-
Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[U]Game 1 – Boston won by 9 pts[/U]
Chamberlain 14-24 FG, 5-11 FT, 25 rebs, 5 asts, 1 PF, 33 points
Russell 5-8 FG, 1-4 FT, 22 rebs, 4 asts, 4 PF, 11 points
[U]Game 2 – Phila won by 9 pts[/U]
Chamberlain 6-14 FG, 3-6 FT, 19 rebs, 8 asts, 2 PF, 15 points
Russell 5-12 FG, 1-3 FT, 20 rebs, 5 asts, 1 PF, 11 points
[U]Game 3 – Phila won by 8 pts[/U]
Chamberlain 10-19 FG, 3-12 FT, 25 rebs, 6 asts, 3 PF, 23 points
Russell 4-17 FG, 5-6 FT, 20 rebs, 3 asts, 5 PF, 13 points
[U]Game 4 – Phila won by 5 pts[/U]
Chamberlain 7-11 FG, 8-13 FT, 16 rebs, 8 asts, 5 PF, 22 points
Russell 9-18 FG, 6-7 FT, 24 rebs, 3 asts, 3 PF, 24 points
[U]Game 5 – Boston won by 18 pts[/U]
Chamberlain 11-21 FG, 6-11 FT, 30 rebs, 7 asts, 0 PF, 28 points
Russell 4-10 FG, 0-0 FT, 24 rebs, 4 asts, 4 PF, 8 points
[U]Game 6 – Boston won by 8 pts[/U]
Chamberlain 6-21 FG, 8-23 FT, 27 rebs, 8 asts, 1 PF, 20 points
Russell 6-13 FG, 5-7 FT, 31 rebs, 5 asts, 5 PF, 17 points
[U]Game 7 – Boston won by 4 pts[/U]
Chamberlain 4-9 FG, 6-15 FT, 34 rebs, 5 asts, 2 PF, 14 points
Russell 4-6 FG, 4-10 FT, 26 rebs, 5 asts, 5 PF, 12 points, 10 blocks
Averages for the series:
Chamberlain 22.14 ppg, 25.14 rpg, 6.71 apg, 0.487 FG, 0.429 FT
Russell 13.71 ppg, 23.86 rpg, 4.14 apg, 0.440 FG, 0.595 FT
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=julizaver][U]Game 1
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
This is the thread that deserves a discussion on this series :applause:
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE]Game 5 – Boston won by 18 pts
Chamberlain [B]11-21 FG, 6-11 FT, 30 rebs, 7 asts, 0 PF, 28 points[/B]
Russell 4-10 FG, 0-0 FT, 24 rebs, 4 asts, 4 PF, 8 points[/QUOTE]
That's a 1967-like line for Wilt. The bolded parts are the ones in which Wilt outperformed Russell in that game.
Havlicek with 37 points, Sam Jones with 29. Chet Walker with 12, injured Jackson with 7.
Celtics: 10 players on the rotation, Sixers 8
If all of these facts don't indicate to you that Wilt had the better team, I don't know what to tell you...
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
Great stuff! You guys are amazing!
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
F[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]cking Hondo. So damn underrated.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=Psileas]That's a 1967-like line for Wilt. The bolded parts are the ones in which Wilt outperformed Russell in that game.
Havlicek with 37 points, Sam Jones with 29. Chet Walker with 12, injured Jackson with 7.
Celtics: 10 players on the rotation, Sixers 8
If all of these facts don't indicate to you that Wilt had the better team, I don't know what to tell you...[/QUOTE]
That '68 season was the year Hondo John Havlicek rose to the top of the league. He ran wild from '68 right up to about '76 or '77 when that amazing athlete finally started to slow down. Havlicek carried the Celtics on his back a whole lot in '69 as Sam Jones faded and to this day there's no question in my mind he was the best player on the court in that Finals and should have got that first FMVP.
Jerry West was phenomenal and well-deserved in some ways. But Havlicek was just [I]everywhere[/I], all the time.
He had a funny running jumper in his arsenal, his whole body leaning forward at about a 40 degree angle, and that shot was just about unstoppable.... and pure money.
He had a great post game, spins, over and unders, and he could make some amazing assists too. If anything, his defense was even superior to his offense. He could really lock guys down - anybody.
I don't know who really invented the teardrop shot - I'm sure it was probably some guy in the 40s or something. But Havlicek is the guy who I remember using it first. He could get his shot off against guys like Willis Reed or Chamberlain and he was one of the VERY few that could do it. Did he get that ball jammed back in his face? You bet he did... but he [I]made[/I] a lot of those fabulous high arcing shots, too.
Just a great, great player, one of the best to ever play, and probably [B][I]the [/I][/B]most underrated NBA player in the Land of Ish. OK, maybe Sam Jones.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=Psileas]That's a 1967-like line for Wilt. The bolded parts are the ones in which Wilt outperformed Russell in that game.
Havlicek with 37 points, Sam Jones with 29. Chet Walker with 12, injured Jackson with 7.
Celtics: 10 players on the rotation, Sixers 8
If all of these facts don't indicate to you that Wilt had the better team, I don't know what to tell you...[/QUOTE]
Yeah...that was the Wilt who lacked that "killer instinct" when his team was up 3-1. He just mailed it in that game five.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=jlauber]Great stuff. Glad to have you back!
[B]This was probably Russell's best effort against Chamberlain in their eight career H2H playoff series. I give Russell a solid edge in game six, and a split in game's four and seven (maybe even a slight edge in game seven.)[/B]
Having said that though, it was obvious that Wilt was hurting badly in that series. Even Russell himself acknowledged that. And, with a similar injury to what reduced Reed to a partial observer, or no show, in the last three games of the '70 Finals...Wilt PLAYED EVERY minute of that series. And according to the recaps, Chamberlain was noticeably limping from game two on. His last two games were clearly his worst, although his teammates' reluctance to pass him the ball in the second half of game seven was the main reason why he only scored 14 points in that game (and the key Sixers, aside from Wilt, collectively shot 25-74 in that game.)
Here again, though, the "Wilt-bashers" will rip Chamberlain for "choking" in this series, but very few will give Russell his due.[/QUOTE]
I think in '69 Finals Russell did even better and outplayed Wilt but that's a fair post. In the '68 EDF I would definitely give Russell an edge in Game 4, 6, and 7 though.
And Wilt did UNDERPERFORM in both Game 6 and Game 7. That much is not debatable. 33% from the field and 37% from the line.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=dankok8]I think in '69 Finals Russell did even better and outplayed Wilt but that's a fair post. In the '68 EDF I would definitely give Russell an edge in Game 4, 6, and 7 though.
And Wilt did UNDERPERFORM in both Game 6 and Game 7. That much is not debatable. 33% from the field and 37% from the line.[/QUOTE]
Funny enough Embry guarded him off the bench & Wayne just wasn't any Russell. He was like a tree trunk, though, and had lots of experience guarding #13. That had to be a weird experience, suddenly finding that brick wall in the paint.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]Funny enough Embry guarded him off the bench & Wayne just wasn't any Russell. He was like a tree trunk, though, and had lots of experience guarding #13. That had to be a weird experience, suddenly finding that brick wall in the paint.[/QUOTE]
Wilt really stopped himself in Game 7 not demanding shots. His teammates to deserve a bit of the blame though. He barely even touched the ball... In Game 6 it may well have been Embry. I mean that was the game when they should have closed it out. Greer scored 40 and Walker/Goukas had strong performances as well.
Also apparently from the recaps then Wilt sprained his calf muscle in Game 3 (and limped for the rest of that game), the trainer Al Domanico said it's nothing serious. Wilt himself never used the injury as an excuse either even though he did lie about MLK's death as if it happened after Game 4. Truth is King was assassinated before the series and there was a major delay in play after Boston's Game 1 win so if anything that killed Boston's momentum, not Philly's as Wilt claimed...
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=dankok8]Wilt really stopped himself in Game 7 not demanding shots. His teammates to deserve a bit of the blame though. He barely even touched the ball... In Game 6 it may well have been Embry. I mean that was the game when they should have closed it out. Greer scored 40 and Walker/Goukas had strong performances as well.
Also apparently from the recaps then Wilt sprained his calf muscle in Game 3 (and limped for the rest of that game), the trainer Al Domanico said it's nothing serious. Wilt himself never used the injury as an excuse either even though he did lie about MLK's death as if it happened after Game 4. Truth is King was assassinated before the series and there was a major delay in play after Boston's Game 1 win so if anything that killed Boston's momentum, not Philly's as Wilt claimed...[/QUOTE]
Chamberlain was LIMPING throughout the series, and had SEVERAL injuries. The calf muscle was torn. And no, Wilt never used ANY injury as an excuse.
And it was HANNUM's fault for allowing the Chamberlain's teammates to shoot a ghastly 33-96 from the field in that game seven, while Wilt touched the ball seven times in the second half.
And the series SHOULD have been closed out in game five when Chamberlain, the on you claimed had no killer instinct, again just slaughtered Russell in every aspect of the game.
