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

[G.O.A.T]

In the '67 ECF's, Wilt's teammates finally outplayed Russell's. And, as always, Chamberlain easily outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell. The Sixers nearly swept Boston, only losing game four in Boston, 121-117. In the clinching game five loss, Russell scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and seven assists. Philly swamped Boston in that game, 140-116, and Wilt had a 29 point, 10-16 shooting, 36 rebound, 13 assist game. And while Wilt finally received some respect, there was no criticism of Russell

You have to at least tell the truth. Russell took a TON of criticism.

He was booed loudly during game two at home despite having won eight consecutive titles.

His decision to stay with his pressing line-up in that game was questioned all-off season. People said he couldn't coach and play and keep winning.

Numerous articles were written saying it was Auerbach that was the key to the Celtics titles, not Russell.

The Boston Globe called for Russell to step down as coach and stop his "political stunt"

The reason people don't criticize him anymore is because he came back the next two years as a major underdog and won the title both times as player/coach.

[jlauber]

You have to at least tell the truth. Russell took a TON of criticism.

He was booed loudly during game two at home despite having won eight consecutive titles.

His decision to stay with his pressing line-up in that game was questioned all-off season. People said he couldn't coach and play and keep winning.

Numerous articles were written saying it was Auerbach that was the key to the Celtics titles, not Russell.

The Boston Globe called for Russell to step down as coach and stop his "political stunt"

The reason people don't criticize him anymore is because he came back the next two years as a major underdog and won the title both times as player/coach.

I meant that there was no criticism of Russell's OFFENSE in that series, particularly that clinching game five loss.

[G.O.A.T]

I meant that there was no criticism of Russell's OFFENSE in that series, particularly that clinching game five loss.

I apologize, I misinterpreted.

I don't think anyone ever expected Russell to outscore Chamberlain or carry the Celtics with his offense for consecutive games. If anything I'd expect his inability to limit Chamberlain during key stretches of games in that series the way he had in the past would be called into question.

[kizut1659]

GOAT - I find the quote about Wilt's not adopting by West bizzare. Not counting his 6 games in 1969-1970, as a Laker, Wilt averaged 10.8, 12.2. 7.9 and 6.8 FGA a game - this is LESS FGA than Russel averaged throughout his career! For the playoffs Wilt averaged 9.8, 16, 15.5. (with boty west and baylor injured) 9.5, and 6.8. Again, how is this being selfish? At the same time, West averaged ahout 20-23 FGAs. . . basically anywhere from 1.5 to almost THREE times as much as Chamberlain! So whose fault was it that the Lakers came short most of the years? Why should Russel get credit for winning when scoring 13-20 pts a game on 45% and Chamberlain should be blamed for losing when scoring 13-20 pts a game on 55% (or higher - see 72-73% percentage?)

I frankly think that if if Wilt would have been given 20 FGAs a game during his Laker years, they would have won at least couple of more championships. (e.g. in 1973 finals - where Wilt played poorly by his standards but still for 22 for 42, by comparison Jim McMillian shot 41 for 104. 3 games were decided by less than 5 points. Don't you think that the Lakers could (and I am not saying would) have won if they played smarter?)

[G.O.A.T]

GOAT - I find the quote about Wilt's not adopting by West bizzare. Not counting his 6 games in 1969-1970, as a Laker, Wilt averaged 10.8, 12.2. 7.9 and 6.8 FGA a game - this is LESS FGA than Russel averaged throughout his career! For the playoffs Wilt averaged 9.8, 16, 15.5. (with boty west and baylor injured) 9.5, and 6.8. Again, how is this being selfish?

I think your missing the point West is making. It's not about how many shots Wilt takes, it's about the number he takes is on his terms, not the teams. In some games they needed him to shoot more, in others he was more valuable as a defensive anchor and the outlet pass for a transition game...the problem was, Wilt usually decided before the season what his individual goal was and that trumped the team goals that may have been set.

At the same time, West averaged ahout 20-23 FGAs. . . basically anywhere from 1.5 to almost THREE times as much as Chamberlain! So whose fault was it that the Lakers came short most of the years?

I'm not sure what shot attempts have to do with anything.

Why should Russel get credit for winning when scoring 13-20 pts a game on 45% and Chamberlain should be blamed for losing when scoring 13-20 pts a game on 55% (or higher - see 72-73% percentage?)

