Ranking the top 100 players in NBA history

[Math2]

Wilt averaged 29 and 29 against Russell. GTFO

How many series did he win?

GTFO

[PTB Fan]

Wilt averaged 29 and 29 against Russell. GTFO

Wilt averaged 25 points and 27 rebounds (i think the rebound numbers are better though) versus Russell in the post season. See the difference? Russell contained Wilt to 17.8 points below his normal scoring average in 62 playoffs.

Then, Russell does another good job in '64 Finals where he slows Wilt to nearly 8 points below his scoring average and on 50% shooting. He had other good years. But then again, Chamberlain often played for stats and pursued individual goals. It's a fact.

All of those numbers that jluaber or what ever his name is, are stats and only stats. That was part of basketball where The Big Dipper clearly dominated and no one was better.

Wilt rarely cared about the team. As a superb big man who was outstanding on the court he made impact. You cannot deny it. He led those "weaker" Philly rosters to near upsets versus the Celtics, who had advantage in terms of having a better team until 65.

But those teams were focused on him. He either led them to huge wins, or was the reason why they lost. That's why the Celtics consistently defended the others and let Wilt get good numbers for some time. Then, Russell did great work in the clutch and Boston wins the game.

This is why his teams lost when ever he faced Bill Russell. His team mates couldn't bail him out later, because they didn't take many shots, neither there was some ball movement.

From '65, Chamberlain has an admirable edge in terms of having the more talented and better teams overall. He clearly whooped everyone in the MVP races, as he won the awards easily.

I'd say he outplayed Russell in '67, '68 with ease. When he played team ball, he was an unstoppable figure, period. He led his team mates to easy points, created free shots for him, dominated the glass, scored with legendary efficiency, was top league tier in defense etc.

After he won a title, he continued to pursue individual goals. He quit from being the scoring leader, and then went to win an assist title, which he did win. But then again, it's another individual goal.

Chamberlain, because he was so obsessed with passing, he then didn't take over in crucial games and he's the reason why his teams loses again. In '68, he suffered a huge lost from 3-1 because his team mates were injured. I'll admit that.

In '69, he was clearly slowed by Bill Russell but even so, he scored efficiently and did nice work. Wilt was always an individual, wheres Russell was clearly a team oriented player. That's why the difference between the two is big.

However, from '69 to the end of his career, Wilt was a team oriented player who played like Russell (being the top defender in most of the seasons from that year but with much bigger efficiency).

Nonetheless, Wilt is a legend and he was arguably the best player in the NBA History. Period. Everyone should admit that, regardless do they like him or not.

[WillC]

Let the Wilt vs Russell debate resume.

[Math2]

Russell>Wilt

That's all there is to it.

[jlauber]

Wilt averaged 25 points and 27 rebounds (i think the rebound numbers are better though) versus Russell in the post season. See the difference? Russell contained Wilt to 17.8 points below his normal scoring average in 62 playoffs.

Then, Russell does another good job in '64 Finals where he slows Wilt to nearly 8 points below his scoring average and on 50% shooting. He had other good years. But then again, Chamberlain often played for stats and pursued individual goals. It's a fact.

All of those numbers that jluaber or what ever his name is, are stats and only stats. That was part of basketball where The Big Dipper clearly dominated and no one was better.

Wilt rarely cared about the team. As a superb big man who was outstanding on the court he made impact. You cannot deny it. He led those "weaker" Philly rosters to near upsets versus the Celtics, who had advantage in terms of having a better team until 65.

But those teams were focused on him. He either led them to huge wins, or was the reason why they lost. That's why the Celtics consistently defended the others and let Wilt get good numbers for some time. Then, Russell did great work in the clutch and Boston wins the game.

This is why his teams lost when ever he faced Bill Russell. His team mates couldn't bail him out later, because they didn't take many shots, neither there was some ball movement.

From '65, Chamberlain has an admirable edge in terms of having the more talented and better teams overall. He clearly whooped everyone in the MVP races, as he won the awards easily.

I'd say he outplayed Russell in '67, '68 with ease. When he played team ball, he was an unstoppable figure, period. He led his team mates to easy points, created free shots for him, dominated the glass, scored with legendary efficiency, was top league tier in defense etc.

