Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats

[QUOTE=dankok8]You look at Wilt's and his teammates' performance in a vacuum. It doesn't work that way. One AFFECTS the other... Wilt is partly responsible for his teammates performing poorly. Taking too many shots, not passing the ball effectively/willingly, discouraging his teammates with his crazy antics like living in NYC and skipping practices...

Is it a coincidence that the 66-67 Sixers with basically the same players as the year prior suddenly became a powerhouse? NO... Wilt changed his style of play and his team blossomed.

[B]Even if Wilt doesn't deserve to get ripped so much then Russell should be praised.[/B] Do you not believe in intangibles or you just pretend they don't exist?[/QUOTE]


Who's saying Russell SHOULDN'T be praised? He was truly a very great player. And I don't disagree with a lot of what you say about him. But to lay the Boston dynasty at HIS feet, and refuse to acknowledge the HUGE part Auerbach played, well, that's just wrong. And by denying Auerbach's role you're denying the huge advantage Russell had over Chamberlain.

[QUOTE=dankok8]Wilt's assists numbers dropped from 5.2 apg in the 65-66 regular season to 3.0 apg in the '66 EDF. That's 4.4 LESS POINTS that he contributed to his teammates. [/QUOTE]
Only if you give all credit to the assister and none to the scorer.

[QUOTE=dankok8]And no he didn't play nearly as good as in the regular season.

Look at how he did the first four games of the series... 23.5 ppg on 48.7% shooting. If he didn't explode for 46 points in Game 5 to improve his stats, he would be harshly criticized for this series. [/QUOTE]
If Walt Wesley, Willie Burton, Tony Delk and Tracy Murray hadn't played a bunch more games they'd have had 50ppg career averages. But it isn't the case.


[QUOTE=dankok8]Sure but my point is when discussing Wilt vs. Russell from '65 to '69 you can't really use the teammate card. Wilt's teams were good enough to win.[/QUOTE]
Essentially "Sure ... but I'm going to ignore your point". In '65 they self evidently weren't good enough to compete. The team Russell joined already had the best record in the league (and win-loss record superior to that which they had with him, not saying that he harmed them but his impact in the first year is certainly not proportionate with his later reputation). The team Chamberlain joined was 34-46 the year prior with a -3.75 SRS, in '65 they were better but were just 22-23 before he first first arrived (and had been outscored over the season, scoring 5015 points, conceding 5037).

In '66 the teams were very close overall. BUT

1) That's including Russell and Chamberlain. And the consensus is that Chamberlain was better (he won the official (player vote) MVP, was first team all-NBA and won the US Basketball Writers MVP, there's only one MVP trophy unaccounted for the Metropolitan Sportswriters Sam Davis Memorial Award and it's probable that Wilt won this too). That means if the teams were even overall then part of that is Wilt overcoming the deficit created by his teammates.

2) Aha but they weren't even, Philly had a better win loss record. Well yes, one game better by win loss record, but more representatively Boston had a better points differential and SRS. Boston lost some games because they had a number of minor injuries (a number of core players including Sam Jones and Havlicek playing around 71 games). Those injuries (artificially) deflated their win total, yet despite this their points differential over the season was superior to the 76ers. Had the Celtics been fully healthy their SRS advantage would have been larger, and their superiority clearer.

For '68 point 1 above again, but note that Russell gets no MVP votes, i.e. the individual gap is getting larger (we don't know about the "alternate" MVP votes that year the US Basketball writers award seems to have ended, and we don't have confirmation on the Sam Davis award winner).

The secondary point for '68 would be even if Chamberlain's superiority over Russell at that point didn't make up all of Philly's advantage over Boston, subtract Cunningham (as they actually played in the playoffs) and Philly's cast is certainly worse. All the more so after we injure Walker, Jones and Jackson (not to mention Chamberlain's own injury).

