Wilt the "Choker"

[QUOTE=nycelt84]Posting what John Wooden thinks is completely irrelevant in discussing the 60's Celtics. Red Auerbach, multiple Celtics, and Wilt himself acknowledge that if he was on that team they never would have won the way with Wilt because Wilt would have made the team a completely different team and the team would not have managed to jell the way they did. Russell was the perfect man for that team and as Red himself said a Wilt Chamberlain could never play for the Celtics and there's a reason he never issued number 13 to any Celtic for multiple years.

And every article I ever read for a game recap regarding the Celtics and Wilt's teams, not one mentioned double or triple teaming of Wilt. Tom Heinsohn mentioning something doesn't make it true as people's memories are often faulty.

This is the account of one Celtic fan who was actually around at the time who was close to the team, hung around them of some of those years in the 50's and 60's. He has a different remembering of the Russell vs Wilt games and how they played out.

[URL="http://samsbostoncelticsfansite.blogspot.com/2009/10/sams-personal-account-of-russell-years.html"]http://samsbostoncelticsfansite.blogspot.com/2009/10/sams-personal-account-of-russell-years.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

Of course, yes, let's dismiss Wooden's opinions, and yet post someone's with the name of Slippery Sam, who was obviously a Celtic homer. Yep, what the hell would Wooden know about the game of basketball?

Oh, and yes, more than likely Heinsohn, who played with Russell for NINE years, probably had a "faulty" memory. BTW, Chamberlain himself, who FACED Russell in 142 games, ALSO commented that it was the Celtics vs. Wilt, and not just Russell vs. Wilt. But, what would he know.

Regarding Slippery Sam's "masterpiece"...

[QUOTE]As a backdrop for getting a feel for pro basketball in the fifties, it is important to reflect on the idiosyncrasies of the game, the playing conditions and the crowds. In those days, the rules of pro basketball tended to react to evolving player abilities. The unprecedented bulk of George Mikan, the agility of Bill Russell, and the length and power of Wilt Chamberlain forced changes in the width of the lane. When the early Celtics had a one-point lead with 30 to 60 seconds to go, Bob Cousy would dribble out the clock; so they instituted the 24-second rule. [B]Russell forced the offensive goaltending rule to be instituted the year before Chamberlain entered the league[/B][/QUOTE]

Russell instituted offensive goal-tending? I wonder how come CHAMBERLAIN gets credit for it, even BEFORE he came to the NBA then...

[url]http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html[/url]

[QUOTE]During his career, his dominance precipitated many rules changes. These rules changed included widening the lane, [B]instituting offensive goaltending [/B]and revising rules governing inbounding the ball and shooting free throws (Chamberlain would leap with the ball from behind the foul line to deposit the ball in the basket).

[/QUOTE]

BTW, god forbid that the NBA would have allowed Wilt to dunk his FT's. So, instead of shooting 50% in his career, he would have merely made EVERY FT.

Back to Slippery again...

[QUOTE]In fact, during Russell's first season with the Celtics, the team was actually blessed with six future Hall of Famers (Russell, Cousy, Heinsohn, Ramsey, Risen and Phillip). Playmaker KC Jones, whom Red had also acquired in the same draft as Russell's, could have swollen the total to seven, but he was in the Army during Russ's first two seasons.

[/QUOTE]

Hmmm...interesting. Russell joined a LOADED team. How about Wilt in his rookie season? He came to a LAST-PLACE team.

Back to Sam again...

[QUOTE]Wilt and Russ unquestionably represented the ultimate mano a mano confrontation. In their very first meeting, both men grabbed a loose ball, and Wilt lifted Russ up off the floor before the refs could call a jump ball. Russ was afraid Wilt was going to dunk him. But, over the 10 years they played against one another, Russ almost invariably won their big matches, and he "out-championed" Wilt, 9 to 1.

