The reason Wilt Chamberlain was traded from Philly to L.A (according to Jack Ramsay)

[heyhey]

Simmons' goes out of his way to disparage Wilt, the Sixers, Kobe, and the Lakers.

He has almost nothing good to say about Wilt, and ranks him sixth all-time. He doesn't even have the '67 76ers in his top-10. At one point he had Kobe 15th all-time, but even he realized how ridiculous that made him look, so he reluctantly dropped him to 9th. Then, he ripped Kobe for pulling himself out of the Mavs game in which he had scored 62 points...BUT...he rips Kobe's 81 point game because he firing away late in the game. THEN he praises Bird in his 60 point game, in a meaningless rout.

The man has an obvious agenda...and most all of it has little supporting facts.

Cherry is critical of Wilt somewhat in game seven of the '68 ECF's, although, he, like myself, blames Wilt's coach and teammates, as well. He also blames Wilt for the Lakers game six loss in the '69 Finals (although he does NOT blame him for the game seven loss.)

Still, even he was amazed at Wilt's basketball career and his incredible athleticism...hence the title...'Wilt: Larger than Life.'

I believe Simmons even insinuate that Wilt was a homosexual by talking about how despite his bombastic claim of sleeping with 1000 woman you never saw wilt with a girl in public.

Can't believe the dude gets a paid gig to sprout hate and garbage. lol you can get ISH posters to do that sh!t for free

[jlauber]

I believe Simmons even insinuate that Wilt was a homosexual by talking about how despite his bombastic claim of sleeping with 1000 woman you never saw wilt with a girl in public.

Can't believe the dude gets a paid gig to sprout hate and garbage. lol you can get ISH posters to do that sh!t for free

I hate to get involved in non-basketball related activities, but Wilt's womanizing was well known throughout the NBA. If you read Cherry's book, Cherry even brings up how Wilt came up with that "20,000" number. Chamberlain had a frined who owned a hotel in Hawaii. In one ten-day stay at that hotel, his friend counted 23 different women going up to Wilt's room (sometimes more than one BTW.) Wilt was nearly 50 at the time, so his friend multipled two women per day times 30 years. BTW, even Wilt apologized for the comment (although he did not refute the actual number.)

I have said it before, but Wilt was never accused of rape, or brutality against women, or of cheating (he was never married, but as far as he knew, he never slept with a married woman.) And Cherry points out that those knew Wilt attested to the fact that women flocked to Wilt. Chamberlain seldom even initiated the liasons.

Nate Thurmond told a story that, after a game in the mid-60's, Wilt asked him what he was doing the rest of the evening. Thurmond replied that he was probably going to watch a Kim Novak movie (just google her...she was hot.) Wilt told Thurmond that he had a better idea. They hopped into Wilt's car and they drove to a home about a half hour away. To Nate's surprise, Kim Novak came out and gave Chamberlain a hug.

Wilt was also romantically linked with several other beauties like Joey Heatherton (google her), and Elke Sommer.

But, if Wilt were indeed gay, he did a great job of hiding it. In any case, I'm sure that Simmons' had no idea.

BTW, and I have mentioned it before, but when comparing the lives of Wilt and Russell (who it appears that Simmons' idolized)...there was no doubt who was more well liked, and who led a much better life after basketball. Wilt invested wisely and was a millionaire who enjoyed his post-basketball career, while Russell was a bitter man who was nearly broke a few years after he retired. He was even accused of being a racist. I don't want to delve into that topic any more than that, but you can google Russell and Wilt, and you will see who was considered a much better human being.

[G.O.A.T]

I have to take exception with some of you dismissing Simmons analysis of the Chamberlain/Russell debate as bias hyperbole.

It's actually the best laid out case for Russell above Chamberlain or vice versa I've ever seen. Much better than any case anyone had laid out in my years touring the forums and boards.

Now yes, there are some elements of the debate that he present's in a very one-sided manner, but I don't see how that devalues the numerous excellent points he raises.

You have to remember he is not just making the case that Russell is better than Wilt, but that it's not even close. So he's not going to present any more pro-Chamberlain data than is absolutely necessary.

I re-read the chapter last night and again today and here's my take on it.

First the stuff in it (anti-Wilt) that I would consider "subjective interpretation" or just down right wrong.

1) As Simmons puts it "Myth No. 4: Wilt was a great guy". Simmons tries to shoot down the perception of Wilt as a more easy going jovial guy by arguing that he was a bad teammate. To me, it's two different things. Wilt was a great guy by almost all accounts I've read, considerate, thoughtful, easy going etc.

2) When listing Wilt's annual excuses for his teams shortcomings, which actually is a very good anti-Wilt point, Simmons neglects to mention Cunningham and Jackson's injuries in 1968. Instead he only cites the MLK assassination.

3) When listing Wilt's greatest playoff clutch moments, he covers a few good ones but misses some obvious ones including game five against Syracuse in 1962 when Wilt scored like 58 and had 35 or so rebounds (I'm guessing sorry if off)

4) He says no one has a story of a great clutch Wilt moment which is just not true. There is Wilt 's play in the series against Boston in 1967, his numerous playoff triple doubles (a lot of quadrupole doubles if they kept stats). And he never mentions all the times WIlt played great individually in defeat.

Beyond that however, it's an absolutely stone cold case for Russell over WIlt that really can't be countered.

The strongest points he makes in my opinion.

1) The team mates argument. Simmons points out that Russell played with just two more all-stars in his career than Wilt. He also shows that Wilt actually played with equal or better teammates in four seasons and Russell for equal or better teams in six seasons. HJe also shows that Wilt played on a legit contender for 10 straight seasons from 1964-1973 and won just two titles in that span.

2) Russell's offense: Especially the quote from Havlicek about when Russell retired: "You couldn't begin to count the ways we missed him. People think of him in terms of defense and rebounding, but he was the key to our offense. He made the bets pass more than anyone I ever played with, That mattered to people like Nelson, Howell, Sanders, Siegfried and myself. None of us were one on one players....Russell made us better offensive players. His ability as a passer, pick-setter, and general surmiser of the offense has always been overlooked."

