Russell-Wilt Missed FGAs in Post-Season H2H's

[LAZERUSS]

Interesting stat...thanks to Julizaver...


In their 49 post-season games Wilt shot 502 from 982 attempts, Russell shot 296 from 710 attempts. Wilt missed 480 shots, while Russell missed 414, which means that Russell missed 86 % of the shots Wilt missed.


So, Russell missed nearly the same amount of FGAs as Chamberlain did in their 49 career playoff H2H's.

[Gileraracer]

Damn that era was weak :eek:

[ISHGoat]

Damn that era was weak :eek:

Damn youre a bad poster :eek:

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Interesting stat...thanks to Julizaver...




So, Russell missed nearly the same amount of FGAs as Chamberlain did in their 49 career playoff H2H's.


That's 41.7%, and Russell is a career 44% shooter though

(Though that is counting his earlier years)

[LAZERUSS]

That's 41.7%, and Russell is a career 44% shooter though

(Though that is counting his earlier years)

In their 10 years in the league together, Russell shot .439 against the entire NBA, while Wilt shot .520.

In their post-season H2H's, Russell shot .417 to Wilt's .513..

BTW, in his "scoring" prime years, Wilt averaged 39.6 ppg on a .515 FG% against the entire NBA (in leagues that shot about .420 in that same span), and he averaged 31 ppg on a .507 FG% against Russell in their 30 playoff H2H's..

Overall, in their known 143 career H2H's, which is almost all of them now, Chamberlain outshot Russell by a .497 to .382 margin.

[LAZERUSS]

That's 41.7%, and Russell is a career 44% shooter though

(Though that is counting his earlier years)

But again...what is interesting, though, is that Russell missed nearly as many shots as Wilt did. Think about that. Chamberlain took considerably more shots, and made FAR more...and yet, they both missed about the same number.

[Gileraracer]

But again...what is interesting, though, is that Russell missed nearly as many shots as Wilt did. Think about that. Chamberlain took considerably more shots, and made FAR more...and yet, they both missed about the same number.

WOW :eek:

[LAZERUSS]

WOW :eek:

Wilt the "Ball Hog" vs Russell the "Team Player"...and they essentially missed the same number of FGAs.

Evidently Russell's misses were more "clutch" though.

[Dresta]

What about missed FTAs?

[Dr Hawk]

Russell is clutch, has the intangibles and http://st.forocoches.com/foro/images/smilies/blahblah2.gifhttp://st.forocoches.com/foro/images/smilies/blahblah2.gifhttp://st.forocoches.com/foro/images/smilies/blahblah2.gifhttp://st.forocoches.com/foro/images/smilies/blahblah2.gifhttp://st.forocoches.com/foro/images/smilies/blahblah2.gifhttp://st.forocoches.com/foro/images/smilies/blahblah2.gifhttp://st.forocoches.com/foro/images/smilies/blahblah2.gif

[AnaheimLakers24]

Shaq would go 500-500 in that shit era

[aj1987]

Interesting stat...thanks to Julizaver...




So, Russell missed nearly the same amount of FGAs as Chamberlain did in their 49 career playoff H2H's.
What you're saying is that a shitty scorer missed nearly the same amount of shots as the "GOAT" (as you claim) scorer? :applause: :applause:

No wonder Russell is top 5 and Wilt is barely top 10.


Shaq would go 500-500 in that shit era
Dude has a career average of 24/11 in a strong AF era. He'd averaged 40/20 on 80% in that garbage ass janitor era.

[ClipperRevival]

It's well documented how Wilt was all about his personal stats. Chick Hearn said that Wilt would come over to the scorers tables at halftime and look over his stat sheet and regularly argue over the amount of points/rebounds he had.

Cousy said if Wilt had 1/3 of the determination of Russell, he would unquestionably be the GOAT.

Wali Jones said that the team was too dependent on Wilt and that it wasn't optimal basketball whereas Russell did whatever it took to win.

Face it, Wilt was a transcendent talent and truly special but the guy wasn't completely right in the head. He wasn't a killer. He didn't want it as bad as Russell and simply didn't maximize his talents.

And history is judging him accordingly.

[ClipperRevival]

Here's a stat for you:

Russell won 7 of 8 playoff series against Wilt.
Russell is 4-0 in game 7s against Wilt.

Funny part about all this is that Wilt could've made this much more respectable with his two infamous game 7 loses in 1968 and 1969 to Russell. He wins those two, he has 2 more rings, is 2-2 in game 7s and is 3-5 against Russell in playoff matchups. Pretty much a wash.

But again, it is what it is. For Wilt to give away the 1968 and 1969 playoffs is what really hurts his legacy.

[ClipperRevival]

Check out the first 2 minutes or so of this documentary and what they say about Wilt. That saids it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ5nG8lOn_Y

[ClipperRevival]

As an individual talent, Wilt was superior to Russell. He was 3-4 inches taller and depending on when they played, 30-70 lbs heavier. He was just a much bigger man than Russell while still maintaining a high level of athleticism. But again, bball isn't a one on one game. It's a team sport where the superstar needs to find the optimal way to play the game to help your team win, not just put up nice stats. That's what Wilt lacked that Russell had.

[dankok8]

Here's a stat for you:

Russell won 7 of 8 playoff series against Wilt.
Russell is 4-0 in game 7s against Wilt.

Funny part about all this is that Wilt could've made this much more respectable with his two infamous game 7 loses in 1968 and 1969 to Russell. He wins those two, he has 2 more rings, is 2-2 in game 7s and is 3-5 against Russell in playoff matchups. Pretty much a wash.

But again, it is what it is. For Wilt to give away the 1968 and 1969 playoffs is what really hurts his legacy.

I agree with this assessment. Wilt hurt his legacy from 1968-1970. I've heard the injury excuses and that he didn't choke. Ok then he's an injury prone player to be hurt three years in a row...

And for completeness sake, let us also mention that Wilt made 312/640 free throws and Russell 156/258. So Wilt missed 328 free throws and Russell missed 102.

[Stringer Bell]

Russell= 11
Wilt= 2

[ClipperRevival]

I agree with this assessment. Wilt hurt his legacy from 1968-1970. I've heard the injury excuses and that he didn't choke. Ok then he's an injury prone player to be hurt three years in a row...

And for completeness sake, let us also mention that Wilt made 312/640 free throws and Russell 156/258. So Wilt missed 328 free throws and Russell missed 102.

I think in those 4 game 7s, Wilt's team lost by a total of like 9 points or something. I'm sure Wilt's teams could've used a few more of those FTs.

[ClipperRevival]

Wilt:

1968 - Game 7 - 4/15 FT at 40% and 14 points - 76ers lost by 4 points
1969 - Game 7 - 4/13 FT at 31% and 18 points - Lakers lost by 2 points

[Dr Hawk]

Wilt:

1968 - Game 7 - 4/15 FT at 40% and 14 points - 76ers lost by 4 points
1969 - Game 7 - 4/13 FT at 31% and 18 points - Lakers lost by 2 points

Who made it possible to be within 4 p

[LAZERUSS]

I agree with this assessment. Wilt hurt his legacy from 1968-1970. I've heard the injury excuses and that he didn't choke. Ok then he's an injury prone player to be hurt three years in a row...

And for completeness sake, let us also mention that Wilt made 312/640 free throws and Russell 156/258. So Wilt missed 328 free throws and Russell missed 102.

Yeah...Wilt really blew it. He should have pulled a Kareem and just plain missed the biggest game when he was hurt, and let a teammate lead them to the title.

we KNOW that Wilt played with multiple injuries, including a tear in his calf muscle. We also KNOW that Kareem skipped out on the last big game of his prime with a sprained ankle.

Oh, and while KAJ missed two separate chucks of two separate seasons with a broken hand...we KNOW that Chamberlain not only played in a clinching Finals game with one badly sprained wrist, and the other FRACTURED...but that he DOMINATED that game, as well.

And it also looks like Wilt heavily outscored Russell from the line, as well. Of course, if Wilt went 7-8 from the field, and 4-13 from the line, and Russell went 2-7 from the field, and 2-4 from the line in the SAME game, and Wilt's team lost by two points, ...it was WILT's fault.

Yep, outshooting Russell by a .621 to .333 TS% , but yes...Wilt CHOKED.

[LAZERUSS]

As an individual talent, Wilt was superior to Russell. He was 3-4 inches taller and depending on when they played, 30-70 lbs heavier. He was just a much bigger man than Russell while still maintaining a high level of athleticism. But again, bball isn't a one on one game. It's a team sport where the superstar needs to find the optimal way to play the game to help your team win, not just put up nice stats. That's what Wilt lacked that Russell had.

Game 5 of the '66 EDF's...Wilt's teammates had collectively shot .352 in this series, so Chamberlain took it upon himself to bring his Sixers back from a 3-1 deficit. He poured in 46 pts, and grabbed 34 rebounds,...just crushing Russell in the process. BUT, without ANY help, his team was beaten 120-112.

