Jabbar/Erving, Russell/Bird, or Wilt/LeBron?

[Manuel Calavera]

Red was dying to get Wilt, he tried desperately to try and get him to join Boston U so they could use a territorial pick on him, but Wilt wanted to go to Kansas.

And why is Wilt a coach cancer? He did whatever his coaches asked, and completely changed his game 3 times for 3 different teams.

[Sedale Threatt]

No question Sharman would have helped Wilt to develop better as a player, but how much? Its hard to coach players with massive me-first egos, and as you said, its not clear if young Wilt would comply as did older Wilt. And still he wasnt perfect teammate, even in his Lakers days, as Jerry West said: Wilt wouldnt adapt to you, you had to adapt to him.

Lets take several recent examples - Shaq is quite a lot like Wilt, same massive egocentric mentality, coach cancer, as amazing as he is (was) player individually, he never was a perfect teammate. And not like he had bad coaches, Phil is one of the best ever, great at managing egos, still chemistry didnt lasted long. Who can say if Wilt would have stayed with Sharman all career in Philly? Probably not, but we will never know.

Another recent example - "Russell v2 lite" - pure team player KG. He had it pretty bad in Minny (worse than Wilt or Shaq ever had). He never complained, didnt feud with coaches either. Would Russell feud with Saunders or McHale? Again we will never know, but teamplayers usually more likely to get along with others.

I don't think Shaq/Wilt is a fair or good comparison.

First of all, Shaq is less a coach cancer than he tends to have major ego clashes with his best teammate. Shaq's taken a lot of pot shots at Phil since he left, but at the time their relationship was sound. Phil couldn't get Shaq to work as hard as he could have, but he almost always took his side over Kobe's. In the end, Shaq leaving L.A. had almost nothing to do with Phil everything to do with his inability to get along with Kobe.

As far as I know, I haven't read anything about Wilt having comparable ego battles with teammates. I don't think he got along with Elgin Baylor. But the majority of his battles were with his coaches, most of whom either let him run amok and do whatever he wanted, or tried to face him down in a battle of wills.

I agree that we'll never know, but I want to give Sharman the benefit of the doubt as he generally knew how to handle Wilt. I'd be shocked if Red -- or Phil, for that matter -- wouldn't have been able to, either. Because as Manuel pointed out, Red very definitely wanted the opportunity at one point.

Red was the best and most innovative coach ever IMO (sorry Phil fans), so I totally agree Russell was perfect pairing with him. But there was a reason why Red was DYING to get Rus and not Wilt, who knows if Wilt would have ticked with Red? Would young Wilt accepted his role assigned by Red? As mentioned above, Shaq and Phil didnt lasted very long, imagine less selfish Shaq in LA? We would be talking about 5th peat or w/e, isnt? In the same way we cant really speak about 11 rings if we swap Wilt with Rus, IMO ~5 rings more likely.

Coach and team can get you only so far, superstars this caliber should take over the games when it matters the most, Russell had like 10 series which lasted 7 games, NEVER lost such decisive game. Many bash him for the lack of scoring, yet he exploded to 30 points 40 rebounds games. In contrast, there were many cases Wilt imploded instead. Coach cant teach you to be clutch or to have "win or die" mentality. Thats why probably the best athlete ever in basketball isnt considered as the best player by general consensus.

I think I stated pretty clearly that Wilt probably wouldn't have won the same amount of titles under Red. It was a special partnership, so it deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt. I just think a lot of good fortune went into the two being put together, fortune that Wilt didn't experience most of his career.

Lest anyone think that Bill was the perfect teammate, there are plenty of instances of moodiness, if not outright hostility, when you read some of the books. A perfect example is how he goaded his own teammate, Tommy Heinsohn, after the latter won the Rookie of the Year award. Russell was furious, to the point that he repeatedly asked Tommy for the money he'd won for winning the award. There were also instances when Russell wouldn't talk to any of his teammates at practice.

Which is why he, despite being incredibly respected, wasn't really well-liked.

As I stated in a previous post, and you later elaborated on, that's a form of ego right there -- different from Wilt's, but ego nonetheless. Wilt was incredibly stubborn and insecure, whereas Bill was incredibly stubborn and proud. Stick him with a clown like Butch Van Breda Kolff and he might have strangled him with his bare hands.

