@jaranarm Chamberlain was absolutely a phenomenal floor raiser, but some of your claims are outright not true. The Warriors were a top three defense before Chamberlain arrived with pitiful offense. The year he joins, their offense barely improved *(8th to 7th)* and their shooting splits hardly did either *(8th to 6th)*. Chamberlain won them games on the virtue of his rim protection, not offense. You’re also being super ignorant regarding his help. You call the 76ers’ supporting cast a “gang of clowns” but ignore the fact that he had Hal Greer *(the arguable best SG of the era)*, Chet Walker *(a hyper-efficient shot creator)*, and Billy Cunningham *(who was the best 6th man in the league not named Hondo)*. He also didn’t drag anybody to the Eastern Finals in ‘66, they had a bye round and lost in 5 games to the Celtics despite being better rested lmao. At the end of the day, people question Wilt as a playoff performer because he was such a dropper. He went from 30/22/4 in the regular season to 22/24/4 in the playoffs. Those eight points are *HUGE*, and his offenses had to find them from other teammates because of his refusal to play assertive in big situations. He doesn’t get bonus points for averaging 30/20/.500 in post-seasons because that’s already *expected of him*. Those numbers were still a decline from his averages.
Oh yea, top 3 defense but bottom feeders in the conference. The Warriors were the worst shooting team in the NBA and even though Wilt came in, the team fg% only improved by a couple percentage points despite Wilt giving the team more possessions and him shooting above the league average. STILL has the worst percentile shooting. Of course their Offensive Rating isn't going to get much better, this isn't rocket science. The Chicago Bulls Offensive Rating dropped from 9th to 11th and their Defensive Rating dropped from 10th to 20th after they drafted Michael Jordan, yea and? As for Defensive Rating, the league pace jumped from 1958 to 59 by at least 15 marks and the Warriors were NEVER a running team to be effective on defense. Sports Illustrated back then called them "some of the slowest players and worst shooters ever to play in the NBA". THAT is the team Wilt inherited. And despite that, Wilt still took the Warriors to 49 wins as a rookie which was a franchise record at the time, and pushed that sorry roster against Boston only to get 2 points shy of forcing a game 7. He won both MVP and ROY that year for a reason. People like to point out Wilt's "help" but then they NEVER look up how they actually performed in the postseason. In the 1966 East Finals against Boston, Hal Greer shot .357, Chet Walker shot .375, and Billy Cunningham didn't even play every game, had way fewer minutes than in the RS, and when he DID play he averaged .161 from the floor. Yeah, GREAT help. Wilt played most of his playoff games in the years AFTER he had stopped scoring, and half of those years came after his knee surgery. Of course there would be a discrepancy in his averages. On top of that, Wilt's teams won the vast majority of their postseason series when Wilt didn't even need to score higher than his season average. It's such an amateurish lazy move to just look at averages and then outright ignore the context and history behind the numbers.
The Celtics HOF players are a joke. The HOF induction is a joke. The Celtics players probably deserve to be there as a team, but the players? Tom Heinsohn - great coach, very mediocre player. Satch Sanders? K.C. Jones - a decent third guard. Cousy? In his day he created some things that are standard requirements for an NBA point guard today. But as a player he really didn’t contribute much. Havlicek was a great player. An elite player in his day. Howell was a very good player but the Celtics only won twice with him. Chamberlain played with Nate Thurman, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, Chet Walker, Elgin Baylor and Jerry West. I think the supporting players argument goes to Wilt. As I said Wilt was the most dominant athlete I’ve ever seen. He seemed capable of almost anything and his presence on the court was just unbelievable. But.. The rings. In basketball more than any other team sport one player can take the team to a championship. Firstly by representing 20% of the team on the court, which plays into the second reason. Inspiring and motivating 12 or 13 guys is a lot easier than 40 or 70. I don’t think the Bulls would’ve won any championships without Jordan - maybe one. The current Warriors are a very good team but it’s Curry that makes the difference. Hakeem Olajuwon brought his team to back to back championships in a league that was at its most competitive point ever. There are other examples that I’m certain you know. Wilt is not the GOAT. But he’s not like Iverson or Ewing, who deserve their own category.
