Russell vs. Wilt Year-By-Year

[LAZERUSS]

This from another topic on a prime Wilt's overall dominance from 59-60 thru 68-69.

1959-60:


Now...the Russell-Wilt H2H's.

First of all, here were Russell's regular season numbers against the entire NBA that season:

18.2 ppg, 24.0 rpg, and a career high .467 eFG%

NYCelts84 posted an a google archive article (which I can no longer find), which had Russell and Wilt's cumulative stats for their first ten H2H games in that regular season. And nbastats.net gives us their 11th. So, we basically have their regular season totals:

Russell: 19.8 ppg, 23.7 rpg, and get this... an eFG% of .393
Wilt: 39.1 ppg, 29.7 rpg, .465 FG%, 1.3 apg.

Chamberlain basically EXCEEDED ALL of his regular season stats against Russell in that regular season, including FG%. And, he held Russell, in his greatest FG% season, to way below his normal regular season FG%, and in fact, below the league average (.410.)

Interesting too,...take away their very first H2H game, and in which Russell slightly outplayed Wilt (Wilt outscored Russell, 30-22, but they were even on the glass at 30-30, and Russell outshot Wilt from the floor 7-19 to 12-38)...and here were Chamberlain's numbers in their last ten straight regular season H2H games:

40.2 ppg, 29.7 rpg, and on a .481 FG%.

Incidently and for those that somehow believed that Russell would "let" Chamberlain get his points in certain circumstances...

Here was a game on 1/29/60 in which Wilt scored 43 points, on 18-36 shooting, with 39 rebounds:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196001290PHW.html

A big fourth quarter comeback. It would not be the last time Wilt would engineer a 4th quarter comeback with a huge game, either.

Over the course of those 11 H2H games, Chamberlain outscored Russell 10-1, including six games of 43+, and a high game of 53. BTW, Wilt also plastered Russell with a staggering 44 point, 43 rebound game. Chamberlain held an 8-2-1 rebounding advantage, and had four games of 35+ (Russell's high game against Wilt was 33.)


The two would meet in the EDF's (and after Chamberlain put up a 38.7 ppg, 23.0 rpg, series against Syracuse in the first round, which included a clinching 53-22 game on 24-42 shooting.)

The series went six games, and Boston won the clinching game six by a 119-117 margin.

Here were their numbers in those six games of EDF's:

Russell: 20.7 ppg, 27.0 rpg, and on a .446 eFG%, and 2.8 apg.
Wilt: 30.5 ppg, 27.5 rpg, and on a .500 FG% (in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .402), and 2.0 apg

However, Wilt badly injured his hand in a melee in game two, and was worthless in game three (and below normal in game four.) His hand was so swollen he could not hold the ball. Of course he was never a great FT shooter, but he went 0-6 from the line in that game (and shot .538 the rest of the series from the FT line.) Game three would probably be the only time in their 49 post-season H2H's in which Russell clearly dominated Wilt. Russell outscored Wilt, 26-12, and outrebounded Wilt, 39-15. The result...a 120-90 blowout win for Boston (BTW, Russell played 40 minutes to Wilt's 35.)

In a must-win game five, Wilt was back to normal, and he erupted for 50 points, on 22-42 shooting, with 35 rebounds (Russell had 22 point, on 9-16 shooting, with 27 rebounds.)

Russell did play Wilt to a draw in the clinching game six win, (again, 119-117.) Wilt outscored Russell, 26-25, while Russell outrebounded Wilt, 25-24. Chamberlain shot 8-18 from the field, to Russell's 11-26 (Russell had quite a few games in their career H2H's in which he took more FGAs that Wilt BTW.)

Still, the heavily-favored 59-16 Celtics barely survived that game six against Wilt's 49-26 Warriors. And had Wilt not badly injured his hand in game two, who knows how that series might have gone?

[LAZERUSS]

1960-61:


Wilt and Russell went at it an amazing 13 times in the regular season. Here were their overall numbers in those 13 H2H's:

Russell: 18.8 ppg, 25.4 rpg, .398 eFG%, and 3.6 apg
Wilt: 35.5 ppg, 30.6 rpg, .492 eFG%, and 1.8 apg.

Wilt outscored Russell in those 13 games, 12-1 (and Russell's margin in his lone "win" was 28-27.) Included were scoring margins of 30-13, 34-17, 44-20, 46-19, 39-6, and 46-13.

Chamberlain outrebounded Russell 9-4 in those 13 H2H's. Russell did have a 40-25 margin in one of them, however. Meanwhile, Wilt had margins of 30-19, 35-14, and get this... 55-19!


Russell did an outstanding defensive job on Wilt in their first six H2H games that season, but here were Chamberlain's numbers in their last seven straight H2H games:

38.4 ppg, 26.4 rpg, and on a .580 eFG% !!!!

Included were four games of 44, 46, 46, and 47 points.

And how about this one game against Russell on 1/14/61:

He outscored Russell, 44-20; outrebounded Russell, 35-14; outshot Russell, 17-27 to 10-20; and he even found time to block 15 shots! BTW, Chamberlain's Warriors won that game, 116-113.

That may very well have been the most dominant seven straight games in their long rivalry.

And for the second straight season, Chamberlain shot well over the league average against Russell, .492 in a league that shot an eFG% of .415, while holding Russell below it, at .398. And there would be entire seasons in which Wilt outshot him by considerably larger margins, as well.

[LAZERUSS]

1961-62:


Russell vs Wilt 10 regular season H2H's:

Russell: 18.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, .383 eFG%, and 4.4 apg.
Wilt: 39.7 ppg, 28.8 rpg, .468 eFG%, and 2.1 apg.

Wilt outscored Russell in all 10 H2H's.
Wilt outrebounded Russell in 7 of the 10 H2H's.
Wilt outshot Russell from the field in 8 of the 10 H2H's.

Wilt with 5 games of 40+ points
Wilt with 2 games of 50+
High game of 62 points (on 27-45 FG/FGA, with 28 rebounds.)

Chamberlain had scoring margins of 41-28, 31-17, 26-11, 48-21, 38-11, 41-11, 52-21, and 62-23.

Wilt had rebounding margins of 30-19, and 31-18.

And for those that believe that Russell was "letting" Wilt score...how about these two B2B games:

2/9/62:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196202090BOS.html

2/10/62:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196202100PHW.html

Chamberlain rallies Philly back from a 20 point 4th quarter deficit in one game, with a 48-29 game, and then a come-from-behind 4th quarter game in which he outscored Russell, 38-11 and outrebounded him, 31-18.


And speaking of B2B games:

Wilt vs Bellamy on 11/13/61: 73 points, 29-48 FG/FGA, 36 rebounds
Wilt vs Russell on 11/14/61: 62 points, 27-45 FG/FGA, 28 rebounds

Another interesting game: 3/7/62:
Boston routs Philly, 153-102. Wilt, as always, played every minute, while Russell played 40 minutes. (It was 113-78 going into the 4th quarter.)


Russell vs Wilt in the EDF's (Boston wins game seven, 109-107.)

Russell: 22.0 ppg, 25.9 rpg, .399 eFG%, and 4.6 apg.
Wilt: 33.6 ppg, 26.9 rpg, .468 eFG%, and 2.9 apg.

Wilt outscored Russell in all 7 games. They went 3-3-1 in rebounds.

Russell with two consecutive games of 31-31 and 30-31 (and Wilt outscored him in both.)

Wilt with 6 games of 30+ points.
Wilt had two games of 40+ (41 and 42 points.)

In game two, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 42-9; outrebounded Russell, 37-20; and outshot Russell, 16-31 to 4-14.


And for the third straight season, Chamberlain shot way over the league eFG% against Russell (.468 to the league eFG% of .426), while holding Russell WAY below it (.383.) And in their second straight playoff series...more of the same. Wilt shot .468 in their 7 game playoff series, in a post-season NBA that shot .411, while holding Russell to a .399 eFG%.

[G.O.A.T]

It gets sadder every day doesn't it.

Real analysis of a Wilt/Russell match-up (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=194761)

Complete with honesty and context and very little subjective opinion.

[LAZERUSS]

1962-63:


The "Wilt-bashers" love to point this season out. How could a Wilt-led team only go 31-49? Especially in a season in which Chamberlain averaged 44.8 ppg? Obviously he was "stats-padding", especially when you consider he played 47.6 mpg, right?

They would be wrong. Wilt, as almost always, led the league in mpg, but he did so for a team that lost 35 games by single digits, was only involved in eight 20+ point decisions (going 4-4 in them), and had a -2.1 ppg differential.

Chamberlain's Warriors were sold to San Francisco, and when they moved, HOF Paul Arizin decided to retire, and "HOFer" Tom Gola pretty much decided to stay behind (and was traded.) The Warriors roster was just plain awful. They went thru 16 different players, several of whom would only play briefly in the NBA. And once again, Wilt's COACH basically asked WILT to carry that team.

And try Wilt did. He led the league in scoring, and by a huge margin, at 44.8 ppg. He led the league in rebounding, at 24.3 rpg. And he set a then record mark of a .528 eFG% (which he would go on to break three more times in his career.) In fact, he led the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories, including WIN SHARES, and by a mile, of 20.9 (imagine that...21 wins out of a team that only won 31...or 70% of their wins were attributed directly to Wilt), ...and PER, with an all-time record of 31.82. And had blocked shots, TRB%, Off Reb, and Def Reb stats been kept, and he likely would have led in those, as well.

Lovellette was traded to Boston...which gave the Celtics a roster with NINE HOF players. BTW, Lovellette, who had averaged 20.9 ppg on a .471 eFG% just the season before, was now Boston's NINTH best player. He played part-time, so I will no longer include his numbers in this topic.

Bellamy didn't fare any better than Wilt. Despite a season in which he averaged 27.9 ppg, 16.4 rpg, and shot .527 from the field, his team could only go 25-55 (which was still an improvement over his rookie season of 18-62.)

Of course Russell's HOF-laden Celtics breezed to a 58-22 record, and another title (although Oscar's Royals took them to a game seven in the EDF's.). Russell averaged 16.8 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and shot .432 from the field. And, they would go 8-1 against Wilt's Warriors in their nine H2H games. HOWEVER, out of those nine games, Boston won three by margins of 127-109, 135-118, and 125-111. And in those three games, they had leads of 17, 10, and 8 points going into the 4th quarters. San Francisco beat them easily in their lone win, 128-112. In the other five games, which, of course, Boston won them all, the Celtics won by margins of 135-120, but that was deceptive, because it went into OT; 108-102 (and the Warriors led by 12 going into the 4th quarter); 118-112 (tied at 89 going into the 4th); 118-112 (Boston hung on after leading by 10 going into the 4th); and 116-113 (Boston led 85-78 going into the 4th.)

So, as you can plainly see, Russell's Celtics, with an OVERWHELMING edge in talent, struggled in nearly all of those games. And, as you will see, Wilt just annihilated Russell in the majority of them.


Ok, here were some other interesting stats: I mentioned that I would post Russell's numbers against LA (both in his regular seasons, and his post-seasons), and then compare Wilt's numbers against LA in those seasons, as well. Why? Because had Wilt had the good fortune to have played in the Western Conference in his first six seasons, instead of only two, he likely would have faced the Lakers several times in the playoffs. Instead, he never had the luxury of going against them in the post-season. BTW, as we already saw in the 61-62 season, had Wilt's Warriors scored three more points in game seven of the '62 EDF's, they would have advanced to the Finals to face those Lakers. As it was, Russell put up a 22 ppg, 27 rpg, .543 FG% seven game series against LA in the Finals. Wilt faced those Lakers nine times during that regular season, and averaged 51.6 ppg, 26.8 rpg, and shot .503 from the field. Included were three games of 60+, with a high game of 78 (to go along with 43 rebounds.) It would be more of the same in '63.



Russell vs. Wilt...9 H2H's:

Russell: 15.3 ppg, 27.8 rpg, .366 eFG% (3 known games.)
Wilt: 38.1 ppg, 28.9 rpg, .497 eFG% (6 known games)

...(and missing FG%'s in games in which he scored 40 and 45 points.)

Wilt had five games of 40+, with a high game of 50 (Russell's high game against Wilt was 25 points BTW.) And Chamberlain enjoyed scoring margins over Russell of 32-18, 31-6, 50-23, 45-16, 45-12, and 43-8.

Clearly, Wilt was a "one-man wrecking crew" in his entire season, as well as against both Bellamy and Russell.

Total dominance...again.

[LAZERUSS]

1963-64:

[QUOTE]A strange thing happened at a National Basketball Association game in St. Louis early this season. The ball was thrown to the San Francisco Warriors' 7-foot-1[1/16]-inch 290-pound center, Wilt Chamberlain, who was positioned near the St. Louis Hawks' basket, and Chamberlain threw the ball right back out to one of his teammates. This maneuver so unsettled Ed Macauley, a former NBA center and a spectator at the game, that he nearly choked. "Chamberlain threw the ball out," he said, loosening his tie. "He actually threw the ball out!" If Macauley was surprised, so were the Hawks, who stood around in a state of deep shock while one of Chamberlain's teammates, cutting toward the basket, made the layup unmolested.

