Stopping The Two Most Dominant Players In NBA History

[Fallen Angel]

http://i.gyazo.com/eded5fa5764f45082cdb3169790841ec.png


Keys To Beating The One Man Gang

*this strategy came to my attention by this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCX2bEBPABQ) hour long video on Shaq vs. Rodman

[keep-itreal]

tl;dr

[ISHGoat]

Why is player y not on player x the whole time?

[LAZERUSS]

I'll simplify this for you...

The key to beating Wilt's TEAMS, was to have between 4-9 HOFers, and for those HOF players to badly outplay Wilt's TEAMMATES.

I could, and have shredded that RIDICULOUS take on the '62 EDF's, but just a quick example...

in game one, Wilt SLAUGHTERED Russell. He scored 33 points on 13-25 FG/FGA, while Russell had 16 points on 7-22 shooting. Wilt's teammates? They collectively shot...get this... 20-85 from the field, or .235!

That ENTIRE series went the same way...and STILL, Chamberlain SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried that last-place roster to a game seven, two point loss.

Again...swap rosters, and it would have been WILT holding all those rings.

[Fallen Angel]

Why is player y not on player x the whole time?
It's pointless for Russell and Rodman to guard Wilt Chambemlain and Shaquille O'Neal 48 minutes during the playoff series showcased because majority of the games ended at halftime or the 3rd quarter.

[Fallen Angel]

I'll simplify this for you...

The key to beating Wilt's TEAMS, was to have between 4-9 HOFers, and for those HOF players to badly outplay Wilt's TEAMMATES.

I could, and have shredded that RIDICULOUS take on the '62 EDF's, but just a quick example...

in game one, Wilt SLAUGHTERED Russell. He scored 33 points on 13-25 FG/FGA, while Russell had 16 points on 7-22 shooting. Wilt's teammates? They collectively shot...get this... 20-85 from the field, or .235!

That ENTIRE series went the same way...and STILL, Chamberlain SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried that last-place roster to a game seven, two point loss.

Again...swap rosters, and it would have been WILT holding all those rings.
You're highlighting Wilt's defense against Bill Russell (who isn't a notable scorer).

I'm highlighting Russell's defense on Wilt's most historic season that included him averaging 50 PPG and he had his coveted 100 point game. Russell guarded Wilt and made him look pedestrian compared to the godly numbers he recorded in the regular season.

[ISHGoat]

It's pointless for Russell and Rodman to guard Wilt Chambemlain and Shaquille O'Neal 48 minutes during the playoff series showcased because majority of the games ended at halftime or the 3rd quarter.

What I mean is, over the course of a full game, is it MORE effective to defend Wilt et al with the strategy you described; letting him go off on a scrub first and then using Russell in stretches? I mean you can obviously let go a bit once you've blown the game open, but before that point, wouldn't it make sense to have your best defender on wilt the entire time, so he doesn't even begin to establish a rhythm?

[DMV2]

• 1962 NBA Playoffs (WILT CHAMBERLAIN vs. BILL RUSSELL)
[INDENT]• Bill Russell displayed a slightly different approach to what is used in modern NBA. Russell guarded Wilt more often than what current defenders would do stars and then let the star player pad his stats in garbage time.
• Wilt Chamberlain is coming off a season averaging 50 PPG and 28 RPG including his famous 100 Point Performance.
• Game 1 Division Finals: Wilt only had 12 points in the 1st half, by which point the Celtics controlled the game with a 15 point lead. The Celtics increased their lead to the result of an impressive blowout win while allowing Wilt Chamberlain pad his stats to 33 points in garbage time.
• Game 3 Division Finals: Russell outscored and outrebounded Chamberlain in the 1st half, 21 and 14 to Wilt's 13 and 11. The Celtics led by 21 at halftime. With the game basically over Wilt was free to pad his stats to a meaningless 35 points in a blowout defeat.
• Game 5 Division Finals: In the 1st half Wilt scored 11 points in 5/13 (31%) and Russell outrebounded him 11 to 9. The Celtics were once again up 20+ at halftime, with the game basically over they allowed Wilt to statpad his numbers once again 30 points in garbage time.
• Game 7 Division Finals: The game was decided in the last second so Wilt had no chance to pad his stats in garbage time. Wilt was held to 22 points (28 below his season average) and was outrebounded by Wilt 22 to 21 as Sam Jones hit the game winner over Wilt to send the Celtics to the NBA Finals.

• 1970 NBA Finals (WILT CHAMBERLAIN vs. WILLIS REED)

• Game 7 Finals: Wilt was free to score on Knicks' weaker defenders or anytime Willis wasn't guarding him. But on possessions where Reed did guard him, Wilt had 4 points on 2/7 (29%) with 4 turnovers.
• Just like Games 1-3-5 of the 1962 Division Finals vs. Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain and his team found themselves down large at halftime. The Knicks were up 69 to the Lakers' 42.
• Keep in mind, with Willis Reed out Game 6 of the Finals Wilt Chamberlain dominated the Knicks with 45 points and 27 rebounds. In Games 1-2-3-4, before Reed's injury he was averaging more points that Wilt Chamberlain. Through Game 4, Willis Reed averaged 32 PPG to Wilt's 19 PPG.
• Reed only played 27 minutes in Game 7 and Wilt was free to pad his stats in garbage time, just as he did against Bill Russell. Wilt finished with a decisive 21 points on 63% and 27 rebounds as the Los Angeles Lakers fell to the New York Knicks.

I knew Wilt used to get his ass kicked by Russell all the time but he even got his ass whooped by Willis Reed too?

50 PPG regular season to 19 PPG in the playoffs. :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

You're highlighting Wilt's defense against Bill Russell (who isn't a notable scorer).

I'm highlighting Russell's defense on Wilt's most historic season that included him averaging 50 PPG and he had his coveted 100 point game. Russell guarded Wilt and made him look pedestrian compared to the godly numbers he recorded in the regular season.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

In their TEN regular season H2H's, Wilt averaged 39.7 ppg on a .468 FG% against RUSSELL.

In the '62 EDF's, in a much lower scoring series, and in a post-season NBA that shot considerably worse than the regular season... 33.6 ppg on a .468 FG%.

It has been well-documented HERE, that Wilt either outplayed, or downright DESTROYED Russell in their H2H games that season. In the '62 EDF's, Wilt held, at a MINIMUM, a 4-2-1 edge in which he outplayed Russell, and in a couple it was by a HUGE margin. In game two, Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, outrebounded Russell, 37-20, and outshot him from the field by a 16-31 to 4-14 margin.

Overall in the '62 EDF's...Wilt just plain SLAUGHTERED Russell. As he did in EVERY one of their EIGHT post-season H2H's.

SWAP TEAMMATES...and Wilt goes 10-0 in rings in the decade of the 60's.

[DMV2]

With this new knowledge of Wilt getting owned by Willis Reed, I might just kick his choking ass off my top 10 list.

[STATUTORY]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

In their TEN regular season H2H's, Wilt averaged 39.7 ppg on a .468 FG% against RUSSELL.

In the '62 EDF's, in a much lower scoring series, and in a post-season NBA that shot considerably worse than the regular season... 33.6 ppg on a .468 FG%.

It has been well-documented HERE, that Wilt either outplayed, or downright DESTROYED Russell in their H2H games that season. In the '62 EDF's, Wilt held, at a MINIMUM, a 4-2-1 edge in which he outplayed Russell, and in a couple it was by a HUGE margin. In game two, Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, outrebounded Russell, 37-20, and outshot him from the field by a 16-31 to 4-14 margin.

Overall in the '62 EDF's...Wilt just plain SLAUGHTERED Russell. As he did in EVERY one of their EIGHT post-season H2H's.

SWAP TEAMMATES...and Wilt goes 10-0 in rings in the decade of the 60's.


your own stats show that wilt dropped off when he faced russell

:coleman:

[LAZERUSS]

As for the '70 Finals...yes, let's completely ignore the fact that Wilt was playing only four months after major knee surgery, and was nowhere near 100%.

Or that, by all accounts, a one-legged Wilt battled a peak healthy Reed to a 2-2 draw in the first four games...and then was wiping the floor with Reed in game five, when Reed went down with his leg injury (BTW, essentially the same leg injury that Wilt played every minute of the '68 EDF's with.)

And yes, let's ignore Wilt's decimation of a center that was comparable to what Shaq faced in the '00 and '02 Finals, with a 45-27 must-win game six.

And then, in game seven, with Reed getting a TON of help, and then fouling Wilt constantly...he "held" Chamberlain to a 21-24 game. Wilt was the ONLY Laker who played well in game seven.

In the meantime, Frazier just murdered Wilt's TEAMMATE, Jerry West in that game. How come you didn't mention that?

BTW, a healthy Wilt just ANNIHILATED Reed the season before in their two H2H's.

[Fallen Angel]

What I mean is, over the course of a full game, is it MORE effective to defend Wilt et al with the strategy you described; letting him go off on a scrub first and then using Russell in stretches? I mean you can obviously let go a bit once you've blown the game open, but before that point, wouldn't it make sense to have your best defender on wilt the entire time, so he doesn't even begin to establish a rhythm?
That's the mental aspect of letting an offensive player get his against an inferior defender. Once he establishes a rhythm to the point where he's constantly getting touches inside, you put your best defender on him to force him to work way harder to score, ultimately freezing the offense and allowing the other team to go on scoring runs on their own.

When I first thought about it I thought it was ludicrous myself, until I watched the video under the title. It really is worth the watch, all it is is a bunch of game film and game notes.

[LAZERUSS]

your own stats show that wilt dropped off when he faced russell

:coleman:

His scoring dropped SLIGHTLY, while his FG% efficiency was identical, and he elevated his rebounding.

And yes, what a decline... a 34 ppg 27 rpg series.

[Fallen Angel]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

In their TEN regular season H2H's, Wilt averaged 39.7 ppg on a .468 FG% against RUSSELL.

In the '62 EDF's, in a much lower scoring series, and in a post-season NBA that shot considerably worse than the regular season... 33.6 ppg on a .468 FG%.

It has been well-documented HERE, that Wilt either outplayed, or downright DESTROYED Russell in their H2H games that season. In the '62 EDF's, Wilt held, at a MINIMUM, a 4-2-1 edge in which he outplayed Russell, and in a couple it was by a HUGE margin. In game two, Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, outrebounded Russell, 37-20, and outshot him from the field by a 16-31 to 4-14 margin.

Overall in the '62 EDF's...Wilt just plain SLAUGHTERED Russell. As he did in EVERY one of their EIGHT post-season H2H's.

SWAP TEAMMATES...and Wilt goes 10-0 in rings in the decade of the 60's.
You clearly missed the parts where I obviously stated that the Celtics had a huge lead going into halftime and ultimately winning the games all in blowout fashion. While that was going on Wilt bumped his scoring numbers up in garbage time, something this era would call.... STATPADDING.

[Rocketswin2013]

I knew Wilt used to get his ass kicked by Russell all the time but he even got his ass whooped by Willis Reed too?

50 PPG regular season to 19 PPG in the playoffs. :roll:
He scored 50 PPG in '62.... Not '70. Chamberlain was a shell physically after shredding his knee in.'69 and wasn't as aggressive as a scorer.

[LAZERUSS]

That's the mental aspect of letting an offensive player get his against an inferior defender. Once he establishes a rhythm to the point where he's constantly getting touches inside, you put your best defender on him to force him to work way harder to score, ultimately freezing the offense and allowing the other team to go on scoring runs on their own.

When I first thought about it I thought it was ludicrous myself, until I watched the video under the title. It really is worth the watch, all it is is a bunch of game film and game notes.

And Wilt MURDERED Russell in their 143 career H2H's.

And if Russell were somehow "letting" Wilt score, he obviously did it quite often. An example...

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

A 21 point 4th quarter comeback in a game in which Wilt poured in 48 points.


Sorry, but Russell was hanging on for dear life in their 143 H2H's, and needed his TEAMMATES to overwhelm Wilt's in order to beat Chamberlain's TEAMS.

[YouGotServed]

Fallen Angel murdering Wilt stans with facts. Bill guarded Wilt incredibly well, Celtics allowed Wilt to stat pad his numbers towards the end when the game was basically out of reach.

That's why Russell is the GOAT center. Defensive mastermind who wasn't fooled by Wilts inflated stats.

[LAZERUSS]

You clearly missed the parts where I obviously stated that the Celtics had a huge lead going into halftime and ultimately winning the games all in blowout fashion. While that was going on Wilt bumped his scoring numbers up in garbage time, something this era would call.... STATPADDING.

Boston had a 15 point half time lead you idiot!

So, you are basically claiming that since Russell had such an overwhelming edge in surrounding talent, that all he had to do was to contain Wilt for halves, or even quarters, in order for his TEAM to win?

Makes perfect sense.

BTW, in the '62 regular season, Russell shot .457 against the NBA. In the '62 EDF's, and against Wilt... .399.

Again...SWAP ROSTERS, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

[LAZERUSS]

Fallen Angel murdering Wilt stans with facts. Bill guarded Wilt incredibly well, Celtics allowed Wilt to stat pad his numbers towards the end when the game was basically out of reach.

That's why Russell is the GOAT center. Defensive mastermind who wasn't fooled by Wilts inflated stats.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

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

Just one of many examples...

[DMV2]

He scored 50 PPG in '62.... Not '70. Chamberlain was a shell physically after shredding his knee in.'69 and wasn't as aggressive as a scorer.
50 PPG in '62 regular season.

Playoffs: Scores 12 points in first half and gets blown out before second half even started.
Game 3, scores 13 points and gets blown by 21 points by halftime.
Game 5, posted 11 points and gets blown out by 20+ at halftime.
Game 7....posted only 22 points.

So Prime Wilt gets destroyed by Russell. Twilight years Wilt get destroyed by Reed. He was a choke artist through out his playoff career then.

[ISHGoat]

That's the mental aspect of letting an offensive player get his against an inferior defender. Once he establishes a rhythm to the point where he's constantly getting touches inside, you put your best defender on him to force him to work way harder to score, ultimately freezing the offense and allowing the other team to go on scoring runs on their own.

When I first thought about it I thought it was ludicrous myself, until I watched the video under the title. It really is worth the watch, all it is is a bunch of game film and game notes.

Thanks, thats what I gathered too, good to see you confirm it in words. Will watch the vids later :cheers:

[Fallen Angel]

This dude is bringing up teammates, I'm focusing on the INDIVIDUAL defense of Bill Russell on Wilt Chamberlain.

Teammates have no factor at all in this. This is one-on-one matchups between Russell/Chamberlain and Rodman/O'Neal.

[ZMonkey11]

So in summary, to beat the two most dominant forces ever, guard them just enough to win.

Damn I got that LeBron efficiency. You got that Kobe efficiency OP.

[Asukal]

Wilt was the original empty stats guy. GOAT choker but soon to be lebran when he goes 2/7. :lol :oldlol: :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

This dude is bringing up teammates, I'm focusing on the INDIVIDUAL defense of Bill Russell on Wilt Chamberlain.

Teammates have no factor at all in this. This is one-on-one matchups between Russell/Chamberlain and Rodman/O'Neal.

Oh, no teammates then?

Easy...Wilt CRUSHED Russell.

In their 143 career H2H games..

Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 28.7 ppg to 14.5 ppg.
Wilt outrebounded Russell, per game, 28.7 rpg to 23.7 rpg.
Wilt outshot Russell from the field, .497 to .382.

Thanks for confirming what virtually everyone knew at the time.

Wilt > Russell.

[Fallen Angel]

I was curious to see how and if this method translated to Lebron vs. Kawhi in the 2014 NBA Finals and Lebron vs. Iguodala in the 2015 NBA Finals, but it's hard to do so because there's a difference between perimeter defense and post defense since on the perimeter you can use decoy tools like players setting screens and being able to come off screens.

[Fallen Angel]

So in summary, to beat the two most dominant forces ever, guard them just enough to win.
Guard them just enough to go on huge scoring runs to either blowout the competition (Russell and Reed on Wilt) or flat out beat them down (Rodman and the Bulls sweeping Shaq and the Magic.

[LAZERUSS]

Guard them just enough to go on huge scoring runs to either blowout the competition (Russell and Reed on Wilt) or flat out beat them down (Rodman and the Bulls sweeping Shaq and the Magic.

Blowouts?

Russell's TEAMS beat Wilt's TEAMS in FOUR GAME SEVEN's by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.

BTW, how about the '67 EDF's, when Wilt again OBLITERATED Russell, as he ALWAYS did in their post-season H2H's, BUT, his TEAM BLEW OUT Russell's, 4-1, and only a four point loss in game four prevented a sweep?

Thanks for playing though.

Wilt > Russell.

[Fallen Angel]

1962 Eastern Division Finals.

Celtics had a margin of victory of 15 points. Not including the Game 7 win, the Celtics had a margin of 19 points.
Warriors had a margin of victory of only 7 points.

http://i.gyazo.com/8fa34970a3b5ba083c3d8eb5eca84659.png

[Ne 1]

Blowouts?

Russell's TEAMS beat Wilt's TEAMS in FOUR GAME SEVEN's by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.

BTW, how about the '67 EDF's, when Wilt again OBLITERATED Russell, as he ALWAYS did in their post-season H2H's, BUT, his TEAM BLEW OUT Russell's, 4-1, and only a four point loss in game four prevented a sweep?

Thanks for playing though.

Wilt > Russell.

Russ > Wilt.

First, in 1972, when Wilt submerged himself into a Russell-like role - low scoring, outlet rebounding and defensively focused game - with the Lakers, under the guidance of Bill Sharman, Russell's former Celtic teammate, his team went on a 33 game winning streak with a 69-12 season record, en-route to the championship. In retrospect, Russell's unflashy style of play is more effective in bringing in the hardware than Wilt's.

Second, despite of Wilt's impressive talents, the man is a PAIN to work with. These explains why his former teams like the Warriors and 76ers was willing to trade him for LESSER talents, just to get rid of him. Russ has a much better attitude and despite of his aloof manner in public and private life, he exudes a sense of camaraderie whenever he steps into the court or inside the locker room.

Some of Wilt negative attributes which could be traced to his primadonna personality includes:

- disrespecting and criticizing his coaches publicly (eg. Neil Johnston, Alex Hannum, Dolph Schayes, and of course Bill Van Breda Kolff all had bad memories working with Wilt.)