3) He annihilates the statistical argument with a few simple points.

#1 - regular season stats head to head vs. playoff stats. Russell's numbers all go up, Wilt's all go down...that is huge.

#2 - Wilt's record in the conference finals and beyond is 48-44, Russell's is 90-53. and Elimination games, Wilt 10-11, Russell 16-2.

#3 - A quote from Bill Bradley - "Wilt played the game as if he had to prove himself to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed to his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his basketball ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant certainly nonessential. The point of the game is not how the individual does, but rather the team wins."

#4 - Two huge game sevens. 1962 when Wilt had averaged 50 during the regular season and Russell 19, Wilt outscored Russell 22-19 and the Celtics won. 1968 when Wilt was MVP and outscored Russell just 14-12.

4) The Clutch argument...endless examples of Russell having huge clutch games and his numbers always going up in the postseason.

5) The quotes...they sort of close the book on who was considered the better player by their peers. Also they show exactly why Wilt was not a winner (though I don't agree with Simmons assertion that it makes him a choker) Here's a few of the better ones.

From Butch Van Breda Kolf (who coached Wilt)

"The difference between Wilt and Russell was this: Russell would ask, what do I need to do to make my team mates better? Then he'd do it. Wilt honestly thought the best way for his team to win was for him to be in the best possible setting. He'd ask, What's the best situation for me?"

From Jerry Lucas

"Wilt was too consumed with records: being the first to lead the league in assists, or to set a record for field goal percentage. He'd accomplish one goal, then go on to another. Russell would only ask one question: "What can I do to make us win"

From Bill Bradley

"I have the impression that Wilt might have been more secure with losing. In defeat, after carefully covering himself with allusions to his accomplishments, he could be magnanimous."

From Wilt enforcing Bradley's take

Again from Wilt

"I was 30 years old when the 1966-67 season began and I was maturing as a man, and learning that it was essential to keep my teammates happy if I wanted my team to win...I was just learning that lesson in 1966 and it reflected in my statistics"

Still more Wit

"To Bill, every game--every Championship game--was a challenge, a test of his manhood. He took the game so seriously that he threw up in the lockerroom before almost every game. But I tend to look at basketball as a game, not a life or death struggle. I don't need scoring titles of NBA Championships to prove that I'm a man.

and Finally Jerry West summing it up best

"I don't want to rap Wilt because I believe only Russell was better, and I really respect what Wilt did. But I have to say, he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him."


Again, it's a brilliantly researched and well laid out case. I think a lot of people are blinded by the snarky one-liners and the obvious Celtic-fandom that typically drives him. If you really look at the meat and potatoes of his case, it's bullet proof.

[jlauber]

I have to take exception with some of you dismissing Simmons analysis of the Chamberlain/Russell debate as bias hyperbole.

It's actually the best laid out case for Russell above Chamberlain or vice versa I've ever seen. Much better than any case anyone had laid out in my years touring the forums and boards.

Now yes, there are some elements of the debate that he present's in a very one-sided manner, but I don't see how that devalues the numerous excellent points he raises.

You have to remember he is not just making the case that Russell is better than Wilt, but that it's not even close. So he's not going to present any more pro-Chamberlain data than is absolutely necessary.

I re-read the chapter last night and again today and here's my take on it.

First the stuff in it (anti-Wilt) that I would consider "subjective interpretation" or just down right wrong.

1) As Simmons puts it "Myth No. 4: Wilt was a great guy". Simmons tries to shoot down the perception of Wilt as a more easy going jovial guy by arguing that he was a bad teammate. To me, it's two different things. Wilt was a great guy by almost all accounts I've read, considerate, thoughtful, easy going etc.

2) When listing Wilt's annual excuses for his teams shortcomings, which actually is a very good anti-Wilt point, Simmons neglects to mention Cunningham and Jackson's injuries in 1968. Instead he only cites the MLK assassination.

3) When listing Wilt's greatest playoff clutch moments, he covers a few good ones but misses some obvious ones including game five against Syracuse in 1962 when Wilt scored like 58 and had 35 or so rebounds (I'm guessing sorry if off)

4) He says no one has a story of a great clutch Wilt moment which is just not true. There is Wilt 's play in the series against Boston in 1967, his numerous playoff triple doubles (a lot of quadrupole doubles if they kept stats). And he never mentions all the times WIlt played great individually in defeat.

Beyond that however, it's an absolutely stone cold case for Russell over WIlt that really can't be countered.

The strongest points he makes in my opinion.

1) The team mates argument. Simmons points out that Russell played with just two more all-stars in his career than Wilt. He also shows that Wilt actually played with equal or better teammates in four seasons and Russell for equal or better teams in six seasons. HJe also shows that Wilt played on a legit contender for 10 straight seasons from 1964-1973 and won just two titles in that span.

2) Russell's offense: Especially the quote from Havlicek about when Russell retired: "You couldn't begin to count the ways we missed him. People think of him in terms of defense and rebounding, but he was the key to our offense. He made the bets pass more than anyone I ever played with, That mattered to people like Nelson, Howell, Sanders, Siegfried and myself. None of us were one on one players....Russell made us better offensive players. His ability as a passer, pick-setter, and general surmiser of the offense has always been overlooked."

3) He annihilates the statistical argument with a few simple points.

#1 - regular season stats head to head vs. playoff stats. Russell's numbers all go up, Wilt's all go down...that is huge.

#2 - Wilt's record in the conference finals and beyond is 48-44, Russell's is 90-53. and Elimination games, Wilt 10-11, Russell 16-2.

#3 - A quote from Bill Bradley - "Wilt played the game as if he had to prove himself to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed to his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his basketball ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant certainly nonessential. The point of the game is not how the individual does, but rather the team wins."

