Walt Bellamy and Wilt Chamberlain

[L.Kizzle]

"When challenged, Wilt could do almost anything he wanted. In 1961 a new star named Walt Bellamy came into the league. Bellamy was 6-foot-10, and was scoring 30 points a game. First time they played against each other, they met at half court. Bellamy said, 'Hello, Mr. Chamberlain. I'm Walter Bellamy.' Chamberlain reached for Bellamy's hand and said, 'Hello, Walter. You won't get a shot off in the first half.' Wilt then blocked Bellamy's first nine shots. At the start of the second half Wilt said to Bellamy, 'Okay, Walter. Now you can play.'"

[catch24]

[Kblaze8855]

I like Wilt. always found him interesting. And underrated by a lot of fans. But things like this make it hard to argue against those who say he didnt have the heart to be a winner. Now...I say that knowing he made like 6 finals won 2 rings and has 2 of the 4 best records ever. But when I say "Winner" I mean the approach more than the results.

What kind of great player....winner...can stop his man EVERY time...but allows him to score in the second half? Now...other way? Ok. Let him think he has it going. Shut him down late. Doing it early does nothing but show him how great you are because showing him how little spirit you have by easing up.

Bill Russell would have let dude score just enough to see his sweet spots and how he attacks and blocked 5-6 shots in the 4th and won his team the game. Now do I know Wilt didnt win the game? No. I assume he did. Almost all his teams were good. Bellamy was a loser much of his career. I assume Wilts team won.

But its the approach that annoys me. You can stop your man at will...stop him all the time. Dont let him score...period. And if you have to be nice...block his shots in the SECOND half.

I read too much shit like this about Wilt. From his own mouth(well..words...in his book a view from Above) he flatly said he could have stolen the ball from a lot of bigmen he played. But he didnt. Why? It makes bigmen look like lumbering fools. He was sensitive to how people saw him. He didnt wanna look like a giant just getting by on size. So he didnt want others to bring down the perception of bigmen. So he lets guys dribble when he can steal it. His words. Not mine.

The **** is that?

Plus...he said he developed the fingeroll partly because it shows skill. He took fadeaways and fingerolls because just pushing a guy and dunking was what people expected bigmen to do. He wanted to be seen as skilled.

So instead of dunking 90% of the time(which he could have in the early 60s) hes throwing up jumpers, bank shots, and pretty hooks and shit because it makes him look more skilled.

If Bill Russell had wilts physical gifts(he did have some...but not all) and touch with the ball the Celtics probably lose 10 games a season and win 12 of 13 years he played instead of 11(win in 67...not when eh was injured second season).

Russell didnt care what anyone thought so long as his team won. Russell in Wilts body might put up 30/28 on 65% lose 6 games his best season and sweep the playoffs. I never respected wilts claim that Russell cared too much about winning games. Like it was a failing in his personality(even if it was).

Bill went hard for the W. You could think he was satan. He would be satan with a ring.

[ZaaaaaH]

I like Wilt. always found him interesting. And underrated by a lot of fans. But things like this make it hard to argue against those who say he didnt have the heart to be a winner. Now...I say that knowing he made like 6 finals won 2 rings and has 2 of the 4 best records ever. But when I say "Winner" I mean the approach more than the results.

What kind of great player....winner...can stop his man EVERY time...but allows him to score in the second half? Now...other way? Ok. Let him think he has it going. Shut him down late. Doing it early does nothing but show him how great you are because showing him how little spirit you have by easing up.

Bill Russell would have let dude score just enough to see his sweet spots and how he attacks and blocked 5-6 shots in the 4th and won his team the game. Now do I know Wilt didnt win the game? No. I assume he did. Almost all his teams were good. Bellamy was a loser much of his career. I assume Wilts team won.

But its the approach that annoys me. You can stop your man at will...stop him all the time. Dont let him score...period. And if you have to be nice...block his shots in the SECOND half.

I read too much shit like this about Wilt. From his own mouth(well..words...in his book a view from Above) he flatly said he could have stolen the ball from a lot of bigmen he played. But he didnt. Why? It makes bigmen look like lumbering fools. He was sensitive to how people saw him. He didnt wanna look like a giant just getting by on size. So he didnt want others to bring down the perception of bigmen. So he lets guys dribble when he can steal it. His words. Not mine.

