Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1965 EDF stats

[Pointguard]

A Wilt groupie complaining about phantom stats... that's rich

I love Wilt and enjoy your posts but you need to regroup, you've become a caricature of yourself

Not hardly, you are off base. Wilt was hardly on the favored end of stats. They seemingly refused to count blocks because of his strong presence in them.

[LAZERUSS]

Maybe in future I will saved the sources (I already did it btw - for example I saved the article which credited Wilt with 9 blocks in Game 5 of '72 WCF and praised Wilt for giving "some lessons to Jabbar") and start to post them here, because it will looks as more valid argument.
Yes, Wilt allegedly blocked dozen shots, but played strong defense in the other games also from that series. I had more free time recently (New Year vacation) and read hundreds of articles/recaps.
Therefore I have made the conclusion that during playoff games Wilt put more efforts in defense than in the reg.season. The evidence could be found in opposing players statements after the games.
These is one of the reason why Wilt scoring averages goes down in the post season. It is not because Wilt is hiding or chocked during games. Wilt had to do more things for his team to win than Russell, not only score points. You could ask yourself how valuable was Wilt in defense, since coaches ask him to reduced his scoring in order to concentrate on defense, even given the fact that Wilt was the most efficient scorer from the field in every team he had played.
Wilt's Warriors were significantly weaker team than Celtics and they need Wilt in both ends of the floor badly.

Of course we will never know, but John Wooden claimed that had Wilt had Russell's supporting casts, and Auerbach as his coach, and it would have been Chamberlain winning all those rings.

We have both pointed out Wilt's great defense before, too. Chamberlain actually reduced Russell's shooting efficiency considerably more than Russell reduced Wilt's. And he did so while crushing him in ppg, pounding him on the glass, outshooting him by staggering margins, outassisting him by huge margins later in their H2H's, and even outblocking him by solid margins in their known H2H's.

As more-and-more research has come forth (and thanks to you BTW), it has become clear that Wilt was not only outplaying Russell in the vast majority of the H2H's, he was just nuking him in many of them. And at no point did Russell ever dominate Chamberlain.

Here again, Wilt's teams, who were generally far inferior, lost to Russell's teams, four times in game seven's, and by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. Had Wilt's teams scored a couple of more points, or made a couple of more plays, and it could have been Wilt holding an edge in rings in H2H play.

[feyki]

Great information .

Give me playmaking and defending than scoring .

[LAZERUSS]

Great information .

Give me playmaking and defending than scoring .

Here's some more...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?pli=1#gid=0

and nbastats.net has a TON of info on Wilt, KAJ, Oscar, Bird, Magic, and many others...

and finally...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=332617

BTW, I haven't taken the time, but nbastats.net has provided even more information for the above.

[IllegalD]

Wilt. The M.O.E. (Most Overrated Ever).

Dude only managed 2 rings while his counterpart Russell won 11 in a weakass era and frequently came up small in the Finals. (11 rings in the modern era would be more like 5 rings, so 2 rings in the modern era would be more like 0 rings)

Couldn't even win with the Superteam of West and Baylor.

His most iconic moment is a 100 point "moon-landing" hoax game which there isn't even any footage of.

If you're over 70 and Wilt is your favorite player, then I can at least respect/understand that.

But if you're some young 20 year old who worships ghosts then you're just a sad f*ggot who's trying way to hard to be the hipster who only listens to vinyl equivalent of an NBA fan.

[DaRkJaWs]

Wilt. The M.O.E. (Most Overrated Ever).

Dude only managed 2 rings while his counterpart Russell won 11 in a weakass era and frequently came up small in the Finals. (11 rings in the modern era would be more like 5 rings, so 2 rings in the modern era would be more like 0 rings)

Couldn't even win with the Superteam of West and Baylor.

His most iconic moment is a 100 point "moon-landing" hoax game which there isn't even any footage of.

If you're over 70 and Wilt is your favorite player, then I can at least respect/understand that.

But if you're some young 20 year old who worships ghosts then you're just a sad f*ggot who's trying way to hard to be the hipster who only listens to vinyl equivalent of an NBA fan.

[deja vu]

Wilt. The M.O.E. (Most Overrated Ever).

Dude only managed 2 rings while his counterpart Russell won 11 in a weakass era and frequently came up small in the Finals. (11 rings in the modern era would be more like 5 rings, so 2 rings in the modern era would be more like 0 rings)

Couldn't even win with the Superteam of West and Baylor.

His most iconic moment is a 100 point "moon-landing" hoax game which there isn't even any footage of.

If you're over 70 and Wilt is your favorite player, then I can at least respect/understand that.

