66-67 When Wilt Finally Had a Roster that Equaled Russell's

[QUOTE=jlip]Russell himself is Sam Jones' biggest fan, and as indicated by the statement presented by Laz above, was critical to the Celtics success, but I cannot agree with this statement. Sam Jones was not a dominant playoff contributor until 1962. That's when his legend began. The '60 and '61 titles were won with him basically playing a Mario Chalmers' type role.[/QUOTE]
Like I said before when I was in a hurry.... maybe so.

But the flip side is even worse for anybody who argues the Celtics weren't stacked beyond anything ever seen. Those early '60s teams had these guys.
[B][I]So it's not like Sam was even needed at that point.[/I][/B]

17 Gene Conley PF
[B]14 Bob Cousy PG HoF [COLOR="Red"]Top 50[/COLOR]
[/B]20 Gene Guarilia SF
15 Tom Heinsohn PF HoF
[B]25 K.C. Jones PG HoF
[/B]24 Sam Jones SG HoF Top 50
18 Jim Loscutoff SF
[B]23 Frank Ramsey SG HoF[/B]
6 Bill Russell C
16 Tom Sanders SF HoF
[B]21 Bill Sharman G HoF [COLOR="Red"]Top 50[/COLOR]
[/B]
They had so many guards - all 4 Hall of Famers and 2 of them TOP FIFTY GUARDS - that Sam just sat on wood.

Bringing up Russell's HOF teammates is silly when several of those guys are only in there because of Russell.

7.4ppg, 3.5rpg, 4.3apg on 39%, never made an all star game, yet still made the HOF.

Basically if you played with Russell and didn't suck, you made it in to the HOF. Citing HOF counts is disingenuous imo.

[QUOTE=DatAsh]Bringing up Russell's HOF teammates is silly when several of those guys are only in there because of Russell.

7.4ppg, 3.5rpg, 4.3apg on 39%, never made an all star game, yet still made the HOF.

Basically if you played with Russell and didn't suck, you made it in to the HOF. Citing HOF counts is disingenuous imo.[/QUOTE]
I severely doubt Russell had anything to do with Sharman or Cousy's status in the Hall. They were making it there on their own.

Nor do stat lines tell us anything. Does anyone doubt Timmy, Manu or Tony could have had more stats in their career?

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]I severely doubt Russell had anything to do with Sharman or Cousy's status in the Hall. They were making it there on their own.
[/QUOTE]

Oh for sure, and Sharman and Cousy aren't the only ones you could say that about.

[QUOTE]Nor do stat lines tell us anything. Does anyone doubt Timmy, Manu or Tony could have had more stats in their career?[/QUOTE]

100% agree. That's why I think it's silly when people use stat lines to say Wilt outplayed Russell(happens all the time). The Celtics played as a true team, like the Spurs. Also, K.C. Jones is a good example of a player who puts up terrible stats, yet is still a great player.

It's not just with Russell either; I've seen people use stat lines to compare Greer and Sam Jones, as if that's fair to Jones.

Cousy though,

*incoming rant*

Cousy has to be one of the most overrated players ever. I see people rating him in the top 20 players ever; in terms of what he did for the game? - maybe; in terms of how good he actually was - I don't see it.

The 50's Celtic offenses had more to do with Ed Macauley than they did Cousy, but Cousy - being the more visible player - soaked up most of the credit. The offense tanked when Macauley left, but for some reason people tend to ignore that.

How many other top 20 player's(guard) offenses consistently suck like this?

