2 straight NCAA titles in 1955 and 1956 (including Gold Medal in 1956) and 11 NBA titles in 13 seasons. He played 16 total seasons in NCAA and NBA and won 13 titles (81%). Possibly the greatest winner in the history of team sport, EVER. :bowdown:
Printable View
2 straight NCAA titles in 1955 and 1956 (including Gold Medal in 1956) and 11 NBA titles in 13 seasons. He played 16 total seasons in NCAA and NBA and won 13 titles (81%). Possibly the greatest winner in the history of team sport, EVER. :bowdown:
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]2 straight NCAA titles in 1955 and 1956 (including Gold Medal in 1956) and 11 NBA titles in 13 seasons. He played 16 total seasons in NCAA and NBA and won 13 titles (81%). [B]Possibly the greatest winner in the history of team sport, EVER[/B]. :bowdown:[/QUOTE]
Of a major team sport...yes. I believe DiMaggio's ten titles would put him up there, though.
Of course, having anywhere between four to eight HOF teammates, as well as a HOF coach (and GM), helped quite a bit, as well.
Recognize.
MJ and Russell didn't win all those rings by accident. They had "it" and wanted it more than you. You can't fake the killer instinct. You either have it or you don't.
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]Recognize.
MJ and Russell didn't win all those rings by accident. They had "it" and wanted it more than you. You can't fake the killer instinct. You either have it or you don't.[/QUOTE]
You don't think West had it?
[QUOTE=Marchesk]You don't think West had it?[/QUOTE]
He did. But he played with betas in Baylor and Wilt. So 1 ring was the result. If he would've had better superstar teammates who had killer instincts, he would've won more. I do intend on doing in-depth research on Baylor eventually and why he didn't win. It's not all coincidence. Heck, when he retired, the Lakers went on that historic 33 game winning streak. There is a right way and wrong way to play the game. Great individual stats isn't the be all, end all.
Not the best player in the league or at his position, but a winner. He won wherever he went as a player.
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]He did. [B]But he played with betas in Baylor and Wilt[/B]. So 1 ring was the result. If he would've had better superstar teammates who had killer instincts, he would've won more. I do intend on doing in-depth research on Baylor eventually and why he didn't win. It's not all coincidence. Heck, when he retired, the Lakers went on that historic 33 game winning streak. There is a right way and wrong way to play the game. Great individual stats isn't the be all, end all.[/QUOTE]
'60: Chamberlain joins a LAST PLACE team. He immediately leads them to a 49-26 record, and after an overwhelming first round playoff series, culiminated with a 53-22 clinching game...he led that Warrior team to a game six, two point loss against a heavily-favored 59-16 Celtic team...in a series in which Chamberlain shelled Russell with an battering seldom seen between two GOATs. In that series, Chamberlain averaged 31 ppg and 27 rpg, and shot .500 from the floor, in a post-season NBA that shot .403 overall. Included was a must win game of 50-35, on 22-42 shooting.
'62. Wilt takes that nearly SAME roster, now only older, and worse, to a 49-31 record. In the first round he again puts up historic numbers, with a must win clinching performance of 56-35. He then takes that crumbling roster to a game seven, one point loss, against a HOF laden 60-22 Celtics team that was favored in EVERY game of that series. Overall, an incredible 34-27 series against a swarming Celtics team that did everything they could to stop him.
'64. Chamberlain now takes a roster that had gone 31-49 the year before, with the only addition being rookie Nate Thurmond, who plays part-time, and out of position...to a 48-32 record. In the WCF's, Chamberlain puts up a staggering 39-23 series, on .559 shooting, in a brilliant seven game campaign. In the clincher, he hangs a 39-26 10 block game. Unfortunately, he faces a Russell who has SEVEN OTHER HOFers on his roster in the Finals. And while Boston wins that series, 4-1, the last two games are decided in the waning seconds. In the clinching game five loss, Chamberlain outscores Russell, 30-14, and outrebounds him, 27-26. Oh, and how about Wilt's HOF "help" in that series? Thurmond shoots .326 from the field, and Guy Rodgers shoots a normal, for him, .258. For the series, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 29.2 ppg to 11.2 ppg; outrebounded Russell, per game, 27.8 rpg to 25.2 rpg; and outshot Russell from the floor, .517 to .386 (in a post-season NBA that shot .420 overall.)
'65: Wilt is traded at mid-season, for three players, and a boatload of cash....to a Sixers team that had gone 34-46 the year before. Traded...not just joined. Big difference. In their half season to acclimated, Wilt leads the Sixers to an overall 40-40 mark. He then destroys Oscar's stacked 48-32 Royals in the first round, including a monster 38-26 clincher. Then, against all odds, he takes that same bottom-feeding roster, to a game seven, one point loss against the six-time defending, and 62-18 Celtics, who are at their peak in the dynasty run. In the clinching game seven loss, Chamberlain scores Philly's last eight straight points, to pull the Sixers to within one point. The "clutch" Russell then hits a guidewire on the in-bolunds pass, giving the ball back to Philly, and an opportunity to pull off the greatest upset in NBA playoff history. Unfortunately for Wilt... "Havlicek steals the ball!" In that seventh game, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 30-15; outrebounded Russell, 32-29; and outshot him from the floor, 12-15 to 7-16. For the series, all Wilt did was outscore Russell, per game, 30.1 ppg to 15.6 ppg; outrebound Russell, per game, 31.4 rpg to 25.2 rpg; outshoot Russell from the floor, .555 to .447 (in a post-season NBA that shot .429 overall); and even outshot Russell from the line, .583 to .472. Oh, and for good measure, he outblocked Russell, 35-22 in their known block totals. Arguably the most one-sided beatdown ever adminsistered by one GOAT on another. The only other one will be coming up shortly.
