The Myths of Simmons' Six Myths on the Russell vs. Wilt debate

[jlauber]

In Bill Simmons' "Book of Basketball" he devotes an entire chapter dedicated to his "proof" that Russell was a better basketball player than Wilt. In fact, he provides us with SIX of them...

http://books.google.com/books?id=oLCSBeuStRcC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=Bill+Simmons+on+Wilt&source=bl&ots=SLzo6Jo3cr&sig=Ly1uaSNfM0FtUM5HmIeQQqngH1U&hl=en&ei=oydMS67SOY3KsQOFxbiKAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBYQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=Bill%20Simmons%20on%20Wilt&f=false

I will take my time to address all the MANY falsehoods, most of which I have addressed here a thousand times before.

I found some of his "facts" borderline ridiculous, but one of my all-time favorite topics involves what I considered games (or series) in which the BEST team did not win. And, as luck would have it, Simmons mentions two of those...the '84 series between the Lakers and Celtics, and the '68 series between the Sixers and Celtics. I will get to both of them later, but once again, this will involve some effort to cover EVERY goofball "fact" that he brings up.

Take your time and peruse the chapter on the topic...

[jlauber]

Here we go...

Example: On page 59 Simmons' makes the comment that Wilt never won a title in High School or College , and "only" two in the NBA, while Russell won 2 titles in College and 11 more in the NBA.

That's a good starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain


"As a player for the Overbrook Panthers, Chamberlain averaged 31 points during the 1953 high school season and led his team to a 71-62 win against the Northeast High School of his future NBA teammate Guy Rodgers. He scored 34 points, won Overbrook the Public League title and a berth for the Philadelphia city championship game against the winner of the rival Catholic league, West Catholic.[15] In that game, West Catholic triple-teamed Chamberlain the entire game, and despite the center's 29 points, the Panthers lost 54-42.[15]

In his second Overbrook season, Chamberlain continued his prolific scoring, among them scoring a high school record 71 points against Roxborough.[16] The Panthers comfortably won the Public League title after again beating Northeast in which Chamberlain scored 40 points, and later won the city title by defeating South Catholic with 74-50. Chamberlain scored 32 points and had led Overbrook to a flawless 19-0 season.[16]

During summer vacations, Chamberlain worked as a bellhop in Kutsher's Hotel. Red Auerbach, the coach of the Boston Celtics, spotted the talented teenager there and had him play 1-on-1 against Kansas University standout and national champion, B. H. Born, elected the Most Valuable Player of the 1953 NCAA Finals. Chamberlain won 25-10; Born was so dejected that he gave up a promising NBA career and became a tractor engineer ("If there were high school kids that good, I figured I wasn't going to make it to the pros"),[17] and Auerbach wanted Chamberlain to go to a New England university, so he could draft him as a territorial pick for the Celtics, but Chamberlain did not respond.[17]

In Chamberlain's third and final Overbrook season, he continued his high scoring, once logging 74, 78 and 90 points in three consecutive games.[18] The Panthers won the Public League a third time, beating West Philadelphia 78-60, and in the city championship game, they met West Catholic once again. Scoring 35 points, Chamberlain led Overbrook to an easy 83-42 win.[18] After three years, Chamberlain had won Overbrook two city championships, logged a 56-3 record and had broken Tom Gola's high school scoring record by scoring 2,252 points, averaging 37.4 per game.[2][4][19]"


So, Simmons is wrong right off the bat. Wilt played on TWO championship teams in high school, and very nearly THREE.

Furthermore,...

How about Russell's High School career?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Russell

"In his early years, Russell struggled to develop his skills as a basketball player. Although Russell was a good runner and jumper and had extremely large hands,[4] he simply did not understand the game and was cut from the team in junior high school. As a sophomore at McClymonds High School, Russell was almost cut again.[6] However, coach George Powles saw Russell's raw athletic potential and encouraged him to work on his fundamentals.[4] Russell, who was used to racist abuse, was delighted by the warm words of his white coach. He worked hard and used the benefits of a growth spurt to become a decent basketballer, but it was not until his junior and senior years that he began to excel.[6

Russell was ignored by college scouts and did not receive a single letter of interest until Hal DeJulio from the local University of San Francisco (USF) watched him in a high school game. DeJulio was not impressed by Russell's meager scoring and "atrocious fundamentals",[8]"

How did Wilt's college recruiting go?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

"After his last Overbrook season, over 200 universities wanted to recruit the basketball prodigy.[3] Among others, UCLA offered Chamberlain the opportunity to become a movie star, the University of Pennsylvania wanted to buy him diamonds, and Chamberlain's Panthers coach Mosenson was even offered a coaching position if he could persuade the center.[20"

I will continue with college next, but needless to say, Wilt did not have nearly the supporting cast that Russell did in his college career...and that trend would continue into the Pros, as well.

[jlauber]

Bill Russell did play on two NC's in college, as well as on a team that would win 55 straight games. However, he played alongside KC Jones (an over-rated HOFer to be sure, but a quality college player), as well as Hal Perry, all all-tournament players, as well as Mike Farmer who would join Russell and Jones as an NBA player.

Russell was a great college player to be sure, averaging 20.7 ppg and 20.3 rpg, but he played on exeptionally talented teams in his three-year career.

Wilt, unlike Russell, played on mediocre teams in his two year college career. He only stayed for two seasons. He was sick of the triple-teams, the physical abuse, and the stalling tactics that opposing teams constantly employed on him. In his varsity debut (as a sophomore, as freshmen were not allowed to play at varsity level), he set an NCAA record for a first game, with 52 points and 31 rebounds (he would do the same at the pro level, BTW, with an NBA debut of a 43-28 game.) His soph year Kansas team was a decent team, but certainly nothing great...yet Wilt almost single-handedly carried them to the NCAA title game against undefeated North Carolina. In that game, the Tar-Heels triple-teamed Wilt (interesting point here...how many times have you ever read that Russell was double-teamed, much less triple-teamed in his career?) and his teammates shot 27%, in a triple OT 54-53 loss. Once again, he was triple-teamed, he was pounded on, and the Tar-Heels employed stalling in that one point win. Wilt did win the Outstanding Player award in that tournament.

In Wilt's junior season, and with even less talent, he missed three games due to with an infection. How good were his teammates? They lost all three games. As it was, KU went 18-5 (obviously 18-2 with Wilt), and finished 2nd in the conference, which eliminated them from the NCAA tournament.

Wilt had a great college career, averaging 29.9 ppg and 18.3 rpg (and remember, his teams constantly faced stalling), but after two years, he had enough. In any case, Simmons was right when he said that Wilt did not play on any title teams in college. BUT, Wilt was CLEARLY the best player in the game.

And while Russell was considered a top pro prospect, but the Royals, who owned the first draft pick, had no interest in him. The Hawks wanted Boston's center, Ed McCauley, so Auerbach traded McCauley, and a relative unknown, at the time, Cliff Hagen, for the rights to draft Russell.

How about Wilt? Chamberlain was drafted while in HIGH SCHOOL, in a territorial draft. It was a complicated drafting rule, and I won't go into detail here, but no wanted Wilt more, than AUERBACH!

Speaking of the territorial draft, Auerbach did lock Tom Heinsohn the same year that he drafted Russell. And, he was also able to draft KC Jones, as well. So, Russell, Heinsohn, and Jones joined a 39-33 team from the year before, and led them to a 44-28 record, and a title in Russell's first year. So, while Russell is often credited with leading Boston to all of those titles, it must be mentioned that he not only joined a playoff team, he came on-board with two other future HOFers (albeit, Jones was never deserving.) In any case, with all of that new talent, the Celts only improved by five games.

How about Wilt? Wilt came to a last place Warrior team, that had gone 32-40 in the 58-59 season, and immediately turned them into a contender, leading them to a 49-26 mark, or an improvement of some 15 games.

Interesting, too, that Russell was not even the Rookie of the Year in his first season, while Wilt not only won ROY, he was also voted MVP.

[jlauber]

Simmons' begins his debate by using his six "myths" ...

His first myth...that Russell had a better supporting cast than Wilt.

I will get to his main points later, but one of his first comments, on page 60, is that the '84 Celtics were "dead-even" in terms of talent, with the Lakers, but that Bird outplayed Magic in that series, and Boston won in seven games.

I have discussed some of the BEST teams, that did not win a game, or series, before, and that was one of the top one's on my list.

Yes, Boston did win a game seven series...but not because Bird outplayed Magic, ...but because the Lakers BLEW that series. The FACT was, had the Lakers not made shocking miscues in games two and four, they would have SWEPT that series. In game one, LA shot out of the gate, building an early 20 point lead, and coasted to a an easy win. In game three, in LA, they annihilated the Celtics, 137-104. However, in game two, in Boston, the Lakers had a two-point lead, and the ball, with only a few seconds left. With Magic standing two feet away, Worthy tried to inbound the ball to Byron Scott, and Gerald Henderson intercepted the ball, and scored the tying layup. Boston went on to win in OT, but that was the low point for "Big Game James" Worthy in his career. And, in game four, in LA, the Lakers had a five point lead with 41 seconds left. In the last 41 seconds Worthy once again "choked" missing two FTs, and incredibly, so did Magic. FOUR blown FTs, and the Celtics once again tied the game late, and won in OT. So, once again, Boston did not win that series, so much as LA lost it.

The Lakers would redeem themselves the very next year, beating Boston 4-2, and winning game six on the Celtics home floor. And two years later, in the rubber match, the Lakers blew out Boston 4-2 again, winning the first two games easily after building huge leads, and then watching Magic Johnson hit the game-winner in game five.

My personal opinion...Magic easily outplayed Bird in those three series, and only a couple of miracles prevented Magic from sweeping Bird in their three H2H matchups.

[jlauber]

Simmons states that Russell's perceived superior surrounding talent difference was not all that great, on pages 61-66 (unfortunately pages 62-63 were deleted from that link...but they are unnecessary to the discussion.)

Simmons concedes that Russell had considerably more talented teams in '61, '62, '63, and '64. He somehow comes up with Russell only having a slight edge in '60 (Wilt's rookie year), and in '65, when Wilt was traded to Philly. Let's examine the last two, though. How in the world does he honestly believe that by Wilt coming to a last place before the beginning of his rookie year, in the '59-'60 season, that Russell only had a marginal edge? Wilt took that 32-40 team to a 49-26 record. Meanwhile Boston continued to improve, going from a 52-20 team in '58-'59 to a 59-16 mark in the '59-'60 season.

Let's examine the rosters: In that '59-'60 season, Wilt played with HOFer Paul Arizin, HOFer Tom Gola (who has much business being in the HOF as I do), Guy Rodgers (a quailt passing guard, but one of the worst shooters in NBA history), and a bunch of no-names. How about Russell? He combined with SIX other HOFers (SEVEN total)...Cousey, Heinsohn, Jones and Jones, Ramsey, and Heinsohn. Granted KC Jones and Frank Ramsey are probably not deserving of the HOF either, but Ramsey was certainly better than Gola.

In the '64-'65 season, Wilt was traded to the Sixers, and along with HOFer Hal Greer, and an under-rated Chet Walker, they improved from 34-46 to 40-40. Not only that, but they easily dispatched with the 48-32 Royals in the playoffs, 3-1. However, to claim that that Sixer team was only "marginally" better than Russell's Celtics, is completely ridiculous. Boston had their best record ever that year, going 62-18. Not only did Russell have Jones and Jones, Cousey, and Heinsohn, but John Havlicek as well. And, as always, Auerbach had a much deeper roster than Wilt's Sixers, with John Thompson, Mel Counts, Satch Sanders, Willie Naulls, and Larry Siegfried.

So, after we re-examine the first six years of the Russell-Wilt rivalry, it is CLEAR that Russell had FAR superior teams in ALL six of them. Yet, Wilt guided two of those mediocre rosters to game seven defeats, one by ONE point, and the other by TWO points.

Continuing, Simmons states that Wilt had superior rosters from the '65-'66 season thru the '68-'69 seasons (four years), and yet, Russell's TEAMs still went 3-1 in that span. Let's examine that statement further, shall we...

Yes, Wilt's '65-'66 76ers added HOFer Billy Cunningham, and went 55-25, while Boston dropped to 54-26. Still, the Celtics were only a year removed from their best-ever season, while the Sixers were a young, rising power. Wilt now had HOFers Greer, and Cunningham (in his rookie year), along with Walker and Luke Jackson. Player-for-player, Philly's top-four players were probably better than Boston's top-four (Russell, Havlicek, Sam Jones, and Don Nelson), but after that the Celtics had a huge edge, with players like Naulls, Counts, Sanders, and Siegfried. And, yes, Boston easily whipped the 76ers in the playoffs, 4-1. However, it was certainly not Chamberlain's fault, as he outscored Russell, per game, 28-14, and outrebounded him 30-26. In the clinching game five loss, Wilt had a maginificent game, scoring 46 points, with 34 rebounds (Russell was at 18-31 BTW.) However, the rest of the Celtics thoroughly outplayed Chamberlain's supporting cast.

How about the '68-'69 season (Russell's last year in the NBA), in which the 48-34 Celtics stunned the favored 55-27 Lakers, 4-3? I have mentioned it many times, but when LA acquired Wilt in a trade, they gave up THREE players (and a boatload of cash), including all-star guard Archie Clark, and a decent journeyman center, Darrell Imhoff...which really hurt the Lakers depth. Not only that, but Elgin Baylor was on a severe down-slide. And, finally, the Lakers had one of the worst coaches, EVER, in Butch Van Breda Kolf. I have documented that series many times, but clearly, Van Breda Kolf COST LA a title that year. His determination to have Chamberlain sacrifice his offense (and even play the high-post, as well as benching him in some games), to allow Baylor to shoot blanks (particularly in the playoffs, where he shot .385 from the field...while Wilt shot .545)...AND to keep Wilt on the bench in the last five-plus minutes of that game seven TWO-point loss, was THE reason that Boston was able to eke out a game seven win. In terms of rosters, Boston had a MUCH deeper roster...Russell, Havlicek, Howell, Sam Jones, Nelson, Sanders, Siegfried, and even rookie Don Chaney. True, they were an aging team, and on the decline, but they were deep, and experienced. Combine that with TWO miracle shots in that series (Jones hit a game-winning shot, while falling down, that banked in in game four...and Nelson hit the game-winning shot in game seven, that hit the back of the rim...bounced eight feet in the air, and came straight down thru the basket), with Van Breda Kolf's stupidity, and it was really no surprise that Boston won that series in seven games.

Incidently, Simmons later mentions how "clutch" Russell was, and how Wilt "choked" later on in that chapter, but the seventh game of those '69 Finals was an example to the contrary. While Russell was on the floor the entire fourth quarter, he was nowhere to be found. And, as always, Wilt outplayed him, despite missing the last five minutes of the game. More on that later, though.

So, we have covered eight of the ten seasons in which Russell and Wilt went H2H, and by MY tally, Russell had a HUGE edge in six of them, a slight edge in the '66 season, and probably a slightly less talented roster in '69...but much deeper, and with Russell outcoaching the idiotic Van Breda Kolf, and Boston getting TWO miraculous game-winning shots...they overcame the slight edge of talent. In any case, Wilt had THREE teams that lost game seven's by TWO, ONE, and TWO points in those eight years. He also thoroughly outplayed Russell in the other five. I have covered those years before, though, and if Simmons, or anyone else would want to challenge me on that, I would welcome the debate.

That leaves two other seasons. I will agree with Simmons that Wilt had stronger supporting casts, although, I would contend that it was not dramatic. On page 64 Simmons makes the comment that Wilt's '67 team had the "perfect storm"...his BEST team, and Russell's WORST. Here again, let's take a closer look: Yes, Philly went an astonishing 68-13, shattering almost every known team record that year. And yes, Wilt had a quality supporting cast, with Greer, Cunningham, Walker, Wali Jones, and Luke Jackson, along with Bill Melchionni. However, to say that Boston had their weakest team was somewhat ridiculous. That Celtic team went 60-21, and featured Russell, Havlicek, Howell, Jones and Jones...all in the HOF (Wilt had Greer and Cunningham as his fellow HOFers), AND the Celtics once again had a very deep bench that included Jim Barnett, Nelson, Sanders, Wayne Embry, and Siegfried. And, still despite that quality roster, Wilt crushed Russell and his teammates negated Russell's usual edge, and Chamberlain's Sixers blew out the Celtics, 4-1 (with only a 121-117 game four win preventing a sweep.)

For the umpteenth time, the '67-'68 season was well on it's way to a duplication of the previous season. Philly once again romped away with the best record league, by a wide margin, going 62-20, while Boston came in at 54-28. But, unlike the '66-'67 season, the Sixers were decimated by injuries in the post-season (all of which Simmons fails to mention BTW.) They lost Cunningham before that Eastern Finals, and he missed the rest of the season. And, despite his absence, the Sixers still jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. However, Luke Jackson was injured in game five, and was worthless the rest of the series. Those two injuries killed Philly's solid edge at the forward position, and with no real depth, the Sixers were now heavily outgunned. On top of that, Wilt's remaining teammates shot an awful 33% in the seventh game...a 100-96 loss. So, in review, the Sixers were without HOFer Cunningham, lost Jackson to injury in game five, shot a miserable percentage in game seven...and Russell's Celtics managed to edge Wilt's Sixers by FOUR points...in a seven game series. CLEARLY, had the Sixers been healthy, it would have been another easy series win for Philly.

So, Russell's 7-1 H2H post-season margin was achieved with six heavily more talented teams, one marginally more talented, one slightly less talented, and two considerably less talented (although Wilt's H2H edge makes them more talented.) And in one, his slightly less talented team, his TEAM ekes out a TWO-point game seven win, with Wilt shackled with a boob for a coach. In another, his solidly less talented team wins a game seven, by FOUR points, when Wilt loses TWO quality players to injury...therefore negating the edge that he had. The REALITY was, Russell's 7-1 edge, with a TOTAL of a nine-point swing (and without injuries, horrible coaching, and miracle shots), could just have easily have been a 5-3 edge for Wilt.

Simmons breaks down the HOF players as well, saying that Russell had a slight 10-9 total edge (and 8-8 during their H2H seasons)...but I will address that next...

[jlauber]

On pages 65 and 66 Simmons states that Russell only played with four of the 1996 NBA's Top-50 all-time players list, (Havlicek, Cousey, Sharman, and Sam Jones), while Wilt played with six (Baylor, West, Greer, Cunningham, Arizin and Thurmond.)

"Russell played with four members of the NBA's Top 50 at 50 (Havlicek, Cousy, Sharman, and Sam Jones); Wilt played with six members (Baylor, West, Greer, Cunningham, Arizin, and Thurmond). And Russell's teammates from 1957 to 1969 were selected to twenty-six All-Star games, while Wilt's teammates from 1960 to 1973 were selected to twenty-four. Let's never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain. Thank you."

I will give you my take on this in my next post, but here is an interesting link...



http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229

You can read the numbers for yourself, but after breaking down the minutes, these were his conclusions:

"Now you can see Russell's "score" is more than twice that of Wilt,"

"Obviously this is just a fun exercise, and far from scientific, but you can still see that Chamberlain's teammates were in fact significantly less talented than Russell's, by both our Quality of Teammates metric and even by Bill Simmons' own ranking method. So I don't think it's quite fair to say, "let's never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain," because it's still pretty obvious that Wilt's supporting cast was inferior to Russell's by a good margin."

[jlauber]

Continuing on about the quality of play between Russell's cast, and Wilt's, here was my take from another post on a similar topic:

Well, for the record, from the '59-'60 season thru the '68-'69 season, Bill Russell played with 19 other teammates in the All-Star game, while Wilt played alongside 16 all-star teammates. Both Russell and Wilt made the All-Star game every year in those ten years, making Russell and teammates with 29 appearances, while Wilt and his teammates made 26 appearances.

I didn't research any all-star teams before, or after, those ten years, because those were the 10 years in which Russell and Wilt went H2H.

Here we go:

1959-60:
Russell, Cousey, Sharman
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1960-61:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1961-62:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Arizin

1962-63:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Rodgers, Meschery

1963-64:
Russell, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Rodgers

1964-65:
Russell, S. Jones
Wilt, Thurmond

1965-66:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Walker, Greer

1966-67:
Russell, Havlicek, Howell
Wilt, Greer, Walker

1967-68:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Greer

1968-69:
Russell, Havlicek
Wilt, Baylor, West

Furthermore, Tom Meschery and Tom Gola were very questionable in their appearances. Some might question Bailey Howell, but in his 66-67 season appearance, he averaged 20 ppg on .512 shooting, which was considerably better than what Meschery or Gola had in their all-star seasons.

Wilt did play with nine different teammates in that 10 year span, while Russell only played with six, so if that is what Simmons meant when he said that Wilt played with more all-stars, then he was correct. HOWEVER, Russell's teammates had more APPEARANCES.

[Rake2204]

While reading Simmons' section, I certainly do recall thinking throughout "I dunno, a lot of this stuff doesn't seem to be based entirely off facts" and "Well that's kind of an arbitrary statistic" and "I'm not sure I'd say that means Russell was the better player". And I told myself to remember all the things I disagreed with so I could discuss them once I finished the book. Alas, I don't remember any of the specific points or rebuttals and instead chalked it up as Simmons just stating a series of opinions in a book that he wrote.

Turns out the only real things I can remember I wanted to make points about were the footnotes that stated Elmore Smith had the record for most blocks in a game, 11 (it's actually 17) and the one claiming Rick Barry and Jon Barry were one of three father-son duos to both win championships (it was Brent Barry).

Regardless of all that, I commend you for taking a stab at things.

[jlauber]

And further still...

Both Wilt and Russell are credited with playing with eight other HOFers. There are some discernable differences, however. At some points in his career, Chamberlain played with Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, Nate Thurmond, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, and Gail Goodrich. Meanwhile, Russell played alongside Bob Cousey, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Bailey Howell.

For the sake of the Russell-Wilt debate, though, let's break them down. Chamberlain played with Goodrich, but that was AFTER Russell retired. He also played with Elgin Baylor, but contrary to popular opinion, he only actually played with Baylor for ONE semi-full season, in the '68-'69 season, and only TWO post-seasons. Wilt most missed of the '69-'70 season, while Baylor missed almost the entire '70-'71 season (and post-season, as well), and Baylor retired after the first nine games of the '71-'72 season (and not coincidently, LA IMMEDIATELY went on their record-breaking 33 game winning streak BTW.) And, as I mentioned, Baylor played in two post-seasons with Wilt, and he was awful in both of them. In fact, his idiotic coach preferred Baylor's offense over Wilt's, and asked Chamberlain to sacrifice his scoring for Baylor's. Not only that, but Baylor was a baseline-to-baseline player, and Van Breda Kolf actually had Chamberlain playing a high post for the first half of the '68-'69 season. The greatest low-post scorer in NBA history was asked to play a high-post??? The FACT was, Baylor was already on a downward slide by the time Chamberlain joined LA, and I have always maintained that Baylor actually DETRACTED from the Lakers from that point on. In any case, Baylor and Wilt hardly played together at all.

Continuing...

Chamberlain also played with Nate Thurmond, for ONE year...Thurmond's rookie year, in which Nate was asked to play at forward, and not his natural center position (where he would become a HOF player.) Wilt also played alongside Paul Arizin, a legitimate HOFer, who was nearing the end of his career by the time Wilt came along. And, Wilt played with Tom Gola. Now, Gola was a four time All-Star, and is in the HOF. However, he was hardly deserving of either. In his BEST season, he averaged 16 ppg. Over the course of his entire career, he averaged 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and shot .431 from the field.

Chamberlain was traded to the 76ers in the '64-'65 season, and played there until the end of the '67-'68 season. They were a bottom-dwelling team when he arrived, though, and even with Wilt, they only had a 40-40 season in his first year (they were 34-46 the year before.) However, in the playoffs that season, Chamberlain led them to a crushing 3-1 series win over the 48-32 Royals, and then a game seven, one point loss to the 62-18 Celtics. Philly added Billy Cunningham to the roster in the '65-'66 season, and they edged the Celtics by one game in that season (55-25 to Boston's 54-26.) Still, the Sixers were a young team, and while Boston declined slightly from the year before, they were still only a year removed from their best-ever record during their "Dynasty." A case could be made that while the 76ers had a better record, they were probably not a better team. In any case, Wilt thoroughly outplayed Russell in the post-season that year (as he always did BTW), averaging 28 ppg, and 31 rpg, to Russell's 14 ppg and 26 rpg. But, Russell's teammates easily outplayed Wilt's, and Boston won the series, 4-1.

In the following season, the 76ers finally meshed, and they went on to a then-record 68-13 mark, easily outdistancing the Celtics, who had one of their best records during the "Dynasty", at 60-21. That Celtic team was LOADED, too. They had FIVE HOFers (Russell, Havlicek, Sam Jones, KC Jones, and Howell), along with Wayne Embry, Don Nelson, Larry Siegfried, and Jim Barnett. Despite that talented roster, the 76ers, with HOFers Wilt, Greer, and Cunningham, as well as Luke Jackson, Chet Walker (who should be in the HOF), and Wali Jones,...BURIED the Celtics, 4-1. And, once again, Chamberlain just crushed Russell in every statistical category in that post-season.

And the following season, '67-'68, the Sixers were well on their way to a duplication. They again ran away with the best record in the league, at 62-20, while Boston was a distant second at 54-28. Before the Eastern Finals, though, the Sixers lost Billy Cunningham to a wrist injury, and he would not return the rest of the year. Still, they managed to take a 3-1 series lead over Boston without him. Then, Luke Jackson went down with a leg injury in game five. On top of that, Wilt was nursing a variety of injuries, including two arthritic knees. The Celtics roared back to tie the series, 3-3, and in game seven Chamberlain only TOUCHED the ball TWICE on the offensive end in 4th quarter (and those were on offensive rebounds), and his teammates fired blanks all game long (they shot 33% in that game)...and Boston edged Philly 100-96 to win that series. There were several suspicious events that happened in that game seven, but I won't take the time to address them now. In any case, Wilt's Sixers lost that game seven, by FOUR points, DESPITE not having Cunningham at all, with Jackson basically worthless from game five on, Wilt himself under 100%, and his team shooting an ungodly horrible percentage in that last game. I have long argued that the BEST team did NOT win the title that year.

But, back to my original point...which was basically this...

Take away Chamberlain's stint with the Sixers, and here is what we had: Throw out Goodrich, who never played with Wilt during the Russell-era. Throw out Thurmond, who was a rookie playing out of position. Throw out a washed Baylor, who was more of a hindrance during his time with Wilt (especially in the playoffs.) Throw out Gola, who was no more of a HOFer than myself. What does that leave? Wilt basically played with West and Arizin...and not together. So, aside from the Sixers, Wilt played with two quality players, and not at the same time. That was it. And Arizin was nearing the end of his career, and West suffered injuries in the '70-'71 season, and missed the post-season.

Granted, Chamberlain played with talented rosters in Philly, at least from '66-'68 (Cunningham did not arrive until '66.) And, his team's only won one title in those three years. However, his teammates played poorly in the '66 playoffs, and his team was decimated with injuries in the '68 season.

Now, how about Russell's supporting cast? Unlike Wilt, who was drafted by a last-place team (that he immediately turned into a 48-32 team...and a close six game series loss to Boston in the playoffs), ...Russell came to a playoff team. Yes, he was the final piece of the puzzle that took them over the hump. But, Auerbach also added more quality players each year. I have mentioned it many times, but Russell played alongside FIVE other HOFers in the '61-'62 season, while Wilt basically carried a last-place roster, with Arizin in his last year, and an over-rated Gola, to a game seven, two-point loss to the Celtics in the playoffs. There was simply no comparison in talent levels on those two teams...yet Wilt almost single-handedly led that team to an upset over a vaunted Celtic team.

Here is a breakdown of Russell's supporting cast in the decade in which he battled Wilt:

Two of his HOFers were questionable HOFers to be sure. Frank Ramsey was a career 13.4 scorer. And KC Jones was never even an all-star (although he was acknowledged as a good defender.) But, the rest of Russell's HOF teammates were very good, to say the least. Cousey had four 20+ ppg seasons in his career (and another six 18 ppg seasons.) Sharman had three 20+ ppg seasons (and two more 19+ ppg seasons.) Heinsohn had three 20+ ppg seasons in a relatively short nine year career (and all with Russell BTW.) Howell was an under-rated player who played with Russell for three years, and had 20.0, 19.8, and 19.7 ppg averages in those three years (he also had three other 20+ ppg and two other 19+ ppg seasons in his career.) Sam Jones played with Russell for 12 years, and had 10 rings. He had four 20+ ppg seasons while there (as well as three other 18+ ppg seasons.) Not only that, but he one year in which he averaged 25.9 ppg.

And then there was Havlicek. Havlicek played with Russell for seven years, and came away with six rings. He played with Boston another nine years, and won two more rings. What is interesting, though, is that he had three 20+ ppg seasons (and three 18+ ppg seasons) with Russell. His high seasonal average with Russell, was 21.6 ppg. However, after Russell retired,
Hondo had five more 20+ ppg game seasons (and one more 19 ppg), with ALL five of them better than any of his during the Russell-era. In fact, he had a 28.9 and a 27.5 ppg season, which are Jerry West-like years.

For those that argue that Russell made his teammates better, Havlicek is an example to the contrary. He was clearly a better player AFTER Russell. Even more interesting, however, is that you have to wonder how those other Celtic players, particularly Sam Jones, would have fared had they played somewhere else? My point is that most all of them were probably capable of scoring more with other teams in which they would have been the primary focus of the offense. Why is that important? Because I think it clearly proves that Russell was every bit the beneficiary of great teammates, as they were of playing with him. The FACT was, Russell played with not only talented rosters, but usually very DEEP rosters, as well. Wilt, on the other hand, aside from his years with the Sixers, not only had less talented teammates, he had less quantity, as well.

I have posted this link before, which is termed WIN SHARES, but here it is again...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_yearly.html

Here is the explanation of that stat...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

And, using that WIN SHARES stat, here is the yearly breakdown between Russell and Wilt, in their 10 years in the league together...

