Greater Playoff Performer - Hakeem vs Shaq vs Kareem vs Wilt

[Duncan21formvp]

How would you rank them in order from best playoff performer to not as good playoff Performer Individually - Hakeem vs Shaq vs Kareem vs Wilt

[ShaqAttack3234]

Can't really choose between Kareem, Shaq and Hakeem. They've all had some of the greatest individual playoff runs in NBA history(Kareem in '74 and '80, Hakeem in '94 and '95 and Shaq in '00 and '01).

Wilt is clearly 4th, IMO. He had the great playoff runs in '67 and in his role, he was great in '72, but just too many failures in the playoffs. I mean he was shut down to 11.7 ppg in the finals by Russell who was in his last season and LA lost as the heavy favorite. He averaged only 13 ppg for those playoffs after averaging 20+ in the season, and the series before, his team choked away a 3-1 lead in the Eastern Division Finals to Boston. And for his career, his scoring averaged dropped almost 8 ppg.

[insidious301]

I don’t see how Wilt can be considered better than Shaq, when Shaq, the most dominant of his era, is/was clearly a better winner than Chamberlain, the most dominant of his. It's a tossup between Kareem and O'neal most definitely.

[jlauber]

Chamberlain faced a HOF center in EVERY post-season he played, and in several cases, two of them. He led FAR inferior teams to near titles. In his highes scoring seasons, he put up 37 ppg and 30 rpg post-seasons. ANd, aside from perhaps the 71-72 WCF's against Kareem, he statistically outplayed EVERY center he faced, EVERY year. As for that 71-72 WCF's, Wilt's performance was hailed as a "decisive" victory over Kareem, despite Kareem's scoring edge.

So, in REALITY, Wilt outplayed virtually every opposing center in the post-season, Kerr, Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, Lucas, Russell, and Kareem...and he faced them in 112 of 160 post-season games.

Not only that, but his TEAMs were outgunned by HOFers in EVERY post-season in which he played. The most HOF teammates he had, at one time, was TWO. He faced TWO teams with SEVEN, and two with SIX, and never LESS than FIVE.

Even in his TWO championship teams, he faced a HOF center TWICE in each post-season (Russell and Thurmond in 66-67, and Kareem and Lucas in 71-72)
AND, he outplayed them ALL. He held Russell to .358 shooting, Thurmond to .343 shooting, Kareem to .457 shooting, and Lucas (the best long-range shooter of his era) to .500 (which is deceptive...he hit 9 of his first 11 shots in the first game...and then 37 of his last 81 (.457.) AND, he outrebounded them all (he absolutely crushed Russell, by a 32-23 margin per game.)

ShaqAttack is quick to point out Wilt's "failures"...FOUR post-season game SEVEN losses, by a TOTAL of NINE points. And, he also suffered another game SEVEN loss, just four months after major knee surgery, in a series in which he outplayed the Finals MVP by a sizeable margin...and was considered the "goat."

AND, Wilt was THE greatest post-season REBOUNDER, in HISTORY. Yes, Russell held a slight edge...BUT, in EVERY H2H post-season series between the two, Wilt outrebounded him. SEVERAL of them were by HUGE margins. Of course, Wilt outrebounded ALL of his post-season opposing centers. Obviously Kareem can't make that claim, since Wilt outrebounded him in the two they met.

ShaqAttack will, of course, point out Wilt's drop in scoring in the post-season...ALTHOUGH, in Wilt's first SIX post-seasons (first SEVEN years), he averaged 33 ppg AND 26 rpg...COMBINED. And while his FG% was lower than his norm...he still outshot the LEAGUE AVERAGE by a solid margin...EVERY season.

Incidently, Kareem CANNOT make that claim...thanks to Wilt and Thurmond...in TWO straight playoffs in 71-72 and 72-73. In fact, Kareem was AWFUL in those two year, at .437 and .428. It was no coincidence that they came against two of three greatest defensive centers in NBA history. Kareem was also CRUSHED by Moses Malone in the 82-83 Finals as well.

In fact, before MAGIC arrived, Kareem was a HUGE disappointment in the post-season. ONE title, in a year in which Chamberlain's top-two HOF teammates were out with injuries...and in which Wilt, one year removed from major knee surgery, and 11 years older, battled him to a statistical draw. The rest of the decade of the 70's, Kareem was a "loser." He had SEVERAL teams that were heavily favored that flopped. He even took a 53-29 Laker team against a 49-33 Blazer team...and was SWEPT. He would suffer another sweep at the hands of Malone's Sixers, as well.

The real question with Kareem has to be...how much did he REALLY contribute to those five Laker titles? He did play brilliantly in the first five games of the '80 Finals. BUT, it was MAGIC, playing withOUT Kareem, in that game six, with his 42-15 game, that led the Lakers to a title. I'll give Kareem the nod in '85. But, how about the '82 Finals? Kareem averaged 18 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 3.8 apg, and shot .531. How about Magic? 16.2 ppg, 10.8 rpg (yes, he outrebounded Kareem...just as he did during the season), 8.0 apg, and shot .533 from the field. AND, it was MAGIC who DOMINATED in '87, and was much more valuable in the '88 Finals.

So, IMHO, Kareem gets credit for six rings, but it was no coincidence that only ONE came BEFORE Magic. And, it was clearly Magic who was the leader in at least three, maybe even FOUR of them. Kareem was a "failure" BEFORE Magic.

Meanwhile, while Shaq led three Laker HEAVILY-FAVORED Laker teams to titles, and was a key piece on another title team,

ShaqAttack fails to point out HIS failures...

He only had ONE Final series, in his CAREER, in which he faced a HOF center...and his team was SWEPT. AND, in FIVE other post-seasons, he led teams to SWEEPING losses. Furthermore, a Kobe miracle shot saved his from still another sweep, with a favored Laker team in the '04 Finals. ONE SHOT away from SEVEN SWEEPS in the post-season.

And, yes, he put up some huge post-season numbers in his 3-peat Finals (arguably the best ever BTW), BUT, he faced the Davis-Smits clods in 99-00, and the centerless Nets in the '02 Finals. In between, he did outplay a good, but certainly not great, Motumbo.


Olajuwon's claim to fame is two titles in three Finals' appearances. In one of them Jordan did not play. That is it. How can ANYONE rate him among the top-4.


So, IMHO,

1. Wilt (he dominated his peers, won two titles, and came within an eyelash of as many as FIVE more titles.)
2. Kareem (he was less dominant, and the beneficiary of MAGIC's brilliance, but who was not involved in SO MANY embarrassing playoff sweeps as Shaq.)
3. Shaq. Great in three post-seasons, against vastly inferior competition, and pretty much embarrassed in MANY of his others.)
4. Olaujwon was great in TWO Finals. That's it.

[PHILA]

Can't really choose between Kareem, Shaq and Hakeem. They've all had some of the greatest individual playoff runs in NBA history(Kareem in '74 and '80, Hakeem in '94 and '95 and Shaq in '00 and '01).

Wilt is clearly 4th, IMO. He had the great playoff runs in '67 and in his role, he was great in '72, but just too many failures in the playoffs. I mean he was shut down to 11.7 ppg in the finals by Russell who was in his last season and LA lost as the heavy favorite. He averaged only 13 ppg for those playoffs after averaging 20+ in the season, and the series before, his team choked away a 3-1 lead in the Eastern Division Finals to Boston. And for his career, his scoring averaged dropped almost 8 ppg.

Thread starter did not (directly) ask for Wilt Chamberlain's perceived playoff failures, but rather who the top performer was of those four centers. At least the 2nd response made some semblance of an attempt to answer the question posed by Michael Jordan fan JordansBulls in this disgraceful thread.

[jlauber]

Thread starter did not (directly) ask for Wilt Chamberlain's perceived playoff failures, but rather who the top performer was of those four centers. At least the 2nd response made some semblance of an attempt to answer the question posed by Michael Jordan fan JordansBulls in this disgraceful thread.

Yeah...I love how ShaqAttack points out Wilt's "failures" (in which Wilt was the most dominant player on the floor in EVERY one of them)...and conveniently ignores Shaq's SIX post-season SWEEPS (and ONE SHOT away from SEVEN). And there were several of his teams that were favored, and were either swept, or were blown-out in five games.)

And, ShaqAttack doesn't mention the ENTIRE DECADE of the 70's, in which Kareem flopped. Nor does he give Magic, who clearly led LA to at least three, and probably ALL five of those titles (after all, Kareem was a "loser" BEFORE Magic...and even AFTER Kareem retired, Magic led LA to 63-19 and 58-24 records...WAY better than anything Kareem accomplished withOUT Magic.)

Of course, Wilt has to have been the most "snake-bit" player in NBA history. Can any other player say they were a handful of plays, or baskets, from FIVE more titles? Not to mention the HUGE injury losses in '67-68; the HORRIBLE coaching, and TWO miraculous shots in 68-69; and the HORRIBLY officiated game five in the '70 Finals.

[Duncan21formvp]

Chamberlain faced a HOF center in EVERY post-season he played, and in several cases, two of them. He led FAR inferior teams to near titles. In his highes scoring seasons, he put up 37 ppg and 30 rpg post-seasons. ANd, aside from perhaps the 71-72 WCF's against Kareem, he statistically outplayed EVERY center he faced, EVERY year. As for that 71-72 WCF's, Wilt's performance was hailed as a "decisive" victory over Kareem, despite Kareem's scoring edge.

So, in REALITY, Wilt outplayed virtually every opposing center in the post-season, Kerr, Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, Lucas, Russell, and Kareem...and he faced them in 112 of 160 post-season games.

Not only that, but his TEAMs were outgunned by HOFers in EVERY post-season in which he played. The most HOF teammates he had, at one time, was TWO. He faced TWO teams with SEVEN, and two with SIX, and never LESS than FIVE.

Even in his TWO championship teams, he faced a HOF center TWICE in each post-season (Russell and Thurmond in 66-67, and Kareem and Lucas in 71-72)
AND, he outplayed them ALL. He held Russell to .358 shooting, Thurmond to .343 shooting, Kareem to .457 shooting, and Lucas (the best long-range shooter of his era) to .500 (which is deceptive...he hit 9 of his first 11 shots in the first game...and then 37 of his last 81 (.457.) AND, he outrebounded them all (he absolutely crushed Russell, by a 32-23 margin per game.)

ShaqAttack is quick to point out Wilt's "failures"...FOUR post-season game SEVEN losses, by a TOTAL of NINE points. And, he also suffered another game SEVEN loss, just four months after major knee surgery, in a series in which he outplayed the Finals MVP by a sizeable margin...and was considered the "goat."

AND, Wilt was THE greatest post-season REBOUNDER, in HISTORY. Yes, Russell held a slight edge...BUT, in EVERY H2H post-season series between the two, Wilt outrebounded him. SEVERAL of them were by HUGE margins. Of course, Wilt outrebounded ALL of his post-season opposing centers. Obviously Kareem can't make that claim, since Wilt outrebounded him in the two they met.

ShaqAttack will, of course, point out Wilt's drop in scoring in the post-season...ALTHOUGH, in Wilt's first SIX post-seasons (first SEVEN years), he averaged 33 ppg AND 26 rpg...COMBINED. And while his FG% was lower than his norm...he still outshot the LEAGUE AVERAGE by a solid margin...EVERY season.

Incidently, Kareem CANNOT make that claim...thanks to Wilt and Thurmond...in TWO straight playoffs in 71-72 and 72-73. In fact, Kareem was AWFUL in those two year, at .437 and .428. It was no coincidence that they came against two of three greatest defensive centers in NBA history. Kareem was also CRUSHED by Moses Malone in the 82-83 Finals as well.

In fact, before MAGIC arrived, Kareem was a HUGE disappointment in the post-season. ONE title, in a year in which Chamberlain's top-two HOF teammates were out with injuries...and in which Wilt, one year removed from major knee surgery, and 11 years older, battled him to a statistical draw. The rest of the decade of the 70's, Kareem was a "loser." He had SEVERAL teams that were heavily favored that flopped. He even took a 53-29 Laker team against a 49-33 Blazer team...and was SWEPT. He would suffer another sweep at the hands of Malone's Sixers, as well.

The real question with Kareem has to be...how much did he REALLY contribute to those five Laker titles? He did play brilliantly in the first five games of the '80 Finals. BUT, it was MAGIC, playing withOUT Kareem, in that game six, with his 42-15 game, that led the Lakers to a title. I'll give Kareem the nod in '85. But, how about the '82 Finals? Kareem averaged 18 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 3.8 apg, and shot .531. How about Magic? 16.2 ppg, 10.8 rpg (yes, he outrebounded Kareem...just as he did during the season), 8.0 apg, and shot .533 from the field. AND, it was MAGIC who DOMINATED in '87, and was much more valuable in the '88 Finals.

So, IMHO, Kareem gets credit for six rings, but it was no coincidence that only ONE came BEFORE Magic. And, it was clearly Magic who was the leader in at least three, maybe even FOUR of them. Kareem was a "failure" BEFORE Magic.

Meanwhile, while Shaq led three Laker HEAVILY-FAVORED Laker teams to titles, and was a key piece on another title team,

ShaqAttack fails to point out HIS failures...

He only had ONE Final series, in his CAREER, in which he faced a HOF center...and his team was SWEPT. AND, in FIVE other post-seasons, he led teams to SWEEPING losses. Furthermore, a Kobe miracle shot saved his from still another sweep, with a favored Laker team in the '04 Finals. ONE SHOT away from SEVEN SWEEPS in the post-season.

And, yes, he put up some huge post-season numbers in his 3-peat Finals (arguably the best ever BTW), BUT, he faced the Davis-Smits clods in 99-00, and the centerless Nets in the '02 Finals. In between, he did outplay a good, but certainly not great, Motumbo.


Olajuwon's claim to fame is two titles in three Finals' appearances. In one of them Jordan did not play. That is it. How can ANYONE rate him among the top-4.


So, IMHO,

1. Wilt (he dominated his peers, won two titles, and came within an eyelash of as many as FIVE more titles.)
2. Kareem (he was less dominant, and the beneficiary of MAGIC's brilliance, but who was not involved in SO MANY embarrassing playoff sweeps as Shaq.)
3. Shaq. Great in three post-seasons, against vastly inferior competition, and pretty much embarrassed in MANY of his others.)
4. Olaujwon was great in TWO Finals. That's it.

How did Wilt dominate his peers when his ppg dropped by 8 ppg? Hakeem's numbers increased from season to playoffs.

[jlauber]

How did Wilt dominate his peers when his ppg dropped by 8 ppg? Hakeem's numbers increased from season to playoffs.

Take a look at how Wilt played against his PEERS, most all of whom were in the HOF. He DOMINATED THEM. I don't give a rats ass about his scoring dropping. His rebounding and defense were the best of his era.

[che guevara]

Another Shaqattack - Jlauber debate brewing. These are always entertaining. In order:

1. Shaq
2. Kareem (very close to Shaq, could even be 1A/1B)
3. Hakeem
4. Wilt

[jlauber]

And of course, when Wilt's scoring drops, it is from 50 ppg BTW. He averaged 33 ppg in his first six post-seasons, with FOUR 50 point games. How many 50 point playoff games did Shaq, Kareem, and Hakeem have?

[jlauber]

Another Shaqattack - Jlauber debate brewing. These are always entertaining. In order:

1. Shaq
2. Kareem (very close to Shaq, could even be 1A/1B)
3. Hakeem
4. Wilt

Ok, I'll bite...

Give me YOUR reasons....

[PHILA]

Rank these playoff performers from best to worst:

Shaquille O'Neal
Hakeem Olajuwon
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Bill Russell

[jlauber]

Rank these playoff performers from best to worst:

Shaquille O'Neal
Hakeem Olajuwon
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Bill Russell

Easy...

1. Russell
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Olajuwon

[PHILA]

Easy...

1. Russell
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Olajuwon
Indeed, would also like to hear other opinions on the matter as well. Is this strictly a discrimination against Chamberlain alone or his contemporaries as well?

[che guevara]

Ok, I'll bite...

Give me YOUR reasons....
Similar reasons to everybody else - his production and efficiency dropped in the playoffs. I'm assuming you're angry that I ranked Wilt last.

[catch24]

Easy...

1. Russell
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Olajuwon

Agreed.

[jlauber]

Similar reasons to everybody else - his production and efficiency dropped in the playoffs. I'm assuming you're angry that I ranked Wilt last.

Wilt's production dropped in the post-season?

Kareem's regular season scoring... 24.6 ppg...post-season...24.3 ppg
Shaq's regular season scoring... 24.1 ppg ...post-season...24.5 ppg

Wilt's regular season scoring 30.1...post-season...22.5 ppg. Of course, he faced Russell in EIGHT of them. Not to mention, that his team did not make the playoffs in his 62-63 season, in a year in which he averaged 44.8 ppg.

FG% Kareem in the regular season...559...post-season....533
Shaq...regular season....581....post-season....563
Wilt...regular season....540....post-season....522

So, they ALL dropped there.

How about rebounding PRODUCTION?

Kareem's regular season average...11.2 rpg (geez, that is awful BTW), and an even worse...10.5 rpg in the post-season.

Shaq's...regular season...11.0 rpg (yes...with NO rebound titles BTW), and 11.7 rpg in the playoffs.

How about Wilt's? 22.9 rpg in the regular season, and 24.5 rpg in the post-season. AND, he led the NBA in rebounding 11 times in the regular season, and EIGHT times in the post-season!

[bokes15]

Wilt's production dropped in the post-season?

Kareem's regular season scoring... 24.6 ppg...post-season...24.3 ppg
Shaq's regular season scoring... 24.1 ppg ...post-season...24.5 ppg

Wilt's regular season scoring 30.1...post-season...22.5 ppg. Of course, he faced Russell in EIGHT of them. Not to mention, that his team did not make the playoffs in his 62-63 season, in a year in which he averaged 44.8 ppg.

How about rebounding PRODUCTION?

Kareem's regular season average...11.2 rpg (geez, that is awful BTW), and an even worse...10.5 rpg in the post-season.

Shaq's...regular season...11.0 rpg (yes...with NO rebound titles BTW), and 11.7 rpg in the playoffs.

How about Wilt's? 22.9 rpg in the regular season, and 24.5 rpg in the post-season. AND, he led the NBA in rebounding 11 times in the regular season, and EIGHT times in the post-season!
My only question for you is, why are you posting so many regular season stats in a post-season performance debate?

[plowking]

I'm surprised. A thread where ISH hasn't overrated the shit out of Hakeem.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Chamberlain faced a HOF center in EVERY post-season he played, and in several cases, two of them. He led FAR inferior teams to near titles. In his highes scoring seasons, he put up 37 ppg and 30 rpg post-seasons. ANd, aside from perhaps the 71-72 WCF's against Kareem, he statistically outplayed EVERY center he faced, EVERY year. As for that 71-72 WCF's, Wilt's performance was hailed as a "decisive" victory over Kareem, despite Kareem's scoring edge.

Uh...the postseason Wilt averaged 37 ppg in was 3 games. He shot just 46% and needed OVER 30 shots to average those 37 ppg.


AND, he outplayed them ALL. He held Russell to .358 shooting, Thurmond to .343 shooting, Kareem to .457 shooting, and Lucas (the best long-range shooter of his era) to .500 (which is deceptive...he hit 9 of his first 11 shots in the first game...and then 37 of his last 81 (.457.) AND, he outrebounded them all (he absolutely crushed Russell, by a 32-23 margin per game.)

Credit to Wilt for outplaying Russell and Thurmond(he did NOT outplay Kareem in the '72 WCF), but in the '67 finals, Wilt averaged what? 17 ppg on 56% shooting? Thurmond held Wilt farther below his season averages than Wilt did to Thurmond.


ShaqAttack is quick to point out Wilt's "failures"...FOUR post-season game SEVEN losses, by a TOTAL of NINE points. And, he also suffered another game SEVEN loss, just four months after major knee surgery, in a series in which he outplayed the Finals MVP by a sizeable margin...and was considered the "goat."

Would Wilt have been in position to lose that game 7 of the '69 finals had he played up to his standard the rest of the series.


ShaqAttack will, of course, point out Wilt's drop in scoring in the post-season...ALTHOUGH, in Wilt's first SIX post-seasons (first SEVEN years), he averaged 33 ppg AND 26 rpg...COMBINED. And while his FG% was lower than his norm...he still outshot the LEAGUE AVERAGE by a solid margin...EVERY season.

Big double standard, you're mentioning league average FG%, but not mentioning league average for scoring, rebounding or the fact that stars playing 44-45+ mpg was the norm in that era.


In fact, before MAGIC arrived, Kareem was a HUGE disappointment in the post-season. ONE title, in a year in which Chamberlain's top-two HOF teammates were out with injuries...and in which Wilt, one year removed from major knee surgery, and 11 years older, battled him to a statistical draw. The rest of the decade of the 70's, Kareem was a "loser." He had SEVERAL teams that were heavily favored that flopped. He even took a 53-29 Laker team against a 49-33 Blazer team...and was SWEPT. He would suffer another sweep at the hands of Malone's Sixers, as well.

Wilt never won before he had a stacked team consisting of hall of famers Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham as well as 7-time all-star Chet Walker and solid players like Wali Jones and former all-star, Luke Jackson. That team was so stacked that Wilt and Chet Walker were tied for 2nd in scoring during the playoffs at 21.7 ppg each. Hal Greer was 1st at 27.7 ppg. That team was far more stacked than Kareem's '71 Bucks.

And when Wilt won his second title....he played with Jerry West who was IMO, the best perimeter player of that era as well as 2nd in MVP voting in '72 and the league leader in assists, Gail Goodrich, who like West, averaged 26 ppg, In fact, Chamberlain was the 4th leading scorer on that team behind Happy Hairston in the regular season and Jim McMillan in the playoffs.

And who cares if Kareem didn't get his second title until 1980? He was still by FAR the best player on the 1980 Lakers and he had one of the most dominant playoff runs of all time. I'd also say he was the best player on the 1982 Lakers as well. Kareem and Magic were probably 1a and 1b by 1985 and Kareem won Finals MVP by averaging 25/9/5 at age 38.

And you love to point out Wilt's "near" titles yet you fail to mention that Kareem carried the Bucks throughout the '74 playoffs by averaging 32/17/5 on 56% shooting in 47 mpg(see what happens when other stars get to play the entire game?). The next 2 highest scorers for Milwaukee in the playoffs averaged Bob Dandridge and Oscar Robertson who COMBINED for only 1 more ppg than Kareem. Those were Milwaukee's only other 2 double digit scorers because their 3rd leading scorer in the regular season, Lucius Allen who had averaged 18/5/4/2 on 50% shooting was out for the playoffs.

In the finals, Kareem dominated averaging 32.6 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 5.4 apg, 15 blks on 97/185 shooting. Oscar averaged just 12/4/8 on 35/81 shooting including a pathetic 2 for 13 game 7. Dandridge and Robertson combined for just 18 points on 9/27 shooting in game 7.

By the way, the finals only went to a 7th game because Kareem had a game-winning sky hook with Milwaukee down 1 in the second overtime of game 6.

In 1977, look at the injuries the Lakers had and guess what? Without Kareem, that Laker team wouldn't have even sniffed the playoffs. He carried them by averaging 35/17/5/4 on 61% shooting in the playoffs. In the playoffs, Lucius Allen was limited by injuries and Kermit Washington didn't play. On a team that wasn't particularly talented aside from their star, that's devastating to have players out like that.


The real question with Kareem has to be...how much did he REALLY contribute to those five Laker titles?

:rolleyes:


Meanwhile, while Shaq led three Laker HEAVILY-FAVORED Laker teams to titles, and was a key piece on another title team

Yet, the Lakers would have lost to Indiana if not for a superhuman series by Shaq. Kobe basically missed 2 games and shot just 37% while averaging several more attempts than points and Kobe only had 1 good game(game 4) and even then, Shaq showed up with 36/20. For a team that relies on 2 stars so much, it's tough to win when you get only 1 good game out of one of their stars, yet Shaq was so good in 2000, he wasn't going to be denied.

And Dale Davis was an all-star in 2000, a double double guy and a tough, physical player. And at 6'10" and 260, he would have been one of the biggest and strongest players in the league in Wilt's era.