#4 - Two huge game sevens. 1962 when Wilt had averaged 50 during the regular season and Russell 19, Wilt outscored Russell 22-19 and the Celtics won. 1968 when Wilt was MVP and outscored Russell just 14-12.

4) The Clutch argument...endless examples of Russell having huge clutch games and his numbers always going up in the postseason.

5) The quotes...they sort of close the book on who was considered the better player by their peers. Also they show exactly why Wilt was not a winner (though I don't agree with Simmons assertion that it makes him a choker) Here's a few of the better ones.

From Butch Van Breda Kolf (who coached Wilt)

"The difference between Wilt and Russell was this: Russell would ask, what do I need to do to make my team mates better? Then he'd do it. Wilt honestly thought the best way for his team to win was for him to be in the best possible setting. He'd ask, What's the best situation for me?"

From Jerry Lucas

"Wilt was too consumed with records: being the first to lead the league in assists, or to set a record for field goal percentage. He'd accomplish one goal, then go on to another. Russell would only ask one question: "What can I do to make us win"

From Bill Bradley

"I have the impression that Wilt might have been more secure with losing. In defeat, after carefully covering himself with allusions to his accomplishments, he could be magnanimous."

From Wilt enforcing Bradley's take

Again from Wilt

"I was 30 years old when the 1966-67 season began and I was maturing as a man, and learning that it was essential to keep my teammates happy if I wanted my team to win...I was just learning that lesson in 1966 and it reflected in my statistics"

Still more Wit

"To Bill, every game--every Championship game--was a challenge, a test of his manhood. He took the game so seriously that he threw up in the lockerroom before almost every game. But I tend to look at basketball as a game, not a life or death struggle. I don't need scoring titles of NBA Championships to prove that I'm a man.

and Finally Jerry West summing it up best

"I don't want to rap Wilt because I believe only Russell was better, and I really respect what Wilt did. But I have to say, he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him."


Again, it's a brilliantly researched and well laid out case. I think a lot of people are blinded by the snarky one-liners and the obvious Celtic-fandom that typically drives him. If you really look at the meat and potatoes of his case, it's bullet proof.

I don't have time right now, but I will argue some of those "exceptions" later (like Wilt played with as many HOFers), and the anti-Wilt quotes. BTW, Jerry West, sometime after 1999 claimed that Wilt was the greatest basketball player ever. So, we have to take some of those quotes as merely momentary. Even West later apologized for claiming that Russell was better (I will have the quote later.)

Real quickly, Russell played with HOF teammates TWICE as much, in terms of minutes on the floor, as Wilt did. Furthermore, Wilt played with Baylor in only ONE full season (and Baylor was on the decline as well), and Thurmond, in Nate's rookie season, when he played part-time, and out of position.

If you want to read my full take on Simmons'...here it is...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=160893

I'll cover this later...

[G.O.A.T]

I don't have time right now, but I will argue some of those "exceptions" later (like Wilt played with as many HOFers), and the anti-Wilt quotes. BTW, Jerry West, sometime after 1999 claimed that Wilt was the greatest basketball player ever. So, we have to take some of those quotes as merely momentary. Even West later apologized for claiming that Russell was better (I will have the quote later.)

Real quickly, Russell played with HOF teammates TWICE as much, in terms of minutes on the floor, as Wilt did. Furthermore, Wilt played with Baylor in only ONE full season (and Baylor was on the decline as well), and Thurmond, in Nate's rookie season, when he played part-time, and out of position.

If you want to read my full take on Simmons'...here it is...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=160893

I'll cover this later...

I've seen people cite the later West quotes, but I've never actually seen them on video or in a book, I think they are made up.

I never mentioned the HOF thing as a good point, but as we've gone over, without Russell half of his HOF teammates would just be teammates. All-star selections during their playing careers with Wilt or Russell really sums it up. it was pretty much equal for 13 years in terms of the number of high level players in their prime each played with.

I read your take, I still think Simmons makes a much much stronger case and shows no more anti-Wilt bias than you show pro-Wilt/anti-Russell bias.

That post is far more anti-Russell than most anything else you post. You call him a "horrible offensive player" and say Wilt was "always" a better passer. I don't think Wilt was ever for sure a better a passer, in fact in 1968, I'd argue he hurt his team more than helped it with his passing. Again not sure Wilt was ever than Russell based on what I've read and the fact that Wilt's offenses were always based around him during the 60's and statistically they are very even.

[jlauber]

I've seen people cite the later West quotes, but I've never actually seen them on video or in a book, I think they are made up.

I never mentioned the HOF thing as a good point, but as we've gone over, without Russell half of his HOF teammates would just be teammates. All-star selections during their playing careers with Wilt or Russell really sums it up. it was pretty much equal for 13 years in terms of the number of high level players in their prime each played with.

I read your take, I still think Simmons makes a much much stronger case and shows no more anti-Wilt bias than you show pro-Wilt/anti-Russell bias.

That post is far more anti-Russell than most anything else you post. You call him a "horrible offensive player" and say Wilt was "always" a better passer. I don't think Wilt was ever for sure a better a passer, in fact in 1968, I'd argue he hurt his team more than helped it with his passing. Again not sure Wilt was ever than Russell based on what I've read and the fact that Wilt's offenses were always based around him during the 60's and statistically they are very even.

I have changed much of my Russell take since I made that original post last year. But, the facts remain, Russell played with more all-star teammates, per season, than Wilt did. And, his HOF teammates were on the floor TWICE as much as Wilt's HOF teammates were.

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

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

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

All-Star teammates?

Here we go:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the West quote, here it is, some time after Wilt's death...

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

"You just don't think things like this are going to happen to people of his stature," echoed Jerry West, the Lakers executive who played against Chamberlain for many years, then with him on the great '72 Lakers squad.

"He was the most unbelievable center to ever play the game in terms of domination and intimidation. There's no one that's ever played the game better than Wilt Chamberlain. This was a man for all ages."

