Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

[N0Skillz]

Why do people put MJ ahead of Wilt, but put Wilt ahead of Magic, Bird, Kobe?


I say if you want wilt in your top 10 then you have to put him at number 1 and russell at 2.


You cant put MJ ahead of Wilt if Magic, bird,and Kareem arn't ahead of him.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TgPctAEx4sk/TB5XM75dfiI/AAAAAAAAAFw/hByiB5rQpsQ/s1600/drunkposting.gif

[FadeAwayJ13]

Drunken Friday night post?

[N0Skillz]

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ITS TRUE


FCK WILT AND RUSSELL THOSE WEAK ASS ERA SHT HEADS

[crosso√er]

Jordan's ability to carry his team to championships (6) and win finals MVP (6) is what puts him above Wilt. To me, Wilt is the most dominant performer in league history but his inability to get past Boston hurts his chances at being #1.

I have Jordan (1), Kareem (2) & Wilt (3). I can't really grasp how anyone can have a different three players in their top three besides Magic Johnson and Bill Russell. Magic's resume is legendary and his career was cut short; he is probably the most valuable player of All-Time at what he did on the basketball court. Russell is the epitome of a perfect career; at the end it's all about winning the championship and being at the top of the world. The man has done so almost every year of his NBA career, you can not deny his greatness.

Then you have guys like Larry Bird, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Mosses Malone. Out of that group; I'd only really put Bird & maybe Shaq on that prestigious pantheon.

Only Kareem has had as complete of a career as Jordan has had; in terms of impact, playoff performances, championships, defensive prowess and personal accolades...Kareem is right there with Michael; Wilt falls drastically short in the championship department.

[ballerz]

I put wilt below mj, Bird, Magic, Kareem. he just put up empty numbers

[L.Kizzle]

Jordan's ability to carry his team to championships (6) and win finals MVP (6) is what puts him above Wilt. To me, Wilt is the most dominant performer in league history but his inability to get past Boston hurts his chances at being #1.

I have Jordan (1), Kareem (2) & Wilt (3). I can't really grasp how anyone can have a different three players in their top three besides Magic Johnson and Bill Russell. Magic's resume is legendary and his career was cut short; he is probably the most valuable player of All-Time at what he did on the basketball court. Russell is the epitome of a perfect career; at the end it's all about winning the championship and being at the top of the world. The man has done so almost every year of his NBA career, you can not deny his greatness.

Then you have guys like Larry Bird, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Mosses Malone. Out of that group; I'd only really put Bird & maybe Shaq on that prestigious pantheon.

Only Kareem has had as complete of a career as Jordan has had; in terms of impact, playoff performances, championships, defensive prowess and personal accolades...Kareem is right there with Michael; Wilt falls drastically short in the championship department.
Nobody gt past Boston. It's not like other were doin' in, but Wilt got stopped. No, he got stopped like everyone else.

Who did Jordan get past, a last season Magic Johnson, last great season Clyde Drexler and Charles Barkley. A not yet prime Gary Payton? Kemp and Malone were the only players at their absolute prime against the Bulls.

Hell, come come Russell isn't number one? He beat Pettit, Baylor, West, Wilt, Robertson all in the prime of his career. That's fove top 15 players.

Jordan beat two top 15 players, and only one (Shaq) could be considered in his prime. Jordan beat a bunch of top 20 and beyond players

[TheMan]

I don't know about Wilt over MJ but really if you look at what players are mentioned as GOAT, it's usually between MJ, Wilt, Kareem, Russell, Magic or even Bird.
Most believe MJ is the GOAT and coincidently, he is by far the shortest of those five legends.That is impressive IMO.

[Collie]

Because majority of people view Wilt as a statpadder who was tangibly the greatest ever, but intangibly, maybe the most flawed. Now, I don't necessarily agree with that, but that is the commonly held view of Wilt. he's the living epitome that stats matter little in the larger scheme of things.

[Stuckey]

in b4 jlauber's novel

i dont know anyone who puts wilt ahead of mj

kareem i can understand

[gengiskhan]

Who did Jordan get past, a last season Magic Johnson, last great season Clyde Drexler and Charles Barkley. A not yet prime Gary Payton? Kemp and Malone were the only players at their absolute prime against the Bulls.

Jordan beat two top 15 players, and only one (Shaq) could be considered in his prime. Jordan beat a bunch of top 20 and beyond players

What a dumb retard!!!

1991 Magic: Runner Up MVP. (31 yrs)
1992 Clyde: Runner Up MVP consider equal to MJ (30 Yrs)
1993 Barkley: NBA Reg Sea MVP (30 Yrs)
1996 Payton: NBA DPOY in his prime
1996 Kemp: Runner up MVP & his best season ever.
1997 Malone: NBA Reg Sea MVP
1998 Malone: Runner up MVP
1997 Stockton: Best PG in the NBA & Assist Leader
1998 Stockton: Best PG in the NBA & Assist Leader & his best NBA season Ever.

MJ denied everyone ring except Hakeem. All these guys who lost to MJ were in their peak or prime & in their best years including Ewing, Mourning.

MJ was just a beast. It aint like Today's Gay NBA league where Kobe dont even face MVPs or Runner up MVPs in NBA Finals & still manages to loose to aging celtics.

[TheMan]

Nobody gt past Boston. It's not like other were doin' in, but Wilt got stopped. No, he got stopped like everyone else.

Who did Jordan get past, a last season Magic Johnson, last great season Clyde Drexler and Charles Barkley. A not yet prime Gary Payton? Kemp and Malone were the only players at their absolute prime against the Bulls.

Hell, come come Russell isn't number one? He beat Pettit, Baylor, West, Wilt, Robertson all in the prime of his career. That's fove top 15 players.

Jordan beat two top 15 players, and only one (Shaq) could be considered in his prime. Jordan beat a bunch of top 20 and beyond players
That's really nit picking.
You can add Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, Alonzo Mourning, Reggie Miller, Isaiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Anfernee Hardaway...all players he beat in the Finals or on his way to the Finals.

[Stuckey]

i hate the lakers but cmon that last jab was weak

bynum ariza injured, pau + odom's sacks shrank, a bit of sneaky fouling on kobe

but yeah that game 6 i dont even have words for, that was one of the happiest moments of my life, made nice bank and partied like a rock star because of it, god bless the celtics but i think god is a boston sports fan already

[L.Kizzle]

What a dumb retard!!!

1991 Magic: Runner Up MVP. (31 yrs)
1992 Clyde: Runner Up MVP consider equal to MJ (30 Yrs)
1993 Barkley: NBA Reg Sea MVP (30 Yrs)
1996 Payton: NBA DPOY in his prime
1996 Kemp: Runner up MVP & his best season ever.
1997 Malone: NBA Reg Sea MVP
1998 Malone: Runner up MVP
1997 Stockton: Best PG in the NBA & Assist Leader
1998 Stockton: Best PG in the NBA & Assist Leader & his best NBA season Ever.

MJ denied everyone ring except Hakeem. All these guys who lost to MJ were in their peak or prime & in their best years including Ewing, Mourning.

MJ was just a beast. It aint like Today's Gay NBA league where Kobe dont even face MVPs or Runner up MVPs in NBA Finals & still manages to loose to aging celtics.


That's really nit picking.
You can add Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, Alonzo Mourning, Reggie Miller, Isaiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Anfernee Hardaway...all players he beat in the Finals or on his way to the Finals.
Are they top 15, I said he beat player top 20 and beyond.

Jordan couldn't get past prime Bird, prime Isiah Thomas, this is a fact not opinion. I'll give him Magic, though we know 1991 wasn't the same as mid 80s Magic, still a top 5 player in the league at that time.

The same with Barkley in 1993.

Clyde Drexler is my favorite player ever, but like you said he was (considered) Jordan's equal but we all know what happened in the 92 Finals.

[TheMan]

One more thing, Russell should never be considered #1 because he was never the Celtics best offensive player, his teams were stacked with All Stars and he was basically a defensive center.I'm not trying to lessen what Russell did but I think Shaq was a better player than Russell.

[L.Kizzle]

One more thing, Russell should never be considered #1 because he was never the Celtics best offensive player, his teams were stacked with All Stars and he was basically a defensive center.I'm not trying to lessen what Russell did but I think Shaq was a better player than Russell.
Celtics before Russell = out in the 1st round playoffs
The next season = NBA Champs


Celtic after Russell = no playoffs
The season before = NBA Champs

[The Iron Fist]

What a dumb retard!!!

1991 Magic: Runner Up MVP. (31 yrs)
1992 Clyde: Runner Up MVP consider equal to MJ (30 Yrs)
1993 Barkley: NBA Reg Sea MVP (30 Yrs)
1996 Payton: NBA DPOY in his prime
1996 Kemp: Runner up MVP & his best season ever.
1997 Malone: NBA Reg Sea MVP
1998 Malone: Runner up MVP
1997 Stockton: Best PG in the NBA & Assist Leader
1998 Stockton: Best PG in the NBA & Assist Leader & his best NBA season Ever.

MJ denied everyone ring except Hakeem. All these guys who lost to MJ were in their peak or prime & in their best years including Ewing, Mourning.

MJ was just a beast. It aint like Today's Gay NBA league where Kobe dont even face MVPs or Runner up MVPs in NBA Finals & still manages to loose to aging celtics.

2000: Reggie Miller MVP contention
2001: Allen Iverson MVP Dikembe Motumbo DPOY
2002: Jason Kidd Runner Up MVP, most people felt Kidd was screwed over for that award.
2004: Ben Wallace Runner up DPOY
2008: Kevin Garnett DPOY, 3rd in MVP voting, Pierce FMVP, Allen Top 5 in 3pfg and ft%
2009: Howard DPOY, 4th MVP voting
2010: Boston Celtics, best starting 5 in the league with former MVP and DPOY, FMVP and 3 time 3pfg made winner.

So in reality, Jordan only faced an MVP or DPOY 3 times in the finals. Kobe on the other hand, faced 3 DPOY and one of those DPOY was also a teammate of the MVP for that season.

[TheMan]

Are they top 15, I said he beat player top 20 and beyond.

Jordan couldn't get past prime Bird, prime Isiah Thomas, this is a fact not opinion. I'll give him Magic, though we know 1991 wasn't the same as mid 80s Magic, still a top 5 player in the league at that time.

The same with Barkley in 1993.

Clyde Drexler is my favorite player ever, but like you said he was (considered) Jordan's equal but we all know what happened in the 92 Finals.
That's weak, MJ couldn't get passed "prime" Bird or "prime" Thomas not because of MJ, shit, MJ had 63 pts and I believe 48 pts in that playoff series vs the 86 Celtics, the eventual champs, what more could've MJ done?THE BULLS WEREN'T READY TO COMPETE, MJ WAS PUTTING UP GAUDY STATS THOSE YEARS, EVEN AGAINST THE VAUNTED PISTONS DEFENSE WITH EVERYONE IN DETROIT FOCUSED ON STOPPING #23, HE STILL HAD BIG PLAYOFF GAMES, AGAIN, THE BULLS WEREN'T READY YET.It's a team game and if MJ would've been drafted by the Lakers or Celtics, how many titles would've he had in the 80's?

[yeaaaman]

That's weak, MJ couldn't get passed "prime" Bird or "prime" Thomas not because of MJ, shit, MJ had 63 pts and I believe 48 pts in that playoff series vs the 86 Celtics, the eventual champs, what more could've MJ done?THE BULLS WEREN'T READY TO COMPETE, MJ WAS PUTTING UP GAUDY STATS THOSE YEARS, EVEN AGAINST THE VAUNTED PISTONS DEFENSE WITH EVERYONE IN DETROIT FOCUSED ON STOPPING #23, HE STILL HAD BIG PLAYOFF GAMES, AGAIN, THE BULLS WEREN'T READY YET.It's a team game and if MJ would've been drafted by the Lakers or Celtics, how many titles would've he had in the 80's?

Forget the team game part, this is about MJ not being able to beat the Celtics or the Pistons. If he were to be GOAT he would need to have won a title every year he played for the Bulls. That would probably be sufficient

[L.Kizzle]

That's weak, MJ couldn't get passed "prime" Bird or "prime" Thomas not because of MJ, shit, MJ had 63 pts and I believe 48 pts in that playoff series vs the 86 Celtics, the eventual champs, what more could've MJ done?THE BULLS WEREN'T READY TO COMPETE, MJ WAS PUTTING UP GAUDY STATS THOSE YEARS, EVEN AGAINST THE VAUNTED PISTONS DEFENSE WITH EVERYONE IN DETROIT FOCUSED ON STOPPING #23, HE STILL HAD BIG PLAYOFF GAMES, AGAIN, THE BULLS WEREN'T READY YET.It's a team game and if MJ would've been drafted by the Lakers or Celtics, how many titles would've he had in the 80's?
Wait, didn't Wilt put up godly number too? And he always lost to the eventual champs the Celtics right ...

[Stuckey]

Forget the team game part, this is about MJ not being able to beat the Celtics or the Pistons. If he were to be GOAT he would need to have won a title every year he played for the Bulls. That would probably be sufficient

thanks for being the next member on my ignore list club

i was looking for new recruits

[Bigsmoke]

Nobody gt past Boston. It's not like other were doin' in, but Wilt got stopped. No, he got stopped like everyone else.

Who did Jordan get past, a last season Magic Johnson, last great season Clyde Drexler and Charles Barkley. A not yet prime Gary Payton? Kemp and Malone were the only players at their absolute prime against the Bulls.

Hell, come come Russell isn't number one? He beat Pettit, Baylor, West, Wilt, Robertson all in the prime of his career. That's fove top 15 players.

Jordan beat two top 15 players, and only one (Shaq) could be considered in his prime. Jordan beat a bunch of top 20 and beyond players

Magic retired because of the HIV. Not because he was old.

[yeaaaman]

thanks for being the next member on my ignore list club

i was looking for new recruits

I don't think I've ever interacted with you on this forum in my life. Take care

[L.Kizzle]

Magic retired because of the HIV. Not because he was old.
You bullshittin ?

[colts19]

That's weak, MJ couldn't get passed "prime" Bird or "prime" Thomas not because of MJ, shit, MJ had 63 pts and I believe 48 pts in that playoff series vs the 86 Celtics, the eventual champs, what more could've MJ done?THE BULLS WEREN'T READY TO COMPETE, MJ WAS PUTTING UP GAUDY STATS THOSE YEARS, EVEN AGAINST THE VAUNTED PISTONS DEFENSE WITH EVERYONE IN DETROIT FOCUSED ON STOPPING #23, HE STILL HAD BIG PLAYOFF GAMES, AGAIN, THE BULLS WEREN'T READY YET.It's a team game and if MJ would've been drafted by the Lakers or Celtics, how many titles would've he had in the 80's?

People say Wilt put up empty stats then list the empty stats MJ put up to try to prove his greatness. I guess MJ fans can have it both ways.:hammerhead: :hammerhead:

[nycelt84]

One more thing, Russell should never be considered #1 because he was never the Celtics best offensive player, his teams were stacked with All Stars and he was basically a defensive center.I'm not trying to lessen what Russell did but I think Shaq was a better player than Russell.

Considering that the Celtics were the worst offensive team most seasons after the retirements of Cousy/Sharman, offense was the least of Russell or the Celtics worries.

[jlip]

What a dumb retard!!!

1991 Magic: Runner Up MVP. (31 yrs)
1992 Clyde: Runner Up MVP consider equal to MJ (30 Yrs)
1993 Barkley: NBA Reg Sea MVP (30 Yrs)
1996 Payton: NBA DPOY in his prime
1996 Kemp: Runner up MVP & his best season ever.
1997 Malone: NBA Reg Sea MVP
1998 Malone: Runner up MVP
1997 Stockton: Best PG in the NBA & Assist Leader
1998 Stockton: Best PG in the NBA & Assist Leader & his best NBA season Ever.

MJ denied everyone ring except Hakeem. All these guys who lost to MJ were in their peak or prime & in their best years including Ewing, Mourning.

MJ was just a beast. It aint like Today's Gay NBA league where Kobe dont even face MVPs or Runner up MVPs in NBA Finals & still manages to loose to aging celtics.


:confusedshrug:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Are they top 15, I said he beat player top 20 and beyond.

Jordan couldn't get past prime Bird, prime Isiah Thomas, this is a fact not opinion. I'll give him Magic, though we know 1991 wasn't the same as mid 80s Magic, still a top 5 player in the league at that time.

I'd probably take 1991 Magic over any pre-'87 version. By '87, I mean the 1986-1987 season.


What a dumb retard!!!

1991 Magic: Runner Up MVP. (31 yrs)
1992 Clyde: Runner Up MVP consider equal to MJ (30 Yrs)
1993 Barkley: NBA Reg Sea MVP (30 Yrs)
1996 Payton: NBA DPOY in his prime
1996 Kemp: Runner up MVP & his best season ever.
1997 Malone: NBA Reg Sea MVP
1998 Malone: Runner up MVP
1997 Stockton: Best PG in the NBA & Assist Leader
1998 Stockton: Best PG in the NBA & Assist Leader & his best NBA season Ever.

MJ denied everyone ring except Hakeem. All these guys who lost to MJ were in their peak or prime & in their best years including Ewing, Mourning.

MJ was just a beast. It aint like Today's Gay NBA league where Kobe dont even face MVPs or Runner up MVPs in NBA Finals & still manages to loose to aging celtics.

Ewing's best year by far was 1990 when he lost to Detroit. And honestly, Jordan's casts always had considerably more talent than Ewing's. The fact that Ewing took his 51 win Knicks team to a 7th game vs Jordan's 67 win Bulls in '92 is impressive.

Zo's best years were '99 and '00.

Stockton was not the best point guard in 1997 or 1998, and he didn't lead the NBA in assists either year. And those were definitely not his best years either. 1998 was nowhere near Stockton's best season.

Shawn Kemp was NOT runner up MVP either in 1996, he finished 8th in voting, was not among the 4 players who received a first place vote and was on the all-nba second team.

[D-Wade316]

2000: Reggie Miller MVP contention
2001: Allen Iverson MVP Dikembe Motumbo DPOY
2002: Jason Kidd Runner Up MVP, most people felt Kidd was screwed over for that award.
2004: Ben Wallace Runner up DPOY
2008: Kevin Garnett DPOY, 3rd in MVP voting, Pierce FMVP, Allen Top 5 in 3pfg and ft%
2009: Howard DPOY, 4th MVP voting
2010: Boston Celtics, best starting 5 in the league with former MVP and DPOY, FMVP and 3 time 3pfg made winner.

So in reality, Jordan only faced an MVP or DPOY 3 times in the finals. Kobe on the other hand, faced 3 DPOY and one of those DPOY was also a teammate of the MVP for that season.
Kobe didn't even led the 3-peat Lakers:facepalm He also wasn't the target of Detroit's suffocating defense, Shaq was.

Howard let LA score 100+ throughout the series. There defense was nowhere to be seen on that series.

He choked, but thanks to his team, he won.

:no:

[gengiskhan]

Kobe on the other hand, faced 3 DPOY and one of those DPOY was also a teammate of the MVP for that season.

dumb faaaak

kobe sucked Shaq's Weeweee for 3 rings.

Its Shaq's sheer Dominance & unstoppability got Kobe 3 rings.

Kobe just piggybacked shaq for first 3 rings.

Its shaq who faced 3 x DPOY as every finals D was created to stop Shaq's dominance & dunks & let kobe score from outside.

Kobe got nothing on MJ. MJ's first 3 peat = Shaq's first 3 peat.

Both much superior to 2nd fiddle Kobe "scottie pippen" Bryant.

[gengiskhan]

Kobe didn't even led the 3-peat Lakers:facepalm He also wasn't the target of Detroit's suffocating defense, Shaq was.

Howard let LA score 100+ throughout the series. There defense was nowhere to be seen on that series.

He choked, but thanks to his team, he won.

:no:

agreed.

FACT 1: Kobe NEVER faced his equal in NBA Finals (Wade, Lebron). MJ did (Drexler, Magic). Kobe's finals wins are a joke compared to MJs.

FACT 2: NBA MVP Kobe Bryant got OWNED by paul pierce, not even Top 5 MVP candidates in 2008

FACT 3: MVP Iverson butt raped Kobe in 2000 NBA Finals scoring left right center.

FACT 4: Kobe owned again by good SG Billups in 2004 Finals as Billips raped kobe for 2004 Finals MVP

FACT 5: Howard's Magic was the weakest amateur team made it to finals. So kobe finally wins his ring as "da man" Big f'ing deal.

FACT 6: Kobe CANNNOOOOTTTT win NBA Finals without dominant all star Big Men & also looses Finals with dominant Big Men despite being heavy favorites to win it all.

[TheMan]

Forget the team game part, this is about MJ not being able to beat the Celtics or the Pistons. If he were to be GOAT he would need to have won a title every year he played for the Bulls. That would probably be sufficient
Well, the Bulls did eventually sweep the Pistons in the ECF the year they won their first title so I don't know what you mean that MJ didn't beat the Pistons.

[jlauber]

People say Wilt put up empty stats then list the empty stats MJ put up to try to prove his greatness. I guess MJ fans can have it both ways.:hammerhead: :hammerhead:

Great post.

I have always found it fascinating that MJ was "heroic" when he was scoring 40 ppg against the Celtics in the '85-86 playoffs, in a series in which his TEAM was SWEPT. Granted, the Bulls were a 30-52 team, and they were beaten by a 67-15 Boston team that had FIVE HOFers, BUT, those same posters rip Chamberlain here, when he took pure crap rosters to game seven one and two point losses against Boston teams that had SEVEN and SIX HOFers. Not only that, Chamberlain took a miserable last-place roster that had gone 31-49 in 62-63, to a 48-32 record in 63-64, and to the Finals, where they lost 4-1 to Russell's Celtics, who had EIGHT HOFers (and two of those losses were in the last few seconds), all while statistically dominating Russell in the process.

When did MJ win rings? When he was surrounded by teammates that could go 55-27 WITHOUT him, in watered-down leagues in which he seldom faced rosters with more than TWO HOFers.

In Chamberlain's 62-63 season, his TEAM was so bad that they didn't even make the playoffs (they went 31-49...and yet MJ's 30-52 team did make the playoffs.) The "anti-Wilt" clan will claim that was an example of Wilt's "empty" stats. Now, all Chamberlain did that season was LEAD the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories (and had categories like blocked shots, offensive and defensive rebounding, rebounding percentages, etc., existed, he would have probably led in even more)...including leading the league in scoring by a staggering 10.8 ppg (44.8 ppg to runner-up Baylor's 34.0 ppg); rebounding, at 24.3 rpg; and setting a then-record FG% mark of .528. He also LED the NBA in WIN-SHARES (and by a large margin) with 20.9...meaning he was directly responsible for 67% of his team's wins. AND, he set a PER mark of 31.8 which STILL stands. He also played 47.6 MPG that year, and in NINE H2H meetings against Russell, he outrebounded him, and outscored him by a 38-14 ppg margin. Yes, that TEAM had a losing record, but it was deceptive. They lost 35 games by single digits, and they only had a -2.1 ppg differential. How bad was that roster? Aside from Chamberlain, they collectively shot .412...which was WAY below the WORST team in the league (.427 .)

And, here again, Chamberlain took that same pathetic cast of clowns to a 48-32 record the very next season, and a trip to the Finals.

Now, using that 62-63 season as an example....when Wilt LED the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a FG% record...how about his 65-66 season, when he also LED the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a then-record FG% mark...when he led his TEAM to the BEST record in the league. What changed? It certainly wasn't Wilt. He played virtually the same way.

And the same can be said about MJ. In his early years he gunned his way to scoring titles, on relatively poor rosters. And in the 90's, he also gunned his way to scoring titles...BUT, his TEAM's won six rings. What changed?

I have no problem with those that claim MJ as the G.O.A.T...BUT, to say that he was the G.O.A.T because he won six rings, while Wilt was a "stats-padder" who couldn't beat Russell is a joke. Those same posters diminish Russell's accomplishments BECAUSE he played on HOF-laden rosters, and then slap Chamberlain BECAUSE he couldn't beat Russell's TEAMs (although, it must be noted, Chamberlain not only "beat" Russell's TEAM in '67, his TEAM CRUSHED Boston that season.)

And let's get real here. How poorly did Chamberlain play in his post-seasons? He had FOUR entire 30+ ppg - 25 rpg post-seasons. He had EIGHT 20-20 post-seasons. He had FOUR entire post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. He had MULTIPLE 30+ ppg post-season series, including THREE of 37 ppg, 37 ppg, and even 39 ppg. He also had FOUR post-season series against Russell, in which he averaged 30+ ppg, including one in which he averaged 30 ppg AND 31 rpg. He had FOUR 50+ point games, including two "elimination" games of 56-35 and 50-35 (the latter against Russell BTW.) He also had SEVERAL 40-30 games (FOUR against Russell alone), as well as a 45-27 "elimination" game against the Knicks in the '70 Finals (on 20-27 shooting), and on ONE leg. He had TWO TRIPLE-DOUBLE playoff series (including one against Russell.) He had a QUAD-DOUBLE game of 24-32-13-12 (again, against Russell.) He had a 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11 apg, .612 playoff series against the Royals, as well as the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history, when he averaged 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625 from the field against the Knicks in '70.

Wilt was seldom outscored or outshot in his 29 post-season series, and in most cases, he absolutely crushed his opposing center in those categories. AND, he was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of those 29 post-season series (in fact he was seldom outrebounded in any GAMES in those series.)

As for regular season accomplishments...there was WILT...and then there was everyone else...and they were on the other side of the Grand Canyon. Chamberlain STILL holds some 130 NBA records, and in many of them, it is by a MILE. In fact, he is the "next" guy in many of them, as well.

Were those "empty" records? Well, if you can call TWELVE winning seasons, in his 14 season career; with SIX Conference winners; SIX division winners; TWELVE trips to the Conference Finals; SIX trips to the Finals; FOUR teams with 60+ wins; FOUR teams with the BEST record in the league; TWO teams that went 68-13 and 69-13; and TWO dominating Title teams...as "empty", then yes, I guess they were "empty stats." But no more empty than NINE of MJ's seasons (FIVE of which were on losing teams)...which were the years in which his TEAM's did not win a title.

[D-Wade316]

Great post.

I have always found it fascinating that MJ was "heroic" when he was scoring 40 ppg against the Celtics in the '85-86 playoffs, in a series in which his TEAM was SWEPT. Granted, the Bulls were a 30-52 team, and they were beaten by a 67-15 Boston team that had FIVE HOFers, BUT, those same posters rip Chamberlain here, when he took pure crap rosters to game seven one and two point losses against Boston teams that had SEVEN and SIX HOFers. Not only that, Chamberlain took a miserable last-place roster that had gone 31-49 in 62-63, to a 48-32 record in 63-64, and to the Finals, where they lost 4-1 to Russell's Celtics, who had EIGHT HOFers (and two of those losses were in the last few seconds), all while statistically dominating Russell in the process.

When did MJ win rings? When he was surrounded by teammates that could go 55-27 WITHOUT him, in watered-down leagues in which he seldom faced rosters with more than TWO HOFers.

In Chamberlain's 62-63 season, his TEAM was so bad that they didn't even make the playoffs (they went 31-49...and yet MJ's 30-52 team did make the playoffs.) The "anti-Wilt" clan will claim that was an example of Wilt's "empty" stats. Now, all Chamberlain did that season was LEAD the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories (and had categories like blocked shots, offensive and defensive rebounding, rebounding percentages, etc., existed, he would have probably led in even more)...including leading the league in scoring by a staggering 10.8 ppg (44.8 ppg to runner-up Baylor's 34.0 ppg); rebounding, at 24.3 rpg; and setting a then-record FG% mark of .528. He also LED the NBA in WIN-SHARES (and by a large margin) with 20.9...meaning he was directly responsible for 67% of his team's wins. AND, he set a PER mark of 31.8 which STILL stands. He also played 47.6 MPG that year, and in NINE H2H meetings against Russell, he outrebounded him, and outscored him by a 38-14 ppg margin. Yes, that TEAM had a losing record, but it was deceptive. They lost 35 games by single digits, and they only had a -2.1 ppg differential. How bad was that roster? Aside from Chamberlain, they collectively shot .412...which was WAY below the WORST team in the league (.427 .)

And, here again, Chamberlain took that same pathetic cast of clowns to a 48-32 record the very next season, and a trip to the Finals.

Now, using that 62-63 season as an example....when Wilt LED the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a FG% record...how about his 65-66 season, when he also LED the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a then-record FG% mark...when he led his TEAM to the BEST record in the league. What changed? It certainly wasn't Wilt. He played virtually the same way.

And the same can be said about MJ. In his early years he gunned his way to scoring titles, on relatively poor rosters. And in the 90's, he also gunned his way to scoring titles...BUT, his TEAM's won six rings. What changed?

