Wilt Meets Bill and Tommy (4,000+ words)

Outside wrote:Just to let you know, work and life got busy this week, and we're going to be gone this weekend, so I won't get to my last two posts until next week. Something to look forward to and/or dread.

I hope everyone has a great Labor Day weekend.

Thanks to you outside, I will now have a "All you need to know about Wilt folder". Thanks for the many hours of research and have a super Labor Day weekend.
swish

By all accounts, Wilt was larger than life. With his first professional paycheck, he bought his parents a house in a decent neighborhood. When he went to dinner with teamates, he quietly arranged to pay the bill, with the others not even knowing. He was a savvy investor. And, he was a gentleman with the fair sex - at least, there are no recorded complaints, except perhaps for more. He won two championships; along the way to the first, in 1967, bringing the invincible Bill Russell his most frustrating defeat. Wilt was the greatest offensive force there ever was or will be in basketball and he still owns the record books.

That said, there was something about winning basketball that he just didn't get. He believed that individual excellence was the key to victory: that if he played well enough, then his team would win. It was a belief rooted in the power and dazzle of offense.

Two competing paradigms clashed head-on when Wilt and Bill met. It was Individual versus Team. As the most unstoppable offensive force in the game, Wilt was a flawed hero because his paradigm was deficient. Basketball is a team game, simple as it sounds.

That's really the issue I was trying to present in the original post: to show the role of team in the taming of Wilt in his rookie year. There was Red's intimate involvement; Bill's relentless strategy of running the floor, which would have been far less appealing if Cousy and the rest didn't unfailingly reward him with the ball; Tommy's sacrificing his body against the world's strongest man, who was all knees and elbows himself.

Red's decision to order Tommy to impede Wilt after every made free throw, that decision led directly to Wilt finally throwing the punch that injured his hand, after he failed to do anything of the sort all season long. That punch cost Philadelphia Games Three and Four, which put them down 3-1 in the series.

Red manipulated events. He had set Tommy on Wilt from the first game of the season. He knew there was escalating tension between the two players. He knew Tommy would never back down. It was the kind of thing that Red Auerbach, who notoriously hounded referees, as well as opposing players, coaches and owners, always probing for the slightest edge for his team, - it was the kind of situation that Red would've ordered up if he could've - one from Column A and one from Column B.

Lastly, there's the forgotten man, the irrepresssible Tommy Heinsohn. Has any player ever done more for his team than Tommy did in this series? He had to have been hurting physically after the huge collisions of Game One. Wilt's forearms were like clubs and Tommy was a welt of bruises.

Tommy was the lead man on the Celtics fast break, the scoring machine, the man who knew every offensive and defensive trick in the book, and in this series he risked everything to help his team. It was a thankless job - today it isn't even mentioned in most accounts of the series. It was also extremely dangerous - if Wilt had connected with Tommy's jaw the way Kermit Washington connected with Rudy Tomjanovich's . . .

So, after Wilt' and Bill's titanic struggles, after the fight and the swollen hand and Wilt's furious 50-point comeback in Game Five in Boston Garden, it all came down to who would execute in what can only be called the extreme clutch. Wilt's teammate, Tom Gola, missed two free throws. Bill's teammate, Tom Heinsohn, outrebounded Wilt for the winning tip-in.

Forgive me for concluding that after all is said and done, the story is really about the courage and tenacity of two of the greatest teammates of all time, Bill and Tommy.

Well, here it is, another installment in War and Pe-- uh, I mean, my Wilt Chamberlain series. Why, it seems like only last month that I thought I'd spit out a quick post every other day or so. Anyway, here is number five of six. Let me apologize (again) for the length, but there's just so much good material that it's hard to cut any more out.

Given my track record so far, I promise to have the last post done before the end of the year.

Happy reading.



PART 5. WAS WILT COACHABLE?

In comparisons between Russell and Chamberlain, Wilt is often portrayed as concerned mainly with his own individual achievements and at odds with his coaches. In our scenario -- exchanging Russell for Wilt on the 60's Celtics -- the success of the Celtics with Wilt would depend largely on whether Wilt would be coachable. Would he respond to Auerbach's coaching and change his game to fit into Auerbach's vision? Or would he resist and become a cancer on the team?

In this post, I'll address the issue of Wilt's coachability by examining two areas:

-- His attitude. As a player, was he selfish, a ball hog? Was he an egotistical, selfish person?

-- His relationships with his coaches. Did he get along with them? If so, why? If not, why not?


Wilt's attitude

Many people thought Chamberlain was successful just because he was tall and athletically gifted. What those people don't realize is how hard he worked to become the player that he was.

Vince Miller, in Tall Tales, by Terry Pluto: I've known Wilt since the third grade and we've been close friends ever since. Wilt was a great athlete and would have been a star in track, football, about anything he wanted. But he loved basketball and the thing people don't understand is that he worked at the game. He wasn't just a big guy. He was lifting weights before anyone else did. In the summer, they would close several Philly recreation centers because it was so hot inside, but we'd get a key and Wilt and I would go in there and work on his outside shot. It would be 90-some degrees, he'd be drenched with sweat and he'd be jumping up and down, touching the rim a hundred times.

"I believe that good things come to those who work," said Wilt.

For most of his career, Wilt scored so much because he was capable of it and because everyone -- coaches, teammates, fans, and Wilt -- came to expect it. From Tall Tales:

Tom Gola: I first played with Wilt when I was in college and he was a 6-foot-8 junior high kid. He held his own with all these hotshot players from Philly, even at 13 years old. If Wilt had come into the NBA and not scored 50 a night, he would have been booed. Those were the kinds of expectations he faced -- not just from the fans, but the other players. No other player ever had to deal with the kind of pressures that Wilt did. He was expected to be perfect.

Earl Strom: There were games when Wilt would block a shot, Tommy Gola would pick up the loose ball and instead of taking down the court on the fast break, he'd hold it.

Wilt said, "Tommy, somebody has to help me score."

Tommy said, "Hey, big fella, you got the hot hand, we're working it to you."

Al Attles: I probably played 500 games with Wilt and never once did I hear him say, "Get me the ball."

Wilt Chamberlain was a unique player, a 7-2 track star who could run and jump and had athletic ability, so tall, strong, and skilled that he could score unlike anyone the game had ever seen, so it was natural that he would be asked to score, and score a lot. In those early days of the league, when teams were struggling to attract fans and stay financially solvent, Warriors owner Eddie Gottlieb saw Chamberlain as a gate attraction, and he intended to take advantage of him.

From Tall Tales:

Tom Gola: Gotty believed in the star system. It began with Joe Fulks, who was one of the first jump shooters and set an NBA scoring record [with 63 points in 1949], and it continued with Paul Arizin and then Wilt. He liked guys who scored big numbers because he thought that was how you attracted fans.

Wilt: Early in my career it was made very clear to me, "Wilt, you've got to score a lot of points." Eddie Gottlieb believed it was good for his franchise and for the league for me to set records.

Leonard Koppett [referenced in Spike's earlier post]: I call Wilt Chamberlain a very honest workman. By that, I mean he always did what his employer wanted. No star athlete has ever given his boss more for the money than Wilt did during his career. Eddie Gottlieb wanted Wilt to score like no man ever had, so Wilt did. Hannum and some of his other coaches wanted him to pass and play defense so he did that and he played 48 minutes a night. Those who criticized Wilt -- first for his scoring, then for not scoring more -- really should have criticized his employer.

Wilt: When you go out there and do the things you're supposed to do, people view you as selfish.

Wilt Chamberlain was indeed proud of his individual stats and accomplishments, but it's interesting that he was not proud of his most famous achievement -- the 100-point game.

From Tall Tales:

Al Attles: After the game, Wilt was in the dressing room and he wasn't celebrating like the rest of us.

I said, "Wilt, what's the matter."

He said, "I never thought I'd take 60 shots in a game."

I said, "But you made 36, that's better than 50 percent."

He said, "But Al--63 shots, Al." Then he just shook his head.

Frank McGuire: I do think we were more excited about the game than Wilt was.

Wilt: The 100-point game will never be as important to me as it is to some other people. That's because I'm embarrassed by it. After I got into the 80s, I pushed for 100 and it destroyed the game because I took shots that I normally never would. I was not real fluid. I mean, 63 shots? You take that many shots on the playground and no one ever wants you on their team again. I never considered myself a gunner. I led leagues in scoring because I also led them in field goal percentage. I've had many better games than this one, games where I scored 50-60 and shot 75 percent.

Al Attles: Wilt gave me the ball that he scored the 100th point with, even though some kid claimed to have run off with it.