Ok, fast forward to the very next year. Now it was Russell's team that was down 3-1, and facing elimination against Wilt's Sixers. Did Russell rise up and overpower Wilt with a 46-34 game, when it was obvious that Wilt's teammates had finally neutralized his? Hell no...he quietly led them like a lamb being led to slaughter. In that "must win" game, the legendary "clutch" Russell, who "owned" Wilt...hung...get this...FOUR points. On a meager 2-5 shooting from the floor...in a blowout loss. Oh, and all Chamberlain did was crush him with a 29 point game, 22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close (proving that had he needed to Wilt could have poured in yet another 40+ point game on a helpless Russell.) And he did on 10-16 shooting, while outassisting Russell, 13-7, and outrebounding Russell, 36-21.

What happened? Why couldn't Russell summon up a "Wilt game" and destroy Chamberlain?

[LAZERUSS]

[QUOTE=Dr Hawk]Who made it possible to be within 4 p

[Dresta]

What about missed FTAs?


..?

[CavaliersFTW]

It's well documented how Wilt was all about his personal stats. Chick Hearn said that Wilt would come over to the scorers tables at halftime and look over his stat sheet and regularly argue over the amount of points/rebounds he had.

Cousy said if Wilt had 1/3 of the determination of Russell, he would unquestionably be the GOAT.

Wali Jones said that the team was too dependent on Wilt and that it wasn't optimal basketball whereas Russell did whatever it took to win.

Face it, Wilt was a transcendent talent and truly special but the guy wasn't completely right in the head. He wasn't a killer. He didn't want it as bad as Russell and simply didn't maximize his talents.

And history is judging him accordingly.
Russell did the same thing about rebounds.

*EDIT*

And the guy in your avatar, Michael Jordan, did the same thing about his own stats.

All well documented. That criticism is akin to pot calling a kettle black. All the great superstars that I'm aware of have used numbers as a measure of their own greatness and would like to know what they did on a given night.

[LAZERUSS]

..?

Chamberlain shot slightly worse from the line, all while outscoring Russell by EXACTLY a 2-1 margin in their post-season H2H's (312-156.)

[LAZERUSS]

Russell= 11
Wilt= 2

John Wooden.

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

[ClipperRevival]

[QUOTE=Dr Hawk]Who made it possible to be within 4 p

[ClipperRevival]

Game 5 of the '66 EDF's...Wilt's teammates had collectively shot .352 in this series, so Chamberlain took it upon himself to bring his Sixers back from a 3-1 deficit. He poured in 46 pts, and grabbed 34 rebounds,...just crushing Russell in the process. BUT, without ANY help, his team was beaten 120-112.

Ok, fast forward to the very next year. Now it was Russell's team that was down 3-1, and facing elimination against Wilt's Sixers. Did Russell rise up and overpower Wilt with a 46-34 game, when it was obvious that Wilt's teammates had finally neutralized his? Hell no...he quietly led them like a lamb being led to slaughter. In that "must win" game, the legendary "clutch" Russell, who "owned" Wilt...hung...get this...FOUR points. On a meager 2-5 shooting from the floor...in a blowout loss. Oh, and all Chamberlain did was crush him with a 29 point game, 22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close (proving that had he needed to Wilt could have poured in yet another 40+ point game on a helpless Russell.) And he did on 10-16 shooting, while outassisting Russell, 13-7, and outrebounding Russell, 36-21.

What happened? Why couldn't Russell summon up a "Wilt game" and destroy Chamberlain?

Show me where I talked about his 1966 season. I've said it before that prior to 1967, he didn't have the TEAMS to beat Russell but 1967 forward, he did.

[Dr Hawk]

You do know Wilt's 76ers were up 3-1 against the Celtics in 1968 and proceeded to lose 3 straight right? 2 of those 3 were at home, including game 7. Here are his stats from those 3 games.

20.7 PPG, 6.7 FT made on 16.0 FTA at 42%.


Or how about 1969? Wilt's Lakers are again up 3-2 and proceed to lose the next 2, including game 7 at home.

13.0 PPG, 5.0 FT made on 11.5 FTA at 44%

We are talking about a GOAT candidate here. Where is the domination? Why SHRINK in the biggest moments?

Do you blame Kobe for losing against the Suns in 06' despite being up 3-1?

[ClipperRevival]

Better question...just how in the hell did that Sixer team even make to the EDF's that year, much less lose a game seven by four points...

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

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

Oh, in what could have been a clinching win in game five, a hobbled Chamberlain, who was NOTICEABLY LIMPING the entire series, just Carpet-bombed Russell. He outscored him 28-8; outrebounded him, 30-24; and outshot him from the floor, 11-21 to 4-10. But alas, with HALF of his roster either injured, or completely missing the series, and he himself playing with assorted injuries...they lost.

BTW, after that series Russell commented, "A lessor man would not have played." Which basically meant...that NO ONE ELSE would have played under the same circumstances.

Outside of Cunningham, what other important player missed that series?

[ClipperRevival]

Do you blame Kobe for losing against the Suns in 06' despite being up 3-1?

Completely unrelated because no one expected the Lakers to have a chance. On the flip side, the 76ers had the best record in the NBA that year (62-20) and were EXPECTED to beat an old and aging Celtics team. The FACT that they were up 3-1 and lost the next 3 (2 of the them at home) makes it that much worse.

[Dr Hawk]

Completely unrelated because no one expected the Lakers to have a chance. On the flip side, the 76ers had the best record in the NBA that year (62-20) and were EXPECTED to beat an old and aging Celtics team. The FACT that they were up 3-1 and lost the next 3 (2 of the them at home) makes it that much worse.

Ok, I didn't know that

[LAZERUSS]

You do know Wilt's 76ers were up 3-1 against the Celtics in 1968 and proceeded to lose 3 straight right? 2 of those 3 were at home, including game 7. Here are his stats from those 3 games.

20.7 PPG, 6.7 FT made on 16.0 FTA at 42%.


Or how about 1969? Wilt's Lakers are again up 3-2 and proceed to lose the next 2, including game 7 at home.

13.0 PPG, 5.0 FT made on 11.5 FTA at 44%

We are talking about a GOAT candidate here. Where is the domination? Why SHRINK in the biggest moments?


You know that Wilt's '68 Sixers weren't even favored in the first round, right? Why? Because HALF of their roster was hurting. And yet Chamberlain led them to the EDF's, in a series in which he crushed Bellamy-Reed-Frazier, by leading both teams in scoring, rebounding, assists, and FG%, (and likely blocked shots, as well.)

And then in the EDF's, let's post his entire margin over Russell, oh, again, all with Wilt NOTICEABLY LIMPING the entire series...and playing every minute of it...

He outscored Russell, 22.1 ppg to 13.7 ppg
He outrebounded Russell, 25.1 to 21.4 rpg
He outassisted Russell, 6.8 apg to 4.1 apg
And he outshot Russell from the floor, .487 to .440 (which, BTW was one of only two of their eight post-season H2H's in which he failed to shoot .500+ ...and Russell never approached that number in any of them.)

Again...al playing with an assortment of documented injuries, and with HALF of his key teammates either playing hurt, missing games, or missing the entire series.

All ending in a game seven, four point loss.


And again...say what you want about Wilt's play in the '69 Finals...in his game seven against Russell...

He outscored him, 18-6; outshot him, 7-8 to 2-7; outrebounded him, 27-21; and had a higher TS% of .621 to .333...all in a two point loss (and with his COACH benching him in the last five minutes.) Oh, and subtract Wilt's and Russell's FG%'s in that game...and Russell's teammates outshot Wilt's by a .477 to .360 margin...again...in a two point win.

[LAZERUSS]

Ok, I didn't know that

They were NOT expected to beat Boston in '68. They were not even favored in their first round.

[Dr Hawk]

They were NOT expected to beat Boston in '68. They were not even favored in their first round.

How is that if they were the #1 RS team?

[dunksby]

It's well documented how Wilt was all about his personal stats. Chick Hearn said that Wilt would come over to the scorers tables at halftime and look over his stat sheet and regularly argue over the amount of points/rebounds he had.

Cousy said if Wilt had 1/3 of the determination of Russell, he would unquestionably be the GOAT.

Wali Jones said that the team was too dependent on Wilt and that it wasn't optimal basketball whereas Russell did whatever it took to win.

Face it, Wilt was a transcendent talent and truly special but the guy wasn't completely right in the head. He wasn't a killer. He didn't want it as bad as Russell and simply didn't maximize his talents.

And history is judging him accordingly.
Only GOAT candidate to have his teammate win FMVP in a losing effort :lol
He also famously guaranteed a win before 1969 game 7 but asked to be benched in the 4th quarter because of an injury and while he was out the Lakers mounted a come back and then he asked to be let in again but Kolff told him "we are doing fine without you" :roll:

[ClipperRevival]

You know that Wilt's '68 Sixers weren't even favored in the first round, right? Why? Because HALF of their roster was hurting. And yet Chamberlain led them to the EDF's, in a series in which he crushed Bellamy-Reed-Frazier, by leading both teams in scoring, rebounding, assists, and FG%, (and likely blocked shots, as well.)

And then in the EDF's, let's post his entire margin over Russell, oh, again, all with Wilt NOTICEABLY LIMPING the entire series...and playing every minute of it...

