Logo: Lebron's left is his "weaker" side. Also, picks Wilt over Russell

[CavaliersFTW]

Jerry West agree's with MJ's recent statements that Lebron's left is his weaker side, and that's where (as a defender) he would attempt to force Lebron. He also thinks the 72 Lakers would beat the 2013 Heat. Also, and this is very interesting to me, he picked Wilt Chamberlain over Bill Russell! He also says Lebron is the only player in the league right now capable of duplicating Oscars triple-double season (I'm guessing he's picturing Lebron playing in the early 60's with the slightly increased pace). West is always a great and interesting in interview :applause:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/lakersnow/la-sp-ln-lakers-jerry-west-miami-heat-20130531,0,7396311.story?track=rss

[FKAri]

Jerry West agree's with MJ's recent statements that Lebron's left is his weaker side, and that's where (as a defender) he would attempt to force Lebron. He also thinks the 72 Lakers would beat the 2013 Heat. Also, and this is very interesting to me, he picked Wilt Chamberlain over Bill Russell! He also says Lebron is the only player in the league right now capable of duplicating Oscars triple-double season (I'm guessing he's picturing Lebron playing in the early 60's with the slightly increased pace). West is always a great and interesting in interview :applause:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/lakersnow/la-sp-ln-lakers-jerry-west-miami-heat-20130531,0,7396311.story?track=rss

Alot of people pick Wilt over Russell. I believe everyone from that era (the only people who should me making that judgement anyway) pick Wilt unless they're a Celtic.

[Shade8780]

Alot of people pick Wilt over Russell. I believe everyone from their era picks Wilt unless they're a Celtic.
:biggums:

[CavaliersFTW]

Alot of people pick Wilt over Russell. I believe everyone from that era (the only people who should me making that judgement anyway) pick Wilt unless they're a Celtic.
Elgin Baylor picked Russell recently - so not everyone. Like Jerry alluded, it's hard - almost impossible - to pick because there is no way to really measure how much Russell's wins were a result of having a great team vs his own actual impact and visa versa because Wilt's stats are so great - you can go back and forth all day and never really accomplish a clear-cut winner unless your heavily biased towards winning (a team accomplishment - but one that doesn't necessarily mean individual dominance) or stats (an individual accomplishment - but one that doesn't guarantee wins). And a lot of players from back then do go back and forth on which player they think was better. Because in the past I thought West had picked Bill Russell, that's why I was surprised he picked Wilt in this particular interview.

[ThaRegul8r]

Elgin Baylor picked Russell recently - so not everyone. Like Jerry alluded, it's hard - almost impossible - to pick because there is no way to really measure how much Russell's wins were a result of having a great team vs his own actual impact and visa versa because Wilt's stats are so great - you can go back and forth all day and never really accomplish a clear-cut winner unless your heavily biased towards winning (a team accomplishment - but one that doesn't necessarily mean individual dominance) or stats (an individual accomplishment - but one that doesn't guarantee wins).

As I've said in the past, though people don't think of them that way, stats are team dependent. Wilt's 100 points and David Robinson's 71 were both enabled by their teams. Wilt scored less when he went to the 76ers, but it wasn't because he became a worse player. Kobe wasn't averaging 35, scoring 81 in a game, averaging 40 in a month, etc., when Shaq was on the team. Julius Erving's scoring dropped when he came to the NBA because the 76ers had too many people who wanted the ball. Garnett, Allen and Pierce's scoring averages dropped when they played together, but it wasn't because they suddenly became worse players. Magic increased his scoring when Kareem declined and Riley said they needed it from him, etc., etc., etc. Stats are not solely an individual accomplishment. Michael Jordan did nothing his first All-Star Game because his teammates froze him out. His stats suffered accordingly. The stats a player can put up depends on the team he's on, his role and the cooperation of his teammates. (Examples of players complaining about not getting enough touches/shots can come easily to mind, and that's teammate-dependent.)

[La Frescobaldi]

he's not saying anything outrageous; look at what Hibbert & West have been doing to the Heat in the paint.

[pauk]

Force Lebron left huh? :oldlol: Yes im sure he would not be able to blow by/overpower you going left.... a side he most often will go to and a side which just gave him his latest gamewinner...

No, if you are a defender and want to force him somewhere it is only towards the trap of 4 defenders you have behind you.... and then he will kick it to a wideopen shooter anyways....

[CavaliersFTW]

Force Lebron left huh? :oldlol: Yes im sure he would not be able to blow by/overpower you going left.... a side he most often will go to and a side which just gave him his latest gamewinner...

No, if you are a defender and want to force him somewhere it is only towards the trap of 4 defenders you have behind you.... and then he will kick it to a wideopen shooter anyways....
I'm just saying Pauk, that's two ALL TIME GREAT defenders/players, that have said the same thing about Lebron - in their opinion he has a "side" that is weaker than the other, they aren't saying he isn't great, and they aren't saying he isn't the best player in the league (rather the opposite), but they do both seem to recognize he has room for improvement on his left side and if they had to guard him they'd force him that way :confusedshrug:

[pauk]

I'm just saying Pauk, that's two ALL TIME GREAT defenders/players, that have said the same thing about Lebron - in their opinion he has a "side" that is weaker than the other, they aren't saying he isn't great, and they aren't saying he isn't the best player in the league (rather the opposite), but they do both seem to recognize he has room for improvement on his left side and if they had to guard him they'd force him that way :confusedshrug:

Come on man :oldlol: It goes for everybody... Jordan, Kobe, Bird, Magic, Oscar, Julius, Nique, Durant, Wade, Carmelo, etc. etc. etc. they sure had a more comfortable move they would love to initiate at specific side, but they wont neglect attacking you because you nullified them from going one side...... they would murder you 1on1 however you wanted, even if you told Lebron to go left and Lebron promised you aswell to go left around you all the time then he would do it all the time.... unless you ran of the court or something lol

Thats all you will see 1on1 defending Lebron when he goes left:
http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/967910/bron.gif

Especially if you are a 6'2'ish guy like Jerry West :P

[CavaliersFTW]

Come on man :oldlol: It goes for everybody... Jordan, Kobe, Bird, Magic, Oscar, Julius, Nique, Durant, Wade, Carmelo, etc. etc. etc. they sure had a more comfortable move they would love to initiate at specific side, but they wont neglect attacking you because you nullified them from going one side...... they would murder you 1on1 however you wanted, even if you told Lebron to go left and Lebron promised you aswell to go left around you all the time then he would do it all the time.... unless you ran of the court or something lol

Thats all you will see 1on1 defending Lebron when he goes left:
http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/967910/bron.gif

Especially if you are a 6'2'ish guy like Jerry West :P
I don't know why you are arguing with me over this, you need to take it up with Jerry West and Michael Jordan. They are the ones who have pointed out Lebron's weakness going left. Posting a gif of Lebron dunking on someone doesn't make their observation untrue, it's not like they said "he can't go left" they merely said, that's where they'd force him because they observe he makes more mistakes/is less effective on that side vs his right side :confusedshrug:

[MavsSuperFan]

Wilt > Russell, if they traded teams Wilt would have just as many rings and better stats.

[Zodiac]

Imagine how many championships the Hawks would have won had they not traded Russel.

Bob Petit, Lenny Wilkens, and Bill Russel?

GG son.

and then the year after Petit retires they get Lou Hudson. Russel could've won a ship every year

[Soundwave]

Every kid playing basketball from the age of like 7 years and up is taught to force the offensive player to go left unless they shoot with their left hand.

