Hall of fame centers in the 60's vs team defenses in the early 00's [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

ShaqAttack3234

02-21-2011, 04:23 PM

Throughout the entire second half of game 4 during the '67 EDF with Russell facing elimination, he guarded peak Wilt 1 on 1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=0m44s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=7m35s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiVAFBZzTac&feature=related#t=3m22s

Look at how much time he had to put the ball on the floor and dribble.

Havlicek sort of comes over here, but doesn't full commit to the double team. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHXG3koetzA&feature=related#t=9m16s

The only time he was really doubled in that second half was when Sam Jones was guarding him on a switch.

Compare this to Shaq in the 2000 WCF, on Shaq's first touch of the series, he gets doubled before he even puts the ball on the floor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=3m28s

His only chance was getting good position before the pass because they sure as hell weren't go to let him dribble for 3 seconds. Here he gets good position and makes a quick move, but the double team still comes, though he makes the shot anyway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=4m30s

Once again, the double team immediately comes as soon as he catches the ball, before he can put the ball on the floor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=5m44s

And sometimes he didn't even have a chance to catch the ball as you can see here with Pippen over doubling him without the ball. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y3GGuQYfwQ#t=8m23s

Once again, as soon as Shaq catches the ball, Pippen immediately starts running over to double him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyt48XFslGA&feature=related#t=9m09s

And that's just the 1st quarter, this type of defense continued and as you can see one of the only ways to score vs this strategy is to repost. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw&feature=related#t=1m24s The other being quick moves before the double team can arrive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw&feature=related#t=4m20s

By the time he makes the catch he is doubled. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw&feature=related#t=4m53s

Now look at the defensive attention given to him here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kTt1QE2Yk&feature=related#t=1m16s Doubled before he can put the ball on the floor again, making the only possibility a repost and Portland still trys to come over twice, but it's too late because of the quick move.

Even in transition, Portland quickly triple teams him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kTt1QE2Yk&feature=related#t=1m43s

Once again, every time he catches the ball in the post, he's quickly doubled. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kTt1QE2Yk&feature=related#t=6m35s

And here, he catches the ball, but there's nowhere to go with Portland defenders waiting, so he gets the ball back with not much on the shot clock far away from the basket and this is one of the rare times he was able to put the ball on the floor and then he was to back down a 7'3", 330 pound wall 15 feet from the basket http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kTt1QE2Yk&feature=related#t=7m11s

Once again, he catches the ball and Pippen is immediately there to double him before he can put the ball on the floor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6ljRdUBGAk&feature=related#t=1m33s

Vs this type of defense you had to be quick with your moves and decisions, here he catches the ball on the move and goes up quickly for a successful jump hook on one of the rare occasions that the help couldn't get there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6ljRdUBGAk&feature=related#t=3m58s

And this is just how O'Neal was guarded in the first half of the first game, compare that to how Boston guarded Wilt in the second half when they were facing elimination. Portland's defensive strategy was clear. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izs53PMDE8s#t=1m20s

Portland tried the hack-a-Shaq strategy out of desparation in the second half, but the result was a 41 points, 11 rebound, 7 assist and 5 block game from Shaq and a 15 point victory. And the defense sure didn't back off as the series went on, particularly with LA shooting so much better than usual from the perimeter in game one, which was usually a weakness for them. And in many of these clips you can see Shaq making great passes and setting up his teammates, so when the role players made their shots, there was really no way to stop him. And they did a better job at limiting him throughout the rest of the series in large part to a lack of support as you can see here from the "two deep vs too deep" references throughout the series. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izs53PMDE8s#t=2m24s

I've said a million times in response to those that talk about the centers Wilt faced compared to Shaq that the team defenses Shaq faced were 100 times tougher. No doubt in my mind that Shaq was harder to stop. As you can see, Wilt could let you off the hook in single coverage because he wouldn't use his size to his advantage as much as Shaq, which by Wilt's admission was a mistake, nor did he have the footwork or ball handling skills to make the same quick moves.

Credit goes to Russell for being an excellent defensive player, but anyone who thinks Shaq isn't scoring easily with single coverage, the luxury of being able to put the ball on the floor several times and a 4 inch, 100 pound size advantage is crazy. The difference between the 2 is that Shaq didn't apologize for his size and used it to make him great. He didn't really care if his ame was pretty or people thought he was skilled, though the other difference was his vastly superior low post game.

jlauber

02-21-2011, 05:03 PM

Great post, but you are basing the defensive tactics against Wilt, in ONE game, and in one of his WORST post-season games of that time?

Up until a couple of weeks ago, there was the second half of the game four of the '64 Finals available on YouTube. Now there are only briefs parts of it. But even in this one...in the few minutes that is displayed...when Wilt gets the ball (which was rare for some reason), Boston collapses on him at the 3 minute mark of the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pdi4jhvUAQ&feature=related

I actually view the entire second half of that game a couple of months ago, and Wilt went 7-11 in the second half. On almost every pass to Wilt, the defender guarding the passer dropped off to cover Wilt. And, if Wilt put the ball on the floor, he was swarmed. Not always of course, but quite often. You have to remember, though, that doubling off the ball was not allowed. Only with the ball...so team's had to wait until Chamberlain got the ball.

Once again, you basing your take on Wilt on ONE game...

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/50567578.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A143917923364F7ADC6BCD4D02596FBF598 1987C780A03F10B9B01E70F2B3269972

Furthermore, and as you well know...

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

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."

Showtime

02-21-2011, 05:05 PM

Great job wasting time creating a post on a totally irrelevant premise.

ShaqAttack3234

02-21-2011, 05:25 PM

jlauber

02-21-2011, 05:37 PM

A couple of plays in the '67 ECF's...and Wilt is immediately doubled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVg8uZ5Wn38&feature=related

Also, Wilt played from the 10-15 ft. area much more in the early to mid-60's. He was actually a very good outside shooter.

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

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

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

In any case, I can only hope that someday we are able to watch much more of Wilt's career, instead of a few highlights or partial games (and none anywhere near his best games BTW.)

I won't dispute Shaq's inside dominance, though. Having said that, however, I just don't believe the NBA would have allowed Wilt to just physically overpower the league.

jlauber

02-21-2011, 05:38 PM

BTW, ShaqAttack,

I do enjoy these discussions. We will probably never agree 100% on anything, but I have always respected your opinions.

Showtime

02-21-2011, 05:42 PM

Great job wasting time with a post that did nothing more than show what a douchebag you are.

No, it also pointed out how useless this premise of discussion really is.

And how exactly is this irrelevant when I've discussed this many times with posters, particularly JLauber?
lmfao if you honestly can't see how this premise is irrelevant, then there's nothing I can do for you.

ShaqAttack3234

02-21-2011, 06:01 PM

I won't dispute Shaq's inside dominance, though. Having said that, however, I just don't believe the NBA would have allowed Wilt to just physically overpower the league.

There's no way of knowing that, however what many don't mention is things like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MYTeBGFql8&feature=related#t=0m23s In many cases defenders got away with blatant fouls against him because they didn't affect Shaq as much as other players, but they're just as much fouls by the rule book. Of course Shaq got away with offensive fouls himself, but also some of the moves looked more like fouls than they would've had it been a smaller player using them.

That's why I've always maintained that it evens out and he was probably the toughest player to ref.

No, it also pointed out how useless this premise of discussion really is.

lmfao if you honestly can't see how this premise is irrelevant, then there's nothing I can do for you.

No, you have yet to point out why it's irrelevant. I've debated 60's defense vs 00's defense many times and stated my opinion that it's much harder to go against a great team defense and constant doubles/triples than a 1 on 1 vs one great defender. And I made the thread to give examples.

jlauber

02-21-2011, 06:11 PM

There's no way of knowing that, however what many don't mention is things like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MYTeBGFql8&feature=related#t=0m23s In many cases defenders got away with blatant fouls against him because they didn't affect Shaq as much as other players, but they're just as much fouls by the rule book. Of course Shaq got away with offensive fouls himself, but also some of the moves looked more like fouls than they would've had it been a smaller player using them.

That's why I've always maintained that it evens out and he was probably the toughest player to ref.

No, you have yet to point out why it's irrelevant. I've debated 60's defense vs 00's defense many times and stated my opinion that it's much harder to go against a great team defense and constant doubles/triples than a 1 on 1 vs one great defender. And I made the thread to give examples.

Shaq was fouled FAR more than what he dished out. For those that point out game six of the 2002 Sac-LA series, just take a look at game five. Shaq was pounded all game long. On one play he dunks the ball, and his elbowed in the head. In another play going for a loose ball, he is hit in the back of the head. No call on either play...and for the game...ONE FTA.

I also remember a play in a game in which Stevie Francis drove the lane and charged right into a stationary Shaq. He bounced off of Shaq...and slid some 10 feet backwards. Not only was it not called charging...Shaq was assessed with a flagrant foul.

Much like Wilt, there was a double-standard with officiating Shaq. The officials probably could have called a foul on nearly touch, but the game would have deteriorated to a parade at the FT line.

I won't dispute Shaq's low-post dominance. Wilt seldom played like that in his entire career. There were glimpses of what he could have done. I have mentioned an angry Wilt, following Kareem's sucker-punch of Hairston, just bullying his past a helpless Kareem, and in for an easy basket. Or a game I watched in '72, and against Thurmond, when the Lakers fed Wilt point-blank passes at the rim on four straight possessions, and Wilt just pushed Nate out of the way and dunked them all.

IMHO, had Jackson utilized Shaq's power, withOUT the ball (just moving into the lane like Wilt did against Nate), and waiting for passes at the rim...Shaq would have been damn near unstoppable. As it was, Shaq would get about five baskets per game, or more, doing exactly that. There was simply no one, or two players, who could keep him out of the lane.

Having said, that, though,...while I would give an inside edge to Shaq, Wilt had a better and more diverse game from 10+ ft, especially early in his career.

jlauber

02-21-2011, 06:15 PM

IMHO, Shaq, Kareem, and Wilt were BY FAR, the most dominant offensive big men in NBA history. Shaq was the most powerful inside player; Kareem was the most skilled; and Wilt combined both.

Poochymama

02-21-2011, 06:46 PM

IMHO, Shaq, Kareem, and Wilt were BY FAR, the most dominant offensive big men in NBA history. Shaq was the most powerful inside player; Kareem was the most skilled; and Wilt combined both.
:cheers: :cheers:

I can agree with that

PHILA

02-21-2011, 06:51 PM

Sarasota Herald-Tribune - Jan 8, 1960 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bLocAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JGUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4547,1599737&dq)

'"I was disgusted in college with the slow offenses and stall tactics. College basketball needs some version of the the pro's 24 second rule."

The native Philadelphian observed that one thing he learned quickly in the NBA was that although zone defenses are illegal, he is faced with modified zones every time he plays.

"I was looking forward to the pro style of man-to-man defense, but in my case it's men on man. They sandwich me and drop other defenders off to try and steal the ball. I asked one official why he didn't invoke the no zone ruling and he replied:

"Too Much Else"

'"I haven't called a zone in this league in 11 years, and I'm not going to start to do it now. There is too much else going on that bears watching to bother looking for so-called zones."'

Chamberlain, who some feel may become the greatest basketball player of all time, says the theory that two or three good outside shots can break up a zone doesn't work in his case.

"You wouldn't want a better outside shot that our Paul Arizin, but they drop off Paul to hamper me. It adds up to the fact they would rather take a chance on an outside shot than allow me to work inside."

Chamberlain, who relaxes by singing, dancing and playing the bongo drums, refuses to complain about the terrific physical beating he takes. He describes it as a hazard of the game.

"I feel," says Wilt, "that the roughhouse tactics started when some players found out that I was much better than they expected. I get it from all angles. Some grab my shorts and hold me down. Others latch onto an arm, while their teammates go up for a rebound."

"Paid To Score"

Retorts Wilt:

"People just don't understand the problems of players like Jack Twyman Cincinnati's league leading scorer and myself. We have to let down on some phases of the game in order to score. We are paid to score. If we don't get out 30-35 points a game there is a good chance our team will lose."

"Take Russell for example. He's a great defensive player because he doesn't have to worry about scoring. His assignment is to get the rebound and block as many shots as he can. Boston has plenty of scorers. If Russell had to score he could average 25 points or more a game easy."'

jlauber

02-21-2011, 06:52 PM

One other point, which I have brought up in other threads...

While I believe that if you could magically transport a 2000 Shaq to 1962, that with the shorter lane, smaller players, and faster pace, that he would have been a 40+ ppg scorer, or perhaps even a 50 ppg scorer...

I just don't believe that Shaq, born some 40 years earlier, and playing in 1962, would have been nearly the same Shaq. Even genetically, he probably would not have been as tall. And with the much more limited knowledge of the overall game, the nutrition of that era, the medical knowledge of that era, and the different physical training of that era (Wilt was among the first great athletes, involved in a major team sport, to lift weights), IMHO, Shaq would probably have been 6-11 300 lb, overweight, and less skilled player.

