Basketball Philosophy with Bill Russell

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

[QUOTE]Where can these be found? I've contacted both the NBA and Harvey Pollack in the past but have never received a response. Through searching I've managed to find some numbers, but I haven't as yet been able to get the numbers from all 142 games.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]The Regul8r,

I was going to save the Pollack H2H games for another post, because if anyone believed that Russell "neutralized" Wilt, Pollack shoots that down.

Here it is...

[url]http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Poll...0607_Stats.pdf[/url]

It is near the bottom (about 270 or so)...

You can obviously see the numbers for yourself, but I will post 40 games in which Chamberlain CRUSHED Russell.

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. [B]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.) [/B]
In terms of rebounding, Chamberlain outrebounded Russell 92-42, with 8 ties. Russell had ONE 40 rebound games against Wilt (exactly 40 BTW.) Meanwhile, Chamberlain had SEVEN 40+ games against Russell, including an NBA regular season record of 55...AND a post-season record of 41. Not only that, but Chamberlain held a staggering 23-4 edge in 35+ rebound games against Russell.

In terms of career scoring, Chamberlain averaged 28.7 ppg to Russell's 14.5 ppg. However, Wilt's scoring dropped dramatically as the quality of his teammates increased. Chamberlain had several SEASONS (and most of the seasons were 15-19 game matchups), in which he averaged nearly 40 ppg against Russell and the Celtics. In his first six years in the league, Chamberlain averaged about 35 ppg against Russell.

Wilt absolutely crushed Russell on the glass. He held an eye-popping 28.7 rpg - 23.7 rpg edge vs. Russell. During Russell's 10 years in which they played H2H, Wilt won EIGHT rebound titles (obviously Russell won the other two.)

Here is another interesting rebound fact...Russell is the all-time career post-season rebound leader at 24.9 rpg (Wilt is next at 24.5 rpg BTW), BUT, H2H, Wilt outrebounded Russell in EVERY post-season series (all EIGHT of them) in which they faced each other.

There is not a lot of H2H FG% statistics available between the two, but what there is shows Chamberlain with a HUGE edge. I mentioned the '66-'67 Eastern Playoffs, in which Chamberlain outshot Russell by a staggering .556 - .358 margin (and followed that up with a .560 - .343 edge over Thurmond in the Finals.)

Here is one interesting link, though, that showed Chamberlain's defensive domination over Russell...

[url]http://www.brainyhistory.com/topics/c/chamberlain.html[/url]

In that 1965 game, Chamberlain held Russell to an 0-14 game from the field.

What we do know about their FG% is that Wilt was among the best in NBA history with a career .540 mark, which includes the top two records of all-time, and three of the top-5 (.727, .683, and .649.) Conversley, Russell was a mediocre shooter, with a career .441 mark (and an even worse .430 in the post-season.)

The fact is, Wilt was swarmed by Russell and his teammates (even Tom Heinsohn admitted to that), while Russell was only a 3rd or 4th option on almost every Celtic team he played on.

Once again, in their 142 H2H matchups, Russell may have held a slight statistical edge in a handful of their games. However, Chamberlain had an overwhelming edge in the vast majority, and on top of that, he had at least 40 games in which he CRUSHED Russell. I will post them later, but suffice to say, they will open up anyone's eyes on this topic.

George Kisida, a veteran beat writer covered both of those two in their entire careers, and he made the comment that "Wilt outplayed Russell in one-third of their games. Russell outplayed Wilt in one-third of their games. And Wilt DOMINATED Russell in one-third of their games."

John Wooden made the comment that had Chamberlain been surrounded by Russell's supporting cast, that it probably would have been Wilt with all of those rings. Esteemed NY Times sports writer Leonard Koppett carried that even further, saying that had Wilt had the same teams that Russell had, in his 13 years, that he would have gone 13-0 in Finals, instead of Russell's 11-2.

In any case, I am pressed for time tonight. Inicidently, I will address some of Simmons' comments, as well as that Sports Illustrated article that was released on January 27th 1969...which basically said that Wilt could no longer score. You will find an interesting development regarding that article (in which Chamberlain was made aware of it's release just before it hit the news-stands. It was almost comical.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Thank you. I've been looking for this for years. For over a decade I've been trying to get the complete numbers. I already had the complete 1961-62 scoring numbers for both for the regular season and playoffs, the '66-67 playoffs numbers thanks to Wayne Lynch's book, a handful of games from '59-60, '62-63, '63-64, '64-65 and '68-69, and the averages of all 142 games broken down separately for regular season and playoffs (Pollack just lumps all the games together), but I didn't have all the data for each season. Although I wish he had kept track of field goals and free throws. I have the complete FG and FT numbers from their first game, but going through box scores in the newspaper, they usually just list FGM and FTM and not the attempts, so I haven't been able to fill in that data.
[/QUOTE]

[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]
I used to be like there was only what 8 teams in the league at the time? So yeah while he was good and all that it was just 7 other teams, and he played with tons of HOFers. But then I got older and wiser, and read some basketball books and such. and my list really changed. Russell used to not even be in my top 10, but now he's comfortably inside it.

And? Yes, I already had the complete scoring numbers from the '61-62 season, but I didn't have field-goal percentages to go with them. That was the only thing I got that I didn't have before, since the actual boxscores only show field goals made, not attempts. I had the complete averages from every regular and postseason meeting, but not all the individual games. All of this was attained through [B]my own[/B] research (painstakingly going through the actual newspaper accounts, and NOT at home on my computer as researchers are able to now), which predated the archived data we have now which makes research MUCH easier now that it used to be back in the day.

And I never said this occurred on InsideHoops. You "assumed" that. I've posted the numbers for the '61-62 season here before (sans field-goal percentages), and that Wilt had two 50-point games against Boston in which Russell did not play on this very board, so you couldn't possibly have stated that on this message board, since I am a regular here, and my information on it would have been quoted by someone, as it was when juliazer, I believe it was, found an error in Pollack's stats regarding '61-62. You've posted other places than on this board. But, in the interest of fairness, until I can find out where it was, I will retract that instance until I can confirm specifically. The Thurmond instance still stands, since you admitted to it, and I actually found an instance you said it which came before you started posting on InsideHoops, though you've said it here as well.

What I should have done was use the instance you claimed Willis Reed was "100% healthy" in the 1970 NBA Finals, which I addressed again [I]recently[/I], since the post is readily available.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Everyone looks at Wilt's STATS, and just accepts that he was healthy. He was FAR from 100%. Still, going up against the league MVP (and a great player), Chamberlain more than held his own. While everyone points to Reed's game seven...how about the first FOUR games of the series, [B]when Reed was 100% and Wilt was not??!![/b][/QUOTE]

I explained this to you for the [B]second[/B] time here, just a week ago:

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4992170&postcount=119[/url]

(Still doesn't change the fact that Reed continues to be overrated for that series, or that change the fact that he did [B]NOT[/B] deserve Finals MVP, but I'm only interested in facts being stated about what happened.)

