Here is evidence of the fact Wilt was robbed of the 1962 MVP when he averaged 50PPG due to other players disliking him.

[70sFan]

Wilt famously didn't value winning as much as Bill Russell and most great players did, even publicly questioning America's obsession with winning at all costs before a game 7 (an interesting conversation outside of that context), which had a deflating impact on his teammates.

No player valued winning as much as Bill Russell, so it's a moot point. Wilt was extremely competitive and he always wanted to win, in mentioned situation he questioned judging players by team success which is very fair.

He didn't always do what was necessary defensively either, especially against stretch bigs like Willis Reed, presumably because he was more focused on grabbing rebounds.

No, he didn't contest Reed jumpshots because he came off very serious injury in 1970 playoffs and didn't have 50% of mobility he had in the 1960s.

By the way, do you use the same criticism for Shaq who was much more concerning in that aspect?

And it's not a coincidence Wilt had some of the worst game 7 performances by an an all-time great in NBA history.

That's literally false, Wilt numbers in games 7 are excellent:

4-5 record, 24.4 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 4.1 APG, 62.6 FG%,45.1 FT%, 57.9 TS%

Wilt was a free spirit, a prodigy and a giant, who simply didn't have the obsession for winning that most great players are fueled by.

I don't think his dedication to winning was any lesser than guys like Shaq or Hakeem. Remember that he was willing to change his style many times in his career to find success. I can't imagine Shaq accepting Lakers Wilt role at any point of his career until his body gave out.

[VanWest82]

The Wilt Chamberlain story is about more than just stats. Let's take a trip down memory lane...

https://vault.si.com/vault/1965/01/25/another-big-bluff-by-big-wilt

At midpoint the pro basketball season has a familiar look: the Celtics are running away from the rest of the league, the East won the All-Star game and Wilt Chamberlain is threatening to quit. The Celtics' surge and the East's victory, though expectable, at least have been exciting to watch. The petulant moods of Wilt the Stilt are getting to be a bore.

Chamberlain is one of the genuine superathletes of his generation. He could have been a first-rank shotputter, high jumper or quarter-miler, but he chose to abandon those events before discovering his own limits. And he has never discovered—or shown anyone else—how good he can be in basketball.

Chamberlain has quit or threatened to quit five times: as a sophomore and as a junior at Kansas, after his first year as a pro, when his team moved from Philadelphia to San Francisco and last week when he was traded from San Francisco back to Philadelphia.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-03-18-tm-602-story.html

It’s been several years now, Wilt, that you have been criticizing my career with your friends in the press. Since this pattern does not seem to have any end in sight, I feel that I might as well have my say about the situation.

In trying to figure this out, I started to look for what you would be jealous of, and that’s when the picture started to become clear. Many remember how frustrated you were when your team couldn’t win the NCAA tournament. Your talent and abilities were so great that everyone assumed the NCAA was all yours. But after a terrific triple-overtime game, Kansas lost. You complained about the officiating, your teammates and other things, and then quit, leaving college early to tour with the Globetrotters. That seemed to set a pattern for you. After any tough test in which you didn’t do well, you blamed those around you and quit.

In 1967, your team finally broke through. That 76er team established records that are still standing today. But the following year, the Sixers lost and, predictable as ever, you quit. You came out to L.A. and got with a dream team. The only lack that team had was leadership at the center position. Bill and the Celts took one from you in ’69, and the Knicks followed suit in ’70. People are still trying to figure out where you disappeared to in that series. True to form, after the Knicks beat the Lakers in the world championship in 1973, you quit and haven’t been seen on the court since.

Wilt was arguably the most dominant physical specimen compared to his peers in NBA history. He was a marvel in 62 setting records that will never be broken. But if the argument is that there was bias against him, then let's at least recognize that it was bias well deserved.

[Chanel Bomber]

Wilt famously didn't value winning as much as Bill Russell and most great players did, even publicly questioning America's obsession with winning at all costs before a game 7 (an interesting conversation outside of that context), which had a deflating impact on his teammates.

No player valued winning as much as Bill Russell, so it's a moot point. Wilt was extremely competitive and he always wanted to win, in mentioned situation he questioned judging players by team success which is very fair.

He didn't always do what was necessary defensively either, especially against stretch bigs like Willis Reed, presumably because he was more focused on grabbing rebounds.

