He would probably have more than 10 championships as the man. He had some of the best stats in the history of the game.
Printable View
He would probably have more than 10 championships as the man. He had some of the best stats in the history of the game.
LeBron James
His stats would look completely different under Auerbach.
[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]LeBron James[/QUOTE]
LEBRON JAMES IS NOT AS GD AS WILT :no:
[QUOTE=DatAsh]His stats would look completely different under Auerbach.[/QUOTE]
Why? He averaged 30/23 for his career. Russell averaged 15/23.
Wilt was way better offensively, and would get the same rebounds. He wouldn't have had the 50ppg season, but 30 is reasonable.
[QUOTE=ProfessorMurder]Why? He averaged 30/23 for his career.
[/QUOTE]
Different system? Better coach? We wouldn't see him taking 30+ shots a game like we did under guys like McGuire. We'd probably see something along the lines of what we saw when he was playing under Alex Hannum. I imagine his career ppg would drop 7-10 points, his efficiency would likely skyrocket, and he'd probably be better defensively. He'd definitely be a better player.
[QUOTE=DatAsh]Different system? Better coach? We wouldn't see him taking 30+ shots a game like we did under guys like McGuire. We'd probably see something along the lines of what we saw when he was playing under Alex Hannum. I imagine his career ppg would drop 7-10 points, his efficiency would likely skyrocket, and he'd probably be better defensively. He'd definitely be a better player.[/QUOTE]
Well, his career ppg dropped late in his career. At the begginning, averaged more than 37 ppg. He even had a 50 ppg season. I think he still would have in the 30s with the Celtics.
IDK, I wasn't there.
This generation of fans consistently goes nuts over players who happen to play for the best team, and ridicules those who don't, regardless of their individual play. If we assume that fans had similar views in the 60s, then I would say it's likely that Chamberlain was partly a victim of circumstance, and Russell was lucky as hell.
Read what Wilt, himself, had to say about switching teams with Russell.
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4814506&postcount=34[/url]
[QUOTE=jlip]Read what Wilt, himself, had to say about switching teams with Russell.
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4814506&postcount=34[/url][/QUOTE]
Interesting.
My guess is he would've had a lot less than 11 and a lot more than 2. Maybe 5 or 6. However, he wouldn't have had all those records. It was either the record books or the championship, it couldn't be both... historically record breaking individual seasons rarely turn into championships, as they often reflect a team's weakness more than anything.
[QUOTE=livinglegend]He would probably have more than 10 championships as the man. He had some of the best stats in the history of the game.[/QUOTE]
Half of his career Wilt had a [I]better [/I]team than Bill, so no. Russell found a way to win [B]regardless [/B]if he had a better or worse team.
No, Wilt was obsessed with his own stats, Russell was obsessed with winning. Wilt would dominate the ball in offense and mess up the teams chemistry.
No, he'll be second to Jordan. Why? Jordan never lost in the Finals and was FMVP each time.
[QUOTE=Harison]Half of his career Wilt had a [I]better [/I]team than Bill, so no. Russell found a way to win [B]regardless [/B]if he had a better or worse team.[/QUOTE]
Completely false.
From 59-60 thru 64-65, or six of their ten seasons in the league together, Russell enjoyed a massive edge in surrounding talent.
In the 65-66 season, Wilt's Sixers had to win their last 11 straight games to surpass the Celtics by one game. Not only that, but the Celtics star players missed a consider able amount of games (S. Jones missed 13, Hondo missed nine, and Russell missed three...as well as other players, as well.) Furthermore, and as always, Boston had a huge edge in depth.
So, that was seven seasons.
67-68? True, Wilt's Sixers were clearly the best team in the league during the regular season. They ran away with the best record, and were eight games better than Boston at season's end. But, as any intelligent fan would have known, the Sixer team that blew away the league in that regular season, was not the Sixer team that lost to Boston in a game seven by four points. HOFer Billy Cunningham didn't play at all in that series. And, even without him, Philly jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. Even Auerbach had given up. However, in game five, two more key starters (on a team with little depth) went down with leg injuries (Luke Jackson and Wali Jones), and were worthless the rest of the series. And, on top of all of that, Chamberlain, himself, was nursing a ariety of injuries, nd was noticeably limping throughout the last four games of that series.
That's eight.
68-69? This is the only season, in their ten years together, in which you could make a case that Chamberlain played on a better team. However, this team had no depth (thanks to the Wilt trade and then losing Goodrich in the expansion draft.) Furthermore, while Baylor had a good regular season, he puked all over the floor in the playoffs, and was even worse in the Finals. And finally, this team had an incompetent coach (who shackled Wilt on the offensive end, while allowing Baylor to repeatedly fire up bricks.) With all of that...Boston eked out a two point win in a game seven.
Ok, and how about 66-67? Chamberlain's roster was finally the equal of Russell's, and was healthy. The result? With Wilt crushing Russell in every facet of the game (as he often did in their post-season h2h's), and with his teammates neutralizing Russell's, his Sixers wiped the floor with Boston, 4-1. And only a poorly played game four, in a four point road loss, prevented a sweep.