Who really is top 10 of all time?

**Disaprine** · 05-31-2011, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by TylerOO

Original thread.....

^^^

**jlauber** · 05-31-2011, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by G.O.A.T

Actually I think the Warriors have an edge at five of the six spots. Only Meschery is inferior to his comparison.

And I love the idea of adding KC Jones' numbers to Cousy or Sam. Could the Celtics play six at a time?

You post the numbers like they man anything. If Russell and Wilt switched teams, do you think those numbers all stay the same? Do the Warriors average just 70 points a game to the Celtics 140?

And let me remind you again Tom Sanders is NOT in the HOF as a player.

I get accused of being a Wilt homer, yet you post this NONSENSE. Take a look at the careers of everyone of those players. The Celtics had 20 ppg scorers all over the floor. Heinsohn, Cousy, Sam Jones...ALL MULTIPLE 20 ppg scorers (as were Sharman and Havicek), and Jones was putting up HUGE games in the playoffs, too THAT season. The ONLY 20 ppg scorer, in their CAREERS, whether with Wilt or not, that Wilt had, was Arizin, at the end of his career.

As for adding KC Jones numbers to either Cousy or Sam Jones...OF COURSE you do. Those guys didn't play 48 mpg. Hell Cousy, was MUCH more of a factor than Rodgers, in LESS minutes. He was barely playing HALF the damn game.

And give me a break...Meschery, Attles, Rodgers, GOLA, better than Cousy, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, Ramsey??? You are delusional my friend. Those Warrior scrubs, including the WORST post-season HOFer of all-time, GOLA and their lousy careers don't hold a candle those Celtic players. AND even MESCHERY would agree with me. After the '62 ECF's, he stated that it was because of WILT that the Warriors made it to that game seven. He said that PLAYER-FOR-PLAYER, Boston had better players. And it is INARGUABLE. Please ...you are better than that.

YEAR-AFTER-YEAR, in Wilt's first six seasons, Russell had a HUGE edge in QUALITY players, and MUCH DEEPER rosters.

As for the Celtics WITH Wilt...

Evidently you didn't read my post earlier in this thread...

G.O.A.T, think about this...

Since we KNOW that Chamberlain pretty much did whatever his COACHES asked of him, let's assume that Auerbach has Wilt take CONSIDERABLY less shots. For example, Russell took around 16 FGAs in the early 60's, while Wilt was taking around 35.

Two important points, Wilt was already a MUCH more efficient shooter than Russell was, DESPITE being the focal point of EVERY defense he played against. Can you imagine how much MORE EFFICIENT a Chamberlain would have been when taking far less attempts (as in '67 when he shot an eye-popping .683 in a league that shot .441)?

So, not only would Wilt be naturally more efficient, by taking less forced shots (because he WAS the offense)...BUT, given quality SCORERS such as Heinsohn and Sam Jones as well as either Sharman or Havlicek, he would be even MORE efficient since opposing defenses couldn't just game-plan against him. You have to remember that the ONLY scoring option Wilt really had in the first half of the decade was Paul Arizin, who was nearing the end of his career, and who only played with Wilt for three years (from '60 thru '62.) After that, Wilt had ZERO scorers from '63 thru '64. Players like Gola and Meschery had their career HIGHs with Wilt, but neither were more than 16 ppg at ANY point in their careers. Meanwhile, Russell had players like Cousy, Heinsohn, Sharman, Sam Jones, and John Havlicek...ALL with multiple 20+ ppg scoring seasons (my god, Havlicek averaged 29 and 28 ppg AFTER Russell, and Sam Jones had a season as high as 26 ppg with Russell.)

That brings me to this point. Wilt, with Auerbach, probably would have averaged about 20 FGAs per game, instead of the 16 that Russell took...which is still a DRAMATIC reduction from 35 per game. Now, given the fact that Russell made about 7 FGs per game, on his 16 attempts, and that we can safely assume that Wilt would have shot better than the .506 to .540 he shot in the first half of the decade, I would CONSERVATIVELY estimate that Wilt would have made about 55% of his shots, with 20 FGAs per game..which would mean that he would have made about 11 per game.

Think about that, Wilt would only be taking four more shots per game, than Russell, and yet would also be making FOUR more shots per game...or shooting 100% on them...or EIGHT more points per game. Now, granted, the rest of Boston's roster would lose four shots per game under that scenario, but given the fact that those players shot around 43%, the Celtics would lose than four points a game on those four shots.

Ultimately, a Chamberlain would have made Boston about 4-5 pts better on the SAME number of shots. And that is before Wilt's FT shooting, which also would have been a couple more points a game...probably just on more "bonus shots" that he would have created. (BTW, Wilt and Russell were nearly identical at the line in terms of efficiency early in their careers.) All of which makes me believe that the Celtics would have scored 6-7 more points per game, on the exact same number of shots.

The real question would then become...just how much better defensively was Russell than Wilt? I for one, believe that he was marginally better, even then, and was probably no better by the mid-60's. And since Wilt would not have had to waste so much energy on the offensive end in this scenario, and could devote more attention to his defense, I don't think the Celtics defense would decline much at all. Here again, though, even if Russell's defense was worth seven points more than Chamberlain's, which is hard to believe...that would still mean that Boston would have been, at worst, just as great with Wilt, as with Russell. IMHO, they would have been better.

Then, you are now taking a Russell, who was usually no more than a 3rd or 4th best scoring option on those Celtic teams, and certainly not as feared as Wilt ever was...what would he do on those Warrior teams? Once again, we know that the Warriors had limited scorers on those teams. And on more time, none of them, other than Arizin ever scored much more after Wilt (although Rodgers did raise his offense a little in Chicago, but on just HORRIBLE FG%'s.) So, Russell, who was probably slightly better than an average shooter, at best, in those early 60's leagues, would have had to shoot more, and probably at an even lower efficiency...especially if he were anything close to a number one scoring option.

In variably, he would have probably given his teammates a few more shots per game, than Wilt, but he would have had to take more than what he had in Boston, as well. And given the fact that Wilt's teammates shot about 100% worse than he did, on average...I just don't see Russell raising the Warriors offense at all. In fact, I think they would decline significantly. Furthermore, does Russell make players like Rodgers, Meschery, and Arizin better defenders? I don't think so.

It is certainly interesting speculation, but the bottom line...put Wilt with MUCH better teammates, and give Russell MUCH worse one's (and less contributing players overall), and I think Wilt EASILY goes 6-0 in his first six seasons in the league.

**G.O.A.T** · 05-31-2011, 08:03 PM