Bill Russell vs Wilt Chamberlain

[Marchesk]

Russell highs:

Regular Season (13 seasons)
points: 18.9
rebounds: 24.7
assists: 5.8
FG: 46.7%
FT: 61.2%
fouls: 2.0 (lowest)

PER: 22.8
WS/48: .238
TS%: 50.0

Playoffs (165 games)
points: 22.4
rebounds: 29.9
assists: 6.3
FG: 52.7%
FT: 72.6%
fouls: 2.4 (lowest)

PER: 22.8
WS/48: .286
TS%: 51.9

Wilt highs:

Regular Season (14 seasons)
points: 50.4
rebounds: 27.2
assists: 8.6
FG: 72.7%
FT: 61.3%
fouls: 1.5

PER: 31.8
WS/48: .286
TS%: 68.9

Playoffs (165 games)
points: 37.0
rebounds: 30.2
assists: 9.0
FG: 57.9%
FT: 63.6%
fouls: 1.9

PER: 31.3
WS/48: .329
TS%: 55.6


Note: Literally the only stat Russell had on Wilt was playoff FT%. Tell me again why Russell was better than Wilt?

[SouBeachTalents]

11 > 2

[dubeta]

11/13 vs 2/6

[Marchesk]

11 > 2

8 > 3, 2, 3*

Hondo > Bird, Bron & Dr. J ???

[Nuff Said]

More mvp's, more rings. Won as a damn player coach as well.

[Marchesk]

More mvp's, more rings. Won as a damn player coach as well.

Russell won MVP the year Wilt averaged 50/25. You tell me if that makes sense.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Peak? Wilt.

All-time list? Russell.

Knowing what I know now, who I'd want on my team to build around without any info about the rest of the squad? Russell.

[LAZERUSS]

And how about their 143 career H2H games you ask?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I9jddU8eNWrI8MMOPs_0l58WnjFNADvF4iIcu0Sfz7A/edit?pli=1#gid=0

Chamberlain with an OVERWHELMING margin in virtually EVERY facet of the game.

Oh, and none other than John Wooden...

Had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters and coaches, and it would have likely been Chamberlain holding all those rings.

[Duffy Pratt]

8 > 3, 2, 3*

Hondo > Bird, Bron & Dr. J ???

First off, maybe not, but it's a lot closer than people like to give him credit for. Hondo was a beast, and a nightmare to guard.

Second, the comparison doesn't work because Wilt and Russell played against each other a lot. Honda never played against the guys you mention. When people played against each other, it's fair to compare how much they won.

As Laz likes to point out, Wilt surpassed Russell in just about all the measurable a in their 143 head to head match ups. What he doesn't mention is that
Wilt's team's record in those games was 46-97. And you can say all you want about switching teams, but for me the dispositive fact is that Auerbach would never have agreed to the switch, and he was a much better judge of talent at the time than any of us.

[FKAri]

Wilt, easily. Peak and prime play should be heavily weighted when discussing who was better.

[La Frescobaldi]

First off, maybe not, but it's a lot closer than people like to give him credit for. Hondo was a beast, and a nightmare to guard.

Second, the comparison doesn't work because Wilt and Russell played against each other a lot. Honda never played against the guys you mention. When people played against each other, it's fair to compare how much they won.

As Laz likes to point out, Wilt surpassed Russell in just about all the measurable a in their 143 head to head match ups. What he doesn't mention is that
Wilt's team's record in those games was 46-97. And you can say all you want about switching teams, but for me the dispositive fact is that Auerbach would never have agreed to the switch, and he was a much better judge of talent at the time than any of us.
Havlicek played against Erving many times. Erving is on record that Havlicek was the best defender he ever went up against.
Auerbach tried to recruit Chamberlain to Boston.
Celtics were overwhelmingly, incomprehensibly stacked.

[CavaliersFTW]

Wilt is better and more dominant at Russell than just about everything except free throws (which Russell was also horrible at), and defensive flexibility. Wilt was an even better rim protector than Russell from what I understand, and even a more prolific shot blocker but Russell was quicker and more mobile. Russell is also a little more flexible in offensive mobility in the open court however that is far outweighed by Wilt's overwhelming ability to be fed the ball and score points or make a hand off that got his team points. Wilt is clearly more dominant than Russell by eye test, stats, whatever you want to look at. If you saw them both on the floor you'd be drawn to Wilt as the more potent player by landslide and this would be compared to almost any other player, only some would even be capable of closing the gap a little prime for prime.

HOWEVER. Many Russell proponents point out that his championships speak for themselves. They are not incorrect. There's no way to quantify his ability to win other than just that, an ability to some how keep winning. Baylor for example has mentioned that many centers did more things and had more ability than Russell but he himself said Russell just had this laser focus on winning and no matter what limitations compared to other centers it didn't matter he just somehow kept winning. Russell himself says the same thing, he says his own teammates had more skill than him such as John Havlicek and Sam Jones. Said it didn't matter, he felt he was going to get you a win period. Russell you can't quantify like Wilt. He just wins.

Wilt most dominant ever. Russell greatest winner ever. Whether one would be as effective trying to fill the shoes of the other, well Russell certainly couldn't dominate like Wilt. Could Wilt win like Russell? Maybe but even Wilt didn't think so based on a 90's interview. It's basically an eternal debate who you pick. It's hard to pick against Wilt. But it's also hard to pick against Russell.

[Duffy Pratt]

Havlicek played against Erving many times. Erving is on record that Havlicek was the best defender he ever went up against.
Auerbach tried to recruit Chamberlain to Boston.
Celtics were overwhelmingly, incomprehensibly stacked.

They overlapped in the NBA for two seasons, when Havlicek was like 36 years old, and at that age he was still the toughest defender Erving had faced. People seem to completely neglect Havlicek having been the number one option on three of the Celtics championship squads, two led by Russell and the other by Cowens.

I didn't say that Auerbach would have refused Chamberlain. But he would not have traded Russell for Chamberlain straight up.

[aj1987]

11/13 vs 2/6
6/6 vs 2/6
5/7 vs 2/6
3/5 vs 2/6

:roll: :roll:


http://i.imgur.com/462Zl7b.gif




























































































































































http://i.imgur.com/677iB1V.jpg
















































































































http://i.imgur.com/QZCjmup.jpg

[Duffy Pratt]

Hard to know who blocked more shots. Wilt tended to block shots to prevent a score. Russell's blocks were often also outlet passes. He would not only block the shot, but do it to keep the ball in play and initiate the break. He's the only person I ever saw who would do that with any regularity. So, on that phase at least, I would say that Russell was a better shot blocker.

I would also give Russell the nod as a ball handler and as a passer, though they were both excellent passers.

[WayOfWade]

This particular moment is what sways the argument in Russel's favor for me...

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5124b6e8/turbine/lat-nbagreat_ivvqnikn20081227170638/425/239x425

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Peak for peak, wilt is better

Overall, it's a debate. The argument is mostly based on impact. I find myself not rating Russell as highly as a used to. In general, here is how I see it.

If you take their peak, wilt wins
3 year peak, wilt wins

Overall though, it's a different story.

I recall coach nick said stats back then were misleading. Then again, he said that Bill Walton was the best center ever. Which obviously isn't the case. (Peak is underrated though)

But as a whole?

If Russell had a positive offensive impact throughout his career (skeptical of it tbh) I pick him overall.

While I'm not gonna say "derp he has more ringZ" as an argument, his ridiculous amount of rings do mean something, at least. Wilt obviously deserved more, as does lebron, as does hakeem, and lot of other players.

But I believe that we just yell the word "HOF FTW" without actually looking at how the team played as a whole. Aside from his rookie year, the Celtics went
10-18 without him.

In his rookie year, they went 16-8, which I must note.

its a debate. I don't understand why we look at box score stats when comparing Russell and other players. That isn't exactly his strong suit.

I honestly believe wilt was the better player, but while the idea hat wilt had no intangibles is bs, the fact that Russell won 11 titles in 13 years, 1 year with him being injured, makes me lean towards Russell.

I know, titles are a team achievement, but considering his actual supporting cast was far from as dominating as some may think offensively, I feel that it's close.

Otoh, if we are talking about peaks, I don't have Russell's peak above Garnett, while wilts is in that tier 1 peak level, with mj, shaq, and lebron.

[AirFederer]

One was a coach- and chemistry killing statpadder putting up huge stats when NBA was a "bush league" in his own words, the other was the ultimate team player and winner. Go figure.

https://i.imgflip.com/rq4j8.gif

https://i.imgflip.com/rq4up.gif

[Gileraracer]

Wilt is an old version of Lebron.

Great individual stats but not a winner :lol

Historians, how many times did Wilt collude?


:( :( :( :(

[Nuff Said]

Again, Russell had more mvp's as well. People obviously saw something in him back then that we can no longer see now.

[Quickening]

The idea that Russell is in top 3 of all time just shows how ludicrous individual rankings are when team accomplishments mean so much... he had a chitty per, chitty stat line across the board minus rebounds.

Its literally like putting Deandre Jordan into the 60s on a stacked team for his career, and calling him one of the best of all time. :lol

[Nuff Said]

The idea that Russell is in top 3 of all time just shows how ludicrous individual rankings are when team accomplishments mean so much... he had a chitty per, chitty stat line across the board minus rebounds.

Its literally like putting Deandre Jordan into the 60s on a stacked team for his career, and calling him one of the best of all time. :lol
I'd like to think he's more akin to Duncan. We all know even now Duncan's impact goes beyond his stats and he was still one of his team's best players last season.

[feyki]

Only 64-68 Wilt better than Russell . 60-66 Russell averaged 22-27-6 at playoffs.

[Horatio33]

Was it Bill Bradley who said that if you want to win, then counting stats was meaningless? Isn't the aim of any sport to win? Would you rather have a guy who made his teammates better, or the player who went for stats like Eddy Curry goes for eigths and ninths at a buffet?

If you look at numbers, Karl Malone is a much better basketball player than Tim Duncan. Malone has the most 2,000 point seasons, 12 I think. Think Duncan has one or two. But how do you quantify what makes Duncan a guy who consistently comes through when it matters? What made Malone choke in clutch situations? You can't. Look at Malone's scoring and passing stats. Superior to Duncan's. But Duncan won more.

"But Duncan played with better players." Malone had John Stockton, one of the greatest points ever. He had Jerry Sloan. You can say "but Sloan never coach a championship team." True. But how much of that is in the coaches hands. Once the ball goes up. It's up to the players.

Coming back to Russell and Chamberlain, Wilt was a stats monster. Look at those stats! Even Jordan looks at them and says "wow!" But why did Wilt come up short? Can't be stats. He played with plenty of Hall Of Famers. Jerry West! Who did Russell play with who was borderline top ten ever?

Wilt changed teams a few times. Won't go into why. But Russell playing with the same players year after year helped. Like it did Kareem, Magic and Worthy, Bird Parish and McHale, Duncan, Ginobili and Parker. Trust. Camaraderie. Teamwork. Those players are renowned for it. Wilt clashed with coaches (criticised Dolph Shayes during the playoffs, Butch Van Breda Kolff all season.) Who did Wilt make better? "Well Horatio you idiot, he led the league in assists!" He did, but was that out of duty to his team, or was that like his scoring and rebounding, an individual act in a team game? Doesn't sound like a guy who helps a team win.


All I'm saying is big stats doesn't make you a better basketball player. If it did, Russell Westbrook would be a better point guard than Isiah Thomas.

[feyki]

Was it Bill Bradley who said that if you want to win, then counting stats was meaningless? Isn't the aim of any sport to win? Would you rather have a guy who made his teammates better, or the player who went for stats like Eddy Curry goes for eigths and ninths at a buffet?

If you look at numbers, Karl Malone is a much better basketball player than Tim Duncan. Malone has the most 2,000 point seasons, 12 I think. Think Duncan has one or two. But how do you quantify what makes Duncan a guy who consistently comes through when it matters? What made Malone choke in clutch situations? You can't. Look at Malone's scoring and passing stats. Superior to Duncan's. But Duncan won more.

