intangibles vs. facts, myth vs. reality [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

La Frescobaldi

12-31-2011, 06:05 AM

We hijacked a Oolalaa thread, went way too far off from Walton & Duncan comparison... pickin it up where he sez.........

***************************************
I have said this on more than one occasion - Wilt is the most talented player the league has ever seen. More talented than Jordan. More talented than Kareem. More talented than Kobe. More talented than Hakeem. And yes, even more talented than Lebron. He was an unbelievable all round player but, I hate to keep repeating this over and over again, INTANGIBLES PLAY A HUGE ROLE IN BASKETBALL. They just do, and this is what jlauber doesn't seem to grasp. He is STAT OBSESSED. Players such as Russell, Magic, Bird, Duncan and Isiah Thomas prove that leadership, clutchness and competitiveness make up for deficiences in talent and ability.

Look at Lebron James, the most gifted player all round of the last 35 years. The similarities with Wilt are striking. He carried a bad team to the finals in '07 but LOST to the spurs. He LOST against Boston in '08 despite putting up 45 points in game 7. He LOST against the Orlando Magic in '09 despite a monster, Chamberlain esque statistical series. He LOST against Boston in '10 thanks to floating through games 5 & 6. He LOST against the Mavericks in '11 thanks to his disappearing act in the 4th quarters.

Lebron is the most talented player in the league right now by MILES but how can anyone say he's the best? (not until he proves us that he can get over the hump at least). He isn't even the best player on the Heat, Dwyane Wade is. Wade isn't as good a scorer as Lebron. Wade isn't as good a playmaker as Lebron. Wade isn't as good a rebounder as Lebron. Wade doesn't put up the stats that Lebron does. But Wade is the leader of that team and the better crunch time scorer. These two things offset Lebron's superior basketball playing ability.

When i read quotes form Wilt like - "To Russell, every game - every championship game - was a challenge, a test to his manhood. He took the game so seriously that he threw up in the locker room before almost every game. But i tend to look at basketball as a game, not a life or death struggle. I don't need scoring titles or championships to prove that i'm a man. There are too many other beautiful things in life - food, cars, girls, friends, the beach, freedom - to get that emotionally wrapped up in basketball. I think he (Russell) may have felt that with my natural ability and willingness to work hard, my teams could have won an NBA championship every year if i was totally committed to victory as he was."

and

"I get constant reminders from fans who equate 'that game' and my career as one of the same."

and

"I guarentee you, if you could give me 10 points in all those 7th games against the Boston Celtics, instead of Bill Russell having 11 rings, i could've had at least 9 or 8."

and the definitive

"In a way, I like it better when we lose. It's over and i can look forward to the next game. If we win, it bulids up the tension and i start worrying about the next game."

it shows me that Wilt didn't care whether he won or lost. It shows me that Wilt wasn't very competitive. It shows me that Wilt wasn't consumed with winning. It shows me that all those game 7 losses against Boston and the Knicks were no accident.

Regarding that '70 finals - Willis Reed was playing on 1 leg for nearly half the series! (and was demolishing Wilt in the other half ). Why didn't Wilt pound Reed into the ground? Why didn't he exploit his injured opponent? I know he had a great game 6 but what happened in games 5 and 7? Let me guess, it was the coaches fault or his teammates fault or Jerry Wests fault or his injured knees fault. Am I right? There's always some excuse.

I've read that Wilt almost retired in 1960, after just one season in the league (HE ALMOST RETIRED!! Did he even like basketball? ). He was supposedly upset with the pounding and rough treatment he received during his rookie season as well as the refereeing injustices against him. He was eventually persuaded to change his mind by his teams owner, Ed Gottlieb....

Thoma Whalen (author) - "Gottlieb (warriors owner) told his young superstar that if he continued playing, he stood an excellent chance of breaking every major record in the book. The challenge was one Chamberlain could not easily ignore. The subject of greatness was constantly on his mind. His burning ambition was to become the greatest basketball player in history.
The only problem was that in his efforts to be the best, Chamberlain more times than not sacrificed the good of the team for individual statistical glory. Indeed, winning never seemed to be high on his list of priorities. Breaking records and grabbing headlines were. And therin lay the paradox of Chamberlain. He was an individualist in a game that demanded teamwork and personal sacrifice."

Then, Wilt went from a player obsessed with scoring to one obsessed with distributing. Great....but the problem was that he couldn't/didn't vacillate in between. He could have played unselfishly for 3 quarters - passed the ball, made his teammates better, rebounded, played great defence - and then taken over in the 4th with his unbelievable scoring ability. He would have been unstoppable. He just didn't get it.

Oh and did you know, in 1965 when the Warriors wanted to trade Wilt (they wanted to trade Wilt Chamberllain! ), Lakers owner Bob Short submitted a vote to his players on whether or not they should acquire him. The players voted against it! 9-2 against it! What?! Why?!

Wilt was eventually traded to the 76ers mid-way through the season, but do you know who he was traded for? Paul Neumann (who?), Connie Dierking (who?) and Lee Shaffer (who?). WOW.

When i read even more quotes, this time from his peers such as Jerry West - "I don't want to rap Wilt because i believe only Russell was better, and i really respect what Wilt did. But i have to say he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him."

and

Rick Barry - "I'll say what most people feel, Wilt is a loser. He has a complex about this. He thinks the world is picking on him. He resents criticism...When it comes to the closing moments of a tough game, an important game, he doesn't want the ball, he doesn't want any part of the pressure. It is at these times that greatness is determined, and Wilt doesn't have it. There is no way you can compare him as a pro to a Bill Russell ot Jerry West. If Jerry West had been a centre, his team would have won as many championships as Russell's. These are clutch performers."

and

Bill Bradley (SF for the Knicks in the early 70s) - "Wilt played the game as if he had to prove his worth to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed out his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant, certainly nonessential. The point of the game is not how well the individual does, but whether the team wins. This is the beautiful heart of the game, the blending of personalities, the mutual sacrifices for group success....I have the impression that Wilt might have been more secure with losing. In defeat, after carefully covering himself with allusions to his accomplishments, he could be magnanimous....Wilt's emphasis on individual accomplishments failed to gain him the public affection and made him the favourite to win the game. And simultaneously, it assured him of losing."

and Continuing.....
Bill Russell - "It did seem to me that Wilt was often ambivalent about what he wanted to get out of basketball. Anyone who changes the character and style of play several times over a career is bound to be uncertain about which of many potential accomplishments he wants to pursue. It's perfectly possible for a player not to make victory his first priority against all others - money, records, personal fame - and i often felt Wilt made some deliberate choices in his ambitions."

it merely strengthens the notion that he was Stat obsessed, anti clutch & had screwed up priorities.

Now, I wouldn't go as far as calling Wilt a "loser". His '67 and '72 seasons were 2 of the greatest the league has ever seen, all things considered. But i will say that he was certainly not a "winner".

He lost because of injuries. He lost because of bad teammates. He lost because of incompetent coaches. According to jlauber, it was never, ever his fault that he lost.

Maybe jlauber thinks Wilt is the unluckiest player of all time and perhaps he's right. But, if that is the case, I certainly wouldn't want him on my team. Would you?

*************

that is a lot of subjects right there!!!
*************
and lauber sez.........

Oolalaa...most all of your arguments come from the book by the legendary LIAR, Bill Simmons. I have shredded that idiots's claims here many times.

I reopened the threads to avoid making any more of a mess on this topic...

Bill Simmons on the Rivalry
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=160893

BS on Wilt's trades
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=223621

Wilt the Choker
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=194899

The Stats Padder
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191969

The "Loser"
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=222675

Last edited by jlauber : Yesterday at 09:30 PM.

****************

1987_Lakers

12-31-2011, 06:17 AM

*Waits for jlauber to post an essay defending Wilt.*:oldlol:

Kovach

12-31-2011, 07:47 AM

1) facts and reality > intangibles and myth
2) Wilt is the greatest fantasy basketball player of all time.

/thread

La Frescobaldi

12-31-2011, 08:26 AM

"Oh and did you know, in 1965 when the Warriors wanted to trade Wilt (they wanted to trade Wilt Chamberllain! ), Lakers owner Bob Short submitted a vote to his players on whether or not they should acquire him. The players voted against it! 9-2 against it! What?! Why?!

Wilt was eventually traded to the 76ers mid-way through the season, but do you know who he was traded for? Paul Neumann (who?), Connie Dierking (who?) and Lee Shaffer (who?). WOW."
*************

This is one of the funnier twistings of fact from Bill Simmons tbob. The story is, as always with Simmons, much more complex. Simmons should be writing pot boilers... he can't handle more than one plot.

At the time the locker room story broke, there was a different view entirely; namely, Short had completely lost his senses by effectively inviting the players into the boardroom. In those days, as it is to an extent today, players were paid based on how they performed. These guys weren't making millions of dollars, they were earning $25 or 30,000 a year. Most had real jobs and played in the NBA too. Bluntly, they feared their paychecks would turn into pennies.

It's telling that the Lakers were sold to Jack Kent Cooke that season.

Now, the truth of the Warriors trade itself has been totally lost in Internet ramblings. The truth is, that trade was the most important in NBA history. The Warriors franchise was at the brink of bankruptcy, and the Chamberlain trade saved it, plain and simple.

Eddie Gottlieb bought the team in 1952 for $25,000, and he sold it to a group of NY investors for $850,000... in a market where teams were selling for $250,000. They promptly moved the team to that all-time basketball mecca.......................... San Francisco.

After one season, the main owners, completely out of their depth, sold to a guy named Tony Mieuli, who also knew nothing about running a sports team.

In a league where teams rode a bus to almost every game (tells you what kind of money these teams had), Mieuli's team had to fly to every away game except LA. So instead of chartering a bus for $75 or $100, he was paying a couple grand per game on plane tickets.

Of course, in '64 the team doctor told the owner Wilt had a heart condition and nobody would insure him with his condition: "I'll bet my job on it - he won't last the year." Naturally Mieuli wanted out: the guy was gonna die right on the court.

So Mieuli (who later said, "I was young and dumb, I didn't get enough for him,)" traded Chamberlain for $150,000 in cash, probably 25% of the team's real worth, and 3 players. The trade saved the team from bankruptcy and the Warriors are still here today.

I don't remember that season really, I was a kid. But I do remember people for years afterward talking about what a fool the owner of the Warriors was.

*****************
People read all kinds of things into that trade but it's very simple.

Moral of the story: fools and their money are soon parted.

jlauber

12-31-2011, 11:25 AM

I have covered most all of Simmons' trash on his views of Chamberlain in the links above.

Wilt was NOT traded for "pennies on the dollar." In fact, he was not really "traded" at all in the second deal. He FORCED that "trade."

As for the alleged "player voting" against a proposed deal for Wilt. First of all, and as Psileas pointed out, where are the facts on that? I have never encountered any research which would substantiate that that ever occurred. And secondly, if it were indeed true, it probably cost the Lakers 2-3 titles by NOT making the trade (depending on what they would have had to surrender to get him.)

By the time the Lakers were finally able to acquire Wilt, they had to strip THREE quality players from their roster (all-star guard Archie Clark, journeyman center Darrell Imhoff...and they also lost Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft.) Not only that, but Baylor was on a severe decline. And of course, they also had a complete idiot for a coach.

Had they actually been able to pull the trigger before the '65 season, if in fact they had the opportunity, it would have addressed their biggest flaw...the center position. In the '65 Finals, Russell put up an 18-29 .702 Finals, and in the '66 Finals, he led Boston in scoring at 23.6 ppg. HOWEVER, he never approached those numbers against Wilt. In the '65 ECF's, Chamberlain outscored Russell by a 30-16 margin, and outrebounded him by a 31-26 margin. And while I don't have Chamberlain's FG% in that series, Russell only shot .451 against him (which was probably his HIGH post-season FG% against Chamberlain.) And in the '66 ECF's, Wilt outscored Russell by a 28-14 margin, and outrebounded him 31-26. I don't have Russell's FG% in that series, but Wilt shot .509 against him.

Regarding all of those supposed quotes from peers. I won't waste my time pulling up dozens of quotes from peers praising Wilt...except for Jerry West. Simmons' dug up a post-game comment from West after the '69 Finals, in which a frustrated West gave Russell a slight edge over Wilt. In Cherry's book West recanted that remark, and in fact, sometime after 1999 he made this comment:

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

"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."

Simmons never actually saw Russell and Wilt go H2H (he was born in 1969), and he obviously had an "anti-Wilt" bias in his book. And he either distorted reality, or downright lied in his take on their "rivalry."

Once again...I addressed his trash a while back...

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

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=223621

jlauber

12-31-2011, 11:32 AM

Of course, in '64 the team doctor told the owner Wilt had a heart condition and nobody would insure him with his condition: "I'll bet my job on it - he won't last the year." Naturally Mieuli wanted out: the guy was gonna die right on the court.

So Mieuli (who later said, "I was young and dumb, I didn't get enough for him,)" traded Chamberlain for $150,000 in cash, probably 25% of the team's real worth, and 3 players. The trade saved the team from bankruptcy and the Warriors are still here today.

I don't remember that season really, I was a kid. But I do remember people for years afterward talking about what a fool the owner of the Warriors was.

The Warriors, fearful that Wilt was a walking time-bomb, traded him away in mid-season in '64-65 (and for MUCH more than Simmon's silly "pennies on the dollar.")

What happened next? Chamberlain went to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before...and promptly took that team on his back. He led them to a 3-1 series romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals, and then led that 40-40 Philly team to a game seven, one point loss, against Boston's 62-18 Celtics.

Then, in his next three seasons in Philadelphia, all Chamberlain did was lead the Sixers to the BEST RECORD in the league EVERY season, and a dominating world title in '67.

oolalaa

12-31-2011, 11:34 AM

jlauber

12-31-2011, 11:46 AM

Thanks for giving me more information on that trade. I thought there was probably other factors involved but, regardless, the interesting thing surrounding it was the fact that the Lakers players vetoed a trade for him.

I'm curious, did the Lakers players know about Wilt's supposed heart condition? And if so, was that the reason they didn't want him? Or was it because he was whiny, self centered and stat obsessed? (All these things are undeniable. I can find you more quotes backing up these claims - I used the ones in Simmons TBOB because i remember thinking that they were particuarly damning, and, i think you would agree, they are.)

I covered this.

I don't even believe that there ever was "player vote." And if it were true, it would be indicative of management incompetence if they actually went along with it.

As it was, the "non-trade" probably cost the Lakers several titles. Meanwhile, all Wilt did after the actual trade was to lead the Sixers to a near monumental upset of the 62-18 Celtics in '65, and the BEST RECORD in the league over the next three seasons, including an overwhelming title in '67 (which included obliterating the eight-time defending champion Celtics.)

And, once again, I could post DOZENS of quotes from Wilt's teammates PRAISING his play. Following a game seven, two point loss in the '62 ECF's, Tom Meschery made this comment:

"The Boston players, player-for-player, were better than the Warriors. To go as far as we did was Wilt's doing. We came within two points of the championship."

I already gave West's REAL take on Chamberlain. He essentially proclaimed Wilt as the greatest to ever play the game (at least in the early 00's.) And, if anyone should be thanking Wilt, it should have been West. He finally won his only ring in '72. And it came in a post-season in which West was just AWFUL. He shot .376 in the entire post-season (and only .325 in the Finals), while Chamberlain mowed down Kareem and the defending champion Bucks in the WCF's, and then dominated the Knicks in the Finals, in leading LA to their first-ever title in Los Angeles... en route to winning the FMVP.

Asukal

12-31-2011, 12:09 PM

I'm totally drunk while posting this, but hey happy new year guys!

All shit aside, no matter how much of a Wilt ******ger you are jlauber, fact of the matter is Wilt is not the GOAT! MJ is the concensus GOAT! HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! Stop being gay for Wilt man, that's creepy shit! :rockon:

jlauber

12-31-2011, 12:37 PM

I don't think Psileas would mind...

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?

jlauber

12-31-2011, 12:56 PM

BTW, none other than John Wooden, in his book "They Call Me Coach" claimed that had Wilt been surrounded by Russell's teammates, that he very likely would have won as many rings.

jlauber

12-31-2011, 01:15 PM

Regarding that '70 finals - Willis Reed was playing on 1 leg for nearly half the series! (and was demolishing Wilt in the other half ). Why didn't Wilt pound Reed into the ground? Why didn't he exploit his injured opponent? I know he had a great game 6 but what happened in games 5 and 7? Let me guess, it was the coaches fault or his teammates fault or Jerry Wests fault or his injured knees fault. Am I right? There's always some excuse.

Complete fallacy. A prime Reed, in his MVP season, was facing an older Wilt, who was past his prime, and was only four months removed from major knee surgery. It was a horrible matchup problem for Chamberlain, because he had lost some of his lateral mobility, while Reed was a pop-up 15 ft shooter, who was working behind screens.

As it was, in their first four games of that series, Reed averaged 32-15 on .491 shooting, while Chamberlain was at 19-25 .543. Furthermore, while Reed outplayed Wilt in game's one and three, Wilt easily outplayed him in game's two and four. The series was tied 2-2 going into game five. And, in the first period of that game five, Chamberlain was torching Reed, and LA LED by ten points when Reed went down. So, if anything, a hobbled Wilt had outplayed a much healthier Reed in the first five games.

What happened in game five? Ask NY Times writer Leonard Koppett who wrote that the Knicks were aided by home-court officiating in the second half of that game. The Knicks were allowed to MAUL both West and Wilt...who COMBINED for FIVE FGAs in that second half. The result? A 107-100 Knick win.

In game six, and on their home floor, Wilt just murdered the helpless Knicks, with a 45-27 game, and on 20-27 shooting, in a 135-113 rout. Had the officials not assisted the Knicks in game five, Wilt's game six would have ranked among the greatest "closeout" games in NBA history.

And in game seven, the Knicks just came out and hit everything. I have seen several games like that in my lifetime, and I have long maintained that even a team with five Jordans would not have beaten the Knicks that night. And it certainly wasn't Wilt's fault. NY just swarmed him, and Reed basically fouled him on nearly every play (four fouls in the first half.) Wilt still had 11 points, on 5-10 shooting, with 12 rebounds in that first half (en route to a 21 point, 24 rebound, 10-16 game.) Meanwhile, Frazier finally outplayed West (and badly BTW), and Wilt's teammates shot 33% in the first half. The game was basically over at halftime, when NY led 69-42.

BTW, a PRIME Chamberlain had an entire SEASON in which he averaged 40 ppg against a younger Reed. And, in the 64-65 and 65-66 seasons, Wilt hung THREE 50+ point games on Reed, with a HIGH game of 58 points.

And in the 67-68 playoffs against the Knicks, Wilt LED BOTH teams in scoring, rebounding, AND assists (the Knicks had Walt Frazier BTW),..all while holding NY's HOF center, Walt Bellamy, who had shot .541 during the regular season, to .421 shooting in that series.

jlauber

12-31-2011, 02:32 PM

I have said this on more than one occasion - Wilt is the most talented player the league has ever seen. More talented than Jordan. More talented than Kareem. More talented than Kobe. More talented than Hakeem. And yes, even more talented than Lebron. He was an unbelievable all round player but, I hate to keep repeating this over and over again, INTANGIBLES PLAY A HUGE ROLE IN BASKETBALL. They just do, and this is what jlauber doesn't seem to grasp. He is STAT OBSESSED. Players such as Russell, Magic, Bird, Duncan and Isiah Thomas prove that leadership, clutchness and competitiveness make up for deficiences in talent and ability.

Russell was a great playoff and Finals player. And his contributions went beyond the stat sheet (his intimidation and hustle), too. BUT, where were those "clutch" games against Chamberlain? True, in their 49 playoff games, Russell had a few games in which he outplayed Wilt, and he even hit a game-winning shot in game four of the '64 Finals (albeit, Wilt had to jump out to defend a Heinsohn shot that missed, and Russell tapped in.)

However, and overall, Wilt was much more "clutch" in their H2H's. In a "must-win" game five of the '60 ECF's, Wilt put up a huge 50-35 game on Russell, in a blowout win. In the '62 ECF's, while Simmons claims that Wilt "shrunk" with a game seven of 22-21 (to Russell's 19-22), the recaps of the game claimed that Wilt dominated that game defensively. AND, Chamberlain made a three-point play in the last minute which pulled Philly even. And while Sam Jones hit the game-winner (as he often did), it came over the outstretched fingertips of, you guessed it, Chamberlain.) BTW, in game two, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20, in a seven-point win. And that was what an early Wilt was faced with. He had to put up HUGE games just to give his team a chance.

In that game four of the '64 Finals, when Russell hit the game-winner, all Wilt did was outscore Russell, 27-8, and outrebound him, 38-19.

In the clinching game seven loss in the '65 ECF's, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 30-15, outshot Russell, 12-15 to 7-16, and outrebounded him, 32-29. And in the last three minutes Chamberlain scored eight of Philly's final ten points (including 2-2 from the line at the 36 sec mark, and a dunk over Russell with 5 secs left), bringing the Sixers back from a 110-101 deficit to within 110-109. Furthermore, the "clutch" Russell then hit a guidewire with an inbounds pass, giving the Sixers an opportunity to pull off one of the greatest playoff upsets of all-time. However, and once again, one of Russell's TEAMMATES made a great play, when "Havlicek stole the ball."

How about Wilt in the clinching game five loss in the '66 ECF's? He hung a 46-34 game on Russell (on 19-34 shooting), while Russell had an 18-31 game.

Which brings me to the '67 ECF's. The tables were reversed, and it was Russell who was down 3-1 and facing elimination in game five. How did the "clutch" Russell perform? I have made this comment before, and here it is again...he went quietly like a lamb to slaughter. Instead of stepping up when it was obvious that his teammates needed him to, Russell scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, and with 21 rebounds. Meanwhile, Chamberlain poured in 29 points (22 in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and seven blocks.

Wilt was butchered by the media following his game seven of the '68 ECF's, when he didn't score in the second half. BUT, he was noticeably limping with his torn calf, (along with several more injuries), and he only TOUCHED the ball NINE times in that second half. And he STILL outscored Russell, 14-12, and outrebounded him, 34-26. And even Russell commented that "a lessor man would not have played."

How about game seven of the '69 Finals? Take a look at that footage. In the ENTIRE 4th period, Russell had TWO rebounds. Meanwhile, Chamberlain, playing seven minutes before injuring his leg, had seven. In fact, Chamberlain had as many rebounds, on his injured leg, as Russell did in the entire period. For the game, Wilt outscored Russell, 18-6, outshot him, 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him, 27-21...despite only playing 43 minutes to Russell's 48.

I could list MANY other games, too. The fact was, Russell never had to be as productive as Chamberlain. And his teammates usually played BETTER in the post-season, while Wilt's usually played WORSE. And, as mentioned earlier, Russell's teammates were far more CLUTCH. Wilt seldom got much help from his teammates, while Russell was constantly blessed with great play from his.

DaHeezy

12-31-2011, 03:33 PM

jlauber

12-31-2011, 04:48 PM

When i read quotes form Wilt like - "To Russell, every game - every championship game - was a challenge, a test to his manhood. He took the game so seriously that he threw up in the locker room before almost every game. But i tend to look at basketball as a game, not a life or death struggle. I don't need scoring titles or championships to prove that i'm a man. There are too many other beautiful things in life - food, cars, girls, friends, the beach, freedom - to get that emotionally wrapped up in basketball. I think he (Russell) may have felt that with my natural ability and willingness to work hard, my teams could have won an NBA championship every year if i was totally committed to victory as he was."

and

"I get constant reminders from fans who equate 'that game' and my career as one of the same."

and

"I guarentee you, if you could give me 10 points in all those 7th games against the Boston Celtics, instead of Bill Russell having 11 rings, i could've had at least 9 or 8."

and the definitive

"In a way, I like it better when we lose. It's over and i can look forward to the next game. If we win, it bulids up the tension and i start worrying about the next game."

it shows me that Wilt didn't care whether he won or lost. It shows me that Wilt wasn't very competitive. It shows me that Wilt wasn't consumed with winning. It shows me that all those game 7 losses against Boston and the Knicks were no accident.

Chamberlain was right...his TEAM's lost FOUR game seven's by a TOTAL of NINE points (margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.) He was a FEW points away from having a 5-3 edge over Russell in their eight post-season series.

As for Wilt's comments about losing, it would have been interesting to find out when he made them. I suspect that he may very well have said it following another close seven game series defeat, in which he played brilliantly, while his teammates, who were usually inept to begin with, played even worse. And yet, it was always WILT's fault. Once again, he was labeled a "selfish" "stats-padder" who "choked" and constantly "failed."

I have said it before, but for someone who was labeled a "loser" in his career, he did a pretty poor job of it. He played on 12 winning teams in his 14 seasons. And how about those two losing seasons? In his 62-63 season, he was saddled with a cast of clowns roster that couldn't beat a bunch of scrubs in a scrimmage, sans Wilt, conducted by Hannum the very next season. And all he did that season was play 47.6 mpg, average 44.8 ppg, 24.3 rpg, and shoot a then-record .528 from the field. All told, Wilt LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories...including WIN SHARES and PER (an all-time record mark of 31.8 BTW.)

And in his other losing season, he went to a bottom-feeding Philly team at mid-season, and then took that 40-40 team thru a 3-1 romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals in the first round, and then to a game seven, two point loss against Russell's 62-18 Celtics in the ECF's.

Wilt "the loser" took 12 teams to at least the Conference Finals. He played on six teams that won their division. He played on six teams that were conference champions. He took six teams to the Finals. He played on four teams that had the best record in the league. He played on four teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13. And he anchored two teams that won dominating world titles.

Once again, if Wilt were a "loser" because he only won two rings in his 14 year career, then what about MJ, who played on nine "losing" teams? Or the "clutch" Bird who played on ten "losers" in his 13 year career? Or West and Oscar, who each won one ring in their 13 seasons? Or Kareem, who played on 14 "losers"? Or Shaq who played 15 years on "losing" teams? Or the highly regarded Hakeem, who had 16 "losing" seasons in his 18 year career?

And, it just amazes me that Wilt, who faced HOF-laden teams in nearly every post-season, and a HOF center in 105 of his 160 post-season games...was considered a "loser", despite outplaying all of them, and some by HUGE margins. And yet, a Bird, who lost SEVEN times with HCA, and who had some AWFUL post-season series, is considered "clutch." Or Hakeem, who played on EIGHT teams that were wiped out in the FIRST ROUND. Or Shaq, who played on SIX teams that were SWEPT in the post-season.

Why?

La Frescobaldi

12-31-2011, 06:06 PM

Thanks for giving me more information on that trade. I thought there was probably other factors involved but, regardless, the interesting thing surrounding it was the fact that the Lakers players vetoed a trade for him.

I'm curious, did the Lakers players know about Wilt's supposed heart condition? And if so, was that the reason they didn't want him? Or was it because he was whiny, self centered and stat obsessed? (All these things are undeniable. I can find you more quotes backing up these claims - I used the ones in Simmons TBOB because i remember thinking that they were particuarly damning, and, i think you would agree, they are.)

I have never been able to find anything about a vote by the Lakers.

As I said, and I'll repeat it: "At the time the locker room story broke, there was a different view entirely; namely, Short had completely lost his senses by effectively inviting the players into the boardroom."

Possibly my writing was poor.

What I remember, reading in the newspapers & magazines (and yes that's a very long time ago, but most people I think remember a great deal about their youthful diversions, & basketball rated only below girls in the back seat of my car) is that Bob Short looked like a fool for allowing his players to take part in decisions about the team.

Naturally I don't claim to have read every sports rag from 1960 to today.

Nevertheless I find it bothersome that I can find no mention of this really unprecedented 'vote' in SI Vault, nor in any book I can recall. I just re-read John Taylor's admirable account of the trade in his terrifically well researched book, 'The Rivalry' and find nothing at all about this voting by players.
Surely he would have found such a shocking story worth including in a history of Chamberlain & Russell?

Can you find a reputable source for this story about a vote?

jlauber

12-31-2011, 06:26 PM

I have never been able to find anything about a vote by the Lakers.

As I said, and I'll repeat it: "At the time the locker room story broke, there was a different view entirely; namely, Short had completely lost his senses by effectively inviting the players into the boardroom."

Possibly my writing was poor.

What I remember, reading in the newspapers & magazines (and yes that's a very long time ago, but most people I think remember a great deal about their youthful diversions, & basketball rated only below girls in the back seat of my car) is that Bob Short looked like a fool for allowing his players to take part in decisions about the team.

Naturally I don't claim to have read every sports rag from 1960 to today.

Nevertheless I find it bothersome that I can find no mention of this really unprecedented 'vote' in SI Vault, nor in any book I can recall. I just re-read John Taylor's admirable account of the trade in his terrifically well researched book, 'The Rivalry' and find nothing at all about this voting by players.
Surely he would have found such a shocking story worth including in a history of Chamberlain & Russell?

Can you find a reputable source for this story about a vote?

I doubt it. It came from the idiotic Bill Simmons, whose initials of BS are a much better indicator of his actual knowledge.

And once again, on the remote possibility that there was a smidgeon of truth to it, if the Lakers management allowed the players to make that decision, it ultimately cost them 1-2 titles. Chamberlain made a bottom-feeding Sixer team into a dominant powerhouse in his 3 full seasons there. And I have long maintained that Philly would have had a "mini dynasty" had the 76er ownership given into Wilt's demands.

Instead, they were forced to trade Chamberalin away, which began a slow decline, and by the 72-73 season (Wilt's last season), the Sixers were the laughingstock of the league, going 9-73.

Meanwhile, Wilt took LA to FOUR Finals in his five seasons in Los Angeles, including their first ever championship. Not only that, but after Chamberlain "retired", the Lakers plummetted, and did not return to where he left them until Magic arrived in 1980.

Of course, Simmons never mentioned that Chamberlain immediately improved EVERY team he joined, and that each team he left became worse. And two of the three franchises Wilt played for STILL hold their best-ever W-L record. Think about that...Wilt played for the Sixers in '67, and for the Lakers in '72...and both of those teams STILL remain as their franchise's best ever.

La Frescobaldi

12-31-2011, 06:30 PM

I honestly don't get why jlauber gets slack from posters when he can actually articulate argument. It's like posters catch feeling because he can actually defend his POV.

Honestly, all you "in before jlauber essay" critics aren't half the debator he is. At least OP can call him out and at least have substance
************************

I'm a old guy, spend a lot of time on the sail boat, fishing, reading, tennis, watching the NBA, you know enjoyin good side of life...... jlauber is a Titan of internet old school basketball boards. Lotta guys got attention spans like my old brass door stop.

Haters will hate, that's all

jlauber

12-31-2011, 06:56 PM

I have never been able to find anything about a vote by the Lakers.

As I said, and I'll repeat it: "At the time the locker room story broke, there was a different view entirely; namely, Short had completely lost his senses by effectively inviting the players into the boardroom."

Possibly my writing was poor.

What I remember, reading in the newspapers & magazines (and yes that's a very long time ago, but most people I think remember a great deal about their youthful diversions, & basketball rated only below girls in the back seat of my car) is that Bob Short looked like a fool for allowing his players to take part in decisions about the team.

Naturally I don't claim to have read every sports rag from 1960 to today.

Nevertheless I find it bothersome that I can find no mention of this really unprecedented 'vote' in SI Vault, nor in any book I can recall. I just re-read John Taylor's admirable account of the trade in his terrifically well researched book, 'The Rivalry' and find nothing at all about this voting by players.
Surely he would have found such a shocking story worth including in a history of Chamberlain & Russell?

Can you find a reputable source for this story about a vote?

BTW, I wasn't challenging your memory. Simmons must have found something similar to what you reported, and, as usual , completely falsified the rest of the story.

Personally, I agree with PointGuard's take on that story...if it were true. That the Laker players were fearful of either being replaced, or reduced to small roles, had the Chamberlain trade came down. Wilt had averaged 40 ppg during his CAREER at that point, and I'm reasonably certain that, aside from Baylor and West, that the rest of those players would have seen a significant drop in their own production.

Of course, as was the actual case, Wilt blended in well when he had quality supporting players in Philadelphia. He dramatically cut back his shooting, and became a dominant facilitator. Only a complete idiot like Simmons would find fault with Chamberlain leading the league in assists...and oh BTW, also leading that team to a runaway BEST RECORD in the league.

And, when Wilt was finally dealt to the Lakers, HE was the one who sacrificed. And for those clowns like Simmons who bring up the fact that Wilt played with Baylor, the reality was this: Baylor was already in a state of decline. His injury in the 64-65 playoffs left him without his spring, and he had to rely on his shooting, which was never exceptional to begin with. And in the 68-69 post-season, he completely fell apart, shooting a team-worst .385. And that was the ONLY FULL season that Baylor and Wilt played together. Wilt shredded his knee the very next season, and missed 70 games. And he was nowhere near 100% in the playoffs (although he was FAR more dominant than Baylor was.) Baylor played two games in the '70-71 season, and missed the rest of the year (including the playoffs.) And then new coach Bill Sharman convinced Baylor to retire after the ninth game in the 71-72 season. So, the REALITY was, Wilt and Baylor played ONE season together, and Baylor was already well past his prime.