And a healthy Wilt, and a healthy Sixer squad repeats the 4-1 series blowout in '67. Not even debatable.
Incidently, I wonder how many other players have posted a 22-25-7 series in post-season NBA history...all while badly outplaying their HOF counterpart at both of ends of the floor, and doing with injuries that would have shelved a KAJ or Reed? And, where were Russell's 33 point or 30 rebound games in that series...and again...against a Wilt was was just a shell?
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[quote]injuries[/quote]
It was deemed remarkable that they even got to the Division Finals vs. Boston with all the injuries. Luke Jackson was playing with a badly pulled hamstring. When Lakers star Magic pulled his hamstring in '89 Finals, he could not even play the final game at all & much of the third game. While the 1989 Lakers get excused due to injury, the '68 Sixers do not. Back in the old days they were expected to gut it out under worse playing conditions, as Jackson did when he played the entire 1966 season on a broken leg, casually shrugging it off as shin splints.
There were times during the NY series when the hobbled Sixers were getting killed on the boards, as Bellamy & Reed were feasting on the offensive glass. They played Games 4, 5, and 6 consecutively. No days off in between. :no:
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwCmKvHJNoQ&t=16m20s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwCmKvHJNoQ&t=16m20s[/URL]
[I][B]New York Times - Apr 18, 1968[/B]
But injuries have depleted the team that ended the Celtics' eight-year reign last season. Wally Jones, the jump-shooting Philadelphia guard with the game-breaking touch, is doubtful for Friday. He aggravated his right knee, first injured during the series with the New York Knickerbockers, early in the opening quarter and did not return.
Wilt Chamberlain, the 7-foot pillar of the 76ers, produced 20 points but was in obvious pain with an ailing right leg.[/I]
[B]Williamson Daily News - Apr 10, 1968[/B]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/p4BRx.png[/IMG]
[I]DELAWARE COUNTY - April 13, 1968[/I]
[I][B]Club Rated 'Most Courageous' By Hannum as Injuries Mount[/B]
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - The Philadelphia 76ers could be billed as the best touring troupe In basketball. All they need is a doctor to complete the cast.
Going into the fourth game Sunday of their National Basketball Association playoff series with the Boston Celtics, the 76ers are hurting from head to toe.
So what's new? Injuries have plagued the defending NBA champions since the opening of the season.
"Alex Hannum says this is the most courageous team he's ever coached," says Harvey Pollack, the 76ers' statistician. "The locker room looks like a hospital ward every time I walk in."
Pollack ticked off some of the cases, which read like a medical diary:
-Wilt Chamberlain (partial tear of the calf muscle in his right leg, a strain in his right thigh and an injured right toe):
-Wally Jones (injured knee cartilage):
-Luke Jackson (pulled hamstring muscle):
-Hal Greer (bursitus in his right knee):
-And, Billy Cunningham (broken right wrist).
"That's not mentioning (rookie) Jim Reid who had a knee operation after injuring it the first game of the season," said Pollack, "and Larry Costello," the veteran guard who tore an ankle tendon after one-third of the season was gone.
The most recent injury was to Chamberlain in Friday night's Eastern Division playoff contest with the Celtics. The dipper was given whirlpool treatments for the calf muscle tear, but Pollack wasn't sure how he'd respond.
The 76ers have nine men in uniform for the best-of-seven playoffs, which they lead, two games to one. But whether they'll have anybody left for the finals against the Western Division winner is anybody's guess.
The team's troubles multiplied in the Eastern Division semifinals against the New York Knickerbockers. Cunningham broke his wrist, knocking him out for the season, Jones and Jackson suffered their injuries and Chamberlain aggravated his perennial toe injury.
And when Boston thumped the 76ers in the opening game of their playoffs here last Friday, some predicted a quick knockout of the injury-riddled champs.
But Philadelphia whacked Boston two straight, including Thursday where an injury actually helped the 76ers cause, points out Pollack.
How so?
"Well, Chamberlain was hurt and he couldn't turn around to score-so he kept feeding Greer, and he scored 31," explained the statistician.[/I]
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[I]DELAWARE COUNTY - April 4, 1968
There they are
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
:rockon:
This should finally put to rest these RIDICULOUS claims that Wilt "choked" in the '68 EDF's (or that Philly "choked.")
As Russell said, a lessor man would not have played. Or in other words, NO ONE else would have played with what Chamberlain was playing EVERY minute of that series with. Oh, and he "choked" his way to a 22-25-7 series, as well. Here again, how many other "GOATS" have had series like that...and blown away their counterpart in the process...all at well below 100%?
My god, Kareem missed a Finals clinching game with a sprained ankle. He missed chunks of seasons with broken wrists. And Wilt? He gets ripped for taking himself out of a game for two minutes (and then wasn't allowed back in by an idiotic and bull-headed coach who essentially cost his team a ring.)
And where are those that should have PRAISED Chamberlain from coming back WAY AHEAD of schedule from major knee surgery in the '70 post-season? Nope, when a one-legged Chamberlain carries his under-dog team to a game seven against a heavily favored team, and in fact, is the only player on his team to play well in that game...well, it was WILT who "choked." And Reed, with his injured leg, and doing absolutely nothing in the last three pivotal games of that series...is the HERO. Here again, Wilt, with a similar injury that Reed had in the '70 Finals, put up a 22-25-7 series in '68, playing EVERY minute, and HE is the one who "choked."
Broken wrist? Hell, Chamberlain PLAYED with one badly sprained wrist, and the other FRACTURED in the clinching game five win in the '72 Finals. Played is an understatement. he absolutely DOMINATED that game (24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds, and 8 blocks.) Does anyone in their right mind believe that Kareem would have played in that game (or series)?
Just more of the many ridiculous Wilt DOUBLE-STANDARDS.
Thanks again PHILA for this brilliant research!
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
Thanks for the research Phila! :rockon:
[B]However I don't find the injury argument foolproof. Most of the injuries sustained were in the Knicks series and yet the Sixers were able to get a 3-1 lead against Boston? Why couldn't they win one more game? [/B]
And how about Boston's injuries?
Satch Sanders missed Game 6 and 7 for Boston. Larry Siegfried was suffering through a back injury throughout and also had a debilitating bout of flu that limited him early in the series as pointed out in one of the articles above. Sam Jones had a myriad of nagging injuries and began a steep decline this entire season. The Boston team wasn't exactly in tip-top shape either and on top of all that Russell had to coach them as well.
Following some great performances by Wilt in the series (like in Game 1 and Game 5), why couldn't he have at least a solid Game 6? Or Game 7?
[B]Obviously it's NOT JUST WILT that should be blamed but he does deserve some blame... His teammates definitely did bring it in Game 6 at the very least. And we can't look at his performance and that of his teammates completely separately. One affects the other![/B]
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=dankok8]Thanks for the research Phila! :rockon:
[B]However I don't find the injury argument foolproof. Most of the injuries sustained were in the Knicks series and yet the Sixers were able to get a 3-1 lead against Boston? Why couldn't they win one more game? [/B]
And how about Boston's injuries?
Satch Sanders missed Game 6 and 7 for Boston. Larry Siegfried was suffering through a back injury throughout and also had a debilitating bout of flu that limited him early in the series as pointed out in one of the articles above. Sam Jones had a myriad of nagging injuries and began a steep decline this entire season. The Boston team wasn't exactly in tip-top shape either and on top of all that Russell had to coach them as well.
Following some great performances by Wilt in the series (like in Game 1 and Game 5), why couldn't he have at least a solid Game 6? Or Game 7?
[B]Obviously it's NOT JUST WILT that should be blamed but he does deserve some blame... His teammates definitely did bring it in Game 6 at the very least. And we can't look at his performance and that of his teammates completely separately. One affects the other![/B][/QUOTE]
Read THOSE recaps again.
The SIXERS had no business getting to a game seven. No one was really to blame, LEAST of all Chamberlain. If anything, they courageously played way over their heads, particularly Wilt.
Clearly, a healthy Sixer squad would have annihilated the Celtics.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]:rockon:
This should finally put to rest these RIDICULOUS claims that Wilt "choked" in the '68 EDF's (or that Philly "choked.")
As Russell said, a lessor man would not have played. Or in other words, NO ONE else would have played with what Chamberlain was playing EVERY minute of that series with. Oh, and he "choked" his way to a 22-25-7 series, as well. Here again, how many other "GOATS" have had series like that...and blown away their counterpart in the process...all at well below 100%?
My god, Kareem missed a Finals clinching game with a sprained ankle. He missed chunks of seasons with broken wrists. And Wilt? He gets ripped for taking himself out of a game for two minutes (and then wasn't allowed back in by an idiotic and bull-headed coach who essentially cost his team a ring.)