You've stated this before:

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]And? Yes, I already had the complete scoring numbers from the '61-62 season, but I didn't have field-goal percentages to go with them. That was the only thing I got that I didn't have before, since the actual boxscores only show field goals made, not attempts. I had the complete averages from every regular and postseason meeting, but not all the individual games. All of this was attained through [B]my own[/B] research (painstakingly going through the actual newspaper accounts, and NOT at home on my computer as researchers are able to now), which predated the archived data we have now which makes research MUCH easier now that it used to be back in the day.

And I never said this occurred on InsideHoops. You "assumed" that. I've posted the numbers for the '61-62 season here before (sans field-goal percentages), and that Wilt had two 50-point games against Boston in which Russell did not play on this very board, so you couldn't possibly have stated that on this message board, since I am a regular here, and my information on it would have been quoted by someone, as it was when juliazer, I believe it was, found an error in Pollack's stats regarding '61-62. You've posted other places than on this board. But, in the interest of fairness, until I can find out where it was, I will retract that instance until I can confirm specifically. The Thurmond instance still stands, since you admitted to it, and I actually found an instance you said it which came before you started posting on InsideHoops, though you've said it here as well.

What I should have done was use the instance you claimed Willis Reed was "100% healthy" in the 1970 NBA Finals, which I addressed again [I]recently[/I], since the post is readily available.



I explained this to you for the [B]second[/B] time here, just a week ago:

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4992170&postcount=119[/url]

(Still doesn't change the fact that Reed continues to be overrated for that series, or that change the fact that he did [B]NOT[/B] deserve Finals MVP, but I'm only interested in facts being stated about what happened.)

You've stated this before:

Morgan Freeman in a Bill Russell biopic...directed by Clint Eastwood

[IMG]http://blog.veryfinebooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bill-russell.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.kurvmag.com.au/site/images/stories/arts/kurv%20magazine%20image%20net%20clint%20eastwood%20morgan%20freeman%202010_palm_spr.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE]It isn't difficult to come up with other instances in which you state something about a player which you don't check first, which turns out to be not actually true. You have a pattern of doing this.[/QUOTE]

Let's see here...I have made nearly 4000 posts here. And in many of them I give TONS of links, stats, and quotes...and I have a "pattern" of some kind of deceit?

You have found an example with Thurmond, in which PHILA caught my error immediately, and for which I admitted my mistake (albeit, it was a game in which Wilt played the Warriors, in a season in which Nate played 73 games...and not some completely made up stat line.) You have found one of my quotes in which I said that Reed was 100% healthy (when OBVIOUSLY at playoff time, EVERYONE has their share of nicks and bruises), and in at a point in which he was certainly in MUCH better shape than Chamberlain, who was just four months removed from major knee surgery (and BTW, Cherry stated that Reed was about the worst possible matchup for Chamberlain in that series, because of his pop-up shooting from up to 15 ft.) And you questioned my take on the fact that Russell seldom came out of games against Wilt. I gave you two WELL-KNOWN examples, AND, I also pointed out that Russell's mpg, in BOTH the regular season and post-season, were not much less than Wilt's (Wilt had a 45.2 to 42.3 edge in the regular season...and once again, Russell had one season, in 67-68, in which he only played 37.9...and Chamberlain had a 47.2 to 45.4 mpg post-season edge.) You said that it was a "statistically significant difference." Hmmm...Wilt is the all-time leader in MPG, and ...Russell is SECOND!

You also accused me of somehow attempting to make Wilt's scoring against Russell in the 61-62 season, as MORE impressive than the actual 39.7 ppg that it was, by adding the two games that Wilt scored 50+ against Boston, in which Russell missed. Even though I gave you the links in which I showed you that Wilt had FIVE games of 50+ against Russell in his CAREER...and furthermore, I gave you the link which Pollack had everyone of their 142 H2H games. Why would I be trying to "embellish" Wilt's scoring against Russell, by "lying" about his 50+ point games, and then giving you the link which clearly shows them all?

You also questioned me on Wilt's FG% against Russell in the '64 Finals, when I stated early on that IF another poster's numbers were right, that Wilt would have shot .590 in that series. Of course, since you have already stated that you can find anything on the internet in five minutes, I am still waiting for you to give me their EXACT FG%. In any case, I will stand by my statement that Wilt probably outshot Russell by a HUGE margin in that series.

You also questioned my post in which I claimed that Wilt had an entire season, (well almost...it did not include their 11th game), in which Wilt outshot Russell by a .465 to .398 margin in their H2H games. I gave it to you, and you never responded back.

In any case, I will CONTINUE to post here...and you can feel free to jump in whenever you think that I have somehow distorted the facts. Once again, my posts generally contain VOLUMES of EVIDENCE supporting MY claims. In fact, I seldom use "quotes from peers" because they seldom PROVE a thing. For instance, if Auerbach honestly believed that Russell was a better player, so what? (BTW, I always take Auerbach's "opinions" on the Russell-Wilt battles as a little more than him merely backing up his own player. He wanted Chamberlain badly while he was still in HIGH SCHOOL, and Chamberlain basically ignored him.

And the same goes for so many other players at the time, many of whom were EMBARRASSED by Chamberlain's utter domination of them. Instead, I would prefer to see some actual PROOF that Russell was a better player...and PLEASE, don't give me this W-L crap. It is a TEAM game, and as such, the better TEAM generally wins. I will give Russell his due, he did what he had to do...but he was never asked to do as much as Wilt.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r][B]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[/B]. FACT. [/QUOTE]

[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/sho...d.php?t=160893[/url] [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r][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 I who gave [B]YOU[/B] the Harvey Pollack link to ALL of their H2H games in the first place. [/QUOTE]

[B]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[/B]. I am looking for the post.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r][B]I never said this occurred on InsideHoops[/B]. [B]You "assumed" that[/B]. I've posted the numbers for the '61-62 season here before (sans field-goal percentages), and that Wilt had two 50-point games against Boston in which Russell did not play on this very board, so you couldn't possibly have stated that on this message board, since I am a regular here, and my information on it would have been quoted by someone, as it was when juliazer, I believe it was, found an error in Pollack's stats regarding '61-62. You've posted other places than on this board. But, in the interest of fairness, until I can find out where it was, I will retract that instance until I can confirm specifically.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jlauber]Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg to Russell's 14.5, and Wilt also outrebounded Russell, an incredible 28.7 to 23.7. Wilt's offensive production, though, came down later in his career, and he had several 50+ games early against Russell ([B][U][SIZE="5"]4[/SIZE][/U] in the 61-62 season...including high of 62[/B].) He also set the all time record of rebounds in a game, 55, against Russell (and also the playoff record of 41, against Russell, as well.) And as I have documented here several times, Wilt would completely outshoot Russell from the field, in terms of FG%.

- [B][SIZE="5"]JLAUBER, MAY 10, 2006, 10:34 PM[/SIZE][/B][/QUOTE]

[B]THERE'S[/B] your verification. I [B][U]NEVER[/U][/B] publicly say anything I don

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.