'66. Russell's Celtics romp over Wilt's Sixers, 4-1. BUT, Chamberlain again murders Russell. He outscores him, per game, 28.0 ppg to 14.0 ppg; outrebounds him per game, 30.2 rpg to 26.2 rpg; and outshoots Russell from the floor, .509 to .424. Oh, and with his teammates doing absolutely nothing in the series (they would collectively shoot a horrific .352 in that series), Wilt summons a massive clinching performance of 46 points, on 19-34 shooting, with 34 rebounds. Remember this game.
'67. While Chamberlain's demolition of Russell in their '65 EDF's was staggering, his overwhelming domination of Russell in the '67 EDF's might have been even more impressive. For the first time in his career Chamberlain has a roster the equal of Russell's, and to no one's amazement, the results were predictable. A MASSIVE rout of the eight-time defending, and 60-21 Celtics. In fact, the Sixers were a mere four points away from a sweep in game four.
And remember what I mentioned at the end of their '66 EDF's? You know, the clinching game in which Wilt blasted Russell with a 46-34 game. Well, now the shoe was on the other foot. It was now Russell who was facing elimination going into game five. Did Russell rise up and dominate Chamberlain in that must win game? Hell no, he led his team like a lamb being led to slaughter. He meekly put up a FOUR point game, on 2-5 shooting. He did grab 21 rebounds, most all of them meaningless, and basically was obliterated by an unstoppable Chamberlain. Wilt hung 29 points, on 10-16 shooting, but 22 of the came in the first half when the game was still close (showing that he easily could have hung yet another 40-50 point game on Russell had it been necessary.) He also shelled Russell with 36 rebounds, and handed out 13 assists. He and his Sixers erased a late 17 point first quarter deficit, and by mid-way thru the 4th period, they had an eye-popping 27 point lead...or an unfathomable 44 point turnaround in a little over a half...en route to a 140-116 blowout of the "Dynasty."
For the series, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 21.6 ppg to 11.4 ppg; outrebounded him by a staggering 32.0 rpg to 23.4 rpg margin; outassisted him by a 10.0 apg to 6.0 apg margin...yes, a TRIPLE DOUBLE SERIES...and outshot Russell (who had shot .454 during the regular season), by a .556 to .358 margin. And when I said that they had equal rosters...think about this... the Sixers outscored Boston in that series, per game, by a 121.2 ppg to 111.2 margin...or about what Chamberlain outscored Russell by.
'68. Chamberlain takes an injury-riddled Sixers team to a first round series win over an up-and-coming Knicks team, 4-2. In the series, Chamberlain leads both teams in scoring, rebounding, assists, and FG% (25.5 ppg, 24.1 rpg, 7.0 apg, and on a .584 FG%.) BTW, Walt Bellamy had shot .541 against the NBA during the regular season, but against Wilt in the playoffs? .421.
Wilt, himself, is nursing an assortment of injuries, and would be noticeably limping in the EDF's. And even without HOFer Billy Cunningham, who broke his wrist in the Knick series, he leads the Sixers to a 3-1 series lead. And in what could have been the clinching game five, he pounded Russell with a 28-30 game, on 11-21 shooting (while holding Russell to an 8-28 game on 4-10 shooting)...but he would lose two more starters to injuries, Luke Jackson, and Wali Jones. Both would play the rest of the series, but both were essentially worthless. Chamberlain plays poorly in game six, a blowout loss, but it is now clear that he is just a shell. Still, he outplays Russell in game seven, outscoring him 14-12, and outrebounding him, 34-26...but with his teammates shooting a collective 34-96 from the floor, they lose game seven by four points. As Russell would claim after the series..."A lessor man would not have played." Of course, inferring that virtually NO ONE ELSE would have been playing under the same circumstances. For the series, Chamberlain averaged a 22-25-7, and easily outplayed Russell.
'69. The worst post-season series of Wilt's career. Of course, most all of it because of an incompetent coach, who hated Wilt so much, that he left him on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven...in a two point loss. Of course, Russell was no better than Wilt in that series, either, and in fact, was getting his ass handed to him in game seven, when Wilt went down with a knee injury. In that game seven, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 18-6; outrebounded Russell, 27-21; and outshot Russell from the floor, 7-8 to 2-7...all in five minutes less. Oh, and subtract Wilt and Russell's shooting from that game seven, and Russell's teammates collectively outshot Wilt's by a massive .477 to .360 margin...in a two point win.
So there you have it. Russell the "alpha", and Wilt the "beta."
CONTEXT my friend...CONTEXT.
Of course John Wooden said it best...had Russell and Wilt swapped rosters, and coaches, and it would have been WILT holding all those rings.
Thanks for playing though...
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]He did. But he played with betas in Baylor and Wilt. [B]So 1 ring was the result. If he would've had better superstar teammates who had killer instincts, he would've won more[/B]. I do intend on doing in-depth research on Baylor eventually and why he didn't win. It's not all coincidence. Heck, when he retired, the Lakers went on that historic 33 game winning streak. There is a right way and wrong way to play the game. Great individual stats isn't the be all, end all.[/QUOTE]
West with a prime Baylor...never won a championship. Chamberlain was the only guy capable of leading a team to a title against a healthy Russell.
Oh, and then in the '72 post-season, while West was puking all over the floor, Chamberlain outplayed a peak KAJ in the WCF's, and then absolutely crushed the Knicks in the Finals....which included a clinching game five performance (with one badly sprained wrist, and the other FRACTURED) of 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds (the entire Knick team had 39), and 8 blocked shots. Chamberlain hung a 19-23 .600 series...en route to the FMVP. How about West? He shot a paltry .325 from the field, and was massacred by Walt Frazier.
