intangibles vs. facts, myth vs. reality

[La Frescobaldi]

Thanks for giving me more information on that trade. I thought there was probably other factors involved but, regardless, the interesting thing surrounding it was the fact that the Lakers players vetoed a trade for him.

I'm curious, did the Lakers players know about Wilt's supposed heart condition? And if so, was that the reason they didn't want him? Or was it because he was whiny, self centered and stat obsessed? (All these things are undeniable. I can find you more quotes backing up these claims - I used the ones in Simmons TBOB because i remember thinking that they were particuarly damning, and, i think you would agree, they are.)

I have never been able to find anything about a vote by the Lakers.

As I said, and I'll repeat it: "At the time the locker room story broke, there was a different view entirely; namely, Short had completely lost his senses by effectively inviting the players into the boardroom."

Possibly my writing was poor.

What I remember, reading in the newspapers & magazines (and yes that's a very long time ago, but most people I think remember a great deal about their youthful diversions, & basketball rated only below girls in the back seat of my car) is that Bob Short looked like a fool for allowing his players to take part in decisions about the team.

Naturally I don't claim to have read every sports rag from 1960 to today.

Nevertheless I find it bothersome that I can find no mention of this really unprecedented 'vote' in SI Vault, nor in any book I can recall. I just re-read John Taylor's admirable account of the trade in his terrifically well researched book, 'The Rivalry' and find nothing at all about this voting by players.
Surely he would have found such a shocking story worth including in a history of Chamberlain & Russell?

Can you find a reputable source for this story about a vote?

[jlauber]

I have never been able to find anything about a vote by the Lakers.

As I said, and I'll repeat it: "At the time the locker room story broke, there was a different view entirely; namely, Short had completely lost his senses by effectively inviting the players into the boardroom."

Possibly my writing was poor.

What I remember, reading in the newspapers & magazines (and yes that's a very long time ago, but most people I think remember a great deal about their youthful diversions, & basketball rated only below girls in the back seat of my car) is that Bob Short looked like a fool for allowing his players to take part in decisions about the team.

Naturally I don't claim to have read every sports rag from 1960 to today.

Nevertheless I find it bothersome that I can find no mention of this really unprecedented 'vote' in SI Vault, nor in any book I can recall. I just re-read John Taylor's admirable account of the trade in his terrifically well researched book, 'The Rivalry' and find nothing at all about this voting by players.
Surely he would have found such a shocking story worth including in a history of Chamberlain & Russell?

Can you find a reputable source for this story about a vote?

I doubt it. It came from the idiotic Bill Simmons, whose initials of BS are a much better indicator of his actual knowledge.

And once again, on the remote possibility that there was a smidgeon of truth to it, if the Lakers management allowed the players to make that decision, it ultimately cost them 1-2 titles. Chamberlain made a bottom-feeding Sixer team into a dominant powerhouse in his 3 full seasons there. And I have long maintained that Philly would have had a "mini dynasty" had the 76er ownership given into Wilt's demands.

Instead, they were forced to trade Chamberalin away, which began a slow decline, and by the 72-73 season (Wilt's last season), the Sixers were the laughingstock of the league, going 9-73.

Meanwhile, Wilt took LA to FOUR Finals in his five seasons in Los Angeles, including their first ever championship. Not only that, but after Chamberlain "retired", the Lakers plummetted, and did not return to where he left them until Magic arrived in 1980.

Of course, Simmons never mentioned that Chamberlain immediately improved EVERY team he joined, and that each team he left became worse. And two of the three franchises Wilt played for STILL hold their best-ever W-L record. Think about that...Wilt played for the Sixers in '67, and for the Lakers in '72...and both of those teams STILL remain as their franchise's best ever.

[La Frescobaldi]

I honestly don't get why jlauber gets slack from posters when he can actually articulate argument. 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

************************

I'm a old guy, spend a lot of time on the sail boat, fishing, reading, tennis, watching the NBA, you know enjoyin good side of life...... jlauber is a Titan of internet old school basketball boards. Lotta guys got attention spans like my old brass door stop.

