Anniversary of Wilt’s 100-Point Game
Posted: March 2nd, 2010 | Filed under: Essays | 69 Comments »
You can read this at SI.com as well now, below this oh-so-awesome picture.
Quick question: They couldn’t have gotten a little bit nicer piece of paper than that? The man just scored ONE HUNDRED POINTS. And what did they write 100 with … a piece of charcoal? Amazing that one of the most iconic photos in sports history could have such a crummy prop.
* * *
One of the most striking things I have ever seen happened when Wilt Chamberlain came back to Kansas for the first time in 40 years. Nobody seemed to know exactly why Chamberlain had not come back to the school where he played basketball (and high jumped for the track team and played rock and roll as a college radio disc jockey). There were rumors of bitterness. There were whispers of racial taunts that had never quieted in his mind. There was a sense — one that Wilt himself sometimes confirmed — that he had never quite gotten over the Jayhawks’ triple overtime loss to North Carolina in the 1957 National Championship Game.
“It was a devastating thing for me,” he said to the crowd on the day the school retired his jersey, less than two years before his death. “I felt like I let the University of Kansas down and my teammates down.”
Then, that may not have been it either. Chamberlain shrugged when asked why it had been so long. Hey, he had been busy being Wilt Chamberlain. He walked around the campus while wearing his Kansas letter jacket. He cried now and then. He seemed genuinely moved to come back to the place where had been young, to the part of his life that happened before he joined the Harlem Globetrotters, before he scored 100 points in a game, before he and Bill Russell staged their own remake of Clash of The Titans, before he became an American icon, before …
And the striking thing to me was a small thing. It happened when Chamberlain shook hands with the Kansas players. One of those players was senior center Eric Chenowith. Now, Chenowith was listed at 7-foot-1, the same height as Chamberlain in his playing days. Chenowith probably weighed about 270 pounds, about the same weight as Chamberlain in his playing days. Chenowith was wearing his uniform, his basketball shoes, and he was young. Chamberlain wore that red and gold jacket, black pants, a baseball cap and he was 61.
And, as they shook hands it was clear: Chamberlain was a much, much, much larger man.
I don’t mean that as some literary device. I mean physically. Chamberlain towered over Chenowith. It was like some kind of optical illusion. There was something about Chamberlain that contradicted scales and height charts. There was something about the way that Chamberlain carried himself that made him look, really look, larger than life.
Of all the amazing Wilt Chamberlain numbers — the season he scored 50 points, the season he averaged 27 rebounds a game, the season he decided to lead the league in assists and then LED THE LEAGUE IN ASSISTS, that night exactly 48 years ago in Hershey, Pa. when he scored 100 points — my favorite is this: In the 1961-62 season, Wilt Chamberlain averaged 48.5 minutes per game. An NBA game, then as now, is 48 minutes. Chamberlain had not rested the entire season.
Another legend, Frank McGuire, was the coach of that team. McGuire and Chamberlain had a history. It was McGuire who coached the North Carolina team that beat Chamberlain and Kansas in ‘57. Then McGuire became coach of the Philadelphia Warriors for one season. It was Wilt’s magical season — at least by the numbers.
“The first hour I coached Chamberlain, I asked him how much he wanted to play,” McGuire told me 20 years ago. “He said – and I’ll never forget this – ‘If you take me out, I’m sitting next to you. I don’t rebound. I don’t score.’”
And so, McGuire never took Wilt out of a game. That was the year Chamberlain averaged 50.4 points a game. He averaged 25.7 rebounds a game. He took a staggering 3,159 shots that year, by far the most in NBA history. It is 800 more shots than any other player ever dared take in a season*.
*Chamberlain has the top four season when it comes to shots taken — then there’s Charlie Scott who in the 1971-72 season took 2,305 shots and averaged 33.4 points a game. Only 14 players in NBA history have taken even 2,000 shots in a season — Michael Jordan did it twice, Kobe Bryant once, Pete Maravich once.
Frank McGuire’s gift — people always said — was his ability to inspire confidence in people. Dean Smith would talk about how he loved golfing with McGuire because those were the days he made 8-foot putts. Lots of people said stuff like that. And McGuire made Wilt Chamberlain feel limitless. It’s not that Chamberlain ever lacked for confidence — after all, there was a story in the Saturday Evening Post calling him the greatest basketball player who ever lived. And that came out before Chamberlain played his FIRST COLLEGE GAME. But something about that combination — the brilliance of Wilt Chamberlain and the confidence of Frank McGuire — led to something magical.
Chamberlain was on a scoring surge leading into the 100-point game. Well, that whole season was a scoring surge, but Chamberlain had been especially hot coming in. He had been held to just 26 points in a loss to the Celtics eight days before the 100-point night, and nobody was happy about it. “Feed Wilt,” McGuire would remember telling his team, and the next night Chamberlain scored 67 points in a loss to the Knicks. Two days later, he scored 65 in a Philadelphia victory over St. Louis. And the night after that, he scored 61 as the Warriors beat the Chicago Packers.
That led to the night in Hershey, March 2, 1962. Chamberlain would often say that he started thinking it was a magical night when he made nine consecutive free throws — Chamberlain was, of course, a notoriously bad free throw shooter his entire career*. He made those nine free throws in a row, and it all felt right. He made 28 of 32 free throws that day which was a big reason he was able to score 100. His teammates kept feeding him and feeding him. The crowd — if you can call the 4,124 or so people in the stands that day a crowd — rushed the court before the game even ended.
*Chamberlain shot 54% from the field in his career and just 51% from the free throw line. Another of my favorite Chamberlain statistics is that his last two seasons, he shot 65% and 73% from the field. And from the line? He shot 42% and 51%. There really was never anyone like him.
It is one of those perfect things in sports that Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points in a game. I mean that in the same way that I think it is perfect that Sandy Koufax threw a perfect game, that Babe Ruth hit the called shot home run, that Jim Brown never missed a game for injury, that Jack Nicklaus won the Masters at 46, that Reggie Jackson hit the three home runs in a World Series. It is perfect because, in a single sentence, you can for capture for children and people who were not there the essence of something large.
