Basketball Philosophy with Bill Russell

[I]The thing is, is that in approaching athletes especially, that's something I know about. You could never dissect a player into parts. Each player is a package. You can't say, "If he did this..." or "If he thought..." or "If he didn't think..." or "If he tried this..." Invalid and irrelevant! What you got is what you got. There are certain things that you have to know to be an outstanding athlete in any sport. There's offense and defense and there are things that you can do as an individual to impact the game without having your hand or your foot on the ball.

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes? [/I]

defense. i win! win!

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T][I]The thing is, is that in approaching athletes especially, that's something I know about. You could never dissect a player into parts. Each player is a package. You can't say, "If he did this..." or "If he thought..." or "If he didn't think..." or "If he tried this..." Invalid and irrelevant! What you got is what you got. There are certain things that you have to know to be an outstanding athlete in any sport. There's offense and defense and there are things that you can do as an individual to impact the game without having your hand or your foot on the ball.

I used to break it down. [B]There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes? [/B][/I][/QUOTE]

Just wow.Never thought of that, deep and clever. :eek: :bowdown:

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T][I]The thing is, is that in approaching athletes especially, that's something I know about. You could never dissect a player into parts. Each player is a package. You can't say, "If he did this..." or "If he thought..." or "If he didn't think..." or "If he tried this..." Invalid and irrelevant! What you got is what you got. There are certain things that you have to know to be an outstanding athlete in any sport. There's offense and defense and there are things that you can do as an individual to impact the game without having your hand or your foot on the ball.

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes? [/I][/QUOTE]


nice post repped

Basketball I.Q. :bowdown:

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]What is going on the other 45 minutes? [/QUOTE]
Cant say Russell doesnt have a sense of humour :roll:

Man, Russell is so cerebral about the game. Would have been something to see him play.

it's the second thread that i read about Russell mentallity, the other one was about the shoot blocking and trash talk. Anybody remember that?

I think it was you that posted , G.O.A.T.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T][I]The thing is, is that in approaching athletes especially, that's something I know about. You could never dissect a player into parts. Each player is a package. You can't say, "If he did this..." or "If he thought..." or "If he didn't think..." or "If he tried this..." Invalid and irrelevant! What you got is what you got. There are certain things that you have to know to be an outstanding athlete in any sport. [B]There's offense and defense and there are things that you can do as an individual to impact the game without having your hand or your foot on the ball.[/B]

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes? [/I][/QUOTE]

1) Thanked.
2) You never can get enough Bill Russell quotes. One of the greatest in the "basketball smarts" department.
3) (Re:Bolded quote) I really wish ALL superstars understood this. The days of great players setting screens, throwing great outlet passes, defensively stopping 2 on 1's and 3 on 1's are pretty much gone. Very rarely will you see a superstar player work off the ball as well as they used to or even throw a great outlet pass to start a fast break off of a miss (Kevin Love is EASILY the best player in the game when it comes to the "outlet off of a defensive rebound pass", but he is trapped on that terrible Minnesota team).

Fantastic quoted segment, GOAT.

Great thread.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T][I]The thing is, is that in approaching athletes especially, that's something I know about. You could never dissect a player into parts. Each player is a package. You can't say, "If he did this..." or "If he thought..." or "If he didn't think..." or "If he tried this..." Invalid and irrelevant! What you got is what you got. There are certain things that you have to know to be an outstanding athlete in any sport. There's offense and defense and there are things that you can do as an individual to impact the game without having your hand or your foot on the ball.

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes? [/I][/QUOTE]


In this era of ESPN highlights and all ITs good for these younger fans to be informed about what basketball and all other sports are about. Defense. There is a reason why only 1 leading scorer ever won a Title. KD take note home boy DC loves you but its not the points its the D

Some more from #6
[I]
I played in this dumb number of seventh games. You know -- the last game. Either you win, or if you lose you go home. And I have a perfect record. Won all of them, including college and the Olympics. And so I was talking with the kids at the NBA, and first they asked me, "Were you scared?" I said no. "You weren't scared?" No. So he comes in with five different ways of asking me was I scared. "Didn't this scare you?" No, I was not scared. "Okay, were you nervous?" No. "You weren't scared? You weren't nervous?" No. In fact, Sam Jones and I kid about it all the time. Every seventh game that Sam was there, I came to the seventh game, I had a black suit on. And he says, "Why do you always wear a black suit to these games?" I said, "Because I'm the undertaker. I've come to bury these people!" Sam and I used to kid about that all the time. He says, "You always wear a black suit." "Yep, I'm the undertaker. I come to bury these guys." So finally -- a guy kept asking was I nervous or was I scared. So finally I said, "Listen, there was no reason for me to be scared or nervous. I did not have to play against Bill Russell and the Celtics. What was there to be nervous or scared about?" You probably think I'm really modest, right? [/I]

Did this guy even play basketball? WTH is he talking about?

[QUOTE=LastChanceToWin]Did this guy even play basketball? WTH is he talking about?[/QUOTE]

You are obviously joking, right?