I have no problem with those that claim MJ as the G.O.A.T...BUT, to say that he was the G.O.A.T because he won six rings, while Wilt was a "stats-padder" who couldn't beat Russell is a joke. Those same posters diminish Russell's accomplishments BECAUSE he played on HOF-laden rosters, and then slap Chamberlain BECAUSE he couldn't beat Russell's TEAMs (although, it must be noted, Chamberlain not only "beat" Russell's TEAM in '67, his TEAM CRUSHED Boston that season.)

And let's get real here. How poorly did Chamberlain play in his post-seasons? He had FOUR entire 30+ ppg - 25 rpg post-seasons. He had EIGHT 20-20 post-seasons. He had FOUR entire post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. He had MULTIPLE 30+ ppg post-season series, including THREE of 37 ppg, 37 ppg, and even 39 ppg. He also had FOUR post-season series against Russell, in which he averaged 30+ ppg, including one in which he averaged 30 ppg AND 31 rpg. He had FOUR 50+ point games, including two "elimination" games of 56-35 and 50-35 (the latter against Russell BTW.) He also had SEVERAL 40-30 games (FOUR against Russell alone), as well as a 45-27 "elimination" game against the Knicks in the '70 Finals (on 20-27 shooting), and on ONE leg. He had TWO TRIPLE-DOUBLE playoff series (including one against Russell.) He had a QUAD-DOUBLE game of 24-32-13-12 (again, against Russell.) He had a 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11 apg, .612 playoff series against the Royals, as well as the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history, when he averaged 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625 from the field against the Knicks in '70.

Wilt was seldom outscored or outshot in his 29 post-season series, and in most cases, he absolutely crushed his opposing center in those categories. AND, he was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of those 29 post-season series (in fact he was seldom outrebounded in any GAMES in those series.)

As for regular season accomplishments...there was WILT...and then there was everyone else...and they were on the other side of the Grand Canyon. Chamberlain STILL holds some 130 NBA records, and in many of them, it is by a MILE. In fact, he is the "next" guy in many of them, as well.

Were those "empty" records? Well, if you can call TWELVE winning seasons, in his 14 season career; with SIX Conference winners; SIX division winners; TWELVE trips to the Conference Finals; SIX trips to the Finals; FOUR teams with 60+ wins; FOUR teams with the BEST record in the league; TWO teams that went 68-13 and 69-13; and TWO dominating Title teams...as "empty", then yes, I guess they were "empty stats." But no more empty than NINE of MJ's seasons (FIVE of which were on losing teams)...which were the years in which his TEAM's did not win a title.
jlauber destroying Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem stans:applause: :rockon:

[G.O.A.T]

One more thing, Russell should never be considered #1 because he was never the Celtics best offensive player, his teams were stacked with All Stars and he was basically a defensive center.I'm not trying to lessen what Russell did but I think Shaq was a better player than Russell.

What bothers me is that everything you assume you know about Russell is probably wrong.

Like saying he was never the best offensive player on the Celtics, or that his teams were stacked with all-stars or that he was basically a defensive center. All of those statements make me 100% certain you don't know what your talking about.

[D-Wade316]

What bothers me is that everything you assume you know about Russell is probably wrong.

Like saying he was never the best offensive player on the Celtics, or that his teams were stacked with all-stars or that he was basically a defensive center. All of those statements make me 100% certain you don't know what your talking about.
You don't need to pretend that he might be wrong. Take a stance.

[EricForman]

Wait, didn't Wilt put up godly number too? And he always lost to the eventual champs the Celtics right ...


Jordan vs Wilt comes down to stuff that can't be found in stats, and it gives room for the Wilt-guys to defend Wilt to death. But the fact is, many, many players/coaches/media people have gone on record pointing out how Wilt shrank from big moments or didn't put as much effort into "winning" as he could, while Jordan had the EXACT OPPOSITE reputation among peers/historians/analysts/coaches/GMs

The anti-Jordan guys will always argue that EVERYONE saying the above things are just Jordan-homers or jealous haters of Wilt, but whatever, if they wanna go against like, almost OVERWHEMING opinion from individuals of multiple eras, that's fine.

To this day, the overwhelming narrative, AMONG NBA INSIDERS, is: "you never bet against Jordan, his drive to just kill you is insane" and "Wilt just shyed away from big moments, he didn't take it when it was there".



Again, it's not, 8 NBA insiders saying this. More like 80.

[EricForman]

People say Wilt put up empty stats then list the empty stats MJ put up to try to prove his greatness. I guess MJ fans can have it both ways.:hammerhead: :hammerhead:


The talent gap between Jordan's Bulls and the teams he lost to in the mid 80s was much wider than Wilt's cast vs, say, Russell's cast.

Please stop trolling, Jordan had a below average cast until 1990 or so.

[Pointguard]

Great post.

I have always found it fascinating that MJ was "heroic" when he was scoring 40 ppg against the Celtics in the '85-86 playoffs, in a series in which his TEAM was SWEPT. Granted, the Bulls were a 30-52 team, and they were beaten by a 67-15 Boston team that had FIVE HOFers, BUT, those same posters rip Chamberlain here, when he took pure crap rosters to game seven one and two point losses against Boston teams that had SEVEN and SIX HOFers. Not only that, Chamberlain took a miserable last-place roster that had gone 31-49 in 62-63, to a 48-32 record in 63-64, and to the Finals, where they lost 4-1 to Russell's Celtics, who had EIGHT HOFers (and two of those losses were in the last few seconds), all while statistically dominating Russell in the process.

When did MJ win rings? When he was surrounded by teammates that could go 55-27 WITHOUT him, in watered-down leagues in which he seldom faced rosters with more than TWO HOFers.

In Chamberlain's 62-63 season, his TEAM was so bad that they didn't even make the playoffs (they went 31-49...and yet MJ's 30-52 team did make the playoffs.) The "anti-Wilt" clan will claim that was an example of Wilt's "empty" stats. Now, all Chamberlain did that season was LEAD the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories (and had categories like blocked shots, offensive and defensive rebounding, rebounding percentages, etc., existed, he would have probably led in even more)...including leading the league in scoring by a staggering 10.8 ppg (44.8 ppg to runner-up Baylor's 34.0 ppg); rebounding, at 24.3 rpg; and setting a then-record FG% mark of .528. He also LED the NBA in WIN-SHARES (and by a large margin) with 20.9...meaning he was directly responsible for 67% of his team's wins. AND, he set a PER mark of 31.8 which STILL stands. He also played 47.6 MPG that year, and in NINE H2H meetings against Russell, he outrebounded him, and outscored him by a 38-14 ppg margin. Yes, that TEAM had a losing record, but it was deceptive. They lost 35 games by single digits, and they only had a -2.1 ppg differential. How bad was that roster? Aside from Chamberlain, they collectively shot .412...which was WAY below the WORST team in the league (.427 .)

And, here again, Chamberlain took that same pathetic cast of clowns to a 48-32 record the very next season, and a trip to the Finals.

Now, using that 62-63 season as an example....when Wilt LED the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a FG% record...how about his 65-66 season, when he also LED the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a then-record FG% mark...when he led his TEAM to the BEST record in the league. What changed? It certainly wasn't Wilt. He played virtually the same way.

And the same can be said about MJ. In his early years he gunned his way to scoring titles, on relatively poor rosters. And in the 90's, he also gunned his way to scoring titles...BUT, his TEAM's won six rings. What changed?

I have no problem with those that claim MJ as the G.O.A.T...BUT, to say that he was the G.O.A.T because he won six rings, while Wilt was a "stats-padder" who couldn't beat Russell is a joke. Those same posters diminish Russell's accomplishments BECAUSE he played on HOF-laden rosters, and then slap Chamberlain BECAUSE he couldn't beat Russell's TEAMs (although, it must be noted, Chamberlain not only "beat" Russell's TEAM in '67, his TEAM CRUSHED Boston that season.)

And let's get real here. How poorly did Chamberlain play in his post-seasons? He had FOUR entire 30+ ppg - 25 rpg post-seasons. He had EIGHT 20-20 post-seasons. He had FOUR entire post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. He had MULTIPLE 30+ ppg post-season series, including THREE of 37 ppg, 37 ppg, and even 39 ppg. He also had FOUR post-season series against Russell, in which he averaged 30+ ppg, including one in which he averaged 30 ppg AND 31 rpg. He had FOUR 50+ point games, including two "elimination" games of 56-35 and 50-35 (the latter against Russell BTW.) He also had SEVERAL 40-30 games (FOUR against Russell alone), as well as a 45-27 "elimination" game against the Knicks in the '70 Finals (on 20-27 shooting), and on ONE leg. He had TWO TRIPLE-DOUBLE playoff series (including one against Russell.) He had a QUAD-DOUBLE game of 24-32-13-12 (again, against Russell.) He had a 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11 apg, .612 playoff series against the Royals, as well as the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history, when he averaged 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625 from the field against the Knicks in '70.

Wilt was seldom outscored or outshot in his 29 post-season series, and in most cases, he absolutely crushed his opposing center in those categories. AND, he was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of those 29 post-season series (in fact he was seldom outrebounded in any GAMES in those series.)

As for regular season accomplishments...there was WILT...and then there was everyone else...and they were on the other side of the Grand Canyon. Chamberlain STILL holds some 130 NBA records, and in many of them, it is by a MILE. In fact, he is the "next" guy in many of them, as well.

Were those "empty" records? Well, if you can call TWELVE winning seasons, in his 14 season career; with SIX Conference winners; SIX division winners; TWELVE trips to the Conference Finals; SIX trips to the Finals; FOUR teams with 60+ wins; FOUR teams with the BEST record in the league; TWO teams that went 68-13 and 69-13; and TWO dominating Title teams...as "empty", then yes, I guess they were "empty stats." But no more empty than NINE of MJ's seasons (FIVE of which were on losing teams)...which were the years in which his TEAM's did not win a title.

LOL, do you find new stuff every week? Great post as usual!

[DMV2]

Because the game got more popular and much better in the 80's. As great as Jordan was, he owes a lot to Bird and Magic for popularizing the sport.

And like EricForman said, you can only go by stats for Wilt. I mean, the 100-point game wasn't even on TV.

[Kurosawa0]

I have Wilt at #6 all time.

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

[jlauber]

Jordan vs Wilt comes down to stuff that can't be found in stats, and it gives room for the Wilt-guys to defend Wilt to death. But the fact is, many, many players/coaches/media people have gone on record pointing out how Wilt shrank from big moments or didn't put as much effort into "winning" as he could, while Jordan had the EXACT OPPOSITE reputation among peers/historians/analysts/coaches/GMs

The anti-Jordan guys will always argue that EVERYONE saying the above things are just Jordan-homers or jealous haters of Wilt, but whatever, if they wanna go against like, almost OVERWHEMING opinion from individuals of multiple eras, that's fine.

To this day, the overwhelming narrative, AMONG NBA INSIDERS, is: "you never bet against Jordan, his drive to just kill you is insane" and "Wilt just shyed away from big moments, he didn't take it when it was there".

Again, it's not, 8 NBA insiders saying this. More like 80.


Yep...just SOME of Wilt's "elimination" games in his post-season career, like...

a 50-35 game (against Russell); a 56-35 game (in a game five win in a best-of-five playoff series), a 27-38 game; a 30-32, 80% game; a 46-34 game; a 29-36-13-7, 63% game; an 18-27, 88% game; a 45-27, 74% game; a 21-24, 63% game; a 22-24, 67% game; a 24-29-9, 71% game; and his very LAST "elimination" game, of 23-21, 63%.

Once again, FOUR entire post-seasons of 30+ ppg - 25 rpg; SIX entire post-seasons of 28 ppg - 25 rpg; a 30-31 series (against Russell), FOUR 50+ point playoff games; Thirteen post-seasons...and THIRTEEN of at least 20.2 rpg (including EIGHT of 24.7+, and two of 29.1 and 30.2.) 29 playoff series...and NEVER outrebounded in ANY of them. Multiple 30+ ppg series, including THREE of 37, 37, and 39 ppg. The ONLY 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 from the field.) TWO TRIPLE-DOUBLE playoff series (and one against Russell, which included a QUAD-DOUBLE game of 24-32-13-12.) And a playoff series of 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, and on .612 shooting.

That was the Wilt who "shyed away" in the post-season...

[colts19]

The talent gap between Jordan's Bulls and the teams he lost to in the mid 80s was much wider than Wilt's cast vs, say, Russell's cast.

Please stop trolling, Jordan had a below average cast until 1990 or so.

Not trolling dude, you maybe right about the talent gap. Wilt did however make it close most of Jordans series were not close.

I give Jordan credit as one of the greatest if not the greatest non center of all time. I just get tired of people saying other players stats are empty but all of Jordan's stats are GOD like. Jordan was the only reason the Bulls won titles but it wasn't Jordan's fault that they didn't win titles or have a winning record. When Bird went to a losing Celtics team his first year and had the biggest turnaround in history, he didn't have any prime HOF players on that team, he did it because he was a better all around player than Jordan was when he came into the league. If you had put Jordan on that Celtics team they never would have had that turnaround because Jordan wasn't that complete a player his first year.

[TAC602]

Bird doesn't take a backseat to Jordan in terms of impact, anyway. Jordan was a better scorer and man defender. Larry was a superior shooter, rebounder, passer/playmaker and no less clutch. His fundamentals, court vision, leadership qualities and basketball iq don't take a backseat either.

[97 bulls]

Bird doesn't take a backseat to Jordan in terms of impact, anyway. Jordan was a better scorer and man defender. Larry was a superior shooter, rebounder, passer/playmaker and no less clutch. His fundamentals, court vision, leadership qualities and basketball iq don't take a backseat either.
Are you talking about pre 90s jordan? Or the jorddan that lost in the 80s? Cuz 90s jordan was just as good a jumpshooter as bird. Rebounding bird might have him statistically, but when you consider that jordan as a guard avg 6-7 rebounds to birds 7-9 as a SF, I think they similar.

The notion that larry bird took a sub 500 team to to championsip contention isn't totally true either. They aquired about 3 more players too.

[TAC602]

,
Are you talking about pre 90s jordan? Or the jorddan that lost in the 80s? Cuz 90s jordan was just as good a jumpshooter as bird. Rebounding bird might have him statistically, but when you consider that jordan as a guard avg 6-7 rebounds to birds 7-9 as a SF, I think they similar.

The notion that larry bird took a sub 500 team to to championsip contention isn't totally true either. They aquired about 3 more players too.

Over their careers as a whole, Bird was a better shooter. Impact, I don't put into context by position because the outcome a game doesn't care that one player is inclined to have a bigger impact in a certain area: he simply does. His career average was 10+ too.

The point was actually a disagreement to the myth that Jordan had leaps and bounds more impact on the floor than other TIER 1 all-time players. When you're that high up on the food chain, the difference is minimal at best. You of all people know this. He's an SG? That only further illustrates the point. There are no titles without Pippen's contributions and there certainly isn't a 2nd threepeat in the cards without the addition of Rodman, simply one of the greatest defenders and rebounders ever, bar none. We already saw Chicago without a legitimate PF in 1995. Jordan is widely considered the GOAT because his impact was phenomenal (never claimed otherwise) and he accomplished more in terms of team success, parlaying itself unto those all valuable Finals MVPs. As an individual, his best wasn't far greater than a Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Olajuwon, et al. at their own.

[jlauber]

Once again, there are those that neglect Russell's greatness in these discussions, as well. Granted, he played with HOF-laden rosters, but, he also WON with those rosters. It's not as if he won a couple of rings with loaded rosters in his 13 seasons. He won ELEVEN times in those 13 seasons (and had he not been injured in one of them, it might very well have been 12 out of 13.) And, yes, he had those HOFers...BUT, without Russell, how many of them are truly HOF players? True, they were very good players, but players like Sanders, Embry, Howell, KC Jones, and Frank Ramsey were not GREAT players. Not only that, but before Russell came to Boston, they didn't sniff a title. AND, after he retired, they immediately fell to a 34-48 mark.

And one more time...those that diminish Russell's rings, because of his talented supporting casts, have no business then disparaging Chamberlain's "lack" of rings....when the reality was, Wilt was battling those teams in TEN of his 14 seasons (not to mention the '70 Knicks and the '71 Bucks...two of the greatest teams of all-time.)

[RRR3]

Why do people put MJ ahead of Wilt, but put Wilt ahead of Magic, Bird, Kobe?


I say if you want wilt in your top 10 then you have to put him at number 1 and russell at 2.


You cant put MJ ahead of Wilt if Magic, bird,and Kareem arn't ahead of him.
Bill Russell is not even top 10 all time.

[colts19]

Are you talking about pre 90s jordan? Or the jorddan that lost in the 80s? Cuz 90s jordan was just as good a jumpshooter as bird. Rebounding bird might have him statistically, but when you consider that jordan as a guard avg 6-7 rebounds to birds 7-9 as a SF, I think they similar.

The notion that larry bird took a sub 500 team to to championsip contention isn't totally true either. They aquired about 3 more players too.

In my post I was talking about larry's first year. The Boston roster from the year before was the same except for the addition of Pete Maravich who was past his prime, ML Carr and rookie Gerald Henderson. They lost Jo Jo White, Billy knight and Bob Mcadoo. So I would say the talent was less on Bird's turnaround team.

You also say Bird's 7 to 9 rebounds his career rebound avg was 10.0 Jordan's was 6.2. try to get your numbers right.

[97 bulls]

[/B]
In my post I was talking about larry's first year. The Boston roster from the year before was the same except for the addition of Pete Maravich who was past his prime, ML Carr and rookie Gerald Henderson. They lost Jo Jo White, Billy knight and Bob Mcadoo. So I would say the talent was less on Bird's turnaround team.

You also say Bird's 7 to 9 rebounds his career rebound avg was 10.0 Jordan's was 6.2. try to get your numbers right.
Tiny archibald played in 11 more games and his minutes jumped from 25 to 36. Maxwell playing another year in the league probably helped as well as the guys you mentioned. Bird was definately the main reason for the drastic improvement. But don't act like it was all him. Cuz it wasn't.

And you need to get your facts straight. I stated as a small forward. Bird started his career as a pf. And don't think that the torrid pace of the late 70s and 80s didn't have something to do with the rebounding difference either.

[colts19]

Tiny archibald played in 11 more games and his minutes jumped from 25 to 36. Maxwell playing another year in the league probably helped as well as the guys you mentioned. Bird was definately the main reason for the drastic improvement. But don't act like it was all him. Cuz it wasn't.

And you need to get your facts straight. I stated as a small forward. Bird started his career as a pf. And don't think that the torrid pace of the late 70s and 80s didn't have something to do with the rebounding difference either.

It is never just one person, thats what you Jordan fans can see in everyone else, but you never see it with Jordan. As far as the rebound disscussion, I don't really care but when your the one that tried to make it look like they were really close Jordan 6 to 7 Bird 7 to 9. Then when I point out the real numbers you start bringing in pace and bird was a power forward and all this other stuff to move the line.

To all Jordan fans, I'm sorry that i don't think Jordan was the Perfect player, I only think he was darn close to the Perfect player. Now if all of you would quit trying to tear down all the Great players that came before him, I would really be happy. Russell - 11 Rings, Wilt - check the record book, Magic and Bird saved the league. Big O set the standard for all around play. Give them their due.

[catch24]

Because Jordan was better all-around and significantly the better playoff performer.

[D-Wade316]

Once again, there are those that neglect Russell's greatness in these discussions, as well. Granted, he played with HOF-laden rosters, but, he also WON with those rosters. It's not as if he won a couple of rings with loaded rosters in his 13 seasons. He won ELEVEN times in those 13 seasons (and had he not been injured in one of them, it might very well have been 12 out of 13.) And, yes, he had those HOFers...BUT, without Russell, how many of them are truly HOF players? True, they were very good players, but players like Sanders, Embry, Howell, KC Jones, and Frank Ramsey were not GREAT players. Not only that, but before Russell came to Boston, they didn't sniff a title. AND, after he retired, they immediately fell to a 34-48 mark.

And one more time...those that diminish Russell's rings, because of his talented supporting casts, have no business then disparaging Chamberlain's "lack" of rings....when the reality was, Wilt was battling those teams in TEN of his 14 seasons (not to mention the '70 Knicks and the '71 Bucks...two of the greatest teams of all-time.)
:applause:

[colts19]

Because Jordan was better all-around and significantly the better playoff performer.

1986 50% fgp 43.7 pts per game
1987 41% fgp 35.7 pts per game

W/L record against Bird in Playoffs 0 for 6
W/L record against Bird overall 16Wins 24Losses

Just saying.

[colts19]

Because Jordan was better all-around and significantly the better playoff performer.

1986 50% fgp 43.7 pts per game
1987 41% fgp 35.7 pts per game

W/L record against Bird in Playoffs 0 for 6
W/L record against Bird overall 16Wins 24Losses

Just saying.

[jlauber]

Because Jordan was better all-around and significantly the better playoff performer.

Jordan was a better scorer and a marginally better passer in the post-season. Chamberlain was more efficient, a FAR greater rebounder, and, as great a defender as MJ was, he was not the defensive presence that Wilt was. And even MJ's scoring edge has to be put in perspective. Chamberlain only played 52 games, out of his 160, in his "scoring" years. He was a 33 ppg scorer in those games. Not only that, but Wilt faced a HOF center in about two-thirds of his 160 post-season games, AND, was outgunned by HOFers in all but one post-season.

As for ENTIRE resumes...let's get real here. Jordan was a better FT shooter, had more range, and was a marginally better passer. But even in passing, how many times did MJ finish third in assists? Or FIRST? And, I'll give MJ an edge in 3 pt shooting...except that he was below average in that area. Take away MJ's seasons when the NBA moved in the 3pt line, and he was a career .288 shooter from the arc.

MJ won more scoring crowns, to be sure, but he was never the overwhelming scorer that Wilt was. Even using "pace" MJ was not close. And that is BEFORE bringing league shooting percentages into the discussion. MJ played almost half of his career in the "defenseless" 80's, where entire LEAGUES were shooting nearly 50%. Even into the 90's, the FG%'s were STILL considerably higher than even the highest seasons in which Chamberlain played...and WAY higher than the lowest of Wilt's era. So, using basic math, and transfer Wilt's '62 season into MJ's '87 era, and not only does Wilt average 41 ppg...BUT, when adjusting his FG% up to '87 levels (.480 from his actual league average of .426), and Chamberlain's ppg jump to over 45 ppg.

Wilt AVERAGED nearly 40 ppg over the course of his first seven seasons...COMBINED. And virtually everyone who followed the sport at the time would acknowledge that Wilt could have continued to have been the top scorer in the NBA thru the rest of the decade of the 60's. Rick Barry, himself, who won the scoring title in '67, at 35.6 ppg, claimed that he (Barry) won it, only because Wilt didn't want it. Wilt's scoring dropped dramatically from '66, at 33.5 ppg, to 24.1 ppg in '67, BUT, he shot an unworldly .683 from the floor, and as in EVERY season in the 60's, Wilt had the HIGH game of 58 points (on his usual unbelieveable shooting of 26-34.) In the '68 season Wilt "only" averaged 24.3 ppg, but here again, he had the FOUR highest scoring games of the season (games of 52, 53, 53, and 68.)

In his '69 season, Wilt's new coach, Van Breda Kolf, had Wilt cut back shooting even more, and at one point in the season, he was averaging 17-18 ppg. It got so bad that SI was going to run an article claiming that Wilt could no longer score. The night before that story hit the newstands, Wilt exploded with a 60 point game. And a few nights later he poured in yet another 66 point game (on 29-35 shooting BTW.) Over the course of 17 straight games, Wilt averaged 31.1 (including a 35 point game on Russell), and finished the season at 20.5 ppg. Of course the idiotic Van Breda Kolf had Wilt return back to his earlier non-shooting form, and Wilt only averaged 13.9 ppg in the post-season.

For more proof of "what could have been", Wilt's NEXT NEW coach in the following season (69-70), Joe Mullaney, asked Wilt to become the focal point of the offense, and Chamberlain responded with a 32.2 ppg average in his first nine games (with games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43 points...and a 25 point game against rookie Kareem, in which he outplayed Jabbar in every facet of the game.) Unfortunately, Wilt shredded his knee in that ninth game, and he was never the same again (although to his credit, he hung a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 Finals in a seven game series against the 60-22 Knicks.)

Of course, Wilt's detractors NEVER bring up the fact that Wilt was, quite simply, the greatest rebounder in the history of the game. And while the "anti-Wilt" clan will always point to Wilt's post-season drop in scoring, they quietly skirt around the fact that Wilt ELEVATED his rebounding in the post-season. Or the fact that in Wilt's 29 post-season series, he was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of them.

Jordan won ten scoring titles to Wilt's seven. Both could probably have won more. In any case, MJ was not nearly as dominant as a PRIME Wilt was. Wilt holds a 1-0 edge in 100 point games. A 6-0 edge in 70+ point games. A 32-5 edge in 60+ point games. A 118-39 margin in 50+ point games. And a 271-173 edge in 40 point games.

How about 30-30 games? MJ had ZERO in his career. Wilt had 103 of the ENTIRE in NBA history, of 131. 40-30 games? Obviously MJ didn't have ANY. Wilt has 55 of the 61 that have been accomplished in NBA HISTORY. Wilt is also the ONLY player to have 40-40 games, and he even had FOUR 50-40 games.

How about the post-season? How many 30-25 post-seasons did MJ have? Wilt had FOUR. How about 25-25 post-season? Chamberlain had SIX. How about 20-20 post-seasons? Wilt had EIGHT. Wilt had a TON of 30-30 post-season games, as well. In fact, he had FOUR 40-30 games, just against Russsell alone. And how many 56-35 games, or 50-35 games, or 46-34 games, or 45-27 post-season games did MJ have?

How about the regular season? How many 50-25 seasons did MJ have? How about 40-20 seasons? Wilt had TWO. How about 30-25 seasons? Wilt had THREE. How about 30-20 seasons? Chamberlain had SEVEN. How about 20-20 seasons? Wilt had TEN.

How many FG% titles did MJ win? Chamberlain won NINE. In fact, Wilt has the TWO highest seasons in NBA HISTORY, and THREE of the top-five. How many rebound titles did MJ win? Wilt won ELEVEN. And, Wilt has the THREE highest seasons in NBA history. I already mentioned assist titles. Chamberlain, a CENTER, won ONE assist title, and came in THIRD in another season. Let when know when you find MJ's best finish in assists. And while MJ was a good shot-blocker for a guard, Wilt was probably the game's greatest shot-blocker of all-time.

So, NO, Jordan was NOT a better "all-around" player than Chamberlain. And his post-season career was NOT "significantly" better in the post-season.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Bird doesn't take a backseat to Jordan in terms of impact, anyway. Jordan was a better scorer and man defender. Larry was a superior shooter, rebounder, passer/playmaker and no less clutch. His fundamentals, court vision, leadership qualities and basketball iq don't take a backseat either.

Bird's impact was definitely less than Jordan's. Jordan was not just a better "man defender," he was a significantly better defender overall. Jordan is also a significantly better scorer, far better penetrator/finisher, and an equal/better shooter inside 21 feet from age 26 onward. It's not a large gap in impact by any stretch (maybe 5%), but it's there.

[IGOTGAME]

Because Jordan was better all-around and significantly the better playoff performer.

I wouldnt say Jordan skill wise was better. I would say that he stepped up more than Wilt did. But MJ never had to face the competition that Wilt did.

It wasn't like MJ was winning with less talent then the other superstars. He won with the most talented supporting cast by a good margin every time he won a title.

[OldSchoolBBall]

MJ won more scoring crowns, to be sure, but he was never the overwhelming scorer that Wilt was. Even using "pace" MJ was not close.

Completely false:

[quote]Listed below are the top scoring rate seasons in NBA history, measured in points scored per 75 possessions.

[catch24]

1986 50% fgp 43.7 pts per game
1987 41% fgp 35.7 pts per game

W/L record against Bird in Playoffs 0 for 6
W/L record against Bird overall 16Wins 24Losses

Just saying.

6 Finals MVPs and 6 championships > 1 Finals MVP and 2 Championships

33ppg on 49% shooting and 29 PER > 22ppg 52% shooting and 23 PER

Significantly a better playoff performer.

Oh, and Wilt's W/L against Russell in the playoffs 1-7

Try again.

[catch24]

I wouldnt say Jordan skill wise was better. I would say that he stepped up more than Wilt did. But MJ never had to face the competition that Wilt did.

It wasn't like MJ was winning with less talent then the other superstars. He won with the most talented supporting cast by a good margin every time he won a title.

Nah, MJ was easily more skilled. Not even close really.

[IGOTGAME]

6 Finals MVPs and 6 championships > 2 Championships

33ppg on 49% shooting and 29 PER > 22ppg 52% shooting and 23 PER

Significantly a better playoff performer.

Oh, and Wilt's W/L against Russell in the playoffs 1-7

Try again.

didn't know they were playing 1 on 1.

[IGOTGAME]

Nah, MJ was easily more skilled. Not even close really.

skills is the word. As a big, I'll take a truly dominate one over any guard.