[QUOTE=senelcoolidge]Not the best player in the league or at his position, but a winner. He won wherever he went as a player.[/QUOTE]
In their ten years in the league together, Chamberlain held a 7-2 margin over Russell in First Team All-NBA selections. Furthermore, Chamberlain was robbed of MVPs in both '62 and '64, and certainly was a much more dominant player in '69 than the three centers who finished ahead of him in the MVP balloting (Unseld, Reed, and Russell...all of whom he waxed in his H2H's with them.)
[QUOTE]2 straight NCAA titles in 1955 and 1956 (including Gold Medal in 1956) and 11 NBA titles in 13 seasons. He played 16 total seasons in NCAA and NBA and won 13 titles (81%). Possibly the greatest winner in the history of team sport, EVER.[/QUOTE]
He won back to back state titles in high school too. And his back to back rings in college were part of a run of 55 wins in a row. And the olympic team he led to the gold...won by an average margin of victory of 53ppg. The most ever(the first dream team is second...with 44ppg).
He only lost an elimination game of any kind from age 16 to retirement....2 times. And his ankle was nearly broken for one of them(he still played 20 minutes).
Healthy? He lost one win or go home game after the 10th grade.
Elgin Baylor was a great player but the funny thing about hus career, he had a short prime with Jerry West on the Lakers. After his knee injury in 65 he was no longer the same unstoppable scoring machine he was. Just a good volume scorer and rebounder in a largely white-dominant league. :oldlol:
As Baylor's body slowly lost its athleticism he became a liability on defense. By the 72 season he couldn't really run with the team, just station to station. By letting him realize his mortality the Lakers played better with more athletic guys to run their fast break.
H
Hence the 33 game win streak.
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]Recognize.
MJ and Russell didn't win all those rings by accident. They had "it" and wanted it more than you. You can't fake the killer instinct. You either have it or you don't.[/QUOTE]
Russell had won 10 titles (was about to win his 11th and his last), but was still throwing up before an important game.
Wilt on the other hand, was too busy with his assist count, walking over to the scorerstable multiple times per game to check if they had counted an, of what he thought, assist. He also barked at teammates when they would miss when he made a pass, as he passed up open shots for assists.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]..[/QUOTE]
[B]1960:[/B]
In the 1960 playoff series between Russell and Chamberlain, the normally non-offensive Russell had games of 19, 26, 17, and 25 points. Russell never averaged 19 ppg in a regular season of his career. Wilt's lack of defensive impact as he goes for individual accomplishments is evident.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]..[/QUOTE]
[B]1970:[/B]
In 1970, enter Willis Reed. The 1970 NBA Finals vs the Knicks was basically a lesson for Wilt at Willis Reed University. Through his first 4 healthy games, Willis averaged 32 ppg on Wilt's defense before his Game 5 injury. [B]In Games 1-4 when Willis was healthy, Wilt averaged only 19 ppg.[/B] As usual, Wilt's regular season scoring doesn't show up when the stakes were highest, but his often lacking defense carries over.
With Willis Reed injured and missing Game 6, Wilt finally takes advantage and has 45 points and 27 rebounds to tie the series 3-3. Of course, the 45 points only show up when the Knicks' best player and interior defender is injured and not playing
What happens in Game 7? Willis comes back in Game 7 of the 1969 Finals. Willis comes back in Game 7, fights through his injury, and hits the first 2 buckets to inspire the Knicks on to a blowout win in Game 7 to the title as Wilt loses in yet another Game 7 of his career, and Willis Reed gets the Finals MVP.
With Willis Reed's 27 minutes in Game 5, he only scored 4 points but his defensive presence [B]shut down Wilt to 4 points on 2/7 (29%) FG and 4 turnovers [/B]when Willis Reed guarded him in Game 7. Wilt finished 21 points, but most of his points came without Reed on him, or when the game was already over - just like we saw in 1962 EDF Games 1-3-5. [B]Willis on one leg shut down Wilt[/B], right after Wilt had a 45-27 outburst with no Willis Reed in Game 6.
The Knicks won by 14. Guess what Wilt's stats were at the free throw line in Game 7, with the NBA Finals at stake? [B]21 points with 1-11 (9%) FT shooting.[/B] If Wilt made his free throws, the Lakers would have actually been in the game. But just like he did countless times against the Celtics, he cost his team with his habitual choking at the line.
What is the excuse now?
Well, that was fun. There you have it, Wilt ''the alpha'' Chamberlain.
[QUOTE]Wilt's regular season scoring doesn't show up when the stakes were highest, but his [B]often lacking defense[/B] carries over.[/QUOTE]
Just scrolling by that caught my eye and removed all reason for me to give it a serious read. Credibility killer. Whatever anyone can say about Wilt....often lacking defense isnt it.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Just scrolling by that caught my eye and removed all reason for me to give it a serious read. Credibility killer. Whatever anyone can say about Wilt....often lacking defense isnt it.[/QUOTE]
Wilt Chamberlain played in exactly 1,045 NBA games, with a minute average of 45.8(!!) minutes per game. Yet, he never fouled out. Never. How?
Wilt was continually obsessed with a bizarre streak—for whatever reason, he wanted to make it through his entire basketball career without fouling out, so he’d stop challenging shots with four or five fouls even if he was hurting his team in the process.
