Russell and Wilt's TRB% in the 64-65 EDF's

[stanlove1111]

I didn't know about it, but thanks. I just checked YouTube, and I couldn't find a full game between them. There is a game from March 1st, 1973 that exists.

And on that topic...I have long claimed that Willis Reed was Zach Randolph before Zach was. And going along with the Bullets-Knicks theme, Wes Unseld was making Kevin Love outlets long before Love was.

BTW...I know you and I bump heads here, but I do enjoy the discussions. It's one thing to constantly battle the mindless trolls, or just plain morons that post here, but it is another to have debates with educated and knowledgeable posters, whether we agree, or not. I do respect your opinions.

Right back at you..

The Knicks/Bullet game was from Feb 28 1971. They had at least the entire first 3 quarters from what I saw. I feel asleep after that. Monroe and Frazier were in the studio talking about it as they watched the game.

[sd3035]

so these guys got the other 75% ?

[LAZERUSS]

I just looked up Rodman's post-season history, and he had one series which topped Chamberlain's '65 EDF's. In the 88-89 post-season, and playing 26 mpg, he had a 29.4 TRB% against the Bulls. Horace Grant led that Bulls team in rpg at 9.3 rpg, and with a 14.7 TRB%.

This would make for an interesting topic, but Chamberlain's '65 EDF's might be the greatest full-time post-season TRB% series in NBA history. And when you factor in that he averaged over 49 mpg in that series, and that it came against Russell...and all while scoring 30 ppg and on an eFG% that was 12.6 percentage points higher than the post-season league average (.555 to .429), and his TS% of .570 was 9.5 percentage points above the post-season league average of .475...and it could be argued that this was the greatest post-season series ever played.

[LAZERUSS]

so these guys got the other 75% ?

Damn...Kevin Love, Andrew Bogut, David Lee, and Spencer Hawes?

[LAZERUSS]

I guess those who may caught my gaffe were too kind to mention it.

But, I somehow forgot to add a series total rebounds in my math (which was done in my head and late at night.)

Total Rebounds:

882

Russell: 177

Wilt: 220

Russell's TRB% was 20.1
Wilt's was 24.9

Not quite as dominant as I thought, albeit, Chamberlain had a couple of monster games.

So, I will be the first to at least mention the error.

[Fire Colangelo]

And this is just proof that rebounding numbers in the 60s are inflated and shouldn't be taken seriously. Those TRB% numbers are pretty much Andre Drummond numbers.

[LAZERUSS]

And this is just proof that rebounding numbers in the 60s are inflated and shouldn't be taken seriously. Those TRB% numbers are pretty much Andre Drummond numbers.

Those two guys played 48+ mpg in that series, and probably averaged close to 6 bpg (which hurts TRB%.)

Drummond is currently playing 30.2 mpg, is an average shot-blocker, at best, and is a below average scorer.

[Fire Colangelo]

Those two guys played 48+ mpg in that series, and probably averaged close to 6 bpg (which hurts TRB%.)

Drummond is currently playing 30.2 mpg, is an average shot-blocker, at best, and can't score for his life.

That says it all.

You know why they both played 48+ mpg in that series? Because the talent pool in the league is so shallow that a tired Wilt/Russell > whoever else coming off the bench.


Unless you believe players back then in general has better conditioning/technology/training methods (by all means share them I would love to know) than players today.

[LAZERUSS]

That says it all.

You know why they both played 48+ mpg in that series? Because the talent pool in the league is so shallow that a tired Wilt/Russell > whoever else coming off the bench.


Unless you believe players back then in general has better conditioning/technology/training methods (by all means share them I would love to know) than players today.

And had they both played 30 mpg, didn't give a damn about blocks, or even defense in general, and if Chamberlain didn't bother dominating at the offensive end...just what kind of TRB%'s do you think they would have put up?

BTW, Russell was just as tall as Howard, Cousins, Drummond, and Jordan, as long, and likely a better leaper than all of them.

Chamberlain was much taller, longer, stronger, and more athletic than all of them.

And Jordan and Drummond are the two best rebounders in the game today.

[Fire Colangelo]

And had they both played 30 mpg, didn't give a damn about blocks, or even defense in general, and if Chamberlain didn't bother dominating at the offensive end...just what kind of TRB%'s do you think they would have put up?