No, he didn't contest Reed jumpshots because he came off very serious injury in 1970 playoffs and didn't have 50% of mobility he had in the 1960s.

By the way, do you use the same criticism for Shaq who was much more concerning in that aspect?

And it's not a coincidence Wilt had some of the worst game 7 performances by an an all-time great in NBA history.

That's literally false, Wilt numbers in games 7 are excellent:

4-5 record, 24.4 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 4.1 APG, 62.6 FG%,45.1 FT%, 57.9 TS%

Wilt was a free spirit, a prodigy and a giant, who simply didn't have the obsession for winning that most great players are fueled by.

I don't think his dedication to winning was any lesser than guys like Shaq or Hakeem. Remember that he was willing to change his style many times in his career to find success. I can't imagine Shaq accepting Lakers Wilt role at any point of his career until his body gave out.

I trust your expertise on the matter, so I gladly stand corrected.

I will try to find the Wilt anecdote about winning I was referring to, if only to paint it more accurately. It's in a book somewhere. I thought his comment was enlightening, but the timing of it was incredibly poor.

About contesting Reed's jumpshot, I either forgot or didn't know he was coming off a serious injury. So I take your point.

I do hold Shaq accountable for that aspect of the game. I thought he looked much better in 2000, in his first year under Phil Jackson. He was also in much better shape that year. Did he rest on his laurels after his MVP season? Absolutely, although he generally turned up his intensity a notch or three in the playoffs.

About the game 7s, I didn't mean to say that Wilt wasn't in game 7s overall, just that he had a couple of head-scratching game 7 performances for a player of his stature, including in 1969 and 1970. Don't you agree?

I didn't even mean to criticize Wilt, my point was that I wouldn't just use the numbers to assess that Wilt was better than Russell. By all accounts, Wilt was a fascinating, layered character whose flaws contribute to his mystique and somehow arguably his greatness.

[70sFan]

I do hold Shaq accountable for that aspect of the game. I thought he looked much better in 2000, in his first year under Phil Jackson. He was also in much better shape that year. Did he rest on his laurels after his MVP season? Absolutely, although he generally turned up his intensity a notch or three in the playoffs.

Even in his absolute best 2000 season, Shaq wasn't willing to step out of the paint. I tracked 30 Shaq MVP season games, including almost all from playoffs and his P&R defense was always very concerning.

Wilt was far more consistent and intense defender than Shaq, it's not up to any debate.

About the game 7s, I didn't mean to say that Wilt wasn't in game 7s overall, just that he had a couple of head-scratching game 7 performances for a player of his stature, including in 1969 and 1970. Don't you agree?

I agree, but I'd say his biggest stinkers are 1968 ECF and 1969 Finals. He was injured in 1968 ECF, but he still played poorly. 1969 is inexcusable, though he didn't actually play bad in game 7.

I definitely wouldn't hold too much criticism for his 1970 finals, as he shouldn't have played in that series. He also had a lot of very bright moments in elimination games, some examples:

1962 game 5 vs Nationals: 56/35/1
1964 game 7 vs Hawks: 39/30/6 on 62 TS%
1965 game 7 vs Celtics: 30/32/2 on 72 TS%, including clutch baskets to tie the game in last possessions
1970 game 7 vs Suns: 30/27/6 on 59 TS%
1971 game 7 vs Bulls: 25/19/9 on 64 TS%
1973 game 7 vs Bulls: 21/28/4 on 60 TS%, including game saving block and game-winning assist

Without much footage, narratives can go a bit too far.

I didn't even mean to criticize Wilt, my point was that I wouldn't just use the numbers to assess that Wilt was better than Russell. By all accounts, Wilt was a fascinating, layered character whose flaws contribute to his mystique and somehow arguably his greatness.

I 100% agree with that take and personally, I think that Russell was better than Wilt.

[Chanel Bomber]

I do hold Shaq accountable for that aspect of the game. I thought he looked much better in 2000, in his first year under Phil Jackson. He was also in much better shape that year. Did he rest on his laurels after his MVP season? Absolutely, although he generally turned up his intensity a notch or three in the playoffs.

Even in his absolute best 2000 season, Shaq wasn't willing to step out of the paint. I tracked 30 Shaq MVP season games, including almost all from playoffs and his P&R defense was always very concerning.

Wilt was far more consistent and intense defender than Shaq, it's not up to any debate.