The **** is that?

Plus...he said he developed the fingeroll partly because it shows skill. He took fadeaways and fingerolls because just pushing a guy and dunking was what people expected bigmen to do. He wanted to be seen as skilled.

So instead of dunking 90% of the time(which he could have in the early 60s) hes throwing up jumpers, bank shots, and pretty hooks and shit because it makes him look more skilled.

If Bill Russell had wilts physical gifts(he did have some...but not all) and touch with the ball the Celtics probably lose 10 games a season and win 12 of 13 years he played instead of 11(win in 67...not when eh was injured second season).

Russell didnt care what anyone thought so long as his team won. Russell in Wilts body might put up 30/28 on 65% lose 6 games his best season and sweep the playoffs. I never respected wilts claim that Russell cared too much about winning games. Like it was a failing in his personality(even if it was).

Bill went hard for the W. You could think he was satan. He would be satan with a ring.

Good post

Wilt was Cocky but when it came to most Stacked and Talented team out of 8 comes at you its kinda hard to win.

[iamgine]

I find different personalities approach the game differently. Everyone cares about winning but not everyone cares about it to the same degree.

Perhaps Wilt realized that all that matters was that he had fun. And he had his fun by challenging himself to do these finger rolls or assist record. Who cares about 11 championships if you had to puke before every game and constantly get stressed out. In the end, basketball is just a game. I can understand that kind of thinking.

[catch24]

I find different personalities approach the game differently. Everyone cares about winning but not everyone cares about it to the same degree.

Perhaps Wilt realized that all that matters was that he had fun. And he had his fun by challenging himself to do these finger rolls or assist record. Who cares about 11 championships if you had to puke before every game and constantly get stressed out. In the end, basketball is just a game. I can understand that kind of thinking.

Definitely understandable. I don't agree with Wilt's approach but still, in the end, you're right. Basketball is just a game.

[ZaaaaaH]

I find different personalities approach the game differently. Everyone cares about winning but not everyone cares about it to the same degree.

Perhaps Wilt realized that all that matters was that he had fun. And he had his fun by challenging himself to do these finger rolls or assist record. Who cares about 11 championships if you had to puke before every game and constantly get stressed out. In the end, basketball is just a game. I can understand that kind of thinking.

Yea I do believe Wilt didnt have the teammates as Russel did but also the hunger for Winning as well.

Wilt was a very talented guy with very laid back cocky personality who likes to enjoy women.

But One thing I can say is, after watching clips of Wilt talking about the game, it really seems like he wish he tried his best so he put the bar sky high.

[jlauber]

I get a kick out of those that honestly believe that Wilt didn't care about winning. The FACT was, for a guy who was portrayed as such a "loser", he did a horrible job of it. He played on TWELVE WINNING teams in his career, and TWELVE teams that went to at LEAST the Conference Finals. He played on SIX division WINNERS. He played on SIX Conference WINNERS. He went to SIX Finals. He played on FOUR teams that had the BEST record in the league. He played on FOUR 60+ win teams. And he anchored TWO of the greatest teams in NBA HISTORY.

Not only that, but let's take a look at his "losing" seasons. In his 62-63 season, all he did was play 47.6 MPG, and LEAD the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories...some by HUGE margins (e.g....he won the scoring title at 44.8 ppg, which blew away Baylor's 34.0 ppg.) Hell, he LED the league in WIN SHARES (and by a solid margin), and in FACT, was directly responsible for 67% of his team's wins. Find another player who ever had a season like that. My god, his PER was 31.8, which is another ALL-TIME record. True, his TEAM went 31-49, BUT, they had a -2.1 differential, only played in EIGHT games that were decided by 20+ points (going 4-4), and lost 35 games by single digits. They also went 1-8 against Russell's Celtics (and their NINE HOFers...while Wilt was the ONLY HOFer on his team), BUT, six of those games were very close...and all Wilt did was outrebound Russell, and outscored him by a 38-14 margin in those nine games.