[QUOTE=LastChanceToWin]Did this guy even play basketball? WTH is he talking about?[/QUOTE]
:banghead:

20-30 years from now, there will be some goofball questioning just what Jordan accomplished in his career, as well. And they will also say that the players in an eighth grade church league would run all over MJ.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T] I said, "Because I'm the undertaker. [B]I've come to bury these people![/B]"

"So finally I said, "Listen, there was no reason for me to be scared or nervous. [B]I did not have to play against Bill Russell and the Celtics. What was there to be nervous or scared about?[/B]" You probably think I'm really modest, right? [/I][/QUOTE]
Russell is the man :roll: :applause:

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T][I]The thing is, is that in approaching athletes especially, that's something I know about. You could never dissect a player into parts. Each player is a package. You can't say, "If he did this..." or "If he thought..." or "If he didn't think..." or "If he tried this..." Invalid and irrelevant! What you got is what you got. There are certain things that you have to know to be an outstanding athlete in any sport. There's offense and defense and there are things that you can do as an individual to impact the game without having your hand or your foot on the ball.

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes? [/I][/QUOTE]
I'm def 2x as smart having read that.

[QUOTE=Harison]Russell is the man :roll: :applause:[/QUOTE]

Imagine the confidence that would inspire in you. The guy who never loses shows up that focused and that confident, how could you lose?

Satch Sanders has a couple of my favorite quotes explaining Russell's mindset:

"He thought he was so good. And that we should win every single game he played in. How could we lose? He wouldn't let us."

"The reason Bill believed in us is he knew he had to or we wouldn't believe in ourselves. He understood that basketball was a five man game but more importantly how one player could impact the other nine. "

Everytime you post about Russell I rank him differently in my top 10 for some reason. He just seems smarter and like he understood the game in it's truest and purest forms. He broke down the game to it's basic terms to learn what it took to win the games that mattered. And knew exactly what to do, how to do it, and when to do it.

[QUOTE=Rose]Everytime you post about Russell I rank him differently in my top 10 for some reason. He just seems smarter and like he understood the game in it's truest and purest forms. He broke down the game to it's basic terms to learn what it took to win the games that mattered. And knew exactly what to do, how to do it, and when to do it.[/QUOTE]

That's how he moved up so high on my list. My uncles and my high school teachers always tried to tell me how great he was, but I loved stats, knew all of them and wasn't buying it.

The more I read and the more I listen, the more obvious it becomes he's the greatest center of all-time if your goal is to win the game.

There have been others who had better ability and better seasons, but no one ever understood what it took to win and did it as consistently as Russell.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]That's how he moved up so high on my list. My uncles and my high school teachers always tried to tell me how great he was, but I loved stats, knew all of them and wasn't buying it.

The more I read and the more I listen, the more obvious it becomes he's the greatest center of all-time if your goal is to win the game.

There have been others who had better ability and better seasons, but no one ever understood what it took to win and did it as consistently as Russell.[/QUOTE]

Here in Dc yesterday they played a replay of an old Red interview.
He told a story of a game against Wilt not sure which team. But the Celtics were up by a good margin so Red took Russ out the game. Wilt goes on to score 20 pts. with Russ on the bench. Celtics win . The Philly paper says Celtics win Wilt out duals Russ. Point is Wilt as Great as he was had 1 flaw he felt he could carry a team to victory Russ felt he needed to lead his team for them to win.

[QUOTE=jlauber]20-30 years from now, there will be some goofball questioning just what Jordan accomplished in his career, as well. And they will also say that the players in an eighth grade church league would run all over MJ.[/QUOTE]
Probably

I once heard a teen say that if Jordan played in this era, people like Kobe Bryant and Lebron James would just take the ball away from him every time he dribble. No idea that Jordan played as a 40 year old not too long ago.

I also heard something very similar about Magic on youtube, and I responded that I just saw a video of Magic running down court, full speed with the ball, while looking back and to his left, and then making this incredible pass without looking. (It was more impressive than I could explain) How could he say that Kobe would take the ball away from him every time he touched the ball. That's why a lot of people don't like Kobe, because of his fans. People are superficial, it's probably the short shorts.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]Here in Dc yesterday they played a replay of an old Red interview.
He told a story of a game against Wilt not sure which team. But the Celtics were up by a good margin so Red took Russ out the game. Wilt goes on to score 20 pts. with Russ on the bench. Celtics win . The Philly paper says Celtics win Wilt out duals Russ. Point is Wilt as Great as he was had 1 flaw he felt he could carry a team to victory Russ felt he needed to lead his team for them to win.[/QUOTE]

A couple of points about this. One, Russell had as many as SEVEN HOF teammates on his team's, and never less than than three other's. Wilt played on team's in which he was the ONLY HOF player. I have said it before, but when Jordan's '86 Bulls were swept by the 67-15 Celtics and their FIVE HOFers, he was still hailed as "heroic" in defeat (he even had a 63 point game in an OT loss.) Yet, when Wilt took a 49-31 team up against a 60-20 Celtic team that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers, and got that team to a game seven, two point loss, it was somehow reported that Russell outplayed Chamberlain (even though Wilt had a clear edge in almost every statistical category.) Same thing in '65, when Chamberlain took a 40-40 76er team up against the 62-18 Celtics, who had a 5-2 edge in HOFers (and a team that many rank as Russell's best)...to a game seven, one point loss. In that series, Wilt outscored Russell by a 211-109 margin, and outrebounded him by a 221-177 margin, and more than likely outshot him (Russell shot .451 against Wilt....and then .702 in the Finals against the Lakers.) You guessed it...Russell was "clutch", and Wilt "failed again."

