Felton vs. Norman (The Chamberlain\Russell Thread)

[QUOTE=julizaver]No,depending on what you mean as "better team" - better coach, better team spirit, deeper bench, more individuals or greater tallent.
1. Red is maybe the greatest coach in pro-basketball history
2. In 1968 ECF Sixers lost key players prior to leading 3 to 1 Celtics.
3. The team spirit of 1966 Sixers and 1969 lakers was not good if you try searching through the net for some info.
[/QUOTE]

1. Red never won a title without Russell; Russell won titles without Red
2. Injuries are a part of the game, they lost Cunningham and that was it. They built that 3-1 lead without him.
3. That is Wilt's fault not an excuse. The team Spirirt on Russell's Celtics never changed and Russell is 100% the reason why.

[QUOTE=julizaver]No,depending on what you mean as "better team" - better coach, better team spirit, deeper bench, more individuals or greater tallent.
1. Red is maybe the greatest coach in pro-basketball history
2. In 1968 ECF Sixers lost key players prior to leading 3 to 1 Celtics.
3. The team spirit of 1966 Sixers and 1969 lakers was not good if you try searching through the net for some info.

I agree that 1967 and 1968 teams of Sixers bested slightly those of Celtics - due to aged Celtics roster.[/QUOTE]

I have always maintained that the 65-66 76ers were not truly better than the 65-66 Celtics. True, they edged them by ONE game during the regular season. But Boston had won seven straight Eastern titles and world championships prior to that season, while Philly was a losing team prior to that year. The Sixers had gone 40-40 in 64-65 to Boston's 62-18 (although they mearly beat Boston in the playoffs that year.) Boston was much deeper in 65-66. On top of that, Wilt played brilliantly in the 65-66 playoffs against Russell, averaging 28 points and 30 rebounds per game, while shooting .509 from the field. In the clinching game five loss, Wilt outscored Russell 46-18, and outrebounded him 34-31.

As for the 68-69 season, West was in his prime, but Baylor was just a shell. Elgin had a decent regular season, probably due more to Wilt just being on the floor with him...but he was AWFUL in the post-season, only mscoring 15.4 ppg on .385 shooting. That Laker team had virtually no depth, either. On top of that, they lost TWO games to Boston on miracle shots in that series. BUT, the biggest reason that the Lakers lost that series, was that they had a complete idiot for a coach. He had no idea how to use Wilt (the fact that Chamberlain only averaged 13.9 ppg...on .545 shooting...in the playoffs, is all you need to know), and of course, he left him on the bench in that game seven, while Mel Counts went 4-13 from the field (Wilt had scored 18 points on 7-8 shooting prior to pulling himself out of the game.)

IMHO, the only team in which Wilt enjoyed an edge over Russell's, were the 66-67 and 67-68 76ers. His 66-67 team anninhilated Boston in five games (only a close 121-117 loss in game four prevented a sweep.) His 67-68 team held a 3-1 series lead, WITHOUT Cunningham. Then Luke Jackson went down with an injury, and was useless the rest of the series. On top of all of that, Wilt's teammates fired blanks all game long in that game seven (they collectively shot 33%), and with all of that, Boston eked out a four point win. Had Philly been healthy, I have no doubt that they would have easily dispatched the Celtics that season.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]1. Red never won a title without Russell; Russell won titles without Red
2. Injuries are a part of the game, they lost Cunningham and that was it. They built that 3-1 lead without him.
3. That is Wilt's fault not an excuse. The team Spirirt on Russell's Celtics never changed and Russell is 100% the reason why.[/QUOTE]

1. Russell won all his titles with Celtics and Red as GM behind him. Russell quit Celtics and go coaching Seatle and Sacramento and winning nothing.
2. Look at Jlauber post, and furthermore Wilt played injured in that series.
3. The team spirit is something which begin with the coach - if the coach can not gone alone with the players - no way to have good spirit. When Alex Hannum replaced the friendly but unassertive Dolph Schayes in 1966 it was the first thing to do and the result is obvious. And in 1968-69 Wilt went to LA Lakers, and also have problems with his coach, which limited Wilt offensive game in favor of Baylor (the later just a shadow of himself).

