Why is MJ considered better than Bill Russell?

[QUOTE]You tend to overlook why they finished in last place.

Do you need me to remind you or are you going to acknowledge the obvious reason and also point out that Wilt came to a team with 2 HOFers in their prime (same number as Russell did).

[/QUOTE]

Huh????

Let's take a look at their respective rosters in Wilt's rookie season...

Wilt did have ONE legitimate great teammate, Paul Arizin, but to say that he was in his prime is to say that almost all of Russell's HOF teammates were in their prime. Arizin was 31 in Wilt's rookie season, and was done by age 33.

You always bring up Wilt's HOF teammates, much like Bill Simmons, but you never put them in proper context. Wilt's other "HOF" teammate in that 59-60 season? The "great" Tom Gola. As I have stated many times, Gola was a CAREER 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, .431 shooter. In his BEST season, he averaged 15.0 ppg, 10.4 rpg, and shot .433. I don't care how good a teammate he was, he was NOT a HOFer.

That reminds of those posters who point out the "fact" that Wilt had two All-Star teammates on his horribel 62-63 roster. Tom Meschery and Guy Rodgers. C'mon! Meschery was a ONE-TIME all-star, who DID play his BEST with Wilt...but 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and .425 shooting is NOT all-star level. As for Rodgers...quite possibly the WORST shooter in NBA history (a career .378 shooter, who NEVER once shot 40% in a season.) And before someone compares his shooting with Cousy...Cousy shot considerably better against the NBA league average, than Rodgers did. How bad a shooter was Rodgers? He had one season in which the league average was .446...and he shot .347!

So, we now KNOW that Chamberlain played with only ONE quality player in his rookie season. How about Russell in that 59-60 season? Sharman, Cousy, Heinsohn, Ramsey, Sam Jones, and KC Jones...ALL in the HOF. Two of those players were over 30...Cousy at 31, and Sharman at 33. So, here again, if Arizin was in his "prime" then so was Cousy. Now, if you want to argue that Ramsey and KC Jones are as questionable as Gola, fine. I will say that Ramsey was a better offensive player than Gola, and KC Jones was probably a better defensive player.

And of those seven players, only KC Jones averaged less 10 ppg in that 59-60 season. And along with Russell,...Ramsey, Sharman, Cousy, and Heinsohn all averaged over 15 ppg.

And, as bad as Wilt's teammates were, even those two "stars", Arizin and Gola, played horribly in their three post-seasons with Wilt. In Arizin's last two playoff seasons, he shot .328 and .375. In Gola's last three post-seasons with Wilt, he shot .412, .206, and .271. Yep, he was a HOFer alright.

So, as you can plainly see, Russell had a HUGE edge in surrounding talent. And that trend would continue until the mid-60's, when Wilt was traded to the Sixers. BUT, even THEN, Russell had more HOF teammates EVERY season until he retired.

And YOU know, as well as I, that, not only did Russell have more HOF teammates, he played with them MUCH longer. For those that have never read this before, Russell played alongside quailty teammates, TWICE as many minutes in his career, than Chamberlain...

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

[QUOTE]"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, but you can still see that Chamberlain's teammates were in fact significantly less talented than Russell's, 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."[/QUOTE]

Furthermore, the idiotic Simmons says that Wilt played with nearly as many HOF teammates as Russell in his career. That is such a stretch of the truth. While Russell played alongside HIS HOF teammates for anywhere from six to 12 years, how about Wilt? Let's see...Chamberlain played with the great Nate Thurmond...ONE season...Thurmond's rookie year. AND, Nate was playing 26 mpg, and mostly out of position (he played PF that year...and he was a HOF center). Not only that, but he shot .395 from the field.

Then there was Gail Goodrich. OK,...except that Russell had retired by the time Goodrich played with Wilt. Furthermore, Wilt played with Goodrich for TWO seasons.

Simmons also loves to bring up Baylor. After all, Elgin played on Wilt's teams for four seasons. EXCEPT, that Wilt was injured for nearly all of one of them (69-70), while Baylor played in TWO early season games in 70-71, and then "retired" after nine games in the 71-72 season (and not surprisingly, the Lakers immediately won 33 straight games, en route to a title.) And even in the season that Wilt missed 70 games, Baylor missed 28. On top of all of that, Baylor was well past his prime...and like Arizin and Gola, he was AWFUL in his post-seasons in the seasons he played with Wilt. In their ONE "full" season together, 68-69, Baylor averaged 15.3 ppg on .385 shooting in the post-season.

Then there was Jerry West. Wilt and West played together for five seasons. While West missed a ton of games in those years, he at least played considerably more than Baylor. Still, West missed the entire last fourth of the 70-71 season, including the playoffs...which left Chamberlain without BOTH West and Baylor in the playoffs that year. He also missed 21 games in their inaugural season together (68-69), eight games in the year in which Wilt missed 70, and 13 games in Wilt's last season (72-73.) The only year in which West was reasonably healthy, the 71-72 season, the Lakers won the title. Of course, West had the worst shooting slump of his entire post-season career that year...but, fortunately for LA, Wilt dominated in the playoffs, and won the Finals MVP.

But, even if you are going to use West and Baylor in the Russell-Wilt debates...those two only played with Wilt, and against Russell, for ONE season (that 68-69 year.)

So that leaves Wilt's HOF teammates in his 3 1/2 years with the Sixers (from halfway thru the 64-65 season thru the 67-68 season.) Cunningham did not join Philly until the 65-66 season, and was awful in the post-season that year, shooting .161 in the playoffs. He also broke his wrist in the first round of the playoffs in the 67-68 season, and missed the ECF's, when Philly lost a game seven, by four points, to the Celtics.

The ONLY HOF teammate that Wilt could count on EVERY year he played with him, was Hal Greer, whom he played alongside for all three-and-half years in Philadelphia. BUT, even Greer had a meltdown in the '66 ECF's, when he shot .325. And, in game seven of the '68 ECF's, he shot 8-25 from the floor. Still, overall, Greer was a great player when he was paired with Wilt.

Chamberlain also played alongside both Chet Walker and Luke Jackson in those 3 1/2 years, and while both had injury or shooting slumps in the post-season, they were exceptionally good players. But, if you are going to include them in any discussion about quality teammates, then you can argue that Russell had Bailey Howell, a HOFer and a deadly 20 ppg scorer in his Celtic years, and Satch Sanders, whom many regarded as one of the best defensive forwards of his era.

And, of course, Russell had those others. Cousy, Heinsohn, Sharman, Jones, Jones, Ramsey, and Havlicek...and for MANY years. Furthermore, Sam Jones and Havlicek were legitimate 25-30 ppg scorers in their careers, and in fact, Havlicke had a season AFTER Russell, in which he averaged 28.9 ppg.

On top of those players, Russell also had Lovelette and Embry...both in the HOF...as well as players like Don Nelson, Larry Siegfried, and even Don Chaney.

Once again, Russell enjoyed an edge in HOFers, in Wilt's first six years, by margins of 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2. Even in his last four years he had margins of 4-3, 6-3 (in a year in which Philly destroyed them in the ECF's, 4-1), 5-3 (and it was 5-2 in the ECF's, as Cunningham missed the entire series), and 4-3 (and as always, a much deeper bench.)

Now, do you still want to say that Wilt played with the same number of "prime" HOFers as Chamberlain? That was completely ridiculous. Russell had an overwhelming edge in talent in the vast majority of his H2H seasons with Wilt, and an edge in EVERY season.

[QUOTE=jlauber]If Russell wanted to be GOAT he should have gotten to the gym and worked on his low post game.[/QUOTE]

I would have thought that being the best player on 2 NCAA championships, an Olympic championship and 11 NBA championships within 16 years would be his calling card. Or not.

Where's the stat we keep for intelligence? For knowing how to win. For intensity and clutch performance. For those of us you never got to seem him play, I read somewhere, that Russell's defensive impact was the same as Jordan's offensive impact. I don't remember if they had any stats to back that up. John Wooden said he was the most complete defensive player he ever saw.

How much higher would his reputation be if the video highlights of the "Coleman play" were rerun as much as Jordan's winning shots over Cleveland or Utah. Russell.

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]I would have thought that being the best player on 2 NCAA championships, an Olympic championship and 11 NBA championships within 16 years would be his calling card. Or not.

Where's the stat we keep for intelligence? For knowing how to win. For intensity and clutch performance. For those of us you never got to seem him play, I read somewhere, that Russell's defensive impact was the same as Jordan's offensive impact. I don't remember if they had any stats to back that up. John Wooden said he was the most complete defensive player he ever saw.

How much higher would his reputation be if the video highlights of the "Coleman play" were rerun as much as Jordan's winning shots over Cleveland or Utah. Russell.[/QUOTE]

First of all, I NEVER made that comment. That was Pointguard.

