Felton vs. Norman (The Chamberlain\Russell Thread)

jlauber,

A few things regarding 1966 and 1969.

First 1969. There is no way the Lakers weren't a more talented team. A couple reasons why I've drawn this conclusion.

The Celtics went from 48 wins and a World title in '69 to 34 wins and out of the playoffs ijn '70. The difference Bill Russell retired.

The Lakers went from 55 wins and the top seed in the West to 46 wins in a two seed. Their difference they lost Wilt for nearly the whole season.

There is no doubt Wilt has a more talented and superior individual player in 1969. So why did Russell's team fall off more when he left then Wilt's if they had the better all around cast?

Without Wilt the Lakers will still a playoff team, without Russell the Celtics were one of the worst teams in an NBA with multiple expansion frnachies.

As for Baylor; First team All-NBA is not an okay season, it's an elite season. 25-11-6 and he only missed six games due to injuries or fatigue.

He played poorly in the playoffs but I don't see that as an excuse at all. Maybe Havlicek's defense with Russell's help is why he struggled in the Finals so much. Wilt should have been able to carry them anyway especially with West playing out of his mind. Meanwhile Russell has Don Nelson (Cut by the Lakers) and Em Bryant (aquired in a trade for a 2nd round pick) playing major roles along with a brokedown Sam Jones who lost his starting spot.

Heck Boston's third best player on that team was a 32 year old Bailey Howell. Elgin on crutches is better than that. And you can't tell that West isn't more talented than Hondo and Wilt more so than Russ at that point either.

As for 66, the Celtics may have been a better team, but the Sixers were way more talented. Young but the same core from '67 and '68 was in place. A prime Hal Greer and Chet Walker with Cunningham, Wali Jones and Luke Jackson all in their early twenties and phenomanal athletic shape. Throw in veteran Al Bianchi and Dave Gambee who had been with the team since the 50's mostly as starter and you got a team as good as any the Celtics ever won with on paper.

Now consider this. The cast and crew for Chamberlian were young and green, however in the postseason Wilt's points, assists, field goal and free throw percentage all dropped noticably. Despite having homecourt advantage the Celtics steamrolled them.

A quick note on 1965, the Sixers record is not a reflection of their talent that season because they acquired Wilt midway through the year.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]jlauber,

A few things regarding 1966 and 1969.

First 1969. There is no way the Lakers weren't a more talented team. A couple reasons why I've drawn this conclusion.

The Celtics went from 48 wins and a World title in '69 to 34 wins and out of the playoffs ijn '70. The difference Bill Russell retired.

The Lakers went from 55 wins and the top seed in the West to 46 wins in a two seed. Their difference they lost Wilt for nearly the whole season.

There is no doubt Wilt has a more talented and superior individual player in 1969. So why did Russell's team fall off more when he left then Wilt's if they had the better all around cast?

Without Wilt the Lakers will still a playoff team, without Russell the Celtics were one of the worst teams in an NBA with multiple expansion frnachies.

As for Baylor; First team All-NBA is not an okay season, it's an elite season. 25-11-6 and he only missed six games due to injuries or fatigue.

He played poorly in the playoffs but I don't see that as an excuse at all. Maybe Havlicek's defense with Russell's help is why he struggled in the Finals so much. Wilt should have been able to carry them anyway especially with West playing out of his mind. Meanwhile Russell has Don Nelson (Cut by the Lakers) and Em Bryant (aquired in a trade for a 2nd round pick) playing major roles along with a brokedown Sam Jones who lost his starting spot.

Heck Boston's third best player on that team was a 32 year old Bailey Howell. Elgin on crutches is better than that. And you can't tell that West isn't more talented than Hondo and Wilt more so than Russ at that point either.

As for 66, the Celtics may have been a better team, but the Sixers were way more talented. Young but the same core from '67 and '68 was in place. A prime Hal Greer and Chet Walker with Cunningham, Wali Jones and Luke Jackson all in their early twenties and phenomanal athletic shape. Throw in veteran Al Bianchi and Dave Gambee who had been with the team since the 50's mostly as starter and you got a team as good as any the Celtics ever won with on paper.

Now consider this. The cast and crew for Chamberlian were young and green, however in the postseason Wilt's points, assists, field goal and free throw percentage all dropped noticably. Despite having homecourt advantage the Celtics steamrolled them.

A quick note on 1965, the Sixers record is not a reflection of their talent that season because they acquired Wilt midway through the year.[/QUOTE]

Not agree - Wilt regular season numbers for 1967/68 were: 24.3 ppg , 23.8 rpg, 8,6 apg shooting 59.5 % FG
- in playoffs against NY Knicks in 6 games his numbers were 25.5 ppg 24.2 rpg 6.3 apg (the opponent center was Walt Bellamy 20 ppg 16 rpg 3.5 apg 42,1 FG % (54,1 FG% in reg.season))

- in playoffs against Celtics in 7 games his numbers were 22.1 ppg 25.1 rpg 6.7 apg (the opponent Russell has 13.7 ppg 23.85 rpg)

Not so different from the regular season.

[QUOTE=julizaver]Not agree - Wilt regular season numbers for 1967/68 were: 24.3 ppg , 23.8 rpg, 8,6 apg shooting 59.5 % FG
- in playoffs against NY Knicks in 6 games his numbers were 25.5 ppg 24.2 rpg 6.3 apg (the opponent center was Walt Bellamy 20 ppg 16 rpg 3.5 apg 42,1 FG % (54,1 FG% in reg.season))

- in playoffs against Celtics in 7 games his numbers were 22.1 ppg 25.1 rpg 6.7 apg (the opponent Russell has 13.7 ppg 23.85 rpg)

Not so different from the regular season.[/QUOTE]

I never mentioned 1968. Basically it looks like his numbers were the same (scoring and assists slightly down) from the regular season.

Great Players bring their play up in the regular season.

I want to be clear about something too, I don't dislike Wilt, I don't think he was a loser, a choker or that he's overrated (unless he's rated over Russell). I just have a hard time hearing arguments that are invalid or uninformed used over and over again to support a faulty premise.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I never mentioned 1968. Basically it looks like his numbers were the same (scoring and assists slightly down) from the regular season.

Great Players bring their play up in the regular season.

I want to be clear about something too, I don't dislike Wilt, I don't think he was a loser, a choker or that he's overrated (unless he's rated over Russell). I just have a hard time hearing arguments that are invalid or uninformed used over and over again to support a faulty premise.[/QUOTE]

OK, I have no problems with your opinion that you rated Russell over Wilt. It's up to you of course. I just think that Wilt was a better player and can argue that with people. And I also like watching Bill's interviews. So if i thing that Wilt is better player than Russell it doesn't mean that I am going to slate or hate him :).

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I never mentioned 1968. Basically it looks like his numbers were the same (scoring and assists slightly down) from the regular season.

Great Players bring their play up in the regular season.

I want to be clear about something too, I don't dislike Wilt, I don't think he was a loser, a choker or that he's overrated (unless he's rated over Russell). I just have a hard time hearing arguments that are invalid or uninformed used over and over again to support a faulty premise.[/QUOTE]


In reading this thread I was waiting to see someone point one thing out . Games arent won by what shows up in the box scores.In comparing Wilt and Russ I find the same problems wgen people compare Magic and Bird. ITs not what shows up in the box scores that wiins games. ITs the way a palyer carries himself. His pride and determination to win carries over to the team. There is a reason Russell never had a down year. Wilt did, Jabbar did, Hakeem did Shaq did moses did Russ never did. Most of the other top 6 C went into games with the m ind set that they would dominate so much their team would win. IT worked sometime often not. Russ went into the game with the mind set what do I have to do for US to win. Score 25pt,get 30 rebounds,block 15 shots,get 8 asasist, feed Sam the ball, feed Hondo the ball, Help KC out on D. He never went into a game think he had to carry the team . He always just felt he had to lead the team. This is why he is the Goat and the 11 rings dont hurt.

^eloquently and accurately stated.