After he won a title, he continued to pursue individual goals. He quit from being the scoring leader, and then went to win an assist title, which he did win. But then again, it's another individual goal.

Chamberlain, because he was so obsessed with passing, he then didn't take over in crucial games and he's the reason why his teams loses again. In '68, he suffered a huge lost from 3-1 because his team mates were injured. I'll admit that.

In '69, he was clearly slowed by Bill Russell but even so, he scored efficiently and did nice work. Wilt was always an individual, wheres Russell was clearly a team oriented player. That's why the difference between the two is big.

However, from '69 to the end of his career, Wilt was a team oriented player who played like Russell (being the top defender in most of the seasons from that year but with much bigger efficiency).

Nonetheless, Wilt is a legend and he was arguably the best player in the NBA History. Period. Everyone should admit that, regardless do they like him or not.

All-in-all, a pretty good post.

But, some points need to be addressed here. One, while Russell "held" Wilt to 17 ppg less than his regular season average in the '62 ECF's, it must be noted that during their regular season H2H's, Wilt "only" averaged 38 ppg on .470 shooting against Russell and the Celtics. So, his 34 ppg on .468 shooting against him in the '62 ECF's was not nearly as dramatic a decline as so many claim. Furthermore, in the '62 playoffs, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354, which again illustrates just how impressive Wilt's post-season really was. He took what was the same basic last-place roster he joined in '60, to a 49-31 record, and then carried them to a 3-2 series win over Syracuse in the first round of the playoffs (which included a 56-35 clinching game five win.) And, then took that putrid roster to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their seven HOFers. Now, can anyone explain to me how all of that was possible, when his teammates couldn't hit the ocean from a life-boat?

Also, I am constantly amazed at how many observers blame Wilt for being selfish and "stats-padding." It was Wilt's COACHES who asked that Wilt score 45 and 50 ppg. And why not? Take his '63 season for example. He averaged 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting, while his teammates collectively shot .412. In fact, and as PHILA pointed out, before the start of the very next season, his newest coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage with that roster, sans Wilt, against a bunch of scrubs...and guess who won?

And, yes, Russell "held" a PRIME Wilt down more than any other player (with the possible exception of Thurmond...whom Chamberlain only faced in a dozen, or so, games in his "scoring" PRIME.) Still, Chamberlain had THREE full SEASONS of 38 ppg against Russell, and he averaged 33 ppg against Russell in his first seven seasons. He also had FOUR post-seasons against Russell in which he averaged 30+ ppg. He also had three known post-seasons of 50%+ shooting against Russell, and quite possibly at least a couple more. On the other side of the ball, Wilt routinely held Russell considerably below his normal shooting percentages (as he did against virtually EVERY opposing center he faced.) In Wilt's rookie season, he faced Russell in 11 H2H regular season games, and in the known ten, he held Russell to .398 shooting...in a season in which Russell shot a career high .467. In the '67 ECF's, Wilt outshot Russell from the floor, .556 to .358. In fact, in their known H2H games, there were very few in which Russell outshot Chamberlain, and in many cases, Wilt outshot Russell by a huge margin. Of course, in terms of rebounding, Wilt held a MASSIVE edge against Russell. The bottom line... in their 142 H2H games, which included 49 H2H post-season games, Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg...or a near 30-30 game every time he stepped on the floor against Russell.

I also can't see where anyone could fault Wilt for his assist title in '68. Why? Because his TEAM ran away with the best record in the league. True, he made that an individual goal, but I have never heard anyone getting ripped for passing the ball to teammates, as much as Wilt was in '68...all while leading his team to the best record in the league.

And I won't take the time to rehash the poor play and shooting by his teammates in so many post-seasons. Maybe Wilt was partially to blame, but I could never understand why Wilt's overall numbers in his post-seasons mirrored his regular seasons, while his teammates dropped dramatically from their regular season numbers. Wilt basically played the same way, but his surrounding personnel went to hell in the majority of his post-seasons. I mentioned his teammates shooting in the '62 playoffs. How about in the '66 playoffs? Wilt shot .509, and his teammates shot .352. And how about the '61 playoffs? Chamberlain at .469 (in a league that shot .415), and his teammates shot...get this... .332.

In any case, PTB's post was well done.