Not sure why that's a surprise. That's just fundamentals on defense, the first thing you do as a defender is channel the offensive player either to his left or right. I get the feeling half the posters here barely play actual basketball (or if they do are terrible at it).

[KG215]

Come on man :oldlol: It goes for everybody... Jordan, Kobe, Bird, Magic, Oscar, Julius, Nique, Durant, Wade, Carmelo, etc. etc. etc. they sure had a more comfortable move they would love to initiate at specific side, but they wont neglect attacking you because you nullified them from going one side...... they would murder you 1on1 however you wanted, even if you told Lebron to go left and Lebron promised you aswell to go left around you all the time then he would do it all the time.... unless you ran of the court or something lol

Thats all you will see 1on1 defending Lebron when he goes left:
http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/967910/bron.gif

Especially if you are a 6'2'ish guy like Jerry West :P
:oldlol:

You're so damn touchy when it comes to LeBron. You're attacking CavsFTW like he's the one who said it.

And West would be listed at 6'4" in today's NBA. Not to mention he has great length and was a good athlete.

[get these NETS]

my views on wilt versus mr russell?


remember the bulls jazz finals series....forget which one

rodman was actually being considered as the mvp?...MJ's greatness was being taken for granted....and rodman's stellar defense and mindgames against mailman was viewed as being as important ad MJ's points

wilt had to be Jordan AND Rodman

all russell had to do was be rodman

wilt had to score..anchor defense..rebound....be the clutch guy down the stretch


russell was a GREAT defensive player and rebounder but he wasn't asked to do all that Wilt was...period.

[stanlove1111]

Wilt > Russell, if they traded teams Wilt would have just as many rings and better stats.


Rubbish. Wilt played on Russell like teams from 65-73 and only won 2 titles. That myth gets old.

[KG215]

my views on wilt versus mr russell?


remember the bulls jazz finals series....forget which one

rodman was actually being considered as the mvp?...MJ's greatness was being taken for granted....and rodman's stellar defense and mindgames against mailman was viewed as being as important ad MJ's points

wilt had to be Jordan AND Rodman

all russell had to do was be rodman

wilt had to score..anchor defense..rebound....be the clutch guy down the stretch


russell was a GREAT defensive player and rebounder but he wasn't asked to do all that Wilt was...period.
Hnless I'm mistaken, teh Celtics ran their offense through Russell quite a bit. He wasn't just a defensive specialist. He was the arguably the best defensive player ever while also orchestrating the offense. Not saying you're wrong, but Russell was asked to do quite a bit, too.

[get these NETS]

Hnless I'm mistaken, teh Celtics ran their offense through Russell quite a bit. He wasn't just a defensive specialist. He was the arguably the best defensive player ever while also orchestrating the offense. Not saying you're wrong, but Russell was asked to do quite a bit, too.
wilt was asked to be a high scorer, rebounder........anchor the defense

if he comes up short in any way, team loses


russell anchored defense and rebounded......never was primary scorer or go to scorer

[Asukal]

wilt was asked to be a high scorer, rebounder........anchor the defense

if he comes up short in any way, team loses


russell anchored defense and rebounded......never was primary scorer or go to scorer

Funny coz Wilt won his 2 rings when he wasn't asked to score a lot. :hammerhead:

[KG215]

wilt was asked to be a high scorer, rebounder........anchor the defense

if he comes up short in any way, team loses


russell anchored defense and rebounded......never was primary scorer or go to scorer
Asukal already pointed it out, but Wilt's two championships came in seasons when he scored less and assumed a role and playing style very similar to Russell.

[get these NETS]

Funny coz Wilt won his 2 rings when he wasn't asked to score a lot. :hammerhead:


some would read that as he had better skilled teammates



the years he didn't.....the offensive and defensive burden was squarely on his shoulders...something that Russ NEVER had to deal with


and am about to look it up but I'm guessing that even with less of a scoring responsibility, wilt was still leading scorer on the ring winning teams

so it was a reduced burden but he still had that alpha male role on offense

[lilgodfather1]

Pretty much every right handed shooter is weakest going left... Thank you Jerry, Mike. Showing us your brilliant basketball minds...

LeBron is left handed though:lol

[fpliii]

some would read that as he had better skilled teammates



the years he didn't.....the offensive and defensive burden was squarely on his shoulders...something that Russ NEVER had to deal with


and am about to look it up but I'm guessing that even with less of a scoring responsibility, wilt was still leading scorer on the ring winning teams

so it was a reduced burden but he still had that alpha male role on offense

67 RS - yes 67 playoffs - no 67 Finals - no
72 RS - no 72 playoffs - no 72 Finals - no

He was still his team's best offensive player in 67, and best defensiver player + rebounder in 72, though.

[LAZERUSS]

Rubbish. Wilt played on Russell like teams from 65-73 and only won 2 titles. That myth gets old.

This garbage is what is getting old. Swap Russell's HOF-laden rosters from '60 thru '66 and Wilt wins seven rings. Wilt single-handedly carried four of those teams against Russell's, and gave the Celtics all they could handle in two, and missed beating them in two more a total margin of three points. No way does Russell get nearly as far, while Wilt probably takes Boston to even more impressive records.

Give Wilt Boston's roster in '67, and give Russell Philly's, and with Chamberlain pummelling Russell as badly as he did in that post-season. #8 for Wilt.

Swap rosters in '68, and let Russell carry the Sixers team, which was decimated by injuries, while Wilt has the healthy Celtics... #9 for Wilt.

Swap rosters in '69, and have Russell's second leading scorer puke all over the floor in four of the games, while Wilt's teammates would be hitting two miracle game-winning shots... #10 for Wilt.

Russell retired after.

Chamberlain shredded his knee in '70, and Baylor was done, and yet, with Wilt putting up a 23-24 .625 series...on one leg, they lose a game seven to a 60-22 Knicks team with four HOFers. Well, let's see Russell match that.

Russell in Wilt's shoes in the '71 post-season? You mean with no West and no Baylor...and going up against a prime Kareem and a 66-16 Bucks team. Good chance Russell gets swept, and badly.

We know that Wilt anchored the '72 Lakers, and then with West mired in the worst shooting slump of his career, he led the Lakers to a dominating title.

And in '73, with only Chamberlain playing well, and with West just a shell, LA somehow loses four games in the last minute against a Knick team with six HOFers. Very good chance Russell doesn't do any better...especially at Wilt's 36 years old.

[Asukal]

This garbage is what is getting old. Swap Russell's HOF-laden rosters from '60 thru '66 and Wilt wins seven rings. Wilt single-handedly carried four of those teams against Russell's, and gave the Celtics all they could handle in two, and missed beating them in two more a total margin of three points. No way does Russell get nearly as far, while Wilt probably takes Boston to even more impressive records.

Give Wilt Boston's roster in '67, and give Russell Philly's, and with Chamberlain pummelling Russell as badly as he did in that post-season. #8 for Wilt.

Swap rosters in '68, and let Russell carry the Sixers team, which was decimated by injuries, while Wilt has the healthy Celtics... #9 for Wilt.

Swap rosters in '69, and have Russell's second leading scorer puke all over the floor in four of the games, while Wilt's teammates would be hitting two miracle game-winning shots... #10 for Wilt.

Russell retired after.

Chamberlain shredded his knee in '70, and Baylor was done, and yet, with Wilt putting up a 23-24 .625 series...on one leg, they lose a game seven to a 60-22 Knicks team with four HOFers. Well, let's see Russell match that.

Russell in Wilt's shoes in the '71 post-season? You mean with no West and no Baylor...and going up against a prime Kareem and a 66-16 Bucks team. Good chance Russell gets swept, and badly.