None of this is meant to denigrate Bill's achievements; far from it. His resume speaks for itself. I just think Wilt wasn't as lucky in terms of landing in an absolutely perfect spot from the start of his career. Some of that had to do with the type of player/personality he was, but a lot of it was totally and completely out of his control.

[TrueLAfan]

Wilt Chamberlain had 9 coaching changes in his first 10 years in the league. Most of his coaches were mediocre or lousy. Neil Johnston, Bob Feerick, and Dolph Schayes had a combined coaching record of 299-316 (.486). But here’s the deal…without Wilt, they were a combined 99-165 (.374). Put Butch Van Breda Kolff in the “Idiot” group as well…leaving out his game 7 blunder that most likely cost Wilt his third title, Van Breda Kolff was 287-316 as a pro coach. But that includes his year with Wilt (55-27)…without that, his record drops to 223-289 (.436).

Sure, Wilt had come good coaches. Frank McGuire was a good college coach who never coached in the pros after the Sixers and Wilt went 49-31 under him. Alex Hannum coached over 900 games besides his 280+ games as Wilt’s coach….Hannum was a good coach (although he was 460-467 without Wilt…and 189-97 with him). Joe Mullaney actually had a slightly better record without Wilt on his teams than with him…of course, he was Kentucky’s coach in the ABA for a number of years and they were loaded. And Bill Sharman was a great coach…well, maybe. To be honest, he was a great coach when his C was Wilt Chamberlain (129-35) and was okay in other years 337-318.

So it’s not just that Wilt played for a lot of coaches; he played for a lot of just okay to bad coaches. And here’s the deal; Wilt did what he was told. Most of the time, it’s an admirable quality. People on this thread are talking about Wilt’s ego. Really? On the court? As in…what? It was Frank McGuire who told Wilt to score 50 a game. It was Alex Hannum who told him to lead the league in assists. It was Bill Sharman who told him to focus on D and outlet passing. He was always the best rebounder in the league. Where does ego come into it? Wilt did what he was told, with little or no complaint.

The thing is, Wilt should have had more ego. He should have screamed at Van Breda Kolff for keeping him on the bench when Wilt wanted to go back in. He should have yelled at Bob Feerick’s mismanagement. He should have thrown a fit at Alex Hannum for telling him to continue to play the same way in game 7 of the conference finals in 1968 when the rest of the Sixers were folding up like a wet tortilla. But Wilt didn’t. He was a good soldier, a good teammate. He was a good worker. the idea that Wilt sdidn’t adapt is ridiculous; this is a guy who was told to score 50 a game and did (and his team set a franchsie record for wins, and was a bad ref call away from the finals). He led the league in assists after that, often playing on the high post on offense (and his team set a league record for wins and won the title). Then he was told to be the most efficient scorer in history and best defensive player and outlet passer in the league (and his team set a league record for wins and won the title). What amazes me is that later aoches didn’t take what worked with Wilt, and try to build around him. They knew it was successful. Instead, they asked him to change. It’s pretty much unprecedented among elite players. But Wilt did it.

I think he preferred it that way. You had to tell Wilt what to do. If you wanted Wilt to take over, you had to tell him. Even when he wanted to show people he could still score a ton when he wanted to, he exploded for a few 50 point games…and then went back to doing what he was told. That may seem strange, but it was less uncommon in the 1960s. Player egos were nothing like what they are now. It was much more of a blue collar league, even for Wilt Chamberlain. And Wilt was liked and respected by virtually all of his teammates. Shaquille O’Neal, for instance, is nothing like Wilt Chamberlain in basketball temperament, and not much like him as a teammate either.

