If Chamberlain was playing for the Celtics instead of Bill Russell, would he be GOAT?

[livinglegend]

He would probably have more than 10 championships as the man. He had some of the best stats in the history of the game.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

LeBron James

[DatAsh]

His stats would look completely different under Auerbach.

[Greg Oden 50]

LeBron James

LEBRON JAMES IS NOT AS GD AS WILT :no:

[ProfessorMurder]

His stats would look completely different under Auerbach.

Why? He averaged 30/23 for his career. Russell averaged 15/23.

Wilt was way better offensively, and would get the same rebounds. He wouldn't have had the 50ppg season, but 30 is reasonable.

[DatAsh]

Why? He averaged 30/23 for his career.


Different system? Better coach? We wouldn't see him taking 30+ shots a game like we did under guys like McGuire. We'd probably see something along the lines of what we saw when he was playing under Alex Hannum. I imagine his career ppg would drop 7-10 points, his efficiency would likely skyrocket, and he'd probably be better defensively. He'd definitely be a better player.

[livinglegend]

Different system? Better coach? We wouldn't see him taking 30+ shots a game like we did under guys like McGuire. We'd probably see something along the lines of what we saw when he was playing under Alex Hannum. I imagine his career ppg would drop 7-10 points, his efficiency would likely skyrocket, and he'd probably be better defensively. He'd definitely be a better player.

Well, his career ppg dropped late in his career. At the begginning, averaged more than 37 ppg. He even had a 50 ppg season. I think he still would have in the 30s with the Celtics.

[Inactive]

IDK, I wasn't there.

This generation of fans consistently goes nuts over players who happen to play for the best team, and ridicules those who don't, regardless of their individual play. If we assume that fans had similar views in the 60s, then I would say it's likely that Chamberlain was partly a victim of circumstance, and Russell was lucky as hell.

[jlip]

Read what Wilt, himself, had to say about switching teams with Russell.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4814506&postcount=34

[livinglegend]

Read what Wilt, himself, had to say about switching teams with Russell.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4814506&postcount=34

Interesting.

[BoutPractice]

My guess is he would've had a lot less than 11 and a lot more than 2. Maybe 5 or 6. However, he wouldn't have had all those records. It was either the record books or the championship, it couldn't be both... historically record breaking individual seasons rarely turn into championships, as they often reflect a team's weakness more than anything.

[Harison]

He would probably have more than 10 championships as the man. He had some of the best stats in the history of the game.

Half of his career Wilt had a better team than Bill, so no. Russell found a way to win regardless if he had a better or worse team.

[Horatio33]

No, Wilt was obsessed with his own stats, Russell was obsessed with winning. Wilt would dominate the ball in offense and mess up the teams chemistry.

[jzek]

No, he'll be second to Jordan. Why? Jordan never lost in the Finals and was FMVP each time.

[LAZERUSS]

Half of his career Wilt had a better team than Bill, so no. Russell found a way to win regardless if he had a better or worse team.

Completely false.

From 59-60 thru 64-65, or six of their ten seasons in the league together, Russell enjoyed a massive edge in surrounding talent.

In the 65-66 season, Wilt's Sixers had to win their last 11 straight games to surpass the Celtics by one game. Not only that, but the Celtics star players missed a consider able amount of games (S. Jones missed 13, Hondo missed nine, and Russell missed three...as well as other players, as well.) Furthermore, and as always, Boston had a huge edge in depth.

So, that was seven seasons.

67-68? True, Wilt's Sixers were clearly the best team in the league during the regular season. They ran away with the best record, and were eight games better than Boston at season's end. But, as any intelligent fan would have known, the Sixer team that blew away the league in that regular season, was not the Sixer team that lost to Boston in a game seven by four points. HOFer Billy Cunningham didn't play at all in that series. And, even without him, Philly jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. Even Auerbach had given up. However, in game five, two more key starters (on a team with little depth) went down with leg injuries (Luke Jackson and Wali Jones), and were worthless the rest of the series. And, on top of all of that, Chamberlain, himself, was nursing a ariety of injuries, nd was noticeably limping throughout the last four games of that series.

That's eight.

68-69? This is the only season, in their ten years together, in which you could make a case that Chamberlain played on a better team. However, this team had no depth (thanks to the Wilt trade and then losing Goodrich in the expansion draft.) Furthermore, while Baylor had a good regular season, he puked all over the floor in the playoffs, and was even worse in the Finals. And finally, this team had an incompetent coach (who shackled Wilt on the offensive end, while allowing Baylor to repeatedly fire up bricks.) With all of that...Boston eked out a two point win in a game seven.

Ok, and how about 66-67? Chamberlain's roster was finally the equal of Russell's, and was healthy. The result? With Wilt crushing Russell in every facet of the game (as he often did in their post-season h2h's), and with his teammates neutralizing Russell's, his Sixers wiped the floor with Boston, 4-1. And only a poorly played game four, in a four point road loss, prevented a sweep.

[LAZERUSS]

Read what Wilt, himself, had to say about switching teams with Russell.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4814506&postcount=34

Chamberlain is not disagreeing with the OP. He merely states that Russell blended in better with his Celtic teammates, than they might have with Wilt. So what? Wilt was a much better offensive player than Russell, including passing, a better rebounder, and only marginally worse defensively. He also proved that he was capable of adapting to his coach's and teammates (and urely would have with Auerbach.) And speaking of Red...he did everything in his power to try and draft Chamberlain.

[LAZERUSS]

Different system? Better coach? We wouldn't see him taking 30+ shots a game like we did under guys like McGuire. We'd probably see something along the lines of what we saw when he was playing under Alex Hannum. I imagine his career ppg would drop 7-10 points, his efficiency would likely skyrocket, and he'd probably be better defensively. He'd definitely be a better player.

100% agreed.

[LAZERUSS]

No, Wilt was obsessed with his own stats, Russell was obsessed with winning. Wilt would dominate the ball in offense and mess up the teams chemistry.

Hmmm...give me the examples of Chamberlain hogging the ball (and actually shooting it) in the post-season, from his '66-67 season thru his final season in 72-73...or seven straight seasons. If anything, he probably should have demanded the ball more often in those years.

