Felton vs. Norman (The Chamberlain\Russell Thread)

[URL="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/centurys_best/news/1999/05/06/russell/"]May 10, 1999[/URL]

[IMG]http://i40.tinypic.com/2zg69ew.jpg[/IMG][I]


'When it comes to rating basketball players, I never put myself into that mix, ever -- I never have. And the reason for that is I decided early in my career the only really important thing is to win the games. I wanted my career to be such that people would say, [/I][I]He won championships, and that's a historical fact, that's not anyone's opinion. I think Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain, Bob Pettit, Elgin Baylor, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan -- all these guys, I call it a tie, in that there's no one any better than these guys, and all these guys were as good as anyone could be. Because you can't say -- or at least I wouldn't say -- that one guy's better. The only way you can make any kind of judgment is how much they dominate their contemporaries. There are maybe half a dozen good centers in the league. But they'll play each other and won't guard each other. When Wilt [Chamberlain] was young, if they'd have told him he couldn't guard me, they probably would've had to arrest him for assault! [Laughs.] To his coach!

Like I say, I think Shaq's very good, to start with. There is no prototype for a good player, at his position. What his talent is, he uses it quite well. Here's what I mean: They'll take a stat and say, As long as he's doing this, he's not a great player. So you go back 10, 12 years, Magic Johnson was at his heyday, and their marketing gimmick was his triple-doubles. This is the standard. And they still talk about guys' double-doubles now. It's starting to sound like baseball, with all the stats! [Laughs.] So now you can say the standard for a guard is the triple-double. Last year, the No. 1 guard in the league, Michael Jordan, I think he had one triple-double. So then that stat doesn't hold up, does it? So when a guy starts to tell me about these numbers, I know right away he doesn't know what he's talking about. Because every player develops his own key stats. [/I][I]His stats will determine how well [/I][I]he's playing, but his key stats may not compare to the guy before or anybody else.

[/I][I]Like when I was playing, one of the stats that no one talked about is that I averaged about five assists a game. But the offense was not centered around me; offensively, I was not what you'd call a dominant center. I could play high post and low post -- from the high post I did passing, from the low post I did shooting. And so a guy will develop his own stats as his career goes. Basically to me two things have happened: First, people try to predict who's going to win. So much so now that it becomes bigger than the game. I always liked to wait and watch the game! [Laughs.] [/I]
[I]
You know they [the Orlando Magic] did go -- although they got swept -- to the Finals. To me, it is not a bad year if you're in the Finals. I was almost appalled by the way they talked about the Buffalo Bills losing four straight Super Bowls. Getting into four straight Super Bowls itself is quite an accomplishment. That's like a writer saying you're not a good writer unless you win a Pulitzer. So if you write for 10 years and don't ever get a Pulitzer, you're a loser? That dog won't hunt. [Laughs.]'[/I]

[I]

[QUOTE=alexandreben][I]

[QUOTE]KAJ and Jerry West[/QUOTE]

He must have neglected to mention them.

From 1989:

[I][SIZE="2"] Almost immediately Russell was thrown into personal conflict with the awesome 7'1" 275 pound Wilt Chamberlain when he later entered the NBA in 1959. It was offense vs. defense, differing styles, a clash of strong personalities, a natural rivalry that delighted fans.
Chamberlain managed to outscore Russell in their personal confrontations but it was usually Russell's team that came out on top. In the 10 years Russell and Chamberlain stalked each other the Celtics won the NBA Championship nine times and held an 84-57 edge over Chamberlain's, Philadelphia, San Fransisco and Los Angeles teams.
This was frustrating for the hulking Wilt the Stilt who rationalized "I outscored him in head-to-head meetings 440-212 out-rebounded him 333-161 and even blocked more of his shots than he did of mine."
Russell countered: "Only the first year against Wilt was a challenge. Then it became clear that he was great - but I was better."
[/SIZE][/I]

[I]"What fun is it to discuss Bill Russell without mentioning his rivalry with Wilt Chamberlain? Yes, basketball is a team game, but within that context, Russell and Chamberlain were the most celebrated individual rivalry in the history of the sport.

