Basketball Philosophy with Bill Russell

[ThaRegul8r]

I have ALWAYS stated that Wilt scored 50+ points against Russell in FIVE games, including one in the post-season, which, last time I checked, IS correct.

Here is my VERY FIRST post on ISH...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=160893

I'll try to see if I can find the post then. And no mention of Wilt hanging 60 on Thurmond, huh?

And when you challenged my point that Wilt HEAVILY outshot Russell in the 59-60 season (in fact, he scored MORE and shot BETTER against Russell, than against the REST of the league), I gave you the EVIDENCE.

(rest of unrelated tangent snipped.)

THAT instance was backed by evidence. Congratulations. If more people would do that, there wouldn't be any problem. I note you failed to do so with the statement in question that started this in the first place.

"Get educated on statistics?" Just what in the hell does that have to do with me making the VERY FACTUAL claim that Russell "wasn't very far behind Wilt" in mpg in BOTH the regular season (Wilt had a 45.2 mpg to 42.6 mpg edge...and once again, in 67-68 Russell only played in 37.9 mpg), and post-season (Wilt held a 47.2 to 45.4 mpg margin)?????? What is "close" to YOU? A fraction of a second?

Learn about statistics first before making an uninformed statement. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, don't comment, go educate yourself for your own edification. Chamberlain played statistically significantly (not sure if that's even a word) more minutes in the regular season than Russell. Russell's career high in minutes per game would only be 10th-best for Chamberlain. The funny thing is that if someone claimed that Jordan "wasn't far away" from Wilt as a scorer, you would talk about how Jordan didn't come close to Wilt's scoring output. Which would qualify as a "double standard" you talk so much about it.

And yes, I WILL praise someone when they are CORRECT about Chamberlain, and if they go out of their way to DISPARAGE Wilt, I will take exception to it.

And yes, there are some here who DEFINITELY have an "anti-Wilt" agenda.

Which isn't me, so I couldn't care less. You saw the date of the post I referred you to that I wrote, giving MY take. It was January 2008. Which, as you yourself noted, was YEARS before any of the stuff you've been saying here recently regarding that. I've written stuff like that well before then, but they've been pushed out of the archives because they were too long ago. That's the work of someone with an "anti-Wilt" agenda, isn't it?

[jlauber]

I'll try to see if I can find the post then. And no mention of Wilt hanging 60 on Thurmond, huh?



THAT instance was backed by evidence. Congratulations. If more people would do that, there wouldn't be any problem. I note you failed to do so with the statement in question that started this in the first place.



Learn about statistics first before making an uninformed statement. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, don't comment, go educate yourself for your own edification. Chamberlain played statistically significantly (not sure if that's even a word) more minutes in the regular season than Russell. Russell's career high in minutes per game would only be 10th-best for Chamberlain. The funny thing is that if someone claimed that Jordan "wasn't far away" from Wilt as a scorer, you would talk about how Jordan didn't come close to Wilt's scoring output. Which would qualify as a "double standard" you talk so much about it.



Which isn't me, so I couldn't care less. You saw the date of the post I referred you to that I wrote, giving MY take. It was January 2008. Which, as you yourself noted, was YEARS before any of the stuff you've been saying here recently regarding that. I've written stuff like that well before then, but they've been pushed out of the archives because they were too long ago. That's the work of someone with an "anti-Wilt" agenda, isn't it?

The Thurmond "gaffe" was once again, based on an EDUCATED assumption, albeit, incorrect. Wilt scored 62 points on the Warriors in a game in the 65-66 season, and Nate missed seven games, out of 80 that year. Yes, a gaffe. And because of that, I have since claimed that Wilt may have only had one 60+ game against Bellamy, although, he had two against Bellamy's team in the 61-62 season. Bellamy missed ONE game that year, so there is a minute possibility that Wilt only had one 60+ point game against him, instead of two.

BTW, I just watched the entire second half of game four of the '64 Finals, and, while it may not mean much, Chamberlain shot 7-10 in that second half against Russell. He also had Russell with five fouls (three in the second half), while he, himself, only had one. To Russell's credit, he did tip in the winning shot, when Chamberlain went out on the shooter (here again, Chamberlain had to guard EVERYBODY.) Furthermore, at that time, you could not double a player who did not have the ball, but, in the several instances in that second half, Boston would front him, with Russell behind him, BEFORE he received a pass. And, in several instances, they collapsed on Chamberlain once he did get a pass. I also found it interesting that when Russell picked up his 5th personal foul with about six minutes left, the Warriors only passed the ball into Wilt TWICE after that. In fact, they seemed to ignore him in much of that half.

