Why Wilt is not a top 5 player of all time.

[ShaqAttack3234]

People look at his stats and rank him as a GOAT candidate without looking at pace and minutes and with a heavy emphasis on regular season stats. Yet Tiny Archibald seems to be considered in the top 40-50 range despite having a 34/11 season on good efficiency becoming the only player to lead the league in scoring and assists in the same season(prior to '69 league leaders were awarded based on totals, not averages).

After some of my own research and mostly research Fatal9 did, I can't see a legit argument for Wilt being top 5.

First of all, in Wilt's 1962 season, individual stats were through the roof. Oscar Robertson averaged 31/13/11 on 48% shooting, Elgin Baylor averaged 38/19/5 while sharing the ball with Jerry West, Bill Russell averaged 19/24/5, Bob Pettit averaged 31/19/4, Walt Bellamy averaged 32/19/3 and Jerry West averaged 31/8/5 in just his second season.

Then consider that Wilt played every minute of the season excluding the end of an OT game where he was ejected. Now every team is involved in blow outs which means Wilt was out there stat-padding in blowouts. The following season, he averaged 45/24/3, but his team was just 31-49, they missed the playoffs and again, Wilt averaged 47.6 mpg which means plenty of stat-padding in blowouts. More on that later. In fact, putting up those numbers on a team that bad shows that those stats aren't nearly as impressive as they look. Can you think of any other top 10 player losing that much in their prime? Much less in a season where they were healthy and played every game? Hell, in '65 his team was 11-33 before he was traded to Philly. Once again, name another top 10 player of all time losing like that in their prime.

But now on to the real important stuff, the playoffs.

1960- Points and rebounds dropped a bit from the regular season, but his FG% went up and it was his rookie year so no complaints.
1961- Had homecourt advantage, but was held to 46.9% shooting by Red Kerr and was swept.
1962- His scoring average dropped by 15.4 ppg, his FG% dropped way down to 46.7% and he had a TS% of 50.8%, awful for a center. Now he did have a 56 point game vs Syracuse, but on 22/48 from the field and 12/22 from the line. Sorry, that doesn't amaze me. Now on to the Boston series.

Wilt averaged 33.6 ppg apparently, but even those numbers were inflated. I really wish I could find shooting percentages for the series.

Game 1- Boston won 117-89, Wilt had just 12 points in the first half meaning he probably stat-padded his way to those 33 points with the game out of reach.

Game 2- Wilt had 42 and won, but he allowed Russell to score 31 on him.

Game 3- 35 points, but Russell outscored Wilt 21-13 and out-rebounded him 14-11 in the first half giving Boston a 21 point halftime lead. Russell finished with 31 again. So more stat-padding.

Game 5- Wilt had 30 points and Russell had 29. But Wilt shot 4-13 in the first half and had just 11 points in the half while Russell out-rebounded him 11-9 to give Boston a 23 point halftime lead. Once again, more stat-padding by Wilt.

Game 7- Wilt had just 22 points and Russell again nearly matched him with 19.

To put that in perspective, Wilt outscored Russell by exactly 31.5 ppg during the regular season, yet as you can see, Russell was basically matching Wilt's offensive output in some games and in game 3, Russell outscored him by 8 leading Boston to a 21 point halftime lead.

1964- Russell held him well below his season scoring average in the finals and his stats in general for the playoffs were about as good as the regular season, but his scoring average dropped in the finals by almost 8 ppg from his season average. Regardless, I can't call his finals series poor, or say he choked, and in fairness, in the footage I've seen, Boston clearly had a much more talented team. He did average 27.6 rpg as well.

1965- It does seem that he played well vs Boston in that close 7 game series, but again, in the playoffs, his scoring numbers fell off but 29 ppg on a TS% of 29 ppg is impressive for the playoffs regardless.

1966- Horrible TS% of 50% in the playoffs. He did have a 46/34 game in the elimination game on an impressive 19/34 from the field, but he shot 8/25 from the line and they lost. Also, prior to that Wilt had averaged 23.5 ppg on 47-48% shooting in the first 4 games and Philly was in a 3-1 hole.

1967- Nothing really negative to say here. Regardless of era, 24/24/8 on 68% shooting on a 68-13 team is phenomenal. In the limited footage available, Wilt seemed to be an absolute monster defensively. 22/29/9 for the playoffs on 58% shooting is also incredible, particularly on a championship team. But one interesting thing is that, Wilt finally won, but it was the 1st title where he wasn't relied on to be the big time scorer. He was tied for 2nd on the team in scoring during the playoffs and 5 ppg behind Hal Greer. 5th on the team in the finals at 17.7 ppg on 56% shooting. He did average 28.5 rpg and 6.8 apg and shoot 56%, but he shot 30.6% from the line. Regardless, a legendary season.

1968- Averaged 24/24/9 on 60% shooting in the regular season on a 62 win team and 24/25/7 in the playoffs, but due to his FG% dropping to 53% and his FT% being at just 38%, his TS% was a subpar 51%. But that's not the main point of emphasis here.

Wilt had a 3-1 lead in the EDF vs Boston. Now lets look at game 6 and 7.

Game 6- Hal Greer scored an extremely efficient 40 points for Philly(15/24 from the field, 10/13 from the line), but the 76ers lost. Why? Well Wilt had 20 and 27 rebounds, but on 6/21 from the field and 8/23 from the line. That is just embarrassing. I've heard of players having more FGA than points, but more FGA and FTA each than points? No excuses, that's choking, a chance to close out the series and Wilt turns in what was probably one of the worst playoff performances ever by an all time great, much less in their prime despite his teammate stepping up big time. Russell had 17 points and 31 rebounds.

Game 7- Wilt had 34 rebounds, but just 14 points on 4/9 shooting and 6/15 from the line. Despite not getting touches in the half, it's well documented that he wasn't demanding the ball and when he got the ball, he was passive.

That's how you choke away a 3-1 lead. For the series Wilt averaged 21.7 ppg, 25.1 rpg and 6.7 apg, but most likely on poor efficiency and he came up small when it mattered the most. BTW, the only other ptop 10 player to lose a 3-1 lead was Kobe in 2006 and his team were under dogs and Kobe did everything he could to end it in game 6 with a 50 point game, but we all remember Tim Thomas.

1969- Wilt averaged 20.5 ppg on 58.3% shooting, but fell to 13.9 ppg on 54.5% shooting in the playoffs and 11.7 ppg in the finals including 8 points in game 6 when LA had a chance to clinch. The Lakers were heavily favored and Wilt's offensive production was nearly cut in half. His TS% in the playoffs was an Iverson-esque 51.8%.

He played well in the playoffs in the '70s and was part of another great team in '72, the 69-13 Lakers who won 33 games in a row and he had a hell of a finals series, but in the end, he won just 2 titles and he had numerous other opportunities. In '62, it's not hard to imagine Philly winning if Wilt played anywhere near his normal standard, same with '68 and '69. In '66, Philly had homecourt and lost, probably in large part due to Wilt's subpar first 4 games. Coming back from the knee injury and averaging 22/22 in the 1970 playoff also deserves a mention as one of Wilt's accomplishments, but in the end, his playoff career was simply disappointing.

Look at the other top 10 players, Jordan, Kareem, Bird, Shaq, Magic, Duncan, Kobe, Hakeem and Russell. They all won more titles except for Hakeem who was easily a better playoff performer. None of them choked to the extent Wilt did in '68 or '69 and none of them had so many series where they played below their standard and lost, yeah, they all had some, but that many? And picture any of them in their prime, when healthy, much less playing every game, leading a team to a record of 31-49 or even 11-33 midway through the season like Wilt did before the trade in the 1964-65 season.

Basketball is about winning and the greats were expected to raise their games in the playoffs. I'm not hating on Wilt, I acknowledged his accomplishments such as his exceptional '67 season or '72 and didn't blame him for the playoff losses in '60, '65, '70 and '71, but the facts are there, interpret them as you wish. I use to be a Wilt>Russell guy, but after seeing some of these playoff stats and recaps, I can't possibly justify that claim anymore, particularly after researching the 1962 series.

The main argument for him being top 5 is regular season stats, but I've already explained why that's flawed. Aside from playing in blowouts, this is a guy who was known to check the stat sheet at halftime and he was even known to have passed up easy shots to prove he could lead the league in assists in 1968.

[magnax1]

He always seemed to be an amazing player to me from the games I've watched. He plays great defense, you can run the offense through him like a point guard (Which is a huge reason why I like him so much) and he has a pretty skilled, though maybe not very modern post game. Really, he has almost everything I'd want from a player. Its hard for me to understand why you wouldn''t rank him at minimum #5. Obviously his early career stats are extremely inflated, and he wouldn't be averaging 25-25 today, and he was a bit of a choker, but he was still a great player, despite his obvious flaws.

[Sarcastic]

Is this a joke?

You are pulling up circumstantial stats like "1961- Had homecourt advantage, but was held to 46.9% shooting by Red Kerr and was swept." or
"Game 1- Boston won 117-89, Wilt had just 12 points in the first half meaning he probably stat-padded his way to those 33 points with the game out of reach." as reasons why Wilt is not a top 5 player?

Do you realize he averaged over 20 rebounds a game for 12 consecutive years? Do you understand how sick that is?

[PHILA]

Don't feed the troll.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Is this a joke?

You are pulling up circumstantial stats like "1961- Had homecourt advantage, but was held to 46.9% shooting by Red Kerr and was swept." or
"Game 1- Boston won 117-89, Wilt had just 12 points in the first half meaning he probably stat-padded his way to those 33 points with the game out of reach." as reasons why Wilt is not a top 5 player?

Do you realize he averaged over 20 rebounds a game for 12 consecutive years? Do you understand how sick that is?

Yes, Wilt was a great rebounder, but you're one of those idiots who just hears 20 rpg and doesn't have the intelligence to put it in perspective. jerry lucas averaged 20 rpg too, so did Bob Pettit and Elgin Baylor, a 6'5", high scoring SF came 0.4 per game away from doing it.

Rodman put up insane rebounding numbers, yet he's not even considered a likely hall of famer.

And yes, playing every minute, even in blowouts suggests stat-padding.


Don't feed the troll.

Oh, the irony. The same guy who spams every Wilt related thread with paragraphs of copy and pasted text as well as .gifs of Wilt working out. :roll:

[che guevara]

Where do you rank him all time?


Is this a joke?

You are pulling up circumstantial stats like "1961- Had homecourt advantage, but was held to 46.9% shooting by Red Kerr and was swept." or
"Game 1- Boston won 117-89, Wilt had just 12 points in the first half meaning he probably stat-padded his way to those 33 points with the game out of reach." as reasons why Wilt is not a top 5 player?

Do you realize he averaged over 20 rebounds a game for 12 consecutive years? Do you understand how sick that is?
It's much less impressive when adjusted for minutes and pace, though he is still one of the greatest rebounders of all time.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Where do you rank him all time?

Up until recently I had him top 5, as recent as 6 or so months ago, I considered him a GOAT candidate. In the OP, I listed 9 players who to me, seem like clearly better player performers, 8 of whom won more, at the moment, I can only rank Wilt in the 8-10 range, no more, no less.

Actually, the research I've done on Wilt as well as all of the stuff Fatal has found has given me a new found respect for Russell. There's a reason why Russell was voted MVP in Wilt's 50/26 season and why Russell probably outplayed him in the '62 EDF, shut him down in game 6 and game 7 of the '68 EDF while leading his team from down 3-1 to beat Wilt's team and shut down Wilt in the '69 finals while his Celtics beat the heavily favored Lakers.

And yes, Wilt has an argument for being the greatest rebounder ever, but I don't consider him to be in a different class than Rodman, Russell and Moses Malone in that category.

[Fatal9]

1965- It does seem that he played well vs Boston in that close 7 game series, but again, in the playoffs, his scoring numbers fell off but 29 ppg on a TS% of 29 ppg is impressive for the playoffs regardless.
That was also the year he got traded from his team after all he could lead the Warriors to was a 11-33 record at the time of the trade. That was the two years after he led his team to 31 wins despite playing in every game. I don't understand the whole "luck" angle for that '65 series. Yes Havlicek made the steal, but Hal Greer hit a 35 footer at the buzzer to send game 4 to overtime. If that doesn't happen, the series is over in 5.

His statpadding to hit 30+ pts in playoff games vs. Russell actually cracks me up. Seemed like so many recaps would start with, Russell outplayed Wilt in the first half, the game was out of reach but Wilt posted 15 pts in the fourth quarter. It's almost as if he was content creating an illusion through stats that he was outplaying Russell in most playoff games.

The '68 series is inexcusable. Your teammate gives you 40 pts to help you close out a series, and all you can manage is 20 pts on 6/21 shooting and 8/23 from the line? And then seemingly hide away from the ball in the game 7 which was a close game from start to finish? His playoff record is just so poor, I can't put him in the top 5 either. '69 finals too, almost had his offensive production cut in half during the finals.

If you look at his career in detail, especially in the playoffs where you can break it down game by game, he is the least impressive top 10 player. You also need to have a decent perspective on some of these numbers, can't just look at 30 rebounds and say "great game" when games had 150+ rebounds available.

[Sarcastic]

Jerry Lucas did 21.1 and 20.0 in 2 years.

Wilt did 27.0, 27.2, 25.7, 24.3, 22.3, 22.9, 23.5, 22.3, 24.6. 24.2, 23.8, and 21.1.
He then followed that up with 18.4, 18.2, 19.2, and 18.6.

If you don't see the difference, then I don't know what to say.

[Micku]

For me I think it's an era issue. As you said, the minutes and pacing do have a lot to do with it, but it's more than that. It's the way the game is called, the way the coaches play their players, and how the game is played. Things change. I don't think Wilt will average the same stats if he played today's game, but that doesn't mean he isn't a great player. Vice versa for players in today's game.

You have to take the era into consideration.

[magnax1]

While theres nothing wrong with ranking Russell higher then Wilt, I don't think its fair at all to rank Wilt in the 8-10 range. During Wilt's time with the Lakers, Russell himself even said Wilt played better then Russell in the same role on LA. I don't really want to look up the quote, But I'm sure if you googled it it wouldn't be to difficult to find.

[Sarcastic]

While theres nothing wrong with ranking Russell higher then Wilt, I don't think its fair at all to rank Wilt in the 8-10 range. During Wilt's time with the Lakers, Russell himself even said Wilt played better then Russell in the same role on LA. I don't really want to look up the quote, But I'm sure if you googled it it wouldn't be to difficult to find.

Switch Russell for Wilt, and Wilt ends up with all the rings. It's not even a question.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Jerry Lucas did 21.1 and 20.0 in 2 years.

Wilt did 27.0, 27.2, 25.7, 24.3, 22.3, 22.9, 23.5, 22.3, 24.6. 24.2, 23.8, and 21.1.
He then followed that up with 18.4, 18.2, 19.2, and 18.6.

If you don't see the difference, then I don't know what to say.

Of course Wilt was much better than Jerry Lucas who doesn't even crack top 20 lists, hell, isn't he considered borderline top 50? But that was to put rebounding numbers in perspective. The point was, there were numerous guys hovering around 20 rpg. In the last 30 years, there have been exactly 3 who have topped 15 rpg, Moses Malone and Big Ben were 2 of the 3 and they only did it once each in that time period.

Give Wilt the same percentage of his team's rebounds except on an average 90's or 00's team and in 40 mpg, in his best years, that same percentage of his team's rebounds equates to roughly 15-16 per game. Great, but not as superhuman as the 20+ rpg sound without putting them in perspective.

[Sarcastic]

Of course Wilt was much better than Jerry Lucas who doesn't even crack top 20 lists, hell, isn't he considered borderline top 50? But that was to put rebounding numbers in perspective. The point was, there were numerous guys hovering around 20 rpg. In the last 30 years, there have been exactly 3 who have topped 15 rpg, Moses Malone and Big Ben were 2 of the 3 and they only did it once each in that time period.

Give Wilt the same percentage of his team's rebounds except on an average 90's or 00's team and in 40 mpg, in his best years, that same percentage of his team's rebounds equates to roughly 15-16 per game. Great, but not as superhuman as the 20+ rpg sound without putting them in perspective.

I understand what you are saying, but still if you put him in the modern game he is still dominating the glass like no other.

And we still are not even talking about his scoring numbers yet.

[magnax1]

Switch Russell for Wilt, and Wilt ends up with all the rings. It's not even a question.
I agree, but thats not to take away from how great Russell was either. They are pretty equal, but they dominate in such different ways its tough to compare them. I don't think that there is any doubt that Wilt was an idiot stat stuffer for 3/4th of his career, but when he put his mind to it, he was probably the most dominant player ever. Russell was a player that gave 100% no matter what, and wasn't okay with a loss.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Switch Russell for Wilt, and Wilt ends up with all the rings. It's not even a question.

No because it was Wilt with the heavily favored teams in '68 and '69 stacked with talent and closer to his prime who lost to Russell's teams. And please explain why most recaps seem to suggest that Russell outplayed Wilt in '62 in a close series or why Wilt's team lost 4-1 in '66 despite having home court advantage? Even Wilt claimed in '97 that Russell was better for those teams than he was because Wilt admitted that playing the style he played would have taken away from those player's games. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CqQ4x3klT4#t=1m43s

I use to use that same argument so I can't fault you too much, but I just don't believe that any more.


While theres nothing wrong with ranking Russell higher then Wilt, I don't think its fair at all to rank Wilt in the 8-10 range. During Wilt's time with the Lakers, Russell himself even said Wilt played better then Russell in the same role on LA. I don't really want to look up the quote, But I'm sure if you googled it it wouldn't be to difficult to find.

Yeah, but that's 1 season, one of the 2 where he ended up with a title. Those 2 titles amounted to less than any top 10 player other than Hakeem.

[Sarcastic]

I agree, but thats not to take away from how great Russell was either. They are pretty equal, but they dominate in such different ways its tough to compare them. I don't think that there is any doubt that Wilt was an idiot stat stuffer for 3/4th of his career, but when he put his mind to it, he was probably the most dominant player ever. Russell was a player that gave 100% no matter what, and wasn't okay with a loss.

Eh. I have Wilt as the number 1 center, and Russell as my number 2, so I guess I have to agree somewhat.

Defensively I have them about equal. Wilt was far far far better offensively though.

[Fatal9]

1966- Horrible TS% of 50% in the playoffs. He did have a 46/34 game in the elimination game on an impressive 19/34 from the field, but he shot 8/25 from the line and they lost. Also, prior to that Wilt had averaged 23.5 ppg on 47-48% shooting in the first 4 games and Philly was in a 3-1 hole.
Might have been below 20 ppg if he didn't statpad his ass off in the fourth quarter of game 1 (team losing by 20+) by getting half his shots in in that quarter alone. I just find the image of that hilarious.

If anyone did some of these things once, much less over entire seasons and playoff series, they would get absolutely grilled for it. No one would take their stats seriously, especially a player who fails over and over again in the playoffs by individually underperforming. Just picture the games where he is shamelessly statpadding, playing all 48 minutes of blowouts just to achieve a certain point total (seemed to be about 30ish pts against Russell).

[ShaqAttack3234]

Might have been below 20 ppg if he didn't statpad his ass off in the fourth quarter of game 1 (team losing by 20+) by getting half his shots in in that quarter alone. I just find the image of that hilarious.

If anyone did some of these things once, much less over entire seasons and playoff series, they would get absolutely grilled for it. No one would take their stats seriously, especially a player who fails over and over again in the playoffs by individually underperforming. Just picture the games where he is shamelessly statpadding, playing all 48 minutes of blowouts just to achieve a certain point total (seemed to be about 30ish pts against Russell).

Yep, there's a reason why Lebron's 27/19/10 game 6 vs Boston was viewed as a disappointment. Now those stats sound amazing at first, but they were empty, and that was in a close game.

[Sarcastic]

No because it was Wilt with the heavily favored teams in '68 and '69 stacked with talent and closer to his prime who lost to Russell's teams. And please explain why most recaps seem to suggest that Russell outplayed Wilt in '62 in a close series or why Wilt's team lost 4-1 in '66 despite having home court advantage? Even Wilt claimed in '97 that Russell was better for those teams than he was because Wilt admitted that playing the style he played would have taken away from those player's games. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CqQ4x3klT4#t=1m43s

I use to use that same argument so I can't fault you too much, but I just don't believe that any more.



Yeah, but that's 1 season, one of the 2 where he ended up with a title. Those 2 titles amounted to less than any top 10 player other than Hakeem.

You are again bringing up circumstantial evidence such as a few years when Wilt should have beaten Russell but didn't as reasons why he sucked.

If you look beyond the stats, numbers, rings, etc, you will see that Wilt was the overall better player. Russell was the better team player, and did what was needed to win, even if it meant sacrificing his stats to get his team going.

For me personally, I don't rank team success as high as I do individual achievement. For instance, I rank Dan Marino as a better QB than Terry Bradshaw. I understand what Terry did to win all those Super Bowls, but I just see Marino as the better all around QB.

[cotdt]

Great post, pretty much convinces me that Wilt is not the statistical giant that people think he is. He may still be Top 5 for other reasons though. But even if Wilt played today, impact is a hard thing to judge.

[magnax1]

Yeah, but that's 1 season, one of the 2 where he ended up with a title. Those 2 titles amounted to less than any top 10 player other than Hakeem.
Yeah, and he was probably the most dominant player ever in that time frame, while still being better then anyone outside of the top 8 or so during the years he was stat stuffer, because even though he wasn't that focused on winning, he still took some pretty crappy teams to the finals. Just think of it this way. The season he averaged 50 ppg, he probably wasn't that extremely intent on winning, and didn't have that great of a team, except Paul Arizan who was very good, but past his prime. He still took his team to the finals, AND took one of the most talented 60's Celtics teams to a close 7 games. When you look at that then I think you see his impact. And then look at the two years he was 100% intent on winning, both of the teams sets a new league record for wins, and won the championship. That definitely seems like an impact player to me. Can you really take his stats at face value? No, but that doesn't mean you should think less of him as a player.

[Fatal9]

Again, how can a top 5 player lead a team to 31 wins while in his statistical prime and playing every game? How can a top 5 player fail individually almost annually all throughout his prime years in the playoffs? How can a top 5 player be leading his team to the worst record in the league (11-33) before his team decides to trade him midway through the season? Again, look at his career year by year, playoff run by playoff run and put it all in context and I don't see how anyone comes off thinking highly of Wilt.

[Sarcastic]

Again, how can a top 5 player lead a team to 31 wins while in his statistical prime and playing every game? How can a top 5 player fail individually almost annually all throughout his prime years in the playoffs? How can a top 5 player be leading his team to the worst record in the league (11-33) before his team decides to trade him midway through the season? Again, look at his career year by year, playoff run by playoff run and put it all in context and I don't see how anyone comes off thinking highly of Wilt.

The same way that Kobe hit his peak from 2005-2007 and didn't win shit.

[ShaqAttack3234]

You are again bringing up circumstantial evidence such as a few years when Wilt should have beaten Russell but didn't as reasons why he sucked.

If you look beyond the stats, numbers, rings, etc, you will see that Wilt was the overall better player. Russell was the better team player, and did what was needed to win, even if it meant sacrificing his stats to get his team going.

For me personally, I don't rank team success as high as I do individual achievement. For instance, I rank Dan Marino as a better QB than Terry Bradshaw. I understand what Terry did to win all those Super Bowls, but I just see Marino as the better all around QB.

I never said Wilt sucked. I said he's top 8-10 range which certainly doesn't equate to sucking.

You said give Wilt Russell's teams and he wins those rings, I bring up 2 examples where Wilt was heavily favored, had a team atleast as talented if not more so and another where he also had homecourt advantage and didn't even come close to winning and I also gave you a link to an interview ehere Wilt also agreed that he wouldn't have won more rings than Russell with those teams.

I wouldn't emphasize team success so much if Wilt didn't have those big time failures. For example, Hakeem Olajuwon won the exact same amount of rings, but lets look at some of his losses. Game 7 of the '87 WCSF, he loses in double OT, but not before putting up 49/24/6 or the following year, he lost in the 1st round, but averaged 37/17 on 57% shooting or '93 when he averaged 26/14/5/5 in the playoffs and lost in OT in game 7 of the WCSF while putting up 23/17/9/3 or even in the '86 finals in just his 2nd year when he faced a heavily favored Celtics team that just had too much talent and a prime Larry Bird(top 5 player of all time IMO) yet Olajuwon averaged 25/12/3 and held off elimination despite Ralph Sampson getting ejected in the second quarter, he did this with 32/14 and a then record-tying 8 blocks.

All well above his usual numbers.

[alwaysunny]

There's no way Russell should be ranked over Wilt. In fact, I think Russell is overrated, there I said it. Some of you bring up his 11 rings, but completely disregard his teammates who were clearly better than Wilt's. You know what forget teammates. What about Red Auerbach who is arguably the GOAT coach? I rarely see his name mentioned in this forum. Is it to benefit Russell's individual performance or what?

[Sarcastic]

I never said Wilt sucked. I said he's top 8-10 range which certainly doesn't equate to sucking.

You said give Wilt Russell's teams and he wins those rings, I bring up 2 examples where Wilt was heavily favored, had a team atleast as talented if not more so and another where he also had homecourt advantage and didn't even come close to winning and I also gave you a link to an interview ehere Wilt also agreed that he wouldn't have won more rings than Russell with those teams.

I wouldn't emphasize team success so much if Wilt didn't have those big time failures. For example, Hakeem Olajuwon won the exact same amount of rings, but lets look at some of his losses. Game 7 of the '87 WCSF, he loses in double OT, but not before putting up 49/24/6 or the following year, he lost in the 1st round, but averaged 37/17 on 57% shooting or '93 when he averaged 26/14/5/5 in the playoffs and lost in OT in game 7 of the WCSF while putting up 23/17/9/3 or even in the '86 finals in just his 2nd year when he faced a heavily favored Celtics team that just had too much talent and a prime Larry Bird(top 5 player of all time IMO) yet Olajuwon averaged 25/12/3 and held off elimination despite Ralph Sampson getting ejected in the second quarter, he did this with 32/14 and a then record-tying 8 blocks.