*Percentile Rank(higher is better)

Cousy
[CODE]
[COLOR="Green"]80.00
88.89
100.00
100.00
100.00
71.43[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]42.86 [/COLOR](no more Macauley)
[COLOR="Red"]14.29
42.86
42.86
0.00
25.00
0.00[/COLOR][/CODE]

Magic?
[CODE]
[COLOR="Green"]100.00
72.73
95.45
100.00
81.82
100.00
100.00
100.00
95.45
100.00
100.00
84.62[/COLOR]
[/CODE]

Oscar?
[CODE]
[COLOR="Green"]100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
75.00
88.89
90.91
100.00[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]30.77[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Green"]100.00[/COLOR] (Kareem)
[COLOR="Green"]93.75
75.00
100.00[/COLOR]
[/CODE]

West?
[CODE]
[COLOR="Red"]14.29[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Green"]75.00
62.50
87.50
62.50
100.00
55.56
100.00
92.31[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]46.15[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Green"]81.25
100.00
93.75[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]37.50 [/COLOR](only played 31 games)
[/CODE]

Thomas?
[CODE]
[COLOR="Red"]27.27[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Green"]77.27
54.54
100.00
63.64
72.73
63.64
77.27
75.00
61.54
57.69[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]46.15
34.62
15.38[/COLOR]
[/CODE]

Nash?
[CODE]
[COLOR="Red"]50.00[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Green"]78.57
89.29
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
96.55
100.00
96.55
96.55
100.00
72.41[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Green"]72.41[/COLOR] (offense fell to 29/30 when he left)
[COLOR="Green"]72.41[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]31.03[/COLOR] (only played 10 games)
[/CODE]

Same can be said for Sam Jones(recently), Heinsohn, Ramsey, Howell, Nelson. All of those guys are overrated imo. The Celtics won in spite of their offense, not because of it. Sam is an exception as he was actually a pretty good defender.

The truly underrated Celtics players are guys like Satch Sanders, Hondo, K.C. Jones, and Bill Sharman. Those were the guys that were actually winning games for the Celtics, not that first group of guys.

History won't see it that way, as history looks at stat lines to find the best players, but that's the way it was.

KC Jones, Frank Ramsey, and Tom Sanders aren't anywhere near HOF level players. Zero all-star appearances between them. These guys were just role players. Honestly even Bill Sharman and Tom Heinsohn are barely HOF on another team. You have to remember back then a conference of 4-5 teams had 10-11 all-stars so any above average starter was an all-star. Guys who didn't make all-star games really weren't very good at all.

Cousy and Havlicek are 1st ballot and Sam Jones would make HOF on every team as well but that's it. The rest of the guys had their careers DEFINED by Bill Russell.

That ladies and gentlemen is the truth.

Tom Gola, Guy Rodgers, and even Chet Walker have no business being in the HOF either. Gola, like KC Jones, is strictly there because of College careers. In fact, Gola is arguably the worst post-season shooter of all-time (with and withOUT Chamberlain.)

Rodgers was easily the worst shooter of his era, which was bad enough, but unlike KC Jones, he STILL shot the ball. Take Wilt away from his career, and he would have been nothing more than ordinary.

Chet Walker was a very good player. But, even the voters were skeptical, as he (like Rodgers) didn't make the Hall until just recently. He was a better scorer later in his career, but he wasn't even the scorer, or shooter, that Bailey Howell was (who is also in the HOF.)

KC Jones, and Satch Sanders have no business being in the Hall, either, but BOTH were considered the BEST defensive players at their positions in the decade of the 60's. Ramsey has no case at all.

Again, Bailey Howell was a consistent 20+ ppg scorer, and among the most effcient, as well...with and withOUT Russell. He was probably a better defender than Walker was, as well.

To be honest, the ONLY Warrior player that Chamberlain played alongside that was even GOOD, was Paul Arizin, who was nearing the end of his career when he played with Wilt. And even he was awful in two of their three post-seasons together.

Russell had FAR greater supporting casts than Chamberlain did in Wilt's first SIX seasons in the league together, and he ALWAYS had much deeper benches, as well...even into his last season in the league.

What we witnessed in '67, was basically what would have played out in their ten seasons in the league together, had they had the same EQUAL rosters. Wilt's teammates FINALLY neutralized Russell's, and the result was a blowout Sixers win. And the stats don't lie. The two teams were basically dead-even without Russell and Wilt. Add those two in, and it was pure domination by the Sixers.