[INDENT][LEFT]Close the books on these players who played in a non-pro league. Might as well eat a jelly donut before a game when everybody else is 2 feet tall and can jump about a centimeter off the ground.[/LEFT][/INDENT]

Russell on Wilt and their rivalry; From his biography "Second Wind"

[I]"He was by far the toughest center I ever played against. He was awesome, and no matter what anyone says about his lack of team play, his teams alwaysended up in the playoffs staring at us. He always outscored me by huge margins- 20 or 30 points a game- so I could never hope to compete with him in scoring duels any more than I could make twenty footers from outside. I couldn't allow myself to get suckered into a game within the game; I had to do whatever it took to help us win. One season (1962) Wilt was averaging over 50 points per game, while I was averaging sixteen or seventeen. In that same year his team averaged 112 points per game and the Celtics 110. So I figured if I knocked a few points off his average we'd win most of those games. So that's what I did and that's what happened. "[/I]

[I]"Off-hand, I can't think of any two players in a team sport who were cast as antagonists and personifcations of various theoris more than Wilt and I were. Almost any argument anyone wanted to have could be carried out in the Russell\Chamberlain debate, and lamost any virtue or sin was imagined to be at stake. If we weren't a metaphor for something we were at least a symbol of it."[/I]

[I]"In 1967 Wilt and the 76ers beat us because they were better. They almost ran us off the court and I got an instant taste of the "loser" syndrome. Though the Celtics had run off an unprecedented string of eight consecutive championships before 1967, the Boston fans hooted me that summer in the streets. "What happened to you guys last year?", "All washed up, eh?", "I knew it wouldn't last, you guys don't have it no more" I had to blink my eyes. Never had a felt happier that long ago I'd trained myself to discount the cheers and the boos. During the winning streak I could easily gotten an appetite for the cheers. At last I understood why Wilt had begun hinting that the loser label had started to bother him. To be bombarded with such abuse for years is enough to nettle anybody. To Wilt's credit, it never seriously damaged our respect for eachother while we were playing."[/I]

[I]"With five minutes left in the game, we were ahead by thirteen, Wilt banged his shin and took himself out of the game. A few minutes later when the Lakers had whittiled out lead down to nothing he tried to put himself back in. But his coach left him on the bench, the two of them finished the game arguing and we won.
For my own selfish reasons, I was offended the instant Wilt left the game. I didn't think he'd been hurt badly and even if he was, I wanted him in there. We were close, oh so close to finishing with a great game. I was almost moaning; "oh my don't do that, don't leave." I said to myself. This is my last game, make me earn it. Wilt's leaving was like finding a misspelled word at then end of a cherished book. My anger with him that night cuased great friction between us later. I could not control it, even though Wilt had no way of knowing how special that game was to me, and that in any case, he had no obligation to care"[/I]

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Russell on Wilt and their rivalry; From his biography "Second Wind"

[I]"He was by far the toughest center I ever played against. He was awesome, and no matter what anyone says about his lack of team play, his teams alwaysended up in the playoffs staring at us. He always outscored me by huge margins- 20 or 30 points a game- so I could never hope to compete with him in scoring duels any more than I could make twenty footers from outside. I couldn't allow myself to get suckered into a game within the game; I had to do whatever it took to help us win. One season (1962) Wilt was averaging over 50 points per game, while I was averaging sixteen or seventeen. In that same year his team averaged 112 points per game and the Celtics 110. So I figured if I knocked a few points off his average we'd win most of those games. So that's what I did and that's what happened. "[/I]

[I]"Off-hand, I can't think of any two players in a team sport who were cast as antagonists and personifcations of various theoris more than Wilt and I were. Almost any argument anyone wanted to have could be carried out in the Russell\Chamberlain debate, and lamost any virtue or sin was imagined to be at stake. If we weren't a metaphor for something we were at least a symbol of it."[/I]

[I]"In 1967 Wilt and the 76ers beat us because they were better. They almost ran us off the court and I got an instant taste of the "loser" syndrome. Though the Celtics had run off an unprecedented string of eight consecutive championships before 1967, the Boston fans hooted me that summer in the streets. "What happened to you guys last year?", "All washed up, eh?", "I knew it wouldn't last, you guys don't have it no more" I had to blink my eyes. Never had a felt happier that long ago I'd trained myself to discount the cheers and the boos. During the winning streak I could easily gotten an appetite for the cheers. At last I understood why Wilt had begun hinting that the loser label had started to bother him. To be bombarded with such abuse for years is enough to nettle anybody. To Wilt's credit, it never seriously damaged our respect for eachother while we were playing."[/I]

[B][I]"With five minutes left in the game, we were [B]ahead by thirteen[/B], Wilt [B]banged his shin [/B]and took himself out of the game. A few minutes later when the Lakers had whittiled out lead down to nothing he tried to put himself back in. But his coach left him on the bench, the two of them finished the game arguing and we won.
For my own selfish reasons, I was offended the instant Wilt left the game. I didn't think he'd been hurt badly and even if he was, I wanted him in there. We were close, oh so close to finishing with a great game. I was almost moaning; "oh my don't do that, don't leave." I said to myself. This is my last game, make me earn it. Wilt's leaving was like finding a misspelled word at then end of a cherished book. My anger with him that night cuased great friction between us later. I could not control it, even though Wilt had no way of knowing how special that game was to me, and that in any case, he had no obligation to care[/B]"[/I][/QUOTE]

Russell, like so many other's that I have read, was way off in his take...which is amazing considering that he played in that game.

First of all, when Wilt finally left the game, LA had cut an early 4th quarter 17 point lead down to seven. Secondly, Wilt injured his KNEE, the same knee that he would reinjure at the beginning of the next season...and that would require major knee surgery.

And, why would Wilt pull himself out of the game at that point? Why didn't he pack it in after picking up his 5th foul late in the 3rd period, and his team down by 15?

As for Russell saying that the Laker's whittled the lead down to nothing...almost true, but with Wilt in the game, they had knocked ten points off that deficit. AND, Wilt's replacement, Mel Counts missed a couple of key shots down the stretch, and finished with a 4-13 game, while Wilt had gone 7-8 (incidently, Russell was only 2-7 in that game.)

And finally, where was RUSSELL in that 4th quarter? Take a look at the video footage that is out there. Russell, while playing, was nowhere to be found. And while Wilt was wrongly criticized for his play after he picked up his 5th foul, very few mention that Russell did not do ANYTHING after he picked up HIS 5th foul a couple of minutes later. Wilt grabbed as many rebounds, on two consecutive possessions, and with an injured knee, as Russell did in the entire period.

Final stat line...Russell with six points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds in 48 minutes. Meanwhile, the "quitter" had 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds, in 43 minutes.

Incidently, even Wilt's incompetent coach defended Wilt on his injury.

Russell was WAY out of line for his comments after that game.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Russell, like so many other's that I have read, was way off in his take...which is amazing considering that he played in that game.

First of all, when Wilt finally left the game, LA had cut an early 4th quarter 17 point lead down to seven. Secondly, Wilt injured his KNEE, the same knee that he would reinjure at the beginning of the next season...and that would require major knee surgery. [/QUOTE]

The lead was 11 when the injury occured on a defensive rebound, 9 when Wilt left the game, you're both wrong.


[QUOTE=jlauber]And, why would Wilt pull himself out of the game at that point? Why didn't he pack it in after picking up his 5th foul late in the 3rd period, and his team down by 15? [/QUOTE]

As Russell explains in the chapter, it's not as though he thought Wilt quit, just that he was upset he didn't get to finish the game with the best players on the floor.

[QUOTE=jlauber]As for Russell saying that the Laker's whittled the lead down to nothing...almost true, but with Wilt in the game, they had knocked ten points off that deficit. [/QUOTE]

Six really, he didn't even make it up the court on their last two offensive possesions before a dead ball allowed him to check out.

[QUOTE=jlauber]And finally, where was RUSSELL in that 4th quarter? Take a look at the video footage that is out there. Russell, while playing, was nowhere to be found. And while Wilt was wrongly criticized for his play after he picked up his 5th foul, very few mention that Russell did not do ANYTHING after he picked up HIS 5th foul a couple of minutes later. Wilt grabbed as many rebounds, on two consecutive possessions, and with an injured knee, as Russell did in the entire period. [/QUOTE]

Russell had a few blocks and offensive rebounds in the quarter, he was primarily setting screens on offense. He did try to post Counts and forced double teams when Wilt went out. As usual Russell was letting the game flow and doing just enough to win.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Incidently, even Wilt's incompetent coach defended Wilt on his injury.
Russell was WAY out of line for his comments after that game. [/QUOTE]

Van Breda Kolff said he didn't put Wilt back in because the team was playing better without him in that game. I think that's absurd and why he quit/was fired after the season, but that is what he said.