He outscored Russell, 22.1 ppg to 13.7 ppg
He outrebounded Russell, 25.1 to 21.4 rpg
He outassisted Russell, 6.8 apg to 4.1 apg
And he outshot Russell from the floor, .487 to .440 (which, BTW was one of only two of their eight post-season H2H's in which he failed to shoot .500+ ...and Russell never approached that number in any of them.)

Again...al playing with an assortment of documented injuries, and with HALF of his key teammates either playing hurt, missing games, or missing the entire series.

All ending in a game seven, four point loss.


And again...say what you want about Wilt's play in the '69 Finals...in his game seven against Russell...

He outscored him, 18-6; outshot him, 7-8 to 2-7; outrebounded him, 27-21; and had a higher TS% of .621 to .333...all in a two point loss (and with his COACH benching him in the last five minutes.) Oh, and subtract Wilt's and Russell's FG%'s in that game...and Russell's teammates outshot Wilt's by a .477 to .360 margin...again...in a two point win.

Like I asked you before, outside of Cunningham, what key player missed this series?

[LAZERUSS]

Outside of Cunningham, what other important player missed that series?

Obviously you did not read those articles did you?

HALF of their roster was injured, missed games, or missed the entire series. Jackson and Wali Jones were both injured in game five, and were worthless the rest of the series. In fact,. Jones could only play a few minutes in game six, and didn't score a point...in an 8 point loss.

Now, do you think Russell's Celtics beat a completely healthy Sixer team in that series, and with Havlicek missing the entire series, and with half of his other players playing hurt, and with Russell, himself, limping?

Give me your honest answer.

Of course, we already know how a healthy Sixer squad and a healthy Wilt performed against Boston just the year before, don't we?

[ClipperRevival]

Obviously you did not read those articles did you?

HALF of their roster was injured, missed games, or missed the entire series. Jackson and Wali Jones were both injured in game five, and were worthless the rest of the series. In fact,. Jones could only play a few minutes in game six, and didn't score a point...in an 8 point loss.

Now, do you think Russell's Celtics beat a completely healthy Sixer team in that series, and with Havlicek missing the entire series, and with half of his other players playing hurt, and with Russell, himself, limping?

Give me your honest answer.

Of course, we already know how a healthy Sixer squad and a healthy Wilt performed against Boston just the year before, don't we?

:facepalm :rolleyes:

You really are a hopeless, biased Wilt stan and bring ZERO objectivity to the table. Jones scored 18 points in game 7 and Jackson scored 15 points, both of which were more than Wilt's 14 points. :facepalm

[LAZERUSS]

:facepalm :rolleyes:

You really are a hopeless, biased Wilt stan and bring ZERO objectivity to the table. Jones scored 18 points in game 7 and Jackson scored 15 points, both of which were more than Wilt's 14 points. :facepalm

Jackson shot 7-17, and Jones shot 8-22. BTW, Greer shot 8-25, and Walker shot 8-22 (and Guokas, 2-10.) And with that inept shooting, and not passing the ball into Wilt (which has been documented), they lost that game seven, by four points.

[ClipperRevival]

Jackson shot 7-17, and Jones shot 8-22. BTW, Greer shot 8-25, and Walker shot 8-22. And with that inept shooting, and not passing the ball into Wilt (which has been documented), they lost that game seven, by four points.

The sky is blue, the Earth is round and it's not Wilt's fault. :applause:

[CavaliersFTW]

:facepalm :rolleyes:

You really are a hopeless, biased Wilt stan and bring ZERO objectivity to the table. Jones scored 18 points in game 7 and Jackson scored 15 points, both of which were more than Wilt's 14 points. :facepalm
"It was a mistake not to get Wilt the ball" - Wali Jones, after Wilt only touched the ball twice in the 2nd half due to Wali and the other guards.

[ClipperRevival]

"It was a mistake not to get Wilt the ball" - Wali Jones, after Wilt only touched the ball twice in the 2nd half due to Wali and the other guards.

Yeah, I saw that part. What else is a TEAMMATE of Wilt going to say, "I wish Wilt would've tried harder to get open?" Come on man. Teammates cover for each other in hindsight, they almost always do.

2 touches in the 2nd half. So the excuse now is:

"My teammates didn't get me the ball."

This is just comedy. You Wilt fans do nothing but give freaken excuses.

[LAZERUSS]

"It was a mistake not to get Wilt the ball" - Wali Jones, after Wilt only touched the ball twice in the 2nd half due to Wali and the other guards.

Even Alex Hannum admitted afterwards that he, as a coach, blew that game.

But again...with HALF of their roster injured, and missing games, or the entire series...including injuries to Wilt that reduced Willis Reed to a bystander in the last three games of the '70 Finals (and he STILL won a FMVP...:roll: :roll: :roll: )...

did anyone in their right mind honestly expect that Sixer team to even get to a game seven?

[ClipperRevival]

IT'S NOT WILT'S FAULT!!!!!! :roll:

[ClipperRevival]

Only GOAT candidate to have his teammate win FMVP in a losing effort :lol
He also famously guaranteed a win before 1969 game 7 but asked to be benched in the 4th quarter because of an injury and while he was out the Lakers mounted a come back and then he asked to be let in again but Kolff told him "we are doing fine without you" :roll:

Legendary stuff indeed. Right up there with MJ's final shot.

[LAZERUSS]

Legendary stuff indeed. Right up there with MJ's final shot.

You should do some reading on the '72 WCF's, and then Finals.

[LAZERUSS]

BTW...no answer to this yet...


Now, do you think Russell's Celtics beat a completely healthy Sixer team in that series, and with Havlicek missing the entire series, and with half of his other players playing hurt, and with Russell, himself, limping?

Give me your honest answer.

Of course, we already know how a healthy Sixer squad and a healthy Wilt performed against Boston just the year before, don't we?

[ClipperRevival]

And I asked you and you didn't answer: Besides Cunningham, what other player missed that series?

[LAZERUSS]

And I asked you and you didn't answer: Besides Cunningham, what other player missed that series?

Larry Costello.

But let's recap...


So what's new? Injuries have plagued the defending NBA champions since the opening of the season.

"Alex Hannum says this is the most courageous team he's ever coached," says Harvey Pollack, the 76ers' statistician. "The locker room looks like a hospital ward every time I walk in."

Pollack ticked off some of the cases, which read like a medical diary:

-Wilt Chamberlain (partial tear of the calf muscle in his right leg, a strain in his right thigh and an injured right toe):

-Wally Jones (injured knee cartilage):

-Luke Jackson (pulled hamstring muscle):

-Hal Greer (bursitus in his right knee):

-And, Billy Cunningham (broken right wrist).

"That's not mentioning (rookie) Jim Reid who had a knee operation after injuring it the first game of the season," said Pollack, "and Larry Costello," the veteran guard who tore an ankle tendon after one-third of the season was gone.

The most recent injury was to Chamberlain in Friday night's Eastern Division playoff contest with the Celtics. The dipper was given whirlpool treatments for the calf muscle tear, but Pollack wasn't sure how he'd respond.

The 76ers have nine men in uniform for the best-of-seven playoffs, which they lead, two games to one. But whether they'll have anybody left for the finals against the Western Division winner is anybody's guess.

The team's troubles multiplied in the Eastern Division semifinals against the New York Knickerbockers. Cunningham broke his wrist, knocking him out for the season, Jones and Jackson suffered their injuries and Chamberlain aggravated his perennial toe injury.

[SpanishACB]

Jackson shot 7-17, and Jones shot 8-22. BTW, Greer shot 8-25, and Walker shot 8-22 (and Guokas, 2-10.) And with that inept shooting, and not passing the ball into Wilt (which has been documented), they lost that game seven, by four points.

that's a whole lot of offensive boards to get and then put in for the goat rebounder and scorer the game has ever seen don't you think?

[Asukal]

Wilt is Russell's b!tch! The original choke god. :oldlol: :roll:

30->22->18=2/6 rings

[dankok8]

There is 3 explanations for Wilt not performing from 1968-1970:

a) he just wasn't that good

b) he was injured

c) he choked


Option a) is ridiculous because we saw what Wilt did in the regular season. He was clearly capable of playing better.

I subscribe to option c) which is the least damning. If Wilt fans really want to go with b)... I mean he really was injured in the 1968 EDF, 1969 Finals, and 1970 Finals... Fine.

But isn't a guy who gets hurt in 3 consecutive postseasons fairly classified as an injury prone player? If he's not a choker then he's just injury prone.

[LAZERUSS]

There is 3 explanations for Wilt not performing from 1968-1970:

a) he just wasn't that good

b) he was injured

c) he choked


Option a) is ridiculous because we saw what Wilt did in the regular season. He was clearly capable of playing better.

I subscribe to option c) which is the least damning. If Wilt fans really want to go with b)... I mean he really was injured in the 1968 EDF, 1969 Finals, and 1970 Finals... Fine.

But isn't a guy who gets hurt in 3 consecutive postseasons fairly classified as an injury prone player? If he's not a choker then he's just injury prone.

First of all, let me ask you this...

Give me a list of players, in the history of the game, that have put up a 22-25-7 seven game playoff series.