'59-60: Wilt 17.0 (1), Russell 13.8 (2)
'60-61: Wilt 18.8 (1), Russell 13.0 (5)
'61-62: Wilt 23.1 (1), Russell 15.5 (4)
'62-63: Wilt 20.9 (1), Russell 13.5 (6)
'63-64: Wilt 25.0 (1), Russell 17.3 (3)
'64-65: Wilt 15.1 (4), Russell 16.9 (2) Oscar with 17.0 was (1)
'65-66: Wilt 21.4 (1), Russell 11.7 (4)
'66-67: Wilt 21.9 (1), Russell 12.2 (4)
'67-68: Wilt 20.4 (1), Russell 8.2 (NR)
'68-69: Wilt 14.7 (1), Russell 10.9 (7) Reed tied with Wilt at (1), and as a sidenote, Baylor was NR at 8.5, and West (9), at 10.8.

I think these ratings are significant. Of course, the Russell supporters will argue that Russell didn't care about stats, and that they didn't diminish his 11 rings, but IMHO, it shows that Wilt HAD to play at a much higher level for his TEAM's to be competitive. Most Pro-Russell people will say that Russell was TEAM player, who made his teammates better. However, these numbers reflect the fact that Chamberlain contributed FAR more to his TEAM's success, than Russell did to his.

I wonder how Simmons would respond to that assertion?

[jlauber]

On page 65 Simmons also makes the comments that Wilt's Lakers lost to Reed's Knicks in the '70 Finals, and in '71 his Lakers lost to Kareem's Bucks.

Ok...and so...?

Let's see here...

Wilt suffered what many considered a career-ending injury in the '69-'70 season, and virtually EVERY medical opinion wrote him off for the season. He came back, at less than 100%, and led a 46-36 Laker team against the heavily-favored 60-22 Knicks, and his team lost yet another game seven. I have addressed that series many times, so I won't go into much detail, but for anyone to suggest that Wilt's team was better than the Knicks, even with an injured Reed for the last three games, was just ridiculous. Once again, Simmons fails to mention Chamberlain's horrific injury, and carrying it even further, he also does not mention that Wilt played brilliantly, as well.

And why even bring up the '70-'71 playoffs? Wilt's Lakers lost Baylor after the first two games of the season, and then West in mid-season. Then, in the playoffs, he lost another teammate, Keith Erickson, to an injury. On top of all of that, his Lakers were playing the 66-16 Bucks, with a young and dominant Kareem, Oscar Robertson, Bobby Dandridge, and a host of other talented players. I have ranked that Bucks' team as the 4th greatest team in NBA history. And, yes, the Bucks crushed the Lakers, 4-1. HOWEVER, it was generally acknowledged that Wilt battled Kareem to a draw, despite an 11 age year difference, and Chamberlain's arthritic knees. In fact, when Wilt left the floor in that game five loss, he amazingly received a standing ovation...in Milwaukee!

Simmons also brings up Wilt's 72-73 Laker team losing to the Knicks in the Finals. Once again, Chamberlain's Lakers were injury-riddled. West was hobbled by injuries to BOTH knees, and Happy Hairston had just come back from a season-long injury, and was nowhere near 100%. And while the Knicks 4-1 series win seems pretty solid on the surface, virtually every Knick win was decided in the last minute, with wins by 4, 4, 5, and 9 points. That Knick team was LOADED, as well, with SIX HOFers (Reed, Frazier, Bradley, DeBusschere, Monroe, and Lucas.)

None of which Simmons mentioned.

[jlauber]

On page 65, Simmons goes out of his way to point out that Wilt was traded twice in his career, for "40 cents on the dollar" on both occasions.

For the record, Wilt was traded for THREE players, and cash EACH time. The first time he was traded was out of quiet desperation. Wilt had suffered an infection following the '63-'64 season, and the Warrior team doctors diagnosed it as a heart problem. With Wilt out at the beginning of the '64-'65 season, the Warriors, who had played in the Finals just the year before, started out 5-16. The Warriors' principal owner, Franklin Meuli, decided that he had better get what he could for Chamberlain, and shipped him to the Sixers near mid-season. Wilt's personal Doctor diagnosed his illness as pancreatis, and Wilt soon recovered. And, interesting enough, the Warriors fell all the way down to a 17-63 record, while Chamberlain took a 34-46 team, just the year before, to a 40-40 record, and a playoff berth. And, in the playoffs, Wilt's 76ers routed the 48-32 Royals, 3-1. Following that series win, they battled the 62-18 Celtics, to a game seven, ONE point loss, in a game (and series) in which Chamberlain was magnificent.

I have documented Wilt's trade from the 76ers to the Lakers many times before. Chamberlain was supposedly promised part ownership of the Sixers by owner, Ike Richmond (who Wilt deeply respected BTW.) However, it was a verbal agreement only, and when Richmond died suddenly with a heart attack in 1965, the new Philly ownership told Wilt that they were not going to follow thru with Richmond's committment. After a couple of years of going back-and-forth, it came to a head following the '67-'68 season (in fact, there is some speculation that it may have actually occurred just before game seven of the Eastern Finals...a game that Boston won, 100-96...and in which Wilt did not take a shot from the field in the entire second half.) Shortly after that season, Wilt publically was entertaining offers from the newly created ABA. The Sixer ownership, in another move of desperation, sent Wilt to the Lakers for THREE more players, including all-star guard, Archie Clark (and a boatload of cash.) In any case, it was not as if the Sixers were disenchanted with Chamberlain's performance (geez, he had just won three straight MVP awards.) It was simply a case of getting SOMETHING for Wilt, or perhaps watching him jump to the ABA, and getting NOTHING in return.

It was also fascinating that Wilt would lead the Lakers to FOUR Finals in the next five seasons, while Philly never again made it to even the Eastern Finals. In fact, Wilt would anchor the '71-'72 Lakers, which would not only win the championship, but many, including myself, rank that team as the greatest of all-time. Meanwhile, the Sixers got progressively worse each year following the Chamberlain trade...and in the '72-'73 season, they went 9-73 (while Wilt led LA to another Finals appearance with a 60-22 team.) Furthermore, after Wilt left the Lakers following the '72-'73 season, the Lakers dropped to 47-35, and did not make another Finals, until Magic Johnson's rookie year in the '79-'80 season.

Simmons also fails to mention two other FACTS. One, Wilt's Warrior TEAM was sold by the Philadelphia ownership, to a San Francisco group, following his historic '61-'62 season, for $850,000...which was some $500,000 more than the previous franchise sale a few years before. Not only that, but the Philly ownership had originally bought the franchise for $25,000. Incidently, a new Philly group bought the Syracuse franchise a couple of years later, for only $500,000. So, Wilt's personal involvement was worth almost double what another francise was purchased for, without him.

The second FACT that Simmons fails to EVER mention...was that Russell WAS traded once. He was traded for only TWO players, just before the '56 draft... for Ed McCauley (another questionable HOFer...a career 17.5 ppg, 7.5 rpg, .436 FG% player...and a center to boot), and a relative unknown at the time, Cliff Hagen, who had not yet played in his first NBA game. Hagen would go on to have a HOF career, but once again, no one expected it when he was traded.

A case could be made that Russell brought less, in his trade, than Wilt did in either of his.

[jlauber]

Simmons then brings up Myth #2...that Russell was not a very good offensive player, starting on page 66.

Simmons goes out of his way to point out Russell's PASSING, in some kind of half-baked attempted to prove that Russell was a much better offensive player than he was credited for. All of which is interesting...since he criticizes Wilt for leading the league in assists in the '67-'68 season. The FACT was, Wilt was a better passer his entire career. Despite being asked to focus on shooting in the first half of his career, Chamberlain wound up with a 4.4 to 4.3 apg edge over Russell in terms of career numbers. However, from the '66-'67 season on, Wilt was a MUCH better passer. Yet, Simmons NEVER ONCE brings that up...except with his ridiculous assertion that Wilt only led the NBA in assists that one year, for SELFISH reasons...never mind the fact that Chamberlain's 76ers ran away with the best record in the league that year.

And, that is basically his ENTIRE argument about how Russell's offense was under-rated. He fails to mention Russell's CAREER .440 FG%, or that "clutch" Russell was even worse in the post-season, at .431 . He also fails to mention that, while Wilt was constantly double and tripled teamed for much of his career, Russell was nothing more than the third or fourth option on his teams. In fact, Russell probably scored much of his points on putbacks. Even fellow teammate Tom Heinsohn stated that "Russell couldn't hit a bull's a$$."

The FACT was, Russell was a horrible shooter. He was limited to no more than 5-10 feet, and was basically poor from even that range. For ANYONE to suggest that he was even a good offensive player was absurd.

[jlauber]

Simmons goes on...page 67...

Myth #3: Stastically Wilt Crushed Russell...

Of all of the absurdities that Simmons argues, this one is the most comical. Even Simmons acknowledges the obvious, though...during their 142 H2H games, Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg, while Russell averaged 14.5 ppg, and 23.7 rpg.

Now, Simmons would make an argument, that despite the obvious SIGNIFICANT differential, that those numbers don't tell the entire story. We do agree on that point, albeit, for completely opposite reasons.

Simmons argues that Russell "let" Wilt get the numbers, especially in the first three quarters, and then he would "shut him down" in the 4th. Or, Russell would "let" Wilt accumulate the stats, except in BIG games, or in the "clutch."

I will argue the opposite. Those numbers are deceptive from this standpoint: Wilt cut back his scoring in the last three years against Russell. The FACT was, that in Wilt's first six years against Russell, he averaged about 35 ppg. He even had two SEASONS that approached 40 ppg against him. After Wilt was surrounded with better teammates, his own scoring declined.
On page 68, Simmons's then illustrates their career playoff numbers:

Russell's career post-season scoring was at 16.2 and his career post-season rebounding numbers were at 24.9 (an NBA post-season record BTW), while Wilt's post-season scoring dropped down to 22.5 ppg, and 24.5 rpg. In addition, Russell's post-season assists were at 4.7 apg, and FG% was at 43%, while Wilt's assists were at 4.2 apg, and 52% . He even takes a stab with their FT%, with Russell at 60%, and Wilt at 47%.

First of all, there is a HUGE flaw in the above numbers. Those numbers were their CAREER post-season games...not H2H post-season numbers. If we were to even take their numbers in all 10 of their post-seasons while in the league together, Wilt's numbers (and not just H2H) would have been 28 ppg and 26 ppg, while Russell's would have been at 16 ppg, and 25 rpg. However, H2H, in their post-season battles, Wilt outscored Russell 26-15 ppg, and outrebounded him 28-25 rpg. And, once again, Wilt's offense dropped considerably the last three years he and Russell went at it in the post-season.

In terms of overall play, in their 142 H2H games, of which 49 were in the post-season, Wilt DID crush Russell...including several HUGE games in the post-season. In those 142 meetings, Wilt outscored Russell in 132 of them (many by HUGE margins), and he held a 92-42-8 rebounding edge, as well.

Russell had three 30+ point games in his CAREER against Wilt (37, 31, and 31 point games), and was outscored by Chamberlain in each (47, 35, and 41.) Two of those 30+ point games by Russell were in the playoffs. Meanwhile, Wilt had a staggering 69 30+ games against Russell, including 29 in the post-season. How about 40 point games? Well, Russell never had even ONE against Chamberlain, while Wilt had 24 against Russell, including FIVE in their H2H post-season matchups. Chamberlain also had FIVE 50+ games against Russell, with a high game of 62, and one 50+ game against Russell in the post-season.

In terms of rebounding, Wilt had a whopping 7-1 edge in 40+ rebound games, with an NBA record high of 55 (Russell's high was an even 40 BTW.) Russell never had a 40 rebound game in the post-season against Chamberlain, while Wilt had a 41 rebound game against Russell, which is an NBA post-season record. Chamberlain also held a 23-4 edge in 35+ rebound games, including a 7-0 edge in the post-season.

While Russell never had one 30-40, or 40-30 game against Chamberlain, Wilt had 17 against Russell, including FOUR in the post-season.

How about 30-30 games? Russell had two, 31-30 and 31-31, both in the post-season. Chamberlain had 35 against Russell, including 10 in the post-season.

There are only about 20, or so, games in which the FG and FGA's were recorded for both players, and in virtually all of them, Wilt has a HUGE edge. And while many rank Russell as the premier defensive player of all-time, it is seldom mentioned how in the vast majority of their H2H games, Wilt did a remarkable job against Russell. In the '66-'67 Eastern Finals, Wilt outshot Russell by a .556 - .358 margin (and then Wilt outshot Nate Thurmond, .560 - .343.) And there is one recorded game in 1965, in which Chamberlain held Russell to an 0-14 game. Thanks to Wayne Lynch's book, 'Season of the Sixers", we also know that Wilt shot .549 for the entire season against Russell in the '66-'67 season. In the '66 Eastern Finals, Wilt shot .509 against Russell. In his 62 point outburst against Russell, Chamberlain shot 27-45 from the floor. In the pivotal game seven one-point Celtic win in the '65 Eastern Finals, Wilt shot 12-15 from the field, while Russell went 7-16 for against him. And in his much-maligned seventh game performance against Boston in the '69 Finals, Wilt shot 7-8 from the field, while the "clutch" Russell shot 2-7 against him.

http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Pollack_200607_Stats.pdf

I have pointed out the some 40 games in which Chamberlain just hammered Russell, and here they are again:

For reference, the first number of the pair next to each player's name is points in that particular game, while the second is rebounds. An example would be the first one, with Wilt scoring 45 points, and grabbing 35 rebounds (45-35), while Russell's numbers were 15 points, with 13 rebounds (15-13.)


Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13
Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21
Wilt 43-39….Russell 20-24
Wilt 53-29 Russell 22-32
Wilt 42-29 Russell 19-30
Wilt 50-35 Russell 22-27
Wilt 34-55….Russell 18-19
Wilt 39-30 Russell 6-19
Wilt 44-35 Russell 20-21
Wilt 34-38 Russell 17-20
Wilt..52-30….Russell 21-31
Wilt 41-28 Russell 11-24
Wilt 62-28 Russell 23-29
Wilt 38-31 Russell 11-18
Wilt 42-37 Russell 9-20
Wilt 45-27 Russell 12-26
Wilt 43-32 Russell 8-30
Wilt 32-27 Russell 11-16
Wilt 50-17….Russell 23-21
Wilt 35-32….Russell 16-28
Wilt 32-25 Russell…9-24
Wilt 31-30 Russell 12-22
Wilt 37-32 Russell 16-24
Wilt 27-34 Russell..12-17
Wilt 27-43 Russell 13-26
Wilt 30-39 Russell 12-16
Wilt 31-40….Russell 11-17
Wilt 37-42 Russell 14-25
Wilt 29-26 Russell 3-27
Wilt 27-36….Russell 13-20
Wilt 27-32 Russell 6-22
Wilt 32-30 Russell 8-20
Wilt 46-34 Russell 18-31
Wilt 20-41….Russell 10-29
Wilt 29-36 Russell 4-21
Wilt 31-27 Russell 3-8
Wilt 35-19 Russell 5-16
Wilt 12-42 Russell 11-18


While Simmons may not believe that Chamberlain STATISTICALLY dominated Russell, I think the OVERWHELMING evidence suggests otherwise.

[jlauber]

Simmons then goes off on a tangent about how Wilt did not learn about TEAM play until the '66-'67 season. Oh, so when Wilt's coaches asked him to score 40 ppg, because they knew that it was the ONLY chance they had of winning games, it was Wilt who was selfish???

BUT, later on Simmons' rips Wilt for leading the league in assists. Wilt was being "selfish" and only concerned about his stats. Yep, when a teammate leads the league in passing, that is being selfish. Not only that, but Simmons fails to mention that Wilt's TEAM, went 62-20 that season, with Russell's Celtics a distant second at 54-28.

AND, Simmons then rips Wilt for not taking a shot in the second half of the '67-'68 Eastern Finals game seven... a 100-96 loss to the Celtics. He credits Russell for "holding" Wilt to 14 points in that game. Sure, Wilt still outscored Russell, 14-12, and outrebounded Russell, 34-26, but Russell "wins" the war. Incidently, while Wilt dramatically cut back his scoring in that seven game series, as he had ALL season long...he still managed to outscore Russell 155-96 and outrebounded him, 176-167. Granted, it was not Wilt's best post-season series against Russell (in fact, it was one of his worst), and he still outplayed Russell by a sizable margin.

Judging by Simmons' views, no matter what Wilt would have done, he would have been wrong. When Chamberlain heavily outscored Russell, H2H, in the post-season, as he did by huge margins from the '60-'66 playoffs, well...Wilt was being selfish. When Wilt passed the ball much more, as he did from the '67 thru '69 playoffs...well, Russell was "holding" him down.

Wilt gets ripped for a 46-34 game, as was the case in the clinching game five loss in the '66 Eastern Playoffs...but nary a word is said about Chamberlain holding the "clutch" Russell to FOUR points in his clinching game five win in the '67 Eastern Finals. When Russell "holds" Wilt to 22 points in the seventh game of the '62 Eastern Finals, a two-point Boston win, (while Russell scored 19 BTW), he fails to mention that Chamberlain had games of 33, 42, 35, 41, 30, and 32 before that final game. He also never mentions Wilt's 50 point game, in the fifth game of the '60 Eastern Finals, a 128-107 Warrior win. When Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 29-11, as was the case in the '64 Finals, and also outrebounds him, 27-25, per game...well Russell's TEAM won, so obviously it was WILT's fault.

The bottom line...Russell had to "contain" Chamberlain's dominance, just enough, to eke out several close game seven wins. It was NEVER a case of Russell taking over a game. It was always...if Russell could just "hold" Wilt to slightly less than his usual brilliant performance...well Russell was the "winner", and Wilt was the "loser."

[jlauber]

Next up, on page 74, Simmons brings up this "myth:"

Myth #4: Wilt was a Great Guy...

Even Simmons admits that Wilt was a great interview. He also admits that Wilt was generous. He even admits that the people who knew him, had great stories about him.

He then launches into a long diatribe about Wilt as a teammate. I find much of his "theory" fascinating. He quotes a handful players who were critical of Wilt. Sure, Wilt was not universally liked. He was treated differently than many of his teammates. Still, I could drum up a TON of quotes from teammates like Billy Cunningham, Guy Rodgers, and Nate Thurmond, who were not only friends, but respected Wilt as the greatest player in history. There were also MANY opinions of Chamberlain throughout the league, and here is a link with many of their quotes:

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/quotes.html

Simmons even found an article where the Lakers owner was thinking about the possibilty of trading for Chamberlain in the 1965 season, and he asked the Laker players to vote on it, and he was shocked that the players voted 9-2 against Wilt. Here again, I find that fascinating, especially given the fact that it was Jerry West who gave his personal approval for the trade that did eventually take place in the '68-'69 season. My own personal take on that vote, would have been that, in 1965, there was an erroneous assumption that Wilt was not a great teammate...much of it penned by the media. The FACT was, Wilt had never played with any quality teams up to that point...although, he nearly carried TWO of them to titles on his own. And while I believe that the 76ers were a better fit for Wilt, it would have been interesting had Chamberlain been given the opportunity to play with West and Baylor in their primes...instead of a rapidly declining Baylor in 1968-69. As it was, for whatever reason, that trade to LA did not happen, and Chamberlain went to Philly, where he won one title, and nearly two others. And, of course, the Lakers did not win a title until they finally did acquire Wilt...albeit, it was after Baylor retired. And of all people, West should have been the most thankful. In that '71-'72 post-season, West was mired in the worst shooting slump of his career, while Wilt basically carried that Laker team to the title, and won the Finals MVP in the process.

Not only that, but none other than John Wooden suggested that had Wilt been surrounded with Russell's supporting cast, it might very well have been Wilt that would have won all those titles. The highly respected sportswriter, Leonard Koppett carried it even further. He suggested that had Wilt played with the exact teams that Russell had, that Chamberlain would have gone 13-0, instead of 11-2. The great NBA statistician of that era, Harvey Pollack, who witnessed ALL 142 of their games, claimed that Wilt was the greatest player ever, and that includes Michael Jordan. Oscar Roberston, when asked who the greatest player of all-time was, said, "The record book does not lie."

Simmons also brings up the "theory" that Wilt was difficult to coach. However, Simmons fails to mention that Chamberlain had some horrible coaches. In fact, the only two really great coaches he had, were Alex Hannum, and later Bill Sharman, and he won championships with both. And, as I have said MANY times, Wilt generally did whatever his coaches asked of him, whether he agreed with them, or not.

Simmons fails to mention how well Russell was liked. Granted, Russell dealt with a far greater amount of racism in his life, but I'm sorry, that is still no excuse to treat people, many of them white, the way he did (should we excuse child molesters because they were molested when they were children?)

I won't go into a lot of detail on just how well-liked Russell was. Needless to say, he was NOT universally liked by his own teammates. Tommy Heinsohn never cared for Russell, and there was actually a true bitterness between the two (Russell always despised Heinsohn because Heinsohn won the Rookie of the Year award in their rookie campaigns.) Russell despised his own city, and the very fans who rooted for him. True, the Boston press treated Russell poorly, but still, Russell did not even show up for his own retirement ceremony.

I don't want to turn this into a long dissertation on how Wilt and Russell were perceived, but the vast majority of opinion would say that Wilt was a far better human being than Russell. Something that Simmons somehow missed in that chapter.

[jlauber]

Simmons next myth, on page 76...

Myth #5: A Couple of Plays Here or There And Wilt Could Have Won Just As Many Titles As Russell...

I won't go into every detail that be brings up...I think I have already covered most of them. And, yes, with a couple of points, or plays, here or there, and Wilt could have held a 5-3 edge over Russell.

Simmons makes another ridiculous comment on page 79, saying that NOBODY has ANY "clutch" stories about Chamberlain. ALTHOUGH, even Simmons then brings up THREE great games for Wilt. The '64-'65 Eastern Finals, which I have covered many times, in which Wilt scored the last eight points over a shell-shocked Russell, and brought the Sixers to within a point, ...at which point, the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with an inbound pass, giving the ball to the Sixers, under the Boston basket, with five seconds left. Had Havlicek not stolen the Philly inbound pass, Wilt might very well have been credited with one of the most amazing upsets in sports history (after all, his Sixers finished 40-40 that year, while Russell's Celtics went 62-18.) Chamberlain was brilliant in that game, and in that series, thoroughly outplaying Russell in the process.

Simmons also brings up Wilt's absolute domination of Russell in the '67 Eastern Finals, when, in the clinching game five 140-116 win, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 29-4, outrebounded Russell, 36-21, out-assisted Russell, 13-7, and outshot him from the floor, 10-16 to 2-5.

The final game that Simmons brings up in Chamberlain's "defense" is the clinching game five win over the "under-sized" Knicks ( a team comprised of FIVE HOFers BTW.) While he acknowledges Chamberlain's dominance, 24 points, 29 rebounds, 10-14 shooting, 8 assists, and 10 blocks (yes, it was 10 blocks...not the eight that Simmons reported), he does not bring up the fact that Chamberlain played that game with two badly damamged wrists (one was badly sprained, and the other was fractured.) Incidently, Simmons mentioned earlier in the chapter, that Russell played hurt in the '58 Finals, and Boston lost that series because of it. YET, he NEVER acknowledges ALL the major injuries that Wilt played with in HIS finals.

That's it. That is all he can come up with regarding Chamberlain's "clutch" play. Humm...so when Wilt put up a 50 point game, in the fifth game of the '60 Eastern Finals, in a 128-107 win...that was not "clutch?" Granted, it was not a game seven, but it was an elimination game. How about Chamberlain's 46-34 game (on 19-28 shooting), in the clinching game five loss in the '66 Eastern Finals. Yes, it was a loss, but it was in an elimination game. Furthermore, how about Wilt's game six against the Knicks in the '70 Finals, in which he single-handedly led his team, down 3-2 in the series, to a 135-113 win, with a monumental 45-27 game (on 20-27 shooting BTW)...accomplished just four months after major knee surgery. He also fails to mention Chamberlain's brilliant defense on the Warriors' final play in a one -point game, in the clinching game six win in the '67 Finals. Nor does he mention Chamberlain's incredible 4th quarter in the '72 Western Finals against an 11 year younger Kareem. Jerry West called the greatest ba**-busting performance he EVER saw. Chamberlain took over the game, and with LA down by 10 points, and dominated the much younger Kareem in the process.

Simmons then brings up the "many" "clutch" games that Russell had. He mentions Russell's 19-32 in game seven of the '57 Finals. He brings up Russell's 22-35 7th game in the '60 Finals. Ok...great games to be sure...but neither were accomplsihed against Wilt. He then uses Russell's game seven against Chamberlain in the '62 Eastern Finals, in which Russell "held" Wilt to 22 point game. Yes, Russell did a good job (as did his swarming teammates, who left Chamberlain's mediocre teammates open for repeated misses), but why is that considered a "feat" when Boston was a heavy favorite going into that series? And, of course, Russell is outscored 22-19, but that is a "win" for Russell against Wilt.

Simmons continues with Russell's great game seven in the '62 Finals, a brilliant 30-40 game...against the Lakers. Yes, it was a brilliant game, but unfortunately for Chamberlain, had his mediocre supporting cast been able to score three more points in the '62 Eastern Finals, in that game seven loss, what would Wilt have done in that series? While Russell's 30-40 game was a truly outstanding one...and one of the greatest game seven's in NBA history...I have always wondered what Chamberlain would have accomplished against the Lakers in the Finals that year. Why? Because he averaged 51.5 ppg against them in his six regular season meetings, including a truly monumental 78-43 game earlier in the season.

Then Simmons brings up Russell's performance in the seventh game of the '65 Eastern Finals...after having already credited Wilt with a "clutch" effort earlier in the same game! He does say that Havlicek "saved" Russell, but he then states that Russell had a 15 point (he does not mention his 7-16 shooting BTW), 29 rebound performance, with nine assists, and had blocks been kept, he would nearly have had a quad double. Of course, once again Wilt outscored Russell in that game, 30-15, outshot him, 12-15 to 7-16, outrebounded him, 32-29, and had blocks been kept, he would surely have had a quad double. (In fact, in the first game of the '67 Eastern Finals, Wilt DID have a recorded quad-double against Russell, with a 24 point, 32 rebound, 12 assist, and 13 block effort.) In any case, while Russell is easily outplayed by Chamberlain in that seventh game, Simmons somehow credits Russell with a "clutch" effort.

He then brings up another great game seven for Russell, against the Lakers in the '66 Finals, when he put up a 25-32 game, in a two point win. Once again, though, that was not against Chamberlain.

Finally, he says that Russell "holds" Wilt to 14 points in the seventh game of the Eastern Finals in '67-'68. Here again, I will acknowledge that was not one of Wilt's better games, but he still outscored Russell 14-12, and outrebounded him, 34-26. Furthermore, WHY is it that Wilt is EXPECTED to score, while Russell was not?

And as much Simmons would like to bring up the seventh game of the '69 Finals (the game in which Wilt did not play the last five minutes)...he simply can't. Why? Because Russell, while on the floor the entire last quarter, was nowhere to be found. While LA came roaring back from a 17 point deficit in that period, Russell only watched, helpless to stop it. Chamberlain probably had as many rebounds, on two successive plays, and with a injured knee, than what Russell had the entire quarter. I have said it before, but while that game was certainly not a high point in Wilt's career, he still considerably outplayed Russell. He outscored him, 18-6, he outshot him from the field, 7-8 to 2-7, and he outrebounded him, 27-21...all while missing the last five minutes of the game.

The fact was, Russell never had ANY seventh game, against Wilt, in which he outplayed him. Not only that, but Russell played on significantly better teams for most of his career. So, while Wilt's teams would invariably fall to Russell's Celtics, Russell then got to play against inferior opposing centers in so many other Finals' games. Had Wilt had the benefit of playing with superior teammates, who knows how many other "clutch" games he would have put up.

[jlauber]

Simmons Final Myth...

Myth #6: Players and Coaches From the Era Are Split Over Who Was Better...

I actually addressed this topic earlier. Simmons pulls up some quotes, and uses them as examples.

One of them was by Butch Van Breda Kolf, who was without a doubt, the most idiotic coach Chamberlain had. In fact, Van Breda Kolf probably cost the Lakers the title by keeping Wilt on the bench in that seventh game of the '69 Finals. In fact, it was amazing that LA even made to a game seven considering Van Breda Kolf had asked Chamberlain to sacrifice his own offense for the inept play of Elgin Baylor. I also found it fascinating, that Van Breda Kolf had that Laker team play a half-court offense. And when Bill Sharman came in the '71-'72 season, and with five starters over 30 (well, he more-or-less asked Baylor to retire, and replaced him with a much younger Jim McMillian)...he got them to play up-tempo, fast-break offense...an offense that would run rough-shod over the entire NBA, en route to a record-setting season, and LA's first world championship. In any case, to use Van Breda Kolf as an "unbiased" opinion,... well it was well-known that Wilt and Van Breda Kolf did not get along.

He somehow gets a quote from Jerry West, who says that Russell was the only player better than Wilt, that he ever saw. Interesting...following that '69 debacle, West made the comment that, while Wilt was a better scorer, a better shooter, a better rebounder, a better passer, and a better shot-blocker, that he would take Russell over Wilt in a game seven. Of course, it was immediately after another frustrating game seven loss to Russell's Celtics. In 2003, in an interview with Robert Cherry, West recanted that take...calling it the dumbest thing he ever said. He did say that he would not take one over the other, but that, combined with his own belief that Chamberlain was a much-more skilled player, was certainly no ringing endorsement for Russell...as Simmons had suggested.

Simmons also mentions Jerry Lucas, and Jack Kiser as his "experts" on the subject. The rest of the chapter is basically quotes from Russell and Wilt, with neither saying anything that would suggest that either thought the other was better than them.

Having said that, though, Russell, himself, said that Wilt would do a better job of playing his (Russell's) role, than Russell could of playing Wilt's.

And once again, both sides could dig up quotes 'til the cows come home. To me, they are meaningless. Especially when all the statistical evidence points to Chamberlain just dominating Russell.

The Russell supporters will always argue his 7-1 edge over Wilt (or 11-2.) However, as I have provided, Russell played with superior rosters for the vast majority of their ten years together in the league. And even when Wilt had an equal, or perhaps a slight edge, his team's were either decimated by injuries, or were poorly coached, or were beaten by miraculous shots or plays, or his teammates just plain played poorly...or perhaps a combination of all of them.