BTW, Russell was just as tall as Howard, Cousins, Drummond, and Jordan, as long, and likely a better leaper than all of them.

Chamberlain was much taller, longer, stronger, and more athletic than all of them.

And Jordan and Drummond are the two best rebounders in the game today.

How was the ball blocked? Was it blocked into the stands? Or blocked to the opposing team? Why is Russell a better leaper? In fact, what does being a slightly better leaper have to do with anything? Rebounding is about timing if anything.

How would David Robinson, or Patrick Ewing do in the 60s? Hakeem?

Please don't post game stats of Wilt having a better game than Kareem therefore wilt > hakeem > shaq > robinson > etc. that honestly doesn't mean shit.

[LAZERUSS]

How was the ball blocked? Was it blocked into the stands? Or blocked to the opposing team? Why is Russell a better leaper? In fact, what does being a slightly better leaper have to do with anything? Rebounding is about timing if anything.

How would David Robinson, or Patrick Ewing do in the 60s? Hakeem?

Please don't post game stats of Wilt having a better game than Kareem therefore wilt > hakeem > shaq > robinson > etc. that honestly doesn't mean shit.

Just going for a BLOCK takes a player out of rebounding position. And knocking it to anyone else is not a rebound for the shot-blocker.

Robinson, and Ewing would be less than Wilt, and Russell, and no better than Thurmond. Hakeem was never a great rebounder, especially in the post-season. In fact, he was not only outrebounded by opposing centers, but teammates, as well.

And yes, it DOES mean shit. A 40 year old Kareem was a better CENTER than a 25 year old Hakeem H2H. And a 38-39 year old Kareem just annihilated him. Hell, a 35-36 year old Gilmore was abusing a 23-24 year old Hakeem.

A prime Kareem was reduced to a shot-jacking brick-layer against an aging Thurmond and Wilt, and a 34-36 year old Chamberlain was the better rebounder H2H, and against the NBA. A prime Chamberlain would have overwhelmed Kareem on the glass.

[Pointguard]

That says it all.

You know why they both played 48+ mpg in that series? Because the talent pool in the league is so shallow that a tired Wilt/Russell > whoever else coming off the bench.

Unless you believe players back then in general has better conditioning/technology/training methods (by all means share them I would love to know) than players today.

I think Wilt was one of the great super conditioned athletes ever, right there with Ali and MJ.

[Fire Colangelo]

Just going for a BLOCK takes a player out of rebounding position. And knocking it to anyone else is not a rebound for the shot-blocker.

Robinson, and Ewing would be less than Wilt, and Russell, and no better than Thurmond. Hakeem was never a great rebounder, especially in the post-season. In fact, he was not only outrebounded by opposing centers, but teammates, as well.

And yes, it DOES mean shit. A 40 year old Kareem was a better CENTER than a 25 year old Hakeem H2H. And a 38-39 year old Kareem just annihilated him. Hell, a 35-36 year old Gilmore was abusing a 23-24 year old Hakeem.

A prime Kareem was reduced to a shot-jacking brick-layer against an aging Thurmond and Wilt, and a 34-36 year old Chamberlain was the better rebounder H2H, and against the NBA. A prime Chamberlain would have overwhelmed Kareem on the glass.

Because no other great bigs go for the block right?

When are you going to realize your a>b>c logic just isn't logical?

And no, it honestly doesn't mean shit, especially when you cherry pick a few games where Wilt played better. Truth is, KAJ > Wilt for most of their overlapped careers, same with Thurmond.

Lol @ comparing to Hakeem. You act as if 35-36 year old Gilmore was a scrub, dude was putting up like 19/10 that year. It's no surprise that he would outplay a rookie/sophomore Hakeem, who peaked at around 30 years old.

To be fair, I think Wilt is one of the greatest athletes of all time, and that he'd be great in any era. But you're kidding yourself if you think he'd be able to sustain his 60s stats in any other era like the 90s against better competition as well as slower pace.

I think Wilt was one of the great super conditioned athletes ever, right there with Ali and MJ.

I think so too, but he acts like Wilt's stamina > every player who ever played because he's the only one to average 48+ minutes a game.