Secondly, Russell seldom came out of any game against Chamberlain. He did everything in his power to stay on the floor against Wilt. Not only that, but we even had a poster who found a game in which Wilt scored 47 points, in a comeback win, in which his team had been down by 21 points in the second half.

Wilt generally did whatever his coach asked. And, he played on some absolutely putrid rosters. He came to a last-place team, and immediately took them to a 49-26 record, and a two point game six loss against Russell's heavily-favored Celtics in his very first year. Chamberlain's 62-63 roster may very well have been the worst group of misfits in NBA history. How bad were they? Their new coach in the 63-64 season, Alex Hannum, had that roster play a group of rookies and retreads, without Wilt, none of whom were expected to make an NBA roster, and they beat Chamberlain's teammates. Russell NEVER EVER had a poor supporting cast, while Chamberlain had mostly miserable teammates in his first six seasons, and somehow nearly beat Russell's Celtics in two of them, and then took that SAME 63-64 roster to a Finals.

I have no problem with those that claim Russell as the greatest ever, but I will always defend Wilt against those that claim he was a "stats-padder", or a "failure", or a "loser", or a "choker", because, clearly NONE of that was true.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I have said it before, but when Jordan's '86 Bulls were swept by the 67-15 Celtics and their FIVE HOFers, he was still hailed as "heroic" in defeat (he even had a 63 point game in an OT loss.)[/QUOTE]

It made no difference on the big picture. Jordan had a chance to win it in regulation, but didn't. The Bulls would have won the game, yet Jordan wouldn't have had the 63, and, oddly enough, no one would be talking about it as much. And no one ever talks about the game afterward that either.

And why does no one ever talk about Elgin Baylor's 61 against Boston, which all came in regulation, to lead the Lakers to a WIN, and a 3-2 series LEAD?

[QUOTE=jlauber]Russell seldom came out of any game against Chamberlain. He did everything in his power to stay on the floor against Wilt.[/QUOTE]

What exactly is this based on? What evidence did you draw this from?

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]It made no difference on the big picture. Jordan had a chance to win it in regulation, but didn't. The Bulls would have won the game, yet Jordan wouldn't have had the 63, and, oddly enough, no one would be talking about it as much. And no one ever talks about the game afterward that either.

And why does no one ever talk about Elgin Baylor's 61 against Boston, which all came in regulation, to lead the Lakers to a WIN, and a 3-2 series LEAD?



What exactly is this based on? What evidence did you draw this from?[/QUOTE]

First of all, take a look at Russell's seasonal mpg average and his playoff mpg average, neither of which are very far behind Wilt's (especially his PLAYOFF mpg.) Hell, he was in the game in which Chamberlain scored 62 points against him, even though his team was ahead by as much as 31 points, and the only reason he came out was because he FOULED out. Russell averaged 48 mpg in his ENTIRE 61-62 post-season, and yet Boston won game one of the ECF's by 28 points.

[QUOTE=jlauber]First of all, take a look at Russell's seasonal mpg average and his playoff mpg average, neither of which are very far behind Wilt's (especially his PLAYOFF mpg.) Hell, he was in the game in which Chamberlain scored 62 points against him, even though his team was ahead by as much as 31 points, and the only reason he came out was because he FOULED out. Russell averaged 48 mpg in his ENTIRE 61-62 post-season, and yet Boston won game one of the ECF's by 28 points.[/QUOTE]

I asked you what EVIDENCE you had, not what speculation you'd made. I thought perhaps you had some statement from someone saying this. I see now that you do not. When people said Wilt had no competition, I challenged, that and provided [B]evidence[/B], not biased speculation, which dispelled the notion, which I showed you. Now, why would I accept unsupported statements from you anymore than I did them, especially seeing how you already have a history of making zealous statements which end up being proven false, because in your zeal you didn't bother to verify whether they were truth or not, because they confirmed what you believed?

First, of all, I don't know if you know anything about statistics, but years ago, I ran a statistical test on Russell and Chamberlain's regular season minutes, and the difference [B]was[/B] statistically significant. So your statement that Russell's regular season minutes "weren't very far behind Wilt" is factually false.

Furthermore, for someone who brings up Wilt's records all the time, you should know this. Wilt blows everyone else away as far as minutes played. Wilt has the top [B]five[/B] single season totals and [B]seven[/B] of the top [B]ten[/B]. Wilt has [B]nine[/B] seasons in his career in which he played more minutes per game than Russell's highest single-season mpg average (45.2). Since I can't imagine there's an aspect of Wilt's career you aren't aware of, this would lead me to suspect this is flat-out deliberate misrepresentation in trying to prove your point.

Do not do this when talking to me. I am not ignorant, my knowledge of the NBA is [B]not[/B] confined to the 1980s on, unlike the majority of people, and I WILL call out any divergence from the truth, which will lead me to question the truth of any future statement.

For the postseason, Chamberlain averaged 47.2 minutes per game for his career over 160 games, and Russell averaged 45.4 over 165 games. When I have the chance, I will run a statistical test to determine whether or not the difference here is also significant. Because I am interested in objective truth, not what I, or anyone else, "thinks."