The Russell supporters ultimately argue that Russell did whatever it took to win...which was basically a falsehood. Russell could play a dominating defense, and rebound, to be sure, but he was hardly an offensive threat. The FACT was, Russell simply did not have to do nearly as much, in his career, to win games, as Wilt did. I have already documented the "Win Shares" stat, which CLEARLY illustrated that Wilt contributed FAR more to his team's success, than Russell did to his. Wilt not only had to play defense, and rebound, and pass...but he also had to SCORE.

And the Russell supporters always say that when Wilt scored 40-50 points against Russell, his teams still lost many of them. Then they will say that when Chamberlain only scored 10-20 points, that Russell's team won more often. The fact was, Wilt had all kinds of games against Russell. There was no magic formula for Wilt's TEAM's to beat Russell's TEAM's...except, for an edge in a talented supporting cast. I always found it amusing that if Wilt scored 40 points against Russell, and his team lost...well, it was Wilt's fault. And, if Wilt only put up a 14 point game, as he did in the game seven against Boston in 1968, well, Russell "held" him down. Here again, no matter what Wilt did, if his TEAM lost, it was HIS fault.

The Wilt supporters can argue the obvious. Russell NEVER had to, nor DID he, carry his TEAM against Chamberlain's TEAM's. Yet, there were MANY games in which Wilt singlehandedly carried inferior rosters to wins, or near wins, against Russell's. No one ever blamed Russell for his pitiful 4 point performance against Wilt in the clinching game five loss to Philly in '67. Yet, Wilt was ridiculed for his TEAM's clinching loss in the '66 Easterm Finals...when he put up a 46-34 effort. And, he was ripped for only scoring 14 points against Russell in the '68 7th game (and did not attempt a shot in the second half.) Russell was not expected to score, yet Wilt was. Why is that fair? Why could Russell contribute much less to his team's wins, and yet be considered a better player, when Wilt had to do so much more to win games for his TEAM's? And that is ultimately the ANSWER to the Russell-Wilt debate...Russell had to contain Wilt's dominance, just enough, for his TEAM's success. It was NEVER the other way around. Wilt was EXPECTED to be great, while Russell was not. That is all you need to know about who the better player REALLY was.

What we do know, is that there were very few games, in their 142 meetings, in which Russell enjoyed even a marginal statistical edge. In the vast majority of those 142 games, Chamberlain outplayed Russell, and in MANY of them, he just crushed Russell.

And we do know this much...when Wilt was given an equally talented, and HEALTHY, roster, as was the case in the '66-'67 season, and with that roster negating Russell's usual edge, Wilt's dominance of Russell led to a crushing 4-1 series win. I maintain that had Wilt played with similar rosters to Russell's, that we would have seen considerably more of those 4-1 blowout wins by Wilt's teams.

[jlauber]

It has just always perplexed me that anyone could suggest that Russell was the better player. There is virtually no evidence that exists that would show that he was. And, for those that argue his W-L record...I use the MJ argument. MJ played on several losing teams in his career. It was only when he was paired with the best rosters of the 90's, that his TEAM's won titles. Yes, Jordan was the key reason his team's won, just as Russell was the key factor in the Celtic Dynasty. But, as was the case in 1967, and later in 1972, when Wilt was given a quality supporting, HE led those TEAM's to championships.

In the 60's, Walt Bellamy had several statistically great seasons. And he played several years with Willis Reed...but he never even made it to the Finals. Baylor and West, in their primes together, never won a championship. Thurmond and Barry made it to one final together, and were beaten (by Wilt's Sixers.) Yet, I have seldom ever read anything about any of those players being labeled "losers", or "chokers." BUT, Wilt was repeatedly labeled a "loser", and a "choker"...despite playing in six finals (two of them game seven losses), and on two championships. And he did so in the era of the CELTIC Dynasty (not the Russell Dynasty)...a team that was LOADED with HOFers, and deep rosters, year-after-year.

I don't recall MJ being labeled a "choker" when, in the '86 playoffs against the 67-15 Celtics, his 30-52 Bulls were swept...including a loss in a game in which he scored 63 points. That Celtic team had FOUR HOFers, and has generally been regarded as one of the greatest teams of all-time (Simmons, not surprisingly, has them at #1.) BUT, when Wilt takes a last-place roster, before he arrived, to a game seven, two-point loss, to a Celtic team with SIX HOFers, he was considered a "failure." Why was Jordan hailed as a "hero", while Wilt did more in single-handedly carrying a cast of losers to within a an eyelash of beating the greatest Dynasty in professional sports history...and he was labeled a "loser?"

And, try as hard as he can, Simmons can't logically explain it either.

[jlauber]

I have always been fascinated by Russell as being regarded as a "winner", while Wilt was a "loser."

In individual sports, it is relatively easy to determine who the BEST is. Boxing, tennis, and to a lessor extent, golf, are all cut-and-dry...the winner is the "winner."

But in TEAM sports, how do we determine who the BEST INDIVIDUAL player is?

Russell played on TEAMs that won 11 titles. Once again, though, he was paired with EIGHT other HOFers, and in fact, never had less than THREE other's on his team's, and at times, had as many as SIX other HOF teammates (seven including himself...and eight, if you count his HOF coach, Red Auerbach.) Sam Jones played alongside him in 10 of those title years. John Havlicek played alongside Russell in six of those titles, and then added two more after Russell retired. The fact was, Russell was just ONE, of SEVERAL great players every year he played with Boston.

Here again, let's use Jordan as another example. During his career, he actually played on FIVE teams with losing records. His first three playoff teams went 1-9 in the post-season. It wasn't until his sixth season before he played on a championship team. BUT, take a look at the rosters he played with. Bill Cartwright, Horace Grant, John Paxson, Charles Oakley, and Scottie Pippin. In his second "three-peat", he played with Ron Harper, Dennis Rodman, Steve Kerr, Toni Kukoc, and oh, BTW, Scottie Pippen. How good were those Bull's teams? In MJ's third title season, 92-93, his team went 55-27. He retired after that season, and the Bulls went ...55-27, withOUT MJ. True, they did not win the championship, but they lost a close game seven to the Knicks, who would lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals. AND, the following season, MJ returned late in the season, from his retirement, and playing with basically the same roster from the season before, he could not lead the Bulls to a title.

I would never suggest that MJ, or Russell, were not the most important pieces in their championships, but they were hardly the only reasons. BOTH played on the best rosters in the NBA during their championship seasons (with the exception being Russell's '67-'68 and '68-'69 seasons,...but as I have illustrated, there were a variety of reasons why his TEAM won the championship in those years.) BUT, the same could also be said of Wilt. When he was paired with the best rosters, he won (here again, with the exception of the '68 and '69 seasons, and once again, those TEAMs lost game close game sevens, for a variety of reasons.)

If we are using rings as a measuring stick, how do we rate these players? KC Jones ( 8 ), Robert Horry (7), Steve Kerr (5), Ron Harper (5), and Dennis Rodman (5)? Oh, and BTW, how about Pippen, with the same exact number of rings as Jordan, in the same exact seasons?

Meanwhile, where do we rank Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, who played TOGETHER for many seasons, and did not win ONE title? Yes, West did finally get ONE ring, thanks to Wilt, in the '71-'72 season. The great Oscar Robertson only played on ONE title team, and that was when he was paired up with Kareem. And speaking of Kareem, he only played on ONE championship season, until Magic Johnson came along.

Willis Reed, for some reason, has been considered a "winner", but played on three straight losing teams in the first three years of his career. He did not play on a championship team until that '69-'70 season, (and it could be argued that the Knicks won that Final series without much help from him BTW)...on a team that had Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusschere, and Bill Bradley, all in the HOF, as well as Cazzie Russell, and a deep bench. He won his second ring playing alongside FIVE other HOFers, (Frazier, DeBusschere, Bradley, Earl Monroe, and Jerry Lucas.)

Clearly, in a TEAM game, the only player that you could say almost single-handedly carried his team to the brink of a championship, was Wilt, in the '61-'62 season. He literally carried a roster that was a last-place team when he arrived, to within an eyelash of beating a Celtic team that had SIX HOFers on it.

And, he WAS a champion,...TWICE. He played on 13 winning teams in his 14 year career, and in the year in which his team did not have a winning record, all he did was average 44.8 ppg (the second highest all-time), led the league in rebounding at 24.3 ppg, and set an NBA record for FG% at .528 (a mark he would shatter several more times, BTW.) He played on teams that either made it to the Conference Finals, or Finals, in 12 of them. He led his teams to six Finals. He played on teams that won their regular season conference, seven times. He played on teams with the best record in the league, four times. And, he anchored what many believe, to be the two greatest teams of all-time (the '67 Sixers, and the '72 Lakers.) His "failures" included losing FOUR game seven's, by a total of NINE points, as well as another game seven loss against Reed's Knicks. AND, Wilt was arguably the BEST player on the floor, in virtually ALL of the playoff series he played in. You will NEVER find a series in which he played poorly.

But, guys like Simmons portray Wilt as a "loser" and a "choker."

[jlauber]

Russell or Wilt...you tell me...


http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/leadersseason.htm?stat=eff&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/leadersseason.htm?stat=av&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/leadersseason.htm?stat=vi&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/leaderscareer.htm?stat=eff&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/leaderscareer.htm?stat=av&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/leaders/leaderscareer.htm?stat=vi&lg=n



Here is an explanation of those ratings...

http://www.databasebasketball.com/about/aboutstats.htm



Here is another site, with some more statistical breakdowns...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ows_season.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_season.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_season.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_season.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_career.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ows_career.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_career.html




These are interesting statistical breakdowns, and some are questionable (MJ, Kobe, and Lebron's best seasons seem quite under-rated in at least a few of them.) But one aspect is consistent...Chamberlain rates highly in ALL of them. The only area where Russell has an edge is in the Defensive Win Shares. But it is interesting, even in that rating, that Chamberlain is still among the best ever.

The WIN Shares rating is informative, as well. Kareem ranks #1, with Wilt at #2, Karl Malone at #3, Jordan at #4, and surprisingly, John Stockton at #5. Malone and Stockton, of course, never won a title. Shaq only ranks at #12 BTW, and Russell is #14, with West at #16, and Magic at #19. Magic's rating is surprising, except to the extent that he played alongside Kareem and Worthy, which probably hurt him in the rankings. IMHO, Magic HAS to rank as one of the greatest "winners" of all-time. If ANYONE made his fellow teammates better, it was Magic. Of course, one could argue that these "WIN Shares" do not take into account the POST-SEASON, in which, perhaps, Russell would have scored much higher. However, this rating does take into account the overall quality of teammates, in which Wilt then scores much higher based on the fact that he played with some mediocre rosters.

Once again, these statistical analysis' do not encompass everything about the game, and as we have all conceded, some of what Russell brought to the table was immeasureable (just as the intangibles that Starr brought to the table in leading GB to five world titles..and being extraordinarily "clutch" in the process), but taken as a whole, it is hard to argue Chamberlain's place in NBA history. When you factor in the video footage in which the vast majority out there shows Wilt was far dominant than Russell, the record book, the H2H breakdowns, the rule changes, the two world championships on teams that many consider the greatest in NBA history, ...or these ratings...Chamberlain was not only the most dominant player ever in NBA history, he was probably the most dominant athlete in professional team sports history.

[lefthook00]

You're crazy for typing all of that out. Good stuff though.

[G.O.A.T]

I found Simmons argument to be much more compelling and while you do raise valid counterpoints for some things, there is more hypocricy (doing the same thing you accuse him of and leaving out details and choosing versions of the stories that support your argument) than actual counterpoint.

[lakers_forever]

:applause: Great read! How long have you took to research and then write all that??

[guy]

It was a great read and very informative. But I don't know. IMO you focused way too much on stats when one of Simmons' main points about the whole topic was that the stats were very misleading. I don't remember off the top of my head the whole argument so I'm not going to go into a huge discussion about it, especially since that was WAY before my time. Great read though, and it definitely shed some light on some of the things Simmons left out.

[jlauber]

Lakers-forever,

I am 55 years old, and I grew up in the decade of the 60's. In fact, I watched MANY of the Russell-Wilt matchups from about 1965 on. While I did not see nearly all 142 of them, I can tell you that in the many that I witness, I NEVER came away from ONE game thinking that Russell was a better player than Wilt.

I have researched this topic for some 40 years, and the more-and-more information, and video footage that comes out each year, substantiates what I witnessed...Wilt was CLEARLY a better player than Russell.

I have posted links to video footage on the greatness of Wilt before, and here are just a couple...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6k539HSbXM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=849_WdqJ8o8&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1R6UI738MI&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4tLR25jgDA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBXgvdVvFL0&NR=1


I actually watched that '71-'72 NBA-ABA All-Star game in the summer of '72, and while Wilt only played a few minutes...in those few minutes he DOMINATED the 7-2 Artis Gilmore. Incidently, take a close look at that footage. Wilt not only is taller, but much bigger...all of which is interesting...considering that there are some who believe that Gilmore was teh strongest NBA player ever (not even close BTW...Wilt was credited with a 500+ bench press back in the 60's...and there is an actual eye-witness account of Chamberlain benching 465 lbs..at age 59!)

I got a kick out of the "ooohs and ahhhs" that Dwight Howard received when he dunked on an 11' 6" rim in the slam dunk competition last year. Why? Wilt was dunking on an experiemental 12 foot rim in the 50's. Not only that, but Chamberlain is the only known player to have dunked from the FT line, without benefit of a running start. In fact, the NBA had to outlaw the dunking of FTs BECAUSE of Wilt. Can you imagine what percentage Chamberlain would have shot in his career had they let him??? In any case, that was just one of SEVERAL rules that were put in place to curtail Wilt's dominance. The NBA twice widened the lane, and the second one, and final time, in 1965, slowed Wilt down from 34.7 ppg to 33.5 ppg...while his FG% went UP!

Take a close look at that footage. In it, you will see Wilt hitting shots from 15+ feet. Fadeaway bank shots, jump shots, and sweeping hook shots. Not only that, but he had a variety of post moves. CLEARLY he would put Dwight Howard to shame in a skills contest.

All of which is interesting. The PERCEPTION was that all Wilt did was dunk on skinny, uncoordinated 6-6 white centers in his career. The FACT was, the average starting center in the NBA in 1960 was 6-10. And in 1970 it was 6-11. How about 2009? 7-0. So in the 50 years since Wilt played, the average starting center has grown all of two inches.

Not only that, but Wilt DOMINATED the likes of Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Unseld, Hayes, Lucas, Lanier, Kareem, AND Russell...all in the HOF. And he routinely faced them 5-10 times a year (in fact, in the 60's...Wilt had seasons in which he faced Russell 17 times, including the post-season.)

As for this ridiculous assertion that somehow height matters...how many 7-3+ centers have ever led the NBA in rebounding? In fact, only Kareem at 7-2, and Motumbo, at 7-2 have ever led the NBA in rebounding...and they did for a TOTAL of THREE seasons, COMBINED. Wilt led the NBA in rebounding 11 times (and outrebounded Russell 8-2 in their decade against each other.) The best rebounder in the 90's? None other than 6-8 Dennis Rodman...although he was far less effective in the post-season ( (only a career 9.9 rpg in the post-season)...unlike Wilt who went from 22.9 rpg to 24.5 rgp in the post-season.

One more time...in the VAST MAJORITY of the video footage exists from the Russell-Wilt era, Wilt is CLEARLY superior. Not even close.

Combine that with the record book, the H2H domination, the Rule Changes, and the fact that Wilt anchored, arguably, the two greatest NBA teams of All-Time (th e'66-'67 76ers, and the '71-'72 Lakers), and I just don't see how anyone can claim that Russell was even remotely close to Chamberlain's level.

[Brandon Roy]

Damn dude. You should send that to Simmons' email.

[nycelt84]

Simmons' begins his debate by using his six "myths" ...

His first myth...that Russell had a better supporting cast than Wilt.

I will get to his main points later, but one of his first comments, on page 60, is that the '84 Celtics were "dead-even" in terms of talent, with the Lakers, but that Bird outplayed Magic in that series, and Boston won in seven games.

I have discussed some of the BEST teams, that did not win a game, or series, before, and that was one of the top one's on my list.

Yes, Boston did win a game seven series...but not because Bird outplayed Magic, ...but because the Lakers BLEW that series. The FACT was, had the Lakers not made shocking miscues in games two and four, they would have SWEPT that series. In game one, LA shot out of the gate, building an early 20 point lead, and coasted to a an easy win. In game three, in LA, they annihilated the Celtics, 137-104. However, in game two, in Boston, the Lakers had a two-point lead, and the ball, with only a few seconds left. With Magic standing two feet away, Worthy tried to inbound the ball to Byron Scott, and Gerald Henderson intercepted the ball, and scored the tying layup. Boston went on to win in OT, but that was the low point for "Big Game James" Worthy in his career. And, in game four, in LA, the Lakers had a five point lead with 41 seconds left. In the last 41 seconds Worthy once again "choked" missing two FTs, and incredibly, so did Magic. FOUR blown FTs, and the Celtics once again tied the game late, and won in OT. So, once again, Boston did not win that series, so much as LA lost it.

The Lakers would redeem themselves the very next year, beating Boston 4-2, and winning game six on the Celtics home floor. And two years later, in the rubber match, the Lakers blew out Boston 4-2 again, winning the first two games easily after building huge leads, and then watching Magic Johnson hit the game-winner in game five.

My personal opinion...Magic easily outplayed Bird in those three series, and only a couple of miracles prevented Magic from sweeping Bird in their three H2H matchups.

Are you sure that you actually watched the '84 Finals? Larry Bird was easily by far the best player on the court in that series, and Magic didn't play close to his level.

[Alhazred]

Here again, let's use Jordan as another example. During his career, he actually played on FIVE teams with losing records. His first three playoff teams went 1-9 in the post-season. It wasn't until his sixth season before he played on a championship team. BUT, take a look at the rosters he played with. Bill Cartwright, Horace Grant, John Paxson, Charles Oakley, and Scottie Pippin. In his second "three-peat", he played with Ron Harper, Dennis Rodman, Steve Kerr, Toni Kukoc, and oh, BTW, Scottie Pippen.

Oakley wasn't on the team during the first three-peat, he left before then.



How good were those Bull's teams? In MJ's third title season, 92-93, his team went 55-27. He retired after that season, and the Bulls went ...55-27, withOUT MJ. True, they did not win the championship, but they lost a close game seven to the Knicks, who would lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals. AND, the following season, MJ returned late in the season, from his retirement, and playing with basically the same roster from the season before, he could not lead the Bulls to a title.

The Bulls won 57 games the year before, not 55 like in 94. Philly also won 55 games the season after Wilt left.

Grant had also left in the 95 offseason and that took away the Bulls' interior defender and best rebounder. Not quite the same team.

[Alhazred]

Damn dude. You should send that to Simmons' email.

Concurred, I'd like to see a debate between jlauber and Simmons. Should be a hoot. :lol

[Cyclone112]

Abe is gonna cream when he finds this thread. I'm at work and have no chance of reading it all there but I look forward to reading it later. Thanks for posting.

[adamcz]

Your post is longer than Simmons' book. There's no way I'm reading that.

[Roundball_Rock]

Great work. :applause: After Kareem Wilt is the greatest player ever. The more I learn about him the more I am impressed.


The Bulls won 57 games the year before, not 55 like in 94.

Come on. The guy did great research and made some minor errors. Why nitpick? His point stands regardless of it is 55 and 55 or 57 and 55. Simmons himself made some minor errors in his book too (saying Pip averaging 20.8 ppg in 94' when it was actually 22 for example).


Philly also won 55 games the season after Wilt left.

Read the man's post! You cherry picked an outlier. The trend is clear: Wilt shows up, his teams dramatically improve. Wilt leaves, they decline.

[godofgods]

*****, I ain't readin that but I must say that Russell > Wilt simply because Russell never played for the Fakers.

[Blzrfn]

I read a preview of this book, and I liked it, but it seems to me that Simmons is a Chamberlain hater. There is no way in hades that Russell was better than Chamberlain. What is he going to do next, write an NFL book someday and claim that Brady was better than Manning? You can't judge individuals on championships.

[jlauber]

Yes,

I did err on the Bulls' record from '93 to '94. The bottom line is though... MJ retired after the '93 season, and basically the only replacement for him was the signing Toni Kukoc, along with a slight upgrade of Steve Kerr for John Paxson...and the Bulls dropped a total of two games (from 57-25 to 55-27), AND, they lost a close game seven to the Knicks, who would go on and lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals.

Wilt was TRADED for THREE players (although the Sixers did NOT want to trade him...they were more-or-less forced to by Wilt.) Included in that deal was All-Pro guard Archie Clark, who would average 20 ppg with Philly, and a decent journeyman center in Darrell Imhoff. Philly dropped from 62-20 to 55-27. Not only that, but the Sixers were bounced in the first round of the playoffs that year (after narrowly losing a game seven Eastern Finals the year before with a team decimated by injuries.) AND, the Sixers went into a steady state of decline after that (going 9-73 in Wilt's final year, in '72-'73.)

Meanwhile, despite the loss of depth, and as stupid a coach as the NBA has ever seen, the Lakers improved from 52-30 to 55-27, and lost a game seven in the Finals, by two points. Wilt would then anchor that Laker team to another three Finals appearance in the next four years, and a world championship (sans Baylor) in the '71-'72 season.)

I am not naive enough to claim that the Bulls were as good without MJ, but they were clearly a strong team, despite his loss. And, had Chamberlain not been hurt in the '69-'70 season, and had LA hired a competent coach, like Sharman, earlier, who knows how many titles they would have won during Chamberlain's tenure in Los Angeles.

After Wilt "retired" following the '72-'73 season, in which the Lakers had gone 60-22 and lost four close games in the Finals (all in the last minute BTW), the Lakers fell to 47-35, and did not make a return to the Finals until Magic's rookie year in '79-'80.

Wilt dramatically improved EVERY team he joined, and EVERY team declined after he left.

Incidently, Wilt holds the "unofficial" blocked shot record of 25 in one game. Blocked shots were not officially kept until the year after Wilt retired, but Harvey Pollack recorded many of them, and had him with 25 in one game. In fact, Pollack, who scored EVERY game between Russell and Wilt believes that Wilt averaged double-digit blocks in his CAREER.

One more point...Simmons makes the ridiculous assertion that Wilt did not statistically dominate Russell. How about this fact (among the MANY I have already given):

Russell had TWO 30-30 games against Wilt, in their 142 H2H meetings (a 31-30 and a 31-31 game...and was outscored by Wilt in both)...HOWEVER, Chamberlain AVERAGED 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg in his CAREER against Russell, or nearly a 30-30 game EVERY time they played.

For Simmons to say that Wilt did not statistically dominate Chamberlain is just ludicrous. What is his definition of "domination?"

And please, don't throw the tired old line of 7-1 into a statiscal debate. Russell played on far superior TEAMs for nearly his entire career. When Chamberlain finally had a slight edge in talent, as in the '66-'67 season, his Sixers, behind his overwhelming dominance of Russell, crushed the Celtics. Had Wilt been surrounded with equal supporting casts, and that remained healthy in the post-season, he would probably have gone at least 7-1 against Russell. Even John Wooden said as much.

[lakers_forever]

Lakers-forever,

I am 55 years old, and I grew up in the decade of the 60's. In fact, I watched MANY of the Russell-Wilt matchups from about 1965 on. While I did not see nearly all 142 of them, I can tell you that in the many that I witness, I NEVER came away from ONE game thinking that Russell was a better player than Wilt.

I have researched this topic for some 40 years, and the more-and-more information, and video footage that comes out each year, substantiates what I witnessed...Wilt was CLEARLY a better player than Russell.

I have posted links to video footage on the greatness of Wilt before, and here are just a couple...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6k539HSbXM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=849_WdqJ8o8&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1R6UI738MI&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4tLR25jgDA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBXgvdVvFL0&NR=1


I actually watched that '71-'72 NBA-ABA All-Star game in the summer of '72, and while Wilt only played a few minutes...in those few minutes he DOMINATED the 7-2 Artis Gilmore. Incidently, take a close look at that footage. Wilt not only is taller, but much bigger...all of which is interesting...considering that there are some who believe that Gilmore was teh strongest NBA player ever (not even close BTW...Wilt was credited with a 500+ bench press back in the 60's...and there is an actual eye-witness account of Chamberlain benching 465 lbs..at age 59!)

I got a kick out of the "ooohs and ahhhs" that Dwight Howard received when he dunked on an 11' 6" rim in the slam dunk competition last year. Why? Wilt was dunking on an experiemental 12 foot rim in the 50's. Not only that, but Chamberlain is the only known player to have dunked from the FT line, without benefit of a running start. In fact, the NBA had to outlaw the dunking of FTs BECAUSE of Wilt. Can you imagine what percentage Chamberlain would have shot in his career had they let him??? In any case, that was just one of SEVERAL rules that were put in place to curtail Wilt's dominance. The NBA twice widened the lane, and the second one, and final time, in 1965, slowed Wilt down from 34.7 ppg to 33.5 ppg...while his FG% went UP!

Take a close look at that footage. In it, you will see Wilt hitting shots from 15+ feet. Fadeaway bank shots, jump shots, and sweeping hook shots. Not only that, but he had a variety of post moves. CLEARLY he would put Dwight Howard to shame in a skills contest.

All of which is interesting. The PERCEPTION was that all Wilt did was dunk on skinny, uncoordinated 6-6 white centers in his career. The FACT was, the average starting center in the NBA in 1960 was 6-10. And in 1970 it was 6-11. How about 2009? 7-0. So in the 50 years since Wilt played, the average starting center has grown all of two inches.

Not only that, but Wilt DOMINATED the likes of Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Unseld, Hayes, Lucas, Lanier, Kareem, AND Russell...all in the HOF. And he routinely faced them 5-10 times a year (in fact, in the 60's...Wilt had seasons in which he faced Russell 17 times, including the post-season.)

As for this ridiculous assertion that somehow height matters...how many 7-3+ centers have ever led the NBA in rebounding? In fact, only Kareem at 7-2, and Motumbo, at 7-2 have ever led the NBA in rebounding...and they did for a TOTAL of THREE seasons, COMBINED. Wilt led the NBA in rebounding 11 times (and outrebounded Russell 8-2 in their decade against each other.) The best rebounder in the 90's? None other than 6-8 Dennis Rodman...although he was far less effective in the post-season ( (only a career 9.9 rpg in the post-season)...unlike Wilt who went from 22.9 rpg to 24.5 rgp in the post-season.

One more time...in the VAST MAJORITY of the video footage exists from the Russell-Wilt era, Wilt is CLEARLY superior. Not even close.

Combine that with the record book, the H2H domination, the Rule Changes, and the fact that Wilt anchored, arguably, the two greatest NBA teams of All-Time (th e'66-'67 76ers, and the '71-'72 Lakers), and I just don't see how anyone can claim that Russell was even remotely close to Chamberlain's level.


That's great! Thanks for the vids. Wilt was indeed a freak of nature. Would completely dominate the NBA today. An era that has Dwight Howard as the best center... And they talk about the 60's and early 70's being a weak era. :hammerhead:

[Roundball_Rock]

I did err on the Bulls' record from '93 to '94. The bottom line is though... MJ retired after the '93 season, and basically the only replacement for him was the signing Toni Kukoc, along with a slight upgrade of Steve Kerr for John Paxson...and the Bulls dropped a total of two games (from 57-25 to 55-27), AND, they lost a close game seven to the Knicks, who would go on and lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals.

Good post and they had the Knicks beat until arguably the worst call ever and certainly one of the worst that handed the Knicks Game 5 when the Bulls had defeated them fair and square in New York.

I just want to correct the Kukoc misconception that MJ fans push. Kukoc, a SF, had nothing to do with Jordan. They were going after him for years. It just happened that he came to America the year Jordan retired. Plus Kukoc wasn't "Kukoc" as a rookie. He averaged only 19 minutes a game in the playoffs. He did not become a good player until the following season.

Their replacement for Jordan was a combination of Pete Myers and Steve Kerr. Myers was the direct replacement as the starting SG. Pete Myers was a guy who was out the NBA for the previous two years, no one expected him to make the team--not even Myers--at training camp until MJ retired and they could not find a legit NBA starting SG on such short notice (MJ retired 2 days before training camp). To put it in today's terms, imagine if Lebron retired two days before training camp and he was replaced by a D-League player! Kerr was added to the team before Jordan retired but he was barely staying in the league before he came to Chicago. He was the 12th man in Orlando. He wasn't intended to have any significant role until Jordan retired. Kerr was a good player as your 7th man but he was hardly an adequate replacement for one of the three or four greatest players of all-time.


Wilt was TRADED for THREE players (although the Sixers did NOT want to trade him...they were more-or-less forced to by Wilt.) Included in that deal was All-Pro guard Archie Clark, who would average 20 ppg with Philly, and a decent journeyman center in Darrell Imhoff. Philly dropped from 62-20 to 55-27. Not only that, but the Sixers were bounced in the first round of the playoffs that year (after narrowly losing a game seven Eastern Finals the year before with a team decimated by injuries.) AND, the Sixers went into a steady state of decline after that (going 9-73 in Wilt's final year, in '72-'73.)

Great post. A lot of people just post the W-L records after Wilt and Kareem got traded and act as if Wilt and Kareem were traded for nothing. Get real. They were the best players in the league so of course they would command a price in the trade market.


Wilt dramatically improved EVERY team he joined, and EVERY team declined after he left.

:applause:


Chamberlain AVERAGED 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg in his CAREER against Russell, or nearly a 30-30 game EVERY time they played.

For Simmons to say that Wilt did not statistically dominate Chamberlain is just ludicrous. What is his definition of "domination?"

And please, don't throw the tired old line of 7-1 into a statiscal debate. Russell played on far superior TEAMs for nearly his entire career. When Chamberlain finally had a slight edge in talent, as in the '66-'67 season, his Sixers, behind his overwhelming dominance of Russell, crushed the Celtics. Had Wilt been surrounded with equal supporting casts, and that remained healthy in the post-season, he would probably have gone at least 7-1 against Russell. Even John Wooden said as much.

