Bleacher Report exposes Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game

[ClipperRevival]

While I'm not disagreeing with you or clipper revival...

STOP DOING THIS...

Like seriously lol, I mean, I get doing it once but don't you just bold it. Jk

While I'm not denying that wilt outplayed Russell, I will say that I dont think Russell was exactly a box score stuffer.

I mean, I kind of understand how the celtics would be really close with the wilts teams.

i think we all agree that Russell is the best defender ever.

I personally would not call him the best post defender ever, yes, he is one of the best, top 5 for sure, but Thurmond was superior in this regard.

Now, his off-ball impact was immense, the only person who could even score in the pick and roll against him was Oscar, and it might have been a fluke,

But with wilt being the type of guy you need to occupy at all times, I wonder how Russell's off-ball impact would work out when defending wilt.

I mean, looking at the 1967 I think series in the end of game 3, I can't remember it vividly but Russell looked as if the only thing he could do was defend wilt man to man in that game. Might have been a matchup advantage,

I am probably wrong in this, but it's just a thought.

Honestly, here's how I always view it, to build a team, I would pick wilt, to build a dynasty, I would pick Russell.

Also, in 1968, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't celtics win by 4 points on average in the rs anyway?

(Now, this is because there were a ridiculous amount of blowouts, but still)

Russell didn't care about stats. All he wanted to do was win. He would do whatever the team needed to win. His teams usually had enough scoring so he focused on defense, rebounding, outlet passing and just being the enforcer on the court, trying to win the mental battle every night.

[jlip]

Anyone who actually read the history and not the box score knew that the 100 point game wasn't a normal game. But then the league was very different back then and much smaller. They needed the spectacle to survive. A lot of that era should just be considered on it's own apart from the modern era because it's not really a valid comparison. Wilt's 45 rebound game is probably as unbreakable at this point as his 100 point game.

What "spectacle"? The game was not on camera, and it barely got any news coverage the next day.


Also Wilt's rebounding record is 55 not 45.

[LAZERUSS]

While I'm not disagreeing with you or clipper revival...

STOP DOING THIS...

Like seriously lol, I mean, I get doing it once but don't you just bold it. Jk

While I'm not denying that wilt outplayed Russell, I will say that I dont think Russell was exactly a box score stuffer.

I mean, I kind of understand how the celtics would be really close with the wilts teams.

i think we all agree that Russell is the best defender ever.

I personally would not call him the best post defender ever, yes, he is one of the best, top 5 for sure, but Thurmond was superior in this regard.

Now, his off-ball impact was immense, the only person who could even score in the pick and roll against him was Oscar, and it might have been a fluke,

But with wilt being the type of guy you need to occupy at all times, I wonder how Russell's off-ball impact would work out when defending wilt.

I mean, looking at the 1967 I think series in the end of game 3, I can't remember it vividly but Russell looked as if the only thing he could do was defend wilt man to man in that game. Might have been a matchup advantage,

I am probably wrong in this, but it's just a thought.

Honestly, here's how I always view it, to build a team, I would pick wilt, to build a dynasty, I would pick Russell.

Also, in 1968, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't celtics win by 4 points on average in the rs anyway?

(Now, this is because there were a ridiculous amount of blowouts, but still)

A few points. Even Tom Heinsohn and KC Jones have acknowledged that Russell needed a TEAM effort to stop Wilt. And there is a Costas interview with both Wilt and Russell, in which Chamberlain commented that Russell almost always had help in defending him (and Russell sat silently when Wilt made it.)

As for '68. Not sure what your point was. Wilt's Sixers were clearly a better team...in the RS. BUT, the team that waltzed to the best record in the league, was not the same team that battled Boston in the '68 EDF's.

I'll let PHILA help out with this...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...1&postcount=14

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...6&postcount=13

Keep in mind that with an injured Wilt, and without HOFer Cunningham, the Sixers STILL jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. BTW, as a sidenote, Chamberlain destroyed Russell in game five...in what could have been the clincher...had he not lost TWO more starters in that game.

A healthy '68 Sixer team would have easily repeated their annihilation of the Celtics in '67.

[LAZERUSS]

I was watching a documentary on them and they said Russell was 0-7 in game 7s. If you can't trust a documentary, what can you trust? But doing quick research, I think Wilt was 0-4 in game 7s, as you suggested.

But anyways, Wilt clearly had the superior team in 3 seasons.

1967 - No explanation needed.
1968 - Wilt's 76ers were 62-20 and Celtics were 54-28
1969 - Wilt's Lakers were 55-27 and Celtics were 48-34. No one expected the Celtics to even have a chance. That was Russell's last year and he was on his last legs.

Not in the post-season.

Again...thanks to PHILA's research...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...1&postcount=14

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...6&postcount=13

That Sixer team, including Wilt himself, was so riddled with injuries that they weren't even favored in their first round matchup against the Knicks.

[LAZERUSS]

What "spectacle"? The game was not on camera, and it barely got any news coverage the next day.


Also Wilt's rebounding record is 55 not 45.