[97 bulls]

It is never just one person, thats what you Jordan fans can see in everyone else, but you never see it with Jordan. As far as the rebound disscussion, I don't really care but when your the one that tried to make it look like they were really close Jordan 6 to 7 Bird 7 to 9. Then when I point out the real numbers you start bringing in pace and bird was a power forward and all this other stuff to move the line.

To all Jordan fans, I'm sorry that i don't think Jordan was the Perfect player, I only think he was darn close to the Perfect player. Now if all of you would quit trying to tear down all the Great players that came before him, I would really be happy. Russell - 11 Rings, Wilt - check the record book, Magic and Bird saved the league. Big O set the standard for all around play. Give them their due.
I think you need to check some of my recent posts. I've always maintained that jordan, while being the GOAT in my opinion, has never won on his own. And for this I've been called all kinds of very unfriendly things. So were honestly in agreement.

The rebounds numbers I posted are the real. I just take into consideration their different roles and what was going on in the league. Something that cold hard numbers never really show. I really could take any stat and shew it in my favor. Its why I try to not read too much into them.

And unfortunately for all those other players, jordan is just about as perfect a basketball player as there can be. He's all those players role into one. And that's what makes him the greatest ever.

[G.O.A.T]

didn't know they were playing 1 on 1.

It's a team sport. It's a more realistic way of measuring two players than stats. Both players were trying to lead their team to victory as their unquestioned best player, only Wilt was trying to win the statistical battle.

[catch24]

Jordan was a better scorer and a marginally better passer in the post-season. Chamberlain was more efficient, a FAR greater rebounder, and, as great a defender as MJ was, he was not the defensive presence that Wilt was. And even MJ's scoring edge has to be put in perspective. Chamberlain only played 52 games, out of his 160, in his "scoring" years. He was a 33 ppg scorer in those games. Not only that, but Wilt faced a HOF center in about two-thirds of his 160 post-season games, AND, was outgunned by HOFers in all but one post-season.

Wrong. Jordan was definitely the better scorer and easily the better passer in the postseason. 33ppg >>> 22 ppg on better efficiency/more volume. 6 assists while facilitating/running the offense >>> 4 assists catching the ball in the post and "finding teammates". So to recap, Jordan was not only the better scorer (when taking into account playoff-ball), but he was also the better playmaker. Jordan played the passing lanes better, had better footwork (and skill as both a defender and offensive player), additionally, MJ was by far more clutch. Wilt had more impact on the defensive end, I'll give you that. He was a better rebounder too. However, Jordan's impact was greater and once again, he significantly outplayed Wilt in the postseason.



was a marginally better passer

Already exposed this.


But even in passing, how many times did MJ finish third in assists?

Irrelevant. All that matters is that Jordan was the better passer both in the regular and postseason. Considerably as well.


Take away MJ's seasons when the NBA moved in the 3pt line, and he was a career .288 shooter from the arc.

Again, Irrelevant. MJ was still a better 3PT shooter than Wilt, who could barely draw iron from the FT line.


MJ won more scoring crowns, to be sure, but he was never the overwhelming scorer that Wilt was. Even using "pace" MJ was not close.

Wrong. Oldschoolbball just debunked this.


Wilt AVERAGED nearly 40 ppg over the course of his first seven seasons...COMBINED. And virtually everyone who followed the sport at the time would acknowledge that Wilt could have continued to have been the top scorer in the NBA thru the rest of the decade of the 60's. Rick Barry, himself, who won the scoring title in '67, at 35.6 ppg, claimed that he (Barry) won it, only because Wilt didn't want it. Wilt's scoring dropped dramatically from '66, at 33.5 ppg, to 24.1 ppg in '67, BUT, he shot an unworldly .683 from the floor, and as in EVERY season in the 60's, Wilt had the HIGH game of 58 points (on his usual unbelieveable shooting of 26-34.) ng form, and Wilt only averaged 13.9 ppg in the post-season.


Jordan won ten scoring titles to Wilt's seven. Both could probably have won more. In any case, MJ was not nearly as dominant as a PRIME Wilt was. Wilt holds a 1-0 edge in 100 point games. A 6-0 edge in 70+ point games. A 32-5 edge in 60+ point games. A 118-39 margin in 50+ point games. And a 271-173 edge in 40 point games.

I've already destroyed this scoring argument. We discussed this not too long ago, Lauber. Gonna re-post (what you do all the time) some of the stats that clear any confusion.

ALL-TIME SCORING RECORDS:
1st Place: MJ, 24 scoring records
2nd Place: Wilt, 18 scoring records
3rd Place: Moot

- Highest career scoring average: MJ 30.12
- Highest career playoff scoring average: MJ 33.4
- Highest career Finals scoring average: MJ 33.6 (min. 15 games)
- Highest single season scoring average: Wilt 50.4
- Highest single season playoff average: MJ 43.7
- Highest single Finals series average: MJ 41.0
- Most Total Points Season: Wilt 4029
- Most Total Points Playoffs: MJ 5987
- Most seasons leading league in scoring: MJ 10
- Most seasons leading league in total points: MJ 11
- Most consecutive seasons leading in scoring: MJ, Wilt tied at 7
- Most 60 point games: Wilt 32
- Most 50 point games: Wilt 118
- Most 50 point games playoffs: MJ 8
- Most 40 point games: Wilt 271
- Most 40 point games playoffs: MJ 38
- Most 30 point games: MJ 563
- Most 30 point games playoffs: MJ 109
- Most consecutive 60 point games: Wilt 4
- Most consecutive 50 point games: Wilt 7
- Most consecutive 50 point games playoffs: MJ 2
- Most consecutive 45 point games: Wilt 7
- Most consecutive 45 point games playoffs: MJ 3
- Most consecutive 40 point games: Wilt 14
- Most consecutive 40 point games finals: MJ 4
- Most consecutive 35 point games: Wilt 33
- Most consecutive 30 point games: Wilt 65
- Most consecutive 30 point games finals: MJ 9
- Most consecutive 20 point games: Wilt 126
- Most consecutive 20 point games playoffs: MJ 60
- Most consecutive 20 point games finals: MJ 35
- Most consecutive double figures scoring: MJ 866
- Highest scoring game: Wilt 100
- Highest scoring game playoffs: MJ 63
- Highest scoring game rookie: Wilt 58
- Highest scoring all-star game: Wilt 42
- Most points in 3 quarters: Wilt 69
- Most points in one half: Wilt 59
- Most points in one half finals: MJ 35
- Oldest to score 50: MJ 51 at age 38
- Oldest to score 40: MJ 43 at age 40

And that's that. Done deal. MJ prime vs prime destroys Wilt in the postseason. To say otherwise just isn't sane.


How about the post-season?

Where MJ's player efficiency rating/production destroys Wilt's?


How many FG% titles did MJ win? Chamberlain won NINE.

I would expect a 7 footer (Wilt at the time was more athletic than just about everyone in the league) to maintain a higher FG% considering most of their offense comes from right underneath the basket. How many scoring crowns does Chamberlain have? Oh, that's right, you've already admitted Jordan has Wilt beat.


So, NO, Jordan was NOT a better "all-around" player than Chamberlain. And his post-season career was NOT "significantly" better in the post-season.

Wrong yet again. Jordan was the better all-around player. Offense (playmaking, scoring, and other intangibles such as footwork, working without the ball, catch-and-shoot, range, etc), clutch (both on offense and defense), leadership (another intangible), etc. Jordan was simply a better offensive player. Wilt on the other-hand has Jordan beat on the defensive end (rebounding, blocking shots, man-to-man D, etc). The tiebreaker, however is in the postseason, where MJ did most of his damage and Wilt... well "wilted" in comparison.

[catch24]

didn't know they were playing 1 on 1.

Try and keep up here. No one is saying they played 1 on 1. Read the post I quoted.


skills is the word. As a big, I'll take a truly dominate one over any guard.

Wait, didn't you just get done saying, " I wouldn't say Jordan skill wise was better"?

You'd have to be a fool taking Wilt over Jordan who has the best combination of stats, accomplishments, honors, mvps, finals mvps, records, playoff performances, clutch performances, and rings of any player to ever play.

Jordan never faced the competition Wilt faced? lol, you can't be serious. That's like me saying Wilt only dominated in an era of relative short men. In the many seasons Wilt played, there were only 3-5 players over 6'9" in the entire league. Wilt dominated as the largest player in the game over relative midgets. Jordan dominated as an average sized player. Jordan also stepped up his game in the playoffs while Wilt "wilted". The competition Jordan faced wasn't worse simply because you're calling it "not as good". The competition MJ faced was just as good (relatively), if not more (considering the vast amount of better athletes/evolution). You as always, bring ZERO evidence.

[jlauber]

Completely false:



Jordan is easily the best scorer ever in both the regular and postseasons when adjusted for pace. Taken from:

http://www.backpicks.com/2011/01/28/top-scoring-rate-seasons-in-nba-history/

Some info on Wilt and other older players:

I SHREDDED this RIDICULOUS stat a long time ago.

The "pace" in Chamberlain's era was nowhere near what these stats would show. Points per 75 possessions? Who came up with that NONSENSE? So, if a Wilt playing 48 minutes, gets punished, even though he CLEARLY could do it, while a Jordan could never exceed 40, and proved he couldn't do it. Furthermore, it appears to me that Jordan SLOWED down his offense, while Wilt ACCELERATED his.

But let's use REAL math here instead. We'll compare Wilt's '62 season with MJ's '87 season. Chamberlain's '62 NBA averaged 108 FGAs per game, Jordan's '87 averaged 89. Wilt's '62 NBA averaged 37 FTAs per game, MJ's '87 averaged 30. Now, we also have to add one other stat here, as well. Wilt's '62 NBA shot .426, MJ's '87 NBA shot .480.

Ok, here we go. Let's reduce Wilt's '62 numbers down to MJ's '87 levels. Instead of taking 39.5 FGAs per game, that he did in '62, he now takes 32.5 FGAs per game. His 17 FTAs per game in '62 drop to 13.7 in '62. Now, BEFORE adjusting the FG%, let's see what we have. Chamberlain shot .506 from the field in '62, and .613 from the line. 32.5 X .506 = 16.4 FGs per game, or 32.8 ppg. 13.7 x .613 = 8.4 FTs ppg . 32.8 + 8.4 + 41.2 PPG. So, we KNOW that Chamberlain would have averaged at LEAST 41.2 ppg in '87.

BUT, we also have to adjust for league FG%. Wilt shot .506 in a league that shot .426. Now, had he had the benefit of playing in a league that .480, his FG% would have shot up dramatically. Divide .480 by .426, and you get 1.13. Multiply .506 times 1.13, and it suddenly becomes .570. So, instead of shooting .506 in '87, Wilt is now shooting .570. Multiply his 32.5 FGAs per game in '87, times .570, and Wilt is now making 18.5 FGs per game (instead of 16.4), or 37 ppg (instead of 32.8 ppg.) Add that 37 ppg to his 8.4 FTs made, and he would be scoring 45.4 ppg, or WAY over MJ's 37.1 ppg.

Of course, there is a much easier way to look at the numbers. MJ's '87 NBA averaged 109.9 ppg, while Wilt's '62 NBA averaged 118.8 ppg. So, MJ's '87 NBA scored at 92.5% of Wilt's '62 NBA. Multiply Wilt's 50.4 times .925, and it becomes 46.6 ppg.

Now, if you want to argue that MJ took a HIGHER percentage of his team's shots, per minute played...yes, you would be right. MJ (and Kobe in '06) were bigger "gunners" than Chamberlain was on his '62 Warrior team.

[Butters]

60 years from now people will have to defend MJ,Bird and Magic as top 10 players.

Times change

[TAC602]

Bird's impact was definitely less than Jordan's. Jordan was not just a better "man defender," he was a significantly better defender overall. Jordan is also a significantly better scorer, far better penetrator/finisher, and an equal/better shooter inside 21 feet from age 26 onward. It's not a large gap in impact by any stretch (maybe 5%), but it's there.

Less is fine, "far less" implies something different to me. Jordan's ability to take over games down the stretch.. games that matter, when all the cards are on the table in addition to everything he already brings to the table over the course of 48 minutes gives him the edge over virtually anybody that's ever played. However, I think they're both tier 1 all-time players. Individually, they'll improve any team significantly with marginal difference. Do you agree with that?

[jlauber]

Wrong. Jordan was definitely the better scorer and easily the better passer in the postseason. 33ppg >>> 22 ppg on better efficiency/more volume. 6 assists while facilitating/running the offense >>> 4 assists catching the ball in the post and "finding teammates". So to recap, Jordan was not only the better scorer (when taking into account playoff-ball), but he was also the better playmaker. Jordan played the passing lanes better, had better footwork (and skill as both a defender and offensive player), additionally, MJ was by far more clutch. Wilt had more impact on the defensive end, I'll give you that. He was a better rebounder too. However, Jordan's impact was greater and once again, he significantly outplayed Wilt in the postseason.




Already exposed this.



Irrelevant. All that matters is that Jordan was the better passer both in the regular and postseason. Considerably as well.



Again, Irrelevant. MJ was still a better 3PT shooter than Wilt, who could barely draw iron from the FT line.



Wrong. Oldschoolbball just debunked this.



I've already destroyed this scoring argument. We discussed this not too long ago, Lauber. Gonna re-post (what you do all the time) some of the stats that clear any confusion.

ALL-TIME SCORING RECORDS:
1st Place: MJ, 24 scoring records
2nd Place: Wilt, 18 scoring records
3rd Place: Moot

- Highest career scoring average: MJ 30.12
- Highest career playoff scoring average: MJ 33.4
- Highest career Finals scoring average: MJ 33.6 (min. 15 games)
- Highest single season scoring average: Wilt 50.4
- Highest single season playoff average: MJ 43.7
- Highest single Finals series average: MJ 41.0
- Most Total Points Season: Wilt 4029
- Most Total Points Playoffs: MJ 5987
- Most seasons leading league in scoring: MJ 10
- Most seasons leading league in total points: MJ 11
- Most consecutive seasons leading in scoring: MJ, Wilt tied at 7
- Most 60 point games: Wilt 32
- Most 50 point games: Wilt 118
- Most 50 point games playoffs: MJ 8
- Most 40 point games: Wilt 271
- Most 40 point games playoffs: MJ 38
- Most 30 point games: MJ 563
- Most 30 point games playoffs: MJ 109
- Most consecutive 60 point games: Wilt 4
- Most consecutive 50 point games: Wilt 7
- Most consecutive 50 point games playoffs: MJ 2
- Most consecutive 45 point games: Wilt 7
- Most consecutive 45 point games playoffs: MJ 3
- Most consecutive 40 point games: Wilt 14
- Most consecutive 40 point games finals: MJ 4
- Most consecutive 35 point games: Wilt 33
- Most consecutive 30 point games: Wilt 65
- Most consecutive 30 point games finals: MJ 9
- Most consecutive 20 point games: Wilt 126
- Most consecutive 20 point games playoffs: MJ 60
- Most consecutive 20 point games finals: MJ 35
- Most consecutive double figures scoring: MJ 866
- Highest scoring game: Wilt 100
- Highest scoring game playoffs: MJ 63
- Highest scoring game rookie: Wilt 58
- Highest scoring all-star game: Wilt 42
- Most points in 3 quarters: Wilt 69
- Most points in one half: Wilt 59
- Most points in one half finals: MJ 35
- Oldest to score 50: MJ 51 at age 38
- Oldest to score 40: MJ 43 at age 40

And that's that. Done deal. MJ prime vs prime destroys Wilt in the postseason. To say otherwise just isn't sane.



Where MJ's player efficiency rating/production destroys Wilt's?



I would expect a 7 footer (Wilt at the time was more athletic than just about everyone in the league) to maintain a higher FG% considering most of their offense comes from right underneath the basket. How many scoring crowns does Chamberlain have? Oh, that's right, you've already admitted Jordan has Wilt beat.



Wrong yet again. Jordan was the better all-around player. Offense (playmaking, scoring, and other intangibles such as footwork, working without the ball, catch-and-shoot, range, etc), clutch (both on offense and defense), leadership (another intangible), etc. Jordan was simply a better offensive player. Wilt on the other-hand has Jordan beat on the defensive end (rebounding, blocking shots, man-to-man D, etc). The tiebreaker, however is in the postseason, where MJ did most of his damage and Wilt... well "wilted" in comparison.

Once again, I already stated that MJ was a better scorer in the post-season. Chamberlain was also facing a HOF center in two-thirds of his 160 post-season games (49 against Russell alone, or about one-third!) And Wilt's teams also were outgunned by HOFers in EVERY post-season, but one. Furthermore, and as I alluded to earlier, Chamberlain only played 52 of his 160 post-season games in his "scoring" seasons. BTW, while Jordan's '86 Bulls could make the playoffs with a 30-52 record (which allowed MJ to average 43.7 ppg in his three playoff games), Wilt's 31-49 Warriors did not...in a season in which Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting.

We do know that a prime "scoring" Wilt averaged 33 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .510 (in leagues that shot between .410 to .441.) in his first six post-seasons, covering his first seven seasons (and once again, he wasn't able to play in the post-season in a year in which he averaged 44.8 ppg.) We also know that Chamberlain, in his first nine years, covering eight post-seasons, averaged 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and shot .518 (in leagues that shot between .410 to .446.)

So, while MJ was a better scorer in the POST-SEASON, it was not dramatically higher than a "scoring" Wilt. FURTHERMORE, MJ shot .487 in his post-season career, while Wilt shot .522. BUT, MJ played in leagues that shot between .450 to as high as .492, and on average was about .470...while Wilt played in leagues that shot between .410 to .456, and averaged about .440. Wilt was shooting a significantly higher FG% against his peers than what MJ was against his. And, we KNOW that Wilt came into the league with a decent OUTSIDE game, which, while allowing him to get more shots, also reduced his FG% somewhat.

So, MJ was a better scorer in the post-season. No question. How about the regular season? Chamberlain was LIGHT YEARS ahead of MJ. Yes, MJ holds a 30.12 to 30.07 career edge, BUT, a "scoring" Chamberlain, which only occurred in HALF of Wilt's career (although, as I pointed out, Wilt COULD have scored MUCH more from '67 thru '69.) Only a complete idiot would claim that Chamberlain could not have scored 30 ppg in those three seasons (in fact, he averaged 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting in '67...which I have maintained, that, had Wilt been so inclined, he COULD have scored 40 ppg!) We also KNOW that in Chamberlain's 69-70 season, he was leading the league at 32.2 ppg when he went down with his devastating knee injury in the ninth game (in a game in which he had scored 33 points on 13-13 shooting.)

Continued...

[jlauber]

Continuing...

Once again, in terms of FG%, Wilt was SIGNIFUCANTLY more efficient. And, BTW, find me even ONE Finals in which Chamberlain shot .455, or .427, or god forbid, .415, as MJ had.

Yes, MJ was a better FT shooter, but here again, in terms of FTs MADE, it was not dramatic. MJ averaged 6.8 MADE per game, in his career, while Wilt was at 5.8. And Jordan is one of the few, in NBA history, that can make that claim. In fact, Wilt MADE more FT's, in his '61-62 season, 835, than MJ did in ANY of his seasons.

Passing? MJ handled the ball considerably more than Chamberlain, and yet, his career APG was 5.3 to Wilt's 4.4. And, once again, Wilt not only LED the NBA one season, he finished THIRD in another. Even in the post-season the difference was not dramatic. MJ at 5.7 apg to Wilt's 4.2. FURTHERMORE, assists were HARDER to come by in Chamberlain's era. For example, in Wilt's '68 season, in which he averaged 8.6 apg, the league averaged 1873 per team. In MJ's best season, he averaged 8.0 apg in a league that averaged 2097 per team.

How about rebounding? Jordan was a good rebounder for a guard, with a career average of 6.2 rpg. Chamberlain was the game's greatest rebounder, and was even GREATER in his post-season play. No matter what math you use, Wilt was a FAR greater force on the glass. He was DOMINATING even players like Russell, Thurmond, and Kareem on the glass.

Defense? Wilt was not holding his opposing centers to some 100 points under their normal FG%'s, he was completely shutting down the lane in the process. AND, he was blocking some 8+ shots per game, as well. MJ had 893 CAREER blocks. If we are to believe Harvey Pollack, Chamberlain may very well have had SEASONS with that many (Pollack claimed that Wilt had seasons of double-digit blocks.)

Clutch play? Yes, MJ had many great post-season games ...but so did Chamberlain. In fact, Wilt had very few poor games. Chamberlain AVERAGED 24.5 rpg in his 160 post-season games, and outrebounded his opposing center in the VAST majority of them. And, I have often wondered if he ever had ANY post-season games of less than 10 rebounds. He probably only had a small percentage in which he didn't get 15 rebounds.

Elimination games? Chamberlain, who supposedly "wilted" in the post-season (YOUR comments BTW)...hmmm...how about a 50-35 game (against Russell)? A 56-35 game (in game five of a best-of-five series.) A 30-27 game. A 30-32 80% game. A 46-34 game. A 29-36-13-7 .63% game. A 14-34 game. An 18-27 .88% game. A 45-27, 74% game. A 21-24, 63% game. A 22-24, 67% game. A 24-29-9 .71% game. And in his LAST game, a 23-21, .63% game. And there were many 20-20, 30-30 games, and even several 40-30 games in between. My god, he had FOUR 40-30 games just against Russell in the post-season.

Jordan won more titles...on the most STACKED teams in the league, and with WATERED DOWN competition. How good were those teams? They went 55-27 WITHOUT him (and only replaced by a 11 ppg Kukoc and a Pete Meyers), losing a close game seven to the Knicks, who then lost a close game seven to the eventual champion Rockets. THEN, they ADDED Dennis Rodman in their next three-peat.

Chamberlain faced the greatest dynasty in major professional team sports history in TEN of his 14 seasons (and even CRUSHED them once.) Those Celtic teams had between FIVE and NINE HOFers EVERY season. Wilt also faced the HOF-laden Knicks FOUR times (with between FOUR to SIX HOFers.) And he battled the Kareem-Oscar team TWICE in the post-season (losing to them one post-season without BOTH West and Baylor, and beating them in six games the following season.)


Jordan never faced the competition Wilt faced? lol, you can't be serious. That's like me saying Wilt only dominated in an era of relative short men. In the many seasons Wilt played, there were only 3-5 players over 6'9" in the entire league. Wilt dominated as the largest player in the game over relative midgets. Jordan dominated as an average sized player. Jordan also stepped up his game in the playoffs while Wilt "wilted". The competition Jordan faced wasn't worse simply because you're calling it "not as good". The competition MJ faced was just as good (relatively), if not more (considering the vast amount of better athletes/evolution). You as always, bring ZERO evidence.

The AVERAGE center in the early 60's was 6-10, and by the 70's, it was 6-11. AND, those centers were mostly measured bare-foot. You could add an inch to probably everyone of them using TODAY's measuring. And, BTW, who was the game's best rebounder in the MJ era? 6-8 Rodman. Hell, the best rebounding guard was 6-3 175 lb. Fat Lever. 7-3+ centers in the MJ era could barely get 6 rpg.

And I already TRASHED the NONSENSE that Chamberlain "wilted" in his post-season play. He took PUTRID rosters much further than MJ did in his early seasons. MJ went 1-9 in his first ten post-season games. It wasn't until Pippen arrived that he won a playoff series. Meanwhile, Chamberlain was taking a LAST-PLACE roster to a the ECF's Finals his very first season, and a 4-2 series loss against a Celtic team with SEVEN HOFers. Two years later he took that same crap roster to a game seven, two-point loss, against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers. Then, in the 64-65 season, Chamberlain took a 40-40 team to a game seven, one-point loss against the 62-18 Celtics, at the zenith of their dynasty.

[ShaqAttack3234]

So, we KNOW that Chamberlain would have averaged at LEAST 41.2 ppg in '87.

:roll: Not that any of these adjustments prove conclusively what Wilt would have or wouldn't have done in 1987, but.

Wilt's Warriors attempted 8929 FGA over an 80 game season in 1962, Wilt's 3159 accounted for 35.38% of their attempts. Jordan's 1987 Bulls attempted 7155 over an 82 game season, so over an 82 game season on Jordan's 1987 Bulls, that'd be equal to 2531 FGA or 30.9 FGA

Wilt attempted a free throw for every 2.32 field goals so he ends up with roughly 1092 free throw attempts or 13.3 FTA.

Shooting 50.6% from the field and 61.3% for the line that equals 3229 points or 39.4 ppg.

But that's while averaging 48.5 mpg. Jordan led the league with 3281 total minutes in 1987, give Wilt the same points per minute and 40 mpg like Jordan and he ends up with 2663 points or 32.5 ppg.

And yes, you do have to look at minutes. I know how much you like using analogies from other sports, and think about how many more innings starters pitched in baseball years ago for example, now look at stars regularly playing 44 or so mpg in 1962. Even as late as 1973, Tiny Archibald average 46 mpg.

Now this is also before taking into account the lane widening which would likely affect Wilt's FGA, the free throw rule changes(no 3 to make 2s, 2 to make 1s) and the average player improving over the years.

Or that there are easier points to be scored when you're on the court even at the end for EVERY minute of 40, even 50 point blowouts, like Wilt was.

So at best, I view Wilt's 1962 season as the 1987 32-33 ppg equivalent to Jordan's 37.

Though I don't think Wilt would have actually averaged as many as 32-33 ppg in 1987 given his skill set.

[KingBeasley08]

Cuz Jordan is clearly better than a poor man's Javale McGee

[OldSchoolBBall]

Less is fine, "far less" implies something different to me. Jordan's ability to take over games down the stretch.. games that matter, when all the cards are on the table in addition to everything he already brings to the table over the course of 48 minutes gives him the edge over virtually anybody that's ever played. However, I think they're both tier 1 all-time players. Individually, they'll improve any team significantly with marginal difference. Do you agree with that?

Yes, I do. The difference is marginal, but clear imo.

[97 bulls]

:roll: Not that any of these adjustments prove conclusively what Wilt would have or wouldn't have done in 1987, but.

Wilt's Warriors attempted 8929 FGA over an 80 game season in 1962, Wilt's 3159 accounted for 35.38% of their attempts. Jordan's 1987 Bulls attempted 7155 over an 82 game season, so over an 82 game season on Jordan's 1987 Bulls, that'd be equal to 2531 FGA or 30.9 FGA

Wilt attempted a free throw for every 2.32 field goals so he ends up with roughly 1092 free throw attempts or 13.3 FTA.

Shooting 50.6% from the field and 61.3% for the line that equals 3229 points or 39.4 ppg.

But that's while averaging 48.5 mpg. Jordan led the league with 3281 total minutes in 1987, give Wilt the same points per minute and 40 mpg like Jordan and he ends up with 2663 points or 32.5 ppg.

And yes, you do have to look at minutes. I know how much you like using analogies from other sports, and think about how many more innings starters pitched in baseball years ago for example, now look at stars regularly playing 44 or so mpg in 1962. Even as late as 1973, Tiny Archibald average 46 mpg.

Now this is also before taking into account the lane widening which would likely affect Wilt's FGA, the free throw rule changes(no 3 to make 2s, 2 to make 1s) and the average player improving over the years.

Or that there are easier points to be scored when you're on the court even at the end for EVERY minute of 40, even 50 game blowouts, like Wilt was.

So at best, I view Wilt's 1962 season as the 1987 32-33 ppg equivalent to Jordan's 37.

Though I don't think Wilt would have actually averaged as many as 32-33 ppg in 1987 given his skill set.
Great post shaq. And to add to this. Wilt took almost 1800 shots that year he avg 50ppg. The next closets guy took about half that many shots. Since were trying to adjust over eras, is wilt still gonna be able to take damn near twice as many shots as the next closest pplayer? Cuz if were making everything relative and taking into consideration what wil did vs the players he played against and the league, we must extrapolate everything. Wilts FG attempt must alomst double the number 2 guy in the league for 87 which would be about 4000 shots. That ain't gonna happen.

Wilt was ahead of his time. But he did get by on being the most dominant player in the league. Someone posted a few clips of wilt in a game and to be honest, I've seen 8th grade players with more fundamentals. But how he played in the 60s and how the game is played now has evolved so much.

[PTB Fan]

Matter of opinion and their own point at this thing.

[catch24]

Chamberlain was also facing a HOF center in two-thirds of his 160 post-season games (49 against Russell alone, or about one-third!) Jordan's '86 Bulls could make the playoffs with a 30-52 record (which allowed MJ to average 43.7 ppg in his three playoff games).

Jordan was also facing better athletes and more (many more) teams. Jordan's team 'could make the playoffs' with a 30-52 record because talent was spread out, hence far more competition. There weren't just 8-10 teams to compete against vs less talented players. The talent pool was spread out during Jordan's ERA- there were simply more (and better) basketball players. Not debatable. Btw, Jordan faced twice as many HoFers in the playoffs.


So, while MJ was a better scorer in the POST-SEASON, it was not dramatically higher than a "scoring" Wilt.