Well, to be fair, something being statistically significant is not the same as it being large. It just means that it's probably not due to chance. It could still be a small or modest difference. You know that, of course; I just thought I'd toss that in for the sake of clarification.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]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 [B]but more importantly how one player could impact the other nine[/B]. "[/QUOTE]

I suppose this is pretty key to one's understanding of basketball. If we view a basketball team as a mere collection of individuals, we see it very differently than if we view it as a single entity consisting of interdependent parts.

Russell characterized the Celtics' success by saying, "We won, because of comradeship, friendship and teamwork." Those sort of intangibles make sense if we believe a team is a fluid, interdependent community of sorts. Otherwise, that sort of talk sounds like nonsense.

[QUOTE=jlauber][QUOTE] It isn't difficult to come up with other instances in which you state something about a player which you don't check first, which turns out to be not actually true. You have a pattern of doing this. [/QUOTE]

Let's see here...I have made nearly 4000 posts here. And in many of them I give TONS of links, stats, and quotes...and I have a "pattern" of some kind of deceit?[/QUOTE]

Interesting you use the word

[B]JLAUBER

[I]

Four days ago, I posted a link to a post I

I have a great idea guys, let's fight on the internet about things that happened over 40 years ago!

[I]In our league I promise you that any team can beat any other team on a given night. The difference a lot of the time is all psychological. We use every little trick, every pressure, every mental gimmick we can. And there are certain rules that I live by. We'll call them Russell's Laws.
[B]
Russell's First Law:[/B] You must make the other player do what you want him to do. How? You must start him thinking. If he is thinking instead of doing, he is yours. There is no time in basketball to think: "This has happened; this is what I must do next." In the amount of time it takes to think through that semicolon, it is already too late.
[B]
Russell's Second Law:[/B] You got to have the killer instinct. If you do not have it, forget about basketball and go into social psychology or something. If you sometimes wonder if you've got it, you ain't got it. No pussycats, please. The killer instinct, by my definition, is the ability to spot

^ Thats pure gold :applause:

bump (two posts up)

jlauber....mind responding to regul8r here or...?

[QUOTE=Fatal9]jlauber....mind responding to regul8r here or...?[/QUOTE]

Why should I? Those posts were made in 2005 and I suspect that much of the info was gleaned from other sources. Of course, the vast majority of the "mistakes" were MINUTE. Ok, so Wilt "only" had FIVE 50+ point games against Russell, instead of SEVEN (which I have NEVER posted here.) Ok, so Kareem shot .457 against Wilt in the '72 WCF's, instead of 40% (of course, we do KNOW that Kareem shot .414 over the course of the last FOUR games of that series, too.)

AND, aside from the Thurmond miscue, FIND my mistakes on THIS FORUM, and in the last year-and-a half (when I joined it.)

And, as I have said all along, only a complete CLOWN would rank Wilt at #10 on any all-time list. Talk about losing credibility.

:oldlol: Wow. Props to regular for that, must have taken a long time.

But wait, you've been watching basketball for 40 years, what made you go from bashing Wilt's contemporaries to praising them (did your agenda shift?).

Now all of a sudden Russell is GOAT, even though you describe him as "Ben Wallace but a better passer", just a few days ago you mentioned how West/Oscar would be superstars in this league but here we have you saying there is no way West would even be an all-star. Here we have you rambling on and on about how Wilt's '62 season actually wasn't that impressive because he faced undersized centers who couldn't consider dealing with him, but now you write pages saying the opposite. Back then defense wasn't apparently that great, but when people take shots at Wilt? It's suddenly the best defensive era in the league due to shooting percentages (I guess the 50s were even better defensively then). It's not like you didn't know any better, you claim to have been watching basketball since the 60s. Either you haven't been watching as long as you claim (doing a complete 180 on half your opinions in a matter of months) or something in your agenda changed (maybe feeling a bit insecure that people don't respect Wilt, because they don't respect his contemporaries?).

It all shows a pattern to misrepresent facts over time and the fact you mislead people through selective stats (the more ignorant the other person, the better for you). Numerous other posters have said the same thing to you.

But...eeh...continue copy and pasting your crap...

Posted by Fatal9 less than a year ago...

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=165643[/url]

Now, you have Wilt at 10TH????

How about this quote...

[QUOTE]Russell pulled a ***** move imo. I think it was right after the game ended when he made those comments so he didn't know what was going on. He just assumed Wilt quit, when he didn't. You have to be delusional to think Wilt would sit out in a game 7 vs. Russell. It's well documented that he wanted to go back in but the idiot coach had a feud with him. Russell also seems to take every chance he can get to place himself over Wilt. He seems a bit insecure about his legacy, because he's always had to hear "Wilt would win those rings on the Celtics too". You can see it in interviews, he gets almost defensive and sometimes goes out of his way to prove his worth to those teams.[/QUOTE]

I won't take the time to find your quote about Wilt FAKING that injury just a few months ago, but perhaps later.

Or this quote...

[QUOTE]He had to have Magic over Bird or him valuing rings, heads up matches etc etc would throw his whole book out the window. Dude had one thing in mind when he sat down to write the book, prop up Russell over Wilt, by finding every quote, every story that supports his point. In something as opinion based as sports, you can find that type of stuff to make just about any point. He was flat out lying in some of his "facts" (like Wilt never won anything before NBA). Kept using arbitrary stats from selected games to make his point while ignoring Wilt's side of the argument. Tried to pretend like Russell didn't have the supporting cast edge in most of the matchups (navigated around this by using Wilt's teammates when he got old...who he barely played any matchups against Russell with). Used very selective quotes all throughout the chapter. No one with any sort of knowledge is falling for shitty arguments like that.

Simmons already did get ripped apart on ISH. There was a detailed thread a while ago exposing his huge bias and misinformation on the Wilt/Russell topic.[/QUOTE]

Or this one...and it is interesting that a while back YOU posted the SAME recaps and RIPPED Wilt for it...

[QUOTE]He mentions every great performance by Russell in big games and ignores Wilt's great performances completely. Only in a little blurb above does he mention like two Wilt games, as if they were some sort of an anomaly. You could say Wilt's individual performances in big games are even more impressive, especially considering how much more he was expected to do than Russell. I put Wilt's performance in EVERY elimination game he played...but why doesn't Simmons if he is trying to be fair?

at completely ignoring Wilt's rebounding and assist numbers in these games. at him presenting it like Russell held Wilt down himself, when the KEY for Wilt's lower point totals vs. Celtics was ball-denial (reason for lower shot attempts vs. them). Watching even 10 minutes should make anyone realize this. Notice he doesn't even mention Wilt's statline in the 1965 G7 . If you scroll lower you will see him fail to mention Wilt outrebounded Russell again in '68 series. Are people actually trying to present this dude's opinion as legitimate when he is selectively ignoring anything pro-Wilt?[/QUOTE]

Or this...