I don't think Russell was out of line, he was acting out of emotion and he was offended by Wilt not being in there. As he said it was for "selfish" reasons and Wilt had "no obligation" to him.

As Russell acknowledges, that was the main cause of the friction between the two post-career.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]The lead was 11 when the injury occured on a defensive rebound, 9 when Wilt left the game, you're both wrong.




As Russell explains in the chapter, it's not as though he thought Wilt quit, just that he was upset he didn't get to finish the game with the best players on the floor.



Six really, he didn't even make it up the court on their last two offensive possesions before a dead ball allowed him to check out.



Russell had a few blocks and offensive rebounds in the quarter, he was primarily setting screens on offense. He did try to post Counts and forced double teams when Wilt went out. As usual Russell was letting the game flow and doing just enough to win.



Van Breda Kolff said he didn't put Wilt back in because the team was playing better without him in that game. I think that's absurd and why he quit/was fired after the season, but that is what he said.

I don't think Russell was out of line, he was acting out of emotion and he was offended by Wilt not being in there. As he said it was for "selfish" reasons and Wilt had "no obligation" to him.

As Russell acknowledges, that was the main cause of the friction between the two post-career.[/QUOTE]

It's good that we can watch that 4th quarter in youtube - and it is obviously that Wilt was out, cause he hurt his knee on rebound and he was took out to have medical. In that case it is unfair to blame Wilt cause (unlike in 1966 when he missed some practices during playoffs series with Boston), cause he sacirficed his offensive game in Baylor's favour and was concentrating on defence. I think that was stupid cause with aging Russell, Lakers should be better go with Wilt instead of Balyor, but it is only "what if situation". And Baylor was the captain of that Lakers team, while it was Wilt first year.

Jlauber, you often cited that last game 5 from 1966 against Celticks, in which Wilt scored 46 points and grabbed 34 rebounds - in that particular game Wilt shot 19 from 34 from the field, but to be honnest was so awful from the free throw line, that a Philadelfia reporter pointed out that to him after the game angrying Wilt to the point that he was going to beat the reporter.

GOAT,

The lead was nine when Wilt left, during a timeout, BUT, before the timeout, there was foul that would send West to the FT line. After the timeout, West hit both FTs...so in reality, the lead was SEVEN when Wilt left the game.

I counted TWO rebounds by Russell in that quarter, and I don't believe he had any after Wilt left.

And once again, Wilt was criticized for his play after picking up his fifth foul and his team trailing by 15 points...yet, after Russell picked up HIS fifth, he did virtually nothing. There is even one play in which Wilt catches the ball and Russell virtually steps out of the way to let him score. If Van Breda Kolf had been any kind of a coach at all, he would have milked Wilt immediately into the 4th quarter. And on top of that, he left Mel Counts in (yes MEL COUNTS) instead of allowing Wilt back in the game...and despite the fact that with Wilt on the floor, he had knocked ten points off of a 17 point deficit. In any case, Counts missed a couple of shots down the stretch, and finished at a miserable 4-13, while Wilt was at 7-8. Only a complete IDIOT would have played out the last five minutes like Van Breda Kolf did...and it not only cost LA their first ever title...it basically cost Van Breda Kolf his career.

I have the utmost respect for Russell, but he was completely wrong in his account of Chamberlain in that game...AND, some 20 years later he privately, and then publically, apologized to Wilt...and thus ended a 20 year feud that should never have happened.

[QUOTE]Jlauber, you often cited that last game 5 from 1966 against Celticks, in which Wilt scored 46 points and grabbed 34 rebounds - in that particular game Wilt shot 19 from 34 from the field, but to be honnest was so awful from the free throw line, that a Philadelfia reporter pointed out that to him after the game angrying Wilt to the point that he was going to beat the reporter.[/QUOTE]

Wilt shot 8-25 from the line that game, and his team lost 122-108. The reporter basically blamed Wilt for the loss...completely ignoring the fact that Wilt was the ONLY Sixer who did anything in that game. But, then again, that was typical...no matter what Wilt did, he was always to blame. He had just put up a MONUMENTAL 46-34 game in the post-season, one of several 40-30+ games that Wilt had in his post-season career...and was being CRITICIZED for it. I have never taken the time to research it, but I suspect that no other player in NBA history has ever put up a 40-30 game in the post-season (although Russell had a 30-40 game)...and YET, he was being ripped for it.

The only comparison I could possibly make, would have been the MJ 63 point OT game against the Celtics in the playoffs. Can you imagine a reporter, in a packed interview room, telling Jordan, that if he had not missed two FTs in that game, that Chicago would have won the game?

That 46-34 game was just one of MANY examples of the EXPECTATION level for Wilt. He was also blamed for the game seven loss against the heavily-favored Knicks in the 69-70 Finals. Reed put up a 4-3 game, and was hailed as the "hero", while Chamberlain, only four months removed from major knee surgery, and who had just put up a 21-24 game, was considered the "goat."

[QUOTE=jlauber]Wilt shot 8-25 from the line that game, and his team lost 122-108. The reporter basically blamed Wilt for the loss...completely ignoring the fact that Wilt was the ONLY Sixer who did anything in that game. But, then again, that was typical...no matter what Wilt did, he was always to blame. He had just put up a MONUMENTAL 46-34 game in the post-season, one of several 40-30+ games that Wilt had in his post-season career...and was being CRITICIZED for it. I have never taken the time to research it, but I suspect that no other player in NBA history has ever put up a 40-30 game in the post-season (although Russell had a 30-40 game)...and YET, he was being ripped for it.

The only comparison I could possibly make, would have been the MJ 63 point OT game against the Celtics in the playoffs. Can you imagine a reporter, in a packed interview room, telling Jordan, that if he had not missed two FTs in that game, that Chicago would have won the game?

That 46-34 game was just one of MANY examples of the EXPECTATION level for Wilt. He was also blamed for the game seven loss against the heavily-favored Knicks in the 69-70 Finals. Reed put up a 4-3 game, and was hailed as the "hero", while Chamberlain, only four months removed from major knee surgery, and who had just put up a 21-24 game, was considered the "goat."[/QUOTE]

However to score 46 points on 19 from 34 against the best defender in the league in the clutching playoff game is a remarkable feat, not to mentioned the game high 34 rebounds. For comparision Kareem has a game with 40 points (18 from 31) against Wilt in 1972 playoffs, but was outrbounded 17 to 7 :no: by older Wilt and Bucks lost the game.

[QUOTE=julizaver]However to score 46 points on 19 from 34 against the best defender in the league in the clutching playoff game is a remarkable feat, not to mentioned the game high 34 rebounds. For comparision Kareem has a game with 40 points (18 from 31) against Wilt in 1972 playoffs, but was outrbounded 17 to 7 :no: by older Wilt and Bucks lost the game.[/QUOTE]

I will acknowledge the greatness of Kareem (and I ALWAYS have BTW.) IMHO, he could have easily scored 40 ppg in his best seasons. And, had Shaq been used properly in his career, and had he been as motivated as he was in the post-season, I think he could have easily been a 35 ppg in his era (at his PEAK, of course.) Both Kareem and Shaq SHOULD have been better rebounders and defenders, though. Physically, they were much better than their competition (sans Wilt, of course.) Yet, neither seldom dominated. Kareem actually gave Wilt the most trouble, albeit, Wilt still outrebounded him, and that was when he was nearing the end of his career. And, Shaq, when motivated, was the BEST rebounder of his era. He dominated Motumbo, who was the league's leading rebounder, in the Finals. And, I would have taken a motivated Shaq over Rodman anyday.

The best PURE rebounder, though, was Russell. He had the best timing (even Wilt stated as much), and was a world-class high-jumper. Here again, it just makes what Wilt accomplished all the more amazing. Chamberlain just BURIED Russell H2H in rebounding. At his PEAK (in 66-67) he CRUSHED Russell in the playoffs, by a staggering 32-23 margin per game (including a playoff record of 41.)