Secondly, how many playoff games did this "injury-prone" player miss in his entire career? Furthermore, are you DISPUTING those injuries?

Now, if you believe that Wilt CHOKED in the '68 EDF's, '69 Finals, and the '70 Finals. Then what do we make of Kareem?

If a Wilt who averaged a 22-25-7 in a series (and was at 24-23-6 .539 in his first five games of that series) is considered a choker...is it based on his last two games (in which he still snagged a ton of rebounds)? Because, in the clinching game five of the '70 EDF's, Willis Reed raped Kareem. Plain-and-simple...in a 132-96 win!

Same thing in the '74 Finals. Let's forget everything KAJ did prior to game seven. In game seven, he was outplayed (and badly in the 4th quarter, by a guy with 5 fouls), on his home floor, in yet another blowout loss.

And what do we make of a Kareem conveniently skipping the last big game of his prime? And watching his team play BETTER without him? The pansie missed a critical game with an ankle sprain. Yet Chamberlain was playing every minute of every game with an assortment of injuries, including the same injury that left Willis Reed a bystander.

Or that the wussie Kareem would miss chunks of a season, on two separate occasions, with a broken wrist. And yet Chamberlain hung a 24-29-8 10-14 clinching game five win in a Finals with one badly sprained wrist, and the other fractured. Hell, KAJ would miss games with headaches for cryingoutloud.

BTW, Wilt was exceptional in game seven of the '69 Finals. So, using your "choke" logic, we can't hold that series against him.

Maybe you think Wilt "choked" in the '70 Finals. Yep, taking a huge under-dog into a game seven, and then hanging a 21-24 10-16 game...all while Walt Frazier was raping Jerry West. Or that Chamberlain hung a 45-27 in a must win game six. Or that, overall, a one-legged Wilt, who had no business even playing at all that season...put up a 23-24 .625 FG% Finals.

Go ahead and give us your explanation.

[LAZERUSS]

IT'S NOT WILT'S FAULT!!!!!! :roll:

You tell me...


So what's new? Injuries have plagued the defending NBA champions since the opening of the season.

"Alex Hannum says this is the most courageous team he's ever coached," says Harvey Pollack, the 76ers' statistician. "The locker room looks like a hospital ward every time I walk in."

Pollack ticked off some of the cases, which read like a medical diary:

-Wilt Chamberlain (partial tear of the calf muscle in his right leg, a strain in his right thigh and an injured right toe):

-Wally Jones (injured knee cartilage):

-Luke Jackson (pulled hamstring muscle):

-Hal Greer (bursitus in his right knee):

-And, Billy Cunningham (broken right wrist).

"That's not mentioning (rookie) Jim Reid who had a knee operation after injuring it the first game of the season," said Pollack, "and Larry Costello," the veteran guard who tore an ankle tendon after one-third of the season was gone.

The most recent injury was to Chamberlain in Friday night's Eastern Division playoff contest with the Celtics. The dipper was given whirlpool treatments for the calf muscle tear, but Pollack wasn't sure how he'd respond.

The 76ers have nine men in uniform for the best-of-seven playoffs, which they lead, two games to one. But whether they'll have anybody left for the finals against the Western Division winner is anybody's guess.

The team's troubles multiplied in the Eastern Division semifinals against the New York Knickerbockers. Cunningham broke his wrist, knocking him out for the season, Jones and Jackson suffered their injuries and Chamberlain aggravated his perennial toe injury.

BTW, all Chamberlain could do was hang a 22-25-7 seven game series, all while wiping the floor with Russell.

Of course, I'm sure you can give us all here a long list of players who have hung 22-25-7 seven game series (and maybe you can include their known injuries in that list, as well.)

Yep. No excuses for Wilt.

The WILT DOUBLE-STANDARD.

[dankok8]

First of all, let me ask you this...

Give me a list of players, in the history of the game, that have put up a 22-25-7 seven game playoff series.

Secondly, how many playoff games did this "injury-prone" player miss in his entire career? Furthermore, are you DISPUTING those injuries?

Now, if you believe that Wilt CHOKED in the '68 EDF's, '69 Finals, and the '70 Finals. Then what do we make of Kareem?

If a Wilt who averaged a 22-25-7 in a series (and was at 24-23-6 .539 in his first five games of that series) is considered a choker...is it based on his last two games (in which he still snagged a ton of rebounds)? Because, in the clinching game five of the '70 EDF's, Willis Reed raped Kareem. Plain-and-simple...in a 132-96 win!

Same thing in the '74 Finals. Let's forget everything KAJ did prior to game seven. In game seven, he was outplayed (and badly in the 4th quarter, by a guy with 5 fouls), on his home floor, in yet another blowout loss.

And what do we make of a Kareem conveniently skipping the last big game of his prime? And watching his team play BETTER without him? The pansie missed a critical game with an ankle sprain. Yet Chamberlain was playing every minute of every game with an assortment of injuries, including the same injury that left Willis Reed a bystander.

Or that the wussie Kareem would miss chunks of a season, on two separate occasions, with a broken wrist. And yet Chamberlain hung a 24-29-8 10-14 clinching game five win in a Finals with one badly sprained wrist, and the other fractured. Hell, KAJ would miss games with headaches for cryingoutloud.

BTW, Wilt was exceptional in game seven of the '69 Finals. So, using your "choke" logic, we can't hold that series against him.

Maybe you think Wilt "choked" in the '70 Finals. Yep, taking a huge under-dog into a game seven, and then hanging a 21-24 10-16 game...all while Walt Frazier was raping Jerry West. Or that Chamberlain hung a 45-27 in a must win game six. Or that, overall, a one-legged Wilt, who had no business even playing at all that season...put up a 23-24 .625 FG% Finals.

Go ahead and give us your explanation.

I'm not denying his injuries. It's a fact he was injured.

But isn't it bad he was injured in three consecutive playoffs? Shouldn't that be held against him on some level?

I'm seriously asking you.

[LAZERUSS]

I'm not denying his injuries. It's a fact he was injured.

But isn't it bad he was injured in three consecutive playoffs? Shouldn't that be held against him on some level?

I'm seriously asking you.

Even most reasonable Wilt fans will acknowledge his '69 Finals were a black-eye. BTW, he wasn't playing injured in that series, until late in game seven.

But even in that game there are a bunch of myths. Charley Rosen went so far as to claim that his team was AHEAD and that it was Boston that mounted a come-back, and then that Wilt supposedly feared for his legacy, and feigned an injury.

The REALITY was, LA had already begun a huge comeback when Wilt went down. They were down 17 at the ten minute mark, and with a little over five minutes left, they had cut the margin to seven....or 10 points. The Lakers continued to charge, and pulled within two, but alas, they ran out of time. In any case, they had wiped out 10 points in about five minutes, and then only five more in the last five (with Wilt on the bench.)

Now does anyone honestly believe that Chamberlain would have faked an injury, and pulled himself out, with his team mounting a furious come-back? If he were going to fake it, he would have done it much earlier.

And the bottom line...Wilt played very well in that game seven...as he almost always did in "must win" games. True, he deserved some blame for his poor play in a couple of other games...but the fact remains, he played well in game seven. Aside from West, the rest of his teammates choked, and were badly outplayed. Meanwhile, Russell got a 20 point performance from Em Bryant. Probably Boston's 8th guy, and he gives them 20 in a game seven.


As for '68, I don't see how anyone who actually researched that series could hold it against Wilt. He was noticeably limping in the entire series, and even Russell acknowledged that no one else would have been playing (even Russell missed playoff games with injuries.)

Sure, he played poorly in the last two games (albeit, in game seven EVERYONE on his team played poorly.) But, he dominated Russell in the first five games (again, a 24-23-6 .539 FG% series thru game five), and in that potential closeout game five, he wiped the floor with Russell.

The reality was, this team was so decimated by injuries that it was a miracle that they even made it to a game seven. In fact, observers at the time thought that the up-and-coming Knicks would beat them in the first round. Of course the Wilt-bashers never bring up that series. A series in which he pummeled the Bellamy-Reed-Frazier trio with a 25-24-6 .584 series, all while just crushing Bellamy (BTW, Bellamy had shot .541 during the regular season, but against Wilt in this series... .421.)


And how about this fact. Wilt was "traded" for three players in the off-season, two of whom (Archie Clark and Darrell Imhoff) would averaged a combined 36-20 on a .510 FG% in the first round of the '69 playoffs. On top of that, Billy Cunningham, who had missed the EDF's in '68, averaged 24 ppg in that series. Guess what...the Sixers were blown out in the first round (by an average of 10 ppg...and that included their lone win.)

Think about that. A hobbled Wilt had dragged an injury-decimated roster to a game seven in the EDF's against that same team just the year before. And he was basically replaced by 60 ppg in the '69 first round, and yet, that team was destroyed by a 48-34 Boston team.

THAT was Wilt's true IMPACT.


As for the '70 Finals.

Again, how many times have you read someone here mention that a Wilt, only a few months removed from major knee surgery, led a first round comeback from a 3-1 deficit, with three straight monster games, including a 30-27-6-10 game seven?

Or that they swept the Hawks, who had HCA, in the next round?