Secondly, Russell WAS a great player. I don't have a problem with those that rank him as the GOAT. In fact, I have him #1 on MY list. What I DO have a problem with, are those that disparage Chamberlain in the Russell-Wilt debates. I am so sck-and-tired of reading that Wilt was a "failure", a "loser" and a "choker." Or that Russell dominated him. The facts were, Wilt got TWELVE teams to at least the Conference Finals, in his 14 seasons, as well as SIX Finals. His TEAM's, despite being outgunned by HOFers in almost every post-season, narrowly missed FIVE more titles (losing five game seven's, and four of them to Boston, by a combined nine points.)

Furthermore, Chamberlain was BRILLIANT in his post-season career. I could only find ONE post-season playoff series, out of 29, in which he was outshot from the field by an opposing center (and in that series, he only missed 20 shots, while Kareem missed 107.) AND, Chamberlain was NEVER outrebounded by an opposing center in ANY of those 29 series. And he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of his 160 post-season games, too (as well as All-Star centers in a couple as well.) In fact, he was seldom outplayed in those 160 games, and in MANY cases he just crushed the opposing center (including even Russell on more than one occasion.)

As for "clutch" play...how about these numbers? In his NINE game sevens in his post-season career, he averaged 24.4 ppg, 26.5 rpg, and shot .626 from the floor (which, BTW, is the highest FG% by a "great" player in NBA history.) And, that does not include a game five in a best-of-five playoff series, in which he put up a 56 point, 35 rebound game, either!

In his four game seven's against Russell, he outscored Russell by 21.3 ppg to 13.2 ppg; he outrebounded Russell, in those four games, by a 28.5 rpg to 24.5 rpg; and he shot a staggering .652 against Russell in those four games, as well (and while we only have two of Russell's FG% numbers in those four games, Russell only shot .391 in those two games.)

Yep...that was Wilt the "choker."

[QUOTE=AllenIverson3]ur a ****in dumb ass...Robert Horry has 7 rings....Is he better than shaq, duncan, jordan kobe??? gtfo with that logic... u must be no older than 12 years old.[/QUOTE]


:lol Im a dumbass??? And ur the one comparing Robert Horry's [U]role[/U] to Kobe's, Shaq's, Jordans, Magic's and Duncans??? LMFAO :facepalm Fuking idiot, sit ur ass down

[QUOTE=jlauber]Huh????

Let's take a look at their respective rosters in Wilt's rookie season...

Wilt did have ONE legitimate great teammate, Paul Arizin, but to say that he was in his prime is to say that almost all of Russell's HOF teammates were in their prime. Arizin was 31 in Wilt's rookie season, and was done by age 33.

You always bring up Wilt's HOF teammates, much like Bill Simmons, but you never put them in proper context. Wilt's other "HOF" teammate in that 59-60 season? The "great" Tom Gola. As I have stated many times, Gola was a CAREER 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, .431 shooter. In his BEST season, he averaged 15.0 ppg, 10.4 rpg, and shot .433. I don't care how good a teammate he was, he was NOT a HOFer.

That reminds of those posters who point out the "fact" that Wilt had two All-Star teammates on his horribel 62-63 roster. Tom Meschery and Guy Rodgers. C'mon! Meschery was a ONE-TIME all-star, who DID play his BEST with Wilt...but 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and .425 shooting is NOT all-star level. As for Rodgers...quite possibly the WORST shooter in NBA history (a career .378 shooter, who NEVER once shot 40% in a season.) And before someone compares his shooting with Cousy...Cousy shot considerably better against the NBA league average, than Rodgers did. How bad a shooter was Rodgers? He had one season in which the league average was .446...and he shot .347!

So, we now KNOW that Chamberlain played with only ONE quality player in his rookie season. How about Russell in that 59-60 season? Sharman, Cousy, Heinsohn, Ramsey, Sam Jones, and KC Jones...ALL in the HOF. Two of those players were over 30...Cousy at 31, and Sharman at 33. So, here again, if Arizin was in his "prime" then so was Cousy. Now, if you want to argue that Ramsey and KC Jones are as questionable as Gola, fine. I will say that Ramsey was a better offensive player than Gola, and KC Jones was probably a better defensive player.

And of those seven players, only KC Jones averaged less 10 ppg in that 59-60 season. And along with Russell,...Ramsey, Sharman, Cousy, and Heinsohn all averaged over 15 ppg.

And, as bad as Wilt's teammates were, even those two "stars", Arizin and Gola, played horribly in their three post-seasons with Wilt. In Arizin's last two playoff seasons, he shot .328 and .375. In Gola's last three post-seasons with Wilt, he shot .412, .206, and .271. Yep, he was a HOFer alright.

So, as you can plainly see, Russell had a HUGE edge in surrounding talent. And that trend would continue until the mid-60's, when Wilt was traded to the Sixers. BUT, even THEN, Russell had more HOF teammates EVERY season until he retired.

And YOU know, as well as I, that, not only did Russell have more HOF teammates, he played with them MUCH longer. For those that have never read this before, Russell played alongside quailty teammates, TWICE as many minutes in his career, than Chamberlain...

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



Furthermore, the idiotic Simmons says that Wilt played with nearly as many HOF teammates as Russell in his career. That is such a stretch of the truth. While Russell played alongside HIS HOF teammates for anywhere from six to 12 years, how about Wilt? Let's see...Chamberlain played with the great Nate Thurmond...ONE season...Thurmond's rookie year. AND, Nate was playing 26 mpg, and mostly out of position (he played PF that year...and he was a HOF center). Not only that, but he shot .395 from the field.

Then there was Gail Goodrich. OK,...except that Russell had retired by the time Goodrich played with Wilt. Furthermore, Wilt played with Goodrich for TWO seasons.

Simmons also loves to bring up Baylor. After all, Elgin played on Wilt's teams for four seasons. EXCEPT, that Wilt was injured for nearly all of one of them (69-70), while Baylor played in TWO early season games in 70-71, and then "retired" after nine games in the 71-72 season (and not surprisingly, the Lakers immediately won 33 straight games, en route to a title.) And even in the season that Wilt missed 70 games, Baylor missed 28. On top of all of that, Baylor was well past his prime...and like Arizin and Gola, he was AWFUL in his post-seasons in the seasons he played with Wilt. In their ONE "full" season together, 68-69, Baylor averaged 15.3 ppg on .385 shooting in the post-season.

Then there was Jerry West. Wilt and West played together for five seasons. While West missed a ton of games in those years, he at least played considerably more than Baylor. Still, West missed the entire last fourth of the 70-71 season, including the playoffs...which left Chamberlain without BOTH West and Baylor in the playoffs that year. He also missed 21 games in their inaugural season together (68-69), eight games in the year in which Wilt missed 70, and 13 games in Wilt's last season (72-73.) The only year in which West was reasonably healthy, the 71-72 season, the Lakers won the title. Of course, West had the worst shooting slump of his entire post-season career that year...but, fortunately for LA, Wilt dominated in the playoffs, and won the Finals MVP.

But, even if you are going to use West and Baylor in the Russell-Wilt debates...those two only played with Wilt, and against Russell, for ONE season (that 68-69 year.)

So that leaves Wilt's HOF teammates in his 3 1/2 years with the Sixers (from halfway thru the 64-65 season thru the 67-68 season.) Cunningham did not join Philly until the 65-66 season, and was awful in the post-season that year, shooting .161 in the playoffs. He also broke his wrist in the first round of the playoffs in the 67-68 season, and missed the ECF's, when Philly lost a game seven, by four points, to the Celtics.

The ONLY HOF teammate that Wilt could count on EVERY year he played with him, was Hal Greer, whom he played alongside for all three-and-half years in Philadelphia. BUT, even Greer had a meltdown in the '66 ECF's, when he shot .325. And, in game seven of the '68 ECF's, he shot 8-25 from the floor. Still, overall, Greer was a great player when he was paired with Wilt.

Chamberlain also played alongside both Chet Walker and Luke Jackson in those 3 1/2 years, and while both had injury or shooting slumps in the post-season, they were exceptionally good players. But, if you are going to include them in any discussion about quality teammates, then you can argue that Russell had Bailey Howell, a HOFer and a deadly 20 ppg scorer in his Celtic years, and Satch Sanders, whom many regarded as one of the best defensive forwards of his era.

And, of course, Russell had those others. Cousy, Heinsohn, Sharman, Jones, Jones, Ramsey, and Havlicek...and for MANY years. Furthermore, Sam Jones and Havlicek were legitimate 25-30 ppg scorers in their careers, and in fact, Havlicke had a season AFTER Russell, in which he averaged 28.9 ppg.

On top of those players, Russell also had Lovelette and Embry...both in the HOF...as well as players like Don Nelson, Larry Siegfried, and even Don Chaney.