All well above his usual numbers.

You realize what the term "team game" means, right?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yeah, and he was probably the most dominant player ever in that time frame, while still being better then anyone outside of the top 8 or so during the years he was stat stuffer, because even though he wasn't that focused on winning, he still took some pretty crappy teams to the finals. Just think of it this way. The season he averaged 50 ppg, he probably wasn't that extremely intent on winning, and didn't have that great of a team, except Paul Arizan who was very good, but past his prime. He still took his team to the finals, AND took one of the most talented 60's Celtics teams to a close 7 games. When you look at that then I think you see his impact. And then look at the two years he was 100% intent on winning, both of the teams sets a new league record for wins, and won the championship. That definitely seems like an impact player to me. Can you really take his stats at face value? No, but that doesn't mean you should think less of him as a player.

Wilt may have very well had a top 5 peak of all time('67), hell arguably even better, that's the one season where the playoff numbers, the wins and everything could line up for that, unfortunately, only half of a game from that run is available, apparently that was one of Wilt's more ordinary games from that run too so not really fair to judge his '67 season based on that, but I'll be the first to admit that he was amazing defensively in that game.

But 1 or 2 seasons don't make a player top 5. If 1 or 2 seasons was how you ranked players then Shaq would have as good of a case as anyone for GOAT based on 2000 and 2001, yet I'll be the first to admit that Shaq has no case over Kareem and Jordan on the all time list because 1 or 2 seasons don't make a career.

Wilt simply wasn't a winning player for the vast majority of his career. By his own admission he didn't play the way he should have which was using his size and strength instead of trying to prove he was skilled with fadeaways and finger rolls. That's one thing you can say for Russell, he didn't care how he looked as long as he got the W and I think that's the case with almost every other top 10 player which is why almost all of them won more than Wilt.


There's no way Russell should be ranked over Wilt. In fact, I think Russell is overrated, there I said it. Some of you bring up his 11 rings, but completely disregard his teammates who were clearly better than Wilt's. You know what forget teammates. What about Red Auerbach who is arguably the GOAT coach? I rarely see his name mentioned in this forum. Is it to benefit Russell's individual performance or what?

I agree that Russell is overrated to some exent(not nearly as much as I initially thought), but only because his limited offensive game is overlooked, but in spite of that he was putting up offensive numbers well over his usual numbers vs Wilt in '62 and Wilt was the opposite. Once again, basketball is about winning and there's a reason why Wilt constantly lost to Russell and the only time he beat him was in '67 when Wilt clearly had the better team and Wilt was at his peak. And it's not all teammates because once again, look at '68 and '69.

What I forgot to mention about the '69 finals is that Wilt lost on a team heavily favored while doing nothing offensively and all of that while his teammate Jerry West played so well that he still is the only player to have won a finals MVP on the losing team, and that happened in that same '69 series so the teammates excuse. In game 6 in 1969, West and Baylor each had 26 points and Wilt managed just 8 despite a chance to close out the series. Similar to '68 when Greer had an extremely efficient 40 point game and Wilt had 20 points on an incredibly poor 6/21 from the field and 8/23 from the line.

[Sarcastic]

Look, I have brought this up in other threads before. I don't view team results as the determining factor for individual greatness. It is a factor, but it is small in my opinion. Perhaps that is because I am a baseball lover first, and if you ever studied baseball, you would see that some of the greatest players ever, never won shit with their teams.

Ted Williams is the second greatest hitter of all time behind Babe Ruth and has 0 World Series.
Willie Mays is the greatest all around player of all time and won 1 World Series, but was not a major factor in it.
Hank Aaron is all time leader in home runs, and won 1 World Series.
Ty Cobb won zero World Series but batted .367 for his career.

Yogi Berra won an amazing 10 World Series, and has claim to best catcher ever, but is far from the greatest player ever.

[alwaysunny]

Look, I have brought this up in other threads before. I don't view team results as the determining factor for individual greatness. It is a factor, but it is small in my opinion. Perhaps that is because I am a baseball lover first, and if you ever studied baseball, you would see that some of the greatest players ever, never won shit with their teams.

Ted Williams is the second greatest hitter of all time behind Babe Ruth and has 0 World Series.
Willie Mays is the greatest all around player of all time and won 1 World Series, but was not a major factor in it.
Hank Aaron is all time leader in home runs, and won 1 World Series.
Ty Cobb won zero World Series but batted .367 for his career.

Yogi Berra won an amazing 10 World Series, and has claim to best catcher ever, but is far from the greatest player ever.

I agree. I think NBA factors accomplishments way too much and pure talents are overlooked. If this wasn't the case there would be a pretty large gap between Wilt and Russell (Wilt being the better player).

[DwightHowardMVP]

Wilt>Shaq
/ Thread

[alexandreben]

Again, how can a top 5 player lead a team to 31 wins while in his statistical prime and playing every game? How can a top 5 player fail individually almost annually all throughout his prime years in the playoffs? How can a top 5 player be leading his team to the worst record in the league (11-33) before his team decides to trade him midway through the season? Again, look at his career year by year, playoff run by playoff run and put it all in context and I don't see how anyone comes off thinking highly of Wilt.
Where do you rank Jordan by using the same logic and standard?
Jordan scored 37.1 PPG in his peak and the BULLS only got 40-42...
Jordan consistently lost in the playoffs during his prime even in his 37PPG season(AKA=Wilt's 62' season), Jordan constantly got swept 0-3 in the first round 3 years in a row, even with Pippen they still lost to Pistons in the playoffs 3 years in a row, had not the Pistons got their self-destruction, Bulls might not win a title in the early 90's, and the second 3-peat was in the water down late 90's which's quite less impressive.

Using the same logic, Jordan suddenly not a clear GOAT, do you agree with that?

[Psileas]

Despite the points that the original post makes, it's not hard to make every single GOAT candidate look worse than he was if you sit down, take all notes from newspapers and figure out the negatives, especially if you don't adjust all performances and not only what you want. For example, Fatal argued in another thread about Wilt's 22/48 shots in a playoff game against the Nationals, but omitted the fact that the league playoff average FG% was 41% and that Wilt's teammates in the playoffs shot 35%, including 37.5% by Paul Arizin (#2 scorer on the team), who also shot an atrocious 32.8% from the field in the 1961 playoffs (the same series when Kerr supposedly did a great job on Wilt, holding him to "only" 37/23 on 47% FG).

Russell, who I suppose the OP ranks over Wilt, is lucky not to have been a high scorer, because people similar to the OP would pay much more attention to his FG%’s and would make a lot of fuss about his multiple 8-25 nights, even against lesser opponents. Of course, some of them do mention this, but only when Russell is compared to Jordan. When compared to Wilt, for some reason, the same thing doesn’t apply. Using this trend over and over, year after year, we would make a “point” that Russell was consistently bailed out by his teammates.

Bird? There are countless of crucial games when he’d fail to dominate the way he was doing all year long and multiple games when you’d wonder whether this is really one of the supposed clutchest players ever. Let’s do an OP-like nitpick, and on one of his best series nonetheless: In his famous 1986 dominant series against the Rockets, Bird not once in 6 games scored more points in the second half of any game. Be it a close one or an easy win, Bird would never dominate second halves of the series the way he did first ones. There are more things to nitpick from other series, but you get the point.

Magic? Again, there have been instances when he’d seem more like a choker than an unclutch player. Also, games when he’d settle for more “human” numbers like 12/6/10 and let his teammates do the most work. Wilt would get the equivalent of this statline and he would immediately be noticed for underperforming. Magic, like Russell, having better teammates, wouldn’t.

About Jordan, I don’t need to elaborate much, since Fatal has already done a job here (including mentioning that he was routinely outplayed by Bird, who, as we’ve already seen wasn’t as great as he was billed, if we carefully pick out his bad moments). Same about Kareem, Jlauber has consistently picked out his bad moments in the 70’s, his prime period. Shaq? He’s been criticized for dozens of things over his career. With Kobe, I won’t even bother to deal, for obvious reasons.

Long things short: If you want to really make a point about a certain player not being top-X ever, take his bad moments and his good moments and compare to the moments of the rest. If both the bad moments and good moments work to the favor of the others, you may have a point. Otherwise, such a kind of topic is not much different than e.g, the topics about how “Christianity is without a doubt the worst religion ever”, where the OP will write a manifesto about all its bad points and refuse to comment about all the other religions.

[EarlTheGoat]

Don't feed the troll.

You calling one of the few legit posters on this site a troll just because he said something you dont want to read?

And you call yourself "wise"?

:applause:

[jlauber]

Before I even begin to discuss Wilt here, and his "flaws" and "failures"..let's start with Shaq...

While Wilt faced a HOF center in 112 of his 160 post season games (and DOMINATED them all)...Shaq faced Hakeem in the '94-95 post-season. While I'll concede that Shaq held his own, by his OWN admission, Hakeem outplayed him. In any case, Shaq and his team were swept 4-0. Obviously Shaq couldn't carry a 57-25 with more talent against a 47-35 team that Olajuwon had.

Of course, that sweep wa only one of SIX post-season sweeps that Shaq endured. In fact, take away a miracle shot by Kobe in the '04 Finals, and you can add yet another sweep to Shaq's resume.

How about Shaq's performance in the 96-96 WC semis against the powerhouse duo of Foster and Ostertag... when Shaq put up a sensational 22.4 ppg, 11.7 rpg, and shot .494 (as well as missing crucial FTs in two close losses)....in a 4-1 blowout loss.

Or the fact that from 98-99 thru 01-02 Shaq faced his only other HOF center competition, David Robinson, in 13 post-season games, and averaged 23.8 ppg, 12.7 rpg, and shot .492. Good numbers, to be sure, but they PALE in comparison to what Chamberlain put up against Russell in his 49 post-season games (more on that later.)

In fact, if it had't been for the play of Kobe in those WC playoffs against the Spurs, Shaq would never have even made it to the Finals where he could dominate guys like Smits, Davis, and McCullough.

Oh BTW, in Shaq's 07-08 season, he was traded at mid-season, after having led his team to an 8-25 record (a team that had won the title just a little over a year prior.)

So, Shaq's post-season resume includes SIX SWEEPING LOSSES (and save for a miracle shot by Kobe, it would be SEVEN.) AND, his 96-97 Lakers were wiped out by the Jazz 4-1. Furthermore the very next year, Shaq's 61-21 Lakers were again buried by the 62-20 Jazz, 4-1.

ShaqAttack will come up with all kinds of EXCUSES for Shaq's post-season "failures", but he doesn't cut Wilt any slack, despite the FACT that Wilt came within an eyelash of FOUR more titles in the Russell era (four game seven losses by a TOTAL of NINE points.) And, had the offcials not handed the '70 Knicks game five, Wilt would would have won another.


Kareem? Fatal9 rips Wilt for his two losing seasons. Let's examine Wilt's two "losers" shall we. First of all, in 62-63, Chamberlain's team moved to SF and his only two quality players (actually only one) Arizin and Gola, retired (Gola was not deserving of the HOF BTW....just look up his mediocre numbers.) So, with a roster that would rival Gilligan's Island, Wilt' TEAM went 31-49 (with a scoring differential of -1.86 ppg BTW.) All Wilt did that year was lead the league in scoring at 44.8 ppg, in rebounding at 24.6 rpg, and set a then record FG% of .528 (In a league that shot .441.) Fatal9 and ShaqAttack bring up the Warriors 11-33 the next year at the time of Wilt's trade. Wilt missed several games at the beginning of that season, with an infection that nearly KILLED him. The Warrior's team doctors mis-diagnosed it as a heart problem, and the Warriors traded him to a Philly team that had been 34-46 the year before. Wilt took that crappy roster, and led them into the playoffs with a 40-40 record. They wiped out the 48-32 Royals, 3-1, and then Wilt played one of the greatest playoff series in NBA history, averaging a 30-30 series against Russell (and probably shot well over 50%...he was at .530 in his 11 post-season games.) In that series, the 76ers lost a game seven against the 62-18 Celtics, by ONE point. In that last game, Wilt scored eight of Philly's last ten points, and brought them back from a 110-101 deficit to 110-109 with a dunk on Russell with five secs left. Then the "clutch" Russell threw an inbounds pass that hit a guidewire that gave the ball back to Philly. If Havlicek hadn't stolen the ball, Wilt might have been part of the biggest upset in NBA history.

How about Kareem on his two losing teams? Kareem's 74-75 Bucks went 38-44 (arguably, they were 35-31 with Kareem.) This was one year after a 59-23 record. Noticeably absent from that team was Oscar Roberston, BTW. As was the case later in Kareem's career, it was no coincidence that Oscar and Magic made Kareem's teams champions. The rest of Kareem's teams were either good, ordinary, or even awful. Anyway, how did Kareem do in that 74-75 season, when his team obviously needed him the most? 30.0 ppg, 14 rpg, and a career low .513 from the field (in a league that shot .457).

Ok, Kareem was traded to the Lakers the next year, and with Goodrich and Cazzie Russell, they still could only go 40-42. How about Kareem that season. While he did lead the league in rebounding at 16.9, even that was deceptive. First of all, Kareem NEVER came CLOSE to leading the NBA in rebounding when Chamberlain played (not even remotely close.) But, in the ONE year in which he did lead the league in rebounding, he beat out 6-9 Cowens 16.9 to 16.0. 6-7 Wes Unseld finished third, and 6-7 Paul Silas 4th. How about scoring? Kareem averaged 27.7 ppg on his third worst shooting season of .529, which was good for 5th and well behind the leader at .561 (in a league that shot .458.)

So, as we have seen, Wilt played BRILLIANTLY on his "losers" while Kareem just basically mailed it in in his.

I have mentioned Kareem's first ten seasons before. Individually, he was great. However, he was a HUGE disappointment in terms of TEAM success. And, in the post-season, he was a bigger "failure" than Wilt. In the '71-72 post-season, his 63-19 Bucks lost to Wilt's Lakers in a series in which EVERYONE acknowledged that Wilt outplayed him (and at age 35 BTW.) In fact, in his two post-season series, Kareem shot a combined .437 against Thurmond and Wilt (and in the last four games of the WCF's, he shot .414 against Chamberlain.) He followed that up with a horrid .428 against Thurmond in the first round of the '72-73 WC playoffs...and a shocking 4-2 loss (his Bucks were 60-22, while Nate's Warriors were 47-35.) Incidently, Wilt crushed Thurmond in the '73 WCF's, en route to a 4-1 Lakers win.

In the '74 Finals, the favored Bucks collapsed against the Celtics, and in game seven, 6-9 Cowens outplayed Kareem.

Kareem's teams did not even make the playoffs in '75 and '76. In the '77 playoffs, Kareem's 53-29 Lakers were SWEPT by Walton's 49-33 Blazers.

In 77-78, Kareem's Lakers went 45-37 and a quick exit in the playoffs. And pretty much the same in 78-79 (47-35, and a first round knockout.)

It wasn't until MAGIC came along, that Kareem even sniffed the Finals with his Laker teams (which had not been to the Finals since Wilt took them to them in the '73 season...and in four of his five seasons with LA.)

It was no coincidence that MAGIC led LA to five titles. Before Magic came into the picture, Kareem was a TEAM "failure" and "choker." During the Magic era, LA went to NINE Finals in 12 seasons, with FIVE rings. And, how significant was Kareem? AFTER he retired, the Lakers STILL went 63-19 and 58-24 with another Finals appearance. How about AFTER Magic retired? They went 43-39.

Even during the MAGIC era, Kareem had his share of failures. In the 80-81 playoffs he shot .462 against Moses Malone, in a league that shot .486, and the Lakers were beaten, 2-1. And in the '82-83 Finals, Malone just battered Kareem (KILLING him on the glass by over TEN rebounds per game)...and a SWEEPING loss. And, in the '88-89 Finals, when MAGIC was injured, the Lakers were SWEPT by the Pistons...the same team they beat 4-3 the year before with a healthy Magic.

Next...Wilt's CAREER, and his POST-SEASON CAREER.

[DC Zephyrs]

Wilt may have been a bit of a choker, but Bill Russell is the most offensively limited "superstar" in NBA history. We're talking about a center who scored 15 pgg of 47% TS for his career (in an era of inflated stats!). He never had to carry the offensive load for his team, nor did he have the ability to.

Russell was a great defensive leader and teammate, but people need to realize that his 11 rings are more circumstantial than anything. If he wasn't drafted into the greatest dynasty in professional sports, he's probably not a top 20 player of all time, much less top 5.

[iamgine]

The reason seems to be because Wilt was clearly better than Russell. Since Russell is top 5, that would mean Wilt is top 5 too.

[JMT]

OP, you could have sounded just as clueless in far fewer words.

Brevity. It's a friend to us all.

[ShaqAttack3234]

While Wilt faced a HOF center in 112 of his 160 post season games (and DOMINATED them all)...Shaq faced Hakeem in the '94-95 post-season. While I'll concede that Shaq held his own, by his OWN admission, Hakeem outplayed him. In any case, Shaq and his team were swept 4-0. Obviously Shaq couldn't carry a 57-25 with more talent against a 47-35 team that Olajuwon had.

in the 1995 finals, Shaq averaged 28, 12.5 rpg, 6.3 apg and 2.5 bpg on 59.5% shooting with 5.3 TO and 18.5 FGA. Hakeem averaged 32.8 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 5.5 apg and 2 bpg on 48.3% shooting and 2.8 TO and 29 FGA.

In game 1, Shaq was 1 assist shy of a triple double and killed Hakeem on the boards and the difference was Nick Anderson, a 70% FT shooter missing 4 free throws when Orlando was up 3 and Kenny Smith hitting a 3.

Or game 3, Shaq had 28/10/6/3 on 11/17 shooting, Olajuwon had 34/14/7 on 14/30 shooting and the difference was a Robert Horry game-winner.

Not to mention that Hakeem had atleast two teammates score atleast 20 points in every game, Shaq only had that happen in game 1 and in game 3, he was the only Magic player to score 20.

So really their were 2 games decided by their teammates, Shaq was statistically better(not saying he was better, Hakeem's leadership and clutch play was better in the series), but blaming Shaq is laughable and it's irrelevant that he had "more talent", Hakeem's teammates outplayed Shaq's and stepped up in the series.


Of course, that sweep wa only one of SIX post-season sweeps that

Shaq endured. In fact, take away a miracle shot by Kobe in the '04 Finals, and you can add yet another sweep to Shaq's resume.

:roll: And why were they even in position to get swept? certainly not Shaq who averaged 27/11 on 63% shooting. Hell, Shaq had 34/11 on 13/16 shooting in game 1 in a 87-75 game. Kobe had 25 points on 10/27 shooting and the Lakers 3rd leading scorer was Devean George with 5 points, Malone had 4 points on 2/9 shooting while Payton and Fisher combined for just 5 points on 2/13 shooting. In game 4, Shaq came up huge with a 36/20 game on 16/21 shooting as Doc Rivers said in the 4th quarter of that game, this is leadership. Must win game, Shaq comes up huge, but Kobe was simply terrible. 20 points, 0 rebounds and 2 assists on 8/25 shooting. I don't even have to tell you how bad the rest of the team was again and amazingly, Shaq had that monster game in a game that had a final score of 88-80.

So yes, if not for Kobe's shot, the Lakers may have been swept, but if not for Kobe's selfish chucking, they probably wouldn't have been in position to get swept.


How about Shaq's performance in the 96-96 WC semis against the powerhouse duo of Foster and Ostertag... when Shaq put up a sensational 22.4 ppg, 11.7 rpg, and shot .494 (as well as missing crucial FTs in two close losses)....in a 4-1 blowout loss.

Yes, this was a low point for Shaq, but he didn't have many like this, the other one being '99.


Or the fact that from 98-99 thru 01-02 Shaq faced his only other HOF center competition, David Robinson, in 13 post-season games, and averaged 23.8 ppg, 12.7 rpg, and shot .492. Good numbers, to be sure, but they PALE in comparison to what Chamberlain put up against Russell in his 49 post-season games (more on that later.)

Robinson was injured and barely played in 2002 so why include that? And fi we're talking about great defensive teams, Shaq averaged 25/14/4/3 the following year vs the Spurs in the playoffs and 22.5 ppg, 14+ rpg and 4.3 bpg on 63% shooting in 2004 vs them.

In fact, if it had't been for the play of Kobe in those WC playoffs against the Spurs, Shaq would never have even made it to the Finals where he could dominate guys like Smits, Davis, and McCullough.

Oh BTW, in Shaq's 07-08 season, he was traded at mid-season, after having led his team to an 8-25 record (a team that had won the title just a little over a year prior.)


So, Shaq's post-season resume includes SIX SWEEPING LOSSES (and save for a miracle shot by Kobe, it would be SEVEN.) AND, his 96-97 Lakers were wiped out by the Jazz 4-1. Furthermore the very next year, Shaq's 61-21 Lakers were again buried by the 62-20 Jazz, 4-1.
:roll:


ShaqAttack will come up with all kinds of EXCUSES for Shaq's post-season "failures", but he doesn't cut Wilt any slack, despite the FACT that Wilt came within an eyelash of FOUR more titles in the Russell era (four game seven losses by a TOTAL of NINE points.) And, had the offcials not handed the '70 Knicks game five, Wilt would would have won another.

Because Shaq didn't have epic choke jobs in his prime of the same caliber as Wilt's in '68 or '69. Nor did his production drop to the extent Wilt's did, nor was he stat-padding like crazy in blowouts and in the end, Shaq won twice as many titles as Wilt. So obviously Shaq's success was greater than Wilt.


First of all, in 62-63, Chamberlain's team moved to SF and his only two quality players (actually only one) Arizin and Gola, retired (Gola was not deserving of the HOF BTW....just look up his mediocre numbers.) So, with a roster that would rival Gilligan's Island, Wilt' TEAM went 31-49 (with a scoring differential of -1.86 ppg BTW.) All Wilt did that year was lead the league in scoring at 44.8 ppg, in rebounding at 24.6 rpg, and set a then record FG% of .528 (In a league that shot .441.)

But obviously that season was much emptier than Jordan's in '87 and '88 or Kobe's in '06 and '07. Those guys actually led their teams to decent records and the playoffs with laughable casts while having to carry them. Hell, jordan's '87 cast and even his '88 cast would be pretty mediocre today, much less in the 80's when teams were much more stacked. Kobe managed to finish above .500 in both of those seasons despite not much talent(though the Lakers started off great in 2006-2007 with Kobe playing unseflishly, something like 26-13, and that was with a core of Odom, Brown, Parker and Walton). Jordan led that '88 Bulls team to 50 wins which is pretty shocking when you see his cast.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Fatal9 and ShaqAttack bring up the Warriors 11-33 the next year at the time of Wilt's trade. Wilt missed several games at the beginning of that season, with an infection that nearly KILLED him. The Warrior's team doctors mis-diagnosed it as a heart problem, and the Warriors traded him to a Philly team that had been 34-46 the year before. Wilt took that crappy roster, and led them into the playoffs with a 40-40 record. They wiped out the 48-32 Royals, 3-1, and then Wilt played one of the greatest playoff series in NBA history, averaging a 30-30 series against Russell (and probably shot well over 50%...he was at .530 in his 11 post-season games.) In that series, the 76ers lost a game seven against the 62-18 Celtics, by ONE point. In that last game, Wilt scored eight of Philly's last ten points, and brought them back from a 110-101 deficit to 110-109 with a dunk on Russell with five secs left. Then the "clutch" Russell threw an inbounds pass that hit a guidewire that gave the ball back to Philly. If Havlicek hadn't stolen the ball, Wilt might have been part of the biggest upset in NBA history.

I gave Wilt credit for playing well vs Boston, but why use Philly's record the year before? They were 21-20 at the time of the trade and finished 40-40.


How about Kareem on his two losing teams? Kareem's 74-75 Bucks went 38-44 (arguably, they were 35-31 with Kareem.) This was one year after a 59-23 record. Noticeably absent from that team was Oscar Roberston, BTW. As was the case later in Kareem's career, it was no coincidence that Oscar and Magic made Kareem's teams champions. The rest of Kareem's teams were either good, ordinary, or even awful. Anyway, how did Kareem do in that 74-75 season, when his team obviously needed him the most? 30.0 ppg, 14 rpg, and a career low .513 from the field (in a league that shot .457).

Kareem's Bucks were something like 3-14 without him in '75 and you blame Kareem for them finishing 38-44? :roll: That means a team so bad that they go 3-14 without him was 35-30 with him.


Ok, Kareem was traded to the Lakers the next year, and with Goodrich and Cazzie Russell, they still could only go 40-42. How about Kareem that season. While he did lead the league in rebounding at 16.9, even that was deceptive. First of all, Kareem NEVER came CLOSE to leading the NBA in rebounding when Chamberlain played (not even remotely close.) But, in the ONE year in which he did lead the league in rebounding, he beat out 6-9 Cowens 16.9 to 16.0. 6-7 Wes Unseld finished third, and 6-7 Paul Silas 4th. How about scoring? Kareem averaged 27.7 ppg on his third worst shooting season of .529, which was good for 5th and well behind the leader at .561 (in a league that shot .458.)

Once again, Kareem's FG% weren't much of an issue because he was shooting 70+% from the line so his overall efficiency was still pretty good.


So, as we have seen, Wilt played BRILLIANTLY on his "losers" while Kareem just basically mailed it in in his.

So leading the league in shot blocking and rebounding in the same season and averaging 28/17/5/4 is just mailing it in? While those Lakers did average 108 possessions per game, that's still nothing like what Wilt's 60's teams averaged.