About the game 7s, I didn't mean to say that Wilt wasn't in game 7s overall, just that he had a couple of head-scratching game 7 performances for a player of his stature, including in 1969 and 1970. Don't you agree?

I agree, but I'd say his biggest stinkers are 1968 ECF and 1969 Finals. He was injured in 1968 ECF, but he still played poorly. 1969 is inexcusable, though he didn't actually play bad in game 7.

I definitely wouldn't hold too much criticism for his 1970 finals, as he shouldn't have played in that series. He also had a lot of very bright moments in elimination games, some examples:

1962 game 5 vs Nationals: 56/35/1
1964 game 7 vs Hawks: 39/30/6 on 62 TS%
1965 game 7 vs Celtics: 30/32/2 on 72 TS%, including clutch baskets to tie the game in last possessions
1970 game 7 vs Suns: 30/27/6 on 59 TS%
1971 game 7 vs Bulls: 25/19/9 on 64 TS%
1973 game 7 vs Bulls: 21/28/4 on 60 TS%, including game saving block and game-winning assist

Without much footage, narratives can go a bit too far.

I didn't even mean to criticize Wilt, my point was that I wouldn't just use the numbers to assess that Wilt was better than Russell. By all accounts, Wilt was a fascinating, layered character whose flaws contribute to his mystique and somehow arguably his greatness.

I 100% agree with that take and personally, I think that Russell was better than Wilt.

Thanks for correcting me. It's helpful.

[70sFan]

I do hold Shaq accountable for that aspect of the game. I thought he looked much better in 2000, in his first year under Phil Jackson. He was also in much better shape that year. Did he rest on his laurels after his MVP season? Absolutely, although he generally turned up his intensity a notch or three in the playoffs.

Even in his absolute best 2000 season, Shaq wasn't willing to step out of the paint. I tracked 30 Shaq MVP season games, including almost all from playoffs and his P&R defense was always very concerning.

Wilt was far more consistent and intense defender than Shaq, it's not up to any debate.

About the game 7s, I didn't mean to say that Wilt wasn't in game 7s overall, just that he had a couple of head-scratching game 7 performances for a player of his stature, including in 1969 and 1970. Don't you agree?

I agree, but I'd say his biggest stinkers are 1968 ECF and 1969 Finals. He was injured in 1968 ECF, but he still played poorly. 1969 is inexcusable, though he didn't actually play bad in game 7.

I definitely wouldn't hold too much criticism for his 1970 finals, as he shouldn't have played in that series. He also had a lot of very bright moments in elimination games, some examples:

1962 game 5 vs Nationals: 56/35/1
1964 game 7 vs Hawks: 39/30/6 on 62 TS%
1965 game 7 vs Celtics: 30/32/2 on 72 TS%, including clutch baskets to tie the game in last possessions
1970 game 7 vs Suns: 30/27/6 on 59 TS%
1971 game 7 vs Bulls: 25/19/9 on 64 TS%
1973 game 7 vs Bulls: 21/28/4 on 60 TS%, including game saving block and game-winning assist

Without much footage, narratives can go a bit too far.

I didn't even mean to criticize Wilt, my point was that I wouldn't just use the numbers to assess that Wilt was better than Russell. By all accounts, Wilt was a fascinating, layered character whose flaws contribute to his mystique and somehow arguably his greatness.

I 100% agree with that take and personally, I think that Russell was better than Wilt.

Thanks for correcting me. It's helpful.

I think you provided some good points and I don't disagree too much with your take. Wilt fans overrate him to death, but there are a lot of misconceptions about his career that turned him into someone he never was.

It's such a shame that we still don't have enough footage to get a clear conclusion of how he played. I still hope NBA will release something for 75th anniversary that could help us.

[JonFromVA]

I'm a fan of Wilt, he was an incredibly athlete. However, if he truly was unstoppable he would have won more than two championships in his career. So, I think there's a little more to the story of Russell vs. Wilt than just bias. Wilt was fixated on statistics and Russell was fixated on winning. This lead to some of the bias...

I think you are over simplifying Wilt. He absolutely did not just want to create a bunch of stats. As he aged he tried to score less and go for assists.

What most people forget in the Russell vs. Wilt debate is the following 3 things:
1) The Celtics won 8 out of 10 championships in the 60s in a league with only 9 teams (most of the decade). The Celtics had a much more stacked team and there wasn't a lot other teams could do about it.