"But Duncan played with better players." Malone had John Stockton, one of the greatest points ever. He had Jerry Sloan. You can say "but Sloan never coach a championship team." True. But how much of that is in the coaches hands. Once the ball goes up. It's up to the players.

Coming back to Russell and Chamberlain, Wilt was a stats monster. Look at those stats! Even Jordan looks at them and says "wow!" But why did Wilt come up short? Can't be stats. He played with plenty of Hall Of Famers. Jerry West! Who did Russell play with who was borderline top ten ever?

Wilt changed teams a few times. Won't go into why. But Russell playing with the same players year after year helped. Like it did Kareem, Magic and Worthy, Bird Parish and McHale, Duncan, Ginobili and Parker. Trust. Camaraderie. Teamwork. Those players are renowned for it. Wilt clashed with coaches (criticised Dolph Shayes during the playoffs, Butch Van Breda Kolff all season.) Who did Wilt make better? "Well Horatio you idiot, he led the league in assists!" He did, but was that out of duty to his team, or was that like his scoring and rebounding, an individual act in a team game? Doesn't sound like a guy who helps a team win.


All I'm saying is big stats doesn't make you a better basketball player. If it did, Russell Westbrook would be a better point guard than Isiah Thomas.

Isiah's playoffs stats ;

20.5 pts with 21 poss , 9.4 ast , 2.1 stl

West's playoff stats ;

24.1 pts with 25.5 poss , 6.7 ast , 1.8 stl

Isiah clearly better playmaker on stats .

And You can't judge Duncan only points . Duncan way more all around player than Karl Malone and he's goat tier defender .

[Psileas]

Isiah's playoffs stats ;

20.5 pts with 21 poss , 9.4 ast , 2.1 stl

West's playoff stats ;

24.1 pts with 25.5 poss , 6.7 ast , 1.8 stl

Isiah clearly better playmaker on stats .

And You can't judge Duncan only points . Duncan way more all around player than Karl Malone and he's goat tier defender .

West's ppg were 29.1 and his steals were not recorded and were certainly higher than 1.8.
Better playmaker, could be, better player, no.

[swagga]

West's ppg were 29.1 and his steals were not recorded and were certainly higher than 1.8.
Better playmaker, could be, better player, no.

pace?
isiah also RAN a team instead of having license to shoot at will. So you are comparing a PG with a SG, who played in different eras. I'm not sure what your point is.

[swagga]

same old story.

TLDR -> wilt got stats in the detriment of the team.

[LAZERUSS]

same old story.

TLDR -> wilt got stats in the detriment of the team.

Yep...that is why he immediately and dramatically improved every team he joined, and every team he left immediately dropped well below where he left them.

And, he played on 10 teams that went to the Conference Finals, and six teams that went to the Finals. During his 14 seasons, he played on four teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13, as well as two dominant champions.

[Nuff Said]

Yep...that is why he immediately and dramatically improved every team he joined, and every team he left immediately dropped well below where he left them.

And, he played on 10 teams that went to the Conference Finals, and six teams that went to the Finals. During his 14 seasons, he played on four teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13, as well as two dominant champions.
Just curious your thoughts on lebron?

[LAZERUSS]

Just curious your thoughts on lebron?

Already a Top-10 all-time player.

And much like Wilt...every team he joined improved dramatically, and every team he left, fell off the cliff.

[feyki]

West's ppg were 29.1 and his steals were not recorded and were certainly higher than 1.8.
Better playmaker, could be, better player, no.

Ahaha West is Westbrook , not Jerry West :D .

[HighFlyer23]

Both would be D Leaguers today

[jlip]

I have them both on the same GOAT level tier, but if anyone is using "stats" to try and understand why some people rank Russell over Wilt then they don't understand the debate whatsoever.

[ClipperRevival]

Was it Bill Bradley who said that if you want to win, then counting stats was meaningless? Isn't the aim of any sport to win? Would you rather have a guy who made his teammates better, or the player who went for stats like Eddy Curry goes for eigths and ninths at a buffet?

If you look at numbers, Karl Malone is a much better basketball player than Tim Duncan. Malone has the most 2,000 point seasons, 12 I think. Think Duncan has one or two. But how do you quantify what makes Duncan a guy who consistently comes through when it matters? What made Malone choke in clutch situations? You can't. Look at Malone's scoring and passing stats. Superior to Duncan's. But Duncan won more.

"But Duncan played with better players." Malone had John Stockton, one of the greatest points ever. He had Jerry Sloan. You can say "but Sloan never coach a championship team." True. But how much of that is in the coaches hands. Once the ball goes up. It's up to the players.

Coming back to Russell and Chamberlain, Wilt was a stats monster. Look at those stats! Even Jordan looks at them and says "wow!" But why did Wilt come up short? Can't be stats. He played with plenty of Hall Of Famers. Jerry West! Who did Russell play with who was borderline top ten ever?

Wilt changed teams a few times. Won't go into why. But Russell playing with the same players year after year helped. Like it did Kareem, Magic and Worthy, Bird Parish and McHale, Duncan, Ginobili and Parker. Trust. Camaraderie. Teamwork. Those players are renowned for it. Wilt clashed with coaches (criticised Dolph Shayes during the playoffs, Butch Van Breda Kolff all season.) Who did Wilt make better? "Well Horatio you idiot, he led the league in assists!" He did, but was that out of duty to his team, or was that like his scoring and rebounding, an individual act in a team game? Doesn't sound like a guy who helps a team win.


All I'm saying is big stats doesn't make you a better basketball player. If it did, Russell Westbrook would be a better point guard than Isiah Thomas.

This is sort of how i view it. Stats mean nothing if they were accumulated at the expense of winning. Wilt put up those all time great numbers early in his career on bad teams (meaning his 50 and 40 ppg seasons).

You play to win, not put up great stats. I think most people are aware of Wilt's choke jobs over several seasons. That matters. Showing up when it matters most is important.

Also, Russell's will to win and his mental focus was legendary. He took his job seriously. On the flipside, i've heard stories of Wilt not taking it as seriously. The mental aspect also matters.

Not to mention, Wilt was a much bigger man than Russell so he would naturally be able to dominate more. 4 inches taller and about 40-50 lbs heavier. It wasn't like Hakeem or DRob going at it, who were very similar in size. Wilt had the clear advantage in size.

So individually, Wilt was better. But as a leader of a team who can win games, Russell.

[LAZERUSS]

This is sort of how i view it. Stats mean nothing if they were accumulated at the expense of winning. Wilt put up those all time great numbers early in his career on bad teams (meaning his 50 and 40 ppg seasons).

You play to win, not put up great stats. I think most people are aware of Wilt's choke jobs over several seasons. That matters. Showing up when it matters most is important.

Also, Russell's will to win and his mental focus was legendary. He took his job seriously. On the flipside, i've heard stories of Wilt not taking it as seriously. The mental aspect also matters.

Not to mention, Wilt was a much bigger man than Russell so he would naturally be able to dominate more. 4 inches taller and about 40-50 lbs heavier. It wasn't like Hakeem or DRob going at it, who were very similar in size. Wilt had the clear advantage in size.

So individually, Wilt was better. But as a leader of a team who can win games, Russell.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Wilt's 23 "must win" playoff games:


12-11 W-L record

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


3 games of 50+ points

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

13 games of 30+ points

6 games of 30+ rebounds

20 games of 20+ rebounds

Or how about his "must win" and "elimination" games?:



Wilt actually played in 37 "elimination games",...games where either his team faced elimination, or could have clinched the series:

1. W: 53-22-2, 24-42 FG/FGA

2. W: 50-35-2, 22-42

3. L: 26-24-0, 8-18

4. L: 33-23-1, 13-29

5. W: 56-35-1, 22-48

6. W: 32-21-1, 12-29

7. L: 22-22-3, 7-15

8. W: 39-30-?, 19-29

9. L: 30-27-2, 12-28

10. W: 38-26-5, 14-22, 10 blks (Triple-Double)

11. W: 30-26-4, 13-22, 13 blks (Triple-Double)

12. L: 30-32-2, 12-15

13. L: 46-34-?, 19-34

14. W: 18-27-9, 7-14

15. W: 29-36-13, 10-16, 7 blks (Triple-Double)

16. W: 24-23-4, 8-13

17. W: 25-27-3, 10-19

18. L: 28-30-7, 11-21

19. L: 20-27-8, 6-21

20. L: 14-34-5, 4-9

21. W: 11-25-1, 5-9

22. W: 16-29-3, 5-11, 16 blks (Triple-Double)

23. L: 8-18-4, 1-5

24. L: 18-27-3, 7-8

25. W: 36-14-3, 12-20

26. W: 12-26-11, 4-11, 11 blks (Quad-Double)

27. W: 30-27-6, 11-18, 11 blks (Triple-Double)

28. W: 45-27-3, 20-27

29. L: 21-24-4, 10-16

30. W: 25-19-9, 7-12

31. L: 23-12-4, 10-21

32. W: 8-31-8, 4-6

33. W: 20-24-2, 8-12, 10 blks (Triple-Double)

34. W: 24-29-4, 10-14, 8 blks

35. W: 21-28-4, 10-17, 8 blks

36. W: 5-22-7, 2-2

37. L: 23-21-3, 9-16


W-L : 24-13

Here were Wilt's averages in those 37 games:

29.5 ppg

26.1 rpg

4.2 apg (missing one game)

.546 FG% (in post-seasons that shot about .440 on average in that span.)

Keep in mind that 24 of those 37 games came after his "scoring seasons" (59-60 thru 65-66)

Or how about this?


I just finished his H2H elimination games with Russell, Thurmond, and Kareem. Once again, these games are elimination games, or clinching games (where they could eliminate their opponent.)

4 Games vs. Thurmond

Nate: 13.0 ppg, 17.2 rpg, 3.5 apg, .345 FG%
Wilt: 12.3 ppg, 22.0 rpg, 3.8 apg, .633 FG%


2 Games vs. Kareem

Kareem: 28.5 ppg, 20.0 rpg, 6.5 apg, .383 FG%
Wilt: 21.5 ppg, 18.0 rpg, 3.0 apg, .545 FG%


15 Games vs. Russell

Russell: 14.6 ppg, 24.9 rpg, 4.5 apg, .413 FG%
Wilt: 26.9 ppg, 28.3 rpg, 4.6 apg, .505 FG%

Yep...Wilt the "choker."

[feyki]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Wilt's 23 "must win" playoff games:



Or how about his "must win" and "elimination" games?:



Or how about this?



Yep...Wilt the "choker."

Young Wilt was choker until 63-64 season.

His first playoffs dropped from 38 ppg to 33 ppg.

His second playoffs dropped from 38 ppg with %50 fg to 37 ppg with %47 fg.

His third playoffs dropped from 50 ppg with %50 fg to 35 ppg with %47 fg.

And he wasn't make playoffs in his fourth season with 45 ppg .

[CavaliersFTW]

Young Wilt was choker until 63-64 season.

His first playoffs dropped from 38 ppg to 33 ppg.

His second playoffs dropped from 38 ppg with %50 fg to 37 ppg with %47 fg.

His third playoffs dropped from 50 ppg with %50 fg to 35 ppg with %47 fg.

And he wasn't make playoffs in his fourth season with 45 ppg .
G7 against Boston Wilt scored the last 5 points in 1962 after his team was down by 5 to tie the game in just 50 seconds. Clutch. Until Sam Jones hits a buzzer beater.

Also scored 16 points after being down by 11 in the fourth quarter with 10 to go of game 3 or 4 or w/e, took his team from being way behind to way ahead - won the game with 42 points, 35 reb on Russell.

Cousy praised his performances in the playoffs in 1962 and said he was scoring less but playing better 'all-around' basketball. Taking the most dominant Boston team of that time to 7 games and a buzzer beater testifies that.

Oh, Wilt also had a 56 point 35 rebound 12 blocked shot closing game in the series prior - probably the most dominant playoff game a player has ever had from any era - , setting the then playoff record for points in a playoff game as well as 5 other records.