:applause:

jlauber, thanks for your posts. I used to be one the people who bought some of the Wilt myths until I learned more about him. I hope you post more often about Wilt and other older legends from that era like West, Oscar, Baylor, Havelick, Petit, et al. so we can learn more about them from a guy who watched them play then. Maybe 1% of people here even saw prime Kareem and about only 10% of this board is older than 30 so few people saw prime Magic and Bird live. There is a lot of talk, though, about 80's players but there is a dearth of discussion of legends prior to 1980. I hope you help fill that void. :cheers:

[Alhazred]

Wilt was TRADED for THREE players (although the Sixers did NOT want to trade him...they were more-or-less forced to by Wilt.) Included in that deal was All-Pro guard Archie Clark, who would average 20 ppg with Philly, and a decent journeyman center in Darrell Imhoff. Philly dropped from 62-20 to 55-27. Not only that, but the Sixers were bounced in the first round of the playoffs that year (after narrowly losing a game seven Eastern Finals the year before with a team decimated by injuries.) AND, the Sixers went into a steady state of decline after that (going 9-73 in Wilt's final year, in '72-'73.)

Archie Clark averaged 13/3/3 and Imhoff was 9/9. Not bad, but how does that make Wilt more of an impact player? Also, Imhoff was the guy who Wilt scored 100 on.

I'm not denying that Wilt had a large influence on his teams, I'm just not sure he was more of an impact player than Jordan.

[Roundball_Rock]

Clark was an all-star the previous year, hardly Pete Myers. Do you think Wilt--the best player in the league at the time--was traded for nothing? The same thing happened to Kareem. Kareem was traded for an all-star, a 16/11 center, and two decent role players.

[Alhazred]

Clark was an all-star the previous year, hardly Pete Myers. Do you think Wilt--the best player in the league at the time--was traded for nothing? The same thing happened to Kareem. Kareem was traded for an all-star, a 16/11 center, and two decent role players.

Kerr, Kukuc and Myers compared to Imhoff and Clark? Imhoff and Clark is a bit better, but only for rebounds and a few more points. The difference isn't that significant, though.

Clark was indeed an All-Star in 68, but Kukoc's 95 season is close in comparison. Also, notice how Archie's scoring goes up the more Philly starts to lose.

[YAWN]

here is his real reason

http://www.professionallimos.com/CelticsLogo_History.gif

[Alhazred]

here is his real reason

http://www.professionallimos.com/CelticsLogo_History.gif

:lol


By the way, put me down for Wilt over Russell.

[G-train]

jlauber, much like Wilt himself, does not understand 'the secret'.

[Roundball_Rock]

Kerr, Kukuc and Myers compared to Imhoff and Clark? Imhoff and Clark is a bit better, but only for rebounds and a few more points. The difference isn't that significant, though.

Clark was indeed an All-Star in 68, but Kukoc's 95 season is close in comparison.

Who cares about 95'? We are talking about 94' and rookie 9/4/3 in 19 minutes a game in the playoffs Kukoc and Harper, not Kukoc, was the "replacement" for Jordan in 95' (he turned out to be a bust. He was brought in to be fill their gaping hole at SG and be a second scorer and wound up being a 7 or 8 ppg guy, although a good defender). Kukoc never sniffed an all-star team.

The facts are that Kareem and Wilt were traded for good players and their teams consistently did worse without them.

[jlauber]

Roundball,

I personally rate Kareem at #3 on my all-time list, behind Wilt and Shaq. Having said that, though, I would have no problem with Kareem at #2. The only reason that I rate Shaq at #2 is because, at his best, like the '00-'02 seasons, he just dominated the NBA. His three-peat finals in those three years were, IMHO, the greatest in NBA history.

However, Kareem was the best player in the NBA the entire decade of the '70's, and was still among the best players in the league into the mid-80's. In fact, he was written off in that famous "Memorial Day Massacre" in the first game of the '85 Finals, as washed up. He responded by averaging 30 ppg and 16 rpg over the final five games, and won the Finals MVP award.

Kareem also put up a 50 point game on Chamberlain. Wilt "held" Kareem in check, though, for much of their H2H matchups. In the '71-'72 Western Finals, Wilt blocked 15 of Kareem's "unblockable" sky-hooks, including 11 in the last two games. Still, Wilt was no longer an offensive force (although, had he played like Shaq, he could have been)...and I would have taken Kareem over Wilt at the time.

Kareem is an interesting study, though. I call him "the Bridge"...because he basically played from the late 60's into the late 80's. Even at his advanced age, in the mid-to-late 80's, he battled Olajuwon to a draw in their H2H wars, and of course, Olajuwon was the premier center for much of the 90's...until Shaq came along. For those that would question the caliber of player that Wilt was, back in the 60's, one need only make the connection from Kareem, who Wilt was able to match, despite being 11 years older, and well past his prime...to Olajuwon, who dominated his decade.

Magic is remembered for his game six in the '80 Finals, when an injured Kareem could not go. Because of that game, Magic won the Finals MVP. What few people realize, though, is that Kareem completely dominated the first five games of that series. He averaged something like 33 ppg, 13 rpg, and shot something like .550 from the floor. In the pivotal fifth game, with the series tied at 2-2, Kareem severly sprained his ankle late in the third period. He had already scored 26 points to that point, and came out. He came back, though, in the 4th quarter, and scored 14 more points down the stretch, to lead LA to a 108-105 win, and a 3-2 series lead. I always thought it was a disgrace that Magic won the Finals MVP that year.

In any case, Kareem was certainly among the greatest ever...and I would also have to say that he was College Basketball's greatest player ever. His college team's went 88-2, with NC's (and those two losses were by scores of 71-69 and 46-44 BTW)...AND, he failed to shot less than 50% from the field in only ONE game in his entire College career (and that was when he was partially blind in one eye.)

Other great players of the 60's and 70's...Pete Maravich, whose skill set has been unmatched since, and Jerry Lucas who could grab 20 rpg, and shoot from as far as 25 ft with deadly accuracy. Oscar, West, Erving, and Hawkins would have been great today, as well, among others.

Thanks for reading...

[jlauber]

Incidently,

I wasn't trying to diminish Jordan's greatness by my comparison about the quality of teammates that he had, with what Russell had, or who Chamberlain played with. My point was obvious, though...Jordan was no more of a "winner" until his supporting cast was among the best in the league. Wilt played with putrid personnel for the first half of his career, while Russell was surrounded by a HOF supporting cast his entire career. Does ANYONE really believe that Russell could have carried the '61-'62 Warriors to a game seven against the Celtics, had Wilt been playing center for Boston????

As for my All-Time Top-10...it currently is this...

1. Wilt
2. Shaq
3. Kareem
4. MJ
5. Russell
6. Magic
7. Kobe
8. Duncan
9. Bird
10. Oscar

I hate to leave West off of that list...he, and Jordan, were arguably the greatest post-season scorers of all-time...but Kobe has shot up the charts the last few years.

[Roundball_Rock]

Good post, especially this part:


Kareem is an interesting study, though. I call him "the Bridge"...because he basically played from the late 60's into the late 80's. Even at his advanced age, in the mid-to-late 80's, he battled Olajuwon to a draw in their H2H wars, and of course, Olajuwon was the premier center for much of the 90's...until Shaq came along. For those that would question the caliber of player that Wilt was, back in the 60's, one need only make the connection from Kareem, who Wilt was able to match, despite being 11 years older, and well past his prime...to Olajuwon, who dominated his decade.

I agree on Kareem's college dominance and the 1980 FMVP was a joke. Thanks for posting that because a some people need to know that because some people here go online, see Magic won the FMVP and think Magic was the chief reason that team won and then use that finals to argue against Kareem!

In your view how many rings do you think Wilt would have had if he was drafted by Boston and not Philadelphia?

Wilt led the league in scoring, rebounding, assists, and FG % (21 ppg on 68% in one year and he had a 73% year too) at various points in his career. He was also believed to have been the best defender in the league at one point. How could he be so great in so many different areas? There is nothing he could not do that you need a center to do and he added the bonus of being able to pass so well that he could led the NBA in assists. In terms of individual play Wilt has to be the GOAT. Who else could excel this much in so many areas? I view Kareem as kind of Wilt-lite in all these areas.


I wasn't trying to diminish Jordan's greatness by my comparison about the quality of teammates that he had, with what Russell had, or who Chamberlain played with. My point was obvious, though...Jordan was no more of a "winner" until his supporting cast was among the best in the league.

Excellent point. This is what is lost when Jordan partisans keep citing "rings as the man" when they say Jordan>Kareem or Wilt. Those guys did not have the dominant teams in their youth over the course of a decade like Jordan did.


As for my All-Time Top-10...it currently is this...

1. Wilt
2. Shaq
3. Kareem
4. MJ
5. Russell
6. Magic
7. Kobe
8. Duncan
9. Bird
10. Oscar

Good list. I am curious why don't have Hakeem in the top 10. Your top 5 is the same as mine, although my order is different.

[Alhazred]

Who cares about 95'?

Who cares about 68?


We are talking about 94' and rookie 9/4/3 in 19 minutes a game in the playoffs Kukoc and Harper, not Kukoc, was the "replacement" for Jordan in 95' (he turned out to be a bust. He was brought in to be fill their gaping hole at SG and be a second scorer and wound up being a 7 or 8 ppg guy, although a good defender). Kukoc never sniffed an all-star team.

Compare Kukoc's and Myers 1994 numbers to Imhoff's and Clarks in 69. Neither pair were that great and any difference is fairly minimal.


The facts are that Kareem and Wilt were traded for good players and their teams consistently did worse without them.

As did the Bulls with Jordan. As I showed, Imhoff and Walker weren't much better than Kukoc and Myers. Also, Imhoff let a guy drop 100 on him once. :lol

[Alhazred]

Incidently,

I wasn't trying to diminish Jordan's greatness by my comparison about the quality of teammates that he had, with what Russell had, or who Chamberlain played with. My point was obvious, though...Jordan was no more of a "winner" until his supporting cast was among the best in the league.

Sorry, my apologies.


As for my All-Time Top-10...it currently is this...

1. Wilt
2. Shaq
3. Kareem
4. MJ
5. Russell
6. Magic
7. Kobe
8. Duncan
9. Bird
10. Oscar

I hate to leave West off of that list...he, and Jordan, were arguably the greatest post-season scorers of all-time...but Kobe has shot up the charts the last few years.

Shaq over MJ and Kareem? Interesting choice.

[G-train]

Even at his advanced age, in the mid-to-late 80's, he battled Olajuwon to a draw in their H2H wars, and of course, Olajuwon was the premier center for much of the 90's...until Shaq came along.

This is factually incorrect.

H2H Olajuwon averages 22 points, 12 rebounds, 3 assists and 2.5 blocks.
Kareem averages 15 points, 6 rebounds, 1.5 assists and 1.5 blocks (in 9 mins less per game).

But the most incorrect part of your statement is that they battled to a draw. This is more so true when Olajuwon first entered the league. However in 88/89 Olauwon dominated the lakers on many occasions, regardless of Kareems mpg.

Not only that, are you saying that Shaq was better than Olajuwon in 93/94/95? I dont think so. In fact right through 96/97 Olajuwon outplayed him H2H, all the while being better at Shaq at every facet of the game except power post moves. Shaq was more so about the late 90's/earlys 00's, when Hakeem was either retired or hardly playing.

I won't attempt to argue your initial posts, as Simmons already has and won. And I am no Simmons fan by any stretch.

I implore posters to read Simmons argument and put it against jlauber's.

[Roundball_Rock]

68' is the year after Wilt left. Why do MJ fans have to bring their agenda into a quality Wilt thread?

Comparing Kukoc and Myers to Clark and Imhoff is a joke. Kukoc was never close to being an all-star and Myers was not even good enough to be in the NBA when he was chosen to "replace" Jordan. Imhoff was a legit NBA player.


As did the Bulls with Jordan.

Yeah--marginally even though they "replaced" him with a guy who was out the league and another guy who was the 12th man on his previous team. :oldlol: They didn't get an all-star in exchange for him like the Sixers and Bucks got for their trades.

[Alhazred]

I won't attempt to argue your initial posts, as Simmons already has and won. And I am no Simmons fan by any stretch.

I implore posters to read Simmons argument and put it against jlauber's.

Aw sh-t, its on!

[Fatal9]

As for my All-Time Top-10...it currently is this...

1. Wilt
2. Shaq
3. Kareem
4. MJ
5. Russell
6. Magic
7. Kobe
8. Duncan
9. Bird
10. Oscar

Outrageous.

Gotta say, I smell a Laker fan (and as a result, Celtic hater) based on this list.

[Alhazred]

68' is the year after Wilt left. Why do MJ fans have to bring their agenda into a quality Wilt thread?

68 is the year Walker made the All-Star game. You said forget 95, so I said forget 68.


Comparing Kukoc and Myers to Clark and Imhoff is a joke. Kukoc was never close to being an all-star and Myers was not even good enough to be in the NBA when he was chosen to "replace" Jordan. Imhoff was a legit NBA player.

Imhoff was a competent rebounder, but not exactly a defensive presence. Offensively, he wasn't that special, either.


Yeah--marginally even though they "replaced" him with a guy who was out the league and another guy who was the 12th man on his previous team. :oldlol: They didn't get an all-star in exchange for him like the Sixers and Bucks got for their trades.

Walker was 13/3/3 in 69. Kukoc was 11/4/3 in 94. Not much of a difference, is there?

[G-train]

Shaq over MJ and Kareem? Interesting choice.

And a terrible choice at that. jlauber is an elegant writer, smoothing over ISHiots with information overload.
He fails to understand what winning basketball is about.
Read Simmons book. Read the quotes that Chamberlain says himself. Look at it side by side with jlaubers points. You will make an easy decision.

Sidenote: I predict he is a life long Laker fan, who works as an accountant. Maybe a scientist. Boring, a homer, and lacking understanding of intangibles and just thinking beyond facts and figures.

[Roundball_Rock]

:oldlol: @ the constant gymnastics needed to prop up Jordan. Wilt was traded for Archie Clark and two role players. Clark was an all-star at the time of the trade. What is the problem? Wilt was one of the two greatest players ever. What do you expect when he is traded, even for an all-star? Again you are simply looking at stats. Using that logic AI is the second GOAT SG.


Imhoff was a competent rebounder, but not exactly a defensive presence. Offensively, he wasn't that special, either.

Where are you getting this from? Rebounding and offense you can see from stats but where are you pulling defense from? Anyway, Imhoff was able to stay in the NBA year after year even when there were only 8 teams. Myers could not do it when there were nearly 30 teams.


Read Simmons book. Read the quotes that Chamberlain says himself. Look at it side by side with jlaubers points. You will make an easy decision.

I did and I am with jlauber. His book is good and Simmons make some good points on Wilt and Russell but he is disgustingly biased when it comes to Wilt (and Kareem). He forgot that in his book he was posing as a historian, not a an opinion writer for a sports website.

You could do the same with with almost any player by cherry picking quotes. "I want to win but I want to be the reason for my team winning." I wonder why that quote was not in Simmons' book? :rolleyes:

[jlauber]

Roundball,

While an ESPN "panel of experts" last year rated Wilt's '61-'62 season as the greatest individual season in all of professional team sports' history, I personally rank Chamberlain's '66-'67 as THE greatest.

His scoring dropped from 33.5 ppg in '65-'66 down to 24.1 ppg that year, but it was only because he was finally surrounded by quality teammates. Even Rick Barry "thanked" Wilt for letting him win the scoring title. As it was, Wilt did put up the high game of the NBA season that year, with a 58 point game. Wilt also led the NBA in rebounding that year, at 24.2, by a huge margin over Russell, who was next at 21.0 rpg. Chamberlain also finished third in assists, at 7.8 apg (and would lead the league the next year.) And probably his most impressive stat, was that he shattered his own FG% record, by shooting .683 (which he would later break with a .727 mark in '72-'73.) His .162 margin over runnerup Walt Bellamy (.521) is by far-and-away the largest differential in NBA history (and the league average was .441 BTW.) Included in that record-breaking FG% were three perfect games of 15-15, 16-16, and 18-18...which are the top-3 all-time...and an incredible 35 straight made FGs.

In the post-season that year, Wilt outscored Russell, 21.6 - 10.2 ppg; outrebounded him 32.0 - 23.0 rpg; outassisted him, 10.0 - 6.0 apg; and outshot him, .556 to .358 . (Numbers are courtesy of Wayne Lynch's 'Season of the Sixers' BTW.) AND, in the Finals, and against Nate Thurmond, Wilt outscored Nate, 17.5 - 14.3 ppg, outrebounded him, 28.5 - 26.7 rpg, and outshot him by a staggering .560 - .343 from the field.

Another interesting point about Wilt...while his scoring dropped from 33.5 ppg in '65-'66 down to 24.1 ppg in '66-'67, 24.3 in '67-'68, and 20.5 in '68-'69, he still would put up the high games in the league each season. I mentioned his 58 point in '66-'67...but in the '67-'68 season, he had the FOUR highest games, at 52, 53, 53, and 68!

His coach in the '68-'69 season, Butch Van Breda Kolf, was so stupid, that he asked Wilt to play the high post. It got so bad that Sports Illustrated ran an article saying that Wilt could no longer score. Chamberlain responded the very next game with a 60 point outburst, and followed that up with a 68 point game a few days later (on 29-35 shooting.) In fact, over the course of the next 17 games, he averaged 31 ppg.

As a sidenote...while ESPN's "experts" rated Wilt's '61-'62 season as the greatest ever...he did NOT win the MVP award that year. Yes, Bill Russell, playing alongside FIVE other HOFers, won the award with numbers of 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and a .457 FG%...while Wilt, with a cast of clowns, led his team to a 49-31 record, and a two-point game seven loss to the 60-20 Celtics in the Eastern Finals...with a 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, and a .506 FG%. Makes perfect sense to me....

As for how many rings Wilt could have/would have won with Boston....

well, based on the fact that Wilt blended with ANY roster, I suspect that he would have won at least as many as Russell. He could do everything that Russell could do, and was a much better offensive player. Leonard Koppett, the esteemed NY Times writer of that era believed that had Wilt played in the same exact years, as Russell, and with Russell's rosters and coach, that he would have went 13-0 instead of Russell's 11-2. Purely an opinion, of course...just as the many opinions that the Russell "apologists" throw around.

Speaking of the Russell "supporters"...the most intelligent arguments I hear from them are that Russell reduced Chamberlain's overwhelming dominance, just enough, to allow his TEAM to go 7-1 against Wilt's TEAMs in the post-season. They never say that Russell overwhelmed Wilt...just that Russell was able to "contain" Chamberlain just enough, to allow his usually far superior personnel to outplay Wilt's supporting cast.

And, as I have already shown, Wilt's TEAMs were only a few points away from going 5-3 against Russell's TEAMs...despite Russell playing alongside much better players for most of his career.

[Alhazred]

:oldlol: @ the constant gymnastics needed to prop up Jordan. Wilt was traded for Archie Clark and two role players. Clark was an all-star at the time of the trade. What is the problem? Wilt was one of the two greatest players ever. What do you expect when he is traded, even for an all-star? Again you are simply looking at stats. Using that logic AI is the second GOAT SG.

Roundball, Archie's stats fell his first year in Philly because the team was so stacked. Not only that, but he had about the same impact that rookie Kukoc had, no propping needed.


Where are you getting this from? Rebounding and offense you can see from stats but where are you pulling defense from? Anyway, Imhoff was able to stay in the NBA year after year even when there were only 8 teams. Myers could not do it when there were nearly 30 teams.

Who do you think Wilt scored 100 on? :lol

[lakers_forever]

1. MJ
2. Wilt
3. Kareem
4a. Magic
4b. Bird
6. Russell
7. Shaq
8. Hakeem
9. Duncan
10. Kobe Bryant
11. Dr. J
12. Oscar Robertson
13 Moses
14 West
15. Bob Pettit
16. Elgin Baylor
17. George Mikan
18. John Havlicek
19. Isaiah Thomas
20. Karl Malone

[jlauber]

I agree that Olajuwon was the best center for most of the 90's. Shaq took over in the late 90's, and was unstoppable for the next several seasons.

Interesting, too, is that while Shaq acknowledged that Olajuwon got the best of him in the '94-'95 Finals, take a closer look at the numbers...

Olajuwon averaged 32.8 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 5.5 apg, and shot .483 from the floor.
Shaq averaged 28.0 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 6.3 apg, and shot .595 from the field.

So, while Olajuwon was in his prime, and Shaq at the outset of his career, Shaq was already closing the gap. Within a few years Shaq was dominating the entire league.

As for Olajuwon and Kareem. Their season long numbers were similar in the mid-80's...but Kareem was well past his prime. One can only wonder what Kareem, circa the '71-'72 season, would have done against Olajuwon in the '94-'95 season....

[jlauber]

Alhazred,

Your point about Wilt scoring 100 points on Imhoff (actually Wilt scored 100 on about 3-4 NY centers that night) brings me to an interesting story, as told by Imhoff.

The two teams met again a few nights later, and Imhoff stated that he played his butt off,...maybe the game of his life, in fact. With a couple of minutes left in the game, he fouled out...and received a standing ovation from the crowd. He had "held" Wilt to 54 points that night!

Which is just another remarkable fact about Wilt...when he was scoring 50 points in a game, the rest of the league just shrugged it off as just another "ho hum" game...

[jlauber]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Career_achievements_of_Wilt_Chamberlain

"Chamberlain is holder of 72 NBA all-time records, 63 of which he holds by himself.[17] Among his records are several which are regarded as virtually unbreakable, such as averaging 22.9 rebounds for a career or 50.4 points in a regular season, scoring 100 points or 55 rebounds in a single game, scoring 65 points or more fifteen times, 50 or more points 118 times.[14][6] During Chamberlain's time, defensive statistics like blocks and steals had not been recorded yet. However, according to Jack Ramsay, "Harvey (Pollack) said he used to tell one of his statisticians to keep track of Wilt's blocks in big games... One night, they got up to 25".[18]

[edit] NBA scoring records
See also: List of National Basketball Association top individual scoring season averages
See also: List of National Basketball Association top rookie scoring averages
See also: List of National Basketball Association players with 60 or more points in a game
See also: List of individual National Basketball Association scoring leaders by season
NBA Record - Most Points Per Game in a season (50.4 in the 1961-62)
Chamberlain also holds the next two highest with 44.8 in 1962-63 and 38.4 in 1960-61.
NBA Record - Most Points in a season (4,029 in 1961-62)
Chamberlain holds the next highest with 3,586 in 1960-61
NBA Record - Most Points Scored in a Game (100 vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962)
NBA Record - Most Points Scored in a Half (59 in the 2nd half vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962)
NBA Record - Most 50 Point Games in a season (45 times in 1961-62)
Chamberlain holds the next most with 30 in 1962-63. No other player has had more than 10.
NBA Record - Most 40 Point Games in a season (63 times in 1961-62)
Chamberlain holds the next most with 52 in 1962-63. Michael Jordan holds third with 37 in 1986-87.
NBA Record - Most Consecutive Seasons Leading League in Points Per Game (7)
Record shared with Michael Jordan.
NBA Record - Most Career Regular Season 60 Point Games (32 times)
Kobe Bryant is in second place with 5.
NBA Record - Most Career Regular Season 50 Point Games (118 times)
Michael Jordan is in second place with 31.
NBA Record - Most Career Regular Season 40 Point Games (271 times)[19]
Michael Jordan is in second place with 173.
NBA Record - Most Consecutive 50 Point Games (7 times from December 16, 1961-December 29, 1961)
Chamberlain also holds the next three longest with 6 in 1962, 5 in 1961, and 5 in 1962
NBA Record - Most Consecutive 40 Point Games (14 times from December 8, 1961-December 30, 1961 and also 14 times from January 11, 1962-February 1, 1962)
Chamberlain also has the next most with 10 from November 9, 1962 through November 25, 1962
NBA Record - Most Consecutive 30 Point Games (65 from November 4, 1961-February 22, 1962)
Chamberlain holds the next two longest streaks with 31 in 1962 and 25 in 1960.
NBA Record - Most Consecutive 20 Point Games (126 from October 19, 1961-January 19, 1963)
Chamberlain holds the next most with 92 from February 26, 1963 through March 18, 1964.
NBA Record - Most points per game by a rookie (37.6 in 1959-60)
NBA Record - Most points by a rookie (2,707 in 1959-60)
NBA Record - Most points by a rookie in a game (58 on January 25, 1960 and 58 on February 21, 1960)
NBA Record - Fewest Games Played to Reach 20,000 Points (499 achieved in 1966)
Michael Jordan, at 620 games, took the second fewest games.
NBA Record - Fewest Games Played to Reach 25,000 Points (691, achieved on February 23, 1968 against the Detroit Pistons)
Michael Jordan, at 782 games, took the second fewest games.
NBA Record - Fewest Games Played to Reach 30,000 Points (941, achieved on February 16, 1972 against the Phoenix Suns).
NBA Record - Most consecutive seasons leading the league in field goals made (7 from 1959-60 through 1965-66)
Shared with Michael Jordan
NBA Record - Most Field Goals Made in a season (1,597 in 1961-62)
Chamberlain holds the next three spots with 1,463 in 1962-63, 1,251 in 1960-61, and 1,204 in 1963-64
NBA Record - Most Field Goals Attempted in a season (3,159 in 1961-62)
Chamberlain holds the next four highest with 2,770, 2,457, 2,311, and 2,298.
NBA Record - Most Field Goals Made in a Game (36 vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962)
Chamberlain holds the next highest with 31, and is tied (with Rick Barry) at third with 30
NBA Record - Most Field Goals Attempted in a Game (63 vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962)
Chamberlain holds the next two most with 62 and 60.
NBA Record - Most Field Goals Made in a Half (22 in the 2nd half vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962)
NBA Record - Most Field Goals Attempted in a Half (37 vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962 (2nd half)
NBA Record - Most Field Goals Attempted in a Quarter (21 in the 4th quarter vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962)
NBA Record - Most Free Throws Made in a Game (28 vs. the New York Knicks on March 2, 1962)
Record shared with Adrian Dantley
NBA Record - Most seasons leading the NBA in free throw attempts (9)
NBA Record - Most consecutive seasons leading the NBA in free throw attempts (6 from 1959-60 through 1964-65)
NBA Record - Most Free Throws Attempted in a season (1,363 in 1961-62)
Chamberlain also holds the next four spots with 1,113, 1,054, 1,016, and 991.
NBA Record - Most Free Throws Attempted in a Game (34 vs. the St. Louis Hawks on February 22, 1962)
Chamberlain also holds second place with 32 on March 2, 1962.
NBA Playoff Record - Most points by a rookie in a game (53 vs. the Syracuse Nationals on March 14, 1960)
Pulled down a rookie playoff record 35 rebounds in the same game.
Chamberlain also scored 50 as a rookie against the Boston Celtics on March 22, 1960.
NBA Playoff Record - Most field goals in a seven game series (113 vs. the St. Louis Hawks in 1964)
NBA Playoff Record - Most field goals in a game (24 vs. the Syracuse Nationals on March 14, 1960)
Record shared with John Havlicek and Michael Jordan
NBA Playoff Record - Most field goal attempts in a game (48 vs. the Syracuse Nationals on March 22, 1962)
Record shared with Rick Barry
NBA Playoff Record - Most field goal attempts in a half (25 vs. the Syracuse Nationals on March 22, 1962)
Record shared with Elgin Baylor and Michael Jordan
NBA Playoff Record - Most field goal attempts in a three game series (104 vs. the Syracuse Nationals in 1960)
NBA Playoff Record - Most field goal attempts in a five game series (159 vs. the Syracuse Nationals in 1962)
NBA All-Star Game Record - Points in a game (42 in 1962)
NBA All-Star Game Record - Field goals in a game (17 in 1962)
Record shared with Michael Jordan and Kevin Garnett
NBA All-Star Game Record - Field goals in a half (10 in 1962)
NBA All-Star Game Record - Free throw attempts in a game (16 in 1962)
Chamberlain also holds the second most attempts in an All-Star Game with 15 in 1960."

[Alhazred]

Alhazred,

Your point about Wilt scoring 100 points on Imhoff (actually Wilt scored 100 on about 3-4 NY centers that night) brings me to an interesting story, as told by Imhoff.

The two teams met again a few nights later, and Imhoff stated that he played his butt off,...maybe the game of his life, in fact. With a couple of minutes left in the game, he fouled out...and received a standing ovation from the crowd. He had "held" Wilt to 54 points that night!

:lol nice.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"Other selected scoring facts
2nd highest career scoring average (30.06)

[jlauber]

Regarding the Olajuwon-Kareem H2H battles, G-Train says:

"This is factually incorrect.

H2H Olajuwon averages 22 points, 12 rebounds, 3 assists and 2.5 blocks.
Kareem averages 15 points, 6 rebounds, 1.5 assists and 1.5 blocks (in 9 mins less per game)."

G-Train, I am not disputing your numbers, but just out of curiosity, I looked up their H2H battles in the '86-'87 season, in which Olajuwon had been in the league three years, and was 24 years old. Meanwhile, Kareem had been in the league 18 seasons and was 39 years old.

In their 4 H2H battles, here is what I came up with.

Hakeem averaged 17.3 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.1 apg, and shot .403 from the floor.
Kareem averaged 18.8 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.8 apg, and shot .582 from the field.

I could not find box scores before that year, nor did I look for any after. In any case, Kareem, at well past his prime, DID battle Hakeem to a draw that year.

[jlauber]

As for my take on MJ's first retirement, and the quality of teammates he had, and Chamberlain's trade after the '68 season....

My point was not really a question of who accomplished more, but the fact that Simmons' basically called Wilt a "loser" and a "choker" in his comparisons to Russell, but he ranks MJ at #1 on his All-Time list.

So, when MJ leads a 30-52 Bulls team against the 67-15 Celtics, in the '86 playoffs, and his team is swept, somehow Jordan is considered "heroic."

I repeat, NO ONE ever carried a team, with less talent, as far as Chamberlain did in the '61-'62 season. He basically took a last-place roster, and almost single-handedly took them to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, with Russell and FIVE other HOFers. Yet, Russell is considered the "winner" in that series?????

