Swap Russell and Wilt's rosters from '59-60 Thru '68-69

[LAZERUSS]

And how many rings does Chamberlain wind up with?

And how about Russell?

I would also like the "Wilt-bashers" to explain their answers in detail...

[HomieWeMajor]

Can the Celtics compensate for Wilt's sub-par play in the postseason ?

[LAZERUSS]

Can the Celtics compensate for Wilt's sub-par play in the postseason ?

Please explain...

and BTW, Russell's career post-season numbers declined considerably against Wilt.

Russell in his 116 games against non-Wilt teams: 16.8 ppg, 25.1 rpg, .441 FG%
Against Wilt in his 49 playoff H2H's: 14.8 ppg, 24.3 rpg, .403 FG%

[HomieWeMajor]

Please explain...

and BTW, Russell's career post-season numbers declined considerably against Wilt.
We all know that Wilt's performance dipped (hence his nickname) in the playoffs so I'm wondering whether the Celtics would be good enough to carry him during the postseason.

[LAZERUSS]

We all know that Wilt's performance dipped (hence his nickname) in the playoffs so I'm wondering whether the Celtics would be good enough to carry him during the postseason.


Wilt and Russell battled in eight playoff series in the decade of the 60's.

How about these "declines"...


How about this:

Wilt in '60 regular season against Russell: 39.1 ppg, 29.7 rpg, .465 FG%
EDF's: 30.5 ppg, 27.0 rpg, .500 FG%

'62 regular season against Russell: 39.7 ppg, 28.8 rpg, .468 FG%
EDF's: 33.6 ppg, 26.9 rpg, .468 FG%

'64 regular season against Russell: 29.1 ppg, 26.9 rpg, .530 FG%
Finals: 29.2 ppg, 27.8 rpg, .517 FG%

'65 regular season against Russell: 25.4 ppg, 26.5 rpg, .473 FG%
EDF's: 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, .555 FG%

'66 regular season against Russell: 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, .510 FG%
EDF's: 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, .509 FG%

'67 regular season against Russell: 20.3 ppg, 26.7 rpg, .549 FG%
EDF's: 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, .556 FG%

'68 regular season against Russell: 17.1 ppg, 26.1 rpg., .471 FG%
EDF's: 22.1 ppg, 25.1 rpg, .487

'69 regular season against Russell: 16.0 ppg, 24.0 rpg, .493 FG%
Finals: 11.7 ppg, 25.0 rpg, .500 FG%

[colts19]

I would say the numbers of rings would be reversed. Celtics roster was better and deeper. Whoever was on the Celtics would benefit from that. Plus the fact is Wilt was a slightly better player than Russel. Even though Russell had better intangibles.

Same argument I make for Magic and Bird. Lakers were a better and deeper team during the 80's switch Larry and Magic, Bird has 5 maybe 6 titles.

[LAZERUSS]

I would say the numbers of rings would be reversed. Celtics roster was better and deeper. Whoever was on the Celtics would benefit from that. Plus the fact is Wilt was a slightly better player than Russel. Even though Russell had better intangibles.

Same argument I make for Magic and Bird. Lakers were a better and deeper team during the 80's switch Larry and Magic, Bird has 5 maybe 6 titles.

We'll never know about Magic-Bird...simply because Magic was able to take Kareem-less rosters, that were in the state of decline, to records of 62-17 and 57-22, and a trip to the Finals. We also know that Magic carried a washed-up Kareem to a ring in '88 (and a Finals in '89...in which Magic was injured and they were swept), and a third-wheel KAJ to a ring in '87. He also carried a roster to a title in '82 in which McAdoo put up the same production that Kareem did in the Finals.

As for the Russell-Wilt discussion...I agree, except I think Wilt was so much more dominant, and was able to adjust his game to his surrounding rosters more...that he goes 10-10 in the 60's. But worse case... at least nine. And it's not just the 9-10 rings, either, but probably multiple 70+ win seasons, and perhaps complete playoff sweeps.

Furthermore...just think of the playoff scoring and efficency records that Chamberlain would hold today, he had ben as fortunate as Russell was to have faced the Lakers FIVE times in the Finals in the 60's...


Here were Russell's numbers against LA in those five series:

'62:

Russell averaged 18.9 ppg on a .457 FG% in his regular season against the NBA.

Against LA in the Finals: 22.9 ppg on a .543 FG%. Which included a game seven of 30 points and 40 rebounds.

BTW, against Wilt in the '62 EDF's: 22.0 ppg on a .399 FG%


'63:

Russell averaged 16.8 ppg on a .432 FG% in his regular season.

Against LA in the Finals: 20 ppg on a .467 FG%


'65:

Russell averaged 14.1 ppg on a .438 FG% against the NBA.

Against LA in the Finals: 17.8 ppg on a .702 FG% (yes, .702.)

BTW, against Wilt in the EDF's: 15.6 ppg on a .447 FG%


'66:

Russell averaged 12.9 ppg on a .415 FG% against the NBA.

Against LA in the Finals: 23.6 ppg on a .538 FG%

BTW, against Wilt in the EDF's: 14.0 ppg on a .423 FG%


'68:

Russell averaged 12.5 ppg on a .425 FG% against the NBA

Against LA in the Finals: 17.3 ppg on a .430 FG%

BTW, against Wilt in the EDF's: 13.7 ppg on a .440 FG%


Oh, and here were Russell's stats in the '69 Finals against Wilt:

Regular season against the NBA: 9.9 ppg on a .433 FG%

Against Wilt in the Finals: 9.0 ppg on a .397 FG%

Now Wilt...


'59-60:

Against the entire NBA that season: 37.6 ppg on a .461 FG%

Against the Lakers in 9 H2H's: 36.8 ppg on a .430 FG%

High games of 41, 41, 41, 45, and 52.


'60-61:

Against the entire NBA: 38.4 ppg on a .509 FG%

Against the Lakers in 10 H2H's: 40.1 ppg on a .506 FG%

High games were 41, 41, 43, 44, 46, and 56 points.


