERAL more on each team, in EACH season in the league together. Furthermore, he uses players like Goodrich, who NEVER played with Wilt while Chamberlain and Russell played...and Thurmond, who Wilt played with in Nate's rookie season, and who played part-time, out of position, and shot .395. He brings up that Wilt played with Baylor, as well. Sure, for ONE full season, and when Baylor was in the twilight of his career (and he was simply awful in that post-season, as well.)

Here is the REAL facts about Wilt supposedly playing with equal rosters...

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


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




2. Russell was not a very good offensive player. Ok, I will give him this, to an extent. Russell was a good offensive center against the REST of the NBA...but he SELDOM put up good numbers against WILT. He averaged 14.5 ppg against Wilt in their 142 H2H games, and while we don't know what he shot against Chamberlain from the field, in the games, series, or even SEASON series which we do have, he shot FAR worse against Wilt.

For example, in Wilt's rookie season, Russell shot a career high .467 from the field. In the known ten (of eleven) H2H games against Wilt that season, he shot .398. BTW, Wilt shot .461 against the league, and .465 against Russell that year...the ONLY time in his career in which he failed to shoot .500 or better.

In the 66-67 season, Russell averaged 13.3 ppg on .454 shooting. In the ECF's and against Wilt, he averaged 10.2 ppg on .358 shooting (while Wilt averaged 21.6 ppg on .556 shooting against him.)

There is KNOWN game in the '65 season, in which Russell went 0-14 from the floor against Wilt.

Furthermore, I could compare Russell's regular season FG%'s against his post-season FG%'s in the years in which he played against Wilt. Granted, we only have his total post-season FG%, but he still played against Wilt in several of those post-season games. For instance, in the '64 playoffs, Russell shot .356, with five of his ten games coming against Wilt. In the regular season that year, he shot .433.

Even when Russell did have a decent offensive post-season series against Wilt, it was usually a lot worse than how he would fare against the other teams he played against in the post-season. For example, in the '65 ECF's, Russell averaged 15 ppg on .451 shooting against Wilt. In the Finals, and against LA, he averaged 18 ppg on an eye-popping .702 FG%. In the very next season, Russell averaged 14 ppg against Wilt in the ECF's...and then averaged a team-leading 23.6 ppg against the Lakers in the Finals.

3. Statistically Wilt crushed Russell. (Now remember, Simmons is claiming these as "myths." ) He goes on to show that Wilt's numbers dropped in the post-season, while he, Russell's went up. Of course, he is also using their ENTIRE post-season careers in his numbers. Why is that important? Because Russell played several years before Wilt came into the league, and Wilt played several seasons after Russell retired. The fact was, while Wilt's numbers dropped against Russell in the post-season, they were not dramatically lower than what he had against him in the regular season.

For example, Chamberlain averaged 50 ppg in his 61-62 season. In the playoffs, he "only" averaged 34 ppg against Russell. Ok, that does seem like a lot, HOWEVER, during their H2H regular season encounters, Wilt "only" averaged 38 ppg on .470 shooting against Russell (and his teammates, who swarmed Wilt.)

That trend would continue almost every season. In Wilt's 63-64 season, he averaged 36.9 ppg, and "only" 29 ppg game against Russell in the Finals. However he only averaged 28.7 ppg against Russell in the regular season.

Is that so surprising? Russell has been regarded as the greatest defensive center (and perhaps PLAYER) in NBA history.


In any case, you want MANY games in which Chamberlain CRUSHED Russell, then how about these 40 (and there were many others) in their 142 H2H games...