[senelcoolidge]

I'm not so sure about young Wilt, but Wilt was a guy that did what was asked of him. I think there is a misconception that Wilt was this uncoachable selfish player. If he was asked to score he scored, if he was asked to be more of a facilitator he did that, asked to shut down other teams offenses..he did that. I'm not sure the Celtics would have won that many championships with Wilt, he had a point about Russell really being the perfect fit for those teams. But they would have won multiple titles either way.

[LAZERUSS]

I'm not so sure about young Wilt, but Wilt was a guy that did what was asked of him. I think there is a misconception that Wilt was this uncoachable selfish player. If he was asked to score he scored, if he was asked to be more of a facilitator he did that, asked to shut down other teams offenses..he did that. I'm not sure the Celtics would have won that many championships with Wilt, he had a point about Russell really being the perfect fit for those teams. But they would have won multiple titles either way.

Excellent post.

:applause:

[LAZERUSS]

Of course, a lot depends on where Russell lands in that time-frame, as well. Had he somehow played for the Lakers in the decade of the 60's, he would have probably won several rings, even with Chamberlain on the Celtics. Same with the Hawks...who were loaded almost the entire dcade, but just never quite had enough firepower.

And, I am not saying that Wilt would have gone 10-10 in that decade with Boston, either. But, I do believe that, at the very least, he would have won a few more rings.

And where would a Chamberlain, with 5-6 rings, be considered in the all-time "rankings?"

[LAZERUSS]

His stats would look completely different under Auerbach.

You bring up a very good point.

Had Chamberlain played for Auerbach, he most certainly would not have approached 40-50 ppg, and likely would not have even averaged 30. All of which would have meant that the scoring marks in the record book would definitely look different than they do today.

[fpliii]

Question -- Does Russ not exist in this hypothetical?

[LAZERUSS]

Question -- Does Russ not exist in this hypothetical?

See my post above...

[fpliii]

See my post above...

Good points. I guess he would stay with the Hawks? Sounds like an interesting scenario, would be fun to simulate.

FWIW I'm not sure if Auerbach would be Wilt's best option since we don't know what he'd ask him to do. I think having Hannum for most of his career would do wonders (not that Red would hurt obviously, I just think it's a better fit). In 63-64, that Warriors defense was one of the top 15 ever:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dE5jQnJyOG50ODNCZ0hpZFZpaGhnRW c&type=view&gid=3&f=true&colid0=2&filterstr0=NBA&sortcolid=16&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=25

Though Boston had the GOAT defense that season, so it doesn't stand out as much unless you look closely. Very impressive stuff. I think we'd see several more seasons of that with a Wilt/Hannum pairing early on.

[millwad]

No, he wouldn't.

Wilt's teammates are always getting underrated like crazy by idiots like Jlauber.

[LAZERUSS]

No, he wouldn't.

Wilt's teammates are always getting underrated like crazy by idiots like Jlauber.

Not only were his teammates last place rosters for the first half of his career, they played even worse in the post-season. Even Wilt's 65-66 Sixers played horribly in the post-season. In Chamberlain's first six post-seasons, his teammates had post-seasons of .382, .354, .352 (his 55-25 '66 Sixers), .352, and .332.

Of course, he almost always faced great teams in his entire post-season career, as well. He routinely battled Celtic teams with 6-9 HOFers, Knick teams with four, five and six HOFers, and a two Bucks teams that were statistically among the greatest teams ever.

[steve]

No, he wouldn't.

Wilt's teammates are always getting underrated like crazy by idiots like Jlauber.

Maybe, but here's the thing, players like Tommy Heinsohn, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Frank Ramsey, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Bailey Howell are legit Hall of Famers no matter where they would have played (and Russell played with no fewer than 3 of them). This is before you count great role players like KC Jones, Tom Sanders, Willie Naulis, Larry Siegfried, and Don Nelson. There's a reason those Celtic teams were great and that's because they had great players (outside of Russell) and not only that, but there was a level of consistency in terms of turnover, which allowed a great collection of talent to get even better through familiarity.

[millwad]

Not only were his teammates last place rosters for the first half of his career, they played even worse in the post-season. Even Wilt's 65-66 Sixers played horribly in the post-season. In Chamberlain's first six post-seasons, his teammates had post-seasons of .382, .354, .352 (his 55-25 '66 Sixers), .352, and .332.

Of course, he almost always faced great teams in his entire post-season career, as well. He routinely battled Celtic teams with 6-9 HOFers, Knick teams with four, five and six HOFers, and a two Bucks teams that were statistically among the greatest teams ever.

You whine so much about Wilt's teammates, it gets silly.

And I like how you always spam about the Celtic HOF:ers, you know very well that plenty of them got inducted due being on that team and not for being superstars. Just look at KC Jones..

The fact that you concentrate so much on blaming Wilt's teammates for Wilt's failures is the greatet proof of how insecure you are.

Just look at the '73 playoffs - Wilt had 3 teammates who averaged 20 points or more in the playoffs.

'72 playoffs - Wilt had 3 teammates who averaged 19 points or more in the playoffs.

'71 playoffs - Wilt had 4 teammates who averaged 15 points or more in the playoffs.

'70 playoffs - Wilt in the playoffs played with West who averaged 31 points per game in and Baylor who averaged 19 points per game.

'69 playoffs - Jerry West averaged 31 points and Baylor averaged 15 points.

'68 playoffs - Wilt played with 3 players who averaged 19 points or more.

'67 playoffs - Wilt played with 4 players who averaged 15 points or more and two of them scored 20 points or more per game.

'65 playoffs - Wilt played with two players who averaged 20 points or more in the playoffs.

It's so lame how you always blame Wilt's teammates for Wilt's failures when Wilt in fact played with very good players during his career.

I've never seen anyone blame the teammates of his favourite player as much as you.

[CavaliersFTW]

Different system? Better coach? We wouldn't see him taking 30+ shots a game like we did under guys like McGuire. We'd probably see something along the lines of what we saw when he was playing under Alex Hannum. I imagine his career ppg would drop 7-10 points, his efficiency would likely skyrocket, and he'd probably be better defensively. He'd definitely be a better player.
I think 30 is still reasonable, it's of course only a guess but I think it's a reasonable guess because he would have a much lower offensive "peak" but a much more stable offensive role during his career, and I almost think Aurbach would be silly not to ask for at the very least, 25 a night from Wilt given Wilt's abilities. 30 a night was an easy number for Wilt. With none of the radical-change-of-game antics brought about by coaches trying to figure out how to trump the Celtics (seeing as how he'd be on the Celtics) he'd have much more stable, linear looking season-by-season statlines throughout his career probably falling right in between the extremes he went to... which for him is about 30

[NumberSix]

LEBRON JAMES IS NOT AS GD AS WILT :no:
Neither is Jordan.

