Sharifani_San wrote:Russell is the one that says continuously that Wilt was a smart player...i'm not so sure the "nuances of the game" argument quite applies to him.
I think among more serious analysts I am the only one who puts 1962 on the pedestal, ie i've put my homework into it.
and to the contrary, if they had won the series your argument against him for that year would have been null and void...I mean would you seriously stand there and say he didn't have the GOAT season in 1962 had they won the championship? because I think they would have beat LA. Maybe you'd be one of the few detractors, but who knows...
I can't really take a statement like Russell's there that seriously. How many times has he talked about carefully crafting the matchups with Wilt to make Wilt feel like he was succeeding when he wasn't? You can't do that to someone who truly grasps the lay of the land.
Additionally, there's just the matter that there's a pretty solid history of "one step ahead" style players having transformative impacts on teams they join. If you are a player like that and more physically talented than everyone else, how is it you never pull off anything remotely like this?
Re: 1962 serious. Okay fair enough. I won't say you're alone, but you're quite right that among analysts I'd expect 1967 to have a good chance to beat out 1962 which would never happen with casual fans.
Re: what if. There is always the possibility that had a game in 1962 gone differently, I'd think about the NBA entirely differently, but I flatter myself that I think it wouldn't. What's trickier is that if the Warriors had won that year, that possibly changes the whole complexion of future strategy surrounding Wilt, so who knows how it would have all played out.
Generally speaking though, I'm very aware of the role that luck plays in sports. If Team A is better than Team B year after year by a good margin, and Team B upsets Team A once in an incredibly close short series, I'm not inclined to believe Team B got magically better that one year. The ball just bounced their way once.
On that same note, this is why while I think very highly of Russell I try not to just say "11 rings FTW!". No doubt about it got lucky along the way. It is not luck though that his team's defenses were basically always the best often by insane margins, it's not luck that their overall RS performances tended to be way above other contender for the first 8 or so titles, and it's probably not luck that a super-experienced aging veteran team sure appeared to be stronger in the post-season in the late '60s than they were in the regular season. 11 was lucky, but the number would be high regardless.