Wilt the "Choker"

[jlauber]

Was Wilt a "failure", a "loser", and a "choker?"

Here is my response taken from another thread...

The more and more research that has become available, the more we see just how horribly misguided was the PERCEPTION of Chamberlain's career...even at the time in which he played.

Those that ripped him for his "drop" in the post-season, now know that he faced a HOF center in two-thirds of ALL of his 160 post-season games. His scoring dropped SLIGHTLY, (especially of you factor in that he only played 52 of his 160 post-season games in his "scoring" seasons...and in one of those, his 44.8 season, he did not get an opportunity.) He also ELEVATED his rebounding, significantly at times (a 32 rpg series against RUSSELL for cryingoutloud.) And we know that his DEFENSE was brilliant. In virtually EVERY case, his opposing center shot either worse, or MUCH worse against him. The fact was, not only did Wilt outplay his opposing centers in all 29 of his post-season series, he was seldom outplayed in very many games!

Clutch? We now know that Wilt has the HIGHEST FG% of any "great" in game seven's. He shot .626 in his nine game sevens. And, while he is "only" second in rebounding among the greats in game seven's, to Russell, we also KNOW that Chamberlain outrebounded Russell, in their four H2H game seven's by a 28.5 to 24.5 margin. In fact, Wilt's game seven's are probably the greatest in NBA history. 24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and .626 from the field. Furthermore, against Russell, Wilt outscored him, in their four H2H's, 21.3 ppg to 13.2 ppg. He outrebounded him, 28.5 to 24.5. And while we only have two of Russell's game seven FG% numbers, out of those four games, Russell only shot .391 in those two. How about Wilt against Russell? A staggering .652! My god, Wilt had a game seven against Russell in which he scored 30 points, with 32 rebounds, and shot 80% (yes 80%.) He had another game seven against Russell, in which he outscored him, 18-6, outrebounded him, 27-21, and outshot him by an 88% to 29% margin!

We also know that Wilt never had some of the MISERABLE game sevens that Kareem had. Nor was Wilt ever held to well below the league average in FG% in ANY of his post-seasons, while Kareem, had FOUR post-seasons with those numbers, including three in his PRIME. We also know that Wilt seldom got to play a center of less than HOF quality in his post-seasons, but when he did, he CRUSHED them. A 37-23 series against Kerr (an all-star BTW.) A 38-23 series against Beatty (an all-star BTW), and a 28-26-11 .612 series against Dierking. Nor was Wilt ever held WAY below his seasonal numbers by a center of Ostertag's quailty. And while Russell held Wilt below his seasonal averages, he was better against Russell, than Shaq was against Robinson. Or when he faced a crappy center, like Shaq so often in his career, like he did in game six of the '70 Finals, all he did was put up a 45 point, 20-27 shooting from the field, and 27 rebounds...all only four months remolved from major knee surgery. As for Kareem, he was outplayed SEVERAL times by HOF centers (Thurmond, Wilt, and Moses), and some were downright embarrasing (.405, .428, .462, .457 FG% in eras of much higher league averages.) Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 post-season series. Kareem was not only routinely outrebounded, there were several in which he was just KILLED. Wilt never had to have a GUARD lead his team in rebounding.

Playing hurt? Thanks to news articles of the day, we now KNOW that Wilt played the last four games of the '68 ECF's with THREE different leg injuries, and that he was noticeably limping throughout those four games. So, those that love to rip Wilt's game six in that series (when he shot 8-23 from the floor, albeit, with 27 rebounds), need to put it in a proper perspective. Here was Wilt, PLAYING with SEVERAL leg injuries...and yet, we witnessed Kareem sitting out a game six in a Finals with an ankle sprain. We also witnessed Reed missing the better part of three Finals' games with a thigh injury (while Chamberlain was PLAYING on a knee that had just had major surgery four months prior)...and when Reed played in those last three games, he did NOTHING. We also KNOW that Wilt not only PLAYED with TWO severely injured wrists in game five of the '72 Finals (one was badly sprained, and the other was FRACTURED), he DOMINATED that game (24 points, 29 rebounds to the ENTIRE Knick's team of 39, 10-14 shooting, and 10 blocks.) Meanwhile, when Kareem broke his wrist, he missed 16 games. Or that HOF teammate Billy Cunningham missed that ENTIRE '68 ECF series with a broken wrist.

Big games? How about a 56-35 game in game five of a best-of-five series???? How about taking a 40-40 team to a game seven, one-point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team that had a 5-2 edge in HOFers,...and scoring eight of his team's last ten points, and bringing his team back from a 110-101 deficit to 110-109? Oh, and outscoring Russell, 30-15, outrebounding him, 32-29, and outshooting him, 12-15 to 7-16? How about a 50-35 game against Russell, in an elimination game in the '60 ECF's? Or crushing Russell in a clinching game five of the '67 ECF's, when he outscored him, 29-4, outrebounded him, 36-21, outassisted him, 13-7, and outshot him, 10-16 to 2-5? Wilt had numerous 40-30 games in the post-season, and several of them came against Russell. He had four 50+ point games in his post-season, including one against Russell. He had a TON of 30+ rebound games in his post-seasons, including an NBA record of 41...against Russell. He also outrebounded and vastly outshot the great Thurmond in their three H2H post-seasons, including one in which he outrebounded him by a 23.6 to 17.2 margin, as well as outshooting him in another by an astonsihing .560 to .343 margin.

Furthermore, has ANY other great player taken a 40-40 team, up against the best team in the league, by far, the 62-18 Celtics, who had a 5-2 edge in HOFers,...to a game seven, one point loss. All he did in that series was outscore Russell by 211-109, and outrebounded him by a 221-177 margin. He also took a badly undermanned 49-31 Warrior team to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their 6-3 edge in HOFers. Give me an example of Kareem or Shaq carrying teams of that level, that far.

A "loser?" In fact, he played on only one losing team, and all he did that season was LEAD the NBA in 15 of the 22 statistical categories, including winning the scoring title by 10.8 ppg (44.8 to 34.0), as well as leading the league in rebounding at 24.6, and setting a then record of .528 from the field. He also LED that NBA that season in Win Shares, by a HUGE margin...AND he had the HIGHEST PER in NBA HISTORY. How about the rest of his career? 13 playoff series in 14 seasons (in an era when it was much tougher to make the playoffs.) 12 Conference Finals. Six conference regular season titles. Best record in the league four times. Four 60+ win seasons. Two seasons in which his team set an all-time W-L record (sinced broken by the '96 Bulls), and two DOMINATING title teams.

Of course, no one claimed MJ as a "loser" despite FIVE losing seasons. Or an MJ who played spectacularly in the '86 playoffs, but his TEAM was swept by the 67-15 Celtics, and their FIVE HOFers. No, when Jordan gets swept under those circumstances, he was "heroic." When Wilt takes his 49-31 Warriors up against a 60-20 Celtic team that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers, and gets that team to a game seven, two-point loss, despite CLEARLY being the Warriors BEST player in that series....well, he was outplayed by Russell.

So, let's finally put all of these RIDICULOUS myths to rest. Wilt was NOT a "loser", nor was he a "failure", nor was he a "choker." In fact, he was among the greatest winners of all-time; he DOMINATED not only the regular season, but in his post-seasons: and he was arguably, the MOST CLUTCH performer in post-season series history, and at the very least, very close to MJ, Russell, and Magic.

[Harison]

*This message is hidden because jlauber is on your ignore list. *

But since its easy to guess OP topic, few points :rolleyes:

1. Wilt wasnt a choker, just he was more inclined to get personal records than to win the rings.

2. Russell was ultimate winner, so even though they both had similar chance to win it all (Rus first half of their career, Wilt - 2nd half), Rus won almost 6x more rings, I think it says more than enough.

If you want spectacular individual performance you pick Wilt, if you want to win Championships, you pick Russell. There are many factors, but at the very core its that simple :sleeping

[The_Yearning]

Nobody gives a **** about Wilt.

[Andrei89]

Howard could also score 100 points playing against mostly scrubs. And average 50 points per game as a C.

WILT most overrated center of all time

[Micku]

So, let's finally put all of these RIDICULOUS myths to rest. Wilt was NOT a "loser", nor was he a "failure", nor was he a "choker." In fact, he was among the greatest winners of all-time; he DOMINATED not only the regular season, but in his post-seasons: and he was arguably, the MOST CLUTCH performer in post-season series history, and at the very least, very close to MJ, Russell, and Magic.

People will never consider him the greatest winners of all-time. He was consider more of a underachieve because of his talent. How can someone that dominant as much as he does, but could never win the championship? The reason is because it is a team sport. He was criticize because of his output, his stats, and points. It wasn't until he stop producing as many points did they win a title. This will always be something that will hang over Wilt's head.

He was consider a underachieve since his college days. I don't think he ever won in college either. Why should the people believe his the greatest winner of all time when he couldn't win in college and barely won in the NBA? Nobody consider him the best winner then, why should we consider him the best winner now? Team always beat individuals. Winning was never his record, it's individual dominance.

In fact, Jordan had the same treatment. They criticize him that NOBODY can win the NBA title leading the league in scoring and being the one man show. They wanted him to be more like Bird or Magic who pass the ball, decreasing their scoring output, and make their team better. The only person who lead the league in scoring and win the title was Kareem. It wasn't until the triangle system that Jordan ended up proving them wrong. Then later Shaq. Wilt never had that luxury.

The common people just think that Wilt was ahead of his time, care too much about stats than team production, when he concentrated on team production he couldn't get over the hump as much. His record doesn't argue against it in the main outcome, and that's what will the people will see.

Wilt was probably the best athletic freak that the NBA ever seen, unfortunately he could not dominant the NBA titles as much he can dominate the stats. That is the main concept of winning, and he could not do it because basketball is a team sport.

Wilt even wanted to quit the NBA because he could never win the title. Plus people nowdays think he never had the "killer instant". He never wanted to to completely destroy the opponent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVV7DDY7B9A&feature=related#t=06m10s

People nowadays would say if Wilt had Russel mentality, Bird, or Jordan (nowadays) then Wilt would be more amazing.

But overall: Wilt just does not have the record of winning the titles. That is what people will see. People will think "This guy averaged this many points/rebounds/assists and he still couldn't win?" Wilt will never be consider as the best winner.

[creepingdeath]

What kinda makes me emphatic toward your argument in general, not the original post in particular, is that past players do get forgotten in a way and revisionists seem to rewrite basketball history to fit their agenda or ignorance. Past glory seems to become dull and grey in the face of a new one.

Funny thing is, you don't even have to change the decade for that. For example, some people seem to be oblivious to the fact that Shaq was the clear #1 on the LA team. Only 16 years old Kobe fanboys, who didn't even WATCH the games then and don't realize the media coverage of that time, would refute that. Or the way Grant Hill was dealt with as the next Jordan. The way KG beasted in the early 2000s. Early T-Mac. That Dirk was "the thing" in the mid 00's and dominating. What Iverson did with his team despite all his faults. How Kobe was a persona non grata because of the alleged rape incident and refs were conducting games in dubio contra reo; how great Kobe was although the refs were biased AGAINST him. The kind of impact great role players have always had. There are tons of examples for the last decade alone. Myths everywhere. Twisted facts and realities.

Don't even mention the 90s. For some ISH members, there are only two kinds of guys: winners and chokers. Only extremes, no area in-between. Jordan and Malone. Hakeem and Ewing. They often take rings as main factor in their depiction of GOAT lists and seem to forget that basketball is still a team game. That history is sometimes influenced by tiny details, that one missed bucket could've changed whole dynasties. More importantly, that some players got more lucky than others concerning their team, their franchise, their owner. Yeah, a ring is fine and all, but to say that Kobe/Duncan/ANYONE has to be in everyone's top 10 is just ridiculous. First of all, GOAT lists are always subjective. Secondly, when comparing players you have to factor in the different eras AND of course the circumstances. Why, for example, is it a heresy to have Dr. J or Robertson in front of Kobe (the question is rhetorical, I don't want to hear your biased arguments)? Or anyone else, for that matter? This is exactly why such lists suck. Past players, especially ringless ballers, drown in the veiled mysteries of the past, although they might have been better.

[PHILA]

What kinda makes me emphatic toward your argument in general, not the original post in particular, is that past players do get forgotten in a way and revisionists seem to rewrite basketball history to fit their agenda or ignorance. Past glory seems to become dull and grey in the face of a new one.

Funny thing is, you don't even have to change the decade for that. For example, some people seem to be oblivious to the fact that Shaq was the clear #1 on the LA team. Only 16 years old Kobe fanboys, who didn't even WATCH the games then and don't realize the media coverage of that time, would refute that. Or the way Grant Hill was dealt with as the next Jordan. The way KG beasted in the early 2000s. Early T-Mac. That Dirk was "the thing" in the mid 00's and dominating. What Iverson did with his team despite all his faults. How Kobe was a persona non grata because of the alleged rape incident and refs were conducting games in dubio contra reo; how great Kobe was although the refs were biased AGAINST him. The kind of impact great role players have always had. There are tons of examples for the last decade alone. Myths everywhere. Twisted facts and realities.

Don't even mention the 90s. For some ISH members, there are only two kinds of guys: winners and chokers. Only extremes, no area in-between. Jordan and Malone. Hakeem and Ewing. They often take rings as main factor in their depiction of GOAT lists and seem to forget that basketball is still a team game. That history is sometimes influenced by tiny details, that one missed bucket could've changed whole dynasties. More importantly, that some players got more lucky than others concerning their team, their franchise, their owner. Yeah, a ring is fine and all, but to say that Kobe/Duncan/ANYONE has to be in everyone's top 10 is just ridiculous. First of all, GOAT lists are always subjective. Secondly, when comparing players you have to factor in the different eras AND of course the circumstances. Why, for example, is it a heresy to have Dr. J or Robertson in front of Kobe (the question is rhetorical, I don't want to hear your biased arguments)? Or anyone else, for that matter? This is exactly why such lists suck. Past players, especially ringless ballers, drown in the veiled mysteries of the past, although they might have been better.

:applause:

[zay_24]

Howard could also score 100 points playing against mostly scrubs. And average 50 points per game as a C.

WILT most overrated center of all time
I would rep you if i could.

[MasterDurant24]

Howard could also score 100 points playing against mostly scrubs. And average 50 points per game as a C.

WILT most overrated center of all time
Get out troll, the centers today are just terrible. How did we go from Wilt and Russsel, to Kareem, McAdoo, Bill Walton, Bob Lanier, and Willis Reed, to Moses Malone and Robert Parish, to Hakeem, David Robinson, and Patrick Ewing, to Shaq and Duncan, to freaking Dwight Howard and Andrew Bogut? :facepalm

[jlauber]

He was consider a underachieve since his college days. I don't think he ever won in college either. Why should the people believe his the greatest winner of all time when he couldn't win in college and barely won in the NBA?

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

[QUOTE]At KU, Chamberlain became a player for the Kansas Jayhawks freshman team under coach Phog Allen, whom he admired, and also a member of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc, where he was the president of his pledge class.[24] Announced as "looking lighter than his 240 pounds, [able to] reach 9'6" up in the air [flatfooted], and a [wingspan of] 7'2"", [B]his debut was highly anticipated, and he delivered: in Chamberlain's debut game for the freshman squad, the freshman Jayhawks were pitted against the varsity Jayhawks, who were favored to win their conference that year. Chamberlain dominated his older college mates by scoring 42 points (16

[ashlar]

Is it accurate to say a good college team nowadays would dominate a 60s pro team?

[jlauber]

Is it accurate to say a good college team nowadays would dominate a 60s pro team?

I wonder how many good college teams today have a player like 6-9 260 lb Luke Jackson at PF, or 6-7 "Kangaroo" Billy Cunningam on the bench, along with players like Hal Greer and Chet Walker on their starting five? Oh, and BTW, a 7-1, 285 lb center that was a high-jump champion, a long-jumper, a sprinter, a powerful weight-lifter (perhaps as much as 500 lb. bench press) that could score from 15 ft. with a variety of post moves and shots.

[PHILA]

Is it accurate to say a good college team nowadays would dominate a 60s pro team?

Best team back then would humiliate any active NBA team from 2010.

http://i53.tinypic.com/2lu8c39.jpg

[ashlar]

Best team back then would humiliate any active NBA team from 2010.

http://i53.tinypic.com/2lu8c39.jpg

you are too much :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[jlauber]

Thanks to PHILA...


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

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

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

-1982



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

-1985




Wilt Chamberlain


1960 Game 3 vs. Nationals (best of 3 series at the time): 53 points in a 20 point win.

1962 Game 5 vs. Nationals: 56 points, 35 rebounds in a 17 point win.

1962 Game 6 vs Celtics: 32 points in a 10 point win

1962 Game 7 vs Celtics: 22 points, 21 rebounds in a 2 point loss

1964 Game 5 vs. Hawks: 50 points in a 24 point win.

1964 Game 7 vs. Hawks: 39 points, 26 rebounds, 12 blocks in a 10 point win.

1965 Game 6 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 26 rebounds in a 6 point win

1965 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 32 rebounds in a 1 point loss

1966 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 46 points, 34 rebounds in an 8 point loss

1967 Game 2 vs. Royals: 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists in a 21 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Royals: 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 1 vs. Celtics: 24 points, 32 rebounds, 13 assists, 12 blocks in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Celtics: 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists in an 11 point win.

1967 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists in a 24 point win.

1968 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 25 points, 27 rebounds in an 18 point win. Little known fact is that Chamberlain led BOTH TEAMS in points, rebounds, and assists for the entire series, whilst nursing an assortment of injuries, including his annual shin splints. This against two Hall Of Fame centers Walt Bellamy & Willis Reed. Apparently Willis used to tremble at the mere sight of Luke Jackson in the MSG tunnel pre-game.

1968 Game 7 vs Celtics: 14 points, 34 rebounds in a 4 point loss (This despite two touches in the entire 4th quarter, the smartest move Russell has ever made in his career switching himself over to guard Chet).

1969 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 18 points, 27 rebounds in a 2 point loss (Head coach leaves him on the bench due to a personal grudge.)

1970 Game 5 vs. Suns: 36 points, 14 rebounds in a 17 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Suns: 30 points, 27 rebounds, 11 blocks in a 35 point win (helped lead Lakers back from 1-3 deficit)

1970 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 45 points, 27 rebounds in a 22 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Knicks: 21 points, 24 rebounds in a 14 point loss

(Understand that he should have not even been playing in the 1969-70 season after his injury, but was able to rehab his knee in time with his workouts in volleyball, a sport he would later become a Hall Of Famer in as well.)

1971 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 25 points, 18 rebounds in an 11 point win

1971 Game 5 vs. Bucks: 23 points, 12 rebounds, 6 blocks in an 18 point loss without Elgin Baylor or Jerry West. (Alcindor in this game had 20 points, 15 rebounds, and 3 blocks).

1973 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 21 points, 28 rebounds in a 3 point win (Bulls had the ball and a one point lead with 30 or so seconds left in the 4th. Norm Van Lier goes up for the shot only to have it rejected by the "big choker" Wilt Chamberlain. Chamberlain blocked Van Lier's shot right to Gail Goodrich down court for the go ahead basket. Is there any mention of this clutch defensive play from Chamberlain in Bill Simmons "Book Of Basketball"?

1973 Game 5 vs. Knicks: 23 points, 21 rebounds in a 9 point loss (a hobbled Jerry West finished with 12 points)


Yep...Wilt was a "choker" and a "failure."

Incidently, you can add game five of the '60 ECF's (Philadelphia was down 3-1, so it was a must-win game), and he responded with a 50-35 game against Russell in a 128-107 win. Keep in mind that game was in his rookie season, and he faced a Celtic team with SEVEN HOFers.

And, IMHO, his greatest effort came against Kareem in game six of the WCF's. He held Kareem to 16-37 shooting, while going 8-12 himself, and scoring 22 points with 24 rebounds. And, he absolutely took over the game in the 4th quarter, and led LA back from a 10 point deficit to a clinching four point win. He also blocked 11 shots in that game, and five of them were Kareem's sky-hooks.

Or Wilt, with two badly injured wrists dominating the clinching game five win the Finals, with a 24 point, 10-14 shooting, 29 rebound (the ENTIRE Knick team had 39 BTW), and 10 block game.

[PHILA]

you are too much :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:Russell's Celtics and Thurmond/Barry '67 Warriors go without saying as well.

[ashlar]

You guys have littered these forums with enough of this trash. Pretty sure you don't need to quote or type out more essays about how dominant players were 50 years ago.

[Micku]

I know that jlauber. Everybody was fascinated by Wilt. He was a man among boys. But he didn't win the championship in college. You said that he was the best winner. How can you be the best winner without being crown the champion?


For many years following Chamberlain's departure from the University of Kansas, critics claimed that he either wanted to leave the very white Midwest or was embarrassed by not being able to bring home the NCAA basketball tournament victory.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain#College_career

He could not win it all despite his talent. He will never be consider as the greatest winner. He didn't win in college and he barely won in the NBA. He only won when he brought his scoring production down.

Bill Russel lead his college teams to become champions, twice. Then later he won 11 championships in the NBA. Kareem won three times in college, then won 6 championships in the NBA. Magic won in college, then won five in the NBA.

How and why should we consider Wilt better winners than them when Wilt did not win as much as them even when he produce more output? Even when his Russell retired, he couldn't win. Granted the 1969 was very close and it's the coaches fault, he never could give over the hump. He will always will be consider two things by the people.

1. Ahead of his time
2. An underachiever

[jlauber]

You guys have littered these forums with enough of this trash. Pretty sure you don't need to quote or type out more essays about how dominant players were 50 years ago.

Of course, we know that Thurmond and Wilt outplayed Kareem at times in the 70's, and certainly limited him in their H2H matchups to a significant degree. He struggled to even hot 40% against Thurmond, and in his 28 H2H games against Wilt, he shot .464 (including only .434 in his last ten...while Chamberlain outshot him .637 to .450 in their last six regular season encounters.) We also know that in their only H2H encounter before Wilt's knee injury, that Chamberlain outscored Kareem, 25-23, outrebounded him, 25-20, outassisted him, 5-2, outblocked him, 3-2, and outshot him, 9-14 to 9-21.

And, we know that a 39 year old Kareem poured in games of 35, 42, and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting) against the likes of Hakeem. Or that Kareem, in that same post-season, had a couple of 30+ games againt Hakeem. Or that in his last three seasons against Hakeem, and all in his 40's, he outshot him, H2H, by a .567 to .475 margin. Or that Kareem, in that same '85-86 season, had a game against Ewing, in which he poured in 40 points, and held Ewing to 2-16 shooting. Or that over the course of his three years, and all at age 40+, he outshot Ewing, H2H, by a .551 to .483 margin, and nearly matched his scoring with a 16.5 ppg average to Patrick's 18.8.

We also know that both Hakeem and Ewing went on to be among the best centers of the 90's, and that Hakeem played Shaq to a standstill in the '95 Finals.

[jlauber]

I know that jlauber. Everybody was fascinated by Wilt. He was a man among boys. But he didn't win the championship in college. You said that he was the best winner. How can you be the best winner without being crown the champion?



- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain#College_career

He could not win it all despite his talent. He will never be consider as the greatest winner. He didn't win in college and he barely won in the NBA. He only won when he brought his scoring production down.

Bill Russel lead his college teams to become champions, twice. Then later he won 11 championships in the NBA. Kareem won three times in college, then won 6 championships in the NBA. Magic won in college, then won five in the NBA.

How and why should we consider Wilt better winners than them when Wilt did not win as much as them even when he produce more output? Even when his Russell retired, he couldn't win. Granted the 1969 was very close and it's the coaches fault, he never could give over the hump. He will always will be consider two things by the people.

1. Ahead of his time
2. An underachiever

I wasn't declaring Wilt a better "winner" than Russell, or MJ, or Magic, or even Duncan. BUT, his team's probably won somewhere around 67% of their games, or more, in his CAREER. He played on 12 teams, in 14 seasons, that made it to the Conference Finals. He played on six conference champions. He played in six Finals. He played on four teams that won 60+ games. He played on four teams with the best record in the league. And he played on two record-setting teams that dominated en route to titles.

And, furthermore, how many "great" players have taken a 40-40 team to a game seven, one-point loss against the eventual champion, that went 62-18, and had a 5-2 edge in HOFers?

He certainly wasn't the "loser" that so many like to depict him as.

[jlauber]

BTW,

In Wilt's two title teams, he took his 68-13 76ers, and they completely destroyed a 60-21 Celtic team (with a 4-3 edge in HOFers), 4-1 (and nearly swept them, losing game four by four points), in a series in which Chamberlain just crushed Russell. That ended Boston's streak of eight titles in a row. Following that convincing romp, they pounded a Warrior team, 4-2, that had Barry and Thurmond (and Wilt buried him BTW, as well.)

Then, in the 71-72 season, Wilt took his 69-13 Lakers to a sweep of the 57-25 Bulls, a 4-2 win over the defending champion 63-19 Bucks, and a 4-1 blowout of a NY team that had FIVE HOFers.

[Psileas]

You guys have littered these forums with enough of this trash. Pretty sure you don't need to quote or type out more essays about how dominant players were 50 years ago.

The only trash there exists in such threads is the stupid 1-liners by people like Andrei or zay_24, who just enter here practically to claim that they don't care about the topic. It's like somebody like me, a hip-hop hater, entering a topic about hip-hop just to claim that it sucks (and actually, I feel bad for putting Wilt and hip-hop in the same sentence, but I just made an analogy).
If you want to pretend that these posters (actually from both sides, since Fatal and Shaq Attack also present valid points) post trash because you don't care about the topic, continue pretending. Don't worry about the level of the board. I bet the next 283 threads, about Kobe vs LeBron/Wade, are going to really raise it to its known glorious standards.

[ashlar]

The only trash there exists in such threads is the stupid 1-liners by people like Andrei or zay_24, who just enter here practically to claim that they don't care about the topic. It's like somebody like me, a hip-hop hater, entering a topic about hip-hop just to claim that it sucks (and actually, I feel bad for putting Wilt and hip-hop in the same sentence, but I just made an analogy).
If you want to pretend that these posters (actually from both sides, since Fatal and Shaq Attack also present valid points) post trash because you don't care about the topic, continue pretending. Don't worry about the level of the board. I bet the next 283 threads, about Kobe vs LeBron/Wade, are going to really raise it to its known glorious standards.

You think glorious standards is just pumping up the past players while disregarding anything today? Read some of the posts by jlauber and phila claiming that 60s teams would DOMINATE the top teams of 2010. Its just disrespect to today's players as it is disrespectful to completely dismiss players of the past. Two different eras that you can't compare but these two clowns continue to do it and its only worse when they claim that there is no contest between teams back then and teams now. All they post is stats and they don't even acknowledge the VERY weak competition that those players faced(I'm not saying every player was bad back then).

[Psileas]

You think glorious standards is just pumping up the past players while disregarding anything today? Read some of the posts by jlauber and phila claiming that 60s teams would DOMINATE the top teams of 2010. Its just disrespect to today's players as it is disrespectful to completely dismiss players of the past. Two different eras that you can't compare but these two clowns continue to do it and its only worse when they claim that there is no contest between teams back then and teams now. All they post is stats and they don't even acknowledge the VERY weak competition that those players faced(I'm not saying every player was bad back then).

You're talking about two eras that you can't compare, yet you did exactly this when, a few posts above, you asked whether it's safe to say that a good college team from today would dominate them...You should note that, at least PHILA, usually makes such claims upon reading stuff like yours. About Lauber, honestly, I don't see him talking about all-time team matchups often. He mostly points out the inaccuracies told about Wilt (not always 100% objective, but then again, who is?), talks about Magic (a more modern player) and often criticizes Kareem and backs up his claims about Russell not being the individual player Wilt was. That's not overglorifying your era, that's mainly talking about it. Neither is overglorifying your era claiming that Russell would be way better today than what people who compare him to Ben Wallace think.
All superstars face weak competition compared to them. Raw stats depend mainly on the game's pace and the team structure. Guys like LeBron, Shaq, Jordan enjoy(-ed) freakishly better natural gifts than their average opponents. Like I said in another thread, for me, the only difference between most people watching Jordan dominate Ehlo and Wilt dominate Mel Counts is that most know who Ehlo was and don't know who Counts was. But the fact is, both were just weak competition (for Jordan's and Wilt's standards). You can't praise one's exploits while scoffing at the other's and not expect justified reactions from certain people.

[PHILA]

You're talking about two eras that you can't compare, yet you did exactly this when, a few posts above, you asked whether it's safe to say that a good college team from today would dominate them...You should note that, at least PHILA, usually makes such claims upon reading stuff like yours.
To be fair we have some excellent teams today. Miami Heat could definitely cause some matchup problems against the '67 team, and of course the Lakers are deep and loaded with talent. But it comes down inside muscle and rebounding. Sixers would dominate the boards by a staggering margin and pretty much control the middle, especially with Wilt playing 45 minutes per game & Luke Jackson ready to spell him the pivot for those brief periods he may be on the bench. Lakers are a big team with the top front court in the NBA today, yet they'd be small against behemoths like Wilt & Luke Jackson. Chet Walker & Billy C as well off the bench could rebound. Odom properly utilized could be a potential matchup problem. However as Pat Riley has said, "No rebounds, no rings." Of course Miami's interior weakness has been criticized as well. And this Sixers team had the best front court in NBA history and had strong and excellent defensive players at all positions that played well together.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCsOZRQoA8

In the above video (0:15 mark) shows the versatility of a 6'10, 272 lb bull in Lucious Jackson, who was very potent under the board but also quick and mobile. It appears the '67 Sixers were excellent at this baseline action with the pivot man. All of their top players were quick and versatile.



http://i55.tinypic.com/n5kgm8.jpg



Chamberlain was excellent at picking off (with the basketball in his possession) the smaller defensive man, forcing the switch right at the rim. You can see just how much better the ball and player movement was back then, before teams starting camping outside using the 3 point line to space the floor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycO_MYuF89k#t=7m08s


Of course I would think this worked best with a lightning quick player like Hal Greer, who could shoot in the blink of an eye or pass off the Wilt for a dunk if the defense over committed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpiRo8-aKJc#t=2m11s


Another fine play between Wilt & Big O. :applause:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecgwZVnvPIc#t=0m34s

[PHILA]

It may hard for some to understand how the game was played before the 3 point line. Sixers had some great 1-1 players like Greer, Walker, & Cunningham, however Chamberlain would get the ball and everything ran through him. He was their playmaker from the pivot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kocq3D4zd-U#t=5m32s

[branslowski]

Best team back then would humiliate any active NBA team from 2010.

http://i53.tinypic.com/2lu8c39.jpg

notsureifserious....

[PHILA]

notsureifserious....
Perhaps if you made some changes to the Lakers, they'd make it a more competitive series against the '67 team.

- Direct Bryant & Fisher toward the fountain of youth.

- Replace Gasol with a hardnosed mean inside player who can rebound, defend, & spot up. For instance Oakley, Ho Grant, Mo Lucas, etc.

-Replace Bynum with a top tier center at peak form (Russell, Shaq, Kareem, Olajuwon, etc).

[G.O.A.T]

You think glorious standards is just pumping up the past players while disregarding anything today? Read some of the posts by jlauber and phila claiming that 60s teams would DOMINATE the top teams of 2010. Its just disrespect to today's players as it is disrespectful to completely dismiss players of the past. Two different eras that you can't compare but these two clowns continue to do it and its only worse when they claim that there is no contest between teams back then and teams now. All they post is stats and they don't even acknowledge the VERY weak competition that those players faced(I'm not saying every player was bad back then).

Teams from the sixties are obviously much better. They had three and four ll-stars and Hall of Famers on the best of them. Their were only 9 teams for most of the decade. It stands to reason that you'd have more talent per team.

If you actually take the time to learn something about the era, you'd understand what these people are saying. All eras of basketball are comparable if you know enough about both to compare.

The competition was stronger (why do think it wasn't) obviously because only the best 90 players in the world (more accurately North America at that point) were on a team, not 450 like today.

You probably think players were shorter or the league was 90% white in the 60's or something. Just read one book about the 1960's era NBA and you'll have a lot greater understanding as to why some people feel this way. The people's whose opinions your challenging know WAY more about the topic than you, have you considered that?

[alexandreben]

Best team back then would humiliate any active NBA team from 2010.

http://i53.tinypic.com/2lu8c39.jpg
a quick question, why Luke Jackson got to sit in the middle, didn't it supposed to be Wilt's place?

[PHILA]

a quick question, why Luke Jackson got to sit in the middle, didn't it supposed to be Wilt's place?

Not sure, here's another team photo with Wilt in the middle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTMfGVjfwbM#t=2m53s

[jlauber]

You think glorious standards is just pumping up the past players while disregarding anything today? Read some of the posts by jlauber and phila claiming that 60s teams would DOMINATE the top teams of 2010. Its just disrespect to today's players as it is disrespectful to completely dismiss players of the past. Two different eras that you can't compare but these two clowns continue to do it and its only worse when they claim that there is no contest between teams back then and teams now. All they post is stats and they don't even acknowledge the VERY weak competition that those players faced(I'm not saying every player was bad back then).

I have been on record as saying the GENERALLY, the players of today in the three major sports (baseball, football, and basketball) are bigger, stronger, and faster. They are probably slightly more skilled as, well, because they have had previous generations of athletes from their particular sport to build upon.

However, aside from the fact that football players of today, are considerably bigger than those of 50 years ago (my god, we have 260 lb. quarterbacks today), almost every other area has, ...IMHO...only seen a SLIGHT increase.

Most uneducated posters here believe that Wilt was a stumbling frankenstein that dunked on helpless, nerdy, skinny, 6-6 white centers. Here are some interesting FACTS: One, the average starting center in Wilt's historic 1962 season was 6-10. In fact, in the following season, Wilt wasn't even the tallest player in the league (Swede Halbrook was 7-3...and barely on a roster.) The average starting center in Wilt's last season of 72-73, was 6-11. How about in 2010? 7-0. That is a whopping two inch increase in nearly 50 years. Not only that, but those that even use the height argument are overlooking,..Two, that there has never been a 7-3+ center to ever lead the league in rebounding. In fact, there have only been THREE 7-2 centers to lead the league in rebounding, in a TOTAL of FOUR seasons. If you take Wilt and his ELEVEN rebounding titles out of the discussion, there have been far more players at 6-10, or less, who have won rebounding titles. And you only need go back a few years when 6-7 Ben Wallace (that's right...6-7, NOT 6-9) won TWO rebounding titles in a row.

Ok, let's get back to my original point here, which is that the players of today are MARGINALLY better, on AVERAGE, than those of yesteryear.

If I were to tell you that a peak Babe Ruth would be a great player in TODAY's game, you, and perhaps the vast majority of this forum would probably laugh me off the board. How could that rotund, tooth-picked legged "athlete" be a GREAT player in TODAY's game?

This is where the "bridges" come in. Players like Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, and Nolan Ryan.

Ted Williams is a good place to start. His career spanned FOUR decades. In his rookie season, in 1939, he batted .327 with 31 HRs. In his LAST season, in 1960, he batted .316 with 29 HRs (in only 310 ABs.) Back to his rookie season. In his rookie year, Jimmy Foxx batted .360 with 35 HRs. So, we know that Foxx was a better player, in 1939 than Williams was. And just the year before, in 1938, Foxx batted .349 with 50 HRs. In 1932 Foxx batted .364 with 58 HRs. In that same season, Ruth, at well past his prime, batted .341 with 41 HRs. And just five years prior, Ruth slugged 60 HRs.

Ok, continuing...there were pitchers that Williams faced in 1939 that Foxx faced in 1938. There were also pitchers in 1932 that Foxx faced, that also pitched to Ruth in that season.

But wait...those players played before integration. There is no way they would have accomplished those numbers against the players post-1947. Hmmm...interesting point...except that Williams batted .406 in 1941 (pre-integration), and then, in 1957, he batted .388 (with 38 HRs in 420 ABs)...or POST-integration.

In that 1957 season, Mickey Mantle batted .365 with 34 HRs. Just the year prior, in 1956, Mantle batted .356 with 52 HRs. And just the year before that, in 1955, Willie Mays hit 51 HRs. Why is that significant you ask? Those players not only faced many of the same pitchers in the decade of the 50's, they also faced pitchers who pitched in the 40's, and pitcher's who would pitch in the 60's. Incidently, I will get back to Mantle a little later, but for now, let's go with Mays. Mays had a long career. Once again, in 1955, he hit 51 HRs. Ten years later, in 1965, he hit 52. So, his great seasons lasted for many years. How about Aaron? In 1957 he hit 44 HRs. In 1973, and well past his peak, he hit 40 in 392 ABs. He faced pitchers like Robin Roberts, Warren Spahn, Don Newcombe, and many other great hurlers in the 50's. He also faced Koufax, Gibson, Marichal, and Seaver in the 60's. And, in the 70's, he faced Carlton, Palmer, and even Ryan.

Ryan is the next "bridge." He pitched for 27 years, and in FOUR decades. In the early 70's, he was clocked (by a SLOW radar gun) at 101 MPH, in the eighth inning of a game in which he had thrown 162 pitches. His very LAST pitch, in the early 90's, and on an injured arm, was clocked at 98!

BTW, I mentioned a SLOW gun. Here is an interesting article about Ryan's speed... and it might actually have been as high as 108 MPH...

http://www.efastball.com/baseball/stats/fastest-pitch-speed-in-major-leagues/

Oh, and BTW, how about the name of Steve Dalkowski? He never made it the major's, but he was pitching in the 1950's and 60's. Just take a moment and read this article...

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


Estimates of Dalkowski's top pitching speed abound. Cal Ripken Sr. guessed that he threw up to 115 miles per hour (185 km/h).[18

Back to Ryan. While we know that Ryan was a great pitcher, and for many years, he was seldom the best in his era. There were spectacular seasons turned in by Ron Guidry and Doc Gooden, among others. Furthermore, as hard as Ryan threw (and he may have been the fastes of all time), there were MANY pitchers that threw hard long before him. Koufax reportedly was clocked at 98 MPH in the mid-60's...and after he had SLOWED down his fastball to control it. Back in the 30's and 40's, Bob Feller was throwing nearly 100 MPH. And, think about this...as hard as Feller was throwing, hw didn't have the K/9 IP that many of the pitchers of today do. In other words, even with his blinding fastball, the players of his era were hitting him. Before him it was rumored that Walter Johnson was probably close to 100 MPH in the "dead ball" era.

Ok, so we have basically covered the Williams thru the Ryan eras...or from the 30's thru the 90's...and there were MANY great players. Williams was certainly among the best, but he played against guys like Aaron, Mays, and Mantle...all of whom were as great, or nearly as great.

We have covered the hard-throwers, but how about the power-hitters? Certainly the players of TODAY hit the ball much farther, right? I recall reading an article in SI about five years ago. The writer claimed that Barry Bonds' LONGEST measured HR was 490 ft. Interesting...Reggie Jackson's HR in the '71 All-Star game may have still been rising at that distance. BTW, Jackson would clear that wall in 1984. Lou Brock, of all people, hit a HR in the Polo Grounds that cleared the 505 ft. sign. Furthermore, there were many power hitters that were hitting tape measure shots back then. 6-8 250 lb. Frank Howard, Harmon Killebrew, Willie McCovey, and Willie Stargell to name just a few.

But the most powerful HR hitter of all-time? I will submit a player that was all of 5-11, and 195 lbs. Not only that, but he was hitting "tape measure" HRs from BOTH sides of the plate. In fact, the term "tape measure home runs" was coined after him.

Mickey Mantle hit MANY HRs over 500 ft.

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


Mantle also hit some of the longest home runs in Major League history. On September 10, 1960, he hit a ball left-handed that cleared the right-field roof at Tiger Stadium in Detroit and, based on where it was found, was estimated years later by historian Mark Gallagher to have traveled 643 feet (196 m). Another Mantle homer, hit right-handed off Chuck Stobbs at Griffith Stadium in Washington, D.C. on April 17, 1953, was measured by Yankees traveling secretary Red Patterson (hence the term "tape-measure home run") to have traveled 565 feet (172 m). Though it is apparent that they are actually the distances where the balls ended up after bouncing several times,[4] there is no doubt that they both landed more than 500 feet (152 m) from home plate. Mantle twice hit balls off the third-deck facade at Yankee Stadium, nearly becoming the only player (along with Negro Leagues star Josh Gibson, though Gibson's home run has never been conclusively verified) to hit a fair ball out of the stadium during a game. On May 22, 1963, against Kansas City's Bill Fischer, Mantle hit a ball that fellow players and fans claimed was still rising when it hit the 110-foot (34 m) high facade, then caromed back onto the playing field. It was later estimated by some that the ball could have traveled 620 feet (190 m) had it not been blocked by the ornate and distinctive facade. While physicists might question those estimates, on August 12, 1964, he hit one whose distance was undoubted: a center field drive that cleared the 22-foot (6.7 m) batter's eye screen, beyond the 461-foot (141 m) marker at the Stadium.



As amazing as those numbers are, how about this link...

http://www.themick.com/10homers.html

Ok, now, after all of that, is it still laughable to presume that Babe Ruth would be a GREAT player today? Incidently, Ruth reportedly swung a 42 ounce bat. Try to swing one if you can even find one. Furthermore, can you imagine what players of yesteryear could accomplish with all of the benefits of modern technology.

Now, we have covered baseball...on to football...

[jlauber]

Continuing...