[QUOTE=dankok8]Players are out on the floor winning games. Auerbach obviously did a lot for the Celtics including the front office pulls but Red is also on record saying he could never coach a primadonna like Wilt.[/QUOTE]
What's your point with the first part? That coaching has no influence? I'd argue especially in that era when coaches just made ex-pros coaches (see Neil Johnston and Dolph Schayes) after no apprenticeship as assistants, having a good coach.

And Auerbach is very loyal to Russell and thus sometimes put down Chamberlain to boost Russell.

But as a counterpoint here's what long time Celtic and later Chamberlain coach K.C. Jones said
[QUOTE=K.C. Jones]

[QUOTE=Owl]Only if you give all credit to the assister and none to the scorer.


If Walt Wesley, Willie Burton, Tony Delk and Tracy Murray hadn't played a bunch more games they'd have had 50ppg career averages. But it isn't the case.



Essentially "Sure ... but I'm going to ignore your point". In '65 they self evidently weren't good enough to compete. The team Russell joined already had the best record in the league (and win-loss record superior to that which they had with him, not saying that he harmed them but his impact in the first year is certainly not proportionate with his later reputation). The team Chamberlain joined was 34-46 the year prior with a -3.75 SRS, in '65 they were better but were just 22-23 before he first first arrived (and had been outscored over the season, scoring 5015 points, conceding 5037).

In '66 the teams were very close overall. BUT

1) That's including Russell and Chamberlain. And the consensus is that Chamberlain was better (he won the official (player vote) MVP, was first team all-NBA and won the US Basketball Writers MVP, there's only one MVP trophy unaccounted for the Metropolitan Sportswriters Sam Davis Memorial Award and it's probable that Wilt won this too). That means if the teams were even overall then part of that is Wilt overcoming the deficit created by his teammates.

2) Aha but they weren't even, Philly had a better win loss record. Well yes, one game better by win loss record, but more representatively Boston had a better points differential and SRS. Boston lost some games because they had a number of minor injuries (a number of core players including Sam Jones and Havlicek playing around 71 games). Those injuries (artificially) deflated their win total, yet despite this their points differential over the season was superior to the 76ers. Had the Celtics been fully healthy their SRS advantage would have been larger, and their superiority clearer.

For '68 point 1 above again, but note that Russell gets no MVP votes, i.e. the individual gap is getting larger (we don't know about the "alternate" MVP votes that year the US Basketball writers award seems to have ended, and we don't have confirmation on the Sam Davis award winner).

The secondary point for '68 would be even if Chamberlain's superiority over Russell at that point didn't make up all of Philly's advantage over Boston, subtract Cunningham (as they actually played in the playoffs) and Philly's cast is certainly worse. All the more so after we injure Walker, Jones and Jackson (not to mention Chamberlain's own injury).


What's your point with the first part? That coaching has no influence? I'd argue especially in that era when coaches just made ex-pros coaches (see Neil Johnston and Dolph Schayes) after no apprenticeship as assistants, having a good coach.

And Auerbach is very loyal to Russell and thus sometimes put down Chamberlain to boost Russell.

But as a counterpoint here's what long time Celtic and later Chamberlain coach K.C. Jones said

That's someone with strong Celtics loyalties but who actually had the chance to work with Wilt.

It's admirable that he won as a player coach, but it's relevence to the discussion of playing careers is minimal. And for what its worth, from what I've read, the Celtics to a significant degree coached themselves with (iirc not totally sure on this) Havlicek taking the lead on offense (and Russell leading the D).

And the underdog thing is true to a degree but overstated. In '68 as above they were underdogs both teams at full strength, as the series actually was played (injuries) they'd have to be favourites. In '69 their regular season falloff is overstated. They posted the 2nd best SRS and points differential over the season (behind New York), they just happened to lose a bunch of close games. And they limited Jones and Russell's minutes in regular season, allowing for an easy "improvement" in the playoffs simply by shortening their rotation. Nor were the defending champs written off prior to the season in the press (see, for instance, SI's preseason coverage).[/QUOTE]

Fair points on '65 and '66. Most of that was said above and I agree. But the Celtics and Sixers were pretty evenly matched. Boston wasn't overwhelmingly better no way.