[millwad]

Maybe, but here's the thing, players like Tommy Heinsohn, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Frank Ramsey, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Bailey Howell are legit Hall of Famers no matter where they would have played (and Russell played with no fewer than 3 of them). This is before you count great role players like KC Jones, Tom Sanders, Willie Naulis, Larry Siegfried, and Don Nelson. There's a reason those Celtic teams were great and that's because they had great players (outside of Russell) and not only that, but there was a level of consistency in terms of turnover, which allowed a great collection of talent to get even better through familiarity.

I never said that Russell didn't play with fine players, I'm just saying that Wilt played with fine players as well.

Wilt played with a total of 9 HOF:ers during his career and 9 All-Stars. Yes, not all of them played with Wilt during their prime but that's a very remarkable number of talented players. 18 HOF/All-stars.....

HOF:ers Wilt played with:


Jerry West
Hal Greer
Elgin Baylor
Gail Goodrich
Paul Arizin
Tom Gola
Nate Thurmond
Chet Walker
Billy Cunningham

All-stars Wilt played with:

Luke Jackson
Guy Rodgers
Woody Sauldsberry
Tom Meschery
Larry Costello
Red Kerr
Willie Naulls
Flynn Robinson
Bill Bridges

[Psileas]

He has a good case for GOAT already, despending of course on what you ask for. After all, Jordan himself had been called widely the GOAT by the time he had won his 2nd title and he was probably already the most popular choice when he got his 3rd. I definitely don't think Jordan was more accomplished than Wilt back then (especially after only 2 rings) and that whoever wasn't hypocritical enough should have Wilt as a top GOAT candidate at least up to then - and I don't see why not up to now.

I don't know how many championships Wilt would have won for the Celtics. More than 2 is a safe bet. Maybe not as many as Russell, since Russell was the ultimate chamistry player, but, you know what, it wouldn't matter, because Russell wouldn't have won anywhere near 11 either and the "11" standard wouldn't even exist. Even if Russell had played for another quality franchise like the Hawks, even if he still held a title advantage, say, 7 vs 5, things would be seen in a different light. If Wilt held a title advantage, even the most minimum one, I don't think Russell would have any serious case over him. If he held an advantage anywhere close to 11-2 (which wouldn't be impossible if Russell played for a crappy team and Wilt managed to play alongside a peak Havlicek and a quickly emerging Jo Jo White in the early 70's), well, there wouldn't be much left to be said.

[CavaliersFTW]

I never said that Russell didn't play with fine players, I'm just saying that Wilt played with fine players as well.

Wilt played with a total of 9 HOF:ers during his career and 9 All-Stars. Yes, not all of them played with Wilt during their prime but that's a very remarkable number of talented players. 18 HOF/All-stars.....

HOF:ers Wilt played with:


Jerry West
Hal Greer
Elgin Baylor
Gail Goodrich
Paul Arizin
Tom Gola
Nate Thurmond
Chet Walker
Billy Cunningham

All-stars Wilt played with:

Luke Jackson
Guy Rodgers
Woody Sauldsberry
Tom Meschery
Larry Costello
Red Kerr
Willie Naulls
Flynn Robinson
Bill Bridges
...give context for every one of these players - and how long they played with Wilt and how old/young/healthy they were at the times, and give the same context for Russell's HOF teammates and the scale tips in Russell's favor

[Flash31]

Who says hes not
ESPN
And stars who played in the 80s and 90s with Jordan

Wilt is GOAT depending on person

the untouchable 4 who can be called GOAT

Wilt,Russell,Kareem,Jordan

[millwad]

...give context for every one of these players - and how long they played with Wilt and how old/young/healthy they were at the times, and give the same context for Russell's HOF teammates and the scale tips in Russell's favor

Read this again;


Wilt played with a total of 9 HOF:ers during his career and 9 All-Stars. Yes, not all of them played with Wilt during their prime but that's a very remarkable number of talented players. 18 HOF/All-stars.....


And it wasn't a big research between Wilt's teammates compared to Russell's but it completely destroys the nonsense Jlauber has been spamming about a la Wilt's "horrible" teammates and how they destroyed his legacy. Plenty of the mentioned players played with Wilt during their primes.

[305Baller]

He would probably have more than 10 championships as the man. He had some of the best stats in the history of the game.

Yeah but legend had it that Russel's defense and team-play was a major factor in the Celtics dynamic. Wilt was more of the one-man force. But you never know...

[steve]

I never said that Russell didn't play with fine players, I'm just saying that Wilt played with fine players as well.

Wilt played with a total of 9 HOF:ers during his career and 9 All-Stars. Yes, not all of them played with Wilt during their prime but that's a very remarkable number of talented players. 18 HOF/All-stars.....

HOF:ers Wilt played with:


Jerry West
Hal Greer
Elgin Baylor
Gail Goodrich
Paul Arizin
Tom Gola
Nate Thurmond
Chet Walker
Billy Cunningham

All-stars Wilt played with:

Luke Jackson
Guy Rodgers
Woody Sauldsberry
Tom Meschery
Larry Costello
Red Kerr
Willie Naulls
Flynn Robinson
Bill Bridges

Although you're leaving out the fact that he never played with more than two of these players at a time (the Hall of Famers that is) and of the All-Stars you listed, only Rodgers, Jackson, and Costello played with him for more than one full season and only Rodgers and Jackson could be said to have played with him in their prime's. Chamberlain's teams were talented and good, but it's not accurate to say and they even approached the level of talent and depth the Celtics had, especially from '59 to '66.

[Nashty]

No.

Just read this and you'll know why.

[URL="http://www.behindthebasket.com/btb/2011/9/15/its-all-about-the-ws-bill-russell.html"]It

[livinglegend]

Who says hes not
ESPN
And stars who played in the 80s and 90s with Jordan

Wilt is GOAT depending on person

the untouchable 4 who can be called GOAT

Wilt,Russell,Kareem,Jordan

I actually have Russell as the GOAT. I guess it changes from 1 person to another. It s the media that has created the allusion that Jordan is the ultimate GOAT because it s harder to compare today s players to Wilt and Russell .They are not many video footages of them, also because the game has evolved a lot.

