You're gonna try to tell me Wilt killled this thing with his bare hands?

[LAZERUSS]

Here comes the excuses, coaches, other players and so on..
I already said if Russell had 8 titles and Wilt had 6, everything considered I would rank Wilt the greater player..But Wilt had great supporting castes from 65-73 and only won 2 titles..

The Celtic players don't agree that they would have won 6 with Wilt...Russel obviously added more value to a basketball team then Wilt did. Individual stats don't add to wins.

And the whole how many HOF Russell played with vs how many Wilt played with is ridiculous. Of course Russell's teammates are going to have better careers. They played with Russell not Wilt....The ultimate team player who did nothing but make his teams better vs an individual dominating ball stopper.

I could go on for hours about the above, but no need. Up to the fist half of the 64-65 season, and taking Arizin and his three seasons playing with Wilt (and his scoring did not drop much from his previous seasons before Wilt), and Thurmond, who backed Wilt up for a season, and Wilt did not play with a single player who would ever average 20 ppg after that. In other words, these players were no better before, during, or after Wilt. Hell, some players had their best scoring seasons with Wilt (Gola, later Greer, and much later Goodrich.)

Meanwhile, Russell not only played with 20 ppg scorers, they each had multiple seasons of 20+ ppg. Players like Cousy, Heinsohn, Sharman, Sam Jones, and Havlicek, and later on Bailey Howell, who had mutliple 20 ppg seasons before playing with Russell. And Jones had some very high scoring post-seasons, as well. Not only that, but a post-Russell Havlicek had seasons of as high 28 and 29 ppg. Russell was clearly surrounded by some exceptional offensive players, who proved that they scould score with, and without him.

And it seems like you are blaming Chamberlain for being a "ball-stopper." First of all, even in his 44.5 ppg season, he averaged 3.4 apg (with a pathetic cast of shooters), and later, in his 33.5 ppg season, he averaged 5.2 apg. Secondly, it was Wilt's COACH, who took one look at the cast of clowns that he had, who asked Wilt to score 50 ppg. It was not Chamberlain's idea.

And of course the Celtic players are going to make the claim that they would have played worse with Wilt. Perhaps, but we will never know for sure. What we do know, however, was that Wilt pretty much did whatever his coach's asked of him. Do you think MJ would have cut his shooting nearly in half from one to the next, like Wilt did from '66 to his '67?

[DatAsh]

I

Meanwhile, Russell not only played with 20 ppg scorers, they each had multiple seasons of 20+ ppg. Players like Cousy, Heinsohn, Sharman, Sam Jones, and Havlicek. And Jones had some very high scoring post-seasons, as well.

Coming from you, it's pretty disingenuous to compare Russell's teammates' ppg to Wilt's. If there were equal opportunity there, that would be one thing, but there wasn't.

[LAZERUSS]

Coming from you, it's pretty disingenuous to compare Russell's teammates' ppg to Wilt's. If there were equal opportunity there, that would be one thing, but there wasn't.

You obviously didn't read my entire post.

Wilt played with exactly ONE player who ever averaged 20+ ppg, either before, during, or after Chamberlain, from his rookie season, up until mid-season in the 64-65 season. That excludes Thurmond, who was a part-timer mainly backing up Wilt for a season, and Willie Naulls, who, BTW, played even worse with Russell, than he did with Wilt. And even Arizin's ppg did not drop much when he was paired with Wilt, compared to pre-Chamberlain.

Players like Guy Rodgers, Tom Meschery, Al Attles, and Tom Gola...none of them were significant scorers with, or without Chamberlain. And yet, that is what Wilt was paired up with for nearly the first half of his career.

So it was not like Wilt was holding those guys back. And once again, players like Gola, Meschery, Greer, and Goodrich, had their best scoring seasons with Wilt, while players like West and Baylor did not drop dramatically when Wilt arrived.

Take a look at Wilt's 62-63 roster. Take away a washed up Naulls, and the only player to ever average even 18 ppg in their entire career, was Guy Rodgers, who was arguably the worst shooter of all-time. Most of them enevr averaged even 12 ppg. I would argue that Wilt's coach should have asked Chamberlain to shoot MORE in 62-63. He shot .528 from the field, while his teammates collectively shot .412. And BTW, do you honestly believe that Russell could have gotten more from that cast of clowns?

