Why is MJ considered better than Bill Russell?

[QUOTE=jlauber]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.[/QUOTE]
maybe The Great Wilt The Stilt should have scored the 3 measley points. I mean according to you he carried team by himself.Really I agree with you Russ had a better support cast but it wasn't like he had a weak support.That is where you are wrong.

[QUOTE=Mr. I'm So Rad]Because MJ is an icon. He changed basketball in the business sense and made it marketable and made everyone interested in it again.

Bill Russell didn't have his own huge nike shoe deal

It has nothing to do with stats, rings, etc. Those are all secondary. It's because we were exposed to MJ more than guys like Russell, Chamberlain, etc. It's that simple.[/QUOTE]

This.

MJ is the Ali of basketball. That doesn't neccesarily mean MJ is the Sugar Ray Robinson of basketball.

[QUOTE=NoEasy9]Because he was more recent than Russell. If Jordan had played in the 60s and Russell played in the 90s more people would consider Russell the greater player. It is just the way it works in the nba and in sports in general...[/QUOTE]

Russell would of been another above average PF. He would f been a Boozer-level PF. Nothing more.

[QUOTE=LosBulls]Russell would of been another above average PF. He would f been a Boozer-level PF. Nothing more.[/QUOTE]
And when Boozer wins 11 titles as his team clear leader than he will be GOAT.

[QUOTE=LosBulls]Russell would of been another above average PF. He would f been a Boozer-level PF. Nothing more.[/QUOTE]

sure - why not...if Boozer could lead his team to 11 rings as a best player I'm pretty sure he would be in contention as a GOAT:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Niquesports]maybe The Great Wilt The Stilt should have scored the 3 measley points. I mean according to you he carried team by himself.Really I agree with you Russ had a better support cast but it wasn't like he had a weak support.That is where you are wrong.[/QUOTE]
I think the problem is that yall are hell bent on making it something it wasn't. Saying look at Gola, even referenced as getting GOAT votes, when he was sporting a 6.3 ppg and .271 FG% and, as you say Wilt should have still cut the slack? This was their third/2nd best player that year. He was on self check, meaning it didn't make sense to guard him. And Sam Jones wasn't being stopped either. So Wilt now has a freelanced defender on him.

The other best player was an elderstatesman whose game was declining so his reflexes might not have been what they used to be. The Fourth a rookie who did elevate his game but he was subject rookie mistakes against Boston. One was too young and inexperienced, the other past his prime, the other couldn't hit the side of a barn - yet it boiled down to two baskets. What you see as strength can easily be seen as ripe for exploitation.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]maybe The Great Wilt The Stilt should have scored the 3 measley points. I mean according to you he carried team by himself.Really I agree with you Russ had a better support cast but it wasn't like he had a weak support.That is where you are wrong.[/QUOTE]

Yep...it would have been too much to ask for a TEAMMATE of Chamberlain to hit a game-winning shot. Russell's TEAMMATES not only routinely hit game-winners, some of them were borderline miraculous.

As far as Wilt's support...let's completely ignore his 62-63 thru 64-65 Warrior teams, when he had virtually NO help, and concentrate on his 59-60 thru 61-62 teams. Once again, the Warriors were a LAST-PLACE team when he arrived. Even going back a couple of years, and with Neil Johnston, they had consecutive seasons of 37-35. Without Johnston, they were a last-place team, and with him they were basically a .500 team. Take Johnston away, and add Wilt, and then all of a sudden, they became a 49-26 team. Even in Chamberlain's monstrous 61-62 season, the Warriors "only" went 49-31. And, once again, his teammates, particularly HOFers Arizin and Gola...and especially Gola, played poorly in the those three post-seasons with Chamberlain. Arizin had two post-seasons of .328 and .375 shooting, while Gola couldn't hit the Pacific Ocean from a life-boat, shooting .412, .206, and .271.

So, here we have an already average-at-best roster (even WITH Johnston they were no better than .500)...and with their next two best players playing poorly, and with everyone of Wilt's other teammates shooting worse...and yet, somehow Wilt was able to get his team to a two-point loss in a game seven, and against SIX HOFers, with a deeper bench, and a HOF coach.

Look, I respect your's and even G.O.A.T's opinions, but the OVERWHELMING evidence illustrates that not only did Russell have better teammates, they were CONSIDERABLY better. Man-for-man it was just no contest. BUT, the Russell-supporters will suggest that somehow Russell outplayed Wilt. How was that possiblem, then, that Wilt could take a vastly outmatched crew to a game seven, two-point loss, especially when almost to a man they played poorly?

And I SAW many of the Russell-Wilt duels, and I can honestly say that I NEVER came away thinking that Russell was the better player. I WILL say, though, that in many instances, I came away thinking just how poorly Wilt's teammates played. I'm sure that Russell deserved some of the credit for that, and Wilt perhaps deserved some of the blame. BUT, just take a look at what Russell's teammates accomplished in their careers, most all of whom played with Russell for many years...and compare that to those that played with Chamberlain, and even without Wilt. It was just not close.

Now if you want to carry the argument into the second half of Chamberlain's career, yes, Wilt did play with some quality teammates. But even then you have to really analyze that. For those that say that Wilt played with Baylor....yes, BUT for really only ONE full season. And only TWO post-seasons (and Baylor was awful in one, and Chamberlain was playing on a knee that had major surgery just four months prior in another.) Wilt played with Goodrich for TWO seasons. And Chamberlain played with West for five, but West missed one complete post-season in one, and once again, Wilt played at nowhere near 100% in another. And West was hobbled with injuries in the two of the other three. Only in his three years in Philly did he play with quality teammates for any length of time...and they had the best record in the league in all three. And I won't get into the many reasons why they didn't win a title in two of them. Needless to say, when Chamberlain's Philly squad was healthy, and played well, they brutalized Russell and the Celtics.

Russell played alongside Sam Jones for 12 years, Heinsohn for nine, Cousy for five, Sharman for four, Havlicek for seven, etc, etc.

And, once again, take a look at Wilt's Warrior rosters from the 62-63 season thru the first half of the 64-65 season, and they were basically a laughing stock. Russell's Celtics had edges in HOFers in 62-63 of 8-1, and in 63-64 of 7-2.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Yep...it would have been too much to ask for a TEAMMATE of Chamberlain to hit a game-winning shot. Russell's TEAMMATES not only routinely hit game-winners, some of them were borderline miraculous.

As far as Wilt's support...let's completely ignore his 62-63 thru 64-65 Warrior teams, when he had virtually NO help, and concentrate on his 59-60 thru 61-62 teams. Once again, the Warriors were a LAST-PLACE team when he arrived. Even going back a couple of years, and with Neil Johnston, they had consecutive seasons of 37-35. Without Johnston, they were a last-place team, and with him they were basically a .500 team. Take Johnston away, and add Wilt, and then all of a sudden, they became a 49-26 team. Even in Chamberlain's monstrous 61-62 season, the Warriors "only" went 49-31. And, once again, his teammates, particularly HOFers Arizin and Gola...and especially Gola, played poorly in the those three post-seasons with Chamberlain. Arizin had two post-seasons of .328 and .375 shooting, while Gola couldn't hit the Pacific Ocean from a life-boat, shooting .412, .206, and .271.

So, here we have an already average-at-best roster (even WITH Johnston they were no better than .500)...and with their next two best players playing poorly, and with everyone of Wilt's other teammates shooting worse...and yet, somehow Wilt was able to get his team to a two-point loss in a game seven, and against SIX HOFers, with a deeper bench, and a HOF coach.

Look, I respect your's and even G.O.A.T's opinions, but the OVERWHELMING evidence illustrates that not only did Russell have better teammates, they were CONSIDERABLY better. Man-for-man it was just no contest. BUT, the Russell-supporters will suggest that somehow Russell outplayed Wilt. How was that possiblem, then, that Wilt could take a vastly outmatched crew to a game seven, two-point loss, especially when almost to a man they played poorly?

And I SAW many of the Russell-Wilt duels, and I can honestly say that I NEVER came away thinking that Russell was the better player. I WILL say, though, that in many instances, I came away thinking just how poorly Wilt's teammates played. I'm sure that Russell deserved some of the credit for that, and Wilt perhaps deserved some of the blame. BUT, just take a look at what Russell's teammates accomplished in their careers, most all of whom played with Russell for many years...and compare that to those that played with Chamberlain, and even without Wilt. It was just not close.

Now if you want to carry the argument into the second half of Chamberlain's career, yes, Wilt did play with some quality teammates. But even then you have to really analyze that. For those that say that Wilt played with Baylor....yes, BUT for really only ONE full season. And only TWO post-seasons (and Baylor was awful in one, and Chamberlain was playing on a knee that had major surgery just four months prior in another.) Wilt played with Goodrich for TWO seasons. And Chamberlain played with West for five, but West missed one complete post-season in one, and once again, Wilt played at nowhere near 100% in another. And West was hobbled with injuries in the two of the other three. Only in his three years in Philly did he play with quality teammates for any length of time...and they had the best record in the league in all three. And I won't get into the many reasons why they didn't win a title in two of them. Needless to say, when Chamberlain's Philly squad was healthy, and played well, they brutalized Russell and the Celtics.

Russell played alongside Sam Jones for 12 years, Heinsohn for nine, Cousy for five, Sharman for four, Havlicek for seven, etc, etc.

And, once again, take a look at Wilt's Warrior rosters from the 62-63 season thru the first half of the 64-65 season, and they were basically a laughing stock. Russell's Celtics had edges in HOFers in 62-63 of 8-1, and in 63-64 of 7-2.[/QUOTE]
YOur battle with G.O.A.T. is different from mine. I just differ from you in you saying that Wilt's support cast was "weak". I have never said Wilt was a loser or a choker I have just said that Wilt and Russ's approched the game was different. Russ made sure his cast had roles and they were able to fulfill them. NOt that Wilt didn't but there is a reason only 1 scoring champ has ever won a title the year they were scoring champs.Lets look at 61-62
Boston had 5 players take 1,000 or more FGA Philly only had 2 WIlt and Arizn.Now this has nothing to do with FG% just how many times a player shot was involved in the shot selection.LEts look at KC and Rogers in 2054 min. KC takes 724FGA yet Rodgers in 2650 min. he takes only 749 FGA. Thats only 25 more shots in almost 600 more min.
Now you write really long post sometimes so long your main point is missed. You made a great point SIr John W said if Wilt had played with that Celtic team he would have won just as many rings. I have asked to show quotes of teammates coahes media someone claim Wilt was a strong leader. I have never said or posted that Russ out played Wilt but i do believe in everything I have read that Russ was the better leader.I can be wrong but I have always felt Wilt thought he was bigger than the team. Which made many coaches do thinks like jan Van ect.. did in terms of benching him and the trades.AS I have said that you never responded to Wilt has never been the franchise of a team. Thats the sign of leadership.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]YOur battle with G.O.A.T. is different from mine. I just differ from you in you saying that Wilt's support cast was "weak". I have never said Wilt was a loser or a choker I have just said that Wilt and Russ's approched the game was different. Russ made sure his cast had roles and they were able to fulfill them. NOt that Wilt didn't but there is a reason only 1 scoring champ has ever won a title the year they were scoring champs.Lets look at 61-62
Boston had 5 players take 1,000 or more FGA Philly only had 2 WIlt and Arizn.Now this has nothing to do with FG% just how many times a player shot was involved in the shot selection.LEts look at KC and Rogers in 2054 min. KC takes 724FGA yet Rodgers in 2650 min. he takes only 749 FGA. Thats only 25 more shots in almost 600 more min.
Now you write really long post sometimes so long your main point is missed. You made a great point SIr John W said if Wilt had played with that Celtic team he would have won just as many rings. I have asked to show quotes of teammates coahes media someone claim Wilt was a strong leader. I have never said or posted that Russ out played Wilt but i do believe in everything I have read that Russ was the better leader.I can be wrong but I have always felt Wilt thought he was bigger than the team. Which made many coaches do thinks like jan Van ect.. did in terms of benching him and the trades.AS I have said that you never responded to Wilt has never been the franchise of a team. Thats the sign of leadership.[/QUOTE]

Good post, and I have to concede some of it. We do know that Russell was obsessed with winning, while Chamberlain found many other facets in his life. And ultimately, while Russell was a bitter man for much of his life, Chamberlain died a very contented man.