Once again, Russell enjoyed an edge in HOFers, in Wilt's first six years, by margins of 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2. Even in his last four years he had margins of 4-3, 6-3 (in a year in which Philly destroyed them in the ECF's, 4-1), 5-3 (and it was 5-2 in the ECF's, as Cunningham missed the entire series), and 4-3 (and as always, a much deeper bench.)

Now, do you still want to say that Wilt played with the same number of "prime" HOFers as Chamberlain? That was completely ridiculous. Russell had an overwhelming edge in talent in the vast majority of his H2H seasons with Wilt, and an edge in EVERY season.[/QUOTE]

No I'm sorry that's all wrong.

The correct answer, was Neil Johnston suffered a career ending injury.

That's Neil Johnston, career ending injury.

Better luck next time.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]No I'm sorry that's all wrong.

The correct answer, was Neil Johnston suffered a career ending injury.

That's Neil Johnston, career ending injury.

Better luck next time.[/QUOTE]

So you are claiming that Wilt's Warriors were NOT a LAST-PLACE team before he arrived???? Because YOU are dead wrong. Meanwhile Russell not only went to a playoff contender, he joined ROY teammate Tom Heinsohn in HIS rooke year.

[QUOTE=jlauber]So you are claiming that Wilt's Warriors were NOT a LAST-PLACE team before he arrived???? Because YOU are dead wrong. Meanwhile Russell not only went to a playoff contender, he joined ROY teammate Tom Heinsohn in HIS rooke year.[/QUOTE]

I repeat they were a last place team because their franchise center suffered a career ending injury during that season.

Never once have you even acknowledged that this happened let alone mention it unprovoked.

I can also tell you that the EXACT SAME core of players Arizin, Gola, Graboski and a healthy Johnston plus Jack George won the NBA title in '56 and were in the Eastern Finals in '58.

Can also tell you that Gola actually received votes in the 1970 poll for greatest player of all time, but you'll still foolishly believe and try to convince others to believe that he was a undeserving or borderline Hall of Famer like KC Jones and Frank Ramsey.

You don't care though, your mind is made up, I'm wasting as little time as possible.

You forget that this is a team game. And also no one here can really tell if Russell was greater. They haven't seen Rusell play and even if they would, he is a center and more defensive minded and jordan is a sg and more offensive minded. You can hardly compare guys like that, that's because I'm really not a fan of the whole goat list, because comparing is even harder between diffrent postitions, let alone era. All of you guys in this thread who think they can say who the better player was are just have an opinion with not much based on.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
A lot of our disagree is over semantics, but this is where you lose me completely.

For Russell to be considered the greatest you believe he would have had to do something that he proved he didn't need to do for his team to win?

He should have not done what he did do, which always worked, and instead done something arbitrary to meet your standard?[/quote]

I hear what you are saying. But why rest on your laurels. He could have gotten better to insure his team would be in the best possible place to win the championship. After Jordan figured out the winning thing he developed a jump shot. He improved himself to make sure there would be no chance to doubt. Russell's neglecting to develop his game left several titles up for grabs - sure he won in the end but he could have made sure it wasn't close. There were a couple of titles where if Sam Jones or Tommy Heinsohn got into foul trouble, the team could look at the option of having more skilled offense. Those guys were key to outscoring a lot teams in game sevens. Jordan wasn't in too many game sevens but he made sure that he would be in the best position possible for his team to win.
[quote]
All the other players whose weaknesses you listed cost them and their teams title's, Russell's did not. Only an injury and the Greatest Single Season performance by a player in NBA history did. [/quote]
A true-ism. But it can also be interpreted as to how much of a good situation he was in. He didn't have to shoot the 10,000 a year the other great players did. He didn't have to dribble for hours at night. That onus was never on him. With great responsibility comes greatness. I just happen to think that you have to risk for greatness. Put yourself out there and develop yourself to be in a great situation. It might be my interpretation of greatness. I see your point and I have him 4th on my list which is great.
[quote]
Luckily for Russell, he figured out that as a center in the 1950's and 60's about 95% of the time he'd be playing the game without the ball in hand, I'd say he had the right approach.[/QUOTE]
Yes, for winning... for greatness you work with the 5%.

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]I would have thought that being the best player on 2 NCAA championships, an Olympic championship and 11 NBA championships within 16 years would be his calling card. Or not.

Where's the stat we keep for intelligence? For knowing how to win. For intensity and clutch performance. For those of us you never got to seem him play, I read somewhere, that Russell's defensive impact was the same as Jordan's offensive impact. I don't remember if they had any stats to back that up. John Wooden said he was the most complete defensive player he ever saw.

How much higher would his reputation be if the video highlights of the "Coleman play" were rerun as much as Jordan's winning shots over Cleveland or Utah. Russell.[/QUOTE]
Actually that was me Kevin, who said that not Jluaber.

Russell was a great defensive player, an intelligent team player, a true winner, a ferocious competitor, one of the greatest winners in team sports. He's definitive top five with me and GWOAT. When the critical side of me goes at GOAT work, I find little wrong with Jordan's resume. Chamberlain's resume speaks the language of greatness - setting the bar in a fantasy place and doing it in several ways.

I do not believe that Russell's defensive impact was worth Chamberlain's 31 ppg, 3 rebounds advantage on Bill along with Wilt's very good defense in the equation: To me the difference should never be on the level of adding a Kevin Durant to a player. Russell came into the league a defensive player and his impact was immediate - but he wasn't so great that everybody started paying attention to defense - in fact the opposite is true - the league went bananas offensively.

If Wilt played today - he's still great. With Russell that's not a given. If anything, greatness lingers. It inspires others. Other players don't cite Russell as a player to aspire to. They aspire to the rings he wears but you don't hear players saying I asked for the Russelll tapes. Part of my nature is that I don't like to be blindsided by anything. There are videos of Russell in his greatest years on youtube. You can see the greatness in Chamberlain after his peak physical condition on youtube.

You say:
[quote]
Where's the stat we keep for intelligence? For knowing how to win. For intensity and clutch performance. [/quote]
I do have a pet peeve with you if Magic or Bird isn't top five on your GOAT list. I have a pet peeve when people who have Russell as their GOAT and then you catch them arguing that Barkley is greater than KG. Then I know its just a ring thing and no other sophistication has gone into it. Ben Wallace could have been part of a 4 year dynasty (Possibly two years as the best player) if Dumar's drafts Wade instead of Darko. If SA doesn't luck up in the lottery David Robinson doesn't sniff a ring. Ben Wallace greater than David Robinson. No sophistication needed. Its a cop out.

Just the way I see things. I'm not claiming an ultimate truth either

[QUOTE=G-Funk]:lol Im a dumbass??? And ur the one comparing Robert Horry's [U]role[/U] to Kobe's, Shaq's, Jordans, Magic's and Duncans??? LMFAO :facepalm Fuking idiot, sit ur ass down[/QUOTE]

Did you not understand his post at all, he's not seriously comparing them. He's using it as an example to show the flaw in your original post.

*Just been a victim of trolling*

I know it, you know it, we all know it. But still, had to say it.

[quote=andgar923]Wilt isn't better than MJ either, sorry.

And if we wanted to accept that, then MJ had more rings than Wilt and more talent than Bill, so......

Again.... as somebody mentioned earlier, the other player that has a more legit argument is Kareem.[/quote][I]

"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

[QUOTE=jlauber]First of all, I NEVER made that comment. That was Pointguard.
[/QUOTE]

My bad. I think I got logged out and then when I came back in, I must have replied to the wrong post.

Does anyone else read all those Wilt quotes as a guy who is jealous that other people are being praised? Probably the same instinct that led him to brag about the number of women he has slept with.

[QUOTE=PHILA][I]

"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

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Does anyone else read all those Wilt quotes as a guy who is jealous that other people are being praised? Probably the same instinct that led him to brag about the number of women he has slept with.[/QUOTE]

All of them are very competitive in their talks. Russell and Kareem have said some viscous things about Wilt and he didn't go back at them with the same venom. Wilt and Jordan had the big argument at the 50 greatest celebration (Jordan saying that he was like Shaq - and yea Shaq was there) and Wilt saying they created rules to slow me down and created them to help you out. The other people in attendance said this is the norm and one journalist told me these arguments are frequently 5 years long. Wilt far out praises other greats than the others do - the exception would be Magic. You rarely hear praise much from the others. Wilt said Shaq could be greater than him because of his abandon at going to the rim. Later on, he criticized Shaq for just being a brute.

[QUOTE=PHILA][I]

"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

[quote=KevinNYC]Does anyone else read all those Wilt quotes as a guy who is jealous that other people are being praised? Probably the same instinct that led him to brag about the number of women he has slept with.[/quote][I]Chamberlain was asked if he or Michael Jordan was the best player ever. "I watched a couple of years ago when they were talking about two other guys as being the greatest and that was Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Dr. J (Julius Erving)," Chamberlain said. " Then they had the one-on-one competition. You know who won that competition? It was not even a contest. Kareem killed him. "What you may think is the best, it's always subjective. What Michael does on the court for his team is the greatest. He's playing his position as well as anybody has. He has something going in his favor, and that's the flair with which he plays the game. People love that. His baskets are more than just two or three points. "I'm not so sure that Oscar Robertson might not have been the greatest basketball player to have ever played. However, there was nothing really sensational about his game."