@@jaranarm Pathetic squad? Sixers had three allstars and gave up nothing of value for Wilt. Winning begets stability. Losing invites chaos. Russell molded the Celtics in his image. Wilt cut and run when the going got tough. 2. Can you sent your username in dis, so we can debate more often?
@@jaranarm Jaranarm: Where have you been? Here's my answer to "why every hof player that Wilt played against, couldn't do what Wilt did" 1.) Because he's a better offensive weapon than them. Most bigs from that really inflated time-frame were not scorers, guys like Wayne Embry, Bill Russell, Walter Dukes weren't scorers... It's kinda like asking the question in 2000 why did Shaq average 30 a game but Mutombo and Theo Ratliff just 12? 2.) Other players did have insanely inflated stats. The same year Wilt averaged 50 Oscar averaged a triple double, Baylor averaged 38 & 19, Pettit 32 & 19, Walt Bellamy averaged 32 & 19 as a rookie which is his career high and was around 19 & 13 in what should have been his prime years. Teams averaged 119 points per game (the highest ever) despite no 3pt line and only shooting 42% from the floor. Teams took 109 shots a game compared to teams now taking 89 shots a game, 37 free-throws a game compared to 22 now.. Literally everything was inflated. \- It's not really about why Wayne Embry didn't average 50 as much as it is trying to compare Wilt's numbers to modern elite scorers numbers. Really anything by even the 70's as pace had already dropped by 20+ possessions even then.. He played 130 possessions compared to playing all 48 minutes today being just 99 possessions. Not to even factor in that no team today would actually play their star 48 minutes a night. \- Look at it this way in Wilt's monster first 5 years he averaged roughly 42ppg, and played 2.4 more minutes above the next highest mpg player for those years. If you were to adjust that to a per-75 possessions average that's around 25ppg. His 50ppg year was only 1 point per possession more than the following year and 4 points per possession more the year after that.. But because pace had dropped from 130 to 115 his actual scoring dropped by 14 ppg. Everything in basketball is relative to pace, if you're on the floor for 30 more shots you're going to put up a massive amount more in raw counting stats. If Wilt played at today's pace, and still maintained that 2.4 more minutes than the league leader he would be on the floor 83 possessions a game. Assuming everything else remained true his 50ppg year is roughly 32ppg, his 5-year average of 42ppg is 27ppg. \- It's not a knock on Wilt by any means, it's just that comparing raw per game counting stats 60 years apart is a really shitty way to view players in general. This is why we have pace-adjusted stats to begin with, it's why advanced stats that span different eras adjust numbers on a per-100 possession basis. \- Quite a few players have actually out-paced Wilt on a per-possession level, both at an overall level and a relative to league average level in output and efficiency. Is there some manual adjustment to make to give him extra credit for playing so many minutes at that era and pace, possibly but we are still so far off from being able to compare per-game to per-game from then - now.. It would kinda be like if they turned off the shot clock completely and one team held the ball forever so the leading scorer ended with 8 points. Can you compare that 8 points to someone getting 30 in a regular game if that player's team only had the ball for say 10 possessions? \- Maybe this will make more sense. Jordan averaged 40 points per 100 possessions on his career.. That's 53 points per 131 possessions that Wilt played at that season. His best year 46.4 per 100 would be 61 points per 131.. That's why the numbers simply can't be looked at from that perspective, tons of other players would likely have freakish numbers if you just handed them an extra 40 chances to get up a shot, assist, rebounds, etc. \- Again, it's not a knock on Wilt by any means. He's still one of the most impressive players ever even making more realistic adjustments. It's just comparing those numbers at a basic per-game level isn't even a remotely level playing field. It's kindof like me saying *"How is Larry Bird considered a great shooter if he only made 649 threes in his career when guys now make 3,000+ of them"*, knowing damn well that playing in that era it wasn't possible to get up that many threes because of the play-style.. Just like now it's impossible for players to get 130+ trips up the floor without playing every single minute of a game that goes into 4 overtimes.