I already admitted that the average football player of TODAY, is considerably bigger than those of 50+ years ago. And I will be the first to admit that the AVERAGE NFL player of today is faster than those of 20-30-40-50 years ago. However, are TODAY's football players the fastest?

Let's start with another "bridge." Darrell Green played from 1983 to 2002. At his fastest, he was clocked at 10.08 in the 100 meters. Remember that number. Now, you can dispute hand-held 40 yard times if you like, but Green had some downright ridiculous one's. There was even one at 4.09. In any case, Green won the "NFL's fastest man" competition FOUR times. Furthermore, at age 40 he was clocked eletronically at a 4.35.

How about Bo Jackson in the 80's, He was a WORLD-CLASS 60 meter man. AND, he has the fastest recorded time at the NFL combine ever, of 4.13.

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


he won the 1985 Heisman Trophy, the prize annually awarded to the most outstanding collegiate football player in the United States. He also reportedly ran a hand-timed 4.13 40 yard dash, still considered the fastest verifiable 40 time at an NFL Combine.

Deion Sanders was timed at 4.18 in the 40.

Before him, there was Hershel Walker, who reportedly ran a 10.1 100 meters in the early 80's. And before him were players like Cliff Branch and Mel Gray who were running 9.2 100 yard dash times (or probably around 10.2 in the 100 meters.) Back in the 60's OJ Simpson was part of USC's STILL world-record holding 4x100 yard relay team (I know, it is a little deceptive, since there have been teams in the last few years that ran a faster 4x100 meters.) In any case, OJ was a 9.3 or 9.4 sprinter in the 100 yards. And, players like Henry Childs and Travis Williams were running 9.3's in the 60's as well.

However, the FASTEST NFL player EVER? I will submit Bob Hayes, who played in the 60's, and was a LEGITIMATE HOF NFL player. (My god, the man AVERAGED 42 yards on his 76 career TD's.) He ran a 10.0 100 meters in the mid-60's! There has NEVER been a LEGITIMATE NFL player (not some two-bit track star that got cut, but legitimate) who has run a faster 100 meters.

Furthermore, as big as the players of today are, there were huge athletes back in the 60's. Buck Buchanon was 6-9 285 lbs. Ernie Ladd was over 300 lbs. And how about Jim Brown, who was 6-2 and 230 lbs back then (and a 9.6 sprinter)?

Ok, that was a much more brief look at the football players of today, compared to those of yesteryear...

Next up, basketball. But it will be a little later...I have to run for now...

[PHILA]

Furthermore, at age 40 he was clocked eletronically at a 4.35.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gWL-Oafx2w

He ran a 4.2 at age 40 and 4.4 at age 50 this year. :applause:

[aau]

"choker" is too harsh imo

"loser" "underachiever" are more apt

per the average height of his opponents , , here's a list of
all star bigs beginning with wilt's 69-70 rookie season

WILT 7'1 275

russell 6'9 215
wdukes 7'0 220
w embry 6'8 240
lovellette 6'9 234

1962

bellamy 6'11 225
red kerr 6'9 230
larusso 6'7 220

1965

zelmo 6'9 225
w reed 6'9 235
w unseld 6'7 245
thurmond 6'11 225

1970

kareem 7'2 225
e hayes 6'9 235

1972

lanier 6'11 250
cowens 6'9 230

.

wasn't a height issue . . . these cats lacked
the size and ability to compete with wilt

who was far ahead of his time . . . .

[G.O.A.T]

"choker" is too harsh imo

"loser" "underachiever" are more apt

per the average height of his opponents , , here's a list of
all star bigs beginning with wilt's 69-70 rookie season

WILT 7'1 275

russell 6'9 215
wdukes 7'0 220
w embry 6'8 240
lovellette 6'9 234

1962

bellamy 6'11 225
red kerr 6'9 230
larusso 6'7 220

1965

zelmo 6'9 225
w reed 6'9 235
w unseld 6'7 245
thurmond 6'11 225

1970

kareem 7'2 225
e hayes 6'9 235

1972

lanier 6'11 250
cowens 6'9 230

.

wasn't a height issue . . . these cats lacked
the size and ability to compete with wilt

who was far ahead of his time . . . .

Your premise isn't totally flawed, but you need to do a lot more research. You got guys on the list who weren't centers, heights and weights wrong and a 18 year old Wes Unseld included in 1965 though he'd never even played a varsity college game yet.

[jlauber]

"choker" is too harsh imo

"loser" "underachiever" are more apt

per the average height of his opponents , , here's a list of
all star bigs beginning with wilt's 69-70 rookie season

WILT 7'1 275

russell 6'9 215
wdukes 7'0 220
w embry 6'8 240
lovellette 6'9 234

1962

bellamy 6'11 225
red kerr 6'9 230
larusso 6'7 220

1965

zelmo 6'9 225
w reed 6'9 235
w unseld 6'7 245
thurmond 6'11 225

1970

kareem 7'2 225
e hayes 6'9 235

1972

lanier 6'11 250
cowens 6'9 230

.

wasn't a height issue . . . these cats lacked
the size and ability to compete with wilt

who was far ahead of his time . . . .

Interesting...

Here is a list of some of the players Chamberlain faced in his career. And, by the way, there is YouTube footage of Chamberlain easily outplaying 7-2 Artis Gilmore in the '71-72 NBA-ABA All-Star game...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1R6UI738MI&NR=1

There is also a story told by Kiki Vandewege, who witnessed Chamberlain overpowering 7-4 Mark Eaton in a ummer league game in the mid-80's, and when Wilt was in his mid-40's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Qw1-ssViw

But, back to that that list...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100727234728AAZxTUR


Two of the NBA's greatest players, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, are often criticized for playing in a "weak" era. This is far from the truth, as the 1960s were a very good time for basketball. A much smaller league meant more competition for fewer spots. The fact that only the 121 best basketball players in the world could play in the NBA condensed the talent pool to nine teams. In the modern NBA, over half of the teams don't even have one all star player, nevertheless hall of famers. Examining the teams in the mid 1960s, all nine of them had Hall of Fame talents:

Boston Celtics: Bill Russell, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, Tommy Heinsolm
Cincinnati Royals: Oscar Robertson, Jerry Lucas
Philadelphia 76ers: Hal Greer
New York Knicks: Willis Reed
San Francisco Warriors: Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond
St. Louis Hawks: Bob Pettit
Los Angeles Lakers: Jerry West, Elgin Baylor
Detroit Pistons: David Bing, Dave Debusschere
Baltimore Bullets: Walt Bellamy

Russell and Chamberlain faced various legends on a nightly basis, yet still were known as the best players of their generation. Throughout the decade, the two were subject to strong competition Some of the great players Russell and Chamberlain faced included:

1960-1964:
Dolph Schayes
Bob Pettit
Walt Bellamy
Jerry Lucas

1965-1968:
Willis Reed
Elvin Hayes
Wes Unseld
Nate Thurmond

1969-1972:
Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Bob Lanier
Artis Gilmore
Billy Cunningham
Dave Cowens

One reason fans tend to lash out at these legends is the absurd stats of not only Russell and Chamberlain, but average players as well, as it was not uncommon for a player to average 15-20 rebounds per game. There are several reasons for the high rebound rates of these players:

a. A high tempo offense. The average team in 1965 shot about 600 more shots than a team in 1985 and about 1400 more shots than a team in 2005.

b. Less fouls called. In 1965, the average team had 2076 personal fouls per season. In 2005, 1856 personal fouls were called. But keep in mind that 1400 more shots were attempted, yet only 200 less fouls called. The result, a lowing field goal percentage, and more shots allowed to be rebounded.

When adjusting the field goal percentage to 45% and reducing the shots taken to the normal rate today, the rebounding rate drops to a more familiar rate for most players. Elgin Baylor would dropped to around 9 boards a game and Nate Thurmond to around 12. However, both Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, even with the adjusted stats, still averaged between 16-20 rebounds per game, showing that they truly did dominate like few others.

Another common misperception is that Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain played against only 6'6" white centers. That is completely false. Here are the NBA players from 1960-1972 6'11" or taller who played at least 3 years in the NBA: (list does not include Wilt Chamberlain)

Kareem Abdul Jabbar: 7'2"
Dennis Awtrey: 6'11"
Walt Bellamy: 6'11"
Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0"
Nate Bowmen: 6'11"
Mel Counts: 7'0"
Walter Dukes: 7'0"
Jim Eakins: 6'11"
Ray Felix: 6'11"
Hank Finkel: 7'0"
Artis Gilmore: 7'2"
Swede Halbrook: 7'3"
Reggie Harding: 7'0"
Bob Lanier: 6'11"
Jim McDaniels: 6'11"
Otto Moore: 6'11"
Dave Newmark: 7'0"
Rich Niemann: 7'0"
Billy Paultz: 6'11"
Craig Raymond: 6'11"
Elmore Smith: 7'0"
Chuck Share: 6'11"
Ronald Taylor: 7'1"
Nate Thurmond: 6'11"
Walt Wesley: 6'11"



Also, regarding Russell, who was really 6-10, was that he was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper (he was ranked 7th in the WORLD in 1957), ...AND, there was a post here recently which stated that Russell had a higher standing reach than 7-2 Kareem (so does anyone really believe that Russell would not have been able to defend Kareem?)

Regarding standing reach...even Wilt admitted that Thurmond had him by an inch or so.

Furthermore, how many "great" players have been 7-3+? Virtually NONE. As for "all-star" centers in the 60's...there were only 9-10 teams...and Wilt and Russell tied up two of the four slots almost every year. BTW, how many taller centers would Ben Wallace (who was nowhere near as skilled as Russell) beaten out in the NBA if the league had only had 9-10 teams in the mid-00's?

Also, are we going to say that the ONLY reason that Shaq dominated in the NBA was that he was the ONLY 350 lb. player? Do we ignore his athleticism just as you ignore not only Wilt's, but Russell's, Thurmond's, Kareem's, and so many other GREAT centers of the 60's and 70's.

Furthermore, in Wilt's 65-66 season, when he scored 33.5 on a then record .540 FG% (and a year later shattered that with a .683 mark), there were nine teams with centers like Bellamy, Russell, Thurmond, Reed, ...all in the HOF, as well as Beatty (an all-star), and quality centers like Dierking, Counts, and Imhoff...centers who could shoot,(unlike some of the centers of the 00's.) So, Wilt was facing these centers 9 times each a year, not counting the playoffs.

As for Wilt being a "loser", I have never seen anyone here that would consider Olajuwon a "loser." Hakeem played in the NBA and won two rings. Wilt played in the NBA 14 seasons, and won two rings. But, not only that, Hakeem was part of EIGHT first-round playoff exits. Now, who was the bigger "loser?"

I also read about Bird the "winner", or Bird the "clutch" player here too. PLEASE! Bird played with loaded rosters in the 80's, and had three rings. And that doesn't even begin to take into account just how much more DOMINANT Wilt was in not only the regular season, but in the POST-SEASON. Wilt was a MUCH bigger player in the clutch and in the post-season than Bird ever was. Bird actually had some mediocre Finals, and some even worse playoff series. He also shot much lower than the LEAGUE AVERAGE in terms of FG% in the post-season, and as bad as that was, he was even WORSE in his five Finals (he NEVER even shot 50% in any of his Finals, and had Finals of .488, .481, .449, .445, and .419.) He was not nearly the scorer, nowhere near the rebounder, and not even in the same galaxy in terms of defensive impact. And Wilt was a better passer. How many assist titles did Bird ever win?

Ok, back to my take on basketball from the 60's to today...

[G.O.A.T]

I would say Wilt had a slightly greater physical advantage over his competition than guys like Shaq and Kareem. Kareem's advantage was part tactical and part physical in that he had a shot that could never be blocked by a man unless he was near or over 7'0" and had great athleticism and timing. Shaq's was pure power, but in his era there was a greater emphasis on bulk and weight lifting which resulted in more 240-260 post players than in the 1970's and 60's when most 4's were 210-225 and 5's 220-245.

Still all three have one common characteristic and that is that officials allowed players to foul these three on every possession essentially just to make it "fair".

Still the notion that Wilt or any player from the post-shot clock era dominated an NBA filed with 6'7" white stiffs is so far from the truth or anything resembling it, it should just be ignored.

[aau]

Your premise isn't totally flawed, but you need to do a lot more research. You got guys on the list who weren't centers, heights and weights wrong and a 18 year old Wes Unseld included in 1965 though he'd never even played a varsity college game yet.
no premise . . . just the facts as per basketball-reference

those are the bigs that made the all star game that decade
if there were other bigs , obviously they weren't good
enough to make ASG , thus requiring no mention
however i did leave off one guy , , clyde lee
6'11 200

as for unseld , he was listed in the 65-70 section

didn't think i needed to spell it out

[PHILA]

To quote from another forum:




Opposing Centers

The big names against whom Wilt played a lot were:

Bill Russell, Walt Bellamy, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Spencer Haywood (during the last 3 years of his career, Spencer's 3 best years), he got 80 games of Bob McAdoo as a rookie and a dose of healthy Bob Lanier (Lanier's first three seasons, all 80+ games played).

Bells was at least 6'11, 250 and was drafted only two years after Wilt. Forget about Walter Dukes, worry about the 31+ ppg Bells dropped as a rookie. Yes, he was really only dominant for his first five years, but he was still an important and significant player thereafter.

And yeah, Kareem was a player during the last 4 years of Wilt's career (though Wilt only played 12 regular season games in Kareem's rookie year). Still, that includes Kareem's 3 best scoring seasons and two of his three best rebounding seasons.

Oh yes, and Cowens was there for the last 3 years of Wilt's career as well.

Wilt had competition and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Yes, some of it didn't enter into the league until later in his career but you'll notice that while he didn't score as much as he did as a younger guy, his efficiency skyrocketed, his rebounding wasn't affected and he became a deadly passer while retaining his reputation for outstanding defense.

The inclusion of competition (much of it with significant size, such as Kareem, Lanier, etc) did NOTHING to affect his ability to impact the game at an elite level.

So arguing that Wilt's competition were all 6'7 white guys is not only wrong, but pointless.

For the sake of argument, let's break it down by year:

59-60 Bill Russell, Dolph Schayes, Red Kerr, Charlie Tyra, Willie Nauls, Ray Felix, Clyde Lovelette, Walter Dukes, Phil Jordon
60-61
61-62 Walt Bellamy,
62-63
63-64 Nate Thurmond*
64-65 Willis Reed
65-66
66-67 Reggie Harding, Joe Strawler, Walt Wesley, Leroy Ellis, Mel Counts, Darrall Imhoff
67-68
68-69 Wes Unseld
69-70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
70-71 Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier
71-72
72-73
72-73

* Thurmond and Wilt played together for their first two years, so I guess 65-66 is when they really became "competitors."

There were certainly shorter guys in the NBA in his earliest days but then, he also played Bill Russell and the others more often because the league was smaller.

So here, we've covered the standard argument.

But let's take this a little further, let's look at the average height of your generally NBA starting center in 1995, 2000 and 2008.

1995:

The entire Atlantic division had someone at least 7'0 tall starting more games at the 5 than any other player, including Shaq, Ewing, Montross, Willis, Benoit Benjamin, Shawn Bradley and Gheorge Muresan.

And Shaq, a physically imposing presence, still managed 29.3 ppg on 58.3% shooting over 20.2 FGA/g because the defense, despite the increase in height over previous eras, was insignificant. Shawn Bradley was a rag, Muresan couldn't move, Benoit Benjamin wasn't special and even good players like Ewing couldn't touch him. Shaq at this stage of his career was still under 315 pounds. Montross and Willis weren't really significant barriers either.

Wilt wasn't as heavy as Shaq but was ridiculously strong and considerably more skilled; there was nothing in the Atlantic division that would have been any more difficult than what he dealt with in his own career and plenty less than some of the other guys Wilt faced later in his career when he'd bulked up and slowed down a bit.

There were 3 legit 7-footers starting in the Central division and that's only if you count the 32 starts that Alton Lister had for the Bucks (that was more than anyone else at that spot and even if you don't ignore Vin Baker, who was only 6'11). They were Rik Smits and Will Perdue. I dare you to say anything about either. The division included Alonzo Mourning, of course, who didn't suck, but you're still not discussing anything that Wilt hadn't seen before in terms of defensive package and such.

In the Mid-West, you're talking about 34 starts out of Felton Spencer, David Robinson and Dikembe Mutombo as the seven-footers. You had a tiny guy (Lorenzo Williams, IIRC, about 6'9), some guys near the right height (including Olajuwon, of whom Wilt spoke highly).

The Pacific division was even worse; the only legit 7-footer was Divac and, like the Central division, there wasn't a soul with a prayer of guarding Wilt.

So, in '95, there were 27 teams in the league and of those teams, there were a fairly pedestrian 4 7-footers who could have really done anything against Wilt and only three of those were also offensive threats (Mutombo basically taking the Thurmond role, only less offense and more defense). There were two other guys (Mourning and Olajuwon) who looked similar in terms of height differential to Wilt's competition of the time.

Now, notice something...

What I'm saying about Wilt applies also to Shaquille O'neal, who was the same height as Wilt and, at the time, as heavy as Wilt was at his peak (and, for the 95-96 season and on, at least 15 pounds heavier than even that... the weight differential grew with time, of course).

So anyone who wants to make the argument that height is at ALL meaningful to what Wilt achieved needs to wonder how much Shaq padded his stats against teams that started, say.... Bo Outlaw or Tony Massenburg on any given night. Or Lorenzo Williams. Or BUCK Williams. Or AC Green. Or any random stiff who was just tall, of which there were PLENTY in the league at that time.

Let's put to bed height as a valid argument, hey?

When Wilt hit the league, he had competition. In his earliest years, his league was only 8 teams large and the proportion of competition represented that. There were perhaps 2 guys in the league who gave him a lot of trouble, so about a quarter of the teams in the league threw someone at him 12 times that gave him some trouble (Russell and Bells, mostly).

In the NBA of 1995, there were 5 guys of that type, 6 if you generously include Mutombo.

5 guys would be 17% of the league; 6 guys would be 20% of the league.

The proportion of significant competition had actually DECLINED by this period, suggesting that the exploits of players such as Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq, Mourning, Ewing, etc were all inflated by a lower proportion of competition despite a significant peak in centers... a peak not unlike what Wilt would experience during his own career.

Now we fast forward to 2000, with two MORE teams in the league.

The significant players to consider are Mourning, what remained of Ewing (he was a 15/10 player at this point), Theo Ratliff (who posed no offensive threat), Shaq, David Robinson (steeply into his decline), Tim Duncan, and then Arvydas Sabonis (but he was old, injured and couldn't guard Shaq either). So really, scratch Sabonis, because Wilt was even MORE mobile. You could try to put 'Sheed on him but that wouldn't have worked either.

So again, you're talking about Mourning, Ewing, Shaq, Duncan instead of Robinson and that's it. In a 29-team league, that's down to 4 guys, representing just under 14% representation of significant competition. If you feel especially frisky, you can add Kevin Garnett to the list to bring it up to 17% or so. Garnett was a long, rangy defender but he would have gotten badly outpowered by Wilt, especially at that stage of his career because he hadn't finished filling out/bulking up yet. Webber never defended anyone and Karl Malone didn't have a prayer for guarding Wilt any more than did the strong 6'9 players of Wilt's own era. The PFs of the time didn't really stand a chance.

Flash forward to 2008 and 30 teams.

The only guys who would be of any significant offensive threat to him would be Yao Ming, Dwight Howard, Amare Stoudemire and Tim Duncan. Actually, you can probably look at Al Jefferson and Andrew Bynum, as well as Chris Kaman.


But Amare certainly doesn't stand a chance at defending Wilt; remember, this is a guy who gets ruined by Rasheed Wallace, he's not actually a competent defender 4 out of 5 nights. Kaman doesn't stand a chance either and his offense would be problematic against someone with the sort of size and mobility possessed by Wilt. And Bynum... is unproven as a primary option, heavily reliant on the triangle action and playing off Kobe. How he'd react to someone larger, stronger and a lot more athletic than he would be interesting.

So sticking with that first list, the guys that posed some notable threat to Wilt make a list 4 long, 6 if you're generous. That means you're looking at about 13-20% as your proportion for competitive players.

[PHILA]

And that's AGAIN lower than what Wilt had even in the early portions of his career and that includes me ignoring good players who were under 6'10 or who aren't commonly discussed and thus have no reputation amongst younger posters.

Ultimately, height is nothing more than the argument of the petulant who refuse to accept that Wilt was a dominant player and would remain so today. Even at the peak of the center in modern times, proportional competition did not match the days of old and there were some absolutely spectacular centers during Wilt's career and against whom Wilt did not falter.

* * * *

Now, something else people don't like to talk about; what about Jordan's average height advantage?

Or did we forget that Jordan was projected as a small forward coming out of North Carolina and prefer to ignore that he generally enjoyed a noticeable height advantage against his competition as well?

Between 84-85 and 97-98, just how many large guards were there? Remember, small forwards generally don't count because he had the aid of Scottie Pippen for the bulk of his career in Chicago.

I'm not going to treat this in further depth because I'm lazy, but when the big names of the mid/late 80s and the 90s come up at the 2-guard, of whom do you think?

The top scorers from the guard position during Jordan's Chicago career (84-85 through 97-98) and who played at least 600 games in this time-frame:

Michael Jordan 31.5
Mitch Richmond 23.1
Clyde Drexler 21.5
Magic Johnson 20.4
Reggie Miller 19.7
Jeff Malone 19.7
Tim Hardaway 19.6
Isiah Thomas 18.8
Reggie Theus 18.5
Rolando Blackman 18.0
Kevin Johnson 18.0

Then it drops off into players like Dale Ellis, hersey Hawkins, Joe Dumars, Gary Payton, Ricky Pierce, Kendall Gill, etc, etc.

If you look at guys who played 300+ games, you get Latrell Sprewell and Penny Hardaway.

Obviously, Payton's average in that timeframe is a bit skewed by the low-scoring days of the earliest portions of his career, so we should adjust to remember that he was a 20-24 ppg All-Star, a DPOY, center of a team dynamic with Kemp, blah blah. But he was also 2 inches shorter than Jordan.

Now, let's take out the PGs. Bye, bye Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway and Isiah Thomas (all of whom were at most 6'2). That leaves Magic (whom Jordan faced at most twice a year except in 90-91), Richmond (who was 6'5), Reggie (who was a skinny punk who couldn't D up on MJ), Jeff Malone (6'4), Reggie Theus (6'7) and Rolando Blackman (6'6).

Now, how many of those guys were truly dynamic scorers and/or really good defenders?

Cooper was gone by the time the 90s started and Alvin Robertson was never a very good scorer. Payton's there, Theus was a dynamic offensive talent (if problematic in various ways), Drexler was extremely versatile but who else, you know? The talent pool at the 2 was a lot less diverse for Jordan than was the center pool for Chamberlain.

Iverson didn't get drafted until 1996, Kobe and McGrady weren't anything special until after Jordan retired, Magic was gone after 90-91, Drexler and Payton were out West...

So where was the nightly competition for Jordan?

Jordan was outstanding, don't get me wrong. He very much deserves to be mentioned in the top 5 and in the GOAT argument, I just want to make it abundantly clear that arguing height and competition (especially in Jordan vs. Wilt) is irrational and supports neither side because it is a patently ridiculous oversimplification of the facts.

* * * * *

Ultimately, what this argument comes down to is big over small.

Wilt was a nasty volume scorer but Jordan was better at the line.

Jordan was a great defender but a great big defender (like Wilt) will ALWAYS be more valuable than a wing defender of comparable talent. Wilt's rebounding is something that Jordan could never match and Wilt has the most prolific passing years of any center in NBA history. He was a master at both low- and high-post passing (though specific high-post guys like Walton, Russell and Kareem enter the discussion if you focus on the motion offense and such). Wilt routinely took over games offensively, dominated in other ways in which Jordan could not, etc, etc.

I think in any case made for Jordan, you have to somehow overcome the overwhelming potency of Wilt's ability to play lots of minutes in almost every game of the season for about as long as Jordan played for the Bulls.

Remember, in his 14 years, Wilt played in 1,045 of 1,148 games. He played 80+ games 9 times and averaged 45.8 mpg in the regular season, averaging over 47 mpg in 160 playoff games as well. He kept his defensive and rebounding efficacy as he grew older and even overcame a fairly significant knee injury when he was 33. It limited him to 12 regular season games but he played in 17 playoff games that year and then played in 82 games for each of his final three years. Durability despite heavy minutes logged is something to consider, especially given the impact he was able to exert in that timeframe in terms of rebounding and defense.

DrawF? He was immensely effective at putting pressure on opposition frontcourts, too; Jordan drew fouls at 0.356 FTA/FGA, which is pretty good for a wing... and pretty terrible for a big, something like an Al Jefferson or a Zach Randolph. Wilt drew at about 0.50 FTA/FGA. So you're talking about a guy who's got the ability (partially because of the nature of his game) to draw loads of fouls, moreso than Jordan. And while MJ was obviously a vastly superior free throw shooter and would have scored more points per game off of those FTAs, Wilt had the Shaq effect, where he could sabotage a team's gameplan by putting their entire frontcourt into foul trouble, limiting their effectiveness for the rest of the game or outright removing them from the game more frequently than could Jordan manage himself.

More to the point, it's infinitely easier to build a contender around a dominant big guy... it's the path you see taken with a lot of championship teams.

FWIW, check out some of the biggest names in NBA centers:

Bill Russell 11 titles
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 6 titles
Wilt 2 titles, Finals appearances with Philadelphia, Los Angeles and San Francisco
Hakeem 2 titles
Shaq 4 titles, Finals appearances with Orlando, Los Angeles and Miami

Wilt consistently led his team to contention and failed primarily when he ran into the superior Boston squads built around Bill Russell. The point remains, however, that he took three different teams to the Finals, teams built different ways with him filling different roles. Jordan, however, is an outlier in basketball. He had a very specific team built around him, a very difficult one to replicate in later eras (while the ability of a big man to remain the centerpiece has remained uch less difficult to emulate).

So in terms of his ability to translate across eras, you definitely have to penalize Jordan. In the 60s, Jordan might have been Jerry West, perennially turned away in the Finals by the Celtics. In the 90s/00s, Wilt might have been Shaq, enjoying a three-peat and maybe more on account of his superior defense and rebounding.

It's all speculative but if you're talking about who's the greatest, there are many angles to consider. Wilt has Jordan's number for statistical dominance but could not benefit from the sort of defensive recognition he deserved because All-Defensive squads didn't exist until late in his career (though he was All-Defensive First Team in his final season).

Despite radically altering his game mid-career, Wilt still held a comparable hold on the league in terms of scoring titles and has records Jordan never approached there, and as a rebounder... and he did things outside of his position better than did Jordan; such as Wilt leading the league in total assists one year while coming in 2nd in APG. He was top 10 in total assists 3 times over a four-year span (4th, skip a year, 7th and 3rd before finally leading the league to get his third consecutive top-10 finish).

Even if you ignore the entertaining Wilt lore that floats around, there is but one arena in which Jordan exhibits superiority to Wilt (well, two, since he has one more MVP but that's hardly a big deal since Wilt has 4 and is one of a select few to win three in a row): championships.

And since Wilt has two championships and won them in different ways, on different teams and faced competition earlier in his career the likes of into which Jordan never ran, I think it's hardly fair to draw upon that as a factor of any value.

But even if you penalize Wilt for that, I think he still comes out ahead on account of the fact that you go big over small. Jordan may be the guy who generally bucks that trend but Wilt is the guy who brings it back.

[PHILA]

just the facts as per basketball-reference
Same site that has Charles Oakley listed at 225 lbs & LeBron at 240 lbs?

[G.O.A.T]

no premise . . . just the facts as per basketball-reference

those are the bigs that made the all star game that decade
if there were other bigs , obviously they weren't good
enough to make ASG , thus requiring no mention
however i did leave off one guy , , clyde lee
6'11 200

as for unseld , he was listed in the 65-70 section

didn't think i needed to spell it out

By premise I meant Wilt having a physical advantage over his competition.

As for your list, that's the part I thought was flawed, because guys like Wayne Embry weighed closer to 280 pounds. Russell was usually listed at 6'10" and just like today, a number of teams had specific guys who would guard the leagues best centers, guys who weren't all-stars but did that well.

Other than the 1990's, I can't think of a decade where there was more than one or two all-star centers who were 7'0" or taller. I could be wrong, but the 70's had smaller centers, the 80's was sporadic and Moses was short. This last decade has been Shaq, Duncan and little else.

Anyway I was confused by Unseld because he and Hayes were in the same draft class, but in different groups.

[aau]

Interesting...

Here is a list of some of the players Chamberlain faced in his career. And, by the way, there is YouTube footage of Chamberlain easily outplaying 7-2 Artis Gilmore in the '71-72 NBA-ABA All-Star game...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1R6UI738MI&NR=1

There is also a story told by Kiki Vandewege, who witnessed Chamberlain overpowering 7-4 Mark Eaton in a ummer league game in the mid-80's, and when Wilt was in his mid-40's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Qw1-ssViw

But, back to that that list...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100727234728AAZxTUR



Also, regarding Russell, who was really 6-10, was that he was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper (he was ranked 7th in the WORLD in 1957), ...AND, there was a post here recently which stated that Russell had a higher standing reach than 7-2 Kareem (so does anyone really believe that Russell would not have been able to defend Kareem?)

Regarding standing reach...even Wilt admitted that Thurmond had him by an inch or so.

Furthermore, how many "great" players have been 7-3+? Virtually NONE. As for "all-star" centers in the 60's...there were only 9-10 teams...and Wilt and Russell tied up two of the four slots almost every year. BTW, how many taller centers would Ben Wallace (who was nowhere near as skilled as Russell) beaten out in the NBA if the league had only had 9-10 teams in the mid-00's?

Also, are we going to say that the ONLY reason that Shaq dominated in the NBA was that he was the ONLY 350 lb. player? Do we ignore his athleticism just as you ignore not only Wilt's, but Russell's, Thurmond's, Kareem's, and so many other GREAT centers of the 60's and 70's.

Furthermore, in Wilt's 65-66 season, when he scored 33.5 on a then record .540 FG% (and a year later shattered that with a .683 mark), there were nine teams with centers like Bellamy, Russell, Thurmond, Reed, ...all in the HOF, as well as Beatty (an all-star), and quality centers like Dierking, Counts, and Imhoff...centers who could shoot,(unlike some of the centers of the 00's.) So, Wilt was facing these centers 9 times each a year, not counting the playoffs.

As for Wilt being a "loser", I have never seen anyone here that would consider Olajuwon a "loser." Hakeem played in the NBA and won two rings. Wilt played in the NBA 14 seasons, and won two rings. But, not only that, Hakeem was part of EIGHT first-round playoff exits. Now, who was the bigger "loser?"

I also read about Bird the "winner", or Bird the "clutch" player here too. PLEASE! Bird played with loaded rosters in the 80's, and had three rings. And that doesn't even begin to take into account just how much more DOMINANT Wilt was in not only the regular season, but in the POST-SEASON. Wilt was a MUCH bigger player in the clutch and in the post-season than Bird ever was. Bird actually had some mediocre Finals, and some even worse playoff series. He also shot much lower than the LEAGUE AVERAGE in terms of FG% in the post-season, and as bad as that was, he was even WORSE in his five Finals (he NEVER even shot 50% in any of his Finals, and had Finals of .488, .481, .449, .445, and .419.) He was not nearly the scorer, nowhere near the rebounder, and not even in the same galaxy in terms of defensive impact. And Wilt was a better passer. How many assist titles did Bird ever win?

Ok, back to my take on basketball from the 60's to today...
iirc , , , wilt retired in 73

who cares that he faced gilmore on his way out

why no response to the clowns he faced earlier in his career when
he was posting rediculous numbers which is all you ever care
about . . . he sure as hell didn't hang 48/30 on artis

lmao
summer league vs mark eaton . . . you killin me

nobody in their right mind would consider hakeem a loser
you comparing wilt's 2 to hakeem's . . . repeat fmvp
vs a ring in 67 and another in a diff decade for
which he wasn't named fmvp . . . . . really?

come on man , , , , , , you reaching as usual with these
lame ass excuses . . . . shaq faced far more quality
bigs than wilt and he won . . . . . . . . no doubt
smits mutumbo and mccullough sounds more
like a law firm than a formidable opponent
but i seriously doubt i need to list the
centers that shaq faced thru out

now you want to bang on bird . . . how is this relevant
he won 3 titles during the greatest era in L history
there's no limit to the number of players you'd
shit on on wilt's behalf . . . . . that's sad

could care less about league fg% avg
how is that relevant to wilt literally
playing against a band of scrubs
just more excuses from you

as usual

[aau]

Same site that has Charles Oakley listed at 225 lbs & LeBron at 240 lbs?
i'm sure you have a more reputable site of reference

why don't you list the actuals

[ThaRegul8r]

nobody in their right mind would consider hakeem a loser
you comparing wilt's 2 to hakeem's . . . repeat fmvp
vs a ring in 67 and another in a diff decade for
which he wasn't named fmvp . . . . . really?

Actually, Wilt WAS FMVP in the course of "that ring in a different decade." Check your facts first.


shaq faced far more quality
bigs than wilt and he won . . . . . . . . no doubt
smits mutumbo and mccullough sounds more
like a law firm than a formidable opponent
but i seriously doubt i need to list the
centers that shaq faced thru out

I posted this over two years ago:

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226

I hate misinformation, regardless of who says it, regardless of what the agenda is.

[PHILA]

i'm sure you have a more reputable site of reference

why don't you list the actuals

Basketball reference is inconsistent, plus player weights were not updated beyond college. Walt Bellamy at 225 on that site.


The Spokesman-Review - Aug 12, 1960 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EDRWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=z-cDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1834,3749152&dq)

"Bellamy must weigh at least 260 pounds," estimated Ex-West Virginia center Lloyd Sharrar, now with the Pipers. "What a man."


The Press-Courier - Apr 12, 1970 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8mRLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lSMNAAAAIBAJ&pg=1830,2899284&dq)

Guerin also plans to match Chamberlain with the Hawks two big men, starting center Walt Bellamy (6-11 and 265 pounds)



Luke Jackson is listed on BBall Reference at 240 lbs. In '68 he reported at 272 lbs.


Sports Illustrated - October 21, 1968 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1081713/2/index.htm)

Jackson tends to put on weight. He came in at 272 when Ramsay had been hoping for 240, but the extra pounds may serve big Luke well in the middle. He is no novice there, anyway. In pre-Chamberlain days the 76ers twice beat the Celtics, with Jackson battling Russell underneath.




Shaq is listed on Bball reference at 325 lbs. Late in the '02 season, he was rumored to be 382 lbs and looked a lot less explosive than he did during his first two championship years. Most likely was 400+ the next year.

[jlauber]

Ok, hopefully we put some the ridiculous myths to rest about Wilt's competition. Chamberlain faced players nearly the same height, on average, that Shaq would face some 40 years later. BTW, who is generally regarded as the best center of the CURRENT NBA? It is 6-11 (or shorter) Dwight Howard. And we know that Wilt was not only taller than Howard, he was bigger, stronger, more athletic, and more skilled. Chamberlain was a high-jump champion, a long jumper, a sprinter, and was not only regarded as the strongest man in the NBA at the time, but there were those that believed him to be among the strongest men in the world at the time (most noteably Howard Cosell.)

And I will apologize up front to those who have read this take many times, but, here we go again...

We have a "bridge" in Kareem that we can compare different eras with. Kareem was the best player in the league in the 70's, no question. BUT, he struggled mightily against Thurmond and Wilt in his H2H games against each.

Thanks to Alexbre and Julizaver, we have virtually EVERY H2H game between Wilt and Thurmond. Kareem faced Nate 61 times, and Wilt 28 times. He seldom scored 30 points against Thurmond (in fact, I believe his high was around 34.) In the VAST MAJORITY of those 61 games, he didn't even shoot 50%. And there were MANY in the low 40's, and even some in the 30% range. In the '72 playoffs, Thurmond not only held Kareem to an awful .405 from the floor, he outscored and outshot him. In the '73 playoffs, Thurmond held Kareem to .428 shooting, and his Warriors stunned Kareem's heavily-favored Bucks. Even well past his prime, in the mid-70's, Kareem seldom shot close to 50% against Thurmond.

Meanwhile, in the 28 H2H games between Wilt and Kareem, Chamberlain held Abdul-Jabbar, who was a CAREER .559 shooter, to a .464 FG% (while shooting 53% himself.) In the '71 WCF's, and only a year removed from major knee surgery, and 11 years older (and well past his prime), Wilt battled Kareem to a statistical draw (in fact, the recaps actually credited Wilt with outplaying Kareem.) In the '72 WCF's, and despite being heavily outscored Wilt, by virtually every account, outplayed or even "decisively outplayed" (Time Magazine) the younger Kareem who had the BEST statistical season of his career. Wilt outrebounded Kareem, and held him to .457 shooting (and only .414 over the last four pivotal games of that six game series.) In fact, Chamberlain took over in the clinching game six, and dominated Kareem down the stretch. Then, in their last six regular games, Wilt not only outshot Kareem, .637 to .450, he even outscored him in one game, despite the fact that he had dramatically cut back his shooting late in his career. Furthermore, in their only H2H game before Wilt was injured in 1969-70 season, Chamberlain just buried Kareem in EVERY aspect. Granted Kareem was a rookie, but, to be fair to Wilt, he was considerably past his "scoring" seasons of the mid-60's, and his overwhelming seasons in '67 and '68.

Continuing, in Wilt's PRIME, he pounded Thurmond on numerous occassions. He had a game in which he outscored him 45-13, and another game with 38 points and 31 rebounds. Even in the '67 season, when his coach asked him to shoot in the second half of a game against Nate, he poured in 24 second half points (30 in all), along with 26 rebounds, and 12 blocks. In fact, in their three post-season series, Wilt shot a combined 54% to Nate's 37%, and outrebounded him in all three (and by over six rebounds a game in '73.) Chamberlain shot over 50% in all three series (with a high of .560), and Thurmond NEVER shot even 40% against Wilt, (with a low of .343.)

Why is all of that significant? Because Kareem would go on to be among the best centers in the 80's. In the '85 Finals, after a poor first game, he averaged 30 ppg over the last five games against Boston's HOF frontline, and won the MVP. He had one season in the 80's when he shot .604. He had another, at age 38, when he shot .599. And amazingly, at age 39, in the '85-86 season, he had three regular season games against Hakeem, in which he scored 35, 42, and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting.) He also added a couple of 30 point games in the post-season against him that season, as well. And, in the same season, he hung a 40 point game on Ewing, while Patrick only managed a 2-16 shooting performance against him. Incredibly, Kareem played three more seasons, all from age 40 on. In those three seasons, H2H against Hakeem, in 13 games, he outshot him, .567 to .475. And, in those three seasons, he had six games against Ewing. Ewing had a slight scoring edge of 18.8 to 16.5, but Kareem easily outshot him, .551 to .483.

We all KNOW that both Hakeem and Ewing went on to be two of the best centers of the 90's. In fact, by most accounts, Hakeem was THE best center of the 90's. And we KNOW that Hakeem battled Shaq to a draw in the '95 Finals (some would even say he "won" that battle.) And, of course, Shaq would go on to dominate the early 00's.

What does all of this mean? Well, if Shaq was the best center of the 00's, and Hakeem was the best center of the 90's, and if an aged, and well past his prime Kareem could outplay Hakeem in the 80's...just what does that say about the greats of the 60's, like Wilt and Thurmond, both of whom were well past their primes when they were giving Kareem fits? In fact, if Wilt were able to win his H2H battles with Kareem, at well past his prime, and on a surgically repaired knee, just what would have a PRIME Chamberlain done to him?

Furthermore, players like 6-9 Dave Cowens gave Kareem trouble in the 70's (even outplaying him in a game seven of the Finals.) 6-7 Wes Unseld outrebounded Kareem in the '71 Finals. Meanwhile, 6-11 Walt Bellamy, who was a force in the entire decade of the 60's (he was routinely among the top scorers and shooters) went on into the 70's, and near the end of his career, in Kareem's spectacular 71-72 season, Bellamy averaged 18.6 ppg on .545 shooting. There were other's, of course. Willis Reed, Bob Lanier, Elvin Hayes, Spencer Haywood, Bob McAdoo (who outscored Kareem in two seasons in the 70's), as well as 7-2 Artis Gilmore, who dominated the ABA, and then had MANY quality seasons in the 80's (he retired as the all-time FG% leader...and still is.)

The 60's and 70's also had players like the great Russell (once again, a world-class leaper with a wingspan of a condor), Jerry Lucas who could grab 20+ rebounds per game in a season, and still shoot from as far as 25 ft. (the "Lucas Layup"), McAdoo, who was 6-11 and could score from anywhere on the floor; Rick Barry who led the NBA in scoring in '66 at 35.6, and then 10 years later, in 74-75, averaged 30.6 ppg; Connie Hawkins, Oscar, David Thompson, Jerry West (who routinely dominated Walt Frazier); Walt Frazier, a truly great guard in the 60's and 70's; Nate Archibald (he and Oscar are the only two players to ever lead the league in ppg and apg in the same season); and thye magical Pete Maravich, who would make Jason "White Chocolate" Williams look ridiculous today.

Each decade gave us new great players, but keep in mind, most of those greats in that new decade, were playing against (and often times being outplayed) by the greats of the previous decade.