More fuel was dumped on the fire in the fall of 1967 whe harve Pollack, a 76ers executive who was the public relations man for both the Philly Warriors and the 76ers ffor most of the past 42 years, issued the definitive statistical comparison of the rivalry in his 76ers press guide. Harvey's numbers revealed that Chamberlain outscored ad outrebounded Russell. According to Harvey that settles it. Chamberlain was a better plyer than Russell.

Harvey is wrong.

Russell had much more intensity than Wilt and skills better suited to playing basketball. Russell made us all better players. Wilt, in my opinion, had the opposite effect on teams. Wilt was such an individualistic plyer that, rather than help his teammates, he would often generate petty jealousies. Teammates were told to wait until Wilt came downcourt, to get it inside to Wilt etc, rather than look for their own scoring opportunities. There was resentment on the part of the other players who thought they shot better than Wilt or had talents that weren't being exploited. It was just the opposite with Russell because he took care of himself only after helping us out. We didn' have to take care of him.

There's a postscript to this. The question has oftenbeen asked, "What would have happened to the Celtics if Wilt had played for them instead of Russell?" First, it's never clear if Russell is to be factored into this equation by playing for another team against the Celtics. Let's say he isn't. We can assume te Celtics would have won something with Wilt. If Wilt had been surrounded by our talent we would have won some Championships. Wheter that number would have been three, four, five or six is anybody's guess. But it defintley would not have been eleven of thirteen.

I know it's difficult for some people to comprehend how you can say a guy who was capable of scoring 50 points a game for an entire season and 100 points in a single game, isn't better tha Bill Russell who never scored 40 points in an NBA game.

You've got to understand the game. The Chemistry we had with Russell as a running team would not have been there with Chamberlain. I would not have waited for Wilt to gt set up so we could pass him the ball. I wouldn't have cared if he could score 100 points every game.

Maybe you had to see Wilt and Russ play against each other to understand the difference. The fact is that Wilt was bigger and stronger, and could take it to the basket t will-except against us. Russell intimidated him. Wilt ca say what he wants, but I used to watch Wilt muscle in against everyone else, but not against Russell. He would never do tha. That's how his fadeaway jump shot was born. Russell forced Wilt to develop that shot.

In our games, Russ's strategy was simple: Force Wilt just a little bit on the sides so he couldn't muscle in with a spin move, using one or no dribbles. If Wilt got Russ under the basket, he could, in fact, overpower him.

The psychology between them was fascinating. Russ would dig in from the start. He didn't have to be told the importance of this rivalry. Wil would get his offensive rebounds and power stuff, an once in a while make an individual move, but Russ wouldn't let him sustain it. He might even do it for a game, nd maybe he'd do it with the fadeaway, but there was no way he would be Russ over a period of time using the fadeaway as his basic weapon.

Wilt was a paradox. Becausehe was so effective, coaches wantd him to score 40 points a game or more. But he still had to play with four other people. Wilt was a complete individualist, but you ca't use that as an excuse. I don't think Wilt ever understood that basketball is a team sport and unless all five players participate, you can't win. One year Wilt averaged 50 points a game, by the end of his career all he did was pass. He never seemed to catch on.

Basketball is a true team sport. The success of the whole is predicated on all five individuals reacting to one another, as opposed to one guy hitting eighty-eight home runs and the others tagging along. Wilt's incessant search for individual records wheter it was scoring, rebounding, or assists, indicates to me that he never really understood how the game should be played to win those championships he always talked about.

That brings us to the fact that Russell was the catalyst for our teams. He molded the team and made the talents blend. We had out share of letdowns and mood swings, although probably not as many as teams have today. One reason we had fewer than ayone, I am sure, was the nature of Bill Russell' game. I suspect it caused us to overachieve more than the Philadelphia players.

