intangibles vs. facts, myth vs. reality

[La Frescobaldi]

I've been lurking on various internet message boards for a decade now, and I have never seen someone crap so many straw-mans, ever. Yes, his arguments are well articulated, yes his arguments are full of facts, stats, numbers..., but they are also so full of fallacies that anyone with logic comprehension beyond that of an 8-grader can't help but facepalm. Especially in his responses to whoever challenges his point of view. Not everyone gives a damn about fantasy basketball and empty numbers, and most certainly does not give a damn about reading walls of borderline redundant text that bears very little to absolutely no relevance to the argument it was supposed to counter. The reason he gets slack from posters is because he is annoyingly repetitive and often times intelligence insulting. That is all.

I hope your goal is to help his style, can you give an example a straw man here?

[LJJ]

I honestly don't get why jlauber gets slack from posters when he can actually articulate arguments. It's like posters catch feeling because he can actually defend his POV.

Honestly, all you "in before jlauber essay" critics aren't half the debator he is. At least OP can call him out and at least have substance

Because the amount of effort you put into the debate is hardly as important as the actual content of the arguments.

[oolalaa]

So, using YOUR argument, are you are now willing to concede then, that Wilt just CRUSHED Russell H2H? After all he outscored him by 14 ppg in their 142 H2H matchups (as well as outrebounding him by FIVE per game, and probably outshooting by 5-10% from the floor.) He outscored Russell in 132 of those 142 H2H's, and MANY by HUGE margins. He also outrebounded him 92-42-8 in those games, and in the vast majority of those in which we have FG%'s, he pounded Russell in that category, as well. We have games in which Chamberlain outscored Russell by as much as 39 points (62-23), and games in which he outrebounded him by as many as 36 rebounds (55-19.)

Yes of course! How can anyone deny that he thoroughly dominated Russell Head2Head? The stats reflect that, but, herein lies the crux of the argument, that doesn't mean he was the better player! If the game was won and lost by how well Wilt did against his opposing centre then he would never lose. I'm pretty sure basketball isn't a 1v1 sport though.

And don't forget,

1. Wilt was shooting the ball much more than Russell. Here is an interesting quote form Wilt in 1962 -- "It's my honest belief i could do as well as Russell defensively and he could almost match me offensively if we switched teams. What it comes down to is a matter of concentration. You can't concentrate on both defense and offense without losing a piece of each. So each of us emphasizes that part of the game that best serves the club"

and

2. Russell was guarding him exclusively 1on1. From what i can gather, and according to Wilt himself, the Celtics never double teamed Wilt -- "the only team in the league that plays me with one man is the Boston Celtics with Bill Russell. They can do this because Russell is the games defensive ace. Bill is 6 feet 9, with long arms and beautiful timing. He seems to hang suspended in the air almost half the night. He makes me shoot higher than i usually do, and his tremendous reach leaves my hook shot useless"

This also backs up what i said about Boston letting him (not actually letting him but you know what I mean) get his points and concentrating on shutting down his teammates.



A slightly off topic comparison but bare with me...

Over the last 25 years my beloved Manchester United have been famous for come from behind victories, many in the last minutes of a game (the most famous comeback was in the '99 european cup final against Bayern Munich. Down 1-0 with 3 minutes left to play we scored 2 goals in stoppage time. Considering the magnitude of the game and the situation, it was one of the most epic comebacks of all time ). Is this luck? Is this a coinsidence? Have we just been incredibly fortunate to have a seemingly never ending line of clutch performers producing clutch performances?

NO. It's because Sir Alex Ferguson (MAN UTDs manager) is one of the most driven & competitive managers in football history. Winning is everything to him. He refuses to lose and that mindset trickles down to his players. It does not matter who the players are. I don't have to tell you - there has been a huge turnover of players at the club over the last 2 and a half decades, as with any club. Yet we continue to win and produce those 'clutch' performances that have become synonymous with Ferguson's reign.



It's the same with Russell. Surely he must get credit for raising his teammates level of play, especially in big games & in crunch time. Would Sam Jones have hit all those clutch shots if he was playing with Wilt instead of Russell? Would Havlicek have stolen the ball in the '65 ECFs? I'm not so sure.