I could post quote-after-quote by teammates and peers that would validate Chamberlain's dominance. Even veteran referee Mendy Rudolph, in a quote from Cherry's book, claimed that Wilt was the superior player. Or how about Oscar Robertson?

http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html

As Oscar Robertson put it in the Philadelphia Daily News when asked whether Chamberlain was the best ever, "The books don't lie."

Simmons' also quoted players like Lucas and Barry, who ripped Wilt. Interesting, though, that Lucas was criticized by teammate Wayne Embry, who claimed that Lucas asked him to defend the perimeter so that he [Lucas] could get more rebounds. As for Barry, another interesting take. Why? Because of Wilt's CLUTCH defensive play on Barry in the waning seconds of the clinching game six win in the '67 Finals. BTW, I have also used a quote by Barry that claims Wilt was a much better center than Shaq. So, while he may have had an agenda back in the 60's against Wilt, he at least felt that Chamberlain was a better center than Shaq in 2004.

Regarding Van Breda Kolf's quote...

You can take that idiot's quote with a grain of salt. He didn't like the Wilt trade from day one. He asked Wilt to play the high-post so that Baylor could fire blanks. He benched Wilt during the regular season. And, at the most critical point of game seven, he left the greatest scorer in NBA history, on the bench, and let Mel Counts play in the last five minutes. The same Counts who would shoot 4-13 (while Wilt went 7-8.) In any case, Van Breda Kolf was fired shortly after that game, and his career nose-dived after it.


As for "clutch" play...how about Russell and Wilt's four game seven's, two of which Wilt had far inferior teammates. In the '62 ECF's, Wilt had two other HOFers, against Russell, and his FIVE other HOFers. Not only that, but Russell had a HOF coach in Auerbach. Furthermore, here were Wilt's two HOF teammates. One was Paul Arizin in his LAST season. The other was Tom Gola, who has as much business being in the HOF as I do. BTW, how did those two HOF teammates play in the '62 post-season? Arizin shot .375 and Gola shot .271. In any case, that game seven came down to a controversial goal-tend against Wilt, and a time-keeper error at the end of the game... in a two point loss. Wilt only outscored Russell in that game, 22-19, and there is some question as to if Russell outrebounded him (it was either 22-21, or 22-22 depending on what info you are using.) Wilt only went 7-14 in that game seven (and we don't know what Russell shot), but we do know that Tom Meschery scored 32 points. Why is that significant? OBVIOUSLY Boston was swarming Wilt, and Meschery had free looks all game long.

How about game seven of the '65 ECF's? Wilt, with only one HOF teammate (Greer) took a 40-40 Philly team to a game seven, ONE-point loss against Russell, his FOUR other HOF teammates, and his HOF coach, on Boston's home floor. In that game, Wilt outscored Russell, 30-15. He outshot Russell, 12-15 to 7-16, and he outrebounded Russell, 32-29.

We have both discussed game seven of the '68 ECF's, but the bottom line was that the Sixers were devastated by injuries, and they lost that game by FOUR points. Wilt's teammates collectively shot 33% from the floor. Wilt, while not shooting in the second half, outscored Russell, 14-12, and outrebounded him, 34-26. We don't know what Russell shot, but Wilt had his only game seven of less than 50% in his career, going 4-9.

And in Russell's final season, in the '69 Finals, while Wilt was benched in the last five minutes of that game, his team lost it by TWO points, on a mircaulous shot (the second in that series by a Celtic to win a game.) Wilt still outscored Russell, 18-6; he still outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7; and he still outrebounded Russell, 27-21...all despite playing five minutes less.

So add up those four game seven's. Russell's team went 4-0, BUT, by a COMBINED NINE points. Furthermore, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 21.3 to 13.2, and outrebounded Russell, per game, 28.5 to 24.5. We only have Russell's shooting percentages for two of those four games, but it is only .391. Meanwhile, we have Wilt's FG% in all four, and it was an astonishing .652.

I could give you excuse after excuse (and you have read them here before.) Injuries, incompetent coaches, bone-headed plays by teammates, poor officiating, miracle shots by opponents (several BTW), and poor play by his teammates. No great player has ever been more "snakebit" than Chamberlain. He was within an eyelash of beating Russell in four game seven's.


Once again, I have come to appreciate Russell's greatness here, but there is simply no way that I am going to accept ANYTHING that Simmons' wrote in his book. It was the most one-sided, anti-Wilt book ever written, and it is a factual farce.

[G.O.A.T]

I read that and I can't understand how you can still post things about Tom Gola not deserving to be in the HOF (Complete BS based on all accounts of him I've read) Rodgers being an all-time poor shooter (but not mentioning Cousy was actually worse) and you still use the HOF argument.

Anyone who uses the HOF argument against Russell I can immediatley peg as reaching. You cite 1962 and Russell's five HOF'ers which were as follows:

Bob Cousy in his second to last year
washed up Frank Ramsey
Sam Jones in his first season as a starter and all-star
KC Jones still as primarily a back-up
Tom Heinsohn in his prime.

So you have a washed up legend (no better, in fact very likely worse than Arizin for the Warriors), two guys off the bench who we both agree don't sniff the hall without their rings and don't get their rings without Russell, Sam Jones before he was Sam Jones and a 6'8" forward who was one of the leagues best pure scorers, but who couldn't defend anyone.

I'm certainly not going to compare that to the teams Wilt had around him from '65-'69.

You write off a basketball expert like Van Breda Kolf because he and Wilt couldn't get along. Butch won before Wilt and he won after Wilt, I happen to think he was a bonehead for his handling of Wilt in 1969's game seven, but I can't call him a moron. I mean the guy went to Princeton and won almost 300 hundred games as an NBA coach.

And as for moving Wilt to the high post...Hannum did that in 1966-67, that's the example Van Breda Kolf was following.

