Wilt scores 73 points and grabs 35 rebounds against Walt Bellamy

[jongib369]

http://www.kagavi.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Leifer5.jpg


http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss297/baby_cash59/Autographes/TTMWaltBELLAMY001-2.jpg


http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss297/baby_cash59/Autographes/TTMWaltBellamy001-1.jpg

Is this not the most someones scored against a hall of fame player?

Walt Bellamy "Big Bell" basketball video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pOeiWbUZTw



Walt Bellamy, first half dunks vs Milwaukee Bucks 1970-71 (Wilt Chamberlain Archive)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C3nEjw3WRY

[Nezty]

The true GOAT :bowdown:

[CavaliersFTW]

After talking with people from the NBA archive database project I'm 100% certain that this game does NOT exist on film and that Bill Simmons straight up lied about watching it and receiving it as a "gift" from the NBA. He used that alleged 'game film' as a means to talk trash about Chamberlain in his book - saying what he saw from film was not impressive. :facepalm guy will do anything to prop up Russell.

[ShaqAttack3234]

After talking with people from the NBA archive database project I'm 100% certain that this game does NOT exist on film and that Bill Simmons straight up lied about watching it and receiving it as a "gift" from the NBA. He used that game as a means to talk trash about Chamberlain in his book - saying what he saw from film was not impressive. :facepalm guy will do anything to prop up Russell.

Interesting, what led you to believe this game doesn't exist on film?

[jongib369]

After talking with people from the NBA archive database project I'm 100% certain that this game does NOT exist on film and that Bill Simmons straight up lied about watching it and receiving it as a "gift" from the NBA. He used that alleged 'game film' as a means to talk trash about Chamberlain in his book - saying what he saw from film was not impressive. :facepalm guy will do anything to prop up Russell.
Make a video calling him out on it. Get super into it like Bruce Blitz, or that guy who SPEAKS IN CAPS ALL THE ****ING TIME IN THE COMMENT SECTION ON YOUR VIDEOS

[jongib369]

After talking with people from the NBA archive database project I'm 100% certain that this game does NOT exist on film and that Bill Simmons straight up lied about watching it and receiving it as a "gift" from the NBA. He used that alleged 'game film' as a means to talk trash about Chamberlain in his book - saying what he saw from film was not impressive. :facepalm guy will do anything to prop up Russell.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7V4YsQtPUsk/Tc7q5MdLQfI/AAAAAAAAACY/WcuWsbrfTdA/s640/rjb.JPG

[SilkkTheShocker]

I think rings get overrated. But why didn't Wilt win more titles?

[La Frescobaldi]

I think rings get overrated. But why didn't Wilt win more titles?

You should study this chart right here:


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7V4YsQtPUsk/Tc7q5MdLQfI/AAAAAAAAACY/WcuWsbrfTdA/s640/rjb.JPG

It's another example of why Simmons is a liar. He says, in writing, that Chamberlain had the same quality teammates that Russell had. Anyone who's even read briefly in the primary sources , or watched film of those seasons knows that's the full load of dog poop.
Simmons = garbage as a writer. He might as well have been working for NBC news during a certain recent well-known trial (if you didn't know, NBC is being sued - they had to fire their reporters for publishing articles calling the defendant a murderer and conflating sentences to make him appear a racist). Complete worthlessness in a journalist.

[Marchesk]

You should study this chart right here:
.

Even so, it doesn't explain why Wilt only has two. 31 to 21 sounds like Wilt should have had five. Particularly when he's teamed up with West and Baylor.

That being said, 73 and 35 against another HOF center is just sick. Imagine what people would have said if Shaq had put up those numbers on Ewing.

[jongib369]

Are you considering how old/healthy Baylor, West and himself were while he played with them?Russell played with those guys healthy/prime except for cousy on all around better teams

[Harison]

Even so, it doesn't explain why Wilt only has two. 31 to 21 sounds like Wilt should have had five. Particularly when he's teamed up with West and Baylor.


Wilt only won two because he cared about personal stats more than about the winning, thats it.

Teammates argument is shortsighted and (deliberately?) ignores the fact some of Russell's teammates wouldnt be in HOF if not Russell and the rings. Wilt sometimes lost to Russell even when Wilt had vastly superior team and Russ had no business winning, but he did, like in '69.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Even so, it doesn't explain why Wilt only has two. 31 to 21 sounds like Wilt should have had five. Particularly when he's teamed up with West and Baylor.

As far as years, Wilt "should have won" before his knee injury, I'd say '68 and '69. There are a variety of factors in both series vs the Celtics, but considering those series went 7 and Wilt could have played significantly better, I'd list those. Prior to 1967, it's probably fair to say Russell had the better teams, though that shouldn't discredit his own rings. However, the '66 Sixers did have the better record. In fairness, Wilt's teammates shot terribly, though Wilt himself didn't seem to be dominating, certainly not from a scoring standpoint through his first 4 games, and there was chemistry issues that brought into question Wilt's leadership with him skipping practices around this time.