And, on the flip side...take a Wilt, born in say 1972...and given all the benefits of modern technology, including weight training, medicine, coaches with much more knowledge of the game, better nutrition, and better training...and how much better would he have been? And, if you factor in genetics...perhaps a 7-4, 325-350 lb. athlete beast.

We will never know, of course, but a Wilt, in 1962, would probably have not been nearly the same Chamberlain, had he been playing at his peak in 2002.

PHILA

02-21-2011, 07:03 PM

No doubt in my mind that Shaq was harder to stop. As you can see, Wilt could let you off the hook in single coverage because he wouldn't use his size to his advantage as much as Shaq, which by Wilt's admission was a mistake, nor did he have the footwork or ball handling skills to make the same quick moves.

'67 was his year in the pivot primarily as a play maker. Double Wilt he'd find the open teammate, all of whom were in constant motion. This game is a bad example, as Wayne Lynch noted in Season of the 76ers: the story of Wilt Chamberlain and the 1967 NBA champions, the team came out lethargic in the 2nd half of game 4.

Below we can see two fake passes at 4:30 mark followed by a power move to the basket, drawing 4 defenders and finding an open Billy C. We can also see the defensive players with their hands up denying the active cutters.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x48zv5

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

http://i56.tinypic.com/2qs9ifp.jpg

PHILA

02-21-2011, 07:18 PM

One would think double teams were less predictable as well due to the motion. Below we can see Russell quickly recover fronting the pivot as well as K.C. coming hard from the baseline. His man, rookie guard Matt Guokas cuts to the front of the rim and Wilt hits him for an easy layup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpiRo8-aKJc#t=01m20s

PHILA

02-21-2011, 07:33 PM

"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."

Below at the 0:57 mark we can see Wilt circa '65 spin baseline from Russell immediately off the catch ala Hakeem Olajuwon, before K.C. takes the intentional foul and a frustrated Wilt hits the stanchion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xp2slHI9sI

ShaqAttack3234

02-21-2011, 10:08 PM

IMHO, had Jackson utilized Shaq's power, withOUT the ball (just moving into the lane like Wilt did against Nate), and waiting for passes at the rim...Shaq would have been damn near unstoppable. As it was, Shaq would get about five baskets per game, or more, doing exactly that. There was simply no one, or two players, who could keep him out of the lane.

Yeah, but would his teammates have been involved as much? I'm not sure Shaq scoring more would have helped the team more, as it is, he was one of only 3 players to lead the league in scoring and win a championship in the same season during the shot clock era. By drawing all of those double and triple teams he got his teammates a lot of easier shots as you can see in those clips.

Actually, though it's off topic, this is a perfect example of why his 1995 Magic cast was a lot better than his 2000. They complemented him better due to their 3 point shooting and had more scoring options. The 2000 Lakers on the other hand weren't as deep and talented and they were a weak outside shooting team. They shot 32.9% on 3s which was significantly below the league average of 35.3% and the 5th worst percentage in the league, plus they only ranked 18th in a 29 team league in 3s made.

jlauber

02-21-2011, 10:19 PM

Yeah, but would his teammates have been involved as much? I'm not sure Shaq scoring more would have helped the team more, as it is, he was one of only 3 players to lead the league in scoring and win a championship in the same season during the shot clock era. By drawing all of those double and triple teams he got his teammates a lot of easier shots as you can see in those clips.

Actually, though it's off topic, this is a perfect example of why his 1995 Magic cast was a lot better than his 2000. They complemented him better due to their 3 point shooting and had more scoring options. The 2000 Lakers on the other hand weren't as deep and talented and they were a weak outside shooting team. They shot 32.9% on 3s which was significantly below the league average of 35.3% and the 5th worst percentage in the league, plus they only ranked 18th in a 29 team league in 3s made.

Damn! He was just a beast!

Shaq, at his peak, at least offensively, was a great as anyone who has ever played the game. And, IMHO, his defense and rebounding were very under-rated, as well. He easily outrebounded Motumbo in '01, as well as pounding the DPOY. He even outblocked "Mt. Motumbo."

Great clips BTW.

I just wish we had much more of Wilt's career to compare them to. I will agree, though, that I seldom saw Chamberlain play as powerfully. Maybe had Shaq played in the Chamberlain era, we might have seen Wilt go all-out. However, in Wilt's era, there was just no one that could come close to his amazing size, athleticism, and power. He was so much stronger than anyone else he ever faced, that he developed his "goliath complex." Of course, Shaq has also been overwhelming in his career, as well, but at least he relished it. Chamberlain reluctantly used his massive edge in power.

BTW, I will rep you when I can. This was an outstanding post.

ShaqAttack3234

02-21-2011, 11:48 PM

Damn! He was just a beast!

Shaq, at his peak, at least offensively, was a great as anyone who has ever played the game. And, IMHO, his defense and rebounding were very under-rated, as well. He easily outrebounded Motumbo in '01, as well as pounding the DPOY. He even outblocked "Mt. Motumbo."

Great clips BTW.

I just wish we had much more of Wilt's career to compare them to. I will agree, though, that I seldom saw Chamberlain play as powerfully. Maybe had Shaq played in the Chamberlain era, we might have seen Wilt go all-out. However, in Wilt's era, there was just no one that could come close to his amazing size, athleticism, and power. He was so much stronger than anyone else he ever faced, that he developed his "goliath complex." Of course, Shaq has also been overwhelming in his career, as well, but at least he relished it. Chamberlain reluctantly used his massive edge in power.

BTW, I will rep you when I can. This was an outstanding post.

Thanks, I actually love watching clips from the era where there isn't much footage(60's and early 70's), I am watching the second half of game 4 of the '71 finals again at the moment.

The player I am appreciating more and more is Bill Russell, I just watched part of the '62 all-star game recently and his quickness and overall defense impress me in just about every game I see, whether it's that, the '66 EDF game vs the Royals, the '67 EDF ect.

Compared to his peers, I'd definitely call Russell the greatest overall defensive player ever in terms of impact, and due to his quickness, athleticism, IQ and shot blocking ability, I'd bet he could anchor a great defense in any game. I'm still not that impressed with his offense game, but I reserve the right to change my mind on that one.

I think that Thurmond was a better 1 on 1 post defender than Russell, but as far as anchoring a defense and changing shots around the rim(and keep the ball in play) I doubt anyone did more to help their team win at that end.

In fact, that's a lot more important than 1 on 1 post defense. Look at Dwight Howard now, he's not a great post defender, but his overall defensive impact has been huge for the last few years.

When I have time, I want to go through all of the actual game footage of Bill Russell available and point out the things that I was alluding to about his defense.

Speaking of defense, check out Scottie Pippen's help defense throughout those clips. His defensive impact in that series was huge and that was Pippen at 34/35 years old after a good amount of injuries.

Back to Wilt, while I prefer the later version of who was more of a defensive player and facilitator in the post, his offensive game looks better in the earlier footage. His fadeaway looked better and judging by his FT% it seems like his shooting touch was in general. In some of the early footage, you can see his speed running the court as well, so while I think the '67 version was the best, I suspect there may have been things that he did better when he was younger such as scoring.

And to give some credit where credit is due, there is a monster defensive sequence at one point in this '67 game where Russell and Wilt completely shut off the paint. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K9RJXAdZYw&NR=1#t=5m24s

Great block by Russell, but check out the 2 blocks in a row by Wilt at the other end.

BlueandGold

02-22-2011, 12:02 AM

You should cue up tape of Wilt's Kansas days, where he practically faced triple and quadruple teams everytime he touched the ball, even if he was in the backcourt. They both got doubled and tripled a lot, but Wilt forced opposing coaches to come up with that tactic.

jlauber

02-22-2011, 12:33 AM

Thanks, I actually love watching clips from the era where there isn't much footage(60's and early 70's), I am watching the second half of game 4 of the '71 finals again at the moment.

The player I am appreciating more and more is Bill Russell, I just watched part of the '62 all-star game recently and his quickness and overall defense impress me in just about every game I see, whether it's that, the '66 EDF game vs the Royals, the '67 EDF ect.

Compared to his peers, I'd definitely call Russell the greatest overall defensive player ever in terms of impact, and due to his quickness, athleticism, IQ and shot blocking ability, I'd bet he could anchor a great defense in any game. I'm still not that impressed with his offense game, but I reserve the right to change my mind on that one.

I think that Thurmond was a better 1 on 1 post defender than Russell, but as far as anchoring a defense and changing shots around the rim(and keep the ball in play) I doubt anyone did more to help their team win at that end.

In fact, that's a lot more important than 1 on 1 post defense. Look at Dwight Howard now, he's not a great post defender, but his overall defensive impact has been huge for the last few years.

When I have time, I want to go through all of the actual game footage of Bill Russell available and point out the things that I was alluding to about his defense.

Speaking of defense, check out Scottie Pippen's help defense throughout those clips. His defensive impact in that series was huge and that was Pippen at 34/35 years old after a good amount of injuries.

Back to Wilt, while I prefer the later version of who was more of a defensive player and facilitator in the post, his offensive game looks better in the earlier footage. His fadeaway looked better and judging by his FT% it seems like his shooting touch was in general. In some of the early footage, you can see his speed running the court as well, so while I think the '67 version was the best, I suspect there may have been things that he did better when he was younger such as scoring.

And to give some credit where credit is due, there is a monster defensive sequence at one point in this '67 game where Russell and Wilt completely shut off the paint. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K9RJXAdZYw&NR=1#t=5m24s

Great block by Russell, but check out the 2 blocks in a row by Wilt at the other end.

I think counted four blocks by Wilt in about a quarter in that game. And, as great as Russell was defensively, you will notice that Wilt "cheats" off of Russell in quite a few instances. In the second half of game four of the '64 Finals, Wilt is often jumping out at the Boston shooter. In fact, Russell tips in the game winner primarily because Wilt had to go at the shooter. And, in game seven of the '62 Finals, Sam Jones just gets off the game winner against Wilt.

And, to be honest, I think Wilt's early career defense is very under-rated. Walt Bellamy tells the story of facing Wilt the very first time. He came into the game scoring 30 ppg, and at the center tip, Chamberlain told him that he would not score a point against him. Unbelieveably, Wilt held him without a FG in the first half, and blocked several of his shots. However, the "gentle giant" came out in the second half, and told Bellamy that he had proven his point, and played normally the rest of the game.

NYCelt84 also posted the H2H games between Russell and Wilt in Chamberlain's rookie season. They met 11 times, and the info did not include the 11th game, but in those first ten games that year, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 38-20, but even more importantly, Wilt outshot Russell, .465 to .398. Furthermore, Wilt actually scored higher and shot better against Russell, than the rest of the league (37.6 ppg on .461 shooting against the entire NBA), while Russell shot a career high .467 that season, but, as noted, far worse against Wilt.

Of course, in the mod-60's, Wilt really elevated his defense. Almost everyone here knows by now how Wilt completely shut down both Russell and Thurmond in the '67 post-season (.358 and .343 shooting respectively...both nearly 100 points less than their regular season average.) Not only that, but in the '68 playoffs against the Knicks, Wilt held Bellamy, who had shot .541 during the regular season, to .421 shooting. In the '69 playoffs, he once again held Thurmond to under 40% shooting. And we can probably safely assume that he held Russell to less than 40% shooting in '64 (Russell shot .356 in his 10 post-season games...five of which were against Wilt.) In '65, Russell shot an astonishing .702 against the Lakers in the Finals, but only .451 against Wilt in the ECF's. And, in the '69 Finals, the only known game with their FG%, was game seven, and Wilt outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7.

There is also a recorded game in the '65 season, in which Wilt held Russell to an 0-14 game.

http://www.brainyhistory.com/topics/c/chamberlain.html

Then, there was the post-surgery Wilt, who battled Kareem to a statistical draw in the '71 playoffs, (Kareem outscored him 25-22 per game, while Wilt outshot Kareem, .489 to .481, and outrebounded Kareem, 18.8 to 17.2.) In any case, Kareem scored and shot considerably less than he did in the regular season (31.7 ppg and .577 shooting.) And, then, in the '72 WCF's, Kareem heavily outscored Wilt, 33-12 per game, but Wilt held him to .457 shooting, outrebounded him by out 2 per game, and blocked some 15 skyhooks, with several more blocks, as well. And in their final six regular season games in the 72-73 season, Wilt outshot Kareem, .637 to .450.

ShaqAttack3234

02-22-2011, 01:27 AM

I think counted four blocks by Wilt in about a quarter in that game. And, as great as Russell was defensively, you will notice that Wilt "cheats" off of Russell in quite a few instances. In the second half of game four of the '64 Finals, Wilt is often jumping out at the Boston shooter. In fact, Russell tips in the game winner primarily because Wilt had to go at the shooter. And, in game seven of the '62 Finals, Sam Jones just gets off the game winner against Wilt.