-1997[/I]

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I repeat they were a last place team because their franchise center suffered a career ending injury during that season.

Never once have you even acknowledged that this happened let alone mention it unprovoked.

I can also tell you that the EXACT SAME core of players Arizin, Gola, Graboski and a healthy Johnston plus Jack George won the NBA title in '56 and were in the Eastern Finals in '58.

[B]Can also tell you that Gola actually received votes in the 1970 poll for greatest player of all time, but you'll still foolishly believe and try to convince others to believe that he was a undeserving or borderline Hall of Famer like KC Jones and Frank Ramsey[/B].

You don't care though, your mind is made up, I'm wasting as little time as possible.[/QUOTE]

I just couldn't let this one pass. Some IDIOT voted Gola as the G.O.A.T in the 1970???? Must have been the same guy that did NOT vote for Willie Mays in his first year of eligibilty in the baseball HOF. Gola was never even the best player on his own team's, and his career numbers of 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and .431 FG% are among the worst by any NBA player in the HOF. In fact I could list a TON of players who are far more deserving of the HOF than Gola. Chet Walker was a MUCH better player his entire career, and for some reason Artis Gilmore, who was FAR more of a force in his professional career, as well as Bernard King, who led the NBA in scoring and who some MONSTER post-season games, are just a few of the many were head-and-shoulders above Gola...and are NOT in the HOF.

Please, don't embarrass yourself with these ridiculous posts.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I just couldn't let this one pass. Some IDIOT voted Gola as the G.O.A.T in the 1970???? Must have been the same guy that did NOT vote for Willie Mays in his first year of eligibilty in the baseball HOF. Gola was never even the best player on his own team's, and his career numbers of 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and .431 FG% are among the worst by any NBA player in the HOF. In fact I could list a TON of players who are far more deserving of the HOF than Gola. Chet Walker was a MUCH better player his entire career, and for some reason Artis Gilmore, who was FAR more of a force in his professional career, as well as Bernard King, who led the NBA in scoring and who some MONSTER post-season games, are just a few of the many were head-and-shoulders above Gola...and are NOT in the HOF.

Please, don't embarrass yourself with these ridiculous posts.[/QUOTE]

I'm curious, was Neil Johnston hurt during the 58-59 season?

How about Gola?

How was Gola doing during the 1962 playoffs?

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I'm curious, was Neil Johnston hurt during the 58-59 season?

How about Gola?

How was Gola doing during the 1962 playoffs?[/QUOTE]

Huh???

Not sure what your point is/was. The 58-59 Warriors were a LAST-PLACE team, and then Johnston retired. And, in the 56-57 and 57-58 seasons, with their core players in their primes, they went 37-35...basically a .500 team. In Wilt's first season, he led them to a then best-ever record team record of 49-26. So, yes, Chamberlain made a HUGE difference on an average-at-best, team (and one that finished in LAST-PLACE the year before he came onboard.)

And please, don't bring up the fact that they won a title in 55-56. That was pre-Russell and Heinsohn, and far removed from the team that came in LAST-PLACE in 58-59, or the year before Wilt arrived. If you are going use that ridiculous argument, then I could say that the Celtics didn't miss a beat after Russell retired, either. Three years after he retired, they went 56-26. Four years afterwards they went 68-14 (still their best team record ever), and five years after his retirement they won a title (and would win again in another couple of years.)

As for Gola...so what? He missed some games in 58-59, and clearly his 14 ppg and 11 rpg were missed. But let's not make him out as some kind of superstar.

As for his play in the '62 playoffs. He was AWFUL. 6.3 ppg on .271 shooting. And STILL, Chamberlain was able to overcome Gola's inept play and take that vastly inferior Warrior roster to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their 6-3 edge in HOFers (one of those being Gola BTW.)

[QUOTE=jlauber]Huh???

Not sure what your point is/was. The 58-59 Warriors were a LAST-PLACE team, and then Johnston retired. And, in the 56-57 and 57-58 seasons, with their core players in their primes, they went 37-35...basically a .500 team. In Wilt's first season, he led them to a then best-ever record team record of 49-26. So, yes, Chamberlain made a HUGE difference on an average-at-best, team (and one that finished in LAST-PLACE the year before he came onboard.)

And please, don't bring up the fact that they won a title in 55-56. That was pre-Russell and Heinsohn, and far removed from the team that came in LAST-PLACE in 58-59, or the year before Wilt arrived. If you are going use that ridiculous argument, then I could say that the Celtics didn't miss a beat after Russell retired, either. Three years after he retired, they went 56-26. Four years afterwards they went 68-14 (still their best team record ever), and five years after his retirement they won a title (and would win again in another couple of years.)

As for Gola...so what? He missed some games in 58-59, and clearly his 14 ppg and 11 rpg were missed. But let's not make him out as some kind of superstar.

As for his play in the '62 playoffs. He was AWFUL. 6.3 ppg on .271 shooting. And STILL, Chamberlain was able to overcome Gola's inept play and take that vastly inferior Warrior roster to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their 6-3 edge in HOFers (one of those being Gola BTW.)[/QUOTE]

So did Neil Johnston's career ending injury have anything to do with why the Warriors finished in last place?

Was Gola healthy during the 1962 playoffs?

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]So did Neil Johnston's career ending injury have anything to do with why the Warriors finished in last place?

Was Gola healthy during the 1962 playoffs?[/QUOTE]

Here again, I am perplexed. The Warriors finished in LAST PLACE in 58-59. Was Johnston's injury a factor. Probably. BUT, they were basically a .500 team in the two years before that. So, once again, Wilt came to that LAST-PLACE roster, and elevated them to a then best-ever record of 49-26 in his very first season.

And, even if Gola was injured in the '62 post-season, Chamberlain still CARRIED that crappy roster to a near upset of the 60-20 Celtics and their SIX HOFers, DESPITE Gola contributing absolutely NOTHING. One of the greatest miracles in NBA history...along with Wilt taking the 40-40 76ers (who had been 34-46 the year before he arrived) to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics in the 64-65 ECF's.

But, yes, had Gola just scored THREE more lousy points in the '62 ECF's, and Wilt very likely would have shattered every post-season scoring record set by MJ, and probably led the Warriors to a title that year.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Here again, I am perplexed. The Warriors finished in LAST PLACE in 58-59. Was Johnston's injury a factor. Probably. BUT, they were basically a .500 team in the two years before that. So, once again, Wilt came to that LAST-PLACE roster, and elevated them to a then best-ever record of 49-26 in his very first season.

And, even if Gola was injured in the '62 post-season, Chamberlain still CARRIED that crappy roster to a near upset of the 60-20 Celtics and their SIX HOFers, DESPITE Gola contributing absolutely NOTHING. One of the greatest miracles in NBA history...along with Wilt taking the 40-40 76ers (who had been 34-46 the year before he arrived) to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics in the 64-65 ECF's.[/QUOTE]

This is super interesting. I would have thought losing a franchise center like Johnston would be crippling.

Good thing we have you to set us straight and proclaim the miracles of Wilt.

Tell me, why is it that you, with all this knowledge of the '62 series, don't even know about Gola's injury's which were a major story line. I mean not only was he battling a bad back (which plagued him his entire career after a fall as a high schooler) but he also had a severely sprained ankle during game four. It shocks me that you, clearly so knowledgeable about Gola and the rest of Wilt's teammates didn't know this.

Of course Gola was such an awful player that it probably helped the Warriors. I am sure glad you've taught me how bad Gola was, but it does make me a little confused.

I mean this article actually seems to suggest that losing Gola hurt the Warriors in 1963...and that...you won't believe this, Wilt actually misses Gola.

Here's an equally suspicious article that suggests that coach McGuire might actually have thought losing Gola and his zero production would hurt the Warriors too.

[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JfUiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=P80FAAAAIBAJ&pg=923,210701&dq=tom+gola+star&hl=en[/url]


Here's a news clipping you might find interesting, discussing the chest surgery Gola had to have in 1958 that forced him to play at half speed and eventually temporarily retire in 1958. Obviously though, that didn't have anything to do with why the Warriors finished in last in 1958-59.

[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=U3soAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GsoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4611,663141&dq=tom+gola+injury&hl=en[/url]

You really need to build a time machine travel back and set all these people right.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]This is super interesting. I would have thought losing a franchise center like Johnston would be crippling.

Good thing we have you to set us straight and proclaim the miracles of Wilt.

