1986-1987 scoring leaders Michael Jordan 37.1 Dominique Wilkins 29.0 Alex English 28.6 Larry Bird 28.1 Kiki Vandeweghe 26.9 Kevin McHale 26.1 1961-1962 scoring leaders Wilt Chamberlain 50.4 Elgin Baylor 38.3 Walt Bellamy 31.6 Bob Pettit 31.1 Oscar Robertson 30.8 Jerry West 30.8 There are lots of great scorers listed--many of the best of all time, but one figure is just unconsciousable when compared with the others. No, I don't think Shaq or Jordan or any other player who ever lived other than Wilt could have put up 50PPG in 1962 or any other year since. BTW Wilt was a much more gracefull and polished athletically than Shaq, and considering he was 275 and strong as an ox (based on reports of those who played with him) with 61-62 quality trainers/conditioning technology I am not sure Shaq has him much in terms of natural strength either. No question Wilt > Shaq as a basketball player and natural athlete.
5 titles (against GREAT teams) 5 positions. 42 points, 15 boards, seven assists and three steals. As a rookie. In the finals. As a center. But he's a point guard. Magic Johnson.
1. Russell had more and better players around him, and one coach. Wilt had inferior players and went through what, 6 coaches? Those odds are pretty stacked. 2. He never had the OPPORTUNITY to show anything else. And last time I checked, Jordan has won even less without Pippen than Pippen without Jordan... so I guess "I can conclude that Jordan wasn't that GREAT," now can't I? "Guess we'll never be able to know how good he was." 3. I'll believe that when Shaq can shoot outside of 5 feet. They did actually call traveling and *gasp* charging back then, you know. I can't think of one skill Shaq has over Wilt. Yes, Shaq would do well, but not better than Wilt. 4. Their numbers would be different, because the game is different. There was no three-point line. There were a lot more shots put up. So they wouldn't get as many rebounds, no. But that doesn't mean Wilt wouldn't still lead the league easily. The guy averaged 23, you don't think he could average 15 per game, with his size and jumping ability? That's all it takes to lead the league today. Heck, Rodman got like 18 per game, and he was 6-7. As for oldschool players being "physically inferior," let's look at the centers for the other 9 teams in the league in 1967, when Wilt won a championship with Philly: Bill Russell (6'9), Walter Wesley (6'11), Walt Bellamy (6'11), Leroy Ellis (6'10), Nate Thurmond (6'11), Zelmo Beaty (6'9), Darrall Imhoff (6'10), Erwin Mueller (6'8), Reggie Harding (7'0). That averages out to a touch over 6'10. Gee, you're right, Wilt was playing against boys. I doubt the average center is much taller today, if at all.
Wilt set records in track in field in High School in Pennsylvania in running events and the shot put. He's clearly the best athlete to ever play basketball and arguably the best athlete ever in any sport.
Jordan #1 and Wilt is #2 in my book. After that is very debatable to who is 3-5. I would say Kareem is #3, Russell is #4 and Magic is #5 but like i said I think people could make very good arguments for Bird, Shaq, the big O, and even Hakeem to be included in that list.