In terms of rankings...here is MINE...

1. Wilt




2. Russell


3. Rodman (although he should drop considerably based on his post-season mediocrity.)

4. Thurmond
5. M. Malone
6. Lucas (at his peak anyway.)

After that, you can mix-and-match anyway you want.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I would have taken a motivated Shaq over Rodman anyday. [/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree with you anymore.
And personally, I'd prefer Shaq in Orlando era rather than the Lakers' in which he had the weight and illness problems.

[QUOTE=jlauber]
In terms of rankings...here is MINE...
1. Wilt
2. Russell
3. Rodman (although he should drop considerably based on his post-season mediocrity.)
4. Thurmond
5. M. Malone
6. Lucas (at his peak anyway.)
[/QUOTE]

I absolutely agree with your ranking for Wilt and Russell, and I would like to pick Thurmond over Rodman with or without considering his post-season performance. What do you think?

[QUOTE=alexandreben]I couldn't agree with you anymore.
And personally, I'd prefer Shaq in Orlando era rather than the Lakers' in which he had the weight and illness problems.



I absolutely agree with your ranking for Wilt and Russell, and I would like to pick Thurmond over Rodman with or without considering his post-season performance. What do you think?[/QUOTE]

Yes, you could make a strong case for Thurmond over Rodman if you include the post-season. Thurmond had a monstrous rebounding series against Wilt in the 66-67 Finals, with a 26.7 rpg average...although, once again, Chamberlain outrebounded him (28.5 rpg.)

I have Russell ranked over Rodman, despite Rodman winning more rebound titles (7-5), because of two reasons. One, if Wilt had not played (and beaten Russell eight times in ten seasons), Russell would have won several more rebound titles. And, two, Russell has the highest post-season rebounds-per-game average in NBA history (although Chamberlain outrebounded him in EVERY H2H post-season matchup.)

Rodman certainly had some dominating regular season rebound titles. He also holds the record, by a wide margin, for rebound percentage. Still, Chamberlain had some seasons with a huge edge over the next guy in terms of rebounds per game (in the 67-68 season, Wilt averaged 23.8 rpg, and the next guy, Lucas, was at 19.0 rpg...or a +4.8 rpg margin. And I contend that Wilt faced much stronger rebounding centers than those that played in the Rodman era. And, once again, in the post-season, Chamberlain was FAR more dominant than Rodman was.

[B][SIZE="4"]Game Seven 1965 Eastern Finals[/SIZE][/B]

[FONT="Century Gothic"]"Havlicek stole the ball"[/FONT]

But before that...Bill Russell, who retired the greatest player of all-time, almost ended up being a whole different kind of Goat.

As has been discussed here and everywhere else before. The Sixers were clsoing in on the Celtics. Wilt, who had been traded by the Warriors earlier in the season had just slammed home two points over Russell to close the Celtic margin (which had been ten earlier in the quarter) to just one point, 100-109 with five seconds remaining.

Bill Russell set to inbounds the ball.

[I]"I wouldn't let anyone else take the ball out but me, cause I would make sure I could make a good pass"[/I]

Russell however through the ball off a basket support and it went back to Philadelphia and timeout was called.

In the huddle, Russell asked his teammates for help.

[I]"Guys, we gotta do something"[/I]

As Tom Hiensohn put it:

[I]"He has saved us so many times and we felt so good about what Bill Russell did and how he dealt with us as people, that we went out there and tried to get him off the hook."[/I]

Of course, we know what happened after that. Philadelphia ran a play for Chet Walker to get a jump shot because they were afraid Wilt would not make the free throw, knowing the Celtics would foul. Hal Greer's inbounds pass came up a little short of Walker and Havlicek deflected it right to Sam Jones and the Celtics took off down the court and on their back to the NBA finals.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdMPSYtQeIQ"]The Play[/URL]

[I]"Havlicek stole the ball. Havlicek, how lucky can you be"[/I]

[B]Wilt Chamberlain[/B]

[I]"I told Havlicek, I made you famous. If wouldn't have messed up, nobody would have ever heard of you"[/I]

[B]Bill Russell[/B]

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T][B][SIZE="4"]Game Seven 1965 Eastern Finals[/SIZE][/B]

[FONT="Century Gothic"]"Havlicek stole the ball"[/FONT]

But before that...Bill Russell, who retired the greatest player of all-time, almost ended up being a whole different kind of Goat.

As has been discussed here and everywhere else before. The Sixers were clsoing in on the Celtics. Wilt, who had been traded by the Warriors earlier in the season had just slammed home two points over Russell to close the Celtic margin (which had been ten earlier in the quarter) to just one point, 100-109 with five seconds remaining.

Bill Russell set to inbounds the ball.

[I]"I wouldn't let anyone else take the ball out but me, cause I would make sure I could make a good pass"[/I]

Russell however through the ball off a basket support and it went back to Philadelphia and timeout was called.

In the huddle, Russell asked his teammates for help.

[I]"Guys, we gotta do something"[/I]

As Tom Hiensohn put it:

[I]"He has saved us so many times and we felt so good about what Bill Russell did and how he dealt with us as people, that we went out there and tried to get him off the hook."[/I]

Of course, we know what happened after that. Philadelphia ran a play for Chet Walker to get a jump shot because they were afraid Wilt would not make the free throw, knowing the Celtics would foul. Hal Greer's inbounds pass came up a little short of Walker and Havlicek deflected it right to Sam Jones and the Celtics took off down the court and on their back to the NBA finals.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdMPSYtQeIQ"]The Play[/URL]

[I]"Havlicek stole the ball. Havlicek, how lucky can you be"[/I]

[B]Wilt Chamberlain[/B]

[I]"I told Havlicek, I made you famous. If wouldn't have messed up, nobody would have ever heard of you"[/I]

[B]Bill Russell[/B][/QUOTE]
Havlicek stole the ball at the final moment in the NBA finals G7 in 1969 too... I think he really is something instead of just lucky.

both teams couldnt inbound the ball to their own men in the last seconds of the game. just bad. :roll:

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T][B][SIZE="4"]Game Seven 1965 Eastern Finals[/SIZE][/B]

[FONT="Century Gothic"]"Havlicek stole the ball"[/FONT]

But before that...Bill Russell, who retired the greatest player of all-time, almost ended up being a whole different kind of Goat.

As has been discussed here and everywhere else before. The Sixers were clsoing in on the Celtics. Wilt, who had been traded by the Warriors earlier in the season had just slammed home two points over Russell to close the Celtic margin (which had been ten earlier in the quarter) to just one point, 100-109 with five seconds remaining.

Bill Russell set to inbounds the ball.

[I]"I wouldn't let anyone else take the ball out but me, cause I would make sure I could make a good pass"[/I]

Russell however through the ball off a basket support and it went back to Philadelphia and timeout was called.

In the huddle, Russell asked his teammates for help.

[I]"Guys, we gotta do something"[/I]

As Tom Hiensohn put it:

[I]"He has saved us so many times and we felt so good about what Bill Russell did and how he dealt with us as people, that we went out there and tried to get him off the hook."[/I]

Of course, we know what happened after that. Philadelphia ran a play for Chet Walker to get a jump shot because they were afraid Wilt would not make the free throw, knowing the Celtics would foul. Hal Greer's inbounds pass came up a little short of Walker and Havlicek deflected it right to Sam Jones and the Celtics took off down the court and on their back to the NBA finals.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdMPSYtQeIQ"]The Play[/URL]

[I]"Havlicek stole the ball. Havlicek, how lucky can you be"[/I]

[B]Wilt Chamberlain[/B]

[I]"I told Havlicek, I made you famous. If wouldn't have messed up, nobody would have ever heard of you"[/I]

[B]Bill Russell[/B][/QUOTE]

That game seven may have brought out the best in both Russell and Wilt. Take away the last five seconds, and you had Russell with a 15 point, 7-16, 29 rebound game (and I believe a boat-load of blocks), and Wilt with a 30 point, 12-15, 32 rebound game.