I have mentioned Kareem's first ten seasons before. Individually, he was great. However, he was a HUGE disappointment in terms of TEAM success. And, in the post-season, he was a bigger "failure" than Wilt. In the '71-72 post-season, his 63-19 Bucks lost to Wilt's Lakers in a series in which EVERYONE acknowledged that Wilt outplayed him (and at age 35 BTW.) In fact, in his two post-season series, Kareem shot a combined .437 against Thurmond and Wilt (and in the last four games of the WCF's, he shot .414 against Chamberlain.) He followed that up with a horrid .428 against Thurmond in the first round of the '72-73 WC playoffs...and a shocking 4-2 loss (his Bucks were 60-22, while Nate's Warriors were 47-35.) Incidently, Wilt crushed Thurmond in the '73 WCF's, en route to a 4-1 Lakers win.

Like Shaq's '99 and '7 series, Kareem's '73 series is one where he deserved blame. In '72 vs Thurmond? They won anyway. Vs Wilt in the WCF, yeah he shot 46%(Wilt's FG% in several playoff series), but I'm sure he was making his free throws at a much better rate. Granted, while I consider Kareem the greatest player ever, 46% for a center is poor, but Wilt outplayed Kareem?

Wilt outrebounded Kareem by 1 or 2 boards per game, but Kareem outscored him by what? 20+ ppg on better efficiency? And it was a close enough series that Kareem's Bucks outscored the Lakers in the series despite Wilt having a clearly superior cast.


In the '74 Finals, the favored Bucks collapsed against the Celtics, and in game seven, 6-9 Cowens outplayed Kareem.
:roll:

They wouldn't have even sniffed the finals if not for Kareem carrying them there. Lucius Allen who had averaged 18/4/5 on good efficiency missed the playoffs and Kareem averaged only 1 less ppg than his 2nd and 3rd options combined(the only other Bucks to average double figures in the playoffs). Kareem averaged 32/16/5/3 on 56% shooting in the playoffs and Kareem averaged 32.6 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 5.4 apg and 2.1 bpg in the finals. Robertson and Dandridge combined scored far less than Kareem and in game 7, they combined for just 18 points, Robertson shot 2 for 14. You also failed to mention Kareem's game-winning sky hook in double OT in game 6 when the Bucks were down by 2. There wouldn't have been a game 7 if not for that ridiculously clutch shot.


Kareem's teams did not even make the playoffs in '75 and '76. In the '77 playoffs, Kareem's 53-29 Lakers were SWEPT by Walton's 49-33 Blazers.

Go look up Walton and Kareem's head to head numbers in '77, never mind, you won't so I will.

Kareem- 30.3 ppg, 16 rpg, 3.8 apg, 3.8 bpg, 62% shooting
Walton- 19.3 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 2.2 bpg, 51% shooting.

I've seen 2 games from the seires(game 2 and game 4) and unless the other 2 games were dramatically different, Walton did NOT outplay Kareem. That was after Kareem had destroyed the Warriors in a 7 game series, here were his numbers.

37.6 ppg, 18.7 rpg, 4.3 apg, 3.8 bpg, 62% shooting

Just imagine if he had any kind of help that season.


It was no coincidence that MAGIC led LA to five titles. Before Magic came into the picture, Kareem was a TEAM "failure" and "choker." During the Magic era, LA went to NINE Finals in 12 seasons, with FIVE rings. And, how significant was Kareem? AFTER he retired, the Lakers STILL went 63-19 and 58-24 with another Finals appearance. How about AFTER Magic retired? They went 43-39.

Every player needs help and don't even get into a supporting cast argument because Wilt's '67 Sixers and '72 Lakers were stacked with talent. The bottom line, Kareem won more than Wilt, 3 times as many championships to be exact. You have to give Kareem credit for his incredible 1980 playoff run and finals series.


Even during the MAGIC era, Kareem had his share of failures. In the 80-81 playoffs he shot .462 against Moses Malone, in a league that shot .486, and the Lakers were beaten, 2-1. And in the '82-83 Finals, Malone just battered Kareem (KILLING him on the glass by over TEN rebounds per game)...and a SWEEPING loss. And, in the '88-89 Finals, when MAGIC was injured, the Lakers were SWEPT by the Pistons...the same team they beat 4-3 the year before with a healthy Magic.

Yeah, Kareem's FG% was poor vs Houston in '81, but 17 rpg vs Malone is impressive and that poor FG% was what Wilt shot in several series in his prime, except without Kareem's 70+% FT shooting.

:roll: at you bringing up '89. Kareem was 42!

[Roundball_Rock]

Russell was a great defensive leader and teammate, but people need to realize that his 11 rings are more circumstantial than anything. If he wasn't drafted into the greatest dynasty in professional sports, he's probably not a top 20 player of all time, much less top 5.

Really? Where were the Celtics before Russell? Where were they after he retired until the acquired future MVP Dave Cowens (take a guess how they got him...)? While we are at it where was the University of San Francisco before Russell? Where has it been since he left?

People talk about his scoring but ignore his passing. He was 7th or higher in assists four times, including one 5th place finish as a center!

[jlauber]

ShaqAttack,

Just as I suspected. You make EXCUSES for Kareem's and Shaq's post-season failures, of which there were MANY...and then rip Wilt for the few poor games he had.

You and Fatal pointed to a 6-21 game for Wilt. Geezus...Shaq had a 6-19 game in the playoffs against Robinson, and a 10-25 against Ostertag (as well as a 6-16 in the same series). Kareem had a 7-25 game five in the '84 Finals in a series that LA should have SWEPT (and your buddy Bird went 6-18 in that game seven BTW.)

I could look up every post-season game in which Shaq played, and I can find many for Kareem. They had their share of miserable games. At least Chamberlain was usually crushing his opposing centers on the glass.

And Wilt had very FEW series in which he shot less than 50%. Kareem had entire post-seasons of .462, .428, and .437. AND, as Psileas pointed out (and I have MANY times) Wilt shot WELL ABOVE the LEAGUE AVERAGE in ALL of them. Kareem had several in which he did NOT.

You mentioned a couple of Wit's "poor" outings against Russell in the 61-62 ECF's. How about game two of that seven gam series, in which Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, ands outrebounded him, 37-20, in a 113-106 WIN? And, as Psileas also pointed out, Wilt HAD to have games like for his team to have any chance.

You mentioned Russell's two 31 point games against Wilt in the post-season. OK, you can add ONE more 30+ game by Russell vs. Wilt, in their 142 H2H games. THREE 30+ games against Wilt, AND, Chamberlain OUTSCORED him in ALL three. Now, how about the 24 40+ point games by Wilt against Russell, including FIVE in the post-season. 50 pint games? Wilt holds a 5-0 edge over Russell, including a 62 point game (AND a 50-35 game in a post-season WIN in the 59-60 playoffs.) 30+ point games? Chamberlain holds a STAGGERING 71-3 edge!!!!! Post-season? 20-2!!!!!!!!!!

In terms of FG%, I can only find ONE post-season series, in Wilt's 29 post-season CAREER serie's, in which he was outshot...and that was by Kareem, in 71-72, .457 to .452 (and Wilt' 23 misses didn't HURT his team like the 107 misses that Kareem had.) And BTW, virtually EVERYONE who witnessed that series proclaimed Wilt a CLEAR-CUT winner over Kareem. You can take your EMPTY stats that Kareem accumulated and throw them in the garbage with his post-season loss.

Chamberlain CRUSHED Russell and virtually everyone else he faced in the post-season in FG%. HOFer Red Kerr "held" Wilt to a 37-23 .469 shooting in 60-6 I couldn't find Kerr's totals against Wilt in their 3 H2H games, but in his eight, he averaged 9.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, and shot .341. I suspect ALL of those totals were LOWER against Wilt.

In the 63-64 Finals Wilt averaged 292 , 27.6 rpg, and shot around .550+ against Russell (I KNOW he shot .526 against Beatty that year...and in his two series against the Hawks and Celtics he shot a combined .543.) Meanwhile Russell averaged 11 ppg, 25 rpg, and while I don't know what he shot specifically against Wilt, he shot .356 in his two series. I suspect that he shot worse than that against Chamberlain.

In the 64-65 ECF's Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 30-16, and outrebounded him per game, 31-25. Here again, I don't know how the shooting percentages went, but Wilt was at .530 to Russell's .527. The only game that I could find a FG%, game seven, Wilt shot 12-15 while Russell shot 7-16.

In the 65-66 ECF's, Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509 against Russell. Russell averaged 14 ppg, 21.6 rpg, and (and shot .475 in the entire post-season...but not sure what he shot against Chamberlain.)

In the 66-67 ECF's, Chamberlain DESTROYED Russell in EVERY category. He outscored him, 22-10 ppg, outrebounded him, 32-23 per game, outassisted him, 10-6 per game, and outshot him by an astonsihing .556-.358 margin. He also outscored Thurmond 17.5-14.3, outrebounded him, 28.5-26.7, and outshot him by an eyepopping .560-.343 margin in the Finals.

In the 67-68 ECF's and without Cunningham for the entire serie, and Luke Jackson being injured in game five, he STILL outscored Russell, 22.2 ppg to 13.7 ppg, and outrebounded him, 25.2 to 23.8. I couldn't find FG%, but in their post-seasons, Wilt shot .534, while Russell shot .409.

In their last H2H post-season, a game seven, two-point loss (and with Wilt's COACH keeping Chamberlain on the bench in the last five minutes), Wilt STILL outscored Russell, 12-9 ppg, and outrebounded him 25-22 rpg. I couldn't find FG%, but Chamberlain shot .545 in the post-season to Russell's .423. And, in the one game I could find, game seven, Wilt shot 7-8 from the field to Russell's 2-7 (as well as outrebounding him 27-21, despite playing five minutes less.)




How about rebounding? I can virtually GUARANTEE you that Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ONE of his 29 post-season series...and against the likes of Kerr, Reed, Bellamy, Lucas, Thurmond, Russell, and Kareem. Not ONE! Not only that, but Chamberlain had series against Russell in which he just BURIED him. He outrebounded Russell in EVERY post-season series (just as he did against Thurmond and Kareem.)

More to come...

[TheCorporation]

Might have been below 20 ppg if he didn't statpad his ass off in the fourth quarter of game 1 (team losing by 20+) by getting half his shots in in that quarter alone. I just find the image of that hilarious.

If anyone did some of these things once, much less over entire seasons and playoff series, they would get absolutely grilled for it. No one would take their stats seriously, especially a player who fails over and over again in the playoffs by individually underperforming. Just picture the games where he is shamelessly statpadding, playing all 48 minutes of blowouts just to achieve a certain point total (seemed to be about 30ish pts against Russell).

Exactly this. Why aren't people reading this and seeing what the OP is saying here...

[jlauber]

One more time...

Wilt faced a HOF center in 112 of his 160 post-season games..and in the vast majority of them, he outplayed his counterpart.

AND, he was outgunned by HOFers in EVERY post-season series (except in the 60-61 playoffs...Syracuse had the SAME amount.) His 59-60 Warriors and his TWO HOF teammates (one of them was Gola...ho has no reason to be in the HOF)...faced a Celtic team wih SEVEN HOFers (and a HOF coach.)

His 61-62 Sixers were outgunned in the ECF's, 6-3 in HOFers.

His 63-64 Warriors were outgunned in the Finals, SEVEN-to-TWO.

His 64-65 Sixers were outgunned in the ECF's, 5-3.

His 65-66 Sixers were outgunned in the ECF's, 4-3.

His 66-67 Sixers were outgunned in the ECF's, 5-3.

His 67-68 Sixers were outguned in the ECF's, 4-3.

His 68-69 Lakers were outgunned in the Finals, 4-3.

And ALL of those Celtics teams were MUCH DEEPER, too.

In the 69-70 Finals, his Lakers were outgunned, 4-3, (and Cazzie Russell, as well as a deeper bench.)

In the 70-71 WCF's, his Lakers were even with the Bucks, 2-2 (but they were missing West and Baylor.)

In the 71-72 Finals, Wilt's Lakers were outgunned by the Knicks, 5-3.

And in his final season, and in the 72-73 Finals, his Lakers were outgunned, SIX-to-THREE.


Yes, despite constantly facing superior teams, Chamberlin played on TWO title teams, and FOUR other teams that lost game seven's by a COMBINED NINE points. AND, had the officials not handed game five to the Knicks in the '70 Finals, and Wilt could have won ANOTHER.

The FACT was, Wilt came within a few points, or a blown call, or a lucky shot (or two), or a significant injury, or a stupid coaching decision...of winning FIVE more titles.

He OUTPLAYED EVERY opposing center, and was probably the BEST player on the floor in the vast majority of his post-season games, too.


That was ShaqAttack's post-season "flop"...and subsequently he can't rank him in HIS Top-5. Of course, he overlooks the MANY "failures" of Shaq, Kareem (and Bird.)

More to come...

[jlauber]

Wilt currently holds an "estimated" 130 NBA records (I say estimated...because there are MANY unofficial records, like blocked shots, quad-doubles, triple-doubles, etc...as well as combined scoring-rebounding games)...which DWARF EVERY other player who has EVER played the game. AND, they are significantly more than what Shaq, Kareem, and Bird hold...COMBINED!

Those records were achieved against the likes of Kerr, Reed, Lovelette, Reed, Bellamy, Lucas, Unseld, Hayes, Thurmond, Cowens, Lanier, Russell, and Kareem....ALL in the HOF!

Many of his records will never be approached, much less equaled. 100 pt game. SIX of the TEN 70+ point games. 32 of the 62 60+ point games. 118 50+ point games (including FOUR in the playoffs.) He averaged nearly 40 ppg (39.4 to be exact) in his first SEVEN seasons...COMBINED! He holds the top-FOUR scoring seasons.

The top-TWO (and THREE of the top-5) FG% seasons in NBA history. He has the THREE highest "perfect games" in NBA history (15-15, 16-16, and 18-18.) He has some of the most staggering "scoring" games in NBA history...including a 66 point game on 29-35 shooting (and a 58 point game on 26-34 shooting.)
His .683 mark in the '66-67 season came in a league that shot .441...and was an eye-popping .162 ahead of the nearest competitor. His .727 season came in a league that shot .456. BOTH of those season just DWARF anyone else's FG% comparisons to LEAGUE AVERAGE and Nearest Competitor.

He holds virtually EVERY major rebounding mark, and more importantly, he outrebounded EVERYBODY he faced. Bill Russell is the game's second greatest rebounder, and Chamberlain outrebounded him by FIVE boards per GAME over the course of their 142 meetings. AND, Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in a post-season series. How many other "greats" can make that claim?

Wilt is the only center to have ever led the league in assists, and he finished third in another.

Had blocked shots been an official stat, and he most certainly would have had SEASONS of 10+. There is a recorded game in 1969 in which he blocked 23 shots...which is WAY AHEAD of the "actual" record of 17. And, Pollac believes that Wilt had 25 in another.

How about 40-30 games? Chamberlain has 55 of the TOTAL of 61 in NBA history. AND, he has the ONLY FIVE 50-40 games, as well. He also had an astonishing 22-25-21 game (points, rebounds, and assists.) And he has TWO KNOWN quad-doubles in th post-season (including a 24-32-13-12 game against Russell.)

The NBA had to create RULES in an attempt to curtail his dominance (and most had little effect.) NO other player in the history of the NBA DOMINATED the league the way Wilt.

If he is NOT top-5...then there are NO deserving members. INDIVIDUALLY, he was THE greatest ever. NO ONE else comes close.

[ShaqAttack3234]

ShaqAttack,

Just as I suspected. You make EXCUSES for Kareem's and Shaq's post-season failures, of which there were MANY...and then rip Wilt for the few poor games he had.

Few poor games? Kareem and Shaq's many failures? As far as their primes or anywhere close to their primes. You could bring up '94 for Shaq(his first playoff series), '97 and '99. Failures being series where he played below his standard and lost and in only one of them('94) did he have homecourt advantage. For Kareem? '73, I guess you could mention '72, but that's really pushing it and maybe '81. '83 was past his prime and he still had a great series offensively. Kareem's rebounding numbers in the '83 finals weren't much different than his season numbers or his numbers in the rest of the playoffs.

So really, 3 "failures" in or around their primes and that's really stretching it for Kareem. Wilt had '61, '62, '66, '68, '69 and he won less than either of them while having far less legendary playoff performances.

If you can't see that Wilt clearly had an inferior playoff career then you're hopeless.


You and Fatal pointed to a 6-21 game for Wilt. Geezus...Shaq had a 6-19 game in the playoffs against Robinson, and a 10-25 against Ostertag (as well as a 6-16 in the same series). Kareem had a 7-25 game five in the '84 Finals in a series that LA should have SWEPT (and your buddy Bird went 6-18 in that game seven BTW.)

Regarding Shaq's 6/19 game. First of all, that was a game 1. Second of all, it's still better than 6/21. And he shot 9/14 from the line and had more points than shot attempts, unlike Wilt who not only had more FGA than points, but FTA than points, in the same game! A game with a chance to clinch, a game where he got a 40 point game on 15/24 from the field and 10/13 from his teammate! Not only that, but Shaq's game occurred in a game where the final score 87-81, the Lakers shot just 38% and the Spurs shot just 42% so a very tough and slow defensive game. And you love to mention rebounding when it's convenient for Wilt, but fail to mention that Shaq had 15 boards which is as much as Duncan and Robinson had combined.

Poor game for Shaq, but light years ahead of Wilt's game 6 in '68. And I've already said that Shaq's '99 series was a failure, though it did come during his worst season from '93-'05 while Wilt's '68 season would probably rank as his second best.

Regarding Shaq's 6/16 game. Once again, a game 1, Shaq shot 5/8 from the line and unlike Wilt, had more points than shot attempts while making the same amount of FG on 5 less attempts. Not to mention that it was another low scoring game, the final score was just 93-77, Shaq's entire team shot just 34% and again, you love to mention Wilt's rebounding in defense of his poor offensive games, but fail to mention that Shaq had a solid rebounding game himself.

Now onto the 10/25 game...still a game 2, but a must win. Shaq did have as many shot attempts than points and shot a mediocre 5/10 from the line, but that's nowhere near as bad 6/21 from the field and 8/23 from the line. Shaq had another good rebounding night and was the leading rebounder in the game, but the Lakers shot 49% as a team so this was very poor, particularly for a player of Shaq's caliber. Though he was far from the only one. His starting SG Eddie Jones didn't score in 28 minutes, Nick Van Exel shot 6/17 and had more FGA than points and Elden Campbell, his starting PF had 7 points and 6 boards. Regardless, this was a 103-101 game so it's reasonable to say that if Shaq had played a solid game, the Lakers win and Horry and Scott did come up big.

But once again, none of those are even close to Wilt's game 6 choke job in '68 or his 8 point game 6 in '69.

I'm not excusing Shaq's poor play in those three games, but to compare them to Wilt's '68 game 6 or '69 game 6 is laughable and the Lskers weren't favored and didn't have homecourt in either series.


I could look up every post-season game in which Shaq played, and I can find many for Kareem. They had their share of miserable games. At least Chamberlain was usually crushing his opposing centers on the glass.

But coming up small offensively and shooting at Allen Iverson-type efficiency doesn't say much about his clutch play.


You mentioned a couple of Wit's "poor" outings against Russell in the 61-62 ECF's. How about game two of that seven gam series, in which Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, ands outrebounded him, 37-20, in a 113-106 WIN? And, as Psileas also pointed out, Wilt HAD to have games like for his team to have any chance.

And Wilt didn't have many games like that in the series. I never said he sucked every game, but he had a subpar series. BTW, thanks for the game 2 stats, I'm trying to find more complete stats for the series.


You mentioned Russell's two 31 point games against Wilt in the post-season. OK, you can add ONE more 30+ game by Russell vs. Wilt, in their 142 H2H games. THREE 30+ games against Wilt, AND, Chamberlain OUTSCORED him in ALL three. Now, how about the 24 40+ point games by Wilt against Russell, including FIVE in the post-season. 50 pint games? Wilt holds a 5-0 edge over Russell, including a 62 point game (AND a 50-35 game in a post-season WIN in the 59-60 playoffs.) 30+ point games? Chamberlain holds a STAGGERING 71-3 edge!!!!! Post-season? 20-2!!!!!!!!!!

Come on, Russell, wasn't even known as a scorer. For Wilt to allow Russell to score over his season average and to held so far below his season averaging in '62 shows who stepped up.


In terms of FG%, I can only find ONE post-season series, in Wilt's 29 post-season CAREER serie's, in which he was outshot...and that was by Kareem, in 71-72, .457 to .452 (and Wilt' 23 misses didn't HURT his team like the 107 misses that Kareem had.) And BTW, virtually EVERYONE who witnessed that series proclaimed Wilt a CLEAR-CUT winner over Kareem. You can take your EMPTY stats that Kareem accumulated and throw them in the garbage with his post-season loss.

Yet, due to his horrendous FT%, his TS% in the playoffs was poor for a center. Yes, Shaq was also a poor free throw shooter, but his TS% in his playoff career crushes Wilt and his scoring average in his playoff career is also superior.


In the 63-64 Finals Wilt averaged 292 , 27.6 rpg, and shot around .550+ against Russell (I KNOW he shot .526 against Beatty that year...and in his two series against the Hawks and Celtics he shot a combined .543.) Meanwhile Russell averaged 11 ppg, 25 rpg, and while I don't know what he shot specifically against Wilt, he shot .356 in his two series. I suspect that he shot worse than that against Chamberlain.

Yet, I didn't criticize Wilt for his '64 finals, but you must acknowledge that Russell held him 7.4 ppg below his season average.


In the 64-65 ECF's Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 30-16, and outrebounded him per game, 31-25. Here again, I don't know how the shooting percentages went, but Wilt was at .530 to Russell's .527. The only game that I could find a FG%, game seven, Wilt shot 12-15 while Russell shot 7-16.

Amother series I didn't criticize Wilt for.


In the 65-66 ECF's, Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509 against Russell. Russell averaged 14 ppg, 21.6 rpg, and (and shot .475 in the entire post-season...but not sure what he shot against Chamberlain.)

Once again, he put his team in a hole in a series they had homecourt with because of his subpar offensive play in the first 4 games, 23.5 ppg on 47-48% shooting and even with that 46 point game, his TS% was just 50% for the series, Iverson-esque.


In the 66-67 ECF's, Chamberlain DESTROYED Russell in EVERY category. He outscored him, 22-10 ppg, outrebounded him, 32-23 per game, outassisted him, 10-6 per game, and outshot him by an astonsihing .556-.358 margin. He also outscored Thurmond 17.5-14.3, outrebounded him, 28.5-26.7, and outshot him by an eyepopping .560-.343 margin in the Finals.

Another series, I didn't criticize Wilt for. In fact, I praised his '67 run.


In the 67-68 ECF's and without Cunningham for the entire serie, and Luke Jackson being injured in game five, he STILL outscored Russell, 22.2 ppg to 13.7 ppg, and outrebounded him, 25.2 to 23.8. I couldn't find FG%, but in their post-seasons, Wilt shot .534, while Russell shot .409.

Don't even try to defend this series. Wilt had an embarrassing game 6 and disappeared offensively in game 7, all while choking away a 3-1 lead.

Right, Wilt was the greatest ever and no one is close, yet he's easily the worst playoff performer of the top 10 players. :rolleyes:

[jlauber]

Wilt>Shaq
/ Thread

100% agree...not even close!

[jlauber]

So, according to ShaqAttack,

Wilt was a post-season under-achiever...despite winning two rings, and nearly winning FIVE more.

Despite averaging 33-26 and over 50% shooting in his first six post-seasons.

Despite NEVER having a post-season of less than 20 rpg (including his LAST, at age 36, which was at 22.5.)

Despite OUTPLAYING virtually EVERY OPPOSING center he faced, and DOMINATING them in the majority of the games he faced them in.

The games greatest scorer, rebounder, shooter, and shot-blocker...and holder of 130 NBA records. And with RULES put in place to curtail his overwhelming dominance.

Yep...that is not the resume of a top-5 player.

[Yung D-Will]

So, according to ShaqAttack,

Wilt was a post-season under-achiever...despite winning two rings, and nearly winning FIVE more.

Despite averaging 33-26 and over 50% shooting in his first six post-seasons.

Despite NEVER having a post-season of less than 20 rpg (including his LAST, at age 36, which was at 22.5.)

Despite OUTPLAYING virtually EVERY OPPOSING center he faced, and DOMINATING them in the majority of the games he faced them in.

The games greatest scorer, rebounder, shooter, and shot-blocker...and holder of 130 NBA records. And with RULES put in place to curtail his overwhelming dominance.

Yep...that is not the resume of a top-5 player.

He was not a better shot blocker then Hakeem

That is all

[raiderfan19]

Who are your top ten? Because jordan and kobe both had seasons where the lost a similar amount as you stated no other top ten player could.

[jlauber]

He was not a better shot blocker then Hakeem

That is all

Well, we don't have the OFFICIAL stats to back it up...but Wilt had "unofficial" seasons of OVER 10. He had a RECORDED game of 23 (and an estimated 25 in another.)

There was a post with research done on that very topic, and in Wilt's LAST year, I believe the estimate was at SEVEN per game.

[ShaqAttack3234]

So, according to ShaqAttack,

Wilt was a post-season under-achiever...despite winning two rings, and nearly winning FIVE more.
:roll: at "nearly winning"



Despite averaging 33-26 and over 50% shooting in his first six post-seasons.

Mind posting his TS%?


The games greatest scorer, rebounder, shooter, and shot-blocker...and holder of 130 NBA records. And with RULES put in place to curtail his overwhelming dominance.

Greatest shooter?! What the ****?!

Shaq's playoff career- 24.5 ppg, 56.5 TS%, 56.3 FG%
Wilt's playoff career- 22.5 ppg, 52.4 TS%, 52.2 FG%, 160 games

Did "the greatest scorer" ever match Shaq's 38 ppg series, much less in the finals, much less on anywhere near 61% shooting?

