Bob Cousy quote on Wilt Chamberlain

A quote from the "great" Bob Cousy regarding the first few years of Wilt's career. I thought it deserved it's own thread:

[I]"Basketball is a team game. When it becomes a one-man operation, as it did after Chamberlain came to Philadelphia, it just doesn't work. You cannot expect nine other guys to submerge themselves and their abilities to one man. It particuarly doesn't work when the man everybody else is feeding isn't helping the others whenever and wherever he can....the argument can be made that Chamberlain only suffers from a poor supporting cast. If you have a man who makes better than 50 percent of his shots, the argument goes, why shouldn't you concentrate on getting the ball to him whenever possible? Carrying it to it's logical conclusion, I would have to ask why should you ever let any other player on the team shoot at all. No, statistics mean nothing in basketball."[/I]


[IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ExbAtZnvrGI/TdM6sS3z3DI/AAAAAAAAAB0/sT6gbqFu0-M/s1600/COUS.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/2011/history/features/12/26/giants-wilt/1226-wilt-chamberlain-300.jpg[/IMG]


Agree? Disagree? Should Wilt have taken less shots, or shot the ball even more? Discuss....

[I]"OP is definitely a pha.ggot"[/I]

Lets all discuss this quote...

[QUOTE=oolalaa]A quote from the "great" Bob Cousy regarding the first few years of Wilt's career. I thought it deserved it's own thread:

[I]"Basketball is a team game. When it becomes a one-man operation, as it did after Chamberlain came to Philadelphia, it just doesn't work. You cannot expect nine other guys to submerge themselves and their abilities to one man. It particuarly doesn't work when the man everybody else is feeding isn't helping the others whenever and wherever he can....the argument can be made that Chamberlain only suffers from a poor supporting cast. If you have a man who makes better than 50 percent of his shots, the argument goes, why shouldn't you concentrate on getting the ball to him whenever possible? Carrying it to it's logical conclusion, I would have to ask why should you ever let any other player on the team shoot at all. No, statistics mean nothing in basketball."[/I]





Agree? Disagree? Should Wilt have taken less shots, or shot the ball even more? Was he concerned with winning, or his own personal glory? Discuss....[/QUOTE]

Of course, since Chamberlain was just doing what his COACH's asked of him, how can Cousy blame Chamberlain?

And we'll never know how well Chamberlain would have done with Auerbach as his coach. We do KNOW that Red wanted him DESPERATELY...and never forgave Wilt for basically choosing Philly over Boston.

He was told to shoot that much..You cant blame a guy for doing what he's told...Theres an interview online of one of Wilts teamates in Wilts prime scoring days saying that was there objective...get wilt the ball and get the **** out the way lol...He said himself they wouldnt have won as many games as they did if he wasnt scoring 50 a night and so on...they NEEDED it, they weren't hurt from it...if you want I can try to find that video

[QUOTE=jongib369 and Jlauber]He did as he was told by his coaches[/QUOTE]
Seriosuly? :biggums: Damn, his coaches must have been awful.

I agree that stats don't mean much in basketball, the eye test is far superior, but this just seems like a dig at Wilt.

[QUOTE=jongib369]He was told to shoot that much..You cant blame a guy for doing what he's told...Theres an interview online of one of Wilts teamates in Wilts prime scoring days saying that was there objective...get wilt the ball and get the **** out the way lol...He said himself they wouldnt have won as many games as they did if he wasnt scoring 50 a night and so on...they NEEDED it, they weren't hurt from it...if you want I can try to find that video[/QUOTE]

Good interview too. Wilt's TEAMMATES appreciated Chamberlain in those years.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTTwY_QqZ7c[/url]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG78Mn1iRK8&feature=relmfu[/url]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4tC1xOYCcY&feature=relmfu[/url]

[QUOTE=KyrieTheFuture]I agree that stats don't mean much in basketball, the eye test is far superior, but this just seems like a dig at Wilt.[/QUOTE]

It's honestly not a dig, and I'm not sure why anyone would think so. I just thought it was a great quote, particuarly the last 2 sentences.