Russell was in his prime, and Chamberlain was nearing his, and IMHO, they battled each other to the very end. Once again, Russell led his team to a title, while Chamberlain, who was unfairly considered a "choker", took a 40-40 team on his back, and played brilliantly down the stretch, and came up an eyelash short of perhaps the biggest upset in NBA history.

[QUOTE=jlauber]First of all, there was a study done about this fact...and Russell had QUALITY teammates TWICE as often as Wilt did in their 10 year battles...

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229[/url]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"Now you can see Russell's "score" is more than twice that of Wilt,"

"Obviously this is just a fun exercise, and far from scientific,[B] but you can still see that Chamberlain's teammates were in fact significantly less talented than Russell's[/B], by both our Quality of Teammates metric and even by Bill Simmons' own ranking method. So I don't think it's quite fair to say, "let's never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain," because it's still pretty obvious that Wilt's supporting cast was inferior to Russell's by a good margin." [/COLOR][/quote]

This study is based off statistics. I would suggest that the difference shown in this study is a reflection in the difference between quality of supporting casts but rather a reflection in the difference of styles between the two men.

Perhaps the reason Russell's teammates have better stats not because they were better as much as it was because Wilt was taking such a high percentage of his teams shots and getting so many touches.

I mentioned in my previous post how similar the Warriors and Celtics were in the years leading up to Russell and Chamberlain arriving for them. Here it is again:

[I]In the four seasons prior to Russell joining the Celtics, Boston won 57% of their games and two playoff seires (both best of three).

In the four seasons prior to Chamberlain joining the Warriors, Philadelphia won 53% of their games and three playoff series (including an NBA title).[/I]


[QUOTE=jlauber]Let's examine the rosters: In that '59-'60 season, Wilt played with HOFer Paul Arizin, HOFer Tom Gola (who has much business being in the HOF as I do), Guy Rodgers (a quailt passing guard, but one of the worst shooters in NBA history), and a bunch of no-names. How about Russell? He combined with SIX other HOFers (SEVEN total)...Cousey, Heinsohn, Jones and Jones, Ramsey, and Heinsohn. Granted KC Jones and Frank Ramsey are probably not deserving of the HOF either, but Ramsey was certainly better than Gola.[/QUOTE]

Ramsey was better than Gola? How? Ramsey was a one-dimensional player, Gola was one of the most complete players of his era. He was an all-NBA player, made five straight all-star games (all with Wilt) and even got MVP votes in multiple seasons. Ramsey averaged 13-5-2 for his career on 40% shooting and peaked at 17-7-2 on 42%. Gola 11-8-4 on 43% shooting and peaked at 15-11-6 on 43%. Plus Gola was an excellent defender and Ramsey a liability more than an asset.

Guy Rodgers one of the worst shooters of all-time? Okay, but his career percentage is higher than Bob Cousy's, plus Wilt played with Rodgers in his prime and against Cousy on the edge of or past his.

As for Wilt's remaining teammates, I mostly agree, but a couple quick notes.

Woody Sauldsberry was the 1958 rookie of the year and an all-star in 1959...then Wilt ruined him away from his strengths at both ends of the court.

Andy Johnson was by no means a great or even good NBA player, but he did average 8 points and shoot 38% with Wilt as a teammate for three seasons, then averaged 14 on 45% shooting in one season with Chicago before excepting a job as a gym teacher.

Meanwhile guys like Nellie and Siegfried who were deemed not good enough to be in the NBA, thrived with Russell and the Celtics around them.

[QUOTE=jlauber]
So, after we re-examine the first six years of the Russell-Wilt rivalry, it is CLEAR that Russell had FAR superior teams in ALL six of them. Yet, Wilt guided two of those mediocre rosters to game seven defeats, one by ONE point, and the other by TWO points.[/QUOTE]

That's not the conclusion I draw at all. I don't think it's as close as Simmmons suggests, but not as wide as you suggest either.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Continuing, Simmons states that Wilt had superior rosters from the '65-'66 season thru the '68-'69 seasons (four years), and yet, Russell's TEAMs still went 3-1 in that span. Let's examine that statement further, shall we... [/QUOTE]

I completely agree and think that only 1966 is even debatable.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Yes, Wilt's '65-'66 76ers added HOFer Billy Cunningham, and went 55-25, while Boston dropped to 54-26. [/QUOTE]

The '66 roster is identical to the '67 one with the exception of 35 year old Larry Costello replacing retired 34 year old Al Bianchi at back-up guard. The Celtics were a year younger and that helps, but they also were without Wayne Embry and Bailey Howell who they added for the 1966-67 season.

[QUOTE=jlauber]How about the '68-'69 season (Russell's last year in the NBA), in which the 48-34 Celtics stunned the favored 55-27 Lakers, 4-3?[/QUOTE]

This is the season where Wilt had the greatest edge.

[QUOTE=jlauber] I have mentioned it many times, but when LA acquired Wilt in a trade, they gave up THREE players (and a boatload of cash), including all-star guard Archie Clark, and a decent journeyman center, Darrell Imhoff...which really hurt the Lakers depth. [/QUOTE]

This is such a misrepresentation of the truth, at least as bad as anything you accuse Simmons of doing.

They gave up two players and even that's pushing it. Jerry Chambers (the third name) didn't even play for the Lakers in 1968 (they went to the Finals), he also never played for the Sixers who he was traded to. Even at his peak he averaged 9 ppg of the bench for a last place team. As for Imhoff (The starting center for the Knicks when Wilt scored 100); how did losing him hurt their depth? Wilt played 45 minutes a night and Imhoff was exclusively a center even in his younger days. So in essence what it was, was a swap of Archie Clark for Wilt Chamberlain. Clark was a two-time all-star and a very solid guard for nearly a decade, Chamberlain is one of the five greatest players ever and the reigning league MVP. (It's be like if Shaq was traded in 2002 to the Kings for Mike Bibby and Scott Pollard)

So a Lakers team, that in 1968 had gone 8-1 through the Western Conference playoffs and lost to the Celtics in six games in the Finals swaps Clark for Wilt and all they get is one more playoff win better?

Look at it this way; Take Russell off the '68 Celtics and Clark off the '68 Lakers...who wins that series? Because that's Wilt's supporting cast in '69 against Russell's.

Phew...that one bugged me.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Not only that, but Elgin Baylor was on a severe down-slide.[/QUOTE]

No.

1968: 26-12-4 44% 1st team all-NBA averages 24-10-5 in the Finals.
1969: 25-11-5 45% 1st team all-NBA averages 18-13-5 in the Finals.

It was about to happen, he was hurt in the playoffs according to West, so in that sense you have a point but 18-13-5 isn't exactly hurting your team.

[QUOTE=jlauber]And, finally, the Lakers had one of the worst coaches, EVER, in Butch Van Breda Kolf. I have documented that series many times, but clearly, Van Breda Kolf COST LA a title that year. His determination to have Chamberlain sacrifice his offense (and even play the high-post, as well as benching him in some games)[/QUOTE]

History suggests Russell still would have won.

As for the High Post, it was Alex Hannum who first moved Wilt there, he was hailed as a genius cause it worked, Butch a dope cause it didn't.

[QUOTE=jlauber]In terms of rosters, Boston had a MUCH deeper roster...Russell, Havlicek, Howell, Sam Jones, Nelson, Sanders, Siegfried, and even rookie Don Chaney. [/QUOTE]

you conceded they were aging, but look just how rag-tag this bunch was.

Russell- physically spent had by far his worst year statistically, retired the year after
Havlicek- A stud.
Howell - Considered washed up in Detroit two years prior
Sam Jones - Lost his starting spot during the season, retired after it.
Nelson - Cut by the Lakers
Sanders - On the verge of retirement
Siegfried - Cut from the NBA, the ABA wouldn't pay him. Hadn't played in two years when the Celtics signed him.
Chaney - He averaged 4 pts and 1 ast shooting 32%.

That same team minus Russell and Sam Jones, last place the next season. Missed the playoffs for two straight.


[QUOTE=jlauber]CLEARLY, had the Sixers been healthy, it would have been another easy series win for Philly. [/quote]

Nothing about Russell and the Celtics suggest this. I got a huge list of excuses for the Celtics losing in '67, I just don't think they matter, they lost, that's it.

