“Hmmmmmmm. Russell’s numbers jumped and Wilt’s numbers dipped dramatically when there was money on the line, even though Wilt was routinely his team’s number one scoring option and Russ was number four or five.”
I already knocked over the first part of that quote, but the second part deserves discussion as well. You see, I’ve watched a lot of playoff basketball, and the number one option actually has a hard job. Yes, he’s going to see the ball more, but the defenses are tougher than they are in the regular season, and those defenses are all game-planning to stop that guy. True, sometimes the game plan is to let the primary scorer get his while clamping down on everyone else, but Wilt Chamberlain was double and triple-teamed practically his whole life. I’m only guessing here, but I don’t think playoff teams were letting Wilt get his. (I’m also guessing here that “don’t let the other guys beat you” is a relatively recent strategy) If my conjecture is accurate, then options two, three, and four should have an easier time of things, and I have witnessed this happen in playoff games. One example from my favorite team: Avery Johnson. A left-hander from Louisiana, undersized for his position (sound familiar?), Johnson was basically dared to shoot open jumpers in playoff games.
Simmons seems to think Russell had a tougher job getting his numbers in the playoffs than Chamberlain did because of their respective roles. I think it’s a push because secondary offensive options often end up with open looks that primary scorers don’t usually get.
Let us recall that this Myth #3 is: “Statistically, Wilt crushed Russell”. But just a page and a half into it, Simmons says, “So yeah, by any statistical calculation, Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest season player in NBA history. I concede this fact. For the playoffs? Not so great.”
So why did we do this? Why did Simmons shoehorn this myth into chapter two?
Then, as if out of nowhere, Simmons' breakdown of Myth #3 drifts into strange waters. It was one thing when Russell and Chamberlain were getting all the credit/blame for their teams wins and losses, but at least Simmons was assigning hard data to each man. But starting on paragraph two of page 69 through page 74, Simmons genuflects at the Altar of Anecdotes. Which is baffling, since, wasn't Bill trying to debunk the myth that Wilt crushed Russell statistically?
Here now, your Anecdote Typhoon:
- "…Wilt famously swatted shots like volleyball spikes for dramatic effect, Russell deflected blocks to teammates for instant fast breaks…"
- "Opponents eventually gave up challenging Russell and settled for outside shots…"
- "Boston's scorers…found themselves in the dream situation of worrying about scoring and that's it."
- "[Wilt] wasn't a natural jumper like Russell (emphasis mine)…[and] many opponents learned to time those jumps and float shots over his considerable reach."
- "[Wilt would] stop challenging shots with four or five fouls even if he was hurting his team in the process. I'm not making this up. (Seriously, I'm not making this up.)"
- "In the end, Russell's teams won championships and Wilt's teams lost them."
Here is a list of awesome basketball players who won fewer championships than Wilt Chamberlain:
Neil Johnston, Dolph Schayes, Paul Arizin, Bob Pettit, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Oscar Robertson, Earl Monroe, Elvin Hayes, Bob Lanier, Pete Maravich, Artis Gilmore, Julius Erving, George Gervin, Alex English, Adrian Dantley, Bernard King, Moses Malone, Dominique Wilkins, Clyde Drexler, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Reggie Miller, Allen Iverson
Here is a second list of awesome basketball players who won as many championships as Wilt Chamberlain:
Walt Frazier, Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, Bill Walton, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson
These lists, while not comprehensive, illustrate that while Wilt certainly could have won more championships, achieved a hell of a lot on an individual AND team level.
No comments:
Post a Comment