And where are those that should have PRAISED Chamberlain from coming back WAY AHEAD of schedule from major knee surgery in the '70 post-season? Nope, when a one-legged Chamberlain carries his under-dog team to a game seven against a heavily favored team, and in fact, is the only player on his team to play well in that game...well, it was WILT who "choked." And Reed, with his injured leg, and doing absolutely nothing in the last three pivotal games of that series...is the HERO. Here again, Wilt, with a similar injury that Reed had in the '70 Finals, put up a 22-25-7 series in '68, playing EVERY minute, and HE is the one who "choked."
Broken wrist? Hell, Chamberlain PLAYED with one badly sprained wrist, and the other FRACTURED in the clinching game five win in the '72 Finals. Played is an understatement. he absolutely DOMINATED that game (24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds, and 8 blocks.) Does anyone in their right mind believe that Kareem would have played in that game (or series)?
Just more of the many ridiculous Wilt DOUBLE-STANDARDS.
Thanks again PHILA for this brilliant research![/QUOTE]
He had a 3-2 series lead and his teammate scored 40 points while Wilt himself shot 6-21 from the field and 8-22 from the line (14 of the 19 team FT misses). That's classic choking but continue on making excuses for blowing that 3-1 series lead though, once you allowed it to go to game 7 you already lost. Team was good enough to get 3 wins and during an elimination game have a teammate drop FORTY, Wilt just choked again.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[quote]Obviously it's NOT JUST WILT that should be blamed but he does deserve some blame... His teammates definitely did bring it in Game 6 at the very least. And we can't look at his performance and that of his teammates completely separately. One affects the other![/quote]
Yes he certainly played below par in the last couple games, notably Game 6. We don't know how many of those 15 missed FGA were attempted tip-ins in a heavily congested paint, like this:
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kvo6LfRrGE&t=41s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kvo6LfRrGE&t=41s[/URL]
It could also explain the high rebounding average to a degree, many of them being offensive boards. But without the game footage it is all speculation.
In the 7th game they didn't get the ball into him in the 2nd half, probably due to the sagging defense. Remember how the Lakers almost lost in 2000 to the Blazers with their defense collapsing on Shaq. How does that season get remembered if the Blazers won?
Wali Jones admits their error in that game not feeding him in the 2nd half.
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Vtw7fbktc&t=7m55s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Vtw7fbktc&t=7m55s[/URL]
My main point is that the series should have ended in 5 games. Wilt came out with a great effort that game, but they went ice cold in the 4th quarter, while I believe Boston shot over 60%. Again I suspect he received few touches in that game as Boston was getting out on the fastbreak.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nTUmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cf4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=2336,4748497&dq"]Gettysburg Times - May 9, 1968[/URL][I]
Idle conversation between a reporter and Vince Miller, scout-statistician for the Philadelphia 76ers of the National Basketball Association, may have solved the mystery of why Wilt Chamberlain took so few shots in the seventh and final game of the Eastern final against Boston. Miller told George Kiseda of the Philadelphia Bulletin his chart showed[B] Chamberlain got the ball in the pivot just seven times in the second half. In the first half the ball went into the pivot 23 times.[/B] Kiseda asked Chamberlain why the 7-foot-1 center didn't point this out in answering questions about why he took only one shot in the second half.
"What would I have looked like if I had said, 'Hey, we lost because my teammates didn't get the ball into me? If Alex Hannum didn't have enough guts to lay it on the line and accept a certain amount of responsibility for the loss and name the reasons why, then I've lost a lot of respect for him, which I have and I will tell him that when I see him. You can't shoot the ball if you don't have the ball. But you know something, after the game, not one writer came up to me and said 'Hey, how come the ball didn't come into you?' Not one. But all of them did ask me, 'How come you didn't shoot more?'"[/I]
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
Based on stats for the series we can declared Wilt the clear winner in those matchup. Had advantage in all major categories.
If we include recaps it is more like Wilt outplayed Russell in games 1, 2, 3 and 5.
Therefore we could conclude that Wilt outplayed Russell in general for the series. Russell shall receive credit for having good series at his age and holding his own against Wilt, while also for good coaching.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=julizaver]Based on stats for the series we can declared Wilt the clear winner in those matchup. Had advantage in all major categories.
If we include recaps it is more like Wilt outplayed Russell in games 1, 2, 3 and 5.
Therefore we could conclude that Wilt outplayed Russell in general for the series. Russell shall receive credit for having good series at his age and holding his own against Wilt, while also for good coaching.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much. It's made clear the Sixers were in no physical form whatsoever to be considered the favorites for the title. I've never seen that many injury reports of significant roster players for any champion team ever and I dare Wilt detractors to refute this.
Btw, LOL at the whole "he was at 3-1, why couldn't he win one more" being considered such a strong point to make. As if the Sixers should be [B]expected [/B]to win 3 games anyway in that series, when it wasn't a given they'd even beat the Knicks. It was considered an achievement they got so far, yet "how could this choker lose?". And keep pretending that before Wilt's Game 6, Game 5 never existed. And that basketball is only about scoring and that Wilt collapsed just about everywhere.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=Psileas]Pretty much. It's made clear the Sixers were in no physical form whatsoever to be considered the favorites for the title. I've never seen that many injury reports of significant roster players for any champion team ever and I dare Wilt detractors to refute this.
Btw, LOL at the whole "he was at 3-1, why couldn't he win one more" being considered such a strong point to make. As if the Sixers should be [B]expected [/B]to win 3 games anyway in that series, when it wasn't a given they'd even beat the Knicks. It was considered an achievement they got so far, yet "how could this choker lose?". And keep pretending that before Wilt's Game 6, Game 5 never existed. And that basketball is only about scoring and that Wilt collapsed just about everywhere.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is saying Wilt choked in the entire series but he did UNDERPERFORM in Game 6 and 7. Even PHILA acknowledged as much above.
Here is what Robert Cherry wrote on the shots debacle in Game 7:
[QUOTE]Hannum admitted he called the plays from the sidelines, so he must share much of the blame for Wilt not getting the ball in the second half. But Hannum isn
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=dankok8]Nobody is saying Wilt choked in the entire series but he did UNDERPERFORM in Game 6 and 7. Even PHILA acknowledged as much above.
Here is what Robert Cherry wrote on the shots debacle in Game 7:[/QUOTE]
And (I suspect) no one is saying he didn't underperform in games 6 and 7 (though it would be hard to gauge a fair expectation of what you would expect given the circumstances and give a truly accurate assessment without full game footage).
However given his numbers over the series (and how they compare with those of his opposite number, the legendary Bill Russell); the degree of injuries; the clear deficiencies of his teammates in games 5 and 7 and the impossibility of scoring without possession of the basketball (would his critics have him will the ball into his hands? He was an inside player, you can deny him the ball and space with it if you're willing to give up outside shots) it seems clear that there are those on the forum who want to focus solely on Wilt's flaws (free throw shooting, the occasional below standards game) and distort these, in combination with a blinkered view of his teams' records and there are those who look at his career as whole, and find it impressive.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=dankok8]Nobody is saying Wilt choked in the entire series but he did UNDERPERFORM in Game 6 and 7. Even PHILA acknowledged as much above.
[/QUOTE]
OK, Wilt underperformed in Game 6 and 7 by his standards for whatever reason you want (injuries, choking bad coaching ...), But for the series he outplayed Russell.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=julizaver]Based on stats for the series we can declared Wilt the clear winner in those matchup. Had advantage in all major categories.
If we include recaps it is more like Wilt outplayed Russell in games 1, 2, 3 and 5.
Therefore we could conclude that Wilt outplayed Russell in general for the series. Russell shall receive credit for having good series at his age and holding his own against Wilt, while also for good coaching.[/QUOTE]
Your guys always say this, but Russell was the best defender ever and there is no stat for defense and how much it effects the other team. Blocked shots are only part of it.
There is also no stat for how many blocked shots your team came up with. Russell as obviously the best ever at this and I would bet money he always had a big advantage over Wilt in this category. And this advantage is a huge difference maker. You guys can obsesse with stats all you want, and use them to compare players with different roles, but to me its pretty clear over their careers that Russell added more value to a basketball team then Wilt.
Stop acting like a 12 year old who found a stat book and think that's all you have to know.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=stanlove1111]Your guys always say this, but Russell was the best defender ever and there is no stat for defense and how much it effects the other team. Blocked shots are only part of it.
There is also no stat for how many blocked shots your team came up with. Russell as obviously the best ever at this and I would bet money he always had a big advantage over Wilt in this category. And this advantage is a huge difference maker. You guys can obsesse with stats all you want, and use them to compare players with different roles, but to me its pretty clear over their careers that Russell added more value to a basketball team then Wilt.
Stop acting like a 12 year old who found a stat book and think that's all you have to know.[/QUOTE]
If we exchanged '68 Wilt with '68 Russell what will be the outcome of series ? I mean Sixers with Russell vs Celtics with Wilt ?
About stats - since we don't have enough footage we bring the recaps and that's how we evaluate players. I could agree about Russell being the greatest defensive player, but Wilt was more than capable in that department, while Russell is nowhere the scorer Wilt is.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=stanlove1111]Your guys always say this, but Russell was the best defender ever and there is no stat for defense and how much it effects the other team. Blocked shots are only part of it.