- demanding a high salary (eg. One third of the Warriors gate receipts goes to Wilt's salary but Wilt doesnt even want to do publicity gigs to boost ticket sales)

- complains like a baby to the media (eg. threatening to quit but not carrying it out)

- rarely practice and travels with his teammates (eg. Wilt had had feuds with Baylor and Hal Greer).

If i was a coach in real life, I would dread the idea of bringing Wilt Chamberlain on my team. Hell, Alex Hannum had to challenge Wilt in a fight just to get his respect. Ask yourself what kind of a basketball player would push his coach to such lengths just to earn the player's respect. Its not worth it having him on the team unless his talents are programmed in an android devoid of his personality.

The problem with Wilt is that he played with TALENTED teammates, he just doesnt gel well with his teams w/c is why their performance are not commensurate of their talents.

If Russ was with Paul Azirin, Tom Gola and Guy Rodgers in Wilt's Philly Warriors, they would be Final contenders if not champions. Azirin is a sharpshooting genius like Sharman and Rodgers while not as flashy as Cousy, is sorely underrated as a passer and is a very fast ballhandler. Gola is a more offensively talented version of Celtic defensive specialist Satch Sanders.

If Russ was with the San Francisco Warriors, he and Nate Thurmond would form a two headed monster that would be the scourge of everybody else in the League. Although for the first couple of years,i dont think they would win the hardware but once Rick Barry comes on board the team would be unbeatable.

If Russ was with Wilt's LA Lakers and Syracuse Nationals/ Philadelphia 76ers team, no question, they would WIN rings, lots of rings. These teams are LOADED with talents.

West and Baylor's LA are capable of pushing the Celtics to 7 games, while Greer and Walker's Nationals/76ers could beat Wilt and the Warriors on their own, even w/o HoF Billy Cunningham. Putting in Russ (and theoretically, Wilt) on those teams would be overkill.

On the flipside, if Wilt with his gargantuan ego intact was playing in the Celtics, he would have quarreled right off the bat with that confrontational, authoritarian bastard Red Auerbach. Red would trade him the first chance he got. Assuming that Wilt did stick around, the dynasty Celtics live and die with the fastbreak. Red's gameplan is unchangeable. They are not going to wait for Wilt to come down the floor and score. They just just need him to get them the ball like Russell. The Wilt Chamberlain as we know it today - the guy who once averaged 50pts and has seven scoring titles - would not exist. He would get his rings alright but he would be pigeonholed playing Russell's game in the Celtics

[LAZERUSS]

1962 Eastern Division Finals.

Celtics had a margin of victory of 15 points. Not including the Game 7 win, the Celtics had a margin of 19 points.
Warriors had a margin of victory of only 7 points.

http://i.gyazo.com/8fa34970a3b5ba083c3d8eb5eca84659.png

Not sure what your point is.

Russell was badly outplayed by Wilt, and with it took his HOF-laden 60-20 roster a game seven win by TWO points to beat Wilt's TEAM, the core of which was the same LAST PLACE roster that Wilt inherited in his rookie season, but now older and worse.

[LAZERUSS]

Russ > Wilt.

First, in 1972, when Wilt submerged himself into a Russell-like role - low scoring, outlet rebounding and defensively focused game - with the Lakers, under the guidance of Bill Sharman, Russell's former Celtic teammate, his team went on a 33 game winning streak with a 69-12 season record, en-route to the championship. In retrospect, Russell's unflashy style of play is more effective in bringing in the hardware than Wilt's.

Second, despite of Wilt's impressive talents, the man is a PAIN to work with. These explains why his former teams like the Warriors and 76ers was willing to trade him for LESSER talents, just to get rid of him. Russ has a much better attitude and despite of his aloof manner in public and private life, he exudes a sense of camaraderie whenever he steps into the court or inside the locker room.

Some of Wilt negative attributes which could be traced to his primadonna personality includes:

- disrespecting and criticizing his coaches publicly (eg. Neil Johnston, Alex Hannum, Dolph Schayes, and of course Bill Van Breda Kolff all had bad memories working with Wilt.)

- demanding a high salary (eg. One third of the Warriors gate receipts goes to Wilt's salary but Wilt doesnt even want to do publicity gigs to boost ticket sales)

- complains like a baby to the media (eg. threatening to quit but not carrying it out)

- rarely practice and travels with his teammates (eg. Wilt had had feuds with Baylor and Hal Greer).

If i was a coach in real life, I would dread the idea of bringing Wilt Chamberlain on my team. Hell, Alex Hannum had to challenge Wilt in a fight just to get his respect. Ask yourself what kind of a basketball player would push his coach to such lengths just to earn the player's respect. Its not worth it having him on the team unless his talents are programmed in an android devoid of his personality.

The problem with Wilt is that he played with TALENTED teammates, he just doesnt gel well with his teams w/c is why their performance are not commensurate of their talents.

If Russ was with Paul Azirin, Tom Gola and Guy Rodgers in Wilt's Philly Warriors, they would be Final contenders if not champions. Azirin is a sharpshooting genius like Sharman and Rodgers while not as flashy as Cousy, is sorely underrated as a passer and is a very fast ballhandler. Gola is a more offensively talented version of Celtic defensive specialist Satch Sanders.

If Russ was with the San Francisco Warriors, he and Nate Thurmond would form a two headed monster that would be the scourge of everybody else in the League. Although for the first couple of years,i dont think they would win the hardware but once Rick Barry comes on board the team would be unbeatable.

If Russ was with Wilt's LA Lakers and Syracuse Nationals/ Philadelphia 76ers team, no question, they would WIN rings, lots of rings. These teams are LOADED with talents.

West and Baylor's LA are capable of pushing the Celtics to 7 games, while Greer and Walker's Nationals/76ers could beat Wilt and the Warriors on their own, even w/o HoF Billy Cunningham. Putting in Russ (and theoretically, Wilt) on those teams would be overkill.

On the flipside, if Wilt with his gargantuan ego intact was playing in the Celtics, he would have quarreled right off the bat with that confrontational, authoritarian bastard Red Auerbach. Red would trade him the first chance he got. Assuming that Wilt did stick around, the dynasty Celtics live and die with the fastbreak. Red's gameplan is unchangeable. They are not going to wait for Wilt to come down the floor and score. They just just need him to get them the ball like Russell. The Wilt Chamberlain as we know it today - the guy who once averaged 50pts and has seven scoring titles - would not exist. He would get his rings alright but he would be pigeonholed playing Russell's game in the Celtics

I don't have time to completely shred this line-by-line right now, so you will have to wait to get your ass handed to you later on.

The bottom line, though. None other than John Wooden claimed that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters and coaches, and it would have been WILT holding all those rings.

[Ne 1]

1962 Eastern Division Finals.

Celtics had a margin of victory of 15 points. Not including the Game 7 win, the Celtics had a margin of 19 points.
Warriors had a margin of victory of only 7 points.

http://i.gyazo.com/8fa34970a3b5ba083c3d8eb5eca84659.png

Russell drastically outplayed Wilt in this series. He lowered Wilt's averge by 15 points and upped his scoring by 3. That gives Boston nearly a 20 point edge every game in that match-up alone. Forget about the 15-20 ppg Russell was worth over Wilt in terms of defense and intangibles.

Here's a couple more quotes from the Celtics regarding the topic at hand.

"If Wilt thinks that with all the hall of famers on our team we'd have waited for him to get his ass down the court the way Philadelphia did , forget it. We wouldn't watch anyone shoot every time he got it like he did that year ('62) when he scored 50 a game. He could have averaged those 50 points for us, but we would never have won a Championship. It would have produced a lot of disharmony. Russ didn't care about scoring. We probably would have won a couple of titles with Wilt, but Russ remains the most productive center ever to play the game"

Bob Cousy

"If you go strictly by the record book, then you've got to say that Chamberlain is the greatest player in basketball history. But as great as Wilt was, he couldn;t beat us. That's because Russell was the fulcrum of a team effort."

Tom Heinsohn

"Bill had no interest in scoring. He was totally unselfish. He was always there for us getting the clutch rebound, making the big blocks. He was the reason we won and the reason all those banners hang at the garden."

Tom Sanders

And from a Warrior

"Bill won (vs. the Warriors) because his team was always a little better, his coach was a little better and because his team played better together than Wilt's."

Tom Meschery

[Angel Face]

Wilt isn't "dominant" come playoffs time. Known choker and has the highest ppg drop from reg. season to playoffs.

[Psileas]

With this new knowledge of Wilt getting owned by Willis Reed, I might just kick his choking ass off my top 10 list.

With this new knowledge of Shaq getting nullified by 6'7 Rodman to the point of having a party every time he scored a single field goal, I might just kick his choking ass off my top 100 list.

[Da_Realist]

Now this is the type of analysis that show's ISH's potential! It was worth wading through "2/6" for months to read this. :applause:

[Fallen Angel]

I made this thread to originally talk Rodman vs Shaq...

[dankok8]

LAZERUSS either doesn't understand or chooses the ignore the concept of statpadding in garbage time. When a team is down big and has no realistic chance to come back into the game, the statistics a player puts up in those periods are irrelevant. Russell didn't contain Wilt for JUST A HALF OR A QUARTER... When the game got out of hand, Russell did NOT try to contain Wilt any more. He didn't care.

If anything Wilt would end the game with a very good stat line and say "I played well..." and wouldn't come out with revenge in his eyes for the next one. It was SMART for Russell not to guard Wilt tight in a blowout and it makes every bit of sense. Psychologically and physically.

Comprende?

There are many many instances where the Celtics blew out the Warriors by half time or at least through three quarters. Someone blindly looking at stats would get a very wrong picture of who played better.

[warriorfan]

Curry received more defensive attention

[LAZERUSS]

Russ > Wilt.

First, in 1972, when Wilt submerged himself into a Russell-like role - low scoring, outlet rebounding and defensively focused game - with the Lakers, under the guidance of Bill Sharman, Russell's former Celtic teammate, his team went on a 33 game winning streak with a 69-12 season record, en-route to the championship. In retrospect, Russell's unflashy style of play is more effective in bringing in the hardware than Wilt's.

Second, despite of Wilt's impressive talents, the man is a PAIN to work with. These explains why his former teams like the Warriors and 76ers was willing to trade him for LESSER talents, just to get rid of him. Russ has a much better attitude and despite of his aloof manner in public and private life, he exudes a sense of camaraderie whenever he steps into the court or inside the locker room.

Some of Wilt negative attributes which could be traced to his primadonna personality includes:

- disrespecting and criticizing his coaches publicly (eg. Neil Johnston, Alex Hannum, Dolph Schayes, and of course Bill Van Breda Kolff all had bad memories working with Wilt.)

- demanding a high salary (eg. One third of the Warriors gate receipts goes to Wilt's salary but Wilt doesnt even want to do publicity gigs to boost ticket sales)

- complains like a baby to the media (eg. threatening to quit but not carrying it out)

- rarely practice and travels with his teammates (eg. Wilt had had feuds with Baylor and Hal Greer).

If i was a coach in real life, I would dread the idea of bringing Wilt Chamberlain on my team. Hell, Alex Hannum had to challenge Wilt in a fight just to get his respect. Ask yourself what kind of a basketball player would push his coach to such lengths just to earn the player's respect. Its not worth it having him on the team unless his talents are programmed in an android devoid of his personality.

The problem with Wilt is that he played with TALENTED teammates, he just doesnt gel well with his teams w/c is why their performance are not commensurate of their talents.

If Russ was with Paul Azirin, Tom Gola and Guy Rodgers in Wilt's Philly Warriors, they would be Final contenders if not champions. Azirin is a sharpshooting genius like Sharman and Rodgers while not as flashy as Cousy, is sorely underrated as a passer and is a very fast ballhandler. Gola is a more offensively talented version of Celtic defensive specialist Satch Sanders.

If Russ was with the San Francisco Warriors, he and Nate Thurmond would form a two headed monster that would be the scourge of everybody else in the League. Although for the first couple of years,i dont think they would win the hardware but once Rick Barry comes on board the team would be unbeatable.

If Russ was with Wilt's LA Lakers and Syracuse Nationals/ Philadelphia 76ers team, no question, they would WIN rings, lots of rings. These teams are LOADED with talents.

West and Baylor's LA are capable of pushing the Celtics to 7 games, while Greer and Walker's Nationals/76ers could beat Wilt and the Warriors on their own, even w/o HoF Billy Cunningham. Putting in Russ (and theoretically, Wilt) on those teams would be overkill.

On the flipside, if Wilt with his gargantuan ego intact was playing in the Celtics, he would have quarreled right off the bat with that confrontational, authoritarian bastard Red Auerbach. Red would trade him the first chance he got. Assuming that Wilt did stick around, the dynasty Celtics live and die with the fastbreak. Red's gameplan is unchangeable. They are not going to wait for Wilt to come down the floor and score. They just just need him to get them the ball like Russell. The Wilt Chamberlain as we know it today - the guy who once averaged 50pts and has seven scoring titles - would not exist. He would get his rings alright but he would be pigeonholed playing Russell's game in the Celtics

Instead of reading the idiotic Bill Simmons' "Book of Lies", why not actually take the time to do some REAL RESEARCH (which is something that Simmons was incapable of.)

One-by-one...



First, in 1972, when Wilt submerged himself into a Russell-like role - low scoring, outlet rebounding and defensively focused game - with the Lakers, under the guidance of Bill Sharman, Russell's former Celtic teammate, his team went on a 33 game winning streak with a 69-12 season record, en-route to the championship. In retrospect, Russell's unflashy style of play is more effective in bringing in the hardware than Wilt's.

Interesting. You seem to have forgotten Chamberlain's 66-67 season, when he FINALLY had a roster the EQUAL of Russell's. But before I get into THAT season...how about that '72 season?

In the 71-72 season, an aging, way-past-his-prime Wilt, and only a year removed from "retiring" was a FAR greater player than Russell EVER was. Wilt not only played "Russell-type" defense, he did something that Russell rarely accomplished in his ten years in the Wilt-era...won a rebound title. He also did something that Russell was never even remotely close to accomplishing...leading the league in FG% (and by a huge margin.)

And yes, with a quality coach...and I would argue that Sharman was among the greatest coaches ever...the Lakers, led by Wilt's defense, rebounding, and outlets...just blitzed the league. Hell, Wilt then dominated in the Finals, with a broken hand, and easily led his Lakers to a dominating world title.

Again, though, how come no mention of Wilt's 66-67 season, when he did EVERYTHING better than Russell EVER did...and by a MILE. Chamberlain led his Sixers to a 68-13 record, in the process, averaged 24.1 ppg, 24.3 rpg, 7.8 apg, shot an eye-popping .683 from the field...and played defense better than Russell (oh, and he was blocking FAR more shots, as well.)

And of course, when Russell's 60-21 Celtics faced Wilt's 68-13 Sixers in the Finals...Chamberlain just DESTROYED Russell AND his Celtics. He SLAUGHTER Russell across the board in every conceivable stat...but one that really stood out...Wilt averaged 21.6 ppg to Russell's 10.2 ppg...and the Sixers outscored Boston, per game...by a 121.2 to 111.2 ppg margin. Of course, as dominant as that was, Wilt also outrebounded Russell by a 32.0 rpg to 23.4 rpg margin (or for the stat nerds... a 25.2 TRB% to 18.2 TRB%), as well as outassisted Russell, per game, 10.0 apg to 6.0 apg...and outshot Russell from the field by a .556 to .358 margin. Just an OVRWHELMING carpet-bombing of another Top-10 player.



Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Russ > Wilt.

First, in 1972, when Wilt submerged himself into a Russell-like role - low scoring, outlet rebounding and defensively focused game - with the Lakers, under the guidance of Bill Sharman, Russell's former Celtic teammate, his team went on a 33 game winning streak with a 69-12 season record, en-route to the championship. In retrospect, Russell's unflashy style of play is more effective in bringing in the hardware than Wilt's.

Second, despite of Wilt's impressive talents, the man is a PAIN to work with. These explains why his former teams like the Warriors and 76ers was willing to trade him for LESSER talents, just to get rid of him. Russ has a much better attitude and despite of his aloof manner in public and private life, he exudes a sense of camaraderie whenever he steps into the court or inside the locker room.

Some of Wilt negative attributes which could be traced to his primadonna personality includes:

- disrespecting and criticizing his coaches publicly (eg. Neil Johnston, Alex Hannum, Dolph Schayes, and of course Bill Van Breda Kolff all had bad memories working with Wilt.)

- demanding a high salary (eg. One third of the Warriors gate receipts goes to Wilt's salary but Wilt doesnt even want to do publicity gigs to boost ticket sales)

- complains like a baby to the media (eg. threatening to quit but not carrying it out)

- rarely practice and travels with his teammates (eg. Wilt had had feuds with Baylor and Hal Greer).

If i was a coach in real life, I would dread the idea of bringing Wilt Chamberlain on my team. Hell, Alex Hannum had to challenge Wilt in a fight just to get his respect. Ask yourself what kind of a basketball player would push his coach to such lengths just to earn the player's respect. Its not worth it having him on the team unless his talents are programmed in an android devoid of his personality.

The problem with Wilt is that he played with TALENTED teammates, he just doesnt gel well with his teams w/c is why their performance are not commensurate of their talents.

If Russ was with Paul Azirin, Tom Gola and Guy Rodgers in Wilt's Philly Warriors, they would be Final contenders if not champions. Azirin is a sharpshooting genius like Sharman and Rodgers while not as flashy as Cousy, is sorely underrated as a passer and is a very fast ballhandler. Gola is a more offensively talented version of Celtic defensive specialist Satch Sanders.

If Russ was with the San Francisco Warriors, he and Nate Thurmond would form a two headed monster that would be the scourge of everybody else in the League. Although for the first couple of years,i dont think they would win the hardware but once Rick Barry comes on board the team would be unbeatable.

If Russ was with Wilt's LA Lakers and Syracuse Nationals/ Philadelphia 76ers team, no question, they would WIN rings, lots of rings. These teams are LOADED with talents.

West and Baylor's LA are capable of pushing the Celtics to 7 games, while Greer and Walker's Nationals/76ers could beat Wilt and the Warriors on their own, even w/o HoF Billy Cunningham. Putting in Russ (and theoretically, Wilt) on those teams would be overkill.