[QUOTE=jlauber]I have always maintained that the 65-66 76ers were not truly better than the 65-66 Celtics. True, they edged them by ONE game during the regular season. But Boston had won seven straight Eastern titles and world championships prior to that season, while Philly was a losing team prior to that year. The Sixers had gone 40-40 in 64-65 to Boston's 62-18 (although they mearly beat Boston in the playoffs that year.) Boston was much deeper in 65-66. On top of that, Wilt played brilliantly in the 65-66 playoffs against Russell, averaging 28 points and 30 rebounds per game, while shooting .509 from the field. In the clinching game five loss, Wilt outscored Russell 46-18, and outrebounded him 34-31.

As for the 68-69 season, West was in his prime, but Baylor was just a shell. Elgin had a decent regular season, probably due more to Wilt just being on the floor with him...but he was AWFUL in the post-season, only mscoring 15.4 ppg on .385 shooting. That Laker team had virtually no depth, either. On top of that, they lost TWO games to Boston on miracle shots in that series. BUT, the biggest reason that the Lakers lost that series, was that they had a complete idiot for a coach. He had no idea how to use Wilt (the fact that Chamberlain only averaged 13.9 ppg...on .545 shooting...in the playoffs, is all you need to know), and of course, he left him on the bench in that game seven, while Mel Counts went 4-13 from the field (Wilt had scored 18 points on 7-8 shooting prior to pulling himself out of the game.)

IMHO, the only team in which Wilt enjoyed an edge over Russell's, were the 66-67 and 67-68 76ers. His 66-67 team anninhilated Boston in five games (only a close 121-117 loss in game four prevented a sweep.) His 67-68 team held a 3-1 series lead, WITHOUT Cunningham. Then Luke Jackson went down with an injury, and was useless the rest of the series. On top of all of that, Wilt's teammates fired blanks all game long in that game seven (they collectively shot 33%), and with all of that, Boston eked out a four point win. Had Philly been healthy, I have no doubt that they would have easily dispatched the Celtics that season.[/QUOTE]

And in my opinion had Hannum and Wilt stayed in Philadelfia they would have won 2-3 more tittles. And recently I watched Bill Russell on youtube explayning that in that final game of ECF he did not guarded Chamberlain in the second half (the game in which Wilt attempted only 2 FG after the break), instead he guarded Chet Walker, who according to Russell "was killing us" in the first half. So Russell overpowered Walker, and Wilt was guarded closely by Russell back-up Wayne Embry (who was able to comit more fouls). And yes Wilt do what he does all season - fed his teamates, rebounding and shotblocking. Wilt was anything, but not shut down by Russell, for god sake he even not guarded him in the second half, according to his own testimony.

I think Wilt got a bad rap for some many of those "failures." If anything, he played brilliantly, with mediocre personnel, for the first half of his career. It was testament to his greatness that he could CARRY what was basically a last-place roster to a game seven, two-point, defeat to the 60-20 Celtics in 61-62. Not only that, but he CARRIED a 40-40 76er team past Oscar's best team of the 60's, (48-32) in the 64-65 playoffs, 3-1, before then taking that team to a ONE-POINT, game seven loss to the 62-18 Celtics. And in that game, he dominated down the stretch.

IMHO, you can find fault with some of Wilt performances in the post-season, from 66-on. Unfortunately, a relatively poor game (poor being along the lines of a 15-20 game) in the middle of a crucial playoff series would ultimately lead to a game seven defeat in which he usually played well, at the very least.

Robert Cherry does not blame Wilt for that game seven defeat in 1969. However, as he stated, had Wilt played a normal game in game six of that series, that series would never have gone to a game seven.

On the other hand...Russell deserves his place in history. He never had to have any excuses for his, or his team's, play in the post-season (unlike Wilt, Kareem, and MJ.) He simply led his teams to titles.

To me, it's not a case of Wilt being a "failure", nothing could be further from the truth, but that Russell, and his teams, just played better, when it mattered most. And you can't diminish the fact that Russell's teammates outplayed Wilt's. Russell deserves the credit for much of that. He made his teammates better, while, for whatever reasons, Chamberlain's generally always under-performed.

As G.O.A.T. stated in another thread...if Russell had not played in the Wilt era...there would be NO discussion as to the greatest player was. Wilt would have won a plethora of rings, and owned the record book, as well. You just can't discount what Russell did, however. He did it not only to Wilt...but to the rest of the NBA, as well.

jlauber,

A few things regarding 1966 and 1969.