Wilt's team vs. the Celtics: 1960: Celtics won season series 7-5. Celtics won east finals 4-2 against the Philadelphia Warriors. Wilt's first season in the NBA where he averaged 33/26 in the playoffs on almost 50% shooting and won ROY AND MVP. Wilt's fault for not advancing? IMO No. The Celtics had 7 players on their roster averaging in double figures for the season of which 4 were at 18 ppg or more. While Wilt did have teammate Paul Arizin averaging 22 ppg, the dropoff after those two were pretty crucial. 1961: Celtics won season series 8-5. Syracuse Nationals won east semis 3-0 against the Philadelphia Warriors. Wilt avg. 37/23 in the playoffs couldn't combat with the Nationals' Dolph Schayes and Hal Greer and three other players that averaged double digits in points. Wilt's fault for not advancing? IMO Yes. These two teams were basically carryovers from the past year where Wilt's team took them down 2-1 in the 1960 semis. A year later, it was Wilt's team that got swept out. 1962: Celtics won seasion series 8-4. Celtics won east finals 4-3. Wilt avg. 35/26 in the playoffs and actually had more help this year with Tom Meschery avg'ing 20/12 in the playoffs along with Paul Arizin's 23 ppg. The game 7 of the east finals was decided by 2 points (109-107) with the victory on Boston's homecourt. This series did not feature a single road victory for either team. Wilt's fault for not advancing? IMO No. With an added firepower in Meschery, the Warriors got closer then they did 2 years ago to toppling the Celtics but still lost to the Celtics by 2 in Boston. 1963: Celtics won season series 7-1 as the San Francisco Warriors. Did not make the playoffs. With Arizin retiring, Wilt stepped up his game and avg. 45/24 for the season that ended in a losing season. Wilt's fault for not advancing? IMO No. Arizin's retirement and having a new coach (FeericK) could have been the cause of the free fall in a season that ended 31-49 and second to last in the west. The teams that finished ahead of Wilt's Warriors were the Lakers (led by Baylor and West), Hawks (Bob Pettit and Lenny Wilkins) and the Pistons (DeBusschere and co). Even though it would have still meant nothing, they could have at least finished head of the Pistons IMO. 1964: Celtics won season series 5-3. With a new coach (Hannum), a new teammate (Nate Thurmond), and an older supporting cast, Wilt's team advanced to the NBA Finals after beating St. Louis in 7 games. In the Finals, despite avg 35/25, Wilt and the Warriors were dusted away by the Celtics. The next highest scorer on the Warriors was Meschery at 17 ppg. The Celtic corps of Sam and KC Jones, Bill Russell and John Havlicek were too much for the Warriors. Wilt's fault for not winning? IMO Yes. Wilt was having a monstrous season again but moving of the Warriors out west last year helped Wilt and his team get into the Finals and out of the Celtics' grasp. If they were still in the East, they would have finished 3rd behind the Celtics and the Cincy Royals. So basically, the western conference this season wasn't as great as it was last year. 1965: Wilt played in only 38 games with the Warriors and was traded to the 76ers and the Warriors went from first to worst With the Sixers, Wilt helped them surpass the Cincy Royals where they met the Boston Celtics. The series went to seven games and this was the game 7 infamously remembered for Havlicek's steal that sealed the Celtics' win over the 76ers. Final Score of that game: 110-109. Wilt's fault for not advancing? IMO Draw. With the play drawn up to get the ball into Wilt's hands, Russell's defense and Greer's errant pass gave the ball to the Celtics for the victory. Some could say Wilt could have positioned himself better and some could say Greer could have found someone else to pass to....*shrug* 1966: Celtics lose season series 4-6. First time a Wilt-led team won a season series against the Celtics and the first time a Wilt-led team was ranked first and ahead of Boston when the season ended (by ONE game). But in the east semis, the 76ers lost to the Celtics 4-1. The average Celtic victory margin was 14 points and Wilt's playoff scoring dropped compared to the regular season. Wilt's fault for not advancing? IMO No. Although his scoring average dropped in the playoffs, his rebounding numbers actually went up. Greer and the rest of Wilt's teammates also saw their scoring production drop against the Celtics. Of note is Russell's increase in scoring (from 12.9 to 19.1) in the playoffs. And every key player on the Celtics team played marginally better compared to the regular season (scoring averages for Havlicek, Jones, etc went up). You can blame Wilt for his drop in scoring production, but he can't be blamed for the whole team's drop in scoring production and the Celtics' increase in scoring. 1967: Celtics win season series 5-4. THE YEAR. The year Wilt's team gets by Boston and wins the championship. Wilt wins the MVP averaging 24/24 and 8 assists per game (maybe the assists numbers led to the eventual championship?). The 76ers had a three-headed monster in the playoffs with Greer (28/6), Wilt (22/29 and NINE assists per game), and Chet Walker (22/8). This is not even mentioning the other contributors (Jones' 18 ppg, Cunningham's 15 ppg). Wilt's the reason for the championship? IMO Yes. He had another jawdropping year where he was pretty close to averaging a triple double for the season. But this year's playoffs marked the first time (ever?) that a team with Wilt Chamberlain did not have Chamberlain taking the most shots..in fact, he took the FOURTH most on the team. Maybe Wilt realized that deferring to teammates he can trust to score was a winning equation. 