'61-62:

Against the entire NBA: 50.4 ppg on a .506 FG%

Against LA in 9 H2H games: 51.6 ppg on a .503 FG%

High games of 48, 56, 57, 60, 60, and 78 (with 43 rebounds.)


'62-63: Against the entire NBA: 44.8 ppg on a .528 FG%

Against LA in 12 H2Hs: 48.6 ppg on a .541 FG%

High games of 40, 40, 42, 53, 63, and 72 points.


'63-64: Against the entire NBA: 36.9 ppg on a .524 FG%

Against LA in 12 H2Hs: 44.3 ppg on a .484 FG%

High games of 40, 41, 47, 49, 50, 55, and 59 points.


'64-65: Against the entire NBA: 34.7 ppg on a .510 FG%

Against LA in 8 H2Hs: 29.9 ppg on a .476 FG%

High games of 40, 40, and 41 points.


'65-66: Against the entire NBA: 33.5 ppg on a .540 FG%

Against LA in 10 H2Hs: 40.8 ppg on a .559 FG%

High games of 42, 49, 53, and 65 points.


'66-67: Against the entire NBA: 24.1 ppg on a .683 FG%

Against LA in 9 H2Hs: 26.4 ppg on a .759 FG%

High games of 32, 37, and 39 points.


'67-68: Against the entire NBA: 24.3 ppg on a .595 FG%

Against LA in 7 H2Hs: 28.1 ppg on a .638 FG%

High games of 31, 32, 35, and 53 points.


Overall, in those 86 games:

40 Point Games: 42

50 Point Games: 19

60 Point Games: 7

70 Point Games: 2

High game of 78 points.

Now, where would THAT Wilt rank all-time?

[houston]

I dunno Wilt was a headcase

[L.Kizzle]

Does the coach count as the roster?

So Wilt is getting Cousy, Heinhson, the Jones Boys, Hondo, Sanders, Bailey Howell.

Russell gets Arizin, Gola, Greer, Thurmond for a season, Greer, Cunningham, Walker and Baylor and West for a season.

[LAZERUSS]

Does the coach count as the roster?

So Wilt is getting Cousy, Heinhson, the Jones Boys, Hondo, Sanders, Bailey Howell.

Russell gets Arizin, Gola, Greer, Thurmond for a season, Greer, Cunningham, Walker and Baylor and West for a season.

Russell gets a declining Arizin for three years; an over-rated Gola who was among the worst post-season performers among "HOFers" (with and withOUT Wilt BTW), for three seasons; rookie Thurmond as a backup for one season; Greer, Cunningham, and Walker for 3 seasons; and Baylor and West together for one season, in which Baylor puked all over the floor in the post-season, while a shackled Wilt could only watch.

Meanwhile, Wilt gets Cousy, Heinsohn, the Jones boys, and Sanders for 3-4 consecutive seasons, including Hondo for two...then Hondo, the Jones Boys, Sanders, and Howell for another 4-5 seasons.

[aj1987]

Philly - 6 Rings
SF - 2 Rings
Lakers - 5 Rings


Celtics - 0 Rings

[L.Kizzle]

Philly - 6 Rings
SF - 2 Rings
Lakers - 5 Rings


Celtics - 0 Rings
No love for St. Louis or Cincinnati?

[Im so nba'd out]

We all know that Wilt's performance dipped (hence his nickname) in the playoffs so I'm wondering whether the Celtics would be good enough to carry him during the postseason.
Is there a way i can be alerted whenever this guy post i mean come on :oldlol:

[aj1987]

No love for St. Louis or Cincinnati?
Nope. Russell >> Hawks and Royals.

[rhowen4]

i'm thinking wilt: 13, russell: 0

[LAZERUSS]

Philly - 6 Rings
SF - 2 Rings
Lakers - 5 Rings


Celtics - 0 Rings

So in their ten seasons in the league together, and from between '59-60 thru '68-69, the NBA will hand out 13 titles?

And please tell me who wins the title in the '62-63 season.

[aj1987]

So in their ten seasons in the league together, and from between '59-60 thru '68-69, the NBA will hand out 13 titles?

And please tell me who wins the title in the '62-63 season.
Not the Celtics.

[LAZERUSS]

Not the Celtics.

Yep...no way a Wilt with EIGHT other HOFers can beat Russell's team with ONE (and that was Guy Rodgers, who was the worst shooter of his era.)

Oh, and then Wilt would face the Lakers in the Finals.

Russell against LA that year in the Finals (6 games)...20 ppg, 26.0 rpg, and on a .467 FG%.

Wilt against LA in his 12 regular season 62-63 H2H's...48.6 ppg on a .541 FG%.
Including high games of 40, 40, 42, 53, 63, and 72 points.

[Asukal]

With that chokers mentality? Probably only 2. :rolleyes:

[Psileas]

I think it's even more realistic to ask what would have happened had we also swapped their career seasons, as well, because I don't think winning the title in the late 50's was as tough as winning it in the early 70's.

Having said this and assuming that, for some reason, Russell also gets traded (that's a big "if" by itself) and that their health issues also follow suit (another big "if"):