How bad was that team? They had SIXTEEN different players. And, collectively, without Wilt, they shot .412...which would have been WAY below the WORST team in the league (.surprisingly, Boston at .427.) And, for those that haven't read it before, the Warrior's new coach the very next season, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage involving the Warriors, sans Wilt, and some draftees and scrubs. Hannum was shocked when the scrubs won. But that is only half of that story. Because Wilt them single-handedly carried that cast of boobs to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, where they lost to Russell's Celtics, 4-1. And despite that 4-1 record, two of Boston's wins came in the last few seconds. In that series Chamberlain outrebounded Russell, per game, 27-25, and outscored him, per game, 29-11. And while we don't know what the two shot H2H, we do know that Wilt shot .543 in his 12 post-season games, while Russell shot .356 in his ten playoff games...and five were H2H.

Wilt also was traded at mid-season by the Warriors in the 64-65 season, to the Sixers, a team that had been 34-46 the year before. They finished the regular season at 40-40, and then blew out the 48-32 Royals in the first round. In the ECF's, and against the 62-18 Celtics (who had a 6-2 edge in HOFers), they lost a game seven, by ONE point. In that series, all Wilt did was average 30 ppg and 31 rpg, which included a game seven in which he scored 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds.

Back to his title teams. In the 71-72 season, he led a team that had been 48-34 the year before, and started FIVE players at over 30, to a 69-13 mark, and a dominating world title which included beating the previous champs, the 63-19 Bucks, 4-2 in the WCF's (and also going 4-1 against them in the regular season), in a series in which Wilt was universally claimed as having outplayed the statistically prime Kareem. In fact, he thoroughly outplayed Kareem in the clinching game six win (a come-from-behind win on the road.)Then, Wilt dominated the Finals, in leading the Lakers to a 4-1 rout of the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers...which included a clinching game five in which he played with one badly sprained wrist, and the other FRACTURED...and scored 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds, and 9 blocks.

And in his 66-67 season, he led the Sixers to a wire-to-wire romp and a 68-13 record. Then, in the post-season, he averaged 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, and shot .612 in leading the Sixers past the Royals. In the ECF's, and against Russell's 60-21 Celtics (and their SEVEN HOFers), Chamberlain absolutely CRUSHED Russell in EVERY facet of the game. He outscored Russell, per game, 21.6 ppg to 10.2 ppg; he assisted Russell, per game, 10 apg to 6 apg; he outrebounded Russell by a staggering margin, per game, of 32 rpg to 23 rpg; and he outshot Russell for the series, .556 to .358. And, in the clinching game five win, Wilt outscored Russell, 29-4 (including 22 in the first half when the game was close; outshot Russell, 10-16 to 2-5; outassisted Russell, 13-7; and outrebounded Russell, 36-21. In the Finals, he pounded Thurmond, outscoring him 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outassisting him, per game, 6.9 to 3.4; outrebounding him, per game, 28.5 to 26.7 (and in FIVE of the six games); and outshot Thurmond by an eye-popping .560 to .343 margin. In the clinching game six win, Chamberlain outscored Thurmond, 24-12; outrebounded him, 24-23; and outshot him, 8-13 to 4-13.


Bellamy is a great example of something else here, too. For those that claim that Wilt "stat-padded" in his career...Bellamy played on several losing teams, and in his best season, he averaged 31.6 ppg, shot .509, and grabbed 19.0 rpg...on a team that went 18-62. In that SAME season, all Wilt did was lead his team to a 49-31 record, and in the process averaged 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, and shot .506.

And, I have already covered Wilt's '62-63 season when he averaged 44.8 ppg, 24.3 rpg, and shot .528...on a 31-49 team. Which is interesting. He LED the league in scoring that season. He LED the league in rebounding that season. And he set a FG% mark, at the time, of .528. Why is that interesting? Because a couple of years later, Chamberlain would duplicate that same feat. In the '65-66 season, Wilt LED the NBA in scoring at 33.5 ppg; he LED the league in rebounding at 24.6 rpg; and he set a then-record FG% mark of .540 (in a league that shot .433 BTW)...on a team that had the BEST record in the league.