Russ constantly psyched Wilt out. One favorite ploy of Russ was to force Wilt out just about a foot beyond his favorite spot but to do it subtly so Wilt wouldn't notice. Wilt would become frustrated because he couldn't understand why he kept missing jumpers, and his frustration only made him miss more shots. And then, when the Celtics were comfortably ahead in a game, Russ would then allow Wilt to score a few points in order to satisfy the stat-happy giant, when the gratuitous points were meaningless, in order to dissuade Wilt from steamrollering Russ next time.

[/QUOTE]

Yep, Russell psyched Wilt out. Held him to 38 ppg in his first regular season on .465 shooting (while Wilt averaged 37.6 ppg and shot .461 against the rest of the league. He would "hold" Wilt to 33 ppg over the course of Chamberlain's first seven seasons, too. All while being outrebounded him.

And Russell's psych job was brilliant in game seven of the '65 when Russell and his 62-18 Celtics "held" Wilt to 30 points on 80% shooting, along with 32 rebounds, in a 110-109 win. Let's recap the end of that game shall we? Heavily-favored Boston, and with HCA, was up 110-101 with about three minutes to play. Wilt scored six of Philly's last eight points, including 2-2 from the line, and a thrunderous dunk on Russell with five seconds left. And then the "clutch" Russell inbounded the ball, and promptly hit a guidewire giving the ball back to the Sixers with five seconds left. However, as almost was ALWAYS the case, Russell's TEAMMATE, John Havlicek "stole the ball."

Russell and his SEVEN other HOF teammates also beat Wilt and his ZERO HOF teammates, 8-1 in the 62-63 season. All Wilt did, with virtually no help was keep the Sixers in SIX of those games until either the final minute, or else that lone win. He outrebounded Russell in that season series, and outscored him by a 38-14 margin per game.

Russell also pysched Wilt out in game five of the '60 ECF's (a must-win game for Philly BTW), by holding Chamberlain to a 50 point, 35 rebound game.

Or Russell "holding" Wilt to a 46-34 game in the clinching game five loss (for Philly) in the '66 ECF's.

Or Russell psyching Wilt out in the '64 Finals, when Chamberlain, outgunned 7-2 by Russell's TEAM, outscored Russell, per game, 29-11, and outrebounded him, per game, 27-25. And, most assuredly outshot him, by perhaps over 200 points from the field.

Or Russell completely "pysching" Wilt out in the '67 ECF's, when, with his Celtics down 3-1 in a series in which Chamberlain had destroyed him and his Celtic teammates, ....Russell came thru in the "clutch" again, with a brilliant FOUR point game, on 2-5 shooting. All while pysching Wilt to the tune of holding him to "only" 29 points, on 10-16 shooting, and all while being outrebounded by Chamberlain, by a slim 36-21 margin.

Continuing...

Let's repost the MANY games that Russell, with his SUPERIOR rosters "psyched" Wilt out...

[QUOTE]For reference, the first number of the pair next to each player's name is points in that particular game, while the second is rebounds. An example would be the first one, with Wilt scoring 45 points, and grabbing 35 rebounds (45-35), while Russell's numbers were 15 points, with 13 rebounds (15-13.)


Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13
Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21
Wilt 43-39….Russell 20-24
Wilt 53-29 Russell 22-32
Wilt 42-29 Russell 19-30
Wilt 50-35 Russell 22-27
Wilt 34-55….Russell 18-19
Wilt 39-30 Russell 6-19
Wilt 44-35 Russell 20-21
Wilt 34-38 Russell 17-20
Wilt..52-30….Russell 21-31
Wilt 41-28 Russell 11-24
Wilt 62-28 Russell 23-29
Wilt 38-31 Russell 11-18
Wilt 42-37 Russell 9-20
Wilt 45-27 Russell 12-26
Wilt 43-32 Russell 8-30
Wilt 32-27 Russell 11-16
Wilt 50-17….Russell 23-21
Wilt 35-32….Russell 16-28
Wilt 32-25 Russell…9-24
Wilt 31-30 Russell 12-22
Wilt 37-32 Russell 16-24
Wilt 27-34 Russell..12-17
Wilt 27-43 Russell 13-26
Wilt 30-39 Russell 12-16
Wilt 31-40….Russell 11-17
Wilt 37-42 Russell 14-25
Wilt 29-26 Russell 3-27
Wilt 27-36….Russell 13-20
Wilt 27-32 Russell 6-22
Wilt 32-30 Russell 8-20
Wilt 46-34 Russell 18-31
Wilt 20-41….Russell 10-29
Wilt 29-36 Russell 4-21
Wilt 31-27 Russell 3-8
Wilt 35-19 Russell 5-16
Wilt 12-42 Russell 11-18