There is also no stat for how many blocked shots your team came up with. Russell as obviously the best ever at this and I would bet money he always had a big advantage over Wilt in this category. And this advantage is a huge difference maker. You guys can obsesse with stats all you want, and use them to compare players with different roles, but to me its pretty clear over their careers that Russell added more value to a basketball team then Wilt.
Stop acting like a 12 year old who found a stat book and think that's all you have to know.[/QUOTE]
If you are claiming that Russell was the greatest shot blocker, in the solid research that exists on the subject, Chamberlain had a DECISIVE edge....including H2H's. Now, if you are claiming that somehow Russell blocked more shots to his teammates, you will have to provide us with something other than opinions to substantiate that.
The reality was, while Russell was the game's greatest defensive force, Wilt was the game's second greatest defensive force, and I would argue, that from about 66-67 thru 68-69, Chamberlain was the more dominant defensive power.
Wilt was also a better passer. This can't be disputed by any PROOF. Clearly a better and more productive passer. Even his outlets were greater.
Scoring? Well, we all know how that went. Chamberlain had several SEASONS of 38-40 ppg against Russell. A prime scoring Chamberlain averaged well over 30 in all of their H2H's, regular season, or playoffs.
Efficiency? Even including Wilt's poor FT shooting, his TS%'s were miles ahead of Russell including their H2H's. Not to mention the fact that Wilt OUTSCORED Russell from the LINE by a staggering margin. And as for FG% efficiency...even in their H2H's, Chamberlain carpet-bombed Russell. (BTW, he reduced Russell's FG%'s more than Russell reduced his.) Chamberlain shot about 10% higher than Russell in their career H2H's.
Sorry, but I don't see it. Swap rosters, and Wilt goes at least 9-1 in their 10 years in the league together.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE]Nobody is saying Wilt choked in the entire series but he did UNDERPERFORM in Game 6 and 7. Even PHILA acknowledged as much above.[/QUOTE]
The thing is that for most commenting on this series, everything that exists is Games 6 and 7. Supposedly nobody is saying Wilt choked in the entire series, yet the series is pretty much only known as "the series when Wilt blew a 3-1 lead". Most know or care none about Philadelphia's injuries (yes, Boston had too, but not anywhere near as many). Most only see: Sixers had won 62 games, more than Boston--> they led 3-1--> Wilt had 2 underperformances (Game 5 never existed in their minds)-->Wilt choked and his legacy suffered.
PS. I wonder why people don't also remember Wilt also winning a series when his team was down 3-1. I bet most of his detractors don't even know about this and have to look up what I'm talking about.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]If you are claiming that Russell was the greatest shot blocker, in the solid research that exists on the subject, Chamberlain had a DECISIVE edge....including H2H's. Now, if you are claiming that somehow Russell blocked more shots to his teammates, you will have to provide us with something other than opinions to substantiate that.
The reality was, while Russell was the game's greatest defensive force, Wilt was the game's second greatest defensive force, and I would argue, that from about 66-67 thru 68-69, Chamberlain was the more dominant defensive power.
Wilt was also a better passer. This can't be disputed by any PROOF. Clearly a better and more productive passer. Even his outlets were greater.
Scoring? Well, we all know how that went. Chamberlain had several SEASONS of 38-40 ppg against Russell. A prime scoring Chamberlain averaged well over 30 in all of their H2H's, regular season, or playoffs.
Efficiency? Even including Wilt's poor FT shooting, his TS%'s were miles ahead of Russell including their H2H's. Not to mention the fact that Wilt OUTSCORED Russell from the LINE by a staggering margin. And as for FG% efficiency...even in their H2H's, Chamberlain carpet-bombed Russell. (BTW, he reduced Russell's FG%'s more than Russell reduced his.) Chamberlain shot about 10% higher than Russell in their career H2H's.
Sorry, but I don't see it. Swap rosters, and Wilt goes at least 9-1 in their 10 years in the league together.[/QUOTE]
No you will have to stop acting like you are in a court of law and you are doing the bidding of your client. Its obvious from reading at the time and watching video of the two that Russell blocked his shots to teammates at a much better rate then Wilt. To deny it makes you a clown. One of Wilt's coaches even admitted he tried to talk to Wilt about it. Russell was the best defender ever..Period. There is no stat for that.
IT can not be proven that Wilt was a better passer. And for most of his career he sure was not a better outlet passer. They averaged about the same assists per game and Wilt obviously had the ball in his hands more often. Don't tell me you are going to base this on a couple of Wilt's best years and one when it was his goal to league the league in assists. Russell only cared about winning.
You can on and on with all the stats you want, but one thing I know is Russell was winning the MVP awards until he was in his 30 and past his prime.
And Russell only failed the win a title once in his career when not hurt and he had the same kind of talent that Wilt enjoyed from 65-73 when he won 2.
Again stop acting like some kid who just found a stat book.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=stanlove1111]No you will have to stop acting like you are in a court of law and you are doing the bidding of your client. Its obvious from reading at the time and watching video of the two that Russell blocked his shots to teammates at a much better rate then Wilt. To deny it makes you a clown. One of Wilt's coaches even admitted he tried to talk to Wilt about it. Russell was the best defender ever..Period. There is no stat for that.
IT can not be proven that Wilt was a better passer. And for most of his career he sure was not a better outlet passer. They averaged about the same assists per game and Wilt obviously had the ball in his hands more often. Don't tell me you are going to base this on a couple of Wilt's best years and one when it was his goal to league the league in assists. Russell only cared about winning.
You can on and on with all the stats you want, [B]but one thing I know is Russell was winning the MVP awards until he was in his 30 and past his prime[/B].
And Russell only failed the win a title once in his career when not hurt and he had the same kind of talent that Wilt enjoyed from 65-73 when he won 2.
Again stop acting like some kid who just found a stat book.[/QUOTE]
So Russell winning his last MVP at age 30 means what?
Wilt won his last MVP at 31 (the third of three in a row.) And while Russell retired at age 34, Chamberlain won a FMVP at age 35.
The reality was, Chamberlain was considered the better player the first day he stepped onto the court. He not only won ROY, he easily won the MVP in his very first season. By the mid-to-late 60's he was winning three straight MVP's by landslides. And he was clearly robbed of MVPs in both '62 and '64.
Not only that, in their ten years in the league together, Chamberlain held a 7-2 margin in First Team All-NBA selections.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
It's true that from 59-60 until 63-64 Russell had clearly more talented rosters than Wilt. However he molded those teams into a juggernaut. Blocking shots to his teammates to kick-start fast breaks is just one. He covered for guys who had trouble defending, he tasked his guards with simply boxing out and he'd grab the rebounds, he'd facilitate from the high post and reward his teammates over and over and over for moving well without the ball. His intense competitiveness and puking before games got his team's respect and they were hyped before each and every game. They became him and he became them!! Celtics didn't have many one on one scorers. They need a system which Russell orchestrated and masterfully executed. He knew how to play and defend all five positions. He had detailed scouting reports on every player, his own and the opponents.
Also from 64-65 until 68-69 Wilt's rosters were either better or even with Russell's every year and in that span Russell still won FOUR OF THE FIVE SERIES between them. The notion that Wilt would dominate Russell every year with a better roster is LUDICROUS... because he didn't!
Russell's intelligence, psychological warfare, leadership, and dedication and sacrifice don't show up in the stat sheet. When you're discussing Bill Russell you may as well throw the stat sheet out the window... or at least put it in a giant pile of salt.
It's a fact that those stacked Celtics rosters laden with HOFers got nowhere before he came or after he left.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=dankok8]It's true that from 59-60 until 63-64 Russell had clearly more talented rosters than Wilt. However he molded those teams into a juggernaut. Blocking shots to his teammates to kick-start fast breaks is just one. He covered for guys who had trouble defending, he tasked his guards with simply boxing out and he'd grab the rebounds, he'd facilitate from the high post and reward his teammates over and over and over for moving well without the ball. His intense competitiveness and puking before games got his team's respect and they were hyped before each and every game. They became him and he became them!! Celtics didn't have many one on one scorers. They need a system which Russell orchestrated and masterfully executed. He knew how to play and defend all five positions. He had detailed scouting reports on every player, his own and the opponents.
[B]Also from 64-65 until 68-69 Wilt's rosters were either better or even with Russell's every year and in that span Russell still won FOUR OF THE FIVE SERIES between them. The notion that Wilt would dominate Russell every year with a better roster is LUDICROUS... because he didn't![/B]
Russell's intelligence, psychological warfare, leadership, and dedication and sacrifice don't show up in the stat sheet. When you're discussing Bill Russell you may as well throw the stat sheet out the window... or at least put it in a giant pile of salt.
It's a fact that those stacked Celtics rosters laden with HOFers got nowhere before he came or after he left.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but again no real research.
The ONLY two years Chamberlain had rosters equal to, or better, top-to-bottom, were with his 66-67 and 67-68 Sixers.