But if you're some young 20 year old who worships ghosts then you're just a sad f*ggot who's trying way to hard to be the hipster who only listens to vinyl equivalent of an NBA fan.

This. Statpadder gonna statpad.

Meanwhile, Bill Russell was unselfish and so won far more titles.

You swap the two and Wilt would've won far less than 11. His play is not as conducive to winning as Bill.

[LAZERUSS]

This. Statpadder gonna statpad.

Meanwhile, Bill Russell was unselfish and so won far more titles.

You swap the two and Wilt would've won far less than 11. His play is not as conducive to winning as Bill.

None other than John Wooden claimed otherwise.

[feyki]

Here's some more...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?pli=1#gid=0

and nbastats.net has a TON of info on Wilt, KAJ, Oscar, Bird, Magic, and many others...

and finally...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=332617

BTW, I haven't taken the time, but nbastats.net has provided even more information for the above.

Wow , thanks man .

[feyki]

Chamberlain 30 points (13-23 FG and 4/8 FT) 21 rebs, 2 assists, 2 blocks
Russell 12 points (4-7 FG and 4/5 FT) 28 rebounds, 7 assists, 12 blocks, 3 steals

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"][B][CENTER]

Game 5 in that same series, when he had 28 rebounds, 10 blocks, six steals and seven assists? Said Schayes, who had become the Philadelphia 76ers coach:

[LAZERUSS]

[QUOTE=feyki][FONT="Trebuchet MS"][B][CENTER]

Game 5 in that same series, when he had 28 rebounds, 10 blocks, six steals and seven assists? Said Schayes, who had become the Philadelphia 76ers coach:

[feyki]

Unfortunately, nba.com is just not a trust-worthy site. Up until about two years ago, they claimed that Willis Reed held Wilt to 2-9 shooting in the first half of game seven of the '70 Finals...in a game in which Chamberlain missed a total of six shots. They have since amended it, but in any case, I would definitely take Julizaver's numbers over their's. BTW, Julizaver was probably the first person ever to post the KAJ-Wilt career H2H info.

Of course, looking at the stats of both sources, and there is not much difference anyway.

Having said that...this was probably the most one-sided post-season beatdown ever by a GOAT candidate, in their prime, over another GOAT candidate, in their prime, in NBA history, with the possible exception of the '67 EDF's, when Chamberlain once again massacred Russell in every facet of the game, and in a series in which his team just demolished Russell's.

Actually , There wasn't a big margin . 12 blocks and 3 steals or 10 blocks and 6 steals .

Other numbers were matching .

I really don't like , "one outplayed another , one held another " like tags . Basketball is a team game . And All efforts only about that .

[LAZERUSS]

Actually , There wasn't a big margin . 12 blocks and 3 steals or 10 blocks and 6 steals .

Other numbers were matching .

I really don't like , "one outplayed another , one held another " like tags . Basketball is a team game . And All efforts only about that .

Basketball is a team game. And the "Wilt-bashers" (and you are not one of them) always hold that against Chamberlain.

If basketball were like boxing, or tennis, or to a lessor extent, like golf, then we could easily identify the real GOATs. But, again, it is a TEAM game. And in Wilt's case, the reality was, in his 10 years in the league with Russell, he only played in three seasons in which his teams were the equal of Russell's, and in fact, were generally either inferior, or far inferior.

And in those three seasons ('67, '68, and to a lessor extent, '69), his '69 team was horribly coached (and lost a game seven by two points); his '68 team was decimated by injuries in the post-season (and lost a game seven by four points); and his '67 team just annihilated Russell's 60-21 Celtics. Clearly, had the '68 team been healthy, and it would have been a repeat blowout of the Celtics. And, at least IMO, had he had Sharman coaching the '69 team, instead of Butch "the Butcher" Van Breda Kolff, and the Lakers would have rolled to a title. And to be honest, that '69 team was ONE PLAY away from a 4-1 series romp over Boston. Had Johnny Egan not been stripped of the ball in the waning seconds of game four (again, what coach in their right mind would have had Egan handling the ball in that situation, on a team with Jerry West), and LA would have won that game, going up 3-1 in the series. And given their easy win in game five, they would have won a convincing title.

In his seven other seasons against Russell it was a miracle that they battled Boston to near upsets in '62 and '65. And had Chamberlain not been injured late in game two of the '60 EDF's, in a series in which his team lost a game six by two points, who knows how that series would have played out. Even his '64 team's 4-1 Finals lost against Russell's overwhelmingly favored Boston team was deceptive. The last two games of that series were decided in the waning seconds.