1957: '60 level Wilt wins title, although his stats drop a bit due to a stupid hand injury after punching Lovellette, making the series a close one.
1958: '61 level Wilt doesn't get injured like Russell did, wins title
1959: '62 Wilt is never told to average 50 ppg, still completely dominates the Lakers and wins title
1960: '63 Wilt wins title, '57 Russell easily wins the ROY, but can't lead the '60 Warriors past Wilt's Celtics.
1961: '64 Wilt wins title, dominates the Hawks in the Finals.
1962: '65 Wilt ruins the Lakers in the Finals, wins title. Russell's Warriors put on a good fight, but they are simply outmatched.
1963: '66 Wilt again is too much for the Lakers. '60 Russell's defense and team spirit lifts the Warriors to a somewhat better record than '63 Wilt, who had been overused, but the Warriors still fall way short that season.
1964: Wow! That's peak Wilt playing for the arguably most dominant 60's Celtic team! The Celtics break the most wins record. '61 Russell easily leads the Warriors to the Finals, but the Celtics are no match for them.
1965: '68 Wilt leads the Celtics to another great record, but faces injury problems in the postseason. '62 Russell manages to outplay him in the playoffs more times than ever before and makes the series very competitive. This is very close to call, I might give the Sixers a slight adv.
1966: The Celtics beat the Sixers and the Lakers, Wilt's injury in the Finals comes too late and doesn't cost his team the title.
1967: '64 Russell leads an incredible Sixers' team, while '70 Wilt deals with his serious injury. Russell easily wins title.
1968: '65 Russell is healthy and still beasting with the Sixers. '71 Wilt plays solid ball. The Sixers face injury problems and in the playoffs, the 2 giants' battle is epic. Could go either way.
1969: Another tough one, with '66 Russell on the Lakers and '72 Wilt on the Celtics. This goes to 7 games, but in the end, coach Van Breda Kolff, who has put Mel Counts in to give Russell a few moments of rest, falls in love with Counts' long shots, forgets Russell on the bench and costs the title. Kolff is fired, Russell becomes the player-coach of the Lakers.
1970: '67 Russell leads the Lakers to the title. '73 Wilt's Celtics now seem too old and bored.
1971: Wilt has retired. Kareem's Milwaukee still beats Russell's Lakers (playing without West and Baylor), wins title.
1972: Either Milwaukee repeats or '69 Russell kind of limits Kareem enough to give the Lakers a tough victory. I give an edge to Milwaukee, though. I think Wilt's size and strength would have been more bothersome defensively for Kareem than Russell's quickness and smarts.

[FKAri]

Then Bill Russel is forgotten or put in the Nate Thurmond tier while Wilt is the Pele of basketball.

[LAZERUSS]

I think it's even more realistic to ask what would have happened had we also swapped their career seasons, as well, because I don't think winning the title in the late 50's was as tough as winning it in the early 70's.

Having said this and assuming that, for some reason, Russell also gets traded (that's a big "if" by itself) and that their health issues also follow suit (another big "if"):

1957: '60 level Wilt wins title, although his stats drop a bit due to a stupid hand injury after punching Lovellette, making the series a close one.
1958: '61 level Wilt doesn't get injured like Russell did, wins title
1959: '62 Wilt is never told to average 50 ppg, still completely dominates the Lakers and wins title
1960: '63 Wilt wins title, '57 Russell easily wins the ROY, but can't lead the '60 Warriors past Wilt's Celtics.
1961: '64 Wilt wins title, dominates the Hawks in the Finals.
1962: '65 Wilt ruins the Lakers in the Finals, wins title. Russell's Warriors put on a good fight, but they are simply outmatched.
1963: '66 Wilt again is too much for the Lakers. '60 Russell's defense and team spirit lifts the Warriors to a somewhat better record than '63 Wilt, who had been overused, but the Warriors still fall way short that season.
1964: Wow! That's peak Wilt playing for the arguably most dominant 60's Celtic team! The Celtics break the most wins record. '61 Russell easily leads the Warriors to the Finals, but the Celtics are no match for them.
1965: '68 Wilt leads the Celtics to another great record, but faces injury problems in the postseason. '62 Russell manages to outplay him in the playoffs more times than ever before and makes the series very competitive. This is very close to call, I might give the Sixers a slight adv.
1966: The Celtics beat the Sixers and the Lakers, Wilt's injury in the Finals comes too late and doesn't cost his team the title.
1967: '64 Russell leads an incredible Sixers' team, while '70 Wilt deals with his serious injury. Russell easily wins title.
1968: '65 Russell is healthy and still beasting with the Sixers. '71 Wilt plays solid ball. The Sixers face injury problems and in the playoffs, the 2 giants' battle is epic. Could go either way.
1969: Another tough one, with '66 Russell on the Lakers and '72 Wilt on the Celtics. This goes to 7 games, but in the end, coach Van Breda Kolff, who has put Mel Counts in to give Russell a few moments of rest, falls in love with Counts' long shots, forgets Russell on the bench and costs the title. Kolff is fired, Russell becomes the player-coach of the Lakers.
1970: '67 Russell leads the Lakers to the title. '73 Wilt's Celtics now seem too old and bored.
1971: Wilt has retired. Kareem's Milwaukee still beats Russell's Lakers (playing without West and Baylor), wins title.
1972: Either Milwaukee repeats or '69 Russell kind of limits Kareem enough to give the Lakers a tough victory. I give an edge to Milwaukee, though. I think Wilt's size and strength would have been more bothersome defensively for Kareem than Russell's quickness and smarts.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Classic...

[Deuce Bigalow]

Don't worry OP, Wilt would still find a way to choke while being on the heavily favored teams. Better rosters means more pressure, which means more choking. We are talking about a player who was swept in the first round with HCA to a team with a losing record. His choking is well documented and attested to by his peers including Rick Barry, "I'll say what most players feel, which is that Wilt is a loser...He is terrible in big games. He knows he is going to lose and be blamed for the loss, so he dreads it, and you can see it in his eyes; and anyone who has ever played with him will agree with me, regardless of whether they would admit it publicly. When it comes down to the closing minutes of a tough game, an important game, he doesn't want the ball, he doesn't want any part of the pressure. It is at these times that greatness is determined and Wilt doesn't have it. There is no way you can compare him to a pro like a Bill Russell or a Jerry West...these are clutch competitors." Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=2zRCU-RakZ0C&pg=PA77&lpg=PA78&ots=ZfYflu-GJq&focus=viewport&dq=%22When+it+comes+down+to+the+closing+minutes+of +a+tough+game,+an+important+game,+he+doesn%27t+wan t+the+ball,+he+doesn%27t+want+any+part+of+the+pres sure.%22&output=html_text

[Marchesk]

Then Bill Russel is forgotten or put in the Nate Thurmond tier while Wilt is the Pele of basketball.