Or that they were clear under-dogs to the 60-22 Knicks in the Finals? Or that a one-legged Wilt battled a much healthier Willis Reed to a draw in the first four games. Or that his Lakers were tied at that point 2-2...when a fully healthy KAJ could only get his 56-26 Bucks one win against the same Knicks team in the EDF's. Or that Wilt was battering Reed in the first quarter of game five, when Reed went down. In fact, the Knicks were down by 10 at the time. Or that even the NY Times writer, Leonard Koppett claimed that the officials handed that game five to the Knicks (Wilt and West were mauled the entire second half...and the two combined for a total of 5 FGAs.)

Or that in game six, and against a "Todd MacCulloch" type center, that Chamberlain hung a "must win" game of 45 points, on 20-27 shooting, and with 27 rebounds. {I'm not kidding on the MacCulloch comparison BTW...that 6-11 stumble-bum was a career 6-4 guy.)

Or that in game seven, Wilt was the ONLY Laker to show up. He shot 5-10 from the floor in the first half...while his teammates collectively shot .333. Oh, and the "stats-padder" had 11 points and 12 rebounds in the first half, and 10 points and 12 rebounds in the second half.

Or that in the last three pivotal games, a one-legged Wilt held an 88-11 scoring margin; a 71-3 rebounding margin; and a .708 to .400 FG% margin over the FMVP? I know...Reed missed that game six, but still...how does a guy who contributed absolutely nothing in the last three games of a series that was tied 2-2 when he went down...win a FMVP? All while being crushed by his opposing center (who, himself, was playing only four months after major knee surgery)

And you gotta love the "bashers." "Wilt scored 45 in game six, why couldn't he do it in game seven?" Of course, how come a fully healthy Jordan could only score 19 points in a blowout sweeping loss following his 63 point game? Why didn't he score 63 every game? Same with a fully healthy, and peak KAJ in game seven of the '74 Finals. Where was his game six performance in that game seven blowout loss on his home-court?

But, that's the thing. Wilt has always been held to a higher standard. When other players are injured, and either play poorly, or not at all, they are pitied. Look at Larry Bird. The man seemingly was playing hurt in every poor post-season series he played in (and he had several.) Even if he played spectacularly just the series prior. "Oh, if only Bird had been healthy."

But, if Chamberlain put up a 23-24 .625 FG% seven game Finals, following an injury, and a surgery that took Elgin Baylor over a year to even get back to remotely close to the player he had been (and in fact, never would again), well he was a "choker."

The WILT DOUBLE STANDARD.

[Asukal]

Wilt sucks donkey balls. Russell is far better. :bowdown: :oldlol:

[Deuce Bigalow]

In their 10 years in the league together Russell held a NINE to ONE ring advantage. After Russell retired Willis Reed held a TWO to ONE ring advantage along with 2 FMVPs to 1 for Wilt. The lone ring Wilt won after Russell's retirement came during the year Reed was injured and didn't play in the Finals vs Wilt and the lone ring Wilt won during the time Russell was in the league came at the expense of Russell's Celtics who were the EIGHT time defending champions at that point. To summarize Wilt's rather disappointing TWO championship rings he beat a team fatigued from 8 consecutive championships and a Knicks team without their best player.

[LAZERUSS]

In their 10 years in the league together Russell held a NINE to ONE ring advantage. After Russell retired Willis Reed held a TWO to ONE ring advantage along with 2 FMVPs to 1 for Wilt. The lone ring Wilt won after Russell's retirement came during the year Reed was injured and didn't play in the Finals vs Wilt and the lone ring Wilt won during the time Russell was in the league came at the expense of Russell's Celtics who were the EIGHT time defending champions at that point. To summarize Wilt's rather disappointing TWO championship rings he beat a team fatigued from 8 consecutive championships and a Knicks team without their best player.

In their 10 years in the league together, Wilt held a 7-2 margin in First-Team All-NBA selections over Russell. And neither were in the running in Russell's last season ('68-69) in a season in which Chamberlain pummeled the three centers who were voted ahead of him in the MVP balloting (just slaughtered them) Unseld, Reed, and Russell.

He also outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell in every one of their eight post-season H2H's, and in the vast majority, by huge margins.

His 68-13 '67 Sixers ROUTED the 60-21 and eight-time defending champions, and in fact were a mere four points away in game four of a sweep. In game five they erased an early 17 point deficit, and by midway thru the 4th quarter they had built a 27 point lead (an incredible 44 point turnaround in a little over two quarters) en route to a 140-116 clinching win. And all Wilt did in that series was outscore Russell, per game, 21.6 ppg to 11.2 ppg; outassist Russell, per game, 10.0 apg to 6.0 apg; outrebounded Russell, per game, 32.0 rpg to 23.4 rpg; and outshoot Russell from the field by a .556 to .358 margin. Incidently, Wilt's Sixers outscored Russell's Celtics, per game, in that series, by a +10.4 ppg margin...and Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, by a +10.4 ppg margin.


As for Reed...he NEVER beat a pre-injury Wilt in the post-season. In fact, Wilt took an injury-decimated Sixer team to a 4-2 whipping of Reed's Knicks, in a series in which Chamberlain led both teams in scoring, rebounding, assists, and FG%.

Oh, and just the season before their first Finals encounter, the two met in 2 H2H's, and Chamberlain outscored Reed by a 28.0 ppg to 20.0 ppg margin, and held a whopping .688 to .459 FG% margin. Oh, and his team won both games, too.

And we all know by now that Reed won a FMVP in a seven game series, in which a one-legged Wilt outscored him, badly outrebounded him, and massively outshot him from the field. In fact, Reed was basically a bystander in the last three games of that series. It was a disgraceful FMVP.

In Wilt's second title run, sure, Reed was out. And the healthy Lakers stomped the Knicks, 4-1. BUT, you seemingly forgot that Wilt was widely acclaimed for outplaying a PEAK Kareem in the WCF's...en route to a 4-2 series win over the 63-19 reigning champions (and who were universally picked to repeat in '72.) BTW, virtually no one tabbed the Lakers to win a title that season. But new head coach Bill Sharman guided them to 33 straight wins, en route to a 69-13 record, and a dominating world title.

And Chamberlain then crushed the Knicks in the Finals.

In the '73 Finals, the Knicks beat a broken-down Laker team, 4-1, but all four wins were decided in the final minute. And to claim that Reed outplayed Wilt was a joke. He slightly outscored him, but was outshot, and badly outrebounded by the 36 year old Chamberlain. BTW, in that clinching game five loss, Wilt outscored Reed, 23-18, and outrebounded him by a 21-12 margin. It would be Wilt's last game of his career.

Oh, and who can forget their only other H2H season, in 64-65 (Reed would move PF the next few years, and watch Wilt crush Bellamy on a regular basis.)

In their 12 H2H games that season, Chamberlain outscored Reed by an average margin of 38.6 ppg to 22.8 ppg margin. And we only have one of Reed's FG% games, out of 12, but he shot 8-24 in that game (.333), while we have 11 of the 12 games by Wilt, and he shot .533 in those 11 games. Included were beatdowns of outscoring Reed by 46-25, 41-9, 52-23, and 58-28.


Again, Wilt, as always, just dominated his peers in his H2H's. And a prime Chamberlain just obliterated them.

[Bawkish]

Do you blame Kobe for losing against the Suns in 06' despite being up 3-1?

hell yes, he threw his team under the bus on game 7. For someone who is regarded as 2nd ATG shooting guard, that is unacceptable. And all that because Kobe wants to prove a point?

[Bawkish]

John Wooden.

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

um, not really

even if they swapped rosters, Russell would've still won more because of his team-oriented approach. It's not really the individual talents of his rosters that made them great but their team chemistry. Wilt's rosters (Chet Walker, etc.) could've had the same status the Russell's teammates had had they played with him while Havlicek and the Joneses would've sit back and watch Wilt dominate the game.

just my 2 cents

[julizaver]

um, not really

even if they swapped rosters, Russell would've still won more because of his team-oriented approach. It's not really the individual talents of his rosters that made them great but their team chemistry. Wilt's rosters (Chet Walker, etc.) could've had the same status the Russell's teammates had had they played with him while Havlicek and the Joneses would've sit back and watch Wilt dominate the game.

just my 2 cents

No one can prove that. Although Russell is without doubt one of the GOAT winners in proffesional sport he had the luck to be at the right time at the right place. And I am sure that a coach like Red Auerbach would find a place for Wilt in his Celtics team. It is not a secret that Red was trying to recruit Wilt, when has 17 and already known as a basketball prodigy.

[ClipperRevival]

No one can prove that. Although Russell is without doubt one of the GOAT winners in proffesional sport he had the luck to be at the right time at the right place. And I am sure that a coach like Red Auerbach would find a place for Wilt in his Celtics team. It is not a secret that Red was trying to recruit Wilt, when has 17 and already known as a basketball prodigy.

This is utter hogwash. Russell's teams were stretched to game 7s 10 different times. 10 times!!! and 9 of those in different seasons. Meaning if he had lost all 10, he would only have 2 rings. And he was like 19 ppg and 29 rpg in those game 7s, way above his normal average. The guy was a winner but it wasn't an accident. When he stepped on the court, he was not only physically focused but mentally focused. People always underestimate the mental game. If you aren't in it 100% mentally, you won't be at your best physically. The mind controls the body.