In any case, I don't believe anyone in their right mind would have favored Russell over Wilt had they swapped rosters in their first six seasons. My god, Russell's '63 and '64 teams had EIGHT, and even NINE HOFers. And it was a testament to Chamberlain that he took a 34-46 Sixer team in '64, to a 40-40 record (21-20 after a mid-season trade) and then an easy first round knockout of Oscar's stacked 48-32 Royals, and then to a game seven, one point loss to Russell's 62-18 Celtics.

He then led the Sixers to the best record in the league in the next three seasons. BUT, his '66 team was still nowhere near as talented as Russell's. Thy had to win their last 11 straight games to edge the seven-time defending champs by one game. And even that was deceptive, since the core of that Celtic team missed a ton of games that year. In any case, while Chamberlain played brilliantly in the '66 EDF's, his teammates collectively shot .352 from the field in that series.


Again...a TEAM game.

I find it fascinating that Wilt, in his rookie season, to a last place roster to a 49-26 record, and gave the HOF-laden Celtics all they could handle in the EDF's. Yet, the "bashers" hold that against Chamberlain...but give MJ a free pass for getting swept by Bird's Celtics in back-to-back playoff series.

The reality was, Jordan didn't win a ring until he was surrounded by stacked rosters that could win 55 games without him (and narrowly missed a title.)

Or that a prime Kareem only went to two Finals, and only won one ring, in his first ten seasons...and in a decade which had the weakest NBA champions in the last half of it. Or that KAJ won his last five rings mainly due to MAGIC. Or that he was only a third wheel in one of those, and a pathetic fifth wheel in another.

At least Wilt's TEAMS were losing to the eventual champions, ten times, in his 13 playoff runs, and most all of those were truly great teams. His team's lost to the greatest dynasty in NBA history, seven times. And four of those were decided in game seven's by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. His under-dog Lakers lost another game seven to a 60-22 Knicks team in '70, as well. And his TEAMs were knocked off by the 66-16 Bucks in '71 (in a series in which Wilt outplayed Kareem); and the HOF-laden '73 Knicks in four close losses in the '73 Finals (a Knicks team that fielded SIX HOFers.)

Wilt is held to a double-standard in his playoff "failures." How many times have you read that MJ LOST nine times in his 15 seasons? Or that Bird LOST 10 times in his 13 seasons (and did so with HOF supporting casts)? Or that West LOST 13 times in his 14 season career (and without Wilt's performance in '72, he would have retired ringless)? Or that Duncan has LOST 13 times in his 18 seasons leading up to this year? Or that Kobe has LOST 14 times in his first 19 seasons, and will certainly make it 15 this year? Or that KAJ LOST 14 times in his 20 seasons? Or that Shaq LOST 15 times in his 19 season? Or that Hakeem LOST 16 times in his 18 seasons?

Again, Wilt had FIVE seasons in which his team lost game seven's to the eventual champions, and four of them were by razor-then margins...in series in which he generally played well, or was downright dominant. Think about that...Wilt was an eyelash away from winning a total of SEVEN rings (and in which case Russell would have finished with "only" seven, as well.) Where would Chamberlain rank among the GOAT candidates with SEVEN rings (and again, Russell would have the same amount)? Furthermore, and as Wooden suggested, had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters (and coaches) in their ten years in the league together, and it likely would have been Wilt holding all those rings. Is there any doubt as to where Wilt would rank all-time with 10 or 11 rings?

And keep in mind that Chamberlain was probably the best player on the floor in at least 25 of his 29 playoff series. In most of them he was overwhelmingly the best player in the series.

Hopefully that provides a little better perspective of Wilt's career.

[LAZERUSS]

Also, let's face it...rings are deceptive.

This topic is evidence of that.

Chamberlain was traded at mid-season, for three players mind you, to a bottom-feeding 34-46 team from '64. Even with Chamberlain, they only went 19-19 the last half of the regular season.

Then Wilt led them to a 3-1 series romp over Oscar' stacked 48-32 Royals, including a clinching game four performance of 38-26-5-10. And in the EDF's, Chamberlain led his team to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18 Celtics team that was at the peak of their dynasty. And in this series, Chamberlain AVERAGED a 30-31 on a .555 FG% (in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .429 BTW)...which included a clinching game seven performance of 30-32 (on 12-15 from the field)...which included Wilt scoring his team's last eight points to pull them from a 110-101 deficit to within 110-109. And had "Havlicek steals the ball!" not occurred, they were on their way to the greatest post-season upset in NBA history.

Now, compare that with say, KAJ's last ring. Kareem had a poor playoff run, a putrid Finals, and easily the worst game seven by a GOAT ever...and yet is credited with "winning" a ring.

You can find other examples, as well, but it certainly puts a better perspective on the topic of rings.

[sd3035]

Wilt all time greatest choker