The 64-65 Sixers? You are kidding right? This was essentially a lousy non-playoff team that gave up three players to get Chamberlain. They had POTENTIAL, but even in the playoffs, it was ALL Chamberlain in the most one-sided beatdown of a fellow GOAT center in NBA history. And it took that monumental series from Wilt to get them to a game seven, one point loss.
65-66? True, Philly edged Boston out for the best record, by winning their last 11 games. BUT, take a closer look. Sam Jones missed 13 games. Havlicek missed nine. And the rest of the roster, including Russell, missed games, as well. Also, the Sixers beat Boston 6-3 during their regular season H2H's, and in those nine games, Chamberlain averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, and shot a very educated guess of .525. Then, in the playoffs, Boston slapped Philly, 4-1. Surely Chamberlain fell on his face, right? Yep... 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509. As the recaps clearly proved...Chamberlain just murdered Russell. Even in his worst game of the series, one recap claimed that Wilt nearly beat Boston by himself. In his WORST game. So how did that Sixer team lose to the Celtics. It was not because of Russell...at all. It was because, as almost always, his TEAMMATES just trounced Wilt's. Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot .352 from the field in that series. Man for man the Celtics just annihilated them. ONLY Chamberlain played well, and again, he played nearly the same as he did during the regular season (when, as always, he waxed Russell in every aspect of the game.)
68-69? Surely a 55-25 Laker team would have had a better roster than the 48-34 Celtics, right? Well, the reality was, the Celtics coasted during the regular season. They resigned themselves early on to just make the playoffs. And aside from a peak West, and a severely shackled Chamberlain, Boston was clearly better, players 3-10...and by a landslide. And before someone mentions Baylor...he was arguably the WORST Laker player in that series (he had THE lowest FG% in the entire playoffs.) How deep was that Boston team? In a game seven, Em Bryant (yes, Em Bryant) scored 20 points. And I have documented many times, just how poorly coached that Laker team was. That they were able to take a much deeper Celtic team to seven games, with ONLY West playing well, and Chamberlain as their only other quality player (while his coach much preferred the shot-jacking Baylor taking the bulk of the shots, Wilt was still the best defensive player on the floor, and by far the best rebounder), was amazing in itself.
66-67. Better players from 1-6. After that, and as ALWAYS, Boston had a MUCH deeper bench (and it while it would not come into play in THIS series, it surely did in their 67-68 EDF's.) But aside from the Chamberlain, the advantages were not dramatic. Philly had a much better frontcourt, and Boston had a better backcourt. Keep in mind that Boston still had Havlicek and Sam Jones, as well as Bailey Howell, who was a very good offensive player.
In any case, with Wilt's teammates playing Russell's about even in the '67 EDF's, guess what? The Sixers just crushed Boston. In fact, it took a horrible game by Philly (and Wilt's worst game of the series) for Boston to avoid a sweep in game four, with a 121-117 win at home. Then in the clinching game five, the Celtics shot out to an early 17 point lead, but behind Wilt's 22 first half points, the Sixers crept back into the game. They blew it open in the 3rd quarter, and by mid-way thru the 4th quarter, they led 131-104...or a staggering 44 point turnaround in a little over half the game.
What the 66-67 EDF's PROVED however, was that had Wilt been given an equal supporting cast, there was no doubt that he would have beaten Russell every year.
And of course that brings up to the OP. The 67-68 Sixers were essentially the same team that they had been in 66-67 (they did add Johnny Green.) And the result, even with Chamberlain suffering through injuries all season, they still romped to the best record in the league...and by a mile. They were clearlyn the best team in the league, and were well on their way to an second straight dominating title when...well, you have read it here. They were absolutely DECIMATED by injuries, and even with all of them, they still only lost a game seven by four points. That, in itself, was clear evidence that evn a reasonably healthy Sixer team would have repeated. And for sure, a fully healthy team would have waltzed to a title.
As for Russell's "winning." Russell was essentially traded to Boston for Ed Macauley. This was a 39-33 playoff team the year before Russell arrived. And it already had Bob Cousy Frank Ramsey, and Bill Sharman, as well as Arnie Risen (remember him...I will bring him up again.) And the Celtics actually drafted Tom Heinsohn before they drafted Russell. And Heinsohn would not disappoint, either, as he would go on to win ROY.
How did Russell not win ROY that season? He missed 24 games. This is where it gets interesting. In the 48 games that Russell played, Boston went 28-20. In the 24 he missed, and with Risen playing center, the Celtics went 16-8...or an actual better record withOUT Russell. THAT was the talent level that Russell enjoyed from day one.
And how about this?
In the 57-58 Finals, in which Russell was injured, ...the series was tied 1-1 when Russell injured his ankle in the third quarter of game three. They lost that game by three points, but they actually outscored the Hawks in the 4th period, and withOUT Russell, by five points.
Now, surely without Russell, Boston would have no chance, right? Well, without Russell in game four, Boston won handily, 109-98. And, while they did lose game five without him, it was by TWO points. Russell finally returned for game six, but could only play 20 minutes. Boston would go on to lose that game by one point, BUT, they outscored the Hawks in the second half, withOUT Russell.
Not only that, but Boston would continue to add players every year. Sam Jones in '58. Havlicek in '63. Then, Auerbach would go out and steal players too. How could the Celtics pick up Clyde Lovellette for their '64 title run, for nothing? Lovellette had averaged 21 ppg on .471 just the year before (of course, Chamberlain ended his career with one punch in the '64 Finals.) Later they added players like Wayne Embry (a multiple all-star), or Em Bryant (remember him in game seven of the '69 Finals) and Bailey Howell, a 20 ppg scorer on an very high efficiency for his era (.512.)
They always had by far, the deepest teams in the league, and aside from Russell, they could simply plug in another great player when they needed to.
And I have read those that use the argument that Boston flopped the year after Russell retired. The reality was, the Celtics had no idea that Russell was going to retire, and they didn't draft a center. Furthermore, the 68-69 Celtics were on their last legs. Sam Jones retired right after the final game, too, which no one seems to remember. This was a Celtic team that had slowly declined from its peak in the mid-60's.
And yes, they fell to 34-48 (down from 48-34 in '69) in '70. But here again, Henry Finkel was their center. They drafted Cowens in '71, and he immediately led them to a 44-38 record. In '72 Boston surged to 56-26. In '73 they set a new team record, which still stands, of 68-14. In '74 they won an NBA title. And they would go on to win one more in '76.
So the loss of Russell was really only felt for ONE season. And had Boston been better prepared, who knows. In any case, they became an elite team within two years, a record-breaking team in three, and a two time champion in four.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Sorry, but again no real research.
The ONLY two years Chamberlain had rosters equal to, or better, top-to-bottom, were with his 66-67 and 67-68 Sixers.
The 64-65 Sixers? You are kidding right? This was essentially a lousy non-playoff team that gave up three players to get Chamberlain. They had POTENTIAL, but even in the playoffs, it was ALL Chamberlain in the most one-sided beatdown of a fellow GOAT center in NBA history. And it took that monumental series from Wilt to get them to a game seven, one point loss.
65-66? True, Philly edged Boston out for the best record, by winning their last 11 games. BUT, take a closer look. Sam Jones missed 13 games. Havlicek missed nine. And the rest of the roster, including Russell, missed games, as well. Also, the Sixers beat Boston 6-3 during their regular season H2H's, and in those nine games, Chamberlain averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, and shot a very educated guess of .525. Then, in the playoffs, Boston slapped Philly, 4-1. Surely Chamberlain fell on his face, right? Yep... 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509. As the recaps clearly proved...Chamberlain just murdered Russell. Even in his worst game of the series, one recap claimed that Wilt nearly beat Boston by himself. In his WORST game. So how did that Sixer team lose to the Celtics. It was not because of Russell...at all. It was because, as almost always, his TEAMMATES just trounced Wilt's. Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot .352 from the field in that series. Man for man the Celtics just annihilated them. ONLY Chamberlain played well, and again, he played nearly the same as he did during the regular season (when, as always, he waxed Russell in every aspect of the game.)
68-69? Surely a 55-25 Laker team would have had a better roster than the 48-34 Celtics, right? Well, the reality was, the Celtics coasted during the regular season. They resigned themselves early on to just make the playoffs. And aside from a peak West, and a severely shackled Chamberlain, Boston was clearly better, players 3-10...and by a landslide. And before someone mentions Baylor...he was arguably the WORST Laker player in that series (he had THE lowest FG% in the entire playoffs.) How deep was that Boston team? In a game seven, Em Bryant (yes, Em Bryant) scored 20 points. And I have documented many times, just how poorly coached that Laker team was. That they were able to take a much deeper Celtic team to seven games, with ONLY West playing well, and Chamberlain as their only other quality player (while his coach much preferred the shot-jacking Baylor taking the bulk of the shots, Wilt was still the best defensive player on the floor, and by far the best rebounder), was amazing in itself.