On the flip side, Wilt had an aloof attitude. Known for the love of his personal numbers and having other interests outside of bball. I don't know if the guy maximized his talents. And it's hard for me to respect someone like that.

[jongib369]

It's well documented how Wilt was all about his personal stats. Chick Hearn said that Wilt would come over to the scorers tables at halftime and look over his stat sheet and regularly argue over the amount of points/rebounds he had.

Cousy said if Wilt had 1/3 of the determination of Russell, he would unquestionably be the GOAT.

Wali Jones said that the team was too dependent on Wilt and that it wasn't optimal basketball whereas Russell did whatever it took to win.

Face it, Wilt was a transcendent talent and truly special but the guy wasn't completely right in the head. He wasn't a killer. He didn't want it as bad as Russell and simply didn't maximize his talents.

And history is judging him accordingly.
Back in those days stat tracking wasn't as good as today....Boston was known for giving Russell more rebounds than he got at home....While I somewhat understand your point, it's not as big of a knock against Chamberlain as you say.

His coach asked him to score all those points in his early years, his teammates said they wouldn't of done as good had he not. In his later years, when he chased for Assists, he still won a chip, and would of one more than one had it not been for a ton of injuries. You come off as someone who's been exposed to the information, but still cling to a narrative that doesn't add up once you look at everything. Are you also one of those people that compare his Career points per game, versus his career playoffs without looking at what stages of his career he played the majority of those games?

Chamberlain wasn't perfect, but nobody is. Russell was in a better system, with better players that maintained their health for the most part more so than Chamberlains. Had Jordan not got lucky being in the right system, with no other dynasties to contend with like the 60's, or even 80s Celtics, or 80s Lakers people probably would be shitting on him for essentially demanding his FGA. Wilt adjusted his to w.e the coach wanted. Do you think if there were other dominant scorers on the Bulls he'd accept less than 18 FGA if it could of worked better for the system? As late as 1969 Wilt was capable of putting up 60+

[ClipperRevival]

Back in those days stat tracking wasn't as good as today....Boston was known for giving Russell more rebounds than he got at home....While I somewhat understand your point, it's not as big of a knock against Chamberlain as you say.

His coach asked him to score all those points in his early years, his teammates said they wouldn't of done as good had he not. In his later years, when he chased for Assists, he still won a chip, and would of one more than one had it not been for a ton of injuries. You come off as someone who's been exposed to the information, but still cling to a narrative that doesn't add up once you look at everything. Are you also one of those people that compare his Career points per game, versus his career playoffs without looking at what stages of his career he played the majority of those games?

Chamberlain wasn't perfect, but nobody is. Russell was in a better system, with better players that maintained their health for the most part more so than Chamberlains. Had Jordan not got lucky being in the right system, with no other dynasties to contend with like the 60's, or even 80s Celtics, or 80s Lakers people probably would be shitting on him for essentially demanding his FGA. Wilt adjusted his to w.e the coach wanted. Do you think if there were other dominant scorers on the Bulls he'd accept less than 18 FGA if it could of worked better for the system? As late as 1969 Wilt was capable of putting up 60+

The guy wasn't a killer when he stepped on the court. If you are that much bigger, strong, and more talented than anyone else, you impose your will on the game when the stakes are at its highest, not shrink. The guy simply didn't want it as much as Russell and that matters. People continue to underestimate the mental aspects of the game. Games aren't played in a box score. You step on the court and make your own destiny.

[jongib369]

The guy wasn't a killer when he stepped on the court. If you are that much bigger, strong, and more talented than anyone else, you impose your will on the game when the stakes are at its highest, not shrink. The guy simply didn't want it as much as Russell and that matters. People continue to underestimate the mental aspects of the game. Games aren't played in a box score. You step on the court and make your own destiny.
There's actually many instances posted on this board where Chamberlain stepped up in the 4th... And people talking about how competitive he was, in everything...Even resorting to cheating like Jordan on and off the court. He wanted to WIN, and basketball was his life. Chamberlain was well aware how people would view him VS Russell with the Ring argument. But he also knew, he could make a point with his stats, something he could control with what the coach gave him/allowed him to do. Maybe to a slight fault, but nothing like you're stating

Check out this video, you just reminded me of it
Mark Cuban Takes Down Skip Bayless and Steve A. Smith
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAkVnlA9CJo)

[CavaliersFTW]

The guy wasn't a killer when he stepped on the court. If you are that much bigger, strong, and more talented than anyone else, you impose your will on the game when the stakes are at its highest, not shrink. The guy simply didn't want it as much as Russell and that matters. People continue to underestimate the mental aspects of the game. Games aren't played in a box score. You step on the court and make your own destiny.
He did impose his will on the game you nut.

He didn't want to physically hurt people - as in send players to a hospital by hacking them or elbowing them, which is exactly how the game is played by literally every single player in the league today. He absolutely did want to embarrass and demoralize opponents, his method was playing the game of basketball though - so that's exactly what he did. Only a god damned moron would believe a guy who scores 100 points or grabs 55 rebounds doesn't want to make his opponents feel worthless to be on the same floor with him :oldlol:

You're an idiot who will never change his tune though no matter what people have actually spoken on the subject. You've done this for years. Might as well stay in the trenches you've dug for yourself.

[dankok8]

ClipperRevival is not an idiot. 99% of posters that have a brain will take the same piece of information (i.e. facts) and interpret it an acceptable way but differently from one another. Two people can watch the same game and come up with different conclusions with both being somewhat "right". I think even the most fervent Wilt fans that want to have credibility have to admit that Wilt had intangible weaknesses to his game. The question is how much did he lack as a winner compared to Russell... but he did LACK compared to him.

[jongib369]

ClipperRevival is not an idiot. 99% of posters that have a brain will take the same piece of information (i.e. facts) and interpret it an acceptable way but differently from one another. Two people can watch the same game and come up with different conclusions with both being somewhat "right". I think even the most fervent Wilt fans that want to have credibility have to admit that Wilt had intangible weaknesses to his game. The question is how much did he lack as a winner compared to Russell... but he did LACK compared to him.
Not an idiot, but he's coming off as willfully ignorant. He seems to have knowledge about that era to disparage Wilt more so than most care to go into, but somehow despite being on here since 2009 missed many posts/threads proving points he's made false...or at the very least debatable, rather than a straight up fact as he presents it. It's like he keeps saying it's 2+2=4...Which is correct...But that actual problem is 2.5+2.5

In saying this, obviously I'm not correct in all the points I make...When I was new on here I blindly rode the coattails of posters like Cavsftw, LAZERUSS, La Frescobaldi, Phila, Kblaze etc etc. Now I've read/seen enough to truly have opinions of my own...While acknowledging I'm still ignorant on a lot. But, I've seen posts answer much of what he said, at least what I think to be answers. So to me seeing the same points made again, and again is frustrating.

[LAZERUSS]

ClipperRevival is not an idiot. 99% of posters that have a brain will take the same piece of information (i.e. facts) and interpret it an acceptable way but differently from one another. Two people can watch the same game and come up with different conclusions with both being somewhat "right". I think even the most fervent Wilt fans that want to have credibility have to admit that Wilt had intangible weaknesses to his game. The question is how much did he lack as a winner compared to Russell... but he did LACK compared to him.

Of course FT shooting was about the only weakness he had. Still, as bad it was, his effective FT% was higher than his actual FT% (as was his TS%, which were probably about a full 2% higher than his actual,) Secondly, his IMPACT at the FT line was considerably greater than his FT%'s as well. For example, in his 35 Finals games, his teams held a 26-6-3 margin in FTAs. And we know that his teams were almost always at the top of the league in FTAs. In some cases, like '67, they were miles ahead of the nearest team.

You want another example? The '69 Lakers led the NBA in FTAs. And in the post-season LA had a huge margin in FTAs over the rest of the league. They also held a massive edge over Boston in the Finals. The next season Chamberlain went down with an injury, and missed 70 games. How did the Lakers do in FTAs? They finished 12th in a 14 team league. Oh, and Wilt came back for the post-season, and guess what? Over 200 more FTAs than the nearest team. And a staggering margin over the Knicks in the Finals. So, we know that Wilt's teammates benefitted from his FTAs as well.

Furthermore, the bashers will point out playoff games in which Wilt shot poorly. My favorite one is game seven of the '70 Finals. Wilt shot 1-11 from the line...so obviously he cost them that game, right? Except that he was 1-8 from the line in the first half, when his team trailed by 27 points.

And the bashers will never point out his CLUTCH FT shooting, either. In game seven of the '62 Finals... 8-9 from the line, in a two point loss, which included a 3pt play to tie the game. Or Wilt going 2-2 with 36 secs left in game seven of the '65 EDF's, (Chamberlain scored Philly's last eights BTW), in a 110-109 loss. Or Wilt going 2-2 in the line at the end of regulation to tie the score in game three of the '70 playoff series against the Hawks (and then hitting the winning shot in OT.)