Michael Jordan never averaged more than 40, therefore Wilt's stamina > MJ, and it couldn't be further away from the truth....

It's simple, the talent pool was deep enough in the 80s/90s that MJ didn't need to play 48 minutes. MJ's back up, as inferior as he was, could hold out on the court for MJ to take a couple minutes rest here and there. In the 60s however, the difference between Wilt and his back up was so huge that a tired Wilt >>>>>>>>>>>> his back up. Which is why if you look at the MPG played leaderboard, most of the players came from the 60s and 70s.

Does that mean 60s/70s had better conditioning than 90s/00s/10s? I highly doubt it.

[LAZERUSS]

Because no other great bigs go for the block right?

When are you going to realize your a>b>c logic just isn't logical?

And no, it honestly doesn't mean shit, especially when you cherry pick a few games where Wilt played better. Truth is, KAJ > Wilt for most of their overlapped careers, same with Thurmond.

Lol @ comparing to Hakeem. You act as if 35-36 year old Gilmore was a scrub, dude was putting up like 19/10 that year. It's no surprise that he would outplay a rookie/sophomore Hakeem, who peaked at around 30 years old.

To be fair, I think Wilt is one of the greatest athletes of all time, and that he'd be great in any era. But you're kidding yourself if you think he'd be able to sustain his 60s stats in any other era like the 90s against better competition as well as slower pace.



I think so too, but he acts like Wilt's stamina > every player who ever played because he's the only one to average 48+ minutes a game. Th reason neither played much? Because both Wilt and Russell could play at a much higher level for a full game than any centers, then, or now.

Michael Jordan never averaged more than 40, therefore Wilt's stamina > MJ, and it couldn't be further away from the truth....

It's simple, the talent pool was deep enough in the 80s/90s that MJ didn't need to play 48 minutes. MJ's back up, as inferior as he was, could hold out on the court for MJ to take a couple minutes rest here and there. In the 60s however, the difference between Wilt and his back up was so huge that a tired Wilt >>>>>>>>>>>> his back up. Which is why if you look at the MPG played leaderboard, most of the players came from the 60s and 70s.

Does that mean 60s/70s had better conditioning than 90s/00s/10s? I highly doubt it.

Chamberlain's "backup" was a 6-9 260 lb All-Star by the name of Luke Jackson. Russell's backup was 7-0 Mel Counts, who was a serviceable backup, and a decent PF with excellent range in his career. Why did Russell, and to an even greater extent, Wilt, play 48 mpg? Because they were better in their 48th minute on the floor, than even their greatest peers were who were playing less minutes (Thurmond, Reed, and Bellamy.) Chamberlain would have more stamina than ALL of his HOF peers...guys like those mentioned, and then Hayes, Lanier, Unseld, Kareem, and even Gilmore. The only center who could full out for extended period of time in the Wilt-era, was Cowens. And he ran everyone in the ground.


Kareem was badly outplayed by a prime Chamberlain, and even in the season after his horrific knee injury, Wilt outplayed a peak Kareem in both their regular season, and post-season H2H's in their 10 overall H2H's. And even into their last 10 straight H2H's, a PEAK Kareem shot ... 434 against a 35-36 year old Wilt. Interesting too, the game recap of the clinching game six of the '72 WCF's, when by all accounts, Chamberlain had not only physically pounded Kareem to death, he then RAN him into the ground in the last quarter. talk about stamina...a 35 year old Chamberlain just crushing a 25 year old Kareem in the last period of the most important game of the season.

Furthermore, a 36 year old Chamberlain was playing 43 mpg in his LAST season, and then 47 mpg over the course of his 17 playoff games, and he destroyed the Bulls three-headed monster on the glass in the first round of the playoffs, wiped the floor with Thurmond on the boards in the WCF's, and then slaughtered the Reed-Lucas combo in the Finals.

Kareem at age 36 could score, but he was just a shell on the glass. Same with Hakeem, Shaq, Ewing, Robinson,...you name the centers, and a 36 year old Chamberlain was a far greater rebounder (and defender.)

BTW, here were Wilt's H2H's in his LAST season...