Wilt: I wanted Al to have that ball because he's a great friend and he spent his whole career sacrificing to make other guys better players.

Wilt was a complex man. Although there is no doubt that Wilt cared about his stats and had an ego to match his size, many people have told stories that show another side of him.

From Tall Tales:

Al Attles: When we played in New York, the kids would stand right near the court as we warmed up. The NBA rule is that you can't sign autographs during warmups. One young man politely asked Wilt if he would sign. Wilt explained that the league wouldn't let him. Then he said, "Stay around after the game, and I'll sign whatever you want." That's a line players give to fans just to get rid of them.

Well, the game was over, Wilt went into the dressing room, dried off, and then headed back into Madison Square Garden. He was still in his uniform. The boy was not outside our dressing room. Then Wilt started walking through the dark arena, calling the boy. He came from the other end of the arena. Wilt signed his stuff and talked to the young man.

How many guys would remember that they had made a promise like that to a kid? And with Wilt, this was far from an isolated incident.

Tom Meschery: One of Wilt's most notable traits is his generosity. One summer I worked for the Seattle department of recreation and we were putting together an inner-city basketball league. Since he lived in the area, I called Bill Russell to come out and help us kick off the program. Russ wanted to be paid. I didn't want to spend the city's money. I thought of Wilt and how he traveled a lot in the summer, I thought maybe he might be in the area, so I called him.

Wilt said that he was spending some time in L.A., but why not? He's come to Seattle to help an old teammate.

He got on his motorcycle and drove from L.A. to Seattle. He talked to the kids, officiated a game and spent the day. Then he refused to take a dime, even for expenses.

Frank McGuire: One night, we were on the road. We had lost, it was about two in the morning. I had gotten a terrible hotel room and I was standing in the hall. Wilt saw me and asked what was wrong.

I said, "Look at this room, it's like a shoebox."

Wilt grabbed my key, then gave me his key. "I got a room twice this size at the end of the hall, Coach. It's all yours." Then he shut the door to my old room in my face, the point being that he didn't want any argument, he wanted me to take his room.

Matt Goukas: In restaurants, Wilt would quietly pick up the tab because he knew that he was making 10 times what we were. But he was very discreet, most of us not realizing what had happened until later. Or else he'd invite us to his room and he'd have a huge spread of room service food for us.

Fred Schaus: I have great respect for Wilt. When I was with the Lakers, he never missed a practice or a game, or was late for a plane. If I asked him to make an appearance, he did it. This man has gone through life with a bad rap. We are talking about a very good person.

Note: I almost didn't include the story from Tom Meschery because it puts Russell in a bit of a bad light, but I really liked what it showed about Wilt, so I kept it in. Tom Meschery was never a teammate of Russell's but was a teammate of Wilt's, and that's a factor in this situation. But mostly, Bill Russell is a complex man, a very private man who reacts in his own way to public requests, and he has endured so much and sacrificed so much during his life and given back so much to his country that, on balance, this is no big deal.


Wilt's relationship with his coaches

Note: In this section, the text blocks in italics are from Tall Tales, by Terry Pluto.

There are still a few coaches around who act like dictators, but pro basketball today is often something of a collaborative environment where some players provide input and make suggestions. Back in the 1950's and 60's, however, the typical coach ran his team with an iron hand, and players did as they were told or found themselves on the bench or off the team.

Wilt arrived in the NBA during a time of change. Attitudes were changing about almost every aspect of society, including race, the role of young people, and the media, to name a few. Into this environment came Wilt, and no one had seen the likes of him before, as a player or as a personality. We now accept the notion of the superstar athlete as a media figure and as someone who commands respect from coaches, but Wilt was one of the first, and the idea that an athlete would view himself that way, especially a black athlete, was grating to many people, including some in the coaching ranks.

Wilt's coach the first two years with the Philadelphia Warriors was Neil Johnston. Johnston was the Warriors' center before Wilt, a fine scorer and rebounder who was part of the Warriors' championship team in 1956 and is in the Hall of Fame. Although the Warriors had won the title four years before, they were a team in decline and were 32-40 in 1958-59. When Wilt arrived in 1959-60, they improved to 49-26, and they took the champion Celtics to six games in the Eastern finals. But there was tension between Johnston and Wilt, and the team took a step back, going 46-33 in the regular season and getting swept by Syracuse in the first round of the playoffs. That was the end of Johnston's coaching tenure with the Warriors.

In his third season, Wilt was coached by Frank McGuire, the North Carolina coach whose team beat Chamberlain and Kansas in the 1957 NCAA championship, and that was one of the best relationships that Wilt had with a coach. Philadelphia was 49-31 in the regular season and lost to the Celtics in the Eastern finals, including a heartbreaking 109-107 loss in game 7. McGuire wanted to stay on, but the Warriors moved to San Francisco after that season, and he left the team because moving to the West Coast would take him away from his son, Frank Jr., who had cerebral palsy. (McGuire became the head coach at South Carolina, where he is the winningest basketball coach. He is also the third-winningest at North Carolina.)

Wilt: In my first two years, I was coached by Neil Johnston, who had been the Warriors center before me.... He had no sympathy for me because I used to kick his butt on the playgrounds in Philly and because I now was playing his old position....

That changed in my third year when Frank McGuire came in. He was a unique man, not just because he allowed me to score 50 points a game. Rather, he was very sensitive to this young black man and all things that surrounded me. He never told me to score points, he let it happen in the natural flow of the game. He did tell the team, "Gentlemen, if Wilt has to score 50 a game for us to win and if he can do it, then gentlemen, that is how it will be."

"[McGuire] and Wilt really hit it off," said Harvey Pollack, then public relations director for the Warriors. "Wilt was never too happy with Neil. But Frank knew what to say to Wilt, how to handle him. I don't think Wilt had that kind of camaraderie with any other coach."

In a 1987 interview with the New York Times, McGuire said Chamberlain was "the best problem I ever had."

Frank McGuire: I first coached against Wilt in the 1957 NCAA championship game when my North Carolina team beat Kansas. During my pregame talk, I never even mentioned the Kansas team, I just talked about how we'd defense Wilt.... We put five guys on him and he still scored 26 points, but we won. But that wasn't Wilt's fault.

From that day, I had been intrigued with Chamberlain. I had read that he was uncoachable and a bad guy, but I refused to believe that. He didn't strike me that way. I was at North Carolina for 10 years when Eddie Gottlieb talked to me about the Warriors job. I looked at film of Wilt, and the more I saw, the more I wanted to coach him. Even though I had been very comfortable at North Carolina, I couldn't resist the temptation of working with Wilt.

Wilt: The first thing Frank did after he got the job was sit down and talk to me, man-to-man. No coach had ever treated me that way before.

Tom Gola: Frank didn't try to control Wilt. Some of Wilt's early coaches, they kept telling him what to do. But Wilt thought he knew more about basketball than they did. By not telling Wilt things all the time, when Frank did talk to Wilt, Wilt listened.

McGuire: I had meetings with each of the players... I said that Wilt was the most dominant force in basketball history and I wanted him to get the ball two-thirds of the time. Guy Rodgers said to me, "Coach, whatever you say is fine, but will you sit in with us when we go to talk contract with Eddie Gottlieb?" One of the problems back then was that guys were paid according to their scoring averages. But that also is why I respected the players -- they ran the offense I wanted.

McGuire: In the playoffs, we took Boston to seven games and lost when Mendy Rudolph called a very questionable goaltending on Wilt. We got beat 109-107 and had a chance to win because we caught Boston on a bad day.

Wilt was so great. He shook my hand after that game and told me how much he appreciated my coaching.

I would have come back for a second season, but Eddie Gottlieb sold the Warriors to San Francisco and I was not about to move to the West Coast and be that far away from Frank Jr., so I quit and went back to coaching in college. But in that one year, I'm very proud to have been the coach when Wilt averaged 50 and scored 100 in a game. I wish I could have coached him for his whole career.

Wilt: I just wish that I could have played for more than one year for Frank McGuire. He and Alex Hannum were my favorite coaches.

After McGuire came the underwhelming Bob Feerick (31-49), but the Warriors then hired Alex Hannum and immediately improved to 48-32. Now in the Western division, the Warriors made it to the finals but lost again to the Celtics. During their time together in San Francisco, Chamberlain and Hannum developed a bond that would serve them well later.

In the middle of the next season, Wilt was traded from the Warriors back to Philadelphia to the 76ers, who were the relocated Syracuse Nationals. Wilt was traded for financial reasons; although the Warriors had a good team, attendance was poor in San Francisco, and the ownership felt they couldn't afford to carry Wilt's huge salary, so they traded him for three players (one of whom never played a game for the Warriors) and $150,000 (which was a lot of money in those days).