To understand the loss of composure by Macauley and the Hawks, you must remember that in previous seasons when the ball got to Chamberlain the rest of the Warriors would react as if they were watching a spectacular Pacific sunset. They would be open-mouthed and motionless, because Wilt Chamberlain leads the world in taking shots. But so often did the ball fly back out to a moving teammate that night that Chamberlain scored only 22 points, exactly 22.8 points less than he scored per game last year, and 28.4 less than the year before, when the big center averaged a phenomenal 50.4 points.

All this does not mean that Chamberlain is slipping. A year ago the San Francisco fan, paying his money to see Wilt play, got his 50 points' worth all right, but he still felt like someone who bought a Rolls-Royce only to discover that the horn didn't work. San Francisco fans had every right to expect perfection from such a specimen, but they not only did not get perfection, they did not get to see the Warriors win very often, and no citizen of San Francisco is going to stand for that very long. Eventually they began to leave the Warriors alone in alarming numbers, except when the champion Celtics would come to town, and then they came to root for Boston.


[B]So are the Warriors, a team that lists on its roster some of the slowest players and worst shooters ever to play in the NBA. With just 14 games remaining in the regular season, San Francisco

[LAZERUSS]

1964-65:


64-65.

This year added two more HOF centers into the mix, rookie Willis Reed, and Nate Thurmond, who would become the Warriors full-time center after Wilt was traded at mid-season...to go along with Bellamy, Russell, and Wilt.

I mentioned that Wilt was traded at mid-season. Bill Simmons would have you believe that he was traded for "pennies on the dollar." He was actually traded for three players, two of whom were decent (Paul Neumann and Connie Dierking), AND $150,000 cash. To give you a better perspective on that cash amount, the Sixer ownership bought the entire Syracuse Nats franchise for $500,000 in 1964. And, as a side-note, the San Francisco owners bought the Warrior franchise (with Wilt) just two years earlier, for $850,000.

And Wilt was not traded because he was some selfish malcontent, either. He was battling a mysterious illness for half of that season. He missed the first six games of the year, and another in December, (and SF went 1-6 in them BTW), and had lost weight (some sources quote a lot of weight, while other claim it was only about 15 lbs.)

The Warriors' owners were also losing money. Even with Wilt, they were not drawing well at home (which was the only revenue back then...they did not split the gates.) Furthermore, their team doctors came back with shocking news about Wilt. He had heart problems! (Which is interesting, since they diagnosed him with it about 30 years sooner than anyone else.) The owners panicked. They knew that they had a problem on their hands. If Wilt was indeed in poor health, they would be paying him a sizeable sum, and possibly losing him on the court...perhaps permanently. The team was struggling even with a sick Wilt (they would go 10-27 with Chamberlain, and ultimately, 7-36 without him.)

They began shopping Wilt around the league. The Lakers, whose center slot was getting slaughtered by the likes of Russell and Wilt, were among the interested parties. However, they supposedly conducted a team vote on whether to bring Wilt in, and they supposedly voted 9-2 not to acquire him. In retrospect, that may have cost the Lakers at least a couple of rings.

Wilt finally consulted his own physician, and it was determined that he had pancreatis, and not a heart problem. The Warriors didn't take any chances, and dealt with to the Sixers.

The deal was made easier because of the fact that they could now move Thurmond, who was playing part-time, and out of position, to the center slot. Thurmond had played brilliantly in Wilt's absence in the six games that Chamberlain had missed. In those six games, Nate averaged 23.7 ppg, and in the four known rebounding games, he pulled down an average of 26.8 rpg!

Which is interesting. I have long claimed that there have been many players who hit their peaks very early in their careers. There is a long list, but players like Bellamy, McAdoo, Lanier, and even MJ and KAJ hit their statistical peaks with 1-4 years.

How about Nate? In only his second season, he started 40 games, and in those he averaged 20.9 ppg, and in the known 17 games with rebounds, he averaged a staggering 24.9 rpg. When you factor in that his career high season in scoring was 21.9 (in 43 games in '70), and full-time season (relatively, with 71 games) in '68-69 was 21.5 ppg, you could certainly argue that he was at least close to his peak by his second season in the league. True, he only shot .419 overall from the field in that season, but it must be mentioned that, aside from Wilt, Bellamy, and Jerry Lucas, that really no other relatively high scorers were approaching 50%, and in fact, were around .450 at best. To put Nate's .419 in better perspective, the NBA shot an eFG% of .426 in that 64-65 season. In Nate's best FG% season, 72-73, when he shot .446, the league eFG% was up to .456. So, overall, Nate was already close to his peak by his second season.

And how about Nate's defense? I will give the specifics later, but he dramatically reduced Reed's, Bellamy's, and even Wilt's scoring (albeit, Chamberlain still crushed him.) And offensively, he averaged over 20.0 ppg against Bellamy, Reed, and even Russell in his 64-65 H2H starts. Only Wilt held him below the 20 ppg mark.

As for rookie Reed...he was certainly not at his peak, but he was already a top notch player in that first year. As a matter of fact, he averaged 19.5 ppg on the season, but exceeded that average against Bellamy, Wilt, and even Russell. Thurmond completely shut him down, though.

Back to Wilt. In his 63-64 season, he led the Warriors to a 48-32 record. And his second best player was Tom Meschery, who would average 13 ppg. Why is that important, you ask? Because after Wilt was traded to the Sixers, the Warriors completely bottomed out. They finished 17-63, which enabled them to draft future HOFer Rick Barry. And, as already mentioned, they moved Nate to the center position, where he would become an all-time great center.

BUT, even with Barry and Nate, they could only go 35-45 in 65-66. Then, they added players like Jeff Mullins, Clyde Lee, and Fred Hetzel of that roster. In the 66-67 season, Rick Barry would have the greatest season of his career, averaging 35.6 ppg, Thurmond would also have his greatest season, with an 19-21 campaign, and in which he came in second (behind Wilt) in the MVP balloting. Meschery was now the Warriors SEVENTH best player, averaging 11 ppg. With all of that talent, the Warriors could only go 44-37. And they would get shellacked in the Finals by Wilt's 68-13 Sixers (in a series in which Chamberlain just mopped the floor with a peak Nate.)

So, Wilt, basically by himself, carried a putrid SF roster to their best record in the decade of the 60's, which was even better than the Warriors could do with a peak Barry and Nate, and with a much better supporting cast than what Wilt had in '64.

So, now on to the second part of that "trade." The "Bashers" will point to Wilt playing for a losing team in the first half of that season, but they will NEVER bring up what happened AFTER that trade. Chamberlain was once again joining a losing team. The Sixers had gone 34-46 the year before and missed the playoffs. Still, they had some talent...more than Chamberlain had had at any point with the Warriors. While they were still not a good team, they had Hal Greer, Chet Walker, and Luke Jackson.

With a better supporting cast, Chamberlain's shooting dropped, and his scoring went from 38.9 ppg with the Warriors, down to 30.1 with the Sixers. And when Wilt arrived, the team chemistry went on an expected roller-coaster ride. The Sixers wound up with a 40-40 record, but they qualified for the playoffs.

From that point on Chamberlain became as unstoppable as any time in his career. He led the Sixers past Oscar's stacked 48-32 Royal team in a romp, which included a monster clinching win performance of 38 points and 26 rebounds.

Then, he single-handedly carried the Sixers to a game seven, one point loss, against Russell's 62-18 Celtics...a team at the peak of it's dynasty. In arguably the most one-sided beatdown by one HOF center to another, Chamberlain just obliterated Russell in that seven game series. Russell slightly outplayed Wilt in game three, but Wilt just waxed Russell in the other six.

Furthermore, in game seven, Chamberlain "the choker" exploded for a 30 point, 12-15 FG/FGA, 32 rebound game. Not only that, with Boston leading 110-101 and three minutes remaining, Wilt took over. He scored six of Philly's last eight points, including 2-2 from the line with 36 seconds remaining, and then a thurnderous dunk over a helpless Russell with five seconds left to draw the Sixers to within one point. The "clutch" Russell then hit a guidewire with the inbounds pass, and the Sixers had the ball under their basket with a chance to pull off perhaps the biggest upset in NBA post-season history. Alas, "Havlicek stole the ball!", and Boston escaped with a narrow win. BTW, that was just one of many big games by a Russell teammate during his 11 title runs. Even Russell admitted that Sam Jones saved Boston's season six times in their first eight rings.

Chamberlain was now almost universally accepted as the best player in the game. Beginning with the very next season, Wilt would go on to win the first of three straight MVPs (the last two were runaways BTW.) And, for the entire decade of the 60's, Chamberlain held a massive 7-2 edge in First team All-NBA selections over Russell.


Vs. Wilt in 11 reg H2H's: 12.6 ppg, 22.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, .281 FG% (10 known)


Russell vs, Wilt in 7 EDF games:
15.6 ppg, 25.1 rpg, 6.7 apg, .447 FG%.

Russell's high point game in the EDF"s against Wilt was 22 points. His high rebounding game was 32.


Wilt vs. Russell in 11 reg H2H's: 25.4 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 4.2 apg, .473 FG%


The Chamberlain-Russell duels were continuing to become more-and-more one-sided, as well. In their 11 regular season H2H's, Chamberlain enjoyed a 10-1 scoring edge (and Russell's lone "win" was 11-8 in a game in which Wilt left injured.) Included were margins of 24-6, 31-7, and 37-16. Wilt also outrebounded Russell by an 8-3 margin, which included margins of 32-24, 26-17, 34-17, and 43-26. And again, look at Russell's known FG%... an unfathomable .281 in the known 10 of their 11 season H2H's (and in one game Russell shot an unbelievable 0-14!)!


Wilt vs Russell in 7 EDF's games:

30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, 3.3 apg, and a .555 eFG%.

Wilt outscored Russell in all 7 games, including margins of 30-15, 34-18, 30-12, 30-12, and 33-11. Chamberlain also held a 5-2 margin in rebounding H2H's in that post-season, including margins of 37-26, and 39-16.

[russwest0]

Mikan >

[LAZERUSS]

1965-66:


65-66.

Arguably only Chamberlain's very next season would rank higher all-time.

How dominant was Wilt in 65-66? He led the league in scoring, rebounding, and FG%...AND, to the best record in the league. Overall, Chamberlain led the NBA in THIRTEEN of their 23 major statistical categories, including Win Shares (and by a MILE) and PER at 28.3 (BTW...that PER sure seems low considering all he did.) And, of course, those statistical categories did not include offensive and defensive rebounding, nor TRB%, nor blocked shots...all of which Wilt would probably have run away with. BTW, Chamberlain not only led the NBA in 13 categories, but he finished in the Top-5 in four more.

But his dominance went well beyond his overall league numbers. He also just ANNIHILATED his HOF opposing centers in the process. I didn't include Reed in these numbers, simply because early in the season, the Knicks acquired Walt Bellamy, and then moved Reed to PF. Reed's numbers naturally took a big hit. His scoring fell to 15.5 ppg, his rebounding declined to 11.6 rpg, and his FG% was only .434.

Thurmond's overall numbers, as a starter, also dropped somewhat from his 64-65 season. Remember, in Nate's 40 games as a starter in 64-65, he averaged 20.9 ppg, and in his known 17 rebounding games, he was at 24.9 rpg that season. In the 65-66 season, he came in at 16.3 ppg, 18.0 rpg, and shot .406. Still, his offensive production naturally declined somewhat because of the arrival of rookie Rick Barry, who would average 25.7 ppg in that season.

Chamberlain's Sixers had the best record in the league, at 55-25, but they had to win their last 11 straight games to pass the seven-time defending champion Celtics, who finished at 54-26. And, Wilt's Sixers also held a 6-3 margin over Russell's Celtics in their nine H2H games. But, the fact remained that Boston had the best roster in the league. Their won-loss record was very deceptive simply because the core of their roster missed a ton of games. Russell missed two games, Havlicek missed nine, and Sam Jones missed 13.

Again, Wilt's Sixers went 6-3 against Boston in their nine regular season H2H's, BUT, in the EDF's, the Celtics waltzed past Philly, 4-1. The "Wilt-bashers" would blame Wilt, of course, BUT, the reality was, Wilt's playoff numbers were nearly identical to his regular season H2H numbers against Boston in that series. The reason for the Sixer collapse? Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot...get this... .352 from the field in the EDF's.


Russell vs Wilt in 9 regular season H2H's:

Russell: 9.4 ppg, 21.2 rpg, 4.9 apg, .301 FG%
Wilt: 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, 4.1 apg, and .473 FG%

Just a staggering domination.

Wilt outscored Russell 8-0-1, and had scoring margins of 31-11, 27-6, 29-3, 32-8, 30-5, and 37-13.

Wilt held a 5-4 rebounding edge, but he also crushed Russell by margins of 32-22, 30-20, 36-20, 30-10, 42-21, and 40-17.

Russell vs. Wilt in 5 EDF games:

Russell: 14.0 ppg, 26.3 rpg, 5.6 pg, .423 FG% (2 known games)
Wilt: 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, 3.0 apg .509 FG%

Wilt held a 4-1 scoring margin, including margins of 31-11, and 46-18. He also had a 4-1 rebounding advantage, including a margin of 32-18.