We know that Wilt anchored the '72 Lakers, and then with West mired in the worst shooting slump of his career, he led the Lakers to a dominating title.

And in '73, with only Chamberlain playing well, and with West just a shell, LA somehow loses four games in the last minute against a Knick team with six HOFers. Very good chance Russell doesn't do any better...especially at Wilt's 36 years old.

jlauber is back! :rockon:

[Asukal]

some would read that as he had better skilled teammates



the years he didn't.....the offensive and defensive burden was squarely on his shoulders...something that Russ NEVER had to deal with


and am about to look it up but I'm guessing that even with less of a scoring responsibility, wilt was still leading scorer on the ring winning teams

so it was a reduced burden but he still had that alpha male role on offense

Somebody already pointed it out, Wilt had contender teams later on his career and wasn't asked to score a lot yet only came up with 2 titles. Wilt had every physical advantage on Russell yet still couldn't rack up titles when he had help. Just imagine being Russell being 4 inches shorter and trying to guard Wilt in the post, must've been a nightmare.

[get these NETS]

67 RS - yes 67 playoffs - no 67 Finals - no
72 RS - no 72 playoffs - no 72 Finals - no

He was still his team's best offensive player in 67, and best defensiver player + rebounder in 72, though.h

thanks

if he lead team in scoring in reg season.....i'm reading into it that in playoffs....he was routinely or sporadically double teamed

[get these NETS]

Somebody already pointed it out, Wilt had contender teams later on his career and wasn't asked to score a lot yet only came up with 2 titles. Wilt had every physical advantage on Russell yet still couldn't rack up titles when he had help. Just imagine being Russell being 4 inches shorter and trying to guard Wilt in the post, must've been a nightmare.
wilt demolished russ


but in basketball, if big man is killing you...you can send double team..especially in critical spots

what your team mates do once you pass out, determines winning and losing

olajuwon ...sensing the double team ...hit wide open horry, k smith,sam cassell, mario elie and they routinely splashed 3s and rockets won rings



shane battier hit wide open 3s last year , so did mike miller in the end...and heat won

[JoHnNyBoXeR]

Wilt should really be the consensus number 2.. and maybe argue for #1 .. he dominated his era like no other player dominated any other era..

the guy was unbelievable .. a man amongnst boys.. if he played on the celtics he would be the number 1 player of all time .. agree?

[get these NETS]

Wilt should really be the consensus number 2.. and maybe argue for #1 .. he dominated his era like no other player dominated any other era..

the guy was unbelievable .. a man amongnst boys.. if he played on the celtics he would be the number 1 player of all time .. agree?


can't say that



for all his physical skills, questions about his leadership and desire plagued him


fact that he won with complementary players gives impression that he could have won more rings, for sure...but not sure if it's just based on have lesser talent or personal shortcomings

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt should really be the consensus number 2.. and maybe argue for #1 .. he dominated his era like no other player dominated any other era..

the guy was unbelievable .. a man amongnst boys.. if he played on the celtics he would be the number 1 player of all time .. agree?

One can only wonder what kind of numbers Chamberlain would have put up had he been allowed to play like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3FXLyNFew

[La Frescobaldi]

Rubbish. Wilt played on Russell like teams from 65-73 and only won 2 titles. That myth gets old.

You can say those teams were the same as Celtics - which was actually true some years but not 65-73 - but you can't say they had the same chances to win.

Did Russell ever have Havlicek & Sam Jones miss playoffs due to injury? Either one of them, let alone both?
Where were Jerry West & Elgin Baylor in '71? What happened to Wali Jones, Hal Greer, and Billy Cunningham in '68 playoffs? What happened to Chamberlain's knee in '70?
You can't make it seem like he had "Russell like teams" when a lot of those guys didn't play in post season. You should examine playoff injury report of 1968 Sixers, & 1970 AND 71 Lakers, before saying his teams had the same chances.

[JoHnNyBoXeR]

can't say that



for all his physical skills, questions about his leadership and desire plagued him


fact that he won with complementary players gives impression that he could have won more rings, for sure...but not sure if it's just based on have lesser talent or personal shortcomings


rings mean alot but not everything.. how about those celtics were muich better coached and an all around deeper team.. if russell was better why didnt he put up astronomical numbers? id take wilt over russell

[JoHnNyBoXeR]

You can say those teams were the same as Celtics - which was actually true some years but not 65-73 - but you can't say they had the same chances to win.

Did Russell ever have Havlicek & Sam Jones miss playoffs due to injury? Either one of them, let alone both?
Where were Jerry West & Elgin Baylor in '71? What happened to Wali Jones, Hal Greer, and Billy Cunningham in '68 playoffs? What happened to Chamberlain's knee in '70?
You can't make it seem like he had "Russell like teams" when a lot of those guys didn't play in post season. You should examine playoff injury report of 1968 Sixers, & 1970 AND 71 Lakers, before saying his teams had the same chances.


i like your basetall history knowledge.. its easy to me that wilt is number 2 all time.. and argument can be made for 1.. he dominated his era like no other player dominated any other era.. agree?

[KG215]

i like your basetall history knowledge.. its easy to me that wilt is number 2 all time.. and argument can be made for 1.. he dominated his era like no other player dominated any other era.. agree?
If he dominated his era like no other player dominated any other era, he would've won more than two championships. I don't give a damn if you think the gap between his teammates and Russell's teammates was as wide as the Grand Canyon (it wasn't anywhere close to that big); if he dominated like no other player ever he would've found a way to win more than 2 rings; one of which came after Russell retired.

[JoHnNyBoXeR]

If he dominated his era like no other player dominated any other era, he would've won more than two championships. I don't give a damn if you think the gap between his teammates and Russell's teammates was as wide as the Grand Canyon (it wasn't anywhere close to that big); if he dominated like no other player ever he would've found a way to win more than 2 rings; one of which came after Russell retired.


again its team sport.. .. its not like he didnt get any rings.. theres a reason why most players form his era would pick him over russell.. most of us never seen them play

[LAZERUSS]

rings mean alot but not everything.. how about those celtics were muich better coached and an all around deeper team.. if russell was better why didnt he put up astronomical numbers? id take wilt over russell

Russell certainly didn't have to do as much as Chamberlain. Nor did he ever have a cast of clowns roster, either.

And you bring up a very good point. The anti-Wilt gang never mention that. Here is a case in point: In game five of the '66 EDF's, Wilt's team was down 3 games to 1, and facing elimination. How did he respond? He poured in 46 points, on 19-34 shooting, and with 34 rebounds (Russell played well, BTW, with 18 points and 31 rebounds), but his team still lost.

In the very next year, and in the '67 EDF's, it was now Russell who was facing the very exact same situation. His team was down 3-1 (and hd narrowly avoided a sweep in game four.) How did he respond whne it was clear that his team needed him to come up with a big game? He scored four points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Meanwhile, Chamberlain scored 29 points (22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, with 13 assists, and 36 rebounds...in a Sixer rout. Where was Russell's 40-30 game?

Russell had a total of three 30+ point games against Wilt in their 143 h2h's...and Wilt outscored him in all three (all with 40+ point games.) I won't take the time to find all the 30+ games that Chamberlain had against Russell, but we do know he 24 of 40+ (including 17 40-30 games), with five of 50+, and a high of 62 (on 27-45 shooting.) Hell, Wilt was averaging 30+ against Russell up until his last couple of seasons. And he had three entire regular seasons, covering 9-11 games each, of 38 ppg, 38 ppg, and 40 ppg against Russell.

