People who don't have Jordan as GOAT: What metric(s) would make you change your mind?

[AEnigma]

Woolridge was a weak defender. Not especially aware. He is losing any direct comparison on that front.

However, I would not praise Sampson too much on that end either for his NBA career. He was not a good defensive centre. Did you ever watch Thon Maker? Extreme example, but in that vein. Hakeem took over that role and that helped his value. Everyone loved the fluidity he showed for his size, which made the move to the 4 work moderately well. Still, he was not a heady defender. Not physical (and there were still plenty of bruisers), and that limited his value as a man defender. And for as mobile as he was for his size, we are not talking someone like Ben Simmons here (oh look another guy who arguably peaked as a rookie on a bad team). He did know how to use his reach well enough. Mildly positive marks for help defence next to Hakeem. But McCray and Reid were the guys you wanted on top forwards.

Yeah he was fun. The original “unicorn”. Still the type of guy front offices would lose their minds over (and in fact currently are, if you look to France…). Inconsistent scorer who showed up in the postseason and enshrined that in everyone’s memory. Borderline gimmick passing and ballhandling. The team worked around him as best they could, but I really wish they had just shipped him off, even outside of that infamous Jordan trade hypothetical. Sometimes raw potential is too hard to abandon.

[tsherkin]

Sampson did not fit well with Olajuwon aside from the fact that playing him with Olajuwon meant they no longer had to play him at centre.

Sure but, with him and Olajuwon, they went from 13th and 9th in ORB% and DRB% in 84 to 2nd and 10th in 85. 2nd and 14th in 86. Then 13th and 6th in 87 when Sampson was injured. There was also a 110.1 -> 106.5 swing in team ORTG, as you might expect. I suspect you're underrating Sampson's impact to the team's offense. 51 to 42 wins didn't happen because Sampson was a poor fit for the team. Yeah, if he'd been a perimeter star, it would have been a BETTER fit, but he helped give them a noted competitive advantage.

Woolridge was not a playmaker or defender, true, but he was a great athlete who knew how to play off of lead guards well — did it with Theus and did it with Jordan. Would you rather have Tyreke Evans or a more rim focused Antawn Jamison?

Yeah that was my bad, but rest of the points hold true.

We've all done it. I've certainly done it

Both teams needed their respective skillsets, but Jordan fit the Bulls, who without a replacement for Theus had desperate need of a playmaker to maximise Woolridge and who had decent defensive base, better than Hakeem fit the Rockets, who had a logjam at frontcourt to the point that they ended up trading what had been ostensible third most important player for Chicago’s sixth man. And the subsequent result was still well in Hakeem’s advantage, and would be until 1988.

Mmmm, I don't know about that.

84 CHI: 102.4 ORTG, 107.5 DRTG, net -5.1 (dead last in the league)
21st in eFG%, 21st in TOV, 15th in ORB%, 8th in FT/FGA

In 85, WITH Jordan, they were only a 38-win team. They moved to 108.7 ORTG, 109.6 DRTG, net -0.8, 14th in the league.

That's a LAAAAARGE jump on offense. Jordan came in and dumped 28.2 ppg, 6.5 rpg and 5.9 apg on the league on 59.2% TS (+4.9% rTS). Immediately the best scorer and playmaker on the team.

Woolridge had been on the team the year before. He was 2nd in PPG behind Quinton Dailey but not really moving the needle offensively. Jordan capably replaced Dailey, but Woolridge didn't really add much to the baseline. They were crap with him as the second scorer (Dailey was off the bench half the year but shooting a ton, so maybe call Woolie the main scorer?) and they made a huge jump because Jordan bootstrapped the offense. But Woolridge was still a net negative on D and that was still a critical weakness for Chicago.

Now, look at the Rockets.