Don Nelson - "There are two types of superstars. One makes himself look good at the expense of the other guys on the floor. But there's another type who makes the players around him look better than they are, and that's the type Russell was."

and from Russell himself - "To me, one of the most beautiful things to see is a group of men coordinating their efforts toward a common goal, alternately subordinating and asserting themselves to achieve real teamwork in action. I tried to do that, we all tried to do that, on the Celtics. I think we succeeded."



In my opinion, and from everything I've seen and read, Russell was the greatest leader in NBA history and arguably in professional sports history as well. His teammates loved & repsected him. They didn't want to let him down. He set up a 'winning is absolutely everything' culture on the Celtics. Wilt on the other hand, set up a 'my stats are absolutely everything' culture on his teams.....

[oolalaa]

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]

T1. hat's fine. You're right, there's a chance that it never actually happened. The only place I've seen it mentioned is in Simmons TBOB. Now, I would say that Bill Simmons is not a liar. For it to be in his book means that he has read it somewhere. From what i can tell, he is not a disingenuous person (certainly not intentionally anyway. I know he has certain biases but so does everyone) and is not one to make up facts. The question is - is the source that he got it from trustworthy? Who the friggin hell knows.


If he's not disingenuous then he's one of the lousiest researchers I ever even heard of that's actually been published. It's one or the other. Or, it could be both.

Granted he's a popular writer, not a valid historian. But he's trying to write history with that book, so he has to meet the standard or be declared a bozo.

The guys at this site are pretty mathematically inclined.... so it's hard for them to keep from pointing out that Simmons can't count:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229


This site destroys Simmons supporting cast ideas (to me the most insulting to the intelligence of anybody who watched those teams)

http://billsimmonsbogusbook.blogspot...ns-weighs.html

If you will notice at the bottom of the page, there's practically an encyclopedia, all presenting facts instead of myths.

Short and sweet version:

From 1960-69:

* Wilt’s teammates made the All-Star team 14 times; Russell’s, 19 times

* One of Wilt’s teammates made the All-NBA First team; Russell, eight teammates

* Five of Wilt’s teammates made the All-NBA Second team; Russell, fourteen teammates

* Wilt’s teammates accounted for 17 Hall-of-Fame player-seasons; Russell’s, 47


And when Simmons says:

“Also, if you’re scoring at home, Russell played with four members of the NBA’s Top 50 at 50 (Havlicek, Cousy, Sharman and Sam Jones); Wilt played with six members (Baylor, West, Greer, Cunningham, Arizin and Thurmond).”

knowing what we know about Simmons pathetic slant, how can you not look at that more closely? And sure enough, he's twisted that, too.

Russell's teammates - AND HOW MANY SEASONS RUSSELL PLAYED WITH THEM:
Havlicek 7
Cousy 7
Sharman 5
Sam Jones 12
total: 31 seasons together.

Chamberlain's teammates:
Baylor 4
West 5
Greer 4
Cunningham 3 (anyone remember BC breaking his arm in the 68 playoffs?)
Arizin 3
Thurmond 2
Total: 21 seasons together.

Now Baylor is very interesting. From the 69-70 season right through the end of his career in 71-72 he played 65 games. He never played a full season with Chamberlain.
And it's interesting that Chamberlain wrecked his knee in 69 and missed the season. And it's interesting that Baylor & West both missed the '71 playoffs.
Wilt's total is closer to 17 seasons with Top 50 players.

But then, Russell retired in '69.
**********************

(again, Wilt missed 69-70... but then of course Wilt only lined up against Russell 1 single year as a Laker)

So we're left with a simple choice. Is Simmons disengenuous, or is he a pathetically bad writer?

Have we destroyed all of those myths yet?

Happy New Year, Oolalaa!!

Yes i completely agree. This was without doubt Simmons weakest argument in his Wilt/Russell comparison. I have said repeatedly that Wilt should not have been expected to beat Boston with the teammates he had in his first 5 1/2 seasons. BUT he did some very good teammates form '65 onwards and he had ample opportunity to win 2/3 more rings. Yet, he didn't, and according to jlauber, IT WAS NEVER, EVER HIS FAULT!!