[LAZERUSS]

1966-67:


Most knowledgeable observers rank Wilt's '67 season as not only the greatest single season of his career, but many rank it as the greatest season ever, by anyone.

Chamberlain finally had an equal supporting cast to Russell, and a truly great coach in Alex Hannum. Hannum took essentially the same roster that had gone 55-25 the year before, but had leaned heavily on Wilt, and came to the conclusion that they could function better by being more balanced. And, of course, the key to that was Wilt. Hannum asked Chamberlain to become more of a facilitator, and Wilt was more than happy to comply.

The results were astonishing. The Sixers destroyed the eight-time defending champion Celtics in an early season encounter, 138-96, and then just ran away with from the league. They bolted out to a 46-4 record and then cruised home to a then NBA record of 68-13. The loaded Celtics may have fielded their finest team of the Russell-era, but they came in at a distant second with a 60-21 mark.

And while Wilt's scoring declined somewhat, his overall efficiency was just staggering. He "only" averaged 24.1 ppg, but it came on an eye-popping .683 FG% (and in an NBA that shot an eFG% of .441.) His .162 margin over the runner-up Bellamy is still an all-time record (.683 to Bellamy's .521.) And during the season he put up the three highest "perfect games" in NBA history, with games of 15-15, 16-16, and 18-18 from the field. He also set an NBA record of 35 straight made FGAs. He also had games of 11-11, 13-13, 10-11, 10-11, and 16-17 from the field, as well.

His passing was phenomenal, too. His 7.8 apg is still the second best mark of all-time by a center, training only his 67-68 season of 8.6. Included were 21 "triple doubles", and some of those were amazing. In one, he put up a 38-32-10 16-21 FG/FGA game, and in one of the greatest game's ever, he hung a 42-30-10 18-18 FG/FGA game.

Unfortunately, the NBA did not "officially" record blocked shots, so we will never know how many "quad doubles" that he had, but he did have a memorable known quad game against HOFer Nate Thurmond early in the season. In fact, it was even more amazing considering that his coach decided to abandon Wilt's facilitating at halftime because it wasn't working well. Chamberlain wound up with a 30-26-13-12 game against Nate, but he just annihilated Thurmond in the second half with a 24 point barrage.

Regarding Wilt's "decline" in scoring, he actually put up the league high game that year, with a 58 point game on 26-34 shooting from the field. He also had three more 40+ point games (41 on 16-17 shooting, 43 on 20-28 shooting, and that 42 point game on 18-18 shooting.) Rick Barry won the scoring title, with a 35.6 ppg (which BTW, was the highest full-time non-Wilt average during Wilt's 14 seasons in the league.) However, even Barry acknowledged that he (Barry) won it simply because Wilt didn't want it. Everyone in the league knew that Wilt could have easily won it had he been so inclined.

As for Wilt's HOF peers, again Reed was playing PF alongside Bellamy on the Knicks. And Reed's numbers cut into Bellamy's somewhat. Bells declined to 19.0 ppg, 13.5 rpg, and that .521 FG%.

Nate Thurmond supplanted Russell as the second best center (and player) in the league. In fact, Nate would finish a distant second to Chamberlain in the MVP voting. Thurmond had the finest season of his career (albeit, as almost always, he was injury-plagued.) He averaged 18.7 ppg, 21.3 rpg, and shot .437 from the field. However, because of Barry's shot-jacking, Nate's scoring was affected. He had already established by his second season, that, as a starter, he was capable of 20+ ppg seasons.

Thurmond's one-on-one defense was just spectacular. He would hold Bellamy to a 12.4 ppg average in their six H2H's. In fact, Nate owned Bellamy in their career H2H's. However, as great a defender as Nate was and would be throughout his career, he was helpless against a prime Wilt. Their 66-67 season would be no different...both in the regular season, and when the two met in the Finals. No other HOF center, including a peak Kareem, ever crushed Thurmond like a prime Chamberlain.

Russell was now the league's third best center, and the reality was, when Nate was healthy, Thurmond was the second best center in the league until Russell retired after the 68-69 season. Still, Russell had one of his better all-around seasons, averaging 13.3 ppg, 21.0 rpg, 5.8 apg, and on a .454 FG%.

After the Sixers steamrolled the NBA during the regular season, they pummelled Oscar's Royals in the first round of the playoffs. In the first game of that series, Chamberlain hung a 41 point game, on 19-30 shooting, which would be the highest scoring game by a Sixer in the post-season. He followed that up with a 37 point game, on 16-24 shooting. In game three he resumed his facilitating, and had a monster 16-30-19 (with an estimated 20 blocked shots.) Those 19 assists were a post-season record (tied with Cousy) at the time. And, of course, it is still, by far, the most ever by a center in the post-season. For the series, Wilt averaged 28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg (yes a triple-double series), and on a .617 FG% (in a post-season that would shoot .428.)

Chamberlain's Sixers then met the eight-time defending champion Celtics. The Wilt critics eagerly anticipated his team folding, though. However, it never came close to happening. The Sixers easily won the first three games of the series. In game one, Chamberlain hung an official "quad double" with a monster 24-32-13-12 game. In game three he set an all-time playoff record with a 41 rebound game. However, with Wilt hobbled by sore knees, the Celtics narrowly avoided a sweep in game four. Wilt had a good game, 22-22-10 but he was outrebounded by Russell for the only time in the series, 28-22, and Boston escaped with a 121-117 win.

The proud Celtics came out on fire in game five. Late in the first period they opened up a 17 point lead, and the Wilt skeptics now held some hope for a possible "choke job." However, Wilt pounded Russell in the first half with 22 points, and single-handedly kept his Sixers in the game, and by halftime Philly had closed to within 70-65. The 76ers started pulling away in the third quarter, and by mid-way in the 4th period they were routing the Celtics by a 131-104 margin... en route to a 140-116 win. From late in the first quarter, to mid-way thru the 4th, the Sixers had outscored Boston by 44 points!

And the Russell supporters have never been able to answer this question, either:

In the clinching game five of the '66 EDF's, Wilt's Sixers were down 3-1 against Russell's Celtics. Chamberlain exploded for a 46 point, 34 rebound game, but alas, with his teammates contributing absolutely nothing in that series, Philly lost the game, 120-112.

In the 66-67 EDF's, it was now Russell who was faced with that exact same scenario. His team was down 3-1, and desperately needed Russell to come up with a huge effort. Instead, Russell led the quietly, like a lamb being led to slaughter, in a blowout loss. Why? Where was Russell's 46 point game against Wilt? In that game five loss, Russell scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and 7 assists. Meanwhile, Chamberlain "the choker" had 29 points (again, 22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and seven blocked shots.

For the series, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 21.6 ppg to 11.4 ppg; outebounded Russell by a staggering 32.0 rpg to 23.4 rpg margin; outassisted Russell by a 10.0 apg to 6.0 apg (yes, yet another triple double series); and outshot Russell from the floor by a .556 to .358 margin. And in their known games, Wilt outblocked Russell by a 29-8 margin.


Wilt then faced his former Warrior team, and Thurmond, in the Finals. While the overall numbers were somewhat close, they were very deceiving. Wilt badly outplayed Thurmond in the last five games of that six game series, in leading his Sixers to a 4-2 title romp. Wilt outscored Nate, 17.7 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outrebounded Nate, 28.5 rpg to 26.7 rpg; outassisted Nate, 6.8 apg to 3.3 apg; and outshot Thurmond by an unfathomable .560 to .343 margin. Overall, Wilt outscored Nate, 5-1; outrebounded Nate, 5-1; outassisted Nate, 5-1; and outshot Nate from the floor, 6-0, in those six games. And in the title-clinching game six, Wilt outscored Thurmond, 24-12; outrebounded Nate, 23-22; and outshot him by an 8-13 to 4-13 margin. Just a complete and one-sided beatdown.



Russell vs Wilt in 9 regular season H2H's:

Russell: 12.2 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 4.1 apg, .425 FG% (8 known)
Wilt: 20.3 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 6.3 apg, .549 FG%

Russell's high point game against Wilt was 22 points. His high rebounding game against Chamberlain was 29. Wilt had 4 games of 20+ points against Russell, with a high of 30 points. Chamberlain had two games of 31 and 32 reounds. Overall, Wilt outscored Russell, 8-1, and outrebounded Russell, 7-2.

Russell vs. Wilt in 5 EDF's H2H's:

Russell: 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, .358 FG%
Wilt: 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, and on a .556 FG%

Russell's high point game was 20 points, and his high rebounding game was 29. Wilt had 4 games of 20+ points, with a high of 29. And Wilt also had 3 games of 30+ rebounds (32, 36, and 41.) Overall, Wilt outscored Russell, 5-0; outrebounded Russell, 4-1; outassisted Russell, 3-0-2; and outshot Russell, 5-0.

[GimmeThat]

in a rhythm game, some call it chemistry, others call it the guy who can dictate the pace of the game.

IT.

[LAZERUSS]

1967-68:


After leading his Sixers to the most dominating season in NBA history, and running away with his second straight MVP, Chamberlain was on top of the world entering his 67-68 season. He was clearly the best player in the league (and history), and every time he stepped on the floor he was either setting new records, or extending them. He was also the highest paid player in the league, and had just signed a one year contract at $250,000, which was far more than anyone had ever made to that point (Oscar was reportedly making $60,000, and his owner didn't think he was worth it.)

Still, all was not well. Wilt would be turning 31, and his years of playing nearly every minute, of nearly every game, were beginning to catch up to him. He was battling an assortment of ailments, including shin splints, muscle cramps, and aching knees. Furthermore, while he was making a huge sum of money (at the time obviously), he was in a heated dispute with Philly management. Wilt claimed that the previous Sixer owner, Ike Richmond, had promised him a share of ownership of the team. However, there was never anything in writing, and the new ownership group, headed by Irv Kozloff, weren't about to concede any ownership to Chamberlain.

However, Wilt did have one huge "ace in the hole." The newly formed ABA was in it's infancy, but would quickly be snatching NBA players. In fact, Rick Barry jumped to the ABA right after the championship series (however, he had to sit out the 67-68 season.) Clearly, Wilt would have been the biggest prize, and in fact, his presence alone, would have given the league instant legitimacy. And he had only signed a one year deal before the start of the 67-68 season, and would eligible to immediately sign on with the ABA after the '68 season.

Wilt readily admitted that he was finding it difficult to get motivated, especially over the course of an 82 game season. However, he had finished a stunning third in apg in the '67 campaign, and openly admitted that he wanted to lead the league in assists in '68. Bill Simmons, years later, took a shot at Wilt's "stats-padding", but the reality was, with Wilt SHARING the ball even more, no teammate complained about it. NOR did it have ANY negative effect on Chamberlain's Sixers, who would once again, run roughshod over the entire NBA.

I mentioned it a few posts back, but Chamberlain had a "roller coaster" season in '68. In his first 17 games, he was only averaging 15.0 ppg, albeit along with 8.3 apg, and 23.8 rpg. In one game against Thurmond in that span, he didn't take a FGA. And his Sixers, who had gone 46-4 in their first 50 games in the '67 season, were sitting at 12-5, and trailing Boston by two games (14-3.)

Virtually no one in the league was concerned, however. Rick Barry, who had won the scoring title in '67 at 35.6 ppg (BTW, the highest full-time "non-Wilt" scoring average IN the "Wilt-era"), had remarked that he (Barry), had won the scoring title, simply because Wilt didn't want it.

But, Chamberlain hit a two straight game period, against Bellamy and Nate, in which he only put up a combined 22 points, on a horrific 6-23 shooting. Of course, any time someone even whispered that Wilt might be slipping...boom...he exploded for a 52 point game, on 22-29 shooting, with 37 rebounds. But that game was also an example of Wilt's growing "achilles heel"...as he shot a shocking 8-30 from the FT line.

Beginning with that 52 point explosion, Chamberlain went on a mini rampage, in which he averaged 33 ppg over the course of 12 straight games, which included three consecutive monster games of 68, 47, and 53 points. The 68 point game was easily the NBA high that season.

Wilt's numbers against his HOF peers declined considerably from his absolute domination of them in the first eight years of his career (8 against Russell, 6 against Bellamy, and 3 against Thurmond.) Dankok8 has mentioned that Thurmond outplayed Wilt in their limited H2H's (Nate was injured for almost half the season, and played four H2H's against Chamberlain.) However, we only have two games in which their FG%'s were recorded, and even then, and as always, Wilt outshot Nate (.379 to .342.) The two split their scoring and rebounding "wins", and overall, Nate had a slight edge.

Wilt still easily outplayed Bellamy in their eight regular season H2H's, and just pounded Russell in their eight H2H's. As a side-note, Wilt held Russell to a head-shaking .283 FG% in their six known regular season H2H's. And in their regular season meetings from '63 thru '68, Wilt held Russell to known FG%'s of .366, .367, .281, .301, .425, and .283. And while Russell shot somewhat better against Wilt in their post-season H2H's, he was just light years behind Chamberlain in overall FG% efficiency in both their regular, and their post-season H2H's (Wilt also RAISED his FG% against Russell in the post-season.)