84: 105.3 ORTG (so, starting out, already notably better on O), 108.2 DRTG. Net -2.9 (a notably closer gap than Chicago's horrific -5.1)
13th in eFG% (better than Chicago), 17th in TOV (better than CHI), 13th in ORB (better than CHI), 23rd in FT/FGA. 6th in defensive eFG% and 9th in DRB%, FWIW (Chicago was 14th and 11th, respectively).

85: 107.9 ORTG, 106.3 DRG, net +1.7.
5th in eFG%, 19th in TOV, 2nd in ORB%, 22nd in FT/FGA. Rose to 7th in defensive eFG%.

So, a team that was already better offensively than Chicago got somewhat better on O, and picked it up some on D. They became a net +1.7 team, moving the needle by +4.6. Chicago moved +5.9, but was far enough behind that the net result was worse than what Houston enjoyed.

Woolie was good on O, better with Jordan for two or three years than he'd been before, playing off MJ in terms of actual offensive impact, but they needed more, and they needed any kind of defensive help at all.

[Stalwart]

Joe Caldwell was nothing special during that time. The other clip was from another player - Gus Johnson. Plenty of athletic freaks played in the league back then. You just admited that you were wrong, perhaps you should admit that you could be wrong in a lot of other things about 1960s basketball.

Yes, I conceded a point. Something you would know nothing about. Instead you can't even admit that Michael Adams was a great athlete. Instead you'd rather call these guys "midgets" and "scrubs". Pretty soon you'll be calling them plumbers and electricians. So disrespectful.

Wilt less sophisticated than Ewing or Moses? The two players who couldn't pass the ball? Seriously?

They were more sophisticated post players, yes.

I literally gave you the numbers.

Yes, and those numbers showed pure dominance on Wilts part. 30/28/4 is dominance. Perhaps Russell played him better than others and shaved a few points off Wilt's total, while giving up a few extra rebounds btw, but that's still a domination and no indication that he would be successful against Shaq and Hakeem in the 90s.

I can also show you footage if you wish. Unlike you, I watch 1960s games, so I don't look insane when you talk about this era:

Watch on YouTube

He was blocking 7'1 Wilt's fadeaways like it was nothing. I'm sure Ewing would dominate him though, because... he played in the 1990s right?

Im not claiming Russell never had any success against Wilt at all. Russell was a great player for his time. Again, 30/28...

Plus, keep in mind Wilt wasn't able to really use his power against Russell the way a Shaq or Pat Ewing would.

[70sFan]

Yes, I conceded a point. Something you would know nothing about. Instead you can't even admit that Michael Adams was a great athlete. Instead you'd rather call these guys "midgets" and "scrubs". Pretty soon you'll be calling them plumbers and electricians. So disrespectful.

I didn't call Adams a scrub, I called him a midget because for basketball, he was very short at 5'10. Adams was a great athlete of course, it's impossible to be 5'10 poor athlete in the NBA but he wasn't more athletic than West.

I don't have similar problems to you, because I actually watch games from all the NBA eras. You look like this 1962 game was the first time you've ever watched 1960s basketball.

They were more sophisticated post players, yes.

In what way? I have been tracking post up numbers for years and Wilt's scoring repertoire was significantly more varied than Ewing's fadeaway and ugly running hook (he had little else). That's even without touching passing (where Wilt destroys Ewing) or physical profile (Wilt was much bigger). No, Ewing wasn't more sophisticated post player than Wilt, not even close in fact.

Yes, and those numbers showed pure dominance on Wilts part. 30/28/4 is dominance. Perhaps Russell played him better than others and shaved a few points off Wilt's total, while giving up a few extra rebounds btw, but that's still a domination and no indication that he would be successful against Shaq and Hakeem in the 90s.

You show absolute lack of understanding of basic data, again. Wilt played 47 mpg in Russell matchups and Celtics were always among the fastest teams in the league. Adjusting for pace and minutes, Wilt's statsline doesn't look super impressive and he's not very efficient either. On top of that, his production against Russell went even worse in the postseason:

25.7/28.0/4.1 on 50.8 FG% and 51.8 TS% in 47.5 mpg

He was a bit more efficient against Russell and these numbers are still great when you factor faced defense, but Wilt didn't dominate Russell h2h.