[magnax1]

Wilt may have very well had a top 5 peak of all time('67), hell arguably even better, that's the one season where the playoff numbers, the wins and everything could line up for that, unfortunately, only half of a game from that run is available, apparently that was one of Wilt's more ordinary games from that run too so not really fair to judge his '67 season based on that, but I'll be the first to admit that he was amazing defensively in that game.

But 1 or 2 seasons don't make a player top 5. If 1 or 2 seasons was how you ranked players then Shaq would have as good of a case as anyone for GOAT based on 2000 and 2001, yet I'll be the first to admit that Shaq has no case over Kareem and Jordan on the all time list because 1 or 2 seasons don't make a career.

Wilt simply wasn't a winning player for the vast majority of his career. By his own admission he didn't play the way he should have which was using his size and strength instead of trying to prove he was skilled with fadeaways and finger rolls. That's one thing you can say for Russell, he didn't care how he looked as long as he got the W and I think that's the case with almost every other top 10 player which is why almost all of them won more than Wilt.

I think it just a difference of views. I think that I mostly rate players on their best 3 or 4 years, and Wilt had one of the best 3 or 4 years peaks, and like I said, even when he wasn't playing with the intent to force a win, he still dominated the competition better then anybody who isn't a top 7 or 8 player, even at the point where he wasn't intent on winning, he was still having at minimum a superstar top 10 all time impact, carrying crappy teams to 7 games with one of the best teams ever.
Actually you could be making the same argument about Kareem. He just wasn't a winner in his prime. He only won once, and then the rest of the 70's he didn't do much. He didn't have the team excuse, because Rick Barry, who nobody considers better then Kareem, won with a worse team then Kareem ever had. Do I believe that? No, but its the same argument you're making for Wilt.

[BlueandGold]

lol sad how people have to grasp at straws these days to discredit a great player like Wilt instead of appreciating what he has meant to the game.

Don't feed the fail troll

[ShaqAttack3234]

lol sad how people have to grasp at straws these days to discredit a great player like Wilt instead of appreciating what he has meant to the game.

Don't feed the fail troll
:roll: at this teenage punk. "Fail troll", what are you 14? Grasping at straws? You mean recaps of all of his postseasons, not even leaving out his successes is grasping at straws.

Once again, another moronic poster on ISH. What else is new? My opinion is as valid as anyone's here and more so than many because I've clearly researched his career more than the majority here have.

I didn't post anything that was false and I didn't exclude Wilt's success which would have shown I have an agenda. I have nothing against Wilt and you can find older posts of me on this board, pretty recently defending Wilt, but the more I looked into his career, the worse it looked.

[GiveItToBurrito]

PER is pace adjusted and backs up all the claims that he was dramatically better than everyone around him. Yeah, Russell won more titles, but he also played with much better teammates. It'd be like holding it against Kobe that he didn't win any titles from 2005 to 2007 when the second best player on his team was Lamar Odom and he was sharing a backcourt with Smush Parker.

[indiefan24]

Anyone who scores 100 pts in a game is automatically in the top 5 of all time. :D

[Alhazred]

Shaqattack, if Wilt's not a top five player, then who is?

[ShaqAttack3234]

PER is pace adjusted and backs up all the claims that he was dramatically better than everyone around him. Yeah, Russell won more titles, but he also played with much better teammates. It'd be like holding it against Kobe that he didn't win any titles from 2005 to 2007 when the second best player on his team was Lamar Odom and he was sharing a backcourt with Smush Parker.

PER is the same stat that had Ginobili ahead of Kobe in Kobe's MVP season. And Russell didn't always have much better teammates when he beat Wilt, see '68 and '69.


Shaqattack, if Wilt's not a top five player, then who is?

Well my top 4 are Kareem, Jordan, Shaq and Bird. After that, I'm not sure.

[TrueDiesel3]

Well my top 4 are Kareem, Jordan, Shaq and Bird. After that, I'm not sure.
lol.....

[ShaqAttack3234]

lol.....

Care to debate the top 5? I know you're not even going to try debating Kareem and Jordan, so try debating with me on why Bird and Shaq don't belong.

[TrueDiesel3]

Care to debate the top 5? I know you're not even going to try debating Kareem and Jordan, so try debating with me on why Bird and Shaq don't belong.
Bird belongs, Shaq doesn't (as much as I love him).....but what I found funny is how you forgot players like Magic, Russell and Wilt. Since your goal in this thread was to point out how Wilt wasn't on there, I don't blame you. But missing guys like Russell and Magic is lol-worthy.

[BlueandGold]

:roll: at this teenage punk. "Fail troll", what are you 14? Grasping at straws? You mean recaps of all of his postseasons, not even leaving out his successes is grasping at straws.

Once again, another moronic poster on ISH. What else is new? My opinion is as valid as anyone's here and more so than many because I've clearly researched his career more than the majority here have.

I didn't post anything that was false and I didn't exclude Wilt's success which would have shown I have an agenda. I have nothing against Wilt and you can find older posts of me on this board, pretty recently defending Wilt, but the more I looked into his career, the worse it looked.

haha
lol u know u mad when u write all this trying to defend ur retard post.

sad how shaqattack has become just another troll, defending a 300 lb journey man who is too much of a ***** to try to win a ring himself.

[RocketGreatness]

Bird belongs, Shaq doesn't (as much as I love him).....but what I found funny is how you forgot players like Magic, Russell and Wilt. Since your goal in this thread was to point out how Wilt wasn't on there, I don't blame you. But missing guys like Russell and Magic is lol-worthy.
The guy is the biggest Russell hater/hypocrite you will ever see. He'll ***** about him having no offense when his favorite player Dwight Howard who doesn't have any offense either and say he's a god. I remember he thought the Magic would be first in the East, Dwight would be MVP and would easily take out the Celtics :oldlol:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Bird belongs, Shaq doesn't (as much as I love him).....but what I found funny is how you forgot players like Magic, Russell and Wilt. Since your goal in this thread was to point out how Wilt wasn't on there, I don't blame you. But missing guys like Russell and Magic is lol-worthy.

As far as Magic? He won just one more title than Shaq and less as the undisputed best player on the team, didn't have as good of a peak and Shaq was much better entering the league and in his first few years.

Offensively you can argue either, Shaq was a much better scorer, but Magic was arguably the greatest passer of all time. However, Magic had much better offensive teammates, played at a much faster pace and never saw anywhere near the amount of double/triple/quadruple teams Shaq did, nor did he demoralize teams by literally beating them up and wearing them down on the interior while getting the other team into the penalty.

Defense? :roll: Not even close. Shaq's shot blocking, rebounding, intimidation and hell, even his free throw attempts that slowed down the game and let his team's set up their defense made him a huge impact player on that end alone. There's a reason why he was 2nd in DPOY voting and anchored the best defensive team in the 2000 regular season and the 2001 playoffs. Magic was a below average defensive player. Shaq's defensive weakness was the pick and roll, but he was an underrated post defender.

As far as Russell? Better defensive player, but Shaq was miles ahead of him offensively and unlike Wilt, Shaq stepped up in the playoffs and had plenty of legendary games and series in the playoffs which is the main difference between Wilt and Russell. There's '63 and '64 finals games on youtube, a '67 EDF game, the end of a '69 finals game and footage from 2 games in the '62 finals on youtube and while that's not a ton to go by, I don't see Russell dominating those games to the extent Shaq did. And Shaq's main weakness(free throw shooting) was also one of Russell's weaknesses.


The guy is the biggest Russell hater/hypocrite you will ever see. He'll ***** about him having no offense when his favorite player Dwight Howard who doesn't have any offense either and say he's a god. I remember he thought the Magic would be first in the East, Dwight would be MVP and would easily take out the Celtics :oldlol:

First of all, Dwight is a much, much better scorer than Russell was and I've never tried ranking Dwight over Russell. Dwight isn't my favorite player either, Shaq is. But of course you'll take any opportunity to hate on Dwight even when it's irrelevant.

How are the Orlando Magic and Dwight Howard even relevant to this topic?

[Quizno]

god you people have no lives

i thought shaqattack and abraham lincoln (or PHILA, w/e name he goes by now) had a love affair with each other. trouble in paradise?

[RocketGreatness]

god you people have no lives

i thought shaqattack and abraham lincoln (or PHILA, w/e name he goes by now) had a love affair with each other. trouble in paradise?
ShaqAttack has a love affair for Dwigth Howard and Abe has a love affair for Wilt....so no. :lol


First of all, Dwight is a much, much better scorer than Russell was and I've never tried ranking Dwight over Russell. Dwight isn't my favorite player either, Shaq is. But of course you'll take any opportunity to hate on Dwight even when it's irrelevant.

How are the Orlando Magic and Dwight Howard even relevant to this topic?:roll: Yao > Dwight for the record.

[icemanfan]

its tards like the OP that make me want to quit ISH.

[indiefan24]

god you people have no lives

i thought shaqattack and abraham lincoln (or PHILA, w/e name he goes by now) had a love affair with each other. trouble in paradise?

shaqattack crossed the line hah

[BlueandGold]

its tards like the OP that make me want to quit ISH.

+1, here is a man who is way too serious about the NBA and way too mad.


rofl Kobe's rings > Shaq's

[ShaqAttack3234]

ShaqAttack has a love affair for Dwigth Howard and Abe has a love affair for Wilt....so no. :lol
:roll: Yao > Dwight for the record.

Talking about "love affairs" nobody is a worse homer than you are with Yao. Your Yao>Dwight agenda has gotten so bad that you have to grasp at straws such as "best center when healthy" and crap like that. And you hate Dwight for no reason other than he's prevented Yao from having the best center title, well, that and the fact that Yao can't stay healthy. But you can't stand it.

Hell, that's why you mentioned Dwight in this thread. You notice that NOBODY else had mentioned Dwight or the Magic?


its tards like the OP that make me want to quit ISH.

Thank you, coming from you, I take that as a compliment. If I could cause you to stop posting then I would've definitely accomplished something positive.

[che guevara]

its tards like the OP that make me want to quit ISH.
:confusedshrug: Why don't you actually debate his points rather than use stupid insults? Most of the people in this thread just say things like "Wilt would have won just as much as Russell if they switches places" without actually backing that up.

[ShaqAttack3234]

:confusedshrug: Why don't you actually debate his points rather than use stupid insults? Most of the people in this thread just say things like "Wilt would have won just as much as Russell if they switches places" without actually backing that up.

Exactly, the only poster who actually tried debating was JLauber, and even though I don't think he made good arguments I'll give him that much credit. I don't even think so of the posters in this thread even read my post.

[Sarcastic]

Top 5 all time:
1 Jordan
2 Wilt
3 Magic
4 Russell
5 Alcindor

[Yung D-Will]

Exactly, the only poster who actually tried debating was JLauber, and even though I don't think he made good arguments I'll give him that much credit. I don't even think so of the posters in this thread even read my post.

I did :D

[Alhazred]

\
Well my top 4 are Kareem, Jordan, Shaq and Bird. After that, I'm not sure.

Not bad, but why no Russell or Wilt? You bring up some good points regarding Wilt in close games and series, but I think you're nitpicking his career a bit much. He was the first player of his kind and helped legitimize the league while posting some of the most absurd statlines ever seen in professional sports. Even when you factor in pace, number of possessions per team and the era he played in, you'd have to be hardpressed to simply write them off. Also, he sacrificed his scoring for the good of his teams later on and starred on two of the best lineups in NBA history, the 66-67 76ers and the 71-72 Lakers. Maybe he was overly obsessed with stats at the beginning of his career, but then you could say the same thing about other legends, as well.

I also admit that I think some of the claims made about Wilt tend to be exaggerated(capable of averaging 40/20 in this day and age, 48" vertical), but do you really think he's only in the 8-10 range on an all-time list?

[Yung D-Will]

Top 5 all time:
1 Jordan
2 Wilt
3 Magic
4 Russell
5 Alcindor

eH

I got

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Russel
4. Wilt
5.Magic

[ShaqAttack3234]

Not bad, but why no Russell or Wilt? You bring up some good points regarding Wilt in close games and series, but I think you're nitpicking his career a bit much. He was the first player of his kind and helped legitimize the league while posting some of the most absurd statlines ever seen in professional sports. Even when you factor in pace, number of possessions per team and the era he played in, you'd have to be hardpressed to simply write them off. Also, he sacrificed his scoring for the good of his teams later on and starred on two of the best lineups in NBA history, the 66-67 76ers and the 71-72 Lakers. Maybe he was overly obsessed with stats at the beginning of his career, but then you could say the same thing about other legends, as well.

I never said I simply write off his numbers altogether, but a lot of players had phenomenal stats and the only stats that really did stand out as far as Wilt's playoff career are rebounding and in '67, assists.

I already explained Russell and Wilt, though I have Russell higher than I did before I researched the '62 EDF.

And other players have cared about stats, but to the extent that Wilt did? I mean picture Wilt having 62 in 3 quarters like Kobe did and sitting out the 4th, especially while outscoring the other team through 3 quarters or picture him sitting out the 4th in 50+ like T-Mac did in 2003.


I also admit that I think some of the claims made about Wilt tend to be exaggerated(capable of averaging 40/20 in this day and age, 48" vertical), but do you really think he's only in the 8-10 range on an all-time list?

The best arguments for Wilt being higher than I rank him IMO are impact on the evolution of the game and single season peak('67), but it's hard to hold it against other players that Wilt played in a time when the NBA was in it's infancy. Besides, Magic and Bird changed the game, so did Jordan and hell, they even put in 2 rules to slow down Shaq(defensive 3 second violations and zone defenses) and Russell also changed the game as much as Wilt.

[TrueDiesel3]

As far as Magic? He won just one more title than Shaq and less as the undisputed best player on the team, didn't have as good of a peak and Shaq was much better entering the league and in his first few years.

Offensively you can argue either, Shaq was a much better scorer, but Magic was arguably the greatest passer of all time. However, Magic had much better offensive teammates, played at a much faster pace and never saw anywhere near the amount of double/triple/quadruple teams Shaq did, nor did he demoralize teams by literally beating them up and wearing them down on the interior while getting the other team into the penalty.

Defense? :roll: Not even close. Shaq's shot blocking, rebounding, intimidation and hell, even his free throw attempts that slowed down the game and let his team's set up their defense made him a huge impact player on that end alone. There's a reason why he was 2nd in DPOY voting and anchored the best defensive team in the 2000 regular season and the 2001 playoffs. Magic was a below average defensive player. Shaq's defensive weakness was the pick and roll, but he was an underrated post defender.

As far as Russell? Better defensive player, but Shaq was miles ahead of him offensively and unlike Wilt, Shaq stepped up in the playoffs and had plenty of legendary games and series in the playoffs which is the main difference between Wilt and Russell. There's '63 and '64 finals games on youtube, a '67 EDF game, the end of a '69 finals game and footage from 2 games in the '62 finals on youtube and while that's not a ton to go by, I don't see Russell dominating those games to the extent Shaq did. And Shaq's main weakness(free throw shooting) was also one of Russell's weaknesses.


Sounds like you don't understand the difference between being greater and being better. All you did in the post I'm quoting right now is prove to me why Shaq is the better player, you didn't prove why he was greater. Being better is more of an opinion, being greater is more of a fact. Both are still opinions and both still have opinions within them, but that's just the way it is.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Sounds like you don't understand the difference between being greater and being better. All you did in the post I'm quoting right now is prove to me why Shaq is the better player, you didn't prove why he was greater. Being better is more of an opinion, being greater is more of a fact. Both are still opinions and both still have opinions within them, but that's just the way it is.

Being greater factors in careers and things like titles, longevity ect. and being better more or less suggests their primes, but Magic won 1 more title than Shaq and Shaq had better longevity and peak is also factored in to greater career.

Neither are even remotely close to being facts, but I know my points are valid, whether people see things the same way is a different story, but I never rank a player a certain way and then can't explain why I rank them that way.

[Sarcastic]

eH

I got

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Russel
4. Wilt
5.Magic

I can't put KAJ that high just because his rebounding is sufficiently worse than the other two. His greatness is in his longevity, but to me that is not enough to surpass what Wilt did at his peak.

[TrueDiesel3]

Being greater factors in careers and things like titles, longevity ect. and being better more or less suggests their primes, but Magic won 1 more title than Shaq and Shaq had better longevity and peak is also factored in to greater career.

Neither are even remotely close to being facts, but I know my points are valid, whether people see things the same way is a different story, but I never rank a player a certain way and then can't explain why I rank them that way.
He also has two more MVPs than Shaq and if his career wasn't cut short by that disease who knew how many All-Star appearances Magic would have or how many championships he would have ended up having?? Not to mention Magic played in the "Golden Era" of Basketball. Go ahead and think Shaq is greater, it's just that not many are going to agree with you.

[GiveItToBurrito]

PER is the same stat that had Ginobili ahead of Kobe in Kobe's MVP season. And Russell didn't always have much better teammates when he beat Wilt, see '68 and '69.



Well my top 4 are Kareem, Jordan, Shaq and Bird. After that, I'm not sure.

Do you think that maybe just maybe Ginobli is underrated and Kobe is slightly overrated? Also, the big difference between the two of them that year was defense (not covered by PER) and the number of minutes they played (Kobe around 38, Manu around 30). That said, look at their per-40 averages: 25-6-6 for Manu versus 29 6 and 5 for Kobe, with Bryant playing at a faster tempo and scoring a bit less efficiently.

If I recall correctly, at least one of those series went to seven games, which basically means it's a few made free throws from being a draw. I don't know a ton about who was still on the Celtics back then, but I assume they had as many future Hall of Famers as the Lakers did, most likely more.

[jlauber]

ShaqAttack brings up Shaq's 2000 Finals...38 ppg, 17 rpg and .610 shooting. Outstanding to be sure. IMHO, one of the greatest ever...UNTIL, you take a look at the crap he faced. Smits and Davis. Wilt NEVER faced anything so putrid in his Finals. Even Jerry Lucas (who was taller than Ben Wallace BTW) was a FAR better rebounder than eithr...and a MUCH better shooter. It was testament to Wilt's defense that he could guard Lucas at 25 ft., and still block a TON of shots and grab almost as many rebounds as the entire Knick team.

Chamberlain gets ripped by ShaqAttack when facing Russell 49 times in the post-season...and statistically outplaying him by a MILE. And Shaq never faced anyone like Russell, who was a 6-10 WORLD-CLASS high jumper (ranked 7th in the world in 1956.)

When Shaq faced Robinson in the post-season, from the 98-99 seasn thru the 01-02 season, he averaged 23.8 ppg, 12.7 rpg, and shot .492 (and Robinson was well past his prime.) Chamberlain had 30-30 .540 series against Russell for cryingoutloud. And when Wilt did not face a HOFer (which was rare), like the 63-64 playoffs against All-Star Zelmo Beaty, he put up a 38-26 .526 series (in a league that shot .440.) Or in his 66-67 playoffs against Connie Dierking when he posted 28 ppg, 26 rpg, 11 apg (including a playoff record 19 at the time) and shot .612 from the field.

Did Shaq ever face anyone like Kareem? In the post-season, on one leg he battled Kareem to a statitical draw in 70-71 and outshot him from the field and outrebounded him. In FACT, the MILWAUKEE fans gave Wilt a standing ovation as he left the floor in the last game. The followiing season Kareem played well in the first two games, and after that Wilt SHUT HIM DOWN. Kareem shot .414 over the last critical four games, and Chamberlain was blocking his shots all over the place. In the clinching game six win, Chamberlain overwhelmed Kareem in the 4th quarter, and led LA to a series win.

The following regular season, Wilt outshot Kareem from the field .637 to .450..but he did not get the opportunity to face him in the post-season. Why? Because Thurmond held Kareem under 50% for the THIRD STRAIGHT playoff series, and led the Warriors to a shocking 4-2 win over the heavily-favored Bucks. How did Nate do against Wilt in the next round? He outscored Wilt, 16-8 per game...but Wilt outshot him 55 to 39.8% and outrebounded him, 23-16 per game. AND, Chamberlain led LA to a 4-1 series win (including a 126-70 win in Oakland.)

Of course, those battles with Kareem were when Wilt was well past his prime (and Kareem was in his statistical PRIME.) They only met one time before Wilt's devastating knee injury in 1969...and Wilt outscored him, 25-23, outrebonded him 25-20, outassisted him 5-2, outblocked him 3-2, and outshot him from the field, 9-14 to 9-21.

One can only wonder what Wilt, in HIS PRIME, would have done to Kareem in his PRIME? We know that Wilt outscored Thurmond 45-13 in one game, and had a 38-31 game against him as well. Wilt also outshot Thurmond in the 66-67 Finals by a staggering .560 to .343 margin (and outscored and outrebounded him, as well.) Chamberlain also had several 40+ games against Reed, including a 58 and a 52 point outburst. Wilt also had FIVE 50+ games against Russell (including a 62 point game...and a 50-35 playoff game.) Wilt also had TWO 60+ point games against Bellamy. In his PRIME, in the mid-60's...Wilt CRUSHED his opposing centers...MANY of the HOFers.

So, while Shaq was feasting on the stumbling inept centers of the 90's and 00's (and when he did face a good one...it was only a couple of times a year)....Wilt was ROUTINELY facing a HOF center...and outplaying them ALL. Wilt faced guys like Russell up to 17 times in a season. He had SEASONS against Russell where he averaged nearly 40 ppg. Fatal9 puts down Wilt's 62-63 season, because Chamberlain's teammates, arguably the WORST roster ever assembled, went 31-49. How did Wilt fare against Russell that year...and with NO HELP? In their nine H2H meetings, Boston wen 8-1 (which was clearly no surprise...since Russell's Celtics held a SEVEN-t-ONE edge in HOFers)...BUT, Chamberlain outscored him, per game, 38.1 to 14.5 ppg...and outrebounded him, 28.9 rpg to Russell's 27.8 rpg. I couldn't tell you what Chamberlain shot from the field, but he did lead the league in FG% at .528 (in a league that shot .441), while Russell shot .432.

The FACT was, Wilt outscored Russell 132-10 in their 142 H2H meetings. He also outrebounded him by a 92-42-8 margin. And in the multiple games in which I could find a FG% comparison, Wilt CRUSHED Russell.

Once again, while Shaq was struggling against the likes of Ostertag (in the 96-97 playofs, Shaq averaged 22.4 ppg, 11.7 rpg, and shot .494) or against Eddie Curry ( in their 13 CAREER meetings, Shaq out scored him 15.8-12.8 per game, outrebounded him, per game 6.9 to 5.0, and was outshot by him, .533 to .529)...Chamberlain was OBLITERATING HOFers.

Wilt NEVER had the luxury of facing clods in the Finals, and had only a handful of post-seasons, out of 160, in which he faced what Shaq ROUTINELY faced.

I have often wondered what Wilt would have done in the Finals, in the 61-62 season, had his teammates been able to score THREE more points against the Celtics in that game seven. Chamberlain would have faced a Laker team that he had averaged 51.5 ppg (including THREE 60+ point games...and a MONSTER 78-43 game) during the regular season. As it was, Russell put up a 30-40 game seven against the Lakers. One can only wonder how Chamberlain would have done.

Instead, Wilt faced HOFers in 112 of his 160 post-seasons, including Russell, whom he faced an incredible 49 times. And, as Tom Heinsohn said...it was not Russell vs Wilt in those games...it was the Celtics vs Wilt. They ABUSED Chamberlain. AND he STILL put up HUGE games.

Given Shaq's less than stellar record against the FEW HOFers he faced in the post-season...and even some stumbling clods like Ostertag...IMHO, HIS post-season stats are INFLATED. Had he had to go against teams with SEVEN HOFers, and a center that was regarded as the greatest defensive player of all-time...well, those 24.5 ppg post-season scoring marks, and .563 FG% would have looked MUCH WORSE. AND, the flip side...if Chamberlian would have had the opportunity to face guys like Smits, Davis, McCullough, 6-7 Ben Wallace, and Dampier in four of his last five finals...well, needless-to-say... Wilt would not only have had MUCH higher ppg and FG%, but probably would have won five more titles as well. And, the league would not have allowed Wilt to ABUSE Motumbo the way that Shaq did. I have posted footage of that series, and in it Shaq got away with as close to manslaughter as you will ever see. CLEARLY though, had Wilt been allowed to play like that....and the Record Book, which is already his....would look even more staggering.

[wang4three]

Who, maybe outside of Jordan and Russell, doesn't have imperfections on their resume? If you put anyone's career under a microscope you can find stuff like this.

[Harison]

Several chokes and lack of more rings is the only reason Wilt isnt a clear cut GOAT (yes - his stats and 10 rings would definitely seal the deal), but Wilt still is Top4 player All-time, and no - Shaq doesnt come close to them. Shaq is consensus Top6-10 player, usually residing in Top8 spot.

[jlauber]

Who, maybe outside of Jordan and Russell, doesn't have imperfections on their resume? If you put anyone's career under a microscope you can find stuff like this.

Well, the OP was to discredit Wilt based on HIS "flaws", but obviously the HUGE flaws and failures of players like Shaq, Kareem, and Bird were overlooked.

[Dizzle-2k7]

ShaqAttack brings up Shaq's 2000 Finals...38 ppg, 17 rpg and .610 shooting. Outstanding to be sure. IMHO, one of the greatest ever...UNTIL, you take a look at the crap he faced. Smits and Davis. Wilt NEVER faced anything so putrid in his Finals. Even Jerry Lucas (who was taller than Ben Wallace BTW) was a FAR better rebounder than eithr...and a MUCH better shooter. It was testament to Wilt's defense that he could guard Lucas at 25 ft., and still block a TON of shots and grab almost as many rebounds as the entire Knick team.

Chamberlain gets ripped by ShaqAttack when facing Russell 49 times in the post-season...and statistically outplaying him by a MILE. And Shaq never faced anyone like Russell, who was a 6-10 WORLD-CLASS high jumper (ranked 7th in the world in 1956.)

