new espn poll

I think Russel vs Chamberlain always ended up with Wilt scoring a lot of points and getting a lot of rebounds (like he always did), but the Celtics winning most of the time.

1. Bill Russell shut down Wilt -- According to Sixer stat man Harvey Pollack, Wilt and Russell squared off 142 times. Wilt averaged 28.7 points and 28.7 rebounds in those games. Russell averaged 23.7 points and 14.5 rebounds against Wilt (Russell's career average was 22.5 and Wilt's was 22.9, so it sure looks like Russell wasn't controlling the boards in those games!) Wilt had a 62 point game on January 14, 1962, in Boston and had 6 other games of 50 points against Russell. The most Russell ever scored against Wilt was 37, and he had only two other 30-point games.

Wilt grabbed an NBA-record 55 rebounds against Russell on November 24, 1960, and had six other games of at least 40 rebounds against Russell. When the Sixers beat the Celtics in the 1967 playoffs, Wilt averaged 22 points, 32 rebounds, and 10 assists -- a triple double-- against Russell! In the clinching game 5, he had 29 points, 36 rebounds, and 13 assists. If all of this is being "shut down" then Michael Jordan has been shut down by the Cleveland Cavaliers during his entire career. Michael Cooper shut down Larry Bird in the finals, because the Lakers beat the Celtics 2 out of 3 times! If this is being "shut down", then there isn't a player in the NBA that hasn't been "shut down" every single night of his career!

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/faq.html#russell

Not sure about the win/loss but I'm assuming Russell would've had that.

They played 142 games against each other (Wilt: 28.7ppg, 28.7rpg, Russell: 15.4ppg, 23.7rpg), Celtics won 85 games of them and Wilt's teams 57. I would hardly call that 'dominating', especially if you know that Russell had superior teammates for most of the time.

Yep, it seems to be one of those myths that spread through basketball like wildfire. It's a very good site actually, he puts forward some really convincing arguments for Wilt being the greatest player of all time. He definitely knows his stuff, especially around Wilt's era.

The five games of the 1967 East Conf. Finals:

Russell.......... 20 P (7/14 fg/ 6/7 FT)......15 R......4 A
Chamberlain.. 24 P (9/13 FG/ 6/10 FT)...32 R......13 A

Russell........... 14 P(5/14 FG/ 5/6 FT).....24 R.......4A
Chamberlain.. 15 P(5/11 FG/ 5/9 FT).....29 R.......5A

Russell........... 10 P (3/13 FG/ 4/5 FT)....29R........9A
Chamberlain... 20 P (8/14 FG/ 4/8FT).... 41R.......9A

Russell........... 9P ( 2/7 FG/ 5/9 FT).......28R........5A
Chamberlain....2OP ( 8/18 FG/ 4/11 FT)..22R.......10A

Russell............4P (2/5 FG/ 0/1FT).........21 R......7A
Chamberlain...29P(10/16FG/ 9/17 FT)...36 R......13A

This person is from Belgium...

1)Wilt his scoring average is 30,1 PPG. Against Russel he scores 28, 7 PPG. The fg% is about the same. So if you give Russell 100% credit than the greatest defensive player ever caused Wilt to score 1,4 ppg less. Chamberlain still scored 14, 2 ppg more than Russell. On the other hand Russell his career rebounding average is 22,5. Chamberlain his career average is 22,9. Russell is plus 0,8, Chamberlain is plus 6,8. So Chamberlain destroyed Russell on the boards. I can see why somebody should say that Russell was outplayed bij Chamberlain, but the opposite point can not be made. The more talented Celtic teams beat the Chamberlain teams almost every time, that is true.

2) Chamberlain attempted 26,1 shots per play off game in the first stage(score as much as possible) of his career, he scored 50, 5 % of his fg's. Chamberlain attempted 31, 4 shots in the regular season of the first stage of his career. He scored his fg at 51 %. So the reason that he scored less is for the biggest part that he attempted less (26,1 shots versus 31,4 shots) and not that his fg% was lower ( 50, 5 versus 51) Those are the facts. So no myth, but the way it was. We can also remark that he took 26, 3 rpg in the playoffs and 24,8 rpg in the regular season (both for the first stage of his career)

I personally am going Celtics, Bulls, Lakers and Spurs in that second round. Only tough one is Rockets-Spurs. The Rockets would be remiss to not play Moses and Hakeem next to each other for the bulk of the game. But they have no backcourt. Spurs can match them upfront if you have Duncan and Admiral both in their primes. Backcourt propels the Spurs forward.