[QUOTE]Bill Simmons:

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

Yea sure you would

I guess 45/27 to save team from elimination, multiple 30/30 games in same situation, 57/35, 39/26/12, 30/27/11 and all these other performances in do or die games never happened. Either he is ignorant or has an agenda. It's probably both.[/QUOTE]

NOW, do you want me to WASTE my time and go thru every thread here to point out post-after-post spewing "anti-Wilt" crap here in the last six months, and in USING the OPPOSITE arguments???

[QUOTE=jlauber]not to diminish guys like Russell and West, two great defenders...[B]but defense back then was nowhere near as good as it is today.[/B][/QUOTE]

JLauber, I've said this to you before. I find it strange that someone who supposedly watched 60's basketball would change their mind 40+ years later. What footage came out since then that could have convinced you to change your mind?

[QUOTE=jlauber]


NOW, do you want me to WASTE my time and go thru every thread here to point out post-after-post spewing "anti-Wilt" crap here in the last six months, and in USING the OPPOSITE arguments???[/QUOTE]
That's the exact point I am making. I didn't even research Wilt's career up to that point (and I damn sure don't claim to be alive in the 60s unlike you). It was only after I did a year by year look at his career that I discovered how overrated he was. So me changing my opinion after actually learning about his career is bad...how? It shows how I had no reason to be "anti-Wilt" (lol I couldn't care less), as I started out a fan. I'm not the one who claims to have watched all the 60s, say those stars couldn't play today, and then shift around my stance because Wilty is getting criticized.

This would be like me twenty years from now telling kids one thing about this era, and then saying something completely opposite just because it helps my agenda (and then using selecting stats, and completely misrepresenting facts on top of that).

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]JLauber, I've said this to you before. I find it strange that someone who supposedly watched 60's basketball would change their mind 40+ years later. What footage came out since then that could have convinced you to change your mind?[/QUOTE]

Many of my opinions have changed in the last five years...even some here. BUT, I have been pretty damn consistent with the vast majority of them HERE, and in the last year or so.

I have CONSISTENTLY praised the players of the 60's here...in ALL major sports.

And, while I have changed my rankings here, they have also been very consistent. I have always had Shaq and Kareem in my top-6. Yet, I see you ranking players like Bird and Hakeem over both Wilt and Russell, and based on NOTHING. There is simply no shred of evidence that could be generated to possibly rank them over either.

Once again, you find something I have posted HERE, and I will be more than glad to discuss it with you.

I bet most everyone here has changed their minds in the last SIX YEARS. My god, Fatal9 went off the deep end about 6-7 MONTHS ago.

BTW, I find it fascinating that someone would take the time to find quotes from me on another forum that were posted SIX years ago. I amost take it as a compliment that someone would go to that trouble. I didn't know that I was that important.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Many of my opinions have changed in the last five years...even some here. BUT, I have been pretty damn consistent with the vast majority of them HERE, and in the last year or so. I have CONSISTENTLY praised the players of the 60's here...in ALL major sports.[/QUOTE]

But what doesn't make sense to me is if you saw them and that's why you think they're great(and some were great), then why would you be saying they weren't 5 years ago? Did you lose your memory of 60's sports 5 years ago and suddenly remember when you joined this board?

And you didn't answer my question about why you suddenly think defense was better then when you said it wasn't even close back then. What footage came out to change your mind about defense? You must've seen more 60's games than what's available now if you started watching in '64, so if your impression of defense in the 60's in 2005 was inferior based on watching 60's basketball back then, what came out since then that was more convincing than years of watching 60's basketball?

[QUOTE]And, while I have changed my rankings here, they have also been very consistent. I have always had Shaq and Kareem in my top-6. Yet, I see you ranking players like Bird and Hakeem over both Wilt and Russell, and based on NOTHING. There is simply no shred of evidence that could be generated to possibly rank them over either.[/QUOTE]

I'm not even getting into this again with you.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]But what doesn't make sense to me is if you saw them and that's why you think they're great(and some were great), then why would you be saying they weren't 5 years ago? Did you lose your memory of 60's sports 5 years ago and suddenly remember when you joined this board?

And you didn't answer my question about why you suddenly think defense was better then when you said it wasn't even close back then. What footage came out to change your mind about defense? You must've seen more 60's games than what's available now if you started watching in '64, so if your impression of defense in the 60's in 2005 was inferior based on watching 60's basketball back then, what came out since then that was more convincing than years of watching 60's basketball?



[B]I'm not even getting into this again with you[/B].[/QUOTE]



Then why should I respond to you?

But yes, DEFENSE was much better. And BTW, MY reasoning changed because of one of the few decent posts that Fatal9 made...when he posted Kareem just torching Hakeem to death in the 85-86 season. A near 40 year old scoring 35, 42, and 46 points (and on 21-30 shooting) against Hakeem...and then burying Ewing with a 40 point game (while holding Patrick to 2-16 shooting.)

Meanwhile, as I already KNEW, Chamberlain, in the twi-light of HIS career, by ALL accounts (even the Milwaukee writers BTW) outplayed a statistically PRIME Kareem. And, before Wilt's knee injury, he battered Kareem in EVERY facet of the game. I have said it before, but it was really too bad that we didn't see a PRIME Chamberlain against Kareem at any point in his career. I have no doubt that Wilt would have not only outshot and outrebounded him (and by even greater margins), but easily outscored him, as well.

But, beyond that, Thurmond CONSISTENTLY held Kareem WAY down in BOTH scoring and shooting. Kareem struggled to get to 30 against him, and now, thanks to Alexreben, we know that Kareem was held to under 20 points nearly as often as he scored 30. Meanwhile, a PRIME Chamberlain, in his "scoring" prime, had games as high as 45 points against Thurmond (outscoring him 45-13.) AND, even later in his career, he was not only KILLING Thurmond on the glass, he was outshooting him by as much as 200 points (and Wilt ALWAYS shot over 50% against Thurmond, and ALWAYS held Nate to below 40% shooting.)

And, then I researched the numbers. Players that played in the early 60's thru the late 60's and into the 70's, shot considerably worse, almost player-for-player, in the early 60's, than they did in the late 60's. AND, that trend was pretty consistent from the late 60's into the 70's. BUT, even more remarkably, they EXPLODED in the 80's. And that is why it is SO IMPORTANT to take LEAGUE AVERAGE into account. Much like comparing dead ball pitching to the steroid-era pitching...comparing shooting percentages (and BTW, FT shooting has changed very little in the last 50 years or so) between eras is vitally important. Those that diminish Wilt's ppg because of pace, had better acknowledge that had he played in the defenseless 80's, his shooting percentages would have sky-rocketed. My god, Kareem is a great example. Especially when you factor in that he could absolutely BURY Hakeem H2H, as the OLDEST player in the league.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Then why should I respond to you?