Finally, I always bring up this point. If you truly believe that the players of today are MUCH better than those of yesteryear, then give me the EXACT year in which the players became competitive with those of today. Would the Shaq of 2000 be as great today? Would the Hakeem of '95 be as great today? Would the MJ of '91 be as great today? Would the Magic of '87 be as great today? Would the Bird of '86 be as great today? Would the Moses of '83 be as great today? Would the Walton of '77 be as great today? Would the McAdoo of '75 be as great today. The Dr. J of '72? The Kareem of '72? Wilt in '67? Russell in '64? Oscar and Wilt in '62? And if not all of them, give the players that would in the years that they would. But be careful...because I will show the peers of those players in the same seasons, and BEFORE.

The bottom line? Yes, today's players are MARGINALLY better than those of the 60's. But they are not SIGNIFICANTLY better...in ANY sport. I recall reading a post here a while back in which the poster claimed that WNBA all-stars would beat the best of the NBA in the 60's. Just think about how ridiculous that statement is. Do you think the gals of the current WNBA could battle someone like Gus Williams, who was 6-6 235 lbs, and was shattering multiple backboards back then? Or a 6-8 225 lb Lucas who could not only pound them on the glass, but disgrace them all from over 20+ ft? Or 6-10 WORLD-CLASS Bill Russell? Or 6-11 Thurmond with his HUGE wingspan? Or 6-5 225 Oscar? Or Jerry West, who many consider had the perfect shooting form? Or 7-1 (or taller) Chamberlain, with his 300 lbs and reported 500 lb. bench press, along with his 40"+ vertical leap?

The same goes for a "good college team" of TODAY beating the best in the NBA in the 60's. Give me a break! The top players of the 60's would be among the best players in the NBA TODAY. And they would certainly smoke a "good college team."

[jlauber]

Actually, Wilt WAS FMVP in the course of "that ring in a different decade." Check your facts first.



I posted this over two years ago:

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226

I hate misinformation, regardless of who says it, regardless of what the agenda is.

Believe it, or not, but I had never read that take before. I say that because I have echoed so much of what you posted here...without having ever read your view.

Having said that, though, I have now saved that link.

Great stuff!

[PHILA]

Actually, Wilt WAS FMVP in the course of "that ring in a different decade." Check your facts first.



I posted this over two years ago:

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226

I hate misinformation, regardless of who says it, regardless of what the agenda is.

:applause:

[ShaqAttack3234]

I don't agree that Wilt didn't face competition at the center position, however, I've always felt direct competition at the center position was far more relevant for all-nba first team/DPOY and those type of awards than actual team accomplishments and championships.

A great low post center does not often go 1 on 1 down low, a lot of it depends on how good the team defense is. Why do you think Olajuwon had his best series against David Robinson? Robinson was a better defender than Shaq who Olajuwon had much lower numbers vs in the finals than vs Robinson in the conference finals. Ewing was also not a better defensive player than Robinson, yet Olajuwon's numbers in the '94 finals were much worse than the '95 conference finals.

The reason for the latter is that the Knicks TEAM played much better defense constantly swarming Olajuwon.

Look at Shaq vs Sabonis and the Blazers in 2000
25.9 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 4.3 apg, 1.9 bpg, 53.9 FG%

Now 1998
29 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.5 apg, 2.5 bpg, 65.3 FG%

1997
33 ppg, 9 rpg, 3.3 apg, 1.8 bpg, 53.4 FG%

So why is it that Shaq in those '97 and '98 series(who almost everyone would agree wasn't as good as 2000) put up better numbers against a younger, better Sabonis than the 2000 version?

Simple, the Blazers doubled and tripled Shaq almost every time he touched the ball in 2000 and their defense was considerably better.

The '97 Blazers had a 103.3 defensive rating, the '98 Blazers had a 102.4 defensive rating and the 2000 Blazers had a 100.8 defensive rating.

Perimeter players play 1 on 1 more, but even with the true elite, that is also a team effort, now more than ever.

With all of this being said, the individual defender is important, but the key is a great team defense.

And back to competition, I feel that the center position was a lot closer to what it evolved into in the 60's(particularly mid to late 60's) than the guard position. The star centers then were above average athletes for their size and would be considered mobile today. Plus they could block shots, rebound and some could hit hook shots, turnarounds and other fundamental post shots as well as pass the ball effectively. Of course, I didn't witness the era first hand, but I'm basing it on the footage I have seen and the books I've read(reading the book about the '67 Sixers now).

[MakeHistory78]

So, let's finally put all of these RIDICULOUS myths to rest. Wilt was NOT a "loser", nor was he a "failure", nor was he a "choker." In fact, he was among the greatest winners of all-time; he DOMINATED not only the regular season, but in his post-seasons: and he was arguably, the MOST CLUTCH performer in post-season series history, and at the very least, very close to MJ, Russell, and Magic.
Some good points from a Wilt fan.But nobody was at the same level with Michael Jordan at the post season.Jordan was the best performer,the most clutch and he has the bigger book of great moments at the post season.
I don't dispute Wilt,or KAJ but nobody was/is like MJ at the playoffs and for so long.It's not even a debate.
Wilt wasn't a loser.He was by far the best player of his Era.Russell was the greatest winner but Russell was easily the better player.

[jlauber]

I don't agree that Wilt didn't face competition at the center position, however, I've always felt direct competition at the center position was far more relevant for all-nba first team/DPOY and those type of awards than actual team accomplishments and championships.

A great low post center does not often go 1 on 1 down low, a lot of it depends on how good the team defense is. Why do you think Olajuwon had his best series against David Robinson? Robinson was a better defender than Shaq who Olajuwon had much lower numbers vs in the finals than vs Robinson in the conference finals. Ewing was also not a better defensive player than Robinson, yet Olajuwon's numbers in the '94 finals were much worse than the '95 conference finals.

The reason for the latter is that the Knicks TEAM played much better defense constantly swarming Olajuwon.

Look at Shaq vs Sabonis and the Blazers in 2000
25.9 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 4.3 apg, 1.9 bpg, 53.9 FG%

Now 1998
29 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.5 apg, 2.5 bpg, 65.3 FG%

1997
33 ppg, 9 rpg, 3.3 apg, 1.8 bpg, 53.4 FG%

So why is it that Shaq in those '97 and '98 series(who almost everyone would agree wasn't as good as 2000) put up better numbers against a younger, better Sabonis than the 2000 version?

Simple, the Blazers doubled and tripled Shaq almost every time he touched the ball in 2000 and their defense was considerably better.

The '97 Blazers had a 103.3 defensive rating, the '98 Blazers had a 102.4 defensive rating and the 2000 Blazers had a 100.8 defensive rating.

Perimeter players play 1 on 1 more, but even with the true elite, that is also a team effort, now more than ever.

With all of this being said, the individual defender is important, but the key is a great team defense.

And back to competition, I feel that the center position was a lot closer to what it evolved into in the 60's(particularly mid to late 60's) than the guard position. The star centers then were above average athletes for their size and would be considered mobile today. Plus they could block shots, rebound and some could hit hook shots, turnarounds and other fundamental post shots as well as pass the ball effectively. Of course, I didn't witness the era first hand, but I'm basing it on the footage I have seen and the books I've read(reading the book about the '67 Sixers now).


I agree with much of what you just posted, but I highlighted the double and triple teams. Wilt CONSTANTLY faced that in the BULK of his career. I have quoted Heinsohn and the Celtic approach before. It was seldom Russell vs, Wilt, it was almost always, BOSTON vs Wilt. And as Heinsohn alluded to, Chamberlain took a BEATING in his career. TEAMS pounded Wilt.

And, despite what some posters have posted here, Chamberlain just did not have quality teammates in the first half of his career, and certainly nothing close to what Russell had in Boston. Russell had a 7-3 edge in HOFers in the '60 season. A 7-3 edge in '61. A 6-3 edge in '62. A staggering 8-1 edge in '63. A 7-2 edge in '64 (and somehow Wilt got that crappy roster to the Finals.) A 5-2 edge in '65 (and Wilt took that 40-40 roster to a game seven, one-point loss in a game seven against the 62-18 Celtics.) A 4-3 edge in '66. A 6-3 edge in '67 (and yet Wilt still took his Sixers to a 4-1 romp over Boston.) A 5-3 edge in '68 (and then Wilt lost one of his HOFers, Cunningham, the entire ECF's...as well as numerous other injuries.) And in their last season together, in '69, Russell STILL had a 4-3 edge. Not only that, but Russell's Celtics ALWAYS had a much deeper bench. In most cases, Wilt's bench had a 4-5 players that, to be honest, probably would not have made another roster.

One of the best examples of the talent differential between Russell's and Wilt's teams, was the beginning of the '63-64 season. Wilt's new coach, Alex Hannum came in, and had that roster scrimmage against rookies and scrubs that he knew would not make an NBA roster...and they BEAT Wilt's teammates (without Wilt, of course.) Incredibly, Chamberlain got that same roster to the Finals, where Russell's OVERWHEMING edge in talent won the series 4-1. In that series, Wilt outscored Russell, 29-11, outrebounded him 27-25, and most certainly outshot him, perhaps by as much as 200 points.

I will say this, and even Wilt said as much...Russell blended better with his teammates than Wilt did his. Chamberlain said that he, himself, would probably not have blended as well with Russell's teammates. BUT, even if that were true, does anyone here honestly believe that Russell would have taken Wilt's 62-63 roster, with ZERO other HOFers and two slightly above players, to a title? And, does anyone here believe that Wilt would NOT have won a title with Russell's roster in Boston that season, in which he had SEVEN other HOF teammates (and a HOF coach)?

Once again, not only did Russell have better teammates, and more of them...he played alongside those quality teammates in TWICE as many minutes as Chamberlain played with his.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229


"Now you can see Russell's "score" is more than twice that of Wilt,"

"Obviously this is just a fun exercise, and far from scientific, but you can still see that Chamberlain's teammates were in fact significantly less talented than Russell's, by both our Quality of Teammates metric and even by Bill Simmons' own ranking method. So I don't think it's quite fair to say, "let's never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain," because it's still pretty obvious that Wilt's supporting cast was inferior to Russell's by a good margin."

Finally, even Russell himself stated that Wilt could do a better job in his [Russell's] role, than what Russell could have done in Wilt's. And even the great John Wooden stated that Wilt very likely would have won just as many rings had their situations been reversed. And those that rip Wilt for "only" winning two titles, need to realize that Chamberlain's TEAMs battled the Celtic Dynasty in 10 of his 14 seasons. And after Russell retired, Chamberlain, on a surgically repaired knee, faced the great 69-70 Knicks and their FOUR HOFers. Then, in the '70-71 season, Wilt, without his TWO best teammates (West and Baylor) faced the great 66-16 Milwaukee Buck team. He LED his 71-72 Lakers to a title that season, and they mowed down the 57-25 Bulls (a 4-0 sweep actually), the great 63-19 Bucks with Kareem and Oscar, then the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers. In his last season, he faced the Knicks and their SIX HOFers. The fact was, he not only faced a HOF center in EVERY post-season, his TEAM's were outgunned by HOFers in EVERY post-season.

And, while some here scoff at Chamberlain's "close calls", the fact was, Wilt's TEAMs lost FOUR game seven's by a COMBINED total of NINE points against Russell's superior Celtics, and then in the '70 season, he took an under-dog team to a game seven loss against the great Knicks. And, had the officials not assisted the Knicks in game five, LA would have won that series in six games. So, that is NEARLY FIVE more rings. Furthermore, Wilt not only did NOT choke in the post-season, he was generally the best player on the floor, and he almost always played brilliantly, even in defeat.

[DatWasNashty]

I agree with much of what you just posted, but I highlighted the double and triple teams. Wilt CONSTANTLY faced that in the BULK of his career. I have quoted Heinsohn and the Celtic approach before. It was seldom Russell vs, Wilt, it was almost always, BOSTON vs Wilt. And as Heinsohn alluded to, Chamberlain took a BEATING in his career. TEAMS pounded Wilt.

And, despite what some posters have posted here, Chamberlain just did not have quality teammates in the first half of his career, and certainly nothing close to what Russell had in Boston. Russell had a 7-3 edge in HOFers in the '60 season. A 7-3 edge in '61. A 6-3 edge in '62. A staggering 8-1 edge in '63. A 7-2 edge in '64 (and somehow Wilt got that crappy roster to the Finals.) A 5-2 edge in '65 (and Wilt took that 40-40 roster to a game seven, one-point loss in a game seven against the 62-18 Celtics.) A 4-3 edge in '66. A 6-3 edge in '67 (and yet Wilt still took his Sixers to a 4-1 romp over Boston.) A 5-3 edge in '68 (and then Wilt lost one of his HOFers, Cunningham, the entire ECF's...as well as numerous other injuries.) And in their last season together, in '69, Russell STILL had a 4-3 edge. Not only that, but Russell's Celtics ALWAYS had a much deeper bench. In most cases, Wilt's bench had a 4-5 players that, to be honest, probably would not have made another roster.

One of the best examples of the talent differential between Russell's and Wilt's teams, was the beginning of the '63-64 season. Wilt's new coach, Alex Hannum came in, and had that roster scrimmage against rookies and scrubs that he knew would not make an NBA roster...and they BEAT Wilt's teammates (without Wilt, of course.) Incredibly, Chamberlain got that same roster to the Finals, where Russell's OVERWHEMING edge in talent won the series 4-1. In that series, Wilt outscored Russell, 29-11, outrebounded him 27-25, and most certainly outshot him, perhaps by as much as 200 points.

I will say this, and even Wilt said as much...Russell blended better with his teammates than Wilt did his. Chamberlain said that he, himself, would probably not have blended as well with Russell's teammates. BUT, even if that were true, does anyone here honestly believe that Russell would have taken Wilt's 62-63 roster, with ZERO other HOFers and two slightly above players, to a title? And, does anyone here believe that Wilt would NOT have won a title with Russell's roster in Boston that season, in which he had SEVEN other HOF teammates (and a HOF coach)?

Once again, not only did Russell have better teammates, and more of them...he played alongside those quality teammates in TWICE as many minutes as Chamberlain played with his.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229



Finally, even Russell himself stated that Wilt could do a better job in his [Russell's] role, than what Russell could have done in Wilt's. And even the great John Wooden stated that Wilt very likely would have won just as many rings had their situations been reversed. And those that rip Wilt for "only" winning two titles, need to realize that Chamberlain's TEAMs battled the Celtic Dynasty in 10 of his 14 seasons. And after Russell retired, Chamberlain, on a surgically repaired knee, faced the great 69-70 Knicks and their FOUR HOFers. Then, in the '70-71 season, Wilt, without his TWO best teammates (West and Baylor) faced the great 66-16 Milwaukee Buck team. He LED his 71-72 Lakers to a title that season, and they mowed down the 57-25 Bulls (a 4-0 sweep actually), the great 63-19 Bucks with Kareem and Oscar, then the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers. In his last season, he faced the Knicks and their SIX HOFers. The fact was, he not only faced a HOF center in EVERY post-season, his TEAM's were outgunned by HOFers in EVERY post-season.

And, while some here scoff at Chamberlain's "close calls", the fact was, Wilt's TEAMs lost FOUR game seven's by a COMBINED total of NINE points against Russell's superior Celtics, and then in the '70 season, he took an under-dog team to a game seven loss against the great Knicks. And, had the officials not assisted the Knicks in game five, LA would have won that series in six games. So, that is NEARLY FIVE more rings. Furthermore, Wilt not only did NOT choke in the post-season, he was generally the best player on the floor, and he almost always played brilliantly, even in defeat.
Just shut the fukk up already.

"And WILT's game was EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE. I saw him PLAY since '65 and I've HAD a BONER for him EVER since. Once I TRIED getting INSIDE his pants but I CAME before I could EVEN make the FIRST move." :facepalm

I'm amazed at one thing, though. It's incredible how Wilt was able to average 50 ppg with you and PHILA riding his sack for his entire career. Maybe if he wasn't carrying you two around, he could've been even better. Just a thought you could try expanding on.

[jlauber]

Just shut the fukk up already.

"And WILT's game was EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE. I saw him PLAY since '65 and I've HAD a BONER for him EVER since. Once I TRIED getting INSIDE his pants but I CAME before I could EVEN make the FIRST move." :facepalm

I'm amazed at one thing, though. It's incredible how Wilt was able to average 50 ppg with you and PHILA riding his sack for his entire career. Maybe if he wasn't carrying you two around, he could've been even better. Just a thought you could try expanding on.

Just another brilliant and well-thought out post. BTW, I see you neg repped me AGAIN. I have a policy of not neg repping, but if I ever change it, you will be the first one on my list.

[DatWasNashty]

Just another brilliant and well-thought out post. BTW, I see you neg repped me AGAIN. I have a policy of not neg repping, but if I ever change it, you will be the first one on my list.
No, I didn't neg rep you AGAIN, idiot. Neg repping you is like picking on a fat kid with downs. It's not worthy my time. Fukking clowns like you are infesting this board with retardation.

[nycelt84]

Posting what John Wooden thinks is completely irrelevant in discussing the 60's Celtics. Red Auerbach, multiple Celtics, and Wilt himself acknowledge that if he was on that team they never would have won the way with Wilt because Wilt would have made the team a completely different team and the team would not have managed to jell the way they did. Russell was the perfect man for that team and as Red himself said a Wilt Chamberlain could never play for the Celtics and there's a reason he never issued number 13 to any Celtic for multiple years.

And every article I ever read for a game recap regarding the Celtics and Wilt's teams, not one mentioned double or triple teaming of Wilt. Tom Heinsohn mentioning something doesn't make it true as people's memories are often faulty.

This is the account of one Celtic fan who was actually around at the time who was close to the team, hung around them of some of those years in the 50's and 60's. He has a different remembering of the Russell vs Wilt games and how they played out.

http://samsbostoncelticsfansite.blogspot.com/2009/10/sams-personal-account-of-russell-years.html

[PHILA]

http://samsbostoncelticsfansite.blogspot.com/2009/10/sams-personal-account-of-russell-years.htmlGood read, subjective as it was.

[Helix]

No, I didn't neg rep you AGAIN, idiot. Neg repping you is like picking on a fat kid with downs. It's not worthy my time. Fukking clowns like you are infesting this board with retardation.

Perhaps you should take a look in a mirror.

Hey jlauber.....like you, I have followed the NBA since 1963. I saw Wilt play many times throughout the 60's and on into the 70's. I saw all those televised Russell/Chamberlain "battles". I feel for you trying to defend Wilt around here, and I pretty much agree with most of what you say. Two things I'd like to say.....first, having seen all the great centers of the last 47 years play, I agree with what Rick Barry said. "Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest all around center in NBA history. No other center could do ALL the things Wilt could do, and do them so magnificently."

Secondly, all these GOAT discussions.....well, I take them with a grain of salt. There are many reasons, but I'll just give you one of them. Why do most people put Jabbar ahead of Wilt in there GOAT list? Because he has six rings to Wilt's two? That's absurd. Kareem had the benefit of playing on a GREAT team, with a GREAT coach, and a GREAT organization for ten years. Slight correction.....Riley didn't take over as coach until the 81/82 season, so almost eight years for the coach. Wilt only had that luxury in four of his fourteen years.....67, 68, 72, and 73. And by the way, Russell had that benefit his ENTIRE career. Had it not been for injuries in 68 and 73 (undoubtedly 68), Wilt may have had a couple more rings. Had Magic and Riley not come along, Kareem's career would most likely have ended quite differently.

My point is that these discussions rarely ever take into account the circumstances and "what if's" for each player. For example, how many rings would Jordan and Jabbar have if they had faced what Wilt did every year the first ten years of his career.....the Boston dynasty? How many rings would Russell have if Red Auerbach had chosen to have been a car salesman, or if he had been drafted by any other team other than Boston? The truth is, there is simply no way to level the playing field for the various GOAT candidates, so all you can do is examine their individual circumstances, and consider the "what if's". And it's all speculation. So, like I said earlier, I take all these GOAT discussions with a grain of salt.

I will say this though.....having seen all the greats for the past 47 years, if I had the first pick in a draft of every player that's ever played, my pick would be, with no hesitation whatsoever, Wilt Chamberlain.

[Bird]

Was Wilt a "failure", a "loser", and a "choker?"

the MOST CLUTCH performer in post-season series history, and at the very least, very close to MJ, Russell, and Magic.

Didn't want to quote your huge post, so just the first and last snippet.

The only thing I have against your post, is comparing Wilt's offensive game (scoring and shot %) to Russell's, who was never the #1, #2 or #3 option on offense for ANY of his Boston team's. He also was NEVER a great shooter, so comparing Wilt's 60+ shot % to Russell's normally sub-50% is truly unfair.

I would think you would be more inclined to compare it to ANY position, since Wilt shot that much better than EVERYONE else in the NBA, it would truly show off his bility to score and come through in the clutch.

mikku said it for me though: It's not that Wilt is a choker, a loser or a failure, it's that, a player with as much talent and athleticism as he had, we expected him to win more rings and care more about winning. Many, many individuals from his time have been quoted as saying Wilt would rather get his stats then care about wins. Russell (I do believe) was once quoted as saying that it seemed as if Wilt would rather lose, than win, because there is less pressure to continue to win, if you lose (something like that, I cannot remember the exact quote).

Now, I do know that in certain years, Wilt's teams did not have the same caliber of talent as teams he faced in the playoffs or the finals (primarily 60% of the Celtics teams they faced), but with his ability to dominate teams on either end of the floor, people believe he SHOULD have won more.

When uneducated fans see his lack of rings and his ability to not care so much about winning, they begin to label him a loser, a choker and a failure.

[jlauber]

Posting what John Wooden thinks is completely irrelevant in discussing the 60's Celtics. Red Auerbach, multiple Celtics, and Wilt himself acknowledge that if he was on that team they never would have won the way with Wilt because Wilt would have made the team a completely different team and the team would not have managed to jell the way they did. Russell was the perfect man for that team and as Red himself said a Wilt Chamberlain could never play for the Celtics and there's a reason he never issued number 13 to any Celtic for multiple years.

And every article I ever read for a game recap regarding the Celtics and Wilt's teams, not one mentioned double or triple teaming of Wilt. Tom Heinsohn mentioning something doesn't make it true as people's memories are often faulty.

This is the account of one Celtic fan who was actually around at the time who was close to the team, hung around them of some of those years in the 50's and 60's. He has a different remembering of the Russell vs Wilt games and how they played out.

http://samsbostoncelticsfansite.blogspot.com/2009/10/sams-personal-account-of-russell-years.html

Of course, yes, let's dismiss Wooden's opinions, and yet post someone's with the name of Slippery Sam, who was obviously a Celtic homer. Yep, what the hell would Wooden know about the game of basketball?

Oh, and yes, more than likely Heinsohn, who played with Russell for NINE years, probably had a "faulty" memory. BTW, Chamberlain himself, who FACED Russell in 142 games, ALSO commented that it was the Celtics vs. Wilt, and not just Russell vs. Wilt. But, what would he know.

Regarding Slippery Sam's "masterpiece"...


As a backdrop for getting a feel for pro basketball in the fifties, it is important to reflect on the idiosyncrasies of the game, the playing conditions and the crowds. In those days, the rules of pro basketball tended to react to evolving player abilities. The unprecedented bulk of George Mikan, the agility of Bill Russell, and the length and power of Wilt Chamberlain forced changes in the width of the lane. When the early Celtics had a one-point lead with 30 to 60 seconds to go, Bob Cousy would dribble out the clock; so they instituted the 24-second rule. Russell forced the offensive goaltending rule to be instituted the year before Chamberlain entered the league

Russell instituted offensive goal-tending? I wonder how come CHAMBERLAIN gets credit for it, even BEFORE he came to the NBA then...

http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html


During his career, his dominance precipitated many rules changes. These rules changed included widening the lane, instituting offensive goaltending and revising rules governing inbounding the ball and shooting free throws (Chamberlain would leap with the ball from behind the foul line to deposit the ball in the basket).



BTW, god forbid that the NBA would have allowed Wilt to dunk his FT's. So, instead of shooting 50% in his career, he would have merely made EVERY FT.

Back to Slippery again...


In fact, during Russell's first season with the Celtics, the team was actually blessed with six future Hall of Famers (Russell, Cousy, Heinsohn, Ramsey, Risen and Phillip). Playmaker KC Jones, whom Red had also acquired in the same draft as Russell's, could have swollen the total to seven, but he was in the Army during Russ's first two seasons.



Hmmm...interesting. Russell joined a LOADED team. How about Wilt in his rookie season? He came to a LAST-PLACE team.

Back to Sam again...


Wilt and Russ unquestionably represented the ultimate mano a mano confrontation. In their very first meeting, both men grabbed a loose ball, and Wilt lifted Russ up off the floor before the refs could call a jump ball. Russ was afraid Wilt was going to dunk him. But, over the 10 years they played against one another, Russ almost invariably won their big matches, and he "out-championed" Wilt, 9 to 1.

Russ constantly psyched Wilt out. One favorite ploy of Russ was to force Wilt out just about a foot beyond his favorite spot but to do it subtly so Wilt wouldn't notice. Wilt would become frustrated because he couldn't understand why he kept missing jumpers, and his frustration only made him miss more shots. And then, when the Celtics were comfortably ahead in a game, Russ would then allow Wilt to score a few points in order to satisfy the stat-happy giant, when the gratuitous points were meaningless, in order to dissuade Wilt from steamrollering Russ next time.



Yep, Russell psyched Wilt out. Held him to 38 ppg in his first regular season on .465 shooting (while Wilt averaged 37.6 ppg and shot .461 against the rest of the league. He would "hold" Wilt to 33 ppg over the course of Chamberlain's first seven seasons, too. All while being outrebounded him.

And Russell's psych job was brilliant in game seven of the '65 when Russell and his 62-18 Celtics "held" Wilt to 30 points on 80% shooting, along with 32 rebounds, in a 110-109 win. Let's recap the end of that game shall we? Heavily-favored Boston, and with HCA, was up 110-101 with about three minutes to play. Wilt scored six of Philly's last eight points, including 2-2 from the line, and a thrunderous dunk on Russell with five seconds left. And then the "clutch" Russell inbounded the ball, and promptly hit a guidewire giving the ball back to the Sixers with five seconds left. However, as almost was ALWAYS the case, Russell's TEAMMATE, John Havlicek "stole the ball."

Russell and his SEVEN other HOF teammates also beat Wilt and his ZERO HOF teammates, 8-1 in the 62-63 season. All Wilt did, with virtually no help was keep the Sixers in SIX of those games until either the final minute, or else that lone win. He outrebounded Russell in that season series, and outscored him by a 38-14 margin per game.

Russell also pysched Wilt out in game five of the '60 ECF's (a must-win game for Philly BTW), by holding Chamberlain to a 50 point, 35 rebound game.

Or Russell "holding" Wilt to a 46-34 game in the clinching game five loss (for Philly) in the '66 ECF's.

Or Russell psyching Wilt out in the '64 Finals, when Chamberlain, outgunned 7-2 by Russell's TEAM, outscored Russell, per game, 29-11, and outrebounded him, per game, 27-25. And, most assuredly outshot him, by perhaps over 200 points from the field.

Or Russell completely "pysching" Wilt out in the '67 ECF's, when, with his Celtics down 3-1 in a series in which Chamberlain had destroyed him and his Celtic teammates, ....Russell came thru in the "clutch" again, with a brilliant FOUR point game, on 2-5 shooting. All while pysching Wilt to the tune of holding him to "only" 29 points, on 10-16 shooting, and all while being outrebounded by Chamberlain, by a slim 36-21 margin.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

Let's repost the MANY games that Russell, with his SUPERIOR rosters "psyched" Wilt out...


For reference, the first number of the pair next to each player's name is points in that particular game, while the second is rebounds. An example would be the first one, with Wilt scoring 45 points, and grabbing 35 rebounds (45-35), while Russell's numbers were 15 points, with 13 rebounds (15-13.)


Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13
Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21
Wilt 43-39….Russell 20-24
Wilt 53-29 Russell 22-32
Wilt 42-29 Russell 19-30
Wilt 50-35 Russell 22-27
Wilt 34-55….Russell 18-19
Wilt 39-30 Russell 6-19
Wilt 44-35 Russell 20-21
Wilt 34-38 Russell 17-20
Wilt..52-30….Russell 21-31
Wilt 41-28 Russell 11-24
Wilt 62-28 Russell 23-29
Wilt 38-31 Russell 11-18
Wilt 42-37 Russell 9-20
Wilt 45-27 Russell 12-26
Wilt 43-32 Russell 8-30
Wilt 32-27 Russell 11-16
Wilt 50-17….Russell 23-21
Wilt 35-32….Russell 16-28
Wilt 32-25 Russell…9-24
Wilt 31-30 Russell 12-22
Wilt 37-32 Russell 16-24
Wilt 27-34 Russell..12-17
Wilt 27-43 Russell 13-26
Wilt 30-39 Russell 12-16
Wilt 31-40….Russell 11-17
Wilt 37-42 Russell 14-25
Wilt 29-26 Russell 3-27
Wilt 27-36….Russell 13-20
Wilt 27-32 Russell 6-22
Wilt 32-30 Russell 8-20
Wilt 46-34 Russell 18-31
Wilt 20-41….Russell 10-29
Wilt 29-36 Russell 4-21
Wilt 31-27 Russell 3-8
Wilt 35-19 Russell 5-16
Wilt 12-42 Russell 11-18



Incidently, the list is actually much larger than that. The fact was, Wilt outplayed Russell in the VAST MAJORITY of their 142 games (BOTH regular season AND post-season), and in MANY he CRUSHED Russell. You will not find ONE game in which Russell EVER outplayed Wilt by the margin of that list above. In fact, you will probably be fortunate to find a handful of games in which Russell outplayed Wilt at all.

Here are some interesting numbers regarding the two.

Wilt outscored Russell in 132 of their 142 games. He nearly averaged 30 ppg over his entire H2H CAREER against Russell, outscoring him by a 28.7 to 14.5 margin. How about this fact for a start...Russell scored 30+ points against Wilt in THREE games, with a career HIGH of 37 points. BUT, Wilt OUTSCORED him in ALL three. Not only that, but Wilt enjoyed a 24-0 edge in 40+ point games against Russell. Chamberlain also scored 50+ points against Russell five times, including one in the post-season, with a HIGH of 62 points.

Chamberlain also outrebounded Russell by FIVE rebounds per game over the course of their entire H2H career, 28.7 to 23.7. Take a look at those two stats...28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg...a near 30-30 game EVERY single time the two played. It just boggles the mind! Wilt had a 7-1 edge in 40+ rebound games, H2H against Russell (Russell's high was exactly 40 against Wilt.) It gets better, though. Wilt set the NBA record for rebounds in one game, against Russell, with 55 (he outrebounded Russell in that game by a staggering 55-19 margin, as well as outscoring him 34-18.) Chamberlain also set the post-season NBA record of 41 against Russell. Not only that, but Chamberlain held a crushing 23-4 edge against Russell in 35+ rebound games.

We don't have a lot of their H2H FG% games, but in the one's that we do have, Chamberlain outshot him in almost every one. We have an ENTIRE H2H SEASON, in Wilt's rookie year, in which Chamberlain outshot Russell by a .465 to .398 margin. We also have an ENTIRE PLAYOFF SERIES, in which Chamberlain not only heavily outscored and outrebounded Russell ( he outscored him 22-10 per game, and buried him on the glass with a 32-23 margin per game)...in which Wilt outshot Russell by an astonishing .556 to .358 margin. Furthermore, there is a strong possibility that Wilt outshot Russell in the '64 Finals by a HUGE margin (perhaps as much as .590 to .350 or so.) We also have two game seven's between the two, in which Wilt not only heavily outscored and outrebounded Russell, but he outshot him in those two games by margins of .800 to .438, and then .875 to .286. There is even a recorded game in 1965 in which Wilt held Russell to a 0-14 game (yes, ZERO for 14!)

The facts were, Wilt outscored, outrebounded, and probably outshot Russell in EVERY regular season series in their ten H2H seasons, and in EVERY post-season series between the two. We know for a fact that he outscored and outrebounded him in EVERY one of those series, both regular season and post-season.

But, yes, Russell "psyched" Wilt out. Downright dominated him.

[97 bulls]

Im just curious, how do you dunk free throws? Do you stand at the ft line and leap to the rim? Do you get a running start? How did he do it?

[jlauber]

Im just curious, how do you dunk free throws? Do you stand at the ft line and leap to the rim? Do you get a running start? How did he do it?

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


Olympic Gold Medalist Bob Kurland was a 7-foot center and the first player to regularly dunk during games in the 1940's and 50's. Wilt Chamberlain was known to have dunked on an experimental 12-foot basket set up by Phog Allen at the University of Kansas in the 1950s.[5] Michael Wilson, a former Harlem Globetrotter and University of Memphis basketball player, matched this feat on April 1, 2000 albeit with an alley-oop. Dwight Howard dunked on an 12ft basket in the 2009 NBA dunk contest also off an ally-oop.

Jim Pollard[6], Wilt Chamberlain[5], Julius Erving, Clyde Drexler, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Kobe Bryant, Stromile Swift, Shawn Kemp, Grant Hill, Darrell Griffith, Korleone Young, Edgar Jones, LeBron James, James White, Vince Carter, Jason Richardson, Jamario Moon, Chris Webber, Dwight Howard, Mike Conley, Sr., Samuel Dalembert, Brent Barry and Al Thornton have each dunked while jumping from around the free throw line, which is 15 feet from the basket. Unlike the others, Wilt Chamberlain did not require a full running start, but instead began his movement from inside the top half of the free throw circle.[5]

[PHILA]

Im just curious, how do you dunk free throws? Do you stand at the ft line and leap to the rim? Do you get a running start? How did he do it?

Not from the FT, but probably something as shown below:


http://i51.tinypic.com/dyzr6.png

[jlauber]

Didn't want to quote your huge post, so just the first and last snippet.

The only thing I have against your post, is comparing Wilt's offensive game (scoring and shot %) to Russell's, who was never the #1, #2 or #3 option on offense for ANY of his Boston team's. He also was NEVER a great shooter, so comparing Wilt's 60+ shot % to Russell's normally sub-50% is truly unfair.

I would think you would be more inclined to compare it to ANY position, since Wilt shot that much better than EVERYONE else in the NBA, it would truly show off his bility to score and come through in the clutch.

mikku said it for me though: It's not that Wilt is a choker, a loser or a failure, it's that, a player with as much talent and athleticism as he had, we expected him to win more rings and care more about winning. Many, many individuals from his time have been quoted as saying Wilt would rather get his stats then care about wins. Russell (I do believe) was once quoted as saying that it seemed as if Wilt would rather lose, than win, because there is less pressure to continue to win, if you lose (something like that, I cannot remember the exact quote).

Now, I do know that in certain years, Wilt's teams did not have the same caliber of talent as teams he faced in the playoffs or the finals (primarily 60% of the Celtics teams they faced), but with his ability to dominate teams on either end of the floor, people believe he SHOULD have won more.

When uneducated fans see his lack of rings and his ability to not care so much about winning, they begin to label him a loser, a choker and a failure.

If you take a CLOSE look at Wilt's ten seasons with Russell in the NBA, you will see, as you said, that Russell had a solid edge in talent in six of them (60%.) Still, Wilt led two of those teams to game seven defeats by a COMBINED THREE points (teams that were heavily outgunned in HOFers and in W-L record, and both against HCA.)

Then, take a CLOSE look at their last four seasons. In '66, I still say that Boston was the better team, despite Philly edging them in the regular season, 55-25 to 54-26. In fact, the Sixers had to win their last 11 games to edge out Boston. And the Celtics had won the previous seven titles. And Boston held a 4-3 edge in HOFer and had a much deeper bench. The bottom line, though, was that Chamberlain's teammates were awful in that post-season series (a 4-1 loss to Boston.) All Wilt did in that series was average 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot 51% (to Russell's 15 ppg, 25 rpg, and 45% shooting against him.) Meanwhile, here were Wilt's teammates FG%...Greer, .325, Jones, .325, Walker, .375, Jackson, .429, and Cunningham, .161.

In '67 Wilt and team just crushed the Celtics, 4-1 (a near sweep BTW), and Chamberlain buried Russell in every category. He outscored him, per game, 22-10; he outrebounded him, per game, 32-23 (yes a NINE rpg difference); he outassisted Russell, per game, 10-6; and he outshot him in that series, .556 to .358.

In '68, the Sixers nearly duplicated their previous season domination, running away with the best record in the league, at 62-20 (to Boston's 54-28.) BUT, in the playoffs, they lost HOFer Cunningham to a broken wrist before the Boston series, and he would miss the rest of the playoffs. Still, even without Cunningham, they STILL forged a 3-1 series lead. But, in game three, Chamberlain suffered a severe calf bruise (and he was already nursing two other leg injuries), and he was NOTICEABLY hobbled the rest of the series. On top of that, in game five, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones suffered injuries, and both were worthless the rest of the series. Then, in game seven, Wilt's teammates completely forgot him (only passing him the ball SEVEN times in the second half), and not only that, they collectively shot 33% from the floor. The result? A game seven, FOUR point loss. Think about that: With EVERYTHING that had gone wrong, Wilt's team, DECIMATED by injuries, lost a game seven, by FOUR points. BTW, Wilt STILL outscored Russell in that game, 14-12, and he STILL outrebounded him, 34-26.

Wilt's '69 season was one of complete frustration. He was "traded" to the Lakers, where he and the incompetent coach Butch Van Breda Kolf bumped heads from day one. The brilliant Van Breda Kolf asked Wilt to play the high post so that a declining Baylor could shoot. Wilt did sacrifice his offense, and the result was that while he would only average 14 ppg in the post-season, he still shot an outstanding .545. Meanwhile, Baylor averaged 15 ppg in the playoffs, on .385 shooting!

I have documented the '69 Finals many times before, but here goes. The Lakers, with a prime West, a declining Baylor, and Wilt shackled by his coach, had virtually no one else. Meanwhile, the Celtics, despite a worse regular season record, STILL had a 4-3 edge in HOFers, and a much deeper roster. In any case, the Lakers still jumped out to a 2-0 series lead. They were leading the series, 2-1, and in game four in Boston, they had the lead of 88-87, AND the ball with some 15 seconds left. All Johnny Egan had to do was driblle out the clock. Instead, he lost the ball, and Sam Jones hit a miraculous shot, while falling down, at the buzzer, to win the game, 89-88. How significant was that ONE PLAY? The Lakers went back home, and behind Chamberlain's domination of Russell in game five (he outrebounded Russell, 31-13), the Lakers romped to a 117-104 win. Think about that...that ONE PLAY prevented the Lakers from rolling to a 4-1 series win.

In that game seven, the Lakers whittled a 17 point 4th quarter deficit down to seven with a little over five minutes left. However, Wilt injured his leg, and had to come out. After sitting for a couple of minutes, he asked to go back in. Van Breda Kolf refused, and instead rolled the dice with Mel Counts (Mel ***ing Counts!) All Counts did was miss a couple of shots down the stretch, (he would shoot 4-13 for the entire game...while Chamberlain shot 7-8), and the Celtics, behind yet ANOTHER miraculous shot (Nelson's game winner) won the game, 108-106.

That is just how close Wilt came to several more titles. Now, was HE the "loser", or the "choker", or the "failure"?

[jlauber]

Perhaps you should take a look in a mirror.

Hey jlauber.....like you, I have followed the NBA since 1963. I saw Wilt play many times throughout the 60's and on into the 70's. I saw all those televised Russell/Chamberlain "battles". I feel for you trying to defend Wilt around here, and I pretty much agree with most of what you say. Two things I'd like to say.....first, having seen all the great centers of the last 47 years play, I agree with what Rick Barry said. "Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest all around center in NBA history. No other center could do ALL the things Wilt could do, and do them so magnificently."

Secondly, all these GOAT discussions.....well, I take them with a grain of salt. There are many reasons, but I'll just give you one of them. Why do most people put Jabbar ahead of Wilt in there GOAT list? Because he has six rings to Wilt's two? That's absurd. Kareem had the benefit of playing on a GREAT team, with a GREAT coach, and a GREAT organization for ten years. Slight correction.....Riley didn't take over as coach until the 81/82 season, so almost eight years for the coach. Wilt only had that luxury in four of his fourteen years.....67, 68, 72, and 73. And by the way, Russell had that benefit his ENTIRE career. Had it not been for injuries in 68 and 73 (undoubtedly 68), Wilt may have had a couple more rings. Had Magic and Riley not come along, Kareem's career would most likely have ended quite differently.

My point is that these discussions rarely ever take into account the circumstances and "what if's" for each player. For example, how many rings would Jordan and Jabbar have if they had faced what Wilt did every year the first ten years of his career.....the Boston dynasty? How many rings would Russell have if Red Auerbach had chosen to have been a car salesman, or if he had been drafted by any other team other than Boston? The truth is, there is simply no way to level the playing field for the various GOAT candidates, so all you can do is examine their individual circumstances, and consider the "what if's". And it's all speculation. So, like I said earlier, I take all these GOAT discussions with a grain of salt.

I will say this though.....having seen all the greats for the past 47 years, if I had the first pick in a draft of every player that's ever played, my pick would be, with no hesitation whatsoever, Wilt Chamberlain.

Great post, and welcome to ISH. Always great to have someone who actually SAW these guys play comment.

:cheers:

[Bird]

If you take a CLOSE look at Wilt's ten seasons with Russell in the NBA, you will see, as you said, that Russell had a solid edge in talent in six of them (60%.) Still, Wilt led two of those teams to game seven defeats by a COMBINED THREE points (teams that were heavily outgunned in HOFers and in W-L record, and both against HCA.)