[/QUOTE]

Incidently, the list is actually much larger than that. The fact was, Wilt outplayed Russell in the VAST MAJORITY of their 142 games (BOTH regular season AND post-season), and in MANY he CRUSHED Russell. You will not find ONE game in which Russell EVER outplayed Wilt by the margin of that list above. In fact, you will probably be fortunate to find a handful of games in which Russell outplayed Wilt at all.

Here are some interesting numbers regarding the two.

Wilt outscored Russell in 132 of their 142 games. He nearly averaged 30 ppg over his entire H2H CAREER against Russell, outscoring him by a 28.7 to 14.5 margin. How about this fact for a start...Russell scored 30+ points against Wilt in THREE games, with a career HIGH of 37 points. BUT, Wilt OUTSCORED him in ALL three. Not only that, but Wilt enjoyed a 24-0 edge in 40+ point games against Russell. Chamberlain also scored 50+ points against Russell five times, including one in the post-season, with a HIGH of 62 points.

Chamberlain also outrebounded Russell by FIVE rebounds per game over the course of their entire H2H career, 28.7 to 23.7. Take a look at those two stats...28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg...a near 30-30 game EVERY single time the two played. It just boggles the mind! Wilt had a 7-1 edge in 40+ rebound games, H2H against Russell (Russell's high was exactly 40 against Wilt.) It gets better, though. Wilt set the NBA record for rebounds in one game, against Russell, with 55 (he outrebounded Russell in that game by a staggering 55-19 margin, as well as outscoring him 34-18.) Chamberlain also set the post-season NBA record of 41 against Russell. Not only that, but Chamberlain held a crushing 23-4 edge against Russell in 35+ rebound games.

We don't have a lot of their H2H FG% games, but in the one's that we do have, Chamberlain outshot him in almost every one. We have an ENTIRE H2H SEASON, in Wilt's rookie year, in which Chamberlain outshot Russell by a .465 to .398 margin. We also have an ENTIRE PLAYOFF SERIES, in which Chamberlain not only heavily outscored and outrebounded Russell ( he outscored him 22-10 per game, and buried him on the glass with a 32-23 margin per game)...in which Wilt outshot Russell by an astonishing .556 to .358 margin. Furthermore, there is a strong possibility that Wilt outshot Russell in the '64 Finals by a HUGE margin (perhaps as much as .590 to .350 or so.) We also have two game seven's between the two, in which Wilt not only heavily outscored and outrebounded Russell, but he outshot him in those two games by margins of .800 to .438, and then .875 to .286. There is even a recorded game in 1965 in which Wilt held Russell to a 0-14 game (yes, ZERO for 14!)

The facts were, Wilt outscored, outrebounded, and probably outshot Russell in EVERY regular season series in their ten H2H seasons, and in EVERY post-season series between the two. We know for a fact that he outscored and outrebounded him in EVERY one of those series, both regular season and post-season.

But, yes, Russell "psyched" Wilt out. Downright dominated him.