No question. How about the regular season? BUT, a "scoring" Chamberlain, which only occurred in HALF of Wilt's career (although, as I pointed out, Wilt COULD have scored MUCH more from '67 thru '69.)

He wasn't just better, he was hands down better. Yes, his PPG numbers are dramatically higher than Wilt's. 32 PPG on 49% shooting > 22 PPG on 52% shooting quite easily. By most advanced measures, Jordan was considerably more efficient. MJ was a guard who's efficiency was similar to Wilt on more volume. During the 90's, he out-shot (while making more than half of them) the league comfortably I might add. Jordan scored more on better efficiency than Wilt during postseason-play also (57%TS vs 52%TS).


Again, significantly better. The numbers DONT lie. Chamberlain was NOT "lightyears" above MJ. Jordan, as you mentioned, held a higher career and postseason PPG average. Whether Wilt "could have scored more" is extraneous. It's what happened AND what is; MJ beats Wilt in the regular season too. Jordan was just a more consistent all-around scorer when we combine both the regular and postseasons. While Wilt had a more impressive peak value in his scoring, Jordan sustained his dominance longer by winning 3 more scoring titles, and again, finishing with a higher ppg average than Wilt Chamberlain.


Once again, in terms of FG%, Wilt was SIGNIFUCANTLY more efficient. And, BTW, find me even ONE Finals in which Chamberlain shot .455, or .427, or god forbid, .415, as MJ had.

And once again, on significantly lesser volume (when you include the postseason). Comparing FG% between a big man who shoots a lot and a guard who shoots a lot is counter productive anyway (not saying it should be ignored). Credit to Wilt for being able to shot 54% for his career (while Jordan shot 49.7% (51.5% as a Bull) his career).

Interesting. Now, find me one Finals MJ lost. Find me a playoffs series Wilt outscored MJ's best. Find me a Finals series Wilt outshot and scored Jordan's best. I'll wait.


Yes, MJ was a better FT shooter, but here again, in terms of FTs MADE, it was not dramatic. MJ averaged 6.8 MADE per game, in his career, while Wilt was at 5.8.

Here again, another crazy ass post. MJ made more and missed considerably LESS - hence why Chamberlain was so awful and inconsistent from the line. Wilt also missed FAR more FT's than Jordan every season.


Passing? MJ handled the ball considerably more than Chamberlain, and yet, his career APG was 5.3 to Wilt's 4.4.

That's because Jordan could actually handle the ball. He was more fluid and skillfull with his dribbling and handling. Wilt would be a turnover machine doing what Jordan did. Jordan passed for 11 assists in a Finals series. Would Chamberlain be able to do this with far-less possessions? Wilt is also #123 all time in assists per game and #59 all time in total assists. Meanwhile, MJ is #80 in all time assists per game and #35 in all time total assists.

Try again.


How about rebounding?

Wilt has Jordan beat here easily. No argument here.


Defense?

MJ was the first player in history to have a combined 200 steals & 100 blocks. He was also the only player to do it multiple times (Hakeem and Pippen did it later but only in one season). The DPOY wasn't created until the '83 season iirc so who the better defensive player is certainly up for debate (even though I gave Wilt the edge earlier). The league also didn't record blocks and steals during Wilt's career. So for the sake of argument we can call the defense at their positions a tie.


Clutch play? Yes, MJ had many great post-season games ...but so did Chamberlain

MJ has the most known GW's of any player in history. Additionally, MJ's GW/A are 33/58 (57%); Wilt's consistency in the clutch isn't really known (as far as raw-stats go). The only real way to break-down both guys' clutch abilities would be review Wilt's actual consistency. Until you prove otherwise, MJ will still remain MORE clutch than Wilt.


Elimination games? Chamberlain, who supposedly "wilted" in the post-season (YOUR comments BTW)

Once again, for comparisons sake, he definitely "wilted". Jordan was without question the greater playoff performer. The numbers, achievements, accolades and honors back all that up.


Jordan won more titles...on the most STACKED teams in the league, and with WATERED DOWN competition.

Funny, especially looking at the league during the 50's and 60's. The game was still considered "new" and athletes (in a predominant white league) just weren't as good (neither were the players might I add). I hate to use this argument, I really do, but anyone not blind or full of bullshit will tell you players (and athletes) in the 80's and 90's were far and away more talented in contrast to Wilt's ERA. Much of that is why I rank how said players/legends DID (and what they accomplished) during their respective ERA.

I do find it hilarious that you have the gull to talk about Jordan's stacked teams.

HoFers Wilt and Jordan had as teammates in their careers -
Wilt: Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, West, Baylor, and Gail Goodrich
Jordan: Pippen and Rodman


And I already TRASHED the NONSENSE that Chamberlain "wilted" in his post-season play. He took PUTRID rosters much further than MJ did in his early seasons. MJ went 1-9 in his first ten post-season games. It wasn't until Pippen arrived that he won a playoff series.

You didn't "trash" anything. Jordan was easily the better playoff performer. Yes, Wilt "wilted" when you compare his individual playoff dominance to Jordan's. Look at the regular season/postseason averages for a basic comparison. Jordan was the 4th player in history to win a scoring title and an NBA championship the SAME season, which he did all 6 times (leading 6 teams to championships while leading the league in scoring every year). Too add onto that, in '96, he became the 2nd player EVER to sweep the MVP awards (regular season, NBA Finals, All-Star Game) after Reed (Willis). He did it again in 1998, making him the ONLY player to do it multiple times. Again, Wilt never accomplished this feat.

Furthermore, Wilt went 1-7 against Russell despite having rosters that could compete with Russell. Jordan was undefeated in the Finals; Chamberlain lost multiple times (being the favorite a few of those times also). Wilt's play spiraled in the postseason; Jordan's did NOT. Maybe the reason Wilt's teams underachieved was because Wilt faltered under pressure constantly playing worse than the regular season, whereas MJ's play got BETTER when it mattered. Taking everything into account, the overall comparison is close, no doubt, but I believe the way MJ stepped up his level of play in the playoffs is the clear difference between them. That and combined with Jordan's consistent (and sustained) dominance in comparison to Wilt's shorter dominance. Whatever though. It's hysterical that you go on wild tangents only to get your point(s) across. I had to delete some of these posts because they had literally nothing to do with what was being discussed. In all seriousness, you need to quit dumbing down the discussion with your creepy Wilt fetish. It's getting old.

[catch24]

BTW, credit to Bruceblitz for the statistical data. I got a lot of my research from an old statistical breakdown of his (for the two players).

[StarJordan]

you can't go to wilt at the end of the game...wilt chamberlain is a liability on the floor if your team is down by two with clock running down.

[jlauber]

Jordan was also facing better athletes and more (many more) teams. Jordan's team 'could make the playoffs' with a 30-52 record because talent was spread out, hence far more competition. There weren't just 8-10 teams to compete against vs less talented players. The talent pool was spread out during Jordan's ERA- there were simply more (and better) basketball players. Not debatable. Btw, Jordan faced twice as many HoFers in the playoffs.



Jordan was playing in leagues with FAR more teams, and the talent SPREAD OUT. How many HOFers were on the TYPICAL team in the 90's, when MJ was WINNING rings? The talent levels were not CONCENTRATED as they were in almost ANY season in the 60's, and to a lessor extent, the 70's. Let's use ONE season in Wilt's PRIME shall we.

How about his 66-67 season when he LED his team to a 68-13 record, and then an overwhelming title. A TEN team league. How about the 39-42 Hawks. Players like Lou Hudson, who had SEVEN seasons of 20+ ppg (and on high efficiencies too, including two of 27 ppgf): or Bill Bridges, who was capable of 15 rpg seasons' or FIVE-TIME all-star CENTER Zelmo Beatty, who had FIVE seasons of 20+ ppg; or Paul Silas, who was habitually among the rebound leaders in his career; or HOFer Lenny Wilkens, who was one of the premier PG's of his era.

Then there was the 36-45 NY Knicks. A team thatt had SEVEN players average double-figure scoring. Rookie Cazzie Russell, who would go on to become one of the league's best "sixth men", and a player who had a 20+ ppg season later in his career. Or 6-5 GUARD Dick Van Arsdale who would have THREE 20+ ppg seasons in his career, and SIX over 17.8 ppg. Or 6-4 guard Dick Barnett, who had SIX seasons of 17+ ppg in his career, including 17.0 in 66-67. And, then, they had the "twin towers" of HOF bookends 6-9 Willis Reed and Walt Bellamy, and both near their primes. Reed averaged 20.9 ppg , 14.6 rpg, and shot .489; while Bellamy was a 19.0 ppg scorer, a 13.5 rpg rebounder, and shot .521 (more on that later.)

How about the Lakers, who finished 36-45? Think about this...that Laker team had BOTH Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, and in their PRIMES, and they still went 36-45. Those two were the Wade and Lebron counterparts of the 60's, and yet...36-45. They also had Archie Clark, who would average 19.9 ppg the very next season; HOFer Gail Goodrich; 7-0 Mel Counts; and Abdul-Rahman (Walt Hazzard), a player who average 24.0 ppg the very next season.

The Royals? They also finished under .500, at 39-42. Must have been pretty crappy right? All that team had was players like Happy Hairston, who would be among the best rebounding forwards of his era; or Bob Love, who would become one of the premier scorers within a few years. Or Flynn Robinson, who was one of the best pure shooters of his era, and proved he could score 20 ppg later in his career. Or Jon McGlocklin, a 6-5 guard with 25+ ft. range who had seasons of .500 shooting (including a a staggering .535 mark in 70-71.) Oh, and BTW, that team also had a Oscar and Lucas. Oscar merely averaged 30.5 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 10.7 apg, and shot .493 (in a league that shot .441.) And Lucas was at 17.8 ppg, 19.1 rpg, and shot .489.

That is FOUR LOADED teams, in a league with TEN teams, right there. And they were all LOSING teams.

How about the winning teams? The Warriors went 44-37, and they also had SEVEN players average double-figure scoring. All they had were players like Tom Meschery; Fred Hetel, who would average 19 ppg the very next season; Clyde Lee, who was a 15 rpp guy (in limited minutes) a few years later (and who averaged 7.4 rpg in 17 mpg that season); Jeff Mullins, who had several 20 ppg seasons within a couple of seasons; Al Attles; and Paul Neuman. Oh wait...they also had HOFer Rick Barry, who would lead the league in scoring at 35.6 ppg; and 6-11 HOFer Nate Thurmond, who averaged 18.7 ppg and 21.3 rpg that season.

I have mentioned it before, but IMHO, the 60-21 Celtics had the most LOADED roster in NBA history. True, there were other Celtic teams that had more HOFers (their 63-64 team had EIGHT, and their 62-63 team had NINE.) But players 1-10 were exceptional players on that 66-67 team. SIX of them averaged double-figure scoring. Their bench had HOFer Wayne Embry; guard Jim Barnett; 14.1 ppg scorer Larry Siegfried; Don Nelson; and HOFer John Havlicek, and his 21.4 ppg (yes, he was their SIXTH man that season.) Havlicek would have a TON of 20+ ppg seasons, BTW, including two of 28.9 ppg and 27.5 ppg. Their starters were HOFer Satch Sanders (one of the top defensive forwards of his era); HOFer KC Jones (again, considered one of the best defensive players of his era); HOFer Baiey Howell, who 20 ppg on .512 shooting in '67; HOFer Sam Jones, who LED the team in scoring that season, at 22.1 ppg )and who had MUTIPLE seasons of 20+ ppg, including a high of 25.9. AND, of course, they had the great Bill Russell, who averaged 13.3 ppg and 21.0 rpg that season, and as always, was a defensive beast.

Wilt's Sixers were also LOADED, albeit, they were not very deep (a pattern in almost every one of Wilt's seasons.) HOFer Hal Greer; HOFer Billy Cunningham; streak-shooting Wali Jones; PF Luke Jackson, who was 6-9 250 lbs.; Forward Chet Walker, a great all-around player; and a Chamberlain in his absolute, and unstoppable, PRIME. Chamberlain was dominant defensively; led the league in rebounding by a sizeable margin, at 24.2 rpg (in "only" 45 mpg BTW); averaged 24.1 ppg; handed out 7.8 apg (THIRD in the league); and shot a minb-boggling .683, which was .162 ahead of his nearest competitor, Walt Bellamy, and in a league that shot .441 overall.

How about the post-season? Chamberlain faced TEN HOF players in his three rounds (Oscar, Lucas, Barry, Thurmond, and the SIX that Boston had.) And they MURDERED them all. Chamberlain completely CRUSHED Dierking, Russell, and then Thurmond in those series, as well.

So, the teams of the 60's were LOADED. Even the majority of losing teams had SUPERSTAR players.

[jlauber]

He wasn't just better, he was hands down better. Yes, his PPG numbers are dramatically higher than Wilt's. 32 PPG on 49% shooting > 22 PPG on 52% shooting quite easily. By most advanced measures, Jordan was considerably more efficient. MJ was a guard who's efficiency was similar to Wilt on more volume. During the 90's, he out-shot (while making more than half of them) the league comfortably I might add. Jordan scored more on better efficiency than Wilt during postseason-play also (57%TS vs 52%TS).


Again, significantly better. The numbers DONT lie. Chamberlain was NOT "lightyears" above MJ. Jordan, as you mentioned, held a higher career and postseason PPG average. Whether Wilt "could have scored more" is extraneous. It's what happened AND what is; MJ beats Wilt in the regular season too. Jordan was just a more consistent all-around scorer when we combine both the regular and postseasons. While Wilt had a more impressive peak value in his scoring, Jordan sustained his dominance longer by winning 3 more scoring titles, and again, finishing with a higher ppg average than Wilt Chamberlain.



Once again, you are ignoring a PRIME "scoring" Wilt. A Chamberlain who averaged 33 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .510 in his first SIX post-seasons, COMBINED. Or a Wilt that averaged 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and shot .518 in his first EIGHT post-seasons...COMBINED.

Now, as for regular season scoring...Chamberlain averaged 39.4 ppg and on .510 shooting, as well as 25 rpg, and 51% shooting (in leagues that shot between .410 to .441)...in his first SEVEN seasons...COMBINED! MJ's greatest scoring season was 37.1 ppg, and on .482 shooting (in a league that shot .480.) So, Wilt's first SEVEN season just blew away MJ's BEST season. Chamberlain was STILL averaging over 34 ppg in his first TEN seasons, which is STILL more MJ's top-10 seasons, combined (about 32-33 ppg.) And, as I have already documented, it was Wilt's COACHES who had him cut back his scoring in the last three years of those first ten seasons, or Wilt would probably have been around 36-37 ppg or so, in those ten seasons...COMBINED.

Jordan holds the post-season scoring records, but Chamberlain is LIGHT-YEARS ahead of MJ in regular season scoring marks. 6-0 edge in 70+ point games; a 32-4 edge in 60+ games; 118-39 margin in 50+ point games; and a 271-173 edge in 40+ point games. BTW, Wilt also had EIGHT 60+ point games AFTER the NBA widened the lane...and again, BTW, his FG% steadily went UP after the widening of the lane...as well as having seasons of 34.7 ppg (including 38.9 ppg at the half-point in the 64-65 season) and 33.5 ppg (on .540 shooting in a league that shot .433.) AFTER the widening of the lane. The widening of the lane had NO effect on Chamberlain, but rather, it was his COACHES decisions that dramatically affected his shooting and scoring. He even posted TWO 60+ point games in his 68-69 season, in a year in which the NBA averaged 112 ppg, and in a season in which he only averaged 13.6 FGAs per game. And, his 60+ point games were usually on incredible efficiences, as well...including FOUR of over 70%, and one of .829 (29-35.)

And, while Wilt's scoring declined his post-season play, again, only 52 of his 160 post-season games, came in his "scoring" season. He STILL had FOUR post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. He had MANY 30+ series, too, including THREE of 37, 37, and 39 ppg. He aklso had FOUR 50+ point games (which is SECOND only to MJ's eight.) So, while MJ did score more in the post-season, it was NOT a sizeable margin. The fact was, Had Wilt simply shot more, he would have scored more. We already KNOW that. You can ask his COACHES why he didn't score more from his '67 season until his last season in '73.

[jlauber]

That's because Jordan could actually handle the ball. He was more fluid and skillfull with his dribbling and handling. Wilt would be a turnover machine doing what Jordan did. Jordan passed for 11 assists in a Finals series. Would Chamberlain be able to do this with far-less possessions? Wilt is also #123 all time in assists per game and #59 all time in total assists. Meanwhile, MJ is #80 in all time assists per game and #35 in all time total assists.

Try again.



How many TRIPLE-DOUBLE post-season series did MJ have? Chamberlain had TWO, and in the same post-season...including 19 in one game. How many post-seasons did MJ average 9.2 apg in?

How many assist titles did MJ win? Or come in THIRD? How many 20-20-20 games did MJ have (don't bother looking, he didn't have ANY, and ONLY Chamberlain accomplished that feat.) And did MJ have a triple-double game like Wilt's 53-32-14 game (on 24-29 shooting BTW) in '68?

I find it fascinating that Chamberlain, a CENTER, and a player who scored and shot so much in the first half of his career, could still be so CLOSE to MJ in the assist department (and again, assists were much more difficult to come by in the Wilt era.)


MJ was the first player in history to have a combined 200 steals & 100 blocks. He was also the only player to do it multiple times (Hakeem and Pippen did it later but only in one season). The DPOY wasn't created until the '83 season iirc so who the better defensive player is certainly up for debate (even though I gave Wilt the edge earlier). The league also didn't record blocks and steals during Wilt's career. So for the sake of argument we can call the defense at their positions a tie.



Except, Chamberlain played the CENTER position, which only allows ONE player to be first-team all-defense (and of course, that award didn't even come into play until very late in Wilt's career... and BTW, Wilt was voted first-team all-defense in his LAST two seasons.) In fact, had DPOY existed back then, Chamberlain surely would have won it in '72 (and perhaps even in '73.) And since you brought up advanced stats, MJ had two seasons of 6.2 and 6.1 Defensive Win shares...while Chamberlain had EIGHT seasons better than MJ's BEST, including two of over TEN (10.6 and 10.7.) AND, even using WIN-SHARES, Chamberlain's career mark is considerably better, and in fact, he had SIX seasons of at least 20.4 (and FIVE above it, with a high of 25.0), and MJ's HIGH was 20.4.

[jlauber]

MJ has the most known GW's of any player in history. Additionally, MJ's GW/A are 33/58 (57%); Wilt's consistency in the clutch isn't really known (as far as raw-stats go). The only real way to break-down both guys' clutch abilities would be review Wilt's actual consistency. Until you prove otherwise, MJ will still remain MORE clutch than Wilt.


So ONLY Game-winning shots classify as "clutch?" How about game-winning blocks (Wilt had at least two in his post-season games.) Or defensive stops. Or holding a PRIME Kareem to .457 shooting in one playoff series, in a season in which he shot .574 (including holding Kareem to .414 over the last FOUR games of that series.)

Once again, how about Wilt's 56-35 game in a game five of a best-of-series? Or his MANY other "elimination" games, which I listed previously?

Where were MJ's 30-20 post-seasons? Chamberlain had FOUR of 30+ ppg and 25 rpg. Where were MJ's 25-20 post-seasons? Chamberlain had SIX. And where were Jordan's 20-20 post-seasons? Chamberlain had EIGHT.

Regular season 30-20 seasons? Wilt with a 7-0 edge. 30-25 seasons? Chamberlain with a 3-0 edge. 40-20 seasons? Chamberlain holds a 2-0 margin. 20-20 seasons? Wilt with a 10-0 edge.

And do you want me to list his margins in 50-40, 40-40, 40-30, and 30-30 games? He literally had HUNDREDS of 30-30 games (103 to be exact...out of the entire total of 131 in NBA history.)


Once again, for comparisons sake, he definitely "wilted". Jordan was without question the greater playoff performer. The numbers, achievements, accolades and honors back all that up.



Once again, if your definition of "wilting" is a player that posted FOUR 30-25 entire post-seasons, and SIX of 28+ 25 rpg; as well as averaging 33-27 .510 in his SIX "scoring" seasons (and once again, he also had a season in which he averaged 44.8 ppg, 24.3 rpg, and shot .528...and didn't make the playoffs.)

And NO, Jordan was NOT unquestionably the better playoff performer. He scored more, and his TEAM's won more (more on that later.)


Funny, especially looking at the league during the 50's and 60's. The game was still considered "new" and athletes (in a predominant white league) just weren't as good (neither were the players might I add). I hate to use this argument, I really do, but anyone not blind or full of bullshit will tell you players (and athletes) in the 80's and 90's were far and away more talented in contrast to Wilt's ERA. Much of that is why I rank how said players/legends DID (and what they accomplished) during their respective ERA.

I do find it hilarious that you have the gull to talk about Jordan's stacked teams.

HoFers Wilt and Jordan had as teammates in their careers -
Wilt: Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, West, Baylor, and Gail Goodrich
Jordan: Pippen and Rodman



First of all, Wilt played from the '60 season thru the '73 season. Secondly, as we already KNOW, a way past his prime Chamberlain held a statistically PRIME Kareem to .464 shooting in their 28 H2H games. And yet, a 38 year old Kareem could averaged 33 ppg on .634 shooting against a prime Hakeem. AND, in the same season in which he hung TWO 40+ poing games of Hakeem, the old Kareem also outscored Ewing in one game, 40-9 (while holding Ewing to 3-17 shooting.) My god, a 38 year old-thru a 41 year-old Kareem averaged over 20 ppg and on .599 shooting in thosed four seasons against a prime Hakeem.

And, Chamberlain was not the only one, either. Thurmond probably did an even better job against Kareem. With the data I have seen, I doubt Jabbar even shot 45% against Nate in their 50+ H2H games. And even 6-9 Dave Cowens outplayed Kareem in a game seven of the Finals.

You mentioned Wilt's HOF teammates. He played ONE full season with Baylor. He played THREE full seasons with West. He played THREE full seasons with Goodrich. He played THREE full seasons with Greer. He played THREE full seasons with Cunningham (and Cunningham missed a crucial ECF's in '68 with a broken wrist BTW.) He played THREE full seasons with Arizin. And, he played THREE seasons with Gola (who is arguably among the worst HOFers ever BTW.) 19 seasons with a HOF teammate...and NONE over THREE years.

Now, Russell played with between FOUR to EIGHT HOF teammates EVERY season in the Wilt-era...with the AVERAGE being over SIX. And, he played with the majority of those teammates for between 5-10 years.

AND, MJ and Pippen played together for TEN seasons (and Rodman joined them for THREE.)

And Chamberlain was routinely facing 8-10 or more HOF players in almost EVERY post-season (except '61.) Jordan's teams were SLAUGHTERED by Bird's HOF-laden Celtic teams...while Wilt lost two game sevens, by two and one point, against Russell's Celtics that had HUGE margins in talent.

Give me a list of team's that Jordan faced, and BEAT, in the post-season, that had as many as FOUR HOFers. Hell, he seldom even faced as many as THREE (the 89-90 Pistons had three.) Two was the norm.

BTW, MJ won exactly ONE playoff GAME withOUT Pippen. And, as I pointed out previously, the Bulls roster was able to go 55-27 (down from 57-25 the year before) WITHOUT MJ, in the middle of MJ's run of six rings. Hell, they even went 6-4 in that post-season, and lost a close seven game series against the Knicks, who would lose a close seven game series to the eventual champion Rockets...all while replacing MJ with a part-time Kukoc and a part-time Pete Myers.

[N0Skillz]

A drunken post by a man who was just tired of seeing Wilts name under Jordan.



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TgPctAEx4sk/TB5XM75dfiI/AAAAAAAAAFw/hByiB5rQpsQ/s1600/drunkposting.gif

[jlauber]

You didn't "trash" anything. Jordan was easily the better playoff performer. Yes, Wilt "wilted" when you compare his individual playoff dominance to Jordan's. Look at the regular season/postseason averages for a basic comparison. Jordan was the 4th player in history to win a scoring title and an NBA championship the SAME season, which he did all 6 times (leading 6 teams to championships while leading the league in scoring every year). Too add onto that, in '96, he became the 2nd player EVER to sweep the MVP awards (regular season, NBA Finals, All-Star Game) after Reed (Willis). He did it again in 1998, making him the ONLY player to do it multiple times. Again, Wilt never accomplished this feat.

Furthermore, Wilt went 1-7 against Russell despite having rosters that could compete with Russell. Jordan was undefeated in the Finals; Chamberlain lost multiple times (being the favorite a few of those times also). Wilt's play spiraled in the postseason; Jordan's did NOT. Maybe the reason Wilt's teams underachieved was because Wilt faltered under pressure constantly playing worse than the regular season, whereas MJ's play got BETTER when it mattered. Taking everything into account, the overall comparison is close, no doubt, but I believe the way MJ stepped up his level of play in the playoffs is the clear difference between them. That and combined with Jordan's consistent (and sustained) dominance in comparison to Wilt's shorter dominance. Whatever though. It's hysterical that you go on wild tangents only to get your point(s) across. I had to delete some of these posts because they had literally nothing to do with what was being discussed. In all seriousness, you need to quit dumbing down the discussion with your creepy Wilt fetish. It's getting old.

ONE MORE TIME...Chamberlain DOMINATED in his post-seasons. And he routinely outscored, outrebounded, and outshot his opposing centers by HUGE margins in the vast majority of them (in fact he was never outrebounded in his 29 post-season series.)

Russell and Wilt played in the league together for TEN seasons, and Russell enjoyed an edge in HOFers in EVERU single one of them, as well as having much deeper benches. And, I would say that Russell's teams were only under-dogs to Wilt in the last three. One of which Wilt was benched by his idiotic coach in the last five minutes of a game seven, two-point loss; another in which Chamberlain's roster was DECIMATED by injuries; and in the other, Wilt led his team to a crushing rout of the eight-time defending champions.

Wilt's play "spiraled" in his post-season play to 22.5 ppg, 24.5 rpg, and on .522 shooting, AND, in the first eight post-seasons, of his 13, he was at 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, .4.8 apg, .518 shooting (in leagues that averaged about .430 shooting), and probably some 8+ blocks per game.

As for my "fetish" on Wilt...I can say the same crap about you and MJ. MJ was NOT a god. He played on FIVE losing teams. Without Pippen he won ONE playoff game. He had three Finals in a row in which he shot .455, .427, and even a deplorable .415. He also had entire post-seasons of shooting .459, .456, .436 and even .417, and in leagues that shot far higher than those that Wilt played in.

He was fortunate enough to play on LOADED rosters in the 90's, and in watered-down leagues.

[EricForman]

BTW, MJ won exactly ONE playoff GAME withOUT Pippen. And, as I pointed out previously, the Bulls roster was able to go 55-27 (down from 57-25 the year before) WITHOUT MJ, in the middle of MJ's run of six rings. Hell, they even went 6-4 in that post-season, and lost a close seven game series against the Knicks, who would lose a close seven game series to the eventual champion Rockets...all while replacing MJ with a part-time Kukoc and a part-time Pete Myers.


Lauber, please don't use this fallacy-filled twisted logic that Kobe-homers use. You sorta linked the "Jordan has only won one playoff game without Pippen" comment with "Pippen won 55 games and almost won title" AS IF THEY WERE RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER and somehow paints a picture of how teams do without Jordan and without Pippen.

That 55-game winning cast that Pip ran with came nearly TEN YEARS after the "cast that Jordan couldn't win with" before Pippen.

Kobe-fans use that twisted logic to say that Pip could win without Jordan but not the other way around. IGNORING the fact that the Bull's 3-12 roster in 1994 was significantly better than the Bull's 3-12 roster in, say, 1987.

Meaning, had Jordan ran with the 94 cast, without Pippen, he surely would have won "playoff series" and had Pippen ran with Jordan's cast, in, say, 85 or 87, the Bulls surely wouldn't have fared any better than what Jordan did.

Also, I've pointed out many times before the holes in the 94 Bulls argument. Jordan detractors like to play a bunch of "WHAT IFS" and talk like the Bulls were one bad call away from the championship. When in reality, they lost in the second round.

You know who's lost in the second round in previous years? 2011 Atlanta Hawks. 2007 Golden State Warriors. 2009 Houston Rockets.

The 94 Bulls acheived the same damn result those teams did, which makes them just a solid team, nothing more. 93 team won the championship, 94 team lost in second round. HUGE difference.

But of course, Jordan detractors will always use a bunch of "what ifs", twisted-logic, and exaggerations to pretend like that 94 team BARELY dropped off without Jordan.

[jlauber]

Great post shaq. And to add to this. Wilt took almost 1800 shots that year he avg 50ppg. The next closets guy took about half that many shots. Since were trying to adjust over eras, is wilt still gonna be able to take damn near twice as many shots as the next closest pplayer? Cuz if were making everything relative and taking into consideration what wil did vs the players he played against and the league, we must extrapolate everything. Wilts FG attempt must alomst double the number 2 guy in the league for 87 which would be about 4000 shots. That ain't gonna happen.