And, to be honest, I think Wilt's early career defense is very under-rated. Walt Bellamy tells the story of facing Wilt the very first time. He came into the game scoring 30 ppg, and at the center tip, Chamberlain told him that he would not score a point against him. Unbelieveably, Wilt held him without a FG in the first half, and blocked several of his shots. However, the "gentle giant" came out in the second half, and told Bellamy that he had proven his point, and played normally the rest of the game.

NYCelt84 also posted the H2H games between Russell and Wilt in Chamberlain's rookie season. They met 11 times, and the info did not include the 11th game, but in those first ten games that year, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 38-20, but even more importantly, Wilt outshot Russell, .465 to .398. Furthermore, Wilt actually scored higher and shot better against Russell, than the rest of the league (37.6 ppg on .461 shooting against the entire NBA), while Russell shot a career high .467 that season, but, as noted, far worse against Wilt.

Of course, in the mod-60's, Wilt really elevated his defense. Almost everyone here knows by now how Wilt completely shut down both Russell and Thurmond in the '67 post-season (.358 and .343 shooting respectively...both nearly 100 points less than their regular season average.) Not only that, but in the '68 playoffs against the Knicks, Wilt held Bellamy, who had shot .541 during the regular season, to .421 shooting. In the '69 playoffs, he once again held Thurmond to under 40% shooting. And we can probably safely assume that he held Russell to less than 40% shooting in '64 (Russell shot .356 in his 10 post-season games...five of which were against Wilt.) In '65, Russell shot an astonishing .702 against the Lakers in the Finals, but only .451 against Wilt in the ECF's. And, in the '69 Finals, the only known game with their FG%, was game seven, and Wilt outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7.

There is also a recorded game in the '65 season, in which Wilt held Russell to an 0-14 game.

http://www.brainyhistory.com/topics/c/chamberlain.html

Then, there was the post-surgery Wilt, who battled Kareem to a statistical draw in the '71 playoffs, (Kareem outscored him 25-22 per game, while Wilt outshot Kareem, .489 to .481, and outrebounded Kareem, 18.8 to 17.2.) In any case, Kareem scored and shot considerably less than he did in the regular season (31.7 ppg and .577 shooting.) And, then, in the '72 WCF's, Kareem heavily outscored Wilt, 33-12 per game, but Wilt held him to .457 shooting, outrebounded him by out 2 per game, and blocked some 15 skyhooks, with several more blocks, as well. And in their final six regular season games in the 72-73 season, Wilt outshot Kareem, .637 to .450.

Well, I'm not sure about Wilt's defense early.

Lets take 1962 for example, we know that in the recap of game 7, Wilt's defense was praised, but that Russell's offense numbers rose past his season averages from 18.9 ppg to 22 ppg in the series. Then there's the Bellamy game you mentioned, but Tom Meschery said Wilt was a poor defender when he first got to Philadelphia(1961-1962).

[QUOTE]Well, he could have played better in defence. When I got in the

ILLsmak

02-22-2011, 02:37 AM

Actually, though it's off topic, this is a perfect example of why his 1995 Magic cast was a lot better than his 2000. They complemented him better due to their 3 point shooting and had more scoring options. The 2000 Lakers on the other hand weren't as deep and talented and they were a weak outside shooting team. They shot 32.9% on 3s which was significantly below the league average of 35.3% and the 5th worst percentage in the league, plus they only ranked 18th in a 29 team league in 3s made.

Yeah, but the Magic shooters choked in the Finals... sometimes it's better to have broke shooters with experience than good shooters without experience. Glen and Fish were WET for the Finals. And really I remember them being wet all playoffs.

-Smak

ShaqAttack3234

02-22-2011, 02:44 AM

Yeah, but the Magic shooters choked in the Finals... sometimes it's better to have broke shooters with experience than good shooters without experience. Glen and Fish were WET for the Finals. And really I remember them being wet all playoffs.

-Smak

Glen was wet in the finals? He shot 40% in the series and got benched in crunch time due to his horrible defense and his unwillingness to move without the ball. Glen played pretty poorly in the playoffs, particularly after the first round. Fish on the other hand shot the ball pretty well, but he wasn't a big factor in the playoffs. He ended up the Lakers 4th guard in the playoffs after a a horrible regular season in which he shot under 35% from the field.

Glen could've been so much more of an asset had he accepted his role as a spot much shooter more.

And yeah, Orlando's shooters choked in the finals, but you have to wonder how well that team would've played with Phil Jackson coaching them instead of Brian Hill, or if you threw in a more mature 28 year old Shaq instead of 23 year old Shaq.

That 1995 Magic team also had a legit power forward, and a good one in Grant while that position was weakness on the 2000 Lakers.

EleganceD

02-22-2011, 03:01 AM

OP, Give me your top 10 players of all-time. You seem to know a thing or two about the history of hoops.

ShaqAttack3234

02-22-2011, 03:10 AM

OP, Give me your top 10 players of all-time. You seem to know a thing or two about the history of hoops.

Right now I can't really decide on an all-time list because I haven't decided the best criteria. For example, how much to value peak play vs longevity and how much to factor in how timeless your game is and how well it'd factor into other eras vs how good you were vs your peers.

In no order, my top 10 is Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan and Kobe and I don't see anyone with a valid case over any of those players currently. The active player who I think could push one of them out and make my list is Lebron, but not anyone else that I see in the NBA at the moment. And I don't see any past player with a good enough case over any of those players to push one of them out of my top 10.

G.O.A.T

02-22-2011, 03:42 AM

Right now I can't really decide on an all-time list because I haven't decided the best criteria. For example, how much to value peak play vs longevity and how much to factor in how timeless your game is and how well it'd factor into other eras vs how good you were vs your peers.

In no order, my top 10 is Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan and Kobe and I don't see anyone with a valid case over any of those players currently. The active player who I think could push one of them out and make my list is Lebron, but not anyone else that I see in the NBA at the moment. And I don't see any past player with a good enough case over any of those players to push one of them out of my top 10.

If you take Mikan out of the equation due to the pre-integration/pre-shot clock era then you have the indisputable top ten. The only ten players in NBA history to win multiple titles as the best player on their team and multiple Finals MVP's (or would have in the case of Wilt/Russell).

You're on to something in the OP as well. But it is a two-sided story...

Advantages beyond Shaq's Control
Physicality of Era - Wilt took way more abuse than Shaq, and Shaq took more abuse than any player of his era by far.

Quality of opposing centers - Shaq faced far more below average centers than Wilt who played over half his games the likes of Russell, Thurmond, Reed, Lovellette, Cowens, Unseld, Kareem etc. all Hall of Famers.

Weight/dietary/nutrition training - Shaq could recover from injuries and play through them with much better care than Wilt and the players of his era.

The three-point line - It forced players to be more cautious in their double teaming of O'Neal as the risk was greater with the 50% more valuable basket an option.

Advantages beyond Wilt's Control
Defensive sophistication of Era - Teams had no idea how to handle Wilt, he was the first of his kind. By the time Shaq got there teams could say, here's what worked vs. Wilt, vs. Kareem, vs. Moses, vs. Hakeem etc.

Athletic depth of league - Even with 37-30 teams, the NBA Shaq played in was far more athletic than the one Wilt played in.

Rules early in his career - The lane was not as wide, that's a big advantage, the changed it because of Wilt primarily.

Pace of the game - Wilt played in an era with 30 more possessions per game, his remarkable endurance allowed him to play every minute, but still he could not have created that pace on his own.

ShaqAttack3234

02-22-2011, 03:58 AM

Pointguard

02-22-2011, 05:31 AM

I've said a million times in response to those that talk about the centers Wilt faced compared to Shaq that the team defenses Shaq faced were 100 times tougher. No doubt in my mind that Shaq was harder to stop. As you can see, Wilt could let you off the hook in single coverage because he wouldn't use his size to his advantage as much as Shaq, which by Wilt's admission was a mistake, nor did he have the footwork or ball handling skills to make the same quick moves.

Credit goes to Russell for being an excellent defensive player, but anyone who thinks Shaq isn't scoring easily with single coverage, the luxury of being able to put the ball on the floor several times and a 4 inch, 100 pound size advantage is crazy. The difference between the 2 is that Shaq didn't apologize for his size and used it to make him great. He didn't really care if his ame was pretty or people thought he was skilled, though the other difference was his vastly superior low post game.

Great post Shaqattack and thanks for the work as it is of the highest level you can catch on the internet. Its outstanding scholarship. You and Jlauder are like the beginning of multi-media education on the net. Humorous tho, is the hate that some people have for the simple mention of the 60's is amusing - like a 60's monster or Hippies consistently ruined their Christmas or something.

I do think that defenses have progressively gotten better over the years. A couple of messed up things make it hard to really assess Wilt's impact. One is the blackout on his mega years and two being that nobody has really assessed the coaches of that time in handling mega talent at that time. I think it gets overlooked a lot but I think you are familiar with my stands about coaching and great big men. Shaq is crazy dominant and with more energy before Phil Jackson but it all comes together under Jackson. Kareem and Riley, Duncan and Pop. I really believe each of these players has a maximum of half of the championships they have without those coaches and then we look at them all very differently. What is Wilt maximized???

Doing criss crosses over generations is always going to be very hard and futile in the end. The biggest differences between big men of different eras is the league response to their dominance as an organization. They made rules to stop Wilt. Not once do you see a rule to help Wilt out, its an definitive trend with Wilt. So I don't agree with your assessment that they would have allowed him to go crazy and barrell over people like they allowed Shaq to do. And I don't agree with the idea that Wilt shyed from being big. Shaq wasn't really close to playing an all around big man game to Wilt. Wilt protected the rim far better and Shaq could have lead the league in rebounding more than once. I do think Wilt had some Goliath issues and a gentle heart. While the league has adopted Shaq as a giant teddy bear there was a whole different reality that Wilt faced. If Shaq played in the 60's they would have slowed him down as well and it would have easier because he wasn't as versatile or skilled. But that is a criss cross thing I don't want to get into.

The great things about Wilt are timeless and lend to his greatness in all the succeeding generations. He was active as any big man since. He took on all of the center responsibilities at a level which would be on par with anybody since. He went at rebounds, blocks and manning the paint unlike any other center. His timing seems would be elite today. His reach, speed, strength and jumping would be elite today. His skill level would be elite among centers. He naturally had a knack for scoring with a touch that would still be a joy to watch now. The guy was versatile and covered everything a person could do from that position at extremely high levels. In his physical prime with the right coach he could have been a 45ppg 25rebounds, 5 assist, 10 block guy over the course of 7 years. Just crazy prolific and super active numbers. And his superior motor is rarely talked about. Cause I think the biggest thing against players today averaging that against lesser players that had integrity is the activity level, endurance, and desire to maintain that level for 650 games.

Wilt seemingly was a stronger Daivd Robinson in his prime with a stronger post presence. Your criticism of Wilt not being crazy aggressive at the rim is legit because he didn't try to push that issue. But in the same breath you are conceding Wilt's superioty in rebounding and blocking shots to everybody since he played. Wilt wins out because he still was a greatly skilled scorer which is more adaptable to rule changes and diffrent defenses. If Wilt had Aurabach as his coach, Red compliments Wilt's psychological battles, and the GOAT question is a joke.

Pointguard

02-22-2011, 05:40 AM

If you take Mikan out of the equation due to the pre-integration/pre-shot clock era then you have the indisputable top ten. The only ten players in NBA history to win multiple titles as the best player on their team and multiple Finals MVP's (or would have in the case of Wilt/Russell).

You're on to something in the OP as well. But it is a two-sided story...

Advantages beyond Shaq's Control
Physicality of Era - Wilt took way more abuse than Shaq, and Shaq took more abuse than any player of his era by far.

Quality of opposing centers - Shaq faced far more below average centers than Wilt who played over half his games the likes of Russell, Thurmond, Reed, Lovellette, Cowens, Unseld, Kareem etc. all Hall of Famers.

Weight/dietary/nutrition training - Shaq could recover from injuries and play through them with much better care than Wilt and the players of his era.

The three-point line - It forced players to be more cautious in their double teaming of O'Neal as the risk was greater with the 50% more valuable basket an option.

Advantages beyond Wilt's Control
Defensive sophistication of Era - Teams had no idea how to handle Wilt, he was the first of his kind. By the time Shaq got there teams could say, here's what worked vs. Wilt, vs. Kareem, vs. Moses, vs. Hakeem etc.

Athletic depth of league - Even with 37-30 teams, the NBA Shaq played in was far more athletic than the one Wilt played in.

Rules early in his career - The lane was not as wide, that's a big advantage, the changed it because of Wilt primarily.

Pace of the game - Wilt played in an era with 30 more possessions per game, his remarkable endurance allowed him to play every minute, but still he could not have created that pace on his own.
Excuse my delinquency, GOAT in omtting your scholarship as well. Shout out to Phila, Psilas and a guy I rarely see much Gottenberg?

PHILA

02-22-2011, 07:57 AM

Yeah, but the Magic shooters choked in the Finals... sometimes it's better to have broke shooters with experience than good shooters without experience. Glen and Fish were WET for the Finals. And really I remember them being wet all playoffs.