[QUOTE=jlauber]So, Russell's 7-1 H2H post-season margin was achieved with six heavily more talented teams, one marginally more talented, one slightly less talented, and two considerably less talented [/quote]

Russell gets the edge in four ('60, '62, '64, '65)
Wilt gets the edge in three ('67-'69)
'66 is too close to call on supporting casts, but the Sixers are clearly more "talented" if you factor Wilt and Russell in.

I really have a hard time calling 1966 even. The Celtics got deeper and more talented in 1967 and Havlicek took a big step up but got annihilated by the exact same Sixers roster. I can only attribute it to the wear on Russell and the Jones boys plus Auerbach's absence.

[QUOTE=jlauber](and without injuries, horrible coaching, and miracle shots), could just have easily have been a 5-3 edge for Wilt. [/quote]

Without Auerbach retiring and Russell's broken foot it could have easily been 8-0 Russell too, but it's not either, it's 7-1.

[QUOTE=jlauber]
Both Wilt and Russell are credited with playing with eight other HOFers. There are some discernable differences, however. At some points in his career, Chamberlain played with Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, Nate Thurmond, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, and Gail Goodrich. Meanwhile, Russell played alongside Bob Cousey, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Bailey Howell. [/quote]

Take the Russell away and only Cousy, Sharman and Havlicek are in the Hall. Sam never becomes the player he was, same for Heinsohn. Howell doesn't have the resume and KC and Ramsey don't even get consideration.

Gola, Goodrich and Greer might not get in without Wilt, Thurmond wasn't HOF Thurmond yet when played with Wilt and he only had Baylor for one year.

So pretty even if you ask me.

[QUOTE=jlauber]in game seven Chamberlain only TOUCHED the ball TWICE on the offensive end in 4th quarter (and those were on offensive rebounds), and his teammates fired blanks all game long (they shot 33% in that game)...[/quote]

see game seven 1962 NBA Finals for what Wilt COULD and SHOULD have done.

Also, ask yourself if you can see that scenario playing out with Magic, Bird or MJ.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Now, how about Russell's supporting cast? Unlike Wilt, who was drafted by a last-place team (that he immediately turned into a 48-32 team...and a close six game series loss to Boston in the playoffs)[/quote]

Every time you post this it is a direct misrepresentation of the situation.

[QUOTE=jlauber]...Russell came to a playoff team. Yes, he was the final piece of the puzzle that took them over the hump. [/quote]

A playoff team that had won exactly the same amount of playoff series in the three years before Russell got there that the Warriors had in the three years prior to Wilt arriving.

[QUOTE=jlauber]But, Auerbach also added more quality players each year. I have mentioned it many times.[/quote]

Players other teams didn't want. They had the last pick of each round from 1958 to 1966. Cincinnati could have had Havlicek with their territorial pick for example.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Cousey had four 20+ ppg seasons in his career [/quote]

None after Wilt joined the league

[QUOTE=jlauber]Sharman had three 20+ ppg seasons [/quote]

None after Wilt joined the league

[QUOTE=jlauber]Heinsohn had three 20+ ppg seasons [/quote]

And took over 20 shots per game to do it each time

[QUOTE=jlauber]Howell was an under-rated player who played with Russell for three years [/quote]

He was considered washed up when Boston acquired him.

The stuff I didn't respond to, I either agree with or understand your side of it. As always I respond to you because I enjoy these conversations, the respect you've shown is mutual.

G.O.A.T.,

You present solid arguments, as always, (and much better than Simmons' does BTW.)

We will just have to agree to disagree. IMHO, Wilt's first six teams were considerably inferior. After that, I believe that while Wilt's front line players were better in 65-66 and 68-69, Boston was much deeper. So, IMHO, those two seasons were a wash. True, Boston won in five in 65-66...although you could hardly fault Wilt, who put up a 28 ppg, 30 rpg, .509 series, including a 46-34 game in the game five loss. Of course you already know how I feel about the 68-69 Lakers. Their COACH butchered that series. In addition, Boston won two games on miraculous shots. Granted, luck ALWAYS seemed to go against Wilt, but had Johnny Egan been able to hold onto the ball in game four in the closing sconds, instead of losing it, and allowing Sam Jones to hit a shot while falling down...LA would have been up 3-1 in that series. Furthermore, in game five, Chamberlain finally came alive, and outrebounded Russell 31-13 in a romp. THAT was just how close LA was to winning THAT series, 4-1. Instead, Van Breda Kolf put the shackles on Wilt (how else do explain Wilt averaging 13.9 ppg in the playoffs...on .545 shooting), and allowed Baylor to throw up nothing but bricks (15.4 ppg on .385 shooting.)

The only TWO seasons, in which Wilt had better rosters, IMHO, were 66-67, in which they crushed Boston (almost swept them)...and in 67-68, when injuries wiped out them out in the post-season. They could overcome losing HOFer Cunningham (they built a 3-1 lead without him), but after Luke Jackson went down with a knee injury, they no longer had enough firepower at the forward position. And, once again, Wilt's teammates melted in the crunch, shooting 33% in a game seven, four-point loss (a team that led the league in shooting at .483 BTW.)

So, IMHO, Wilt carried two much-less talented rosters to within a total of THREE points, in the 61-62 and 64-65 post-seasons. And, with bad luck, poor coaching, and miserable play by his teammates, Wilt had two other teams lose in game seven's by a combined six points. So, the reality was, Chamberlain came within a few points, or bounces, of having a 5-3 record against Russell. In their decade long battle, IMHO, Wilt only had ONE team that was superior, that did not win...and that was his 67-68 Sixer squad, which was decimated by injuries in their playoff battle.

Still, as I have said many times, Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's. The only time they did not, Wilt's Sixers crushed them. Having said that, though, Russell MADE his teammates better, and MADE Wilt's worse. Russell put his teammates in successful positions, covered up their flaws, and made clutch plays when he had to. Wilt seldom meshed with his teammates, for whatever reasons. And even Chamberlain, himself, said that he would not have blended as well with Russell's teammates, as Russell did.

The bottom line, though, is that Russell's 7-1 edge was not nearly as one-sided as the media portrayed it. And, Wilt was EXPECTED to dominate, while Russell was not. You mentioned the game seven of the 61-62 ECF's, when Wilt "only" scored 22 points (his SEASON LOW BTW), on 7-14 shooting. Yes, it was disappointment, but how many BIG games did Russell put up that type of offense, against WILT? Wilt "let down" his teammates with a 22 point game. He also "let down" his team in the game seven of the 67-68 ECF's, when he did not take a shot in the second half. BUT, he STILL outscored Russell, 14-12, as well as outrebounded him, 34-26. And, one more time, Wilt was the "goat" when he had a 46-34 game in the clinching game five loss in the 65-66 ECF's...but where was the criticism of Russell the following season, when he could only put up a four point game in a clinching game five blowout loss to Wilt and the Sixers?

Wilt was EXPECTED to have 40-30 games...and his TEAM was EXPECTED to win, no matter the talent level of his supporting cast. If the two did not occur, at the same time, HE was considered a "failure."

Look, Russell was the sport's greatest winner. Only a fool would argue that. In fact, I find myself DEFENDING Russell's greatness here. I have read TOO MANY opinions here that rank Russell near the bottom of the top-10 all-time...and that is just ridiculous. It also diminishs what Chamberlain accomplished, as well. NO OTHER player IMPACTED the game of basketball, as much as Russell did. Those that argue statistics, alone, are being delusional, and do not know the true value of TEAM basketball. As you have stated, Russell was a "winner" in college, with two straight NC's, and then led his NBA teams to 11 titles in 13 years. This just simply cannot be a coincidence. Not only that, but Boston did not win a championship until Russell joined them, and then after he retired, they fell to a 34-48 record.

I will agree that Russell was the game's greatest player. I just don't accept that Wilt was a "choker" or a "failure."

[URL="http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=Red+Auerbach+opines&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=1966&as_user_hdate=1967&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a"][SIZE=-1][COLOR=#666666]Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - ProQuest Archiver[SIZE=-1][COLOR=black] - Mar 15, 1967[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL]
[I]
'Basketball's volatile Red Auerbach opines that some of Wilt Chamberlain's records are "silly and ridiculous. It's the biggest joke in the history of all statistics to count field goals by a man who is dunking the ball."'