[oolalaa]

Next:

oolalaa what the heck is this?

"and

"I get constant reminders from fans who equate 'that game' and my career as one of the same.""


This is, if I'm not mistaken, a later Chamberlain quote from one of his books, describing how no matter where in the world he goes, he's recognized as the guy who scored 100 points in a game. He was the first basketball superstar, internationally recognized - like the Beatles, in a way, in his own domain.

The analogy with the band holds up in several ways. Just as they dragged popular music out of the 1950s into the modern rock era, Chamberlain almost singlehandedly invented modern basketball.

Coaches had no idea what to do with a player who was so far above the rest of the league. Entire defensive schemes were invented, entire concepts of containing the rest of the team. People think today's defensive schemes came from the Daly Pistons. Well, they didn't. They came from Red Auerbach, Larry Costello, Alex Hannum, & Red Holzman. They used zones for years against Chamberlain, and the refs let them.

When Jordan first showed up, analysts would say stuff like 'this looks like the Pistons, the Celtics & the Royals back in the early 60s when Chamberlain was destroying the NBA. They're playing Jordan tough, lots of fouls, and they're smothering the rest of his team. Just like they did to beat Wilt's teams. You can't stop guys like this, all you can do is beat their lousy teammates."

When hack-a-shaq first started, a lot of old coaches would say stuff like 'they dusted off the old Chamberlain playbook - foul him, he can't make free throws & that's the only way you're going to stop him."

All modern basketball players look like Chamberlain, plain and simple. He invented it, created it, shaped it, and the league looks like him to this day. Wilt & Jordan.

But that game.... even today in Philadelphia, people don't use Chamberlain's name. They just say 'when 100 was playing at Overbrook...."

Yes I'm sorry, ignore that quote. I misinterpreted it.

[jlauber]

2. Russell was guarding him exclusively 1on1. From what i can gather, and according to Wilt himself, the Celtics never double teamed Wilt -- "the only team in the league that plays me with one man is the Boston Celtics with Bill Russell. They can do this because Russell is the games defensive ace. Bill is 6 feet 9, with long arms and beautiful timing. He seems to hang suspended in the air almost half the night. He makes me shoot higher than i usually do, and his tremendous reach leaves my hook shot useless"

This also backs up what i said about Boston letting him (not actually letting him but you know what I mean) get his points and concentrating on shutting down his teammates.

I stopped right there. Russell SELDOM guarded Wilt one-on-one. And I have provided link-after-link, and even VIDEO highlights from games.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html

In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a [COLOR="DarkRed"]team-defense concept[/COLOR] to stop Chamberlain. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever.. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."

http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-...mmy-4000-words

The Celtics didn’t have to double- or triple-team Wilt because of Bill Russell’s defense. Bill’s strategy was to deny the entry pass; if Wilt did get the ball down low, Bill stayed between him and the basket, tried to take away the lane; if Wilt got the shot off, Bill would block it if he could and always made certain to box Wilt out. Bill played Wilt clean, didn’t hack or whack, did nothing to antagonize the big man.

That assignment was given to Tommy Heinsohn. When Wilt got the ball in the low post, Tommy was detailed to stop him - punch the ball, grab his arms, and, if nothing else worked, tackle the giant. Tommy’s courage was legendary, as he proved repeatedly over the course of his career, but putting him up against Wilt seemed a horrendous mismatch. Tommy was a full head shorter and fifty pounds lighter and wasn’t the only one who considered Wilt the strongest man in the world, once calling him “King Kong in sneakers”.

From the first minute of the first regular season game against Wilt and the Warriors, Tommy became a major thorn in Wilt’s side, a thorn mostly in the form of an elbow. Tommy was well-known around the league for the sharpness of his elbows. It was part of every rookie forward’s welcome to the NBA to experience Heinsohn’s elbow under his ribs. Even Bill Russell was familiar with the experience. In college, when Tommy’s Holy Cross team played Bill’s University of San Francisco team in the Holiday Tournament at Madison Square Garden, Tommy drilled Bill in the ribs early in the first quarter. Bill waited until the referees were looking the other way and elbowed Tommy back. Then, he kept him from scoring for the rest of the game.