La Frescobaldi

12-31-2011, 07:32 PM

Next:

oolalaa what the heck is this?

"and

"I get constant reminders from fans who equate 'that game' and my career as one of the same.""

This is, if I'm not mistaken, a later Chamberlain quote from one of his books, describing how no matter where in the world he goes, he's recognized as the guy who scored 100 points in a game. He was the first basketball superstar, internationally recognized - like the Beatles, in a way, in his own domain.

The analogy with the band holds up in several ways. Just as they dragged popular music out of the 1950s into the modern rock era, Chamberlain almost singlehandedly invented modern basketball.

Coaches had no idea what to do with a player who was so far above the rest of the league. Entire defensive schemes were invented, entire concepts of containing the rest of the team. People think today's defensive schemes came from the Daly Pistons. Well, they didn't. They came from Red Auerbach, Larry Costello, Alex Hannum, & Red Holzman. They used zones for years against Chamberlain, and the refs let them.

When Jordan first showed up, analysts would say stuff like 'this looks like the Pistons, the Celtics & the Royals back in the early 60s when Chamberlain was destroying the NBA. They're playing Jordan tough, lots of fouls, and they're smothering the rest of his team. Just like they did to beat Wilt's teams. You can't stop guys like this, all you can do is beat their lousy teammates."

When hack-a-shaq first started, a lot of old coaches would say stuff like 'they dusted off the old Chamberlain playbook - foul him, he can't make free throws & that's the only way you're going to stop him."

All modern basketball players look like Chamberlain, plain and simple. He invented it, created it, shaped it, and the league looks like him to this day. Wilt & Jordan.

But that game.... even today in Philadelphia, people don't use Chamberlain's name. They just say 'when 100 was playing at Overbrook...."

jlauber

12-31-2011, 07:51 PM

Regarding that '70 finals - Willis Reed was playing on 1 leg for nearly half the series! (and was demolishing Wilt in the other half ). Why didn't Wilt pound Reed into the ground? Why didn't he exploit his injured opponent? I know he had a great game 6 but what happened in games 5 and 7? Let me guess, it was the coaches fault or his teammates fault or Jerry Wests fault or his injured knees fault. Am I right? There's always some excuse.

Yep, Wilt had a 45-27 "must-win" game six (on 20-27 shooting), and basically on ONE leg. And once again...the Wilt DOUBLE STANDARD. He put up a monumental game six, and he is then EXPECTED to do it in EVERY game.

Why didn't MJ score 63 points in EVERY playoff game? Why didn't Magic put up a 42-15-7 game in EVERY playoff game?

Had that been ANY other NBA player, and playing on a knee that had major surgery just four months before...they would STILL be hailing his heroic effort. But, with Wilt, it was...why didn't he do it EVERY game? Even on ONE leg.

I have read nonsense claiming that Wilt never averaged 50 ppg in his post-seasons, nor scored 100 points in a post-season game. Nope, all he could do was post "meager" post-season series like 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, 38.6 ppg, and 38.6 ppg. Or score a high game of 56 points, in a "must-win game", as well as 53, 50, and 50 (and that 50 point game, along with 35 rebounds, came against Russell.) Or FOUR post-seasons, just against Russell, of 30+ ppg (as well as a 30-31 seven game series.)

No one mentions that Wilt faced the Celtic dynasty in 30 of his 52 post-season games in his "scoring" seasons. Or that he faced a HOF center in 105 of his 160 post-season games (and a multiple-all star center in another 20.)

When Wilt put up a 46-34 game, in a loss, well, he was "selfish", never mind that his teammates often shot horribly. And, if he "only" put up a 22-21 game seven, well...he was really held down (despite only taking 15 shots.) If he put up a 50-35 game, in a must-win game, well, he SHOULD have been doing it. BUT, why didn't he do it EVERY game?

Just more examples of the Wilt DOUBLE STANDARD.

oolalaa

12-31-2011, 10:58 PM

I covered this.

I don't even believe that there ever was "player vote." And if it were true, it would be indicative of management incompetence if they actually went along with it.

As it was, the "non-trade" probably cost the Lakers several titles. Meanwhile, all Wilt did after the actual trade was to lead the Sixers to a near monumental upset of the 62-18 Celtics in '65, and the BEST RECORD in the league over the next three seasons, including an overwhelming title in '67 (which included obliterating the eight-time defending champion Celtics.)

And, once again, I could post DOZENS of quotes from Wilt's teammates PRAISING his play. Following a game seven, two point loss in the '62 ECF's, Tom Meschery made this comment:

"The Boston players, player-for-player, were better than the Warriors. To go as far as we did was Wilt's doing. We came within two points of the championship."

I already gave West's REAL take on Chamberlain. He essentially proclaimed Wilt as the greatest to ever play the game (at least in the early 00's.) And, if anyone should be thanking Wilt, it should have been West. He finally won his only ring in '72. And it came in a post-season in which West was just AWFUL. He shot .376 in the entire post-season (and only .325 in the Finals), while Chamberlain mowed down Kareem and the defending champion Bucks in the WCF's, and then dominated the Knicks in the Finals, in leading LA to their first-ever title in Los Angeles... en route to winning the FMVP.

1. That's fine. You're right, there's a chance that it never actually happened. The only place I've seen it mentioned is in Simmons TBOB. Now, I would say that Bill Simmons is not a liar. For it to be in his book means that he has read it somewhere. From what i can tell, he is not a disingenuous person (certainly not intentionally anyway. I know he has certain biases but so does everyone) and is not one to make up facts. The question is - is the source that he got it from trustworthy? Who the friggin hell knows.

2. The non-trade cost the Lakers several titles? Really? Firstly, it would have been interesting to see who the Lakers traded to get Wilt. Would they have had to give up Baylor or West? Or would the Warriors have accepted LaRusso, Dick Barnett & Leroy Ellis plus cash for him? My guess is probably yes, considering what the Warriors did actually get for him when he went to Philly.

Ok, so could the lakers have won multiple titles with Wilt, West, Baylor & and a bunch of role players?

There's no way they would have won in '65 - not with Elgin going down in the 1st round of the playoffs. How about from '66 - '68? Well, the question is, who would you rather; West & Baylor or Greer, Cunningham, Walker, Wali Jones & Luke Jackson? That was a very good, deep Philly team and as you know, Baylor could be erratic after his injury.

3. I would genuinely appreciate if you would post a few quotes from people praising Wilt. The positive Wilt quotes I've found are either "he was the most dominant player ever" or "he would have won 11 titles if he was on the Celtics instead of Russell" related. Frankly, quotes like that are neither relevant nor insightful.

4. you mean this jerry West quote?

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

I hope you would agree that there is a distinction between saying "There's no one that's ever played the game better than Wilt Chamberlain" and saying that he thinks Chamberlain is the greatest player to ever play the game.

Besides, if he does think Wilt was the greatest, what does that actually mean? Does Jerry West's all time top 10 list have more value than yours or mine? Former players are, more often than not, excruciatingly biased toward the era that they played in.

The West quote about "he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him" is more insightful than him basically saying 'Wilt was the most dominant player to ever play the game'.

Also, I've heard West say that Kobe is the greatest Laker of all time. I'm pretty sure you don't agree with this.

Again, I'll respond to your multiple other replies when i have time...

La Frescobaldi

01-01-2012, 12:20 AM

jlauber

01-01-2012, 12:40 AM

[QUOTE=oolalaa]T1. hat's fine. You're right, there's a chance that it never actually happened. The only place I've seen it mentioned is in Simmons TBOB. Now, I would say that Bill Simmons is not a liar. For it to be in his book means that he has read it somewhere. From what i can tell, he is not a disingenuous person (certainly not intentionally anyway. I know he has certain biases but so does everyone) and is not one to make up facts. The question is - is the source that he got it from trustworthy? Who the friggin hell knows.

If he's not disingenuous then he's one of the lousiest researchers I ever even heard of that's actually been published. It's one or the other. Or, it could be both.

Granted he's a popular writer, not a valid historian. But he's trying to write history with that book, so he has to meet the standard or be declared a bozo.

The guys at this site are pretty mathematically inclined.... so it's hard for them to keep from pointing out that Simmons can't count:

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

This site destroys Simmons supporting cast ideas (to me the most insulting to the intelligence of anybody who watched those teams)

http://billsimmonsbogusbook.blogspot.com/2011/05/wilt-versus-russell-bill-simmons-weighs.html

If you will notice at the bottom of the page, there's practically an encyclopedia, all presenting facts instead of myths.

Short and sweet version:

From 1960-69:

* Wilt’s teammates made the All-Star team 14 times; Russell’s, 19 times

* One of Wilt’s teammates made the All-NBA First team; Russell, eight teammates

* Five of Wilt’s teammates made the All-NBA Second team; Russell, fourteen teammates

* Wilt’s teammates accounted for 17 Hall-of-Fame player-seasons; Russell’s, 47

And when Simmons says:

“Also, if you’re scoring at home, Russell played with four members of the NBA’s Top 50 at 50 (Havlicek, Cousy, Sharman and Sam Jones); Wilt played with six members (Baylor, West, Greer, Cunningham, Arizin and Thurmond).”

knowing what we know about Simmons pathetic slant, how can you not look at that more closely? And sure enough, he's twisted that, too.

Russell's teammates - AND HOW MANY SEASONS RUSSELL PLAYED WITH THEM:
Havlicek 7
Cousy 7
Sharman 5
Sam Jones 12
total: 31 seasons together.

Chamberlain's teammates:
Baylor 4
West 5
Greer 4
Cunningham 3 (anyone remember BC breaking his arm in the 68 playoffs?)
Arizin 3
Thurmond 2
Total: 21 seasons together.

Now Baylor is very interesting. From the 69-70 season right through the end of his career in 71-72 he played 65 games. He never played a full season with Chamberlain.
And it's interesting that Chamberlain wrecked his knee in 69 and missed the season. And it's interesting that Baylor & West both missed the '71 playoffs.
Wilt's total is closer to 17 seasons with Top 50 players.

But then, Russell retired in '69.
**********************

(again, Wilt missed 69-70... but then of course Wilt only lined up against Russell 1 single year as a Laker)

So we're left with a simple choice. Is Simmons disengenuous, or is he a pathetically bad writer?

Have we destroyed all of those myths yet?

Happy New Year, Oolalaa!!

You have already destroyed Simmons argument that Russell and Wilt' supporting casts were similar, but even your one-sided numbers aren't close.

First of all, you can add three more HOF seasons to Wilt's cast of 17, with the great HOFer Tom Gola, and his career 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and .425 shooting. And how did Gola shoot in his post-season career? .336. Yes, .336. Now in his three post-seasons with Chamberlain, he shot .412, .271 and .206 (yikes.) But, before someone jumps in and claims that it was Wilt who reduced him to that level, in his two other post-seasons, he shot .355 and .330.

Now, you did forget Gail Goodrich, who was a legitimate HOFer, and his three seasons with Wilt. So that now brings the number of seasons that Wilt was paired up with a HOFer to 23. HOWEVER, and even you acknowledged it, Baylor and Wilt only really played together for ONE full season, instead of four. That takes us back to 20. And Thurmond? He actually played with Wilt for 1 1/2 seasons (not two.) Furthermore, he played part-time, out of position, and shot very poorly from the forward position. So, we can basically eliminate Nate altogether. Now we are down to 18 full seasons.

West and his five seasons? He was injured for a number of games almost every year with Wilt, AND, he MISSED the entire '71 post-season. So, let's knock a year off of 18 (now 17.)

Greer? Actually, it was not four full seasons, but only 3 1/2 (Wilt was traded to Philly in mid-season of 64-65. For ease of math, though, we will leave it at four (still 17 seasons.)

Cunningham? Three full regular seasons, BUT, he did miss the '68 ECF's (an entire series in which the Sixers lost a game seven by four points.). Still, we'll give him a full three seasons.

Wilt's totals with his HOF teammates? 17 full seasons.

Continued...

jlauber

01-01-2012, 12:56 AM

Continuing...

Russell's teammates - AND HOW MANY SEASONS RUSSELL PLAYED WITH THEM:
Havlicek 7
Cousy 7
Sharman 5
Sam Jones 12
total: 31 seasons together.

Ok, that's a good start. But wait. How about HOFers Tommy Heinsohn, Wayne Embry, Clyde Lovellette, Satch Sanders, KC Jones, Bailey Howell, Frank Ramsey, and Arnie Risen?

Granted, some of the above were borderline HOFers, but in any case, they were all QUALITY players. KC Jones and Sanders are not deserving of the HOF, BUT they were considered the best defensive players at their positions for much of their careers. And Howell was not only a 20 ppg scorer with Russell, he was also a .500 shooter, as well, in leagues that shot about .440.

Here we go...

Lovellette played two partial seasons with Russell, so we won't count him.

Risen 2
Embry 2
Howell 3
Ramsey 8
KC Jones 8 (full seasons, and another, his ninth was partial)
Sanders 9
Heinsohn 9

That's 41 more HOF seasons for Russell. Add the above 31 with that 41 and now Russell played alongside HOF teammates for 71 seasons.

Think about that...Russell had a 71-17 edge in full HOF seasons with his teammates.

Which just SHREDS Simmons' argument that Russell and Wilt played alongside mostly equal supporting casts in their careers.

jlauber

01-01-2012, 01:52 AM

How accurate was Simmons' in his assessment of Wilt-Russell rivalry?

http://books.google.com/books?id=oLCSBeuStRcC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=Bill+Simmons+on+Wilt&source=bl&ots=SLzo6Jo3cr&sig=Ly1uaSNfM0FtUM5HmIeQQqngH1U&hl=en&ei=oydMS67SOY3KsQOFxbiKAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBYQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=Bill%20Simmons%20on%20Wilt&f=false

Here are some classics.

Players like Willie Naulls played better with Russell than Chamberlain. Hmmm...in his lone season with Wilt in 62-63, Naulls averaged 11.0 ppg, 6.7 rpg, and shot .420. In his three seasons with Russell, Naulls averaged 9.8 ppg, 10.5 ppg, and 10.7 ppg; 4.6 rpg, 4.7 rpg, and 4.5 rpg; and shot .417, .384, and .402.

In game seven of the '62 Finals, he had Russell with a 30-44 game. Nice try Bill, but it was actually a 30-40 game. Incidently, I wonder if the fact that Wilt holds the actual playoff record of 41 rebounds (and against Russell BTW), that maybe Simmons bumped up that rebound number a little bit?

CLUTCH playoff games? He lists Wilt with only THREE, and then credits Russell with SEVEN.

Ok, here are the three that he gives to Wilt. Chamberlain's game seven against Russell in the '65 ECF's. His clinching game five against Russell in the '67 ECF's. And his clinching game five against the "undersized" Knicks in the '72 Finals (incidently,...no mention of Wilt thoroughly outplaying the 7-2 Kareem in the clinching game six in the '72 WCF's?)

He credits Russell with these clutch games:

1. Game seven of the '57 Finals (against the Hawks) with a 19-32 game. Agreed...great game.

2. Game seven 22-35 game in the '60 Finals against the Hawks. Another great game.

3. Game seven in the '62 ECF's, and against WILT. He "held" Wilt to a 22-21 game, while he himself had a 19-22 game. Hmmm...not sure how Russell gets credit here,...especially given the fact that Boston, with a far superior roster, won that game seven by two points.

4. Game seven of the '62 Finals. Again, it was actually a 30-40 game, not a 30-44 game. Still, it was a great game. However, Chamberlain hung three 60 point games on that Laker team in the regular season, including a staggering 78-43 game. One can only wonder what kind of Finals scoring records Wilt would hold, had his pathetic teammates scored just three more points in that game seven of the '62 ECF's.

5. Game seven of the '65 ECF's. Wait a second, he already credited WILT with a clutch game in that same game. In any case, Wilt outscored Russell in that game, 30-15; outrebounded Russell, 32-29; and outshot him from the floor, 12-15 to 7-16. Oh, and BTW, Wilt took his 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss, against Russell's 62-18 Celtics.

6. Game seven of the '66 Finals. Russell again pounded a weak centered LA squad with a 25-32 game.

7. Game seven of the '68 ECF's...when Russell held Wilt to a 14-34 game. But wait, Russell only put up a 12-26 game himself. In Simmons' mind, I guess if Russell put up anywhere near the production that Wilt did, it was a "win" for Russell.

In fact, Simmons even takes this shot at Wilt: "nobody has any clutch stories about Wilt Chamberlain. If they existed, I would pass them along." But wait...he just credited him with THREE.

Of course, how about these CLUTCH playoff games by Wilt...

1960 Game 3 vs. Nationals (best of 3 series at the time): 53 points in a 20 point win.

1962 Game 5 vs. Nationals: 56 points, 35 rebounds in a 17 point win.

1962 Game 6 vs Celtics: 32 points in a 10 point win

1962 Game 7 vs Celtics: 22 points, 21 rebounds in a 2 point loss

1964 Game 5 vs. Hawks: 50 points in a 24 point win.

1964 Game 7 vs. Hawks: 39 points, 26 rebounds, 12 blocks in a 10 point win.

1965 Game 6 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 26 rebounds in a 6 point win

1965 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 32 rebounds in a 1 point loss

1966 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 46 points, 34 rebounds in an 8 point loss

1967 Game 2 vs. Royals: 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists in a 21 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Royals: 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 1 vs. Celtics: 24 points, 32 rebounds, 13 assists, 12 blocks in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Celtics: 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists in an 11 point win.

1967 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists in a 24 point win.

1968 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 25 points, 27 rebounds in an 18 point win. Little known fact is that Chamberlain led BOTH TEAMS in points, rebounds, and assists for the entire series, whilst nursing an assortment of injuries, including his annual shin splints. This against two Hall Of Fame centers Walt Bellamy & Willis Reed. Apparently Willis used to tremble at the mere sight of Luke Jackson in the MSG tunnel pre-game.

1968 Game 7 vs Celtics: 14 points, 34 rebounds in a 4 point loss (This despite two touches in the entire 4th quarter, the smartest move Russell has ever made in his career switching himself over to guard Chet).

1969 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 18 points, 27 rebounds in a 2 point loss (Head coach leaves him on the bench due to a personal grudge.)

1970 Game 5 vs. Suns: 36 points, 14 rebounds in a 17 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Suns: 30 points, 27 rebounds, 11 blocks in a 35 point win (helped lead Lakers back from 1-3 deficit)

1970 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 45 points, 27 rebounds in a 22 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Knicks: 21 points, 24 rebounds in a 14 point loss

(Understand that he should have not even been playing in the 1969-70 season after his injury, but was able to rehab his knee in time with his workouts in volleyball, a sport he would later become a Hall Of Famer in as well.)

1971 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 25 points, 18 rebounds in an 11 point win

1971 Game 5 vs. Bucks: 23 points, 12 rebounds, 6 blocks in an 18 point loss without Elgin Baylor or Jerry West. (Alcindor in this game had 20 points, 15 rebounds, and 3 blocks).

1973 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 21 points, 28 rebounds in a 3 point win (Bulls had the ball and a one point lead with 30 or so seconds left in the 4th. Norm Van Lier goes up for the shot only to have it rejected by the "big choker" Wilt Chamberlain. Chamberlain blocked Van Lier's shot right to Gail Goodrich down court for the go ahead basket. Is there any mention of this clutch defensive play from Chamberlain in Bill Simmons "Book Of Basketball"?

1973 Game 5 vs. Knicks: 23 points, 21 rebounds in a 9 point loss (a hobbled Jerry West finished with 12 points)

Yep...Wilt was a "choker" and a "failure."

Incidently, you can add game five of the '60 ECF's (Philadelphia was down 3-1, so it was a must-win game), and he responded with a 50-35 game against Russell in a 128-107 win. Keep in mind that game was in his rookie season, and he faced a Celtic team with SEVEN HOFers.

And, IMHO, his greatest effort came against Kareem in game six of the WCF's. He held Kareem to 16-37 shooting, while going 8-12 himself, and scoring 22 points with 24 rebounds. And, he absolutely took over the game in the 4th quarter, and led LA back from a 10 point deficit to a clinching four point win. He also blocked 11 shots in that game, and five of them were Kareem's sky-hooks.

Or Wilt, with two badly injured wrists dominating the clinching game five win the Finals, with a 24 point, 10-14 shooting, 29 rebound (the ENTIRE Knick team had 39 BTW), and 9 block game.

jlauber

01-01-2012, 02:26 AM

Continuing on Simmons distortions...

He lists the Wilt-Russell 142 H2H's, in which Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 28.7 to 14.5 ppg, and outrebounded Russell, 28.7 rpg to 23.7 rpg.

THEN, he goes off on THIS tangent. He claims that Wilt's post-season production dropped to 22.5 ppg and 24.5 rpg (that was NOT a drop BTW) 4.2 apg, 47% FT, and 52% FG%. While Russell's climbed to 16.2 ppg, 24.9 rpg, 4.7 apg, 60% FT, and 43% FG.

How about their 49 H2H post-season numbers instead? Wilt POUNDED Russell in scoring AND rebounding. And in the games, series, or seasons in which we have the FG% numbers, Wilt held a HUGE edge there, as well.

Nope, he uses Wilt's ENTIRE playoff career against him, even though Chamberlain dramatically cut back his shooting in the last half of his career. In fact, after Russell retired in 68-69, here were Chamberlain's career post-season numbers at that time...

Regular season:

34.4 ppg, 24.3 rpg, 4.5 apg, .514 FT, and .530 FG

Post-season:

26.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, 4.4 apg, .466 FT, .520 FG.

Yes, a decline, but not nearly as much as Simmons would have you believe. And of course, Wilt had played 98 playoff games at that point, and exactly HALF, 49, were against Russell. He also faced Thurmond in 12 at that point, and Bellamy in six. 67 of his 98 playoff games were against HOF centers in his first ten seasons.

Simmons also claims that Russell "let" Wilt accumulate stats in the first three quarters of those H2H's, and then "smothered" him in the 4th. Of course, actual history contradicts much of that. We have several examples of Wilt scoring and rebounding in the last minute against Russell (and very few the other way around.)

Not only that, but Simmons would have you believe that Russell could just shut Wilt down anytime he wanted to. Yet, Russell, HIMSELF, claimed that he did all he could to just try to CONTAIN Wilt. There is an interview with Russell in which even he laughs at how he "held" Wilt in check in his 61-62 season (Wilt's 50.4 ppg season.) Yep, he "held" Chamberlain to "only" 38 ppg on average that season. BTW, Wilt had THREE entire SEASONS against Russell in which he averaged 38 ppg against him (and all of them were 10+ games.)

Furthermore, it was not as if Russell's Celtics beat Wilt's teams in every game. In fact, they won 60% of the time in their 142 H2H's (85-57), and an even closer 59% of the time in the playoffs (29-20.) And, as I have mentioned before, FOUR of their post-season series went to seven games, and Russell's Celtics won those four games by a combined NINE points (2, 1, 4, and 2 points.)

If Russell were indeed "smothering" Wilt, he was cutting it damn close in quite a few games. And, what happened in the '67 ECF's, when Chamberlain just murdered Russell in every statistical category, in leading his team to a near sweep of Boston (losing game four in Boston by four points before pummelling them in game five, 140-116.)

BTW, Wilt outscored Russell in 132 of those 142 H2H games, and outrebounded him by a 92-42-8 margin. And how about these 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.

Kovach

01-01-2012, 06:04 AM

************************

I'm a old guy, spend a lot of time on the sail boat, fishing, reading, tennis, watching the NBA, you know enjoyin good side of life...... jlauber is a Titan of internet old school basketball boards. Lotta guys got attention spans like my old brass door stop.

Haters will hate, that's all
I've been lurking on various internet message boards for a decade now, and I have never seen someone crap so many straw-mans, ever. Yes, his arguments are well articulated, yes his arguments are full of facts, stats, numbers..., but they are also so full of fallacies that anyone with logic comprehension beyond that of an 8-grader can't help but facepalm. Especially in his responses to whoever challenges his point of view. Not everyone gives a damn about fantasy basketball and empty numbers, and most certainly does not give a damn about reading walls of borderline redundant text that bears very little to absolutely no relevance to the argument it was supposed to counter. The reason he gets slack from posters is because he is annoyingly repetitive and often times intelligence insulting. That is all.

oolalaa

01-01-2012, 10:11 AM

Complete fallacy. A prime Reed, in his MVP season, was facing an older Wilt, who was past his prime, and was only four months removed from major knee surgery. It was a horrible matchup problem for Chamberlain, because he had lost some of his lateral mobility, while Reed was a pop-up 15 ft shooter, who was working behind screens.

As it was, in their first four games of that series, Reed averaged 32-15 on .491 shooting, while Chamberlain was at 19-25 .543. Furthermore, while Reed outplayed Wilt in game's one and three, Wilt easily outplayed him in game's two and four. The series was tied 2-2 going into game five. And, in the first period of that game five, Chamberlain was torching Reed, and LA LED by ten points when Reed went down. So, if anything, a hobbled Wilt had outplayed a much healthier Reed in the first five games.

What happened in game five? Ask NY Times writer Leonard Koppett who wrote that the Knicks were aided by home-court officiating in the second half of that game. The Knicks were allowed to MAUL both West and Wilt...who COMBINED for FIVE FGAs in that second half. The result? A 107-100 Knick win.

In game six, and on their home floor, Wilt just murdered the helpless Knicks, with a 45-27 game, and on 20-27 shooting, in a 135-113 rout. Had the officials not assisted the Knicks in game five, Wilt's game six would have ranked among the greatest "closeout" games in NBA history.

And in game seven, the Knicks just came out and hit everything. I have seen several games like that in my lifetime, and I have long maintained that even a team with five Jordans would not have beaten the Knicks that night. And it certainly wasn't Wilt's fault. NY just swarmed him, and Reed basically fouled him on nearly every play (four fouls in the first half.) Wilt still had 11 points, on 5-10 shooting, with 12 rebounds in that first half (en route to a 21 point, 24 rebound, 10-16 game.) Meanwhile, Frazier finally outplayed West (and badly BTW), and Wilt's teammates shot 33% in the first half. The game was basically over at halftime, when NY led 69-42.

BTW, a PRIME Chamberlain had an entire SEASON in which he averaged 40 ppg against a younger Reed. And, in the 64-65 and 65-66 seasons, Wilt hung THREE 50+ point games on Reed, with a HIGH game of 58 points.

And in the 67-68 playoffs against the Knicks, Wilt LED BOTH teams in scoring, rebounding, AND assists (the Knicks had Walt Frazier BTW),..all while holding NY's HOF center, Walt Bellamy, who had shot .541 during the regular season, to .421 shooting in that series.

What a joke. A fallacy? Are you kidding me?

Wilt was getting outplayed through the first 4 games before Reed went down. OUTPLAYED. You posted the numbers yourself: Wilt was - 19/25 on 54% and Reed was - 32/15 on 49%. In what world do you live in? I agree that in game 4 Wilt got the better of Reed but in game 2? Reed had a 29/15/5 on 41%. Wilt had a 19/24/2 on 45%. I know that Wilt was good down the stretch (by his standards anyway :lol ) and had a big block on Reed with about a minute to go but cmon. Wilt EASILY outplayed Reed? :facepalm :facepalm

Yes, Wilt comprehensively outrebounded Reed but there was a 13 ppg difference in scoring!! This is similar to YOUR fallacious assumption that Wilt got the better of Kareem in the '72 WCFs.....

Kareem - 28/19/5 on 42%
Wilt ---- 14/22/3 on 53%

You love to point out that Wilt held Kareem to well below his usual efficiency. But what about the other way around? Wilt was shooting 65% in the regular season! How come you never mention that?

Ultimately, I was right! Excuses, excuses, and even more E X C U S E S.....

"A prime Reed, in his MVP season, was facing an older Wilt, who was past his prime"

"It was a horrible matchup problem"

"the Knicks were aided by home-court officiating in the second half of that game"

"Meanwhile, Frazier finally outplayed West"

jlauber

01-01-2012, 12:20 PM

Yes, Wilt comprehensively outrebounded Reed but there was a 13 ppg difference in scoring!! This is similar to YOUR fallacious assumption that Wilt got the better of Kareem in the '72 WCFs.....

Kareem - 28/19/5 on 42%
Wilt ---- 14/22/3 on 53%

You love to point out that Wilt held Kareem to well below his usual efficiency. But what about the other way around? Wilt was shooting 65% in the regular season! How come you never mention that?

So, using YOUR argument, are you are now willing to concede then, that Wilt just CRUSHED Russell H2H? After all he outscored him by 14 ppg in their 142 H2H matchups (as well as outrebounding him by FIVE per game, and probably outshooting by 5-10% from the floor.) He outscored Russell in 132 of those 142 H2H's, and MANY by HUGE margins. He also outrebounded him 92-42-8 in those games, and in the vast majority of those in which we have FG%'s, he pounded Russell in that category, as well. We have games in which Chamberlain outscored Russell by as much as 39 points (62-23), and games in which he outrebounded him by as many as 36 rebounds (55-19.)

La Frescobaldi

01-01-2012, 12:29 PM

I've been lurking on various internet message boards for a decade now, and I have never seen someone crap so many straw-mans, ever. Yes, his arguments are well articulated, yes his arguments are full of facts, stats, numbers..., but they are also so full of fallacies that anyone with logic comprehension beyond that of an 8-grader can't help but facepalm. Especially in his responses to whoever challenges his point of view. Not everyone gives a damn about fantasy basketball and empty numbers, and most certainly does not give a damn about reading walls of borderline redundant text that bears very little to absolutely no relevance to the argument it was supposed to counter. The reason he gets slack from posters is because he is annoyingly repetitive and often times intelligence insulting. That is all.

I hope your goal is to help his style, can you give an example a straw man here?

LJJ

01-01-2012, 01:12 PM

oolalaa

01-01-2012, 04:19 PM

So, using YOUR argument, are you are now willing to concede then, that Wilt just CRUSHED Russell H2H? After all he outscored him by 14 ppg in their 142 H2H matchups (as well as outrebounding him by FIVE per game, and probably outshooting by 5-10% from the floor.) He outscored Russell in 132 of those 142 H2H's, and MANY by HUGE margins. He also outrebounded him 92-42-8 in those games, and in the vast majority of those in which we have FG%'s, he pounded Russell in that category, as well. We have games in which Chamberlain outscored Russell by as much as 39 points (62-23), and games in which he outrebounded him by as many as 36 rebounds (55-19.)

Yes of course! How can anyone deny that he thoroughly dominated Russell Head2Head? The stats reflect that, but, herein lies the crux of the argument, that doesn't mean he was the better player! If the game was won and lost by how well Wilt did against his opposing centre then he would never lose. I'm pretty sure basketball isn't a 1v1 sport though.

And don't forget,

1. Wilt was shooting the ball much more than Russell. Here is an interesting quote form Wilt in 1962 -- "It's my honest belief i could do as well as Russell defensively and he could almost match me offensively if we switched teams. What it comes down to is a matter of concentration. You can't concentrate on both defense and offense without losing a piece of each. So each of us emphasizes that part of the game that best serves the club"

and

2. Russell was guarding him exclusively 1on1. From what i can gather, and according to Wilt himself, the Celtics never double teamed Wilt -- "the only team in the league that plays me with one man is the Boston Celtics with Bill Russell. They can do this because Russell is the games defensive ace. Bill is 6 feet 9, with long arms and beautiful timing. He seems to hang suspended in the air almost half the night. He makes me shoot higher than i usually do, and his tremendous reach leaves my hook shot useless"

This also backs up what i said about Boston letting him (not actually letting him but you know what I mean) get his points and concentrating on shutting down his teammates.

A slightly off topic comparison but bare with me...

Over the last 25 years my beloved Manchester United have been famous for come from behind victories, many in the last minutes of a game (the most famous comeback was in the '99 european cup final against Bayern Munich. Down 1-0 with 3 minutes left to play we scored 2 goals in stoppage time. Considering the magnitude of the game and the situation, it was one of the most epic comebacks of all time :rockon: ). Is this luck? Is this a coinsidence? Have we just been incredibly fortunate to have a seemingly never ending line of clutch performers producing clutch performances?

NO. It's because Sir Alex Ferguson (MAN UTDs manager) is one of the most driven & competitive managers in football history. Winning is everything to him. He refuses to lose and that mindset trickles down to his players. It does not matter who the players are. I don't have to tell you - there has been a huge turnover of players at the club over the last 2 and a half decades, as with any club. Yet we continue to win and produce those 'clutch' performances that have become synonymous with Ferguson's reign.

It's the same with Russell. Surely he must get credit for raising his teammates level of play, especially in big games & in crunch time. Would Sam Jones have hit all those clutch shots if he was playing with Wilt instead of Russell? Would Havlicek have stolen the ball in the '65 ECFs? I'm not so sure.