And I still consider his '65 EDF's as perhaps the greatest series ever played. He took a 40-40 team, that had been a 34-46 team the year before, to a game seven, one point loss, against a Celtic team that was their absolute peak, and which had gone 62-18 during the regular season. And in that series, Chamberlain averaged 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and shot .555 from the field. Russell was at 15.6 ppg. 25.2 rpg, and on .447 shooting. He even outshot Russell from the line, .583 to .472.

[CavaliersFTW]

You can say those teams were the same as Celtics - which was actually true some years but not 65-73 - but you can't say they had the same chances to win.

Did Russell ever have Havlicek & Sam Jones miss playoffs due to injury? Either one of them, let alone both?
Where were Jerry West & Elgin Baylor in '71? What happened to Wali Jones, Hal Greer, and Billy Cunningham in '68 playoffs? What happened to Chamberlain's knee in '70?
You can't make it seem like he had "Russell like teams" when a lot of those guys didn't play in post season. You should examine playoff injury report of 1968 Sixers, & 1970 AND 71 Lakers, before saying his teams had the same chances.
stanlove = troll

I myself am guilty of trolling from time to time and I know troll behavior. He is on record saying he questions whether players like Julius Erving would even be successful in the "modern era" while at the same time claiming to have "witnessed" the Dr. J era in Philly. Guy is clearly a kid or young adult pretending to be "old" to try and add validity to his obviously youthful trolling opinions. I wouldn't be surprised if he's a gimmick account of somebody who posts or has posted here before, because he's used a lot of old recycled ISH trolling arguments that a number of ISH's more educated fans can debunk in a matter of seconds. Thus, I don't give him the time of day, he's on my ignore list.

[KG215]

again its team sport.. .. its not like he didnt get any rings.. theres a reason why most players form his era would pick him over russell.. most of us never seen them play
Would they, though? Aren't there plenty reports of players and coaches from that era saying they'd pick Russell over Wilt?

And you're right, it is a team sport, but if you're going to go as far as saying he dominated like no other player ever, then I want that player to do more than win two rings. I didn't say two rings was bad, but MDE should win more than two. It's not like Wilt had LeBron in Cleveland-esque supporting casts his entire career.

[teddytwelvetoes]

I believe everyone from that era (the only people who should me making that judgement anyway) pick Wilt unless they're a Celtic.Its actually the opposite. Most people, even Laker folk would rather have the guy who led his team to 11 chips in 13 years.

[CavaliersFTW]

You guys and your broad sweeping generalizations

"Most pick Russsell"

"No most pick Wilt!"

:lol

In all the interviews I've watched of all-time players, writers, figures of significance who witnessed these guys play. Opinion is split almost right down the middle. There is no "most would pick _____"! This is and always has been a very polarizing topic, with virtually equal opposition from both sides.

[DatAsh]

again its team sport.. .. its not like he didnt get any rings.. theres a reason why most players form his era would pick him over russell.. most of us never seen them play

It's actually more the opposite. More players from that time have gone on record saying Russell was the better player than vice versa; that's part of what makes this West quote somewhat surprising.

[DatAsh]

And I see we still have idiots trying to compare Russell and Wilt's head to head games statistically...:facepalm

[LAZERUSS]

Its actually the opposite. Most people, even Laker folk would rather have the guy who led his team to 11 chips in 13 years.

Not saying it wasn't true at the time, but the facts were, there was very little information available to the general public at the time. It has only been in the last 15-20 years, (and probably really only in the last five) that we have a much clearer picture of what actually transpired at the time.

You have to remember that very few games were televised in the 60's (although there were several each year between Russell and Wilt.) And once again, very little statisical information that was available. Furthermore, the general public was only reading the works of a few sportswriters (many of whom probably did not see all of their h2h's, either.)

There was a perception, at the time, that Chamberlain was a "loser" who dominated the small white centers, but who "choked" against Russell. In fact, there was a perception that Russell could have put up "Wilt-like" numbers had he been so inclined.

We now know (as did the Chamberlain fans at the time..and who had actually witnessed their h2h's), that Wilt was either outplaying, or downright dominating Russell in the majority of their h2h's.

Not only that, but what has often been overlooked, was the fact that Wilt's teams lost four game seven's to Russell's Celtics, by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points (and in that last one, Wilt wasn't even on the floor in the last five minutes of the game.) Think about that...Chamberlain came within an eyelash of holding a 5-3 career edge over Russell in their eight career h2h playoff series.

In any case, it was not like Russell and his Celtics "owned" Wilt and his team's (several of which were made up of poor rosters.)

I will say that Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's, though. And I'm sure that Russell deserved at least some of the credit, and Wilt probably deserved some of the blame. But, e did a get glimpse of just dominant Wilt was against Russell, when his teammates neutralized Russell's in the '67 EDF's. It would certainly have been interesting has the two had similar rosters in their 10 years in the league together. I suspect that their ring disparity would havev looked much different.

[KG215]

And I see we still have idiots trying to compare Russell and Wilt's head to head games statistically...:facepalm
That, and jlauber is back to calling Wilt's supporting casts things like "clown roster".

[LAZERUSS]

It's actually more the opposite. More players from that time have gone on record saying Russell was the better player than vice versa; that's part of what makes this West quote somewhat surprising.

Not surprising at all. West, in a fit of depression, following a heart-rendering defeat in game seven of the '69 Finals, came out and claimed that he might take Russell over Wilt in a game seven. He later recanted that remark in an interview with Robert Cherry in the 90's. And then after Wilt died, (and after MJ had retired the in '98), he claimed that Wilt was the most dominant player the game has ever known.

John Wooden is on record as claiming that had the two swapped rosters, that Wilt probably would have held the same edge in career rings.

Even many of the "anti-Wilt" folks have changed their tune. Rick Barry once accused Wilt of being a "choker." The last quote I read he claimed that Wilt was the most dominant player he had ever seen, and in fact, gave the edge to Wilt in every category in a hypothetical h2h with Shaq. Players like Walt Frazier have echoed those sentiments.

[NumberSix]

Anyone who seriously thinks Wilt vs Russell is even arguable is a ring counting idiot. It's like comparing Rodman to Hakeem.

[LAZERUSS]

And I see we still have idiots trying to compare Russell and Wilt's head to head games statistically...:facepalm

And, of course the Russell supporters dismiss the huge edge that Wilt held. They won't bring up the fact that Wilt came to a last place team, that got older and worse, while Russell went to a Boston team that had been a playoff contender, and also added ROY Tommy Heinsohn. And then each year they improved. Players like Sam Jones the following season, and John Havlicek a few years later. Or a 20 ppg scorer in Clyde Lovellette, or a 20 ppg scorer, who wouldf score 20 ppg with Boston, in Bailey Howell.

In Russell's first season, he played in 48 games. Boston went 28-20 in those games. Without Russell? 16-8.

The Celtics didn't win a title in his second season, either, mainly because Russell injured his ankle in game three of that series (and Boston still only lost 111-108.) In game four, and without Russell, the Celtics won, 109-98. They lost gme five, again without Russell, 102-100. And in game six, Russell only played the first half, and Boston narrowly lost that game, 110-109.

Those were the rosters that Russell enjoyed in his entire career. I agree that they wouldn't have been the power that they became without him, but they were certainly a competitive team without him.

And don't me their record without him in later years. Much like Wilt, they seldom even had a backup center when he was playing.

On the flip side, Wilt played with just horrible rosters in the first half of his career. It got so bad, that by the start of the '64 season, their new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, and against rookies and castoffs, and was shocked when the clowns beat his veteran roster.