Because stats don't matter as much as the final score. Russell's main contributions were not his scoring or shooting percentages. Now if he had focused really hard on it one season he probably could have averaged 25 a game on 50%...but the Celtics would not have been world champions, so what would have been the point?

Also I don't think Wilt should get blamed necessarily

I frankly think that if if Wilt would have been given 20 FGAs a game during his Laker years, they would have won at least couple of more championships. (e.g. in 1973 finals - where Wilt played poorly by his standards but still for 22 for 42, by comparison Jim McMillian shot 41 for 104. 3 games were decided by less than 5 points. Don't you think that the Lakers could (and I am not saying would) have won if they played smarter?)

History has always suggested that the fewer shots Wilt takes, the better his team does.

In his five seasons with the Warriors their greatest success came in 1964 when they won 48 games and Wilt's first division title and reached the Finals with Wilt averaging his lowest PPG, (36.9) and FGA (28.7) totals in a Warrior uniform.

In Four seasons with the 76ers their greatest success was when they won the Championship in 1967 when he averaged his lowest PPG (24.1) and FGA (14.2) totals in a 76er uniform.

In his first four seasons in Los Angeles their greatest success came in 1972 when they won the Championship while Wilt averaged his lowest PPG (14.8) and FGA (9.3) totals to his career at that point.

So, no you don't want Wilt taking 20 shots a game, but that doesn;t mean you don;t want him taking 20 shots in some games...like say the 1973 NBA Finals.

In 1973 the Lakers returned to the Finals and for some reason Wilt decided not to end his career by dominating against the Knicks and instead made Goodrich, McMillan and West try to score against Walt Frazier and Dave Debusschere, probably the best two defenders in the NBA and the guy who went against them everyday in practice NBA legend Earl Monroe. The trio took nearly 60 shots per game in the series. Meanwhile Wilt, still a superior athlete capable of battling a 25-year old Kareem and playing against a broke down 6'9" Willis Reed and a broke down 6'8" Jerry Lucas took just 8 shots per game and just seven combined in losses in games two and three.

[Psileas]

In his five seasons with the Warriors their greatest success came in 1964 when they won 48 games and Wilt's first division title and reached the Finals with Wilt averaging his lowest PPG, (36.9) and FGA (28.7) totals in a Warrior uniform.

This was his most efficient season up to that point, but I don't think it explains by itself the fact that Wilt made the Finals. The Warriors were in the West, so there would be no Celtics in front of them before the Finals. Once they got there, it was one of the same-actually the Celtics won the series more easily than any time before. Neither were 48 wins unprecedented for his teams-they won 49 games in 1960 (in fewer games as well) and in 1962 (while sending the Celtics to 7 games as well).

So, no you don't want Wilt taking 20 shots a game, but that doesn;t mean you don;t want him taking 20 shots in some games...like say the 1973 NBA Finals.

In 1973 the Lakers returned to the Finals and for some reason Wilt decided not to end his career by dominating against the Knicks and instead made Goodrich, McMillan and West try to score against Walt Frazier and Dave Debusschere, probably the best two defenders in the NBA and the guy who went against them everyday in practice NBA legend Earl Monroe. The trio took nearly 60 shots per game in the series. Meanwhile Wilt, still a superior athlete capable of battling a 25-year old Kareem and playing against a broke down 6'9" Willis Reed and a broke down 6'8" Jerry Lucas took just 8 shots per game and just seven combined in losses in games two and three.

The '72 Lakers won with Wilt taking few shots against a weaker frontline than the '73 Knicks' (OK, maybe not as few as in '73, but still nowhere near 20). I haven't read anywhere that Wilt did something against the team plan when doing this. I haven't read blames from his teammates about him not shooting 20 times a game and neither have I read about his coach suddenly telling him to shoot a lot more.
Wilt might have statistical agendas (much like a lot of superstars after him), but he didn't do things that went against his coaches' will (even if, at times, he disagreed with the plans). He didn't enter, for example, the '62 season intending to average 50 ppg-instead, we read that his coach asked him to, and similarly, his coach asked him to cut down his shots in the playoffs. The only time that he might have done something different to what his coach would want to, may be the time he led the league in assists, but then again, he came close to doing this in 1967 as well. Maybe he even intended to do so in '67 as well, but the fact that he ended up "only" third, as well as the fact that he won the championship, not only took all blames from him, but it's widely considered the GOAT season, or, at worst, among the very best. And honestly, so would 1968, if things in the end ended up a little different.