On the flipside, if Wilt with his gargantuan ego intact was playing in the Celtics, he would have quarreled right off the bat with that confrontational, authoritarian bastard Red Auerbach. Red would trade him the first chance he got. Assuming that Wilt did stick around, the dynasty Celtics live and die with the fastbreak. Red's gameplan is unchangeable. They are not going to wait for Wilt to come down the floor and score. They just just need him to get them the ball like Russell. The Wilt Chamberlain as we know it today - the guy who once averaged 50pts and has seven scoring titles - would not exist. He would get his rings alright but he would be pigeonholed playing Russell's game in the Celtics


[QUOTE]Second, despite of Wilt's impressive talents, the man is a PAIN to work with. These explains why his former teams like the Warriors and 76ers was willing to trade him for LESSER talents, just to get rid of him. Russ has a much better attitude and despite of his aloof manner in public and private life, he exudes a sense of camaraderie whenever he steps into the court or inside the locker room.

Virtually EVERY teammate that Wilt played with, just loved him as a teammate. Go ahead and read Wayne Lynch's book, "Season of the 76ers"...player-after-player credited WILT with leading that team to an overwhelming title.

And how about Wilt in his famous 61-62 season, when he averaged 50 ppg, and had that 100 point game?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTTwY_QqZ7c

At the 1:55 mark...

"Wilt's teammates were very, very happy that he was scoring the points."



These explains why his former teams like the Warriors and 76ers was willing to trade him for LESSER talents, just to get rid of him

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Again, you must have read Simmons' nonsense, which, of course, were complete LIES.

The reason the Warriors traded in the middle of the 64-65 season? He had been suffering from a mystery ailment the ENTIRE season to that point. In fact, he had lost a ton of weight (although it was nowhere near the 50 lbs that newspapers were reporting at the time.) The Warriors' team ran an electrocariogram, and were stunned. They labled it a coronary occlusion, or basically...a walking heart-attack. Horrified, Franklin Meuli decided he had better dump his meal ticket and get something for him, before possibly losing him completely.

Wilt's personal physician actually found that it was pancreatis. (Wilt had a resting pulse rate of 38, and he only way you could make Wilt's electrocardiagram look normal was to have him do strenuous exercise.)

On top of that, the Warriors had lost money, despite Wilt being the league's best drawing card. And that was even with Wilt leading the '64 Warriors to the Finals.

Regarding the actual trade...

The Warrior franchise was sold to Meuli's group for $850,000 in 1963...which blew away the previous record for a sold franchise by the Rochester Royals in 1957 ($250,000.) So, strictly because of WILT, the franchise sold for what, at the time, was an eye-popping record.

Meuli traded Wilt to the Sixers at mid-season in the 64-65 season...for three players (two of them perineal starters, Connie Dierking and Paul Newmann).....AND ... $150,000 cash...which was a staggering amount at the time.

BTW,

"I was young and dumb. I didn't get enough for him," Meuli admitted years later in an interview with Robert Cherry.


Ok, now on to the "second trade."

Simmons was completely off-base on this "trade." According to Wilt, the owner of the Sixers who had bought the franchise back to Philly from Syracuse, and then who traded for Wilt, Ike Richmond...had promised Wilt a share of the team. However, Richmond suddenly died in 1965, and the new ownership group headed by Irv Kosloff would not honor it.

The disagreement came to a head at the end of the 67-68 season. Wilt DEMANDED part ownership. The Sixers refused. And Chamberlain held all the cards. The newly formed ABA was already a year old, and were continuing to raid the NBA for players. Wilt knew he could jump to the ABA for a huge sum...unless the Sixers would trade him to Los Angeles. Sixer ownership reluctantly traded Chamberlain to LA for three players (one of them All-Star guard Archie Clark, and another, long time journeyman center Darrell Imhoff.) Oh, and Wilt then negotiated a five year deal with LA at an estimated 1.54 million...a mind-numbing amount at the time.

So, that was those "trades for lessor talents." Not exactly the way you (and Simmons) depicted them, was it?

Continued...

[warriorfan]

I disagree the reason why Wilt had so many points and rebounds was the increased amount of possessions and the less rounds it took to make the Finals.

[YouGotServed]

I made this thread to originally talk Rodman vs Shaq...

Wilt vampires at it again

[VengefulAngel]

A logical fallacy at it's finest. :applause: :applause:

[LAZERUSS]

Russ > Wilt.

First, in 1972, when Wilt submerged himself into a Russell-like role - low scoring, outlet rebounding and defensively focused game - with the Lakers, under the guidance of Bill Sharman, Russell's former Celtic teammate, his team went on a 33 game winning streak with a 69-12 season record, en-route to the championship. In retrospect, Russell's unflashy style of play is more effective in bringing in the hardware than Wilt's.

Second, despite of Wilt's impressive talents, the man is a PAIN to work with. These explains why his former teams like the Warriors and 76ers was willing to trade him for LESSER talents, just to get rid of him. Russ has a much better attitude and despite of his aloof manner in public and private life, he exudes a sense of camaraderie whenever he steps into the court or inside the locker room.



Russell had a "much better attitude?" Are you serious?

Here is a little history on your boy Russell...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Russell


Russell's public statements became increasingly militant, so far that he was quoted in a 1963 Sports Illustrated interview with the words: "I dislike most white people because they are people ... I like most blacks because I am black".[61] However, when his white Celtics teammate Frank Ramsey asked whether he hated him, Russell claimed to be misquoted, but few believed it.[61] According to Taylor, Russell overlooked the fact that his career was only made possible by the white people who were proven anti-racists, namely his white high school coach George Powles (the person who encouraged him to play basketball), his white college coach Phil Woolpert (who integrated USF basketball), white Celtics coach Red Auerbach (who is universally regarded as an anti-racist pioneer and made him the first black NBA coach), and white Celtics owner Walter A. Brown, who gave him a high $24,000 rookie contract, just $1,000 shy of the top earning veteran Bob Cousy

Continuing...


Nevertheless, as a result of repeated racial bigotry, Russell refused to respond to fan acclaim or friendship from his neighbors, thinking it was insincere and hypocritical. This attitude contributed to his legendary bad rapport with fans and journalists.[31] He alienated Celtics fans by saying, "You owe the public the same it owes you, nothing! I refuse to smile and be nice to the kiddies."[61] This supported the opinion of many white fans that Russell (who was the highest-paid Celtic) was egotistical, paranoid and hypocritical. Interestingly, the FBI maintained a file on Russell; this lends credibility to his observations that racism was an active force against him. The FBI described Russell in his file as "an arrogant Negro who won't sign autographs for white children".[61] This clearly denotes a hostile attitude, and gives insight into the nature of Russell's public persona, which was often perceived by the mostly-white media as overly harsh. After his retirement, he described the Boston press as corrupt and racist; in response, Boston sports journalist Larry Claflin claimed that Russell himself was the real racist.[96]

Continuing...


Russell refused to attend the ceremony when his #6 jersey was retired in 1972, or his induction into the Hall of Fame in 1975

Continuing...


In addition, Russell ran into financial trouble. He had invested $250,000 into a rubber plantation in Liberia, where he had wanted to spend his retirement, but it went bankrupt.[61] The same fate awaited his Boston restaurant called "Slade's", after which he had to default on a $90,000 government loan to purchase the outlet. The IRS discovered that Russell owed $34,430 in tax money and put a lien on his house.


Days later, 30,000 enthusiastic Celtics fans cheered their returning heroes, but Russell was not there: the man who said he owed the public nothing ended his career and cut all ties to the Celtics.[54] It came as so surprising that even Red Auerbach was blindsided, and as a consequence, he made the "mistake" of drafting guard Jo Jo White instead of a center.[56] Although White became a standout Celtics player, the Celtics lacked an All-Star center, went just 34–48 in the next season and failed to make the playoffs for the first time since 1950.[29] In Boston, both fans and journalists felt betrayed, because Russell left the Celtics without a coach and a center and sold his retirement story for $10,000 to Sports Illustrated. Russell was accused of selling out the future of the franchise for a month of his salary


When Wilt Chamberlain became the first NBA player to earn $100,000 in salary in 1965, Russell went to Auerbach and demanded a $100,001 salary, which he promptly received

Oh, how about this man of "principles?"

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920621&slug=1498229


The man who has made a practice of not signing autographs over the past 28 years has signed a two-year agreement with a sports memorabilia company to autograph jerseys (for a mere $995), basketballs (only $495), shoes (also $495), 8-by-10 glossies ($295), and personal items ($295 each). If all 5,000 items are sold, the total will exceed $2 million.

And this...

http://www.vdare.com/articles/doing-the-wrong-thing-does-bill-russell-really-deserve-a-statue-in-boston


But however much Bill Russell may have been a great team player on the court, he was an unabashed prima donna off of it. He often refused to practice, preferring to sit in the stands and drink tea as his teammates hustled through drills. He wore fancy suits, draped himself in a grand, flowing black cape, and drove a Lamborghini.

Most infamously, Bill Russell refused to sign autographs for the fans, even for children. He once described autograph seeking kids as “little monsters out hunting scalps”.

The Boston sports media made much of Russell`s refusal to sign autographs, and it led to considerable tension between himself and the fans.

In 1964, Bill Russell told the Saturday Evening Post

“What I`m resentful of, you know, is when they say that you owe the public this and you owe the public that. You owe the public the same thing it owes you. Nothing! . . . I refuse to smile and be nice to the kiddies.” [I Owe The Public Nothing, January 18, 1964]

Let`s face it: that “public” was largely made up of white people. And their support for the Celtics made Bill Russell the league`s highest paid player, and one of the wealthiest black men in the country.

In an interview the previous year with Sports Illustrated, Bill Russell was even blunter: “I dislike most white people because they are people. As opposed to dislike, I like most black people because they are black.” [We Are Grown Men Playing A Child`s Game, by Gilbert Rogin, Sports Illustrated, Nov 18, 1963]

And Russell the consummate teammate?


Russell also ignored Heinsohn's plea to give his cousin an autograph, and openly said to Heinsohn that he deserved half of his $300 Rookie of the Year check. The relationship between the two rookies remained reserved

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Russ > Wilt.


Some of Wilt negative attributes which could be traced to his primadonna personality includes:

- disrespecting and criticizing his coaches publicly (eg. Neil Johnston, Alex Hannum, Dolph Schayes, and of course Bill Van Breda Kolff all had bad memories working with Wilt.)

- demanding a high salary (eg. One third of the Warriors gate receipts goes to Wilt's salary but Wilt doesnt even want to do publicity gigs to boost ticket sales)

- complains like a baby to the media (eg. threatening to quit but not carrying it out)

- rarely practice and travels with his teammates (eg. Wilt had had feuds with Baylor and Hal Greer).

If i was a coach in real life, I would dread the idea of bringing Wilt Chamberlain on my team. Hell, Alex Hannum had to challenge Wilt in a fight just to get his respect. Ask yourself what kind of a basketball player would push his coach to such lengths just to earn the player's respect. Its not worth it having him on the team unless his talents are programmed in an android devoid of his personality.



Disrespecting his coaches? :roll: :roll: :roll:

NO OTHER ALL-TIME GREAT PLAYER SACRIFICED MOR OF HIS GAME FOR HIS COACHES, THAN WILT DID!!!!!

How about his coach in his 61-62 season, in which he averaged 50.4 ppg, Frank McGuire?

McGuire replaced the lazy Neil Johnston before the start of that season. And he took one look at the Warriors playoff loss to the Nats the previous season, and realized...hey, other than Wilt, I have NO talent on this team.

In the '61 playoffs, Wilt's "HOF" trio (more on the "HOF" part later) of Guy Rodgers, Paul Arizin, and Tom Gola :roll: :roll: :roll: (sorry, I just had to laugh at Gola in the HOF...he has as much right being in an NBA HOF as I do)...shot...get this... .368, .328, and yes, even .206 in the that '61 series against the Nats.

McGuire's first order of business for '61-62...have WILT SHOOT. He looked at the pathetic cast of clowns roster, and KNEW that their only hop was for Wilt to SHOOT. It was NOT Wilt's idea to take 40 FGAs in that season..it was MCGUIRE'S!!!!

And the result? Wilt single-handedly carried those mis-fits to a 49-31 record, and then past the Nats in the first round. Then, he carried them to a game seven, two point loss against a HOF-laden 60-20 Celtics team that just SWARMED him every game. And yet Wilt STILL TRASHED Russell with a staggering 34-27 series, which included THREE games of 40+. Just an absolute domination of supposedly the greatest defensive player in NBA history.


How about Wilt's new coach in the '63-64 season, Alx Hannum?

http://www.si.com/vault/1964/03/02/608684/meet-the-new-wilt-chamberlain


Hannum's next task, then, was to convince Wilt Chamberlain—the greatest scorer in history, the man who once scored 100 points in a single game, the man who holds eight of the 10 major scoring records—to let someone else shoot once in a while and to play defense with as much enthusiasm as he did offense. "For us to win," said Hannum, "Wilt has to play like Bill Russell at one end of the court and like Wilt Chamberlain at the other end of the court."


For those who insist that all this is just so much talk, there was a game in Philadelphia last month in which the Warriors came on the floor at half time trailing the 76ers by 15 points. In the next three minutes Chamberlain blocked four shots, picked up seven defensive and three offensive rebounds and was the playmaker, controlling the ball in one gigantic hand until a teammate was clear for a shot. Finally Hannum had to call a time-out so that his big center could stop laughing. The Warriors had outscored the 76ers 20-3, and Wilt's contribution was four points. Said Hannum, "He didn't exactly look like a man who was disappointed."

BTW, just how bad was Wilt's roster coming into that '64 season?


San Francisco had a coach, but what Hannum got was no bargain. The team had the morale of a bunch of recruits immediately after their first G.I. haircuts. Says Hannum, "I realized how completely inadequate the team had become. They had learned to depend on Wilt so completely they were even incapable of beating a squad of rookies. I had to convince them that they, too, had responsibilities."


And how about Hannum and Wilt again in the 66-67 season?

Well, let's cut to the chase. Hannum FINALLY had a supporting cast that was the equal of Russell's, and he asked that Wilt become more of a facilitator. The result? Wilt cut back his shooting, shot at unfamthomable rate when he did shoot, continued to own the glass, played better defense than Russell, and PASSED. He averaged an unheard of, for a center, 7.8 apg (which he would shatter again the very next season...when he LED the NBA in assists.)


How about the incompetent Butch "the Butcher" Van Breda Kolff? When Wilt was "traded" to the Lakers before the 68-69 season, VBK came to Wilt, and asked him to sacrifice his own offense, so that Baylor could get his shots. H had Wilt, the greatest post player in NBA history, playing the high post. On top of that, he BENCHED Wilt at times.

The result...Wilt cut back his shooting to career lows, and let West and Baylor take the bulk of the shots. Of course, that strategy failed miserably in the Finals, when Baylor was shooting games of 2-14, 4-18, and 8-22 (in a game seven.)


VBK was basically fired immediately after that coaching debacle, and was replaced by Joe Mullaney. Mullaney's first order of business...have WILT become the focal point of the offense. And Wilt responded by leading the league in scoring in his first nine games (32.2 ppg on a .579 FG%...and BTW, West was still averaging 30.8 ppg at the time.) Unfortunately for Wilt, he shredded his knee in the ninth game of the season, and was never the same offensive force again.


And how about Wilt's new coach in his 71-72 season? Bill Sharman took over an aging 48-34 team, and asked them to RUN. And with Wilt completely shutting down the lane, grabbing the rebounds, and starting the fast break...the Lakers blew away the league with a 121.0 ppg offense. They would go on to a 69-13 record, and with Wilt shutting down Kareem in the last four games of the WCF's, LA blew out the 63-19 defending champion Bucks. And despite West shooting .325 in the Finals, Wilt carried the Lakers to a crushing win over the HOF-laden Knicks, with a dominating performance en route to a FMVP.


THAT was the Wilt who couldn't get along with his coaches. Try asking a peak MJ to cut back his shooting and pass more to his teammates. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Continued...

[warriorfan]

http://www.multimediagames.com/sites/default/files/images/game-banner-images/MGAM_MegaMeltdown_Banner_0.jpg

[LAZERUSS]

Russ > Wilt.


Some of Wilt negative attributes which could be traced to his primadonna personality includes:


- demanding a high salary (eg. One third of the Warriors gate receipts goes to Wilt's salary but Wilt doesnt even want to do publicity gigs to boost ticket sales)

- complains like a baby to the media (eg. threatening to quit but not carrying it out)

- rarely practice and travels with his teammates (eg. Wilt had had feuds with Baylor and Hal Greer).



Demanding a high salary you say?


When Wilt Chamberlain became the first NBA player to earn $100,000 in salary in 1965, Russell went to Auerbach and demanded a $100,001 salary, which he promptly received.

Complains like a baby to the media?

Wilt almost quit the NBA after his first season. This from a CELTICS web-site...

http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-wilt-meets-bill-and-tommy-4000-words

[QUOTE]Wilt's very presence was a tremendous boost for the league, which, in its second decade of existence, was still struggling to generate fan support. Wilt was physically overwhelming, towering over everyone; he was also intelligent, engaging and well-spoken. Huge crowds gathered outside opposing arenas to see him enter and leave. He chatted with fans, exchanged good-natured barbs, shook hands, and signed autographs.

Attendance surged by almost twenty-five percent league-wide in Wilt's first season. Arenas that were normally half-filled, sold out when Wilt and the Warriors came to visit. The only other team with that kind of drawing power was the reigning champion Boston Celtics, with Cousy the magician, Russell the magnificent defender, shooting stars Sharman and Heinsohn, and their flamboyant coach, Red Auerbach.

Chamberlain was a cocky rookie, and he had cause to be. He was a track star in high school and college, competing in the high jump, the shot put and the quarter mile. He built his strength by lifting weights. He was in superb physical condition, always on the court, preferring to play 48 minutes per game. Sports Illustrated called him, "probably the greatest athletic construction ever formed of flesh and blood."

At 7

[LAZERUSS]

Russ > Wilt.



The problem with Wilt is that he played with TALENTED teammates, he just doesnt gel well with his teams w/c is why their performance are not commensurate of their talents.

If Russ was with Paul Azirin, Tom Gola and Guy Rodgers in Wilt's Philly Warriors, they would be Final contenders if not champions. Azirin is a sharpshooting genius like Sharman and Rodgers while not as flashy as Cousy, is sorely underrated as a passer and is a very fast ballhandler. Gola is a more offensively talented version of Celtic defensive specialist Satch Sanders.