Im just curious, how do you dunk free throws? Do you stand at the ft line and leap to the rim? Do you get a running start? How did he do it?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Im just curious, how do you dunk free throws? Do you stand at the ft line and leap to the rim? Do you get a running start? How did he do it?[/QUOTE]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slam_dunk[/url]

[QUOTE]Olympic Gold Medalist Bob Kurland was a 7-foot center and the first player to regularly dunk during games in the 1940's and 50's. Wilt Chamberlain was known to have dunked on an experimental 12-foot basket set up by Phog Allen at the University of Kansas in the 1950s.[5] Michael Wilson, a former Harlem Globetrotter and University of Memphis basketball player, matched this feat on April 1, 2000 albeit with an alley-oop. Dwight Howard dunked on an 12ft basket in the 2009 NBA dunk contest also off an ally-oop.

Jim Pollard[6], Wilt Chamberlain[5], Julius Erving, Clyde Drexler, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Kobe Bryant, Stromile Swift, Shawn Kemp, Grant Hill, Darrell Griffith, Korleone Young, Edgar Jones, LeBron James, James White, Vince Carter, Jason Richardson, Jamario Moon, Chris Webber, Dwight Howard, Mike Conley, Sr., Samuel Dalembert, Brent Barry and Al Thornton have each dunked while jumping from around the free throw line, which is 15 feet from the basket. [B]Unlike the others, Wilt Chamberlain did not require a full running start, but instead began his movement from inside the top half of the free throw circle.[/B][5]

[/QUOTE]

[quote=97 bulls]Im just curious, how do you dunk free throws? Do you stand at the ft line and leap to the rim? Do you get a running start? How did he do it?[/quote]

Not from the FT, but probably something as shown below:


[IMG]http://i51.tinypic.com/dyzr6.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Bird]Didn't want to quote your huge post, so just the first and last snippet.

The only thing I have against your post, is comparing Wilt's offensive game (scoring and shot %) to Russell's, who was never the #1, #2 or #3 option on offense for ANY of his Boston team's. He also was NEVER a great shooter, so comparing Wilt's 60+ shot % to Russell's normally sub-50% is truly unfair.

I would think you would be more inclined to compare it to ANY position, since Wilt shot that much better than EVERYONE else in the NBA, it would truly show off his bility to score and come through in the clutch.

mikku said it for me though: It's not that Wilt is a choker, a loser or a failure, it's that, a player with as much talent and athleticism as he had, we expected him to win more rings and care more about winning. Many, many individuals from his time have been quoted as saying Wilt would rather get his stats then care about wins. Russell (I do believe) was once quoted as saying that it seemed as if Wilt would rather lose, than win, because there is less pressure to continue to win, if you lose (something like that, I cannot remember the exact quote).

Now, I do know that in certain years, Wilt's teams did not have the same caliber of talent as teams he faced in the playoffs or the finals (primarily 60% of the Celtics teams they faced), but with his ability to dominate teams on either end of the floor, people believe he SHOULD have won more.

When uneducated fans see his lack of rings and his ability to not care so much about winning, they begin to label him a loser, a choker and a failure.[/QUOTE]

If you take a CLOSE look at Wilt's ten seasons with Russell in the NBA, you will see, as you said, that Russell had a solid edge in talent in six of them (60%.) Still, Wilt led two of those teams to game seven defeats by a COMBINED THREE points (teams that were heavily outgunned in HOFers and in W-L record, and both against HCA.)

Then, take a CLOSE look at their last four seasons. In '66, I still say that Boston was the better team, despite Philly edging them in the regular season, 55-25 to 54-26. In fact, the Sixers had to win their last 11 games to edge out Boston. And the Celtics had won the previous seven titles. And Boston held a 4-3 edge in HOFer and had a much deeper bench. The bottom line, though, was that Chamberlain's teammates were awful in that post-season series (a 4-1 loss to Boston.) All Wilt did in that series was average 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot 51% (to Russell's 15 ppg, 25 rpg, and 45% shooting against him.) Meanwhile, here were Wilt's teammates FG%...Greer, .325, Jones, .325, Walker, .375, Jackson, .429, and Cunningham, .161.