2) Wilt's playoffs stats directly vs. Russell were better. Go look up the playoff series, Russell never outplayed Wilt, not one time.

A better comparison to me is LeBron vs. Curry, where the Warriors had a better team than LeBron's Cavs but LeBron managed to snatch an all time great finals win vs. a goliath team, just as Wilt did vs. the Celtics in 67-68. Nobody pretends Steph is better than LeBron, and you can check the stats and see that LeBron is better than Steph Curry in their playoff matchups. Same for Wilt vs. Russell.

3) Wilt's prime co-incided mostly with the Celtic's big run. He really declined as he got older and it the Celtics dynasty was done and the league expanded. When Kareem won in 1970-71, there was no more big dynasty and the league had expanded to 17 teams. This was Kareem's only title without Magic, but everyone seems to think Kareem is somehow automatically above Wilt.

Anybody else see parallels with harden and wilt with how the nba treated them when it was time to hand out the hardware

No, not at all.

When Wilt sacrificed scoring to pass more, it was still about stats in his mind. If a coach told him passing and dishing assists was the key to winning, then Wilt was going to try to lead the league in assists. He simply didn't grasp winning being a function of the team the way Russell did intuitively.

We don't have a number in the box score for intelligence and wisdom, but Bill Russell is a very intelligent man who knew how to apply that intelligence to the game of basketball in all areas, whether we're talking fundamentals (blocking shots to teammates, establishing rebounding position, etc), thinking a step-ahead of the other team to force them to do what he wants, or playing psychological games to get them out of their habits.

A gem from the SI vault:

https://vault.si.com/vault/1963/11/18/we-are-grown-men-playing-a-childs-game

[NbaAllDay]

A lot the bias held against Wilt, is the exact same bias that people show towards Lebron.

It's a lot easier to contextualise how people see the Russell v Wilt arguement around "winning" and who was actually a better player when you swap Wilt for Lebron and Russell for MJ. Obviously i'm not making an arguement either way, i'm just saying it follows a similar path.

You can make the arguement that Russell was better, but starting with this idea that Russell wanted to 'win more' or was just a better 'winner' is so simplistic in it's analysis you may as well be saying MJ > Lebron cause 6>4

Edit: I will recongise that there are accounts that Wilt cared more about his individual production over the team and (for example didnt sleep the night before his 100 point game), but these things should only be considered if these attitudes actually stopped him from doing more, which is hard to articulate year on year.

[KrAzY3]

I'm a fan of Wilt, he was an incredibly athlete. However, if he truly was unstoppable he would have won more than two championships in his career. So, I think there's a little more to the story of Russell vs. Wilt than just bias. Wilt was fixated on statistics and Russell was fixated on winning. This lead to some of the bias...

I think you are over simplifying Wilt. He absolutely did not just want to create a bunch of stats. As he aged he tried to score less and go for assists.

What most people forget in the Russell vs. Wilt debate is the following 3 things:
1) The Celtics won 8 out of 10 championships in the 60s in a league with only 9 teams (most of the decade). The Celtics had a much more stacked team and there wasn't a lot other teams could do about it.

2) Wilt's playoffs stats directly vs. Russell were better. Go look up the playoff series, Russell never outplayed Wilt, not one time.

A better comparison to me is LeBron vs. Curry, where the Warriors had a better team than LeBron's Cavs but LeBron managed to snatch an all time great finals win vs. a goliath team, just as Wilt did vs. the Celtics in 67-68. Nobody pretends Steph is better than LeBron, and you can check the stats and see that LeBron is better than Steph Curry in their playoff matchups. Same for Wilt vs. Russell.

3) Wilt's prime co-incided mostly with the Celtic's big run. He really declined as he got older and it the Celtics dynasty was done and the league expanded. When Kareem won in 1970-71, there was no more big dynasty and the league had expanded to 17 teams. This was Kareem's only title without Magic, but everyone seems to think Kareem is somehow automatically above Wilt.

Anybody else see parallels with harden and wilt with how the nba treated them when it was time to hand out the hardware

No, not at all.

When Wilt sacrificed scoring to pass more, it was still about stats in his mind. If a coach told him passing and dishing assists was the key to winning, then Wilt was going to try to lead the league in assists. He simply didn't grasp winning being a function of the team the way Russell did intuitively.