'65 was the famous "Havlicek steals the ball" series, and by all accounts, Wilt did have an excellent series, so I don't hold that one against him. As far as '62, it seems that Russell and Wilt were pretty even as far as play game to game, though I'd give Russell the slight edge, but that series came down to the Sam Jones game-winner, and entering the series, few would doubt Russell had the better team on paper. So make of that what you will. Wilt's scoring did decline dramatically in the series, but part of the credit for that can go to Russell, and part of that can be attributed to a change in roles during the postseason.


Imagine what people would have said if Shaq had put up those numbers on Ewing.

Not to derail the thread or get into a Shaq vs Wilt thing, but since you used Shaq and Ewing as an examples, the numbers Shaq put up vs Ewing and the Knicks in his 3rd year were just sick.

41/17 on 17/26 shooting in 1 game, 38/10 on 16/23 shooting in another, 41/15/3 in another and 41/10 on 16/28 shooting in another.

[jongib369]

As far as years, Wilt "should have won" before his knee injury, I'd say '68 and '69. There are a variety of factors in both series vs the Celtics, but considering those series went 7 and Wilt could have played significantly better, I'd list those. Prior to 1967, it's probably fair to say Russell had the better teams, though that shouldn't discredit his own rings. However, the '66 Sixers did have the better record. In fairness, Wilt's teammates shot terribly, though Wilt himself didn't seem to be dominating, certainly not from a scoring standpoint through his first 4 games, and there was chemistry issues that brought into question Wilt's leadership with him skipping practices around this time.

'65 was the famous "Havlicek steals the ball" series, and by all accounts, Wilt did have an excellent series, so I don't hold that one against him. As far as '62, it seems that Russell and Wilt were pretty even as far as play game to game, though I'd give Russell the slight edge, but that series came down to the Sam Jones game-winner, and entering the series, few would doubt Russell had the better team on paper. So make of that what you will. Wilt's scoring did decline dramatically in the series, but part of the credit for that can go to Russell, and part of that can be attributed to a change in roles during the postseason.



Not to derail the thread or get into a Shaq vs Wilt thing, but since you used Shaq and Ewing as an examples, the numbers Shaq put up vs Ewing and the Knicks in his 3rd year were just sick.

41/17 on 17/26 shooting in 1 game, 38/10 on 16/23 shooting in another, 41/15/3 in another and 41/10 on 16/28 shooting in another.

:bowdown:


Wilt Chamberlain Points vs Rookie WILLIS REED

http://blog.gettyimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Willis-Reed-Wilt-Chamberlain-1970-New-York-Daily-News-Archive-Getty-Images-97338473-e1339521894214.jpg
.....WILT REED
1st. 52 ... 23
2nd. 41 ... 38
3rd. 36 ... 25
4th. 58 ... 26
5th. 46 ... 25
7th. 41 ... 8
8th. 29 ... 12
9th. 29 ... 35
10th 37 ... 24
11th.30 ... 20
12th.37 ... 22
13th.27 ... 14


Wilt VS rookie WALT BELLAMY

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdlatms8wL1qm9rypo1_1280.jpg

"When challenged, Wilt could do almost anything he wanted. In 1961 a new star named Walt Bellamy came into the league. Bellamy was 6-foot-11(barefoot), and was scoring 30 points a game. First time they played against each other, they met at half court. Bellamy said, 'Hello, Mr. Chamberlain. I'm Walter Bellamy.' Chamberlain reached for Bellamy's hand and said, 'Hello, Walter. You won't get a shot off in the first half.' Wilt then blocked Bellamy's first nine shots. At the start of the second half Wilt said to Bellamy, 'Okay, Walter. Now you can play.'"

(5th, 38 rebounds also I believe)
....WILT WALT
1st. 51 ... 14
2nd.39 ...27
3rd. 61 ...39
4th. 50 ...45
5th. 73 ...35
7th. 55 ...47
8th. 48 ...44
9th. 24 ...10


Wilt VS rookie WES UNSELD

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1ns8nk9K21qcp1zao1_500.jpg

WILT WES
1st. 26... 9
2nd. 22... 8
3rd. 25... 4
4th. 24... 20
5th. 17... 12
6th. 15... 13



Wilt VS rookie BOB LANIER
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2pex25uwd1qzwq3do1_400.jpg

WILT BOB

1st.27...18
2nd.24...8
3rd.12...14
4th.25...10
5th.11...8


Wilt vs rookie KAREEM ABDUL JABBAR(pre injury)

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me0an4jRRH1redybyo1_500.jpg

- Chamberlain 25 pts, 25 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 9-14 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 23 pts, 20 rebs, 2 as, 2 blocks, 9-21 FG/FGA L


Wilt VS NATE THURMOND(First year facing each other)

http://stlsportshistory.com/blog2/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/8.jpg


1st. 22 ... 12
2nd.24 ... 19
3rd.34 ... 25

[jongib369]