Q: Who was Wilt Chamberlain?
A: He was the guy who scored ONE HUNDRED POINTS in a game.
That does not tell you who Wilt Chamberlain was, of course. It does not tell you about all his highs and lows, about his triumphs and flaws, about his famous boast of bedding 20,000 women or the pain that boast cost him, about his pride or joy or his torment. Wilt Chamberlain was a complicated man.
But it does tell you something. One hundred points. Two quotes come to mind. One is from McGuire, who was asked after that game if Chamberlain’s one-man-game act actually hurt the team. “Wilt has been superhuman,” McGuire said. “I hate to think where we’d be without him, with just a mere human being in his place.”
The other is from Chamberlain himself. Someone asked him at Kansas that day he came back if this ranked as the best day in his life. Chamberlain’s smirked just a little bit — the person asking clearly did not appreciate what a life Chamberlain had lived. But Wilt did not ignore the question. He simply said: “I’ve had a lot of great days. But this wasn’t bad. It sure wasn’t bad, my man.”
Loading ...
Circle me #9,341
NICE…
This is a lot better than reading Bill Simmons slag on Wilt…
When Darryl Dawkins was active, that giant man child playing for the Philadelphia teams as “Chocolate Thunder” in the 70′s and 80′s, I saw a newspaper graphic that superimposed Dawkins on the silhouette of Chamberlain, then retired. Chamberlain was much the larger man and somehow more slim and athletic shaped, if possible for a 300+ lb. man.
[...] Fortunately, there are folks like Joe Posnanski who do a great job of painting an awesome picture of Chamberlain. [...]
Minor nitpick… Chenowith would have been a freshman in ’98 when Chamberlain made his return, not a senior.
I was there at that game, it was Paul Arizin bobble head night. Needless to say, Wilt wasn’t happy about that.
True story.
Nice work Joe! Now I’m the one smirking…
It is a special day!!
Best,
I.
as Joe said “There really was never anyone like him”
I grew up disliking Wilt because thats what a lot of the press wanted you to do. hate Goliath. But after awhile, you just had to marvel at this man. And the numbers, 100 points in a game, sure. But how about 55 rebounds in one game versus Celtics and Bill Russell even. There really was never anyone like him
[...] Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » Anniversary of Wilt's 100-Point Game [...]
I met Wilt before the start of the 1998 San Diego Rock and Roll Marathon. He was unbelievably nice. He was very involved in track and field, sponsoring a women’s team (of course!) in San Diego called Wilt’s Wonder Women. Also, the creator of the Rock and Roll Marathon idea (having bands on the course) credits Wilt as coming up with the idea.
I also second Jon’s (#3) comment on Bill Simmons trashing of Wilt in his book. The Boston Celtics won a ton more than Wilt’s teams but Wilt destroyed Russell in their individual matchups. Doesn’t the fact that one team’s star totally outplayed the other team’s star yet still lost show that his team probably wasn’t as good?
I think it’s hard to fully appreciate the magnitude of the 100 point game, as well as Wilt’s scoring prowess.
About the record: Wilt broke his own record for points in a game (78) by 22 points. No player has come within 19 points of Wilt’s record (Kobe scored 81 in 2006). Most impressively, the record was set 18 years before the three point shot was introduced.
About Wilt’s (basketball) scoring prowess: an NBA player has scored 50 or more points 387 times (through 1/30/10). Wilt scored 50+ in 105 games (27% of 50+ point games).
The next SEVEN players on the list only total 101 games:
30 – M. Jordan
18 – K. Bryant
14 – E. Baylor
12 – R. Barry
11 – A. Iverson
8 – K. Abdul-Jabbar
8 – B. King
Of those 387 games where a player scored 50+, 186 (48%) occurred after the 3 point shot was introduced. Prior to the 3 point shot, Wilt owned 52% of the 201 NBA games with a player over 50 points.
On the all time list of points scored in a game, Wilt owns 15 of the top 21 scoring games and 23 of the top 39. No other player has more than 3 games in the top 40.
I haven’t read Simmons’ book, although I am starting to tire of his schtick on ESPN. For a great book on Chamberlain and Russell, read: The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball. Almost as good as The Soul of Baseball. (Sorry Joe, but I haven’t read The Machine yet. I grew up a Pirates fan, worshiped Roberto Clemente, had tickets to game 1 of the 1972 World Series and am still just a little bitter about game 5 of the National League championship series.)
I’ve never understood exactly why Simmons is so sure that Russell is better than Wilt. I’m not saying he isn’t – I don’t really know enough about basketball history to say confidently that he is or isn’t. I could see arguments both ways. But Simmons’s argument is basically “Russell is better, and everyone who knows anything knows it.” I’ve thought about taking a look at his book just to see if he goes any further into it.
Simmons’ argument is that since Russell’s teams won a lot more, that since Russell was singularly focused on winning, and that since contemporaries of the two (at least the ones he quotes) said Russell was better, Russell is a better player and there’s no logical argument.
Which, if nothing else, comes as news to those of us who spent the 90s reading “who was the greatest player of all time, Wilt or Michael?” articles.
“The Book of Basketball” is a great read, but a lot of its arguments are flawed, particularly when it comes to his takes on Philadelphia teams/athletes (which makes sense, since those were Boston’s primary rivals at the time). I found the funniest part to be that after he spends time talking down Wilt, he ignores the fact that by almost any factor Kareem was ALSO better than Russell.
[...] is the original post: Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » Anniversary of Wilt's 100-Point Game Share and [...]
Wilt was a phenomenal player, maybe the greatest ever, but the numbers have to be put in perspective. Basketball was a COMPLETELY different game then. Every team ran and hoisted a shot just about as soon as they could. If you watch even one game from the 60′s on Classic ESPN, it is extremely obvious. People think the Suns run and gun but they aren’t even in the same league as those teams from the 60′s (for that matter, the SSOL Suns haven’t even led the league in shot attempts).
In 61-62 when Wilt averaged 50.4, the Warriors averaged 111.6 shots per game (8929 shots, 80 games) and they didn’t even lead the league. The Celtics averaged 113.8 shots/gm. Last year the Knicks led the league with 86.5 shots per game (7091 shots, 82 games).