For one and half seasons, Dolph Schayes was Wilt's coach with the 76ers. Schayes was a Hall-of-Fame player who believed in a motion offense that had served him well in his playing days. Although Wilt was a different kind of player, Schayes stayed with his offense, which made Wilt something of a square peg in a round hole. They were successful during the regular season, improving from 34-46 the year before Chamberlain's arrival to 55-25 in Wilt's first full season, the best record in the league. In the playoffs, however, they lost 4-1 to the Celtics in the Eastern finals, which led to Schayes' dismissal.

Re-enter Alex Hannum, recently departed from San Francisco. The 76ers had a roster with a mix of emerging young talent and veteran leadership, including Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Billy Cunningham, Wali Jones, Luke Jackson, and Larry Costello. Now that Chamberlain was finally surrounded with scorers, Hannum told Wilt to concentrate on defense and rebounding.

Hannum and Chamberlain had a couple of long talks before the season. They both were big men, men of ego, yet men who lusted after the same thing -- beating Boston.

"I told Wilt that things had changed for him," said Hannum. "He had a great team around him. It was not necessary for him to lead the league -- or even his team -- in scoring for us to win."

Chamberlain was a bit leery. He was the greatest scorer in history. While he wouldn't admit it, much of his identity was tied up in the fact that he was unstoppable, unguardable, unlike any player the NBA had ever seen. Hannum was asking him to give up a lot. Chamberlain considered that, but he also told Hannum, "I want to win. I'll give it a try."

For the next two seasons, the 76ers had six players score in double figures, and although Wilt was the high scorer, it wasn't by much (two points one season, 0.2 points the other), and other players had more field goal attempts. In 1966-67, Philadelphia was a then-record 68-13, beat Boston 4-1 in the Eastern finals, and won the NBA championship. In 1967-68, they had the league's best record again at 62-20 but lost to Boston in seven games in the Eastern finals.

Wilt: Why did we finally beat Boston? Because we had Alex Hannum as our coach.

Billy Cunningham: Alex Hannum demanded and received immediate respect. He had coached St Louis to a title [in 1958] and had coached Syracuse and Golden State. He had coached Wilt with the Warriors and word was that Alex had challenged Wilt in the Warriors' dressing room.

Alex Hannum: I'll just say that Wilt and I always had an understanding and mutual respect. When I got the Sixers job, we had lost Guy Rodgers in the expansion draft to Chicago. Guy was Wilt's favorite point guard and he made getting the ball to Wilt an art form. Costello was not the fancy ballhandler and passer that Guy was, but I knew that Costello and Hal Greer could be one of the best backcourt combinations that ever lived. My idea was to talk Larry Costello out of retirement, but before I did that, I called Wilt. I could tell that Wilt wasn't that fired up about it, but he said, "Coach, if you think Costello will help us win, then it's your decision."

I talked to Wilt about everything, not just Costello. One of the big things was that Wilt wanted to play all 48 minutes. Yes, he could play every minute, but to do that he had to pace himself. I said, "This is a different team from the ones earlier in your career. We have more talent and I need to play more guys. I don't give a damn who you are, you can't go at full speed for 48 minutes. I also don't think it's a bad idea to rest you for a few minutes, put someone else in there and give our team a different look." As was the case with Costello, he didn't necessarily agree with me, but he went along with the idea.

Larry Costello: Many people didn't understand Wilt, but Alex Hannum knew that you didn't sweat the small stuff with Wilt, who was a man of great pride and intelligence.

Jack Ramsay was hired to replace Hannum as general manager after the 1967-68 season, and Hannum left for the new ABA because he wanted total control as both coach and GM. Chamberlain suggested that the 76ers hire Frank McGuire or Bill Sharman to coach, but they went with Ramsay instead. Ramsay, like Dolph Schayes, was an advocate of a motion offense, and rather than repeat that experience with Wilt, Philly traded him (and his expensive contract) to the Lakers. LA was of course a perennial power in the West but couldn't get past Boston in the finals. With Wilt joining Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, they seemed like a lock to take the next step. However, that didn't take into account what would be one of the most unsatisfying experiences of Wilt's career -- being coached by Butch Van Breda Kolff.

Fred Schaus: I'd always been a big Wilt fan and felt he had gotten a bad rap over the years. I wish I could have coached him.

Butch Van Breda Kolff: I was excited when Fred Schaus told me that we had a chance to get Wilt.... Then I met Wilt during the summer at Kutsher's Country Club for the Maurice Stokes Game. I asked him to put on the Lakers T-shirt I had for him so we could take a picture, but he didn't want to do it. We went around and around for a minute, and Wilt was just being contrary. He just wanted to see how far he could push me. It just pissed me off, but I let it go.

Wilt: After the trade, Butch was quoted as saying he "could handle Wilt." Well, you handle horses, not people. Then there was all this talk about there not being enough basketballs for West, Baylor and myself. That didn't bother me. I was willing to sacrifice my offense and to concentrate on defense and rebounding so West and Baylor could score and we could make a run for the title. But with Butch, he always wanted me to know he was the boss.

Van Breda Kolff: I tried to talk to Wilt, I really did. Once, I said that we'd be better if he didn't spike the ball out-of-bounds after he blocked a shot. Then I made the mistake of mentioning Russell's name, and how the Celtics would fast break off his blocked shots.

Wilt said, "Boston is coached to come up with Russell's blocks."

I said, "What do you want me to do, put guys halfway up the stands? Are the ushers supposed to get your blocks?

Earl Strom: During games, you'd see Butch yell at Wilt and then Wilt would yell right back at him. Or else they would get into it when Butch took Wilt out of the game. Wilt said that he got along with most of his coaches, which was true. But once I heard him say, "Yeah, I liked all my coaches but Jackass."

I thought, "Who's Jackass?"

Then Wilt said, "Good old Jackass Van Breda Kolff."

Fred Schaus: I had a couple of meetings with Butch and Wilt, just the three of us. Both guys wanted to win and I think they wanted to smooth things out, but they were such strong-willed people... one of them would say something, and they'd start to argue. They would get stuck on little things. They just were two people who could look at each other and that was enough to aggravate the hell out of both of them.

Despite it all, they finished first in the West and met the aging Celtics in the finals. It was an epic series that has a special place in Celtic lore, especially game 7 (the balloon game), which included one last monumental run-in between Chamberlain and Van Breda Kolff.

Wilt: We were down by 9 points [with five minutes left] when I came down with a rebound and banged my knee. It was really painful. They helped me off the court, and I just needed a breather for a second. Butch put Mel Counts in for me, but after a minute I said I was ready to come back in. Butch ignored me.

John Havlicek: We were aware that Wilt went out, but we didn't know what the story was until later. We all figured he'd come back into the game and we were surprised when he didn't.

Fred Schaus: [S]itting in the stands, we all were dying because Wilt was not on the floor. Of course you want the big guy in at the end of a game like that, but it was Butch's decision.

Van Breda Kolff: I put in Counts, he hit a couple of shots and we made a comeback, as we often did when Counts played for Wilt during the regular season. Wilt told me he was okay, but I said we'd keep things as they were. He told me a second time he wanted to go back in, but I told Wilt the truth. I said, "We're playing better without you." It was nothing personal against Wilt. I simply decided to go with the guys who got us back into the game, and if Nelson hadn't made that shot, who knows what would have happened?

Wilt: He was just trying to show he was the boss and that he could win a title without Wilt Chamberlain.

Earl Strom: In a sense, I respect Butch for making one of the dumbest moves any coach has ever made. You just don't try to win a title with Mel Counts when you have Wilt Chamberlain, but they hated each other so much. Butch was never one to compromise. He always was his own man and he would coach his own way.

Van Breda Kolff quit after that. The petty, personal feud between the two men may very well have kept them from winning the title, but it's now a footnote to one of the most memorable wins in Celtic history.

Who was at fault? Some people just don't get along, and that was the case with Wilt and Van Breda Kolff, but both men also need to shoulder the blame. Both seemed to make it a personal war over petty things, starting with that T-shirt at Kutsher's Country Club. However you look at it, it is a stain on both men's careers, and it's the most valid instance of Wilt being uncoachable.

What makes it so striking is that it came directly after the exceptional experience with Alex Hannum and the 76ers, and it would be followed by another exceptional experience with Bill Sharman as Lakers coach. Looked at in that light, Van Breda Kolff looks worse than Wilt, but Wilt still let his pride get in the way in 1968-69.