Since Tommy’s assignment was to impede Wilt’s path to the basket and to foul Wilt if necessary to make him shoot free throws, it seemed as though Tommy was always placing himself in Wilt’s way, grabbing and clutching him, punching and slapping at the ball and, often as not, making contact with Wilt’s hands and arms. When going after rebounds, Tommy and Wilt often pushed and shoved each other with bad intentions. At one point during the regular season, when a fight broke out and the Celtics and Warriors squared off or restrained each other, Wilt stormed halfway across the court to grab Tommy, pulling his jersey so hard he literally ripped pieces out of it.

In Game Five in the sold-out Garden, Wilt shrugged off the swollen hand and turned in the kind of performance that Bill Russell had feared: he scored fifty points and led his team to an easy 128-107 win. The result shocked the Celtics and gave the momentum back to Philadelphia.

Game Six was a classic Boston-Philadelphia matchup, a game that went back and forth and came down to the end tied 117-117 with eleven seconds left and Tom Gola at the free throw line. Chamberlain and Russell were in each other’s shirts from the opening tap and neither one could make a difference.

The Garden leprechaun must have had a sympathetic relative in Philadelphia because Gola missed both free throws. The Celtics had possession with a chance to win. The ball moved around and found Bill Sharman for an open 17-foot jump shot. As Sharman left his feet, Chamberlain lunged and stretched and got a finger on the ball.

When Wilt lunged, Tommy slipped in behind him. Now he leaped, in perfect position for the tip-in. But the deflection caused Tommy to jump too soon. Falling, he flicked at the ball with his fingertips, it went through the basket, the buzzer sounded, and the better team went on to win yet another championship.

Bill Russell was generous in victory. "Frankly, I don't like to see stories that make Chamberlain look bad. He isn't bad. He's great - the greatest scoring machine basketball has ever seen. When I stop him, it's as much a matter of luck as anything else. And when I fail, it's no disgrace. It's never a disgrace to be beaten by a champion, and that's what Chamberlain is, even though he's just a rookie."

BTW, look at the bad luck that once again followed Wilt in the above quote.

K.C. Jones, arguably the savviest team player in the history of the game, was also a rookie that year and had a front row seat for Bill and Wilt's encounters. "Bill didn't do it all. We just used TEAM.

How about a VIDEO interview with BOTH Russell and Wilt?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173M7ApCNKw

Jump to the 5 minute mark...

"Instead of having two or three people AND Russell on me all the time..." And once again, Russell is sitting right next to Wilt when he makes that comment. Oh, and LOOK at the VIDEO footage while he is saying it.


And unfortunately, it appears that the second half of the '64 NBA Finals has been removed from You-Tube, but I pointed it out in a discussion on THIS very topic a while back on this Forum. Chamberlain was DOUBLED, TRIPLED, and SWARMED for MUCH of that game.

Regarding Russell and Wilt's roles...

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/wiltrules.html

Wilt. No iffs ands or butts. Russell's offensive game was very limited. According to Russell, himself, Wilt could do Russell's role better than Russell, "Wilt is playing better than I used to -- passing off, coming out to set up screens, picking up guys outside, and sacrificing himself for team play." (Great Moments in Pro Basketball, by Sam Goldaper, p.24) Russell said this while he was player-coach of the Celtics. Russell could not fulfill as many roles as Wilt, especially if he had to be first option on offense. While some of Russell's teammates try to belittle Wilt by saying if Wilt were a Celtic, they would have won a few titles, but not as many, I have yet to see anybody step forward and say that Russell could have led the Warriors to the title.

[jlauber]

Yes i completely agree. This was without doubt Simmons weakest argument in his Wilt/Russell comparison. I have said repeatedly that Wilt should not have been expected to beat Boston with the teammates he had in his first 5 1/2 seasons. BUT he did some very good teammates form '65 onwards and he had ample opportunity to win 2/3 more rings. Yet, he didn't, and according to jlauber, IT WAS NEVER, EVER HIS FAULT!!

I challenge you to give me the examples where it WAS Wilt's fault in those three series.