But yes, DEFENSE was much better. And BTW, MY reasoning changed because of one of the few decent posts that Fatal9 made...when he posted Kareem just torching Hakeem to death in the 85-86 season. A near 40 year old scoring 35, 42, and 46 points (and on 21-30 shooting) against Hakeem...and then burying Ewing with a 40 point game (while holding Patrick to 2-16 shooting.)

Meanwhile, as I already KNEW, Chamberlain, in the twi-light of HIS career, by ALL accounts (even the Milwaukee writers BTW) outplayed a statistically PRIME Kareem. And, before Wilt's knee injury, he battered Kareem in EVERY facet of the game. I have said it before, but it was really too bad that we didn't see a PRIME Chamberlain against Kareem at any point in his career. I have no doubt that Wilt would have not only outshot and outrebounded him (and by even greater margins), but easily outscored him, as well.

But, beyond that, Thurmond CONSISTENTLY held Kareem WAY down in BOTH scoring and shooting. Kareem struggled to get to 30 against him, and now, thanks to Alexreben, we know that Kareem was held to under 20 points nearly as often as he scored 30. Meanwhile, a PRIME Chamberlain, in his "scoring" prime, had games as high as 45 points against Thurmond (outscoring him 45-13.) AND, even later in his career, he was not only KILLING Thurmond on the glass, he was outshooting him by as much as 200 points (and Wilt ALWAYS shot over 50% against Thurmond, and ALWAYS held Nate to below 40% shooting.)

And, then I researched the numbers. Players that played in the early 60's thru the late 60's and into the 70's, shot considerably worse, almost player-for-player, in the early 60's, than they did in the late 60's. AND, that trend was pretty consistent from the late 60's into the 70's. BUT, even more remarkably, they EXPLODED in the 80's. And that is why it is SO IMPORTANT to take LEAGUE AVERAGE into account. Much like comparing dead ball pitching to the steroid-era pitching...comparing shooting percentages (and BTW, FT shooting has changed very little in the last 50 years or so) between eras is vitally important. Those that diminish Wilt's ppg because of pace, had better acknowledge that had he played in the defenseless 80's, his shooting percentages would have sky-rocketed. My god, Kareem is a great example. Especially when you factor in that he could absolutely BURY Hakeem H2H, as the OLDEST player in the league.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: How does what Kareem did in 1 game vs Patrick Ewing in his rookie year mean anything about overall defense?

Kareem didn't always go head to head with Hakeem either. Sampson faced Kareem a good amount as well. Of course, if you watched these games you'd also know that Hakeem was an undisciplined defender when he was younger.

Most importantly, you seem to think that defense is all 1 on 1, which couldn't be farther from the truth, team defense is more important.

And certain players have more success against others and it doesn't always prove who the best individual defender is, but also, how well they match up physically and how good their team's defensive schemes and personnel are.

As far as league averages? Fatal hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that 50's shooting percentages were lower than 60's. I'll only start in the shot clock era.

1955- 38.5 FG%
1956- 38.7 FG%
1957- 38 FG%
1958- 38.3 FG%
1959- 39.5 FG%
1960- 41 FG%
1961- 41.5 FG%
1962- 42.6 FG%
1963- 44.1 FG%
1964- 43.3 FG%
1965- 42.6 FG%
1966- 43.3 FG%
1967- 44.1 FG%
1968- 44.6 FG%
1969- 44.1 FG%

So I guess 50's defense>60's defense? And 50's defense>any era?

Well this is certainly what I hoped to read when I saw this thread had new posts...awesome

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]:oldlol: How does what Kareem did in 1 game vs Patrick Ewing in his rookie year mean anything about overall defense?

Kareem didn't always go head to head with Hakeem either. Sampson faced Kareem a good amount as well. Of course, if you watched these games you'd also know that Hakeem was an undisciplined defender when he was younger.

Most importantly, you seem to think that defense is all 1 on 1, which couldn't be farther from the truth, team defense is more important.

And certain players have more success against others and it doesn't always prove who the best individual defender is, but also, how well they match up physically and how good their team's defensive schemes and personnel are.

As far as league averages? Fatal hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that 50's shooting percentages were lower than 60's. I'll only start in the shot clock era.

1955- 38.5 FG%
1956- 38.7 FG%
1957- 38 FG%
1958- 38.3 FG%
1959- 39.5 FG%
1960- 41 FG%
1961- 41.5 FG%
1962- 42.6 FG%
1963- 44.1 FG%
1964- 43.3 FG%
1965- 42.6 FG%
1966- 43.3 FG%
1967- 44.1 FG%
1968- 44.6 FG%
1969- 44.1 FG%

So I guess 50's defense>60's defense? And 50's defense>any era?[/QUOTE]

First of all, Kareem not only torched Hakeem (and even the recap mentioned that Hakeem was going for blocks, while Kareem was going around him for easy baskets)...in ONE game, he did it in THREE games...all as the oldest player in the league. Then, take a look a Kareem's numbers vs Hakeem and Ewing in his LAST three years in the league and in his 40's! He was basically battling them to statistical draws...and they were certainly far closer to their primes, than Kareem was to his.

I can't speak for defense in the 50's, ...I didn't see any of it. BUT, and YOU know this as well, since I have posted it NUMEROUS times. There was something more to the poor FG%'s of the early 60's than just defense. Some arenas had no heating, and were freezing cold in the winter. All of us have played in cold weather, and it has a HUGE affect on shooting. Some had BREEZES going thru them. Here again, all of us have played outside in windy conditions, and trying to estimate just how the ball will react to the wind is damn near an impossibility. Some had "dead spots" on the floors (and before someone asks how does that affect shooting...it certainly affects the shooter as he is getting ready to pick up his dribble and shoot.) And, as GOAT brought up...and this is HUGE...the BALL was NOT uniform until something like 1970. I remember playing in city leagues, and before each game they would bring out a rack of balls for the shoot-around. NONE of the balls were identical. Some were lighter, some were heavier, and some were LOPSIDED. And, you never knew which one that they would select for the actual game, either. On top of all of that, I remember attending games in which the smoke from cigarettes was so bad, that you could hardly see the floor by the 4th quarter.

As for defense, my god, as YOU know, it was NEVER Russell vs. Wilt. The Celtics SWARMED Chamberlain. So, no, Kareem, nor Hakeem, nor Shaq were the first to get doubled or tripled.

Look, I could go on-and-on. The longest HR hitter of all-time, and it is well documented, was 5-11 190 lb. Mickey Mantle. Perhaps the fastest pitcher of all-time was Nolan Ryan. The fastest LEGITIMATE NFL player of all-time was Bob Hayes, who played over 40 years ago. Jeez, Darrell Green was playing in the NFL in the early 80's. At age 50, he just ran a 4.43 40 yard dash, which would have blown away just about every college player at the NFL combine last year. The world record in the long jump is 29' 4". Bob Beamon jumped 29' 2" in 1968. Furthermore, give all of the athletes the same benefits of modern technology, and while we don't know just how much better they would be...we do know, that they would ALL be better. And, take all of the current athletes back into the 60's, and in their childhood, and raise them under the same conditions that the greats of that period were raised in, and while we don't know how much worse they would be, we do know that they would ALL be worse. Can you imagine what Shaq would have looked like on the diet, training, and medicine of that era? Hell, with his poor shooting skills he might have been no better than Darryl Dawkins.