That is just how close Wilt came to several more titles. Now, was HE the "loser", or the "choker", or the "failure"?

Whoa, whoa, whoa, calm down, calm down, I am AGREEING with you.

I do not believe he is any of those three, but I agree with some who say he UNDERACHIEVED.

I have read transcripts (and seen the stats) from many of the playoff/finals contests between Wilt's teams and Russell's teams, so believe me we do both agree on Russell having the edge talent wise (both HC and player) and, dare I say, luck wise (injuries, huge shots, etc.).

Anyways, great discussion in this thread (and some awesome insight from a few members I had never seen much from).

[aau]

should've checked

was wrong about wilt not winning fmvp in 72

got more phila but gotta go right now . . . hit you back later

[jlauber]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, calm down, calm down, I am AGREEING with you.

I do not believe he is any of those three, but I agree with some who say he UNDERACHIEVED.

I have read transcripts (and seen the stats) from many of the playoff/finals contests between Wilt's teams and Russell's teams, so believe me we do both agree on Russell having the edge talent wise (both HC and player) and, dare I say, luck wise (injuries, huge shots, etc.).

Anyways, great discussion in this thread (and some awesome insight from a few members I had never seen much from).

I wasn't directing my last comment at you, but those here in general. As for "underachieving", ...from a TEAM success standpoint, yes, to some degree. But, remember, he faced the Celtic Dynasty in 10 of his 14 seasons, and then the '70 Knicks (and their FOUR HOFers); the '71 Bucks (66-16, with Oscar and Kareem...and Chamberlain was on a 48-34 Laker team withOUT his two best players, West and Baylor; he WON a title in '72 (going thru that same Buck team again, and then wiping out the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers); and in his last season, his injury-riddled team lost four close games to a Knick team with SIX HOFers.

Once again, Wilt faced a HOF center in EVERY post-season. He was also outgunned by a HOF-laden team, in EVERY post-season.

Not only that, but here again, it is the famous DOUBLE-STANDARD. Chamberlain won two rings in his 14 seasons, and was labeled a "choker", a "failure", and a "loser." Hakeem won two rings in 18 seasons, and EIGHT of team's were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs...yet, has anyone ever accused him of being a "loser?" And Bird won one more ring in his career, and is almost universally hailed as a "winner", and a "clutch" player despite the fact that his career did not compare to Wilt's in either the regular season, or the post-season.

Here was the real crux of the DOUBLE-STANDARD. If Wilt put up a 40-30 game against Russell, to say a 10-20 game (on poor shooting) by Russell, BUT, Russell's heavily more talented TEAM won the game...well, it was a "clear-cut" win for Russell. And, if Wilt and Russell had the same exact games, and Chamberlain's TEAM won...well, Wilt's team SHOULD have won. Why? Because Wilt was bigger, stronger and more skilled. Furthermore, if Wilt only had a 20-20 game, to Russell's 10-20 game, no matter the outcome of the game, Russell "outplayed" Wilt.

Generally, Chamberlain had to significantly outscore, outrebound, and outshoot Russell for his TEAM to have a chance of winning. BUT, Russell NEVER had the same expectation level. All he had to do was to contain Chamberlain just enough so that his superior teammates could outplay Wilt's enough to win the game. And then, of course, it was WILT's fault, and Russell was applauded for having "outplayed" Wilt.

The EXPECTATION level for Wilt was unlike ANY other player who has ever played the game.

[Bird]

I wasn't directing my last comment at you, but those here in general.

The EXPECTATION level for Wilt was unlike ANY other player who has ever played the game.

1) Got it, thought it was aimed at me, my bad.

2) Indeed, they were set EXTREMELY high for him. Even I will admit that (and admit I think that KAJ is overrated, when compared to Wilt) and that I probably DO hold him to the double standard. I would label very few HoF and superstar type players as chokers, though Karl Malone has a special place reserved for his disappearing acts.

Also, where did you get Wilt's by game stats from? You mentioned two names (I do believe in the first post) that provided them, but I do not know where you got them from. Thanks in advance.

[Horatio33]

Jlauber, when you say that Russell played with more HOFers, don't you think he made most of them? If they were on other teams that weren't winning, they wouldn't sniff the Hall.

Larry Siegfried made the hall, even though he was cut by the STL Hawks, they actually made him give his sneakers back and left him in the car park after an exhibition game and he had to find his own way home. That sounds like he was already heading for the Hall before joining the Celtics?

Bailey Howell couldn't crack the starting 5 for the Baltimore Bullets, Red Auerbach sent Mel Counts in a trade for him. Yes before the Bullets he averaged 20 and 10 for the Pistons, but they were a terrible team.

Wayne Embry had a good career and is in the Hall, but not as a player, as a contributer.

So you could say Russell was better because he had more Hall Of Famers, but a few of these guys were waifs and strays picked up by Red Auerbach, or guys who didn't even make the Hall as players. Russel made some of these guys HOFers.

[jlauber]

Jlauber, when you say that Russell played with more HOFers, don't you think he made most of them? If they were on other teams that weren't winning, they wouldn't sniff the Hall.

Larry Siegfried made the hall, even though he was cut by the STL Hawks, they actually made him give his sneakers back and left him in the car park after an exhibition game and he had to find his own way home. That sounds like he was already heading for the Hall before joining the Celtics?

Bailey Howell couldn't crack the starting 5 for the Baltimore Bullets, Red Auerbach sent Mel Counts in a trade for him. Yes before the Bullets he averaged 20 and 10 for the Pistons, but they were a terrible team.

Wayne Embry had a good career and is in the Hall, but not as a player, as a contributer.

So you could say Russell was better because he had more Hall Of Famers, but a few of these guys were waifs and strays picked up by Red Auerbach, or guys who didn't even make the Hall as players. Russel made some of these guys HOFers.

Good post and I agree with much of it. First of all, though, I don't think Siegfried made the HOF. And Embry is in it as a contributor, but he was also a five time all-star. I also agree that Howell probably would not have made the Hall, nor Frank Ramsey or KC Jones, without Russell.

And, I also agree that Russell made his teammates better, overall, than what Wilt did for his. Once again, even Wilt admitted that Russell blended better with his teammates, than what Wilt would have with the same teammates.

Furthermore, I will also add that in majority of their H2H battles, we don't have all of the FG% numbers. We can probably safely assume that Wilt still outshot Russell from the floor in the vast majority of those games, but even in some of the games in which he probably outshot Russell, there comes a point where MISSING a lot more shots actually is more harmful, than merely shooting a lower percentage. For example, who would you consider the worse shooter... a player who goes 1-4, or a player who goes 10-30?

It has not been my intention to rip Russell here. He has his 11 rings, and was the MAIN reason why those team's won. His impact went well beyond stats, as well. He intimidated entire teams, and his overall play made his teammates' numbers better.

Having said that, though, there were/are many observers who mistakenly believe that Russell dominated Wilt, and that Wilt "choked" against him. Take a look at some of the game's in Chamberlain's career, (and not just against Russell.) For instance, in game seven of the '70 Finals, Chamberlain put up a 21 point, 10-16 shooting, 24 rebound game (11 points, 5-10, and 12 rebounds in the first half), against a Reed who was hobbled by an injury. Of course, no one remembers that Wilt, himself, was only four months removed from major knee surgery, and that virtually no medical opinion at the time expected him to come back as quickly as he did. In any case, Reed had a 4-3 game, and was labeled a "hero", while Chamberlain's game was far better than any of teammate's, and yet, it WILT's fault.

In the game seven of the '69 Finals, when Wilt pulled himself out of the game with a leg injury (which would be the same leg that would require surgery the very year), he asked to go back in within a couple of minutes. His coach refused, and the Lakers lost by two points. In that game, Wilt outscored Russell, 18-6, outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him, 27-21. Furthemore, RUSSELL was nowhere to be found in that 4th quarter, despite the fact that he was in the game. Who got the blame? Yep...Wilt "the faker" Chamberlain. Here again, the DOUBLE STANDARD. Wilt takes himself out of a game with a serious knee injury, for a couple of MINUTES, and he was labled a "faker" by no less than Russell. Kareem sprained his ankle, and missed an entire game. Reed suffers a thigh injury, and misses the better part of THREE games. And, they are labeled "heroic." Chamberlain misses two MINUTES, and he is faking it. Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain played in FOUR games of the '68 ECF's with THREE leg injuries, and was NOTICEABLY hobbled in all of those games. BUT, since his TEAM blew that series, well, Wilt was a "choker."

When Chamberlain's teammates shot around 35% in the '66 ECF's, and when Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot 51% in that same series, and in fact, had a 46-34 game in the clinching game five loss...well, it was WILT's fault.

I could go on, but there was clearly NO evidence of Wilt ever "choking" in a big game.

[jlauber]

1) Got it, thought it was aimed at me, my bad.

2) Indeed, they were set EXTREMELY high for him. Even I will admit that (and admit I think that KAJ is overrated, when compared to Wilt) and that I probably DO hold him to the double standard. I would label very few HoF and superstar type players as chokers, though Karl Malone has a special place reserved for his disappearing acts.

Also, where did you get Wilt's by game stats from? You mentioned two names (I do believe in the first post) that provided them, but I do not know where you got them from. Thanks in advance.

There are some other sources with the Wilt-Russell games, but Harvey Pollack recorded every one of their 142 H2H games. Here is the link:

http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Pollack_200607_Stats.pdf

I believe those H2H games start on page 270 or so.

[Bird]

There are some other sources with the Wilt-Russell games, but Harvey Pollack recorded every one of their 142 H2H games. Here is the link:

http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Pollack_200607_Stats.pdf

I believe those H2H games start on page 270 or so.

Thanks for the link.

I plan on giving that a solid look through.

[aau]

[QUOTE=PHILA]To quote from another forum:



[LEFT][I]Opposing Centers

The big names against whom Wilt played a lot were:

Bill Russell, Walt Bellamy, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Spencer Haywood (during the last 3 years of his career, Spencer's 3 best years), he got 80 games of Bob McAdoo as a rookie and a dose of healthy Bob Lanier (Lanier's first three seasons, all 80+ games played).

Bells was at least 6'11, 250 and was drafted only two years after Wilt. Forget about Walter Dukes, worry about the 31+ ppg Bells dropped as a rookie. Yes, he was really only dominant for his first five years, but he was still an important and significant player thereafter.

And yeah, Kareem was a player during the last 4 years of Wilt's career (though Wilt only played 12 regular season games in Kareem's rookie year). Still, that includes Kareem's 3 best scoring seasons and two of his three best rebounding seasons.

Oh yes, and Cowens was there for the last 3 years of Wilt's career as well.

Wilt had competition and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Yes, some of it didn't enter into the league until later in his career but you'll notice that while he didn't score as much as he did as a younger guy, his efficiency skyrocketed, his rebounding wasn't affected and he became a deadly passer while retaining his reputation for outstanding defense.

The inclusion of competition (much of it with significant size, such as Kareem, Lanier, etc) did NOTHING to affect his ability to impact the game at an elite level.

So arguing that Wilt's competition were all 6'7 white guys is not only wrong, but pointless.

For the sake of argument, let's break it down by year:

59-60 Bill Russell, Dolph Schayes, Red Kerr, Charlie Tyra, Willie Nauls, Ray Felix, Clyde Lovelette, Walter Dukes, Phil Jordon
60-61
61-62 Walt Bellamy,
62-63
63-64 Nate Thurmond*
64-65 Willis Reed
65-66
66-67 Reggie Harding, Joe Strawler, Walt Wesley, Leroy Ellis, Mel Counts, Darrall Imhoff
67-68
68-69 Wes Unseld
69-70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
70-71 Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier
71-72
72-73
72-73

* Thurmond and Wilt played together for their first two years, so I guess 65-66 is when they really became "competitors."

There were certainly shorter guys in the NBA in his earliest days but then, he also played Bill Russell and the others more often because the league was smaller.

So here, we've covered the standard argument.

QUOTE]
why list only their heights when at that time if they saw a
7 footer baggin groceries they'd sign him on the spot

what about wilt's size strength and ability advantage . . . 7'1 275
had a 3-4 inch 50-70 lb advantage in most cases -- was one of
the few players that'd even look at a weight , let alone lift 300
ran hurdles , high jumped .... a supremely conditioned athlete

NOBODY was even close to this guy . . . . .

bellamy reed and unseld couldn't bunny hop a quarter compared
to dude . . . nate thurmond , a stiff , gave up 50 lbs to wilt
russell was no match for wilt size wise but he was just
as good an athlete and cared more about winning

i hated wilt with a passion because he never beat them **
besides not winning , i just never liked his game . . . the
back-to-the-basket-fingerolls were simply the ugliest
shots in basketball history . . his game just lacked
fluidity as opposed to kareem who was fluid in his
movements dribbled and shot the ball gracefully
with touch , with either hand , from distance

think it's great the passion you have for wilt
don't like the tearing down of others just to
lift him up . . . . he had enough advantages

failed to capitalize for the most part

[Horatio33]

[QUOTE=PHILA]To quote from another forum:



[LEFT][I]Opposing Centers

The big names against whom Wilt played a lot were:

Bill Russell, Walt Bellamy, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Spencer Haywood (during the last 3 years of his career, Spencer's 3 best years), he got 80 games of Bob McAdoo as a rookie and a dose of healthy Bob Lanier (Lanier's first three seasons, all 80+ games played).

Bells was at least 6'11, 250 and was drafted only two years after Wilt. Forget about Walter Dukes, worry about the 31+ ppg Bells dropped as a rookie. Yes, he was really only dominant for his first five years, but he was still an important and significant player thereafter.

And yeah, Kareem was a player during the last 4 years of Wilt's career (though Wilt only played 12 regular season games in Kareem's rookie year). Still, that includes Kareem's 3 best scoring seasons and two of his three best rebounding seasons.

Oh yes, and Cowens was there for the last 3 years of Wilt's career as well.

Wilt had competition and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Yes, some of it didn't enter into the league until later in his career but you'll notice that while he didn't score as much as he did as a younger guy, his efficiency skyrocketed, his rebounding wasn't affected and he became a deadly passer while retaining his reputation for outstanding defense.

The inclusion of competition (much of it with significant size, such as Kareem, Lanier, etc) did NOTHING to affect his ability to impact the game at an elite level.

So arguing that Wilt's competition were all 6'7 white guys is not only wrong, but pointless.

For the sake of argument, let's break it down by year:

59-60 Bill Russell, Dolph Schayes, Red Kerr, Charlie Tyra, Willie Nauls, Ray Felix, Clyde Lovelette, Walter Dukes, Phil Jordon
60-61
61-62 Walt Bellamy,
62-63
63-64 Nate Thurmond*
64-65 Willis Reed
65-66
66-67 Reggie Harding, Joe Strawler, Walt Wesley, Leroy Ellis, Mel Counts, Darrall Imhoff
67-68
68-69 Wes Unseld
69-70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
70-71 Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier
71-72
72-73
72-73

* Thurmond and Wilt played together for their first two years, so I guess 65-66 is when they really became "competitors."

There were certainly shorter guys in the NBA in his earliest days but then, he also played Bill Russell and the others more often because the league was smaller.

So here, we've covered the standard argument.

QUOTE]
why list only their heights when at that time if they saw a
7 footer baggin groceries they'd sign him on the spot

what about wilt's size strength and ability advantage . . . 7'1 275
had a 3-4 inch 50-70 lb advantage in most cases -- was one of
the few players that'd even look at a weight , let alone lift 300
ran hurdles , high jumped .... a supremely conditioned athlete

NOBODY was even close to this guy . . . . .

bellamy reed and unseld couldn't bunny hop a quarter compared
to dude . . . nate thurmond , a stiff , gave up 50 lbs to wilt
russell was no match for wilt size wise but he was just
as good an athlete and cared more about winning

i hated wilt with a passion because he never beat them **
besides not winning , i just never liked his game . . . the
back-to-the-basket-fingerolls were simply the ugliest
shots in basketball history . . his game just lacked
fluidity as opposed to kareem who was fluid in his
movements dribbled and shot the ball gracefully
with touch , with either hand , from distance

think it's great the passion you have for wilt
don't like the tearing down of others just to
lift him up . . . . he had enough advantages

failed to capitalize for the most part

Brilliant post. Hits the nail on the head. You can't go on about Wilt being super human then blame his team mates for his faliure.

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=aau]

Brilliant post. Hits the nail on the head. You can't go on about Wilt being super human then blame his team mates for his faliure.

The problem with that analogu, however, is that there were far too many times when Wilt's teammates DESERVED the blame. Aside from West in '69 and '70, and Greer in '67, Chamberlain had a plethora of playoff series in which his teammates were awful. His pundits will find an occasional game like Greer's 40 point game six in '68, but they will completely ignore Greer's 8-25 game seven (in a FOUR point loss.) They will cite Meschery's 32 point game seven in the '62 ECF's, but fail to mention that he shot .397 in the post-season. Hell, even in Wilt's '72 championship season, his teammates generally played worse than they did in the regular season, particularly West, who was mired in the worst shooting slump of his career (.376 over his entire playoff run.)

There were a couple of posters here who blamed Wilt for his '66 team getting beat 4-1 by Boston. Yep...all Wilt did in that series was average 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot 51%, against Russell, who averaged 15 ppg, 25 rpg, and shot .451. How about Wilt's teammates? Greer shot .325. Walker shot .375. Jones shot .325. Jackson shot .429. And Cunningham shot .161.

And one can only wonder how many more titles Wilt would have won had he had Hannum or Sharman coaching his team's his entire career, instead of the majority of them being complete morons.

[PHILA]

nate thurmond , a stiff , gave up 50 lbs to wilt
russell was no match for wilt size wise but he was just
as good an athlete and cared more about winning
Thurmond a stiff? :roll: The same stiff that shut Kareem Abdul-Jabbar down in the '73 playoffs?


i hated wilt with a passion because he never beat them **
besides not winning , i just never liked his game . . . the
back-to-the-basket-fingerolls were simply the ugliest
shots in basketball history . . his game just lacked
fluidity as opposed to kareem who was fluid in his
movements dribbled and shot the ball gracefully
with touch , with either hand , from distance
From your prior posts on the board it seems you are a Lakers fan. More specifically another Chamberlain hating Lakers fan. Between this board and RealGM, I wouldn't have believed fans of the Los Angeles Lakers franchise could so vehemently despise him if I didn't see it myself. Incredible.


think it's great the passion you have for wilt
don't like the tearing down of others just to
lift him up . . . . he had enough advantages

Tearing down others? :facepalm

[alexandreben]

Secondly, all these GOAT discussions.....well, I take them with a grain of salt. There are many reasons, but I'll just give you one of them. Why do most people put Jabbar ahead of Wilt in there GOAT list? Because he has six rings to Wilt's two? That's absurd. Kareem had the benefit of playing on a GREAT team, with a GREAT coach, and a GREAT organization for ten years. Slight correction.....Riley didn't take over as coach until the 81/82 season, so almost eight years for the coach. Wilt only had that luxury in four of his fourteen years.....67, 68, 72, and 73. And by the way, Russell had that benefit his ENTIRE career. Had it not been for injuries in 68 and 73 (undoubtedly 68), Wilt may have had a couple more rings. Had Magic and Riley not come along, Kareem's career would most likely have ended quite differently.

My point is that these discussions rarely ever take into account the circumstances and "what if's" for each player. For example, how many rings would Jordan and Jabbar have if they had faced what Wilt did every year the first ten years of his career.....the Boston dynasty? How many rings would Russell have if Red Auerbach had chosen to have been a car salesman, or if he had been drafted by any other team other than Boston? The truth is, there is simply no way to level the playing field for the various GOAT candidates, so all you can do is examine their individual circumstances, and consider the "what if's". And it's all speculation. So, like I said earlier, I take all these GOAT discussions with a grain of salt.

I will say this though.....having seen all the greats for the past 47 years, if I had the first pick in a draft of every player that's ever played, my pick would be, with no hesitation whatsoever, Wilt Chamberlain.
It's always good to see some posts with wisdom..

Just out of curiosity, according to how exactly they play or matchups and your "what if's" criterias, how do you rank Kareem and Nate Thurmond and Russell? And how do you rank Hondo, Kobe and Pistol?

BTW, welcome to ISH although I'm not a regular in this board:cheers:

[Yung D-Will]

[QUOTE=aau]

Brilliant post. Hits the nail on the head. You can't go on about Wilt being super human then blame his team mates for his faliure.

Why people do it to Lebron every year.


Lol sry had too.

[alexandreben]

I posted this over two years ago:

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226

I hate misinformation, regardless of who says it, regardless of what the agenda is.

It was my first time to read this, great stuffs, and believe it or not, I wrote something very similar a year ago but in different language:cheers:

To add a few stats from my ancient post, here's some of HOFers average stats during regular facing Wilt's league(can I say that Wilt owned the league by that time?:hammerhead: ):

Bill Bussell (1959-1969): 15pts/24rbs
Walt Bellamy (1961-1973) 18.8pts/15.2rbs
Jerry Lucas (1963-1973) 17pts/19.5rbs
Willis Reed (1964-1973) 18.3pts/12.6rbs
Wes Unseld (1968-1973) 13.9pts/17.1rbs
Nate Thurmond (1965-1973) 20pts/20rbs
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1969-1973) 31.4pts/15.8rbs
Bob Lanier (1970-1973) 21.7pts/12.4rbs
Dave Cowens (1968-1973) 18.8pts/15.5rbs

[jlauber]

It was my first time to read this, great stuffs, and believe it or not, I wrote something very similar a year ago but in different language:cheers:

To add a few stats from my ancient post, here's some of HOFers average stats during regular facing Wilt's league(can I say that Wilt owned the league by that time?:hammerhead: ):

Bill Bussell (1959-1969): 15pts/24rbs
Walt Bellamy (1961-1973) 18.8pts/15.2rbs
Jerry Lucas (1963-1973) 17pts/19.5rbs
Willis Reed (1964-1973) 18.3pts/12.6rbs
Wes Unseld (1968-1973) 13.9pts/17.1rbs
Nate Thurmond (1965-1973) 20pts/20rbs
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1969-1973) 31.4pts/15.8rbs
Bob Lanier (1970-1973) 21.7pts/12.4rbs
Dave Cowens (1968-1973) 18.8pts/15.5rbs

I get a kick out of those posters that claim that the 90's were the "Golden Age" of centers. Wilt faced as many as 11 HOF centers in his career, and he also faced All-Stars like Zelmo Beatty and Wayne Embry. He even easily outplayed Gilmore in a brief encounter in the early 70's. I doubt that the 90's class will have more than HALF as many HOFers, and they most certainly will not come close to ELEVEN (despite league's with 29-30 teams!)

Yet, that is what Wilt faced, and mostly outplayed, or downright crushed.

[aau]

Thurmond a stiff? :roll: The same stiff that shut Kareem Abdul-Jabbar down in the '73 playoffs?


From your prior posts on the board it seems you are a Lakers fan. More specifically another Chamberlain hating Lakers fan. Between this board and RealGM, I wouldn't have believed fans of the Los Angeles Lakers franchise could so vehemently despise him if I didn't see it myself. Incredible.


Tearing down others? :facepalm

most definitely a stiff , , you guys love fg%

nate shot 39% , 42 , 40 , 43 , 41 , 41 , 41% his first 7 seasons
he wasn't a jumpshooter , mainly shot from pointblank range
we're talking career 60% free throw shooter . . . in '69 he
took 1394 shots to make 1524 points . . . . . . GTFO
stiff

now you want to make it personal , , , , i was a basketball fan
long before i became a laker fan . . . i hit you with some very
poignant stuff , , normally you reply with harvard-like essays
that read like bible references with quotes from Jesus . . . .
i feel cheated

according to you guys it was never wilt's fault , , , all his teammates
you guys have gone so far as to give him "close-to-the-title" points

"well if sam jones hadn't drilled that jumper in wilt's face at
the buzzer in game 7 , , , , , , , , we woulda won"
lmao

pointblank , if your team was good enough to get to the finals
and take the series to 7 games , , , , on multiple occasions
they were good enough to win multiple titles outright
no ifs , ands or buts about it

bill russell would run over his mother to win a game

wilt would rather run his mouth

[jlauber]

pointblank , if your team was good enough to get to the finals
and take the series to 7 games , , , , on multiple occasions
they were good enough to win multiple titles outright
no ifs , ands or buts about it


I'm not going to waste too much time with any of your nonsense. Thurmond held Kareem WAY BELOW his scoring and FG% numbers over the course of 61 (yes sixty-one) games, including three straight playoff series in which Kareem had far better personnel.

As for the above quote, in the ONE series in which Chamberlain had an equal supporting cast, that was healthy, and that played half-way decent, Chamberlain crushed Russell, and his team damn near swept Russell's Celtics, in a 4-1 blowout win. So, yes, IF Wilt would have had better supporting casts, I have no doubt that he would have won his fair share of titles.

[aau]

I'm not going to waste too much time with any of your nonsense. Thurmond held Kareem WAY BELOW his scoring and FG% numbers over the course of 61 (yes sixty-one) games, including three straight playoff series in which Kareem had far better personnel.

As for the above quote, in the ONE series in which Chamberlain had an equal supporting cast, that was healthy, and that played half-way decent, Chamberlain crushed Russell, and his team damn near swept Russell's Celtics, in a 4-1 blowout win. So, yes, IF Wilt would have had better supporting casts, I have no doubt that he would have won his fair share of titles.

yeah , that's why you're wasting your time replying to
a post that wasn't directed at you
miss me fool

it must hurt your feelings that thurmond said kareem was the
best center he ever faced . . . . . . just for the record
stiffs sometimes make for great defenders with their
clumsy awkwardness , that's why they stay hurt

just because nate was a great defender doesn't mean
he wasn't a stiff . . . . would you consider
mutumbo a fluid athlete

'if wilt had a better supporting cast
he still would have gotten his ass kicked'

face up , y'boy was a loser

he couldn't have cared less about winning

[PHILA]

I'm not going to waste too much time with any of your nonsense. Thurmond held Kareem WAY BELOW his scoring and FG% numbers over the course of 61 (yes sixty-one) games, including three straight playoff series in which Kareem had far better personnel.

It may potentially have worked wonders for Chamberlain's legacy had there been a required compensation for a veteran free agent during his years as opposed to the days of illegal reserve clauses where the owners had complete control (abolished in large part thanks to Abdul-Jabbar's apparently overrated disgraceful choker of a teammate in Oscar Robertson (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135720)), allowing the Lakers to bar Chamberlain from extending his professional basketball career with the Knicks or the Conquistadors, thus indirectly ushering him into a Hall of Fame professional volleyball (http://i41.tinypic.com/9hn91z.jpg) career. Of course without noting that the balding defensively liable role player rode a free ride to at least two of his world championships, one of which required the obligatory Laker gift in the form of two foul shots on the single worst call (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJTsmS5MokM#t=5m45s) in the history of professional basketball to save them from elimination.

The first generous compensation was a #1 draft pick for a veteran that had signed with another team as a free agent due to the steaming arrogance from the management refusing to financially compensate the man for his contributions to the organization (notably his being a key member of the single greatest team (http://i42.tinypic.com/ju7p6b.jpg) in that franchise's history to date.) His new team had it's star player (http://i38.tinypic.com/2s7gowo.jpg) suffer what was effectively a career ending injury, leading to them having the worst record in the league the next season prior to relocating (before the lottery era). That top pick they gave away ended up being this man (http://i42.tinypic.com/uolg4.jpg). The second one being for a #1 pick again (this time from a team that lost it's top scorer midway through the season with their new owner getting suckered into the single worst trade in the history of professional basketball) for a bench warmer. End result being this man (http://i41.tinypic.com/10dxjyu.jpg) gift wrapped for the world champions.

It would indeed be a fantasy to have a man like Oscar Robertson teamed up with Wilt Chamberlain at any point in their careers (as opposed to Chamberlain's Warriors losing 2 of their top 3 ball players and head coach simply due to the 2500 mile move to San Francisco; not to neglect seven new ball players resulting in a rebuilding process of a team that was seconds away from dethroning the Celtics a few months earlier, merely for financial reasons).

When the Lakers did happen to face off against the top team (http://i44.tinypic.com/2uh1krr.jpg) of the 1980's, it was a disgraceful sweep & Abdul-Jabbar was humiliated by his opponent in the pivot. Things could have been a bit interesting the year before had Chamberlain had accepted Katz' willing offer of $500,000 to play the remainder of the '82 season for the Sixers. God forbid they get to the Finals actually beat the Lakers.

[jlauber]

yeah , that's why you're wasting your time replying to
a post that wasn't directed at you
miss me fool

it must hurt your feelings that thurmond said kareem was the
best center he ever faced . . . . . . just for the record
stiffs sometimes make for great defenders with their
clumsy awkwardness , that's why they stay hurt

just because nate was a great defender doesn't mean
he wasn't a stiff . . . . would you consider
mutumbo a fluid athlete

'if wilt had a better supporting cast
he still would have gotten his ass kicked'

face up , y'boy was a loser

he couldn't have cared less about winning

I already provided you with an example when Wilt had a COMPARABLE supporting cast, and he and his team, kicked Russell, and his team's, ass.

As for being a "loser", once again, Hakeem played in 18 seasons, and won two rings. And, oh, BTW, he played on EIGHT playoff teams that were eliminated in the first round. Wilt played in 14 seasons, against the greatest Dynasty in NBA history for TEN of them, and won two rings. Who was the bigger "loser?"

[aau]

good thing players aren't judged on their failures seeing how
difficult it is to just win a couple . . . . . it's hard to win in
this league , that's why your successes far outweigh
your losses . . . . nobody but russell magic jordan
- and now kobe with his 5th - won all the time

think about it . . . the best that ever played the game
only won 6 titles in 14-15 attempts on average
barring russell

you really have to capitalize on the opportunities you get

hakeem did . . . jordan retired , , hakeem was like

happy halloween

[jlauber]

good thing players aren't judged on their failures seeing how
difficult it is to just win a couple . . . . . it's hard to win in
this league , that's why your successes far outweigh
your losses . . . . nobody but russell magic jordan
- and now kobe with his 5th - won all the time

think about it . . . the best that ever played the game
only won 6 titles in 14-15 attempts on average
barring russell

you really have to capitalize on the opportunities you get

hakeem did . . . jordan retired , , hakeem was like

happy halloween

Yes, Jordan played on FIVE losing team's in his career, too. And, yes, Hakeem was able to win one ring in a year in which Jordan did not play. Did Hakeem ever face a "Dynasty" team, and lead his team to a title? So, if you consider Wilt a "loser" then you must also believe that Jordan was a "LOSER" in over half of his career. That Kareem was a "loser" in 14 seasons, or MORE than Wilt. Or that Shaq was a "loser" in 14 seasons, or MORE than Wilt. Or that players like Oscar, West, Robinson, Lebron, Howard, Barkley, Moses, Dr. J, Barry, and many other "greats" who either only won as many titles as Wilt, or less, were "losers."

[aau]

I already provided you with an example when Wilt had a COMPARABLE supporting cast, and he and his team, kicked Russell, and his team's, ass.

As for being a "loser", once again, Hakeem played in 18 seasons, and won two rings. And, oh, BTW, he played on EIGHT playoff teams that were eliminated in the first round. Wilt played in 14 seasons, against the greatest Dynasty in NBA history for TEN of them, and won two rings. Who was the bigger "loser?"

how can you say wilt's cast wasn't comparable when
they took the celtics to 7 games with the series
being decided oftentimes at the buzzer

yeah , wilt got his ONE . . . but only a handful , if that
have ever repeated as fmvp , hakeem is one of them
just winning ONE has some kinda fluke-like feel to it

besides
hakeem faced competition that was actually comparable to him
kareem dropped back-to-back 40s on him and ralph
wilt never faced anything like that

shaq . . . who was the shaq of the 60s , , , nate thurmond?

robinson and duncan ... parish and mchale . . . ewing

please . . . .

there's a reason the celtics were the greatest dynasty in L history

they got to play against wilt-led teams

[jlauber]

how can you say wilt's cast wasn't comparable when
they took the celtics to 7 games with the series
being decided oftentimes at the buzzer

yeah , wilt got his ONE . . . but only a handful , if that
have ever repeated as fmvp , hakeem is one of them
just winning ONE has some kinda fluke-like feel to it

besides
hakeem faced competition that was actually comparable to him
kareem dropped back-to-back 40s on him and ralph
wilt never faced anything like that
shaq . . . who was the shaq of the 60s , , , nate thurmond?

robinson and duncan ... parish and mchale . . . ewing

please . . . .

there's a reason the celtics were the greatest dynasty in L history

they got to play against wilt-led teams

Wilt faced Kareem in 28 games. He held him to .464 shooting in those 28 games (Kareem was a career .559 shooter.) He outrebounded Kareem in the majority of them. In their only H2H game before Wilt's injury in the 69-70 season, Wilt outscored Kareem, 25-23; outrebounded Kareem, 25-20; outassisted Kareem, 5-2; outblocked Kareem, 3-2; and outshot Kareem, 9-14 to 9-21. In their last ten H2H games, Wilt held Kareem to .434 shooting (including .414 in the last four games of the '72 WCF's.) In their last season in the league, they faced each other in six regular season games. Kareem easily outscored Wilt, who was hardly shooting at that juncture of his career, BUT, Chamberlain outshot him from the floor, .637 to ,450, and in fact, he outscored Kareem in one game that season, in which he also outshot Kareem, 10-14 to 10-27.

They met in the '72 WCF's, and here were some interesting articles...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep It Up

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

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

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

How about this one...

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


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

Or this one...

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

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

[magnax1]

Even if Wilt's stat's did have a pretty large drop off, he still had some of the best stats ever. He definitely didn't have the right attitude, but I don't think he's a choker, especially considering the majority of his teams weren't championship caliber with almost every player in NBA history. I'm not sure any other player is taking the 62 Celtics to 7 games with the 62 Warriors roster.

[aau]

Yes, Jordan played on FIVE losing team's in his career, too. And, yes, Hakeem was able to win one ring in a year in which Jordan did not play. Did Hakeem ever face a "Dynasty" team, and lead his team to a title? So, if you consider Wilt a "loser" then you must also believe that Jordan was a "LOSER" in over half of his career. That Kareem was a "loser" in 14 seasons, or MORE than Wilt. Or that Shaq was a "loser" in 14 seasons, or MORE than Wilt. Or that players like Oscar, West, Robinson, Lebron, Howard, Barkley, Moses, Dr. J, Barry, and many other "greats" who either only won as many titles as Wilt, or less, were "losers."

this is what i'm talking about

jordan won 6 titles 6 fmvp and he's a loser?

shaq won 4 titles 3 fmvp and he's a loser?

hakeem led his team to the finals against bird and his celtics
in just his 2nd season . . . he didn't win it but he knocked
off a kareem-led laker team to get there . . that's
more impressive than finally beating the celts
without red auerbach and a warrior team
with nate thurmond and clyde lee at C

dr j a loser with 3 titles and 2 fmvp . . . . lmao
criticize the aba all you want , doc would've
dominated the nba much the same way
they had nobody like him either . . . .

that's why they had to have him and decided to take
on the other teams just to get him for without him
there would have been no merger and the nba
would have remained lifeless and boring

the difference is these other guys may not have won
a lot , , , but they actually cared about winning

wilt himself would tell you that wasn't
the reason he played the game

[jlauber]

this is what i'm talking about

jordan won 6 titles 6 fmvp and he's a loser?

shaq won 4 titles 3 fmvp and he's a loser?

hakeem led his team to the finals against bird and his celtics
in just his 2nd season . . . he didn't win it but he knocked
off a kareem-led laker team to get there . . that's
more impressive than finally beating the celts
without red auerbach and a warrior team
with nate thurmond and clyde lee at C

dr j a loser with 3 titles and 2 fmvp . . . . lmao
criticize the aba all you want , doc would've
dominated the nba much the same way
they had nobody like him either . . . .

that's why they had to have him and decided to take
on the other teams just to get him for without him
there would have been no merger and the nba
would have remained lifeless and boring

the difference is these other guys may not have won
a lot , , , but they actually cared about winning

wilt himself would tell you that wasn't
the reason he played the game

I could shoot holes in almost this entire post. I only claimed that those guys were "losers" based on what YOU posted. Hakeem won as many rings as Wilt, and played four more seasons.

I also bolded your comment that Hakeem's losing to Bird's Celtics was more impressive than Wilt beating a team that had won EIGHT straight NBA titles, and in that 66-67 season, Chamberlain's Sixers slaughtered that 60-21 Celtic team. BTW, how about Wilt taking a 40-40 Sixer team, that was outgunned in HOFers by a 5-2 margin, to a game seven, one-point loss against Russell's 62-18 Celtics in '65? In a series in which Wilt outscored Russell, 211-109, and outrebounded him, 221-177?

[jlauber]

Even if Wilt's stat's did have a pretty large drop off, he still had some of the best stats ever. He definitely didn't have the right attitude, but I don't think he's a choker, especially considering the majority of his teams weren't championship caliber with almost every player in NBA history. I'm not sure any other player is taking the 62 Celtics to 7 games with the 62 Warriors roster.

Chamberlain's post-season scoring is somewhat deceptive. I have said it before, but you can basically break down Chamberlain's career into three sections. The first one, which I consider his "scoring" seasons, was from 59-60 thur 65-66. The second one, which I consider his "balanced" seasons (mainly because he finally had some quality teammates) was from the 66-67 thru the 68-69 seasons. And then, his last one, is what I consider his post-injury seasons (he was injured early on in the 69-70 season), which ran from 69-70 thru his last season, in 72-73.

But for the sake of this argument, we'll just go with two sections, or halves. The first half of Wilt's career was still those "scoring" seasons, from 59-60 thru 65-66, and then the last half would obviously be from 66-67 thru 72-73. In the first half of his regular season career, he averaged 39.4 ppg, and in the last half he averaged about 20 ppg.

However, in his post-season career, he only played 52 of his 160 total post-season games, in his "scoring" seasons. In fact, he only played in the post-season, in the first half of his career, in six of his "scoring" seasons, because his horrible 62-63 team did not make the playoffs. And that is significant, because during that season, he had his second highest scoring season, at 44.8 ppg. In any case, as you can see, he only played about one-third of his post-season games, in his "scoring" seasons. He averaged 33 ppg in those six post-seasons, which was down somewhat from 39.4 ppg, but remember, he missed one entire "scoring" season, and that was his second highest scoring season.

And not only did he only play one-third of his post-season games in the first half of his career, he was facing a HOF center in the vast majority of them. In fact, he faced Russell in 30 of those 52 games. And, for those that like to point out that Chamberlain's scoring dropped significantly in the 61-62 post-season (from 50 ppg down to 35 ppg), his COACH had him PASSING the ball inthe first four games of the five game series with Syracuse (in game five of that best-of-five series, Wilt got the green light, and he responded with a 56-35 game BTW.) Furthermore, and this is important,...during the regular season that year, and against Russell, he "only" averaged 38 ppg on about .470 shooting. In that seven game series in the ECF's, Wilt averaged 33 ppg on about 46%. So, his numbers did not drop as dramatically as they first appeared that post-season.

Chamberlain had his share of great post-seasons, and even some against Russell. He averaged a 30-31 game against Russell in the '65 ECF's (and Russell was at 15-25 BTW.) In the '64 Finals he averaged a 29-27 series (and Russell was at 11-25.) In the '66 ECF's Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 28-14, and outrebound him, per game, 30-26. So, in his "scoring" seasons, he faced Russell in four series, and averaged an almost even 30 ppg and 28 rpg against him combined.

And, the fact was, Chamberlain faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of his entire 160 post-season games, AND, his team's were outgunned by HOFers in EVERY post-season in his entire career.

Furthemore, while Wilt's scoring dropped slightly, as did his FG% (from .540 down to .522...of course, almost EVERY great player had a decline in post-season FG% BTW)...his rebounding INCREASED. And, he outrebounded his opposing center in EVERY ONE of his 29 post-season series, including Russell in all EIGHT of their H2H post-season series. And, in the series and games that we have recorded FG% in in the post-season, Wilt also held his opposing center to lower FG percentages, as well...and in many of them, by HUGE margins.

[Horatio33]

[QUOTE=Horatio33]

Why people do it to Lebron every year.


Lol sry had too.

It's a fair point you make. Wilt Chamberlain lacked the mental toughness to win consistantly. even said himself, that he prefered losing big games to winning them, because it builds up pressure to continue winning. Doesn't sound like a leader to me. Shaq is the same. Not a big leader, even in the 3 peat, thought the leader was Derek Fisher with Phil Jax pulling the strings to give him the neccessary motivation. Shaq always wanted things his way, like Wilt did. Wilt wanted to prove he could pass as well as he could score. So he led the league in assists, but to the detriment of his team.

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]

It's a fair point you make. Wilt Chamberlain lacked the mental toughness to win consistantly. even said himself, that he prefered losing big games to winning them, because it builds up pressure to continue winning. Doesn't sound like a leader to me. Shaq is the same. Not a big leader, even in the 3 peat, thought the leader was Derek Fisher with Phil Jax pulling the strings to give him the neccessary motivation. Shaq always wanted things his way, like Wilt did. Wilt wanted to prove he could pass as well as he could score. So he led the league in assists, but to the detriment of his team.

First of all, it would be interesting to find out just WHEN Wilt made that comment about preferring to lose games. Why? Because it would be important to look at the context. Chamberlain was labeled a "loser" in College, for cryingoutloud, even though, in his soph year, he took a team, on his back to to the NCAA Finals, where he was tripled-teamed the entire game, and his TEAM lost in OT. And, in his junior year, his team went 18-5...but, he missed three games to an illness, and his TEAM went 0-3, which eliminated them from the tourney.