In '68 injuries did kill Philly but even in the regular season it was 4-4. And Boston was also suffering through injuries (though I admit less). Siegfried hurt his back and also had a flu early in the series. Satch Sanders DNP in Game 6 and 7. Sam Jones was suffering through nagging injuries all year and his effectiveness was very low compared to years prior.

In '69 Lakers were 7-5 favorites in the Finals. Jones was completely breaking down, Boston was old, and many times during the regular season they were written off. LA had the big 3 of West, Baylor, and Wilt. If Johnny Egan didn't lose the ball in Game 4 and Wilt and Baylor contributed a bit more than almost nothing on offense LA would have run away with that series.

Seems , Wilt has first three ; Russell has others .

0 fouls and blowout loss means zero trying on defence . That's why Russell had the impact above Wilt for game 5 .

And that game 6 could be worst game of Wilt's career .

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Yeah...that was the Wilt who lacked that "killer instinct" when his team was up 3-1. He just mailed it in that game five.[/QUOTE]

Certainly mailed it in game 7 and cost them the game :lebronamazed:

[IMG]http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2817947/billbored.gif[/IMG]

Ilt = JV defense
Russell = GOAT defense

[QUOTE=feyki]Seems , Wilt has first three ; Russell has others .

0 fouls and blowout loss means zero trying on defence . That's why Russell had the impact above Wilt for game 5 .

And that game 6 could be worst game of Wilt's career .[/QUOTE]

Not a blowout loss at all. The score was tied at halftime and the Celtics only led by 5 after 3 quarters. Wilt had also 30 rebounds, while holding Russell to 8 points. None of these indicates poor defense. On the contrary, Sam Jones going 15-27 from the field for 37 points does indicate poor defense on Hal Greer's part.

Game 6 was Wilt's most inefficient scoring-wise. Is this his worst one? If it is, it is a testament of how good he was, since even there, he added 27 rebounds and 8 assists (in a non blowout loss, either).

[QUOTE=Psileas]Not a blowout loss at all. The score was tied at halftime and the Celtics only led by 5 after 3 quarters. Wilt had also 30 rebounds, while holding Russell to 8 points. None of these indicates poor defense. On the contrary, Sam Jones going 15-27 from the field for 37 points does indicate poor defense on Hal Greer's part.

Game 6 was Wilt's most inefficient scoring-wise. Is this his worst one? If it is, it is a testament of how good he was, since even there, he added 27 rebounds and 8 assists (in a non blowout loss, either).[/QUOTE]

Holding X is false statement when X not a scorer , firstly(as main purpose ). And Russell can pressure on every player of opponent team on the court rather than Wilt . That's the difference of between Goat defender and a great defender . And 0 fouls , tells us ; somethings . About Wilt's contacts and defensive plays . Even that Sam Jones perform was about Wilt . A Dominant Rim protector effects all of opponents . Like Russell said ;

[IMG]http://img.picturequotes.com/2/2/1411/the-idea-is-not-to-block-every-shot-the-idea-is-to-make-your-opponent-believe-that-you-might-block-every-shot-quote-1.jpg[/IMG]

Before 80's rebounding numbers are overrated . We should judge players with rebounding percentages or in same rebound chances when we try measure the rebounding and how many possesions players earned to their team from rebounding .

As a scorer , probably worst in his entire career .

And i cannot believe Wilt's assists numbers can tell us he had great playmaking and he's very solid on feeding teammates . Cause he always obssessed about his numbers . And i think Russell's 5 assists was more effective than Wilt's 8 . Cause Russell wanted to how can he help teammates to the win . Wilt's way was on numbers .