Of course, Chamberlain ALWAYS outplayed Russell in their post-season H2H's...and usually by HUGE margins. And even with basically last place rosters, he cam within an eyelash of knocking off Boston in '62, and '65. And had he not badly injured his hand in the '60 EDF's, and was worthless in the very next game (he could only play 35 minutes, and was outscored by Russell, 26-12, and outrebounded by Russell, 39-15...in a 120-90 loss), his Warriors likely would have had at least gone another game seven. As it was, they lost a game six by two points.

And even Wilt's horribly outmatched '64 Warriors, while losing that series 4-1, lost the last two games of that series in the waning seconds. In a series in which Chamberlain just trashed Russell.

Oh, and comparing All-Star selections back then was useless, as well. The league had rules of no more than three playrs from one team. With Russell, Havlicek, Cousy, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and Sharman...the rest of those Celtic rosters had ZERO chance of making an AS team. Interesting, too, that Wilt had a teammate, who put up a 16-10 .425 season (and in only 64 games) who DID make an ASG. Russell, Cousy, and Heinsohn were STARTERS in that ASG, while Sam Jones, who averaged 20 ppg that season, didn't make the team (nor did "sixth man" Havlicek...who put up a 14-7 season in 27 mpg.)

Swap rosters, and Wilt would easily have had SIX rings in his first SIX seasons. And most certainly in '66, too. And had Russell been playing with what little was left of Chamberlain's '68 roster, he would have been swept in that series (not to mention that Wilt, himself, was nowhere near 100%.)

One more time...none other than John Wooden claimed the obvious...had Wilt had Russell's rosters, and Auerbach as a coach, and it would have been Chamberlain holding all those rings.

I wonder why Bill Simmons never mentioned this in his "Basketball Book of Lies"...

In the '66 EDF's, Wilt's teammates had just been atrocious (they would wind up collectively shooting .352.) So, finding his team down 3-1 going into game five, Chamberlain erupted for a 46 point game, on 19-34 shooting, to go along with 34 rebounds. Alas, with his teammates contributing virtually nothing, Wilt's effort was for naught...in a 120-112 loss.

Fast forward to the 66-67 EDF's. Now it was Russell who was faced with the exact same scenario that Chamberlain had faced the year before. His team was down 3-1, and his teammates were being neutralized by Wilt's. Did Russell rise up and explode for a huge game against Chamberlain, when it was obvious his teammates needed him to so? Hell no...he quietly led his sheep to slaughter in a blowout loss. He put up FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting. FOUR points. Meanwhile, Chamberlain crushed him with a 29 point game, on 10-16 shooting. And, in the first half, when the game was still close, Chamberlain poured in 22 points. Overall in that game, Wilt not only badly outscored and outshot Russell, he also out-assisted him, 13-7, and out-rebounded him, 36-21. Oh, and Wilt also added seven blocks, too.

I can find a TON of H2H games, including MANY in their post-season H2H's, when Chamberlain just annihilated Russell in scoring, rebounding, and shooting. And aside from ONE playoff game, in Wilt's rookie season, and in which it was well documented that he had a badly injured hand, Wilt pretty much either outplayed, or downright destroyed Russell in the vast majority of their career H2H's.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]I wonder why Bill Simmons never mentioned this in his "Basketball Book of Lies"...

In the '66 EDF's, Wilt's teammates had just been atrocious (they would wind up collectively shooting .352.) So, finding his team down 3-1 going into game five, Chamberlain erupted for a 46 point game, on 19-34 shooting, to go along with 34 rebounds. Alas, with his teammates contributing virtually nothing, Wilt's effort was for naught...in a 120-112 loss.