None of this may make any sense to Wilt. He has the numbers for now. Russell will always have the rings. It was no accident."[/I]

Gonna bump this. Above is Bob Cousy's take on the debate.

All kinds of gems in this thread.

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]"Had Wilt been surrounded by the playing cast that Russell was with the Boston Celtics and had he had a Red Auerbach as coach, his team might have won all those championships."

John Wooden[/FONT]

[QUOTE=jlauber][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]"Had Wilt been surrounded by the playing cast that Russell was with the Boston Celtics and had he had a Red Auerbach as coach, his team [B]might [/B]have won all those championships."

John Wooden[/FONT][/QUOTE]
nobody knows.

[QUOTE=jlauber][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]"Had Wilt been surrounded by the playing cast that Russell was with the Boston Celtics and had he had a Red Auerbach as coach, his team might have won all those championships."

John Wooden[/FONT][/QUOTE]

And Cousy, Auerbach, Russell, Havlicek, Heinsohn, both Jones boys and Sharman (who coached Wilt) are all on the record saying it wouldn't be 11 of 13) (Satch pretty muchh says it too, but not directly so I excluded him)


So you can take their no ways...

or the "might" of a great coach who hardly ever saw them play.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]And Cousy, Auerbach, Russell, Havlicek, Heinsohn, both Jones boys and Sharman (who coached Wilt) are all on the record saying it wouldn't be 11 of 13) (Satch pretty muchh says it too, but not directly so I excluded him)


So you can take their no ways...

or the "might" of a great coach who hardly ever saw them play.[/QUOTE]

Who really knows? Wilt, himself, said that Russell probably blended better with his teammates than he (Chamberlain) would have. Still, I am convinced that Wilt would have won around a minimum of seven titles had the two swapped rosters in their ten H2H seasons.

Furthermore, I have often wondered how many titles Wilt would have won had he had his Sixers roster for 10+ years. (I know...he only won one title with that group, in three full seasons, but in '68 that roster was DECIMATED by injuries.)

with the same roster he had, Wild could have won 5 more rings. if i remember correctly he had 5 game 7s decided by a total of 9 points, all against him. thats bad luck. no need for Cousy, Jones or Havlicek on his team, just the basketball god.
:pimp:

[QUOTE=L.A. Jazz]with the same roster he had, Wild could have won 5 more rings. if i remember correctly he had 5 game 7s decided by a total of 9 points, all against him. thats bad luck. no need for Cousy, Jones or Havlicek on his team, just the basketball god.
:pimp:[/QUOTE]

Close. He had four game seven's against Russell, in which his team's lost by 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. And in the '70 Finals, his Lakers lost a game seven to the Knicks, but by even the account of NY TIMES writer Leonard Koppett, the refs handed NY game five...so Wilt's game six of 45 points and 27 rebounds should have been the clincher.

And I have documented the SEVERAL "excuses" that Wilt's TEAMs had in those close series' losses, as well.

In any case, for those that question my ranking of Chamberlain (at anywhere from 1-4) because of "only" two rings...it must be put in proper perspective. He was an EYELASH away from winning as many as FIVE more. It was not as if his team's were getting blown out in the first round of the playoffs, or because Wilt played poorly or was outplayed (which almost never happened BTW.)

I've been reading this thread for the last hour and it saddens me how many people overlook Russell's talent and ability.

Sure, he didn't put up gaudy scoring numbers like Wilt Chamberlain.

Sure, he wasn't a 7 foot giant like Kareem or Shaq.

But the aim of basketball is to win games (and championships), and nobody did that better than Russell.

He's a winner, a leader, an inspiration, an enforcer, a legend.

He's the best center ever.

[QUOTE=WillC]I've been reading this thread for the last hour and it saddens me how many people overlook Russell's talent and ability.

Sure, he didn't put up gaudy scoring numbers like Wilt Chamberlain.

Sure, he wasn't a 7 foot giant like Kareem or Shaq.