Wilt was EXPECTED to carry his TEAM's to championships...and as the frustrations mounted, year-after-year, I'm sure he became very defensive on the topic of "winning-and-losing."

Of course, Wilt "the loser" played on team's that won somewhere around 67% of their games; went to the playoffs in 13 of his 14 seasons (and in the year they didn't, all he did was lead the NBA in scoring by a HUGE margin; lead the league in rebounding; set a then record of a .528 FG%; had the highest Win Share in the league by a HUGE margin; and set a PER mark that is STILL an All-Time RECORD. In those 13 playoff seasons, he took his team to the conference Finals in TWELVE of them. His team's won their division or conference regular season crowns in SEVEN times. His team's went to SIX Finals. His team's had the best record in the league in FOUR seasons. He played on FOUR 60+ win team's. And he anchored two of the greatest team's in NBA history that won titles in dominating fashion.

As for Wilt leading the league in assists, "to the detriment of the team", Chamberlain's 67-68 Sixers RAN AWAY with the BEST record in the league that season, going 62-20, to Boston's 54-28.

[PHILA]

http://i54.tinypic.com/2zszme1.jpg

http://i51.tinypic.com/2qd0v3a.jpg

http://i55.tinypic.com/20psvsz.jpg

http://i55.tinypic.com/6r1s1z.jpg

[jlauber]

I wish the admins would make this a sticky...

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Was Wilt a "failure", a "loser", and a "choker?"

Here is my response taken from another thread...

The more and more research that has become available, the more we see just how horribly misguided was the PERCEPTION of Chamberlain's career...even at the time in which he played.

I wish the admins would make this a sticky...

The notion of Wilt not coming through in big games..or being a "choker"..perhaps had to do with his FT shooting. Wilt's teams lost four Game 7s to Bill's Celtics by a total of 9 points. He must have missed many more free throws than that in those games. I presume that it made Wilt not want to ask for the ball (making his team not dump the ball down low to him, a la Shaquille).

The thing is..by all accounts, Chamberlain worked extensively on his FT shooting trying a variety of techniques (even under-handed-style). From an outsider looking in, it seems that all of that may have messed up his mental approach, quite possibly costing his teams. Even if Wilt was marginally better from the charity-stripe...his teams would have had a couple more postseason wins over Russell’s Celtics (possibly a few more titles as well), in which case the perception of Wilt's career would be quite different from what it largely is today.

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]The notion of Wilt not coming through in big games..or being a "choker"..perhaps had to do with his FT shooting. Wilt's teams lost four Game 7s to Bill's Celtics by a total of 9 points. He must have missed many more free throws than that in those games. I presume that it made Wilt not want to ask for the ball (making his team not dump the ball down low to him, a la Shaquille).

The thing is..by all accounts, Chamberlain worked extensively on his FT shooting trying a variety of techniques (even under-handed-style). From an outsider looking in, it seems that all of that may have messed up his mental approach, quite possibly costing his teams. Even if Wilt was marginally better from the charity-stripe...his teams would have had a couple more postseason wins over Russell

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It just amazes me how some posters here continually rip Wilt for his poor FT shooting, but NEVER bring up the fact that he ROUTINELY reduced his OPPOSING centers to WAY BELOW their normal numbers in the post-season.

Furthermore, these "anti-Chamberlain" posters NEVER bring up the FACT that Wilt's TEAMs BENEFITTED from Wilt's IMPACT at the FT line. For instance, Wilt played in 35 Finals games...and his TEAM's outshot their opponents from the line by a 26-6-3 margin. And in MANY cases they were shooting SIGNIFICANTLY more FTs.

Once again, the best example of this...

In Wilt's 68-69 season with LA, the Lakers LED the NBA in FTAs. And in the post-season, they shot 109 MORE FTs than the next best team (Boston.)

Wilt was injured early on in the 69-70 season, and missed 70 games. The result? The Lakers dropped from FIRST down to TWELVETH (in a 14 team league.) BUT, Wilt returned for the playoffs, and the Lakers were MILES ahead of the next best team, taking 655 FTAs to the Knicks 455. And, H2H against the Knicks, the Lakers had a 256-160 advantage in FTAs, AND, a 176-122 differential in FTs MADE.

BTW, Russell and Shaq were only marginally better FT shooters in their careers, and yet they still won 15 rings between them.

If you cannot admit his troubles from the line played an integral part of the outcome those games, you simply aren't worthy of an honest discussion. Maybe if you stopped living vicariously through his corpse you would be taken a little more seriously.

Just some food for thought...

[PHILA]

Russell Rules: 11 Lessons on Leadership From the Twentieth Century's Greatest Winner - Bill Russell

http://i.imgur.com/TeHIN.png

[PHILA]

if you stopped living vicariously through his corpse

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/2+MEMORIAL+SERVICES+SET+FOR+CHAMBERLAIN.-a083624199


``It was Wilt's wish to be cremated, and I guess this is part of it, too,'' said former Frankford High basketball coach Vince Miller, Chamberlain's best friend since third grade.

``They're going to leave some of the ashes in L.A. after the funeral, and then bring some of them here next week.

``It's not a bad idea. It's a good idea, actually. Let's face it. He spent about half his life in each place.''

[PTB Fan]

Wilt was not one of the greatest winners. Period. For the bigger part of his career, he was an individual at first and he played for stats, records etc. That led to being traded in his peak (although that was more on his own will), had team mates calling him out for being selfish and ball hog.

Then, in 67, he decided to go for a team approach and he won a ring. He still had quality support behind him, but he was the reason behind it. And in those LA teams, he cost the teams with his bad FT shooting in the Finals.

2-15, 3-11... and similar performances in key games.That's quite bad. Chamberlain's miss FTs make him as a choker. No doubt Wilt past 67 to the end of his career, made his teams absolutely great with his all-around game and team approach.

It's a shame he didn't play like that, but what should you expect from an individual superstar expect to play for himself at first and then for everything else.

And comparing him to Russell in team accomplishment isn't a good idea, because only Bill managed to beat him well in their match ups.

[G.O.A.T]

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/2+MEMORIAL+SERVICES+SET+FOR+CHAMBERLAIN.-a083624199


``It was Wilt's wish to be cremated, and I guess this is part of it, too,'' said former Frankford High basketball coach Vince Miller, Chamberlain's best friend since third grade.

``They're going to leave some of the ashes in L.A. after the funeral, and then bring some of them here next week.

``It's not a bad idea. It's a good idea, actually. Let's face it. He spent about half his life in each place.''

This is among the greatest responses of all-time!

[jlauber]

Wilt was not one of the greatest winners. Period. For the bigger part of his career, he was an individual at first and he played for stats, records etc. That led to being traded in his peak (although that was more on his own will), had team mates calling him out for being selfish and ball hog.

Then, in 67, he decided to go for a team approach and he won a ring. He still had quality support behind him, but he was the reason behind it. And in those LA teams, he cost the teams with his bad FT shooting in the Finals.

2-15, 3-11... and similar performances in key games.That's quite bad. Chamberlain's miss FTs make him as a choker. No doubt Wilt past 67 to the end of his career, made his teams absolutely great with his all-around game and team approach.

It's a shame he didn't play like that, but what should you expect from an individual superstar expect to play for himself at first and then for everything else.

And comparing him to Russell in team accomplishment isn't a good idea, because only Bill managed to beat him well in their match ups.

First of all, saying Wilt was not one of the greatest "winners" is truly laughable. The man played on 12 teams in his 14 seasons that had winning records. And, he took 12 teams to the Conference Finals, and SIX teams to the Finals. For comparision sake, Bird took eight teams to the Conference Finals, and only five to the Finals.

And Wilt played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13 (and WON 33 straight games.) Here again, for comparison sake, how about Russell? Three. And his best record was 62-18.

Wilt also played on FOUR teams that had the BEST record in the league. And, aside from MJ, find me ONE other "great" player that played on team's that went 68-13 and 69-13. And MJ also played on FIVE teams that had LOSING records, too.

How about Wilt's two "non-winning" seasons? In his 62-63 season, all Wilt did was average 44.8 ppg (winning the scoring crown by +10.8 ppg); lead the league in rebounding at 24.3 rpg; set a then record FG% mark of .528 (in a league that shot .441); and even handed out 3.4 apg. He LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories, and had offensive and defensive rebounding, rebound %, and blocked shots been official stats, he probably would have led in those, as well. He even LED the league in WIN SHARES, and by a large margin. He was directly responsible for 20.9 of his team's 31 wins, or about 70%. And his PER rating of 31.8 is the ALL-TIME RECORD.

And, while his TEAM, with arguably the worst cast of clowns ever assembled, went 31-49, Wilt managed to keep them in nearly EVERY game. They lost 35 games by single digits, and had a -2.1 ppg differential. And how much help did Wilt receive from that inept roster? They collectively shot .412, which would have been well behind the WORST team in the league (Boston, at .427.)

How bad was that roster? The very next season, Wilt's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, which pitted them against draftees and players who would not make a roster. Guess which team won? Not only that, but the "anti-Wilt" posters will NEVER mention that Chamberlain then took that cast of misfits to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, where they lost two games in the waning seconds, and 4-1 overall, to the Celtics and their EIGHT HOFers. And all Wilt did in that series was outscore Russell, per game, 29-11; outrebound Russell, per game, 27-25; and Wilt also shot .517 from the floor in that series, and while we don't know what Russell shot in that series, we do know that he shot .356 in his tem post-season games, five of which were against Chamberlain.

Wilt was traded to the Sixers at mid-season the very next year. Keep in mind that Philly had gone 34-46 the year before. And Wilt guided them to a 40-40 record. THEN, he took them to a 3-1 series romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals. Following that series, Wilt led the Sixers to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics. And in that game seven, all he did was score Philly's last six points (including 2-2 from the line), and a roaring comeback from a 110-101 deficit to within 110-109. And it took a miracle steal by Havlicek to perserve Boston's win, too. In that seventh game, Wilt scored 30 points, with 32 rebounds, and on 12-15 shooting from the floor. For the series, all he did was average 30 ppg and 31 rpg.

BTW, Wilt came to a LAST PLACE team. Russell, by comparison, basically replaced Ed McCauley, AND, joined HOFer rookie Tom Heinsohn in his first season, on a team that had gone 39-33 the year before. Furthermore, the Celtics added Sam Jones the very next season. Conversely, Wilt's rosters got WORSE each season. His good teammates got older, and were not replaced.

And, think about this... in Wilt's first six post-seasons, covering his first seven seasons, his teammates collectively shot .382, .380, .354, .354, .352, and even .332 in the post-season. And yet Wilt still took two of those team's to game seven losses by 2 and 1 point against Russell's vaunted Dynasty...as well as that '64 trip to the Finals. How? How could ONE man so single-handedly carry those teams so far, and against such superior rosters?


And let's dispose of this nonsense that all Wilt played for in the first half of his career was personal stats. He did whatever his COACH's asked of him. It was NOT Wilt's idea to score 50 ppg in the 61-62 season. His coach took one look at the pathetic cast of teammates on that roster, and asked Wilt to shoot the ball. And who could blame him? Wilt shot .506 from the field, while his teammates collectively shot .402 (in a league that shot .426.) Then, somehow Wilt got that putrid cast past Syracuse (and with a game five, in a best-of-five series, of 56-35) and to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers, and with those teammates collectively shooting an awful .354 from the floor in the post-season.

Wilt finally had a quality supporting cast in the 65-66 season. And, much like his 62-63 season, when his team went 31-49, all Wilt did was lead the league in scoring, at 33.5 ppg; lead the league in rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; hand out 5.2 apg; and shoot a then-record .540 from the floor...en route to leading the Sixers to the BEST record in the league. BUT, what happened in the post-season? Wilt averaged 28 ppg, with 30.2 rpg, and on .509 shooting, while his teammates collectively shot .352. Yet, Wilt gets the blame???


And this FT shooting crap has to stop, as well. Russell had the good fortune to win SIX titles in post-seasons in which he shot less than 60% from the line(.585, .552, .526, .523, .508, and .506.) AND, he also won SIX rings while shooting .427, .423, .409, .409, .365, and .356 from the FLOOR (as well as two other post-seasons of .365 and .360 shooting.) Shaq won two of his our rings with post-season's of .456 and .374 shooting, and he had other post-seasons of .471, .466, .429, .393, and .333.


And comparing Russell to Wilt in TEAM accomplishments??? Russell played his ENTIRE career with a minimum of FOUR HOF teammates, and as many as EIGHT. Not only that, but he collectively received 71 seasons from his HOF teammates, while Wilt got 20 from his. None other than the great John Wooden commented that had Wilt had the same rosters that Russell played with in his career, he would likely have won as many rings, as well. In any case, swap their rosters in their ten H2H seasons in the league, and Wilt would have won far more than one ring in that span. As it was, Wilt was nine measley points away from going 5-3 against Russell in the post-season, instead of 1-7. And does anyone in their right mind believe that Wilt would not have murdered Russell's teams in 62-63 and 63-64 had they swapped rosters?

Basketball is a TEAM game. I give Russell credit for maximizing his surrounding talent, but he enjoyed a HUGE edge in talent in the course of their ten years in the league together, as well as a HUGE edge in coaching. While Russell had the great Auerbach, Wilt was saddled with either lazy coaches, who just asked Wilt to single-handedly carry those inept rosters, or incompetent coaches who had no idea how to use Wilt.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

This is among the greatest responses of all-time!

Touche. Unfortunately, the underlying point of my post will fall upon deaf ears. Jlauber's infatuation for Chamberlain is enough to throw him into a mental asylum, straight jacket and all.

[jlauber]

Touche. Unfortunately, the underlying point of my post will fall upon deaf ears. Jlauber's infatuation for Chamberlain is enough to throw him into a mental asylum, straight jacket and all.

And you are one of a handful of posters that completely waste your time, and everyone else's, with uneducated, unresearched, and unintelligent posts.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

And you are one of a handful of posters that completely waste your time, and everyone else's, with uneducated, unresearched, and unintelligent posts.

Yes, because your constant whining, crying, moaning, copy and pasting is so much more liberating. As for me? No spam, I just present the facts and reality. You're wasting YOUR life sucking Wilt's dick. He's not better than Russell or Jordan, the world knows it.

[G.O.A.T]

Touche. Unfortunately, the underlying point of my post will fall upon deaf ears. Jlauber's infatuation for Chamberlain is enough to throw him into a mental asylum, straight jacket and all.

It's best to just ignore, it doesn't stop. Even when you agree with him it's never enough unless you agree with it all. Just steer clear of Wilt talk with him.

[millwad]

Yes, because your constant whining, crying, moaning, copy and pasting is so much more liberating. As for me? No spam, I just present the facts and reality. You're wasting YOUR life sucking Wilt's dick. He's not better than Russell or Jordan, the world knows it.

He is sick, seriously, the guy is not normal.
It's one thing to really like someone when you're a kid looking for role models but we are talking about a 56 year old man who's just obsessed with a basketball player who retired almost 40 years ago.

The guy is even older than my father and if my father would act like Jlauber I'd get him some professional help, his obsession is just ridiculous...

[jlauber]

He is sick, seriously, the guy is not normal.
It's one thing to really like someone when you're a kid looking for role models but we are talking about a 56 year old man who's just obsessed with a basketball player who retired almost 40 years ago.

The guy is even older than my father and if my father would act like Jlauber I'd get him some professional help, his obsession is just ridiculous...

Millwad and kuniva...quite possibly the same idiotic poster.

[PTB Fan]

First of all, saying Wilt was not one of the greatest "winners" is truly laughable. The man played on 12 teams in his 14 seasons that had winning records. And, he took 12 teams to the Conference Finals, and SIX teams to the Finals. For comparision sake, Bird took eight teams to the Conference Finals, and only five to the Finals.

And Wilt played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13 (and WON 33 straight games.) Here again, for comparison sake, how about Russell? Three. And his best record was 62-18.

Wilt also played on FOUR teams that had the BEST record in the league. And, aside from MJ, find me ONE other "great" player that played on team's that went 68-13 and 69-13. And MJ also played on FIVE teams that had LOSING records, too.

How about Wilt's two "non-winning" seasons? In his 62-63 season, all Wilt did was average 44.8 ppg (winning the scoring crown by +10.8 ppg); lead the league in rebounding at 24.3 rpg; set a then record FG% mark of .528 (in a league that shot .441); and even handed out 3.4 apg. He LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories, and had offensive and defensive rebounding, rebound %, and blocked shots been official stats, he probably would have led in those, as well. He even LED the league in WIN SHARES, and by a large margin. He was directly responsible for 20.9 of his team's 31 wins, or about 70%. And his PER rating of 31.8 is the ALL-TIME RECORD.

And, while his TEAM, with arguably the worst cast of clowns ever assembled, went 31-49, Wilt managed to keep them in nearly EVERY game. They lost 35 games by single digits, and had a -2.1 ppg differential. And how much help did Wilt receive from that inept roster? They collectively shot .412, which would have been well behind the WORST team in the league (Boston, at .427.)

How bad was that roster? The very next season, Wilt's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, which pitted them against draftees and players who would not make a roster. Guess which team won? Not only that, but the "anti-Wilt" posters will NEVER mention that Chamberlain then took that cast of misfits to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, where they lost two games in the waning seconds, and 4-1 overall, to the Celtics and their EIGHT HOFers. And all Wilt did in that series was outscore Russell, per game, 29-11; outrebound Russell, per game, 27-25; and Wilt also shot .517 from the floor in that series, and while we don't know what Russell shot in that series, we do know that he shot .356 in his tem post-season games, five of which were against Chamberlain.

Wilt was traded to the Sixers at mid-season the very next year. Keep in mind that Philly had gone 34-46 the year before. And Wilt guided them to a 40-40 record. THEN, he took them to a 3-1 series romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals. Following that series, Wilt led the Sixers to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics. And in that game seven, all he did was score Philly's last six points (including 2-2 from the line), and a roaring comeback from a 110-101 deficit to within 110-109. And it took a miracle steal by Havlicek to perserve Boston's win, too. In that seventh game, Wilt scored 30 points, with 32 rebounds, and on 12-15 shooting from the floor. For the series, all he did was average 30 ppg and 31 rpg.

BTW, Wilt came to a LAST PLACE team. Russell, by comparison, basically replaced Ed McCauley, AND, joined HOFer rookie Tom Heinsohn in his first season, on a team that had gone 39-33 the year before. Furthermore, the Celtics added Sam Jones the very next season. Conversely, Wilt's rosters got WORSE each season. His good teammates got older, and were not replaced.

And, think about this... in Wilt's first six post-seasons, covering his first seven seasons, his teammates collectively shot .382, .380, .354, .354, .352, and even .332 in the post-season. And yet Wilt still took two of those team's to game seven losses by 2 and 1 point against Russell's vaunted Dynasty...as well as that '64 trip to the Finals. How? How could ONE man so single-handedly carry those teams so far, and against such superior rosters?


And let's dispose of this nonsense that all Wilt played for in the first half of his career was personal stats. He did whatever his COACH's asked of him. It was NOT Wilt's idea to score 50 ppg in the 61-62 season. His coach took one look at the pathetic cast of teammates on that roster, and asked Wilt to shoot the ball. And who could blame him? Wilt shot .506 from the field, while his teammates collectively shot .402 (in a league that shot .426.) Then, somehow Wilt got that putrid cast past Syracuse (and with a game five, in a best-of-five series, of 56-35) and to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers, and with those teammates collectively shooting an awful .354 from the floor in the post-season.

Wilt finally had a quality supporting cast in the 65-66 season. And, much like his 62-63 season, when his team went 31-49, all Wilt did was lead the league in scoring, at 33.5 ppg; lead the league in rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; hand out 5.2 apg; and shoot a then-record .540 from the floor...en route to leading the Sixers to the BEST record in the league. BUT, what happened in the post-season? Wilt averaged 28 ppg, with 30.2 rpg, and on .509 shooting, while his teammates collectively shot .352. Yet, Wilt gets the blame???


And this FT shooting crap has to stop, as well. Russell had the good fortune to win SIX titles in post-seasons in which he shot less than 60% from the line(.585, .552, .526, .523, .508, and .506.) AND, he also won SIX rings while shooting .427, .423, .409, .409, .365, and .356 from the FLOOR (as well as two other post-seasons of .365 and .360 shooting.) Shaq won two of his our rings with post-season's of .456 and .374 shooting, and he had other post-seasons of .471, .466, .429, .393, and .333.


And comparing Russell to Wilt in TEAM accomplishments??? Russell played his ENTIRE career with a minimum of FOUR HOF teammates, and as many as EIGHT. Not only that, but he collectively received 71 seasons from his HOF teammates, while Wilt got 20 from his. None other than the great John Wooden commented that had Wilt had the same rosters that Russell played with in his career, he would likely have won as many rings, as well. In any case, swap their rosters in their ten H2H seasons in the league, and Wilt would have won far more than one ring in that span. As it was, Wilt was nine measley points away from going 5-3 against Russell in the post-season, instead of 1-7. And does anyone in their right mind believe that Wilt would not have murdered Russell's teams in 62-63 and 63-64 had they swapped rosters?

Basketball is a TEAM game. I give Russell credit for maximizing his surrounding talent, but he enjoyed a HUGE edge in talent in the course of their ten years in the league together, as well as a HUGE edge in coaching. While Russell had the great Auerbach, Wilt was saddled with either lazy coaches, who just asked Wilt to single-handedly carry those inept rosters, or incompetent coaches who had no idea how to use Wilt.


All those stats, numbers... yet two titles. That's right. And he's one of the greatest winners ever? Please... he was never one of the greatest winners ever.

He shouldn't be mentioned in same sentence with the likes of Russell, Jordan, Kareem etc when it comes to winning, period.

[jlauber]

All those stats, numbers... yet two titles. That's right. And he's one of the greatest winners ever? Please... he was never one of the greatest winners ever.

He shouldn't be mentioned in same sentence with the likes of Russell, Jordan, Kareem etc when it comes to winning, period.

Kareem won ONE ring in the weakest decade for champions in NBA history, and with the easiest road to a title ever in that season.

He won FIVE rings playing alongside a PRIME Magic for TEN seasons. And TWO of those came when he was LA's third and FIFTH best player. In fact, a case could be made that the Lakers won a title DESPITE Kareem's AWFUL play in '88.

Meanwhile, Chamberlain had to battle the greatest Dynasty in major professional sports history for TEN of his 14 seasons, and was heavily outgunned in surrounding personnel for the majority of that. Then, he had to battle the great 69-70 Knicks with West, an over-the-hill Baylor, and little else...and all while playing on ONE leg. In 70-71 he faced that 66-16 Bucks team, without BOTH West and Baylor. And in 72-73, he faced a Knick team with SIX HOFers.

In between, he LED two teams to dominating titles...blowing out Russell and the eight-time defending champs...and then whipping Kareem's '72 defending champion Bucks, as well as dominating the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers.

In the first half of his career, he was saddled with crappy rosters and coaches. In the last half, he took FIVE teams, in seven seasons, to the Finals, winning twice (and losing in game seven's twice.) In four of those seven years, his team's won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Kareem won ONE ring in the weakest decade for champions in NBA history, and with the easiest road to a title ever in that season.

He won FIVE rings playing alongside a PRIME Magic for TEN seasons. And TWO of those came when he was LA's third and FIFTH best player. In fact, a case could be made that the Lakers won a title DESPITE Kareem's AWFUL play in '88.

Meanwhile, Chamberlain had to battle the greatest Dynasty in major professional sports history for TEN of his 14 seasons, and was heavily outgunned in surrounding personnel for the majority of that. Then, he had to battle the great 69-70 Knicks with West, an over-the-hill Baylor, and little else...and all while playing on ONE leg. In 70-71 he faced that 66-16 Bucks team, without BOTH West and Baylor. And in 72-73, he faced a Knick team with SIX HOFers.

In between, he LED two teams to dominating titles...blowing out Russell and the eight-time defending champs...and then whipping Kareem's '72 defending champion Bucks, as well as dominating the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers.

In the first half of his career, he was saddled with crappy rosters and coaches. In the last half, he took FIVE teams, in seven seasons, to the Finals, winning twice (and losing in game seven's twice.) In four of those seven years, his team's won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13.

so hes 2-3 in the Finals.....

[millwad]

Bla bla bla...

Greatest winners of all-time is dedicated to players who actually WON a great amount of titles.

Did Wilt win a great amount if titles? NO...

[PTB Fan]

Kareem won ONE ring in the weakest decade for champions in NBA history, and with the easiest road to a title ever in that season.

He won FIVE rings playing alongside a PRIME Magic for TEN seasons. And TWO of those came when he was LA's third and FIFTH best player. In fact, a case could be made that the Lakers won a title DESPITE Kareem's AWFUL play in '88.

Meanwhile, Chamberlain had to battle the greatest Dynasty in major professional sports history for TEN of his 14 seasons, and was heavily outgunned in surrounding personnel for the majority of that. Then, he had to battle the great 69-70 Knicks with West, an over-the-hill Baylor, and little else...and all while playing on ONE leg. In 70-71 he faced that 66-16 Bucks team, without BOTH West and Baylor. And in 72-73, he faced a Knick team with SIX HOFers.

In between, he LED two teams to dominating titles...blowing out Russell and the eight-time defending champs...and then whipping Kareem's '72 defending champion Bucks, as well as dominating the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers.

In the first half of his career, he was saddled with crappy rosters and coaches. In the last half, he took FIVE teams, in seven seasons, to the Finals, winning twice (and losing in game seven's twice.) In four of those seven years, his team's won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13.

I'm giving Wilt the credit for taking it to a fully healthy Russell led Celtics team in his career. But Kareem was a bigger winner than Wilt, because he managed to use his abilities wisely and made his teams a force with it.

That's why the Bucks won a title in his second season, with him leading the way. And Kareem was more unlucky than Wilt with team mates injuries. Had that no happen, he'd have had 4 rings with the Bucks instead of two.

I'm willing to admit that Wilt had bad luck with his team mates, as they shot bad in some post season (no need to post it, as you already had covered it million times) and injuries (like in 68).

[millwad]

so hes 2-3 in the Finals.....

And haha, "crappy rosters" is just nonsense. With all his rosters counted it's safe to say that Wilt had great teammates by his side, HOF:ers and all-stars. Sure, he had bad teammates early on but he's not the only player who've been stuck playing with less skilled players..

Jordan had crappy teammates in the early stages of his career too, big deal..

[The_Yearning]

Wilt the Stiff.... played in a neanderthal era of basketball.

[PTB Fan]

No, Wilt never played in a bad era. His numbers are impressive considering that he faced a HOF center like 60% of the time he played. Even though that i don't agree with Jlauber on everything, i have to say that he's right on this one.

Wilt had competition and that competition was good.

[jlauber]

so hes 2-3 in the Finals.....

His TEAM's were 2-4 in the Finals. SIX Finals in 14 seasons. And he played brilliantly in all of them.

Of course, he came to a LAST PLACE team, and immediately led them to their best-ever record, at the time. He was traded to the Sixers, a team that had gone 34-46 the year before, and in his three-and-half seasons there, he led them to the best record in the league in THREE of them (and a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics in the other), including a 68-13 record in '67, which is STILL a team record. He was "traded" to the Lakers, where he took them to four Finals in five seasons, and their first ever title in LA, as well as a 69-13 record in '72, which is STILL a team record.

He dramatically improved every team he joined, and the team's he left became much worse...especially if you consider post-season play.

And where do rank Bird? In his career, he took LOADED roster to five Finals. Kareem? Take Magic away, and he would likely have finished with ONE ring. He could only get ONE ring in the decade of the 70's, and to only two Finals. West was 1-7 in his Finals, and he can thank Wilt for that one ring (West shot .376 in that post-season, including .325 in the Finals.) Oscar went to two Finals, and one won ring.

Of course, Wilt was nine points away from winning four more rings, as well as one game in the '70 Finals in which the officiating cost his team a ring.

In any case, basketball is a TEAM game. You would be hard-pressed to find very single games in Wilt's 160 post-season games, in which he was not the best player on the floor.

[Math2]

I would rep you if i could.

There is a reason dumbasses like you have negative reps

[Math2]

Teams from the sixties are obviously much better. They had three and four ll-stars and Hall of Famers on the best of them. Their were only 9 teams for most of the decade. It stands to reason that you'd have more talent per team.

If you actually take the time to learn something about the era, you'd understand what these people are saying. All eras of basketball are comparable if you know enough about both to compare.

The competition was stronger (why do think it wasn't) obviously because only the best 90 players in the world (more accurately North America at that point) were on a team, not 450 like today.

You probably think players were shorter or the league was 90% white in the 60's or something. Just read one book about the 1960's era NBA and you'll have a lot greater understanding as to why some people feel this way. The people's whose opinions your challenging know WAY more about the topic than you, have you considered that?

Somebody has some sense here...To everyone who says the 60s suck........Can you read? Does this not make sense to you???

[Fatal9]

He dramatically improved every team he joined, and the team's he left became much worse...especially if you consider post-season play.
Is this a fukking joke? Especially when compared to most of the other greats?

Wilt gets drafted:

Warriors improve by 17 games over the previous season. It should be mentioned that Gola/Arizin/Rodgers (all-stars who were on Wilt's team) missed 37 games in '59 and only 10 games in '60, and they also got a new coach.

Wilt gets traded from Warriors to the Sixers in 1965:

Wilt was leading the Warriors to a 10-27 record in games he played. With virtually the same core and the same coach, but with rookie Rick Barry leading the team instead of Wilt, the Warriors double their wins the next year. His Warrior teammates make comments about how Wilt was hard to play with.

Wilt joins Sixers who were 21-20 before the trade was made, and they finish the year with a 40-40 record. He actually had a net negative impact of -0.8 on the SRS of the Sixers over that season.

Wilt gets traded from the Sixers to the Lakers:

Lakers win only 3 more games despite Jerry West playing 10 more games in the '69 season. Their SRS actually drops (!) after Wilt joins the team. They end up losing to the same team they lost to a year before in the playoffs, and in fact almost got bounced out in the first round but were helped by the fact the leading scorer of the Warriors was injured.

Sixers win 55 games (second most in the league) without Wilt and this is with Luke Jackson (starting PF) missing most of the season. They end up losing to the same team they lost to the year before in the playoffs (Celtics).

Wilt out most of the season with Lakers:

Lakers still win 46 games (7-5 with Wilt, 38-31 without him). And the next year with Wilt playing all 82 games, they win 48. It should be noted that without West, Wilt leads the Lakers to an awful 3-10 record (the SRS of the Lakers over this stretch? -10.9).

Wilt leaves the Lakers:

Lakers still win 47 games, which undoubtedly would have been even more had Jerry West not missed 51 games that season. All in all if West was as healthy as previous season, we're looking at another 55+ win team without Wilt.


This is the one thing you DON'T want to bring attention to.

[jlauber]

Wilt joins a LAST PLACE team in his rookie year, and IMMEDIATELY takes them to their best-ever record (at the time), 49-26. A DRAMATIC improvement 17 game improvement over their 32-40 team in '59, and even a HUGE increase over their 37-35 team in '58, which was OBVIOUSLY in a state of decline.

He takes that roster, which has gotten worse simply by age and lack of quality replacements to a near title in his monumental 61-62 season, when he SINGLE-HANDEDLY carries them thru Syracuse in the first round, and then takes them to within an eyelash of beating the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers in the ECF's. All, while his teammates collectively shot .354 in the post-season.

In the playoffs in that rookie season, Wilt carries them to a game six against the 59-16 Celtics, including a 50-35 game (on 22-42 shooting...in a league that shot .410) in a must-win game five. And had Wilt not injured his hand in retaliation for Boston's BRUTAL tactics, and played poorly in games three and four, they might very well have beaten Boston. Of course, with a injured Wilt, they had no chance (even though he always PLAYED with his injuries...unlike Reed and Kareem.)

Of course, Wilt would endure his teammates shooting the likes of .382, .380, .354, .352, .352, and .332 in his first six post-seasons.

He SINGLE-HANDEDLY keeps his 62-63 roster, arguably the worst in NBA history, in virtually every game. His SECOND best player is "all-star" Tom Meschery (the ONLY time in his career BTW), who averaged 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and shot .425, and in only 64 games. His other "all-star" teammate is Guy Rodgers, who is arguably the WORST shooter in NBA history. Rodgers shoots .387 in '63, which was among his BEST seasons. The FACT was, Meschery would have been Boston's TENTH best player in '62-63 (the Celtics had NINE HOFers.)

Wilt then takes that SAME basic horrid roster, with only the addition of rookie Nate Thurmond, who plays 26 mpg, out of position (a natural center playing forward), and who shoots .395...to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals.

In his 64-65 season, Wilt came up with a mysterious illness, and was noticeably sick. Once again, he STILL plays in the majority of the games, and his horrible roster, which has been among the worst for three straight seasons, can't do ANYTHING to help. His team goes 10-27 despite his illness. Without him, they go 7-36.

He is traded at mid-season, and to a team that had been a bottom-feeding 34-46 the year before. He then takes them past Oscar's loaded Royals, 3-1, in the first round of the playoffs. THEN, he takes that same below average roster that he joined, to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics.

Yep, no improvement there.

Oh, and BTW, Wilt's Warriors, whom he had single-handedly carried to the Finals in the 63-64 season with a 48-32 record, dropped to 17-63. The next year the Warriors, added HOFer Rick Barry, and the result... 35-45.

AND, think about this... the Warriors essentially replaced Wilt with BOTH Thurmond AND Barry, and not only couldn't they EVER duplicate Wilt's 63-64 Warrior's record of 48-32 (their BEST record together came in 72-73 when they went 47-35), they FELL to 35-45. Even when they added players like Mullins and Lee in '67 (along with Hetzel, Meschery, and Attles), they could only go 44-37.

Ok, so Wilt plays three more years with Philly, and they have the BEST record in the league in EVERY year there (55-25, 68-13, and 62-20.) Meanwhile, the Warriors go 35-45, 44-37, and 43-39 in those three years. Philly runs away with the NBA title in '67, and oh, BTW, they pounded the Warriors in the Finals that season, 4-2. In fact, Wilt would face the Warrior franchise three times in the post-season after that trade, and he swept them 3-0, with a 12-5 overall record. Even in his LAST season, he dominated Thurmond (the same Thurmond who led his 47-35 over Kareem's 60-22 Bucks in the previous round), en route to takinh HIS 60-22 Lakers to a 4-1 romp over the Warriors.

Yep, no difference there.

Ok, Wilt was then "traded" by the Sixers after his 67-68 season. In 67-68, he led them to a 62-20 record, and only a TON of injuries, including SEVERAL to himself, kept them from repeating against Boston. As it was, they wiped out the Knicks in the first round. But, without HOFer Cunningham for the entire ECF's, and with Jones and Jackson going down with injuries in game five (in a series in which Philly led 3-1), and with Wilt battling an assortment of injuries...they lose a game seven, by four points. Remember that.

Once again, Wilt was "traded" for THREE players, two of whom, all-star guard Archie Clark and Darrell Imhoff, who combined for 29.2 ppg and 15.1 rpg in '68. BUT, that was not all. The Lakers also lost HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft. SO, the REALITY was, Chamberlain had to replace 42 ppg and 17.6 rpg.

And how about Philly? They dropped to a 55-27 record, which was already seven worse than the year before, and 13 games below their '67 mark of 68-13. On top of that, they were then wiped out in the FIRST round by the aging Celtics, 4-1. And, think about this...Wilt's "replacements", Clark and Imhoff, averaged 36 ppg and 20 rpg, on .510 shooting in that series against Boston...and they were STILL buried. Just a year before, a DECIMATED Philly roster lost a game seven by four points in the ECF's to Boston.

Meanwhile, Wilt leads the Lakers to a then LA-franchise best ever record of 55-27...all while replacing THREE quality players. And West STILL missed 20 games that season, too.

Of course, they blew a 2-0 series lead, and a 3-2 series lead against the Celtics, but ONE blown PLAY, Johnny Egan's gaffe (the same Egan who was a shell of a replacement for Goodrich) allowed Boston to eke out an 89-88 win in game four. Had Egan not lost the ball on that ONE PLAY (which led to Sam Jones hitting a buzzer beater, all while falling down), the Lakers, with their 117-104 romp over Boston in game five, would have easily won that series, 4-1. THAT is just how close Wilt took that Laker team to a title in his FIRST year there. Of course, Baylor's .385 playoff shooting, and horrible games three thru five were another major reason, as well.

But, that was just the start. Wilt would take the Lakers to a total of FOUR Finals in his FIVE years in LA. And, they would run away with the title in '72, and with a record of 69-13, which is STILL a franchise record (as is the 68-13 mark with his Sixers in '67.) How about his former Philly team? They would quickly disintegrate, and by Wilt's last season, in 72-73, they posted the WORST record in NBA HISTORY, of 9-73.

Yep...no difference there.

Wilt retired after the '73 season (after leading the Lakers to a 60-22 record, and yet another trip to the Finals.) What ensued in LA? They iummediately plunged to a 47-35 record, and a first round 4-1 blowout loss to the Bucks.

The next year... 30-52. In fact, even with the acquisition of Kareem, LA could only go 40-42. And the Lakers did not return to a the Finals again until MAGIC arrived in '79-80. In fact, even with Kareem, they seldom even made it past the first round. And in the weakest period in NBA history for NBA champions (from '74 thur '79.)

Yep. No difference there.

Wilt made absolutely no difference to his teams.

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[millwad]

Is this a fukking joke? Especially when compared to most of the other greats?

Wilt gets drafted:

Warriors improve by 17 games over the previous season. It should be mentioned that Gola/Arizin/Rodgers (all-stars who were on Wilt's team) missed 37 games in '59 and only 10 games in '60, and they also got a new coach.

Wilt gets traded from Warriors to the Sixers in 1965:

Wilt was leading the Warriors to a 10-27 record in games he played. With virtually the same core and the same coach, but with rookie Rick Barry leading the team instead of Wilt, the Warriors double their wins the next year. His Warrior teammates make comments about how Wilt was hard to play with.

Wilt joins Sixers who were 21-20 before the trade was made, and they finish the year with a 40-40 record. He actually had a net negative impact of -0.8 on the SRS of the Sixers over that season.

Wilt gets traded from the Sixers to the Lakers:

Lakers win only 3 more games despite Jerry West playing 10 more games in the '69 season. Their SRS actually drops (!) after Wilt joins the team. They end up losing to the same team they lost to a year before in the playoffs, and in fact almost got bounced out in the first round but were helped by the fact the leading scorer of the Warriors was injured.

Sixers win 55 games (second most in the league) without Wilt and this is with Luke Jackson (starting PF) missing most of the season. They end up losing to the same team they lost to the year before in the playoffs (Celtics).

Wilt out most of the season with Lakers:

Lakers still win 46 games (7-5 with Wilt, 38-31 without him). And the next year with Wilt playing all 82 games, they win 48. It should be noted that without West, Wilt leads the Lakers to an awful 3-10 record (the SRS of the Lakers over this stretch? -10.9).

Wilt leaves the Lakers:

Lakers still win 47 games, which undoubtedly would have been even more had Jerry West not missed 51 games that season. All in all if West was as healthy as previous season, we're looking at another 55+ win team without Wilt.


This is the one thing you DON'T want to bring attention to.

This. :cheers:

[32Dayz]

Wilt is great.

I think he is one of the hardest players to rate ever.

The more I watch and read about him the more I think he was very good. Definitily a top class rebounder and probably shot blocker.

Do I think he was better then Kareem or Shaq when you look at how they performed in the playoffs especially over time spans greater then 5-7 years I'd have to say no.

I cannot even rank him yet at this point but I have put him at #4 on my GOAT List.
Like him or hate him but his Production in the playoffs is insane. He is in the 3-5 Range All-Time in Playoff Production only behind Jordan and Shaq by a significant amount.

Hey JLauber can you repost how Wilt performed in some of the games his teams were eliminated in throughout his best years.

I remember some people saying he really struggled especially at the line in playoff elimination games (the ones he lost) but you'd probably know better then anyone.

[millwad]

Wilt is great.

I think he is one of the hardest players to rate ever.

The more I watch and read about him the more I think he was very good. Definitily a top class rebounder and probably shot blocker.

Do I think he was better then Kareem or Shaq when you look at how they performed in the playoffs especially over time spans greater then 5-7 years I'd have to say no.

I cannot even rank him yet at this point but I have put him at #4 on my GOAT List.
Like him or hate him but his Production in the playoffs is insane. He is in the 3-5 Range All-Time in Playoff Production only behind Jordan and Shaq by a significant amount.

Hey JLauber can you repost how Wilt performed in some of the games his teams were eliminated in throughout his best years.

I remember some people saying he really struggled especially at the line in playoff elimination games (the ones he lost) but you'd probably know better then anyone.


Key games in the FINALS where the outcome could have been different if Wilt wasn't so bad from the FT-line:

GAME 4, 1964 Finals.

Celtics 98 - Warriors 95 (Wilt only made 3-8 FT's)

Game 3, 1967 Finals

Warriors 130 - 76ers 124 (Wilt only made 2-9 FT's)

Game 5, 1967 Finals

Warriors 117 - 76ers 109 (Wilt only made 2-12 FT's)

Game 3, 1969 Finals

Celtics 111 - Lakers 105 (Wilt only made 4-11 FT's)

Game 4, 1969 Finals

Celtics 89 - Lakers 88 (Wilt only made 2-11 FT's, they lost with 1 freaking point and Wilt missed 9 FT's while only making 2 of them.