On top of that, teams in the 60′s were far less proficient from the field. In 61-62 the league shot .426 overall. Last season the league shot .459. More misses plus many more shots means many, many, many more rebound opportunities. The average game in 61-62 had roughly 91.8 misses (chances for rebounds) while last season the number was 74.3.
All of which is to say that the gaudy numbers of the 60′s (Wilt’s scoring, Russell’s rebounding, Oscar’s triple-double) need to be discounted in order to compare top today’s numbers. Kobe’s 81 was probably pretty equivalent to Wilt’s numbers (especially when you consider that Kobe’s came within the flow of a tight game where Wilt’s was somewhat contrived). Lebron’s numbers compare favorably to Oscar’s triple-double over a season. There aren’t currently any monster rebounders but Rodman’s numbers compare pretty favorably to Russell & Wilt.
Great article, Joe.
As a Kansas fan, I can’t help but laugh a little at comparing Chenowith and Chamberlain. It shows a funny discrepancy of the declining worth of 7’1″ basketball players from the 50′s to 90′s, but mostly just reminds me of what an underachiever Chenowith was.
I wonder where Chenowith would be were it not for the Dave Matthews Band.
“Simmons’ argument is that since Russell’s teams won a lot more, that since Russell was singularly focused on winning, and that since contemporaries of the two (at least the ones he quotes) said Russell was better, Russell is a better player and there’s no logical argument.”
…Wow.
I guess the “Boston homer” thing is part of his schtick, but…really? How does he have so many readers? Does literally everyone in Boston buy his books?
I’m no Simmons apologist or anything. I don’t think he’s a great writer and not incredibly funny or anything. But I think his argument against Wilt is a bit more nuanced than what was represented above. His argument is that Wilt was better than Russell by all basketball measures. But he just didn’t care about winning as much as he cared about his personal stats and that if he had cared about winning to the degree that Russell did, he would have been the greatest player ever, possibly (though Simmons discounts pre-1972 basketball in general).
His argument against Wilt is more built around playing philosophy than skills or achievements. And he makes a pretty decent case that Wilt’s supporting cast was better than we like to think. Plus the fact that Wilt was traded several times during his prime and no one else wanted him on their team… yeah… I’d probably take Russell, too.
And no, I’m not from Boston. I just happen to like unselfish basketball too. Wilt was great, though.
re: the plain piece of paper marked with charcoal
todays equivalent would be an ms word document in portrait layout and times new roman font
“But he just didn’t care about winning as much as he cared about his personal stats and that if he had cared about winning to the degree that Russell did, he would have been the greatest player ever, possibly”
I like Simmons okay, too. And I haven’t read his book, so maybe I should just shut up, but that argument doesn’t actually seem that nuanced to me. Aren’t we talking about the greatest individual basketball player ever? I don’t see why the rest of the team should count one way or the other, especially in basketball. If Wilt played better, isn’t he better?
A lot of Simmons’ book focuses on what the player meant to a team, and not just his individual skills. The question he asks when comparing two players similar in skill is what they brought out of their teammates, and what they accomplished playing a team game.
@22
Yeah, but Simmons’ argument is that the purpose of playing is to WIN and so individual statistics can tell you alot, but they can also lie to you, especially in a game like basketball. His book is basically all about the exposing of great players being those who not just play at an extremely high level, but learn to purposely lower their game for the sake of team success. Russell being the prime example.
You should read the book. I think there’s a fair load of BS in it, but I think the philosophy of basketball is right on. The sacrifice of self for team success while knowing when to step up and completely dominate possession. Those are truly great players.
[...] The Chevron: Joe Posnanski celebrates the anniversary of Wilt’s 100-point game by reminiscing about a time when the Big Dipper went back to visit his alma mater, Kansas. [Joe Posnanski] [...]
24:
But that’s a different question. I don’t really know what question it is, but it’s not “which player is better?” And if the answer is essentially “whose team won more,” why do I need Simmons? I don’t know how he poses it in the book, obviously, but I could have sworn he states that Russell is flat out a better player at least once somewhere on his website.
And I’m sorry, but I have no interest in reading a 700 page book that has “a lot of BS” in it, unless you’re referring to Simmons himself.
[...] the article here: Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » Anniversary of Wilt's 100-Point Game Share and [...]
Wilt and Nolan Ryan are kindred spirits. Both seemed to have superior gifts but just couldn’t become Ruthian. They both are really insolvable puzzles.
Simmons book was a piece of garbage. Do not pay sticker price.
@26
That’s fine. You clearly are an encyclopedia and don’t need to read something from someone you disagree with.
Sorry, a bit sarcastic. But I find it a little annoying when people dismiss people’s arguments/work without actually engaging it themselves first.
26:
What? I was pretty sure I said above that I have no idea which of them is better. But that’s not the question Simmons seems to be asking. The question he does seem to be asking, which basically boils down to whose teams were better, doesn’t interest me in the slightest.
Sorry again. No need to be that sarcastic, especially through a written form of communication.
I meant “29″ in the above, as I hope is clear.
To whom do I apologize if I received the Simmons book for Christmas, was excited at such a thoughtful gift, and have repeatedly eschewed it in favor of authors such as: Raymond Chandler, John Hodgman, H.L. Mencken, James Surowiecki, and Joe Posnanski?
Bill Simmons, I guess…
Also, I’d like to thank Anon #17. I can’t believe I have lived 30+ years as a basketball fan without the proper perspective. You have stolen a bit of my wonder and awe, and, for that, I thank you.?.
Are the Pistol’s LSU stats compromised by increased possessions and shot attempts as well? I guess I always envisioned a glacial pace when I imagined basketball before the shot clock era.
Though it shouldn’t substantively detract from what was clearly a singular season, the 100-point game in Hershey may not have been viewed as an honorable achievement by Knicks players who were there that night. Apparently, sometime in the second half, when it became apparent that the century mark was in sniffing distance, the Philadelphia players not only fed Wilt exclusively, but also allowed the Knicks players to score almost immediately when they had the ball. No resistance at all. Why? To maximize the number of offensive possessions Philly would have, which would maximize the chances of Wilt hitting 100. The Knicks players thought it was bush league and a tainted achievement. This is recounted in George Kalinsky’s The New York Knicks: The Official 50th Anniversary Celebration.