-Smak

A fine post on this in response to the Chamberlain Theory:

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1085655#p26487345

The problem for coaches is figuring out how to best manipulate a defense with his five pieces.

Now, it's great when we all say to pound the ball into Shaq and space the floor or let Lebron create or let Jordan iso or put the ball in Wilt's hands. Yeah, that's fine. They are talented offensive players. We get it. If we get it, so will the defense. Cleveland fans have realized this the past two years. You can't just space the floor and let one guy do all the work, regardless of how efficient he is and how he creates for others. Ironically, Orlando found this out in the 09 Finals, right after they took Lebron's team out. Orlando's plan is to spread the floor with 3 point shooters and let them play a nice give-and-take game with their dominant C. I don't think Orlando lost because Dwight had limited post moves at the time. I think they lost because they couldn't manipulate the opposing defense enough with the strategy of spacing the floor with jump shooters. When LA took those 3's away, Orlando's perimeter offensive players seemed to have no idea what to do. Pietrus and Lewis looked clueless as they put the ball on the floor and took awkward looking floaters.

This strategy of spacing the floor with a bunch of spot-up shooters is a dangerous trend in the modern NBA imo, because it ignores the other facets of playing off the ball that are actually more effective in the long run at manipulating a defense. Cutting, offensive rebounding, slashing off of the cross-court pass/inside-out pass, simply moving without the ball to manipulate the guy guarding you- i.e. a piece of the defense. Moving the ball unselfishly, a la Pierce, Ray, and KG in 08. Those are just as effective.

A superstar making swing passes makes an effective offense.

Look at Jordan and Pippen in the Triangle. They were wing players who weren't elite outside shooters and handled the ball. They were great off-ball players, great offensive rebounders for their position. MJ moved without the ball well. The triangle made it harder than ever to guard Jordan because instead of MJ creating with a defense able to focus on him and his effect on teammates, he was attacking at points in time when the defense had no clue it was coming. The triangle is a great offensive system imo because it rewards player movement and ball movement, instead of just standing there and watching your superstar go to work and simply playing off of him.

Look at Shaq. Hill in Orlando was a horrible coach because his strategy when Shaq had the ball was simply to space the floor. You can do so many more effective things with a dominant offensive player like Shaq. The triangle took advantage of that, and Shaq had his greatest team and individual success because of that.

lakers_forever

02-22-2011, 08:29 AM

Sorry, but its a terrible thread. Anachronism at its worst, judgind a player from the 60's with the today standards.

Let me be anachronic too.. I'll compare myself with Galileo now. I know the tides are caused by the gravitational forces of the moon (and sun, rotation of the eath, etc). Galileo didn't think so. He disagreed with that, threfore I'm smarter than Galileo. :oldlol:

See how it is dumb? You should judge Wilt for what he did in his own era, compared with other players from those days.

I can watch a 80's game and notice a less athletic game with palyers rarely shooting 3's. Just a different game. But does that make Larry Bird any less of the great player he was? No. He was basketball genius. Even today (let alone in the future), kids like to dismiss Bird saying he could not play against current Nba players (because he is slow and whatever). Anachronism again. But guess what, the genius adapt to its time. That's why Kareem started to dominate in the early 70's and still was a great player up to the second half of the 80's.

You put any legend of the game as a young boy today with all the modern trainning and evolution of the game of basketball, and they would be great too, because the genius will always be a genius, different from common people.

Jacques Mesrine

02-22-2011, 11:33 AM

what are you trying to proove based on one single footage is quite not enough, anyone can choose a specific footage in which that Shaq played poorly with much less double team and finger-pointing

without watching massive footages of that eras and then claiming Wilt was much easier to stop in the paint than Shaq is really less-wise

PHILA

02-22-2011, 09:26 PM

magnax1

02-23-2011, 01:33 AM

I've said 1000 times that people need to compare players within their era. That doesn't mean that if they played shitty teams when winning they should get off the hook, but there are so many factors that changed from 60-now that discounting a player because of the era he played in is completely unfair. Just judge players based off their era, there is no way to know how good they'd be.
Also, the limited footage used to prove the point is pretty unfair. You could make a tape of footage of Jordan getting clobbered (which people have done plenty of) and say that is proof that he played in a tougher era. It doesn't prove anything.

alexandreben

02-23-2011, 05:54 AM

Chamberlain & the Sixers played the Warriors three consecutive games in late December of the '65-66 season, and he did have a 33/17/8/16 blk game against Thurmond in the 3rd game.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tR8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5384,5507613&dq

He also had a 45 point effort during the 2nd game, though I am not 100% sure Nate played. Rookie Rick Barry led the Warriors to victory with 37 points & 25 rebounds.

1st game he had 23 points, again not sure if Nate played.

I've checked most of the H2H stats between Wilt and Thurmond, will post it up when finish it.

regarding to the 45 point game that Wilt poured to Thurmond, here's something interesting to read:

Mon, Dec 20, 1965 Philadelphia 76ers @ San Francisco Warriors L 118 124
Wilt: 45pts Thurmond: 26rbs

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=a9UzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MOsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=851,2186566&dq=nate+thurmond&hl=en

that's the game that Barry scored 37 pts(14-31) and took 25 rbs(yes, he did grabbed 25rbs which's just one less than Thurmond ...) when he was a rookie, even though Wilt scored 45pts, Phila lost due to Greer was held by Attles to 3 field goals which all in the first quarter... Nate Thurmond collected 26 rebounds and was fouled out.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rx8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4332,3076260&dq=nate+thurmond&hl=en

the first matchup between Wilt and Thurmond was after Wilt landed to Phila, Wilt scored 22pts 29rbs and 11blk:

Thu, Jan 21, 1965 Philadelphia 76ers - San Francisco Warriors W 111 102
Wilt: 22pts, 29rbs, 11blk Thurmond: 12pts
Chamberlain's debut as a Phila @ Convention Hall against Warriors: Nate Thurmond scored 12 points and held Wilt to only 22 points, but Wilt grabbed 29 rebounds and 11 block shots. In the previous game, Nate Thurmond scored 21 points against NYK, the next two games, Nate Thurmond scored 22 points against Celtics; and poured a game hich 31 points including 15pts in the last quarter against Cincinnati Royals.

I just took another look at my excel file, Wilt did have some really poor games against Thurmond, pity we will never know what a peak scoring season 1962 Wilt Chamberlain could do against Thurmond...

but look at the H2H between Kareem and Thurmond, I really do believe a peak Chamberlain is MUCH better than a peak Kareem..

brwnman

02-23-2011, 06:40 AM

I watched a bit of the video, it was like a pickup game. Guys just running and gunning. Taking pull-up jumpers within two seconds of the ball being inbounded. Guys throwing behind the back passes on an inbound had me rollin'. Guards didn't have much of a handle, but that's expected. Amazing how much the game has advanced in a few decades...

The one thing I loved was the use of the backboard. Absolutely amazing to watch. Guys need to get back to that. It's an easier shot. That, and going straight up and straight down. Too many unnecessary fadeaways and guys not being balanced on their shot.

- sorry for being completely off-thread...

jlauber

02-23-2011, 10:23 AM

I've checked most of the H2H stats between Wilt and Thurmond, will post it up when finish it.

regarding to the 45 point game that Wilt poured to Thurmond, here's something interesting to read:

Mon, Dec 20, 1965 Philadelphia 76ers @ San Francisco Warriors L 118 124
Wilt: 45pts Thurmond: 26rbs

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=a9UzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MOsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=851,2186566&dq=nate+thurmond&hl=en

that's the game that Barry scored 37 pts(14-31) and took 25 rbs(yes, he did grabbed 25rbs which's just one less than Thurmond ...) when he was a rookie, even though Wilt scored 45pts, Phila lost due to Greer was held by Attles to 3 field goals which all in the first quarter... Nate Thurmond collected 26 rebounds and was fouled out.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rx8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4332,3076260&dq=nate+thurmond&hl=en

the first matchup between Wilt and Thurmond was after Wilt landed to Phila, Wilt scored 22pts 29rbs and 11blk:

Thu, Jan 21, 1965 Philadelphia 76ers - San Francisco Warriors W 111 102
Wilt: 22pts, 29rbs, 11blk Thurmond: 12pts
Chamberlain's debut as a Phila @ Convention Hall against Warriors: Nate Thurmond scored 12 points and held Wilt to only 22 points, but Wilt grabbed 29 rebounds and 11 block shots. In the previous game, Nate Thurmond scored 21 points against NYK, the next two games, Nate Thurmond scored 22 points against Celtics; and poured a game hich 31 points including 15pts in the last quarter against Cincinnati Royals.

I just took another look at my excel file, Wilt did have some really poor games against Thurmond, pity we will never know what a peak scoring season 1962 Wilt Chamberlain could do against Thurmond...

but look at the H2H between Kareem and Thurmond, I really do believe a peak Chamberlain is MUCH better than a peak Kareem..

Excellent post. Wilt really only played against Thurmond, in his peak offensive seasons, from mid-way in the 64-65 season, thur the 65-66 season, and Nate missed some of those games. I have mentioned this before, though, that in their first meeting in the 66-67 season, Wilt had been facilitating the entire first half (as had been the new coaching philosophy of Hannum.) However, it had not been very successful in that game, so Hannum directed his team to start feeding Chamberlain, and Wilt scored 24 of his 30 points in the second half (to go along with 26 rebounds and 12 blocks.)

But, aside from a few 20+ point games, Wilt seldom shot the ball against Thurmond after that. He had many games under 10 points against Thurmond from the 68-69 season until he retired. But, his team's usually pummeled Thurmond's teams, and Chamberlain outshot Thurmond by HUGE margins in their playoff battles (as well as outrebounding him in every one...including a 23.6 to 17.2 margin in the '73 WCF's.) Wilt shot over 50% in all three of their H2H playoff series, while Nate never even shot 40% against him in any. In the '67 Finals, Wilt not only outscored Thurmond per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg...he outshot him by an eye-popping .560 to .343 margin.

So, aside from a handful of games, we never really got to see a PRIME scoring Wilt against Thurmond. But, judging by the few that we do have, Wilt could have put up 40+ on him, as well.

PHILA

02-27-2011, 04:37 PM

I just took another look at my excel file, Wilt did have some really poor games against ThurmondIndeed, early in the '67-68 season he didn't attempt a FG in a win over the Warriors, as he dished out 13 assists while Greer, Jones, & Jackson combined for 83 points.

PTB Fan

11-15-2011, 01:12 PM

Great analysts.

Kblaze8855

11-15-2011, 03:24 PM

I dont think there is any doubt that Shaq got far more doubles than Wilt despite many claims that he was always doubled. Ive never seen a game or extended set of clips of him doubled. Not outside college footage. Ive seen him doubled in the NBA. But not like...just...instant collapse onto him swarm him time and time again doubles.

But really im not sure doubled would have even bothered wilt had he played like Shaq. he spent time setting up fadeaways and such at the expense of being able to quickly attack and score on much higher percentages. He shot well...but fact is Wilt was too big too athletic and too good to have been shooting anywhere near 50% if he were actually going all out to get easy shots. considering how many dunks he got off putbacks and quick dunks he may well have shot 40% in isolation situations in his scoring days and that is hard to imagine for someone of his ability.

If he just bullied people like shaq they would have had to double him. But he allowed teams to single cover him by scoring more off volume than just being unstoppable every time down.

That said...

In a league with only 7 other teams and more top flight bigmen per team because of it Shaq would see more single coverage too. If he played Hakeem, drob, Mutombo, Zo, and then average centers on the other 3 teams footage of him would be much more one on one as great centers had a pride about such things.

Shaq hated to accept doubleteam help on a rival. Drob too. And Mutombo(Shaq got him one on one a good bit in the finals).

Wilt was playing Russell, Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy and so on who probably didnt think they needed a double to defend anyone. Their teams leaned on them to hold down the paint and stop the other great bigmen.

Make the 90s an 8 team league where its just

Shaq
hakeem
Drob
Mutombo
Zo
Smits
Dale Davis
Chris Dudley

Or swap 2-3 out for scrubs....still..Shaq wouldnt be doubled nearly as much.

Great bigmen dont like to concede that they need the help. I cant imagine the look on Russells face if you told him you arent gonna let him guard wilt one on one because you dont think he can handle it.

Probably like if you told shaq he cant guard Duncan or Mutombo that he cant guard Drob.

Lot of pride involved.

ShaqAttack3234

11-15-2011, 03:42 PM

But really im not sure doubled would have even bothered wilt had he played like Shaq. he spent time setting up fadeaways and such at the expense of being able to quickly attack and score on much higher percentages. He shot well...but fact is Wilt was too big too athletic and too good to have been shooting anywhere near 50% if he were actually going all out to get easy shots. considering how many dunks he got off putbacks and quick dunks he may well have shot 40% in isolation situations in his scoring days and that is hard to imagine for someone of his ability.

If he just bullied people like shaq they would have had to double him. But he allowed teams to single cover him by scoring more off volume than just being unstoppable every time down.