Im not claiming Russell never had any success against Wilt at all. Russell was a great player for his time. Again, 30/28...

Plus, keep in mind Wilt wasn't able to really use his power against Russell the way a Shaq or Pat Ewing would.

Ewing wasn't physical post player, Hakeem handled him with ease in 1994 finals and Russell was the same size as Olajuwon.

Lastly, man defense is the least important part of the overall defensive impact for a bigman. Russell dominated because of his combination of rim protection, switchability, help defense and motor - not because he could slow down the best post players in the league (which he also could do).

[Stalwart]

1960-69 Wilt vs the league: 35.1/23.8/4.6 on 53.5 FG% and 54.5 TS%
1960-69 Wilt vs Russell: 29.9/28.1/3.8 on 48.8 FG% and 50.0 TS%

There is significant difference, both in terms of production and efficiency.

Wilt was absolutely dominant agaimst Russell. I don't see any reason to believe Russell could slow down Hakeem, Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, Moses, Kareem, and others when he couldn't slow down the dominant, less skilled, and less sophisticated bigs of his day.

Go back and look at the individual games. Wilt routinely scored 40 and 50 pts on Russell. He had some bad games that perhaps you can attribute to Russells defense but the vast majority were dominating performances with absurd statlines from Wilt. So those bad games he did have against Russell was probably more to do with Wilt just not playing well rather than being shutdown by Russells defense.

You could use pretty similar logic for Kareem's numbers against Wilt, yes great scorers generally score a lot regardless of who's guarding them, doesn't mean their defender isn't slowing them down. A 5-point 5% difference in efficiency is very significant, especially over the sample size that Wilt and Russell played against each other.

To add to this, in 62 Wilt averaged 50.9PPG on 53.6TS% against the league, but against Russell averaged 37.2PPG on 50.1TS%. That's an enormous difference, in fact, it's basically the difference between a GOAT-level offense and an average offense in terms of points per possession. Like are you seriously trying to question whether Russell was an ATG post-defender? I think the concerns about perimeter players being able to dribble and such is a much more understandable argument to make if you're going to make this argument.

What this tells us is that either a) Russell played Wilt better than the other 6 guys in the league or b) Russell had more help defensively...or both. But holding someone to 37ppg is not really something to brag about.

I don't think Russell faced the best post players in basketball history to call him a ATG post defender across eras. The best post players of his own era dropped 37ppg on him. Young Walt Bellamy routinely put up big numbers against Russell.

I think Russells defensive impact comes from being a great help defender, stepping out on guards, running the floor, protecting the paint and the rim from perimeter players. He might have been the best post defender at the time but that speaks more to how poors his peers were. There is no way you can let someone drop 50pts a night for an entire season and claim to have good defense.

[tsherkin]

Wilt less sophisticated than Ewing or Moses? The two players who couldn't pass the ball? Seriously?

They were more sophisticated post players, yes.

What?

No, that's definitely not true. First of all, Moses and Ewing were considerably inferior at moving the basketball. Second of all, Ewing was stiff and limited in the post and did a lot of his work facing the basket from like 10 to 15 feet away, or working his long J. Moses did a lot of his work on the offensive glass. They were certainly not "more sophisticated post players," there's no truth to that at all. Neither of them was known for a particularly adroit post game. They were strong, they were large (enough, in Moses' case) and they could do certain things, but advanced post game was not what either of them showcased.

[70sFan]

I think Russells defensive impact comes from being a great help defender, stepping out on guards, running the floor, protecting the paint and the rim from perimeter players. He might have been the best post defender at the time but that speaks more to how poors his peers were. There is no way you can let someone drop 50pts a night for an entire season and claim to have good defense.