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


Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13
Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21
Wilt 43-39….Russell 20-24
Wilt 53-29 Russell 22-32
Wilt 42-29 Russell 19-30
Wilt 50-35 Russell 22-27
Wilt 34-55….Russell 18-19
Wilt 39-30 Russell 6-19
Wilt 44-35 Russell 20-21
Wilt 34-38 Russell 17-20
Wilt..52-30….Russell 21-31
Wilt 41-28 Russell 11-24
Wilt 62-28 Russell 23-29
Wilt 38-31 Russell 11-18
Wilt 42-37 Russell 9-20
Wilt 45-27 Russell 12-26
Wilt 43-32 Russell 8-30
Wilt 32-27 Russell 11-16
Wilt 50-17….Russell 23-21
Wilt 35-32….Russell 16-28
Wilt 32-25 Russell…9-24
Wilt 31-30 Russell 12-22
Wilt 37-32 Russell 16-24
Wilt 27-34 Russell..12-17
Wilt 27-43 Russell 13-26
Wilt 30-39 Russell 12-16
Wilt 31-40….Russell 11-17
Wilt 37-42 Russell 14-25
Wilt 29-26 Russell 3-27
Wilt 27-36….Russell 13-20
Wilt 27-32 Russell 6-22
Wilt 32-30 Russell 8-20
Wilt 46-34 Russell 18-31
Wilt 20-41….Russell 10-29
Wilt 29-36 Russell 4-21
Wilt 31-27 Russell 3-8
Wilt 35-19 Russell 5-16
Wilt 12-42 Russell 11-18


While Simmons may not believe that Chamberlain STATISTICALLY dominated Russell, I think the OVERWHELMING evidence suggests otherwise.


To be continued...

[jlauber]

Continuing...

4. Wilt was a "great guy." This is really laughable. Even Simmons has to concede that Wilt was more liked by players, and members of the media...but launches into a long diatribe about how Wilt was a "poor" teammate. He even uses some quotes from players, most of whom never played with Wilt as a teammate. He also quotes Butch Van Breda, Wilt's incompetent coach in the 68-69 season, and who NEVER liked Wilt BEFORE Chamberlain arrived.

Of course, I could have drummed up a TON of quotes from Wilt's TEAMMATES, like Thurmond, Cunningham, and even Jerry West, who Simmons supposedly quoted as saying that Russell was better than Wilt. (Of course, I already posted West's quote in 2000, which came long after Simmons supposed quote, in which West claimed that Wilt was the greatest NBA player EVER.)

Furthermore, Russell was an ass-hole to nearly everyone who knew him. He didn't even show up for his first retirement ceremony, and openly stated that he despised the city of Boston. And, based on "principle" he never signed autographs, either. That was, until he was PAID $250,000 to sign memoribilia after he retired.

In the meantime, Wilt was almost universally liked by nearly everyone who knew him. Even members of the media claimed that he treated them much better than Russell did. This, despite the media often ripping Wilt as a "loser."


5. A Couple of Plays Here or There And Wilt Could Have Won Just As Many Titles As Russell...

This is another asinine comment. Simmons TRIES to claim that Russell dominated Wilt H2H. He completely ignores REALITY. Wilt's TEAMs lost FOUR game seven's to Russell's Celtics...by scores of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points (and in that last one, Chamberlain was relegated to the bench by his idiotic coach in the last five minutes.)

The REALITY was, Russell and Wilt played together in the NBA for ten seasons. And in those ten seasons, in SIX of them, Russell had a HUGE edge in HOF teammates, and as always, much deeper benches. And even in the other four seasons, he still enjoyed an edge in HOF teammates in EVERY season, as well as having much more depth.

And I won't go into all of the MANY reasons why Wilt's teams lost in seven of their eight H2H series. I have before, and I can always bring them up again, but in any case, Russell's TEAMS barely beat Wilt's TEAMs in FOUR of their eight H2H's, and on top of that, Wilt's '67 76ers just DESTROYED Russell and his Celtics en route to a title.


6. Players and Coaches From the Era Are Split Over Who Was Better...

Simmons argues that Russell was almost universally accepted as the better player. I will agree that this is hard to argue. At least in terms of voting, much of it done by the players themselves. HOWEVER, it must also be pointed out that no other player, in the HISTORY of the NBA, was more resented than Chamberlain. Not because he wasn't a "likeable" person, but simply because he just was SO much better than everyone else who played at the time.

To give you an example. When Chamberlain had his monumental 100 point game, many of the points were scored against Darrell Imhoff. Well, the two played against each other a couple of nights later, and to paraphrase Imhoff, (something along these lines...since I don't want to look up the actual quote)...

"I battled Wilt all night long, I fronted him, I backed him, I elbowed him, everything I could think of. I played as well as I possibly could, and when I finally fouled out with a couple of minutes left...I received a standing ovation. I had "held" Wilt to 54 points."