Whether he could've played like Shaq with the power game is up for debate because he didn't, and admitted to regretting that in a '93 interview. Though I'm not convinced he could've, at least not to that extent. A lot of that depends on lowerbody strength, ball handling, footwork ect. Though I'd agree that he could've used the power game more than he did, Tom Heinsohn mentioned that he was always relieved when Wilt would shoot the fadeaway because he knew that he was letting him off the hook.

That said...

In a league with only 7 other teams and more top flight bigmen per team because of it Shaq would see more single coverage too. If he played Hakeem, drob, Mutombo, Zo, and then average centers on the other 3 teams footage of him would be much more one on one as great centers had a pride about such things.

I disagree with this due to how likely that makes foul trouble. Even in your average regular season meetings between the star centers of the 90's, double teams were common and they often weren't even guarding each other to avoid foul trouble because offense in the case of the 20-30 ppg centers, their offense was too important.

Take the '95 finals for another example. Shaq and Hakeem were both doubled a lot because of foul trouble. Hakeem was in foul trouble in game 1 and Shaq or Brian Hill made the comment that they were going to guard Hakeem 1 on 1 in game 2 and Shaq spent most of the first half in foul trouble.

Wilt was playing Russell, Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy and so on who probably didnt think they needed a double to defend anyone. Their teams leaned on them to hold down the paint and stop the other great bigmen.

Not sure what Russell or Wilt thought, but Thurmond said this.

[QUOTE=Nate Thurmond]

Kblaze8855

11-15-2011, 03:55 PM

I dont think its really up for debate that Wilt had as much of a physical advntage over his peers as Shaq did. At least before Shaq was 380-400 pounds in 02 and 03. I doubt the weight difference was there but by his prime he was around 280...7'1''+? Shaq I believe was 283 or 289 at predraft and 303 deep into his rookie season. About prime to late prime Wilts size. And by all accounts the strongest person anyone had ever had to deal with on the court was Wilt or shaq depending on if the person saying so played wilt or Shaq. They seem equally mythic for their times if not Wilt a little more so. If he set out to just knock a guy over? The guy gets knocked over. Perhaps a few could stand up to him but not any more than the Dale Davis types could bang with Shaq.

And I suspect ive seen the interview you mentioned. Ive seen...most. The costas/Russell/wilt one was pretty good. He admitted there to a lack of killer instinct.

And I said he wouldnt be doubled as much...not wouldnt be at all.

Shaq was never doubled as heavily vs teams with top flight bigmen. Drob, Duncan(even post drob), Mutombo, Dale Davis and even guys like Vlade guarded shaq one on one quite a bit. Ive seen Barkley guad shaq one on one. And rodman.

Not all the time no. Im just saying that a league minus its 22 worst centers makes for more on one one play because the top flight guys have always taken pride in not needing help.

I watched Shaq give Ewing like 45 and Ewing would still wave off help and he had some damn good help if he accepted it.

Those guys dont want to accept that they cant contend with a guy. remove the "Yes sir Mr.Riley sir!" non impact player bigmen who just play their part and Shaq would have had much more time spent one on one I think.

-23-

11-15-2011, 04:04 PM

ThaRegul8r

11-15-2011, 05:49 PM

'67 was his year in the pivot primarily as a play maker. Double Wilt he'd find the open teammate, all of whom were in constant motion.

After Phil Jackson signed a 5-year, $30 million deal to coach the Los Angeles Lakers, he was interviewed by The Associated Press before the 1999-2000 season opener:

[I]AP: How long does it take for a team to learn the triangle offense, and why would it take longer for that than other systems?

Jackson: It

ThaRegul8r

11-15-2011, 06:02 PM

lol at getting negative repped for the above post three minutes after I'd posted it. I don't see what was the point in bringing back "reps" in the first place.

jlauber

11-17-2011, 02:31 AM

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), and the "Fadeaway Jump"—a delicate, marvelously coordinated push shot from 15 ft. away that defensive men literally cannot block without fouling.

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

Quote:
[Carl Braun said] "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers."

"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then."

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

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

Quote:
"I would talk to Wilt about all the players pounding on him. Sometimes, he said he didn't notice it--he was so strong. But I also believe that there were two sets of rules. By that, I mean because Wilt was so strong, the officials let the man guarding him get away with more--almost trying to equalize the game. I also believe that Wilt just took it because he didn't want to get thrown out, and because ithad always been like that with him. But I'd watch it and I'd get mad. It takes me a while to get my temper going, but when it does--look out. I'd see what the other players were doing to Wilt and what the officials were allowing, and I'd get more upset than if it were happening to me. So I jumped in there. It wasn't that Wilt couldn't defend himself. If he ever got really hot, he'd kill people, so he let things pass. But I didn't have to worry about that. I was strong for my size, but I was not about to do anything like the kind of damage would."
--Al Attles, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 242

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

Quote:
"People lose sight of the fact that Wilt was a 440 champion, a guy with great coordination. He also was so strong that the double-teaming defenses used today wouldn't bother him."
--Wayne Embry (GM for the Cleveland Cavaliers), Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 327

Continued...

jlauber

11-17-2011, 02:31 AM

Continuing...

http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-...mmy-4000-words

Quote:
At 7’ 2” tall and weighing at least 250 pounds, Wilt may have been the strongest man in the league as a rookie. Despite his size, Wilt’s introduction to physical aggression in the NBA was far worse than what confronted Bill Russell. Wilt was grabbed, held, jostled and manhandled worse than any player in the short history of the league.

It went beyond rookie hazing: it was a deliberate attempt to stop the taller, stronger player by frustration and intimidation. Wilt was constantly double- and triple-teamed, hacked and whacked and smacked as opponents tried to knock the ball out of his hands. The tactics were all the more effective because of Wilt’s notoriously poor foul shooting. Even the referees contributed to the harassment, letting opposing players get away with often egregious fouls, but calling Wilt for the slightest infraction.

Wilt’s coach and teammates encouraged Chamberlain to fight back, but unwisely the Big Dipper declined. A week after his first game against Bill Russell and the Celtics, Philadelphia played the St. Louis Hawks. The Hawks center, Clyde Lovellette, was one of the dirtiest players in the league, almost as tall as Wilt, and much thicker. At one point in the game, as Wilt and Clyde ran past each other, Clyde hit Wilt in the jaw with a vicious elbow that drove two of Wilt’s lower front teeth up and into the roof of his mouth. Wilt shook it off and continued playing.

Because Philadelphia was scheduled to travel immediately after the game, Wilt did not even have time to see a doctor. His whole face swelled, an infection set in, yet the following night Wilt played the entire game wearing a large mask on his face. He played the next night, as well, despite a swollen mouth and an aching head, and being unable to eat solid food.

In that third game in as many nights, Wilt again was hit in the mouth, and, was finally examined by a doctor. The infection in his mouth was so severe he had blood poisoning and was rushed to the hospital for emergency dental surgery. He lost four teeth and missed three games.

As soon as he returned, the rough play and hard fouling continued. Midway through the season, in a game against St. Louis, Wilt got so angry at Bob Pettit’s pushing and shoving that he elbowed Pettit in the face, knocking him out of the game. Unlike Bill’s knockout of Ray Felix, it wasn’t enough. It didn’t change the way Wilt was treated because, for every team but the Celtics, the only way to slow him down was to foul him.

The Celtics didn’t have to double- or triple-team Wilt because of Bill Russell’s defense. Bill’s strategy was to deny the entry pass; if Wilt did get the ball down low, Bill stayed between him and the basket, tried to take away the lane; if Wilt got the shot off, Bill would block it if he could and always made certain to box Wilt out. Bill played Wilt clean, didn’t hack or whack, did nothing to antagonize the big man.

That assignment was given to Tommy Heinsohn. When Wilt got the ball in the low post, Tommy was detailed to stop him - punch the ball, grab his arms, and, if nothing else worked, tackle the giant. Tommy’s courage was legendary, as he proved repeatedly over the course of his career, but putting him up against Wilt seemed a horrendous mismatch. Tommy was a full head shorter and fifty pounds lighter and wasn’t the only one who considered Wilt the strongest man in the world, once calling him “King Kong in sneakers”.

http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-...mmy-4000-words

Quote:
Wilt was lucky he didn’t break any bones in his hand, but his knuckle joints were severely bruised and, by halftime, his hand was badly swollen. He continued playing but had trouble handling the ball. It was a sloppily played game by both teams and the Warriors pulled out the win.

Wilt took the floor for Game Three with his hand wrapped in a bandage. It was so swollen and sore he could hardly move his fingers. He played poorly. At one point, he pulled down a rebound, turned to look up court, and Tommy was there. Tommy punched at the ball, missed, and hit Wilt hard on the injured hand. Wilt danced around in serious pain. Tommy was called for the foul.

Wilt stood at the foul line and sent a murderous glare Tommy’s way. Tommy didn’t grab a photographer’s stool for protection. He didn’t even run out of the stadium the way he did when Red chased him over the exploding cigar. Tommy stood his ground, or, in this case, parquet, and fearlessly stared back. In their glaring contest, Wilt turned away first.

By the time his coach, Neil Johnston, removed him in the third quarter of Game Three, Wilt had only scored twelve points, his hand was practically useless, and the Celtics were running away with the game. The hand bothered him again in Game Four, which the Celtics took for a 3-1 series lead.

In Game Five in the sold-out Garden, Wilt shrugged off the swollen hand and turned in the kind of performance that Bill Russell had feared: he scored fifty points and led his team to an easy 128-107 win. The result shocked the Celtics and gave the momentum back to Philadelphia.

http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-...mmy-4000-words

Quote:
K.C. Jones, arguably the savviest team player in the history of the game, was also a rookie that year and had a front row seat for Bill and Wilt's encounters. "Bill didn't do it all. We just used TEAM. That's a word that's thrown out all over the place, but the total personification of team is what we used. We used everybody's ability, and everybody had a role out there that was natural for them. Whoever was guarding the ball had four guys back there helping his ass out. The whole is bigger than the sum of the parts; we wrote that without knowing the phrase. We knew how good we were. And we knew how to use one another because we knew one another. The most important part of it was the understanding that we had of each teammate - what this guy likes and what that guy doesn't like and who can't play defense and who shoots the ball well. We used all that. If a guy couldn't play defense, we were there, picking him up. Let each guy do what he does best."

Years later, Wilt proved that he never quite understood what K.C. was saying. "What people don't realize," he opined, "is that it was never Wilt versus Russell. I never got, or needed, any help guarding Russell. But for Russ, it was always one or two other guys helping him. He never guarded me straight up."

Kblaze8855

11-17-2011, 02:40 AM

jlauber

11-17-2011, 02:56 AM

There is so much exaggeration in there that just quick glances at footage can prove untrue....

No doubt wilt was a beast and all...

But there is no footage on the NBa level suggesting he was always doubled and sure not tripled.

I have seen literally hours of footage on him between GSL, dvds, games, and highlights...

He is not doubled all the time. At all. And Russell guarded him straight up plenty of times. You can just youtube wilt vs russell and find Russell guarding him one on one. Im not sure why they or he would even say such a thing as this:

"But for Russ, it was always one or two other guys helping him. He never guarded me straight up.""

Its just factually inaccurate and can be proven so.

K.C. Jones, arguably the savviest team player in the history of the game, was also a rookie that year and had a front row seat for Bill and Wilt's encounters. "Bill didn't do it all. We just used TEAM

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

KC Jones and Tom Heinsohn...

Sarcastic

11-17-2011, 03:02 AM

jlauber

11-17-2011, 03:19 AM

Ahhhh, the good ol' imaginary time machine, that we use to compare eras.

Let's use our time machine for other sports as well.

1980s defenses in the NHL were far less complex than they are today. Let's pluck early Gretzky out of that era and put him in today's game. Does he even get 40 goals? Let's trivialize his 200 point and 90 goal seasons because the era was weaker.

In the 1920s, baseball players weren't paid that much, so many players had to work other jobs in the off season. Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb were playing against carpenters, farmers, and plumbers. On top of that the color barrier was not broken yet, so they never played against any black athletes. The stadiums were also more expansive, so let's trivialize Cobb's .367 career average and chalk it up to the bigger parks that he could spray the ball around. Pitchers also weren't as good. How many 95 mph fastballs do you think Ruth saw? He used a 48 oz bat. He could never get the bat speed with that to hit a 95 mph fastball with a bat that size. The porch in RF of Yankee Stadium was also short; like under 300 feet I believe. So let's trivialize all his numbers too.

They've changed the rules in the NFL to make passing much much easier. No more bumping the receivers over the middle, and the CBs can barely touch them at all. We have 3 guys who are pace this year to shatter Dan Marino's 5084 yard passing record. Let's pluck Marino out of 1984, and put him in today's game. What does he get? 6000 yards? 6500?

I know this is off-topic, but something to consider when comparing baseball players...