Joe Mullaney took over as Lakers coach the next two seasons. The 1969-70 season is remembered for LA losing to the Knicks in the finals with Willis Reed limping out to play in game 7, but the Lakers were not the powerhouse they appeared to be. Wilt injured his knee early in the season and didn't return until the playoffs, Elgin Baylor was near the end of his career and only played in 54 games, and neither was at full strength in the playoffs. In 1970-71, Wilt didn't miss a game, but Baylor hurt his knee again and only played two games, and West also hurt his knee late in the season. The Lakers lost in the West finals to the Milwaukee team with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Oscar Robertson. I couldn't find any information to indicate whether Wilt had a good or bad relationship with Mullaney, and his tenure is mostly described as unlucky due to all the injuries to his stars. In any event, it was nothing like the animosity that characterized Wilt and Van Breda Kolff.

Wilt's last two seasons were with Bill Sharman. The Lakers had a great 1971-72 season, going 69-13, winning 33 in a row (still a major pro sports record), and beating the Bulls, Bucks, and Knicks on their way to the title. The 1972-73 team was 60-22 in the regular season, but with Baylor gone, Wilt in his last season, and West in his next-to-last season, LA lost to the Knicks in the finals.

Sharman was a stickler for detail and like to do thing his way, and that could've been a recipe for disaster with Chamberlain, but the two got along well. A story that was often told was that when Sharman instituted mandatory morning shootarounds, Wilt told Sharman that he would come to the arena once a day and that Sharman could decide whether it would be for the shootaround or the game. Another tale regarding Wilt and shootarounds is that Sharman used them specifically to curb Wilt's nightlife. Great stories, but according to Sharman, not true. "It never happened. I talked to Wilt right before camp, and he said, ‘You know, Bill, I usually don’t get out of bed until noon. But if you think it will help, I’ll go along if we win.’” Sharman has also said he was impressed by how much Chamberlain was willing to work with him. So I'd say that ends Wilt's experience with coaches on a positive note.


Summary

Many people have drawn a line from Wilt's huge scoring to ball hog to uncoachable, but Wilt's incredible accumulation of stats is not in itself evidence of being uncoachable. He scored a lot of points because he was uniquely capable of doing so and was asked by team owners and coaches to put up huge numbers. Most "ball hogs" get their scoring averages through volume shooting -- shooting a low percentage, but taking so many shots that their scoring average is high. Wilt, on the other hand, led the league in field goal percentage nine of his 14 seasons, shot 54.0% for his career, has the highest field goal percentage for a season (72.7% in 1972-73) and the second highest (68.3% in 1966-67). If you had a player who scored with that kind of efficiency, you'd get him the ball. That doesn't mean he was a ball hog or a selfish player.

The stories of Wilt's generosity (and there are many, many more like them) don't fit with the characterization of Wilt as a selfish player who didn't get along with his teammates and coaches. When I think of the personality traits of a player who is uncoachable, I think of an arrogant jerk who only cares about himself, feels entitled without having earned the deference he expects, and doesn't care about other people. That type of person doesn't respect what others have to say and isn't willing to accept criticism. Some of these players are talented (Allen Iverson), muddle along through a mediocre career (Stephen Jackson, Stephan Marbury), or never even make it in the league (Michael Olowokandi).

On the other hand, just being a jerk doesn't mean you're uncoachable, or else we'd have to include six-time champion Michael Jordan and five-time champion Kobe Bryant (and maybe Larry Bird) in that category, but Jordan and Kobe in particular are players who are supremely talented and have an element of uncoachability. They are prickly and hard to handle, and they require a particular type of coach to accommodate their quirks, deal with their egos, and coax them from the dark side to attain greatness. They're not uncoachable, but they're not particularly coachable either.

I'd say Wilt falls in that in-between category -- not the most coachable player, but coachable given the right situation. He clearly clashed with Neil Johnston and Butch Van Breda Kolff, but he also had very good relationships with Frank McGuire, Alex Hannum, and Bill Sharman. Wilt needed a capable, confident coach who was willing to communicate with him. Numerous times, people quote Wilt as saying, "Coach, if you want to do X, that's fine, because all I want to do is win." Wilt did require special handling from coaches. If you treated him like an ordinary player and expected him to follow instructions just because you're the coach, Wilt took exception and dug in his heels. But if you talked to him in advance about what you wanted to do and explained why you wanted to do it, he'd be on board.

In that situation, Wilt was willing to adapt his game to whatever was needed to help his team win, from his high-scoring season with McGuire to emphasizing defense, rebounding, and passing with Hannum and Sharman. Considering that Red Auerbach and Bill Russell developed a relationship based on mutual respect in each other's exceptional abilities, I'm inclined to think that Wilt would've responded well in that situation.

But more on that in the next (last) post.

Outside

Another fine piece and well worth the wait. Russ had Red and only Red as a coach during his career, of course plus coaching himself. Wilt on the other hand had multiple coaches to adapt to.

Personally I think he would have developed a good relationship with Red also had he been a Celtic.

Season outlook is rather bleak and not a lot to discuss, so we all await you final piece.

beat

Another Magnum Opus from one of my favorite posters. Pulling all this together, covering an entire career (a long one at that!) really gives you a sense of the man.

That comment by Wilt to "Jackass" really showed the depth of animosity between the two. I'm referring to the one where he says "Boston is coached to come up with Russell's blocks". VBF's response made sense, of course, you can't rebound a ball that's rocketed into the stands but Wilt didn't care. He hated VBF and, perhaps, also tremendously respected Red.

I also enjoyed reading about how he'd pay for his teammates' meals and drive to coach games for kids. There's more to life than basketball (what with the garbage that's going on now, I keep telling myself that daily) and those citations of Wilt's generosity of spirit is rewarding to read.

There's an entire HOF for you to get started on, when you're done with Wilt, Outside. hehehehe. Who's greedy? Not me...

bob

.

Outside,

Refreshing, objective look at the Big Dipper. Keep it coming. If this were combat I would put you in for the Medal Of Honor(above and beyond the call of duty)
swish

swish wrote:Outside,

Refreshing, objective look at the Big Dipper. Keep it coming. If this were combat I would put you in for the Medal Of Honor(above and beyond the call of duty)
swish

Swish

Outside is bucking for Poster of the year and perhaps the early leader......

beat

beat wrote:

swish wrote:Outside,

Refreshing, objective look at the Big Dipper. Keep it coming. If this were combat I would put you in for the Medal Of Honor(above and beyond the call of duty)
swish

Swish

Outside is bucking for Poster of the year and perhaps the early leader......

beat

beat,
He's got my vote. Massive research for sure, and all that typing. My 1 finger typing makes a single paragraph an ordeal for me.

swish

bobheckler wrote:There's an entire HOF for you to get started on, when you're done with Wilt, Outside. hehehehe. Who's greedy? Not me...

Actually, a good place to start is the two books I quote most extensively from: The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball, by John Taylor, and Tall Tales: The Glory Years of the NBA, by Terry Pluto. I originally intended to use The Rivalry more, and it is a well-researched book that relates good stories and provides background information and context, but I found myself leaning toward Pluto's book more as I went along because it is essentially a compilation of quotes from his interviews with people from the early days of the NBA, and I find using direct quotes from the people who were there is more persuasive.

Both books are thoroughly enjoyable, fascinating reads, and I recommend them both wholeheartedly. They're available for dirt cheap online. Buying these two books is the best present I've given myself in a long time.

Sam has a list of Celtic-centric books in the unfortunately neglected Links, Books, Media and Sam's Writings section of the forum (https://samcelt.forumotion.net/f7-links-books-media-and-sam-s-writings). I'm sure he also has more general NBA (not just Celtic) books in his personal library than I was able to come across in the short time I've worked on these posts.

Outside

swish wrote:If this were combat I would put you in for the Medal Of Honor(above and beyond the call of duty)

I appreciate the kind words, but I don't want Spike's original post on this thread about Wilt, Russell, and Tommy to get lost in all this. It is one fine piece of writing and got this whole ball rolling. If this thread were to take another turn, it would only be fair to get back to Spike's point of how Russell and Heinsohn worked so well together defensively, in particular against Wilt, and Heinsohn's whole contribution to the success of the Russell-era Celtics. Most people know him as the fiery, "homer" announcer, but he was one heck of a player.

It's difficult to imagine that anything could crack through the doldrums that the lockout has created. But Spike and Outside have done it. This entire thread is a testament to their research and writing skills as well as to the eagerness of a knowledgeable board to get back on the pro basketball track.