[LAZERUSS]

[QUOTE=Nashty]No.

Just read this and you'll know why.

[URL="http://www.behindthebasket.com/btb/2011/9/15/its-all-about-the-ws-bill-russell.html"]It

[fpliii]

LAZERUSS - A little OT, but can you talk a bit about the 63-64 SFW season? As I said above, it's one of the best defensive seasons in league history (#14 in my files). I've gathered what I could from SI, a few biographies, stats, and articles from other cities (don't have access to SF Chronicle papers at the moment), but I still don't feel I have enough information. Not to hyperbolize, but I think Wilt was playing close to the same level as he did during his MVP threepeat seasons. Incredible year it seems.

[teddytwelvetoes]

The Celtics would have won less championships if Wilt replaced Russell

[LAZERUSS]

[QUOTE=Nashty]No.

Just read this and you'll know why.

[URL="http://www.behindthebasket.com/btb/2011/9/15/its-all-about-the-ws-bill-russell.html"]It

[LAZERUSS]

LAZERUSS - A little OT, but can you talk a bit about the 63-64 SFW season? As I said above, it's one of the best defensive seasons in league history (#14 in my files). I've gathered what I could from SI, a few biographies, stats, and articles from other cities (don't have access to SF Chronicle papers at the moment), but I still don't feel I have enough information. Not to hyperbolize, but I think Wilt was playing close to the same level as he did during his MVP threepeat seasons. Incredible year it seems.

Since I was going to cover this, your post came at a good time.

As I noted above, the 63-64 Warriors were not a very good team. They were basically the same roster that had gone 31-49 the year before. True, they added rookie Nate Thurmond, but he was a center playing out of position at the forward slot. Furthermore, he only played part-time, and only shot .395 from the field.

Their second best player was Tom Meschery, who averaged 13.5 ppg, 7.7 rpg, and shot .458 from the field. Aside from Al Attles, who seldom shot but shot .452, and backup Kenny Sears, who shot .442, they did not have one single player shooting better than Nate's .395. Guy Rodgers, who was arguably the worst shooter in NBA history, shot .365. Their other starter, Wayne Hightwoer shot .385, and their first backup Gary Phillips shot .370.

Hannum did get the team to play better defense, and articles at the time mention that Wilt's defense had become better as well. His DWin Shares was at 10.6, which is the highest non-Russell season in NBA history.

Again, somehow Wilt willed that team to a 48-32 record. Keep that record in mind. And how about his entire post-season, covering 12 games. In a post-season NBA that averaged 105.8 ppg and on .420 shooting, Chamberlain averaged 34.7 on .543 shooting (as well as 25.2 rpg.)

Wilt had a health scare early in the 64-65 season, and even the Warrior team doctors feared that he was a walking time-bomb. With Wilt at nowhere near 100% at the time, and the Warrior roster playing back to '63 levels, SF plunged to a horrible record (going 10-27 even with Wilt.)

Fearing the worst, they shipped Wilt off to Philly at mid-season, for three players, including Paul Neumann. And while they had gone 10-27 with Chamberlain, they would go 7-36 without him.

This is where we see Wilt's true impact at it's peak.

Chamberlain came to a stumbling Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before. And once again, they had to shell out three players and a boatload of cash to acquire Chamberlain.

With Wilt, the Sixers went 21-20, and finished the campaign at 40-40. They then trounced the 48-32 Royals in the first round of the playoffs. And, in the EDF's, and playing against a Celtic team that had gone 62-18, and was at it's zenith, Chamberlain put up a 30 ppg, 31 rpg, .555 FG% series, including a game seven of 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds, in a 110-109 loss. Once again, Chamberlain was nearly sigle-handedly carrying a team past the greatest dynasty in professional team sports history.

Back to the Warriors. They would go 17-63 in that 64-65 season, which enabled them to draft Rick Barry...who would go on to have a HOF career. The Wilt trade also allowed them to move Thurmond to his natural center position. And with Meschery as their third best player, the 65-66 Warriors could still only go 35-45. So, the Warriors basicaly replaced Chamberlain with both Barry and Thurmond, and they could still only go 35-45.

By the 66-67 season, the Warriors added Jeff Mullins (an outstanding scorer in his career), Clyde Lee (probably the premier rebounding PF in his career), and Fred Hetzel (who would average 21 ppg his very next season) to go along with Thurmond, Barry, Neumann, and Meschery.

Think about this: With Barry averaging 35.6 ppg, and Thurmond having the finest season of his career (he would finish #2 in the MVP voting behind Wilt), and with the rest of those players, the Warriors could only go 44-37. Hell, Meschery averaged 11 ppg as their seventh best player. When he was Wilt's second best player, he averaged 13, and yet Chamberlain still led that 63-64 team to a 48-32 record...which was better than what the loaded 66-67 Warriors could achieve without him.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

By the mid-60's, Chamberlain was clearly the best player in the NBA (as he probably was even at the beginning of his career.) He was voted MVP by the players three straight seasons from '66 thru '68, and by considerable margins. In fact, during the decade of the 60's, Wilt and Russell each won four MVPs, but there was very questionable voting in '62 and '64 (and Wilt should have won both years), as well as in '63 and '69. Furthermore, the writers gave Wilt a 7-2 edge in the ten seasons that he and Russell were in the league together in the first-team all-NBA voting.

In any case, by the mid-60's Chamberlain was just murdering the likes of Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, and yes, Russell in their h2h's. I won't go into the details now, but I can later if pressed. But, these h2h's were completely one-sided.

And the Sixers would go on to have the best record in the league in Wilt's last three seasons there. Many consider his '66-67 season as his greatest, but his 65-66 season may very well have been even more dominant. Once again, he was crushing even Nate Thurmond...a Thurmond who would later reduce a prime Kareem to just horrible shooting. In that 65-66 season, Chamberlain would averaged 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, 5.2 apg, shoot a then record .540 from the field (in a league that shot .433 overall), and was probably blocking close to 10 shots a game.

In that 65-66 regular season, his Sixers went 6-3 against Boston, and in those games, he averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, and shot an estimated .525 from the floor.