Probably this. Wilt is considered the GOAT today instead of MJ.

[LAZERUSS]

Don't worry OP, Wilt would still find a way to choke while being on the heavily favored teams. Better rosters means more pressure, which means more choking. We are talking about a player who was swept in the first round with HCA to a team with a losing record. His choking is well documented and attested to by his peers including Rick Barry, "I'll say what most players feel, which is that Wilt is a loser...He is terrible in big games. He knows he is going to lose and be blamed for the loss, so he dreads it, and you can see it in his eyes; and anyone who has ever played with him will agree with me, regardless of whether they would admit it publicly. When it comes down to the closing minutes of a tough game, an important game, he doesn't want the ball, he doesn't want any part of the pressure. It is at these times that greatness is determined and Wilt doesn't have it. There is no way you can compare him to a pro like a Bill Russell or a Jerry West...these are clutch competitors." Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=2zRCU-RakZ0C&pg=PA77&lpg=PA78&ots=ZfYflu-GJq&focus=viewport&dq=%22When+it+comes+down+to+the+closing+minutes+of +a+tough+game,+an+important+game,+he+doesn%27t+wan t+the+ball,+he+doesn%27t+want+any+part+of+the+pres sure.%22&output=html_text

Barry interviewed in the 70's, and then again a couple of years ago...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSTt_TxoFVo


"Rick, if you could have ONE player to build a team around, who would it be?"

Barry: "No question...it would be WILT."

Later in the interviw (around the 2:45 mark)

Barry: "Jordan is the greatest 2 guard, but it would be ludicrous to say that he was a greater player than Chamberlain."

Try harder next time...

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Barry interviewed in the 70's, and then again a couple of years ago...

"Rick, if you could have ONE player to build a team around, who would it be?"

Barry: "No question...it would be WILT."

Try harder next time...

:roll: :roll: :roll:
We all know that isn't what Rick really thinks :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

We all know that isn't what Rick really thinks :roll:

Listen again...(two separate interviews...one in the 70's and the other a couple of years ago.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSTt_TxoFVo

Completely refutes EVERY point you made. And then confirms it just a couple of years ago.

[LAZERUSS]

We all know that isn't what Rick really thinks :roll:

By the way listen to Barry at about the 1:20 mark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSTt_TxoFVo

Barry completely AGREED with OP.

"If Wilt would have Russell's teammates, Wilt's records in championships would be phenomenal."

Deuce, you are just too funny...

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[The JKidd Kid]

You should read The Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons. It'll change everything you ever thought about Wilt and make you realize just how much of a selfish, underachieving and narcissistic player he was.

[LAZERUSS]

You should read The Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons. It'll change everything you ever thought about Wilt and make you realize just how much of a selfish, underachieving and narcissistic player he was.


:roll: :roll: :roll:

Bill Simmons is and was...FULL OF SHIT.

[The JKidd Kid]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Bill Simmons is and was...FULL OF SHIT.

If you read it he makes his points based solely on statistics which show that Russells and Wilts teams were actually damn close in talent level and quotes from coaches and team mates, so no sir he is not full of shit. Simmons actually has a whole section of the book that compares Russells and Wilts teams head to head using statistics and accolades in the exact time period we're discussing. He also makes a hell of a lot better argument for Russell than you do for Wilt.

[La Frescobaldi]

You should read The Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons. It'll change everything you ever thought about Wilt and make you realize just how much of a selfish, underachieving and narcissistic player he was.
Bill Simmons lost his entire reputation as a writer with that chapter on the Russell - Chamberlain.

Not only is it some shameless propaganda, but it's the worst research I've seen in an actual book (not a website or yellow journalism magazine) in years.
I couldn't believe that chapter got past the proofreaders to be quite honest.

[Marchesk]

Wilt's 67 championship showed what was possible when you had the right team and coaching around Wilt. That team is still in conversation for the greatest ever.

And then there was the 72 Lakers with their 33 game win streak.

It could be that for all of Wilt's dominance, he had bad luck with his teams.

Even Jordan needed the right teammates and coach to come along. Imagine if he was stuck in Chicago with no Phil and no Scottie. Would we still think of him as this great winner today, or would we say that while he was an amazing talent, he wasn't a winner?

[LAZERUSS]

If you read it he makes his points based solely on statistics which show that Russells and Wilts teams were actually damn close in talent level and quotes from coaches and team mates, so no sir he is not full of shit. Simmons actually has a whole section of the book that compares Russells and Wilts teams head to head using statistics and accolades in the exact time period we're discussing. He also makes a hell of a lot better argument for Russell than you do for Wilt.

Did Simmons break down the number of SEASONS that Russell and Wilt played with their so-called "HOFers?" HELL NO. And why not? Because Russell played alongside his HOF teammates THREE TIMES longer than Wilt did with his, that's why?

Does he mention that Wilt only played with Baylor for ONE season in which both he and Baylor were healthy...and that Baylor sunk his team in the Finals in that one post-season?

Does he mention that Wilt played ONE season with ROOKIE Nate Thurmond, and that Nate played part-time, out of position, and shot horrifically because of it?

Does he mention that Russell had his post-season ass saved SIX times by SAM JONES?

http://www.celtic-nation.com/interviews/sam_jones/sam_jones_page1.htm


“In the years that I played with the Celtics,” says Russell, “in terms of total basketball skills, Sam Jones was the most skillful player that I ever played with. At one point, we won a total of eight consecutive NBA championships, and six times during that run we asked Sam to take the shot that meant the season. If he didn’t hit the shot we were finished – we were going home empty-handed. He never missed.”

Oh, and Simmons claimed that Wilt was "stats-padding" the year he led the NBA in assists. Did Mr. Simmons also mention that Chamberlain led that Philly team to a runaway best record in the league that year?

Does Simmons ever bring up the FACT that Chamberlain reduced Russell's post-season numbers SIGNFICANTLY? Or that Wilt reduced Russell's FG%'s FAR more than Russell did Wilt's?