When Shaq faced Robinson in the post-season, from the 98-99 seasn thru the 01-02 season, he averaged 23.8 ppg, 12.7 rpg, and shot .492 (and Robinson was well past his prime.) Chamberlain had 30-30 .540 series against Russell for cryingoutloud. And when Wilt did not face a HOFer (which was rare), like the 63-64 playoffs against All-Star Zelmo Beaty, he put up a 38-26 .526 series (in a league that shot .440.) Or in his 66-67 playoffs against Connie Dierking when he posted 28 ppg, 26 rpg, 11 apg (including a playoff record 19 at the time) and shot .612 from the field.

Did Shaq ever face anyone like Kareem? In the post-season, on one leg he battled Kareem to a statitical draw in 70-71 and outshot him from the field and outrebounded him. In FACT, the MILWAUKEE fans gave Wilt a standing ovation as he left the floor in the last game. The followiing season Kareem played well in the first two games, and after that Wilt SHUT HIM DOWN. Kareem shot .414 over the last critical four games, and Chamberlain was blocking his shots all over the place. In the clinching game six win, Chamberlain overwhelmed Kareem in the 4th quarter, and led LA to a series win.

The following regular season, Wilt outshot Kareem from the field .637 to .450..but he did not get the opportunity to face him in the post-season. Why? Because Thurmond held Kareem under 50% for the THIRD STRAIGHT playoff series, and led the Warriors to a shocking 4-2 win over the heavily-favored Bucks. How did Nate do against Wilt in the next round? He outscored Wilt, 16-8 per game...but Wilt outshot him 55 to 39.8% and outrebounded him, 23-16 per game. AND, Chamberlain led LA to a 4-1 series win (including a 126-70 win in Oakland.)

Of course, those battles with Kareem were when Wilt was well past his prime (and Kareem was in his statistical PRIME.) They only met one time before Wilt's devastating knee injury in 1969...and Wilt outscored him, 25-23, outrebonded him 25-20, outassisted him 5-2, outblocked him 3-2, and outshot him from the field, 9-14 to 9-21.

One can only wonder what Wilt, in HIS PRIME, would have done to Kareem in his PRIME? We know that Wilt outscored Thurmond 45-13 in one game, and had a 38-31 game against him as well. Wilt also outshot Thurmond in the 66-67 Finals by a staggering .560 to .343 margin (and outscored and outrebounded him, as well.) Chamberlain also had several 40+ games against Reed, including a 58 and a 52 point outburst. Wilt also had FIVE 50+ games against Russell (including a 62 point game...and a 50-35 playoff game.) Wilt also had TWO 60+ point games against Bellamy. In his PRIME, in the mid-60's...Wilt CRUSHED his opposing centers...MANY of the HOFers.

So, while Shaq was feasting on the stumbling inept centers of the 90's and 00's (and when he did face a good one...it was only a couple of times a year)....Wilt was ROUTINELY facing a HOF center...and outplaying them ALL. Wilt faced guys like Russell up to 17 times in a season. He had SEASONS against Russell where he averaged nearly 40 ppg. Fatal9 puts down Wilt's 62-63 season, because Chamberlain's teammates, arguably the WORST roster ever assembled, went 31-49. How did Wilt fare against Russell that year...and with NO HELP? In their nine H2H meetings, Boston wen 8-1 (which was clearly no surprise...since Russell's Celtics held a SEVEN-t-ONE edge in HOFers)...BUT, Chamberlain outscored him, per game, 38.1 to 14.5 ppg...and outrebounded him, 28.9 rpg to Russell's 27.8 rpg. I couldn't tell you what Chamberlain shot from the field, but he did lead the league in FG% at .528 (in a league that shot .441), while Russell shot .432.

The FACT was, Wilt outscored Russell 132-10 in their 142 H2H meetings. He also outrebounded him by a 92-42-8 margin. And in the multiple games in which I could find a FG% comparison, Wilt CRUSHED Russell.

Once again, while Shaq was struggling against the likes of Ostertag (in the 96-97 playofs, Shaq averaged 22.4 ppg, 11.7 rpg, and shot .494) or against Eddie Curry ( in their 13 CAREER meetings, Shaq out scored him 15.8-12.8 per game, outrebounded him, per game 6.9 to 5.0, and was outshot by him, .533 to .529)...Chamberlain was OBLITERATING HOFers.

Wilt NEVER had the luxury of facing clods in the Finals, and had only a handful of post-seasons, out of 160, in which he faced what Shaq ROUTINELY faced.

I have often wondered what Wilt would have done in the Finals, in the 61-62 season, had his teammates been able to score THREE more points against the Celtics in that game seven. Chamberlain would have faced a Laker team that he had averaged 51.5 ppg (including THREE 60+ point games...and a MONSTER 78-43 game) during the regular season. As it was, Russell put up a 30-40 game seven against the Lakers. One can only wonder how Chamberlain would have done.

Instead, Wilt faced HOFers in 112 of his 160 post-seasons, including Russell, whom he faced an incredible 49 times. And, as Tom Heinsohn said...it was not Russell vs Wilt in those games...it was the Celtics vs Wilt. They ABUSED Chamberlain. AND he STILL put up HUGE games.

Given Shaq's less than stellar record against the FEW HOFers he faced in the post-season...and even some stumbling clods like Ostertag...IMHO, HIS post-season stats are INFLATED. Had he had to go against teams with SEVEN HOFers, and a center that was regarded as the greatest defensive player of all-time...well, those 24.5 ppg post-season scoring marks, and .563 FG% would have looked MUCH WORSE. AND, the flip side...if Chamberlian would have had the opportunity to face guys like Smits, Davis, McCullough, 6-7 Ben Wallace, and Dampier in four of his last five finals...well, needless-to-say... Wilt would not only have had MUCH higher ppg and FG%, but probably would have won five more titles as well. And, the league would not have allowed Wilt to ABUSE Motumbo the way that Shaq did. I have posted footage of that series, and in it Shaq got away with as close to manslaughter as you will ever see. CLEARLY though, had Wilt been allowed to play like that....and the Record Book, which is already his....would look even more staggering.

great post. you win.

while i believe shaq is an incredible force and a top 10 all time great, i have a hard time putting him top 5 especially over a mythical creature like wilt who can score 100 in one season and then lead the league in assists the next.. thats just unimaginable... imagine dwight howard leading the league in assists?...people would be saying his a 7 foot magic johnson.

[jlauber]

great post. you win.

while i believe shaq is an incredible force and a top 10 all time great, i have a hard time putting him top 5 especially over a mythical creature like wilt who can score 100 in one season and then lead the league in assists the next.. thats just unimaginable... imagine dwight howard leading the league in assists?...people would be saying his a 7 foot magic johnson.

I also have Shaq in MY top-10...although I am wavering as to where. Originally I had him at #7, with Kobe at #8...but with Kobe winning another ring...it is close. Shaq was more dominant in his finals, and he has had a great career...but Kobe has been the best player in the league in the last half of the decade...and he was more than just a second-fiddle player in the "three-peat." Kobe was far more of a factor against the Spurs.

As for Chamberlain. IMHO, the greatest INDIVIDUAL player of all-time. If you want to rate Russell, Jordan, and even Magic ahead of him based on overall play and rings...fine. I used to have Kareem ahead of him, as well...but the more research I did, the more I realized that, while Kareem was another great INDIVIDUAL player...he was not the "winner" that Magic was. Without Magic, and I am CONVINCED Kareem retires with ONE ring. On the other hand, Magic would certainly have won rings in '87 and '88 without Kareem....and probably might have won some in the early 80's without him as well. Hell, he won a clinching game six withOUT Abdul-Jabbar.

[Yung D-Will]

I also have Shaq in MY top-10...although I am wavering as to where. Originally I had him at #7, with Kobe at #8...but with Kobe winning another ring...it is close. Shaq was more dominant in his finals, and he has had a great career...but Kobe has been the best player in the league in the last half of the decade...and he was more than just a second-fiddle player in the "three-peat." Kobe was far more of a factor against the Spurs.

As for Chamberlain. IMHO, the greatest INDIVIDUAL player of all-time. If you want to rate Russell, Jordan, and even Magic ahead of him based on overall play and rings...fine. I used to have Kareem ahead of him, as well...but the more research I did, the more I realized that, while Kareem was another great INDIVIDUAL player...he was not the "winner" that Magic was. Without Magic, and I am CONVINCED Kareem retires with ONE ring. On the other hand, Magic would certainly have won rings in '87 and '88 without Kareem....and probably might have won some in the early 80's without him as well. Hell, he won a clinching game six withOUT Abdul-Jabbar.

Lol Plz explain to me why you have Kobe over Duncan

And why you even think that Kobe over Shaq is an argument

[jlauber]

Lol Plz explain to me why you have Kobe over Duncan

And why you even think that Kobe over Shaq is an argument

Well, here was MY top-10...

1. Russell
2. Magic
3. Kareem
4. MJ
5. Wilt
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Kobe
9. Oscar
10. Bird


BUT, I have had to change my mind based on some research and outstanding posts by others. INDIVIDUALLY, Wilt is the greatest ever. You simply can't argue with the Record Book. But, it is still about winning.

1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Magic
4 Wilt
5. Kareem
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Kobe
9. Hakeem
10. Bird

Kobe, barring injury, WILL move past Shaq and Duncan. But, he would have to really end his career with a bang to move much higher. I just don't see him ever passing Jordan...even with more rings (unless he gets something like 8 or 9.)

[ginobli2311]

Well, here was MY top-10...

1. Russell
2. Magic
3. Kareem
4. MJ
5. Wilt
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Kobe
9. Oscar
10. Bird


BUT, I have had to change my mind based on some research and outstanding posts by others. INDIVIDUALLY, Wilt is the greatest ever. You simply can't argue with the Record Book. But, it is still about winning.

1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Magic
4 Wilt
5. Kareem
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Kobe
9. Hakeem
10. Bird

Kobe, barring injury, WILL move past Shaq and Duncan. But, he would have to really end his career with a bang to move much higher. I just don't see him ever passing Jordan...even with more rings (unless he gets something like 8 or 9.)


soryy dude.

kobe over hakeem and bird is not accurate.....unless you are going off solely on who had the better career and not who has the better player.

[Yung D-Will]

Well, here was MY top-10...

1. Russell
2. Magic
3. Kareem
4. MJ
5. Wilt
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Kobe
9. Oscar
10. Bird


BUT, I have had to change my mind based on some research and outstanding posts by others. INDIVIDUALLY, Wilt is the greatest ever. You simply can't argue with the Record Book. But, it is still about winning.

1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Magic
4 Wilt
5. Kareem
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Kobe
9. Hakeem
10. Bird

Kobe, barring injury, WILL move past Shaq and Duncan. But, he would have to really end his career with a bang to move much higher. I just don't see him ever passing Jordan...even with more rings (unless he gets something like 8 or 9.)


O k.

[Yung D-Will]

soryy dude.

kobe over hakeem and bird is not accurate.....unless you are going off solely on who had the better career and not who has the better player.
We choose to just ignore it

[Sarcastic]

Well, here was MY top-10...

1. Russell
2. Magic
3. Kareem
4. MJ
5. Wilt
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Kobe
9. Oscar
10. Bird


BUT, I have had to change my mind based on some research and outstanding posts by others. INDIVIDUALLY, Wilt is the greatest ever. You simply can't argue with the Record Book. But, it is still about winning.

1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Magic
4 Wilt
5. Kareem
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Kobe
9. Hakeem
10. Bird

Kobe, barring injury, WILL move past Shaq and Duncan. But, he would have to really end his career with a bang to move much higher. I just don't see him ever passing Jordan...even with more rings (unless he gets something like 8 or 9.)

How could you not have Jordan at the top?

[jlauber]

soryy dude.

kobe over hakeem and bird is not accurate.....unless you are going off solely on who had the better career and not who has the better player.

Well, Hakeem has a strong case based on his brilliant post-seasons...but Bird is not even in the discussion. Bird was hardly stellar in the post-season, and his Finals, on LOADED teams were actually more of a disappointment. Bird won three rings with 3-4 other HOFers...and only played really well in ONE of those finals. I have said it before, but there is a strong argument against Bird even being the best player in two of his three Finals wins...much less how poorly he played in his post-season losses.

It is almost a certainty that Kobe will finish near or in the top-5. He has already played 14 seasons, the last 11 of which have been outstanding. Even the TOTAL post-season performances have been great. He has SEVEN better scoring post-seasons than Bird for cryingoutloud. You HAVE to believe, barring injury of course, that Kobe has at least 4-5 more seasons left. hat will give him 18-19 seasons. Surely he will move up the career ladder in MANY categories by then.

[Yung D-Will]

At most kobe is top 10 right now

I still can't see the logical argument over any player on this list

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Russel
4. Wilt
5. Magic
6. Bird
7. Shaq
8. Duncan
9. Hakeem


^ Yes they are in order

[jlauber]

How could you not have Jordan at the top?

Look, MJ was a great player. BUT, he was not without flaws. FIVE losing teams, and several post-season failures, (even in the prime of his career, in '95.) He was arguably the greatest offensive post-season player ever...and 6-6 in the Finals, with 6 Finals MVPs is just amazing.

Still, Russell won 11 rings. And the Celtics has never won a title before he came along, and they dropped to 34-48 the year after he retired. I have NEVER heard anyone make the argument that Havlicek, or Sam Jones were the best players on those teams...despite some outstanding offensive seasons.

Think about this. Russell's Celtics won 27 of 29 post-season series. Yes, he had loaded rosters. But, unlike several other "greats" with their LOADED rosters (most noticeably Bird)...Russell led his teams to titles almost EVERY year. IMHO that has to rank him as the best ever.

Having said that, though, MJ has certainly moved up MY ladder. He is #2 now, and I won't really argue with anyone that puts him at #1.

[jlauber]

At most kobe is top 10 right now

I still can't see the logical argument over any player on this list

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Russel
4. Wilt
5. Magic
6. Bird
7. Shaq
8. Duncan
9. Hakeem


^ Yes they are in order

Excellent list. I would swap Magic with Kareem and Bird with Hakeem, though (albeit, I would have Duncan and Shaq slightly ahead of him.)

[Sarcastic]

Look, MJ was a great player. BUT, he was not without flaws. FIVE losing teams, and several post-season failures, (even in the prime of his career, in '95.) He was arguably the greatest offensive post-season player ever...and 6-6 in the Finals, with 6 Finals MVPs is just amazing.

Still, Russell won 11 rings. And the Celtics has never won a title before he came along, and they dropped to 34-48 the year after he retired. I have NEVER heard anyone make the argument that Havlicek, or Sam Jones were the best players on those teams...despite some outstanding offensive seasons.

Think about this. Russell's Celtics won 27 of 29 post-season series. Yes, he had loaded rosters. But, unlike several other "greats" with their LOADED rosters (most noticeably Bird)...Russell led his teams to titles almost EVERY year. IMHO that has to rank him as the best ever.

Having said that, though, MJ has certainly moved up MY ladder. He is #2 now, and I won't really argue with anyone that puts him at #1.

I can't use winning as the greatest factor for deciding GOAT. It is a factor, but it should not be the top factor.

[jlauber]

I can't use winning as the greatest factor for deciding GOAT. It is a factor, but it should not be the top factor.

I certainly respect your opinions here.

[ShaqAttack3234]

He also has two more MVPs than Shaq and if his career wasn't cut short by that disease who knew how many All-Star appearances Magic would have or how many championships he would have ended up having?? Not to mention Magic played in the "Golden Era" of Basketball. Go ahead and think Shaq is greater, it's just that not many are going to agree with you.

MVPs? :roll: Magic had one solely because of a media bias against Barkley. A couple of writers left him off their ballots altogether never mind the fact that Jordan was the most deserving player in that season(1990)

MVPs are the most subjective award. There's no consistent criteria and a lot of it is media hype, not who the most deserving player is. A big reason why Nash and Karl Malone each have 2 and Shaq, Kobe and Olajuwon only have 1. Hell, with any consistent criteria or basic logic, Shaq would have atleast won another in 2001.


ShaqAttack brings up Shaq's 2000 Finals...38 ppg, 17 rpg and .610 shooting. Outstanding to be sure. IMHO, one of the greatest ever...UNTIL, you take a look at the crap he faced. Smits and Davis. Wilt NEVER faced anything so putrid in his Finals. Even Jerry Lucas (who was taller than Ben Wallace BTW) was a FAR better rebounder than eithr...and a MUCH better shooter. It was testament to Wilt's defense that he could guard Lucas at 25 ft., and still block a TON of shots and grab almost as many rebounds as the entire Knick team.

Right, moron, first of all, Dale Davis wasn't trash, he was a double/double guy, a strong physical player and an all-star in 2000. he was no hall of famer, but a quality NBA player, and so was Smits for that matter.

And :roll: at Lucas being a better rebounder than Ben Wallace

But more importantly, the individual defender doesn't matter that much, Shaq was facing an absurd amount of double/triple/quadruple teams. I'd much rather facing one top notch defender with occasional double teams than an average player with constant double/triple teams ect.

2000 finals game 1

When Shaq puts the ball on the floor, three Pacers are in the paint contesting his shot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=0m43s

Once again, 3 guys in the paint around Shaq. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=0m59s

Once again, 3 guys there on Shaq's initial move, but he turns away from the triple team with the ball fake and fadeaway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=1m07s

Basically the whole Pacers team vs Shaq. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=1m53s

4 Pacers in the paint vs Shaq. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=2m13s

All 5 Pacers in the paint vs Shaq http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjETgzSbg9k#t=3m12s

I could go on, so don't give me that competition crap, even you're not that stupid.


Chamberlain gets ripped by ShaqAttack when facing Russell 49 times in the post-season...and statistically outplaying him by a MILE. And Shaq never faced anyone like Russell, who was a 6-10 WORLD-CLASS high jumper (ranked 7th in the world in 1956.)

Lets be serious, as great as Russell was, Shaq would have him by 4 inches and 100 pounds. Russell would get murdered in single coverage.

And physically, Shaq faced guys bigger and more athletic than Russell, but Russell never faced a guy like Shaq, I'm not even going to get into an argument about Shaq's strength or athleticism vs Wilt's, but even you'd agree that Wilt didn't play as physically as Shaq and that was one of Wilt's regrets. And no big men that Russell faced had footwork like Shaq.


When Shaq faced Robinson in the post-season, from the 98-99 seasn thru the 01-02 season, he averaged 23.8 ppg, 12.7 rpg, and shot .492 (and Robinson was well past his prime.) Chamberlain had 30-30 .540 series against Russell for cryingoutloud. And when Wilt did not face a HOFer (which was rare), like the 63-64 playoffs against All-Star Zelmo Beaty, he put up a 38-26 .526 series (in a league that shot .440.) Or in his 66-67 playoffs against Connie Dierking when he posted 28 ppg, 26 rpg, 11 apg (including a playoff record 19 at the time) and shot .612 from the field.

Once again, you include 2002 when Robinson played a total of 74 minutes in the series yet you exclude the following season, it just shows your agenda. And Wilt never faced defensive teams anywhere near as good as the Spurs.


Did Shaq ever face anyone like Kareem? In the post-season, on one leg he battled Kareem to a statitical draw in 70-71 and outshot him from the field and outrebounded him. In FACT, the MILWAUKEE fans gave Wilt a standing ovation as he left the floor in the last game. The followiing season Kareem played well in the first two games, and after that Wilt SHUT HIM DOWN. Kareem shot .414 over the last critical four games, and Chamberlain was blocking his shots all over the place. In the clinching game six win, Chamberlain overwhelmed Kareem in the 4th quarter, and led LA to a series win.

Once again this 1 on 1 competition crap is ridiculous. Look at the footage, Shaq was playing 1 on 2 and 1 on 3 most of the time in his prime. And we all saw what happened when a HOF-caliber defensive player like Mutombo tried to guard prime Shaq in the finals, BTW, Philly was a top 5 defensive team that year and Mutombo was the DPOY for the 4th time and he made his 7th of 8 all-star teams.


Once again, while Shaq was struggling against the likes of Ostertag (in the 96-97 playofs, Shaq averaged 22.4 ppg, 11.7 rpg, and shot .494) or against Eddie Curry ( in their 13 CAREER meetings, Shaq out scored him 15.8-12.8 per game, outrebounded him, per game 6.9 to 5.0, and was outshot by him, .533 to .529)...Chamberlain was OBLITERATING HOFers.

yes, Shaq had 1 bad playoff series vs Ostertag, then the following year, he averaged 32 ppg on 56% shooting.

And stop ignoring my response to that biased Eddy Curry comparison. First of all, look at how many minutes Shaq played. In one of the games, he was playing his first game of the season coming off surgery, in several others he left early with injuries including one where he only played 2 minutes. And there were also several blowouts.

Here's one for you, Shaq vs Alonzo Mourning from their rookie season through 2002.

Shaq- 31.3 ppg 12.9 rpg, 3.2 apg, 3.1 bpg
Zo- 22.2 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 1.4 apg, 2.1 bpg

And oh yeah, Shaq shot 56-57% in those games while Mourning shot 44-45%.


Wilt NEVER had the luxury of facing clods in the Finals, and had only a handful of post-seasons, out of 160, in which he faced what Shaq ROUTINELY faced.

I already destroyed this garbage


Given Shaq's less than stellar record against the FEW HOFers he faced in the post-season...and even some stumbling clods like Ostertag...IMHO, HIS post-season stats are INFLATED. Had he had to go against teams with SEVEN HOFers, and a center that was regarded as the greatest defensive player of all-time...well, those 24.5 ppg post-season scoring marks, and .563 FG% would have looked MUCH WORSE. AND, the flip side...if Chamberlian would have had the opportunity to face guys like Smits, Davis, McCullough, 6-7 Ben Wallace, and Dampier in four of his last five finals...well, needless-to-say... Wilt would not only have had MUCH higher ppg and FG%, but probably would have won five more titles as well. And, the league would not have allowed Wilt to ABUSE Motumbo the way that Shaq did. I have posted footage of that series, and in it Shaq got away with as close to manslaughter as you will ever see. CLEARLY though, had Wilt been allowed to play like that....and the Record Book, which is already his....would look even more staggering.

Once again, I destroyed this crap, keep reaching.

In the end, Shaq and Kareem's playoff numbers match or exceed their regular season numbers while Wilt was the opposite and they both won more titles than Wilt.

You can come up with your crap about "hall of famers" and all of that nonsense, and I can quickly point out the huge difference in the quality of team's defenses. Only an idiot wouldn't be able to see that defenses in the 2000s were light years ahead of where they were in the 60's, but that's not my main point.

Wilt needed 2 of the most stacked teams ever to win his 2 titles. One of them was so stacked that Wilt was the 5th leading scorer on the team in the finals and the other had teo 25+ ppg scorers who were efficient, one of whom(West) led the league in assists as well.

Yet, even with loads of talent and heavily favored teams in '68 and '69, he still lost, I've already pointed out why and if Wilt had given great performances in those games, I wouldn't be so hard on him. But dropping 9 ppg from your season to 11.7 ppg in the finals with just 8 with a chance to clinch in game 6 is poor, there are no 2 ways about it. And 20 points on 6/21 from the field AND 8/23 from the line with a chance to clinch the series all while your teammate goes out and drops 40 on great efficiency. In fact, Wilt used more possessions to score 20 than Greer did to score 40 in that game. Or in '66 with home court advantage when Wilt's subpar offensive play the first 4 games put Philly in a 3-1 hole. That's how you lose series with homecourt advantage and blow 3-1 leads.

[Alhazred]

I never said I simply write off his numbers altogether, but a lot of players had phenomenal stats and the only stats that really did stand out as far as Wilt's playoff career are rebounding and in '67, assists.

Statistics from the 60s were definitely inflated, but even when Wilt retired he was still averaging 18 boards a game and was an efficient scorer and passer.


And other players have cared about stats, but to the extent that Wilt did? I mean picture Wilt having 62 in 3 quarters like Kobe did and sitting out the 4th, especially while outscoring the other team through 3 quarters or picture him sitting out the 4th in 50+ like T-Mac did in 2003.

Well, I recall Jordan trying to keep track of how many triple-doubles he had in the 1989 season, but I'll admit that Wilt has a case of being the most stat obsessed NBA player of all time. That being said, he sacrificed his game for the good of the team when he was given the chance with the 76ers and Lakers.


The best arguments for Wilt being higher than I rank him IMO are impact on the evolution of the game and single season peak('67), but it's hard to hold it against other players that Wilt played in a time when the NBA was in it's infancy. Besides, Magic and Bird changed the game, so did Jordan and hell, they even put in 2 rules to slow down Shaq(defensive 3 second violations and zone defenses) and Russell also changed the game as much as Wilt.

True, Wilt's not the only player to change multiple aspects the game, but think about what he affected. The size of the lane, free throw shooting, dunking from the free throw line, all changed because of him. Plus, it's not like Wilt couldn't put up amazing numbers today. He'd most likely still be an All-Star and an MVP candidate in this era, imo.

On an all-time list, it's a little hard for me to think Wilt would be ranked anywhere less than fifth. He was arguably the most dominant individual player in NBA history and played on teams that are considered some of the best of all-time.

This is what my current top ten list looks like, by the way.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. Shaquille O' Neal
6. Larry Bird
7. Magic Johnson
8. Kobe Bryant
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Tim Duncan

[jlauber]

ShaqAttack,

You continually bring up a COUPLE of Wilt's failures. That ONE game in the 67-68 ECF's finals does not do Wilt justice...any more than Ostertag limiting Shaq in a SERIES does Shaq's. As for "heavily-favored" that season...how many times have I brought THIS up. The Sixers were without HOFer Cunningham...and they still managed to go up 3-1. THEN, Luke Jackson goes down with an injury early in game five, and he was useless the last two games. So, basically Wilt was NOT playing with the same roster that BLEW OUT Boston the year before, 4-1. In fact, with his TEAMMATES NOT passing him the ball, and shooting a collective 33% in game seven...they lost that game by FOUR points. So, without ONE HOFer, and with another of his best players injured...Wilt's TEAM lost a game seven by FOUR points. AND, he STILL outscored Russell, 14-12, and he STILL outrebounded Russell, 34-26.