[feyki]

G7 against Boston Wilt scored the last 5 points in 1962 after his team was down by 5 to tie the game in just 50 seconds. Clutch. Until Sam Jones hits a buzzer beater.

Also scored 16 points after being down by 11 in the fourth quarter with 10 to go of game 3 or 4 or w/e, took his team from being way behind to way ahead.

Cousy praised his performances in the playoffs in 1962 and said he was scoring less but playing better 'all-around' basketball. Taking the most dominant Boston team of that time to 7 games and a buzzer beater testifies that.

Oh, Wilt also had a 56 point 35 rebound 12 blocked shot closing game in the series prior, setting the then playoff record for points in a playoff game as well as 5 other records.

Yes , 62 playoffs first all around performances from by Wilt . His assist numbers good at the first time. But on 130 pace 35 ppg less for Wilt . And %47 fg awful for a scoring machine center.

[riseagainst]

6/6 vs 2/6
5/7 vs 2/6
3/5 vs 2/6

:roll: :roll:


http://i.imgur.com/462Zl7b.gif




























































































































































http://i.imgur.com/677iB1V.jpg
















































































































http://i.imgur.com/QZCjmup.jpg



:roll:
:roll:
:lol

[dubeta]

:roll:
:roll:
:lol

#rentfree

[ArbitraryWater]

Peak? Wilt


But Career?





































































Still Wilt

[SHAQisGOAT]

Was it Bill Bradley who said that if you want to win, then counting stats was meaningless? Isn't the aim of any sport to win? Would you rather have a guy who made his teammates better, or the player who went for stats like Eddy Curry goes for eigths and ninths at a buffet?

If you look at numbers, Karl Malone is a much better basketball player than Tim Duncan. Malone has the most 2,000 point seasons, 12 I think. Think Duncan has one or two. But how do you quantify what makes Duncan a guy who consistently comes through when it matters? What made Malone choke in clutch situations? You can't. Look at Malone's scoring and passing stats. Superior to Duncan's. But Duncan won more.

"But Duncan played with better players." Malone had John Stockton, one of the greatest points ever. He had Jerry Sloan. You can say "but Sloan never coach a championship team." True. But how much of that is in the coaches hands. Once the ball goes up. It's up to the players.

Coming back to Russell and Chamberlain, Wilt was a stats monster. Look at those stats! Even Jordan looks at them and says "wow!" But why did Wilt come up short? Can't be stats. He played with plenty of Hall Of Famers. Jerry West! Who did Russell play with who was borderline top ten ever?

Wilt changed teams a few times. Won't go into why. But Russell playing with the same players year after year helped. Like it did Kareem, Magic and Worthy, Bird Parish and McHale, Duncan, Ginobili and Parker. Trust. Camaraderie. Teamwork. Those players are renowned for it. Wilt clashed with coaches (criticised Dolph Shayes during the playoffs, Butch Van Breda Kolff all season.) Who did Wilt make better? "Well Horatio you idiot, he led the league in assists!" He did, but was that out of duty to his team, or was that like his scoring and rebounding, an individual act in a team game? Doesn't sound like a guy who helps a team win.


All I'm saying is big stats doesn't make you a better basketball player. If it did, Russell Westbrook would be a better point guard than Isiah Thomas.

:applause:

[Horatio33]

Wikt fans want it both ways. They say he was the BIGGEST, STRONGEST, could jump the highest, physically overwhelming, etc. they talk about him like a superhero. Superman did things out of this would. Was physically incredible. Frank Deford said Wilt was a "Paul Bunyan figure." Im not up to date on my American myths, but Bunyan was a big guy, right?

So why couldn't he drag his team to more championships? He was physically stronger, more athletic than any player he played against. Lazerus has told us the stories. So why couldn't he help his teams win?

[sd3035]

Didn't read

11 > 2

[oarabbus]

Wilt vs. Russell is like Peyton vs. Brady. And you're wrong if you choose Peyton.

[LAZERUSS]

Wikt fans want it both ways. They say he was the BIGGEST, STRONGEST, could jump the highest, physically overwhelming, etc. they talk about him like a superhero. Superman did things out of this would. Was physically incredible. Frank Deford said Wilt was a "Paul Bunyan figure." Im not up to date on my American myths, but Bunyan was a big guy, right?

So why couldn't he drag his team to more championships? He was physically stronger, more athletic than any player he played against. Lazerus has told us the stories. So why couldn't he help his teams win?

Pretty easy answer.

Team Game.

How come MJ was a "loser" in FIVE of his seasons, and didn't win a title in NINE?

How come KAJ "lost" 14 times in his career?

How come Bird was a "loser" 10 times in his career?

Shaq? Was a "bust" in 15 of his 19 seasons.

Why did Hakeem "lead" his teams down the toilet in 16 of his 18 seasons, and couldn't even make it past the first round in EIGHT of them?



I could go on.

Jordan's '86 Bulls were swept in the first round in the '86 and '87 playoffs, by Bird's Celtics? Yet, Chamberlain took basically last place rosters to game seven losses (by margins of 2 and 1 point) against HOF-laden Celtic teams that won 60+ games, and in series in which he just annihilated Russell.


Then, how come a Chamberlain, with an EQUAL supporting cast (that was healthy) just obliterated Russell and his 60-21 Celtics in '67?

How could a "loser" like Chamberlain, in the twi-light of his career, take down a peak Kareem, and his 63-19 Bucks?

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt vs. Russell is like Peyton vs. Brady. And you're wrong if you choose Peyton.

Except Wilt was blowing away "Brady" in their post-season H2H's.

[sd3035]

Bill was a winner, Wilt a choker


They would both be bench players with limited minutes in today's game

[oarabbus]

Except Wilt was blowing away "Brady" in their post-season H2H's.


How bout in championship count?

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Yep...that is why he immediately and dramatically improved every team he joined, and every team he left immediately dropped well below where he left them.

And, he played on 10 teams that went to the Conference Finals, and six teams that went to the Finals. During his 14 seasons, he played on four teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13, as well as two dominant champions.

I can't call that 100% true, considering the circumstances. He improved the teams, but what healthy atg center doesn't improve teams when he gets on?

And obviously the thing about wilt was that he was generally at the same stratosphere, impact wise, throughout his career. I don't see why we always talk about rookie wilt when rooki wilt wasn't exactly far off from peak wilt.

The idea of using box score stats for this type of debate doesn't make sense.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Pretty easy answer.

Team Game.

How come MJ was a "loser" in FIVE of his seasons, and didn't win a title in NINE?

How come KAJ "lost" 14 times in his career?

How come Bird was a "loser" 10 times in his career?

Shaq? Was a "bust" in 15 of his 19 seasons.

Why did Hakeem "lead" his teams down the toilet in 16 of his 18 seasons, and couldn't even make it past the first round in EIGHT of them?



I could go on.

Jordan's '86 Bulls were swept in the first round in the '86 and '87 playoffs, by Bird's Celtics? Yet, Chamberlain took basically last place rosters to game seven losses (by margins of 2 and 1 point) against HOF-laden Celtic teams that won 60+ games, and in series in which he just annihilated Russell.


Then, how come a Chamberlain, with an EQUAL supporting cast (that was healthy) just obliterated Russell and his 60-21 Celtics in '67?

How could a "loser" like Chamberlain, in the twi-light of his career, take down a peak Kareem, and his 63-19 Bucks?

Last place rosters? They were inept offensively, but went 32-40. Not good, but not really last place, considering they played in a much harder conferende


In the second half of the season, they finished 20-20.
were never really good offensively, with or without wilt. I believe that they were 2nd to last on offense in wilts rookie year.

It's not really fair to call out my on this. On offense, his impact brought a nearly last place roster on offense to above league average, in his rookie year.

A guard can only do so much on defense.


They would have had a better point differential ratin gif the celtics didn't beast on them for 2 games.

I would argue match ups played a part in it. Russell at his best was an off-ball defender. His man defense was great, but not necessarily undisputed GOAT.

With the rivalry, he almost focused on wilt more than he should have, despite what we know about wilt. I mean, I recall he wasn't dominant against Bellamy. (Defensively), but obviously fared better.

As for 67, I hardly think that's fair. Wilt played a completely different role that obviously was better for his team.

But as a whole, only in his first stint was ere a huge drop, and the team went 11-28 with him anyway.

When he left the 6ers, their drop off was mostly on defense. Obviously, they deteriorated offensively a bit, but defensively, with Russell near retirement, they actually were first in the nba.

They were a title level team that went 62 to 55 wins. I don't think any guys really "stepped up" at this time either

(If we are gonna use the Jordan example, it's important to note that most historical facts show pippen stepping up on defense, even more than before. In fact, while there was a huge drop off on offense, more than any in nba history on that point I believe, there was an improvement on defense, the reason they did so well. When Jordan came back, their defense improved again, so I believe this was pippen stepping up)


When he took a scoring role in the Lakers, where he averaged 30 ppg, they went
5-4. Small sample size, but still
The team overall won 46. They won 48 the next year with wilt healthy, west missed 10 games.

And as for impact, the last thing we need to look at is minutes. Wilt played 48.5 minutes a game, and while I wouldn't label him a stat-padder, that season he probably was.playing 48 minutes a game is pretty stupid, and he was very, very lucky not to get injured. But 48 minutes a game would obviously change his stats, nobody is playing more than 40 in the modern era. It's Just stupid.


As for bringing Russell to game 7, a lot of teams did it at the time.

The 34-38 Hawks. Celtics won 44
The 41-31 Hawks. Russell got injured but they won 49
The 35-37 nationals. Celtics won 52
The 46-29 Hawks. Celtics won 59
The 54-26 lakers. Celtics won 60
The 42-38 royals. Celtics won 58
The 45-35 royals. Celtics won 54
The 45-35 lakers. Celtics won 54

All of these teams brought the celtics to game 7.

The celtics went to a game 7 against a non-wilt team in 7 of 13 seasons.

In their entire run, they swept 2 teams. Both of these were the early celtics.

They had 4 years with game 6s as well.

They had more game 7s and 6s than game 5s and 4s, elimination game wise

I would say this was a trait of the celtics. They were ridiculously dominant, but not like the 2001 lakers, more of a controlled dominance

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Pretty easy answer.

Team Game.

How come MJ was a "loser" in FIVE of his seasons, and didn't win a title in NINE?

How come KAJ "lost" 14 times in his career?

How come Bird was a "loser" 10 times in his career?

Shaq? Was a "bust" in 15 of his 19 seasons.

Why did Hakeem "lead" his teams down the toilet in 16 of his 18 seasons, and couldn't even make it past the first round in EIGHT of them?



I could go on.

Jordan's '86 Bulls were swept in the first round in the '86 and '87 playoffs, by Bird's Celtics? Yet, Chamberlain took basically last place rosters to game seven losses (by margins of 2 and 1 point) against HOF-laden Celtic teams that won 60+ games, and in series in which he just annihilated Russell.


Then, how come a Chamberlain, with an EQUAL supporting cast (that was healthy) just obliterated Russell and his 60-21 Celtics in '67?

How could a "loser" like Chamberlain, in the twi-light of his career, take down a peak Kareem, and his 63-19 Bucks?


Honestly, I could hardly call that equal.

The 76ers won 55 without wilt.

The celtics, taking out his rookie year, were 10-18 without Russell.

It's spaced out, but they obviously had continuity.

As for taking down the 63 win bucks, I'm pretty sure the lakers won more than 63.

(This is also the year wilt took a step back)

[LAZERUSS]

I can't call that 100% true, considering the circumstances. He improved the teams, but what healthy atg center doesn't improve teams when he gets on?

And obviously the thing about wilt was that he was generally at the same stratosphere, impact wise, throughout his career. I don't see why we always talk about rookie wilt when rooki wilt wasn't exactly far off from peak wilt.

The idea of using box score stats for this type of debate doesn't make sense.

