Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="MCC, post: 2144158, member: 145"]
This reads well as an opinion piece, but frankly not much fact / data / compelling logic here to support the subtle pro-Wilt thesis you're holding fast to.

1. I'd argue that Mikan was sufficiently dominant to build a strategy around, and the Minn. Lakers won multiple titles as a result.  Players like Arizin, Pettit, et al. were also fairly dominant.  The 1960s Lakers had Baylor, West, Hazzard, Goodrich... who of course faced (and lost to) the Celtics in the Finals several times.  Not sure your historical observation accurately describes the state of the NBA at the time, as it appears the star v. star dynamic wasn't truly the core philosophy of the better teams.

2. Agree with your take on the Celtics.  System prevails over individual (or two man) star power.

3. Projecting Wilt's title total sans Russell is purely hypothetical, and .  The Knicks may have embodied the Celtician system (focus on defense, passing, pace) better than the Lakers once Wilt joined, and won 2 titles to the Lakers' 1 in the early 70s.  In '63 his Warriors couldn't get past the Lakers, so removing the Celtics from the equation wouldn't have gifted him another ring.  Russell et al. were removed from the equation from 1970 - 73, and Wilt's team only took home one title.  If the Celtics hadn't been in the way of Wilt's PHI teams in '65, '66, and '68, could PHI have taken down the Lakers?  I'd be hard pressed to make a case.  In sum, the data doesn't indicate Wilt would've ended up with 5 - 6 rings absent Rusell's Celtics.

Hope this doesn't come across as overly contentious, but rather a set of counterpoints based on available facts / data / logic.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?