But here's my take...

Wilt was EXPECTED to win. He was usually the tallest player in the league; he was always the biggest; he was among the fastest, if not the fastest (just ask Chief's coach Hank Stram); he was not only the strongest, but perhaps the strongest athlete in all of the major team sports at the time; with his height, and his leaping ability, he probably jumped the highest; and was amazingly skilled for a seven-footer (especially in that era.) And, individually, he was a MUCH better player than Russell.

With all of that, he was EXPECTED to win title-after-title...even with inferior rosters. And, perhaps because he was so gifted, it ultimately hurt him. The coaches he had early on, came to the conclusion that, since Wilt could get his shot against anyone (or multiple players), and since he routinely shot nearly 100 points over the league average, that it was better to have Chamberlain take the shots, than say a Rodgers, who consistently shot well below the league average. However, Chamberlain's teammates became way to dependent upon him, and as Hannum noticed before the start of the 63-64 season, Wilt's teammates had basically forgotten how to play basketball.

And, in the second half of his career, Wilt's coaches had asked Wilt to change his game several times. And, for whatever reasons, his teammates, in almost every season, but two, played poorly in the post-season (with the exception of West in a couple.) But, in any case, unless his TEAM won, it was Wilt that received the blame. If he scored 30+ and his team lost...well, he shot too much. If he "only" scored 20, and his TEAM lost,...well, why didn't he shoot more?

Once again, IMHO, there were the expectations for everyone else whoever played the game...and then there were the expectations for WILT. And, unfortunately, he seldom could live up to them. And, in the vast majority of his career, the losses he suffered were not his fault.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]I think the problem is that yall are hell bent on making it something it wasn't. Saying look at Gola, even referenced as getting GOAT votes, when he was sporting a 6.3 ppg and .271 FG% [/QUOTE]

Or maybe he had a severely sprained ankle and a major back injury...

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Or maybe he had a severely sprained ankle and a major back injury...[/QUOTE]

Couldn't move freely and didn't like contact afterward, blaaah. Was never the same afterwards. But the NBA liked him. Was he the best defender before Russell came on the scene???

[QUOTE=jlauber]Good post, and I have to concede some of it. We do know that Russell was obsessed with winning, while Chamberlain found many other facets in his life. And ultimately, while Russell was a bitter man for much of his life, Chamberlain died a very contented man.

But here's my take...

Wilt was EXPECTED to win. He was usually the tallest player in the league; he was always the biggest; he was among the fastest, if not the fastest (just ask Chief's coach Hank Stram); he was not only the strongest, but perhaps the strongest athlete in all of the major team sports at the time; with his height, and his leaping ability, he probably jumped the highest; and was amazingly skilled for a seven-footer (especially in that era.) And, individually, he was a MUCH better player than Russell.

With all of that, he was EXPECTED to win title-after-title...even with inferior rosters. And, perhaps because he was so gifted, it ultimately hurt him. The coaches he had early on, came to the conclusion that, since Wilt could get his shot against anyone (or multiple players), and since he routinely shot nearly 100 points over the league average, that it was better to have Chamberlain take the shots, than say a Rodgers, who consistently shot well below the league average. However, Chamberlain's teammates became way to dependent upon him, and as Hannum noticed before the start of the 63-64 season, Wilt's teammates had basically forgotten how to play basketball.

And, in the second half of his career, Wilt's coaches had asked Wilt to change his game several times. And, for whatever reasons, his teammates, in almost every season, but two, played poorly in the post-season (with the exception of West in a couple.) But, in any case, unless his TEAM won, it was Wilt that received the blame. If he scored 30+ and his team lost...well, he shot too much. If he "only" scored 20, and his TEAM lost,...well, why didn't he shoot more?

Once again, IMHO, there were the expectations for everyone else whoever played the game...and then there were the expectations for WILT. And, unfortunately, he seldom could live up to them. And, in the vast majority of his career, the losses he suffered were not his fault.[/QUOTE]
I'm with you now. THe league ,the media, for the most part the fans never accepted Wilt.Here was this man that no one have ever seen as gifted. But too problems he was outspoken, and "BLACK" in the 1960's .Your right many people felt Wilt should have won if he played with 4 Nuns and a blind 6th man.IT drives me crazy when you see threads "The Most Dominant Player Ever" People have Wilt 3rd and 5th. :facepalm . That being said I don't think Wilt really learned how to be a teammate until he got to the Lakers.His skills had slowed down a little due to age and he was finally had some foundation.IT's really sad that more people don't appreciate Wilt's greatness.But some can say he brought it on him self when he left Kanas early.

Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time. He won 6 NBA titles in the modern Era.

His team beat Utah Jazz (Karl Malone and John Stockton), New York Knicks ( Patrick Ewing) Orlando Magic (Shaquille O'Neal and Penny Hardaway), Phoenix Suns (Charles Barkley, Kevin Johnson), Los Angeles Lakers (Magic Johnson, James Worthy), Portland Trailblazers (Clyde Drexler), Seattle Supersonics (Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp), Cleveland Cavaliers ( Mark Price and Brad Daugherty), Detroit Pistons (Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumas and Bill Laimbeer), Indiana Pacers (Reggie Miller), and Miami Heat ( Alonzo Morning, and Tim Hardaway) in the playoffs.

[QUOTE=Lebron23]Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time. He won 6 NBA titles in the modern Era.

His team beat Utah Jazz (Karl Malone and John Stockton), New York Knicks ( Patrick Ewing) Orlando Magic (Shaquille O'Neal and Penny Hardaway), Phoenix Suns (Charles Barkley, Kevin Johnson), Los Angeles Lakers (Magic Johnson, James Worthy), Portland Trailblazers (Clyde Drexler), Seattle Supersonics (Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp), Cleveland Cavaliers ( Mark Price and Brad Daugherty), Detroit Pistons (Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumas and Bill Laimbeer), Indiana Pacers (Reggie Miller), and Miami Heat ( Alonzo Morning, and Tim Hardaway) in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

I am not as big an MJ fan, but this is a pretty good post. The knock against Jordan by some from MY generation was that his competition was somewhat watered down. However, as you have noted, he faced quite a number of great players...and was the best of the group. I would only argue that perhaps had he faced the Shaq-Kobe duo of say 2001, in his prime, and beaten them, then I would have been more impressed. IMHO, a PRIME Shaq might have been his equal.

As for All-Time...MJ's post-season play probably gives him a slight edge over almost all the greats, like Kareem, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Shaq, and Duncan...except for Russell and his 11 rings.

And individually, I really believe that Chamberlain was more dominant, and a more dominant all-around player. As Oscar once said, "The Record Book does not lie." Seven scoring titles, nine FG% titles, 11 rebounding titles, and even one assist title. And as great a defender as MJ was, Wilt's defense probably impacted games considerably more. And, not only did Chamberlain win statistical titles, he put many of them light-years away from the next guy (and often that was himself.) He does get diminished somewhat in the post-season, because his scoring dropped some, but there were reasons for that which I have covered before, and I don't want to waste the time rehashing it again. I will say this, though, about his post-season play...in his 29 post-season series, he was probably never outplayed by an opposing center, and in many of those series, he absolutely crushed them. And he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of them.

And, I would also put a PRIME Shaq right there with MJ, as well...even in the post-season. I have maintained that Shaq's "three-peat" post-seasons, and particularly his Finals were the greatest in NBA history...with perhaps the only question being his opposing centers in those Finals.

And some would argue for Kareem. My only problem with Abdul-Jabbar was that, in his prime, and in a weaker period in the NBA (from '74 thru '79), he didn't lead his teams to titles. And, I have also maintained that he didn't put forth a maximum effort for much of his career, either. Still, he was among the best players in the league for some 17 seasons, and probably the best player for almost all of the 70's. And with six MVPs and six rings, he is right there with MJ.

And finally, I would say that Magic should also be in the conversation. He never came close to experiencing a losing season; his team's averaged nearly 60 wins per season over the course of his career (and excluding his comeback year in the mid-90's); he took his team's to nine Finals in 12 seasons, and won five rings. And he was an even better player in the post-season, than he was in the regular season. IMHO, he is the second greatest "winner" behind Russell.

Oh, and Duncan deserves a P.S., too. 50+ win seasons every year. Four rings. Winning titles with weaker casts. He is somewhat like Magic and Russell for me. He made his teammates better, and he made opposing teams worse.

Overall, though, MJ's resume probably has the best case for G.O.A.T. status. In any case, I don't have a problem with any of my top-seven (and perhaps even Bird at his peak)...being labeled as the greatest ever (Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan.)

And, IF Kobe wins a ring this year, he too, should be in the conversation. BTW, Shaq and Duncan might be adding a fifth ring this year, as well...which would make for an interesting discussion on THEIR all-time place in NBA history.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I am not as big an MJ fan, but this is a pretty good post. The knock against Jordan by some from MY generation was that his competition was somewhat watered down. However, as you have noted, he faced quite a number of great players...and was the best of the group. I would only argue that perhaps had he faced the Shaq-Kobe duo of say 2001, in his prime, and beaten them, then I would have been more impressed. IMHO, a PRIME Shaq might have been his equal.

As for All-Time...MJ's post-season play probably gives him a slight edge over almost all the greats, like Kareem, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Shaq, and Duncan...except for Russell and his 11 rings.