It puzzles me that Wilt is denigrated (because, let’s face it, he is) for “only” having two titles. Let’s leave out Mendy Rudolph and Butch Van Breda Kolff completely. Wilt Chamberlain has as many rings as Hakeem or Frazier or Reed, more than West or Oscar or Moses or lots of other elite players. Did Wilt choose to change coaches often? Did Wilt sulk or miss games? Did Wilt feud with teammates? Did Wilt complain when he was told to change his offensive style multiple times? Did Wilt throw his coaches or teammates under the bus when they underperformed, and the blame was given to Wilt? I agree that Wilt should have been more assertive; I think it’s partly a reaction to modern NBA players to think it’s realistic to have expected him to be like that, or to translate his off court antics and expansive personality to his on court style and relationships with coaches and teammates. It’s interesting and a little sad to me that what made Wilt terrific in some ways is also a weakness.

[Dr Positivity]

Question would linger on what era.

If I'm playing on today's era, I go with Lebron and Wilt. Lebron is a nearly perfect player for today's rules and I believe Wilt would translate quite excellently as a Shaq with more shooting range (thus spreading the floor a little more) and with more ability to run the floor for Bron.

I have too many question marks about whether Russell or Erving would be as good today, to pick them. Bird and KAJ vs Lebron and Wilt would be the more interesting question

[Sedale Threatt]

Great post. I think it's impossible to argue that Wilt didn't have a pretty gigantic ego -- it was one of his defining qualities -- but, as you point out, he gets a terribly bad rap in terms of the type of player and person he was. Stick him on one team, with a Hall of Fame coach/GM from the start, with a group of teammates perfectly suited to his game, and he'd have won a hell of a lot more than two championships.

So back to the question at hand, give him a great coach who could get both to buy in, and it's pretty hard not to salivate over the Wilt/LeBron tandem. Arguably the two biggest freaks of nature in basketball history on the same court? I'd pay to watch that.

[MSGBallerz]

Wilt/LeBron.

Haha @ people taking Russel/Bird, easily the worst of the 3.

[kooldude]

TLAF is money as usual. Wilt was too influenced by social pressure and individuals. When he scored 100, he cared about the perception that he took 60+ shots. People said he was just a scorer, so he intentionally goes out to lead in assists. In this era, there will be no one that will portray his physical dominance and overwhelming abilities as a negative. He will not be seem as a bully. (or not close to the extent in his day). Then you add in Lebron, who at worst, is on the same level as Bird/Dr. J and could surpass them, then choice is clear.

Two of the greatest outliers in a history of outliers.

[ronnymac2]

I have to agree with TLAF. Recently, my eyes were opened to what Wilt really was on the court. I don't believe the guy had a huge ego who wanted to stat-pad. He just didn't how to shift gears during a game/quarter/series/season. It's like whatever coach he had would program him before each season started, and that's the Wilt that he'd get for the entire time (with a few exceptions in the reg. season...like when he'd go out and prove he could still score 60). Wilt is the only one of my GOAT candidates who simply doesn't understand how to shift gears; he's a GOAT candidate because he's the most talented and most athletic player ever, capable of doing whatever he wants on the court.

I think when you get Wilt, you're getting the ultimate basketball weapon. You need to pair him with teammates who understand what the team needs in certain basketball realities though. If you do that, you'll probably get something special that is very difficult to defeat. It's no surprise that Wilt was on 2 GOAT teams.

Shaq and Wilt can relate to one another in that they took huge beatings because everybody thought since they were bigger, they could handle it. That's not fair to either player though. They were also bad ft shooters and remarkable athletes and had very high bball iq's. Their overall basketball personalities get lumped together sometimes though. I'm not sure I agree with that.


For the thread....I was going to come in and say LBJ/Wilt because I have to gamble on their amazing physical talent. But now, I'm going to say Lebron/Wilt because I think James is a player that can take over a game/series when Wilt doesn't know how to. I think Lebron is that kind of player. I know, I know, no championships. I'm sure when James wins some titles, people are going to be saying "yeah, that Lebron, ever since 07 vs. Detroit, everybody knew he was that type of winning player". I'll get a kick out of that.

So James/Wilt. They won't clash- they'll mesh actually. And they'll be too damn good.

[ThaRegul8r]

You had to tell Wilt what to do. If you wanted Wilt to take over, you had to tell him. Even when he wanted to show people he could still score a ton when he wanted to, he exploded for a few 50 point games…and then went back to doing what he was told.