Chamberlain was viewed a "Goliath" (even he, himself admitted as much), and conversely, Russell was "David." A Russell "win" was holding Wilt to a 30-20 game, and for Boston to win. Even a 30-20 game in defeat was considered a moral victory. AND, if Chamberlain hung a 40-30 game on Russell, and somehow his inferior team actually won the game...well, it was because Wilt was so much taller, bigger, stronger, and yes, more skilled. He SHOULD be able to do that Russell. That was the argument at the time, anyway.

Here again, I won't argue that Russell was considered the better player...at least as viewed at the time. As more and more information has become available, and more and more boxscores, and video tapes have come forth, we have seen a shift in the last 10-15 years towards Wilt in that argument.

That was it. Go ahead and read Simmons book, and you will find that all of the above that just posted was almost dead-on.

Simmons was, quite simply, a liar.

[G.O.A.T]

Anyone who has the ability to think for themselves is laughing at you.

I'm sorry I wasted my time. I can see you haven't grown up. I'll continue looking forward to the day you are ready to be honest with us and most importantly, yourself.

[jlauber]

Anyone who has the ability to think for themselves is laughing at you.

I'm sorry I wasted my time. I can see you haven't grown up. I'll continue looking forward to the day you are ready to be honest with us and most importantly, yourself.

I tell you what...go ahead and give me YOUR take on what Simmons ACTUALLY wrote regarding the Wilt-Russell debate...

[NoGunzJustSkillz]

i wish this thread talked to me.

[G.O.A.T]

I tell you what...go ahead and give me YOUR take on what Simmons ACTUALLY wrote regarding the Wilt-Russell debate...

I'll PM you my take tonight.

Only because I lie you and back in the day we had some great discussions.

[KingBeasley08]

You know













I got a weird feeling










that jlauber likes wilt

[jlauber]

I'll PM you my take tonight.

Only because I lie you and back in the day we had some great discussions.

Why not post it here?

BTW, I certainly respect your opinions here.

Having said that, I DID read that ENTIRE chapter (and that is ALL I read from that trashy book)...and I came away with nothing more than Simmons completely bashing Wilt. His "arguments" were almost all falsehoods, as well.

If someone had no idea what the Russell-Wilt rivalry was like, and they read that chapter, they would come away thinking that Wilt was a "stats-padder", a "loser", a lousy teammate, a "choker", who cared nothing about winning, and who SHRANK in big games in his career (particularly against Russell), and who Russell just dominated.

NONE of which was true.

But, I do look forward to your take.

[G.O.A.T]

Secondly, I was taking a look at the Kareem trade from Milwaukee to LA. Did Simmons mention that the Bucks basically gave away the most dominant player of the decade (along wuth journeyman center Walt Wesley) for rookie Brian Winters, who had a decent career, but only averaged 11.7 ppg on .443 shooting in that rookie season; Elmore Smith, who was a decent shot-blocker, but provided little else; and two just-drafted rookies, Dave Meyers, who never amounted to anything, and Junior Bridgeman, who did have a good career, but he was still an unproven, just drafted rookie at the time. I would say that that trade was not much different than the Wilt "trades."

This is a more fair point, except I think Simmons acknowledges that the Lakers got Kareem at a discount as well. If he thinks this is a fair trade and the Wilt trade is not, than I see the hypocrisy.

I think the Kareem trade, when put into complete context makes more sense. In Elmore Smith, they got a center much more promising than Dierking or Imahoff. Smith, as you credited him, was a great a shot-blocker. He had also however shown the ability to score 16-20 ppg. Now, in my opinion, he was exposed by the merger and proven to be a below average starting center, but at the time he was more respected than those other guys were.

In Winters, they got a guy who was all-rookie first team the previous year. One of the presumed five best proven players of the previous class.

Meyers and Bridgeman were the 2nd and 8th pick of that years draft. So in essence Kareem went for an all-rookie first-teamer, the leagues best shot blocker and two first round picks in the top 10.

That's a lot better on the court than one borderline all-star and one role player plus money which is what Wilt's former teams got in return.



No matter what, those Wilt trades were overwhelmingly one-sided.