Oh and the QUOTES from peers...just laughable. He quoted West and Barry...and both RECANTED their opinions YEARS before Simmons ever wrote that piece of trash book. Why didn't he include their CURRENT opinions in his book? And how come Simmons didn't use a JOHN WOODEN quote (arguably the GOAT basketball coach of all-time)...who said that had Wilt had Russell's rosters, and Auerbach as a coach...and it would have been WILT holding all the rings.

I could go on and on...but Simmons has been exposed as a complete idiot MANY times here.

[Marchesk]

Kareem is often listed as 2nd behind MJ on the Goat list and right in front of Wilt. But Kareem without Oscar or Magic was a great player with no titles.

Hakeem after Sampson has his career limited by injuries has all those first round exits. Shaq's teams get swept out of the post season numerous times before Phil.

And then there is prime Kobe sans Shaq and pre Pau.

[Marchesk]

Does he mention that Russell had his post-season ass saved SIX times by SAM JONES?

Is Sam Jones underrated historically? Does he even get mentioned in the top 50 all-time?

[LAZERUSS]

Is Sam Jones underrated historically? Does he even get mentioned in the top 50 all-time?

He was certainly one of the greatest post-season players of all-time. Russell has 11 rings, but Sam's 10 were a major contributor to Russell's career success.

[That_Admiral]

I believe wilt would win less than 11 rings and russell would win more than 2

[Deuce Bigalow]

You should read The Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons. It'll change everything you ever thought about Wilt and make you realize just how much of a selfish, underachieving and narcissistic player he was.
"No one has any clutch stories on Chamberlain. If they existed, I'd pass them along."

- Bill Simmons

:roll:

[Kvnzhangyay]

Sure Wilt would win more, but what's the point? It didn't happen

[La Frescobaldi]

"No one has any clutch stories on Chamberlain. If they existed, I'd pass them along."

- Bill Simmons

:roll:

check out the Havlicek stole the ball game.

edit ~ while we're at it...... let's hear some Russell was clutch anecdotes.
Sam Jones? check.
Hondo? check.
Donny Nelson? check.
Heinsohn? check.
Sharman? Larry Siegfried? Cousy? Bailey Howell?

check.
Where's Russell tho

[Asukal]

First they brag about his stats and his physical stature. Then when it comes down to winning they make excuses about how his team sucks and that he was injured so he gets a pass. The truth is he was a mental midget who choked in big moments. He was always insecure about himself hence his tall tales. Wilt was a beta, he was never the leader like Russell was. When it comes down to a do or die moment, he couldn't rely on himself to get it done. Most overrated center of all time. To suggest that they would swap ring count if they swapped rosters is clear disrespect to the type of player Russell was.

30->22->18 = 2

:oldlol:

[DatAsh]

I don't think either guy would do as well as the other guy actually did.

[La Frescobaldi]

I don't think either guy would do as well as the other guy actually did.
I don't either.

[LAZERUSS]

First they brag about his stats and his physical stature. Then when it comes down to winning they make excuses about how his team sucks and that he was injured so he gets a pass. The truth is he was a mental midget who choked in big moments. He was always insecure about himself hence his tall tales. Wilt was a beta, he was never the leader like Russell was. When it comes down to a do or die moment, he couldn't rely on himself to get it done. Most overrated center of all time. To suggest that they would swap ring count if they swapped rosters is clear disrespect to the type of player Russell was.

30->22->18 = 2

:oldlol:

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Wilt was ONLY able to rely upon himself to get it done.

23 MUST WIN post-season games...


Wilt's numbers in those 23 games...13 of which came against HOF starting centers.

12-11 W-L record

31.1 ppg (Regular season career average was 30.1 ppg)
26.1 rpg (Regular season career average was 22.9 rpg)
3.4 apg (Regular season career average was 4.4 apg)
.540 FG% (Regular season career average was .540 FG%)


3 games of 50+ points

5 games of 40+ points (including a Finals 40+ elimination game)

13 games of 30+ points

6 games of 30+ rebounds

20 games of 20+ rebounds

GOAT

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[LAZERUSS]

I don't think either guy would do as well as the other guy actually did.

I see a '66-'68 Wilt for the entire decade of the 60's. Scoring 20-30 ppg and then hanging 50+ as needed. His defense would actually have been better since he wouldn't have had to score 40-50 ppg just to keep his teammates competitive.

Meanwhile, Russell would have had to have done far more on the offensive end to keep his team's competitive. No way he could have been putting up 40-50 ppg seasons, though.

Even Russell said this, "Wilt can do my job better than I can do Wilt's."

I see Wilt with a minimum of 9 rings, and likely a sweep of all 10. Too much talent, depth, and clutch play from those Celtic teams. If anything, I suspect that Chamberlain-led Celtic teams might have routinely won 65-70+ games...and probably would not have been challenged much at all in the post-season.

[colts19]

We'll never know about Magic-Bird...simply because Magic was able to take Kareem-less rosters, that were in the state of decline, to records of 62-17 and 57-22, and a trip to the Finals. We also know that Magic carried a washed-up Kareem to a ring in '88 (and a Finals in '89...in which Magic was injured and they were swept), and a third-wheel KAJ to a ring in '87. He also carried a roster to a title in '82 in which McAdoo put up the same production that Kareem did in the Finals.

As for the Russell-Wilt discussion...I agree, except I think Wilt was so much more dominant, and was able to adjust his game to his surrounding rosters more...that he goes 10-10 in the 60's. But worse case... at least nine. And it's not just the 9-10 rings, either, but probably multiple 70+ win seasons, and perhaps complete playoff sweeps.

Furthermore...just think of the playoff scoring and efficency records that Chamberlain would hold today, he had ben as fortunate as Russell was to have faced the Lakers FIVE times in the Finals in the 60's...



Now Wilt...



Now, where would THAT Wilt rank all-time?

I don't think you can use the can adjust to other rosters in this case. We are talking about the Celtics. It would hard to adjust to them any better than Russell since he won every year.