Don Nelson - "There are two types of superstars. One makes himself look good at the expense of the other guys on the floor. But there's another type who makes the players around him look better than they are, and that's the type Russell was."

and from Russell himself - "To me, one of the most beautiful things to see is a group of men coordinating their efforts toward a common goal, alternately subordinating and asserting themselves to achieve real teamwork in action. I tried to do that, we all tried to do that, on the Celtics. I think we succeeded."

In my opinion, and from everything I've seen and read, Russell was the greatest leader in NBA history and arguably in professional sports history as well. His teammates loved & repsected him. They didn't want to let him down. He set up a 'winning is absolutely everything' culture on the Celtics. Wilt on the other hand, set up a 'my stats are absolutely everything' culture on his teams.....

oolalaa

01-01-2012, 04:30 PM

[QUOTE=oolalaa]T1. hat's fine. You're right, there's a chance that it never actually happened. The only place I've seen it mentioned is in Simmons TBOB. Now, I would say that Bill Simmons is not a liar. For it to be in his book means that he has read it somewhere. From what i can tell, he is not a disingenuous person (certainly not intentionally anyway. I know he has certain biases but so does everyone) and is not one to make up facts. The question is - is the source that he got it from trustworthy? Who the friggin hell knows.

If he's not disingenuous then he's one of the lousiest researchers I ever even heard of that's actually been published. It's one or the other. Or, it could be both.

Granted he's a popular writer, not a valid historian. But he's trying to write history with that book, so he has to meet the standard or be declared a bozo.

The guys at this site are pretty mathematically inclined.... so it's hard for them to keep from pointing out that Simmons can't count:

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

This site destroys Simmons supporting cast ideas (to me the most insulting to the intelligence of anybody who watched those teams)

http://billsimmonsbogusbook.blogspot.com/2011/05/wilt-versus-russell-bill-simmons-weighs.html

If you will notice at the bottom of the page, there's practically an encyclopedia, all presenting facts instead of myths.

Short and sweet version:

From 1960-69:

* Wilt’s teammates made the All-Star team 14 times; Russell’s, 19 times

* One of Wilt’s teammates made the All-NBA First team; Russell, eight teammates

* Five of Wilt’s teammates made the All-NBA Second team; Russell, fourteen teammates

* Wilt’s teammates accounted for 17 Hall-of-Fame player-seasons; Russell’s, 47

And when Simmons says:

“Also, if you’re scoring at home, Russell played with four members of the NBA’s Top 50 at 50 (Havlicek, Cousy, Sharman and Sam Jones); Wilt played with six members (Baylor, West, Greer, Cunningham, Arizin and Thurmond).”

knowing what we know about Simmons pathetic slant, how can you not look at that more closely? And sure enough, he's twisted that, too.

Russell's teammates - AND HOW MANY SEASONS RUSSELL PLAYED WITH THEM:
Havlicek 7
Cousy 7
Sharman 5
Sam Jones 12
total: 31 seasons together.

Chamberlain's teammates:
Baylor 4
West 5
Greer 4
Cunningham 3 (anyone remember BC breaking his arm in the 68 playoffs?)
Arizin 3
Thurmond 2
Total: 21 seasons together.

Now Baylor is very interesting. From the 69-70 season right through the end of his career in 71-72 he played 65 games. He never played a full season with Chamberlain.
And it's interesting that Chamberlain wrecked his knee in 69 and missed the season. And it's interesting that Baylor & West both missed the '71 playoffs.
Wilt's total is closer to 17 seasons with Top 50 players.

But then, Russell retired in '69.
**********************

(again, Wilt missed 69-70... but then of course Wilt only lined up against Russell 1 single year as a Laker)

So we're left with a simple choice. Is Simmons disengenuous, or is he a pathetically bad writer?

Have we destroyed all of those myths yet?

Happy New Year, Oolalaa!!

Yes i completely agree. This was without doubt Simmons weakest argument in his Wilt/Russell comparison. I have said repeatedly that Wilt should not have been expected to beat Boston with the teammates he had in his first 5 1/2 seasons. BUT he did some very good teammates form '65 onwards and he had ample opportunity to win 2/3 more rings. Yet, he didn't, and according to jlauber, IT WAS NEVER, EVER HIS FAULT!!

oolalaa

01-01-2012, 04:31 PM

jlauber

01-01-2012, 04:53 PM

2. Russell was guarding him exclusively 1on1. From what i can gather, and according to Wilt himself, the Celtics never double teamed Wilt -- "the only team in the league that plays me with one man is the Boston Celtics with Bill Russell. They can do this because Russell is the games defensive ace. Bill is 6 feet 9, with long arms and beautiful timing. He seems to hang suspended in the air almost half the night. He makes me shoot higher than i usually do, and his tremendous reach leaves my hook shot useless"

This also backs up what i said about Boston letting him (not actually letting him but you know what I mean) get his points and concentrating on shutting down his teammates.

I stopped right there. Russell SELDOM guarded Wilt one-on-one. And I have provided link-after-link, and even VIDEO highlights from games.

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

In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever.. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."

http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-wilt-meets-bill-and-tommy-4000-words

The Celtics didn’t have to double- or triple-team Wilt because of Bill Russell’s defense. Bill’s strategy was to deny the entry pass; if Wilt did get the ball down low, Bill stayed between him and the basket, tried to take away the lane; if Wilt got the shot off, Bill would block it if he could and always made certain to box Wilt out. Bill played Wilt clean, didn’t hack or whack, did nothing to antagonize the big man.

That assignment was given to Tommy Heinsohn. When Wilt got the ball in the low post, Tommy was detailed to stop him - punch the ball, grab his arms, and, if nothing else worked, tackle the giant. Tommy’s courage was legendary, as he proved repeatedly over the course of his career, but putting him up against Wilt seemed a horrendous mismatch. Tommy was a full head shorter and fifty pounds lighter and wasn’t the only one who considered Wilt the strongest man in the world, once calling him “King Kong in sneakers”.

From the first minute of the first regular season game against Wilt and the Warriors, Tommy became a major thorn in Wilt’s side, a thorn mostly in the form of an elbow. Tommy was well-known around the league for the sharpness of his elbows. It was part of every rookie forward’s welcome to the NBA to experience Heinsohn’s elbow under his ribs. Even Bill Russell was familiar with the experience. In college, when Tommy’s Holy Cross team played Bill’s University of San Francisco team in the Holiday Tournament at Madison Square Garden, Tommy drilled Bill in the ribs early in the first quarter. Bill waited until the referees were looking the other way and elbowed Tommy back. Then, he kept him from scoring for the rest of the game.

Since Tommy’s assignment was to impede Wilt’s path to the basket and to foul Wilt if necessary to make him shoot free throws, it seemed as though Tommy was always placing himself in Wilt’s way, grabbing and clutching him, punching and slapping at the ball and, often as not, making contact with Wilt’s hands and arms. When going after rebounds, Tommy and Wilt often pushed and shoved each other with bad intentions. At one point during the regular season, when a fight broke out and the Celtics and Warriors squared off or restrained each other, Wilt stormed halfway across the court to grab Tommy, pulling his jersey so hard he literally ripped pieces out of it.

In Game Five in the sold-out Garden, Wilt shrugged off the swollen hand and turned in the kind of performance that Bill Russell had feared: he scored fifty points and led his team to an easy 128-107 win. The result shocked the Celtics and gave the momentum back to Philadelphia.

Game Six was a classic Boston-Philadelphia matchup, a game that went back and forth and came down to the end tied 117-117 with eleven seconds left and Tom Gola at the free throw line. Chamberlain and Russell were in each other’s shirts from the opening tap and neither one could make a difference.

The Garden leprechaun must have had a sympathetic relative in Philadelphia because Gola missed both free throws. The Celtics had possession with a chance to win. The ball moved around and found Bill Sharman for an open 17-foot jump shot. As Sharman left his feet, Chamberlain lunged and stretched and got a finger on the ball.

When Wilt lunged, Tommy slipped in behind him. Now he leaped, in perfect position for the tip-in. But the deflection caused Tommy to jump too soon. Falling, he flicked at the ball with his fingertips, it went through the basket, the buzzer sounded, and the better team went on to win yet another championship.

Bill Russell was generous in victory. "Frankly, I don't like to see stories that make Chamberlain look bad. He isn't bad. He's great - the greatest scoring machine basketball has ever seen. When I stop him, it's as much a matter of luck as anything else. And when I fail, it's no disgrace. It's never a disgrace to be beaten by a champion, and that's what Chamberlain is, even though he's just a rookie."

BTW, look at the bad luck that once again followed Wilt in the above quote.

K.C. Jones, arguably the savviest team player in the history of the game, was also a rookie that year and had a front row seat for Bill and Wilt's encounters. "Bill didn't do it all. We just used TEAM.

How about a VIDEO interview with BOTH Russell and Wilt?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173M7ApCNKw

Jump to the 5 minute mark...

"Instead of having two or three people AND Russell on me all the time..." And once again, Russell is sitting right next to Wilt when he makes that comment. Oh, and LOOK at the VIDEO footage while he is saying it.

And unfortunately, it appears that the second half of the '64 NBA Finals has been removed from You-Tube, but I pointed it out in a discussion on THIS very topic a while back on this Forum. Chamberlain was DOUBLED, TRIPLED, and SWARMED for MUCH of that game.

Regarding Russell and Wilt's roles...

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/wiltrules.html

Wilt. No iffs ands or butts. Russell's offensive game was very limited. According to Russell, himself, Wilt could do Russell's role better than Russell, "Wilt is playing better than I used to -- passing off, coming out to set up screens, picking up guys outside, and sacrificing himself for team play." (Great Moments in Pro Basketball, by Sam Goldaper, p.24) Russell said this while he was player-coach of the Celtics. Russell could not fulfill as many roles as Wilt, especially if he had to be first option on offense. While some of Russell's teammates try to belittle Wilt by saying if Wilt were a Celtic, they would have won a few titles, but not as many, I have yet to see anybody step forward and say that Russell could have led the Warriors to the title.

jlauber

01-01-2012, 05:24 PM

Yes i completely agree. This was without doubt Simmons weakest argument in his Wilt/Russell comparison. I have said repeatedly that Wilt should not have been expected to beat Boston with the teammates he had in his first 5 1/2 seasons. BUT he did some very good teammates form '65 onwards and he had ample opportunity to win 2/3 more rings. Yet, he didn't, and according to jlauber, IT WAS NEVER, EVER HIS FAULT!!

I challenge you to give me the examples where it WAS Wilt's fault in those three series.

If you mean game seven of the '68 ECF's, when Wilt seldom TOUCHED the ball...while his TEAMMATES collectively shot .333 in the ENTIRE game...I addressed this before. And, Wilt was PLAYING, 48 MINUTES PER GAME, for FIVE STRAIGHT games with a TORN CALF muscle and SEVERAL other injuries. Even Russell commented that "a lessor man would NOT have played." And as we KNOW, that means that NO ONE else would have played under those circumstances. Hell, Reed, with a similar injury, MISSED the better parts of THREE straight games, and when he did play, he was a worthless statute. How about Wilt in the '68 ECF's? 22 ppg and 25 rpg!

Even Kareem missed a clinching game six of the Finals with a sprained ankle. Think about this... Wilt pulled himself out of a game seven, with a leg injury (the same leg that he would shred early on in the very next season), and HAD to come out. He was out for TWO MINUTES, and then asked to go back in. His idiotic coach refused, and his TEAM lost the game by TWO POINTS. Who received the blame after that game? Of course it was WILT.

And NO, Wilt could NOT have demanded the ball in that game seven. You KNOW it and I KNOW it. Why? Because he would have been ripped by the media for being a "selfish" "stats-padder."

I get so sick-and-tired of having to defend Wilt in his post-season career. He DID have EXCUSES. TONS of them. My god, he came within NINE points, in FOUR game seven's, of beating Russell H2H, 5-3. And in ALL of those games, consistently poor play by his TEAMMATES, or incompetent COACHING, or INJURIES (to MULTIPLE teammates AND himself), or MIRACLE shots (MULTIPLE miracle shots BTW), or a combination of ALL of them. Then in the second half of game five of the '70 Finals, even a NY TIMES WRITER claimed that the Knicks were aided by home-court officiating (and in that second half, Wilt and West COMBINED for FIVE shots.) So, that is FIVE seven game series in which Wilt was a couple of points, or one play, or one call, or one inept coaching decision, or one miracle shot, away from winning FIVE rings. We are not talking about just five post-season series...but five stinking game seven's that he could have, and SHOULD have been on a winning team.

Once again, if you can find STRICT fault with Wilt in those three series, please give me the examples. But be forewarned...I have heard and read them all.

oolalaa

01-01-2012, 05:25 PM

I stopped right there. Russell SELDOM guarded Wilt one-on-one. And I have provided link-after-link, and even VIDEO highlights from games.

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

http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-wilt-meets-bill-and-tommy-4000-words

BTW, look at the bad luck that once again followed Wilt in the above quote.

How about a VIDEO interview with BOTH Russell and Wilt?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173M7ApCNKw

Jump to the 5 minute mark...

"Instead of having two or three people AND Russell on me all the time..." And once again, Russell is sitting right next to Wilt when he makes that comment. Oh, and LOOK at the VIDEO footage while he is saying it.

And unfortunately, it appears that the second half of the '64 NBA Finals has been removed from You-Tube, but I pointed it out in a discussion on THIS very topic a while back on this Forum. Chamberlain was DOUBLED, TRIPLED, and SWARMED for MUCH of that game.

Regarding Russell and Wilt's roles...

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/wiltrules.html

You should neg rep me for that. I deserve it :lol Where is everybody anyway? Like Shaqattack, GOAT and whoever else. I'm fighting you and La Frescobaldi 1 on 2! :roll:

jlauber

01-01-2012, 05:36 PM

You should neg rep me for that. I deserve it :lol Where is everybody anyway? Like Shaqattack, GOAT and whoever else. I'm fighting you and La Frescobaldi 1 on 2! :roll:

Look, Russell was the game's greatest "winner." In fact, he was the greatest "winner" in ANY major professional TEAM sport. True, he was blessed with great teammates, but he also made them great. I have never denied that. And I have also stated that Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's, even when the rosters were roughly equal (although Russell always had deeper rosters.) Russell deserves much of the credit, and Wilt probably deserves at least some of the blame.

But what irritates me is that because Wilt "only" won two rings, he has been labeled a "selfish" "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in big games. I think I have conclusively ripped those labels to shreds. The fact was, Wilt was an EYELASH away from winning FIVE more rings (FOUR against Russell.)

And even more frustrating, is that then, the same posters that rip Wilt for basically being a "stats-padding" "loser", will then proclaim Larry Bird as one of the most CLUTCH players of all-time...even though he had some AWFUL post-seasons (and played on SEVEN teams that lost with HCA.) Or that Hakeem was a top-five player of all-time, even though the man never played on a team with the best record in the league, or that won 60+ games, AND, in fact, he played on EIGHT teams that were WIPED out in the FIRST ROUND.

I have documented the SEVERAL post-season series, and even entire post-seasons, that Kareem FLOPPED. And when the name Jerry West comes up, well, he was "Mr. Clutch." Yet, he played on ONE title team...AND, in that post-season, he shot .376, including a putrid .325 in the Finals. And guess who won the FMVP in that post-season? You guessed it...it was WILT!

Why the DOUBLE-STANDARD????

oolalaa

01-01-2012, 05:38 PM

Oh and jlauber, just do me the courtesy of reading the rest of my previous post will you. I'd appreciate it, thanks...:cheers:

jlauber

01-01-2012, 05:44 PM

Oh and jlauber, just do me the courtesy of reading the rest of my previous post will you. I'd appreciate it, thanks...:cheers:

In my opinion, and from everything I've seen and read, Russell was the greatest leader in NBA history and arguably in professional sports history as well. His teammates loved & repsected him. They didn't want to let him down. He set up a 'winning is absolutely everything' culture on the Celtics. Wilt on the other hand, set up a 'my stats are absolutely everything' culture on his teams.....

I agree 100%. :cheers:

Having said that, though, how many other posters have you read here who agree with you? Most of them just rip Wilt, and never acknowledge what Wilt, and his TEAM's, were facing in their TEN seasons in the league together.

Instead of praising Russell, they just claim that Wilt was a "selfish" "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in big games. Where is the criticism of West and Baylor, who played TOGETHER, and could never beat Russell (while Wilt DID beat, and badly one year)???

oolalaa

01-01-2012, 06:45 PM

Look, Russell was the game's greatest "winner." In fact, he was the greatest "winner" in ANY major professional TEAM sport. True, he was blessed with great teammates, but he also made them great. I have never denied that. And I have also stated that Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's, even when the rosters were roughly equal (although Russell always had deeper rosters.) Russell deserves much of the credit, and Wilt probably deserves at least some of the blame.

But what irritates me is that because Wilt "only" won two rings, he has been labeled a "selfish" "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in big games. I think I have conclusively ripped those labels to shreds. The fact was, Wilt was an EYELASH away from winning FIVE more rings (FOUR against Russell.)

And even more frustrating, is that then, the same posters that rip Wilt for basically being a "stats-padding" "loser", will then proclaim Larry Bird as one of the most CLUTCH players of all-time...even though he had some AWFUL post-seasons (and played on SEVEN teams that lost with HCA.) Or that Hakeem was a top-five player of all-time, even though the man never played on a team with the best record in the league, or that won 60+ games, AND, in fact, he played on EIGHT teams that were WIPED out in the FIRST ROUND.

I have documented the SEVERAL post-season series, and even entire post-seasons, that Kareem FLOPPED. And when the name Jerry West comes up, well, he was "Mr. Clutch." Yet, he played on ONE title team...AND, in that post-season, he shot .376, including a putrid .325 in the Finals. And guess who won the FMVP in that post-season? You guessed it...it was WILT!

Why the DOUBLE-STANDARD????

I've said, I do not believe that Wilt was a "loser" and nor do i believe he was a "choker". But, like i said, he lost too many close, big games to be considered a "winner".

I do think he was a "selfish, stat padder" though, in his first 7 years at least. This was partly unintentional because of the minutes he played but when i read a quote like -- "Gottlieb (warriors owner) told his young superstar that if he continued playing, he stood an excellent chance of breaking every major record in the book. The challenge was one Chamberlain could not easily ignore" it somewhat confirms my suspicions.

And that '68 game 7 ECFs you mentioned.....don't you understand? Wilt would not have been labelled a "selfish, stats padder" if they would have won that game, even if he took every single shot in the 4th!!! Ultimately, winning is all that matters and he would have been praised for being 'clutch' and doing what was necessary to win.

Let me ask you again, as you didn't respond to this previously....Why didn't Wilt vacillate between monstrous/unstoppable scoring and distributing/playmaking? Why didn't he pass the ball/make his teammates better for the first 3 quarters and then 'take over' in 4th with his scoring? (from '65 onwards i mean) He would never have lost!!! Unless his woeful FT shooting let him down of course :confusedshrug:

It's like he didn't really 'get' or understand how to win. He got by on his unparalleled talent.

You said that Wilt did a bad job of "losing". He played for 14 years and "lost" in 12 of those years. Seems like he made a good fist of it to me. But even if he was an "eyelash" away from winning 5 more rings, I say...

--Jordan could have won 11/12 titles if he had better teammates early in his career.
--Magic could have won 6/7 titles without the injuries in '89 and '91.
--Bird could have won 1/2 more titles if his back didn't give way in the late 80s.
--What about Kareem's lousy teammates in the mid/late 70s? That's 2/3 more titles right there.
--And hakeem's cast of clowns that he was lumbered with in the late 80s/early 90s? You go on about hakeem crashing out of 8 1st rounds but his teammates were pretty terrible.
--Or Duncan's best teammates being a washed up Robinson, Ginobili and Tony Parker.
--Or kobe wasting his prime away playing with Kwame Brown?
--Or shaq not winning in '04 because of kobe and '05 and '07 because of injuries?
--And don't forget, Russell could have had 12 rings without his injury in the '58 finals.

Saying that Wilt was an eyelash away from winning 5 more rings is not a positive thing in most peoples minds and is ammunition to those who claim that Wilt was a "loser".

oolalaa

01-01-2012, 07:18 PM

I agree 100%. :cheers:

Having said that, though, how many other posters have you read here who agree with you? Most of them just rip Wilt, and never acknowledge what Wilt, and his TEAM's, were facing in their TEN seasons in the league together.

Instead of praising Russell, they just claim that Wilt was a "selfish" "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in big games. Where is the criticism of West and Baylor, who played TOGETHER, and could never beat Russell (while Wilt DID beat, and badly one year)???

He was better than West & Baylor. The better you are, the more stick you get when you lose and deservedly so.

Regarding the double standard.....

Well, Wilt is unquestionably the second greatest player of his era. I love Jerry West but i could never rank him over Wilt (the rebounding discrepancy is way too huge for one). You'll see me, and probably most people, talk almost exclusively about West in glowing terms.

Why is this? Well it's simple really - he was universally respected by his peers. You'll be hard pressed to find find a negative quote about Jerry West. You will however, find many declaring that he was a leader and a phenominal teammate as well as a great all round player.

Unfortunately, there are far more negative quotes about Wilt than there are positive ones. What are we supposed to make of this? His detractors (admittedly i am one of them although i do have enormous respect for his talent and athleticism. I would have absolutely loved to watch him play live in his prime) feed off those quotes. It's hard not to :confusedshrug: and when we see that he lost four game 7s to the Celtics by a total of 9 points, it shows us that his those losses probably weren't a coincidence or unfortunate. He just wasn't a "winner".

brahmabull117

01-01-2012, 07:27 PM

oolalaa

01-01-2012, 07:32 PM

You talk about basketball as if you're talking about a one on one sport like golf or tennis

You can bash Lebron for his awful finals performance last year, but how do you blame him for losing that Orlando series when he performed like a total monster??

It's still a team sport and team accomplishments mean very little if both players are putting up similar numbers

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Can you elaborate...

brahmabull117

01-01-2012, 07:42 PM

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Can you elaborate...

you're talking about all these team accomplishments and acting like one player was responsible for winning or losing

It's a team game and we need to stop acting like a player with more championships is always the better player

oolalaa

01-01-2012, 07:46 PM

you're talking about all these team accomplishments and acting like one player was responsible for winning or losing

It's a team game and we need to stop acting like a player with more championships is always the better player

Most of the time, the player with more Championships IS the better player. That's how basketball works. If you were talking about football or baseball or the NFL i would agree with you.

Let me ask you then. Who was better? Chamberlain or Russell?

brahmabull117

01-01-2012, 08:01 PM

Most of the time, the player with more Championships IS the better player. That's how basketball works. If you were talking about football or baseball or the NFL i would agree with you.

it's a 5 on 5 sport, how in the world can that be true???

Is Derrek Fisher a 5 times better player than Allen Iverson??

Let me ask you then. Who was better? Chamberlain or Russell?

Chamberlain by 10 miles

Look I'm the first one to bash a guy for poor performance in a big situation - Lebron James deserves to be bashed for his awful numbers last year in the finals as well as how poorly he performed in the other finals but Chamberlain was a solid performer in the postseason with a career 22.5 PPG and 52% FG percentage

Bill Russell is the most overrated player in sports history. How many hall of famers did he have on his teams?? A half dozen??

He was nothing more than the Tyson Chandler of his day who happened to play for the perfect team

oolalaa

01-01-2012, 08:07 PM

it's a 5 on 5 sport, how in the world can that be true???

Is Derrek Fisher a 3 times better player than Allen Iverson

Chamberlain by 10 miles

Look I'm the first one to bash a guy for poor performance in a big situation - Lebron James deserves to be bashed for his awful numbers last year in the finals as well as how poorly he performed in the other finals but Chamberlain was a solid performer in the finals with a career 22.5 PPG and 52% FG percentage

Bill Russell is the most overrated player in sports history. How many hall of famers did he have on his teams?? A half dozen??

He was nothing more than the Tyson Chandler of his day who happened to play for the perfect team

:oldlol: :roll:

:facepalm

:eek:

:rolleyes:

:no:

:wtf:

:rant

:banghead: :banghead:

brahmabull117

01-01-2012, 08:09 PM

:oldlol: :roll:

:facepalm

:eek:

:rolleyes:

:no:

:wtf:

:rant

:banghead: :banghead:

Russell was a mediocre offensive player - 15 ppg on mediocre shooting

I would take Shaq by a gigantic margin over Russell. Hell I would take Dwight Howard by a gigantic margin over Russell

Why am I supposed to be impressed by a guy who won a bunch of rings because he played with a half dozen hall of famers?

Kovach

01-01-2012, 09:23 PM

it's a 5 on 5 sport, how in the world can that be true???

Simple, teams with players that excel in "leadership, clutchness and competitiveness" win championships much more often than those without, even when surrounded by inferior talent compared to their contemporaries.

Is Derrek Fisher a 5 times better player than Allen Iverson??

That is a false analogy. Leading your team to the championship is nowhere near the same as being led to the championship by someone else. Fisher and Iverson did not have the same roles on their teams.

brahmabull117

01-01-2012, 09:28 PM

Simple, teams with players that excel in "leadership, clutchness and competitiveness" win championships much more often than those without, even when surrounded by inferior talent compared to their contemporaries..

when was Bill Russell surrounded by inferior talent??

or Kobe Bryant?? Or any other player that has won a bunch of rings??

It's a team sport and blaming a player for not having rings (especially when he is playing great) is pretty ridiculous

jlauber

01-01-2012, 09:29 PM

You said that Wilt did a bad job of "losing". He played for 14 years and "lost" in 12 of those years. Seems like he made a good fist of it to me. But even if he was an "eyelash" away from winning 5 more rings, I say...

--Jordan could have won 11/12 titles if he had better teammates early in his career.
--Magic could have won 6/7 titles without the injuries in '89 and '91.
--Bird could have won 1/2 more titles if his back didn't give way in the late 80s.
--What about Kareem's lousy teammates in the mid/late 70s? That's 2/3 more titles right there.
--And hakeem's cast of clowns that he was lumbered with in the late 80s/early 90s? You go on about hakeem crashing out of 8 1st rounds but his teammates were pretty terrible.
--Or Duncan's best teammates being a washed up Robinson, Ginobili and Tony Parker.
--Or kobe wasting his prime away playing with Kwame Brown?
--Or shaq not winning in '04 because of kobe and '05 and '07 because of injuries?
--And don't forget, Russell could have had 12 rings without his injury in the '58 finals.

Saying that Wilt was an eyelash away from winning 5 more rings is not a positive thing in most peoples minds and is ammunition to those who claim that Wilt was a "loser".

There is a HUGE difference in EVERY one of your above scenerios...

Wilt was playing in game seven's, where they lost by 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.

Magic and Kareem SHOULD have won a ring in the '84 Finals. In fact, it should have been a sweep. BUT, they lost that seventh game by nine points.

Kareem lost a game seven, at home in the '74 Finals, when he was outplayed by Dave Cowens, and in a rout.

Hakeem's team's were wiped out in every series in those eight first round exits.

MJ went 1-9 in his first three playoffs, and never came close until he finally won a ring in 90-91.

Bird was seldom in a game seven, and he didn't lose in them. However, he was part of SEVEN HCA losses. He wasn't even close in any of them.

You can go right down the line.

However, Wilt was ONE PLAY away, in all of his game seven's, from winning a ring. AND, the officiating probably cost him a ring in game five of the '70 Finals, in a series in which they lost in seven games.

My god, in the 68-69 Finals, had Baylor not gone AWOL in game's three thru five (two close losses), or shot 8-22 in game seven. And Boston had TWO moraculous game-winners in that series. And, had Johnny Egan not lost the ball with only a few seconds left, Wilt's dominating performance in game five would have won the series. And had the Lakers had even a mediocre coach, instead of a complete idiot, Wilt would have been on the floor in the last few minutes of that game seven (a two point loss.) I have never ever seen a series in which one team had so many things go wrong, and yet they still lost a game seven by TWO points.

And I have already covered the '67-68 ECF's before. The Sixers were up 3-1, DESPITE the loss of HOFer Biilly Cunningham. Then, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones sustained leg injuries in that game five. And how about Wilt PLAYING with an assortment of injuries (injuries that would certainly have shelved any other great player)? Or Wilt's teammates completely forgetting about him in that game seven, and then shooting 33% in the process...and a 100-96 loss. Given everything that went wrong, just how in the hell did Wilt ever get that team to a game seven, four point loss?

And in the 61-62 ECF's, Wilt carried what was basically the same last-place roster he inherited in his rookie season, to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their seven HOFers. Not only that, but his teammates collectively shot .354 in that post-season. Given that, how was it possible that Wilt got them to a game seven, two-point loss?

And in the 64-65 ECF's, Wilt took a 40-40 team on his back, with a brilliant game seven, and had Havlicek not stolen the ball, they might have won that game, instead of losing by one point to the 62-18 Celtics. ONE PLAY!

No other all-time great ever came SO close, SO often.

THAT is what I mean when I say that Wilt was an eyelash away from FIVE more rings. Think about that...Wilt was nine points away, in four game seven's against Russell, of holding a 5-3 edge in H2H's...which would have given Wilt SIX rings, and dropped Russell down to seven. Throw in the '70 Finals, in which was probably robbed of a ring in game five, and Chamberlain could easily have had SEVEN rings in his career. Where would Chamberlain rank on these all-time "lists" with SEVEN rings?

Teanett

01-01-2012, 09:30 PM

russell was totally unathelnic

jlauber

01-01-2012, 09:32 PM

russell was totally unathelnic

At one time he was ranked SEVENTH in the WORLD in the High Jump. And he and Wilt were reportedly touching the top of the backboard in the careers.

Teanett

01-01-2012, 09:34 PM

At one time he was ranked SEVENTH in the WORLD in the High Jump. And he and Wilt were reportedly touching the top of the backboard in the careers.
unlathenic

La Frescobaldi

01-02-2012, 01:22 AM

unlathenic

lolol LMAO that's for another day tho man.... and from the looks of that other post it died a gruesome death you could even say that day is done

La Frescobaldi

01-02-2012, 02:18 AM

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]

Yes i completely agree. This was without doubt Simmons weakest argument in his Wilt/Russell comparison. I have said repeatedly that Wilt should not have been expected to beat Boston with the teammates he had in his first 5 1/2 seasons. BUT he did some very good teammates form '65 onwards and he had ample opportunity to win 2/3 more rings. Yet, he didn't, and according to jlauber, IT WAS NEVER, EVER HIS FAULT!!

*****************************
So after looking at the evidence, we can agree that the Simmons chapter on 'the Rivalry' is loaded with misleading disinformation, whether through incompetence or deliberate falsifying.
I could destroy everything in the chapter but why bother?

Once a writer goes down this path - and in this case the path went from New York to the Aleutians & he followed it, every step - his credibility is ruined.

Let's never mention the Book of Basketball card with Russell and Chamberlain ever again. Thank you very much.

***************

Now this "ample opportunity to win 2/3 more rings." I assume you mean between '67 & '69? Because Russell retired in '69.

In 67 the Sixers won.

My opinion of winning rings, as i've posted before, is very simple.

It's a 3 legged stool.
One leg is system (and a coach who can get it done)
One leg is talent
One leg is injuries.

If any of the 3 legs breaks, the stool falls.

I don't think any team can win a ring without all 3 of those fundamentals. It was true then, and it's true today.

In '68 they lost Cunningham to a broken arm in the Knicks series. Undaunted they ran up a 3-1 lead against the Celtics. In the 4th & 5th games hamstrings to Greer and Luke Jackson brought the new dynasty to an abrupt end. Nobody who watched that series thought Philly was going to win, with all those injuries.

In '69, the Celtics didn't even bother guarding Baylor for a lot of that series - they were hoping the Lakers would pass to him, I think they liked to hear the ball clang off the side of the rim - and sagged in the paint a lot of the series. After some amazingly lucky shots the series ran to game 7, and Chamberlain's knee gave out.

The Laker chair had 3 bad legs, but you only need one bad one.

Ample opportunity? In terms of he was playing in the NBA on a contender, yeah. Other than that, no, not at all.

**************
Now in '70 of course, 13 missed the season, but regardless of where his knee was, I didn't think anybody was beating that Knicks team. 4 starting Hall of Famers, 3 of them Top 50, Willis in his devastating prime - MVP, All-star MVP, FMVP - probably Cazzie Russell's best season, and Red Holzman coaching.... To me, though, more than talent or injuries, this series was a more classic example of the coach/system being the leg that failed. Mullaney was hopelessly outclassed.

In '71 both Baylor & West drew playoff DNPs. That series was one of my favorite Chamberlain playoff performances. He was incredible, like an old 12 point buck surrounded by a pack of wolves. Amazing.

In '72 the Lakers won.

In '73, That Knicks team was even better than in '70, but watching the series, I think Chamberlain was finally out of gas.

You seem to consistently equate rings with talent, and to me that's fundamentally flawed.
You can't win a ring without all 3 components in place, ever. Doesn't matter who you are.