[kizut1659]

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I think your missing the point West is making. It's not about how many shots Wilt takes, it's about the number he takes is on his terms, not the teams. In some games they needed him to shoot more, in others he was more valuable as a defensive anchor and the outlet pass for a transition game...the problem was, Wilt usually decided before the season what his individual goal was and that trumped the team goals that may have been set.[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]


Thats probably true of early Wilt but i doubt he had any specific goals during his Laker days. Do you think he "decided" before the 1971 season to only average 8 shots per game? No, he was convinced to do it by Bill Sharman.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T] I'm not sure what shot attempts have to do with anything.[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]

Yes they do, its hypocritical for a player average twice as many shots attempts as the guy shooting a much higher FG% and yet accuse the other of selfishness.


[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
Because stats don't matter as much as the final score. Russell's main contributions were not his scoring or shooting percentages. Now if he had focused really hard on it one season he probably could have averaged 25 a game on 50%...but the Celtics would not have been world champions, so what would have been the point?

Also I don't think Wilt should get blamed necessarily [QUOTE=G.O.A.T]

Both stats and final score matter. Russel did not average 25 on 50% not because he was so unselfish but because he couldn't. He never shot higher than 46% and had many seasons of 42-43% so why are you assuming he could have shot 50% taking even more shots?

History has always suggested that the fewer shots Wilt takes, the better his team does.

In his five seasons with the Warriors their greatest success came in 1964 when they won 48 games and Wilt's first division title and reached the Finals with Wilt averaging his lowest PPG, (36.9) and FGA (28.7) totals in a Warrior uniform.

In Four seasons with the 76ers their greatest success was when they won the Championship in 1967 when he averaged his lowest PPG (24.1) and FGA (14.2) totals in a 76er uniform.

In his first four seasons in Los Angeles their greatest success came in 1972 when they won the Championship while Wilt averaged his lowest PPG (14.8) and FGA (9.3) totals to his career at that point.

So, no you don't want Wilt taking 20 shots a game, but that doesn;t mean you don;t want him taking 20 shots in some games...like say the 1973 NBA Finals.

In 1973 the Lakers returned to the Finals and for some reason Wilt decided not to end his career by dominating against the Knicks and instead made Goodrich, McMillan and West try to score against Walt Frazier and Dave Debusschere, probably the best two defenders in the NBA and the guy who went against them everyday in practice NBA legend Earl Monroe. The trio took nearly 60 shots per game in the series. Meanwhile Wilt, still a superior athlete capable of battling a 25-year old Kareem and playing against a broke down 6'9" Willis Reed and a broke down 6'8" Jerry Lucas took just 8 shots per game and just seven combined in losses in games two and three.

The reason Wilt's teams lost during the first 7 seasons was that his supporting case was worse - plain and simple. I agree with LJabauer on that point. The 1966-1967 Philly won BOTH because Chamberlain shot less and because he finally had a good supporting cast. I am not saying they would have won if Wilt would have averaged 50pts (even though 1962 team came close) but if he would have averaged 20 FGA from 1966 through 1968 - heck yeah, they would have won. Bill Russel averaged 16 FGAs frtom 1959 through 1963 on FG% ranging from 42 to 46% - so why would it be terrible for a superior scorer to average 20 FGA?

Same for the Lakers. I think the Lakers won in 1971-1972 because of retirement of Baylor and superior defense under Bill Sharman - not because Chamberlain shooting so little. I do not see how you can blame Wilt for the 1973 finals. Given how egotistical the guy was, do you think he wanted to shoot so little? He is a center, not a point guard - so it was not under his control how much he got the ball. I saw one of the games actually and was shocked how little he touched the ball. So he didn't make "Goodrich, McMillan and West" try to score - they tried to do it all by themselves and lost.

[jlauber]

I apologize, I misinterpreted.

I don't think anyone ever expected Russell to outscore Chamberlain or carry the Celtics with his offense for consecutive games. If anything I'd expect his inability to limit Chamberlain during key stretches of games in that series the way he had in the past would be called into question.

I agree with this 100%. Once again, it is somewhat of a double-standard. Wilt was EXPECTED to score, rebound, pass, and play defense. Russell was expected to rebound, pass, and play defense.

I am not arguing the fact that Russell "held" Wilt down much better than anyone else, but from '60 to '66, Wilt HAD to score 30+ points to even have a chance of winning. And there were games in which Chamberlain scored 40, 50, and even 60 points, and his TEAM STILL lost to Russell's Celtics.