The amount of games Wilt and Shaq faced there top 7 piers (big WHOOPS if I missed someone...all thenumbers are off the top of my head...the are deff right except for reed...I might be like 4 to 5 games off TOPS...possibly the with same with Thurmond)

http://oi45.tinypic.com/i41thl.jpg



WILT


Russell- 142

Bellamy- 108

reed 74

Nate- 64

Kareem- 28

unseld- 20

Lanier 16


Totat= 452




SHAQ

Duncan 62

Robinson- 40

Mutombo-29

Hakeem- 28

Ewing- 26

Ming 18

Mourning 16


Total Games= 219


Wilt played more than twice the amount of games against his top 7 piers than shaq


I like how the smartest player each of them ever faced was the one they went up against the most :lol

(Wilt said Red Kerr was the smartest but I'm talking smarts/skill wise...not that Kerr was a bum)



http://sports-kings.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/shaq-2.jpg


http://oi48.tinypic.com/a4bgv9.jpg

:applause:

[LBJMVP]

IMO wilt is better than Russell. But everyone gets to play with five hall of game teammates (it more than that right). Russell won on the most stacked team in the history of sports. He was a player coach? Really? I could have coached bills team to a championship? wilt is the best center ever. He did play in a less talented league but even today he would be the best. His build and athletics meshes perfect for today. Look at his record for field goal petcentage. It's insane. Russell's 11 ring on the most stacked team in sports history in a very less talented league gets him very overrated. Sorry, but wilt in todays league makes him the best player in the nba while Russell is just Ben Wallace

[LAZERUSS]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7V4YsQtPUsk/Tc7q5MdLQfI/AAAAAAAAACY/WcuWsbrfTdA/s640/rjb.JPG


First of all, Russell played alongside HOF teammates (not just the 50 greatest), in 71 full seasons,to Wilts 27.

But, the above chart is flawed from this standpoint.

Nate Thurmond? Actually it was 1 1/2 years, and rookie Thurmond played part time, and out of position (since his natural position was center.) Not only that, but in that rookie season, he shot .395 from the field. And Wilt missed games in their next eason together, was never 100%, and was traded at mid-season. To use Thurmond as some kind of example is completely ridiculous.

Elgin Baylor? Four years? The two played together for exactly ONE full season (68-69...and Baylor had the worst post-season of his career.) In 69-70 Wilt shredded his knee, missed 70 games, and was nowhere near 100% in the post-season (and even then he was a considerably better player than the rapidly declining Baylor.) In 70-71 Baylor played TWO GAMES, and missed the post-season (as did West.) And in 71-72 Baylor was forced to retire after the first nine game (and LA immediately went on a 33 game winning streak.)

And as mentoned above, West missed the 70-71 post-season, so to claim that Wilt played with him for 5 years is deceptive. Furthermore, West played poorly in the 71-72 post-season (shot .376 in the playoffs...and only .325 in the Finals) and was nursing knee injuries in the 72-73 playoffs, and again played poorly.

So, it was not really a 31-21 margin above, but rather 31-16 (you simply can't count Thurmond at all, nor can you credit Baylor wit 4 years, when the two only played ONE full season together.)

And once again, if you include HOF teammates, playing in relatively FULL seasons, Russell had a 71-27 edge.

[LAZERUSS]

As far as years, Wilt "should have won" before his knee injury, I'd say '68 and '69. There are a variety of factors in both series vs the Celtics, but considering those series went 7 and Wilt could have played significantly better, I'd list those. Prior to 1967, it's probably fair to say Russell had the better teams, though that shouldn't discredit his own rings. However, the '66 Sixers did have the better record. In fairness, Wilt's teammates shot terribly, though Wilt himself didn't seem to be dominating, certainly not from a scoring standpoint through his first 4 games, and there was chemistry issues that brought into question Wilt's leadership with him skipping practices around this time.

'65 was the famous "Havlicek steals the ball" series, and by all accounts, Wilt did have an excellent series, so I don't hold that one against him. As far as '62, it seems that Russell and Wilt were pretty even as far as play game to game, though I'd give Russell the slight edge, but that series came down to the Sam Jones game-winner, and entering the series, few would doubt Russell had the better team on paper. So make of that what you will. Wilt's scoring did decline dramatically in the series, but part of the credit for that can go to Russell, and part of that can be attributed to a change in roles during the postseason.



Not to derail the thread or get into a Shaq vs Wilt thing, but since you used Shaq and Ewing as an examples, the numbers Shaq put up vs Ewing and the Knicks in his 3rd year were just sick.

41/17 on 17/26 shooting in 1 game, 38/10 on 16/23 shooting in another, 41/15/3 in another and 41/10 on 16/28 shooting in another.

Chamberlain's 67-68 Sixers WOULD have won had they not been DECIMATED by injuries. BUT, the Sixer squad that just destroyed the league during the regular season, was NOWHERE near the team that lost a game seven to Boston by four points.