However, in the '66 EDF's, the Celtics blew out the Sixers, 4-1. Surely it was Wilt's fault, right? Well, all Wilt did in the '66 EDF's was average 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509. How about his teammates? They collectively shot .352 from the field. Wilt was essentially playing the exact same way as he did in the regular season, but his teammates just flat out choked.

The 66-67 Sixers stormed out of the gate, and in an early season encounter, they just annihilated Boston, 138-96. At one point in the season they were 46-4. They coasted down the stretch, but still finished with what was an all-time best record, at the time, of 68-13.

And with Wilt's teammates finally neutralizing Russell's...and with Chamberlain just demolishing Russell in every facet of the game, the Sixers wiped out "the Dynasty", 4-1. In fact, had they not played poorly in Boston, in a game four, 121-117 loss, they would have swept the Celtics.

And in the clinching game five, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 29-4, which included 22 first half points, when the game was still close; while outshooting Russell, 10-16 to 2-5; outassisting Russell, 13-7; and outrebounding Russell, 36-21, in a blowout win. The 140-116 final score was deceptive, too. Early in the game, the Celtics actually had a 17 point lead. Late in the 4th quarter, the Sixers were leading 131-104...or a 44 point turnaround.

The 67-68 season was no different. The Sixers ran away with the best record in the league, and were prohibitive favorites going into the playoffs. Then, the roof caved in. First HOFer Billy Cunningham broke his wrist in the first round of the playoffs (a 4-2 win over the Knicks), and would miss the rest of the post-season. Still, even without Cunningham, the Sixers forged a 3-1 series lead. It was so bad that even Auerbach made the famous comment, "It's too bad, because they will forget just how great he[Russell] was."

In game five, two key starters, Luke Jackson and Wali Jones, also went down with leg injuries, and were worthless the rest of the series. On top of all of that, even Chamberlain, himself, was nursing a variety of injuries, including a torn calf, which caused Russell to say, "A lessor man would not have played." And with Chamberlain's teammates mis-firing the entire game seven, and ignoring Wilt on top of it, the Sixers fell to Boston, 100-96.

So, with all of the injuries, the 67-68 Sixers still only lost a game seven by four points. Had the team been as healthy as they were the previous season, and they likely would have repeated that 4-1 blowout of the Celtics in the '67 EDF's.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

In Wilt's three-and-half seasons in Philly, he took a bottom-feeding Sixer franchise, first to a game seven, one point loss against the peak Celtics in '65, and then to three straight seasons with the best record in the league, and a world title.

However, after Sixer owner Ike Richmond died, the new Philly ownership refused to acknowledge what Wilt claimed was a verbal agreement for Chamberlain to eventually become part-owner of the team. A furious Wilt basically demanded that the Sixers either honor that oral contract, or he would demand a trade. Now, the ABA had come along in that 67-68 season, so Wilt now had all the leverage he needed. He basically orchestrated his "trade" to the Lakers. So, contrary to what Bill Simmons would have you believe, Wilt was not actually traded by the Sixers, but more-or-less they were forced to deal him.

The Wilt-critics love to point this out: The 67-68 Sixers, with Wilt, went 62-20, while the 68-69 Sixers, without Chamberlain, only dropped to 55-27. Furthermore, they contend, that the 67-68 Lakers were 52-30 without Chamberlain, while the 68-69 Lakers could only go 55-27 with Wilt.

Let's take a closer look shall we? First of all, Chamberlain was traded for three players, two of which were quality players. It's not like Wilt just jumped ship to LA for nothing. Those two players, Archie Clark and Darrell Imhoff, actually accounted for 29 ppg and 15 rpg for the Lakers in the '68 season (in fact, Clark was an all-star who averaged 20 ppg that year.)

Furthermore, in the first round of the '69 playoffs, and with Clark and Imhoff collectively averaging 36 ppg, 20 rpg, and shooting .510 from the field in Wilt's absence...the Sixers were wiped out by the 48-34 Celtics, 4-1. Just the year before, and injured Wilt, who was noticeably limping throughout the EDF's, had put up a 22-25 series, in a 4-3 series loss, which included a four point loss in game seven. And the rest of that Sixer squad had been decimated by injuries, as well. And, just the year before that, the Sixers had gone 68-13 and just annihilated Boston in the EDF's, en route to a dominating title.

The reality was, the Sixers had gone from a dominating champion, to a first round bust after the Wilt trade. And it would get worse. By the time Chamberlain retired following the 72-73 season, the Sixer franchise had plummetted all the way down to a still record of 9-73.

How about the Lakers after the Chamberlain trade? True, they "only" went 55-27. But, first of all, that was a franchise record in LA at the time. Secondly, and once again, the Lakers essentially traded Clark and Imhoff, and their collective 29 ppg and 15 rpp, to get Wilt. And finally, and something that the Simmonites will never mention, was the fact that the Lakers also lost Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft (and he was by far, the best player in that draft BTW.) How valuable was Goodrich for the '68 Lakers. Jerry West missed 31 games that season, and with Goodrich and Clark in their backcourt, they still went 19-12 in those games.

Now, both Clark and Goodrich were gone. And their replacement was journeyman Johnny Egan, whose gaffe in game four of the Finals, likely cost the Lakers a 4-1 series romp over Boston. And, BTW, West would miss 20 more games in that '69 season, too. With all of that, the Lakers still set a then LA record of 55-27. So, a case could be made that Wilt had to replace 42 ppg and 18 rpg that season, and he was still able to carry LA to a best-ever record, at the time.

And the reality was, with the player losses, the '69 Lakers were not a deep team. Compounding the problem, was the fact that they had an incompetent coach, who disliked Wilt from day one. In fact, he was even benching Chamberlain at times during the regular season. And he would later bench Wilt at the worst possible time, in a move that not only cost him his career, but likely cost LA their first-ever world title.

On top of the player losses, Elgin Baylor suddenly went MIA in the playoffs (and even moreso in the Finals.) Granted, with Van Breda Kolf shackling Chamberlain, it was probably Wilt's worst season of his career. He had his share of failures in the Finals, too. But still, he outplayed Russell, particularly in game seven, so it was not like Russell was the better player at the time.