Perhaps he should have shot more later in his career, but he did whatever his COACHES asked him to do. I always found it fascinating that from '67 thru the '69 seasons, Wilt "only" averaged 24.1, 24.3, and 20.5 ppg. But, before the '69-70 season, Wilt's NEW coach, Joe Mullaney, asked Wilt to become the focal point of the offense. And Wilt responded by averaging 32.2 ppg over the course of his first nine games (with games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43 points), but in that ninth game, he suffered that devastating knee injury, and he was never quite the same after that (although, just using his power, he still had many games of 30+ points.) Even at nowhere near 100%, he still put up a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 series in the '70 Finals.

And some here criticize Wilt by saying that his play "dropped" in the post-season. First of all, his rebounding increased considerably in the post-season...and he was outrebounding players like Russell, Thurmond, and Kareem...and in some series, by HUGE margins.

Secondly, Wilt faced a HOF center in about two-thirds of his 160 post-season games. And, out of those, he faced Russell 49 times.

Finally, Wilt had two distinctly different halves of his career (in fact, it was three, but I won't use the post-injury portion as separate.) So, in the first half of his career, he had his "scoring" seasons, and in the second half of his career, he cut back his shooting (for a variety of reasons...but mostly because his COACHES asked him to.) Now, in the first seven years of his career, he averaged 39.4 ppg...COMBINED. However, in the first half of his career, he only played in SIX post-seasons. He missed the post-season in his 62-63 season, which was a year in which he averaged 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting. Why is that important? Because, for one, he averaged 33 ppg in those six post-seasons, (but here again, he missed that high-scoring 62-63 season.) And secondly, he only played in 52 of his 160 post-season games during his "scoring" seasons. Let's conservatively estimate that Wilt would have averaged 35 ppg in the 62-63 post-season, had he been able to play.,,and over the course of a normal post-season. It would have raised his post-season scoring to nearly 26 ppg, instead of the 22.5 that it is now. So, instead of scoring at 8 ppg less than his regular season average, it would have only been at a little over 4 ppg.


But, back to the original point, which was that Russell was never expected to score...BUT, Wilt was. And he DID. Once again, Wilt was EXPECTED to put up 30-30 games against Russell, but Russell was only expected to put up 15-20 games against Wilt. AND, Wilt nearly averaged a 30-30 game against Russell over the course of their 142 H2H games. Yet, his team's only went 57-85 against Russell's.

I won't dispute that Russell elevated his team considerably more than Wilt did his...but, for at least six of their ten seasons together, Russell had superior rosters. And, even in the last four years, the differences in talent were not significant. Russell NEVER had a roster like Wilt did in his 62-63, 63-64, and 64-65 seasons, either (particularly that awful 62-63 roster.) In fact, Russell's teams held anywhere from a two to SEVEN edge in HOFers for the majority of their 10 seasons together, and furthermore, Russell had an edge in HOF teammates EVERY year they played together.

I have grown to appreciate Russell's true impact, thanks in large part to your posts, but Simmons goes out of his way to disparage Wilt at every opportunity...and he was clearly wrong in the vast majority of his writings on the subject.

[G.O.A.T]

Boston 1969
John Havlicek 22-7-5-41% - 13x all-star (prime)
Bailey Howell 20-9-2-49% - 6x all-star (late prime)
Sam Jones 16-4-3-45% - 5x all-star (past prime)
Larry Seigfried 14-4-5-38% - Cut by multiple teams
Don Nelson 12-6-1-49% - Cut by Lakers
Tom Sanders 11-7-1-43% - (past prime)

How is that significantly better than what Wilt had in 1962 or 1964

In '62 he has Arizin, Meschery, Attles, Gola and Rodgers and Andy Johnson.

In '64 He still has Attles, Meschery and Rodgers and adds Nate Thurmond, Gary Phillips and Wayne Hightower.

Those are not discernibly different teams.

[kizut1659]

Boston 1969
John Havlicek 22-7-5-41% - 13x all-star (prime)
Bailey Howell 20-9-2-49% - 6x all-star (late prime)
Sam Jones 16-4-3-45% - 5x all-star (past prime)
Larry Seigfried 14-4-5-38% - Cut by multiple teams
Don Nelson 12-6-1-49% - Cut by Lakers
Tom Sanders 11-7-1-43% - (past prime)

How is that significantly better than what Wilt had in 1962 or 1964

In '62 he has Arizin, Meschery, Attles, Gola and Rodgers and Andy Johnson.