66-67. Better players from 1-6. After that, and as ALWAYS, Boston had a MUCH deeper bench (and it while it would not come into play in THIS series, it surely did in their 67-68 EDF's.) But aside from the Chamberlain, the advantages were not dramatic. Philly had a much better frontcourt, and Boston had a better backcourt. Keep in mind that Boston still had Havlicek and Sam Jones, as well as Bailey Howell, who was a very good offensive player.
In any case, with Wilt's teammates playing Russell's about even in the '67 EDF's, guess what? The Sixers just crushed Boston. In fact, it took a horrible game by Philly (and Wilt's worst game of the series) for Boston to avoid a sweep in game four, with a 121-117 win at home. Then in the clinching game five, the Celtics shot out to an early 17 point lead, but behind Wilt's 22 first half points, the Sixers crept back into the game. They blew it open in the 3rd quarter, and by mid-way thru the 4th quarter, they led 131-104...or a staggering 44 point turnaround in a little over half the game.
What the 66-67 EDF's PROVED however, was that had Wilt been given an equal supporting cast, there was no doubt that he would have beaten Russell every year.
And of course that brings up to the OP. The 67-68 Sixers were essentially the same team that they had been in 66-67 (they did add Johnny Green.) And the result, even with Chamberlain suffering through injuries all season, they still romped to the best record in the league...and by a mile. They were clearlyn the best team in the league, and were well on their way to an second straight dominating title when...well, you have read it here. They were absolutely DECIMATED by injuries, and even with all of them, they still only lost a game seven by four points. That, in itself, was clear evidence that evn a reasonably healthy Sixer team would have repeated. And for sure, a fully healthy team would have waltzed to a title.
As for Russell's "winning." Russell was essentially traded to Boston for Ed Macauley. This was a 39-33 playoff team the year before Russell arrived. And it already had Bob Cousy Frank Ramsey, and Bill Sharman, as well as Arnie Risen (remember him...I will bring him up again.) And the Celtics actually drafted Tom Heinsohn before they drafted Russell. And Heinsohn would not disappoint, either, as he would go on to win ROY.
How did Russell not win ROY that season? He missed 24 games. This is where it gets interesting. In the 48 games that Russell played, Boston went 28-20. In the 24 he missed, and with Risen playing center, the Celtics went 16-8...or an actual better record withOUT Russell. THAT was the talent level that Russell enjoyed from day one.
And how about this?
In the 57-58 Finals, in which Russell was injured, ...the series was tied 1-1 when Russell injured his ankle in the third quarter of game three. They lost that game by three points, but they actually outscored the Hawks in the 4th period, and withOUT Russell, by five points.
Now, surely without Russell, Boston would have no chance, right? Well, without Russell in game four, Boston won handily, 109-98. And, while they did lose game five without him, it was by TWO points. Russell finally returned for game six, but could only play 20 minutes. Boston would go on to lose that game by one point, BUT, they outscored the Hawks in the second half, withOUT Russell.
Not only that, but Boston would continue to add players every year. Sam Jones in '58. Havlicek in '63. Then, Auerbach would go out and steal players too. How could the Celtics pick up Clyde Lovellette for their '64 title run, for nothing? Lovellette had averaged 21 ppg on .471 just the year before (of course, Chamberlain ended his career with one punch in the '64 Finals.) Later they added players like Wayne Embry (a multiple all-star), or Em Bryant (remember him in game seven of the '69 Finals) and Bailey Howell, a 20 ppg scorer on an very high efficiency for his era (.512.)
They always had by far, the deepest teams in the league, and aside from Russell, they could simply plug in another great player when they needed to.
And I have read those that use the argument that Boston flopped the year after Russell retired. The reality was, the Celtics had no idea that Russell was going to retire, and they didn't draft a center. Furthermore, the 68-69 Celtics were on their last legs. Sam Jones retired right after the final game, too, which no one seems to remember. This was a Celtic team that had slowly declined from its peak in the mid-60's.
And yes, they fell to 34-48 (down from 48-34 in '69) in '70. But here again, Henry Finkel was their center. They drafted Cowens in '71, and he immediately led them to a 44-38 record. In '72 Boston surged to 56-26. In '73 they set a new team record, which still stands, of 68-14. In '74 they won an NBA title. And they would go on to win one more in '76.
So the loss of Russell was really only felt for ONE season. And had Boston been better prepared, who knows. In any case, they became an elite team within two years, a record-breaking team in three, and a two time champion in four.[/QUOTE]
From 64-65 to 68-69 there was no considerable gap in talent between Wilt's and Russell's teams. From 66-67 yo 68-69 it was Wilt with the stronger rosters. In the '69 Finals, the Lakers were overwhelming favorites over the Celtics. That's my point.
When Russell came in the league he was traded for Ed McCauley and Cliff Hagan (two perennial all-stars) and yet the Celtics won a title the first year he came in after never making the finals before that. The Celtics' DRtg went from from 91.7 (6th) to 84.0 (1st), a dramatic improvement to say the least. Many articles called the Russell the best player in the league from the time he set his foot on the court... a game-changer on defense that was blocking shots and covering areas no one else could.
When Russell retired (and Sam Jones) Celtics immediately drafted JoJo White for 69-70 and kept the entire rest of their title roster including an improving Havlicek. With Russell gone they finished 34-48 and their DRtg declined from 89.1 (1st) to 98.9 (8th). That's a huge decline! In 70-71 they already had Cowens but they missed the playoffs again and their DRtg was still just 95.3. Offensively Boston didn't miss a beat when Russ retired but defensively they took a nosedive showing his enormous impact.
By 72-73 all of their old guard from 68-69 except Hondo were gone/3rd stringers so to compare those 70's championship teams to Russell's teams is pretty short-sighted. Boston had to completely rebuild and missed the playoffs two straight years after Bill retired.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=dankok8]From 64-65 to 68-69 there was no considerable gap in talent between Wilt's and Russell's teams. From 66-67 yo 68-69 it was Wilt with the stronger rosters. In the '69 Finals, the Lakers were overwhelming favorites over the Celtics. That's my point.
When Russell came in the league he was traded for Ed McCauley and Cliff Hagan (two perennial all-stars) and yet the Celtics won a title the first year he came in after never making the finals before that. The Celtics' DRtg went from from 91.7 (6th) to 84.0 (1st), a dramatic improvement to say the least. Many articles called the Russell the best player in the league from the time he set his foot on the court... a game-changer on defense that was blocking shots and covering areas no one else could.
When Russell retired (and Sam Jones) Celtics immediately drafted JoJo White for 69-70 and kept the entire rest of their title roster including an improving Havlicek. With Russell gone they finished 34-48 and their DRtg declined from 89.1 (1st) to 98.9 (8th). That's a huge decline! In 70-71 they already had Cowens but they missed the playoffs again and their DRtg was still just 95.3. Offensively Boston didn't miss a beat when Russ retired but defensively they took a nosedive showing his enormous impact.
By 72-73 all of their old guard from 68-69 except Hondo were gone/3rd stringers so to compare those 70's championship teams to Russell's teams is pretty short-sighted. Boston had to completely rebuild and missed the playoffs two straight years after Bill retired.[/QUOTE]
Again, the 64-65 Sixers were NOWHERE near as talented as the 64-65 Celtics. The Sixers had been 34-46 the year before, and it's not like they just acquired Wilt. They traded THREE players to get him (and over 21 ppg in the process.) They were still relatively young, had not drafted Cunningham yet, and were clearly outmatched, player-for-player, by a 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of their dynasty. The reality was, Chamberlain almost single-handedly beat Boston by himself in that series with the most incredible beatdown by a prime GOAT center administered on another prime GOAT center in NBA history.
And, I already explained why the 65-66 Sixers just edged out Boston by one game in the regular season. Boston's roster was littered with their best players missing games that year. They were the seven time defending champions, as well. And, of course, they completely shelled Chamberlain's teammates in the EDF's.
In the 68-69 season, Boston was much deeper, had far more weapons, and the Lakers were saddled with an incompetent coach whose hatred for Wilt cost them the Finals. Still, had the idiotic VBK had West handling the ball at the end of game four, instead of the nomadic Egan, LA would have won that game, and with their solid win in game five, would have won that series, 4-1.
As for 66-67 and 67-68...agreed. Philly was the better team, although not by a large margin. The 66-67 Celtics went 60-21, and yet were completely destroyed by the 68-13 Sixers in the EDF's. And as we ALL know by now, the 67-68 Sixers were just decimated with injuries, including Chamberlain, himself, and Boston still barely eked out a game seven win. The reality was, (and the newspaper articles by PHILA confirmed it), that Sixer team had no business even making this a series, much less barely losing it. Clearly, a healthy Sixer team would have repeated their carpet-bombing from the 66-67 EDF's.