Chamberlain's career proves that perfectly, but just in case anybody forgot, look at Michael Jordan's career.

jlauber

01-02-2012, 03:32 AM

Most intelligent fans and basketball historians agree that Chamberlain played with relatively poor rosters in the first half of his career. Once again, he came to a last place team, and immediately turned them into a 49-26 team that might have upset Boston in the ECF's, had he not injured his hand in self defense in game three.

And Russell had a HUGE edge in surrounding talent in Wilt's first six seasons. He had an edge in HOFers of 8-3, 7-3, 7-3, 9-1, 8-2, and 6-3 in those seasons. And it would carry into Chamberlain's next four seasons, as well, despite Wilt playing on team's with better records. Even Wilt's 66-67 team was outgunned, 6-3. In fact, I have long maintained that Boston's 66-67 team, which went 60-21, may very well have been their BEST team in the 60's. That team could legitimately go TEN deep. And Wilt's 66-67 Sixers, which went 68-13, STILL crushed them.

In any case, those critics of Chamberlain, including Simmons, often cite Wilt's team's from 65-66 thru 68-69, when they only went 1-3 against Russell's Celtics, as examples of Wilt's "failures." I have already covered the MANY legitimate EXCUSES (yes, excuses) as to why Wilt's TEAM's did not win the title in those three seasons. But, it was not just the excuses, but the fact that Boston was still a LOADED team in those three years. They all had at least FOUR HOFers, and all of them were very deep.

The "Wilt-bashers" will even point out that Chamberlain played on team's that were among the best in the league in the last half of his career, and yet, he still "only" won two rings. The reality was, though, that his TEAM's faced LOADED teams in EVERY one of those seasons. In the first TEN years of his career, he had to battle Russell and the Celtic Dynasty. In the last four years of his career, he faced the '70 Knicks, that went 60-22, with FOUR HOFers (and Cazzie Russell), a deep bench, and a HOF coach. In '71 he battled the Alcindor-led Bucks, along with Oscar, and a Bucks team that went 66-16. And not only that, he did so without BOTH West and Baylor. In '72, his Lakers stunned the basketball world with a 69-13 record, and a record-setting 33 game winning streak. They then swept a 57-25 Chicago team; mowed down the defending champion Bucks, who had gone 63-19, 4-2; and then routed the Knicks, and their FIVE HOFers, 4-1 in the Finals. And in Wilt's final season, his 60-22 Lakers, with an injured West, fell to the Knicks and their SIX HOFers, 4-1 (and all four losses came in the last minute, and by margins of 4, 4, 5, and 9 points.)

So, in Chamberlain's first six seasons, he played with mostly inept rosters, and he STILL came within THREE points of beating the vaunted Celtic dynasty in two seven game series. And in his last eight seasons, even though he played with good to great teammates, he faced HOF-laden rosters every season. In those last eight years, he took all eight teams to at least the Conference Finals, FIVE of which made it to the Finals (and two of those lost in game seven's), and he won two rings.

And you would be hard-pressed to find single games in his entire post-season career, covering 160 games, in which he was outplayed. He faced a HOF starting center in 105 of those 160 games, and at least a multiple-all star center in 28 more games. That's 133 of his 160 post-season career in which he battled a very good, to great, starting center. And, all told, he played in 29 post-season series. He was outscored in only six of them. I could only find ONE series in which he was outshot from the floor (and in that series, Kareem missed 107 shots to Wilt's 20.) And he was NEVER outrebounded in any of them.

I could only find TWO centers, in those 29 post-season series, who shot .500 or better (Lucas at .500 in the '72 Finals, and Beaty at .521 in the '64 playoffs.) He routinely held opposing centers to 50-100 points, or more, under their regular season FG%, in those 20 series, too. A prime Kareem, in seasons in which he shot .577 and .574, shot .481 and .457 against Wilt in the playoffs.

A case could be made that Wilt either outplayed, or downright dominated his opposing center in virtually all of his 29 post-season series. And once again, he never had a poor series (although his '69 Finals was his worst, he STILL averaged 25 rpg in that series.) And as I stated earlier, you would be hard-pressed to find single games in which he played poorly, or was outplayed.

True, he "only" won two rings. But, he was NOT a "selfish", "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in his post-seasons. IMHO, no other all-time great was more "snake-bit." He was only a few points, or a couple of plays, from winning as many as five more rings. And one more time, four of those would have been at Russell's expense. If Wilt's team's could have scrapped up a couple more points, in four game seven's against Russell; and had the officials not aided the Knicks in game five of the '70 Finals, and Wilt and Russell would have each finished with seven rings. Had that occurred, and there would be no doubt as to who the GOAT was.

Legends66NBA7

01-02-2012, 04:35 AM

Asukal

01-02-2012, 05:40 AM

And Russell had a HUGE edge in surrounding talent in Wilt's first six seasons. He had an edge in HOFers of 8-3, 7-3, 7-3, 9-1, 8-2, and 6-3 in those seasons. And it would carry into Chamberlain's next four seasons, as well, despite Wilt playing on team's with better records. Even Wilt's 66-67 team was outgunned, 6-3. In fact, I have long maintained that Boston's 66-67 team, which went 60-21, may very well have been their BEST team in the 60's. That team could legitimately go TEN deep. And Wilt's 66-67 Sixers, which went 68-13, STILL crushed them.

So if Wilt did have enough talent surrounding him later in his career, why couldn't he get it done? I mean he did 2x but why couldn't he have won more? And Wilt's 67 team with a better record is not better than the 67 Celtics although they defeated them in the championship series? How so? If they're better they should have won instead but they didn't. Sounds to me you're just making excuses.

In any case, those critics of Chamberlain, including Simmons, often cite Wilt's team's from 65-66 thru 68-69, when they only went 1-3 against Russell's Celtics, as examples of Wilt's "failures." I have already covered the MANY legitimate EXCUSES (yes, excuses) as to why Wilt's TEAM's did not win the title in those three seasons. But, it was not just the excuses, but the fact that Boston was still a LOADED team in those three years. They all had at least FOUR HOFers, and all of them were very deep.

There is no such thing as "legitimate" excuses. What is the 2011 Heat's "legitimate" excuse for losing against Dallas despite having the big 3 in their roster then? Fact of the matter is Wilt lost despite having help, if he was FAR greater than Russell as you love to proclaim he is, why couldn't he close the gap and win? Just take a look at the 98 Houston Rockets they had Barkley, Drexler, and Hakeem, what's their "legitimate" excuse for losing to the Utah Jazz? Don't tell me Malone and Stockton are "young" and those 3 are "old". Jordan, the GOAT, got it done that year, despite being OLD with one all-star team mate and Dennis Rodman who was also already old at the time.

The "Wilt-bashers" will even point out that Chamberlain played on team's that were among the best in the league in the last half of his career, and yet, he still "only" won two rings. The reality was, though, that his TEAM's faced LOADED teams in EVERY one of those seasons. In the first TEN years of his career, he had to battle Russell and the Celtic Dynasty. In the last four years of his career, he faced the '70 Knicks, that went 60-22, with FOUR HOFers (and Cazzie Russell), a deep bench, and a HOF coach. In '71 he battled the Alcindor-led Bucks, along with Oscar, and a Bucks team that went 66-16. And not only that, he did so without BOTH West and Baylor. In '72, his Lakers stunned the basketball world with a 69-13 record, and a record-setting 33 game winning streak. They then swept a 57-25 Chicago team; mowed down the defending champion Bucks, who had gone 63-19, 4-2; and then routed the Knicks, and their FIVE HOFers, 4-1 in the Finals. And in Wilt's final season, his 60-22 Lakers, with an injured West, fell to the Knicks and their SIX HOFers, 4-1 (and all four losses came in the last minute, and by margins of 4, 4, 5, and 9 points.)

You seem to love to point out the injuries that Wilt's team had as an excuse for their failures, that is acceptable but what about the other teams injuries? Did Russell or any of his HOF team mates ever got injured in their runs?

Let's take for example the 96 NBA finals, many Jordan detractors love to point out how badly he performed in this series. What they don't know is that Pippen was playing hurt throughout this series, the Sonics Mcmillian also got hurt game 3 onwards and only played game 6. Another thing they don't know is that Gary Payton did not stop Michael Jordan from scoring. If you watched this series, Jordan missed a lot of uncontested shots, he said so himself "He didn't stop me, no one can stop me, only I could stop myself". You may ask what does this have to do with the topic of Wilt losing while having help? Despite having a bad series, the Bulls still won against the Sonics and why is that? Because by your logic, since Pippen is hurt and Jordan was playing atrociously, they should've lost to the Sonics. I'll tell you why, herein comes the intangibles and those things that you just can't measure with stats. If you watched the series, despite playing badly(stat wise) MJ did "other" things that are essential to their victory. He gets his team involved by setting screens, draw double teams to open up team mates, he has excellent help defense, he doesn't force shots, he has very low turnovers and doesn't get into foul trouble. That's why the Bulls was able to pull the W. In reality Jordan played 4 good games out of 6, its just that he was always expected to put up 30+points that they labelled that series as bad for him. So if Jordan could get it done, why couldn't Wilt? Why does the blame always go to his team mates when he fails?

So, in Chamberlain's first six seasons, he played with mostly inept rosters, and he STILL came within THREE points of beating the vaunted Celtic dynasty in two seven game series. And in his last eight seasons, even though he played with good to great teammates, he faced HOF-laden rosters every season. In those last eight years, he took all eight teams to at least the Conference Finals, FIVE of which made it to the Finals (and two of those lost in game seven's), and he won two rings.

Jordan when he had help, won every time except in 90 and 95. I'm sorry if I'm using Jordan as a measuring stick, I am not old enough to have watched Wilt's era or even the early 80s. If Wilt was so great, why couldn't he just rofl stomp every opposing team he faced since he did have help later in his career?

And you would be hard-pressed to find single games in his entire post-season career, covering 160 games, in which he was outplayed. He faced a HOF starting center in 105 of those 160 games, and at least a multiple-all star center in 28 more games. That's 133 of his 160 post-season career in which he battled a very good, to great, starting center. And, all told, he played in 29 post-season series. He was outscored in only six of them. I could only find ONE series in which he was outshot from the floor (and in that series, Kareem missed 107 shots to Wilt's 20.) And he was NEVER outrebounded in any of them.

I could only find TWO centers, in those 29 post-season series, who shot .500 or better (Lucas at .500 in the '72 Finals, and Beaty at .521 in the '64 playoffs.) He routinely held opposing centers to 50-100 points, or more, under their regular season FG%, in those 20 series, too. A prime Kareem, in seasons in which he shot .577 and .574, shot .481 and .457 against Wilt in the playoffs.

A case could be made that Wilt either outplayed, or downright dominated his opposing center in virtually all of his 29 post-season series. And once again, he never had a poor series (although his '69 Finals was his worst, he STILL averaged 25 rpg in that series.) And as I stated earlier, you would be hard-pressed to find single games in which he played poorly, or was outplayed.

Herein lies my beef with most of your posts, you love to point out his stats but basketball isn't just stats. Wilt could put up a ton of stats and his team would still lose, why is that?

True, he "only" won two rings. But, he was NOT a "selfish", "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in his post-seasons. IMHO, no other all-time great was more "snake-bit." He was only a few points, or a couple of plays, from winning as many as five more rings. And one more time, four of those would have been at Russell's expense. If Wilt's team's could have scrapped up a couple more points, in four game seven's against Russell; and had the officials not aided the Knicks in game five of the '70 Finals, and Wilt and Russell would have each finished with seven rings. Had that occurred, and there would be no doubt as to who the GOAT was.

No one except these idiotic stans would say Wilt was a loser. He is a top 5 ATG, that is exceptional and worthy of respect. Still you should stop with all these ifs and buts, the fact of the matter is he only won 2. Judge him for what he accomplished not by what could have been. Officiating excuse is lame, if you have to use this argument, provide footage or no one will buy that crap. This last part of your post pretty much sums up what you really are, a Wilt stan.

I've watched some footage of Wilt particularly of the 72 series against the Bucks, I can't really find myself to be impressed by Wilt's rebounding. He doesn't box out to get his rebounds, he towers over most of his competition including Kareem. Rodman grabs rebounds by knowing where to position himself, and by boxing out, and out hustling other players. I don't see Wilt doing the latter 2. This is just one series, so I can't judge Wilt by only that. I'm just saying what I observed watching that footage.

oolalaa

01-02-2012, 10:41 AM

So if Wilt did have enough talent surrounding him later in his career, why couldn't he get it done? I mean he did 2x but why couldn't he have won more? And Wilt's 67 team with a better record is not better than the 67 Celtics although they defeated them in the championship series? How so? If they're better they should have won instead but they didn't. Sounds to me you're just making excuses.

There is no such thing as "legitimate" excuses. What is the 2011 Heat's "legitimate" excuse for losing against Dallas despite having the big 3 in their roster then? Fact of the matter is Wilt lost despite having help, if he was FAR greater than Russell as you love to proclaim he is, why couldn't he close the gap and win? Just take a look at the 98 Houston Rockets they had Barkley, Drexler, and Hakeem, what's their "legitimate" excuse for losing to the Utah Jazz? Don't tell me Malone and Stockton are "young" and those 3 are "old". Jordan, the GOAT, got it done that year, despite being OLD with one all-star team mate and Dennis Rodman who was also already old at the time.

You seem to love to point out the injuries that Wilt's team had as an excuse for their failures, that is acceptable but what about the other teams injuries? Did Russell or any of his HOF team mates ever got injured in their runs?

Let's take for example the 96 NBA finals, many Jordan detractors love to point out how badly he performed in this series. What they don't know is that Pippen was playing hurt throughout this series, the Sonics Mcmillian also got hurt game 3 onwards and only played game 6. Another thing they don't know is that Gary Payton did not stop Michael Jordan from scoring. If you watched this series, Jordan missed a lot of uncontested shots, he said so himself "He didn't stop me, no one can stop me, only I could stop myself". You may ask what does this have to do with the topic of Wilt losing while having help? Despite having a bad series, the Bulls still won against the Sonics and why is that? Because by your logic, since Pippen is hurt and Jordan was playing atrociously, they should've lost to the Sonics. I'll tell you why, herein comes the intangibles and those things that you just can't measure with stats. If you watched the series, despite playing badly(stat wise) MJ did "other" things that are essential to their victory. He gets his team involved by setting screens, draw double teams to open up team mates, he has excellent help defense, he doesn't force shots, he has very low turnovers and doesn't get into foul trouble. That's why the Bulls was able to pull the W. In reality Jordan played 4 good games out of 6, its just that he was always expected to put up 30+points that they labelled that series as bad for him. So if Jordan could get it done, why couldn't Wilt? Why does the blame always go to his team mates when he fails?

Jordan when he had help, won every time except in 90 and 95. I'm sorry if I'm using Jordan as a measuring stick, I am not old enough to have watched Wilt's era or even the early 80s. If Wilt was so great, why couldn't he just rofl stomp every opposing team he faced since he did have help later in his career?

Herein lies my beef with most of your posts, you love to point out his stats but basketball isn't just stats. Wilt could put up a ton of stats and his team would still lose, why is that?

No one except these idiotic stans would say Wilt was a loser. He is a top 5 ATG, that is exceptional and worthy of respect. Still you should stop with all these ifs and buts, the fact of the matter is he only won 2. Judge him for what he accomplished not by what could have been. Officiating excuse is lame, if you have to use this argument, provide footage or no one will buy that crap. This last part of your post pretty much sums up what you really are, a Wilt stan.

I've watched some footage of Wilt particularly of the 72 series against the Bucks, I can't really find myself to be impressed by Wilt's rebounding. He doesn't box out to get his rebounds, he towers over most of his competition including Kareem. Rodman grabs rebounds by knowing where to position himself, and by boxing out, and out hustling other players. I don't see Wilt doing the latter 2. This is just one series, so I can't judge Wilt by only that. I'm just saying what I observed watching that footage.

It's nice to have someone finally back up what I've been saying :cheers:

"Still you should stop with all these ifs and buts, the fact of the matter is he only won 2. Judge him for what he accomplished not by what could have been"

This is what my argument boils down to. It's fine if jlauber thinks he was incredibly unfortunate not to have won more titles (there's no way that those game 7 losses were merely unfortunate though) but he shouldn't be given a pass for failing to do so.

And btw, I'm not sure he was that close to winning 7 titles as jlauber has claimed...

'62 - The Warriors wouldn't necessarily have beaten the Lakers in the finals. If Baylor was lighting things up against the mighty Celtics, what do you think he would have done against Wilt's teammates?

'65 & '68 - yes, i think you can give 2 titles to Wilt here. He had the teammates and Baylor wasn't the same.

'69 - It's a joke that L.A didn't win this title. Blame it on the coach all you want, Wilt had a pathetic series. West single handily kept it close.

'70 - You really have to stop going on about this one jlauber. They lost fair & square. You could argue that the Lakers were fortunate that it even went to a game 7. There's no way that Wilt was scoring 45 points in game 6 if Reed was on the floor.

IF he had won 7 titles instead of 2....He would unquestionably be the GOAT! If he had won a more realistic 4 titles....comfortably inside the top 3. But we can only rank players on what they achieved, not by would they COULD have achieved.

La Frescobaldi

01-02-2012, 10:42 AM

[QUOTE=Asukal]

You seem to love to point out the injuries that Wilt's team had as an excuse for their failures, that is acceptable but what about the other teams injuries? Did Russell or any of his HOF team mates ever got injured in their runs?

Now this is a most interesting question.

First off, playing injured is nothing whatsoever compared to drawing a DNP.

1960-61 Bill Sharman was injured, and replaced by.......... Sam Jones, who as far as I know, never had a career threatening injury.

1963 Bob Cousy was injured, and replaced by........... KC Jones, who as far as I know, never had a career threatening injury.

When Tommy Heinsohn was injured in 64-65, he was replaced by.......... John Havlicek

John Havlicek, as far as I know, never suffered a severe injury until 1973 when he had a separated shoulder.... he did miss some playoff games in 1963.... but he was 6th man.

Russell had a wrecked ankle in the 57 Finals and the Celtics lost. As far as I know he didn't miss any other playoff games due to injury.

Satch Sanders as far as I know didn't miss playoff games due to injury.

In those days before free-agency, when players weren't interested in following the highest dollar but in building teams - Boston kept the same roster for a decade. And it was unbelievably stacked.

So really we're comparing a Warriors team with Hall of Famers like
Gola/Arizin/Chamberlain

to a Boston team during those same years that had Hall of Famers like

Bill Russell/Bob Cousy/ Bill Sharman/ KC Jones/ Sam Jones/ Frank Ramsay / John Havlicek/ Tom Heinsohn/ Satch Sanders

You see, if a Hall of Famer did get injured on those Celtics teams, he was just replaced by another Hall of Famer.

La Frescobaldi

01-02-2012, 11:28 AM

I love reading about both these players a lot. I think both of them have some ridiculous things used against them, which get brought up over and over again.

As J explained, Wilt has double standards against him. With his dominance, some people say he went up against "5'5 midgets" and that he was only in it for the numbers, even though he was the best player of 2 of the greatest teams of all-time.

And Russell? Just reading the same redundant B.S., like "he had HOF teammates, he was always surrounded by great players" even though, if you count his high school, NCAA, and Olympic career, he was the only member of 16 different championships. Russell was a winner every where he went, because he was an all-time great player.

Yet, people said he had all this talent and then cite is offense as a weakness, even though he was traded for offensive players in pick Cliff Hagan and Ed Macualey (he wanted to go to St. Louis because his son had an illness at the time). That alone should tell you what changed the landscapes of winning basketball.

That is why I am on the side of Russell (plus it seems that oolalaa is outnumbered here).

Here is Bill Russell's impact on the team's he was on:

http://www.backpicks.com/2010/12/31/bill-russells-defensive-impact/

http://www.backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/celtics-60s-defense.jpg

I'm not sure what Wilt's impact was on defense (I'm sure it was great), but it was nothing like that.

As for the teammate arguement:

http://www.backpicks.com/2010/12/19/bill-russells-all-star-teammates/

Though, I will go into more detail next time.
*****************

It's a terrific concept but there is a lot more to it than that. It's unfair to a lot of Top 50 players to say Russell was the only reason they won those early championships, starting with Tommy Heinsohn.

It's an abysmal fact that there is almost no footage of this guy, but from what little I have seen, within his days he was the nitroglycerin they put in the Celtics dynamite. He could seriously score.

Now there have been racial overtones thrown into it, but Heinsohn was the Rookie of the Year, not Russell. I have no idea what the facts are, and no way of knowing what was in players' hearts when they voted.

But it's telling indeed that if Russell was barred from ROY honors, A CELTIC RECEIVED THEM.

And regardless of the myth-making of later generations, it is a fact that Bob Cousy was the leader of those early Celtics squads. A rough analogy, it was like Jordan waiting for Pippen or Kobe waiting for Gasol.

At the other end of his career, in 1969, Russell left the Celtics high and dry, left without notice. 2 months before the season started, he told Auerbach he wasn't coming back.
So Red was left holding the bag. Russell wasn't only the center on that team, he was the coach. Auerbach had drafted a fine player, JoJo White, to replace Sam Jones WHO ALSO RETIRED THAT SAME YEAR. Sam announced at the beginning of the season, that would be his last year.

Auerbach had no time to replace his center, and he had no time to replace his coach. As far as I know, that was the shoddiest treatment of any team by a great star right up until LeBron James told the world he was leaving Cleveland without telling his boss.

Even Chamberlain, when he demanded a trade from the Sixers, gave the team long warning that he was either going to be traded or jump to the ABA.

There's no other way to say it - when Russell left like that, he treated the Celtics like dirt.

When you place those season standings into context, and realize that a Hall of Fame player joined the team when Russell joined, and that a Hall of Fame/Top 50 player left the team when Russell left - it looks a lot different.

I agree completely Russell was an outrageous athlete, all time great player, absolutely a champion. But I can't agree that he was the sole reason those teams won all those rings. He wasn't.

oolalaa

01-02-2012, 11:30 AM

[QUOTE=oolalaa]

*****************************
So after looking at the evidence, we can agree that the Simmons chapter on 'the Rivalry' is loaded with misleading disinformation, whether through incompetence or deliberate falsifying.
I could destroy everything in the chapter but why bother?

Once a writer goes down this path - and in this case the path went from New York to the Aleutians & he followed it, every step - his credibility is ruined.

Let's never mention the Book of Basketball card with Russell and Chamberlain ever again. Thank you very much.

***************

Now this "ample opportunity to win 2/3 more rings." I assume you mean between '67 & '69? Because Russell retired in '69.

In 67 the Sixers won.

My opinion of winning rings, as i've posted before, is very simple.

It's a 3 legged stool.
One leg is system (and a coach who can get it done)
One leg is talent
One leg is injuries.

If any of the 3 legs breaks, the stool falls.

I don't think any team can win a ring without all 3 of those fundamentals. It was true then, and it's true today.

In '68 they lost Cunningham to a broken arm in the Knicks series. Undaunted they ran up a 3-1 lead against the Celtics. In the 4th & 5th games hamstrings to Greer and Luke Jackson brought the new dynasty to an abrupt end. Nobody who watched that series thought Philly was going to win, with all those injuries.

In '69, the Celtics didn't even bother guarding Baylor for a lot of that series - they were hoping the Lakers would pass to him, I think they liked to hear the ball clang off the side of the rim - and sagged in the paint a lot of the series. After some amazingly lucky shots the series ran to game 7, and Chamberlain's knee gave out.

The Laker chair had 3 bad legs, but you only need one bad one.

Ample opportunity? In terms of he was playing in the NBA on a contender, yeah. Other than that, no, not at all.

**************
Now in '70 of course, 13 missed the season, but regardless of where his knee was, I didn't think anybody was beating that Knicks team. 4 starting Hall of Famers, 3 of them Top 50, Willis in his devastating prime - MVP, All-star MVP, FMVP - probably Cazzie Russell's best season, and Red Holzman coaching.... To me, though, more than talent or injuries, this series was a more classic example of the coach/system being the leg that failed. Mullaney was hopelessly outclassed.

In '71 both Baylor & West drew playoff DNPs. That series was one of my favorite Chamberlain playoff performances. He was incredible, like an old 12 point buck surrounded by a pack of wolves. Amazing.

In '72 the Lakers won.

In '73, That Knicks team was even better than in '70, but watching the series, I think Chamberlain was finally out of gas.

You seem to consistently equate rings with talent, and to me that's fundamentally flawed.
You can't win a ring without all 3 components in place, ever. Doesn't matter who you are.

Chamberlain's career proves that perfectly, but just in case anybody forgot, look at Michael Jordan's career.

I mean '65 (I am somewhat ambivalent about this one though), '66, '68, '69 & '70. The fact is - EXCUSES AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH. He didn't win and that's that. You say he was desperately unfortunate. Fine, whatever. From everything I've read about Wilt, i don't believe that it was merely luck that prevented him from winning all those game 7s.

And I'll ask you (and jlauber) this question again as you both have conveniently ignored it:

If indeed Wilt was the one of the unluckiest players of all time, I certainly wouldn't want him on my team. WOULD YOU?

I somewhat agree with your 3 legged stool analogy. But I would say that the 3 components aren't all equal. Talent is the most important, injuries are second and the system is a distant third. And to say that the Lakers had all three parts missing in '69 is a joke.

THEY HAD THE TALENT and THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY NOTABLE INJURIES. Yes, you can make a good case for "the system" letting them down BUT superior talent should be able to override whatever deficiencies there are in the "the system".

You and jlauber are basically saying that Van Breda Koff almost single handily lost L.A the series but, frankly, it's just another slightly pathetic EXCUSE. like I said before, Wilt seemed awfully content to take a back seat to West and Baylor. It's like Eric Spolstera telling Lebron just after he joined the Heat - "I'm only going to let you shoot the ball 12 times a game from now on. I don't like the way you play" - How happy would he be? You think he would just sit back and allow it to happen? No, he would have gone to Pat Riley and demand something be done about it, knowing that it's not a winning strategy to make him shoot less.

Oh my. Do you think Wilt was better than Russell then?

La Frescobaldi

01-02-2012, 11:33 AM

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]

Oh my. So do you think Wilt was better than Russell then?

Absolutely.

oolalaa

01-02-2012, 12:18 PM

[QUOTE=oolalaa]

Absolutely.

Okay. Do you have a top 10 or 15 all time list? just to get some more perspective of how you rank players...

jlauber

01-02-2012, 12:26 PM

So if Wilt did have enough talent surrounding him later in his career, why couldn't he get it done? I mean he did 2x but why couldn't he have won more? And Wilt's 67 team with a better record is not better than the 67 Celtics although they defeated them in the championship series? How so? If they're better they should have won instead but they didn't. Sounds to me you're just making excuses.

Why couldn't WILT get it done when he had ENOUGH surrounding talent later in his career? I have explained that TOO MANY times. Go back and re-read my previous post. As an example, and IMHO, his '67 76ers were as good as Boston's roster players 2-6, maybe even slightly better. The Celtics had a big edge from 7-10. In any case, that HEALTHY Sixer team just MURDERED the Celtics. Boston avoided a sweep by narrowly winning game four, 121-117. And in game five, the Celts had a 17 point first period lead. With four minutes left in that game, the Sixers led 131-104...or a 44 point swing in about three quarters. And Chamberlain just CRUSHED Russell in EVERY facet of the game in that series. IMHO, Wilt's teammates neutralized Russell's, and that allowed Chamberlain to truly dominate that series.

Now, how about the very next season? Wilt's Sixers again ran away with the best record in the league. BUT, in the first round of the playoffs, HOFer Billy Cunningham broke his wrist against the Knicks, and was done for the rest of the post-season. Keep in mind that the Sixers were NOT a deep team. They basically went seven deep, and Cunningham was a HUGE part of it. STILL, they jumped to a 3-1 lead over Boston in the ECF's. Even AUERBACH all but gave up after that 4th game loss in Boston ("It's too bad, because no one will remember just how great he [Russell] was.") THEN, in game five, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones, two STARTERS, sustained leg injuries. They would play in game's 6 and 7 (mainly because they HAD to), but were worthless. On top of all of that, WILT was nursing a VARIETY of foot and leg injuries, including a tear in his calf muscle, which he sustained in game three.

Now, with all of the above, the Sixers lost a game seven by a 100-96 margin. Now are you going to tell me that those INJURIES did not cost Philly a title? Especially after a HEALTHY Sixer team just annihilated Boston the season before?

There is no such thing as "legitimate" excuses. What is the 2011 Heat's "legitimate" excuse for losing against Dallas despite having the big 3 in their roster then? Fact of the matter is Wilt lost despite having help, if he was FAR greater than Russell as you love to proclaim he is, why couldn't he close the gap and win? Just take a look at the 98 Houston Rockets they had Barkley, Drexler, and Hakeem, what's their "legitimate" excuse for losing to the Utah Jazz? Don't tell me Malone and Stockton are "young" and those 3 are "old". Jordan, the GOAT, got it done that year, despite being OLD with one all-star team mate and Dennis Rodman who was also already old at the time.

This is truly laughable. So there is no such a thing as legitimate excuses. Why didn't Jordan win a ring EVERY season, then? And how come Hakeem could only get to three Finals in 18 seasons, and was eliminated in the first round in eight of them?

And yes, injuries are LEGITIMATE excuses. Russell didn't win a ring early in his career, because he MISSED a couple of games due to his own injury. Magic PLAYED hurt in the '81 playoffs, but was worthless. The result? His Lakers lost to a 40-42 team. And I constantly read how Bird's back cost him 1-2 titles.

Not only that, but poor coaching, poor play by teammates, miracle shots and plays by opposing players, and poor officiating are LEGITIMATE excuses. How can anyone blame Wilt for his team's losses in his first six post-seasons, when, with an already inept cast of surrounding players, those players collectively shot .383, .380, .354, .352, .352 (this, from a team that went 55-25), and even .332?????

And as La Frescobaldi pointed out, one reason why the Celtic dynasty was so great, was the fact that they could plug in a HOFer to replace an injured HOFer. Wilt never had that luxury.

BTW, I have never claimed that Wilt was FAR greater than Russell.

You seem to love to point out the injuries that Wilt's team had as an excuse for their failures, that is acceptable but what about the other teams injuries? Did Russell or any of his HOF team mates ever got injured in their runs?

If you watched the series, despite playing badly(stat wise) MJ did "other" things that are essential to their victory. He gets his team involved by setting screens, draw double teams to open up team mates, he has excellent help defense, he doesn't force shots, he has very low turnovers and doesn't get into foul trouble. That's why the Bulls was able to pull the W. In reality Jordan played 4 good games out of 6, its just that he was always expected to put up 30+points that they labelled that series as bad for him. So if Jordan could get it done, why couldn't Wilt? Why does the blame always go to his team mates when he fails?

Chamberlain DID provide the "intangibles." The idiotic Simmons jumped all over Wilt's game seven in the '62 ECF's, when he "only" scored 22 points (his season low...and some 28 ppg less than his season average.) Wilt only took 15 shots in that game because he was SWARMED. But, even with a crappy roster, they lost that game seven by two points. How come? Because the game recap credited Chamberlain with OUTSTANDING DEFENSE. And the supposed "choker" also rammed home a basket, and made his FT, to tie the game late. However, Sam Jones hit the game-winner over the fingertips of WILT to win the game. BTW, read Cherry's book. Wilt was called for a controversial goal-tend late in that game, too.

Wilt ALWAYS brought DEFENSE and REBOUNDING. He was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 playoff series, and in many of them, he just BURIED his opposing center on the glass. And I have pointed it out in other threads, but Wilt almosr ALWAYS reduced his opposing center to WAY BELOW their normal FG%'s. He only allows a center to shoot 50% against him in TWO of his known playoff series (.500 and .521), and he held the great Kareem to .481 and .457 (including .414 over the course of the last four games of the '72 WCF's.) He held SEVEN of the KNOWN centers to less than .399 shooting!

Continued...

jlauber

01-02-2012, 12:27 PM

Continuing...

Jordan when he had help, won every time except in 90 and 95. I'm sorry if I'm using Jordan as a measuring stick, I am not old enough to have watched Wilt's era or even the early 80s. If Wilt was so great, why couldn't he just rofl stomp every opposing team he faced since he did have help later in his career?

How many HOF-laden team's did MJ face in the 90's? Let me give you a better example. MJ played brilliantly in the '86 playoffs against Boston, including a double OT game of 63 points. Yet, his team was SWEPT. Why? Because Boston had FIVE HOFers, while MJ had practically no help.

How about Wilt in the '62 ECF's? He dominated that series with a 34 ppg, 26 rpg series. However, his TEAM lost that series (and in a game seven by TWO points.) He had a washed up Arizin, who shot .375 in the post-season, and the most over-rated HOFer ever in Tom Gola (who shot .271 in the post-season.) The REAL reason why his TEAM lost? They were facing a 60-20 Celtic team with SEVEN HOFers.