If Russ was with the San Francisco Warriors, he and Nate Thurmond would form a two headed monster that would be the scourge of everybody else in the League. Although for the first couple of years,i dont think they would win the hardware but once Rick Barry comes on board the team would be unbeatable.



Wilt played with talented teammates...just not very many of them, NOR anywhere near as many as Russell played with.

Chamberlain, at times, played with three HOF teammates. How about Russell...a MINIMUM of FOUR, and as many as EIGHT (yes, EIGHT HOF teammates.)

You mentioned Arizin. Truly a great player, who, alas, only played with Wilt in the twilight of his career. And, as he was truly awful in TWO of his THREE post-seasons with Wilt.

BUT, keep this in mind. In the season before Wilt arrived, Arizin averaged a career high 26.4 ppg. Playing with a Wilt who was scoring over 40 ppg...his averages were 22 ppg, 23 ppg, and 22 ppg. And again, from an aging player who would be out the league after Wilt's third season.

How about "HOFer" Tom Gola? :roll: :roll: :roll:

In all honesty, Gola has much business being in an NBA HOF (of which there is none), as I do. He was a career 11 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 4.0 apg guy...in an era of slightly inflated numbers. Furthermore, he was quite likely, the WORST post-season HOFer of all-time. In his three years with Wilt, he was worthless, shooting .412, .206, and .271 in the post-season. BUT, before someone blames Wilt...in his two post-seasons before Wilt... .355 and .330. Basically a useless clod. BTW, in the '62 ECF's...Gola missed THREE of their seven games. So, as bad as he was, he couldn't even play when Wilt needed him the most.

Guy Rodgers? A "HOFer?" :roll: :roll: :roll:

All you need to know, is that Rodgers was just recently voted into the HOF LAST YEAR. Some 45 years after he retired. And, until Ricky Rubio joined the NBA...Rodgers was easily the WORST shooter in NBA history. His FG%'s compared to the league averages were truly putrid. He consistently shot WAY below the league average. And, he was even WORSE in the post-season. He shot .378 in his regular seasons, and then .350 in his post-seasons.

And the problem was, he STILL shot the damn ball. There were regular season in which he averaged 20 FGAs per game, and post-season as high as 19 FGAs! Can you imagine Rubio being allowed to take 20 FGAs in a game, much less in the course of an entire season?

BUT, again, he played just as bad, if not worse, withOUT Wilt. In his '67 season, he averaged 20 FGAs, and shot .378, in a league that shot .441. In his '68 season, playing nearly every game, he shot .347...in a league that shot .446 overall!

How about Russell's supporting casts in those three years in which Wilt had Arizin, Gola, and Rodgers?

Cousy, Ramsey, Sharman, Sam Jones, KC Jones, Heinsohn, and Satch Sanders. ALL in the HOF. Granted, Ramsey, KC, and Sanders don't belong in the HOF, but KC and Sanders were considered the best defensive players at their positions in their careers.

So, while Wilt had ONE career 20 ppg scorer (again, guys who played with and withOUT Wilt), in those three seasons...Russell had Heinsohn, Cousy, Sharman, and then a Sam Jones who averaged as high as 18 ppg in those three seasons, and who would have multiple seasons of 20 ppg+, and as high as 26 ppg (and a playoff run of 29 ppg!).

Continued...

[24-Inch_Chrome]

RTC dropping knowledge bombs. Duncan moving to 4th on my list, Kobe moving to 10, Wilt dropping to 26th.

bait

[Rocketswin2013]

Ne 1 getting bodybagged. Holy f-ck, lol.

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing on Wilt and Russell's teammates...

BUT, before I do...how about comparing their rosters in their rookie seasons?

Russell was the SECOND player taken by the Celtics in the '56 draft...behind ROY and future HOFer, Tommy Heinsohn. Those two joined a Celtic team that had gone 39-33 the year before, and had the likes of MVP Cousy, Sharman, and Ramsey. Oh, and Russell's backup...HOFer Arnie Risen.

How did that first season go?

Well, Russell played in 48 games, and missed 24. In the 48 games in which he played, Boston went 28-20 (a .583 winning percentage.) In the 24 games in which he missed... 16-8 (a .667 winning percentage.) They played better withOUT Russell, than with Russell.

In the next season, Boston added Sam Jones, who would go on to win 10 titles in his 12 seasons.

BTW, just how valuable was Sam to Russell's winning...

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

[QUOTE]

[LAZERUSS]

Gonna take a rest, but will resume shortly.

[SouBeachTalents]

Lol, Laz meltsdown worse than Wilt did in the playoffs & Finals

[LAZERUSS]

In Wilt's rookie season, he took a roster that had finished in LAST PLACE the year before, to a then franchise record of 49-26.

In that post-season, he single-handedly beat the Nats, which included an "at-the-limit" game of 53 points (on 24-42 shooting) and 22 rebounds.

In the '60 EDF's he faced a HOF-laden Celtic team that had gone 59-16 and were the defending champions.

And he absolutely destroyed Russell in the first two games, one a six point loss, and the other a six point win. In those two games, he collectively outscored Russell by a 71-34 margin, and outrebounded him by a 57-50 margin.

However, near the end of game two, the Celtics were climbing all over him, and finally he had enough. He went after them and a melee broke out. During the fight, he badly injured his right hand (it was feared it might be broken.) In game three, for the ONLY time in their 143 career H2H's, Russell dominated Wilt. Wilt could only go 35 minutes, while Russell played 40, in a 120-90 rout. Russell outscored Wilt, 26-12, and outrebounded him, 39-15. BY FAR, the worst beating that Russell ever administered on Wilt.

And Wilt was nowhere near 100% in game four, albeit, he battled Russell to a draw...in a close loss.

A fully recovered Chamberlain just flat out CARPET-BOMBED Russell in game five. He outscored him by a staggering 50-22 margin, and outrebounded him by a solid 35-27 margin.

Wilt outplayed Russell in game six, but his Warriors dropped the game by a 119-107 margin.

For the series, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 30.5 ppg to 20.7 ppg; outrebounded Russell by a 27.5 rpg to 27.0 rpg margin; and outshot Russell from the field by a .500 to .447 margin (BTW, the post-season league average FG% was .402.)

Furthermore, if you remove the game in which Wilt was playing with an injury...

Wilt outscored Russell by a 34.2 ppg to 19.6 ppg margin; outrebounded him by a 30.0 rpg to 24.6 rpg margin; and outshot Russell from the field by a .504 to .433 margin. Which was about what he normally pounded Russell by.

In any case, we will never know how that series would have gone with a healthy Wilt in game's three and four.


In the '62 season, Wilt single-handedly took that same basic roster, but now older and worse, to a 49-31 record. And then he single-handedly beat the Nats again in the first round, with another epic 37-23 series.

In the '62 EDF's, Wilt SLAUGHTERED Russell. Plain-and-simple. He overwhelmed Russell in four of the six games, and a draw in game seven. Even in the two games in which Russell outplayed him, it was by a slim margin.

And back to game seven. The Russell-supporters will claim that Russell "held" Wilt to 22 points. The fact was, the game recaps credited Wilt's DEFENSE as being dominant...in a 109-107 loss. BTW, Wilt scored Philly's last five points, including 1-1 from the line, and a tying basket with a few seconds left. However, Sam Jones, as he often did, hit the game-winning shot..over the outstretched fingertips of Wilt.

BTW, Wilt's second best teammate, the "HOFer" Tom Gola, missed THREE games in that series, and was just awful when he played.

Wilt shot .468 in the '62 EDF's, while Russell shot .399 (in a season in which he shot .457 against the NBA.) Oh, and Wilt's teammates...collectively shot .345. For the series, Wilt averaged 34 ppg, which included THREE games of 40+, and 27 rpg. As ALWAYS he outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell.

Now you tell me just how Wilt could carry that rag-tag inferior roster, to a game seven, two point loss, against a HOF-laden 60-20 Celtics team...and with Wilt's teammates being badly outplayed?

Continued...

[dilley]

oh ffs :facepalm

[LAZERUSS]

Again, by Wilt's 62-63 season, he was now playing with arguably the worst supporting cast in NBA history.

Arizin had retired, and the worthless Gola was shipped out for a washed up Willie Naulls. Now, Naulls had been a good scorer earlier in his career, but by the time he joined up with Wilt, he was a has-been.

However, Naulls played BETTER with Wilt that year, than he would with Russell in his next two seasons. Naulls was just one of the two players that Wilt and Russell shared at times in their careers. The other being Mel Counts. And again, Counts played better with WILT, than he did with Russell.

BTW, if we count Naulls has having had a 20+ ppg season in his career, that would give Wilt ONE player who had had a 20+ ppg season at some point in his career (albeit, he was pure trash by the time he played with Wilt), on that '62-63 roster.

Now, how about Russell's 62-63 roster? You know...the team that had a total of NINE HOFers? Russell was playing with FIVE players who had MULTIPLE 20+ seasons at various times in their careers (Cousy, Lovellette, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and now Havlicek.)

Wilt's 62-63 Warriors were simply awful. They went 31-49, but you couldn't blame Wilt, who led the NBA in FIFTEEN statistical categories, including WIN SHARES (and by a mile), at 20.9. Think about that...Wilt was basically responsible for nearly 70% of his team's wins. Not only that, but that Warrior team had a -2.2 ppg differential, and only played in eight games decided by 20+ points (and they went 4-4 in those.)


How about the 63-64 season? Wilt, with a new coach, and basically the same exact roster, with the addition of rookie Nate Thurmond, who played part-time, out of position (he was a natural center, who was completely lost at the PF position), and shot horribly (.395.)

Wilt took that hideous roster to a 48-32 record. His second best player was Tom Meschery, who would average 13 ppg. Remember that.

Wilt had a monumental WDF's, taking his roster, which was outclassed players 2-6, to a seven game series win over the stacked Hawks. In that series, Wilt averaged 38.6 ppg, 23.0 rpg, and shot .559 from the floor (in a post-season NBA that shot .420.)

Then, he took that hapless cast up against Russell's 59-21 Celtics, with their EIGHT HOFers. Boston won that series, 4-1, BUT, the last two games were decided in the waning seconds.

In that Finals, Wilt just SLAUGHTERED Russell. He outscored him, 29.2 ppg to 11.2 ppg; outrebounded him, 27.8 rpg to 25.2 rpg; and outshot him from the floor by a staggering .517 to .386 margin.

Oh, and Wilt's teammates collectively shot .345 from the field, while Russell's shot .408. And Wilt's two "HOF" teammates, Thurmond and Rodgers, shot .326 and .258 respectively.


Continued...

[I<3NBA]

would just like to point out that Magic Shaq wasn't yet in his prime. Laker Shaq was the real unstoppable Diesel.

[LAZERUSS]

Russ > Wilt.



The problem with Wilt is that he played with TALENTED teammates, he just doesnt gel well with his teams w/c is why their performance are not commensurate of their talents.



Wilt's teammates, by-and-large, played better WITH Wilt, than without him. Gola, Meschery, Attles, Greer, Jackson, West (he had his best Finals WITH Wilt), Goodrich, Hairston, and several other lessor players...ALL played better WITH Wilt.

And Arizin was nearly as good, as well. And players like Billy Cunningham and Chet Walker had very good seasons, WITH Wilt, albeit, not career bests.

Really, only Baylor played worse with Wilt...although his regular season in his first year with Wilt was nearly as good as his previous season withOUT Wilt.

In any case, to say that their performance was not commensurate with their talents WITH Wilt was a flat-out LIE. One perpetrated by Mr. Simmons, himself.

More on these players later...

[Fallen Angel]

would just like to point out that Magic Shaq wasn't yet in his prime. Laker Shaq was the real unstoppable Diesel.
Orlando Shaq still had a berth in the NBA Finals, recorded historically amazing stats, and was a catalyst into him being named as the NBA's 50 Greatest Players.

[LAZERUSS]

would just like to point out that Magic Shaq wasn't yet in his prime. Laker Shaq was the real unstoppable Diesel.

And yet, if Wilt is somehow considered "stopped" by Russell in the '62 EDF's, (which I have shown was a complete lie), in a seven game series in which Wilt DRAMATICALLY outscored Russell, MASSIVELY outshot Russell from the field, and outrebounded him, as well...

then what about a PRIME Shaq in his '04 Finals against the 6-7 Ben Wallace? Sure he outscored and outshot Wallace, but he was badly outrebounded...and furthermore, his favored Lakers were blown out, 4-1, by the Pistons.

[LAZERUSS]

Russ > Wilt.



The problem with Wilt is that he played with TALENTED teammates, he just doesnt gel well with his teams w/c is why their performance are not commensurate of their talents.



Bill Simmons (and therefore Ne 1) would tell you that Wilt played with as many HOFers as Russell.

What they wouldn't tell you, is that Russell played alongside his HOF teammates FAR longer than Wilt did with his. Overall, Russell enjoyed over a TWO-TO-ONE edge in SEASONS with his HOFers.

Continued...

[tpols]

When Wilt Chamberlain became the first NBA player to earn $100,000 in salary in 1965, Russell went to Auerbach and demanded a $100,001 salary, which he promptly received

Russell might be the goat. :applause:

[LAZERUSS]

I mentioned it before, but Wilt had a mysterious ailment in the first half of his 64-65 season. He missed games, and while he still was easily the best player in the game...his pathetic team fell to 10-28.

And again, Meuli, fearing that Wilt was a walking time-bomb with a heart ailment, traded Chamberlain at mid-season, for three players and a thn record amount of cash, to a Sixers team that had gone 34-46 the year before, and missed the playoffs.

Even with Wilt, they only finished 40-40. Meanwhile, Wilt's former team, the Warriors, went 7-36 after the Wilt trade.

Chamberlain then single-handedly carried that bottom-feeding roster, to a first round romp over Oscar's stacked 48-32 Royals.

Then, he took that same mediocre group to a game seven, one point loss against Russell's HOF-laden and 62-18 Celtics (their best record in the Russell Dynasty era)...in a series in which Wilt CASTRATED Russell. Chamberlain outscored Russell, 30.1 ppg to 15.6 ppg; outrebounded Russell, 31.4 rpg to 25.2 rpg; outshot Russell from the floor by a .555 to .447 margin (in a post-season NBA that shot .429 overall): and even outshot Russell from the line, by a .583 to .472 margin.


Ne 1:


If Russ was with the San Francisco Warriors, he and Nate Thurmond would form a two headed monster that would be the scourge of everybody else in the League. Although for the first couple of years,i dont think they would win the hardware but once Rick Barry comes on board the team would be unbeatable

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Thurmond was a CENTER. In fact, after the Wilt trade, Nate moved to the center position, fulltime, where he would have a HOF career.

Here is what is interesting, though. Remember Wilt's 63-64 season with the Warriors? When he single-handedly led them to a 48-32 record? And with Tom Meschery and his 13 ppg as Wilt's second best player?

Well, and again, after the Wilt trade, Nate moved to center, but without Wilt, they finished the 64-65 season 7-36.

Which was actually good for them...because it allowed them to draft Rick Barry, who would go on to have a HOF career. Still, with Thurmond and now Barry, the Warriors could only go 35-45 in the '65-66 season.

Then, the Warriors added high-scoring Jeff Mullins and Clyde Lee, one of the best rebounding PF's of his era to the '66-67 Warriors, to go along with Thurmond, Barry, Neumann, Attles, and Tom Meschery (remember him?)

Think about this...Thurmond had his greatest year in that 66-67 season, and Barry put up a 35.6 ppg season (the highest full-time "non-Wilt" scoring season IN the Wilt-era.) And Meschery, who averaged 13 ppg as Wilt's second best player in '63-64, averaged 11 ppg as the Warriors SEVENTH best player in '66-67.

With all of that...the '66-67 Warriors went 44-37, and were routed by Wilt's 68-13 Sixers in the Finals. Again...with ALL of that talent, they couldn't equal what Chamberlain single-handedly accomplished in his 63-64 season.

Continued...

[24-Inch_Chrome]

When Wilt Chamberlain became the first NBA player to earn $100,000 in salary in 1965, Russell went to Auerbach and demanded a $100,001 salary, which he promptly received Russell might be the goat. :applause:

:roll:

[navy]

Has anyone ever responded to an entire LAZERUSS multipage essay?

That dude must be ethering the fvck out of people and/or bullshiting and they dont even know it.

[Rocketswin2013]

Has anyone ever responded to an entire LAZERUSS multipage essay?

That dude must be ethering the fvck out of people and/or bullshiting and they dont even know it.
It's too much at once, if he did it to me I'd just let it go. I don't why people provoke the old-time stans. They'll crush anyone in 60's knowledge. Ne 1 is getting murdered. :lol

[BlakFrankWhite]

Has anyone ever responded to an entire LAZERUSS multipage essay?

That dude must be ethering the fvck out of people and/or bullshiting and they dont even know it.

Most of his posts are assumptions like "Wilt would have beaten Russell if he had a better team"

"Wilt would destroy Shaq in a 1 on 1"

"Wilt would destroy Duncan in a 1 on 1"

When it comes to facts...he posts some meaningless statpadding crap

[navy]

It's too much at once, if he did it to me I'd just let it go. I don't why people provoke the old-time stans. They'll crush anyone in 60's knowledge. Ne 1 is getting murdered. :lol
That's what im thinking. Ne1 got murked. Ethered. Body bagged. He'll never respond seriously to Laz again.

Then again, nobody read it so who knows what's in there. Could be bullshit :oldlol:

[HOoopCityJones]

Laz is very knowledgeable about the old school, but when it comes to Basketball itself....

[navy]

Laz is very knowledgeable about the old school, but when it comes to Basketball itself....
I bet he's a baller.

[HOoopCityJones]

I bet he's a baller.

Definitely better than Wilt in the clutch. :lol

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Laz is definitely that old dude who shows up for pickup and somehow dominates despite showing no athletic ability. Just a wide variety of post moves and a wet shot.

[navy]

Watch Laz be like 26 years old like CavsFTW

[Milbuck]

Part of me hopes Laz has never hooped in his life, or even watched actual game footage. That he just reads box score after box score after old article after old ass article. Studying relentlessly but never actually having anything to do with the game outside of it. For some reason it would make not reading his novels that much more amusing.

[HOoopCityJones]

I honestly think that's the case.

[navy]

I wonder how organized Laz is though. Does he have 1 massive word document? Several word documents? How much is there total?

[warriorfan]

I wonder how organized Laz is though. Does he have 1 massive word document? Several word documents? How much is there total?