Secondly, you've failed to provide a shred of proof validating your claim. If Russell played 48 minutes in the entire '62 postseason, how in the world do you extract from that that Russell did "everything in his power to stay on the floor against [B]Wilt[/B]"? If he played 48 minutes against [B]everyone[/B], I find it odd that you somehow construe it to single out Wilt. And that '62 postseason includes a game in which Russell had to play every minute of the game and overtime because Elgin Baylor fouled out his entire forward rotation, leaving him as the only big man Boston had.

Again, I hate misinformation. I don't care who says it. I don't care who it's in favor or against. The only thing I care about is whether something is true or whether it is not true.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I asked you what EVIDENCE you had, not what speculation you'd made. I thought perhaps you had some statement from someone saying this. I see now that you do not. When people said Wilt had no competition, I challenged, that and provided [B]evidence[/B], not biased speculation, which dispelled the notion, which I showed you. Now, why would I accept unsupported statements from you anymore than I did them, especially seeing how you already have a history of making zealous statements which end up being proven false, because in your zeal you didn't bother to verify whether they were truth or not, because they confirmed what you believed?

First, of all, I don't know if you know anything about statistics, but years ago, I ran a statistical test on Russell and Chamberlain's regular season minutes, and the difference [B]was[/B] statistically significant. So your statement that Russell's regular season minutes "weren't very far behind Wilt" is factually false.

Furthermore, for someone who brings up Wilt's records all the time, you should know this. Wilt blows everyone else away as far as minutes played. Wilt has the top [B]five[/B] single season totals and [B]seven[/B] of the top [B]ten[/B]. Wilt has [B]nine[/B] seasons in his career in which he played more minutes per game than Russell's highest single-season mpg average (45.2). Since I can't imagine there's an aspect of Wilt's career you aren't aware of, this would lead me to suspect this is flat-out deliberate misrepresentation in trying to prove your point.

Do not do this when talking to me. I am not ignorant, my knowledge of the NBA is [B]not[/B] confined to the 1980s on, unlike the majority of people, and I WILL call out any divergence from the truth, which will lead me to question the truth of any future statement.

For the postseason, Chamberlain averaged 47.2 minutes per game for his career over 160 games, and Russell averaged 45.4 over 165 games. When I have the chance, I will run a statistical test to determine whether or not the difference here is also significant. Because I am interested in objective truth, not what I, or anyone else, "thinks."

Secondly, you've failed to provide a shred of proof validating your claim. If Russell played 48 minutes in the entire '62 postseason, how in the world do you extract from that that Russell did "everything in his power to stay on the floor against [B]Wilt[/B]"? If he played 48 minutes against [B]everyone[/B], I find it odd that you somehow construe it to single out Wilt. And that '62 postseason includes a game in which Russell had to play every minute of the game and overtime because Elgin Baylor fouled out his entire forward rotation, leaving him as the only big man Boston had.

Again, I hate misinformation. I don't care who says it. I don't care who it's in favor or against. The only thing I care about is whether something is true or whether it is not true.[/QUOTE]

So, when DID Russell come out in "20" point routs against Wilt? I get a kick out of those that claim that Wilt was a "stats-padder" for playing 48 mpg, on putrid teams, and yet, here was Russell (and even Kareem in '72) playing 45-46 mpg on 60 win teams. Whether it was against Wilt or Imhoff. Once again, Russell was PLAYING with a 31 lead in a game against Chamberlain. We already KNOW that Wilt played nearly every minute of every game in his career, even well after his "stats-padding" seasons.

[QUOTE]especially seeing how you already have a history of making zealous statements which end up being proven false, because in your zeal you didn't bother to verify whether they were truth or not, because they confirmed what you believed[/QUOTE]

Other than the '64 Finals, in which I did claim that read a poster who claimed that Wilt shot .521 in the previous round against the Hawks, which meant that Wilt would have then shot .590 against Russell, I can't think of any other "zealous" statement. Yes, I have provided EDUCATED speculation. I have stated that there was a very good chance that Wilt outshot Russell in EVERY post-season series. based on the fact that, a) in the games that we do have their FG%, Chamberlain outshot Russell in a HUGE majority of them, and b) when YOU challenged my statement that Wilt outshot Russell, H2H, in the entire '60 season by a .465 to .398 margin, I provided YOU the very link that proved it (albeit, it did not include their 11th game...so if you honsetly believe that somehow Russell could have raised that stat significantly in that 11th game, I will let you provide ME with the proof.)

[QUOTE]First, of all, I don't know if you know anything about statistics, but years ago, I ran a statistical test on Russell and Chamberlain's regular season minutes, and the difference was statistically significant. So your statement that Russell's regular season minutes [B]"weren't very far behind Wilt" is factually false[/B].
[/QUOTE]

Wilt averaged 45.2 mpg over his regular season career, and 47.2 mpg in his post-season career. Russell averaged 42.6 mpg in his regular season career (which included a 37.9 mpg season in 67-68), and 45.4 mpg in his post-season. How is that NOT " weren't very far behind?" You are using a small percentage as FACTUALLY FALSE? Seems like it is YOU who has an agenda here.

So, by all means, give me some other examples of my "over-zealous" statements.

Once again, ANY TIME someone brings up a MIS-REPRESENTATION in the Russell-Wilt discussions, I WILL point it out.