How close did the '69 Lakers come to winning the title? In game three, West and Baylor combined to shoot 1-14 in the 4th quarter, in a 111-105 loss. BTW, Baylor shot 2-12 from the field in that game. In game four, an 89-88 loss, Baylor shot 2-14 from the field, and 1-6 from the line. Furthermore, the Lakers had the lead, 88-87, and the ball, with about 15 seconds left. In one of the many bizarre moves by Van Breda Kolf, instead of having West handling the ball, he had Egan with it. The result was an inevitable Boston steal, and a miraculous shot by Sam Jones at the buzzer, and as he was falling down. Had West had the ball, and with LA's game five romp over Boston, and the Lakers likely would have won that series, 4-1.

And everyone knows about the game seven loss, and with Wilt on the bench in the last five-plus minutes of that game...a two-point loss. What Simmons would not mention, though, was that the Lakers had stormed back from a 17 point deficit with 10 minutes to go, down to a seven point margin with a little over five minutes to go. In a matter of four-plus minutes, they had chopped ten points off of that huge hole. Clearly the Celtics were hanging on for dear life. Sam Jones had already fouled out, and Russell, while playing, was nowhere to be found in the entire 4th quarter.

Chamberlain had briefly taken himself out of the game at under the six minute mark, with a leg injury, and at around the three minute mark, he asked to go back in. Van Breda Kolf refused, and with the great mel Counts filling in for Wilt (and shooting 4-13 from the field overall in that game), which included missing a key shot, and contributing a key turnover late, and with Boston's Don Nelson hitting a miraculous game-winning shot, the Celtics survived to beat the Lakers.

Van Breda Kolf resigned shortly after that loss (but his firing would have been imminent...even West was furious with how he had handled the Chamberlain situation), and his career went downhill after that.

Continued...

[DatAsh]

Continued...

I don't doubt it.

[LAZERUSS]

I realize that the OP's main point was how many titles would have Chamberlain won with the Celtics, and presumably during the ten years he, and Russell, were in the league together.

But to conclude Wilt's "impact", which was questioned earlier by another poster, here was a brief look at his Laker career, which encompassed five seasons.

In his five years as a Laker, LA went to the Finals four times, which included losing two game seven's (one in which Wilt was on the bench, and the other in a series in which Chamberlain dominated, despite only being four months removed from major knee surgery, and nowhere near 100%.) And, in the year in which they did not make the Finals, they were without both West and Baylor in the playoffs, and Chamberlain still managed to get them past a very good Bulls team in the '71 playoffs, before losing to the 66-16 Bucks, with Alcindor and Oscar, 4-1. However, even in that series, Wilt matched KAJ, point-for-point, outrebounded him, and outshot him. This from an old Wilt, playing on a surgically repaired knee, and having the worst season of his career. In fact, the two went at 10 times that season (five in the regular season, and again five more times in the post-season), and Wilt arguably outplayed Kareem that year. And once again, this was a Wilt who was nowhere the dominating player that he had been in the 60's.

The Lakers also won their first-ever title in Los Angeles, with Wilt, as well. In fact, they set a still team record of 69-13 in '72, which included still record run of 33 straight wins. How dominant was that Laker team that year? Including post-season games, they went 4-1 against the 56-26 Celtics; 8-2 against the HOF-laden Knicks; 5-1 against the 51-31 Warriors; 7-1 against the 57-25 Bulls; and 8-3 against the defending champion, and 63-19, Bucks. And in that post-season, and with West just puking all over the floor, especially in the Finals, Wilt carried them to that title, and won the FMVP along the way.

In Wilt's final season, the Lakers went 60-22. At age 36, he finished 4th in the MVP voting; led the league in rebounding; was voted first-team all-defense; and set a FG% mark of .727 that will likely never be broken. In the post-season, he averaged 22.5 rpg (in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg BTW), and just murdered Boerwinkle, Thurmond, and Reed on the glass in the process. As a sidenote, it would be the last time a player would ever average 20+ rpg in the playoffs, and in fact, the next best mark since, is Kareem's 17.3 rpg in his 11 games in the '77 playoffs.

The '73 Lakers lost four close games to the Knicks and their six HOFers in the Finals (all four games were decided in the last minute and the margins were 4, 4, 5, and 9 points.) And in Wilt's very last game of his career, and against HOFer Reed, he put up a 23 point, 9-16 shooting, 21 rebound game.

He "retired" following that 72-73 season, and what happened the Lakers? They replaced him with Elmore Smith, but still dropped to 47-35, and were waxed in the first round of the playoffs. The next season they plummetted to a 30-52 record. They traded for Kareem before the start of the 75-76 season, and could still only go 40-42 with KAJ. And even with loaded rosters by the end of the 70's, the Lakers were huge under-achievers. It wasn't until Magic arrived in the 79-80, that they returned to the levels that Wilt had left them at.


THAT was the impact of Chamberlain's career. Every team he joined immediately became title contenders, and every team he left became first round cannon-fodder, or worse.

[mehyaM24]

...still waiting to see wilt do anything on shaqs level...show me his coast to coast plays(let me guess,centers werent allowed to do that in his era?....:oldlol:) ..wilt didnt even come close to shaqs quickness..how did he fail to shoot 50% in college?

wilt NEVER cracked 55% in 7 scoring title yrs....his high fg% years are when he rarely shot.

meanwhile, shaq had 19 straight yrs over 55%...EVERY SINGLE YEAR...just imagine what he would do vs weak 60s defenses when bad teams scored 110+ pts

[LAZERUSS]

...still waiting to see wilt do anything on shaqs level...show me his coast to coast plays...let me guess,centers werent allowed to do that in wilts era....:oldlol: ..wilt didnt even come close to shaqs quickness..how did wilt fail to shoot 50% in college?

wilt NEVER cracked 55% in 7 scoring title yrs....his high fg% years are when he rarely shot.

meanwhile, shaq had 19 straight yrs over 55%...EVERY SINGLE YEAR...just imagine what he would do vs weak 60s defenses when bad teams scored 110+ pts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak

As for FG%'s...Wilt played in an NBA that had an eFG% that ranged from .395 to .460.

Shaq played in an NBA that ranged from .466 to .491.

Wilt averaged 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting, in a league that had an eFG% of .433. Oh, and he led his team to the best record in the league in doing so. And he also had a season in which he averaged 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting in a league that had an eFG% of .441. Also, Wilt had the highest scoring game(s) in every year in the decade of the 60's. In his 68-69 season, in a year in which he hardly shot the ball, he had two games of 60+, including one of 66, and on 29-35 shooting (.829, which is still the record for a 60+ point game.)