22/29 and 9 assists in the playoffs/finals...the start of an evolved Wilt? 1968: Tied season series with Boston 4-4. Wilt continued his unselfishness by leading the league in assists at 8.6 per game. This, with his 24/24, helped him win another MVP award. The 76ers would go on into the east finals to meet the Celtics once more. But for a team that won the east by 8 games over the Celtics, the 76ers were taken out by Boston in 7 games. The 76ers took a 3-1 lead back to philly only to lose the next and last 3 games to Boston. Wilt's fault for not advancing? IMO No. The man had a 24/24/9 season and a 24/25/7 playoff/finals average. What happened here? Since I haven't watched any of these games or any of the games in the other years (and this is based on all stats and speculation), I don't know what happened. Cunningham going down in the east semis against the Knicks might have taken a blow to the 76ers team. Missing your third best scorer is pretty crucial IMO. But Wilt probably could have done more to will them into winning at least one out of the last 3 after going up 3-1. 1969: Wilt gets traded to the Lakers and helps them win the West averaging 21/21/5. The Lakers advances all the way to the NBA Finals to play the Boston Celtics. The series ends in seven games with the Celtics winning. Wilt's playoff numbers were human-esque compared to his regular season numbers (14/25/3 assists). His teammate Elgin Baylor also saw a dramatic drop in scoring in the playoffs (25 down to 15). Wilt's fault for not winning? IMO Draw. Even though he's 32 years old, Chamberlain played in all but one game during the regular season so his stamina wasn't to be questioned. Maybe Russell's defense just got the better of Wilt in the finals. But the controversial non-play of the series was when the Lakers' coach, van Breda Kolff, did not put Chamberlain back into game 7 after Wilt sat out with a minor injury. The Lakers lost game 7 106-108 1969-1970: Wilt injured his knee and played only 12 games in the regular season but did average 27/18 in the limited action he saw. In the playoffs, Wilt averaged 22/22 and the Lakers were back in the Finals, this time, playing the Knicks. The series went to seven games and the 7th game was the infamous Reed Comeback game. Reed's comeback helped control Chamberlain in the post and, with the help of Clyde Frazier, DeBusschere, Bill Bradley, the Knicks won the seesaw battle and of course the championship. Wilt's fault for not winning? IMO Yes. To me personally, it boggles the mind how Wilt can win a championship averaging 9 assists per game in the playoffs/finals with very good teammates, but he couldn't do the same with The Logo and Elgin freakin Baylor. If he went back to his 1967 passing ways, I think the Lakers could have beaten the Knicks--no matter how blue collared the Knicks really were. 1970-1971: The Lakers finished first once again in their Division and defeated the Chicago Bulls to face Milwaukee in the West Finals. Only one problem. They ran into a brick wall by the name of Lou Alcindor and Oscar Robertson. The Bucks took out Wilt and the Jerry West-less Lakers in five games before going onto becoming the eventual NBA Champions. Wilt's fault for not winning? IMO No. He had to lead a team that saw Elgin Baylor leave, Jerry West getting injured, it was up to a 34 year old Chamberlain and a newly acquired Gail Goodrich to stop the 23 year old phenom Alcindor and the Big O. If this was against a 27 year old Chamberlain...maaaybe...but a 34 year old Wilt couldn't have stopped them. 1972-1973: THE YEAR PART DEUX. With West back and Goodrich dropping 26 per game, Chamberlain and his 15/19 were back on track. 33 games won in a row....then record 69 wins...they weren't going to be stopped. Sweeping the bulls in the semis, beating the Bucks in the West Finals, the Lakers played the Knicks for the 2nd time in the Finals. This time, they came out the victors in 5 games. Wilt averaged 15/21 in the playoffs/finals and with West (23/5 reb/9assists) and Goodrich (24 ppg), Wilt collected his 2nd championship. Wilt's the reason for the championship? IMO No. Not the MAIN reason like how he would have been back in his prime years with the 76ers, but he played an important role nonetheless. The return of The Logo and the emergence of Goodrich helped tons. 1972-1973: The 36 year old Chamberlain averaged 13/19 for 82 games this season and helped the Lakers advance into the playoffs and into the NBA Finals where they meet the Knicks for the 2nd straight year. Only this time, the series was finished in 5 games in favor of the Knicks. Clyde Frazier, Earl the Pearl, Reed and Co. took down the Lakers in four straight games after losing Game 1. Wilt's fault for not winning? IMO no. By this time, Wilt, although stil averaging 10/22 in the playoffs/finals, is a shadow of his former dominating self. So there you have it: I broke down Wilt's seasons into cliff notes form. IN MY OPINION, i think it's 50/50 that it was Wilt's fault that he didn't win any more championships. It could be argued that he needed another scorer on some of his early teams to take the load off of him but then it could be argued that he could have had that additional scorer if he had passed the ball as well as he he did in 1969-1971. Don't know if this will help with any debate for or against Wilt, but it was interesting to see. If it weren't for the Celtics, Wilt would probably have had as many rings as Russell. But unfortunately for him, the Celtics WERE there and his team rarely got past them.