We don't have a number in the box score for intelligence and wisdom, but Bill Russell is a very intelligent man who knew how to apply that intelligence to the game of basketball in all areas, whether we're talking fundamentals (blocking shots to teammates, establishing rebounding position, etc), thinking a step-ahead of the other team to force them to do what he wants, or playing psychological games to get them out of their habits.

A gem from the SI vault:

https://vault.si.com/vault/1963/11/18/we-are-grown-men-playing-a-childs-game

If people really wanted to get into their head the difference between these two players, comparing (vastly inferior to either of course) Draymond Green in relation to Kevin Love would offer some insight. Draymond Green is to Kevin Love what Bill Russell was to Wilt Chamberlain.

Now, I'm not saying who is better in either comparison! But, if you just look at box scores, and you just look at stats you'd probably lean one way. However, if you watch the game, if you really dig deeper into the type of influence the players are having you might come to a different conclusion.

Also, let's be clear on this. Wilt didn't just randomly manage to hit 50.4 PPG. In fact, I believe the lowest he scored in three consecutive games game in his last three, when he basically had the 50 PPG average locked up. Then he followed that up with 35 PPG on 48 minutes in the playoffs, which is quite different, indicating the stats were inflated against weaker competition. For contrast ,Jordan averaged more points than that in 5 different playoffs, in less minutes of course. Wilt was clearing chasing the 50 PPG mark and it would seem some of his peers weren't that impressed by it. He did it on below career average TS% as well, further cementing the notion he was going for quantity over quality.

[HardenandWilt]

Anybody else see parallels with harden and wilt with how the nba treated them when it was time to hand out the hardware

Not me.

harden was intentionally left off all-nba in 2016 and and 2021.. and has been robbed of 2 mvps... 2017 and 2019

[NZB2323]

I'm a fan of Wilt, he was an incredibly athlete. However, if he truly was unstoppable he would have won more than two championships in his career. So, I think there's a little more to the story of Russell vs. Wilt than just bias. Wilt was fixated on statistics and Russell was fixated on winning. This lead to some of the bias...

I think you are over simplifying Wilt. He absolutely did not just want to create a bunch of stats. As he aged he tried to score less and go for assists.

What most people forget in the Russell vs. Wilt debate is the following 3 things:
1) The Celtics won 8 out of 10 championships in the 60s in a league with only 9 teams (most of the decade). The Celtics had a much more stacked team and there wasn't a lot other teams could do about it.

2) Wilt's playoffs stats directly vs. Russell were better. Go look up the playoff series, Russell never outplayed Wilt, not one time.

A better comparison to me is LeBron vs. Curry, where the Warriors had a better team than LeBron's Cavs but LeBron managed to snatch an all time great finals win vs. a goliath team, just as Wilt did vs. the Celtics in 67-68. Nobody pretends Steph is better than LeBron, and you can check the stats and see that LeBron is better than Steph Curry in their playoff matchups. Same for Wilt vs. Russell.

3) Wilt's prime co-incided mostly with the Celtic's big run. He really declined as he got older and it the Celtics dynasty was done and the league expanded. When Kareem won in 1970-71, there was no more big dynasty and the league had expanded to 17 teams. This was Kareem's only title without Magic, but everyone seems to think Kareem is somehow automatically above Wilt.

Anybody else see parallels with harden and wilt with how the nba treated them when it was time to hand out the hardware

No, not at all.

Wilt absolutely cared about stats. He was bored of scoring titles, so he chased the assist title. After he picked up his 5th foul he stopped playing aggressive defense because he didn't want to foul out. His team fouled the other team so he could get the ball back quickly and score 100 points.

In the 1969 Finals Wilt had Jerry West and Elgin Baylor and Wilt lost the series as he averaged 11.7 ppg and shot 24-66 from the free throw line.

In 1967 Wilt had Hal Greer, Chet Walker, and Billy Cunningham. Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham both made the top 75 players list, and Chet Walker was a 7 time all-star. In 1960 Chamberlain had Tom Gola and Paul Arizin. In 1964 Wilt played with Nate Thurmond.

I definitely agree with your Harden comparison for Wilt. They both put up amazing stats in the regular season, force themselves out of teams when they feel like it, don't practice if they don't want to, rub coaches/teammates/front offices the wrong way, and more often than not, don't come through in the playoffs.