Tell me, why is it that you, with all this knowledge of the '62 series, don't even know about Gola's injury's which were a major story line. I mean not only was he battling a bad back (which plagued him his entire career after a fall as a high schooler) but he also had a severely sprained ankle during game four. It shocks me that you, clearly so knowledgeable about Gola and the rest of Wilt's teammates didn't know this.

Of course Gola was such an awful player that it probably helped the Warriors. I am sure glad you've taught me how bad Gola was, but it does make me a little confused.

I mean this article actually seems to suggest that losing Gola hurt the Warriors in 1963...and that...you won't believe this, Wilt actually misses Gola.

Here's an equally suspicious article that suggests that coach McGuire might actually have thought losing Gola and his zero production would hurt the Warriors too.

[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JfUiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=P80FAAAAIBAJ&pg=923,210701&dq=tom+gola+star&hl=en[/url]


Here's a news clipping you might find interesting, discussing the chest surgery Gola had to have in 1958 that forced him to play at half speed and eventually temporarily retire in 1958. Obviously though, that didn't have anything to do with why the Warriors finished in last in 1958-59.

[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=U3soAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GsoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4611,663141&dq=tom+gola+injury&hl=en[/url]

You really need to build a time machine travel back and set all these people right.[/QUOTE]

YOU are trying to build Gola up as a legendary superstar. Hell, Happy Hairston contributed more to his team's than Gola did his.

And, Wilt not only lost Gola in that '63 season, Arizin, who was a LEGITIMATE HOFer, retired as well. And how bad was Wilt's roster in '63. Chamberlain shot .528 from the field (in addition to leading the league in 15 of the 22 statistical categories), while his teammates collectively shot .412...or WAY less than the WORST team in the league (.427.) Jeez, the only mistake Wilt made in that '63 season was passing the ball at all (3.0 apg.) And his coach should have had him taking EVERY shot. They would have had a better chance.

And, you can post all the garbage you want. You expect me to believe that Johnston, Gola, Arizin et.al were some great team before Wilt arrived? Once again, throw out their injury-plagued 58-59 season, and go with their previous two years. They went 37-35 in both, and were basically a .500 team. Furthermore, it is not as if Johnston PLAYED in Wilt's rookie year. So, the fact was, Wilt replaced Johnston, and carried what had been an average-at-BEST team, AND a LAST-PLACE team in the year before Wilt, to a BEST-EVER record of 49-26 in his very FIRST season.

It seems that you are attempting to disparage Chamberlain here by somehow suggesting that his surrounding players, were some great dynasty before he arrived. They were, AT BEST, a .500 team. And then, they LOST Johnston.

Wilt didn't have the luxury that Russell had. Russell came to a 39-33 playoff team...along with ROY Tom Heinsohn in HIS first year. And a year later they added HOFer Sam Jones.

Chamberlain went to a LAST-PLACE team, that really only had one QUALITY player, in Arizin, and a decent, but nothing more, Gola, and very little else. Not only that, but Gola was absolutely AWFUL in ALL three post-seasons in which he was paired up with Chamberlain. Too bad he couldn't have contributed a few more points in the '62 ECF's, because I am convinced that Wilt, despite an average roster, would have won his first title.

But, if YOU honestly believe that Gola was the NBA's Greatest Player of All-Time, as YOU suggested in a previous post, then I'm sorry, but YOU, along with the idiot that voted him as such, have to be the ONLY two in the entire world that have ever felt that way. I'm sure even Gola himself must have been laughing at that one.

[QUOTE=jlauber]YOU are trying to build Gola up as a legendary superstar. Hell, Happy Hairston contributed more to his team's than Gola did his.

And, Wilt not only lost Gola in that '63 season, Arizin, who was a LEGITIMATE HOFer, retired as well.

And, you can post all the garbage you want. You expect me to believe that Johnston, Gola, Arizin et.al were some great team before Wilt arrived? Once again, throw out their injury-plagued 58-59 season, and go with their previous two years. They went 37-35 in both, and were basically a .500 team. Furthermore, it is not as if Johnston PLAYED in Wilt's rookie year. So, the fact was, Wilt replaced Johnston, and carried what had been an average-at-BEST team, AND a LAST-PLACE team in the year before Wilt, to a BEST-EVER record of 49-26 in his very FIRST season.

It seems that you are attempting to disparage Chamberlain here by somehow suggesting that his surrounding players, were some great dynasty before he arrived. They were, AT BEST, a .500 team. And then, they LOST Johnston.

Wilt didn't have the luxury that Russell had. Russell came to a 39-33 playoff team...along with ROY Tom Heinsohn in HIS first year. And a year later they added HOFer Sam Jones.

Chamberlain went to a LAST-PLACE team, that really only had one QUALITY player, in Arizin, and a decent, but nothing more, Gola, and very little else. Not only that, but Gola was absolutely AWFUL in ALL three post-seasons in which he was paired up with Chamberlain. Too bad he couldn't have contributed a few more points in the '62 ECF's, because I am convinced that Wilt, despite an average roster, would have won his first title.

But, if YOU honestly believe that Gola was the NBA's Greatest Player of All-Time, as YOU suggested in a previous post, then I'm sorry, but YOU, along with the idiot that voted him as such, have to be the ONLY two in the entire world that have ever felt that way. I'm sure even Gola himself must have been laughing at that one.[/QUOTE]

Neil Johnston is 9th all-time in PER and led his team to the 1956 NBA title and they were in the conference finals in his last full year of 1958. It's clearly obvious that losing a player of his caliber would be detrimental to any team.

And it's okay to have your thoughts on Tom Gola no matter how misguided they are. Tom Gola was highly regarded by his contemporaries and all journalists of his era. Since you were not around to experience his play and have provided no evidence that the experts of Gola's time were wrong I'll have to go with their analysis of him.

[QUOTE=nycelt84]Neil Johnston is 9th all-time in PER and led his team to the 1956 NBA title and they were in the conference finals in his last full year of 1958. It's clearly obvious that losing a player of his caliber would be detrimental to any team.

And it's okay to have your thoughts on Tom Gola no matter how misguided they are. Tom Gola was highly regarded by his contemporaries and all journalists of his era. Since you were not around to experience his play and have provided no evidence that the experts of Gola's time were wrong I'll have to go with their analysis of him.[/QUOTE]

I don't need the journalists of that era to explain to me why Wilt didn't beat Russell's teams more often. In Wilt's first six years in the NBA, Russell enjoyed an edge in HOF teammates of, 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2. Even in the last four, when Chamberlain led his team's to better records, he had margins of 5-3, 6-3 (and Wilt's Sixers obliterated Boston that year), 5-3 and 4-3.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I don't need the journalists of that era to explain to me why Wilt didn't beat Russell's teams more often. In Wilt's first six years in the NBA, Russell enjoyed an edge in HOF teammates of, 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2. Even in the last four, when Chamberlain led his team's to better records, he had margins of 5-3, 6-3, 5-3 and 4-3.[/QUOTE]

That's not what I posted at all, I don't understand why you ignored my post or posted numbers of HOF teammates with no context. Again since you completely ignored my post.

Neil Johnston is 9th all-time in PER and led his team to the 1956 NBA title along with Arizin and Gola and in his last full season they went to the 1958 Eastern Conference Finals.

Tom Gola was highly regarded in his time and was a 5 time All-Star as well as one of if not the best defensive Forward of his day. I'll have to go along with the expert analysis of Gola during his era who all considered him one of the best players in the league than to go along with the analysis of someone who was not around to experience it nor provided any evidence that those who saw Gola were actually wrong.

[QUOTE=PHILA][I]

"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

[QUOTE=nycelt84]That's not what I posted at all, I don't understand why you ignored my post or posted numbers of HOF teammates with no context. Again since you completely ignored my post.

Neil Johnston is 9th all-time in PER and led his team to the 1956 NBA title along with Arizin and Gola and in his last full season they went to the 1958 Eastern Conference Finals.

Tom Gola was highly regarded in his time and was a 5 time All-Star as well as one of if not the best defensive Forward of his day. I'll have to go along with the expert analysis of Gola during his era who all considered him one of the best players in the league than to go along with the analysis of someone who was not around to experience it nor provided any evidence that those who saw Gola were actually wrong.[/QUOTE]

Here again, I am perplexed. What is it with you and GOAT? The Warriors won a title in the 55-56 season, which was pre-Russell AND Heinsohn. They then went 37-35, 37-35, and 32-40 over the next three seasons. Yes, in a limited league, they went to the ECF's in 57-58, and were blown out by Boston, 4-1. So what?

And, Johnston was injured in 58-59, and the Warriors, basically a .500 team the year before, dropped to LAST-PLACE. Now, did Johnston return in Wilt's rookie year? Hell no. He was done. YET, Chamberlain took what had been a .500 team, that perhaps had lost their best player to injury and retirement, and had fallen to LAST-PLACE, to a then BEST-EVER record in Chamberlain's rookie year of 49-26 (which was even better than their 45-27 championship team in 55-56.)