And, also BTW, I have found a serious blunder on this link...

http://www.nba.com/history/finals/19691970.html

He stepped into the circle against Wilt for the tipoff but remained immobile during the jump. That changed once play began. Reed scored New York's first two baskets and played incredibly active defense.

Seventeen times the Lakers jammed the ball into Chamberlain in the post. Reed harassed him into shooting 2-for-9. Reed finished 2-for-5 with four fouls and three rebounds, but it was enough

I watched that entire game on YouTube, and LA went into Chamberlain some 25 times in that first half, and in the majority of them, Chamberlain was doubled or swarmed. On the rare occasions when Reed attempted to guard Wilt, one-on-one, he fouled him three times. Yes, Wilt missed TWO shots against single coverage, but overall, in that first half, Wilt shot 5-10, with 11 points (1-8 from the line), and 12 rebounds. The rest of his team shot 33%. Those numbers were confirmed during halftime, as well.

Anyway, I WISH we did have Russell and Wilt's FG% in that '64 series. Even without them, I am CONVINCED that Chamberlain badly outshot Russell.

[Fuhqueue]

So finally -- a guy kept asking was I nervous or was I scared. So finally I said, "Listen, there was no reason for me to be scared or nervous. I did not have to play against Bill Russell and the Celtics. What was there to be nervous or scared about?" You probably think I'm really modest, right? [/I]

Russell

[ThaRegul8r]

The Thurmond "gaffe" was once again, based on an EDUCATED assumption, albeit, incorrect.

No, it wasn't. It was based on confirmation bias. With all due respect, "educated" would be checking to make sure that Wilt and Thurmond indeed even played in the same game at the same time before citing it as evidence. It's not particularly difficult. If someone can know something about everything else, it's inexcusable to not know about that as well. It's sheer laziness as far as I'm concerned. Anytime I cite something that happened on the court between two players, you better believe I checked it first to make sure it was so before I start stating it as fact. If I didn't check the facts on one thing, then it can also be true that I didn't check the facts on other things. Credibility is something I take very seriously. Other people don't hold it in as high regard.

(BTW, there's a saying about "assumptions." I don't know if you're aware of it or not.)

Wilt scored 62 points on the Warriors in a game in the 65-66 season, and Nate missed seven games, out of 80 that year. Yes, a gaffe. And because of that, I have since claimed that Wilt may have only had one 60+ game against Bellamy, although, he had two against Bellamy's team in the 61-62 season. Bellamy missed ONE game that year, so there is a minute possibility that Wilt only had one 60+ point game against him, instead of two.

CHECK!!!! Is that so freaking hard to do?!? Don't claim ANYTHING until you've CHECKED IT FIRST. It's infuriating to me how no one is ever willing to do any research for themselves on anything, but is quick to run with anything that might confirm what they think about something without any idea whether it's true or not. That's why for years I've posted research I've done, because few very people are willing to do any. Most people on the internet merely regurgitate misinformation that's been proliferated.

And I've always invited anyone to check to make sure everything I claim is true. I don't just expect people to take my word on it. I've done so ON THIS VERY BOARD before. So I find it patently absurd, that someone like me, who researches everything thoroughly to ensure that everything I say is true before publicly making a statement, tells people not to just take my word on something, but other people who DON'T take the time to do the research to simply fact check everything before making a statement, take offense when questioned as to what evidence a given statement is based on. Especially when they've been proven wrong before, or that it's been found that a claim they've made, when it boils down to it, wasn't based on any real evidence other than speculation from hearsay.

EDIT: In Chamberlain's 61-point game against Chicago 12/9/61, “Rookie Walt Bellamy, who found it impossible to guard the gigantic Chamberlain, had 39 points to lead the Packers” (AP). Bellamy also played in Chamberlain's 73-point game against Chicago 1/13/62, which broke Baylor's record for most points scored in an NBA game in regulation, but was less than his 78 scored in triple overtime.

This took less than 5 minutes to find out. Which is why I say it's inexcusable to not find out for one's self when it's easy to do. More information is available at the fingertips of the average joe or jane than at any point in human history. There is ZERO reason to "assume" anything, when ANYONE can find out the answer. Researching for one's self is educated. "Assuming" is not. I have no sympathy for those unwilling to do the former.