Interesting too...in that game, he outrebounded Russell, 55-19.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

A few points. Even Tom Heinsohn and KC Jones have acknowledged that Russell needed a TEAM effort to stop Wilt. And there is a Costas interview with both Wilt and Russell, in which Chamberlain commented that Russell almost always had help in defending him (and Russell sat silently when Wilt made it.)

As for '68. Not sure what your point was. Wilt's Sixers were clearly a better team...in the RS. BUT, the team that waltzed to the best record in the league, was not the same team that battled Boston in the '68 EDF's.

I'll let PHILA help out with this...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...1&postcount=14

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...6&postcount=13

Keep in mind that with an injured Wilt, and without HOFer Cunningham, the Sixers STILL jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. BTW, as a sidenote, Chamberlain destroyed Russell in game five...in what could have been the clincher...had he not lost TWO more starters in that game.

A healthy '68 Sixer team would have easily repeated their annihilation of the Celtics in '67.

Well, I'm not denying any of that.
When I was talking about 68, it was because you said that the celtics won by 4. I'm think they won by 1 that year in game 7. I wasn't being serious lol, and I did hear about the injuries before,

I mean, I'm not surprised about that part about defending wilt. My point is more that I believe Russell was better as an off-ball defender. More so because while he was good on-ball, top 5 all time easily, when it came to off-ball defense, judging by how dominant he was as a defender he probably was just a monster.
I think he might have had to be more active defending wilt.

I've always maintained that I believe wilts peak was in 67 and 68. I believe those are the years where he really played the best role he could, if you know what I mean. While the 24-24-8 stuff is great, what I find more impressive is how ridiculously good the team was offensively, because of wilt.
I feel like while wilt obviously had a worst supporting cast, I feel like, other than his rookie season, I don't think the celtics had a 50% win record with Russell injured.

When I said stop doing this I meant capitalizing lol. Just kidding of course.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Interesting too...in that game, he outrebounded Russell, 55-19.

Well, I don't think we are doubting wilts rebounding abilities. He was the best all time in that regard.

If deandre can average 15 per 36, I think wilt would average 16.5 per 36

I mean, I recall his rebounding percentage in his final season was 20 ish right?

Judging from what I've seen, rebound rate has a +-3 deviation when it comes to a players peak vs old age/injury, so it wasn't an "derp era thing" by any means

Considering that he wasn't a rebounding specialist and was an all around player (I maintain that his impact for many years was more balanced)
I think it was more impressive than deandre for sure.
Tbh, I don't get the arguement that if player A can do this, then why can't player B do this, because great short rebounders exist in any era
(Elgin, Dennis, Shawn)
Sadly, he still can't beat frequency vibrations, the best pg in nba history.

[feyki]

60-63 Wilt = Prime Ivy

64-68 Wilt = Prime Kareem,Bill,Jordan,Mikan

69-73 Wilt = Prime Thurmond

.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

From accounts of how it went down, the Warriors spent almost the entire fourth quarter fouling to get the ball back and force-feeding Chamberlain the ball. New York coach Eddie Donovan said, 'The game was a farce. They would foul us and we would foul them.' Chamberlain's shot attempts by quarter: 14, 12, 16, 21. You think in a blowout in today's game that a team would keep feeding their star like that?

That's actually a pretty valid point. Has any of the players' teams that were capable of giving Wilt's 100 a run for it's money done anything like that? I mean, didn't Kobe sit out after scoring 60 in 3 quarters? Were they even force-feeding him the ball that whole game, giving him that many shot attempts every quarter, and then fouling immediately to stop the clock and get the ball back as soon as possible? I don't know, mangs. I feel like if Jordan's Bulls, Shaq's Lakers, etc did what the Warriors did against like a 76'er's ish caliber team that they would have a legit shot at matching if not exceeding Wilt's record as long as they also stayed in for the full 48.



They could do the same when it comes to his 48 rebounds record and others as well, I'm sure. I mean, what other superstar's team went to such lengths in order to procure records like this man's did? I can't think of any even coming remotely close. Hell, my boy Leonard wasn't even allowed to break 30 for the longest because Pop would take him out whenever he'd get close.

[julizaver]

Imagine the insane numbers a modern day stat padder like Lebald could put up in that exhibition era

OK, we send the so called modern "Lebald" in the 60s era:

1) Take away his modern day equipment (shoes for example)
2) Play 4 games in 4 days - on the road with 60s busses and airplanes (no private/team jets with special designed seats. We could only imagine how his back would feel in the mornings.
3) Let him eat fast food.
4) Give him the same medical care, which the players from 60s receive.
5) Let him play in hot/cold arenas without air conditioning (remember the Cramp Game ?), with public smoking. Let him breath the smoke and shoot with cold hands the 60s ball.
6) Let him dribble on 60s parquet floor with holes on it.
7) No 3pt shooting
8) Others.

How do you think a pampered modern day proffesional player would feel after half a season playing under 60s conditions ? Could he have play in all the minutes in all the games during since he cramped in modern arena (once the aircon was absent) ?

With that said I have no doubth that Lebron would put some elite numbers during his first games - probably some Elgin Baylors numbers, but I doubt he would approach Wilt's level of dominance and would have 70-40 games. Did someone think that he could grabbed 55 rebounds playing vs Russell or aproach other Wilt's stuff at the time. I don't believe.