[DatAsh]

You obviously didn't read my entire post.

Wilt played with exactly ONE player who ever averaged 20+ ppg, either before, during, or after Chamberlain, from his rookie season, up until mid-season in the 64-65 season. That excludes Thurmond, who was a part-timer mainly backing up Wilt for a season, and Willie Naulls, who, BTW, played even worse with Russell, than he did with Wilt. And even Arizin's ppg did not drop much when he was paired with Wilt, compared to pre-Chamberlain.

Players like Guy Rodgers, Tom Meschery, Al Attles, and Tom Gola...none of them were significant scorers with, or without Chamberlain. And yet, that is what Wilt was paired up with for nearly the first half of his career.

So it was not like Wilt was holding those guys back. And once again, players like Gola, Greer, and Goodrich, had their best scoring seasons with Wilt, while players like West and Baylor did not drop dramatically when Wilt arrived.

I read your entire post. The point is still disingenuous. Many of those guys very well may have been 20+ ppg scorers playing for the Celtics.

The problem is that you continually spin, leave out, and-or distort any information that doesn't fit your agenda. Most people don't pick up on this stuff because they don't know anybetter. So while you may come off as incredibly knowledgeable to the ignorant, you come off as knowledgeable yet extremely biased to the more informed.

[LAZERUSS]

I read your entire post. The point is still disingenuous. Many of those guys very well may have been 20+ ppg scorers playing for the Celtics.

The problem is that you continually spin, leave out, and-or distort any information that doesn't fit your agenda. Most people don't pick up on this stuff because they don't know anybetter. So while you may come off as incredibly knowledgeable to the ignorant, you come off as knowledgeable yet extremely biased to the more informed.

They may have scored 20+ ppg playing alongside Russell, but we will never know. What we do know, however, is that they never came close to it, with, or without Wilt.

As for being biased...we all are to some extent. In any case, those that claim that Russell somehow "owned" Chamberlain (and I am not directing that at you BTW), simply because he held a 9-1 edge in h2h seasonal rings, ignore the reality that Russell played with significantly better rosters in six of those ten seasons. And overall, Chamberlain's team's came within game seven margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points, from having a 5-3 edge in their playoff h2h's. And you would be hard-pressed to find any evidence which conclusively proved that Russell was outplaying Wilt in any of their eight post-season h2h series. In fact, it was quite the contrary. There were instances in which Wilt was just wiping the floor with Russell.

I will agree, though, that Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's...and in many cases, by huge margins. Russell deserves some of the credit, and perhaps Wilt deserves some of the blame. Still, judging by the considerable differences in surrounding talent in their first six h2h seasons, I can't see Russell doing any more with what Chamberlain had to work with.

And here again, for those that claim that Russell "owned" Chamberlain, how do they explain this? Going into game five of the '66 ECF's, Wilt's Sixers were faced a 3-1 deficit, and a "must-win" game. Wilt responded with a 46-34 game, but it was still not enough.

A year later, it was now Russell who was faced with the same exact scenerio. His Celtics were down 3-1 (and had narrowly avoided a sweep in game four.) How did he respond under the same situation? He scored four points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds (while Chamberlain hung a 29 point, 10-16 shooting, 13 assist, 36 rebound, 7 block game on him), in a blowout loss.

Where were Russell's dominating games against Chamberlain? I could list a ton of games, both regular season, and post-season, in which Wilt completely outplayed Russell. And aside from game four of the '60 ECF's, when Wilt was playing with wat was thought to be a broken hand, you probably won't find any other games in which Russell had any sizeable margin against Wilt.

[MARLO]

Back on topic..

[KG215]

He kind of eased into, but jlauber is officially back. Maybe that'll pull GOAT out of retirement to keep his extremely biased and manipulative posting in check. If not, DatAsh, it's all on you, because I don't know nearly enough about that era and I can't wade through his walls of text.

[stanlove1111]

I read your entire post. The point is still disingenuous. Many of those guys very well may have been 20+ ppg scorers playing for the Celtics.

The problem is that you continually spin, leave out, and-or distort any information that doesn't fit your agenda. Most people don't pick up on this stuff because they don't know anybetter. So while you may come off as incredibly knowledgeable to the ignorant, you come off as knowledgeable yet extremely biased to the more informed.