And individually, I really believe that Chamberlain was more dominant, and a more dominant all-around player. As Oscar once said, "The Record Book does not lie." Seven scoring titles, nine FG% titles, 11 rebounding titles, and even one assist title. And as great a defender as MJ was, Wilt's defense probably impacted games considerably more. And, not only did Chamberlain win statistical titles, he put many of them light-years away from the next guy (and often that was himself.) He does get diminished somewhat in the post-season, because his scoring dropped some, but there were reasons for that which I have covered before, and I don't want to waste the time rehashing it again. I will say this, though, about his post-season play...in his 29 post-season series, he was probably never outplayed by an opposing center, and in many of those series, he absolutely crushed them. And he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of them.

And, I would also put a PRIME Shaq right there with MJ, as well...even in the post-season. I have maintained that Shaq's "three-peat" post-seasons, and particularly his Finals were the greatest in NBA history...with perhaps the only question being his opposing centers in those Finals.

And some would argue for Kareem. My only problem with Abdul-Jabbar was that, in his prime, and in a weaker period in the NBA (from '74 thru '79), he didn't lead his teams to titles. And, I have also maintained that he didn't put forth a maximum effort for much of his career, either. Still, he was among the best players in the league for some 17 seasons, and probably the best player for almost all of the 70's. And with six MVPs and six rings, he is right there with MJ.

And finally, I would say that Magic should also be in the conversation. He never came close to experiencing a losing season; his team's averaged nearly 60 wins per season over the course of his career (and excluding his comeback year in the mid-90's); he took his team's to nine Finals in 12 seasons, and won five rings. And he was an even better player in the post-season, than he was in the regular season. IMHO, he is the second greatest "winner" behind Russell.

Oh, and Duncan deserves a P.S., too. 50+ win seasons every year. Four rings. Winning titles with weaker casts. He is somewhat like Magic and Russell for me. He made his teammates better, and he made opposing teams worse.

Overall, though, MJ's resume probably has the best case for G.O.A.T. status. In any case, I don't have a problem with any of my top-seven (and perhaps even Bird at his peak)...being labeled as the greatest ever (Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan.)

And, IF Kobe wins a ring this year, he too, should be in the conversation. BTW, Shaq and Duncan might be adding a fifth ring this year, as well...which would make for an interesting discussion on THEIR all-time place in NBA history.[/QUOTE]
FOr Shaq and Duncan I think winning a ring this year will do little in impacting their legacy. Both have lesser roles with Shaq even a less role than Duncan.How ever if both were to have a monster playoff run both could be in that elite Top 5 player convo.
We trying to select a GOAT its almost impossible. ITs more based on your view of the era,style of play,impact of player.
You have scorers
Wilt, Jordan
Floor generals
Magic
Russ
Total overall player
Kareem
Oscar
Each player's dominance was in a different way. Each had fewe weakness and their few wasn't a liability just a weaker part of their game.
So Ifeel its just best to say a player has reached elite status. Shaq ,Duncan have reached that
with
Bird ,Baylor,Karl Malone,Barkley in the next tier.Super Stars

[QUOTE=jlauber]I am not as big an MJ fan, but this is a pretty good post. The knock against Jordan by some from MY generation was that his competition was somewhat watered down. However, as you have noted, he faced quite a number of great players...and was the best of the group. I would only argue that perhaps had he faced the Shaq-Kobe duo of say 2001, in his prime, and beaten them, then I would have been more impressed. IMHO, a PRIME Shaq might have been his equal.

As for All-Time...MJ's post-season play probably gives him a slight edge over almost all the greats, like Kareem, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Shaq, and Duncan...except for Russell and his 11 rings.

And individually, I really believe that Chamberlain was more dominant, and a more dominant all-around player. As Oscar once said, "The Record Book does not lie." Seven scoring titles, nine FG% titles, 11 rebounding titles, and even one assist title. And as great a defender as MJ was, Wilt's defense probably impacted games considerably more. And, not only did Chamberlain win statistical titles, he put many of them light-years away from the next guy (and often that was himself.) He does get diminished somewhat in the post-season, because his scoring dropped some, but there were reasons for that which I have covered before, and I don't want to waste the time rehashing it again. I will say this, though, about his post-season play...in his 29 post-season series, he was probably never outplayed by an opposing center, and in many of those series, he absolutely crushed them. And he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of them.

And, I would also put a PRIME Shaq right there with MJ, as well...even in the post-season. I have maintained that Shaq's "three-peat" post-seasons, and particularly his Finals were the greatest in NBA history...with perhaps the only question being his opposing centers in those Finals.

And some would argue for Kareem. My only problem with Abdul-Jabbar was that, in his prime, and in a weaker period in the NBA (from '74 thru '79), he didn't lead his teams to titles. And, I have also maintained that he didn't put forth a maximum effort for much of his career, either. Still, he was among the best players in the league for some 17 seasons, and probably the best player for almost all of the 70's. And with six MVPs and six rings, he is right there with MJ.

And finally, I would say that Magic should also be in the conversation. He never came close to experiencing a losing season; his team's averaged nearly 60 wins per season over the course of his career (and excluding his comeback year in the mid-90's); he took his team's to nine Finals in 12 seasons, and won five rings. And he was an even better player in the post-season, than he was in the regular season. IMHO, he is the second greatest "winner" behind Russell.

Oh, and Duncan deserves a P.S., too. 50+ win seasons every year. Four rings. Winning titles with weaker casts. He is somewhat like Magic and Russell for me. He made his teammates better, and he made opposing teams worse.

Overall, though, MJ's resume probably has the best case for G.O.A.T. status. In any case, I don't have a problem with any of my top-seven (and perhaps even Bird at his peak)...being labeled as the greatest ever (Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan.)

And, IF Kobe wins a ring this year, he too, should be in the conversation. BTW, Shaq and Duncan might be adding a fifth ring this year, as well...which would make for an interesting discussion on THEIR all-time place in NBA history.[/QUOTE]
FOr Shaq and Duncan I think winning a ring this year will do little in impacting their legacy. Both have lesser roles with Shaq even a less role than Duncan.How ever if both were to have a monster playoff run both could be in that elite Top 5 player convo.
We trying to select a GOAT its almost impossible. ITs more based on your view of the era,style of play,impact of player.
You have scorers
Wilt, Jordan
Floor generals
Magic
Russ
Total overall player
Kareem
Oscar
Each player's dominance was in a different way. Each had fewe weakness and their few wasn't a liability just a weaker part of their game.
So Ifeel its just best to say a player has reached elite status. Shaq ,Duncan have reached that
with
Bird ,Baylor,Karl Malone,Barkley in the next tier.Super Stars

[QUOTE=Niquesports]FOr Shaq and Duncan I think winning a ring this year will do little in impacting their legacy. Both have lesser roles with Shaq even a less role than Duncan.How ever if both were to have a monster playoff run both could be in that elite Top 5 player convo.
We trying to select a GOAT its almost impossible. ITs more based on your view of the era,style of play,impact of player.
You have scorers
Wilt, Jordan
Floor generals
Magic
Russ
Total overall player
Kareem
Oscar
Each player's dominance was in a different way. Each had fewe weakness and their few wasn't a liability just a weaker part of their game.
So Ifeel its just best to say a player has reached elite status. Shaq ,Duncan have reached that
with
Bird ,Baylor,Karl Malone,Barkley in the next tier.Super Stars[/QUOTE]

I agree. And the reality was/is, there have just been so MANY outstanding players since the 50's. Even I find myself forgetting Mikan's impact on the game, for instance.

The Top-9 is generally something along the lines of MJ, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan, Bird, and Kobe.

Then it gets congested. Moses, Hakeem, Oscar, West, Robinson, Garnett, Havlicek, Barkley, K. Malone, Baylor, and probably a few other's I have forgotten...including Mikan. And I think a case could be made for Lebron in that group, as well.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I agree. And the reality was/is, there have just been so MANY outstanding players since the 50's. Even I find myself forgetting Mikan's impact on the game, for instance.

The Top-9 is generally something along the lines of MJ, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan, Bird, and Kobe.

Then it gets congested. Moses, Hakeem, Oscar, West, Robinson, Garnett, Havlicek, Barkley, K. Malone, Baylor, and probably a few other's I have forgotten...including Mikan. And I think a case could be made for Lebron in that group, as well.[/QUOTE]


I would move oscar into the Top Elite group and drop Kobe down. The one problem I have with Kobe being in the Top elite is that one thing all the other 9 Top Elite Players have been dominanat from day 1.IT may have took some like Oscar and MJ a few years to win their title they were still dominant players.Lebron is just a monster finals away from moving into this group.Its not something I would argue but imho.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]FOr Shaq and Duncan I think winning a ring this year will do little in impacting their legacy. Both have lesser roles with Shaq even a less role than Duncan.How ever if both were to have a monster playoff run both could be in that elite Top 5 player convo.
We trying to select a GOAT its almost impossible. ITs more based on your view of the era,style of play,impact of player.
You have scorers
Wilt, Jordan
Floor generals
Magic
Russ
Total overall player
Kareem
Oscar
Each player's dominance was in a different way. Each had fewe weakness and their few wasn't a liability just a weaker part of their game.
So Ifeel its just best to say a player has reached elite status. Shaq ,Duncan have reached that
with
Bird ,Baylor,Karl Malone,Barkley in the next tier.Super Stars[/QUOTE]

Duncan is still arguably the best/most important player on the team. He is the sole frontcourt player they have that is considered even above average. His defense is as good as it's been in years (I've watched nearly every Spurs game throughout his career), and everything about his game is exactly what it was last the last 4 years or better with the exception of a couple minutes played, and the volume of shots he's being allowed to take in the current system. That's it.

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html[/url]

Compare his stats on a per minute basis to the last 4 years. You will see his rebounding and assists are almost the exact same as they've been the last 3-4 years. . .his shot blocking and steals are up to what they were during the last Spurs' championshop. His assists are the same. His rebounding is actually up from that year.

Only things that are down are his minutes, and FGAs (and by proxy his PPG). Duncan didn't disappear, fall off the table, or drop into the roleplayer category. He's playing the same he has for years. Don't confuse his lesser minutes and subsequently lowered overall per game stats due to it as Duncan being done. Look at what he's doing while he's on the floor. I'd say he's playing his best defensive ball since 2007. His offense is only down slightly due to getting less chances. And it's the regular season. I expect his touches to go up late, and in the playoffs where he is money.

If Duncan wins again, it will be as the 1a or 1b best player on the Spurs. Which imo, should count towards his legacy. He's no more done than Russell or Jabaar were for their later titles. And well-deserved credit goes to both of them for those titles.

[QUOTE=DuMa]its a good question. but not very many people, and even less people online, can say they legitimately saw both of their careers play out and make their own unbiased opinion.[/QUOTE]

but yet many players and coaches who DID see Russell play agree Jordan is better.

there are GOAT arguments to be made for Jordan, Kareem, Russell, and to a lesser extent--Magic and Wilt. however, it's widely accepted by the [U]majority of people working in or around basketball[/U] that Jordan has the best case overall.