Haters will hate, that's all

[jlauber]

I have never been able to find anything about a vote by the Lakers.

As I said, and I'll repeat it: "At the time the locker room story broke, there was a different view entirely; namely, Short had completely lost his senses by effectively inviting the players into the boardroom."

Possibly my writing was poor.

What I remember, reading in the newspapers & magazines (and yes that's a very long time ago, but most people I think remember a great deal about their youthful diversions, & basketball rated only below girls in the back seat of my car) is that Bob Short looked like a fool for allowing his players to take part in decisions about the team.

Naturally I don't claim to have read every sports rag from 1960 to today.

Nevertheless I find it bothersome that I can find no mention of this really unprecedented 'vote' in SI Vault, nor in any book I can recall. I just re-read John Taylor's admirable account of the trade in his terrifically well researched book, 'The Rivalry' and find nothing at all about this voting by players.
Surely he would have found such a shocking story worth including in a history of Chamberlain & Russell?

Can you find a reputable source for this story about a vote?

BTW, I wasn't challenging your memory. Simmons must have found something similar to what you reported, and, as usual , completely falsified the rest of the story.

Personally, I agree with PointGuard's take on that story...if it were true. That the Laker players were fearful of either being replaced, or reduced to small roles, had the Chamberlain trade came down. Wilt had averaged 40 ppg during his CAREER at that point, and I'm reasonably certain that, aside from Baylor and West, that the rest of those players would have seen a significant drop in their own production.

Of course, as was the actual case, Wilt blended in well when he had quality supporting players in Philadelphia. He dramatically cut back his shooting, and became a dominant facilitator. Only a complete idiot like Simmons would find fault with Chamberlain leading the league in assists...and oh BTW, also leading that team to a runaway BEST RECORD in the league.

And, when Wilt was finally dealt to the Lakers, HE was the one who sacrificed. And for those clowns like Simmons who bring up the fact that Wilt played with Baylor, the reality was this: Baylor was already in a state of decline. His injury in the 64-65 playoffs left him without his spring, and he had to rely on his shooting, which was never exceptional to begin with. And in the 68-69 post-season, he completely fell apart, shooting a team-worst .385. And that was the ONLY FULL season that Baylor and Wilt played together. Wilt shredded his knee the very next season, and missed 70 games. And he was nowhere near 100% in the playoffs (although he was FAR more dominant than Baylor was.) Baylor played two games in the '70-71 season, and missed the rest of the year (including the playoffs.) And then new coach Bill Sharman convinced Baylor to retire after the ninth game in the 71-72 season. So, the REALITY was, Wilt and Baylor played ONE season together, and Baylor was already well past his prime.

[La Frescobaldi]

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...."

[jlauber]

Regarding that '70 finals - Willis Reed was playing on 1 leg for nearly half the series! (and was demolishing Wilt in the other half ). Why didn't Wilt pound Reed into the ground? Why didn't he exploit his injured opponent? I know he had a great game 6 but what happened in games 5 and 7? Let me guess, it was the coaches fault or his teammates fault or Jerry Wests fault or his injured knees fault. Am I right? There's always some excuse.

Yep, Wilt had a 45-27 "must-win" game six (on 20-27 shooting), and basically on ONE leg. And once again...the Wilt DOUBLE STANDARD. He put up a monumental game six, and he is then EXPECTED to do it in EVERY game.

Why didn't MJ score 63 points in EVERY playoff game? Why didn't Magic put up a 42-15-7 game in EVERY playoff game?

Had that been ANY other NBA player, and playing on a knee that had major surgery just four months before...they would STILL be hailing his heroic effort. But, with Wilt, it was...why didn't he do it EVERY game? Even on ONE leg.