Ted Williams. In Williams' rookie year, in 1939, he batted .327 with 31 HRs. Jimmy Foxx batted .360 with 35 HRs. The year before, Foxx batted .349 with 50 HRs. Going back a little farther, in 1932, Foxx batted .364 with 58 HRs. That same year, an over-the-hill Babe Ruth batted .341 with 41 HRs.

So, here was a declining Ruth batting .341 with 41 HRs, in 1932, and in a few years, in 1939, Williams would bat .327 with 31 HRs against many of the same pitchers that Ruth faced a few years before.

Ok, in 1941 Williams hit .406 with 37 HRs. This was against pre-integration pitching. Now, how about 1957? That year Williams, at age 38, hit .388, with 38 HRs (in 420 ABs.) That came well AFTER integration. What changed?

In that same 1957 season, Hank Aaron would slug 44 HRs. In 1955 Willie Mays slugged 51 HRs. In 1956 Mickey Mantle won the triple crown, including 52 HRs.

In his least season, in 1960, Williams hit .316, with 29 HRs in 310 ABs. In 1965 Mays hit 52 HRs. In 1973 Aaron his 40 HRs in only 392 ABs.

You can see where I am going with this. These "bridges" faced many of the same pitchers that their great peers faced just a few years before. And the greats that came after them, would do the same.

And, Mantle probably hit the longest HRs EVER. Multiple times!

Nolan Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH, on a SLOW gun in a game in the eighth inning, and after throwing 162 pitches, in 1973. On his LAST pitch, at age 46, and on an injured arm, he was clocked at 98 MPH.

These "bridges" fill in the gaps quite well. You could make an argument that a prime Ruth would probably be among the best players in TODAY's era.

Sarcastic

11-17-2011, 03:25 AM

I know this is off-topic, but something to consider when comparing baseball players...

Ted Williams. In Williams' rookie year, in 1939, he batted .327 with 31 HRs. Jimmy Foxx batted .360 with 35 HRs. The year before, Foxx batted .349 with 50 HRs. Going back a little farther, in 1932, Foxx batted .364 with 58 HRs. That same year, an over-the-hill Babe Ruth batted .341 with 41 HRs.

So, here was a declining Ruth batting .341 with 41 HRs, in 1932, and in a few years, in 1939, Williams would bat .327 with 31 HRs against many of the same pitchers that Ruth faced a few years before.

Ok, in 1941 Williams hit .406 with 37 HRs. This was against pre-integration pitching. Now, how about 1957? That year Williams, at age 38, hit .388, with 38 HRs (in 420 ABs.) That came well AFTER integration. What changed?

In that same 1957 season, Hank Aaron would slug 44 HRs. In 1955 Willie Mays slugged 51 HRs. In 1956 Mickey Mantle won the triple crown, including 52 HRs.

In his least season, in 1960, Williams hit .316, with 29 HRs in 310 ABs. In 1965 Mays hit 52 HRs. In 1973 Aaron his 40 HRs in only 392 ABs.

You can see where I am going with this. These "bridges" faced many of the same pitchers that their great peers faced just a few years before. And the greats that came after them, would do the same.

And, Mantle probably hit the longest HRs EVER. Multiple times!

Nolan Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH, on a SLOW gun in a game in the eighth inning, and after throwing 162 pitches, in 1973. On his LAST pitch, at age 46, and on an injured arm, he was clocked at 98 MPH.

These "bridges" fill in the gaps quite well. You could make an argument that a prime Ruth would probably be among the best players in TODAY's era.

But, but, but...athletes from previous eras are always worse than today's athletes. It says so in the ISH Bible.

ThaRegul8r

11-17-2011, 03:37 AM

There is so much exaggeration in there that just quick glances at footage can prove untrue....

No doubt wilt was a beast and all...

But there is no footage on the NBa level suggesting he was always doubled and sure not tripled.

I have seen literally hours of footage on him between GSL, dvds, games, and highlights...

He is not doubled all the time. At all. And Russell guarded him straight up plenty of times. You can just youtube wilt vs russell and find Russell guarding him one on one. Im not sure why they or he would even say such a thing as this:

"But for Russ, it was always one or two other guys helping him. He never guarded me straight up.""

Its just factually inaccurate and can be proven so.

I actually find it rather interesting. It's an advantage that comes with actually being around at the time and hearing what people say, rather than coming after the fact and trying to come up with stuff to fit an agenda.

Because I specifically remember Wilt saying the following in 1985:

"The only team that played me with one man was the Celtics with Russell. They did it because Russell was the game's supreme defensive ace."

This is straight from Wilt's own mouth, a direct quote verbatim, word-for-word. So with you having said this, I just find it interesting having been an observer throughout the years, watching people change their stories, and inexplicably facts just... change, despite no games being played since then, nothing new happening.

jlauber

11-17-2011, 03:38 AM

But, but, but...athletes from previous eras are always worse than today's athletes. It says so in the ISH Bible.

I blindly believed that a few years ago myself. I remember reading an article in 1984 comparing the '84 Nebraska Cornhuskers with their '71 peers. The average '84 player was much bigger and considerably faster. And Ara Parseghian claimed that the '88 Irish would have beaten his '66 team by 40 points.

Of course, football is a much different game than baseball and basketball. It is far more physical. And, yes, today's players are much bigger, and on average, faster. My god, we have QBs that are 260+ lbs, and other QBs that can run a 4.3 40.

BUT, having REALLY studied that...there were MANY players in previous eras who were FASTER than the FASTEST player in TODAY's NFL. Players like Deion, Hershel, Bo, and OJ would be faster than any player today. And how about Darrell Green? The man was winning "the NFL Fastest Man" competitions when he was approaching 40 years old. Hell, last year he turned 50, and then went out an ran a 4.43! And, of course, there was "Bullet" Bob Hayes, who ran a 10.06 100 meters (on a torn up track and with borrowed shoes) back in 1964. There has never been a LEGITIMATE NFL player since, who had run a faster time. BTW, Hayes averaged 42 yards per play on his 76 career TDs!

Players like Havlicek, Barry, Dr. J, Moses, and Gilmore, ...all "bridges"...give us a much better indication of just how good the players of THEIR eras really were. Of course, THE greatest "bridge" in NBA history, was Kareem. He came into the league in 1969, and retired after the '89 season. His career nearly spanned FOUR decades. He faced players like Wilt and Thurmond, then Moses, and later, Ewing and Hakeem. And amazingly, he actually fared much better against his peers, in his late 30's, than he did in his prime. And, he faced many of the same centers that a PRIME Wilt faced...and he never came close to the domination that Wilt overwhelmed them with.

Kblaze8855

11-17-2011, 03:48 AM

KC Jones and Tom Heinsohn...

And...then I have reality. which can be proven....showing Russell one on one with wilt many many many many many many many times. So...what now?

You gonna pretend to not have seen what im talking about? There are many famous individual clips of them one on one. The team flat out does NOT collapse on him on the catch and double him. this isnt my opinion.

Its...in virtually every piece of footage availiable.

ThaRegul8r

11-17-2011, 03:49 AM

But, but, but...athletes from previous eras are always worse than today's athletes. It says so in the ISH Bible.

I blindly believed that a few years ago myself.

People need to stop "blindly" believing anything. Take the blinders from their eyes. It's exasperating how many people just "blindly" believe something. It seems precious few people are capable of forming a belief through critical thinking and careful consideration. A "majority" of beliefs are ignorant.

jlauber

11-17-2011, 03:54 AM

I actually find it rather interesting. It's an advantage that comes with actually being around at the time and hearing what people say, rather than coming after the fact and trying to come up with stuff to fit an agenda.

Because I specifically remember Wilt saying the following in 1985:

This is straight from Wilt's own mouth, a direct quote verbatim, word-for-word. So with you having said this, I just find it interesting having been an observer throughout the years, watching people change their stories, and inexplicably facts just... change, despite no games being played since then, nothing new happening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173M7ApCNKw&feature=related

Listen at the 5 minute mark...

Kblaze8855

11-17-2011, 03:56 AM

Really..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5jV7WImytM

Celtics vs warriors. Wilt not being doubled.

go to 3 minutes when Wilt starts getting theb all.

You seeing some swarm of guys on him?

5:50. Wilt gets it...nobody comes. he dribbles with Russell then fades away.

Next time down....6.30. Wilt gets it. One on one. passes it. but no help comes.

At 7 Wilt rebounds it and goes right back up....nobody runs to help Russell. Russell actually kinda blocked it but it goes in.

7.20...Wilts gets it. Total one on one. travels.

Just looking at what is there..

We can prove some of those statements untrue.

This:

"But for Russ, it was always one or two other guys helping him. He never guarded me straight up.""

Is just factually....wrong. It is not the truth.

ThaRegul8r

11-17-2011, 04:03 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173M7ApCNKw&feature=related

Listen at the 5 minute mark...

Didn't click the link (unlike the majority of people here, I don't need to go on youtube), but I notice you conspicuously didn't address the words that Wilt himself uttered.

jlauber

11-17-2011, 04:10 AM

ThaRegul8r

11-17-2011, 04:14 AM

Didn't click the link (unlike the majority of people here, I don't need to go on youtube), but I notice you conspicuously didn't address the words that Wilt himself uttered.

"Instead of having two or three people and Russell all on me at the same time..."

And Russell was sitting right next to Wilt when he uttered those words.

Okay, I'm done with you on this topic. I more than anyone else on this board know that some things are pointless to discuss with you, and unlike some people, I will not waste my time. Continue to believe what you want to believe, like most of the people around here.

jlauber

11-17-2011, 04:31 AM

Really..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5jV7WImytM

Celtics vs warriors. Wilt not being doubled.

go to 3 minutes when Wilt starts getting theb all.

You seeing some swarm of guys on him?

5:50. Wilt gets it...nobody comes. he dribbles with Russell then fades away.

Next time down....6.30. Wilt gets it. One on one. passes it. but no help comes.

At 7 Wilt rebounds it and goes right back up....nobody runs to help Russell. Russell actually kinda blocked it but it goes in.

7.20...Wilts gets it. Total one on one. travels.

Just looking at what is there..

We can prove some of those statements untrue.

This:

Is just factually....wrong. It is not the truth.

Same game...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uOGY0fftVA&feature=related

Doubled, WITHOUT the ball, at around 1:10

Doubled at 1:50

TRIPLED in the lane at around 2:15.

Doubled at 4:10.

Doubled at 5:30.

Doubled at 7:00,

Doubled at 8:20 withOUT the ball.

Doubled at 8:30.

Tripled at 9:30.

ALL of that in just ONE-FOURTH of ONE-HALF of ONE of the 142 H2H games that Russell and Wilt played in!

Kblaze8855

11-17-2011, 04:40 AM

I jsut went t othe first one you said was a triple team to confirm my accumption that you wouldcall anything with anyone near him double/triple coverage...and yes.

2 of the 3 people you claim are on Wilt were there before he got there. And one of them was actually touching the man he was defending.

He just turns and tries to poke at the ball when wilt had it low.

And its a triple team?

As I said...the mere fact that many times in this one game russell guards wilt straight up makes this:

"But for Russ, it was always one or two other guys helping him. He never guarded me straight up.""

Flat out not true.

And its the same in every game and every set of highlights.

Wilt played one on one...a LOT. Everyone does.

People blow the double and triple team stuff up too much. Its rare anyone gets the kinda coverage fans of people claim they do when they try to make them look good.

Wilt is no exception. Ive seen a LOT of wilt footage.

He played one on one plenty. And it is not my opinion. its recorded video fact.

Im surem any games he was doubled arent recorded and shown. But the mere fact that so much that is...shows him single covered? That alone destroys the idea he was always doubled/tripled.

Its just a myth. If not an outright lie. And nobody needs to do anything more to prove it than google his name and check the videos. The man was scoring one on one...a LOT.

eliteballer

11-17-2011, 04:44 AM

Wilt's numbers look at lot more in line with the rest of the era once they widened the lane from 12 to 16 feet in 64.

jlauber

11-17-2011, 04:54 AM

Wilt's numbers look at lot more in line with the rest of the era once they widened the lane from 12 to 16 feet in 64.

Wilt averaged 36.9 ppg on .524 shooting in the 63-64 season. The NBA widened the lane before the start of the 64-65 season. In the first half of the 64-65 season, an AILING Wilt averaged 38.9 ppg on .499 shooting. He was traded at mid-season, to a somewhat better team, and cut back his shooting in the second half of the season. His average for the season? 34.7 ppg on .510 shooting. BTW, in the very next season (65-66), Wilt averaged 33.5 ppg on a then record .540 FG% (in a league that shot .433.)

Wilt also recorded a TON of 50 and 60 point games AFTER the widening of the lane. Even as late as the 68-69 season, in a league which averaged 112.3 ppg, Wilt, in a year in which he only averaged 14 FGAs per game, hung TWO 60+ games ...one of them a 66 point game on 29-35 shooting, which is the most efficient 60+ point game in NBA history. In fact, Wilt DRAMATICALLY cut back his shooting from the 66-67 season on, BUT, in the 66-67, 67-68, and 68-69 seasons, Wilt put up games of 52, 52, 53, 58, 60, 66, and 68 points...all in years in which he averaged about 14 FGAs per game.

eliteballer

11-17-2011, 05:02 AM

The first season or two after a rule change are always a little odd because players and teams are still adjusting to the change. He wasn't averaging 50 and 44 ppg seasons after the rule change.