Kareem played four seasons in the Wilt era, and yet he never approached Wilt's statistical domination in ANY of them. But, here again, for those that claimed that Wilt was a "stats-padder", I offer you Kareem in his 71-72 season. He LED the league in MPG, at 44.2. He LED the league in scoring at 34.8 ppg. He shot .574 from the floor, and grabbed 16.6 rpg (Wilt LED the league in FG% at .649, and in rebounding at 19.2 rpg BTW.) And his team went 63-19 with a +11.1 differential. Aside from the fact that Kareem completely crumbled in the playoffs (averaging 28 ppg on .437 shooting), how about his 75-76 season? In that season, his TEAM went 40-42. And Kareem played 41.2 mpg, averaged 27.7 ppg, 16.9 rpg, and shot .529. Now, why couldn't he score 40+ ppg on THAT team, when it was obvious they needed him to? Hell, he couldn't come close to the 44.2 mpg mark he had on the 71-72 Bucks, when THAT team obviously didn't need him to play all of those minutes, and certainly didn't need him scoring 35 ppg.

Wilt OVERWHELMED the league in '62, on a 49-31 team. He OVERWHELMED the league in '63, on a 31-49 team. And he OVERWHELMED the league in '66, when he led his Sixers to the BEST record in the league. He just flat-out PLAYED. AND, he PLAYED hurt...as in the '68 ECF's when he was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from THREE different LEG and FOOT injuries. Or as in that '72 game five of the '72 Finals, when he PLAYED (and DOMINATED) with a BROKEN WRIST. Yet, Kareem MISSED a clinching game six of the '80 Finals with a sprained ankle, AND, Kareem MISSED CHUNKS of TWO seasons with a BROKEN wrist. And yet, it is Wilt who is accused of "stats-padding", while I have given great examples of true stats-padders.

In any case, that was Wilt... the "choker", the "failure", and yes, the "loser."

[Kblaze8855]

I dont need a history lesson on Wilt. You are arguing shit that isnt even in discussion by giving me informatio I had when I was a child. I dont care about Wilts numbers. wilts numbers were whatever he decided to make them at the moment.

You really wonder why some say Wilt didnt care much about winning when he himself said...he didnt care as much about winning as Russell?

Nobody wants to hear an athlete talking about how someone else cares too much about winning.

[Sarcastic]

Walt Bellamy looks kinda big. I thought Wilt only played against 5'5" white boys?

[jlauber]

I dont need a history lesson on Wilt. You are arguing shit that isnt even in discussion by giving me informatio I had when I was a child. I dont care about Wilts numbers. wilts numbers were whatever he decided to make them at the moment.

You really wonder why some say Wilt didnt care much about winning when he himself said...he didnt care as much about winning as Russell?

Nobody wants to hear an athlete talking about how someone else cares too much about winning.

I have often wondered exactly when Chamberlain was credited with those comments that he didn't care about winning. If they were taken in an accurate context, I would suspect that it may have been around the mid-60's, when, year-after-year he would put up 35-27 post-seasons (and even 30-31 series against Russell), and his vastly overmatched teammates would get their asses handed to them...and yet, it was WILT who received the blame. Hell, it started in college when he took a rag-tag group of teammates to the Finals in his soph season, and while QUAD-TEAMED, his team lost in OT to a vastly superior team. Then, in the next season, Chamberlain misses three games due to a serious infection, and his team loses all three...which killed their NCAA hopes. Then, in the pros, he takes a 49-31 team to a game seven, two-point loss to Russell's 60-20 Celtics (and SEVEN HOFers)...and in a post-season in which his teammates collectively shot .354...and yet, yep again, it was WILT's fault. Same in '64, when he took as bad a roster as there was to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals where he nearly averages a 30-30 game against Russell, BUT, his teammates are abused by Russell's team with NINE HOFers, and of course, they lose that series. Then, the very next season, he takes a 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss against Russell's 62-18 Celtics, in a series in which he DOES average a 30-31...and once again...it was WILT's fault. THEN yet again the very next post-season, when Wilt averaged a 28 ppg 30 rpg .509 series against Russell, but his teammates shoot .429, .375, .352, .325, and .161...and yet, it was WILT's fault.

Year-after-year of just OVERWHELMING the league...and yet, here was Wilt being labeled a "stats-padder", a "failure", a "choker", and a "loser."