Simmons is, of course, a very flawed writer in a lot of ways. He’s tremendously entertaining – moreso for me, I’m sure, because I’m a Boston fan – but in terms of actual analysis he’s not always on the mark. That said, I think it’s pretty clear that he knows basketball a whole lot better than he knows other sports, and it’s worth actually engaging his real arguments regarding that particular sport.
So here’s what he’s actually arguing, in the same 6 points he breaks it into in his book:
1. The “Wilt had less talent around him” thing is a myth. Simmons breaks it down and basically shows that Russell had better teams in ’60 to ’64, they were about a wash in ’65, and Wilt had better teams in ’66 to ’69, meaning that when they were playing together, Russell wins the team talent pool 5-4-1. He also makes the point that Wilt played for a team talented enough to win the championship every year from ’64 until he retired, and still only won 2.
2. Russell was a much better offensive player than he’s generally remembered to be – basically, he was the key to how Boston ran its whole offense, starting breaks off every defensive stop. An interesting section, but Wilt is still obviously a much better offensive player (though you get the point here that, again, Russell played better TEAM basketball than Wilt).
3. That Russell played better when the chips were down, and Wilt played worse – statistically. This, he backs up pretty well. There’s no argument that Wilt just crushed Russell in the regular season (and, really, crushed basically everyone statistically speaking).
Here are the relevant stats:
Regular season, H2H:
Wilt, 28.7 PPG, 28.7 RPG
Russell, 14.5 PPG, 23.7 RPG
Despite the statistical dominance, though, the Celtics won those games 84-58, and if you’ll recall Point 1, it wasn’t like they were always vastly more talented.
But, still, Wilt is much more dominant statistically, and this plays out in their career regular season numbers as well. And then you get to their career playoff numbers:
Wilt, 160 games, 22.5 PPG, 24.5 RPG, 4.2 APG
Russell, 165 games, 16.2 PPG, 24.9 RPG, 4.7 APG
That’s a whole lot closer – Russell even wins in rebounds and assists, and considering that Wilt’s teams were built around his scoring and Russell was never the primary offensive player on the Celtics, that’s a shockingly low difference in PPG. So even if you argue that individual stats are much more important than team stats, I think this brings things close enough that looking at team stats is quite relevant.
Well, Simmons provides some of those too:
Record in conference finals/NBA finals:
Wilt: 48-44
Russell: 90-53
Game 7s:
Wilt: 4-5
Russell: 10-0
Elimination Games:
Wilt: 10-11
Russell: 16-2
And, of course, championships (11-2 Russell).
I think it’s pretty hard to look at their PLAYOFF careers and argue that Wilt played better than Russell when it really mattered, and basketball is a sport defined largely by playoff success. For all of Wilt’s transcendent talent, the man simply wasn’t the same force in the playoffs.
4. Wilt’s status as a team cancer. This is where he argues that Wilt’s style of basketball was so infuriating to teammates that he wasn’t someone people really wanted to play with. It’s anecdote-heavy and not the strongest section of the argument, but he does bring in one pretty big whopper: apparently, in 1965, Wilt was being shopped around the league, and the Lakers (who had lost two consecutive Finals to Boston and been destroyed by Russell each time, so they desperately needed a great center) had a chance to buy his contract. The players were asked to vote on whether or not they should do it. They voted 9-2… against purchasing Wilt’s contract. That’s pretty damning, I think.
5. Their respective performance in truly big games. Here he comes up with a lot of instances of Wilt coming up small in Game 7s, including the Willis Reed game, and counters with a bunch of examples of Russell having fantastic Game 7s (not really surprising given his 10-0 record in them). He also makes the point that Wilt had 5 chances to knock inferior Celtics teams out of the playoffs in ’68 and ’69, but couldn’t submit a monster game in any of them, and the Celtics won them all.
6. Anecdotes from players and coaches of the era, who were overwhelmingly of the opinion that Russell was better than Wilt.
You can pick and choose which of these arguments are the most relevant to your personal take on what it means to be “better” at basketball (the statistical comparison of their playoff performances is the most compelling to me when you combine it with the fact that Russell did not actually have more talented teams their whole careers), but there’s a lot more to the argument than what’s been presented in this thread so far.
Personally, I think the whole “led the league in assists” thing is emblematic of what was wrong with Wilt. There’s nothing there about team success – indeed, Wilt spent much of the season forcing passes when he should have been scoring, just so he could get more assists. It’s all about Wilt’s personal glory, regardless of whether or not it was ACTUALLY helping the team. And the fact that he thought that this is what it meant to be an unselfish basketball player – by selfishly maximizing his statistics in the most “unselfish” stat – is a perfect summation of why he didn’t get it.
Wilt, in terms of pure basketball talent (especially compared to his peers), may never be topped. But basketball really IS a team game, and on a fundamental level, Wilt never understood that well enough to live up to his true potential. Chuck Klosterman, I think, brings up the point later in the book that Wilt could have been Russell, but Russell could never have been Wilt, and indeed this is true. But “could have been” – at the end of the day – doesn’t matter so much as “was”.
The Klosterman quote reminds me of an anecdote I heard about Mick Jagger and Bob Dylan. Dylan tells Jagger “I could’ve written ‘Sympathy for the Devil’ but you could never have written ‘Tambourine Man.’” To which Jagger replies: “Maybe, but I can sing them both, and you can’t.”
#36
Excellent recap. There was a lot of stuff in Simmons’ book that I skipped over, but I seriously doubt anyone has ever presented a more thorough dissertation on this particular topic. I was fascinated, and at the end of the day, convinced.
I wasn’t convinced, for a few reasons.
First, his analysis of the team quality is flawed because he gives Wilt “credit” for seasons with washed-up players like Paul Arizin, whereas Russell was always blessed with either Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman (the last teammates to be first-team all-NBA guards), Cousy and Sam Jones, or Jones and John Havlicek (as well as a superior defensive guard in KC Jones). Wilt had good teammates, but never multiples in their prime – Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham (but Cunningham was just entering the league), or West and Elgin once he got traded to LA (but Elgin was nearing the end of his career).