Fast forward to the 66-67 EDF's. Now it was Russell who was faced with the exact same scenario that Chamberlain had faced the year before. His team was down 3-1, and his teammates were being neutralized by Wilt's. Did Russell rise up and explode for a huge game against Chamberlain, when it was obvious his teammates needed him to so? Hell no...he quietly led his sheep to slaughter in a blowout loss. He put up FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting. FOUR points. Meanwhile, Chamberlain crushed him with a 29 point game, on 10-16 shooting. And, in the first half, when the game was still close, Chamberlain poured in 22 points. Overall in that game, Wilt not only badly outscored and outshot Russell, he also out-assisted him, 13-7, and out-rebounded him, 36-21. Oh, and Wilt also added seven blocks, too.

I can find a TON of H2H games, including MANY in their post-season H2H's, when Chamberlain just annihilated Russell in scoring, rebounding, and shooting. And aside from ONE playoff game, in Wilt's rookie season, and in which it was well documented that he had a badly injured hand, Wilt pretty much either outplayed, or downright destroyed Russell in the vast majority of their career H2H's.[/QUOTE]
What about 68 EDF - Game 6 where Greer had 40 and Wilt shot 6/22 and 8/22 from the line?

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]What about 68 EDF - Game 6 where Greer had 40 and Wilt shot 6/22 and 8/22 from the line?[/QUOTE]

What about game five in that series, when Philly led the series, 3-1, and had a chance to close it out? Wilt with 28 points, on 11-21 shooting, with 30 rebounds to Russell's 8 points, on 4-10 shooting with 24 rebounds. Oh, and Greer in that game? 20 points on 6-20 shooting. And then in game seven...Greer with an 8-25 game from the field.

Of course you already knew all of that, as well as the fact that Chamberlain was nursing MULTIPLE injuries, including a similar injury as what Reed suffered in the '70 Finals, which had Wilt NOTICEABLY LIMPING throughout that series (a series in which Wilt missed exactly one minute of the entire series.)

Oh, and as for Wilt's teammates...we can thank PHILA for this...

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

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

What was truly amazing was that an injured Chambelain could hang a 22-25-7 series, and take his team to a game seven, four point loss, with HALF of his roster, including himself, either playing injured, or missing games because of them.

In retrospect, this was one of Wilt's most admiral playoff series of his career (and right up there with playing on one leg in the '70 Finals.)

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]What about game five in that series, when Philly led the series, 3-1, and had a chance to close it out? Wilt with 28 points, on 11-21 shooting, with 30 rebounds to Russell's 8 points, on 4-10 shooting with 24 rebounds. Oh, and Greer in that game? 20 points on 6-20 shooting. And then in game seven...Greer with an 8-25 game from the field.

Of course you already knew all of that, as well as the fact that Chamberlain was nursing MULTIPLE injuries, including a similar injury as what Reed suffered in the '70 Finals, which had Wilt NOTICEABLY LIMPING throughout that series (a series in which Wilt missed exactly one minute of the entire series.)

Oh, and as for Wilt's teammates...we can thank PHILA for this...

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

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

What was truly amazing was that an injured Chambelain could hang a 22-25-7 series, and take his team to a game seven, four point loss, with HALF of his roster, including himself, either playing injured, or missing games because of them.

In retrospect, this was one of Wilt's most admiral playoff series of his career (and right up there with playing on one leg in the '70 Finals.)[/QUOTE]
Philly got outscored 38-23 in the 4th quarter of that game, I wonder what Wilt's stats were in that quarter.

BTW in game 7 the FOUR point loss, Wilt shot 6-15 from the line and was the FIFTH leading scorer on the team. Ouch.

[QUOTE=dankok8]KC Jones, Frank Ramsey, and Tom Sanders aren't anywhere near HOF level players. Zero all-star appearances between them. These guys were just role players. Honestly even Bill Sharman and Tom Heinsohn are barely HOF on another team. You have to remember back then a conference of 4-5 teams had 10-11 all-stars so any above average starter was an all-star. Guys who didn't make all-star games really weren't very good at all.