I have read nonsense claiming that Wilt never averaged 50 ppg in his post-seasons, nor scored 100 points in a post-season game. Nope, all he could do was post "meager" post-season series like 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, 38.6 ppg, and 38.6 ppg. Or score a high game of 56 points, in a "must-win game", as well as 53, 50, and 50 (and that 50 point game, along with 35 rebounds, came against Russell.) Or FOUR post-seasons, just against Russell, of 30+ ppg (as well as a 30-31 seven game series.)

No one mentions that Wilt faced the Celtic dynasty in 30 of his 52 post-season games in his "scoring" seasons. Or that he faced a HOF center in 105 of his 160 post-season games (and a multiple-all star center in another 20.)

When Wilt put up a 46-34 game, in a loss, well, he was "selfish", never mind that his teammates often shot horribly. And, if he "only" put up a 22-21 game seven, well...he was really held down (despite only taking 15 shots.) If he put up a 50-35 game, in a must-win game, well, he SHOULD have been doing it. BUT, why didn't he do it EVERY game?

Just more examples of the Wilt DOUBLE STANDARD.

[oolalaa]

I covered this.

I don't even believe that there ever was "player vote." And if it were true, it would be indicative of management incompetence if they actually went along with it.

As it was, the "non-trade" probably cost the Lakers several titles. Meanwhile, all Wilt did after the actual trade was to lead the Sixers to a near monumental upset of the 62-18 Celtics in '65, and the BEST RECORD in the league over the next three seasons, including an overwhelming title in '67 (which included obliterating the eight-time defending champion Celtics.)

And, once again, I could post DOZENS of quotes from Wilt's teammates PRAISING his play. Following a game seven, two point loss in the '62 ECF's, Tom Meschery made this comment:

"The Boston players, player-for-player, were better than the Warriors. To go as far as we did was Wilt's doing. We came within two points of the championship."

I already gave West's REAL take on Chamberlain. He essentially proclaimed Wilt as the greatest to ever play the game (at least in the early 00's.) And, if anyone should be thanking Wilt, it should have been West. He finally won his only ring in '72. And it came in a post-season in which West was just AWFUL. He shot .376 in the entire post-season (and only .325 in the Finals), while Chamberlain mowed down Kareem and the defending champion Bucks in the WCF's, and then dominated the Knicks in the Finals, in leading LA to their first-ever title in Los Angeles... en route to winning the FMVP.

1. That'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.


2. The non-trade cost the Lakers several titles? Really? Firstly, it would have been interesting to see who the Lakers traded to get Wilt. Would they have had to give up Baylor or West? Or would the Warriors have accepted LaRusso, Dick Barnett & Leroy Ellis plus cash for him? My guess is probably yes, considering what the Warriors did actually get for him when he went to Philly.

Ok, so could the lakers have won multiple titles with Wilt, West, Baylor & and a bunch of role players?

There's no way they would have won in '65 - not with Elgin going down in the 1st round of the playoffs. How about from '66 - '68? Well, the question is, who would you rather; West & Baylor or Greer, Cunningham, Walker, Wali Jones & Luke Jackson? That was a very good, deep Philly team and as you know, Baylor could be erratic after his injury.

3. I would genuinely appreciate if you would post a few quotes from people praising Wilt. The positive Wilt quotes I've found are either "he was the most dominant player ever" or "he would have won 11 titles if he was on the Celtics instead of Russell" related. Frankly, quotes like that are neither relevant nor insightful.

4. you mean this jerry West quote?

"He was the most unbelievable center to ever play the game in terms of domination and intimidation. There's no one that's ever played the game better than Wilt Chamberlain. This was a man for all ages"

I hope you would agree that there is a distinction between saying "There's no one that's ever played the game better than Wilt Chamberlain" and saying that he thinks Chamberlain is the greatest player to ever play the game.

Besides, if he does think Wilt was the greatest, what does that actually mean? Does Jerry West's all time top 10 list have more value than yours or mine? Former players are, more often than not, excruciatingly biased toward the era that they played in.

The West quote about "he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him" is more insightful than him basically saying 'Wilt was the most dominant player to ever play the game'.