In '67 Wilt and team just crushed the Celtics, 4-1 (a near sweep BTW), and Chamberlain buried Russell in every category. He outscored him, per game, 22-10; he outrebounded him, per game, 32-23 (yes a NINE rpg difference); he outassisted Russell, per game, 10-6; and he outshot him in that series, .556 to .358.

In '68, the Sixers nearly duplicated their previous season domination, running away with the best record in the league, at 62-20 (to Boston's 54-28.) BUT, in the playoffs, they lost HOFer Cunningham to a broken wrist before the Boston series, and he would miss the rest of the playoffs. Still, even without Cunningham, they STILL forged a 3-1 series lead. But, in game three, Chamberlain suffered a severe calf bruise (and he was already nursing two other leg injuries), and he was NOTICEABLY hobbled the rest of the series. On top of that, in game five, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones suffered injuries, and both were worthless the rest of the series. Then, in game seven, Wilt's teammates completely forgot him (only passing him the ball SEVEN times in the second half), and not only that, they collectively shot 33% from the floor. The result? A game seven, FOUR point loss. Think about that: With EVERYTHING that had gone wrong, Wilt's team, DECIMATED by injuries, lost a game seven, by FOUR points. BTW, Wilt STILL outscored Russell in that game, 14-12, and he STILL outrebounded him, 34-26.

Wilt's '69 season was one of complete frustration. He was "traded" to the Lakers, where he and the incompetent coach Butch Van Breda Kolf bumped heads from day one. The brilliant Van Breda Kolf asked Wilt to play the high post so that a declining Baylor could shoot. Wilt did sacrifice his offense, and the result was that while he would only average 14 ppg in the post-season, he still shot an outstanding .545. Meanwhile, Baylor averaged 15 ppg in the playoffs, on .385 shooting!

I have documented the '69 Finals many times before, but here goes. The Lakers, with a prime West, a declining Baylor, and Wilt shackled by his coach, had virtually no one else. Meanwhile, the Celtics, despite a worse regular season record, STILL had a 4-3 edge in HOFers, and a much deeper roster. In any case, the Lakers still jumped out to a 2-0 series lead. They were leading the series, 2-1, and in game four in Boston, they had the lead of 88-87, AND the ball with some 15 seconds left. All Johnny Egan had to do was driblle out the clock. Instead, he lost the ball, and Sam Jones hit a miraculous shot, while falling down, at the buzzer, to win the game, 89-88. How significant was that ONE PLAY? The Lakers went back home, and behind Chamberlain's domination of Russell in game five (he outrebounded Russell, 31-13), the Lakers romped to a 117-104 win. Think about that...that ONE PLAY prevented the Lakers from rolling to a 4-1 series win.

In that game seven, the Lakers whittled a 17 point 4th quarter deficit down to seven with a little over five minutes left. However, Wilt injured his leg, and had to come out. After sitting for a couple of minutes, he asked to go back in. Van Breda Kolf refused, and instead rolled the dice with Mel Counts (Mel ***ing Counts!) All Counts did was miss a couple of shots down the stretch, (he would shoot 4-13 for the entire game...while Chamberlain shot 7-8), and the Celtics, behind yet ANOTHER miraculous shot (Nelson's game winner) won the game, 108-106.

That is just how close Wilt came to several more titles. Now, was HE the "loser", or the "choker", or the "failure"?

[QUOTE=Helix]Perhaps you should take a look in a mirror.

Hey jlauber.....like you, I have followed the NBA since 1963. I saw Wilt play many times throughout the 60's and on into the 70's. I saw all those televised Russell/Chamberlain "battles". I feel for you trying to defend Wilt around here, and I pretty much agree with most of what you say. Two things I'd like to say.....first, having seen all the great centers of the last 47 years play, I agree with what Rick Barry said. "Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest all around center in NBA history. No other center could do ALL the things Wilt could do, and do them so magnificently."