Wilt's Sixers were seemingly going thru the motions in the first half of the '68 season. After 32 games, they were still two games behind the Celtics (25-7 to 23-9), but a four game Boston losing streak allowed the Sixers to slip past them, and they slowly pulled away after that. But in their first 52 games, Philly was sitting at 37-15, and just cruising. They did finish on a tear, though, going 25-5 in their last 30 games, to again, run away with the best record in the league (62-20 to the Hawks 56-26, and Boston's 54-28.)

Chamberlain was piling up assists at an amazing rate, (especially for a center), and in his last 12 games of the season, he had 11 "triple doubles", including an NBA record of nine in a row. Not only that, he was just terrorizing the league in every facet of the game. In 10 of those 11 triple-doubles, he scored 20+ points, including four of 30+, and perhaps the most phenomenal triple double in NBA history, when he jack-hammered the helpless Lakers with a 53 point (on 24-29 shooting), 32 rebound, and 14 assist game. And their are even unverified estimates of Wilt blocking 24 shots, and recording 11 steals in that same game. Oh, and with Oscar missing 17 games, Chamberlain did in fact lead the NBA in assists, with 702 (8.6 apg.)

Overall, Wilt averaged 24.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg (ran away with the rebounding title by nearly 5 per game), and shot .595 from the field (again, a runaway win), and those 8.6 apg. And he also led the league in Defensive Win Shares, at 10.73, which is the eighth highest all-time, and the highest "non-Russell" season in NBA history.

And for the third straight season, he ran away with the MVP award, and none of his HOF peers (Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, or even PF Reed) even showed up in the voting. Chamberlain left no doubt that he was the greatest player in the world, and by a mile.


Russell vs. Wilt in 8 regular season H2H's:

Russell: 7.8 ppg, 17.5 rpg, 4.8 apg (5 known), .283 FG% (6 known)
Wilt: 17.1 ppg, 26.1 rpg, 8.5 apg, .471 FG% (5 known)

Simply no contest. Wilt dominated Russell (as he always did BTW.) Chamberlain had scoring highs of 31 and 23 points, while Russell was in single digits in six of the eight, and his high games were 16 and 12 points. Overall, Wilt held an 8-0 scoring margin. Chamberlain also held a 6-1-1 rebounding margin, which included margins of 27-16, 33-19, 27-12, 24-8, and 29-18.


Russell vs Wilt in EDF's 7 H2H's:

Russell: 13.7 ppg, 23.9 rpg, 4.1 apg, .440 FG%.
Wilt: 22.1 ppg, 25.1 rpg, 6.7 apg, .487 FG%.

Again, this was simply no contest until game's 6 and 7. In the first five games, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 24.2 ppg to 13.3 ppg; outrebounded Russell, 23.0 rpg to 22.0 rpg; outassisted Russell, 6.8 apg to 5.4 apg, and outshot Russell, .539 to .416. Overall, Wilt outscored Russell, 6-1; outrebounded Russell, 4-3; and outassisted Russell, 6-0-1. Chamberlain had scoring highs of 33, 28, 23, 22, while Russell had highs of 24, and 17 points. Wilt had high rebounding games of 34, 30, and 27. Russell's high rebounding games were 31, 26, and 24.

[LAZERUSS]

1968-69:


The last full season of a healthy Wilt.

As I had alluded to previously, Wilt and the Sixers' ownership group, headed by Irv Kosloff, were involved in a heated impasse going into the 67-68 season. Wilt had claimed that the previous Sixer owner, Ike Richmond, had verbally promised to sell him a portion of the team. Kosloff had no intention of honoring that agreement. However, the two did come together before the start of the 67-68 season, and agreed to a $250,000 single season contract, which was the largest, by far, at the time. Once again, the Royals ownership felt that Oscar wasn't worth his $60,000 a year contract.

Chamberlain had a TON of leverage, though. The ABA was formed in the 67-68 season, and it wasn't long that they were chasing NBA players. Immediately after the 66-67 season, they nabbed the Warriors Rick Barry, who had led the NBA in scoring at 35.6 ppg (and had a Finals scoring average of 40.8 BTW.) Unfortunately for Barry, he had to sit out a season before he could play, which would not have been the case with Wilt after '68.

And the newly formed NBA franchise, the Seattle Supersonics had an owner that wanted Wilt badly (Sam Schulman.)

As the 67-68 season wound down, it became increasingly clear that Wilt was going to leave the Sixers. Late in the season he "auditioned" for the LA Lakers, with a mammoth 53 point, 24-29 FG/FGA, 32 rebound, 14 assist game (in which he alledgedly also had double digit blocks and steals BTW.)

And following the Sixers collapse in the '68 Finals (again, due to the massive injuries that they incurred, including Wilt, himself), the Sixers coach, Alex Hannum informed Philly ownership that he was leaving, as well. The only coach who had beaten the Celtic Dynasty, (and twice BTW, in '58 and '67), and the best coach Wilt ever had, was gone. BTW, at his rsignation press conference, Hannum suggested that the Sixers ought to consider Wilt as his replacement.

Interesting, too, that Cherry mentioned Wilt's '68 stats in his book, (page 207), which were brought up during his supposed contract negotiations. 24.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, 8.6 apg, .595 FG%...AND, NINE blocks per game. I am not sure where he came up with that figure, but it was an interesting point.

In any case, Wilt essentially organized his own trade to the Lakers. LA was willing to pay Wilt a $1.5 million dollar contract over 5 years; was willing to part with three players, including two quality starters in all-star guard Archie Clark and journeyman center Darrall Imhoff); and the fact that the Sixers could ill afford to have Wilt just leave for the ABA, and get nothing in return.

Wilt was on his way to LA.

IMHO, had the Sixers been able to keep Wilt, they would have most likely went on a "mini-dynasty" run. Greer, Walker, Jones, Jackson, and Wilt were either in their primes, or certainly close to them. And Billy Cunningham was just coming into his. And had injuries not decimated their '68 title hopes, they would already have had two-in-a-row going into '69. Had they kept that core intact, and healthy, they most likely would have won titles in '69 and '70. The only question after that would have been, could they have challenged Alcindor's (Kareem's) '70-71 Bucks.

In any case, when the trade was announced, the entire sporting world predicted a "super team", what with Wilt paired up with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. Three of arguably the top-5 players in the league (although in reality, Baylor was probably no longer in that class), all on the same team. There were even pre-season prognosticators predicting a possible undefeated season.

Of course, the reality was...Baylor was on the downward slide of his career, and even worse...the Lakers had coach, Butch "the Butcher" Van Breda Kolff. Who would ultimately cost the "super team" a shot at a championship.


The 68-69 Lakers had traded three players to get Wilt. Two of them were valuable contributors on a Laker team that had gone 52-30 in '67-68, all-star guard (and 20 ppg scorer) Archie Clark, and veteran 6-10 center Darrall Imhoff, who had averaged 9 ppg and 13 rpg in '67-68.

The "bashers" love to point out that with Wilt's addition to LA, the Lakers "only" improved to a 55-27 record (and Wilt's former team, the Sixers, only declined from a 62-20 record, down to 55-27.)

What the Simmonsites will never bring up was that the Lakers also lost future HOFer Gail Goodrich, who was THE prize of the expansion draft, and his 14 ppg. How important were Clark and Goodrich on the 67-68 Lakers? Jerry West missed 31 games that season, and with Clark and Goodrich, they went 19-12. Now BOTH were gone. And they were replaced by journeyman Johnny Egan and his 8 ppg, and who whose ONE PLAY in the '69 Finals, probably cost LA a world title.

So, the reality was, Wilt was basically replacing 42 ppg and 18 rpg. Not only that, but West would once again miss 21 games, and as we shall see, Wilt was monumental in keeping LA afloat in the bulk of those games. Overall, the Lakers went 12-9 without West.

Meanwhile Wilt's former team, the Sixers, over-achieved. They went 55-27, which again, was STILL a seven game drop from Wilt's last season (and 13 games from '67.) However, they were routed in the first round of the playoffs, by a 48-34 Boston team. What was interesting, though, was that Wilt's "replacements", Clark and Imhoff, went on to combine for 36 ppg, 20 rpg, and shoot .510 in that series...and they were STILL blown out by the Celtics. Clearly, Wilt's true IMPACT had been far greater than his pure stats alone. He had carried a team that was just decimated by injuries, including Wilt himself, in the 67-68 EDF's, to a game seven, four point loss against those Celtics. And yet the 68-69 Sixers with a deeper roster, and a much healthier team, had been slaughtered in the first round...even with Wilt's replacements playing exceptionally well.


As for Wilt's Lakers...

Van Breda Kolff did not like the Wilt trade from day one. He had been the architect of a good Princeton team in college (albeit, he had Bill Bradley at the time), and he wanted a balanced, pass oriented team, that would set picks and take the open shot. Wilt was the opposite of that (albeit, Wilt was a great passer.) With Imhoff, the 67-68 Lakers had run the high post offense excerptionally well, averaging 121 ppg and on a league-leading .477 FG%. Baylor and West each averaged 26 ppg, and then Clark had 20 ppg, Goodrich 14, Counts 11, and Crawford 10.

Van Breda Kolff did not want to change his offense for Wilt. In fact, early on he asked Wilt to not only sacrifice his shooting, but to also play the high post, so that Baylor could continue to roam the baselines without as much congestion. Wilt reluctantly complied, and the results were as expected...a failure.

The "super team" that some had predicted would go undefeated, started out the 68-69 season, getting blown out by Wilt's former team, the Sixers, 114-96. In fact, they would drop three of their first four games. They did begun to play somewhat better, albeit, with West continually in-and-out of the lineup.

By late January they were 33-17, were riding a two game losing streak, and nowhere near the team that many had predicted would cakewalk to the title. To make matters worse, Wilt was averaging 17 ppg, which was way less than his previous career low of 24.1 ppg. With the high post experiment almost a disaster, the Laker offense had become stagnant. And VBK basically blamed Wilt. In fact, he had even BENCHED Wilt at times during the course of the season.

continued...

[LAZERUSS]

1968-69 Continued...


Say what you want about Wilt, but the fact remained that Wilt was the game's biggest draw. Before coming to Philadelphia, the Sixers were drawing as few as 1000 fans at their games. By his last season, they were drawing 11,000 and outdrawing the Celtics and Lakers.

Same thing in LA. Even at the mid-way point in a relatively disappointing season, the Lakers attendance was up by 11%. Their owner, Jack Kent Cooke, was elated with how things were going, as well.

West had said before the season even started that the Wilt-trade would take about six months to adapt to, which was exactly the way it went.

Again, at the 50 game mark, LA was sitting at 33-17, and Wilt was averaging a career low (at the time, of course), 17 ppg.

It got so bad that SI ran an article that hit the newstands on 1/27/69 that basically claimed that "Wilt could no longer score." I am not sure if Wilt had caught wind of the story before it broke, but in any case, on 1/26, Chamberlain exploded for 60 points. A few days later West would miss four games, play two, and then miss eight more. In the games he missed, Wilt carried LA to a 6-6 record.

But it wasn't just Wilt "carrying" that team, but in the fashion in which he did it. From 1/26 thru 2/23, and covering 17 games, Wilt put up a "Wilt-like" run, averaging 31 ppg on get this... .678 shooting (to go along with 23 rpg.) He crushed Phoenix on 2/9 with the most efficient 60+ point game in NBA history, (66 points on an .829 FG%... 29-35.) He hung games of 30 and 25 on Hayes (on a combined .586 FG%); he hung games of 33 and 32 on Rule; he pounded Russell for 35 points (his highest game against Russell since his 46 point game in game five of the '66 EDF's); and 23 points on Thurmond (on 70% shooting.)

Overall, in those 17 games, and with West missing 12 of them, LA went 10-7. West returned to play the last 15 games, and the Lakers went 12-3 down the stretch to win the Western Division going away, at 55-27. Late in the season, and in a nationally televised game in Boston, the Lakers annihilated the Celtics, 108-73. They were jelling at the right time, and were the favorites to win the title going into the playoffs.

However, and for whatever reasons, in those last 15 games, Wilt's offensive production declined back to 16 ppg.

And it would spill over into the playoffs as well.

Still, overall, Wilt had had a season, that for anyone else, would have been considered monumental, averaging 20.5 ppg, 21.1 rpg (a new Laker record), .583 FG% (a Laker record that he would shatter two more times), 4.5 apg, and likely 8+ bpg. In a nationally televised game on Christmas, SI recorded Wilt with 23 blocked shots, which, of course, would be an all-time record, had blocks been "officially" recorded back then (and likely Wilt had games of 30+ blocked shots earlier in his career.) He also had a 20 block game against Milwaukee on 1/31, which may have been the last 20+ block game of his career. He led the NBA in rebounding and FG%, and put up his usual 20-20 season.

And, as always, Wilt put up his usual array of other near "historic" games in 68-69. At age 32, he had hung TWO 60+ games, which is the record for 32+ year olds. Again, he shot 29-35 (.829) from the field in one of them, which is the all-time high for a 60+ point game. He outrebounded Russell in one game, 42-18, which was the NBA high that season. He had a 34-27 game against Detroit, on 14-14 FG/FGAs, with 11 blocks. He slaughtered Unseld, who would go on to win the MVP, with a 25-38 game (more on that later.) And he had five triple-doubles (one of them with blocks).