And why do guys continually bring up that 55-56 season? That was FOUR years before Wilt arrived. Once again, using the same ridiculous analogy, I could argue that Boston was even BETTER after Russell retired. Three years after he retired, they went 56-26 (Russell's Celtics were 48-34 in his last year.) Foru years after he retired they went 68-14 (which is STILL the best ever in their HISTORY), and five years after he retired they won an NBA title (and would win another two years after that.)

As for Gola...maybe I am missing something here. The man was a CAREER 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, .431 shooter, and his BEST season (in a year in which he played WITH Wilt BTW) was 15.0 ppg, 10 rpg, and .433. Not only that, but he was no more than average in his limited post-season career, and was absolutely AWFUL in his three years with Chamberlain. Once again, I would aargue that Happy Hairston contributed more to his team's than Gola did to his.

BTW, the great Gola shot a CAREER .336 in his FIVE post-seasons. And, yes, he is somehow in the HOF.

[QUOTE=jlauber]YOU are trying to build Gola up as a legendary superstar. Hell, Happy Hairston contributed more to his team's than Gola did his.

And, Wilt not only lost Gola in that '63 season, Arizin, who was a LEGITIMATE HOFer, retired as well. And how bad was Wilt's roster in '63. Chamberlain shot .528 from the field (in addition to leading the league in 15 of the 22 statistical categories), while his teammates collectively shot .412...or WAY less than the WORST team in the league (.427.) Jeez, the only mistake Wilt made in that '63 season was passing the ball at all (3.0 apg.) And his coach should have had him taking EVERY shot. They would have had a better chance.

And, you can post all the garbage you want. You expect me to believe that Johnston, Gola, Arizin et.al were some great team before Wilt arrived? Once again, throw out their injury-plagued 58-59 season, and go with their previous two years. They went 37-35 in both, and were basically a .500 team. Furthermore, it is not as if Johnston PLAYED in Wilt's rookie year. So, the fact was, Wilt replaced Johnston, and carried what had been an average-at-BEST team, AND a LAST-PLACE team in the year before Wilt, to a BEST-EVER record of 49-26 in his very FIRST season.

It seems that you are attempting to disparage Chamberlain here by somehow suggesting that his surrounding players, were some great dynasty before he arrived. They were, AT BEST, a .500 team. And then, they LOST Johnston.

Wilt didn't have the luxury that Russell had. Russell came to a 39-33 playoff team...along with ROY Tom Heinsohn in HIS first year. And a year later they added HOFer Sam Jones.

Chamberlain went to a LAST-PLACE team, that really only had one QUALITY player, in Arizin, and a decent, but nothing more, Gola, and very little else. Not only that, but Gola was absolutely AWFUL in ALL three post-seasons in which he was paired up with Chamberlain. Too bad he couldn't have contributed a few more points in the '62 ECF's, because I am convinced that Wilt, despite an average roster, would have won his first title.

But, if YOU honestly believe that Gola was the NBA's Greatest Player of All-Time, as YOU suggested in a previous post, then I'm sorry, but YOU, along with the idiot that voted him as such, have to be the ONLY two in the entire world that have ever felt that way. I'm sure even Gola himself must have been laughing at that one.[/QUOTE]
J I think in your attempt to show that Russell had the stronger support cast you weaken your argument by down playing the support cast Wilt had.In stead of comparing Wilt's support to the Celtics compare them to the other teams in the league. This will show how weak avg or strong they really were.Its kinda of like saying Mello isn't better than Lebron so he's a scrub.Yet Mello is better than maybe 90% of the other players in the league.So saying that Wilt's support wasn't equal to the Celtics does little to show they were weak.
LEt me make a few points you talk about Guy's FG% how was KC's?Second you are the first person I ever heard down play Gola. Im not saying he is a Top 50 player but he was far from being weak.Lastly I have never read or heard of a Chamberlin teammate talk about hisleadership. Thats all you hear from Russell's. Now if you have some quote share it I just never seen one.
Leadership wins championships.That win at all cost mindset by Russell his teammates bought into it. Wilt's didnt.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Here again, I am perplexed. What is it with you and GOAT? The Warriors won a title in the 55-56 season, which was pre-Russell AND Heinsohn. They then went 37-35, 37-35, and 32-40 over the next three seasons. Yes, in a limited league, they went to the ECF's in 57-58, and were blown out by Boston, 4-1. So what?

And, Johnston was injured in 58-59, and the Warriors, basically a .500 team the year before, dropped to LAST-PLACE. Now, did Johnston return in Wilt's rookie year? Hell no. He was done. YET, Chamberlain took what had been a .500 team, that perhaps had lost their best player to injury and retirement, and had fallen to LAST-PLACE, to a then BEST-EVER record in Chamberlain's rookie year of 49-26 (which was even better than their 45-27 championship team in 55-56.)

And why do guys continually bring up that 55-56 season? That was FOUR years before Wilt arrived. Once again, using the same ridiculous analogy, I could argue that Boston was even BETTER after Russell retired. Three years after he retired, they went 56-26 (Russell's Celtics were 48-34 in his last year.) Foru years after he retired they went 68-14 (which is STILL the best ever in their HISTORY), and five years after he retired they won an NBA title (and would win another two years after that.)

As for Gola...maybe I am missing something here. The man was a CAREER 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, .431 shooter, and his BEST season (in a year in which he played WITH Wilt BTW) was 15.0 ppg, 10 rpg, and .433. Not only that, but he was no more than average in his limited post-season career, and was absolutely AWFUL in his three years with Chamberlain. Once again, I would aargue that Happy Hairston contributed more to his team's than Gola did to his.

BTW, the great Gola shot a CAREER .336 in his FIVE post-seasons. And, yes, he is somehow in the HOF.[/QUOTE]

Are you that dense? The point that was being made with the '56 Warriors is that a team with a core of Arizin, Gola, and Johnston was good enough to win a championship. The '60 Warriors with the addition of Chamberlain suffered the same fate by the way of the '58 team which was a Conference Finals loss. You keep talking as though Wilt joined a team that was simply terrible which is far from the case. The '59 Warriors lost their best player to retirement who was also one of the best players in the league, and lost Tom Gola to injury.

You can keep believing Happy Hairston was better than Tom Gola, but you'll be the only guy to think that and if you suggested that during Gola's career you would have been laughed at as someone who knew nothing about basketball. Gola was one of the best defensive forwards in the game, finished among the league leaders in assists several years and was a 5 time all-star.

I find it funny by the way that the same 8 team league that others have bashed and you have praised is now considered by you to be limited when it doesn't mesh with your Wilt agenda.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]J I think in your attempt to show that Russell had the stronger support cast you weaken your argument by down playing the support cast Wilt had.In stead of comparing Wilt's support to the Celtics compare them to the other teams in the league. This will show how weak avg or strong they really were.Its kinda of like saying Mello isn't better than Lebron so he's a scrub.Yet Mello is better than maybe 90% of the other players in the league.So saying that Wilt's support wasn't equal to the Celtics does little to show they were weak.
LEt me make a few points you talk about Guy's FG% how was KC's?Second you are the first person I ever heard down play Gola. Im not saying he is a Top 50 player but he was far from being weak.Lastly I have never read or heard of a Chamberlin teammate talk about hisleadership. Thats all you hear from Russell's. Now if you have some quote share it I just never seen one.
Leadership wins championships.That win at all cost mindset by Russell his teammates bought into it. Wilt's didnt.[/QUOTE]

First of all, and once again, Wilt's teammates, in his first six years, were average-at-best...and CONSIDERABLY worse than Russell's. This not even debateable. Russell's Celtics enjoyed a 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2 edge in those years, and they were also deeper.

As for leadership, take a look at their H2H playoff games. Chamberlain HAD to put enormous numbers for his TEAM's to have a prayer. Furthermore, Russell had some great post-season series, particularly in the Finals. However, compare his play, against the Lakers in those Finals, with his play in the previous rounds against Chamberlain. Where were his 30-40 game seven's against Wilt? Where were his .702 FG% numbers against Wilt? Where were his 29 rpg series against Wilt?

My god, in the '62 ECF's, in game two, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20...and his team BARELY eked out a seven point win. He had a 46-34 game against Russell in the '66 ECF's, while his teammates played miserably, in a clinching game five loss. Why is that important? Because the very next season, Russell, himself, was faced with those same circumstances. How did Russell perform when HIS team needed him to step up? He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting (while Chamberlain poured in 29 points on 10-16 shooting.) Not only that, but as usual, Chamberlain pounded Russell on the glass in that game, 36-21.

And the "double-standard" continued in the '69 Finals, too. Most everyone here knows that Wilt's COACH left Chamberlain on the bench in that game seven loss (while Wilt's replacement, mel Counts shot 4-13.) BUT, very few here know that Russell was nowhere to be found in that last period. He, like his teammates, almost choked away a 17 point 4th quarter lead. And how did the "clutch" Russell play in that game? He scored SIX points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds, in 48 minutes. Meanwhile, Chamberlain, in his 43 minutes, scored 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds.