He only had ONE Final series, in his CAREER, in which he faced a HOF center...and his team was SWEPT. AND, in FIVE other post-seasons, he led teams to SWEEPING losses. Furthermore, a Kobe miracle shot saved his from still another sweep, with a favored Laker team in the '04 Finals. ONE SHOT away from SEVEN SWEEPS in the post-season.

Orlando was only swept because Nick Anderson(usually a 70% free throw shooter) missed 4 straight free throws, I guess that's Shaq's fault? In fact, Shaq was just 1 assist shy of a triple double in that came and had outplayed Olajuwon in regulation.

Based on watching the series, I will give Olajuwon the edge, but Hakeem was at his absolute peak and Shaq was in his 3rd season and first extended playoff run. Despite that, Shaq's numbers were more impressive than Olajuwon's, he averaged 28/12/6/3 on 60% shooting.

And the 2004 finals? :roll: Had any of his teammates showed up, they wouldn't have lost so easily. Shaq has a 34/11 game 1 on 13/16 shooting and 8/12 from the line and a 36/21 game on 16/21 shooting and they lost both games.

For the series, Shaq averaged 27/11 on 63% shooting, but just 17 shots per game. Kobe averaged 23 ppg, 3 rpg, 4 apg on 38% shooting with 4 turnovers per game while taking as many shots as points and Rip Hamilton went off for 20+ ppg. Gary Payton averaged 4 ppg on 32% shooting while getting lit up by Chauncey Billups for an extremely efficient 20+ ppg. Malone couldn't move due to injuries and averaged 5 ppg on 33% shooting and Sheed had his way with him.

Look at what his teammates did in the '98 WCF, Shaq averaged 32 ppg on 56% shooting, but his teammates were almost as embarrassing as the '04 finals.

Shaq's legit failures(as in losing while playing below his standards) are the '97 WCSF and '99 WCSF. You could say '94 as well, but it was his first playoff series.


And, yes, he put up some huge post-season numbers in his 3-peat Finals (arguably the best ever BTW), BUT, he faced the Davis-Smits clods in 99-00, and the centerless Nets in the '02 Finals. In between, he did outplay a good, but certainly not great, Motumbo.

Mutombo sure was a great defender, 4-time DPOY, 8-time all-star and the DPOY the year Shaq faced him. Plus, Philly were a great defensive team. Go compare the defense in the early 2000s to any 60's game and you'll see the difference.



1. Wilt (he dominated his peers, won two titles, and came within an eyelash of as many as FIVE more titles.)
2. Kareem (he was less dominant, and the beneficiary of MAGIC's brilliance, but who was not involved in SO MANY embarrassing playoff sweeps as Shaq.)
3. Shaq. Great in three post-seasons, against vastly inferior competition, and pretty much embarrassed in MANY of his others.)
4. Olaujwon was great in TWO Finals. That's it.

Do some research, go look up Olajuwon's playoff numbers and look at what Shaq did in the '98, '03 and '04 playoffs.

Despite a huge pace advantage, Wilt averaged fewer ppg than all of them in his postseason career.

[Roundball_Rock]

Most points have already been addressed in this thread but what I find funny is Kareem is being criticized for winning "only" one ring without Magic by a Wilt/Magic fan fan. How many did Wilt win without West? How many did Magic win without Kareem (hint: the number is between -1 and 1)? How many did Jordan win without Pippen? How many did Hakeem win without Drexler? Shaq without Kobe? I suppose Duncan>all of these players because he won two rings without Robinson, who imo was his best teammate, and he won 3 rings with Robinson being a minor factor or retired.



And who cares if Kareem didn't get his second title until 1980? He was still by FAR the best player on the 1980 Lakers and he had one of the most dominant playoff runs of all time. I'd also say he was the best player on the 1982 Lakers as well. Kareem and Magic were probably 1a and 1b by 1985 and Kareem won Finals MVP by averaging 25/9/5 at age 38.

And you love to point out Wilt's "near" titles yet you fail to mention that Kareem carried the Bucks throughout the '74 playoffs by averaging 32/17/5 on 56% shooting in 47 mpg(see what happens when other stars get to play the entire game?). The next 2 highest scorers for Milwaukee in the playoffs averaged Bob Dandridge and Oscar Robertson who COMBINED for only 1 more ppg than Kareem. Those were Milwaukee's only other 2 double digit scorers because their 3rd leading scorer in the regular season, Lucius Allen who had averaged 18/5/4/2 on 50% shooting was out for the playoffs.

In the finals, Kareem dominated averaging 32.6 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 5.4 apg, 15 blks on 97/185 shooting. Oscar averaged just 12/4/8 on 35/81 shooting including a pathetic 2 for 13 game 7. Dandridge and Robertson combined for just 18 points on 9/27 shooting in game 7.

By the way, the finals only went to a 7th game because Kareem had a game-winning sky hook with Milwaukee down 1 in the second overtime of game 6.

In 1977, look at the injuries the Lakers had and guess what? Without Kareem, that Laker team wouldn't have even sniffed the playoffs. He carried them by averaging 35/17/5/4 on 61% shooting in the playoffs. In the playoffs, Lucius Allen was limited by injuries and Kermit Washington didn't play. On a team that wasn't particularly talented aside from their star, that's devastating to have players out like that.



:rolleyes:



Yet, the Lakers would have lost to Indiana if not for a superhuman series by Shaq. Kobe basically missed 2 games and shot just 37% while averaging several more attempts than points and Kobe only had 1 good game(game 4) and even then, Shaq showed up with 36/20. For a team that relies on 2 stars so much, it's tough to win when you get only 1 good game out of one of their stars, yet Shaq was so good in 2000, he wasn't going to be denied.

And Dale Davis was an all-star in 2000, a double double guy and a tough, physical player. And at 6'10" and 260, he would have been one of the biggest and strongest players in the league in Wilt's era.



Orlando was only swept because Nick Anderson(usually a 70% free throw shooter) missed 4 straight free throws, I guess that's Shaq's fault? In fact, Shaq was just 1 assist shy of a triple double in that came and had outplayed Olajuwon in regulation.

Based on watching the series, I will give Olajuwon the edge, but Hakeem was at his absolute peak and Shaq was in his 3rd season and first extended playoff run. Despite that, Shaq's numbers were more impressive than Olajuwon's, he averaged 28/12/6/3 on 60% shooting.

And the 2004 finals? :roll: Had any of his teammates showed up, they wouldn't have lost so easily. Shaq has a 34/11 game 1 on 13/16 shooting and 8/12 from the line and a 36/21 game on 16/21 shooting and they lost both games.

For the series, Shaq averaged 27/11 on 63% shooting, but just 17 shots per game. Kobe averaged 23 ppg, 3 rpg, 4 apg on 38% shooting with 4 turnovers per game while taking as many shots as points and Rip Hamilton went off for 20+ ppg. Gary Payton averaged 4 ppg on 32% shooting while getting lit up by Chauncey Billups for an extremely efficient 20+ ppg. Malone couldn't move due to injuries and averaged 5 ppg on 33% shooting and Sheed had his way with him.

Look at what his teammates did in the '98 WCF, Shaq averaged 32 ppg on 56% shooting, but his teammates were almost as embarrassing as the '04 finals.

Shaq's legit failures(as in losing while playing below his standards) are the '97 WCSF and '99 WCSF. You could say '94 as well, but it was his first playoff series.



Mutombo sure was a great defender, 4-time DPOY, 8-time all-star and the DPOY the year Shaq faced him. Plus, Philly were a great defensive team. Go compare the defense in the early 2000s to any 60's game and you'll see the difference.

:bowdown:

[PHILA]

And Dale Davis was an all-star in 2000, a double double guy and a tough, physical player. And at 6'10" and 260, he would have been one of the biggest and strongest players in the league in Wilt's era.

Was he not "one of the biggest and strongest players" in his own era as well?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Rank these playoff performers from best to worst:

Shaquille O'Neal
Hakeem Olajuwon
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Bill Russell

Russell couldn't dominate a game offensively like the others, I'd put him 4th.


Take a look at how Wilt played against his PEERS, most all of whom were in the HOF. He DOMINATED THEM. I don't give a rats ass about his scoring dropping. His rebounding and defense were the best of his era.

Yeah and look what Olajuwon did to prime David Robinson in the '95 WCF, and I'm not even sure the numbers do this matchup justice.

Hakeem Olajuwon- 35.3 ppg,12.5 rpg, 5.0 apg, 4.1 bpg, 56.0 FG%
David Robinson- 23.8 ppg, 11.3 rpg, 2.7 apg, 2.2 bpg 44.7 FG%

And Ewing in the '94 finals. Go watch the series. Hakeem played great defense baiting Ewing into more and more fadeaways further and further away from the basket. On the other end, he had a gritty offensive series scoring against a great defense despite being fatigued at times from carrying the team.

Hakeem Olajuwon- 26.9 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 3.6 apg, 3.9 bpg, 50.0 FG%, 21.4 FGA
Patrick Ewing- 18.9 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 1.7 apg, 4.3 bpg, 36.4 FG%, 22.9 FGA

[PHILA]

Russell couldn't dominate a game offensively like the others, I'd put him 4th.

No wonder G.O.A.T left this board.. :ohwell:

[ShaqAttack3234]

No wonder G.O.A.T left this board.. :ohwell:

Go watch any of the available games of Russell(and there are a lot more than there are of Wilt in his prime) then go watch some of Olajuwon's playoff games in '94 and '95, 3peat era Shaq or Kareem in '77 and '80 and then tell me my opinion isn't valid.

[jlauber]

By the way, the finals only went to a 7th game because Kareem had a game-winning sky hook with Milwaukee down 1 in the second overtime of game 6.

In 1977, look at the injuries the Lakers had and guess what? Without Kareem, that Laker team wouldn't have even sniffed the playoffs. He carried them by averaging 35/17/5/4 on 61% shooting in the playoffs. In the playoffs, Lucius Allen was limited by injuries and Kermit Washington didn't play. On a team that wasn't particularly talented aside from their star, that's devastating to have players out like that.


And Cowens outplaying Kareem in game seven of the '74 Finals?

Kareem's line....10-21, 26 points, 13 rebounds, 4 assists, 0 blocks
Cowen's...13-25, 28 points, 14 rebounds, 4 asissts, 1 block.

And you are quick to point out the injuries that Kareem's teams suffered (none with a HOFer BTW)...in a SWEEP....while you blast Wilt for "blowing a 3-1 series lead" in a series that began withOUT HOF teammate Billy Cunningham, and was made even worse when Luke Jackson went down in game five. Without all of that, and playing against FOUR HOFers, his TEAM lost a game seven by FOUR points.



Most points have already been addressed in this thread but what I find funny is Kareem is being criticized for winning "only" one ring without Magic by a Wilt/Magic fan fan. How many did Wilt win without West? How many did Magic win without Kareem (hint: the number is between -1 and 1)? How many did Jordan win without Pippen? How many did Hakeem win without Drexler? Shaq without Kobe? I suppose Duncan>all of these players because he won two rings without Robinson, who imo was his best teammate, and he won 3 rings with Robinson being a minor factor or retired.


First of all, Wilt won a title WITHOUT West...and if it had not been for Wilt's DOMINATING play in the '72 post-season, in which West was AWFUL, West would never have won his ONE ring.

Regarding Kareem-Magic...

IMHO, Magic was the LEADER of at LEAST THREE of those titles ('82, '87, and '88), AND, while I agree that Kareem was magnificent in the first five games of the '80 Finals, Magic also had a BRILLIANT SIX games, including one of the greatest Finals' games in NBA history with a 42-15 in game in which Kareem did not play. While I would not have argued against Kareem winning the Finals MVP, I also have to recognize the fact that MAGIC turned Kareem's average-to-good Laker teams of the 70's (they didn't sniff the Finals after Wilt retired...who, BTW, took them to FOUR Finals in his FIVE years)...into CHAMPIONS. It was no coincidence that even AFTER Kareem retired that Magic led LA to records of 63-19 and 58-24...both of which were WAY better than what Kareem achieved on the Lakers BEFORE he arrived.

[chazzy]

No wonder G.O.A.T left this board.. :ohwell:

He's not finishing his GOAT list here?

[PHILA]

He's not finishing his GOAT list here?Has he posted at all as of late?

[PHILA]

Go watch any of the available games of Russell(and there are a lot more than there are of Wilt in his prime) then go watch some of Olajuwon's playoff games in '94 and '95, 3peat era Shaq or Kareem in '77 and '80 and then tell me my opinion isn't valid.
It appears we have a differing creedence on how much one basketball (5 man sport) player can impact a game.

[Roundball_Rock]

First of all, Wilt won a title WITHOUT West..

Yes, and Kareem won a title without Magic. Magic never won without Kareem. Jordan never won without Pippen. Hakeem won only once without Drexler. Shaq won only once without Kobe. Oscar Robertson never won without Kareem. See a trend? Why single Kareem out?


t was no coincidence that even AFTER Kareem retired that Magic led LA to records of 63-19 and 58-24...both of which were WAY better than what Kareem achieved on the Lakers BEFORE he arrived.

Yes, and it is no coincidence Magic did not win a ring in either season. Even if Magic did not get HIV his team was not going to win anything in the rest of the 90's.

[jlauber]

Credit to Wilt for outplaying Russell and Thurmond(he did NOT outplay Kareem in the '72 WCF), but in the '67 finals, Wilt averaged what? 17 ppg on 56% shooting? Thurmond held Wilt farther below his season averages than Wilt did to Thurmond.


I find YOUR take on the Kareem-Wilt '72 WCF's interesting...

Obviously, you did NOT witness that series (while I DID)...but in any case how about a MILWAUKEE sport's writer's perspective on that series...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=167180&page=2

"Kareem’s Image as Best Suffered in Buck Defeat
Bob Wolf
The Milwaukee Journal, April 24, 1972

When the Milwaukee Bucks won the National Basketball Association championship a year ago, there was talk that they had a dynasty in the making.

But their dynasty ended before it really began, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar’s reputation as the greatest center of all time was tarnished in the process.

Abdul-Jabbar failed to outplay either Nate Thurmond of the Golden State Warriors or Wilt Chamberlain of the Los Angeles Lakers in the playoffs, and his inability to contain Chamberlain finally made the difference in the Laker series that ended in disaster at the Arena Saturday

Matter of Muscle

In the first round series with the Warriors, Abdul-Jabbar outrebounded Thurmond 95-89, but was outscored, 127-114. The Bucks won the series, four games to one.

In the semifinal series with the Lakers, Abdul-Jabbar had a tremendous edge in scoring, 202-67, but was outrebounded, 116-105, and was outmuscled by a greater margin than that. He actually reached the point on occasion where he was intimidated by Chamberlain as he headed toward the basket, and who ever heard of the big Buck being intimidated?

The Lakers eliminated the Bucks in six games, and the turning point occurred, with the series tied 2-2, when Chamberlain took advantage of his tremendous advantage in weight and strength and began pushing Abdul-Jabbar around. Wilt is listed at 275 pounds but probably weighs 290, to Abdul-Jabbar’s 230.

Perhaps the best illustration of Abdul-Jabbar’s difficulties lay in his shooting averages. He shot .574 in the regular season but only .437 in the playoffs ― .405 against Thurmond and .457 against Chamberlain.

Because of the strong defensive work of his two veteran rivals, Abdul-Jabbar often was forced away from his favorite shooting positions. He took hook shots from 12 to 15 feet away instead of from 8 to 10, and sometimes he even resorted to 15 foot jump shots.

Keep It Up

As Chamberlain put it after the fifth game in Los Angeles, which the Lakers won, 115-90, “Tonight Kareem was taking jump shots. That’s something he doesn’t usually do, but I hope he keeps on doing it.”

Abdul-Jabbar took more jump shots Saturday as the Lakers ended the series with a 104-100 victory, and Bucks Coach Larry Costello said, “I don’t want Kareem taking 15 footers. You do that and you’re just not playing your game.”

But Chamberlain’s dominating presence obviously had much to do with Abdul-Jabbar’s change in tactics, and Wilt’s performance against the man who supposedly had usurped his title as king of the giants must have been one of the most satisfying of his long career. "

Or perhaps this one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

"In the post-season, the Lakers defeated the Chicago Bulls in a sweep,[85] then went on to face the Milwaukee Bucks of young superstar center and regular-season MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar again. The matchup between Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar was hailed by LIFE magazine as the greatest matchup in all of sports. Chamberlain would help lead the Lakers past Jabbar and the Bucks in 6 games.[85] Particularly, Chamberlain was lauded for his final Game 6 performance, which the Lakers won 106–100 after trailing by 10 points in the fourth quarter: he scored 24 points and 22 rebounds, played a complete 48 minutes and outsprinted the younger Bucks center on several late Lakers fast breaks.[86] Jerry West called it "the greatest ball-busting performance I have ever seen."[86] Chamberlain performed so well in the series that TIME magazine stated, "In the N.B.A.'s western division title series with Milwaukee, he (Chamberlain) decisively outplayed basketball's newest giant superstar, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, eleven years his junior."[87]"

Or maybe this perspective...

http://www.amazon.com/Wilt-Larger-Robert-Allen-Cherry/dp/1572436727

"Thirty years after he retired from basketball, Wilt still owns more NBA records then any player in history. Bill Russell may have won all those championships, but not even Russell was a match for Wilt statisically. Chamberlain almost always outscored and out rebounded Russell in every encounter. Russell no doubt almost always had the better teams. Abdul Jabbar played 20 seasons to Wilts 13, and yet Chamberlain has several thousand more lifetime rebounds. In the twilight of his career, a 35 year old Wilt led the Lakers to victory over the Bucks and a 25 year old Jabbar during the 1972 playoffs. Even more astounding, was wilt blocked 20 shots in two consecutive games in that series, and 11 of those blocked shots were on Kareem. Who the heck ever did that to Jabbar. Makes you wonder what Wilt would have done in his prime. As great as Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson were, none of them had the impact or dominance of Wilt Chamberlain. The rules of the game were altered upon Wilts arrival into the league. Modern day fans talk of Shaq being the greatest center of all-time. Does anyone out there think Shaq could have blocked 11 Kareem shots in two games? Shaq wouldn't have been able to leap high enough to block a skyhook. That statistic alone, should be enough to convince anyone of Wilts athleticism."


That 71-72 WCF series was one of FOUR I believe, in his 13 year playoff CAREER, in which Wilt was outscored by his opposing center. And in the other three, the difference was marginal. AND, I while I have not researched ALL of Wilt's 13 post-seasons, that one was also the ONLY one in which he was outshot from the floor...and that was by a .457 to .452 margin. He outshot Kareem the year before .537 to .500. And in most of those post-seasons, he was WAY ahead of the next guy.

Of course, those that look at the stats will see Kareem's 34-11 ppg edge. BUT, Kareem only shot over 50% in two of those games. He also was shut down in the 4th quarter in several. And, as mentioned above, in the clinching game six win, Wilt just overwhelmed Kareem and the Bucks in the last quarter.

Incidently Wilt outshot Kareem, in their 28 H2H games by a 53-46 margin. In their final season, BTW, in the 72-73 regular season, Kareem shot .450 to Wilt's .637.

Of course, Wilt outrebounded Kareem in that 71-72 WCF's, although to Kareem's credit, it was only by two per game. Incidently, Wilt outrebounded Kareem in their career meetings by a 18.2-17.1 rpg, even though he was well past his prime, and 11 years older.

The best indication that I can give you of what a healthy Wilt could do against Kareem, came in their first meeting in the 69-70 season. Wilt outscored Kareem, 25-23, he outrebounded Kareem, 25-20, he outassisted Kareem, 5-2, he outblocked Kareem, 3-2, and, more significantly, he outshot Kareem, 9-14 to 9-21. Unfortunately, Wilt suffered a devastating knee injury shortly after that, and was never the same again. While Kareem was a rookie, Wilt was already 33, and well past his offensive peak seasons.

But perhaps an even better indication of what a PRIME Wilt would have done, was the H2H comparison between a prime Kareem (Kareem's BEST statistical seasons were in the 70-71, 71-72, and 72-73 seasons) and Thurmond. Thurmond held Kareem to 44% shooting collectively in those three post-seasons (Kareem NEVER shot close to 50%...48.6, 40.5, and 42.8.)

Meanwhile, Wilt shot .536 in his three CAREER post-seasons against Thurmond (and Nate shot .376 against Wilt BTW.) BUT, even more significantly, when Wilt was in his SCORING PRIME (before the 66-67 season) he faced Thurmond a handful of games, and had THREE 30+ point games, including a game in which he outscored Thurmond, 45-13, and another in which he crushed him with a 38 point, 31 rebound game. Of course, Wilt, at his most brilliant, crushed Thurmond in the 66-67 Finals, outscoring him 17.5 - 14.3, outrebounding him, 28.5 -26.7, and outshooting him, .560 to .343.

So, one can only wonder what a PRIME Chamberlain would have done against a prime Kareem?

[Fatal9]

:roll: at this clown's trolling. I mean seriously, this dude hides (and lies) about so much that it's shocking. Like he'll tell you Wilt shot 53% against Thurmond but not that Wilt averaged 12 ppg against him in those series. He'll tell you of Wilt's '67 series against him, but not Kareem's '71 series vs. Thurmond where Kareem averaged 28/16 on 49% vs. Thurmond's 18/10 on 37% (and this is when Thurmond wasn't a twig either like he was in '67).

I debating whether it is worth responding. I've done it before but he comes back with the same crap, using the same out of context shit every time. It's almost overwhelming, because you just know how much he loves Wilt and I can't dedicate the same amount of time like him, because this troll has been known to spam countless message boards with the same essays:

http://www.tourspecgolf.com/forum/t27203.html&pid=149446&mode=threaded

http://actionpcsports.yuku.com/topic/5832 (here he is trolling another message board with his Wilt vs. MJ garbage)

http://actionpcsports.yuku.com/topic/364

It's just so pathetic :oldlol:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Obviously, you did NOT witness that series (while I DID)

Yet you have proven to be irrational fanboy, you proved that with your claims of Wilt's supposed 48" vertical and Kevin Garnett range.


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=167180&page=2

"Kareem’s Image as Best Suffered in Buck Defeat
Bob Wolf
The Milwaukee Journal, April 24, 1972

When the Milwaukee Bucks won the National Basketball Association championship a year ago, there was talk that they had a dynasty in the making.

But their dynasty ended before it really began, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar’s reputation as the greatest center of all time was tarnished in the process.

Abdul-Jabbar failed to outplay either Nate Thurmond of the Golden State Warriors or Wilt Chamberlain of the Los Angeles Lakers in the playoffs, and his inability to contain Chamberlain finally made the difference in the Laker series that ended in disaster at the Arena Saturday

Matter of Muscle

In the first round series with the Warriors, Abdul-Jabbar outrebounded Thurmond 95-89, but was outscored, 127-114. The Bucks won the series, four games to one.

In the semifinal series with the Lakers, Abdul-Jabbar had a tremendous edge in scoring, 202-67, but was outrebounded, 116-105, and was outmuscled by a greater margin than that. He actually reached the point on occasion where he was intimidated by Chamberlain as he headed toward the basket, and who ever heard of the big Buck being intimidated?

The Lakers eliminated the Bucks in six games, and the turning point occurred, with the series tied 2-2, when Chamberlain took advantage of his tremendous advantage in weight and strength and began pushing Abdul-Jabbar around. Wilt is listed at 275 pounds but probably weighs 290, to Abdul-Jabbar’s 230.

Perhaps the best illustration of Abdul-Jabbar’s difficulties lay in his shooting averages. He shot .574 in the regular season but only .437 in the playoffs ― .405 against Thurmond and .457 against Chamberlain.

Because of the strong defensive work of his two veteran rivals, Abdul-Jabbar often was forced away from his favorite shooting positions. He took hook shots from 12 to 15 feet away instead of from 8 to 10, and sometimes he even resorted to 15 foot jump shots.

Keep It Up

As Chamberlain put it after the fifth game in Los Angeles, which the Lakers won, 115-90, “Tonight Kareem was taking jump shots. That’s something he doesn’t usually do, but I hope he keeps on doing it.”