Yet, some of you ISH people, rather due to hidden agenda (like Roundball) or just lack of understanding of things like context and the history of the league (Jordan's combo of winning/stats/dominance over peers/outright destroying opponents were well-documented long before the internet or espn era) continue to pretend like Jordan is [I][U]ONLY [/U][/I]considered to be the best because of:

A: ESPN's buttkissing
B: Nike's marketing
C: people only remember recent stars

:facepalm

[QUOTE=EricForman]but yet many players and coaches who DID see Russell play agree Jordan is better.

there are GOAT arguments to be made for Jordan, Kareem, Russell, and to a lesser extent--Magic and Wilt. however, it's widely accepted by the [U]majority of people working in or around basketball[/U] that Jordan has the best case overall.

Yet, some of you ISH people, rather due to hidden agenda (like Roundball) or just lack of understanding of things like context and the history of the league (Jordan's combo of winning/stats/dominance over peers/outright destroying opponents were well-documented long before the internet or espn era) continue to pretend like Jordan is [I][U]ONLY [/U][/I]considered to be the best because of:

A: ESPN's buttkissing
B: Nike's marketing
C: people only remember recent stars

:facepalm[/QUOTE]

My problem with MJ is this...

Those that say to a "lessor extent" for Wilt is why? If Wilt is supposed to be dropped in these rankings because of lack of titles, why doesn't Jordan's ranking drop due to playing on more losing teams, and with earlier playoff round exits, etc?

My point being that Wilt played on substantially worse rosters for about half of his career...AND, in an era of the greatest Dynasty, and most HOF-laden team in NBA history. My god, at one point Wilt played with virtually the worse roster in NBA history in his 62-63 season, and meanwhile Russell's Celtics had EIGHT HOFers on HIS team. Not only that, but Chamberlain put up what is arguably the greatest individual season in NBA history that year. He LED (not just among the leaders, but LED) the NBA in 70% of the statistical categories (15 of 22.) And in some he was WAY ahead of the next guy. And for those that value advanced stats, Wilt LED the NBA in Win Shares, on a team that only won 31 games, with 21 (or a whopping 67% of his team's wins.) AND, his PER was 31.8, which is an all-time record. Furthermore, he faced the MVP that season (Russell), nine times, and with six close games, he outrebounded him, and outscored him by a 38-14 margin, in those nine games.

Continuing, Wilt took vastly inferior rosters, like his 61-62 team (which was very close to the last place roster he joined two years earlier) to a game seven, two-point loss against Russell's 60-20 Celtics, and a team that had SIX HOFers. Or when Wilt took his 40-40 76ers, to a game seven, one point loss against Russell's 62-18 Celtics in 64-65, and outgunned 5-2 in HOFers.

Yet, MJ never came close to taking his mediocre rosters to within an eyelash of beating the great team's of his era. As well as Jordan played in the 85-86 playoffs against Bird's Celtics, he TEAM was swept (and MJ was awful in the clinching game loss BTW.) True that Celtic team had FIVE HOFers, but I would argue that Jordan had as much talent as Wilt on some of his early season teams. MJ had Woolridge, Paxson, and Oakley, who was among the league's best rebounders in the Jordan years.

Now, some will argue that MJ WON more rings than Chamberlain, even when Wilt was on strong teams. True, but even when Wilt was on his better teams, he was still generally outgunned by opposing teams with more HOFers. Russell's '66, '68, and '69 Celtics not only had more HOFers, they were much deeper teams, as well. The '70 Knicks had a 4-3 edge in HOFers, and Wilt was coming back from major surgery just four months before. The '71 Bucks had Kareem and Oscar, while BOTH of Wilt's best players, West and Baylor, missed the playoffs. And the '73 Knicks had SIX HOFers. Even in Chamberlain's championship years, his team beat a Celtic team that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers, and a Knick team that had a 5-3 edge in HOFers (and both of those teams were deeper, as well.)

Not only that, but from '66 to '73 (Wilt's last season), or the last eight years of his career, he took his team to eight conference Finals, and five Finals. AND, in all of those post-seasons, there were a variety of reasons why Wilt's TEAMs did not win. In fact, if you go back to Wilt's 61-62 and 64-65 team's, which lost to the great Celtic teams by the narrowest of margins, Chamberlain played on FIVE other teams that lost game sevens, and four of those were by a total of nine points (2, 1, 4, 2 points.) And in the game seven loss to the Knicks in '70, that series would never have gone to a 7th game had not the officials blantantly handed NY game five. So, while almost every great player can claim a couple of titles with a few points, here-or-there, Wilt nearly won FIVE more rings. And injuries to West and Baylor in '71 (neither of whom played in the post-season), and to West in '73 (he played, but was nowhere near 100%), and Wilt could have won TWO more...or quite possibly SEVEN more rings.

And, in his post-season career, Chamberlain was probably never outplayed by his opposing centers, in 29 post-season series. Not only that, but in many of them he crushed his opposing center. And, keep in mind that he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of those series, as well as an All-Star center in a couple more.

Of course, if you consider the fact that Chamberlain OWNS the NBA Record Book, and had SEVERAL Rules put in place to curtail his dominance, I just can't understand those that say "to a lessor extent."

I always wondered how history will change if we exchange the position of Wilt and Russell, just swap them with each other. Will Russell still win 11 rings with Wilts team? Or will Wilt own the league with the Celtics? Might have a clearer case for GOAT.

lauber, we've gone at this before. and we've agreed to disagree on this.

but to recap my stance, i--and apparently, MANY OTHERS former coaches/players--all saw something outside of the numbers.

everyone who played or coached in the NBA during Jordan's era had some sort of greatness tale of Jordan. you have Dream Team coaches going on about how Jordan killed Drexler and went at Magic during practice, you have stories about how coaches tell their players "don't ever talk trash to jordan", etc. by almost all accounts, jordan completely dominated his peers and had no equal when it came to playing basketball.

wilt, however, was trashed by several former teammates or peers (as collected in Bill Simmons' book), and is generally considered as someone who routinely came up short and under achieved.

look, you will argue this for sure and insist on proof, but there isn't numbers and figures to prove this, it just... is. for example, why does everyone consider Shaq an underachiever and "lazy" ? i mean if you pull JUST NUMBERS AND STATS, Shaq's career has been absolutely freaking amazing (how many conference finals has Shaq been to? 9? 11?), yet the general consensus was he underachieved and coulda been better.

that's the general feeling with Wilt. of course, i've never seen him play live so i can't, like, bet my life on this. but you can't dismiss the fact that rep came out of former players and coaches and sportswriters and NBA people, right?

again--and this is osmething i think many anti-Jordan guys on ISH conveniently ignore--it's not JUST 24 year old Air Jordan-wearing kids claiming Jordan is GOAT. we're talking about an overwhelming majority of players, coaches--OLD WHITE GUYS WHO'VE SEEN WILT AND RUSSELL PLAY--and NBA historians and sportswriters.

[QUOTE=PurpleChuck]I always wondered how history will change if we exchange the position of Wilt and Russell, just swap them with each other. Will Russell still win 11 rings with Wilts team? Or will Wilt own the league with the Celtics? Might have a clearer case for GOAT.[/QUOTE]

Well, John Wooden for one, believed that Chamberlain would have won as many rings as Russell had they swapped rosters. And Leonard Koppett, the great sports writer and historian, carried it even further, stating that had Wilt played on the exact team's that Russell had in his career (of course Russell played a couple of years before Wilt), that Chamberlain would have gone 13-0.

Having said that however, even Chamberlain stated that Russell probably blended better with his HOF teammates, than he, himself, would have. Still, I can't see Russell taking any of Wilt early teams NEARLY as far as Chamberlain...especially if Chamberlain had anywhere from five to seven more HOF teammates on HIS team.

And for those that argue that Wilt's "ball-hogging" would have hurt his teammates, Wilt really only scored 40-50 ppg because his teammates were generally inept, AND, even more importantly, his COACH's asked him to.

Take a look at Wilt in the last half of his career. He dramatically cut back his shooting, and in one year he led the NBA in assists, and in another he came in third. So, I really believe that Wilt could have adapted to those talent-laden Celtic teams of the early-to-mid 60's.

IMHO, the only year that Wilt might not have won a title, with Russell's teammates, in the Russell-Wilt era, would have been in the 68-69 season. Why? Quite simply, because Wilt's coach that season, didn't know how to use Chamberlain. However, I am quite certain that Russell would have fit his philosophy perfectly. Still, even that season would have been debateable. Russell would have had West and Baylor, and very little else. Meanwhile, Wilt would have had Havlicek, Sam Jones, as well as Howell (a HOFer and a very effiicient scorer), Nelson, Sanders, Siegfried, and a much deeper team overall. And the real question would be, who what kind of a coach would Chamberlain had in Boston that year? Because Chamberlain was still near his prime, and had he had a coach to unleash him offensively, he probably would have been able to contribute considerably more to Boston's attack than what Russell did. Keep in mind, that Wilt's incompetent coach, shackled Wilt in 68-69. However, Chamberlain's new coach in the following season, Joe Mullaney, asked Wilt to score...and Wilt averaged 32.2 ppg in his first nine games (with games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 52, and 43 points...and a 25 point game against Kareem, in which he outplayed Kareem in every facet of the game.) However, Wilt suffered his knee injury in game nine, and missed nearly the entire season. And, he was never the same dominating player offensively again.

It does make for interesting speculation...but one thing we DO know...Russell DID win 11 rings in 13 seasons. We can only wonder what his and Wilt's numbers would have looked like had they swapped rosters.

[QUOTE=EricForman]lauber, we've gone at this before. and we've agreed to disagree on this.

but to recap my stance, i--and apparently, MANY OTHERS former coaches/players--all saw something outside of the numbers.

everyone who played or coached in the NBA during Jordan's era had some sort of greatness tale of Jordan. you have Dream Team coaches going on about how Jordan killed Drexler and went at Magic during practice, you have stories about how coaches tell their players "don't ever talk trash to jordan", etc. by almost all accounts, jordan completely dominated his peers and had no equal when it came to playing basketball.

wilt, however, was trashed by several former teammates or peers (as collected in Bill Simmons' book), and is generally considered as someone who routinely came up short and under achieved.

look, you will argue this for sure and insist on proof, but there isn't numbers and figures to prove this, it just... is. for example, why does everyone consider Shaq an underachiever and "lazy" ? i mean if you pull JUST NUMBERS AND STATS, Shaq's career has been absolutely freaking amazing (how many conference finals has Shaq been to? 9? 11?), yet the general consensus was he underachieved and coulda been better.

that's the general feeling with Wilt. of course, i've never seen him play live so i can't, like, bet my life on this. but you can't dismiss the fact that rep came out of former players and coaches and sportswriters and NBA people, right?

again--and this is osmething i think many anti-Jordan guys on ISH conveniently ignore--it's not JUST 24 year old Air Jordan-wearing kids claiming Jordan is GOAT. we're talking about an overwhelming majority of players, coaches--OLD WHITE GUYS WHO'VE SEEN WILT AND RUSSELL PLAY--and NBA historians and sportswriters.[/QUOTE]

You have a valid argument. IMHO, Chamberlain was never appreciated for his overwhelming dominance, even when he was playing. But, take a look at my previous post, on "what might have been" had Russell and Wilt swapped rosters in their careers. IMHO, there would be no question as to who the G.O.A.T was. Unfortunately, that is only speculation, but I think almost any of Wilt's contemporaries would also agree that Chamberlain would have won considerably more rings in his career.