Laz's organizational skills > Wilt's basketball skills

[Fallen Angel]

>Makes thread to talk Rodman vs. Shaq
>Essays on Wilt

[3ball]

.
Comparing MJ's Peak to Shaq's Peak (91-93' vs. 00'-02')


Rebounds/Assists cancel out... So do Steals/Blocks and FG/FT%:


REGULAR SEASON

MJ:... 31.4 ppg.. 58.2% ts.. 122 ORtg.. 0.288 WS/48.. 3 All-Defense 1st Team.. 2 MVP
Shaq: 28.6 ppg.. 58.0% ts.. 115 ORtg.. 0.264 WS/48.. 2 All-Defense 2nd Team.. 1 MVP


PLAYOFFS

MJ:... 33.7 ppg.. 57.2% ts.. 120 ORtg, 0.267 WS/48
Shaq: 29.9 ppg.. 56.2% ts.. 113 ORtg.. 0.238 WS/48


FINALS

MJ:... 36.3 ppg.. 52.6% fg.. 84.3% ft.. played. #5, #3, #9 defenses.. beat Magic-Drexler-Barkley
Shaq: 35.9 ppg.. 59.5% fg.. 50.6% ft.. played #13, #5, #1 defenses.. beat Miller-Iverson-Kidd
.

[LAZERUSS]

Russ > Wilt.



If Russ was with Wilt's LA Lakers and Syracuse Nationals/ Philadelphia 76ers team, no question, they would WIN rings, lots of rings. These teams are LOADED with talents.



Not if Wilt were on those Celtic teams at the same time.

The only teams that Chamberlain had in the decade of the 60's that were EQUAL to Russell's Celtics in terms of talent, were his '67 and '68 Sixers.

I might even include his '69 Lakers, except that, in all reality, it was basically a prime West, and a near prime Wilt vs the entire Celtic roster. Baylor had been on the decline after his '65 injury, and it really showed in the '69 Finals. Elgin's '69 Finals rank among the worst ever played by a Top-50 player. Granted, it was also Wilt's worst post-season series of his career, as well, but he still managed to outplay Russell. The reality was, had Wilt had his '70 coach, Jo Mullaney, who asked Chamberlain to score, that the Lakers would probably have won easily. As it was, they were ON PLAY away, a Johnny Egan botched dribble, from winning that Finals, 4-1.

As for the '67 and '68 Sixers, I have long maintained that, aside from Wilt and Russell, the Sixers and Celtics had EQUAL supporting casts. The main difference...was Wilt.

For example, in the '67 EDF's, and with both rosters relatively healthy, the Sixers blew up Boston, 4-1. In fact, they were four points away, in game four, of sweeping the eight-time defending champions. In any case, here is what is interesting...Philly outscored Boston in that series, 121.2 ppg to 111.2 ppg, or a full +10.0 ppg. In addition to the thorough all-around beatdown that Wilt leveled on Russell, he outscored him in that series, 21.6 ppg to 10.2 ppg...or +10.4 ppg. As you can see, Wilt was THE difference.

Overall, Chamberlain just MURDERED Russell in EVERY aspect of the game in that series. He outscored him by the above margin; he outassisted him by a 10.0 apg to 6.0 apg margin; he outrebounded Russell by an ye-popping 32.0 rpg to 23.4 rpg margin (and again, for the stat nerds, by a 25.2 TRB% to 18.2 TRB%); and he outshot Russell from the field by a .556 to .358 margin. He even found time to outblock Russell, 29-8.

Included were, get this... THREE Triple Doubles, and in the two games that he didn't record a trip, he had nine assists in each. Oh, and he even had a QUAD double of 24-32-13-12.

And in the clinching game five, Wilt outscored Russell, 29-4 (scoring 22 of the points in the first half when the game was still close; outassisted Russell, 13-7; outrebounded Russell, 36-21; and outshot Russell from the floor, 10-16 to 2-5. Hell, he basically outshot Russell from the line, as well, 9-17 to 0-1.


And Chamberlain's '68 Sixers were well on their way to a repeat, as well. During the course of the regular season, they again ran away with the best record in the league (62-20 vs. Boston's 54-28.)

However, the team that blitzed the league during the regular season, was not the same team that dropped a game seven, by four points, to the Celtics in the EDF's.

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

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

Thanks to PHILA, you can see that Wilt's Sixers were just DECIMATED with injuries, including Wilt himself, who had an assortment of injuries, and was NOTICEABLY limping throughout that series.

And the "Wilt-bashers" always bring up his play in the last two games of that series, when it was painfully obvious that Wilt had nothing left in the tank (and he still put up poor shooting games of 20 and 14 points, with 27 and 34 rebounds.

What the "bashers" won't mention is that with his Sixers up 3-1 in the series, and with a chance to close out the series in game five, Wilt just POUNDED Russell. He outscored him 28-8; outrebounded him, 30-24; and outshot from the field, 11-21 to 4-10. However, as you can read above, this Sixer team that was already missing HOFer Billy Cunningham for the entire series, lost TWO more starters late in the third quarter in Luke Jackson, and Wali Jones.

For the series, a hobbled Wilt outscored Russell, 22.1 ppg to 13.7 ppg; outrebounded Russell, 25.1 rpg to 23.9 rpg; outshot Russell, .487 to .440; and outassisted Russell, 6.7 apg to 4.1 apg.

Furthermore, remove the last two games, when Chamberlain was on fumes, and he averaged 24.2 ppg on a .539 FG%.

Continued...

[YouGotServed]

Let's be real, no sane person on this damn site fvcking with Lazerus/jlauber. You type 1sentence dude comes at you with TONS of essays.

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/starpolar/images/6/6b/Notime.jpg

[LAZERUSS]

Russ > Wilt.


On the flipside, if Wilt with his gargantuan ego intact was playing in the Celtics, he would have quarreled right off the bat with that confrontational, authoritarian bastard Red Auerbach. Red would trade him the first chance he got. Assuming that Wilt did stick around, the dynasty Celtics live and die with the fastbreak. Red's gameplan is unchangeable. They are not going to wait for Wilt to come down the floor and score. They just just need him to get them the ball like Russell. The Wilt Chamberlain as we know it today - the guy who once averaged 50pts and has seven scoring titles - would not exist. He would get his rings alright but he would be pigeonholed playing Russell's game in the Celtics

Hmmm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wilt_Chamberlain


During summer vacations Chamberlain worked as a bellhop in Kutsher's Hotel. Subsequently, owners Milton and Helen Kutsher kept up a lifelong friendship with Wilt, and according to their son Mark, "They were his second set of parents."[19] Red Auerbach, the coach of the Boston Celtics, spotted the talented teenager at Kutscher's and had him play 1-on-1 against Kansas University standout and national champion, B. H. Born, elected the Most Valuable Player of the 1953 NCAA Finals. Chamberlain won 25-10; Born was so dejected that he gave up a promising NBA career and became a tractor engineer ("If there were high school kids that good, I figured I wasn't going to make it to the pros"),[20] and Auerbach wanted Chamberlain to go to a New England university, so he could draft him as a territorial pick for the Celtics, but Chamberlain did not respond.[20]

The reality was, Red wanted Chamberlain REAL BAD. Fortunately for him, he did draft Russell, and went on to coach nine titles, but still, had he drafted Chamberlain, and the results likely would not only have been 11 titles in 11 years, and probably very few losses.

The thing is...Wilt PROVED that he could adjust to ANY coach. His play in '62, '64, '67 and '68, '69, '70, and '72 and '73 PROVES it. He did whatever his coaches asked him.

And let's get real here...a Chamberlain on those Celtic teams, with the vast array of talent that they had, would not have been getting doubled, tripled, and even completely swarmed, as he did with his other teams in the 60's.

BTW, here is an interesting quote from Tommy Heinsohn...

http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html


In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever.. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."



Russell had a TON of help in defending Chamberlain. Meanwhile, at the other end, Wilt not only played Russell, one-on-one, he was also defending the entire Celtic team at times.

[LAZERUSS]

Russell drastically outplayed Wilt in this series. He lowered Wilt's averge by 15 points and upped his scoring by 3. That gives Boston nearly a 20 point edge every game in that match-up alone. Forget about the 15-20 ppg Russell was worth over Wilt in terms of defense and intangibles.

Here's a couple more quotes from the Celtics regarding the topic at hand.

"If Wilt thinks that with all the hall of famers on our team we'd have waited for him to get his ass down the court the way Philadelphia did , forget it. We wouldn't watch anyone shoot every time he got it like he did that year ('62) when he scored 50 a game. He could have averaged those 50 points for us, but we would never have won a Championship. It would have produced a lot of disharmony. Russ didn't care about scoring. We probably would have won a couple of titles with Wilt, but Russ remains the most productive center ever to play the game"

Bob Cousy

"If you go strictly by the record book, then you've got to say that Chamberlain is the greatest player in basketball history. But as great as Wilt was, he couldn;t beat us. That's because Russell was the fulcrum of a team effort."

Tom Heinsohn

"Bill had no interest in scoring. He was totally unselfish. He was always there for us getting the clutch rebound, making the big blocks. He was the reason we won and the reason all those banners hang at the garden."

Tom Sanders

And from a Warrior

"Bill won (vs. the Warriors) because his team was always a little better, his coach was a little better and because his team played better together than Wilt's."

Tom Meschery

Russell was BRUTALIZED by Chamberlain in that series. In the four games in which Wilt outplayed Russell, he destroyed Russell in them. Russell SLIGHTLY outplayed Wilt in two others, and has been well-documented, the two battled to a draw in game seven, which Boston won by a 109-107 margin. Oh, and for the record, in that game seven, Wilt scored Philly's last five points, including the tying shot near the end.

Quotes? You want quotes?

First of all here is what Tom Meschery ACTUALLY said...


"The Boston players, man for man, were better players that the Warriors. To go as far as we did was Wilt's doing. e came within two points of the championship."

BTW, In Robert Cherry's book (page 116 for those who care)...


"The Warriors team, while good, was not as good as Boston's team. And no one, least of all the Philadelphia media, ever said they were. The Bulletin's Jim Hefferman pointed out in the story before the seventh game that the Warriors had been underdogs in every game of the series, and remained so for the Final game. That the Warriors came so close as they did to defeating the Celtics was testament to Wilt."


More quotes...


More quotes from Wilt's peers...

http://www.nba.com/history/wilt_appreciation.html

Jerry West in 1999:

Quote:
"He was the most unbelievable center to ever play the game in terms of domination and intimidation. There's no one that's ever played the game better than Wilt Chamberlain. This was a man for all ages."

or this ...from Bill Russell

Quote:
"Nobody seems to appreciate what an incredible player Wilt was," Russell said at 1997 All-Star Game when the league named and honored its 50 greatest players. "He was the best player of all time because he dominated the floor like nobody else ever could. To be that big and that athletic was special."

or this from Kareem...

Quote:
"Chamberlain played the game the same way Russell did, except he scored so much more. But his teams had to get more points from him. He'd score 45 points and his teams would still lose."

and also from Kareem...

Quote:
"Wilt had to fight people's dissatisfaction that his teams didn't win. There he was, this great dominating player, and his teams didn't win championships. Well, Wilt wasn't playing for the right team. As an individual, he was in a class by himself, but his teammates--they were OK, but not the supporting cast Russell had."


and still more from Kareem...

Quote:
"You obviously never saw Wilt Chamberlain play who undoubtedly was the greatest scorer this game has ever known. When did MJ ever average 50.4 points per game plus 25.7 rebounds? (Wilt in the 1962 season when blocked shot statistics were not kept). We will never accurately know how many shots Wilt blocked. Oh, by the way in 1967 and 68, Wilt was a league leader in assists. Did MJ ever score 100 points in a game? How many times did MJ score more than 60 points in a game? MJ led the league in scoring in consecutive seasons for 10 years but he did this in an NBA that eventually expanded into 30 teams vs. when Wilt played and there were only 8 teams."

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in an open letter to Scottie Pippen after Scottie Pippen referred to Michael Jordan and Lebron James as the greatest scorer and greatest player, respectively.

Every team had the opportunity to amass a solid nucleus. Only the cream of the basketball world got to play then. So MJ has to be appraised in perspective. His incredible athletic ability, charisma and leadership on the court helped to make basketball popular around the world -- no question about that. But in terms of greatness, MJ has to take a backseat to The Stilt.


and how about Larry Bird...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188550


Quote:
When the topic of all-time greatest player was once raised, none other than the legendary Larry Bird didn't hesitate.


"Open up the record book and it will be obvious who the greatest is," he said.



Oh, and listen to Rick Barry in an interview just a little over a year ago...

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

http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_summary.html


As Oscar Robertson put it in the Philadelphia Daily News when asked whether Chamberlain was the best ever, "The [Record] books don't lie."


Sorry my friend...

but... Wilt > Russell.

[robert de niro]

jesus laz get some help

[LAZERUSS]

Russell drastically outplayed Wilt in this series. He lowered Wilt's averge by 15 points and upped his scoring by 3. That gives Boston nearly a 20 point edge every game in that match-up alone. Forget about the 15-20 ppg Russell was worth over Wilt in terms of defense and intangibles.



:roll: :roll: :roll:

So Russell gave Boston a 20 ppg edge, just in scoring, and by himself...and then another 20 ppg edge with his defense and intangibles?

How do explain that series going to a GAME SEVEN, in which his heavily-favored Celtics won by TWO points?

Shouldn't have Boston swept Wilt's Warriors, and by margins of 40 ppg?


How about REALITY?

Wilt POUNDED Russell on the offensive end, and then outshot the inefficient Russell by a HUGE margin. All while outrebounding him, and doing a better job on the defensive end.

Again, Chamberlain had THREE games of 40+ points.

You and that other idiot who started this topic, used a ridiculous article to claim that Russell "won" game one. In a game in which Boston only had a 15 point lead at the half. So, when Wilt came back and crushed a helpless Russell in the second half of that...in a game in which Wilt's TEAMMATES collectively shot..get this... 20-85 ...or .235 (yes ...235 from the floor)...in a game in which Russell's TEAMMATES outscored Wilt's TEAMMATES by a 101-56 margin...that Russell gets a "win?" In a game in which Wilt outscored Russell, 33-16, and outshot him from the floor by a 13-25 to 7-22 margin???!!!

How about game two, then?

Pay close attention to this boxscore...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196203270PHW.html

The Warriors came back from a 4th quarter deficit of 7 points. In fact, if I recall an article that I believe CavsFTW, in which the Warriors were actually down by something like 10 points with about 5 minutes remaining...and Wilt then scored something like 12 points in those last few minutes to engineer a comeback...

in a game in which Chamberlain outscored Russell, 42-9; outrebounded Russell, 37-20; and outshot Russell from the floor, 16-31 to 4-14!


And BTW, just what was Wilt supposed to do in those second halves? Lie down in the middle of the floor and give up?

Here is the REALITY of that series...Russell only had to outplay Wilt for a few minutes in each game...in order for his team to win. How about reversing that role? Do you think Wilt's Warriors would have had a chance in any game...in which Wilt only outplayed Russell for halves, or quarters, or even minutes?

Please explain...

[LAZERUSS]

LAZERUSS either doesn't understand or chooses the ignore the concept of statpadding in garbage time. When a team is down big and has no realistic chance to come back into the game, the statistics a player puts up in those periods are irrelevant. Russell didn't contain Wilt for JUST A HALF OR A QUARTER... When the game got out of hand, Russell did NOT try to contain Wilt any more. He didn't care.

If anything Wilt would end the game with a very good stat line and say "I played well..." and wouldn't come out with revenge in his eyes for the next one. It was SMART for Russell not to guard Wilt tight in a blowout and it makes every bit of sense. Psychologically and physically.

Comprende?

There are many many instances where the Celtics blew out the Warriors by half time or at least through three quarters. Someone blindly looking at stats would get a very wrong picture of who played better.


When a team is down big and has no realistic chance to come back into the game, the statistics a player puts up in those periods are irrelevant

What do you consider a "no chance to come back into the game" scenario?

How about a 20 point 4th quarter deficit?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...202090BOS.html

So, if Wilt's teams were down by 15 points at halftime, and then he crushed Russell in the second half...even late into the game...at which point is there "no realistic chance of a comeback?" And BTW, do YOU believe that a 15 point halftime lead is "insurmountable?" Evidently Ne 1 and the OP do.

Look...Russell and Chamberlain went H2H in 49 playoff games. And Russell's margin was only 29-20. Furthermore, the vast majority of those games were close. Hell, Russell's TEAMS won FOUR game SEVEN's by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.

Seems to me that Russell was playing this "physiological game" of his way to close for comfort, don't you agree?

How about that '62 EDF's. Game Two, Wilt engineers a huge 4th quarter comeback, in a game in which he just destroyed Russell in ever facet.

How about the 4th quarter of game seven of that same series? Chamberlain scored Philly's last five points, including the tying basket with only seconds left. Of course, the REAL hero for those Celtic teams, Sam Jones, hit the game-winning shot, and over the outstretched fingertips of ...you guessed it... Wilt.


How about game seven of the '65 EDF's, when Chamberlain scored eight of Philly's last 10 points, including 2-2 from the line, and then a slam over a helpless Russell to pull the Sixers to 110-109? Oh, and then your "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire on the ensuing inbounds pass, and it almost cost the heavily-favored Celtics the game. Of course, yet ANOTHER Russell teammate saved the day...when "Havlicek stole the ball!"

And furthermore, why was Russell playing nearly every minute in the very FEW blowout wins between the two teams? And if he had this ability to just shut down Wilt whenever he wanted, why didn't he just complete stuff him for the first three quarters, get a 30 point lead, and take the entire 4th quarters off? Why "let" Wilt get his points in those "meaningless 4th quarters", when he could simply have shut Wilt down completely in the first three quarters, and rested up for the next game? Nope, even in a 120-90 blowout win in the '60 EDF's, Russell played 40 minutes (and a badly injured Wilt only went 35 BTW.) How come?


And of course, I have never received ONE decent response from the Russell-supporters regarding these two scenarios:

In game five of the '66 EDF's, Wilt's Sixers were down 3-1, and facing elimination. Chamberlain poured in 46 points (to go along with 34 rebounds), but with virtually ZERO help from his teammates, his Sixers lost the game, 120-112.