The Lakers entered the playoffs as the favorite to win their first ever title in Los Angeles. They finished the regular season on a 12-3 run, which included a nationally televised rout of the Celtics, in Boston, by a 108-73 margin.

Meanwhile, Boston limped into the playoffs with a 48-34 record, and a 4th place finish in the Eastern Conference. As for Russell, he was now the third best center...in his own conference (behind Unseld and Reed), and, at, best, the 5th best center in the league (with Wilt and Thurmond in the West.)

Still, all was not well with LA. The trade for Wilt had weakened their overall depth, and their deepest position in '68, guard, was now their weakest. West was brilliant, when healthy, but as usual, he missed 21 games. And their other staring guard was journeyman Johnny Egan, who contributed very little all season long (8 ppg.)

And Elgin Baylor was showing signs that the end was near. Like Russell, he finished with an undeserved high finish in the MVP balloting, but his defense had been awful, and as always, his efficiency was poor (.447.)

And in the Laker post-season, Baylor would play poorly. He played well in four games out of their 18, and in his biggest games, he was awful.

The Lakers opened the playoffs at home, and with Thurmond playing two of the best games of his long career against Wilt, the Lakers were stunned in both. Wilt battled Nate to a draw in game one, but Baylor's performance would set the tone for his play the entire playoffs... 12 points, on 5-18 shooting.

In game two, Thurmond easily outplayed Wilt. He put up 27 points (on 11-18 shooting...one of the very few games in their career H2H's in which he shot over 50%), while outrebounding Wilt, 28-17, and blocking 14 shots. Baylor was somewhat better in this game, but his 20 points came on 8-19 shooting.

The series shifted back to San Francisco, and with the Warriors already leading 2-0, the season was now in doubt. Baylor was simply horrific in game three, going 2-10, and West was not much better, going 8-22. However, Wilt bounced back and pounded Nate in game three. They each scored 22 points, but Wilt shot 9-14 to Nate's 8-20, and Chamberlain easily outrebounded Thurmond, 28-20. Behind Wilt's excellent game, the Lakers won game three easily, 115-98.

And with Chamberlain now taking control, LA won game four by a solid 103-88 margin. Chamberlain held Nate to 3-13 shooting, and blocked nine shots. West finally erupted for 36 points, but Baylor continued to be mired a horrid shooting slump, with a 3-8 game.

The series was now tied, and shifted back to LA for game five. Nate outscored Wilt, 18-7, but he only shot 9-22 from the floor, and Chamberlain destroyed him on the glass, 27-13. And Wilt continued to terrorize the Warrior shooters, with 9 blocked shots in the first half alone, and a recorded 10 for the game. West again played well, with 29 points, but Baylor's travails continued. with 14 points on 6-13 shooting. The Lakers entered the 4th quarter with a 10 point lead, and held on for a 103-98 win. They had come back from an 0-2 hole to take a 3-2 series lead.

Chamberlain wiped the floor with Nate in game six, as the Lakers annihilated the Warriors, 118-78. He outscored Thurmond, 11-8; outshot him, 5-9 to 3-13, and outrebounded him, 25-14. And for the second consecutive game, he recorded 10 blocked shots.

During the course of their regular season H2H's, Nate had slightly outrebounded Wilt (23.8 rpg to 23.7 rpg), but Chamberlain, as always just trashed Thurmond in the post-season, this time by a 23.5 rpg to 19.5 rpg margin. And, as always, Wilt crushed Thurmond in the FG% department, .500 to .392. And over the course of their last four games, Wilt held Thurmond to a .338 FG%.

As for Baylor, he shot an abysmal .380 in the series, and unfortunately for the Lakers, that would be the theme the entire playoffs.


Chamberlain's '69 playoff run was unquestionably the worst and most disappointing of his career, but he did put up a remarkable series in the WDF's, all while leading the Lakers to a 4-1 series romp over the Hawks. He averaged 19.2 ppg, 25.8 rpg, and shot .638 from the field.

Baylor was again just atrocious until the clinching game five win in that series. He erupted for 29 points, on 14-18 shooting in that win. Prior to that game, however, he had shot .310 from the field in that series, and had failed to play one decent game over the course of his first ten straight playoff games.

And it would continue in the Finals..

continued

[LAZERUSS]

1968-69 Continued...


The Lakers were again headed to the Finals. This would be there sixth trip in eight years, and for the first time, they came in as favorites. Why? Because they finally had an answer for Bill Russell.

Not only that, but LA, who had started the playoffs down 0-2, were coming into the Finals with eight wins in their last nine games.

Meanwhile, Boston, which had struggled all season long, and only finished 4th in their conference, were beginning to peak at the right time. They stomped Wilt's former team, the 55-27 Sixers, in the first round, 4-1 (despite Wilt's "replacements" putting up a combined 36 ppg, 20 rpg, and .510 FG% series.) Then, with Russell suddenly rising up offensively, they stunned the favored Knicks, 4-2. Russell, who had only averaged 9.9 ppg during the regular season, elevated his scoring to 16.3 ppg in that series, which included games of 21 and 25 points.

And while virtually no one gave Boston much of a chance going into the Finals, they did have one enormous advantage over LA, and that was depth. They could go go a solid nine deep, and all nine players could be productive (as we would see in the most pivotal game of the series.)

Russell continued to surprise in the post-season, and in game one, he outplayed Wilt, outscoring him, 16-15, and outrebounding Wilt, 27-23. This was totally unexpected, as Chamberlain had owned Russell durihg their six regular season H2H's.

Still, behind West's spectacular 53 points and 10 assists, the Lakers escaped with a game one win, 120-118. And even Baylor had played reasonably well, with 24 points, on 10-21 shooting.

The Lakers took firm control of the series in game two, with a 118-112 win. However, for the second consecutive game, Russell outscored and outrebounded Wilt. West was just brilliant again, with 41 points, and even Baylor played well, pouring in 32 points on a stunning 11-15 shooting.

The Lakers now led the series, 2-0, and heading back to Boston they were poised to win their first ever title in Los Angeles. And while Russell had outplayed Wilt in the first two games, no one expected that trend to continue, and with West playing at an unfathomable level, and Baylor seemingly coming out of his slump, there was now a possibilty of a Laker sweep. And how sweet would that have been for Laker fans, as well as Wilt?

Any thoughts of a sweep went down the drain in game three. Boston rebounded with a 111-105 win. Chamberlain easily outplayed Russell in that loss, outscoring him 16-11, and outrebounding him, 26-18. However, BOTH Baylor and West fell apart in the 4th quarter, shooting a combined 1-14 from the field. Baylor was particularly putrid, scoring 11 points on 4-18 shooting.

Game four would ultimately decide the series. The game was sloppily played throughout, and neither team played well offensively. Still, the Lakers had the lead, 88-87, and the ball, with 15 seconds left. For all of his incompetence, Laker head coach Butch Van Breda Kolff, made one of his two biggest coaching blunders at the worst possible time. Instead of putting the ball into "Mr. Clutch's" hands, he had Johnny Egan holding the fate of the series in his hands, instead. And the result was as expected. Egan was stripped by Em Bryant, and then Sam Jones, while falling down, banked in the game winner at the buzzer. That ONE PLAY cost the Lakers a series romp, and in fact, cost them the title.

Still, it was not all Egan's fault. Only West had played well, with a monster 40 point game on 15-30 from the field, and 10-10 from the line. Wilt had a miserable offensive game, scoring a meager 8 points, on 3-8 from the field, and 2-11 from the line. However, his counterpart, Russell, was no better, as he only scored 6 points on 2-12 from the field, and 2-4 from the line. Furthermore, Wilt outrebounded him, 31-29. No, the real blame lied in the play of Baylor. Baylor scored a pathetic 5 points, on a horrific 2-14 shooting from the field, AND 1-5 from the line.

The Lakers stormed back on their home floor in game five, with a solid 117-104 win. Chamberlain waxed Russell in this game, outscoring him 13-7, and outrebounding him, 31-13. West poured in 39 points, and even Egan finally made a contribution with 23 points. However, Baylor once again struggled, scoring 8 points on 4-13 shooting. In his last three games, Baylor had gone 10-45 from the field, or an unfathomable, ... .222 from the field.

With a chance to wrap up the series back in Boston in game six, Wilt let his team down. He played a lethargic game, and for the third time in the series, Russell outplayed him. Chamberlain scored a meager 8 points on 1-5 from the field, and was outrebounded by Russell, 19-18. West also had his worst game of the series, with 26 points on 9-19 shooting, but Baylor finally snapped back from his horrible slump with a 26 point game, on 9-18 shooting. Boston extended the series to a game seven, with a 99-90 win.

The series headed back to Los Angeles for a game seven...

[LAZERUSS]

1968-69 continued:


The '69 Finals were the sixth meeting in eight years between the Lakers and Celtics, but for the first time, LA had home court advantage.

Laker owner Jack Kent Cooke was so confident that his Lakers would win their first ever title in Los Angeles, that he hung "victory" balloons from the rafters, and had champagne on ice in the dressing room.

If Boston needed an additional motivation, that was it. Russell pointed out the balloons to his teammates, and from the opening tap, the proud Celtics took control of the game. By late in the third period they had opened up a 15 point lead. To make matters even worse, Chamberlain picked up his 5th personal foul before the end of the quarter.

And when Boston extended the lead to 17 with a little over 10 minutes left, all looked bleak for LA. Then Russell picked up HIS 5th personal foul. For all the undeserved criticism Wilt received for his supposed weak play with five fouls, which was just ridiculous, since he seldom even committed even three in a game...how about Russell? Immediately after Russell picked up his 5th foul, the Lakers went into Wilt, who went right around the "matador" defense of Russell for an easy layin.

Alas, with BVK's coaching, Wilt did not receive the ball in the low post again. Shortly after Russell's 5th personal, Sam Jones fouled out. Jones had been brilliant in his final game of his career, with 24 points, on 10-16 shooting. And with Russell in hiding the rest of the game, the Lakers surged back. With six minutes remaining, Wilt grabbed a rebound that led to a fast break basket, and the margin was now nine. However, Chamberlain had landed awkwardly, and injured his knee. He stayed in long enough to grab another rebound, and his outlet to West led to a foul. Wilt had to come out. West hit both FTs, and with deficit was now seven. In a span of a little over four minutes, the Lakers had outscored the Celtics by 10 points. Boston was now clearly running on fumes.

LA continued to cut into the deficit, and with about three minutes remaining, Wilt asked to go back in. Van Breda Kolff would make the worst coaching decision of his career. He kept Wilt on the bench, and instead rode the great Mel f***ing Counts down the stretch. Still, LA cut the margin to 103-102 late. Then, with Counts missing a wide open shot, and then committing a horrible turnover in the last minute, and with Boston getting yet another miracle shot, this time from Don Nelson, the Celtics escaped with a 108-106 win, and yet another bitter defeat for LA.

Chamberlain badly outplayed Russell in the game. He outscored him, 18-6; he outshot him, 7-8 to 2-7; and he outrebounded him, 27-21. And while Wilt was on the bench in the last five minutes of the game, Russell was nowhere to be found in the entire 4th quarter. In fact, Chamberlain, on an injured knee, and in two straight possessions, had matched Russell's entire rebounding for the 4th quarter (and Wilt, playing five minutes less in that period, outrebounded him, 7-2.)

Boston did get great play from Sam Jones, but their real hero was John Havlicek, with his 26 points on 11-19 shooting. And as I pointed out earlier, the Boston "role" players came up huge. Nelson not only hit the game-winner, he kicked in with 16 points. And Em Bryant, one of the heroes in the game four win, poured in 20 points.

Meanwhile on the LA side, there was blame to go all around. West had played brilliantly, as he did the entire series, scoring 42 points, grabbing 13 rebounds, and handing out 12 assists, but even he missed 4 FTs, two in the last period, and overall, shot 14-29 from the field. Of course, no one played worse than Baylor, who shot 8-22 from the field, and overall, "led" LA as their worst shooter in the post-season (.385.)

Of course, the real blame for the Laker loss lay directly on the shoulders of Van Breda Kolff. He repeatedly made coaching blunders the entire series, and his stubborn disdain for Wilt, not only cost LA a title, but basically his coaching career, as well. When West found out what had transpired in the last few minutes, he was furious. VBK quickly "retired" before suffering the embarrassment of a well deserved firing.

Russell, who once again, was a non-factor in the 4th period, shocked Wilt when he claimed that "nothing short of a broken leg would have kept me out", (albeit, he had an injured ankle in the '58 series, and missed two games.) Chamberlain was deeply hurt, and the two did not speak for many years, until Russell finally apologized both in private, and then in public.

Of the several close losses that Wilt had had in his NBA career, this one was the worst. He had a roster, that was on paper anyway, better than the aging roster that Russell had. And while Havlicek probably deserved the FMVP as much as West, West had been sensational in the series. For the first time in Wilt's career, he was not the best player on the floor, and in fact, he had a teammate that was...and he still came up short.

And thanks to Dankok8:


Wilt vs. Russell

Regular Season (6 games)

Wilt: 16.3 ppg, 24.0 rpg, 4.8 apg on 50.7 %FG
Russell: 6.7 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 5.8 apg on 34.0 %FG

Wilt had a few games where he just obliterated Russell.