Game 7, 1969 Finals

Celtics 108 - Lakers 106 (Wilt only made 4-13 FT's in a GAME 7 in the finals where they lost with 2 points...)

Game 3, 1970 Finals

Knicks 111 - Lakers 108 (Wilt only made 7-13 FT's)

Game 7, 1970 Finals

Knicks 113 - Lakers 99 (Wilt only made 1-11 FT's)

Game 2, 1973 Finals

Knicks 99 - Lakers 95 (Wilt only made 1-9 FT's)



And notice that Wilt during the '67 finals ONLY made 22 out of 72 FT's
In the '70 finals Wilt ONLY made 23 out of 67 FT's
In the '69 finals Wilt ONLY made 24 out of 66 FT's
In the '64 finals Wilt ONLY made 22 out of 48 FT's..

And of course I don't mean he should have made all the FT's he ever attempted. In some of the games above his FT-shooting was a direct reason to why his teams lost but in some of the games a better FT-shooter would have made the games closer.

[jlauber]

How about this...


GAME 4, 1964 Finals.

Celtics 98 - Warriors 95 (Wilt only made 3-8 FT's)

Wilt 27 points and 38 rebounds
Russell 8 points


Game 3, 1967 Finals

Warriors 130 - 76ers 124 (Wilt only made 2-9 FT's)

Wilt 26 points on 12-23 shooting with 26 rebounds.
Thurmond 17 points on 6-13 shooting with 25 rebounds

Oh and BTW, your high-scoring boy Hal Greer... 6-19 from the floor



Game 5, 1967 Finals

Warriors 117 - 76ers 109 (Wilt only made 2-12 FT's)

Wilt 20 points on 9-15 shooting with 24 rebounds
Thurmond 17 points on 7-21 shooting with 28 rebounds (the only game in which he outrebounded Wilt in that six game series.

BTW, take Wilt's 9-15 from the floor away, and his teammates shot 38-104, or .365



Game 3, 1969 Finals

Celtics 111 - Lakers 105 (Wilt only made 4-11 FT's)

L.A. fails to rally in the 4th in large part due to Jerry West & Elgin Baylor shooting a combined 1-14 from the floor in the period. Oh, and Baylor goes 1-6 from the line.


Game 4, 1969 Finals

Celtics 89 - Lakers 88 (Wilt only made 2-11 FT's, they lost with 1 freaking point and Wilt missed 9 FT's while only making 2 of them.

L.A. had the ball leading 88-87 with 15 seconds left. John Egan had the ball stolen by Em Bryant.



Game 7, 1969 Finals

Celtics 108 - Lakers 106 (Wilt only made 4-13 FT's in a GAME 7 in the finals where they lost with 2 points...)

Wilt, on the bench in the last five minutes of game seven because of his idiotic COACH...outscores Russell, 18-6, outshoots Russell from the floor, 7-8 to 2-7, outscores Russell from the line, 4-2, and outrebounds Russell, 27-21. BTW, Wilt's "replacement" in those last five minutes, Mel Counts, shot 4-13 from the FLOOR.



Game 3, 1970 Finals

Knicks 111 - Lakers 108 (Wilt only made 7-13 FT's)

Wilt with 21 points on 7-10 shooting with 26 rebounds. Baylor with 13 points on 4-13 shooting.




Game 7, 1970 Finals

Knicks 113 - Lakers 99 (Wilt only made 1-11 FT's)

Wilt with 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, and 24 rebounds. The rest of the Lakers collectively shoot 28-67 or .418 from the floor. BTW, the game was over at halftime when NY led 69-42. Wilt was the ONLY Laker to play well in that game.



Game 2, 1973 Finals

Knicks 99 - Lakers 95 (Wilt only made 1-9 FT's)

Chamberlain scores 5 points, on 2-4 shooting, with 20 rebounds. Goodrich shoots 5-15 and McMillian shoots 7-24 from the floor.



(And notice that Wilt during the '67 finals ONLY made 22 out 72 FT's..)

And he OVERWHELMED Thurmond in the process, outscoring him per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outrebounding him per game, 28.5 rpg to 26.6 rpg; and outshooting him from the field by an eye-popping .560 to .343 margin. BTW, give me a list of opposing centers who shot .560 against Thurmond in the playoffs. We KNOW that Kareem faced Nate in three straight playoff series and shot .486, .405, and .428 against him.

Oh, and Philly wiped out the Warriors to WIN the NBA title. And all Wilt did in that post-season was average 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and shoot .579 from the floor. And blowing up Russell and Thurmond along the way.

Regarding the '69 Finals...


Not sure if LA would have won in '69 without Baylor, because that team just did not have much depth, BUT, he was a major reason why they didn't in the Finals. He went completely AWOL in games three thru five in the Finals, scoring a TOTAL of 24 points.

BTW, in the game three 111-105 loss, BOTH Baylor and West combined for 1-14 shooting in the 4th quarter. Wilt gets ripped by the uneducated here for his 2-11 FT shooting in game four, BUT, Baylor went 1-6 from the line, and scored a TOTAL of FIVE points. All in an 89-88 loss. Of course, Johnny Egan's gaffe, losing the ball when his team had the lead AND the ball, and with only seconds remaining was also a HUGE factor.

And while Wilt dominated Russell in a game five, 117-104 blowout of Boston, Baylor still mis-fired, scoring eight points, AND, going 0-4 from the line.

Furthermore, in that game seven, two-point loss, Baylor shot 8-22 from the floor.

And yet, it was WILT who would get the bulk of the blame.

[32Dayz]

So from what your saying it seems that only in that 1973 Game where he scored 5 points did his FT Shooting really cost them the win or might have been a factor in the loss.

[jlauber]

Wilt's IMPACT at the line?


It just amazes me how some posters here continually rip Wilt for his poor FT shooting, but NEVER bring up the fact that he ROUTINELY reduced his OPPOSING centers to WAY BELOW their normal numbers in the post-season.

Furthermore, these "anti-Chamberlain" posters NEVER bring up the FACT that Wilt's TEAMs BENEFITTED from Wilt's IMPACT at the FT line. For instance, Wilt played in 35 Finals games...and his TEAM's outshot their opponents from the line by a 26-6-3 margin. And in MANY cases they were shooting SIGNIFICANTLY more FTs.

Once again, the best example of this...

In Wilt's 68-69 season with LA, the Lakers LED the NBA in FTAs. And in the post-season, they shot 109 MORE FTs than the next best team (Boston.)

Wilt was injured early on in the 69-70 season, and missed 70 games. The result? The Lakers dropped from FIRST down to TWELVETH (in a 14 team league.) BUT, Wilt returned for the playoffs, and the Lakers were MILES ahead of the next best team, taking 655 FTAs to the Knicks 455. And, H2H against the Knicks, the Lakers had a 256-160 advantage in FTAs, AND, a 176-122 differential in FTs MADE.

BTW, Russell and Shaq were only marginally better FT shooters in their careers, and yet they still won 15 rings between them.

Furthermore...


And this FT shooting crap has to stop, as well. Russell had the good fortune to win SIX titles in post-seasons in which he shot less than 60% from the line(.585, .552, .526, .523, .508, and .506.) AND, he also won SIX rings while shooting .427, .423, .409, .409, .365, and .356 from the FLOOR (as well as two other post-seasons of .365 and .360 shooting.) Shaq won two of his our rings with post-season's of .456 and .374 shooting, and he had other post-seasons of .471, .466, .429, .393, and .333.

[millwad]

Yadi yadi yadi, to this date Wilt is the player who choked the most from the FT-line in NBA HISTORY... PERIOD.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/594/717/wilt-chamberlain_display_image.jpg?1293478598

[ThaRegul8r]

Furthermore...


And this FT shooting crap has to stop, as well. Russell had the good fortune to win SIX titles in post-seasons in which he shot less than 60% from the line(.585, .552, .526, .523, .508, and .506.)

This kick of tearing down other players is ridiculous and has to stop. It goes for everybody. But Wilt shot over 60% from the line in the postseason once in his playoff career, while Russell did it seven times. Russell maxed out at 72.6% in 1962, and shot 70.7% from the line in 1960. So attempting to use Russell shooting <60% from the line is absurd, seeing as how Wilt shot <60% from the line in 12 of his 13 postseasons, <50% from the line eight times and <40% from the line three times. It fails to make any kind of point whatsoever, and sets you up to look stupid should someone who knows something happen to come along (though since I don't post much on basketball message boards anymore, this is less likely to happen), which will only hurt your case and damage your credibility.

Fred Schaus: What told me so much about Russell was his foul shooting. For most of the game you wanted him at the line. He was lucky to hit 60 percent. He had terrible form, sort of flinging the ball instead of shooting it. But down the stretch, he never missed a clutch free throw. ... Foul shooting was the weakest part of his game, yet it wasn’t something he’d let defeat him.

Evidence?

In the '62 Finals, Russell shot 14 of 17 from the line in a three-point win in the deciding Game 7, to go with his 30 points on 58.9% TS and 40 rebounds. He shot 74.2% from the line that Finals. Shot 74% from the line in the '66 Finals. Went perfect from the line in the deciding Game 7, a two-point win. Shot 8 of 10 from the line in the deciding Game 7 of the 1960 Finals. (But of course, you can't find this stuff on basketball-reference) People talk about players "making them when they count," but with Russell the evidence is there.

smh when people instead of talking positively about whomever their favorite is, rip other players.

:facepalm

This place is hopeless. Incessant pointless back-and-forth, the same old crap over and over again, rarely any constructive dialogue or genuine knowledge being displayed. Hopefully with the loss of a season, there will be less posting.

[ThaRegul8r]

No, Wilt never played in a bad era. His numbers are impressive considering that he faced a HOF center like 60% of the time he played. Even though that i don't agree with Jlauber on everything, i have to say that he's right on this one.

Wilt had competition and that competition was good.

I've posted about this before several years ago, but I've been trying to increase historical awareness since the advent of the internet, and all these years later, people are no more knowledgeable as a whole, so I'm going to stop wasting my time. People are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless to how many facts you present. I've got better things to do with my time.

[Pointguard]

FT% is flat out the weakest argument there is for a center. If you go there its because your argument is desperate. It

[32Dayz]

Agreed.

The difference between shooting 50 or 70% from the line only averages out to 2-3 lost PPG. Considering that most of these GOAT Centers were highly efficient from the field (55%+) that more then makes up for the small amount of points they lost from the line.

[TAC602]

Was Wilt a "failure", a "loser", and a "choker?"

Here is my response taken from another thread...

The more and more research that has become available, the more we see just how horribly misguided was the PERCEPTION of Chamberlain's career...even at the time in which he played.

Those that ripped him for his "drop" in the post-season, now know that he faced a HOF center in two-thirds of ALL of his 160 post-season games. His scoring dropped SLIGHTLY, (especially of you factor in that he only played 52 of his 160 post-season games in his "scoring" seasons...and in one of those, his 44.8 season, he did not get an opportunity.) He also ELEVATED his rebounding, significantly at times (a 32 rpg series against RUSSELL for cryingoutloud.) And we know that his DEFENSE was brilliant. In virtually EVERY case, his opposing center shot either worse, or MUCH worse against him. The fact was, not only did Wilt outplay his opposing centers in all 29 of his post-season series, he was seldom outplayed in very many games!

Clutch? We now know that Wilt has the HIGHEST FG% of any "great" in game seven's. He shot .626 in his nine game sevens. And, while he is "only" second in rebounding among the greats in game seven's, to Russell, we also KNOW that Chamberlain outrebounded Russell, in their four H2H game seven's by a 28.5 to 24.5 margin. In fact, Wilt's game seven's are probably the greatest in NBA history. 24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and .626 from the field. Furthermore, against Russell, Wilt outscored him, in their four H2H's, 21.3 ppg to 13.2 ppg. He outrebounded him, 28.5 to 24.5. And while we only have two of Russell's game seven FG% numbers, out of those four games, Russell only shot .391 in those two. How about Wilt against Russell? A staggering .652! My god, Wilt had a game seven against Russell in which he scored 30 points, with 32 rebounds, and shot 80% (yes 80%.) He had another game seven against Russell, in which he outscored him, 18-6, outrebounded him, 27-21, and outshot him by an 88% to 29% margin!

We also know that Wilt never had some of the MISERABLE game sevens that Kareem had. Nor was Wilt ever held to well below the league average in FG% in ANY of his post-seasons, while Kareem, had FOUR post-seasons with those numbers, including three in his PRIME. We also know that Wilt seldom got to play a center of less than HOF quality in his post-seasons, but when he did, he CRUSHED them. A 37-23 series against Kerr (an all-star BTW.) A 38-23 series against Beatty (an all-star BTW), and a 28-26-11 .612 series against Dierking. Nor was Wilt ever held WAY below his seasonal numbers by a center of Ostertag's quailty. And while Russell held Wilt below his seasonal averages, he was better against Russell, than Shaq was against Robinson. Or when he faced a crappy center, like Shaq so often in his career, like he did in game six of the '70 Finals, all he did was put up a 45 point, 20-27 shooting from the field, and 27 rebounds...all only four months remolved from major knee surgery. As for Kareem, he was outplayed SEVERAL times by HOF centers (Thurmond, Wilt, and Moses), and some were downright embarrasing (.405, .428, .462, .457 FG% in eras of much higher league averages.) Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 post-season series. Kareem was not only routinely outrebounded, there were several in which he was just KILLED. Wilt never had to have a GUARD lead his team in rebounding.

Playing hurt? Thanks to news articles of the day, we now KNOW that Wilt played the last four games of the '68 ECF's with THREE different leg injuries, and that he was noticeably limping throughout those four games. So, those that love to rip Wilt's game six in that series (when he shot 8-23 from the floor, albeit, with 27 rebounds), need to put it in a proper perspective. Here was Wilt, PLAYING with SEVERAL leg injuries...and yet, we witnessed Kareem sitting out a game six in a Finals with an ankle sprain. We also witnessed Reed missing the better part of three Finals' games with a thigh injury (while Chamberlain was PLAYING on a knee that had just had major surgery four months prior)...and when Reed played in those last three games, he did NOTHING. We also KNOW that Wilt not only PLAYED with TWO severely injured wrists in game five of the '72 Finals (one was badly sprained, and the other was FRACTURED), he DOMINATED that game (24 points, 29 rebounds to the ENTIRE Knick's team of 39, 10-14 shooting, and 10 blocks.) Meanwhile, when Kareem broke his wrist, he missed 16 games. Or that HOF teammate Billy Cunningham missed that ENTIRE '68 ECF series with a broken wrist.

Big games? How about a 56-35 game in game five of a best-of-five series???? How about taking a 40-40 team to a game seven, one-point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team that had a 5-2 edge in HOFers,...and scoring eight of his team's last ten points, and bringing his team back from a 110-101 deficit to 110-109? Oh, and outscoring Russell, 30-15, outrebounding him, 32-29, and outshooting him, 12-15 to 7-16? How about a 50-35 game against Russell, in an elimination game in the '60 ECF's? Or crushing Russell in a clinching game five of the '67 ECF's, when he outscored him, 29-4, outrebounded him, 36-21, outassisted him, 13-7, and outshot him, 10-16 to 2-5? Wilt had numerous 40-30 games in the post-season, and several of them came against Russell. He had four 50+ point games in his post-season, including one against Russell. He had a TON of 30+ rebound games in his post-seasons, including an NBA record of 41...against Russell. He also outrebounded and vastly outshot the great Thurmond in their three H2H post-seasons, including one in which he outrebounded him by a 23.6 to 17.2 margin, as well as outshooting him in another by an astonsihing .560 to .343 margin.

Furthermore, has ANY other great player taken a 40-40 team, up against the best team in the league, by far, the 62-18 Celtics, who had a 5-2 edge in HOFers,...to a game seven, one point loss. All he did in that series was outscore Russell by 211-109, and outrebounded him by a 221-177 margin. He also took a badly undermanned 49-31 Warrior team to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their 6-3 edge in HOFers. Give me an example of Kareem or Shaq carrying teams of that level, that far.

A "loser?" In fact, he played on only one losing team, and all he did that season was LEAD the NBA in 15 of the 22 statistical categories, including winning the scoring title by 10.8 ppg (44.8 to 34.0), as well as leading the league in rebounding at 24.6, and setting a then record of .528 from the field. He also LED that NBA that season in Win Shares, by a HUGE margin...AND he had the HIGHEST PER in NBA HISTORY. How about the rest of his career? 13 playoff series in 14 seasons (in an era when it was much tougher to make the playoffs.) 12 Conference Finals. Six conference regular season titles. Best record in the league four times. Four 60+ win seasons. Two seasons in which his team set an all-time W-L record (sinced broken by the '96 Bulls), and two DOMINATING title teams.

Of course, no one claimed MJ as a "loser" despite FIVE losing seasons. Or an MJ who played spectacularly in the '86 playoffs, but his TEAM was swept by the 67-15 Celtics, and their FIVE HOFers. No, when Jordan gets swept under those circumstances, he was "heroic." When Wilt takes his 49-31 Warriors up against a 60-20 Celtic team that had a 6-3 edge in HOFers, and gets that team to a game seven, two-point loss, despite CLEARLY being the Warriors BEST player in that series....well, he was outplayed by Russell.

So, let's finally put all of these RIDICULOUS myths to rest. Wilt was NOT a "loser", nor was he a "failure", nor was he a "choker." In fact, he was among the greatest winners of all-time; he DOMINATED not only the regular season, but in his post-seasons: and he was arguably, the MOST CLUTCH performer in post-season series history, and at the very least, very close to MJ, Russell, and Magic.

Tyson TKO5

[DaPerceive]

[QUOTE=Pointguard]FT% is flat out the weakest argument there is for a center. If you go there its because your argument is desperate. It

[PTB Fan]

I've posted about this before several years ago, but I've been trying to increase historical awareness since the advent of the internet, and all these years later, people are no more knowledgeable as a whole, so I'm going to stop wasting my time. People are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless to how many facts you present. I've got better things to do with my time.

Good and fair point.

[millwad]

FT% is flat out the weakest argument there is for a center. If you go there its because your argument is desperate. It’s a total garbage argument. Its like comparing Reggie Miller, Steve Nash and Stockton's points in the paint. Its a fail.

What top center was killing it at the line? What center was very good at the line? Its tantamount to watching basketball for the ref’s whistles. Centers rebound, block shots, man the paint, post, score on the blocks, play defense, pass out the post, anchor the offense and defense. You have to be skurred of where the real game is being played. And brining it up every other day is pathetic.

If you made a team up of every center that shot below 75% and played them against every center that shot above it, the good free throw shooters would look as trashed as this argument is. Why? Well part of it is because it’s a worthless stupid argument on a good day.

We all know you're a big time Wilt fan so your comment doesn't come as a surprise.

And it's one thing to be mediocre from the FT-line and it's a whole other thing if you're horrible from the FT-line like Wilt. If your horrible FT-shooting costs your team games in the finals, then it's a very valid point to make about Wilt and especially when people (Jlauber) spams about Wilt being the greatest winner, super-clutch and a great FT-shooter..:facepalm

His FT-shooting even costed him a ring when he choked big time in the finals of 1969 a la:

Game 3, 1969 Finals

Celtics 111 - Lakers 105 (Wilt only made 4-11 FT's)

Game 4, 1969 Finals

Celtics 89 - Lakers 88 (Wilt only made 2-11 FT's, they lost with 1 freaking point and Wilt missed 9 FT's while only making 2 of them.

Game 7, 1969 Finals

Celtics 108 - Lakers 106 (Wilt only made 4-13 FT's in a GAME 7 in the finals where they lost with 2 points...)


Yeah, sure, such a weak argument..

[Pointguard]

We all know you're a big time Wilt fan so your comment doesn't come as a surprise.

And it's one thing to be mediocre from the FT-line and it's a whole other thing if you're horrible from the FT-line like Wilt. If your horrible FT-shooting costs your team games in the finals, then it's a very valid point to make about Wilt and especially when people (Jlauber) spams about Wilt being the greatest winner, super-clutch and a great FT-shooter..:facepalm

His FT-shooting even costed him a ring when he choked big time in the finals of 1969 a la:

Game 3, 1969 Finals

Celtics 111 - Lakers 105 (Wilt only made 4-11 FT's)

Game 4, 1969 Finals

Celtics 89 - Lakers 88 (Wilt only made 2-11 FT's, they lost with 1 freaking point and Wilt missed 9 FT's while only making 2 of them.

Game 7, 1969 Finals

Celtics 108 - Lakers 106 (Wilt only made 4-13 FT's in a GAME 7 in the finals where they lost with 2 points...)


Yeah, sure, such a weak argument..
I hear what you are saying Milwad but you can't isolate free throw shooting from his other play. Wilt had a 56 and 35 game in an elimintion game... But why not make a big deal about his free throws? Wilt could have blocked 12 shots in the game you mentioned. Wilt could have gotten 10 offensive rebounds. I don't care if he missed 15 freethrows... I would have preferred Wilt on my team doing what he does best, above all other centers at that time. Every soul on this planet has a weakness in something they are great at - no exceptions. Nobody had Wilt's burden at that time.

As far as his FT shooting costing them the game... they have no chance of winning without Wilt and his strengths. We seen Shaq play and would you rather have had a better free throw shooting center on any of those teams? How many articles have you ever read where they were saying we should reevaluate Shaq because of his FT%. This wasn't a big deal then, and Wilt was hated on with avengence, so I don't see how you are going to override the times just because you are the hater of all haters. It doesn't work like that. And you do this a whole lot.

When talking about a guy that has distanced himself further than any other player in the sport in scoring than any other sport ever. Was the greatest rebounder. Likely the greatest blocker and one of the greatest defenders. One of the best passers out of his position as well, and you repetively bring up something that the whole position, at least the great ones, were bad at.

[Horatio33]

It's funny how many lengths Jlauber goes to to defend Wilt the Stilt. If Wilt needs defending that much, he must have been shaky in the clutch.

Also the the free throw shooting is interesting. If Wilt was missing 8 freebies in a game and his team lost by 4 points, what does that say? But we will blame his teammates when he was the number one option shooting the ball 30+ times a game.

Plus Jlauber goes on and on about Wilt's 'superhuman' physical skills. If he was so much more physicaly dominant than the other players why do you defend him. why could he not win every year? If no one could stop him why did he only win two rings?

[Pointguard]

It's funny how many lengths Jlauber goes to to defend Wilt the Stilt. If Wilt needs defending that much, he must have been shaky in the clutch.

Also the the free throw shooting is interesting. If Wilt was missing 8 freebies in a game and his team lost by 4 points, what does that say? But we will blame his teammates when he was the number one option shooting the ball 30+ times a game.

Plus Jlauber goes on and on about Wilt's 'superhuman' physical skills. If he was so much more physicaly dominant than the other players why do you defend him. why could he not win every year? If no one could stop him why did he only win two rings?

Did you see Shaq in his prime? And Shaq is one of the few people inside his career where he practically had anothe top ten player in the league on his team a great majority of his career - and this rarely existed for other players during the same time. And the opposing center in his second decade was usually horrible. Its a team game. Jordan too, won with one of the better all around players accompanying him as well. But you really should know this.

[Duncan21formvp]

I posted in another thread.


Wilt's scoring from regular season to playoffs went down every single year of his career (sometimes by a lot) on lower efficiency (.547 to .523). Obviously facing better teams and facing Russell (who held Wilt to 5.7 ppg under his career average in their 147 meetings) had something to do with it, but Wilt failed to step up his game and it didn't help his teams in the playoffs.

In the regular season , Wilt was on some of the best teams in his era. Most seem to assume that Wilt just didn't have the supporting cast to contend with the greatest dynasty ever. This is not the case. His 1967 Sixers were named the best team ever in 1980, and he had that team's core (Wilt, Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Jackson) for 3 years straight, and also had the best SG in West and best SF in Baylor (up to that point) for a couple years after, forming a trio that Wilt himself said he thought could go down as the greatest team of all time. Talented rosters that won a lot in the regular season and had high expectations in the playoffs.

When the playoffs arrived, however, it was a different story. Wilt's failures:

1961: Wilt's 46-33 Warriors are swept by the 38-41 Nationals

1962: Wilt, at the height of his scoring prowess having averaged 50.4 ppg in the regular season, is held to a season-low 22 points in the 7th and deciding game by Bill Russell

1966: Wilt's 55-25 Sixers lose 4-1 to the 54-26 Celtics

1967: Wilt's single impressive playoff run, nearly averaging a triple double. The 68-13 Sixers soundly beat the Celtics 4-1, proving that this was a championship caliber core

1968: The same Sixers (with Wilt winning season MVP) go 62-20 and lose to the 54-28 Celtics in 7 games after being up 3-1. In Game 7 Wilt did not attempt a field goal in the 2nd half

1969: One of the most talented trios ever in Wilt, West, and Baylor go 55-25 and win the regular season series 4-2 against the 48-34 Celtics, proving again Wilt had the talent to beat them. The Lakers were heavily favored against the Celtics in the Finals. But again, Wilt laid another 7th game egg against the Celtics when he "hurt his leg" with 6 minutes to go and did not play the rest of the game

1970: Wilt's Lakers return to the Finals, this time against the Knicks. Reed missed game 6 due to injury and Wilt demolished the Knicks to send it to a 7th game. So what happened in Game 7? You guessed it: another stinker by Wilt's 21 points (1-11 from the line) against a hobbling, injured Reed and his backups.


And let's be real about something: In the 1970 Finals, the Lakers were up 20 points in Game 5 and Willis Reed was hurt and the Knicks still won that game. Game 6, Willis Reed missed that game and the Lakers won and in game 7 Willis Reed was still hurt and he came in to play in the game. He only scored like 4 points in it and thus that is why his stats were down. So don't give me this mess about how good Wilt was when he couldn't dominate a player that was injured.
Frazier took over Game 7 and that's why the Knicks won. Thus what was Wilt doing in Game 7 in the Finals? He couldn't even dominate a hubbled Willis Reed.


1973: Wilt's 60-22 Lakers lose 4-1 to the 57-25 Knicks


Wilt lost 5 series when his teams were the higher seed. He failed to step up in 4 Game 7s. By what standards was Wilt an excellent playoff performer if he couldn't lead his teams to victory when he had great opportunities to do so? Certainly not GOAT standards. Jordan never lost a series in which the Bulls were the higher seed.

Wilt, despite all his individual brilliance in the regular season, was a chronic underachiever in the playoffs. To paraphrase Barry, Wilt was simply a loser.


Now tell me, how do you average 50 ppg for a season but in game 7 of the playoffs you score 22? How could anyone be considered the best when in the most important games they show up like that?

Also what about this what Bill Russell even noticed.

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1969.htm

The Lakers were heavily favored to win the 1969 NBA Finals against the old, battered Celtics, but then Chamberlain became the victim of one of the most controversial coaching decisions in NBA history. In Game 7, Wilt hurt his leg with six minutes left to play, with the Lakers trailing by nine points. The Celtics won, 108-106. When Chamberlain had asked out of the game, the Lakers had been trailing by nine points, but then mounted a comeback to pull within one by the time he asked back in; this caused some to assume that Chamberlain had not really been injured, but instead had given up and "copped out" of the game when it looked as though the Lakers would lose. Because of this, some branded him a scapegoat and a quitter. Even Bill Russell ridiculed him, which almost caused Chamberlain to end their friendship..



http://www.barrystickets.com/lakers/lakers-players/wilt-chamberlain.php

In 1970, the acquisition of the sharpshooting guard Gail Goodrich helped with the Lakers' offensive firepower with the loss of Baylor. In the NBA Finals, the Lakers were matched up against the New York Knicks, one of the best defensive teams of the post-Russell-Celtics era. Both teams fought a hard, grueling series, but in Game 5, Chamberlain's opposing center Willis Reed suffered a serious thigh injury. The Knicks won that game, but they were demolished in Game 6 with Chamberlain's strong offense, and they looked doomed in Game 7 without their starting center. However, Reed limped onto the court, won the opening tip-off against Chamberlain, and scored the first four points, inspiring his team to one of the most famous playoff upsets of all time. Although Reed was able to play only a fraction of the game, and could hardly move when he did play, Chamberlain still scored only 21 points (his season average had been 27.3) on only 16 shots, quite few in a Game 7. Further, he shot an abysmal 1-of-11 from the foul line, making the game perhaps his greatest on-court failure.

1-11 from the foul in Game 7 of the NBA Finals and this is supposed to be the GOAT?

[D-Wade316]

This is why you should use TS%. Free throws play a part of that but they also take into consideration the field goals made, FG%, etc. Centers are not suppose to be elite free throw shooters like you said, but they are suppose to play inside and score inside right? So they should shoot a higher FG% than perimeter players. TS% is used to determine scoring efficiency within not just one position, but all the positions. The strong FG% is evened out by its weak FT% and for perimeter players its the total opposite. It is one reason why TS% is a good stat to use. It's comparable within all positions and it determines every facet of scoring, FG, FT, etc.
This.

[millwad]

This.

Do you know anything else than "this"?
Seriously, you join discussions only to hang on to peoples nuts..

[D-Wade316]

Do you know anything else than "this"?
Seriously, you join discussions only to hang on to peoples nuts..
:rolleyes:

[millwad]

I hear what you are saying Milwad but you can't isolate free throw shooting from his other play. Wilt had a 56 and 35 game in an elimintion game... But why not make a big deal about his free throws? Wilt could have blocked 12 shots in the game you mentioned. Wilt could have gotten 10 offensive rebounds. I don't care if he missed 15 freethrows... I would have preferred Wilt on my team doing what he does best, above all other centers at that time. Every soul on this planet has a weakness in something they are great at - no exceptions. Nobody had Wilt's burden at that time.

As far as his FT shooting costing them the game... they have no chance of winning without Wilt and his strengths. We seen Shaq play and would you rather have had a better free throw shooting center on any of those teams? How many articles have you ever read where they were saying we should reevaluate Shaq because of his FT%. This wasn't a big deal then, and Wilt was hated on with avengence, so I don't see how you are going to override the times just because you are the hater of all haters. It doesn't work like that. And you do this a whole lot.

When talking about a guy that has distanced himself further than any other player in the sport in scoring than any other sport ever. Was the greatest rebounder. Likely the greatest blocker and one of the greatest defenders. One of the best passers out of his position as well, and you repetively bring up something that the whole position, at least the great ones, were bad at.

Not at all, I don't question his whole game just because his worthless FT%! I thought I made that clear earlier but I mixed this thread up with another thread.

Still, FT's is a huge part of the game when you are a starplayer who gets fouled constantly and when you continue to miss them, it's a big issue.

And we are not talking about minor problems from the FT-line, we are talking about a guy who choked from the FT-line in the finals constantly.

We've seen all this nonsense from Wilt-fans on this site about how Wilt was the greatest winner of all-time, what a great shooter he was and that his FT's never were an issue but fact still remains that the guy to this date choked the most from the FT-line in the NBA finals history..

And I never claimed his teams could win without his strengths and regarding Shaq, the guy is constantly labeled as one of the worst FT-shooters of all-time, I don't really see why Wilt should get a pass just because he excelled in other parts of the game. The guy freaking cost his team a title due his horrible FT-shooting, it doesn't matter how much you'll try to deny that, it's still a fact.

[jlauber]

Wilt's scoring from regular season to playoffs went down every single year of his career (sometimes by a lot) on lower efficiency (.547 to .523). Obviously facing better teams and facing Russell (who held Wilt to 5.7 ppg under his career average in their 147 meetings) had something to do with it, but Wilt failed to step up his game and it didn't help his teams in the playoffs.



Wilt's scoring dropped SLIGHTLY from his regular seasons into his post-seasons. Most uneducated posters forget that Wilt's "scoring prime", when he could dump 40-50 point games on Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, and Reed, came in his first seven years. He played in 52 of his 160 post-season games in that period, and averaged 32 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .510 (in league's that shot about .430.)

You mentioned Russell. Excellent point...a player regarded by MANY as the greatest defensive player in NBA HISTORY. And yet, Chamberlain averaged 28.7 ppg against him in their 142 H2H meetings, and probably at close to 50% shooting in those games. He had three full SEASONS against Russell, in which he averaged 38 ppg. And, while his scoring dropped somewhat against Russell in the post-season, he STILL had FOUR post-season series against him in which he averaged 30+ ppg, including one in which he averaged 30 ppg and 31 rpg, in a seven game series. He also had a 29-27 .517 Finals against Russell; a 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, .509 ECF's against Russell; and how about his '67 ECF', when he hung a 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, .558 series against him. Wilt also shot .549 against Russell in their nine H2H games in the regular season that year, as well.

BTW, Russell's numbers generally declined considerably against Wilt, as well. Even in the 61-62 ECF's, when he upped his scoring against Wilt to 22 ppg, he shot at around .420 against Wilt, in a season in which he shot .457 overall. How about the '64 Finals? Russell averaged 11 ppg, and while I have yet to see his FG% against Wilt in their five H2H games, in his 10 playoff games that year, he shot .356, and half of those games were against Wilt.

In fact, in Russell's highest FG% season, 59-60, in which he shot .467 overall, in 10 of his 11 H2H games (I have yet to find the FG% in that 11th game), Russell shot .398 against Wilt.

In the '67 ECF's, Wilt held Russell to .358 shooting.

And Russell shot .702 in the '65 Finals against the Lakers, but in the previous round against Wilt, he shot .451 (which may very well have been his HIGHEST playoff series against Chamberlain.)


And, in Wilt's first eight post-seasons, covering his first nine seasons, he averaged 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and shot .518 (in league's that averaged about .435.) Included in those years were FOUR 50+ point playoff games, with a 53-22 game, on 24-42 shooting, against Syracuse in the '60 playoffs; a 50-35 game (on 22-42 shooting) against Russell in a "must-win" game five of the '60 ECF's; a 56-35 game five, in a best-of-five playoff series, against Syracuse in the '62 playoffs; and a 50 point game, on 22-32 shooting, against the Hawks in the '64 WCF's. He also had THREE other 40-30 games against Russell in the post-season. He also had THREE playoff series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, and 38.6 ppg (on .559 shooting.) And, he had FOUR entire playoffs of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg (on .543 shooting), 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg.

So, if that is a "declining" Wilt, please feel free to give me a list of other players who even had ONE 28+-23+ post-season. BTW, Chamberlain had SIX of them!



In the regular season , Wilt was on some of the best teams in his era. Most seem to assume that Wilt just didn't have the supporting cast to contend with the greatest dynasty ever. This is not the case. His 1967 Sixers were named the best team ever in 1980, and he had that team's core (Wilt, Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Jackson) for 3 years straight, and also had the best SG in West and best SF in Baylor (up to that point) for a couple years after, forming a trio that Wilt himself said he thought could go down as the greatest team of all time. Talented rosters that won a lot in the regular season and had high expectations in the playoffs.

Wilt came to a LAST PLACE team, that, in his rookie season, he carried to a 49-26 record, which was a team record at the time. His rosters got WORSE each year until mid-way thru the 64-65 season, when he was traded to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before. He IMMEDIATELY took that team to a 3-1 series romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals in the first round. And THEN, he took that same roster, which had gone 34-46 the year before, to a game seven, one point loss against Russell's 62-18 Celtics.

Wilt had a very good Arizin in Arizin's last three years. He had "HOFer" Tom Gola, for three seasons, who was among the worst HOFers ever, AND, who was AWFUL in the post-season. The man had a career .336 post-season FG% (and yes, he was just as bad with, and without Wilt.) And Chamberlain had Nate Thurmond for one season, in Nate's rookie year, and playing part-time, and out of position, and shooting .395 in the process. That was basically IT. Players like Meschery and Rogers were decent, but hardly among the better players. In fact, Meschery would have been Boston's TENTH best player in the 62-63 season.

How bad were those rosters? Before the start of the '63-64 season, the Warriors newest head coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, and against draftees and scrubs who would never make an NBA roster. Guess which team won? Furthermore, Wilt somehow got that cast of misfits to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, where they lost to a Celtic team that had an 8-2 edge in HOFers.

Speaking of an edge in HOFers...Russell's Celtics enjoyed an edge of 7-3, 8-3, 7-3, 9-1, 8-2, and 6-2 in HOFers in Wilt's first six seasons. And yet, Wilt took two of his putrid rosters to game seven's against those Celtic teams, and losses by 2 and 1 point. And he also took one team to the Finals, where they fell, 4-1 (but two losses were in the waning seconds.)

Not only that, but how much help did Wilt receive from those teammates in those five post-seasons (his team was so awful in 62-63, that they didn't even make the playoffs...despite a season in which Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg, led the NBA in rebounding at 24.3 rpg, and shot a then-record, .528...and oh BTW, his teammates collectively shot .412)? Those teammates shot .382, .380, .354, .352, and even .332 in those five post-seasons. Now, you tell me how Wilt got those crappy rosters, and all of whom played WORSE in the post-season, to two game seven's against the vaunted Celtic Dynasty?

Continued...

[jlauber]

When the playoffs arrived, however, it was a different story. Wilt's failures:

1961: Wilt's 46-33 Warriors are swept by the 38-41 Nationals

1962: Wilt, at the height of his scoring prowess having averaged 50.4 ppg in the regular season, is held to a season-low 22 points in the 7th and deciding game by Bill Russell

1966: Wilt's 55-25 Sixers lose 4-1 to the 54-26 Celtics

1967: Wilt's single impressive playoff run, nearly averaging a triple double. The 68-13 Sixers soundly beat the Celtics 4-1, proving that this was a championship caliber core

1968: The same Sixers (with Wilt winning season MVP) go 62-20 and lose to the 54-28 Celtics in 7 games after being up 3-1. In Game 7 Wilt did not attempt a field goal in the 2nd half

1969: One of the most talented trios ever in Wilt, West, and Baylor go 55-25 and win the regular season series 4-2 against the 48-34 Celtics, proving again Wilt had the talent to beat them. The Lakers were heavily favored against the Celtics in the Finals. But again, Wilt laid another 7th game egg against the Celtics when he "hurt his leg" with 6 minutes to go and did not play the rest of the game

1970: Wilt's Lakers return to the Finals, this time against the Knicks. Reed missed game 6 due to injury and Wilt demolished the Knicks to send it to a 7th game. So what happened in Game 7? You guessed it: another stinker by Wilt's 21 points (1-11 from the line) against a hobbling, injured Reed and his backups

Let's actually start with Wilt's ROOKIE season, when completely turned around a LAST-PLACE franchise. In the playoffs, he SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried that inept cast of clowns thru Syracuse, in a series in which he averaged 37 ppg, and 24 rpg...while holding his opposing center, multiple all-star, Red Kerr, to 14 ppg, 8 rpg, and get this... .294 shooting. THEN, Chamberlain put up a 30+ ppg series against Russell, despite injuring his hand in game three (and having one of his worst playoff games in game four), and which included a 50-35 game five, in a must-win WIN.

True, Wilt's 60-61 Warriors were swept by Syracuse, 3-0. The ONLY time in Wilt's 14 season career in which he didn't make it past the first round. But let's take a closer look, shall we? All Wilt did was average 37 ppg, 23 rpg, and shoot .467 (which was low for Wilt, but it came in a league that shot .415.) He faced Kerr again, and while I don't have Kerr's numbers against Wilt in that series, in his entire playoffs, he averaged 9.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, and shot .341. And, how about Wilt's teammates? They collectively shot .332. But, yes, let's blame WILT for that sweeping loss.

Wilt SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried his 61-62 Warriors past Syracuse in the the '62 playoffs. Once again, in game five, of a best-of-five series, all Wilt did was hang a 56-35 game on the Nationals. Then, he put up a 34-26 .468 series against Russell in the ECF's. And before someone mentions that that was well below Wilt's 50.4 .506 regular season, in their H2H regular season games, Chamberlain averaged 38 ppg on .471 shooting against Russell. So, no, it was NOT a dramatic drop.

And, only an uneducated poster would bring up Wilt's game seven of 22 points, on 7-15 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Actual game recaps credited Wilt with playing GREAT defense. Furthermore, Wilt was called for a very questionable goal tend late in the game. And, he also contributed a three-point play in the waning seconds to tie the game. Then, he nearly blocked Sam Jones game-winner. Oh, and BTW, he had two 40-30 games against Russell, including a 42-37 game in which he held Russell to a 9-20 game...and the result? A seven point win. Which clearly illustrated what Wilt faced. He had to have monumental games for his team to win. In any case, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354 in that post-season. Maybe someone can explain to me just how Wilt got them as far as he did.

You mention '66. Wilt LED his Sixers to the BEST RECORD in the league, at 55-25. And all he did along the way was lead the league in scoring, at 33.5 ppg; lead the league in rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; and set a then-record FG% mark of .540. He even found time to hand out 5.2 apg. Still, Philly had to win their last 11 games to overtake Boston, and the reality was, the Celtics were the seven-time defending champs. Ok, so what happened. Boston routed Philly, 4-1. How did Wilt fare in that series? He averaged 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509. Included in that series, was a clinching game five loss performance of 46 points, and 34 rebounds, and on 19-34 shooting. Now, how did Wilt's teammates respond? They collectively shot .352 from the field. Yep...WILT's fault.

No reason to cover Wilt's '67 run, which many observers claim as the greatest season, and greatest post-season ever. One quick point, though. Remember how Wilt hung that 46-34 game five on Russell the year before, in a clinching loss? Well, Russell was faced with the exact same circumstances in game five of the '67 ECF's. He quietly put up a four point, 2-5 FG shooting, 21 rebound game...while all Chamberlain did was score 29 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 13 assists, and 36 rebounds. Where was Russell when he was so desperately needed?