In '64 He still has Attles, Meschery and Rodgers and adds Nate Thurmond, Gary Phillips and Wayne Hightower.

Those are not discernibly different teams.

I think 1969 Celtics are slightly better than what Wilt had in 1962 and 1964 just because of Havlicec - top 15 player in his prime. That said, Lakers should have won but they were a dysfunctional team with an idiot coach. Somewhat similiar to 2004 Lakers/Pistons where a team wins in significant part because the other team self-destructs.

[jlauber]

Boston 1969
John Havlicek 22-7-5-41% - 13x all-star (prime)
Bailey Howell 20-9-2-49% - 6x all-star (late prime)
Sam Jones 16-4-3-45% - 5x all-star (past prime)
Larry Seigfried 14-4-5-38% - Cut by multiple teams
Don Nelson 12-6-1-49% - Cut by Lakers
Tom Sanders 11-7-1-43% - (past prime)

How is that significantly better than what Wilt had in 1962 or 1964

In '62 he has Arizin, Meschery, Attles, Gola and Rodgers and Andy Johnson.

In '64 He still has Attles, Meschery and Rodgers and adds Nate Thurmond, Gary Phillips and Wayne Hightower.

Those are not discernibly different teams.

Not sure if you were addressing this post to me, or not, but here was Russell's cast in '62:

Heinsohn 22.1 HOFer
S. Jones 18.4 ppg HOFer
Cousy 15.7 ppg HOFer
Ramsey 15.3 ppg HOFer
S. Sanders 11.2 defensive specialist
KC Jones 9.2 ppg defensive specialist HOFer

And, in the post-season, the Celts had Russell at .458, then S. Jones at .444, Sanders at .431, KC Jones, at .431, Heinsohn at .399, Ramsey at .375, and Cousy at .357.

The Warriors had Wilt at .467, Meschery at .397, Arizin at .375, Attles at .368, Rodgers at .359, and Gola at .271.

So, despite sthe HUGE difference in talent, scoring, and shooting, the Warriors lost a game seven by TWO points.


How about '64?

The Warriors had TWO HOFers...Wilt, and rookie Thurmond who averaged 26 mpg, shot .395, and was playing out of position.

How about Boston? Russell, Havlicek, Heinsohn, S. Jones, KC Jones, Lovelette, and Ramsey...ALL in the HOF. Not only that, but they had S. Sanders and Naulls. Player-for-Player they were CLEARLY better than the supporting cast that Wilt was saddled with.


Now, how about '69, when there are those that say that the Lakers were "heavy" favorites.

Boston's roster:

Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones, Howell...ALL in the HOF. THEN they had Nelson, Siegfried, Sanders, E. Bryant, and even Don Chaney for 20 games. That is NINE quality players.

The Lakers had West, in his prime, Baylor who was well past his prime (and don't give me his fifth in MVP balloting...he was AWFUL in the post-season, and would be third-bit player in the post-season the next year)...and a Wilt who was shackled by his incompetent coach. After that was journeyman Mel Counts, who Van Breda Kolf chose to play over Wilt in the last five minutes of game seven. Johnny Egan, who would have not played a minute had the Lakers not traded all-star guard Archie Clark for Wilt (along with Darrell Imhoff, Jerry Chambers, and a boatload of cash)...and then lost HOFer Goodrich to the expansion draft. The rest of those that played significant minutes were the oft-injured Keith Erickson, and Bill Hewitt. Tom Hawkins played about 10 mpg in the post-season. IF LA had an edge in players 1-3, the Celtics were DRAMATICALLY better in players 4-9. In fact, the Lakers basically played SEVEN players in the post-season.

When fans look at the two teams, they see a Laker team that went 55-27, and a Celtic team that went 48-34. BUT, the aged Celtics were obviously pacing themselves for the post-season.

And here again...take a look at everything that went against the Lakers in the Finals that year: Boston hit TWO miraculous shots to win two games. Egan, who should not have even handled the ball in the waning seconds of game four, lost the damn ball, which led to one of those miraculous shots at the buzzer. Had Egan been able to hold onto the ball, LA probably wins that series, 4-1.

Then, Baylor, who was Van Breda Kolf's personal favorite, averaged 15.4 ppg on a .385 FG% in the post-season, AND, in games three, four, and five, he scored a COMBINED 24 points. And two of those games were close losses.