As far as Magic and Bird go. everything you pointed out was about how well Magic did without Kareem or with an old Kareem. None of which has anything to do with winning a championship. Magic didn't win a ring in the years your talking about. You act like Mcadoo was a scrub. He was past his prime but he was in a perfect situation that year and he could still score.

I have always thought Wilt was the GOAT. I just get tired of you ripping other Legendary players in order to prop him up.

[LAZERUSS]

I don't think you can use the can adjust to other rosters in this case. We are talking about the Celtics. It would hard to adjust to them any better than Russell since he won every year.

As far as Magic and Bird go. everything you pointed out was about how well Magic did without Kareem or with an old Kareem. None of which has anything to do with winning a championship. Magic didn't win a ring in the years your talking about. You act like Mcadoo was a scrub. He was past his prime but he was in a perfect situation that year and he could still score.

I have always thought Wilt was the GOAT. I just get tired of you ripping other Legendary players in order to prop him up.

Magic DID win rings in '82, '87, and '88. Might have won another in '89 had he not been injured in the Finals, and basically missed the last 2 1/2 games.

McAdoo wasn't a scrub, which was the point. He could have replaced KAJ in '82. And Green and Thompson could have replaced Kareems' minutes in '87. Clearly the Lakers won a title in '88 DESPITE KAJ.

Magic took KAJ's underachieving rosters, and immediately led them to a title. In fact, they won the clinching game six, on the road, and withOUT Kareem...and not just won, they routed the Sixers.

For the entire decade of the 80's Magic WON, period. And he would continue to win even as KAJ declined, and then crumbled completely. And he carried his last two Kareem-less rosters to records of 62-17 and 58-24, and in the last one, carried that injury-riddled team past a 63-19 Blazer team, and into the Finals. And of course, after Magic retired...instant mediocrity. None of which was a coincidence.

BTW, I have Bird ranked in the Top-10. And I wouldn't have a problem with him as high as #8. Just being realistic, though.

[Asukal]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Wilt was ONLY able to rely upon himself to get it done.

23 MUST WIN post-season games...



GOAT

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

You mean he only played well in 23 playoff games? :oldlol:

What about the other 140+ playoff games? :rolleyes:

Wilt the GOAT choker. :bowdown:

[pudman13]

And how many rings does Chamberlain wind up with?

And how about Russell?

I would also like the "Wilt-bashers" to explain their answers in detail...

My honest answer---Wilt probably gets all of them except '69.

P.S. Bird belongs higher than #8.

[StephHamann]

And how many rings does Chamberlain wind up with?

And how about Russell?

I would also like the "Wilt-bashers" to explain their answers in detail...

I say Wilt wins 15 rings, and 14 FMVPs.

[pudman13]

Is Sam Jones underrated historically? Does he even get mentioned in the top 50 all-time?


Probably the most underrated player of all time. He played completely within the team concept, so he never had huge personal numbers, but I think he easily could have put up 30+ ppg seasons if he wanted to, or if he was on a lesser team that depended on him more. When they needed him, he was the man, period.

[DaRkJaWs]

Wilt was too much of a nice guy to have the capacity to win in consecutive seasons. The fact is that he was so much better than anyone else and it wasn't even close, how would you feel beating down the competition that doesn't even hold a candle to you? And if he did win in consecutive seasons, my guess is that by 64 or 65 he would have retired and played football, go back to his first love which was track and field, or go box Ali.

[Mr Feeny]

Yep...no way a Wilt with EIGHT other HOFers can beat Russell's team with ONE (and that was Guy Rodgers, who was the worst shooter of his era.)

Oh, and then Wilt would face the Lakers in the Finals.

Russell against LA that year in the Finals (6 games)...20 ppg, 26.0 rpg, and on a .467 FG%.

Wilt against LA in his 12 regular season 62-63 H2H's...48.6 ppg on a .541 FG%.
Including high games of 40, 40, 42, 53, 63, and 72 points.

That's right. Russell would win it. Mr 18 ppg in the finals would choke. You can bet on it.

[kshutts1]

Is there a way i can be alerted whenever this guy post i mean come on :oldlol:
That would be awesome.

Is there a "follow" function, where we can be alerted whenever a poster we are following posts?

[GimmeThat]

If we were to switch these playes in regards to their perspective teams. I think it would only be safe if we also assume that the memories of how these players played with their respected teams have been erased as well.

In this case, I do see wilt winning perhaps 3, at most 4 given the coaching change. But I would still credit Russell anywhere between 5-8. Given how his team repeats.


This post really should be deleted since its just feeding the wilts stan. But if anything, its moreso focused on how Russell had developed its relationship with the coach, as well as the players.

[GimmeThat]

James Worthy won the 1988 FMVP

In which of the 3 rings he won with the Lakers. Magic was only credited one FMVP, with thr other going to KAJ.

[CavaliersFTW]

Probably the most underrated player of all time. He played completely within the team concept, so he never had huge personal numbers, but I think he easily could have put up 30+ ppg seasons if he wanted to, or if he was on a lesser team that depended on him more. When they needed him, he was the man, period.
Do you think he was a better guard than Hal Greer?

A lot of times I'll hear fans of that time rank Oscar, West, and Greer first then Jones.

[pudman13]

Do you think he was a better guard than Hal Greer?

A lot of times I'll hear fans of that time rank Oscar, West, and Greer first then Jones.

There's precious little video of either of them, but I've seen much more of Jones, and based on both that and what I've read, I would choose Jones.

[LAZERUSS]

My honest answer---Wilt probably gets all of them except '69.

P.S. Bird belongs higher than #8.

'69 would have been a possibility. I assume that Van Breda Kolff would have liked Russell. But even then, we saw what a shackled Wilt did in that Finals...Russell wouldn't have been any more effective. And Baylor was just an exposed shell in that Finals. One of the worst Finals ever by a top-20 player in NBA history.

As for Bird...

I don't see him having the overall resumes of Wilt, MJ, Magic, KAJ, Russell, Shaq, nor Duncan. And to be honest, in terms of CAREERS, I have Kobe higher, and really, Lebron has surpassed Bird, as well.