Second, the championships count is also biased by things out of Wilt’s control – for instance, Simmons tells a story about Butch van Breda Kolff becoming enfuriated at Wilt and benching him, leading to a game 7 loss – how is it Wilt’s fault his coach is a moron? (proven later as van Breda Kolff trades multiple championships to the Lakers for an aging Gail Goodrich)
Yes, there are certain things in Russell’s favor – the way he held Wilt below his averages in head-to-head matchups, and the fact Russell would never have been intimidated like Wilt was by Willis Reed’s appearance in 1970 (tho of course that’s a typical situation that’s overrated because it involves a New York team). But Klosterman nailed it in the head. Wilt could’ve done what Russell did; Russell never could’ve done what Wilt did.
Russell ended up in the perfect situation for him – great coach, multiple stars, great role players. For all Simmons talks about players like Worthy and Dumars making “the Pyramid” by being in the perfect situation, he completely ignores it when it comes to Russell. Meanwhile, the two times Wilt was on a team that came together with top teammates and a good coach (the 1967 Sixers then 1972 Lakers) incredible things happened. Maybe Russell’s teams could have done what those Wilt teams did, but they didn’t.
So both were incredible players, but Russell’s team success doesn’t mean he was the greater player. It’s a function of the situation as much as the player.
Hey, I read Simmons book too. I sure did not agree with everything he said but heck, it is worth the money. A very good read.
Joe mentioned how Wilt averaged 48.5 minutes played in his magical season. According to Wilt’s first autobiography, the only minutes he missed the entire season was on account of a fight he got in in one of the games and was ejected. He did not miss any other minutes that season.
Most basketball fans know that Wilt did not foul out of one game his entire career. As with everything else about Wilt, this achievement is controversial, as some people say it shows selfishness on Wilt’s part. I think it is an incredible achievement.
@12
Why is it impressive that Wilt dropped the C-note before the advent of the three-point line? Is there any evidence whatsoever that he would have taken advantage of it? How many 7’1″ guys would be jacking up shots 20 feet from the rim?
Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest basketball player ever… and it isn’t even close.
Give me a starting five of Wilt & Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Oscar Robertson & Earl “The Pearl” Monroe & my small ballers (save for Wilt) will beat yours – every time (& if they don’t beat you into submission, my second teamers from the 60′s including Bill Russell will.)
@41
for spacing reasons perhaps?
as for wilt, russell and simmons, i’m on team russell/simmons.
most of the time, simmons thinks he knows everything, that what he says is true and there is no way his argument could have any flaws without actually thinking it through or having a nuanced understanding of the situation (his trademark line that he uses which always infuriates me: “its true. it just is”, or “so and so is better, it just is” or “so and so would work, it just would” etc).
however, this is not the case in his book.
i think most of his points have been covered pretty well so far, but one thing that seems to be glossed over is regarding the anecdotes about how russell > wilt.
these werent just silly sports columnists or guys with an anti wilt agenda. these were some of the most respected basketball minds ever and people intimately involved in his career: jerry west, bill bradley, russell himself (taken with grain of salt of course), jerry lucas, coach butch van breda kolff, and, um, wilt himself?! (LOL)
the quote:
“to russell, every game – every championship game – was a challenge to his manhood. he took the game so seriously that he threw up in the locker room before almost every game. but i tend to look at basketball as a game, not a life or death struggle. i dont need scoring titles or NBA championships to prove that im a man. there are too many other beautiful things in life – food, cars, girls, friends, the beach, freedom – to get that emotionally caught up in basketball. i think bill knew i felt that way, and i think he both envied and resented my attitude. on the one hand, i think he wished he could learn to take things easier, too; on the other hand, i think he may have felt that with my natural ability and willingness to work hard, my teams could have won an NBA championship every year if i was totally committed to victory as he was… i wish i had all those championships but i really think i gre more as a man in defeat than russell did in victory”
in that quote, wilt willingly admits that he DID NOT CARE ABOUT WINNING and that he could have won a championship every year with his natural talent if he played like russell (” as totally committed to victory as he was”).
that one quote by wilt himself captures what simmons is trying to say. he wasnt saying definitively “this player is better than this player individually” or “this player was more talented than this player”. simmons tried to say that the “secret” to winning basketball (which really isnt that much of a secret TBH) is to play unselfishly in the team concept, with the ultimate goal of winning as many championships as you can. within those parameters, bill russell was much superior to wilt chaimberlian, which was simmons’s argument (an argument that he absolutely nailed)
you just CANNOT say that wilt is the greatest “basketball” player of all time, because basketball is defined as a team game.
wilt may have been the most individually talented player of all time, but he was not the best basketball player of all time.
[...] Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » Anniversary of Wilt's 100-Point Game Apple job postings point to iBookstore, mobile ad expansion …Robinho proves some kind of point… probably | The SpoilerJim Bunning has a point | Washington ExaminerAnniversary of Wilt's 100-Point Game | The Hoop DoctorsiPad's A4 chip based on ARM Cortex A8? | iLounge NewsMinute Men – - The Offside – Palermo Italian Football Bloghttpd just can start for a minute after that it stop – cPanel ForumsChristmas Gift Ideas » Blog Archive » How to save time and money …jent_fanfics: (oneshots) Tis the seasons to steal your roommates …FAU Campus – Someone tried to steal my bike – SoFlaSportbikes.com … View the Contact Powered by Type [...]
@36
“the statistical comparison of their playoff performances is the most compelling to me when you combine it with the fact that Russell did not actually have more talented teams their whole careers.”
You can pretty much call a halt after the talent argument, really. If Chamberlain truly had as much talent on his teams as Russell did, everything else follows, because Russell’s teams clearly accomplished so much more. If they’re even, or close to even, it’s over.
My question: How does Simmons make that argument? I wouldn’t claim to be an expert on 1960s basketball, but looking at the records of the teammates each guy had in that decade, I’m not seeing it.