Chamberlain's rebuttal: "Red Auerbach is a stupid, silly man."[/I]





[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=79kLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LVcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7146,5149170&dq"]The Evening Independent - Apr 28, 1967[/URL]

[I]
'Instead, I asked Russell. "Wilt's attitude has not been as bad as people thought," said Bill. "It's just that he's come to realize that this is the way to play to win. When he first came into the league he had a different concept of the game than I had. Now his is the same as mine. He's been playing the way I played for the last 11 years. [B]He did it better than I used to do it[/B], but it's the same game - passing off, coming out to set screens, picking up guys outside and sacrificing for team play."'[/I]

[QUOTE=Abraham Lincoln][URL="http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=Red+Auerbach+opines&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=1966&as_user_hdate=1967&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a"][SIZE=-1][COLOR=#666666]Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - ProQuest Archiver[SIZE=-1][COLOR=black] - Mar 15, 1967[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL]
[I]
'Basketball's volatile Red Auerbach opines that some of Wilt Chamberlain's records are "silly and ridiculous. It's the biggest joke in the history of all statistics to count field goals by a man who is dunking the ball."'

Chamberlain's rebuttal: "Red Auerbach is a stupid, silly man."[/I]





[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=79kLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LVcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7146,5149170&dq"]The Evening Independent - Apr 28, 1967[/URL]

[I]
'Instead, I asked Russell. "Wilt's attitude has not been as bad as people thought," said Bill. "It's just that he's come to realize that this is the way to play to win. When he first came into the league he had a different concept of the game than I had. Now his is the same as mine. He's been playing the way I played for the last 11 years. [B]He did it better than I used to do it[/B], but it's the same game - passing off, coming out to set screens, picking up guys outside and sacrificing for team play."'[/I][/QUOTE]

I believe that Auerbach was referring to Chamberlain's mark of 35 straight made FGAs, which is just another laughable comment on Wilt. Chamberlain had had three perfect games that year (15-15, 16-16, and 18-18), and I couldn't tell you which one(s) were involved, but to criticize a player for having 43 point games on 18-18 shooting was just ridiculous.

Simmons' ripped Wilt for leading the league in assists, too, suggesting that Chamberlain was doing so for purely statistical reasons (which, Wilt himself admitted was a goal that he had set before the season.)

What was comical about these pot-shots was that in the year that Wilt made those 35 straight FGs, Philly went 68-13, and ran away with the best mark in league history (at the time.) And Simmons failed to mention that in the year that Wilt led the league in assists, the Sixers again ran away with the best record in the league at 62-20...outdistancing 2nd place Boston by eight games.

It just amazed me that Chamberlain was so often criticized for the most ridiculous reasons. He was considered a ball-hog in the first half of his career, particularly the record-setting 61-62 season, but the FACT was, his COACH asked him to shoot the ball. He felt that that was the Warriors' best chance of winning...which it was, since he had virtually very little help.

Here again...so many current "historians" attempt to rationalize Wilt's numbers. They argue pace and competition. Yet, why was it ONLY Chamberlain that was putting up those HUGE games and seasons? As for competition...Kerr, Reed, Bellamy, Lucas, Thurmond, Lanier, Hayes, Unseld, Russell and Kareem...all in the HOF. The FACT was, when Chamberlain came into the league, he SHATTERED the existing records. Before he came into the league the scoring record was 29.2 ppg; the FG% record was .490, and the rebounding record was 23 rpg. He set records several times over, but by the time he left the game, he had set a scoring mark of 50.4 ppg; a FG% mark of .727; and a rebounding record of 27.2 rpg. Interesting too, that NO ONE has even come remotely close to ANY of those marks since.

The fact was, Wilt was a TRUE once-in-lifetime player. He STILL holds something like 130 records, and in many cases, he holds the next mark(s), as well. Many of those records will never be approached, much less broken.

There was Wilt...and then there was everyone else.

[quote]
Simmons' ripped Wilt for leading the league in assists, too, suggesting that Chamberlain was doing so for purely statistical reasons (which, Wilt himself admitted was a goal that he had set before the season.)[/quote]

What I do not understand is how one can correlate Chamberlain's [B]regular season[/B] assist record to the 7th game loss at the Spectrum in '68.



[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nTUmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cf4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=2336,4748497&dq"]Gettysburg Times - May 9, 1968[/URL]

[I]'Idle conversation between a reporter and Vince Miller, scout-statistician for the Philadelphia 76ers, may have solved the mystery of why Wilt Chamberlain took so few shots in the seventh and final game of the Eastern final against Boston. Miller told George Kiseda of the Philadelphia Bulliten his chart showed Chamberlain got the ball in the pivot just seven times in the second half - twice in the third period, and five times in the fourth quarter. In the first half the ball went into the pivot 23 times.[/I]'



Whether it was 5 touches in the fourth or merely 2 touches in the final period like Robert Cherry has said, that is still a staggering difference from the 1st half. As Wali Jones said, [I]"The fact that he was our center piece, and not to get the ball into him was an error. You can't perform without the ball."[/I] I have also read that the Celtics used "The Wall" Wayne Embry as the primary defensive man on Chamberlain with the rest of the Celtics (Russell included) sagging back into the paint. That is one of the games I am interested in seeing should it be released.



[quote]I believe that Auerbach was referring to Chamberlain's mark of 35 straight made FGAs, which is just another laughable comment on Wilt. Chamberlain had had three perfect games that year (15-15, 16-16, and 18-18), and I couldn't tell you which one(s) were involved, but to criticize a player for having 43 point games on 18-18 shooting was just ridiculous. [/quote]
One can only wonder just how much influence Auerbach had on some of these close games. Not to imply any sort of cheating or fixture at all, as Bill Russell has proven to be the most dominating team player in basketball history as the sustained Celtic excellence cannot be neglected. I just happen to believe that Chamberlain as a Sixer (notably under Hannum) was the best in basketball history. Funny how Red said that about Chamberlain, who as a pivot man played closer to the basket than a guard or forward. Chamberlain would have a similar opinion on Michael Jordan's game decades later.



[I]"I'm not a big fan of Michael Jordan's because he never led the league in field goal percentage. If you take the dunk out of his game, his percentage will be even lower."

-Wilt, 1997




"Wilt was big on stats. One time he called me up and said, 'You know, Harvey, Michael Jordan can't hit a shot beyond 15 feet?'

I said, 'How do you know that?'

He said to me, 'Don't you watch the games?'

I said, 'I don't watch stuff like that. How do you know?'

He said, 'I watch it.'

So, during the height of Michael's career, I got the play-by-play of the first 20 Bulls games and I checked the distance of every shot Jordan took during the season and sure enough, he was shooting 38 percent from 15 feet back. So, I did 20 more and came up with the same result. So then I said, if I did 40, I might as well do 82. Wilt

[I]"I'm not a big fan of Michael Jordan's because he never led the league in field goal percentage. If you take the dunk out of his game, his percentage will be even lower."

-Wilt, 1997[/I]

Doesn't that tell you exactly why Wilt was not a winner.

I wouldn't look to deep into it as Chamberlain would routinely say these things about any player who approached him as a great ball player on the all time ranks. Not too often did he give a player after his era a positive review. His favorite target before Jordan was Kareem, and even Shaq in the late 90's a bit. I would agree Chamberlain may be the only player in basketball history who can be called the biggest underachiever in the history of the game as by some as well as the best player in the game's history by others.

[QUOTE=Abraham Lincoln]Not too often did he give a player after his era a positive review. His favorite target before Jordan was Kareem, and even Shaq in the late 90's a bit.[/QUOTE]
Where did that come from? Actually he give a comment on Shaq that Shaq might have a chance to become a better player than himself, check out the interview, his comment on Shaq were nothing but positive:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW17r...lated#t=04m13s[/url]

Indeed that was during Shaq's rookie year. However as some of the writers and even some former players were basically declaring O'Neal a "rich mans Wilt" in the late 90's, the feud was alive. Jabbar & Chamberlain also criticized Shaq's leadership in the '99 season.