@jaranarm Let's discuss about Wilt and his teams. Wilt scored 40% of the teams’ points on ridiculous efficiency. His team was 4th out of 9 teams in offense. Well normally offensive superstars can make an offense above average by themselves but hey maybe his surrounding talent wasn’t good. So he joined the league’s best offense in ‘68 and guess what happens? They get worse. Huh, but they had Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and the offensive GOAT? That team is 2nd on offense. Ok maybe it takes a year to get in the groove. No, that can’t be right, in 69 they were 8th on offense? And then in 70 they finish 4th? Ok well he was getting old. Meanwhile you take a look at the Auerbach system and his stress on team play and defense. Here’s where the Celtics finished defensively: 10, 4, 8, 8, 8, 6, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 8, 3, 5 Can you guess when Red joined/left and when Russell joined/left?
The 68-69 Lakers were not the league's best offense. To get Wilt, the Lakers traded away two All-Stars Archie Clark and Darrall Imhoff, plus reserve Jerry Chambers, PLUS they lost Gail Goodrich to the Phoenix Suns. That's what Wilt was replacing. His first year in LA they STILL got 55 wins which was the franchise record at the time AND that's with Jerry West missing 20 games because of injury. The 69-70 Lakers was when Wilt completely shattered his knee and was out for almost the entire season. The 70-71 Lakers was when Wilt was just a year removed from knee surgery, plus Jerry West was out for at least a dozen games, and Elgin Baylor was missing the ENTIRE season due to injury. Boston under Red Auerbach were already the #1 scoring team in the league for FIVE straight years BEFORE Russell even joined. They were only missing interior defense. The same year they drafted Russell they ALSO drafted Tom Heinsohn. Then every season after that they kept adding more and more pieces to stay on top: Sam Jones, KC Jones, Satch Sanders, John Havlicek, etc. and were lucky to never have any serious injuries to any of their top players. For you to compare the Lakers' situation when Wilt, West and Baylor were all already older and injury prone (btw, they NEVER played ONE full season together as a trio) to the Boston Celtics when they were just piecing together their dynasty is absolutely ridiculous.
2x AS Archie Clark and 1x AS Darrall Imhoff weren’t nothing that’s for sure. In fact, these 2 guys who sporadically made AS games were able to fully replace the GOAT on offense and PHI only suffered defensively. I really think you’re giving too much credit to them and 26 MPG 24yo Goodrich. Imagine if Steph joined Boston and they were like “oh no we lost Smart, Horford, and Derrick White, what will we do on offense”. But that is nice that the GOAT, the Logo, and an inner tier HOFer won 55 games. Also Jerry West played fewer games in 67-68 so the point about the Logo missing time doesn’t matter to comparing the two years. It also is funny how the cast always changed around Russell and the defense always remained. Heinsohn retired? #1 D. Someone else retired? #1 D. Russell retiree? Not anymore. @@jaranarm
@@shadow81in Clark and Imhoff combined for 36 ppg and 20 rpg on .510 shooting against Boston in the 69 playoffs and the Sixers were still wiped out in 5 games, their only single win by 3 points (which would've been a sweep if Havlicek didn't leave the floor early in Game 4). For you to suggest that those guys "fully replaced Wilt" is asinine and ignores all the other things Wilt did for that team that don't show up on the stat sheet. The point being that by the time the Lakers had their "big 3" all three of those guys were already injury prone (thanks for helping prove it), and plus their bench having gotten WORSE than the previous season, yet the OP honestly believes that it was the best offensive team in the league. What a total and complete joke. And who came after Heinsohn? Nelson, then Howell, then Embry, etc. guys with size who knew how to play moving defense within the Auerbach system, on or off the bench. Boston always knew how to get pieces and have a deep team. The Celtics didn't only lose Russell after he retired, Sam Jones had also retired, and Satch Sanders and Jo Jo White didn't even play full seasons. It took only a couple years of rebuilding for Boston to be title contenders again without Russell. How long did Philly and LA take to become champions again without Wilt?