Also, I've heard West say that Kobe is the greatest Laker of all time. I'm pretty sure you don't agree with this.


Again, I'll respond to your multiple other replies when i have time...

[La Frescobaldi]

[QUOTE=oolalaa]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

[jlauber]

[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!!

You have already destroyed Simmons argument that Russell and Wilt' supporting casts were similar, but even your one-sided numbers aren't close.

First of all, you can add three more HOF seasons to Wilt's cast of 17, with the great HOFer Tom Gola, and his career 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and .425 shooting. And how did Gola shoot in his post-season career? .336. Yes, .336. Now in his three post-seasons with Chamberlain, he shot .412, .271 and .206 (yikes.) But, before someone jumps in and claims that it was Wilt who reduced him to that level, in his two other post-seasons, he shot .355 and .330.

Now, you did forget Gail Goodrich, who was a legitimate HOFer, and his three seasons with Wilt. So that now brings the number of seasons that Wilt was paired up with a HOFer to 23. HOWEVER, and even you acknowledged it, Baylor and Wilt only really played together for ONE full season, instead of four. That takes us back to 20. And Thurmond? He actually played with Wilt for 1 1/2 seasons (not two.) Furthermore, he played part-time, out of position, and shot very poorly from the forward position. So, we can basically eliminate Nate altogether. Now we are down to 18 full seasons.

West and his five seasons? He was injured for a number of games almost every year with Wilt, AND, he MISSED the entire '71 post-season. So, let's knock a year off of 18 (now 17.)

Greer? Actually, it was not four full seasons, but only 3 1/2 (Wilt was traded to Philly in mid-season of 64-65. For ease of math, though, we will leave it at four (still 17 seasons.)

Cunningham? Three full regular seasons, BUT, he did miss the '68 ECF's (an entire series in which the Sixers lost a game seven by four points.). Still, we'll give him a full three seasons.

Wilt's totals with his HOF teammates? 17 full seasons.

Continued...

[jlauber]

Continuing...

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

Ok, that's a good start. But wait. How about HOFers Tommy Heinsohn, Wayne Embry, Clyde Lovellette, Satch Sanders, KC Jones, Bailey Howell, Frank Ramsey, and Arnie Risen?

Granted, some of the above were borderline HOFers, but in any case, they were all QUALITY players. KC Jones and Sanders are not deserving of the HOF, BUT they were considered the best defensive players at their positions for much of their careers. And Howell was not only a 20 ppg scorer with Russell, he was also a .500 shooter, as well, in leagues that shot about .440.

Here we go...

Lovellette played two partial seasons with Russell, so we won't count him.

Risen 2
Embry 2
Howell 3
Ramsey 8
KC Jones 8 (full seasons, and another, his ninth was partial)
Sanders 9
Heinsohn 9

That's 41 more HOF seasons for Russell. Add the above 31 with that 41 and now Russell played alongside HOF teammates for 71 seasons.

Think about that...Russell had a 71-17 edge in full HOF seasons with his teammates.

Which just SHREDS Simmons' argument that Russell and Wilt played alongside mostly equal supporting casts in their careers.

[jlauber]

How accurate was Simmons' in his assessment of Wilt-Russell rivalry?

http://books.google.com/books?id=oLC...20Wilt&f=false


Here are some classics.

Players like Willie Naulls played better with Russell than Chamberlain. Hmmm...in his lone season with Wilt in 62-63, Naulls averaged 11.0 ppg, 6.7 rpg, and shot .420. In his three seasons with Russell, Naulls averaged 9.8 ppg, 10.5 ppg, and 10.7 ppg; 4.6 rpg, 4.7 rpg, and 4.5 rpg; and shot .417, .384, and .402.

In game seven of the '62 Finals, he had Russell with a 30-44 game. Nice try Bill, but it was actually a 30-40 game. Incidently, I wonder if the fact that Wilt holds the actual playoff record of 41 rebounds (and against Russell BTW), that maybe Simmons bumped up that rebound number a little bit?