On the West quote, like I said, I think the things about him taking the quote from the Bill Libby book are made up. I see nothing in the quote you posted other than a man with great respect for a peer who's past honoring his memory.

Of course Wilt was more dominant, Russell was better/greater though as West said.

I didn't even mention the Barry quote, he shredded Wilt, annihilated him. Said his teammates hated him, called him a choker and a loser. Regardless of rather I or anyone else agrees, you'd never see one of their peers say that about Russell.

It's fine if you don't like Simmons, a lot of folks here don't and I can see why. However I still think he made a great case on this one. I don't think he made a great case for Wilt as the 6th best player or Shaq at 11 or certainly the '67 Sixers outside the top ten teams, in fact I downright disagree. He is an entertainer, but that book is overall one of the more interesting reads on the subject of the 100's I've sifted through. Take that for what it's worth.

[jlauber]

I read that and I can't understand how you can still post things about Tom Gola not deserving to be in the HOF (Complete BS based on all accounts of him I've read) Rodgers being an all-time poor shooter (but not mentioning Cousy was actually worse) and you still use the HOF argument.

Anyone who uses the HOF argument against Russell I can immediatley peg as reaching. You cite 1962 and Russell's five HOF'ers which were as follows:

Bob Cousy in his second to last year
washed up Frank Ramsey
Sam Jones in his first season as a starter and all-star
KC Jones still as primarily a back-up
Tom Heinsohn in his prime.

So you have a washed up legend (no better, in fact very likely worse than Arizin for the Warriors), two guys off the bench who we both agree don't sniff the hall without their rings and don't get their rings without Russell, Sam Jones before he was Sam Jones and a 6'8" forward who was one of the leagues best pure scorers, but who couldn't defend anyone.

I'm certainly not going to compare that to the teams Wilt had around him from '65-'69.

You write off a basketball expert like Van Breda Kolf because he and Wilt couldn't get along. Butch won before Wilt and he won after Wilt, I happen to think he was a bonehead for his handling of Wilt in 1969's game seven, but I can't call him a moron. I mean the guy went to Princeton and won almost 300 hundred games as an NBA coach.

And as for moving Wilt to the high post...Hannum did that in 1966-67, that's the example Van Breda Kolf was following.

On the West quote, like I said, I think the things about him taking the quote from the Bill Libby book are made up. I see nothing in the quote you posted other than a man with great respect for a peer who's past honoring his memory.

Of course Wilt was more dominant, Russell was better/greater though as West said.

I didn't even mention the Barry quote, he shredded Wilt, annihilated him. Said his teammates hated him, called him a choker and a loser. Regardless of rather I or anyone else agrees, you'd never see one of their peers say that about Russell.

It's fine if you don't like Simmons, a lot of folks here don't and I can see why. However I still think he made a great case on this one. I don't think he made a great case for Wilt as the 6th best player or Shaq at 11 or certainly the '67 Sixers outside the top ten teams, in fact I downright disagree. He is an entertainer, but that book is overall one of the more interesting reads on the subject of the 100's I've sifted through. Take that for what it's worth.

I don't want to take the time to go thru everything you posted. Things like Cousy was a worse shooter than Rodgers. Cousy was a much better scorer, and he shot much closer to the league average than Rodgers ever did (In fact, Rodgers shot mearly 100 points less in one season, which is almost an impossibility.)

Regarding Van Breda Kolf...his record with Wilt was his best ever. But how about AFTER Wilt? He coached some NBA and ABA teams for the next eight seasons...

31-51, 45-37, 6-4, 3-4, 21-63, 22-44, 38-44, and 14-12. The facts were, (and even Cherry said as much), that Van Breda Kolf ruined his CAREER by leaving Wilt on the bench. That '69 season was his ONLY chance of winning an NBA title...and he completely BLEW IT.

BTW, Hannum knew HOW and WHEN to use Wilt. Van Breda Kolf had no clue. All anyone needs to know about Van Breda Kolf's job in that '68-69 post-season, was that Wilt averaged 13.9 ppg (which was WAY below his previous low...on .545 shooting), while Butch's "fav" Baylor, averaged 15.4 ppg on .385 shooting. (And I still marvel at how Baylor finished fifth in the MVP voting that season, and Wilt was nowhere to be found, even though Wilt was CLEARLY a FAR better player.)

I would also like to know WHEN Barry made his trashy quote. Why? Because, as I mentioned previously, it was WILT who made the CLUTCH defensive play in the deciding game six of the '67 Finals...on BARRY. Furthermore, Wilt's teams BURIED Barry (and Thurmond's) teams after that season. In the 72-73 WCF's (and after the Warriors upset the 60-22 Bucks), Wilt led LA to a near sweep of Barry's Warriors. I was at game three when the Lakers routed the Warriors 126-70 in OAKLAND. Chamberlain dominated that series defensively (he held Thurmond to under 40% shooting...as he ALWAYS did...and outrebounded him by seven rpg.)

And. back to Simmons'. He praises Russell for his "clutch" play, but in all of the great games that Russell played in the post-season (and there were many), there were very FEW in which he outplayed WILT. However, I can find Wilt with a 50-35 game (in an elimination game win in the '60 ECF's), or a 46-34 game in a clinching game five loss in '66.

Simmons's doesn't mention either of those games in his perspective on Wilt's post-season play. Nor Wilt's 56-35 game five in a win against Syracuse in a best-of-five series. He does mention Wilt's GREAT game seven against Russell in the '65 ECF's, and his overwhelming display over Russell in the '67 ECF's. But what about his BRILLIANT play against Kareem in the '72 WCF's, particularly the clinching game six win, when he led LA back from a 10 4th quarter deficit, and completely outplayed Kareem in that last game. Or how about Wilt, playing with one hand badly sprained, and the other FRACTURED in the clinching game five win over NY in the '72 Finals (with a 24 point, 10-14 shooting, 29 rebound, 10 block game)?

