The case against Bill Russell as GOAT

[jlip]

you forgot Wilt...

crazy.

Wilt led the league in total assists not assists per game in '68. Oscar Robertson actually led the league in apg that season.

[G.O.A.T]

Wilt led the league in total assists not assists per game in '68. Oscar Robertson actually led the league in apg that season.

True but wasn't total assists what determined the statistical champ at that time?

[jlauber]

As far as absolute post-season domination, I would take Shaq's "three-peat" post-seasons, and particularly his Finals in those three seasons.

[jlauber]

True but wasn't total assists what determined the statistical champ at that time?

In fact, Oscar would have led the league in BOTH scoring and assists in the '67-68 season, but, as you just stated, they were based on totals.

[jlauber]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg4HHyrOdU8#t=8m16s

You and I are both Chamberlain fans...but he was wrong on this one. To be honest, West and Wilt nearly beat the 60-22 Knicks by themselves in the Finals that year. Baylor was clearly at the end of his career, and the rest of the Laker roster was no match for the depth of that great NY team.

In any case, West played brilliantly in the first six games, and for Wilt to make the comment that Frazier "always kicked West's butt" was a complete falsehood.

[jlip]

As far as absolute post-season domination, I would take Shaq's "three-peat" post-seasons, and particularly his Finals in those three seasons.

So true! I did a thread on another forum about Shaq's Finals performances during that 3 peat. Those were some of the most dominant performances ever.

[jlip]

True but wasn't total assists what determined the statistical champ at that time?

Yep.

[jlauber]

The team that holds the opposing team to fewer points than them wins.

This.

[Pointguard]

West was a great defensive player, as well. The league started the all-defensive teams in the 68-69 season. He finished 2nd that season, and then was first-team all-defense his next FOUR seasons. BTW, many here remember Frazier's brilliant game seven against West in the '70 Finals, but in the first six games of that series, West owned Frazier. He averaged 33 ppg in those six games, and 31.3 ppg for the series.

I never said Frazier was better. West was extremely good defensively. In the end Frazier did indeed demolished West in one of the best finals games ever. The only reason I said Frazier for both sides of the ball was that Frazier was feared defensively. I seen guys like JoJo White straight fall down when Frazier fainted a steal while being 5 feet off of him. I've seen other guys just double dribble or travel when Frazier moved toward them. But obviousl yall know my choice.

[Johnni Gade]

Isn't Jordan GOAT? :\

[Pointguard]

You and I are both Chamberlain fans...but he was wrong on this one. To be honest, West and Wilt nearly beat the 60-22 Knicks by themselves in the Finals that year. Baylor was clearly at the end of his career, and the rest of the Laker roster was no match for the depth of that great NY team.

In any case, West played brilliantly in the first six games, and for Wilt to make the comment that Frazier "always kicked West's butt" was a complete falsehood.

I remember reading that Wilt was upset that West never stepped up and said it wasn't about Willis we didn't do our job defensively. The media did have a crazy spin, as they consistently did with Wilt. The media had it like Reed came back in the game and did a Jordan number. I did a paper on it in college because I was so amused when I went on microfiche to see such a wild intepretation of events.

[Pointguard]

As far as absolute post-season domination, I would take Shaq's "three-peat" post-seasons, and particularly his Finals in those three seasons.

Shaq witnessed a whole lot of Jordan domination while playing. He knew he had to wait.

[Pointguard]

Isn't Jordan GOAT? :\

Well not if you believe in the GHOST of GOAT Bill Russell. Guy is so mystical the NBA has magically whipped out all traces of his greatness so that we have no reality to base his greatness on. What are the odds of that? There are clips and even whole halfs in the playoffs that are quite embarrassing to watch as he looks, well, very unremarkable. While he was decimated on ocassion in the playoffs we are to believe was better in his decimation. He could win without being better and be the greatest without much on the ball skill. If winning covers a multitude of sins, Russell could be the devil and we are to have faith in him because he won.

I'm just saying.