Abdul-Jabbar took more jump shots Saturday as the Lakers ended the series with a 104-100 victory, and Bucks Coach Larry Costello said, “I don’t want Kareem taking 15 footers. You do that and you’re just not playing your game.”

But Chamberlain’s dominating presence obviously had much to do with Abdul-Jabbar’s change in tactics, and Wilt’s performance against the man who supposedly had usurped his title as king of the giants must have been one of the most satisfying of his long career. "

Or perhaps this one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

"In the post-season, the Lakers defeated the Chicago Bulls in a sweep,[85] then went on to face the Milwaukee Bucks of young superstar center and regular-season MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar again. The matchup between Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar was hailed by LIFE magazine as the greatest matchup in all of sports. Chamberlain would help lead the Lakers past Jabbar and the Bucks in 6 games.[85] Particularly, Chamberlain was lauded for his final Game 6 performance, which the Lakers won 106–100 after trailing by 10 points in the fourth quarter: he scored 24 points and 22 rebounds, played a complete 48 minutes and outsprinted the younger Bucks center on several late Lakers fast breaks.[86] Jerry West called it "the greatest ball-busting performance I have ever seen."[86] Chamberlain performed so well in the series that TIME magazine stated, "In the N.B.A.'s western division title series with Milwaukee, he (Chamberlain) decisively outplayed basketball's newest giant superstar, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, eleven years his junior."[87]"

Or maybe this perspective...

http://www.amazon.com/Wilt-Larger-Robert-Allen-Cherry/dp/1572436727

"Thirty years after he retired from basketball, Wilt still owns more NBA records then any player in history. Bill Russell may have won all those championships, but not even Russell was a match for Wilt statisically. Chamberlain almost always outscored and out rebounded Russell in every encounter. Russell no doubt almost always had the better teams. Abdul Jabbar played 20 seasons to Wilts 13, and yet Chamberlain has several thousand more lifetime rebounds. In the twilight of his career, a 35 year old Wilt led the Lakers to victory over the Bucks and a 25 year old Jabbar during the 1972 playoffs. Even more astounding, was wilt blocked 20 shots in two consecutive games in that series, and 11 of those blocked shots were on Kareem. Who the heck ever did that to Jabbar. Makes you wonder what Wilt would have done in his prime. As great as Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson were, none of them had the impact or dominance of Wilt Chamberlain. The rules of the game were altered upon Wilts arrival into the league. Modern day fans talk of Shaq being the greatest center of all-time. Does anyone out there think Shaq could have blocked 11 Kareem shots in two games? Shaq wouldn't have been able to leap high enough to block a skyhook. That statistic alone, should be enough to convince anyone of Wilts athleticism."


That 71-72 WCF series was one of FOUR I believe, in his 13 year playoff CAREER, in which Wilt was outscored by his opposing center. And in the other three, the difference was marginal. AND, I while I have not researched ALL of Wilt's 13 post-seasons, that one was also the ONLY one in which he was outshot from the floor...and that was by a .457 to .452 margin. He outshot Kareem the year before .537 to .500. And in most of those post-seasons, he was WAY ahead of the next guy.

Of course, those that look at the stats will see Kareem's 34-11 ppg edge. BUT, Kareem only shot over 50% in two of those games. He also was shut down in the 4th quarter in several. And, as mentioned above, in the clinching game six win, Wilt just overwhelmed Kareem and the Bucks in the last quarter.

Incidently Wilt outshot Kareem, in their 28 H2H games by a 53-46 margin. In their final season, BTW, in the 72-73 regular season, Kareem shot .450 to Wilt's .637.

Of course, Wilt outrebounded Kareem in that 71-72 WCF's, although to Kareem's credit, it was only by two per game. Incidently, Wilt outrebounded Kareem in their career meetings by a 18.2-17.1 rpg, even though he was well past his prime, and 11 years older.

The best indication that I can give you of what a healthy Wilt could do against Kareem, came in their first meeting in the 69-70 season. Wilt outscored Kareem, 25-23, he outrebounded Kareem, 25-20, he outassisted Kareem, 5-2, he outblocked Kareem, 3-2, and, more significantly, he outshot Kareem, 9-14 to 9-21. Unfortunately, Wilt suffered a devastating knee injury shortly after that, and was never the same again. While Kareem was a rookie, Wilt was already 33, and well past his offensive peak seasons.

But perhaps an even better indication of what a PRIME Wilt would have done, was the H2H comparison between a prime Kareem (Kareem's BEST statistical seasons were in the 70-71, 71-72, and 72-73 seasons) and Thurmond. Thurmond held Kareem to 44% shooting collectively in those three post-seasons (Kareem NEVER shot close to 50%...48.6, 40.5, and 42.8.)

Meanwhile, Wilt shot .536 in his three CAREER post-seasons against Thurmond (and Nate shot .376 against Wilt BTW.) BUT, even more significantly, when Wilt was in his SCORING PRIME (before the 66-67 season) he faced Thurmond a handful of games, and had THREE 30+ point games, including a game in which he outscored Thurmond, 45-13, and another in which he crushed him with a 38 point, 31 rebound game. Of course, Wilt, at his most brilliant, crushed Thurmond in the 66-67 Finals, outscoring him 17.5 - 14.3, outrebounding him, 28.5 -26.7, and outshooting him, .560 to .343.

So, one can only wonder what a PRIME Chamberlain would have done against a prime Kareem?

Let me get this straight, Kareem outscores Wilt 33.7 ppg to 11.2 ppg and Kareem was more efficient, yet Wilt outplayed him? 19.3 rpg to 17.5 rpg isn't a big enough edge.

So when Wilt had better stats than Russell, and Russell won, you claim Wilt outplayed him, yet when it's reversed and Kareem triples Wilt's scoring average on better efficiency, but loses, suddenly Wilt outplays Kareem?

Give Kareem West and Goodrich and guess what would happened.

And Wilt's '67 finals wouldn't rank anywhere near the top in NBA history. Kareem easily bettered it. 17.5 ppg on 56% shooting, particularly in the 60's hardly impresses me. Granted, '67 Wilt was probably a monster, but that series is hardly representative of that.

[jlauber]

Yes, and Kareem won a title without Magic. Magic never won without Kareem. Jordan never won without Pippen. Hakeem won only once without Drexler. Shaq won only once without Kobe. Oscar Robertson never won without Kareem. See a trend? Why single Kareem out?



Yes, and it is no coincidence Magic did not win a ring in either season. Even if Magic did not get HIV his team was not going to win anything in the rest of the 90's.


I'll tell you why...


Can't really choose between Kareem, Shaq and Hakeem. They've all had some of the greatest individual playoff runs in NBA history(Kareem in '74 and '80, Hakeem in '94 and '95 and Shaq in '00 and '01).

Wilt is clearly 4th, IMO. He had the great playoff runs in '67 and in his role, he was great in '72, but just too many failures in the playoffs. I mean he was shut down to 11.7 ppg in the finals by Russell who was in his last season and LA lost as the heavy favorite. He averaged only 13 ppg for those playoffs after averaging 20+ in the season, and the series before, his team choked away a 3-1 lead in the Eastern Division Finals to Boston. And for his career, his scoring averaged dropped almost 8 ppg.

Wilt had "failures"...but ShaqAttack does not mention the MANY "failures" of BOTH Kareem and Shaq. Jeezus, Shaq was involved in SIX sweeps, several on superior teams. Meanwhile, Kareem had a DECADE in which, year-after-year he and his team's flopped.

So, while Wilt was NINE points away from FOUR other titles (and had the officiating not been blatantly anti-Lakers in game five of the '70 Finals...it could have been FIVE)...Kareem and Shaq were getting blown out in MANY of their post-seasons.

And, Kareem gets credit for six rings...THREE of which were as a secondary player...and an argument could be for as many as FOUR.

I am not denying the greatness the Kareem and Shaq...but to just casually dismiss Chamberlain as a "failure", in which he was arguably the BEST player in EVERY post-season in which he played, and in which he outplayed his opposing center in virtually all of them (and DOMINATED them in the majority of them)...well, let's get REAL here.

[jlauber]

Yet you have proven to be irrational fanboy, you proved that with your claims of Wilt's supposed 48" vertical and Kevin Garnett range.



Let me get this straight, Kareem outscores Wilt 33.7 ppg to 11.2 ppg and Kareem was more efficient, yet Wilt outplayed him? 19.3 rpg to 17.5 rpg isn't a big enough edge.

So when Wilt had better stats than Russell, and Russell won, you claim Wilt outplayed him, yet when it's reversed and Kareem triples Wilt's scoring average on better efficiency, but loses, suddenly Wilt outplays Kareem?

Give Kareem West and Goodrich and guess what would happened.

And Wilt's '67 finals wouldn't rank anywhere near the top in NBA history. Kareem easily bettered it. 17.5 ppg on 56% shooting, particularly in the 60's hardly impresses me. Granted, '67 Wilt was probably a monster, but that series is hardly representative of that.

Of course, you look purely at stats...which is interesting since you dismiss Russell as well.

Kareem was repeatedly firing blanks in that series. Chamberlain's misses had FAR less impact. And, Chamberlain's IMPACT on the defensive end went far beyond holding Kareem to 120 points below his FG%. He was blocking shots all over the place, and intimating any Buck player that went into the lane.

As for Wilt's 66-67 season. Go ahead, put Wilt's scoring down.

How about him outscoring Russell 30-14 and outrebounding him 31-25 in the 64-65 ECF's? I don't know what their H2H FG% was , but in game seven, Wilt shot 12-15 to Russell's 7-16. In the 65-66 post-season, Wilt outscored Russell, 28-14, outrebounded him, 30-26, and while I don't know what Russell shot in that series (he shot .475 in his post-season), Wilt shot .509 in that series. In the clinching game five loss, Wilt outscored Russell, 46-18, and outrebounded him, 34-31, and shot 19-34 from the floor. In the 63-64 Finals, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 29-11, and outrebounded him, 27-25. For the playoffs that year, Wilt shot .543, while Russell shot .356.

And, Wilt had monster numbers against Russell in the early 60's, but I agree that Russell neutralized him. Still, Wilt had some HUGE games, including a 50-35 game in game five of the 59-60 ECF's (and in a 128-107 win.)

[jlauber]

:roll: at this clown's trolling. I mean seriously, this dude hides (and lies) about so much that it's shocking. Like he'll tell you Wilt shot 53% against Thurmond but not that Wilt averaged 12 ppg against him in those series. He'll tell you of Wilt's '67 series against him, but not Kareem's '71 series vs. Thurmond where Kareem averaged 28/16 on 49% vs. Thurmond's 18/10 on 37% (and this is when Thurmond wasn't a twig either like he was in '67).

I debating whether it is worth responding. I've done it before but he comes back with the same crap, using the same out of context shit every time. It's almost overwhelming, because you just know how much he loves Wilt and I can't dedicate the same amount of time like him, because this troll has been known to spam countless message boards with the same essays:
http://www.tourspecgolf.com/forum/t27203.html&pid=149446&mode=threaded

http://actionpcsports.yuku.com/topic/5832 (here he is trolling another message board with his Wilt vs. MJ garbage)

http://actionpcsports.yuku.com/topic/364

It's just so pathetic :oldlol:

Interesting...you can't dedicate the time to respond, but you can surf the net for hours to find my posts.

Regarding the Thurmond-Wilt H2H's...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=170340&page=6

Regarding Wilt-Thurmond matchups from 66-67 thru 68-69...I can't verify which games Thurmond played in, but here are his 20+ point games...

http://www.apbr.org/wilt.html

11/4/66 30 points
11/24/66 27 points
2/4/67 23 points
3/2/67 24 points
3/14/67 21 points
4/18/67 26 points (Finals)
4/24/67 24 points (Finals...clinching win.)

1/19/68 20 points
2/27/68 33 points

2/2/69 23 points
3/31/69 22 points (playoffs)

Hopefully you (or someone) can post their H2H games between 64-65 thru 65-66. Obviously, Wilt cut back his shooting after that 65-66 season, so the games from 66-67 to the end of his career are not a real reflection of what he was capable of putting up.

Of which Julizaver responded...

"I try some google searching - it seems that Wilt's high scoring game against Nate is from 1965-66 season - 45 points against 13 for Thurmond.
There is a game from that season in which Wilt scored 62 points and grabbed 37 rebounds against Warriors, but Nate was missing with back injury."

BTW...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_NBA_players_have_scored_30_points_and_grabbe d_30_rebounds_in_one_game

Wilt had a 38-31 game against the Warriors on 11-27-65, and a 33-30 game against them on 12-26-65. Thurmond missed three games that year. I do believe that someone verified the 38-31 game, though.

[ShaqAttack3234]

It's funny, you say what else has Olajuwon done in the playoffs besides 2 titles? Hmmm, monster playoff performances like 49/24/6 in a game 7 vs Seattle in '87. Or how about '86? You love to prop up Olajuwon's finals series to diminish Bird's career(by saying Bird wasn't the best player in the series, which is laughable) yet you forget that now?

Credit to Fatal9, for this great information.

I've heard your excuse for Wilt choking away a 3-1 lead in '68, you cite Cunningham's injury yet ignore game 6 where he had more than enough help. Greer had 40 points, Wilt only 20 on 8/23 from the foul line.

And that 56 point in the '62 playoffs came on 22/48 from the field(45.8%) and 12/22 from the line(54.5%). 59 possessions to score 56 points? Yeah, I'm really impressed.

And you defend Wilt for losing in '66, yet he averaged 23 ppg on 48% shooting the first 4 games, yes he had a monster game 5, but at that point, the damage was done.

And you conveniently forget Oscar's injury in '72. Not to mention, Kareem outplayed Thurmond in '71.

And since when was I a Jordan hater or Kobe homer, Abe? By the way...Dale Davis>>>>Luke Jackson.

[jlauber]

It's funny, you say what else has Olajuwon done in the playoffs besides 2 titles? Hmmm, monster playoff performances like 49/24/6 in a game 7 vs Seattle in '87. Or how about '86? You love to prop up Olajuwon's finals series to diminish Bird's career(by saying Bird wasn't the best player in the series, which is laughable) yet you forget that now?

Credit to Fatal9, for this great information.

I've heard your excuse for Wilt choking away a 3-1 lead in '68, you cite Cunningham's injury yet ignore game 6 where he had more than enough help. Greer had 40 points, Wilt only 20 on 8/23 from the foul line.

And that 56 point in the '62 playoffs came on 22/48 from the field(45.8%) and 12/22 from the line(54.5%). 59 possessions to score 56 points? Yeah, I'm really impressed.

And you defend Wilt for losing in '66, yet he averaged 23 ppg on 48% shooting the first 4 games, yes he had a monster game 5, but at that point, the damage was done.

And you conveniently forget Oscar's injury in '72. Not to mention, Kareem outplayed Thurmond in '71.

And since when was I a Jordan hater or Kobe homer, Abe? By the way...Dale Davis>>>>Luke Jackson.


Wilt had FOUR 40-30 games in the post-season...against Russell. He had 30-30 series...against Russell. He had a 24-32-13-12 game in game one of the 67 ECF's, and in game three he grabbed a playoff record 41 rebounds. In the clinching game five blowout win of that series, he had a 29-36-13 game (on 10-16 shooting), including 22 points in the first half...while Russell put up a 4 pt, 21 rebound game, on 2-5 shooting.

When he faced the few non-HOFers in the playoffs he put up a 38-26 .521series against 4-time all-star Zelmo Beatty in '64, and a 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, .612 series against Dierking in the '67 playoffs, including a then-record 19 assist game in game three (along with 16 points and 30 rebounds.)

He dominated the Knick front-court of Reed and Bellamy in the '68 EC playoffs...leading both teams in scoring, rebounding, AND assists.

I could go on for hours....

[PHILA]

And since when was I a Jordan hater or Kobe homer, Abe?
Are you an insecure uneducated bigot of an NBA fan, just like the rest of these fools? Any man with sense would know you were not the one implicated in that statement. Apparently not before your irrelevant response here that I have just had the misfortune of entertaining. It may be a very difficult pill to swallow for most, but the reality is the athletes of the 60's could play the game of basketball.

By the way...Dale Davis>>>>Luke Jackson.You wish.

[ShaqAttack3234]

You wish.

You've seen what? Half of a game of Luke Jackson? davis put up better numbers despite playing a on a team that probably averaged something like 30 fewer possessions per game.

By the way, JLauber, I forgot to mention....you talk about Shaq's sweeps, but fail to mention Wilt get swept by a 38 win Nationals team in '61 while shooting 47%.

[PHILA]

You've seen what? Half of a game of Luke Jackson? davis put up better numbers despite playing a on a team that probably averaged something like 30 fewer possessions per game.

Luke Jackson sacrificed his individual talents and game moreso than anyone on the Sixers, for the good of the team. Several teammates have called him "the key" to that team's success.

In that game 4 footage we have, Jackson showed his capabilities finishing with 29 points and nearly 20 boards in my estimation (not sure) as the rest of the team came out flat.

[Fatal9]

I've heard your excuse for Wilt choking away a 3-1 lead in '68, you cite Cunningham's injury yet ignore game 6 where he had more than enough help. Greer had 40 points, Wilt only 20 on 8/23 from the foul line.
Not only did Wilt blow that game at the line, while Greer carried the team with 40 pts, but he got severely outplayed by a 34 year old Russell, he also had the bizzare second half in the game 7. Everyone, fans, players and even his coach was bewildered at why Wilt shot so little. Are you telling me if Wilt calls for the ball, no one would get it to him?

Here's the AP news recap of the game, titled "Wilt's Failure to Shoot a Puzzle"

http://i49.tinypic.com/208cz0j.jpg

Who does this in a close game 7 on their own homecourt? Wilt became the first guy to ever blow a 3-1 lead in NBA history and only two teams have ever blown it while having HCA ('95 Suns the other).

And as you mentioned the huge drop in Wilt's production in '66 while AGAIN having HCA vs. Celtics, and nearly the identical stacked team as '67. Even in his monster game 5, where he had 46 points, he blew the game with one of the worst FT performances ever as he shot 8/25 from the line.

And in '61 he got swept to a 38 win team while shooting 46.9% (apparently when Kareem shoots this poorly, he is getting outplayed :oldlol:). And then the '69 series where he did little offensively and lost with a heavily favored team/situation (again). There's those horrible losing seasons he had with the Warriors ('63 and '65). There's the pathetic image of him statpadding in blowouts, playing 48 minutes in games when his team is down by 30. I mean it just goes on and on. This guy is clearly behind Kareem, Shaq and Hakeem, and it isn't even debatable. The more you look at his career year by year, the more magnified his failures become.


By the way, JLauber, I forgot to mention....you talk about Shaq's sweeps, but fail to mention Wilt get swept by a 38 win Nationals team in '61 while shooting 47%.
Yea, but 6'9, 230 lb Red Kerr would lock down Shaq too.

[jlauber]

You've seen what? Half of a game of Luke Jackson? davis put up better numbers despite playing a on a team that probably averaged something like 30 fewer possessions per game.

By the way, JLauber, I forgot to mention....you talk about Shaq's sweeps, but fail to mention Wilt get swept by a 38 win Nationals team in '61 while shooting 47%.

Yep, it was WILT's fault, and not his putrid roster's, why his team lost 3-0...after all, Wilt averaged 37 ppg, grabbed 23 rpg, and yes, shot .469 in a league that averaged .415 shooting.

Shaq's teams were swept SIX times...nearly SEVEN. And no, it was hardly Shaq's fault, either...BUT, you and the idiotic Fatal harp on Chamberlain's "failures", DESPITE the FACT that he was OVERWHELMING his opposing centers in almost EVERY post-season series in which he played, and was probably the best all-around player in EVERY series in which he played.

I mentioned this before, but it just shows how much Wilt dominated his peers. He was outscored by opposing centers in FIVE of his 29 playoff series, and FOUR of them were marginal (and none in any of his "scoring" seasons.) He was only out-shot, that I could find, in ONE, and that was by a .457 to .452 margin. AND, I could not find ONE post-season series, in which he was outrebounded. And in the MANY of those playoff series, he absolutely CRUSHED his opposing centers in some or ALL of those categories. And had blocked shots been kept, he probably would have had a HUGE edge there, as well.

To diminish what he accomplished, by listing his "failures", some of which were actually amazing losses ('62 and '65 for sure), and then to forget to mention the MANY playoff "failures" of Shaq and Kareem, is just unacceptable. My god, Kareem was outplayed in SEVERAL...even in his PRIME. And, while I will agree that Shaq dominated most of his peers (until late in his career), you can't ignore the fact that his team FLOPPED MANY times. You jump all over Wilt for losing FOUR series by a razor-thin margin (and with a myriad of LEGITIMATE excuses), but don't acknowledge that MANY of Shaq's teams were completely wiped out.

And, Kareem, not only was a HUGE disappointment in the DECADE of the 70's...he was probably only the KEY reason that his team's won six rings, in 2-3 of them in the 80's. Same with Shaq. I'll give him three, but Wade was clearly the main cog in the other.

You say West was the reason that LA won in '72. PLEASE. LA won DESPITE his playoff performances that season. Wilt won the Finals MVP...and CLEARLY, he deserved it. West shot poorly in EVERY series that post-season, and finished at .376. AND, in the cliching wins over Milwaukee and New York, it was WILT who DOMINATED those games.

So, let's at least be fair here. I have ALWAYS acknowledged Kareem's and Shaq's brilliance. BUT, Wilt was EVERY BIT as dominant.

[jlauber]

Who does this in a close game 7 on their own homecourt? Wilt became the first guy to ever blow a 3-1 lead in NBA history and only two teams have ever blown it while having HCA ('95 Suns the other).

And as you mentioned the huge drop in Wilt's production in '66 while AGAIN having HCA vs. Celtics, and nearly the identical stacked team as '67. Even in his monster game 5, where he had 46 points, he blew the game with one of the worst FT performances ever as he shot 8/25 from the line.

And in '61 he got swept to a 38 win team while shooting 46.9% (apparently when Kareem shoots this poorly, he is getting outplayed ). And then the '69 series where he did little offensively and lost with a heavily favored team/situation (again). There's those horrible losing seasons he had with the Warriors ('63 and '65). There's the pathetic image of him statpadding in blowouts, playing 48 minutes in games when his team is down by 30. I mean it just goes on and on. This guy is clearly behind Kareem, Shaq and Hakeem, and it isn't even debatable. The more you look at his career year by year, the more magnified his failures become.



A HUGE drop in production in '66? 28 ppg (he averaged 33.5 during the regular season), 30.2 rpg, (he averaged 24.6 rpg during the regular season), and shot .509 (he shot .540 during the season)...all against a center who is widely regarded as the greatest defensive center of all-time.

Regarding that game seven of the '68 ECF's...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"What followed was the first of three consecutive controversial and painful Game 7s which Wilt Chamberlain played. In that Game 7, the Sixers could not get their act together: 15,202 stunned Philadelphia fans witnessed a historic 96

[catch24]

Yes, and Kareem won a title without Magic. Magic never won without Kareem. Jordan never won without Pippen. Hakeem won only once without Drexler. Shaq won only once without Kobe. Oscar Robertson never won without Kareem. See a trend? Why single Kareem out?

It's like this for every top 10 player. No one is an exception so why would Lauber use that as an example? :confusedshrug:

[PHILA]

To directly quote AirJudden:


Personal Tribute

I have often lamented about people's lack of ability to think, especially the media. It's easier to shove people into boxes and slap a label on it, rather than consider that people are complex, 3-dimensional people of feelings and interests.

I believe Wilt Chamberlain portrayed this as well as anyone. As I read tribute after tribute, I read the same things: 100, 20,000, "only" 2 championships, and braggart. Every single tribute brought up the infamous 20,000 line from Wilt's book A View from Above. What I didn't see was Wilt's line in the same book that it is far better for a man to make love to the same woman 1,000 times than to make love to 1,000 different women. No where did I see that Wilt was one of the most outspoken supporters of women's sports, which was mentioned in the same book!!