But the aim of basketball is to win games (and championships), and nobody did that better than Russell.

He's a winner, a leader, an inspiration, an enforcer, a legend.

He's the best center ever.[/QUOTE]

Excellent post. I have grown to admire Russell in the last few years, and I have no problem with those that claim him as the G.O.A.T.

My problem has been with those that disparage Chamberlain's career. Those that claim he was a "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in his biggest games, and whose career was considered a "failure."

[QUOTE=jlauber]Excellent post. I have grown to admire Russell in the last few years, and I have no problem with those that claim him as the G.O.A.T.

My problem has been with those that disparage Chamberlain's career. Those that claim he was a "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in his biggest games, and whose career was considered a "failure."[/QUOTE]

Oh, I'm not saying that. Please, let me make it clear, I think Wilt Chamberlain is one of the greatest players ever.

Just not as good as Bill Russell.

Bill Simmons uses twenty-seven pages to explain why Russell is greater than Wilt in his Book of Basketball. I can't copy paste that all, but here is a summary:

You cannot defend that Wilt is better with these arguments:

[B]1. Russell had a better supporting cast:
[/B]Only half true: If you look close enough at the rosters, you'll see that between 1960 and 1969, five times does Russell have a better cast, four times does Wilt have a better cast and one time it's a tie. Also: Russell's teammates were elected to 26 all-star games, Wilt's teammates elected to 24.
[B]
2. Russell was not a very good offensive player[/B]
Bill Simmons uses 500 words to write how Russell's passing has been neglected, quoting Hondo and describing how important Russell was for the fast break.

[B]3. Wilt has better stats[/B]
[U]Head to head games:[/U]
Wilt: 28.7 ppg, 28.7 rpg / Russ: 14.5 ppg, 23.7 rpg
[U]Win/Loss:[/U]
Russell:: 84-58
[U]Playoffs:[/U]
Wilt: 22.5 ppg, 24.5 rpg, 4.2 apg / Russ: 16.2 ppg, 24.9 rpg, 4.7 apg
[U]Record for conference finals and NBA finals:
[/U]Wilt: 48-44, Russ: 90-53
[U]Record in game 7:[/U]
Wilt: 4-5, Russ: 10-0
[U]Record in elimination games for his team:[/U]
Wilt 10-11, Russ: 16-2
Championships:
Wilt: 2, Russ: 11

[B]4. Wilt was a great guy:[/B]
Simmons uses a thousand words to describe how few teams wanted Chamberlain. In 1965, nine out of eleven Lakers players voted no to the idea of Wilt being traded to him, for example

[B]5. A couple of plays different and Wilt would have won as many titles[/B]
Simmons writes 2000 words on how Wilt had no clutch and cared more about his own stats than winning. Rick Barry and Bill Bradley are quoted, saying how much Wilt is a loser, not a winner. There's also a list of six games where Wilt could have beaten Russell for the title, but instead got owned.

[B]6. People from that era are split on who's greater.[/B]
Simmons writes quotes from these guys, all clearly choosing Russell: Butch van Breda Kolff, Jerry West, Jerry Lucas, Jack Kiser and Bill Russell. On top of that, even Wilt admits to not caring as much about winning than Russell.

The chapter ends with this paragraph:
"...I'd rather have the bathroom puker on my team, the most beloved teammate of his era, the guy who didn't care about statistics, the guy who always seemed to end up on victorious teams in close games, the guy who finished his career as the greatest winner in sports, the guy who was singularly obsessed with making his teammates better and doing whatever it took to prevail. I'd rather have Bill Russell. And so would anyone else in their right mind. The defense rests."

Which folder is this one in jlauber...please refrain from replying, we already have all read it in this very thread.

[quote]In the 61-62 season, Wilt shattered a multitude of records. ESPN recently ran an "expert" poll which labeled that season as the greatest season in professional team sport's history.[/quote]

[I][B]Jon Teitel:[/B] In the 1962 Eastern Division Finals you had a two-point loss to the eventual champion Celtics in Game 7 after a game-winning shot by Hall of Famer Sam Jones. Do you think you should have won that series, and where does that Celtics team rank among the best you have ever seen (Bob Cousy and Bill Russell called it the greatest Celtics team of all-time)?