If you mean game seven of the '68 ECF's, when Wilt seldom TOUCHED the ball...while his TEAMMATES collectively shot .333 in the ENTIRE game...I addressed this before. And, Wilt was PLAYING, 48 MINUTES PER GAME, for FIVE STRAIGHT games with a TORN CALF muscle and SEVERAL other injuries. Even Russell commented that "a lessor man would NOT have played." And as we KNOW, that means that NO ONE else would have played under those circumstances. Hell, Reed, with a similar injury, MISSED the better parts of THREE straight games, and when he did play, he was a worthless statute. How about Wilt in the '68 ECF's? 22 ppg and 25 rpg!

Even Kareem missed a clinching game six of the Finals with a sprained ankle. Think about this... Wilt pulled himself out of a game seven, with a leg injury (the same leg that he would shred early on in the very next season), and HAD to come out. He was out for TWO MINUTES, and then asked to go back in. His idiotic coach refused, and his TEAM lost the game by TWO POINTS. Who received the blame after that game? Of course it was WILT.

And NO, Wilt could NOT have demanded the ball in that game seven. You KNOW it and I KNOW it. Why? Because he would have been ripped by the media for being a "selfish" "stats-padder."

I get so sick-and-tired of having to defend Wilt in his post-season career. He DID have EXCUSES. TONS of them. My god, he came within NINE points, in FOUR game seven's, of beating Russell H2H, 5-3. And in ALL of those games, consistently poor play by his TEAMMATES, or incompetent COACHING, or INJURIES (to MULTIPLE teammates AND himself), or MIRACLE shots (MULTIPLE miracle shots BTW), or a combination of ALL of them. Then in the second half of game five of the '70 Finals, even a NY TIMES WRITER claimed that the Knicks were aided by home-court officiating (and in that second half, Wilt and West COMBINED for FIVE shots.) So, that is FIVE seven game series in which Wilt was a couple of points, or one play, or one call, or one inept coaching decision, or one miracle shot, away from winning FIVE rings. We are not talking about just five post-season series...but five stinking game seven's that he could have, and SHOULD have been on a winning team.

Once again, if you can find STRICT fault with Wilt in those three series, please give me the examples. But be forewarned...I have heard and read them all.

[oolalaa]

I stopped right there. Russell SELDOM guarded Wilt one-on-one. And I have provided link-after-link, and even VIDEO highlights from games.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html




http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-...mmy-4000-words






BTW, look at the bad luck that once again followed Wilt in the above quote.





How about a VIDEO interview with BOTH Russell and Wilt?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173M7ApCNKw

Jump to the 5 minute mark...

"Instead of having two or three people AND Russell on me all the time..." And once again, Russell is sitting right next to Wilt when he makes that comment. Oh, and LOOK at the VIDEO footage while he is saying it.


And unfortunately, it appears that the second half of the '64 NBA Finals has been removed from You-Tube, but I pointed it out in a discussion on THIS very topic a while back on this Forum. Chamberlain was DOUBLED, TRIPLED, and SWARMED for MUCH of that game.

Regarding Russell and Wilt's roles...

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/wiltrules.html

You should neg rep me for that. I deserve it Where is everybody anyway? Like Shaqattack, GOAT and whoever else. I'm fighting you and La Frescobaldi 1 on 2!

[jlauber]

You should neg rep me for that. I deserve it Where is everybody anyway? Like Shaqattack, GOAT and whoever else. I'm fighting you and La Frescobaldi 1 on 2!

Look, Russell was the game's greatest "winner." In fact, he was the greatest "winner" in ANY major professional TEAM sport. True, he was blessed with great teammates, but he also made them great. I have never denied that. And I have also stated that Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's, even when the rosters were roughly equal (although Russell always had deeper rosters.) Russell deserves much of the credit, and Wilt probably deserves at least some of the blame.

But what irritates me is that because Wilt "only" won two rings, he has been labeled a "selfish" "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in big games. I think I have conclusively ripped those labels to shreds. The fact was, Wilt was an EYELASH away from winning FIVE more rings (FOUR against Russell.)