What I find more odd is how the press condemned him for this. Yet, this same press didn't fuss over the infidelity of the President of the United States. They said it was his personal life and didn't affect his job. Well, how did Wilt's sexuality (and I might add, he wasn't cheating on a spouse) affect his basketball career or his charitable works? Wilt pointed out that he was a child of the sixties and that during the era of free love, it wasn't difficult for a young, wealthy, attractive male with a hopping libido to find company with the opposite sex. How can the press condemn Wilt while they mock anyone who suggests that people use moral responsibility (remember Dan Quayle/Murphy Brown, or how about Bob Dole vs. Hollywood)? Why doesn't the press condemn the promiscuity on TV? How many of those press have slept around? How are they different?

I think the 20,000 resentment comes from jealousy. Personally, I don't agree with the promiscuity, but I also realize that just because I don't agree with it, doesn't mean I can't appreciate Wilt Chamberlain's career and his life. I know Wilt's life consisted of more than basketball greatness and sexual exploits. He was a intelligent and witty man. He was a connoisseur of culture and fine dining. He was a man who made friendships regardless or race and refused to bow to the expectations of others. He was his own man and thought for himself. He didn't fear his notoriety, and he didn't try to say what was popular, but what he believed.

I also was angered by the constant references to his career being disappointing because he "only" won 2 championships. Last time I looked this is 2 more than Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Grant Hill, Pete Maravich, Patrick Ewing, Dave Bing, and John Stockton put TOGETHER. This is more than David Robinson, Rick Barry, Wes Unseld, Julius Erving, Bob Petitt, Earl Monroe, Dolph Schayes, Oscar Robertson, and Clyde Drexler. This is as many as Hakeem Olajuwon, Joe Dumars, Isiah Thomas, Bill Walton, Walt Frazier, Bill Bradley, and Willis Reed. Now, how many times have you heard Bradley, Reed, and the rest of the early 70s Knicks referred to as "losers?" (hey, they lost to the 1969 Celtics, as well!) When Hakeem Olajuwon won his second championship, I saw magazines putting him in a class with Russell, Wilt, and Kareem (now that the hype is gone, history has shown us otherwise). Isiah Thomas was supposed to the have the heart of a winner, and Bill Walton loves to talk about the glory of winning above all, but these 2 guys have as many rings as Wilt. Isn't this odd, when you look at it like that?

I have heard proponents say, "Well, he's so good, he should win more titles!" So, is Barry Sanders not a great running back? Is he not as good as Franco Harris? Was Willie Mays worse than Mickey Mantle because he only won 1 ring? Is Derek Jeter better than Alex Rodriguez? Is Luc Longley better than Patrick Ewing? Teams win games. One man does not win games. Michael Jordan had a losing record without Scottie Pippen. Kareem won 5 MVP's in his first 10 seasons, but only 1 ring (and he has 2 losing records in there), before he joined Magic Johnson. Magic Johnson never won a championship without Kareem. Dr. J couldn't win a championship until he played with a great center. Until you can say with all certainty, "Bill Russell would have won 5 titles between 1960-64 playing on the San Francisco/Philadelphia Warriors in place of Wilt," then any argument that he was better than Wilt falls apart.

Wilt played all aspects of the game to their highest level. He was the dominating rebounder every year. Early in his career, he played on teams lacking offense, so he scored better than anyone ever has. In the middle of his career, he played with more talented teams, so he passed more and took higher percentage shots. In the latter part of his career, he shut down opponents on defense and started the fast breaks. He did any role that was asked of him. He didn't bellyache to the press about it (compare this to Michael Jordan when Phil Jackson first implemented the triangle offense, or Magic Johnson under Paul Westhead in 1981, or Larry Bird playing "point forward" in 1990). Wilt did his part to help his teams win. If everyone did their role as well as Wilt did his, his teams may never have lost a game.

I read an interesting quote that I believe sums it up: because Wilt was so great, the press raised the bar to unbelievable heights that even Wilt couldn't achieve. This is no fault of Wilt's. This is the fault of others. To Wilt's credit, he didn't cry about this, like so many athletes today do. He did his job, let the chips fall where they may, and enjoyed life.

Was Wilt a braggart or was he confident? He said he could average 70 PPG against today's centers. Many say he's an unbelievable braggart. You could say that this is a condemnation of how watered down the quality of competition is today and how much stronger Wilt's opponents were. The fact that he didn't average 70 on them is saying that he believes that they were better. Toss in all the rules that favor offenses and limit defenses since Wilt retired, along with the overabundance of slow, stiff 7-foot centers, and I believe Wilt would dominate today's players. A strong 7-foot man, with high-jumping ability is a great athlete no matter who he is playing against.

Is Wilt a braggart? Is Michael Jordan a braggart? He said that when he has the ball that you are at his mercy. Many would say, "that is just stating facts." How is Wilt any different? His claims of dominance have been proven, so why is it bragging? Is it bragging when Bill Russell said year after year that he's the greatest center of all time? Whatever you believe, it is true for all of them, yet it is odd that press painted Wilt out one way and not Jordan. When Jordan boasts, it is his "competitive nature." Wilt was supremely confident in his abilities. Like it or not, that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Was he perfect? No. But he was far more than just the man who scored 100 points in a game and had more sexual encounters than most people. There was much, much more to the man, and I was saddened that the newspapers and TV reports failed to do the man justice. It seemed like the reporters just couldn't resist the chance to get one more "dig" on Wilt. That is nearly as tragic as his passing. Wilt once said that "nobody cheers for Goliath." But I hope he knew that there were quite a few of us who recognized his accomplishments on the court, and more importantly, off of it.

[PHILA]

LOSERS ONE AND ALL!

Using the logic (or lack of) by people who bash Wilt, I will now present a group of losers. This is a lesson in absurdity, as I can also take selected facts--often presented by fans of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, modern NBA fans who know nothing of the NBA before 1991, or fans of the Boston Celtics who will say anything, true or false, to make their own guys look good--and I can draw the same conclusion.

Once again, I do not believe these conclusions. This is a lesson in absurdity, so that people may finally realize that one man does not win championships. It's about time our society realizes that basketball, football, and baseball are *TEAM* sports. If they want to equate championships with individual greatness, let them watch Pro Wrestling or golf.



The List of Losers:
Larry Bird
Hakeem Olajuwon
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Michael Jordan

Larry Bird is a Loser
[I]

If Bill Russell is better than Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson is better than Larry Bird.

I suppose the very thought of this makes Celtic loyalist cringe. Well, good--let them cringe. Although Wilt did nearly every facet of the game better than Russell, Russell is considered by many to be better because his TEAMS won. So even though, he couldn

[PHILA]

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a Loser








How can I dare call a guy with 6 NBA rings a loser? Follow closely.

Kareem only won championships when he had one of the 2 finest point guards in NBA history (Oscar Robertson or Magic Johnson) playing with him. Anything less and it's cough, cough!

In 1970, Kareem joined the NBA and lead his team to an impressive 56-26 record. However, they were quickly dismissed by the New York Knicks, 4-1, in the playoffs. The same team took on Wilt's Lakers in the finals and needed 7 games to win. Yes, some will whine that Willis Reed was injured, but before the Reed injury, the series was tied 2-2, which is one more win than Kareem had against Reed.

The following year, Kareem's Bucks acquired Oscar Robertson. They improved to 66-16 and won the NBA title. Along the way, they played Wilt's Lakers who were playing without Jerry West and Elgin Baylor and even without this help, the Bucks blew a game, winning that series 4-1.

The year after, Kareem's Bucks failed to defend their title as Wilt's 69-13 Lakers efficiently removed the 63-19 Bucks 4-2.

The next year gives us a big glimpse into Kareem the loser: The Bucks finished 60-22 as did the Lakers. The Bucks got home court advantage and choked in the first round of the playoffs, losing to 47-35 Golden State, 4-2. Golden State advanced to the 2nd round, where Wilt's Lakers quickly mopped them up, 4-1.

The following year, Wilt retired and Kareem's Bucks made the finals, where they once again blew it to a team with a lesser record, the Boston Celtics, and their giant of a center, Dave Cowens ... all 6'9" of him and giving up 5 inches of height to Kareem.

The following year, Oscar Robertson retired, and without the all-world point guard to lead them, Kareem led them to a 38-44 record as the Bucks failed to make the playoffs.

During the off season, Kareem bellyached enough, that the Bucks traded him to the Lakers. However, the Lakers didn't have an all-world point guard. They did have Gail Goodrich, the hall of fame shooting guard who went to the finals twice with Wilt earlier in the decade. However, that was not enough, as Kareem led his team to a 2nd consecutive losing record (40-42) and a 2nd consecutive failed playoff appearance.

The next year, the Lakers got stronger. They finished 53-29 and won their division. After a long absence, Kareem led them back into the playoffs. However, without that all-world point guard, we saw yet another choke from the great one, as he led his Lakers to a swift 0-4 exit in the conference finals to 2nd place finishers Portland, as Bill Walton personally kicked Kareem's butt up one side of the court and down the other.

The next 2 years, we saw more mediocrity from Kareem's teams as they failed to even make the conference finals, getting defeated by Seattle in the first round (2-1) in 1978 and the 2nd round (4-1) in 1979. During these 2 regular seasons, mighty Kareem led his team to a 4th and a 3rd place finish in the 5 team Pacific division.

So far, we have looked at Kareem's first 10 years. These should be his productive "prime", and they were: Kareem won 5 MVPs in these 10 years. He won 2 scoring titles and 1 rebounding title and once league in field goal percentage once (very mild when using Wilt as your measuring stick). Because he didn't have Bill Russell to contend with, and the ABA was taking a lot of talent, making Kareem a big fish in a small pond, he was able to win 5 MVPs with these sub-Wilt performances. Still, with the talent diluted by the ABA, you would think the great Kareem would have more than 1 title. Here is a conclusion of Wilt and Kareem's first 10 years:







http://i47.tinypic.com/35cfkwh.jpg




Now for the 1979-80 season. What happened? Magic Johnson happened! Kareem once again had that all-world point guard, which was good, since Kareem evidently wasn't able to lead the team. Magic stepped in and quickly led the Lakers to their first title since Wilt--something Kareem had failed to do in the previous 4 seasons. That very year, Magic led his team to the title, winning on the road, while Kareem was at home with a sprained ankle, proving how indispensable he was! You would think Kareem would be happy with winning, like Russell, right? Wrong. In both of Kareem's first 2 books, he bellyaches about not winning the MVP of the finals -- maybe because he wasn't that valuable...ya think? I mean, it wasn't like he pulled a Willis Reed and hobbled out on the court and inspired them to victory. He didn't even make the road trip!

From there on, Kareem never won another MVP, never led the league in any category and when the Lakers won the last 2 titles out of their 5, Kareem wasn't even the first option on offense. After Kareem led the Lakers to a choke against the Rockets in 1986, Pat Riley changed the Lakers offense and made Magic the first option on offense and decreased Kareem's role. The result was 2 consecutive titles -- something that hadn't been done since 1969! In his final year, Kareem proved what he had all during his career: without the all-world point guard (Magic was out with a pulled hamstring), Kareem led the Lakers to a 4 game sweep at the hands of the Pistons. Injuries to teammates were not a sufficient excuse for Wilt in 1968 and 1971, therefore, they are not sufficient for Kareem in 1989.

Kareem's teams were only as good as their point guard, not their center. That is why the year after Kareem retired, the Lakers improved 6 games and finished with the best record in the NBA and were back in the finals 2 years later, whereas when Wilt retired, the Lakers lost 13 more games than they had in Wilt's final season and never made the finals until Magic joined the team, despite 4 years with Kareem on the team.

Therefore, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is also a loser.




















Michael Jordan is a Loser





During Michael Jordan's first season, the Bulls improved 11 games, from 27-55 to 38-44, which is still a losing record. Jordan averaged 28.2 PPG, .515 FG%, 6.5 rag, 5.9 APG, and 2.4 steals/game. It is obvious that his whopping stats do not equate into wins and if he was more interested in winning than his own personal stats, the Bulls would have won more games. (Perhaps if he didn't score so much, or if he shot a lower percentage, or didn't grab as many rebounds!).

This argument was said about Wilt when Wilt was with the Warriors, so it also applies to Jordan, who is hailed by the modern press as the "greatest player of all time!" During Jordan's first 4 seasons, the Bulls were 1-9 in the playoffs, even though Jordan had teammates like Charles Oakley (2nd in the league in rebounds) and George Gervin (top 50 of all time). Jordan scored 63 against the Celtics in a 1986 playoff game, however, they lost to the Celtics, so Jordan wasn't as good as Larry Bird, who I have already proven is a loser. Jordan was 0-6 against Loser Bird in the playoffs in his career. Jordan had the stats. Bird had the wins (but he went on to lose to Magic, because he was also a loser). Also, on that day that Jordan had 63, he missed the potential game-winner at the end of regulation. He just can't rise to the occasion, he just wanted stats.

As a matter of fact, Michael Jordan never escaped the first round of the playoffs until Scottie Pippen joined the team, so the glory can be given to Pippen, who is 6-4 without Jordan in the playoffs (whereas Jordan is 2-9 without Pippen). Even after Pippen joined, Jordan was proving his inferiority to Joe Dumars by losing to the Pistons 3 consecutive years in the playoffs. Sure, Jordan was scoring a ton of points, but Dumars had the win, so just like Bill Russell, he was dominating Jordan, and proving his superiority. Only when Pippen developed and the league watered itself down, were the Bulls able to win a title.

Sure, Jordan has 6 titles, but he wasn't important to the success of the team. When he retired, the team went from 57 regular season wins to 55. They went to the 7th game of the conference semi-finals and lost on a very poor call against Scottie Pippen that never would have been called on Jordan (as Jordan proved the following year, when he mugged a Charlotte player at the end of the decisive first round playoff game and wasn't called for it). When Jordan returned the next year, they didn't have Horace Grant, and without a rebounder/defensive force in the middle, the Bulls did even WORSE in the playoffs than they did the year before. They won their first round series 3-1 (the Jordan-less season, they were 3-0) and got beat handily in the 2nd round 4-2 (where the previous season they got beat 4-3 on a bad call). Also, their competition wasn't as good. The Knicks team that beat the Jordan-less Bulls went to 7 games against the Rockets in the finals. The Orlando team that beat the Jordan Bulls got swept by the Rockets. So Jordan caused them to do worse against inferior talent than they did the previous season, when Jordan was gone and Horace Grant was there.

[PHILA]

The following season, the Bulls added the best player to fill the Horace Grant-role in Dennis Rodman. Rodman brought his defense, rebounds, and winning experience (2 titles in Detroit) and the Bulls won 72 games, no thanks to Jordan.

So when Jordan is put on the Wilt-standard we see he is a loser who comes up short. All he was interested in was stats, and his were not as good as Wilt's. Actually, Jordan should be held to a HIGHER standard, since the press spreads the myth that he is the "greatest player of all time."





I have just demonstrated that one man, no matter how great he is, cannot win titles by himself, and if Wilt is supposed to be held to some lofty superman standard, than I will use that same standard to judge other players who are considered by some to be better, or on the same level, as Wilt.

[Hittin_Shots]

You guys type a lot.

[jlauber]

The following season, the Bulls added the best player to fill the Horace Grant-role in Dennis Rodman. Rodman brought his defense, rebounds, and winning experience (2 titles in Detroit) and the Bulls won 72 games, no thanks to Jordan.

So when Jordan is put on the Wilt-standard we see he is a loser who comes up short. All he was interested in was stats, and his were not as good as Wilt's. Actually, Jordan should be held to a HIGHER standard, since the press spreads the myth that he is the "greatest player of all time."





I have just demonstrated that one man, no matter how great he is, cannot win titles by himself, and if Wilt is supposed to be held to some lofty superman standard, than I will use that same standard to judge other players who are considered by some to be better, or on the same level, as Wilt.

:bowdown:

[Psileas]

Kareem for me is #1. Too good a combination of success-consistency-scoring-all-around domination. Jlauber I think argues that he'd been a disappointment for the 70's, but I don't see it like this, because, with the exception of 1973, there was a good reason for every defeat/non playoff appearance.

1970-Dominated everybody, lost to a better team, possibly the greatest rookie postseason ever.
1971-Still dominant, Wilt played him almost to a standstill, but that's a testament to his own greatness. Kareem still won it all that year.
1972-The series against the Warriors was the only one in the 70's when a personal opponent outplayed him, though the Bucks still won. Then followed a very productive (though not very efficient) series against Wilt. The Bucks lost to a better team.
1973-The Bucks' most unexpected defeat. Kareem struggled offensively against the combo of one of the GOAT defenders and another tough hustler (Clyde Lee), but this time, he did not get outplayed by anyone.
1974-Completely dominant up to the final game of the season, and even then, Cowens only slightly outperformed him, playing for a team that proved to have more alternatives.
1975-Missed 17 games and his team finished 2 wins away from the playoffs. With Kareem there for the whole season, they'd easily make them.
1976-Horrible schedule organization, left out the Lakers and included worse Western teams...
1977-Easily among the GOAT postseason performances. Things would be certainly more interesting for the team if they had been healthy in the series vs Portland.
1978-Lost to the eventual finalists Supersonics and Kareem averaged 27/14/4/4.
1979-A forgotten, but dominant postseason for Kareem who averaged close to 29/13/5/4, on incredible scoring efficiency. The Lakers lost to the eventual champions.

80's need no introduction.

The rest are close and each has his advantages and drawbacks.
Hakeem had scary all-around performances, including postseasons where he didn't win the title, but he played in 8 different "single series" postseasons, plus, his playoff career was practically over by the age of 35 (his 1999 campaign was nothing to write down about and his 2002 one, well, better forget it).
Shaq had the greatest Finals impact than any center ever, even including the 1995 and 2004 series and a lot of other dominant series. He won more rings than Wilt and Hakeem. But his real personal challenge was during the WCF's and, not surprisingly, he was less dominant in those series. His elite level performances lasted up to 2003, followed by some more seasons of very good, but not really dominant performances (foul and conditioning troubles played the biggest role there), while his teams were swept a lot more often than the teams of the others.
Wilt was individually arguably the best player of every postseason from 1960 to 1968, though Baylor and West did at certain seasons (1961-1962 for Baylor, 1965-1966 for West) have their arguments. He also failed to reach the Conference Finals only once (1961). On the other hand, there are these questionable games that everybody knows about and the fact that his playoff productivity was less astronomical than his regular season one, plus the fact that he won less championships than Kareem and Shaq.

All 3 of them are interchangeable for me (I show a preferance to Wilt and Shaq) and are all easily top-10 playoff performers of all-time. Russell is another center, so there are 5 centers among the 10 GOAT playoff performers, and I don't even count Duncan (arguably top-10, as well) as a C. Jordan, Magic and West are the only clear guards being there, Kobe has a good case and Bird the only SF.

[Soothsayer]

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a Loser








How can I dare call a guy with 6 NBA rings a loser? Follow closely.








Michael Jordan is a Loser




[I]
During Michael Jordan's first season, the Bulls improved 11 games, from 27-55 to 38-44, which is still a losing record. Jordan averaged 28.2 PPG, .515 FG%, 6.5 rag, 5.9 APG, and 2.4 steals/game. It is obvious that his whopping stats do not equate into wins and if he was more interested in winning than his own personal stats, the Bulls would have won more games. (Perhaps if he didn't score so much, or if he shot a lower percentage, or didn't grab as many rebounds!).

This argument was said about Wilt when Wilt was with the Warriors, so it also applies to Jordan, who is hailed by the modern press as the "greatest player of all time!" During Jordan's first 4 seasons, the Bulls were 1-9 in the playoffs, even though Jordan had teammates like Charles Oakley (2nd in the league in rebounds) and George Gervin (top 50 of all time). Jordan scored 63 against the Celtics in a 1986 playoff game, however, they lost to the Celtics, so Jordan wasn't as good as Larry Bird, who I have already proven is a loser. Jordan was 0-6 against Loser Bird in the playoffs in his career. Jordan had the stats. Bird had the wins (but he went on to lose to Magic, because he was also a loser). Also, on that day that Jordan had 63, he missed the potential game-winner at the end of regulation. He just can't rise to the occasion, he just wanted stats.

As a matter of fact, Michael Jordan never escaped the first round of the playoffs until Scottie Pippen joined the team, so the glory can be given to Pippen, who is 6-4 without Jordan in the playoffs (whereas Jordan is 2-9 without Pippen). Even after Pippen joined, Jordan was proving his inferiority to Joe Dumars by losing to the Pistons 3 consecutive years in the playoffs. Sure, Jordan was scoring a ton of points, but Dumars had the win, so just like Bill Russell, he was dominating Jordan, and proving his superiority. Only when Pippen developed and the league watered itself down, were the Bulls able to win a title.

Sure, Jordan has 6 titles, but he wasn't important to the success of the team. When he retired, the team went from 57 regular season wins to 55. They went to the 7th game of the conference semi-finals and lost on a very poor call against Scottie Pippen that never would have been called on Jordan (as Jordan proved the following year, when he mugged a Charlotte player at the end of the decisive first round playoff game and wasn't called for it). When Jordan returned the next year, they didn't have Horace Grant, and without a rebounder/defensive force in the middle, the Bulls did even WORSE in the playoffs than they did the year before. They won their first round series 3-1 (the Jordan-less season, they were 3-0) and got beat handily in the 2nd round 4-2 (where the previous season they got beat 4-3 on a bad call). Also, their competition wasn't as good. The Knicks team that beat the Jordan-less Bulls went to 7 games against the Rockets in the finals. The Orlando team that beat the Jordan Bulls got swept by the Rockets. So Jordan caused them to do worse against inferior talent than they did the previous season, when Jordan was gone and Horace Grant was there.



Yes, of course. The "glory" of making the 2nd round in 87-88 for the bulls can't possibly be attributed to Jordan's MVP and DPOY season, leading the league in scoring and steals and posting an all time great efficiency.

It MUST be due to Pippen, not starting a single game in the regular season and posting stats of 8 ppg, and 4 rebounds. And in the playoffs, it must have been Pippen's 10 pts and 5 rebs in 29 minutes a game that got the bulls to the 2nd round.

Making the conference finals in 88-89 and being the only team to beat the Champion Pistons in the postseason MUST be due to Pippen, right? It must have been Pip's 14 pts and 6 rebs in the regular season or his 13 pts and 8 rebs in the playoffs, right? No way that it could have been Jordan's historic 32.5, 8 rebs, 8 assist season on 54% shooting with 3 steals, or his playoff production of 35 ppg, 7 rebs, 8 assists on 51% shooting. Nah, it had to be Pippen, right?

LMAO. Copying and pasting rubbish from an anti-jordan site is about as ridiculous as you can get, when the facts so clearly contradict you.

Fact is, Jordan joined a horrid 27 win bulls team in 84-85 with no history of winning and improved them every year he was healthy. That simply continued once Pippen and Grant joined the club.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The problem I have with Wilt is when people make him not just seem like a freak of nature, but physically superhuman(48" vert ect.). Or when people don't put his stats in perspective, and they only do this with the legends(Wilt, Russell, Oscar). In '73, Tiny Archibald averaged 34/11 on 49% shooting with a TS% of 55.5%, yet nobody puts that up against Jordan, Kobe or Lebron's best statistical seasons. But even those stats are inflated if we're comparing across eras. For example, Archibald's Kings were in the middle of the pack as far as scoring in the league. But if we compare that season to say 2001. We'll still give a league leading 42 mpg instead of 46, and give him the same amount of of his teams points and assist per minute. Suddenly that becomes 27.4 ppg and 8.8 apg. And keep in mind that Archibald's '73 season was right up there with Oscar, West and Baylor's top statistical seasons in the 60's, except at a slower pace.

Regarding Wilt in '62. Basketball-Reference estimated his Warriors averaged 129.7 possessions per game. Put him on the 2000 Lakers who averaged 93.9 possessions per game and give him the same percentage of his teams FGA, rebounds and assists while keeping his points per shot the same. Give him 40 mpg which is the most any big man averaged that year(Shaq and Garnett). Garnett is a good comparison for mpg because his 2000 Wolves had virtually the same winning % as Wilt's Warriors, he had to carry his team as much as any superstar and he's one of the most durable players(or was up until his knee injury in his 14th season) in recent years. And I did keep the team rebounds thing in mind and used the league average difference between total rebounds in the seasons that method of stat keeping changed.