How does that in anyway make Wilt the best ever? There are tons of great athletics in the NBA today, but that doesnt even mean they are good. Ive watch tapes of Wilt's game and his game was very simliar to Shaq.
You make it out as it is SO easy to grab rebounds and score. There have been many athletic centers to play after Wilt and NONE have avg those kind of numbers. Some of these centers and power fowards could jump just as high, and are nearly as big. Its difficult to grab to 15+ rebounds and score 20+ points having to bang bodies with the type of players today. Rodman avged so many rebounds because he didnt have to score. His JOB was to grab rebounds and defend. All the centers you listed may have the HEIGHT, but no where near the bulk of the nba players today. How can you say ANY player is the greatest of all time when you couldnt count on him at the end of the game? Wilt shot free throws at 50%. Tell me one weakness MJ had? You probably cant because he didnt have one. MJ could be counted on from start to finish, the same couldnt be said of Wilt.
This argument between Wilt and MJ, Wilt and Russell is getting old. Wilt is #1 by far in my book, hands down. However, I won't be irked if someone believes that MJ, Russell, Magic, or even Steve Kerr as #1. Each person is entitled to his own opinion. We have liste lots of Wilt's achievements in this thread. If that does not convince people, then that's it. Certainly Wilt has the disadvantage of playing in the 60s and early 70s, when not lots of people on the board were able to watch his games.
1. In this interview, Red Auerbach says the following: Auerbach: Most of the people that are talking about it never saw the people in contention coach. It's like a lot of these guys – today you get these new writers – and they think Shaq is way ahead of Wilt Chamberlain. They never saw Chamberlain. Maybe Shaq is better. But on what grounds are they picking him? ESPN.com: Not to mention that Shaq has won just two scoring titles and no rebounding titles and Chamberlain won seven scoring titles and 11 rebounding titles. Auerbach: Different types of players. But Chamberlain – he was bigger than Shaq, just as strong as Shaq, ran just as good as Shaq, rebounded better. ... Everybody thinks the new players are bigger, stronger, faster and smarter. But they are not. Back in my time we had as big a team as you have today. Only [difference] is you didn't have as many. In this article, Rick Barry says the following: On the same question -- Wilt or Shaq? -- Hall of Fame player Rick Barry last fall wrote in Basketball Digest, "I'll take Wilt over Shaq any day." Barry rated their inside offense, outside offense, free throw shooting, team defense, individual defense, ballhandling/passing, defensive rebounding, offensive rebounding and intangibles. On free throws they were even, each terrible. Everywhere else, all Wilt. Darrall Imhoff says the following in the same article: "Wilt was more versatile, had more range and was stronger. I'd put a forearm in Wilt's back and lean into him and he'd still move me backwards. Smoke would come from my shoes. He was just overwhelmingly strong -- the greatest athlete ever in the NBA. If he'd had Willis Reed's personality -- aggressive instead of being the gentle giant -- I don't know what we'd have done with Wilt." Also consider that Wilt is the only player to ever average over 48 minutes per game. You keep talking about how Wilt would have a harder time with the physical game today... it's Wilt who wuld be wearing all the other players down, not the other way around. Not only was Wilt the greatest physical specimen to ever set foot on a basketball court, he was skilled enough to play point guard for the Globetrotters for a year. You say: "There have been many athletic centers to play after Wilt and NONE have avg those kind of numbers. Some of these centers and power fowards could jump just as high, and are nearly as big." Well guess what? Shaq is the ONLY 7-footer to ever approximate Wilt's strength. And Shaq doesn't come close to Wilt's speed and leaping ability. So yeah, there are a FEW other "athletic centers" who were somewhere in Wilt's vicinity athleticism-wise, but NONE had the strength AND the athleticism Wilt had. See how that works? The point is he had BOTH Shaq's strength AND insane athleticism, not just one of them. And he was a good outside shooter and ballhandler to boot. That's why he would still dominate today, not simply because he's one more athletic big guy in the crowd, like you make him sound. 2. Tell me one weakness Clyde Drexler had? Oh yeah, he didn't have one either, and he was a better rebounder and passer than Jordan. Being a complete player doesn't make you the greatest ever. Wanna talk most complete? Magic and Oscar crushed Jordan as far as "complete player" goes. But facts are facts: a big guy will, in general, have a bigger impact on the outcomes of games. I really wouldn't care that Wilt wasn't a good free-throw shooter at the end of the game if he was up on Jordan's team by 15. The fact is that even with Pippen in 1994-95, Jordan COULD NOT WIN THE TITLE WITHOUT A TOP-TIER BIG GUY.