Edit: Or do you mean Cousy was having a dig at Wilt? I have a feeling u do. Sry

It sounds like Cooz is criticizing the gameplan moreso than Wilt. Wilt did what his coaches asked him to do, which was shoot and score, and they lost. Clearly, that approach was wrong. Wilt can't be blamed for doing what was asked of him, but it's not like he was complaining that he got to shoot 50 times per game. He DID relish in his statistics and he DID want to get them night in and night out.

[QUOTE=oolalaa]It's honestly not a dig, and I'm not sure why anyone would think so. I just thought it was a great quote, particuarly the last 2 sentences.

Edit: Or do you mean Cousy was having a dig at Wilt? I have a feeling u do. Sry[/QUOTE]
Yea I meant Cousy :cheers:

[QUOTE=Freedom Kid7]Seriosuly? :biggums: Damn, his coaches must have been awful.[/QUOTE]
Haha well to the coaches credit he didn't have the best teams during those years...So he was by 100 miles the best scorer on his team...In the whole damn league actualy lol
A poster said recently that you cant blame Alen Iversons shooting % and amount of shots on him because he had to take so many shots because of his coach telling him too...Cuz he was the basically the only one of the team that could score.

He was told to take his fadeaway out of his skill set, give up a LOT of field goal attempts and pass more...Ended up leading the league in assists...Eventually (after that retard Butch Van Breda Kolff was fired) was asked to be the focal point of the offense again..Before he got injured was scoring around 32 points....After the injury, was told to play like Bill Russell...Look up Bill Russell's stats and then chamberlains stats the last few seasons...Its a clone except a way higher FG%...and I think its on video of Russell saying something along the lines of "Hes playing the same role I did, but even better" Not close to an exact quote but it was along those lines

From The Jordan Rules:

[QUOTE] But the Pistons get their shots back at Jordan. They love to taunt Jordan during games about his selfish play, his baldness (that's a specialty of John Salley), and how he enjoys being a loser. Salley, a bad stand-up comic who has earned a stage because he is seven feet tall and looks like Arsenio Hall, is a particularly bitter antagonist.

"There's not one guy who sets the tone on our team," Salley liked to tell reporters during the 1990 playoffs. "That's what makes us a team. If one guy did everything, we wouldn't be a team. We'd be the Chicago Bulls."

And this, too, from Salley: "We don't care who scores the points as long as we win. It would be hard for Michael Jordan to play on this team because he's got to score all the points. I don't think he'd fit in here." [/QUOTE]

I dont think theres a right answer. I thought about this when kobe had shitty teammates, but there really is no right answer. You just need to get better teammates. You're ****ed if you just tell one guy to shoot over and over just because hes clearly the most deserving, but you're also ****ed if you let clearly lesser players shoot more than they should when you could be putting up pts on the board. Its just shitty all around

[QUOTE=RazorBaLade]I dont think theres a right answer. I thought about this when kobe had shitty teammates, but there really is no right answer. You just need to get better teammates. You're ****ed if you just tell one guy to shoot over and over just because hes clearly the most deserving, but you're also ****ed if you let clearly lesser players shoot more than they should when you could be putting up pts on the board. Its just shitty all around[/QUOTE]

Agree. It's a no-win situation. Wilt shouldn't be labelled 'selfish' for his shot jacking early in his career. He almost certainly wasn't going to beat Boston, either way. That said, he should have switched to the 'Russell role' a couple of years earlier. I'm convinced he chucked away a great chance at a ring in '66.

Wilt is the only center to ever lead the league in assists.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Wilt is the only center to ever lead the league in assists.[/QUOTE]

Not only that, but Bill Simmons ripped Chamberlain for "stats-padding" when he did it.