HOFer Billy Cunningham missed the entire series. And even without him, the Sixers were still well on their way to beating Boston, leading 3-1. But, in game five, TWO more starters, Luke Jackson and Wali Jones suffered leg injuries, and were worthless the rest of the series. And this was not a deep Sixer roster, either. But even more importantly, Wilt was nusring a variety of injuries, including a strained hamstring, and a partial tear of his right calf, and was noticeably limping. Interesting that Reed suffered a tear in his right quad, and misses chunks of three games (inclduing one full game) in the '70 Finals, and is basically worthless in them...and he was hailed as "heroic", while Wilt played every minute of the '68 EDF's, with a similar injury, and put up a 22-25 series, and he is the one who gets the blame for "choking" away the series.

In any case, had the Sixers been healthy, I have no doubt that it would have been a repeat of the '67 EDF's, when Philly blew out the Celtics in five games.

[LAZERUSS]

:bowdown:

In the 65-66 season, Chamberlain and Thurmond went at nine times, and Wilt outscored Nate in eight of them. Included were margins of 33-10, 33-17, 38-15, and a staggering 45-13.

As for the Lanier matchups, Wilt not only averaged 28.8 ppg in those five h2h's against Lanier in that season, he shot an unfathomable .750 from the field against him. In fact, over the course of their 11 h2hs in 71-72 and 72-73, Chamberlain averaged 23.9 ppg on...get this...a .784 FG%.

Finally...the Bellamy h2h's were perhaps the most one-sided in NBA history. In their 10 h2h's in 61-62, Chamberlain averaged 52.7 ppg. In their 62-63 season h2h's, again covering 10 games, Wilt averaged 43.7 against Bellamy. Even as late as the 65-66 season, the two went at ten more times, and Chamberlain held an 8-1-1 scoring edge, and a total differentail of 33 ppg to 24 ppg, which included one game in which Chamberlain outscored bellamy, 50-26. And in the '67-68 playoffs, Wilt outscored Bellamy, per game, 25 ppg to 20 ppg, and outshot him from the field by a .584 to .421 margin (incidently, Bellamy had shot .541 during the regular NBA season.)

[LAZERUSS]

Even so, it doesn't explain why Wilt only has two. 31 to 21 sounds like Wilt should have had five. Particularly when he's teamed up with West and Baylor.

That being said, 73 and 35 against another HOF center is just sick. Imagine what people would have said if Shaq had put up those numbers on Ewing.

Once again, the actual margin in full seasons from HOF teammates was 71-27. Granted, Russell's "HOF" teammates included Satch Sanders, KC Jones, and Frank Ramsey...none of whom should be included in a REAL NBA HOF. But Wilt also had Tom Gola as a "HOF" teammate, and he has much business being in a true NBA HOF as I do. In fact, he was simply awful in his post-season play, both with, and without Chamberlain. In his last two post-seasons with Wilt, he shot .206 and .271 from the field. And even Arizin was not much better (he shot .328 and .375.)

Not only that, but Russell played alongside his HOF teammates much longer, as well. The bulk of them played with Russell for a minimum of five years, and as many as 12.

The facts were, Russell's teams held an edge in HOF teammates every season the two were in the league together, including margins (not including Wilt and Russell themselves) of 6-2, 7-2, 6-2, 8-0, 7-1, and 5-2 in their first six seasons in the league together. Take a close look at these numbers and compare them to Simmons' claim that Wilt and Russell played with roughly equal rosters. In their first six seasons in the league together, Russell held a 39-9 edge in surrounding HOF teammates! And yet, in their four h2h playoff series in that span, Wilt's teams lost a Finals to Russell's Celtics, 4-1, but, the last two games of that series came down to the final seconds; he lost a playoff series, 4-2, but the clinching loss was by two points, and, he badly injured his hand in game two and played poorly in two losses because of it; his 61-62 Warriors lost to the 60-20 Celtics in a game seven, by two points; and his 40-40 Sixers lost a game seven to the 62-18 Celtics by one point.

And also keep in mind that, while Russell's teams held a 7-1 edge in h2h series wins, four of those series came down to game seven's, and that had margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. So, Wilt's teams were only a few points away from holding a 5-3 edge. And had the two swapped rosters in their first six seasons together, I think you could make a strong argument that Wilt would have held a 6-0 margin in rings at that point.

[Psileas]

One of Wilt's most unreal statlines is generally considered the 78/43 game he had against the Lakers in that 1962 season. Now, remember, that game went into 3 OT's, with Wilt having "only" 53 points by the end of regulation (the fact that he scored 25 points within 3 OT's is very impressive to me).

Now, imagine this game going into 3 OT's (let's say the Warriors play significantly worse defense) with Wilt picking up speed. It could have been close to a 100/40 game for Wilt and I actually toned down his rebounding numbers due to the assumption that the Warriors play worse defense to allow the Packers to catch up. If I had adjusted them straight (you know, the way youngsters adjust "modern league" stats straight into older league stats), he might be closer to a 100/50 game...

Let also be noted that Wilt shot 29-48 FG's. Also, that he scored 54% of his team's points, and that's not against Imhoff and Buckner. From some aspects, this game was more impressive than Wilt's 100-pointer. :bowdown:

[LAZERUSS]

One of Wilt's most unreal statlines is generally considered the 78/43 game he had against the Lakers in that 1962 season. Now, remember, that game went into 3 OT's, with Wilt having "only" 53 points by the end of regulation (the fact that he scored 25 points within 3 OT's is very impressive to me).