I will be the first to agree that the AVERAGE athlete of today is better than those of yesteryear, BUT, they are not SIGNIFICANTLY better. AND, once again, give all of those athletes of the 60's, 70's, and 80's the same benefits, and the differences would be marginal. Take a look at baseball. If I told you that Babe Ruth would be great today, the vast majority of the "ESPN Generation" would run me off the forum. BUT, take a look at Ted Williams, who, like Kareem, was a "bridge." Williams was a rookie in 1939 (and before integration.) Now I won't look up the numbers, so yes, I might be off a few points or HRs or even a couple of years...but follow along. In his rookie year Williams hit .327 with 31 HRs. Jimmy Foxx played in William's rookie year, and batted .360 with 35 HRs. Just the year before, in 1938, Foxx hit 50 HRs. Just six years before that, Foxx hit 58 HRs...in a year in which a way over-the-hill Ruth hit 41. And just five years before that, and in his prime, Ruth slugged 60 HRs.

Ok, so what does that have to do with today's players...especially since it all occurred before integration? Well, two years later, in 1941, Williams hit .406 with 37 HRs (the last player to hit .400 BTW.) Now, fast forward to 1957, and in a league that had been integrated for over 10 years. Williams, at age 38, hit .388 with 38 HRs. In 1956, Mickey Mantle, and against almost the exact same pitchers, hit .353 with 52 HRs. And a year before that, Willie Mays hit 51 HRs. Ten years later, in 1965, Mays won the MVP with 52 HRs. BTW, in Williams '57 season, young Hank Aaron hit 44 HRs. 16 years later, in 1973, Aaron hit 40 HRs in only 392 ABs.

Now you get the point. Williams was facing many of the same pitchers that Ruth had faced in his career. And Mays, Aaron, and Mantle faced many of the same pitchers that Williams faced in their careers. And Aaron in the 70's faced many of the pitchers that Mike Schmidt was hitting 48 HRs off of in 1979. Or George Foster hit 52 against in 1976. You can follow that all the way to today.

Or, take Nolan Ryan, who pitched in FOUR decades. Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH (on a SLOW gun BTW) in 1974, in the eigth inning of a game in which he had thrown 162 pitches. In his LAST season, and at age 46, and on his very LAST pitch (and on an injured arm), he was clocked at 98 MPH...in the early 1990's! And, Ryan pitched alongside of Marichal and Gibson, who along with Koufax, dominated the 60's. They were BETTER than Ryan, in fact. And yet, Ryan was one of the best pitchers of his era.

So, that is why I believe that Ruth would be great today. Just as I believe that a healthy Sayers, or Jim Brown, or OJ (who would STILL be among the fastest backs, of THIS era) would be great today. And for those that believe that Chris Johnson is the fastest...take a look at his 100 meter time (without looking it up, I believe it was 10.5 or so), and have him run against Hershel Walker, OJ, the aforementioned Green (who ran a 10.08 BTW)....and Bob Hayes, who ran a 10.0 in 1964!

So, yes, Wilt, Oscar, West, Thurmond, Russell, Barry, Hawkins, Frazier, Lucas, Reed, Bellamy, Havlicek, and then later, Kareem, Lanier, Gilmore, Archibald, Hayes, Unseld, Maravich, McAdoo, Dr. J, Cowens, Gervin, Moses, David Thompson, and MANY others...would be GREAT today, too.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Well this is certainly what I hoped to read when I saw this thread had new posts...awesome[/QUOTE]

Well, even though you and I don't always agree...I think we BOTH agree that Russell and Wilt were FAR better players than 9th and 10th all-time.

[QUOTE=jlauber]BTW, I find it fascinating that someone would take the time to find quotes from me on another forum that were posted SIX years ago. I amost take it as a compliment that someone would go to that trouble. I didn't know that I was that important.[/QUOTE]

Since you wanna refer to me without mentioning my name, I will respond. I have not commented on this until now.

[B][U]You[/U][/B] were the one who questioned me:

[QUOTE=jlauber]I'm still waiting for your verification of me stating that Wilt had SEVEN 50+ point games against Russell[/QUOTE]

I gave you the verification you were waiting for. And you didn't even have the dignity to apologize or admit you were wrong. Which has already been noted.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I have ALWAYS stated that Wilt scored 50+ points against Russell in FIVE games[/QUOTE]

Lie. As I've proven.

You were the one who opened Pandora's box:

[QUOTE=jlauber]So, by all means, give me some other examples of my "over-zealous" statements. [/QUOTE]

[B]You[/B] asked for it, so I gave it to you. As I said, the examples I provided should be more than enough to suffice. And they were by no means exhaustive. I gave you the reason why I have questioned certain statements you have made, because

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Since you wanna refer to me without mentioning my name, I will respond. I have not commented on this until now.

[B][U]You[/U][/B] were the one who questioned me:



I gave you the verification you were waiting for. And you didn't even have the dignity to apologize or admit you were wrong. Which has already been noted.



Lie. As I've proven.

You were the one who opened Pandora's box:



[B]You[/B] asked for it, so I gave it to you. As I said, the examples I provided should be more than enough to suffice. And they were by no means exhaustive. I gave you the reason why I have questioned certain statements you have made, because

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]

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.[B] Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes?[/B] [/QUOTE]

advertisement?

[QUOTE=jlauber]First of all, Kareem not only torched Hakeem (and even the recap mentioned that Hakeem was going for blocks, while Kareem was going around him for easy baskets)...in ONE game, he did it in THREE games...all as the oldest player in the league. Then, take a look a Kareem's numbers vs Hakeem and Ewing in his LAST three years in the league and in his 40's! He was basically battling them to statistical draws...and they were certainly far closer to their primes, than Kareem was to his.[/QUOTE]

Neither were particularly close to their primes. Kareem was still a hell of an offensive player in '86, he averaged over 23 ppg and 3.5 apg on 56% shooting and 26 ppg and 3.5 apg on 56% shooting in the playoffs. That's why he was still the number 1 scoring option on a 62 win team.

Plus, this has nothing to do with overall defense, just how a player matches up with another. And mid/late 80's defense was weaker than 90's/00's defense(particularly late 90's/early 00's).

[QUOTE]I can't speak for defense in the 50's, ...I didn't see any of it. BUT, and YOU know this as well, since I have posted it NUMEROUS times. There was something more to the poor FG%'s of the early 60's than just defense.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but if you saw the 60's and thought the era was much weaker defensively as recent as 5 years ago, then what changed your mine on defense at the time wasn't based on what you saw, therefor, your opinion on how good defense was at the time was no better than mine.

My point is that players becoming more skilled is a better explanation for the league's FG%, which would also explain why the 50's was so much lower than any other era.