[B]Tom Meschery:[/B] Yes, we should have won. During a timeout in those last seconds Tom Gola asked McGuire if he could guard Sam, but McGuire kept Guy Rodgers on him even though Guy was not a good defender: voila! If we would have won, we would have slaughtered the Lakers in the Finals. The Celtics were much better the following year with the addition of John Havlicek.[/I]

[quote=jlauber]Robert Cherry made the comment that it was not Wilt's fault for that game seven debacle against Boston in 1969. BUT, had Wilt put up a normal game in game six, the Lakers would have won the title that year. [/quote][B]Wilt: Just Like Any Other 7-Foot Black Millionaire who Lives Next Door[/B] - Wilt Chamberlain

[I]His answer was something like, "I can handle him." Well, I've always thought you "handled" horses; you work with human beings. But "handle" is exactly the way van Breda Kolff looked at it. He was an ex-Marine, and he had this compulsion to prove he was the boss.





In the third quarter alone, the Lakers missed 15 straight shots, and the Celtics jumped into a 17-point lead. Then we started to rally. With five minutes left in the game, we cut their lead to nine points. I had 18 points and 27 rebounds, but when I came down with number 27, I banged my knee into something hard. It hurt bad, like when you bang your crazy-bone against a wall as hard as you can. I had to be helped from the floor. Frank O'Neill, the Laker trainer, sprayed some local anesthetic on it

[URL="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082021/index.htm"]Sports Illustrated - January 27, 1969[/URL]


[I]Moreover, there is discontent, which was not altogether unexpected. The Lakers, for so long one of the most comfortable, relaxed teams in sport, have become critical of one another and confused. General Manager Fred Schaus had to call a secret meeting to urge the players to keep their disagreements to themselves. That was in December, when a controversy between Chamberlain and Coach Butch van Breda Kolff first raged publicly over where Wilt was to line up: low post or high post

[QUOTE=PHILA][QUOTE]In the 61-62 season, Wilt shattered a multitude of records. ESPN recently ran an "expert" poll which labeled that season as the greatest season in professional team sport's history. [/QUOTE]

[I][B]Jon Teitel:[/B] In the 1962 Eastern Division Finals you had a two-point loss to the eventual champion Celtics in Game 7 after a game-winning shot by Hall of Famer Sam Jones. Do you think you should have won that series, and where does that Celtics team rank among the best you have ever seen (Bob Cousy and Bill Russell called it the greatest Celtics team of all-time)?

[B]Tom Meschery:[/B] Yes, we should have won. During a timeout in those last seconds Tom Gola asked McGuire if he could guard Sam, but McGuire kept Guy Rodgers on him even though Guy was not a good defender: voila! If we would have won, we would have slaughtered the Lakers in the Finals. The Celtics were much better the following year with the addition of John Havlicek.[/I][/QUOTE]

[I]The Warriors had appeared to be the stronger team throughout the game. Twice in the third quarter they had 9-point leads, and two of the Celtics

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Which folder is this one in jlauber...please refrain from replying, we already have all read it in this very thread.[/QUOTE]

Huh????

Are you referring to RobertDeMeijer's quotes from Bill Simmons? And yes, I have trashed ALL of Simmons take here several times. I won't bother "copying-and-pasting" my replies to each of those "myths" again. They are probably located somewhere in this thread.