I have also covered the '69 Finals numerous times. The Lakers, with only West and Wilt near their peaks, lost to a team with FOUR HOFers and a MUCH deeper bench, in a game SEVEN, by TWO points. AND, had Johnny Egan not lost the ball late in game four, the Lakers, behind Wilt's dominating play in game five, would have won that series, 4-1. YES, ONE PLAY kept that over-rated Laker team from winning that series 4-1.

And that does not take into account Wilt nearly leading FAR inferior teams to game seven losses of ONE and TWO points against the Celtics earlier in his career.

Now, can Shaq make anything remotely close to a case for FIVE more titles?

Look, I am growing tired of your feeble attempts at diminishing Wilt's GREAT CAREER. Chamberlain won more scoring titles, 7-2, FAR more rebounding titles, 11-0 (yes 0)...and if Shaq didn't have an extra four years, Wilt would probably have won more FG% titles (as it is, Shaq has a 10-9 edge.) Not only that, but Wilt was acknowledged as a FAR better defender, and certainly a greater shot blocker. AND, how many assist titles did Shaq win?

Let's get Shaq out of this GOAT discussion. He doesn't HOLD A CANDLE to Wilt's achievements.

[Sarcastic]

Wilt also leads Shaq in assist titles 1-0.

[Yung D-Will]

Wilt also leads Shaq in assist titles 1-0.

What's an assist title? And how does wilt have one?

[jlauber]

Wilt led the NBA in assists in the '67-68 season. AND, he finished THIRD in the 66-67 season.

We will never know how mant quad-doubles Wilt had (although we do know that he had at least TWO in the post-season) because the NBA did not officially record blocked shots (but they WERE recorded in MANY games before 1974)...but he did have the most amazing TRIPLE-DOUBLE of all-time in 1968, when he put up a 22-25-21 game.

[Sarcastic]

Let's not forget Wilt Chamberlain's absolute greatest record as well: 20,000 women.

[jlauber]

I am done with this ridiculous topic...

when a player averages 50.4 ppg, or grabs 27.2 rpg, or shoots .727 from he field, or gets to 55 40-30 games, or makes 35 straight FGAs, or blocks 23 shots in a game, or averages 40 ppg over the course of his first seven seasons COMBINED, or scores 60+ points in 32 games, or has TWO 14 game streaks of 40+ points per game (and averages 53 ppg during those streaks), or puts up 351 points over the course of five straight games (Yes, 70 ppf over FIVE straight games) or nearly outrebounds an ENTIRE TEAM in a Finals game (as Wilt did against the Knicks in game five of the '72 Finals), or scores 100 points in a game, or gets 55 rebounds in a game (against Russell no less), or ets 41 rebounds in a playoff game (against Russell no less) or gets to 130+ RECORDS...MANY of which were achieved against HOFers like Kerr, Lovelette, Reed, Bellamy, Lucas, Hayes, Unseld, Cowens, Lanier, Thurmond, Russell, and Kareem...that's right TWELVE HOF centers in hi career....

then give me a call...

[alexandreben]

PER is the same stat that had Ginobili ahead of Kobe in Kobe's MVP season. And Russell didn't always have much better teammates when he beat Wilt, see '68 and '69.



Well my top 4 are Kareem, Jordan, Shaq and Bird. After that, I'm not sure.

Shaq is NO.3 of all time in your GOAT list??!! :wtf:

[alexandreben]

I can't use winning as the greatest factor for deciding GOAT. It is a factor, but it should not be the top factor.
100% agree! can't use winning as the greatest factor for deciding GOAT.

If winning is the greatest factor, then... Russell=Jordan+Magic

Winning is not everything, otherwise, Phil Jackson is greater than Red Auerbach, which is totally wrong.

[ShaqAttack3234]

ShaqAttack,

You continually bring up a COUPLE of Wilt's failures. That ONE game in the 67-68 ECF's finals does not do Wilt justice...any more than Ostertag limiting Shaq in a SERIES does Shaq's. As for "heavily-favored" that season...how many times have I brought THIS up. The Sixers were without HOFer Cunningham...and they still managed to go up 3-1. THEN, Luke Jackson goes down with an injury early in game five, and he was useless the last two games. So, basically Wilt was NOT playing with the same roster that BLEW OUT Boston the year before, 4-1. In fact, with his TEAMMATES NOT passing him the ball, and shooting a collective 33% in game seven...they lost that game by FOUR points. So, without ONE HOFer, and with another of his best players injured...Wilt's TEAM lost a game seven by FOUR points. AND, he STILL outscored Russell, 14-12, and he STILL outrebounded Russell, 34-26.

The fact that the Sixers went up 3-1 without Cunningham shows that they had the team to beat the Celtics, but you must admit, Wilt was horrendous in game 6 and famously passive in game 7. And as far as Jackson's injury, what was he the 6th leading scorer in the regular season? He shouldn't have made them unable to beat a team once in 3 games.
I have also covered the '69 Finals numerous times. The Lakers, with only West and Wilt near their peaks, lost to a team with FOUR HOFers and a MUCH deeper bench, in a game SEVEN, by TWO points. AND, had Johnny Egan not lost the ball late in game four, the Lakers, behind Wilt's dominating play in game five, would have won that series, 4-1. YES, ONE PLAY kept that over-rated Laker team from winning that series 4-1.

And that does not take into account Wilt nearly leading FAR inferior teams to game seven losses of ONE and TWO points against the Celtics earlier in his career.


Now, can Shaq make anything remotely close to a case for FIVE more titles?

He doesn't need to, he has more titles than Wilt.


Look, I am growing tired of your feeble attempts at diminishing Wilt's GREAT CAREER. Chamberlain won more scoring titles, 7-2, FAR more rebounding titles, 11-0 (yes 0)...and if Shaq didn't have an extra four years, Wilt would probably have won more FG% titles (as it is, Shaq has a 10-9 edge.) Not only that, but Wilt was acknowledged as a FAR better defender, and certainly a greater shot blocker. AND, how many assist titles did Shaq win?

Once again, regular season accomplishments, Wilt made 80% of his legacy in the regular season, often stat-padding in blowouts.

And as far as defense? Wilt wasn't known as a great defender until later in his career.

Wilt can have all of the scoring titles he wants, Shaq outscoring Wilt for their playoff careers on superior efficiency is more impressive to me.


Let's get Shaq out of this GOAT discussion. He doesn't HOLD A CANDLE to Wilt's achievements.

I'll take Shaq's 4 titles and legendary playoff performances over Wilt's career.


Shaq is NO.3 of all time in your GOAT list??!! :wtf:

You think 60's defense>00's defense??! :wtf:

[Maniak]

Wilt was a man simply ahead of his time. He is one of the most dominant athletes ever and if you argue that point you are mentally retarded.

I love Wilt. Im not denying Im a homer in this topic, but Im afraid that everything Im saying here is 100% truth.

People say the era is weak, well, as true as that may be, it doesn't change the fact what Wilt did then. Who cares what he could/would/should do if he played today. Whats done is done. He averaged 50 points per game in a single season, thats give or take 50 more than you, dear reader, ever could.

The stats don't lie. Im sure it might turn out different today. At the worst Wilt would be a 20/10/3 type of guy, and if he was trained with the technology/knowledge today, I'd expect complete dominance. Im not some statwhore that makes up garbage like TS% like ShaqAttack over there, but if you look at his track n field stats, hes right up there with the most athletic NBA players of all time SIMPLY DUE TO THAT.

I could rant on and on. But face facts. What happened happened. Maybe Kobe could average 50ppg back then. Too bad we'll never know. You can't fight whats happened.

[PowerGlove]

Let's not forget Wilt Chamberlain's absolute greatest record as well: 20,000 women.
Only 20,000 until I tie him...

[Mr. Jabbar]

Don't feed the troll.

this

[ShaqAttack3234]

People say the era is weak, well, as true as that may be, it doesn't change the fact what Wilt did then. Who cares what he could/would/should do if he played today. Whats done is done. He averaged 50 points per game in a single season, thats give or take 50 more than you, dear reader, ever could.

And??? I'm not comparing Wilt as a basketball player to myself as one. Elgin Baylor averaged 38/19/5 that same season and 39/17/4 in the playoffs, yet he doesn't even seem to crack any top 10 lists, or even many top 15 lists for that matter.


The stats don't lie. Im sure it might turn out different today. At the worst Wilt would be a 20/10/3 type of guy, and if he was trained with the technology/knowledge today, I'd expect complete dominance. Im not some statwhore that makes up garbage like TS% like ShaqAttack over there, but if you look at his track n field stats, hes right up there with the most athletic NBA players of all time SIMPLY DUE TO THAT.

I didn't make up TS%, it's a good stat that measures scoring efficiency well, it factors in FGs, FT% and post 1980, 3s. You can't bring up scoring stats without bringing up efficiency and shot attempts.


I could rant on and on. But face facts. What happened happened. Maybe Kobe could average 50ppg back then. Too bad we'll never know. You can't fight whats happened.

Yeah, he averaged 50 ppg, but on 39.5 FGA and 17 FTA. And we also know that in the playoffs, he dropped to 35 ppg on 47% shooting that season.

Sorry, regular season stats, particularly those that aren't put into perspective by most, aren't a good enough case for top 5, if they were, then Elgin Baylor would easily be top 10.

[RocketGreatness]

I didn't make up TS%, it's a good stat that measures scoring efficiency well, it factors in FGs, FT% and post 1980, 3s. You can't bring up scoring stats without bringing up efficiency and shot attempts.

It's something that Yao has over Dwight, so I guess Yao is better than Dwight. :oldlol:

[ShaqAttack3234]

It's something that Yao has over Dwight, so I guess Yao is better than Dwight. :oldlol:

Yet Dwight has defense, rebounding, shot blocking, playoff success, awards and in Yao's last season, scoring average.

Once again, this is not a Yao vs Dwight thread. If you insists on discussing it, create another thread.

And you know what's really funny? Dwight has topped Yao's career best TS% in 3 seasons and his career TS% is also higher.

[RocketGreatness]

Yet Dwight has defense, rebounding, shot blocking, playoff success, awards and in Yao's last season, scoring average.

Once again, this is not a Yao vs Dwight thread. If you insists on discussing it, create another thread.

And you know what's really funny? Dwight has topped Yao's career best TS% in 3 seasons and his career TS% is also higher.
Yet Yao is still the better player than Dwight. Check the head to head matchups. Check out Yao's dominance on offense too. Dwight can't even create his own shot. :oldlol:

[TheAnchorman]

welcome back RG. I see you haven't changed. Not. One. Bit.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yet Yao is still the better player than Dwight. Check the head to head matchups. Check out Yao's dominance on offense too. Dwight can't even create his own shot. :oldlol:

Right, 2 head to head matchups a year mean more than the other 80 games and the playoffs :roll: Dwight can't create his own shot....hmmm.

In 2009, Dwight was assisted on 51% of his baskets and Yao was assisted on 58% of his baskets.

Keep trying......

[RocketGreatness]

Right, 2 head to head matchups a year mean more than the other 80 games and the playoffs :roll: Dwight can't create his own shot....hmmm.

In 2009, Dwight was assisted on 51% of his baskets and Yao was assisted on 58% of his baskets.

Keep trying......
I'll use the argument you use when people talk about PER. Who cares about how many baskets being assisted? :oldlol: But Let's see....Yao owns guys like Perkins, Bynum, Gasol, Howard, while Dwight struggles against guys like them and Sheed. So I guess you value Howard stat-padding against losers, while I value Yao owning the elite post players. :oldlol:

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'll use the argument you use when people talk about PER. Who cares about how many baskets being assisted? :oldlol: But Let's see....Yao owns guys like Perkins, Bynum, Gasol, Howard, while Dwight struggles against guys like them and Sheed. So I guess you value Howard stat-padding against losers, while I value Yao owning the elite post players. :oldlol:

:roll: You said Dwight can't create his own shot and cited that as a reason Yao was better, I proved that was crap and now you say it doesn't matter?

I value the guy who wins more, actually plays, finishes higher in MVP voting, wins more awards, has better playoff performances, sets records and puts up better stats.

Yao owns Perkins? He's averaged just 16/9 head to head vs Perkins.

Yao owns Gasol? He's 9-13 head to head vs Gasol and has averaged 17/9 vs Gasol's 18/8.

[RocketGreatness]

:roll: You said Dwight can't create his own shot and cited that as a reason Yao was better, I proved that was crap and now you say it doesn't matter?

I value the guy who wins more, actually plays, finishes higher in MVP voting, wins more awards, has better playoff performances, sets records and puts up better stats.

Yao owns Perkins? He's averaged just 16/9 head to head vs Perkins.

Yao owns Gasol? He's 9-13 head to head vs Gasol and has averaged 17/9 vs Gasol's 18/8.
Now you have to make up stats.....:oldlol: Yao never had trouble scoring against either of those guys, as a matter of fact didn't Yao score over 20 against the Lakers? Something your boy Dwight didn't do in the Finals. Your favorite player also had a Nick Anderson moment? How about Yao? I'll also take a guy who's clutch, unlike Dwight over here.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Now you have to make up stats.....:oldlol: Yao never had trouble scoring against either of those guys, as a matter of fact didn't Yao score over 20 against the Lakers? Something your boy Dwight didn't do in the Finals. Your favorite player also had a Nick Anderson moment? How about Yao? I'll also take a guy who's clutch, unlike Dwight over here.

I didn't make up those stats dumbass, look at the head to head stats on basketball-reference.

Yeah, Yao is so much more clutch than Howard, yet Yao is 1-4 in playoff series while Dwight is 6-4 in playoff series and he's had more dominant playoff performances.

[RocketGreatness]

I didn't make up those stats dumbass, look at the head to head stats on basketball-reference.

Yeah, Yao is so much more clutch than Howard, yet Yao is 1-4 in playoff series while Dwight is 6-4 in playoff series and he's had more dominant playoff performances.
Yep playing in the East doesn't help Dwight and neither does not playing with McGrady. :oldlol: Yeah Dwight is so dominant in the playoffs, you know like in the Finals against the Lakers? Oops, oh or the time against the Pistons? Oops again, Oh or the team against the Celtics? Oh....nevermind.

[magnax1]

At most kobe is top 10 right now

I still can't see the logical argument over any player on this list

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Russel
4. Wilt
5. Magic
6. Bird
7. Shaq
8. Duncan
9. Hakeem


^ Yes they are in order
I'm suprised how close your list is to mine
1-Jordan
2-Kareem
3-Wilt
4-Russell
5-Bird
6-Shaq
7-OScar
8-Magic
9-Hakeem
10-Kobe
I thought that they'd be very disimilar since you like to rank all your players on how their teams played.
EDIT:Oops, I forgot poor Oscar.

[chitownsfinest]

How can anyone have Moses in their top ten list? I used to think the same thing but dude was a average defender, poor passer out of the post, couldn't score when taken even 8-10 feet away from the basket other centers with strength like Shaq could, and couldn't create that well in the post either. People gloss over his numbers too much and don't watch the games. He was an amazing rebounder but he played in an era of centers that lacked strength compared to him. If he played in an era with centers with the strength of Sabonis, Dudley, Robinson, Ewing, Zo, Deke, Wallace, etc., he would be exposed because he wouldn't be able to get easy deep post position around the basket for an easy score like he used to always to. Seriously, watch the 83 Finals and see how he constantly got easy shots around the rim against a physically overmatched KAJ.

Sorry magnax, I see no reasoning for Moses over TD.

[Simple Jack]

Why does JLauber continue to quote Wilt's stats as if 50.4 points and 24 rebounds is anywhere near possible in todays game? Do you not understand the concept of pace and possessions per game and how those numbers, in this era, are impossible?

[magnax1]

How can anyone have Moses in their top ten list? I used to think the same thing but dude was a average defender, poor passer out of the post, couldn't score when taken even 8-10 feet away from the basket other centers with strength like Shaq could, and couldn't create that well in the post either. People gloss over his numbers too much and don't watch the games. He was an amazing rebounder but he played in an era of centers that lacked strength compared to him. If he played in an era with centers with the strength of Sabonis, Dudley, Robinson, Ewing, Zo, Deke, Wallace, etc., he would be exposed because he wouldn't be able to get easy deep post position around the basket for an easy score like he used to always to. Seriously, watch the 83 Finals and see how he constantly got easy shots around the rim against a physically overmatched KAJ.

Sorry magnax, I see no reasoning for Moses over TD.
He definitely seemed dominant to me. He was one of the three best rebounders ever, usually outplayed the best center ever in Kareem when they went head to head. I know he wasn't the most skilled, but he got his shots off and did so very well, and did so efficiently. I don't care how he got his 28 points a game, as long as he does so efficiently and in a way that doesn't hurt his team. And I don't see why him constantly getting easy shots around the rim, against a 7-2 dominant bigman is a reason why hes not a top 10 player.

[chitownsfinest]

He definitely seemed dominant to me. He was one of the three best rebounders ever, usually outplayed the best center ever in Kareem when they went head to head. I know he wasn't the most skilled, but he got his shots off and did so very well, and did so efficiently. I don't care how he got his 28 points a game, as long as he does so efficiently and in a way that doesn't hurt his team. And I don't see why him constantly getting easy shots around the rim, against a 7-2 dominant bigman is a reason why hes not a top 10 player.
Kareem was 35 or 36 and had declined severely as a rebounder and defender at that point. My point in mentioning that was an example in how he had major physical advantages over the other best center in his era and how his era of centers lacked strong, physical centers that could force him away from the basket and not let him get in constant deep post position like the late 60s/early 70s, 90s, and 00s had. His peak coincided with a weak era in terms of good defensive centers imo.

I agree he was a top 3 defender of all time but I have a question for you: How is he better then Duncan?

[che guevara]

How can anyone have Moses in their top ten list? I used to think the same thing but dude was a average defender, poor passer out of the post, couldn't score when taken even 8-10 feet away from the basket other centers with strength like Shaq could, and couldn't create that well in the post either. People gloss over his numbers too much and don't watch the games. He was an amazing rebounder but he played in an era of centers that lacked strength compared to him. If he played in an era with centers with the strength of Sabonis, Dudley, Robinson, Ewing, Zo, Deke, Wallace, etc., he would be exposed because he wouldn't be able to get easy deep post position around the basket for an easy score like he used to always to. Seriously, watch the 83 Finals and see how he constantly got easy shots around the rim against a physically overmatched KAJ.

Sorry magnax, I see no reasoning for Moses over TD.
He's a Jazz fan. I see Jazz fans claim Malone was the GOAT PF all the time, and to make that case, they can't have Duncan in the top 10. Definitely could be different with him, but this is something I often see with other Jazz fans.

[magnax1]

Kareem was 35 or 36 and had declined severely as a rebounder and defender at that point. My point in mentioning that was an example in how he had major physical advantages over the other best center in his era and how his era of centers lacked strong, physical centers that could force him away from the basket and not let him get in constant deep post position like the late 60s/early 70s, 90s, and 00s had. His peak coincided with a weak era in terms of good defensive centers imo.

I agree he was a top 3 defender of all time but I have a question for you: How is he better then Duncan?
I think that if your only argument is an argument of eras, you don't have a very good one. Malone was just more dominant, and so far hes also had the same longevity.
I'm fine with you ranking Duncan over Malone, but arguing that Malone wouldn't be as good in another era is speculative, and not really any sort of logical argument.

He's a Jazz fan. I see Jazz fans claim Malone was the GOAT PF all the time, and to make that case, they can't have Duncan in the top 10. Definitely could be different with him, but this is something I often see with other Jazz fans.
We aren't even talking about Karl Malone.

[alwaysunny]

He's a Jazz fan. I see Jazz fans claim Malone was the GOAT PF all the time, and to make that case, they can't have Duncan in the top 10. Definitely could be different with him, but this is something I often see with other Jazz fans.

Moses son

[che guevara]

We aren't even talking about Karl Malone.
Uh, no shit? My point was that Jazz fans don't rank Duncan in the top 10 because they want to claim Karl Malone is the GOAT PF. Which is a possible reason why would put Moses in the top 10 over Duncan.

[magnax1]

Uh, no shit? My point was that Jazz fans don't rank Duncan in the top 10 because they want to claim Karl Malone is the GOAT PF. Which is a possible reason why would put Moses in the top 10 over Duncan.
Nope, I have Karl Malone as 4th best PF ever.

[chitownsfinest]

Well TD won two MVP's and had like 9 top 5 MVP finishes, while Moses won three MVP's and had 5 five top 5 MVP finishes, so they seem to be equal in that regard.

TD has also had much more team success and is better then Moses in that regard. He has led his team to 4 titles while Moss led his team to 1. You can say TD had better teams but the one year Moses won it, his team was really stacked and had a nice backcourt with Toney (one of the best closers of the early 80s) and Cheeks, as well a past his prime but still playing at an all star level Doctor J and one of the greatest perimeter defenders of all time in Bobby Jones. You also cannot ignore TD's teams in the early 00s were not that good as their record suggests. Also, Moses had nice talent in the 2-3 seasons after Philly won it in 83 and they failed to even make the finals.

In terms of making teammates better and setting plays for teammates, TD wins easily considering he has always been a great outlet passer, a good post passer, good at finding cutter and players coming off a screen, and keep the ball moving around the floor. I have seen old games of Moses Malone and he was a poor passer out of the post and couldn't do any of the things I listed for TD as well as Tim could.

Defense? Duncan destroys Moses. Ducan is one of the greatest team defenders of all time. Dude has anchored 12 TOP 5 defenses in his career. Sure he has a great coach in Pop and has good/great defensive players like Bowen, old D-Rob, and Ginobili, but fact is that Duncan has been the leader of those defenses and the main piece of the unit. Other then Pop, TD has been the only constant in a 13 yr run that has included 13 straight 50 win finishes, 4 titles, and 6 conference final finishes. Moses was a decent shotblocker but was a average at best post defender and didn't do the things Duncan did in terms of team defense.

Moses is a better rebounder but TD is no slouch in that category. You can say better scorer as well but that reason has to do with the fact Moses played in a weak era of defensive centers which allwed him to abuse his physical advantages. Moses also wasn't that better of a scorer considering TD has more ways he can beat you and is much less of a liablity, but overall Moses is the better scorer.

All in all though, TD's all-around game has helped his team win more then Moses's game helped his team win. Td is simply better. Don't really want to make this a huge debate considering it isn't relevant to the topic but I have constantly seen you disrespect TD in various threads and wanted to call you out on it once.

[magnax1]

TD has also had much more team success and is better then Moses in that regard. He has led his team to 4 titles while Moss led his team to 1. You can say TD had better teams but the one year Moses won it, his team was really stacked and had a nice backcourt with Toney (one of the best closers of the early 80s) and Cheeks, as well a past his prime but still playing at an all star level Doctor J and one of the greatest perimeter defenders of all time in Bobby Jones. You also cannot ignore TD's teams in the early 00s were not that good as their record suggests. Also, Moses had nice talent in the 2-3 seasons after Philly won it in 83 and they failed to even make the finals.
Duncan actually had a good team in 03. No one player on that team was bad, and he had two top 5 defenders in Bown and Robinson, then add in himself and that might have been the best defensive team of the decade. No doubt Moses had a talented team when he won though

In terms of making teammates better and setting plays for teammates, TD wins easily considering he has always been a great outlet passer, a good post passer, good at finding cutter and players coming off a screen, and keep the ball moving around the floor. I have seen old games of Moses Malone and he was a poor passer out of the post and couldn't do any of the things I listed for TD as well as Tim could.
Duncan was a better passer, but Moses's rebounding at minimum evens out Duncan's passing. Also, during the early 00's late 90's passing was Duncan's biggest weakness, since he had some trouble passing out of doubles effectively.
D
efense? Duncan destroys Moses. Ducan is one of the greatest team defenders of all time. Dude has anchored 12 TOP 5 defenses in his career. Sure he has a great coach in Pop and has good/great defensive players like Bowen, old D-Rob, and Ginobili, but fact is that Duncan has been the leader of those defenses and the main piece of the unit. Other then Pop, TD has been the only constant in a 13 yr run that has included 13 straight 50 win finishes, 4 titles, and 6 conference final finishes. Moses was a decent shotblocker but was a average at best post defender and didn't do the things Duncan did in terms of team defense.
Duncan definitely does destroy Moses on defense, and is probably the reason I could understand someone ranking him over Malone. Malone was a pretty average defender.


Moses is a better rebounder but TD is no slouch in that category. You can say better scorer as well but that reason has to do with the fact Moses played in a weak era of defensive centers which allwed him to abuse his physical advantages. Moses also wasn't that better of a scorer considering TD has more ways he can beat you and is much less of a liablity, but overall Moses is the better scorer.
Here is where your argument is problematic. If you want to say that Moses's huge gap in scoring is because he played in a weak era, then you're right, Duncan would be better. But thats just not true, and doesn't prove anything anyway. The fact is though, that moses was a much better scorer, because he was a great finisher under that basket, where Duncan might have been skilled, he just wasn't really a born scorer like Moses was. Moses also owns a huge advantage in rebounding, where he is a top 3 rebounder all time, and was absolutely destructive on the boards. Duncan was never destructive in on offense, and moses was never destructive on defense. Duncan was a great post player, and you could post him up, though hed never force the in deep like Moses would.