CLUTCH playoff games? He lists Wilt with only THREE, and then credits Russell with SEVEN.

Ok, here are the three that he gives to Wilt. Chamberlain's game seven against Russell in the '65 ECF's. His clinching game five against Russell in the '67 ECF's. And his clinching game five against the "undersized" Knicks in the '72 Finals (incidently,...no mention of Wilt thoroughly outplaying the 7-2 Kareem in the clinching game six in the '72 WCF's?)

He credits Russell with these clutch games:

1. Game seven of the '57 Finals (against the Hawks) with a 19-32 game. Agreed...great game.

2. Game seven 22-35 game in the '60 Finals against the Hawks. Another great game.

3. Game seven in the '62 ECF's, and against WILT. He "held" Wilt to a 22-21 game, while he himself had a 19-22 game. Hmmm...not sure how Russell gets credit here,...especially given the fact that Boston, with a far superior roster, won that game seven by two points.

4. Game seven of the '62 Finals. Again, it was actually a 30-40 game, not a 30-44 game. Still, it was a great game. However, Chamberlain hung three 60 point games on that Laker team in the regular season, including a staggering 78-43 game. One can only wonder what kind of Finals scoring records Wilt would hold, had his pathetic teammates scored just three more points in that game seven of the '62 ECF's.

5. Game seven of the '65 ECF's. Wait a second, he already credited WILT with a clutch game in that same game. In any case, Wilt outscored Russell in that game, 30-15; outrebounded Russell, 32-29; and outshot him from the floor, 12-15 to 7-16. Oh, and BTW, Wilt took his 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss, against Russell's 62-18 Celtics.

6. Game seven of the '66 Finals. Russell again pounded a weak centered LA squad with a 25-32 game.

7. Game seven of the '68 ECF's...when Russell held Wilt to a 14-34 game. But wait, Russell only put up a 12-26 game himself. In Simmons' mind, I guess if Russell put up anywhere near the production that Wilt did, it was a "win" for Russell.

In fact, Simmons even takes this shot at Wilt: "nobody has any clutch stories about Wilt Chamberlain. If they existed, I would pass them along." But wait...he just credited him with THREE.

Of course, how about these CLUTCH playoff games by Wilt...

1960 Game 3 vs. Nationals (best of 3 series at the time): 53 points in a 20 point win.

1962 Game 5 vs. Nationals: 56 points, 35 rebounds in a 17 point win.

1962 Game 6 vs Celtics: 32 points in a 10 point win

1962 Game 7 vs Celtics: 22 points, 21 rebounds in a 2 point loss

1964 Game 5 vs. Hawks: 50 points in a 24 point win.

1964 Game 7 vs. Hawks: 39 points, 26 rebounds, 12 blocks in a 10 point win.

1965 Game 6 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 26 rebounds in a 6 point win

1965 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 32 rebounds in a 1 point loss

1966 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 46 points, 34 rebounds in an 8 point loss

1967 Game 2 vs. Royals: 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists in a 21 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Royals: 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 1 vs. Celtics: 24 points, 32 rebounds, 13 assists, 12 blocks in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Celtics: 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists in an 11 point win.

1967 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists in a 24 point win.

1968 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 25 points, 27 rebounds in an 18 point win. Little known fact is that Chamberlain led BOTH TEAMS in points, rebounds, and assists for the entire series, whilst nursing an assortment of injuries, including his annual shin splints. This against two Hall Of Fame centers Walt Bellamy & Willis Reed. Apparently Willis used to tremble at the mere sight of Luke Jackson in the MSG tunnel pre-game.

1968 Game 7 vs Celtics: 14 points, 34 rebounds in a 4 point loss (This despite two touches in the entire 4th quarter, the smartest move Russell has ever made in his career switching himself over to guard Chet).

1969 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 18 points, 27 rebounds in a 2 point loss (Head coach leaves him on the bench due to a personal grudge.)