First 1969. There is no way the Lakers weren't a more talented team. A couple reasons why I've drawn this conclusion.

The Celtics went from 48 wins and a World title in '69 to 34 wins and out of the playoffs ijn '70. The difference Bill Russell retired.

The Lakers went from 55 wins and the top seed in the West to 46 wins in a two seed. Their difference they lost Wilt for nearly the whole season.

There is no doubt Wilt has a more talented and superior individual player in 1969. So why did Russell's team fall off more when he left then Wilt's if they had the better all around cast?

Without Wilt the Lakers will still a playoff team, without Russell the Celtics were one of the worst teams in an NBA with multiple expansion frnachies.

As for Baylor; First team All-NBA is not an okay season, it's an elite season. 25-11-6 and he only missed six games due to injuries or fatigue.

He played poorly in the playoffs but I don't see that as an excuse at all. Maybe Havlicek's defense with Russell's help is why he struggled in the Finals so much. Wilt should have been able to carry them anyway especially with West playing out of his mind. Meanwhile Russell has Don Nelson (Cut by the Lakers) and Em Bryant (aquired in a trade for a 2nd round pick) playing major roles along with a brokedown Sam Jones who lost his starting spot.

Heck Boston's third best player on that team was a 32 year old Bailey Howell. Elgin on crutches is better than that. And you can't tell that West isn't more talented than Hondo and Wilt more so than Russ at that point either.

As for 66, the Celtics may have been a better team, but the Sixers were way more talented. Young but the same core from '67 and '68 was in place. A prime Hal Greer and Chet Walker with Cunningham, Wali Jones and Luke Jackson all in their early twenties and phenomanal athletic shape. Throw in veteran Al Bianchi and Dave Gambee who had been with the team since the 50's mostly as starter and you got a team as good as any the Celtics ever won with on paper.

Now consider this. The cast and crew for Chamberlian were young and green, however in the postseason Wilt's points, assists, field goal and free throw percentage all dropped noticably. Despite having homecourt advantage the Celtics steamrolled them.

A quick note on 1965, the Sixers record is not a reflection of their talent that season because they acquired Wilt midway through the year.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]jlauber,

A few things regarding 1966 and 1969.

First 1969. There is no way the Lakers weren't a more talented team. A couple reasons why I've drawn this conclusion.

The Celtics went from 48 wins and a World title in '69 to 34 wins and out of the playoffs ijn '70. The difference Bill Russell retired.

The Lakers went from 55 wins and the top seed in the West to 46 wins in a two seed. Their difference they lost Wilt for nearly the whole season.

There is no doubt Wilt has a more talented and superior individual player in 1969. So why did Russell's team fall off more when he left then Wilt's if they had the better all around cast?

Without Wilt the Lakers will still a playoff team, without Russell the Celtics were one of the worst teams in an NBA with multiple expansion frnachies.

As for Baylor; First team All-NBA is not an okay season, it's an elite season. 25-11-6 and he only missed six games due to injuries or fatigue.

He played poorly in the playoffs but I don't see that as an excuse at all. Maybe Havlicek's defense with Russell's help is why he struggled in the Finals so much. Wilt should have been able to carry them anyway especially with West playing out of his mind. Meanwhile Russell has Don Nelson (Cut by the Lakers) and Em Bryant (aquired in a trade for a 2nd round pick) playing major roles along with a brokedown Sam Jones who lost his starting spot.

Heck Boston's third best player on that team was a 32 year old Bailey Howell. Elgin on crutches is better than that. And you can't tell that West isn't more talented than Hondo and Wilt more so than Russ at that point either.

As for 66, the Celtics may have been a better team, but the Sixers were way more talented. Young but the same core from '67 and '68 was in place. A prime Hal Greer and Chet Walker with Cunningham, Wali Jones and Luke Jackson all in their early twenties and phenomanal athletic shape. Throw in veteran Al Bianchi and Dave Gambee who had been with the team since the 50's mostly as starter and you got a team as good as any the Celtics ever won with on paper.

Now consider this. The cast and crew for Chamberlian were young and green, however in the postseason Wilt's points, assists, field goal and free throw percentage all dropped noticably. Despite having homecourt advantage the Celtics steamrolled them.