Had Wilt been given equal rosters in his entire career, and he likely would have won nearly all of their H2H's. And futhermore, had Wilt enjoyed the one-sided margin in talent that Russell had in their first six seasons in the league together, and there is little doubt that Chamberlain would have had a resounding 6-0 margin in rings.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Again, the 64-65 Sixers were NOWHERE near as talented as the 64-65 Celtics. The Sixers had been 34-46 the year before, and it's not like they just acquired Wilt. They traded THREE players to get him (and over 21 ppg in the process.) They were still relatively young, had not drafted Cunningham yet, and were clearly outmatched, player-for-player, by a 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of their dynasty. The reality was, Chamberlain almost single-handedly beat Boston by himself in that series with the most incredible beatdown by a prime GOAT center administered on another prime GOAT center in NBA history.
And, I already explained why the 65-66 Sixers just edged out Boston by one game in the regular season. Boston's roster was littered with their best players missing games that year. They were the seven time defending champions, as well. And, of course, they completely shelled Chamberlain's teammates in the EDF's.
In the 68-69 season, Boston was much deeper, had far more weapons, and the Lakers were saddled with an incompetent coach whose hatred for Wilt cost them the Finals. Still, had the idiotic VBK had West handling the ball at the end of game four, instead of the nomadic Egan, LA would have won that game, and with their solid win in game five, would have won that series, 4-1.
As for 66-67 and 67-68...agreed. Philly was the better team, although not by a large margin. The 66-67 Celtics went 60-21, and yet were completely destroyed by the 68-13 Sixers in the EDF's. And as we ALL know by now, the 67-68 Sixers were just decimated with injuries, including Chamberlain, himself, and Boston still barely eked out a game seven win. The reality was, (and the newspaper articles by PHILA confirmed it), that Sixer team had no business even making this a series, much less barely losing it. Clearly, a healthy Sixer team would have repeated their carpet-bombing from the 66-67 EDF's.
Had Wilt been given equal rosters in his entire career, and he likely would have won nearly all of their H2H's. And futhermore, had Wilt enjoyed the one-sided margin in talent that Russell had in their first six seasons in the league together, and there is little doubt that Chamberlain would have had a resounding 6-0 margin in rings.[/QUOTE]
You look at Wilt's and his teammates' performance in a vacuum. It doesn't work that way. One AFFECTS the other... Wilt is partly responsible for his teammates performing poorly. Taking too many shots, not passing the ball effectively/willingly, discouraging his teammates with his crazy antics like living in NYC and skipping practices...
Is it a coincidence that the 66-67 Sixers with basically the same players as the year prior suddenly became a powerhouse? NO... Wilt changed his style of play and his team blossomed.
Even if Wilt doesn't deserve to get ripped so much then Russell should be praised. Do you not believe in intangibles or you just pretend they don't exist?
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=dankok8]You look at Wilt's and his teammates' performance in a vacuum. It doesn't work that way. One AFFECTS the other... Wilt is partly responsible for his teammates performing poorly. Taking too many shots, not passing the ball effectively/willingly, discouraging his teammates with his crazy antics like living in NYC and skipping practices...
Is it a coincidence that the 66-67 Sixers with basically the same players as the year prior suddenly became a powerhouse? NO... Wilt changed his style of play and his team blossomed.
Even if Wilt doesn't deserve to get ripped so much then Russell should be praised. Do you not believe in intangibles or you just pretend they don't exist?[/QUOTE]
I look at Wilt's teammates perfomances in their regular seasons, and then in their post-seasons. And in nearly every post-season, they declined, and quite often, dramatically. And if anything, Chamberlain shot LESS in his post-season play, which explains his scoring "decline" in the playoffs, as well.
Again, a great example, the 65-66 Sixers. In the regular season, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .416 from the field (Wilt was at .540.) In the EDF's against Boston...they collectively shot .352 (Wilt was at .509.)
Furthermore, during their regular season H2H's with Boston, the Sixers went 6-3. And in those nine games, Chamberlain averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, and shot an est. .525 from the floor. In the EDF's, Chamberlain put up a 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and .509 series. Wilt played almost exactly the same, and yet the results were far different.
Of course, the 65-66 Sixers were a young, up-and-coming team, and they exploded behind Wilt in 66-67. Early in the season they annihilated Boston by a 138-96 margin, and never looked back. At one point they were 46-4, and then coasted down the stretch.
True, Chamberlain shot less, and passed more, but in the 65-66 season, he averaged 5.2 apg with his 33.5 ppg. In 66-67 he averaged 7.8 apg to go along with his 24.1 ppg. But he still lit up any center any time he wanted to in 66-67, and even Rick Barry, who led the league at 35.6 ppg remarked that the only reason he (Barry) won the scoring title, was because Chamberlain didn't care about winning it.
The reality was, Chamberlain did whatever was asked of him his entire career. The Wilt-bashers love to point out his 50 ppg season as an example of a "selfish" Wilt, but the fact was, it was Wilt's COACH who asked Chamberlain to score that much. Why? Because in the 60-61 playoffs, while Wilt scored 37 ppg, his teammates collectively shot .332 from the field (and Wilt's two HOF teammates that year, Arizin and Gola, shot .325 and .205 respectively in that series.) McGuire took one look at that old and crappy Warrior roster, and decided the only hope that they had, was for Chamberlain to shoot 40 times per game. And it worked. Wilt single-handedly carried that team to a 49-31 record, then thru the first round of the playoffs, and then to a game seven, two point loss against a HOF-laden 60-20 Celtic team.
Hannum asked Wilt to be a scorer, rebounder, and defensive anchor in 63-64, and the result was Chamberlain single-handedly took a rag-tag roster that had gone 31-49 the year before (and with Wilt having a mind-boggling Win-Share of 20.9 BTW..or a 70% share of the wins) to a 48-32 record. Then, in the first round of the playoffs, and against a Hawk team that was markedly better, players 2-6, Wilt put up a 39-23 .559 seven game series to get them into the Finals. That they lost the last two games of that series in the waning seconds, in a 4-1 series loss, against a Celtic team with EIGHT HOFers, was just a mind-numbing accomplishment. Again, a one-man wrecking crew. And he HAD to play that way.
And in that 66-67 season, while Wilt dramatically cut back his scoring and shooting (and still put up 24.1 ppg on an eye-popping .683 FG%), he would completely take over at the offensive end almost at will. I have mentioned the first Thurmond encounter. Wilt had been facilitating the offense in the first half, and had only scored six points. Hannum felt that the only way Philly could win that game, was for Wilt to take over at the offensive end. He had his teammates feed him the ball, and Chamberlain hung 24 points on Nate in the second half (and outscored him for the game, 30-13.)
And against Russell in the clinching game five win in the EDF's that year, Wilt kept Philly in the game in the first half, with 22 points, en route to a 29 point game, in a blowout win. Clearly, Chamberlain could have been hanging 40+ point games on both Russell and Nate had he been inclined. BUT, for the first time in his career, it wasn't necessary. He finally had teammates that weren't get trashed by their opponents.
And that philosophy worked in 67-68, too. It would have been an easy repeat had the Sixers remained healthy.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE]From 64-65 to 68-69 there was no considerable gap in talent between Wilt's and Russell's teams. From 66-67 yo 68-69 it was Wilt with the stronger rosters. In the '69 Finals, the Lakers were overwhelming favorites over the Celtics. That's my point. [/QUOTE]
In 1965 at least, there is a [B]huge[/B] experience gap between Wilt's and Russell's teams. Actually, there had always been an experience gap between Wilt's and Russell's teams, but in 1965, it is at an all-time high among the times Wilt has a team with talent anywhere near Russell's.
And no, Wilt's 1968 playoff roster, without Billy C. and with pretty much any other significant player injured, isn't stronger than Russell's, not even close. You'd have a point if we only referred to regular season, but we obviously don't.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=dankok8]It's true that from 59-60 until 63-64 Russell had clearly more talented rosters than Wilt. However he molded those teams into a juggernaut. Blocking shots to his teammates to kick-start fast breaks is just one. He covered for guys who had trouble defending, he tasked his guards with simply boxing out and he'd grab the rebounds, he'd facilitate from the high post and reward his teammates over and over and over for moving well without the ball. His intense competitiveness and puking before games got his team's respect and they were hyped before each and every game. They became him and he became them!! Celtics didn't have many one on one scorers. They need a system which Russell orchestrated and masterfully executed. He knew how to play and defend all five positions. He had detailed scouting reports on every player, his own and the opponents.
[B]Also from 64-65 until 68-69 Wilt's rosters were either better or even with Russell's every year and in that span Russell still won FOUR OF THE FIVE SERIES between them. The notion that Wilt would dominate Russell every year with a better roster is LUDICROUS... because he didn't! [/B]
Russell's intelligence, psychological warfare, leadership, and dedication and sacrifice don't show up in the stat sheet. When you're discussing Bill Russell you may as well throw the stat sheet out the window... or at least put it in a giant pile of salt.
It's a fact that those stacked Celtics rosters laden with HOFers got nowhere before he came or after he left.[/QUOTE]
LOL, this post just cracks me up. You're a Russell worshiper who lays the Boston dynasty at the feet of Russell. You seem to forget about a certain individual named Red Auerbach. I don't disagree with the notion that there would have been no Boston dynasty without Russell, but neither would there have been without Auerbach. Of course I understand that Auerbach has to be minimized to build Russell up to make him appear greater than Chamberlain. And some people that don't know any better fall for it. Well, some of us know better. The real key to the Boston dynasty was the "marriage" of Auerbach and Russell.