[jlauber]

BTW, Regul8r, I was wrong, my very first post was on 12/18/2009, and it was I that gave you the link to Russell and Wilt's 142 H2H games...

Adn I first mentioned the FIVE 50 point games on 12/19/2009

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...=153447&page=4

Here are some quick FACTS...

Russell and Wilt faced each other 142 times. Chamberlain outscored Russell in 132 of them. Russell scored 30+ points against Wilt three times, with a high of 37 points. However, in each of those games, Chamberlain outscored him. On the other hand, Wilt scored 40+ points against Russell, 24 times, and 50+ points FIVE times against Russell...including a HIGH of 62 points (on 27-45 shooting BTW.)

[jlauber]

This took less than 5 minutes to find out. Which is why I say it's inexcusable to not find out for one's self when it's easy to do. More information is available at the fingertips of the average joe or jane than at any point in human history. There is ZERO reason to "assume" anything, when ANYONE can find out the answer. Researching for one's self is educated. "Assuming" is not. I have no sympathy for those unwilling to do the former.

Then by all means, find Wilt's FG% against Russell in the '64 Finals. I will even give you more than five minutes.

[G.O.A.T]

To anyone who is still having conversations relating to Russell and statistics...

You haven't figured it out yet.

[ThaRegul8r]

This took less than 5 minutes to find out. Which is why I say it's inexcusable to not find out for one's self when it's easy to do. More information is available at the fingertips of the average joe or jane than at any point in human history. There is ZERO reason to "assume" anything, when ANYONE can find out the answer. Researching for one's self is educated. "Assuming" is not. I have no sympathy for those unwilling to do the former.

Then by all means, find Wilt's FG% against Russell in the '64 Finals. I will even give you more than five minutes.

LOL at the irony of after me going on about how people don't do any research, you want me to do research for you.



LOL again at the nerve of you being condescending when YOU were in the wrong. In September, I told PHILA the very same thing I just told you about making sure to verify first before citing anything. His response?

[QUOTE=PHILA][QUOTE] This is why you VERIFY a statement before accepting it as truth. As a scientist, it's infuriating to see people cite things without even bothering to verify its authenticity. They just look for things to back their belief rather than searching for the TRUTH, whatever it may be.

So since these are three confirmed mistruths, why would anyone think he's a credible source when it comes to describing what happened? INVESTIGATE whether it's true or not, don't just accept what he

[jlauber]

LOL at the irony of after me going on about how people don't do any research, you want me to do research for you.



LOL again at the nerve of you being condescending when YOU were in the wrong. In September, I told PHILA the very same thing I just told you about making sure to verify first before citing anything. His response?



You? You respond with excuses and rationalizations. I treat every instance in which someone states something that isn't true the same. So I don't know what makes you think you're any different if you should happen to fall on the wrong end of the truth.

I'm still waiting for your verification of me stating that Wilt had SEVEN 50+ point games against Russell...especially when it was I who gave YOU the Harvey Pollack link to ALL of their H2H games in the first place.

[ThaRegul8r]

I'm still waiting for your verification of me stating that Wilt had SEVEN 50+ point games against Russell...especially when it was I who gave YOU the Harvey Pollack link to ALL of their H2H games in the first place.

When did I say you said Wilt had seven 50 point games against Russell? I said you once included all Wilt's 50-point games against Boston in '61-62 as having come against Russell when Russell did not play in all those games just as you counted the 60-point game against the Warriors as being against Thurmond when Thurmond didn't even play in that game. I am looking for the post.

(Still refusing to admit it might perhaps be a good idea to check to make sure a player even played in a game before using it as proof of being dominated. )

[jlauber]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...=153447&page=4

Where can these be found? I've contacted both the NBA and Harvey Pollack in the past but have never received a response. Through searching I've managed to find some numbers, but I haven't as yet been able to get the numbers from all 142 games.

The Regul8r,

I was going to save the Pollack H2H games for another post, because if anyone believed that Russell "neutralized" Wilt, Pollack shoots that down.

Here it is...

http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Poll...0607_Stats.pdf

It is near the bottom (about 270 or so)...

You can obviously see the numbers for yourself, but I will post 40 games in which Chamberlain CRUSHED Russell.