Wilt was ahead of his time. But he did get by on being the most dominant player in the league. Someone posted a few clips of wilt in a game and to be honest, I've seen 8th grade players with more fundamentals. But how he played in the 60s and how the game is played now has evolved so much.

This is utter NONSENSE. Chamberlain took 3159 FGAs in his 61-62 season. Walt Bellamy, who finished 19 ppg behind Chamberlain, took 1875, and Bob Pettit, who averaged 31.1 ppg took 1928 (or 1231 less shots.)

Chamberlain also led the NBA in scoring the very next season, averaging 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting, while taking 2770 shots. Baylor finished a distant second at 34.0 ppg, on .453 shooting, while taking 2273 shots...or 497 less shots. For example, in MJ's '87 season, he took 2279 FGAs, and Alex English was next with 1920 (or 359 less.)

[bond10]

LOL, another thread by a bunch of reluctant kids who won't accept Jordan as the GOAT.

[jlauber]

Lauber, please don't use this fallacy-filled twisted logic that Kobe-homers use. You sorta linked the "Jordan has only won one playoff game without Pippen" comment with "Pippen won 55 games and almost won title" AS IF THEY WERE RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER and somehow paints a picture of how teams do without Jordan and without Pippen.

That 55-game winning cast that Pip ran with came nearly TEN YEARS after the "cast that Jordan couldn't win with" before Pippen.

Kobe-fans use that twisted logic to say that Pip could win without Jordan but not the other way around. IGNORING the fact that the Bull's 3-12 roster in 1994 was significantly better than the Bull's 3-12 roster in, say, 1987.

Meaning, had Jordan ran with the 94 cast, without Pippen, he surely would have won "playoff series" and had Pippen ran with Jordan's cast, in, say, 85 or 87, the Bulls surely wouldn't have fared any better than what Jordan did.

Also, I've pointed out many times before the holes in the 94 Bulls argument. Jordan detractors like to play a bunch of "WHAT IFS" and talk like the Bulls were one bad call away from the championship. When in reality, they lost in the second round.

You know who's lost in the second round in previous years? 2011 Atlanta Hawks. 2007 Golden State Warriors. 2009 Houston Rockets.

The 94 Bulls acheived the same damn result those teams did, which makes them just a solid team, nothing more. 93 team won the championship, 94 team lost in second round. HUGE difference.

But of course, Jordan detractors will always use a bunch of "what ifs", twisted-logic, and exaggerations to pretend like that 94 team BARELY dropped off without Jordan.

Good post.

I was actually merely responding to those that claim that Chamberlain played on stacked teams, and "only" won two titles. Wilt played on very good rosters the last HALF of his career, and won those two titles. Not only that, but once again, take a look at the COMPETITION. Rosters filled with HOFers and potential 20 ppg scorers. And I have covered the other teams that did not win titles in that span many times. No player was "snake-bit" as often as Chamberlain was. I know that excuses are for losers, but the man truly came within an eyelash of winning up to FIVE more titles (and two of them were with pathetic rosters.) Injuries(to MULTIPLE teammates, including himself), poor play by teammates, miracle shots by opposing players, horrible coaching, bungled plays at the worst possible time, poor officiating...and in some cases, SEVERAL of those events occurred in the same series or post-season.

And this NONSENSE that Chamberlain "wilted" in the post-season. How many other NBA players had FOUR 30+ ppg, 25 rpg entire post-seasons? Or SIX 28-25 post-seasons? And while there are a FEW with multiple 30 ppg post-seasons, or a couple of 35+ ppg post-seasons, or playoff series of 37, 37, and 39 ppg...they are are VERY few. Jordan had EIGHT 50+ point post-season games. Who is next? Chamberlain with FOUR. Along with MULTIPLE 40-30 games, and even TWO of 56-35 and 50-35 and in "elimination games" no less. EIGHT 20-20 post-seasons. And in ALL 13 of his post-seasons he averaged at LEAST 20.2 rpg, with highs of 29.1 and 30.2 (my god, he even averaged 22.5 over 17 playoff games in his very LAST post-season.) And he was shooting WAY over the league average in doing so.

And those that claim that Chamberlain declined in his post-season play NEVER bring up the fact that Wilt faced a HOF center in TWO-THIRDS of those post-season series. Hell, he faced RUSSELL in 49 of his 160 post-season games...or nearly ONE-THIRD of them. Most intelligent basketball historians acknowledge that Russell was the game's greatest defensive player, and here was Chamberlain hanging FOUR post-seasons of over 30+ ppg on him, including one of 30 ppg and 31 rpg, and covering a seven game series.

Nor do the "anti-Wilt" clan ever bring up the fact that 108 of Chamberlain's 160 playoff games came after his "scoring" seasons. Nor do they bring up the fact that Chamberlain MISSED the playoffs in his 62-63 season, in a year in which he averaged 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting. And only a few will bring up that Chamberlain averaged 33 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .510 (in leagues that averaged about .430 shooting) in his first SIX post-seasons...COMBINED! ShaqAttack brought up Wilt's "decline" in his first EIGHT post-seasons... in which Chamberlain averaged 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and shot .518 (in leagues that probably averaged about .435 shooting over that span)...COMBINED. Give me a list of players who had ONE post-season where they averaged 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and shot .518....much less averaging those numbers over the course of EIGHT straight post-seasons.

And while MJ was a better post-season scorer, he was not "significantly" higher than a PRIME Chamberlain. And he most certainly wasn't as efficient...especially considering that MJ played nearly half of his career in leagues that shot between .485 and .492, and over the course of his ENTIRE career, was probably around .470...while Wilt played in leagues that shot from .410 to .456 and averaged about .440.

And, even though MJ has a razor-thin edge in career regular season scoring, it is truly laughable that anyone would suggest that MJ was a better scorer. One only needs to take a look at the RECORD BOOK to see who the REAL greatest scorer of all-time was. Page-after-page of SCORING records. And had Chamberlain been a true BALL-HOG, like MJ was his ENTIRE career, he most certainly could have put the career scoring average WAY beyond reach. Instead, he did whatever his COACHES asked him do (even the several INCOMPETENT ones), and sacrificed his scoring.

My intent here is not to disparage MJ's legacy, although I get frustrated to the point of having to make some pretty hard jabs, but to point out that those that rank Chamberlain over MJ, or Russell, have a solid case. Yes, you can argue that both were bigger "winners", in which case then Russell is the hands-down G.O.A.T., but as I have pointed out, Chamberlain was not only shackled with putrid rosters for half of his career, he was also battling HOF-laden teams his ENTIRE career. And he was playing BRILLIANTLY in the process.

[D-Wade316]

A drunken post by a man who was just tired of seeing Wilts name under Jordan.



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TgPctAEx4sk/TB5XM75dfiI/AAAAAAAAAFw/hByiB5rQpsQ/s1600/drunkposting.gif
You are stupid. Jordan is GOAT, BUT ARGUABLY. You fools have nothing to offer here in this forum but trolling. If you post, make sure that you yourself won't look stupid to others.

[catch24]

:oldlol: at JLaubers copy and pasting.

Wilt in the regular season: 30/23/4 on 54.0%fg
Wilt in the post season: 22/25/4 on 47fg

MJ in the regular season: 30/6/5 on 50%fg
MJ in the post season: 33/6/6 on 49%fg

Keep in mind Wilt played far more minutes and his teams (and league) had more possessions to work with.

One more time, while Wilt had a more impressive peak with scoring, Jordan sustained his dominance longer by winning 3 more scoring titles and finishing with a higher PPG avg than Wilt. Funny that Lauber continues to harp on Pippen like he was catalyst of that Bulls team. Don't forget the first year Wilt left Philadelphia, they won 55 games without him. Lets also not pretend Wilt could win without a HoFer (he played with twice as many as Jordan). I'll finish with this (as I did with my last post). The comparison between Wilt and Jordan is close, very close, but Jordan's scoring and overall production in the postseason is what really separates the two.

[D-Wade316]

:oldlol: at JLaubers copy and pasting.

Wilt in the regular season: 30/23/4 on 54.0%fg
Wilt in the post season: 22/25/4 on 47fg

MJ in the regular season: 30/6/5 on 50%fg
MJ in the post season: 33/6/6 on 49%fg

Keep in mind Wilt played far more minutes and his teams (and league) had more possessions to work with.

One more time, while Wilt had a more impressive peak with scoring, Jordan sustained his dominance longer by winning 3 more scoring titles and finishing with a higher PPG avg than Wilt. Funny that Lauber continues to harp on Pippen like he was catalyst of that Bulls team. Don't forget the first year Wilt left Philadelphia, they won 55 games without him. Lets also not pretend Wilt could win without a HoFer (he played with twice as many as Jordan). I'll finish with this (as I did with my last post). The comparison between Wilt and Jordan is close, very close, but Jordan's scoring and overall production in the postseason is what really separates the two.
IDIOT, IMBECILE, STUPID, RETARD:facepalm

[Psileas]

:oldlol: at JLaubers copy and pasting.

Wilt in the regular season: 30/23/4 on 54.0%fg
Wilt in the post season: 22/25/4 on 47fg

MJ in the regular season: 30/6/5 on 50%fg
MJ in the post season: 33/6/6 on 49%fg

Keep in mind Wilt played far more minutes and his teams (and league) had more possessions to work with.

One more time, while Wilt had a more impressive peak with scoring, Jordan sustained his dominance longer by winning 3 more scoring titles and finishing with a higher PPG avg than Wilt. Funny that Lauber continues to harp on Pippen like he was catalyst of that Bulls team. Don't forget the first year Wilt left Philadelphia, they won 55 games without him. Lets also not pretend Wilt could win without a HoFer (he played with twice as many as Jordan). I'll finish with this (as I did with my last post). The comparison between Wilt and Jordan is close, very close, but Jordan's scoring and overall production in the postseason is what really separates the two.

First of all, it's funny how, throughout the history of boards, Wilt bashers continuously seem to ignore basic rules of rounding numbers. Wilt's 22.54 ppg average rounds up to 23, not down to 22. I say it's funny, because every Wilt basher I've ever seen insists to use to 22 figure (insecure much?). One of them actually (I think it was StarJordan or whatever his name was) also rounded up Jordan's number to 34...Second, you have Wilt's FG% wrong. It was 52%, not 47.
But all this is secondary. The thing is, like Lauber has shown ad nauseam (sua, non vestra!), that you can't generalize Wilt's playoff stats without taking into context the other circumstances. Wilt's supposed 7.6 ppg drop between the regular season and playoffs becomes much less negetively impressive when you look at it year per year and realize that it actually happened only once, in 1962, and even his apparent huge 1962 drop is misleading, since his (and others') team's pace in the playoffs fell significantly, meaning that it would be highly improbable for him to post scoring numbers anywhere close to 50 ppg in the postseason. Look no further than his PER - if his drop was that dramatic, how come his PER only fell from 31.8 to 29.7, which still led the playoffs? Generalizing playoff stats is funny because a player can literally have worse playoff ppg in year after year compared to regular season and actually end up with higher playoff averages!

Yes, we keep in mind that Jordan played for slower teams and for fewer minutes. But we also keep in mind that pace does more good to guards than centers, especially after these centers slow down due to injuries (Wilt - 1969 and after), when fast pace turns against them. And this is a reason why I absolutely refuse to seriously consider PER when it takes pace into account to judge a center's "efficiency" and to claim that Duncan was a better playoff performer than Wilt because he played for such a slow team and therefore has a higher PER. True, Wilt was seriously fast when younger, but he still finished a lot more plays traditionally, rather than finishing fast-breaks with dunks/lay-ups (because if he didn't do so, there would be no reason for him to "only" shoot about 50% FG's in his prime, unless he was completely incompetent shooting well in set offenses, which of course wasn't the case).

Since I mentioned PER, and since it has been referenced by some more guys, let me also add that Wilt's PER is underestimated, since not all his stats were kept. From the playoff games I gathered info (and I've gathered info from quite a few), Wilt seemed to average around 8 bpg (actually a bit more, but let's assume that the rest of the games I find no info about bring his averages a bit lower), which means that he'd need to average at least 6 TO's per game just to balance his "official" PER, and I'm not even including his steals (1 steal = 1 TO per PER). Increased minutes make his PER more impressive, not less, since PER is a per-minute stat. Oh, and he still led the playoffs in PER 6 times, only 1 less than Jordan himself. Not bad for a supposedly "not all-time great playoff performer", right? These PER leads don't even include some impressive playoff runs, like his 1968 or 1972 ones.

Also, yes, we keep in mind other things like Philadelphia winning 55 games without him, in an expansion league, and then not coming even close to this in 1970, when the expansion teams became more competitive. Or the Bulls winning 11 games more with rookie Jordan than in 1984 (good improvement, but not all-time material) or going 40-42 with Jordan at full force in 1987. Yes, Wilt didn't win without multiple HOF'ers in his team. Find me someone from his era that did. Only Kareem comes to mind, and he only did it once, including beating a Wilt-led team that had only one more HOF'er than Wilt himself (and a lesser one than Kareem's HOF teammate, Robertson - that's Goodrich).

That's by no means not the only post I'd like to respond to, it just happened to be the most recent one. It's unproductive for my time to post much nowadays, so (kind of) apologies.

[LBJFTW]

Read all 7 pages and and despite some valid and solid arguments for other top contenders, Jordan is still the GOAT.

[catch24]

First of all, it's funny how, throughout the history of boards, Wilt bashers continuously seem to ignore basic rules of rounding numbers. Wilt's 22.54 ppg average rounds up to 23, not down to 22. I say it's funny, because every Wilt basher I've ever seen insists to use to 22 figure (insecure much?). One of them actually (I think it was StarJordan or whatever his name was) also rounded up Jordan's number to 34...Second, you have Wilt's FG% wrong. It was 52%, not 47.

Lets get a few things straight here. One, I am not a Wilt "basher". He's one of the greatest players ever and I have him top 5 all-time. Two, I didn't purposely ignore/not round his PPG average (I rounded up his rebound numbers). And finally, no, I am a fan of basketball. I don't get "insecure" off basketball topics. It's a debate, nothing more.

Apologies for posting the wrong FG% (I was looking at his FT%; ironically enough, I rounded that up too).


But all this is secondary. The thing is, like Lauber has shown ad nauseam (sua, non vestra!), that you can't generalize Wilt's playoff stats without taking into context the other circumstances.

Right, just like Jlauber points out Jordan was "0-12 without Pippen" acting like Jordan could beat the Pistons or Celtics powerhouses by himself. I do find it funny the zealots are QUICK to point out "fallacies" when its regarding their favorite player, but ignore context and logic when it pertains to other greats. Gotta love the hypocrisy.


Wilt's supposed 7.6 ppg drop between the regular season and playoffs becomes much less negetively impressive when you look at it year per year and realize that it actually happened only once, in 1962, and even his apparent huge 1962 drop is misleading, since his (and others') team's pace in the playoffs fell significantly, meaning that it would be highly improbable for him to post scoring numbers anywhere close to 50 ppg in the postseason. Look no further than his PER - if his drop was that dramatic, how come his PER only fell from 31.8 to 29.7, which still led the playoffs? Generalizing playoff stats is funny because a player can literally have worse playoff ppg in year after year compared to regular season and actually end up with higher playoff averages!

My point is that Jordan had sustained longevity. Jordan was a better postseason scorer, simple and plain. Are you saying you disagree with that?


Also, yes, we keep in mind other things like Philadelphia winning 55 games without him, in an expansion league, and then not coming even close to this in 1970, when the expansion teams became more competitive.

So you're allowed to use perspective with Wilt here, but when Jordan's team won 55 without him, and people use context (Chicago adding a few acquisitions/coming off a title), it's written of as an excuse. Good to know.


Yes, Wilt didn't win without multiple HOF'ers in his team.

And Jlauber concedes Jordan played with more talent relative to his ERA. Me listing who Wilt played with (and mocking him saying "Wilt couldn't win without a HoFer), means I'm using that against Wilt? Sounds like your Wiltdar was going off.

All I'm saying is Jordan played better in the postseason, which is true. Disagreeing with that notion only shows how much of a zealot you are.

[Psileas]

Lets get a few things straight here. One, I am not a Wilt "basher". He's one of the greatest players ever and I have him top 5 all-time. Two, I didn't purposely ignore/not round his PPG average (I rounded up his rebound numbers). And finally, no, I am a fan of basketball. I don't get "insecure" off basketball topics. It's a debate, nothing more.


It's OK, but my argument still stands for others. If you're not among them, just ignore this. I'm just sick that 95% of all posts on Wilt's playoff scoring write that Wilt averaged "22 ppg" in the playoffs (and the rest 5% are mostly mine, pointing out the mistake...).



Right, just like Jlauber points out Jordan was "0-12 without Pippen" acting like Jordan could beat the Pistons or Celtics powerhouses by himself. I do find it funny the zealots are QUICK to point out "fallacies" when its regarding their favorite player, but ignore context and logic when it pertains to other greats. Gotta love the hypocrisy.

Yeah, I "love" it too. Same works pretty much anybody, so it doesn't surprise me. My point though isn't what Jlauber claims about Jordan. Although I like his posts, I don't agree with 100% of what he posts (including about Wilt), so don't get me wrong. However, Jordan is the last player who will ever need any new people to step up for him, because he already has zillions of fans who will. Others are much less likely to receive this kind of help and if people think that Wilt's 7.6 ppg playoff drop is a real indication of what happened per average, this means that Wilt is being underestimated as a playoff performer and that some clarification (= help) is needed.


My point is that Jordan had sustained longevity. Jordan was a better postseason scorer, simple and plain. Are you saying you disagree with that?

No, I disagree that Wilt's playoff scoring drops are as dramatic as the raw numbers indicate.


So you're allowed to use perspective with Wilt here, but when Jordan's team won 55 without him, and people use context (Chicago adding a few acquisitions/coming off a title), it's written of as an excuse. Good to know.

You didn't see me using this argument seriously (this specific one, I didn't use at all). I'd only use it when I read about similar arguments that undervalue certain players. I obviously know that Jordan's value is not 2 wins per season and similarly, I know that Wilt's value isn't as low as the less than overwhelming results that some of his teams brought.


And Jlauber concedes Jordan played with more talent relative to his ERA. Me listing who Wilt played with (and mocking him saying "Wilt couldn't win without a HoFer), means I'm using that against Wilt? Sounds like your Wiltdar was going off.

I haven't read older posts of yours, but I merely commented on Wilt, not what Jordan did (although from a certain point on, he did receive quite a bit of help, and this includes not just players, but also the coach that a lot call the GOAT - plus Tex Winter).


All I'm saying is Jordan played better in the postseason, which is true. Disagreeing with that notion only shows how much of a zealot you are.

What's not what I have a problem with. What annoys me is some people who pretend that Wilt was not an all-time great playoff performer, just because he failed to reproduce the ridiculous numbers he did in the regular season and that comparing him to others, even Jordan, is as ludicrous as comparing Jordan to LeBron as Finals performers.

[Asukal]

Disregarding stats, if one who doesn't know both player watches them play, nine times out of ten that person would pick MJ. He has no holes in his game, great achievements, he played in an era where player skills are comparable to today's. Wilt is awesome and ahead of his time, but the 60's era is still infancy stage for basketball. Let's face it, put Wilt in today's game and he won't put up the same crazy stats as he did in the 60s even with all the advanced conditioning and training of today, its not his fault though he just came at the wrong time.

So to sum it up, I choose MJ over Wilt because he is a better well rounded player.

[catch24]

No, I disagree that Wilt's playoff scoring drops are as dramatic as the raw numbers indicate.

What we see in the raw data is that Wilt's stats did in fact drop, and that they were worse than Jordan's. Chamberlain was GREAT in the playoffs, I don't think anyone sans trolls would tell you otherwise, BUT, Jordan is arguably the greatest postseason player of all-time - and has a better case than Wilt in that regard.


I obviously know that Jordan's value is not 2 wins per season and similarly, I know that Wilt's value isn't as low as the less than overwhelming results that some of his teams brought.

Well, it's good to know you aren't Jlauber, aka Harvey Pollak.


I haven't read older posts of yours, but I merely commented on Wilt, not what Jordan did (although from a certain point on, he did receive quite a bit of help, and this includes not just players, but also the coach that a lot call the GOAT - plus Tex Winter).

When you have time, you should read my posts and the responses they got in this thread. I think you'd get a better understanding where I'm coming form. And to the bold - the same can be said about Wilt and just about all top 10 players.


What's not what I have a problem with. What annoys me is some people who pretend that Wilt was not an all-time great playoff performer, just because he failed to reproduce the ridiculous numbers he did in the regular season and that comparing him to others, even Jordan, is as ludicrous as comparing Jordan to LeBron as Finals performers.

I don't think Wilt was a "failure" or choker; however, when someone (like Jlauber) begins comparing him as a postseason player to Jordan, that's where things get messy. Jordan was without a shadow of a doubt the better postseason player Wilt was; be it in overall-stats, awards, honors/achievements, rings, whatever, MJ was far more successful.

[StarJordan]

series on the line in the playoffs...Time running down to 2 seconds...your team down by two...frenetic defense...you've got to inbound the ball...who you gonna go to....jordan or wilt?

[N0Skillz]

You are stupid. Jordan is GOAT, BUT ARGUABLY. You fools have nothing to offer here in this forum but trolling. If you post, make sure that you yourself won't look stupid to others.


Kareem > Jordan by a mile


A FCKN MILE

[N0Skillz]

series on the line in the playoffs...Time running down to 2 seconds...your team down by two...frenetic defense...you've got to inbound the ball...who you gonna go to....jordan or wilt?


The guy that averaged 50ppg in a season?

[StarJordan]

The guy that averaged 50ppg in a season?

and bricked half of his free throws...you dont need 50 points you need 2 when it matters....ball ain't going to wilt...even his own coach jack ramsay will tell you this

[jlauber]

Right, just like Jlauber points out Jordan was "0-12 without Pippen" acting like Jordan could beat the Pistons or Celtics powerhouses by himself. I do find it funny the zealots are QUICK to point out "fallacies" when its regarding their favorite player, but ignore context and logic when it pertains to other greats. Gotta love the hypocrisy.



OK, then, how about this RIDICULOUS comment?


Furthermore, Wilt went 1-7 against Russell despite having rosters that could compete with Russell. Jordan was undefeated in the Finals; Chamberlain lost multiple times (being the favorite a few of those times also). Wilt's play spiraled in the postseason; Jordan's did NOT. Maybe the reason Wilt's teams underachieved was because Wilt faltered under pressure constantly playing worse than the regular season, whereas MJ's play got BETTER when it mattered.

Where's YOUR CONTEXT. We KNOW that Russell had a HUGE edge in surrounding talent in SIX of their TEN seasons in the league. In the last four, Wilt's teams were favored in THREE (they were NOT expected to beat the seven-time NBA champs in 65-66 despite edging them out, 55-25 to 54-26.)

What happened in the other THREE? Well, Chamberlain's 67-68 Sixers were CLEARLY the better team. They RAN AWAY with the best record in the league. HOWEVER, the team that Philly had during the regular season, was NOT the team that faced the Celtics in the ECF's. HOFer Cunningham didn't play at all in that series, and despite his loss, the Sixers STILL jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. BUT, in game five, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones sustained knee injuries...and were worthless the rest of the series. AND, on top of that, and I have posted many times (but the "anti-Wilt" clan NEVER acknowledges) Wilt was nursing SEVERAL injuries, and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game three thru game seven. Furthermore, Wilt's teammates completely forgot about him in the second half of that game seven...a FOUR point loss. Does ANYONE in their right mind honestly believe that a healthy Sixer team would not have easily won that series?

I have also covered the 68-69 Finals MANY times. The Lakers had MULTIPLE reasons for losing that series. My god, ONE stinking PLAY cost them a 4-1 series romp. Johnny Egan, who was all LA could find after shipping Archie Clark to Philly in the Wilt trade, and losing HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft, lost the damn ball in the waning seconds with LA leading the game, 88-87, and having a 2-1 series lead. Then, Sam Jones, while falling down, hit the game-winner. If Egan holds onto the ball, the Lakers win that game, go up 3-1, and easily win the series in game five, when Chamberlain crushed Russell, in a 117-104 win. That was TWO instances right there (Egan's gaffe, and Jones' miracle shot.) How about Baylor not showing up in games three thru five, two of the losses, when he scored a TOTAL of 24 points in those three games? Or Don Nelson's miraculous shot in game seven, which sealed the two-point win for Boston (yes...TWO miraculous shots in the final seconds of TWO games.) And of course, the BIGGEST reason why Wilt's TEAM lost that series...their INCOMPETENT COACH. The idiot was son blinded by his hatred for Chamberlain (and he misused him ALL season long BTW), that he left Chamberlain on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven, and ultimately, a two-point loss.

And in the other season? Chamberlain FINALLY had a quality supporting cast, that was the equal of Russell's (although, once again, no nearly as deep), and they neutralized Russell's normal edge of having superior rosters. What happened? The Sixers ran away with the best record in the league, setting all kinds of records (and in a VERY competitive league...see my earlier post on the TALENT on EACH roster in that ten team league.) AND, with Chamberlain CRUSHING Russell (as he almost always did in the post-season), the Sixers annihilated the "dynasty" (and that Dynasty was probably in PEAK form BTW...take a look at that LOADED roster that season.)

Once again, Chamberlain's TEAMS were outgunned by Russell's in HOFers, EVERY season, and some by margins of 8-2 and even 9-1. And yet, he LED his team's to four game seven losses by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2. And two of those rosters had no business getting to a game seven, either. They were basically LAST-PLACE rosters that Chamberlain SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried to those game seven's (AND, those teammates were AWFUL in the post-season BTW...and he STILL nearly was able to pull off monumental upsets.)

BTW, Chamberlain was TRADED for THREE players after the 67-68 season (unlike MJ, who RETIRED following his 92-93 season.) AND, for the record, two of those players, Clark and Imhoff, combined for 36 ppg, 20 rpg, and on .510 shooting in the first round of the playoffs that year, and against Russell's Celtics. How well did Wilt's former team do in that series. They were BLOWN OUT by Russell's 48-34 Celtics in five games. Think about that. Wilt's IMPACT, on a severely injured team in the '68 ECF's, was FAR greater than the NUMBERS suggested. Here were two players, averaging 36 ppg and 20 rpg combined, and their team being routed. Meanwhile, Chamberlain not only had to replace Clark and Imhoff, and their 29 ppg, 15 rpg combined average in '68 with LA, he also had to replace the loss of HOFer Gail Goodrich, and his 13 ppg and 3 rpg. So, ultimately, Chamberlain replaced 42 ppg and 18 rpg, and with West missing 20 games, the Lakers STILL had their best ever record (at the time.) Yet, you NEVER read that tidbit from the "anti-Wilt" posters here. Nope, they just point out that Philly "only" dropped from 62-20 WITH Wilt, down to 55-27 WITHOUT Wilt. And that LA "only" improved from 52-30 WITHOUT Wilt, to 55-27 WITH Wilt. BUT, as I have shown, his IMPACT was FAR greater. BTW, EVERY team Chamberlain joined set TEAM W-L records (and TWO STILL remain), while EVERY team he left dropped DRAMATICALLY (especially of you include the post-seasons.)


All I'm saying is Jordan played better in the postseason, which is true. Disagreeing with that notion only shows how much of a zealot you are.

And I STRONGLY disagree. My god, I already gave you Chamberlain's numbers in his first SIX post-seasons...COMBINED. 33 ppg, 27 rpg, and .510 shooting (in leagues that averaged about .430 shooting.) Or Wilt's first EIGHT post-seasons...COMBINED. 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, .518 shooting (and in league's that averaged about .435 shooting), AND, probably somewhere around 7-8, or more, bpg.

And while you, and others constantly harp on the "pace" of Wilt's era (which, I PROVED was only SLIGHTLY higher than MJ's era)...you NEVER bring up their FG%'s. Jordan shot .487 in his post-season play, in leagues that averaged about .470 in that span. Chamberlain shot .522 in his post-seasons, in leagues that shot about .440 on average. Put Wilt's .522 in MJ's era, and it would have been the equivalent of .560 shooting. (.470 divided by .440, which is 1.07 ... times .522.)

Chamberlain was FAR more of a force on the defensive end. He was not only shutting down players like Russell, Bellamy, Thurmond, Reed, Lucas, and Kareem, but he was shutting down ENTIRE offenses. Teams seldom challenged Wilt in the lane, and when they did, he made them pay.

Think about this. Wilt, in his "post-injury" seasons, from '70 thru '73 (I am counting the 69-70 season, because he did come back at the end of the year, and actually had a dominating Finals), went to THREE Finals in his FOUR years. And had West and Baylor not missed the '71 post-season, it might well have been 4-4. And here was Chamberlain, in his LAST two seasons, averaging about 14 ppg, and STILL finishing 3rd and 4th in the MVP balloting...and taking BOTH teams to records of 69-13 and 60-22, and winning one ring. Other than Russell, and perhaps Magic...how many other players could have so MUCH IMPACT on a game, and with hardly shooting?