That's all Simmons is saying. He is just pointing out that a guy like Russell would never, ever be traded, for anything. Let alone in a deal that everyone then and now can see is one-sided. He is saying that Wilt, for all his immense talents, was a guy who you could win with and lose with. If Wilt's attitude or relationship with a coach dipped at the wrong time (See 1961, 1966 and 1969) his team could underachieve at a key moment and lose a winnable playoff series.

Anyone who reads the book, especially the whole book, can see that Simmons is not a fan of Wilt and is not usually fair in his evaluations. But he does not make-up facts or misrepresent circumstances, he simply presents a very one-sided argument. Is it flawless, not even close, but is it a solid case for why Russell, voted the greatest player ever in 1970 and 1980, is still the best player of his era. A case against Wilt, who Simmons unintentionally anoints as the clear #2 from the decade. No one else has a case.

Three of Russell's first four NBA titles came at the expense of Bob Pettit and the Hawks, Oscar Robertson and the Royals provided an obstacle for the Celtics in three of their nine common seasons. Six of the eleven Champions went through the combination of West and Baylor. However, his and their greatest rival was Wilt. Seven of Russell's nine titles in the 1960's went through Wilt. And Wilt, and only Wilt beat Boston with Russell on the court.

[PHILA]

The Rivalry - Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball - John Taylor



http://i.imgur.com/9AwdR.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8BV0D.jpg

[JGXEN]

Your obsession with Wilt is off the charts, what kind of value is there for learning about these historical stuffs?

[SFMF]

Though some of the articles are interesting to read, why can't you guys summarize the shit you want to say in little sentences with quotes from the book and a link to the original? Not many people really give a damn about these tiny little details from decades ago about Wilt Chamberlain.

[The Judge]

Bill Simmons isn't to be taken seriously. He's basically The Onion of journalists.

He's kind of a dumbass, but he's really funny, so read his column, but don't take it seriously.

He uses hyperbole in lieu of conventional wisdom. If LeBron wins a ring, he'll have a podcast the next day and will say things like, "Is LeBron the greatest player ever?" because he always bases everything on emotion instead of actual reality. He really needs to think about what he's going to say for a couple days instead of just saying it the second he thinks about it.

[bagelred]

Great thread.

















did not read

[KevinNYC]

The Rivalry - Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball - John Taylor


So not wanting to read this lengthy post. Whose argument does the quote from The Rivalry support? Bill Simmons in his book, or jlauber critique of Simmons

[Gotterdammerung]

So not wanting to read this lengthy post. Whose argument does the quote from The Rivalry support? Bill Simmons in his book, or jlauber critique of Simmons
Neither. Quit being lazy in thinking it must be either/or.

But then again, this is ISH, the paragon of trolls. :hammerhead:

[BlackJoker23]

In Bill Simmons' "The Book of Basketball" he devotes an entire chapter on the Russell-Wilt rivalry, and his "myths" on Chamberlain.

I have addressed them before in another thread, but I thought I would rehash a couple of his falsehoods, of which there are MANY.

One point he makes is that Wilt was twice "traded for pennies on the dollar."

To understand the first trade, you need a little background info first. Wilt came to the Philadephia Warriors in a territorial draft. What is that you ask? In the 50's the NBA owners decided that to help keep up local fan base interest, that they would allow owners to lock in a player if he were more of a "local" favorite. I won't get into the rules, which were somewhat complicated, and it is unneccessary for this topic anyway. In any case, Chamberlain, being from the Philadelphia area, and still in high school at the time, was "locked in" by the Philly ownership group. Remember, he was in HIGH SCHOOL. So, he was WAY ahead of his time in terms of those that supposedly broke the barriers of jumping right to the NBA out of high school. Of course, at the time, a player still had to go to college, or at least had to wait until his class would have graduated before he could play in the NBA.

BTW, for those that may have read Red Auerbach's many blistering attacks on Wilt (i.e. that he wasn't a team player, or that he was only stats conscious, etc.) how about this...

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



So Wilt joined the Warriors in the 59-60 season, a team that had been in LAST PLACE just the year before. BTW, in his first game, Chamberlain put up a 43 point, 28 rebound, 17 block game. I always get a kick out of those that try to compare players like Kobe or Lebron on the "first to get to xxx points"...because, had Chamberlain been allowed to play in the NBA right out of high school, there is no doubt that he would have added several thousand more points and rebounds to his career totals.