Here are some quick FACTS...

Russell and Wilt faced each other 142 times. Chamberlain outscored Russell in 132 of them. Russell scored 30+ points against Wilt three times, with a high of 37 points. However, in each of those games, Chamberlain outscored him. On the other hand, Wilt scored 40+ points against Russell, 24 times, and 50+ points FIVE times against Russell...including a HIGH of 62 points (on 27-45 shooting BTW.)
In terms of rebounding, Chamberlain outrebounded Russell 92-42, with 8 ties. Russell had ONE 40 rebound games against Wilt (exactly 40 BTW.) Meanwhile, Chamberlain had SEVEN 40+ games against Russell, including an NBA regular season record of 55...AND a post-season record of 41. Not only that, but Chamberlain held a staggering 23-4 edge in 35+ rebound games against Russell.

In terms of career scoring, Chamberlain averaged 28.7 ppg to Russell's 14.5 ppg. However, Wilt's scoring dropped dramatically as the quality of his teammates increased. Chamberlain had several SEASONS (and most of the seasons were 15-19 game matchups), in which he averaged nearly 40 ppg against Russell and the Celtics. In his first six years in the league, Chamberlain averaged about 35 ppg against Russell.

Wilt absolutely crushed Russell on the glass. He held an eye-popping 28.7 rpg - 23.7 rpg edge vs. Russell. During Russell's 10 years in which they played H2H, Wilt won EIGHT rebound titles (obviously Russell won the other two.)

Here is another interesting rebound fact...Russell is the all-time career post-season rebound leader at 24.9 rpg (Wilt is next at 24.5 rpg BTW), BUT, H2H, Wilt outrebounded Russell in EVERY post-season series (all EIGHT of them) in which they faced each other.

There is not a lot of H2H FG% statistics available between the two, but what there is shows Chamberlain with a HUGE edge. I mentioned the '66-'67 Eastern Playoffs, in which Chamberlain outshot Russell by a staggering .556 - .358 margin (and followed that up with a .560 - .343 edge over Thurmond in the Finals.)

Here is one interesting link, though, that showed Chamberlain's defensive domination over Russell...

http://www.brainyhistory.com/topics/c/chamberlain.html

In that 1965 game, Chamberlain held Russell to an 0-14 game from the field.

What we do know about their FG% is that Wilt was among the best in NBA history with a career .540 mark, which includes the top two records of all-time, and three of the top-5 (.727, .683, and .649.) Conversley, Russell was a mediocre shooter, with a career .441 mark (and an even worse .430 in the post-season.)

The fact is, Wilt was swarmed by Russell and his teammates (even Tom Heinsohn admitted to that), while Russell was only a 3rd or 4th option on almost every Celtic team he played on.

Once again, in their 142 H2H matchups, Russell may have held a slight statistical edge in a handful of their games. However, Chamberlain had an overwhelming edge in the vast majority, and on top of that, he had at least 40 games in which he CRUSHED Russell. I will post them later, but suffice to say, they will open up anyone's eyes on this topic.

George Kisida, a veteran beat writer covered both of those two in their entire careers, and he made the comment that "Wilt outplayed Russell in one-third of their games. Russell outplayed Wilt in one-third of their games. And Wilt DOMINATED Russell in one-third of their games."

John Wooden made the comment that had Chamberlain been surrounded by Russell's supporting cast, that it probably would have been Wilt with all of those rings. Esteemed NY Times sports writer Leonard Koppett carried that even further, saying that had Wilt had the same teams that Russell had, in his 13 years, that he would have gone 13-0 in Finals, instead of Russell's 11-2.

In any case, I am pressed for time tonight. Inicidently, I will address some of Simmons' comments, as well as that Sports Illustrated article that was released on January 27th 1969...which basically said that Wilt could no longer score. You will find an interesting development regarding that article (in which Chamberlain was made aware of it's release just before it hit the news-stands. It was almost comical.

Thank you. I've been looking for this for years. For over a decade I've been trying to get the complete numbers. I already had the complete 1961-62 scoring numbers for both for the regular season and playoffs, the '66-67 playoffs numbers thanks to Wayne Lynch's book, a handful of games from '59-60, '62-63, '63-64, '64-65 and '68-69, and the averages of all 142 games broken down separately for regular season and playoffs (Pollack just lumps all the games together), but I didn't have all the data for each season. Although I wish he had kept track of field goals and free throws. I have the complete FG and FT numbers from their first game, but going through box scores in the newspaper, they usually just list FGM and FTM and not the attempts, so I haven't been able to fill in that data.