Then, we have Van Breda Kolf not even having a clue on how to use Wilt. In the post-season, Wilt 10 shot FGAs per game, and scored a by-far-and-away (at the time) career low 13.9 ppg (albeit, on .545 shooting.) There was no offensive game plan at all for Chamberlain...the game's greatest scorer.

Finally, we had the brilliant Van Breda Kolf keeping Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of a game in which Boston was fading fast, and riding Mel ****ing Counts to a TWO-point loss.

The more I study that series, the more amazed I am that LA even made it to a game seven, much less only losing it by two points. And, had any ONE of the above mentioned not occurred, and LA wins that series...perhaps in as little as five games.

[jlauber]

BTW, let's clear up a couple of issues with Wilt's 68-69 Lakers.

Wilt was traded from the Sixers for all-star guard Archie Clark, journeyman center Darrell Imhoff, part-timer Jerry Chambers, and a boat-load of cash. BUT, Philly did NOT want to trade Wilt. Chamberlain more-or-less forced their hand. The ABA was waiting, so the Sixers traded him to at least get something in return.

Furthermore, the Lakers also lost HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft. That was HUGE. That forced LA to play journeyman Johnny Egan...who may have ultimately cost the Lakers the title by losing the ball in the last seconds of game four.

Continuing, Wilt STILL led the Lakers to their then-best record in LA, at 55-27 (previous best was 52-30.) And, they came as close to winning a title as they ever did in Los Angeles that season.

And, for those that claim that Sixers "only" dropped to 55-27, from 62-20 the year before...that was still a seven game decline. BUT, that was just the beginning. Philly had lost a 3-1 series lead in the '68 ECF's (because of a HUGE rash of injuries), and lost that series, in a game seven, by FOUR points. Not only that, but the previous season, in 66-67, they overwhelmed the NBA with a 68-13 record, and a dominating world championship.

How about the '68-69 Sixers? They were promptly dispatched in the first round of the playoffs, by a 48-34 Celtic team, 4-1.

AND, the Sixer slide would continue, to the point that by Wilt's last season, in 72-73, they went a record 9-73.

Meanwhile, after that trade to LA, Wilt led LA to four Finals in five seasons (and a WCF in the other)...and a first-ever world championship in Los Angeles in that magical 71-72 season.

AFTER Wilt retired following the 72-73 season (a 60-22 record and another Finals appearance), the Lakers dropped to a 47-35 season (even with Elmore Smith at center), and a 4-1 blowout loss in the first round of the playoffs. In the very next season, 74-75, the Lakers went 30-52. And they would not sniff the finals until Magic arrived in the 79-80 season.

Just a little better perspective on that FULL picture of that trade. The trade that Simmons called "pennies on the dollar." That "pennies on the dollar" trade ultimately made the Lakers a true power for the five seasons that Wilt was there, and crippled the Philly franchise for years.

[jlauber]

As a sidenote, I have often wondered how many more seasons that Wilt could have played at a high level. He was 37 years old when he retired, but in his LAST season, he led the NBA in rebounding at 18.6 rpg, was voted first-team all-defense for the second year in a row, and set a FG% record of .727 that will probably never be approached. Not only that, but he averaged 47.1 mpg in his 18 post-season games, and snagged 22.5 rpg in the post-season (including outrebounding Thurmond by seven per game.)

Furthermore, in the early 80's, no less than Larry Brown witnessed a summer league game that included Magic Johnson, in which Chamberlain just dominated the defensive end of the floor. Wilt was in his mid-40's at the time. And later on, in another summer league encounter, Kiki Vandewege witnessed Chamberlain overpowering 7-4 Mark Eaton.

In fact, there were teams that were making LEGITIMATE offers to Chamberlain in his late 40's, and even into his 50's!

[PHILA]

[quote=ThaRegul8r]Wilt had decided before the end of the '67-68 season that he wanted to play for the Lakers if it was at all possible:

[quote=Wilt Chamberlain]After that three-game splurge in mid-December, I only had one other game all season where I scored more than 40 points. That game was against Los Angeles in the last week of the regular season. I got 53 points

[jlauber]

Obviously Ramsey and Wilt never got along. Which pretty much explains his less-than-stellar take on Wilt's place in NBA history.

Although, to his credit, he did make this comment in his 2004 book...

It centered on the man I regard as the most talented, intelligent, complex, and interesting of all the players I've known - Wilt Chamberlain