Now, Wilt's numbers suddenly look like 30.7 ppg, 15.9 rpg, 1.8 apg on 50.6% from the field with a 53.6 TS% and 24 shots per game. Assuming his playoff stats drop/increase by the same rate, he averages 21.3 ppg, 16.6 rpg and 2.4 apg on 46.9% shooting and a 51.8 TS%.

Now compare that to Shaq who averaged 29.7 ppg, 13.6 rpg and 3.8 apg on 57.% shooting, a 57.8 TS% and 21.1 FGA. In the playoffs, his numbers were 30.7 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 3 apg, 56.6% from the field and 55.6 TS%.

A good parallel for Wilt's '62 season was David Robinson in '94. He put up 30/11/5(rounded) on 50.6% from the field and a 57.7 TS%, but dropped to 20/10/3(rounded) in the playoffs while his FG% dropped to 41.1% and his TS% dropped to 47.1%.

Of course, Wilt's '62 playoff performance was still considerably better than Robinson's in '94. But the comparison was too mindblowing statistical seasons with huge games(Robinson had a 71 point game and a quadruple double), but a big decline in production in the playoffs. And if we just ranked players based on the regular season, Robinson would probably be top 5, and certainly top 10.

Now Wilt's rebounding was consistently better int he playoffs, but his scoring continually dropped.

Personally, I think Wilt's greatest strengths were his rebounding and later in his career his passing and defense. And I will give him credit for his '67 and '72 playoff runs as well as showing a lot of heart coming back from an injury in '70 and basically matching Kareem in thr '71 playoffs.

But I do feel Shaq and Kareem were better at scoring in the flow of the offense and helping their team with scoring. Both are 2 of the only 4 players to win a scoring title and championship in the same season(Jordan and Mikan are the other 2, Jordan did it 6 times). And in '95, Shaq won a scoring title and reached the finals, in '01 he was 3rd in scoring and won a title and in '02, 2nd in scoring with another championship. Kareem was also 2nd in scoring when he made it to the finals in '74. Shaq led the playoffs in scoring in '00 when he won a title, Kareem led the playoffs in scoring in '74 when he made it to game 7 of the finals and in '83 when he made it to the finals again.

Wilt did lead the league in scoring in the regular season and playoffs in '64 when he made it to the finals. But in his championship seasons, he was 5th in scoring in '67 and nowhere close to the league leaders in '72 or the other seasons he made it to the finals. Only once, was he the leading scorer in the playoffs on a team that made it to the finals('64)

I just don't think that's a coincidence

And honestly, you can bring up HOF competition all you want, but compare the defensive teams of the late 90's/early 00's to the 60's. It's like night and day.

[Roundball_Rock]

It's like this for every top 10 player. No one is an exception so why would Lauber use that as an example? :confusedshrug:

:confusedshrug:

The only top 10 of all-time players to win multiple rings without their best teammate are Russell and Duncan and Kobe may join the list this year. Does this mean anything when comparing Duncan to Kareem? Jordan, Magic and Bird never won a ring without their best teammate, although to be fair McHale was a bench player who averaged 20 mpg in the regular season and 17 mpg in the playoffs during Bird's first title and Kareem was just a role player in 88', although the diminishing of his 87' role is ridiculous. Kareem averaged 18 ppg in the regular season, 19 ppg in the playoffs and 22 ppg in the NBA finals that year. He was hardly just along for the ride.


Yes, of course. The "glory" of making the 2nd round in 87-88 for the bulls can't possibly be attributed to Jordan's MVP and DPOY season, leading the league in scoring and steals and posting an all time great efficiency.

It MUST be due to Pippen, not starting a single game in the regular season and posting stats of 8 ppg, and 4 rebounds. And in the playoffs, it must have been Pippen's 10 pts and 5 rebs in 29 minutes a game that got the bulls to the 2nd round.

Making the conference finals in 88-89 and being the only team to beat the Champion Pistons in the postseason MUST be due to Pippen, right? It must have been Pip's 14 pts and 6 rebs in the regular season or his 13 pts and 8 rebs in the playoffs, right? No way that it could have been Jordan's historic 32.5, 8 rebs, 8 assist season on 54% shooting with 3 steals, or his playoff production of 35 ppg, 7 rebs, 8 assists on 51% shooting. Nah, it had to be Pippen, right?

Bruce? :eek: :cheers:


And since when was I a Jordan hater or Kobe homer, Abe?

His post was aimed at me and Fatal, even though I merely defended Kareem and didn't attack Wilt. The self-proclaimed "wise man" STILL :roll: :roll: thinks I am a Lakers fan--even though not a single LAL fan "thinks" that for obvious reasons. Remember, according to several Jordan fans here and mysteriously one Wilt fan who is obsessed with Kobe (what is the Kobe-Wilt connection?), Pippen has no real fans, even though he was possibly the third most popular player of the 90's behind MJ and Shaq. Pippen "fans"=closet Kobe fans!

:roll: :roll:

[2010splash]

I'm pretty sure nobody has seen one game of Wilt so how could you even compare him to the rest?

[Psileas]

The problem I have with Wilt is when people make him not just seem like a freak of nature, but physically superhuman(48" vert ect.). Or when people don't put his stats in perspective, and they only do this with the legends(Wilt, Russell, Oscar). In '73, Tiny Archibald averaged 34/11 on 49% shooting with a TS% of 55.5%, yet nobody puts that up against Jordan, Kobe or Lebron's best statistical seasons. But even those stats are inflated if we're comparing across eras. For example, Archibald's Kings were in the middle of the pack as far as scoring in the league. But if we compare that season to say 2001. We'll still give a league leading 42 mpg instead of 46, and give him the same amount of of his teams points and assist per minute. Suddenly that becomes 27.4 ppg and 8.8 apg. And keep in mind that Archibald's '73 season was right up there with Oscar, West and Baylor's top statistical seasons in the 60's, except at a slower pace.

Regarding Wilt in '62. Basketball-Reference estimated his Warriors averaged 129.7 possessions per game. Put him on the 2000 Lakers who averaged 93.9 possessions per game and give him the same percentage of his teams FGA, rebounds and assists while keeping his points per shot the same. Give him 40 mpg which is the most any big man averaged that year(Shaq and Garnett). Garnett is a good comparison for mpg because his 2000 Wolves had virtually the same winning % as Wilt's Warriors, he had to carry his team as much as any superstar and he's one of the most durable players(or was up until his knee injury in his 14th season) in recent years. And I did keep the team rebounds thing in mind and used the league average difference between total rebounds in the seasons that method of stat keeping changed.

Now, Wilt's numbers suddenly look like 30.7 ppg, 15.9 rpg, 1.8 apg on 50.6% from the field with a 53.6 TS% and 24 shots per game. Assuming his playoff stats drop/increase by the same rate, he averages 21.3 ppg, 16.6 rpg and 2.4 apg on 46.9% shooting and a 51.8 TS%.

Now compare that to Shaq who averaged 29.7 ppg, 13.6 rpg and 3.8 apg on 57.% shooting, a 57.8 TS% and 21.1 FGA. In the playoffs, his numbers were 30.7 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 3 apg, 56.6% from the field and 55.6 TS%.

A good parallel for Wilt's '62 season was David Robinson in '94. He put up 30/11/5(rounded) on 50.6% from the field and a 57.7 TS%, but dropped to 20/10/3(rounded) in the playoffs while his FG% dropped to 41.1% and his TS% dropped to 47.1%.

Of course, Wilt's '62 playoff performance was still considerably better than Robinson's in '94. But the comparison was too mindblowing statistical seasons with huge games(Robinson had a 71 point game and a quadruple double), but a big decline in production in the playoffs. And if we just ranked players based on the regular season, Robinson would probably be top 5, and certainly top 10.

Now Wilt's rebounding was consistently better int he playoffs, but his scoring continually dropped.

Personally, I think Wilt's greatest strengths were his rebounding and later in his career his passing and defense. And I will give him credit for his '67 and '72 playoff runs as well as showing a lot of heart coming back from an injury in '70 and basically matching Kareem in thr '71 playoffs.

But I do feel Shaq and Kareem were better at scoring in the flow of the offense and helping their team with scoring. Both are 2 of the only 4 players to win a scoring title and championship in the same season(Jordan and Mikan are the other 2, Jordan did it 6 times). And in '95, Shaq won a scoring title and reached the finals, in '01 he was 3rd in scoring and won a title and in '02, 2nd in scoring with another championship. Kareem was also 2nd in scoring when he made it to the finals in '74. Shaq led the playoffs in scoring in '00 when he won a title, Kareem led the playoffs in scoring in '74 when he made it to game 7 of the finals and in '83 when he made it to the finals again.

Wilt did lead the league in scoring in the regular season and playoffs in '64 when he made it to the finals. But in his championship seasons, he was 5th in scoring in '67 and nowhere close to the league leaders in '72 or the other seasons he made it to the finals. Only once, was he the leading scorer in the playoffs on a team that made it to the finals('64)

I just don't think that's a coincidence

And honestly, you can bring up HOF competition all you want, but compare the defensive teams of the late 90's/early 00's to the 60's. It's like night and day.


A problem with pace and era adjustments that try to normalize "superhuman" numbers is that when you apply these adjustments to the whole leagues of the 60's and their whole teams, these stats suddenly become again a lot more impressive than they look by 2010 standards, because these teams suddenly look way worse offensively. For example, if we normalize the numbers of the '62 Warriors to the pace of the 2000 Lakers, we get a team that only scores 91 ppg and that's the top offensive team in the league. From that standpoint, a 31/16/2 line (and in only 40 mpg) suddenly becomes an incredible feat. Take the 1999 lockout season. That's the closest modern example. The average team scored 91.6 ppg (about as much as the "pace adjusted" Warriors) and, not surprisingly, only 2 elite scorers managed to even break 25 ppg: Iverson averaged 26.8 ppg (but 25.8 when adjusted to 40 mpg) and Shaq 26.3 (which however becomes 30.2 when adjusted per 40 minutes, which would bring him above even his 2000 version). So, no wonder that Wilt, even with the pace-MPG adjustment still got an incredible PER of 31.8 (which would probably be closer to 33-34 if all stats were available) and an also incredible playoff PER of 29.7.


Not that I believe in these adjustments literally. A reasonably slower pace than the early 60's one will increase scoring efficiency, which raw adjustments won't show. Giving a superstar 7-8 mpg of rest per game instead of 0-2 will also increase his efficiency (and per minutes productivity), which raw adjustments also won't show. A '62 Wilt playing 40 mpg on today's pace, but also with today's adjusted team and player efficiency is closer to a 34-35 ppg player.

[PHILA]

LMAO. Copying and pasting rubbish from an anti-jordan site is about as ridiculous as you can get, when the facts so clearly contradict you.
'Using the logic (or lack of) by people who bash Wilt, I will now present a group of losers. This is a lesson in absurdity, as I can also take selected facts--often presented by fans of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, modern NBA fans who know nothing of the NBA before 1991, or fans of the Boston Celtics who will say anything, true or false, to make their own guys look good--and I can draw the same conclusion.

Once again, I do not believe these conclusions. This is a lesson in absurdity, so that people may finally realize that one man does not win championships. It's about time our society realizes that basketball, football, and baseball are *TEAM* sports. If they want to equate championships with individual greatness, let them watch Pro Wrestling or golf.'

[ShaqAttack3234]

A problem with pace and era adjustments that try to normalize "superhuman" numbers is that when you apply these adjustments to the whole leagues of the 60's and their whole teams, these stats suddenly become again a lot more impressive than they look by 2010 standards, because these teams suddenly look way worse offensively. For example, if we normalize the numbers of the '62 Warriors to the pace of the 2000 Lakers, we get a team that only scores 91 ppg and that's the top offensive team in the league. From that standpoint, a 31/16/2 line (and in only 40 mpg) suddenly becomes an incredible feat. Take the 1999 lockout season. That's the closest modern example. The average team scored 91.6 ppg (about as much as the "pace adjusted" Warriors) and, not surprisingly, only 2 elite scorers managed to even break 25 ppg: Iverson averaged 26.8 ppg (but 25.8 when adjusted to 40 mpg) and Shaq 26.3 (which however becomes 30.2 when adjusted per 40 minutes, which would bring him above even his 2000 version). So, no wonder that Wilt, even with the pace-MPG adjustment still got an incredible PER of 31.8 (which would probably be closer to 33-34 if all stats were available) and an also incredible playoff PER of 29.7.

As far as PER, I've never read much into stats like that, Win Shares ect.

And regarding Shaq in '99, scoring marginally more points per 40 than 2000. I mean, Shaq's scoring was extremely consistent per 40 minutes from '94-'03, but he wasn't always in good enough shape to play 40 mpg and keep up that scoring rate. '99 is a perfect example, I mean look at Shaq's rebounding and shot blocking numbers compared to '00, that should tell you something about his conditioning compared to '00 or '01. Also look at '02 and '03, if you look at points per minute and efficiency, his scoring was more impressive than '00, but he wasn't in the condition to play any as many minutes. But Shaq's offensive skills were as sharp in the late 90's as they were in 2000, except he became a smarter player and a better passer under Phil Jackson.


Not that I believe in these adjustments literally. A reasonably slower pace than the early 60's one will increase scoring efficiency, which raw adjustments won't show. Giving a superstar 7-8 mpg of rest per game instead of 0-2 will also increase his efficiency (and per minutes productivity), which raw adjustments also won't show. A '62 Wilt playing 40 mpg on today's pace, but also with today's adjusted team and player efficiency is closer to a 34-35 ppg player.

If we're going to factor in all of those teams then we must factor in that Wilt was great at running the floor and from the footage I've seen, he scored a lot on offensive rebounds, two traits that worked to his advantage at a faster pace.

And in slower halfcourt basketball, it's a lot easier to double players. It's harder to set up defenses at such a fast pace. And for just about any center to average 24 FGA at a late 90's/early 00's pace, he'd have to force quite a few shots.

I agree that these adjustments aren't perfect(though I think the rebounding is a good formula), but I think it atleast helps put the numbers in better perspective. But while he might be fresher with less minutes, he also wouldn't be padding his numbers in blowouts were nobody was trying and you must admit that he obviously was playing in a lot of blowouts because every team is involved in numerous blowouts and Wilt was out there for every minute of the season except an OT game where he was ejected. In blowouts, it's a lot easier to score because teams aren't trying nearly as hard to stop you.

[alexandreben]

As far as PER, I've never read much into stats like that, Win Shares ect.

And regarding Shaq in '99, scoring marginally more points per 40 than 2000. I mean, Shaq's scoring was extremely consistent per 40 minutes from '94-'03, but he wasn't always in good enough shape to play 40 mpg and keep up that scoring rate. '99 is a perfect example, I mean look at Shaq's rebounding and shot blocking numbers compared to '00, that should tell you something about his conditioning compared to '00 or '01. Also look at '02 and '03, if you look at points per minute and efficiency, his scoring was more impressive than '00, but he wasn't in the condition to play any as many minutes. But Shaq's offensive skills were as sharp in the late 90's as they were in 2000, except he became a smarter player and a better passer under Phil Jackson.



If we're going to factor in all of those teams then we must factor in that Wilt was great at running the floor and from the footage I've seen, he scored a lot on offensive rebounds, two traits that worked to his advantage at a faster pace.

And in slower halfcourt basketball, it's a lot easier to double players. It's harder to set up defenses at such a fast pace. And for just about any center to average 24 FGA at a late 90's/early 00's pace, he'd have to force quite a few shots.

I agree that these adjustments aren't perfect(though I think the rebounding is a good formula), but I think it atleast helps put the numbers in better perspective. But while he might be fresher with less minutes, he also wouldn't be padding his numbers in blowouts were nobody was trying and you must admit that he obviously was playing in a lot of blowouts because every team is involved in numerous blowouts and Wilt was out there for every minute of the season except an OT game where he was ejected. In blowouts, it's a lot easier to score because teams aren't trying nearly as hard to stop you.
I'd like to compare players from different eras, with some certain criterias of course, e.g. my thread http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=177517

Let's take a few criterias for example to compare Wilt and Shaq:
1. "Pace & FG% issue"(which's ShaqAttack loves talking about);
2. "Rules change";
3. "Wilt's stoppers v.s. Shaq stoppers";

1. Pace & FG% issue:
Let's look at league's average points per game and league's average FG% in Wilt's era
Season PTS/G FG%
1959-60 115.3 41.0%
1960-61 118.1 41.5%
1961-62 118.8 42.6%
1962-63 115.3 44.1%
1963-64 111.0 43.3%
1964-65 110.6 42.6%
1965-66 115.5 43.3%
1966-67 117.4 44.1%
1967-68 116.6 44.6%
1968-69 112.3 44.1%
1969-70 116.7 46.0%
---------------------------------------
Now let's look at league's average pts and FG% in Shaq's dominate 00' era:
Season PTS/G FG%
1999-00 97.5 44.9%
2000-01 94.8 44.3%
2001-02 95.5 44.5%
2002-03 95.1 44.2%
2003-04 93.4 43.9%
2004-05 97.2 44.7%
2005-06 97.0 45.4%
2006-07 98.7 45.8%
2007-08 99.9 45.7%
2008-09 100.0 45.9%
2009-10 100.4 46.1%

To sum up: We all know the pace in the 00's is about 92, let's assume the pace is about 120 in the 60' like ShaqAttack claimed, if we see the FG% column, these two era's FG% are quite the same as 40+%, even there's 30 more paces in the 60', they still managed to have the FG% as the 00', imagine if they lower the pace to 92 in the 60', how high their FG% will go?

Slower pace = fewer FGA = higher FG%
Wilt will still produce more points with higher FG% under lower pace.


2. "Rules change":

1981-82
• Zone defense rules clarified with new rules for Illegal Defensive Alignments.
a. Weak side defenders may come in the pro lane (16’), but not in the college lane (12’) for more than three seconds.
b. Defender on post player is allowed in defensive three-second area (A post player is any player adjacent to paint area).
c. Player without ball may not be double-teamed from weak side.

1997-98
• The “no-charge area,” formerly a two-by-six foot box where an offensive foul is not called if contact is made with a secondary defensive player who has established a defensive position, will be expanded to the area consisting of a half circle with a four-foot radius measured from the middle of the goal.

2001-02
• Illegal defense guidelines will be eliminated in their entirety.
• A new defensive three-second rule will prohibit a defensive player from remaining in the lane for more than three consecutive seconds without closely guarding an offensive player.

To sum up: all the rules change seems quite favor in Shaq's dominance except 01'-02' season, even we know that rules change never limit greatness like Shaq or Wilt, but let's face it, with easier rules like "illegal defense not allow double team the non-ball player", it's easier for Shaq to dominate the paint, while Wilt suffered from 3 or 4 Celtics players frontlized him in 68's famous "Wilt' touched the ball only twice in the second half" game...


3. "Wilt's stoppers v.s. Shaq stoppers":
Wilt battled with HOFers like Russell, Thurmond, Reed, Red Kerr, Bellamy, Lucas, Lanier, etc..etc... at the long list there's a guy named Jabbar;

In the 90's Shaq battled with much more valuable centers than those in the 00's, like Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, Mutombo, they're still in their prime, but in Shaq's prime in three peat in the 00's Shaq Stoppers were too weak, Ducan is a PF and mostly Robinson guarded Shaq, Mourning's out due to his surgery, Hakeem's old too, so does Ewing, Mutombo was DPOY, Sabonis was in his twighlight, so does Smith the white center who can shoot, Dale Davis, Bradley, some PF from Blazers like Rasheed Wallace, J.O'neal, Ben Wallace entered his prime, the white Miller, etc..

I looked up every game that Shaq played in 2003, amazingly I found only 5 games that Shaq's opponent center could come up with a double-double, which I couldn't help wondering: is Shaq's defense really that good or those Shaq stoppers really that suck?!

Last but not least, I am a big fan of Shaq, I followed most of his games available since the 90's, I am not a Shaq hater. Had he not been put on those extra useless 70 lbs weight and got soooo lazy, he could've been the top 3 or even top 2 center of all time.

[Psileas]

As far as PER, I've never read much into stats like that, Win Shares ect.

Not everyone has studied or likes PER, true. I'm not the biggest fan, either. My point is, this is a stat that is based on pace and playing time adjustment and it puts statistically prime Wilt head and shoulders above anyone else in his era, posting some of the most dominant seasons ever.


And regarding Shaq in '99, scoring marginally more points per 40 than 2000. I mean, Shaq's scoring was extremely consistent per 40 minutes from '94-'03, but he wasn't always in good enough shape to play 40 mpg and keep up that scoring rate. '99 is a perfect example, I mean look at Shaq's rebounding and shot blocking numbers compared to '00, that should tell you something about his conditioning compared to '00 or '01. Also look at '02 and '03, if you look at points per minute and efficiency, his scoring was more impressive than '00, but he wasn't in the condition to play any as many minutes. But Shaq's offensive skills were as sharp in the late 90's as they were in 2000, except he became a smarter player and a better passer under Phil Jackson.

Hey, I didn't say that I agreed with that. Actually, the reason for mentioning it was exactly this, to show that something is not correct when trying to adjust everything per minute. A per minute adjustment takes as granted, among else, that all players exhibit the same stamina throughout the whole game, don't ever face fouling trouble and don't ever face the possibility of getting injured.


If we're going to factor in all of those teams then we must factor in that Wilt was great at running the floor and from the footage I've seen, he scored a lot on offensive rebounds, two traits that worked to his advantage at a faster pace.

And in slower halfcourt basketball, it's a lot easier to double players. It's harder to set up defenses at such a fast pace. And for just about any center to average 24 FGA at a late 90's/early 00's pace, he'd have to force quite a few shots.

The things that worked to his advantage in his era would do so today, when we do the pace adjustments. That's why they exist. No need to penalize him further because of his strengths. David Robinson and Olajuwon were great at running the floor and finished quite a few fast-breaks themselves.
But, let's be honest, the pace of the game is something that is affected by its small players more than the big. If you see some of those crazy rhythm games, peripheral players are taking quick shots way more often than Wilt, who usually takes his spots inside and while this sometimes wasn't the case in the early 60's, this did take its toll in his scoring efficiency.


I agree that these adjustments aren't perfect(though I think the rebounding is a good formula), but I think it atleast helps put the numbers in better perspective. But while he might be fresher with less minutes, he also wouldn't be padding his numbers in blowouts were nobody was trying and you must admit that he obviously was playing in a lot of blowouts because every team is involved in numerous blowouts and Wilt was out there for every minute of the season except an OT game where he was ejected. In blowouts, it's a lot easier to score because teams aren't trying nearly as hard to stop you.

I partially agree. This depends of course on more factors, like whether you face fresh bench players who are trying to prove themselves or tired starters or whether your team still gives you a lot of shots or whether you have the rthythm to remain hot to the end.

[jlauber]

Had Wilt's numbers from 61-62 been transported to Shaq's 99-00, this is what they would have looked like...

The 61-62 NBA averaged 108 FGAs, and 37 FTAs per game. The 99-00 NBA averaged 82 FGAs and 25 FTAs per game. Wilt's Warriors had 5105 rebounds, or 64 rpg, while Shaq's Lakers had 3885 or 47 rpg. (I didn't waste my time going thru every NBA team in '62 to get a league average. Wilt's and Shaq's teams were among the leaders in rebounds, so the numbers are close.)

So, Wilt would have shot the ball 29.6 FGAs per game in 99-00, and made slightly more than 14.8 IF we were to use HIS FG% (in a league that shot .426...Shaq's NBA shot .449...more on that later.) Wilt would have shot 11.5 FTAs in 99-00, and with his .613 FTs he would have made 7 FTs per game.

14.8x2= 29.6 + 7= 36.6 ppg

Now, raise Wilt's .506 FG% in a league that shot .426, to 99-00's .449, and he is at somewhere around .530. On 29.6 FGAs per game, that equates to 15.7 FGM per game, or 31.4 ppg + 7= 38.4 ppg in 99-00.

Pretty simple math.