And that was what Chamberlain routinely faced his ENTIRE career. My god, he faced the Knicks in four post-seasons, and those Knick teams had between FOUR and SIX HOFers on all of them (as well as a HOF coach.)

How good were Jordan's teammates in the 90's? His 92-93 team went 57-25 and won the championship. He retired, and how did his 93-94 team do withOUT him? They went 55-27, and lost a close (and controversial) game seven to a Knicks team that would lose a close game seven to the champion Rockets. MJ had the best surrounding talent in the league in the 90's.

Herein lies my beef with most of your posts, you love to point out his stats but basketball isn't just stats. Wilt could put up a ton of stats and his team would still lose, why is that?

Jordan averaged 41 ppg against the '86 Celtics...and his TEAM was SWEPT. Why?

No one except these idiotic stans would say Wilt was a loser. He is a top 5 ATG, that is exceptional and worthy of respect. Still you should stop with all these ifs and buts, the fact of the matter is he only won 2. Judge him for what he accomplished not by what could have been. Officiating excuse is lame, if you have to use this argument, provide footage or no one will buy that crap. This last part of your post pretty much sums up what you really are, a Wilt stan.

Read Cherry's book, page 236: NT TIMES writer Leonard Koppett "broached the subject in his coverage, suggesting that the Knicks had clawed their way back into that game, and that the response of the two referees, Mendy Rudolph and Richie Powers, "was to watch carefully as the Knick's defense swarmed over the Lakers, especially Jerry West and Wilt Chamberlain, and to decide that most of the Knick harrassment was legal."

Continuing...

"Notice that Koppett, a precise writer, wrote the referees decided "most" of the Knick harrassment was legal--not ALL. Forty-two years later in an interview with the author, Koppett said matter-of-factly,"The Lakers were ROBBED, pure and simple. In the second half, the Knicks started cutting into the lead. The crowd went crazy, and the officials wouldn't call anything [against the Knicks]."

LA lost that game 107-100, and fell behind in the series, 3-2. Given the fact that Wilt hung a 45-27 game six, in a Laker rout, had the officiating not been so one-sided in that second half of game five, Wilt's performance in game six would have been one of the greatest "closeout" Finals games in NBA history.

I've watched some footage of Wilt particularly of the 72 series against the Bucks, I can't really find myself to be impressed by Wilt's rebounding. He doesn't box out to get his rebounds, he towers over most of his competition including Kareem. Rodman grabs rebounds by knowing where to position himself, and by boxing out, and out hustling other players. I don't see Wilt doing the latter 2. This is just one series, so I can't judge Wilt by only that. I'm just saying what I observed watching that footage.

Wilt was 35, over 300 lbs, and playing on a surgically repaired knee. He also was knocking the 7-2 Kareem's sky hook all over the gym. And that was a 26 year old Kareem, and in the prime of his career.

And once again, Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 post-season series. And in MANY he just POUNDED his opposing center. He had three separate series, against Russell, in which he outrebounded him by margins of 5, 6 and even 9 rpg! He outrebounded the great Thurmond in all THREE of their H2H post-season series, including one by nearly 7 rpg! He KILLED the 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle in their three H2H post-season series, and Boerwinkle even had a higher "rebound rate" in one of those seasons.

BTW, Rodman's rebounding DECLINED DRAMATICALLY in his post-season career, while Wilt ELEVATED his. Wilt had EIGHT post-seasons of 24.7+ rpg, including two of 29 and 30. Rodman's high of 16 rpg, came in a three game series loss.

Wilt was the most dominant rebounder of all-time. You can throw out the numbers. He just OVERWHELMED his opposing centers and team's.

La Frescobaldi

01-02-2012, 12:30 PM

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]

I mean '65 (I am somewhat ambivalent about this one though), '66, '68, '69 & '70. The fact is - EXCUSES AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH. He didn't win and that's that. You say he was desperately unfortunate. Fine, whatever. From everything I've read about Wilt, i don't believe that it was merely luck that prevented him from winning all those game 7s.

And I'll ask you (and jlauber) this question again as you both have conveniently ignored it:

If indeed Wilt was the one of the unluckiest players of all time, I certainly wouldn't want him on my team. WOULD YOU?

I somewhat agree with your 3 legged stool analogy. But I would say that the 3 components aren't all equal. Talent is the most important, injuries are second and the system is a distant third. And to say that the Lakers had all three parts missing in '69 is a joke.

THEY HAD THE TALENT and THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY NOTABLE INJURIES. Yes, you can make a good case for "the system" letting them down BUT superior talent should be able to override whatever deficiencies there are in the "the system".

You and jlauber are basically saying that Van Breda Koff almost single handily lost L.A the series but, frankly, it's just another slightly pathetic EXCUSE. like I said before, Wilt seemed awfully content to take a back seat to West and Baylor. It's like Eric Spolstera telling Lebron just after he joined the Heat - "I'm only going to let you shoot the ball 12 times a game from now on. I don't like the way you play" - How happy would he be? You think he would just sit back and allow it to happen? No, he would have gone to Pat Riley and demand something be done about it, knowing that it's not a winning strategy to make him shoot less.

Oh my. Do you think Wilt was better than Russell.
***********************************************
And I'll ask you (and jlauber) this question again as you both have conveniently ignored it:

If indeed Wilt was the one of the unluckiest players of all time, I certainly wouldn't want him on my team. WOULD YOU?
****************************************
lol I didn't ignore it man it wasn't directed to me.

Absolutely, my All-Time starting 5:
Chamberlain C
Jordan G
West G
Jabbar F
Bird F

I truly believe if Kareem was playing today, even as tall as he was, he would not be a center. I have always thought he was a forward playing out of position. Great as he was.
*****************************************
I somewhat agree with your 3 legged stool analogy. But I would say that the 3 components aren't all equal. Talent is the most important, injuries are second and the system is a distant third. And to say that the Lakers had all three parts missing in '69 is a joke.
********************
We disagree then.

I don't care how good the talent is on a team, if they lose players in the playoffs to injuries, they're not going to win. Look at Perkins in 2010. Now I don't know that the Celtics could have beat the Lakers with Kendrick, but I had no doubt they could NEVER beat the Lakers without him.

As I've seen elsewhere on the net - take the 2010 Lakers. Kobe & Fisher have hamstring injuries and are walking on the court. Lamar Odom has a wrist broken in 3 places. Tell me straight up - will Pau Gasol win a ring? Against the Celtics?
That's what happened to the 76ers in 1968.

As far as the impact of coaches & their systems on teams, I direct your attention to the difference between the 1989 and 1990 Bulls, and the 1999 & 2000 Lakers.
Also take careful note of the 1966 Sixers and compare that team to '67.
Did you even know Dolph Schayes was a coach? But any old school fan knows Alex Hannum, one of the greatest coaches ever, and the only coach to beat the Celtics dynasty - twice.

Did Pat Riley have an impact in the 80s? What about K.C. Jones? Did you know he was Bill Sharman's assistant coach on the '72 Lakers? Do you know that the Bullets just magically turned around a decade of futility and went to the Finals in '75? K.C. took his Celtics to the Finals 4 out of 5 years in the 80s.

No, it's a 3 legged stool. Saying one leg is more important than the other, makes no sense.
Each leg is physically required in order for a team to win a championship. Without all 3 legs standing, that stool will fall.
Every. Time.

jlauber

01-02-2012, 12:55 PM

You and jlauber are basically saying that Van Breda Koff almost single handily lost L.A the series but, frankly, it's just another slightly pathetic EXCUSE. like I said before, Wilt seemed awfully content to take a back seat to West and Baylor. It's like Eric Spolstera telling Lebron just after he joined the Heat - "I'm only going to let you shoot the ball 12 times a game from now on. I don't like the way you play" - How happy would he be? You think he would just sit back and allow it to happen? No, he would have gone to Pat Riley and demand something be done about it, knowing that it's not a winning strategy to make him shoot less

The Lakers lost a game seven, by TWO points,...and with Wilt sitting on the bench in the last five minutes of that game. Keep in mind, too, that LA had knocked TEN points off of a 17 point 4th quarter deficit (down to seven) in a matter of about four minutes when Wilt injured his leg. Boston was clearly running on fumes by that point.

Incidently, after Russel picked up his 5th personal foul, at about the 11 minute mark, LA went right into Chamberlain, and he went right around Russell for an easy basket. It would be about the last time he would touch the ball on the offensive end. Why?

PHILA posted a great quote from Van Breda Kolf that season. "When we pass the ball into Wilt, he will score. But it is an ugly offense to watch." So, instead he perferred the shot-jacking of Baylor, who would go on to shoot .385 in the playoffs (Wilt shot .545 BTW.)

Not only that, but the Lakers fired Van Breda Kolf right after that loss. Their new coach, Joe Mullaney came in, and his first order of business was to ask Wilt to become the focal point of the offense.

And Wilt responded by averaging 32.2 ppg, on 60% shooting, over the course of his first nine games of that 69-70 season. Included in those games were games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43 points. He hung that 37 point game on 7-0 Tom Boerwinle; that 38 point game on the reigning MVP, Wes Unseld; and that 42 point game on star center Bob Rule. Oh, and BTW, he CRUSHED rookie Kareem with a 25-25 game, on 9-14 shooting, as well.

Unfortunately, Wilt shredded his knee in that ninth game, and would never quite be the same after that. BTW, it was the SAME leg that he injured in that seventh game of the '69 Finals. In any case, Mullaney was able to get Wilt to score 32 ppg, and on 60% shooting. Why didn't Van Breda Kolf utilize Wilt in the same fashion?

As for the entire '69 Finals...

The Lakers led the series, 2-0. In the 4th quarter of game three, West and Baylor combined for 1-14 shooting, in a 111-105 loss.

In fact, Baylor scored a TOTAL of 24 points in games three thru five (two of the close losses... 111-105 and 89-88.) And in the game seven, two point loss, Baylor shot 8-22 from the field. Oh, BTW, Wilt shot 7-8 from the floor in that game seven, and his teammates collectively shot .360.

And how about this ONE PLAY? LA led the series, 2-1, and were leading in game four late, 88-87, AND, they had the ball. With 15 seconds left, Johnny Egan had the ball, and all he had to do was dribble out the clock. Instead, he was stripped of the ball, and then Sam Jones, while falling down, hit the buzzer-beating, game-winning shot. Had Egan been able to hold on to the ball, and LA would have been up 3-1. And given the fact that Wilt dominated Russell in a game five 117-104 win, the Lakers would have romped to a 4-1 series win. So, they were ONE PLAY away from winning the series, 4-1.

BTW, how come Egan had the ball in the last 15 seconds, and not Jerry West? Maybe someone should have asked Van Breda Kolf that question.

Furthermore, Sam Jones "miracle" game-winning shot was one of TWO for Boston in that series. In the seventh game, Don Nelson hit the game-winner, with a shot that hit the back of the rim, bounced several feet in the air, and came straight down thru the basket.

Once again...just review ALL of the above. Virtually everything that could go wrong, did. The result? Wilt's TEAM lost a game seven, by TWO points, (and with him sitting on the bench in the last five minutes.)

jlauber

01-02-2012, 02:02 PM

Pointguard

01-02-2012, 03:52 PM

Lebron is the most talented player in the league right now by MILES but how can anyone say he's the best? (not until he proves us that he can get over the hump at least). He isn't even the best player on the Heat, Dwyane Wade is. Wade isn't as good a scorer as Lebron. Wade isn't as good a playmaker as Lebron. Wade isn't as good a rebounder as Lebron. Wade doesn't put up the stats that Lebron does. But Wade is the leader of that team and the better crunch time scorer. These two things offset Lebron's superior basketball playing ability.
Lebron had an off year and deffer-ed too much to an older player. Nobody, before last year, really thought it was close and if you watch the games this year it is impossible to call it close. Lebron had great playoff moments that are hard to compare to anybody else in the modern era.

it shows me that Wilt didn't care whether he won or lost. It shows me that Wilt wasn't very competitive. It shows me that Wilt wasn't consumed with winning.
Wilt was competitive and he won it all. His life purpose wasn't to win the game, true but then you are only talking about Russell and Jordan whose life seemed distorted by this reality. While I have Russell ranked very high in my GOAT list, he wasn't the same type of player Wilt was. If Russell was competitive and on the same level as Wilt then show me the game where he outplayed Wilt? 140 games is a humongous sample.

Great players rarely outplay other great players at the 70% clip 80% is crazy rare. 98% just doesn't happen between equals and hardly ever between great players to good players much, less very good players. Russell was a great rebounder and Wilt has the record against him. Russell rarely outrebounded Wilt and that was one of Russell's claim to fame. I doubt that you can find in the modern era where a player dominated another good player (much less great player) in 40 games such as in the Wilt/Russell matchup. Where the usual is one player frequently scores two and three times as much as the other? Can you give me the example of where such disparity exist and where you think intangibles compensate for such a difference? Robert Horry rather than Lebron? That's not even imaginable.

You think Wilt could do that so consistently to a GOAT type of player without competitive spirit?

Pointguard

01-02-2012, 04:28 PM

Kareem and Shaq had a good many years where they were sooo much better than the next player it was crazy. And most of the time they lost when they were totally dominant, and players of Russell's caliber, or possessed that crazy winning attitude weren't around or were on their teams (Magic/Kobe)! And neither big men were big winners without more winning franchise oriented guards (Magic and Kobe were better winners than Kareem and Shaq were). So I wouldn't say winning the center position alone is ever an easy feat.

Now yall may be new to watching the game, you should have seen Shaq. So winning isn't directly related to dominance of one player. We seen Chauncy Billups win FMVP without an Allstar next to him in a series that included prime Shaq and Kobe. Its always about the team.

oolalaa

01-02-2012, 04:48 PM

BTW,

My top-10...

1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Magic
4. Wilt

5. Kareem

6. Shaq
7. Duncan

8. Kobe
9. Hakeem
10. Bird

And you can throw a blanket over my top-4. IMHO, they are all on the same level. I do place a value on rings, but, Russell won four of his rings at Wilt's expense, and by razor-thin margins, and in series in which Chamberlain outplayed him.

He also won a 5th against Wilt in the '64 Finals, with an 8-2 edge in HOF teammates (and Chamberlain's lone HOF teammate was rookie Nate Thurmond, who played part-time, out of position, and only shot .395.) And while Boston won that series, 4-1, two of their wins came in the waning seconds. Furthermore, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 29 ppg to 11 ppg, and outrebounded him, per game, 27-25. Chamberlain also shot .517 in that series, and while we don't know what Russell shot against him, we do know that Russell shot .356 in his ten playoff games, half of which were against Wilt.

IMHO, Russell was the greatest "winner" in major professional team sport history, BUT, Wilt was an eyelash away from holding as many rings.

The first thing that jumps out is the fact that I rank Hakeem lower than you do! :wtf:

The second thing is that Bird is too low. People were calling him the GOAT in the mid 80s and can you honestly say that Duncan was better than him?

The third thing is, where's Jerry West? He surely must come under a similar bracket to Wilt.
-He lost 3 game 7s to the mighty Celtics.
-He dragged an average Laker team without Baylor to the '65 finals, posting a truly unfathomable 46ppg against Bellamys Bullets along the way.
-He single handily kept the '69 finals close.
I'm am not averse to having West as high as number 7 but maybe that's a stratch too far.

Anyway...

1. Jordan

2. Magic
3. Russell

4. Kareem

5. Bird
6. Wilt
7. Duncan
8. Shaq
9. West
10. Kobe

11. Hakeem

I used to have Wilt at number 8 behind Duncan & Shaq until it slowly dawned on me that something wasn't right. I love Duncan, and Shaq was embarrassingly dominant at his peak, but Wilt was just simply too good.

jlauber

01-02-2012, 05:16 PM

Lebron had an off year and deffer-ed too much to an older player. Nobody, before last year, really thought it was close and if you watch the games this year it is impossible to call it close. Lebron had great playoff moments that are hard to compare to anybody else in the modern era.

Wilt was competitive and he won it all. His life purpose wasn't to win the game, true but then you are only talking about Russell and Jordan whose life seemed distorted by this reality. While I have Russell ranked very high in my GOAT list, he wasn't the same type of player Wilt was. If Russell was competitive and on the same level as Wilt then show me the game where he outplayed Wilt? 140 games is a humongous sample.

Great players rarely outplay other great players at the 70% clip 80% is crazy rare. 98% just doesn't happen between equals and hardly ever between great players to good players much, less very good players. Russell was a great rebounder and Wilt has the record against him. Russell rarely outrebounded Wilt and that was one of Russell's claim to fame. I doubt that you can find in the modern era where a player dominated another good player (much less great player) in 40 games such as in the Wilt/Russell matchup. Where the usual is one player frequently scores two and three times as much as the other? Can you give me the example of where such disparity exist and where you think intangibles compensate for such a difference? Robert Horry rather than Lebron? That's not even imaginable.

You think Wilt could do that so consistently to a GOAT type of player without competitive spirit?

I agree 100%. Basketball is a TEAM game. The better TEAM usually wins (although major upsets do occur on a limited basis.) And I agree that players like Russell, Magic, and Duncan maximized their surrounding talent.

Still, there are MANY examples of Chamberlain just pounding Russell, and aside from an injured Wilt in game four of the '60 ECF's, practically NONE where Russell outplayed Wilt. BTW, in game five of the '60 ECF's, Chamberlain came back with a vengeance, hanging a 50-35 game on a helpless Russell.

I have used this example many times before, but it is worth repeating. In the clinching game five loss of the '66 ECF's, Chamberlain hung a 46-34 game (on 19-34 shooting) against Russell (who had a good 18-31 game BTW.)

For those that honestly believe in Simmons' take that Russell could just turn it on when he had to, how about the very next season? It was now Russell who was faced with the identical situation that Wilt was in in the '66 ECF's. With his team down 3-1, and in a series in which Wilt and his teammates had had their way with Russell and his Celtics, it was now Russell who was faced with elimination. How did he respond? He "waved the white flag" and quitely surrendered. He could only score FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Meanwhile, Chamberlain poured in 29 points (22 in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and seven blocks. Why couldn't Russell step up when it was obvious that his teammates needed him to?

And there are a TON of other examples, as well. If Russell were truly a better player, where are HIS games in which he outscored Wilt, 62-23? Or outrebounded Wilt, 55-19? I have listed some 40 games in which Chamberlain just murdered Russell, and there are only a few in which Russell even slightly outplayed Wilt. How come?

George Kiseda, who covered much of the Russell-Wilt H2H's once made this comment: "Wilt outplayed Russell in one-third of their games. Russell outplayed Wilt in one-third of their games. And Wilt dominated Russell in the other one-third of their games." And to be honest, he was being generous to Russell when he made that comment. Chamberlain outscored Russell in 132 of their 142 H2H matchups. And he held a 92-42-8 margin in rebounding in those 142 games. He had a 60+ point game on Russell. He had FIVE 50+ point games against Russell (including one in the playoffs.) He had 24 40+ point games against Russell.

Russell had THREE games, in their 142 H2H meetings, in which he scored 30+ points against Wilt, with a high game of 37. Guess what? Wilt outscored him in ALL three.

Chamberlain held a 7-1 H2H edge in 40+ rebound games (and Russell's lone game was an even 40 BTW.) Among those, he had the all-time record of 55 (in a game in which he outrebounded Russell by a staggering 55-19 margin.) He also set the post-season record of 41 against Russell (by a 41-29 margin.) Wilt also held a 23-4 edge in H2H 35+ rebound games.

How about this? Wilt had 17 40-30 games just against Russell (and 55 out of the entire 61 in NBA history), including a 44-43 game. And in their known H2H FG%'s, Wilt was LIGHT YEARS ahead of Russell. In Wilt's rookie season, he shot a career-low .461 (the only time in his career in which he failed to shoot at least .506), but in their 10 known H2H's (out of 11 regular season games), he shot .465 against Russell. Meanwhile, Russell shot a career-high .467 that season, BUT, he only shot .398 against Wilt.

In the 61-62 playoffs, Wilt not only heavily outscored Russell, while outrebounding him, he outshot him .468 to .420.

In the 63-64 Finals, we know that Wilt shot .517 against Russell. We don't know what Russell shot against Wilt, but in his ten post-season games, Russell shot .356...and half of those games were against Wilt.

In the 64-65 ECF's, we don't know what Wilt shot against Russell, but he hung a 30 ppg, 31 rpg seven game series on Russell. In the playoffs, Wilt shot .530. Russell had a 16-26 series against Wilt, and shot .451 against him (which was the HIGHEST that I could find in their H2H's.) In game seven of that series, Wilt outshot Russell, 12-15 to 7-16.

In the 65-66 ECF's, Wilt hung a 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, .509 series on Russell. I couldn't find Russell's FG%, but he averaged a 14-25 against Wilt.

In the 66-67 ECF's, Wilt outshot Russell by a staggering .556 to .358 margin. (And then Wilt went on to outshoot Thurmond by an eye-popping .560 to .343 margin.) And during that regular season, Wilt shot .549 against Russell.

In the 68-69 Finals, in game seven, Wilt outshot Russell 7-8 to 2-7.

And there were other examples, as well. There was simply no statistical area where Russell had any kind of an edge. And in the vast majority, he was outplayed. And in many of those Wilt just abused Russell.

I have said it before, but I saw quite a few of their H2H's in the 60's, and I NEVER came away thinking that Russell had outplayed Wilt. Even in the few videos between the two (and in which they were among Wilt's WORST games), Wilt easily outplayed him. There was second half coverage of game four of the '64 Finals, and in that game, Wilt outscored Russell, 27-8, and outrebounded him, 38-19. And once again, Wilt had MANY games against Russell in which he was even more dominant.

I'll give Russell credit for getting the most out of his teammates, but I also agree with Wooden. Had the two swapped rosters in their careers, Wilt very likely would have won as many rings.

jlauber

01-02-2012, 07:24 PM

The first thing that jumps out is the fact that I rank Hakeem lower than you do! :wtf:

The second thing is that Bird is too low. People were calling him the GOAT in the mid 80s and can you honestly say that Duncan was better than him?

The third thing is, where's Jerry West? He surely must come under a similar bracket to Wilt.
-He lost 3 game 7s to the mighty Celtics.
-He dragged an average Laker team without Baylor to the '65 finals, posting a truly unfathomable 46ppg against Bellamys Bullets along the way.
-He single handily kept the '69 finals close.
I'm am not averse to having West as high as number 7 but maybe that's a stratch too far.

Anyway...

1. Jordan

2. Magic
3. Russell

4. Kareem

5. Bird
6. Wilt
7. Duncan
8. Shaq
9. West
10. Kobe

11. Hakeem

I used to have Wilt at number 8 behind Duncan & Shaq until it slowly dawned on me that something wasn't right. I love Duncan, and Shaq was embarrassingly dominant at his peak, but Wilt was just simply too good.

West and Baylor could not beat the Celtic dynasty...combined. And West took his 64-65 Lakers to the Finals, without Baylor, and despite playing brilliantly (albeit, shooting .426 in the three known FG% games of that series), his Lakers were easily dispatched by the Celtics, 4-1.

Once again, Wilt single-handedly carried far worse rosters much further than West did that season, and in fact, Wilt carried two of them as far as either West or Baylor did, combined.

As far as Bird over Wilt? I just don't see Bird having ANY case over Chamberlain. I have always found it fascinating that Bird has this "clutch" reputation, while Wilt is somehow seen as a "choker."

Take a closer look at their post-seasons. Bird had some poor post-seasons, and some AWFUL playoff series. I have pointed this out before, but in Bird's three greatest statistical regular seasons (84-85, 86-87, and 87-88), he had arguably three of his worst post-seasons (and series.) And he had some truly miserable shooting post-seasons, too. Bird played in the decade of the 80's, which was the highest shooting decade in NBA history (.477 to as high as .492), and he shot .472 over his post-seasob career. Not only that, but he was even WORSE in his five Finals. His Finals FG% was .455. In fact, he had as many Finals games under .399, 11, as he did of over .500. He even had two Finals games of under .299.

He had four entire post-seasons of .444, .427, .422, and even .408. He had one series against the Pistons, in 87-88, of .351 (and Magic then averaged 21.6 ppg on .550 shooting against that same Piston team in the Finals.) He also had a .419 Finals, and against a 40-42 Rockets team.

He was also part of losing with HCA, SEVEN times, which is the most ever by any all-time great. His 82-83 Celtics, which went 56-26, were SWEPT by a 51-31 Bucks team. He had a game seven, in the Finals, in which he shot 6-18 from the field.

Wilt won more MVPs (and by the way, in their seasonal H2H's, Wilt and Russell tied with four each), to three for Bird. And while Bird held a 2-1 edge in FMVPs, Wilt would surely have won it in 66-67 had the award existed.

Bird had a 3-2 edge in rings, but he had an overwhelming edge in surrounding talent for much of his career.

The only areas where Bird was significantly better, were 3pt shooting, and FT shooting. But even both of those are deceptive. Chamberlain MADE 2000 MORE FTs in his career (in roughly the same amount of games.) And Bird's 3pt shooting in his post-seasons was basically a non-factor. He only made 80 3pt attempts in 164 career playoff games, and only shot .321 in the playoffs.

Bird was a great passer, to be sure, but Wilt was the greatest passing big man in the history of the NBA. Even Bird never approached leading the NBA in assists, (nor even third, as Wilt finished in '66-67.) And Wilt even had a higher post-season than Bird ever did, as well, in his '66-67 playoffs (which included TWO triple-double playoff performances.)

The rest of their comparisons goes overwhelmingly to Wilt.

Blocked shots? Bird blocked 755 shots in his career. According to stats maven Harvey Pollack, Chamberlain had entire SEASONS of 10+ bpg...which would have meant that Wilt had a SEASON of more blocked shots than Bird did in his entire CAREER.

Defense? Wilt played in an era in which there were no all-defensive teams, until the last four years of his career. Despite that, he was voted first-team all-defense in his LAST TWO seasons. He also has the two highest "non-Russell" defensive Win Shares seasons in NBA history (in '64 and '68), and is widely regarded as the second greatest defensive center to have ever played the game.

Scoring? Even in the post-season, when Chamberlain supposedly "wilted" he had SIX post-seasons higher than Bird's BEST post-season. He also had FOUR series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, 38.6 ppg, and 38.6 (on .559 shooting.) Included in those post-seasons, were FOUR games of 50+ points (one against Russell.)

And in regular season scoring, it was not even close. Wilt averaged 40 ppg over the course of his first seven seasons...COMBINED. Bird also never sniffed a scoring crown, while Chamberlain won SEVEN straight (and anyone that played with Chamberlain would attest to the fact that he could easily have won several more.) Chamberlain averaged 30.1 ppg in his career (the last half of which he dramatically cut back his shooting), which is STILL higher than Bird's BEST individual season. Bird had ONE 60+ point game...Wilt had 32. I could go on, but CLEARLY, Chamberlain was on the other side of the galaxy in terms of scoring.

Rebounding? Bird was a very good rebounder. He had several seasons of between 10.1 rpg and 11.0 rpg. He even had a post-season of 14.0 rpg. HOWEVER, Chamberlain was unquestionably the greatest rebounder of all-time. His WORST regular season was 18.2 rpg, and he had TEN seasons of 20+, including the two greatest of all-time (27.2 rpg, and 27.0 rpg.) THEN, in the post-season, he ELEVATED his rebounding. He had EIGHT post-seasons of 24.7+ rpg, including two of 29.1 and 30.2 rpg. He also had THREE post-season series, just against Russell, of 30 rpg, 31 rpg, and 32 rpg. Think about this...in Wilt's WORST post-season, he averaged 20.2 rpg. Even in his LAST post-season, covering 17 games, he averaged 22.5 rpg (and the next best mark since, was Kareem's 17.3 rpg in the '77 playoffs.) Chamberlain won ELEVEN rebounding titles.. Bird? ZERO.

Efficiency? This is just as one-sided as the rebounding. Even in the post-season, when Chamberlain faced 105 HOF centers in his 160 post-season games, he was WAY ahead of Bird. Bird's BEST post-season was .524. Wilt had EIGHT higher than that. And keep in mind that Wilt played in league's that shot about .440 over the course of his entire career (as compared to Bird's .485 league average in his career.) How about Finals performances? Bird played in FIVE Finals, and his BEST performance was at .488. Chamberlain played in SIX, and his WORST was a .517 performance against Russell in the '64 Finals. Chamberlain also had a .560 Finals against Nate Thurmond, and two other Finals of .600 and .625 against the Knicks.

Regular season FG%'s? Chamberlain won NINE FG% titles...Bird, ...ZERO. Bird never even sniffed a FG%, while Chamberlain was winning two of his by margins of .157 and .162 over his nearest competitors. And Wilt has the TWO highest FG% seasons in NBA history (.727 and .683...and in league's that shot .456 and .441.)

How about NBA RECORDS? At last count, Chamberlain held some 130+ NBA records. I'm not sure if Bird even has a dozen.

Once again, I don't see Bird having ANY case over Chamberlain.

In fact, I have Bird at #10 on my all-time list...and behind the likes of Kobe and Hakeem...although I could see a case for Bird over either.

jlauber

01-02-2012, 07:50 PM

BTW, before someone brings up that Wilt played in a higher-scoring era than Bird...

The REALITY was, the NBA averaged 115 ppg over the course of the entire decade of the 60's, while the decade of the 80's was at about 109 ppg. AND, once again, the decade of the 80's had a dramatically higher FG%.

La Frescobaldi

01-02-2012, 10:10 PM

Asukal

01-02-2012, 10:22 PM

Why couldn't WILT get it done when he had ENOUGH surrounding talent later in his career? I have explained that TOO MANY times. Go back and re-read my previous post. As an example, and IMHO, his '67 76ers were as good as Boston's roster players 2-6, maybe even slightly better. The Celtics had a big edge from 7-10. In any case, that HEALTHY Sixer team just MURDERED the Celtics. Boston avoided a sweep by narrowly winning game four, 121-117. And in game five, the Celts had a 17 point first period lead. With four minutes left in that game, the Sixers led 131-104...or a 44 point swing in about three quarters. And Chamberlain just CRUSHED Russell in EVERY facet of the game in that series. IMHO, Wilt's teammates neutralized Russell's, and that allowed Chamberlain to truly dominate that series.

What exactly makes the Celtics better? You say they are deeper but can you elaborate on it more? At that time, nobody on those teams were hall of famers, didn't they became HOF players because of their hard work as a team and winning the ring almost every season?

Now, how about the very next season? Wilt's Sixers again ran away with the best record in the league. BUT, in the first round of the playoffs, HOFer Billy Cunningham broke his wrist against the Knicks, and was done for the rest of the post-season. Keep in mind that the Sixers were NOT a deep team. They basically went seven deep, and Cunningham was a HUGE part of it. STILL, they jumped to a 3-1 lead over Boston in the ECF's. Even AUERBACH all but gave up after that 4th game loss in Boston ("It's too bad, because no one will remember just how great he [Russell] was.") THEN, in game five, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones, two STARTERS, sustained leg injuries. They would play in game's 6 and 7 (mainly because they HAD to), but were worthless. On top of all of that, WILT was nursing a VARIETY of foot and leg injuries, including a tear in his calf muscle, which he sustained in game three.

Injuries are part of the game but you can't use it to make excuses for losing. If we played 1 on 1 in a basketball game and I lost but in the middle of the game I hurt my ankle or something. How pathetic would it be for me to say "I lost because I got hurt"? Because all things aside even if I was a bit better than you in basketball, fact is I still lost. There is no guarantee I'd beat you 100% if I was healthy. Are you sure Wilt and his team would win the championship 100% if they were healthy in their losing seasons? There is simply no way for you to know, you can make theories and such but anything can happen. Don't treat your theories like bible because they are not facts.

Now, with all of the above, the Sixers lost a game seven by a 100-96 margin. Now are you going to tell me that those INJURIES did not cost Philly a title? Especially after a HEALTHY Sixer team just annihilated Boston the season before?

Sure they lost mostly because of injuries but that is not the only reason. You are blatantly discrediting the Celtics for their win. If Wilt and his sixers had enough left to make the game so close, why couldn't they get over the hump then?

This is truly laughable. So there is no such a thing as legitimate excuses. Why didn't Jordan win a ring EVERY season, then? And how come Hakeem could only get to three Finals in 18 seasons, and was eliminated in the first round in eight of them?

Sure Jordan didn't win every season but even Russell didn't. But when Jordan started winning rings, he stayed on top till he got too old. And don't go diminishing Hakeem's accomplishments, the man won with arguably the least help in a championship team but he only won 2x and thus he is ranked below Wilt.

And yes, injuries are LEGITIMATE excuses. Russell didn't win a ring early in his career, because he MISSED a couple of games due to his own injury. Magic PLAYED hurt in the '81 playoffs, but was worthless. The result? His Lakers lost to a 40-42 team. And I constantly read how Bird's back cost him 1-2 titles.