Rookie Chamberlain took what had been a last place roster, to a 49-26 record, and past a good Syracuse roster in the first round (with an epic 50 point game in the clincher), and then to a game six, two point loss, against HOF-laden 59-16 Celtics team. Furthermore, he badly injured his hand in a melee at the end of game two of that series, and was completely worthless in game three (the only time in their entire playoff career in which Russell badly outplayed him), which resulted in an expected 120-90 loss. He still wasn't back to 100% in game four, and again...another loss. He did explode in a must win game five, with a massive 50-35 game against a basically helpless Russell. And he played well in that game six loss. One can only wonder how that series might have played out had he not been playing hurt for two losses.

He then took the core of that same roster, now older and worse, to a game seven, two point loss against a 60-20 Celtic team in the '62 EDF's.

You want to know Wilt's true impact? Take a look at the 63-64 Warriors. Before the season even started, the Warrior's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a scrimmage, sans Wilt, between the veterans, and a team comprised of rookies and rejects. To his horror, the rejects won.

Wilt then took that same roster, which may have been the worst roster ever surrounding a GOAT, and that had gone 31-49 the year before, to a 48-32 record. Then, facing a much more talented roster in the Hawks (players 2-6 just blew away the Warriors), he single-handedly carried them to a seven game series win, with a monumental 39-23 .559 series (just goes to show you what Chamberlain was capable of when going against a mere all-star center, instead of the all-time greats that he normally faced.) True, his team lost in five games to the Celtics and their EIGHT HOFers, but the last two losses came in the waning seconds. And with Rodgers and Thurmond shooting .256 and .326 in that series, he somehow kept his team in most all the games.

But think about this...his second best teammate in that '64 season was Tom Meschery, who averaged 13.5 ppg on a .458 FG%. The rest of his roster was led by Thurmond's .395 FG%, followed by Hightower at .385, Phillips at .370, and Rodgers at .365.

Wilt was ill for the first half of the 64-65 season, and while he was still a dominant scorer, he was nowhere near 100%. He was traded at mid-season, for three players, and a boatload of cash, to a Sixers team that had gone 34-46 the year before. He then single-handedly took that cast of mis-fits, past Oscar's stacked 48-32 Royals in a first round romp. And then, in the EDF's, and going up against a peak Celtics team that had gone 62-18, he absolutely crushed Russell in a seven game series in which his team lost a game seven by one point.

Meanwhile, Wilt's former team, the Warriors, who were 10-27 with him, went 7-36 without him. BTW, after they traded Wilt, they moved Thurmond to the pivot, where he would become a HOFer, and on of the three greatest defensive centers of all-time.

The Warriors were so bad, that they were able to draft Rick Barry, who would go on to be a Top-20 player all-time. Still, with Thurmond and Barry, the Warriors could only go 35-45.

Meanwhile, Chamberlain would take his Sixers to the best record in the league the next three seasons.

The Warriors continued to add talent, and by the 66-67 season, they fielded a peak Thurmond, who put up a 19-21 season(and finished second in the MVP voting...behind, guess who), and a peak Barry, who would put up the highest scoring full-time, non-Wilt, season in the Wilt era (35.6 ppg.) The Warriors also boasted Paul Neumann, and his 14 ppg (Neumann was part of the Wilt trade), Fred Hetzel, Jeff Mullins, Clyde Lee...and, Meschery, who was now the Warriors SEVENTH best player (11 ppg on a .415 FG%.) With all of that talent...a 44-37 record. Oh, and Wilt's 68-13 Sixers demolished them in the Finals. In a series in which Chamberlain dominated a peak Thurmond.

Again...think about that. Wilt single-handedly took a far less talented roster to a 48-32 record in '64. A record that was still better than the '67 Warriors with their far more talented roster.

Chamberlain engineered his trade to the Lakers before his '69 season. And the "bashers" will scream about this one. Wilt only improved the Lakers by three games, and his former Sixer's team "only" dropped by seven games.

Except the "bashers" ignore REALITY. Wilt was "traded" for three players, two of whom (Archie Clark and Darrall Imhoff), who had combined for 29 ppg and 15 rpg. BUT, it gets even better (or worse)...the Lakers also lost THE prize in the expansion draft, Gail Goodrich, and his 13 ppg in '68. So, Wilt basically replaced 42 ppg. Oh, and Jerry West missed 21 game (LA went 12-9 in them), and Baylor missed six (and LA went 5-1 in those.)

Then, in the first round of the playoffs, Wilt's former team, was blown out (and I mean blown out... by an average margin of +10.4 ppg) in a 4-1 wipe out. On top of that, the Sixers had a healthy Billy Cunningham, who had missed the '68 EDF's, and his 24 ppg in that series. Oh, and Wilt's two "replacements", Imhoff and Clark, combined for 37 ppg, 20 rpg, and collectively shot .510 from the field. With all of that talent, they couldn't approach what an injured Chamberlain had accomplished with a far more injury-riddled roster just the year before (losing a game seven by four points to that same Celtics team.)

And while the '69 Lakers lost in the Finals again, just as they had in the '68 season, they were far more competitive, and in fact, were one play away from winning that series in a 4-1 romp.

Of course, Wilt would lead the Lakers to four Finals in his five seasons in LA, including a 69-13 record and a dominating world title in '72. Meanwhile, the Sixers would continue to crumble, and by the '73 season, they went 9-73.

Chamberlain "retired" following the '73 season (a 60-22 record and a trip to the Finals), and the Lakers plummetted to a 47-35 record, and then a blowout loss in the first round, 4-1, in a series in which they were outscored by 13 ppg.

And LA would continue to decline after that. They went 30-52 in '75, and traded for Kareem. Even with him, they could only improve to 40-42 (and missed the playoffs.) It wasn't until Magic arrived in '80, that the Lakers returned to where Wilt had left them.

Now...that was Chamberlain's true IMPACT.

[Duffy Pratt]

What Bill Bradley and Bill Russell didn't know is that David Stern would transform the game into a contest where individuals would use their teams, and the games that the played, to build a statistical record on which other people could make arguments about who the GOAT of the week is. This week it turns out it's Curry.

Winning doesn't matter, except insofar as it boosts an individual's rank in those GOAT standings. And to do that, its best to have won on the worst team possible. Thus, a guy like Bradley, who was instrumental to two championships, and an amazing player, is consistently ignored, because his stats don't measure up. And stats and accolades are all that matter.

[LAZERUSS]

Honestly, I could hardly call that equal.

The 76ers won 55 without wilt.

The celtics, taking out his rookie year, were 10-18 without Russell.

It's spaced out, but they obviously had continuity.

As for taking down the 63 win bucks, I'm pretty sure the lakers won more than 63.

(This is also the year wilt took a step back)

I already addressed most all of the above. The '69 Sixers were FAR worse than the injury-plagued '68 Sixers, and light years worse than the healthy '67 Philly team.

But, let's discuss Russell.

And yes, you conveniently left out his rookie season.

First of all, Russell joined a 39-33 playoff team in his rookie season (unlike Wilt, who was shackled with a last place roster in his rookie season.) Not only that, though, but Russell was Boston's SECOND pick in the draft...behind future HOFer (and ROY) Tommy Heinsohn.

How good was that Celtic roster in Russell's rookie season? They went 28-20 (.583) in the games in which Russell played...and 16-8 (.667) in the games he missed.

Boston then added Sam Jones in '58.

Now, the Russell supporters will point out his '58 Finals ( six game series loss), and claim that Russell was injured in the last half of that series, and that that was why they lost.

True, he was injured, but let's examine that series a little closer, shall we?

The series was tied 1-1, and in the third quarter of game three, Russell injured his ankle. Without him, Boston still outscored the Hawks in the 4th quarter, in a 111-108 loss.

And without Russell in game four, the Celtics still won by a solid margin (109-98.)

Russell also didn't play in game five...and without him, the Celtics lost by a 102-100 margin.

In game six, Russell made a go of it in the first half, but couldn't continue. Without him, Boston outscored the Hawks in the second half, but lost the game by a 110-109 margin.

Think about that...without Russell for basically the last three games, Boston won one game, and lost the other two by margins of 2 and 1 point!

Of course, Auerbach would continue to add talent every year. By the '63 season, they were fielding NINE HOFers. Hell, they traded for Clyde Lovellette before the start of that season (he averaged 20 ppg in '62 BTW), and yet he was only the 7th best player on the '63 Celtics.

In the mid-60's they traded for Bailey Howell, who was a 20+ ppg scorer before he arrived, and a 20 ppg scorer with Boston. They also added pieces like Wayne Embry and Larry Siegfried. Hell, in game seven of the '69 Finals, Em Bryant scored 20 points!

As for that "10-18" record...very deceptive. Why? Because Russell basically played nearly 48 mpg, and almost every game...so Auerbach didn't see the need for a backup center (he finally traded for Embry in the mid-60's.) So, when Russell wasn't playing, Boston didn't have a true center. Oh, and BTW, the Celtics were a BETTER offensive team..withOUT Russell. My god, they won one game by a 173-139 margin...withOUT him.

Russell was the center-piece to be sure...but those Celtic teams were, by far, the most stacked teams in last half of the 50's, and into the mid-to-late 60's.

[magnax1]

Wilt, in his peak years was better (and honestly no one was probably better) but Russell was more consistent. Throughout his career and his stats don't show the full story.
If you look at 62, or 67 you will see he's right up there with Jordan in terms of dominance, which is something I can't really say about any other player.
Wilt unarguably had a problem with being a team player though. Go watch the game where Kareem broke the 72 Lakers win streak, and youll see Wilt back way off Kareem after getting his third foul because of his insane "Never fouled out in a game" record he loved so much. He did crazy shit like that which definitely led to some losses that shouldn't have been there for him.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt, in his peak years was better (and honestly no one was probably better) but Russell was more consistent. Throughout his career and his stats don't show the full story.
If you look at 62, or 67 you will see he's right up there with Jordan in terms of dominance, which is something I can't really say about any other player.
Wilt unarguably had a problem with being a team player though. Go watch the game where Kareem broke the 72 Lakers win streak, and youll see Wilt back way off Kareem after getting his third foul because of his insane "Never fouled out in a game" record he loved so much. He did crazy shit like that which definitely led to some losses that shouldn't have been there for him.

Kareem couldn't hit the broadside of a barn until Wilt picked up his FOURTH foul (and it was a very questionable foul BTW.) Now, what should have Wilt done? Foul Kareem on his next two shots and leave the game for good? How many other centers would have done that? I know RUSSELL didn't (just watch the 4th quarter of game seven of the '69 Finals, when Russell was nowhere to be found.)

Secondly, find me more examples of Wilt just allowing opposing players to score with five fouls?

I can find one huge game in which he did the exact opposite...

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

[QUOTE]In the 1972 NBA Finals, the Lakers again met the New York Knicks; the Knicks were shorthanded after losing Willis Reed to injury, and so, undersized 6'8" Jerry Lucas had the task to defend against the 7'1" Chamberlain.[91] However, prolific outside shooter Lucas helped New York to win Game 1, hitting nine of his 11 shots in the first half alone; in Game 2, which the Lakers won 106

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

uhh

And anyway, like I said before, for all of his volume scoring they still generally were among the worst in the league on offense. the team was good on defense however.


Rookie Chamberlain took what had been a last place roster, to a 49-26 record, and past a good Syracuse roster in the first round (with an epic 50 point game in the clincher), and then to a game six, two point loss, against HOF-laden 59-16 Celtics team. Furthermore, he badly injured his hand in a melee at the end of game two of that series, and was completely worthless in game three (the only time in their entire playoff career in which Russell badly outplayed him), which resulted in an expected 120-90 loss. He still wasn't back to 100% in game four, and again...another loss. He did explode in a must win game five, with a massive 50-35 game against a basically helpless Russell. And he played well in that game six loss. One can only wonder how that series might have played out had he not been playing hurt for two losses.

Once again, their main improvement was on defense. they were still nearly rock bottom on offense. anyway, they still were 32-40 overall (which is hardly last place today), and finished 20-20. them being HOF laden doesent matter, since they really werent that good without Russell.