@41
My intended point about the three point line was more about how since it’s inception only one player has come within 20 of Wilt’s mark, despite being able to get 33% more points per shot.
I never saw Wilt play, but at least in today’s game being tall does not necessarily mean you cannot be a perimeter shooter (Dirk N. comes to mind). And when I read the line about “the season he decided to lead the league in assists and then LED THE LEAGUE IN ASSISTS”, it leads me to believe that if Wilt wanted to be a perimeter shooter, he could have been. (Granted, I’m probably way off here – stereotypically, good outside shooters are excellent FT shooters, but I’m always up for a game of “what if”)
I love how a piece about Wilt instantly becomes a conversation about Wilt versus Russell. Is there another athlete that one simply cannot discuss without bringing up his rival?
That said, I’m a Russell guy. My favorite facts about him are the championships: He won the NCAA title his junior (1955) and senior year (1956). At the University of San Francisco, for Pete’s sake. Then graduated and won a gold medal (1956).
He joined the Celtics a little late that first year, but won a title — the Celtics’ first ever — in 1956-57.
In 1958, he was hurt and didn’t play in the finals after Game Three. The Celtics lost.
He then won a title every year — eight in a row.
Then the Celtics — coached by a first-year guy named Russell (first black NBA coach) lost to the 1966 Sixers.
Then he won two more titles, and retired.
Really, the only time he lost was 1966. It’s unreal.
@36:
I don’t have the full text of the relevant section in front of me right now, but one instructive way to look at it is via team record in the regular season:
’66, the Sixers finished first and the Celtics second in the Eastern Division (55 wins to 54 wins). They were separated by 1 game in the standings. Celtics won 4-1 in the playoffs.
’67, the Sixers won 68 games and Wilt’s only championship while Russell was active.
’68, the Sixers finished 8 games ahead of Boston (62 wins to 54), but lost 4-3 in the Eastern Conference finals.
’69, after Wilt was traded to the Lakers, they finish first in the Western Conference with 55 wins. The Celtics finish 4th in the East with 48. The Celtics beat the favored Knicks on the way to the finals, then rally from a 3-1 deficit to beat Wilt and the Lakers at home in Game 7.
When you look at the Celtics from the mid-60s on, Cousy’s gone, so’s Sharman, and Russell is basically working with Sam Jones and Hondo as his truly great teammates, and Jones was definitely slipping in the late 60s (he played with 4 of the NBA Top 50 at 50 – those two, Cousy and Sharman).
Wilt had Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham in Philly (both Top 50 at 50), then went to LA to play with West and Elgin.
I’ll try to dig up the book section later, but Simmons also mentions that Russell’s teammates made 26 All-Star teams between ’57 and ’69 and Wilt’s teammates made 24 between ’60 and ’73.
Also, to follow up Jason (43), the season Wilt scored 50 PPG? The other players voted Russell for MVP. The fact that basically everyone who played and coached in that era thought Russell was better isn’t really in dispute.
@40: The fouling out thing is incredible… but it’s also another example of Wilt putting himself above the team. In games where Wilt got one foul away from fouling out, he would absolutely shy away from any and all risk of picking up that final foul and ruining his streak, which led to major defensive lapses. You CANNOT achieve a streak like that and truly play up to your potential on the defensive end all the time.
@39: He calls Russell’s teams superior through most of the early ’60s, which covers Cousy and Sharman, and Jones was running on fumes in the late ’60s.
The Butch van Breda Kolff thing, you can read multiple ways – maybe van Breda Kolff was an idiot, but the fact was that Wilt clashed with every coach he ever played with, and the reason he was left on the bench is because he had asked out of the game earlier (claiming a leg injury) and then wanted back in after the Lakers had gotten back into it. Hardly the behavior of a man willing to kill himself for a championship the way Russell was.
You give Wilt credit for his two transcendent championship seasons, and those are indeed impressive. But outside those two sets of perfect circumstances, Wilt NEVER dragged an inferior team to the title, never overcame serious adversity to win anyway. Where’s Wilt’s equivalent of 1969, when Russell pulled a 4th-place Celtics team to a championship, knocking off two superior teams on the way (the Knicks and Wilt’s Lakers)? Russell won when his teams were the best, and he won when they weren’t. He did nothing but win.
Again, nobody is saying that a Wilt driven by the same competitive genes that fueled Russell and Jordan wouldn’t have won this argument handily and had a fistful of rings to back it up. But the fact that he could have accomplished what Russell did – and didn’t – is damning to me.
There are some good players who became Hall-of-Famers because they played on Bill Russell’s team. He was great at making his teammates better, and that is a huge part of being a great basketball player.
Let’s just say that Chamberlin did not have that reputation at all.
But Wilt has to be considered the greatest scorer in history (insert your own got-with-a-lot-of-women joke here.) Sure, basketball was different then, but no one can approach some of his numbers and no one ever will.
Someone above said Wilt never “became Ruthian”– Wilt was larger than life in every way, an amazing player, totally unique, legendary, colorful character who will never be forgotten for what he did on and off the court, who did things that no one else had ever done before or ever will do again. How is that not Ruthian? That seems to be the very definition of Ruthian.
wilt may have been the most individually talented player of all time, but he was not the best basketball player of all time.
This is what’s bothering me about this discussion. We seem to be arguing different points. Yes, basketball is a team game, but “greatest player ever,” like “MVP,” is an individual honor and title. The only reason I can think of to legitimately include a team in the discussion is if there were teammates in question whose contributions may be reflected, either negatively or positively, in the player’s stats. For instance, if you want to discount some of Wilt’s scoring because his team fed him the ball indiscriminately whereas another team might not have, that’s fine. But who won more is simply not relevant to this particular discussion.
I really think that it’s obvious that Russell had a much superior team than Chamberlain did at least until 1966–and even then in the playoffs, the C’s were just too grizzled for a fairly inexperienced 76ers squad.
In 1967, Wilt’s 76ers obliterated Russell’s Celtics, with Wilt putting up 29 points, 36 boards, and 13 assists against Russell’s 4 points.