Not only that, but poor coaching, poor play by teammates, miracle shots and plays by opposing players, and poor officiating are LEGITIMATE excuses. How can anyone blame Wilt for his team's losses in his first six post-seasons, when, with an already inept cast of surrounding players, those players collectively shot .383, .380, .354, .352, .352 (this, from a team that went 55-25), and even .332?????

And as La Frescobaldi pointed out, one reason why the Celtic dynasty was so great, was the fact that they could plug in a HOFer to replace an injured HOFer. Wilt never had that luxury.

So by your logic, since Wilt has a ton of "legitimate" excuses he should be the undisputed GOAT? :oldlol:

Chamberlain DID provide the "intangibles." The idiotic Simmons jumped all over Wilt's game seven in the '62 ECF's, when he "only" scored 22 points (his season low...and some 28 ppg less than his season average.) Wilt only took 15 shots in that game because he was SWARMED. But, even with a crappy roster, they lost that game seven by two points. How come? Because the game recap credited Chamberlain with OUTSTANDING DEFENSE. And the supposed "choker" also rammed home a basket, and made his FT, to tie the game late. However, Sam Jones hit the game-winner over the fingertips of WILT to win the game. BTW, read Cherry's book. Wilt was called for a controversial goal-tend late in that game, too.

Wilt ALWAYS brought DEFENSE and REBOUNDING. He was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 playoff series, and in many of them, he just BURIED his opposing center on the glass. And I have pointed it out in other threads, but Wilt almosr ALWAYS reduced his opposing center to WAY BELOW their normal FG%'s. He only allows a center to shoot 50% against him in TWO of his known playoff series (.500 and .521), and he held the great Kareem to .481 and .457 (including .414 over the course of the last four games of the '72 WCF's.) He held SEVEN of the KNOWN centers to less than .399 shooting!

Continued...

I'd love to watch footage of how he outrebound his opponents, from what little footage I saw Wilt is just much bigger and athletic than everyone else.

Asukal

01-02-2012, 10:54 PM

How many HOF-laden team's did MJ face in the 90's? Let me give you a better example. MJ played brilliantly in the '86 playoffs against Boston, including a double OT game of 63 points. Yet, his team was SWEPT. Why? Because Boston had FIVE HOFers, while MJ had practically no help.

HOF laden teams? None, in the early 90s Jordan faced teams with 2 stars and great supporting casts. He had Pippen, everyone else was pretty much
replaceable. In the late 90s, they had Rodman but past his prime.

How about Wilt in the '62 ECF's? He dominated that series with a 34 ppg, 26 rpg series. However, his TEAM lost that series (and in a game seven by TWO points.) He had a washed up Arizin, who shot .375 in the post-season, and the most over-rated HOFer ever in Tom Gola (who shot .271 in the post-season.) The REAL reason why his TEAM lost? They were facing a 60-20 Celtic team with SEVEN HOFers.

So Wilt was held below his season average of 50 in the ECF? Why didn't he average 50 instead of 37 if it could win them the series? He couldn't?

How good were Jordan's teammates in the 90's? His 92-93 team went 57-25 and won the championship. He retired, and how did his 93-94 team do withOUT him? They went 55-27, and lost a close (and controversial) game seven to a Knicks team that would lose a close game seven to the champion Rockets. MJ had the best surrounding talent in the league in the 90's.

The best surrounding talent? If I'm you I'd quickly put up stats of his team mates in comparison to their playoff opponents but I'm not going to do that. You stat geeks love to point out that 55 win 94 Bulls team to diminish Jordan's accomplishments, the fact is they couldn't win without him. And Jordan is the only great to win with a non dominant center.

Jordan averaged 41 ppg against the '86 Celtics...and his TEAM was SWEPT. Why?

Same as with Wilt early in his career, he didn't have enough help. Jordan stayed on top when he had help, Wilt?

Read Cherry's book, page 236: NT TIMES writer Leonard Koppett "broached the subject in his coverage, suggesting that the Knicks had clawed their way back into that game, and that the response of the two referees, Mendy Rudolph and Richie Powers, "was to watch carefully as the Knick's defense swarmed over the Lakers, especially Jerry West and Wilt Chamberlain, and to decide that most of the Knick harrassment was legal."

Continuing...

"Notice that Koppett, a precise writer, wrote the referees decided "most" of the Knick harrassment was legal--not ALL. Forty-two years later in an interview with the author, Koppett said matter-of-factly,"The Lakers were ROBBED, pure and simple. In the second half, the Knicks started cutting into the lead. The crowd went crazy, and the officials wouldn't call anything [against the Knicks]."

LA lost that game 107-100, and fell behind in the series, 3-2. Given the fact that Wilt hung a 45-27 game six, in a Laker rout, had the officiating not been so one-sided in that second half of game five, Wilt's performance in game six would have been one of the greatest "closeout" Finals games in NBA history.

You can't take this as fact. The only way for this to be validated is if there were footage of the series. The writer may very well be biased on what he is writing about. This is like believing Jerry West when he says Kobe is the GOAT Laker, and Jerry West is a credible man.

BTW, Rodman's rebounding DECLINED DRAMATICALLY in his post-season career, while Wilt ELEVATED his. Wilt had EIGHT post-seasons of 24.7+ rpg, including two of 29 and 30. Rodman's high of 16 rpg, came in a three game series loss.

Wilt was the most dominant rebounder of all-time. You can throw out the numbers. He just OVERWHELMED his opposing centers and team's.

This is why you only look at the stats. Rodman didn't consistently post the same rebounding numbers but in games that mattered he hustled and put up rebounding records in the finals and playoffs and he isn't 7'2". How can anybody outrebound Wilt? He is the freak in his era, not even Russell can match him physically. Wilt was expected to do those things because of his advantage in athleticism and size. :facepalm

Optimus Prime

01-03-2012, 12:06 AM

jlauber telling it like it is.

Wilt > Russell. It's not even close. Everyone knows this except Celtics homers.

The only area in which Russell exceeds Wilt is in the luck category, because Russell was lucky enough to get on a team with multiple Hall of Famers at every position for extended periods of time. Russell is extremely overrated.

La Frescobaldi

01-03-2012, 02:27 AM

The best surrounding talent? If I'm you I'd quickly put up stats of his team mates in comparison to their playoff opponents but I'm not going to do that. You stat geeks love to point out that 55 win 94 Bulls team to diminish Jordan's accomplishments, the fact is they couldn't win without him. And Jordan is the only great to win with a non dominant center.

***********
I disagree with just about the entire post, but this is flat wrong.

Rick Barry led the Warriors to a ring in 75 with no great center.

DJ won it all in 79 with the Sonics. Sikma was solid, but no more.

I would contend the team immediately before the Bulls run did it, too. If lamebuttocks was dominant, it was because he cheated on every possession.

jlauber

01-03-2012, 06:33 AM

HOF laden teams? None, in the early 90s Jordan faced teams with 2 stars and great supporting casts. He had Pippen, everyone else was pretty much
replaceable. In the late 90s, they had Rodman but past his prime.

So Wilt was held below his season average of 50 in the ECF? Why didn't he average 50 instead of 37 if it could win them the series? He couldn't?

The best surrounding talent? If I'm you I'd quickly put up stats of his team mates in comparison to their playoff opponents but I'm not going to do that. You stat geeks love to point out that 55 win 94 Bulls team to diminish Jordan's accomplishments, the fact is they couldn't win without him. And Jordan is the only great to win with a non dominant center.

Same as with Wilt early in his career, he didn't have enough help. Jordan stayed on top when he had help, Wilt?

You can't take this as fact. The only way for this to be validated is if there were footage of the series. The writer may very well be biased on what he is writing about. This is like believing Jerry West when he says Kobe is the GOAT Laker, and Jerry West is a credible man.

This is why you only look at the stats. Rodman didn't consistently post the same rebounding numbers but in games that mattered he hustled and put up rebounding records in the finals and playoffs and he isn't 7'2". How can anybody outrebound Wilt? He is the freak in his era, not even Russell can match him physically. Wilt was expected to do those things because of his advantage in athleticism and size. :facepalm

1. Jordan's surrounding talent was good enough to win 55 games without him, and came within a controverial ending in a game seven of beating the Knicks, who went on to lose to the Rockets in a close game seven of the Finals. I'm certainly not claiming that MJ wasn't the real reason why the Bulls won six titles, but he didn't come close to a ring until he had the likes of Pippen, Grant, and a solid supporting cast (as well as Rodman, Kerr, and Kukoc later.)

2. Chamberlain "only" averaing 37 ppg in his 61-62 post-season is interesting. The "Wilt-bashers" love to point that out. A couple of points about that. First of all, in the '62 post-seaosn, scoring (and shooting dropped, as it almost always did.) It went from 118.8 ppg down to 112.6 ppg, and shooting dropped from .426 to .411.

Secondly, Wilt's COACH changed his strategy in the first round of the playoffs, and attempted to get more production from his teammates. He finally abandoned that strategy going into game five (in a best-of-five series), and Wilt responded with a 56-35 game to win the game.

Which brings me to my third point. Wilt averaged 50 ppg in that regular season, BUT, he "only" averaged 38 ppg on .471 shooting against Russell in their H2H's. In the '62 ECF's, Chamberlain averaged 34 ppg on .468 shooting. Not nearly as dramatic a "decline" as the "anti-Wilt" gang (Simmons among them) would have you believe.

And finally...one can only wonder of MJ would hold the Finals scoring record of 42 ppg, had Wilt's inept cast of clowns been able to score three more points in game seven on the '62 ECF's. Keep in mind that Russell generally torched the Laker centers in his Finals matchups with them. For instance, in the '65 Finals, Russell averaged 18 ppg, 29 rpg, and shot an eye-popping .702. And the very next season, in the '66 Finals against LA, Russell led his team in scoring at 23.6 ppg.

In game seven of the '62 Finals, Russell hung a 30-40 game on the Lakers. Truly one of the greatest game seven's of all-time. BUT, during Wilt's eight regular season games against the Lakers, he averaged 52 ppg, including three games of 60+, and an unfathomable 78-43 game.

3. I already addressed MJ's supporting casts. He was basically replaced by Pete Meyers and Toni Kukoc in '94, and the Bulls "declined" by TWO games. The reality was, players like Pippen, Grant, Armstrong, Paxson, Rodman, Kerr, and Kukoc were good-to-great players, and they played alongside MJ in a very "watered-down" NBA, in which team's rarely had more than two exceptional players. Meanwhile, Wilt was facing rosters with up to NINE HOFers!

4. In Wilt's last eight seasons, he took his team's to all eight conference Finals; he went to five Finals; won 60+ games four times; and won two rings. And that occurred in leagues with the Celtic Dynasty and up to SIX HOFers; four battles against the Knicks and their FOUR to SIX HOFers; and the great Bucks' teams which routinely won 60+ games, and a dominating title in the '71 season (and Wilt faced that team without BOTH an injured West and Baylor.)

Furthermore, Chamberlain played brilliantly in all of them (with the possible exception being the '69 Finals, when his incompetent COACH shackled him...but even then he had an 11-25 series.)

5. Of course I take it as a fact. Why wouldn't I? Leonard Koppett was a NY TIMES writer (not an LA TIMES writer) who actually was PRESENT at that game five. And Robert Cherry, unlike Bill Simmons, was very thorough (and relatively unbiased) in his book on Wilt. There were times in his book when he criticized Chamberlain (e.g., Wilt's game six of the '69 Finals.)

6. Rodman was a great rebounder. To be 6-8, and to just run away with rebounding titles in an era of centers like Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, and Hakeem was very impressive. But Chamberlain CRUSHED ALL of his opposing centers his ENTIRE career. And then, he was even MORE DOMINANT in his post-seasons (unlike Rodman, who shrank dramatically.)

Throw out the numbers, Wilt won eleven rebounding titles in his 14 seasons, in an era of Russell, Thurmond, Kareem, Lanier, Bellamy, Cowens, Unseld, Hayes, and Lucas (who was the Kevin Love of his generation.) In fact, if he had not been injured in his 69-70 season, he would surely have won another.

True, he was taller than nearly all of them (Kareem was about an inch taller), and aside from Russell, was more athletic, as well as being considerably stronger than any of them...but as we have seen throughout the history of the NBA, height has not been a major factor in rebounding. If it were, then the all-time record holders would be players like Bradley, Yao, Neavitt, Breuer, Longley, Bol, and Muresan. And conversley, players like the 6-7 Ben Wallace, 6-5 Charles Barkley, 6-7 Truck Robinson, 6-9 Kevin Love, and even the 6-7 Wes Unseld, would not have won rebounding titles.

Once again, Chamberlain DOMINATED his peers like no other player in NBA history.

millwad

01-03-2012, 09:11 AM

ESSAY ESSAY ESSAY

Last edited by jlauber : Yesterday at 09:30 PM.

****************

You do realize that you just put up Wilt's name 26 times in your post, you are a sick person..
And why the hell was your post last edited by Jlauber? Troll... :facepalm

millwad

01-03-2012, 09:25 AM

I honestly don't get why jlauber gets slack from posters when he can actually articulate arguments. It's like posters catch feeling because he can actually defend his POV.

Honestly, all you "in before jlauber essay" critics aren't half the debator he is. At least OP can call him out and at least have substance

The reason why he gets hated on is because he claims he knows more than he really does.

He didn't watch Wilt play live, he claims that he remembers Wilt's 40-50 year old games which is the biggest pile of crap ever. Especially considering that he didn't have the same opinion regarding Wilt and his era just a couple of years ago, his Wilt obsession is something new and all his "knowledge" is a copy and paste job and he only saw Wilt play on youtube.

The guy basically changed his mind about Wilt and his era 40+ years after the actual games where played and the only footage of Wilt by that time could be found on youtube and the info he puts up here is from google.

This is what Jlauber used to think about Wilt and his era;

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

Originally Posted by jlauber
“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."

Originally Posted by jlauber
“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.”

Originally Posted by jlauber
“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.”

:facepalm

millwad

01-03-2012, 09:39 AM

jlauber

01-03-2012, 11:08 AM

So unfair that Jordan had Pippen and Grant by his side, that's just not fair.

When Wilt won his first ring he only had Billy Cunningham (HOF:er), Hal Greer (HOF:er), Chet Walker (7-time all-star) and Wali Jones who only averaged 17 points per game in the playoffs of that season.

When Wilt won his second ring he only had Gail Goodrich (HOF:er), Jerry West (HOF:er and 14-time all-star) and Jim McMillan who only averaged 19 points per game in the playoffs that season.

Wilt ALWAYS had horrible teammates!:rolleyes:
If Wilt would have had the opportunity to play with Pippen and Grant he would have won 10 more rings...:facepalm

When Wilt won his first ring, his Sixers routed the eight-time defending champion Celtics, 4-1 (and they were a mere four points away from a sweep in game four in Boston.) THAT Celtic team had Russell (HOF), Havlicek (HOF), Sam Jones (HOF), KC Jones (HOF), Satch Sanders (HOF), Bailey Howell (HOF...a 20 ppg on .512 shooting BTW), Wayne Embry (HOF), as well as their fifth leading scorer, who was the streak-shooting Larry Siegfried (14.1 ppg.)

Of course, Chamberlain's 76ers also routed the Royals, with Oscar and Lucas, and then dispatched with the Warriors in the Finals (Thurmond and Barry.)

All-in-all, his 76ers mowed down 11 HOFers in three series.

In his 71-72 Finals, his Lakers blew out the Knicks, who had Walt Frazier (HOF), Earl Monroe (HOF), Dave DeBusschere (HOF), Bill Bradley (HOF), and Jerry Lucas (HOF.) They also beat the 63-19 Bucks with Kareem and Oscar.

He was almost always outgunned in HOF teammates throughout his career.

Whoah10115

01-03-2012, 01:56 PM

Asukal

01-03-2012, 02:51 PM

1. Jordan's surrounding talent was good enough to win 55 games without him, and came within a controverial ending in a game seven of beating the Knicks, who went on to lose to the Rockets in a close game seven of the Finals. I'm certainly not claiming that MJ wasn't the real reason why the Bulls won six titles, but he didn't come close to a ring until he had the likes of Pippen, Grant, and a solid supporting cast (as well as Rodman, Kerr, and Kukoc later.)

2. Chamberlain "only" averaing 37 ppg in his 61-62 post-season is interesting. The "Wilt-bashers" love to point that out. A couple of points about that. First of all, in the '62 post-seaosn, scoring (and shooting dropped, as it almost always did.) It went from 118.8 ppg down to 112.6 ppg, and shooting dropped from .426 to .411.

Secondly, Wilt's COACH changed his strategy in the first round of the playoffs, and attempted to get more production from his teammates. He finally abandoned that strategy going into game five (in a best-of-five series), and Wilt responded with a 56-35 game to win the game.

Which brings me to my third point. Wilt averaged 50 ppg in that regular season, BUT, he "only" averaged 38 ppg on .471 shooting against Russell in their H2H's. In the '62 ECF's, Chamberlain averaged 34 ppg on .468 shooting. Not nearly as dramatic a "decline" as the "anti-Wilt" gang (Simmons among them) would have you believe.

And finally...one can only wonder of MJ would hold the Finals scoring record of 42 ppg, had Wilt's inept cast of clowns been able to score three more points in game seven on the '62 ECF's. Keep in mind that Russell generally torched the Laker centers in his Finals matchups with them. For instance, in the '65 Finals, Russell averaged 18 ppg, 29 rpg, and shot an eye-popping .702. And the very next season, in the '66 Finals against LA, Russell led his team in scoring at 23.6 ppg.

In game seven of the '62 Finals, Russell hung a 30-40 game on the Lakers. Truly one of the greatest game seven's of all-time. BUT, during Wilt's eight regular season games against the Lakers, he averaged 52 ppg, including three games of 60+, and an unfathomable 78-43 game.

3. I already addressed MJ's supporting casts. He was basically replaced by Pete Meyers and Toni Kukoc in '94, and the Bulls "declined" by TWO games. The reality was, players like Pippen, Grant, Armstrong, Paxson, Rodman, Kerr, and Kukoc were good-to-great players, and they played alongside MJ in a very "watered-down" NBA, in which team's rarely had more than two exceptional players. Meanwhile, Wilt was facing rosters with up to NINE HOFers!

4. In Wilt's last eight seasons, he took his team's to all eight conference Finals; he went to five Finals; won 60+ games four times; and won two rings. And that occurred in leagues with the Celtic Dynasty and up to SIX HOFers; four battles against the Knicks and their FOUR to SIX HOFers; and the great Bucks' teams which routinely won 60+ games, and a dominating title in the '71 season (and Wilt faced that team without BOTH an injured West and Baylor.)

Furthermore, Chamberlain played brilliantly in all of them (with the possible exception being the '69 Finals, when his incompetent COACH shackled him...but even then he had an 11-25 series.)

5. Of course I take it as a fact. Why wouldn't I? Leonard Koppett was a NY TIMES writer (not an LA TIMES writer) who actually was PRESENT at that game five. And Robert Cherry, unlike Bill Simmons, was very thorough (and relatively unbiased) in his book on Wilt. There were times in his book when he criticized Chamberlain (e.g., Wilt's game six of the '69 Finals.)

6. Rodman was a great rebounder. To be 6-8, and to just run away with rebounding titles in an era of centers like Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, and Hakeem was very impressive. But Chamberlain CRUSHED ALL of his opposing centers his ENTIRE career. And then, he was even MORE DOMINANT in his post-seasons (unlike Rodman, who shrank dramatically.)

Throw out the numbers, Wilt won eleven rebounding titles in his 14 seasons, in an era of Russell, Thurmond, Kareem, Lanier, Bellamy, Cowens, Unseld, Hayes, and Lucas (who was the Kevin Love of his generation.) In fact, if he had not been injured in his 69-70 season, he would surely have won another.

True, he was taller than nearly all of them (Kareem was about an inch taller), and aside from Russell, was more athletic, as well as being considerably stronger than any of them...but as we have seen throughout the history of the NBA, height has not been a major factor in rebounding. If it were, then the all-time record holders would be players like Bradley, Yao, Neavitt, Breuer, Longley, Bol, and Muresan. And conversley, players like the 6-7 Ben Wallace, 6-5 Charles Barkley, 6-7 Truck Robinson, 6-9 Kevin Love, and even the 6-7 Wes Unseld, would not have won rebounding titles.

Once again, Chamberlain DOMINATED his peers like no other player in NBA history.

1. I'm not saying Jordan could win without a good supporting cast. No ATG player could do such a thing, not even Jordan. I'm just pointing out that although the 94 Bulls did came close to their previous record in the 93 season, they couldn't get it done without Jordan. Also take note that the 95 Bulls struggled hard for a playoff spot and eventually lost to Orlando. The very next season having acquired Dennis Rodman, Jordan led them to the best regular season record ever in NBA history and to a championship.

2. If someone is to be commended in Wilt vs Russell matchups, it has to be Russell. Height is a very big factor in basketball when two people are equally skilled or having a miniscule gap in talent. Wilt has 3-4 inches advantage on Russell as well as around 50 pounds heavier. If you play basketball, it is a nightmare guarding someone much taller and heavier than you are in the post specially if he is skilled.

3. I'd have to agree that star talent in teams during the 90s are only 2-3 deep when it came to the top teams, but it doesn't mean Jordan's team had too much advantage over everyone else. The playing ground was even, the difference was Jordan. Wilt didn't face HOF laden rosters, it was only the Celtics, that is one team and not the whole league.

4. You don't have to tell me these excuses, I don't think Wilt is a "loser". I have him number 5 in my list, only because he couldn't get over the hump. I respect his legacy as a player, its too bad we don't have more footage of the early eras.

5. There is no way you can prove that it is true without footage of the event. You can choose to believe it based on the credibility of the writers but it doesn't make it true unless indisputable proof is given.

6. Height is not the only deciding factor of a good rebounder. Still, Wilt had too much advantage on athleticism and size. I'll try to find time to analyze a couple of videos of Wilt's rebounding compared to more recent players and get back to you.

Asukal

01-03-2012, 03:02 PM

***********
I disagree with just about the entire post, but this is flat wrong.

Rick Barry led the Warriors to a ring in 75 with no great center.

DJ won it all in 79 with the Sonics. Sikma was solid, but no more.

I would contend the team immediately before the Bulls run did it, too. If lamebuttocks was dominant, it was because he cheated on every possession.

I'm talking about greats in the top 10 who led their teams to the championship. Where is Rick Barry ranked? DJ? :confusedshrug:

jlip

01-03-2012, 03:09 PM

I don't know if this has been mentioned and I don't feel like rereading, but Wilt Chamberlain never led the league in assists. He was 2nd that year, behind Oscar Robertson.

Chamberlain led the league in total assists, due to Oscar missing 17games. But they don't ever judge the assist leader by total number. It's per game. And per game he was 1.1 behind Oscar Robertson.

And I'm more than fine with calling Wilt the best center. I certainly have him ahead of Russell and I could have him ahead of Kareem. Not sure. But he never led the league in assists.

Statistical titles in that era was based upon totals not per game averages. That changed after the '69 season. If memory serves me correctly, Kareem was upset his rookie season ('70) because Jerry West won the scoring title with a higher per game average, but Kareem actually had more total points. That was the first season of the change.

Whoah10115

01-03-2012, 05:42 PM

Statistical titles in that era was based upon totals not per game averages. That changed after the '69 season. If memory serves me correctly, Kareem was upset his rookie season ('70) because Jerry West won the scoring title with a higher per game average, but Kareem actually had more total points. That was the first season of the change.

Props for the info. Definitely did not know that.

But as it is obviously accepted that league leaders are now based on averages and not totals, I do think jlauber should mention it. But again, definitely appreciate the info.

oolalaa

01-03-2012, 06:03 PM

I'm talking about greats in the top 10 who led their teams to the championship. Where is Rick Barry ranked? DJ? :confusedshrug:

Rick Barry is a borderline top 20 player. Much like Julius Erving, he wasted his prime in the ABA. He was a phenomenal offensive player - great scorer and behind only Bird and Lebron as a playmaker form the SF position. He was a bit of an arsehole but he carried a bunch of scrubs to the '75 title. :bowdown:

Also....

Kobe has won 2 rings without a 'dominant center'. Bird won 3. Isiah won 2. Magic won at least 1 (maybe 2, depending on what you think of Kareem in '87). And what about Dirk last year??

oolalaa

01-03-2012, 06:05 PM

Props for the info. Definitely did not know that.

But as it is obviously accepted that league leaders are now based on averages and not totals, I do think jlauber should mention it. But again, definitely appreciate the info.

I have mentioned it to him in a separate thread. It wont stop him claiming that Wilt won an assist title though :facepalm

PTB Fan

01-03-2012, 06:30 PM

The difference between Wilt and Russell is that the first one cared about himself only and the second one cared about winning. Both got what they aimed and wanted for in the end.

PTB Fan

01-03-2012, 06:33 PM

I'm talking about greats in the top 10 who led their teams to the championship. Where is Rick Barry ranked? DJ? :confusedshrug:

Don't forget Hakeem who led the 94 Rockets to a title without an All-Star and All-NBA team mate...

La Frescobaldi

01-03-2012, 07:52 PM

I'm talking about greats in the top 10 who led their teams to the championship. Where is Rick Barry ranked? DJ? :confusedshrug:

Rick Barry is ranked pretty darn high. So is DJ.

But what's that got to do with it? Your point is totally wrong, just go on to the next one

La Frescobaldi

01-03-2012, 08:47 PM

Rick Barry is a borderline top 20 player. Much like Julius Erving, he wasted his prime in the ABA. He was a phenomenal offensive player - great scorer and behind only Bird and Lebron as a playmaker form the SF position. He was a bit of an arsehole but he carried a bunch of scrubs to the '75 title. :bowdown:

Also....

Kobe has won 2 rings without a 'dominant center'. Bird won 3. Isiah won 2. Magic won at least 1 (maybe 2, depending on what you think of Kareem in '87). And what about Dirk last year??

Exactly. the guy's mythologizing Jordan........ perfect topic for this thread actually. Myth vs. reality

Teams that are stacked have a high SRS. Single players can't guard entire teams, ever. Not even Russell or Moses could do that, elite centers. For a few plays, even a few minutes? Yeah a dominating defensive center can unquestionably take over a game. Russell always pointed out that Chamberlain with the Lakers was doing his own job better than he ever did. And lot of us saw 13 stop entire teams for a few minutes at a time.

But check out the SRS of those Bulls teams. Sure a single player can have huge impact, but not those kinds of numbers.

1992 SRS: 10.07 (1st of 27)
1996 SRS: 11.80 (1st of 29)

An SRS of 10 is telling you that is one very stacked team. They're able to contain or shut down at every single position. Now leadership on the court is a huge factor, but it's coaching and depth that create those kinds of margins.

A stacked team doesn't mean the '92 Dream Team. It means you have a top 10 guy at 3 or 4 positions, and a strong 6th and 7th man - guys who generally could start on other teams. A Lamar Odom or a Toni Kukoc or John Havlicek

And as far as dominant center? If you look at Bill Cartwright's career, he's a hall of fame candidate. He was a scoring machine with the Knicks, and as a Bull all he had to do was defend a few pretty fair centers.... like Ewing, Robinson, Olajuwon, Shaq.... to win some rings.

Jordan sure wasn't in the paint guarding those guys.

The only other team as stacked as those 90s Bulls? The 60s Celtics - and they were even more stacked. Not only did they have Hondo off the bench, they had K.C. Jones & Sam Jones coming off the bench too.

Jordan gets a pass, just like Russell does, but just like Russell, Jordan's teammates don't get the credit they deserve for some monstrous performances.

bwink23

01-03-2012, 09:10 PM

La Frescobaldi

01-03-2012, 09:23 PM

I have mentioned it to him in a separate thread. It wont stop him claiming that Wilt won an assist title though :facepalm

Why make it seem like he robbed something? That's how they were credited, and he won it.

http://www.nbauniverse.com/awards/nba_assists_leader_year.htm

It's just a fact, Chamberlain is the only non-guard to lead the league in assists.

La Frescobaldi

01-03-2012, 09:26 PM

Everyone needs teammates to win, Period...Jordan's so-called "myth" isn't just centered around his game. He is the single most important reason the NBA took off internationally and globally. He's the reason why scrubs get paid millions in this league. He's the reason why the NBA expanded 6 teams over his tenure with the Bulls. That's not "mythical" or imagined by any stretch, that's LEGENDARY and ICONIC....you need to learn the difference.

I understand the difference perfectly. All that may be true, but irrelevant.

We're not talking about marketing, we're talking about basketball.

jlauber

01-03-2012, 10:36 PM

The difference between Wilt and Russell is that the first one cared about himself only and the second one cared about winning. Both got what they aimed and wanted for in the end.

I have TRASHED this nonsense a THOUSAND times on this forum.

None other than John Wooden claimed that had Wilt been surrounded with Russell's rosters, he very likely would have won as many rings. CLEARLY, there was no way in HELL that Russell would have won ANY rings with Chamberlain's rosters in Wilt's first six seasons. In fact, I doubt those teams would have even had winning records.

And I have addressed Wilt's TEAM's failures in three of his last four seasons in the Russell-era. Maybe Russell would have gotten more out of the '66 Sixers than Wilt did. But, if he could not, he would have fared no better than Wilt. Chamberlain's '67 Sixers CRUSHED Russell and his Celtics. And it would have been a repeat had the Sixers roster been remotely as healthy as they were in '67 (including Chamberlain.) The only season where I could see Russell winning a ring, in which Wilt did not, would have been in the '69 season. Still, give Russell only ONE player who played well in the Finals (West), and saddle him with an incompetent coach, and he likely would have fared worse than Wilt did.

Once again, if Wilt were ONLY interested in personal stats, the man could have set the all-time scoring mark completely out of reach...even if Kareem had played 30 years. How come Wilt, the "selfish" , "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" played on more teams that won 60+ games in his career, four, than Russell did (three)? How come he narrowly lost two game seven's against Russell's overwhelmingly favored Celtic teams in '62 and '65? How come Wilt went to more Conference Finals and more Finals, than the "clutch" Larry Bird?

I could go on, but for a player who was considered a "loser", he was sure lousy at it.

Asukal

01-03-2012, 10:40 PM

jlauber

01-03-2012, 10:44 PM

I have mentioned it to him in a separate thread. It wont stop him claiming that Wilt won an assist title though :facepalm

And do you remember what that thread was about? It was about who was the greatest passing big man in NBA history. And, no one mentioned Wilt until I did. Even if we didn't credit Wilt with an assist "title", there has never ever been another center who even had 6 apg in a single season. Wilt had two seasons of 7.8 apg and 8.6 apg,...and BTW, his TEAM's went 68-13 and 62-20 in the process. He also had an entire post-season of 9.2 apg, which included TWO triple-double playoff series, and a game of 19 assists, which tied the NBA post-season record at the time. And in the '67 ECF's he recorded a QUAD-DOUBLE of 24-32-13-12.

Incidently, Wilt had a season in which he led the league in scoring, at 33.5 ppg; rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; FG%, at .540; and in that same season, he also averaged 5.2 apg. Oh, and his team had the best record in the league.

And he has the only 20-20-20 game in NBA history (22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists.) Ands how about this triple-double, 53 points, on 24-29 shooting, with 32 rebounds, and 14 assists (and seven blocks).

BUT, yes, Wilt is credited with leading the league in assists...and BTW, he did.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ast_yearly.html

Asukal

01-03-2012, 10:49 PM

Deuce Bigalow

01-03-2012, 10:50 PM

Wilt

Verb:
(of a plant, leaf, or flower) Become limp through heat, loss of water, or disease; droop.
Noun:
Any of a number of fungal or bacterial diseases of plants characterized by wilting of the foliage.
Synonyms:
wither - fade - droop

:lol

jlauber

01-03-2012, 10:53 PM

oolalaa

01-03-2012, 11:58 PM

Exactly. the guy's mythologizing Jordan........ perfect topic for this thread actually. Myth vs. reality

Teams that are stacked have a high SRS. Single players can't guard entire teams, ever. Not even Russell or Moses could do that, elite centers. For a few plays, even a few minutes? Yeah a dominating defensive center can unquestionably take over a game. Russell always pointed out that Chamberlain with the Lakers was doing his own job better than he ever did. And lot of us saw 13 stop entire teams for a few minutes at a time.

But check out the SRS of those Bulls teams. Sure a single player can have huge impact, but not those kinds of numbers.

1992 SRS: 10.07 (1st of 27)
1996 SRS: 11.80 (1st of 29)

An SRS of 10 is telling you that is one very stacked team. They're able to contain or shut down at every single position. Now leadership on the court is a huge factor, but it's coaching and depth that create those kinds of margins.

A stacked team doesn't mean the '92 Dream Team. It means you have a top 10 guy at 3 or 4 positions, and a strong 6th and 7th man - guys who generally could start on other teams. A Lamar Odom or a Toni Kukoc or John Havlicek

And as far as dominant center? If you look at Bill Cartwright's career, he's a hall of fame candidate. He was a scoring machine with the Knicks, and as a Bull all he had to do was defend a few pretty fair centers.... like Ewing, Robinson, Olajuwon, Shaq.... to win some rings.