[Rose]

That's how he moved up so high on my list. My uncles and my high school teachers always tried to tell me how great he was, but I loved stats, knew all of them and wasn't buying it.

The more I read and the more I listen, the more obvious it becomes he's the greatest center of all-time if your goal is to win the game.

There have been others who had better ability and better seasons, but no one ever understood what it took to win and did it as consistently as Russell.

I used to be like there was only what 8 teams in the league at the time? So yeah while he was good and all that it was just 7 other teams, and he played with tons of HOFers. But then I got older and wiser, and read some basketball books and such. and my list really changed. Russell used to not even be in my top 10, but now he's comfortably inside it.

[ThaRegul8r]

And? Yes, I already had the complete scoring numbers from the '61-62 season, but I didn't have field-goal percentages to go with them. That was the only thing I got that I didn't have before, since the actual boxscores only show field goals made, not attempts. I had the complete averages from every regular and postseason meeting, but not all the individual games. All of this was attained through my own research (painstakingly going through the actual newspaper accounts, and NOT at home on my computer as researchers are able to now), which predated the archived data we have now which makes research MUCH easier now that it used to be back in the day.

And I never said this occurred on InsideHoops. You "assumed" that. I've posted the numbers for the '61-62 season here before (sans field-goal percentages), and that Wilt had two 50-point games against Boston in which Russell did not play on this very board, so you couldn't possibly have stated that on this message board, since I am a regular here, and my information on it would have been quoted by someone, as it was when juliazer, I believe it was, found an error in Pollack's stats regarding '61-62. You've posted other places than on this board. But, in the interest of fairness, until I can find out where it was, I will retract that instance until I can confirm specifically. The Thurmond instance still stands, since you admitted to it, and I actually found an instance you said it which came before you started posting on InsideHoops, though you've said it here as well.

What I should have done was use the instance you claimed Willis Reed was "100% healthy" in the 1970 NBA Finals, which I addressed again recently, since the post is readily available.

Everyone looks at Wilt's STATS, and just accepts that he was healthy. He was FAR from 100%. Still, going up against the league MVP (and a great player), Chamberlain more than held his own. While everyone points to Reed's game seven...how about the first FOUR games of the series, when Reed was 100% and Wilt was not??!!

I explained this to you for the second time here, just a week ago:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...&postcount=119

(Still doesn't change the fact that Reed continues to be overrated for that series, or that change the fact that he did NOT deserve Finals MVP, but I'm only interested in facts being stated about what happened.)

You've stated this before:

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]And? Yes, I already had the complete scoring numbers from the '61-62 season, but I didn't have field-goal percentages to go with them. That was the only thing I got that I didn't have before, since the actual boxscores only show field goals made, not attempts. I had the complete averages from every regular and postseason meeting, but not all the individual games. All of this was attained through my own research (painstakingly going through the actual newspaper accounts, and NOT at home on my computer as researchers are able to now), which predated the archived data we have now which makes research MUCH easier now that it used to be back in the day.

And I never said this occurred on InsideHoops. You "assumed" that. I've posted the numbers for the '61-62 season here before (sans field-goal percentages), and that Wilt had two 50-point games against Boston in which Russell did not play on this very board, so you couldn't possibly have stated that on this message board, since I am a regular here, and my information on it would have been quoted by someone, as it was when juliazer, I believe it was, found an error in Pollack's stats regarding '61-62. You've posted other places than on this board. But, in the interest of fairness, until I can find out where it was, I will retract that instance until I can confirm specifically. The Thurmond instance still stands, since you admitted to it, and I actually found an instance you said it which came before you started posting on InsideHoops, though you've said it here as well.

What I should have done was use the instance you claimed Willis Reed was "100% healthy" in the 1970 NBA Finals, which I addressed again recently, since the post is readily available.



I explained this to you for the second time here, just a week ago:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...&postcount=119

(Still doesn't change the fact that Reed continues to be overrated for that series, or that change the fact that he did NOT deserve Finals MVP, but I'm only interested in facts being stated about what happened.)

You've stated this before:

[hon]

Morgan Freeman in a Bill Russell biopic...directed by Clint Eastwood