And I don't like this. Why is it that other greats could see what needed to be done on their own for their team to win and then do it without having to be told first? Magic Johnson as a 20-year-old rookie saw the state of the team when their captain and league MVP center went down and did what needed to be done for the Lakers to win, in the process putting up one of the greatest games of all time. No one had to tell him this. In what profession in life is it considered a positive to never be able to figure out what needs to be done on your own, and always having to need to be told? What employer will hire an employee who's incapable of thinking for himself? Employers don't want to have to hold an employee's hand all the time. What good are they to the company?

It was Alex Hannum who told him to lead the league in assists.

False. Alex Hannum did not "tell Wilt to lead the league in assists." What does that even have to do with winning? Wilt decided that on his own:

I didn’t go into the 1967-68 season with any great enthusiasm. I’ve always been the kind of person who needs specific concrete goals and challenges; with them, I’m the most competitive guy in the world; without them, I tend to be lackadaisical. I’m just not naturally competitive and aggressive. I don’t have a killer instinct. In the past, I’d always been able to set challenging goals for myself—whether it was selling $200 worth of junk in one day as a kid or leading the league in scoring as an NBA rookie. But by my ninth year in the NBA, there really weren’t many goals I hadn’t already reached. I’d led the league in damn near everything more times than I could count. I’d broken my own records year after year. I’d even been on a championship team. What else could I do? With my attitude toward Philadelphia and [Philadelphia 76ers owner, Irv] Kosloff, I just wasn’t in the mood to work hard at dreaming up some goal. I couldn’t just go through the motions, though; I had too much pride in myself--and too much affection and respect for my teammates to do that. So I decided I’d lead the NBA in assists. That was the only category, except free throws, that I’d never led the league in, and it was the one category that no other center had ever led in either. For basketball’s greatest scorer to lead the league in assists would really be something, I thought. It would be like Babe Ruth leading the game in sacrifice bunts or Jim Brown leading the league in blocking.

This is the first time in my life I've ever heard anyone say that Wilt led the league in assists because he was "told" to do it. Wilt decided to do it because it was something he hadn't done. Wilt wasn't an intrinsically motivated person, so he needed external goals. But the Sixers didn't win in '67 with Wilt deciding to reach some statistical accolade.

He should have thrown a fit at Alex Hannum for telling him to continue to play the same way in game 7 of the conference finals in 1968 when the rest of the Sixers were folding up like a wet tortilla.

Why did no one need to tell Wilt to shoot more when a sportswriter dared question his ability to score? He scored 68, 47 and 53 Dec 16, 17 and 20, 1967 on his own volition—his coach didn't tell him to do it. So if he could take over just to prove some sportswriter wrong for suggesting he couldn't score, why was he unable to take over in Game 7 in 1968? Why in meaningless regular season games worrying about some guy in the media rather than in an elimination game in the playoffs? No one has yet been able to explain that to me. That's my problem with Wilt. He couldn't see what needed to be done and simply do it. He'd decide ahead of time how to play instead of reading the situation and adapting to it, and he wouldn't deviate from it (unless it was to prove someone wrong). Other greats knew when to defer and when to take over.

Chamberlain was criticized for shooting too much and scoring too much early in his career. Now, with a championship under his belt, perhaps he felt he not only wanted to win—he wanted (needed) to win like Bill Russell—without scoring. [...] At what point does a great player have to become selfish and take control?

Was it simply more comfortable to keep giving the ball to his teammates so that if they came up short he could blame them? What was it?

[ThaRegul8r]

Conversely, how much did Bill make Red a Hall of Fame coach?

We shall never know.

Red was a HOFer without Russell easily. He developed 5 championship squads without Russell on the team.

He had Cousy, Sharman and Ramsey. [...] The Celtics had a pair of Hall of Fame guards. [...] But they couldn’t move ahead in the playoffs. Red Auerbach had been coaching ten seasons in the pros and he’d made it to the finals only once where he’d lost in six games. In Boston, he had won only three of nine playoff series and had never made it to the finals. After a full ten seasons as a head coach, no small tryout, the book on Red Auerbach was that he couldn’t win the big one.

This is what was being said about Red before he got Russell. Of course, after all the success that came afterwards, no one remembers this now. That's what winning does.

