RIP Bill! Even though none of us KNEW him personally, we all felt like we knew Bill through his commentary! He seemed like a genuine guy and one of the nicest and most approachable guys you could ever meet! He will be missed!
R.I.P Bill Walton❤! 2. Wilt vs Russell: I have Russell by a lot. i think that when you break a player down by skillset you tend to think less about how adroitly that skillset was used, the consequences of misuse, and the root causes of the misuse. And I think all of those things things relegated to the background have everything to do with why Russell's teams were more successful than Wilt's teams. I also think that while Wilt certainly wins the scoring & offensive comparisons over Russell handily, it's really crucial in any analysis of Wilt to think very deeply on the implications of '66-67. That change in role Wilt made there would never have been chanced if Wilt's coach (Alex Hannum) didn't see major issues with how Wilt approached volume scoring, and the fact that the team's offense got far better with that change means he saw true. Thus, if you don't have an explanation for what Hannum saw, you know you don't understand Wilt. @jaranarm
1)the games Russell missed, Boston player at a terrible win pace (despite having Hof players on the floor) 2) his mediocre offense didn't matter because, guess what, Boston didn't win 11 rings because of offense, Boston was a bad offense the majority of the time 3) HOF selections are biased because the Celtics won all those titles, but they won because of Bill. If you see all NBA selections at the time, which are not biased by all these wins, you get t a clearer perspective @@jaranarm
@@larssantini4 Your "perspective" doesn't impress me considering you're changing the subject. Why can't you explain why Hannum didn't "see" what he was supposed to see when he coached Wilt in the 63-64 and 64-65 seasons?
@@jaranarm Biggest issue with Wilt in this regard is he was often considered to be scoring to a detriment, and later passing to a detriment (to prove a point) so none of the peaks of his career ever really coincided. His scoring wasn’t quite efficient enough to propel teams to being great offenses, often was substantially worse in the post season as well, and his passing was largely “Rondo assists” where he would have been better off actually attempting to score. ‘67 was probably the year it all blended the best, but realistically he should have been doing that his entire career. I think overall Wilt is probably vastly underrated as a defender. With what little scouting info we have there isn’t really anything to show he shouldn’t be viewed with the likes of Russell, Thurmond, Hakeem, etc.. but on the reverse his gaudy counting stats have vastly overrated him as an offensive player too. So there is just a lot of give and take with him. @jaranarm
RIP Bill! Even though none of us KNEW him personally, we all felt like we knew Bill through his commentary! He seemed like a genuine guy and one of the nicest and most approachable guys you could ever meet! He will be missed!
If celtics don't win after Walton passing. Then, it is truly regrettable stuff and also shameful of the entire league.
i thought he is old greg popovich
THAT, is what a man who has reached enlightenment looks like.
He figured out the secret, that you are God, so start acting like Him!
R.I.P Bill Walton❤!
2. Wilt vs Russell: I have Russell by a lot.
i think that when you break a player down by skillset you tend to think less about how adroitly that skillset was used, the consequences of misuse, and the root causes of the misuse. And I think all of those things things relegated to the background have everything to do with why Russell's teams were more successful than Wilt's teams.
I also think that while Wilt certainly wins the scoring & offensive comparisons over Russell handily, it's really crucial in any analysis of Wilt to think very deeply on the implications of '66-67. That change in role Wilt made there would never have been chanced if Wilt's coach (Alex Hannum) didn't see major issues with how Wilt approached volume scoring, and the fact that the team's offense got far better with that change means he saw true. Thus, if you don't have an explanation for what Hannum saw, you know you don't understand Wilt.
@jaranarm
Alex Hannum sure saw that when he coached Wilt's team to the Finals in '64 too, right?
1)the games Russell missed, Boston player at a terrible win pace (despite having Hof players on the floor)
2) his mediocre offense didn't matter because, guess what, Boston didn't win 11 rings because of offense, Boston was a bad offense the majority of the time
3) HOF selections are biased because the Celtics won all those titles, but they won because of Bill. If you see all NBA selections at the time, which are not biased by all these wins, you get t a clearer perspective @@jaranarm
@@larssantini4 Your "perspective" doesn't impress me considering you're changing the subject. Why can't you explain why Hannum didn't "see" what he was supposed to see when he coached Wilt in the 63-64 and 64-65 seasons?
@@jaranarm Biggest issue with Wilt in this regard is he was often considered to be scoring to a detriment, and later passing to a detriment (to prove a point) so none of the peaks of his career ever really coincided. His scoring wasn’t quite efficient enough to propel teams to being great offenses, often was substantially worse in the post season as well, and his passing was largely “Rondo assists” where he would have been better off actually attempting to score. ‘67 was probably the year it all blended the best, but realistically he should have been doing that his entire career.
I think overall Wilt is probably vastly underrated as a defender. With what little scouting info we have there isn’t really anything to show he shouldn’t be viewed with the likes of Russell, Thurmond, Hakeem, etc.. but on the reverse his gaudy counting stats have vastly overrated him as an offensive player too. So there is just a lot of give and take with him. @jaranarm