[I]"If Shaq has been chosen as the team leader then he need to do it more by example. He needs to get down the court and play defense instead of cherry picking by the basket for all those dunks. Too often the other team is on offense and Shaq is not even at half court. Everybody talks about his points when we should be looking closer at his rebounds and blocked shots and defense."[/I]

[I]-Wilt, 1999[/I]




[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9-MdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Oi8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6459,5311741&dq"]Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - Apr 30, 1999[/URL]

[I]'In an interview with The Associated Press, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said the Lakers were underachievers who lacked chemistry. Abdul-Jabbar said Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant lacked leadership and Kobe Bryant showed immaturity on the court.

Abdul-Jabbar's comments were reported Thursday, two days after the Los Angeles Times published comments by Wilt Chamberlain that focused on O'Neal as the source of the Lakers' problems. Chamberlain, who helped the Lakers win the 1972 title, said the team's biggest problem was O'Neal's inability or refusal to play defense. He said Bryant had been unfairly cast as a "whipping boy" when more of the blame should go to O'Neal.

O'Neal dismissed the comments by Chamberlain, 62, by saying Thursday, "My mother told me to leave the elderly alone."'[/I]

[QUOTE=Abraham Lincoln]Indeed that was during Shaq's rookie year. However as some of the writers and even some former players were basically declaring O'Neal a "rich mans Wilt" in the late 90's, the feud was alive. Jabbar & Chamberlain also criticized Shaq's leadership in the '99 season.


[I]"If Shaq has been chosen as the team leader then he need to do it more by example. He needs to get down the court and play defense instead of cherry picking by the basket for all those dunks. Too often the other team is on offense and Shaq is not even at half court. Everybody talks about his points when we should be looking closer at his rebounds and blocked shots and defense."[/I]

[I]-Wilt, 1999[/I]




[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9-MdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Oi8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6459,5311741&dq"]Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - Apr 30, 1999[/URL]

[I]'In an interview with The Associated Press, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said the Lakers were underachievers who lacked chemistry. Abdul-Jabbar said Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant lacked leadership and Kobe Bryant showed immaturity on the court.

Abdul-Jabbar's comments were reported Thursday, two days after the Los Angeles Times published comments by Wilt Chamberlain that focused on O'Neal as the source of the Lakers' problems. Chamberlain, who helped the Lakers win the 1972 title, said the team's biggest problem was O'Neal's inability or refusal to play defense. He said Bryant had been unfairly cast as a "whipping boy" when more of the blame should go to O'Neal.

O'Neal dismissed the comments by Chamberlain, 62, by saying Thursday, "My mother told me to leave the elderly alone."'[/I][/QUOTE]

you know what? regarding to that season in 1999, somehow, i agree with Wilt and KAJ... what do you think?

Indeed it was also a bit wild with the lockout IMO and the signing of Rodman, that was a roster with talented players. In 2000, they were [B]a team[/B], in large part due to Coach Jackson and O'Neal's full commitment to both ends, winning a near unanimous MVP.

[QUOTE=Abraham Lincoln]Indeed it was also a bit wild with the lockout IMO and the signing of Rodman, that was a roster with talented players. In 2000, they were [B]a team[/B], in large part due to Coach Jackson and O'Neal's full commitment to both ends, winning a near unanimous MVP.[/QUOTE]
Do you have source about how Bill Russell comment on Shaq?

Besides calling Shaq the most improved player in '00?



[URL="http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/60307216.html?dids=60307216:60307216&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Sep+14%2C+2000&author=Oscar+Dixon&pub=USA+TODAY&desc=Best+center+ever%3F+Russell+steps+up&pqatl=google"]Sep 14, 2000[/URL]

[I]
[SIZE=-1] "A guy asked me if Shaq was the greatest[/SIZE] c[SIZE=-1]enter ever. I said no. [/SIZE]He then asked me who was and I said I was. I'm probably Shaq's biggest fan, but false modesty is not a virtue."[/I]

Coach Hannum with some high praise for those who have not seen it yet, calling Chamberlain the greatest player ever after the '67 season as well as the top defensive man in the league.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJdSJQvwpIY#t=4m19s[/url]

[QUOTE=Abraham Lincoln]Besides calling Shaq the most improved player in '00?



[URL="http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/60307216.html?dids=60307216:60307216&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Sep+14%2C+2000&author=Oscar+Dixon&pub=USA+TODAY&desc=Best+center+ever%3F+Russell+steps+up&pqatl=google"]Sep 14, 2000[/URL]

[I]
[SIZE=-1] "A guy asked me if Shaq was the greatest[/SIZE] c[SIZE=-1]enter ever. I said no. [/SIZE]He then asked me who was and I said I was. I'm probably Shaq's biggest fan, but false modesty is not a virtue."[/I][/QUOTE]
The greatest center ever? of course it's Russell... the guy had 11 rings, he is indeed the greatest center ever, and Wilt shall be the best individual and dominant center ever...

I'm more interested in his comment on Shaq's offensive and deffensive skills, domination, comparison with himself or other centers, like Wilt, KAJ, Hakeem, etc.. do you happen to have some sources please?

[QUOTE=Abraham Lincoln]Coach Hannum with some high praise for those who have not seen it yet, calling Chamberlain the greatest player ever after the '67 season as well as the top defensive man in the league.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJdSJQvwpIY#t=4m19s[/url][/QUOTE]

I remember I saw somewhere that Coach Hannum called Wilt is the best athlete ever in sports.

[quote=alexandreben]The greatest center ever? of course it's Russell... the guy had 11 rings, he is indeed the greatest center ever, and Wilt shall be the best individual and dominant center ever...

I'm more interested in his comment on Shaq's offensive and deffensive skills, domination, comparison with himself or other centers, like Wilt, KAJ, Hakeem, etc.. do you happen to have some sources please?[/quote]

[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=op0zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RPEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6795,4272783&dq"]Jan 17, 1995[/URL]

[I]'"Shaquille (O'Neal) is certainly a force to be reckoned with," says Abdul-Jabbar, not necessarily responding to Russell's recent praise of O'Neal. "And he's going to be around a long time. But I think Hakeem is clearly a better player. He can do more things on the court."'[/I]



[URL="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/features/shaq/flashback/shaqs_world/"]April 21, 1997[/URL]

[I]'"He doesn't have a good touch with the ball," says Abdul-Jabbar, the Lakers' last monster center before Shaq. "Any shot that he takes from more than two feet that he can't jam seems to lack touch. He's not selfish, he plays hard, he plays for the team, but there's just not much progress with the soft touch."[/I]'



[URL="http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=Kareem+wrote+about+Shaq&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=5%2F1%2F1997&as_user_hdate=6%2F1%2F1997&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a"]May 11, 1997[/URL]

[I][SIZE=-1]'Hall of Fame Lakers center Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is not impressed. "His offensive play is one-dimensional and predictable," Kareem wrote about Shaq[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] in Men's Journal. "He's a good defensive player only in certain situations. [/SIZE][/I][SIZE=-1][I] He doesn't understand teamwork, and if you foul him, he can't make free throws."'[/I]
[/SIZE]


[URL="http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=%22No+dunks+or+short+stuff%2C+just+outside+shooting%2C+two+hours+a+day+by+myself.%22&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=10%2F7%2F1997&as_user_hdate=10%2F8%2F1997&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=a"]Oct 7, 1997[/URL]
[I]
'"Wilt and Kareem, they dog me every day, I never say anything," Shaq said. Instead, this summer, he did something. "I didn't work on anything but shooting, free-throw extended. No dunks or short stuff, just outside shooting two hours a day by myself."[/I]'
[SIZE=-1]


[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=VrsyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OfIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6562,1930318&dq"]Apr 23, 2000[/URL]
[I]
'"Shaquille O'Neal has played as well this year as anybody who has ever played," Bill Walton said in an interview with Jay Posner of the San Diego Union-Tribune. "I voted for Shaq as most valuable player. I voted for Shaq for defensive player of the year. I voted for Shaq for most improved player of the year."'[/I]
[/SIZE]

[quote=alexandreben]I remember I saw somewhere that Coach Hannum called Wilt is the best athlete ever in sports.[/quote]
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdHJOFCbUhg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdHJOFCbUhg[/URL]

1:02 mark