[QUOTE]

"Wilt is a very goal-oriented person, and*and under Alex*(Hannum)*he wanted to win a title and*become the first center to lead the league in assists. He liked to pass to Hal Greer or myself, because we just caught it and shot it. Chet Walker usually caught the ball, took a dribble or two and then shot it - no assist for Wilt*(under the assist rules of that time). So Wilt preferred to give the ball to us.- Billy Cunningham


[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Holding X is false statement when X not a scorer , firstly(as main purpose ). And Russell can pressure on every player of opponent team on the court rather than Wilt . That's the difference of between Goat defender and a great defender . And 0 fouls , tells us ; somethings . About Wilt's contacts and defensive plays .[/QUOTE]

Only, Russell was averaging 13.3 ppg in those playoffs, so, yes, Wilt actually held Russell to 8 - that is, 5 points below his average.
Yes, 0 fouls does tell us something. It tells us that Wilt was immensely great at blocking shots without making any needless contact, unlike most big men, because Wilt was a big man who had incredible reflexes and quickness and could predict very well when to jump and contest a shot. The fact that Wilt has such a low career foul number but yet everyone who has seen him play agrees that he's probably the GOAT shot-blocker and an all-time great defender, throws your foul/defense analogy out of the window. It doesn't apply to him anywhere near as much as to the average center.

[QUOTE]Even that Sam Jones perform was about Wilt . A Dominant Rim protector effects all of opponents .[/QUOTE]

Uh, if Wilt excelled at something defensively first and foremost, it was as a rim protector. This is a well-known fact. Having said that, how do you know what types of shots Jones was making? Jones was a great shooter and had no problem burying lots of shots from the perimeter. Wilt, the rim protector, would have no business with Jones in such a case.

[QUOTE]Before 80's rebounding numbers are overrated . We should judge players with rebounding percentages or in same rebound chances when we try measure the rebounding and how many possesions players earned to their team from rebounding . [/QUOTE]

27 rebounds was a great performance even in 1968. It was above Wilt's averages. His rebounding % was 22.5. By all accounts, he rebounded greatly.


[QUOTE]And i cannot believe Wilt's assists numbers can tell us he had great playmaking and he's very solid on feeding teammates . Cause he always obssessed about his numbers . And i think Russell's 5 assists was more effective than Wilt's 8 . Cause Russell wanted to how can he help teammates to the win . Wilt's way was on numbers . [/QUOTE]

None of these quotes and indications show what Wilt was intending to do in playoff games. Stuff like leading the league in assists were a regular season treat. Nobody was mentioning playoff statistical leaders and I've never heard of anybody caring about leading the playoffs at assists or anything else. And I can counter your quotes by other quotes that claim that Wilt was ultra-competitive and wanted to win at anything or by Wilt himself claiming that his stats don't matter as long as he has lost.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Only, Russell was averaging 13.3 ppg in those playoffs, so, yes, Wilt actually held Russell to 8 - that is, 5 points below his average.
Yes, 0 fouls does tell us something. It tells us that Wilt was immensely great at blocking shots without making any needless contact, unlike most big men, because Wilt was a big man who had incredible reflexes and quickness and could predict very well when to jump and contest a shot. The fact that Wilt has such a low career foul number but yet everyone who has seen him play agrees that he's probably the GOAT shot-blocker and an all-time great defender, throws your foul/defense analogy out of the window. It doesn't apply to him anywhere near as much as to the average center.



Uh, if Wilt excelled at something defensively first and foremost, it was as a rim protector. This is a well-known fact. Having said that, how do you know what types of shots Jones was making? Jones was a great shooter and had no problem burying lots of shots from the perimeter. Wilbehind rim protector, would have no business with Jones in such a case.



27 rebounds was a great performance even in 1968. It was above Wilt's averages. His rebounding % was 22.5. By all accounts, he rebounded greatly.




None of these quotes and indications show what Wilt was intending to do in playoff games. Stuff like leading the league in assists were a regular season treat. Nobody was mentioning playoff statistical leaders and I've never heard of anybody caring about leading the playoffs at assists or anything else. And I can counter your quotes by other quotes that claim that Wilt was ultra-competitive and wanted to win at anything or by Wilt himself claiming that his stats don't matter as long as he has lost.[/QUOTE]

He just used a bit less possesions . He did use 16 possesions in that postseason while putting 14 points . And 10 possesions to 8 points in that game . He did focus on defence , which was his best weapon of about the game . And dominated the game with that way .