He then took the core of that same roster, now older and worse, to a game seven, two point loss against a 60-20 Celtic team in the '62 EDF's.

You want to know Wilt's true impact? Take a look at the 63-64 Warriors. Before the season even started, the Warrior's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a scrimmage, sans Wilt, between the veterans, and a team comprised of rookies and rejects. To his horror, the rejects won.

Wilt then took that same roster, which may have been the worst roster ever surrounding a GOAT, and that had gone 31-49 the year before, to a 48-32 record. Then, facing a much more talented roster in the Hawks (players 2-6 just blew away the Warriors), he single-handedly carried them to a seven game series win, with a monumental 39-23 .559 series (just goes to show you what Chamberlain was capable of when going against a mere all-star center, instead of the all-time greats that he normally faced.) True, his team lost in five games to the Celtics and their EIGHT HOFers,
but the last two losses came in the waning seconds. And with Rodgers and Thurmond shooting .256 and .326 in that series, he somehow kept his team in most all the games.

But think about this...his second best teammate in that '64 season was Tom Meschery, who averaged 13.5 ppg on a .458 FG%. The rest of his roster was led by Thurmond's .395 FG%, followed by Hightower at .385, Phillips at .370, and Rodgers at .365.

The celtics had never been a dominant force offensively, and defensively, they were basically league average without Russell. Also, the low shooting percentage was because of how good the celtics defense was. once again, the team wasnt the best on offense

Wilt was ill for the first half of the 64-65 season, and while he was still a dominant scorer, he was nowhere near 100%. He was traded at mid-season, for three players, and a boatload of cash, to a Sixers team that had gone 34-46 the year before. He then single-handedly took that cast of mis-fits, past Oscar's stacked 48-32 Royals in a first round romp. And then, in the EDF's, and going up against a peak Celtics team that had gone 62-18, he absolutely crushed Russell in a seven game series in which his team lost a game seven by one point.
he was averaging more ppg i believe. the sixers team was something like 18-18 when he came.
Meanwhile, Wilt's former team, the Warriors, who were 10-27 with him, went 7-36 without him. BTW, after they traded Wilt, they moved Thurmond to the pivot, where he would become a HOFer, and on of the three greatest defensive centers of all-time.
The Warriors were so bad, that they were able to draft Rick Barry, who would go on to be a Top-20 player all-time. Still, with Thurmond and Barry, the Warriors could only go 35-45.

Meanwhile, Chamberlain would take his Sixers to the best record in the league the next three seasons.

The Warriors continued to add talent, and by the 66-67 season, they fielded a peak Thurmond, who put up a 19-21 season(and finished second in the MVP voting...behind, guess who), and a peak Barry, who would put up the highest scoring full-time, non-Wilt, season in the Wilt era (35.6 ppg.) The Warriors also boasted Paul Neumann, and his 14 ppg (Neumann was part of the Wilt trade), Fred Hetzel, Jeff Mullins, Clyde Lee...and, Meschery, who was now the Warriors SEVENTH best player (11 ppg on a .415 FG%.) With all of that talent...a 44-37 record. Oh, and Wilt's 68-13 Sixers demolished them in the Finals. In a series in which Chamberlain dominated a peak Thurmond.

Again...think about that. Wilt single-handedly took a far less talented roster to a 48-32 record in '64. A record that was still better than the '67 Warriors with their far more talented roster.

so wilt made a bad roster better? okay.

Chamberlain engineered his trade to the Lakers before his '69 season. And the "bashers" will scream about this one. Wilt only improved the Lakers by three games, and his former Sixer's team "only" dropped by seven games.

Except the "bashers" ignore REALITY. Wilt was "traded" for three players, two of whom (Archie Clark and Darrall Imhoff), who had combined for 29 ppg and 15 rpg. BUT, it gets even better (or worse)...the Lakers also lost THE prize in the expansion draft, Gail Goodrich, and his 13 ppg in '68. So, Wilt basically replaced 42 ppg. Oh, and Jerry West missed 21 game (LA went 12-9 in them), and Baylor missed six (and LA went 5-1 in those.)

thats not exactly how you count it...
replace gordan, evans, and pondexter with durant and im very happy. and we arent adjusting for pace.

didnt the 6ers win 55?

Then, in the first round of the playoffs, Wilt's former team, was blown out (and I mean blown out... by an average margin of +10.4 ppg) in a 4-1 wipe out. On top of that, the Sixers had a healthy Billy Cunningham, who had missed the '68 EDF's, and his 24 ppg in that series. Oh, and Wilt's two "replacements", Imhoff and Clark, combined for 37 ppg, 20 rpg, and collectively shot .510 from the field. With all of that talent, they couldn't approach what an injured Chamberlain had accomplished with a far more injury-riddled roster just the year before (losing a game seven by four points to that same Celtics team.)

uhh, what? replace curry with evans and asik and tehy arent exactly playoff monsters. also, we have to adjust for pace, especially for rebounding

And while the '69 Lakers lost in the Finals again, just as they had in the '68 season, they were far more competitive, and in fact, were one play away from winning that series in a 4-1 romp.

Of course, Wilt would lead the Lakers to four Finals in his five seasons in LA, including a 69-13 record and a dominating world title in '72. Meanwhile, the Sixers would continue to crumble, and by the '73 season, they went 9-73.
why is this relevant? Im also pretty sure that they were stronger than the competition in their conference regardless. theyw ent to 4 finals 6 years prior to wilt joining
Chamberlain "retired" following the '73 season (a 60-22 record and a trip to the Finals), and the Lakers plummetted to a 47-35 record, and then a blowout loss in the first round, 4-1, in a series in which they were outscored by 13 ppg.
they had a continuity rating of 66% if im not wrong.

And LA would continue to decline after that. They went 30-52 in '75, and traded for Kareem. Even with him, they could only improve to 40-42 (and missed the playoffs.) It wasn't until Magic arrived in '80, that the Lakers returned to where Wilt had left them.

that isnt relevant.

Now...that was Chamberlain's true IMPACT.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

I already addressed most all of the above. The '69 Sixers were FAR worse than the injury-plagued '68 Sixers, and light years worse than the healthy '67 Philly team.

But, let's discuss Russell.

And yes, you conveniently left out his rookie season.

and I said that too

First of all, Russell joined a 39-33 playoff team in his rookie season (unlike Wilt, who was shackled with a last place roster in his rookie season.) Not only that, though, but Russell was Boston's SECOND pick in the draft...behind future HOFer (and ROY) Tommy Heinsohn.

and that still is not relevant. Wilt was obviously a better ookie

How good was that Celtic roster in Russell's rookie season? They went 28-20 (.583) in the games in which Russell played...and 16-8 (.667) in the games he missed.

Boston then added Sam Jones in '58.

Now, the Russell supporters will point out his '58 Finals ( six game series loss), and claim that Russell was injured in the last half of that series, and that that was why they lost.

True, he was injured, but let's examine that series a little closer, shall we?

The series was tied 1-1, and in the third quarter of game three, Russell injured his ankle. Without him, Boston still outscored the Hawks in the 4th quarter, in a 111-108 loss.

And without Russell in game four, the Celtics still won by a solid margin (109-98.)

Russell also didn't play in game five...and without him, the Celtics lost by a 102-100 margin.

In game six, Russell made a go of it in the first half, but couldn't continue. Without him, Boston outscored the Hawks in the second half, but lost the game by a 110-109 margin.

Think about that...without Russell for basically the last three games, Boston won one game, and lost the other two by margins of 2 and 1 point!

Of course, Auerbach would continue to add talent every year. By the '63 season, they were fielding NINE HOFers. Hell, they traded for Clyde Lovellette before the start of that season (he averaged 20 ppg in '62 BTW), and yet he was only the 7th best player on the '63 Celtics.

In the mid-60's they traded for Bailey Howell, who was a 20+ ppg scorer before he arrived, and a 20 ppg scorer with Boston. They also added pieces like Wayne Embry and Larry Siegfried. Hell, in game seven of the '69 Finals, Em Bryant scored 20 points!

As for that "10-18" record...very deceptive. Why? Because Russell basically played nearly 48 mpg, and almost every game...so Auerbach didn't see the need for a backup center (he finally traded for Embry in the mid-60's.) So, when Russell wasn't playing, Boston didn't have a true center. Oh, and BTW, the Celtics were a BETTER offensive team..withOUT Russell. My god, they won one game by a 173-139 margin...withOUT him.

Russell was the center-piece to be sure...but those Celtic teams were, by far, the most stacked teams in last half of the 50's, and into the mid-to-late 60's.

what? they still went 4-5 in a small sample size after getting him.

and even so, them not having a starting calibre center shouldnt have led them to go 10-18.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

I also definately need a link to that scrimmage story, but even then, id take it with a grain of salt.

They had a different roster, so its not really relevant to look at a team 10 years into the future. I could say when jordan retired in 98, but he probably wasnt better than curry last year.

Didnt levron take his team to 66 wins?

Aince he played 48 minutes, i would question alot of that. Obviously thats a feat in itself, but todayvplayers wont play more than 40 minutes because of strategy. Assuming he went at 100% qll of the time (best stamona ever o b iously) i feel his impact was expected.

Lets use a player ish likes to hate on, kegin love. In 13-14, they outscored opponebts by 4.6ppg with kevin love on the floor. We know that with him out of the roster they were a 25 ish win team. So with him olaying 48 minutes, if he could go at 100%, they could have won alot more games.

Now, consider the other times he would be goong at benchies...

Just an example, love doesent evene beat peak davis imo, but its an example. And yes, there will be exepctions.

One thing though, imo, a big man can make a bad roster good alot more easily than a guard can. Just adding this on. I respect you as a poster. As long as you dtay under the word limit lol

Anyway. Wilt in 64 was better than any russell year handily. Just adding that on.

Edit:that looks like exagerration more than anything else.

[LAZERUSS]

I also definately need a link to that scrimmage story, but even then, id take it with a grain of salt.

They had a different roster, so its not really relevant to look at a team 10 years into the future. I could say when jordan retired in 98, but he probably wasnt better than curry last year.

Didnt levron take his team to 66 wins?

Aince he played 48 minutes, i would question alot of that. Obviously thats a feat in itself, but todayvplayers wont play more than 40 minutes because of strategy. Assuming he went at 100% qll of the time (best stamona ever o b iously) i feel his impact was expected.

Lets use a player ish likes to hate on, kegin love. In 13-14, they outscored opponebts by 4.6ppg with kevin love on the floor. We know that with him out of the roster they were a 25 ish win team. So with him olaying 48 minutes, if he could go at 100%, they could have won alot more games.

Now, consider the other times he would be goong at benchies...

Just an example, love doesent evene beat peak davis imo, but its an example. And yes, there will be exepctions.

One thing though, imo, a big man can make a bad roster good alot more easily than a guard can. Just adding this on. I respect you as a poster. As long as you dtay under the word limit lol

Anyway. Wilt in 64 was better than any russell year handily. Just adding that on.

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


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."

In fact, read that entire article...

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

[LAZERUSS]

You keep mentioning that Wilt didn't improve his team's offense.

I addressed that in this...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=332617


First of all, Chamberlain DRAMATICALLY raised his TEAM's offense.

'58-59, and before Wilt. ORtg: 7th out of 8 teams. BUT, 103.3 ppg in a league that averaged 108.2. And they shot .381 in a league that shot .395.

'59-60, Wilt's rookie season: ORtg: SEVENTH out of 8 teams. This is hilarious. Wilt's Warriors were THIRD in PPG, at 118.6, in a league that averaged 115.3 ppg. They did shoot slightly behind the league average, .409 to .410, but their actual OFFENSIVE PRODUCTION was a +8.2 over '59 (-4.9 to +3.3.) A STAGGERING increase.

'60-61: ORtg: SIXTH out of 8 teams. Yep, SIXTH, in a league in which they SECOND in PPG (and just barely out of FIRST), at 121.0, and in a league that averaged 118.1 ppg. They also finished SECOND in eFG%, at .424, in a league that shot .415. And, as would almost always be the case, they came in SECOND in FTAs.