Secondly, all these GOAT discussions.....well, I take them with a grain of salt. There are many reasons, but I'll just give you one of them. Why do most people put Jabbar ahead of Wilt in there GOAT list? Because he has six rings to Wilt's two? That's absurd. Kareem had the benefit of playing on a GREAT team, with a GREAT coach, and a GREAT organization for ten years. Slight correction.....Riley didn't take over as coach until the 81/82 season, so almost eight years for the coach. Wilt only had that luxury in four of his fourteen years.....67, 68, 72, and 73. And by the way, Russell had that benefit his ENTIRE career. Had it not been for injuries in 68 and 73 (undoubtedly 68), Wilt may have had a couple more rings. Had Magic and Riley not come along, Kareem's career would most likely have ended quite differently.

My point is that these discussions rarely ever take into account the circumstances and "what if's" for each player. For example, how many rings would Jordan and Jabbar have if they had faced what Wilt did every year the first ten years of his career.....the Boston dynasty? How many rings would Russell have if Red Auerbach had chosen to have been a car salesman, or if he had been drafted by any other team other than Boston? The truth is, there is simply no way to level the playing field for the various GOAT candidates, so all you can do is examine their individual circumstances, and consider the "what if's". And it's all speculation. So, like I said earlier, I take all these GOAT discussions with a grain of salt.

I will say this though.....having seen all the greats for the past 47 years, if I had the first pick in a draft of every player that's ever played, my pick would be, with no hesitation whatsoever, Wilt Chamberlain.[/QUOTE]

Great post, and welcome to ISH. Always great to have someone who actually SAW these guys play comment.

:cheers:

[QUOTE=jlauber]If you take a CLOSE look at Wilt's ten seasons with Russell in the NBA, you will see, as you said, that Russell had a solid edge in talent in six of them (60%.) Still, Wilt led two of those teams to game seven defeats by a COMBINED THREE points (teams that were heavily outgunned in HOFers and in W-L record, and both against HCA.)

That is just how close Wilt came to several more titles. Now, was HE the "loser", or the "choker", or the "failure"?[/QUOTE]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, calm down, calm down, I am AGREEING with you.

I do not believe he is any of those three, but I agree with some who say he UNDERACHIEVED.

I have read transcripts (and seen the stats) from many of the playoff/finals contests between Wilt's teams and Russell's teams, so believe me we do both agree on Russell having the edge talent wise (both HC and player) and, dare I say, luck wise (injuries, huge shots, etc.).

Anyways, great discussion in this thread (and some awesome insight from a few members I had never seen much from).

should've checked

was wrong about wilt not winning fmvp in 72

got more phila but gotta go right now . . . hit you back later

[QUOTE=Bird]Whoa, whoa, whoa, calm down, calm down, I am AGREEING with you.

I do not believe he is any of those three, but I agree with some who say he UNDERACHIEVED.

I have read transcripts (and seen the stats) from many of the playoff/finals contests between Wilt's teams and Russell's teams, so believe me we do both agree on Russell having the edge talent wise (both HC and player) and, dare I say, luck wise (injuries, huge shots, etc.).

Anyways, great discussion in this thread (and some awesome insight from a few members I had never seen much from).[/QUOTE]

I wasn't directing my last comment at you, but those here in general. As for "underachieving", ...from a TEAM success standpoint, yes, to some degree. But, remember, he faced the Celtic Dynasty in 10 of his 14 seasons, and then the '70 Knicks (and their FOUR HOFers); the '71 Bucks (66-16, with Oscar and Kareem...and Chamberlain was on a 48-34 Laker team withOUT his two best players, West and Baylor; he WON a title in '72 (going thru that same Buck team again, and then wiping out the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers); and in his last season, his injury-riddled team lost four close games to a Knick team with SIX HOFers.

Once again, Wilt faced a HOF center in EVERY post-season. He was also outgunned by a HOF-laden team, in EVERY post-season.