All in all though, TD's all-around game has helped his team win more then Moses's game helped his team win. Td is simply better. Don't really want to make this a huge debate considering it isn't relevant to the topic but I have constantly seen you disrespect TD in various threads and wanted to call you out on it once.
Like I'm said, I'm fine with you ranking Duncan ahead of him, but this idea that Duncan was as good as Shaq or Hakeem, or these other great centers needs to go. Hes just not as good, plain and simple. Moses? Probably not, but he at least has a logical argument in that case.

[Yung D-Will]

Uh, no shit? My point was that Jazz fans don't rank Duncan in the top 10 because they want to claim Karl Malone is the GOAT PF. Which is a possible reason why would put Moses in the top 10 over Duncan.
Don't put me in his category. Magmax1 is about the biggest Kg homer on this board he's tried to discredit everyone one of Duncan's achievement to prove that's he not top 10 or the GOAT Pf

I just lol about it

[Yung D-Will]

Duncan actually had a good team in 03. No one player on that team was bad, and he had two top 5 defenders in Bown and Robinson, then add in himself and that might have been the best defensive team of the decade. No doubt Moses had a talented team when he won though

Duncan was a better passer, but Moses's rebounding at minimum evens out Duncan's passing. Also, during the early 00's late 90's passing was Duncan's biggest weakness, since he had some trouble passing out of doubles effectively.
D
Duncan definitely does destroy Moses on defense, and is probably the reason I could understand someone ranking him over Malone. Malone was a pretty average defender.


Here is where your argument is problematic. If you want to say that Moses's huge gap in scoring is because he played in a weak era, then you're right, Duncan would be better. But thats just not true, and doesn't prove anything anyway. The fact is though, that moses was a much better scorer, because he was a great finisher under that basket, where Duncan might have been skilled, he just wasn't really a born scorer like Moses was. Moses also owns a huge advantage in rebounding, where he is a top 3 rebounder all time, and was absolutely destructive on the boards. Duncan was never destructive in on offense, and moses was never destructive on defense. Duncan was a great post player, and you could post him up, though hed never force the in deep like Moses would.


Like I'm said, I'm fine with you ranking Duncan ahead of him, but this idea that Duncan was as good as Shaq or Hakeem, or these other great centers needs to go. Hes just not as good, plain and simple. Moses? Probably not, but he at least has a logical argument in that case.

Really that 03 team?
Pg: Tony Parker: 16/5/3
Sg: Stephen Jackson:12/2/4
Sf: Bruce Bowen 7/1/2
Pf: Tim Duncan 23/13/4
C: David Robinson 9/5/1

Manu Ginobilli: 8/8/5
Steve Smith: 7/2/1


Do you see that lovely production outside of Duncan?

The only championship team that has a case for being worse is Hakeem's

Pg: Kenny Smith: 12/1/4
Sg: Veron Maxwell 14/3/5
Sf: Robert Horry 10/5/3
Pf: Otis Thrope: 14/10/2
C: Hakeem Olajuwon:27/12/4

Mario Elie: 10/5/3
Sam Cassel: 7/2/3


You fail to take into account that the 2003 spurs were a rebuilding team

[Yung D-Will]

Like I'm said, I'm fine with you ranking Duncan ahead of him, but this idea that Duncan was as good as Shaq or Hakeem, or these other great centers needs to go. Hes just not as good, plain and simple. Moses? Probably not, but he at least has a logical argument in that case.
Congrats on being the only one on this message board that actually believes that?



You really should go watch Prime Duncan. It's clear you never saw Prime DUncan play cause you've openly said that peak Duncan was in 2004.



And Lol @ the moses Malone comparision.
Duncan is compared to greats like SHaq-Hakeem
not Malone.
It's a different Tier
That's like comparing Kg to DUncan

No contest. Unless you want to do a poll asking who's better Duncan or Kg? Or better yet Duncan or Moses lol.

[Yung D-Will]

Well TD won two MVP's and had like 9 top 5 MVP finishes, while Moses won three MVP's and had 5 five top 5 MVP finishes, so they seem to be equal in that regard.

TD has also had much more team success and is better then Moses in that regard. He has led his team to 4 titles while Moss led his team to 1. You can say TD had better teams but the one year Moses won it, his team was really stacked and had a nice backcourt with Toney (one of the best closers of the early 80s) and Cheeks, as well a past his prime but still playing at an all star level Doctor J and one of the greatest perimeter defenders of all time in Bobby Jones. You also cannot ignore TD's teams in the early 00s were not that good as their record suggests. Also, Moses had nice talent in the 2-3 seasons after Philly won it in 83 and they failed to even make the finals.

In terms of making teammates better and setting plays for teammates, TD wins easily considering he has always been a great outlet passer, a good post passer, good at finding cutter and players coming off a screen, and keep the ball moving around the floor. I have seen old games of Moses Malone and he was a poor passer out of the post and couldn't do any of the things I listed for TD as well as Tim could.

Defense? Duncan destroys Moses. Ducan is one of the greatest team defenders of all time. Dude has anchored 12 TOP 5 defenses in his career. Sure he has a great coach in Pop and has good/great defensive players like Bowen, old D-Rob, and Ginobili, but fact is that Duncan has been the leader of those defenses and the main piece of the unit. Other then Pop, TD has been the only constant in a 13 yr run that has included 13 straight 50 win finishes, 4 titles, and 6 conference final finishes. Moses was a decent shotblocker but was a average at best post defender and didn't do the things Duncan did in terms of team defense.

Moses is a better rebounder but TD is no slouch in that category. You can say better scorer as well but that reason has to do with the fact Moses played in a weak era of defensive centers which allwed him to abuse his physical advantages. Moses also wasn't that better of a scorer considering TD has more ways he can beat you and is much less of a liablity, but overall Moses is the better scorer.

All in all though, TD's all-around game has helped his team win more then Moses's game helped his team win. Td is simply better. Don't really want to make this a huge debate considering it isn't relevant to the topic but I have constantly seen you disrespect TD in various threads and wanted to call you out on it once.
:applause:

Keep pwning the Kg homer man

[Yung D-Will]

Like I'm said, I'm fine with you ranking Duncan ahead of him, but this idea that Duncan was as good as Shaq or Hakeem, or these other great centers needs to go. Hes just not as good, plain and simple. Moses? Probably not, but he at least has a logical argument in that case.

And do you actually think Duncan doesn't have a logical argument over Shaq or Hakeem?

So people have just been using illogical arguments this whole time? That's news to me :lol

At first I took your Anti Duncan post serious but now they're just funny.

Maybe people rank Duncan ahead of players like Hakeem cause they actually saw his Prime and saw him win 4 championships.

Just saying

[ThaRegul8r]

Duncan actually had a good team in 03.

Revisionist history.

[Harison]

How can anyone have Moses in their top ten list? I used to think the same thing but dude was a average defender, poor passer out of the post, couldn't score when taken even 8-10 feet away from the basket other centers with strength like Shaq could, and couldn't create that well in the post either.
I dont have Moses in Top10, or above Duncan for that matter, but you are underrating him. Moses was dominant during his peak, and although he wasnt an elite defender (though got several All-Defensive teams) he was more than great scorer and rebounder. Many are in awe with Barkley, and Moses was much better than him.

Cannot score from 8-10 feets away? Tell that to Shaq with his 5 feet range :oldlol: Oh, and Moses had a better range than Duncan, in case anyone missed that. In the end it doesnt matter how you score, if you do it in a volume and efficiently. Garnett is much more versatile in the offense than Shaq, do you see anyone taking KG for the offense instead of the Big Diesel?

76ers were solid team, yet got easily beaten by Lakers. They got Moses, and guess what - they swept the Lakers with Kareem and Magic.



If he played in an era with centers with the strength of Sabonis, Dudley, Robinson, Ewing, Zo, Deke, Wallace, etc., he would be exposed because he wouldn't be able to get easy deep post position around the basket

Sorry if I missed it, who are elite defensive anchors at the moment? Dwight? :confusedshrug: If you think Moses had it easy then, I can bet you he would have it even easier now :oldlol: Both Malones, or any elite offensive bigs for that matter, would simply abuse current NBA.

[Yung D-Will]

Revisionist history.

I think they call it altering history to prove a point.

[Yung D-Will]

I'm suprised how close your list is to mine
1-Jordan
2-Kareem
3-Wilt
4-Russell
5-Bird
6-Shaq
7-OScar
8-Magic
9-Hakeem
10-Kobe
I thought that they'd be very disimilar since you like to rank all your players on how their teams played.
EDIT:Oops, I forgot poor Oscar.

No. I don't rank players on how their teams played.


I rank players on six things

Peak:
Prime:
Consistency/Longevity:
Career:
Championships(As the main option):
Playoff performances:


Thats the only reason anyones in my top 10. Not because of what their team accomplished but because of what they accomplished.

Simple. And that's why Duncan's in the top 10 and not someone like Malone or Oscar. And that's why Kg falls into my top 25 at most.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Moses Moses was a better rebounder than Duncan, but as overall players? Based on the games I've watched? Not even close.

I definitely respect Moses for his 3 MVPs, dominant '83 playoff run and championship, leading his team to the finals ect., but here's what seperates him from the rest.

That '83 championship team was already great without him, they had just been a consistent 58-60 win team coming off their 2nd finals appearance in 3 seasons. That's different than Jordan, Kareem, Shaq, Olajuwon, Bird, Duncan ect. who won all of their championships and teams that weren't contenders the year before they joined them, much less, already in the finals.

And out of all of the great centers, Moses was easily the weakest shot blocker and passer. While he had a couple of big scoring seasons, he didn't seem as impressive as the numbers suggested offensively.

He's just outside the top 10, but certainly not better than Duncan who was very well rounded, and the rebounding edge isn't enough to make up for that.

Credit goes to TheRegular8 for this recap of another Russell vs Wilt game.


Boston’s Bill Russell has successfully made a surprising raid on Wilt Chamberlain’s domain -- scoring.

As a result, the Celtics beat Philadelphia 112-94 in the Eastern Division playoff finals Thursday night. They lead the best-of-7 National Basketball Association series 2-1 moving into game No. 4 on the 76ers’ court tonight.

“Russell really beats us with those tap-ins and he did a great job on the offensive boards,” said Chamberlain. “Heck, yes, he surprised me the way he scored early in the game. But I don’t know what I could do about it.”

HELD WILT DOWN

Russell, blaming his sub-par performance for the second game defeat, scored 12 of his 19 points as Boston jumped off to a 34-27 first quarter lead Thursday night. He held the 7-foot-1 Chamberlain without a field goal until there were eight seconds left in the first half.

By intermission Russell had outscored Wilt 15-8 and there was speculation as to when The Defender had topped The Scorer at his own game in this war of the pivot men.

Chamberlain finished ahead 24-19 in the game and 37-26 in rebounds but the damage had been done. Russell had the better shooting average, a 9-7 edge in field goals, 8-1 bulge in assists, and was ahead 3-1 in steals

Regarding Duncan,s 2003 team? I think it was a solid team that was pretty deep and talented at each position, but they didn't have a legit, championship-caliber 2nd option yet

[Yung D-Will]

How exactly did this go from a wilt thread into Malone vs Duncan?

[Round Mound]

A Prime Wilt would average 34 PPG (56% FG), 16 RPG and 4 BPG in this era with the modern suppliments and weight lifting. You Gotta Be Kidding Me. Wilt is definetly Top 5 along Jordan, Kareem, Bird and Magic

[chitownsfinest]

Duncan actually had a good team in 03. No one player on that team was bad, and he had two top 5 defenders in Bown and Robinson, then add in himself and that might have been the best defensive team of the decade. No doubt Moses had a talented team when he won though

Umm D-Rob wasn't even averaging 25 mpg in those yrs playoffs. He may have had a great defense which was mainly due to his impact anyways, but he had no legit second option who could drop 20 on any given night. Parker was nice at that point but he was still inconsistent and if I remember correctly, he was even being benched in favor of Speedy Claxton at crucial parts of games. TD had a nice cast and didn't carry them like people say, but they definitely aren't among the greatest championship teams all time and are probably among the worst. Yeah, Malone only won his 'chip when his team was easily the most stacked and couldn't win in other years after that despite still having nice players on his team.

Duncan was a better passer, but Moses's rebounding at minimum evens out Duncan's passing. Also, during the early 00's late 90's passing was Duncan's biggest weakness, since he had some trouble passing out of doubles effectively.
Its not only his overall skill as a passer that trumps Malone, but his ability to keep the ball swinging around to get a good teammate a shot. Moses was a black hole on offense and when you gave him the ball, you knew it wasn't coming back.
D
Duncan definitely does destroy Moses on defense, and is probably the reason I could understand someone ranking him over Malone. Malone was a pretty average defender.
I'd say the gap between them defensively is bigger then the gap between them as rebounders

Here is where your argument is problematic. If you want to say that Moses's huge gap in scoring is because he played in a weak era, then you're right, Duncan would be better. But thats just not true, and doesn't prove anything anyway. The fact is though, that moses was a much better scorer, because he was a great finisher under that basket, where Duncan might have been skilled, he just wasn't really a born scorer like Moses was. Moses also owns a huge advantage in rebounding, where he is a top 3 rebounder all time, and was absolutely destructive on the boards. Duncan was never destructive in on offense, and moses was never destructive on defense. Duncan was a great post player, and you could post him up, though hed never force the in deep like Moses would.
I agree that Moses may have been a better scorer but the fact is that TD's overally game leads to more in the w/l column then Malone's does. Moses wasn't that great of a scorer anyways save for a great three year stretch.

Like I'm said, I'm fine with you ranking Duncan ahead of him, but this idea that Duncan was as good as Shaq or Hakeem, or these other great centers needs to go. Hes just not as good, plain and simple. Moses? Probably not, but he at least has a logical argument in that case.

Well I have Hakeem and Shaq over him as players so I agree with you. But Moses simply isn't a better player then Duncan

Response in bold

[Maniak]

Yet Yao is still the better player than Dwight. Check the head to head matchups. Check out Yao's dominance on offense too. Dwight can't even create his own shot. :oldlol:
Yao can't even walk on his own 2 feet without breaking something

[Yung D-Will]

Nope, I have Karl Malone as 4th best PF ever.
Duncan(Obviously no other person comes to mind)>Malone>Barkley>KG

[AirJordan&Magic]

Bird belongs, Shaq doesn't (as much as I love him).....but what I found funny is how you forgot players like Magic, Russell and Wilt. Since your goal in this thread was to point out how Wilt wasn't on there, I don't blame you. But missing guys like Russell and Magic is lol-worthy.

Shaq is more deserving in the top 5 all time than Bird is.

[ShaqAttack3234]

A Prime Wilt would average 34 PPG (56% FG), 16 RPG and 4 BPG in this era with the modern suppliments and weight lifting. You Gotta Be Kidding Me. Wilt is definetly Top 5 along Jordan, Kareem, Bird and Magic

No he wouldn't. In HIS era, in all of his 30+ ppg seasons, he failed to shoot 56%. Here are his shooting percentages in his seasons where he was relatively close to the 34 ppg you'd give him.

1964- 36.9 ppg, 52.4 FG%, 53.1 FT%, 28.7 FGA 46.1 mpg
1965- 34.7 ppg, 51 FG%, 46.4 FT%, 28.5 FGA, 45.2 mpg
1966- 33.5 ppg, 54 FG%, 51.3 FT%, 25.2 FGA, 47.3 mpg

I agree with the bpg and rpg numbers, though.

And once again, this isn't so much a thread focusing on regular season accomplishments(which as I pointed out people fail to put into perspective), but instead focusing on the playoffs which is where most of the top 10 players made their legacies.

BTW, welcome back, Sir Charles! I see we can look forward to more multi-colored posts filled with Hollinger stats and broken English.

[jlauber]

No he wouldn't. In HIS era, in all of his 30+ ppg seasons, he failed to shoot 56%. Here are his shooting percentages in his seasons where he was relatively close to the 34 ppg you'd give him.

1964- 36.9 ppg, 52.4 FG%, 53.1 FT%, 28.7 FGA 46.1 mpg
1965- 34.7 ppg, 51 FG%, 46.4 FT%, 28.5 FGA, 45.2 mpg
1966- 33.5 ppg, 54 FG%, 51.3 FT%, 25.2 FGA, 47.3 mpg

I agree with the bpg and rpg numbers, though.

And once again, this isn't so much a thread focusing on regular season accomplishments(which as I pointed out people fail to put into perspective), but instead focusing on the playoffs which is where most of the top 10 players made their legacies.

BTW, welcome back, Sir Charles! I see we can look forward to more multi-colored posts filled with Hollinger stats and broken English.

First of all, you can throw out the stupid TS% stat which diminishes even Shaq. Wilt (and Shaq) OUTSCORED their opponents from the FT line for cryingoutloud...many on baskets-and-one. Would you rather have Steve Kerr going 4-4 or Shaq going 18-39 and fouling out half of a team (or Wilt's 28-32?)

Secondly, you, like so many other's negate LEAGUE AVERAGE...especially to Wilt, who shot from the outside early in his career.

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/quotes.html

[Carl Braun said] "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers."
"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then."

--Red Holzman. A View from the Bench. P.70

Even in the post-season, Wilt outshot the LEAGUE AVERAGE, in his few less than 50% performances, by STAGGERING amounts. He shot .496 in the post-season in his rookie season...the league average? .410 ...YES .410. The idiots here who bring up his "choking" performance in the 61-62 ECF's against Russell...well for the playoffs Wilt shot .469...which was STILL better than the LEAGUE AVERAGE of .426. FURTHERMORE, how well did Russell, or Wilt's teammates do in these post-season "failures?" They were ALL MUCH lower. My god, in game four of the 61-62 ECF's, Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20...and his TEAM won by a 113-106 margin....SEVEN points! So, in essence, Wilt HAD to put up a HUGE game, AND keep Russell to a minimal effort, just to have a CHANCE at winning.

Meanwhile, where are the critics of Kareem? In the 71-72 post-season he shot .437, in a league that shot .455. In the 72-73 post-season Kareem shot .428 (YES.... .428) in a league that shot .456. And, in the 80-81 post-season he shot .462...in a league that shot .486.

The FACT is, take Wilt's seasonal FG% in the 60's, and transport them to almost any other eras, and it would rise significantly. Had he been fortunate enough to play in the 80's, in which the league average was close to 50% almost every year...and what would he have shot? Just use Kareem for example. In his PRIME, in the decade of the 70's...he had seasons of .539, .529, .518, and .513. In the decade of the 80's, and when he was no longer close to his physical prime (he struggled to get 8 rpg in the 80's)...he had EIGHT seasons above .564, including a career high of .604 and another at .599. Just what would have Wilt done, with his 66-67 season (.683 in a league that shot .441) in the 80's???? Well over 70% and possibly approaching 75%.

Wilt also had several series against Russell around 55% shooting (and with scoring around 30 ppg and grabbing nearly 30 rpg, as well.)

Put a PRIME Wilt in today's era, and there would be no one better...

[ShaqAttack3234]

First of all, you can throw out the stupid TS% stat which diminishes even Shaq. Wilt (and Shaq) OUTSCORED their opponents from the FT line for cryingoutloud...many on baskets-and-one. Would you rather have Steve Kerr going 4-4 or Shaq going 18-39 and fouling out half of a team (or Wilt's 28-32?)

Secondly, you, like so many other's negate LEAGUE AVERAGE...especially to Wilt, who shot from the outside early in his career.

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/quotes.html

[Carl Braun said] "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers."
"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then."

--Red Holzman. A View from the Bench. P.70

Even in the post-season, Wilt outshot the LEAGUE AVERAGE, in his few less than 50% performances, by STAGGERING amounts. He shot .496 in the post-season in his rookie season...the league average? .410 ...YES .410. The idiots here who bring up his "choking" performance in the 61-62 ECF's against Russell...well for the playoffs Wilt shot .469...which was STILL better than the LEAGUE AVERAGE of .426. FURTHERMORE, how well did Russell, or Wilt's teammates do in these post-season "failures?" They were ALL MUCH lower. My god, in game four of the 61-62 ECF's, Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20...and his TEAM won by a 113-106 margin....SEVEN points! So, in essence, Wilt HAD to put up a HUGE game, AND keep Russell to a minimal effort, just to have a CHANCE at winning.

Meanwhile, where are the critics of Kareem? In the 71-72 post-season he shot .437, in a league that shot .455. In the 72-73 post-season Kareem shot .428 (YES.... .428) in a league that shot .456. And, in the 80-81 post-season he shot .462...in a league that shot .486.

The FACT is, take Wilt's seasonal FG% in the 60's, and transport them to almost any other eras, and it would rise significantly. Had he been fortunate enough to play in the 80's, in which the league average was close to 50% almost every year...and what would he have shot? Just use Kareem for example. In his PRIME, in the decade of the 70's...he had seasons of .539, .529, .518, and .513. In the decade of the 80's, and when he was no longer close to his physical prime (he struggled to get 8 rpg in the 80's)...he had EIGHT seasons above .564, including a career high of .604 and another at .599. Just what would have Wilt done, with his 66-67 season (.683 in a league that shot .441) in the 80's???? Well over 70% and possibly approaching 75%.

Wilt also had several series against Russell around 55% shooting (and with scoring around 30 ppg and grabbing nearly 30 rpg, as well.)

Put a PRIME Wilt in today's era, and there would be no one better...

You are so stupid it's amazing. Why would Wilt's FG% risein other eras? He'd still be taking the same shots from the low post. The league FG% was down in the 60's because the guards had inferior skills and they took a lot mroe quick jumpshots. In fact, the overall defense from what I've seen was laughable compared to later eras.

And yes '67 Wilt would be the best in the league today IMO, but other years? I'm not so sure. The rest of Wilt's career looks a hell of a lot like David Robinson's.

And regarding TS%, Shaq's was still superior to Wilt's for their regular season and playoff careers as well as their high scoring seasons(25+ ppg).

But the one flaw in TS% is it does penalize power players because it penalizes players for and 1s, for example they still count the FT as half of another possession, even if it comes on an and 1 and players like Shaq, Lebron and Howard get more and 1s than most players. But it is a decent measure and better than just using FG%. Another flaw is with 3 point shooting, yes volume scorers/shooters may have similar TS% to some big men, but they're missing more shots and having more off nights.

But again, TS% should be factored in, and Shaq's was also very good for a big scorer anyway.

But if Wilt was such a good jump shooter, then why was his FG% so low for a center in the late 50's/early 60's and why was he such a crappy FT shooter? Atleast I can admit that Shaq's max range was about 10 feet on most nights and often more like 8, hence his crappy FT shooting(which was still a bit better than Wilt's)

[BlueandGold]

You are so stupid it's amazing.

This statement is a microcosm of what shaqattack has become. A shaq-homer troll who has an unexplainable hatred for Wilt just because there are many who consider him to be greater than Russell. And not just the younger generation but the generation who actually watched russell and wilt play.

Notice how he always starts off his arguments with an insult, as to belittle the poster he's arguing against so that his point seems more valid. Everyone sees through these tactics.

[jlauber]

You are so stupid it's amazing. Why would Wilt's FG% risein other eras? He'd still be taking the same shots from the low post. The league FG% was down in the 60's because the guards had inferior skills and they took a lot mroe quick jumpshots. In fact, the overall defense from what I've seen was laughable compared to later eras.

And yes '67 Wilt would be the best in the league today IMO, but other years? I'm not so sure. The rest of Wilt's career looks a hell of a lot like David Robinson's.

And regarding TS%, Shaq's was still superior to Wilt's for their regular season and playoff careers as well as their high scoring seasons(25+ ppg).

But the one flaw in TS% is it does penalize power players because it penalizes players for and 1s, for example they still count the FT as half of another possession, even if it comes on an and 1 and players like Shaq, Lebron and Howard get more and 1s than most players. But it is a decent measure and better than just using FG%. Another flaw is with 3 point shooting, yes volume scorers/shooters may have similar TS% to some big men, but they're missing more shots and having more off nights.

But again, TS% should be factored in, and Shaq's was also very good for a big scorer anyway.

But if Wilt was such a good jump shooter, then why was his FG% so low for a center in the late 50's/early 60's and why was he such a crappy FT shooter? Atleast I can admit that Shaq's max range was about 10 feet on most nights and often more like 8, hence his crappy FT shooting(which was still a bit better than Wilt's)

I actually agree with some of this. I have always said that Shaq and Wilt's FT shooting was much more dominant than the actual percentages. In fact, I won't take the time to look it up now, but there was an ESPN write-up about this very topic...and the writer stated that, as bad they both were, he could not find evidence where their poor PERCENTAGE actually hurt their teams.

Shaq's 39 FTA game in the playoffs was a great example. The reason he was being fouledwas two-fold. The obvious explanation was that he was a relatively poor FT shooter. The REAL reason was that he had just CRUSHED Indy in game one with a 21-31 effort from the field. There was no way Dale Davis or Rik Smits could handle him. The Pacers essentially waved the white-flag and just fouled him...giving up cheap fouls, often early in the shot clock. Shaq scored 18 points, just from the line alone.

Chamberlain was an even more dominant FT shooter, although in terms of CAREER, Shaq may catch him. BUT, Shaq has played four seasons more, too. Last I checked, Wilt was something like #16 on the all-time FTs MADE list...ahead of Barry, Magic, Bird, and MANY other's (Russell was at 129 last I checked.) In fact, Wilt's BEST season ranks #2 ALL-TIME in FTS MADE (835 in 61-62, which is just behind West's 840 in 64-65.) Think about that...Wilt's BEST season is better than even Jordan's BEST season.

Furthermore, Wilt played in an era of three-for-two's and two-for-one's (as well as single FT attempts, too)...which, of course, means that a 2-3 from the line was as good as 100%. And, as I originally pointed out...how many baskets-and-one's did Shaq and Wilt produce? And, obviously, how many FT attempts did they give teammates because the other team went over the limit much sooner? Or how many opposing players had to leave the floor because of foul trouble?