[Mayap]

And I don't like this. Why is it that other greats could see what needed to be done on their own for their team to win and then do it without having to be told first? Magic Johnson as a 20-year-old rookie saw the state of the team when their captain and league MVP center went down and did what needed to be done for the Lakers to win, in the process putting up one of the greatest games of all time. No one had to tell him this. In what profession in life is it considered a positive to never be able to figure out what needs to be done on your own, and always having to need to be told? What employer will hire an employee who's incapable of thinking for himself? Employers don't want to have to hold an employee's hand all the time. What good are they to the company?

They grew up in different eras...and you just can't say that a CENTER like Wilt chamberlain should just "take over". The only way he can do that is if he demanded the ball, but why should someone change their game when the team has been successful playing the other way throughout the entire season?

I didn’t go into the 1967-68 season with any great enthusiasm. I’ve always been the kind of person who needs specific concrete goals and challenges; with them, I’m the most competitive guy in the world; without them, I tend to be lackadaisical. I’m just not naturally competitive and aggressive. I don’t have a killer instinct. In the past, I’d always been able to set challenging goals for myself—whether it was selling $200 worth of junk in one day as a kid or leading the league in scoring as an NBA rookie. But by my ninth year in the NBA, there really weren’t many goals I hadn’t already reached. I’d led the league in damn near everything more times than I could count. I’d broken my own records year after year. I’d even been on a championship team. What else could I do? With my attitude toward Philadelphia and [Philadelphia 76ers owner, Irv] Kosloff, I just wasn’t in the mood to work hard at dreaming up some goal. I couldn’t just go through the motions, though; I had too much pride in myself--and too much affection and respect for my teammates to do that. So I decided I’d lead the NBA in assists. That was the only category, except free throws, that I’d never led the league in, and it was the one category that no other center had ever led in either. For basketball’s greatest scorer to lead the league in assists would really be something, I thought. It would be like Babe Ruth leading the game in sacrifice bunts or Jim Brown leading the league in blocking.

This is the first time in my life I've ever heard anyone say that Wilt led the league in assists because he was "told" to do it. Wilt decided to do it because it was something he hadn't done. Wilt wasn't an intrinsically motivated person, so he needed external goals. But the Sixers didn't win in '67 with Wilt deciding to reach some statistical accolade.

I think you mean he didn't win in 68. Wilt's focus on assists did not hurt the team. He was playing the way Hannum wanted him to play in game 7 vs. boston. Hannum admitted this himself. And it's not as if Wilt got a lot of touches, if he had gotten a lot of touches yet chose to pass the ball every time then you would have a point.

He should have thrown a fit at Alex Hannum for telling him to continue to play the same way in game 7 of the conference finals in 1968 when the rest of the Sixers were folding up like a wet tortilla.

Why did no one need to tell Wilt to shoot more when a sportswriter dared question his ability to score? He scored 68, 47 and 53 Dec 16, 17 and 20, 1967 on his own volition—his coach didn't tell him to do it. So if he could take over just to prove some sportswriter wrong for suggesting he couldn't score, why was he unable to take over in Game 7 in 1968?
Why in meaningless regular season games worrying about some guy in the media rather than in an elimination game in the playoffs? No one has yet been able to explain that to me. That's my problem with Wilt.

For someone who jumped on TLAF's misstatement, you sure know how to make your own. Hannum specifically told that sportswriter to constantly harass Wilt about being unable to score a lot of points. This is a well known fact.

Was it simply more comfortable to keep giving the ball to his teammates so that if they came up short he could blame them? What was it?

No, Wilt was not that kind of player. He always had friendly rapport with his teammates.

[ThaRegul8r]

And I don't like this. Why is it that other greats could see what needed to be done on their own for their team to win and then do it without having to be told first? Magic Johnson as a 20-year-old rookie saw the state of the team when their captain and league MVP center went down and did what needed to be done for the Lakers to win, in the process putting up one of the greatest games of all time. No one had to tell him this. In what profession in life is it considered a positive to never be able to figure out what needs to be done on your own, and always having to need to be told? What employer will hire an employee who's incapable of thinking for himself? Employers don't want to have to hold an employee's hand all the time. What good are they to the company?