Where is there verification the first season of the expanded lane was 65? I've always read it was done in 64, whether that refers to the portion of 1964 after the 63-64 season concluded or to the season itself I dont know.

jlauber

11-17-2011, 05:03 AM

BTW, it was illegal to double a man WITHOUT the ball in the Wilt era, and yet, we have LIMITED footage, in which he was CLEARLY doubled withOUT the ball.

Rooster

11-17-2011, 05:06 AM

Wilt averaged 36.9 ppg on .524 shooting in the 63-64 season. The NBA widened the lane before the start of the 64-65 season. In the first half of the 64-65 season, an AILING Wilt averaged 38.9 ppg on .499 shooting. He was traded at mid-season, to a somewhat better team, and cut back his shooting in the second half of the season. His average for the season? 34.7 ppg on .510 shooting. BTW, in the very next season (65-66), Wilt averaged 33.5 ppg on a then record .540 FG% (in a league that shot .433.)

Wilt also recorded a TON of 50 and 60 point games AFTER the widening of the lane. Even as late as the 68-69 season, in a league which averaged 112.3 ppg, Wilt, in a year in which he only averaged 14 FGAs per game, hung TWO 60+ games ...one of them a 66 point game on 29-35 shooting, which is the most efficient 60+ point game in NBA history. In fact, Wilt DRAMATICALLY cut back his shooting from the 66-67 season on, BUT, in the 66-67, 67-68, and 68-69 seasons, Wilt put up games of 52, 52, 53, 58, 60, 66, and 68 points...all in
years in which he averaged about 14 FGAs per game.

All those numbers and only one ring on your prime, you gotta do better than that. Everyone knows Wilt got the greatest stat ever but not everyone knows the choke jobs he did on game 7s. Maybe if he was focus more on winning than self absorbed about his number, then maybe no one will question him being the GOAT. But the end justify the means, when Wilt was less concern about his numbers and became a team player he won another ring. That to me is more significant that his unfreakingbeliavable numbers in not so great era of big man.

eliteballer

11-17-2011, 05:06 AM

NVM I found it http://www.nba.com/history/seasonreviews/1964-65/index.html

jlauber

11-17-2011, 05:09 AM

jlauber

11-17-2011, 05:11 AM

All those numbers and only one ring on your prime, you gotta do better than that. Everyone knows Wilt got the greatest stat ever but not everyone knows the choke jobs he did on game 7s. Maybe if he was focus more on winning than self absorbed about his number, then maybe no one will question him being the GOAT. But the end justify the means, when Wilt was less concern about his numbers and became a team player he won another ring. That to me is more significant that his unfreakingbeliavable numbers in not so great era of big man.

Wilt's numbers in his NINE game seven's...

24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and on .626 shooting (which is the highest game seven FG% by a "great" in NBA HISTORY.)

And I won't take the time to look up all of his opposing centers, but you can be sure they were WAY below their normal numbers.

jlauber

11-17-2011, 05:18 AM

NVM I found it http://www.nba.com/history/seasonreviews/1964-65/index.html

BTW, in Wilt's 11 post-season games in that 64-65 season, he averaged 29.3 ppg on .530 shooting, in a league that shot .426. And, in his seven games against Russell, he averaged 30 ppg and 31 rpg. I have never seen his FG% in that series against Russell, but in the game seven, one point loss, Chamberlain put up a 30 point game, on 12-15 shooting from the floor, with 32 rebounds. Of course, the "anti-Wilt clan" will point to Wilt's 6-13 from the line and blame WILT for that loss. Oh, and BTW, in the last 36 secs, Wilt went 2-2 from the line, as well as a thunderous dunk over Russell with five seconds left.

Rooster

11-17-2011, 05:26 AM

Wilt's numbers in his NINE game seven's...

24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and on .626 shooting (which is the highest game seven FG% by a "great" in NBA HISTORY.)

And I won't take the time to look up all of his opposing centers, but you can be sure they were WAY below their normal numbers.

What about taking only one shot in the 2nd half. What about taking himself out of the game. What about not taking advantage of Reed not playing. Well Wilt all that too. Wilt won
all the matchup. Numbers favor him but the luck favor more of the courageous ones, great players with heart which can
never be measured but you can count them on their fingers.

jlauber

11-17-2011, 05:31 AM

Okay, I'm done with you on this topic. I more than anyone else on this board know that some things are pointless to discuss with you, and unlike some people, I will not waste my time. Continue to believe what you want to believe, like most of the people around here.

Look, I consider you one of the most knowledgeable posters on this site (if not THE most.) But, you get almost as defensive with Russell, as I do with Wilt.

I have actually come to appreciate Russell's greatness in the last two years on this forum...because of posters like you and G.O.A.T. And I have acknowledged that Russell got more out of his teammates than Wilt did out of his. In fact, Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Chamberlain's, even when Wilt had comparable rosters. And I have conceded that Russell was a major reason why, and also that Wilt probably deserved some of the blame.

BTW, and as you well know, even Wilt admitted that Russell blended better with his teammates, than he (Wilt) would have.

My problem is with these myths...that Russell "owned" Wilt. Or that Wilt "choked" against Russell. Or that he "always" beat Wilt (and of course, it was Russell's TEAMs that were beating Wilt's TEAMs.)

And we both know that Russell played Wilt better than just about everybody (with the possible exception of Thurmond.) But we also know that he certainly didn't dominate Chamberlain. If anything, one-on-one, it was not even close. Having said that, it is/was a TEAM game. And Russell made his TEAMs the best in NBA history.

And that is the other problem I have here. There are the "Wilt-haters" who claim that he flopped in the post-season...and yet, they seldom mention that it was Russell and his vaunted Dynasty teams that were edging Wilt and his team's, year-after-year. Where is the praise for Russell. The majority of those posters rank Russell near the bottom of their Top-10's (if at all.)

So, if you want an apology, I will be more than glad to give you one. You are one of the few posters here that I truly respect. And I also appreciate the information that you bring to us, as well.

jlauber

11-17-2011, 05:43 AM

What about taking only one shot in the 2nd half. What about taking himself out of the game. What about not taking advantage of Reed not playing. Well Wilt all that too. Wilt won
all the matchup. Numbers favor him but the luck favor more of the courageous ones, great players with heart which can
never be measured but you can count them on their fingers.

First of all...did you actually RESEARCH those games you brought up?

In game seven of the '68 ECF's, Wilt, who normally TOUCHED the ball on the offensive end, around 15 times per quarter in that season, had NINE TOUCHES in the ENTIRE second half, and only TWO in the last quarter (and both of those came on offensive rebounds.) And, while he was NOT getting the ball, his teammates collective shot 33% in that game...a 100-96 loss. Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain played the last FIVE games of that series with an ASSORTMENT of injuries, including a tear in his calf...and was NOTICEABLY limping throughout those games. Even Russell acknowledged that a "lessor man would not have played." AND, as we KNOW, neither Reed, nor Kareem, would have played under those same circumstances.

Taking himself out of a game? The man INJURED his leg. The SAME leg that would require major surgery early on in the very next season. Furthermore, he ASKED to go back in within a couple of minutes...and his COACH REFUSED.

Not taking advantage of Reed? He battled the MVP Reed to a draw in the first four games...and before Reed came up with his injury in game five. And, in that game seven, despite what you may have read (and you can watch that game on YouTube BTW), Chamberlain was SWARMED by the Knicks. Not to mention that even West went to hell in that game. In fact, Wilt was the ONLY Laker who played decent. And a 21 point game, on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds, and with Reed putting up a 4 point game, on 2-5 shooting, with 3 rebounds? Of course, you fail to mention one key FACT. Wilt was playing only FOUR MONTHS removed from MAJOR KNEE SURGERY. The SAME surgery that took Baylor over a YEAR to semi-completely recover from.

Speaking of courageous..., Wilt came back WAY AHEAD of even the most optomistic medical opinion in that season, so that he could HELP his TEAMMATES in the playoffs.

Yep...that was Wilt the "choker", the "loser", and the "failure."

D-Wade316

11-17-2011, 06:16 AM

BTW, in Wilt's 11 post-season games in that 64-65 season, he averaged 29.3 ppg on .530 shooting, in a league that shot .426. And, in his seven games against Russell, he averaged 30 ppg and 31 rpg. I have never seen his FG% in that series against Russell, but in the game seven, one point loss, Chamberlain put up a 30 point game, on 12-15 shooting from the floor, with 32 rebounds. Of course, the "anti-Wilt clan" will point to Wilt's 6-13 from the line and blame WILT for that loss. Oh, and BTW, in the last 36 secs, Wilt went 2-2 from the line, as well as a thunderous dunk over Russell with five seconds left.
Understatement. If only Havlicek didn't stole the ball.

Rooster

11-17-2011, 06:16 AM

First of all...did you actually RESEARCH those games you brought up?

In game seven of the '68 ECF's, Wilt, who normally TOUCHED the ball on the offensive end, around 15 times per quarter in that season, had NINE TOUCHES in the ENTIRE second half, and only TWO in the last quarter (and both of those came on offensive rebounds.) And, while he was NOT getting the ball, his teammates collective shot 33% in that game...a 100-96 loss. Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain played the last FIVE games of that series with an ASSORTMENT of injuries, including a tear in his calf...and was NOTICEABLY limping throughout those games. Even Russell acknowledged that a "lessor man would not have played." AND, as we KNOW, neither Reed, nor Kareem, would have played under those same circumstances.

Taking himself out of a game? The man INJURED his leg. The SAME leg that
would require major surgery early on in the very next season. Furthermore, he ASKED to go back in within a couple of minutes...and his COACH REFUSED.

Not taking advantage of Reed? He battled the MVP Reed to a draw in the first four games...and before Reed came up with his injury in game five. And, in that game seven, despite what you may have read (and you can watch that
game on YouTube BTW), Chamberlain was SWARMED by the Knicks. Not to mention that even West went to hell in that game. In fact, Wilt was the ONLY Laker who played decent. And a 21 point game, on 10-16 shooting, with 24
rebounds, and with Reed putting up a 4 point game, on 2-5 shooting, with 3 rebounds? Of course, you fail to mention one key FACT. Wilt was playing only FOUR MONTHS removed from MAJOR KNEE SURGERY. The SAME surgery that
took Baylor over a YEAR to semi-completely recover from.

Speaking of courageous..., Wilt came back WAY AHEAD of even the most optomistic medical opinion in that season, so that he could HELP his TEAMMATES in the playoffs.

Yep...that was Wilt the "choker", the "loser", and the "failure."

You forgot to mention Wilt took down 34 rebounds with his assortment of injuries and after his team leading the series 3-1 You forgot also that his coach refused because they were playing better and they don't miss an open
man. You forgot to say Wilt was guarded by smaller forwards like Dave DeBusschere and Stallworth and missing 10-11 free throws. All in all his team was leading 3-1, 3-2 and 2-2 with other team MVP not playing. I dunno if you call that choking or lack of killer instinct. You know, just a couple of Wilt shortcomings compare to thousands of his amazing numbers.

ThaRegul8r

11-17-2011, 06:53 AM

Look, I consider you one of the most knowledgeable posters on this site (if not THE most.) But, you get almost as defensive with Russell, as I do with Wilt.

Tu quoque?

Categorically false.

#1) I do not post in every single thread in which Russell's name is mentioned. In fact, I don't post as much as most of the regular posters here, and I hadn't posted much of anything until recently, which is usually several posts during whenever it is I happen to come here, then it'll be a while before I appear again. I've been a member of this site twice as long as you have, yet you have seven times the number of posts.

#2) Russell is not the only player I talk about. I have discussed others at length, and have presented information on other players. My knowledge is not limited to one player. I am capable of discussing many other players, able to intelligently discuss players from the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, and those in the 21st century, though I find it less interesting to discuss the same people everyone else talks about all the time. I have a database which I've spent over three decades (longer than the majority of the posters on this site have even been alive, let alone following basketball) compiling everything I know into a definitive reference, putting anything I might want at any particular time right at my fingertips, which is why I'm able to continually produce information no one else is aware of, and know things no one else knows (such as the quote I referenced).

#3) I do not go round and round and round and round and round (etc.) with people about the same thing, posting the exact same response repeatedly. I do not spend a prolonged amount of time on the ignorant or uninformed. It is not true of me that people will say things solely to bait me, knowing that as sure as the sun rises and falls, that I will come on, see it, take the bait and respond in an utterly predictable manner.

#4) I have never once displaced some battle I've had with people over the decades onto innocent people who have nothing to do with it. Seeking to continue my battle with people who couldn't care less.