The player who I think is the most like Russell is Tim Duncan. Tim's certainly a better scorer, but they're both quiet, about winning, defense, and setting up their teammates. Tim never averaged 26 ppg for a season in his career because he didn't care about stats, and people give the organization credit for the team winning, when they never would have won without Duncan.

[coastalmarker99]

Before the start of the 1962 season, Chamberlain wanted to believe McGuire but he thought Boston was unbeatable.

It simply had too many good players.

McGuire said it was true that Boston was better than Philadelphia when Chamberlain was scoring thirty-seven or thirty-eight points a game.

But if he scored fifty points a game, McGuire said, the Warriors could beat Boston.

“Fifty?” Chamberlain protested. “Nobody can average fifty a game in this league.”

McGuire told Chamberlain he could do it.

The other players wouldn’t be happy, he said, and he, McGuire, was going to have to put up with a lot of bitching, but that was his problem.

He would have to convince them that the only way they could win was with Chamberlain shooting constantly.

In McGuire’s view, Chamberlain wasn’t being selfish in taking so many shots.

He just had the highest shooting percentage on the team.

It made more sense to have your 50-percent shooter taking the shot than it did your 40-percent shooter, which meant that if one of Wilt’s teammates with a poorer shooting percentage did not pass to Wilt, that man was not acting in the team’s interest.

“I have two goals,” McGuire told Chamberlain. “I hope we win the championship.

And I hope you break every record in the book.”

Source:

https://www.amazon.com/Rivalry-Russell-Chamberlain-Golden-Basketball-ebook/dp/B000FCKGSY/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=wilt+russell+rivalry&qid=1630955531&sr=8-1

[coastalmarker99]

The reality is that Chamberlain was very seldom even sniffing foul trouble.


as over the course of Wilt's entire regular-season career, he averaged 2.0 PFs per game, in a career in which he averaged 45.8 mpg.

And, in his 160 post-season games, in which he averaged a mind-boggling 47.2 mpg, he was committing 2.5 PFs per game.



And for the record, I have challenged people to provide proof of Wilt's foul trouble costing his team's games...and no one has unearthed even one game.

In an OT game four of the '72 Finals, Chamberlain, burdened with five fouls, blocked two key shots down the stretch to preserve the win.

And let's get real here...if a player gets in foul trouble, he should play a softer defence.

I could never understand the criticism that Chamberlain received, when in reality, he was probably the best player in history at limiting his fouls, and in the rare instances when he was in foul trouble, playing smart enough to avoid fouling out.

[coastalmarker99]

No other player in history has come close to achieving what Chamberlain did in 1962 with what he had to work with.


He defied all the odds.

Take Wilt off that team and the Warriors would be dead last in the league in fg% at .40.2 and his teammates would collectively shoot an even worse .35.2 in the playoffs.

The Warriors had no business winning being in the ECF and were not even favoured to win a single game against Boston.

Yet Wilt managed to push that sorry cast of characters to a Game 7 two-point loss.

The bottom line is that what Wilt did in the 1961-1962 season was incredible, and no other player could've come close to what he accomplished with the amount of success he had given the cards he was dealt.

Wilt's teammate, Tom Meschery summed it up best.

"The Boston players, man-for-man, were better players than the Warriors.

To go as far as we did was Wilt's doing. We came within two points of the championship all because of one man.

[coastalmarker99]

1) The Celtics won 8 out of 10 championships in this era in a league with only 9 teams. The Celtics had a much more stacked team and there wasn't a lot other teams could do about it.

Look at 1964 Celtics roster - with literally one above average scorer on the roster. 1965 wasn't much better.

Compare 1965-69 Wilt rosters and Russell rosters, there is no clear gap either way.

2) Wilt's playoffs stats directly vs. Russell were better. Go look up the playoff series, Russell never outplayed Wilt, not one time.

You mean boxscore stats, right? That's not the end of debate though, we aren't in 2005 anymore.

I'd say that Russell outplayed Wilt in 1966 and 1969. 1960, 1962 and 1968 are close as well. Wilt has the edge in 1964, 1965 and 1967.

Only certain contrarians would seriously claim that, per average, Wilt was having equal or better available teammates than Russell.


I say "available" because we all know how often Wilt's teams were suffering from injuries when they were at least somewhat deep enough not to depend solely on Wilt, so, no, Wilt wasn't having, e.g, better teammates in '68, when basically the whole team was hurt and in 66 when they couldn't make a shot to save their life.