@@jaranarm 'A few issues: 1. The Warriors were horrible WITH Wilt in 1964-1965. They were 11-33 when he got traded, on pace to win 20 games. Imagine if Lebron, Jordan, or Kareem were responsible for such5u a horrible team in their prime. They didn't. 2. Wilt and the Warriors missed the playoffs in 1962-1963 with a 31-49 record in what is supposed to be Wilt's prime statistical production despite playing with 2 other HOFers. 3. The 76ers were 22-23 before Wilt joined the team and 18-17 after Wilt joined the team. Were they clowns before he joined? No. Did he make them significantly better? No, not really, at least not right away. The 76ers didn't become great until Wilt gave up the ball, got teammates involved, and focused on dominating the boards and paint. 4. Players Wilt played with between 1959-1968: Arizin (50th/75th anniversary team) and Gola who went to 10 and 5 all stars respectively in the early 60s with Wilt. Wilt played with 4 time all star Guy Rodgers and Meschery who went to 1 all star with the San Francisco Warriors. He then played with 7x all star yount Nate Thurmond (on the 50th/75th anniversary team). When Wilt went to 76ers he played with 10 time all star Hal Greer and 7 time all star Chet Walker. But yea bums. 5. Wilt joins Top 25 players Jerry West and Elgin Baylor in LA and manages only 1 title after Elgin retires. 6. Wilt drops off considerably in the playoffs. Take 1961-62 50ppg season. His per 36 minutes scoring goes from 37.4ppg to 26.2ppg and effeciency drops from 51% to 47%. And this is in a league with a 25% faster pace than post 1980. Wilt consistently scored 5-10 points per game less in the playoffs than in the regular season.
jaranarm Russell's team won over and over and over and over and over again. There comes a point at which blaming teammates doesn't cut it anymore and Chamberlain stormed past that point at the speed of a Formula 1 car. It is fairly obvious that Chamberlain was not someone who made his teammates better- The fact that took Wilt seven years to learn that "hey, maybe I should talk positively about my teammates to the media and do some team building" is an indictment. Would you as a teammate leave everything on the floor for a guy who cares more about his own stats than your team winning? I know I wouldn't. When we look at a player who has great stats in key games, but a horrible record in them we ought not to think "sucks that his team let him down", but "maybe those stats came at the expense of his team".
This is a garbage list. Most people feel the 87 lakers were the best showtime team and the 73 win warriors didn’t win the chip
2001 Lakers>2016 warriors
@jaranarm
Chamberlain was absolutely a phenomenal floor raiser, but some of your claims are outright not true. The Warriors were a top three defense before Chamberlain arrived with pitiful offense. The year he joins, their offense barely improved *(8th to 7th)* and their shooting splits hardly did either *(8th to 6th)*. Chamberlain won them games on the virtue of his rim protection, not offense.
You’re also being super ignorant regarding his help. You call the 76ers’ supporting cast a “gang of clowns” but ignore the fact that he had Hal Greer *(the arguable best SG of the era)*, Chet Walker *(a hyper-efficient shot creator)*, and Billy Cunningham *(who was the best 6th man in the league not named Hondo)*. He also didn’t drag anybody to the Eastern Finals in ‘66, they had a bye round and lost in 5 games to the Celtics despite being better rested lmao.
At the end of the day, people question Wilt as a playoff performer because he was such a dropper. He went from 30/22/4 in the regular season to 22/24/4 in the playoffs. Those eight points are *HUGE*, and his offenses had to find them from other teammates because of his refusal to play assertive in big situations. He doesn’t get bonus points for averaging 30/20/.500 in post-seasons because that’s already *expected of him*. Those numbers were still a decline from his averages.
Oh yea, top 3 defense but bottom feeders in the conference. The Warriors were the worst shooting team in the NBA and even though Wilt came in, the team fg% only improved by a couple percentage points despite Wilt giving the team more possessions and him shooting above the league average. STILL has the worst percentile shooting. Of course their Offensive Rating isn't going to get much better, this isn't rocket science.
The Chicago Bulls Offensive Rating dropped from 9th to 11th and their Defensive Rating dropped from 10th to 20th after they drafted Michael Jordan, yea and?
As for Defensive Rating, the league pace jumped from 1958 to 59 by at least 15 marks and the Warriors were NEVER a running team to be effective on defense. Sports Illustrated back then called them "some of the slowest players and worst shooters ever to play in the NBA". THAT is the team Wilt inherited. And despite that, Wilt still took the Warriors to 49 wins as a rookie which was a franchise record at the time, and pushed that sorry roster against Boston only to get 2 points shy of forcing a game 7. He won both MVP and ROY that year for a reason.