How about rebounding? Reduce Wilt's rebounding numbers to 99-00, and he would have grabbed 18.9 rpg.

Minutes played? Ok, Wilt would not have played 48.5 mpg in 99-00. But, given the fact that he AVERAGED 45.2 mpg in his CAREER, and given the FACT that he routinely played 2-3 ore mpg than the next guy in many of his seasons, and given the fact that Michael Finley led the NBA in 00 at 42.24 mpg (and given the fact that there were players at over 43 mpg in the decade of the 00's), Wilt, would have probably easily led the league...so IMHO, we'll use his CAREER mpg, which was 45 mpg.

Reduce his 38.4 ppg from 48.5 mpg down to 45 mpg and he would have averaged 35.6 ppg.

Reduce his 18.9 rpg in 48.5 mpg down to 45 mog, and he would have been at 17.5 rpg in 00.

So, his numbers would have been around 35.6 ppg, 17.5 rpg, .530 FG%, and .613 from the FT line.

Of course, one has to wonder what a PRIME Wilt, circa 66-68 would have done? In his '67 season alone, he averaged 24.1 on just 14 FGAs per game (.683 FG%.) Had THAT Wilt been asked to shoot 25+ times per game, how many ppg would he have averaged? IMHO, take THAT Wilt into 99-00, and ask him to SCORE, AND, instead of routinely facing HOF centers on a nightly basis, he would have easily averaged 40 ppg on .600 shooting.

Regarding Wilt's post-season numbers...

First of all, there were THREE Chamberlain's. One was from 59-60 thru 65-66, in which he was primarily a scorer on wretched teams. From 66-67 thru 68-69, he was at his peak, and was asked to be an all-around player AND a PASSER. And from 69-70 thru the end of his career, 72-73, he was the post-injury Wilt, who dominated the league in rebounding and defense.

And, not coincidently, his POST-SEASONS MIRRORED his regular seasons. True, his scoring dropped, BUT, one more time, he faced a HOF center in 112 of 160 of his post-season games.

ShaqAttack is quick to point out Wilt's reduced scoring. How about this FACT. O'Neal faced the Spurs, and Robinson, in the playoffs from 98-99 thru 01-02 three times (I won't count Robinson's last season 02-03...as he hardly played...and BTW, the Spurs beat Shaq's Lakers that year anyway.)

In those 13 games, in seasons in which Shaq was at his PEAK (and Robinson was on the decline), he averaged 23.8 ppg, 12.7 rpg, and shot .492 in those 13 post-season games against the Spurs. HIS scoring dropped DRAMATICALLY against a HOF center, and a great defense, which is what Wilt routinely faced against Russell's Celtics.

So, essentially, Shaq's scoring production dropped every bit as much as Wilt's, who faced HOF centers in almost every series he played. AND, if you use Wilt's SCORING seasons, he was putting up 30+ ppg playoff series on over 50% shooting...against RUSSELL for cryingoutloud!

Think about that...what Shaq faced, at his PEAK, for three post-season series, is what Chamberlain faced in his EIGHT against Russell and the Celtics.


Regarding Psileas analysis of Kareem's post-seasons. How are Kareem's post-seasons, BETTER than Wilt's. If you exclude the pre-Magic era (in which Magic clearly was the leader of those great Laker teams), Kareem won ONE title...in a year in which Wilt's Lakers were without West and the over-the-hill Baylor.

Give me ONE post-season, in Wilt's CAREER, in which he was outplayed. And, PLEASE, don't give me the 71-72 WCF's...in which virtually EVERYONE who witnessed that series, proclaimed Wilt as the CLEAR-CUT winner in their H2H play. Kareem played well in two games of that series, and was either bricking shots, or getting them knocked into the seat by Wilt in the other four.

Wilt was outscored by his opposing center, in five of his 29 post-season series (and in four it was marginal). In the research that I could find, he was out-shot in ONE, by Kareem in 71-72, .457-.452, and in MANY, he SIGNIFICANTLY out-shot his opponent. AND, Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of those 29 series by an opposing center.

How come WILT is considered a failure, when he outplayed his opponent in virtually EVERY post-season series? How come WILT is considered a "failure" when he takes teams that heavily outgunned by HOFers, in EVERY post-season? AND, why is WILT considered a "failure" when FOUR of his teams lose game sevens by a TOTAL of NINE points (and in which he had LEGITIMATE excuses for his TEAM's failures)? And in another, in the '70 Finals, in which an injured Wilt took a 46-36 against Reed's 60-22 Knicks, who had just wiped out Kareem's 56-26 Bucks, 4-1...the horrible officiating in game five, cost Wilt a 4-2 series championship win.

Meanwhile, in the decade of the 70's, Kareem played on teams that went 63-19, 60-22, 59-23, ALL of which were beaten in the post-season. TWO of them were favored, and ONE was heavily-favored.

Or that he played on two teams that were losers (true, his 74-75 Bucks went 35-31 WITH him.) Or that he took a 53-29 team against Walton's 49-33 Blazers, and his team was SWEPT. Or that, for all of his greatness, his last two teams of that decade went 45-37 and 47-35, and were quickly eliminated in the playoffs. In the decade of the 70's, he faced a HOF center in '70, and his TEAM lost, 4-1. In 70-71 he did go 3-0 (albeit, he was not better than Wilt that year.) In 71-72 he went 1-1 (and was outplayed in BOTH.) In 72-73, he went 0-1 with a heavily-favored team. In 73-74 he went 0-1 (losing Cowens, who was brilliant in game seven.) His teams did not even make the playoffs the next two years. In 76-77 he did beat a Warrior team that had rookie Parish, but was SWEPT by Walton's Blazers. So he went 1-1 that year. And in the last two years of the decade, he did not face a HOF center (although Sikma was a very good F-C), and his teams were quickly eliminated.

So, how were Kareem's performances, in his first 10 years, any better than Wilt's? If anything, he was MORE of a disappointment.

Now, if you go with the post-Magic era, Kareem wins five more rings. As almost anyone would concede, though, Magic was THE man in the last two. And Magic was a better performer in the '82 Finals. AND, as everyone here knows by now, as brilliant as Kareem played in the 79-80 Finals, he missed game six, and Magic carried that LA team to a title with one of the greatest performances in Finals history.

And, while Wilt was either outplaying his opposing center, or dominating them in EVERY post-season, Kareem was thoroughly beaten by Moses Malone in '83 (and a SWEEPING loss.)

And, in how many post-season series was Kareem outrebounded in his career? Geez, MAGIC outrebounded Kareem, by himself, in the '82, '83, '84, '87, and '88 Finals.

Or how about Kareem shooting .437 in the '72 post-season, and .428 in the '72-73 post-season?

I am not ripping Kareem, or Shaq, here. They were BOTH among the greatest, most dominating centers to have ever played. BUT, let's put them in the proper perspective when comparing them to Wilt, and his "failures."

[ShaqAttack3234]

So, his numbers would have been around 35.6 ppg, 17.5 rpg, .530 FG%, and .613 from the FT line.

45 mpg and 28 FGA in the year 2000 are not realistic. He'd be getting 11 FTA. Teams averaged 93 possessions per game. Wilt would be using about 33 possessions for scoring alone. Give him 2 apg and 4 TO and he's using 42% of the team's possessions per game and that's in stats alone. The idea of C in the era of slow, grind it out defense getting 28 FGA is laughable. By the way, nobody has averaged 45 mpg since '73. 40 mpg is fair.

31/16/2 on 51% is great, though I personally don't think he'd be able to get up enough shots to average 30.


ShaqAttack is quick to point out Wilt's reduced scoring. How about this FACT. O'Neal faced the Spurs, and Robinson, in the playoffs from 98-99 thru 01-02 three times (I won't count Robinson's last season 02-03...as he hardly played...and BTW, the Spurs beat Shaq's Lakers that year anyway.)

In those 13 games, in seasons in which Shaq was at his PEAK, he averaged 23.8 ppg, 12.7 rpg, and shot .492 in those 13 post-season games against the Spurs. HIS scoring dropped DRAMATICALLY against a HOF center.

Admittedly, Shaq's series in '99 vs San Antonio was subpar. That was the worst season of Shaq's prime(the lockout year), he never really seemed to be in shape.

In '01, The Lakers swept the Spurs and beat they by an average margin of 22 ppg. Kobe was dominant and so Shaq deferred to him because he had it going. Shaq still averaged 27/13 and easily outscored Duncan or Robinson while outrebounding both of them. The Spurs were focusing on Shaq a lot so he didn't force anything.

In '02, you may look at Shaq's numbers and think it's a bad series, but here are a few details. Shaq was playing with a finger injury, a wrist injury, a big toe injury and 2 ankle injuries. Duncan did most of his damage against Samaki Walker and Robert Horry. He was noticeably less effective against Shaq and Shaq did an exceptional job guarding him even with the injuries. Due to injuries, Robinson played LESS in '02 than '03.

Shaq's averages in '03 vs the Spurs. 25/14/4/3 on 56% shooting. And we can only guess what he would have done had he got the ball more often. Kobe was forcing shots. Kobe averaged 32 ppg, but on 43% shooting and averaged 4.5 TO compared to 3.7 apg.

And how about Shaq's '04 series vs that great Spurs defense? Shaq averaged 22.5 ppg, 14.5 rpg and 4.3 bpg on 63.5% shooting. And that same year vs the other top defense in the league. 27/11 on 63% vs Detroit. His season averages were 22/11 on 58% shooting, and this was not peak Shaq, not even close.

And it wasn't "HOF centers" limiting Shaq's numbers in SOME of the series, but the Spurs team defense, the likes of which Wilt has never seen. They always focused heavily on limiting Shaq as much as possible and even so, Shaq still beat them 3 out of 5 times and had more impressive numbers than his season in 2 of them.

Shaq's numbers didn't drop in the playoffs. His overall numbers increased in the playoffs during his career in the toughest defensive era. Wilt's rpg increased, but his ppg dropped off dramatically, unlike Shaq.

Look at the '00 finals. Kobe wasn't playing well so Shaq had extra focus on him because that team didn't have many scoring threats. In fact, Shaq had a 40/24 game when Kobe played only 9 minutes. Here are the Lakers top 3 scorers in the '00 finals.

Shaq- 38 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 2.7 bpg, 2.3 apg, 1 spg, 2.2 TO, 61 FG%
Kobe- 15.6 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 4.2 apg, 1 spg, 37 FG%
Rice- 11.5 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 1.7 apg, 40 FG%

It's much tougher doing that when an entire team is zeroing in on you vs a solid player than it is doing it vs a HOF center with more single coverage. Check out his dominance.

Great footwork, 3 defenders included 2 big men contest the shot, but Shaq scores easily. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=0m43s

Great fake and fadeaway vs 3 defenders. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=1m06s

Another triple team. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=1m53s

Phenomenal offensive rebound and he scores in the paint with 4 defenders there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=2m00s

Great post move. 4 defenders are in the paint and 3 contest the shot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=2m12s

Absolute dominance. FIVE defenders around him and he still scores. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=3m12s

Another great offensive rebound and basket in a crowded paint. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t-3m48s

Triple team, all 5 defenders paying attention to Shaq and another basket. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=4m10s

So please don't talk about competition as if Shaq is going 1 on 1, he was getting triple teamed constantly.

We all saw what Shaq did to a HOF-caliber defensive player and the 3rd best defensive team in the league in '01. Mutombo was voted DPOY that year for the 4th time, he was an 8-time all-star. Mutombo was one of the greatest defensive players in NBA history.

What about '99? Shaq in his worst season of his prime destroyed Hakeem who was still a very good player. Hakeem had averaged 19/10, 2.5 bpg and 1.6 spg on 51% shooting in that lockout-shortened season despite his team averaging 89 possessions per game.

Shaq- 29 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 4 apg, 4 bpg, 2.3 TO, 52.3 FG%
Olajuwon- 13.3 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 0.8 bpg, 0.5 apg, 1.3 TO, 42.6 FG%

How about '98 vs Sabonis who averaged 16/10/3 in just 32 mpg on a team that averaged just 90 possessions per game? Sabonis was also as big or bigger than Shaq.

Shaq- 29 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.5 apg, 2.5 bpg, 1 spg, 65.3 FG%
Sabonis- 12.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 1.5 apg, 0.8 bpg, 45 FG%


Regarding Psileas analysis of Kareem's post-seasons. How are Kareem's post-seasons, BETTER than Wilt's. If you exclude the pre-Magic era (in which Magic clearly was the leader of those great Laker teams), Kareem won ONE title...in a year in which Wilt's Lakers were without West and the over-the-hill Baylor.

Even you know Magic was in no way the leader of the '80 Lakers. And in '82, Kareem was easily their first scoring option, they relied on him for their halfcourt offense and Kareem was still a great shot blocker and by far their most valuable defender. Even in '85 at 38, Kareem was still easily their first scoring option and once again, he carried them in the halfcourt and just a mobile 7'2" presence in the paint was far more valuable than what Magic brought defensively.


Give me ONE post-season, in Wilt's CAREER, in which he was outplayed. And, PLEASE, don't give me the 71-72 WCF's...in which virtually EVERYONE who witnessed that series, proclaimed Wilt as the CLEAR-CUT winner in their H2H play. Kareem played well in two games of that series, and was either bricking shots, or getting them knocked into the seat by Wilt in the other four.

Many people who witnessed the Russell vs Wilt battles proclaimed Russell as the winner.


Meanwhile, in the decade of the 70's, Kareem played on teams that went 63-19, 60-22, 59-23, ALL of which were beaten in the post-season. TWO of them were favored, and ONE was heavily-favored. Or that he played on two teams that were losers (true, his 74-75 Bucks went 35-31 WITH him.) Or that he took a 53-29 team against Walton's 49-33 Blazers, and his team was SWEPT. Or that, for all of his greatness, his last two teams of that decade went 45-37 and 47-35, and were quickly eliminated in the playoffs. In the decade of the 70's, he faced a HOF center in '70, and his TEAM lost, 4-1. In 70-71 he did go 3-0 (albeit, he was not better than Wilt that year.) In 71-72 he went 1-1 (and was outplayed in BOTH.) In 72-73, he went 0-1 with a heavily-favored team. In 73-74 he went 0-1 (losing Cowens, who was brilliant in game seven.) His teams did not even make the playoffs the next two years. In 76-77 he did beat a Warrior team that had rookie Parish, but was SWEPT by Walton's Blazers. So he went 1-1 that year. And in the last two years of the decade, he did not face a HOF center (although Sikma was a very good F-C), and his teams were quickly eliminated.

'77 WCF

Kareem- 30.3 ppg, 16 rpg, 3.8 bpg, 61 FG%
Walton- 19.3 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 2.3 bpg, 50 FG%

Kareem's team overachieved in the regular season thanks to Kareem who was voted MVP. These type of teams are always exposed in the playoffs, look at the Cavs. And 2 key players were injured on the Lakers, when a team doesn't have much talent to begin with, that's devastating. We've been over the '74 finals countless times.


So, how were Kareem's performances, in his first 10 years, any better than Wilt's? If anything, he was MORE of a disappointment.

Kareem and Wilt in their first 10 years had the exact same amount of title. And Kareem won with a team far less stacked than Wilt's 76ers.

[juju151111]

45 mpg and 28 FGA in the year 2000 are not realistic. He'd be getting 11 FTA. Teams averaged 93 possessions per game. Wilt would be using about 33 possessions for scoring alone. Give him 2 apg and 4 TO and he's using 42% of the team's possessions per game and that's in stats alone. The idea of C in the era of slow, grind it out defense getting 28 FGA is laughable. By the way, nobody has averaged 45 mpg since '73. 40 mpg is fair.

31/16/2 on 51% is great, though I personally don't think he'd be able to get up enough shots to average 30.



Admittedly, Shaq's series in '99 vs San Antonio was subpar. That was the worst season of Shaq's prime(the lockout year), he never really seemed to be in shape.

In '01, The Lakers swept the Spurs and beat they by an average margin of 22 ppg. Kobe was dominant and so Shaq deferred to him because he had it going. Shaq still averaged 27/13 and easily outscored Duncan or Robinson while outrebounding both of them. The Spurs were focusing on Shaq a lot so he didn't force anything.

In '02, you may look at Shaq's numbers and think it's a bad series, but here are a few details. Shaq was playing with a finger injury, a wrist injury, a big toe injury and 2 ankle injuries. Duncan did most of his damage against Samaki Walker and Robert Horry. He was noticeably less effective against Shaq and Shaq did an exceptional job guarding him even with the injuries. Due to injuries, Robinson played LESS in '02 than '03.

Shaq's averages in '03 vs the Spurs. 25/14/4/3 on 56% shooting. And we can only guess what he would have done had he got the ball more often. Kobe was forcing shots. Kobe averaged 32 ppg, but on 43% shooting and averaged 4.5 TO compared to 3.7 apg.

And how about Shaq's '04 series vs that great Spurs defense? Shaq averaged 22.5 ppg, 14.5 rpg and 4.3 bpg on 63.5% shooting. And that same year vs the other top defense in the league. 27/11 on 63% vs Detroit. His season averages were 22/11 on 58% shooting, and this was not peak Shaq, not even close.

And it wasn't "HOF centers" limiting Shaq's numbers in SOME of the series, but the Spurs team defense, the likes of which Wilt has never seen. They always focused heavily on limiting Shaq as much as possible and even so, Shaq still beat them 3 out of 5 times and had more impressive numbers than his season in 2 of them.

Shaq's numbers didn't drop in the playoffs. His overall numbers increased in the playoffs during his career in the toughest defensive era. Wilt's rpg increased, but his ppg dropped off dramatically, unlike Shaq.

Look at the '00 finals. Kobe wasn't playing well so Shaq had extra focus on him because that team didn't have many scoring threats. In fact, Shaq had a 40/24 game when Kobe played only 9 minutes. Here are the Lakers top 3 scorers in the '00 finals.

Shaq- 38 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 2.7 bpg, 2.3 apg, 1 spg, 2.2 TO, 61 FG%
Kobe- 15.6 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 4.2 apg, 1 spg, 37 FG%
Rice- 11.5 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 1.7 apg, 40 FG%

It's much tougher doing that when an entire team is zeroing in on you vs a solid player than it is doing it vs a HOF center with more single coverage. Check out his dominance.

Great footwork, 3 defenders included 2 big men contest the shot, but Shaq scores easily. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=0m43s

Great fake and fadeaway vs 3 defenders. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=1m06s

Another triple team. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=1m53s

Phenomenal offensive rebound and he scores in the paint with 4 defenders there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=2m00s

Great post move. 4 defenders are in the paint and 3 contest the shot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=2m12s

Absolute dominance. FIVE defenders around him and he still scores. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=3m12s

Another great offensive rebound and basket in a crowded paint. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t-3m48s

Triple team, all 5 defenders paying attention to Shaq and another basket. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=4m10s

So please don't talk about competition as if Shaq is going 1 on 1, he was getting triple teamed constantly.

We all saw what Shaq did to a HOF-caliber defensive player and the 3rd best defensive team in the league in '01. Mutombo was voted DPOY that year for the 4th time, he was an 8-time all-star. Mutombo was one of the greatest defensive players in NBA history.

What about '99? Shaq in his worst season of his prime destroyed Hakeem who was still a very good player. Hakeem had averaged 19/10, 2.5 bpg and 1.6 spg on 51% shooting in that lockout-shortened season despite his team averaging 89 possessions per game.

Shaq- 29 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 4 apg, 4 bpg, 2.3 TO, 52.3 FG%
Olajuwon- 13.3 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 0.8 bpg, 0.5 apg, 1.3 TO, 42.6 FG%

How about '98 vs Sabonis who averaged 16/10/3 in just 32 mpg on a team that averaged just 90 possessions per game? Sabonis was also as big or bigger than Shaq.

Shaq- 29 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.5 apg, 2.5 bpg, 1 spg, 65.3 FG%
Sabonis- 12.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 1.5 apg, 0.8 bpg, 45 FG%



Even you know Magic was in no way the leader of the '80 Lakers. And in '82, Kareem was easily their first scoring option, they relied on him for their halfcourt offense and Kareem was still a great shot blocker and by far their most valuable defender. Even in '85 at 38, Kareem was still easily their first scoring option and once again, he carried them in the halfcourt and just a mobile 7'2" presence in the paint was far more valuable than what Magic brought defensively.



Many people who witnessed the Russell vs Wilt battles proclaimed Russell as the winner.



'77 WCF

Kareem- 30.3 ppg, 16 rpg, 3.8 bpg, 61 FG%
Walton- 19.3 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 2.3 bpg, 50 FG%

Kareem's team overachieved in the regular season thanks to Kareem who was voted MVP. These type of teams are always exposed in the playoffs, look at the Cavs. And 2 key players were injured on the Lakers, when a team doesn't have much talent to begin with, that's devastating. We've been over the '74 finals countless times.



Kareem and Wilt in their first 10 years had the exact same amount of title. And Kareem won with a team far less stacked than Wilt's 76ers.
:applause: Why don't Wilt fans consider back to backs and more teams?? Different time zones, etc... when they come up with the BS stat of him playing 45MPG?

[gts]

kareem
shaq
hakeem
wilt

kareem and shaq can be debated for number one/two, hakeem and wilt can slug it out for number 3 i suppose

[ShaqAttack3234]

:applause: Why don't Wilt fans consider back to backs and more teams?? Different time zones, etc... when they come up with the BS stat of him playing 45MPG?

Not to mention MUCH more aggressive perimeter players, hence, more foul trouble. Compare how often perimeter players attacked big men and tried to dunk on them in the 60's compared to now.

[jlauber]

:applause: Why don't Wilt fans consider back to backs and more teams?? Different time zones, etc... when they come up with the BS stat of him playing 45MPG?

:roll:

Wilt played in 22 B2B games that year...AND, in TEN 3-in-a-row's,...AND how about FIVE games in a row from January 17th thru January 21st!!!!!!! Plus FOUR in a row from Feb 1st thru Feb 4th!!!!!!! And FOUR in row from Feb 8th thru Feb 11th!!!!!!!

He also had THREE B2B's in his 12 playoff games that year.


AND, with ALL of that, he missed a TOTAL of 8 MINUTES and 33 SECONDS of the ENTIRE SEASON!

PLEASE...there has NEVER been another player in the HISTORY of the sport that could have come CLOSE to that. Not to mention he did it in a faster paced era, as well. Today's players would be dropping like flies if they had to play 40 minutes in ONE B2B set of games.

BTW, Shaq's Lakers played 19 B2B games that year...and ZERO 3-in-a-rows'...and NO B2B's in the playoffs.

[jlauber]

Not to mention MUCH more aggressive perimeter players, hence, more foul trouble. Compare how often perimeter players attacked big men and tried to dunk on them in the 60's compared to now.

There is footage of the Bucks vs. Lakers where Wilt is blocking shots by Kareem, then a driving Dandridge, then a driving Oscar...in the same game. You can be sure that those players that did drive the lane against Wilt were far less sucessful, then, than they would be against ANY center in today's era. And Russell and Thurmond, though not nearly as dominant in terms of blocked shots, were better than anyone playing today, as well.

[jlauber]

Shaq's numbers didn't drop in the playoffs. His overall numbers increased in the playoffs during his career in the toughest defensive era. Wilt's rpg increased, but his ppg dropped off dramatically, unlike Shaq.


I already gave you the examples...

against Robinson and the Spurs, in THREE CONSECUTIVE playoff series...they dropped DRAMATICALLY...ESPECIALLY his FG%...which was at .492.

And this ridculous assertion that Wilt did not face that kind of defense???? Boston used to BRUTALIZE Wilt...yes BOSTON. Ask Tom Heinsohn. It was the Celtics vs Wilt. STILL, Wilt had 30-30 series against them. In fact, in the '63-64 Finals, Wilt averaged 29-27 with around .550 series (he shot .521 against the Hawks in six games before that series, and was at .543 for the post-season.) Russell was at 11-25 BTW. And, while I don't know what he shot against Wilt, he shot .356 in 10 post-season games...five of which were against Wilt.

Now THAT is domination!

[Psileas]

Why don't Wilt fans consider back to backs and more teams?? Different time zones, etc... when they come up with the BS stat of him playing 45MPG?