Like when he talks about Baylor being on his last legs in 68-69 ( nba first team that year ) as a reason that Wilt didn't lead them to a title, but doesn't mention that Jones and Russell were on their last legs and about to retire..IS this the type of thing you were talking about?

[KG215]

Like when he talks about Baylor being on his last legs in 68-69 ( nba first team that year ) as a reason that Wilt didn't lead them to a title, but doesn't mention that Jones and Russell were on their last legs and about to retire..IS this the type of thing you were talking about?

Again, I don't know as much about that era as Ash and jlauber, but that sounds like him. Ignores context and perspective from the Russell/Celtics side, and constantly downplays Wilt's teammates. Kind of similar to how Kobe stans try to downplay Shaq and Pau.

[kshutts1]

Because you got an old man saying "How many 27 rebound games did x have?" Like players today have a chance at grabbing 27 rebounds The league average is around 42 rpg in today's era, while in the 60's the league average was over 65 rpg. The FGA average is around 80 today, while in the 60's it was around 100-105 FGA, and the FG% was lower back then meaning even more missed shots. So when you got someone saying "How many 30 rebound games did blank have compared to Wilt?", it's plain retardation because it's a different era. I have tried explaining this to his Alzheimer's brain, but to no avail.

Clearly didn't read my post in full. I mentioned "relative" stats being important (Wilt vs same-era players is eye-opening) while comparing across eras (Wilt vs Shaq) is incredibly difficult because of many of the reasons you mentioned.

If someone wants to say Wilt is better than Dirk, fine (I agree). But don't use just numbers, Wilt vs Dirk, to back it up. Use Wilt-above-league-average vs Dirk-above-league-average, or some other league-relative reference.

[stanlove1111]

They may have scored 20+ ppg playing alongside Russell, but we will never know. What we do know, however, is that they never came close to it, with, or without Wilt.

As for being biased...we all are to some extent. In any case, those that claim that Russell somehow "owned" Chamberlain (and I am not directing that at you BTW), simply because he held a 9-1 edge in h2h seasonal rings, ignore the reality that Russell played with significantly better rosters in six of those ten seasons. And overall, Chamberlain's team's came within game seven margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points, from having a 5-3 edge in their playoff h2h's. And you would be hard-pressed to find any evidence which conclusively proved that Russell was outplaying Wilt in any of their eight post-season h2h series. In fact, it was quite the contrary. There were instances in which Wilt was just wiping the floor with Russell.

I will agree, though, that Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's...and in many cases, by huge margins. Russell deserves some of the credit, and perhaps Wilt deserves some of the blame. Still, judging by the considerable differences in surrounding talent in their first six h2h seasons, I can't see Russell doing any more with what Chamberlain had to work with.

And here again, for those that claim that Russell "owned" Chamberlain, how do they explain this? Going into game five of the '66 ECF's, Wilt's Sixers were faced a 3-1 deficit, and a "must-win" game. Wilt responded with a 46-34 game, but it was still not enough.

A year later, it was now Russell who was faced with the same exact scenerio. His Celtics were down 3-1 (and had narrowly avoided a sweep in game four.) How did he respond under the same situation? He scored four points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds (while Chamberlain hung a 29 point, 10-16 shooting, 13 assist, 36 rebound, 7 block game on him), in a blowout loss.

Where were Russell's dominating games against Chamberlain? I could list a ton of games, both regular season, and post-season, in which Wilt completely outplayed Russell. And aside from game four of the '60 ECF's, when Wilt was playing with wat was thought to be a broken hand, you probably won't find any other games in which Russell had any sizeable margin against Wilt.

Where are the stats for defense? Russell was the greatest ever at that and there really is no stat for it..So sitting here listing stats means nothing.

Obviously if you look at their careers Russell's game was more valuable to a team that Wilts. I don't care about individual stats, that's only part of the story. IF this wasn't the case Russell wouldn't have won 13 titles in his last 15 years of basketball ( lost once when hurt ) and Wilt would have won more then 2 titles in 14 years withall that talent he played with.


When a see someone stats obsessed like you and there are way too many on this board I have to wonder if you have ever played basketball or rally know anything about it..The goal is not to get the best individual stats that you can, the goal is to go out there and do what you have to do for your team to win..Thats the difference between the two for most of their careers. Russell knew what to do to bring home a title, Wilt went out to put up great individual stats.