[QUOTE=jlauber]You have a valid argument. IMHO, Chamberlain was never appreciated for his overwhelming dominance, even when he was playing. But, take a look at my previous post, on "what might have been" had Russell and Wilt swapped rosters in their careers. IMHO, there would be no question as to who the G.O.A.T was. Unfortunately, that is only speculation, but I think almost any of Wilt's contemporaries would also agree that Chamberlain would have won considerably more rings in his career.[/QUOTE]


I think the main thing you are missing is that Red was that teams leader. Russ was the floor leader but Red was Boston. WIlt had problems with most of his coaches for one reason or the other. THe Celtics were a Unit everyone had a role. Just not sure if such a dominant personality, and style player like Wilt would have fit into that team . Sure he adjusted to a different role almost every team he went to. But all the trades all the rumors about differences with coaches just make you wonder if he could have fell in line under Red for 13 years.

[QUOTE=jlauber]My problem with MJ is this...

Those that say to a "lessor extent" for Wilt is why? If Wilt is supposed to be dropped in these rankings because of lack of titles, why doesn't Jordan's ranking drop due to playing on more losing teams, and with earlier playoff round exits, etc?

My point being that Wilt played on substantially worse rosters for about half of his career...AND, in an era of the greatest Dynasty, and most HOF-laden team in NBA history. My god, at one point Wilt played with virtually the worse roster in NBA history in his 62-63 season, and meanwhile Russell's Celtics had EIGHT HOFers on HIS team. Not only that, but Chamberlain put up what is arguably the greatest individual season in NBA history that year. He LED (not just among the leaders, but LED) the NBA in 70% of the statistical categories (15 of 22.) And in some he was WAY ahead of the next guy. And for those that value advanced stats, Wilt LED the NBA in Win Shares, on a team that only won 31 games, with 21 (or a whopping 67% of his team's wins.) AND, his PER was 31.8, which is an all-time record. Furthermore, he faced the MVP that season (Russell), nine times, and with six close games, he outrebounded him, and outscored him by a 38-14 margin, in those nine games.

Continuing, Wilt took vastly inferior rosters, like his 61-62 team (which was very close to the last place roster he joined two years earlier) to a game seven, two-point loss against Russell's 60-20 Celtics, and a team that had SIX HOFers. Or when Wilt took his 40-40 76ers, to a game seven, one point loss against Russell's 62-18 Celtics in 64-65, and outgunned 5-2 in HOFers.

Yet, MJ never came close to taking his mediocre rosters to within an eyelash of beating the great team's of his era. As well as Jordan played in the 85-86 playoffs against Bird's Celtics, he TEAM was swept (and MJ was awful in the clinching game loss BTW.) True that Celtic team had FIVE HOFers, but I would argue that Jordan had as much talent as Wilt on some of his early season teams. MJ had Woolridge, Paxson, and Oakley, who was among the league's best rebounders in the Jordan years.

Now, some will argue that MJ WON more rings than Chamberlain, even when Wilt was on strong teams. True, but even when Wilt was on his better teams, he was still generally outgunned by opposing teams with more HOFers. Russell's '66, '68, and '69 Celtics not only had more HOFers, they were much deeper teams, as well. The '70 Knicks had a 4-3 edge in HOFers, and Wilt was coming back from major surgery just four months before. The '71 Bucks had Kareem and Oscar, while BOTH of Wilt's best players, West and Baylor, missed the playoffs. And the '73 Knicks had SIX HOFers. Even in Chamberlain's championship years, his team beat a Celtic team that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers, and a Knick team that had a 5-3 edge in HOFers (and both of those teams were deeper, as well.)

Not only that, but from '66 to '73 (Wilt's last season), or the last eight years of his career, he took his team to eight conference Finals, and five Finals. AND, in all of those post-seasons, there were a variety of reasons why Wilt's TEAMs did not win. In fact, if you go back to Wilt's 61-62 and 64-65 team's, which lost to the great Celtic teams by the narrowest of margins, Chamberlain played on FIVE other teams that lost game sevens, and four of those were by a total of nine points (2, 1, 4, 2 points.) And in the game seven loss to the Knicks in '70, that series would never have gone to a 7th game had not the officials blantantly handed NY game five. So, while almost every great player can claim a couple of titles with a few points, here-or-there, Wilt nearly won FIVE more rings. And injuries to West and Baylor in '71 (neither of whom played in the post-season), and to West in '73 (he played, but was nowhere near 100%), and Wilt could have won TWO more...or quite possibly SEVEN more rings.

And, in his post-season career, Chamberlain was probably never outplayed by his opposing centers, in 29 post-season series. Not only that, but in many of them he crushed his opposing center. And, keep in mind that he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of those series, as well as an All-Star center in a couple more.

Of course, if you consider the fact that Chamberlain OWNS the NBA Record Book, and had SEVERAL Rules put in place to curtail his dominance, I just can't understand those that say "to a lessor extent."[/QUOTE]
You really need to stop with the exaggeration of The Sixeers being the worst team in the "History of The NBA"
List of Top 50 Worst teams.
Year Team W L WPct FG% 3P% FT% Reb Ast Stl Blk TO Pts
1 1973 Philadelphia 76ers 9 73 .110 .420 .750 50.9 20.6 104.1
2 1948 Providence Steam Rollers * 6 42 .125 .274 .613 7.2 69.1
3 1993 Dallas Mavericks 11 71 .134 .435 .338 .705 42.7 20.5 7.9 4.3 17.8 99.3
1998 Denver Nuggets 11 71 .134 .417 .323 .772 39.0 18.9 8.1 4.8 16.0 89.0
5 1987 Los Angeles Clippers 12 70 .146 .452 .224 .742 41.1 24.0 9.2 5.3 18.2 104.5
2010 New Jersey Nets 12 70 .146 .429 .318 .780 39.7 18.8 7.0 4.8 14.4 92.4
7 1994 Dallas Mavericks 13 69 .159 .432 .312 .747 41.7 19.9 9.4 3.6 17.0 95.1
2005 Atlanta Hawks 13 69 .159 .441 .312 .711 41.9 19.7 7.7 4.2 16.1 92.7
9 1999 Vancouver Grizzlies 8 42 .160 .428 .327 .717 40.2 19.3 8.4 4.0 17.0 88.9
10 1983 Houston Rockets 14 68 .171 .448 .247 .725 42.3 23.5 7.9 5.1 19.2 99.3
1997 Vancouver Grizzlies 14 68 .171 .437 .349 .709 38.8 22.7 8.0 5.7 15.9 89.2
12 1953 Philadelphia Warriors 12 57 .174 .358 .679 54.5 21.9 80.2
13 1950 Denver Nuggets 11 51 .177 .334 .678 16.8 77.7
14 1999 Los Angeles Clippers 9 41 .180 .427 .320 .721 39.2 16.4 8.5 4.7 15.9 90.4
15 1997 Boston Celtics 15 67 .183 .440 .351 .750 40.0 21.9 9.9 3.8 16.4 100.6
1971 Cleveland Cavaliers 15 67 .183 .424 .746 48.6 25.2 102.1
2001 Chicago Bulls 15 67 .183 .424 .346 .739 38.9 22.1 8.2 4.6 14.6 87.6
1996 Vancouver Grizzlies 15 67 .183 .428 .329 .724 38.1 20.8 8.9 4.1 16.4 89.8
1982 Cleveland Cavaliers 15 67 .183 .464 .182 .747 41.0 22.8 7.7 4.4 16.1 103.2
1968 San Diego Rockets 15 67 .183 .417 .711 66.1 22.4 112.4
2000 Los Angeles Clippers 15 67 .183 .426 .339 .746 40.6 18.0 7.0 6.0 16.2 92.0
1981 Dallas Mavericks 15 67 .183 .462 .279 .751 40.1 24.2 6.8 2.6 17.5 101.5
1992 Minnesota Timberwolves 15 67 .183 .458 .320 .743 40.7 24.7 7.5 6.4 14.1 100.5
2008 Miami Heat 15 67 .183 .443 ..358 .727 37.6 20.0 7.2 4.3 17.7 91.6
1989 Miami Heat 15 67 .183 .453 .326 .702 42.9 23.9 9.1 5.0 21.1 97.8
2010 Minnesota Timberwolves 15 67 .183 .449 .341 .746 42.9 19.8 7.3 3.7 16.3 92.2
27 1969 Phoenix Suns 16 66 .195 .430 .705 55.0 23.4 111.7
1998 Toronto Raptors 16 66 .195 .435 .343 .718 40.7 21.3 9.4 8.1 16.7 94.9
Year Team W L WPct FG% 3P% FT% Reb Ast Stl Blk TO Pts
1980 Detroit Pistons 16 66 .195 .480 .260 .740 44.4 23.8 9.5 6.9 21.2 108.9
30 1949 Providence Steam Rollers * 12 48 .200 .322 .693 17.1 78.4
31 1995 Los Angeles Clippers 17 65 .207 .444 .315 .710 38.3 22.0 9.6 5.3 16.3 96.7
2001 Golden State Warriors 17 65 .207 .409 .293 .706 45.5 21.8 9.0 5.0 15.3 92.5
2003 Cleveland Cavaliers 17 65 .207 .422 .327 .747 44.6 20.9 7.8 6.4 18.3 91.4
1982 San Diego Clippers 17 65 .207 .500 .293 .723 40.6 22.9 7.8 3.6 19.1 108.5
2000 Chicago Bulls 17 65 .207 .415 .330 .709 40.9 20.0 7.9 4.7 19.0 84.8
1988 Los Angeles Clippers 17 65 .207 .443 .249 .713 43.2 23.0 8.8 6.3 18.7 98.8
2003 Denver Nuggets 17 65 .207 .411 .278 .699 42.4 21.2 8.7 5.1 18.5 84.2
1998 Los Angeles Clippers 17 65 .207 .438 .358 .723 40.4 18.7 7.6 5.6 16.1 95.9
1990 New Jersey Nets 17 65 .207 .426 .277 .746 45.0 18.0 9.4 5.9 16.6 100.1
2009 Sacramento Kings 17 65 .207
41 1965 San Francisco Warriors 17 63 .212 .403 .640 71.4 20.7 105.8
42 2005 Charlotte Bobcats 18 64 .220 .432 .363 .709 41.7 21.9 8.5 5.4 14.5 94.3
1990 Orlando Magic 18 64 .220 .459 .295 .756 46.0 24.3 7.5 3.6 17.2 110.9
1996 Philadelphia 76ers 18 64 .220 .436 .342 .734 38.9 19.9 7.8 5.1 17.2 94.5
1990 Miami Heat 18 64 .220 .461 .293 .687 43.4 23.9 9.0 4.7 19.0 100.6
1972 Portland Trail Blazers 18 64 .220 .442 .736 48.7 25.5 106.8
2005 New Orleans Hornets 18 64 .220 .415 .315 .766 40.2 21.0 6.7 3.8 14.8 88.4
48 1954 Baltimore Bullets 16 56 .222 .368 .677 53.0 19.2 78.3
49 1962 Chicago Packers 18 62 .225 .412 .673 69.3 22.5 110.9
50 1953 Baltimore Bullets 16 54 .229 .371 .686 53.2 21.6 84.4
51 1988 New Jersey Nets 19 63 .232 .468 .301 .729 40.7 21.9 8.9 4.7 18.3 100.4
2000 Golden State Warriors 19 63 .232 .420 .323 .697 45.6 22.6 8.9 4.4 15.9 95.5
1998 Golden State Warriors 19 63 .232 .413 .272 .710 45.9 20.8 7.6 5.5 16.7 88.3
1990 Charlotte Hornets 19 63 .232 .455 .336 .756 38.7 25.4 9.5 3.2 15.0 100.4