'61-62: HILARIOUS. : ORtg of FOURTH. Just how FUNNY was that rating? They STEAMROLLED the NBA that year with one of the HIGHEST scoring seasons in NBA history, at 125.4 ppg....in a league that averaged 118.8 ppg. Oh, and they also were SECOND in eFG%, at .439, in a league that shot .426. FTAs? SECOND.

62-63: FIFTH in ORtg...in a league in which they were 4th in scoring, and 3rd in eFG%. Oh, and they outscored the league average by +3.2 ppg. That their DEFENSE was so horrible could directly be attributed to Wilt and a roster of 15 players who comprised the worst roster in NBA history.

63-64: 6th and deservedly so, despite another monster year from Wilt. Last in scoring, and a -3.3. Still, take Wilt's 36.9 ppg and .524 FG% away, and the team would have shot .402. BTW, there was not one player whoever came close to 20 ppg, whether with, or without Wilt, at any time in their careers on tthat roster except Thurmond, who was Wilt's backup and playing PF (and shooting .395.) As always, Wilt had virtually no help, and NONE of those players were ever decent offensive players at any time in their careers.

64-65: I won't bother breaking it down. The Warriors had no talent, and Wilt was ill for half the season (and played sick.) He was traded to a Sixer team, at mid-season (for three players.) A team that had gone 34-46 the year before and missed the playoffs. He SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried them into the playoffs, where he wiped out Oscar's 48-32 Royals in a first round romp, and then SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried that bottom-feeding team to a game seven, one point loss against a 62-18 Celtic team at it's peak. In a series in which he CARPET-BOMBED Russell with a staggering 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, .555 series. CLEARLY Chamberlain's OFFENSE made a HUGE difference.

65-66: SIXTH out of 9 teams. Yeah right. FOURTH in scoring at 117.3 ppg, in a league that averaged 115.5 ppg (again + in differential), and SECOND in FG% at .446 in a league that shot .433.

66-67: Finally the ORtg gets it right. FIRST. And the reality was, it was one of the most dominant offensive teams of all-time. 125.2 ppg which blew away the league, (average was 117.4 ppg), on a .488 eFG%, which again, was miles better than the runnerup (.453), and WAY over the league average of .441. Oh, and they not only led the league in FTAs, they shot 400 more than the next best team. And even with a poor FT shooting Wilt...FIRST in FTM's! Wilt's IMPACT at the FT line in his ENTIRE career was just remarkable. Maybe I will prove it at another time, but not enough time tonight.

67-68: In a 12 team league...tied for FOURTH. . Ype, all while leading the NBA in scoring at 122.6 ppg in a league that averaged 116.6 (again, just a HUGE differential.) Oh, and they were SECOND (just barely) in FG%, at .471, in a league that shot .446 overall. FTAs? #1. And they easily outscored the league average in FTM's.

68-69: Wilt is traded from Philly to LA. His former team, the Sixers finish 4th in a 14 team league in ORtg. BUT, they also DECLINED in ppg from 122.6 down to 118.9. and their FG% dropped from .471 down to .454.

The Lakers: SEVENTH. But, this is interesting. The Lakers have West and Baylor take the BULK of the FGAs. Their ppg is nearly identical to '68 in both ppg and FG%, and they lead the league in FTAs. Clearly, this was a poorly coached team. And even despite that fact, and losing THREE quality players to get Wilt (Clark, Imhoff, and the Goodrich to the expansion draft), they IMPROVE from '68, going from 52-30 to 55-27. Meanwhile, his former Sixer team drops from 62-20 and a game seven loss in the EDFs (with an injury riddled roster) to 55-27 and a first round blowout loss.

69-70. Wilt is injured in game nine. They drop to 8th in ORtg, BUT 12th overall in ppg, and 7th in FG% (down from 6th and first in '69.) Oh, and remember them leading the league in FTAs in '69? Guess what, 12th in a 14 team league. BUT, in the post-season, and with Wilt back...200 more FTAs than the next best team, and they were MILES ahead of the Knicks in the Finals in FTM!

70-71. ORtg gets it right. With Baylor out for the entire season, and West missing the last 4th of it, Chamberlain STILL leads this team to a tie for 3rd. They actually were 6th in scoring, but as always, ahead of the league average, and second in eFG% (again with TWO HUGE losses.)

71-72: ORtg. FIRST. And even the ridiculous ORtg stat can't hide that fact. Arguably the greatest offensive team of all-time. They outscored the league average by a staggering 11 ppg, and the second best team was a full 5 ppg behind them.

72-73: ORtg. Again FIRST. This would be Wilt's last season.

Wilt "retires"...

73-74. His old team, the Lakers drop to TENTH in ORtg. Third in scoring and 12th in eFG%. And just a shell of the high scoring Wilt-led Laker teams.

CLEARLY, Chamberlain's OFFENSIVE IMPACT was STAGGERING almost his entire career. The ORtg rating...a clear POS.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

ppg is hardly the best way to look at an offense. 91 nuggets

also. pac

dude, effective field goal percentage is just factoring in 3 pointers. its just fg% dude.


First of all, Chamberlain DRAMATICALLY raised his TEAM's offense.

'58-59, and before Wilt. ORtg: 7th out of 8 teams. BUT, 103.3 ppg in a league that averaged 108.2. And they shot .381 in a league that shot .395.


'59-60, Wilt's rookie season: ORtg: SEVENTH out of 8 teams. This is hilarious. Wilt's Warriors were THIRD in PPG, at 118.6, in a league that averaged 115.3 ppg. They did shoot slightly behind the league average, .409 to .410, but their actual OFFENSIVE PRODUCTION was a +8.2 over '59 (-4.9 to +3.3.) A STAGGERING increase.

40.9% is 6th in the league, and they obviously were the worst at free throws. they attempted the 4th most but shot 66%
5th in TS%, but only by 0.001%
last in fts made

'60-61: ORtg: SIXTH out of 8 teams. Yep, SIXTH, in a league in which they SECOND in PPG (and just barely out of FIRST), at 121.0, and in a league that averaged 118.1 ppg. They also finished SECOND in eFG%, at .424, in a league that shot .415. And, as would almost always be the case, they came in SECOND in FTAs.

last in ft%. made the least in the league as well.
5th in TS%


'61-62: HILARIOUS. : ORtg of FOURTH. Just how FUNNY was that rating? They STEAMROLLED the NBA that year with one of the HIGHEST scoring seasons in NBA history, at 125.4 ppg....in a league that averaged 118.8 ppg. Oh, and they also were SECOND in eFG%, at .439, in a league that shot .426. FTAs? SECOND.

4th in TS% 65% from ft
6th in free throws made.

62-63: FIFTH in ORtg...in a league in which they were 4th in scoring, and 3rd in eFG%. Oh, and they outscored the league average by +3.2 ppg. That their DEFENSE was so horrible could directly be attributed to Wilt and a roster of 15 players who comprised the worst roster in NBA history.

actually their defensive rating was 3rd, but not gonna get into that.
uhh, free throws. last in fts made

63-64: 6th and deservedly so, despite another monster year from Wilt. Last in scoring, and a -3.3. Still, take Wilt's 36.9 ppg and .524 FG% away, and the team would have shot .402. BTW, there was not one player whoever came close to 20 ppg, whether with, or without Wilt, at any time in their careers on tthat roster except Thurmond, who was Wilt's backup and playing PF (and shooting .395.) As always, Wilt had virtually no help, and NONE of those players were ever decent offensive players at any time in their careers.

Ok?

64-65: I won't bother breaking it down. The Warriors had no talent, and Wilt was ill for half the season (and played sick.) He was traded to a Sixer team, at mid-season (for three players.) A team that had gone 34-46 the year before and missed the playoffs. He SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried them into the playoffs, where he wiped out Oscar's 48-32 Royals in a first round romp, and then SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried that bottom-feeding team to a game seven, one point loss against a 62-18 Celtic team at it's peak. In a series in which he CARPET-BOMBED Russell with a staggering 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, .555 series. CLEARLY Chamberlain's OFFENSE made a HUGE difference.

well, technically they were 18-18 or something untill wilt game. they finished 40-40, but there were some injuries. a switch.

65-66: SIXTH out of 9 teams. Yeah right. FOURTH in scoring at 117.3 ppg, in a league that averaged 115.5 ppg (again + in differential), and SECOND in FG% at .446 in a league that shot .433.

first of all, thats .002% better than 3rd and 4th.
second of all. free throws. (3rd to last in ft made)

66-67: Finally the ORtg gets it right. FIRST. And the reality was, it was one of the most dominant offensive teams of all-time. 125.2 ppg which blew away the league, (average was 117.4 ppg), on a .488 eFG%, which again, was miles better than the runnerup (.453), and WAY over the league average of .441. Oh, and they not only led the league in FTAs, they shot 400 more than the next best team. And even with a poor FT shooting Wilt...FIRST in FTM's! Wilt's IMPACT at the FT line in his ENTIRE career was just remarkable. Maybe I will prove it at another time, but not enough time tonight.
And thats why this is wilt's peak.

67-68: In a 12 team league...tied for FOURTH. . Ype, all while leading the NBA in scoring at 122.6 ppg in a league that averaged 116.6 (again, just a HUGE differential.) Oh, and they were SECOND (just barely) in FG%, at .471, in a league that shot .446 overall. FTAs? #1. And they easily outscored the league average in FTM's.

honestly, I thought it was first lol.
Otoh free throws.

68-69: Wilt is traded from Philly to LA. His former team, the Sixers finish 4th in a 14 team league in ORtg. BUT, they also DECLINED in ppg from 122.6 down to 118.9. and their FG% dropped from .471 down to .454.

uh, free throws

The Lakers: SEVENTH. But, this is interesting. The Lakers have West and Baylor take the BULK of the FGAs. Their ppg is nearly identical to '68 in both ppg and FG%, and they lead the league in FTAs. Clearly, this was a poorly coached team. And even despite that fact, and losing THREE quality players to get Wilt (Clark, Imhoff, and the Goodrich to the expansion draft), they IMPROVE from '68, going from 52-30 to 55-27. Meanwhile, his former Sixer team drops from 62-20 and a game seven loss in the EDFs (with an injury riddled roster) to 55-27 and a first round blowout loss.

ok? not denying that. otoh, quality is a bit of an overstatement. 15ppg is solid, but not groundbreaking. expecially adjusting for pace, which, while not perfect, does have a correlation when you get to the extremes.
also, they main loss was on defense. obviously, losing wilt meant they loss offense as well, but they didnt crash on offense. they were still 5th in FG% and 2nd in fts, compared to the year before with 10th in fts

69-70. Wilt is injured in game nine. They drop to 8th in ORtg, BUT 12th overall in ppg, and 7th in FG% (down from 6th and first in '69.) Oh, and remember them leading the league in FTAs in '69? Guess what, 12th in a 14 team league. BUT, in the post-season, and with Wilt back...200 more FTAs than the next best team, and they were MILES ahead of the Knicks in the Finals in FTM!

ok. and?


70-71. ORtg gets it right. With Baylor out for the entire season, and West missing the last 4th of it, Chamberlain STILL leads this team to a tie for 3rd. They actually were 6th in scoring, but as always, ahead of the league average, and second in eFG% (again with TWO HUGE losses.)

I recall that they werent the best with baylor anyways.

71-72: ORtg. FIRST. And even the ridiculous ORtg stat can't hide that fact. Arguably the greatest offensive team of all-time. They outscored the league average by a staggering 11 ppg, and the second best team was a full 5 ppg behind them.

Uhh, no. First of all, the 76ers were probably better

72-73: ORtg. Again FIRST. This would be Wilt's last season.

Wilt "retires"...


73-74. His old team, the Lakers drop to TENTH in ORtg. Third in scoring and 12th in eFG%. And just a shell of the high scoring Wilt-led Laker teams.