Now, imagine this game going into 3 OT's (let's say the Warriors play significantly worse defense) with Wilt picking up speed. It could have been close to a 100/40 game for Wilt and I actually toned down his rebounding numbers due to the assumption that the Warriors play worse defense to allow the Packers to catch up. If I had adjusted them straight (you know, the way youngsters adjust "modern league" stats straight into older league stats), he might be closer to a 100/50 game...

Let also be noted that Wilt shot 29-48 FG's. Also, that he scored 54% of his team's points, and that's not against Imhoff and Buckner. From some aspects, this game was more impressive than Wilt's 100-pointer. :bowdown:

No question...this 73-36 statline against the 6-11 HOFer Bellamy has to rank among the most dominant games in NBA history. Even adjusting for pace, it would be the equivalent of about a 62-24 game in today's NBA.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt only won two because he cared about personal stats more than about the winning, thats it.

Teammates argument is shortsighted and (deliberately?) ignores the fact some of Russell's teammates wouldnt be in HOF if not Russell and the rings. Wilt sometimes lost to Russell even when Wilt had vastly superior team and Russ had no business winning, but he did, like in '69.


Vastly superior? Aside from Wilt and West, and even considering Baylor (who blew chunks all over the floor in the '69 Finals), Boston had a MUCH deeper team. Even giving LA an edge in the top-3, Boston's 4-8 players were considerably better. Even the realtively unknown Em Bryant gave the Celtics games of 18 and 20 points in the last two games of that series. And once again, if you account for Baylor's AWFUL play in the Finals, it was basically West and Wilt (whose play was shackled by an incompetent coach) against a veteran team that could easily go eight deep on their roster.

And the reality was...that was the ONLY series in their ten years in the league together in which it could be argued that Wilt's team lost with more talent. And, there were a myriad of reasons for it, as well. Boston hit TWO miraculous game-winning shots; Johnny Egan's gaffe in game four probably cost LA a 4-1 series romp; Baylor couldn't hit the ocean from a lifeboat in games three, four, and seven; and Van Breda's coaching clearly cost the Lakers the series.

Wilt's 67-68 team was slightly more talented, but that team was ravaged with injuries, and had no business even getting to a seventh game.

Furthermore, I would argue that Russell had as much surrounding talent in the 66-67 season, as Chamberlain had. And yet, because Wilt's teammates finally neutralized Russell's, it showcased Wilt's complete domination of Russell in that series, and the result was a near sweep of the eight-time defending Celtics.

In the rest of their career h2h seasons, Russell enjoyed a massive edge in surrounding talent.

[jongib369]

Vastly superior? Aside from Wilt and West, and even considering Baylor (who blew chunks all over the floor in the '69 Finals), Boston had a MUCH deeper team. Even giving LA an edge in the top-3, Boston's 4-8 players were considerably better. Even the realtively unknown Em Bryant gave the Celtics games of 18 and 20 points in the last two games of that series. And once again, if you account for Baylor's AWFUL play in the Finals, it was basically West and Wilt (whose play was shackled by an incompetent coach) against a veteran team that could easily go eight deep on their roster.

And the reality was...that was the ONLY series in their ten years in the league together in which it could be argued that Wilt's team lost with more talent. And, there were a myriad of reasons for it, as well. Boston hit TWO miraculous game-winning shots; Johnny Egan's gaffe in game four probably cost LA a 4-1 series romp; Baylor couldn't hit the ocean from a lifeboat in games three, four, and seven; and Van Breda's coaching clearly cost the Lakers the series.

Wilt's 67-68 team was slightly more talented, but that team was ravaged with injuries, and had no business even getting to a seventh game.

Furthermore, I would argue that Russell had as much surrounding talent in the 66-67 season, as Chamberlain had. And yet, because Wilt's teammates finally neutralized Russell's, it showcased Wilt's complete domination of Russell in that series, and the result was a near sweep of the eight-time defending Celtics.

In the rest of their career h2h seasons, Russell enjoyed a massive edge in surrounding talent.
Whats your argument for ranking Wilt above Jordan?

[Owl]

Even so, it doesn't explain why Wilt only has two. 31 to 21 sounds like Wilt should have had five. Particularly when he's teamed up with West and Baylor.

That being said, 73 and 35 against another HOF center is just sick. Imagine what people would have said if Shaq had put up those numbers on Ewing.
If it was a a long period of continuity with apex Baylor I'd agree. Baylor had lost a lot of what made him great (reduced mobility/agility harmed him at both ends). Then there's the first year chemistry issues that came from having a coach who wanted to use his Princeton motion offense and pull Wilt out of the low post. BvBK's professionalism has also been questioned (and Wilt obviously didn't help here). Even then they (narrowly) outscored the Celtics over the 7 game finals series (744-741). Then in his second year in LA Wilt got injured and though he came back a good player, he never quite seems to have got back to his previous level.