And, in his 69-70 season, and before he blew out his knee in the ninth game, he was leading the NBA in scoring at 32.2 ppg, and on .579 shooting.

Shaq faced Hakeem in the post-season, and while he outplayed him, he didn't shred him like an old Kareem, at ages 38 and 39 did (in 10 straight h2h's, Kareem averaged 32 ppg on .630 shooting against Hakeem), and yet those "weak" defenses of the '60's, were anchored by the likes of Nate Thurmond, who held a prime KAJ to about .440 shooting in their 40 career h2h's.

[mehyaM24]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak

As for FG%'s...Wilt played in an NBA that had an eFG% that ranged from .395 to .460.

Shaq played in an NBA that ranged from .466 to .491.

Wilt averaged 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting, in a league that had an eFG% of .433. Oh, and he led his team to the best record in the league in doing so. And he also had a season in which he averaged 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting in a league that had an eFG% of .441. Also, Wilt had the highest scoring game(s) in every year in the decade of the 60's. In his 68-69 season, in a year in which he hardly shot the ball, he had two games of 60+, including one of 66, and on 29-35 shooting (.829, which is still the record for a 60+ point game.)

And, in his 69-70 season, and before he blew out his knee in the ninth game, he was leading the NBA in scoring at 32.2 ppg, and on .579 shooting.

he played in a league at its infancy!!!... the footage clearly shows wilt was overrated

..again has wilt ever led a fast break after getting a defensive rebound under his own basket?..

go to youtube and type in...
"shaq bigtime coast to coast dunk"
"shaq starts and finishes the fastbreak"
"shaq leads a fast break!"
"shaquille o'neal goes coast to coast with dream team 2"

dont tell me if wilt was playing today nobody would talk about anyone else....he couldnt even produce sellouts in his own era...cool guy, but boring player.

[LAZERUSS]

he played in a league at its infancy!!!... the footage clearly shows wilt was an overrated...again has willt ever led a fast break after getting a defensive rebound under his own basket?..

go to youtube and type in...
"shaq bigtime coast to coast dunk"
"shaq starts and finishes the fastbreak"
"shaq leads a fast break!"
"shaquille o'neal goes coast to coast with dream team 2"

dont tell me if wilt was playing today nobody would talk about anyone else....he couldnt even produce sellouts in his own era...cool guy, but boring player.

The NBA was not in it's infancy. It was formed in 1946. And basketball has been played, with essentially the same rules, since the 1890's. There is nothing being done in today's NBA, that wasn't being performed long ago.

Once again, a prime KAJ...seven games of 30+, with a high of 34, against an old Thurmond, and on .440 shooting, in over 40 h2h games. An old KAJ, at ages 38 and 39, had ten straight games against Hakeem, in which he averaged 32 ppg, and on .630 shooting, which included games of 40, 43, and 46 (and on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.)

Shaq's high game against Hakeem... 37 points.

Oh, and BTW, a prime Chamberlain faced Thurmond in 11 straight h2h games, and had six of 30+, including on in which he outscored Thurmond, 38-15, and another in which he outscored Nate, 45-13. Oh, and while KAJ had three straight post-seasons of shooting .486, .428, and even .405 against Thurmond (and was outscored by him as well in that series), Chamberlain had three playoff series against Nate in which he outshot Thurmond by margins of .500-.392, .550-.398, and even .560-.343.

Explain the above to me...

[LAZERUSS]

How about this...

KAJ faced many of the same centers that a prime Chamberlain did.

Where are his 38 and 45 point games against Thurmond?

Where are his 52 and 58 point games against Reed (or an entire season, in nine h2h's, of averaging 40.1 ppg against him)?

KAJ faced Dierking in several fulltime games...his high game against him...41 points. Wilt, in the year before KAJ came into the league, hung a 60 point game on Dierking, and earlier in their career, even had one game in which he outscored him 52-4.

KAJ vs. Walt Bellamy (and old Bellamy BTW.) High game was 39, and he was even outscored by Bellamy in some of their 20+ h2h's. How about a prime Wilt vs. Bellamy? How about this...in 20 straight games, covering the 61-62 and 62-63 seasons, Wilt averaged, (yes averaged) 48.2 ppg against Bellamy. Which included four games of 60+, and a high of 73 (on 29-48 shooting, and with 36 rebounds.)

Where is KAJ's 58 point game against Imhoff, much less the 100 point game that Wilt handed him with a few games before?

A prime "scoring" Wilt just murdered every great center he faced. Many of them the same centers that a prime KAJ would also face, and yet, could come nowhere near as close as dominating them in the fashion that Wilt did.

And yet and old Kareem could easily pour in 40+ against Hakeem and Ewing?

Now you tell me who was more dominant?

[mehyaM24]

The NBA was not in it's infancy. It was formed in 1946. And basketball has been played, with essentially the same rules, since the 1890's. There is nothing being done in today's NBA, that wasn't being performed long ago.

Once again, a prime KAJ...seven games of 30+, with a high of 34, against an old Thurmond, and on .440 shooting, in over 40 h2h games. An old KAJ, at ages 38 and 39, had ten straight games against Hakeem, in which he averaged 32 ppg, and on .630 shooting, which included games of 40, 43, and 46 (and on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.)

Shaq's high game against Hakeem... 37 points.

Oh, and BTW, a prime Chamberlain faced Thurmond in 11 straight h2h games, and had six of 30+, including on in which he outscored Thurmond, 38-15, and another in which he outscored Nate, 45-13. Oh, and while KAJ had three straight post-seasons of shooting .486, .428, and even .405 against Thurmond (and was outscored by him as well in that series), Chamberlain had three playoff series against Nate in which he outshot Thurmond by margins of .500-.392, .550-.398, and even .560-.343.

Explain the above to me...



....get ready for some embarrasing stats...check wilts playoff record in his scoring title years, which people are so impressed by....

22-30 .423% playoff record in 7 scoring title years!!!...lol

for comparison sake, lets use shaq.

26-18 .591% playoff record in 2 scoring title years....more playoff wins in 2 scoring title yrs than wilt in 7....

what to take away from these stats? when wilt got the ball the most,his team underperformed....when shaq got the ball the most,his team succeeded....

[LAZERUSS]

....get ready for some embarrasing stats...check wilts playoff record in his scoring title years, which people are so impressed by....