* BAA

[QUOTE=Niquesports]You really need to stop with the exaggeration of The Sixeers being the worst team in the "History of The NBA"
List of Top 50 Worst teams.
Year Team W L WPct FG% 3P% FT% Reb Ast Stl Blk TO Pts
1 1973 Philadelphia 76ers 9 73 .110 .420 .750 50.9 20.6 104.1
2 1948 Providence Steam Rollers * 6 42 .125 .274 .613 7.2 69.1
3 1993 Dallas Mavericks 11 71 .134 .435 .338 .705 42.7 20.5 7.9 4.3 17.8 99.3
1998 Denver Nuggets 11 71 .134 .417 .323 .772 39.0 18.9 8.1 4.8 16.0 89.0
5 1987 Los Angeles Clippers 12 70 .146 .452 .224 .742 41.1 24.0 9.2 5.3 18.2 104.5
2010 New Jersey Nets 12 70 .146 .429 .318 .780 39.7 18.8 7.0 4.8 14.4 92.4
7 1994 Dallas Mavericks 13 69 .159 .432 .312 .747 41.7 19.9 9.4 3.6 17.0 95.1
2005 Atlanta Hawks 13 69 .159 .441 .312 .711 41.9 19.7 7.7 4.2 16.1 92.7
9 1999 Vancouver Grizzlies 8 42 .160 .428 .327 .717 40.2 19.3 8.4 4.0 17.0 88.9
10 1983 Houston Rockets 14 68 .171 .448 .247 .725 42.3 23.5 7.9 5.1 19.2 99.3
1997 Vancouver Grizzlies 14 68 .171 .437 .349 .709 38.8 22.7 8.0 5.7 15.9 89.2
12 1953 Philadelphia Warriors 12 57 .174 .358 .679 54.5 21.9 80.2
13 1950 Denver Nuggets 11 51 .177 .334 .678 16.8 77.7
14 1999 Los Angeles Clippers 9 41 .180 .427 .320 .721 39.2 16.4 8.5 4.7 15.9 90.4
15 1997 Boston Celtics 15 67 .183 .440 .351 .750 40.0 21.9 9.9 3.8 16.4 100.6
1971 Cleveland Cavaliers 15 67 .183 .424 .746 48.6 25.2 102.1
2001 Chicago Bulls 15 67 .183 .424 .346 .739 38.9 22.1 8.2 4.6 14.6 87.6
1996 Vancouver Grizzlies 15 67 .183 .428 .329 .724 38.1 20.8 8.9 4.1 16.4 89.8
1982 Cleveland Cavaliers 15 67 .183 .464 .182 .747 41.0 22.8 7.7 4.4 16.1 103.2
1968 San Diego Rockets 15 67 .183 .417 .711 66.1 22.4 112.4
2000 Los Angeles Clippers 15 67 .183 .426 .339 .746 40.6 18.0 7.0 6.0 16.2 92.0
1981 Dallas Mavericks 15 67 .183 .462 .279 .751 40.1 24.2 6.8 2.6 17.5 101.5
1992 Minnesota Timberwolves 15 67 .183 .458 .320 .743 40.7 24.7 7.5 6.4 14.1 100.5
2008 Miami Heat 15 67 .183 .443 ..358 .727 37.6 20.0 7.2 4.3 17.7 91.6
1989 Miami Heat 15 67 .183 .453 .326 .702 42.9 23.9 9.1 5.0 21.1 97.8
2010 Minnesota Timberwolves 15 67 .183 .449 .341 .746 42.9 19.8 7.3 3.7 16.3 92.2
27 1969 Phoenix Suns 16 66 .195 .430 .705 55.0 23.4 111.7
1998 Toronto Raptors 16 66 .195 .435 .343 .718 40.7 21.3 9.4 8.1 16.7 94.9
Year Team W L WPct FG% 3P% FT% Reb Ast Stl Blk TO Pts
1980 Detroit Pistons 16 66 .195 .480 .260 .740 44.4 23.8 9.5 6.9 21.2 108.9
30 1949 Providence Steam Rollers * 12 48 .200 .322 .693 17.1 78.4
31 1995 Los Angeles Clippers 17 65 .207 .444 .315 .710 38.3 22.0 9.6 5.3 16.3 96.7
2001 Golden State Warriors 17 65 .207 .409 .293 .706 45.5 21.8 9.0 5.0 15.3 92.5
2003 Cleveland Cavaliers 17 65 .207 .422 .327 .747 44.6 20.9 7.8 6.4 18.3 91.4
1982 San Diego Clippers 17 65 .207 .500 .293 .723 40.6 22.9 7.8 3.6 19.1 108.5
2000 Chicago Bulls 17 65 .207 .415 .330 .709 40.9 20.0 7.9 4.7 19.0 84.8
1988 Los Angeles Clippers 17 65 .207 .443 .249 .713 43.2 23.0 8.8 6.3 18.7 98.8
2003 Denver Nuggets 17 65 .207 .411 .278 .699 42.4 21.2 8.7 5.1 18.5 84.2
1998 Los Angeles Clippers 17 65 .207 .438 .358 .723 40.4 18.7 7.6 5.6 16.1 95.9
1990 New Jersey Nets 17 65 .207 .426 .277 .746 45.0 18.0 9.4 5.9 16.6 100.1
2009 Sacramento Kings 17 65 .207
41 1965 San Francisco Warriors 17 63 .212 .403 .640 71.4 20.7 105.8
42 2005 Charlotte Bobcats 18 64 .220 .432 .363 .709 41.7 21.9 8.5 5.4 14.5 94.3
1990 Orlando Magic 18 64 .220 .459 .295 .756 46.0 24.3 7.5 3.6 17.2 110.9
1996 Philadelphia 76ers 18 64 .220 .436 .342 .734 38.9 19.9 7.8 5.1 17.2 94.5
1990 Miami Heat 18 64 .220 .461 .293 .687 43.4 23.9 9.0 4.7 19.0 100.6
1972 Portland Trail Blazers 18 64 .220 .442 .736 48.7 25.5 106.8
2005 New Orleans Hornets 18 64 .220 .415 .315 .766 40.2 21.0 6.7 3.8 14.8 88.4
48 1954 Baltimore Bullets 16 56 .222 .368 .677 53.0 19.2 78.3
49 1962 Chicago Packers 18 62 .225 .412 .673 69.3 22.5 110.9
50 1953 Baltimore Bullets 16 54 .229 .371 .686 53.2 21.6 84.4
51 1988 New Jersey Nets 19 63 .232 .468 .301 .729 40.7 21.9 8.9 4.7 18.3 100.4
2000 Golden State Warriors 19 63 .232 .420 .323 .697 45.6 22.6 8.9 4.4 15.9 95.5
1998 Golden State Warriors 19 63 .232 .413 .272 .710 45.9 20.8 7.6 5.5 16.7 88.3
1990 Charlotte Hornets 19 63 .232 .455 .336 .756 38.7 25.4 9.5 3.2 15.0 100.4

* BAA[/QUOTE]

Well, take Chamberlain away from that 62-63 team, and I doubt they win 10 games. Wilt had a Win Share on 21 on a team that won 31 games. And, Chamberlain shot .528....while the rest of his team shot a combined .412. The worst team in the league (amazingly Boston) was at .427. And keep in mind that Chamberlain averaged 45 ppg and 25 rpg, as well. He played with FIFTEEN different players, most all either career bench-warmers, or washed up, and with only a couple that were decent. Some will argue that Meschery and Rodgers were all-stars, but Rodgers PER was horrible compared to the guards in the league that year, and Meschery was a ONE-TIME all-star who averaged 16 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and shot .425. That was it.

Still, that 31-49 record was deceptive. They only had a -2.1 ppg differential, and they lost 35 games by single digits.

How bad was that roster? Alex Hannum, their new coach the very next year, ran a scrimmage with those teammates, sans Wilt, against a bunch of scrubs and rookies who would not make an NBA roster, and the scrubs beat them.

Even more remarkable, was that with that same basic horrible roster, and the addition of rookie Nate Thurmond, who only played 26 mpg, and mostly out of position (and who only shot .395), that Chamberlain took them to a 48-32 record in 63-64, and the Finals, where his team, outgunned 7-2 by HOFers (and again, Thurmond was his lone HOF teammate), they lost to Boston, 4-1 (and despite Chamberlain outscoring Russell, per game, 29-11, and outrebounding Russell, per game, 27-25...and probably outshooting Russell by perhaps as much as 200 points.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]I think the main thing you are missing is that Red was that teams leader. Russ was the floor leader but Red was Boston. WIlt had problems with most of his coaches for one reason or the other. THe Celtics were a Unit everyone had a role. Just not sure if such a dominant personality, and style player like Wilt would have fit into that team . Sure he adjusted to a different role almost every team he went to. But all the trades all the rumors about differences with coaches just make you wonder if he could have fell in line under Red for 13 years.[/QUOTE]

Aside from Hannum, and later Sharman (who I think did a remarkable job with the 71-72 Lakers)...Chamberlain played for very poor coaches in his career. And early in his career, he was saddled with pretty poor-to-average rosters, and his coaches just felt that the best chance to win was for Wilt to shoot.