Of course, Simmons forgot to add that Wilt led his Sixers to the runaway best record in the league in doing so.

That damn "selfish" Wilt...

Babe Ruth was selfish. He used to always clear the bases with a home run, before Gehrig came to bat. He should have just hit doubles.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Wilt is the only center to ever lead the league in assists.[/QUOTE]
Did you know Dwight's favorite player is Wilt? I cant find his tweet but this is something

"Q: Dwight, if you could meet with or play against one retired basketball player, who would it be?
A: "Wilt Chamberlain.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Babe Ruth was selfish. He used to always clear the bases with a home run, before Gehrig came to bat. He should have just hit doubles.[/QUOTE]

At it's core, Baseball is an individual sport. Because of that, being selfish is a virtue. A single player has little to no impact on the performance of his teammates.

[QUOTE=oolalaa]Agree. It's a no-win situation. Wilt shouldn't be labelled 'selfish' for his shot jacking early in his career. He almost certainly wasn't going to beat Boston, either way. That said, he should have switched to the 'Russell role' a couple of years earlier. I'm convinced he chucked away a great chance at a ring in '66.[/QUOTE]

In Chamberlain's 50 ppg season, he then took the core of the same LAST PLACE team he inherited two years earlier...to a game seven, two point loss, against a 60-20 Celtic team that boasted SEVEN HOFers.

In his 64-65 season, he took what had been a bottom-feeding Sixer team before he arrived, to a 40-40 record, and then a first round romp of the loaded 48-32 Royals. And, with a 30 ppg, 31 rpg, .555 seven game series, he took that roster to a game seven, one point loss against a Celtic team that had gone 62-18.

So, right there were TWO examples of a HIGH-SCORING Chamberlain single-handedly carrying two crappy rosters to within an eyelash of beating the greatest Dynasty in American professional team sports history.

As for '66...

Chamberlain led the NBA in scoring at 33.5 ppg; rebounding at 24.6 rpg; and FG% at .540 (in a league that shot .433.) And he also found time to hand out 5.2 apg, as well.

Futhermore, during the regular season, he led his Sixers to a 6-3 record against Russell's Celtics, and in the process, he averaged 28.3 ppg and 30.7 rpg against Russell.

In the ECF's, Chamberlain averaged 28.0 ppg, and 30.2 rpg against Russell (on .509 shooting.) Yet, playing the EXACT same way that he did during the regular season against Russell, his Sixers were wiped out by Boston, 4-1. Guess what changed? Wilt's teammates puked all over themselves, shooting an unfathomable .352 in that series. Now you tell me whose fault that series loss was?

When Wilt won his first championship, didn't he do it against his former team that had traded him away for nothing less than 2 years earlier?

[QUOTE=KyrieTheFuture]I agree that stats don't mean much in basketball, the eye test is far superior, but this just seems like a dig at Wilt.[/QUOTE]The eye test is not superior. It takes a combination.

Stats are great, but you cannot just look at stats and have it tell you the whole story.

You have to look at WHY the stats are how they are.

Two players may be averaging 20 points, but for very different reasons. This is where you use your eyes and brain to discover WHY they are averaging those points.

Stats are not meaningless, and an "eye test" is not superior. Using statistics and reasoning to explain those statistics is the best.

[QUOTE=oolalaa]At it's core, Baseball is an individual sport. Because of that, being selfish is a virtue. A single player has little to no impact on the performance of his teammates.[/QUOTE]


Basketball at its core is a 1v1 sport as well. In fact it's the only team sport that I can think of that can actually be played 1v1. It's about beating the man in front of you. Wilt happened to do it quite a lot.

[QUOTE=Notitlesince73]When Wilt won his first championship, didn't he do it against his former team that had traded him away for nothing less than 2 years earlier?[/QUOTE]

Well, yes and no. First of all, yes he wiped out Thurmond en route to leading his Sixers to a world title. But, no, he was not really traded for next to nothing. He was traded for three players and a boatload of cash.