I've always felt that the Celtics would have been just another team without antagonists such as Wilt, Jerry, Magic, etc. to test the Celts' mettle season after season. In a sense, the more we learn about the greatness of an opponent like Wilt, the more magnified the Celtics' achievements become.

One factor I hope Outside will consider in what should be a blockbuster of a finale is that, along with the incredible skills, generosity, and downright likability of this Gentle Giant, his impact on the rest of the team would have been key to the question of how the Celtics would have fared with him, rather than Russell, on board.

For example, there has been justifiable discussion of how fortunate Russ was to have had such a fantastic supporting cast. But the fact is that the vast majority of the supporting core throughout the Tyranny (excepting Cousy and Sharman) pretty much cut their pro basketball teeth by playing with Bill Russell. In other words, Bill (along with Red, of course) had a major role in molding the championship, egalitarian "formula" that characterized the roster from season one of his arrival throughout his career.

An important question is whether the supporting cast would have developed a similar ethic if the great majority of them had been influenced from the outset of their pro careers by Wilt rather than Russ. Would Wilt, like Russ, have inspired his Celtics mates to walk the fine line between being deferential to the team and yet also being capable of rising to their own moments of greatness when needed?

It should be interesting.

Sam

Just thought I'd check in and let you know that I'll have my final Wilt/Russell installment ready to post in the next day or two. It just takes time, and I've been busy. But I thought I'd at least let you know that it's coming.

PART 6. WILT ON THE CELTICS -- WOULD IT HAVE WORKED?

First off -- what do I know?

I was born in 1956, the same year Russell entered the league. I was only four when Chamberlain was a rookie, and my first recollections of the NBA aren't until the late Sixties. I was fortunate enough to have two older brothers who educated me about the game at a young age, and I educated myself further about those earlier times as I got older, but we have on this board a wealth of knowledgeable people with direct experience of those times. Unlike me, Sam, Spike, Swish, and Rosie (who else am I forgetting?) were watching the Celtics in those days. In a throwaway line at the beginning of this thread, Swish mentions that he was at the first game between Russell and Chamberlain. There is so much knowledge collectively on this board, a treasure trove of experience. I saw Russell and Chamberlain play later and learned a lot about them over the years, but I can't shake the feeling that my posts don't compare with what our fellow members know first-hand.

It's also true that this is all supposition and opinion. I try to base my opinions on factual evidence, but someone else might choose different facts or might come to a different conclusion based on the same facts. To an extent, I cherry-picked quotes for my posts, looking for ones that characterized Wilt in a way that suited my purposes. Someone else could pick quotes that reflect negatively on Wilt. But I started all this because I feel that there's been enough Wilt-bashing over the years, and it was my intention to give him some of the respect I think he justly deserves, and that's the approach I've taken.

For better or worse, here we go.


Would Wilt have fit into the Celtic style of play?

I see several key factors in whether Wilt would have fit on the Celtics:

-- Did he have the skills to fit what the Celtics needed?

-- Would he adapt from his individually dominating style of play to a more evenly spread, "team" style of play?

-- Would he be coachable by Red Auerbach?

-- Would his personality fit on the Celtics?


Did Wilt have the skills the Celtics needed?

Before Russell's arrival, Red had already made a commitment to up-tempo, fast-breaking basketball. The Celtics had a fine center in Ed Macauley, but he wasn't the dominant defender and rebounder that Red knew he needed for the Celtics to become a championship team.

From Tall Tales:

Red Auerbach: I wanted a team that would run and would play an exciting brand of ball. Cousy, Sharman, Macauley and those guys gave me that, but you could tell we still had something missing.

Ed Macauley: I was a 180-pound center. I had some of my greatest scoring games against George Mikan, but George used his size and strength to have some of his best games against me. Cousy and I were usually in the top 5 in scoring. We were a smart team, but not very physical.

Bob Cousy: Macauley, Bill Sharman and myself were the so-called catalysts of the team and we won as many games as we should have, but we were never a threat in the playoffs. We couldn't control the backboards and Auerbach knew that until he found someone who could do that, we were never going to be a legitimate championship contender...

Arnold came to me and said, "Don't worry, everything is going to change next season. I've got a guy I'm going after who is exactly what we need." At the time I didn't know who he meant, but Arnold was talking about Bill Russell.

Adding that missing piece made a huge difference for the Celtics. It not only improved the Celtics defensively in the middle, it also made the rest of the team better on defense because they could take risks knowing that Russell had their man covered if he got by. And with Russell blocking shots and controlling the boards, Cousy, Sharman, and the other Celtics were free to release and get the fast break going even more quickly.

Red knew that a center who could dominate as a defender and rebounder was what the Celtics were missing. Wilt may not have been quite as good a defender and rebounder as Russell, but the margin between the two was razor thin. People tend to forget how good Wilt was as a rebounder and defender because he was such a dominant offensive player, but the fact remains that Chamberlain indeed had the skills Red needed to transform his running Celtics into championship Celtics.


Would Wilt adapt to the Celtics team style of play?

This is closely related to the next sub-topic (whether Wilt would've been coachable by Red), but additional factors play into it.

To start with, let's analyze the problem. Wilt was such a prodigious talent that he dominated his teams. From Tall Tales:

Hot Rod Hundley: When Wilt was a kid, he shot the ball every time he got it. The Philly offense was throw the ball to Wilt and watch him. Once, I stopped in the Warriors' dressing room before the game and I saw Tom Gola throwing the ball against the wall. I asked, "What are you doing?"

Gola said, "Practicing our offense -- throw the ball to Wilt and then stand there."

Actually, Tom Gola and Wilt have always been great friends and Tommy was just messing around when he told me that. Back then, Wilt was almost too good. He scored about every time he shot it. He really pounded the boards and when he got an offensive rebound, people just cleared out and gave him the dunk. Why try to block it and have him break your arm?

Wilt routinely led the league in field goal percentage despite constant double- and triple-teams, so his teams naturally fell into an offense of passing the ball to Wilt and letting him take it from there. Why wouldn't you, if you had someone who can score so efficiently?

Here's why:

-- Although Wilt was efficient, the offense was stagnant. Without player and ball movement, the other players were less efficient.

-- Wilt's free-throw shooting was atrocious. You had a better chance putting him at the line than you did letting him shoot from the field. Even worse, his poor free-throw shooting messed with his head. In clutch situations, like the closing seconds of the Eastern division finals against the Celtics (the "Havlicek stole the ball" game), Wilt didn't want the ball because he dreaded being fouled and shooting free throws. So now, when you really need a basket, you can't go to the guy who is your number one option 99% of the time, and you need someone else who isn't used to being "the guy."

-- If a team had the personnel and strategy to make Wilt less effective, like the Celtics did, it would be difficult for Wilt's team to adapt from the "dump it into Wilt and watch" offense that they ran most of the time.

With Wilt dominating the ball offensively, his team's greatest strength was also its greatest weakness.

Red would have recognized that and asked Wilt to fill a role within the offense, not be the offense. But would Wilt accept that role?

In my view, the biggest challenge would be dealing with the massive expectations of Wilt's offensive game, especially in his early years. Wilt showed later in his career that he was quite willing to de-emphasize offense and concentrate on defense and rebounding, but that may have been a tougher sell early in Wilt's career. How could you let such a prodigious offensive talent go untapped? The pressure from sportswriters and fans (and possibly even ownership) to let Wilt dominate offensively would be tremendous. In his early years, that was also how Wilt was used to playing, and he may have been stubborn about giving up that role.

It could be that Wilt didn't play "team" ball until later because he had to learn hard lessons earlier in his career. If that's true, then that alone would answer the question in our scenario -- would the Celtics have won as many titles with Wilt instead of Russell -- because several years of Wilt receiving those lessons would be several years of the Celtics not winning titles that they won with Russell.

However, I can think of several reasons why that wouldn't be the case.

1. With the Celtics, spreading the offensive load would, to an extent, come naturally as scoring relied more on the fast break than a set offense.

2. A big reason why Wilt reduced his offensive load later in his career is that he was surrounded with better talent. During his last two seasons in Philly and most of his time in L.A., he was on teams with other great players, and his shot attempts went way down. The quality of Wilt's teammates has been a contentious point around Wilt's lack of success versus the Celtics, with many people saying that it was an excuse on Wilt's part, but I do believe it was a factor prior to the 1966-67 season. As Nate Thurmond said in Tall Tales, "Teams that had Wilt always viewed him as the savior. The whole thing was on his shoulders. Often, ownership would pay Wilt big money, but skimp on everyone else and he'd be surrounded by inferior talent. He was supposed to win games by himself, draw fans and do things no man had ever done before -- he did that, but it still wasn't enough for some people."