Ok, fast forward to the very next season. Now it was RUSSELL's team that was down in the EDF's to Wilt's Sixers, 3-1, and facing elimination. Did Russell rise up with a monsterous 46 point game against Wilt? Hell NO. He quietly led his team like a lamb being led to slaughter, in a game in which he scored... FOUR POINTS (on 2-5 shooting.) Oh, and how about Wilt in that same game? 29 points, 22 of which came in the first half and when the game was still close (proving that if need be, he could have hung yet another 40+ point game on a helpless Russell), on 10-16 shooting. In a game win which Wilt outrebounded Russell, 36-21, and outassisted him, 13-7, and also found time to block seven shots...ion a BLOWOUT win. Where was this Russell who supposedly "owned" Wilt?

Hell, how about game seven of the '69 Finals. Both Wilt and Russell had five fouls...but guess who went into hiding the ENTIRE 4th quarter? Yep...RUSSELL. My god, Wilt's idiotic coach kept Chamberlain on the bench in the last five minutes...and Wilt STILL outrebounded Russell in that quarter, 7-2. And for the game? Just another brutal pounding administered by Wilt. Outscored Russell, 18-6; outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7; and outrebounded Russell, 27-21...all in five minutes left. And BTW, the Lakers had already knocked off 10 points of Boston's lead, and in only four minutes, when Wilt came up momentarily lame (and and one-legged Wilt STILL outrebounded Russell in two straight possessions), and would surely have come back to win that game, had the incompetent Wilt-hating coach put Chamberlain back in the game.

And I could post game-after-game in which Chamberlain just DESTROYED Russell. And YOU KNOW it too. Yet, you might be able to find a HANDFUL of games in their 143 career H2H's, in which Russell SLIGHTLY outplayed Wilt.

BTW, I have NEVER read, nor heard, anything from Russell, himself, claiming that he "let up" on Wilt. Russell was a very proud man, and the reality was, he knew he was nowhere near the offensive force that Wilt was, and to be honest, by the mid-60's, he was no more than an equal of Wilt defensively, if that (I would argue that Wilt was a considerably better defensive force from '67 on.) The only times I have read anything about Russell "letting Wilt" score, came from his teammates. most of whom witnessed Chamberlain routinely trashing Russell, and had to defend it with these nonsensical claims.

And the REAL bottom line...Chamberlain carried FAR worse rosters, that general played even WORSE in the post-season, to near series wins over Russell's HOF-laden teams on SEVERAL occasions. And when he finally had a roster that was the equal of Russell's, and was healthy...well, just a total annihilation of the eight-time defending champions, in a near series sweep. EVERYONE at the time, KNEW that Wilt HAD to do FAR more for his team's to be competitive. Russell could concentrate solely on the defensive end (and with a TON of help...which even his teammates acknowledged), while Wilt had to be dominant at BOTH ends of the floor.

Please...these "anti-Wilt" posts are getting damned old.

[scandisk_]

I wonder how organized Laz is though. Does he have 1 massive word document? Several word documents? How much is there total?

me thinks jlauber/laz account has 2-4 users.

[dankok8]

What do you consider a "no chance to come back into the game" scenario?

How about a 20 point 4th quarter deficit?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...202090BOS.html

So, if Wilt's teams were down by 15 points at halftime, and then he crushed Russell in the second half...even late into the game...at which point is there "no realistic chance of a comeback?" And BTW, do YOU believe that a 15 point halftime lead is "insurmountable?" Evidently Ne 1 and the OP do.

Look...Russell and Chamberlain went H2H in 49 playoff games. And Russell's margin was only 29-20. Furthermore, the vast majority of those games were close. Hell, Russell's TEAMS won FOUR game SEVEN's by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.

Seems to me that Russell was playing this "physiological game" of his way to close for comfort, don't you agree?

How about that '62 EDF's. Game Two, Wilt engineers a huge 4th quarter comeback, in a game in which he just destroyed Russell in ever facet.

How about the 4th quarter of game seven of that same series? Chamberlain scored Philly's last five points, including the tying basket with only seconds left. Of course, the REAL hero for those Celtic teams, Sam Jones, hit the game-winning shot, and over the outstretched fingertips of ...you guessed it... Wilt.


How about game seven of the '65 EDF's, when Chamberlain scored eight of Philly's last 10 points, including 2-2 from the line, and then a slam over a helpless Russell to pull the Sixers to 110-109? Oh, and then your "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire on the ensuing inbounds pass, and it almost cost the heavily-favored Celtics the game. Of course, yet ANOTHER Russell teammate saved the day...when "Havlicek stole the ball!"

And furthermore, why was Russell playing nearly every minute in the very FEW blowout wins between the two teams? And if he had this ability to just shut down Wilt whenever he wanted, why didn't he just complete stuff him for the first three quarters, get a 30 point lead, and take the entire 4th quarters off? Why "let" Wilt get his points in those "meaningless 4th quarters", when he could simply have shut Wilt down completely in the first three quarters, and rested up for the next game? Nope, even in a 120-90 blowout win in the '60 EDF's, Russell played 40 minutes (and a badly injured Wilt only went 35 BTW.) How come?


And of course, I have never received ONE decent response from the Russell-supporters regarding these two scenarios:

In game five of the '66 EDF's, Wilt's Sixers were down 3-1, and facing elimination. Chamberlain poured in 46 points (to go along with 34 rebounds), but with virtually ZERO help from his teammates, his Sixers lost the game, 120-112.

Ok, fast forward to the very next season. Now it was RUSSELL's team that was down in the EDF's to Wilt's Sixers, 3-1, and facing elimination. Did Russell rise up with a monsterous 46 point game against Wilt? Hell NO. He quietly led his team like a lamb being led to slaughter, in a game in which he scored... FOUR POINTS (on 2-5 shooting.) Oh, and how about Wilt in that same game? 29 points, 22 of which came in the first half and when the game was still close (proving that if need be, he could have hung yet another 40+ point game on a helpless Russell), on 10-16 shooting. In a game win which Wilt outrebounded Russell, 36-21, and outassisted him, 13-7, and also found time to block seven shots...ion a BLOWOUT win. Where was this Russell who supposedly "owned" Wilt?

Hell, how about game seven of the '69 Finals. Both Wilt and Russell had five fouls...but guess who went into hiding the ENTIRE 4th quarter? Yep...RUSSELL. My god, Wilt's idiotic coach kept Chamberlain on the bench in the last five minutes...and Wilt STILL outrebounded Russell in that quarter, 7-2. And for the game? Just another brutal pounding administered by Wilt. Outscored Russell, 18-6; outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7; and outrebounded Russell, 27-21...all in five minutes left. And BTW, the Lakers had already knocked off 10 points of Boston's lead, and in only four minutes, when Wilt came up momentarily lame (and and one-legged Wilt STILL outrebounded Russell in two straight possessions), and would surely have come back to win that game, had the incompetent Wilt-hating coach put Chamberlain back in the game.

And I could post game-after-game in which Chamberlain just DESTROYED Russell. And YOU KNOW it too. Yet, you might be able to find a HANDFUL of games in their 143 career H2H's, in which Russell SLIGHTLY outplayed Wilt.

BTW, I have NEVER read, nor heard, anything from Russell, himself, claiming that he "let up" on Wilt. Russell was a very proud man, and the reality was, he knew he was nowhere near the offensive force that Wilt was, and to be honest, by the mid-60's, he was no more than an equal of Wilt defensively, if that (I would argue that Wilt was a considerably better defensive force from '67 on.) The only times I have read anything about Russell "letting Wilt" score, came from his teammates. most of whom witnessed Chamberlain routinely trashing Russell, and had to defend it with these nonsensical claims.

And the REAL bottom line...Chamberlain carried FAR worse rosters, that general played even WORSE in the post-season, to near series wins over Russell's HOF-laden teams on SEVERAL occasions. And when he finally had a roster that was the equal of Russell's, and was healthy...well, just a total annihilation of the eight-time defending champions, in a near series sweep. EVERYONE at the time, KNEW that Wilt HAD to do FAR more for his team's to be competitive. Russell could concentrate solely on the defensive end (and with a TON of help...which even his teammates acknowledged), while Wilt had to be dominant at BOTH ends of the floor.

Please...these "anti-Wilt" posts are getting damned old.

Don't deflect my arguments!

I never once claimed that Russell owned Wilt individually... That would be stupid and I personally think that Wilt was the better player head-to-head but in many many games Russell did outplay Wilt even if it isn't evident on the stat sheet. Your theory that "Wilt demolished Russell" is just as BS as someone saying the opposite.

Listen... Garbage time may not be the entire second half but even a single quarter and change of stat padding can do wonders to how a boxscore junkie interprets the game.

Here are the facts about the 1962 EDF's...



Game 1: Boston up by 22 after 3 quarters - INSURMOUNTABLE LEAD
Game 2: Boston up by 6 after 3 quarters - CLOSE GAME
Game 3: Boston up by 28 after 3 quarters - INSURMOUNTABLE LEAD
Game 4: Philly up by 1 after 3 quarters - CLOSE GAME
Game 5: Boston up by 22 after 3 quarters - INSURMOUNTABLE LEAD
Game 6: Philly up by 9 after 3 quarters - CLOSE GAME
Game 7: Philly up 1 after 3 quarters - CLOSE GAME

Wilt played every minute of every game in the series so there was plenty of time to pad his stats in garbage time in games 1, 3 and 5. Going into the 4th quarter, those games were done.

THAT SKEWS THE STATS IN WILT'S FAVOR!!!

[navy]

dankok8 is actually trying. Bless his heart.

[3ball]

.


Comparing MJ's Peak to Shaq's Peak (91-93' vs. 00'-02')


No need to list rebounds or assists, because it cancels out - Shaq gets twice as many rebounds, but MJ gets twice as many assists and less turnovers.. Same for steals and blocks - Shaq gets twice as many blocks but MJ gets 4 times as many steals.

Also, Shaq has higher FG%, but MJ has much higher FT% - so use TS% and ORtg for efficiency.. Here are the relevant stats:


REGULAR SEASON

MJ..... 31.4 PPG, 58.2% TS, 122 ORtg, 0.288 WS/48, 3 All-Defense 1st Team, 2 MVP
Shaq.. 28.6 PPG, 58.0% TS, 115 ORtg, 0.264 WS/48, 2 All-Defense 2nd Team, 1 MVP


PLAYOFFS

MJ..... 33.7 PPG, 57.2% TS, 120 ORtg, 0.267 WS/48
Shaq.. 29.9 PPG, 56.2% TS, 113 ORtg, 0.238 WS/48


FINALS

MJ..... 36.3 PPG, 52.6% FG, 84.3% FT, played #5, #3, #9 defenses, beat Magic-Drexler-Barkley
Shaq.. 35.9 PPG, 59.5% FG, 50.6% FT, played #13, #5, #1 defenses, beat Miller-Iverson-Kidd



This data proves that no one, not even Shaq, produced more to win his championships than MJ.

There is no player in history that can match MJ's playoff and Finals production - he simply DID the most (the goat production shown above), to accomplish the most (6/6).
.

[navy]

This thread isnt about MJ. We all know he's the goat, stop being insecure.

[3ball]

This thread isnt about MJ. We all know he's the goat, stop being insecure.


:cry:

It's worthwhile to show that MJ put up better stats during his peak (1991-1993) than Shaq did during his peak (2000-2002).

The stats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11494290&postcount=81) show this pretty clearly and prove that no one, not even Shaq, produced more to win his championships than MJ.

There is no player in history that can match MJ's playoff and Finals production - he simply DID the most (goat production), to accomplish the most (6/6).

[navy]

Nonsense. MJ did the most scoring, but his production in other areas were lacking. He scored the most, doesnt mean he did the more than Shaq or Wilt overall.

[3ball]

He scored the most, doesnt mean he did the more than Shaq or Wilt overall.



Sorry, but the stats prove MJ produced more for his championships:


REGULAR SEASON

MJ..... 31.4 PPG, 58.2% TS, 122 ORtg, 0.288 WS/48, 3 All-Defense 1st Team, 2 MVP
Shaq.. 28.6 PPG, 58.0% TS, 115 ORtg, 0.264 WS/48, 2 All-Defense 2nd Team, 1 MVP


PLAYOFFS

MJ..... 33.7 PPG, 57.2% TS, 120 ORtg, 0.267 WS/48
Shaq.. 29.9 PPG, 56.2% TS, 113 ORtg, 0.238 WS/48


FINALS

MJ..... 36.3 PPG, 52.6% FG, 84.3% FT, played. #5, #3, #9 defenses, beat Magic-Drexler-Barkley
Shaq.. 35.9 PPG, 59.5% FG, 50.6% FT, played #13, #5, #1 defenses, beat Miller-Iverson-Kidd


Rebounds and assists are not listed because Shaq gets twice as many rebounds, but MJ gets twice as many assists and less turnovers.. Same for steals and blocks - Shaq gets twice as many blocks but MJ gets 4 times as many steals.

Also, Shaq has higher FG%, but MJ has much higher FT% - so use TS% and ORtg for efficiency.. The above metrics are the relevant stats.

This data proves that no one, not even Shaq, produced more to win his championships than MJ.

There is no player in history that can match MJ's playoff and Finals production - he simply DID the most (the goat production shown above), to accomplish the most (6/6).

[navy]

Sorry, but the stats prove MJ scored more for his championship

Agreed.

[3ball]

Agreed.


Shaq only has higher rebounds, blocks and FG percentage

MJ has higher points, assists, steals, FT percentage, and less TO... He also has higher win shares, PER, true shooting and offensive rating.. It's not even close

[Kvnzhangyay]

Shaq only has higher rebounds, blocks and FG percentage

MJ has higher points, assists, steals, FT percentage, and less TO... He also has higher win shares, PER, true shooting and offensive rating.. It's not even close

It is close, and the fact that you have to add "it's not even close" shows that you are insecure about how dominant Shaq was

[navy]

Shaq only has higher rebounds and blocks

MJ has higher win shares, PER and efficiency.... along with PPG, APG, SPG, FT %, less TO's
That doesnt measure how much you had to do overall for your team.

[3ball]

That doesnt measure how much you had to do overall for your team.


Nobody had to do more than MJ did.. Just look at what Phil Jackson said about MJ's leadership:


Phil Jackson on MJ's leadership:


"One of the biggest differences between the two was Michael's superior skill as a leader.. Though he could be hard on teammates at at times, Michael was masterful at controlling the emotional climate of the team with his presence. Kobe had a long way to go before he could make that claim. He talked a good game, but he had yet to experience the cold truth of leadership in his bones like Michael had."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofNka7qwOB4&t=0m9s


Also, MJ had to beat Magic, Drexler and Barkley for his 3-peat, while Shaq had to beat the inferior Miller, Iverson and Kidd.. MJ was also recognized as being the best defender at his position.. Shaq never was.

[navy]

Flattering quotes
Yeah like those are reliable

[LAZERUSS]

Don't deflect my arguments!

I never once claimed that Russell owned Wilt individually... That would be stupid and I personally think that Wilt was the better player head-to-head but in many many games Russell did outplay Wilt even if it isn't evident on the stat sheet. Your theory that "Wilt demolished Russell" is just as BS as someone saying the opposite.

Listen... Garbage time may not be the entire second half but even a single quarter and change of stat padding can do wonders to how a boxscore junkie interprets the game.

Here are the facts about the 1962 EDF's...



Game 1: Boston up by 22 after 3 quarters - INSURMOUNTABLE LEAD
Game 2: Boston up by 6 after 3 quarters - CLOSE GAME
Game 3: Boston up by 28 after 3 quarters - INSURMOUNTABLE LEAD
Game 4: Philly up by 1 after 3 quarters - CLOSE GAME
Game 5: Boston up by 22 after 3 quarters - INSURMOUNTABLE LEAD
Game 6: Philly up by 9 after 3 quarters - CLOSE GAME
Game 7: Philly up 1 after 3 quarters - CLOSE GAME

Wilt played every minute of every game in the series so there was plenty of time to pad his stats in garbage time in games 1, 3 and 5. Going into the 4th quarter, those games were done.

THAT SKEWS THE STATS IN WILT'S FAVOR!!!

First of all, I have already given you PROOF, that a 20 point 4th quarter lead is not "insurmountable." Nor is a 25 point 3rd quarter lead. I watched Tim Duncan fall completely apart in the 4th quarter of a game that his team led by 25 points with 2:37 left in the third quarter. He came within a Robert Horry missed three at the buzzer, that went down and came back out...of LOSING a 25 point lead and the game.

I wouldn't even claim a 20 point lead mid-way in the 4th is safe.

Secondly, I am not really arguing game's three and five..albeit, RUSSELL's edge over WILT was SLIGHT, at best.

Next...you are simply not giving Russell's TEAMMATES their just due. In game one, they outscored Wilt's teammates by a 101-56 margin. and outshot them, 40-98 to 20-85 (with Wilt, as always, just crushing Russell, 13-25 to 7-22.) Just a massive demolition (as was almost always the case.)

And again, the recap only mentions Russell "holding" Wilt to 12 points in the first half. So what? It was only a 15 point halftime lead. Obviously Wilt just MURDERED Russell in the second half. Oh, and no mention of anything in the second half? How do we know if Wilt didn't score 21 points in the 3rd quarter?! Sure, we already KNOW that Russell's TEAMMATES overwhelmed Wilt's, BUT, we don't know if Chamberlain wasn't throwing down thunderous dunks on a helpless Russell.

Then, how about this? Wilt played his usual 48 minutes...as he ALWAYS did, regardless of score...BUT, Russell played 46! In a game in which they led by 22 going into the 4th. FURTHERMORE. your boy Russell took 22 shots!!! And, as always, he couldn't hit the Grand Canyon from the ledge against Wilt...only making 7!. Meanwhile, Chamberlain single-handedly DESTROYED Russell in that game. There is simply no denying it. He MURDERED Russell in EVERY facet of that game (as he almost ALWAYS did BTW.)


Oh, and in the known games in that series, Russell played 46, 48, 48, and 48 minutes. And he most certainly would have played 48 minutes in the three other games (all of them losses, and by margins of 7, 4, and 10 points.) And again...how come Russell played 46 minutes in a 28 point win, and 48 minutes in both 15 point wins? You seem to hold it against Wilt...but why not against Russell?

And what is truly LAUGHABLE in those ridiculous recaps...they credit Russell with a "win", in games in which he only NEUTRALIZED Wilt for halves, or even quarters...and didn't even OUTPLAY him in those same periods. All he did was NEUTRALIZE Chamberlain (well, not just Russell...it was a CELTIC TEAM EFFORT) for periods of a game.