:applause:

[quote]My point is that players becoming more skilled is a better explanation for the league's FG%, which would also explain why the 50's was so much lower than any other era.[/quote]The playing conditions as well.


[I]'"How many layups do you think there were in the last Laker game? Forty-eight. People will tell you guys shoot better now. No doubt they shoot a little better, but not like you'd think from looking at the percentages. Mike Cooper is shooting 59 percent. You want to bet some money he'd outshoot Jerry West? I'll bet my house against him (Cooper) on Dolph Schayes. I'll take Larry Costello and give you any Laker with the exception of Wilkes.

Players just get to the basket (layups) more. It ups their percentage. There's no defense inside. When I played, if the other team ran a fast break two or three times, the coach would assign a forward to break back on defense as soon as the ball went up. I never see a coach doing that now. There were no uncontested layups.

My last two or three years I shot 69 to 73 percent. You think I was a better shooter? No, the defenses got worse and I was able to dunk every damn ball I wanted to. It was easier to get there. When I played against guys like Johnny Kerr . . . He was 6-10 and couldn't jump, but I'll tell you, you didn't get to the basket on him."'

-Wilt Chamberlain, [/I][I]1982[/I]

[I]
"It's a run up and down the court and dunk the ball game now. These are speed merchants and jumping fools. That's why their shooting percentages are going way up. I led the league 11 times in field goal percentage and my lifetime average was 54%. There are now five billion guys shooting over 54%. Can you imagine playing when your hands are so cold and the ball is as hard as a brick? I can remember going to Detroit and playing the old Detroit Arena and there's about 3000 people in this big old huge thing. Every time they opened the door, the wind blows through. I can vividly remember Paul Arizin blowing into his hands and the smoke was blowing out of his nose. Guys were shooting 37%, and these were great shooters. People look at that any say, 'Is that a basketball player or was he on a blind team?' They don't know how to put that into perspective."

-[/I][I]Wilt Chamberlain, [/I][I]1985[/I]




From [B]The Big O: my life, my times, my game[/B]. (2003)

[I]"While there's no shortage of charismatic young guys who can jump and dunk, nobody has captured the public's imagination the way Michael did. Nor are there any rivalries like Magic's Lakers against Bird's Celtics in the 1980s, or Michael's Bulls against Isiah Thomas's Bad Boys. Meanwhile, in its drive to accrue television money and ticket revenues, the league has abandoned free television in favor of cable deals. They've priced out most people from seeing a game - except corporate America.

In the last two years, professional basketball has seen two major trends: one, an influx of European player who coaches and commentators say are extremely well versed in the fundamentals and understand the game; two, the hyping of physically gifted high schoolers who eschew college for a chance at the pros.

Watch an NBA game tonight. You'll see players who can't make a reverse pivot. Can't make a crossover dribble. And the NBA's answer hasn't been additional coaching for these young guys. Rather it's been to welcone top-notch high schoolers with open arms and shoe contracts and their own commercials.

The best players get to sit on the bench for three years or so, and if they have the work ethic and commitment (like Kobe Bryant or Jermaine O'Neal), they'll work hard and begin to figure things out for themselves.

Maybe I am coming from a different mindset. The current NBA is a multi million dollar business. Teams travel in their own private planes, with luxury seats and individual DVD players set up for each team member. When I played, the job wasn't a routine one, but there was a routine to it. Every city was an adventure. [B]The courts weren't like today's lacquered, standardized basketball courts.[/B] [B]There were screws sticking up out of the old Cow Palace floor in San Francisco.[/B] Boston Garden's parquet was noted for, among other things, its [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=9m45s"]dead spots[/URL]. Celtics players used to lead you to them, and when you dribbled on a dead piece of wood, they'd be waiting; the ball would bounce low, or spring off to the side, and a Celtic would pounce.

[B]
We ushered in the modern era of basketball. [/B]You wouldn't have the game of basketball as we know it without us. We were cornerstones in building the game and the way it is played today. Today's player, whether he knows it or not, wouldn't be where he is without us.

[B]We had Bill Russell & Wilt, the two most dominant players in the history of the game. [/B]Jerry West was the best clutch player I ever saw, the best shooter, and one of the best competitors. His biggest talent, perhaps, was emerging at the right moment to take advantage of a well-timed pick or pass. Jerry hated to lose so much that you could see it transform him. Jerry and I were friends, but our rivalry was intense.

People always ask who was better: Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or Michael Jordan? But they forget that those three never played against one another in matchups. Wilt Chamberlain played against Bill Russell. I guarded Jerry West. Our rivalry was especially entertaining, both to watch and to be a part of, because I played with such efficiency and calculated focus, while Jerry was a great shooter. Bob Ryan, the renowned basketball writer for the Boston Globe has said that I developed more skills than any other basketball player he ever saw, whereas Jerry may have had more desire.


I played against some of the greatest defenders in the history of the game - Russell, Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy - but still the scoring was a lot higher than it is today. Some so-called experts will tell you it's because of the coaches and athletes. [B]I've seen basketball analysts say that the principles of help defense are more advanced now and take advantage of all the athleticism. I say that's bull.[/B] [B]If Jerry West was on his game, you couldn't stop him. I don't care what defense you were in. [/B]

I don't want to sound like a dinosaur: "In my day we knew how to play, to dunk; we had to walk uphill both ways to get to the basketball court, and then when we dribbled, we the ball rolled down the hill." Dunking's been part of the game for a long time. Many players I knew when I used to play at the Dust Bowl could dunk a ball. Gus Johnson tore down rims more than 30 years ago. I could list guy after guy who was a great dunker. It never meant anything to me but two points. A lot of them never dunked because it embarrassed a defender, and he'd take it out on them the next play. I rarely dunked, but I did do it once in a while in practice, just to show people I could.

But it you can dunk a ball, you are now the greatest player in the world. Gone by the wayside is the ability to make a play or think about the game of basketball. [B]Street lingo today translates "skills" as the ability to dribble the ball behind your back or off your knee.[/B] But knowing how to run a good fast break is a skill. So is busting your hump and getting out on the wing and filling the lane at the proper angle. [B]Teams don't run the way we did anymore.[/B]

Knowing how to rub off a defender when you use a pick is a skill. Knowing how to feel a defender with your body and read the court to see where help is coming from is a skill. Knowing how to stay in control, pace yourself, and not use all your energy too early or give away all your tricks, that's a skill. Setting solid picks and knowing how to get yourself open from them; knowing how to hit a guy with a pass the exact moment he frees himself and how to get him the ball in a place and at a time that allows him to shoot in rhythm; getting position low on the post; boxing out; playing solid man to man defense while also knowing where the ball is - those are skills. Certain players in the game today have them - Jason Kidd and Tim Duncan are two, off the top of my head. But most younger players don't, not by a long shot.