Not only that, but here again, it is the famous DOUBLE-STANDARD. Chamberlain won two rings in his 14 seasons, and was labeled a "choker", a "failure", and a "loser." Hakeem won two rings in 18 seasons, and EIGHT of team's were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs...yet, has anyone ever accused him of being a "loser?" And Bird won one more ring in his career, and is almost universally hailed as a "winner", and a "clutch" player despite the fact that his career did not compare to Wilt's in either the regular season, or the post-season.

Here was the real crux of the DOUBLE-STANDARD. If Wilt put up a 40-30 game against Russell, to say a 10-20 game (on poor shooting) by Russell, BUT, Russell's heavily more talented TEAM won the game...well, it was a "clear-cut" win for Russell. And, if Wilt and Russell had the same exact games, and Chamberlain's TEAM won...well, Wilt's team SHOULD have won. Why? Because Wilt was bigger, stronger and more skilled. Furthermore, if Wilt only had a 20-20 game, to Russell's 10-20 game, no matter the outcome of the game, Russell "outplayed" Wilt.

Generally, Chamberlain had to significantly outscore, outrebound, and outshoot Russell for his TEAM to have a chance of winning. BUT, Russell NEVER had the same expectation level. All he had to do was to contain Chamberlain just enough so that his superior teammates could outplay Wilt's enough to win the game. And then, of course, it was WILT's fault, and Russell was applauded for having "outplayed" Wilt.

The EXPECTATION level for Wilt was unlike ANY other player who has ever played the game.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I wasn't directing my last comment at you, but those here in general.

The EXPECTATION level for Wilt was unlike ANY other player who has ever played the game.[/QUOTE]

1) Got it, thought it was aimed at me, my bad.

2) Indeed, they were set EXTREMELY high for him. Even I will admit that (and admit I think that KAJ is overrated, when compared to Wilt) and that I probably DO hold him to the double standard. I would label very few HoF and superstar type players as chokers, though Karl Malone has a special place reserved for his disappearing acts.

Also, where did you get Wilt's by game stats from? You mentioned two names (I do believe in the first post) that provided them, but I do not know where you got them from. Thanks in advance.

Jlauber, when you say that Russell played with more HOFers, don't you think he made most of them? If they were on other teams that weren't winning, they wouldn't sniff the Hall.

Larry Siegfried made the hall, even though he was cut by the STL Hawks, they actually made him give his sneakers back and left him in the car park after an exhibition game and he had to find his own way home. That sounds like he was already heading for the Hall before joining the Celtics?

Bailey Howell couldn't crack the starting 5 for the Baltimore Bullets, Red Auerbach sent Mel Counts in a trade for him. Yes before the Bullets he averaged 20 and 10 for the Pistons, but they were a terrible team.

Wayne Embry had a good career and is in the Hall, but not as a player, as a contributer.

So you could say Russell was better because he had more Hall Of Famers, but a few of these guys were waifs and strays picked up by Red Auerbach, or guys who didn't even make the Hall as players. Russel made some of these guys HOFers.

[QUOTE=Horatio33]Jlauber, when you say that Russell played with more HOFers, don't you think he made most of them? If they were on other teams that weren't winning, they wouldn't sniff the Hall.

Larry Siegfried made the hall, even though he was cut by the STL Hawks, they actually made him give his sneakers back and left him in the car park after an exhibition game and he had to find his own way home. That sounds like he was already heading for the Hall before joining the Celtics?

Bailey Howell couldn't crack the starting 5 for the Baltimore Bullets, Red Auerbach sent Mel Counts in a trade for him. Yes before the Bullets he averaged 20 and 10 for the Pistons, but they were a terrible team.

Wayne Embry had a good career and is in the Hall, but not as a player, as a contributer.

So you could say Russell was better because he had more Hall Of Famers, but a few of these guys were waifs and strays picked up by Red Auerbach, or guys who didn't even make the Hall as players. Russel made some of these guys HOFers.[/QUOTE]

Good post and I agree with much of it. First of all, though, I don't think Siegfried made the HOF. And Embry is in it as a contributor, but he was also a five time all-star. I also agree that Howell probably would not have made the Hall, nor Frank Ramsey or KC Jones, without Russell.