Jordan sure wasn't in the paint guarding those guys.

The only other team as stacked as those 90s Bulls? The 60s Celtics - and they were even more stacked. Not only did they have Hondo off the bench, they had K.C. Jones & Sam Jones coming off the bench too.

Jordan gets a pass, just like Russell does, but just like Russell, Jordan's teammates don't get the credit they deserve for some monstrous performances.

Bill Cartwright in the hall of fame? Don't get crazy now.

In the super high scoring early 80s, he averaged around 17 ppg over a 5 year stretch, and then I think he broke his foot (if i remember rightly) in 85/86 and was never the same.

He had some toughness to him which was a big part of the reason he stuck around on the Bulls for those 3 titles. Apparently, Jordan wasn't a fan of Cartwright in the beginning (partly because the Bulls traded Oakley to get him) and he had been saying some negative things about him behind his back, including for the Bulls players not to pass him the ball in crunch time.

Cartwright eventually confronted Jordan late in the 88/89 season and said to him - "I don't like the things I've heard you saying about me. If I ever hear again that you're telling guys not to pass me the ball, you will never play basketball again." :bowdown:

Like you said, his main job was to stifle the opposing centres and he did a very good job of it. Unfortunately, he didn't have very good hands which affected his rebounding and playmaking.

There's no way he's a HOF centre in my opinion...

And on Jordan's teammates....Some people say that he had the best supporting cast of any star player throughout the 90s. Others say that he carried a bunch of scrubs & role players to 6 titles. The truth is somewhere in between.

That 1st 3-peat team in the early 90s was undoubtedly very good. But was it better than kobes '08-'10 Lakers? Who would you rather - Bynum, Gasol & Odom or Cartwright, Grant & Pippen? What about the mid 80s Laker teams with Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott & Mcadoo coming off the bench? Or the early 70s Knicks with Reed, DeBusschere, Frazier and friends?

On the other hand, the 2nd 3-peat team was distinctly average. It's a testament to Jordan's greatness that that team won 3 straight titles. It was essentially Jordan, a past his prime Pippen & a bunch of role players. Kukoc was a nice player but he didn't have any where near the impact that some people like to make out and Rodman was a borderline scrub for those last 2 championships! (as well as perennial distraction for the team).

oolalaa

01-04-2012, 12:01 AM

jlip

01-04-2012, 12:04 AM

It's hard to take it too seriously when he averaged almost 47mpg that season...

That's the equivalent of saying that it's hard to take a scoring champion seriously because he attempted more shots than everybody else. (See Michael Jordan)

oolalaa

01-04-2012, 12:19 AM

Fine, but Rick Barry is still not in discussion for top ten. And you can't count Kobe or Dirk in the discussion yet, they are still playing and who knows if Gasol, Bynum, or Chandler might still make it to the HOF later. I do know Gasol who occassionally played center is a much better player than Longley or Cartwright and was the 2nd option of the Lakers during their run. And Dallas in 2011 relied heavily on Chandler's rebounding, he meant a lot to that team's success.

You said that "Jordan was the only great to win with a non dominant center". This is clearly BS and I find it funny that you have quickly changed your criteria from 'great' to 'top ten' instead. Why do they have to be top 10? Barry is an all time great. So is Dirk (Chandler in the HOF? Really? Do you not watch basketball?). So is Isiah.

But, even if you say that they have to be a top 10 all time player - Kobe is top 10. So is Bird. So is Magic. They have all won without a dominant centre...

-When Gasol did play center, he was certainly not dominant (and you say that he was clearly better than Cartwright & Grant. Yeh, but Jordan had Pippen!).
-Bynum was not dominant (and if you think he has a chance to make the HOF then....well....i don't know what to tell you).
-Kareem was not dominant in '88 (or '87 imo).
-Parish was not dominant.

oolalaa

01-04-2012, 12:26 AM

And do you remember what that thread was about? It was about who was the greatest passing big man in NBA history. And, no one mentioned Wilt until I did. Even if we didn't credit Wilt with an assist "title", there has never ever been another center who even had 6 apg in a single season. Wilt had two seasons of 7.8 apg and 8.6 apg,...and BTW, his TEAM's went 68-13 and 62-20 in the process. He also had an entire post-season of 9.2 apg, which included TWO triple-double playoff series, and a game of 19 assists, which tied the NBA post-season record at the time. And in the '67 ECF's he recorded a QUAD-DOUBLE of 24-32-13-12.

Incidently, Wilt had a season in which he led the league in scoring, at 33.5 ppg; rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; FG%, at .540; and in that same season, he also averaged 5.2 apg. Oh, and his team had the best record in the league.

And he has the only 20-20-20 game in NBA history (22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists.) Ands how about this triple-double, 53 points, on 24-29 shooting, with 32 rebounds, and 14 assists (and seven blocks).

BUT, yes, Wilt is credited with leading the league in assists...and BTW, he did.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ast_yearly.html

:lol No jlauber. It was in my prime Walton vs prime Duncan thread. A thread that had absolutely nothing to do with Wilt. Yet, you brought him up when the discussion moved on to Walton's passing ability.

He did not win an APG title. That is the only assist title i care about.

oolalaa

01-04-2012, 12:26 AM

That's the equivalent of saying that it's hard to take a scoring champion seriously because he attempted more shots than everybody else. (See Michael Jordan)

I'm sorry, WHAT?

Asukal

01-04-2012, 02:55 AM

You said that "Jordan was the only great to win with a non dominant center". This is clearly BS and I find it funny that you have quickly changed your criteria from 'great' to 'top ten' instead. Why do they have to be top 10? Barry is an all time great. So is Dirk (Chandler in the HOF? Really? Do you not watch basketball?). So is Isiah.

But, even if you say that they have to be a top 10 all time player - Kobe is top 10. So is Bird. So is Magic. They have all won without a dominant centre...

-When Gasol did play center, he was certainly not dominant (and you say that he was clearly better than Cartwright & Grant. Yeh, but Jordan had Pippen!).
-Bynum was not dominant (and if you think he has a chance to make the HOF then....well....i don't know what to tell you).
-Kareem was not dominant in '88 (or '87 imo).
-Parish was not dominant.

That is full of BS. Kobe didn't win shit as the man untill Gasol came. It can even be argued Gasol was the finals MVP of that 2010 championship team. Bird didn't have a dominant big man? What do you call Parish and Mchale? What about Kareem is to Magic? Magic could also play the 5 if needed. Certainly you are not going to put those guys on the level of a Luc Longley or Bill Cartwright? :facepalm

La Frescobaldi

01-04-2012, 04:05 AM

:lol No jlauber. It was in my prime Walton vs prime Duncan thread. A thread that had absolutely nothing to do with Wilt. Yet, you brought him up when the discussion moved on to Walton's passing ability.

He did not win an APG title. That is the only assist title i care about.

That's not fair to all the 50s & 60s greats who won assist titles. They didn't change the assist rules so Wilt could get the title, he had the same criteria as Cousy & Oscar.
So their assist titles don't count either?

La Frescobaldi

01-04-2012, 04:21 AM

It's hard to take it too seriously when he averaged almost 47mpg that season...
This is like the guy on basketball-reference who says Chamberlains 50ppg would only equate to 37ppg in 1987.
He says nobody can play 47+ minutes a game, so Wilt can't either - even though he did it for ten years.
Of course stamina is part of the game. The energy level it takes to play those kinds of minutes!! Nobody else has ever been able to do that, not for a season, and definitely not year after year.

jlauber

01-04-2012, 07:21 AM

It's hard to take it too seriously when he averaged almost 47mpg that season...

Give me a list of all of the players in the entire HISTORY of the NBA that averaged 47 mpg in ONE season. I'll save you the trouble...aside from Chamberlain, who did it FOUR times, there has NEVER been anyone else to do so.

Proving CONCLUSIVELY, and this simply cannot be DISPUTED...that NO ONE else has ever even been CAPABLE of playing 47 mpg in an entire season. Give me your examples to the contrary.

Chamberlain was a SPRINTER in college...and a MARATHONER in High School (as well as running marathons into his 60's.) Just an UNHEARD of combination.

And as for assists. Chamberlain's '67 and '68 seasons, he averaged 6.2 and 6.6 apg PER 36 in those two seasons. Here again, give me a list of all of the centers, in the entire HISTORY of the NBA, who ever averaged more than 5.8 apg in a season. He was LIGHT YEARS ahead of ANY other passing center in the HISTORY of the NBA. Again, this cannot be DISPUTED. And before some clown (like Bill Simmons) claims that Wilt did so for "selfish" "stats-padding" reasons...his TEAM's went 68-13 and 62-20 in those two years, and won an overwhelming title in one of them (and had injuries not DECIMATED that '68 team, they would have waltzed to another title.)

Back to Wilt's mpg. He averaged 45.2 mpg over the course of his entire career. He did so in league's where he played FIVE games in FIVE nights (and not one of those games was a home B2B.) Then, in the post-season, he ELEVATED his mpg to an incredible 47.2 mpg over the course of his 160 post-season games. And, he did so in post-seasons with as many as THREE games in THREE nights (and in those three games, he played 48 mpg in each game...all with a torn calf.) In his LAST post-season, at age 36, and covering 17 games, he averaged 47.1 mpg. BTW, all he did in that post-season was average 22.5 rpg (in a league that averaged 50.6 rpg per team), which is the LAST time anyone ever averaged as much as 17.3 rpg in a post-season. How come?

How come ONLY Wilt?

oolalaa

01-04-2012, 10:06 AM

That is full of BS. Kobe didn't win shit as the man untill Gasol came. It can even be argued Gasol was the finals MVP of that 2010 championship team. Bird didn't have a dominant big man? What do you call Parish and Mchale? What about Kareem is to Magic? Magic could also play the 5 if needed. Certainly you are not going to put those guys on the level of a Luc Longley or Bill Cartwright? :facepalm

:eek:

1. You said dominant CENTRE!! Now you've changed it to dominant big man :facepalm

2. Gasol. 2010 finals mvp? :roll: I am far from Kobe's biggest fan but cmon dude, try not to let your biases get in the way.

3. Why is having a dominant big man better than having a dominant pg or sf anyway? Are you honestly trying to tell me that you would rather have Gasol over Scottie Pippen? Or '87-'88 Kareem over Pippen? Or '84 Parish & Mchale over Pippen? Newsflash -- The greatest player of all time is not a big man :hammerhead:

oolalaa

01-04-2012, 10:31 AM

Give me a list of all of the players in the entire HISTORY of the NBA that averaged 47 mpg in ONE season. I'll save you the trouble...aside from Chamberlain, who did it FOUR times, there has NEVER been anyone else to do so.

Proving CONCLUSIVELY, and this simply cannot be DISPUTED...that NO ONE else has ever even been CAPABLE of playing 47 mpg in an entire season. Give me your examples to the contrary.

Chamberlain was a SPRINTER in college...and a MARATHONER in High School (as well as running marathons into his 60's.) Just an UNHEARD of combination.

And as for assists. Chamberlain's '67 and '68 seasons, he averaged 6.2 and 6.6 apg PER 36 in those two seasons. Here again, give me a list of all of the centers, in the entire HISTORY of the NBA, who ever averaged more than 5.8 apg in a season. He was LIGHT YEARS ahead of ANY other passing center in the HISTORY of the NBA. Again, this cannot be DISPUTED. And before some clown (like Bill Simmons) claims that Wilt did so for "selfish" "stats-padding" reasons...his TEAM's went 68-13 and 62-20 in those two years, and won an overwhelming title in one of them (and had injuries not DECIMATED that '68 team, they would have waltzed to another title.)

Back to Wilt's mpg. He averaged 45.2 mpg over the course of his entire career. He did so in league's where he played FIVE games in FIVE nights (and not one of those games was a home B2B.) Then, in the post-season, he ELEVATED his mpg to an incredible 47.2 mpg over the course of his 160 post-season games. And, he did so in post-seasons with as many as THREE games in THREE nights (and in those three games, he played 48 mpg in each game...all with a torn calf.) In his LAST post-season, at age 36, and covering 17 games, he averaged 47.1 mpg. BTW, all he did in that post-season was average 22.5 rpg (in a league that averaged 50.6 rpg per team), which is the LAST time anyone ever averaged as much as 17.3 rpg in a post-season. How come?

How come ONLY Wilt?

It's like communicating with a brick wall. I have said on numerous occasions that it's great Wilt could play that many minutes without getting too tired. It no doubt was an advantage for his teams.

But HIS STATS WERE INFLATED AS A CONSEQUENCE. If we are using his assist & rebound numbers as a barometer of how good a passer and rebounder he was, compared to players from other eras who played less minutes (which you like to do), then they need to be taken with some context.

When you say that no other centre even came close to Wilt's assist numbers, therefore he was the best passing centre ever by "MILES", it shows how biased you are jlauber. You think that Wilt was a better passer/playmaker than Larry Bird for christ sake!!!!!!!

And even then, assist numbers (including apg) are not necessarily indicative of who the better passer is, even if they played the same number of minutes. Yeh, they give you a good idea of general passing ability but to say that player X is a better passer than player Y purely because he averaged more assists is DUMB.

Oh an btw. I do think Wilt is the greatest rebounder of all time. Russell & Moses Malone are very close though.

La Frescobaldi

01-04-2012, 11:34 AM

It's like communicating with a brick wall. I have said on numerous occasions that it's great Wilt could play that many minutes without getting too tired. It no doubt was an advantage for his teams.

But HIS STATS WERE INFLATED AS A CONSEQUENCE. If we are using his assist & rebound numbers as a barometer of how good a passer and rebounder he was, compared to players from other eras who played less minutes (which you like to do), then they need to be taken with some context.

When you say that no other centre even came close to Wilt's assist numbers, therefore he was the best passing centre ever by "MILES", it shows how biased you are jlauber. You think that Wilt was a better passer/playmaker than Larry Bird for christ sake!!!!!!!

And even then, assist numbers (including apg) are not necessarily indicative of who the better passer is, even if they played the same number of minutes. Yeh, they give you a good idea of general passing ability but so say that player X is a better passer than player Y purely because he averaged more assists is DUMB.

Oh an btw. I do think Wilt is the greatest rebounder of all time. Russell & Moses Malone are very close though.

My brother you are getting wound up. he's talking about centers, and you are talking about a small forward.

There's TMI on this thread, IMO, most monstrous knowledge on display.

But if I may.
{I hope this quoting thing works, I'm still learning the website}

Bill Cartwright in the hall of fame? Don't get crazy now..............................
Like you said, his main job was to stifle the opposing centres and he did a very good job of it. Unfortunately, he didn't have very good hands which affected his rebounding and playmaking.

There's no way he's a HOF centre in my opinion...

You & I are like moths circling the flame of hoops.

How can you sit there & defend Bill Russell as a greater player than Wilt Chamberlain ---

Wilt Chamberlain, who was ALWAYS better than Bill Russell,
*as a scorer,
*as an effective offensive force,
* as a passer,
* as a shot blocker,
* as a transition sprinter,
* on defense (both transition and half-court),
* and as a rebounder -

and yet you sit there and knock Bill Cartwright, who as one of the 'modern' Bill Russells ----- is not worthy of a seat in the Hall of Fame???

I ask you, now. Most Respectfully. To Answer.

Asukal

01-04-2012, 11:59 AM

:eek:

1. You said dominant CENTRE!! Now you've changed it to dominant big man :facepalm

2. Gasol. 2010 finals mvp? :roll: I am far from Kobe's biggest fan but cmon dude, try not to let your biases get in the way.

3. Why is having a dominant big man better than having a dominant pg or sf anyway? Are you honestly trying to tell me that you would rather have Gasol over Scottie Pippen? Or '87-'88 Kareem over Pippen? Or '84 Parish & Mchale over Pippen? Newsflash -- The greatest player of all time is not a big man :hammerhead:

1. Dude ok so I worded it wrong, my bad mr.perfect who can do no wrong. :banana:

2. Gasol is the 2nd option of the team, is he supposed to be on Longley or Cartwright's level? And yes it is arguable that he did much more than Kobe in that finals run, other 2nd options has won finals mvp before, so why can't Gasol? Just because it is Kobe? LOL! :facepalm

3. Pippen is great and all but he is not a big man, he is a perimeter player. That's why I said Jordan got it done without a dominant big man. Use your head ffs! :hammerhead:

oolalaa

01-04-2012, 12:01 PM

My brother you are getting wound up. he's talking about centers, and you are talking about a small forward.

There's TMI on this thread, IMO, most monstrous knowledge on display.

But if I may.
{I hope this quoting thing works, I'm still learning the website}

You & I are like moths circling the flame of hoops.

How can you sit there & defend Bill Russell as a greater player than Wilt Chamberlain ---

Wilt Chamberlain, who was ALWAYS better than Bill Russell,
*as a scorer,
*as an effective offensive force,
* as a passer,
* as a shot blocker,
* as a transition sprinter,
* on defense (both transition and half-court),
* and as a rebounder -

and yet you sit there and knock Bill Cartwright, who as one of the 'modern' Bill Russells ----- is not worthy of a seat in the Hall of Fame???

I ask you, now. Most Respectfully. To Answer.

Wow.

Firstly, my mention of Bird was simply to show how biased jlauber is regarding Wilt. He thinks that Wilt was a better passer/playmaker than Bird. This is absurd.

Secondly, claiming that Cartwright is one of the 'modern' Bill Russells is.....well.....what can I possibly say? It's slightly alarming. You clearly have no idea know what you are talking about.

Thirdly, your bias really has come to the fore with your Wilt/Russell comparison. Even jlauber admits that Russell was the games greatest "winner" and that his intangibles made up for his deficiency in talent compared to Wilt.

- Yes, Wilt was a better scorer.
- Yes, Wilt was a more effective offensive force.
- Yes, Wilt was a better passer.
- No, Wilt was not a better shot blocker. We have no way of knowing who was better. Don't pretend that you do.
- No, Wilt was not a better transition sprinter. The difference between there ability to get up and down the court was negligible.
- No, Wilt was not a better defender than Russell. Yes, even Russell admits that Wilt, later in his career, did a better job defensively than he ever could BUT Wilt wasn't always dedicated to defence, especially in his early, high scoring years.
- Yes, Wilt was a better rebounder but not by much.

RUSSELL > CHAMBERLAIN :D

La Frescobaldi

01-04-2012, 12:03 PM

Wow.

Firstly, my mention of Bird was simply to show how biased jlauber is regarding Wilt. He thinks that Wilt was a better passer/playmaker than Bird. This is absurd.

Secondly, by claiming that Cartwright is one of the 'modern' Bill Russells is.....well.....what can I possibly say? It's slightly alarming. You clearly have no idea know what you are talking about.

Thridly, your bias really has come to the fore with your Wilt/Russell comparison. Even jlauber admits that Russell was the games greatest "winner" and that his intangibles made up for his deficiency in talent compared to Wilt.

- Yes, Wilt was a better scorer.
- Yes, Wilt was a more effective offensive force.
- Yes, Wilt was a better passer.
- No, Wilt was not a better shot blocker. We have no way of knowing who was better. Don't pretend that you do.
- No, Wilt was not a better transition sprinter. The difference between there ability to get up and down the court was negligible.
- No, Wilt was not a better defender than Russell. Yes, even Russell admits that Wilt, later in his career, did a better job defensively than he ever could BUT Wilt wasn't always dedicated to defence, especially in his early, high scoring years.
- Yes, Wilt was a better rebounder but not by much.

RUSSELL > CHAMBERLAIN :D

I watched a lot of those games from the bleachers, my friend. I stand by what I said.

Asukal

01-04-2012, 12:07 PM

I watched a lot of those games from the bleachers, my friend. I stand by what I said.

Wilt is indeed better than Russell as a player but he has 4" height advantage and around 50 lbs of weight on Russell. Russell held his own against Wilt, that's very commendable because in basketball its a nightmare to go against someone much bigger than yourself in the post.

La Frescobaldi

01-04-2012, 12:31 PM

Wilt is indeed better than Russell as a player but he has 4" height advantage and around 50 lbs of weight on Russell. Russell held his own against Wilt, that's very commendable because in basketball its a nightmare to go against someone much bigger than yourself in the post.

3 inch height advantage, but Russell's length was actually more than Chamberlain's by about 2 inches. Dude had freakishly long arms.

But ya 50 lbs is a conservative estimate especially after 13 started pounding the weights.

So? Why is height/strength advantage a bad thing for 13, but an advantage for everybody else? I suggest you shouldn't give 13 a double standard unless you apply it to every single other big man. I mean Duncan, Walton, Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, and every other center. Don't be pathetic, now.

Also I gotta add, most forcefully. You consistently ignore the fact of the most clutch performer in the history of basketball, I mean Sam Jones. MJ can't hold that guy's jockstrap most sincerely when we talkin' clutch.

You possibly are not aware that in the 60s the greatest defensive stoppers were

#2 Bill Russell Center (behind Chamberlain)
#1 Satch Sanders Forward
#1 K.C. Jones Guard

And
# 1 guard, Bob Cousy
#2 or 3 guard, Bill Sharman
#2 or 3 guard, Frank Ramsay
# 3 guard in Sam Jones, behind Oscar & Logo
# 3 forward Tommy Heinsohn
#3 forward John Havlicek
A top 3 guard, Bailey Howell

Don'tcha dare talk about the Celtics as if it was just Bill Russell.

Did you know in the 68 playoffs the Celtics used Wayne Embry as a center in the playoffs against Chamberlain? Fact.

Russell guarded Chet Walker for very serious minutes. And Chet the Jet was walking wounded, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER SIXER IN THAT SERIES.

Nah bro it ain't right to go around bashing the Stilt when y'all don't know that fact of his sheer incredible skill level

oolalaa

01-04-2012, 12:46 PM

oolalaa

01-04-2012, 12:50 PM

1. Dude ok so I worded it wrong, my bad mr.perfect who can do no wrong. :banana:

2. Gasol is the 2nd option of the team, is he supposed to be on Longley or Cartwright's level? And yes it is arguable that he did much more than Kobe in that finals run, other 2nd options has won finals mvp before, so why can't Gasol? Just because it is Kobe? LOL! :facepalm

3. Pippen is great and all but he is not a big man, he is a perimeter player. That's why I said Jordan got it done without a dominant big man. Use your head ffs! :hammerhead:

What more can I say except that you overrate big men & we probably have different definitions of 'dominant'.

I would like to hear your reasoning on why Gasol possibly deserved the finals mvp though....

La Frescobaldi

01-04-2012, 12:52 PM

You realise that this comment is going to incite jlauber to respond with a long ass reply about Wilt "crushing" Russell statistically right?

Thanks dude :oldlol:

i am lmfao because you are so mf correct on that fact

but hey I boinged us off yer Timmy Duncan thread right?

Timmy = Most Awesomeness even when the ref T'd him while on the bench!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOygTd1NWCM

Whoah10115

01-04-2012, 02:31 PM

La Frescobaldi

01-04-2012, 03:31 PM

jlip

01-04-2012, 03:35 PM

Why make it seem like he robbed something? That's how they were credited, and he won it.

http://www.nbauniverse.com/awards/nba_assists_leader_year.htm

It's just a fact, Chamberlain is the only non-guard to lead the league in assists.

It's hard to take it too seriously when he averaged almost 47mpg that season...

That's the equivalent of saying that it's hard to take a scoring champion seriously because he attempted more shots than everybody else. (See Michael Jordan)

I'm sorry, WHAT?

It seems as if you're saying that Wilt's high assist numbers were the product of him playing so many minutes. The high volume of minutes supposedly gives additional "opportunities" to rack up assist numbers therefore lessening the impressiveness of his feat.

My point is, using that logic, quite frequently the difference between the top 2-3 scorers in the league is number of shots taken not particularly "abilities". Michael Jordan led the league in shots taken almost every healthy/ full season that he played for the Bulls. Taking more shots than everybody else provides more "opportunities" to rack up points just like playing additional minutes gave Wilt more opportunities to gather assists.. If he attempted fewer shots, his numbers would have dropped. So should we consider his scoring titles less impressive?

There is always a story behind stats.

oolalaa

01-04-2012, 09:42 PM

i am lmfao because you are so mf correct on that fact

but hey I boinged us off yer Timmy Duncan thread right?

Timmy = Most Awesomeness even when the ref T'd him while on the bench!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOygTd1NWCM

:lol yeh. joey Crawford is RETARDED. Probably having some marital problems at the time :oldlol:

jlauber

01-04-2012, 10:48 PM

It's like communicating with a brick wall. I have said on numerous occasions that it's great Wilt could play that many minutes without getting too tired. It no doubt was an advantage for his teams.

But HIS STATS WERE INFLATED AS A CONSEQUENCE. If we are using his assist & rebound numbers as a barometer of how good a passer and rebounder he was, compared to players from other eras who played less minutes (which you like to do), then they need to be taken with some context.

When you say that no other centre even came close to Wilt's assist numbers, therefore he was the best passing centre ever by "MILES", it shows how biased you are jlauber. You think that Wilt was a better passer/playmaker than Larry Bird for christ sake!!!!!!!

And even then, assist numbers (including apg) are not necessarily indicative of who the better passer is, even if they played the same number of minutes. Yeh, they give you a good idea of general passing ability but to say that player X is a better passer than player Y purely because he averaged more assists is DUMB.

Oh an btw. I do think Wilt is the greatest rebounder of all time. Russell & Moses Malone are very close though.

My problem with those that attempt to diminish Wilt's stats based on mpg, is this:

Wilt was playing nearly every minute, of every game, for much of the his career. He did this, season-after-season. Now, had he had the luxury of "just" playing 40-42 mpg in each season of his career, how much fresher would he have been in the 30th, 40th, 50th, and 80th games of the season? Then multiply that by each season.

I have long maintained that most all athletes lose efficiency as they pile on the minutes. It can take it's toll in a SINGLE game. Even the most athletic NBA players seldom average over 40 mpg. And, using Shaq as an example, it was a well known fact that, in the playoffs, his numbers were considerably better with two days rest, than with just one.

Now, Chamberlain was playing 48 mpg, in MANY B2B's, much less having a day of rest, and two days rest must have felt like a month-long vacation to Wilt.

So, if the vast majority of even the "greatest of the greats" peaked at around 40-42 mpg (or less), and then noticeably dropped in performance after that...then the reverse must also hold true, right?

Wilt's stats would naturally have dropped, had he "only" played 40-42 mpg. BUT, I maintain that it would not have been a 40/48 ratio. He would have been more rested. THEN, factor in that, in say, his 40th game of a long season, he would have been much more rested, and his production-per-minute would surely have been higher than had he been playing 48 mpg, night-after-night.

Then, compound that year-after-year, and his efficiency would have to HAD to have been much better. So, I just don't see his overall numbers having a proportional drop to his mpg.

jlauber

01-05-2012, 01:46 AM

I think this emoticon is really cool:

:roll:

And that's my reaction to Bill Cartwright not being able to rebound or block shots but being Bill Russell.

Also my reaction to ignorance, as the obvious point oolalaa was trying to make was that you can't take assist numbers and with those decide who the better passer is. And he used Larry Bird as an example.

And in regards to still crediting Wilt with an assist title, because those were the rules at the time...it's not a championship. That just makes it sound like you're saying Wilt was reaching for it. Doesn't help your case.

With that said, Wilt was a better player than Bill Russell. I think Wilt was too passive and too selfish, and I don't think he was insanely clutch. But overall is overall and Wilt Chamberlain was not blessed with Russell's team. It's like if the Miami Heat, as a team, are not that clutch in close games but usually blow people out and win a title being well ahead...the point is that Wilt did more as a player and was the better player.

Over the course of their entire careers, Bird was a better "passer" than Wilt. Here again, the numbers support that.

However, I get tired of those that equate "sensational" passing, with actual "productive" passing. I have used this example before, but Jason "White Chocolate" Williams was a considerably more "electric" passer than John Stockton. Same when comparing "Pistol Pete" with either West or Oscar.

But, the reality was, Stockton and Oscar consistently put their teammates in position to SCORE. I have said it before, but Williams would make a spectacular no-look pass, between his legs, splitting two defenders, for an easy basket in the first quarter. Then, late in the 4th quarter, with the game on the line, he would throw a ball into the seats with a wide open teammate under the basket. And to be honest, Magic was one of the few great PASSERS who could consistently make the "eye-opening" passes.

For those that haven't seen this video, I encourage them to watch the entire footage. But, take a look at Wilt's passing from the 5:45 mark on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak

And obviously, one of the reasons Wilt was such a great PASSER, was the fact that he was usually doubled (or even swarmed.) There was always someone open. Chamberlain's PASSING led to SCORING...plain-and-simple. THAT is why he was leading the league in assists at his passing peak. And, he was just as brilliant in those post-seasons, too. In his '67-68 post-season, he averaged 6.5 apg (as well as averaging 23.7 ppg, 24.7 rpg, and shooting .534 from the floor.) And in his 66-67 post-season run, all he did was average 9.2 apg, (along with 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, and shooting .579 from the field.)

And in that 66-67 playoff run, covering 15 games, Chamberlain had a 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, .612 series against the Royals, which included a 16-30-19 game (and those 19 assists tied an NBA record at the time.) Then, against Russell and the Celtics, he hung a 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, .556 series, which included a 24-32-13-12 game one, and a 29-36-13 (7 block) clinching game five win. I'm sorry, but you would be hard-pressed to find another all-time great "big man" with even one game along those lines...and Wilt was putting them up, game-after-game.

And one more time...assists were more difficult to come by in the Wilt-era, even with the slightly higher "pace." The fact was, Wilt's prime assist numbers were MILES ahead of any other center who has ever played the game. Even using the Per/36 mpg stat (which is SO unfair to Chamberlain, since he was the ONLY player capable of playing 48 mpg), he was STILL at 6.2 and 6.6 apg in his 66-67 and 67-68 seasons. There is simply no way of diminishing his PASSING. At his peak, he was THE greatest passing "big man" in the history of the NBA.

Asukal

01-05-2012, 02:54 AM

3 inch height advantage, but Russell's length was actually more than Chamberlain's by about 2 inches. Dude had freakishly long arms.

But ya 50 lbs is a conservative estimate especially after 13 started pounding the weights.

So? Why is height/strength advantage a bad thing for 13, but an advantage for everybody else? I suggest you shouldn't give 13 a double standard unless you apply it to every single other big man. I mean Duncan, Walton, Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, and every other center. Don't be pathetic, now.

Also I gotta add, most forcefully. You consistently ignore the fact of the most clutch performer in the history of basketball, I mean Sam Jones. MJ can't hold that guy's jockstrap most sincerely when we talkin' clutch.

You possibly are not aware that in the 60s the greatest defensive stoppers were

#2 Bill Russell Center (behind Chamberlain)
#1 Satch Sanders Forward
#1 K.C. Jones Guard

And
# 1 guard, Bob Cousy
#2 or 3 guard, Bill Sharman
#2 or 3 guard, Frank Ramsay
# 3 guard in Sam Jones, behind Oscar & Logo
# 3 forward Tommy Heinsohn
#3 forward John Havlicek
A top 3 guard, Bailey Howell

Don'tcha dare talk about the Celtics as if it was just Bill Russell.

Did you know in the 68 playoffs the Celtics used Wayne Embry as a center in the playoffs against Chamberlain? Fact.

Russell guarded Chet Walker for very serious minutes. And Chet the Jet was walking wounded, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER SIXER IN THAT SERIES.

Nah bro it ain't right to go around bashing the Stilt when y'all don't know that fact of his sheer incredible skill level

LOL! Chill out dude, I said Russell is commendable for holding his own against Wilt despite having the disadvantage in height and weight. I didn't imply he was the only great player of their Celtic dynasty. I also didn't imply Wilt should be bashed for having those advantages.

Also what's clutch got to do with what we are talking about? If you are implying that I'm going around saying Jordan is greater than Wilt because he was clutch, then you are dead wrong. My opinion is that Jordan is the GOAT because he did it all, he is not the best at everything but he did it all. Accomplishments, individual accolades, leadership, all around basketball skills, offense, defense, charisma, basketball IQ, killer instinct, great work ethic, statistical accomplishments, longevity, the man excelled in every area. Sam Jones is the most clutch so what? Is that all? lol!

Asukal

01-05-2012, 03:11 AM

What more can I say except that you overrate big men & we probably have different definitions of 'dominant'.

I would like to hear your reasoning on why Gasol possibly deserved the finals mvp though....