#5) I have never in my life stated one thing that I didn't have proof of. I have never uttered anything I wasn't sure of, just because I would like it to be true. I never go off of what anyone else says, because other people are not as reliable as myself, nor are they as stringent about ensuring any claims are factually accurate. I go solely off information I myself have gathered and know to be true.

#6) I don't insult the intelligence of someone who clearly demonstrates that he knows what he is talking about, or treat them like some other ignorant poster who doesn't know what he's talking about, has never seen the players he's talking about or bothered to do the research.

#7) I do not feel the need to tear down another player in order to make my favorite player look good. I have no interest in tearing down other players. The only thing I tear down is falsehoods and inaccuracies, and I do so very thoroughly. Though after having done this since the advent of the internet and seeing the general audience get no more knowledgeable as a whole, I've begun to question just how much good I've actually done and whether it's worth continuing. I know what I know, and there's not much point in engaging in debate with anonymous strangers.

I think that's enough for now, but, with all due respect, as far as how we are concerning the players in question, we are nothing alike.

(rest snipped.)

So, if you want an apology, I will be more than glad to give you one. You are one of the few posters here that I truly respect. And I also appreciate the information that you bring to us, as well.

To be frank, since I'm not one for BS'ing, I find it rather tiring, honestly.

Here's what the pattern's always been since my first encounter with you:

You'll praise me for being knowledgeable, you'll especially give me kudos if I've posted something favorable about Wilt you didn't know, which you'll save and cite later; then later at some point you'll get heated and rip me/jump on me with the same copy-and-pasted response you give "Wilt haters"/insult my intelligence by pasting something as if you're somehow telling me something I don't already know, or as if I'm some guy who never saw any of the players in question and thus needs you to present me with "the facts," because then in your eyes I've become one of "THEM" who you've been waging war against for so long; then you'll apologize, after which point we're back at square one.

I've never been big on praise, because if there's anything I've learned during my time on this planet, it's that the people who praise you one minute, will rip you the next. It doesn't matter whether it's someone close to you, or some guy on the internet. I've never been big on words period, because while I've come to the conclusion that it might be possible one might genuinely be sincere at the moment, once the moment passes, what they said at another time no longer applies once they're in a different moment. So, no, you don't need to apologize (again).

Wilt's your idol, you've been fighting a battle for Wilt against the world for decades. It's a touchy subject with you. I simply will not reply in a topic in which you're discussing Wilt. I can't control you, but I can control me. Those who know better have a greater responsibility.

And with that, I take my leave from this subject.

D-Wade316

11-17-2011, 07:00 AM

Tu quoque?

Categorically false.

#1) I do not post in every single thread in which Russell's name is mentioned. In fact, I don't post as much as most of the regular posters here, and I hadn't posted much of anything until recently, which is usually several posts during whenever it is I happen to come here, then it'll be a while before I appear again. I've been a member of this site twice as long as you have, yet you have seven times the number of posts.

#2) Russell is not the only player I talk about. I have discussed others at length, and have presented information on other players. My knowledge is not limited to one player. I am capable of discussing many other players, able to intelligently discuss players from the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, and those in the 21st century, though I find it less interesting to discuss the same people everyone else talks about all the time. I have a database which I've spent over three decades (longer than the majority of the posters on this site have even been alive, let alone following basketball) compiling everything I know into a definitive reference, putting anything I might want at any particular time right at my fingertips, which is why I'm able to continually produce information no one else is aware of, and know things no one else knows (such as the quote I referenced).

#3) I do not go round and round and round and round and round (etc.) with people about the same thing, posting the exact same response repeatedly. I do not spend a prolonged amount of time on the ignorant or uninformed. It is not true of me that people will say things solely to bait me, knowing that as sure as the sun rises and falls, that I will come on, see it, take the bait and respond in an utterly predictable manner.

#4) I have never once displaced some battle I've had with people over the decades onto innocent people who have nothing to do with it. Seeking to continue my battle with people who couldn't care less.

#5) I have never in my life stated one thing that I didn't have proof of. I have never uttered anything I wasn't sure of, just because I would like it to be true. I never go off of what anyone else says, because other people are not as reliable as myself, nor are they as stringent about ensuring any claims are factually accurate. I go solely off information I myself have gathered and know to be true.

#6) I don't insult the intelligence of someone who clearly demonstrates that he knows what he is talking about, or treat them like some other ignorant poster who doesn't know what he's talking about, has never seen the players he's talking about or bothered to do the research.

#7) I do not feel the need to tear down another player in order to make my favorite player look good. I have no interest in tearing down other players. The only thing I tear down is falsehoods and inaccuracies, and I do so very thoroughly. Though after having done this since the advent of the internet and seeing the general audience get no more knowledgeable as a whole, I've begun to question just how much good I've actually done and whether it's worth continuing. I know what I know, and there's not much point in engaging in debate with anonymous strangers.

I think that's enough for now, but, with all due respect, as far as how we are concerning the players in question, we are nothing alike.

To be frank, since I'm not one for BS'ing, I find it rather tiring, honestly.

Here's what the pattern's always been since my first encounter with you:

You'll praise me for being knowledgeable, you'll especially give me kudos if I've posted something favorable about Wilt you didn't know, which you'll save and cite later; then later at some point you'll get heated and rip me/jump on me with the same copy-and-pasted response you give "Wilt haters"/insult my intelligence by pasting something as if you're somehow telling me something I don't already know, or as if I'm some guy who never saw any of the players in question and thus needs you to present me with "the facts," because then in your eyes I've become one of "THEM" who you've been waging war against for so long; then you'll apologize, after which point we're back at square one.

I've never been big on praise, because if there's anything I've learned during my time on this planet, it's that the people who praise you one minute, will rip you the next. It doesn't matter whether it's someone close to you, or some guy on the internet. I've never been big on words period, because while I've come to the conclusion that it might be possible one might genuinely be sincere at the moment, once the moment passes, what they said at another time no longer applies once they're in a different moment. So, no, you don't need to apologize (again).

Wilt's your idol, you've been fighting a battle for Wilt against the world for decades. It's a touchy subject with you. I simply will not reply in a topic in which you're discussing Wilt. I can't control you, but I can control me. Those who know better have a greater responsibility.

And with that, I take my leave from this subject.
If you could, please send me a zipped folder of your compiled references/data. Would greatly appreciate that. Send it through my email.

Kblaze8855

11-17-2011, 07:24 AM

You'll praise me for being knowledgeable, you'll especially give me kudos if I've posted something favorable about Wilt you didn't know, which you'll save and cite later; then later at some point you'll get heated and rip me/jump on me with the same copy-and-pasted response you give "Wilt haters"/insult my intelligence by pasting something as if you're somehow telling me something I don't already know

Pretty Much. He(as are quite a few fans who take their support of individual players to a laughable extreme) decides how intelligent you are from one moment to the next based on little but if your current words can be taken to support his guy or not. Hes quoted things I said with the little cheers emoticons and props and all....and some other time im a Wilt hater. Despite the fact ive been here for 10 years mostly defending Wilt when hes hated on.

Not that such things are limited to him.

While back I came up on a list of the worst Lebron haters...the same day some other guy said I was the biggest Lebron fan here.

ISH can be funny in that way....

eliteballer

11-17-2011, 09:51 AM

The widening of the lane had NO affect on Wilt.

Check his pre and post lane extension playoff numbers and get back to me on that.

jlauber

11-17-2011, 10:10 AM

You forgot to mention Wilt took down 34 rebounds with his assortment of injuries and after his team leading the series 3-1 You forgot also that his coach refused because they were playing better and they don't miss an open
man. You forgot to say Wilt was guarded by smaller forwards like Dave DeBusschere and Stallworth and missing 10-11 free throws. All in all his team was leading 3-1, 3-2 and 2-2 with other team MVP not playing. I dunno if you call that choking or lack of killer instinct. You know, just a couple of Wilt shortcomings compare to thousands of his amazing numbers.

And you forgot to mention that Wilt's TEAM was DECIMATED by injuries, including Wilt himself, who PLAYED with his. And, yes, 34 rebounds (to Russell's 26), all while battling an assortment of injuries. Instead of getting some kind of praise for a pretty amazing accomplishment, you rip him for supposedly losing the game.

In '69 they were playing better without Wilt? From about the ten minute mark, when LA trailed by 17 points, to the around the six minute mark, when Wilt left the floor, LA had cut the margin down to seven points. That was 10 points in about 3-4 minutes. Boston was clearly out of gas by that point, too. BTW, watch footage of that game...early in the 4th quarter, and after Russell had picked up his 5th foul, the Lakers go into Wilt, who goes right around Russell for an easy basket. That would be about the last time he would get the ball.

Of course, PHILA found a classic quote from coach Van Breda Kolf, "When we pass the ball into Wilt, he will score. But it is an ugly offense to watch." And the brilliant Van Breda Kolf kept Wilt on the bench, and rode the great Mel Counts down the stretch. No wonder then, that after LA lost that game, he was promptly fired, and his career was basically over.

In the '70 Finals, it was tied 2-2, and LA was BEATING NY by TEN points, when Reed went down with his injury. However, helped by questionable officiating in that second half (and none other than NY Times writer Leonard Koppett made that comment), the Knicks came back from 13 down at the half to win the game. How suspect was that officiating? Wilt took three shots, and West, two shots, in that second half. Koppett claimed that both were allowed to be mauled in that second half. So, had there been a semblance of balanced officiating, Wilt's 45-27 (on 20-27 shooting) game six might have been the series winner.

But once again, this was a Wilt who was nowhere near 100%. I invite you to watch game seven of the '70 Finals on YouTube, and then the clinching game five of the '72 Finals, and compare the two Wilt's.

Of course, there was that Wilt DOUBLE STANDARD, in which he was EXPECTED to do much more. He couldn't use injuries, or poor play by teammates, or horrible coaching, or poor officiating, or miraculous shots and plays by opposing players, as excuses. He was expected to beat teams by himself (even at less than 100%.)

jlauber

11-17-2011, 10:16 AM

Check his pre and post lane extension playoff numbers and get back to me on that.

In 63-64, Wilt averaged 36.9 ppg on .524 shooting. In the playoffs, he averaged 34.7 ppg on .543 shooting. and he faced Russell in five of his 12 playoff games, and averaged 29 ppg on .517 shooting.

In the 64-65 season, he averaged 34.7 ppg on .510 on .510 shooting. In the playoffs, he averaged 29.3 ppg on .530 shooting, with seven of his 11 playoff games against Russell (and he hung a 30-31 series on Russell.)

In 65-66, he averaged 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting. In the five game playoff series against RUSSELL, he averaged 28 ppg on .509 shooting.

Oh, and BTW, and as always, he ELEVATED his rebounding.

Of course, he faced a HOF starting center in 99 of his 160 playoff games. And because he played with mostly inept rosters, he only played 52 games in his "scoring" prime, including not even making the playoffs in the season in which he averaged 44.8 on .528 shooting. Incidently, in those 52 games in his "scoring" seasons, he faced Russell in 30 of them. Is it any wonder then, why Wilt's offensive production declined somewhat?

So, if you are somehow suggesting that Wilt declined SIGNIFICANTLY, I sure don't see it. Especially when you factor in his playoff opposing centers.

Pointguard

11-17-2011, 12:56 PM

Think is Chamberlain is very disproportional (stilt nickname), his legs are long and lean, and his torso is not as balanced as the rest of his body. He tooks "tall" but not proportional. Shaq on the otherhand looked proportional and hence why he was able to staff of injuries for much of his career. Shaq has a lower center of gravity, and could easily overpower any center in any era, regardless of when he was born. No doubt, if he played in the 60's he'd still retain much of his athleticism since the nature of his body would allow him to.

The speed of the game, the lack of rest, the four back to backs, the cramped hotel rooms, six hours in airports, cold arenas, hot arenas, freezing locker-rooms, stretching not being a science, stress of getting hit, and off court stresses would have broke Shaq down. He wasn't that durable with all of the pampering now and averaged about 65 games a year without a complete year and 12 years where he missed more than 10 games. Wilt was an iron man when stretching wasn't a science - I would have him as the greatest iron man in the sport. Shaq's weight, without stretching is a 10 game disaster.

Wilt's long legs would be a disadvantage in boxing out for rebounding. Charles Barkley always said his butt against somebody's legs would win everytime. He definitely was special for his size but he definitely wasn't Chamberlain on the boards either. KG has a high center of gravity and he lead the league in rebounding while sometimes guarding small forwards and being very good on help defense (he wasn't in the best position to get rebounds -but he wanted it more than the next guy). Rebounding is more about who wants to go get it.

With today's rules, Wilt would have the most devasting first and last steps the game every had cause his leg length was crazy (stretching also increases explosion considerably). Back then they didn't allow hops, baby steps, Shaq shuffles, and called the game very tight on Wilt. Of 7 footers, the ironmen are Gilmore, Kareem, KG, Wilt and Parrish all of which had longer legs than torso (maybe not Parrish), sobeit, not to the extent of Wilt. Of the Shaq types: Oliver Miller :lol They would suffer in bad conditions.