And even more frustrating, is that then, the same posters that rip Wilt for basically being a "stats-padding" "loser", will then proclaim Larry Bird as one of the most CLUTCH players of all-time...even though he had some AWFUL post-seasons (and played on SEVEN teams that lost with HCA.) Or that Hakeem was a top-five player of all-time, even though the man never played on a team with the best record in the league, or that won 60+ games, AND, in fact, he played on EIGHT teams that were WIPED out in the FIRST ROUND.

I have documented the SEVERAL post-season series, and even entire post-seasons, that Kareem FLOPPED. And when the name Jerry West comes up, well, he was "Mr. Clutch." Yet, he played on ONE title team...AND, in that post-season, he shot .376, including a putrid .325 in the Finals. And guess who won the FMVP in that post-season? You guessed it...it was WILT!

Why the DOUBLE-STANDARD????

[oolalaa]

Oh and jlauber, just do me the courtesy of reading the rest of my previous post will you. I'd appreciate it, thanks...

[jlauber]

Oh and jlauber, just do me the courtesy of reading the rest of my previous post will you. I'd appreciate it, thanks...

In my opinion, and from everything I've seen and read, Russell was the greatest leader in NBA history and arguably in professional sports history as well. His teammates loved & repsected him. They didn't want to let him down. He set up a 'winning is absolutely everything' culture on the Celtics. Wilt on the other hand, set up a 'my stats are absolutely everything' culture on his teams.....

I agree 100%.

Having said that, though, how many other posters have you read here who agree with you? Most of them just rip Wilt, and never acknowledge what Wilt, and his TEAM's, were facing in their TEN seasons in the league together.

Instead of praising Russell, they just claim that Wilt was a "selfish" "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in big games. Where is the criticism of West and Baylor, who played TOGETHER, and could never beat Russell (while Wilt DID beat, and badly one year)???

[oolalaa]

Look, Russell was the game's greatest "winner." In fact, he was the greatest "winner" in ANY major professional TEAM sport. True, he was blessed with great teammates, but he also made them great. I have never denied that. And I have also stated that Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's, even when the rosters were roughly equal (although Russell always had deeper rosters.) Russell deserves much of the credit, and Wilt probably deserves at least some of the blame.

But what irritates me is that because Wilt "only" won two rings, he has been labeled a "selfish" "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in big games. I think I have conclusively ripped those labels to shreds. The fact was, Wilt was an EYELASH away from winning FIVE more rings (FOUR against Russell.)

And even more frustrating, is that then, the same posters that rip Wilt for basically being a "stats-padding" "loser", will then proclaim Larry Bird as one of the most CLUTCH players of all-time...even though he had some AWFUL post-seasons (and played on SEVEN teams that lost with HCA.) Or that Hakeem was a top-five player of all-time, even though the man never played on a team with the best record in the league, or that won 60+ games, AND, in fact, he played on EIGHT teams that were WIPED out in the FIRST ROUND.

I have documented the SEVERAL post-season series, and even entire post-seasons, that Kareem FLOPPED. And when the name Jerry West comes up, well, he was "Mr. Clutch." Yet, he played on ONE title team...AND, in that post-season, he shot .376, including a putrid .325 in the Finals. And guess who won the FMVP in that post-season? You guessed it...it was WILT!

Why the DOUBLE-STANDARD????

I've said, I do not believe that Wilt was a "loser" and nor do i believe he was a "choker". But, like i said, he lost too many close, big games to be considered a "winner".

I do think he was a "selfish, stat padder" though, in his first 7 years at least. This was partly unintentional because of the minutes he played but when i read a quote like -- "Gottlieb (warriors owner) told his young superstar that if he continued playing, he stood an excellent chance of breaking every major record in the book. The challenge was one Chamberlain could not easily ignore" it somewhat confirms my suspicions.

And that '68 game 7 ECFs you mentioned.....don't you understand? Wilt would not have been labelled a "selfish, stats padder" if they would have won that game, even if he took every single shot in the 4th!!! Ultimately, winning is all that matters and he would have been praised for being 'clutch' and doing what was necessary to win.