Then (in the broader conversation) throw in that Russell arrived sooner and so had title opportunites in a weaker league and certain lucky/unlucky breaks (Cunningham injury '68, Sam Jones game winner, Don Nelson game winner etc).

[WillC]

Some excellent comments, facts and discussion in this thread.

Good work to everyone involved :applause:

[La Frescobaldi]

Even so, it doesn't explain why Wilt only has two. 31 to 21 sounds like Wilt should have had five. Particularly when he's teamed up with West and Baylor.

That being said, 73 and 35 against another HOF center is just sick. Imagine what people would have said if Shaq had put up those numbers on Ewing.

If Elgin Baylor was being evaluated for what he did during the years that Wilt Chamberlain was a Laker, Baylor would not be in the Hall of Fame today.

Out of a total of 328 games in the 4 seasons, he played 132; the last playoff game he played was in 1970.
He was horrific in the '69 Finals. A true choke job, losing game after game because the coach demanded the Lakers give him the ball. There used to be youtube film of a couple of those Finals games and you can literally hear the bricks he threw clanging against the rim. The Celtics literally left him alone in the corner for like ....... the entire season. Go on Youtube sometime and watch the Celtics winning shots in those Finals games. They are shooting directly over the disastrously bad defense of Elgin Baylor.

Baylor played 2 games in '71, and 9 games in '72. Total. For the season.

You seriously want to count Baylor as a teammate of Wilt Chamberlain?

[Owl]

Wilt only won two because he cared about personal stats more than about the winning, thats it.

Teammates argument is shortsighted and (deliberately?) ignores the fact some of Russell's teammates wouldnt be in HOF if not Russell and the rings. Wilt sometimes lost to Russell even when Wilt had vastly superior team and Russ had no business winning, but he did, like in '69.
1) Nobody raised HOF teammates. The table above is seasons played with 50 at 50 teammates.

HOF count is generally flawed because it doesn't account for what point in the career those players are (e.g. Andy Phillip, Arnie Risen, Clyde Lovellette weren't at their HOF level. ASG teammates would be better if there wasn't a three players per team max at the time which artificial denied a lot of Boston ASG appearances and gifted them to (in what was a small league) below average starters.

2) That said name names. Who doesn't deserve to in the HoF? And if you go for the likely candidates (K.C. Jones and Tom Sanders) explain why you know better than HoF commitees. And use a method which doesn't rely wholly on stats and which thus couldn't be used against Russell to suggest he wasn't top 20 all time.

As to "vastly superior" where
Baylor versus Howell?
West versus Havlicek?
Johnny Egan versus Sam Jones?
Mel Counts versus Tom "Satch" Sanders?
Keith Erickson versus Don Nelson?
Tom Hawkins, Freddie Crawford and Bill HeWitt versus Larry Siegfried, Em Bryant and Don Chaney?

Ignoring the center position I'd take the Boston side rather than LA. There's none where LA is "vastly superior" and Boston is clearly quite a bit deeper.

[Owl]

Once again, the actual margin in full seasons from HOF teammates was 71-27. Granted, Russell's "HOF" teammates included Satch Sanders, KC Jones, and Frank Ramsey...none of whom should be included in a REAL NBA HOF. But Wilt also had Tom Gola as a "HOF" teammate, and he has much business being in a true NBA HOF as I do. In fact, he was simply awful in his post-season play, both with, and without Chamberlain. In his last two post-seasons with Wilt, he shot .206 and .271 from the field. And even Arizin was not much better (he shot .328 and .375.)

Not only that, but Russell played alongside his HOF teammates much longer, as well. The bulk of them played with Russell for a minimum of five years, and as many as 12.

The facts were, Russell's teams held an edge in HOF teammates every season the two were in the league together, including margins (not including Wilt and Russell themselves) of 6-2, 7-2, 6-2, 8-0, 7-1, and 5-2 in their first six seasons in the league together. Take a close look at these numbers and compare them to Simmons' claim that Wilt and Russell played with roughly equal rosters. In their first six seasons in the league together, Russell held a 39-9 edge in surrounding HOF teammates! And yet, in their four h2h playoff series in that span, Wilt's teams lost a Finals to Russell's Celtics, 4-1, but, the last two games of that series came down to the final seconds; he lost a playoff series, 4-2, but the clinching loss was by two points, and, he badly injured his hand in game two and played poorly in two losses because of it; his 61-62 Warriors lost to the 60-20 Celtics in a game seven, by two points; and his 40-40 Sixers lost a game seven to the 62-18 Celtics by one point.

And also keep in mind that, while Russell's teams held a 7-1 edge in h2h series wins, four of those series came down to game seven's, and that had margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. So, Wilt's teams were only a few points away from holding a 5-3 edge. And had the two swapped rosters in their first six seasons together, I think you could make a strong argument that Wilt would have held a 6-0 margin in rings at that point.
I think we've done this before but ... Frank Ramsey was the 2nd best 2 guard of the 50s. If he hadn't been on military service his career numbers would be a lot better. And if you take him off the Celtics then his numbers go up a lot because he takes a larger role and plays more minutes.