[Roundball_Rock]

I repeat, NO ONE ever carried a team, with less talent, as far as Chamberlain did in the '61-'62 season. He basically took a last-place roster, and almost single-handedly took them to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, with Russell and FIVE other HOFers. Yet, Russell is considered the "winner" in that series?????

They were that bad without him? :eek:

[Abraham Lincoln]

The fact that Russell had the stability of playing for one coach (besides himself) throughout his career is as important as the talent of his teammates, while Wilt played for 7 coaches in his first 11 seasons. Boston was on the same page from the ownership down to Coach Auerbach & the players. An example of this in the modern era is the Spurs.

In Wilt's own words (from '64):[I]

"Meanwhile, here are the NBA (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/topic/article/National_Basketball_Association/1900-01-01/2100-12-31/mdd/index.htm) owners, with diamond rings on their little fingers and cigars in their mouths, and they want winners. Do what you have to do, coach baby, but boot me home a winner. Don't talk to me about personality problems, coach, just show me that big box score. Don't come to me with the song and dance about a tired team; I know the season is too long, but what the hell, baby. Win, win, win.

Pro basketball has created a lot of jumpy coaches. The poor guys, it's a wonder some of them don't sort of fall off the bench and maybe foam at the mouth a little. I promise you that some coaches in this association get word that they've lost one player and picked up two

[juju151111]

Great work. :applause: After Kareem Wilt is the greatest player ever. The more I learn about him the more I am impressed.



Come on. The guy did great research and made some minor errors. Why nitpick? His point stands regardless of it is 55 and 55 or 57 and 55. Simmons himself made some minor errors in his book too (saying Pip averaging 20.8 ppg in 94' when it was actually 22 for example).



Read the man's post! You cherry picked an outlier. The trend is clear: Wilt shows up, his teams dramatically improve. Wilt leaves, they decline.
LOL at the end of the year someone on Round list will drop another spot. By 2012 that player will rank 26th so round can nutgag over his fav player. Anyways Great post man. People like to cliam that Russell was better when stats say otherwise. I have been saying this for a while.

[jlauber]

Roundball,

Wilt was drafted, while in High School, in a "territorial" draft. BTW, Auerbach was chasing after Chamberlain while he was in high school. In any case, he came to a last place Warrior team in his rookie year, and immediately turned them into a winner. The roster was basically the same, in his third year, '61-'62. While Russell had FIVE other HOFers that year (Heinsohn, Cousey, Sam Jones, Frank Ramsey, and KC Jones), Wilt had HOFer Paul Arizin, who was in his final year, and a HOFer Tom Gola, who was one of the worst HOFers ever (his career numbers are a joke...of course Russell could argue that KC Jones, and maybe even Ramsey, also had no business being in the HOF, either.) Chamberlain also played with Al Attles, who was a decent player, and Guy Rodgers, who was a great passer, but one of the worst shooters in NBA history (He NEVER shot above .400 in any season in his career.)

In any case, Wilt was asked by his coach, Frank McGuire, before the season began, to score, and score some more. He knew that the only hope his team had, was for Chamberlain to dominate every game.


Abe,

Your point is well-taken. Russell had one of the greatest coaches ever, in Auerbach, who also assembled deep squads every year. And Russell had stable rosters in every season in which he played. Most of his quality teammates played with him for 5-10 years.

Meanwhile, Wilt played for some horrible coaches, and, with few exceptions, he was fortunate to play alongside teammates for 4-5 years.

[juju151111]

Roundball,

I personally rate Kareem at #3 on my all-time list, behind Wilt and Shaq. Having said that, though, I would have no problem with Kareem at #2. The only reason that I rate Shaq at #2 is because, at his best, like the '00-'02 seasons, he just dominated the NBA. His three-peat finals in those three years were, IMHO, the greatest in NBA history.

However, Kareem was the best player in the NBA the entire decade of the '70's, and was still among the best players in the league into the mid-80's. In fact, he was written off in that famous "Memorial Day Massacre" in the first game of the '85 Finals, as washed up. He responded by averaging 30 ppg and 16 rpg over the final five games, and won the Finals MVP award.

Kareem also put up a 50 point game on Chamberlain. Wilt "held" Kareem in check, though, for much of their H2H matchups. In the '71-'72 Western Finals, Wilt blocked 15 of Kareem's "unblockable" sky-hooks, including 11 in the last two games. Still, Wilt was no longer an offensive force (although, had he played like Shaq, he could have been)...and I would have taken Kareem over Wilt at the time.

Kareem is an interesting study, though. I call him "the Bridge"...because he basically played from the late 60's into the late 80's. Even at his advanced age, in the mid-to-late 80's, he battled Olajuwon to a draw in their H2H wars, and of course, Olajuwon was the premier center for much of the 90's...until Shaq came along. For those that would question the caliber of player that Wilt was, back in the 60's, one need only make the connection from Kareem, who Wilt was able to match, despite being 11 years older, and well past his prime...to Olajuwon, who dominated his decade.

Magic is remembered for his game six in the '80 Finals, when an injured Kareem could not go. Because of that game, Magic won the Finals MVP. What few people realize, though, is that Kareem completely dominated the first five games of that series. He averaged something like 33 ppg, 13 rpg, and shot something like .550 from the floor. In the pivotal fifth game, with the series tied at 2-2, Kareem severly sprained his ankle late in the third period. He had already scored 26 points to that point, and came out. He came back, though, in the 4th quarter, and scored 14 more points down the stretch, to lead LA to a 108-105 win, and a 3-2 series lead. I always thought it was a disgrace that Magic won the Finals MVP that year.

In any case, Kareem was certainly among the greatest ever...and I would also have to say that he was College Basketball's greatest player ever. His college team's went 88-2, with NC's (and those two losses were by scores of 71-69 and 46-44 BTW)...AND, he failed to shot less than 50% from the field in only ONE game in his entire College career (and that was when he was partially blind in one eye.)

Other great players of the 60's and 70's...Pete Maravich, whose skill set has been unmatched since, and Jerry Lucas who could grab 20 rpg, and shoot from as far as 25 ft with deadly accuracy. Oscar, West, Erving, and Hawkins would have been great today, as well, among others.

Thanks for reading...
Where is MJ ranked??

[jlauber]

juju,

I KNOW that I am in the minority here, but I have MJ at #4, Russell at #5, Magic at #6, and Kobe is now at #7. And I'm sure that Lebron will make it in a few years, as well.

[juju151111]

juju,

I KNOW that I am in the minority here, but I have MJ at #4, Russell at #5, Magic at #6, and Kobe is now at #7. And I'm sure that Lebron will make it in a few years, as well.
Hey its all good man. I can see you don't have an agenda. They have been plenty of people who have said bird,magic, and even Shaq was Goat. I only argue with the agenda guys tho. They stick right out.

[Fatal9]

Wilt:

- is not a good leader
- was selfish and too stat conscious for most of his career
- not dependable in clutch situations (if you managed to get him the ball, 90% chance he'd blow the game at the FT line)
- not competitive enough (couldn't even demand the ball in a game 7, instead complained about it afterwards. admitted he lacked the hunger Russell had.)
- couldn't gel with the Lakers to win a championship until '72...more concerned with "one uping" his teammates than winning
- exaggerated an injury in a game 7 (perhaps to avoid being scapegoat again?), even if he was slightly hurt, any player with drive would finish off the game.

this player is NOT the GOAT. In fact, I would opt for a player with lesser abilities to avoid the headaches.

[jlauber]

Fatal9 says,

"Wilt:

- is not a good leader
- was selfish and too stat conscious for most of his career
- not dependable in clutch situations (if you managed to get him the ball, 90% chance he'd blow the game at the FT line)
- not competitive enough (couldn't even demand the ball in a game 7, instead complained about it afterwards. admitted he lacked the hunger Russell had.)
- couldn't gel with the Lakers to win a championship until '72...more concerned with "one uping" his teammates than winning
- exaggerated an injury in a game 7 (perhaps to avoid being scapegoat again?), even if he was slightly hurt, any player with drive would finish off the game.

this player is NOT the GOAT. In fact, I would opt for a player with lesser abilities to avoid the headaches."

1. Wilt was NOT selfish. In fact, Chamberlain did whatever his coaches asked of him. It was NOT his idea to average 50 ppg in the '62 season (it was his coach, Frank McGuire.)

Wilt also cut back his scoring when Alex Hannum asked him to before the '67 season. And, when he was traded to the Lakers, he even played the high post for the brilliant Van Breda Kolf, so that a washed up Baylor could continue to shoot blanks.

The following season, and after Van Breda Kolf was fired, his new coach, Joe Mullaney asked Wilt to become the focal point of the offense. Chamberlain responded by averaging 32.2 ppg in his first nine games. Unfortunately, he went down with a horrific knee injury...the SAME knee that he injured in the Finals just the year before (or the knee that he "faked" an injury to...more on that later, though.)

And, before the '72 season, his new coach, Bill Sharman, asked Wilt to concentrate on defense, rebounding, and starting the fast-break...which he did...and it led to an offense that terrorized the NBA, scoring 121 ppg.

Of course, when Wilt led the NBA in assists, in the '67-'68 season, Simmons' stated it was for "selfish" reasons...never mind the FACT that Wilt's Sixers ran away with best record in the league that year. Yep, he was so "selfish" that he guided his team to a 62-20 mark (while the "unselfish" Russell's Celtics could only go 54-28.)


2. Not dependable in clutch situations? Let's see...in the '65 Eastern Finals, in game seven, Wilt scored the last eight points, bringing the 40-40 Sixers to within one point of the 62-18 Celtics (and on their home floor BTW) with 5 secs. left. The "clutch" Russell then hit aguidewire with his inbounds pass, giving Philly the ball. If Havlicek didn't steal the ball, who knows?

Against Russell in the clinching game five loss in the '66 Eastern Playoffs, all Wilt did was to score 46 points and pull down 34 rebounds. Yes, his team lost, but you could not blame Wilt.

AND, in the following season, in the clinching game five WIN, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 29-4, outshot Russell, 10-16 to 2-5, outrebounded Russell, 36-21, and outassisted him, 13-7. BTW, where was "clutch" Russell in that game? For those that argue that Russell could have scored more, had he wanted to...that game conclusively proves that he could not. He could only put up a meek four point effort when his teammates needed him most.

How about the sixth game of the '72 Western Finals, when he took over the 4th quarter, and brought LA back from a 10 point deficit, to win that game, and the series.

Or how about the pivotal game four of the Finals that year, when Chamberlain, saddled with five fouls, blocked two shots in OT (playing all 53 minutes BTW...and with one badly sprained wrist, and the other wrist FRACTURED), to save a Laker win.

Or, the very next game, and with BOTH wrists heavily wrapped...all Wilt did was score 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds (NY had 39 COMBINED), and 10 blocks.

3. You're right, Wilt did not "demand" the ball in that game seven. Of course, neither did Russell...whom Chamberlain outscored 14-12, and outrebounded, 34-26 ...DESPITE only touching the ball on the offensive end, TWO times in the final period. In any case...why was Wilt EXPECTED to score, but not Russell?????

4. Couldn't get the Lakers to win a championship until '72? Let's see, his idiotic coach kept him on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven, in which his team lost by two points. In the following season, Chamberlain defied virtually medical opinion, and returned to play in the post-season, just four months removed from major knee surgery. And despite not being close to 100%, he took a 46-36 Laker team, to a game seven loss against the heavily-favored Knicks. In the process, he outplayed the series MVP, and became the only player, in NBA Finals history, to put up a 20-20 .600 series (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and a .625 FG%.)

In the '70-'71 season, he loses Baylor for the year, after just two games, and then West, for the season, just after mid-season, and yet he still manages to carry that depleted Laker team to a 48-34 record. AND, then in the playoffs, against the 66-16 Bucks, he loses Keith Erickson. Somehow he guides his team to one win, and in the clinching game five loss, as he is leaving the floor, he receives a standing ovation...from the Milwaukee crowd.


5. Exagerated an injury in that game seven? If you studied that game, you would realize that the Lakers were in the process of cutting a 17 point 4th quarter deficit down to seven points, when Wilt pulled himself out for a short break. Not only that, but even on that injured knee, he managed to stay in the game for two possessions, and he yanked down two rebounds. Why would Wilt pull himself out of the game at that point???

In any case, there is ample footage of that 4th quarter on YouTube. Do yourself a favor, and watch it. And despite Russell playing all 12 minutes of that period...he contributed absolutely NOTHING. You talk about "chokers"...Russell was hiding the entire period.

Furthermore, even Wilt's stupid coach came to his defense after the game, saying that Chamberlain was hurting badly.

AND, despite missing the last five minutes of that game, Wilt managed to outscore Russell, 18-6; he outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7; and he outrebounded him , 27-21.

Check your FACTS next time...

[jlauber]

I posted this earlier in the thread, but I realize that I inundated readers here with a ton of info...so here it is again...

I have posted this link before, which is termed WIN SHARES, but here it is again...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ws_yearly.html

Here is the explanation of that stat...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

And, using that WIN SHARES stat, here is the yearly breakdown between Russell and Wilt, in their 10 years in the league together...

'59-60: Wilt 17.0 (1), Russell 13.8 (2)
'60-61: Wilt 18.8 (1), Russell 13.0 (5)
'61-62: Wilt 23.1 (1), Russell 15.5 (4)
'62-63: Wilt 20.9 (1), Russell 13.5 (6)
'63-64: Wilt 25.0 (1), Russell 17.3 (3)
'64-65: Wilt 15.1 (4), Russell 16.9 (2) Oscar with 17.0 was (1)
'65-66: Wilt 21.4 (1), Russell 11.7 (4)
'66-67: Wilt 21.9 (1), Russell 12.2 (4)
'67-68: Wilt 20.4 (1), Russell 8.2 (NR)
'68-69: Wilt 14.7 (1), Russell 10.9 (7) Reed tied with Wilt at (1), and as a sidenote, Baylor was NR at 8.5, and West (9), at 10.8.

That is such an interesting stat...because it shoots down the "Theory" that Russell was more valuable to his TEAM throughout his career. The FACT was, Chamberlain HAD to do more for his TEAMs to be competitive.

Those that argue that Russell did whatever it took to win may have a point, but the above shows that he simply did not have to do nearly as much.

There are MANY statistical rankings out there which demonstrate Chamberlain's pure domination of the league for the decade of the 60's...and I have posted them here in this thread earlier, so I won't do so now, but I have always found it fascinating that Wilt only won four MVP awards in his career.

In his rookie season, Chamberlain came to a last-place team, and led them to a 49-26 record. Meanwhile, Russell's LOADED roster (he and SIX other HOFers) went 59-16. Chamberlain broke all kinds of records in his rookie year, averaging 37.6 ppg, with 27.0 rpg, with his lowest ever FG% of .461 (the ONLY time in his career that he failed to shoot at least 50% BTW.) His PER rating was #1 at 28.2 (courtesy of basketball-reference.com), while Russell averaged 18.2 ppg, 24.0 rpg, and shot a career high .467 from the field. His PER rating was TENTH at 20.1. For his efforts, Wilt not only won Rookie of the Year, he won the MVP award as well.

In the '61-'62 season, Wilt led his team to a 49-31 record, and in the process he shattered many NBA records again. As I stated previously, an ESPN panel of experts rated that as the greatest individual season in a professional team sport, in history. Chamberlain averaged 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, and shot .506 from the field. His PER rating was #1 at a staggering 31.8. Meanwhile, Russell led the Celtics, and FIVE other HOFers, to a 60-20 record. And, in the process, he averaged 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and shot .457. He finished NINTH in PER rating at 19.4. Guess what...Russell wins the MVP!!!??? Just what changed over the course of those two years?

Ok, so Russell wins the MVP award in '61-'62 based on winning, I guess. How about Wilt in the '71-'72 season? Chamberlain leads a Laker team that had gone 48-34 just the year before, to an all-time record of 69-13, including a 33 game winning streak. In the process, Wilt averages 14.8 ppg, leads the league in rebounding at 19.2, and also leads the league in FG% at .649. AND, he is voted first-team all defense. His PER rating is 18.5. Meanwhile, Kareem leads a Buck team, that had been 66-16 the year before, to a 63-19 record. He leads the league in scoring at 34.8 ppg, finishes third in rebounding at 16.6 rpg, and second in FG% with a .574 mark. He is #1 in PER with a 29.9 rating. AND, he wins the MVP award.

I am not knocking Kareem winning that award in '71-'72...but what criteria changed from the '61-'62 season?

The fact was, during the decade of the 60's, Wilt SHOULD have won the MVP award almost every season. Instead, he only won it four times.

[jlauber]

One of Simmons' "Myths" is that Wilt was not highly regarded by his peers in the NBA. In fact, he goes so far as to say that in 1965, the Laker had an opportunity to trade for Chamberlain, and the Laker owner went to the players and had them vote. They voted 9-2 against acquiring Wilt. Why?

Simmons' uses that vote as some kind of acknowledgment that Wilt was not a "valuable" player.

Here is MY take on that subject:

It was not that Wilt was not highly regarded by his peers, it was that he was highly resented by his peers. Wilt so completely dominated the league, and was so far ahead of every other player who was playing, and who had played before, that there was a natural resentment of him. It was similar to the reception that greeted Jordan in his first few years in the NBA. Remember Isiah Thomas and his Eastern teammates "freezing" MJ out of the All-Star game?

I addressed that "vote" earlier in this topic, but it also bears worth repeating. The Lakers did not trade for Wilt, in 1965, and what happened? The Sixers grabbed him, and in his first year, he took a medicore team to a game seven, ONE point loss to the 62-18 Celtics in the Eastern Playoffs. Within two years the Sixers were world champions. In fact, for the last three years that Wilt played in Philly, they had the best record in the league.

Meanwhile, the Lakers continued to lose in the Finals. They finally broke down and traded for Chamberlain before the '68-'69 season. While he did not pay immediate dividends, in terms of titles, he led the Lakers to four finals in five years, including what many observers believe to be the greatest team of all-time, the '71-'72 Lakers.

And while I contend that Wilt would have won more championships had he remained in Philly (I honestly believe that with Greer, Jackson, Walker, and Cunningham, all in their prime, ...and with the demise of the Celtic "Dynasty", that the Sixers would have won 3-4 more championships)...it would have been interesting had Chamberlain been paired up with West, and a Baylor in his prime, instead of the shell that he was by the time Chamberlian joined LA in that '68-'69 season.

The bottom line, though, was, once again, Wilt was RESENTED by many of his peers in the NBA. Not because he wasn't regarded as talented...but BECAUSE he was so talented.

[G.O.A.T]

One of Simmons' "Myths" is that Wilt was not highly regarded by his peers in the NBA. In fact, he goes so far as to say that in 1965, the Laker had an opportunity to trade for Chamberlain, and the Laker owner went to the players and had them vote. They voted 9-2 against acquiring Wilt. Why?

Simmons' uses that vote as some kind of acknowledgment that Wilt was not a "valuable" player.

Here is MY take on that subject:

It was not that Wilt was not highly regarded by his peers, it was that he was highly resented by his peers. Wilt so completely dominated the league, and was so far ahead of every other player who was playing, and who had played before, that there was a natural resentment of him. It was similar to the reception that greeted Jordan in his first few years in the NBA. Remember Isiah Thomas and his Eastern teammates "freezing" MJ out of the All-Star game?

I addressed that "vote" earlier in this topic, but it also bears worth repeating. The Lakers did not trade for Wilt, in 1965, and what happened? The Sixers grabbed him, and in his first year, he took a medicore team to a game seven, ONE point loss to the 62-18 Celtics in the Eastern Playoffs. Within two years the Sixers were world champions. In fact, for the last three years that Wilt played in Philly, they had the best record in the league.

Meanwhile, the Lakers continued to lose in the Finals. They finally broke down and traded for Chamberlain before the '68-'69 season. While he did not pay immediate dividends, in terms of titles, he led the Lakers to four finals in five years, including what many observers believe to be the greatest team of all-time, the '71-'72 Lakers.

And while I contend that Wilt would have won more championships had he remained in Philly (I honestly believe that with Greer, Jackson, Walker, and Cunningham, all in their prime, ...and with the demise of the Celtic "Dynasty", that the Sixers would have won 3-4 more championships)...it would have been interesting had Chamberlain been paired up with West, and a Baylor in his prime, instead of the shell that he was by the time Chamberlian joined LA in that '68-'69 season.

The bottom line, though, was, once again, Wilt was RESENTED by many of his peers in the NBA. Not because he wasn't regarded as talented...but BECAUSE he was so talented.

This is rubbish, why should we take your word that ALL the players were envious or resentful when almost none have ever said as much. They didn't like him because he was a poor team mate who made it hard for your game to flourish around. Which is why it's NOT debatable that Russell was the superior player.

[juju151111]

Fatal9 says,

"Wilt:

- is not a good leader
- was selfish and too stat conscious for most of his career
- not dependable in clutch situations (if you managed to get him the ball, 90% chance he'd blow the game at the FT line)
- not competitive enough (couldn't even demand the ball in a game 7, instead complained about it afterwards. admitted he lacked the hunger Russell had.)
- couldn't gel with the Lakers to win a championship until '72...more concerned with "one uping" his teammates than winning
- exaggerated an injury in a game 7 (perhaps to avoid being scapegoat again?), even if he was slightly hurt, any player with drive would finish off the game.

this player is NOT the GOAT. In fact, I would opt for a player with lesser abilities to avoid the headaches."

1. Wilt was NOT selfish. In fact, Chamberlain did whatever his coaches asked of him. It was NOT his idea to average 50 ppg in the '62 season (it was his coach, Frank McGuire.)

Wilt also cut back his scoring when Alex Hannum asked him to before the '67 season. And, when he was traded to the Lakers, he even played the high post for the brilliant Van Breda Kolf, so that a washed up Baylor could continue to shoot blanks.

The following season, and after Van Breda Kolf was fired, his new coach, Joe Mullaney asked Wilt to become the focal point of the offense. Chamberlain responded by averaging 32.2 ppg in his first nine games. Unfortunately, he went down with a horrific knee injury...the SAME knee that he injured in the Finals just the year before (or the knee that he "faked" an injury to...more on that later, though.)

And, before the '72 season, his new coach, Bill Sharman, asked Wilt to concentrate on defense, rebounding, and starting the fast-break...which he did...and it led to an offense that terrorized the NBA, scoring 121 ppg.

Of course, when Wilt led the NBA in assists, in the '67-'68 season, Simmons' stated it was for "selfish" reasons...never mind the FACT that Wilt's Sixers ran away with best record in the league that year. Yep, he was so "selfish" that he guided his team to a 62-20 mark (while the "unselfish" Russell's Celtics could only go 54-28.)


2. Not dependable in clutch situations? Let's see...in the '65 Eastern Finals, in game seven, Wilt scored the last eight points, bringing the 40-40 Sixers to within one point of the 62-18 Celtics (and on their home floor BTW) with 5 secs. left. The "clutch" Russell then hit aguidewire with his inbounds pass, giving Philly the ball. If Havlicek didn't steal the ball, who knows?

Against Russell in the clinching game five loss in the '66 Eastern Playoffs, all Wilt did was to score 46 points and pull down 34 rebounds. Yes, his team lost, but you could not blame Wilt.

AND, in the following season, in the clinching game five WIN, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 29-4, outshot Russell, 10-16 to 2-5, outrebounded Russell, 36-21, and outassisted him, 13-7. BTW, where was "clutch" Russell in that game? For those that argue that Russell could have scored more, had he wanted to...that game conclusively proves that he could not. He could only put up a meek four point effort when his teammates needed him most.

How about the sixth game of the '72 Western Finals, when he took over the 4th quarter, and brought LA back from a 10 point deficit, to win that game, and the series.

Or how about the pivotal game four of the Finals that year, when Chamberlain, saddled with five fouls, blocked two shots in OT (playing all 53 minutes BTW...and with one badly sprained wrist, and the other wrist FRACTURED), to save a Laker win.

Or, the very next game, and with BOTH wrists heavily wrapped...all Wilt did was score 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds (NY had 39 COMBINED), and 10 blocks.

3. You're right, Wilt did not "demand" the ball in that game seven. Of course, neither did Russell...whom Chamberlain outscored 14-12, and outrebounded, 34-26 ...DESPITE only touching the ball on the offensive end, TWO times in the final period. In any case...why was Wilt EXPECTED to score, but not Russell?????

4. Couldn't get the Lakers to win a championship until '72? Let's see, his idiotic coach kept him on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven, in which his team lost by two points. In the following season, Chamberlain defied virtually medical opinion, and returned to play in the post-season, just four months removed from major knee surgery. And despite not being close to 100%, he took a 46-36 Laker team, to a game seven loss against the heavily-favored Knicks. In the process, he outplayed the series MVP, and became the only player, in NBA Finals history, to put up a 20-20 .600 series (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and a .625 FG%.)

In the '70-'71 season, he loses Baylor for the year, after just two games, and then West, for the season, just after mid-season, and yet he still manages to carry that depleted Laker team to a 48-34 record. AND, then in the playoffs, against the 66-16 Bucks, he loses Keith Erickson. Somehow he guides his team to one win, and in the clinching game five loss, as he is leaving the floor, he receives a standing ovation...from the Milwaukee crowd.


5. Exagerated an injury in that game seven? If you studied that game, you would realize that the Lakers were in the process of cutting a 17 point 4th quarter deficit down to seven points, when Wilt pulled himself out for a short break. Not only that, but even on that injured knee, he managed to stay in the game for two possessions, and he yanked down two rebounds. Why would Wilt pull himself out of the game at that point???

In any case, there is ample footage of that 4th quarter on YouTube. Do yourself a favor, and watch it. And despite Russell playing all 12 minutes of that period...he contributed absolutely NOTHING. You talk about "chokers"...Russell was hiding the entire period.

Furthermore, even Wilt's stupid coach came to his defense after the game, saying that Chamberlain was hurting badly.

AND, despite missing the last five minutes of that game, Wilt managed to outscore Russell, 18-6; he outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7; and he outrebounded him , 27-21.

Check your FACTS next time...
:applause: :lol

[jlauber]

GOAT,

First of all, I never ALL players resented Chamberlain. I said MANY did...just as MANY resented Jordan in the first few years of his career.

Secondly, we can BOTH come up with players' OPINIONS about Chamberlain until the cows come home. Whether Wilt was liked, as a teammate, or not, virtually EVERY player acknowledged that he was the most dominant player in the sport. Even Russell, himself, said so.

But where are your FACTS? Sure, Russell, and his EIGHT HOF TEAMMATES won more titles. How many titles would he have won without Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and the many other contributors to his "rings?"

I have given you the WIN SHARES stat, which CLEARLY shows that Chamberlain contributed FAR more to his team's success, than Russell did to his. I have said it many times, but the fact was, Russell just did not have to do nearly as much, for his teams to win, as Wilt did for his.

One of the points that has been raised here, is that Wilt did not shoot a shot in the second half of that game seven in the '67-'68 Eastern Finals. While I have never read anything by Wilt that would indicate a "conspiracy", it seemed like more than a coincidence that Chamberlain was traded shortly after that game. I won't go into specifics now...it is not important to my argument, which is this...

Why was Wilt criticized for not taking a shot in the second half of that game, when Russell was never criticized for his lack of shooting throughout his career? The FACT was, despite Chamberlain not shooting in that half (and he only TOUCHED the ball ton the offensive end wice in the final period BTW..a suspicious point that author Robert Cherry brought up in his autobiography on Wilt)...Wilt still managed to outscore Russell, 14-12, and outrebounded him 34-26. The difference was, Wilt was EXPECTED to score, while Russell was not. My question, though, is WHY? Why was Wilt EXPECTED to do MUCH more than Russell? The answer is obvious...he was quite simply, a better player.

I have also mentioned Russell's pitiful performance in that clinching game five loss in the '67 Eastern Playoffs...when he only scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting (while Wilt scored 29, on 10-16 shooting...including 22 points in the pivotal first half of that game.) Where was the criticism of Russell, whose teammates were completely neutralized by Wilt's teammates, and who needed Russell to step up?

I have long maintained that had Wilt been surrounded with the quality of teammates that he had in that '67 season, that there would have been MANY more 4-1 series wipeouts of Russell and his Celtics.

[guy]

Simmons fails to mention how well Russell was liked. Granted, Russell dealt with a far greater amount of racism in his life, but I'm sorry, that is still no excuse to treat people, many of them white, the way he did (should we excuse child molesters because they were molested when they were children?)


Like I said before, great read, but I just wanted to point out that thats an absolutely horrible analogy.