Continued...

[jlauber]

Only a complete idiot would look at Wilt's 67-68 playoffs, and say that he choked. His team, which ran away with the best record in the league, was DECIMATED by injuries. HOFer Billy Cunningham didn't play a game in the ECF's. And even then, the Sixers were good enough to go up 3-1. BUT, in game five, BOTH Philly starters, Luke Jackson and Wali Jones suffered leg injuries, and were worthless the rest of the series. Then, in game seven, Wilt only TOUCHED the ball NINE times in the entire second half at the offensive end, and only TWICE in the 4th quarter (and both were offensive rebounds.) And while he was NOT getting the ball, his teammates collectively shot .333 from the floor in that game. The result? A 100-96 loss. And even then Wilt still outscored Russell, 14-12, and outrebounded Russell, 34-26.

Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain PLAYED the last FIVE games of that series with SEVERAL foot and leg injuries, including a tear of his quad muscle. Even Russell commented that "a lessor man would not have played." In any case, we KNOW that neither Kareem, nor Reed, would have played under those circumstances. So, once again who got the blame? Of course, it was WILT.

As for Wilt "laying an egg" in game seven of the '69 Finals? Let's REALLY take a closer look, shall we? The Lakers were down by 17 points with about 10 minutes left in the game. They started a furious rally, and with a little over six minutes left, Wilt grabbed a defensive rebound, and his outlet led to a basket that cut the margin to nine. However, he injured his knee on that play (the VERY SAME KNEE that he would reinjure early in the '70 season, and which would require major surgery.) Still, he limped around for one more sequence, and grabbed yet another defensive rebound, which led to two more FTs, and now a seven point deficit. So, in the matter of about three minutes, LA had chopped TEN points off that 17 point deficit. HOWEVER, Wilt HAD to come out. Even his incompetent coach would later claim that Wilt's injury was legitimate. After a couple of minutes went by, Wilt asked to go back in. Van Breda Kolf refused, and instead went with the great Mel Counts, who missed a couple of shots down the stretch (en route to a 4-13 game), and the Lakers lost that game by two points. In that game seven, and playing in only 43 minutes to Russell's 48, all Wilt did was outscore Russell, 18-6; outshoot Russell from the field, 7-8 to 2-7; even outscored Russell from the line, 4-13 to 2-4; and outrebounded Russell, 27-21. And yet, who was blamed for the series loss? Of course, it was WILT.

BTW, in game four of that series, in which LA was leading 2-1, the Lakers led 88-87 with only a few seconds left... and they had the ball. But, Johnny Egan lost the ball, and Sam Jones hit the game-winner, at the buzzer, while falling down. Given the fact that the Lakers romped over Boston in game five, 117-104 (and in a game in which Wilt pounded Russell), that ONE PLAY cost the Lakers a 4-1 series win. And, while Wilt got the brunt of the blame, where was Baylor in games three thru five, (two of the losses), when he scored a TOTAL of 24 points (and even a 1-5 performance from the line in that game four, one point loss)? And, he flopped badly in game seven, too, shooting 8-22 (.363) from the floor. In fact, he was the Lakers WORST shooter in the entire post-season.

And, while Duncan4MVP brings up Wilt's "stinking" performance in game seven of the '70 Finals...all Wilt did in that game was score 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds...while the "heroic" Reed put up a 4 point, 3 rebound, 2-5 game. Oh, and how about the rest of Wilt's teammates in that game seven? They collectively shot .418...and were at 33% in the first half, when NY ran away with the game.


1-11 from the foul in Game 7 of the NBA Finals and this is supposed to be the GOAT?


Once again, a truly unresearched statement. Wilt shot 1-11 from the line in that game. However, he was 1-8 in the first half...and when the Knicks had blown open the game, 69-42. To say that Wilt's FT shooting cost them that was completely ridiculous.

BUT, Duncan forgot to point out two things. Wilt STILL had a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 FG% series, which is the ONLY 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA HISTORY. And, while he was quick to point out the fact that Reed was hobbled in the last three games...he somehow forgot to bring up the fact that Wilt, himself, was only FOUR MONTHS removed from MAJOR KNEE surgery. The SAME surgery that Baylor took over a YEAR to recover from (and in fact, he was never the same.)

BTW, the Knicks had FOUR HOFers that season (going 60-22), along with a deep bench, and a HOF coach.

Duncan then brings up the '73 Finals. A Finals in which West was nursing TWO injured knees, and Happy Hairston was nowhere near 100%. And, BTW, the Knicks roster had SIX HOFers on it. Still, all four of LA's losses were in the final minute (by scores of 4, 4, 5, and 9 points.) And, in the LAST game (and Wilt's LAST game), Chamberlain put a 23 point, 21 rebound, 9-16 game.


Oh, and Duncan4MVP forgot to bring up a 34 year-old Wilt, only a year removed from major knee surgery, battling a statistically prime Kareem to a statistical draw in the '71 WCF's (and playing without BOTH West and Baylor.) BTW, in the last game of that series, and when Wilt came out late, he received a STANDING OVATION...and the game was played in MILWAUKEE.

Nor did Duncan4MVP bring up Wilt's 71-72 post-season, when he was hailed by ALL as outplaying a Kareem in Kareem's finest season, in leading the Lakers past the defending champion Bucks. Then, Wilt dominated the Knicks, and their FIVE HOFers, including a clinching game five performance of 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds (the entire NY team had 39 BTW), and 9 blocks. Oh, and Wilt was PLAYING in that game with one badly sprained wrist, and the other FRACTURED. Here again, you would never have caught Kareem playing under those circumstances.


Chamberlain played in 160 post-season games. You would be hard-pressed to find very many, if any, in which he was "average." He was seldom outscored )and he overwhelmed his opposing centers in his "scoring" years.) I could only find one series, in his 29, in which he was outshot from the field (and that by a .457 to .452 margin, in a series in which he missed 20 shots, and Kareem missed 107.) And, he was NEVER outrebounded in any of those 29 post-season series. And in many of those, he CRUSHED his opposing centers.

And, BTW, how come Duncan4MVP didn't bring up Wilt's OPPOSING center's numbers in his post?

In the '60 playoffs, Wilt held Kerr to .296 shooting (while just murdering him in EVERY facet of the game.)

In the '62 ECF's, Wilt held Russell, who had shot .457 over the course of the regular season, to around .420 shooting.

In the '64 Finals, we can only make an educated guess that Wilt must have held Russell to considerably below his regular season FG% of .433. Russell shot .356 in his ten post-season games, and half of those were against Wilt.

In the '67 ECF's, Wilt held Russell, who had shot .454 during the regular season, to .358 shooting.

In the '67 Finals, Wilt not only shot .560 against Thurmond, he held Nate to .343 shooting (in a year in which Thurmond shot .437.)

In the '68 playoffs, Wilt held Bellamy, who had shot .541 during the regular season, to .421 shooting.

In the '69 playoffs, Wilt outshot Thurmond, .500 to .392.

In the '71 WCF's, Wilt outshot Kareem, who had shot .577 during the regular season, .489 to .481.

And in the '72 WCF's, Wilt held Kareem, who had shot .574 in the regular season, to .457 shooting (including .414 over the course of the last four pivotal games of that series.)


Hopefully we have a little better understanding of what REALLY transpired in Wilt's post-season career.

[jlauber]

It's funny how many lengths Jlauber goes to to defend Wilt the Stilt. If Wilt needs defending that much, he must have been shaky in the clutch.

Also the the free throw shooting is interesting. If Wilt was missing 8 freebies in a game and his team lost by 4 points, what does that say? But we will blame his teammates when he was the number one option shooting the ball 30+ times a game.

Plus Jlauber goes on and on about Wilt's 'superhuman' physical skills. If he was so much more physicaly dominant than the other players why do you defend him. why could he not win every year? If no one could stop him why did he only win two rings?

My god, what is wrong with you people?

So, if Wilt goes 4-11 from the line, and his team loses by six points...BUT, he scores 30 points on 13-20 shooting, grabs 25 rebounds, blocks 10 shots, gets 6 assists, and holds his opposing center to 10 points on 4-13 shooting, with 15 rebounds,...AND, Wilt's teammates collectively shoot .360 from the field...it is WILT's fault that his team loses?????!!!!!

How about all the MANY horrible post-season games that Bird had from the field? The man had HORRIBLE post-seasons? He was part of SEVEN teams that lost with HCA, including a sweeping loss in '83. Or in arguably his greatest regular season, in 87-88, shooting .351 against the Pistons (and the same Piston team that Magic would just torch in the Finals with a 22 ppg .550 series?) Or Bird having as many games in the Finals, in which he shot under 40%, 11, as he did in shooting over 50% (including THREE of under 30%)? The man shot .455 in his five Finals, ...and yet, how come no one brings up the fact that his awful shooting probably cost Boston MANY games in the post-season?

How about Kareem shooting .428, .457, and .405 from the field in three successive post-season playoff series? How about Kareem being outplayed in a game seven of the Finals, at home, in a blowout loss, by Dave Cowens? How about Kareem shooting .462 from the field, and being outplayed by Moses and his 40-42 Rockets in '81? How about Kareem being unable to grab a rebound against Moses in '83, in a sweeping loss? How about Kareem going 7-25 from the field in a pivotal game five of the '84 Finals, and only shooting .481 from the floor in that series? How about Kareem's game seven in the '88 Finals, which is arguably the WORST game seven ever played by an all-time great?

How about Russell meekly going like a lamb to slaughter in the clinching game five blowout loss against Wilt and his Sixers in the '67 ECF's?

I could go right down the line with EVERY "great" player. Yet, we have idiotic posters here who rip Wilt for his poor FT shooting, even when he just overwhelmed opposing teams, and often with his teammates just blowing chunks all over the floor.

Once again... the famous "Wilt Double Standard."

[jlauber]

I continue to read posters here who claim that Wilt "wilted" in the post-season.

One more time children...

Here are Chamberlain's post-season numbers:

Thru Chamberlain's "scoring" seasons, 1959-60 thru 1965-66, Wilt averaged 32.8 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 3.2 apg, and on a .505 FG%, in league's that averaged .426 shooting in that span...or WAY over the league average. And, keep in mind that Wilt's roster was so horrible in his 62-63 season, that his team failed to make the playoffs...in a year in which he averaged 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting.

32.8 ppg, 26.4 rpg, 3.2 apg, .505 (in league's that shot .426)



Thru Wilt's absolute prime, 1959-60 to 1966-67, when Chamberlain led the Sixers to a 68-13 record, and a world title.

30.4 ppg, 27.0 rpg, 4.5 apg, .515 FG% (in league's that shot .428 in that span)


Thru Wilt's 11th season, and in the year in which he was injured...

25.8 ppg, 25.6 rpg, 4.4 apg, .524 FG% ( in league's that shot .433 over that span.)


Think about that...in Wilt's first 11 seasons, covering 10 post-seasons, he averaged a 26-26-4 .520 (in league's that shot .430)


And once again, in his NINE game seven's in his post-season career, Chamberlain averaged 24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and shot .626... which is not only the highest FG% ever in game seven's by an all-time "great"...it was achieved in league's that shot about .435 on average.

And again, Wilt DRAMATICALLY affected the numbers of his opposing centers in the playoffs. In fact, on average, his opposing centers shot between 5-10% lower than their regular season numbers (e.g., Russell shooting .358 in a year in which he shot .454; Thurmond shooting .343 in a year in which he shot .437; Bellamy shooting .421 in a year in which he shot .541; Kareem shooting .481 in a year in which he shot .577; and Kareem again, shooting .457 in a year in which he shot .574.)


How much help did Wilt receive from his teammates in the post-season?

In his first seven seasons, covering six post-seasons, Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot .382, .380, .354, .352, .352, and even .332. In that span, Wilt STILL carried FOUR teams to the ECF's, and a fifth team to a FINALS. Included in those post-seasons, were two game seven losses to the great Celtic Dynasty, by margins of 2 and 1 point.

In the 67-68 playoffs, a VERY hobbled Wilt, nursing SEVERAL injuries, still got his team, which was DECIMATED by injuries, to a game seven, where they not only forgot to pass the ball to Chamberlain, they also collectively shot .333.

In the 68-69 game seven of the Finals, Chamberlain shot .875 from the field (and was on the BENCH in the last five minutes of the game...thanks to his COACH), while his teammates collectively shot .360 (including Baylor going 8-22 from the field.)

In game seven of the 69-70 Finals, and in a first half in which Wilt's team was blown off the court, Chamberlain scored 11 points on 5-10 shooting, with 12 rebounds...while his teammates collectively shot .333.

In the 70-71 playoffs, Wilt was without BOTH West and Baylor (and Erickson went down early in the post-season, as well.)

And in Wilt's LAST post-season, and in the Finals, and in a series in which all four Laker losses were decided in the last minute (losses by 4, 4, 5, and 9 points), Wilt shot .524 in the series...while his teammates collectively shot .426.


BTW, Chamberlain shot .560 over the course of his SIX Finals, with a LOW of .517 (on a 29 ppg average and against Russell in '64), and with a HIGH of .625 (in a seven game series in '70.) He also shot .600 in the '72 Finals, when he led LA to a title, and in which he won the FMVP. And he outshot the great Thurmond in the '67 Finals, .560 to .343, in leading the Sixers to an overwhelming title.


Hopefully the posters here will read this before they blindly throw out this nonsense that Wilt "wilted" in the post-season.

[millwad]

What the hell, Jlauber, you need to get a life and stop wasting your time on nonsense. First of all, NO ONE reads those garbage essays you put up, they are too long and things you could write in 3 lines takes 2 pages for you, you retard.

And now if anyone would have the time to read something that long basketball-related they would google it to find the source you got it from. Instead of reading your extremely biased essays we all can go to google and find the source you got it from. It's already confirmed that you didn't see the games you spam about so why the hell would anyone read your extremely biased posts when we all can do what you did... GOOGLE IT.:facepalm

You have no credibility, why don't you get that?

[jlauber]

What the hell, Jlauber, you need to get a life and stop wasting your time on nonsense. First of all, NO ONE reads those garbage essays you put up, they are too long and things you could write in 3 lines takes 2 pages for you, you retard.

And now if anyone would have the time to read something that long basketball-related they would google it to find the source you got it from. Instead of reading your extremely biased essays we all can go to google and find the source you got it from. It's already confirmed that you didn't see the games you spam about so why the hell would anyone read your extremely biased posts when we all can do what you did... GOOGLE IT.:facepalm

You have no credibility, why don't you get that?

This coming from the liar that stated that Hakeem was not outrebounded by Barkley until the 99-00 season (when in fact Barkley outrebounded him in all of the seasons they played together); and who claimed that Wilt was seldom double-teamed. And that Wilt did not block 15 of Kareem's sky-hooks in the 71-72 playoffs (which I proved you right...it was probably more like 20+.) And who claimed that Hakeem did NOT guard Kareem in Abdul Jabbar's 40 point explosions against him.

As for GOOGLE, you might want to try using it yourself, since you continually make an ass of yourself with non-factual posts.

[RobertdeMeijer]

I read these essays... I appreciate the research.

[millwad]

This coming from the liar that stated that Hakeem was not outrebounded by Barkley until the 99-00 season (when in fact Barkley outrebounded him in all of the seasons they played together); and who claimed that Wilt was seldom double-teamed. And that Wilt did not block 15 of Kareem's sky-hooks in the 71-72 playoffs (which I proved you right...it was probably more like 20+.) And who claimed that Hakeem did NOT guard Kareem in Abdul Jabbar's 40 point explosions against him.

Dude, me "lying" was me not being aware of the situation a la Hakeem not guarding Kareem during in his rookie season. It wasn't even important to me to start with, I don't judge players based on how they perform in their rookie year, you clown. And yes, Wilt was double-teamed way less than later all-time great center.

And you never proved Wilt blocking 15 of Kareem's skyhooks.
And haha, you dirty ass old fart, I never wrote that Barkley didn't outrebound him 'til the '00 season, I recalled it incorrectly when you wrote about the year Hakeem got outrebounded by 4 a game by Barkley. I did NEVER write that it was first in the '99 season that Barkley outrebounded Hakeem.

And it's funny, me "lying" or you lying. You claimed that Hakeem got crushed by Shaq in the '95 finals, that Hakeem was a worse player then Thurmond. That Kareem got "crushed" by Wilt in the '72 playoffs while he outscored Wilt with the 23 points per game on better FG% and outassisting Wilt and also shooting FT's twice as good as Wilt, haha. Sure, he "CRUSHED" Kareem.

In fact, you're so dumb that when you tried to defend Wilt regarding him having to face way shorter players in his statprime you brought up players who never even played in the league at the same time as Wilt and players who never even played in the NBA.. Great knowledge, idiot.

And still, we all know you have no credibility, but read what I wrote above it. No one reads your essays, they are garbage and you are spending scary much time on defending Wilt on the internet. You are 56 years old, I doubt that you have any family but if you do, do they consider you to be a normal person? Your obsession with a basketball player who retired almost 40 years ago and who you barely saw play is just scary. I honestly believe that you have some kind of mental disorder, I honestly do and you should probably get a time at some psychiatrist or doctor, your behaviour and obsession really reminds me of people with Aspergers syndrome.

[millwad]

I read these essays... I appreciate the research.

Don't waste your time, they are no researchs, you can easily check up the truth by googling what he is googling and then you'll get the true story. Not his extremely biased version.

[jlauber]

And yes, Wilt was double-teamed way less than later all-time great center.

What kind of defenses did Wilt face in his NBA career?

http://biography.jrank.org/pages/233...lain-Wilt.html


Quote:
Several of the rules of college basketball had to be changed as a result of Chamberlain's talents, which simply dwarfed those of previous players. Opposing players double-and triple-teamed him and played a slowed-down game rather than attempt to confront Chamberlain's offensive skills head-on. These techniques helped the University of North Carolina defeat Kansas 54-53 in triple overtime in the 1957 championship game.

Such tactics also frustrated the rapidly developing Chamberlain, who startled the basketball world by turning professional rather than returning to Kansas for his senior year. NBA rules forbade him from joining the league until the year in which he would have graduated from college, so Chamberlain played for the razzle-dazzle touring professional team the Harlem Globetrotters during the 1958-59 season. He joined the Philadelphia Warriors in 1959, having already collected a large bonus for signing.

Individual Triumphs in NBA
Chamberlain was an NBA star from the beginning, leading the league in scoring and rebounding, and taking home honors not only for Rookie of the Year but also for Most Valuable Player. Frustrated by defensive tactics similar to those he had faced in college, and by what he considered biased officiating, he threatened to leave the league and return to the Globetrotters in 1960. But he did not follow through on his threat, and soon learned to outmaneuver his tormentors through sheer size, speed, and skill.






http://www.nba.com/home/history/lege...ain/index.html


Quote:
In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."





http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...940232,00.html


Quote:
He stood there, just to the right of the basket, a placid. 7-ft. 1 1/16-in, giant watching impassively as his teammates maneuvered the ball in backcourt. The New York Knickerbockers tried to box him in; they clutched at his jersey, leaned against his chest, stepped on his toes. Then Wilt Chamberlain came alive. With the aplomb of a cop palming an apple, he reached out one massive hand and plucked the basketball out of the air. Spinning violently, he ripped clear of the elbowing surge, took a step toward the basket and jumped. For an instant, he seemed suspended in midair, his head on a level with the 10-ft.-high basket. Slowly, gently, the ball dribbled off his fingertips, through the net, and the San Francisco Warriors went on to a 142-134 victory. New York Coach Ed Donovan sadly shook his head. "He's phenomenal." he sighed. "How does anyone stop Wilt Chamberlain?"




http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...940232,00.html


Quote:
Most basketball stars have one great talent: Russell's is defense, Elgin Baylor's is shooting, Bob Cousy's is setting up plays and passing. Chamberlain does almost everything, better than anyone else. He is the pros' fiercest rebounder, and his shooting repertory includes such inimitable specialties as the "Dipper Dunk" (in which he simply stretches up and lays the ball in the basket), the "Stuff Shot" (in which he jumps up and rams the ball through the net from above), [B]and the "Fadeaway Jump"

[jlauber]

Continuing...

http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-...mmy-4000-words


Quote:
At 7

[jlauber]

And haha, you dirty ass old fart, I never wrote that Barkley didn't outrebound him 'til the '00 season, I recalled it incorrectly when you wrote about the year Hakeem got outrebounded by 4 a game by Barkley. I did NEVER write that it was first in the '99 season that Barkley outrebounded Hakeem

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=239811&page=4


Millwad: And troll, it's funny, the 4 rebound per game higher average Barkley had was in the '00 season. It really takes a retard use that as a proof of Hakeem being a "bad" rebounder, he was 37 years old. Wilt at that age was retired.. Haha

Of course, we KNOW that Barkley outrebounded his TEAMMATE, Hakeem, by a 13.5 rpg to 9.2 rpg margin in the 96-97 season.



Millwad Dude, me "lying" was me not being aware of the situation a la Hakeem not guarding Kareem during in his rookie season.

Kareem poured a game of 40 points on Hakeem in Olajuwon's rookie season, 84-85, AND, then the 38 year old Kareem dumped TWO 40+ games on Hakeem in his SECOND season. It got so bad, that the Houston coach had to finally admit his failure, and put Sampson on the 38 year old Kareem in the playoffs (of course, Hakeem did help DOUBLE Kareem, as well.)

[millwad]

You fukkin' phagg0t, I didn't ask for what kind of defense Wilt faced, I only said that he didn't face the same amount of double teams as Shaq and Hakeem, he didn't. Your two pages of copy and paste is equal to crap.

[jlauber]

That Kareem got "crushed" by Wilt in the '72 playoffs while he outscored Wilt with the 23 points per game on better FG% and outassisting Wilt and also shooting FT's twice as good as Wilt, haha. Sure, he "CRUSHED" Kareem

I won't bother copy-and-pasting all of it...

just scroll down and read PHILA's POSTS on the subject...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=235497&page=2

Even TIME MAGAZINE declared that a Wilt DECISIVELY outplayed Kareem. Of course, you wouldn't know that, since you didn't WATCH that series!

[jlauber]

You fukkin' phagg0t, I didn't ask for what kind of defense Wilt faced, I only said that he didn't face the same amount of double teams as Shaq and Hakeem, he didn't. Your two pages of copy and paste is equal to crap.

Now it is YOUR turn. You PROVE to me that Hakeem and Shaq faced more double-teams than Wilt.

[millwad]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=239811&page=4


Still doesn't say that I claim that the '99 season was the first season Hakeem got outrebounded.. And the first thing in that I did was too admit that I recalled it wrongly so what are you about?

All you do is put up pure nonsense a la Hakeem getting killed by Shaq in the '95 finals. Hakeem being a worse player than Thurmond, Wilt getting killed, abused and crushed by Wilt in the '72 playoffs series (while Kareem averaged 23 points more per game on better FG% and outassisting Wilt, haha).

And the most lame crap you ever put up was when you tried to put up a great list of tall guys Wilt faced in his statprime and you failed big time. Talking about lies, according to you Wilt faced players who never even were in the league at the same time as Wilt and you even mentioned players from ABA who never played in the NBA... HAHA.. That's called lying, you phagg0t.




Kareem poured a game of 40 points on Hakeem in Olajuwon's rookie season, 84-85, AND, then the 38 year old Kareem dumped TWO 40+ games on Hakeem in his SECOND season. It got so bad, that the Houston coach had to finally admit his failure, and put Sampson on the 38 year old Kareem in the playoffs (of course, Hakeem did help DOUBLE Kareem, as well.)

First of all, rookie Hakeem and 2nd year pro Hakeem doesn't mean crap, Hakeem was no where close his defensive prime as I've stated thousand times, in neither his first or second pro year. And he crushed the Lakers in the playoffs that same year as a 2nd year pro.. phagg0t

[millwad]

And I'm still waiting for your proof of Wilt blocking more than 15 of Kareem's skyhooks in the '72 series where Kareem outscored Wilt with 23 points per game on better FG% and outassisted Wilt and shot FT's twice as good as Wilt...

And you don't have to put 3 essays or own conclusions, give me straight facts.

[millwad]

Now it is YOUR turn. You PROVE to me that Hakeem and Shaq faced more double-teams than Wilt.

Your eyes can do that job, watch the footage of Wilt that's out there, and then compare it to footage of prime Hakeem and prime Shaq.

[jlauber]

And the most lame crap you ever put up was when you tried to put up a great list of tall guys Wilt faced in his statprime and you failed big time. Talking about lies, according to you Wilt faced players who never even were in the league at the same time as Wilt and you even mentioned players from ABA who never played in the NBA... HAHA.. That's called lying, you phagg0t

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100727234728AAZxTUR


Kareem Abdul Jabbar: 7'2"
Dennis Awtrey: 6'11"
Walt Bellamy: 6'11"
Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0"
Nate Bowmen: 6'11"
Mel Counts: 7'0"
Walter Dukes: 7'0"
Jim Eakins: 6'11"
Ray Felix: 6'11"
Hank Finkel: 7'0"
Artis Gilmore: 7'2"
Swede Halbrook: 7'3"
Reggie Harding: 7'0"
Bob Lanier: 6'11"
Jim McDaniels: 6'11"
Otto Moore: 6'11"
Dave Newmark: 7'0"
Rich Niemann: 7'0"
Billy Paultz: 6'11"
Craig Raymond: 6'11"
Elmore Smith: 7'0"
Chuck Share: 6'11"
Ronald Taylor: 7'1"
Nate Thurmond: 6'11"
Walt Wesley: 6'11"

Two other factors to keep in mind:

a. The NBA was less interested in promoting itself 40 years ago, and therefore, did not see the need to measure players with their shoes on. Almost all players today are listed 1-2 inches taller than their actual height.


Furthermore, I don't care if Ron Taylor was in the ABA. He was 7-1, and wasn't good enough to play in Wilt's NBA. YOU claim that Wilt did NOT face tall players. I would argue that faced PLENTY of them (and in leagues with 8 to 17 teams.) Not that height has any real bearing on greatness. 6-7 Ben Wallace was the best defensive center of the 00's.

[jlauber]

Your eyes can do that job, watch the footage of Wilt that's out there, and then compare it to footage of prime Hakeem and prime Shaq.

There are only a HANDFUL of Wilt's games on YouTube. He played in 1200 games. Furthermore, another poster brought up game four of the '64 Finals...which was actually just the second HALF. That footage is broken up into several, and just in the second one alone, Wilt was doubled nearly every time down the court.

In any case, I gave you a TON of quotes from PEERS and the media who COVERED Chamberlain. Find me anywhere near the amount showing that Hakeem was BRUTALIZED while being SWARMED as Wilt was.

I will agree that SHAQ was often doubled...but I would not concede it was more than a PRIME Chamberlain.

[millwad]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100727234728AAZxTUR

You idiot, it wasn't only Taylor..
Eakins never played in the league at the same time as Wilt and the 3 time ABA-allstar Billy Paultz was in the ABA and never faced Wilt either. Raymond played a total of 27 NBA games.

It's really funny you know, why would anyone make up names in a list regarding Wilt's competition, and you call me a liar? HAHAHAHA! Putting up an ABA starplayer as Wilt's competition when the guy never even was on the same court as Wilt..:facepalm

You're a joke...

[millwad]

There are only a HANDFUL of Wilt's games on YouTube. He played in 1200 games. Furthermore, another poster brought up game four of the '64 Finals...which was actually just the second HALF. That footage is broken up into several, and just in the second one alone, Wilt was doubled nearly every time down the court.

In any case, I gave you a TON of quotes from PEERS and the media who COVERED Chamberlain. Find me anywhere near the amount showing that Hakeem was BRUTALIZED while being SWARMED as Wilt was.

I will agree that SHAQ was often doubled...but I would not concede it was more than a PRIME Chamberlain.

Yeah, you're gonna prove stuff by stuff you read. Bu-bu-but in that case Wilt had sex with 20 000 women too, it was written, so was his so-called FT-dunks and 50 inch vertical and his beef with the mountain lion and his world class volleyballplayer career and that Wilt would average 70 points per game today and that Wilt broke a guys toe when he dunked a ball on it yadi yadi...

[millwad]

I won't bother copy-and-pasting all of it...

just scroll down and read PHILA's POSTS on the subject...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=235497&page=2

Even TIME MAGAZINE declared that a Wilt DECISIVELY outplayed Kareem. Of course, you wouldn't know that, since you didn't WATCH that series!

You didn't watch the series either and you prove time after time that you don't know what "decisively" means..

[jlauber]

And I'm still waiting for your proof of Wilt blocking more than 15 of Kareem's skyhooks in the '72 series where Kareem outscored Wilt with 23 points per game on better FG% and outassisted Wilt and shot FT's twice as good as Wilt...

And you don't have to put 3 essays or own conclusions, give me straight facts.

I made a mockery of your claim in a post awhile back. I am not going to go thru my Cherry and Rosen books again. However, just in THREE games of the '72 WCF's Wilt was on record as blocking 15 of Kareem's shots. Maybe not all skyhooks, but surely most of them were. BTW, Kareem took about ANOTHER 100 shots in the other three games, and I am reasonably certain that Wilt was blocking his skyhook in those games, as well.

So, instead of me having to dig up all of MY research, why don't YOU do some actual research, and rebuff my take.

In the meantime, you can disprove this quote, as well.

BTW, Wilt blocks TWO of Kareem's skyhooks in a matter of a few seconds...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYq4CWeWaKg


@tank3ful In a h2h playoff series in the early 70's Wilt Blocked KAJ's skyhook 23 times. He was a living breathing anti-skyhook./watch?v=3BKEgX5E_E4 (his young leaping ability/reach - top of the backboard!)
/watch?v=kB43A-ODuLc (his sheer dominance in a complete NCAA final four game - rare footage)
/watch?v=c3jkRpOfP9k (footage of him young and in his physical PRIME)
His standing reach is higher and wider than Yao ming, he's as nearly as heavy as Shaq, and he was as fleet as a small guard
dantheman9758 1 week ago


Or dispute this one...

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


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

And given the fact that Wilt and Kareem faced off 28 times, I would think that Chamberlain probably blocked between 50-100 skyhooks in that span.

Of course, I could also say that I WATCHED Wilt ROUTINELY rejecting Kareem's skyhook, but you wouldn't believe it. Mainly because you wouldn't want to.

[jlauber]

You didn't watch the series either and you prove time after time that you don't know what "decisively" means..


Huh? What is YOUR definition of DECISIVELY?

[jlauber]

Yeah, you're gonna prove stuff by stuff you read. Bu-bu-but in that case Wilt had sex with 20 000 women too, it was written, so was his so-called FT-dunks and 50 inch vertical and his beef with the mountain lion and his world class volleyballplayer career and that Wilt would average 70 points per game today and that Wilt broke a guys toe when he dunked a ball on it yadi yadi...

You're right. We can't PROVE anything by what we READ.:facepalm

You are truly pathetic.

[millwad]

I made a mockery of your claim in a post awhile back. I am not going to go thru my Cherry and Rosen books again. However, just in THREE games of the '72 WCF's Wilt was on record as blocking 15 of Kareem's shots. Maybe not all skyhooks, but surely most of them were. BTW, Kareem took about ANOTHER 100 shots in the other three games, and I am reasonably certain that Wilt was blocking his skyhook in those games, as well.

Haha, you *******, I knew you were BS'ing.. I couldn't care about your conclusions, I asked for facts and as usual you couldn't deliver.. You even claimed that he blocked more than 15 skyhooks, likely 20:facepalm



So, instead of me having to dig up all of MY research, why don't YOU do some actual research, and rebuff my take.

I don't have to do any research regarding this subject, you were the idiot who brought this nonsense up.



In the meantime, you can disprove this quote, as well.

BTW, Wilt blocks TWO of Kareem's skyhooks in a matter of a few seconds...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYq4CWeWaKg

Doesn't prove that he blocked 15 skyhooks in a series, STILL.




Or dispute this one...

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


Haha, you idiot, Robert Allen Cherry was Wilt's own biographer...:facepalm
And great, now the idiot Jlauber uses youtube-posters as "DanTheMan" as one of his sources.. Wow, you're such a retard.



Of course, I could also say that I WATCHED Wilt ROUTINELY rejecting Kareem's skyhook, but you wouldn't believe it. Mainly because you wouldn't want to.

Sure, just like you saw all the other Wilt footage, on youtube..:facepalm

[millwad]

You're right. We can't PROVE anything by what we READ.:facepalm

You are truly pathetic.

Dude, you use Yahoo-comments and youtube-comments among your sources, haha.. And quotes by Wilt's own biographer.. Haha..

[jlauber]

http://slumz.boxden.com/f16/wilt-chamberlain-vs-kareem-abdul-jabbar-game-game-stats-1401716/

19.Date: Fri 04/14/72
- Chamberlain 7 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, 10 blocks, 1-3 FG/FGA

[LAClipsFan33]

Howard could also score 100 points playing against mostly scrubs. And average 50 points per game as a C.

WILT most overrated center of all time

Dwight Howard couldn't average 50 in the D League. He's not that kind of scorer

[G-train]

50 ppg in a season.
100 points in a game.
Crazy rebounding numbers.
Eye witness accounts of huge block numbers.

This dude is a top player ever no matter what.

NOBODY else at the time played like this, and nobody since.

I dont get why people get so mad about it.

[millwad]

http://slumz.boxden.com/f16/wilt-chamberlain-vs-kareem-abdul-jabbar-game-game-stats-1401716/

19.Date: Fri 04/14/72
- Chamberlain 7 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, 10 blocks, 1-3 FG/FGA – 6 blocks against Jabbar W
-Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 21 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 15-37 FG/FGA L



21.Date: Tue 04/18/72
- Chamberlain 12 pts, 26 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 2-3 FG/FGA - 4 blocks against Jabbar W
-Abdul-Jabbar 28 pts, 16 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 13-33 FG/FGA L

22.Date: Sat 04/22/72
- Chamberlain 20 pts, 24 rebs, 2 as, 9 blocks, 8-12 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 25 rebs, 8 as, * blocks, 16-37 FG/FGA L

Now, according to Cherry, on page 264, in that sixth game (4/22), Wilt did have nine blocks, FIVE of them on Kareem.

So, just in those three games, Wilt blocked 15 of Kareem's shots. And, once again, Kareem took close to another 100 shots in the other three games of that series.


As for Cherry being "Wilt's biographer"...he wrote his book five years AFTER Chamberlain died.

And I didn't even take the time to go thru Rosen's book on the '72 Lakers, either, but he documented all the games of that series, and I believe he came up with a higher number.

So, now YOU prove that Chamberlain did NOT block 15 of Kareem's sky-hooks in that series. If anything, it was probably more than 20.

Dick, you said that Wilt blocked 15 of Kareem's skyhooks in that series. You even went as far as saying he blocked close to 20 skyhooks in that series. And as always you own yourself..

First of all, is that supposed to be a site anyone can trust? What is this cr4p site to start with, how can we know the facts on it is valid? Where is it from?

And if the stats are completely true then you completely owned yourself. You claimed that Wilt blocked 15-20 skyhooks in the '72 series.

In game 1 blocks weren't counted.

In game 2 blocks weren't counted.

Game 3 that site says that Kareem got blocked 6 times, nothing about skyhooks, Kareem wasn't just shooting skyhooks, you dick.

Game 4 it says that Wilt had 3 blocks, it doesn't say who he blocked..

Game 5 that site says he blocked Kareem 4 times.

And in game 6 it says that Wilt blocked 9 shots, it doesn't even say who he blocked, you idiot.

Haha, so your proof told us that Wilt blocked 10 times (nothing about skyhooks) in the series.

Haha, from blocking 15-20 skyhooks to this.. You suck..

[jlauber]

Dick, you said that Wilt blocked 15 of Kareem's skyhooks in that series. You even went as far as saying he blocked close to 20 skyhooks in that series. And as always you own yourself..

First of all, is that supposed to be a site anyone can trust? What is this cr4p site to start with, how can we know the facts on it is valid? Where is it from?

And if the stats are completely true then you completely owned yourself. You claimed that Wilt blocked 15-20 skyhooks in the '72 series.

In game 1 blocks weren't counted.

In game 2 blocks weren't counted.

Game 3 that site says that Kareem got blocked 6 times, nothing about skyhooks, Kareem wasn't just shooting skyhooks, you dick.

Game 4 it says that Wilt had 3 blocks, it doesn't say on which player..

Game 5 that site says he blocked Kareem 4 times.

And in game 6 it says that Wilt blocked 9 shots, it doesn't even say who he blocked, you idiot.

Haha, so your proof told us that Wilt blocked 10 times (nothing about skyhooks) in the series.

Haha, from blocking 15-20 skyhooks to this.. You suck..


Once again Dickwad...I have supplied you with FIFTEEN blocks in THREE of their SIX H2H games in the '72 WCF's.

As for that source, go ahead and DISPROVE any of it. BTW, BOTH Rosen's and Cherry's books confirm those blocks.

I also provided you with another take of 20 blocks in TWO of those games, and ELEVEN of them against KAREEM.

And yet another source that claimed that Wilt blocked TWENTY-THREE SKYHOOKS in that series.

Where is YOUR PROOF to the CONTRARY?

I'll be waiting...

[millwad]

Once again Dickwad...I have supplied you with FIFTEEN blocks in THREE of their SIX H2H games in the '72 WCF's.

As for that source, go ahead and DISPROVE any of it. BTW, BOTH Rosen's and Cherry's books confirm those blocks.

I also provided you with another take of 20 blocks in TWO of those games, and ELEVEN of them against KAREEM.

And yet another source that claimed that Wilt blocked TWENTY-THREE SKYHOOKS in that series.

Where is YOUR PROOF to the CONTRARY?

I'll be waiting...

Haha, your proof told us that Kareem got blocked 10 times in 3 games, it didn't say who Wilt blocked in game 4 and 6. And it didn't say ANYTHING about skyhooks so finally this nonsense is completely cleared... THANK GOD..

You owned yourself..:facepalm

[La Frescobaldi]

I got a different view on that Bucks series, myself. The H2H numbers are interesting and all but they have to be placed in context of the team.

Kareem was awesome, all right. Incredible post moves on offense, and pretty darn good defense considering who he was facing.

But.

Look who was on the court around them.
Kareem had

Wali Jones
Lucius Allen
John Block
Bob Dandridge
Bill Dinwiddie
Jon McGlocklin
Barry Nelson
Curtis Perry
Oscar Robertson

The only guy in the conversation with Oscar Robertson for "making players around him better" is Magic Johnson.

Wilt had
Keith Erickson
Gail Goodrich
Happy Hairston
Willie McCarter
Jim McMillian
Pat Riley
Rick Roberson
John Tresvant
West & Baylor both drew DNP.

Chamberlain & Goodrich were swarmed that entire series. Erickson? That guy would stand unguarded at the block and hit the bottom of the rim.

Chamberlain played that series strictly for honor. Like some ancient warrior monk standing alone in the mountain pass looking down at the enemy's army.

And the Milwaukee arena gave him a standing ovation for it.

There was no hope in LA. Just like there was no hope in Philly when Chamberlain was playing as a Warrior against the most stacked team in the history of basketball.

[jlauber]

Haha, your proof told us that Kareem got blocked 10 times in 3 games, it didn't say who Wilt blocked in game 4 and 6. And it didn't say ANYTHING about skyhooks so finally this nonsense is completely cleared... THANK GOD..

You owned yourself..:facepalm


Once again...ZERO research...as I fully expected. Because you have NONE. In fact, all you ever bring to the table are LIES.

[jlauber]

I got a different view on that Bucks series, myself. The H2H numbers are interesting and all but they have to be placed in context of the team.

Kareem was awesome, all right. Incredible post moves on offense, and pretty darn good defense considering who he was facing.

But.

Look who was on the court around them.
Kareem had

Wali Jones
Lucius Allen
John Block
Bob Dandridge
Bill Dinwiddie
Jon McGlocklin
Barry Nelson
Curtis Perry
Oscar Robertson

The only guy in the conversation with Oscar Robertson for "making players around him better" is Magic Johnson.

Wilt had
Keith Erickson
Gail Goodrich
Happy Hairston
Willie McCarter
Jim McMillian
Pat Riley
Rick Roberson
John Tresvant
West & Baylor both drew DNP.

Chamberlain & Goodrich were swarmed that entire series. Erickson? That guy would stand unguarded at the block and hit the bottom of the rim.

Chamberlain played that series strictly for honor. Like some ancient warrior monk standing alone in the mountain pass looking down at the enemy's army.

And the Milwaukee arena gave him a standing ovation for it.

There was no hope in LA. Just like there was no hope in Philly when Chamberlain was playing as a Warrior against the most stacked team in the history of basketball.

This was from the '71 series, when a well-past his prime Wilt battled a statistically PRIME Kareem to a statistical draw...point-for-point, shot-for-shot, and rebound-for-rebound. A Wilt in arguably his WORST season, and only a year removed from major knee surgery. And yes, the MILWAUKEE fans gave WILT a STANDING OVATION for his efforts.


Those that actually WITNESSED the '72 WCFs, to a MAN, claimed that a 35 year old Wilt OUTPLAYED a PRIME Kareem in his BEST season. Time Magazine hailed it as a DECISIVE win for the 11 year older Chamberlain.

[millwad]

Once again...ZERO research...as I fully expected. Because you have NONE. In fact, all you ever bring to the table are LIES.