In 1968, it should be noted that Billy Cunningham (who was a truly great player) was out of the series with broken fingers, and Luke Jackson (who helped Wilt with the rebounding load) got injured in Game 5. The 76ers probably should have won, and Wilt didn’t have a great game 7…but with just a healthy Billy C. or Jackson, they almost certainly win that series.
In 1969, yes, the Lakers choked–but Baylor wasn’t the Baylor of the past, van Breda Kolff was an idiot–that injury that Wilt “milked” ended up costing him all of the 1969-70 preseason and part of the 1970 season. And West hurt his hamstring in Game 5–a “who knows” injury. West was awesome in Game 7–but maybe a healthy West allows the Lakers to win the series in 6.
Wilt never could have won the titles Russell did. He may not have wanted to win as badly as Russell did (of course, nobody outside of Jordan did), but he didn’t have a great coach like Auerbach coaching him nor an all-star supporting cast of Sam and K.C. Jones, Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, and the like helping him, either.
[...] Joe Posnanski: Anniversary of Wilt’s 100-Point Game. [...]
@ 46 simmons watched as much gametape as he could get his hands on; first hand primary historical evidence
@ 51 we’re not discussing the best individual basketball talent, we’re discussing which individual was the best within the team concept of the game. and that was russell
I think some Wilt supporters are applying a baseball sensibility to basketball. A baseball game is (generally speaking) a series of one-on-one matchups, wherein the available individual stats can pretty well tell the story. I think of a basketball five as similar to an amoeba — constantly stretching out in some places, snapping back in others, but always a single unit. When you think of it like that, W/L record becomes not just germane, but in this particular case, IMO, determinative.
54:
I know. That’s what I said.
@49: That’s not so much instructive as it is circular. Russell is better than Chamberlain because his teams did better. On the other hand, Chamberlain’s teammates are better than Russell’s teammates because they did better in the regular season. That’s not evidence, really, it’s a story that’s put together with a predetermined outcome in mind.
Y’know what? Put a gun to my head, and force me to choose which of these guys to build my team around, and I take Russell every time. But so much of what’s said about this subject smacks of the kind of narrative creation I’ve grown to distrust so much. Russell is the hero, and Chamberlain is the villain. We condemn Chamberlain, and we jeterate Russell, period, end of story.
The avoidance of fouling out is a great example. Take a guy cast as the hero who does that, and we praise him to high heaven. Cal Ripken never takes a day off? Ignore the few voices saying he and the team would be better off if he rested a bit; he’s a hero! Somebody was never thrown out of a game? If he’s a hero, it’s wonderful, if he’s a villain it’s a sign of a lack of competitive fire. Wilt Chamberlain wants to stay out on the court and play all the time? He’s a villian, so that’s all selfishness there.
Like I said, I’d take Russell. But I don’t trust the narrative. The real world is usually a lot more complicated than a pat story of selfless good versus selfish evil.
@57:
Generally speaking, I think regular season record is a good determination of “best team”. It’s not always – in ’65, the Sixers were much better than their record indicated because they got Wilt mid-season, and there can certainly be other extenuating circumstances. But when the NBA playoffs come around every year, we usually think the #1 seed is the best team in their conference.
Now, you can debate whether or not that’s all Wilt, but I find it hard to buy the idea that Wilt was SO much better than Russell that his team was able to, say, finish 8 games better than the Celtics with markedly inferior teammates (especially since Wilt’s best numbers came early in his career, when he DID have inferior teammates and couldn’t singlehandedly drag his teams to a better record). So when you see that sort of regular season disparity, then yeah, I think it goes against the idea that Wilt had markedly inferior teammates in those seasons. If you finish 8 games better, barring some pretty serious extenuating circumstances, you’re a better team. And a better team should do better in the playoffs.
As for Russell getting credit for his team success in the playoffs, that really comes down to what you consider the true measure of basketball greatness. I am clearly biased in favor of playoff success, but I think general NBA thinking backs me up on this – Jordan didn’t become Michael Jordan, Greatest Of All Time by putting up obscene regular season statistics in the 80s, he became that by winning 3 consecutive championships twice and totally destroying any and all rivals on the biggest stage in the sport (Malone, Drexler, Barkley, etc).
Jordan’s teams won championships, and they won because of Jordan. That’s the point I’m trying to make in Russell’s favor. His teams won – they won a truly obscene number of times – and they won because of him. The man has more championship rings than he has FINGERS. Remember that 10-0 record in Game 7s? Here are some of them (stealing from Simmons again, sorry):
1962 Finals, Game 7: Russell puts up a 30-44 as the Celtics win in overtime. Made even more impressive by the fact that all the Celtics forwards fouled out and he was basically protecting the basket entirely by himself at the end of regulation and throughout overtime.
1965 Eastern Finals, Game 7: Russell puts up a 15-29-9.
1966 Finals, Game 7: Russell puts up a 25-32 as the Celts win by 2.
1968 Eastern Finals, Game 7: Russell only scores 12 but holds Wilt to 14. While coaching the Celtics.
And remember, he was also the best defensive player by far on the Celtics and they didn’t keep track of blocks back then, so there’s no statistical way of looking at the superb defense he played.
Russell gets credit for his team success because he was the biggest reason for it, and rose to the occasion in clutch moment after clutch moment. This isn’t about intangibles and a mythical “clutchiness” that isn’t backed by statistics – his teams were almost impossible to knock out, always won Game 7, and he had great performance after great performance in making this happen.
I’m not trying to paint Chamberlain as the ultimate villain here, but he just didn’t want it as much as Russell did (read the quote in 43, it’s about as clear-cut as you could ever ask for in that regard), and it shows in their performances when all the chips were down. So I guess that’s my personal issue here – the narrative isn’t about heroes and villains, it’s about a man who cared enough to live up to every scrap of his potential, and a man who had more potential but achieved inferior results because he did not. And I think that narrative isn’t really in dispute.
While I can rarely answer your questions, I can answer one: Why that piece of paper is so bad. Wrote a piece on it a few months ago: http://is.gd/9I8cM
In short, the stat guy — now a HOFer in his own right — thought it up for the photographers, and scribbled it on there with a pen. (I regret not asking if it was the same pen he used to keep score.)