A quick note on 1965, the Sixers record is not a reflection of their talent that season because they acquired Wilt midway through the year.[/QUOTE]

Not agree - Wilt regular season numbers for 1967/68 were: 24.3 ppg , 23.8 rpg, 8,6 apg shooting 59.5 % FG
- in playoffs against NY Knicks in 6 games his numbers were 25.5 ppg 24.2 rpg 6.3 apg (the opponent center was Walt Bellamy 20 ppg 16 rpg 3.5 apg 42,1 FG % (54,1 FG% in reg.season))

- in playoffs against Celtics in 7 games his numbers were 22.1 ppg 25.1 rpg 6.7 apg (the opponent Russell has 13.7 ppg 23.85 rpg)

Not so different from the regular season.

[QUOTE=julizaver]Not agree - Wilt regular season numbers for 1967/68 were: 24.3 ppg , 23.8 rpg, 8,6 apg shooting 59.5 % FG
- in playoffs against NY Knicks in 6 games his numbers were 25.5 ppg 24.2 rpg 6.3 apg (the opponent center was Walt Bellamy 20 ppg 16 rpg 3.5 apg 42,1 FG % (54,1 FG% in reg.season))

- in playoffs against Celtics in 7 games his numbers were 22.1 ppg 25.1 rpg 6.7 apg (the opponent Russell has 13.7 ppg 23.85 rpg)

Not so different from the regular season.[/QUOTE]

I never mentioned 1968. Basically it looks like his numbers were the same (scoring and assists slightly down) from the regular season.

Great Players bring their play up in the regular season.

I want to be clear about something too, I don't dislike Wilt, I don't think he was a loser, a choker or that he's overrated (unless he's rated over Russell). I just have a hard time hearing arguments that are invalid or uninformed used over and over again to support a faulty premise.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I never mentioned 1968. Basically it looks like his numbers were the same (scoring and assists slightly down) from the regular season.

Great Players bring their play up in the regular season.

I want to be clear about something too, I don't dislike Wilt, I don't think he was a loser, a choker or that he's overrated (unless he's rated over Russell). I just have a hard time hearing arguments that are invalid or uninformed used over and over again to support a faulty premise.[/QUOTE]

OK, I have no problems with your opinion that you rated Russell over Wilt. It's up to you of course. I just think that Wilt was a better player and can argue that with people. And I also like watching Bill's interviews. So if i thing that Wilt is better player than Russell it doesn't mean that I am going to slate or hate him :).

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I never mentioned 1968. Basically it looks like his numbers were the same (scoring and assists slightly down) from the regular season.

Great Players bring their play up in the regular season.

I want to be clear about something too, I don't dislike Wilt, I don't think he was a loser, a choker or that he's overrated (unless he's rated over Russell). I just have a hard time hearing arguments that are invalid or uninformed used over and over again to support a faulty premise.[/QUOTE]


In reading this thread I was waiting to see someone point one thing out . Games arent won by what shows up in the box scores.In comparing Wilt and Russ I find the same problems wgen people compare Magic and Bird. ITs not what shows up in the box scores that wiins games. ITs the way a palyer carries himself. His pride and determination to win carries over to the team. There is a reason Russell never had a down year. Wilt did, Jabbar did, Hakeem did Shaq did moses did Russ never did. Most of the other top 6 C went into games with the m ind set that they would dominate so much their team would win. IT worked sometime often not. Russ went into the game with the mind set what do I have to do for US to win. Score 25pt,get 30 rebounds,block 15 shots,get 8 asasist, feed Sam the ball, feed Hondo the ball, Help KC out on D. He never went into a game think he had to carry the team . He always just felt he had to lead the team. This is why he is the Goat and the 11 rings dont hurt.

^eloquently and accurately stated.