People like to point out Wilt's "help" but then they NEVER look up how they actually performed in the postseason. In the 1966 East Finals against Boston, Hal Greer shot .357, Chet Walker shot .375, and Billy Cunningham didn't even play every game, had way fewer minutes than in the RS, and when he DID play he averaged .161 from the floor. Yeah, GREAT help.
Wilt played most of his playoff games in the years AFTER he had stopped scoring, and half of those years came after his knee surgery. Of course there would be a discrepancy in his averages. On top of that, Wilt's teams won the vast majority of their postseason series when Wilt didn't even need to score higher than his season average. It's such an amateurish lazy move to just look at averages and then outright ignore the context and history behind the numbers.
The Celtics HOF players are a joke. The HOF induction is a joke. The Celtics players probably deserve to be there as a team, but the players? Tom Heinsohn - great coach, very mediocre player. Satch Sanders? K.C. Jones - a decent third guard. Cousy? In his day he created some things that are standard requirements for an NBA point guard today. But as a player he really didn’t contribute much.
Havlicek was a great player. An elite player in his day. Howell was a very good player but the Celtics only won twice with him.
Chamberlain played with Nate Thurman, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, Chet Walker, Elgin Baylor and Jerry West. I think the supporting players argument goes to Wilt.
As I said Wilt was the most dominant athlete I’ve ever seen. He seemed capable of almost anything and his presence on the court was just unbelievable. But..
The rings. In basketball more than any other team sport one player can take the team to a championship. Firstly by representing 20% of the team on the court, which plays into the second reason. Inspiring and motivating 12 or 13 guys is a lot easier than 40 or 70. I don’t think the Bulls would’ve won any championships without Jordan - maybe one. The current Warriors are a very good team but it’s Curry that makes the difference. Hakeem Olajuwon brought his team to back to back championships in a league that was at its most competitive point ever. There are other examples that I’m certain you know.
Wilt is not the GOAT. But he’s not like Iverson or Ewing, who deserve their own category.
@@jaranarm Pathetic squad? Sixers had three allstars and gave up nothing of value for Wilt.
Winning begets stability. Losing invites chaos. Russell molded the Celtics in his image. Wilt cut and run when the going got tough.
2. Can you sent your username in dis, so we can debate more often?
@@jaranarm Jaranarm: Where have you been? Here's my answer to "why every hof player that Wilt played against, couldn't do what Wilt did"
1.) Because he's a better offensive weapon than them. Most bigs from that really inflated time-frame were not scorers, guys like Wayne Embry, Bill Russell, Walter Dukes weren't scorers... It's kinda like asking the question in 2000 why did Shaq average 30 a game but Mutombo and Theo Ratliff just 12?
2.) Other players did have insanely inflated stats. The same year Wilt averaged 50 Oscar averaged a triple double, Baylor averaged 38 & 19, Pettit 32 & 19, Walt Bellamy averaged 32 & 19 as a rookie which is his career high and was around 19 & 13 in what should have been his prime years. Teams averaged 119 points per game (the highest ever) despite no 3pt line and only shooting 42% from the floor. Teams took 109 shots a game compared to teams now taking 89 shots a game, 37 free-throws a game compared to 22 now.. Literally everything was inflated.
\- It's not really about why Wayne Embry didn't average 50 as much as it is trying to compare Wilt's numbers to modern elite scorers numbers. Really anything by even the 70's as pace had already dropped by 20+ possessions even then.. He played 130 possessions compared to playing all 48 minutes today being just 99 possessions. Not to even factor in that no team today would actually play their star 48 minutes a night.
\- Look at it this way in Wilt's monster first 5 years he averaged roughly 42ppg, and played 2.4 more minutes above the next highest mpg player for those years. If you were to adjust that to a per-75 possessions average that's around 25ppg. His 50ppg year was only 1 point per possession more than the following year and 4 points per possession more the year after that.. But because pace had dropped from 130 to 115 his actual scoring dropped by 14 ppg. Everything in basketball is relative to pace, if you're on the floor for 30 more shots you're going to put up a massive amount more in raw counting stats. If Wilt played at today's pace, and still maintained that 2.4 more minutes than the league leader he would be on the floor 83 possessions a game. Assuming everything else remained true his 50ppg year is roughly 32ppg, his 5-year average of 42ppg is 27ppg.