CLEARLY, Chamberlain's OFFENSIVE IMPACT was STAGGERING almost his entire career. The ORtg rating...a clear POS.

what does POS stand for?

Sk8ter boiiii

https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ID&hl=id&v=TIy3n2b7V9k

wont be able to reply for a while since Im doing work.

[sd3035]

Wilt completely shriveled up as games became more important, typical of his beta personality

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Wilt completely shriveled up as games became more important, typical of his beta personality

No, he didnt.

Not at all tbh. its circumstantial. He scored 10 straight, did all of that, etc.

One bad series, where he was playing hobbled as well, shouldnt change that.

OTOH

Curry is on the road to having the best offensive season in nba history

So congrats.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

i think we all know the real GOAT though.

The one that jordan, kareem, russell, duncan, shaq, lebron, magic, bird, hakeem, garnett, kobe, west, baylor are absolute shit compared to.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2Tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2To

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRRsXxE1KVY

[AirFederer]

https://i.imgflip.com/qoz0t.gif

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

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



In fact, read that entire article...

Dude, I dont think that was literal.

[Smay84]

West's ppg were 29.1 and his steals were not recorded and were certainly higher than 1.8.
Better playmaker, could be, better player, no.

I think he meant Westbrook not Jerry West

[Andrei89]

Russell won MVP the year Wilt averaged 50/25. You tell me if that makes sense.

What a weak damn era man :lol

It is still hilarious to me that a guy who could not shoot freethrows and threes managed to average an insane 50 points per game and 25 rebounds per game.

A weak era where Bill Russel was better and they were playing part time school teachers, mechanics and gardeners.

[Andrei89]

Also, I really dont see how Javale McGee couldnt averages the same in that era.

[feyki]

What a weak damn era man :lol

It is still hilarious to me that a guy who could not shoot freethrows and threes managed to average an insane 50 points per game and 25 rebounds per game.

A weak era where Bill Russel was better and they were playing part time school teachers, mechanics and gardeners.

Why do you think 60's weak? For Wilt's 50 points or 25 ribaunds ?

Wilt played on 130 offensive possesion per game at between 60-63 . Adjust to 2006 Kobe's played poss , Wilt's points to be 29 per game .

Wilt played on 140 ribaunds chances per game at between 60-65 . Adjust to 2009 Howard's , Wilt's ribaunds to be 13 per game .

[Psileas]

Why do you think 60's weak? For Wilt's 50 points or 25 ribaunds ?

Wilt played on 130 offensive possesion per game at between 60-63 . Adjust to 2006 Kobe's played poss , Wilt's points to be 29 per game .

Wilt played on 140 ribaunds chances per game at between 60-65 . Adjust to 2009 Howard's , Wilt's ribaunds to be 13 per game .

Because it's easier to be ignorant and hate than informed and respect. It's already funny enough that fools and trolls like Andrei don't even know what logic to follow to make a certain era seem weak: They pick Wilt's or Russell's enormous stats as evidence of easy era dominance and, therefore...weak era. However, under different circumstances, they pick today's superstars' enormous stats as evidence of all-time greats playing today, therefore: Strong era. :facepalm Someone else had boasted that nobody ever had a 3 game stretch like Curry's first 3 games in terms of PER. So, there you go, weakest era ever confirmed, especially if Curry manages to break the overall PER record. :rolleyes:

PS. Lol at PER anyway.

[feyki]

Because it's easier to be ignorant and hate than informed and respect. It's already funny enough that fools and trolls like Andrei don't even know what logic to follow to make a certain era seem weak: They pick Wilt's or Russell's enormous stats as evidence of easy era dominance and, therefore...weak era. However, under different circumstances, they pick today's superstars' enormous stats as evidence of all-time greats playing today, therefore: Strong era. :facepalm Someone else had boasted that nobody ever had a 3 game stretch like Curry's first 3 games in terms of PER. So, there you go, weakest era ever confirmed, especially if Curry manages to break the overall PER record. :rolleyes:

PS. Lol at PER anyway.

:cheers: :cheers:

[LAZERUSS]

Why do you think 60's weak? For Wilt's 50 points or 25 ribaunds ?

Wilt played on 130 offensive possesion per game at between 60-63 . Adjust to 2006 Kobe's played poss , Wilt's points to be 29 per game .

Wilt played on 140 ribaunds chances per game at between 60-65 . Adjust to 2009 Howard's , Wilt's ribaunds to be 13 per game .

You're point is well taken, but your numbers are slightly off.

First of all, in Wilt's 50 ppg season, the league-wide "pace" was 126.2. True, Wilt's Warriors were at 131.1, but you can't hold that against him, nor his team.

Secondly, in Wilt's 44.8 ppg season, the "pace" was at 119.6 (the Warriors were at 123.2.)

Now, the ACTUAL way to determine Chamberlain's scoring in his 61-62 season, would be to divide FGAs and FTAs by today's numbers.

So, in the 61-62 season, the NBA averaged 108 FGAs per game, per team; and 37 FTAs per game, per team.

Just last season the NBA averaged 84 FGAs per team, per game; and 23 FTAs per team, per game.

Ok, here we go...

Wilt's FGAs in '62 would have declined down to 78% of his actual attempts, or from 39.6 down to 30.8. And his FTAs would have declined down to 62%, or from 17.0 to 10.6.

Chamberlain shot .506 from the field in '62, and .636 from the line.

30.8 x .506 = 15.6 FGM per game...which = 31.2 ppg on his FGAs.

10.6 x .636 = 6.7 FTM per game...which, of course, = 6.7 ppg on his FTAs.

31.2 + 6.7 = 37.9 ppg.

BUT, wait a second. We HAVE to normalize league eFG% as well, or else the '62 NBA's scoring would be well below the '15 scoring. Instead of averaging 100 ppg as the '15 league did, the '62 NBA would only have averaged 89 ppg.

So, we now HAVE to adjust Wilt's eFG%, which again was .506 to '15 levels. Chamberlain shot .506 in a league that shot an eFG% of .426. The '15 NBA shot an eFG% of .496.

Now, .496 divided by .426 yields... 1.16.

Multiply .506 x 1.16 and you get ... .587.

Again, Wilt would have averaged 30.8 FGAs in '15, so we multiply 30.8 x .587, and we arrive at ... 18.1 or... 36.2 ppg on his FGAs.

36.2 ppg from his FGAs, and 6.7 ppg from his FTAs... and we have...
42.9 ppg.


Of course, we could use simple math, as well.

Wilt's NBA averaged 118.8 ppg in '62, and last year the NBA averaged an even 100.0 ppg.

Divide 100.0 by 118.8 and you have... 84.2.

Multiply Wilt's 50.4 ppg by 84.2 and you arrive at ... 42.4 ppg.


Your rebounding numbers are also well off. Why? Because before the '68-69 season, the NBA counted TEAM rebounds. You can add up any team's actual rebounding numbers from bb-reference before '69, and you will find that they are well below their league numbers.

For instance, Chamberlain's '62 Warriors show a team number of 5939 total rebounds. However, if you add up the player's total rebounds, you arrive at 5105. So, their actual average was 63.8 rpg. BUT, keep in mind that you HAVE to use the ENTIRE league average. And my research indicates that team's averaged about 9-10 rpg less than their totals. So, in '62 the league would have averaged about 61 rpg per team. Or about 122 in a typical game.

In '15, the NBA averaged 43 rpg per team, or 86 per game. So, 86 divided by 122 yields 70.4. Multiply Wilt's actual 25.6 rpg by 70.4%, and you arrive at 18.0 rpg.


Of course, Chamberlain is not going to play 48.5 mpg in today's NBA. BUT, keep in mind that he led the league in MPG NINE times in his 14 seasons, and his LOW was 42.3 mpg (at age 35...and at age 36 he played 43.2 mpg...and get this... 47.1 mpg in his 17 playoff games.) In fact, from '60 to '66, he averaged 47 mpg in that seven season span!

Then, as recently as '06, Iverson averaged 43.1 mpg in the regular season, and there have been quite a few in the 40's in the last 15 years. And, in the post-season, the numbers go up considerably (the leaders have been almost always 43+...with Iverson averaging 47.6 mpg in '05.)

Using a logical assumption, a prime Chamberlain likely would have played at least 42 mpg, and perhaps as much as 44+.

But, for the sake of this discussion, let's go with 42.

With Wilt's '15 numbers established at about 42.5 ppg and 18 rpg, we will reduce them down to 42 mpg...or 42 divided by 48.5, which would = .866.

42.5 x .866 = 36.8 ppg.

18.0 x .866 = 15.6 rpg.

There you have it...move a '62 Wilt into the 2015 NBA, play him 42 mpg, and he would put up a season of 36.8 ppg, 15.6 rpg, and shoot .587 from the field (and .636 from the line.)

[feyki]

You're point is well taken, but your numbers are slightly off.

First of all, in Wilt's 50 ppg season, the league-wide "pace" was 126.2. True, Wilt's Warriors were at 131.1, but you can't hold that against him, nor his team.

Secondly, in Wilt's 44.8 ppg season, the "pace" was at 119.6 (the Warriors were at 123.2.)

Now, the ACTUAL way to determine Chamberlain's scoring in his 61-62 season, would be to divide FGAs and FTAs by today's numbers.

So, in the 61-62 season, the NBA averaged 108 FGAs per game, per team; and 37 FTAs per game, per team.

Just last season the NBA averaged 84 FGAs per team, per game; and 23 FTAs per team, per game.

Ok, here we go...

Wilt's FGAs in '62 would have declined down to 78% of his actual attempts, or from 39.6 down to 30.8. And his FTAs would have declined down to 62%, or from 17.0 to 10.6.

Chamberlain shot .506 from the field in '62, and .636 from the line.

30.8 x .506 = 15.6 FGM per game...which = 31.2 ppg on his FGAs.

10.6 x .636 = 6.7 FTM per game...which, of course, = 6.7 ppg on his FTAs.

31.2 + 6.7 = 37.9 ppg.

BUT, wait a second. We HAVE to normalize league eFG% as well, or else the '62 NBA's scoring would be well below the '15 scoring. Instead of averaging 100 ppg as the '15 league did, the '62 NBA would only have averaged 89 ppg.

So, we now HAVE to adjust Wilt's eFG%, which again was .506 to '15 levels. Chamberlain shot .506 in a league that shot an eFG% of .426. The '15 NBA shot an eFG% of .496.

Now, .496 divided by .426 yields... 1.16.

Multiply .506 x 1.16 and you get ... .587.

Again, Wilt would have averaged 30.8 FGAs in '15, so we multiply 30.8 x .587, and we arrive at ... 18.1 or... 36.2 ppg on his FGAs.

36.2 ppg from his FGAs, and 6.7 ppg from his FTAs... and we have...
42.9 ppg.


Of course, we could use simple math, as well.

Wilt's NBA averaged 118.8 ppg in '62, and last year the NBA averaged an even 100.0 ppg.

Divide 100.0 by 118.8 and you have... 84.2.

Multiply Wilt's 50.4 ppg by 84.2 and you arrive at ... 42.4 ppg.


Your rebounding numbers are also well off. Why? Because before the '68-69 season, the NBA counted TEAM rebounds. You can add up any team's actual rebounding numbers from bb-reference before '69, and you will find that they are well below their league numbers.

For instance, Chamberlain's '62 Warriors show a team number of 5939 total rebounds. However, if you add up the player's total rebounds, you arrive at 5105. So, their actual average was 63.8 rpg. BUT, keep in mind that you HAVE to use the ENTIRE league average. And my research indicates that team's averaged about 9-10 rpg less than their totals. So, in '62 the league would have averaged about 61 rpg per team. Or about 122 in a typical game.

In '15, the NBA averaged 43 rpg per team, or 86 per game. So, 86 divided by 122 yields 70.4. Multiply Wilt's actual 25.6 rpg by 70.4%, and you arrive at 18.0 rpg.