I said that Kareem was the best, but after I analyzed very well, I think Wilt is the greatest ever He score 100 pts in a game, and there was no 3pt line!!
Oh, you've seen tapes? Like what, a few games when Wilt was on the Lakers? Wilt was SEVERELY slowed by the time he got to the Lakers. He WAS more Shaq-like then. Get back to me when you've seen his pre-Lakers days, that's when Wilt was Wilt. And while you're at it... get back to me when Shaq shoots 72.7 FG% for an entire season, as Wilt did when he was old and slow and Shaq-like and decided he didn't have the energy to take that 15-foot fadeaway anymore.
I wrote he was the best athlete, not player. And considering that he was a over 7 feet tall and was the strongest player on the court and he was a top notch track athlete and his list of individual feats in BBall will never be matched, I'm not even going to argue this. Now best player, that's a little different.
I will say this, I think the only reason Russell is in the argument is because of the number of titles and the only reason Wilt's place is debatable is because of the lack of titles. Wilt was so far ahead of his time that one year he said he wanted be a better passer so he led the league in assist. His individual accomplishments can be matched by no one.
Yup. Beat me to it. 1. Horry 2. Jordan 3. Magic 4. Bird 5. Russell/Olajuwon/Kareem 8. Wilt . .. . . . . . . . 32,148. Chris Dudley
On the Celtics, it wasn’t necessary—“[D]ifferent players had to play different roles in order to win. We couldn’t expect to do so if each player took on the identical role of scoring as many points as possible, hoping that ours added up to more than our opponents’. … If [Red had] said to me, ‘What we need from you is twenty-five points a game,’ I might have been able to do it, but we wouldn’t have won much.”—but he could score if necessary for his team to win. EXAMPLE: In the 1962 NBA playoffs, Russell led the Celtics in scoring at 22.4 ppg, and in the NBA Finals, which would have been one of his NBA Finals MVP awards had it existed then: team-high 22.9 points and 27.0 rebounds per game, becoming the first player in NBA history to average 20 points and 20 rebounds during the course of a Finals, and in the deciding Game 7, he had 30 points and 40 rebounds in a game the Celtics won by three points in one of the greatest single-game performances in NBA Finals history. 1963 NBA Finals: 20.0 points, 26.0 rebounds, 5.3 assists per game, averages 20-20 for the second consecutive NBA Finals. 25 points on 10-of-19 shooting and 29 rebounds in Game 2 in a three-point Boston win. 21 points, 19 rebounds, five assists in Game 3. 22 points, 19 rebounds in Game 4. 24 points on 7-of-13 shooting from the floor and 10-of-13 from the free throw line, 27 rebounds and five assists in Game 5. Finished one assist shy of a triple double in the deciding Game 6. He, not Willis Reed, would have been the first player in NBA history to win All-Star Game MVP, regular season MVP, and NBA Finals MVP in the same season. Oh yeah, plus the Defensive Player of the Year Award, had it existed, making the him first one ever to do that, winning every damn award he would have been eligible for. 1965 NBA Finals: Set an NBA Finals record for highest field-goal percentage in a 5-game series (70.2 percent), a record which still stands to this day. In the deciding Game 5, he had a team-high 22 points on 6-of-9 shooting from the floor and 10 of 12 shooting from the line, 30 rebounds and four assists before leaving the game with six minutes remaining. Yet another NBA Finals MVP award to go with his regular season MVP award. 1966 NBA Finals: Led the Celtics in scoring at 23.6 points-per-game and shot 74 percent from the free throw line, and in the deciding Game 7, he had a team-high 25 points and 32 rebounds to lead Boston to a 95-93 win. Tom Heinsohn: “His detractors are always quick to say he couldn’t score, which isn’t true; he scored plenty of points when it counted.” But of course, people just talk without knowing what they’re talking about. Jerry West: “Russell is not big for a center … but he’s so smart and so quick he has complete control of the middle of the court. He stops guys from driving and shooting and passing near the basket because he blocks so many shots and intercepts so many passes he inhibits the other guys.” B.S. Shaq never dominated the