But, if you have him higher, I won't argue.

[jongib369]

'69 would have been a possibility. I assume that Van Breda Kolff would have liked Russell. But even then, we saw what a shackled Wilt did in that Finals...Russell wouldn't have been any more effective. And Baylor was just an exposed shell in that Finals. One of the worst Finals ever by a top-20 player in NBA history.

As for Bird...

I don't see him having the overall resumes of Wilt, MJ, Magic, KAJ, Russell, Shaq, nor Duncan. And to be honest, in terms of CAREERS, I have Kobe higher, and really, Lebron has surpassed Bird, as well.

But, if you have him higher, I won't argue.
Would you take West over Bird?

[bizil]

I respect Bill Russell more than anybody. But frankly, Wilt is easily a better player than Russ EVER WAS!! U put Wilt on the Celtics, he's THE GOAT FLAT OUT! Even over MJ! Scoring wise, people need to realize Russ shot 44% from the field as a CENTER!! Wilt for his career shot 54% from the field.

My point is Wilt was MUCH BETTER than Russell and it's not even close. And I would go so far to say that peak wise, Russ might not even be a top 10 center of all time:

Wilt
Kareem
Shaq
Hakeem
Moses
Robinson
Ewing
Walton
McAdoo

These centers for sure I would take over Russell. But then u got guys like Gilmore, Thurmond, Bellamy, Cowens, Reed, and Zo too. All of those guys were better scorers and were also very good-great defenders and rebounders.

[La Frescobaldi]

Do you think he was a better guard than Hal Greer?

A lot of times I'll hear fans of that time rank Oscar, West, and Greer first then Jones.

stronger, faster, smarter, better in a team concept. Sam could see things happening that not too many guys could. Greer was great with the ball, quicker, could pass great, had all the skills but Sam was the better player.

Jones was silent, flat bad at interviews, and i don't think he cared about his image at all thus the lower estimate since nobody knows anything about him.

[bizil]

stronger, faster, smarter, better in a team concept. Sam could see things happening that not too many guys could. Greer was great with the ball, quicker, could pass great, had all the skills but Sam was the better player.

Jones was silent, flat bad at interviews, and i don't think he cared about his image at all thus the lower estimate since nobody knows anything about him.

Great point about Sam! I think people need to realize that Sam WAS THE ALPHA DOG scorer on many of those Boston title teams. I don't think that gets stressed enough! I also don't think people realize how often Sam swung between PG, SG, and SF in his career. He was really one of the first guys to do that!

[nycelt84]

I respect Bill Russell more than anybody. But frankly, Wilt is easily a better player than Russ EVER WAS!! U put Wilt on the Celtics, he's THE GOAT FLAT OUT! Even over MJ! Scoring wise, people need to realize Russ shot 44% from the field as a CENTER!! Wilt for his career shot 54% from the field.

My point is Wilt was MUCH BETTER than Russell and it's not even close. And I would go so far to say that peak wise, Russ might not even be a top 10 center of all time:

Wilt
Kareem
Shaq
Hakeem
Moses
Robinson
Ewing
Walton
McAdoo

These centers for sure I would take over Russell. But then u got guys like Gilmore, Thurmond, Bellamy, Cowens, Reed, and Zo too. All of those guys were better scorers and were also very good-great defenders and rebounders.

Really Bill Walton who had only 3 healthy seasons and Patrick Ewing better than Bill Russell?

[LAZERUSS]

Would you take West over Bird?

This is REALLY tough.

If you go by pure accomplishments and accolades (Rings, FMVPs, MVPs)...Bird has a solid edge.

If you measure a player by actual performance...VERY close.

West was a considerably better scorer, especially in the post-season. He was a slightly better passer. And he was considerably better defensively. The only real performance edge Bird had, was in rebounding.

Furthermore, if you consider that West went to NINE Finals, and did win a ring (albeit, he was awful in that post-season), and narrowly missed a ring on 2-3 more occasions....

RAZOR-THIN either way.

I personally have Bird at #10, and West around #14-15.

[bizil]

Really Bill Walton who had only 3 healthy seasons and Patrick Ewing better than Bill Russell?

I'm talking peak value. I would rather have peak Walton or peak Ewing over Russ. GOAT wise, Russ is one of the top five players of all time. I'm strictly talking peak. Russ's scoring wasn't alpha dog level in the least bit.

The most dominant centers to me are guys who are great two way players. Russ was never a dominant two way center. But once u take take away scoring, Russ is as good of a center as ANYBODY. Do u realize that Russ's top FG percentage season was 47%! And his career FG% is 44%. Which is subpar when looking at the other legendary centers.

[GimmeThat]

I respect Bill Russell more than anybody. But frankly, Wilt is easily a better player than Russ EVER WAS!! U put Wilt on the Celtics, he's THE GOAT FLAT OUT! Even over MJ! Scoring wise, people need to realize Russ shot 44% from the field as a CENTER!! Wilt for his career shot 54% from the field.

My point is Wilt was MUCH BETTER than Russell and it's not even close. And I would go so far to say that peak wise, Russ might not even be a top 10 center of all time:

Wilt
Kareem
Shaq
Hakeem
Moses
Robinson
Ewing
Walton
McAdoo

These centers for sure I would take over Russell. But then u got guys like Gilmore, Thurmond, Bellamy, Cowens, Reed, and Zo too. All of those guys were better scorers and were also very good-great defenders and rebounders.



it's sort of how I feel about navigation efficiency I suppose.

[La Frescobaldi]

This is REALLY tough.

If you go by pure accomplishments and accolades (Rings, FMVPs, MVPs)...Bird has a solid edge.

If you measure a player by actual performance...VERY close.

West was a considerably better scorer, especially in the post-season. He was a slightly better passer. And he was considerably better defensively. The only real performance edge Bird had, was in rebounding.

Furthermore, if you consider that West went to NINE Finals, and did win a ring (albeit, he was awful in that post-season), and narrowly missed a ring on 2-3 more occasions....