Of course, Chamberlain is not going to play 48.5 mpg in today's NBA. BUT, keep in mind that he led the league in MPG NINE times in his 14 seasons, and his LOW was 42.3 mpg (at age 35...and at age 36 he played 43.2 mpg...and get this... 47.1 mpg in his 17 playoff games.) In fact, from '60 to '66, he averaged 47 mpg in that seven season span!

Then, as recently as '06, Iverson averaged 43.1 mpg in the regular season, and there have been quite a few in the 40's in the last 15 years. And, in the post-season, the numbers go up considerably (the leaders have been almost always 43+...with Iverson averaging 47.6 mpg in '05.)

Using a logical assumption, a prime Chamberlain likely would have played at least 42 mpg, and perhaps as much as 44+.

But, for the sake of this discussion, let's go with 42.

With Wilt's '15 numbers established at about 42.5 ppg and 18 rpg, we will reduce them down to 42 mpg...or 42 divided by 48.5, which would = .866.

42.5 x .866 = 36.8 ppg.

18.0 x .866 = 15.6 rpg.

There you have it...move a '62 Wilt into the 2015 NBA, play him 42 mpg, and he would put up a season of 36.8 ppg, 15.6 rpg, and shoot .587 from the field (and .636 from the line.)

I agree with yours .I was overlooked for a quick example .

Possessions and points per possesions most important point at adjusting the numbers .

Good information :rockon: .

[LAZERUSS]

I agree with yours .I was overlooked for a quick example .

Possessions and points per possesions most important point at adjusting the numbers .

Good information :rockon: .

:cheers:

Incidently, Cousins averaged 24.1 ppg (on a .467 FG%), and 12.7 rpg in 34.1 mpg last season.

Just adjusting his mpg from 34.1 to 42 mpg, and he would have averaged 29.6 ppg and 15.7 rpg in 42 mpg last year.

Of course, we have no indication that Cousins could play an 82 game schedule at 42 mpg (nor even an 82 game schedule for that matter...he played 59 games last year.) Not only that, but his efficiency's would surely decline as his mpg went up (and likely decline even more over an 82 game schedule.)

BTW, the wilt "bashers" always hold "pace" against Chamberlain, but they never adjust for FG%, nor do they make the logical assumption that a Wilt, "only" playing 42 mpg, instead of 48 (and over the course of a full season), would almost certainly see an increase in his efficiency's (FG% and TRB% as a couple of examples.)

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Because it's easier to be ignorant and hate than informed and respect. It's already funny enough that fools and trolls like Andrei don't even know what logic to follow to make a certain era seem weak: They pick Wilt's or Russell's enormous stats as evidence of easy era dominance and, therefore...weak era. However, under different circumstances, they pick today's superstars' enormous stats as evidence of all-time greats playing today, therefore: Strong era. :facepalm Someone else had boasted that nobody ever had a 3 game stretch like Curry's first 3 games in terms of PER. So, there you go, weakest era ever confirmed, especially if Curry manages to break the overall PER record. :rolleyes:

PS. Lol at PER anyway.

PER is a stupid stat

But offensively, he keeps this up and its the best offensive season ever

People need to realize that he only plays around 30-33 minutes a game

Its ridiculous that Curry winning the mvp can make someone think this is a "weak era"

Id like to see an arguement for last seasons curry not to be a top 5 season by a pg ever.

[feyki]

:cheers:

Incidently, Cousins averaged 24.1 ppg (on a .467 FG%), and 12.7 rpg in 34.1 mpg last season.

Just adjusting his mpg from 34.1 to 42 mpg, and he would have averaged 29.6 ppg and 15.7 rpg in 42 mpg last year.

Of course, we have no indication that Cousins could play an 82 game schedule at 42 mpg (nor even an 82 game schedule for that matter...he played 59 games last year.) Not only that, but his efficiency's would surely decline as his mpg went up (and likely decline even more over an 82 game schedule.)

BTW, the wilt "bashers" always hold "pace" against Chamberlain, but they never adjust for FG%, nor do they make the logical assumption that a Wilt, "only" playing 42 mpg, instead of 48 (and over the course of a full season), would almost certainly see an increase in his efficiency's (FG% and TRB% as a couple of examples.)

"Shaquille didn't have quite the same athleticism that Wilt had," said Jackson. "He had the bounce and he had the speed, but he didn't have the endurance."

Shaq had better physical endurance than Cousins . Cousins has a big problem with his stamina.

[Pointguard]

You're point is well taken, but your numbers are slightly off.

First of all, in Wilt's 50 ppg season, the league-wide "pace" was 126.2. True, Wilt's Warriors were at 131.1, but you can't hold that against him, nor his team.

Secondly, in Wilt's 44.8 ppg season, the "pace" was at 119.6 (the Warriors were at 123.2.)

Now, the ACTUAL way to determine Chamberlain's scoring in his 61-62 season, would be to divide FGAs and FTAs by today's numbers.

So, in the 61-62 season, the NBA averaged 108 FGAs per game, per team; and 37 FTAs per game, per team.

Just last season the NBA averaged 84 FGAs per team, per game; and 23 FTAs per team, per game.

Ok, here we go...

Wilt's FGAs in '62 would have declined down to 78% of his actual attempts, or from 39.6 down to 30.8. And his FTAs would have declined down to 62%, or from 17.0 to 10.6.

Chamberlain shot .506 from the field in '62, and .636 from the line.

30.8 x .506 = 15.6 FGM per game...which = 31.2 ppg on his FGAs.

10.6 x .636 = 6.7 FTM per game...which, of course, = 6.7 ppg on his FTAs.

31.2 + 6.7 = 37.9 ppg.

BUT, wait a second. We HAVE to normalize league eFG% as well, or else the '62 NBA's scoring would be well below the '15 scoring. Instead of averaging 100 ppg as the '15 league did, the '62 NBA would only have averaged 89 ppg.

So, we now HAVE to adjust Wilt's eFG%, which again was .506 to '15 levels. Chamberlain shot .506 in a league that shot an eFG% of .426. The '15 NBA shot an eFG% of .496.

Now, .496 divided by .426 yields... 1.16.

Multiply .506 x 1.16 and you get ... .587.

Again, Wilt would have averaged 30.8 FGAs in '15, so we multiply 30.8 x .587, and we arrive at ... 18.1 or... 36.2 ppg on his FGAs.

36.2 ppg from his FGAs, and 6.7 ppg from his FTAs... and we have...
42.9 ppg.


Of course, we could use simple math, as well.

Wilt's NBA averaged 118.8 ppg in '62, and last year the NBA averaged an even 100.0 ppg.

Divide 100.0 by 118.8 and you have... 84.2.

Multiply Wilt's 50.4 ppg by 84.2 and you arrive at ... 42.4 ppg.


Your rebounding numbers are also well off. Why? Because before the '68-69 season, the NBA counted TEAM rebounds. You can add up any team's actual rebounding numbers from bb-reference before '69, and you will find that they are well below their league numbers.

For instance, Chamberlain's '62 Warriors show a team number of 5939 total rebounds. However, if you add up the player's total rebounds, you arrive at 5105. So, their actual average was 63.8 rpg. BUT, keep in mind that you HAVE to use the ENTIRE league average. And my research indicates that team's averaged about 9-10 rpg less than their totals. So, in '62 the league would have averaged about 61 rpg per team. Or about 122 in a typical game.

In '15, the NBA averaged 43 rpg per team, or 86 per game. So, 86 divided by 122 yields 70.4. Multiply Wilt's actual 25.6 rpg by 70.4%, and you arrive at 18.0 rpg.


Of course, Chamberlain is not going to play 48.5 mpg in today's NBA. BUT, keep in mind that he led the league in MPG NINE times in his 14 seasons, and his LOW was 42.3 mpg (at age 35...and at age 36 he played 43.2 mpg...and get this... 47.1 mpg in his 17 playoff games.) In fact, from '60 to '66, he averaged 47 mpg in that seven season span!

Then, as recently as '06, Iverson averaged 43.1 mpg in the regular season, and there have been quite a few in the 40's in the last 15 years. And, in the post-season, the numbers go up considerably (the leaders have been almost always 43+...with Iverson averaging 47.6 mpg in '05.)

Using a logical assumption, a prime Chamberlain likely would have played at least 42 mpg, and perhaps as much as 44+.

But, for the sake of this discussion, let's go with 42.

With Wilt's '15 numbers established at about 42.5 ppg and 18 rpg, we will reduce them down to 42 mpg...or 42 divided by 48.5, which would = .866.

42.5 x .866 = 36.8 ppg.

18.0 x .866 = 15.6 rpg.

There you have it...move a '62 Wilt into the 2015 NBA, play him 42 mpg, and he would put up a season of 36.8 ppg, 15.6 rpg, and shoot .587 from the field (and .636 from the line.)

:cheers:
Wow, Great Work!

[KevinNYC]

Havlicek played against Erving many times. Erving is on record that Havlicek was the best defender he ever went up against.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVqV_f2CAAAi4aQ.jpg

[La Frescobaldi]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVqV_f2CAAAi4aQ.jpg

lolol

"Take a deep drag on that, J. Fact of it, just smoke that whole stoge right on down, and I'll get you about 50 more of em. That way I won't have to run so hard next season"

[Timmy D for MVP]

To attempt to prove this either way with stats is ludicrous.

I remain consistent about what I look for in a player. I would take Russell over everyone not named Jordan. Same as I take Duncan over Shaq today. When someone wins so consistently, over such a long period of time, it can no longer be a mistake. Something is happening because the team is built around that player.

I said it before: Russell was an absolute basketball genius and knew how to best serve his team. That is why the Celtics were so dominant. If you put Wilt on the Celtics during the same stretch I am quite convinced that he would still not approach 11 titles.

[bizil]

The Russ vs. Wilt comparison is the PERFECT CASE to analyze GOAT status vs. peak value-better player status. GOAT wise, I would lean to Russ. Because GOAT status is your resume. But in terms of the better player in general, ITS EASILY WILT! I would also take these centers over Russ peak or better player wise:

Kareem
Shaq
Moses
Robinson
Dream
Ewing
Walton
McAdoo (his MVP and scoring titles were at center)

[feyki]

The Russ vs. Wilt comparison is the PERFECT CASE to analyze GOAT status vs. peak value-better player status. GOAT wise, I would lean to Russ. Because GOAT status is your resume. But in terms of the better player in general, ITS EASILY WILT! I would also take these centers over Russ peak or better player wise:

Kareem
Shaq
Moses
Robinson
Dream
Ewing
Walton
McAdoo (his MVP and scoring titles were at center)


Yes , they are better scorer than Russell . But Russell greatest player of nba history . You shouldn't look only score , basketball is compact game. Possesions controls(Ribaunds,Turnovers,Misses) , Offence(Assists,Points and Points n Assist reduction , An example Wilt Chamberlain self production points was 36 at 61-62 season) , Defence ( Bill Russell had between around 7.5-13 defensive effect per game in season to season at his career ) .

[Nuff Said]

To attempt to prove this either way with stats is ludicrous.

I remain consistent about what I look for in a player. I would take Russell over everyone not named Jordan. Same as I take Duncan over Shaq today. When someone wins so consistently, over such a long period of time, it can no longer be a mistake. Something is happening because the team is built around that player.

I said it before: Russell was an absolute basketball genius and knew how to best serve his team. That is why the Celtics were so dominant. If you put Wilt on the Celtics during the same stretch I am quite convinced that he would still not approach 11 titles.
Exactly. People criticize him and try to find faults in his game. He won 11 fuxing titles. Why the **** would he change his winning formula? If he started ball dominating and scoring like Wilt that could potentially throw team chemistry off. He had no need to do anything outside of what he was already doing, which was stacking up rings. His 5 mvp's are a testament to that. The league recognized his greatness even with Wilt's dominating stats. There's no point in trying to fix something that isn't broke, **** that, trying to fix something that works exceptionally well.

And with Wilt having seasons of 50 ppg and 44 ppg it's a testament to Jordan's greatness how he was still able to edge him as leading scorer per season. Jordan without any 40 point season still number 1.