1. Wilt (or anybody else) never put up "50 pts a night for an entire season" against Russell. Wilt averaged 37 ppg against Russell in his famous 50 ppg season, on notably worse efficiency.

2. Russell wasn't the best post defender of his time, Nate Thurmond was better than him in that regard. You should know that if you act like an 1960s expert.

[70sFan]

They were more sophisticated post players, yes.

What?

No, that's definitely not true. First of all, Moses and Ewing were considerably inferior at moving the basketball. Second of all, Ewing was stiff and limited in the post and did a lot of his work facing the basket from like 10 to 15 feet away, or working his long J. Moses did a lot of his work on the offensive glass. They were certainly not "more sophisticated post players," there's no truth to that at all. Neither of them was known for a particularly adroit post game. They were strong, they were large (enough, in Moses' case) and they could do certain things, but advanced post game was not what either of them showcased.

I think Moses scoring repertoire was more sophisticated than people give him credit for (especially when you take into account his off-ball movement), but his passing was so bad that it's not contest here.

With Ewing... I just don't have any comments for that. There is no case for Ewing being more sophisticated post player than Wilt.

[Stalwart]

They were more sophisticated post players, yes.

What?

No, that's definitely not true. First of all, Moses and Ewing were considerably inferior at moving the basketball. Second of all, Ewing was stiff and limited in the post and did a lot of his work facing the basket from like 10 to 15 feet away, or working his long J. Moses did a lot of his work on the offensive glass. They were certainly not "more sophisticated post players," there's no truth to that at all. Neither of them was known for a particularly adroit post game. They were strong, they were large (enough, in Moses' case) and they could do certain things, but advanced post game was not what either of them showcased.

Im not sure what you guys have against Ewing lol. He was a great post player in addition to being able to face up. He can hit the turn around jumper over either shoulder from anywhere in and around the paint. Jump hooks over either shoulder. He had mini dream shakes in his repitoire. Up and unders. Running hooks. Leaners. Fadaways. He could go over top. He can go outside, inside. And most importantly he can chain these things together fluidly.

Of course Wilt would do most of these things as well just not as fluid and technical. He wouldn't chain things together like that. He would mostly do a fadaway, up and under step through, or a over the top turn around finger roll. And yes he would do these with sophistication. But it's not quite the package of moves Ewing had.

[70sFan]

What?

No, that's definitely not true. First of all, Moses and Ewing were considerably inferior at moving the basketball. Second of all, Ewing was stiff and limited in the post and did a lot of his work facing the basket from like 10 to 15 feet away, or working his long J. Moses did a lot of his work on the offensive glass. They were certainly not "more sophisticated post players," there's no truth to that at all. Neither of them was known for a particularly adroit post game. They were strong, they were large (enough, in Moses' case) and they could do certain things, but advanced post game was not what either of them showcased.

Im not sure what you guys have against Ewing lol. He was a great post player in addition to being able to face up. He can hit the turn around jumper over either shoulder from anywhere in and around the paint. Jump hooks over either shoulder. He had mini dream shakes in his repitoire. Up and unders. Running hooks. Leaners. Fadaways. He could go over top. He can go outside, inside. And most importantly he can chain these things together fluidly.

Of course Wilt would do most of these things as well just not as fluid and technical. He wouldn't chain things together like that. He would mostly do a fadaway, up and under step through, or a over the top turn around finger roll. And yes he would do these with sophistication. But it's not quite the package of moves Ewing had.

I will be very impressed if you find me one example of Ewing executing jump hook over right shoulder.

[Stalwart]

What?

No, that's definitely not true. First of all, Moses and Ewing were considerably inferior at moving the basketball. Second of all, Ewing was stiff and limited in the post and did a lot of his work facing the basket from like 10 to 15 feet away, or working his long J. Moses did a lot of his work on the offensive glass. They were certainly not "more sophisticated post players," there's no truth to that at all. Neither of them was known for a particularly adroit post game. They were strong, they were large (enough, in Moses' case) and they could do certain things, but advanced post game was not what either of them showcased.