\- It's not a knock on Wilt by any means, it's just that comparing raw per game counting stats 60 years apart is a really shitty way to view players in general. This is why we have pace-adjusted stats to begin with, it's why advanced stats that span different eras adjust numbers on a per-100 possession basis.
\- Quite a few players have actually out-paced Wilt on a per-possession level, both at an overall level and a relative to league average level in output and efficiency. Is there some manual adjustment to make to give him extra credit for playing so many minutes at that era and pace, possibly but we are still so far off from being able to compare per-game to per-game from then - now.. It would kinda be like if they turned off the shot clock completely and one team held the ball forever so the leading scorer ended with 8 points. Can you compare that 8 points to someone getting 30 in a regular game if that player's team only had the ball for say 10 possessions?
\- Maybe this will make more sense. Jordan averaged 40 points per 100 possessions on his career.. That's 53 points per 131 possessions that Wilt played at that season. His best year 46.4 per 100 would be 61 points per 131.. That's why the numbers simply can't be looked at from that perspective, tons of other players would likely have freakish numbers if you just handed them an extra 40 chances to get up a shot, assist, rebounds, etc.
\- Again, it's not a knock on Wilt by any means. He's still one of the most impressive players ever even making more realistic adjustments. It's just comparing those numbers at a basic per-game level isn't even a remotely level playing field. It's kindof like me saying *"How is Larry Bird considered a great shooter if he only made 649 threes in his career when guys now make 3,000+ of them"*, knowing damn well that playing in that era it wasn't possible to get up that many threes because of the play-style.. Just like now it's impossible for players to get 130+ trips up the floor without playing every single minute of a game that goes into 4 overtimes.
What's your five?
No 2001 Lakers or 2017 warriors?
@jaranarm Let's discuss about Wilt and his teams.
Wilt scored 40% of the teams’ points on ridiculous efficiency. His team was 4th out of 9 teams in offense. Well normally offensive superstars can make an offense above average by themselves but hey maybe his surrounding talent wasn’t good. So he joined the league’s best offense in ‘68 and guess what happens? They get worse. Huh, but they had Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and the offensive GOAT? That team is 2nd on offense. Ok maybe it takes a year to get in the groove. No, that can’t be right, in 69 they were 8th on offense? And then in 70 they finish 4th? Ok well he was getting old.
Meanwhile you take a look at the Auerbach system and his stress on team play and defense. Here’s where the Celtics finished defensively:
10, 4, 8, 8, 8, 6, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 8, 3, 5
Can you guess when Red joined/left and when Russell joined/left?
The 68-69 Lakers were not the league's best offense. To get Wilt, the Lakers traded away two All-Stars Archie Clark and Darrall Imhoff, plus reserve Jerry Chambers, PLUS they lost Gail Goodrich to the Phoenix Suns. That's what Wilt was replacing. His first year in LA they STILL got 55 wins which was the franchise record at the time AND that's with Jerry West missing 20 games because of injury.
The 69-70 Lakers was when Wilt completely shattered his knee and was out for almost the entire season. The 70-71 Lakers was when Wilt was just a year removed from knee surgery, plus Jerry West was out for at least a dozen games, and Elgin Baylor was missing the ENTIRE season due to injury.
Boston under Red Auerbach were already the #1 scoring team in the league for FIVE straight years BEFORE Russell even joined. They were only missing interior defense. The same year they drafted Russell they ALSO drafted Tom Heinsohn. Then every season after that they kept adding more and more pieces to stay on top: Sam Jones, KC Jones, Satch Sanders, John Havlicek, etc. and were lucky to never have any serious injuries to any of their top players.
For you to compare the Lakers' situation when Wilt, West and Baylor were all already older and injury prone (btw, they NEVER played ONE full season together as a trio) to the Boston Celtics when they were just piecing together their dynasty is absolutely ridiculous.