3. Red would make a huge difference. He was a master at getting players to perform the role he needed, and he could do the same with Chamberlain. Even early in his career with Frank McGuire, Wilt showed that he was a willing disciple for a good coach, and that would be the case with Red.

4. The other Celtics, as an extension of Red, would enforce Red's will. As Cousy said, "If Wilt thinks that with all the Hall of Famers on our team we'd have waited for him to get his ass down on offense the way Philadelphia did, forget it. We wouldn't watch anyone shoot it every time he got it." Those other players (especially Cousy, an all-NBA player and MVP) were well-versed in the Celtic brand of team ball and vocal advocates for it. They would expect and demand it, plain and simple, and between Red and the other Celtics, Wilt would soon adapt his game.

(One other thing -- if Wilt wasn't required to play 47 or more minutes and take 30-40 shots a game like he was in the first half of his career, he would have more energy to run on the break.)

5. Success breeds success -- once Wilt saw wins and a title come playing Red's way, Wilt would be happy to continue trading points for championships. Dissent and petty differences tend to melt away when you win a title. Plus, Wilt still would get 15-20 shots a game, which means he'd score 25-30 points a game, so it's not like he'd be marginalized offensively.

Wilt was a versatile player, skilled at both ends of the court and an excellent athlete who could run. If you let him focus on defense and rebounding (and not carry an enormous load on offense, as he did throughout much of his career), then he could filled that role -- defense, rebounding, and filling the lane on fast breaks -- exceptionally well.

In the end, it would be difficult to resist focusing the lion's share of the offense around Chamberlain, but with the indomitable Auerbach and strong leaders like Cousy, the Celtics would be a good situation for Wilt to become the defending, rebounding, and complementary offensive player that Red needed to win championships.


Would Wilt be coachable by Red?

As I discussed in my Part 4. Did Red Want Wilt? post, Red coached Wilt at Kutsher's resort in 1953 when Wilt was a brash, cocky high school phenom. That experience did not turn Red against Wilt; on the contrary, Red tried to pull strings to get Wilt on the Celtics. This all occurred before Russell joined the Celtics, and we don't know how Red would feel about the opportunity to get Wilt once he already had Russell, but that's irrelevant given that our scenario is that the Celtics wouldn't have Russell.

Red was the consummate coach on several levels, and one aspect he excelled at was the psychology involved when managing his players. What Wilt seemed to crave was respect from his coach, respect for his coach, and communication with his coach, and I think it's reasonable to assume that Wilt would have that with Red. Red could be difficult, but he usually found a way to get the most out of a player, and given Wilt's obvious ability to contribute to the team's success, I have to believe Red would make the situation with Wilt work. After all, that's what Red did better than anyone. As Terry Pluto writes in Tall Tales, "[Warriors owner Eddie Gottlieb] often said, 'If Red had coached my Warriors with Wilt and someone else had the Celtics and Bill Russell, we would have won all those titles. Red would have gotten more out of Wilt than any other coach.'"

Another aspect of Red's coaching style that Wilt would respond to was Red's approach to race. From Tall Tales:

Bob Cousy: If I had been born black, I probably would have been a bomb-thrower. I have a hunch I'd have been tougher on the world than Russ. He is a proud man who has been offended by a racist society and he won't give an inch to it... But the Russell we knew within the team, he was tremendous.

Part of it is due to Auerbach... Auerbach treated a minority like anyone else, thereby telling the person that he isn't a minority. Race was a very open subject on the Celtics. We could say things to each other that the outside world probably would find offensive, because we knew and trusted each other.

John Havlicek: Bill was comfortable on the Celtics because he knew that Red was the first coach to draft a black player and that the Celtics were the first team to consistently start five black players. Our roommates were integrated.

Jim Loscutoff: On a lot of teams, the black players went one way, the whites another. On our team, we made a point of everyone hanging around together.

At such a racially divisive time and in such a racially charged city, this environment created by Red Auerbach was crucial to Russell's success as a player and his ability to withstand the abuses he faced outside the Celtic circle. Chamberlain would respond positively to this environment as well, and it would be yet another factor to make Wilt respect Red and loyal to Red's vision of the team.


Would Wilt's personality fit on the Celtics?

This is another crucial question. Wilt was a dominating player with a personality to match, and my guess is that he'd need to adapt his personality like he would his game. Wilt at times was a brash, sometimes overpowering personality, but submersing himself within the team as a player would also lead to becoming part of the team in personality rather than standing apart or above it.

Chemistry is a difficult thing to gauge, and there's no way to know for sure if the Celtics' chemistry would worked with Wilt. I'm inclined to think that the force of will exerted by Red, Cousy, and the other players to make Wilt adapt to the team concept as a player also moderate Wilt's personality excesses. It's not like he needed to be the NBA version of the Stepford Wives to be successful. I believe that many of the engaging aspects of Wilt's personality would win over the rest of the team, and any lingering immaturity and desire to be the center of attention on Wilt's part would be moderated by the older players. Our fellow board members who knew Cousy can help me out here, but it seems like Cousy also was a strong personality who would provided the veteran leadership needed to integrate Wilt into the team as a player and a person.

But the biggest reason I don't think chemistry would be an issue is that Wilt was a truly likable guy who wanted people to like him, and I came across tons of quotes from teammates who genuinely liked and respected him, and they went out of their way to defend him. That sounds like someone who earned the loyalty of his teammates and would fit well on the tight-knit Celtics.


The big question -- would the Celtics win as many titles with Chamberlain as with Russell?

They certainly wouldn't win more -- how on earth could anyone win more than 11 titles in 13 years? My gut tells me they would win one or two less, but nine out of 13 would still be more than any other team in major sports history.

I've spent a lot of time arguing that Wilt was a fantastic player unlike any the league had seen before or has seen since. So why am I now saying that the Celtics would win more titles with Russell than with Chamberlain?

As simple as I can put it, Russell was the perfect fit for those Celtics, and the Celtics were the perfect fit for him.

What the Celtics needed was a center who could dominate on defense, dominate on the boards, and run the break. That is a tailor-made description of Bill Russell. As John Taylor related in his book, The Rivalry, some coaches weren't sold on Russell's pro potential coming out of college because of his almost nonexistent offensive skills, but Red believed that Russell's strengths in defense, rebounding, and athleticism were overwhelming and that the Celtics' skills complemented and extended his and their talents compensated for his weaknesses -- in essence, a perfect match. And it turned out that Russell's strengths in defense, rebounding, and athleticism were not just overwhelming; they were revolutionary.

Russell found an ideal home on the Celtics. They were an up-tempo team with shooters and scorers, so he wasn't needed to carry any significant offensive load, but he could still contribute by scoring on offensive rebounds and running the break, which played to his strengths in rebounding and athleticism. Defensively, they had been aching for someone who could block shots, control the paint, rebound, and start the fast break, and that again was exactly what he was best at. Within the team, Russell found a sanctuary where he could let down the walls he built to protect himself from the outside world, and he became part of a close-knit family that allowed him to express himself to his fullest potential on the court. Auerbach appreciated his talents, needed exactly what he offered, and provided an ideal environment for him to succeed. On top of all that, he had a personality that lent itself to being obsessed with team goals at the expense of individual achievement. A perfect fit for Russell, a perfect fit for the Celtics.

To be considered a better defender and rebounder than Chamberlain is quite a feat considering that Chamberlain holds almost every rebounding record and was an excellent defender, but the difference between Wilt and Russell in rebounding stats is very small, and as I described before, Russell was the king of intangibles. He instinctively recognized the geometry of shots and rebounds to put himself in the best possible position. He knew his teammates' and opponents' tendencies and used them to his advantage. He blocked shots to keep them inbounds and serve as an outlet pass to teammates. Chamberlain's will to win was strong, but no one had a stronger will to win than Russell. Russell was able to achieve such rarefied heights of individual and team achievement because he was such a perfect fit for the Celtics.

If Russell had played somewhere else, we might still recognize him as one of the best to ever play the game, but I doubt we would to the extent that we do now. How many other teams would be satisfied to let him contribute so little in a set offense? How many coaches would recognize and encourage his revolutionary approach to defense? Maybe he would've done just as well if he'd joined the Hawks and been coached by Alex Hannum, but there's no possible way that he would have found a situation better than Auerbach's Celtics.

As for Wilt, he was a great, great player -- as Hot Rod Hundley said, maybe even too great. Considered as individual players, it would be hard to justify putting Russell over Chamberlain considering how close they were as defenders, rebounders, and athletes and how much better Chamberlain was offensively. The reason I personally give Russell the edge is intangibles, vague concepts like "basketball intelligence" and "will to win." Even if you consider Russell better, it can't be by much. And there is a reasonable argument to be made that Chamberlain was better than Russell.