And, I also agree that Russell made his teammates better, overall, than what Wilt did for his. Once again, even Wilt admitted that Russell blended better with his teammates, than what Wilt would have with the same teammates.

Furthermore, I will also add that in majority of their H2H battles, we don't have all of the FG% numbers. We can probably safely assume that Wilt still outshot Russell from the floor in the vast majority of those games, but even in some of the games in which he probably outshot Russell, there comes a point where MISSING a lot more shots actually is more harmful, than merely shooting a lower percentage. For example, who would you consider the worse shooter... a player who goes 1-4, or a player who goes 10-30?

It has not been my intention to rip Russell here. He has his 11 rings, and was the MAIN reason why those team's won. His impact went well beyond stats, as well. He intimidated entire teams, and his overall play made his teammates' numbers better.

Having said that, though, there were/are many observers who mistakenly believe that Russell dominated Wilt, and that Wilt "choked" against him. Take a look at some of the game's in Chamberlain's career, (and not just against Russell.) For instance, in game seven of the '70 Finals, Chamberlain put up a 21 point, 10-16 shooting, 24 rebound game (11 points, 5-10, and 12 rebounds in the first half), against a Reed who was hobbled by an injury. Of course, no one remembers that Wilt, himself, was only four months removed from major knee surgery, and that virtually no medical opinion at the time expected him to come back as quickly as he did. In any case, Reed had a 4-3 game, and was labeled a "hero", while Chamberlain's game was far better than any of teammate's, and yet, it WILT's fault.

In the game seven of the '69 Finals, when Wilt pulled himself out of the game with a leg injury (which would be the same leg that would require surgery the very year), he asked to go back in within a couple of minutes. His coach refused, and the Lakers lost by two points. In that game, Wilt outscored Russell, 18-6, outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him, 27-21. Furthemore, RUSSELL was nowhere to be found in that 4th quarter, despite the fact that he was in the game. Who got the blame? Yep...Wilt "the faker" Chamberlain. Here again, the DOUBLE STANDARD. Wilt takes himself out of a game with a serious knee injury, for a couple of MINUTES, and he was labled a "faker" by no less than Russell. Kareem sprained his ankle, and missed an entire game. Reed suffers a thigh injury, and misses the better part of THREE games. And, they are labeled "heroic." Chamberlain misses two MINUTES, and he is faking it. Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain played in FOUR games of the '68 ECF's with THREE leg injuries, and was NOTICEABLY hobbled in all of those games. BUT, since his TEAM blew that series, well, Wilt was a "choker."

When Chamberlain's teammates shot around 35% in the '66 ECF's, and when Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot 51% in that same series, and in fact, had a 46-34 game in the clinching game five loss...well, it was WILT's fault.

I could go on, but there was clearly NO evidence of Wilt ever "choking" in a big game.

[QUOTE=Bird]1) Got it, thought it was aimed at me, my bad.

2) Indeed, they were set EXTREMELY high for him. Even I will admit that (and admit I think that KAJ is overrated, when compared to Wilt) and that I probably DO hold him to the double standard. I would label very few HoF and superstar type players as chokers, though Karl Malone has a special place reserved for his disappearing acts.

Also, where did you get Wilt's by game stats from? You mentioned two names (I do believe in the first post) that provided them, but I do not know where you got them from. Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]

There are some other sources with the Wilt-Russell games, but Harvey Pollack recorded every one of their 142 H2H games. Here is the link:

[url]http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Pollack_200607_Stats.pdf[/url]

I believe those H2H games start on page 270 or so.

[QUOTE=jlauber]There are some other sources with the Wilt-Russell games, but Harvey Pollack recorded every one of their 142 H2H games. Here is the link:

[url]http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Pollack_200607_Stats.pdf[/url]

I believe those H2H games start on page 270 or so.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the link.

I plan on giving that a solid look through.