I didn't mention blocking . Probably you know that's why . It's about forcing the offensive player to tough situation . Not just on near at the rim . Russell trying disrupt of opponent corner shots , mid range shots and even longe range shots . Which was i talked about . I wasn't telling , stay in the front of rim and block shots as you can . I was talking abput that when mentioned rim protection . Russell reached all fields on opponent players when trying shots . Of course , he didn't reach every shot . But I'm sure he tried . That's the reason of being Goat defender . And yes , offensively Wilt was significantly better in every face to face of two . But Russell was good player offensively too , specially with his playmaking ability . Celtics been worse offensively when he retires too .

I always protecting truth of behind the ice age . Duncan > Shaq or Russell > Wilt . It's abput reaching the truth .

Oh geez more ILt Chokerlame stories.... :oldlol:

[QUOTE=feyki]He just used a bit less possesions . He did use 16 possesions in that postseason while putting 14 points . And 10 possesions to 8 points in that game . He did focus on defence , which was his best weapon of about the game . And dominated the game with that way .

I didn't mention blocking . Probably you know that's why . It's about forcing the offensive player to tough situation . Not just on near at the rim . Russell trying disrupt of opponent corner shots , mid range shots and even longe range shots . Which was i talked about . [B]I wasn't telling , stay in the front of rim and block shots as you can . I was talking abput that when mentioned rim protection . Russell reached all fields on opponent players when trying shots . Of course , he didn't reach every shot .[/B] But I'm sure he tried . That's the reason of being Goat defender . And yes , offensively Wilt was significantly better in every face to face of two . But Russell was good player offensively too , specially with his playmaking ability . Celtics been worse offensively when he retires too .

I always protecting truth of behind the ice age . Duncan > Shaq or Russell > Wilt . It's abput reaching the truth .[/QUOTE]

You still have to watch the game to speak safely. It's wrong to assume that just because Russell was per average more of a willing perimeter defender (which is not, however, what firstly constitutes rim protection), Wilt wasn't ever doing the same thing. Plus, it wasn't all good for the Celtics' offense: Havlicek went 10-25 and Bailey Howell 6-16. Now, on Russell, as a big man, you can only go as far from the basket as the opposing big's offensive ability allows you to go. Russell has commented that Wilt made it hard for him to play his usual style of team defense, because of him being so dangerous offensively. This is a game Wilt took 21 shots, more than his averages back then and converted at an over 50% rate. So, there's a good indication that not everything went perfect with Russell's defense in this game, either. What was he doing? Tried to move to the perimeter and harass shots and gave Wilt easy points? Or did he focus on Wilt and still got 28 points scored on him?

[QUOTE=Psileas]You still have to watch the game to speak safely. It's wrong to assume that just because Russell was per average more of a willing perimeter defender (which is not, however, what firstly constitutes rim protection), Wilt wasn't ever doing the same thing. Plus, it wasn't all good for the Celtics' offense: Havlicek went 10-25 and Bailey Howell 6-16. Now, on Russell, as a big man, you can only go as far from the basket as the opposing big's offensive ability allows you to go. Russell has commented that Wilt made it hard for him to play his usual style of team defense, because of him being so dangerous offensively. This is a game Wilt took 21 shots, more than his averages back then and converted at an over 50% rate. So, there's a good indication that not everything went perfect with Russell's defense in this game, either. What was he doing? Tried to move to the perimeter and harass shots and gave Wilt easy points? Or did he focus on Wilt and still got 28 points scored on him?[/QUOTE]

What was Kawhi doing against Lebron while Lebron putting 28 on all time great efficiency , but we all know what happened in the court . It's a compact game . There's no one way for the win .