Chamberlain, at age 36, and in his LAST season vs the best centers in the league:


Vs. Cowens in 4 H2H's:

Cowens: 31.3 ppg, 19.8 rpg, .454 FG%

Wilt: 14.3 ppg, 14.5 rpg, .588 FG%



vs. Reed in 3 regular season H2H's:

Reed: 12.0 ppg, 10.0 rpg, .471 FG%

Wilt: 6.3 ppg, 23.3 rpg, .529 FG%

vs. Reed in 5 Finals' H2H's:

Reed: 16.4 ppg, 9.2 rpg, .493 FG%

Wilt: 11.6 ppg, 18.6 rpg, .525 FG%


vs. Bellamy in 4 H2H's:

Bellamy: 17.0 ppg, 18.0 rpg ( 2 known games), .400 FG% (2 known game)

Wilt: 9.8 ppg, 20.5 rpg, .593 FG%


vs. Unseld in 4 H2H's:

Unseld: 12.8 ppg, 15.3 rpg, .481 FG%

Wilt: 12.8 ppg, 20.8 rpg, .769 FG%


vs. McAdoo in 4 H2H's:

McAdoo: 16.8 ppg, 8.8 rpg, .450 FG% (3 known games)

Wilt: 20.5 ppg, 21.3 rpg, .850 FG%


vs. Thurmond in 7 regular season H2H's:

Thurmond: 12.3 ppg, 21.6 rpg, .315 FG%

Wilt: 5.1 ppg, 16.6 rpg, .684 FG%

vs. Thurmond in 5 playoff H2H's:

Thurmond: 15.8 ppg, 17.2 rpg, .373 FG%

Wilt: 7.0 ppg, 23.6 rpg, .611 FG%


vs. Lanier in 6 H2H's:

Lanier: 21.2 ppg, 13.4 rpg (5 known games), .374 FG% (5 known games)

Wilt: 19.8 ppg, 16.3 rpg, .764 FG%



vs. Kareem in 6 H2H's:

Kareem: 29.5 ppg, 17.8 rpg, .450 FG%

Wilt: 11.0 ppg, 16.0 rpg, .737 FG%

[Psileas]

I think so too, but he acts like Wilt's stamina > every player who ever played because he's the only one to average 48+ minutes a game. Th reason neither played much? Because both Wilt and Russell could play at a much higher level for a full game than any centers, then, or now.

Michael Jordan never averaged more than 40, therefore Wilt's stamina > MJ, and it couldn't be further away from the truth....

It's simple, the talent pool was deep enough in the 80s/90s that MJ didn't need to play 48 minutes. MJ's back up, as inferior as he was, could hold out on the court for MJ to take a couple minutes rest here and there. In the 60s however, the difference between Wilt and his back up was so huge that a tired Wilt >>>>>>>>>>>> his back up. Which is why if you look at the MPG played leaderboard, most of the players came from the 60s and 70s.

Does that mean 60s/70s had better conditioning than 90s/00s/10s? I highly doubt it.

MPG isn't really about talent pool, it's all mostly about keeping your star players rested and injury free. If it were about talent pool, then the NBA must have some shallow pool, since it's the only league whose leaders still get close to 40 mpg, while players in other serious leagues rest for comparatively more time. It would also mean that the 50's talent pool was bigger than the 60's and comparable to the modern NBA.
A tired MJ would still be better than his fresh backup, the same way tired Wilt was still better than his own backup. But there was a different mindset between these two eras. In Wilt's era, the mindset was that since Wilt can play 48 mpg and he's still better than his backup, let him play. Also, it was a marketing trick, since fans would pay to see Wilt, not his backup, which is the reason why he and a few others would play even during blowouts. In Jordan's era, coaches would gladly exchange a few minutes of rest and less risk of injury for their stars for a little negative marginal efficiency on the part of their backups, and even then, only during the very few last seasons have minutes really gone down, despite the fact that time-outs are more than ever, meaning that the league is becoming increasingly big on resting star players (yet, ironically, there still occur lots of injuries). Of course, playing your star players during blowouts is out of the question for the reasons already mentioned. Of course, once playoffs come, all bets are off, with star players getting huge minutes once again - and I don't think it happens because the regular season has a deeper talent pool than the playoffs (it total it does, but per average, obviously not).