[INDENT][LEFT]Close the books on these players who played in a non-pro league. Might as well eat a jelly donut before a game when everybody else is 2 feet tall and can jump about a centimeter off the ground.[/LEFT][/INDENT]

Russell on Wilt and their rivalry; From his biography "Second Wind"

[I]"He was by far the toughest center I ever played against. He was awesome, and no matter what anyone says about his lack of team play, his teams alwaysended up in the playoffs staring at us. He always outscored me by huge margins- 20 or 30 points a game- so I could never hope to compete with him in scoring duels any more than I could make twenty footers from outside. I couldn't allow myself to get suckered into a game within the game; I had to do whatever it took to help us win. One season (1962) Wilt was averaging over 50 points per game, while I was averaging sixteen or seventeen. In that same year his team averaged 112 points per game and the Celtics 110. So I figured if I knocked a few points off his average we'd win most of those games. So that's what I did and that's what happened. "[/I]

[I]"Off-hand, I can't think of any two players in a team sport who were cast as antagonists and personifcations of various theoris more than Wilt and I were. Almost any argument anyone wanted to have could be carried out in the Russell\Chamberlain debate, and lamost any virtue or sin was imagined to be at stake. If we weren't a metaphor for something we were at least a symbol of it."[/I]

[I]"In 1967 Wilt and the 76ers beat us because they were better. They almost ran us off the court and I got an instant taste of the "loser" syndrome. Though the Celtics had run off an unprecedented string of eight consecutive championships before 1967, the Boston fans hooted me that summer in the streets. "What happened to you guys last year?", "All washed up, eh?", "I knew it wouldn't last, you guys don't have it no more" I had to blink my eyes. Never had a felt happier that long ago I'd trained myself to discount the cheers and the boos. During the winning streak I could easily gotten an appetite for the cheers. At last I understood why Wilt had begun hinting that the loser label had started to bother him. To be bombarded with such abuse for years is enough to nettle anybody. To Wilt's credit, it never seriously damaged our respect for eachother while we were playing."[/I]

[I]"With five minutes left in the game, we were ahead by thirteen, Wilt banged his shin and took himself out of the game. A few minutes later when the Lakers had whittiled out lead down to nothing he tried to put himself back in. But his coach left him on the bench, the two of them finished the game arguing and we won.
For my own selfish reasons, I was offended the instant Wilt left the game. I didn't think he'd been hurt badly and even if he was, I wanted him in there. We were close, oh so close to finishing with a great game. I was almost moaning; "oh my don't do that, don't leave." I said to myself. This is my last game, make me earn it. Wilt's leaving was like finding a misspelled word at then end of a cherished book. My anger with him that night cuased great friction between us later. I could not control it, even though Wilt had no way of knowing how special that game was to me, and that in any case, he had no obligation to care"[/I]

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Russell on Wilt and their rivalry; From his biography "Second Wind"

[I]"He was by far the toughest center I ever played against. He was awesome, and no matter what anyone says about his lack of team play, his teams alwaysended up in the playoffs staring at us. He always outscored me by huge margins- 20 or 30 points a game- so I could never hope to compete with him in scoring duels any more than I could make twenty footers from outside. I couldn't allow myself to get suckered into a game within the game; I had to do whatever it took to help us win. One season (1962) Wilt was averaging over 50 points per game, while I was averaging sixteen or seventeen. In that same year his team averaged 112 points per game and the Celtics 110. So I figured if I knocked a few points off his average we'd win most of those games. So that's what I did and that's what happened. "[/I]

[I]"Off-hand, I can't think of any two players in a team sport who were cast as antagonists and personifcations of various theoris more than Wilt and I were. Almost any argument anyone wanted to have could be carried out in the Russell\Chamberlain debate, and lamost any virtue or sin was imagined to be at stake. If we weren't a metaphor for something we were at least a symbol of it."[/I]

[I]"In 1967 Wilt and the 76ers beat us because they were better. They almost ran us off the court and I got an instant taste of the "loser" syndrome. Though the Celtics had run off an unprecedented string of eight consecutive championships before 1967, the Boston fans hooted me that summer in the streets. "What happened to you guys last year?", "All washed up, eh?", "I knew it wouldn't last, you guys don't have it no more" I had to blink my eyes. Never had a felt happier that long ago I'd trained myself to discount the cheers and the boos. During the winning streak I could easily gotten an appetite for the cheers. At last I understood why Wilt had begun hinting that the loser label had started to bother him. To be bombarded with such abuse for years is enough to nettle anybody. To Wilt's credit, it never seriously damaged our respect for eachother while we were playing."[/I]