[QUOTE=jlauber]So, when DID Russell come out in "20" point routs against Wilt? [B]I get a kick out of those that claim that Wilt was a "stats-padder"[/B] for playing 48 mpg, on putrid teams, and yet, here was Russell (and even Kareem in '72) playing 45-46 mpg on 60 win teams. Whether it was against Wilt or Imhoff. Once again, Russell was PLAYING with a 31 lead in a game against Chamberlain. We already KNOW that Wilt played nearly every minute of every game in his career, even well after his "stats-padding" seasons.[/QUOTE]

[B][U]I[/U][/B] didn't say it, so I couldn't care less what other people say. I've already said this before. I find it hilarious that you'll praise my "great stuff" when I post something that dispels a misrepresentation that regards Wilt, and then turn around and lump me with people who make claims I didn't make. You did that once before and apologized for it, yet here you are relapsing again.

I DON'T CARE WHAT ANY "OTHER" PEOPLE SAY, IF I MYSELF HAVEN'T SAID IT. I don't know how much clearer I can say it.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Other than the '64 Finals, in which I did claim that read a poster who claimed that Wilt shot .521 in the previous round against the Hawks, which meant that Wilt would have then shot .590 against Russell, I can't think of any other "zealous" statement.[/QUOTE]

It's irrelevant what you can recall. (And since when does a poster's "claim" represent evidence? You CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF, and then confirm it as true or dispel it as false. That's one step you never take. I [B]never[/B] take a poster's claim for it. I [B]always[/B] verify it for myself. It's because people just take people's word for it that you have people repeating the myth that Wilt played against 6-6 white guys, because they don't bother to do any research) When people talked about Thurmond in the past, you've said on multiple occasions Wilt hung 60 on him, only to finally have it pointed out that Thurmond didn't even play in the game Wilt scored 60 against the Warriors. FACT. When talking about the '61-62 season before, you've included the back-to-back 50-point games Chamberlain had against the Celtics in which Russell didn't even play due to injury. FACT.

These are two instances that immediately jump to mind without even giving it much thought. So since it's been proven you'll make statements without bothering to check their veracity, yes, I will question whether or not a particular statement is substantiated by evidence when considering your track record.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Yes, I have provided EDUCATED speculation.[/QUOTE]

One doesn't speculate. One goes on evidence. One speaks only on what one [B]knows[/B]. Other posters "speculate" that players of the past wouldn't be stars today. So what makes that "speculation" any different when not based on fact?

[QUOTE=jlauber]Wilt averaged 45.2 mpg over his regular season career, and 47.2 mpg in his post-season career. Russell averaged 42.6 mpg in his regular season career (which included a 37.9 mpg season in 67-68), and 45.4 mpg in his post-season. How is that NOT " weren't very far behind?" You are using a small percentage as FACTUALLY FALSE? Seems like it is YOU who has an agenda here.[/QUOTE]

Get educated on statistics, then do your own test. Don't take my word for it. See, that's the beauty of science. One of its central tenets is "replicability." It means other people can do the same thing you did and see if they get the same results you did. No one's expected to just take someone's word on it, which is why it's peer reviewed. That's how inaccuracies get exposed. If it's not true, one of the many people who are scrutinizing what you said will find out.

And yeah, I do have an agenda. It's called the truth.

Again, I find it funny how you'll applaud me in one breath (if it happens to support something you believe), then accuse me of having an agenda in the next. People are so fickle.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r][B][U]I[/U][/B] didn't say it, so I couldn't care less what other people say. I've already said this before. I find it hilarious that you'll praise my "great stuff" when I post something that dispels a misrepresentation that regards Wilt, and then turn around and lump me with people who make claims I didn't make. You did that once before and apologized for it, yet here you are relapsing again.

I DON'T CARE WHAT ANY "OTHER" PEOPLE SAY, IF I MYSELF HAVEN'T SAID IT. I don't know how much clearer I can say it.



It's irrelevant what you can recall. (And since when does a poster's "claim" represent evidence? You CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF, and then confirm it as true or dispel it as false. That's one step you never take. I [B]never[/B] take a poster's claim for it. I [B]always[/B] verify it for myself. It's because people just take people's word for it that you have people repeating the myth that Wilt played against 6-6 white guys, because they don't bother to do any research) When people talked about Thurmond in the past, you've said on multiple occasions Wilt hung 60 on him, only to finally have it pointed out that Thurmond didn't even play in the game Wilt scored 60 against the Warriors. FACT. When talking about the '61-62 season before, you've included the back-to-back 50-point games Chamberlain had against the Celtics in which Russell didn't even play due to injury. FACT.

These are two instances that immediately jump to mind without even giving it much thought. So since it's been proven you'll make statements without bothering to check their veracity, yes, I will question whether or not a particular statement is substantiated by evidence when considering your track record.



One doesn't speculate. One goes on evidence. One speaks only on what one [B]knows[/B]. Other posters "speculate" that players of the past wouldn't be stars today. So what makes that "speculation" any different when not based on fact?



Get educated on statistics, then do your own test. Don't take my word for it. See, that's the beauty of science. One of its central tenets is "replicability." It means other people can do the same thing you did and see if they get the same results you did. No one's expected to just take someone's word on it, which is why it's peer reviewed. That's how inaccuracies get exposed. If it's not true, one of the many people who are scrutinizing what you said will find out.