1970 Game 5 vs. Suns: 36 points, 14 rebounds in a 17 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Suns: 30 points, 27 rebounds, 11 blocks in a 35 point win (helped lead Lakers back from 1-3 deficit)

1970 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 45 points, 27 rebounds in a 22 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Knicks: 21 points, 24 rebounds in a 14 point loss

(Understand that he should have not even been playing in the 1969-70 season after his injury, but was able to rehab his knee in time with his workouts in volleyball, a sport he would later become a Hall Of Famer in as well.)

1971 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 25 points, 18 rebounds in an 11 point win

1971 Game 5 vs. Bucks: 23 points, 12 rebounds, 6 blocks in an 18 point loss without Elgin Baylor or Jerry West. (Alcindor in this game had 20 points, 15 rebounds, and 3 blocks).

1973 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 21 points, 28 rebounds in a 3 point win (Bulls had the ball and a one point lead with 30 or so seconds left in the 4th. Norm Van Lier goes up for the shot only to have it rejected by the "big choker" Wilt Chamberlain. Chamberlain blocked Van Lier's shot right to Gail Goodrich down court for the go ahead basket. Is there any mention of this clutch defensive play from Chamberlain in Bill Simmons "Book Of Basketball"?

1973 Game 5 vs. Knicks: 23 points, 21 rebounds in a 9 point loss (a hobbled Jerry West finished with 12 points)


Yep...Wilt was a "choker" and a "failure."

Incidently, you can add game five of the '60 ECF's (Philadelphia was down 3-1, so it was a must-win game), and he responded with a 50-35 game against Russell in a 128-107 win. Keep in mind that game was in his rookie season, and he faced a Celtic team with SEVEN HOFers.

And, IMHO, his greatest effort came against Kareem in game six of the WCF's. He held Kareem to 16-37 shooting, while going 8-12 himself, and scoring 22 points with 24 rebounds. And, he absolutely took over the game in the 4th quarter, and led LA back from a 10 point deficit to a clinching four point win. He also blocked 11 shots in that game, and five of them were Kareem's sky-hooks.

Or Wilt, with two badly injured wrists dominating the clinching game five win the Finals, with a 24 point, 10-14 shooting, 29 rebound (the ENTIRE Knick team had 39 BTW), and 9 block game.

[jlauber]

Continuing on Simmons distortions...

He lists the Wilt-Russell 142 H2H's, in which Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 28.7 to 14.5 ppg, and outrebounded Russell, 28.7 rpg to 23.7 rpg.

THEN, he goes off on THIS tangent. He claims that Wilt's post-season production dropped to 22.5 ppg and 24.5 rpg (that was NOT a drop BTW) 4.2 apg, 47% FT, and 52% FG%. While Russell's climbed to 16.2 ppg, 24.9 rpg, 4.7 apg, 60% FT, and 43% FG.

How about their 49 H2H post-season numbers instead? Wilt POUNDED Russell in scoring AND rebounding. And in the games, series, or seasons in which we have the FG% numbers, Wilt held a HUGE edge there, as well.

Nope, he uses Wilt's ENTIRE playoff career against him, even though Chamberlain dramatically cut back his shooting in the last half of his career. In fact, after Russell retired in 68-69, here were Chamberlain's career post-season numbers at that time...

Regular season:

34.4 ppg, 24.3 rpg, 4.5 apg, .514 FT, and .530 FG

Post-season:

26.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, 4.4 apg, .466 FT, .520 FG.

Yes, a decline, but not nearly as much as Simmons would have you believe. And of course, Wilt had played 98 playoff games at that point, and exactly HALF, 49, were against Russell. He also faced Thurmond in 12 at that point, and Bellamy in six. 67 of his 98 playoff games were against HOF centers in his first ten seasons.


Simmons also claims that Russell "let" Wilt accumulate stats in the first three quarters of those H2H's, and then "smothered" him in the 4th. Of course, actual history contradicts much of that. We have several examples of Wilt scoring and rebounding in the last minute against Russell (and very few the other way around.)