Here’s what John Havlicek wrote in Hondo: “Wilt’s greatest idiosyncrasy was not fouling out. He had never fouled out of a high school, college or professional game and that was the one record he was determined to protect. When he got that fourth foul, his game would change. I don’t know how many potential victories he may have cheated his team out of by not really playing after he got into foul trouble.''
Not to mention that Wilt had multiple seasons of anchoring the worst defense in the league, in an era where jumpshots weren't as effective nor as much used as they are today.
GOAT winner, even players like Wilt were making fun of Russell's insane drive to win. Thats why one has 11 rings and another one two, because "woman and cars are more important" than winning.
[QUOTE=Kawhi]Well, that was fun. There you have it, Wilt ''the alpha'' Chamberlain.[/QUOTE]
'60 EDF's:
Chamberlain dominates Russell in the first two games, but badly injures his hand in a melee at the end of the game. In fact, the belief is that it might be broken. He plays game three with a massively swollen wrist, and for the ONLY time in his 143 career match-ups with Russell, is he decisively outplayed. Russell outscores Wilt, 26-12, and outrebounds Chamberlain 39-15. Oh, and Russell played 40 minutes compared to Wilt's 35. Want to take a guess at what the final score would be? 120-90. The Warriors have ZERO chance without a dominating Wilt. Chamberlain is still not close to 100% in game four, and Russell plays him to a draw in yet another Celtic win. Chamberlain finally is 100% in game five, and just CRUSHES Russell with the an unfathomable 50-35 game. The Celtics swarm Chamberlain in game six, and the heavily favored Celts finally put away a far inferior Warrior team, in a two point win. Again, Wilt just annihilated Russell overall, outscoring him by a huge margin; outrebounding him, and badly outshooting him. Even the most ardent Russell supporters can only give Russ two games out of those six. Personally, 4-1-1 Wilt.
'61: Chamberlain averages a 37-23 in that three game sweeping loss. How about his [last place roster that he inherited in his rookie season] teammates? They collectively shoot .332. Wilt's two "HOF" teammates, Arizin and Gola shoot ... get this... .328 and .206 respectively. And yes, two of those losses were by slim margins. With ANY help from his putrid teammates, they likely would have repeated what they did to that same team in the '60 and '62 playoffs (when Chamberlain also averaged 39 and 37 ppg in those two series.)
'62: Game 1. Russell "neutralized" Wilt in the first half. With a 15 point lead. Chamberlain BURIED Russell in that second half. You want the final numbers? Wilt oustcored Russell, 33-16; outrebounded Russell, 31-30; and outshot Russell from the floor...by a 13-25 to 7-22 margin! How about Wilt's teammates? they collectively shot 20-85 (Russell's shot 40-98 BTW.)
BTW, I find it LAUGHABLE that Russell gets a credit for a "win" when he would hold Chamberlain down for a half, or even a quarter. Wilt never had that luxury with Russell. You want more evidence? In game two, Wilt thrashed Russell by outscoring him, 42-9, and outrebounding him, 37-20...all in guess what...a seven point win.
Incidently, for those that give Russell a "win" for "holding" Chamberlain down for a half...how about this game?
[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196202090BOS.html[/url]
You will see that Boston had a 19 point lead going into the 4th quarter (and newpaper accounts had it at 20 early in the period)...and yet...a huge comeback, in a game in which Chamberlain just destroyed Russell.
For the series, Chamberlain outplayed Russell, 4-2-1. BTW, while Russell held Wilt down in that game seven, newspaper reports claimed that Wilt's DEFENSE was the difference. Incidently, Chamberlain scored Philly's last five points, including a three-point play to tie the score. And had there not been a questionable goal-tend called against Wilt with a little over a minute to play, who knows how that game (and series) would have turned out.
And one more time...Boston was FAVORED in EVERY game of that seven game series. Tom Meschery said it best. Player-for-player Boston was better. But Wilt nearly won the series.
Oh, and I gotta love it when this CLOWN mentions that Sam Jones outscored Wilt in SOME of their games (Wilt outscored Jones in their '60, '62, '64, '65, '66, and '67 playoff series H2H's.) Why was it WILT's responsibility to outscore Jones.
Oh, and another point. Even Russell acknowledged that Sam Jones saved Boston in the post-season SIX times. Again, you can't blame Wilt for Jones going off.
'64. This is truly laughable. Chamberlain OVERWHELMED Russell in that Finals. Unfortunately for Wilt, Russell held a 7-2 edge in HOF teammates. And to compound that...Chamberlain's two HOF teammates shot .326 and .258 respectively. The bottom line...Wilt took a roster that had gone 31-49 the year before, up against a HOF-laden Celtic team...and they won one game, and almost won the last two.
'65. All anyone needs to know...Wilt SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried a 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of their dynasty. And it was perhaps the most one-sided beatdown between two GOATS in the history of the sport. Only the '67 EDF's would challenge it....when Wilt would again MASSACRE a helpless Russell.
'66. I love it. This clown blames Wilt in game four for the loss, because he only scored 15 points. Guess what...he loves to cite newspaper recaps, most of which were hilarious...but how about that game?
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328149&postcount=42[/url]
[QUOTE]The recaps say that Wilt outplayed Russell in the final 3 games. He definitely picked it up after the first two games. As you said, "Impact goes beyond stats." Then the very next sentence you cite his stats. [B]The Game 4 recap states that he nearly beat Boston "by himself".[/B] It is obvious the Celtics were sagging back defensively, keeping him from the ball. Even watching highlights of the series, they would full court press the point guard with KC Jones to make them use up clock in bringing the ball up. They would also shade Wilt before the ball even got in, daring the outside shooters to beat them. Anything to keep the ball out of Wilt's hands as often as possible.[/QUOTE]
And that was Chamberlain's WORST game of that series.