And yeah, I do have an agenda. It's called the truth.

Again, I find it funny how you'll applaud me in one breath (if it happens to support something you believe), then accuse me of having an agenda in the next. People are so fickle.[/QUOTE]

I have ALWAYS stated that Wilt scored 50+ points against Russell in FIVE games, including one in the post-season, which, last time I checked, IS correct.

Here is my VERY FIRST post on ISH...

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=160893[/url]

[QUOTE]Russell had three 30+ point games in his CAREER against Wilt (37, 31, and 31 point games), and was outscored by Chamberlain in each (47, 35, and 41.) Two of those 30+ point games by Russell were in the playoffs. Meanwhile, Wilt had a staggering 69 30+ games against Russell, including 29 in the post-season. How about 40 point games? Well, Russell never had even ONE against Chamberlain, while Wilt had 24 against Russell, including FIVE in their H2H post-season matchups. [B]Chamberlain also had FIVE 50+ games against Russell, with a high game of 62, and one 50+ game against Russell in the post-season[/B].

[/QUOTE]

And when you challenged my point that Wilt HEAVILY outshot Russell in the 59-60 season (in fact, he scored MORE and shot BETTER against Russell, than against the REST of the league), I gave you the EVIDENCE. As for "speculation", there is EDUCATED speculation, in which we can SAFELY make an assumption. I have said that Wilt PROBABLY outshot Russell, and by PERHAPS a HUGE margin in the '64 Finals. Why? Because, a) Wilt shot .543 in his 11 post-season games that year, and five were against Russell; b) Russell shot .356 in his ten post-season games that post-season, and five of them (HALF) were against Wilt; and c) in the VAST MAHORITY of the games in which we do have their H2H FG%, Chamberlain not only outshot him, he outshot him by as much as nearly 200 points in ONE COMPLETE SERIES. In fact, I have yet to read ONE statline in a post-season game between the two, in which Russell outshot Chamberlain! I'm sure there were some, since they faced each other in 49 post-season games, but I have yet to read ONE.

"Get educated on statistics?" Just what in the hell does that have to do with me making the VERY FACTUAL claim that Russell "wasn't very far behind Wilt" in mpg in BOTH the regular season (Wilt had a 45.2 mpg to 42.6 mpg edge...and once again, in 67-68 Russell only played in 37.9 mpg), and post-season (Wilt held a 47.2 to 45.4 mpg margin)?????? What is "close" to YOU? A fraction of a second?

And yes, I WILL praise someone when they are CORRECT about Chamberlain, and if they go out of their way to DISPARAGE Wilt, I will take exception to it.

And yes, there are some here who DEFINITELY have an "anti-Wilt" agenda.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I have ALWAYS stated that Wilt scored 50+ points against Russell in FIVE games, including one in the post-season, which, last time I checked, IS correct.

Here is my VERY FIRST post on ISH...

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=160893[/url][/QUOTE]

I'll try to see if I can find the post then. And no mention of Wilt hanging 60 on Thurmond, huh?

[QUOTE=jlauber]And when you challenged my point that Wilt HEAVILY outshot Russell in the 59-60 season (in fact, he scored MORE and shot BETTER against Russell, than against the REST of the league), I gave you the EVIDENCE.

(rest of unrelated tangent snipped.)[/QUOTE]

THAT instance was backed by evidence. Congratulations. :applause: If more people would do that, there wouldn't be any problem. I note you failed to do so with the statement in question that started this in the first place.

[QUOTE=jlauber]"Get educated on statistics?" Just what in the hell does that have to do with me making the VERY FACTUAL claim that Russell "wasn't very far behind Wilt" in mpg in BOTH the regular season (Wilt had a 45.2 mpg to 42.6 mpg edge...and once again, in 67-68 Russell only played in 37.9 mpg), and post-season (Wilt held a 47.2 to 45.4 mpg margin)?????? What is "close" to YOU? A fraction of a second?[/QUOTE]

Learn about statistics first before making an uninformed statement. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, don't comment, go educate yourself for your own edification. Chamberlain played statistically significantly (not sure if that's even a word) more minutes in the regular season than Russell. Russell's [B]career high[/B] in minutes per game would only be 10th-best for Chamberlain. The funny thing is that if someone claimed that Jordan "wasn't far away" from Wilt as a scorer, you would talk about how Jordan didn't come close to Wilt's scoring output. Which would qualify as a "double standard" you talk so much about it.

[QUOTE=jlauber]And yes, I WILL praise someone when they are CORRECT about Chamberlain, and if they go out of their way to DISPARAGE Wilt, I will take exception to it.

And yes, there are some here who DEFINITELY have an "anti-Wilt" agenda.[/QUOTE]

Which isn't me, so I couldn't care less. You saw the date of the post I referred you to that [U][B]I[/B][/U] wrote, giving MY take. It was January [B]2008[/B]. Which, as you yourself noted, was YEARS before any of the stuff you've been saying here recently regarding that. I've written stuff like that well before then, but they've been pushed out of the archives because they were too long ago. That's the work of someone with an "anti-Wilt" agenda, isn't it?

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I'll try to see if I can find the post then. And no mention of Wilt hanging 60 on Thurmond, huh?



THAT instance was backed by evidence. Congratulations. :applause: If more people would do that, there wouldn't be any problem. I note you failed to do so with the statement in question that started this in the first place.