Van Breda Kolf, who had some success with the 67-68 Lakers (a very good team BTW, with West, Baylor, Clark, and Goodrich), had no idea what to do with Chamberlain. He even benched him early in the year (and of course, in the last five minutes of a game seven that his team would lose by two-points.) And talk about incompetent...he made the comment along these lines..."If we pass the ball into Wilt, yes, he will score...but it is an ugly offense to watch." So, instead he asked Wilt to defer to Baylor, who was on the decline, and who was awful in the post-season (15.4 ppg on .385 shooting.) IMHO, Krusty the Clown would have won a title coaching the 68-69 Lakers...but the idiotic Van Breda Kolf actually cost his team a championship.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Aside from Hannum, and later Sharman (who I think did a remarkable job with the 71-72 Lakers)...Chamberlain played for very poor coaches in his career. And early in his career, he was saddled with pretty poor-to-average rosters, and his coaches just felt that the best chance to win was for Wilt to shoot.

Van Breda Kolf, who had some success with the 67-68 Lakers (a very good team BTW, with West, Baylor, Clark, and Goodrich), had no idea what to do with Chamberlain. He even benched him early in the year (and of course, in the last five minutes of a game seven that his team would lose by two-points.) And talk about incompetent...he made the comment along these lines..."If we pass the ball into Wilt, yes, he will score...but it is an ugly offense to watch." So, instead he asked Wilt to defer to Baylor, who was on the decline, and who was awful in the post-season (15.4 ppg on .385 shooting.) IMHO, Krusty the Clown would have won a title coaching the 68-69 Lakers...but the idiotic Van Breda Kolf actually cost his team a championship.[/QUOTE]
imho any coach name Van can make a great coach opps sorry Stan. WHen I look at Wilt I kinda of compare him to Iverson. Just so much talent how do you get the 100% out of him yet still get the other 11 players involved. This is why I think Phil Jackson is such a great coach. He is ableto get the mostof each players skill. How great would Wilt had been if he had a coach like that. IT seems like WIlt was either at odds with the coach or the coach was Wilt carry us on your back we need 100 pts.You may call Van Breda Kolf idiotic but he did play the game and for some reason he felt the team was better without Wilt.RIght ,wrong,taken a stand or idiotic I cant see any coach doing that to Magic,Russ,Bird,MJ,Duncan.I just think Wilt sometimes put himself as being bigger than the team.But wow how great could he had been if he had ever played for a coach for a long period that he respected and had a strong support cast. 11 rings just maybe.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]imho any coach name Van can make a great coach opps sorry Stan. WHen I look at Wilt I kinda of compare him to Iverson. Just so much talent how do you get the 100% out of him yet still get the other 11 players involved. This is why I think Phil Jackson is such a great coach. He is ableto get the mostof each players skill. How great would Wilt had been if he had a coach like that. IT seems like WIlt was either at odds with the coach or the coach was Wilt carry us on your back we need 100 pts.You may call Van Breda Kolf idiotic but he did play the game and for some reason he felt the team was better without Wilt.RIght ,wrong,taken a stand or idiotic I cant see any coach doing that to Magic,Russ,Bird,MJ,Duncan.I just think Wilt sometimes put himself as being bigger than the team.But wow how great could he had been if he had ever played for a coach for a long period that he respected and had a strong support cast. 11 rings just maybe.[/QUOTE]

I forgot to address a previous comment you made...the one about Red Auerbach being his coach.

While I tend to think that Wilt would have adapted to whatever Red would have asked of him, I do believe that the NBA Record Book would look a lot different than it does today. I just don't believe that Chamberlain would have had a 100 point game, or a 50.4 ppg season average, or probably anything close to his scoring records. Wilt may have had a best season of 25-30 ppg, and probably an average around 20 ppg.

So, while most Wilt fans, (of which there are probably not many left) have played the same "what-if" many times..."what if it had been Wilt on the Celtic teams of the 60's?"...there were some personal advantages to Chamberlain's legacy that he was saddled with pathetic rosters and poor coach's.

Ultimately, the Chamberlain fans, (obviously I fall into that category) need to realize that he probably couldn't have it both ways. I just don't see Wilt, under Red, or any quality coach for that matter, winning titles while scoring 50 ppg. Maybe Wilt "the winner" doesn't cast as mythical a career as Wilt "the loser."

[QUOTE=jlauber]I forgot to address a previous comment you made...the one about Red Auerbach being his coach.

While I tend to think that Wilt would have adapted to whatever Red would have asked of him, I do believe that the NBA Record Book would look a lot different than it does today. I just don't believe that Chamberlain would have had a 100 point game, or a 50.4 ppg season average, or probably anything close to his scoring records. Wilt may have had a best season of 25-30 ppg, and probably an average around 20 ppg.

So, while most Wilt fans, (of which there are probably not many left) have played the same "what-if" many times..."what if it had been Wilt on the Celtic teams of the 60's?"...there were some personal advantages to Chamberlain's legacy that he was saddled with pathetic rosters and poor coach's.

Ultimately, the Chamberlain fans, (obviously I fall into that category) need to realize that he probably couldn't have it both ways. I just don't see Wilt, under Red, or any quality coach for that matter, winning titles while scoring 50 ppg. Maybe Wilt "the winner" doesn't cast as mythical a career as Wilt "the loser."[/QUOTE]
I have never thought of Wilt as a loser. IT that was the case and for people that call him that should also call West a loser.I think the best team for Wilt to have had success with long term would have been the Sixers with Chet,Hal Cunningham. This team would have given the Celtics a run for their money. As far as the Roster goes I should you 50 teams with weaker rosters. You will never get people to hear you making that your case. A much better case would be Wilt never had a stable system.The Roster issue just doesnt stand in water.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]I have never thought of Wilt as a loser. IT that was the case and for people that call him that should also call West a loser.I think the best team for Wilt to have had success with long term would have been the Sixers with Chet,Hal Cunningham. This team would have given the Celtics a run for their money. [B]As far as the Roster goes I should you 50 teams with weaker rosters. You will never get people to hear you making that your case. A much better case would be Wilt never had a stable system.The Roster issue just doesnt stand in water[/B].[/QUOTE]

One more time...

Wilt joined a LAST PLACE team in his rookie year. But let's back-track a couple of years. In the 56-57 season, the Warriors went 37-35 WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston (HOFer.) In 57-58, the Warriors again went 37-35, WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston. In 58-59, they were a LAST PLACE team, with Gola, Arizin, and WITHOUT Johnston, who was injured and who RETIRED.
So, they were basically a .500 team WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston...and a LAST PLACE team, with Gola, Arizin, and withOUT Johnston.

The team Wilt joined in 59-60 was coming off of a LAST-PLACE finish. They still had Gola and Arizin, but as we know, those two were good enough for LAST PLACE. But Wilt did NOT have Johnston. So, what kind of a team did Wilt join in his rookie season? A LAST PLACE team. And, once again, even when Gola and Arizin had Johnston, they were a .500 team. However, how did the Warriors perform in his rookie season? They set an all-time team W-L record of 49-26, which shattered their championship team of 55-56, which went 45-27. So Wilt elevated a LAST PLACE team to their best ever record.

His 61-62 team added rookie Meschery, but Gola was on a severe decline (and he was never a superstar to begin with), and Arizin was in his last season. Furthermore, Arizin was awful in the playoffs in his last two years (he played with Wilt for three), and Gola was NEVER any good, at any time, in his post-season career, but he was downright embarrassing when he played alongside Chamberlain in his last three post-seasons with Wilt. In fact, he may have had the worst post-season career of any NBA HOF player in HISTORY.

And yet, Chamberlain, probably swarmed by 3-4 players every time he touched the ball, led that crappy roster to a 49-31 record, and then took them to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their SIX HOFers. And not only did Boston have Wilt's teammates beat, player-for-player, and by a mile...they were considerably deeper. On top of all of that, not ONE of Chamberlain's teammates shot 40% in the playoffs that year, and Gola was at .271. Meanwhile, Russell not only had THREE players shoot over 40%, all three shot over the league average of .426. Now, you tell me just how that Warrior team was able to compete with that Celtic roster?

BUT, it gets even WORSE. In Wilt's 62-63 season, he lost Arizin to retirement, and Gola to a trade for a washed-up Willie Naulls. That roster had 16 different players, and several never amounted to anything. How about this list of names...Howie Montgomery, Hubie White, Fred LaCour, Ted Luckenbill, Dave Fedor, and Dave Gunther. Most of those guys were out of the league in a couple of years.

Yes, Meschery and Rodgers made the All-Star team...but neither of those two would have made Boston's top-seven (the Celtics had EIGHT HOFers that year.) Furthermore, Meschery averaged a career best 16 ppg, with 9.8 rpg, and shot .425. Is that an All-Star? And, don't get me started on Rodgers. All I can tell you is that, if he would never have taken a shot in his entire NBA career, he would have been a better player. I can't think of any other front-line player who so consistently shot between 50-100 points less than the league FG%, than Rodgers. He was just an AWFUL shooter.

The Warriors went 31-49 in that season. But, as bad as that roster was, that poor record was deceptive. They had a -2.1 ppg differential, and lost 35 games by single digits. So, they were nearly in every game, and with a few points, here-or-there, and they might have had a winning record. And virtually all of their success was due to Wilt. He LED the NBA in 15 of the 22 statisticaly categories...including a wide margin in Win Shares, with 21. I won't take the time to look it up, but I seriously doubt any other NBA players has ever been credited with 70% of a team's Win Shares. He scored 44.8 ppg, grabbed 24.6 rpg, and shot a then record .528 from the field. His PER rating of 31.8 is STILL the all-time record.

How bad were his teammates? Chamberlain shot .528 from the field...and his teammates collectively shot .412...which was considerably worse than the WORST team in the league (.427.) They were so bad, that before the start of the next season, coach Hannum scheduled a scrimmage, without Wilt, with the Warriors, against a group of scrubs that had no chance of making NBA rosters. Guess which team won?

Remarkably, Chamberlain then took THAT roster to a 48-32 record, and a Finals appearance, where Russell and his 7-2 edge in HOF teammates, beat Wilt's team, 4-1.

In any case, withOUT Chamberlain, those teams were last-place teams, and in the case of his 62-63 team, hell, they might not have won a game without Wilt.

[QUOTE=jlauber]One more time...

Wilt joined a LAST PLACE team in his rookie year. But let's back-track a couple of years. In the 56-57 season, the Warriors went 37-35 WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston (HOFer.) In 57-58, the Warriors again went 37-35, WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston. In 58-59, they were a LAST PLACE team, with Gola, Arizin, and WITHOUT Johnston, who was injured and who RETIRED.
So, they were basically a .500 team WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston...and a LAST PLACE team, with Gola, Arizin, and withOUT Johnston.