Again, give me your HONEST answer. How many games does Wilt's '62 Warriors win in the EDF's, with Wilt only outplaying Russell for a half, or a quarter? Hell, let's get real...how many games do they win if all Wilt could do was NEUTRALIZE Russell for halves, or quarters?



And yes, Chamberlain SLAUGHTERED Russell in the vast majority of their 143 career H2H's. Again, when a player outscores another by a 28.7 ppg to 14.5 ppg margin; outrebounds him by a 28.7 rpg to 23.7 rpg margin; and outshoots him from the field by a .497 to .382 margin...sorry...that is pure domination. And while their career assists were neck-and-neck, when Chamberlain cut back his shooting, he mopped the floor with Russell in THAT department. Hell, in their known games, he nearly doubled Russell in blocked shots.

And let's be honest here. Those numbers were for their career H2H's. A "scoring" Wilt, and a PEAK Wilt, just blew Russell away by far greater numbers. And, there was a reason that Wilt held a massive 7-2 edge in First Team All-NBA selections in their ten years in the league together.

The Russell-supporters will argue the W-L, BUT, as anyone that has actually researched those games...Russell had FAR superior supporting casts, that generally outplayed Wilt's even more in their post-season H2H's. If anything, it was truly remarkable that Wilt could take putrid rosters, that played even worse in the post-season, to within an eyelash of beating Russell's TEAMs on SEVERAL occasions. And of course the most damning evidence against Russell...when Wilt finally had an EQUAL supporting cast, that was healthy,...he and his team just obliterated Russell and his team.

The bottom line in the '62 EDF's...

Wilt outplayed Russell, 4-2-1. FURTHERMORE, in the games in which he outplayed Russell, he absolutely slaughtered him (1, 2, 4, and 6.) Russell held a very slim margin in games 3, and 5 (and as always, Wilt still outscored him in both.) And by all accounts, the two battled to a draw in game seven...albeit, down the stretch, Chamberlain took over...at BOTH ends of the floor.

And the REAL bottom line...just ask John Wooden...

Had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters and coaches, and it would have been Wilt with all the rings.

[jongib369]

This dude is bringing up teammates, I'm focusing on the INDIVIDUAL defense of Bill Russell on Wilt Chamberlain.

Teammates have no factor at all in this. This is one-on-one matchups between Russell/Chamberlain and Rodman/O'Neal.

In a team game, teammates have no factor in a team overcoming another with their overall performance ?

:biggums:

[Fallen Angel]

In a team game, teammates have no factor in a team overcoming another with their overall performance ?

:biggums:
For the umpteenth time, I'm showcasing individual defense. Nothing more, nothing less.

[LAZERUSS]

For the umpteenth time, I'm showcasing individual defense. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then you shouldn't have used the Wilt-Russell H2H's.


http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html


In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever.. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."


http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-wilt-meets-bill-and-tommy-4000-words


K.C. Jones, arguably the savviest team player in the history of the game, was also a rookie that year and had a front row seat for Bill and Wilt's encounters. "Bill didn't do it all. We just used TEAM. That's a word that's thrown out all over the place, but the total personification of team is what we used. We used everybody's ability, and everybody had a role out there that was natural for them. Whoever was guarding the ball had four guys back there helping his ass out. The whole is bigger than the sum of the parts; we wrote that without knowing the phrase. We knew how good we were. And we knew how to use one another because we knew one another. The most important part of it was the understanding that we had of each teammate - what this guy likes and what that guy doesn't like and who can't play defense and who shoots the ball well. We used all that. If a guy couldn't play defense, we were there, picking him up. Let each guy do what he does best."



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173M7ApCNKw

Go the 5 minute mark...there is footage of a swarmed Wilt...and Chamberlain stating...

"Now when I get the ball, instead of having two and three people, and Russ at the same time..."


How about some footage...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w


The REALITY of the Russell-Wilt battles was that it was seldom Russell vs. Wilt. It was often, Boston vs. Wilt. And at the other end of the floor, Chamberlain never needed any help defending Russell, and in fact, it was again quite often..Boston vs. Wilt.


Incidently, in the 10 years in which the two played against each other, Chamberlain reduced Russell's FG% efficiency considerably more than Russell (and his swarming teammates) did to Wilt's. In their 10 years in the league, Wilt shot .520 against the NBA, while Russell shot .439 against the NBA. However, in their 143 career H2H games (and again, it was seldom just Russell defending Wilt)...Wilt shot .497 against Russell (and his teammates)..or a drop of .023. Russell shot .382 against Wilt...or a drop of .057.

[LAZERUSS]

[CENTER]
• 1970 NBA Finals (WILT CHAMBERLAIN vs. WILLIS REED)

• Game 7 Finals: Wilt was free to score on Knicks' weaker defenders or anytime Willis wasn't guarding him. But on possessions where Reed did guard him, Wilt had 4 points on 2/7 (29%) with 4 turnovers.
• Just like Games 1-3-5 of the 1962 Division Finals vs. Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain and his team found themselves down large at halftime. The Knicks were up 69 to the Lakers' 42.
• Keep in mind, with Willis Reed out Game 6 of the Finals Wilt Chamberlain dominated the Knicks with 45 points and 27 rebounds. In Games 1-2-3-4, before Reed's injury he was averaging more points that Wilt Chamberlain. Through Game 4, Willis Reed averaged 32 PPG to Wilt's 19 PPG.
• Reed only played 27 minutes in Game 7 and Wilt was free to pad his stats in garbage time, just as he did against Bill Russell. Wilt finished with a decisive 21 points on 63% and 27 rebounds as the Los Angeles Lakers fell to the New York Knicks.

.[/INDENT]


Interesting, that this blatantly "anti-Wilt" article mentions that Wilt was "free to pad his stats in garbage time." How about this, Wilt scored 11 points, with 12 rebounds, in the first half, and then 10 points, with 12 rebounds in the second half in game seven. Or nearly identical numbers in each half (albeit, Chamberlain was 5-10 from the floor in the first half, and 5-6 in the second.)

As for their first four games, in which "Reed averaged 32 ppg to Wilt's 19 ppg", let's add a little bit of context, shall we?

First of all, this was a PEAK Reed, going up against a Wilt who was just four months removed from major knee surgery...a surgery that by all medical opinion at the time, was at BEST, a year-long recovery, and at worst, for a seven-footer that weighed 300 lbs, a career-ending injury.

In those four games, a stiff-legged Wilt, at nowhere near 100%, outrebounded Reed, 99-60 (24.8 rpg to 15.0 rpg.) And he outshot Reed from the floor, 31-57 (.544) to 55-112 (.491.)

And, while Reed "won" their matchups in game's one and three, Wilt clearly outplayed a shot-jacking Reed in game's two and four.

Then, in game five, Wilt slaughtered Reed in the first quarter, and before Reed went down with a thigh injury.

Overall, in those first five games, and before Reed was injured, Wilt had "won" their personal H2H's, 3-2.

And I'm sorry, but in game seven, Reed was a worthless statue, that needed his swarming teammates to help him "neutralize" Wilt. Reed didn't contribute much, if anything, in that game seven. When he and Wilt were on the floor, Chamberlain cleaned his clock. It's funny, the "Wilt-bashers" will compare a two-legged Reed to a one-legged Wilt...BUT, when it was a one-legged Reed getting killed by a one-legged Wilt...nope, doesn't count.


Now, how about a healthy Wilt and Reed just the season before? In their two H2H's in the 68-69 season (BTW, a full-time center Reed in '69 was a PEAK Reed)...

Reed averaged 20.0 ppg, 9.5 rpg, and shot .459 from the field. Chamberlain averaged 28.0 ppg, 22.0 rpg, and shot .688 from the floor.

And how about a "scoring" Wilt, going up against Reed in their 12 H2H's in the '64-65 season?

Reed averaged 22.9 ppg, 17.0 rpg, and shot .333 (in the one known game.)
Wilt averaged 38.6 ppg, 21.2 rpg, and shot .532 from the field.

Included were games in which Wilt outscored Reed by margins of 46-25, 41-9, 52-23, and 58-28.

That, my friends, is what we call CONTEXT.

[LAZERUSS]

You clearly missed the parts where I obviously stated that the Celtics had a huge lead going into halftime and ultimately winning the games all in blowout fashion. While that was going on Wilt bumped his scoring numbers up in garbage time, something this era would call.... STATPADDING.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Again...so you are claiming a 15 point half-time deficit is enough to have Wilt sit out the second half? When I have provided PROOF that Wilt had brought back his Warriors from a 20 point 4th quarter deficit in a game in which he scored 48 points in that SAME season?

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

Of course, how about game two in that SAME series?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196203270PHW.html

A huge 4th quarter comeback. Furthermore, I recall CavsFTW posting a recap of that same game, in which the Warriors came back from something like a 10 point deficit in the last 5-6 minutes, and with Wilt scoring something like 12 points in that span.


Of course, the "bashers" love to point out Wilt's play in these so-called "blowouts", BUT, they completely ignore his play in his WINS...in which he annihilated Russell. He outscored Russell in those three games (all close wins BTW), by a 115-59 margin (38.3 ppg to 19.7 ppg); outrebounded Russell, 93-72 (31.0 rpg tp 24.0 rpg); and outshot Russell from the floor, 43-89 (.483) to 23-61 (.377.)

And again, I'm sorry, but in game one, in which Boston won comfortably, Wilt STILL CRUSHED Russell. Wilt played 48 minutes to Russell's 46, and he outscored Russell, 33-16, outrebounded Russell, 31-30, and outshot a Russell who did all he could to keep up with Wilt, 13-25 to 7-22. As you can plainly see, Russell was just pounded in that game. It was not Wilt's fault that Russell's teammates just shelled Wilt's.

No question...Wilt CONVINCINGLY OUTPLAYED Russell in the '62 EDF's.

[AceManIII]

Bill Russell was a better team player and leader

[IGOTGAME]

OP doesnt have a picture of 2015 Steph Curry. Seems biased

[LAZERUSS]

Bill Russell was a better team player and leader

A great argument, and well researched.

BTW, what happened in the '67 EDF's, when Wilt FINALLY had a team with EQUAL talent?

[Fallen Angel]

I love all these opinionated statements this dude is trying to pass off as facts.

Bringing up head to head stats even though neither player guarded each other 48 minutes. Stop acting simple, the longer you stretch your posts won't make anyone believe you any more.

[ArbitraryWater]

Now this is the type of analysis that show's ISH's potential! It was worth wading through "2/6" for months to read this. :applause:

OP is from the video.. still nice that he re-posted it though, some may not have watched it.

[LAZERUSS]

I love all these opinionated statements this dude is trying to pass off as facts.

Bringing up head to head stats even though neither player guarded each other 48 minutes. Stop acting simple, the longer you stretch your posts won't make anyone believe you any more.

The FACTS my friend...PROVE otherwise.

Neither Russell, nor his swarming HOF teammates "stopped" the most dominant player in NBA history.

The FACTS CLEARLY show that Chamberlain either outplayed, or downright OBLITERATED Russell in the vast majority of their career H2H's. These are indisputable.

The two faced off in 143 career H2H;s, and Chamberlain outscored him in 132 of them. And his rebound margin was 92-43-8. Not only that, but there were games in which Chamberlain just SLAUGHTERED Russell.

Here is a quick 40...




For reference, the first number of the pair next to each player's name is points in that particular game, while the second is rebounds. An example would be the first one, with Wilt scoring 45 points, and grabbing 35 rebounds (45-35), while Russell's numbers were 15 points, with 13 rebounds (15-13.)


Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13
Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21
Wilt 43-39….Russell 20-24
Wilt 53-29 Russell 22-32
Wilt 42-29 Russell 19-30
Wilt 50-35 Russell 22-27
Wilt 34-55….Russell 18-19
Wilt 39-30 Russell 6-19
Wilt 44-35 Russell 20-21
Wilt 34-38 Russell 17-20
Wilt..52-30….Russell 21-31
Wilt 41-28 Russell 11-24
Wilt 62-28 Russell 23-29
Wilt 38-31 Russell 11-18
Wilt 42-37 Russell 9-20
Wilt 45-27 Russell 12-26
Wilt 43-32 Russell 8-30
Wilt 32-27 Russell 11-16
Wilt 50-17….Russell 23-21
Wilt 35-32….Russell 16-28
Wilt 32-25 Russell…9-24
Wilt 31-30 Russell 12-22
Wilt 37-32 Russell 16-24
Wilt 27-34 Russell..12-17
Wilt 27-43 Russell 13-26
Wilt 30-39 Russell 12-16
Wilt 31-40….Russell 11-17
Wilt 37-42 Russell 14-25
Wilt 29-26 Russell 3-27
Wilt 27-36….Russell 13-20
Wilt 27-32 Russell 6-22
Wilt 32-30 Russell 8-20
Wilt 46-34 Russell 18-31
Wilt 20-41….Russell 10-29
Wilt 29-36 Russell 4-21
Wilt 31-27 Russell 3-8
Wilt 35-19 Russell 5-16
Wilt 12-42 Russell 11-18



Wilt had 24 career games of 40+ points against Russell, with FIVE of 50+, and a high game of 62. Russell had ZERO games of 40+ against Wilt. In fact, Russell had a total of THREE games of 30+ against Wilt, and guess what, he was outscored in all three (Chamberlain scored 40+ in all three.)

Hell, Chamberlain had three entire SEASONS, covering between 8 to 11 games, in which he averaged 38.1 ppg, 39.1 ppg, and 39.7 ppg against Russell. And before someone suggests that Russell stopped Wilt in the post-season, Wilt had post-season series against Russell of 28.0 ppg, 29.2 ppg, 30.1 ppg, 30.5 ppg, and 33.6 ppg. And in another in which he averaged 21.6 ppg on a .556 FG%, he easily could have averaged 30+.

Now, I found exactly ONE game between the two, in which Russell decisively outplayed Wilt. It was game three of the '60 EDF's, and it came following a melee at the end of game two, when Chamberlain badly injured his shooting hand (there were fears at the time, that it might have been broken.) In that ONE game, Russell outscored Wilt, 26-12, outshot Wilt, 12-24 to 6-13, and outrebounded Wilt, 39-15. BTW, Russell played 40 minutes in that game to Wilt's 35 (that should have told you something right there)...in a 120-90 blowout win. That game was a perfect example of what happened to Wilt's team's, when he didn't play well. His team's simply couldn't afford for him to be outplayed. It was generally hopeless. BTW, just two games after that ONE game in which Russell outplayed Wilt...Chamberlain outscored Russell, 50-22, and outrebounded Russell, 35-27.

On top of all of that, Wilt outshot Russell from thee field in those 143 career H2H's, by a staggering .497 to .382 margin (oh and BTW, in their post-season H2H's, Wilt shot .513 overall.)

And speaking of their post-season H2H's, the two went at in EIGHT post-season series, and guess what? More of the same. Chamberlain outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell in EVERY series, and overall, by MASSIVE margins.

And when you factor in that Russell routinely had teams with considerably more talent, and better records, it was truly amazing that Wilt carried his teams to within an eyelash of beating the Russell dynasty on FOUR occasions (losing game seven's by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points, and in series in which Wilt outplayed, or destroyed Russell.)

Or the FACT, that when Wilt FINALLY had an EQUAL roster as to what Russell had, he not only castrated Russell, he led his team to a near sweep of the 60-21 and eight-time defending champs.

Here is the bottom line...Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg, and 28.7 rpg in those 143 career H2H's. Just think about that for a moment. Virtually EVERYTIME Wilt stepped on the court against Russell, he was putting up a 30-30 game (and not only badly outscoring and outrebounding Russell, but massively outshooting him, as well.)

Now, do you call that "stopping" the most dominant player in NBA history?

Those are the FACTS.

[dankok8]

First of all, I have already given you PROOF, that a 20 point 4th quarter lead is not "insurmountable." Nor is a 25 point 3rd quarter lead. I watched Tim Duncan fall completely apart in the 4th quarter of a game that his team led by 25 points with 2:37 left in the third quarter. He came within a Robert Horry missed three at the buzzer, that went down and came back out...of LOSING a 25 point lead and the game.

I wouldn't even claim a 20 point lead mid-way in the 4th is safe.

Secondly, I am not really arguing game's three and five..albeit, RUSSELL's edge over WILT was SLIGHT, at best.

Next...you are simply not giving Russell's TEAMMATES their just due. In game one, they outscored Wilt's teammates by a 101-56 margin. and outshot them, 40-98 to 20-85 (with Wilt, as always, just crushing Russell, 13-25 to 7-22.) Just a massive demolition (as was almost always the case.)

And again, the recap only mentions Russell "holding" Wilt to 12 points in the first half. So what? It was only a 15 point halftime lead. Obviously Wilt just MURDERED Russell in the second half. Oh, and no mention of anything in the second half? How do we know if Wilt didn't score 21 points in the 3rd quarter?! Sure, we already KNOW that Russell's TEAMMATES overwhelmed Wilt's, BUT, we don't know if Chamberlain wasn't throwing down thunderous dunks on a helpless Russell.

Then, how about this? Wilt played his usual 48 minutes...as he ALWAYS did, regardless of score...BUT, Russell played 46! In a game in which they led by 22 going into the 4th. FURTHERMORE. your boy Russell took 22 shots!!! And, as always, he couldn't hit the Grand Canyon from the ledge against Wilt...only making 7!. Meanwhile, Chamberlain single-handedly DESTROYED Russell in that game. There is simply no denying it. He MURDERED Russell in EVERY facet of that game (as he almost ALWAYS did BTW.)


Oh, and in the known games in that series, Russell played 46, 48, 48, and 48 minutes. And he most certainly would have played 48 minutes in the three other games (all of them losses, and by margins of 7, 4, and 10 points.) And again...how come Russell played 46 minutes in a 28 point win, and 48 minutes in both 15 point wins? You seem to hold it against Wilt...but why not against Russell?

And what is truly LAUGHABLE in those ridiculous recaps...they credit Russell with a "win", in games in which he only NEUTRALIZED Wilt for halves, or even quarters...and didn't even OUTPLAY him in those same periods. All he did was NEUTRALIZE Chamberlain (well, not just Russell...it was a CELTIC TEAM EFFORT) for periods of a game.

Again, give me your HONEST answer. How many games does Wilt's '62 Warriors win in the EDF's, with Wilt only outplaying Russell for a half, or a quarter? Hell, let's get real...how many games do they win if all Wilt could do was NEUTRALIZE Russell for halves, or quarters?