Furthermore, Shaq won a ring in a Finals in which he shot .387, and another at .292. Or that the "clutch" Russell won rings in post-seasons in which he shot .585, .552, .526, .523, and .508 from the line. Oh, and he won rings in post-seasons in which he shot .365, and .356 from the floor (and he won rings shooting .386, .397, and .399 from the floor against Wilt, as well as losing a series in which he shot .358 against him.)


And I have already debunked the "30-22-18" nonsense (which, BTW, was actually 30-23-19.) Chamberlain played exceptionally well in 12 of his 13 post-seasons, and did so facing Russell eight times, Reed four times, Thurmond three times, and Kareem twice.

Furthermore, MJ's numbers declined considerably in his four post post-season series against the Bad Boys. In fact, in ALL of them. And the only series in which he beat them (actually, it was Pippen and Grant coming up HUGE) was against a crumbling Piston team that was taken to the limit in their first round, and struggled in their second round. More evidence? They dropped even further the next season,...down to 48-34, and were knocked out in the first round (and then had a losing season the next year.)

How about Shaq's against the Robinson-led Spurs from '99 thru '02? Dropped considerably, including one series in which he shot .447 from the floor.

And how did a PEAK Kareem fare against the two most dominant defensive centers in his era, Wilt and Thurmond? Fell off the cliff! In his five post-season series, his scoring dropped by 7 ppg, and his FG% declined from .563 to .456 in that same span, from his regular season numbers against the NBA.

And yet, Chamberlain faced that kind of defense in the majority of his post-season career. Hell, in his 160 post-season games, he faced Reed/Bellamy in 21 games; a PEAK Kareem in 11; Thurmond in 17; and Russell...in get this... 49 games! That's 98 games, out of 160...or 60% of his post-season games, against supreme defenses.


Clutch? Wilt has a case, along with Lebron (yes Lebron), and MJ, as the GOAT "must-win" player in post-season history. And that is based only on scoring (Lebron is at 31.9 ppg in his "must-win" games; MJ was at 31.3 ppg; and Chamberlain was next at 31.1 ppg...but on a considerably higher FG%...and then with staggering rpg marks.) And if you include potential "close-out" or "series clinching" games, along with those "must-win" games...and Wilt's numbers were extraordinary in those 37 career playoff games. And none of that includes his OPPOSING centers' numbers, either. In the vast majority of those 37 games, he was either crushing his peers, or dramatically lowering their efficiencies (for example, in his two "close-out" games against a peak Kareem...he outshot KAJ, 18-33 (.545) to 23-60 (.383.)

Nor does that include his overwhelming domination on the glass, either. In his 29 post-season series, he was the leading rebounder in 28 of them. And he outrebounded his opposing centers in all of them. In fact, in the one series he was outrebounded, it was by PF Jerry Lucas...and by a 21.0 rpg to 20.0 rpg margin. When the two faced each other as opposing centers...a 35 year old Wilt, playing 47 mpg, outrebounded the 31 year old Lucas, who played 46 mpg in that same series...by a 23.2 rpg to 9.8 rpg margin. The reality was, Wilt just MURDERED his opposing centers on the glass.


And one more time...the WILT DOUBLE STANDARD. Larry Bird evidently was playing injured quite often in his post-season career. Because he had SEVERAL pathetic series (and in some, they followed outstanding series'.) But when he played poorly...well, he was injured. We KNOW that Chamberlain not only PLAYED with injuries (well documented injuries), he was BRILLIANT in those two series (and game seven of another.) Only Chamberlain would be bashed for a 22-25-7 seven game series, playing every minute of all seven games...and noticeably limping in them. Or be called a "choker" in a seven game series in which he hung a 23-24 .625 series...all just four months removed from major knee surgery.


Finally...Russell badly outplayed Chamberlain in ONE playoff GAME in their 49 career post-season H2H games. In that game, a 120-90 blowout in which Russell played 40 minutes to Wilt's 35, he outscored Wilt, 26-12; outrebounded Wilt, 39-15; and outshot Wilt, 12-24 to 6-13. Of course, Wilt was playing with a badly swollen hand (that was thought to be broken), which had come in a late melee just the game before.

Now, I could list a TON of playoff H2H's in which Wilt just ANNIHILATED Russell. In fact, I could EASILY list 40 career H2H games, out of their 143, in which Chamberlain CARPET-BOMBED Russell. And, then in the vast majority of the others, he clearly outplayed Russell.

How come? Where were Russell's 50-35, or 46-34 "must win" games against Wilt? And where were Russell's games in which he outscored Wilt 62-23, or outrebounded Wilt, 55-19?

You would think that if the "clutch" Russell, who some have regarded as superior to Chamberlain, would have at least had more than game, (and again, Wilt was playing hurt in that ONE game), out of their 143, in which he would have stomped Wilt. And yet...no. How come?

[LAZERUSS]

ClipperRevival is not an idiot. 99% of posters that have a brain will take the same piece of information (i.e. facts) and interpret it an acceptable way but differently from one another. Two people can watch the same game and come up with different conclusions with both being somewhat "right". I think even the most fervent Wilt fans that want to have credibility have to admit that Wilt had intangible weaknesses to his game. The question is how much did he lack as a winner compared to Russell... but he did LACK compared to him.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10368365&postcount=52



Originally Posted by dankok8
It's actually not a terrible breakdown...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall: 27-13-9



Even you give Chamberlain a solid margin in those 49 games. And the reality was, Chamberlain massacred Russell in many of those, as well.


But here was MY take on the those series...

'60: Wilt 4-1-1
'62: Wilt 4-2-1
'64: Wilt 5-0-0
'65: Wilt 6-1-0
'66: Wilt 4-0-1
'67: Wilt 5-0-0
'68: Wilt 3-2-2
'69: Wilt 3-2-2

Overall... Wilt with a 34-8-7 margin. And again...some of those H2H's were just overwhelming.

[LAZERUSS]

The guy wasn't a killer when he stepped on the court. If you are that much bigger, strong, and more talented than anyone else, you impose your will on the game when the stakes are at its highest, not shrink. The guy simply didn't want it as much as Russell and that matters. People continue to underestimate the mental aspects of the game. Games aren't played in a box score. You step on the court and make your own destiny.

I guess you would agree that the same then applies to Shaq, as well, right? Shaq was SWEPT SIX times in his post-season career, and nearly EIGHT times (including losing a few with HCA.)

And yes, he was dominant in four of his six Finals, but he really only faced a quality center in ONE of them, and that was against a prime Hakeem, whom he admittedly outplayed.

But, in his three-peat Finals, he faced a stumble-bum Smits in his last season; a 35 year old Dikembe (who BTW, averaged 16 ppg on a .600 FG% against Shaq); and a complete clod in the 6-11 Todd MacCulloch. And he won rings in the three-peat, but in those Finals, his teams were overwhelming favorites. His teams were not beating great teams in them.


And how about Hakeem? The man played eighteen seasons, and made it to the Conference Finals, four times. He went to three Finals, and played on the winning team in two of them. And even those two are deceptive. Had MJ played in '94, it was a certain ring for the Bulls. And in '95, his teammates badly outplayed Shaq's...in a series in which O'Neal outplayed him.

And then there was the rest of his career. EIGHT FIRST ROUND EXITS, the vast majority of which were blowouts. And he missed the playoffs three more times in his 18 seasons. In essence, his teams were eliminated in the First Round, in over HALF of his post-season career.


And what do we make of Kareem? In his prime 10 seasons (all pre-Magic BTW), his teams went to TWO Finals (losing one with HCA, in a game seven in which he was outplayed in a blowout loss); a sweeping loss with HCA in a WCF's; two first round exits (including taking his 60-22 Bucks down the toilet against a 47-35 Warrior team); and two seasons in the middle of the decade in which he couldn't even get his teams to the playoffs.

Then, he won a ring in '80, all while missing the clinching game on the road (Magic's magnificent 42-15-7 game); a ring in '82 in which his backup, McAdoo contributed as much as he did, and in less minutes; a ring in '87, as a "third-wheel": and a ring in '88 in which he was simply awful.


Meanwhile, Chamberlain's teams lost four game seven's to Russell's teams, by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points, and in games in which he outscored Russell by an average margin of 21.0 ppg to 13.0 ppg; outrebounded Russell by an average margin of 28.5 rpg to 24.5 rpg; and outshot Russell by a combined margin of .638 to .465. Oh, and he either outplayed Russell in EVERY one of those series, or downright crushed him.

CONTEXT my friend...CONTEXT.

[dankok8]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10368365&postcount=52



Even you give Chamberlain a solid margin in those 49 games. And the reality was, Chamberlain massacred Russell in many of those, as well.


But here was MY take on the those series...

'60: Wilt 4-1-1
'62: Wilt 4-2-1
'64: Wilt 5-0-0
'65: Wilt 6-1-0
'66: Wilt 4-0-1
'67: Wilt 5-0-0
'68: Wilt 3-2-2
'69: Wilt 3-2-2

Overall... Wilt with a 34-8-7 margin. And again...some of those H2H's were just overwhelming.