2x AS Archie Clark and 1x AS Darrall Imhoff weren’t nothing that’s for sure. In fact, these 2 guys who sporadically made AS games were able to fully replace the GOAT on offense and PHI only suffered defensively. I really think you’re giving too much credit to them and 26 MPG 24yo Goodrich. Imagine if Steph joined Boston and they were like “oh no we lost Smart, Horford, and Derrick White, what will we do on offense”. But that is nice that the GOAT, the Logo, and an inner tier HOFer won 55 games.
Also Jerry West played fewer games in 67-68 so the point about the Logo missing time doesn’t matter to comparing the two years.
It also is funny how the cast always changed around Russell and the defense always remained. Heinsohn retired? #1 D. Someone else retired? #1 D. Russell retiree? Not anymore. @@jaranarm
@@shadow81in Clark and Imhoff combined for 36 ppg and 20 rpg on .510 shooting against Boston in the 69 playoffs and the Sixers were still wiped out in 5 games, their only single win by 3 points (which would've been a sweep if Havlicek didn't leave the floor early in Game 4). For you to suggest that those guys "fully replaced Wilt" is asinine and ignores all the other things Wilt did for that team that don't show up on the stat sheet.
The point being that by the time the Lakers had their "big 3" all three of those guys were already injury prone (thanks for helping prove it), and plus their bench having gotten WORSE than the previous season, yet the OP honestly believes that it was the best offensive team in the league. What a total and complete joke.
And who came after Heinsohn? Nelson, then Howell, then Embry, etc. guys with size who knew how to play moving defense within the Auerbach system, on or off the bench. Boston always knew how to get pieces and have a deep team. The Celtics didn't only lose Russell after he retired, Sam Jones had also retired, and Satch Sanders and Jo Jo White didn't even play full seasons. It took only a couple years of rebuilding for Boston to be title contenders again without Russell. How long did Philly and LA take to become champions again without Wilt?
@@jaranarm 'A few issues:
1. The Warriors were horrible WITH Wilt in 1964-1965. They were 11-33 when he got traded, on pace to win 20 games. Imagine if Lebron, Jordan, or Kareem were responsible for such5u a horrible team in their prime. They didn't.
2. Wilt and the Warriors missed the playoffs in 1962-1963 with a 31-49 record in what is supposed to be Wilt's prime statistical production despite playing with 2 other HOFers.
3. The 76ers were 22-23 before Wilt joined the team and 18-17 after Wilt joined the team. Were they clowns before he joined? No. Did he make them significantly better? No, not really, at least not right away. The 76ers didn't become great until Wilt gave up the ball, got teammates involved, and focused on dominating the boards and paint.
4. Players Wilt played with between 1959-1968: Arizin (50th/75th anniversary team) and Gola who went to 10 and 5 all stars respectively in the early 60s with Wilt. Wilt played with 4 time all star Guy Rodgers and Meschery who went to 1 all star with the San Francisco Warriors. He then played with 7x all star yount Nate Thurmond (on the 50th/75th anniversary team). When Wilt went to 76ers he played with 10 time all star Hal Greer and 7 time all star Chet Walker. But yea bums.
5. Wilt joins Top 25 players Jerry West and Elgin Baylor in LA and manages only 1 title after Elgin retires.
6. Wilt drops off considerably in the playoffs. Take 1961-62 50ppg season. His per 36 minutes scoring goes from 37.4ppg to 26.2ppg and effeciency drops from 51% to 47%. And this is in a league with a 25% faster pace than post 1980. Wilt consistently scored 5-10 points per game less in the playoffs than in the regular season.
jaranarm Russell's team won over and over and over and over and over again. There comes a point at which blaming teammates doesn't cut it anymore and Chamberlain stormed past that point at the speed of a Formula 1 car. It is fairly obvious that Chamberlain was not someone who made his teammates better- The fact that took Wilt seven years to learn that "hey, maybe I should talk positively about my teammates to the media and do some team building" is an indictment. Would you as a teammate leave everything on the floor for a guy who cares more about his own stats than your team winning? I know I wouldn't.
When we look at a player who has great stats in key games, but a horrible record in them we ought not to think "sucks that his team let him down", but "maybe those stats came at the expense of his team".