THEN, when he does finally have a quality supporting cast, that is HEALTHY, and play a normal post-season...and Chamberlain leads them to a dominating world title...well, why didn't he do it all the time???

It was never,...hey, how can ONE MAN carry team's so far...but rather...why doesn't he win more titles? Here again, take the two clinching game five's of the '66 and '67 ECF's. In the '66 ECF's game five, Chamberlain hung a 46-34 game on Russell, but as usual, his teammates played horribly, and they lost...and yes, it was WILT's fault. Ok, so the very next season, when Russell was faced with the same exact scenario...he meekly puts up a FOUR point game, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds...while Chamberlain hangs a 29-36-13-7 game (on 10-16 shooting) against him. Where were the critics of Russell? If Russell were truly the better "winner", why couldn't he step up his game in a series in which his teammates couldn't outplay Wilt's?

[Kblaze8855]

The critics of Russell? Because he came up short going for his 9th ring in a row?

Really...you have to stop this.

You have to either be copy/pasting these endless numbers laced Wilt posts and most of them arent even getting your point across because the cost of your effort is the death of your credibility. you cant just repeat yourself in the same way every day for months and have people keep listening. and if someone were going to....it wouldnt be me. because you have no new information for me.

Even if you remember these things you dont remember them that well. You over here giving me numbers from 1963. Damn near 50 years ago. What were you 6? Even 10? In the 60s most playoff games were not even on naitonally. There was a 2 year total blackout of the NBA finals far as national tv. What were you 9 getting CCTV tapes to play on a projector after Gunsmoke went off? My uncle was a HS coach in the 70s . He was a grown man in the 60s and he would tell stories on hearing the games on the radio. There were times that the all star game was only shown on tape delay...in halves on different nights. SO I know every playoff game wasnt primetime. And if it was...that doesnt mean you watched them 50 years ago and have clear memory of it.

I watched every game of the playoffs in 2004. I cant tell you specifics off the top of my head about game 3 of the ECF. But you are giving me what happened 50 years ago? no. what you are doing is giving me numbers.

Numbers I already know. And if I didnt...id know them from one of the 600 times you did this already before I noticed its just the same information put in different order. I am not a 14 year old hating on Wilt without informaiton about him. I read his books. I watch...everything on the NBA. Including greatest sports legends, every youtube clip, dvd, classic game, finals, ASG, and everything else. Ive seen Wilt play in college. Ive seen the one picture of him clean shaven as an adult in the book with the quote on sleeping with 20 thousand women. I read that old Wiltfan tripod site in like 2001 when Tripod existed. I have NBA at 50 books. Ive watched dvds on the old Baker league in NY with wilt talking about playing street ball.

I was a basketball obsessed kid with almanacs getting the new ones every year. I grew up around basketball people who turned me into one.

I am not the one who needs a history less on wilt. especially from someone who cant even remember him in his prime al lthat well. Ive seen wilt play. ive seen him play lately. Shit ive seen Wilt play more in 2011 than I saw Blake griffin.

Not every question about the mans approach to the game is just hating on him that merits numbers and bolded parts and caps lock to prove a point that isnt in question.

If you have some information for me that is not a number ive already read ill be happy t read it. If you are gonna give me rewritten uncredited excerpts from an almanac or site dot bother. If you remember something that will help me get my head around what seems like a clear disregard of doing his best...for the sake of his perception...give me that information.

But dont tell me im wrong to see him that way when he put in his own book that he let guys play well vs him just to not embarrass another tall guy....

[ShaqAttack3234]

KBlaze has a point

[I]

[Kblaze8855]

Plenty from him. Like I said...A view fro Above. he has a whole section on how bad it was being a big guy back in the 50s/60s. He hated how people laughed at tal lguys like giants who just lumbered around. He said himself...he would allow other bigmen more room to operate...let them play well...because if he shut them down it would make all big men look bad. he would rip a forward or a guard. Block everything. But not steal the ball from another center who was tall...because it made big men look uncoordinated.

That is a clear admission of playing less than his best....

So why am I reading numbers from 1966? As if I dont know Wilt was dominant?