I could cite game-after-game in which Chamberlain mauled Russell in the post-season. In those '62 ECF's, in which you and Simmons's applaud Russell's efforts for "limiting" Wilt (never outplaying him, though)...in game two, Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him 37-20. Find ONE game in all of their 142 H2H battles in which Russell outplayed Chamberlain by that margin. I will save you the trouble...you WON'T.

And that was, once again, part of the DOUBLE-STANDARD. A Russell "win" over Wilt was "only" being outplayed by a few points or rebounds. Hell, Russell could "win" even if he was CRUSHED by Chamberlain, if Boston, and their always loaded and much deeper rosters won. The only way anyone would acknowledge a Wilt "win" was if he POUNDED Russell statistically, and HIS team won.

I have long given Russell credit for elevating his team's play. And, for whatever reasons, Wilt's teammates seldom outplayed Russell's (although, in the first half of Chamberlain's career, it was a hopeless mismatch.) BUT, Simmons' does not bring up any of the LEGITIMATE excuses that Wilt had for his team's losing four close game seven's to Russell's Celtics. If you were to believe Simmons, you would think that Russell shredded Wilt, and that Boston blew out Wilt's teams. And that Wilt was a "choker." YET, the FACTS suggest otherwise. I have already given you Russell and Wilt's H2H stats in those game seven's...and Chamberlain just dominated him. There was no "choking" by Wilt.

AND, while Simmons' takes delight in Van Breda Kolf's decision to bench Wilt in that game seven...did Simmons' mention that Russell was nowhere to be found in the 4th quarter of that game. A game in which Boston had a 17 point lead with about 10 minutes left...and had to hang on for a two-point win (on a miraculous shot by Nelson)? Wilt had as many rebounds, in two successive possessions with his injured knee, as Russell did in the entire period.


I personally rank Russell's career over Wilt's. And I have agreed with many of the points that YOU have made for Russell. However, I have found NOTHING in ANY of Simmons' writing that is even close to being correct. Even his ridiculous comment that Wilt was traded twice for "pennies on the dollar" was an absolute falsehood. And, BTW, EVERY team Wilt was traded to improved, and EVERY team he left, declined. Furthermore, if you take a look at those trades after several SEASONS (plural), you will see that the team that Wilt went to became GREAT...and the team's he left either were a non-factor, or were, like the Sixers, a JOKE within a few years.

Simmons' made a comment that the Lakers voted 9-2 AGAINST acquiring Wilt in the '65 season. I am not sure if that is really true (WEST wanted Wilt badly)...BUT, in any case, take a look at what happened next. Wilt went to a bottom-dwelling 76er team, and IMMEDIATELY almost led that rag-tag team to one of the greatest upsets in NBA post-season history (Wilt's 40-40 Sixers lost a game seven, by ONE point, to the 62-18 Celtics.) From the '66 to '68 seasons, Philly had the BEST record in the league, and they WON a TITLE in '67. AND, after LA finally pulled the trigger, and acquired Wilt, they went to four Finals in five seasons. They won 60+ games twice. And they won a TITLE (the first ever in LA history) in the '72 season (and not coincidently, after Baylor was gone.)

The bottom line...Simmons had an anti-Wilt agenda...and it was the most baseless opinions that I ever read on the subject.

[G.O.A.T]

We need to consolidate this discussion.

I feel like were going in circles.

Here are the areas of contention I have with you.

Cousy vs. Rodgers

For the purposes of our disuccsion it's only relevant to look at them from 1959-1963; they both played in the same league, one with Wilt one with Russell.

Rodgers posted the following seasons:

11-6-6-39%
12-6-7-39%
13-7-9-39%
8-5-8-36%
14-5-10-39%

While Cousy posted:

20-6-9-38%
19-5-10-38%
18-4-8-37%
16-4-8-39%
13-3-7-40%

They basically shot the same percentage and added the same thing to their teams with the exception of scoring. However when you consider that Rodgers center took 15 more shots per game, it stands to reason why Cousy scored more, his team needed him to. Rodgers is also usually considered an above average defender, whereas Cousy was considered a bit careless on that end.

As for shooting percentages, almost a dead heat, as I have always stated.

I'd say that overall paints a picture of two fairly equal players. I'd give the edge to Cousy, but I can't dismiss Rodgers as some scrub as I feel you try to.

Russell didn't dominate Wilt head to head

Statistically, no he didn't and if that's all your point is than I concede it. However in game seven of the 1962 EDF when Wilt who averaged 50 gets 22 or 28 points below his average and Russell hits his season clip with 19...which team do you think has the edge? That's a 28 point advantage to Russell...that's domination.

What makes Wilt's 1967 season so spectacular was that he was able to dominate statistically at an even greater clip than he and his team was accustomed to that year. Wilt was almost always fantastic in the playoffs, especially big games. I cited that in my opening post about Simmons argument as one of the clear biases he showed.

Most of the time, Wilt couldn't keep up his regular season dominance against Russell for an entire series. That put his teammates in spots they weren't used to in the biggest moments of the season. A leader can't do that and expect to win. It's not Wilt's fault his team lost, without him they usually wouldn't be where they were, but they didn't win because of him either and that's the point.

From 1960 to 1965 Wilt was on teams with worse records than Russell's and Russell was the leagues MVP in four of six seasons. Russell won all four of their playoff meetings. That is to be expected and can not be held up as proof that Russell was better or that he dominated Wilt for his career.

From 1966 to 1969 Wilt had a team good enough to finish with ahead of Russell's Celtics and gain HCA in the playoffs. Wilt always had two of the NBA's greatest 50 players on his team, the same number Russell had. Wilt won three MVP's in four seasons. They played four playoff series and Russell still won three of four. That's domination plain and simple.

7 out of 8 total and 3 of 4 without an edge in talent or the home court and with three more years on his body.


Anyway...I'll start with those two. Feel free to through one or two in if you feel the need to.

[jlauber]

Cousy vs. Rodgers

For the purposes of our disuccsion it's only relevant to look at them from 1959-1963; they both played in the same league, one with Wilt one with Russell.