[QUOTE]1. Russell had a better supporting cast:
Only half true: If you look close enough at the rosters, you'll see that between 1960 and 1969, five times does Russell have a better cast, four times does Wilt have a better cast and one time it's a tie. Also: Russell's teammates were elected to 26 all-star games, Wilt's teammates elected to 24.[/QUOTE]

I always find it a bit strange and hypocritical when Wilt had supposedly this often a better cast than Russell and it's used against him, while Wilt usually was the one who was outplaying his opponent, not his teammates Russell's ones. Not only this, but it's not even used as an argument that the overall Celtics' teams were better equipped, more ready, better coached and more overall clutch than Wilt's teams. It's always a Wilt vs Russell matter, even though both Wilt and Russell clearly played minimal roles in a lot of crucial situations that could have changed the history if they had different endings (see, Sam Jones and Don Nelson in 1969 - at best you can claim that Jones, by his admission, momentarily thought that Russell was still playing (he was on the bench), and you still know that this isn't the most important feature of that play).

[QUOTE]3. Wilt has better stats
Head to head games:
Wilt: 28.7 ppg, 28.7 rpg / Russ: 14.5 ppg, 23.7 rpg
Win/Loss:
Russell:: 84-58
Playoffs:
Wilt: 22.5 ppg, 24.5 rpg, 4.2 apg / Russ: 16.2 ppg, 24.9 rpg, 4.7 apg
Record for conference finals and NBA finals:
Wilt: 48-44, Russ: 90-53
Record in game 7:
Wilt: 4-5, Russ: 10-0
Record in elimination games for his team:
Wilt 10-11, Russ: 16-2
Championships:
Wilt: 2, Russ: 11[/QUOTE]

I guess that after the first line everything else is supposed to go Russell's way, but I hope the playoff stats are not put there for this reason, other than to claim that Russell increased his productivity in the playoffs, which still doesn't bring them to Wilt's ones' level.
Apart from this, yes, the Celtics were the better team. Nobody argues this.

[QUOTE]4. Wilt was a great guy:
Simmons uses a thousand words to describe how few teams wanted Chamberlain. In 1965, nine out of eleven Lakers players voted no to the idea of Wilt being traded to him, for example[/QUOTE]

Wait. I thought from a previous thread that Wilt's unpopularity did [B]not[/B] play a role in MVP votings (and millwad was mocking Wilt's unpopularity, calling this another "Wilt myth") and that he was more liked throughout the league than Russell. Let's get to a logical conclusion some day, shall we?

[QUOTE]5. A couple of plays different and Wilt would have won as many titles
Simmons writes 2000 words on how Wilt had no clutch and cared more about his own stats than winning. Rick Barry and Bill Bradley are quoted, saying how much Wilt is a loser, not a winner. There's also a list of six games where Wilt could have beaten Russell for the title, but instead got owned.[/QUOTE]

Simmons was the one who quoted that if Wilt's clutch moments existed, we'd know about them, right? Funny, because up to the early 2000's, we "knew" of no clutch moments of Russell, either (only during the last years did we obtain better info on certain plays, like the "Coleman play"). And I bet you, Simmons and 99.99+% of the rest of the world don't have a clue that Wilt had 11 game-winning shots in his career (I mean real game-winners, not the criterion-travesty that 82games.com uses), more than any center ever not called Kareem and Hakeem, including 2 such shots during playoff games, neither of which came during a won championship season (actually, he didn't make any game-winning shot in any of his won championship seasons - as if they needed them, lol).
And there can't be 6 games when Wilt "could have beaten Russell for the title", since his team lost 4 times in Game 7 to the Celtics, let alone 6 games when he "could have beaten Russell for the title, but instead got owned".

[QUOTE]6. People from that era are split on who's greater.
Simmons writes quotes from these guys, all clearly choosing Russell: Butch van Breda Kolff, Jerry West, Jerry Lucas, Jack Kiser and Bill Russell. On top of that, even Wilt admits to not caring as much about winning than Russell.[/QUOTE]

Simmons doesn't care to [B]compare [/B]Wilt to Russell. Simmons wants to [B]show[/B] that Russell was better. Given that Wilt has either been called either the GOAT or at least the best player of his era from people of all eras, I'd say that people even from that era (and I don't mean necessarily players) are split on who's greater.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Simmons was the one who quoted that if Wilt's clutch moments existed, we'd know about them, right?[/QUOTE]

Which was an unfair statement.