OH, THE IRONY! Wilt would kill to have only back to backs. Why don't you Wilt bashers consider "back to back to back to backs"?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHW/1962_games.html

What about the schedule between Jan 17 and Jan 21:

17: Detroit
18: Cincinatti
19: Boston
20: Detroit
21: Utica

Enjoyable, eh?

As far as more teams go, yeah, Wilt really had an easy time facing Boston and Russell 10+ times every year's regular season and year after year after year in the postseason...

Please, go back to discussing Jordan topics.

[alexandreben]

In my previous post I clearly pointed out that Shaq had huge advantage in the rules change, weak opponents, slower pace to boost higher FG%. And yet ShaqAttack still believe that Wilt will only have FG% as 51% with 90 paces dropped down from 120 paces...

Shaq is ShaqAttack's treasure baby, he just can't swallow any tiny ugly truth on him:bowdown: :bowdown:

[Soothsayer]

:confusedshrug:

The only top 10 of all-time players to win multiple rings without their best teammate are Russell and Duncan and Kobe may join the list this year. Does this mean anything when comparing Duncan to Kareem? Jordan, Magic and Bird never won a ring without their best teammate, although to be fair McHale was a bench player who averaged 20 mpg in the regular season and 17 mpg in the playoffs during Bird's first title and Kareem was just a role player in 88', although the diminishing of his 87' role is ridiculous. Kareem averaged 18 ppg in the regular season, 19 ppg in the playoffs and 22 ppg in the NBA finals that year. He was hardly just along for the ride.



Bruce? :eek: :cheers:



His post was aimed at me and Fatal, even though I merely defended Kareem and didn't attack Wilt. The self-proclaimed "wise man" STILL :roll: :roll: thinks I am a Lakers fan--even though not a single LAL fan "thinks" that for obvious reasons. Remember, according to several Jordan fans here and mysteriously one Wilt fan who is obsessed with Kobe (what is the Kobe-Wilt connection?), Pippen has no real fans, even though he was possibly the third most popular player of the 90's behind MJ and Shaq. Pippen "fans"=closet Kobe fans!

:roll: :roll:


:roll:

Because anyone who recognizes reality must be Bruce Blitz?
Ironic, considering I think that dude is a tool.

But the facts are facts, and they speak for themselves.
Jordan was the primary cause BY FAR for the bulls success in the playoffs in 88 and 89, not Pippen being on the team.

[Soothsayer]

No, but your response and your :mad: resembled what bruce used to say when that was said. Plus, you are a hardcore "MJ is GOAT" person a la bruce. Of course, on a forum with thousands of members it certainly is possible for two people to simply have similar views and inclinations.



Of course, but without Pippen the Bulls would lose in the first round for the fourth consecutive season in 88'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M79eJyW_T0M Funny how MJ fans love to point out he did not start in the regular season, which implies he did start in the playoffs, yet never mention what he did when he was given a chance to start.


Look again. I didn't have a :mad: symbol.
And I'm not a hardcore "MJ is GOAT" person. I believe about 5 players have a case as GOAT. I just happen to believe Jordan has the best case.
I have found quite a few people tending to spread misinformation about MJ in order to attempt to diminish his legacy. I simply correct lies and misinformation.

In 88, without Pip the bulls lose in the first round again? :roll:
Nonsensical.
In the 88 playoffs, Pip's contribution can be measured by PER.
Pip had the 5th highest PER on the team in 29 minutes per game, with raw stats of 10 ppg, 5 rpg, 1 steal, 1 block. Pip in the 88 playoffs was not nearly the player he would later become.
Pip's contribution was slightly more valuable than that of Dave Corzine.
Replacing 10pts and 5 rebounds is not much of a challenge.
Without Pippen, thus, the 88 Bulls led by MVP and DPOY Jordan would likely still have made the 2nd round.
Replace Pippen with a player who was actually experienced and could contribute more, and we are looking at likely conference finals.

[PHILA]

Not to mention MUCH more aggressive perimeter players, hence, more foul trouble. Compare how often perimeter players attacked big men and tried to dunk on them in the 60's compared to now.

Or how pussified the rules are now, hindering any sort of impact a big guy can have on either end of the floor. Number of minutes would depend on the coach and team he played for. No matter the minutes, that is not enough to impact his game nearly as much as just how brutally awful his competition in the pivot would be today.

[PHILA]

OH, THE IRONY! Wilt would kill to have only back to backs. Why don't you Wilt bashers consider "back to back to back to backs"?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...962_games.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHW/1962_games.html)

What about the schedule between Jan 17 and Jan 21:

17: Detroit
18: Cincinatti
19: Boston
20: Detroit
21: Utica

Enjoyable, eh?

As far as more teams go, yeah, Wilt really had an easy time facing Boston and Russell 10+ times every year's regular season and year after year after year in the postseason...

Please, go back to discussing Jordan topics.
He also indeed tolerated physical pain as well as anybody, having been intentionally elbowed in the chin by the dirty massive Clyde Lovellete, his jaw was violently pushed upwards resulting in his two front lower teeth puncturing the roof of his mouth. This resulted in an infection, swelling his face to the point that he was unable to eat solid food (rather consuming large quantities of 7-Up & orange juice) or sleep. For the Warriors (who were in 2nd place) fears of falling too far behind in the standings, Wilt started the next game against Detroit with a protective mask despite his dizziness and migraine headaches. Against the Knicks, he was hit again by Willie Naulls. Having finally been able to see team physician Dr. Si Ball, it was concluded that Wilt had blood poisoning so acute that Dr. Ball was shocked that Wilt had been able to remain on his two feet, much less play. He was taken into emergency surgery. These dirty hits eventually gave him dental problems for the rest of his life and has been said as one of the possibilities that led to his mysterious death (being some sort of heart infection). Note he even had stomach and heart problems later in the 60's.


At the time injuries throughout the league were viewed with a Spartan disdain. Basically guys were afraid to sit out because there could possibly be a new player ready to take his spot due to the fewer number of teams resulting in the tight talent pool. Every player back then could play. There were no players missing weeks or even months of games with ankle sprains at the time. There was not as much insurance of & for the players (even stars) like there is today.

[Simple Jack]

What you Wilt people are ignoring is the fact that the average player in the 60's was absolute garbage. Defensive ability was laughable, offense was extremely predictable and limited.

I can't for the life of me, understand how you guys watch footage or full games and not wonder what half of those players were doing and laughing at how many terrible plays were run/especially on the defensive end.

Where was the athletic 3 or 4 rotating out on defense? Where was the 2 guard getting caught on the pick and roll and an athletic forward rotating out for the weakside help? All you see is some slow, unathletic white guys, standing around with their arms raised, in awe as Wilt or other good players in the era went past them.

Doesn't it make sense to you guys that the more people play a particular sport, the more selective the skill will be, and thus creating a harder/more talented league? The whole World plays basketball now. We aren't just drafting from America. We have a monstrous talent pool that allows even the worst player on a team to have a higher level of talent.

That's not to say Wilt wouldn't be great now, but it's nauseating when JLauber cites Wilts stats and records as if he'd be able to even do half of that playing now. You've compared Wilt to Jordan's stats as if Wilt's 50 24 was somehow a feat that someone could accomplish today.
:hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:

[ShaqAttack3234]

I already gave you the examples...

against Robinson and the Spurs, in THREE CONSECUTIVE playoff series...they dropped DRAMATICALLY...ESPECIALLY his FG%...which was at .492.

Yet you ignore the circumstances while making every excuse under the sun for Wilt. Yes, he was subpar in 1999, but as long as you make excuses for Wilt, how about the fact that it was in a lockout shortened season yet they had to adjust to a big midseason trade, 3 different head coaches and the Dennis Rodman distraction. It's pretty easy to imagine a team falling apart.

And don't even act like '99 was part of his peak. That was his worst season from '93-'05. Yes, Shaq should have played better, but you cannot call that part of his peak.

They only dropped "dramatically" in 1999 and 2002. And as I mentioned in 2002, he had a ton of injuries and despite that, he played great defense when it was his time to guard Duncan. You fail to mention Shaq's big clutch performance in game 1. Here is a recap of that clutch 4th quarter performance in game 1 after leaving with an injury.

Shaq and Duncan went head to head for most of the 4th quarter and Shaq came out on top. Both played excellent defense on eachother even though they both needed help at times, but Shaq scored 13 points in the 4th quarter including a clutch 5 for 6 performance at the foul line in the quarter.

How exactly did his stats drop dramatically in 2001? 27/13 instead of 29/13? And that production in a series they swept by 20+ ppg game.

Acting like his performance in the '01 WCF was subpar is laughable.

And I notice you exclude '02 and '03. In '03, Robinson played more than the previous year and their defensive rating was identical. In 2004, the Spurs defensive rating blew away '02 and '03 and he destroyed them.

In '01, the Spurs defensive rating was better than '02 or '03 and once again, Shaq had a good series, he completely outplayed either of the Spurs twin towers and LA won easily.

You can bring up San Antonio, but you can't exclude '03 and '04. And as a result, you have just 2 series out of 5 where he struggled, in one of them he was injured and still won the series. And just 2 series that he lost out of the 5, and in one of them, he was productive than his regular season numbers.

Another big difference is that Wilt was 1-7 vs Boston while Shaq was 3-2 vs the Spurs.

And once again, Shaq's stats dropped vs ONE team and not by that much when you include '02 and '03. Wilt's scoring stats dropped noticeably for his entire playoff career.


And this ridculous assertion that Wilt did not face that kind of defense???? Boston used to BRUTALIZE Wilt...yes BOSTON. Ask Tom Heinsohn. It was the Celtics vs Wilt. STILL, Wilt had 30-30 series against them. In fact, in the '63-64 Finals, Wilt averaged 29-27 with around .550 series (he shot .521 against the Hawks in six games before that series, and was at .543 for the post-season.) Russell was at 11-25 BTW. And, while I don't know what he shot against Wilt, he shot .356 in 10 post-season games...five of which were against Wilt.

:roll: If you think any defensive teams from the 60's were as tough as the Spurs, Pistons or even the average defensive team from '97-'04 then you're even more delusional than I thought. Post some game footage where we see great team defense.

Wilt was pretty good in the '64 finals, but in the game I've seen, while he was scoring, his defense didn't stand out. And still, 29 ppg in the 60's isn't amazing.

[Psileas]

What you Wilt people are ignoring is the fact that the average player in the 60's was absolute garbage. Defensive ability was laughable, offense was extremely predictable and limited.

I can't for the life of me, understand how you guys watch footage or full games and not wonder what half of those players were doing and laughing at how many terrible plays were run/especially on the defensive end.

Where was the athletic 3 or 4 rotating out on defense? Where was the 2 guard getting caught on the pick and roll and an athletic forward rotating out for the weakside help? All you see is some slow, unathletic white guys, standing around with their arms raised, in awe as Wilt or other good players in the era went past them.

Doesn't it make sense to you guys that the more people play a particular sport, the more selective the skill will be, and thus creating a harder/more talented league? The whole World plays basketball now. We aren't just drafting from America. We have a monstrous talent pool that allows even the worst player on a team to have a higher level of talent.

That's not to say Wilt wouldn't be great now, but it's nauseating when JLauber cites Wilts stats and records as if he'd be able to even do half of that playing now. You've compared Wilt to Jordan's stats as if Wilt's 50 24 was somehow a feat that someone could accomplish today.
:hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:


The problem with people like you is that you can't really figure out what is worthy of criticism and what isn't. You see guys who don't often dunk and you reach to the conclusion that they are unathletic. You see non sophisticated offensive plays and claim that players/coaches were stupid/garbage. You see less sophisticated defense and conclude that it's the best these guys can do. You are talking about putting things into perspective, but you're very hypocritically closing your eyes to situations like the average human's ability to get used to evolution and progress. You're seeing Bob Cousy dribble like he did in the 50's and immediately pretend that he'd do the same thing if he played in the 2000's.
You, equally hypocritically, overgeneralize weak aspects of certain players or take scrubs as examples of the "league average". Someone for example in Youtube was making fun of Gary Philips and his way of playing. Well, no ****, Sherlock, Philips was a scrub who did NOTHING in his career, so way to mock.
Practically, that's like me commenting on Rondo's shooting that "these NBA guys can't hit a long shot to save their lives" or commenting on the Knicks' games that "the NBA is not basketball, it's the Barnum & Bailey circus" or comment on Marbury's basketball IQ that "typical NBA, one guy dribbles for 20 seconds and then jacks up a prayer with the others just watching". Funnily enough, a lot of European basketball fans already believe these things.

Of course, to return to what I was saying previously, some of you check a bit deeper and see that "unathletic white boys" like John Havlicek or Dan Issel (yes, you'd certainly classify them as such, if you didn't know who they are) played at a high level even against the same players that young Bird and Magic and prime Doctor faced, or that some rare athletes like Darryl Dawkins who should be able to look like Wilt in the 70's don't even come close, which doesn't exactly confirm your calculations and you start realizing that maybe these guys weren't totally garbage, after all...The rest of you stick to maybe 1 or 2 random clips and pretend you became experts and that you know the limits of each player.

[jlauber]

Yet you ignore the circumstances while making every excuse under the sun for Wilt. Yes, he was subpar in 1999, but as long as you make excuses for Wilt, how about the fact that it was in a lockout shortened season yet they had to adjust to a big midseason trade, 3 different head coaches and the Dennis Rodman distraction. It's pretty easy to imagine a team falling apart.

And don't even act like '99 was part of his peak. That was his worst season from '93-'05. Yes, Shaq should have played better, but you cannot call that part of his peak.

They only dropped "dramatically" in 1999 and 2002. And as I mentioned in 2002, he had a ton of injuries and despite that, he played great defense when it was his time to guard Duncan. You fail to mention Shaq's big clutch performance in game 1. Here is a recap of that clutch 4th quarter performance in game 1 after leaving with an injury.

Shaq and Duncan went head to head for most of the 4th quarter and Shaq came out on top. Both played excellent defense on eachother even though they both needed help at times, but Shaq scored 13 points in the 4th quarter including a clutch 5 for 6 performance at the foul line in the quarter.

How exactly did his stats drop dramatically in 2001? 27/13 instead of 29/13? And that production in a series they swept by 20+ ppg game.

Acting like his performance in the '01 WCF was subpar is laughable.

And I notice you exclude '02 and '03. In '03, Robinson played more than the previous year and their defensive rating was identical. In 2004, the Spurs defensive rating blew away '02 and '03 and he destroyed them.

In '01, the Spurs defensive rating was better than '02 or '03 and once again, Shaq had a good series, he completely outplayed either of the Spurs twin towers and LA won easily.

You can bring up San Antonio, but you can't exclude '03 and '04. And as a result, you have just 2 series out of 5 where he struggled, in one of them he was injured and still won the series. And just 2 series that he lost out of the 5, and in one of them, he was productive than his regular season numbers.

Another big difference is that Wilt was 1-7 vs Boston while Shaq was 3-2 vs the Spurs.

And once again, Shaq's stats dropped vs ONE team and not by that much when you include '02 and '03. Wilt's scoring stats dropped noticeably for his entire playoff career.



:roll: If you think any defensive teams from the 60's were as tough as the Spurs, Pistons or even the average defensive team from '97-'04 then you're even more delusional than I thought. Post some game footage where we see great team defense.

Wilt was pretty good in the '64 finals, but in the game I've seen, while he was scoring, his defense didn't stand out. And still, 29 ppg in the 60's isn't amazing.

I make excuses for Wilt...like the fact that he faced the greatest dynasty in pro sports history...in EVERY year of his SCORING seasons. In fact, as Alexbrethren pointed out, Wilt MISSED the playoffs in his second greatest scoring season, 62-63, on arguably the WORST team in NBA history. I will post that roster in a couple of days, but there was virtually NO talent on that team, except for perhaps Guy Rodgers, a career .378 shooter. In any case, had Wilt played that year, you could reasonbale expect ANOTHER 35+ ppg post-season.

Chamberlain faced Russell's Celtics in the first or second round in six of those post-seasons. And when he wasn't facing Russell, he was facing the Reed-Bellamy duo, or Thurmond, or Kerr...ALL in the HOF. In his first six post-seasons (seven years) he averaged 33 ppg and 26 rpg on over .500 shooting in an era of .420+. He had MONSTER games against Russell, BTW, including FOUR 40-30 games in the post-season, and a staggering 50-35 game in game five of his rookie year.

So, when I point out that Robinson and his Spurs reduced Shaq dramatically, in THREE STRAIGHT series, you immediately try to side-step the point by bringing up other post-season series. The FACT was, Shaq seldom faced anyone close to the HOFers that Wilt did.

And the reality was...Wilt outplayed EVERY opposing center he faced in his entire 29 post-season series. AND, the ONLY series in which he was really outscored (the other's were marginal and Wilt outshot the opponents dramatically), was in the 71-72 WCF's. Here again, the vast majority of the media hailed Wilt as the conquering hero in that series against Kareem. Even the MILWAUKEE media acknowledged it!

Did Wilt have some disappointing series? Sure...like '68 and '69...BUT he was STILL the best center on the floor in those series, and he was, at the very least, in the top-2 of all the players in either.

NO ONE outscored Wilt in his "scoring" seasons." And aside from Kareem barely outshooting him that '72 WCF's (.457 to .452...and at least Wilt wasn't killing his team with his misses)...Chamberlain outshot EVERY opposing center (in those that I could find...and in several, it was by a HUGE margin.)

AND, of course, Wilt was the BEST rebounder in EVERY post-season series in which he played...even into his FINAL post-season, when, at age 36, he averaged an astonishing 22.5 rpg. You can dummy-up all the "pace" factors you want...Wilt was THE greatest post-season rebounder...EVER. (And, how about Shaq and Kareem at age 36 BW?)

So, quit pointing out Wilt's "lower scoring", when he faced the greatest defensive centers of all-time in the post-season. Russell in 49 games! Thumond in 17. Reed in 17. Kareem in 11. Bellamy in six. Lucas in five (actually in 14), and Kerr in three.

Furthermore, as I have said MANY times, Wilt was a play, here-or-there, or a basket, here-or-there, or a blown call(s) by the officials, or a horribly-coached game...from FIVE (even six) more rings. FOUR of them by a COMBINED NINE points.

How many titles would he have won had he had Russell's surrounding talent from 60-65? How many would have he won had injuries not decimated his team in '68? His incompetent coach in '69? The horrible officiating in game five of '70? Had he had a healthy team in '71? Had he had a healthy team in '73?

You can make excuses for all great players, but you won't find any other player who was so close to 4-5 more rings. We are talking about SINGLE plays in ONE series, affecting the outcome of Russell winning 11 rings, or seven, and Wilt winning two, or SEVEN.

One more time...Wilt was the best center on the court in all of his post-season series. That he only won two rings was NOT his fault. If anything, he CARRIED teams to an eyelash of several more.

[jlauber]

The problem with people like you is that you can't really figure out what is worthy of criticism and what isn't. You see guys who don't often dunk and you reach to the conclusion that they are unathletic. You see non sophisticated offensive plays and claim that players/coaches were stupid/garbage. You see less sophisticated defense and conclude that it's the best these guys can do. You are talking about putting things into perspective, but you're very hypocritically closing your eyes to situations like the average human's ability to get used to evolution and progress. You're seeing Bob Cousy dribble like he did in the 50's and immediately pretend that he'd do the same thing if he played in the 2000's.
You, equally hypocritically, overgeneralize weak aspects of certain players or take scrubs as examples of the "league average". Someone for example in Youtube was making fun of Gary Philips and his way of playing. Well, no ****, Sherlock, Philips was a scrub who did NOTHING in his career, so way to mock.
Practically, that's like me commenting on Rondo's shooting that "these NBA guys can't hit a long shot to save their lives" or commenting on the Knicks' games that "the NBA is not basketball, it's the Barnum & Bailey circus" or comment on Marbury's basketball IQ that "typical NBA, one guy dribbles for 20 seconds and then jacks up a prayer with the others just watching". Funnily enough, a lot of European basketball fans already believe these things.

Of course, to return to what I was saying previously, some of you check a bit deeper and see that "unathletic white boys" like John Havlicek or Dan Issel (yes, you'd certainly classify them as such, if you didn't know who they are) played at a high level even against the same players that young Bird and Magic and prime Doctor faced, or that some rare athletes like Darryl Dawkins who should be able to look like Wilt in the 70's don't even come close, which doesn't exactly confirm your calculations and you start realizing that maybe these guys weren't totally garbage, after all...The rest of you stick to maybe 1 or 2 random clips and pretend you became experts and that you know the limits of each player.

For all the nonsense that Fatal9 posts here...he did provide the best argument for Wilt...in the "what would Wilt do in today's game?" debate...

when a way-over-the-hill Kareem shelled Olajuwon for 42 ppg in three games in the '86 season. Here was Kareem blowing up a center who would go on to be the best center of the 90's...and who many here consider a GOAT.

So, how could Kareem dominate Hakeem, in his late 30's, and shoot nearly 60% for the decade of the 80's...and yet be outplayed, and certainly neutralized by players like Thurmond and Chamberlain...BOTH past THEIR peaks at the time? Kareem was a career 46% shooter against Wilt...and a 44% post-season shooter against Thurmond. He never faced Russell, nor did he face a prime Reed or Bellamy, either. And 6-9 WHITE center Dave Cowens gave him all he could handle in the '74 Finals. AND, of course the BIG question mark...how would a PRIME Kareem (and he was arguably in his prime in the early 70's)...have fared against a PRIME Chamberlain?

AND, the even BIGGER question...how would a PRIME Wilt have fared in the 00's?

[ShaqAttack3234]

I make excuses for Wilt...like the fact that he faced the greatest dynasty in pro sports history...in EVERY year of his SCORING seasons. In fact, as Alexbrethren pointed out, Wilt MISSED the playoffs in his second greatest scoring season, 62-63, on arguably the WORST team in NBA history. I will post that roster in a couple of days, but there was virtually NO talent on that team, except for perhaps Guy Rodgers, a career .378 shooter. In any case, had Wilt played that year, you could reasonbale expect ANOTHER 35+ ppg post-season.

Wilt had what? two 35 ppg postseasons?

One of them was just 3 games, He averaged 37 ppg, but on 47% shooting, not amazing for 3 games.

The other was 1962 and we've gone over that. 35 ppg on 47% shooting in 12 games is nothing amazing.


So, when I point out that Robinson and his Spurs reduced Shaq dramatically, in THREE STRAIGHT series, you immediately try to side-step the point by bringing up other post-season series. The FACT was, Shaq seldom faced anyone close to the HOFers that Wilt did.

I didn't side step anything you clueless moron. I brought up 2 other series against the Spurs, in fact, in those series the Spurs defense was as strong or stronger. And once again, look at Shaq's entire playoff runs and then Wilt's and don't give me that competition crap.


So, quit pointing out Wilt's "lower scoring", when he faced the greatest defensive centers of all-time in the post-season. Russell in 49 games! Thumond in 17. Reed in 17. Kareem in 11. Bellamy in six. Lucas in five (actually in 14), and Kerr in three.

Lucas, Kerr, Reed, Bellamy? Shaq would take these guys lunch money. How many of those guys were actually great shot blockers or big physical players?

And once again, compare the team defense in the eras.


You can make excuses for all great players, but you won't find any other player who was so close to 4-5 more rings. We are talking about SINGLE plays in ONE series, affecting the outcome of Russell winning 11 rings, or seven, and Wilt winning two, or SEVEN.

Forget excuses, as a Shaq and Kareem fan, I don't need them. Those guys WON more titles than Wilt. Get this "almost title" crap out of here.

[AirJordan23]

I would like to see footage of Kareem dominating Hakeem. Anyone have any videos? From what I've heard, it was Sampson who was usually guarding Jabbar. Not that the source was legit but I'm just putting it out there.