Rodgers posted the following seasons:

11-6-6-39%
12-6-7-39%
13-7-9-39%
8-5-8-36%
14-5-10-39%

While Cousy posted:

20-6-9-38%
19-5-10-38%
18-4-8-37%
16-4-8-39%
13-3-7-40%

They basically shot the same percentage and added the same thing to their teams with the exception of scoring. However when you consider that Rodgers center took 15 more shots per game, it stands to reason why Cousy scored more, his team needed him to. Rodgers is also usually considered an above average defender, whereas Cousy was considered a bit careless on that end.

As for shooting percentages, almost a dead heat, as I have always stated.

Cousy was past his prime in those five years (he was already 30 by then), and he STILL put up better overall numbers. BUT, Cousy in his PRIME, in the mid-50's, was shooting very close or exceeding the league average. Rodgers never shot the league average in his entire career, and once again, he had seasons in which he was WAY BELOW the league average. I can't imagine shooting .347 in a league that only shot .446, but Rodgers pulled it off in the '67-68 season.

Russell didn't dominate Wilt head to head

Statistically, no he didn't and if that's all your point is than I concede it. However in game seven of the 1962 EDF when Wilt who averaged 50 gets 22 or 28 points below his average and Russell hits his season clip with 19...which team do you think has the edge? That's a 28 point advantage to Russell...that's domination.

That was a low point total for Wilt's entire season. BUT, interestingly, if you read the write-up on that game, it was observed that WILT was dominating the game DEFENSIVELY. Furthermore, take a look at what Chamberlain's teammates shot in the '62 post-season. All of them shot poorly during the regular season, and ALL of them shot either worse, or MUCH worse in the playoffs. True, Wilt' scoring was down (my god, he averaged 50 ppg during the regular season), but he "only" averaged 38 ppg on .471 shooting against Russell during the regular season, so 33 ppg on .469 shooting was not a big decline.

BUT, the real bottom line in that '62 ECF's...how do you explain Wilt taking a vastly overmatched team, player-for-player, to a game seven, TWO-point loss? WILT was the ONLY reason that Philly made a series of it.

Most of the time, Wilt couldn't keep up his regular season dominance against Russell for an entire series. That put his teammates in spots they weren't used to in the biggest moments of the season. A leader can't do that and expect to win. It's not Wilt's fault his team lost, without him they usually wouldn't be where they were, but they didn't win because of him either and that's the point.

Wilt was EXPECTED to do MUCH more than Russell...plain-and-simple. Russell could put up a 10-20 game, and he was basically playing a normal game. If Wilt had a game like that, he was considered AWFUL. Jeez, in game two of the '62 ECF's, Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20...and Chamberlain's TEAM eked out a seven-point win.

Furthemore, while Wilt put up a 28 ppg, 30 rpg, .509 series against Russell in the '66 ECF's, Wilt's TEAMMATES shot the following: Greer was at .325. Walker was at .375. Jackson was at .429. Jones was at .325. And Cunningham was at .161. And, it was WILT who was considered the "goat" in that series loss????

From 1966 to 1969 Wilt had a team good enough to finish with ahead of Russell's Celtics and gain HCA in the playoffs. Wilt always had two of the NBA's greatest 50 players on his team, the same number Russell had. Wilt won three MVP's in four seasons. They played four playoff series and Russell still won three of four. That's domination plain and simple.

I hate having to go thru these again, but here goes. In the '66 season, Philly won their last 11 regular season games, to edge out a veteran Boston team by ONE game (55-25 to 54-26.) Furthermore, Boston had just won seven straight NBA titles. Does anyone really believe that the Sixers were a better team? In any case, as I posted above, it was CLEARLY not Wilt's fault that Boston beat them in that series. Not ONE teammate played well.

In the '68 ECF's, Philly was already without HOFer Cunningham. Then Luke Jackson went down with an injury in game five (and while he played, he was worthless.) We also KNOW that Wilt was hobbled in game six (he was noticeably limping with a deep thigh injury), and then it appears that Wali Jones was playing hurt as well. On top of ALL of that, Wilt's teammates did not PASS the ball to Wilt in that game seven, and they shot a combined 33%...and Boston pulled out a four point win.

Let's get real here. Had the '68 Sixers been healthy, it would have been a repeat of the '67 ECF's when they just destroyed Boston. Furthermore, let's REVERSE the scenario...and say that the Sixers had been healthy in that series, and Boston was playing without say Havlicek for the entire series, and then have maybe Howell go down in game five (and I doubt the series would have even gotten that far BTW)...how does Russell's Celtics fare in that case?

As for '69, I have long maintained that the Lakers were NOT a better team. Yes, they had a better record that season, 55-27 to 48-34, but Russell missed several games to injuries. And I really believe that the aged Celts were pacing themselves in that season. BUT, take a close look at the two rosters. The Lakers had a prime West, an over-the-hill Baylor, a shackled Wilt, and virtually no one else. Boston could go TEN deep. Even if we would have given a slight edge to LA in players 1-3, Boston CLEARLY was better 4-10.

On top of that, take a look at that series. LA won the first two games, to go up 2-0. It was still 2-1 when, in game four, in Boston, the Lakers had an 88-87 lead AND the ball, with only seconds remaining. Now remember, they traded all-star Archie Clark to get Wilt (one of THREE players traded for Wilt), and they had lost HOFer Gail Goodrich to the expansion draft before the season. So, it was Johnny Egan who was handling the ball in those last seconds, and he lost the damn the ball. Sam Jones, while falling down, hit a miraculous shot at the buzzer to win the game for Boston, 89-88. In game five, Wilt dominated Russell, and the Lakers won easily, 117-104. Had Egan been able to hold onto the ball in game four...ONE STINKIN' PLAY...and the Lakers would have romped to a 4-1 series win.

And we all know how game seven went. Van Breda Kolf LOST the game, and the series for LA...and Russell was nowhere to be found in the last quarter.