[Scholar]

No, OP, I'm gonna tell you that Wilt killed that thing with his bear hands.

[305Baller]

Also Wilt had sex with 10 million women.
He jumped over mount everest and dunked.
He had a blue cadillac that was the first hover car.

Look it up.

[LAZERUSS]

Where are the stats for defense? Russell was the greatest ever at that and there really is no stat for it..So sitting here listing stats means nothing.

Obviously if you look at their careers Russell's game was more valuable to a team that Wilts. I don't care about individual stats, that's only part of the story. IF this wasn't the case Russell wouldn't have won 13 titles in his last 15 years of basketball ( lost once when hurt ) and Wilt would have won more then 2 titles in 14 years withall that talent he played with.


When a see someone stats obsessed like you and there are way too many on this board I have to wonder if you have ever played basketball or rally know anything about it..The goal is not to get the best individual stats that you can, the goal is to go out there and do what you have to do for your team to win..Thats the difference between the two for most of their careers. Russell knew what to do to bring home a title, Wilt went out to put up great individual stats.

Russell more valuable to his team than Wilt was to his? Nobody is arguing Russell's success, but the fact was, Chamberlain was drafted (in high school BTW), to what was a last-place team, that was on the decline. Russell was drafted/traded to a Celtic team that was a playoff team. Not only that, but in the same draft Boston picked up Heinsohn. How good was that Celtic team? They went 28-20 with Russell, and 16-8 without him.

The next season they snagged Sam Jones and improved to 49-23. You mentioned that they lost a title without him. Russell was injured in game three, and Boston lost 111-108, to fall behind in the series, 2-1. They won game four, without him, 109-98. They lost game five, without him, 102-100. And they lost game six, with him doing little and only playing about half of the game, 110-109. So, yes, they surely would have won that series with a healthy Russell, but let's not act like they were still not a very good team without him.

And the Celtics would continue to improve and replace. Russell was paired up with his HOF teammates for 71 full seasons. Let's compare that with Wilt... 27 full seasons. Granted, not all of Russell's teammates were legitimate HOFers. KC Jones was never even an all-star, nor was Satch Sanders deserving, either. But both were widely acknowledged as among the best defensive players of their era. Frank Ramsey shouldn't be in the Hall, either, but he was still a very good "6th man." And while I don't believe that Bailey Howell should be in the HOF, he was a very good scorer long before Boston picked him up, and he was a solid 20 ppg scorer, on very good efficiency, with the Celtics.

The rest...Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and Havlicek...all exceptional players. As posted earlier, all were legitimate 20+ scorers, and all probably would have scored considerably more on another team. In fact, Havlicek was a near 30 ppg scorer after Russell retired.

And don't forget the role players, either. They would add pieces like Lovellette, who was a 20 ppg scorer just the eyar before. Or an Em Bryant, or a Wayne Embry, or a Larry Siegfried, or a Don Nelson. All valuable contributors, on deep rosters.

And while the Celtics were getting older each year in the decade of the 60's, they were still formidable into Russell's last season. Clearly, they were no longer interested in battling for the best record, and they paced themselves. But that was still a solid and deep roster into Russell's last season.

And when Russell surprised the Celtics with retirement, they had no plan in place to replace him. They immediately plummetted in the 69-70. Why? Because they had Henry Finkle playing the center position. But they drafted Dave Cowens the very next year, and became competitive again, going 44-38. The very next season they had the best record in the East, at 56-26. And in the 72-73 season, and only four years after Russell's retirement, they set a still-record team mark of 68-14. And then they would go onto win two titles in three years.

As for Wilt, once again, drafted by a last-place team. And, unlike the Celtics, their roster became older and worse. And if we are to say that some of Russell's teammates were not legitimate HOFers, then the same can be said for Tom Gola. Not only was Gola a slightly above average player, at best, he was arguably the worst post-season "HOF" player of all-time. And that was before, and during the Wilt-era. And even the one legitimate HOF player that Chamberlain had early in his career, Arizin, also flopped in two of his three post-seasons with Wilt.

And I have pointed out what Chamberlain accomplished with those Warrior teams earlier. Basically this...taking a last-place roster, that would get older, and worse, to competitive playoff series against Russell in '60 and '64. And in the '62 post-season, and with his teammates collectively shooting .354 over the course of the playoffs, Chamberlain single-handedly carried them thru the first round, and then took them to a game seven, two-point (controversial) loss, against the 60-20 HOF-laden Celtics.