Learn about statistics first before making an uninformed statement. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, don't comment, go educate yourself for your own edification. Chamberlain played statistically significantly (not sure if that's even a word) more minutes in the regular season than Russell. Russell's [B]career high[/B] in minutes per game would only be 10th-best for Chamberlain. The funny thing is that if someone claimed that Jordan "wasn't far away" from Wilt as a scorer, you would talk about how Jordan didn't come close to Wilt's scoring output. Which would qualify as a "double standard" you talk so much about it.



Which isn't me, so I couldn't care less. You saw the date of the post I referred you to that [U][B]I[/B][/U] wrote, giving MY take. It was January [B]2008[/B]. Which, as you yourself noted, was YEARS before any of the stuff you've been saying here recently regarding that. I've written stuff like that well before then, but they've been pushed out of the archives because they were too long ago. That's the work of someone with an "anti-Wilt" agenda, isn't it?

:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

The Thurmond "gaffe" was once again, based on an EDUCATED assumption, albeit, incorrect. Wilt scored 62 points on the Warriors in a game in the 65-66 season, and Nate missed seven games, out of 80 that year. Yes, a gaffe. And because of that, I have since claimed that Wilt may have only had one 60+ game against Bellamy, although, he had two against Bellamy's team in the 61-62 season. Bellamy missed ONE game that year, so there is a minute possibility that Wilt only had one 60+ point game against him, instead of two.

BTW, I just watched the entire second half of game four of the '64 Finals, and, while it may not mean much, Chamberlain shot 7-10 in that second half against Russell. He also had Russell with five fouls (three in the second half), while he, himself, only had one. To Russell's credit, he did tip in the winning shot, when Chamberlain went out on the shooter (here again, Chamberlain had to guard EVERYBODY.) Furthermore, at that time, you could not double a player who did not have the ball, but, in the several instances in that second half, Boston would front him, with Russell behind him, BEFORE he received a pass. And, in several instances, they collapsed on Chamberlain once he did get a pass. I also found it interesting that when Russell picked up his 5th personal foul with about six minutes left, the Warriors only passed the ball into Wilt TWICE after that. In fact, they seemed to ignore him in much of that half.

And, also BTW, I have found a serious blunder on this link...

[url]http://www.nba.com/history/finals/19691970.html[/url]

[QUOTE]He stepped into the circle against Wilt for the tipoff but remained immobile during the jump. That changed once play began. Reed scored New York's first two baskets and played incredibly active defense.

Seventeen times the Lakers jammed the ball into Chamberlain in the post. Reed harassed him into shooting 2-for-9. Reed finished 2-for-5 with four fouls and three rebounds, but it was enough
[/QUOTE]

I watched that entire game on YouTube, and LA went into Chamberlain some 25 times in that first half, and in the majority of them, Chamberlain was doubled or swarmed. On the rare occasions when Reed attempted to guard Wilt, one-on-one, he fouled him three times. Yes, Wilt missed TWO shots against single coverage, but overall, in that first half, Wilt shot 5-10, with 11 points (1-8 from the line), and 12 rebounds. The rest of his team shot 33%. Those numbers were confirmed during halftime, as well.

Anyway, I WISH we did have Russell and Wilt's FG% in that '64 series. Even without them, I am CONVINCED that Chamberlain badly outshot Russell.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]So finally -- a guy kept asking was I nervous or was I scared. So finally I said, "Listen, there was no reason for me to be scared or nervous. I did not have to play against Bill Russell and the Celtics. What was there to be nervous or scared about?" You probably think I'm really modest, right? [/I][/QUOTE]
:oldlol: Russell :bowdown:

[QUOTE=jlauber]The Thurmond "gaffe" was once again, based on an EDUCATED assumption, albeit, incorrect.[/QUOTE]

No, it wasn't. It was based on confirmation bias. With all due respect, "educated" would be checking to make sure that Wilt and Thurmond indeed even [B]played[/B] in the same game at the same time before citing it as evidence. It's not particularly difficult. If someone can know something about everything else, it's inexcusable to not know about that as well. It's sheer laziness as far as I'm concerned. Anytime I cite something that happened on the court between two players, you better believe I checked it first to make sure it was so before I start stating it as fact. If I didn't check the facts on [B]one[/B] thing, then it can also be true that I didn't check the facts on other things. Credibility is something I take very seriously. Other people don't hold it in as high regard.

(BTW, there's a saying about "assumptions." I don't know if you're aware of it or not.)

[QUOTE=jlauber]Wilt scored 62 points on the Warriors in a game in the 65-66 season, and Nate missed seven games, out of 80 that year. Yes, a gaffe. And because of that, I have since claimed that Wilt may have only had one 60+ game against Bellamy, although, he had two against Bellamy's team in the 61-62 season. Bellamy missed ONE game that year, so there is a minute possibility that Wilt only had one 60+ point game against him, instead of two.[/QUOTE]

[B]CHECK[/B]!!!! Is that so freaking hard to do?!? :facepalm Don't claim ANYTHING until you've CHECKED IT FIRST. It's infuriating to me how no one is ever willing to do any research for themselves on anything, but is quick to run with anything that might confirm what they think about something without any idea whether it's true or not. That's why for years I've posted research I've done, because few very people are willing to do any. Most people on the internet merely regurgitate misinformation that's been proliferated.