As for the bolded part...........you say that from 65-69 Wilt had rosters just as good if not better than Russell. That's partially true. But you seem to forget about DEPTH. Wilt's rosters simply didn't have the depth that Russell's did, and that can be attributed to Auerbach, who always saw to it that Russell had what he needed. The fact is though, in comparing Boston and Philly over those five years, it's more than a matter of personnel. There are two other key elements in the comparison. First is injuries, and second is coaching. In knowing the facts of 68, had Philly been healthy, there's no question they would have beaten Boston. And in 69 had the lakers had a competent coach, they more than likely would have won. Boston was clearly superior in 65 and 66.....they still had Auerbach and Philly had Schayes. And I might just say this......in 66 nobody was beating Boston due to Auerbach's retirement.
I've observed these Chamberlain/Russell debates for 50 years. It always amazes me how Russell supporters always fall back on the championships.....it always ends up Russell's eleven rings against Chamberlain's individual dominance. In doing that they're pulling Auerbach into the debate, yet they refuse to acknowledge him. The truth is, the debates are rarely Chamberlain vs. Russell, they're Chamberlain vs. Russell and Auerbach.
You said.....It's a fact that those stacked Celtics rosters laden with HOFers got nowhere before he came or after he left. That's a very superficial statement, so answer me this....just "where" would Russell have been without those stacked Celtic rosters and without Auerbach? I had one clown insist that Russell would have had the same success no matter what team he had gone to. Hehe, now THAT's ludicrous.
-
Re: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1968 EDF stats
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]I look at Wilt's teammates perfomances in their regular seasons, and then in their post-seasons. And in nearly every post-season, they declined, and quite often, dramatically. And if anything, Chamberlain shot LESS in his post-season play, which explains his scoring "decline" in the playoffs, as well.
Again, a great example, the 65-66 Sixers. In the regular season, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .416 from the field (Wilt was at .540.) In the EDF's against Boston...they collectively shot .352 (Wilt was at .509.)
Furthermore, during their regular season H2H's with Boston, the Sixers went 6-3. And in those nine games, Chamberlain averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, and shot an est. .525 from the floor. In the EDF's, Chamberlain put up a 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and .509 series. Wilt played almost exactly the same, and yet the results were far different.
Of course, the 65-66 Sixers were a young, up-and-coming team, and they exploded behind Wilt in 66-67. Early in the season they annihilated Boston by a 138-96 margin, and never looked back. At one point they were 46-4, and then coasted down the stretch.
True, Chamberlain shot less, and passed more, but in the 65-66 season, he averaged 5.2 apg with his 33.5 ppg. In 66-67 he averaged 7.8 apg to go along with his 24.1 ppg. But he still lit up any center any time he wanted to in 66-67, and even Rick Barry, who led the league at 35.6 ppg remarked that the only reason he (Barry) won the scoring title, was because Chamberlain didn't care about winning it.
The reality was, Chamberlain did whatever was asked of him his entire career. The Wilt-bashers love to point out his 50 ppg season as an example of a "selfish" Wilt, but the fact was, it was Wilt's COACH who asked Chamberlain to score that much. Why? Because in the 60-61 playoffs, while Wilt scored 37 ppg, his teammates collectively shot .332 from the field (and Wilt's two HOF teammates that year, Arizin and Gola, shot .325 and .205 respectively in that series.) McGuire took one look at that old and crappy Warrior roster, and decided the only hope that they had, was for Chamberlain to shoot 40 times per game. And it worked. Wilt single-handedly carried that team to a 49-31 record, then thru the first round of the playoffs, and then to a game seven, two point loss against a HOF-laden 60-20 Celtic team.
Hannum asked Wilt to be a scorer, rebounder, and defensive anchor in 63-64, and the result was Chamberlain single-handedly took a rag-tag roster that had gone 31-49 the year before (and with Wilt having a mind-boggling Win-Share of 20.9 BTW..or a 70% share of the wins) to a 48-32 record. Then, in the first round of the playoffs, and against a Hawk team that was markedly better, players 2-6, Wilt put up a 39-23 .559 seven game series to get them into the Finals. That they lost the last two games of that series in the waning seconds, in a 4-1 series loss, against a Celtic team with EIGHT HOFers, was just a mind-numbing accomplishment. Again, a one-man wrecking crew. And he HAD to play that way.
And in that 66-67 season, while Wilt dramatically cut back his scoring and shooting (and still put up 24.1 ppg on an eye-popping .683 FG%), he would completely take over at the offensive end almost at will. I have mentioned the first Thurmond encounter. Wilt had been facilitating the offense in the first half, and had only scored six points. Hannum felt that the only way Philly could win that game, was for Wilt to take over at the offensive end. He had his teammates feed him the ball, and Chamberlain hung 24 points on Nate in the second half (and outscored him for the game, 30-13.)
And against Russell in the clinching game five win in the EDF's that year, Wilt kept Philly in the game in the first half, with 22 points, en route to a 29 point game, in a blowout win. Clearly, Chamberlain could have been hanging 40+ point games on both Russell and Nate had he been inclined. BUT, for the first time in his career, it wasn't necessary. He finally had teammates that weren't get trashed by their opponents.
And that philosophy worked in 67-68, too. It would have been an easy repeat had the Sixers remained healthy.[/QUOTE]
Wilt's assists numbers dropped from 5.2 apg in the 65-66 regular season to 3.0 apg in the '66 EDF. That's 4.4 LESS POINTS that he contributed to his teammates.
And no he didn't play nearly as good as in the regular season.
Look at how he did the first four games of the series... 23.5 ppg on 48.7% shooting. If he didn't explode for 46 points in Game 5 to improve his stats, he would be harshly criticized for this series.
[QUOTE=Psileas]In 1965 at least, there is a huge experience gap between Wilt's and Russell's teams. Actually, there had always been an experience gap between Wilt's and Russell's teams, but in 1965, it is at an all-time high among the times Wilt has a team with talent anywhere near Russell's.
And no, Wilt's 1968 playoff roster, without Billy C. and with pretty much any other significant player injured, isn't stronger than Russell's, not even close. You'd have a point if we only referred to regular season, but we obviously don't.[/QUOTE]
Sure but my point is when discussing Wilt vs. Russell from '65 to '69 you can't really use the teammate card. Wilt's teams were good enough to win.
[QUOTE=Helix]LOL, this post just cracks me up. You're a Russell worshiper who lays the Boston dynasty at the feet of Russell. You seem to forget about a certain individual named Red Auerbach. I don't disagree with the notion that there would have been no Boston dynasty without Russell, but neither would there have been without Auerbach. Of course I understand that Auerbach has to be minimized to build Russell up to make him appear greater than Chamberlain. And some people that don't know any better fall for it. Well, some of us know better. The real key to the Boston dynasty was the "marriage" of Auerbach and Russell.
As for the bolded part...........you say that from 65-69 Wilt had rosters just as good if not better than Russell. That's partially true. But you seem to forget about DEPTH. Wilt's rosters simply didn't have the depth that Russell's did, and that can be attributed to Auerbach, who always saw to it that Russell had what he needed. The fact is though, in comparing Boston and Philly over those five years, it's more than a matter of personnel. There are two other key elements in the comparison. First is injuries, and second is coaching. In knowing the facts of 68, had Philly been healthy, there's no question they would have beaten Boston. And in 69 had the lakers had a competent coach, they more than likely would have won. Boston was clearly superior in 65 and 66.....they still had Auerbach and Philly had Schayes. And I might just say this......in 66 nobody was beating Boston due to Auerbach's retirement.
I've observed these Chamberlain/Russell debates for 50 years. It always amazes me how Russell supporters always fall back on the championships.....it always ends up Russell's eleven rings against Chamberlain's individual dominance. In doing that they're pulling Auerbach into the debate, yet they refuse to acknowledge him. The truth is, the debates are rarely Chamberlain vs. Russell, they're Chamberlain vs. Russell and Auerbach.
You said.....It's a fact that those stacked Celtics rosters laden with HOFers got nowhere before he came or after he left. That's a very superficial statement, so answer me this....just "where" would Russell have been without those stacked Celtic rosters and without Auerbach? I had one clown insist that Russell would have had the same success no matter what team he had gone to. Hehe, now THAT's ludicrous.[/QUOTE]
Players are out on the floor winning games. Auerbach obviously did a lot for the Celtics including the front office pulls but Red is also on record saying he could never coach a primadonna like Wilt.
Unfortunately I can't answer your last question (I can only guess...) but given that Russell never lost as the favorite I have to think he'd win at least 5 titles with Wilt's rosters. '67, '69, '70, '72, and '73...
People also underrate the fact that Russell won in '68 and '69 while coaching his teams. And that he was an underdog in both years especially in '69.