The team Wilt joined in 59-60 was coming off of a LAST-PLACE finish. They still had Gola and Arizin, but as we know, those two were good enough for LAST PLACE. But Wilt did NOT have Johnston. So, what kind of a team did Wilt join in his rookie season? A LAST PLACE team. And, once again, even when Gola and Arizin had Johnston, they were a .500 team. However, how did the Warriors perform in his rookie season? They set an all-time team W-L record of 49-26, which shattered their championship team of 55-56, which went 45-27. So Wilt elevated a LAST PLACE team to their best ever record.

His 61-62 team added rookie Meschery, but Gola was on a severe decline (and he was never a superstar to begin with), and Arizin was in his last season. Furthermore, Arizin was awful in the playoffs in his last two years (he played with Wilt for three), and Gola was NEVER any good, at any time, in his post-season career, but he was downright embarrassing when he played alongside Chamberlain in his last three post-seasons with Wilt. In fact, he may have had the worst post-season career of any NBA HOF player in HISTORY.

And yet, Chamberlain, probably swarmed by 3-4 players every time he touched the ball, led that crappy roster to a 49-31 record, and then took them to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their SIX HOFers. And not only did Boston have Wilt's teammates beat, player-for-player, and by a mile...they were considerably deeper. On top of all of that, not ONE of Chamberlain's teammates shot 40% in the playoffs that year, and Gola was at .271. Meanwhile, Russell not only had THREE players shoot over 40%, all three shot over the league average of .426. Now, you tell me just how that Warrior team was able to compete with that Celtic roster?

BUT, it gets even WORSE. In Wilt's 62-63 season, he lost Arizin to retirement, and Gola to a trade for a washed-up Willie Naulls. That roster had 16 different players, and several never amounted to anything. How about this list of names...Howie Montgomery, Hubie White, Fred LaCour, Ted Luckenbill, Dave Fedor, and Dave Gunther. Most of those guys were out of the league in a couple of years.

Yes, Meschery and Rodgers made the All-Star team...but neither of those two would have made Boston's top-seven (the Celtics had EIGHT HOFers that year.) Furthermore, Meschery averaged a career best 16 ppg, with 9.8 rpg, and shot .425. Is that an All-Star? And, don't get me started on Rodgers. All I can tell you is that, if he would never have taken a shot in his entire NBA career, he would have been a better player. I can't think of any other front-line player who so consistently shot between 50-100 points less than the league FG%, than Rodgers. He was just an AWFUL shooter.

The Warriors went 31-49 in that season. But, as bad as that roster was, that poor record was deceptive. They had a -2.1 ppg differential, and lost 35 games by single digits. So, they were nearly in every game, and with a few points, here-or-there, and they might have had a winning record. And virtually all of their success was due to Wilt. He LED the NBA in 15 of the 22 statisticaly categories...including a wide margin in Win Shares, with 21. I won't take the time to look it up, but I seriously doubt any other NBA players has ever been credited with 70% of a team's Win Shares. He scored 44.8 ppg, grabbed 24.6 rpg, and shot a then record .528 from the field. His PER rating of 31.8 is STILL the all-time record.

How bad were his teammates? Chamberlain shot .528 from the field...and his teammates collectively shot .412...which was considerably worse than the WORST team in the league (.427.) They were so bad, that before the start of the next season, coach Hannum scheduled a scrimmage, without Wilt, with the Warriors, against a group of scrubs that had no chance of making NBA rosters. Guess which team won?

Remarkably, Chamberlain then took THAT roster to a 48-32 record, and a Finals appearance, where Russell and his 7-2 edge in HOF teammates, beat Wilt's team, 4-1.

In any case, withOUT Chamberlain, those teams were last-place teams, and in the case of his 62-63 team, hell, they might not have won a game without Wilt.[/QUOTE]


What place were the Celtics in before Bird and within a year they win a title. How about Duncan.You throw names out and call them scrubs. It doesnt work you can post 3 page post all you try but it doesn't work.Was Wilt's support really worst than say the Zephyrs or the Knicks in 63? Ok Wilt lead a weak team to a winning record isn't that what a super star is supposed to do?You would have a point if you said Wilt lead a weak support team and they won.

How would it sould if Wilt had 50 ppg 25 rpg yet his team only won 30 gm.How good was iverson's team that lost to Shaq and the lakers 4-1 ? Rick Barry lead a team with no HOF'ers and beat a Bullets team with 2 HOFers 4-0.How about Ben Wallace and the Pistons how many HOfer s did he have with him ? Didnt pat Ewing lead of team with 2 former "CBA" players to a finals ?Wasn't DRob way past his prime when Duncan lead the Spurs to a title ? IF you don't put things in perspective sure it sounds good but for the people that have as much knowledge as you or maybe more it doesn't work. Saying the reason Wilt didn't win was because Guy Rodgers was a bun doesn't work. Guy was a fine PG in his day was Gola.

[QUOTE=jlauber]One more time...

Wilt joined a LAST PLACE team in his rookie year. But let's back-track a couple of years. In the 56-57 season, the Warriors went 37-35 WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston (HOFer.) In 57-58, the Warriors again went 37-35, WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston. In 58-59, they were a LAST PLACE team, with Gola, Arizin, and WITHOUT Johnston, who was injured and who RETIRED.
So, they were basically a .500 team WITH Gola, Arizin, AND Johnston...and a LAST PLACE team, with Gola, Arizin, and withOUT Johnston.

The team Wilt joined in 59-60 was coming off of a LAST-PLACE finish. They still had Gola and Arizin, but as we know, those two were good enough for LAST PLACE. But Wilt did NOT have Johnston. So, what kind of a team did Wilt join in his rookie season? A LAST PLACE team. And, once again, even when Gola and Arizin had Johnston, they were a .500 team. However, how did the Warriors perform in his rookie season? They set an all-time team W-L record of 49-26, which shattered their championship team of 55-56, which went 45-27. So Wilt elevated a LAST PLACE team to their best ever record.

His 61-62 team added rookie Meschery, but Gola was on a severe decline (and he was never a superstar to begin with), and Arizin was in his last season. Furthermore, Arizin was awful in the playoffs in his last two years (he played with Wilt for three), and Gola was NEVER any good, at any time, in his post-season career, but he was downright embarrassing when he played alongside Chamberlain in his last three post-seasons with Wilt. In fact, he may have had the worst post-season career of any NBA HOF player in HISTORY.

And yet, Chamberlain, probably swarmed by 3-4 players every time he touched the ball, led that crappy roster to a 49-31 record, and then took them to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their SIX HOFers. And not only did Boston have Wilt's teammates beat, player-for-player, and by a mile...they were considerably deeper. On top of all of that, not ONE of Chamberlain's teammates shot 40% in the playoffs that year, and Gola was at .271. Meanwhile, Russell not only had THREE players shoot over 40%, all three shot over the league average of .426. Now, you tell me just how that Warrior team was able to compete with that Celtic roster?

BUT, it gets even WORSE. In Wilt's 62-63 season, he lost Arizin to retirement, and Gola to a trade for a washed-up Willie Naulls. That roster had 16 different players, and several never amounted to anything. How about this list of names...Howie Montgomery, Hubie White, Fred LaCour, Ted Luckenbill, Dave Fedor, and Dave Gunther. Most of those guys were out of the league in a couple of years.

Yes, Meschery and Rodgers made the All-Star team...but neither of those two would have made Boston's top-seven (the Celtics had EIGHT HOFers that year.) Furthermore, Meschery averaged a career best 16 ppg, with 9.8 rpg, and shot .425. Is that an All-Star? And, don't get me started on Rodgers. All I can tell you is that, if he would never have taken a shot in his entire NBA career, he would have been a better player. I can't think of any other front-line player who so consistently shot between 50-100 points less than the league FG%, than Rodgers. He was just an AWFUL shooter.

The Warriors went 31-49 in that season. But, as bad as that roster was, that poor record was deceptive. They had a -2.1 ppg differential, and lost 35 games by single digits. So, they were nearly in every game, and with a few points, here-or-there, and they might have had a winning record. And virtually all of their success was due to Wilt. He LED the NBA in 15 of the 22 statisticaly categories...including a wide margin in Win Shares, with 21. I won't take the time to look it up, but I seriously doubt any other NBA players has ever been credited with 70% of a team's Win Shares. He scored 44.8 ppg, grabbed 24.6 rpg, and shot a then record .528 from the field. His PER rating of 31.8 is STILL the all-time record.

How bad were his teammates? Chamberlain shot .528 from the field...and his teammates collectively shot .412...which was considerably worse than the WORST team in the league (.427.) They were so bad, that before the start of the next season, coach Hannum scheduled a scrimmage, without Wilt, with the Warriors, against a group of scrubs that had no chance of making NBA rosters. Guess which team won?

Remarkably, Chamberlain then took THAT roster to a 48-32 record, and a Finals appearance, where Russell and his 7-2 edge in HOF teammates, beat Wilt's team, 4-1.

In any case, withOUT Chamberlain, those teams were last-place teams, and in the case of his 62-63 team, hell, they might not have won a game without Wilt.[/QUOTE]
Bad support cast for Wilt how about in 75 Barry had players like Bill Bridges Steve Bracey,Frank Kendrick,Derrek Dickey,his Center was the great Cliff Ray and his Robin was a rookie Jammal Wilkes. Yet they beat a team with 2 TOp 50 players a top level PG in Kevin Porter and a All Star SG in Phil Chenier. Barry lead that weak roster to a sweep.His team WON!

Bottom line is MJ was the best of both Wilt and Russell wrapped in a single package. He had the offensive approach of Wilt, with the defensive approach of Russell. He did what he had to do when it counted the most, period. Wilt had the same opportunities to get it done just like Jordan's contemporaries did. They couldn't get it done.

It's funny that I've yet to see the level of excuse making for Barkley, K. Malone and Ewing that I've seen for Wilt. Thread after thread of "yeah but see....... yeah but don't forget about.......". Bottom line is Wilt was a great player who racked up stats but still fell short of GOAT status. History can't change that.

Nique, here are some basic concepts for you to work with.

1)Basketball was still new when Chamberlain dominates. Coaching great talents is usually problematic in the beginning because 4 other players have to be in support formation.

2)Coaches are most important in this situation: They had to caoch to the spectacular talent in Chamberlain. They had to coach to the franchise surviving - or drawing up fan support (Warriors). They had to coach to keepin the other guys in the game. Then he had to coach to the differences in the playoffs. Coach to them steping their game up and becoming more forefront in playoffs.

3)Even to this day 34ppg and above seems problematic in wining it all

4)Chamberlain seems to be the most coachable great talent in the sport. Played dramatically in different functions according to coaches - 50ppg to 8assist and taking less a lot of single digits attempts.

Some Basic Championship Formula's or Laws
5)Championship formula mandates a reliable second option.
6)Superior coaching
7)PLayers that can rise to the occassion
8)Role Players
9)Chemistry

There are more but I will leave it as such.

You need to stop acting like you don't know.