And once again, the 63-64 Warrior team was basically Chamberlain...and a cast of misfits.Yes, Nate Thurmond was on that team, and he contributed some, but he was a rookie, playing part-time, mostly out of position (he very sldom backed up Wilt), and shooting .395. And yet, Wilt took that horrible roster to a 48-32 record, and then, with one of the greatest playoff series of all-time, he single-handedly carried them past a 46-36 Hawk team that was better from 2-6...(a 39 ppg, 23 rpg, .559 series.) And while Boston, with their 8-2 edge in HOFers, won the Finals, 4-1, the last two wins were in the waning seconds. All Chamberlin did in that series, and being swarmed for much of it, was average 29 ppg, 28 rpg, and shoot .517, while holding Russell to 11 ppg, 25 rpg, and.386 shooting.

Once again, what was interesting about the 63-64 Warriors, who again, went 48-32, was that their second best player was Tom Meschery. As posted earlier, the Warriors traded Chamberlain to the Sixers for three players (one of them Paul Neumann.) Nate Thurmond moved to the pivot to replace Chamberlain, and would go on to have a HOF career. The next season, 65-66, the Warriors drafted HOFer Rick Barry, and even with Nate, Rick, Neumann, and Meschery, they still only went 35-45. Then the very next season they added Jeff Mullins, Clyde Lee, and Fred Hetzel. Here was a team with Meschery now being nearly as effective, but only their seventh best player...and still only going 44-37 (and losing to Wilt's 68-13 Sixers in the Finals.)

And I have covered the Celtics-Sixers battles from 65-66 thru 68-69 ad nauseum. Boston was a better team in 65-66, despite their record, and Russell's teammates wiped out Wilt's.

Chambelain's 66-67 Sixers destroyed Boston early in the season, 138-96, and never looked back. They rolled to a 45-4 record, and coasted to a 68-13 mark, which blew away the NBA record at the time. And in the ECF's, and with Chamberlain dominating Russell in every facet of the game, they bombed the Celtics, 4-1.

And the 67-68 season was much the same. Philly ran away with the best record in the league, beating Boston by eight games. And even without HOFer Billy Cunningham, they were still leading Boston in the ECF's 3-1. In fact, even Red Auerbach all but gave up, making the comment following their game four loss, "It's too bad, because people will forget just how great he [Russell] was." However, the Sixers had two more key starters go down in game five, and with even Chamberlain fighting an assortment of injuries (and as Russell would claim, "A lessor man would not have played"), Boston eked out a 100-96 game seven to win the series. Clearly, a healthy Sixer team wins easily, and probably duplicates their '67 effort (4-1.)

The 68-69 Lakers were basically a prime West, a shackled Wilt, a declining Baylor, and a cast of misfits. And to make matters worse, they were coached by a man who made it clear that he despised Wilt...to the point that he was benching him during the season (and keep in mind that Chamberlain had a 20.5 ppg, 21.1, 4.5 apg, .583 season), and then, at the absolute worst time, benched him again...all in a two point game seven loss. How incompetent was Van Breda Kolf? He made this comment during the season, "When we pass the ball into Wilt, we will score. But it is an ugly offense to watch." So, instead he chose to ride the shot-jacking Baylor, whose offensive ineptitude was so bad that he had the worst FG% (.385) on the team in the post-season.

It has been said that Russell did everything he could to win. True, but he didn't have to do nearly as much as Chamberlain had to. Nor did he have to deal with incompetent and stubborn coach's, or choking teammates. in fact, while Chamberlain's routinely puked all over themselves in the post-season, Russell's were elevating their play. Even Russell admitted that Sam Jones won several series for Boston, and he and Nelson killed Wilt's team's at cirtical times in a couple of series. As did Havlicek, including the famous, "Havlicek stole the ball!"

And once again, given the fact that Russell's teams won four game seven's against Chamberlain's, and by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points, he certainly wasn't dominating Wilt.

FWIW, John Wooden made the comment that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters in their careers, that Wilt probably would have won as many rings. Maybe, maybe not, and we will never know, but I suspect that it would have at the very minimum, been much closer.

[Heavincent]

You guys ruined my thread.