Not only that, but Simmons would have you believe that Russell could just shut Wilt down anytime he wanted to. Yet, Russell, HIMSELF, claimed that he did all he could to just try to CONTAIN Wilt. There is an interview with Russell in which even he laughs at how he "held" Wilt in check in his 61-62 season (Wilt's 50.4 ppg season.) Yep, he "held" Chamberlain to "only" 38 ppg on average that season. BTW, Wilt had THREE entire SEASONS against Russell in which he averaged 38 ppg against him (and all of them were 10+ games.)

Furthermore, it was not as if Russell's Celtics beat Wilt's teams in every game. In fact, they won 60% of the time in their 142 H2H's (85-57), and an even closer 59% of the time in the playoffs (29-20.) And, as I have mentioned before, FOUR of their post-season series went to seven games, and Russell's Celtics won those four games by a combined NINE points (2, 1, 4, and 2 points.)

If Russell were indeed "smothering" Wilt, he was cutting it damn close in quite a few games. And, what happened in the '67 ECF's, when Chamberlain just murdered Russell in every statistical category, in leading his team to a near sweep of Boston (losing game four in Boston by four points before pummelling them in game five, 140-116.)

BTW, Wilt outscored Russell in 132 of those 142 H2H games, and outrebounded him by a 92-42-8 margin. And how about these games?

For reference, the first number of the pair next to each player's name is points in that particular game, while the second is rebounds. An example would be the first one, with Wilt scoring 45 points, and grabbing 35 rebounds (45-35), while Russell's numbers were 15 points, with 13 rebounds (15-13.)


Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13
Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21
Wilt 43-39….Russell 20-24
Wilt 53-29 Russell 22-32
Wilt 42-29 Russell 19-30
Wilt 50-35 Russell 22-27
Wilt 34-55….Russell 18-19
Wilt 39-30 Russell 6-19
Wilt 44-35 Russell 20-21
Wilt 34-38 Russell 17-20
Wilt..52-30….Russell 21-31
Wilt 41-28 Russell 11-24
Wilt 62-28 Russell 23-29
Wilt 38-31 Russell 11-18
Wilt 42-37 Russell 9-20
Wilt 45-27 Russell 12-26
Wilt 43-32 Russell 8-30
Wilt 32-27 Russell 11-16
Wilt 50-17….Russell 23-21
Wilt 35-32….Russell 16-28
Wilt 32-25 Russell…9-24
Wilt 31-30 Russell 12-22
Wilt 37-32 Russell 16-24
Wilt 27-34 Russell..12-17
Wilt 27-43 Russell 13-26
Wilt 30-39 Russell 12-16
Wilt 31-40….Russell 11-17
Wilt 37-42 Russell 14-25
Wilt 29-26 Russell 3-27
Wilt 27-36….Russell 13-20
Wilt 27-32 Russell 6-22
Wilt 32-30 Russell 8-20
Wilt 46-34 Russell 18-31
Wilt 20-41….Russell 10-29
Wilt 29-36 Russell 4-21
Wilt 31-27 Russell 3-8
Wilt 35-19 Russell 5-16
Wilt 12-42 Russell 11-18


While Simmons may not believe that Chamberlain STATISTICALLY dominated Russell, I think the OVERWHELMING evidence suggests otherwise.

[Kovach]

************************

I'm a old guy, spend a lot of time on the sail boat, fishing, reading, tennis, watching the NBA, you know enjoyin good side of life...... jlauber is a Titan of internet old school basketball boards. Lotta guys got attention spans like my old brass door stop.

Haters will hate, that's all

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.

[oolalaa]

Complete fallacy. A prime Reed, in his MVP season, was facing an older Wilt, who was past his prime, and was only four months removed from major knee surgery. It was a horrible matchup problem for Chamberlain, because he had lost some of his lateral mobility, while Reed was a pop-up 15 ft shooter, who was working behind screens.