But that was not the question BobC proposed. His question was how many championships the Celtics would win if you replaced Russell with Chamberlain on those Celtic teams. To that question, I say the Celtics would win more titles with Russell, not because Russell was a superior player, but because Russell was the perfect fit for the Celtics. As Nate Thurmond, another great center of that era said, "You just can't say that because Bill won 11 championships, he was far superior to the rest of us centers in that era. He was great player, but also in a great situation."


Trading Wilt away

At an earlier point in the thread, Sam suggested that, if Wilt was on the Celtics instead of Russell, Red would have traded Wilt. Besides all the reasons I've given in my posts, another reason that I don't think that would've happened is a practical one -- who else could Red trade for to defend, rebound, and fill the lane as well or better than Wilt? Russell, who would be on another team in our scenario, and Nate Thurmond are the only names that come to mind. Considering Wilt's skillset, I can't see the Celtics trading Wilt away unless he was bad for team chemistry or couldn't get along with Red.

Wow, throwing out the "what if" question over a month ago during a slow summer season I hoped it might prove of interest and elicit discussion from the sages on this forum.

Outside the research you've done and thought provoking reasonings you provided, along with the input of others, should be submitted to ESPN for national exposure.

Thank you!

Outside

A big thank you for at least helping a little in this down time that hopefully won't last much longer.

IMHO for the waht it's worth department, if Wilt had come along earlier than Russ. And was aquired by the C's at the same time Russ was I believe they would have won just as much, maybe more. Hard to gaige how winning would affect Wilt, would he have maintained the drive that kept Russell going? Would he have played longer than Russ whom retired somewhat young?

All conjecture of course, and Wilt will always go down as an important part of Celtics history, no matter the fact he never wore green.

Again thanks,
beat

Here's some good stuff that didn't fit in my other posts. Enjoy.

Quotes by Wilt

"Everybody pulls for David, nobody roots for Goliath."

When asked who was the best player he ever saw: "I'm fortunate, because I played with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor and they'd be in the list with Oscar Robertson. The one who was most dominant and helpful for his team would be Bill Russell, who I played against far too many times."

From I'm Punchy From Basketball, Baby, And Tired Of Being A Villain, by Wilt and Bob Ottum, Sports Illustrated: "I mean, look at the Boston Celtics and Auerbach. You know the real key reason why they are so good as a team? Man, those guys have been together for an average of nine years now. They're so close they're like Siamese sextuplets."


Quotes by Bill Russell

At 1997 All-Star Game when the league named its 50 greatest players: "Nobody seems to appreciate what an incredible player Wilt was. He was the best player of all time because he dominated both ends of the floor like nobody else ever could. To be that big and that athletic was special."

In Great Moments in Pro Basketball, about Chamberlain's play during 1966-68: "Wilt is playing better than I used to -- passing off, coming out to set up screens, picking up guys outside, and sacrificing himself for team play."

In Go up For Glory: "If [the referee] is calling [the game] loose then everyone gets away with more. So, you have to handle your own man accordingly, unless it's Wilt Chamberlain. Him, you just don't handle. He's too strong. The best you can do is make him work hard."


Quotes from other people

Larry Brown: "I don't think it's fair to compare players in different eras, but he was about as dominant as any one player could be in any sport. I looked at him like he was invincible."

Jerry West: "When I started to play with him, he helped make me a better player."

Alex Hannum, in Tall Tales: "When I coached the San Francisco Warriors, I thought Al Attles was the fastest guy on our team -- by far. We used to gamble a lot -- which player could jump the highest and run the fastest. So I set up a series of races, baseline to baseline. In the finals, it was Wilt and Al Attles and Wilt just blew past him. I'm convinced that Wilt Chamberlain is one of the greatest all-around athletes the world has ever seen."

Larry Bird, discussing the topic of the all-time greatest player: "Let me tell you something. For a while, they were saying that I was the greatest. And before me, it was Magic who was the greatest. And then it's Michael's turn. But open up the record book and it will be obvious who the greatest is."

Oscar Robertson, when asked whether Chamberlain was the best ever: "The books don't lie."

Red Auerbach, when Wilt died: "Wilt Chamberlain had a great deal to do with the success of the NBA. His dominance, power, demeanor and the rivalry with Bill Russell says it all. He will be sorely missed by myself and everyone in the basketball community. Wilt was a great performer and a great athlete."

Red Holzman, in A View from the Bench: "One-on-one he [Wilt] would've murdered Russell and everyone. But playing five-on-five, Wilt was consigned to a specific role because of his ability to score so easily, whereas the Celtics fit Russell into their team concept better."

Darrall Imhoff, the opposing center the night Wilt scored 100: "[Wilt] was an amazing, strong man. I always said the greatest record he ever held wasn't 100 points, but his 55 rebounds against Bill Russell. Those two players changed the whole game of basketball. The game just took an entire step up to the next level."

Jerry West: "He was a smart guy, he was well-read. He was an authority on everything. He had this bluster about him. And on the inside, he was a soft guy."

Jack McMahon, who played and coached against Chamberlain for two decades: "You name it and there's not a single thing that Wilt couldn't do on the basketball court if he wanted. He was that much the superior athlete."



Wilt versus Magic

From Until his dying day, Wilt was invincible, by Chris Sheridan, Associated Press.

Of all his memories of Wilt Chamberlain, the one that stood out for Larry Brown happened long after Chamberlain's professional career was over.

On a summer day in the early 1980s at the Men's Gym on the UCLA campus, Chamberlain showed up to take part in one of the high-octane pickup games that the arena constantly attracted. Brown was the coach of the Bruins back then, and Chamberlain often drove to UCLA from his home in Bel Air, Calif.

"Magic Johnson used to run the games," Brown recalled Tuesday after hearing that Chamberlain, his friend, had died at the age of 63, "and he called a couple of chintzy fouls and a goaltending on Wilt.

"So Wilt said: 'There will be no more layups in this gym,' and he blocked every shot after that. That's the truth, I saw it. He didn't let one (of Johnson's) shots get to the rim."

Chamberlain would have been in his mid-40s at the time, a decade removed from one of the greatest careers any basketball player ever produced.


Miscellaneous fun facts

The year before Wilt arrived, the Warriors were 32-40. In Wilt's first season, they improved to 49-26.

Wilt had the only double triple-double in NBA history: 22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists on February 2, 1968.

Gene Conley was the first man to play pro baseball (11 seasons as a pitcher) and basketball (six seasons, including four with the Celtics). In 1961, he pitched to Roger Maris the year he hit 61 homers and guarded Wilt Chamberlain the year he averaged 50 points.

To all involved in this discussion:

I doubt any of us would deny that Wilt was a great, great offensive player—arguably the greatest offensive machine in the history of pro basketball. But a debate of how Wilt, as a substitute for Russell, would have impacted the Celtics cannot stop with assessing Wilt’s greatness. The other side of the quandary involves the team he would have been joining.

In my mind, it’s as simple as one-two-three:

1. Stylistic Incompatabilities that were Thoroughly Engrained in Wilt: Wilt’s basketball achievements were gained largely through an inherent combination of athleticism and premeditated action. Relatively few of his moves were spontaneous. In the high post, he’d frequently wave the ball around in the air while he made up his mind what to do, and then he’d force it to happen. His mobility was often stiff-legged, to the point where I sometimes wondered if he might have a hip problem. After getting a defensive rebound, he wasn’t an intuitive outlet passer…often waiting a beat or two, as if admiring his rebounding prowess, before passing the ball. In a sense, the deliberate way in which he made many of his moves was a microcosm of the contrived manner in which he decided to lead the league in assists one year and then went ahead and did it. He seemed attracted by the flamboyant as he gravitated toward biting huge chunks out of both basketball and life.

In almost direct contrast with Wilt’s tendencies, the Celtics offense, even before the advent of Russell, was much more a function of smooth teamwork, timing, subtlety, and what I’d call reactionary, collective instinct. They were opportunists….responding intuitively, instantly, and in concert with one another to anticipate and capitalize on openings—tiny or large—that presented themselves. They thought and executed as one, to the extent that some people felt they shared some special sort of ESP. Russ seamlessly enhanced all these aspects of their preexisting playing style, philosophy toward the game, mental approach, and togetherness. (And he accomplished it in the midst of a championship season, no less.) The odds would have been dramatically stacked against Wilt’s doing something similar.