'67: Chamberlain just CARPET-BOMBED Russell, and in EVERY facet of the game. And had he needed to put 40+ point games, he surely could have. He did what was needed, and it was a massive blowout of the eight-time defending, and 60-21 Celtics.
'68. Again LAUGHABLE. I don't need to repost Wilt's domination of Russell here. All we need to know about that series came from PHILA's research.
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328011&postcount=14[/url]
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328006&postcount=13[/url]
Wilt's Sixers were so decimated by injuries, including multiple injuries to Chamberlain himself, that they weren't even favored in their first round series against the Knicks. And it got worse in the EDF's against Boston. That that Sixer team was able to lose a game seven by a measley four points was a miracle. A healthy Sixer squad would have easily repeated their 4-1 annihiltion of Boston a year earlier. And can you imagine the blowout that series would have been, had it been Russell and his Celtics battling those injuries, and going against a healthy Sixer team?
'69. LA's COACH lost that series.I could, and have, put up paragraphs on that series, but here is all anyone needs to read...
[url]https://books.google.com/books?id=9BaqPfGcI84C&pg=PA355&lpg=PA355&dq=butch+van+breda+kolff+had+chamberlain+playing+the+high+post&source=bl&ots=rQxpX4Ys7l&sig=oosFtJ3aB-NUrdTlS-5xi8-eHyI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi70fWD0svKAhVDuYMKHSvWDRgQ6AEIQTAJ#v=onepage&q=butch%20van%20breda%20kolff%20had%20chamberlain%20playing%20the%20high%20post&f=false[/url]
Van Breda Kolff:
"So we were able to throw the ball down low to Wilt and he'd score, but it was an awful offense to watch."
Perhaps the most idiotic comment to ever come out of a coach's mouth.
That takes care of the Russell-Wilt battles.
Again, John Wooden said it best...had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, and coaches, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.
Thanks for playing though...
[QUOTE]Wilt Chamberlain played in exactly 1,045 NBA games, with a minute average of 45.8(!!) minutes per game. Yet, he never fouled out. Never. How?
Wilt was continually obsessed with a bizarre streak—for whatever reason, he wanted to make it through his entire basketball career without fouling out, so he’d stop challenging shots with four or five fouls even if he was hurting his team in the process.
Here’s what John Havlicek wrote in Hondo: “Wilt’s greatest idiosyncrasy was not fouling out. He had never fouled out of a high school, college or professional game and that was the one record he was determined to protect. When he got that fourth foul, his game would change. I don’t know how many potential victories he may have cheated his team out of by not really playing after he got into foul trouble.''
Not to mention that Wilt had multiple seasons of anchoring the worst defense in the league, in an era where jumpshots weren't as effective nor as much used as they are today.[/QUOTE]
People go entire careers and foul out once or twice. Many not at all they just arent reported. Fouling out is rarer than people seem to think. Even for good defenders. Jimmy butler just fouled out for the first time in his career today. He may go another 5-6 years before it happens again. Guys go years without fouling out all the time. People just hang onto the fact that wilt didnt because they dont look into anyone else. Last time the issue of Bron rarely fouling out came up I saw that Deng fouled out like 3 times in his career and one was off intentional fouls. Iggy has fouled out twice in the last 10 years after 6 times early in his career. Moses Malone had something like a 12 year run of not fouling out...and he was foul prone at times. Steve Nash fouled out once after the 90s and he played 53 minutes to do it. Nique played like 17 years and fouled out once. Meaning he played more games without fouling out than Wilt did.
As I said...whatever anyone thinks of Wilt....his "often lacking defense" is just not credible. Bill Russell himself was on record saying Wilt played his style of game better than he did himself when he was a Laker. Now....I dont know if id say the same. But Bill Russell was not a modest man in regards to his defense and rebounding. Hes not gonna give that claim out about a poor defender. There is too much evidence of virtually everyone Wilt played underperforming to make such a claim.
There are hall of famers he literally held scoreless to prove a point.
He wasnt asked to move around the way Russell was to defend entire teams...he defended the basket. He was damn near playing zone at times. But he was consistent doing it. Of the known game logs from his final season his average...at 36...would beat everyone we have numbers for except Mark Eaton. That either Wilt or Russell is the real all time blocks leader is virtually unquestioned.
This is someone who sent away literally dozens of shots at times, is among the greatest defensive rebounders ever, and spent the back third of his career totally sacrificing his offensive game to shut down the lane and throw outlet passes to win. You just cant claim he was some lacking defensive player in general and have me take you serious.
I dont care if you love Wilt or hate him. Ive been on both sides of the argument for many years here....I have his books...I have Kareems where he pretty much called Wilt out in this room. Ive seen all there is to see on him and read all there likely is to read. All the quotes....from Pete newell when he was in college, to Walt Frazier talking about learning to time his floaters by Wilts pre jump "squat" which Russel didnt have, and Kareem talking about getting his shots blocked by Wilt before he also got his leaps timed and started to piss him off rolling them over his fingers at 12 feet up...
Seen it all...good and bad. None of it justifies much talk about him being a poor or lacking defender. Feels like old articles calling him slow(which is what was said in an amusing but awful book by Elliot Kalb). Its too inaccurate for me to keep caring what someone saying that thinks. Feel free to not care if I take you serious. Just thought id chime in. It caught my eye is all.