Let me ask you again, as you didn't respond to this previously....Why didn't Wilt vacillate between monstrous/unstoppable scoring and distributing/playmaking? Why didn't he pass the ball/make his teammates better for the first 3 quarters and then 'take over' in 4th with his scoring? (from '65 onwards i mean) He would never have lost!!! Unless his woeful FT shooting let him down of course

It's like he didn't really 'get' or understand how to win. He got by on his unparalleled talent.


You said that Wilt did a bad job of "losing". He played for 14 years and "lost" in 12 of those years. Seems like he made a good fist of it to me. But even if he was an "eyelash" away from winning 5 more rings, I say...

--Jordan could have won 11/12 titles if he had better teammates early in his career.
--Magic could have won 6/7 titles without the injuries in '89 and '91.
--Bird could have won 1/2 more titles if his back didn't give way in the late 80s.
--What about Kareem's lousy teammates in the mid/late 70s? That's 2/3 more titles right there.
--And hakeem's cast of clowns that he was lumbered with in the late 80s/early 90s? You go on about hakeem crashing out of 8 1st rounds but his teammates were pretty terrible.
--Or Duncan's best teammates being a washed up Robinson, Ginobili and Tony Parker.
--Or kobe wasting his prime away playing with Kwame Brown?
--Or shaq not winning in '04 because of kobe and '05 and '07 because of injuries?
--And don't forget, Russell could have had 12 rings without his injury in the '58 finals.

Saying that Wilt was an eyelash away from winning 5 more rings is not a positive thing in most peoples minds and is ammunition to those who claim that Wilt was a "loser".

[oolalaa]

I agree 100%.

Having said that, though, how many other posters have you read here who agree with you? Most of them just rip Wilt, and never acknowledge what Wilt, and his TEAM's, were facing in their TEN seasons in the league together.

Instead of praising Russell, they just claim that Wilt was a "selfish" "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in big games. Where is the criticism of West and Baylor, who played TOGETHER, and could never beat Russell (while Wilt DID beat, and badly one year)???

He was better than West & Baylor. The better you are, the more stick you get when you lose and deservedly so.

Regarding the double standard.....

Well, Wilt is unquestionably the second greatest player of his era. I love Jerry West but i could never rank him over Wilt (the rebounding discrepancy is way too huge for one). You'll see me, and probably most people, talk almost exclusively about West in glowing terms.

Why is this? Well it's simple really - he was universally respected by his peers. You'll be hard pressed to find find a negative quote about Jerry West. You will however, find many declaring that he was a leader and a phenominal teammate as well as a great all round player.

Unfortunately, there are far more negative quotes about Wilt than there are positive ones. What are we supposed to make of this? His detractors (admittedly i am one of them although i do have enormous respect for his talent and athleticism. I would have absolutely loved to watch him play live in his prime) feed off those quotes. It's hard not to and when we see that he lost four game 7s to the Celtics by a total of 9 points, it shows us that his those losses probably weren't a coincidence or unfortunate. He just wasn't a "winner".

[brahmabull117]

We hijacked a Oolalaa thread, went way too far off from Walton & Duncan comparison... pickin it up where he sez.........

***************************************
I have said this on more than one occasion - Wilt is the most talented player the league has ever seen. More talented than Jordan. More talented than Kareem. More talented than Kobe. More talented than Hakeem. And yes, even more talented than Lebron. He was an unbelievable all round player but, I hate to keep repeating this over and over again, INTANGIBLES PLAY A HUGE ROLE IN BASKETBALL. They just do, and this is what jlauber doesn't seem to grasp. He is STAT OBSESSED. Players such as Russell, Magic, Bird, Duncan and Isiah Thomas prove that leadership, clutchness and competitiveness make up for deficiences in talent and ability.

You talk about basketball as if you're talking about a one on one sport like golf or tennis




You can bash Lebron for his awful finals performance last year, but how do you blame him for losing that Orlando series when he performed like a total monster??



It's still a team sport and team accomplishments mean very little if both players are putting up similar numbers

[oolalaa]

You talk about basketball as if you're talking about a one on one sport like golf or tennis




You can bash Lebron for his awful finals performance last year, but how do you blame him for losing that Orlando series when he performed like a total monster??



It's still a team sport and team accomplishments mean very little if both players are putting up similar numbers

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Can you elaborate...