Not only that, but the Warriors went 48-32 that season, with Tom Meschery and his 13.5 ppg as their second best player. They traded Wilt away for three players, including Paul Neumann. They moved Nate Thurmond to the pivot, where he would go on to have a HOF career, and added rookie Rick Barry. The result? A 35-45 record. They they added Jeff Mullins, Clyde Lee, and Fred Hetzel to that roster. And now with Meschery and his 11 ppg as being their seventh best player...they could only go 44-37.

Kind of gives you a better example of just how dominant Wilt was in the first half of his career, doesn't it?

BTW, Chamberlain was traded, at mid-season, to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before. He immediately took that 40-40 team, to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics in the EDF's. Then, over the course of his next three seasons in Philly, he led the Sixers to the best record each year, including a dominating title in '67, in which he steamrolled Russell and then Thurmond in the playoffs, en route to a title.

[The Choken One]

I love Pauk... his posts are so full of insecurity you'd think he actually was LeBron.

Get a life bro... :lol

[ThaRegul8r]

You have to remember that very few games were televised in the 60's (although there were several each year between Russell and Wilt.) And once again, very little statisical information that was available. Furthermore, the general public was only reading the works of a few sportswriters (many of whom probably did not see all of their h2h's, either.)

There was a perception, at the time, that Chamberlain was a "loser" who dominated the small white centers, but who "choked" against Russell. In fact, there was a perception that Russell could have put up "Wilt-like" numbers had he been so inclined.

I don't care about this topic because it's old, it's beaten into the ground, and no one can bring it up without pushing their agendas, which is why I will never discuss it again. But the bolded is an outright fabrication. No one during the 1960's said Wilt dominated "small white centers." That's a 21st century statement, and you're retroactively attributing it to the people back then when it's the people who came later who said such things. There's a difference between what people who were actually there said, and what people who weren't there said later.

And no one during that time ever said Russell could put up "Wilt-like numbers" had he been so inclined, if you mean 50 points a game. People said he could score more if needed, including Wilt himself,


If Russell had to score he could average 25 points a game easy.

which he seems to have forgotten later on, but no one during that time ever said he could put up the numbers Wilt did. That's another falsity.

[Pointguard]

And I see we still have idiots trying to compare Russell and Wilt's head to head games statistically...:facepalm

If you watch them visually and its not much different. Wilt was a bigger presence, was definitely more dominating and more active offensively. Russell was somewhat like Duncan - always effective but not pronounced.

[jongib369]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/b69ef0a97cf2348af1e355f05b21915f/tumblr_mn11kxAMmY1rp2731o1_500.jpg

[stanlove1111]

Somebody already pointed it out, Wilt had contender teams later on his career and wasn't asked to score a lot yet only came up with 2 titles. Wilt had every physical advantage on Russell yet still couldn't rack up titles when he had help. Just imagine being Russell being 4 inches shorter and trying to guard Wilt in the post, must've been a nightmare.


Exactly..Wilt played on great teams from 65-73 and only won 2 titles..Russell was more valuable to a basketball team, Wilt was more individual dominating and put up better stats. That was pretty clear from their careers.

[stanlove1111]

i like your basetall history knowledge.. its easy to me that wilt is number 2 all time.. and argument can be made for 1.. he dominated his era like no other player dominated any other era.. agree?

Wilt had his team in 65,66.69,73. There is 4 he lost right there with great teams. More then Russell lost in his entire career. In 1968 Wilt should have won..I don't care that Billy C was out..The 76ers were younger and Wilt was in his prime.Jones and Russell were near the end.

Wilt was healthy enough in 1970 to have won with that team.

Are you going to ignore that Jones and Russell were n their last legs in 1969 yet still got it done..Russell always found a way to get it done. Wilt made excuses.

[stanlove1111]

again its team sport.. .. its not like he didnt get any rings.. theres a reason why most players form his era would pick him over russell.. most of us never seen them play


Back this up with anything..You are totally making this up.

[stanlove1111]

Not surprising at all. West, in a fit of depression, following a heart-rendering defeat in game seven of the '69 Finals, came out and claimed that he might take Russell over Wilt in a game seven. He later recanted that remark in an interview with Robert Cherry in the 90's. And then after Wilt died, (and after MJ had retired the in '98), he claimed that Wilt was the most dominant player the game has ever known.

John Wooden is on record as claiming that had the two swapped rosters, that Wilt probably would have held the same edge in career rings.

Even many of the "anti-Wilt" folks have changed their tune. Rick Barry once accused Wilt of being a "choker." The last quote I read he claimed that Wilt was the most dominant player he had ever seen, and in fact, gave the edge to Wilt in every category in a hypothetical h2h with Shaq. Players like Walt Frazier have echoed those sentiments.


Individual dominating doesn't make one a better player in a team sport..Which is obviously the case with Russell vs Wilt.

Where can I find the Wooden quote?

What Barry said doesn't change that he thought Wilt was a choker..Why does this have to be explained to you?

[CavaliersFTW]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/b69ef0a97cf2348af1e355f05b21915f/tumblr_mn11kxAMmY1rp2731o1_500.jpg
that aint Wilt that's an actor pretending to be Wilt :lol

[HurricaneKid]

It should be noted that the last record that is ever likely to be broken is the single game rebounding record of 55 rebounds in a game. Whose is that? Not only was it Wilt, it was Wilt going against Russell who had less than half as many.

[jongib369]

that aint Wilt that's an actor pretending to be Wilt :lol
I knew you'd be the only one that would notice :lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1QJu8rFr7Q

[KevinNYC]

Anyone who seriously thinks Wilt vs Russell is even arguable is a ring counting idiot. It's like comparing Rodman to Hakeem.

When in 1980 the Professional Basketball Writers Association voted Rusell the "Greatest Player in the History of the NBA." Probably 100% of those in that poll saw both of them play.

[Trollsmasher]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/b69ef0a97cf2348af1e355f05b21915f/tumblr_mn11kxAMmY1rp2731o1_500.jpg
8 foot rim with 5 foot white midgets

[CavaliersFTW]

8 foot rim with 5 foot white midgets
And an undersized rim/backboard/ball. Because as stated, that isn't actually Wilt.

[LAZERUSS]

Individual dominating doesn't make one a better player in a team sport..Which is obviously the case with Russell vs Wilt.

Where can I find the Wooden quote?

What Barry said doesn't change that he thought Wilt was a choker..Why does this have to be explained to you?

And a team of great players beating a team with one great player does not make the best player on the winning team greater than the best player on the losing team, either.

Look at MJ in the '86 playoffs vs. Bird's Celtics as an example. Would anyone in their right mind have expected Jordan to carry that roster past a loaded Celtic team that was at their peak? And using that comparision, MJ's Bulls were swept... Chamberlain took as bad as rosters up against even stronger Celtic teams, and missed beating them by a eyelash on several occassions. And, of course, when Chamberlain waspaired up with an equal roster, and which was healthy, as in '67, his Sixers wiped the floor with Russell's Celtics. As dominant as Chamberlain was in that series, he had several series like that against Russell, and yet, his TEAMs lost.

And we have seen many other examples of the MJ analogy, as well. Kevin Garnett languishing on lousy teams, and then being the center-piece of a 66-16 champion. Lebron carrying poor rosters to the Finals in '07, or average rosters to two consecutive 60+ seasons...and then taking a very good Heat roster to three straight Finals, and one title, with perhaps another on the way. A prime Kareem played almost an entire decade in which his teams dramatically under-achieved. Then, when he is paired with Magic...eight Finals, and five rings in ten seasons (and in some, he was badly outplayed, or downright awful.)