Fine. We may have different definitions of the word so let's just agree to disagree. :cheers:

On Gasol's case, he was consistent throughout the series whereas Kobe wasn't. On paper Kobe's 29ppg is more impressive than Gasol's 19ppg but that is not the case if you watched the games. Often times Kobe took a lot of difficult shots resulting in his low fg of 40%. The whole series was decided mostly by defense and rebounds, Gasol did just that better than everyone else even Kobe. We also can't forget game 7, Kobe had a terrible game, his stans would argue he grabbed 15 rebounds but if you watched the game most of his rebounds came from the ball bouncing his way. Again, let me say that I'm fine with Kobe winning finals mvp, but Gasol did as much as Kobe for that win.

jlauber

01-05-2012, 05:55 AM

Russell played with many HOF teammates, but having said that, how many of them would be HOFers had they not played with Russell?

KC Jones, Satch Sanders, Wayne Embry, Frank Ramsey, and Bailey Howell...all very good players...but hardly worthy of the HOF. KC Jones was never even an all-star.

He did play with very DEEP rosters in his career, though. His 62-63 Celtic's had a total of NINE HOFers. And I have said it before, but Wilt's 62-63 best teammate, Tom Meschery, would probably have been around the 8th or 9th best player on that Boston team. Then, Chamberlain took his 63-64 Warrior's to the Finals, with basically the same horrible roster he had in 62-63 (the only real addition was rookie Nate Thurmond, who played part-time, out of position, and shot .395.) Russell's Celtics, with an 8-2 edge in HOFers (once again, Thurmond was Wilt's lone HOF teammate), beat Chamberlain's Warriors, 4-1, but two of those wins were in the waning seconds.

And I still say that the 66-67 Celtics, with TEN legitimately good-to-great players, were the deepest team in NBA history. And even Toby Kimball, who was their 11th player, had an 11-12 season the very next year in Seattle.

And as La Frescobaldi pointed out earlier in this topic, when a Celtic HOFer went down with an injury, they plugged in another HOFer. Meanwhile, most of Wilt's rosters seldom went more than 6-7 deep, and when one of his HOF teammates went down, they plugged in a 5-6 ppg scrub that probably wouldn't have made another NBA roster.

oolalaa

01-06-2012, 07:25 PM

Fine. We may have different definitions of the word so let's just agree to disagree. :cheers:

On Gasol's case, he was consistent throughout the series whereas Kobe wasn't. On paper Kobe's 29ppg is more impressive than Gasol's 19ppg but that is not the case if you watched the games. Often times Kobe took a lot of difficult shots resulting in his low fg of 40%. The whole series was decided mostly by defense and rebounds, Gasol did just that better than everyone else even Kobe. We also can't forget game 7, Kobe had a terrible game, his stans would argue he grabbed 15 rebounds but if you watched the game most of his rebounds came from the ball bouncing his way. Again, let me say that I'm fine with Kobe winning finals mvp, but Gasol did as much as Kobe for that win.

I of course did watch the games. You are dismissing the 10 ppg differential too nonchalantly. If you took Gasol off that team and played the series out, the Lakers would still have won 1 or 2 games. That's the luxury a superstar perimeter player of Kobe's calibre gives you.

If you took Kobe off that team and played the series out, they would have got swept (as you know, Gasol made a habit of getting swept before the Lakers rescued him). Where the hell were the Lakers going to get 29ppg from? And equally importantly, where were they going to get Kobe's leadership/communication and drive from? Gasol is a really good player, but his contributions don't go beyond the stat sheet.

Yes, Kobe was jacking up some pretty horrendous shots for 3 quarters in game 7 BUT, as you said, he did grab 15 boards (5 more than Allen & Rondo combined) and, more importantly, he got his ass to the line down the stretch and made some important free throws. This doesn't exonerate Kobe's poor performance but i feel like people become too fixated on that 1 game.

Ultimately, Kobe >>> Gasol, and he didn't play anywhere near badly enough for that to be reversed in the finals.

RazorBaLade

01-06-2012, 07:26 PM

oolalaa

01-06-2012, 07:29 PM

i was sorta reading your post until you lost all credibility there

cmon son

Yeh i forgot to mention that in my response to him. From what I remember, he was crashing the boards much more than he usually does, especially in the 4th...

La Frescobaldi

01-06-2012, 09:18 PM

Yeh i forgot to mention that in my response to him. From what I remember, he was crashing the boards much more than he usually does, especially in the 4th...
That was a key reason to me why Kobe deserved the FMVP - his shooting was SO bad that he radically changed his game to help win that game. That was maturity you never got from a Gervin or really, a Kobe8. #8 would have jacked up increasingly desperate trash shots trying to break out of the slump. 24 Recognized a slump and crashed boards

oolalaa

01-06-2012, 09:43 PM

That was a key reason to me why Kobe deserved the FMVP - his shooting was SO bad that he radically changed his game to help win that game. That was maturity you never got from a Gervin or really, a Kobe8. #8 would have jacked up increasingly desperate trash shots trying to break out of the slump. 24 Recognized a slump and crashed boards

Exactly right :applause:

PTB Fan

01-06-2012, 10:07 PM

I have TRASHED this nonsense a THOUSAND times on this forum.

None other than John Wooden claimed that had Wilt been surrounded with Russell's rosters, he very likely would have won as many rings. CLEARLY, there was no way in HELL that Russell would have won ANY rings with Chamberlain's rosters in Wilt's first six seasons. In fact, I doubt those teams would have even had winning records.

I doubt it unless we're talking about past 67 Wilt. Up until that point, Wilt was looking more for individual accomplishments and couldn't find the balance between his scoring and passing.

That led to his team mates being more happy about him leaving, which is a thing that doesn't help much either. Chamberlain was ridiculously good, but his teams didn't do well as long as he was putting high scoring #'s.

And no, Wilt with that attitude, wouldn't have won any rings with a better team.

And I have addressed Wilt's TEAM's failures in three of his last four seasons in the Russell-era. Maybe Russell would have gotten more out of the '66 Sixers than Wilt did. But, if he could not, he would have fared no better than Wilt. Chamberlain's '67 Sixers CRUSHED Russell and his Celtics. And it would have been a repeat had the Sixers roster been remotely as healthy as they were in '67 (including Chamberlain.) The only season where I could see Russell winning a ring, in which Wilt did not, would have been in the '69 season. Still, give Russell only ONE player who played well in the Finals (West), and saddle him with an incompetent coach, and he likely would have fared worse than Wilt did.

And i have seen this earlier as well. No doubt Wilt played in less talented rosters up until 65, but i can't give him any excuses about not beating the Russell led Celtics in 68 despite his team having injured players. He was up 3-1 god dammit. In 69, he did absolutely terrible against Russ. And Russell was a player-coach with a team struggling with injuries and being old.

Once again, if Wilt were ONLY interested in personal stats, the man could have set the all-time scoring mark completely out of reach...even if Kareem had played 30 years. How come Wilt, the "selfish" , "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" played on more teams that won 60+ games in his career, four, than Russell did (three)? How come he narrowly lost two game seven's against Russell's overwhelmingly favored Celtic teams in '62 and '65? How come Wilt went to more Conference Finals and more Finals, than the "clutch" Larry Bird?

I could go on, but for a player who was considered a "loser", he was sure lousy at it.

Up until 67, Wilt was mainly about himself and records. But that changed in that year and Wilt was producing pretty well.

I understand the argument for Wilt, but i'd chose Russell over him. I have said this thousands of times, and will say it again. It's arguable and it can go either way.

Nice to have a debate with you.

PTB Fan

01-06-2012, 10:10 PM

Wilt Chamberlain, who was ALWAYS better than Bill Russell,
*as a scorer,
*as an effective offensive force,
* as a passer,
* as a shot blocker,
* as a transition sprinter,
* on defense (both transition and half-court),
* and as a rebounder -
.

I understand you're a Wilt fan, trying to show his real greatness but this those in bolded are really biased answers. Wilt better defender and shot blocker than Russell? Really?

And Russell was arguably a better passer too. I'd love to see your argument on this one though.

La Frescobaldi

01-07-2012, 09:51 AM

I understand you're a Wilt fan, trying to show his real greatness but this those in bolded are really biased answers. Wilt better defender and shot blocker than Russell? Really?

And Russell was arguably a better passer too. I'd love to see your argument on this one though.

I don't know about the earlier years of their rivalry, I watched hoops from 66 on really when Chamberlain went to the 76ers. You know, understanding what was going on away from the ball, seeing the court, watching rebounds - stuff any guy that loves hoops knows.

But there was no question to any of us who was the better player. Our gang - not to be confused with gangsters - had 1 guy who thought Nate Thurmond was the best center, & of course we had homers who said Willis was gonna take over the league. Turned out they were sorta right, Reed was amazing.

But everybody else had Wilt at #1 by a long way. These guys I hung out with, pure basketball junkies. You know, you could see a game for $2 in those days & a lot of times if the seats were empty they'd let you in for half price. It was 80 miles to Philly and a couple hundred to Boston and for teenage guys, piling in the car to see a game - that was what you did. We'd go anywhere to see a game.

Well the Sixers would play the Knicks & you'd see Chamberlain just rule. He'd be getting double teamed by Bells & Reed front & back and Clyde would just be sagged clear off in under the basket - triple teamed. A lot. Guys in the stands just yelling at the refs when they called illegal defense and pretty soon they'd stop calling it.

He had no problem getting 25 or 30 points against 3 hall of famers, but his biggest problem was his own coach. At first it was Dolph Schayes and that guy was not a good coach. He'd call the craziest plays and then stuff like the Sixers would be up by 6 or 8 points and running a break...... he'd call a time out. In the middle of a fast break. I don't even know what he was thinking and we used to just look at each other like ????

Well the Celtics was a different story altogether. That was a team, the best team in the league. Their offense didn't run through a single guy. Mostly it ran through Sam Jones, and he was 20 or 25 a night regardless. He could throw up any kind of numbers, anytime, because he was a terrific offensive weapon, but Auerbach made sure the ball stayed spread on the court. Russell could really score too, but he was limited, almost any center could stop him. Havlicek to this day is so underrated. They could run the offense through Havlicek and throw in 15 or 20 points in just a few minutes. But what the Celtics had was an absolute basketball genius for a coach. He would make adjustments so fast that anybody they played was just swimming in mud trying to keep up. They were just stacked.

I mean you had Jerry West who was better than Sam, and there was Oscar, but nobody else could play at his level. Walt Frazier grew into the game and is one of the greats but he wasn't at Jones level until 69 or 70.

I always thought Satch Sanders was the best defensive forward of the 60s. His offensive game was solid, but his defense was what set him apart.
Havlicek to me was the best forward of the 60s, better even than Rick Barry or Chet Walker. He played the entire court and never ever stopped running. He couldn't score as well as Barry but he didn't have to. His team was full of threats, where Barry was dragging a bunch of guys that would shoot like 30% in a game - the same team that Chamberlain had to carry, Rick Barry had to carry them later on. They were really bad. I mean seriously, look up Guy Rodgers he never shot 40%, ever, and Gary Phillips or Tom Meschery weren't any better. Where Havlicek and Sam Jones were shooting like 45%.
Bailey Howell was a serious threat at all times. Who ever heard of Bailey Howell? He's forgot. You couldn't leave him unguarded, and he was another 45% guy. Those kinds of things, spread across entire teams, are what win games, and it's because of coaching. Don't force your shot, take the open shot, pass to the open guy...... basics.

You can read the story somewhere about Alex Hannum when he first took over the Warriors and Chamberlain was I think in Europe with the Globetrotters or something. So Hannum held a scrimmage with a college team, and the Warriors got demolished.

Here's a comment from Hannum about Chamberlain on those Warriors.
http://www.newspaperarchive.com/SiteMap/FreePdfPreview.aspx?img=113203408

"Our main strength is Wilt Chamberlain, instead of having him take the quick shot, we want to get an excellent shot. We want to have our club cut, pass, and set up plays for other members of the team. If this doesn't work, then we'll get the ball to Wilt within that 24 second limit."
Hannum says the new play will not cut Chamberlain's scoring. And he found that Wilt was most receptive to the idea of changing the offense.
"He is one of the most cooperative and unselfish players I've worked with," Hannum said. "It was a revelation because that isn't the way I'd heard it."

***********************

What I mean by all this is, you can't really understand Chamberlain & Russell unless you knew the league. These guys rode a bus to games, and you could stand out on the sidewalk and talk to em for a minute. It was a different day for sure. Everybody talks about Russell dominating Chamberlain, but all that is from the Boston sports writers. Auerbach had all those writers on his side, and they did everything they could to promote their team. Which is exactly what papers do everywhere nowadays. Whereas Philly, well, it was a lousy sports town & it's still a lousy sports town, everybody knows that. A lot of times they didn't even have an article about the Sixers game, just a box score. So the view of those days has been mostly written, and talked about, by guys from Boston. Which is the most homer city in America, even more than nyc.

But Chamberlain, he just totally dominated the court. Russell could barely keep up with him, let alone hold his own. That's just fact. Again, I didn't see Chamberlain as a Warrior, I mean I did, but I was just a kid. He was awesome in the Finals that year the Warriors went, but he really was carrying that team.

Those Sixers teams - they had just as good starters as the Celtics but they were never as deep, and they didn't have a coach that could match Auerbach. Until Hannum showed up. It's hard to describe the change in that team from the 66 season to the 67 season but it was enormous. The only thing I can compare it to that younger guys would know... it was like the Lakers when Phil Jackson showed up. They had Shaq & Kobe, but they had........ nothing. There was no force behind the talent.

It was like all of a sudden Chet Walker learned how to move without the ball, Billy Cunningham was a match for Havlicek, Luke Jackson would box out, Hal Greer would actually pass instead of dribble - it was an entire different team just overnight. So Chamberlain had a team around him, and they devoured the Celtics, plain and simple.

That 76er team is so underrated by young guys. Chamberlain's outlet passes were amazing. The myth is that Russell was the king of the outlet and no question he was incredible. He could get the rebound, spin in the air, and hit sprinting Bailey Howell in the chest at half court. But Chamberlain could do all that too. His outlet passes were amazing. He could throw a baseball pass believe it. Russell's half court passing was not better than Chamberlain's.

The Celtics had the trick of bringing Russell out to the corner. In those days of man to man D, that dragged his defender out and opened the key for drives. But Chamberlain could get from the corner to the basket so fast that the Celtics just didn't use that play much against the Sixers.
The Celtics ran the 3 man weave at the top of the key. They'd launch into the weave, and Chamberlain would switch off Russell and go to the free throw line. Nobody could run through Wilt, and you couldn't pass within 7 feet of him - end of weave. For a team like the Celtics, that ran 6 plays, to lose 2 of their sets just because Chamberlain was on the court, that's serious defense. But it took a coach like Hannum who could see the court and make those kinds of adjustments.

We saw plenty of games where he would block 12 or 15 shots, but that wasn't even the main part of his defense. Guys just couldn't drive. He and Luke Jackson just would not let anyone in the key.

I always thought the 68 team was better than the 67 squad. But in the playoffs they lost Billy Cunningham to a broken arm, Wali Jones could hardly walk let alone run, Chamberlain's legs were a wreck, & they had guys playing in the EF with hamstring pulls. Guys were hopping on one leg down the court.

So biased? Yeah no question. But it's based on watching a lot of basketball.

La Frescobaldi

01-07-2012, 09:59 AM

jlauber

01-07-2012, 10:26 AM

Wow. Great posts 'Baldi!

:applause: :applause:

:cheers:

jlauber

01-07-2012, 11:34 AM

La Frescobaldi brought it up above, and Pointguard has been another who has pointed it out in the past here...but Wilt was really saddled with inept coach's for most of his career. He only had Hannum for three, and Sharman for two seasons, and those were his greatest "winning" seasons.

Early in his career, his coach's were basically lazy. They looked at the cast clowns on their rosters, and decided that the only hope that those team's had, was to feed Chamberlain. And it made perfect sense, too. Wilt always shot WAY over the league average, and his teammates always collectively shot WAY worse than the league average (and then, they shot even WORSE in the post-season.) If anything, Wilt probably should have shot MORE often.

Of course, the problem with that strategy was that ultimately, one man could not beat five. And, unfortunately for Chamberlain, HE was the one who was blamed for not winning more often.

And Wilt also received the brunt of the blame in the 68-69 Finals, too, even though his COACH was an incompetent jackass. Had Van Breda Kolf had any idea on how to most effectively use Chamberlain, he would probably have easily won a title. Instead, he hated Wilt from day one, and at times during the season, he even BENCHED Wilt. And of course, his ultimate mistake (in a season with many) was to keep Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of that game seven, two point loss.

PHILA brought up this quote from Van Breda Kolf, "When we pass the ball into Wilt, he will score. But, it is an ugly offense to watch." Never was that more evident than in that game seven of the '69 Finals. Russell picked up his fifth personal foul with about 11 minutes remaining. On the very next play, the Lakers went into Wilt, who went right around Russell for an easy basket. That was about the last time Wilt touched the ball.

And think about this... Wilt averaged 13.9 ppg (on .545 shooting) in the '69 post-season. The Lakers brought in a new coach, Joe Mullaney, the very next season. His first order of business was to ask Chamberlain to be the focal point of the offense. Wilt responded with a 32.2 ppg average (on .600 shooting) in his first nine games, which was his highest ppg average since his 65-66 season. He had games of 33, 35, 37 (against 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle), 38 (against reigning MVP Wes Unseld), 42 (against Bob Rule, who was a relatively unknown star player in the league), and 43 points. He also pounded rookie Kareem with a 25-25 9-14 game. Unfortunately, Wilt ripped his knee in that ninth game, and was never the same again (although he still hung a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 Finals.)

In any case, Van Breda Kolf's incompetence surely cost Wilt a ring. Of course, in Wilt's first six seasons, his surrounding talent was so pathetic, that it was a miracle that they nearly beat Boston in two game seven's ('62 and '65), and that he got his '64 team to the Finals.

And once again, it must be stressed that Wilt did whatever his COACH's asked him to do. He gets ripped for being a "selfish" "stats-padder" early in his career, but where is the criticism of his COACH's then? And, as was the case in '69 (and particularly in the Finals), Wilt hardly even got the ball. Instead of blaming Wilt, where was the blame for the one who really limited Chamberlain's offense....his COACH?

I have long maintained that had Wilt had the good fortune to have had Auerbach, and those deep Celtic rosters, in the first half of his career, that, while he would not have been putting up 40-50 ppg seasons, he would have been leading Boston to dominant titles with 25-30 ppg seasons. Why do I believe that? Because he did whatever his COACH's asked him to do.

When Hannum took over before the start of the 63-64 season, he asked that Wilt defer more to his teammates (even though they were still inept), and the resilt was a dramatic turn-around from a 31-49 season, to a 48-32 season, and with essentially the same cast. Wilt's scoring and shooting only declined slightly, but his teammates were more involved, and it paid dividends on the defensive end.

When Hannum and Wilt were paired up again a couple of years later, in the 66-67 season, Hannum realized that that Sixer roster had some very outstanding players, and that to maximize that talent, Wilt should become more of a facilitator. Wilt responded with one of the greatest all-around seasons in NBA history (24.1 ppg, 24.2 rpg, 7.8 apg, and an eye-popping .683 from the field.) The result was a dominating world title.

And Chamberlain essentially played the same exact way the very next season, in leading the Sixers to a run-away best record in the league. And, had injuries not decimated that Philly team, they would surely have repeated.

The bottom line, though, was that Chamberlain was asked to change his game far more than any other all-time "great", BUT, no matter what he did, or how he played, HE was the one who was blamed for his TEAM's "failures." Once again, had he had Auerbach (and the Celtics rosters) in the first half of his career, he likely would have gone 6-6 in rings. True, we would never have witnessed those astonishing 40-50 ppg seasons, and countless 50-60+ point games, but Chamberlain would probably have retired with 8 rings (and with almost any other coach other than Van Breda Kolf in '69...yet another ring.)

Pointguard

01-07-2012, 01:56 PM

Good stuff, Fresco!

Pointguard

01-07-2012, 02:47 PM

Early in his career, his coach's were basically lazy. They looked at the cast clowns on their rosters, and decided that the only hope that those team's had, was to feed Chamberlain. And it made perfect sense, too. Wilt always shot WAY over the league average, and his teammates always collectively shot WAY worse than the league average (and then, they shot even WORSE in the post-season.) If anything, Wilt probably should have shot MORE often.

I think with an innovative, creative player that is super talented you need a coach with the same qualities or you immediately loose somethings - if Chamberlain had Pete Carrill or a Phil Jackson type, or just a very aggressive Auerabach, I think Wilt and the team could have been utilized a bit better. But I have to believe that the owners might have been in the coaches ear and it became a Wilt spectacle than win the game (JLaud, in your opinion, was Wilt as important in making the sport a top sport as was Magic and Bird were in saving the sport? This aspect of Wilt's greatness never gets talked about).

Wilt could do anything on the court and was amendable to what the coaches asked of him as you mention below. To us today the Phoenix Suns offense would probably be the best outfit for Chamberlain's mix of offensive attributes (if you take speed, power and endurance as his main advantages). Except of course there were no Steve Nash back then. Centers had to be more creative than they are now. Or you could have the option of a mobile moving great shot blocker like Ben Wallace and won with defense. Or a multitude of variations in-between. Auerabach was as ruthless as Russell in going for wins. Red was a great manager and coach so the whole concept of team and direction was unified and supported in every step of the way... . If Chamberlain went to College in the North East, Wilt very likely gets 14 rings.

Because of that one decision, the argument for who is the greatest doesn't have much shape. Other factors are now forever complicating who is the greatest. Its no longer about who is the best player on the court but other factors have more value.

jlauber

01-07-2012, 03:04 PM

I think with an innovative, creative player that is super talented you need a coach with the same qualities or you immediately loose somethings - if Chamberlain had Pete Carrill or a Phil Jackson type, or just a very aggressive Auerabach, I think Wilt and the team could have been utilized a bit better. But I have to believe that the owners might have been in the coaches ear and it became a Wilt spectacle than win the game (JLaud, in your opinion, was Wilt as important in making the sport a top sport as was Magic and Bird were in saving the sport? This aspect of Wilt's greatness never gets talked about).

Wilt could do anything on the court and was amendable to what the coaches asked of him as you mention below. To us today the Phoenix Suns offense would probably be the best outfit for Chamberlain's mix of offensive attributes (if you take speed, power and endurance as his main advantages). Except of course there were no Steve Nash back then. Centers had to be more creative than they are now. Or you could have the option of a mobile moving great shot blocker like Ben Wallace and won with defense. Or a multitude of variations in-between. Auerabach was as ruthless as Russell in going for wins. Red was a great manager and coach so the whole concept of team and direction was unified and supported in every step of the way... . If Chamberlain went to College in the North East, Wilt very likely gets 14 rings.

Because of that one decision, the argument for who is the greatest doesn't have much shape. Other factors are now forever complicating who is the greatest. Its no longer about who is the best player on the court but other factors have more value.

The true historians acknowledge that Russell and Wilt MADE the NBA. Years later, and after those two had retired, Magic and Bird SAVED the NBA. Then, of course, MJ globalized the game.

Good point about Auerbach and Wilt...

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

PTB Fan

01-07-2012, 03:16 PM

I don't know about the earlier years of their rivalry, I watched hoops from 66 on really when Chamberlain went to the 76ers. You know, understanding what was going on away from the ball, seeing the court, watching rebounds - stuff any guy that loves hoops knows.

But there was no question to any of us who was the better player. Our gang - not to be confused with gangsters - had 1 guy who thought Nate Thurmond was the best center, & of course we had homers who said Willis was gonna take over the league. Turned out they were sorta right, Reed was amazing.

But everybody else had Wilt at #1 by a long way. These guys I hung out with, pure basketball junkies. You know, you could see a game for $2 in those days & a lot of times if the seats were empty they'd let you in for half price. It was 80 miles to Philly and a couple hundred to Boston and for teenage guys, piling in the car to see a game - that was what you did. We'd go anywhere to see a game.

Well the Sixers would play the Knicks & you'd see Chamberlain just rule. He'd be getting double teamed by Bells & Reed front & back and Clyde would just be sagged clear off in under the basket - triple teamed. A lot. Guys in the stands just yelling at the refs when they called illegal defense and pretty soon they'd stop calling it.

He had no problem getting 25 or 30 points against 3 hall of famers, but his biggest problem was his own coach. At first it was Dolph Schayes and that guy was not a good coach. He'd call the craziest plays and then stuff like the Sixers would be up by 6 or 8 points and running a break...... he'd call a time out. In the middle of a fast break. I don't even know what he was thinking and we used to just look at each other like ????

Well the Celtics was a different story altogether. That was a team, the best team in the league. Their offense didn't run through a single guy. Mostly it ran through Sam Jones, and he was 20 or 25 a night regardless. He could throw up any kind of numbers, anytime, because he was a terrific offensive weapon, but Auerbach made sure the ball stayed spread on the court. Russell could really score too, but he was limited, almost any center could stop him. Havlicek to this day is so underrated. They could run the offense through Havlicek and throw in 15 or 20 points in just a few minutes. But what the Celtics had was an absolute basketball genius for a coach. He would make adjustments so fast that anybody they played was just swimming in mud trying to keep up. They were just stacked.

I mean you had Jerry West who was better than Sam, and there was Oscar, but nobody else could play at his level. Walt Frazier grew into the game and is one of the greats but he wasn't at Jones level until 69 or 70.

I always thought Satch Sanders was the best defensive forward of the 60s. His offensive game was solid, but his defense was what set him apart.
Havlicek to me was the best forward of the 60s, better even than Rick Barry or Chet Walker. He played the entire court and never ever stopped running. He couldn't score as well as Barry but he didn't have to. His team was full of threats, where Barry was dragging a bunch of guys that would shoot like 30% in a game - the same team that Chamberlain had to carry, Rick Barry had to carry them later on. They were really bad. I mean seriously, look up Guy Rodgers he never shot 40%, ever, and Gary Phillips or Tom Meschery weren't any better. Where Havlicek and Sam Jones were shooting like 45%.
Bailey Howell was a serious threat at all times. Who ever heard of Bailey Howell? He's forgot. You couldn't leave him unguarded, and he was another 45% guy. Those kinds of things, spread across entire teams, are what win games, and it's because of coaching. Don't force your shot, take the open shot, pass to the open guy...... basics.

You can read the story somewhere about Alex Hannum when he first took over the Warriors and Chamberlain was I think in Europe with the Globetrotters or something. So Hannum held a scrimmage with a college team, and the Warriors got demolished.

Here's a comment from Hannum about Chamberlain on those Warriors.
http://www.newspaperarchive.com/SiteMap/FreePdfPreview.aspx?img=113203408

"Our main strength is Wilt Chamberlain, instead of having him take the quick shot, we want to get an excellent shot. We want to have our club cut, pass, and set up plays for other members of the team. If this doesn't work, then we'll get the ball to Wilt within that 24 second limit."
Hannum says the new play will not cut Chamberlain's scoring. And he found that Wilt was most receptive to the idea of changing the offense.
"He is one of the most cooperative and unselfish players I've worked with," Hannum said. "It was a revelation because that isn't the way I'd heard it."

***********************

What I mean by all this is, you can't really understand Chamberlain & Russell unless you knew the league. These guys rode a bus to games, and you could stand out on the sidewalk and talk to em for a minute. It was a different day for sure. Everybody talks about Russell dominating Chamberlain, but all that is from the Boston sports writers. Auerbach had all those writers on his side, and they did everything they could to promote their team. Which is exactly what papers do everywhere nowadays. Whereas Philly, well, it was a lousy sports town & it's still a lousy sports town, everybody knows that. A lot of times they didn't even have an article about the Sixers game, just a box score. So the view of those days has been mostly written, and talked about, by guys from Boston. Which is the most homer city in America, even more than nyc.

But Chamberlain, he just totally dominated the court. Russell could barely keep up with him, let alone hold his own. That's just fact. Again, I didn't see Chamberlain as a Warrior, I mean I did, but I was just a kid. He was awesome in the Finals that year the Warriors went, but he really was carrying that team.

Those Sixers teams - they had just as good starters as the Celtics but they were never as deep, and they didn't have a coach that could match Auerbach. Until Hannum showed up. It's hard to describe the change in that team from the 66 season to the 67 season but it was enormous. The only thing I can compare it to that younger guys would know... it was like the Lakers when Phil Jackson showed up. They had Shaq & Kobe, but they had........ nothing. There was no force behind the talent.

It was like all of a sudden Chet Walker learned how to move without the ball, Billy Cunningham was a match for Havlicek, Luke Jackson would box out, Hal Greer would actually pass instead of dribble - it was an entire different team just overnight. So Chamberlain had a team around him, and they devoured the Celtics, plain and simple.

That 76er team is so underrated by young guys. Chamberlain's outlet passes were amazing. The myth is that Russell was the king of the outlet and no question he was incredible. He could get the rebound, spin in the air, and hit sprinting Bailey Howell in the chest at half court. But Chamberlain could do all that too. His outlet passes were amazing. He could throw a baseball pass believe it. Russell's half court passing was not better than Chamberlain's.

The Celtics had the trick of bringing Russell out to the corner. In those days of man to man D, that dragged his defender out and opened the key for drives. But Chamberlain could get from the corner to the basket so fast that the Celtics just didn't use that play much against the Sixers.
The Celtics ran the 3 man weave at the top of the key. They'd launch into the weave, and Chamberlain would switch off Russell and go to the free throw line. Nobody could run through Wilt, and you couldn't pass within 7 feet of him - end of weave. For a team like the Celtics, that ran 6 plays, to lose 2 of their sets just because Chamberlain was on the court, that's serious defense. But it took a coach like Hannum who could see the court and make those kinds of adjustments.

We saw plenty of games where he would block 12 or 15 shots, but that wasn't even the main part of his defense. Guys just couldn't drive. He and Luke Jackson just would not let anyone in the key.

I always thought the 68 team was better than the 67 squad. But in the playoffs they lost Billy Cunningham to a broken arm, Wali Jones could hardly walk let alone run, Chamberlain's legs were a wreck, & they had guys playing in the EF with hamstring pulls. Guys were hopping on one leg down the court.

So biased? Yeah no question. But it's based on watching a lot of basketball.

So.. this has almost nothing on why Wilt is the better defender, shot blocker and passer but just a nice story on Wilt, his teams and Celtics. Didn't really understand you here.

And you're underrating Russell here. Couldn't held his own against Wilt? Yeah right.

jlauber

01-07-2012, 03:23 PM

I always found it fascinating that both West and Baylor, COMBINED, were considered "unfortunate, but clutch and heroic" in their post-seasons against Russell's Celtics, while Wilt, often playing with teammates that resembled the cast of "Gilligan's Island", was a "loser" and a "choker", even when he was hanging 46-34 game's on Russell, and under the same circumstances. AND, Wilt BEAT Russell and his Celtics one season (in fact, they destroyed the eight-time defending champions.)

La Frescobaldi

01-07-2012, 07:05 PM

So.. this has almost nothing on why Wilt is the better defender, shot blocker and passer but just a nice story on Wilt, his teams and Celtics. Didn't really understand you here.

And you're underrating Russell here. Couldn't held his own against Wilt? Yeah right.

Well, if full paragraphs describing how Chamberlain wreaked total havoc on the Celtics offense isn't plain enough, try these.

1967 Eastern Division Finals

Game 1.
Russell 20 pts 15 rebs 4 assists
Chamberlain 24 pts 32 rebs 13 assists + 12 blocks

(the blocks were reported by Sports Illustrated.)

That's a Chamberlain quadruple double.

Game 2.

Russell 14 pts 24 rebs 5 asts
Chamberlain 15 pts 29 rebs 5 asts

Game 3
Russell 10 pts 29 rebs 2 asts
Chamberlain 20 pts 41 rebs 9 asts

Chamberlain's 41 rebounds against Russell is the NBA playoff record.

Game 4
Russell 9 pts 28 rebs 5 asts
Chamberlain 20 pts 22 rebs 10 asts

Chamberlain with the triple double against Russell.

Game 5
Russell 4 pts 21 rebs 7 asts
Chamberlain 29 pts 36 rebs 13 asts

Chamberlain with the triple double against Russell.

*****************

Nobody knew about triple double, or quadruple double back then. There was no such thing. Those terms were invented many years later. But that game 5 brought on a debate that has raged for 40 years.

One of my friends marked his scorecard to show Chamberlain with 16 blocks, but another friend had it with only 15. They still argue about it.

But even without knowing what a quadruple double was (and maybe Harvey Pollack knows the answer), it was plain to everyone that Chamberlain had demolished Russell in every possible way.

****************************
Playoff lines:
Russell 11 ppg 23 rpg 4 apg
Chamberlain 21 ppg 32 rpg 10 apg

Wilt Chamberlain averaged a triple double against Bill Russell over the entire series, and had (at least according to Sports Illustrated & some basketball maniacs in the bleachers) 2 quadruple doubles.

So yeah, what I said before....
"Russell could barely keep up with him, let alone hold his own."

that pretty much sums it up.

****************************

Of course, assists are only one measure of a player's ability to pass. It's the only measurement that's recognized, but there may be others. Maybe there are intangible measurements..... thus the name of the thread.

La Frescobaldi

01-07-2012, 07:06 PM