[jlauber]

I remember reading that Wilt was upset that West never stepped up and said it wasn't about Willis we didn't do our job defensively. The media did have a crazy spin, as they consistently did with Wilt. The media had it like Reed came back in the game and did a Jordan number. I did a paper on it in college because I was so amused when I went on microfiche to see such a wild intepretation of events.

You and I agree 100% on this. To this day that remains one of the biggest mytseries of the history of the NBA. I don't even believe that Reed's entrance "motivated" or "inspired" the Knick players. My god, this was a game seven for the NBA championship. If a player needed extra motivation for a game like that, they needed to find another career.

The facts were, the ENTIRE Knick team came out on fire. They hit 15 of their first 21 shots, and it was all over. Frazier had a game for the ages, and he smothered West in the first half, while the rest of the Knicks swarmed a somewhat passive Wilt. But I have long maintained that that Knick team would have beaten a team of five MJ's that night. They just could not miss. And, even a 40 point game by Chamberlain probably would not have been enough.

What really galls me about the PERCEPTION of that game, was that, if you just went by what you heard or read...and did not SEE the game...you would have thought Reed outscored Wilt, 21-4, and outrebounded Wilt, 24-3...instead of the other way around. Even more upsetting, was the fact that here comes Reed with a slight knee injury, and he basically plays like a statue, while Chamberlain was only four months removed from major knee surgery. On top of that, virtually all medical opinion at the time ranged the most optomistic being that Wilt was done for the year, to his career being finished. Yet, Reed goes down as a "hero", and Wilt as the "failure" and "choker."

In reality, that Laker team had no business taking that great Knick team to a game seven. The Knicks had FOUR HOFers (Bradley, DeBusschere, Frazier, and Reed), as well as Cazzie Russell and a DEEP bench (and a HOF coach.) They had romped to a 60-22 record during the regular season, and then crushed the 56-26 Bucks in the playoffs, 4-1 (although Kareem played exceptionally well.)

All the Lakers had were basically a prime West, an over-the-hill Baylor, and a Wilt at nowhere near 100%. And, before Reed was injured in game five, the series was tied 2-2, and in fact, the Knicks were getting beaten by a rejuvenated Wilt in that game five (he had 14 1st period points), and were down by 10 points in game five when Reed went down. LA managed to extend the lead to 13 points at the half, and even the most ardent Knick supporter had all but given up. HOWEVER, the Knicks manhandled West and Wilt in the second half, limiting West to a total of three shots, and Wilt to two. It was legalized brutality, and even NY Times writer Leonard Koppett acknowedged that following the game. With the generous help of the officials, the Knicks came back and won the game, 107-100. And that was really the series. The Lakers went back to LA, and with Wilt playing one of the greatest games in Finals history (albeit with Reed not playing)...in which he scored 45 points, on 20-27 shooting, and 27 rebounds, the Lakers pummeled the Knicks, 135-113. If the officials had not given game five to NY, Wilt's game six might be more remembered today.

That was just another example of the "anti-Wilt" slant by the media. I will be the first to admit that Wilt played that game seven tentitively. Some in the media claimed that Reed's last second appearance "intimidated" Wilt, but none other than Dick Schaap said that Chamberlain "eased up" on the hobbled Reed. Unfortunately for Wilt, he was often a "gentle giant", and in this case, it may have cost him a ring. Still, having watched that game, the Knicks just exploded that night, and I doubt a great performance by Chamberlain would have been enough.

[jlauber]

Well not if you believe in the GHOST of GOAT Bill Russell. Guy is so mystical the NBA has magically whipped out all traces of his greatness so that we have no reality to base his greatness on. What are the odds of that? There are clips and even whole halfs in the playoffs that are quite embarrassing to watch as he looks, well, very unremarkable. While he was decimated on ocassion in the playoffs we are to believe was better in his decimation. He could win without being better and be the greatest without much on the ball skill. If winning covers a multitude of sins, Russell could be the devil and we are to have faith in him because he won.

I'm just saying.

Maybe Boston won those 11 rings DESPITE Russell then? Can you imagine just how dominant the Celtics would have been with Walt Bellamy, a man who could score 30 ppg over the course of a season?

You also have to wonder how the Lakers won the title in the 71-72 season, with a center that could only score 14.8 ppg.