Or Wilt's game seven in the '65 ECF's, when he guided a 40-40 team to a one-point loss to Russell's 62-18 Celtics. In that game, Chamberlain scored eight of Philly's last ten points, to cut a 110-101 deficit to 110-109. And, then the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbound pass with five secs left. If "Havlicek steals the ball" doesn't happen, Wilt might very well have engineered the greatest upset in NBA history. For the game, Chamberlain scored 30 points, on 80% shooting, with 32 rebounds. For the series, he averaged a 30-31 game.

And, for those that bring up Chamberlain's '68 ECF's...he played the last FIVE games with an assortment of injuries, which had him with a noticeable limp. Even Russell claimed that a lessor man would not have played. Now, isn't that leadership?

Or how about Chamberlain in the clinching game six win over Kareem's Bucks in the '72 ECF's, when he dominated the last quarter, and in which West proclaimed that it was the "greatest ball-busting performance" he had ever seen. And, then in the clinching game five win over the Knicks in the '72 Finals, Wilt played with two badly swollen wrists, one badly sprained, and the other FRACTURED, and all he did was score 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds, and 10 blocks. All of which led to him winning the Finals MVP.

But, no, Wilt was not a leader. And he played with vastly better teammates, who, in fact, would have won many rings without him. Yep...just take a look at those team's records, before and after, Chamberlain played for them.

[QUOTE=nycelt84]Are you that dense? The point that was being made with the '56 Warriors is that a team with a core of Arizin, Gola, and Johnston was good enough to win a championship. The '60 Warriors with the addition of Chamberlain suffered the same fate by the way of the '58 team which was a Conference Finals loss. You keep talking as though Wilt joined a team that was simply terrible which is far from the case. The '59 Warriors lost their best player to retirement who was also one of the best players in the league, and lost Tom Gola to injury.

You can keep believing Happy Hairston was better than Tom Gola, but you'll be the only guy to think that and if you suggested that during Gola's career you would have been laughed at as someone who knew nothing about basketball. Gola was one of the best defensive forwards in the game, finished among the league leaders in assists several years and was a 5 time all-star.

I find it funny by the way that the same 8 team league that others have bashed and you have praised is now considered by you to be limited when it doesn't mesh with your Wilt agenda.[/QUOTE]

Are YOU dense???!!! How many times do I need to destroy this argument? The 55-56 Warriors won a title in the pre-Russell AND Heinsohn era (and Sam Jones as well.) And, they also went 45-27 that season...which, once again, I will get back to. BUT, that was FOUR years before Chamberlain arrived. Furthermore, the core of that 55-56 team went 37-35, 37-35, and then a last-place 32-40 in the year before Chamberlain arrived.

How many times do I have to make this analogy? Using that ridiculous analogy, I could argue that the Celtics were a BETTER team after Russell retired, too. Why? Because only three years after he was gone, Boston went 56-26 (which was better than Russell's last season opf 48-34.) Four years after he retired they went 68-14 (once again, the best record in Celtic history.) And five years following Russell's retirement, they won a title.

The 55-56 season was in a completely different season, and under a completely different set of circumstances than Chamberlain's rookie season. It was FOUR years before Chamberlain arrived. And once again, the core of that team had basically two consecutive .500 seasons afterwards, going 37-35, before dropping to LAST PLACE. Finally, Wilt then took what had been, at best, an average roster (and one that had slipped to last place), and replaced HOFer Johnston...and took that team to a then BEST-EVER record of 49-26. And, while the '58 Warriors were whipped, 4-1 by Boston, the '60 Warriors, despite a hand injury sustained by Wilt, lost to Boston, 4-2, including a 119-117 loss in game six. In game five of that series, Chamberlain put up a monumental 50 point, 35 rebound game on Russell, in leading the Warriors to a 128-107 win. How many of those games did Johnston have against Russell in the post-season?

[QUOTE=jlauber]First of all, and once again, Wilt's teammates, in his first six years, were average-at-best...and CONSIDERABLY worse than Russell's. This not even debateable. Russell's Celtics enjoyed a 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2 edge in those years, and they were also deeper.

As for leadership, take a look at their H2H playoff games. Chamberlain HAD to put enormous numbers for his TEAM's to have a prayer. Furthermore, Russell had some great post-season series, particularly in the Finals. However, compare his play, against the Lakers in those Finals, with his play in the previous rounds against Chamberlain. Where were his 30-40 game seven's against Wilt? Where were his .702 FG% numbers against Wilt? Where were his 29 rpg series against Wilt?

My god, in the '62 ECF's, in game two, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20...and his team BARELY eked out a seven point win. He had a 46-34 game against Russell in the '66 ECF's, while his teammates played miserably, in a clinching game five loss. Why is that important? Because the very next season, Russell, himself, was faced with those same circumstances. How did Russell perform when HIS team needed him to step up? He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting (while Chamberlain poured in 29 points on 10-16 shooting.) Not only that, but as usual, Chamberlain pounded Russell on the glass in that game, 36-21.

And the "double-standard" continued in the '69 Finals, too. Most everyone here knows that Wilt's COACH left Chamberlain on the bench in that game seven loss (while Wilt's replacement, mel Counts shot 4-13.) BUT, very few here know that Russell was nowhere to be found in that last period. He, like his teammates, almost choked away a 17 point 4th quarter lead. And how did the "clutch" Russell play in that game? He scored SIX points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds, in 48 minutes. Meanwhile, Chamberlain, in his 43 minutes, scored 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds.

Or Wilt's game seven in the '65 ECF's, when he guided a 40-40 team to a one-point loss to Russell's 62-18 Celtics. In that game, Chamberlain scored eight of Philly's last ten points, to cut a 110-101 deficit to 110-109. And, then the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbound pass with five secs left. If "Havlicek steals the ball" doesn't happen, Wilt might very well have engineered the greatest upset in NBA history. For the game, Chamberlain scored 30 points, on 80% shooting, with 32 rebounds. For the series, he averaged a 30-31 game.

And, for those that bring up Chamberlain's '68 ECF's...he played the last FIVE games with an assortment of injuries, which had him with a noticeable limp. Even Russell claimed that a lessor man would not have played. Now, isn't that leadership?

Or how about Chamberlain in the clinching game six win over Kareem's Bucks in the '72 ECF's, when he dominated the last quarter, and in which West proclaimed that it was the "greatest ball-busting performance" he had ever seen. And, then in the clinching game five win over the Knicks in the '72 Finals, Wilt played with two badly swollen wrists, one badly sprained, and the other FRACTURED, and all he did was score 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds, and 10 blocks. All of which led to him winning the Finals MVP.

But, no, Wilt was not a leader. And he played with vastly better teammates, who, in fact, would have won many rings without him. Yep...just take a look at those team's records, before and after, Chamberlain played for them.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes in your love affair with WIlt I wonder if you even read what you post. Time after time you gtalk about WIlt scored this here are his numbers. YEt you show nothing or give no support from teammates,media,coaches that talk about how his team rallied behind him. Yes Rusll made a bad inbounds pass. Did his team give up no guess what they came out and Hondo stole the ball.I think if you just tried to look at this without a bias you would see how bad a case you are making.I recall two stories that might help you better understand. Red tell this one. After a game the paper reads Wilt out duels Russell Celtics win.Another story told by Jarren Jackson of the Spurs " We let Kobe have the lane and give him his looks because we know then he will shut down his teammates by himself".Moral of both stories WIlt tried to out play Russ. Russ tried to get his team to out play the other team.This different in game approch is the reason Russ has 11 rings and has how many ? Your argument might have a little weight if it was Magic and Bird 5-3 But 11 to 2 give it up.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]Sometimes in your love affair with WIlt I wonder if you even read what you post. Time after time you gtalk about WIlt scored this here are his numbers. YEt you show nothing or give no support from teammates,media,coaches that talk about how his team rallied behind him. Yes Rusll made a bad inbounds pass. Did his team give up no guess what they came out and Hondo stole the ball.I think if you just tried to look at this without a bias you would see how bad a case you are making.I recall two stories that might help you better understand. Red tell this one. After a game the paper reads Wilt out duels Russell Celtics win.Another story told by Jarren Jackson of the Spurs " We let Kobe have the lane and give him his looks because we know then he will shut down his teammates by himself".Moral of both stories WIlt tried to out play Russ. Russ tried to get his team to out play the other team.This different in game approch is the reason Russ has 11 rings and has how many ? Your argument might have a little weight if it was Magic and Bird 5-3 But 11 to 2 give it up.[/QUOTE]

Russell has an 11-2 edge in rings because his TEAM's and TEAMMATES were better, and played BETTER. Was Jordan a "loser" because he played on FIVE losing teams? And how come MJ's 93-94 team won nearly as many games after his first retirement?