Cousy and Havlicek are 1st ballot and Sam Jones would make HOF on every team as well but that's it. The rest of the guys had their careers DEFINED by Bill Russell.

That ladies and gentlemen is the truth.[/QUOTE]

that is [I]your[/I] truth. but you really don't know; you merely assume, which is specious.
Without film, and as far as I know there's not even an hour of it, you don't know.
Sam Jones & Satch & Hondo, on the other hand, I saw so I speak from having seen them live.

[QUOTE=DatAsh]Oh for sure, and Sharman and Cousy aren't the only ones you could say that about.

100% agree. That's why I think it's silly when people use stat lines to say Wilt outplayed Russell(happens all the time). The Celtics played as a true team, like the Spurs. Also, K.C. Jones is a good example of a player who puts up terrible stats, yet is still a great player.

It's not just with Russell either; I've seen people use stat lines to compare Greer and Sam Jones, as if that's fair to Jones.

History won't see it that way, as history looks at stat lines to find the best players, but that's the way it was.[/QUOTE]

yeah to all of that right there (only shortened your post to avoid repeating). I don't care about stats all that much, either. Chamberlain (for one example) was an ATG for reasons other than stats and those are the things that were profound about his game.

And yeah on that earlier too; Hondo was better player. His transition defense may be the best ever; surely in the argument.

LAZERUSS...

Please don't compare these guys' HOF credentials to those Boston role players.

Guy Rodgers - 4x all-star, 2x league leader in assists, 6x runner-up in assists, not a great scorer but a very good defender and elite passer

Chet Walker - 7x all-star, 3rd best player on a title team, even after his run with Wilt in Philly he was a major piece on some great Bulls teams, gave you 20/7/3 with good defense for about 10 years

Tom Gola - 5x all-star, great all-around player who produced 9-10 rebounds a game, 4-5 assists a game, and played very good defense


Compared to KC Jones, Frank Ramsey, and Tom Sanders who have a combined zero all-star appearances... and no numbers to speak of.

PLEASE...

And you love to mention how Wilt joined the worst team in the league when he came to the Warriors but that's completely taking things out of context. In the 1957-1958 season the Warriors reached all the way to Conference Finals where they lost to the Celtics. [B]The reason they were so bad in 1958-1959 before Wilt arrived is that they lost one of the best centers in the league and their only quality big man Neil Johnston to injury for two thirds of the season. [/B] And they still went 32-40 and were 6th of 8 teams in the league. Not like they won 10-15 games.

Truth is the roster that Wilt inherited a rookie was not much worse than the roster that won a title in 1956. Of course center Neil Johnston was gone and a few other players but Wilt himself was there as well as Guy Rodgers.

Wilt joined a bottom-feeder as a rookie.... that is revisionist history!

To me, this is a silly thread.

You can't compare rosters as if they are ALL STAR rosters and switch them around by comparing individual stats. Good rosters are built and DESIGNED WITH A SPECIFIC PURPOSE in mind. You try to find players who will COMPLEMENT each other, and not just aggregating individual stats from different players and say this will be a great roster.

The beauty of a player like Bill Russell is that if you start with him as your franchise player, then you know you have taken cared of rebounding and defense and intangibles on your team. So you build from there and get scoring forwards and good guards who complement what Russell does. It so happened that Russell proved year in and year out that great teams rely on great chemistry, and the Celtics were always greater than the sum of the parts put together.

We know from watching a lot of basketball in any era that great scorers CAN depress scoring from other good scorers. We saw this in Philly with AI, who had a difficult time adjusting with any scoring player that Philly got to complement him. Finally, Larry Brown said the heck with it, let's build a team of defenders and just give the ball to AI every possession on offense, and this is what gave the 76ers it's greatest success with Iverson. Ultimately, it still fell short which is a testament to AI not learning to play with another good scorer.

So when people said, all AI needed was to play with another good or great scorer(like changing rosters in this thread), where did this take AI? Well, history shows that Denver and Carmelo Anthony and AI ended up a failure as a team too. This is proof positive that you can't say, change Wilt's roster with Russell's Celtics, and things would be different.

