My analysis of the Sixers vs Celtics 1967 footage(Prime Wilt vs Russell)

[G.O.A.T]

More blocks, more steals, bigger body, more rebounds, bigger presence...

Everything tells me he was. Reading up about it, many say Wilt would have led the league in both steals and blocks had it been recorded at the time.

Most historians believe Russell averaged more blocks for most of their careers. Harvey Pollack (Philadelphia statistican) said it's the only stat that Russell consistently beat Wilt in. Pollack does however think the 29 blocks he once recorded Wilt having in a game were an NBA record.

Never read anything where anyone said Wilt led the league in steals but would love a reference if you have one.

Russell averaged more rebounds in the playoffs and also keep the majority of his blocks in play.

No one besides Wilt himself would ever say he was a better defender than Russell the questioned greatest ever on that end.

[plowking]

Almost nothing in this post is accurate. Wilt went 1-3 with better talent (based on HOF'ers, stats, all-stars, age, perception, regular season wins) around him then Russ and Wilt was in his prime and Russ past his.

Ironically the only one who agrees with you is Wilt himself who as you noted tended to brag and exaggerate.

"Boston just wasn't much of a team until Russell showed up"

Now you're arguing Wilt had better talent around him? Point out which years exactly you believe this holds true.

And Boston were a very good team before Russell showed up.

[jlauber]

Wilt did spend most of the 80's and 90's trying to convince people he was better than Russell though.

That is true. I was doing the same thing. But, even Wilt, later in his life, and after he and Russell patched up their 20 year hatred, came to accept that Russell made those Celtic teams great...and begrudgingly admitted that Russell blended better with them thatn he would have.

Chamberlain also was on record, even when the two were not speaking, that Russell was more consumed with winning, than he (Wilt) was.

[plowking]

Wilt did spend most of the 80's and 90's trying to convince people he was better than Russell though.

Because he was? Though I'm guessing you're one that believes Russell was better?

[dough]

If you give Wilt that talent that Russell had around him, that team would have gone on to win 15 titles, let alone 11 in my opinion.

This is false. People will bring up the fact that Russ played with so many Hall of Famers. A couple of things: KC Jones might be the worst HOF player (9 year career starting 4 of those, never being an All Star, carreer averages of 7.5 points, just over 4 ast and shooting under39% from the field)...., and he's one of those 'great' players. Simmons once again put this on paper quite well. "Over a ten year span, Russell's teams clearly had more talent than Wilt's teams for four seasons (61, 62, 63 and 64), and a slight edge in Wilt's first season (60). In 65, Phi and Bos were a wash. From 66 through 69, Wilt played for stronger teams, making the final record 5-4-1, Russell."

And for six seasons of those 10, the teams weren't that far apart. It's a fable which has grown stronger over the years, like so many stuff which reaches 'legendary' status. In the years after Russell retired, the Lakers went to the Finals first, then lost to the eventual Champions when losing West to an injury and became champions in 72. In 73 the lost the finals against the Knicks.

Wilt's career: Playing in 64 finals and losing. Then played on teams which were close to the finals or a ring for 9 years. And won two. Only two rings, because Wilt did not understand the game of basketball well enough to win it all, untill he realized it was a team sport. For only one year, after which he set a silly personal goal again.

Another thing to point out when you're talking about Wilt's teams supposedly not being good enough: loads of people did not want to play with him. Red Auerbach went on record to say he wouldnt want to coach a 'prima donna' like Wilt. West and some other Lakers blocked a trade which wouldve sent Wilt to LA earlier. They didnt want to play with him, even though he could be had on the cheap. Which brings me to another point. Would the greatest player be traded as many times as Wilt was?

Also, although the NBA Top 50 list is a bit flawed, you can 'only' find 4 players on the list to play with Russell. While Wilt played with six players on that same list. All Stars? From 57-69 Russells teammates made up for 26 all star selections. Wilt's teammates from 60-73? 24. Not too far off either. The whole 'worse teammates' has been hugely exaggerated.

He needed to be selfish. His team mates were no better than Wade's today, and a guy like Wade is criticized to take more shots, yet with Wilt, he's criticized for taking to many.

False. Bob Petit, Macauley, Slater Martin, Jack Coleman, Cliff Hagan, Arizin, Guy Rodgers, Tom Gola, Sauldsberry, Meschery, Attles, Naulls, Thurmond, Greer, Lucious Jackson, Chet Walker, Costello, Cunningham... hardly trash, and surely no need to be selfish. Wade however plays with Beasley, a washed up O'Neal, a chubby Qrich etc. You really want to go on record saying Wilt didnt play with greater players than those?

And as history shows us, when Wilt finally did get some talent (still not to the level of Russell's team IMO) he was able to lead them to a championship, while also arguably being the best team to ever do it.

No, when Wilt realized he didnt do what it takes to win. When Wilt suddenly saw he had talent on his team and started trusting teammates, making his team better, he won.