Let's take the average of your breakdown and mine. :cheers:

30.5-10.5-8

That means that Russell either outplayed or played Wilt to a draw in 18.5/49 or 37.8% of games. That's not bad at all. If anything that gives Russell credence as a phenomenal player.

You have to remember and this is always overlooked is that in their last three head-to-head series, Wilt was in his peak/prime while Russell was already in clear decline. Russell from 1967-1969 was nowhere near his prime form.

[LAZERUSS]

Let's take the average of your breakdown and mine. :cheers:

30.5-10.5-8

That means that Russell either outplayed or played Wilt to a draw in 18.5/49 or 37.8% of games. That's not bad at all. If anything that gives Russell credence as a phenomenal player.

You have to remember and this is always overlooked is that in their last three head-to-head series, Wilt was in his peak/prime while Russell was already in clear decline. Russell from 1967-1969 was nowhere near his prime form.

Not arguing with any of the above. Russell was a phenomenal player. I have him in my Top-5, and he has a case for GOAT.

Oh, and remove the draw from these breakdowns, and Chamberlain outplayed Russell in 75% of their H2H's (and we both know that many of those were one-sided beatdowns.)

As for their last three seasons...Chamberlain was nowhere near 100% in '68; he had a horrible coach in '69; and in '67, a prime-healthy Chamberlain just annihilated Russell.



And then there is the flip-side. A rookie Wilt, and a third-year Chamberlain, outplayed a peak and prime Russell, as well.

:cheers:

But we have Clippersfan claiming that Russell was the better player, and more clutch, when that CLEARLY was NOT the case.

[ClipperRevival]

Not arguing with any of the above. Russell was a phenomenal player. I have him in my Top-5, and he has a case for GOAT.

Oh, and remove the draw from these breakdowns, and Chamberlain outplayed Russell in 75% of their H2H's (and we both know that many of those were one-sided beatdowns.)

As for their last three seasons...Chamberlain was nowhere near 100% in '68; he had a horrible coach in '69; and in '67, a prime-healthy Chamberlain just annihilated Russell.



And then there is the flip-side. A rookie Wilt, and a third-year Chamberlain, outplayed a peak and prime Russell, as well.

:cheers:

But we have Clippersfan claiming that Russell was the better player, and more clutch, when that CLEARLY was NOT the case.

Yeah, what am i smoking. I mean Wilt is 7-1 against Wilt teams in the playoffs and 4-0 in game 7s. Not to mention, 10-0 in game 7s overall with 19 ppg and 29 rpg, way over his career averages. I mean what more can a guy do to be considered "clutch?"

Wilt was the superior individual player. Anyone who disputes this is an idiot. But bball isn't a one on one game. It's about winning as a unit. Russell did that better than anyone.

[ClipperRevival]

Not an idiot, but he's coming off as willfully ignorant. He seems to have knowledge about that era to disparage Wilt more so than most care to go into, but somehow despite being on here since 2009 missed many posts/threads proving points he's made false...or at the very least debatable, rather than a straight up fact as he presents it. It's like he keeps saying it's 2+2=4...Which is correct...But that actual problem is 2.5+2.5

In saying this, obviously I'm not correct in all the points I make...When I was new on here I blindly rode the coattails of posters like Cavsftw, LAZERUSS, La Frescobaldi, Phila, Kblaze etc etc. Now I've read/seen enough to truly have opinions of my own...While acknowledging I'm still ignorant on a lot. But, I've seen posts answer much of what he said, at least what I think to be answers. So to me seeing the same points made again, and again is frustrating.

Question for you. What are your thoughts on Wilt's 1968 and 1969 seasons?

[Angel Face]

Regular Season :facepalm

Russell - 11 Rings
Big "DIPPER" - 2 Rings

Is all that matters.

[Dr Hawk]

Regular Season :facepalm

Russell - 11 Rings
Big "DIPPER" - 2 Rings

Is all that matters.

Horry 7 rings
BIG DIPPER 2 rings

Is all that matters

[LAZERUSS]

Yeah, what am i smoking. I mean Wilt is 7-1 against Wilt teams in the playoffs and 4-0 in game 7s. Not to mention, 10-0 in game 7s overall with 19 ppg and 29 rpg, way over his career averages. I mean what more can a guy do to be considered "clutch?"

Wilt was the superior individual player. Anyone who disputes this is an idiot. But bball isn't a one on one game. It's about winning as a unit. Russell did that better than anyone.


1. You hit the nail on the head. Russell's TEAMS went 7-1 against Wilt's TEAMS in their eight playoff series' H2H's. And Russell's teams were heavily-favored in their first five, winning two game seven's by margins of 2 and 1 point. In their last four, Russell had the better team in '66, despite a slightly worse record (their key players missed a ton of regular season games); and while Wilt's '68 squad had a much better regular season record, as we all know by now, he and his team were decimated by injuries in that series, and were certainly under-dogs (and losing a game seven by four points.) Chamberlain's '69 team was a solid favorite, albeit horrifically coached, and lost a game seven by two points, and with Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes. And, Chamberlain's '67 team was a solid favorite over Russell's 60-21 Celtics, and just annihilated them. Of course, Wilt either outplayed, or downright dominated Russell in every one of those series'.


2. Again, Russell's TEAMS went 4-0 in game seven's against Wilt's TEAMS, but those wins were by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.


3. Russell averaged that "19-29" in his 10 career game seven's, which were above his post-season averages of 16-25. HOWEVER, in his four game seven's against Wilt, he averaged 12.8 ppg and 24.5 rpg...or below his career playoff averages (albeit, he did shoot .465, which was above his career playoff average of .430.

How about Wilt in those four game seven's? 21.0 ppg, 28.5 rpg, and on...get this... a .638 FG%. Now, I could pull a Bill Simmons, and claim that Chamberlain's career playoff averages were 22.5 ppg, 24.5 rpg, and on a .522 FG%. But, in their 10 years in the league together, Chamberlain averaged 26.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and shot .520.


4. "Clutch?" How about this...

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

[QUOTE]

[julizaver]

This is utter hogwash. Russell's teams were stretched to game 7s 10 different times. 10 times!!! and 9 of those in different seasons. Meaning if he had lost all 10, he would only have 2 rings. And he was like 19 ppg and 29 rpg in those game 7s, way above his normal average. The guy was a winner but it wasn't an accident. When he stepped on the court, he was not only physically focused but mentally focused. People always underestimate the mental game. If you aren't in it 100% mentally, you won't be at your best physically. The mind controls the body.

On the flip side, Wilt had an aloof attitude. Known for the love of his personal numbers and having other interests outside of bball. I don't know if the guy maximized his talents. And it's hard for me to respect someone like that.

What I mean is to be in the right organization (Celtics) at the right time with only one coach (the great RED), I am not talking about be in 10 or 15 7s. No need to argue about how great was Russell in those game 7s.
BTW what are Russell averages vs Wilt's teams in these game 7s compared to Russell vs other teams ? In how many of the 4 games 7s they play he bested Wilt ?
You are right about Wilt having other interests outside of bball. OK, but that doesn't mean that he was worse player than Russell.
Again do you think a coach like Red Auerbach will fail to find a place for Wilt in his roster ?

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, Russell dramatically elevated his post-season numbers in FIVE Finals against the Lakers in the decade of the 60's (actually six, but in the 6th one, he faced Wilt, and was completely inept offensively.)


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

'62:

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

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

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


'63:

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

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


'65:

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

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

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


'66:

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

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

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


'68:

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

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

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


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

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

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


Now, Wilt didn't face the Lakers in the post-season even once in the entire decade of the 60's...but what if he had?


Again, had Wilt faced the Lakers in any of his nine seasons in the league from '60 thru '68, and he likely would own at least some, (if not a vast majority), playoff and perhaps Finals, scoring records (and perhaps FG% records, as well, since Russell shot .702 against LA in '65.)

And once again, in Wilt's regular seasons, he was facing LA between 7 to 12 games in each season, with an average of about 10.

Also keep in mind that the Lakers were in the Western Conference, and Wilt only had two seasons in the Western Conference from '60 thru '68, and in one of those, his team was so bad, that he didn't make the playoffs, despite a 44.8 ppg season on .528 shooting.


Ok, here we go:

'59-60:

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

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

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


'60-61:

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

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

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


'61-62:

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

High games of 40, 40, and 41 points.


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

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

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


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

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

High games of 32, 37, and 39 points.


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

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

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


Overall, in those 86 games:

40 Point Games: 42

50 Point Games: 19

60 Point Games: 7

70 Point Games: 2

High game of 78 points.

Just some food for thought...

[La Frescobaldi]

Question for you. What are your thoughts on Wilt's 1968 and 1969 seasons?
'68 was his best season. Unfortunately Philly exploded with injuries in the playoffs.
'69 the Lakers had the big three but nothing else worth talking about. And Baylor was a big fat fail. Chamberlain himself went down with a knee injury in the Finals.

[LAZERUSS]

Question for you. What are your thoughts on Wilt's 1968 and 1969 seasons?

And how about your opinions on Wilt's post-season series against Russell in '60, '62, '64, '65, '66, and '67?

And if you are going to just reply back with... "5-1", please provide us with CONTEXT, as well.