I have maintained again and again here in ISH that individual stats are not a be all, end all that stand forever. Individual stats are a function of opportunity, design, team structure, and can be altered depending on the player's role in the team(see Kevin Love).

The beauty of Russell, at least from what I have read, and seen on old videos, testimonies, and my own informed imagination is that he brought out the best in his teammates, maybe more that any player in the history of the NBA. This cannot be said of just any player, not even Wilt to the degree that Russell did.

[QUOTE=Dr.J4ever]To me, this is a silly thread.

You can't compare rosters as if they are ALL STAR rosters and switch them around by comparing individual stats. Good rosters are built and DESIGNED WITH A SPECIFIC PURPOSE in mind. You try to find players who will COMPLEMENT each other, and not just aggregating individual stats from different players and say this will be a great roster.

The beauty of a player like Bill Russell is that if you start with him as your franchise player, then you know you have taken cared of rebounding and defense and intangibles on your team. So you build from there and get scoring forwards and good guards who complement what Russell does. It so happened that Russell proved year in and year out that great teams rely on great chemistry, and the Celtics were always greater than the sum of the parts put together.

We know from watching a lot of basketball in any era that great scorers CAN depress scoring from other good scorers. We saw this in Philly with AI, who had a difficult time adjusting with any scoring player that Philly got to complement him. Finally, Larry Brown said the heck with it, let's build a team of defenders and just give the ball to AI every possession on offense, and this is what gave the 76ers it's greatest success with Iverson. Ultimately, it still fell short which is a testament to AI not learning to play with another good scorer.

So when people said, all AI needed was to play with another good or great scorer(like changing rosters in this thread), where did this take AI? Well, history shows that Denver and Carmelo Anthony and AI ended up a failure as a team too. [B]This is proof positive that you can't say, change Wilt's roster with Russell's Celtics, and things would be different. [/B]

I have maintained again and again here in ISH that individual stats are not a be all, end all that stand forever. Individual stats are a function of opportunity, design, team structure, and can be altered depending on the player's role in the team(see Kevin Love).

The beauty of Russell, at least from what I have read, and seen on old videos, testimonies, and my own informed imagination is that he brought out the best in his teammates, maybe more that any player in the history of the NBA. This cannot be said of just any player, not even Wilt to the degree that Russell did.[/QUOTE]

Laz firmly believe and has stated many times that if Wilt swapped rosters with Russell the ring count would also reverse if not 13-0 in favor of the big stat dipper. :rolleyes:

Wilt had enough help during his career as every other all-time great with a ring, additionally Wilt should have won more rings with the amount of help he had. But whether due to bad coaching or his weaknesses, like a reliable FT shooting touch or a more effective post game he didn't.

It is always hard to look back and say if this happened or if this player had this other player on his team, things would be different. You just never really know.

I feel like Wilt was the greatest talent that has ever played the game. I don't know why people feel like because player X won this many championships and player Y only won this many, then player X is better.

Championship are a matter of circumstance as much as anything else. There are many great players that never won anything.

Bill Walton was one of my favorite players to watch and was a great team player. I would never claim that he was better than Wilt or KAJ. He won because of circumstance as much as ability. For us old guys lets just let the young kids know how great it was to have seen all of the greats.

[QUOTE=dunksby]Wilt had enough help during his career as every other all-time great with a ring, additionally Wilt should have won more rings with the amount of help he had. But whether due to bad coaching or his weaknesses, like a reliable FT shooting touch or a more effective post game he didn't.[/QUOTE]