[dough]

I HAD to look up this short anecdote.

San Fransisco shopped Wilt in 1965, and the Lakers management was intrigued. Then-Owner Bob Short asked his players for a vote to decide whether or not they'd bring Wilt on board. The Lakers players voted 9 against, 2 pro. They would just have to BUY Wilt, and the players voted against it. Wilt thought Baylor and West were afraid Wilt would take their shine or glory. Ask those Lakers to vote for the same opportunity to bring Russell aboard and the tally is 0 against, 10 pro.

Alos a nice read: The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor.

[plowking]

I disagree about Wilt ever having a better team bar when he got to the Lakers. Greer and what not are great though I'd take Sam Jones and Havlicek over just about all of them.

You mentioned he had better talent in 65, yet his team only won 17 games I believe. I doubt Wilt's impact is that negative...

[G.O.A.T]

Now you're arguing Wilt had better talent around him? Point out which years exactly you believe this holds true.

And Boston were a very good team before Russell showed up.

How do you have 14,000 posts and not know this stuff?

1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 Wilt had better supporting casts.

In 1966, Wilt's first full-season in Philadelphia the 76ers finished with the best record in the NBA, one game ahead of the Celtics. Wilt played with two all-stars in their prime. Another Hall-of-famer and future ABA MVP off the bench and very good role players like Wali Jones and Luke Jackson each 24 years old and in their prime. They also had veterans with chmapionship experience in Dave Gambee and Al Bianchi off the bench at the end of their rotation.

The Celtics had lost Cousy, Sharman, Ramsey and Hiensohn to retirment over the previous three seasons and Russell and the Jones boys were all in their thirties. (Old by 1960's NBA standards).

The Celtics had four future HOFers and one of them in their prime (Hondo, barely) and the 76ers had three plus Chet Walker and all except Billy C were in their prime.

The Celtics role players were Larry Seigfried (unsigned free-agent), Don Nelson (cut by Lakers) and Willie Naulls (32 years old)

In 1967 and '68 the Celtics got older, KC retired and only Havlicek got better.

Wilt closed out his prime and the other five top players for Philly were still in theirs. The Sixers won 8 more games then Boston each of those seasons and btw had the leagues MVP, Wilt all the while.

In 1969 Chamberlain joined Elgin Baylor (1st team all-NBA in '68 and '69) and Jerry West (1969 Finals MVP) to form what many thought was the greatest team ever.

Boston won 44 games that year and the next after Russell won the title they fell off the earth.

Also Boston was NOT a great team before Russell. They never won anything. Never got to the Finals let alone won it. They lost to the Knikcs three straight times, then to the Nats three straight times, Russell showed up and they never lost to a team without the guy who retired as the games all-time leading scorer on it again in the playoffs. (Pettit in '58, Wilt in '67)

[G.O.A.T]

I disagree about Wilt ever having a better team bar when he got to the Lakers. Greer and what not are great though I'd take Sam Jones and Havlicek over just about all of them.

You mentioned he had better talent in 65, yet his team only won 17 games I believe. I doubt Wilt's impact is that negative...

No, no, no

Wilt was traded from the Warriors to the Sixers in the 1965 season. No team had a better record than Philly once Wilt got there.

[plowking]

Howell, Havlicek and Jones are quite easily better than Greer, Walker and Cunningham. Not to mention the Celtic players were better defensively and as a unit.

[plowking]

No, no, no

Wilt was traded from the Warriors to the Sixers in the 1965 season. No team had a better record than Philly once Wilt got there.

If better record was all that mattered people would have declared the Cavs better than the Lakers last year, but hardly anyone jumped the gun.

Boston was a better defensive side as a unit and it showed down the line.

And enough with the superiority stance, you look like an ass dude.

[dough]

Howell, Havlicek and Jones are quite easily better than Greer, Walker and Cunningham. Not to mention the Celtic players were better defensively and as a unit.

WHAT?

[dough]

And enough with the superiority stance, you look like an ass dude.

Actually he doesn't. He looks like he knows the game and it's history. You on the other hand....claiming Jones is greater than Hal, Billy or Chet. Or Wilt was superior to Russell defensively. That's just nonsense.

[BlueandGold]

Wilt along with Michael are considered to be two of the best basketball players ever.

[G.O.A.T]

If better record was all that mattered people would have declared the Cavs better than the Lakers last year, but hardly anyone jumped the gun.

Boston was a better defensive side as a unit and it showed down the line.

And enough with the superiority stance, you look like an ass dude.

Sorry for giving that impression to you, but if you didn't even know he was traded, why comment, why not ask a question.

The Celtics were the leagues worst defensive team the year before and after Russell btw...

Howell, Havlicek and Jones are quite easily better than Greer, Walker and Cunningham.

Really?

Because that's not what anyone else would say. That's a pretty close comparrison career-wise and in 1966, the Sixers trio was easily better.