I've watched pretty much all the widely available Wilt vs Russell footage there is and, although the team W-L column is vastly skewed in favour of Russell's teams (I guess they may have won like 80% of their "online" games, while in real life their winning percentage was 60%) and yet Wilt still looks the better player to me.


And if he looks better when his team only wins 20% of these games, there's not a cat's chance in hell this is going to change when they win 40%.

And, of course, this only leaves one option for their respective teammates...

[coastalmarker99]

1) The Celtics won 8 out of 10 championships in this era in a league with only 9 teams. The Celtics had a much more stacked team and there wasn't a lot other teams could do about it.

Look at 1964 Celtics roster - with literally one above average scorer on the roster. 1965 wasn't much better.

Compare 1965-69 Wilt rosters and Russell rosters, there is no clear gap either way.

2) Wilt's playoffs stats directly vs. Russell were better. Go look up the playoff series, Russell never outplayed Wilt, not one time.

You mean boxscore stats, right? That's not the end of debate though, we aren't in 2005 anymore.

I'd say that Russell outplayed Wilt in 1966 and 1969. 1960, 1962 and 1968 are close as well. Wilt has the edge in 1964, 1965 and 1967.

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

Wilt outplayed him in 1960 though it is very close.






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.


Wilt outplayed him in the 1962 ECF through it is close once again.





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%

This is one-sided in favour of Wilt and the footage we have of this series backs this up






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%.

Once again onesided in Wilt's favour.







1966 ECF in five postseson 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%

Wilt outplayed him but it is close once again as Russell gets the edge for the first two games but Wilt really outplayed him in the last three.









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%

Wilt outplayed him by a landslide in this series







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%.


Wilt outplayed him for the first 5 games of this series so I give the slight edge to him but it is very close as Russell did outplay WIlt in games 6 and 7.





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


This in my eyes was a draw as Wilt outplayed Russell in games 1 2,3,5 and 7 but Russell outplayed Wilt in games 4 and 6.

[Ballerhogger]

Yea he was robbed ..

[coastalmarker99]

The only years that Wilt had a better supporting cast than Russell was from 1967 to 1969.


In the 1967 ECF he just destroyed Russell in one of the most one-sided beatdowns of all time.



In game 1 he dropped 24 points, 32 rebounds, 13 assists and blocked 12 shots.

In game 2 he dropped 15 points, 29 rebounds, 5 assists and blocked 5 shots.

in-game 3 he dropped 20 points 41 rebounds, 9 assists and blocked 5 shots.

In game 5 he dropped 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists and blocked 7 shots.



Then in 1968.

4 out of the 76ers' 5 most impactful players were playing hurt (Cunningham didn't even play).



-Wilt Chamberlain had a (partial tear of the calf muscle in his right leg, a strain in his right thigh and an injured right toe):

-Wally Jones had (injured knee cartilage):

-Luke Jackson had a (pulled hamstring muscle):

-Hal Greer had (bursitus in his right knee):



Knowing that this series still went to 7 games and that 3 of their 4 losses were close.


It's pretty easy to assume that a healthy Sixers team (or, at least, a Sixer team equally healthy to the Celtics) would have won that series easily as they did the prior year in 1967.


Then in 1969 while it is true that Wilt had the better supporting cast.


Boston had a much a deeper roster...Russell, Havlicek, Howell, Sam Jones, Nelson, Sanders, Siegfried, and even rookie Don Chaney.


True, they were an aging team, and on the decline, but they were deep, and experienced.

Combine that with two miracle shots in that series (Jones hit a game-winning shot, while falling down, that banked in-game four...and Nelson hit the game-winning shot in game seven, that hit the back of the rim...bounced eight feet in the air, and came straight down thru the basket).


with Van Breda Kolf's stupidity and Baylor's decline and it was really no surprise that Boston won that series in seven games.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

"Driving like a lady motorist in a southern jersey traffic circle" is a great line. I have nothing to say about Wilt. Don't cancel me, bro.

[xdrta+]

Anybody else see parallels with harden and wilt with how the nba treated them when it was time to hand out the hardware

Not me.

harden was intentionally left off all-nba in 2016 and and 2021.. and has been robbed of 2 mvps... 2017 and 2019

Nah, Harden's never been robbed of anything.