Haha, you tried to give proof of your research and your so called research didn't prove your stupid claims.. I clearly accepted the site you put up and went after the numbers the box scores told and you got owned by your own source. Neither does it say anything about skyhooks and it only says that Kareem got blocked 10 times so give me proof of Kareem getting 15-20 skyhooks blocked by Kareem in that series or just shut up..

IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT YOU CLAIMED:..:roll:

[jlauber]

Haha, you tried to give proof of your research and your so called research didn't prove your stupid claims.. I clearly accepted the site you put up and went after the numbers the box scores told and you got owned by your own source. Neither does it say anything about skyhooks and it only says that Kareem got blocked 10 times so give me proof of Kareem getting 15-20 skyhooks blocked by Kareem in that series or just shut up..

IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT YOU CLAIMED:..:roll:

Oh yes it did. Wilt had those TEN blocks on Kareem in TWO games, and Cherry and Rosen confirmed that he had FIVE of the NINE blocks in that sixth game on KAREEM. That is CLEARLY 15. And, I provided TWO more sources that claimed that Wilt blocked 11 of Kareem's skyhooks in TWO games, and the other claimed that Wilt blocked 23 of them in that series.

Where are YOUR sources?

And yet, YOU have provided absolutely NOTHING to refute them. Just like your Barkley NOT outrebounding Hakeem; nor your claim that even you now admit, that Hakeem was NOT guarding Kareem when Kareem was scoring at WILL against him. Nor YOUR claim that Kareem outplayed Wilt in the WCF's. Or that Wilt was not double-teamed as often as Hakeem (which is pure bulls**t BTW.)

No research at all. You continually lie, and NEVER back them up.

YOU have ZERO creditability.

[millwad]

Oh yes it did. Wilt had those TEN blocks on Kareem in TWO games, and Cherry and Rosen confirmed that he had FIVE of the NINE blocks in that sixth game on KAREEM. That is CLEARLY 15. And, I provided TWO more sources that claimed that Wilt blocked 11 of Kareem's skyhooks in TWO games, and the other claimed that Wilt blocked 23 of them in that series.

It still didn't say ANYTHING about skyhooks, you freaking retarded. And you saying that Rosen Cherry confirming the 5 of 9 blocks is not enough, give me proof of that. And even when you do, you still have no case because you claimed it was 15-20 skyhooks which it obviously wasn't. YOU ARE SO OWNED.



Where are YOUR sources?



You gave me my source, your own source told me that Kareem got blocked 10 times in that series and it didn't say anything about skyhooks. Thanks for crushing your own BS!

And regarding lying, you are the same clown who made up 3 players as Wilt's TALL competitors during his career when those never even stepped on the same basketball court as Wilt Chamberlain. And regarding lying, you made up the nonsense about Wilt blocking 15 skyhooks in the series.. HAHA!

[jlauber]

It still didn't say ANYTHING about skyhooks, you freaking retarded. And you saying that Rosen Cherry confirming the 5 of 9 blocks is not enough, give me proof of that. And even when you do, you still have no case because you claimed it was 15-20 skyhooks which it obviously wasn't. YOU ARE SO OWNED.




You gave me my source, your own source told me that Kareem got blocked 10 times in that series and it didn't say anything about skyhooks. Thanks for crushing your own BS!

Read page 264 of Cherry's book you idiot.

And once again, where are YOUR sources???

15 blocks in THREE games out of the SIX that were played is all I need to know. Kareem took some 100 more shots in the other three games, and given the fact that Wilt blocked 15 in the KNOWN three, I am convinced UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE, that he blocked 15+ skyhooks (and probably over 20.)

[La Frescobaldi]

yes, from '71.

As far as that '72 Lakers team, imo the only teams that could give them a real series were the '67 Sixers, the un-injured '68 Sixers, the 87 Celtics, early Showtime Laker squads, the Rodman era Bulls teams, & the Shaq Lakers. Can't say about those early Celtics teams, that's before my time.

I can't add Hakeem's championship teams because I don't think they had enough great players to match that '72 team.

The '83 Sixers maybe. The only centers I can remember Chamberlain applauding after he retired were Moses Malone, Kareem, Olajuwan and Shaq.

Maybe the Walton Blazers, but given Walton's absolute awe of Chamberlain I'm not sure he would have done anything but get all sag-kneed being on the same court.

My greatest fantasy matchup for center led teams?
'72 Lakers vs. '02 Lakers

Mushroom cloud over Staples!!

[32Dayz]

I can easily believe Wilt got some really high Block totals.

I remember Kareem getting 7-10+ Blocks in a whole lot of games in the early 70's and I have Zero doubt Wilt was significantly better at blocking shots in comparison to him especially in his Young and Prime years.

I saw the clip of old Wilt blocking his Sky Hook and I was frankly amazed at the Vertical he had (at that age).
Very impressive to get up that high especially with all that muscle he was carrying around.

[millwad]

Read page 264 of Cherry's book you idiot.

I don't need to read Wilt's own biographers book to know that you are lying. I wanted proof of Wilt blocking 15-20 skyhooks in that series and you gave me a source which proved that you lied...:facepalm

[millwad]

The '83 Sixers maybe. The only centers I can remember Chamberlain applauding after he retired were Moses Malone, Kareem, Olajuwan and Shaq.


Mushroom cloud over Staples!!

Mushroom-boy, his name was "OLAJUWON"...

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=millwad]I don't need to read Wilt's own biographers book to know that you are lying. I wanted proof of Wilt blocking 15-20 skyhooks in that series and you gave me a source which proved that you lied...:facepalm

[millwad]

10 on Kareem in TWO games, and the in that third Cherry credits Wilt with FIVE of the KNOWN NINE blocks against Kareem. That's FIFTEEN. In THREE of their SIX games.

Give me the proof of Cherry crediting Wilt with the 5 blocks (skyhooks), even though I don't really find him credible. Anyway, it still doesn't say anything about skyhooks and especially not about 15-20 of them.



And once again, how about the SOURCE that credited Wilt with ELEVEN skyhook blocks in TWO of those games...and a second source with 23 in that series?

If they are somehow false claims (and you and I both know they are not) where are YOUR sources disputing them?

Idiot, I don't need no source, you're the one spamming about this fake event and therefor I once for all wanted you to prove it to me and you failed big time. And please give me the source that confirmed that Wilt blocked 11 skyhooks in two of those games?

It's just like I thought, you made an own conclusion as usual..:facepalm

[millwad]

prime millwad>prime wilt

What a great way to join the 1000 post club! :cheers:

I admire Wilt as a player but Jbieber has taken his crap about Wilt too far.

[jlauber]

Incidently, Julizaver who studied the google archives recorded EVERY H2H game between Wilt and Kareem...

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

He found 14 more blocks on Kareem by Wilt (and yes, the assumption being the skyhook) in just FOUR of those other games.

So that makes 24 that he recorded PLUS we KNOW that Chamberlain had at LEAST FIVE more in game six of the WCF's, as well, making 29.

He also made an interesting comment on his research...


* Blocked stats are collected from archive newspapers articles (as most of the data), NBA doesn't kept track of blocked shots before 1973/74 season. I have some blocked shots numbers ( for example if Wilt blocked 20 shots - 11 of Jabbar in two consecutive games in 1972 WCF - and if that were the game 5 and 6 - it will be like Wilt had 11 blocks (4 against Jabbar) in game 5 and 9 blocks (7 against Jabbar) in game 6. But since if I am not able to cross checked it I did not put that data. Also I find in the forum info about Wilt blocked 8 shots in game 1 of 1971/72 regular season, but I was not able to find evidence in google news archive search,so again I do not post it.


So, as we can plainly see, Wilt was ROUTINELY knocking the SKYHOOK all over the gym.

[millwad]

Incidently, Julizaver who studied the google archives recorded EVERY H2H game between Wilt and Kareem...

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

He found 14 more blocks on Kareem by Wilt (and yes, the assumption being the skyhook) in just FOUR of those other games.

So that makes 24 that he recorded PLUS we KNOW that Chamberlain had at LEAST FIVE more in game six of the WCF's, as well, making 29.

He also made an interesting comment on his research...



So, as we can plainly see, Wilt was ROUTINELY knocking the SKYHOOK all over the gym.

You idiot, so your proof was one site that didn't prove what you lied about. And your other source is a random poster on ISH and then you assume that those blocks were skyhooks...

Haha, you really embarrassed yourself this time..:facepalm

Great proof, haha.. Next time I'm going to prove anything I'm definitely gonna use a random site as a source who doesn't even prove my theory and then my other source is gonna be a random poster on ISH...:facepalm

YOU CAN'T PROVE IT.

And the guy clearly wrote;
But since if I am not able to cross checked it I did not put that data. Also I find in the forum info about Wilt blocked 8 shots in game 1 of 1971/72 regular season, but I was not able to find evidence in google news archive search,so again I do not post it.

He didn't find evidence.. :facepalm

[jlauber]

You idiot, so your proof was one site that didn't prove what you lied about. And your other source is a random poster on ISH and then you assume that those blocks were skyhooks...

Haha, you really embarrassed yourself this time..:facepalm

Great proof, haha.. Next time I'm going to prove anything I'm definitely gonna use a random site as a source who doesn't even prove my theory and then my other source is gonna be a random poster on ISH...:facepalm

YOU CAN'T PROVE IT.

And the guy clearly wrote;

He didn't find evidence.. :facepalm

I have provided evidence. YOU have provided NOTHING. In fact, I will continue to claim Chamberlain blocked 15+ skyhooks in that series (and it was obviously more) until someon refutes it. I have given the sources...you have given nothing but lies.

So, ...Chamberlain blocked 15+ skyhooks in that series alone, and quite likely 50-100 of them in their 28 H2H meetings. In fact, there is video footage of Wilt blocking TWO within a couple of seconds. Kareem shooting a career .464 against Wilt, and shot-jacking 30+ times a game in the process, is proof enough that an OLD Wilt was INTIMIDATING him, as well as knocking the "unblockable" sky-hook all over the gym.

[millwad]

I have provided evidence. YOU have provided NOTHING. In fact, I will continue to claim Chamberlain blocked 15+ skyhooks in that series (and it was obviously more) until someon refutes it. I have given the sources...you have given nothing but lies.

That's not any proof, your sources proved that you're full of BS. Not even your own source confirmed your nonsense, you clown. Your source didn't even say anything about skyhooks to start with. I owned you so much time and you got owned by your own source.

You little ph4ggot, you spammed about 15 blocks a la the skyhook but even your source proved that you lied and it didn't say anything about skyhooks to start with. SO OWNED...



So, ...Chamberlain blocked 15+ skyhooks in that series alone, and quite likely 50-100 of them in their 28 H2H meetings. In fact, there is video footage of Wilt blocking TWO within a couple of seconds. Kareem shooting a career .464 against Wilt, and shot-jacking 30+ times a game in the process, is proof enough that an OLD Wilt was INTIMIDATING him, as well as knocking the "unblockable" sky-hook all over the gym.

He didn't block 15 skyhooks in that series, ph4ggot...

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I have provided evidence. YOU have provided NOTHING. In fact, I will continue to claim Chamberlain blocked 15+ skyhooks in that series (and it was obviously more) until someon refutes it. I have given the sources...you have given nothing but lies.

So, ...Chamberlain blocked 15+ skyhooks in that series alone, and quite likely 50-100 of them in their 28 H2H meetings. In fact, there is video footage of Wilt blocking TWO within a couple of seconds. Kareem shooting a career .464 against Wilt, and shot-jacking 30+ times a game in the process, is proof enough that an OLD Wilt was INTIMIDATING him, as well as knocking the "unblockable" sky-hook all over the gym.

Yes Jstrawgrasper, you did provide evidence to your claim that Wilt infact blocked Kareem (in the double digits). Where in your news clippings does it state that any of those shots were skyhooks though, never mind 15 of them?

[Pointguard]

If Kareem is getting his shot volleyballed to the tune of 5 per game, Kareem would look stupid going to easier to block move/shot when Wilt is guarding him. Do yall think Kareem had an IQ problem? Jus sayin.

[millwad]

If Kareem is getting his shot volleyballed to the tune of 5 per game, Kareem would look stupid going to easier to block move/shot when Wilt is guarding him. Do yall think Kareem had an IQ problem? Jus sayin.

I get where you're coming from!
Although that season Kareem really didn't have huge problems scoring on Wilt. Kareem averaged 40 points on 50% shooting in the regular season against Wilt and he even had a 50 point game so it wasn't like he was completely shut down.

And that's not even the reason why I questioned Jlauber's "facts", it's because he's been spamming everyone like crazy about Kareem getting 15-20 skyhooks blocked during that series and when he's asked to show his proof he did it in a pathetic manner.

His proof was a random site (god knows where the got the boxscore from) where it said that Wilt blocked 10 of Kareem's shots. So his proof only told us that Kareem got 10 shots blocked (nothing about skyhooks) in the series and suddenly the supposed FACTS became conclusions made by Jlauber.

I know what you're meaning, Pointguard and I am sure he blocked many of Kareem's shots but Jlauber is really taking his conclusions too far. It's one thing to assume something and it's a whole other thing to act like his assumption is a fact..

[PTB Fan]

I don't think Wilt blocked Kareem's sky hooks... 15 is like too many. 1-3 is a possibility.

[no pun intended]

Some people on this forum just have problems.

[La Frescobaldi]

Oh yes, Wilt blocked skyhooks. I saw it myself, & he did it every season they played against each other. It was stupefying to behold.

See for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYq4CWeWaKg

[julizaver]

About the mentioned shot-blocking stats of Wilt against Kareem it is from old newspapers finding data from Google news archive search. The most data is from Milwaukee Sentinel and Milwaukee Journal plus LA Times (but the last one is a paid one and I have no access to it, so I tried different tricks to gain data from it)

What I was able to find is that Wilt blocked 21 shots of Kareem from 5 playoff games (out of 11). There are certainly more because in Game 2 of 1971 WCF we have information that Wilt blocked "numerous shots, several against Kareem", but do not know the exact number. In 1972 WCF series Wilt blocked Kareem shots as follows:

in Game 3 - 6 blocks
in Game 5 - 4 blocks
in Game 6 - 3 blocks

At that time the word "sky hook" is not used in the newspapers, so we do not know how many of those shots are hook shots, BUT since those games were televised, someone who used to be present at a time or watch it by TV could claim that Wilt really block sky hooks. I am not one of them - but hope one day they will show it in Classic games.
What we have now as a prove is that Wilt blocked 2 hook shots in row by Kareem in that youtube clip.
And also Wilt blocked Kareem hook shot ( LA Times) in their first NBA encounter in 1969.

[millwad]

About the mentioned shot-blocking stats of Wilt against Kareem it is from old newspapers finding data from Google news archive search. The most data is from Milwaukee Sentinel and Milwaukee Journal plus LA Times (but the last one is a paid one and I have no access to it, so I tried different tricks to gain data from it)

What I was able to find is that Wilt blocked 21 shots of Kareem from 5 playoff games (out of 11). There are certainly more because in Game 2 of 1971 WCF we have information that Wilt blocked "numerous shots, several against Kareem", but do not know the exact number. In 1972 WCF series Wilt blocked Kareem shots as follows:

in Game 3 - 6 blocks
in Game 5 - 4 blocks
in Game 6 - 3 blocks

At that time the word "sky hook" is not used in the newspapers, so we do not know how many of those shots are hook shots, BUT since those games were televised, someone who used to be present at a time or watch it by TV could claim that Wilt really block sky hooks. I am not one of them - but hope one day they will show it in Classic games.
What we have now as a prove is that Wilt blocked 2 hook shots in row by Kareem in that youtube clip.
And also Wilt blocked Kareem hook shot ( LA Times) in their first NBA encounter in 1969.


Please, share your sources with us. I'm absolutely not saying that you are lying and I appreciate your research but in all honesty, it's kind of worthless if you can't feed us with the sources you got your numbers from. I'm sure you saved it on your computer after spending that kind of time to find that info. Thanks in advance!

And still no proof of Wilt blocking up to 20 skyhooks in the '72 series, I knew it all along but since Jlauber spammed about it so much I finally got fed up with it so I demanded proof. In his world "proof" is equal to own conclusions and theories..:facepalm

[Pointguard]

I don't think Wilt blocked Kareem's sky hooks... 15 is like too many. 1-3 is a possibility.
Are you talking about a 5 second time span?

[PTB Fan]

Are you talking about a 5 second time span?

No... i'm talking about the entire series. I doubt Wilt blocked 20 of Kareem's sky hooks. Pretty sure he blocked many less than that... let's say something to like 3-5 swat sky hooks for the entire series.

[Pointguard]

No... i'm talking about the entire series. I doubt Wilt blocked 20 of Kareem's sky hooks. Pretty sure he blocked many less than that... let's say something to like 3-5 swat sky hooks for the entire series.
I only said that because the clip showed Wilt blocking them back to back in a 5 second span. There are two other clips of the sky hook being blocked but to be honest I don't know if they are playoff games or not. I know I never seen Kareem show moves like he did before shooting the hook and you won't see him move that quick like he does in that video above that Frescobaldi posted. The moves didn't phase Wilt at all. The amazing thing about Wilt was his timing, the more deliberate a shot is, he will likely get to it.

[julizaver]

Please, share your sources with us. I'm absolutely not saying that you are lying and I appreciate your research but in all honesty, it's kind of worthless if you can't feed us with the sources you got your numbers from. I'm sure you saved it on your computer after spending that kind of time to find that info. Thanks in advance!

And still no proof of Wilt blocking up to 20 skyhooks in the '72 series, I knew it all along but since Jlauber spammed about it so much I finally got fed up with it so I demanded proof. In his world "proof" is equal to own conclusions and theories..:facepalm

OK, I said it before - the sources are in the Internet, I didn't own them, I just take the numbers and wrote them. Go through the googlenews archive search you can find a lot of data for free. Sadly papers like LA Times and New York Times are paid, they can provide you only with short resumes. Below I post a link of a game between Wilt and Jabbar:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bbRdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5l0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=1047,967283&dq=wilt+blocked+shots&hl=en

[PTB Fan]

I only said that because the clip showed Wilt blocking them back to back in a 5 second span. There are two other clips of the sky hook being blocked but to be honest I don't know if they are playoff games or not. I know I never seen Kareem show moves like he did before shooting the hook and you won't see him move that quick like he does in that video above that Frescobaldi posted. The moves didn't phase Wilt at all. The amazing thing about Wilt was his timing, the more deliberate a shot is, he will likely get to it.

Sure thing. If we have some of the actual footage, we can see if Wilt had actually blocked more sky hooks than he's thought of. It was a very difficult shot to contest, but Wilt seemed to challenge it best

[millwad]

OK, I said it before - the sources are in the Internet, I didn't own them, I just take the numbers and wrote them. Go through the googlenews archive search you can find a lot of data for free. Sadly papers like LA Times and New York Times are paid, they can provide you only with short resumes. Below I post a link of a game between Wilt and Jabbar:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bbRdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5l0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=1047,967283&dq=wilt+blocked+shots&hl=en

Yeah, buddy, I know you don't own them.
But you know, usually when someone does a research, the person also saves his sources which is why I asked you for your sources.

And the link you posted says nothing about skyhooks, it only says he blocked 5 of Jabbar's shots.

Well, anyway, it's not your fault that Jlauber lied and thanks for replying in this thread regarding your research. He used you as a source but the stupid old fart used a source who had no idea about the nonsense Jlauber just made up.

[jlauber]

Yeah, buddy, I know you don't own them.
But you know, usually when someone does a research, the person also saves his sources which is why I asked you for your sources.

And the link you posted says nothing about skyhooks, it only says he blocked 5 of Jabbar's shots.

Well, anyway, it's not your fault that Jlauber lied and thanks for replying in this thread regarding your research. He used you as a source but the stupid old fart used a source who had no idea about the nonsense Jlauber just made up.

You are truly pathetic. How many games did YOU see between the two? How many games are out there on video between the two? Julizaver is just ONE source I provided (and he is THE expert on these H2H's BTW.) Robert Cherry has Wilt with with those ten blocks in game two, and SIX on Kareem (page 264.) And in that clinching game six, he has Chamberlain with nine blocks, and FIVE against Kareem. So between Julizaver and Cherry, in those THREE games, Wilt had between 13-15 blocks JUST on Kareem. And we KNOW that Kareem took close to another 100 shots in the other three games of that series, and certainly Wilt blocked more.

Now, YOU prove that they weren't sky-hooks. How often have you read a recap in which it would something like, "Kareem went 15-22 from the field, and out of those seven misses, he missed on four skyhooks."?

Kareem's go-to shot was his SKYHOOK. Just WATCH footage of almost ANT game that Kareem has played. He took FAR more SKYHOOKS than anything else. And he was certainly no JUMP-SHOOTER. And yes, Wilt ROUTINELY blocked it. Julizaver gave you FIVE games of 21 blocks (and if you use Cherry's number in that game six, it would have been 23.) THEN, he also mentions another game in which Wilt had NUMEROUS blocks, including SEVERAL on Kareem.

There is NO DOUBT, (and you have certainly provided NOTHING to dispute it) that Wilt knocked 15+ SKYHOOK out of the gym in the six game series. And I even provided you with yet ANOTHER source that credited Wilt with 23 blocks of SKYHOOKS in that series.

Case closed. Unless of course, YOU can provide us with YOUR RESEARCH. But, you NEVER provide ANY in any of your posts. In fact, you LIE in your's. Just like ripping my post claiming that a 37-38 year old Kareem dumped THREE games of 40+ on Hakeem. You vehemently claimed that you WATCHED those games, and yet, MY RESEARCH PROVED you were a liar. So we are supposed to believe that you have some kind of insight in the Wilt-Kareem H2H's, when you LIED about WATCHING the Kareem-Hakeem H2H's, and in which a WAY PAST his PRIME Kareem just ANNIHILATED a helpless Hakeem. As I have in MANY of these "discussions" with you.

So, until YOU give me LEGITIMATE sources claiming that those 15 KNOWN blocks against Kareem, in just THREE of those six contents in the '72 WCF's were NOT skyhooks, I will go with what I KNOW. And, yes, I WATCHED every game of that series. He EASILY blocked 15 in that entire series. And Kareem was absolutely shell-shocked from it. He was an AWFUL .414 from the floor after game two. Not only that, but Wilt continued to block that "unblockable" sky-hook the next season, as well, and at age 36....when he held a PRIME Kareem to .450 shooting over the course of their six regular season H2H's. And over the course of their 28 H2H meetings, an old Wilt held a PRIME Kareem to nearly 100 points under his CAREER FG% of .559 (.464.)

Think about that...a 35-36 Wilt held a PRIME Kareem to .434 shooting in their LAST TEN H2H games. Of course, a 38 year old Kareem shot .634 against your Hakeem in FIVE H2H games in the 85-86 season, AND, over the course of ALL of their H2H's thru the 88-89 season, and from age 38 thru 41, Kareem shot a STAGGERING .599 against Hakeem-led teams (and really Sampson was the only reason that FG% was THAT low.)

Once again, once you give us here some REAL evidence to the contrary, the 15+ blocks of skyhooks will stand. And realistically, over the course of their 28 H2H games, it was probably between 50+. And we also have VIDEO footage, in a matter of SECONDS, in which he blocked TWO SKYHOOKS. For anyone to claim that Wilt only blocked between 3-5 is ABSURD. In the few minutes of actual VIDEO footage we have between the two, Wilt blocked TWO within SECONDS. I'm supposed to believe then, that with the KNOWN 25+ blocks covering SIX of their H2H's, that Wilt only blocked 3-5? Especially after we have PROOF of him swatting TWO-IN-A-ROW???

And BTW, YOU have no reason to challenge Julizaver's research, either...since YOU haven't provided ANY of your own.

[jlauber]

As more an more footage is being released of Chamberlain, we are finally able to put an end to those that have challenged Wilt's remarkable achievements.

For the past several years on this forum, there were those that claimed that Wilt had a 32", or less vertical, Now, in the past few days, we have a Chamberlain, at age 34, at around 300 lbs, and only a year from major knee surgery, with his hand above the square, in a jump in which he goes straight up, and in a game in which he has been running-up-and-down the floor at a frenetic pace. THEN, we also got a video in Wilt's college days (when he was a HIGH JUMP champion) with his hand at nearly the top of the backboard, and again, in a jump in which he has no time to prepare, and goes straight up.

Only a complete fool (and there are several on this forum) would now claim that a young Wilt (or even a mid-60's Wilt) would not be capable of easily touching the top of the backboard with a running start. Of course, we also have an EYE-WITNESS account of that feat, as well.

We also had a couple of posters that claimed that Wilt did not have a decent outside shot (based on video of Chamberlain's poor FT shooting LATE in his career), and now we have SEVERAL videos in which he is hitting JUMP SHOTS from 15+ (yes even 16 FT.) And MANY of him hitting BANK SHOTS from 10-15 ft. (even LATE in his career.) Of course, we had a HOF coach, Red Holzman, who was saying that Wilt had a GOOD outside game.

If anything, Wilt's amazing achievements are now becoming understated. The man was scoring 45 points on a Thurmond, the SAME player that Kareem could only score a HIGH of 34 points against, and in 50+ H2H games! Of course, Wilt was scoring SEVERAL 50 point games against HOFer Willis Reed, and SEVERAL 60+ point games against 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy (who again, would easily be a seven-footer in TODAY's NBA.) Where were those games by Kareem against those players, both of whom he faced when they were well past their primes?

A PRIME Chamberlain, at 7-2 (and over 7-3 in TODAY's NBA), with his documented 7-8 wingspan, and at over 280 lbs, with his 40" vertical (and actually measured at 42" by sportswriter George Kiseda), with his well documented 500+ lb. bench press (and a DOCUMENTED 425 in 1964) and with his OBVIOUS 15+ foot range, would just OBLITERATE the greats of the last 20 years....just as he did to those that he actually CRUSHED in HIS era.

[jlauber]

Sure thing. If we have some of the actual footage, we can see if Wilt had actually blocked more sky hooks than he's thought of. It was a very difficult shot to contest, but Wilt seemed to challenge it best

A few points here. First of all, we only have very limited footage of those H2H's, as is the case for much of Wilt's career. BUT, even in the few MINUTES of total footage that we DO have, we see Wilt swatting TWO of them within a few SECONDS of each other.

BTW, ALL SIX of the '72 WCF's were NATIONALLY televised, and I personally SAW every one of them. Wilt was easily knocking the skyhook all over the floor. And he challenged most all of them. Kareem shot a HORRIBLE percentage against Wilt on his skyhooks. Take away the dunks and easy baskets that he had, and his skyhook was probably reduced to under 40% against Chamberlain in that series.

But here again, Wilt never gets his due, because of the LIMITED footage that we have on him. There are probably only a few hours TOTAL, available, in a career in which spanned over 1200 games. BUT, we have so MANY eye-witness, and printed accounts of his amazing feats.

Yet, there have been idiots (not you BTW) here who have vehemently challenged almost EVERY claim ever accorded Wilt. Up until the recently released footage of Wilt in the '71 playoffs (and at 34, 300 lbs, and on a surgically repaired knee), and then the spectacular footage of a young Wilt with his hand very nearly at the top of the backboard, I repeatedly read here that because of the LIMITED footage, in which Wilt seldom even had to jump more than a few inches to block a shot, that that was all he was capable of. DESPITE what so MANY actually claimed, OVER-AND-OVER, that actually WITNESSED Wilt's staggering physical feats.

Fortunately, we are getting more and more fresh footage on Wilt, and as even more becomes available, we will finally be able to shut up the "non-believers" here. The man had amazing RANGE, SKILLS, and PHYSICAL ABILITY...we can CLEARLY see that.

[La Frescobaldi]

Now here's a note on that little article he posted... not so much about the game but what Wilt says: "I don't care what you say about Kareem-- one-on-one he's unbeatable."

Here's a list in my opinion of the unstoppable one-on-one NBA players from the late 60s-early 70s... talking about their offensive skills not in any order:

Jerry West
Oscar Robertson
Rick Barry
Nate Archibald
Kareem
Wilt
Elvin Hayes
Bob McAdoo
Earl Monroe

I'm sure I've missed some greats & an argument could be made for some other guys - Jerry Lucas & Dave DeBusschere for example - but maybe that's the short list of the elite 1on1 SCORERS of that day. And a quick check at basketball ref looks not too bad although Pearl wouldn't be real high and probly I'm biased.

Anyhow, notice Chamberlain's scoring numbers in that last half of his career. They're miniscule. But believe me he could still score.


I saw an interesting note somewhere on the internet, along the lines of "I've often wondered what Chamberlain thought, knowing he was the greatest scoring force in the history of the game, passing off to guys who were ecstatic to get a 15 point game."

When you examine his playoffs - or remember that last half of his career like I do - you gotta recognize the guy was doing what his team needed. That stat-padding stuff everybody talks about is a load of manure.

Sharman was the guy, and I've often speculated that if Bill had coached the Lakers from '68 or '69 on, they would have won some more rings.

I don't think they would have beat the Knicks in the 70 Finals. That team is terrifically underrated:

Dick Barnett, Nate Bowman, Bill Bradley, Dave DeBusschere, Walt Frazier, Bill Hosket, Don May, Willis Reed, Mike Riordan, Cazzie Russell, Dave Stallworth, John Warren, coach Red Holzman[d]
4 HoF (Frazier, Bradley, DeBusschere, Reed)
3 Top 50 (Frazier, DeBusschere, Reed)
& HoF coach Red Holzman

With Chamberlain missing that season, I didn't think that was happening.

But 69 & 71 were more possible championship runs for those Laker squads if Sharman had been coaching.
I have always thought the Lakers would have beaten the Celtics in 69 if their coach had not been an absolute dolt.

And I always thought they would have beaten Kareem's Bucks in 71 even without Sharman, if Baylor & West had not drawn playoff DNPs.

Wilt was still able to throw down tremendous games that year, like

11-26-71 W.Cham. LA vs Det. 31 pts-31 rebs
12-19-71 W.cham. LA vs Phila. 34 pts-32 rebs

[millwad]

You are truly pathetic. How many games did YOU see between the two? How many games are out there on video between the two? Julizaver is just ONE source I provided (and he is THE expert on these H2H's BTW.) Robert Cherry has Wilt with with those ten blocks in game two, and SIX on Kareem (page 264.) And in that clinching game six, he has Chamberlain with nine blocks, and FIVE against Kareem. So between Julizaver and Cherry, in those THREE games, Wilt had between 13-15 blocks JUST on Kareem. And we KNOW that Kareem took close to another 100 shots in the other three games of that series, and certainly Wilt blocked more.




Jlauber, you haven't seen any games. You changed your opinion regarding Wilt's era over some youtube-videos, you clown. And still you didn't prove that he blocked 15 to 20 skyhooks. In fact, nothing about the "facts" you've posted even says anything about skyhooks and even your own source couldn't confirm your nonsense..:facepalm

[QUOTE=jlauber]
Now, YOU prove that they weren't sky-hooks. How often have you read a recap in which it would something like, "Kareem went 15-22 from the field, and out of those seven misses, he missed on four skyhooks."?

Haha, you idiot. I don't have to prove anything. You made a claim you couldn't back up and now you look like a clown. Even your own source couldn't confirm a sh*t of your nonsense so go back to bed, old fart.



Kareem's go-to shot was his SKYHOOK. Just WATCH footage of almost ANT game that Kareem has played. He took FAR more SKYHOOKS than anything else. And he was certainly no JUMP-SHOOTER. And yes, Wilt ROUTINELY blocked it. Julizaver gave you FIVE games of 21 blocks (and if you use Cherry's number in that game six, it would have been 23.) THEN, he also mentions another game in which Wilt had NUMEROUS blocks, including SEVERAL on Kareem.

Says nothing about skyhooks, cutie.



There is NO DOUBT, (and you have certainly provided NOTHING to dispute it) that Wilt knocked 15+ SKYHOOK out of the gym in the six game series. And I even provided you with yet ANOTHER source that credited Wilt with 23 blocks of SKYHOOKS in that series.

Haha, you ph4ggot, it says nothing about skyhooks. Your assumption is equal to a pile of crap..:facepalm

Give me your source that credited Wilt with 23 skyhook blocks...



Case closed. Unless of course, YOU can provide us with YOUR RESEARCH. But, you NEVER provide ANY in any of your posts.

I don't have to provide you with any research. I don't have to because I didn't make that pathetic claim... You did and you couldn't back it up, your assumption is not equal to the truth and I couldn't care less about your assumption, you're a sad and lonely 56 year old man..:facepalm






And BTW, YOU have no reason to challenge Julizaver's research, either...since YOU haven't provided ANY of your own.

Haha, you're sad. I asked for his sources but he didn't give us any sources at all. If someone makes a claim and tells you he got the facts from google, then why isn't he posting it? Who does a research without any sources to back it up with?

Still not calling him a liar, I just want to see where he got his facts from. And Jlauber, you still didn't prove that Wilt blocked 15-20 skyhooks, haha, you're so sad..

[32Dayz]

I dunno if this is true but I read that back before games were heavily televised newspapers would lie about game statistics or perhaps the statisticians themselves would post the incorrect stats in order to hype up and market the game of basketball.

Example : they would change rebound numbers, assists, blocks etc.

Lauber once mentioned I think how they once changed the stats to give Russell the edge in rebounds over Wilt or something.

If this is true then can we really trust or rely on any of those old newspaper clippings or the stats they provide?

[Legends66NBA7]

I dunno if this is true but I read that back before games were heavily televised newspapers would lie about game statistics or perhaps the statisticians themselves would post the incorrect stats in order to hype up and market the game of basketball.

Example : they would change rebound numbers, assists, blocks etc.

Lauber once mentioned I think how they once changed the stats to give Russell the edge in rebounds over Wilt or something.

If this is true then can we really trust or rely on any of those old newspaper clippings or the stats they provide?

Wow, hope not man.

[millwad]

I dunno if this is true but I read that back before games were heavily televised newspapers would lie about game statistics or perhaps the statisticians themselves would post the incorrect stats in order to hype up and market the game of basketball.

Example : they would change rebound numbers, assists, blocks etc.

Lauber once mentioned I think how they once changed the stats to give Russell the edge in rebounds over Wilt or something.

If this is true then can we really trust or rely on any of those old newspaper clippings or the stats they provide?

If that's true then that sucks..

But this is not relevant now really, Jlauber made a pathetic claim that Wilt blocked 15-20 of Kareem's skyhooks in '72 and I asked him for proof and the sucker can't prove a thing. His "evidence" is equal to his assumptions..

[32Dayz]

Wow, hope not man.

I believe it.

Most of it probably happened in the early 70's or earlier though and that was because the NBA at that point wasn't really solidified as the huge corporation/business it is today.

At a certain point once it became stable and was consistently earning big money im sure stuff like that became much rarer or stopped completely.

[millwad]

I believe it.

Most of it probably happened in the early 70's or earlier though and that was because the NBA at that point wasn't really solidified as the huge corporation/business it is today.

At a certain point once it became stable and was consistently earning big money im sure stuff like that became much rarer or stopped completely.

Do you have any source that can confirm this? This sounds interesting but I wouldn't trust it if you only heard it from Jbieber. The guy lies and misinform people constantly to make Wilt look better..

Once he tried to put up a list of tall guys Wilt faced during his career, the sucker Jlauber who is a self-proclaimed Wilt-historian put up a list where some of the players never even played in the NBA or joined the league after Wilt retired and some of them played in the ABA at the time Wilt played in the NBA.

Jlauber is a joke, he never even saw Wilt play back in the days, the self-proclaimed Wilt-historian changed his mind about Wilt 40 years after the actual games and over some footage he found on youtube and some quotes he found on google. Jlauber is a joke, he used to post stuff like this before he became completely obsessed and retarded;

[QUOTE]
[B]Originally Posted by jlauber

[La Frescobaldi]

I dunno if this is true but I read that back before games were heavily televised newspapers would lie about game statistics or perhaps the statisticians themselves would post the incorrect stats in order to hype up and market the game of basketball.

Example : they would change rebound numbers, assists, blocks etc.

Lauber once mentioned I think how they once changed the stats to give Russell the edge in rebounds over Wilt or something.

If this is true then can we really trust or rely on any of those old newspaper clippings or the stats they provide?

LOLOL you found out the secret!! The Celtics didn't really win all those rings, the Hawks actually won 14 in a row. But the newspapers re-wrote all the history because Boston is a bigger city than St. Louis so they would sell more tickets that way. Chamberlain doesn't actually hold any records either, they just put that out there to make money. Actually Bob Hogsett holds all the NBA scoring, assists and rebounding records but they cheated him because he was a Piston

[millwad]

LOLOL you found out the secret!! The Celtics didn't really win all those rings, the Hawks actually won 14 in a row. But the newspapers re-wrote all the history because Boston is a bigger city than St. Louis so they would sell more tickets that way. Chamberlain doesn't actually hold any records either, they just put that out there to make money. Actually Bob Hogsett holds all the NBA scoring, assists and rebounding records but they cheated him because he was a Piston

You're such a ph4ggot..:cheers:

[La Frescobaldi]

lol nah but i wish the season would start. This website bs is no replacement for a NBA game. will mavs repeat?

[millwad]

lol nah but i wish the season would start. This website bs is no replacement for a NBA game. will mavs repeat?

Just eat my azz and stop posting.

[La Frescobaldi]

When you saw Chamberlain do stuff like this in the playoffs you knew you were watching one of the greats:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdIUXjVKehI

To me maybe the best single playoff performance I saw of him was in '71, both Baylor & West were sidelined with injuries, he just tore up the Bulls. He couldn't stop Dandridge, Kareem, Wali Jones and Oscar but there was no choking involved. I think that clip is from the 71 WDF

[millwad]

When you saw Chamberlain do stuff like this in the playoffs you knew you were watching one of the greats:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdIUXjVKehI


When you saw Chamberlain do so stuff like this is the playoffs you knew you were watching one of the greats:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITxDdnzpnU8

[La Frescobaldi]

lol I'm a old retired guy got plenty of time here on the sailboat. but millwad is really in love with his computer look at that took 5 minutes to reply to a thread post. wow that's quite a life!! a dude could consider getting some time to enjoy other things in the world

[millwad]

lol I'm a old retired guy got plenty of time here on the sailboat. but millwad is really in love with his computer look at that took 5 minutes to reply to a thread post. wow that's quite a life!! a dude could consider getting some time to enjoy other things in the world

Ehm, yeah, I just checked ISH out to see if you've written something..:facepalm
And it's funny, you old fart, you're 61 and you average more posts per day compared to me so go back to your lonely Wilt-loving life...:facepalm

[305Baller]

Howard could also score 100 points playing against mostly scrubs. And average 50 points per game as a C.

WILT most overrated center of all time

:no:

[jlauber]

Bump...for the benefit of oolalaa and La Frescobaldi...

[Deuce Bigalow]

Who's better, Prime Wilt or Kwame Brown?
one chokes, the other can't catch a ball, both are scrubs in this league.

[LAZERUSS]

https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/kirkpatrick-maloney-obamacare-laughing.gif

Where do you rank Bird among "the winners?"

[Deuce Bigalow]

https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/kirkpatrick-maloney-obamacare-laughing.gif
He was also among the greatest shooters ever according to jlauber.

[LAZERUSS]

He was also among the greatest shooters ever according to jlauber.

I'll play...

NINE FG% titles. And had he not been injured in 69-70 it would have been another one.

But not only that, he was CRUSHING the LEAGUE eFG%'s at that time...

Margins of .595 to .446; .540 to .433; .649 to .455; '683 to .441; and .727 to .456.

And how about outdistancing his nearest rival in that regard:

.683 to .521 and .727 to .570.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I'll play...

NINE FG% titles. And had he not been injured in 69-70 it would have been another one.

But not only that, he was CRUSHING the LEAGUE eFG%'s at that time...

Margins of .595 to .446; .540 to .433; .649 to .455; '683 to .441; and .727 to .456.

And how about outdistancing his nearest rival in that regard:

.683 to .521 and .727 to .570.
I'll play...

.511 FT% shooter in the regular season
.465 in the playoffs
.375 in the finals

[Deuce Bigalow]

Shaq has 10 FG% titles.

He must have been one of the GOAT shooters as well eh?

[LAZERUSS]

Shaq has 10 FG% titles.

He must have been one of the GOAT shooters as well eh?

Not sure what your point is on this.

We both know that there are probably couch potatoes out there that can shoot better from the FT line than either Wilt or Shaq. Hell, there are probably even some that could outshoot MJ, as well. So what?

Would you rather have Steve Kerr or Shaq on your team?

I swear, you are getting dumber and dumber by the day Sybil.

[Stringer Bell]

Wow, just imagine how high Wilt would be on the list of "greatest winners ever if he merely had eight less championships than Russell instead of 9.

If he had one more ring, he could have half as many as Jordan!! Now, he has to settle for being close to Jordan by having a mere 4 less rings, with Jordan having a mere 300% as many rings at Wilt.

[aj1987]

I'll play...

.511 FT% shooter in the regular season
.465 in the playoffs
.375 in the finals
No response from Lozerus.

Watch him claim that the league as a whole slumped FT shooting wise in the PO's and Finals. :oldlol:

[Mr Feeny]

I'll play...

.511 FT% shooter in the regular season
.465 in the playoffs
.375 in the finalsOuch. He's gone offline ofcourse! Don't expect a reply.

[Asukal]

I'll play...

.511 FT% shooter in the regular season
.465 in the playoffs
.375 in the finals

My gad he chokes even FREE throws. :facepalm