Yes , we don't know that %100 . But i know Russell's style and his steals numbers support me . He had great versatile on defence with amazing on ball defence ( like Hakeem ) .

[QUOTE=feyki]What was Kawhi doing against Lebron while Lebron putting 28 on all time great efficiency , but we all know what happened in the court . It's a compact game . There's no one way for the win .

Yes , we don't know that %100 . But i know Russell's style and his steals numbers support me . He had great versatile on defence with amazing on ball defence ( like Hakeem ) .[/QUOTE]

We all know: The Spurs overall were playing at a completely different level compared to the Heat. LeBron could be posting stats same as this year or 2015 and they'd still lose - and LeBron would still probably lose the F.MVP. But this doesn't mean Kawhi started being viewed as equal to or better than LeBron.

[QUOTE=Psileas]We all know: The Spurs overall were playing at a completely different level compared to the Heat. LeBron could be posting stats same as this year or 2015 and they'd still lose - and LeBron would still probably lose the F.MVP. But this doesn't mean Kawhi started being viewed as equal to or better than LeBron.[/QUOTE]

My point was about being defensive force even when your match up had great numbers . Russell and Kawhi are not comparable defensively . You can dominate with help defence .


And we don't know Wilt's fourth quarter numbers in that game . Maybe Russell did lock him in the fouth period :confusedshrug: , like Kawhi did against Lebron when it mattered .

[QUOTE=feyki]What was Kawhi doing against Lebron while Lebron putting 28 on all time great efficiency , but we all know what happened in the court . It's a compact game . There's no one way for the win .

Yes , we don't know that %100 . But i know Russell's style and his steals numbers support me . He had great versatile on defence with amazing on ball defence ( like Hakeem ) .[/QUOTE]

We have practically zero evidence of your claims.

Russell was a great team defender... UNTIL he faced Chamberlain. Then, he not only had to stay with him step-for-step. he needed HELP in TRYING to contain him.

On the other end, we have plenty of evidence of Chamberlain not only taking Russell one-on-one on the defensive end, but defending players like Heinsohn and Jones in clutch situations.

Wilt had a considerably greater role at both ends of the floor in the Russell H2H's, and for the most part, easily outplayed Russell in virtually every facet of the game. In some instances by staggering margins.

You won't find Russell putting a 46 point game in a "must win" situation against Wilt. In fact, in one of them... a blowout loss BTW, Russell put up FOUR points, and basically led his lambs to slaughter...in a game in which Chamberlain scored 29 and was on his way to 40+ until the game was well in hand.

People in here arguing about stat lines as the basis of the argument.

SMH.

In 50 years I'm sure there will be stat whores who look back on last years finals for Bron and see his averages and say he was phenomenal. We know that's not true. Not all points are weighted the same, not all rebounds are equal. Not all assists are equal, etc etc.

All I know is that Bill Russell won back to back titles to end his HS career. He won back to back NCAA titles to end his career. He won a title to start and end his NBA career, and 9 in between. He player coached two teams to titles.

Bill mastered being the best teammate. Making winning plays that don't always show up in the box score. He molds himsel to what the team needed to best be successful - he didn't force others to fit around him.

[QUOTE=Carbine]People in here arguing about stat lines as the basis of the argument.

SMH.

In 50 years I'm sure there will be stat whores who look back on last years finals for Bron and see his averages and say he was phenomenal. We know that's not true. Not all points are weighted the same, not all rebounds are equal. Not all assists are equal, etc etc.

All I know is that Bill Russell won back to back titles to end his HS career. He won back to back NCAA titles to end his career. He won a title to start and end his NBA career, and 9 in between. He player coached two teams to titles.

Bill mastered being the best teammate. Making winning plays that don't always show up in the box score. He molds himsel to what the team needed to best be successful - he didn't force others to fit around him.[/QUOTE]

Exactly . Actually , we can reach with context but not only with raw stats . Of course , watching game or reading the story most accurate point to reaching the truth .