As it was, in their first four games of that series, Reed averaged 32-15 on .491 shooting, while Chamberlain was at 19-25 .543. Furthermore, while Reed outplayed Wilt in game's one and three, Wilt easily outplayed him in game's two and four. The series was tied 2-2 going into game five. And, in the first period of that game five, Chamberlain was torching Reed, and LA LED by ten points when Reed went down. So, if anything, a hobbled Wilt had outplayed a much healthier Reed in the first five games.

What happened in game five? Ask NY Times writer Leonard Koppett who wrote that the Knicks were aided by home-court officiating in the second half of that game. The Knicks were allowed to MAUL both West and Wilt...who COMBINED for FIVE FGAs in that second half. The result? A 107-100 Knick win.

In game six, and on their home floor, Wilt just murdered the helpless Knicks, with a 45-27 game, and on 20-27 shooting, in a 135-113 rout. Had the officials not assisted the Knicks in game five, Wilt's game six would have ranked among the greatest "closeout" games in NBA history.

And in game seven, the Knicks just came out and hit everything. I have seen several games like that in my lifetime, and I have long maintained that even a team with five Jordans would not have beaten the Knicks that night. And it certainly wasn't Wilt's fault. NY just swarmed him, and Reed basically fouled him on nearly every play (four fouls in the first half.) Wilt still had 11 points, on 5-10 shooting, with 12 rebounds in that first half (en route to a 21 point, 24 rebound, 10-16 game.) Meanwhile, Frazier finally outplayed West (and badly BTW), and Wilt's teammates shot 33% in the first half. The game was basically over at halftime, when NY led 69-42.

BTW, a PRIME Chamberlain had an entire SEASON in which he averaged 40 ppg against a younger Reed. And, in the 64-65 and 65-66 seasons, Wilt hung THREE 50+ point games on Reed, with a HIGH game of 58 points.

And in the 67-68 playoffs against the Knicks, Wilt LED BOTH teams in scoring, rebounding, AND assists (the Knicks had Walt Frazier BTW),..all while holding NY's HOF center, Walt Bellamy, who had shot .541 during the regular season, to .421 shooting in that series.

What a joke. A fallacy? Are you kidding me?

Wilt was getting outplayed through the first 4 games before Reed went down. OUTPLAYED. You posted the numbers yourself: Wilt was - 19/25 on 54% and Reed was - 32/15 on 49%. In what world do you live in? I agree that in game 4 Wilt got the better of Reed but in game 2? Reed had a 29/15/5 on 41%. Wilt had a 19/24/2 on 45%. I know that Wilt was good down the stretch (by his standards anyway ) and had a big block on Reed with about a minute to go but cmon. Wilt EASILY outplayed Reed?


Yes, Wilt comprehensively outrebounded Reed but there was a 13 ppg difference in scoring!! This is similar to YOUR fallacious assumption that Wilt got the better of Kareem in the '72 WCFs.....

Kareem - 28/19/5 on 42%
Wilt ---- 14/22/3 on 53%

You love to point out that Wilt held Kareem to well below his usual efficiency. But what about the other way around? Wilt was shooting 65% in the regular season! How come you never mention that?


Ultimately, I was right! Excuses, excuses, and even more E X C U S E S.....

"A prime Reed, in his MVP season, was facing an older Wilt, who was past his prime"

"It was a horrible matchup problem"

"the Knicks were aided by home-court officiating in the second half of that game"

"Meanwhile, Frazier finally outplayed West"

[jlauber]

Yes, Wilt comprehensively outrebounded Reed but there was a 13 ppg difference in scoring!! This is similar to YOUR fallacious assumption that Wilt got the better of Kareem in the '72 WCFs.....

Kareem - 28/19/5 on 42%
Wilt ---- 14/22/3 on 53%

You love to point out that Wilt held Kareem to well below his usual efficiency. But what about the other way around? Wilt was shooting 65% in the regular season! How come you never mention that?

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.)