[Fatal9]

Wilt almost would have had one title if Oscar was healthy in the '72 WCF and Refs didn't gift game 2 towards the Lakers (a one pt game). Bucks were the better team, they outscored the Lakers over the series. This shit can go on for hours :rolleyes:

Also LOL @ this guy and his fantasy that Wilt is averaging 40 ppg on 60%. I think he claimed before Wilt would average 40/20/10 or something. Apparently, Wilt's post game is going to be infinitely better just because league FG% rose (which has to do with better shot selection amongst perimeter players and the average player being more skilled and talented. The defense in the 60s is absolutely abominable, and it's literally the last reason as to why the FG% was low.)

[Fatal9]

I would like to see footage of Kareem dominating Hakeem. Anyone have any videos? From what I've heard, it was Sampson who was usually guarding Jabbar. Not that the source was legit but I'm just putting it out there.
I've seen the entire '86 WCF and couple of regular season matchups before that. I'd say Sampson guarded him 60% of the time, Hakeem 30% (sometimes more depending on if Sampson was playing) and Petersen 10%. They'd combine to double him a lot too. Hakeem was a very dumb defender at that point in his career (and would be so till the early 90s). Bit on every ball fake, very easy to just show him the ball and get him off his feet to score. Most impressive thing to me was old Kareem having ZERO problem getting off his skyhook against 7'4 Sampson who was a very quick leaper.

[jlauber]

He also indeed tolerated physical pain as well as anybody, having been intentionally elbowed in the chin by the dirty massive Clyde Lovellete, his jaw was violently pushed upwards resulting in his two front lower teeth puncturing the roof of his mouth. This resulted in an infection, swelling his face to the point that he was unable to eat solid food (rather consuming large quantities of 7-Up & orange juice) or sleep. For the Warriors (who were in 2nd place) fears of falling too far behind in the standings, Wilt started the next game against Detroit with a protective mask despite his dizziness and migraine headaches. Against the Knicks, he was hit again by Willie Naulls. Having finally been able to see team physician Dr. Si Ball, it was concluded that Wilt had blood poisoning so acute that Dr. Ball was shocked that Wilt had been able to remain on his two feet, much less play. He was taken into emergency surgery. These dirty hits eventually gave him dental problems for the rest of his life and has been said as one of the possibilities that led to his mysterious death (being some sort of heart infection). Note he even had stomach and heart problems later in the 60's.


At the time injuries throughout the league were viewed with a Spartan disdain. Basically guys were afraid to sit out because there could possibly be a new player ready to take his spot due to the fewer number of teams resulting in the tight talent pool. Every player back then could play. There were no players missing weeks or even months of games with ankle sprains at the time. There was not as much insurance of & for the players (even stars) like there is today.

AND, there was NO ONE, before, or SINCE, that was TOUGH as Chamberlain. He played 14 seasons in the NBA, and led in mpg NINE times. He has the TOP-SEVEN seasons. In his FINAL NBA season, at age 36, he averaged 43 mpg...and 47.1 mpg in the post-season that year. He AVERAGED 45.2 mpg in his CAREER. Even more remarkably, he AVERAGED 47.2 mpg in his post-season CAREER.

Abe mentioned the infection that nearly KILLED him early in his career. I won't take the time to find and post the articles now, but when Wilt went down with his horrific knee injury injury in the ninth game of the 69-70 season, virtually ALL medical opinion stated that he was done for the season. There were some that felt it might be career-ending (he was, after all, seven-foot, and 300 lbs.)

Incredibly, Wilt rehabbed on his own, and returned late in the '69-70 season (he played aa few minutes in each of the last three games.) He led LA back from a 3-1 series deficit in the first-round of the playoffs, with two 30+ point games, and 16 blocks in another. After sweeping the Hawks, he took his over-the-hill, 46-36 team up against one of the greatest teams of all-time, the 69-70 Knicks. How great was that team? They went 60-22, and then blew-up Kareem and his 56-26 Bucks, 4-1. They had the regular season MVP, Willis Reed, in his finest season, and THREE other HOFers (Bradley, DeBusschere, and Frazier), as well as Cazzie Russell (the best 6h man in the league), and a deep bench.

Chamberlain, on one leg, battled Reed to a draw in the first four games, and the series was tied 2-2. In game five, Wilt was outplaying Reed, when Reed went down with a knee injury himself (although certainly nothing like Chamberlain's injury)..AND wth histeam BEHIND by 10 points. Had the officials not given that game five to NY (even New York Times writer Leonard Koppett claimed as much), Wilt's monster game six, a 45-27 game on 20-27 shooting, would have won that series. Instead, the series went to a game seven. And the rest is history. Reed stumbled out, hit his first two shots (one was a complete fluke BTW), and then the rest of the Knicks just went wild. They hit 15 of their first 21 shots, and with Frazier finally stopping West, the Knicks blew open the game, and won easily.

Still, all Wilt did, on basically one healthy leg, was average 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625 from the floor. In that last game, while Reed was going 2-5 for four points, and three rebounds...Wilt put up a 21-24 game (on 10-16 shooting.)

And yet, the EXPECTATIONS were so great for Wilt, that he was considered a "failure", while Reed was labeled a hero. Wilt was EXPECTED to DOMINATE, even if he was well below 100%.

IMHO, had that been ANY OTHER player in the history of the NBA...they would STILL be talking about what an incredible performance, even in defeat. Instead, it was Wilt...so, he was once again, a "loser."

[Simple Jack]

The problem with people like you is that you can't really figure out what is worthy of criticism and what isn't. You see guys who don't often dunk and you reach to the conclusion that they are unathletic. You see non sophisticated offensive plays and claim that players/coaches were stupid/garbage. You see less sophisticated defense and conclude that it's the best these guys can do. You are talking about putting things into perspective, but you're very hypocritically closing your eyes to situations like the average human's ability to get used to evolution and progress. You're seeing Bob Cousy dribble like he did in the 50's and immediately pretend that he'd do the same thing if he played in the 2000's.
You, equally hypocritically, overgeneralize weak aspects of certain players or take scrubs as examples of the "league average". Someone for example in Youtube was making fun of Gary Philips and his way of playing. Well, no ****, Sherlock, Philips was a scrub who did NOTHING in his career, so way to mock.
Practically, that's like me commenting on Rondo's shooting that "these NBA guys can't hit a long shot to save their lives" or commenting on the Knicks' games that "the NBA is not basketball, it's the Barnum & Bailey circus" or comment on Marbury's basketball IQ that "typical NBA, one guy dribbles for 20 seconds and then jacks up a prayer with the others just watching". Funnily enough, a lot of European basketball fans already believe these things.

Of course, to return to what I was saying previously, some of you check a bit deeper and see that "unathletic white boys" like John Havlicek or Dan Issel (yes, you'd certainly classify them as such, if you didn't know who they are) played at a high level even against the same players that young Bird and Magic and prime Doctor faced, or that some rare athletes like Darryl Dawkins who should be able to look like Wilt in the 70's don't even come close, which doesn't exactly confirm your calculations and you start realizing that maybe these guys weren't totally garbage, after all...The rest of you stick to maybe 1 or 2 random clips and pretend you became experts and that you know the limits of each player.

Way to overreact and generalize my opinion. I have tremendous respect for old-school players, I just don't overrate them like you guys. And it's not even your average player, it's your average starter.

Literally, I watch full games and I'm not impressed at all by the average players skills/athleticism/defense/offense. It's not even that im not impressed, it's that it's laughable.

[jlauber]

Wilt almost would have had one title if Oscar was healthy in the '72 WCF and Refs didn't gift game 2 towards the Lakers (a one pt game). Bucks were the better team, they outscored the Lakers over the series. This shit can go on for hours :rolleyes:

Also LOL @ this guy and his fantasy that Wilt is averaging 40 ppg on 60%. I think he claimed before Wilt would average 40/20/10 or something. Apparently, Wilt's post game is going to be infinitely better just because league FG% rose (which has to do with better shot selection amongst perimeter players and the average player being more skilled and talented. The defense in the 60s is absolutely abominable, and it's literally the last reason as to why the FG% was low.)

Yep, Kareem shot .518 in '70, and had other seasons in the 70's and at his physical PEAK where he shot .539, .529, and .513...BUT, suddenly, in the 80's, he was nearly 60% every season until age 39. And, against Thurmond in his post-season CAREER, he shot 44%, and against Wilt, in his ENTIRE CAREER, he shot 46%. He could shoot 60% in the 80's, but he struggled to get 7 rpg.

[PHILA]

'"How many layups do you think there were in the last Laker game? Forty-eight. People will tell you guys shoot better now. No doubt they shoot a little better, but not like you'd think from looking at the percentages. Mike Cooper is shooting 59 percent. You want to bet some money he'd outshoot Jerry West? I'll bet my house against him (Cooper) on Dolph Schayes. I'll take Larry Costello and give you any Laker with the exception of Wilkes.

Players just get to the basket (layups) more. It ups their percentage. There's no defense inside. When I played, if the other team ran a fast break two or three times, the coach would assign a forward to break back on defense as soon as the ball went up. I never see a coach doing that now. There were no uncontested layups.

My last two or three years I shot 69 to 73 percent. You think I was a better shooter? No, the defenses got worse and I was able to dunk every damn ball I wanted to. It was easier to get there. When I played against guys like Johnny Kerr . . . He was 6-10 and couldn't jump, but I'll tell you, you didn't get to the basket on him."'

-1982



"It's a run up and down the court and dunk the ball game now. These are speed merchants and jumping fools. That's why their shooting percentages are going way up. I led the league 11 times in field goal percentage and my lifetime average was 54%. There are now five billion guys shooting over 54%. Can you imagine playing when your hands are so cold and the ball is as hard as a brick? I can remember going to Detroit and playing the old Detroit Arena and there's about 3000 people in this big old huge thing. Every time they opened the door, the wind blows through. I can vividly remember Paul Arizin blowing into his hands and the smoke was blowing out of his nose. Guys were shooting 37%, and these were great shooters. People look at that any say, 'Is that a basketball player or was he on a blind team?' They don't know how to put that into perspective."

-1985

[Fatal9]

Yep, Kareem shot .518 in '70
That was his rookie season (went on to average 35 ppg on 57% in playoffs as a rookie). He followed it up with 32 ppg on 58% and 35 ppg on 57% and then 30 ppg on 55.4%. These are not only some of the most (if not the most) efficient 30+ ppg scoring seasons in NBA history, but EASILY better than Wilt's FG% in ANY of his 30+ ppg season. You are such a clown. I don't know why you purposely lie so much in your posts.

[jlauber]

That was his rookie season (went on to average 35 ppg on 57% in playoffs as a rookie). He followed it up with 32 ppg on 58% and 35 ppg on 57% and then 30 ppg on 55.4%. These are not only some of the most (if not the most) efficient 30+ ppg scoring seasons in NBA history, but EASILY better than Wilt's FG% in ANY of his 30+ ppg season. You are such a clown. I don't know why you purposely lie so much in your posts.

First of all, it was YOU who said that the NBA did not play defense in the 60's...yet I merel pointed out that Thurmond, a great player from the 60's, held Kareem to a CAREER 44% in their H2H post-season games...AND, that Wilt held Kareem to 46% shooting in their 28 CAREER H2H matchups. AND, BOTH Thurmond and Wilt were well past their primes, too. Pity Kareem havng to battle those guys in the mid-60's, when they were in THEIR primes.

And, yes, Kareem had some great 30 ppg seasons, yet you fail to acknowledge his rather poor FG% seasons, as well. You rip Wilt for shooting .528 in his 44.8 ppg season...BUT where is your criticism of Kareem's .539, .529, .518, and .513 seasons...ALL in the 70's??? The same Kareem, who clearly was well past his physical peak in the 80's, and could barely get 7 rpg...BUT shot .564 to .604 for almost every year of the decade.

Of course, as YOU pointed out, Hakeem, one of the greatest defensive players of HIS era, was getting torched for over 40 ppg, by a Kareem who could barely get up the floor in '86. Obviously, that confirms YOUR take that those players of the 60's, like Thurmond and Wilt (and Kareem was fortunate enough to have missed Russell) were much worse defenders than those of later eras, like the 80's. Yep, Kareem struggled to shoot 45% against Wilt and Thurmond, and could outscore the clowns of the 80's...and shoot nearly 60% in almost every season of the 80's...but those players of the 60's were to quote you..


The defense in the 60s is absolutely abominable, and it's literally the last reason as to why the FG% was low

Of course, Chamberlain's .683 and 24.1 ppg season in 66-67, in a league that shot .441 was just a fluke, I guess. Just as were all of his rebounding titles, FG% titles, assist title, oh, and BTW, his SEVEN scoring titles. Or his 130+ NBA records. Many of his records were achieved against a SLEW of HOF centers BTW.

[Duncan21formvp]

Take a look at how Wilt played against his PEERS, most all of whom were in the HOF. He DOMINATED THEM. I don't give a rats ass about his scoring dropping. His rebounding and defense were the best of his era.

He didn't dominate them. He once averaged 11.7 ppg in the finals.

[jlauber]

He didn't dominate them. He once averaged 11.7 ppg in the finals.

Yeah...ask his COACH on that one. BTW, he STILL outscored his HOF opposing center who averaged 9.1 ppg. AND, BTW, Wilt outrebounded him, as well, 175-150 in that series. AND, it was probably Wilt's WORST post-season performance.

[PHILA]

He didn't dominate them. He once averaged 11.7 ppg in the finals.
How about '66-67, the best season of any NBA player to this day?


NBA Vault - 1966-67 76ers (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5)



From Tall Tales:

Hannum and Chamberlain had a couple of long talks before the season. They were both 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 to give up a lot.

Chamberlain considered that, but he also told Hannum, "I want to win. I'll give it a try."

Hannum had the most physically imposing fron line in NBA history: Chet Walker, Luke Jackson and Chamberlain were tall, wide and rippled with muscles. They formed a wall in front of the basket that no team could penetrate, unless a player wanted to eat the ball or count his bruises.

Six players averaged double figures. Wilt still scored 24 per game, but he only shot when he knew he'd make it; he led the league in field goal percentage at .683. Consider that New York's Walt Bellamy was second at .521, and you can put Wilt's marksmanship into context.


Chamberlain's critics were speechless.




Regular Season Statistics:

24 ppg, 24 rpg, 8 apg, 68 FG%


A couple of notable performances from the regular season.


Sarasota Journal (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=uf4eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EIwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3823,2058474&dq)

Chamberlain scores 58 points and grabs 25 rebounds shooting 76% from the field to help lead the Sixers to victory, snapping a 2 game losing streak.


The Spokesman Review (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2AAzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zOgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1311,3623523&dq)

Chamberlain scores 42 points on 18/18 shooting from the field (100% FG) in a 76ers rout of the Bullets 149-118.


NBA Record - 35 consecutive field goals without a miss from February 17, 1967 through February 28, 1967

NBA Record - Most field goals in a game without a miss (18-18, Philadelphia 76ers vs. the Baltimore Bullets on February 24, 1967)

Chamberlain also holds the next two most with 16-16 (March 19, 1967) and 15-15 (January 20, 1967)





In the playoffs it appears Chamberlain had a field day in the first round against the Royals. :applause:


Game 1: 41 points, 23 rebounds, 5 assists, 63% FG

Game 2: 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists, 67% FG

Game 3: 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists, 62% FG

Game 4: 18 points, 27 rebounds, 9 assists, 50% FG


Series Averages: 28.0 ppg, 26.8 rpg, 11 apg, 61% FG



Coach Hannum's comments following Game 2:

"Wilt showed why he should be recognized as the greatest player in the history of the game. We also tried to key in on Oscar Robertson a little more tonight and since Wally Jones is smaller we tried to shift other men on him too. We've got two tough ball clubs, but I feel Philadelphia is physically stronger than the Royals."



Wilt & Russell head to head in the Eastern Divison Finals (couldn't find the block totals for Russell)


Game 1:

Wilt - 24 points, 32 rebounds, 12 assists, 12 blocks, 69% FG (Hal Greer had 39 points as well)
Russell - 20 points, 15 rebounds, 4 assists, 50% FG

Times-News (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=hG4dAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cSQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4657,46592&dq)

"Wilt broke it open. He was their whole defense, giving us only one shot when he wasn't blocking out shots," Russell admitted.


The Evening Independent (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2NkLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LVcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4124,65029&dq=)

"Greer, who shot 17-for- 35 from the field and 5-for-5 from the free throw line, said he was surprised in the early minutes that "Boston laid back on me. I don't know what they were trying to do, probably bottle up the middle and tie up Wilt. It threw me off at first, and then I got going."



Game 2:

Wilt - 15 points, 29 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks, 45% FG
Russell - 14 points, 24 rebounds, 5 assists, 36% FG

Eugene Register-Guard (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XOQQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6766,663452&dq)

Even with the 2-0 lead, Chamberlain was taking nothing for granted. "I'm a firm believer that all things are possible," he said. "I think they're going to come out just a little bit tougher in the third game."


The Miami News (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EWMzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EeoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=743,348697&dq)

"It's all over. I really think so, I really do," said Hal Greer after the 76ers won a 107-102 nationally televised thriller at Boston Garden to take a commanding 2-0 lead in the best-of-seven Eastern Division final playoffs.

"We're not going to let up just because we're two up," the veteran backcourt star added. "We're going to bear down even harder than ever."



Game 3:

Wilt - 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists, 5 blocks, 57% FG
Russell - 10 points, 29 rebounds, 9 assists, 23% FG

The Free Lance-Star (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cxoQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CYsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3522,2535851&dq=)

The 76ers moved the Celtics closer to the brink by whipping them 115-104 Wednesday night for a 3-0 lead in their best-of-7 series as Wilt Chamberlain controlled everything.

Chamberlain took the game in Philadelphia into his own big hands, scoring 20 points, assisting on nine baskets, blocking 5 shots and pulling down a playoff record 41 rebounds. He shared the old mark of 40 with Boston's Bill Russell.

It was big Wilt's dunk in the final period that put the 76ers ahead to stay 100-99, and when Wally Jones followed with three baskets and Chet Walker one for a 108-102 spread, the game was over. Chamberlain had help from Hal Greer, who scored 30 points, and Jones, who hit 21.



Game 4:

Entire 2nd half: http://www.youtube.com/user/NBAFan1426# ... BA403B08DC (http://www.youtube.com/user/NBAFan1426#grid/user/03567BBA403B08DC)

Wilt - 20 points, 22 rebounds, 10 assists, at least 3 blocks, 44% FG (perhaps bothered by severe pain in both knee joints (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B15F63C5E137A93CAA9178FD85F43 8685F9))
Russell - 9 points, 28 rebounds, 5 assists, 29% FG

The Tuscaloosa News (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kXwhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pIoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3668,1777477&dq)

"We expect to wrap it up in Philly," Hannum said in a dressing room interview shortened because of an earlier threatening telephone call. "We won't be back to Boston." added veteran guard Hal Greer. "I don't think Boston can put games back-to-back like this one today."

Russell's work against Chamberlain was also a factor. The 7-foot-1 Philadelphia superstar had 20 points and 10 assists, but was not as dominant as in earlier games and lost the rebound battle to the 6-foot-9 Russell, 28-22. Luke Jackson led the 76ers with 29 points and Greer had 28.

[PHILA]

Game 5:

Highlight of this game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCaMsm9AOag

Wilt - 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists, 7 blocks, 63% FG
Russell - 4 points, 21 rebounds, 7 assists, 40% FG

The Pittsburgh Press (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sWocAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YU8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7167,5365013&dq)

"I told the fellows I wouldn't exchange this team for any bunch of players in the world," Russell said. 'We lost. But this was my most enjoyable year in basketball (http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1050536#). This is not the end of the Celtics."

Series averages:

Wilt - 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 6+ bpg, 56% FG
Russell - 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, 36% FG



LIFE Magazine (http://books.google.com/books?id=GFYEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA82&dq=wilt+chamberlain&hl=en&ei=_jRFTJvuDMP48Aa35LClBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)

In the locker room the reporters pop the big question: will this series prove he's the greatest? Wilt denies it: "If I'm the greatest player ever, I''m the greatest win or lose." It is something he has said before.



After the 76ers won the series, everyone in the locker room except Chamberlain was excited and celebrating with champagne. Chamberlain was the one who reminded the team that they needed to win 4 more games to be the champions.

http://i38.tinypic.com/2a6pceb.gif





NBA Finals between the Warriors & Sixers. Wilt & Nate head to head.

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1967.htm


Game 1:


Wilt - 16 points, 33 rebounds, 10 assists, 75% FG
Nate - 24 points, 31 rebounds, 3 assists, 50% FG


Chamberlain has a game saving block on Nate Thurmond to send the game in OT, where the Sixers pulled out with the win.

[I]'After the 76ers couldn

[PHILA]

Game 6:

Wilt - 24 points, 23 rebounds, 4 assists, 62% FG
Nate - 12 points, 22 rebounds, 5 assists, 31% FG


[I]Another sellout with about 4,500 watching on closed circuit as they hoped the Warriors could even the series. They were entertained as the two teams set a still-standing record by combining for 84 1st quarter points. The 76ers led 43-41 as Chamberlain led them with 17 points. Jeff Mullins helped push the Warriors ahead at halftime with 11 points in the 2nd quarter. S.F. led at the half 72-68; the 140 points is broke the record set in Game 1 as the most points in a 1st half with 140 (A record that still stands). The Warriors pushed further ahead at the start of the 3rd when Jim King scored & Thurmond hit a free throw to make it 75-68 S.F. Barry hit a couple of shots to make it 90-80 in favor of the team from The City. King then stole the ball & fed Mullins for a dunk to make it 94-82. Matt Guokas came off the bench to spark Philadelphia. The 76ers went on an 11-2 run to close within 102-97. S.F. still led by 4 with 10 minutes left in game when Guokas hit a jumper then followed with a lay-up over Thurmond. Chet Walker went by Clyde Lee for hoop to give Philly a 108-106 lead. Cunningham then followed with 6 quick points to put the Sixers up 114-109 as the clock ticked down towards 6 minutes remaining. S.F. rallied with a 6-0 run to take the lead 115-114 on a Barry 17-footer. Chamberlain then hit 2 free throws to make it 116-115 Philadelphia and followed it up with a dunk of the offensive boards to make it 118-115. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keLsXWNLCF0#t=0m34.5s) It was 122-116 with 2:16 to play when King hit a jumper to cut the lead to 4. Thurmond blocked a shot and Barry converted the ensuing fastbreak to cut it to a 2-point defecit. Cunningham hit a free throw but Barry answered with 2 of his own to make it 123-122 with 0:46 left. The 76ers then could not get a shot off and were called for a shot clock violation at the 22 second mark. Barry & Thurmond tried to work a pick and roll against Chamberlain & Walker. Barry wanted to pass to Thurmond for the shot, but Chamberlain recovered & Barry had to force a shot. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWZ5eNb3IIU#t=5m40s) King & Jackson tied up on the rebound. S.F. then subbed Meschery for King on the jump ball despite Philly

[LastChanceToWin]

1. Hakeem (strong move and was always a force on the field)
2. Kareem (had MJ and Worthy on his team)
3. Shaq (overrated and played against horrible centers at his time of reign)
4. Wilt (played in a shiity era with inflated stats and never did good against real centers like Russell)

[Psileas]

He didn't dominate them. He once averaged 11.7 ppg in the finals.

To reply with similar seriousness, I got Wilt to average 47 ppg in the 1969 Finals' replay in 2K11. I hope now you reconsider.

[Psileas]

1. Hakeem (strong move and was always a force on the field)
2. Kareem (had MJ and Worthy on his team)
3. Shaq (overrated and played against horrible centers at his time of reign)
4. Wilt (played in a shiity era with inflated stats and never did good against real centers like Russell)

Quick quiz: Among posts 93, 94, 95, 96, mark the odd one out.

[jlip]

Quick quiz: Among posts 93, 94, 95, 96, mark the odd one out.

:roll:

[MakeHistory78]

Quick quiz: Among posts 93, 94, 95, 96, mark the odd one out.
:oldlol:

[Harison]

1. Hakeem
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Wilt

[For_Three]

You guys...let me make something very clear to you.

Wilt slept with more women, which means...

He is cleary better in every way.

Wilt
Kareem (probably 2nd most)
Shaq ( who knows, but I am sure in college he brought the thunder to the women of LSU)
Hakeem (doubt he has even had sex)