I think Ramsey is in the HoF on merit. His college career helps but I'd have him an NBA one, unless the standard is signifcantly different.

Note: Edited for typo.

[LAZERUSS]

Ramsey is questionable, at best. If the NBA were to suddenly create an NBA HOF (instead, all we have is a Basketball HOF, which includes foreigners and even women), I seriously doubt that Ramsey makes it. Nor does KC Jones or Satch Sanders. And while Tom Gola probaby deserves a HOF selection based on his college accomplishments, he most certainly would not be in an NBA HOF, either.

Having said that, though, both Jones and Sanders were considered elite defenders in their careers. And those players, coupled with very good offensive players like Havlicek, Sam Jones, Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, and later Bailey Howell (a very under-rated offensve player IMO) gave Boston an extraordinary amount of versatility and depth.

And in these Russell-Wilt discussions, depth and experience are almost never mentioned. Using Wilt's 67-68 Sixers as an example, they were basically an eight man roster. And, as mentioned above, they didn't even have Cunningham at all in the EDF's. Then, when Jackson and Wali Jones were injured in that game five (and I believe the Sixers were down by around two points at the time...and leading the series 3-1), they just didn't have enough man-power to overcome a very deep Celtic roster. And aside from a handful of folks here, virtually no one brings up the fact that Wilt was hampered by leg and toe injuries in that series, and was noticeably limping throughout. Even Russell said, "A lessor man would not have played", which of course would have meant that, no one else would have played under those circumstances. And on top of all of that, Wilt's teammates completely ignored him in that game seven, and collectively shot 33% from the floor...in a four point loss.

And how come Simmons never brings up coaching in these discussions, either? Or the fact that Auerbach was not only a great coach, but was also a master at picking talent and blending it? Meanwhile, Wilt played with coach's who, early in his career, just decided that the only hope those teams had, was for Chamberlain to single-handedly carry them. In fact, based on post-season play, you could argue that Wilt's teammates HINDERED him. And, when those team's inevitably lost close series' to the HOF-laden Celtics, it was Chamberlain who was blamed.

[Owl]

As far as years, Wilt "should have won" before his knee injury, I'd say '68 and '69. There are a variety of factors in both series vs the Celtics, but considering those series went 7 and Wilt could have played significantly better, I'd list those. Prior to 1967, it's probably fair to say Russell had the better teams, though that shouldn't discredit his own rings. However, the '66 Sixers did have the better record. In fairness, Wilt's teammates shot terribly, though Wilt himself didn't seem to be dominating, certainly not from a scoring standpoint through his first 4 games, and there was chemistry issues that brought into question Wilt's leadership with him skipping practices around this time.

'65 was the famous "Havlicek steals the ball" series, and by all accounts, Wilt did have an excellent series, so I don't hold that one against him. As far as '62, it seems that Russell and Wilt were pretty even as far as play game to game, though I'd give Russell the slight edge, but that series came down to the Sam Jones game-winner, and entering the series, few would doubt Russell had the better team on paper. So make of that what you will. Wilt's scoring did decline dramatically in the series, but part of the credit for that can go to Russell, and part of that can be attributed to a change in roles during the postseason.



Not to derail the thread or get into a Shaq vs Wilt thing, but since you used Shaq and Ewing as an examples, the numbers Shaq put up vs Ewing and the Knicks in his 3rd year were just sick.

41/17 on 17/26 shooting in 1 game, 38/10 on 16/23 shooting in another, 41/15/3 in another and 41/10 on 16/28 shooting in another.
In '66 Celtics had significant regular season injuries which cost them a few games. When they were healthy (as I believe they were in the playoffs) they were better than the 76ers. Despite the injuries the Celtics had better SRS and points differential over the season.

Even if games won were the better measure of how good the teams were you've got to account for the fact that a lot of the 76ers wins were coming from Chamberlain himself (being better than Russell) who collared the MVP and all NBA-first team that year.

[LAZERUSS]

In '66 Celtics had significant regular season injuries which cost them a few games. When they were healthy (as I believe they were in the playoffs) they were better than the 76ers. Despite the injuries the Celtics had better SRS and points differential over the season.

Even if games won were the better measure of how good the teams were you've got to account for the fact that a lot of the 76ers wins were coming from Chamberlain himself (being better than Russell) who collared the MVP and all NBA-first team that year.

Great points.

Sam Jones missed 13 games in '66, and Havlicek missed 9. And Russell missed two. So, when you factor in the amount of games lost by key Celtic personnel, the Sixers one game regular season margin was really an illusion.

What was also interesting was the fact that the Sixers enjoyed a 6-3 regular season h2h margin over Boston that year. And in those nine games, Chamberlain just waxed Russell. Overall, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, and shot an educated estimate of about .525 against Russell (and his teammates obviously.)

Then, in the EDF's, Chamberlain averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 from the field. How did his Sixers get blown out 4-1 by the Celtics in that series? His teammates collectively shot .352 from the field. And yet, who gets the blame? Of course...it was Wilt.