[B][I]"With five minutes left in the game, we were [B]ahead by thirteen[/B], Wilt [B]banged his shin [/B]and took himself out of the game. A few minutes later when the Lakers had whittiled out lead down to nothing he tried to put himself back in. But his coach left him on the bench, the two of them finished the game arguing and we won.
For my own selfish reasons, I was offended the instant Wilt left the game. I didn't think he'd been hurt badly and even if he was, I wanted him in there. We were close, oh so close to finishing with a great game. I was almost moaning; "oh my don't do that, don't leave." I said to myself. This is my last game, make me earn it. Wilt's leaving was like finding a misspelled word at then end of a cherished book. My anger with him that night cuased great friction between us later. I could not control it, even though Wilt had no way of knowing how special that game was to me, and that in any case, he had no obligation to care[/B]"[/I][/QUOTE]

Russell, like so many other's that I have read, was way off in his take...which is amazing considering that he played in that game.

First of all, when Wilt finally left the game, LA had cut an early 4th quarter 17 point lead down to seven. Secondly, Wilt injured his KNEE, the same knee that he would reinjure at the beginning of the next season...and that would require major knee surgery.

And, why would Wilt pull himself out of the game at that point? Why didn't he pack it in after picking up his 5th foul late in the 3rd period, and his team down by 15?

As for Russell saying that the Laker's whittled the lead down to nothing...almost true, but with Wilt in the game, they had knocked ten points off that deficit. AND, Wilt's replacement, Mel Counts missed a couple of key shots down the stretch, and finished with a 4-13 game, while Wilt had gone 7-8 (incidently, Russell was only 2-7 in that game.)

And finally, where was RUSSELL in that 4th quarter? Take a look at the video footage that is out there. Russell, while playing, was nowhere to be found. And while Wilt was wrongly criticized for his play after he picked up his 5th foul, very few mention that Russell did not do ANYTHING after he picked up HIS 5th foul a couple of minutes later. Wilt grabbed as many rebounds, on two consecutive possessions, and with an injured knee, as Russell did in the entire period.

Final stat line...Russell with six points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds in 48 minutes. Meanwhile, the "quitter" had 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds, in 43 minutes.

Incidently, even Wilt's incompetent coach defended Wilt on his injury.

Russell was WAY out of line for his comments after that game.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Russell, like so many other's that I have read, was way off in his take...which is amazing considering that he played in that game.

First of all, when Wilt finally left the game, LA had cut an early 4th quarter 17 point lead down to seven. Secondly, Wilt injured his KNEE, the same knee that he would reinjure at the beginning of the next season...and that would require major knee surgery. [/QUOTE]

The lead was 11 when the injury occured on a defensive rebound, 9 when Wilt left the game, you're both wrong.


[QUOTE=jlauber]And, why would Wilt pull himself out of the game at that point? Why didn't he pack it in after picking up his 5th foul late in the 3rd period, and his team down by 15? [/QUOTE]

As Russell explains in the chapter, it's not as though he thought Wilt quit, just that he was upset he didn't get to finish the game with the best players on the floor.

[QUOTE=jlauber]As for Russell saying that the Laker's whittled the lead down to nothing...almost true, but with Wilt in the game, they had knocked ten points off that deficit. [/QUOTE]

Six really, he didn't even make it up the court on their last two offensive possesions before a dead ball allowed him to check out.

[QUOTE=jlauber]And finally, where was RUSSELL in that 4th quarter? Take a look at the video footage that is out there. Russell, while playing, was nowhere to be found. And while Wilt was wrongly criticized for his play after he picked up his 5th foul, very few mention that Russell did not do ANYTHING after he picked up HIS 5th foul a couple of minutes later. Wilt grabbed as many rebounds, on two consecutive possessions, and with an injured knee, as Russell did in the entire period. [/QUOTE]

Russell had a few blocks and offensive rebounds in the quarter, he was primarily setting screens on offense. He did try to post Counts and forced double teams when Wilt went out. As usual Russell was letting the game flow and doing just enough to win.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Incidently, even Wilt's incompetent coach defended Wilt on his injury.
Russell was WAY out of line for his comments after that game. [/QUOTE]

Van Breda Kolff said he didn't put Wilt back in because the team was playing better without him in that game. I think that's absurd and why he quit/was fired after the season, but that is what he said.

I don't think Russell was out of line, he was acting out of emotion and he was offended by Wilt not being in there. As he said it was for "selfish" reasons and Wilt had "no obligation" to him.

As Russell acknowledges, that was the main cause of the friction between the two post-career.