The Wooden quote came from page 147 (paperback) in "They Call Me Coach."
"Had Wilt been surrounded by the playing cast that Russell was with the Boston Celtics, and had he had a Red Auerbach as a coach, his team might well have won all those championships."


Regarding Barry: He once claimed that Wilt was "choker." I won't take the time to look up the full quote, but yes, it was out there. And, as a sidenote, there have been other's who made similar claims. Even Wilt, himself, was on record as saying that winning was not that important. The thing is, though....when were they made? In the case of Chamberlain...I would suspect it was around 1965 or 1966, and with many years of his TEAMs losing close playoff series...and in which he was invariably blamed, despite the fact that he was the best player on the floor in all of them.

Now, having said the above, I would find it hard to believe that Barry would have made his comments after the '67 Finals...in a series in which Chamberlain completely dominated. And in the clinching game six win, it was Wilt's defensive play against Barry at the end of the game, which secured the win for his Sixers. And Wilt just crushed a prime Nate Thurmond in that game, and in the entire series. In fact, it was the most one-sided beatdown that Nate would endure in his post-season play by an oposing center...and he had several against a prime Kareem.

And how about Barry's comments sometime in 1999?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTTwY_QqZ7c&feature=player_detailpage

Listen at the 8:30 mark...

"I don't think anyone who knows the game of basketball could possibly, in my mind, ever pick anyone , other than Wilt Chamberlain, as the greatest all-around center to play the game of basketball."

And at no time, in that interview, did he mention that Wilt was a "choker."

BTW, listen to the entire Al Attles interview above. He mentions that the players on the Warriors during Chamberlain's 50 ppg season, praised Wilt. They didn't disparage him, like so many idiots have come to claim. The fact was, it was Wilt's coach, who asked Wilt, and the team, to feed Chamberlain. It was not Wilt being selfish. He was just doing what was asked of him.

Also, Jim Barnett makes the comment in that interview, that Wilt did not like to lose. He always wanted to win. However, he didn't try to dominate thru his power and size, but rather thru his skill level.


How about Jerry West sometime in 1999?

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."



Keep in mind, that Jordan had just retired after his last great season.

The fact was, for those that try to use quotes from peers to disparage Chamberlain, had better be aware that there are far more positive quotes (and many from those that were supposedly bashing him), than negative ones.

And once again, Wilt's TEAMs came within winning margins, in game seven's, of 2, 1,4, and 2 points, of holding a 5-3 edge in h2h playoff series between the two. And in some of those series losses, Wilt was destroying Russell. In fact, considering how badly Wilt's teammates were outplayed by Russell's, and how often Russell's teammates had clutch games, and game-saving plays and shots, while Wilt's teammates were consistently puking all over themselves, it was amazing that he came so close, so often.

And finally, give me the examples of Wilt "choking" in all eight of those h2h playoff series between the two. You can find an occasional game in which Russell outplayed Wilt (and probably when Wilt was injured), but overall, in their 49 post-season h2h games, and particularly in their eight h2h series, Wilt did all that one man could possibly do.

You are right...it is a TEAM sport. Russell, with much better, or much healthier supposting casts, came out on top. But it says a lot that when Chamberlain's teammates were equal, and healthy, as was the case in '67, that not only did Wilt just demolish Russell, his TEAM blew up the "Dynasty" in the process.

[LAZERUSS]

When in 1980 the Professional Basketball Writers Association voted Rusell the "Greatest Player in the History of the NBA." Probably 100% of those in that poll saw both of them play.

I don't think so.

In their 10 seasons in the league together, Russell as voted first-team all-NBA twice...Chamberlain seven times. And I believe the voting was done by the writers or members of the media during that decade.

If anything was questionable, it was the players voting for the MVP's in that time frame.

[La Frescobaldi]

When in 1980 the Professional Basketball Writers Association voted Rusell the "Greatest Player in the History of the NBA." Probably 100% of those in that poll saw both of them play.
Your comment is a complete joke. As Lazeruss points out, the All-NBA teams were voted on by the writers and it was clear what they thought about it.

The very year before, Boston had overwhelmingly chosen John Havlicek as the greatest Celtic of All Time.
Here's a quote from Bob Ryan - lifelong Celtics writer who was one of the biggest Boston homers who ever lived (until Simmons showed up) - stating plainly that at the time Hondo retired, Havlicek was the greatest player he ever saw.
http://www.thelantern.com/sports/ohio-state-legend-john-havlicek-enjoying-life-away-from-spotlight-1.1903448#.UbPVDJxeWt8

Maybe that was true when Chamberlain was on the Warriors - before Russell got old. Maybe in like 1963 people thought what you are saying. But virtually nobody in the stands thought that in the late 60s. In the tiny basketball community of those days Chamberlain had overwhelming support across the country. There just wasn't any debate. Wilt destroyed Russell so bad in '67 & '68 that there was no inkling anywhere that Russell was at his level.

And from first to last, Wilt Chamberlain never played with a forward as great as Havlicek - and neither did anyone else in those days.

People posting on ISH need to do a lot of reading on this subject because they have been fed a bunch of myths that were invented after those days were long gone.

[LeBird]

And I see we still have idiots trying to compare Russell and Wilt's head to head games statistically...:facepalm

Yeah, we should judge them on their fashion sense.

[ThaRegul8r]

Here's a quote from Bob Ryan - lifelong Celtics writer who was one of the biggest Boston homers who ever lived (until Simmons showed up) - stating plainly that at the time Hondo retired, Havlicek was the greatest player he ever saw.
http://www.thelantern.com/sports/ohio-state-legend-john-havlicek-enjoying-life-away-from-spotlight-1.1903448#.UbPVDJxeWt8

The link actually says Ryan thought Havlicek was the best all-around player, not the greatest player. As you know, there were people who also said Oscar Robertson was the best all-around player, over both Wilt and Russell, though the latter two were more dominating, in their respective fashions.

[LAZERUSS]

Yeah, we should judge them on their fashion sense.

You have a point.

However, in Russell's defense, there are defensive statistics, particularly in regards to team defensive statistics, which substantiate his ranking as the greatest defensive player of all-time. I won't take the time to look them (I'm sure someone else can re-post them), but Russell's Celtics were considerably better in team defense, than the rest of the league...year-after-year.

Here is a great example...the 62-63 Celtics shot .427 from the field...which was well below the league average of .441...and yet they had a +7.2 ppg differential. The second best team in ppg differential was Syracuse at +3.8.

And how about Boston's defense in the 63-64 EDF's, and against a Royals team that had not only gone 55-25, but had averaged 114.7 ppg during the regular season? The Celtics steamrolled Cincinnati, 4-1, and in the process, held the Royals to games of 102, 95, 92, 90, and 87 points...or 93 ppg.

Granted, Russell played with some outstanding defenders in the 60's. Satch Sanders and KC Jones were both regarded as among the best defensive players at their positions, as was Havlicek, who could play both guard and forward. But virtually everyone that covered basketball at the time knew that Russell was the key component of those great defenses.

And for what's it's worth (fwiw), Russell has the top seven greatest seasons in the "Defensive Win Shares" category...with his 63-64 season being light years better than anyone else in NBA history.


Having said that, though, it fascinates me at just how often the Wilt pundits ignore his staggering numbers against Russell. Over the course of their 143 career h2h battles, Chamberlain nearly averaged a 30-30 game, and on .500 shooting from the field (and in leagues that shot between .410 and .446 in that span.) Not only that, but Russell frequently had help in defending Chamberlain, too.