Playoffs (7 games)

Wilt: 11.7 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 3.0 apg on 50.0 %FG
Russell: 9.1 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 5.1 apg on 39.7 %FG

It was pretty close.

In their six regular season meetings, Wilt had games in which he outscored Russell, 35-5, and outrebounded him by 42-18. Overall, Wilt held a 6-0-0 scoring edge in H2H's, adn a 5-0-1 rebounding advantage.

[LAZERUSS]

It gets sadder every day doesn't it.

Real analysis of a Wilt/Russell match-up (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=194761)

Complete with honesty and context and very little subjective opinion.

Yep...I find it fascinating that Russell is declared the "winner" in some of those H2H's, when he would outplay, or contain Wilt for a HALF. Again, I have posted games in which Chamberlain led 4th quarter comebacks from as much as 20 points down against Russell's teams. But the Russell "apologists" continue to credit him with "holding" Chamberlain down for periods of games.

Of course, here is what Wilt was really up against in that series: In game two Wilt just crushed Russell, outscoring him by a 42-9 margin; outrebounding him by a 37-20 margin; and outshooting him from the floor by a 16-31 to 4-14 margin...all in a seven point win (113-106.) Wilt didn't have the luxury that Russell did, in which he could just "contain" Russell for halves of games, and still carry his team to a win. He generally had to overwhelm him for his team to be competitive.

Oh, and in that '62 post-season, Wilt single-handedly carried his team past Syracuse in the first round, including the "at-the-limit" game five in which he scored 56 points and grabbed 35 rebounds...and then to a game seven, two point loss against Russell's HOF-laden 60-20 Celtics...and in a post-season in which his teammates collectively shot...get this... .354 from the field! How? How could Wilt take such a cast of clowns, who played even worse in the post-season, to a game seven, two point loss against a much better Celtic team?

Tom Merschery, Wilt's teammate, after that series: "The Boston players, man-for-man, wer better players than the Warriors. To go as far as we did was Wilt's doing. We came within two points of the championship."


The reality was, Chamberlain battled all game long, in nearly EVERY H2H game with Russell in their 143 career matchups. And while Russell gets credit for containing Wilt for halves, or even quarters, there were a TON of games in which Wilt shut Russell down for ENTIRE games.

Just another example of the "Wilt Double Standard."

[the mesiah]

https://forum.woodenaxe.com/attachments/330x182px-ll-7dc6c095_micheal-jackson-eating-popcorn-theater-gif-gif.853/

[LAZERUSS]

Again...


And the Russell supporters have never been able to answer this question, either:

In the clinching game five of the '66 EDF's, Wilt's Sixers were down 3-1 against Russell's Celtics. Chamberlain exploded for a 46 point, 34 rebound game, but alas, with his teammates contributing absolutely nothing in that series, Philly lost the game, 120-112.

In the 66-67 EDF's, it was now Russell who was faced with that exact same scenario. His team was down 3-1, and desperately needed Russell to come up with a huge effort. Instead, Russell led them quietly, like a lamb being led to slaughter, in a blowout loss. Why? Where was Russell's 46 point game against Wilt? In that game five loss, Russell scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and 7 assists. Meanwhile, Chamberlain "the choker" had 29 points (again, 22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and seven blocked shots.

For the series, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 21.6 ppg to 11.4 ppg; outebounded Russell by a staggering 32.0 rpg to 23.4 rpg margin; outassisted Russell by a 10.0 apg to 6.0 apg (yes, yet another triple double series); and outshot Russell from the floor by a .556 to .358 margin. And in their known games, Wilt outblocked Russell by a 29-8 margin.

[GimmeThat]

there were 8 teams in the league

and then there's Wilt, who statistically was by far the best player during that era.

I don't even care about Russell

but how can he not find a team to beat the Boston Celtics with?


Edit- he did it in 66-67

[LAZERUSS]

there were 8 teams in the league

and then there's Wilt, who statistically was by far the best player during that era.

I don't even care about Russell

but how can he not find a team to beat the Boston Celtics with?

There were 8 teams in Wilt's ROOKIE season, 9 teams from '60-61 thru '65-66, 10 teams in '66-67, 12 teams in '67-68, and 14 teams in '68-69.

Russell's TEAMS had between FIVE to as many as NINE HOF players. Wilt had seasons of as low as TWO.

And while Russell enjoyed a 9-1 margin in rings in their ten years together, and a 7-1 margin in post-season H2H team wins...Wilt's TEAMs lost FOUR of those H2H series in game SEVEN's, and by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. The reality was, Wilt was only a few points away from having as much as a 5-3 margin in H2H wins against Russell's teams.

It wasn't as if Russell were just wiping the floor with Wilt, and his Celtics were routing Chamberlain's teams in every series. Overall, Russell's teams went 29-20 against Wilt's teams in their post-season H2H's, and many of those wins were by narrow margins. And Wilt was either outplaying, or downright obliterating Russell in every one of those series, as well.

[LAZERUSS]

In their 143 career H2H's, Wilt outscored Russell in 132 of them. And he outrebounded him by a 92-43-8 margin.

Russell had a total of three games of 30+ points against Wilt, with a high of 37 points...and Chamberlain outscored him in all three. In fact, Wilt held a 69-3 margin in 30+ point games, a 25-0 margin in 40+ point games, a 5-0 margin in 50+ point games, and even had a game in which he outscored Russell by a 62-23 margin.

Wilt also held a 23-4 margin in 35+ rebound H2H's, including a 7-1 margin in 40+ H2H's (Russell's high was a even 40), and even included a game in which he outrebounded Russell by a staggering 55-19 margin.

In their 143 career H2H games, Chamberlain outshot Russell from the field by a .495 to .382 margin (and .513 to .411 in their 49 post-season H2H's.)

[Roundball_Rock]

Wilt is the clear BOAT.

What people don't realize by invoking how small the league was back then is when you have less teams each individual team becomes stronger. Think about it. Currently there are 30 teams. With 12 people on the roster that equals 360 layers. If the NBA contracted to 10 teams tomorrow you would have 120 players--eliminating 2/3 of today's players. In other words, you are essentially left with the top 4 players on every team today being put on the same team. Imagine a league where the 12th man is J.J. Reddick or Reggie Jackson. With each team stronger it makes it harder for any individual player to impact the game. In a more diluted league it is easier for a superstar to have an impact.

[LAZERUSS]

Chamberlain was finally surrounded with an equal supporting cast, who were healthy, in his 66-67 season. Keep in mind that Russell's Celtics went 60-21 that season, which was their third highest win total in the Russell dynasty era.

In the EDF's, the Sixers romped 4-1 over those Celtics, in a series in which they outscored Boston, per game, 121.2 to 111.2 ppg. Wilt had Hal Greer averaging 29.2 ppg, Chet Walker at 20.6 ppg, Wali Jones at 19.4 ppg, Luke Jackson at 13.4 ppg, and Billy Cunningham at 12.4 ppg. Russell had John Havlicek at 30.0 ppg, Sam Jones at 21.2 ppg, Bailey Howell at 17.2 ppg, and Larry Siegfried at 16.2 ppg in that series.

So with equal rosters playing equally...

Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 21.6 ppg to 11.2 ppg; out-rebounded Russell, per game, 32.0 to 23.4 rpg; outassisted Russell, per game, 10.0 apg to 6.0 apg, and outshot Russell from the floor by a .556 to .358 margin. And in the known blocks in that series, Wilt held a 29-8 margin.

[dankok8]

Sometimes outplaying someone for a half or even a key 5-6 min stretch is enough to get a nod as the better player if that is the point when the game was decided. For example say Boston makes a big run in the 2nd quarter and takes a huge lead into the break with Russell outplaying Wilt in that stretch while making huge defensive plays. Does it make sense to give Wilt the edge based on the final boxscore stats when Wilt achieved most of his points and rebounds in garbage time when Russell and the Celtics just played the lead and hardly cared about defending him hard. Context is just HUGE. I don't know how LAZERUSS can argue this. It's not just Wilt... we see the same for the 1995 Finals. Boxscore stats could have you arguing that Shaq outplayed Olajuwon but those who watched the series know that's a crock! In key moments Hakeem had the upper hand and even Shaq himself said "he dusted me".

Overall I'd give Russell the edge over Wilt in the 1962 EDF or at least a wash. Same for the 1966 EDF (despite the huge Game 5), 1968 EDF, and 1969 Finals. 1960 EDF is kind of hard to grade because of the hand injury. How much should Wilt take blame for that? In 1964 Finals, 1965 EDF, and 1967 EDF Wilt is the clear winner.

Overall throughout their playoff battles it's very close. And of course that doesn't capture Russell's intangibles and how he MADE his teammates better. Or how in from 1966 EDF onwards in half of their battles Russell didn't have the better team and still won 3/4 series.

[LAZERUSS]

Sometimes outplaying someone for a half or even a key 5-6 min stretch is enough to get a nod as the better player if that is the point when the game was decided. For example say Boston makes a big run in the 2nd quarter and takes a huge lead into the break with Russell outplaying Wilt in that stretch while making huge defensive plays. Does it make sense to give Wilt the edge based on the final boxscore stats when Wilt achieved most of his points and rebounds in garbage time when Russell and the Celtics just played the lead and hardly cared about defending him hard. Context is just HUGE. I don't know how LAZERUSS can argue this. It's not just Wilt... we see the same for the 1995 Finals. Boxscore stats could have you arguing that Shaq outplayed Olajuwon but those who watched the series know that's a crock! In key moments Hakeem had the upper hand and even Shaq himself said "he dusted me".

Overall I'd give Russell the edge over Wilt in the 1962 EDF or at least a wash. Same for the 1966 EDF (despite the huge Game 5), 1968 EDF, and 1969 Finals. 1960 EDF is kind of hard to grade because of the hand injury. How much should Wilt take blame for that? In 1964 Finals, 1965 EDF, and 1967 EDF Wilt is the clear winner.

Overall throughout their playoff battles it's very close. And of course that doesn't capture Russell's intangibles and how he MADE his teammates better. Or how in from 1966 EDF onwards in half of their battles Russell didn't have the better team and still won 3/4 series.

Wilt injured his wrist in a melee at the end of game two in the '60 EDF's. In game three, and probably for the only time in their 49 post-season H2H's, Russell badly outplayed Wilt. Russell played 40 minutes, scored 26 points, on 12-24 from the field, with 5 assists, and 39 rebounds. Wilt played 35 minutes (that right there should tell you something), and scored 12 points, on 6-13 from the field (and 0-6 from the line), with 6 assists, and 15 rebounds.

The final score... Boston 120.... Philly 90.

[LAZERUSS]

Sometimes outplaying someone for a half or even a key 5-6 min stretch is enough to get a nod as the better player if that is the point when the game was decided. For example say Boston makes a big run in the 2nd quarter and takes a huge lead into the break with Russell outplaying Wilt in that stretch while making huge defensive plays. Does it make sense to give Wilt the edge based on the final boxscore stats when Wilt achieved most of his points and rebounds in garbage time when Russell and the Celtics just played the lead and hardly cared about defending him hard. Context is just HUGE. I don't know how LAZERUSS can argue this. It's not just Wilt... we see the same for the 1995 Finals. Boxscore stats could have you arguing that Shaq outplayed Olajuwon but those who watched the series know that's a crock! In key moments Hakeem had the upper hand and even Shaq himself said "he dusted me".

Overall I'd give Russell the edge over Wilt in the 1962 EDF or at least a wash. Same for the 1966 EDF (despite the huge Game 5), 1968 EDF, and 1969 Finals. 1960 EDF is kind of hard to grade because of the hand injury. How much should Wilt take blame for that? In 1964 Finals, 1965 EDF, and 1967 EDF Wilt is the clear winner.

Overall throughout their playoff battles it's very close. And of course that doesn't capture Russell's intangibles and how he MADE his teammates better. Or how in from 1966 EDF onwards in half of their battles Russell didn't have the better team and still won 3/4 series.

Of course, Chamberlain HAD to outplay Russell in ENTIRE games for his team's to be competitive. Again, in game two of the '62 EDF's...Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9; outrebounded Russell, 37-20; and outshot Russell from the floor, 16-31 to 4-14. The result? A 113-106 Philly win.

[LAZERUSS]

Sometimes outplaying someone for a half or even a key 5-6 min stretch is enough to get a nod as the better player if that is the point when the game was decided. For example say Boston makes a big run in the 2nd quarter and takes a huge lead into the break with Russell outplaying Wilt in that stretch while making huge defensive plays. Does it make sense to give Wilt the edge based on the final boxscore stats when Wilt achieved most of his points and rebounds in garbage time when Russell and the Celtics just played the lead and hardly cared about defending him hard. Context is just HUGE. I don't know how LAZERUSS can argue this. It's not just Wilt... we see the same for the 1995 Finals. Boxscore stats could have you arguing that Shaq outplayed Olajuwon but those who watched the series know that's a crock! In key moments Hakeem had the upper hand and even Shaq himself said "he dusted me".

Overall I'd give Russell the edge over Wilt in the 1962 EDF or at least a wash. Same for the 1966 EDF (despite the huge Game 5), 1968 EDF, and 1969 Finals. 1960 EDF is kind of hard to grade because of the hand injury. How much should Wilt take blame for that? In 1964 Finals, 1965 EDF, and 1967 EDF Wilt is the clear winner.