boards or got tons of blocks NOW. Mr. MDE couldn’t rebound with the 6-8 Rodman, so how’s he going to rebound with Russ and Wilt? And apparently you’re unaware of one of the knocks on Kareem at the time: “Though [7 feet 2 inches] tall, Abdul-Jabbar is not a good rebounder. Because of his size, he has done adequately in the statistics, but he could do more. Defensively, he plays hard in spurts. There are days when he roams the court like an aggrieved Goliath searching for missing offspring behind every rival pick. Then there are days when he resembles a lifelike statue placed under the basket.” But of course, you wouldn’t be aware of that. Kareem couldn’t have done for the Celtics what Russell did, and more scoring isn’t what they needed. And Kareem couldn’t have done what Russell did against Chamberlain. Look at what Moses Malone did to Kareem, and then imagine a PRIME Wilt. As it was, a NON-prime Wilt held his own against Kareem. Exactly. Everyone talks about all the Hall of Famers Russell was surrounded with, yet fail to consider how many of them would have been Hall of Famers if they hadn’t played with Russell on a part of the greatest dynasty ever. Case in point, K.C. Jones: career averages of 7.4 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.5 apg. Shot 38.7% from the floor and 63.2% from the line as a GUARD. Never averaged more than 9.2 ppg in a single season. HE WAS NEVER EVEN AN NBA ALL-STAR (how do you get to be a Hall of Famer when you were never even an ALL-STAR???). Damn it was good to have been a teammate of Russell for his entire basketball playing career. The NBA All-Defensive Teams didn’t come into existence until the 1968-69 season, which was Russell’s last in the league. Yet he was still First Team All-Defense at 34 years old. See above. And from the 1965-66 season to the 1968-69 season, Chamberlain had the cast, but he could only win once. His teams had a better record every year from that point on, and in ’69, he Baylor and West could be three-fifths of an ALL-TIME TEAM. NO ONE had the Celtics winning. They weren’t even supposed to GET that far because they were a bunch of “old men.” And you tell me that Jordan, Magic, or Bird is going to lose a series after going up 3-1. Russell won when his team had the better record, he won when his team didn’t have the better record, he won when he wasn’t supposed to win (1968, 69). The bottom line is, he just won. See above. And Wilt for one, disagrees: Shaq wouldn’t provide the rebounding and defense the Celtics needed to fuel their fast-break offense, and waiting for him to get down the floor would slow them up. Shaq also couldn’t have played the minutes Russell did, and if he didn’t adjust, he’d foul out. And against the Warriors/Sixers, no way he could keep up with Wilt, who played 48 minutes a game. No, they don’t. Stats don’t even begin to do the man justice. Pure ignorance, spoken by someone who—like the majority of people, unfortunately—didn’t bother to do his research before making a statement. But unfortunately for that little argument, I’m here with the facts to shoot that down. One of the things about Russell is that he made his free throws when winning or losing the game depended on it. “What told me so much about Russell was his foul shooting,” said Fred Schaus, coach of the Los Angeles Lakers for four of their six NBA Finals defeats at the hands of Russell and the Celtics. “For most of the game you wanted him at the line. He was lucky to hit 60 percent. He had terrible form, sort of flinging the ball instead of shooting it. But down the stretch, he never missed a clutch free throw. … Foul shooting was the weakest part of his game, yet it wasn’t something he’d let defeat him.” EXAMPLE: Game 7 of the 1962 NBA Finals against the Los Angeles Lakers. The Celtics won.110-107—a three point margin. Russell scored 30 points and grabbed an NBA Finals single-game record 40 rebounds. You know what else? HE MADE 14 OF 17 FREE THROWS. That’s 82.4 percent. Since you compared his free throw shooting to Shaq, made me an instance where Shaq did that, and in a game of such magnitude. The Lakers kept putting him on the line, and he kept making his free throws. As a matter of fact, Russell shot 75.4 percent from the line for that series. Russell also led the Celtics in free throw attempts during the Finals with 61, 26 more than Tom Heinsohn, and only Elgin Baylor (100) and Jerry West (83) went to the line more in the series. Game 1: 122-108 Boston. Russell: 3-3 Game 2: 129-122 LA. Russell: 3-9 Game 3: 117-115 LA. Russell: 8-11 Game 4: 115-103 Boston. Russell: 5-5 Game 5: 126-121 LA. Russell: 6-6 Game 6: 119-105 Boston. Russell: 7-10 Game 7: 110-107 Boston. Russell: 14-17 Russell was being put on the line and he was making his free throws. Because that’s what he needed to do for them to win. How about another example? 