Wilt's bad FT shooting didn't seem to bother his teams when he won both the '67 and the '72 title, especially as long as Wilt wasn't any longer the scoring machine who would be posting multiple 20 FTA games. Like I've shown in the past, although it does account for a few wasted points, a bigger amount of wasted points can be attributed to the bad FG shooting that lots of his teammates "provided", including seasons when Wilt played team ball - so, it wasn't just Wilt "freezing them". It's that the help he received has been greately overrated by Wilt's detractors whenever they'd performed in ways that other great supporting casts would be condemned. Why am I supposed to [B]mainly[/B] critisize Wilt going, e.g, 2-10 from the line, when Elgin Baylor had gone 6-20 from the field, thus wasting significantly more points? Why am I supposed to mainly blame 24 ppg Wilt for partially being kept "in check" by Russell, when Hal Greer would be significantly outplayed by Sam Jones? Where was the great help when Wilt wouldn't deliver? Why would Wilt's great teams lose when Wilt was kept under relative check? Why was Wilt usually his teams' best player even in days that weren't his best?
As for the post game, I don't know what you mean, Wilt's post game was top notch, and it has been shown even in video and also by stats. Ho do you lead the league in ppg and FG% [B]at the same time[/B] 4 times without having elite post game?

[QUOTE=Odinn]OP is one of the few posters who deserve smacking to death.

It's been years you idiot. Call it quits. Stop. No-one ever will care Wilt in a way you want from us. Stop!!![/QUOTE]

It's cool how the entire board hates him :lol

Dude is just a dumb, useless poster providing purely lies and myths. I remember when that one poster shredded him. Also an old head.

[QUOTE=Dr.J4ever]To me, this is a silly thread.

You can't compare rosters as if they are ALL STAR rosters and switch them around by comparing individual stats. Good rosters are built and DESIGNED WITH A SPECIFIC PURPOSE in mind. You try to find players who will COMPLEMENT each other, and not just aggregating individual stats from different players and say this will be a great roster.

The beauty of a player like Bill Russell is that if you start with him as your franchise player, then you know you have taken cared of rebounding and defense and intangibles on your team. So you build from there and get scoring forwards and good guards who complement what Russell does. It so happened that Russell proved year in and year out that great teams rely on great chemistry, and the Celtics were always greater than the sum of the parts put together.

We know from watching a lot of basketball in any era that great scorers CAN depress scoring from other good scorers. We saw this in Philly with AI, who had a difficult time adjusting with any scoring player that Philly got to complement him. Finally, Larry Brown said the heck with it, let's build a team of defenders and just give the ball to AI every possession on offense, and this is what gave the 76ers it's greatest success with Iverson. Ultimately, it still fell short which is a testament to AI not learning to play with another good scorer.

So when people said, all AI needed was to play with another good or great scorer(like changing rosters in this thread), where did this take AI? Well, history shows that Denver and Carmelo Anthony and AI ended up a failure as a team too. This is proof positive that you can't say, change Wilt's roster with Russell's Celtics, and things would be different.

I have maintained again and again here in ISH that individual stats are not a be all, end all that stand forever. Individual stats are a function of opportunity, design, team structure, and can be altered depending on the player's role in the team(see Kevin Love).

The beauty of Russell, at least from what I have read, and seen on old videos, testimonies, and my own informed imagination is that he brought out the best in his teammates, maybe more that any player in the history of the NBA. This cannot be said of just any player, not even Wilt to the degree that Russell did.[/QUOTE]
Even tho I don't 100% agree, that's a really good post right there.

[QUOTE=colts19]It is always hard to look back and say if this happened or if this player had this other player on his team, things would be different. You just never really know.

I feel like Wilt was the greatest talent that has ever played the game. I don't know why people feel like because player X won this many championships and player Y only won this many, then player X is better.

Championship are a matter of circumstance as much as anything else. There are many great players that never won anything.

Bill Walton was one of my favorite players to watch and was a great team player. I would never claim that he was better than Wilt or KAJ. He won because of circumstance as much as ability. For us old guys lets just let the young kids know how great it was to have seen all of the greats.[/QUOTE]

pretty much how I see it too man. I got a couple other guys right there arguing about it but yeah, #13 was.... something else altogether.
Really amazing.