Overall throughout their playoff battles it's very close. And of course that doesn't capture Russell's intangibles and how he MADE his teammates better. Or how in from 1966 EDF onwards in half of their battles Russell didn't have the better team and still won 3/4 series.

Chamberlain was PLAYING every minute of every game in that series with MULTIPLE injuries, and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING throughout. And his TEAM was just DECIMATED by injuries, as well.

Thanks to PHILA:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328011&postcount=14

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328006&postcount=13


Furthermore, his Sixers were up 3-1, and in what could have been a closeout game five, Chamberlain mauled Russell...outscoring him, 28-8, outrebounding him, 30-24, and outshooting him, 11-21 to 4-10. But in a tight game late in the third period, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones went down with injuries. Boston went on to win that game. In the first five games of that series, Chamberlain pounded Russell.


Collectively, he had outscored Russell by a 24.2 ppg to 13.2 ppg margin; outrebounded Russell by a 23.0 rpg to 22.0 rpg margin; outassisted Russell by a 7.8 to 3.8 apg margin; and outshot Russell by a staggering .539 to .416 margin. Russell was hanging on for dear life.


Wilt was clearly on fumes in the last two games of that series, and Russell clearly ouitplayed him in game six. But worst case, game seven was a draw, with Wilt still outscoring Russell, 14-12, and outrebounding him, 34-26.

[LAZERUSS]

Sometimes outplaying someone for a half or even a key 5-6 min stretch is enough to get a nod as the better player if that is the point when the game was decided. For example say Boston makes a big run in the 2nd quarter and takes a huge lead into the break with Russell outplaying Wilt in that stretch while making huge defensive plays. Does it make sense to give Wilt the edge based on the final boxscore stats when Wilt achieved most of his points and rebounds in garbage time when Russell and the Celtics just played the lead and hardly cared about defending him hard. Context is just HUGE. I don't know how LAZERUSS can argue this. It's not just Wilt... we see the same for the 1995 Finals. Boxscore stats could have you arguing that Shaq outplayed Olajuwon but those who watched the series know that's a crock! In key moments Hakeem had the upper hand and even Shaq himself said "he dusted me".

Overall I'd give Russell the edge over Wilt in the 1962 EDF or at least a wash. Same for the 1966 EDF (despite the huge Game 5), 1968 EDF, and 1969 Finals. 1960 EDF is kind of hard to grade because of the hand injury. How much should Wilt take blame for that? In 1964 Finals, 1965 EDF, and 1967 EDF Wilt is the clear winner.

Overall throughout their playoff battles it's very close. And of course that doesn't capture Russell's intangibles and how he MADE his teammates better. Or how in from 1966 EDF onwards in half of their battles Russell didn't have the better team and still won 3/4 series.

In the '60 EDF's, Wilt "wins" 4-1-1. In the '62 EDF's, I have Wilt at 4-2-1. In the '64 Finals, Wilt at an amazing, 5-0. In the '65 EDF's, Wilt with a 6-1 margin (and several of those were by huge margins.) In their '66 EDF's, the game recaps clearly give Wilt the edge, even in his lowest scoring game (he was proclaimed as single-handedly keeping Philly in that game), and overall, even in a blowout series loss, Wilt was 5-0. In '67, Wilt crushed Russell in four of the five games, and had a 4-1 margin. In the '68 EDF's, I have it a draw, at 3-3-1, but again, in the first five games it was 3-2. And in the '69 Finals, neither played well, but I have it 3-2-2 Wilt.

[LAZERUSS]

Sometimes outplaying someone for a half or even a key 5-6 min stretch is enough to get a nod as the better player if that is the point when the game was decided. For example say Boston makes a big run in the 2nd quarter and takes a huge lead into the break with Russell outplaying Wilt in that stretch while making huge defensive plays. Does it make sense to give Wilt the edge based on the final boxscore stats when Wilt achieved most of his points and rebounds in garbage time when Russell and the Celtics just played the lead and hardly cared about defending him hard. Context is just HUGE. I don't know how LAZERUSS can argue this. It's not just Wilt... we see the same for the 1995 Finals. Boxscore stats could have you arguing that Shaq outplayed Olajuwon but those who watched the series know that's a crock! In key moments Hakeem had the upper hand and even Shaq himself said "he dusted me".

Overall I'd give Russell the edge over Wilt in the 1962 EDF or at least a wash. Same for the 1966 EDF (despite the huge Game 5), 1968 EDF, and 1969 Finals. 1960 EDF is kind of hard to grade because of the hand injury. How much should Wilt take blame for that? In 1964 Finals, 1965 EDF, and 1967 EDF Wilt is the clear winner.

Overall throughout their playoff battles it's very close. And of course that doesn't capture Russell's intangibles and how he MADE his teammates better. Or how in from 1966 EDF onwards in half of their battles Russell didn't have the better team and still won 3/4 series.

Here is an interesting recap from game 1 of the '62 EDF's (from ShaqAttack):


Game 1- Boston won 117-89

Wilt outscored Russell 33-16, but recaps stated that Russell did a "defensive masterpiece" on Wilt. Wilt was held to 12 points in the first half, and just 1 field goal in the second quarter. I believe this is key because Boston won 117-89. According to the recap Chamberlain wound up the high scorer with 33 points only after the issue was no longer in doubt.

Winner of this matchup- Russell

The score was 50-35 at the half. And Boston built a solid margin of 86-64 going into the 4th quarter...and coasted to a 117-89 win.

Wilt, as usual, played all 48 minutes, while Russell, as was usually the case, even in blowouts, ALSO, played nearly the entire game, with 46 minutes. So, those that somehow rip Chamberlain's career mpg, should also then rip Russell as well.

Their final stat lines:

Russell: 46 minutes, 16 points, 30 rebounds, 4 assists, 7-22 FG/FGA, and 2-4 FT/FTA.

Wilt: 48 minutes, 33 points, 31 rebounds, 3 assists, 13-25 FG/FGA. and 7-12 FT/FTA.

Russell took nearly as many shots as Wilt did, but shot far worse. I'm sorry, but I would literally have to see every minute of this game to honestly believe that Russell somehow outplayed Wilt. I would also like to see all the players' numbers in that game. I suspect that, as usual, Wilt's teammates were horribly outplayed by Russell's. If anything, it looks like Russell outplayed Wilt for a QUARTER in that game.

[Soundwave]

I think Wilt was honestly always a good deal better than Russell.

He was just not on the right teams, it would be like if Jordan's Bulls never figured it out and the Pistons kept beating them.

It wouldn't make Joe Dumars better than Michael Jordan.

[DatAsh]

It gets sadder every day doesn't it.

Real analysis of a Wilt/Russell match-up (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=194761)

Complete with honesty and context and very little subjective opinion.


Great link :cheers:

[G.O.A.T]

I think Wilt was honestly always a good deal better than Russell.

He was just not on the right teams, it would be like if Jordan's Bulls never figured it out and the Pistons kept beating them.

It wouldn't make Joe Dumars better than Michael Jordan.

Good comparison, remember how Dumars won more MVP's than Jordan and how most observers during and after their careers felt Dumars was greater.

It would also be like if my aunt had balls, thus she'd be my uncle.

[Soundwave]

Good comparison, remember how Dumars won more MVP's than Jordan and how most observers during and after their careers felt Dumars was greater.

It would also be like if my aunt had balls, thus she'd be my uncle.

I never said it was a direct analogy, but sure, if say the Bulls supporting cast never developed properly and the Pistons beat up on the Bulls for another 2-3 years, there probably would be people who legitimately would be saying Dumars/Isiah were better than Jordan.

One player can only control so much.

As for MVP, we know that's a politicized award if there ever was one, basically if your team doesn't have the best record in the league your chances at MVP are maybe 25-35% at best.

Steve Nash having more MVPs than Shaq is an example of that.

[G.O.A.T]

I never said it was a direct analogy, but sure, if say the Bulls supporting cast never developed properly and the Pistons beat up on the Bulls for another 2-3 years, there probably would be people who legitimately would be saying Dumars/Isiah were better than Jordan.

You don't really believe that do you? Before the Pistons beat the Bulls in 1990 it was widely accepted that Jordan was among the greatest players of all-time. I remember because that pissed me off and I, being a kid from Detroit, did think Isiah was better than Jordan. But I was of course thinking like a kid.


One player can only control so much.

As for MVP, we know that's a politicized award if there ever was one, basically if you're team doesn't have the best record in the league your chances at MVP are maybe 25-35% at best.

That's not really true either. There are some politics and in recent years (2005-2008) there have been some puzzling choices. But overall the guys with MVP's are pretty much universally considered the among the best players of their era and all-time greats. Much more so than in baseball, football or hockey.

[Psileas]

There have been parts from 4 games of Wilt vs Russell online - but unfortunately only parts: 1 game from the '64 Finals, 1 from the '67 EDF, 1 from the '69 Finals, '69 ASG. The sample is still very small to draw valid conclusions, but what do you guys make out of these films (the one that have watched them all)? As far as I remember, Wilt clearly outplayed Russell in '64, '67 was much closer (Wilt probably amassed better stats in the 2nd half, but Russell's energy and intensity were more apparent - though Wilt wasn't 100% at that game), '69 Finals is too small to judge and I think Wilt outplayed Russell in the '69 ASG, but I'm not very sure about it.

[Soundwave]

You don't really believe that do you? Before the Pistons beat the Bulls in 1990 it was widely accepted that Jordan was among the greatest players of all-time. I remember because that pissed me off and I, being a kid from Detroit, did think Isiah was better than Jordan. But I was of course thinking like a kid.


Looking at this board and seeing some of the desperately stupid arguments lobbed against Jordan, yes absolutely.

If Dumars had say 4 rings and Jordan maybe only one won once, there probably would be a contingent on this board ready to claim Dumars as the better overall player.

I think Wilt was better than Russell pretty much every year where a head to head comparison makes sense.

[G.O.A.T]

There have been parts from 4 games of Wilt vs Russell online - but unfortunately only parts: 1 game from the '64 Finals, 1 from the '67 EDF, 1 from the '69 Finals, '69 ASG. The sample is still very small to draw valid conclusions, but what do you guys make out of these films (the one that have watched them all)? As far as I remember, Wilt clearly outplayed Russell in '64, '67 was much closer (Wilt probably amassed better stats in the 2nd half, but Russell's energy and intensity were more apparent - though Wilt wasn't 100% at that game), '69 Finals is too small to judge and I think Wilt outplayed Russell in the '69 ASG, but I'm not very sure about it.

It's too hard to tell like you say with barely 48 combined minutes of action. Even from the highlights though it seems unimaginable that Russell was ever able to stop or control Wilt. I have to rely on what the people who were there say and the belief a lot of the things I've seen in other available footage of Russell would transfer at some point versus Wilt. I have to imagine footage of exists of him outrunning Wilt on both ends of the court, consistently deflecting or stealing entry passes, all the things you've heard people say he did regularly and you know he'd have to do to have any chance against the greatest force the game has ever seen.

As for each film:

'64 - Wilt gets the better of the battle for sure.

'67 - Going Wilt here too, but Russell's pride was apparent in that fourth game, he wasn't get swept in the Garden.

'69 - Russell gets the edge only because he actually plays down the stretch. It's too be we'll never know for sure what would have happened if Wilt or West or someone would have talked some sense in BVK.

'69 ASG - Can't remember having much of an opinion.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Sometimes outplaying someone for a half or even a key 5-6 min stretch is enough to get a nod as the better player if that is the point when the game was decided. For example say Boston makes a big run in the 2nd quarter and takes a huge lead into the break with Russell outplaying Wilt in that stretch while making huge defensive plays. Does it make sense to give Wilt the edge based on the final boxscore stats when Wilt achieved most of his points and rebounds in garbage time when Russell and the Celtics just played the lead and hardly cared about defending him hard. Context is just HUGE. I don't know how LAZERUSS can argue this. It's not just Wilt... we see the same for the 1995 Finals. Boxscore stats could have you arguing that Shaq outplayed Olajuwon but those who watched the series know that's a crock! In key moments Hakeem had the upper hand and even Shaq himself said "he dusted me".

Overall I'd give Russell the edge over Wilt in the 1962 EDF or at least a wash. Same for the 1966 EDF (despite the huge Game 5), 1968 EDF, and 1969 Finals. 1960 EDF is kind of hard to grade because of the hand injury. How much should Wilt take blame for that? In 1964 Finals, 1965 EDF, and 1967 EDF Wilt is the clear winner.

Overall throughout their playoff battles it's very close. And of course that doesn't capture Russell's intangibles and how he MADE his teammates better. Or how in from 1966 EDF onwards in half of their battles Russell didn't have the better team and still won 3/4 series.

:applause:

[G.O.A.T]

Looking at this board and seeing some of the desperately stupid arguments lobbed against Jordan, yes absolutely.

If Dumars had say 4 rings and Jordan maybe only one won once, there probably would be a contingent on this board ready to claim Dumars as the better overall player.

If this were true how come no one says Sam Jones is better than Jerry West? (That's a good one there)

Weaker examples

Why isn't Tony Parker considered greater than Jason Kidd?