You strike me as someone who has a little file or bookmark with quotes and numbers ive already seen saved for such an occasion. I wont tell you to save your time...because a copy paste isnt really much time...I will tell you im not likely to respond to it. If you want to call that fear....go right ahead. I just dont feel like a whole....thing...right now. I'll read it if it feels like something you took the time to write out on the spot. If it feels like a copy/paste job ill just skim through. But ive been arguing about Wilt from one end or the other since my second topic ever here which was made during a prudential halftime report(yes...nba on nbc) so I dont have much enthusiasm for them now. Not long drawn out ones like it looks like you and Laz are gearing up for.
[QUOTE=Harison]GOAT winner, even players like Wilt were making fun of Russell's insane drive to win. Thats why one has 11 rings and another one two, because "woman and cars are more important" than winning.[/QUOTE]
Definitely .
Russell did want to win , Chamberlain did want to get fun with cars,women and beach .
What goes around , comes around .
[QUOTE=feyki]Definitely .
Russell did want to win , Chamberlain did want to get fun with cars,women and beach .
What goes around , comes around .[/QUOTE]
Interesting that Chamberlain carried far worse rosters to within an eyelash of beating Russell's HOF-laden teams on several occasions. Or that when Chamberlain FINALLY had a supporting cast the equal of Russell's, and that was healthy, he and his team just annihilated Russell and his.
Again...John Wooden...
had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, and coaches, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.
That's all people in here talk about when it comes to 50s 60s basketball. People wanna act like players like Lenny Wilkins, Dolph Schayes, Cliff Hagan, Richie Guerin, Bob Pettit, Walt Hazzard, Zelmo Beaty, Nate Thurmond, Wayne Embry, Willis Reed, Hal Greer, and Paul Arizin didn't exist. All people bring up is Bill, Robertson, Baylor, West, and Wilt.
People only mentioning a few players of that era, and not mentioning they're competition only reinforces idiots to say; "that was a weak era", when it's clearly not the case.
[QUOTE=feyki]Definitely .
Russell did want to win , Chamberlain did want to get fun with cars,women and beach .
What goes around , comes around .[/QUOTE]
Wilt certainly enjoyed his life far more...despite being a "loser."
For many years following his retirement, Russell was a bitter (and broke) man. He despised the city of Boston, and didn't even go to his first retirement ceremony.
He also wouldn't sign autographs out of principle, yet did so for profit.
And there were those that claimed that he was a racist, as well.
On the flip side, Chamberlain was a wealthy man his entire (relatively short-lived) life. And he contributed heavily to various charities, and left his alma mater, KU, with something like $650,000.
And speaking of his time at KU....he termed the loss to North Carolina in the NCAA Finals in his soph season as the worst of his entire career.
BTW, when he finally returned to Kansas for a jersey retirement ceremony, he was afraid that his return would not be welcomed...
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbxrzeUIzpI[/url]
Oh, and he was supposed to be there briefly afterwards, and leave quickly, but instead, he stayed around and signed autographs, until everyone that wanted one, received one...for something like two hours.
Oh, and BTW, he was dying at the time...
And here is another side of Wilt that many here may not know about, either...
[url]http://bleacherreport.com/articles/445705-i-wanna-be-like-wilt-not-like-mike[/url]
[QUOTE]One of Wilt's teammates was a fellow by the name of Paul Arizin.
Arizin was a great player in his time (career 1951-62) and is a Hall of Famer, in addition to being a top 50 player (as selected in 1996). He played 12 seasons, averaged 17 ppg as a rookie and more than 20 ppg in each of his other 11 seasons.
In 1993, Arizin's granddaughter Stephanie, unbeknownst to her family, wrote a letter to Wilt asking for an autograph. Stephanie was then 11 years old.
She had written to Wilt in care of the Lakers, and the letter was forwarded to the office of Wilt's attorney and best friend, Sy Goldberg. But because Goldberg's office had moved and Wilt was often inattentive to his mail, the letter was not even opened for THREE years.
When Wilt finally got around to reading it, he immediately called the then-14-year-old Stephanie in suburban Philadelphia, and Wilt and the young girl quickly established an unusual rapport.
Wilt later called Stephanie's father (the son of his former teammate Paul) at work to tell him how much he had enjoyed talking to Stephanie and apologized that it had taken him so long to respond. "She must have thought I was such a jerk, not answering a little girl's request," Wilt said... "I had to call her up and let her know what happened."
It was then that Michael Arizin (Stephanie's father and Paul's son) informed Wilt that, only a week before, Stephanie had been diagnosed with a brain tumor and had been given 12 to 18 months to live. She had never mentioned the illness in her conversations with Wilt.
Wilt promised to stay in touch with Stephanie on a regular basis. True to his word, Wilt spoke to Stephanie Arizin almost every Friday, often for an hour, during the last 15 months of her life. On July 30, 1997, Stephanie passed away at age 16.
Right after her death, Wilt, who was to live little more than two more years himself, sent this telegram:
To the Arizin family:
My sincerest condolences. I am here for you, all of you, if ever I am needed.
I may have tears in my eyes... I lost a friend who was full of strength and loved life passionately... From Stehpanie I realize that you're never too old to learn and never too young to teach. Her body may now be gone, but in my memory she can always be reached. I will forever rejoice in my memory of what she brought to my life in our very short time of friendship.
Love and peace,
"Dippy"
Wilt Chamberlain
A great story. No one really knew about this until Paul Arizin spoke at Wilt's funeral and told everyone assembled there what had happened with Stephanie.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Wilt certainly enjoyed his life far more...despite being a "loser."
For many years following his retirement, Russell was a bitter (and broke) man. He despised the city of Boston, and didn't even go to his first retirement ceremony.
He also wouldn't sign autographs out of principle, yet did so for profit.
And there were those that claimed that he was a racist, as well.