Furthermore, the main reason the Warriors even traded him at all, was because Wilt had been ill for most of the season (and was STILL scoring 39 ppg before the trade)...and the SF team doctors mis-diagnosed Wilt with heart condition. The Warrior ownership panicked and decided to get rid of him before he dropped over.

Interesting, too, that in Wilt's last full season in SF, he led a crappy roster, with his two best teammates being Tom Meschery and Al Attles, to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals.

Now, after the Wilt trade the Warriors moved Thurmond into Wilt's center position, where he would go on to have a HOF career. Even then, however, the Warriors were so bad, that there were able to draft Rick Barry, who would also have a HOF career.

So, here were Barry, and Thurmond,... TWO HOFers, and holdovers Meschery and Attles...and guess what? A 35-45 record.

THEN, the Warriors beefed up that roster by adding Jeff Mullins, Clyde Lee, and Fred Hetzel (to go along with Thurmond, Barry, Meschery, and Attles), and their record? 44-37.

THAT was the TRUE impact of Wilt's career with the Warriors. A LOADED roster couldn't even equal that putrid roster that Wilt single-handedly had taken to a 48-32 record just a couple of years before.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Basketball at its core is a 1v1 sport as well. In fact it's the only team sport that I can think of that can actually be played 1v1. It's about beating the man in front of you. Wilt happened to do it quite a lot.[/QUOTE]That is so far from the truth that it isn't even funny.

If it was true, then team USA would have beat all teams by at least 30 points. Nobody in the world has the individual players that team USA has.

Basketball has a LOT to do with working as a team. Communicating is the single most important thing that makes or breaks basketball teams.

You can have all the individual talent in the world, but if you don't play as a team on defense by making the proper switches and rotations, and communicate to do it effectively, then your defense will fail as a unit.

Same thing on offense. If the team isn't working together, there will be just a lot of standing around and not much happening.

Basketball is a team sport at it's core, with the ability to break it down to 1 vs. 1.

[QUOTE=bmd]That is so far from the truth that it isn't even funny.

If it was true, then team USA would have beat all teams by at least 30 points. Nobody in the world has the individual players that team USA has.

Basketball has a LOT to do with working as a team. Communicating is the single most important thing that makes or breaks basketball teams.

You can have all the individual talent in the world, but if you don't play as a team on defense by making the proper switches and rotations, and communicate to do it effectively, then your defense will fail as a unit.

Same thing on offense. If the team isn't working together, there will be just a lot of standing around and not much happening.

Basketball is a team sport at it's core, with the ability to break it down to 1 vs. 1.[/QUOTE]


That holds true for all team sports, including baseball.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]That holds true for all team sports, including baseball.[/QUOTE]

Please don't try and compare the individuality of baseball to basketball. It's not the same; not even close. Basketball, like has been pointed out, is a team sport that can, in isolated situations, be played as a 1v1 sport. If you do that for an entire game, though, odds are you're going to lose more than you win.

Baseball, on the other hand, is an individual sport in a team setting. A batter can go 4/4 every single game of the season, and it doesn't mean jack if the guys hitting in front of and behind him bat around .200 and strikeout a lot. There's literally nothing a player can do to help his teammate go to bat and put the ball in play and produce runs. Nothing. In basketball, you make a nice pass that leads to a bucket, and you had a direct hand in your teammate putting the ball in the basket. In the field, aside from the occasional double-play, or OF assist, almost every out is 100% dependent on the fielder catching a fly ball, or cleanly fielding a groundder and making a catchable throw to the first-baseman.