Point is...great as he was...he clearly didnt seem to want to be as great as he could have been. Hes said himself he would avoid dunking to look better. Let guys score on him so they wouldnt look bad. Says Russell cared about winning too much. Now you show me a quote on him seeming totally indifferent on winning or losing.

If it wouldnt reflect on him in the eyes of others...im not sure he would care if they won anything. But losing made people call him out. Which im sure drove him. But I dont see evidence he had the inner drive of many greats.

[jlauber]

Plenty from him. Like I said...A view fro Above. he has a whole section on how bad it was being a big guy back in the 50s/60s. He hated how people laughed at tal lguys like giants who just lumbered around. He said himself...he would allow other bigmen more room to operate...let them play well...because if he shut them down it would make all big men look bad. he would rip a forward or a guard. Block everything. But not steal the ball from another center who was tall...because it made big men look uncoordinated.That is a clear admission of playing less than his best....

So why am I reading numbers from 1966? As if I dont know Wilt was dominant?

Point is...great as he was...he clearly didnt seem to want to be as great as he could have been. Hes said himself he would avoid dunking to look better. Let guys score on him so they wouldnt look bad. Says Russell cared about winning too much. Now you show me a quote on him seeming totally indifferent on winning or losing.

If it wouldnt reflect on him in the eyes of others...im not sure he would care if they won anything. But losing made people call him out. Which im sure drove him. But I dont see evidence he had the inner drive of many greats.

Interesting, so Wilt "let" the other big men play against him. In the '60 regular season, Russell shot a career high .467...against Wilt? .398 (in the ten known games of the 11 they played H2H.)

In the '64 Finals, Wilt outscored Russell, 29-11, and outrebounded him, per game, 29-27. We don't know what their H2H FG% was, but Chamberlain shot .543 in that post-season, to Russell's .356...and they faced each other five times.

In the '65 ECF's, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 30-16, and outrebounded him, per game, 31-25...in a seven game series. In that game seven, Chamberlain had a 30-32 game on 12-15 shooting (to Russell's 15-29, 7-16 game), and he scored six of Philly's last eight points to cut the margin to 110-109. And when Russell hit a guidewire with an inbounds pass, if it had not been for Havlicek stealing the ball, it might have been one of the greatest upsets in NBA history.

Chamberlain hangs a 46-34 game on Russell in an elimination game...and you say he could care less about winning. Of course, when Russell goes meekly like a lamb to slaughter in the same scenario the very next season...well, you tell me? Did Russell "let" Wilt win one that season?

Or how about Russell in the '67 ECF's...a Russell who had shot .454 during the regular season, but whom Wilt "let" shoot .358. Or a Thurmond who had shot .437 during that regular season, and Wilt "allowing" him to shoot .343 in the Finals?

Or the '68 playoffs when Wilt "let" Bellamy, who had shot .551 during the course of the regular season, shoot .421 against him (all while leading BOTH teams in scoring, rebounding, AND assists)?

Or that in the game seven of the '69 Finals, Chamberlain did as much on an injured knee, in two straight possessions, than Russell did in the entire quarter. A game seven, in which Wilt's idiotic coach left him on the bench...in a game in which Wilt would outscore Russell, 18-6; outshoot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7; and outrebound Russell, 27-21...and in five less minutes?

Or a Wilt that comes back from a crippling knee injury WAY AHEAD of schedule in the '70 season, and puts up the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA HISTORY (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 from the field)...well, he obviously did it just to get to a game seven so that Willis Reed could stumble out and throw up a 4-3 game (while Wilt is the ONLY Laker to do anything....and again, basically on ONE LEG), and Reed would be universally hailed for his "inspirational" play (while his teammates hit 15 of their first 21 shots and blow open the game)...and Wilt once again be labeled a "choker."

The real issue was that Wilt was EXPECTED to win. He was EXPECTED to dominate. West and Baylor could collectively lose every year together, and they were hailed for their "clutch" play...while Chamberlain carried far worse rosters as far, and was labeled a "loser" and a "choker." Or how often do you read that West "choked" in his ONLY title season...when it was Chamberlain who CARRIED that Laker team to a title, and even won the Finals MVP?

Just more examples of Wilt the "loser" and the "choker."