How big was Wilt for the NBA. His team set attendance records everywhere he went. Why is that important? Because following Wilt's staggering 61-62 season, the Philly ownership sold the team to a group based in San Francisco. Why? Because they were offered $850,000 for it, which was considerably more than the $50,000 that they had paid for it orginally. Keep that figure in mind, too, because I will bring it up later.

Chamberlain's Warriors relocated to the West Coast, but not all of the players joined him. HOFer Paul Arizin, already in his 30's, decided to retire. And the Warriors also shipped off their other HOFer, Tom Gola (who is perhaps near the very top of the WORST NBA HOFers of all-time.)

In any case, the Warriors had perhaps the worst roster in NBA history. They had a total of 16 different players on that roster, and some five of them would only be in the NBA for a short stint. Some posters here will point out that Wilt had two "all-star" teammates in that 62-63 season, in Guy Rodgers and Tom Meschery, but the reality was, those two were no more thanabove average, at best players. To be sure, Rodgers was a great passer, and would lead the league that year in assists...but unfortunately, he shot way too much. And, in comparing his FG% against the league averages, he may very well have been the WORST shooter in NBA history. He even had one season in which he shot nearly 100 points BELOW the league average. Meanwhile, somehow Meschery made the all-star team in that 62-63 season, with a 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and .425 FG%, but it would be his ONLY all-star appearance. And even with those ordinary stats, he was still SF's second best player. And, the fact was, both of those guys would have been sitting at the very END of the Celtic bench in that 62-63 season...a team that boasted NINE HOFers (AND a HOF coach, as well.)

Chamberlain had an extraordinary season in 62-63. In fact, in terms of statistical domination, it may very well have been the greatest in NBA history. He LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories. He ran away with the scoring title, at 44.8 ppg (Baylor was next at a distant 34.0 ppg.) He led the NBA in rebounding at 24.3 (on a team that only grabbed 58 per game.) And he set a FG% mark (at the time...that he would break THREE more times) at .528. Keep that figure in mind, as well, because I will bring that up in a moment. And, despite his team only putting up a 31-49 record, Chamberlain ran away with the advanced stat of Win Shares, at 20.9. Thinks about that for a moment...Wilt was directly responsible for 67% of his TEAM's wins. BTW, for the advanced stat geeks, Chamberlain also recorded a PER of 31.8, which is the all-time record.

Once again, though, Wilt's teammates were just AWFUL. I mentioned Wilt's record-setting .528 FG%. However, his teammates collectively shot just .412 without his percentage....which would have been WAY below gthe worst team in that category, which was at .427. Still, that 31-49 record was somewhat deceptive. Their differential was only -2.1 ppg. They lost 35 games by single digits. And they were only involved in eight games of 20+ margins (and only one of 30), and they went 4-4 in those games. BTW, they only went 1-8 against the champion Celtics, but six of those games were very close...and Wilt averaged 38 ppg against Russell in those nine games...including one game of 50.

How bad was that roster? After that season, the Warriors brought in a new head coach, Aex Hannum, and one of his first orders of business was to see just what kind of a roster that he had inherited. He scheduled a scrimmage with that roster, sans Chamberlain, against rookies and undrafted players. And, he was shocked when the Warriors lost the game.

Even more remarkable, was the fact that Wilt would take that cast of clowns to a 48-32 record in 63-64, and to the Finals, where, despite Wilt outscoring Russell by a 29-11 margin per game, and outrebounding him by a 27-25 margin per game, the Celtics, and their NINE HOFers (Wilt had ONE other HOF teammate...rookie Nate Thurmond, who played part-time, out of position, and shot .395), won a couple of close games en route to a 4-1 series win.

to be continued...
http://oi56.tinypic.com/2ihksns.jpg

[jlauber]

This is a more fair point, except I think Simmons acknowledges that the Lakers got Kareem at a discount as well. If he thinks this is a fair trade and the Wilt trade is not, than I see the hypocrisy.

I think the Kareem trade, when put into complete context makes more sense. In Elmore Smith, they got a center much more promising than Dierking or Imahoff. Smith, as you credited him, was a great a shot-blocker. He had also however shown the ability to score 16-20 ppg. Now, in my opinion, he was exposed by the merger and proven to be a below average starting center, but at the time he was more respected than those other guys were.