1966 NBA Finals: Russell shoots 74 percent from the line. In the deciding Game 7 which Boston won 95-93, Russell was perfect from the line because in a close game they could have meant the difference between winning and losing. That’s why the man never lost a Game 7 in his life. See, you can get away with stuff like that with other people, but I actually have the evidence to the contrary. Most people say the same thing over and over again, so I compiled the evidence to refute what seem to be the most common statements. But you could have read that in the newspaper: And as far as the Russell vs. Chamberlain argument, Chamberlain and Russell played four Game 7s, all of which were won, of course, by Russell. The Celtics won those games by a total of nine points. Chamberlain missed 24 free throws. Game 7 of the 1962 Eastern Conference Finals — The Celtics won 107-105. Not Chamberlain’s fault here. Chamberlain was 8 of 9 from the free-throw line, and Russell made all five of his attempts. Game 7 of the 1965 Eastern Conference Finals — This is the game where Havlicek stole the ball. I used to have the box score, but I can’t find it at the moment. Game 7 of the 1968 Eastern Conference Finals — Boston won 100-96. Chamberlain was 6 of 15 from the free-throw line (40 percent). Game 7 of the 1969 NBA Finals — In a game the Celtics won by two points—108-106, Chamberlain was 4 of 13 from the free-throw line (30.8 percent). Considering the fact that the Celtics weren’t blowing Chamberlain’s teams out, Chamberlain’s abysmal free-throw shooting hurt. With the exception of the ’62 ECF where he went 8 of 9, things could have been different if he’d simply made his free throws, and he could have won despite Russell’s “superior supporting cast.” But of course, it’s just easier to say that the only reason Russell won is because of his superior supporting cast, and he just went along for the ride. Russell did WHATEVER it took to win. If it meant making free throws, that’s what he did. Russell didn’t cost the Celtics games with poor free throw shooting. Another reason why Russell’s better than Chamberlain, who for three straight years couldn’t even shoot 40 percent from the free throw line in the playoffs. I was going to cite this very instance. There are a couple others too, but unfortunately by computer crashed in the past, and I’ve had to painstakingly start from scratch in putting everything back together again. That’s a bald-faced lie. As part of a project I was working on, I compiled the top 137 single-season rebounding averages in NBA history, which extends to the cutoff point of 14 rebounds-per-game. I have that list in front of me and am looking at it. Nowhere is Artis Gilmore’s name. I present to you Gilmore’s rebounding numbers. 13.0 13.1 12.7 9.0 10.1 10.2 12.0 10.3 10.4 8.5 7.1 2.6 3.1 3.0 As we can see, Gilmore NEVER averaged as many rebounds as Russell. His rebounding numbers were closely matched by his peers? He and Wilt were the only ones rebounding like that, so that’s also a lie. An average of 20 or more rebounds per game was achieved 25 times in NBA history. Russell achieved it 10 times, Chamberlain achieved it 10 times, Jerry Lucas did it twice, Nate Thurmond did it twice, and Bob Pettit did it once. The two times Thurmond did it was in 65 and 51 games, one of Lucas’ times was in 66 games. If you’re talking about Gilmore while he was in the ABA: 17.8 17.6 18.3 16.2 15.5 Russell’s career low rebounding average was 18.6 in his next-to-last season, when he was 33. So the best a 25-year-old Artis Gilmore could do was 0.3 away from Russell’s career low when he got when he was 33. Okay… I already showed concrete evidence that Russell didn’t “suck” at free-throw shooting when winning and losing hinged on it. So you’re saying that Russell’s rebounding only marginally stood out among his elite peers when the only man who rebounded