And I've [U]always[/U] invited anyone to check to make sure everything I claim is true. I don't just expect people to take my word on it. I've done so ON THIS VERY BOARD before. So I find it patently absurd, that someone like me, who researches everything [B]thoroughly[/B] to ensure that everything I say is true before publicly making a statement, tells people not to just take my word on something, but other people who DON'T take the time to do the research to simply [I]fact check[/I] everything before making a statement, take offense when questioned as to what evidence a given statement is based on. Especially when they've been proven wrong before, or that it's been found that a claim they've made, when it boils down to it, wasn't based on any real evidence other than speculation from hearsay.

EDIT: In Chamberlain's 61-point game against Chicago 12/9/61, “Rookie Walt Bellamy, who found it impossible to guard the gigantic Chamberlain, had 39 points to lead the Packers” (AP). Bellamy also played in Chamberlain's 73-point game against Chicago 1/13/62, which broke Baylor's record for most points scored in an NBA game in regulation, but was less than his 78 scored in triple overtime.

This took less than 5 minutes to find out. Which is why I say it's [B]inexcusable[/B] to not find out for one's self when it's easy to do. More information is available at the fingertips of the average joe or jane than at any point in human history. There is ZERO reason to "assume" anything, when ANYONE can find out the answer. Researching for one's self is educated. "Assuming" is not. I have no sympathy for those unwilling to do the former.

BTW, Regul8r, I was wrong, my very first post was on 12/18/2009, and it was I that gave you the link to Russell and Wilt's 142 H2H games...

Adn I first mentioned the FIVE 50 point games on 12/19/2009

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153447&page=4[/url]

[QUOTE]Here are some quick FACTS...

Russell and Wilt faced each other 142 times. Chamberlain outscored Russell in 132 of them. Russell scored 30+ points against Wilt three times, with a high of 37 points. However, in each of those games, Chamberlain outscored him. On the other hand, Wilt scored 40+ points against Russell, 24 times, and 50+ points FIVE times against Russell...including a HIGH of 62 points (on 27-45 shooting BTW.)
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]This took less than 5 minutes to find out. Which is why I say it's inexcusable to not find out for one's self when it's easy to do. More information is available at the fingertips of the average joe or jane than at any point in human history. There is ZERO reason to "assume" anything, when ANYONE can find out the answer. Researching for one's self is educated. "Assuming" is not. I have no sympathy for those unwilling to do the former.
[/QUOTE]

Then by all means, find Wilt's FG% against Russell in the '64 Finals. I will even give you more than five minutes.

To anyone who is still having conversations relating to Russell and statistics...

You haven't figured it out yet.

[QUOTE=jlauber][QUOTE]This took less than 5 minutes to find out. Which is why I say it's inexcusable to not find out for one's self when it's easy to do. More information is available at the fingertips of the average joe or jane than at any point in human history. There is ZERO reason to "assume" anything, when ANYONE can find out the answer. Researching for one's self is educated. "Assuming" is not. I have no sympathy for those unwilling to do the former.[/QUOTE]

Then by all means, find Wilt's FG% against Russell in the '64 Finals. I will even give you more than five minutes.[/QUOTE]

[B]LOL[/B] at the irony of after me going on about how people don't do any research, you want me to do research for you.

:oldlol:

LOL again at the nerve of you being condescending when YOU were in the wrong. In September, I told PHILA the very same thing I just told you about making sure to verify first before citing anything. His response?

[QUOTE=PHILA][QUOTE] This is why you VERIFY a statement before accepting it as truth. As a scientist, it's infuriating to see people cite things without even bothering to verify its authenticity. They just look for things to back their belief rather than searching for the [b]TRUTH[/b], whatever it may be.

So since these are three [b]confirmed[/b] mistruths, why would anyone think he's a credible source when it comes to describing what happened? [B]INVESTIGATE[/B] whether it's true or not, don't just accept what he

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r][B]LOL[/B] at the irony of after me going on about how people don't do any research, you want me to do research for you.

:oldlol:

LOL again at the nerve of you being condescending when YOU were in the wrong. In September, I told PHILA the very same thing I just told you about making sure to verify first before citing anything. His response?



You? You respond with excuses and rationalizations. I treat every instance in which someone states something that isn't true the same. So I don't know what makes you think you're any different if you should happen to fall on the wrong end of the truth.[/QUOTE]

I'm still waiting for your verification of me stating that Wilt had SEVEN 50+ point games against Russell...especially when it was [B]I[/B] who gave [B]YOU[/B] the Harvey Pollack link to ALL of their H2H games in the first place.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I'm still waiting for your verification of me stating that Wilt had SEVEN 50+ point games against Russell...especially when it was [B]I[/B] who gave [B]YOU[/B] the Harvey Pollack link to ALL of their H2H games in the first place.[/QUOTE]

When did I say you said Wilt had seven 50 point games against Russell? I said you once included all Wilt's 50-point games against Boston in '61-62 as having come against Russell when Russell did not play in all those games just as you counted the 60-point game against the Warriors as being against Thurmond when Thurmond didn't even play in that game. I am looking for the post.

(Still refusing to admit it might perhaps be a good idea to check to make sure a player even played in a game before using it as proof of being dominated. :oldlol: )