And yes, Chamberlain SLAUGHTERED Russell in the vast majority of their 143 career H2H's. Again, when a player outscores another by a 28.7 ppg to 14.5 ppg margin; outrebounds him by a 28.7 rpg to 23.7 rpg margin; and outshoots him from the field by a .497 to .382 margin...sorry...that is pure domination. And while their career assists were neck-and-neck, when Chamberlain cut back his shooting, he mopped the floor with Russell in THAT department. Hell, in their known games, he nearly doubled Russell in blocked shots.

And let's be honest here. Those numbers were for their career H2H's. A "scoring" Wilt, and a PEAK Wilt, just blew Russell away by far greater numbers. And, there was a reason that Wilt held a massive 7-2 edge in First Team All-NBA selections in their ten years in the league together.

The Russell-supporters will argue the W-L, BUT, as anyone that has actually researched those games...Russell had FAR superior supporting casts, that generally outplayed Wilt's even more in their post-season H2H's. If anything, it was truly remarkable that Wilt could take putrid rosters, that played even worse in the post-season, to within an eyelash of beating Russell's TEAMs on SEVERAL occasions. And of course the most damning evidence against Russell...when Wilt finally had an EQUAL supporting cast, that was healthy,...he and his team just obliterated Russell and his team.

The bottom line in the '62 EDF's...

Wilt outplayed Russell, 4-2-1. FURTHERMORE, in the games in which he outplayed Russell, he absolutely slaughtered him (1, 2, 4, and 6.) Russell held a very slim margin in games 3, and 5 (and as always, Wilt still outscored him in both.) And by all accounts, the two battled to a draw in game seven...albeit, down the stretch, Chamberlain took over...at BOTH ends of the floor.

And the REAL bottom line...just ask John Wooden...

Had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters and coaches, and it would have been Wilt with all the rings.

A couple of years ago the Clippers came back to win a game down 21 at the start of the 4th quarter against Memphis and that was an NBA PLAYOFF RECORD for the largest 4th quarter comeback.

So yes... 22, 28, and 22 point leads at the end of three can be considered INSURMOUNTABLE.

I highly doubt that Wilt in Game 1 scored all of his 21 second half points in the 3rd quarter because the game recap said "many of his points came too late". Too late is another way of saying in garbage time or when the outcome was no longer in question.

Why would Russell try to stop Wilt in blowouts? In fact he has every reason not to... That way Wilt feels he had a good game so he's not going to go bonkers in the next one, Wilt gets comfortable with certain moves that Russell CAN take away in crunch time, and of course Russell conserves energy. And Russell while he was smart is not a genius. Modern players do it too. I'm the biggest Lebron fan there is but I'll tell you he statpadded in a few games of the 2014 Finals. Spurs blew the game open and let him get his. Remember it doesn't take a lot to improve a bad game. 3 or 4 unconstested dunks and suddenly a 22 point game on 43% shooting becomes a 30 point game on 50% shooting.

[jongib369]

Are you saying this team strategy is why they won?

It's kind of a no brainer that anyone would have a harder time scoring against a better defender than they would lesser players on the team.

In the case of Wilt, obviously Russell presented himself as being quite the speed bump compaired to others...But, Wilt still wiped the floor with him in most instances. So it wasn't only the strategy used against him, but Russells teams performance Vs Wilt's teams.

You come off as presenting this as it was the soul reason they won...Considering this comes from a channel to prop up Jordan it doesn't surprise me.

I haven't had time to read this entire thread, I sleep during the day, and work the graveyard pushing 50 hours a week. ..So my apologies if this isn't what you're doing, and have explained it already

[jongib369]

Also I don't get this Wilt scoring in "garbage" time nonsense. If you're the most dominant scorer in the game, the only way you can accumulate garbage time is the time you're on the bench. Russell himself said he couldnt stop Wilt, just offer "speed bumps". So wilt getting a crap ton of points when his team possibly couldn't, when they couldn't stop him is just not giving up IMO. Also showing that his team either wasn't good eneough, didn't perform well, or the coach had a lesser strategy.

Again for reasons I said above, this is rushed. So apologies if I didn't word any of this correctly. Would rather take some time on this, but it isn't possible atm

[AceManIII]

A great argument, and well researched.

BTW, what happened in the '67 EDF's, when Wilt FINALLY had a team with EQUAL talent?

Your opinion on equal talent..

Wilt stated in his autobiography that Bill Russell had more will to win than he, Wilt, had. Do you agree?!

[LAZERUSS]

Your opinion on equal talent..

Wilt stated in his autobiography that Bill Russell had more will to win than he, Wilt, had. Do you agree?!

You would have to give me the exact quote, and I am not going to scour through his book(s) right now, but I believe that Wilt simply said that winning to Russell was the most important thing in his life. Chamberlain just didn't agree with that philosophy. You see, Russell for nearly his entire life, led a bitter existence. He trusted no one, hated his fans and the entire city of Boston, and was broke for much of it.

Wilt, on the other hand, fully enjoyed his life. He did what he wanted, and on his terms, and was exceedingly rich when he died. In fact, his estate left something like $650,000 to Kansas University.

And Chamberlain learned early on that losing is part of life. He didn't dwell on it, nor did it consume him. Unlike Russell, he lived a happy (and mostly healthy) life.

Furthermore, there are a couple of stories I would like to share with you about this "villain" Wilt.

First, this...

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

What you probably wouldn't be able to see in that video, was that Chamberlain was dying. But that is not the important part of the story. You see, Chamberlain left K.U. early, and under less than ideal circumstances. And he was asked to return to K.U. some 40 years later for a retirement ceremony. Just before walking into the gym, he honestly didn't know what kind of a greeting he would get from the fans. He feared that they might even boo him off the stage.

Obviously, as you can tell, he was greeted with a thunderous applause that lasted several minutes. He was nearly moved to tears, and he would later say that it was one of the most special moments in his life.

Oh, and afterwards he was had a police escort waiting to take him to his limousine to avoid the fans engulfing him. He waved it off, and signed autographs for over two hours, and until everyone that had wanted one received one.


And here is another interesting side to Wilt...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/445705-i-wanna-be-like-wilt-not-like-mike


One of the kinder superstars in NBA history was Wilt Chamberlain. He gave away tons of money to charities through the years, and left a considerable amount to charities in his will. He was also very giving of his time, not only while still an active player, but also throughout his retirement. One reason his autograph was not worth as much as a lot of other athletes (relative to their accomplishments) is that he signed autographs for just about everyone who ever asked him over the years.

He was usually not that good with answering mail. He'd get around to it, but it usually took a while.

One of Wilt's teammates was a fellow by the name of Paul Arizin.

Arizin was a great player in his time (career 1951-62) and is a Hall of Famer, in addition to being a top 50 player (as selected in 1996). He played 12 seasons, averaged 17 ppg as a rookie and more than 20 ppg in each of his other 11 seasons.

In 1993, Arizin's granddaughter Stephanie, unbeknownst to her family, wrote a letter to Wilt asking for an autograph. Stephanie was then 11 years old.

She had written to Wilt in care of the Lakers, and the letter was forwarded to the office of Wilt's attorney and best friend, Sy Goldberg. But because Goldberg's office had moved and Wilt was often inattentive to his mail, the letter was not even opened for THREE years.

When Wilt finally got around to reading it, he immediately called the then-14-year-old Stephanie in suburban Philadelphia, and Wilt and the young girl quickly established an unusual rapport.

Wilt later called Stephanie's father (the son of his former teammate Paul) at work to tell him how much he had enjoyed talking to Stephanie and apologized that it had taken him so long to respond. "She must have thought I was such a jerk, not answering a little girl's request," Wilt said... "I had to call her up and let her know what happened."

It was then that Michael Arizin (Stephanie's father and Paul's son) informed Wilt that, only a week before, Stephanie had been diagnosed with a brain tumor and had been given 12 to 18 months to live. She had never mentioned the illness in her conversations with Wilt.

Wilt promised to stay in touch with Stephanie on a regular basis. True to his word, Wilt spoke to Stephanie Arizin almost every Friday, often for an hour, during the last 15 months of her life. On July 30, 1997, Stephanie passed away at age 16.

Right after her death, Wilt, who was to live little more than two more years himself, sent this telegram:

To the Arizin family:
My sincerest condolences. I am here for you, all of you, if ever I am needed.
I may have tears in my eyes... I lost a friend who was full of strength and loved life passionately... From Stehpanie I realize that you're never too old to learn and never too young to teach. Her body may now be gone, but in my memory she can always be reached. I will forever rejoice in my memory of what she brought to my life in our very short time of friendship.
Love and peace,
"Dippy"
Wilt Chamberlain

A great story. No one really knew about this until Paul Arizin spoke at Wilt's funeral and told everyone assembled there what had happened with Stephanie.

In his will, Wilt left specific bequests ranging from $20,000 to $200,000 to close relatives, $50,000 each to Overbrook High School and the Sonny Hill Basketball League in Philly, and $100,000 to Operation Smile, a nonprofit group of doctors who perform reconstructive surgery on indigent children in the U.S. and developing countries.

After taxes were paid on the estate, Wilt also left $650,000 to Kansas University, and additional $1 million to operation smile and two million dollars to the Wilt Chamberlain Memorial Fund, a non profit organization based in Philadelphia.

I'm sorry, and maybe I am a wimp, but the above story brought tears to my eyes when I read it the first time.


So, maybe Russell was a better "winner" in the game of basketball, but Wilt was a far greater "winner" in his life (albeit, and I know, Russell is still alive.)

[LAZERUSS]

A couple of years ago the Clippers came back to win a game down 21 at the start of the 4th quarter against Memphis and that was an NBA PLAYOFF RECORD for the largest 4th quarter comeback.

So yes... 22, 28, and 22 point leads at the end of three can be considered INSURMOUNTABLE.

I highly doubt that Wilt in Game 1 scored all of his 21 second half points in the 3rd quarter because the game recap said "many of his points came too late". Too late is another way of saying in garbage time or when the outcome was no longer in question.

Why would Russell try to stop Wilt in blowouts? In fact he has every reason not to... That way Wilt feels he had a good game so he's not going to go bonkers in the next one, Wilt gets comfortable with certain moves that Russell CAN take away in crunch time, and of course Russell conserves energy. And Russell while he was smart is not a genius. Modern players do it too. I'm the biggest Lebron fan there is but I'll tell you he statpadded in a few games of the 2014 Finals. Spurs blew the game open and let him get his. Remember it doesn't take a lot to improve a bad game. 3 or 4 unconstested dunks and suddenly a 22 point game on 43% shooting becomes a 30 point game on 50% shooting.

We all know that Wilt played every minute of every game. Even in his last post-season, at age 36 (nearly 37), he averaged 47.1 mpg in his 17 playoff games,...which, BTW, was UNDER his career playoff average of 47.2 mpg.

Russell also played a ton of time in his post-season career, as well, at 45.4 mpg. But it always fascinated me that Russell would play nearly every minute of every playoff H2H game with Wilt. Even in those RARE blowouts. How come? You know what I think. I think he was such a proud man, that he didn't want to "let" Wilt have ANYTHING. And Russell, himself would tell you that Wilt drained EVERYTHING out of him.

Furthermore, and you didn't address this...why was Russell playing nearly every minute of the '62 EDF's (from what I gathered, he only missed TWO MINUTES of the entire seven game series), if some of those games were well in hand going into the 4th quarters? Why didn't he just take the 4th quarters off, and rest for the next game?

And again, I have never heard, or read, anything by Russell, himself, claiming that he "let" Wilt score. In fact, in most interviews on the subject, he would state the complete opposite.

Of course, Chamberlain not only pounded Russell in those "insurmountable leads" games that you mentioned, he was even more dominant in his wins. Again, in those three wins, which were all very close...


Of course, the "bashers" love to point out Wilt's play in these so-called "blowouts", BUT, they completely ignore his play in his WINS...in which he annihilated Russell. He outscored Russell in those three games (all close wins BTW), by a 115-59 margin (38.3 ppg to 19.7 ppg); outrebounded Russell, 93-72 (31.0 rpg tp 24.0 rpg); and outshot Russell from the floor, 43-89 (.483) to 23-61 (.377.)

How come?

Again, I just don't buy it.

In game one, in a blowout win, Russell played 46 minutes...and he took nearly as many FGAs as Wilt did...albeit, he couldn't hit them (a brick-laying 7-22, as compared to Wilt's 13-25.) So, I'm sorry, I honestly don't believe that there was even a minute in which Russell had outplayed Chamberlain in that game. Wilt slaughtered him in every aspect. BUT, it certainly appears that Russell TRIED to keep up with him...albeit, he failed miserably. Lucky for Russell that his teammates overcame in his own inept shooting, going 40-98, while murdering Wilt's pathetic cast of clown teammates, who only managed to shoot 20-85.

If anything, that game one recap should have mentioned THAT. That a badly outplayed Russell was saved by his far superior supporting cast.

I have absolutely ZERO doubt, that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters in the '62 EDF's, that Chamberlain's Celtics would have blown out Russell's Warriors, and likely would have swept them. Why do I believe that? Because we saw what a Chamberlain, with an EQUAL supporting cast, could do against a 60-21 Celtic team in the '67 EDF's. He just carpet-bombed them. And everyone who watched that series would have told you that, had Chamberlain wanted to, he could have averaged FAR more ppg (I would surmise around 35+.) And how do I KNOW that. Because in their last H2H in game five of the '66 DF's, Chamberlain hung a 46-34 game on Russell. Then, in the clinching game five win in the '67 EDF's, he scored 22 of his 29 points in the first half, and when the game was still in doubt. BTW, the Celtics had an early 17 point lead in that clinching game, but by mid-way thru the 4th quarter, the Sixers led by a 131-104 margin...or an astounding 44 point turnaround in about three quarters of play. And again, why didn't Wit "pad" his stats in the second half of THAT game? He played 47 minutes, (Russell finally gave up at 42), and there was no doubt that Chamberlain could have just poured it on. BUT, he didn't. Why? Could it be that the "stats-padding" Wilt could not have cared less about his points?

And again, you won't find more than a handful of games, if that, in which Russell heavily outplayed Wilt (and in those, it was likely due to Chamberlain playing with some kind of injury.) BUT, I can find a TON of games (and you KNOW it too), in which Chamberlain just annihilated Russell. In blowout losses, in close losses, in close wins, in blowout wins, and in "must-win" games. The FACT was, Chamberlain FAR outplayed Russell.

The Russell-supporters will always point to the W-L's, but Russell seldom had to play both ends of the floor against Wilt. And, in fact, in his most critical games against Wilt...he COULDN'T take over at the offensive end.

One more time...and this time give me an answer instead of deflecting from it...

explain this scenario...

In the clinching game five of the '66 EDF's, Wilt, with virtually ZERO help in the entire series (his teammates collectively shot .352 from the field in the SERIES), Chamberlain took it upon himself to get his team back in the series. He exploded for 46 points, and nearly pulled it off, losing by a 120-112 margin (in a game that was close until the end.)

Ok, now fast forward to the '67 EDF's, where it was now RUSSELL who was faced with the exact same situation...down 3-1, and with his teammates desperately needing a miracle to get back in the series.

Now, with this supposed ability of Russell to "control" Wilt, what happened next just shatters that theory. Russell led his team like a lamb being led to slaughter, with a FEEBLE FOUR POINTS. Where was Russell's 46 point explosion? And how could Russell just allow Wilt to crush him in EVERY aspect of the game (yes, EVERY single aspect)?

Of course, Wilt almost ALWAYS dominated Russell like that. But, for the first time in their career H2H's, Wilt FINALLY had an EQUAL roster (and that was healthy.) And we saw exactly what would happen when that occurred.

[jongib369]

I love all these opinionated statements this dude is trying to pass off as facts.

Bringing up head to head stats even though neither player guarded each other 48 minutes. Stop acting simple, the longer you stretch your posts won't make anyone believe you any more.

They played different back then, Russell didn't guard him all 48, but he did more so than star plyers guard eachother today. Who else would guard him as effectively? It was a team effort with russell taking the blunt of it. I respect your opinion though as you're obviously a step ahead of a lot of morons on here

[LAZERUSS]

BTW...


Largest comebacks
36 points (:20 left in 2nd) – The Utah Jazz overcame a 36-point deficit[50] to defeat the Denver Nuggets at home on November 27, 1996.[51] Utah trailed 34–70 with 20 seconds remaining in the 1st half, but outscored Denver 73–33 during the rest of the game to win 107–103. This is the largest overall deficit overcome in NBA history.[52]

35 points (8:50 left in 3rd) – The Sacramento Kings were down 79–44 to the Chicago Bulls on December 21, 2009, but the Kings, led by Tyreke Evans's 23 points, charged back, winning the game 102–98.

29 points (8:43 left in 4th) – The Milwaukee Bucks overcame a 29-point deficit to defeat the Atlanta Hawks on the road on November 25, 1977. This is the largest 4th quarter deficit overcome in NBA history. Atlanta led 111–82 when Milwaukee went on a 35–4 run to win 117–115



Of course, I already pointed out a Warrior-Sixer game, in which Wilt's Warriors, led by Chamberlain's 48 points, overcame a 20 point 4th quarter deficit in the SAME SEASON as the '62 EDF's.

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



And how about this PAST season's PLAYOFF's...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201504230NOP.html

Warriors com back from a 20 point 4th quarter deficit to win.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201505140LAC.html

Or this 4th quarter comeback, in which the Rockets overcame a late third period 19 point deficit, and then went on to win by TWELVE points? And an astounding 40-15 margin in the 4th quarter.

So, the more I read those blatantly one-sided (and anti-Wilt) recaps from the '62 EDF's, the more I am inclined to say that they were...pure shit.


So, I'm sorry, but until there is about five minutes remaining, I just don't believe that any 20 point lead is safe.

[La Frescobaldi]

With this new knowledge of Wilt getting owned by Willis Reed, I might just kick his choking ass off my top 10 list.

don't bash on the Captain man. Dude was a phenomenal center at all times even when his knees were jelly which was most days.

Reed was the only guy I ever saw who could physically push Wilt Chamberlain off his mark. Bull strong but with great offensive finesse. The real deal and no mistake.

This is a good thread.
Shaq was amazing in his days, just remorseless in the paint. Chamberlain was too - you could hear the footsteps of doom when either of these guys got the ball down low