Jordan won with BETTER teams, and in WEAKER leagues. He couldn't SINGLE-HANDEDLY carry rosters like Chamberlain did, either, which Wilt did SEVERAL times ('60, '62, '64, and '65.) When MJ played on poor rosters, they were no more than average teams (actually, WORSE.)


What we see in the raw data is that Wilt's stats did in fact drop, and that they were worse than Jordan's. Chamberlain was GREAT in the playoffs, I don't think anyone sans trolls would tell you otherwise, BUT, Jordan is arguably the greatest postseason player of all-time - and has a better case than Wilt in that regard.



I just blew that theory up. Wilt's overall IMPACT was greater... at BOTH ends of the floor.


I don't think Wilt was a "failure" or choker; however, when someone (like Jlauber) begins comparing him as a postseason player to Jordan, that's where things get messy. Jordan was without a shadow of a doubt the better postseason player Wilt was; be it in overall-stats, awards, honors/achievements, rings, whatever, MJ was far more successful.

One more time...Wilt's overall IMPACT, in BOTH the regular season, AND, post-season, was greater, at BOTH ends. My god, the NBA put SEVERAL RULES in place to curtail Chamberlain's dominance (and only the banning of dunking FTs had any affect on his game.)

Jordan won more awards. BUT he wasn't facing Russell and his Celtics in TEN of his seasons, either. Wilt was a few points away from winning as many as SEVEN rings, too. There would certainly be no argument as to the real G.O.A.T. was had Wilt had seven rings.

[BigTimeHoop$]

Recency effect. Only Woody Page is old enough to remember watching Wilt play, and Woody's nuts. If Wilt dominated today like he did in his time, he'd be bigger than if MJ had a baby wth LeBron and it was raised by Kobe.

[N0Skillz]

and bricked half of his free throws...you dont need 50 points you need 2 when it matters....ball ain't going to wilt...even his own coach jack ramsay will tell you this


Ok would you rather have a player put up 50/25/5/5 a game or 30/6/6 ?


Answer...

Which one is better.
I will decide how stupid you are depending on your answer

[jlauber]

BTW,

Some posters point out Wilt's supposed "decline" in his post-seasons? How about the play of his OPPOSING centers, then? First of all, he outrebounded EVERY one of them, in his 29 total post-season series...some by HUGE margins (pounding Russell in '67 by a 32 rpg to 23 rpg; or Thurmond in Wilt's LAST post season, by a 23.6 rpg to 17.2 rpg margin.) BUT, how about THEIR shooting? Russell shot a staggering .702 against the Lakers in the '65 Finals. In the previous round and against Wilt, he shot .451 (which may have been his HIGHEST post-season against Chamberlain.) In the '66 Finals, Russell LED the Celtics in scoring at 23.6 ppg. Against Wilt in the previous round... 14.0 ppg. Russell shot .454 in his '67 regular season. In the ECF playoffs that season, and against Wilt... .358. Thurmond shot .437 in the '67 regular season. Against Wilt in the Finals... .343 . Thurmond shot .446 in his 72-73 regular season, and .392 against Chamberlain in the WCF's. Bellamy shot .541 during the '68 regular season. Against Wilt in the '68 playoffs... .421 . Kareem shot .577 in his '71 regular season, and .481 against Chamberlain in the '71 WCF's. And Kareem shot .574 in his '72 regular season... and against a 36 year old Wilt in the '72 WCF's... .457 (including .414 over the course of the last FOUR games of that series. In addition, Chamberlain was knocking Kareem's "unblockable" sky-hook all over the gym.

[StarJordan]

Which one is better.

the one that went 6-0 in the finals

[jlauber]

the one that went 6-0 in the finals

Oh, MJ WON those rings, huh? But, of course, it wasn't his fault when he played on FIVE losing teams. Or when his '95 loaded roster flopped in the playoffs. Or when he went 1-9 in his first ten playoff games.

Nope, he SINGLE-HANDEDLY won those six titles...and his TEAMMATES played so poorly in his other nine seasons, that even he could not overcome their awful play. In fact, he would have been better off without ANY teammates in those nine seasons. The same teammates who went 55-27 in '94 WITHOUT him.

[Collie]

Ok would you rather have a player put up 50/25/5/5 a game or 30/6/6 ?


Answer...

Which one is better.


Here's the thing. From 1962, I'd pick Wilt THIRD among all players if I wanted a winning team. I'd take the year's MVP (Bill Russell), and the guy who should have been MVP (Elgin Baylor) over him. Heck, you could argue that Oscar's 30-10-11 was more impressive when you consider that Wilt took FORTY attempts per game. FORTY.

Arguing based on pure stats without taking into account circumstances ignoring things like pace, number of shots etc or purely believing everything you see in basketball-reference?

Which is more stupid?
I will decide how stupid you are depending on your answer

[Psileas]

Here's the thing. From 1962, I'd pick Wilt THIRD among all players if I wanted a winning team. I'd take the year's MVP (Bill Russell), and the guy who should have been MVP (Elgin Baylor) over him. Heck, you could argue that Oscar's 30-10-11 was more impressive when you consider that Wilt took FORTY attempts per game. FORTY.

I won't go to the Russell vs Wilt debate again, except point out that Wilt for the '62 Celtics under Auerbach would quite possibly beat Russell on the Warriors under, hmmm, I won't tell you his name, you guess it. I remind you that they did go to 7 games, anyway.
I find no reason to believe Baylor should be the 1962 MVP, especially with only 48 games under his belt - yeah, I know, he served in the army, etc, etc, but the thing is, this army service started somewhat late in the season, so let's not pretend he spent the whole season alternating between being a player and a soldier. Or that Jerry West wasn't clearly better than Rodgers or that LaRusso wasn't at least as good as 33-34 year-old Arizin.
Yes, Wilt took 39.5 shots and 17.0 FT's per game to get to 50.4 ppg in 1962. Want to know how Robertson's numbers would have turned out to match Wilt's productivity? 37.5 shots and 18.0 FT's. And that's assuming that he would keep the same shooting efficiency regardless of the number of shots he took, which he couldn't (I mean, come on, going by this, Wilt should accordingly have multiple seasons better than 1962 if he was allowed to take 40 shots in each one of them). Not to mention that his team didn't exactly post an impressive record - worse than any of the previous players -while having quite decent teammates (not worse than Wilt's).

[catch24]

I won't go to the Russell vs Wilt debate again, except point out that Wilt for the '62 Celtics under Auerbach would quite possibly beat Russell on the Warriors under, hmmm, I won't tell you his name, you guess it.
I find no reason to believe Baylor should be the 1962 MVP, especially with only 48 games under his belt - yeah, I know, he served in the army, etc, etc, but the thing is, this army service started somewhat late in the season, so let's not pretend he spent the whole season alternating between being a player and a soldier. Or that Jerry West wasn't clearly better than Rodgers or that LaRusso wasn't at least as good as 33-34 year-old Arizin.
Yes, Wilt took 39.5 shots and 17.0 FT's per game to get to 50.4 ppg in 1962. Want to know how Robertson's numbers would have turned out to match Wilt's productivity? 37.5 shots and 18.0 FT's. And that's assuming that he would keep the same shooting efficiency regardless of the number of shots he took, which he couldn't (I mean, come on, going by this, Wilt should accordingly have multiple seasons better than 1962 if he was allowed to take 40 shots in each one of them). Not to mention that his team didn't exactly post an impressive record - worse than any of the previous players -while having quite decent teammates (not worse than Wilt's).

Jlauber strongly disagrees with Jordan being the better postseason player. In addition to that, he also believes Wilt had more IMPACT on both ends.

Can you see why no one really takes him seriously?

[Bring-Your-Js]

Jlauber strongly disagrees with Jordan being the better postseason player. In addition to that, he also believes Wilt had more IMPACT on both ends.

Can you see why no one really takes him seriously?

:oldlol:

He's avoided the Jordan comparison for what seems like forever. Now, he's finally done it. He's snapped.

[Collie]

I won't go to the Russell vs Wilt debate again, except point out that Wilt for the '62 Celtics under Auerbach would quite possibly beat Russell on the Warriors under, hmmm, I won't tell you his name, you guess it. I remind you that they did go to 7 games, anyway.
I find no reason to believe Baylor should be the 1962 MVP, especially with only 48 games under his belt - yeah, I know, he served in the army, etc, etc, but the thing is, this army service started somewhat late in the season, so let's not pretend he spent the whole season alternating between being a player and a soldier. Or that Jerry West wasn't clearly better than Rodgers or that LaRusso wasn't at least as good as 33-34 year-old Arizin.
Yes, Wilt took 39.5 shots and 17.0 FT's per game to get to 50.4 ppg in 1962. Want to know how Robertson's numbers would have turned out to match Wilt's productivity? 37.5 shots and 18.0 FT's. And that's assuming that he would keep the same shooting efficiency regardless of the number of shots he took, which he couldn't (I mean, come on, going by this, Wilt should accordingly have multiple seasons better than 1962 if he was allowed to take 40 shots in each one of them). Not to mention that his team didn't exactly post an impressive record - worse than any of the previous players -while having quite decent teammates (not worse than Wilt's).

Those 2 picks were my sole opinion, and of course, I think it's perfectly reasonable (and even wise) to consider Wilt or Oscar. My point was that Wilt was dominating, but not in a way that made it seem that he totally outclassed all other competition. Guys like Russell, Baylor and Oscar all had career years in '62. West also dropped 30-6-8. This points more to the year/era being much more conducive to mind-blowing stats than any other. This dude named Walt Bellamy dropped 31-20 that year as well.

Like I said, I want people to have some perspective on that 50 ppg season.

[jlauber]

Here's the thing. From 1962, I'd pick Wilt THIRD among all players if I wanted a winning team. I'd take the year's MVP (Bill Russell), and the guy who should have been MVP (Elgin Baylor) over him. Heck, you could argue that Oscar's 30-10-11 was more impressive when you consider that Wilt took FORTY attempts per game. FORTY.

Arguing based on pure stats without taking into account circumstances ignoring things like pace, number of shots etc or purely believing everything you see in basketball-reference?

Which is more stupid?
I will decide how stupid you are depending on your answer

Russell was essentially traded to the Celtics before the start of the 56-57 season, on a team that had gone 39-33 the year before. Not only that, but Boston also drafted HOFer Heinsohn that same season. AND, then a year later, they added HOFer Sam Jones.

Meanwhile, Chamberlain was drafted while in HIGH SCHOOL (and BTW, Auerbach wanted Chamberlain desperately) and by the time he joined that team, they were a LAST-PLACE team. Chamberlain IMMEDIATELY took that crappy last-place roster to their best-ever record (at the time) at 49-26. He got them to a game six against the HOF-laden Celtics in the ECF's, in a game that they lost by two points.

Two years later while Boston was loading up with HOFers (SEVEN of them), Chamberlain was ASKED by his COACH to shoot 40 times a game. Why? Because his COACGH realized that the ONLY hope that team had of winning games, was for Wilt to score. So, he averaged 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, and shot .506 (in a league that shot .426.) Chamberlain SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried that team to a 49-31 record, and after a 56-35 game five in the first round of the playoffs (in a best-of-five series), Chamberlain then took that horribly outmanned roster to a game seven, controversial two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics. How bad did his teammates play in that post-season? They collectively shot .354 (aside from Wilt's .467, who was probably triple-teamed by Russell's Celtics.)

THAT was the "ball-hog" Wilt.

His 61-62 season SHOULD have been a UNANIMOUS MVP year. My god, in his rookie season, in 59-60, he averaged 37.6 ppg, 27.0 rpg, and shot a career low .461. He did lead his last-place roster to a 49-26 record, though. Meanwhile, in that '60 season, Russell took, what had been a 52-20 in 58-59, to a 59-16 record. And in the process, Russell averaged 18.2 ppg, 24.0 rpg, and shot a career high .467 (although he only shot .398 against Wilt in that regular season, while Chamberlain shot .465 against him.) Who won the MVP? Chamberlain did.

Two years later, Russell leads his SIX other HOFers to a 60-20 record, and in the process he averaged 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and shot .457. Chamberlain took that same basic last place roster to a 49-31 record, and in doing so, he averaged 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, and shot .506 (second best in the league...and WAY over the league average of .426.) Who won the MVP in '62? RUSSELL did! Now, think about that for a second. Russell played the SAME exact way on his '60 and '62 teams, and both had nearly identical records, while Chamberlain's '60 and '62 teams had nearly the same identical record...BUT, Wilt was a FAR more dominant player in '62. Now you tell me how any of that makes any sense. Fortunately, Wilt was voted first team over Russell, but IMHO, that '62 MVP voting was the absolute WORST voting in history.

[jlauber]

Those 2 picks were my sole opinion, and of course, I think it's perfectly reasonable (and even wise) to consider Wilt or Oscar. My point was that Wilt was dominating, but not in a way that made it seem that he totally outclassed all other competition. Guys like Russell, Baylor and Oscar all had career years in '62. West also dropped 30-6-8. This points more to the year/era being much more conducive to mind-blowing stats than any other. This dude named Walt Bellamy dropped 31-20 that year as well.

Like I said, I want people to have some perspective on that 50 ppg season.


In the 05-06 season, Kobe averaged 35.4 ppg, while Iverson averaged 33.0, and Lebron was at 31.0 ppg. Hmmm, must have been a HUGE offensive season.

And let's put Wilt's '62 season in REAL perspective. He won the scoring title, on a 49-31 team, by +18.8 ppg over runner-up Walt Bellamy (31.6 ppg) on a team that went 18-62. He also won it by +10.8 the very next year over a FULL-TIME Baylor, who averaged 34.0 ppg.

The HIGHEST scoring FULL-TIME "non-Wilt" seasonal average, DURING the Chamberlain era was 35.6 by Rick Barry. Of course, even Barry, himself, acknowledged that had Wilt wanted to win the scoring title that season, he would have. In any case, there have been a quite a few seasons in which players averaged around 33-35 ppg, even AFTER Chamberlain. My god, two years after Wilt retired, Bob McAdoo averaged 34.5 ppg in a league that averaged 102.6 ppg. BTW, how come Kareem, playing on a 40-42 team in '76, couldn't throw up a HUGE scoring season? Here was an opportunity to really show just how dominant he could have been. Instead, he averaged 27.7 ppg on .529 shooting.

So, if "everyone" was scoring so much, how come it was ONLY Chamberlain who ever scored over 40 ppg (and he did it TWICE.) Or how come ONLY Chamberlain has the top-FOUR scoring seasons in NBA history?

[catch24]

OK, then, how about this RIDICULOUS comment?

That was in response to the garbage you posted after I said Jordan was a better postseason performer. Don't try to twist this around.



And I STRONGLY disagree.

It doesn't matter whether or not you agree. Jordan was factually the greater playoff performer. By all measures save rebounding and FG% (although Jordan was more efficient when we take into account volume and FT shooting). Jordan has Wilt beat comfortably.

Keep trying, "tiny one".


you NEVER bring up their FG%'s. Jordan shot .487 in his post-season play, in leagues that averaged about .470 in that span.

Jordan was more efficient because of his FT shooting and volume. Please find your brain. The 90's played a better product of basketball while defense in the 50's and 60's where damn near every team averaged 100ppg, was awful.


Chamberlain shot .522 in his post-seasons, in leagues that shot about .440 on average. Put Wilt's .522 in MJ's era, and it would have been the equivalent of .560 shooting. (.470 divided by .440, which is 1.07 ... times .522.)

And averaged 11ppg less than Jordan, who played against better defenses in the playoffs (all the statistics backs this up). Players shot worse THEN because they were far less skilled and basketball relative to most PRO sports in America at the time, was still considered new.


Chamberlain was FAR more of a force on the defensive end.

Wrong. Wilt was NOT far more of a force on the defensive end. Where is the evidence to back that up? We have Jordan's steals, blocks and game footage of him being a lock-down defender during most of his championship runs. We don't for Wilt, however.


Jordan won with BETTER teams, and in WEAKER leagues. He couldn't SINGLE-HANDEDLY carry rosters like Chamberlain did, either, which Wilt did SEVERAL times ('60, '62, '64, and '65.) When MJ played on poor rosters, they were no more than average teams (actually, WORSE.)

Wrong, Jordan won with ONE HoF during his first 3-peat, and two HoF during the second 3-peat. Wilt played with 2 HoFers his first championship, and 3 more HoFers his second. All together Wilt played with twice as many HoFers as Jordan. Relative to the league, Wilt played with 2-3 allstars nearly every prime years of his. Jordan played with, what, 1? Sometimes 2?

So no, Jordan did not play with BETTER teams, and did his damage when basketball was played at a higher level. One more time, most of the teams from the 50's and 60's allowed well over 100ppg. The same can't be said about the 90's.

Try again.


I just blew that theory up. Wilt's overall IMPACT was greater... at BOTH ends of the floor.

You didn't "blow up" anything, moron. Wilt's impact was NOT greater on both ends of the floor in the playoffs.

PER, which takes into account pace, shows Jordan whipped the floor with Wilt. His PPG, efficiency, playmaking, leadership, and WINNING does too.

Try again, "tiny brain".


One more time...Wilt's overall IMPACT, in BOTH the regular season, AND, post-season, was greater, at BOTH ends. My god, the NBA put SEVERAL RULES in place to curtail Chamberlain's dominance (and only the banning of dunking FTs had any affect on his game.)

One more time, wrong.

Career Player Efficiency Rating
Michael Jordan: 27.91
Wilt Chamberlain: 26.13

Highest career scoring average: MJ 30.12
- Highest career playoff scoring average: MJ 33.4
- Highest career Finals scoring average: MJ 33.6 (min. 15 games)
- Highest single season scoring average: Wilt 50.4
- Highest single season playoff average: MJ 43.7
- Highest single Finals series average: MJ 41.0
- Most Total Points Season: Wilt 4029
- Most Total Points Playoffs: MJ 5987
- Most seasons leading league in scoring: MJ 10
- Most seasons leading league in total points: MJ 11
- Most consecutive seasons leading in scoring: MJ, Wilt tied at 7
- Most 60 point games: Wilt 32
- Most 50 point games: Wilt 118
- Most 50 point games playoffs: MJ 8
- Most 40 point games: Wilt 271
- Most 40 point games playoffs: MJ 38
- Most 30 point games: MJ 563
- Most 30 point games playoffs: MJ 109
- Most consecutive 60 point games: Wilt 4
- Most consecutive 50 point games: Wilt 7
- Most consecutive 50 point games playoffs: MJ 2
- Most consecutive 45 point games: Wilt 7
- Most consecutive 45 point games playoffs: MJ 3
- Most consecutive 40 point games: Wilt 14
- Most consecutive 40 point games finals: MJ 4
- Most consecutive 35 point games: Wilt 33
- Most consecutive 30 point games: Wilt 65
- Most consecutive 30 point games finals: MJ 9
- Most consecutive 20 point games: Wilt 126
- Most consecutive 20 point games playoffs: MJ 60
- Most consecutive 20 point games finals: MJ 35
- Most consecutive double figures scoring: MJ 866
- Highest scoring game: Wilt 100
- Highest scoring game playoffs: MJ 63
- Highest scoring game rookie: Wilt 58
- Highest scoring all-star game: Wilt 42
- Most points in 3 quarters: Wilt 69
- Most points in one half: Wilt 59
- Most points in one half finals: MJ 35
- Oldest to score 50: MJ 51 at age 38
- Oldest to score 40: MJ 43 at age 40

Jordan beats Wilt in the postseason comfortably.

Wilt in the season career: 30.07ppg 22.9reb 4.4ast 54.0%fg
Wilt in the playoffs career: 22.5ppg 24.5reb 4.2ast 46.5%fg

MJ in the season career: 30.12ppg 6.2reb 5.3ast 49.7%fg
MJ in the playoffs career: 33.45ppg 6.4reb 5.7ast 48.7%fg


Jordan won more awards. BUT he wasn't facing Russell and his Celtics in TEN of his seasons, either. Wilt was a few points away from winning as many as SEVEN rings, too. There would certainly be no argument as to the real G.O.A.T. was had Wilt had seven rings.

Jordan was facing a modern-day league with better defenses, taller players, better athletes and better all-around players. Jordan was facing the Knicks, Sonics, Pistons and Showtime Lakers. Wilt faced the Celtics.

Keep trying. You will continue being corrected.

[catch24]

:oldlol:

He's avoided the Jordan comparison for what seems like forever. Now, he's finally done it. He's snapped.

What's up? Yeah this "old guy" has gone completely senile. It's ok, I'll continue to expose his lies and propaganda.

[Fatal9]

Why do people put Wilt in the top 5 is a better question.

[Lebron23]

Because Prime Michael Jordan was the most dominant player on both sides of the floor, and he's arguably the best Finals and playoffs Performer in NBA History.

[IGOTGAME]

Jordan was facing a modern-day league with better defenses, taller players, better athletes and better all-around players. Jordan was facing the Knicks, Sonics, Pistons and Showtime Lakers.

Keep trying. You will continue to be corrected.

actually those Celtics team relative to that time period* were head and shoulders better than any team Jordan ever beat in the playoffs. Compared to those Celtics teams the "Knicks, Sonics, Pistons(that Jordan beat) and Showtime Lakers(that Jordan beat) were nothing. Let's not pretend that Jordan was beating all time great teams to get those titles.

*the fact that the athletes were different is irrelevant. Jordan never won a ring playing against a team with more talent on their roster. However, that is exactly what Wilt was asked to do when he played Boston the majority of the time.

[catch24]

actually those Celtics team relative to that time period* were head and shoulders better than any team Jordan ever beat in the playoffs. Compared to those Celtics teams the "Knicks, Sonics, Pistons(that Jordan beat) and Showtime Lakers(that Jordan beat) were nothing. Let's not pretend that Jordan was beating all time great teams to get those titles.

One team, where as Jordan faced multiple teams, relative to ERA, that were far and away better.


the fact that the athletes were different is irrelevant. Jordan never won a ring playing against a team with more talent on their roster. However, that is exactly what Wilt was asked to do when he played Boston the majority of the time.

It's perfectly relevant when the league was a predominant white one. Wilt never won a ring with less help than Jordan.

And no, wrong. Wilt had a much better team (and was favorite to win) against Boston in '69 (Russell's last season -- who admits Wilt's Lakers were more talented). Educate yourself.

[Bring-Your-Js]

Why do people put Wilt in the top 5 is a better question.

Still have your own version of the newspaper clippings? the one where chamberlain scored a game high on russell, after the game was no longer in doubt? :applause:


What's up? Yeah this "old guy" has gone completely senile. It's ok, I'll continue to expose his lies and propaganda

Bringing up some great points too. :applause:

[IGOTGAME]

One team, where as Jordan faced multiple teams, relative to ERA, that were far and away better.



It's perfectly relevant when the league was a predominant white one.

Wilt never won a ring with less help than Jordan.

And no, wrong. Wilt had a much better team (and was favorite to win) against Boston in '69 (Russell's last season -- who admits Wilt's Lakers were more talented). Educate yourself.

Arrogant much. I know you take a lot of pride in you posts but calm down. Wilt was favored in one year and lost...OMG. Thanks for assuming I didn't know that.


*the fact that the athletes were different is irrelevant. Jordan never won a ring playing against a team with more talent on their roster. However, that is exactly what Wilt was asked to do when he played Boston the majority of the time.

Actually color isn't particularly relevant when rating the competition in this case. The only thing that is relevant is the strength of Wilt's teams in comparison to others.

So guy, calm down. Your opinions are not special, neither is your knowledge of the game.

[Miller for 3]

becuz they have a brain? :confusedshrug:

[catch24]

Arrogant much. I know you take a lot of pride in you posts but calm down. Wilt was favored in one year and lost...OMG. Thanks for assuming I didn't know that.

Your post, and I quote:


Jordan never won a ring playing against a team with more talent on their roster. However, that is exactly what Wilt was asked to do when he played Boston the majority of the time playing against a team with more talent on their roster. However, that is exactly what Wilt was asked to do when he played Boston the majority of the time.

That sounds like someone who never knew Wilt had a more talented roster in 1969 (and 1967--arguably one of the greatest teams of all-time).

I'm perfectly calm; just informing you on something that you clearly "already knew".


Actually color isn't particularly relevant when rating the competition in this case. The only thing that is relevant is the strength of Wilt's teams in comparison to others.

I think it is when the best athletes in basketball have been of color. Not even trying to be racist (I'm part Caucasian).

Again, who isn't "calm"? What are you talking about? :oldlol:

[IGOTGAME]

Your post, and I quote:



That sounds like someone who never knew Wilt had a more talented roster in 1969 (and 1967--arguably one of the greatest teams of all-time).

I'm perfectly calm; just informing you on something that you clearly "already knew".



I think it is when the best athletes in basketball have been of color. Not even trying to be racist (I'm part Caucasian).

Again, who isn't "calm"? What are you talking about? :oldlol:

I guess you don't know the definition of "majority," the term I used in my original post. If I meant to say every time, I would have used that all inclusive term.

Your writing style and tone is arrogant. I think you should calm down your writing style but that is my opinion. But as someone who writes for a living, an arrogant writing style is easy to spot.

[jlauber]

That was in response to the garbage you posted after I said Jordan was a better postseason performer. Don't try to twist this around.




It doesn't matter whether or not you disagree. Jordan was factually the greater playoff performer. By all measures save rebounding and FG% (although Jordan was more efficient when we take into account volume and FT shooting). Jordan has Wilt beat comfortably.

Keep trying, "tiny one".



Jordan was more efficient because of his FT shooting and volume. Please find your brain. The 90's played a better product of basketball and defense in the 50's and 60's where damn near every team averaged 100ppg.



And averaged 11ppg less than Jordan, who played against better defenses in the playoffs (all the statistics backs this up). Players shot worse THEN because they were far less skilled and basketball relative to most PRO sports in America at the time, was still considered new.



Wrong. Wilt was NOT far more of a force on the defensive end. Where is the evidence to back that up? We have Jordan's steals, blocks and game footage of him being a lock-down defender during most of his championship runs. We don't for Wilt, however.



Wrong, Jordan won with ONE HoF during his first 3-peat, and two HoF during the second 3-peat. Wilt played with 2 HoFers his first championship, and 3 more HoFers his second. All together Wilt played with twice as many HoFers as Jordan. Relative to the league, Wilt played with 2-3 allstars nearly every prime years of his. Jordan played with, what, 1? Sometimes 2?

So no, Jordan did not play with BETTER teams, and did his damage when basketball was played at a higher level. One more time, most of the teams from the 50's and 60's allowed well over 100ppg. The same can't be said about the 90's.

Try again.



You didn't "blow up" anything, moron. Wilt's impact was NOT greater on both ends of the floor in the playoffs.

PER, which takes into account pace, shows Jordan whipped the floor with Wilt. His PPG, efficiency, playmaking, leadership, and WINNING does too.

Try again, "tiny brain".



One more time, wrong.

Career Player Efficiency Rating
Michael Jordan: 27.91
Wilt Chamberlain: 26.13

Highest career scoring average: MJ 30.12
- Highest career playoff scoring average: MJ 33.4
- Highest career Finals scoring average: MJ 33.6 (min. 15 games)
- Highest single season scoring average: Wilt 50.4
- Highest single season playoff average: MJ 43.7
- Highest single Finals series average: MJ 41.0
- Most Total Points Season: Wilt 4029
- Most Total Points Playoffs: MJ 5987
- Most seasons leading league in scoring: MJ 10
- Most seasons leading league in total points: MJ 11
- Most consecutive seasons leading in scoring: MJ, Wilt tied at 7
- Most 60 point games: Wilt 32
- Most 50 point games: Wilt 118
- Most 50 point games playoffs: MJ 8
- Most 40 point games: Wilt 271
- Most 40 point games playoffs: MJ 38
- Most 30 point games: MJ 563
- Most 30 point games playoffs: MJ 109
- Most consecutive 60 point games: Wilt 4
- Most consecutive 50 point games: Wilt 7
- Most consecutive 50 point games playoffs: MJ 2
- Most consecutive 45 point games: Wilt 7
- Most consecutive 45 point games playoffs: MJ 3
- Most consecutive 40 point games: Wilt 14
- Most consecutive 40 point games finals: MJ 4
- Most consecutive 35 point games: Wilt 33
- Most consecutive 30 point games: Wilt 65
- Most consecutive 30 point games finals: MJ 9
- Most consecutive 20 point games: Wilt 126
- Most consecutive 20 point games playoffs: MJ 60
- Most consecutive 20 point games finals: MJ 35
- Most consecutive double figures scoring: MJ 866
- Highest scoring game: Wilt 100
- Highest scoring game playoffs: MJ 63
- Highest scoring game rookie: Wilt 58
- Highest scoring all-star game: Wilt 42
- Most points in 3 quarters: Wilt 69
- Most points in one half: Wilt 59
- Most points in one half finals: MJ 35
- Oldest to score 50: MJ 51 at age 38
- Oldest to score 40: MJ 43 at age 40

Jordan beats Wilt in the postseason comfortably.