They grew up in different eras...

I compared two top ten players of all time, one of whom did what needed to be done to win without needing to be told by a coach, and who did this as a rookie. I could've taken Russell, a contemporary (but I didn't want to make it a Wilt vs. Russell thing), who put up 30 and 40 in Game 7 in the '62 Finals because it was what needed to be done for Boston to win. Auerbach didn't need to tell him to do that. Russell even made his free throws for that game--which was decided by a few points--and the entire series.

and you just can't say that a CENTER like Wilt chamberlain should just "take over".

Are there no other centers in history who have taken over a game because it was what was needed for their team to win? Is that what you're saying? Has Wilt himself never taken over a game before?

The only way he can do that is if he demanded the ball, but why should someone change their game when the team has been successful playing the other way throughout the entire season?

Because it's about looking at what's happening THIS GAME and doing what needs to be done THIS GAME for your team to win. Russell didn't say, "Well, we've been winning all season with me scoring only 18 a game, so I'd better not score a lot of points today." He did what needed to be done to win. In '67, the previous year, Wilt dropped 29/36/13 on Boston to eliminate them, then went to 10 point, 30-rebound, 10-assist triple doubles against San Francisco, because big scoring games weren't needed to win. Why did Wilt score points in that last game against Boston because it was needed to win, then not score so much opening up the finals because it wasn't what was needed to win that year, but was unable to make that distinction the next year? You adapt to whatever the situation happens to be, not rigidly adhere to a set way of playing when the situation calls for something different. That shows an inability to adapt, which was what West meant when he said Wilt wasn't as flexible.

This is the first time in my life I've ever heard anyone say that Wilt led the league in assists because he was "told" to do it. Wilt decided to do it because it was something he hadn't done. Wilt wasn't an intrinsically motivated person, so he needed external goals. But the Sixers didn't win in '67 with Wilt deciding to reach some statistical accolade.

I think you mean he didn't win in 68.

No, I said what I meant. The Sixers didn't win in '67 with Wilt deciding to lead the league in something no other center had ever done before. You comprehended it wrong.

Wilt's focus on assists did not hurt the team.

Why focus on leading the league in assists at all? Why not focus on repeating? Wilt's 1966-67 season was IMO the greatest year any basketball player ever had, and he wasn't focusing on statistical accolades that year. If you asked earlier why someone should change his game when the team has been successful playing the other way throughout the entire season, then why should someone change his game to try to lead the league in assists when the team successfully won a championship without him focusing on winning the assist title? There's a lack of consistency there. If I'm a coach, I don't want my players focused on their stats at all. It distracts from the ultimate purpose.

I was battling Lennie Wilkens of the Hawks for the league lead in assists through most of the season, and I remember a few games when I’d tell whoever was hot on my team, “Look, I’m just going to pass the ball to you for a while. I keep setting these other guys up, and they keep blowing easy shots. How am I going to beat Wilkins that way?”

Wilt is very goal-oriented, and under Alex he wanted to ... become the first center to lead the league in assists. He liked to pass the ball to Hal Greer or myself, because we just caught it and shot it. Chet Walker usually caught the ball, took a dribble or two and then shot it--no assists for Wilt. So Wilt preferred to give the ball to us.

Worrying about beating someone for assists rather than winning games doesn't help the team. Not wanting to pass the ball to a teammate because he takes a dribble or two before shooting, which wouldn't credit you for an assist, doesn't help the team. And while it's a testament to his greatness that he could just "decide" to lead the league in something and do it, it's a bit artificial when he's tabulating his stats the whole season rather than it coming within the flow of the game. And if the league leaders were decided by per game averages rather than totals then, Wilt wouldn't have led the league anyway. Though on the flip side, I have no doubt that Wilt probably would have gotten as many assists as he needed to win it either way.

He was playing the way Hannum wanted him to play in game 7 vs. boston.

The coach isn't on the court. The players are. There are also players who after the coach draws up a play, they say what's going to happen, and they go out and do it. I could go to the library and find instances. You've got to be able to see the situation and respond to it accordingly. As I said, other top ten greats have done it. Why is Wilt seemingly the only one who couldn't?