[QUOTE=Psileas]Funny, because up to the early 2000's, we "knew" of no clutch moments of Russell, either (only during the last years did we obtain better info on certain plays, like the "Coleman play").[/QUOTE]

That's because the ever-referenced "most people" know nothing about Wilt and Russell other than they're "the guy who averaged 50 points a game for a season and scored 100 in a game" and "the guy who won 11 rings." It means that "the majority of people" are ignorant, which a preponderance of evidence has already told us.

[QUOTE]3. Wilt has better stats
Head to head games:
Wilt: 28.7 ppg, 28.7 rpg / Russ: 14.5 ppg, 23.7 rpg
Win/Loss:
Russell:: 84-58
Playoffs:
[B]Wilt: 22.5 ppg, 24.5 rpg, 4.2 apg / Russ: 16.2 ppg, 24.9 rpg, 4.7 apg[/B]
Record for conference finals and NBA finals:
Wilt: 48-44, Russ: 90-53
Record in game 7:
Wilt: 4-5, Russ: 10-0
Record in elimination games for his team:
Wilt 10-11, Russ: 16-2
Championships:
Wilt: 2, Russ: 11 [/QUOTE]

I could go on for hours about how far off Simmons was in his take on the Russell-Wilt debates (and I have BTW)...but I highlighted the above for a reason.

Why does Simmons' use their CAREER post-season numbers, and not their post-season numbers when the two were in the league together for ten seasons?

Of course, without looking them up (I am too tired), then Chamberlain's numbers would look more like 28 ppg, and 26 rpg. Thanks to ShaqAttack, we KNOW that in his post-seasons from '60 to '68, Chamberlain averaged 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and shot .518 from the floor (again.... in league's that shot anywhere from .410 to .446.) And, unfortiunately for Wilt, his teammates were so awful in the 62-63 season, that his TEAM didn't make the playoffs that year...in a season in which Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg, 24.3 rpg, and shot .528. The natural assumption being...that Wilt would have ADDED another 2-3 ppg, or more to his post-season averages.

[QUOTE=WillC][QUOTE=jlauber]Excellent post. I have grown to admire Russell in the last few years, and I have no problem with those that claim him as the G.O.A.T.

My problem has been with those that disparage Chamberlain's career. Those that claim he was a "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in his biggest games, and whose career was considered a "failure."[/QUOTE]

Oh, I'm not saying that. Please, let me make it clear, I think Wilt Chamberlain is one of the greatest players ever.

Just not as good as Bill Russell.[/QUOTE]

It irritates me that so many people posit false dichotomies. If someone should say they happen to rank one player above another, then that somehow means the other player is a "bum."

:rolleyes:

It's like they're incapable of anything more than simplistic thinking.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r][QUOTE=PHILA][QUOTE]In the 61-62 season, Wilt shattered a multitude of records. ESPN recently ran an "expert" poll which labeled that season as the greatest season in professional team sport's history. [/QUOTE]

[I][B]Jon Teitel:[/B] In the 1962 Eastern Division Finals you had a two-point loss to the eventual champion Celtics in Game 7 after a game-winning shot by Hall of Famer Sam Jones. Do you think you should have won that series, and where does that Celtics team rank among the best you have ever seen (Bob Cousy and Bill Russell called it the greatest Celtics team of all-time)?

[B]Tom Meschery:[/B] Yes, we should have won. During a timeout in those last seconds Tom Gola asked McGuire if he could guard Sam, but McGuire kept Guy Rodgers on him even though Guy was not a good defender: voila! If we would have won, we would have slaughtered the Lakers in the Finals. The Celtics were much better the following year with the addition of John Havlicek.[/I][/QUOTE]

[I]The Warriors had appeared to be the stronger team throughout the game. Twice in the third quarter they had 9-point leads, and two of the Celtics

Duplicate Delete please

When looking at the youtube clips '62, 65 and one in the later years, of Celtic playoff games the thing that I noticed was that Sam Jones and Hondo played a role very similiar to Dirk. They hit key shot after key shot in clutch moments. And they were looked for to do such. And that it aparently wasn't Russells' role. While both admit [B]Russ was the man [/B]I wonder with todays mentality if a primarily defensive center, great rebounder whose role offensively was decoy and facilitator on a team with guys like Dirk would he be considered the man?