Wilt in the season career: 30.07ppg 22.9reb 4.4ast 54.0%fg
Wilt in the playoffs career: 22.5ppg 24.5reb 4.2ast 46.5%fg

MJ in the season career: 30.12ppg 6.2reb 5.3ast 49.7%fg
MJ in the playoffs career: 33.45ppg 6.4reb 5.7ast 48.7%fg



Jordan was facing a modern-day league with better defenses, taller players, better athletes and better all-around players. Jordan was facing the Knicks, Sonics, Pistons and Showtime Lakers.

Keep trying. You will continue to be corrected.


Oh, using Advanced stats now, huh? Take a look at Chamberlain's DEFENSIVE WIN-SHARES. He BLOWS MJ AWAY. Take a look at Wilt's WIN SHARES. He RIPS Jordan's ass, and by a MILE (and playing a year less, too.)

That is ALL the ADVANCED stats I need to know.

As for Jordan playing with lessor rosters. PLEASE, when are you going to acknowledge that MJ NEVER won a title over a roster with more than FOUR HOFERS. Hell, in his "title" years, he seldom faced more than two at a time. Chamberlain's rosters were battling up to NINE HOFers on ONE team. Even the '73 Knicks had SIX. Wilt was facing FAR stronger opponents, year-after-year. When Jordan did face a HOF-laden team, like the '80's Celtics...well, he and his team's were SWEPT.

As for Wilt's blocks...we KNOW that Harvey Pollack, the HOF statistics maven, had Wilt with ENTIRE SEASONS of double-digit block averages. Hell, we KNOW that Chamberlain RECORDED 23 blocked shots in a game in '68. We also KNOW that Chamberlain hung a QUAD-DOUBLE on Russell in the '67 ECF's, with a game of 24-32-13-12. Furthermore, I have already given the HOF centers who Wilt routinely held to some 100 points under their seasonal FG%'s in the post-season.

As for TOTAL DOMINANCE...give me the 30-25 post-seasons that MJ had. Wilt had FOUR. How about entire 28-25 post-seasons? Chamberlain had SIX. In fact, give me ANY player, other than Chamberlain, who ever accomplished that feat, even ONCE. How about 20-20 post-seasons? Chamberlain had EIGHT.

And, Wilt's FT shooting was the equivalent of Shaq's. Those two players had FAR more "and-one's" than any other players in NBA history. Wilt got entire TEAMs in foul trouble. How often did his teammates benefit? Take a look at EVERY team that Wilt played on. They were either near the top, or at the top, or WAY ahead of every other team. Here was an interesting stat, though, that showed just how much of a FORCE Wilt was at the FT line. His 68-69 Lakers LED the NBA in FT attempts, at 3161. He was injured early in the very next season, and missed 70 games. How did LA do at the line that season? They came in TWELFTH, in a 14 team league, with 2641 FTAs.

Efficiency? Put Wilt in the defensless 80's, and his FG%'s would have skyrocketed. Just look at Kareem and Gilmore, who had TONS of seasons, FAR higher than their 70's seasons, and when they were in their primes. Even in the 90's, league's routinely shot .460+. Wilt played in leagues that shot .410 to .456.

How "poor" were those defensive players of the 60's? Just ask Kareem, who could barely shoot 45% against Chamberlain and Thurmond in some 80 H2H games between them. AND, he never faced Russell, either. Yet, a 38 year old Kareem could average 33 ppg, on a staggering .634 FG% in FIVE H2H games against a Hakeem, who would be voted first team all-defense the very next season. In damn near the same week, that 38 year-old Kareem, who could barely get 6 rpg, hung a 46 point game on Hakeem (on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes), and then followed that up with a 40 point game on Ewing (who scored 9 points against Kareem, and on 3-17 shooting.)

Yep, the players were much better defenders in Jordan's 80's...where ENTIRE LEAGUE's shot .492, and even 30-52 teams could shoot .504 in a season.

So, yes. I will continue to REFUTE every single ridiculous claim you make.

[jlauber]

Why do people put Wilt in the top 5 is a better question.

This, coming from one of the biggest Jordan-bashers on the board.

[catch24]

I guess you don't know the definition of majority.

He didn't though, that's the point. Wilt, during his battles against the Celtics, had multiple HoFers/all-stars behind him. Nevermind the fact Wilt was a far more talented player than Russell.

The notion Wilt was asked to do "so much more with less talent than Russell" is incredibly overblown. Especially when we factor in all the choke-jobs Wilt had and Game-7's (three, losing all of them) Russell/Wilt had.

[IGOTGAME]

He didn't though, that's the point. Wilt, during his battles against the Celtics, had multiple HoFers/all-stars behind him. Nevermind the fact Wilt was a far more talented player than Russell.

The notion Wilt was asked to do "so much more with less talent than Russell" is incredibly overblown. Especially when we factor in all the choke-jobs Wilt had and Game-7's (three, losing all of them) Russell/Wilt had.

I'll assume you still don't understand the meaning of the term "majority."


Are you saying that Wilt had better teams behind him the majority of the time he played Russel?

[jlauber]

He didn't though, that's the point. Wilt, during his battles against the Celtics, had multiple HoFers/all-stars behind him. Nevermind the fact Wilt was a far more talented player than Russell.

The notion Wilt was asked to do "so much more with less talent than Russell" is incredibly overblown. Especially when we factor in all the choke-jobs Wilt had and Game-7's (three, losing all of them) Russell/Wilt had.

Give me those "choke jobs." Like playing nearly an entire '68 ECF's with SEVERAL knee and foot injuries, and as Russell, himself said, "a lessor man would not have played", and despite that, Wilt outscored Russell in that seventh game, 14-12, and outrebounded him, 34-26,

Or game seven of the '69 Finals (in which Chamberlain was left on the bench by his idiotic coach in the last five minutes...while Mel Counts, who shot 4-13 in that game, replaced him)? Hmmm, Wilt outscored Russell in that game, 18-6; outshot him, 7-8 to 2-7; and outrebounded him, 27-21. Brilliant move by Van Breda Kolf, in a two-point loss.

Or perhaps you are referring to Wilt's "choke job" in the '65 ECF's, when all Chamberlain did was take a 40-40 team, to a game seven, one-point loss, against the 62-18 Celtics...in a game in which Wilt outscored Russell, 30-15; outshot Russell, 12-15 to 7-16; and outrebounded Russell, 32-29. Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain scored eight of Philly's last ten points, including a dunk that cut the margin to 110-109. Then, the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with an inbounds pass, giving the ball back to the Sixers, and under the offensive basket. However, "Havlicek stole the ball"...just another example, of MANY, in which Russell's TEAMMATES came up HUGE.

[Bring-Your-Js]

jlauber, OT:

Koufax or Pedro?

[catch24]

Oh, using Advanced stats now, huh? Take a look at Chamberlain's DEFENSIVE WIN-SHARES. He BLOWS MJ AWAY. Take a look at Wilt's WIN SHARES. He RIPS Jordan's ass, and by a MILE (and playing a year less, too.)

Even without "advanced" stats, Jordan had better production and efficiency in the postseason. And Jordan kicks Wilt's ass in Total Winshares during the playoffs - 39.8 vs 30.8. What's that again? Oh, Jordan beats Wilt in playoff and regular season PER comfortably as well? Yes, we all already knew that, Jlauber. Please keep up.

Jordan holds a higher TS% and all-around better efficiency (FG%)/PPG ratio than Wilt in the playoffs - it's not really all those close either.

Try again.


As for Jordan playing with lessor rosters. PLEASE, when are you going to acknowledge that MJ NEVER won a title over a roster with more than FOUR HOFERS.

Wrong. Jordan played with two RELEVANT all-stars in his prime - Rodman and Pippen. Once more - two HoFers. Wilt needed 3 and sometimes 4 to win titles (i.e., the Lakers in '72). HoFers both players "needed" is a little misconstrued, you know, because Parish was playing a whopping 9 MPG scoring 3 points a night.


As for Wilt's blocks...we KNOW that Harvey Pollack, the HOF statistics maven, had Wilt with ENTIRE SEASONS of double-digit block averages.

Well we don't know his exact numbers; one again not relevant. Besides, who said Jordan was a better shot blocker than Wilt? :oldlol: at your wheels coming off again.


As for TOTAL DOMINANCE...give me the 30-25 post-seasons that MJ had

You can take the player who lost three Game-7's while we saw his production and overall impact dwindle when it mattered. I'll go with the guy who went 6/6 in the Finals, rose his all-around play in the playoffs, and has better all-around individual numbers with sustained dominance.


And, Wilt's FT shooting was the equivalent of Shaq's.

Right, he was awful.


Efficiency? Put Wilt in the defensless 80's, and his FG%'s

No one cares what he would do in the 80's. Jordan's efficiency in the postseason, when it mattered, when we take into account volume of points, 3PT-FGs and FTs, was better.

No dice, Wiltber

I'm not going to talk about what ERA and players were better anymore. Strictly relative to ERA, the comparison, as I've continuously repeated, is close BUT Jordan's postseason play is simply better. He was the better all-around player.

[catch24]

I'll assume you still don't understand the meaning of the term "majority."

I'll assume you can't read. It's a complete myth Russell played with "more help" for the majority of their head-to-heads. Wilt had 3, sometimes 4 all-stars behind each time they met in the postseason.

[IGOTGAME]

I'll assume you can't read. It's a complete myth Russell played with "more help" for the majority of their head-to-heads. Wilt had 3, sometimes 4 all-stars behind each time they met in the postseason.

Really, based on this thread I would assume you have the problem comprehending written text. See below

1st my post:



*the fact that the athletes were different is irrelevant. Jordan never won a ring playing against a team with more talent on their roster. However, that is exactly what Wilt was asked to do when he played Boston the majority of the time.

Now your post:


That sounds like someone who never knew Wilt had a more talented roster in 1969 (and 1967--arguably one of the greatest teams of all-time).

I'm perfectly calm; just informing you on something that you clearly "already knew".

Now my response:



I guess you don't know the definition of "majority," the term I used in my original post. If I meant to say every time, I would have used that all inclusive term.

Your next response:


He didn't though, that's the point. Wilt, during his battles against the Celtics, had multiple HoFers/all-stars behind him. Nevermind the fact Wilt was a far more talented player than Russell.

The notion Wilt was asked to do "so much more with less talent than Russell" is incredibly overblown. Especially when we factor in all the choke-jobs Wilt had and Game-7's (three, losing all of them) Russell/Wilt had.

I thought I was supposed to "educate myself?" I thought my post sounded like "someone who never knew Wilt had a more talented roster in 1969?" Oh, it would only sound like that to someone who doesn't understand what the word "majority" means or has trouble comprehending.

[catch24]

Really, based on this thread I would assume you have the problem comprehending written text. See below

Is this supposed to mean anything? I've been saying, Russell and his supposed "more talent the majority of time" is incorrect. Hence me pointing out the seasons and all-stars Wilt played with. You're so clueless.

[jlauber]

I'll assume you can't read. It's a complete myth Russell played with "more help" for the majority of their head-to-heads. Wilt had 3, sometimes 4 all-stars behind each time they met in the postseason.

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


Now you can see Russell's "score" is more than twice that of Wilt, but I think we're also overselling the unranked players by this method -- in essence, we're tying every unranked player as the 97th best of all-time. However, 3,902 players have suited up in NBA history, meaning the typical unranked player's ranking should be more like 2000th overall. So, finally, what if we took another weighted average ranking but assigned #2000 to all unranked players?




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



Of course, I have already given the MANY examples of Russell having as much as a 9-1 edge over Wilt's teams. But, not only that, Russell played with those HOFers MUCH LONGER than Chamberlain did his.

YOU mentioned Baylor. How many full seasons did Wilt and Baylor play together. I'll help you here. ONE. Their first season. Chamberlain missed nearly all of the next season (69-70), and Baylor missed 80 games (and the playoffs) in 70-71, and then was forced to retire after nine game in the 71-72 season.

Chamberlain played THREE full seasons with Greer, and Cunningham, and they of course had the best record in the league in all three. However, Russell still had HUGE margins in HOFers AND DEPTH. I mentioned it earlier, but Wilt's '67 76ers faced TEN HOFers in their THREE playoff series. Oscar, Lucas, Thurmond, Barry, and the Celtics with their SIX...and they wiped those teams out.

Wilt played THREE full seasons with West. Three with Goodrich. Three with Arizin. Jordan played NINE FULL-seasons with Pippen, and THREE with Rodman. Here again, though, while Wilt played a FEW more total seasons with more HOFers, he also faced HOF-laden teams, and did FAR better against them, than Jordan did when he was facing the 80's Celtics, who had LESS HOFers than the 60's Celtics.

Once again, when MJ faced HOF-laden teams, which was hardly ever, he and his teams were POUNDED (the 80's Celtics SWEPT MJ and his team's twice.) He never BEAT a playoff team with more than THREE HOFers, either, while Chamberlain was beating a Knicks team in '72 that had FIVE HOFers, as well as that '67 Celtic team with SIX HOFers, and perhaps the deepest bench in NBA history.

[IGOTGAME]

Is this supposed to mean anything? I've been saying, Russell and his supposed "more talent the majority of time" is incorrect. Hence me pointing out the seasons and all-stars Wilt played with. You're so clueless.

It means what it says.

If you want to get into a discussion about relative team strength between Wilt and Russel you make the argument since you are the one shooting down conventional wisdom with you superior knowledge of the game. Please educate me.

[catch24]

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

I like Simmons' take. Was Wilt not playing with multipe allstars during their h2h's? Did Wilt not have more talent in his pinkie than Russell? Of course, like the true zealot you are, you'd make excuses for Wilt's short-comings by agreeing with that crap article.

:roll: at some of the advanced measures in that article *((8.10 - 6.06) / 3000) * 16000 = 10.88* for minutes and teammates played w/. Hilarious.

[jlauber]

I like Simmons' take. Was Wilt not playing with multipe allstars during their h2h's? Did Wilt not have more talent in his pinkie than Russell? Of course, like the true zealot you are, you'd make excuses for Wilt's short-comings by agreeing with that crap article.

:roll: at some of the advanced measures in that article *((8.10 - 6.06) / 3000) * 16000 = 10.88* for minutes and teammates played w/. Hilarious.


Ok, let's see here...

Russell played with these HOFers...

Satch Sanders...NINE SEASONS
Sam Jones...12 SEASONS
KC Jones...NINE SEASONS
Bill Sharman...FIVE SEASONS
Frank Ramsey...EIGHT SEASONS
Bob Cousey...SEVEN SEASONS
Tommy Heinsohn...NINE SEASONS
John Havlicek...SEVEN SEASONS

ALL in the HOF. And the vast majority of them had MULTIPLE 20+ ppg seasons, too.

Nor does that include Bailey Howell or Wayne Embry, who were also HOFers, and who played a couple of seasons each with Russell.

Now, go ahead and post the total amount of FULL SEASONS that Chamberlain played with HOF teammates. And, please, don't include Thurmond, who played with Wilt in his rookie season, and he was playing part-time, and out of position.

[catch24]

Now, go ahead and post the total amount of FULL SEASONS that Chamberlain played with HOF teammates.

I'll leave that up to you. Entertain me. Why not list Wilt's HoF teammates to finish your post. While you're at you can list how many seasons Wilt had more all-star (caliber too) than Russell every h2h they had.

I'll wait. Chop, chop... I want to sleep soon.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Jordan never won a ring playing against a team with more talent on their roster.

Bullsh!t. The '91 Pistons, '92 Blazers/Cavs, '93 Cavs/Suns, '96 Magic/Sonics, '97 Hawks and '98 Pacers were all arguably more talented than Chicago. Hell, the '98 Nets - a first round loser - had Cassell (20 pts/8 ast), Jayson Williams (13 pt/14 reb), Van Horn (20 ppg), Gill (22/6/4 the season prior), Gatling (19 ppg all star the season prior), Kittles (17 ppg), and Seikaly (17/10 the year prior).

[catch24]

Bullsh!t. The '91 Pistons, '92 Blazers/Cavs, '93 Cavs/Suns, '96 Magic/Sonics, '97 Hawks and '98 Pacers were all arguably more talented than Chicago. Hell, the '98 Nets - a first round loser - had Cassell (20 pts/8 ast), Jayson Williams (13 pt/14 reb), Van Horn (20 ppg), Gill (22/6/4 the season prior), Gatling (19 ppg all star the season prior), Kittles (17 ppg), and Seikaly (17/10 the year prior).

Don't mind him. He enjoys speaking from his anus.

[jlauber]

I never claimed I was spreading "wisdom". What I've been saying, is that Wilt had enough talent and sometimes MORE than Russell. It's dumb to say, when for instance, in 1965 (a year I haven't already listed) when the Philadelphia to Boston in 7, had 3 all-stars (not including Chet Walker who put up all-star like numbers, and was one the year prior and after), where the Celtics had only two, with Hondo playing at an all-star caliber level.

I've already named about four (?) of Wilt's teams that were more talented this thread.

I already destroyed this nonsense before, but here we go again...


We KNOW that Russell had a HUGE edge in surrounding talent in SIX of their TEN seasons in the league. In the last four, Wilt's teams were favored in THREE (they were NOT expected to beat the seven-time NBA champs in 65-66 despite edging them out, 55-25 to 54-26.)

What happened in the other THREE? Well, Chamberlain's 67-68 Sixers were CLEARLY the better team. They RAN AWAY with the best record in the league. HOWEVER, the team that Philly had during the regular season, was NOT the team that faced the Celtics in the ECF's. HOFer Cunningham didn't play at all in that series, and despite his loss, the Sixers STILL jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. BUT, in game five, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones sustained knee injuries...and were worthless the rest of the series. AND, on top of that, and I have posted many times (but the "anti-Wilt" clan NEVER acknowledges) Wilt was nursing SEVERAL injuries, and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game three thru game seven. Furthermore, Wilt's teammates completely forgot about him in the second half of that game seven...a FOUR point loss. Does ANYONE in their right mind honestly believe that a healthy Sixer team would not have easily won that series?

I have also covered the 68-69 Finals MANY times. The Lakers had MULTIPLE reasons for losing that series. My god, ONE stinking PLAY cost them a 4-1 series romp. Johnny Egan, who was all LA could find after shipping Archie Clark to Philly in the Wilt trade, and losing HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft, lost the damn ball in the waning seconds with LA leading the game, 88-87, and having a 2-1 series lead. Then, Sam Jones, while falling down, hit the game-winner. If Egan holds onto the ball, the Lakers win that game, go up 3-1, and easily win the series in game five, when Chamberlain crushed Russell, in a 117-104 win. That was TWO instances right there (Egan's gaffe, and Jones' miracle shot.) How about Baylor not showing up in games three thru five, two of the losses, when he scored a TOTAL of 24 points in those three games? Or Don Nelson's miraculous shot in game seven, which sealed the two-point win for Boston (yes...TWO miraculous shots in the final seconds of TWO games.) And of course, the BIGGEST reason why Wilt's TEAM lost that series...their INCOMPETENT COACH. The idiot was son blinded by his hatred for Chamberlain (and he misused him ALL season long BTW), that he left Chamberlain on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven, and ultimately, a two-point loss.

And in the other season? Chamberlain FINALLY had a quality supporting cast, that was the equal of Russell's (although, once again, no nearly as deep), and they neutralized Russell's normal edge of having superior rosters. What happened? The Sixers ran away with the best record in the league, setting all kinds of records (and in a VERY competitive league...see my earlier post on the TALENT on EACH roster in that ten team league.) AND, with Chamberlain CRUSHING Russell (as he almost always did in the post-season), the Sixers annihilated the "dynasty" (and that Dynasty was probably in PEAK form BTW...take a look at that LOADED roster that season.)

Once again, Chamberlain's TEAMS were outgunned by Russell's in HOFers, EVERY season, and some by margins of 8-2 and even 9-1. And yet, he LED his team's to four game seven losses by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2. And two of those rosters had no business getting to a game seven, either. They were basically LAST-PLACE rosters that Chamberlain SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried to those game seven's (AND, those teammates were AWFUL in the post-season BTW...and he STILL nearly was able to pull off monumental upsets.)

BTW, Chamberlain was TRADED for THREE players after the 67-68 season (unlike MJ, who RETIRED following his 92-93 season.) AND, for the record, two of those players, Clark and Imhoff, combined for 36 ppg, 20 rpg, and on .510 shooting in the first round of the playoffs that year, and against Russell's Celtics. How well did Wilt's former team do in that series. They were BLOWN OUT by Russell's 48-34 Celtics in five games. Think about that. Wilt's IMPACT, on a severely injured team in the '68 ECF's, was FAR greater than the NUMBERS suggested. Here were two players, averaging 36 ppg and 20 rpg combined, and their team being routed. Meanwhile, Chamberlain not only had to replace Clark and Imhoff, and their 29 ppg, 15 rpg combined average in '68 with LA, he also had to replace the loss of HOFer Gail Goodrich, and his 13 ppg and 3 rpg. So, ultimately, Chamberlain replaced 42 ppg and 18 rpg, and with West missing 20 games, the Lakers STILL had their best ever record (at the time.) Yet, you NEVER read that tidbit from the "anti-Wilt" posters here. Nope, they just point out that Philly "only" dropped from 62-20 WITH Wilt, down to 55-27 WITHOUT Wilt. And that LA "only" improved from 52-30 WITHOUT Wilt, to 55-27 WITH Wilt. BUT, as I have shown, his IMPACT was FAR greater. BTW, EVERY team Chamberlain joined set TEAM W-L records (and TWO STILL remain), while EVERY team he left dropped DRAMATICALLY (especially of you include the post-seasons.)



We can also examine it like this, as well...

59-60 Russell with a 7-3 edge in HOFers.
60-61 Russell with an 8-3 edge in HOFers.
61-62 Russell with a 7-3 edge in HOFers.
62-63 Russell with a 9-1 edge in HOFers.
63-64 Russell with an 8-2 edge in HOFers.
64-65 Russell with a 6-2 edge in HOFers.
65-66 Russell with a 5-3 edge in HOFers.
66-67 Russell with a 6-3 edge in HOFers (and a MUCH deeper bench...and Wilt's Sixers STILL nearly SWEPT that team.)
67-68 Russell with a 6-3 edge in HOFers.
68-69 Russell with a 5-3 edge in HOFers.

And once again, those Celtic teams were ALWAYS much DEEPER, as well.

[catch24]

60-61 Russell with an 8-3 edge in HOFers.
61-62 Russell with a 7-3 edge in HOFers.
62-63 Russell with a 9-1 edge in HOFers.
63-64 Russell with an 8-2 edge in HOFers.
64-65 Russell with a 6-2 edge in HOFers.
65-66 Russell with a 5-3 edge in HOFers.
66-67 Russell with a 6-3 edge in HOFers (and a MUCH deeper bench...and Wilt's Sixers STILL nearly SWEPT that team.)
67-68 Russell with a 6-3 edge in HOFers.
68-69 Russell with a 5-3 edge in HOFers.

Once again, we've already established how flawed saying Player X had more HoFers playing with him than Player Y. Using your logic, one would argue Robert Parish had a signicant role on the 1998 Bulls team.

Again, list the all-stars and relative talent both players had.

I'll wait, Wiltber.

[catch24]

It means what it says.

If you want to get into a discussion about relative team strength between Wilt and Russel you make the argument since you are the one shooting down conventional wisdom with you superior knowledge of the game. Please educate me.

So it means nothing.

lol, what I've been saying is that Wilt had enough talent and sometimes MORE than Russell. It's dumb to say he didn't, when for instance during the 1965 season, both teams went h2h (a year I haven't already listed) that saw Philadelphia putting 3 all-stars on the floor (not including Chet Walker who put up all-star like numbers, and was one the year prior and after), where as the Celtics had only two, with Hondo playing at an all-star caliber level. Philadelphia lost in 7.

I've already named about four (?) of Wilt's teams that were more talented this thread.

[97 bulls]

Once again, we've already established how flawed saying Player X had more HoFers playing with him than Player Y. Using your logic, one would argue Robert Parish had a signicant role on the 1998 Bulls team.

Again, list the all-stars and relative talent both players had.

I'll wait, Wiltber.
I think a better question would be who had more teammates playing at a hall of fame level?

[catch24]

I think a better question would be who had more teammates playing at a hall of fame level?

That works too.

[jlauber]

Once again, we've already established how flawed saying Player X had more HoFers playing with him than Player Y. Using your logic, one would argue Robert Parish had a signicant role on the 1998 Bulls team.

Again, list the all-stars and relative talent both players had.

I'll wait, Wiltber.

Hmmm...nearly EVERY ONE of those players had at least 5-6 PRIME seasons with Russell. And I mentioned it before...the VAST majority of Russell's HOFers had MULTIPLE 20 ppg SEASONS. Hell, Havlicek had a SEVERAL with Russell, and TON AFTER Russell, including two seasons of 27.5 ppg and 28.9 ppg. Sam Jones had seasons as high as 25.9 ppg WITH Russell. What does that tell you? It certainly tells me that they were capable of 25-30 ppg seasons.

Look them up for yourself...Russell had rosters filled with players that had MULTIPLE 20 ppg seasons, and some came in years without Russell, too.

Compare the "scorers" of Russell and Chamberlain's teams from Wilt's rookie season thru the '65 season. SIX seasons. I won't even bother looking them up, but here again, Russell had SEVERAL players, who had MULTIPLE 20 ppg seasons. How about Wilt? He had ONE...Paul Arizin, whom he played with in Arizin's last three seasons. And I'll save you the time...NONE of the OTHER players ever had a 20 ppg season, with, or WITHOUT Chamberlain. Not ONE. (Ok, you can argue Willie Naulls, who was washed up when the Warriors picked him up in '63...AND, who played even WORSE with Russell afterwards.)

And I have already covered their last four H2H seasons. Even if you were to argue that Wilt's 65-66 Sixers had a better record than Boston, (and it was merely ONE game...and Philly had to win their last 11 games to catch a Celtic team that was obviously pacing themselves for the post-season)...take a look at how Wilt, and his teammates performed in the '66 ECF's against Boston. While Chamberlain was scoring 28 ppg, on .509 shooting, and with a staggering 30.2 rpg...how about his teammates? Jackson shot .429; Walker shot .375; Greer shot .352; Jones shot .325; and Cunningham shot .161. And they hardly used a bench. So, you certainly couldn't blame Wilt.

I also covered the "Laker" years. Baylor for ONE full-season. West for THREE full-seasons. And Goodrich for THREE full-seasons. Against Knick teams with as many as SIX HOFers. Or those great Buck teams that had Kareem and Oscar (and against which Chamberlain played one post-season without both West and Baylor.)

Did Wilt play on SOME quality rosters. Yes, in about HALF of his career...but again, in leagues that were FILLED with HOFers and All-Stars...

Continued...

[97 bulls]

That works too.
Lol

[jlauber]

Continuing...and for those that may have missed it earlier...


Jordan was playing in leagues with FAR more teams, and the talent SPREAD OUT. How many HOFers were on the TYPICAL team in the 90's, when MJ was WINNING rings? The talent levels were not CONCENTRATED as they were in almost ANY season in the 60's, and to a lessor extent, the 70's. Let's use ONE season in Wilt's PRIME shall we.

How about his 66-67 season when he LED his team to a 68-13 record, and then an overwhelming title. A TEN team league. How about the 39-42 Hawks. Players like Lou Hudson, who had SEVEN seasons of 20+ ppg (and on high efficiencies too, including two of 27 ppgf): or Bill Bridges, who was capable of 15 rpg seasons' or FIVE-TIME all-star CENTER Zelmo Beatty, who had FIVE seasons of 20+ ppg; or Paul Silas, who was habitually among the rebound leaders in his career; or HOFer Lenny Wilkens, who was one of the premier PG's of his era.

Then there was the 36-45 NY Knicks. A team thatt had SEVEN players average double-figure scoring. Rookie Cazzie Russell, who would go on to become one of the league's best "sixth men", and a player who had a 20+ ppg season later in his career. Or 6-5 GUARD Dick Van Arsdale who would have THREE 20+ ppg seasons in his career, and SIX over 17.8 ppg. Or 6-4 guard Dick Barnett, who had SIX seasons of 17+ ppg in his career, including 17.0 in 66-67. And, then, they had the "twin towers" of HOF bookends 6-9 Willis Reed and Walt Bellamy, and both near their primes. Reed averaged 20.9 ppg , 14.6 rpg, and shot .489; while Bellamy was a 19.0 ppg scorer, a 13.5 rpg rebounder, and shot .521 (more on that later.)

How about the Lakers, who finished 36-45? Think about this...that Laker team had BOTH Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, and in their PRIMES, and they still went 36-45. Those two were the Wade and Lebron counterparts of the 60's, and yet...36-45. They also had Archie Clark, who would average 19.9 ppg the very next season; HOFer Gail Goodrich; 7-0 Mel Counts; and Abdul-Rahman (Walt Hazzard), a player who average 24.0 ppg the very next season.

