Sounds right.
I said this before, but unlike pretty much all the other pre-merger players, Wilt gets the benefit from being an old player. The narrative at the time that led to people believing Russell was better than Wilt has faded away and people today just look at the numbers and conclude that Wilt was better. In 1980, people remembered that Wilt was a selfish player, that he came up short in the clutch, that he killed his coaches and was traded multiple times for pennies on the dollar, etc. All things largely lost to today's surface-level analysts that were more prevalent at the time.
I will risk the wrath of Red Sox fans, but Ted Williams received a simlar rise after he was done playing. Now, I beleive Ted deserved it more than Wilt, since aseball stats are easier to compare and the ability to draw walks has now seen as valuable. But very few would have picked Ted over Dimaggio or Musial while they were playing.
I'd also argue that it's not possible to play baseball in a fundamentally selfish way, so baseball players like Williams shouldn't be penalized to the same extent for being jerks as Wilt should (and apparently was circa 1980). A selfish baseball player can have a negative effect on the clubhouse, and can fail to lay down bunts and run out grounders— but these are marginal things. A baseball player can't strictly pursue individual goals at the cost of team goals— the two things are too bound together.
I l said that in my intial post
I think this comparison understates Russell's impact on Wilt a bit.
As long as we are comparing, it is worth noting that, unlike DiMaggio and Musial, Ted Williams missed 1.5 seasons fighting in Korea as a Marine pilot. For a time he was John Glenn's wingman. On one mission his plane was damaged by enemy fire but he managed to return to base and land it. DiMaggio and Ted both did 3 years of military service during WW II, but like most major leagers who served in WW II did not see combat. Musial only did one year (1945).
It has been reported that a Williams for DiMaggio deal was discussed by the clubs, in part because of the short porch in right field in Yankee stadium (better for LHB Williams) and the Monster (better for RHB DiMaggio; over the years, we have learned that Fenway is a great place for a lefthanded hitter who will hit to the opposite field - Wade Boggs and Fred Lynn are the canonical examples - but that was never Ted who pulled everything). This deal would have been bad for Boston because DiMaggio was older and had fewer peak years remaining when it was discussed. It allegedly fell apart when the Red Sox asked for the Yankees to include a top prospect (Yogi Berra).
Actually, I think there may be some statistical anomalies, aka Simpson's paradox, going on. The same trend, where Wilt was held below his scoring average when matched up against Russell, happened in every season. In Wilt's rookie season, he was held 1.5 ppg below his season average, and that was the lowest margin.
So, I took a deeper look at this matchup. At the malformated table at the end of this, you will see a year-by-year comparison of Wilt's scoring average and FG% for that season and compared to when he was matched up against Russell. Regular season only (playoffs in parens).
| 1960 | 37.6 | 39.1 (30.5) | +1.5 (-7.1) | 46.1% | 46.5% (50%) | +0.4% (+3.9%) |
| 1961 | 38.4 | 35.5 | -2.9 | 50.8% | 49.2% | -1.6% |
| 1962 | 50.4 | 39.7 (33.6) | -10.7 (-16.8) | 50.6% | 46.8% (46.8%) | -3.8% (-3.8%) |
| 1962 | 44.8 | 38.1 | -6.7 | 52.9% | Data n/a | Data n/a |
| 1964 | 36.9 | 29.1 (29.2) | -7.8 (-7.7) | 52.6% | 53% (51.7%) | +0.4% (-0.9%) |
| 1965 | 34.7 | 25.4 (30.1) | -9.7 (-4.6) | 51.2% | 47.3% (55.5%) | -3.9% (+4.3%) |
| 1966 | 33.5 | 28.3 (28.0) | -5.2 (-5.5) | 54% | 47.3% (50.9%) | -6.7% (-3.1%) |
| 1967 | 24.1 | 20.1 (21.6) | -4.0 (-2.5) | 68.3% | 54.1% (55.6%) | -14.2% (-12.7%) |
| 1968 | 24.3 | 17.1 (22.1) | -7.2 (-2.2) | 59.5% | 47.4% (48.7%) | -12.1% (-8.8%) |
| 1969 | 20.5 | 16.3 (11.7) | -4.2 (-8.8) | 58.1% | 50.7% (50%) | -7.4% (-8.15) |
Agree on the rebounding part. I also edited the post to make my overall point a bit more clear. I stand by my point that Russell played Wilt in his prime better than any other opposing center, and it is not particularly close either.
Well Wilt did have a lot more of his own missed/blocked shots to rebound when he played Russell.
Well, you'll get no disagreement from me on that. Wilt steamrolled everyone else. Russell at least provided some resistance to him. All I was ever trying to show is that the idea that somehow Russell "shut down Wilt" - a common refrain I have heard over the decades from Russell fans - is laughably false. He did a better job on Wilt than anyone else, but nobody ever came close to "shutting down Wilt".
I can't tell if this is tongue-in-cheek, but in the off chance it's not...
Well he won the vast majority of the time. But he lost to Russell a lot more than he won against Russell. That's the difference between the two guys - head to head, Wilt's numbers were always better, but Russell got a lot more wins.
The Celtics played at a much higher pace than other teams. If you watch, what there is od old films, Heinsohn, Sharman, Ramsay, even Hacilcek took shots in transition I can only describe as wild. Their idea was to make the pace relentless, and at that time missed shots were a price they were willing to pay. Getting the game spread out and up and down was to their advantage. Despite all his stories about beating Jim Brown in a race, Wilt did not run the floor. He almost refused. He never wanted to come out of the game and he never wanted to foul out. I would be curious about the team rebounding stats of Wilt's team vs the Celtics. I expect the team margin is more dramatic.
In the wacky 61-62 season, the league as a whole averaged 126 possessions per team, per game, with the Celtics (130 possessions) and the Warriors (131 possessions) leading the way. Today, the Rockets lead the NBA with exactly 100 possessions per game. On top of that, nobody could shoot back then, so there were a million missed shots. The Celtics averaged 114 FGA per game, and 76 rpg, both leading the league. There were just so many rebounds to get that it's really hard to put the numbers put up in that era and put them into meaningful context.
That's why you don't really compare those rebounding numbers to TODAY's numbers, but you certainly can compare them to what Wilt did vs. Russell at that time, since they were both playing in those wild and wacky games.
Hard to tell if this is apocryphal, but I remember reading somewhere, that part of Russell’s strategy against Wilt was to ease up and let him get his stats when the Celtics had the game in hand.
This is a fantastic book that deals a lot with Wilt's games against Wilt and their friendship:
Theorizing a tad......But Russell was Physically Outmatched by Wilt (as was everyone.....and most today would be).
That last point was already brought up (perhaps by you), but it really bears repeating. My dad loved Russell more than anyone else in sports and used to tell me stories about him constantly. He had respect for Wilt too, but loved Russell. The way dad used to tell it, Wilt became a completely different guy when he got 4 fouls. He not only stopped playing defense, he'd switch to hooks and fallaways instead of risking an offensive foul, bullying guys towards the goal. Made it much easier to score on and stop Wilt late in games, when the game is being decided.