RAZOR-THIN either way.

I personally have Bird at #10, and West around #14-15.

I solved that dilemma long time ago....... I just put em both on my All-Time Starting 5 with Wilt, Jordan, and Kareem playing the 4.... and Magic Johnson (funny we are talking about him right now in another thread) as 6th man since he can play all positions.

[LAZERUSS]

If we were to switch these playes in regards to their perspective teams. I think it would only be safe if we also assume that the memories of how these players played with their respected teams have been erased as well.

In this case, I do see wilt winning perhaps 3, at most 4 given the coaching change. But I would still credit Russell anywhere between 5-8. Given how his team repeats.


This post really should be deleted since its just feeding the wilts stan. But if anything, its moreso focused on how Russell had developed its relationship with the coach, as well as the players.

The thing was...Wilt took FAR worse rosters, that generally played even worse in the post-season, to within an eyelash of beating the Celtics FOUR times. FOUR game seven losses (and in which Wilt's teammates blew chunks all over the floor in ALL four), by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points (and Wilt wasn't even on the floor in the last five minutes of that last one.) Then, thy were a Wilt hand injury away from perhaps winning their '60 EDF matchup (Boston won game six by two points...but Chamberlain had trashed his hand at the end of game two and was nearly worthless in in a game three 120-90 loss.) And while Boston, with their 8-3 margin in HOFers beat the '64 Warriors, 4-1, the last two games came down to the waning seconds. In a series that, once again, Wilt just cleaned Russell's clock. The only playoff series that Boston clearly beat Wilt's team, was in the '66 EDF's, and while Chamberlain just crushed Russell, his teammates collectively shot an unfathomable .352 from the field.

And, of course, when Wilt finally had a roster that was the equal of Russell's, and that was healthy, he and his Sixers just annihilated the eight-time defending champion Celtics, 4-1 (and they were four points away from sweeping Boston in game four.)

Russell's rosters had a HUGE edge in talent and experience over Wilt's teams from '60 thru '65. Their '66 rosters were close, albeit, Boston's, as always, was considerably deeper. The only rosters in which Wilt might have had any edge at all, and it was probably not an edge at all, were in '67 and '68. Of course, their '68 roster, including Wilt, himself, was just decimated by injuries, and they still only lost a game seven by four points. Some would claim Wilt's '69 Lakers were a better team, but the reality was, they only had an edge at the top-2 slots. Baylor became a HUGE liability, and then Boston's massive edge in depth took over. Hell, Em Bryant scored 20 points in that game seven, two point win! On top of that, Wilt's COACH just completely cost LA the series. It was probably the worst coaching job in the history of the NBA Finals. Had the Lakers been without a coach, they would have been better off.

[julizaver]

And how many rings does Chamberlain wind up with?

And how about Russell?

I would also like the "Wilt-bashers" to explain their answers in detail...

He would won all the tittles - Auerbach tried to recruite Chamberlain when he was 17. But I suposed that it would be detrimental for the league with the supposed level of domination. The rivalry between Russell and Chamberlain was vital for the league at the time. Chamberlain with better roster would be no contest as we all know that one to one Russell doesn't stood a chance against Wilt. And he knows it himself. What Russell could do and what was widely discussed here is to limit Wilt's for some parts of the game but never clearly able to outplay him. The Wilt bashers would quckly point that Wilt was statpading (because the lack of team success). But when Russell and Wilt reconcile around 90s Russell aknowledged that Wilt as the greatest ever.

[colts19]

This is REALLY tough.

If you go by pure accomplishments and accolades (Rings, FMVPs, MVPs)...Bird has a solid edge.

If you measure a player by actual performance...VERY close.

West was a considerably better scorer, especially in the post-season. He was a slightly better passer. And he was considerably better defensively. The only real performance edge Bird had, was in rebounding.

Furthermore, if you consider that West went to NINE Finals, and did win a ring (albeit, he was awful in that post-season), and narrowly missed a ring on 2-3 more occasions....

RAZOR-THIN either way.

I personally have Bird at #10, and West around #14-15.

I saw both play and West was not a better passer than Bird. Also in a post the other day you had Bird rated as 8 not 10.

[pudman13]

I think Bird's legacy is lessened a bit because he started older than some others, and because his career ended early due to his back, but his career was the period of my life I followed the most basketball, and I have a hard time suggesting that Magic was the better player. All throughout that time Bird was considered the better of the two, until maybe the very end of his career.

Who would be ranked above him? Jordan, Kareem, Russell... There's a good argument for Wilt, and fair enough if you want to put Magic there with him. I think Lebron could get there (though at the moment it's looking less likely than ever before), but I can't buy people like Shaq or Kobe or Duncan (and I love Tim Duncan.)

[swagga]

an old celtics fan once confessed to me that he was very happy that wilt didn't play for the celtics because they surely wouldn't win so much. he even gave a short prayer, old man said " god blessed our franchise with competitive players, a chocker like wilt would simply not fit in".

[CavaliersFTW]

an old celtics fan once confessed to me that he was very happy that wilt didn't play for the celtics because they surely wouldn't win so much. he even gave a short prayer, old man said " god blessed our franchise with competitive players, a chocker like wilt would simply not fit in".
And then you woke up.

[La Frescobaldi]

I saw both play and West was not a better passer than Bird. Also in a post the other day you had Bird rated as 8 not 10.

Yeah me too. That one isn't even very close; and I was an enormous fan of the Logo. Bird's passing skills are far closer to Pistol Pete Maravitch's than to Jerry West's. i.e., the best ever seen on any court, anytime, anywhere.
co-sine..............
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/standard/maths_ii/images/sine_cosine_test_q7.gif





http://thumb9.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/806689/197629946/stock-photo-blacksmith-working-metal-with-hammer-on-the-anvil-in-the-forge-197629946.jpg

Laz has got the knives for Larry Bird and he's been sharpening them for quite some time on Ish. Most dreadful, bad judgement in that regard.