Then there's the next round, where you have great offenses in the Bulls and Lakers vs. great defenses in the Celtics and Spurs. I take the Celtics and Lakers. Lakers offense is too much for the Spurs defense and the Spurs offense can't compete. But the Celtics have enough offense they can take down the Bulls.

The Final is huge and a tough one. But you know, the Lakers are probably the team to beat there. McHale-Bird-Heinsohn-Cowens have to outplay Worthy-Baylor-Harrison-Wilkes more than Shaq-Kareem outplays Russell-Parish and Magic-Kobe-West-Goodrich outplay Cousy-Pierce-White-Havilcek. Even with the better defense and Havilcek's Ohio State ties, I can't see that happening. You'd have to play Havilcek to guard Magic, and then Cousy has to go up against the high scoring West and Goodrich. Celtics have the most titles ever, and some of the best teams ever, but with these teams the matchups just don't favor them. I mean the Lakers have two of the three best centers in history. I'm surprised Sam Jones is nowhere to be found on that Celtics team, that would've helped them a lot more than Jo Jo White.

i think its just one of those things where if you hold a player like wilt to 20 people say you dominated him, and its really stupid imo. like now if kobe would only drop 18 in game 7 and even if they won some jerk would come here and say someone from the suns shut him down. 18 points is not being shut down no matter who does it.

To me, the Lakers and Celts'd be the favorites
.
76ers, Knicks, Jazz, Pistons, Bulls the sleepers.

i think its just one of those things where if you hold a player like wilt to 20 people say you dominated him, and its really stupid imo. like now if kobe would only drop 18 in game 7 and even if they won some jerk would come here and say someone from the suns shut him down. 18 points is not being shut down no matter who does it.

What if they held someone to 18 but were shooting like 30%, wouldnt that be considered shutting someone down?

Shutting down is shutting down. 18 points on 30% is just slowing down someone, IMO.

sometimes it is good to let the star shoot alot. like when iverson will score 47 but only shoot 31%. thats a good thing to me if i was going against him. shooting that much and that poorly almost always takes your teammates out of the game. thats why i have always felt being able to talk people into bad shots is a highly underrated skill(can you really call it a skill?)

sometimes it is good to let the star shoot alot. like when iverson will score 47 but only shoot 31%. thats a good thing to me if i was going against him. shooting that much and that poorly almost always takes your teammates out of the game. thats why i have always felt being able to talk people into bad shots is a highly underrated skill(can you really call it a skill?)

so was i actually correct for once on these forums with my previous post? yay . By the way, with this post, would you consider this shutting down the player, or the team?

i would not call it shutting them down per say, i would say they were hurting thier team more than helping them. shutting someone down imo is holding them to a point where they feel they have to give the ball up for any hope they will win. that or they try to over come the preasure and just totally fall flat on thier face and shoot 3 for 18 lol.

hahaha I told ya the Bulls was a better team. They destroyed the boston celtics 51% to 49% and they will probably do the same with the Lakers in the Finals

51% to 49% is destroyed now?

All this vote proves is that a majority of ESPN.com visitors are idiots. If the Lakers don't wipe the floor with the Bulls...

Just another of these stupid internet polls that mean nothing.

EDIT: ESPN.com's lying, they claim Artis Gilmore's 1981 PER is 25.2 on the "all-time" roster, when it was really 21.7. Only his first two ABA seasons approached 25 PER. What a bunch of bullshit.

jordan is fresher in the minds of todays basketball fans than anyone on the celtics is. the recent failures of the celtics makes alot of todays youth think they never were really good. with the laker having players on thier all time team that still play in the nba they are still fresh in the mind of everyone.