In Winters, they got a guy who was all-rookie first team the previous year. One of the presumed five best proven players of the previous class.

Meyers and Bridgeman were the 2nd and 8th pick of that years draft. So in essence Kareem went for an all-rookie first-teamer, the leagues best shot blocker and two first round picks in the top 10.

That's a lot better on the court than one borderline all-star and one role player plus money which is what Wilt's former teams got in return.




That's all Simmons is saying. He is just pointing out that a guy like Russell would never, ever be traded, for anything. Let alone in a deal that everyone then and now can see is one-sided. He is saying that Wilt, for all his immense talents, was a guy who you could win with and lose with. If Wilt's attitude or relationship with a coach dipped at the wrong time (See 1961, 1966 and 1969) his team could underachieve at a key moment and lose a winnable playoff series.

Anyone who reads the book, especially the whole book, can see that Simmons is not a fan of Wilt and is not usually fair in his evaluations. But he does not make-up facts or misrepresent circumstances, he simply presents a very one-sided argument. Is it flawless, not even close, but is it a solid case for why Russell, voted the greatest player ever in 1970 and 1980, is still the best player of his era. A case against Wilt, who Simmons unintentionally anoints as the clear #2 from the decade. No one else has a case.

Three of Russell's first four NBA titles came at the expense of Bob Pettit and the Hawks, Oscar Robertson and the Royals provided an obstacle for the Celtics in three of their nine common seasons. Six of the eleven Champions went through the combination of West and Baylor. However, his and their greatest rival was Wilt. Seven of Russell's nine titles in the 1960's went through Wilt. And Wilt, and only Wilt beat Boston with Russell on the court.

For those that might be interested, G.O.A.T did indeed send me a PM on the entire Simmons chapter on the Russell-Wilt debate. I won't present it here, since it was sent in private. I would certainly welcome him to do so, but that is purely his choice.

In any case, had Simmons presented his arguments on those six "myths" the way that G.O.A.T did, even I would have a difficult time challenging them.

Personally, I would really like to see G.O.A.T's ENTIRE work on the NBA, and pre-NBA ( the REAL "pioneers", including the Black segregated teams from the 20's thru the inception of the NBA) published. His work his pure GOLD, and considering the rubbish that Simmons has made a fortune on in his career, G.O.A.T's work deserves a Pulitzer in comparison.

BTW, I was intent on comong home and continuing my assault on Simmons...but after reading G.O.A.T's PM, I won't waste my time.

[Gotterdammerung]

For those that might be interested, G.O.A.T did indeed send me a PM on the entire Simmons chapter on the Russell-Wilt debate. I won't present it here, since it was sent in private. I would certainly welcome him to do so, but that is purely his choice.

In any case, had Simmons presented his arguments on those six "myths" the way that G.O.A.T did, even I would have a difficult time challenging them.

Personally, I would really like to see G.O.A.T's ENTIRE work on the NBA, and pre-NBA ( the REAL "pioneers", including the Black segregated teams from the 20's thru the inception of the NBA) published. His work his pure GOLD, and considering the rubbish that Simmons has made a fortune on in his career, G.O.A.T's work deserves a Pulitzer in comparison.

BTW, I was intent on comong home and continuing my assault on Simmons...but after reading G.O.A.T's PM, I won't waste my time.
at first I thought to myself 'what a gyp, guy won't share his thoughts in public.' Then I realized he is writing a book and shouldn't give it away for free before it's published. :facepalm

Having read his uber-duper-threads on GOAT teams and players, I've no doubt his book(s) will definitely put Simmons' fanboy-ish stuff to shame. :applause:

[G.O.A.T]

^ I only made the message private because I felt people were tired of us clogging the thread with the same old debate.

The book is a constant battle, the website is only a few months away. The website will have content from the book including a brand new top 150 GOAT List.

[heyhey]

^ I only made the message private because I felt people were tired of us clogging the thread with the same old debate.

The book is a constant battle, the website is only a few months away. The website will have content from the book including a brand new top 150 GOAT List.

make sure to drop a link to the site when you can. i love reading about the history of the game. thought the simmons book was solid but I guess his view is very skewed.

[G.O.A.T]

^I thought his book was great. Very entertaining and very informative.