[jlauber]

I didn't want to get into this, but it was actually Simmons who questioned Wilt's character in his chapter...so here goes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Russell

"Days later, 30,000 enthusiastic Celtics fans cheered their returning heroes, but Russell was not there: the man who said he owed the public nothing ended his career and cut all ties to the Celtics.[48] It came as so surprising that even Red Auerbach was blindsided, and as a consequence, he made the "mistake" of drafting guard Jo Jo White instead of a center.[50] Although White became a standout Celtics player, the Celtics lacked an All-Star center, went just 34–48 in the next season and failed to make the playoffs for the first time since 1950.[24] In Boston, both fans and journalists felt betrayed, because Russell left the Celtics without a coach and a center and sold his retirement story for $10,000 to Sports Illustrated. Russell was accused of selling out the future of the franchise for a month of his salary.[50]

Russell had his No. 6 jersey retired by the Celtics in 1972,[51] and was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in 1975. Russell, who had a difficult relationship with the media, was not present at either event.[52]

Russell's public statements became increasingly militant, so far that he was quoted in a 1963 Sports Illustrated interview with the words: "I dislike most white people because they are people... I like most blacks because I am black", expressing that "human" was a negative trait and "black" was a positive trait which were mutually exclusive.[clarification needed][54] However, when his white Celtics teammate Frank Ramsey asked whether he hated him, Russell claimed to be misquoted, but few believed it.[54] Also, Taylor remarks that Russell overlooked that his career was only made possible by the white people who were proven anti-racists, namely his white high school coach George Powles (the person who encouraged him to play basketball), his white college coach Phil Woolpert (who integrated USF basketball), white Celtics coach Red Auerbach (who is universally regarded as an anti-racist pioneer and made him the first black NBA coach), and white Celtics owner Walter A. Brown, who gave him a high $24,000 rookie contract, just $1,000 shy of the top earning veteran Bob Cousy.[55]

Nevertheless, as a result of repeated racial bigotry, Russell refused to respond to fan acclaim or friendship from his neighbors, thinking it was insincere and hypocritical. He decided that the world had given him nothing, so in return, he could give the world nothing. This attitude contributed to his legendary bad rapport with fans and journalists.[26] He alienated the Boston Celtics fans by saying, "You owe the public the same it owes you, nothing! I refuse to smile and be nice to the kiddies."[54] This supported the opinion that Russell (who was the highest paid Celtic) was egotistical, paranoid and hypocritical, and even the FBI described Russell in his file as "an arrogant Negro who won't sign autographs for white children".[54] The already hostile atmosphere between Russell and Boston hit its nadir when vandals broke into his house, covered the walls with racist graffiti, damaged his trophies and defecated into the beds.[54] In response, Russell described Boston as a "flea market of racism".[78] After his retirement, he described the Boston press as corrupt and racist; in response, Boston sports journalist Larry Claflin claimed that Russell himself was the real racist.[79] Despite his refusal to sign autographs, he accepted a $250,000 contract to sign 5,000 pieces of memorabilia.[80

Russell, who invariably saw himself as a victim of the media, was present neither when his Number 6 jersey was retired in 1972, nor when he was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1975, shunning the limelight both times.[52] Despite the bitterness that Russell felt toward Boston, in recent years he has visited the city on a regular basis, something he never did in the years immediately after his retirement.[81] "

[jlauber]

Despite Wilt's "20,000" women statement, which he regretted making up until his death, Chamberlain was held in much higher esteem by those that knew him and Russell...

http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/wilt/article10.html

"Russell's ego was no smaller than Chamberlain's; they simply satisfied those egos in different ways. It's my experience that most people who dealt with both men much preferred Chamberlain. He, unlike Russell, treated human beings as if they were human beings."

AND, unlike Russell who refused to sign autograhs for his fans, based on some ridiculous assertion that he owed them nothing (yet, he SOLD his memoribilia for $250,000)...

Wilt was almost always available to fans and media alike. Following his jersey retirement ceremony at KU in 1998 (and when he was actually dying), Wilt stayed around and signed autographs for two hours, until EVERYONE who had requested one, received one.

http://www2.kusports.com/news/1999/oct/13/wilts_last_trip/

"The seemingly bigger-than-life, 7-foot-1, 275-pounder won over approximately 50 media members on the afternoon of Friday, Jan. 16, 1998. That's when Chamberlain not only spoke at a press conference for 45 minutes, but stayed another hour for one-on-one interviews.

The following day, late in the Kansas-Kansas State basketball game, Wilt The Stilt dazzled fans by announcing he'd sign autographs after KU's home-record tying 55th victory."

Furthermore...

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-111616890.html

"Wilt Chamberlain's estate recently donated $650,000 to endow three scholarships and a Special Olympics program at the University of Kansas, where he ;in scored a school-record 52 points in his first varsity basketball game."

[guy]

[QUOTE=jlauber]I didn't want to get into this, but it was actually Simmons who questioned Wilt's character in his chapter...so here goes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Russell

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"Days later, 30,000 enthusiastic Celtics fans cheered their returning heroes, but Russell was not there: the man who said he owed the public nothing ended his career and cut all ties to the Celtics.[48] It came as so surprising that even Red Auerbach was blindsided, and as a consequence, he made the "mistake" of drafting guard Jo Jo White instead of a center.[50] Although White became a standout Celtics player, the Celtics lacked an All-Star center, went just 34

[jlauber]

Guy,

I respect your take, and I do apologize for the analogy. It was not my intent to go after Russell's reputation here, but I found it amusing that Simmons' would attack Chamberlain's reputation, in which even he reluctantly admitted that Wilt was well-liked by many who KNEW him...

but he fails to mention that Russell was not even close to Wilt as a HUMAN BEING.

Just something he must have accidently forgotten when he was writing his book, I guess...

[guy]

Guy,

I respect your take, and I do apologize for the analogy. It was not my intent to go after Russell's reputation here, but I found it amusing that Simmons' would attack Chamberlain's reputation, in which even he reluctantly admitted that Wilt was well-liked by many who KNEW him...

but he fails to mention that Russell was not even close to Wilt as a HUMAN BEING.

Just something he must have accidently forgotten when he was writing his book, I guess...

No worries. It really doesn't matter anyway, cause that shouldn't really factor into who was a better player. Thats one knock I have on Bill Simmons book. He had great stories about players, but he brought them up at times when he was trying to explain how good they were on the court, and some of them really had nothing to do with how great of a player they were.

[G.O.A.T]

GOAT,

First of all, I never ALL players resented Chamberlain. I said MANY did...just as MANY resented Jordan in the first few years of his career.

Fair enough, although I'm not sure the popular opinion of Chamberlain ever evolved.


Secondly, we can BOTH come up with players' OPINIONS about Chamberlain until the cows come home. Whether Wilt was liked, as a teammate, or not, virtually EVERY player acknowledged that he was the most dominant player in the sport. Even Russell, himself, said so.

We agree here



But where are your FACTS? Sure, Russell, and his EIGHT HOF TEAMMATES won more titles. How many titles would he have won without Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and the many other contributors to his "rings?"

You've read the book and I know you've heard the arguments 100 times, so lets not rehash them too much here. The Fact I point to as most significant is that all those same great Hall of Famers that Russell played with were on average teams before him and horrible teams after him and only Hondo (among starters) ever won a title without him. (in the weakest era in modern NBA history) All the evidence suggests that no matter who Russell's team mates were, he would have won title after title because at every level no matter who his team mates were he won title after title.


I have given you the WIN SHARES stat, which CLEARLY shows that Chamberlain contributed FAR more to his team's success, than Russell did to his.

First of all stats are inherently flawed because their is no correlation to have the best individual stats and winning. Win Shares is epically flawed when evaluating players of the 1960's because blocks and steals and turnovers were not even stats, assists were different and their was no three-point line. Win Shares was not a stat in the 60's and has no relevance to any players from the 1960's.


I have said it many times, but the fact was, Russell just did not have to do nearly as much, for his teams to win, as Wilt did for his.

Then how come when Wilt started doing less (statistically) his team's started winning more?



Why was Wilt criticized for not taking a shot in the second half of that game, when Russell was never criticized for his lack of shooting throughout his career?

Because Russell's role on the Celtics wasn't to score, it was to make it easier for everyone else to score and harder for the opponent to score. Wilt's role was to score, his team mates could not make shots that night and he never asserted himself. Not because he was selfish or stubborn but because we wasn't good enough to. Yes he had the ability, but it never occurred to him to that the situation called for him to score. It was Russell's mental domination of Chamberlain that allowed him to overcome Wilt's physical dominance and dominate Wilt's team regardless of which Titan had the superior supporting cast (with one notable exception, 1967)




The FACT was, despite Chamberlain not shooting in that half (and he only TOUCHED the ball ton the offensive end wice in the final period BTW..a suspicious point that author Robert Cherry brought up in his autobiography on Wilt)...Wilt still managed to outscore Russell, 14-12, and outrebounded him 34-26. The difference was, Wilt was EXPECTED to score, while Russell was not. My question, though, is WHY? Why was Wilt EXPECTED to do MUCH more than Russell? The answer is obvious...he was quite simply, a better player.

Because basketball is a team game and being a great player means doing what the situation calls for. When Russell needed to score for the Celtics to win he did. 20 and 30 point games in the Finals were common for Russell, he had numerous playoff triple doubles (and that's without considering that he probably averaged nearly 10 blocks per game for most of those seasons and playoff series)

Russell always did what his team needed him to do to win, so much so that even when he faltered they were their to pick him up (Havlicek stole the ball), because as KC Jones put it "he'd saved us so many times"


I have also mentioned Russell's pitiful performance in that clinching game five loss in the '67 Eastern Playoffs...when he only scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting (while Wilt scored 29, on 10-16 shooting...including 22 points in the pivotal first half of that game.) Where was the criticism of Russell, whose teammates were completely neutralized by Wilt's teammates, and who needed Russell to step up?

And then the next two years he beat Wilt while coaching the teams when Wilt played on the two most skilled teams of his career. But yes 1967 was the one time Wilt was better than Russell.


I have long maintained that had Wilt been surrounded with the quality of teammates that he had in that '67 season, that there would have been MANY more 4-1 series wipeouts of Russell and his Celtics.

Then you'd be wrong because a worse Celtics team beat the same team in '68 and a Lakers team that was already going to the Finals regularly before Wilt arrived in '69. Russell was past his prime and a player\coach at the time as well.

Even post Russell Wilt only took one title in three seasons with supporting casts as good or nearly as good as in '67 in a weaker diluted NBA.

[Roundball_Rock]

I didn't want to get into this, but it was actually Simmons who questioned Wilt's character in his chapter...so here goes...


That kind of stuff is what I had a problem with in his book. He may not have realized it but when he wrote that book he was posing as a historian, not an opinion writer for ESPN. A historian has to at least try to be objective. He had none. It is not possible to be truly objective because everyone has inherent biases but you have to make an effort to give everyone a fair shake as a historian. The one prominent historian that I can think of who significantly veers from this is Robert Caro in his Lyndon Johnson series and he has taken a lot of heat for that but even he puts all the facts on the table for you to reach your own conclusions if you can look past the spin. Anyway, my point is Caro is not anywhere near as biased and negative toward Johnson as Simmons is towards Wilt and Kareem and he has received a lot of heat from historians. What does that tell you about what is expected from a historian? What he did to Wilt could easily be done to anyone. In fact Sam Smith did a bit of it in his book on Jordan yet none of the quotes from MJ's teammates used by Smith made it into Simmons' book. Or for a non-basketball example, one could make Lyndon Johnson look like a power hungry jerk (Caro) or an altruistic near-saint (Randall Wood's LBJ book) using the same methods.

Simmons' book is the closest thing to a "History of the NBA" in existence. I am not a historian but my problem as a student of history (primarily US but I have some interest in world, basketball and auto racing history. Jefferson=GOAT :rockon: ) is 20 years from now it will likely remain peerless on the shelves. A great number of people for years will be influenced by the hatchet jobs he did on Wilt, Kareem and to a lesser extent Shaq. The book as a whole was a great and everything he said about Pippen was fantastic but I was chagrined at his negative spin towards some players, especially key figures like Wilt and Kareem. I couldn't care less about him bashing Vince Carter. No one will care about VC 20 years from now but Wilt and Kareem are a different story.

[jlauber]

GOAT,

A very well thought out reply, and I applaud you for it.

I will give you this much...

While I have never been a fan of "intangibles" (geez, there are enough stats out there now that there is practically nothing left to measure)...I will say that Russell brought out the best in teammates at the most critical times. The same could seldom be said of Chamberlain's supporting cast, many of whom choked at the worst possible time.

Even Wilt stated that he (Wilt) probably would not have blended as well with Russell's teammates, as Russell did.

Having said that, however, Wilt was probably the most versatile "great" player of all-time. He modified his game on several different occassions, and for several different coaches...even one's that he disagreed with.

You brought up the point, that the less Wilt scored in his career, the better his TEAMs did. That was true up to a point. And the reasons were obvious. He was surrounded with much better personnel. But even he stated after he "retired" that maybe he sacrificed too much of his offense.

I alwys found it fascinating that when Wilt's scoring dropped, that within a few years, the public felt that he could no longer score. I mentioned it previously, but it got so bad, that Sports Illustrated ran an article in 1969, effectively saying that Wilt could no longer score. The very next game he poured in 60 points...and followed that up with a 66 point game a few days later. In fact, over the course of the next 17 games, Chamberlain averaged 31 ppg. Both 60 point games were easily the highest in the league that year.

However, he was asked to revert back to his "Van Breda Kolf" offense in the post-season...in which he scored 13.9 ppg (albeit, on .545 shooting.) Meanwhile, his "HOF" teammate, Baylor, who was just a shell, kept firing blanks, scoring 15.4 ppg on .385 shooting in the post-season. CLEARLY, Wilt's COACH cost the Lakers a title that year. No "ands", "ifs", or "buts" about it.

I mentioned that had Wilt played on team as talented as his '67 76ers, that he would have had many more 4-1 series blowouts of Russell's Celtics, and you responded that he did not win titles the next two years. Well, I already addressed that Laker team, which was NOT nearly as good as Wilt's '67 76er team. AND, his '68 Sixer team was well on pace to duplicate that '67 playoff rout of Boston. WITHOUT HOFer Cunningham, they still forged a 3-1 series lead (and don't give me the excuse that Russell was without Satch Sanders...Boston had far more depth, and Sanders was easily replaceable.) What killed Philly's team was when Luke Jackson suffered a knee injury in game five. While he played the rest of the series, he was basically worthless. So, suddenly, the Sixer's HUGE edge at forward was negated by injuries. Not only that, but in game seven, while Wilt was swarmed by the Celts, Chamberlain's teammates shot a collective 33%...and the Sixers lost that game seven by FOUR points.

Think about that. The '67 76ers, who were healthy, crushed Boston, (with only a horrible performance in game four, in a 121-117 loss, preventing a sweep.) And they ran away with the best record again in '68. They were up 3-1, WITHOUT Cunningham, basically lost Jackson from game five on, and shot 33% from the field (this from the best shooting team in the league) in that last game...and they lose the series, 4-3, with game seven a FOUR point loss.

I have maintained that a healthy '68 76er roster (incidently, Wilt, himself was nursing a variety of injuries...something that even Russell acknowledged) easily repeats their 4-1 series romp from '67. Not only that, but how would have Russell's Celtics played had Havlicek been out before the series started, and perhaps Bailey Howell gone down with an injury in a game five (not that the series would have gone that far?)

And for those MJ-lovers out there, who claim that Wilt should have demanded the ball in that game seven...did MJ ever change his game to say that of a John Stockton? Well, Wilt was asked to change his game several times, and unfortunately, it cost his team's success.

I have already addressed the Laker teams from '69 on. Van Breda Kolf cost them the series in '69. Wilt's horrific knee injury cost the Lakers in '70. And BOTH West's and Baylor's injuries cost LA a shot at the title in '71 (although I don't think even a healthy Laker squad...with Baylor...beats the Bucks that year.)

Still, to say that Russell's role was to just play defense, is simply not fair to Chamberlain. Wilt's role was at BOTH ends.

And for Simmons to bring up Russell's "clutch" games...those like his '62 game seven Finals' game is also absurd. Russell NEVER had a HUGE game seven against WILT. I have always been amused by Russell's 30-40 game against the Lakers that year. Why? Yes, it was one of the greatest in NBA history...but what would Wilt have done against that Laker team that year? He averaged 51.5 ppg against LA in six games that year, including the one of the greatest games in NBA history, when he had a 78-43 game earlier against them.

Russell did have TWO 30-30 games against Wilt, both in the post-season. Meanwhile, Wilt had 35 against Russell, including TEN in the post-season. Chamberlain also had 17 30-40 or 40-30 games against Russell (Russell never had one against Wilt), including FOUR in the post-season.

I could go on-and-on about Wilt's statistical domination, of which it was significant, but I have already covered it. And while Simmons somehow can't acknowledge it, it is as plain as black-and-white. Chamberlain CRUSHED Russell statistically. And it was NEVER the other way around.

Russell was great. But even the most intelligent Russell supporters will only say that Russell contained Chamberlain's overwhelming dominance, jsut enough, to allow his supporting cast to win the games. It was NEVER a case of Russell taking over the game at BOTH ends against Wilt. However, there were MANY examples of Wilt doing so against Russell.

[ThaRegul8r]

As for my All-Time Top-10...it currently is this...

1. Wilt
2. Shaq
3. Kareem
4. MJ
5. Russell
6. Magic
7. Kobe
8. Duncan
9. Bird
10. Oscar

I hate to leave West off of that list...he, and Jordan, were arguably the greatest post-season scorers of all-time...but Kobe has shot up the charts the last few years.

Not to take the thread off-topic, but how is it that Oscar Robertson is #10 if the statistics he put up were surpassed only by Wilt, and Wilt is #1? Nine spots between the two when only Wilt had better stats? I fail to see the logic. I'll quote what another poster said on another forum three years ago:


Was the Big O the best offensive weapon of all time?

I have come to the conclusion that Oscar Robertson was probably the greatest offensive weapon the NBA has ever seen. His production and efficiency in his first ten years are just simply unmatched by any other player in history. Let me list the things that go into an offensive attack.

1. Scoring
During the Big Os first ten years in the league, he scored 29.27 points per game. Total for those years he scored 22009 points. Both of those make him second in the league during that time, behind Wilt Chamberlain, who no one was gonna outscore in those days. And in fact NO OTHER player has had more points total and more PPG in a ten year span than Oscar did in those ten years. NO ONE. Karl Malone scored more points in certain ten year spans because he played in like every game but hes never close in PPG. Kareem scored like 100 more total points in his first ten years than Oscar did but his PPG are lower. Jordan scored more PPG in ten year periods but because he kept retiring he never put together enough years in a row to have the total points. And other than that, no one even beats the Big O in total points OR PPG for a decade. He was simply one of the greatest scorers of all time, and easily the second best scorer of his era.

2. Efficiency in Scoring
Oscar lead the league only once in TS%, in his first year in the league. However, the man was in the top 3 in the league EVERY one of his first ten years. In those ten years he was 1st once, 2nd 6 times, and 3rd 3 times. Two of the times he was second, he trailed only Jerry Lucas, who was on his team and the beneficiary of HIS passes. The fact is that Oscar was EASILY the most efficient scorer of the first ten years of his career. Its probably not even all that close either, because no one else was able to sustain their efficiency for more than a few years.

3. Passing
Oscar lead the league in assists per game 7 of his first 10 years. He got 10.28 assists per game during that period. The next highest person had 7.93 assists. No one was close to him. I mean he got twice the APG of the person with the fifth most APG of the decade. He just dominated this catagory.

So let me recap where the Big O stands in these three catagories in comparison to his peers of his era.

Scoring - 2nd
True Shooting % - 1st
Assists - 1st

Wow, the man was mighty close to scoring the most, at the most efficient clip, and helping his teammates score more than ANY other player in the entire decade. Let me just quickly show how rare it is for someone to excel so much in all three of these. Only once has a player lead the league in points and assists (Tiny Archibald in 1973). Only once has a player lead the league in points and TS% (Bob McAdoo in 1974). Only once has a player lead the league in TS% and assists (John Stockton in 1995). Oscar ALMOST did all of those for an entire decade (and DID do the last one), and he wouldve done it if he hadnt been playing in an era with the most prolific scorer in the history of the game. The man quite simply was an offensive beast that gave you big time points at a really efficient clip while giving his teammates the best opportunities to be really efficient too. And for that reason, I gotta say he was the best offensive weapon of all time.


Only Wilt scored more points and averaged more points per game in a 10-year period, but Oscar was more efficient, the most efficient scorer in the league with a true shooting percentage of 57.2 to Wilt's 54.1, AND he was the leading assist man. And I have never seen anyone else other than myself bring up this point: Nate Archibald is credited with being the first player in NBA history to lead the league in scoring and assists in the same season in the 1972-73 season. However, what people also fail to bring up is the fact that until the 1969-70 season, league leaders were determined by totals, not per game averages. Had the league leaders always been determined the same way they are now, then Oscar Robertson would have been the first player in NBA history to lead the league in scoring and assists in 1967-68, when he led the league in points per game and assists per game, but his totals were sixth and third, respectively. AND Oscar also led the league in free-throw percentage, making him to this day the only player in NBA history to lead the league in points per game, assists per game, and free throw percentage in the same season. (He had no offensive weakness.)

Prior to Robertson

[jlauber]

Reg,

Good points about Oscar. Nate Thurmond was quoted as saying that "aside from the flying thing, Oscar did everything else better than Jordan."

Still, basketball is about scoring, passing, defense, and rebounding. Oscar was certainly among the best at the first two, and was a good rebounder for a guard, but I have never heard or read anything about his defense.

Incidently, when it comes to defense, Wilt, and Russell were not only great one-on-one defenders, they were also great "team" defenders.

As for rebounding, Kareem was considered a good rebounder for much of his career (he even led the league once), but what I always found interesting about Shaq, was that while he was seldom among the leaders during the regular season, he invariably out-rebounded whoever he faced in the post-season.

Also, a little off-topic, but one of the reasons that I rate the '70-'71 Bucks so highly on MY all-time list (#4)...is that they not only shot the ball well, they also defended well. Their .085 margin (.509 - .424) is the largest differential in NBA history. Kareem is another under-rated defender, as was evidenced by the fact that his Buck teams were alway among the leaders ain FG% against.

Anyway...maybe Oscar does deserve a higher rating....

[jlauber]

I mentioned it earlier in this topic, but I always thought it was interesting that Oscar, West, Baylor, and others were seldom, if ever, labeled "chokers" or "losers" in their careers, yet Chamberlain was, despite having more championships in the same era.

[jlauber]

Interesting take on Wilt...

http://www.nba.com/history/wilt_appreciation.html

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"Wilt Chamberlain was Goliath, a larger-than-life figure on and off the court who changed the game of basketball and the perception of athletes. He was the most dominating force the sport has ever seen, perhaps any sport has ever seen, a colossus whose impact is felt to this day.

Chamberlain's duels with Celtic center Bill Russell, left, made for perhaps the greatest one-on-one rivalry in the history of sports.


A generation of fans grew to love the game of basketball by watching Chamberlain duel Bill Russell of the Boston Celtics, seemingly every Sunday on ABC's Game of the Week in the 1960s, with Chris Schenkel and Jack Twyman at the microphone. There have been other great rivalries in sports

[G.O.A.T]

Having said that, however, Wilt was probably the most versatile "great" player of all-time. He modified his game on several different occassions, and for several different coaches...even one's that he disagreed with.

You brought up the point, that the less Wilt scored in his career, the better his TEAMs did. That was true up to a point. And the reasons were obvious. He was surrounded with much better personnel. But even he stated after he "retired" that maybe he sacrificed too much of his offense.

I alwys found it fascinating that when Wilt's scoring dropped, that within a few years, the public felt that he could no longer score. I mentioned it previously, but it got so bad, that Sports Illustrated ran an article in 1969, effectively saying that Wilt could no longer score. The very next game he poured in 60 points...and followed that up with a 66 point game a few days later. In fact, over the course of the next 17 games, Chamberlain averaged 31 ppg. Both 60 point games were easily the highest in the league that year.

However, he was asked to revert back to his "Van Breda Kolf" offense in the post-season...in which he scored 13.9 ppg (albeit, on .545 shooting.) Meanwhile, his "HOF" teammate, Baylor, who was just a shell, kept firing blanks, scoring 15.4 ppg on .385 shooting in the post-season. CLEARLY, Wilt's COACH cost the Lakers a title that year. No "ands", "ifs", or "buts" about it.

I mentioned that had Wilt played on team as talented as his '67 76ers, that he would have had many more 4-1 series blowouts of Russell's Celtics, and you responded that he did not win titles the next two years. Well, I already addressed that Laker team, which was NOT nearly as good as Wilt's '67 76er team. AND, his '68 Sixer team was well on pace to duplicate that '67 playoff rout of Boston. WITHOUT HOFer Cunningham, they still forged a 3-1 series lead (and don't give me the excuse that Russell was without Satch Sanders...Boston had far more depth, and Sanders was easily replaceable.) What killed Philly's team was when Luke Jackson suffered a knee injury in game five. While he played the rest of the series, he was basically worthless. So, suddenly, the Sixer's HUGE edge at forward was negated by injuries. Not only that, but in game seven, while Wilt was swarmed by the Celts, Chamberlain's teammates shot a collective 33%...and the Sixers lost that game seven by FOUR points.

Think about that. The '67 76ers, who were healthy, crushed Boston, (with only a horrible performance in game four, in a 121-117 loss, preventing a sweep.) And they ran away with the best record again in '68. They were up 3-1, WITHOUT Cunningham, basically lost Jackson from game five on, and shot 33% from the field (this from the best shooting team in the league) in that last game...and they lose the series, 4-3, with game seven a FOUR point loss.

I have maintained that a healthy '68 76er roster (incidently, Wilt, himself was nursing a variety of injuries...something that even Russell acknowledged) easily repeats their 4-1 series romp from '67. Not only that, but how would have Russell's Celtics played had Havlicek been out before the series started, and perhaps Bailey Howell gone down with an injury in a game five (not that the series would have gone that far?)

I have already addressed the Laker teams from '69 on. Van Breda Kolf cost them the series in '69. Wilt's horrific knee injury cost the Lakers in '70. And BOTH West's and Baylor's injuries cost LA a shot at the title in '71 (although I don't think even a healthy Laker squad...with Baylor...beats the Bucks that year.)


These are all excuses and what-ifs and while you make sound and valid arguments or cases for your point, with Russell it's like Wilt's statistical domination, black and white. Russell won everywhere he went regardless of who he played with, who had good or bad games, who was coaching him and who got hurt.

I don't want you to get the idea that think Chamberlain was anything less than the single most dominant player in the history of pro sports, I just value the single greatest winner a little bit more, especially when he beat said dominant individual numerous times.

I don't think anything or anyone could have stopped Russell's will to win in 1968. Remember they lost in '67 in Russell's first year as head coach, the first black head coach in the history of sports in super racist 1967 Boston, the Celtics lose for the first time in the decade, imagine the things that were being said and imagine how badly Russ wanted to win in 68 and prove everyone wrong.

Also in regards to the '68 Lakers; I was calling them as talented as the '67 Sixers, obviously they were not as great a team. But three of the top 15 players of all-time on one team...that's absurd.



Still, to say that Russell's role was to just play defense, is simply not fair to Chamberlain. Wilt's role was at BOTH ends.

I never said that was his role and it never was his role. He was their leader, the guy who (as Simmons mentioned 100 times) puked before every game to remind his teammates just how important it was. He was the guy who dominated old white centers in the early 60's and shut down young black ones in the late 60's. He was the centerpiece of the offense post-Cousy and the best passing center ever when considering all around skill. He covered up other players weaknesses like KC Jones poor shooting, Sam Jones lack of defense, Don Nelson's poor rebounding, John Havlicek's pension to gamble and overplay the wing. He didn't hog the ball (Not a shot at Wilt, just a general statement, I'd never considered Wilt a ball hog he was always among the leagues most efficient scorers) allowing multiple guys to score points and feel more involved as an important piece of the team as well as get into the flow of the game.



And for Simmons to bring up Russell's "clutch" games...those like his '62 game seven Finals' game is also absurd. Russell NEVER had a HUGE game seven against WILT. I have always been amused by Russell's 30-40 game against the Lakers that year. Why? Yes, it was one of the greatest in NBA history...but what would Wilt have done against that Laker team that year? He averaged 51.5 ppg against LA in six games that year, including the one of the greatest games in NBA history, when he had a 78-43 game earlier against them.

Had their been no Russell, Wilt would have to be the greatest player ever. He have 6-10 titles, would have averaged 50 in the finals at some point and probably had a 100-50 game at some point if he somehow managed to stay motivated.



Russell did have TWO 30-30 games against Wilt, both in the post-season. Meanwhile, Wilt had 35 against Russell, including TEN in the post-season. Chamberlain also had 17 30-40 or 40-30 games against Russell (Russell never had one against Wilt), including FOUR in the post-season.

I could go on-and-on about Wilt's statistical domination, of which it was significant, but I have already covered it. And while Simmons somehow can't acknowledge it, it is as plain as black-and-white. Chamberlain CRUSHED Russell statistically. And it was NEVER the other way around.

Russell was great. But even the most intelligent Russell supporters will only say that Russell contained Chamberlain's overwhelming dominance, jsut enough, to allow his supporting cast to win the games. It was NEVER a case of Russell taking over the game at BOTH ends against Wilt. However, there were MANY examples of Wilt doing so against Russell.

Russell himself (as you touched on) knew he nor anyone else could "stop" Wilt, not for a whole game, but he could set it up so that he could stop him when he needed to. Sometimes he'd conserve energy allowing Wilt to get defensive rebounds uncontested for much of the first three quarters, then slide by him for offensive carom after carom in the final stanza. Sometimes he'd allow one of Wilts signature moves (such as the finger roll or turnaround) to work for most of the night and make mental notes of his patterns going into each move, then he be able to steal it or block the shot in a late game situation if Wilt went to it.

As for Simmons take, I loved it, but i see your point as well as Roundball Rocks, it does have a historic feel to it, and if you didn't understand how one sided a perspective he was giving it would seem like Wilt was AI, Vince Carter and Ron Artests worst day rolled into one and that he had all the Clutch ability of Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing. I know the arguments on both sides and Simmons use of the biography quotes from guys like Jerry West and a number of Wilts other contemporaries to back up the Russell side is really hard to refute. I thought he did a nice job showing just how irrelevant the 8 HOFer argument and better teammates arguments are. Also he did a good job explaining why any statistical comparisons between the two are a complete waste of time.

I can simply my position best as such; Not Russell or anyone else could do what Wilt did as a player. Not Wilt or anyone else could do what Russell did as a player. The goal of the sport is to win games, Russell's method of achieving this goal work 5.5 times better than Wilt's over the span of their careers.

Nice having this discussion with you.

[jlauber]

GOAT,

I am a relative "newbie" to this forum, and I have read some absolutely ridiculous and downright childish comments on some other topics here, but it has been refreshing to read your analytical observations, as well as several other's here.

I have always admired Russell's determination to win. I made the comment on another forum, (and unbelieveably, ThaRegul8r...posted it here in another discussion), that Russell probably would have blocked Reed's first two shots in the game seven of the '70 Finals, while Wilt just didn't know what to do.

I have also mentioned that, IMHO, Russell's greatest weakness, his offensive skills, were actually one of his biggest strengths. Why? Russell knew that he could not compete on the offensive end with the bigger scorers in the NBA, and he never attempted to do so. He "sacrificed" his offense, and in doing so, allowed his teammates to take more shots. Which, of course, endeared him to them. He was also probably one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, defensive player of all-time. His defense allowed his teammates to gamble more on defense, and take off earlier on the break. His outlet passing was an under-rated weapon (much like it was for Unseld, Walton, and later in career...Wilt.) And while his offense was limited, he was a terror on the offensive glass, and he also ran the floor exceptionally well.