On the flip side, Chamberlain was a wealthy man his entire (relatively short-lived) life. And he contributed heavily to various charities, and left his alma mater, KU, with something like $650,000.
And speaking of his time at KU....he termed the loss to North Carolina in the NCAA Finals in his soph season as the worst of his entire career.
BTW, when he finally returned to Kansas for a jersey retirement ceremony, he was afraid that his return would not be welcomed...
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbxrzeUIzpI[/url]
Oh, and he was supposed to be there briefly afterwards, and leave quickly, but instead, he stayed around and signed autographs, until everyone that wanted one, received one...for something like two hours.
Oh, and BTW, he was dying at the time...
And here is another side of Wilt that many here may not know about, either...
[url]http://bleacherreport.com/articles/445705-i-wanna-be-like-wilt-not-like-mike[/url][/QUOTE]
I didn't criticize Wilt's personal life . I respect Wilt's life style . I enjoyed with his interview's , specially with Russell . He was a great guy .
But my post wasn't about that . My post was about Wilt's perceptions about BasketBall . And of course i choose Bill's than Chamberlain's .
[QUOTE=feyki]I didn't criticize Wilt's personal life . I respect Wilt's life style . I enjoyed with his interview's , specially with Russell . He was a great guy .
But my post wasn't about that . My post was about Wilt's perceptions about BasketBall . And of course i choose Bill's than Chamberlain's .[/QUOTE]
For someone who has been portrayed (maybe not by you) as a loser, Chamberlain sure wasn't very good at it.
One, and perhaps even two losing seasons. And in one of them, he played 47.6 mpg, and led the NBA in 15 statistical categories, including scoring (by a mile), rebounding, and FG%. In fact, he led the league, and again, by a mile, in Win Shares, at 20.9...on a team that went 31-49. He also faced Russell and his eight other HOFers that year, nine times (going 1-8.) However, seven of those nine games were close (that includes a double digit OT loss.) Furthermore, he averaged 38 ppg against Russell in those nine H2H's, and downright crushed him in several.
How bad was that roster? They had 16 different players, several of whom only played briefly in the NBA. Their second best player was "all-star" Tom Meschery, who played in 64 games.
Interesting, too, that the very next year the Warriors brought in Alex Hannum as their new head coach. He quickly found this out...
[url]http://www.si.com/vault/1964/03/02/608684/meet-the-new-wilt-chamberlain[/url]
[QUOTE]San Francisco had a coach, but what Hannum got was no bargain. The team had the morale of a bunch of recruits immediately after their first G.I. haircuts. Says Hannum, "I realized how completely inadequate the team had become. [B]They had learned to depend on Wilt so completely they were even [COLOR="DarkRed"]incapable of beating a squad of rookies[/COLOR][/B]. I had to convince them that they, too, had responsibilities."[/QUOTE]
Furthermore...
[QUOTE][B]So are the Warriors, a team that lists on its roster some of the [COLOR="DarkRed"]slowest players and worst shooters ever[/COLOR] to play in the NBA[/B]. With just 14 games remaining in the regular season, San Francisco
Continuing...
So, we covered Chamberlain's two losing seasons. And in one of them, he took a bottom-feeding roster to within an eyelash of beating the greatest dynasty in the history of the NBA.
How about the rest of his career?
Let's start with his rookie season. To understand that, you have to realize that Chamberlain was drafted while in HIGH SCHOOL (a territorial pick.) And just his luck...the team that drafted him was a LAST PLACE team.
He immediately improved them from a 32-40 team, to a 49-26 team. And he single-handedly carried that roster past the Nats in the first round (which included a 53-22 series clinching performance), and then to a game six, two point loss, at the hands of Russell's HOF-laden and 59-16 Celtics. And had Chamberlain not badly injured his hand at the end of game two, (and was worthless in game three, and not at 100% in game four), who knows how that series would have played out.
In his second season, he took his team to a 46-33 record, but they were swept by the Nats in the first round. Must have been Wilt's fault, right? Well, if putting up a 37-23 series can be blamed on him...yes. His teammates collectively shot... .332. Oh, and his two "HOF" teammates, Paul Arizin, and Tom Gola...shot .328 and .206 respectively.
In his historic 61-62 season, Chamberlain single-handedly carried that same last place roster that he had inherited his rookie season, but now older and even worse, to a 49-31 record. In the first round, Chamberlain again hung a 37-23 series on the Nats, including the clinching win performance of 56 points and 35 rebounds. And he then took them all the way to a game seven, two point loss, against Russell's stacked 60-20 Celtics. In a series in which Chamberlain averaged a 34-27.
Continued...
Continuing...
We have already covered Chamberlain's '62-63, '63-64, and '64-65 seasons. Needless to say, he was playing with rosters that the cast of Gilligan's Island could have outplayed.
However, from his '65-66 season onto the his last year in the NBA ('72-73), he played with talented rosters, and the results were predictable. Not only winning teams, but four teams with the best record in the league, and four with 60+ wins, including two title teams that went 68-13 and 69-13. True, he "only' won those two titles, but his teams were still outgunned in almost every post-season series. For instance, the Celtics had more HOFers on their roster in '66, '67, '68, and '69. And the Knicks would have more HOFers on their roster in '68, '70, '72, and '73. Furthermore, in Chamberlain's '71 season, he faced Kareem's 66-16 Bucks in the WCF's, and without BOTH West and Baylor.
And even in '68, when he and his supporting cast were superior to Boston, ...well, the team that romped to the best record in the league that year, was nowhere near the crippled lot that battled the Celtics to a game seven, four point loss, in the EDF's.