Im not sure what you guys have against Ewing lol. He was a great post player in addition to being able to face up. He can hit the turn around jumper over either shoulder from anywhere in and around the paint. Jump hooks over either shoulder. He had mini dream shakes in his repitoire. Up and unders. Running hooks. Leaners. Fadaways. He could go over top. He can go outside, inside. And most importantly he can chain these things together fluidly.

Of course Wilt would do most of these things as well just not as fluid and technical. He wouldn't chain things together like that. He would mostly do a fadaway, up and under step through, or a over the top turn around finger roll. And yes he would do these with sophistication. But it's not quite the package of moves Ewing had.

I will be very impressed if you find me one example of Ewing executing jump hook over right shoulder.

Thats what you choose to focus on?

[70sFan]

Im not sure what you guys have against Ewing lol. He was a great post player in addition to being able to face up. He can hit the turn around jumper over either shoulder from anywhere in and around the paint. Jump hooks over either shoulder. He had mini dream shakes in his repitoire. Up and unders. Running hooks. Leaners. Fadaways. He could go over top. He can go outside, inside. And most importantly he can chain these things together fluidly.

Of course Wilt would do most of these things as well just not as fluid and technical. He wouldn't chain things together like that. He would mostly do a fadaway, up and under step through, or a over the top turn around finger roll. And yes he would do these with sophistication. But it's not quite the package of moves Ewing had.

I will be very impressed if you find me one example of Ewing executing jump hook over right shoulder.

Thats what you choose to focus on?

Why not? You say that Ewing has certain skills in his package, but I actually break down low post volume scorers for years and I know that Ewing doesn't have a jump hook over right shoulder. I also know that his jump hook wasn't efficient and he mostly relied on fadeaways and agressive drives to the baseline. He had basic drop steps in his repertoire and of course he was skilled enough to fake undisciplined players from time to time, but it's not true that Ewing has a broad package of go-to moves and developed counters for them. That's why he often struggled against quality defenders during the playoffs, because he couldn't create easy shots from the post like Hakeem, Jabbar, Shaq or - yes - Wilt.

Again, that's even without talking about his passing. Almost half of the post game is related to passing and reading game, that's just wasn't Ewing's strength to say the least.

I love Ewing and I think he's massively underrated among most posters here, but he wasn't sophisticated post player.

[falcolombardi]

I will be very impressed if you find me one example of Ewing executing jump hook over right shoulder.

Thats what you choose to focus on?

Why not? You say that Ewing has certain skills in his package, but I actually break down low post volume scorers for years and I know that Ewing doesn't have a jump hook over right shoulder. I also know that his jump hook wasn't efficient and he mostly relied on fadeaways and agressive drives to the baseline. He had basic drop steps in his repertoire and of course he was skilled enough to fake undisciplined players from time to time, but it's not true that Ewing has a broad package of go-to moves and developed counters for them. That's why he often struggled against quality defenders during the playoffs, because he couldn't create easy shots from the post like Hakeem, Jabbar, Shaq or - yes - Wilt.

Again, that's even without talking about his passing. Almost half of the post game is related to passing and reading game, that's just wasn't Ewing's strength to say the least.

I love Ewing and I think he's massively underrated among most posters here, but he wasn't sophisticated post player.

I watched 90 ewing footage against celtics recently

He was very predecible with his fade baseline jumper that he often went with without even prodding a bit for a pass or with some fakes

There are some kinda fun plays where celtics send a surprise double blitz at ewing blindside as soon as the entry pass is send to ewing in the post.