While Russ was indeed a clutch player - moreso the whole game and not like Jordan, a take over player at the end of games, or a deadly feed into the post. He functioned differently.

[QUOTE=Psileas]I always find it a bit strange and hypocritical when Wilt had supposedly this often a better cast than Russell and it's used against him, while Wilt usually was the one who was outplaying his opponent, not his teammates Russell's ones. Not only this, but it's not even used as an argument that the overall Celtics' teams were better equipped, more ready, better coached and more overall clutch than Wilt's teams. It's always a Wilt vs Russell matter, even though both Wilt and Russell clearly played minimal roles in a lot of crucial situations that could have changed the history if they had different endings (see, Sam Jones and Don Nelson in 1969 - at best you can claim that Jones, by his admission, momentarily thought that Russell was still playing (he was on the bench), and you still know that this isn't the most important feature of that play).



I guess that after the first line everything else is supposed to go Russell's way, but I hope the playoff stats are not put there for this reason, other than to claim that Russell increased his productivity in the playoffs, which still doesn't bring them to Wilt's ones' level.
Apart from this, yes, the Celtics were the better team. Nobody argues this.



Wait. I thought from a previous thread that Wilt's unpopularity did [B]not[/B] play a role in MVP votings (and millwad was mocking Wilt's unpopularity, calling this another "Wilt myth") and that he was more liked throughout the league than Russell. Let's get to a logical conclusion some day, shall we?



Simmons was the one who quoted that if Wilt's clutch moments existed, we'd know about them, right? Funny, because up to the early 2000's, we "knew" of no clutch moments of Russell, either (only during the last years did we obtain better info on certain plays, like the "Coleman play"). And I bet you, Simmons and 99.99+% of the rest of the world don't have a clue that Wilt had 11 game-winning shots in his career (I mean real game-winners, not the criterion-travesty that 82games.com uses), more than any center ever not called Kareem and Hakeem, including 2 such shots during playoff games, neither of which came during a won championship season (actually, he didn't make any game-winning shot in any of his won championship seasons - as if they needed them, lol).
And there can't be 6 games when Wilt "could have beaten Russell for the title", since his team lost 4 times in Game 7 to the Celtics, let alone 6 games when he "could have beaten Russell for the title, but instead got owned".



Simmons doesn't care to [B]compare [/B]Wilt to Russell. Simmons wants to [B]show[/B] that Russell was better. Given that Wilt has either been called either the GOAT or at least the best player of his era from people of all eras, I'd say that people even from that era (and I don't mean necessarily players) are split on who's greater.[/QUOTE]


Good points! :cheers:

A case can be made for both sides, however i will go with Russell.

He's a team superstar who does everything what a team needs and even more plus he makes everyone around better, is a better leader, defensive player, has the clutch and mental edge etc.

[QUOTE=PTB Fan]A case can be made for both sides, however i will go with Russell.

He's a team superstar who does everything what a team needs and even more plus he makes everyone around better, is a better leader, defensive player, has the clutch and mental edge etc.[/QUOTE]

Of course, I could counter-argue that Chamberlain was the greatest offensive player of all-time, a much more efficient offensive player, a better rebounder, a better passer, had many more HUGE playoff games (even against Russell, himself), and when given a comparable supporting cast was able to easily beat Russell's eight-time defending champions.

I will agree that Russell teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's, but, despite a 7-1 H2H series edge, FOUR of those wins came in game seven's, and by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. It was not as if Russell and his Celtics were pounding Wilt and his team's in those eight post-season series.