Again, in Chamberlain's 14 year career...13 post-seasons, 10 Conference Finals, Six Finals, and two title teams. Five of his other teams lost in game sevens to the eventual champion, and four of those were by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. Four teams with the best record in the league, and four teams that won 60+ games.
THAT was Wilt "the loser."
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Continuing...
We have already covered Chamberlain's '62-63, '63-64, and '64-65 seasons. Needless to say, he was playing with rosters that the cast of Gilligan's Island could have outplayed.
However, from his '65-66 season onto the his last year in the NBA ('72-73), he played with talented rosters, and the results were predictable. Not only winning teams, but four teams with the best record in the league, and four with 60+ wins, including two title teams that went 68-13 and 69-13. True, he "only' won those two titles, but his teams were still outgunned in almost every post-season series. For instance, the Celtics had more HOFers on their roster in '66, '67, '68, and '69. And the Knicks would have more HOFers on their roster in '68, '70, '72, and '73. Furthermore, in Chamberlain's '71 season, he faced Kareem's 66-16 Bucks in the WCF's, and without BOTH West and Baylor.
And even in '68, when he and his supporting cast were superior to Boston, ...well, the team that romped to the best record in the league that year, was nowhere near the crippled lot that battled the Celtics to a game seven, four point loss, in the EDF's.
Again, in Chamberlain's 14 year career...13 post-seasons, 10 Conference Finals, Six Finals, and two title teams. Five of his other teams lost in game sevens to the eventual champion, and four of those were by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. Four teams with the best record in the league, and four teams that won 60+ games.
THAT was Wilt "the loser."[/QUOTE]
Guy Rodgers avg 13 and 10 in the 63-64 season, yet you still consider him a terrible NBa player:oldlol:
Willie Nauls and Paul Arizin (even though he was past his prime) weren't bad players either, and Tom Gola was a 7 time All Star.:oldlol: Wilt played with solid teammates, it's just that the Celtics had better players.
[QUOTE=MiseryCityTexas]Guy Rodgers avg 13 and 10 in the 63-64 season, yet you still consider him a terrible NBa player:oldlol:[/QUOTE]
The fact that he was just recently voted into the HOF is a testament to just how great he really was.
And he had two major problems. One...he simply couldn't shoot. And two, he still kept trying.
The man would have seasons of nearly 20 FGAs per game...and on .373 shooting. Before Rubio arrived on the scene, Rodgers was arguably the most inefficient shooter, per the league average, in NBA history.
And in 63-64 he had a normal, for him, regular season... .365. Then came the playoffs, where he shot .329 on his 15 FGAs per game, and a horrific Finals of .258.
Had he just passed the ball he would have been a considerably better asset. Unfortunately, he always felt that he was going to make the next one...which he seldom did.
Rondo can't shoot worth shit either.
[QUOTE=MiseryCityTexas]Willie Nauls and Paul Arizin (even though he was past his prime) weren't bad players either, and Tom Gola was a 7 time All Star.:oldlol: Wilt played with solid teammates, it's just that the Celtics had better players.[/QUOTE]
Naulls was a shell when joined up with Chamberlain...but, he still played better with Wilt, than he would with Russell.
Arizin was a great player, and still was even late in his career. However, his last two post-seasons were awful (.375 and .328 from the floor.) And Gola has as much business being in the HOF as I do. He might very well be the worst post-season player of any HOFer. And he wasn't just putrid with Chamberlain, either. He was rancid in most everyone of them. And again, in his last two post-seasons with Chamberlain... he shot .271 and .206 (and missed some games, as well.) But before the bashers rise up and blame Wilt...Gola had his best seasons alongside Chamberlain.
[QUOTE=MiseryCityTexas]Rondo can't shoot worth shit either.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. And I doubt that he will make the HOF.
[QUOTE]During the 1959-60 season, Gola became the first Warrior to have three straight games with a triple-double (the only other being Draymond Green, 2016).[/QUOTE] - Wikipedia
Wish there was video footage of this guy.
[QUOTE=MiseryCityTexas]- Wikipedia
Wish there was video footage of this guy.[/QUOTE]
With a career post-season FG% of .336, you can already guess what the footage would look like.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]With a career post-season FG% of .336, you can already guess what the footage would look like.[/QUOTE]
Lol I did see his play-off shooting percentages in the play-offs on b ball reference just a min ago. You're right, that shit is terrible:biggums: I seen the 60-61 and 61-62 seasons where he shot in the low 20s:biggums:
[QUOTE=MiseryCityTexas]Lol I did see his play-off shooting percentages in the play-offs on b ball reference just a min ago. You're right, that shit is terrible:biggums: I seen the 60-61 and 61-62 seasons where he shot in the low 20s:biggums:[/QUOTE]
The problem with the basketball HOF is that just that. It is a basketball HOF, and not an NBA HOF. Gola was a legendary college player, and evidently a reasonably good NBA player, but he wouldn't be in anyone's NBA HOF.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]He won back to back state titles in high school too. And his back to back rings in college were part of a run of 55 wins in a row. And the olympic team he led to the gold...won by an average margin of victory of 53ppg. The most ever(the first dream team is second...with 44ppg).
He only lost an elimination game of any kind from age 16 to retirement....2 times. And his ankle was nearly broken for one of them(he still played 20 minutes).
Healthy? He lost one win or go home game after the 10th grade.[/QUOTE]
Red Auerbach drafted him without seeing him play.
After seeing him he understood that Russell was the best player on the Celtics at a time
when the sportswriters were still talking up Bob Cousy and took it on a project to educate the sportswriters how to understand Russell's impact. How it didn't have to the be scorer that had the best game. Auerbach told Russell after his first year, I don't know how you do what you do, but you're the best player in the league.