With any other non-jokic post players those would be killer and cause a lot of turnovers and panic passes/shots

Ewing tho. Is as predetermined to shot his fade no matter what when he catches the ball that he starts his move as soon as he touches the ball making thr blitz hilariously pointless as it doesnt affect ewing at all but doesnt get punished with a pass either

This is not a good thingh. Ewing didnt explore other options. He would start a possesion in "post up mode" usually a very repetitive one settling for his jumper and not exploring more with fakes or counters

Or his "passing mode" where he would telegraph he was looking for a cutter instead of simultanepusly threatening to shot, drive and pass (to his credit i think hr was surprisingly accurate passing to cutters in these instances)

The ben taylor wilt criticism of "couldnt score and pass simultaneously" rang much more true for me with ewing

In defense i didnt have too many criticisms except he sometimes was nlt well positioned to contest shots even against less vertical players in crowded paint situations. There is a clear play showing this when he bird is backing down a knicks player and said knicks playrr is blocking ewing from helping

If he was a bit quicker/smarter to position himself he could do a couple quick small steps around his teammate to get into position to block bird before he ended his backing down to shot.... instead he kinda just stood with his arms up pointlessly even though he is not even facing bird

This is where the subtlety of duncan or garnett or draymond seemingly always perfect positioning shines through in comparision

[coastalmarker99]

Russell vs. Wilt full H2H stats against each other year-By-year.

1959-1960 regular season in 11 H2H's

Russell: 19.8 ppg, 23.7 rpg 3.5 APG 39.3 FG%

Wilt: 39.1 ppg, 29.7 rpg,46.5 FG%, 1.3 apg.


1960 ECF in six postseason H2H's

Russell: 20.7 ppg, 27.0 rpg, 44.6 FG%, and 2.8 APG.

Wilt: 30.5 ppg, 27.5 rpg,.50.0 FG% and 2.0 APG



1960-1961 in 13 H2H matchups

Russell: 18.8 ppg, 25.4 rpg, 39.8 FG%, and 3.6 APG

Wilt: 35.5 ppg, 30.6 rpg, 49.2 FG%, and 1.8 apg.


1961-62 in 10 regular season H2H's:

Russell: 18.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, 38.3 FG%, and 4.4 APG.

Wilt: 39.7 ppg, 28.8 rpg, 46.8 FG%, and 2.1 apg.


1962 ECF in seven postseason H2H's

Russell: 22.0 ppg, 25.9 rpg, .39.9. FG%, and 4.6 APG.

Wilt: 33.6 ppg, 26.9 rpg, .46.8 FG%, and 2.9 apg.


1962 -1963 in 9 regular season H2H's:

Russell: 15.3 ppg, 27.8 rpg, .38.14 FG%

Wilt: 38.1 ppg, 28.9 rpg, . 51.1 FG%


1963-1964 in 8 regular season H2H

Russell 14.3 ppg, 25.3 rpg , 5 APG 39.81 FG%

Wilt 29.1 ppg ,26.8 rpg, 3.6 APG 53.9 FG%


1964 finals in five postseason H2H's

Russell 11.2 ppg, 25.2 rpg, 5.0 APG 38.6 FG%

Wilt 29.2 ppg 27,6 rpg, 2.4 APG 51.7 FG%


1964 - 1965 in 11 regular season H2H

Russell 12.6 ppg, 22.2 rpg 4.6 APG, 28.1 FG%

Wilt 25.4 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 4.2 APG, 47.3 FG%



1965 ECF in seven postseason H2H's

Russell 15.6 ppg, 25.1 rpg, 6.7 APG,44.7 FG%.

Wilt 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, 3.3 APG 55.5 FG%.