Why isn't Tom Heinsohn better than Bob Pettit?

Kevin McHale or Julius Erving?

Only idiots make arguments that titles won in lesser roles make a player greater an MVP candidate who won or competed for titles as the alpha/best player/leader.

[DatAsh]

If this were true how come no one says Sam Jones is better than Jerry West? (That's a good one there)

Weaker examples

Why isn't Tony Parker considered greater than Jason Kidd?

Why isn't Tom Heinsohn better than Bob Pettit?

Kevin McHale or Julius Erving?

Only idiots make arguments that titles won in lesser roles make a player greater an MVP candidate who won or competed for titles as the alpha/best player/leader.

People only understand and judge one half of the game because it's the only thing that's measured by statistics. Better offense means better stats, and in most people's limited scope of the game, that's 70-80% of the battle, despite the fact that "other" statistics suggest that defense is actually far more important.

[LAZERUSS]

We do KNOW that it was seldom Russell vs. Wilt in their 143 career H2H's. Even Russell's own teammates have acknowledged that they used a TEAM effort against Wilt. Meanwhile, at the other end of the court, Chamberlain not only defended Russell, he was often tasked with defending his teammates.

Clearly, Wilt had to do much more than Russell did.

[Soundwave]

If this were true how come no one says Sam Jones is better than Jerry West? (That's a good one there)

Weaker examples

Why isn't Tony Parker considered greater than Jason Kidd?

Why isn't Tom Heinsohn better than Bob Pettit?

Kevin McHale or Julius Erving?

Only idiots make arguments that titles won in lesser roles make a player greater an MVP candidate who won or competed for titles as the alpha/best player/leader.

No arguement from me on any of that. But there are a lot of idiots on this board who have a bone to pick with greatness.

[DatAsh]

We do KNOW that it was seldom Russell vs. Wilt in their 143 career H2H's. Even Russell's own teammates have acknowledged that they used a TEAM effort against Wilt. Meanwhile, at the other end of the court, Chamberlain not only defended Russell, he was often tasked with defending his teammates.

Clearly, Wilt had to do much more than Russell did.

It was always Russell and his teammates vs Wilt and his teammates, 100% of the time.

[LAZERUSS]

There have been parts from 4 games of Wilt vs Russell online - but unfortunately only parts: 1 game from the '64 Finals, 1 from the '67 EDF, 1 from the '69 Finals, '69 ASG. The sample is still very small to draw valid conclusions, but what do you guys make out of these films (the one that have watched them all)? As far as I remember, Wilt clearly outplayed Russell in '64, '67 was much closer (Wilt probably amassed better stats in the 2nd half, but Russell's energy and intensity were more apparent - though Wilt wasn't 100% at that game), '69 Finals is too small to judge and I think Wilt outplayed Russell in the '69 ASG, but I'm not very sure about it.

It's too bad that all we have on the '64-65 EDF's is the last few seconds of game seven (with Wilt throwing down a dunk at the five second mark to pull Philly to within 110-109, then Russell hitting the guidewire on his inbounds pass, and then finally, "Havlicek stole the ball!")

Of all of their H2H series, I believe this would have been the best. Both were close to their peaks, too, and in fact, Wilt played every minute of that seven game series, while Russell played all but one minute. In any case, aside from game three, Chamberlain pretty much crushed Russell in that series. And even in that game, he outrebounded Russell, 37-26. In fact, subtract that game three, and Wilt's domination was mind-boggling. In the other six games, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 31.2 ppg to 15.0 ppg; outrebounded Russell per game, 30.5 rpg to 25.2 rpg; and outshot Russell from the field by a .592 to .430 margin. Russell did outassist Wilt in those six games by an average margin of 6.5 apg to 3.7 apg, but in their known games, Wilt held a 35-22 block edge.

And Wilt single-handedly took a team that had gone 34-46 the year before without him, and that finished 64-65 at 40-40 (acquiring Wilt in a mid-season trade)...to a game seven, one point loss against a 62-18 Celtic team that was at the peak of it's dynasty.

[LAZERUSS]

In their 10 years in the league together, they each won four MVPs. However, in terms of First Team All-NBA voting, Chamberlain held a 7-2 margin. Furthermore, the MVP voting, done by the players at the time, was very suspicious in '62, '64, and '69.

[Asukal]

In their 10 years in the league together, they each won four MVPs. However, in terms of First Team All-NBA voting, Chamberlain held a 7-2 margin. Furthermore, the MVP voting, done by the players at the time, was very suspicious in '62, '64, and '69.

Of course it is suspicious if it doesn't favor Wilt. :rolleyes:

[LAZERUSS]

Of course it is suspicious if it doesn't favor Wilt. :rolleyes:

Chamberlain easily won the MVP in his rookie season. Russell's individual stats, as well as his team's W-L records were basically the same in both '60 and '62, as was Wilt's team W-L record in both seasons. But Wilt had a far more dominating season in '62, and in fact, many sports "experts" have tabbed his '62 season as not only the greatest in NBA history, but the greatest in a major professional team sport. Of course Wilt did beat Russell out in the First Team All-NBA voting, as well.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=080109/seasons


Yep...nothing suspicious about that...

:facepalm

[dankok8]

In the '60 EDF's, Wilt "wins" 4-1-1. In the '62 EDF's, I have Wilt at 4-2-1. In the '64 Finals, Wilt at an amazing, 5-0. In the '65 EDF's, Wilt with a 6-1 margin (and several of those were by huge margins.) In their '66 EDF's, the game recaps clearly give Wilt the edge, even in his lowest scoring game (he was proclaimed as single-handedly keeping Philly in that game), and overall, even in a blowout series loss, Wilt was 5-0. In '67, Wilt crushed Russell in four of the five games, and had a 4-1 margin. In the '68 EDF's, I have it a draw, at 3-3-1, but again, in the first five games it was 3-2. And in the '69 Finals, neither played well, but I have it 3-2-2 Wilt.

It's actually not a terrible breakdown...

'62: I'd give Russell Game 1. To me the fact that he outplayed him in the first half when the game was decided gives him an edge.

'64: I'd say Game 1 and Game 5 is a draw. Russell played INSANE defense and his assists dwarf Wilt's which closes the scoring gap.

'65: Game 5 is Russell like you said but I'd say Game 3 and Game 7 were a wash. 6-7 assists and dominant defense really bridges the gap.

'66: I disagree very strongly about 5-0 here. In Game 2 and 4 recaps clearly state Russell as the winner. If it wasn't for Game 5 Wilt would be ripped apart for his performance in this series. 23.5 ppg on 48.7% shooting through the first four games just doesn't cut it.

Overall as far as Wilt vs. Russell I think I'd say:

1960: edge Wilt (4-1-1)
1962: wash (3-3-1)
1964: edge Wilt (3-0-2)
1965: edge Wilt (4-1-2)
1966: wash (3-2 Wilt spanked Russell in Game 5 albeit in an inefficient effort and he had two bad games where his Sixers fell down into a 1-3 hole)
1967: edge Wilt (4-1)
1968: edge Russell (3-3-1 but Wilt just terrible in Game 6 and 7)
1969: wash (3-2-2)

Overall: 27-13-9

Of course that doesn't fully capture the team impact and leadership of Russell so it's a bit closer than that. It's fair to say that Wilt outplayed Russell in about half of their playoff games, that Russell outplayed Wilt in a quarter of them, and that it was too close to call in the remaining quarter.



In their 10 years in the league together, they each won four MVPs. However, in terms of First Team All-NBA voting, Chamberlain held a 7-2 margin. Furthermore, the MVP voting, done by the players at the time, was very suspicious in '62, '64, and '69.

In '62 Wilt probably should have been MVP but at least it's a bit debatable. Russell was a monster on defense and Boston won 60 games (and 0-4 record without Russell). Honestly if he played a full season considering LA went 34-11 with him in the lineup, it's Baylor who may have won the MVP as well.

I would have had Wilt as the MVP though.

In '64 it was a slight edge to Oscar. Oscar had probably his greatest season averaging 31.4 points, 9.9 rebounds, and 11.0 assists on 48.3% shooting. His Royals won 55 games compared to 48 for the Warriors. People also underrate that Oscar's Royals always had the best offenses (ORtg) of any team in the league for virtually every season in the 60's.

In '69 Unseld winning it was controversial... but again I don't see Wilt as the main candidate. His team only won 2 more games with his arrival, LA wasn't dominant as far as SRS or any other measure, and his stats were down across the board from the past few years. West and Baylor also had dominant seasons statistically. Willis Reed after the Bellamy trade averaged 24/15 while playing great defense and led the Knicks to a 36-11 record. I would have Reed as the MVP this season. Plus voter fatigue is not fair but Wilt won 3 MVP's in a row and this went against him as well. It happens to every great player.

[stanlove1111]

In their 10 years in the league together, they each won four MVPs. .

Yes..Wilt won 3 MVPs when Russell got older..

[LAZERUSS]

Yes..Wilt won 3 MVPs when Russell got older..

Chamberlain easily won an MVP in his rookie season, when Russell was 26. He SHOULD have won it in '62, when Russell was 28. He SHOULD have won it in '64, but aside from that, he DID beat out Russell that season, who was 30. And he won three straight years from '66 thru '68 (and by huge margins), when Russell was 32-34. And, as everyone here should know by now, Wilt was clearly better in '69, by every measurement, and while neither won it, Russell somehow finished ahead of him (at age 35.)

And again, Wilt was voted First Team All-NBA, and ahead of Russell, in '60, '61, '62, '64, '66, '67, and '68...while Russell only beat him out in '63 and '65 (and neither were voted either first or second team in '69.)

In their ten years in the league together, Wilt was almost always considered the better player, and it started in his rookie season.

[LAZERUSS]

It's actually not a terrible breakdown...

'62: I'd give Russell Game 1. To me the fact that he outplayed him in the first half when the game was decided gives him an edge.

'64: I'd say Game 1 and Game 5 is a draw. Russell played INSANE defense and his assists dwarf Wilt's which closes the scoring gap.

'65: Game 5 is Russell like you said but I'd say Game 3 and Game 7 were a wash. 6-7 assists and dominant defense really bridges the gap.

'66: I disagree very strongly about 5-0 here. In Game 2 and 4 recaps clearly state Russell as the winner. If it wasn't for Game 5 Wilt would be ripped apart for his performance in this series. 23.5 ppg on 48.7% shooting through the first four games just doesn't cut it.

Overall as far as Wilt vs. Russell I think I'd say:

1960: edge Wilt (4-1-1)
1962: wash (3-3-1)
1964: edge Wilt (3-0-2)
1965: edge Wilt (4-1-2)
1966: wash (3-2 Wilt spanked Russell in Game 5 albeit in an inefficient effort and he had two bad games where his Sixers fell down into a 1-3 hole)
1967: edge Wilt (4-1)
1968: edge Russell (3-3-1 but Wilt just terrible in Game 6 and 7)
1969: wash (3-2-2)

Overall: 27-13-9

Of course that doesn't fully capture the team impact and leadership of Russell so it's a bit closer than that. It's fair to say that Wilt outplayed Russell in about half of their playoff games, that Russell outplayed Wilt in a quarter of them, and that it was too close to call in the remaining quarter.



In '62 Wilt probably should have been MVP but at least it's a bit debatable. Russell was a monster on defense and Boston won 60 games (and 0-4 record without Russell). Honestly if he played a full season considering LA went 34-11 with him in the lineup, it's Baylor who may have won the MVP as well.

I would have had Wilt as the MVP though.

In '64 it was a slight edge to Oscar. Oscar had probably his greatest season averaging 31.4 points, 9.9 rebounds, and 11.0 assists on 48.3% shooting. His Royals won 55 games compared to 48 for the Warriors. People also underrate that Oscar's Royals always had the best offenses (ORtg) of any team in the league for virtually every season in the 60's.

In '69 Unseld winning it was controversial... but again I don't see Wilt as the main candidate. His team only won 2 more games with his arrival, LA wasn't dominant as far as SRS or any other measure, and his stats were down across the board from the past few years. West and Baylor also had dominant seasons statistically. Willis Reed after the Bellamy trade averaged 24/15 while playing great defense and led the Knicks to a 36-11 record. I would have Reed as the MVP this season. Plus voter fatigue is not fair but Wilt won 3 MVP's in a row and this went against him as well. It happens to every great player.

We are pretty close.

I still have Wilt with a solid win in game one of the '62 EDF's. I would have to see the entire game to believe that Russell got the better of Wilt, in a game in which Russell's teammates outscored Wilt's by a 101-56 margin. Again, Wilt played 48 minutes, Russell played 46. Wilt outscored Russell, 33-16, outrebounded Russell, 31-30, and outshot Russell from the field (and the line BTW) by a 13-25 to 7-22 margin.

And in the '66 EDF's, again it appears you are punishing Wilt for his teammates' horrid series. How come Wilt gets ripped for averaging 23.5 ppg on a .487 FG% in the first four games, when Russell was at 13.0 ppg on a .396 FG%? OH, and Wilt outrebounded Russell in three of those four games, as well.

IMHO, Wilt easily outplayed Russell in six of their playoff series, and in the other two it was at worst, a draw (and in one of those, Wilt was playing with multiple injuries, as were his teammates.)