Wilt's biggest weakness, aside from his awful FT shooting, was his "Goliath Complex." Because of it, he seldom used his awesome strength and power to full advantage. Instead, he relied on his amazing (for a seven-footer) athleticsm. And, as I mentioned, he was often more concerned for his opponents. You may have noticed in the video footage that exists in Wilt's era, the "soft" dunks. He actually broke the toe of an opponent with a dunk, and after that, he began to gently dunk the ball.

There was a false perception that when Reed hobbled thru the entrance in that game seven, that Wilt was "intimidated" by his presence. The great Dick Shaap actually observed something quite different...that Wilt, maybe subconsciously, let up. Why? Because Wilt was always the villain. He was the "bully", despite seldom losing his temper, even when opponents were beating him black-and-blue.

While Chamberlain lacked a "killer instinct", Russell was the silent assassin. Both were among the most intelligent athletes of their era, but Russell was also a master at psychology. Unlike Wilt, who would back off at the sight of a weakness in an opponent (ala Reed)...Russell would pounce on it.

Still, I think so many "historians", as Roundball brought up, do an injustice to the greatness of Chamberlain. Even DURING their era, I honestly believe that many in the media did not actually witness the brilliance of Wilt. I have long maintained that much of the sports' writing that was done in the 60's, was based on word-of-mouth. There has long been this PERCEPTION that Chamberlain feasted on geeky, uncoordinated, skinny, weak, white 6-6 centers. AND, that when he faced Russell, that he folded, and "choked."

However, as more-and-more information has become available (such as Harvey Pollack's numbers on EVERY H2H game between the two), or more-and-more video has been released, we are now able to actually WATCH the amazing athlete that Chamberlain truly was. He was not only incredibly gifted in terms of athleticism, he was a true pioneer in terms of SKILLS. Take a look at that footage that I posted, and you will see a bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic, AND more SKILLED center, than Dwight Howard. For anyone to think that Chamberlain would not have been dominant today is absurd.

Once again, GOAT,...and Roundball, Reg, Guy, Juju, Laker fan, and the severaal others that took the time to read MY take on Simmons...I just want to say that I appreciate the INTELLIGENT discussions...something that has been sorely lacking on the subject, here, and elsewhere.

Whether we agree on who was better, or not, I think most all of us respect the true brilliance that Russell and Wilt brought to the game. It is a testament to their greatness, that they are still being involved in heated debates some 40 years later.

Thanks again to all...I have honestly enjoyed the discussions!

[ThaRegul8r]

Kareem is another under-rated defender, as was evidenced by the fact that his Buck teams were alway among the leaders ain FG% against.

Yes, he is. Were one to peruse the NBA record books before the 1997-98 season, one would have seen this:

TEAM DEFENSE
FIELD-GOAL PERCENTAGE
[I](Opponents

[Alhazred]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Yes, he is. Were one to peruse the NBA record books before the 1997-98 season, one would have seen this:

TEAM DEFENSE
FIELD-GOAL PERCENTAGE
[I](Opponents

[ThaRegul8r]

I just want to say that I appreciate the INTELLIGENT discussions...something that has been sorely lacking on the subject, here, and elsewhere.

I completely agree.


Whether we agree on who was better, or not, I think most all of us respect the true brilliance that Russell and Wilt brought to the game.

Without question.

[G.O.A.T]

Piling on the affection, I am glad to finally see a thread end with each side understanding the others side and having enjoyed the discussion. I seemingly simple, but all too evasive concept

[PHILA]

Had their been no Russell, Wilt would have to be the greatest player ever. He'd have 6-10 titles, would have averaged 50 in the finals at some point and probably had a 100-50 game at some point if he somehow managed to stay motivated. :applause:

In other words, Chamberlain is your #2 player all time? Too bad you didn't finish the top 100 list.

[MakeHistory78]

Incidently,

I wasn't trying to diminish Jordan's greatness by my comparison about the quality of teammates that he had, with what Russell had, or who Chamberlain played with. My point was obvious, though...Jordan was no more of a "winner" until his supporting cast was among the best in the league. Wilt played with putrid personnel for the first half of his career, while Russell was surrounded by a HOF supporting cast his entire career. Does ANYONE really believe that Russell could have carried the '61-'62 Warriors to a game seven against the Celtics, had Wilt been playing center for Boston????

As for my All-Time Top-10...it currently is this...

1. Wilt
2. Shaq
3. Kareem
4. MJ
5. Russell
6. Magic
7. Kobe
8. Duncan
9. Bird
10. Oscar

I hate to leave West off of that list...he, and Jordan, were arguably the greatest post-season scorers of all-time...but Kobe has shot up the charts the last few years.
I respect your opinion but this time I have to say that your Top-10 list is terrible.
I can understand that for you Wilt is the GOAT.For me is #2 behind Jordan.
But Shaq has no business at #2.And how the hell you put MJ at #4?OMG!
Kobe #7 and Bird #9?How is this?
Jordan is the Greatest ever or at least a Top-3 ever with KAJ and Wilt.
Shaq said by himself that Mike is the GOAT.
For the first time in my life and I'm 33 years old listen someone to say that Jordan isn't a Top-3 player ever.Jordan considered the Greatest by a lot of other greats.

"Is he the greatest? He's in the top two." -Larry Bird

"There's Michael Jordan and then there is the rest of us."-Magic Johnson

"Not only do I admire Jordan's accomplishments and his phenomenal basketball ability, but also the way he has conducted himself on and off the court. I don't think there will ever be another player to have the same impact on the game of basketball as Michael Jordan. If you look up the definition of greatness in the dictionary, it will say Michael Jordan." -Elgin Baylor

"Michael is the most talented player I've ever seen. Wilt was the most dominating, but Michael has the most talent in every aspect of the game, even defense. "He's the best ever because of his combination of skills, his competitiveness. Russell, Wilt, Kareem dominated because of their size, but they didn't have Michael's skills." -Dave Bing

"I think he was the best ever. The whole package. He's scary sometimes with his defense. The passion he had amazes me. At a certain age, it's more difficult to get up for a game. A big game, sure, it's easy. But he did it for every game. How did he do it? To motivate himself at a level to perform. There's no burnout there. It's something within himself. If I had to play him, I'd pray a lot." -Billy Cunningham

"I don't know if he knows how good he is. He's tremendous. I've never seen anything like him. He's only 6-6. That's amazing. You seldom see a person that size do those things. He's so creative and to be able to take over a game at that size, it's amazing. Oscar and West were the best, but there's no other version of Jordan, the hang time, how high he jumps, how quick he moves. The guy amazes me. ... He's the best I've ever seen." -Sam Jones

"He's been probably the most important player in the history of the game as far as its success, popularity and growth. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird provided a lift when the game needed it. Michael took it to another level and brought more and more fans. "He's the greatest player who ever lived, a unique attraction. He's such a competitor. He forced the players around him to play at a higher level. He's a competitor. That describes a special player. When the sport loses him, it's like losing Babe Ruth in baseball. I've never seen a player who can do what he did." -Jerry Lucas

"Michael's definitely the best basketball player of all time. He's the greatest offensive weapon to ever play, and probably the best defensive player we've ever seen." -Shaquille O'Neal

"I cannot imagine anyone playing any better." -Bill Russell

"Michael's had the greatest impact on the NBA than any player in history. He was the greatest competitor who came through when asked. He rarely had a bad game. You'd expect 10 percent of the time that he would not do well. He beat those odds. -Dolph Schayes

"Michael Jordan is the greatest all-around basketball performer of all time. ... I don't believe Michael was the greatest shooter or the greatest dribbler or passer or the greatest defensive player, etc. However, I believe he could do all these things better than anyone else who ever played in the NBA." -Bill Sharman

"He's the greatest that ever touched a basketball, that ever lived, any way you want to put it and without a doubt. I hope I'm alive when there will be an argument of who is another player who comes along who's as good. I hope I'm around to see this guy." -Nate Thurmond

"I have to think he's the greatest player ever. Not because of his ability to score, but because of his total game. To me he's the best offensive player and the best defensive player in the league for a number of years. To be the defensive player of the year with all the other things he had to do, to me, he's a marvel. He has separated himself from the rest of the good players as far as I'm concerned. He's the modern day Babe Ruth." -Jerry West

"He became the greatest. I won't say he was when he first started, but he developed into, I think, the greatest player who ever played basketball. I think he combined all of it, the athleticism with the skill. And every year he improved his skill. And also the mental toughness it takes to come out night in and night out and deliver your best performance. ... You know I've seen a lot of great players, but never one who could dominate a game like Michael could." -Lenny Wilkens

Of caurse I don't wait to change your mind at your 55 but perhaps you must think again before put Shaq ahead of Jordan.Come on now.

And as about the thread.Your passion deserve a :applause: .
You are perhaps the biggest Wilt fan.That's great for him.
Simmons is a Celtics-Bird-Russell homer.Did you expect to consider Wilt better than Russell?
And yes Wilt was better player than Russ.Far more complete offensive player and far more dominant.Russell was a better defender but the gap isn't so big like the offense and Wilt's advantage.

[Round Mound]

Wilt was better than Russel, period.

At everything

[jlauber]

I respect your opinion but this time I have to say that your Top-10 list is terrible.
I can understand that for you Wilt is the GOAT.For me is #2 behind Jordan.
But Shaq has no business at #2.And how the hell you put MJ at #4?OMG!
Kobe #7 and Bird #9?How is this?
Jordan is the Greatest ever or at least a Top-3 ever with KAJ and Wilt.
Shaq said by himself that Mike is the GOAT.
For the first time in my life and I'm 33 years old listen someone to say that Jordan isn't a Top-3 player ever.Jordan considered the Greatest by a lot of other greats.

"Is he the greatest? He's in the top two." -Larry Bird

"There's Michael Jordan and then there is the rest of us."-Magic Johnson

"Not only do I admire Jordan's accomplishments and his phenomenal basketball ability, but also the way he has conducted himself on and off the court. I don't think there will ever be another player to have the same impact on the game of basketball as Michael Jordan. If you look up the definition of greatness in the dictionary, it will say Michael Jordan." -Elgin Baylor

"Michael is the most talented player I've ever seen. Wilt was the most dominating, but Michael has the most talent in every aspect of the game, even defense. "He's the best ever because of his combination of skills, his competitiveness. Russell, Wilt, Kareem dominated because of their size, but they didn't have Michael's skills." -Dave Bing

"I think he was the best ever. The whole package. He's scary sometimes with his defense. The passion he had amazes me. At a certain age, it's more difficult to get up for a game. A big game, sure, it's easy. But he did it for every game. How did he do it? To motivate himself at a level to perform. There's no burnout there. It's something within himself. If I had to play him, I'd pray a lot." -Billy Cunningham

"I don't know if he knows how good he is. He's tremendous. I've never seen anything like him. He's only 6-6. That's amazing. You seldom see a person that size do those things. He's so creative and to be able to take over a game at that size, it's amazing. Oscar and West were the best, but there's no other version of Jordan, the hang time, how high he jumps, how quick he moves. The guy amazes me. ... He's the best I've ever seen." -Sam Jones

"He's been probably the most important player in the history of the game as far as its success, popularity and growth. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird provided a lift when the game needed it. Michael took it to another level and brought more and more fans. "He's the greatest player who ever lived, a unique attraction. He's such a competitor. He forced the players around him to play at a higher level. He's a competitor. That describes a special player. When the sport loses him, it's like losing Babe Ruth in baseball. I've never seen a player who can do what he did." -Jerry Lucas

"Michael's definitely the best basketball player of all time. He's the greatest offensive weapon to ever play, and probably the best defensive player we've ever seen." -Shaquille O'Neal

"I cannot imagine anyone playing any better." -Bill Russell

"Michael's had the greatest impact on the NBA than any player in history. He was the greatest competitor who came through when asked. He rarely had a bad game. You'd expect 10 percent of the time that he would not do well. He beat those odds. -Dolph Schayes

"Michael Jordan is the greatest all-around basketball performer of all time. ... I don't believe Michael was the greatest shooter or the greatest dribbler or passer or the greatest defensive player, etc. However, I believe he could do all these things better than anyone else who ever played in the NBA." -Bill Sharman

"He's the greatest that ever touched a basketball, that ever lived, any way you want to put it and without a doubt. I hope I'm alive when there will be an argument of who is another player who comes along who's as good. I hope I'm around to see this guy." -Nate Thurmond

"I have to think he's the greatest player ever. Not because of his ability to score, but because of his total game. To me he's the best offensive player and the best defensive player in the league for a number of years. To be the defensive player of the year with all the other things he had to do, to me, he's a marvel. He has separated himself from the rest of the good players as far as I'm concerned. He's the modern day Babe Ruth." -Jerry West

"He became the greatest. I won't say he was when he first started, but he developed into, I think, the greatest player who ever played basketball. I think he combined all of it, the athleticism with the skill. And every year he improved his skill. And also the mental toughness it takes to come out night in and night out and deliver your best performance. ... You know I've seen a lot of great players, but never one who could dominate a game like Michael could." -Lenny Wilkens

Of caurse I don't wait to change your mind at your 55 but perhaps you must think again before put Shaq ahead of Jordan.Come on now.

And as about the thread.Your passion deserve a :applause: .
You are perhaps the biggest Wilt fan.That's great for him.
Simmons is a Celtics-Bird-Russell homer.Did you expect to consider Wilt better than Russell?
And yes Wilt was better player than Russ.Far more complete offensive player and far more dominant.Russell was a better defender but the gap isn't so big like the offense and Wilt's advantage.

My ranking in that post has since changed. I have MJ at #2.

[Hagbard]

1. Wilt was NOT selfish. In fact, Chamberlain did whatever his coaches asked of him. It was NOT his idea to average 50 ppg in the '62 season (it was his coach, Frank McGuire.)

Wilt also cut back his scoring when Alex Hannum asked him to before the '67 season. And, when he was traded to the Lakers, he even played the high post for the brilliant Van Breda Kolf, so that a washed up Baylor could continue to shoot blanks.

The following season, and after Van Breda Kolf was fired, his new coach, Joe Mullaney asked Wilt to become the focal point of the offense. Chamberlain responded by averaging 32.2 ppg in his first nine games. Unfortunately, he went down with a horrific knee injury...the SAME knee that he injured in the Finals just the year before (or the knee that he "faked" an injury to...more on that later, though.)

And, before the '72 season, his new coach, Bill Sharman, asked Wilt to concentrate on defense, rebounding, and starting the fast-break...which he did...and it led to an offense that terrorized the NBA, scoring 121 ppg.

Of course, when Wilt led the NBA in assists, in the '67-'68 season, Simmons' stated it was for "selfish" reasons...never mind the FACT that Wilt's Sixers ran away with best record in the league that year. Yep, he was so "selfish" that he guided his team to a 62-20 mark (while the "unselfish" Russell's Celtics could only go 54-28.)


2. Not dependable in clutch situations? Let's see...in the '65 Eastern Finals, in game seven, Wilt scored the last eight points, bringing the 40-40 Sixers to within one point of the 62-18 Celtics (and on their home floor BTW) with 5 secs. left. The "clutch" Russell then hit aguidewire with his inbounds pass, giving Philly the ball. If Havlicek didn't steal the ball, who knows?

Against Russell in the clinching game five loss in the '66 Eastern Playoffs, all Wilt did was to score 46 points and pull down 34 rebounds. Yes, his team lost, but you could not blame Wilt.

AND, in the following season, in the clinching game five WIN, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 29-4, outshot Russell, 10-16 to 2-5, outrebounded Russell, 36-21, and outassisted him, 13-7. BTW, where was "clutch" Russell in that game? For those that argue that Russell could have scored more, had he wanted to...that game conclusively proves that he could not. He could only put up a meek four point effort when his teammates needed him most.

How about the sixth game of the '72 Western Finals, when he took over the 4th quarter, and brought LA back from a 10 point deficit, to win that game, and the series.

Or how about the pivotal game four of the Finals that year, when Chamberlain, saddled with five fouls, blocked two shots in OT (playing all 53 minutes BTW...and with one badly sprained wrist, and the other wrist FRACTURED), to save a Laker win.

Or, the very next game, and with BOTH wrists heavily wrapped...all Wilt did was score 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds (NY had 39 COMBINED), and 10 blocks.

3. You're right, Wilt did not "demand" the ball in that game seven. Of course, neither did Russell...whom Chamberlain outscored 14-12, and outrebounded, 34-26 ...DESPITE only touching the ball on the offensive end, TWO times in the final period. In any case...why was Wilt EXPECTED to score, but not Russell?????

4. Couldn't get the Lakers to win a championship until '72? Let's see, his idiotic coach kept him on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven, in which his team lost by two points. In the following season, Chamberlain defied virtually medical opinion, and returned to play in the post-season, just four months removed from major knee surgery. And despite not being close to 100%, he took a 46-36 Laker team, to a game seven loss against the heavily-favored Knicks. In the process, he outplayed the series MVP, and became the only player, in NBA Finals history, to put up a 20-20 .600 series (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and a .625 FG%.)

In the '70-'71 season, he loses Baylor for the year, after just two games, and then West, for the season, just after mid-season, and yet he still manages to carry that depleted Laker team to a 48-34 record. AND, then in the playoffs, against the 66-16 Bucks, he loses Keith Erickson. Somehow he guides his team to one win, and in the clinching game five loss, as he is leaving the floor, he receives a standing ovation...from the Milwaukee crowd.


5. Exagerated an injury in that game seven? If you studied that game, you would realize that the Lakers were in the process of cutting a 17 point 4th quarter deficit down to seven points, when Wilt pulled himself out for a short break. Not only that, but even on that injured knee, he managed to stay in the game for two possessions, and he yanked down two rebounds. Why would Wilt pull himself out of the game at that point???

In any case, there is ample footage of that 4th quarter on YouTube. Do yourself a favor, and watch it. And despite Russell playing all 12 minutes of that period...he contributed absolutely NOTHING. You talk about "chokers"...Russell was hiding the entire period.

Furthermore, even Wilt's stupid coach came to his defense after the game, saying that Chamberlain was hurting badly.

AND, despite missing the last five minutes of that game, Wilt managed to outscore Russell, 18-6; he outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7; and he outrebounded him , 27-21.

Check your FACTS next time...
Holy fock, what an empty headed pud.

You have the stones to end your post with "Check your FACTS next time..." when you just spent a whole trillion-word post ignoring his points and "countering" them with unrelated wank-off trivia that had nothing to do with his legitimate criticisms.

On #1., Wilt DID put up his stats for selfish reasons. The much ballyhooed assist-leading season you trumpet, he's ON ****ING RECORD as saying he was going to lead the league in assists. That his team did well to boot is hardly a counter to that argument. It's a nice aside, but has a lot more to do with the fact that they had a good team around him.

And of course, AFTER winning the title the previous year playing "as-is", and AFTER declaring he was going to change his game for selfish-stat reasons, they LOST.


On #2., You completely ignore the entire premise of the argument you pretend to "counter." Final games of series AREN'T the same thing as "clutch situations." I'd say you know that, and you're just being disingenuous, but I'm not so sure, judging by the tripe you've spewed here.

FACT: You couldn't count on Wilt in any situation where they might foul him at the end of the game, because he couldn't be bothered to practice, and thus improve his FT shooting. He relied on the skills he developed by high school his entire career, and while he was physically dominant, he never improved as a player.


On #3., You deflect the question entirely. "Oh yeah? Well, Neither did Russell!!!!!!111111one." The criticism has nothing to do with Russell. As you've been so quick to point out over and over again, Russell had a lot of good teammates, and was good at relying on them to produce. Some of us call that "team play."

As you've ALSO been awfully quick to point out over and over again, Wilt was counted on to produce much more statistical bulk in order to make up for his relative lack of surrounding talent. So your argument that Wilt "Did well" because Russell "Didn't do better" is, frankly, pathetic.

And wrong, obviously.


On #4., when the accusation is made that he couldn't get a particular team to the championship, you proceed to make lots of excuses as to WHY he couldn't get that particular team to the championship.

Which would almost be valid in some way, if you hadn't gone on to whine that the OP ought to "Check his facts." His FACTS were right. Your EXCUSES were irrelevant.

As with everything else in the thread, you sought to drown out the fact that you had nothing to say in the sheer volume of characters it took you to say it. That you took it that extra step and declared victory at the end is high-end douchebaggery. Frankly, your inability to address the relevant points makes you come off as both stupid AND wrong. It's an awesome display.


On #5., I can't even imagine what to say. It's like a combination of all the pathetic bull shit you posted in #'s 1-4. Excuses, denial, and deflection.

To the accusation that he exaggerated an injury, you respond:

- "He did not!"
- "And if he did, so what, he was hurt!"
- "And besides, look, he was playing as seen on youtube!"
- "And hey, look, here's what Russell did!"

LOL.


As with most Wilt honks, it's the insecurity w/r/t Russell that's most damning. Even when he's completely irrelevant to any given point, you can't help but drag him into the comparison.

You dipnuts are always awfully quick to point out that Russell has fists full of rings while Wilt is a comparative joke because of "the strength of the teams."

Yet you never seem to acknowledge that the two players under question themselves are part of those teams as well. And if Wilt was so much focking better, then the relative discrepancies should have disappeared into a lopsided advantage to the team who had the biggest advantage at the position that saw the most offensive opportunity...year in, year out.

But that advantage never materialized. Why? Because Russell played the position as part of his team, blending seamlessly on both offense and defense, while Wilt played the role of the stat hog and failed to ever figure out what to do with the 40 minutes per game that he didn't have the ball in his hands.

Rings are scoreboard, excuses aren't arguments, and whining is a poor substitute for fact.

I rate this thread one star: terrible.

[jlauber]

Holy fock, what an empty headed pud.

You have the stones to end your post with "Check your FACTS next time..." when you just spent a whole trillion-word post ignoring his points and "countering" them with unrelated wank-off trivia that had nothing to do with his legitimate criticisms.

On #1., Wilt DID put up his stats for selfish reasons. The much ballyhooed assist-leading season you trumpet, he's ON ****ING RECORD as saying he was going to lead the league in assists. That his team did well to boot is hardly a counter to that argument. It's a nice aside, but has a lot more to do with the fact that they had a good team around him.

And of course, AFTER winning the title the previous year playing "as-is", and AFTER declaring he was going to change his game for selfish-stat reasons, they LOST.


On #2., You completely ignore the entire premise of the argument you pretend to "counter." Final games of series AREN'T the same thing as "clutch situations." I'd say you know that, and you're just being disingenuous, but I'm not so sure, judging by the tripe you've spewed here.

FACT: You couldn't count on Wilt in any situation where they might foul him at the end of the game, because he couldn't be bothered to practice, and thus improve his FT shooting. He relied on the skills he developed by high school his entire career, and while he was physically dominant, he never improved as a player.


On #3., You deflect the question entirely. "Oh yeah? Well, Neither did Russell!!!!!!111111one." The criticism has nothing to do with Russell. As you've been so quick to point out over and over again, Russell had a lot of good teammates, and was good at relying on them to produce. Some of us call that "team play."

As you've ALSO been awfully quick to point out over and over again, Wilt was counted on to produce much more statistical bulk in order to make up for his relative lack of surrounding talent. So your argument that Wilt "Did well" because Russell "Didn't do better" is, frankly, pathetic.

And wrong, obviously.


On #4., when the accusation is made that he couldn't get a particular team to the championship, you proceed to make lots of excuses as to WHY he couldn't get that particular team to the championship.

Which would almost be valid in some way, if you hadn't gone on to whine that the OP ought to "Check his facts." His FACTS were right. Your EXCUSES were irrelevant.

As with everything else in the thread, you sought to drown out the fact that you had nothing to say in the sheer volume of characters it took you to say it. That you took it that extra step and declared victory at the end is high-end douchebaggery. Frankly, your inability to address the relevant points makes you come off as both stupid AND wrong. It's an awesome display.


On #5., I can't even imagine what to say. It's like a combination of all the pathetic bull shit you posted in #'s 1-4. Excuses, denial, and deflection.

To the accusation that he exaggerated an injury, you respond:

- "He did not!"
- "And if he did, so what, he was hurt!"
- "And besides, look, he was playing as seen on youtube!"
- "And hey, look, here's what Russell did!"

LOL.


As with most Wilt honks, it's the insecurity w/r/t Russell that's most damning. Even when he's completely irrelevant to any given point, you can't help but drag him into the comparison.

You dipnuts are always awfully quick to point out that Russell has fists full of rings while Wilt is a comparative joke because of "the strength of the teams."

Yet you never seem to acknowledge that the two players under question themselves are part of those teams as well. And if Wilt was so much focking better, then the relative discrepancies should have disappeared into a lopsided advantage to the team who had the biggest advantage at the position that saw the most offensive opportunity...year in, year out.

But that advantage never materialized. Why? Because Russell played the position as part of his team, blending seamlessly on both offense and defense, while Wilt played the role of the stat hog and failed to ever figure out what to do with the 40 minutes per game that he didn't have the ball in his hands.

Rings are scoreboard, excuses aren't arguments, and whining is a poor substitute for fact.

I rate this thread one star: terrible.

I have addressed ALL of these points ad nauseum.

FACT: Wilt had inferior supporting casts in the vast majority of their 10 seasons in the league together. He came to a last-place team, and immediately elevated them into a title contender. IMHO, Wilt only played on TWO teams with a marginal edge in talent. One was DECIMATED by injuries which resulted in a game seven, four point loss. The other ANNIHILATED Russell's Celtics 4-1, and nearly swept them.

FACT: Yes, Wilt wanted to lead the league in assists in the 67-68 season...and he did. How much did it hurt his TEAM? They RAN AWAY with the best record in the league. And had they not been swamped with injury issues in the playoffs, they would certainly have won the title again.

FACT: Wilt put up MANY HUGE games against Russell in the post-season, including game seven's and elimination games. He WAS "clutch"...and H2H, probably considerably moreso than Russell.

The FACTS were, Wilt HAD to do MUCH more for his TEAM's to have any chance. And when his numbers dipped slightly, they inevitably lost. In fact, they lost games even when he put up staggering numbers. However, Russell could put up paltry numbers, and his TEAM could still win. HOWEVER, when his TEAM needed him to step up in the clinching game five loss of the '67 ECF's, Russell meekly flopped, and his TEAM was blown out.

Once again, Russell's 7-1 edge in H2H rings is very deceptive. Had Wilt's TEAMMATES scored just a handful of points, and they could very well have beaten the vaunted "Dynasty" 5-3.

Basketball is a TEAM game. The better TEAM generally wins. My god, Jordan played on FIVE losing team's in his career, and had many playoff losses. Kareem played on 14 teams that did not win a title, and without Magic he would have had only ONE ring. Shaq played on SIX teams that were SWEPT in the post-season (and nearly SEVEN.) Bird "only" won three rings playing on HOF-laden teams, and was NOWHERE near as dominant in the post-season as Chamberlain. In fact, he was FAR more of a "choker" than Wilt ever was in the post-season. Hakeem played on EIGHT teams that were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs. "Mr. Clutch" Jerry West played on ONE title team (and Wilt was the Finals MVP that year.) Baylor, Barkley, K. Malone, and many other's...ZERO title teams.

I'll give Russell credit...he led LOADED rosters to NBA titles. But, he was usually either outplayed, or downright crushed individually by Wilt in their H2H play. AND, when Wilt had a comparable, and healthy, roster, he and his TEAM obliterated Russell and his Celtics.

[N0Skillz]

Sticky This

[Niquesports]

GOAT,

First of all, I never ALL players resented Chamberlain. I said MANY did...just as MANY resented Jordan in the first few years of his career.

Secondly, we can BOTH come up with players' OPINIONS about Chamberlain until the cows come home. Whether Wilt was liked, as a teammate, or not, virtually EVERY player acknowledged that he was the most dominant player in the sport. Even Russell, himself, said so.

But where are your FACTS? Sure, Russell, and his EIGHT HOF TEAMMATES won more titles. How many titles would he have won without Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and the many other contributors to his "rings?"

I have given you the WIN SHARES stat, which CLEARLY shows that Chamberlain contributed FAR more to his team's success, than Russell did to his. I have said it many times, but the fact was, Russell just did not have to do nearly as much, for his teams to win, as Wilt did for his.

One of the points that has been raised here, is that Wilt did not shoot a shot in the second half of that game seven in the '67-'68 Eastern Finals. While I have never read anything by Wilt that would indicate a "conspiracy", it seemed like more than a coincidence that Chamberlain was traded shortly after that game. I won't go into specifics now...it is not important to my argument, which is this...

Why was Wilt criticized for not taking a shot in the second half of that game, when Russell was never criticized for his lack of shooting throughout his career? The FACT was, despite Chamberlain not shooting in that half (and he only TOUCHED the ball ton the offensive end wice in the final period BTW..a suspicious point that author Robert Cherry brought up in his autobiography on Wilt)...Wilt still managed to outscore Russell, 14-12, and outrebounded him 34-26. The difference was, Wilt was EXPECTED to score, while Russell was not. My question, though, is WHY? Why was Wilt EXPECTED to do MUCH more than Russell? The answer is obvious...he was quite simply, a better player.

I have also mentioned Russell's pitiful performance in that clinching game five loss in the '67 Eastern Playoffs...when he only scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting (while Wilt scored 29, on 10-16 shooting...including 22 points in the pivotal first half of that game.) Where was the criticism of Russell, whose teammates were completely neutralized by Wilt's teammates, and who needed Russell to step up?

I have long maintained that had Wilt been surrounded with the quality of teammates that he had in that '67 season, that there would have been MANY more 4-1 series wipeouts of Russell and his Celtics.

Win shares ?????? where do people come up with these fantasy basketball stats.Anyone that has ever played the game pass the level of 8th grade knows most of leadership and winning doesnt show up in stats.There is a reason Jordan is the only scoring champion to win a ring.
As far as teammates goes if Wilts's team had won Hal Greer would be getting the attention Sam Jones gets Billy Cunningham would be Hondo Chet Walker would be Tommy H Guy Rogers would be KC so get off your Russ had HOF so did Wilt.You must understand if Russ was winning in sweeps or 4 -1 you may have a point but winning games 7 means one team just had that it of a champion over the other and it comes from its team leader but that doesnt show up in win shares.