And once again, Russell's Celtics career 7-1 playoff series record against Wilt's teams was deceptive. Chamberlain's teams lost four game seven's, and by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. And in those it was John Havlicek making a brilliant game-saving steal, or Sam Jones or Don Nelson hitting miraculous game-winners.

It was not like Boston just overwhelmed Wilt's teams, or Russell was reducing Chamberlain to pathetic numbers, or actually outplaying Wilt in those series'. True, he almost always "held" Chamberlain below his seasonal scoring and FG%'s, but the drop-offs were not dramatic. Some might make an argument in Chamberlain's historic season, in which he averaged 50.4 ppg on .506 shooting against the league, and then dropped to 33.6 ppg on .468 shooting in the EDF's. Bu even that was somewhat deceptive, because during their regular season h2h's, Wilt "only" averaged 39.7 ppg on .471 shooting. And in the '62 post-season, scoring and shooting dropped from 118.8 ppg and .426 shooting during the regular season, down to 112.6 ppg on .411 shooting.

And, as a sidenote, (and something that the Wilt-detractors never mention), was that Wilt was almost always reducing Russell's offensive numbers, as well. A good example came in that same '62 EDF. Russell shot .457 against the league in the regular season, but only .399 against Wilt in that seven game series. In fact, it is likely that Wilt reduced Russell's FG%'s, compared to his league averages, more than Russell reduced Wilt's. Not only that, but Russell never came close to holding Wilt to the overall league FG%, but Chamberlain held Russell under it several times.

I don't have a problem with those that want to rank Russell over Wilt. In terms of team success, there was very little more that Russell could have done in his career. But, he also has a clear-cut margin over every other all-time great in that regard. IMHO, if Russell is ranked ahead of Chamberlain, it has to be by decimal points. And with a few more points, or a couple of plays, and Russell's edge against Wilt in rings could have been 7-6 instead of 11-2. And given the fact that Russell enjoyed a pretty solid edge in surrounding talent, and considerably better coaching, in the majority of their ten seasons in the league together, and even that 7-6 margin would have been explained away.

In any case, those that rank Wilt over Russell certainly have some valid arguments.

[La Frescobaldi]

The link actually says Ryan thought Havlicek was the best all-around player, not the greatest player. As you know, there were people who also said Oscar Robertson was the best all-around player, over both Wilt and Russell, though the latter two were more dominating, in their respective fashions.

true. nevertheless the point stands; not only were writers prone to changing their vote, they did. constantly.

I always thought Russell was perfectly correct for ignoring all of that.

[LAZERUSS]

Your comment is a complete joke. As Lazeruss points out, the All-NBA teams were voted on by the writers and it was clear what they thought about it.

The very year before, Boston had overwhelmingly chosen John Havlicek as the greatest Celtic of All Time.
Here's a quote from Bob Ryan - lifelong Celtics writer who was one of the biggest Boston homers who ever lived (until Simmons showed up) - stating plainly that at the time Hondo retired, Havlicek was the greatest player he ever saw.
http://www.thelantern.com/sports/ohio-state-legend-john-havlicek-enjoying-life-away-from-spotlight-1.1903448#.UbPVDJxeWt8

Maybe that was true when Chamberlain was on the Warriors - before Russell got old. Maybe in like 1963 people thought what you are saying. But virtually nobody in the stands thought that in the late 60s. In the tiny basketball community of those days Chamberlain had overwhelming support across the country. There just wasn't any debate. Wilt destroyed Russell so bad in '67 & '68 that there was no inkling anywhere that Russell was at his level.

And from first to last, Wilt Chamberlain never played with a forward as great as Havlicek - and neither did anyone else in those days.

People posting on ISH need to do a lot of reading on this subject because they have been fed a bunch of myths that were invented after those days were long gone.

Great post.

By the mid-60's Chamberlain was considered the best player in the game, and by a large margin. And, judging from the writers, he was already considered the best player in the game coming out of the gate. He was voted first team all-NBA in his first three seasons. And even the players, who would have some very questionable voting seasons, had Wilt as the MVP in his very first year.

And once again, by the mid-60's, Wilt was winning three straight MVPs (as well as three straight first-team all NBA selections.) And even Red Auerbach inadvertently made a statement which could be construed as "waving the white flag" in those debates, as well. The Sixers wiped out the Celtics in the '67 EDF's, and ended their eight-year reign as champions. And the next year they ran away with the best record in the league again. The two teams met again in the EDF's, and despite losing HOFer Cunningham before that series even started, Philly bolted to a 3-1 series lead. And after that game four loss in Boston, Auerbach was quoted as saying something along the lines of, "It's too bad, because people will forget just how great he [Russell] was."

Of course the Wilt-bashers, like Simmons, will scream out that Boston came back to win that series, and lay blame directly on Chamberlain. But, none of them ever mention that the Sixers lost two more starters to injuries in game five. Nor will they bring up the fact that Chamberlain played the last half of that series with torn quad, and was noticeably limping. BTW, he played every minute of that seven game series, and with multiple injuries in all of them...and with an injury that was similar to the one that had Reed basically missing the bulk of the last three games of the '70 Finals. And in the '68 EDF's, Chamberlain still had a 23-25 series. I have always found it comical that Reed was considered heroicfor doing practically nothing in the last three pivotal games of the '70 Finals, while Wilt not only courageously played every minute of the '68 EDF's, he was arguably the best player on the floor in the series....and yet, he was regarded as a "choker" because his team lost that game seven.

And once again, the writers of that decade gave Chamberlain a 7-2 edge in first-team all-NBA's.

And for those that claim that the writers shouldn't be voting, and that the players would make better decisions...

First of all, in those ten years in which Russell and Chamberlain were in the league together, they both won four MVPs. And Chamberlain finished ahead of Russell in the '64 MVP voting, but behind Oscar in what I consider a very controversial vote. Meanwhile, Russell finisihed well ahead of Wilt in the '63 voting (and won the MVP), and again in '69 finishing 4th, while Wilt was nowhere to be found.

On the surface, most fans would just accept that voting. But if delve deeper, there was a strong "anti-Wilt" faction (even in the years in which he won three straight MVPs.)

I have been bewildered by the criteria that was used in their voting process. In Chamberlain's rookie season (in which he also won ROY), Wilt ran away with the MVP award. And in that season, he averaged 37.6, 27.0 rpg, and shot a career low .461 from the field. And he took his team, which had been in last place just the year before, to a then team record of 49-26. Meanwhile, Russell averaged 18.9 ppg, 24.0 rpg, and shot a career high .467 from the field. And his HOF-laden Celtics went 59-16.

Ok, fast forward to '62. Chamberlain, now playing with much the same core that he had in that '60 season, only older and worse, put up historic numbers. He averaged 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, and shot .506 from the floor. His team went 49-31. In the meantime, Russell's numbers were nearly identical to his '60 campaign. He averaged 18.2 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and shot .457. And his Celtics went 60-20. How did the MVP voting go? Russell not only won the MVP, he blew Wilt away in the voting (he captured 51 first place votes to Wilt's nine.) Now, given the fact that Russell's numbers and team record was nearly identical to the '60 season, and that Wilt's team record was alos nearly identical to their '60 season...but, that Wilt now had to carry and older and declining roster with perhaps the greatest individual season in all of professional sports history...the only thing that changed from the '60 season to the '62 season, was that Wilt performed even more brilliantly. So what changed in the "criteria?"