Why did no one need to tell Wilt to shoot more when a sportswriter dared question his ability to score? He scored 68, 47 and 53 Dec 16, 17 and 20, 1967 on his own volition—his coach didn't tell him to do it. So if he could take over just to prove some sportswriter wrong for suggesting he couldn't score, why was he unable to take over in Game 7 in 1968?
Why in meaningless regular season games worrying about some guy in the media rather than in an elimination game in the playoffs? No one has yet been able to explain that to me. That's my problem with Wilt.

For someone who jumped on TLAF's misstatement, you sure know how to make your own. Hannum specifically told that sportswriter to constantly harass Wilt about being unable to score a lot of points. This is a well known fact.

No, I don't. I have Tall Tales right in front of me. I was actually waiting for you to "correct" me, so you could prove my point about Wilt going to extremes.

often carrying it to such extremes that Hannum had to tell Wilt to shoot the ball.

The fact that Hannum even felt the need to get a sportswriter to get Wilt to do something he was telling him to do says something. You said Wilt's focus on assists wasn't hurting the team, but evidently it was if Hannum felt he was taking it too far. And obviously it did hurt the team in Game 7 of the '68 Finals:

Game 7 was a bizarre one for Chamberlain. During the season, Wilt had become obsessed with assists, checking the scorer's table during halftime to see how many he had and if the official total matched the total Wilt carried in his head. But in the second half of Game 7, Wilt carried this beyond reason.

And how about the context of Hannum's wanting Wilt to score more that started it?

In 1967-68, Wilt wanted to lead the league in assists. We had a couple of our starters hurt and I mentioned to a Philadelphia reporter named Jack Kiser that I wanted Wilt to score more.

The headline of the story came out, "Hannum Says Wilt Can't Score."

That wasn't exactly what I said, but I figured I'd get what I wanted out of it. Wilt asked me, "Did you say this?"

I said, "If it's in print, then I said it."

He shook his head and sort of growled at me. We were starting a three-game road trip and I really didn't know how he'd respond.

Since it's a "well-known fact," surely you knew this part, right? That Philadelphia had injured starters and Hannum needed Wilt to stop worrying about assists for a minute and score to pick up the slack? Common sense would say that with this being the case, the thing that would help the team would be to put the assist title on hold and do what needs to be done to win games until your teammates get better, wouldn't it? But it took a reporter twisting Hannum's words to get an effect.

[Manuel Calavera]

I think you're taking this assist thing a wee bit too far. Wilt wanted to lead the league in assists, Hannum supported him fully. If that's what you're saying then I have no problem with what Wilt did. Players love individual goals, David Robinson and his 71 point game for instance, or the last few games between David Thompson and George Gervin, hell a lot of players sign contracts now with bonuses if they can accomplish a certain individual goal (I believe if Erick Dampier wins the finals MVP he gets 50 thousand dollars). A lot of players ignore team goals to fulfill individual goals, like Jordan, who wouldn't relinquish his goal of winning another scoring title no matter what Phil Jackson said (and Phil did ask him to give that up so he could pass the ball more, Jordan refused). Sometimes this can be bad, in Jordan's case it didn't matter, because he won anyway, despite his selfishness. I see what's wrong with what Jordan did, he very well could have cost himself several championships, however I don't see anything wrong with what Wilt did, because his coach fully supported his goal of winning the assist title.

And you're stretching the Hannum story WAY to far. I've never read Tall tales, so I'm just going by what you've quoted, but did Hannum ever explicitly say that Wilt needed to score? Or was he just playing a game with Wilt by telling the reporter that he wanted Wilt to score knowing the reporter would smash Wilt to pieces in his article, therefore making Wilt really angry and wanting to prove he can still score? There's a big difference.

And where did you get that quote about Game 7 of the '68 finals? It seems to be in direct conflict with what Hannum said later that he wanted Wilt to not take shots and pass the ball by making it seem like it was Wilt's fault, and not Hannum, for the way Wilt played.

And for the record, in team sports, I'd much prefer to have a guy with Wilt's personality to lead my team to the championship. Wasn't Gretzky very much the same way?