like he did was Chamberlain. CAREER REBOUNDS PER GAME Chamberlain 22.9 Russell 22.5 Bob Pettit 16.2 Jerry Lucas 15.6 Nate Thurmond 15.0 Wes Unseld 14.0 Walt Bellamy 13.7 Dave Cowens 13.6 Elgin Baylor 13.5 George Mikan 13.4 Yeah, Russell’s rebounding was only marginally better than his peers… Wrong. The Celtics didn’t need more scoring. The Celtics were leading the league in scoring before Russell got there, and they went 11-17 in the playoffs. As one player said about the Celtics: “When you played the Celtics, Cousy would get 20 and Sharman and Macauley would get their 20, but you still could beat them by 20.” Look at the top offensive teams in the league and where they are right now. Will adding more offense make them better and win more? I find it funny how everyone keeps saying this: “Hakeem is the all-time leader in blocked shots.” Of course, that’s leaving out the fact that blocked shots were not recorded until the 1973-74 season, after which Russell and Chamberlain were both retired. Olajuwon is the all-time leader in blocked shots since they began recording the statistic. To say anything else is misleading. EXAMPLE: For Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s first four seasons (321 games), blocked shots were not kept. He has 3,189 recorded blocked shots in the 1,239 games for which blocked shots were tabulated, an average of 2.57 per game. Now Kareem did not have zero blocked shots for the first four seasons of his career. If you the average of blocks per game that we have for his games where they WERE recorded and apply it to the 321 games for which blocks WEREN’T kept, he’d have an extra 826 blocks, which would give him 4,015, 185 more than Olajuwon. FACT: Olajuwon is NOT the all-time leading shot blocker. Steals weren’t recorded until the ’73-74 season either. See above. Hakeem wouldn’t have rebounded like Russell or Wilt, no. Don’t get what you’re trying to make about the extra minutes. Are you saying that Hakeem would be able to play the minutes that Russell and Chamberlain did? And Shaq? Shaq didn’t dominate the boards in THIS era. And are you suggesting that Shaq would be able to play the 40+ minutes that Russell and Chamberlain did? Right… Okay, this is probably already lengthy enough as it is, as people usually complain about my posts being too long. But I’m going to say this: one of the things that really bothers me about Chamberlain—something which isn’t reflected in the stats and hardly anyone talks about—is that he didn’t have the killer instinct of a Russell, a Jordan, a Bird. As Bill Bradley observed: In Chamberlain’s own words, the year after he finally beat Russell: What else could he do? How about win again? Was one title enough for Russell? Magic? Bird? Jordan? After they won for the first time, they kept winning. When the Bulls finally got past the Detroit Pistons after getting knocked out of the playoffs by them every year, Jordan made sure it never happened again. You’d think if Chamberlain took such exception to people regarding Russell as a better player than him, he’d have made it a point to do something about it now that he finally had the teammates around him which he lacked earlier. But no, he was content with getting his ring, and decided he’d turn his attention to leading the league in assists. That’s one of the reasons why the Celtics wouldn’t have won as many titles with Chamberlain as they did with Russell, as some argue they would have. After a while, Chamberlain would get bored and set his sights on some personal goal. You notice that Chamberlain did win with Philadelphia in ’67 and Los Angeles in ’72, but he couldn’t sustain it like Russell, Magic, and Jordan did. Winning never got old for Russell. It never got old for Magic. Bird. Jordan. Chamberlain was awesome in the 1967 playoffs where he finally overcame Russell and got his ring. Why couldn’t he decide to do that EVERY year? All of the other candidates for the title of THEE greatest of all time have that killer instinct where they’d rip your heart out. Russell was “the foxiest, smartest, meanest player, psychologically, that ever played the game. Whatever it took to win, Russell would do.” Jordan was “an assassin in shorts.” That’s one of the reasons I have Chamberlain below Russell and Jordan, who are IMO, the top two greatest players of all time. Stats don’t tell the whole story.