1965 -1966 in 9 regular season H2H

Russell vs Wilt in 9 regular season H2H's:

Russell: 9.4 ppg, 21.2 rpg, 4.9 APG, .30.1 FG%

Wilt: 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, 4.1 APG 47.3 FG%



1966 ECF in five postseason H2H's

Russell: 14.0 ppg, 26.2 rpg, 5.6 APG, 42.4 FG%

Wilt: 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, 3.0 APG 50.9 FG%


1966 -1967 in 9 regular season H2H

Russell: 12.2 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 4.1 APG .44.7 FG%

Wilt: 20.3 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 6.3 APG, .54.9 FG%



1967 ECF in five postseason H2H's

Russell: 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 APG, 35.8 FG%

Wilt: 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 55.6 FG%



1967-1968 in 8 regular season H2H

Russell: 7.8 ppg, 17.5 rpg, 5.1 APG 29.1 FG%

Wilt: 17.1 ppg, 26.1 rpg, 8.5 APG, .46.1 FG%



1968 ECF in seven postseason H2H's


Russell: 13.7 ppg, 23.9 rpg, 4.1 APG, 44.0 FG%.

Wilt: 22.1 ppg, 25.1 rpg, 6.7 APG, 48.7 FG%.



1968-69: in six regular-season H2H

Russell: 6.7 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 5.8 APG on 34.0 %FG

Wilt: 16.3 ppg, 24.0 rpg, 4.8 APG on 50.7 %FG


1969 finals in seven postseason H2H's

Russell: 9.1 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 5.1 apg on 39.7 %FG

Wilt: 11.7 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 3.0 apg on 50.0 %FG

[coastalmarker99]

Holding someone to over 35 ppg on a great FG% for that era is not something to brag about.

Also in the 1965 -1966 season in 9 regular season H2H between the two

Here are their averages.

Russell: 9.4 ppg, 21.2 rpg, 4.9 APG, .30.1 FG%

Wilt: 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, 4.1 APG 47.3 FG%

Imagine a player outscoring another player by almost 20PPG and outrebounding him while being much more efficient and people saying that player got slowed down.


If anything Wilt shut down Russell more than he ever did to him.

I mean he even once held Russell to 0/14 from the field in a game.

Futhermore Wilt held Bill to less than 40% shooting in 5 out of 8 playoff series.

[prolific passer]

It's easy to look at Wilt's numbers vs Russell and say that he didn't shut Wilt down but compare Wilt's numbers vs Russell vs the rest of the league and you have to say that he gave Wilt the most problems.

Russell wasnt brought in to score. He was brought in to defend and rebound. He had to play to the likes of Wilt and probably Pettit different ways because of their abilities to change their games up offensively.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm not sure what we are supposed to clean from Wilt scoring more points h2h. We already know Wilt was a much higher volume scorer than Russell.

What was Wilt's winning percentage in games and series? After all this isn't 1 on 1. And we all know Russell was all about the team and Wilt, well wasn't. Russell famously talked about letting Wilt "win" the 1 on 1 statistical battle knowing Wilt would be satisfied with that, meanwhile Russ's teams kept winning and that was what was actually important--something Russell knew and used against Wilt.

But points I guess....

[HeartBreakKid]

Holding someone to over 35 ppg on a great FG% for that era is not something to brag about.

Also in the 1965 -1966 season in 9 regular season H2H between the two

Here are their averages.

Russell: 9.4 ppg, 21.2 rpg, 4.9 APG, .30.1 FG%

Wilt: 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, 4.1 APG 47.3 FG%

Imagine a player outscoring another player by almost 20PPG and outrebounding him while being much more efficient and people saying that player got slowed down.


If anything Wilt shut down Russell more than he ever did to him.

I mean he even once held Russell to 0/14 from the field in a game.

Futhermore Wilt held Bill to less than 40% shooting in 5 out of 8 playoff series.

33.5 PPG on 54 FG% to 28.3 PPG on 47.3 FG% would infer that he did slow him down.

[AEnigma]

I will always remember that legendary series where the Sonics held Dikembe Mutombo to 12 points on sub-50% efficiency.

[prolific passer]

I will always remember that legendary series where the Sonics held Dikembe Mutombo to 12 points on sub-50% efficiency.

Mutombo was underrated offensively. Probably have been at least a 15ppg scorer if given the opportunity. Had a nice jump shot and hook shot.