He has a bias sure, but I am familiar with his writing and can sift through that bias.

When I finish my book, plenty of people who disagree with my conclusions will say that I am just biased. I just hope that people enjoy reading the content I produce as much as I love researching it.

[Pointguard]

^I thought his book was great. Very entertaining and very informative.

He has a bias sure, but I am familiar with his writing and can sift through that bias.

When I finish my book, plenty of people who disagree with my conclusions will say that I am just biased. I just hope that people enjoy reading the content I produce as much as I love researching it.
Good luck and I'm buying because I know you are an enthusiast. I know your bias and it conflicts with mines. Everybody's got them.

[DMAVS41]

^I thought his book was great. Very entertaining and very informative.

He has a bias sure, but I am familiar with his writing and can sift through that bias.

When I finish my book, plenty of people who disagree with my conclusions will say that I am just biased. I just hope that people enjoy reading the content I produce as much as I love researching it.

Everyone has biases....thats what makes different takes so interesting. Look forward to anything you put out.

[caliman]

Everyone has biases....thats what makes different takes so interesting. Look forward to anything you put out.


Even with Simmons' built in Celtic biases, I thought he did a very good job on ranking the guys in the Pyramid, particularly the top 25 or so.

[jlip]

^I thought his book was great. Very entertaining and very informative.

He has a bias sure, but I am familiar with his writing and can sift through that bias.

When I finish my book, plenty of people who disagree with my conclusions will say that I am just biased. I just hope that people enjoy reading the content I produce as much as I love researching it.

Must have the book!

[Gotterdammerung]

^I thought his book was great. Very entertaining and very informative.

He has a bias sure, but I am familiar with his writing and can sift through that bias.

When I finish my book, plenty of people who disagree with my conclusions will say that I am just biased. I just hope that people enjoy reading the content I produce as much as I love researching it.

Aye I enjoyed reading Simmons' book at Borders so much that I went ahead & bought the book. I was already a fan of his columns and followed him on twitter. A book on the NBA by a favorite writer? U can't beat that.

However I immediately noticed the heavy handed bias because I already read several books on NBA history particularly the ones by Pluto, Rosen, and biographies, autobiographies, etc. Ah well u can't have it all. Perhaps you will rectify this distortion with a few of your own :)

[PHILA]

So not wanting to read this lengthy post. Whose argument does the quote from The Rivalry support? Bill Simmons in his book, or jlauber critique of SimmonsBelow you can read two shorter excerpts.


Season of the 76ers: the story of Wilt Chamberlain and the 1967 NBA champions - Wayne Lynch


http://i.imgur.com/lFB5B.png






http://i.imgur.com/gOvxU.png

[jlauber]

Mieuli didn't quite finish that last statement, though. Two years after the Wilt trade, and the firing of Hannum, Mieuli's Warriors faced the Wilt-Hannum Sixers in the Finals. That Philly team may have been the greatest team of all time, too, going 68-13 (a record at the time...and by a mile), and then annihilating the eight-time defending 60-21 Celtics 4-1 (and were only four points away from sweeping them in game four.) The Warriors put up a valiant effort, losing a close game six, but clearly the Sixers were the better team...and THE main reason was Chamberlain.

Wilt tormented the Warrior franchise the rest of his career, as well. There was not ONE season, after that trade, that a Warrior team had a better record than a Chamberlain-led team. And after Wilt was "traded" to the Lakers in 1968, he would lead LA to two more playoff romps at the expense of the Warrior franchise. In fact, in his very first season with the Lakers, in the first round of the playoffs, LA dropped the first two games of the Warrior series, and on their home floor, to fall behind 2-0. However, they won the next four, including a 117-77 clinching win in SF. And in Wilt's final season, Chamberlain once again pounded Thurmond, and his Lakers blew out the Thurmond-Barry Warriors, 4-1. Incidently, I actually attended game three in Oakland... a 126-70 Laker win.

The bottom line...EVERY team Wilt joined became MUCH better. In fact, EVERY team he played for would go on to set franchise records for best-ever W-L record, and two of those franchise records remain to his day. Furthermore, EVERY team he left became MUCH worse. Of course, Simmons NEVER mentions that fact.

[jlauber]

Bump for the benefit of oolalaa and La Frescobaldi...