@58: Yeah, maybe.
Still, I’m gonna go take the Simmons book off my Amazon wish list. I don’t think I can handle hundreds of pages of this.
#58
The fact that Billy Cunningham was out of the Eastern Conference Finals in 1968 was a HUGE factor that year.
It should also be noted that in one of those great Russell Game 7′s (1965), he actually got outplayed by Wilt (who had 30 points and 32 rebounds). AND…Russell actually gave the Sixers a chance to win the game late with a pass that hit a wire supporting the basket with 5 seconds left…Havlicek stealing the ball may have saved him from goat horns.
I think some people are misreading the quote in #43. Wilt was talking largely about perceptions — Wilt thinks Russell thinks Wilt could have won a title every year.
Clearly Wilt wasn’t nearly as competitive or focused on winning. Perhaps I’d rather have Russell on my team, but I certainly don’t begrudge Wilt his attitude. It’s not that he didn’t care about winning, it’s that he wanted to live a good, enjoyable life.
When we look to statistics to help determine the greatest baseball players of all time we try to determine how they helped their teams. It’s harder to achieve impressive stats selfishly in baseball but you can still achieve impressive stats without helping your team as much as a couple numbers might indicate. Think Vince Coleman’s stolen bases. 752 is a big number, and he helped his team with his legs, but it doesn’t make him a great player. Fortunately in baseball we have pretty good ways to determine how much a player helped his team just based on box-score stats. On the other hand, every stat kept in a basketball box score can be achieved selfishly. When you talk about the greatest basketball player you’re still talking about how much he helped his teams win, it’s just harder to measure.
Wilt took a really high percentage of his team’s shots; it’s not like baseball where you take your turn in the batting line, every shot you take is one your teammates don’t. So it’s even more vital to credit a player for both makes and misses. Wilt made and missed a lot of shots. He played a lot of minutes, and really wanted to be out on the floor, which is good — even if you don’t think he was as good as Russell you probably think he was better than his backups. Some of the advanced stats at basketball-reference offer an interesting angle. In 61-62 it gives him a PER (a per-minute effectiveness rating calculated from box-score stats) of 31.8, which is among the best in league history (PER isn’t as meaningful for that time period because fewer stats were kept). The next two years he took fewer shots and shot a higher percentage and had essentially equal PERs. PER still has the flaw that it’s based on stats that can be earned in very different ways, especially back in the 60s, so there’s plenty of room to argue about stats achieved selfishly, but it should put some of Wilt’s seasons in perspective with eachother.
Just had to chime in on the Simmons “Russell-Wilt” comparison, because I have read the book.
1. Don’t not get the book because of what you may have read in these comments. He really is an outstanding writer, and basketball is, by far, his greatest area of expertise. Kind of like Joe Poz and baseball…he’s writes with great authority on all sports, but baseball is his main game.
2. If you like hoop at all, you will love the book.
3. That said, part of the Simmons’ shtick is absurd, over-the-top homerism. It’s laughable at times, but then, he’s a comedian. He does take basketball seriously, and his depth of knowledge about the sport is unassailable, but I knew before I even picked up the book that the Celts and Russell would be lauded as The Supreme Kings of basketball, period.
And that’s what makes his take-down of Wilt a little offensive. The Wilt-Russell debate is very nuanced, and one of the great debates in sports history, like Mantle-Mays, Joe-Ted, Magic-Bird, Ali-Frazier, whatever.
Yet Simmons gives a totally one-sided argument, which is just kind of ridiculous.
That was really my only beef about an otherwise excellent book.
[...] Posnanski. 48 years ago today, Wilt scored 100. Joe Posnanski goes in, and it’s excellent.PF: [...]
“3. That said, part of the Simmons’ shtick is absurd, over-the-top homerism. It’s laughable at times, but then, he’s a comedian.”
That’s been my problem through most of these posts. As a Knicks fan, I obviously have no horse in this race (in fact, you could say I’m a little bit against Wilt for showing up my boys) but it seems to me that Simmons decided beforehand that the Boston guy was better and looked for all the evidence that would prove he was right. Maybe I’m not giving him a fair shake. I dunno.
@65: It’s a common knock, but I don’t think it really holds water in this case. The whole Wilt/Russell argument fits perfectly in with the broader thesis of his book (with its emphasis on playing in a way that best helps the TEAM win).
If you look at his Pyramid rankings, he puts Magic over Larry (the other Big Debate rivalry, and one where you’d really expect a man who calls Larry Bird “Basketball Jesus” to come down on Larry’s side) and he ranks Kareem at #3 overall (after MJ and Russell), even though Kareem is probably his least favorite player of all time. There’s some bias in the book, but I don’t think the Wilt/Russell argument is all Boston homerism. If your perspective on basketball is more focused on team success, you’re going to come down on the Russell side of the argument no matter who you root for.
Wilt was known for backing off on defense when he picked up some fouls, because he wanted to maintain his streak of never fouling out.
Zac, you are saying that statistically Wilt was better, and that’s all that matters. But if you switched teams for Bill Russell and Wilt in their head to head matchups, Bill would still be the champion.
[...] Archive » Anniversary of Wilt's 100-Point GamePosted: March 2nd, 2010 | Filed under: Essays | 29 Comments »You can read this at SI.com as well now, below this oh-so-awesome picture.?Quick question: They [...]
Wilt is my all-time favorite and the most dominant player in NBA history, but he had flaws:
1. He was not fundamentally sound – he couldn’t shoot or dribble, and his defense was sometimes questionable, especially early in his career;
2. His fade-away jumper was a terrible shot, one that he should have stopped using; instead, he should have added a baby hook to complement his dunks, tip-ins and finger rolls;
3. He should have used his size advantage more effectively like Shaq and been more aggressive; instead, Wilt avoided fouls and never fouled out of a game; and
4. His teams won two championships, but should have won a couple more; during most of his career, the Celtics had much better teams, but Wilt did play on great 76er and Laker teams.
Watching Wilt play was often like watching an adult play with little children, he was so dominant. That was only entertaining for Wilt’s fans like me. The games against Russell and the Celts, though, were often good games.