I don't have a problem with Russell winning the MVP award in '63. I do have a problem with Chamberlain finishing seventh. Granted, Wilt was now playing with a significantly worse roster than even the declining roster he had played with just the year before. And the result was a 31-49 record. On the surface it would seem that Chamberlain must have been the reason. The fact was, he was single-handedly carrying that cast of clowns. And instead of just mailing it in, he put up fantastic numbers, leading the NBA in fifteen statistical categories. And before someone mentions "empty stats", his team, despite only going 31-49, were in nearly every game. They lost 35 games by single digits, and their scoring differential was only -2.1 ppg.

Now, take a look at the voting that season. Once again, Wilt finished seventh, which was bad enough. But Red Kerr finished ahead of him. The same Kerr who, in their eight h2h games that season, was outscored by Wilt, on average, by a 43-19 ppg margin (and Wilt had margins of 61-20 and even 70-14 in two of those games.) BTW, Chamberlain just steamrolled Kerr in the playoffs just the year before, too. And on top of that, rookie Terry Dischinger, who was not even the best player on his own team (Walt Bellamy), and playing for a 25-55 team, had more first-place votes that Wilt, and was only a few votes behind him in the overall voting.


I already mentioned the 63-64 voting. Oscar won the award, while Wilt came in second, and Russell third. Now, I could have probably lived with Oscar winning the award, but he did so in a landslide (a 60-19 margin in first place votes.) And, playing with the likes of Jerry Lucas, Jack Twyman, and Wayne Embry, his Royals improved from a 42-38 record in '63 to a 55-25 record in '64. Meanwhile, Chamberlain basically took the same roster from the year before, that had gone 31-49, to a 48-32 record (and before someone mentions rookie Nate Thurmond...Nate played 26 mpg, out of position, and shot .395.) So, since Wilt was severely punished for playing on a 31-49 team in '63 (again, finishing seventh in the voting), why wasn't he more rewarded in '64, when he led his team to an amazing turnaround?

Russell deservedly won the award in '65. And Chamberlain came in fifth, which was not surprising considering that he was traded in mid-season. But, as a sidenote, in the '65 EDF's, Chamberlain carried his 40-40 Sixers, who had gone 34-46 the year before without him, to a game seven, one point loss against Russell's 62-18 Celtics...and in a series in which he averaged 30 ppg, 31 rpg, and shot .555 from the field.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Ok, Wilt then went on to win three straight MVPs. Again, not surprising since he led those teams to the best record in the league each season. But what was surprising, and even despite him winning them convincingly, was that they were nowhere near unanimous. Even in his '67 season, which many consider his greatest, he "only" received 80 out of the 105 votes. Now, perhaps players on their teams were not allowed to vote for fellow teammates (I honestly don't know the entire process), but even at that, Wilt still would not have been a unanimous winner.

The 68-69 voting was also perplexing. Wes Unseld (who also won ROY) went on to win the award. The only possible explanation was that he led the Bullets to a league high 57-25 record (and granted, a remarkable turnaround from their 36-46 record in '68.) But Chamberlain just shellacked him in their h2h's that season, including one game in which he outscored Wes 25-4, and outrebounded him 38-9. And Wilt's Lakers, who would have the second best record in the league, at 55-27, also went 3-3 against Unseld's Bullets.

The Unseld voting was at least somewhat understandable, considering the amazing team turnaround. But keep in mind that Wes averaged 13.8 ppg, 18.2 rpg, 2.6 apg, and shot .476 from the floor. Chamberlain, playing for an incompetent coach, and sacrificing his offense, still averaged 20.5 ppg, led the league in rebounding at 21.1 rpg, handed out 4.5 apg, and shot a league high .583 from the field.

In any case, while Unseld over Wilt was at least forgiveable, just how in the hell did Wllis Reed and Bill Russell finsih ahead of Chamberlain? Neither had the statistical season that Wilt (and Russell was nowhere near him.) And Reed's Knicks went 54-28 (once again, Wilt played on a 55-27 team), while Russell's Celtics went 48-34. And if that wasn't bad enough, Chamberlain's Lakers went 5-1 against Reed's Knicks, and 4-2 against Russell's Celtics (including a nationally televised 108-73 massacre in Boston.) And on top of all of that, Chamberlain abused both of them in their h2h's. After the Knicks unloaded Bellamy, and moved Reed to center, in their three h2h games, Wilt outscored Reed, on average, by a 24-15 margin, including one game by 31-14. And Wilt just pounded Russell h2h in their six h2h's, including outscoring him in one game, 35-8, and outrebounding him in another, 42-18.

And just how did Chamberlain's teammate, Elgin Baylor, finish ahead of Wilt? True, he outscored him, per game, 24.8 ppg to 20.5 ppg, but he shot .447 in the process (once again Wilt led the league at .583.) And Wilt was a much greater force defensively (he even had a nationally televised game in which he blocked 23 recorded shots.) Oh, and BTW, Jerry West missed 20 games that season. And, as a sidenote (and obviously it did not affect the MVP voting, Baylor had an epic meltdown in the playoffs that season, averaging 15.4 ppg on a team worst .385 shooting.)

And finally, you could also question was changed in the voting process from '62 to '72, as well. Remember, while Wilt put up those eye-popping stats, he still finished well behind Russell in the MVP voting in '62. The only argument one could make for Russell in that case, was that his team had a better record.

Ok, so in '72, while Kareem's Bucks decline slightly from their '71 record, going 63-19 (down from 66-16 the year before) he still leads the league in scoring at 34.8 ppg. Meanwhile, Chamberlain anchored a team that had gone 48-34 the year before, and would finish with a then record, 69-13 mark. Not only that, but he leads the league in rebounding, runs away with the FG% title, and is voted first-team all-defense (and probably would have won DPOY had the award exisited.) Yet, Chamberlain finished third (teammate Jerry West obviously stole votes and finished second.) But here again, what changed in the criteria?

So, while I have read those that question that the writers voting in the 60's, I would argue that the players voting was even more questionable. Especially in regards to Chamberlain.

[LAZERUSS]

All of the above is very interesting.

Even with questionable MVP voting in the decade of the 60's, Wilt and Russell, each won four of them. And by the mid-60's and until the end of Russell's career (with the exception of his very least season, in which neither won the award) even the players were voting Wilt well ahead of Russell.

And the writers were certainly even more adamantly in Wilt's corner. From Wilt's first season, until Russell's last, they overwhelmingly had Chamberlain with a 7-2 edge in first-team all NBA selections. And again, by the mid-60's Chamberlain was easily considered the best player in the league.

So what changed from the time Russell retired after the '69 season, to 1980, and when the Basketball Writers voted Russell as the greatest player in the NBA's first 35 seasons? And while you could make an argument that Russell had three great seasons before Wilt arrived, you certainly can't say Wilt didn't have four great seasons after Russell retired, either. Wilt's teams went to three Finals in those four seasons, and had two seasons with 60+ wins, including a dominant title run in '72 (and in which Wilt won the FMVP.)

Very interesting indeed...

[MiseryCityTexas]

Come on man :oldlol: It goes for everybody... Jordan, Kobe, Bird, Magic, Oscar, Julius, Nique, Durant, Wade, Carmelo, etc. etc. etc. they sure had a more comfortable move they would love to initiate at specific side, but they wont neglect attacking you because you nullified them from going one side...... they would murder you 1on1 however you wanted, even if you told Lebron to go left and Lebron promised you aswell to go left around you all the time then he would do it all the time.... unless you ran of the court or something lol

Thats all you will see 1on1 defending Lebron when he goes left:
http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/967910/bron.gif

Especially if you are a 6'2'ish guy like Jerry West :P


See, the thing about that play though is that Billy Walker ****ing sucked.