[Niquesports]

Guy,

I respect your take, and I do apologize for the analogy. It was not my intent to go after Russell's reputation here, but I found it amusing that Simmons' would attack Chamberlain's reputation, in which even he reluctantly admitted that Wilt was well-liked by many who KNEW him...

but he fails to mention that Russell was not even close to Wilt as a HUMAN BEING.

Just something he must have accidently forgotten when he was writing his book, I guess...
Until you have walked in a Black mans shoes for a mile you will never understand how he acts or reacts . To say Russ was racist he was just a product of how the 1950's 60's world treated him. So because he didnt say yesa boss mes good ni*** but he stood and spoke out he is a bad human. For some reason Red, Tommy H Cousy , Hondo, dissagree with you about Russ being a racist maybe they are just light skin blacks.

[Niquesports]

I mentioned it earlier in this topic, but I always thought it was interesting that Oscar, West, Baylor, and others were seldom, if ever, labeled "chokers" or "losers" in their careers, yet Chamberlain was, despite having more championships in the same era.
Well until O was with the Bucks he didn't have the support Wilt had. As for West and Baylor I think most look at them like Stockton and Malone they needed a 3rd great player

[ILLsmak]

True talent translates into wins.

Maybe Bill Russell and Wilt were similar players and Bill had better teammates, but Wilt couldn't have been that much better than Bill or he would have been getting wins.

Why didn't he have a prime season of 70% shooting? I mean, if Wilt was as great as people think, you'd think he'd be able to get like 35 points and 15 assists on very high FG%. Who could beat that? I could see some games having him score 60 points.

I guess offense back then was different because you should have easily been able to put Wilt in a spot to get the ball where he could either score it or hit someone for an easy shot. Over and over again.

Not to mention, it seemed like Wilt's teams weren't really great defensively. In those days, with no 3 point line, one would think all you would have to do is stop the scoring in the paint. And someone like Wilt should have been the best.

Just my 2c.

-Smak

[jlauber]

True talent translates into wins.

Maybe Bill Russell and Wilt were similar players and Bill had better teammates, but Wilt couldn't have been that much better than Bill or he would have been getting wins.

Why didn't he have a prime season of 70% shooting? I mean, if Wilt was as great as people think, you'd think he'd be able to get like 35 points and 15 assists on very high FG%. Who could beat that? I could see some games having him score 60 points.

I guess offense back then was different because you should have easily been able to put Wilt in a spot to get the ball where he could either score it or hit someone for an easy shot. Over and over again.

Not to mention, it seemed like Wilt's teams weren't really great defensively. In those days, with no 3 point line, one would think all you would have to do is stop the scoring in the paint. And someone like Wilt should have been the best.

Just my 2c.

-Smak

Here again...why ONLY Wilt? Chamberlain DID have a PRIME season of .683 FG% in his 66-67 season, beating the next guy by a STILL record differential of .162 (Bellamy at .521), AND, outshooting the league by an eye-popping .244 margin (.683 to .441), which is second only to his unbelieveable .271 margin in his 72-73 season (.727 to a league average of .456.)

Why didn't Russell put up those numbers..or Kareem,...or Jordan, ...or Shaq? Hell, Russell never had even ONE season of over .467.

All of which is interesting...Wilt has been labeled a "loser", and a "failure", and a "choker" despite being NONE of those. He was EXPECTED to put up 40-30 games, and many times he did (he has 55 of the entire 61 in NBA HISTORY), but, if his TEAM lost...well, it must have been Wilt's fault. Yet, no one blamed MJ for his TEAM being swept by the '86 Celtics in the playoffs.

It is what I have termed the DOUBLE STANDARD. There was everyone else...and then there was Wilt.

[Hagbard]

Here again...why ONLY Wilt? Chamberlain DID have a PRIME season of .683 FG% in his 66-67 season, beating the next guy by a STILL record differential of .162 (Bellamy at .521), AND, outshooting the league by an eye-popping .244 margin (.683 to .441), which is second only to his unbelieveable .271 margin in his 72-73 season (.727 to a league average of .456.)

Why didn't Russell put up those numbers..or Kareem,...or Jordan, ...or Shaq? Hell, Russell never had even ONE season of over .467.

All of which is interesting...Wilt has been labeled a "loser", and a "failure", and a "choker" despite being NONE of those. He was EXPECTED to put up 40-30 games, and many times he did (he has 55 of the entire 61 in NBA HISTORY), but, if his TEAM lost...well, it must have been Wilt's fault. Yet, no one blamed MJ for his TEAM being swept by the '86 Celtics in the playoffs.

It is what I have termed the DOUBLE STANDARD. There was everyone else...and then there was Wilt.
Jesus Christ, the man's dead. Time to let go of his nut sack.

EVERYONE blamed MJ for his team being swept in '86. Which just proves you don't know enough of your history to be worthy of having an opinion.

There were feature articles, TV segments, newspaper columns, and talk radio blasts all day, every day, for about two years...Can Michael change enough to win? Is he just too selfish and too big a gunner to be a legitimate title contender? Will his EGO let him win?

People honestly held opinions like, "I wouldn't want Michael on my team. He scores a lot, but makes his team worse."

Thing is, Michael GREW THE FOCK UP. He committed to playing D so well and so fast, that he became defensive POY the next focking year. And a perennial all-D member. He went from a guy averaging 3 and 4 assists per game each year, to a guy averaging 6, then 8. He learned to make himself more versatile by adding a post game, and then an inside-out game, and then the legendary fadeaway. He added range to his jumper.

In general, Michael listened to the criticism, took it to heart, and became a greater player. Wilt stayed me-first for his whole career, only bothering to share the rock when it amused him to prove it to the press that he would.

He never improved, never grew up, never got the killer instinct that Jordan had. That Russell had.

He gets more criticism than Big O and the like because unlike them, he played on some stacked teams. And they did worse than they should have BECAUSE he was part of them.

Russell's teams were better, to be sure. But swap Russell and Wilt and Wilt wins maybe 3 or 4 titles instead of 2. Russell still wins 7 or 8. That's who they were.

You swing from the nut sack of a loser.

[jlauber]

Jesus Christ, the man's dead. Time to let go of his nut sack.

EVERYONE blamed MJ for his team being swept in '86. Which just proves you don't know enough of your history to be worthy of having an opinion.

There were feature articles, TV segments, newspaper columns, and talk radio blasts all day, every day, for about two years...Can Michael change enough to win? Is he just too selfish and too big a gunner to be a legitimate title contender? Will his EGO let him win?

People honestly held opinions like, "I wouldn't want Michael on my team. He scores a lot, but makes his team worse."

Thing is, Michael GREW THE FOCK UP. He committed to playing D so well and so fast, that he became defensive POY the next focking year. And a perennial all-D member. He went from a guy averaging 3 and 4 assists per game each year, to a guy averaging 6, then 8. He learned to make himself more versatile by adding a post game, and then an inside-out game, and then the legendary fadeaway. He added range to his jumper.

In general, Michael listened to the criticism, took it to heart, and became a greater player. Wilt stayed me-first for his whole career, only bothering to share the rock when it amused him to prove it to the press that he would.

He never improved, never grew up, never got the killer instinct that Jordan had. That Russell had.

He gets more criticism than Big O and the like because unlike them, he played on some stacked teams. And they did worse than they should have BECAUSE he was part of them.

Russell's teams were better, to be sure. But swap Russell and Wilt and Wilt wins maybe 3 or 4 titles instead of 2. Russell still wins 7 or 8. That's who they were.

You swing from the nut sack of a loser.

Yep...it WAS MJ's fault that his 30-52 Bulls were swept by the 67-15 Celtics and their FIVE HOFers. It must have been his fault when he scored 63 points in that OT loss, as well. Just like it was Wilt's fault that his 49-31 Warriors lost to the 60-20 Celtics, and their 6-3 edge in HOFers, in the '62 ECF's, losing a game seven by two points. Or that it was Wilt's fault that his 40-40 76ers were beaten by the 62-18 Celtics, and their 5-2 edge in HOFers, in a game seven, by one point. Or that it was Wilt's fault for his 48-32 Warriors losing to the 60-20 Celtics in the '64 Finals, and up against a 7-2 edge in HOFers, in a series in which Wilt outscored Russell per game, 29-11, and outrebounded him, 27-25, per game (and probably significantly outshot him, given the fact that he shot .543 in his 11 post season games, while Russell shot .356 in his ten.) Or just as it was Wilt's fault in the '66 ECF's, when Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 28-14, outrebounded him, per game, 30-26, and probably outshot him (Wilt shot .509 in that series), while his teammates shot .429, .375, .325, .325, and .161.

BTW, John Wooden was on record as saying that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, that Wilt probably would have won all of those rings. But, what the hell does he know about basketball?

Wilt "the Loser", played on 13 playoff teams in 14 seasons, ...12 of which made it to the conference finals. He played on six division or conference champions. He played on six teams which made it to the Finals. He played on four teams that had the best record in the league. He played on four 60+ win teams. And he anchored two teams that many consider among the greatest ever, the '67 Sixers, which crushed Russell's Celtics, and the '72 Lakers who won 33 straight games, and romped thru the post-season. He won the Final's MVP in that '72 season, and most assuredly would have won it in the '67 season, had the award existed back then. Wilt the "loser" also carried the 40-40 76ers to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics...which was probably the most remarkable post-season by an under-dog in NBA history.

Yep...Wilt was a "loser"...just as MJ was in nine of his 15 seasons; or Kareem in 14 of his 20 seasons; or Bird in 10 of his 13 seasons; or Shaq in 14 of his 18 seasons; or Hakeem in 16 of his 18 seasons; or Oscar in 13 of his 14 seasons; or West in 13 of his 14 seasons; or Baylor, Barkley, and K. Malone were in their entire careers.

[jlauber]

BTW, here is a list of some 40 games in which Wilt just CRUSHED Russell...

[QUOTE]For reference, the first number of the pair next to each player's name is points in that particular game, while the second is rebounds. An example would be the first one, with Wilt scoring 45 points, and grabbing 35 rebounds (45-35), while Russell's numbers were 15 points, with 13 rebounds (15-13.)


Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13
Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21
Wilt 43-39

[G.O.A.T]

The mistake a lot of people make is assuming that scoring 50 points per game is automatically more valuable to a team than 30 points.

You have to consider the effect one player taking such a high percentage of a teams shots has on his teammates. Players don't play as hard when they know they aren't getting the ball and the defense doesn't have to work as hard. Also the effort it takes to score that many points, especially primarily in the paint like Wilt or young Jordan, makes it difficult to give the maximum effort on defense all the time. Wilt's team always had at least two other guys who could score 30 on any given night, they never had anyone else (except Thurmond for a passing moment) who could control the glass and intimidate shots like Wilt.

People think Wilt was held to a higher standard, but he was only being held to the standard he set for himself and his teammates over the course of the season and his career.

[jlauber]

The mistake a lot of people make is assuming that scoring 50 points per game is automatically more valuable to a team than 30 points.

You have to consider the effect one player taking such a high percentage of a teams shots has on his teammates. Players don't play as hard when they know they aren't getting the ball and the defense doesn't have to work as hard. Also the effort it takes to score that many points, especially primarily in the paint like Wilt or young Jordan, makes it difficult to give the maximum effort on defense all the time. Wilt's team always had at least two other guys who could score 30 on any given night, they never had anyone else (except Thurmond for a passing moment) who could control the glass and intimidate shots like Wilt.

People think Wilt was held to a higher standard, but he was only being held to the standard he set for himself and his teammates over the course of the season and his career.

I agree with much of this. I place a high significance on EFFICIENCY, and in that regard, Wilt has few, if any peers (perhaps Shaq...although even Shaq can't come close to Wilt's top-3 seasons.)

Wilt was able to score 40+ points on incredible efficiency in many of them. He was LIGHT YEARS ahead of the LEAGUE AVERAGE in EVERY season in which he played, and some by just eye-popping margins (TWO at a .244 and a .271 differential...and no one else has even come close to a .200 margin.)

[Pointguard]

Those who think Wilt was being selfish and self absorbed his whole career when he had the knocked out the 50ppg and 24 boards its was like 4 years before big man prime. In his prime, you usually up the ante, but Wilt is averaging about half of that. If he was out for self, he could have really done more damage to the record books. But he is conforming to non-scoring modes and is told to emphasize other aspects of his game.

You can't be called a looser when your team is considered one of the best teams ever in your sport. It was already established he was the best individual player ever in the sport. Then he was on the best team... . Sorry folks, he attained what every player in every sport wants to attain. There is nothing in the standard of achievement that he did not attain. If he is a looser, you sick puppies, then there are no winners.

Basketball is a team sport, fellas. In boxing the better guy can usually control his fate. Tennis, Ping Pong, Pool, Video games etc. can all be settled one on one. Baseball's Pujols is a lot better than consistent winner Jeter. Dan Marino was a stellar quarterback and avoids comparisons with winner Eli Manning. But somehow in basketball Stockton, Malone, Barkley get a dubious distinction. Even Chamberlain does despite being on one of the best teams ever in the sport. And despite having won it all twice. Despite making the record books the story of Wilt.

Wilt was one of the few guys in all team sports that you can walk up to and he could say, "I was great in offense and defense, I own the majority of the records in the sport. Both my offensive achievements and defensive achievements (blocks when they decide to count them) are records that might never be broken. I won it all twice. I was on one of the best teams ever in the sport, my team has records of excellence, I played all aspects of the game at a level in which it is an absolute joke to compare anyone to me. I separated myself from the pack unlike any person in any other team sport. Nobody has shown an activity level near mines in the sport. I could do the dirty work on the glass better than all others and be the most proficient, efficient scorer ever. My endurance is unmatched in the game. I have records of being the most versatile guy in the sport too. I changed the game, it's rules and how it is played. It is highly doubtful that my career averages will ever be attained in one season by another player and that's without blocks added."

LOL, yall are so lost in hate yall don't have a clue. Basketballs look up at him :roll: If you affect any one thing like Wilt has in the above paragraph consider yourself a winner and underhyped. He's not just great in basketball - he's great in all team sports.

[SEEBASS1234]

This message is hidden because jlauber is on your ignore list.

Just from the quotes I can see that it is a one-sided argument

[jlauber]

Those who think Wilt was being selfish and self absorbed his whole career when he had the knocked out the 50ppg and 24 boards its was like 4 years before big man prime. In his prime, you usually up the ante, but Wilt is averaging about half of that. If he was out for self, he could have really done more damage to the record books. But he is conforming to non-scoring modes and is told to emphasize other aspects of his game.

You can't be called a looser when your team is considered one of the best teams ever in your sport. It was already established he was the best individual player ever in the sport. Then he was on the best team... . Sorry folks, he attained what every player in every sport wants to attain. There is nothing in the standard of achievement that he did not attain. If he is a looser, you sick puppies, then there are no winners.

Basketball is a team sport, fellas. In boxing the better guy can usually control his fate. Tennis, Ping Pong, Pool, Video games etc. can all be settled one on one. Baseball's Pujols is a lot better than consistent winner Jeter. Dan Marino was a stellar quarterback and avoids comparisons with winner Eli Manning. But somehow in basketball Stockton, Malone, Barkley get a dubious distinction. Even Chamberlain does despite being on one of the best teams ever in the sport. And despite having won it all twice. Despite making the record books the story of Wilt.

Wilt was one of the few guys in all team sports that you can walk up to and he could say, "I was great in offense and defense, I own the majority of the records in the sport. Both my offensive achievements and defensive achievements (blocks when they decide to count them) are records that might never be broken. I won it all twice. I was on one of the best teams ever in the sport, my team has records of excellence, I played all aspects of the game at a level in which it is an absolute joke to compare anyone to me. I separated myself from the pack unlike any person in any other team sport. Nobody has shown an activity level near mines in the sport. I could do the dirty work on the glass better than all others and be the most proficient, efficient scorer ever. My endurance is unmatched in the game. I have records of being the most versatile guy in the sport too. I changed the game, it's rules and how it is played. It is highly doubtful that my career averages will ever be attained in one season by another player and that's without blocks added."

LOL, yall are so lost in hate yall don't have a clue. Basketballs look up at him :roll: If you affect any one thing like Wilt has in the above paragraph consider yourself a winner and underhyped. He's not just great in basketball - he's great in all team sports.

EXCELLENT post!

I am just shaking my head at those that attempt to diminish what ONLY Chamberlain accomplished. It is as if they honestly believe that ANYONE could have scored 50 ppg (or 45), or grabbed 27 rpg (twice BTW), or shot .727 from the field (and .683 in another season.)

Why is it ONLY Wilt who was the ONLY center to lead the league in assists? Why was it ONLY Wilt that made 35 straight FGAs? Why was it ONLY Wilt who led the NBA in rebounding in ELEVEN seasons? Why was it ONLY Wilt who averaged 40 ppg over the course of his first seven seasons...COMBINED? How do you explain Chamberlain having 55 of the TOTAL of 61 40-30 games in NBA history? Or having 109 of the 128 TOTAL 30-30 games in NBA history? How come ONLY Wilt could score 100 points in a game? Or grab 55 rebounds in a game? How come Wilt has SIX of the TOTAL of 10 70+ point games in NBA history? Or 32 of the 62 60+ point games? How come it is ONLY Wilt with the ONLY 20-20-20 game in NBA history? Finally...why is it that Wilt has some 130 NBA records...which DWARFS every other player whoever played the game?

[magnax1]

Simmon's book was generally a bunch of bull crap. His ranking weren't that terrible, however what he said about the player's was. Reggie Miller, Malone, Wilt and Shaq were especially terrible. Especially Shaq, he basically downranked him for potential, not how good he actually was. He had some good points too, and it was entertaining (like all of Simmon's writing) but not entirely factual, and not unbiased in any way.

[t-rex]

Bump

[Sky2k8336]

[QUOTE=t-rex]Bump

[Droid101]

You need to write a book dude.

[jlauber]

BTW,

For those that claim that Wilt was a "choker", in his nine game seven's, he averaged 26.3 ppg, 28.5 rpg...and shot... .626 from the field in those nine games...which is the HIGHEST of any of the Top-10 GOAT candidiates of all-time. And, those game seven's do not include his 56-35 game five, in a best-of-five series in the '62 playoffs, either.

Here are some of his "clutch" games BTW...thanks to PHILA...


1960 Game 3 vs. Nationals (best of 3 series at the time): 53 points in a 20 point win.

1962 Game 5 vs. Nationals: 56 points, 35 rebounds in a 17 point win.

1962 Game 6 vs Celtics: 32 points in a 10 point win

1962 Game 7 vs Celtics: 22 points, 21 rebounds in a 2 point loss

1964 Game 5 vs. Hawks: 50 points in a 24 point win.

1964 Game 7 vs. Hawks: 39 points, 26 rebounds, 12 blocks in a 10 point win.

1965 Game 6 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 26 rebounds in a 6 point win

1965 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 32 rebounds in a 1 point loss

1966 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 46 points, 34 rebounds in an 8 point loss

1967 Game 2 vs. Royals: 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists in a 21 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Royals: 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 1 vs. Celtics: 24 points, 32 rebounds, 13 assists, 12 blocks in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Celtics: 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists in an 11 point win.

1967 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists in a 24 point win.

1968 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 25 points, 27 rebounds in an 18 point win. Little known fact is that Chamberlain led BOTH TEAMS in points, rebounds, and assists for the entire series, whilst nursing an assortment of injuries, including his annual shin splints. This against two Hall Of Fame centers Walt Bellamy & Willis Reed. Apparently Willis used to tremble at the mere sight of Luke Jackson in the MSG tunnel pre-game.

1968 Game 7 vs Celtics: 14 points, 34 rebounds in a 4 point loss (This despite two touches in the entire 4th quarter, the smartest move Russell has ever made in his career switching himself over to guard Chet).

1969 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 18 points, 27 rebounds in a 2 point loss (Head coach leaves him on the bench due to a personal grudge.)

1970 Game 5 vs. Suns: 36 points, 14 rebounds in a 17 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Suns: 30 points, 27 rebounds, 11 blocks in a 35 point win (helped lead Lakers back from 1-3 deficit)

1970 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 45 points, 27 rebounds in a 22 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Knicks: 21 points, 24 rebounds in a 14 point loss

(Understand that he should have not even been playing in the 1969-70 season after his injury, but was able to rehab his knee in time with his workouts in volleyball, a sport he would later become a Hall Of Famer in as well.)

1971 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 25 points, 18 rebounds in an 11 point win

1971 Game 5 vs. Bucks: 23 points, 12 rebounds, 6 blocks in an 18 point loss without Elgin Baylor or Jerry West. (Alcindor in this game had 20 points, 15 rebounds, and 3 blocks).

1973 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 21 points, 28 rebounds in a 3 point win (Bulls had the ball and a one point lead with 30 or so seconds left in the 4th. Norm Van Lier goes up for the shot only to have it rejected by the "big choker" Wilt Chamberlain. Chamberlain blocked Van Lier's shot right to Gail Goodrich down court for the go ahead basket. Is there any mention of this clutch defensive play from Chamberlain in Bill Simmons "Book Of Basketball"?

1973 Game 5 vs. Knicks: 23 points, 21 rebounds in a 9 point loss (a hobbled Jerry West finished with 12 points)

As well as these...

Incidently, you can add game five of the '60 ECF's (Philadelphia was down 3-1, so it was a must-win game), and he responded with a 50-35 game against Russell in a 128-107 win. Keep in mind that game was in his rookie season, and he faced a Celtic team with SEVEN HOFers.

And, IMHO, his greatest effort came against Kareem in game six of the WCF's. He held Kareem to 16-37 shooting, while going 8-12 himself, and scoring 22 points with 24 rebounds. And, he absolutely took over the game in the 4th quarter, and led LA back from a 10 point deficit to a clinching four point win. He also blocked 11 shots in that game, and five of them were Kareem's sky-hooks.



and here is another great post on that topic...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=165643

[jlauber]

Bump...for the benefit of oolalaa and La Frescobaldi...

[Uncle Drew]

Holy shit, Lazeruss used to meltdown even harder back in the day.

[Stringer Bell]

It would be great to see Laz and Bill Simmons have a PTI-style debate on Russell and Wilt.

[FKAri]

Russell is the most overrated basketball player of all time. He doesn't individually stand up to anyone in the top 10. It doesn't matter how many rings you won playing on a stacked team in a weak league.

He was however smart enough to realize to trust his coach's system.

[NBAGOAT]

Russell is the most overrated basketball player of all time. He doesn't individually stand up to anyone in the top 10. It doesn't matter how many rings you won playing on a stacked team in a weak league.

He was however smart enough to realize to trust his coach's system.

His offense doesn't compare to any guy in the top 20. However there's a good argument he's easily the most impactful defensive player of all time. Celtics could be the worst team in the league on offense and win 60 games because of how good their defense was which Russell deserves a lot of the credit. I definitely wouldn't have him top 5 however.

[nba_55]

His offense doesn't compare to any guy in the top 20. However there's a good argument he's easily the most impactful defensive player of all time. Celtics could be the worst team in the league on offense and win 60 games because of how good their defense was which Russell deserves a lot of the credit. I definitely wouldn't have him top 5 however.

You talk like you watched him play LOL

[NBAGOAT]

You talk like you watched him play LOL

just saying what other people have said. And statistically, Celtics defense is definitely the most dominant of all time.

[nba_55]

just saying what other people have said. And statistically, Celtics defense is definitely the most dominant of all time.

Most of those other people also have never seen him play.

[FKAri]

His offense doesn't compare to any guy in the top 20. However there's a good argument he's easily the most impactful defensive player of all time. Celtics could be the worst team in the league on offense and win 60 games because of how good their defense was which Russell deserves a lot of the credit. I definitely wouldn't have him top 5 however.

His team's defensive system was light years ahead of everyone else. Now lots of people don't like to separate the duo of Red/Bill and attribute success to just one of them. But in this instance I am. Because I am saying their success was largely based on Red.

Ofcourse having Bill helped in that. But even without Bill (another guy with the potential to be a top 5 defensive C in the league) it would've been almost as successful. Now if I wanted to be really harsh I could say that Bill's development is largely due to Red too. It was but I won't hold that against Bill.

[nba_55]

His team's defensive system was light years ahead of everyone else. Now lots of people don't like to separate the duo of Red/Bill and attribute success to just one of them. But in this instance I am. Because I am saying their success was largely based on Red.

Ofcourse having Bill helped in that. But even without Bill (another guy with the potential to be a top 5 defensive C in the league) it would've been almost as successful. Now if I wanted to be really harsh I could say that Bill's development is largely due to Red too. It was but I won't hold that against Bill.

You also talk like you watched those Celtics play live. Guys, stop talking crap.

[FKAri]

You also talk like you watched those Celtics play live. Guys, stop talking crap.
Have you ever studied history? And yes there is footage out there of old school basketball. It's not comprehensive by any means but it should be enough to keep you busy for a while.

[nba_55]

Have you ever studied history? And yes there is footage out there of old school basketball. It's not comprehensive by any means but it should be enough to keep you busy for a while.

Yes, i have. History classes are obligatory in HS. And i doubt you could conclude that Russell's developpment was due to Red with that little footage. Honestly, for some reason, I don't believe that you saw more than 15 minutes of footages max.

[NBAGOAT]

His team's defensive system was light years ahead of everyone else. Now lots of people don't like to separate the duo of Red/Bill and attribute success to just one of them. But in this instance I am. Because I am saying their success was largely based on Red.

Ofcourse having Bill helped in that. But even without Bill (another guy with the potential to be a top 5 defensive C in the league) it would've been almost as successful. Now if I wanted to be really harsh I could say that Bill's development is largely due to Red too. It was but I won't hold that against Bill.

I can see that. In general, i also believe coaching is the most important reason for how good a defense is(something people are starting to forget about Pop).

[Mr Feeny]

Russell is the most overrated basketball player of all time. He doesn't individually stand up to anyone in the top 10. It doesn't matter how many rings you won playing on a stacked team in a weak league.

He was however smart enough to realize to trust his coach's system.

Kobe is. Wilt is 2nd.

Cheers.

[FKAri]

Yes, i have. History classes are obligatory in HS. And i doubt you could conclude that Russell's developpment was due to Red with that little footage. Honestly, for some reason, I don't believe that you saw more than 15 minutes of footages max.
Read what his coaches, teammates and analysts said about him at various points in his career as it happened and not in retrospect. His evaluation skyrocketed when he got on that Celtics team. So either he made a gigantic leap as an individual player or he was in a great situation to showcase his talents or he had great tutelage under Red or some combination thereof.

Also, absolutely nobody was taking him over Wilt, even when he was winning championships. It wasn't until their careers were over that we first started hearing of some people putting him over Wilt and even calling him the GOAT. Some even had him as the GOAT well into the 70's.

I'm not saying I can't be wrong but in my opinion there is enough evidence to put the pieces together to arrive at this conclusion.

[ClipperRevival]

Read what his coaches, teammates and analysts said about him at various points in his career as it happened and not in retrospect. His evaluation skyrocketed when he got on that Celtics team. So either he made a gigantic leap as an individual player or he was in a great situation to showcase his talents or he had great tutelage under Red or some combination thereof.

Also, absolutely nobody was taking him over Wilt, even when he was winning championships. It wasn't until their careers were over that we first started hearing of some people putting him over Wilt and even calling him the GOAT. Some even had him as the GOAT well into the 70's.

I'm not saying I can't be wrong but in my opinion there is enough evidence to put the pieces together to arrive at this conclusion.

Spoken like a true laymen observer. First off, Russell won 2 NCAA titles while Ilt couldn't get it done at the title game. Dude freaken won 13 titles in 15 seasons from 1955 - 1969 (2 NCAA and 11 NBA). He was a freaken winner.

Ilt was the most gifted big ever but didn't maximize his potential when it mattered most. Give me the guy who has a little less and is willing to do more versus the guy who has all the gifts but doesn't maximize it and lays eggs in huge games.

Bill Russell is 10-0 in game 7s with averages of (18.6 PPG and 28.9 RPG). And 9 of those happened in different seasons. Meaning if he had lost all 10 of those, he has only 2 rings. Yeah, he showed up when it mattered most, the opposite of Ilt.

It's so easy for laymen fans to say, "Oh, Russell had stacked teams, that's why he won." Please. Ilt had great casts too where he should've won but didn't over Russell.

Read up on this son before talking about this topic.

[ClipperRevival]

Thread I made about Russell being 10-0 in game 7s.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=395175

Thread I made about Russell winning 13 titles in 15 seasons.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=399736

[FKAri]

Spoken like a true laymen observer. First off, Russell won 2 NCAA titles while Ilt couldn't get it done at the title game. Dude freaken won 13 titles in 15 seasons from 1955 - 1969 (2 NCAA and 11 NBA). He was a freaken winner.

Ilt was the most gifted big ever but didn't maximize his potential when it mattered most. Give me the guy who has a little less and is willing to do more versus the guy who has all the gifts but doesn't maximize it and lays eggs in huge games.

Bill Russell is 10-0 in game 7s with averages of (18.6 PPG and 28.9 RPG). And 9 of those happened in different seasons. Meaning if he had lost all 10 of those, he has only 2 rings. Yeah, he showed up when it mattered most, the opposite of Ilt.

It's so easy for laymen fans to say, "Oh, Russell had stacked teams, that's why he won." Please. Ilt had great casts too where he should've won but didn't over Russell.

Read up on this son before talking about this topic.

Im not going to go to level of Lazerrus and argue that Wilt was some God and Russell was a scrub.

From all accounts Russell was more competitive than Wilt, was more passionate about the game, was more cerebral, more of a team player, better leader, better passer, better defender, and was more receptive to coaching and improving his game. But going 10-0 in games 7's in series' in which you were favored anyway and winning with small margins of victories isn't the best piece of evidence. You might as well say he was good at rolling dice.

The reality is he was a reasonably talented player who was very coachable being coached by a coach whose philosophy on how to play the game granted him a had a gigantic competitive advantage over the competition.

[HoopologyPhD]

Bill Simmons is a old grown man that looks like a little kid. Sportscaster is such a lame cushy job that should only go to ex-jocks IMO.