[Owl]

I'd maintain Ramsey makes a mens American pro basketball HoF.

Like I said 2nd best player at position in 50s (would be rare, near unique situation, maybe 80s 2 guards if Drexler, Dumars, Jordan all counted as 90s and you don't allow guys in multiple decades).

His playoff performance in '59 in a big man dominated era is pretty special. His '58 regular season is minute for minute a challenger for best 2 guard season of the decade.

I mentioned before how his career numbers are down because of armed service and playing off the bench. Perhaps K.C. and Satch's legacies benefit from playing on the Celtics, I think Ramsey's might suffer from it.

He's not a clear cut no doubt inclusion and it depends where you set the bar. But I think Ramsey belongs in it.

[LAZERUSS]

I'd maintain Ramsey makes a mens American pro basketball HoF.

Like I said 2nd best player at position in 50s (would be rare, near unique situation, maybe 80s 2 guards if Drexler, Dumars, Jordan all counted as 90s and you don't allow guys in multiple decades).

His playoff performance in '59 in a big man dominated era is pretty special. His '58 regular season is minute for minute a challenger for best 2 guard season of the decade.

I mentioned before how his career numbers are down because of armed service and playing off the bench. Perhaps K.C. and Satch's legacies benefit from playing on the Celtics, I think Ramsey's might suffer from it.

He's not a clear cut no doubt inclusion and it depends where you set the bar. But I think Ramsey belongs in it.

I won't argue with your knowledge.

But personally I believe these "HOF's" to be watered down anyway. Paul Hornung is in the Pro Football HOF, but Terrell Davis is not. And Bert Byleven is in the baseball HOF, and Ron Guidry is not. I contend that there are way too many "merely good" players in these HOF's, and it diminish's the truly deserving. I can't imagine taking a kid to the baseball HOF and trying to explain why Ray Schalk is in there with Babe Ruth.

[LAZERUSS]

Back to OP, and again, the Bellamy-Wilt h2h's were just completely one-sided for almost the entire decade of the 60's. Chamberlain had a 50+ point game against Bellamy every season up thru 65-66. And, in his 66-67 season, when he dramatically cut back his shooting, and in nine h2h games against Bellamy, he averaged 22.7 ppg on... .709 shooting from the floor.

And once again, in their 67-68 playoff h2h, Wilt outscored Bellamy, per game, 25 ppg to 20 ppg, and outshot him from the floor by a .584 to .421 margin.

And Chamberlain likely outrebounded Bellamy in some 80% of their h2h's, as well.

I can't think of one HOF player so thoroughly dominating another throughout their entire careers.

[jongib369]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/123b851592e51801eb0c2946de2ff540/tumblr_mqbk16Vr8o1sn19wco1_1280.jpg

[CavaliersFTW]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/123b851592e51801eb0c2946de2ff540/tumblr_mqbk16Vr8o1sn19wco1_1280.jpg
That is an awesome pic, where'd you find it?

[jongib369]

That is an awesome pic, where'd you find it?
Tumblr, great site

http://25.media.tumblr.com/e7af782859291e442b78ab96a84346ad/tumblr_mpzo6vrB601rkf7sao1_500.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/1f2b0c0502147ad6ae985c84e2386e9e/tumblr_motk4uKutn1qzpdnho1_1280.png

http://25.media.tumblr.com/5b74a17d48e8dc792ac8ea0c7ecbae28/tumblr_mok6kcsRME1r10tndo1_500.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/732117ed327f3e8a00f6102720e12386/tumblr_moc0v3Aj2F1r10tndo1_500.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/7760797ff52150444e957fdbb7dd3518/tumblr_mmolbtXWpL1r638r6o1_500.jpg

[jongib369]

That is an awesome pic, where'd you find it?
http://25.media.tumblr.com/d4914e659b67e3d8f1f13954546bac96/tumblr_mmhbbtfk6M1qcp1zao1_1280.jpg

http://www.toddslater.net/poster_images/43110-wiltchamberlain-todd-slater_thumb.JPG :bowdown:

[jongib369]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/8ba8203a023680019c111961fb07b853/tumblr_mkjo1vvnfc1redybyo1_r1_500.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/aa1ffa8df979ed5fba71979fc8a4d7d6/tumblr_mkf8wzgr5U1qcp1zao1_400.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/e5a5b37aa6d31024147f8c338a954704/tumblr_mjhb8tSwge1rwdaz4o1_500.jpg

[jongib369]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/1a7b708a772f7a14ed00a9ad6467a7ff/tumblr_mj1y8jRhJB1rwdaz4o4_400.jpg

[jongib369]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/dd130a974f8a835de9739e090dfbe0fb/tumblr_mgfbx4zrW91qzc69yo1_1280.png

[fpliii]

After talking with people from the NBA archive database project I'm 100% certain that this game does NOT exist on film and that Bill Simmons straight up lied about watching it and receiving it as a "gift" from the NBA. He used that alleged 'game film' as a means to talk trash about Chamberlain in his book - saying what he saw from film was not impressive. :facepalm guy will do anything to prop up Russell.
SMH Simmons...