Regarding Wilt's FG% early in his career...he only had ONE season in which he failed to shoot less than 50%. The rest of his career ranged from .506 up to .727. In his "scoring" seasons, he still shot well over 50%. He had a .528 the year he averaged 44.8 ppg, and he followed that with a .540 in a year that he averaged 33.5 ppg. Now, that .540 was better than ANY season that Olajuwon had, and Robinson only had a couple better. In Robinson's high point season, he averaged 29.8 ppg on .507 shooting.

AND, even more impressively...Wilt was ALWAYS WAY AHEAD of the LEAGUE AVERAGE. For example, his .540 came in a league that shot .433. His 61-62 record-breaking season of 50.4 ppg came in a league that shot .426. Of course, his UNBELIEVEABLE FG% seasons are just STAGGERING. He shot .683 in 66-67, in a league that shot .441. As remarkable as that was...his margin over his nearest competitor was an eye-popping .162 over Bellamy's .521. His .727 came in a league that shot .456, and his margin was .157 over the next guy who finished at .570. Those two seasons are UNAPPROACHABLE in terms of comparisons to LEAGUE AVERAGE and NEAREST COMPETITOR.

Once again, in Wilt's early years he was shooting many more shots from 10-15 feet. He was actually considered a very good outside shooter (as evidenced by legendary coach Red Holzman's pronouncement.) Some here RIP his "low efficiency" in those years...when it was similar to, or BETTER than, Olajuwon's or Robinson's BEST seasons. AND, Chamberlain's BEST seasons just BLOW those guys AWAY (and virtually EVERYONE else who has EVER played the game.

Regarding LEAGUE AVERAGE. If defense was so poor in the 60's and by extension, the early 70's...how come Kareem was shooting .539, .529, .518 and .513 in the 70's...and FAR WORSE against Wilt and Thurmond...and YET he had EIGHT seasons of .564 or better in the 80's, including .604 and .599 (at age 37), and .588, ALL of which were BETTER than any of his 70's seasons? And, clearly Kareem, in the 80's, was a shell of his physical self in the 70's. He averaged about 8 rpg in the 80's (with several in the 6 range), while he was around 14-15 in the 70's (with several in the 16's.)

And, once again, Thurmond held Kareem to under 50% shooting in three straight post-seasons (.486, .405, and .428), while Wilt held Kareem to a CAREER .464 against him (and remember, Kareem's CAREER FG% was at .559.) In fact, over the course of their last TEN H2H meetings, Chamberlain held Kareem to .434.

Continuing...Kareem never faced Russell (or the vaunted Celtic TEAM defense.) NOR did he face a PRIME Wilt or Thurmond, either. Furthermore, as great as Thurmond's defense was...Chamberlain CRUSHED him in HIS PRIME. He never shot BELOW 50% against him in he post-season, and he had games in the mid-60's where he abused Thurmond (outscoring him 45-13 in one, and putting up a 38-31 game in another...as well as a game of 38 rebounds in the Finals.)

All of which is very interesting, of course, because as Fatal9 posted a while back...Kareem had THREE STRAIGHT games against Olajuwon in which he posted games of 35, 43, and 46 points. AND, Kareem was late in his career and the oldest player in the league.

Which gives us all some food for thought....how would a PRIME, high-scoring Wilt have done against Hakeem?

[Sarcastic]

If Jabbar was such a great scorer, how come he only led the league twice in scoring? How could the GOAT drop below 10 rebounds/game for his last 8 years?

[jlauber]

If Jabbar was such a great scorer, how come he only led the league twice in scoring? How could the GOAT drop below 10 rebounds/game for his last 8 years?

Excellent post. Kareem played TWENTY seasons. He led the league in scoring...TWICE. He also only led the league in FG%...ONE time, as wel as only leading the league in rebounding...ONE time.

Compare that with Chamberlain...who played 14 seasons, and led the league in scoring SEVEN times (and as I have mentioned MANY times...he could have scored MUCH MORE...even later in his career.) AND, Wilt led the league in rebounding ELEVEN times (and had he not been injured in '69-70, it would surely have been a TWELVE.) As well as leading the league in FG%...NINE times. He even led the NBA in assists for cryingoutloud. AND, think about this. In Wilt's LAST season, at age 36, he led the NBA in rebounding (18.6...and an even more remarkable 22.5 rpg in 17 playoff games), AND set a FG% mark that will probably never be approached, much less broken, at .727. Given that, how many more seasons could Wilt have led the league in either category? And none of that even takes into account blocked shots, either...of which he was most certainly leading the league in the last half of his career (if not for ALL of it.) He even was voted first-team All-Defense his last two seasons (over Kareem BTW.)

[3zazer1]

Yeah, the guy that scores 100 points in a game and had 55 rebounds in a game isn't a top 5 guy. Dream on! :roll:

[ShaqAttack3234]

This statement is a microcosm of what shaqattack has become. A shaq-homer troll who has an unexplainable hatred for Wilt just because there are many who consider him to be greater than Russell. And not just the younger generation but the generation who actually watched russell and wilt play.

Notice how he always starts off his arguments with an insult, as to belittle the poster he's arguing against so that his point seems more valid. Everyone sees through these tactics.

Unexplainable hatred for Wilt? I had him as a GOAT candidate just 6 months ago, but then I went back and actually really looked at his career and changed my mind. Forgive me for having my own opinion. I'm sorry but all of the regular season stats in the world don't make up for choking in the playoffs most seasons, And those stats are far less impressive when you look at the pace teams played at and the minutes he played including playing in blowouts. If regular season meant that much, David Robinson would easily be top 10, if not top 5.



Regarding Wilt's FG% early in his career...he only had ONE season in which he failed to shoot less than 50%. The rest of his career ranged from .506 up to .727. In his "scoring" seasons, he still shot well over 50%. He had a .528 the year he averaged 44.8 ppg, and he followed that with a .540 in a year that he averaged 33.5 ppg. Now, that .540 was better than ANY season that Olajuwon had, and Robinson only had a couple better. In Robinson's high point season, he averaged 29.8 ppg on .507 shooting.

Look at the playoffs, below 50% in the playoffs 3 straight seasons in the 60's.


AND, even more impressively...Wilt was ALWAYS WAY AHEAD of the LEAGUE AVERAGE. For example, his .540 came in a league that shot .433. His 61-62 record-breaking season of 50.4 ppg came in a league that shot .426. Of course, his UNBELIEVEABLE FG% seasons are just STAGGERING. He shot .683 in 66-67, in a league that shot .441. As remarkable as that was...his margin over his nearest competitor was an eye-popping .162 over Bellamy's .521. His .727 came in a league that shot .456, and his margin was .157 over the next guy who finished at .570. Those two seasons are UNAPPROACHABLE in terms of comparisons to LEAGUE AVERAGE and NEAREST COMPETITOR.

But as long as you factor in FG% compared to the modern era, you must put his rebounding stats and points in perspective as well. You can't mention his 50 ppg season without mentioning that he got 39.5 shots per game and 17 FTA per game.

And increasing his FG% with less shot attempts only works to a certain degree. For example, just 1 year before his peak, he averaged 33.5 ppg, but his FG% only increased to 54% from 51% in his 50 ppg season. That's why I'm perplexed when you estimate prime Wilt would average 35 ppg on 60% shooting.

Regarding Wilt's '67 season, I'll give him all of the credit in the world. As far as single season peaks, Wilt has as good of a case as anyone with that season based on team record, stats, the championship ect. But I simply don't see the rest of his career how you do. In '72, he was phenomenal in a lesser role and in some of those later games, his defense and passing was incredible.


Regarding LEAGUE AVERAGE. If defense was so poor in the 60's and by extension, the early 70's...how come Kareem was shooting .539, .529, .518 and .513 in the 70's...and FAR WORSE against Wilt and Thurmond...and YET he had EIGHT seasons of .564 or better in the 80's, including .604 and .599 (at age 37), and .588, ALL of which were BETTER than any of his 70's seasons? And, clearly Kareem, in the 80's, was a shell of his physical self in the 70's. He averaged about 8 rpg in the 80's (with several in the 6 range), while he was around 14-15 in the 70's (with several in the 16's.)

Look at the '77 playoffs, 35 ppg on 61% shooting. Kareem's efficiency still wasn't poor because of his free throw shooting. But the reason for his FG% going back up in the 80's is simple. Less shot attempts and less defensive pressure because of much player teammates.


Which gives us all some food for thought....how would a PRIME, high-scoring Wilt have done against Hakeem?

I don't think Wilt's prime was his high scoring years. I think his greatest strengths were his passing, defense and rebounding, 2 of which really seemed to come together when he was scoring a lot less.

[purple32gold]

you've got quite a lot of hate and dislike in your mind towards a man you've never met.

[ShaqAttack3234]

you've got quite a lot of hate and dislike in your mind towards a man you've never met.

So pointing out facts means I dislike the guy? You're a moron. I was actually a Wilt fan up until recently, I own a Wilt Chamberlain biography by Robert Cherry and a throwback Wilt Chamberlain Lakers jersey.

But seeing his playoff performances in '61, '62, '66, '68 and '69 or his team's records in '63 and '65(before the trade) have certainly dropped my opinion of him as a player.

[OptimusPrime1]

Even if Wilt isn't a top 5 player of all-time, he's still ahead of Shaq, so who cares.

[SinJackal]

Where do you rank him all time?


It's much less impressive when adjusted for minutes and pace, though he is still one of the greatest rebounders of all time.

Make sure you don't let Olajuwon fans hear you say anything about adjusting stats to pace. You might wake up tomorrow night with a cross burning on your lawn or something.

[Dresta]

Bit late to this thread, but i completely agree, i've been saying it for a while too.

[jlauber]

Wilt gets ripped here for his "failures" in the post-season, yet he was the best player on the floor in the vast majority of those post-season games, and virtually outplayed EVERY opposing center in EVERY post-season series in which he played.

Ok, so he was considered a post-season failure. How about these guys?

Kareem, who as I have pointed out was a HUGE disappointment in the 70's. Wilt gets slammed for a couple of post-seasons in which he shot less than 50% (but in which he was STILL WAY AHEAD of the league average), while Kareem had post-seasons of .462 (in a league that shot .486), .437 (in a league that shot .455), and .428 in a league that shot (.456.) Or the Kareem that struggled to get 8 rpg in the 80's, and was outrebounded by MAGIC in FIVE Finals. No, we don't give Wilt credit for absolutely CRUSHING EVERY opposing center in EVERY post-season on the glass, but we can excuse Kareem's feeble rebounding? Kareem was outplayed by Thurmond, Wilt, and manhandled by Malone in his post-season battles, too. And as I have shown repeatedly...MAGIC carried those Laker teams to titles in the 80's. The evidence is overwhelming. Before Magic...Kareem and LA were ordinary. WITH Magic...nearly 60 wins a year, nine Finals, and five rings. AFTER Kareem, LA STILL goes 63-19, and 58-24, and makes one more final. AFTER Magic...LA drops to 43-39.

Bird? This is truly laughable. He was only the best player in the Finals in ONE post-season, and his team SHOULD have been SWEPT that season. His Finals FG% was .455, including an embarrassing .419 in one...and his post-season was at .472...in an era of .480-.490 league averages. Yet, some here consider him more successful than Wilt? And, once again, what about rebounding. Wilt's WORST rebounding games were better than Bird's BEST.

Olaujwon? My god, the man played on teams that had EIGHT FIRST-ROUND exits...and he also had less than stellar post-seasons SEVERAL times. How about rebounding? Wilt's post-season was at 24.5. Hakeem's was at 11.2. No matter what math you use, Chamberlain CRUSHED Olajuwon on the glass.

Shaq? Yes, he was able to abuse the Davis', Smits', McCullough's, Wallace's, and Dampier's...but he also struggled against HOF centers like Olajuwon and Robinson. His numbers against Robinson PALE in comparison to Chamberlain's numbers against Russell. And, he was the leader of teams that were SWEPT SIX times in the post-season (and had Kobe not hit a miracle shot in the last second of game two of the '04 Finals, it would have been SEVEN.) Shaq even had a miserable post-season against the powerhouse duo of Ostertag and Foster for cryingouloud. And, sorry, but we have to include rebounding...in which Chamberlain just BURYS Shaq in that stat. Wilt's WORST post-season blow away Shaq's BEST. Even using pace (which was significantly lower in Wilt's post-season's than in the regular season's BTW)...Chamberlain still POUNDS Shaq.

Jordan? Take a look at his first few post-seasons. 1-9 in his first 10 playoff games. In one post-season, in which he had a 63 point game, he shot .417 for the series. He flat gave up in one series against the Pistons. He had a shooting percentage of .415 in one Final series. He couldn't lead the '95 Bulls to a title with a loaded roster. And he didn't win any titles until his teams were stacked with talent. The '94 Bulls are a great example.

Russell? Well, hard to argue with 11 rings...until you look at the H2H numbers against Wilt. Wilt either outplayed Russell in EVERY post-season series (and usually with FAR less surrounding talent), or flat out DOMINATED him. Swap Russell's teams with Wilt's teams in their 10 years together in the league, and I suspect Wilt would have held a HUGE edge over Russell in rings.

Kobe? Five rings...but only two as the leader. Some great WCF's, but some awful Finals. I just don't see him having ANY case over Wilt.

Duncan? He has four rings. Still, Duncan had post-seasons of .464, .453, and .449 from the floor. If Wilt gets slammed for his sub-50% shooting, then Duncan should get slapped for his four post-season below 50%. And once again, how about rebounding. Chamberlain averaged TWICE as many rebounds per game. You can dummy up Wilt's numbers all you want...he STILL overwhelms Duncan in rebounding in the post-season.

That only leaves Magic. Magic had a couple of post-season "failures", but it is hard to find fault with his post-season play. As I have already shown, HE was the reason why the Lakers won FIVE rings. His teams AVERAGED nearly 60 wins a season, as well. Still, if Wilt gets dinged for post-season failures in game seven of the '68 playoffs, Magic's game seven in the '84 Finals was worse (and while Bird's TEAM won that game...he was AWFUL in that game, as well.)

Now, if you want to include the REGULAR season, NO other player can TOUCH Wilt. 130+ records. Scoring? He averaged 40 ppg in his first seven seasons...COMBINED. If anyone wants to argue his scoring dominance, just google 50 pt games. Wilt's name is plastered all over the page. Occassionally you will see Jordan or Kobe's name...but you have to look real hard thru all of Wilt's games to find them. Rebounding. Chamberlain holds virtually EVERY major rebounding mark, as well as winning ELEVEN titles. No one can hold a candle to him in that department. FG%? Well, Shaq holds a 10-9 edge in titles, but he also has played four more seasons (and Wilt ran away with FG% in his LAST TWO seasons BTW.) However, Wilt holds the top-two, and three of the top-5 FG% seasons. His top-two are unapproachable, and that does not even include league average or competition, in which he just annihilates any comparisons.

So, go ahead and give me YOUR top-5, and give me something that shows that those players were better than Wilt.

IMHO, the only players who can make a decent case are MJ and Magic. Russell does hold an edge in rings, but it is hard to say he was a better player than Chamberlain....not when Chamberlain was statistically crushing him. And I would love to see the arguments for BIRD over Wilt...because he has NO CASE at all. He is barely top-10.

Alright...let the discussions begin...

[ShaqAttack3234]

Wilt gets slammed for his FG% because he was taking a ridiculous amount of shots and shooting a low FT%. Kareem's FT% was still high, but I'll be the first to admit that he should have shot a better percentage in the '72 and '73 playoffs..

'71 finals- 27 ppg, 18.5 rpg, 2 apg, 60.5 FG%, 76.2 FT%, 4 game sweep
'74 WCSF- 29.6 ppg, 18.4 rpg, 5 apg, 56.7 FG%
'74 WCF- 34.8 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 3.8 apg, 60.2 FG%, 4 game sweep
'74 finals- 32.6 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 5.4 apg, 2.1 bpg, 52.4 FG%

In the '74 finals, Kareem had a game-winning sky hook with Milwaukee down by 1 in game 6 in double OT to send it to a game 7 where Oscar Robertson shot just 2/13 and combined with Bob Dandridge for just 18 points. Just imagine if Milwaukee had Lucius Allen for the playoffs(18/4/5 on 50%). Kareem wouldn't have had to carry Milwaukee so much during the playoffs, in fact, the only other double digit scorers on the team Dandridge and Robertson combined for just 1 more ppg than Kareem during the playoffs.

'77 WCSF- 37.6 ppg, 18.7 rpg, 4.3 apg, 3.8 bpg, 62% shooting
'77 WCF- 30.3 ppg, 16 rpg, 3.8 apg, 3.8 apg, 61% shooting

As far as Kareem's "feeble rebounding. He averaged 12 rpg for the '80 playoffs and 13 in the finals. The following year, he averaged 17 in a series vs Moses Malone and by the way, Magic shot 39% in that series.

Kareem's '80 finals series was one of the best of all time.

33.4 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 3.2 apg, 4.6 bpg, 54.9 FG%

Not to mention his game 5 when he came back from an injury and had 14 fourth quarter points to lead LA to a victory. He finished with 40 points, 15 rebounds and 4 blocks on 16/24 shooting and 8/9 from the line.

Even in 1985, Kareem was still probably the best player on the Lakers. He was certainly deserving of his finals MVP award. He averaged 25.7 ppg, 9 rpg, 5.2 apg and 1.5 bpg on 60.4% shooting. That included a monster 30/17/8 game 2 that changed the series, a 26/14/7 game 3 to keep momentum going, a 36/7/7 game 5 including a huge 4th quarter and a a 29/7/4 game 6 to close out the series.

:roll: at Magic carrying the Lakers. There's a reason why Pat Riley told Magic it was time for him to take over as the leader of the team before the 1986-1987 season, because Kareem was older and could no longer LEAD the team, like he had for the first half of the decade.

Once again, Bird was EASILY the best player on the floor in the '81 finals, the '84 finals and the '86 finals and what the hell do you mean he should have been swept? He won the series, if you go down the line and just discount mistakes teammates made that then you sure as hell can't penalize Shaq for getting swept in '95 because of Nick Anderson's 4 straight missed free throws and Kenny Smith's game-tying 3 in game 1 and Horry's game-winner in game 3. So which is it?

While you're holding Wilt's rebounding and FG% numbers as a reason why Chamberlain was better than Bird, I might as well throw this out there. Not only did Bird have a higher scoring average than Chamberlain in his playoff career, but he crushed him in assists and FT%, see I can throw out biased stats, too.

And it's funny that you criticize Bird for shooting 47.2% in the playoffs yet defend Kobe who has shot 44.8% for his playoff caeer.

And you're penalizing Bird for not being as good of a rebounder as Wilt and his FG% being at 47%? Bird was a SMALL FORWARD. His rebounding numbers are amazing considering his position and the fact that he played alongside Parish and McHale for almost all of his career not to mention Maxwell and Walton. Hell, Bird averaged 1 rpg in the '81 finals, only 1 less than Moses Malone averaged in that same series.

And Olajuwon easily beats Wilt in playoff scoring at 25.9 ppg, beats him in playoff FG% at 52.8% and crushes him in FT%

Regarding some of Olajuwon's playoff moments. Remember, he beat the Showtime Lakers and led Houston to the finals in his 2nd season. He averaged 25/12/3 in the finals that year and fought off elimination with a 32/14 game with a then finals record-tying 8 blocks in game 5 despite Ralph Sampson being ejected early in the 2nd quarter.

The following year, he lost in double OT in game 7 of the WCSF while getting nothing from Ralph Sampson. Olajuwon put up 49/24/6.

And in one of those first round exists, Olajuwon averaged 37/17 on 57% shooting.

In '93, he led an unimpressive cast to OT of the WCSF again and averaged 26/14/5/5 for the playoffs. Of course we all know about 1994. He led Houston to a championship and averaged 29/11/4/5 for the playoffs, outscored Ewing by 8 ppg and held Ewing to 36% shooting. The following year, he had an incredible postseason where he averaged 33/10/4 on 53% shooting and just destroyed David Robinson. Here were Olajuwon and Robinson's head to head numbers in the '95 WCF

Hakeem Olajuwon- 35.3 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 5.0 apg, 4.2 to, 4.1 bpg, 1.3 spg, 56.0 FG%
David Robinson- 23.8 ppg, 11.3 rpg, 2.7 apg, 4.5 to, 2.2 bpg, 1.5 spg, 44.7 FG%

Yes, Olajuwon was a better playoff performer than Wilt.

Yeah, Shaq struggled against Olajuwon..... He averaged 28 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 6.3 apg and 2.5 bpg on 60% shooting and 18.5 shots per game compared to Olajuwon's 32.8 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 5.5 apg and 2 bpg on 48% shooting and 29 shots per game. I'm not saying Shaq outplayed Olajuwon, but he didn't struggle. His finals numbers topped his regular season numbers and Dream could do very little to stop Shaq from scoring. The only negatives for Shaq in the series were that Dream was better in the clutch and Shaq was turnover prone.

And in 1999? When Dream still averaged 19/10 with 2.5 bpg and 1.6 spg on 51% shooting in a league that saw only 2 players average over 25 ppg(Shaq and Iverson) here were their head to head stats in the playoffs.

Shaq- 29.5 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 4 apg, 4 bpg, 52.3 FG%
Olajuwon- 13.3 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 0.5 apg, 0.8 bpg, 42.6 FG%

And you forget to mention his complete domination of the 2001(and 4-time) DPOY Dikembe Mutombo who had made his 7th of 8 all-star teams and a Sixers team who had a top 5 defense. Here were Shaq's numbers.

33 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 4.8 apg, 3.4 bpg, 57.3 FG%

And what exactly is so insignificant about having his way with Ben Wallace? You love to prop up Wes Unseld as a hall of famer and cite his strength, yet ignore that Wallace was incredibly strong and by all accounts, a much better defensive player than Unseld.

Shaq averaged 27/11 on 63% shooting on jus 17 shots per game in the 2004 finals. A well past his prime Shaq in '06, destroyed Wallace again in 2006 when Wallace won his 4th DPOY award. Shaq averaged 22/11 with 2.3 bpg on 66% shooting in that ECF series.

Yeah, Shaq had one poor series vs Ostertag. In fact, in his entire prime, Shaq had maybe 3 series noticeably below his standard where his team lost in a winnable series and in only one of them did he have homecourt advantage and in none of them was his team heavily favored.

Yes, I'll give Wilt the edge in rebounding, but it's funny how you mention that the pace slowed in the playoffs in Wilt's era, it did in Shaq's era as well.

'00 playoffs- 15.4 rpg on a team with a pace factor of 90.3
'01 playoffs- 15.4 rpg on a team with a pace factor of 92
'02 playoffs- 12.6 rpg on a team with a pace factor of 91.5
'03 playoffs- 14.8 rpg on a team with a pace factor of 92.8
'04 playoffs- 13.2 rpg on a team with a pace factor of 86.6

Are you seriously denying that Jordan was a better playoff performer than Wilt? I don't even have time to explain everything laughable about that.

Look back at some of Duncan's playoff series, particularly in '99, '03, '06 and '07. And no, Wilt doesn't overwhelm Duncan in postseason rebounding. I'll give him the edge, but it's a lot closer than you think it is.

'01 playoffs- 14.5 rpg on a team with a pace factor of 89.6
'02 playoffs- 14.4 rpg on a team with a pace factor of 85.8
'03 playoffs- 15.4 rpg on a team with a pace factor of 91
'08 playoffs- 14.5 rpg on a team with a pace factor of 89.5

There's a reason why Duncan has twice as many rings as Wilt and no awful choke jobs like Wilt in '68 and '69.

It's no coincidence that all of these guys have more championships than Wilt except for Olajuwon who has as many.

As far as Kobe?

'01 WCSF- 35 ppg, 9 rpg, 4.3 apg, 47.3 FG%
'01 WCF- 33.3 ppg, 7 rpg, 7 apg, 51.4 FG
'02 finals- 26.8 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 5.3 apg, 51.4 FG%
'08 1st round- 33.5 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 6.3 apg, 1.5 spg, 1.5 bpg, 50 FG%
'08 WCSF- 33.2 ppg, 7 rpg, 7.2 apg, 49.1 FG%
'08 WCF- 29.2 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 3.8 apg, 53.3 FG%
'09 WCF- 34 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 48.1 FG%
'10 WCSF- 32 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 52.3 FG%
'10 WCF- 33.7 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 8.3 apg, 52.1 FG%

And yes, he "only" has 2 rings as the best player, but his '01 run was phenomenal and his '02 run was underrated and Wilt has at best 2 as the best player, arguably 1 and Kobe has 3 more total rings.

As far as peak. Wilt has to be in my top 5 for '67 along with Jordan('90), Shaq('00), Kareem('72, '74 or '77) and Bird('86).

But for careers? Factoring in winning, intangibles, playoff performances ect. he has too many playoff failures, IMO.

i don't get why you get so offended by this. All I did was post his stats from those playoff runs and stated how I view them. You should remember that a few months ago that I usually defended Wilt and I remember you repeatedly stating that you thought highly of me as a poster, so why would I all of a sudden hate Wilt? I don't hate him, but looking into his entire career has certainly made me think less of him as a player.

[PHILA]

As far as peak. Wilt has to be in my top 5 for '67 along with Jordan('90), Shaq('00), Kareem('72, '74 or '77) and Bird('86).In what order would you rank these peak seasons?

[ThaRegul8r]

In what order would you rank these peak seasons?

So long as Wilt's '67 is #1.

And he wasn't lacking in the postseason. A near triple double, averaging a triple double in consecutive series (which neither Big O nor Magic ever did), posting quadruple doubles in consecutive series against the two greatest defensive centers of his era...

[alexandreben]

So long as Wilt's '67 is #1.

And he wasn't lacking in the postseason. A near triple double, averaging a triple double in consecutive series (which neither Big O nor Magic ever did), posting quadruple doubles in consecutive series against the two greatest defensive centers of his era...
Indeed:applause:

due to lacking consistancy, the 380lbs Shaq should be out of the discussion