So, NO, NONE of that is "DOMINATION." The facts were, when Wilt had a healthy and equal supporting cast, as was the case in '67, he CRUSHED Russell (as he almost always did), and his teammates neutralized Russell's edge...and the result was a resounding 4-1 series blowout win over Russell and the "Dynasty." BTW, while Wilt was putting up a 46 point game in the clinching game five loss in the '66 ECF's, Russell was putting up a FOUR point game in the clinching game five loss in '67.

Now...THAT is DOMINATION.

7 out of 8 total and 3 of 4 without an edge in talent or the home court and with three more years on his body.

Here again, Wilt was statistically outplaying Russell in ALL of those series...some by HUGE margins ('64, '65, and '67.) Furthermore, FOUR of those EIGHT series came down to a TOTAL of NINE points...COMBINED. Once again, with everything that went against Wilt...the poor rosters; the poor officiating and miracle shot in '62; the poor rosters in '65 and a sensational steal by Havlicek to save the win for Boston; the horrible play by Wilt's teammates in '66; the incredible rash of injuries in '68; the bone-headed play by Egan in game four of the '69 Finals, or Baylor scoring a TOTAL of 24 points in games three thru five (two of the close losses), or the stupidity of Van Breda Kolf, or the TWO miraculous shots in that series by Boston players...

that is how close Wilt was to having a 5-3 edge in rings. Furthermore, have Wilt and Russell swap rosters from '60 thru '65, and Wilt probably has a 6-0 edge in rings in those years.


Once again, I am not debating the greatness of Russell, but there was clearly NO domination between the two.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

As a matter of fact, I will show you domination:

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

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


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

[G.O.A.T]

This is why Bill Bradley was almost President

"Wilt played the game as if he had to prove himself to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed to his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his basketball ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant certainly nonessential. The point of the game is not how the individual does, but rather the team wins."

that says it better than I can.

[jlauber]

This is why Bill Bradley was almost President

"Wilt played the game as if he had to prove himself to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed to his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his basketball ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant certainly nonessential. The point of the game is not how the individual does, but rather the team wins."

that says it better than I can.

Here again, are you blaming WILT for Russell's 7-1 edge in rings??? My god, a play here-or-there, or a made shot, here-or-there, or a better decision by a coach, here-or-there...and Wilt could have had a 5-3 edge in rings (and swap rosters, and who knows, but clearly Wilt would have had an edge.)

Once again, if we were to believe Simmons' take on the Russell-Wilt rivalry, one would come away thinking that Russell completely dominated Wilt, and that Wilt "choked", and that Russell's teams romped to that 7-1 edge. The FACTS were, Wilt not only usually outplayed Russell, there were many games in which he crushed Russell. Even in game seven's. And, Chamberlain's TEAM's came within an eyelash of knocking off Russell's TEAM's in at least FOUR of those EIGHT series. And, maybe Wilt deserved a smidgeon of blame in some of them, but the truth was, without Wilt, those team's would have had no chance.

[jlauber]

This is why Bill Bradley was almost President

"Wilt played the game as if he had to prove himself to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed to his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his basketball ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant certainly nonessential. The point of the game is not how the individual does, but rather the team wins."

that says it better than I can.

Here again, an interesting take by Bradley. considering that Chamberlain overcame the poor play by West in the '72 Finals, and dominated the Knick team, winning the Finals MVP in the process.

How about Walt Frazier's take on Wilt in 2010?

http://nba.fanhouse.com/2010/07/16/w...ay-hed-averag/

FanHouse caught up with Frazier to get his take on the LeBron move, who the best players in league history are, and why Wilt Chamberlain would average 75 points per game if he was in the NBA today

[G.O.A.T]

Here again, are you blaming WILT for Russell's 7-1 edge in rings???

No, I am celebrating Russell for his seven one edge over Wilt head to head. The fact that no matter who had the better talent around them or the home court advantage it was the less physically gifted and traditionally skilled Russell who emerged victorious.

My god, a play here-or-there, or a made shot, here-or-there, or a better decision by a coach, here-or-there...and Wilt could have had a 5-3 edge in rings (and swap rosters, and who knows, but clearly Wilt would have had an edge.)

And if Red stays one more year or the Warriors are healthy in 1967 Finals and Oscar doesn't get hurt in 1972 maybe Wilt wins zero titles.

If and buts are such weak arguments for someone with as much knowledge of the game as you.

And if you swap rosters for their whole careers, Russell still gets more rings than Wilt.

Once again, if we were to believe Simmons' take on the Russell-Wilt rivalry, one would come away thinking that Russell completely dominated Wilt, and that Wilt "choked", and that Russell's teams romped to that 7-1 edge.

I didn't come to that conclusion. You are not being fair to the argument because the person who made it has a bias against Wilt. (I agree he does btw)

The FACTS were, Wilt not only usually outplayed Russell, there were many games in which he crushed Russell.

No facts there unless you are speaking statistically. Russell's game was about winning. The only way to crush him was to win on the scoreboard. He didn't care about anything else.

Even in game seven's. And, Chamberlain's TEAM's came within an eyelash of knocking off Russell's TEAM's in at least FOUR of those EIGHT series.

And yet never won once in those game sevens...at some point it stops being coincidence.

And, maybe Wilt deserved a smidgeon of blame in some of them, but the truth was, without Wilt, those team's would have had no chance.

With the exception of the '69 Lakers, I don't think anyone in their right mind would disagree.

I have never tried to "blame" Wilt for anything except not having the right attitude about what was important in basketball.

Wilt was not a great winner for two reasons.

The first is Bill Russell, the second is Wilt Chamberlain.

Early in his career he'd have won sometimes regardless, he was just so much better. Later he prevented himself from reaching his potential by being distracted by stupid goals and statistical accomplishments.

When winning was most important to him, he won or came damn close. The problem was it usually wasn't most important.