Maybe every once in a while a team can win if they have the best player in the league and they just ISO him the entire game and let him shoot 30-40 times; but that's not going to win games and win championships. The best and most successful basketball is heavily dependent on crisp and quick ball movement, efficient shot attempts, and off-ball movement like screens and cuts. And defensively, it's more about great team defense than great individual defense. Yes, historically there have been great defensive teams with great individual on-ball defenders, but there's other examples of great defensive teams who may not have had more than one player who was renowned for his on-ball defense, that played excellent team defense.

Just...please don't try to simplify basketball down to being an individual 1v1 sport because that couldn't be further from the truth.

The problem is that one man isn't going to win a title.... I don't care how good he is. So when it comes down to it, you need everyone on the team to contribute... but you cannot expect 'roleplayers' to contribute when they are not given the opportunity, and/or the gameplan is essentially for them to contribute as little as possible.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Basketball at its core is a 1v1 sport as well. In fact it's the only team sport that I can think of that can actually be played 1v1. It's about beating the man in front of you.[/QUOTE]


I hope you don't actually believe that.

[B]Those Comments are Stupid. They Actually Sound Like Jelousy Towards Wilt.

Wilt was BY FAR THE BEST AND MOST DOMINANT PLAYER in the 60s and Probably Had The Highest PEEK Ever in the Late 60s over Jabbar and MJ.[/B]

When asked to score..Wilt scored..ALOT.
When asked to pass more..he lead the league in assist, and was in the top in the league for those years.
When asked to not score and concentrate on defense..he defended and rebounded like a monster.
Wilt just did what was asked of him.

In the book [U]Red and Me[/U] Russell writes that Chamberlain admitted that while he, Wilt, personally needed to have the offense go through him, such was not the case for Russell-- and that Chamberlain admitted that held him back from winning. The fact that Chamberlain "decided" to shut his critics up by leading the league in assists showed that it was not a lack of ability but rather a lack of volition to play a more team-oriented game. The year Philly won the title he also recorded a very high amount of assists. Meanwhile Russell was always the Celtic with the second most number of assists every year he played.

It is not the case that Chamberlain's coaches instructed him to play the way he did. He was too selfish and held too much power to follow any coaching and simply decided to play the way he wanted to play-- and God knows that he had plenty of players who have taken that exact same approach. He isn't unique but he is the paradigm for this losing scenario.

In Harvey Araton's book [U]When the Garden Was Eden[/U] numerous accounts portrayed Chamberlain as overwhelmed by the moment when Reed hobbled onto the court. It was at that point that Frazier knew that they were going to win that game, as related to the author. In the same book, it seemed clear to some Knicks and Knick fans that the Lakers were lacking in chemistry with West, Chamberlain, and Baylor never being on the same page and giving off that vibe of dysfunction in their body language and facial expressions towards each other.

[QUOTE=bdreason]The problem is that one man isn't going to win a title.... I don't care how good he is. [B]So when it comes down to it, you need everyone on the team to contribute... but you cannot expect 'roleplayers' to contribute when they are not given the opportunity, and/or the gameplan is essentially for them to contribute as little as possible.[/B][/QUOTE]

And that's the whole point here. Wilt's teammates almost certainly wouldn't have performed as badly as they did in the post season if Wilt was facilitating a lot more and moving the ball. Consequently, the Wilt stans would have a lot less ammuntion when ripping said teammates, and would have a much harder time blaming Wilt's losses EXCLUSIVELY on them. They would be forced to look at their favourite player in a more critical and objective light.

[I]
[B]"You cannot expect nine other guys to submerge themselves and their abilities to one man. It particuarly doesn't work when the man everybody else is feeding isn't helping the others whenever and wherever he can"
[/B][/I]

If you read enough, former Celtic teammates all follow a script and say the same thing in their own way. I believe it was instructed by Red because it doesn't have enough diversity of expression to be an individual expression. It's almost robotic. Cousy who never talks about another player, comes out of his shell to hype the exact same notes as other former teammates who never say a word about other players.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory??? Well if a Guitar plays only one note, then the creator conspired it that way. Hopefully the nonsense has stopped.