22-30 .423% playoff record in 7 scoring title years!!!...lol

for comparison sake, lets use shaq.

26-18 .591% playoff record in 2 scoring title years....more playoff wins in 2 scoring title yrs than wilt in 7....

what to take away from these stats? when wilt got the ball the most,his team underperformed....when shaq got the ball the most,his team succeeded....

Wilt faced Russell 30 times in those 52 games, and almost led his team to stunning series wins against them in the process. And how often was he favored in them? Who were the centers that Shaq faced in those two playoff runs, and how come he didn't win a title in one of them? And wasn't his team favored in all of them?

[mehyaM24]

Wilt faced Russell 30 times in those 52 games, and almost led his team to stunning series wins against them in the process. And how often was he favored in them? Who were the centers that Shaq faced in those two playoff runs, and how come he didn't win a title in one of them? And wasn't his team favored in all of them?

uhh...last time I checked,mutombo was DPOY in 2001......yao ming = shaq ousted him in 2004(this....while kobe couldn't crack 40% vs his "legendary" cuttino mobley matchup :oldlol:)....ben Wallace = 4-time DPOY.....it never mattered who shaq played.....point is wilt has never....ever.....ever...faced the competition shaq saw in the 90s and 2000s. FACT!!..

[LAZERUSS]

last time I checked,mutombo was DPOY in 2001......yao ming = shaq ousted him in 2004(this, while kobe couldn't crack 40% vs his "legendary" cuttino mobley matchup :oldlol:)....ben Wallace = 4-time DPOY.....it never mattered who shaq played.....point is wilt has never....ever.....ever...faced the competition shaq saw in the 90s and 2000s. FACT!!..

Yep...Chamberlain only faced chumps in his post-seasons. In his 160 post-season games, he faced a HOF starting center in 105 of them, and a multiple all-star in another 26. So, he was facing a good, to very great center, in 131 of his 160 post-season games. He faced Reed 18 times, Thurmond 17 times, Bellamy 11 times, a prime Kareem 11 times, and Russell in another 49.

[LAZERUSS]

uhh...last time I checked,mutombo was DPOY in 2001......yao ming = shaq ousted him in 2004(this....while kobe couldn't crack 40% vs his "legendary" cuttino mobley matchup :oldlol:)....ben Wallace = 4-time DPOY.....it never mattered who shaq played.....point is wilt has never....ever.....ever...faced the competition shaq saw in the 90s and 2000s. FACT!!..

BTW, how many times were Shaq's teams swept in the playoffs?

[mehyaM24]

BTW, how many times were Shaq's teams swept in the playoffs?

:roll:

check wilt and shaq's CAREER winning %....then get back to me....lmaoo

[Deuce Bigalow]

BTW, how many times were Shaq's teams swept in the playoffs?
Championships
Shaquille "I'd average 85 on Wilt" O'Neal - 4
Wilted like a flower in the clutch Chamberlain - 2

[Pointguard]

Aurabach was among the best at picking self motivated leaders there ever was in the game. A large part of Russell's success was his marriage to Red Auerbach who was GM and coach. Russell called him one of the greatest leaders he ever met. I imagine the tandem to be like Duncan and Pop. And Red recruited the best basketball leaders and complimentary players ever known to the sport. So the drop off of having Wilt in Russell's place wouldn't be dramatic or half. What Wilt lacked would have been complimented by Red. I think it would be more like 8 instead of 11 chips. I don't think Wilt has the monster games to claim but he would have better quadruple double numbers.

[TheTenth]

Championships
Shaquille "I'd average 85 on Wilt" O'Neal - 4
Wilted like a flower in the clutch Chamberlain - 2
Lame trolling.:facepalm

[LAZERUSS]

Aurabach was among the best at picking self motivated leaders there ever was in the game. A large part of Russell's success was his marriage to Red Auerbach who was GM and coach. Russell called him one of the greatest leaders he ever met. I imagine the tandem to be like Duncan and Pop. And Red recruited the best basketball leaders and complimentary players ever known to the sport. So the drop off of having Wilt in Russell's place wouldn't be dramatic or half. What Wilt lacked would have been complimented by Red. I think it would be more like 8 instead of 11 chips. I don't think Wilt has the monster games to claim but he would have better quadruple double numbers.

It's interesting speculation. John Wooden claimed that had Wilt had Russell's teammates, and Auerbach as his coach, that he might have won all those rings.

IMO, swap rosters in their first six seasons in the league together, and Chamberlain probably goes 6-6. And, as Psileas noted earlier, maybe Wilt doesn't go 6-6, but there is probably no way that Russell wins any titles with the teams that Wilt had.

Where it becomes interesting is in their last four seasons together. Does Russell take the '68 Sixers, injuries and all, and beat Wilt and his healthy Celtics?

Does Russell change the '66 Sixers dynamic enough to overcome their actual .352 FG% (not including Wilt's .509)?

And in '67, when Chamberlain's teammates finally neutralized Russell's, would his much lower numbers across the board against Wilt, be enough to still keep the Sixers on the winning side?

Finally, and the biggest question mark in my mind...how does Baylor perform in the '69 Finals, with Russell as a teammate, instead of Wilt? Because even with West have a monster series, and Chamberlain outplaying Russell, it was not enough to overcome Boston.

Your guesstimate of eight rings is probably a good one. And perhaps Russell then "only" wins three in the Chamberlain-era, and five overall (unless we remove Russell from Boston altogether in his career.)

A Chamberlain with eight rings, even with less scoring records, would probably still be conidered the clear-cut GOAT.

Of course, none of the above takes anything away from what actually occurred in Chamberlain's career. He simply dominated all of his peers, including Russell. The unintelligent that spout out nonsense about him being a "choker" will never acknowledge that he was outplaying, or downright destroying, his opposing centers in the process...especially in his prime. Only Wilt would be considered a "choker" when he was outscoring, outrebounding, and outshooting his opposing centers by huge margins in many of his 29 post-season series. And only Wilt would be considered a "loser" when he was taking last place rosters to within an eyelash of beating HOF-laden teams.

Of course, when he actually had a good roster, that was healthy, and played to a normal level, he led them to a dominating world title. That is all anyone really needs to know in these "what if" scenarios. Given equal surrounding talent, and with Chamberlain's typical overwhelming play, and the result was as convincing a title run as has there ever been.