I find it inconceivable that, notwithstanding the entreaties of any coach or teammates, Wilt could ever have achieved anything approaching Russ’ psychic synergy with his teammates—especially with Cousy, the most important teammate of all. Because Cousy had become so much in tune with Red, and because Russ’ and Red’s philosophies were so compatible, the blending of Russ and The Cooz was virtually flawless. And the quote attributed to Cooz (about not waiting for Wilt to drag his damn ass up the floor) could easily have been a precursor to major problems between the two…a key reason for my feeling that Wilt could have been traded, sooner or later, for an exceptional rebounder and good defensive player.

And, as to who that might be, I see no reason why a trade of Wilt wouldn’t have brought in at least two excellent players—for example, Dolph Schayes (age 28, 22.5 PPG, 14.0 RPG in 1956-57) and Red Kerr (age 24, 12.4 PPG, 13.2 RPG in 1956-57, exceptional passing from the center position)—from the Syracuse Nationals. Red might even have squeezed out another incoming player such as the ultra-swift Larry Costello, to share the playmaking duties with The Cooz, since KC probably wouldn’t have become a Celtic without Russ on board as well.

Red would have had the choice of incorporating Schayes and Kerr into the Celtics system; or the Celtics could then have conceivably traded three white (very important to Ben Kerner) guys named Schayes, Kerr, and future Hall-of-Famer southern boy Cliff Hagan to St. Louis for rawboned Bob Pettit (age 24, 24.7 PPG, 14.6 RPG in 1956-57) and possibly another St. Louis player. If Kerner had balked, the Celtics could also have thrown in yet another future Hall-of-Fame southerner, Ed MacAuley (whom Kerner coveted in the Russell deal.) Petit, while a good defender, obviously wouldn’t be the defensive guru Russell was (no one would have); but I think the rest of the team would have rallied around Pettit far better than around Wilt, offering them opportunities to win more championships than with Wilt on the roster.

By the time 1956-57 came around, the Celtics, with Cousy at the operational helm, had evolved into a dangerous and innovative outfit that capitalized on timing, teamwork and speed—practically the opposite of the ponderous approach that seemed to come naturally to Wilt. It had not been an easy evolution, as compromise had been required of both Cousy and Red to make their partnership work smoothly. But, once achieved, the alliance was etched in stone. Cousy’s instinctive, racehorse game could easily have been compromised by Wilt’s native, more deliberate style.

The systemic and attitudinal upheavals that could have been occasioned by the introduction of Wilt’s style to the Celtics of 1956-57 could have gone well beyond the healing abilities of even an Auerbach, because the problem would have involved intrinsic habits more than tactics. It would have been like waving a wand in front of a frog and imploring the croaker to turn into a prince.

Perhaps Wilt’s Celtics mates might have found some way to accommodate his more ponderous approach and to prosper with it. It’s possible—though I believe remotely so in light of the more spontaneous bent of the Celtics supporting cast. Perhaps Red would have assembled a supporting roster more in keeping with Wilt’s method of operation. Who knows? Hey, it’s even possible that Russ and Wilt could have been traded for one another, depending on where Russ would have wound up after college. There are many "what ifs....." and "if onlys....." But what I do know with absolutely no qualification is that the supreme effectiveness of the Celtics’ chemistry with Russ in the mix was never in question and is recorded history rather than hypothetical!

2. Balance between Offensive Superiority and Defensive Superiority: In a more pragmatic vein, Wilt’s forte was offense, while Russ’ was defense. (Rebounding was common ground.) Yes, Wilt could block shots in the low post. But exceptional defense involves far more than blocked shots. I believe Wilt’s defense outside his low post "wheelhouse" is vastly overestimated—especially in a league increasingly populated by great jump-shooters like West, Baylor and Robertson. It was obvious to anyone who saw them play and knew what was going on out there that Wilt didn’t begin to possess the defensive arsenal—in terms of execution, strategies, mobility, versatility, instincts and effort—that Russ embodied. The difference between Russ’ and Wilt’s defensive repertoires—especially as applicable to Red’s Celtics—was anything BUT razor-thin.

For five consecutive seasons prior to Russell’s arrival, the Celtics had led the league in scoring, having pioneered in introducing the merits of fast break basketball to the league even before the 24-second clock had been introduced. And they had the perfect offensive leader—the Houdini of the Hardwood—whose style had evolved so that it was finally in complete harmony with Red’s philosophy.

The Celtics didn’t need more offense or an altered system of offense or an offensive leader. They already had all those things. What they needed (along with the rebounding that either Russ or Wilt or potentially someone else would have provided) was better defense to establish a balance with the offensive juggernaut already established by Cousy and Friends. Bill Russell couldn’t have been more perfectly suited to the role. Far too many conditions and qualifiers would have been required to bring Wilt’s credentials within light years of Russ’. Pettit wouldn’t have filled the need for a defensive stopper either. I never saw anyone other than Russ who could have done so in a way that radiated throughout the entire team.

3. An Issue of Evolutionary Leadership: The league in those days was entering a period of mercurial evolution. Everything was changing, including the way the game was played, the ethnic balance among players (especially stars), the rules of the game, the nature of the playing facilities, and the intrusiveness of the media, just to name a few factors. What is often underemphasized in reflections upon those turbulent times is the importance of strong, stabilizing leadership among impressionable young men not long out of college. Has there ever been a stronger, more stable leader in the ranks of professional basketball players than William Felton Russell? Unlike Wilt, whose focus was more on personal domination, Russ consistently relished the roles of catalyst, rallying point, and unflinching fortress of last resort. The results of his impact on the team were collective confidence, amazing class under pressure, total unselfishness, and a refusal to lose that is still unmatched in the annals of professional sports. In most of these matters, Wilt was in another universe.

In a nutshell……

A seamless, balanced meshing of newfound defensive supremacy with revolutionary offensive power; an essential and indomitable source of stability and leadership in a time of rapid change—all integrated into an atmosphere of egalitarian instinct. Those are just some of the qualities that Bill Russell brought to the Boston Celtics to a degree that Wilt Chamberlain could only have dreamed of—on those rare occasions when Wilt found time to dream at night. Russ added rebounding and scintillating defense—without perpetuating or exacerbating the previous imbalance between the team’s offensive and defensive strengths—to a team that was already leading the league when he arrived in December, 1956.

I’m not in the business of making predictions, and that goes double in any debate as hypothetical as this one. But I feel the sheer number of potential sources of dysfunction between Wilt and the rest of the Celtics raises a strong likelihood of frequent championshipus interruptus had Wilt joined and remained a member of the team. In fact, I believe the alliance of Red, Russell, Cousy, Sam, Havlicek, et al. was arguably an ideal combination of complementary skills, egalitarian teamwork, shared mentality, and year-to-year-to-year will to win that underlay their accomplishments. It seems to me that those who feel the Celts could have done even nearly as well with Wilt as with Russ are counting much too heavily on the force of Wilt’s individual greatness and the ability of Red to circumvent so many of the question marks associated with Wilt. That simply wasn't consistent with the Celtics' approach.

This takes away nothing from Wilt’s greatness. It’s just that, in my opinion, the forms that greatness took would have been at odds with the ingredients that combined to raise the Russell Celtics to perpetual tyranny status.

Sam

This whole thread has been an absolute joy to read. It's the basketball love child of The Algonquin Club and The Manhattan Project.

Thanks to all who made this happen. Thanks to Outside, Spike and Sam in particular.

I never thought I could actually enjoy a basketball off-season period like this so much.

Find me another forum, any sport, that produces this amount of quality writing and amount of bonhommie. The disproportionate ratio of light-to-heat enhances the effect too. One can read an opinion that is at odds with the one you hold and be able to absorb the critique without blind emotion driving the process precisely due to the replacement of charged phrases with substantiated conclusions. In the end, the whole is greater than the sum of the individual posts.

I'm proud to be a member of it.

bob

.

Outside
Great job of putting forth a detailed record of the facts and opinions surrounding the career of Wilt. The information serves to re-enforce my opinion that they both were the Giants of their generation, and to go any further then that is, realing splitting hairs. Let them both stand in the middle of the ring and let the Referee raise their hands high ih the air and call it a draw. Close enough for me.

swish
PS.--- Now take some time off Outside. Rest up and get ready for your next assignment.

Outside, the messages of Beat, the two Bobs and Swish reflect the gratitude of all of us for not only helping us appreciate a true basketball great more fully but also managing to keep the NBA flame flickering in our time of need. Thanks so much for all you contribute to this board and to all of us personally and for echoing E.B. White's reminder that "words still matter."

Sam