Shaquille O'Neal is one of the greatest players of all time. He's big, strong, and fast. Shaq's go-to shot is a dunk. There's no doubt he would have gotten his share of dunks on Bill Russell. There were times he'd get position close to the basket, and there's nothing anyone could do about that. Bill was six ten, and had long enough arms where he might have been able to front Shaq. He may have been able to deny him the ball from the side. He was smart enough and competitive enough that he could have played against him. [B]Bill could exploit anything, make you rely on the weakest parts of your game.[/B] Shaq doesn't have much of a jumper. He has a jump hook shot but doesn't have the full kind of hook that would be unstoppable. (Hell, his jump hook might be unstoppable if he used it more.)"
[/I]




NBA teams didn't always have priority at the home venue if there was a scheduling conflict (regular season or playoffs). Imagine shooting a long distance high arc shot in such a building as below in 1967, where you can see a rookie Phil Jackson make a move against Chicago's Bob Boozer.

[IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/262tzi9.jpg[/IMG]

i always stay away from any play comparison involving Bill Russell. The way he approaches the game and his mindset are very different from pretty much any other player that has played in the NBA.

I guess I just have trouble believing that someone could dominate a game on intangibles, defense, and mind games. Then again, he's got 11 championships, so what can I say?

He's one of the hardest to rank because I don't understand his impact.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I won't apologize for something that I posted SIX years ago.[/QUOTE]

Of course you won’t. You’re too stubborn to do so, and your pride won’t let you.

[QUOTE=jlauber]As for YOU, I gave YOU the information on the Wilt-Russell matchups. [/QUOTE]

And I gave YOU a hell of a lot more information.

The efficiency you’ve cited of Adrian Dantley?

It came from me. (From MY original work, not someone else’s, I might add) Though if you’d been watching basketball then, you should have known about Dantley. None of that should have been new to you.

Article you’ve repeatedly quoted about Kareem’s matchup against Wilt and Thurmond in the ’72 playoffs?

Came from me. You hadn’t seen it until I posted it.

I’ve told you things from the era you’ve said you watched that you never knew, which again, I find odd if you were watching basketball when it happened.

I showed you statistical studies that have been done which you didn’t know existed until I showed them to you.

Please.

[QUOTE=jlauber]And I find it almost eeriethat someone would go to the trouble to find posts of mine from six years ago.[/QUOTE]

I can understand your chagrin considering the results. But the truth is impregnable and will withstand the strongest scrutiny. You can go back a HUNDRED years, and the truth will still be the truth. It’s only when you’re speaking from a position of UNtruth that you have to worry about what someone might find.

If you were on trial, and I presented evidence before the court that you are a habitual offender of the crime you’ve been charged of, it would be relevant. Diagnostic criteria for personality disorders is a pervasive pattern which can be traced back to early in life.

You challenged the wrong person. Sucks for you.

[QUOTE=jlauber]In any case, yes, SOME of my positions have changed in the last six years.[/QUOTE]

Some people have expressed curiosity as to why you would throw every single one of Wilt’s contemporaries under the bus, but then do a 180 and defend them. How’d THAT change? I haven’t seen anyone who’s done such a radical change. I’m reminded somewhat of a former poster here by the name of BULLS who claimed to allegedly have grown up in that era, but said it was WEAK. That was his shtick.

Judd Vance (Air Judden), renowned defender of Wilt, never in TWENTY PLUS YEARS bashed Wilt’s contemporaries and then did a 180. He’s been consistent. I know of other Wilt fans who have never done so. You’re the first I’ve seen. So the question is how’d your take come to be drastically different? (I’m still curious on PHILA’s opinion on this.)

[QUOTE=jlauber]“[B]I know both you and I will get some flak from "old-timers" about how great some of them were[/B] . . . , but realistically, todays basketball players, although many lacking in fundamental skills, are far superior to the players of the 60's.” [/QUOTE]

I find those choice of words curious, because if one is an old timer one’s self, then why would one use that term to describe [I]others[/I], who would presumably be your peer group? This sounds like a younger person talking.

[QUOTE=jlauber]But, once again, when I post something, I usually back it up 10 fold.[/QUOTE]

Lie. I’ve thoroughly demonstrated that you’ve had a history of pulling things out of your behind without a shred of evidence to suit your agenda. Or misrepresenting the facts.

[QUOTE=jlauber]And I have challenged you and anyone else here to find my misquotes HERE.[/QUOTE]

Lie. I said you did the same thing to Russell than you did to Thurmond, crediting 50+ point games Wilt had against Russell’s TEAM in which Russell HIMSELF didn’t actually play as having been accomplished against Russell. You said you’d never done so. Perhaps you need to review the meaning of “never.”

Hell, you were misrepresenting the facts the VERY FIRST TIME you picked an argument with me on this forum:

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r] [QUOTE=jlauber]Aside from [B]Guy Rodgers[/B] and Al Attles, who were nothing more than decent their entire careers [/QUOTE]

Rodgers was a four-time All-Star who finished in the top two in assists for eight years straight from 1959-60 to 1966-67. (When I have the time, I'll look to see just how many point guards in league history have done that to put it in historical context.)

[QUOTE]During Wilt Chamberlain's first three years in the NBA, two debates raged among basketball fans in Boston and Philadelphia. The loudest and most captivating debate involved the merits of the two centers warring in the pivot—Philadelphia's Wilt Chamberlain and Boston's Bill Russell. The other was a secondary debate: Who as the better playmaker, Philadelphia's Guy Rodgers or Boston's Bob Cousy?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]With Guy feeding him for 30 shots a game, [Chamberlain] led the league with 37.6 scoring average—the best in pro history. Wilt also led the NBA with 27 rebounds a game. On occasion, Guy would toss up a shot purposely short of the rim and Chamberlain would guide it into the basket with one hand. This was an early version of the alley-oop, which the two later perfected in San Francisco.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][U]Over the years, Guy’s exclusion from the Hall of Fame puzzled many of the players who made it to Springfield[/U]. He tried to be philosophical about it, speculating that for some reason the “powers that be” didn’t want him enshrined. Years later, his old nemesis, Cousy, was shocked when he was told that Guy was not in the Hall of Fame. To Cousy, it was a no-brainer.

[B]One of Guy’s biggest proponents, Chamberlain, openly questioned the Hall of Fame’s inaction, pointing out that, in his opinion, Guy was as a ballhandler and passer “better than Cousy or Jerry West or Robertson or Walt Frazier or Pete Maravich or anyone.”[/B][/QUOTE]

[B]Wilt Chamberlain:[/B] "He was as good a ballhandler and passer as anyone, and that includes Bob Cousy."

[B]Pat Williams:[/B] "Wilt Rodgers and Wilt, you had the ultimate passer and the ultimate scorer. Guy was about 6-foot-1 and built like Kevin Johnson. He was an imaginative passer in the middle of the fast break with a flair for the dramatic—some of his passes took your breath away."

[B]Tom Meschery:[/B] "On the fast break and getting the ball to Wilt, no one was any better."[/QUOTE]

I’m not the only person who’s pointed this out to you.

[I](cont.)[/I]