Basketball Philosophy with Bill Russell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r][B]When talking about the '61-62 season before, you've included the back-to-back 50-point games Chamberlain had against the Celtics in which Russell didn't even play due to injury[/B]. FACT. [/QUOTE]

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

Here is my VERY FIRST post on ISH...

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

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r][QUOTE=Jlauber] I'm still waiting for your verification of me stating that Wilt had SEVEN 50+ point games against Russell...especially when it was I who gave [B]YOU[/B] the Harvey Pollack link to ALL of their H2H games in the first place. [/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Imagine the confidence that would inspire in you. The guy who never loses shows up that focused and that confident, how could you lose?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting you use the word

[B]JLAUBER

[I]

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

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

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

^ Thats pure gold :applause:

bump (two posts up)

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

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

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

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

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

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