C'mon...basketball is a TEAM game. The best TEAM usually (yes usually, but not always) wins. If anything, Wilt proved that ONE man could nearly beat a Dynasty by himself...and with a quality supporting cast, that was healthy, they wiped out the Dynasty. I have to agree with John Wooden who said that Wilt very likely would have won all those rings with the same roster that Russell had. We do KNOW that Russell NEVER played with any that were even close to as bad as Chamberlain's early season teams.

A HUGE edge in HOF teammates almost every year. Better teammates; more of them; and played with them longer. I don't think it was any surprise that Russell enjoyed a 7-1 H2H edge over Chamberlain in titles. However, it was simply amazing that Wilt had FOUR of those teams lose game seven's by a combined NINE points. And, when given a comparable supporting cast, that was healthy, he proved that he could not only beat Russell's Celtics (crushing Russell in the process), but they absolutely buried them.

As for Bird...he "only" won three titles, with a HOF-laden team...yet you consider him a greater "winner" than Chamberlain, who not only won two overwhelming championships, but who guided vastly inferior teams to near upsets of the greatest dynasty in modern professional team sports history.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Russell has an 11-2 edge in rings because his TEAM's and TEAMMATES were better, and played BETTER. Was Jordan a "loser" because he played on FIVE losing teams? And how come MJ's 93-94 team won nearly as many games after his first retirement?

C'mon...basketball is a TEAM game. The best TEAM usually (yes usually, but not always) wins. If anything, Wilt proved that ONE man could nearly beat a Dynasty by himself...and with a quality supporting cast, that was healthy, they wiped out the Dynasty. I have to agree with John Wooden who said that Wilt very likely would have won all those rings with the same roster that Russell had. We do KNOW that Russell NEVER played with any that were even close to as bad as Chamberlain's early season teams.

A HUGE edge in HOF teammates almost every year. Better teammates; more of them; and played with them longer. I don't think it was any surprise that Russell enjoyed a 7-1 H2H edge over Chamberlain in titles. However, it was simply amazing that Wilt had FOUR of those teams lose game seven's by a combined NINE points. And, when given a comparable supporting cast, that was healthy, he proved that he could not only beat Russell's Celtics (crushing Russell in the process), but they absolutely buried them.

As for Bird...he "only" won three titles, with a HOF-laden team...yet you consider him a greater "winner" than Chamberlain, who not only won two overwhelming championships, but who guided vastly inferior teams to near upsets of the greatest dynasty in modern professional team sports history.[/QUOTE]


Sorry to inform you close only counts in horse shoes and slow dancing.I think most would agree with you. Russ had a edge in team support, his teams were more stable Russ had the advantage of playing in just 1 system ect.... But when you try and make Wilt's support cast "weak" you lose ground. When you try and say Wilt had strong leadership you look silly. There is just too much evidence that shows differently.Maybe your right if Wilt would had played with the Celtics they may have 13-15 titles.But Red would have never put up with Wilt obsession with his own personal need to carry a team,Red would have never put up with Wilt scoring 100pts.As you say its a team effort. The question isn't if Wilt played with the Celtics how many rings they would have won. But could Wilt had allowed the other players to have a big enough role to become HOFers? Most think not.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]Sorry to inform you close only counts in horse shoes and slow dancing.I think most would agree with you. Russ had a edge in team support, his teams were more stable Russ had the advantage of playing in just 1 system ect.... But when you try and make Wilt's support cast "weak" you lose ground. When you try and say Wilt had strong leadership you look silly. There is just too much evidence that shows differently.Maybe your right if Wilt would had played with the Celtics they may have 13-15 titles.But Red would have never put up with Wilt obsession with his own personal need to carry a team,Red would have never put up with Wilt scoring 100pts.As you say its a team effort. The question isn't if Wilt played with the Celtics how many rings they would have won. But could Wilt had allowed the other players to have a big enough role to become HOFers? Most think not.[/QUOTE]

Another myth. Many here believe that Wilt cared about were his personal stats. YET, when his COACH's asked him to either score 50 ppg (as in his '62 season), or being a balanced scorer-passer (as in his 66-67 and 67-68 seasons), or just to defer to another player (as in his '69 season, when Baylor was allowed to misfire all season long, and especially in the post-season), or to dominate defensively, grab rebounds, and start the break (as in his 71-72 and 72-73 seasons) he DID so.

Was Wilt a "loser?" He took 12 teams, in his 14 seasons, to the Conference Finals. He took SIX teams to the Finals. He took badly out manned teams to near wins over the "Dynasty". He played on SEVEN conference champions. He played on FOUR teams with the best record in the league. He played on FOUR 60+ win teams. AND, he anchored two of the greatest title teams in NBA history.

Was Wilt a "choker?" I have given you many of the games in which Wilt just crushed Russell. But how about this fact. In his nine game seven's, Wilt averaged 24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and shot .626 from the field (which, I believe is the highest among the truly "great" player in NBA history.) AND, that does not include his 56-35 game five in a best-of-five series. Nor the many BIG games he had in "must-win" situations, like his 50-35 game against Russell in game five of the '60 ECF's.

The fact was, Wilt outplayed his opposing center in perhaps EVERY one of his 29 post-season series. I could only find ONE series, in which he was outshot from the floor, and in that series, he missed 20 shots, while Kareem missed over 100. AND, he was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of those 29 series, by ANY player.

But, still, there will be thoe that will call him a "loser" and a "choker."

This Gola thing is freaking me out. Yall are seriously comparing Gola of '61 and '62 to his counter part Sam Jones??? Am I missing something. Gola getting GOAT votes might have been for his college years. Yall keep lumping his career with 61 and 62 when his game had simply degenerated. He did not have it anymore. And Wilt didn't have a time machine. The guy was shooting worse than Kwame Brown on a bad day and Sam Jones seemed to step it up in the playoffs. Arizin retired because of the move, but maybe he saw that he wasn't keeping up.

Boston blitzes Chamberlain in a couple of games in the first half, they throw the kitchen sink at him, the rest of the Warrior's seemed amazed at the kitchen sink. The game is effectively over before adjustments can be made by the sink gazers. Russell gets credit for outplaying Wilt in the first half of a couple of games but in reality it was just at Heinsohn had said, that Boston as a team stopped Chamberlain. And simply no, the other Warriors played horrible and could not adjust to playing different. Wilt wasn't getting the fast break points and couldn't find ways to get his usual 15 more points. The coach couldn't turn to his team, and they couldn't help to free up Wilt. Arizin plays good but Ramsey, Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Cousey more than likely outscore the rest of the Warriors... yet it goes seven games.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]This Gola thing is freaking me out. Yall are seriously comparing Gola of '61 and '62 to his counter part Sam Jones??? Am I missing something. Gola getting GOAT votes might have been for his college years. Yall keep lumping his career with 61 and 62 when his game had simply degenerated. He did not have it anymore. And Wilt didn't have a time machine. The guy was shooting worse than Kwame Brown on a bad day and Sam Jones seemed to step it up in the playoffs. Arizin retired because of the move, but maybe he saw that he wasn't keeping up.

Boston blitzes Chamberlain in a couple of games in the first half, they throw the kitchen sink at him, the rest of the Warrior's seemed amazed at the kitchen sink. The game is effectively over before adjustments can be made by the sink gazers. Russell gets credit for outplaying Wilt in the first half of a couple of games but in reality it was just at Heinsohn had said, that Boston as a team stopped Chamberlain. And simply no, the other Warriors played horrible and could not adjust to playing different. Wilt wasn't getting the fast break points and couldn't find ways to get his usual 15 more points. The coach couldn't turn to his team, and they couldn't help to free up Wilt. Arizin plays good but Ramsey, Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Cousey more than likely outscore the rest of the Warriors... yet it goes seven games.[/QUOTE]

This "Gola thing" has become laughable. All of a sudden we have these "pro-Gola" posters popping up. Not because they actually believe Gola was any more than a decent player...but to find some way to disparage Wilt's career.

G.O.A.T even posted that in 1970, that Gola received votes as the Greatest NBA player ever! As I stated previously, Gola was never even the best player on any of his NBA teams. And, once again, his stats are among the WORST of a ANY NBA player in the HOF (yes, you can find a couple worse...but not many.)

And also once again...did Gola step it up in the playoffs? He shot .336 in his five post-season career, including two of .355 and .330 BEFORE he played with Chamberlain.

Yet, all of a sudden, there are those here claiming that HE was responsible for the Warriors narrowly losing a game seven to the 60-20 Celtics in '62ECF's...with his 6.3 ppg and .271 FG%. Granted, if he had been able to just score three more measley points in that game seven, perhaps Wilt would have won his first ring.

Gola better than Heinsohn, Sharman, Cousy, Havlicek, Sam Jones? I don't think so.