Caption this pic

[AirFederer]

I`ll go first:

"So sorry Laz, but you drove him to it"

[AirFederer]

Laz: Sorry, I need the mic for another 50 minutes, I have a lot of random stats I`d like to read. Hopefully he`ll be buried today, still.

[ISHGoat]

Laz: Sorry, I need the mic for another 50 minutes, I have a lot of random stats I`d like to read. Hopefully he`ll be buried today, still.

Laz: "Chamberlain in 28 H2H matchups against a PEAK Kareem averaged ... "

Wilt: "Just ****ing cremate my body already"

[Lebronxrings]

Laz: Sorry, I need the mic for another 50 minutes, I have a lot of random stats I`d like to read. Hopefully he`ll be buried today, still.

[Dr Hawk]

Laz: Sorry, I need the mic for another 50 minutes, I have a lot of random stats I`d like to read. Hopefully he`ll be buried today, still.

Laz: "Chamberlain in 28 H2H matchups against a PEAK Kareem averaged ... "

Wilt: "Just ****ing cremate my body already"

I love Laz though

[r0drig0lac]

Laz: "Chamberlain in 28 H2H matchups against a PEAK Kareem averaged ... "

Wilt: "Just ****ing cremate my body already"

[StephHamann]

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.

[AirFederer]

Laz: "Chamberlain in 28 H2H matchups against a PEAK Kareem averaged ... "

Wilt: "Just ****ing cremate my body already"

[AirFederer]

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.

That`s quite the catchy caption, man

[swagga]

I`ll go first:

"So sorry Laz, but you drove him to it"

"20k >>>>>> 100, that's my true testament"