The Royals? They also finished under .500, at 39-42. Must have been pretty crappy right? All that team had was players like Happy Hairston, who would be among the best rebounding forwards of his era; or Bob Love, who would become one of the premier scorers within a few years. Or Flynn Robinson, who was one of the best pure shooters of his era, and proved he could score 20 ppg later in his career. Or Jon McGlocklin, a 6-5 guard with 25+ ft. range who had seasons of .500 shooting (including a a staggering .535 mark in 70-71.) Oh, and BTW, that team also had a Oscar and Lucas. Oscar merely averaged 30.5 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 10.7 apg, and shot .493 (in a league that shot .441.) And Lucas was at 17.8 ppg, 19.1 rpg, and shot .489.

That is FOUR LOADED teams, in a league with TEN teams, right there. And they were all LOSING teams.

How about the winning teams? The Warriors went 44-37, and they also had SEVEN players average double-figure scoring. All they had were players like Tom Meschery; Fred Hetel, who would average 19 ppg the very next season; Clyde Lee, who was a 15 rpp guy (in limited minutes) a few years later (and who averaged 7.4 rpg in 17 mpg that season); Jeff Mullins, who had several 20 ppg seasons within a couple of seasons; Al Attles; and Paul Neuman. Oh wait...they also had HOFer Rick Barry, who would lead the league in scoring at 35.6 ppg; and 6-11 HOFer Nate Thurmond, who averaged 18.7 ppg and 21.3 rpg that season.

I have mentioned it before, but IMHO, the 60-21 Celtics had the most LOADED roster in NBA history. True, there were other Celtic teams that had more HOFers (their 63-64 team had EIGHT, and their 62-63 team had NINE.) But players 1-10 were exceptional players on that 66-67 team. SIX of them averaged double-figure scoring. Their bench had HOFer Wayne Embry; guard Jim Barnett; 14.1 ppg scorer Larry Siegfried; Don Nelson; and HOFer John Havlicek, and his 21.4 ppg (yes, he was their SIXTH man that season.) Havlicek would have a TON of 20+ ppg seasons, BTW, including two of 28.9 ppg and 27.5 ppg. Their starters were HOFer Satch Sanders (one of the top defensive forwards of his era); HOFer KC Jones (again, considered one of the best defensive players of his era); HOFer Baiey Howell, who 20 ppg on .512 shooting in '67; HOFer Sam Jones, who LED the team in scoring that season, at 22.1 ppg )and who had MUTIPLE seasons of 20+ ppg, including a high of 25.9. AND, of course, they had the great Bill Russell, who averaged 13.3 ppg and 21.0 rpg that season, and as always, was a defensive beast.

Wilt's Sixers were also LOADED, albeit, they were not very deep (a pattern in almost every one of Wilt's seasons.) HOFer Hal Greer; HOFer Billy Cunningham; streak-shooting Wali Jones; PF Luke Jackson, who was 6-9 250 lbs.; Forward Chet Walker, a great all-around player; and a Chamberlain in his absolute, and unstoppable, PRIME. Chamberlain was dominant defensively; led the league in rebounding by a sizeable margin, at 24.2 rpg (in "only" 45 mpg BTW); averaged 24.1 ppg; handed out 7.8 apg (THIRD in the league); and shot a minb-boggling .683, which was .162 ahead of his nearest competitor, Walt Bellamy, and in a league that shot .441 overall.

How about the post-season? Chamberlain faced TEN HOF players in his three rounds (Oscar, Lucas, Barry, Thurmond, and the SIX that Boston had.) And they MURDERED them all. Chamberlain completely CRUSHED Dierking, Russell, and then Thurmond in those series, as well.

So, the teams of the 60's were LOADED. Even the majority of losing teams had SUPERSTAR players.

[catch24]

Look them up for yourself...

No, I'm not going to "look them up myself". You brought up relative talent/help, you listed Russell's HoFers, so now list how many all-stars he was playing with compared to Wilt every h2h they had.

I'll wait.

[97 bulls]

Bullsh!t. The '91 Pistons, '92 Blazers/Cavs, '93 Cavs/Suns, '96 Magic/Sonics, '97 Hawks and '98 Pacers were all arguably more talented than Chicago. Hell, the '98 Nets - a first round loser - had Cassell (20 pts/8 ast), Jayson Williams (13 pt/14 reb), Van Horn (20 ppg), Gill (22/6/4 the season prior), Gatling (19 ppg all star the season prior), Kittles (17 ppg), and Seikaly (17/10 the year prior).
You really think all those teams were arguably more talented than the bulls old school?

[catch24]

Lol

Do you disagree, 97 bulls?

[jlauber]

You really think all those teams were arguably more talented than the bulls old school?

NOT ONE.

Even the 92-93 Suns were not as talented.

The 93-94 Bulls went 55-27 WITHOUT MJ, and had the sixth best record in the league (and there was only one 60 win team that year...and that Sonics team was knocked out in the first round of the playoffs.)

[97 bulls]

Do you disagree, 97 bulls?
No I agree bro. I honestly can't comment on to much on this topic cuz I don't know much about wilt other than the stats. Iill let you guys take this one.

[TennesseeFan]

Because Wilt was just a big black guy in a league of little white dudes. *sarcasm*

[catch24]

Look them up for yourself...

Still waiting to hear how many all-stars both Wilt and Russell had, each, during their postseason matchups.

[jlauber]

Still waiting to hear how many all-stars both Wilt and Russell had, each, during their postseason matchups.

Here we go:

1959-60:
Russell, Cousey, Sharman (EIGHT HOFers)
Wilt, Gola, Arizin (THREE HOFers)

1960-61:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn (SEVEN HOFers)
Wilt, Gola, Arizin (THREE HOFers)

1961-62:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn, S. Jones (SEVEN HOFers)
Wilt, Arizin (THREE HOFers)

1962-63:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn (NINE HOFers)
Wilt, Rodgers, Meschery (yep...only WILT as a HOFer)

1963-64:
Russell, Heinsohn, S. Jones (EIGHT HOFers)
Wilt, Rodgers (TWO HOFers...and one was rookie Thurmond, playing part-time)

1964-65:
Russell, S. Jones (SIX HOFers)
Wilt, Thurmond (TWO HOFers...the other being Greer...and Wilt only played with Nate for the first half)

1965-66:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones (FIVE HOFers)
Wilt, Walker, Greer (THREE HOFers)

1966-67:
Russell, Havlicek, Howell (SIX HOFers)
Wilt, Greer, Walker (THREE HOFers)

1967-68:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones (SIX HOFers)
Wilt, Greer (THREE HOFers)

1968-69:
Russell, Havlicek (FOUR HOFers)
Wilt, Baylor, West (THREE HOFers)

Furthermore, Tom Meschery (a ONE-TIME all-star, in a season in which he averaged 16 ppg, 9.8 rpg, and shot .521) and Tom Gola were very questionable in their appearances . Some might question Bailey Howell, but in his 66-67 season appearance, he averaged 20 ppg on .512 shooting, which was considerably better than what Meschery or Gola had in their all-star seasons. And Thurmond in '65 played with Wilt for the FIRST HALF of the season.

So, Russell's rosters had MORE APPEARANCES. Then,...

HOW about the ENTIRE rosters? Here again, Boston had MULTIPLE HOFers, and most all in the PRIMES for the ENTIRE decade. Russell had HOFers on his BENCH! My god, Havlicek was their "sixth" man for most of the decade.

Once again, to recap...

Russell played with these HOFers...

Satch Sanders...NINE SEASONS
Sam Jones...12 SEASONS
KC Jones...NINE SEASONS
Bill Sharman...FIVE SEASONS
Frank Ramsey...EIGHT SEASONS
Bob Cousey...SEVEN SEASONS
Tommy Heinsohn...NINE SEASONS
John Havlicek...SEVEN SEASONS
Embry...TWO SEASONS
Howell...THREE SEASONS

ALL in the HOF. And the vast majority of them had MULTIPLE 20+ ppg seasons, too.

Meanwhile, here were Wilt's HOFers, and their FULL-SEASONS.

West...THREE seasons.
Baylor...ONE season.
Greer...THREE seasons.
Cunningham...THREE seasons (and he missed the '68 ECF's against Boston.)
Arizin...THREE seasons.
Gola...THREE seasons (and he was absolutely AWFUL in all three post-seasons...in fact, he was AWFUL in most all of his post-seasons...even those without Wilt.)
Goodrich...THREE seasons.
Thurmond...ONE season...playing part-time, and out of position.

Let's add them up shall we.

Wilt had HOF teammates for a total of 20 full-seasons. Russell had HOF teammates in a total of 71 full seasons.

Even if you remove Embry, Howell, Ramsey, KC Jones, and Satch Sanders (all were borderline HOFers), and then remove Gola from Wilt's totals (Gola has as much business being in thed HOF as I do)...Russell STILL has a 40-17 edge in HOF SEASONS. And here again, Embry, Sanders, KC Jones, Ramsey, and Howell, were all GOOD players, too.

[catch24]

Here we go:

1959-60:
Russell, Cousey, Sharman
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1960-61:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1961-62:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Arizin

1962-63:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Rodgers, Meschery

1963-64:
Russell, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Rodgers

1964-65:
Russell, S. Jones
Wilt, Thurmond

1965-66:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Walker, Greer

1966-67:
Russell, Havlicek, Howell
Wilt, Greer, Walker

1967-68:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Greer

1968-69:
Russell, Havlicek
Wilt, Baylor, West

Just as I thought, not a big difference if any with the exception of a season or two. Thanks for the info, and kudos for exposing Wilt's supposed "far less help".

No need to post that other c/p crap.

[jlauber]

Just as I thought, not a big difference if any with the exception of a season or two. Thanks for the info, and kudos for exposing Wilt's supposed "far less help".

No need to post that other c/p crap.

Yep...a 71-20 edge in HOF SEASONS...

BTW, take Wilt's 62-63 season for example...his two "all-stars" would probably have been Boston's 10th and 11th best players.

[catch24]

Yep

I was referring to the players who actually played 1st team/all-star caliber basketball.

Going off that list you just finished posting (below), one can see how the disparity in talent between the two teams is really just a nonsequitur. Of course you and your fellow zealots like to claim otherwise.

At any rate, thanks for the enlightenment :applause:




1959-60:
Russell, Cousey, Sharman
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1960-61:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Gola, Arizin

1961-62:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Arizin

1962-63:
Russell, Cousey, Heinsohn
Wilt, Rodgers, Meschery

1963-64:
Russell, Heinsohn, S. Jones
Wilt, Rodgers

1964-65:
Russell, S. Jones
Wilt, Thurmond

1965-66:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Walker, Greer

1966-67:
Russell, Havlicek, Howell
Wilt, Greer, Walker

1967-68:
Russell, Havlicek, S. Jones
Wilt, Greer

1968-69:
Russell, Havlicek
Wilt, Baylor, West

[OldSchoolBBall]

You really think all those teams were arguably more talented than the bulls old school?

Umm, yeah, or else I wouldn't have listed them.

Pistons/Blazers/Suns/Cavs definitely. The others are definitely arguable (the Magic with Shaq/Penny/Grant/Anderson/Scott, the Pacers with Miller/Mullin/Jackson/Davis Brothers/Smits/Rose/Best, the Sonics with Payton/Kemp/Shrempf/Hawkins/McMillan).

[97 bulls]

Umm, yeah, or else I wouldn't have listed them.

Pistons/Blazers/Suns/Cavs definitely. The others are definitely arguable (the Magic with Shaq/Penny/Grant/Anderson/Scott, the Pacers with Miller/Mullin/Jackson/Davis Brothers/Smits/Rose/Best, the Sonics with Payton/Kemp/Shrempf/Hawkins/McMillan).
I think your looking at the offensive side of the ball. I wouldn't take either of those guys over jordan/pippen/rodman/kukoc/harper. And definately not over the 97 team which had jordan/pippen/rodman/kukoc/b.williams who avg about 16/9 on 50% shooting the year before and after/harper/kerr/caffey. How many teams can honestly say they're top heavy and go 8-9 players deep? XAnd you call me backwards. Geeze

You really believe jordan won 6 championships by himself. Huh? Or with the most minimal of help.

[OldSchoolBBall]

You really believe jordan won 6 championships by himself. Huh? Or with the most minimal of help.

No, but I think he won with significantly less offensive help than typically assumed, especially during the second three-peat, when Pippen and Kukoc literally disappeared every postseason offensively, especially efficiency-wise (39.0%, 41.7%, and 41.5% FG during the '96-'98 playoffs for Pippen on lesser volume than his RS numbers, and 39% and 36% FG for Kukoc in the '96 and '97 playoffs). Pippen's postseason shooting efficiency and volume were below average for a player who people think was some sort of god-send, and poor during the second three-peat.

His offensive efficiency in general, even during the first three-peat, was below average. Idiots like to act like the 1993 Suns were this no-defense team since Jordan averaged 41 ppg/51% FG against them in the Finals, but neglect to mention that Pippen - the same guy many of these trolls praise - was only able to manage 21 ppg/43% FG against this defensive sieve of a team. He shot 45% against the supposedly terrible defense of the 1991 Lakers while MJ shot 56% on much higher volume despite seeing way more defensive attention.

Offense matters. Offensive efficiency matters more. Jordan won during the second three-peat with less offensive help than all but 1 or 2 teams in the last 30 years. Fact. Say whatever you want about "defense," but that's a huge deal, and it literally NEVER gets mentioned.

And even overall, Jordan's '91-'93 teams and '98 team, save for Hakeem's '94 Rockets and the '03 Spurs, were the least talented title teams of the last 30 years as well.

[-23-]

NOT ONE.

Even the 92-93 Suns were not as talented.

The 93-94 Bulls went 55-27 WITHOUT MJ, and had the sixth best record in the league (and there was only one 60 win team that year...and that Sonics team was knocked out in the first round of the playoffs.)


Normally I don't have a problem with your posts, but here, clearly you're full of ****.

90-93 Bulls had Jordan, Pippen, and who else? A border line 13/10 PF Grant? A non-existent BJ? A 5ppg Paxson? Who else on that team could carry offense? In any case, you can make that there were at most 2 all-stars on that team.

[-23-]

Yep...a 71-20 edge in HOF SEASONS...

BTW, take Wilt's 62-63 season for example...his two "all-stars" would probably have been Boston's 10th and 11th best players.


:oldlol: Comparing # of HOF players. Let's face it, if any of these scrubs were on other teams, they wouldn't be in the HoF. Stop making it sound as if Wilt was playing against completely dis-proportioned teams.

[guy]

No, but I think he won with significantly less offensive help than typically assumed, especially during the second three-peat, when Pippen and Kukoc literally disappeared every postseason offensively, especially efficiency-wise (39.0%, 41.7%, and 41.5% FG during the '96-'98 playoffs for Pippen on lesser volume than his RS numbers, and 39% and 36% FG for Kukoc in the '96 and '97 playoffs). Pippen's postseason shooting efficiency and volume were below average for a player who people think was some sort of god-send, and poor during the second three-peat.

His offensive efficiency in general, even during the first three-peat, was below average. Idiots like to act like the 1993 Suns were this no-defense team since Jordan averaged 41 ppg/51% FG against them in the Finals, but neglect to mention that Pippen - the same guy many of these trolls praise - was only able to manage 21 ppg/43% FG against this defensive sieve of a team. He shot 45% against the supposedly terrible defense of the 1991 Lakers while MJ shot 56% on much higher volume despite seeing way more defensive attention.

Offense matters. Offensive efficiency matters more. Jordan won during the second three-peat with less offensive help than all but 1 or 2 teams in the last 30 years. Fact. Say whatever you want about "defense," but that's a huge deal, and it literally NEVER gets mentioned.

And even overall, Jordan's '91-'93 teams and '98 team, save for Hakeem's '94 Rockets and the '03 Spurs, were the least talented title teams of the last 30 years as well.

Great post, and like you said something thats never mentioned. And yes defense is clearly important and like the saying goes "defense wins championships" but the reality is its a BALANCE of both great defense and offense that wins championships. Whoever has the better balance of both those is usually who wins championships. You look at most championship teams and everyone is so quick to point out their great defense as the reason for them winning, but they also usually have a great offense whether thats because they have a bunch of great players, 08 Celtics for example, or just 1 guy thats stepping up his game to a level thats rarely ever reached (Jordan in all 6 championships, Hakeem in his 2 championships, Duncan in 03)

[jlauber]

:oldlol: Comparing # of HOF players. Let's face it, if any of these scrubs were on other teams, they wouldn't be in the HoF. Stop making it sound as if Wilt was playing against completely dis-proportioned teams.

Another idiot. So having NINE HOF players, the majority in their primes, against a team in which Wilt was the LONE HOF player, and his two "all-stars" Meschery and Rodgers, probably would not have made Boston's roster (at best they would have been on the far end of the bench) is not a disparity?

Here again, from the 1959-60 season, thru the 64-65 season, Russell played with Sharman, Cousey, Havlicek, Heinsohn, and Sam Jones (and nearly in EVERY season BTW.) ALL of those guys posted MULTIPLE 20 ppg seasons WITH Russell, and during their careers.

Now, how about Wilt's teammates? He had ONE player, Paul Arizin, who had even ONE 20 ppg season in his career. And that was for only three of those six seasons. And, here again, NONE of the rest of Wilt's teammates in those six seasons EVER had a 20 ppg season, whether with or WITHOUT Wilt. (Granted, Willie Naulls, who played half a season with Wilt, but was washed up by the time he joined Wilt's team, had a couple of previous 20 ppg seasons, BUT, he was a complete bust by the time he played with Wilt...AND, he played WORSE with Russell the very next season.)

The FACTS were, Russell had BETTER players, and MORE of them. FAR more of them. AND, they played with Russell, on average, MUCH longer.

[Psileas]

Those 2 picks were my sole opinion, and of course, I think it's perfectly reasonable (and even wise) to consider Wilt or Oscar. My point was that Wilt was dominating, but not in a way that made it seem that he totally outclassed all other competition. Guys like Russell, Baylor and Oscar all had career years in '62. West also dropped 30-6-8. This points more to the year/era being much more conducive to mind-blowing stats than any other. This dude named Walt Bellamy dropped 31-20 that year as well.

Like I said, I want people to have some perspective on that 50 ppg season.

That's no different though than putting Jordan's '87-'93 dominance into perspective by pointing out that Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Barkley, Robinson, Ewing and Malone were posting really impressive stats on their own right. Yet, people still usually pick out Jordan through this period, because he usually was still a notch more dominant. Same with Wilt. Inflated stats or not, Wilt's 50/26/(a huge number of blocked shots) is more impressive than 31/13/11 or 38/19/5. Another point to be made here is the incredibly low number of fouls Wilt commited: 1.5 while never resting, compared to 3.2 and 3.3, respectively. He had a stretch of 7 games (336+ minutes played) in which he commited a total of 5 fouls. Before commenting that this shows lack of defense, Russell also commited a pretty low number of fouls himself - not as low as Wilt, but still lower than other high-profiled centers of the era like Bellamy or than other All-Stars like Oscar and Baylor.

Catch24, the number of All-Stars Wilt and Russell played with isn't all that matters. You know very well that it's the depth of the whole team that does. If All-Stars mattered, then the '63 Warriors should be expected to perform just as well as the '63 Celtics, which is ludicrous, since the Celtics were much deeper and much healthier. Hell, Sam Jones wasn't an All-Star that season, yet Tom Meschery was? Not to mention guys like Havlicek or the defensive specialists Sanders and KC Jones. And, btw, Meschery still missed 16 games, which is another reason why I don't trust All-Star appearances. What matters if you are an All-Star if you can't stay healthy throughout the whole season? Other valuable teammates of Wilt also missed plenty of games or were traded. Among Russell's valuable teammates? Nobody missed more than 4 games (except if you count old Lovellette) and nobody was traded. One was a real team, the other was a ruined club. How many All-Stars each one had is a hollow point.
This is why I also negate arguments about Wilt having all the time deeper rosters in the '66-'69 period than Russell. Because these rosters weren't always available during the biggest time of the season. In 1966, Cunningham (let's say the equivalent of young Havlicek) was having various issues during the postseason and missed a game, playing like trash in the others. Even worse, in 1968, he missed the ECF entirely. The Sixers without Cunningham were NOT better than the Celtics. Yes, they still led 3-1, but if Cunningham was there, who's to tell that they don't start 4-0 or, at worst, that they don't win Game 6 or 7?

[catch24]

Catch24, the number of All-Stars Wilt and Russell played with isn't all that matters.

I am fully aware of that. Just wanted to shed some light on the whole "Russell had MUCH MORE HELP" bs. Wilt had multiple seasons where his teams (not just all-stars) were deeper/more talented.

[97 bulls]

No, but I think he won with significantly less offensive help than typically assumed, especially during the second three-peat, when Pippen and Kukoc literally disappeared every postseason offensively, especially efficiency-wise (39.0%, 41.7%, and 41.5% FG during the '96-'98 playoffs for Pippen on lesser volume than his RS numbers, and 39% and 36% FG for Kukoc in the '96 and '97 playoffs). Pippen's postseason shooting efficiency and volume were below average for a player who people think was some sort of god-send, and poor during the second three-peat.

His offensive efficiency in general, even during the first three-peat, was below average. Idiots like to act like the 1993 Suns were this no-defense team since Jordan averaged 41 ppg/51% FG against them in the Finals, but neglect to mention that Pippen - the same guy many of these trolls praise - was only able to manage 21 ppg/43% FG against this defensive sieve of a team. He shot 45% against the supposedly terrible defense of the 1991 Lakers while MJ shot 56% on much higher volume despite seeing way more defensive attention.
A higher volume of shots is good cuz your able to get into a rythem. I've never heard of a scorer thinking his efficiency would be better with less shot attempts. The best way to become a great shooter is through repetiition.

Offense matters. Offensive efficiency matters more. Jordan won during the second three-peat with less offensive help than all but 1 or 2 teams in the last 30 years. Fact. Say whatever you want about "defense," but that's a huge deal, and it literally NEVER gets mentioned.
jordans efficiency wasn't that much better. The league as a whole fg% was 44% in 98 if I remember correct. And those bulls teams won using a strengling defense. the more you post, the more I come to realize you don't and have never played basketball. You know stats.

And even overall, Jordan's '91-'93 teams and '98 team, save for Hakeem's '94 Rockets and the '03 Spurs, were the least talented title teams of the last 30 years as well.

Then maybe jordan isn't as good as you think. Cuz based on your assumptions, jordan didn't really need a great team around him. Maybe he should've been able to beat magic and bird in the 80s.

Your point of view is rediculous. The fact is the road to a championship does not start in game 1 of the nba finals. It starts at the begining of the season. You attempting to discredit the players on the bulls is assinine to say the least. Jordan had 7 years to try to win championships by himself so to speak.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Then maybe jordan isn't as good as you think. Cuz based on your assumptions, jordan didn't really need a great team around him. Maybe he should've been able to beat magic and bird in the 80s.

Your point of view is rediculous. The fact is the road to a championship does not start in game 1 of the nba finals. It starts at the begining of the season. You attempting to discredit the players on the bulls is assinine to say the least. Jordan had 7 years to try to win championships by himself so to speak.

Here's your logical fallacy: saying that Jordan won several titles with less offensive help than all but 1 or 2 teams in the last 30 years is NOT the same as saying that he didn't have a great team. He did. Defensively and teamwork/chemistry-wise, they were a great TEAM. However, facts are facts.

lol @ talking about volume of shot attempts when discussing FG% btw - as if Pippen should have been given 19-20 FGA (or, more accurately, was capable of GENERATING 19-20 good FGA/gm on good efficiency to begin with). News flash: he wasn't. If you can't shoot 50+% while taking 14-17 FGA/gm and seeing far less defensive attention than your first option teammate, you don't merit being given increased scoring opportunities. FG% and violume are inversely correlated - no one believes that great scorers would shoot a WORSE FG% if they only had to average 20-23 ppg (with the corresponding decrease in FGA) as opposed to 27-30+ ppg, to say nothing of the decreased defensive attention a guy like Pippen saw.

And no, Jordan didn't need THAT good of a team to win. He took Detroit, a far more talented team, to 6 and 7 games in 1989 and '90 with Pippen doing not much at all in those series. If Pippen and Grant don't literally DISAPPEAR in game 7 of the 1990 ECF, Jordan wins a title by going through two significantly more talented teams (Pistons and Blazers).

[guy]

A higher volume of shots is good cuz your able to get into a rythem. I've never heard of a scorer thinking his efficiency would be better with less shot attempts. The best way to become a great shooter is through repetiition.


What? If thats the case, instead of taking 20-25 FGA per game, should Jordan have been taking like 35-50 FGA per game for his career? Would his FG% have shot up from 50% to 65% for his career? Or shouldn't the top FG% leaders just take almost every single shot in a game? Cause other then towering dominant big men (Wilt, Shaq, Howard), the FG% leaders are usually role players. Thats ridiculous. By the way, for the two finals he's talking about he shot 56% on 23 FGA per game in 91 and 51% on 33 FGA in 93. So he does shoot worse with more FGA.

Your rhythm point would make more sense if a player was shooting 10 shots per game instead of 5. Pippen during the dynasty was shooting 15-20 every night, and was shooting 17 and 21 in the Finals in question. It doesn't take that many shots to get into rhythm. Your rhythm point would also make more sense if these weren't professional basketball players who play basketball pretty much all day everyday.

A player's FG% is expected to go down when they shoot more cause they are the center of the defense's attention, are expected to take more tougher shots, and will expend more energy.



jordans efficiency wasn't that much better. The league as a whole fg% was 44% in 98 if I remember correct. And those bulls teams won using a strengling defense. the more you post, the more I come to realize you don't and have never played basketball. You know stats.

Jordan's efficiency was significantly better then Pippen's especially in the playoffs when they had to face tougher teams. His FG%, FT%, and 3P% were all better on a higher volume of shots. That is a significant difference.



Then maybe jordan isn't as good as you think. Cuz based on your assumptions, jordan didn't really need a great team around him. Maybe he should've been able to beat magic and bird in the 80s.

No one has ever said that Jordan's teams in the 90s weren't still significantly better then his in the 80s. They just still had flaws, specifically offensively.



Your point of view is rediculous. The fact is the road to a championship does
not start in game 1 of the nba finals. It starts at the begining of the season. You attempting to discredit the players on the bulls is assinine to say the least. Jordan had 7 years to try to win championships by himself so to speak.


Alot of those stats from OSB were for whole playoff runs, not just the Finals, where they play much better teams (with their best effort) on average then in the regular season. Its a significant point. And I don't see anyone saying he did it by himself. Just that he carried a huge weight that most championship players haven't had to.

[Heat1011]

Because MJ is flat out better and it's not even close.

Jordan = GOAT

[97 bulls]

Here's your logical fallacy: saying that Jordan won several titles with less offensive help than all but 1 or 2 teams in the last 30 years is NOT the same as saying that he didn't have a great team. He did. Defensively and teamwork/chemistry-wise, they were a great TEAM. However, facts are facts.
the bulls had a great offensive team relative to the league they played in. You compared them to teams going back to the high pace 80s when you said "the last 30 years". Statistically you're correct. But this is a case where stats don't tell the whole story.

lol @ talking about volume of shot attempts when discussing FG% btw - as if Pippen should have been given 19-20 FGA (or, more accurately, was capable of GENERATING 19-20 good FGA/gm on good efficiency to begin with). News flash: he wasn't. If you can't shoot 50+% while taking 14-17 FGA/gm and seeing far less defensive attention than your first option teammate, you don't merit being given increased scoring opportunities. FG% and violume are inversely correlated - no one believes that great scorers would shoot a WORSE FG% if they only had to average 20-23 ppg (with the corresponding decrease in FGA) as opposed to 27-30+ ppg, to say nothing of the decreased defensive attention a guy like Pippen saw.
the point I'm trying to make is that while jordan was a great jumpshooter, he wasn't a pure shooter. He still was streaky. He'd at times go 9n a streak and make 6 out of 10, then in the same game go 6-14. He was a scorer. Not a pure shooter. He needs to get into a rythem. Which means he must take a high volume of shots.

And no, Jordan didn't need THAT good of a team to win. He took Detroit, a far more talented team, to 6 and 7 games in 1989 and '90 with Pippen doing not much at all in those series. If Pippen and Grant don't literally DISAPPEAR in game 7 of the 1990 ECF, Jordan wins a title by going through two significantly more talented teams (Pistons and Blazers).
This tells me that he can't win by himself. Which is something you seem to feel he was capable of doing.
I honestly understand your point. I just think its not a fair assesment when comparing the time and the way the game was played.

[97 bulls]

What? If thats the case, instead of taking 20-25 FGA per game, should Jordan have been taking like 35-50 FGA per game for his career? Would his FG% have shot up from 50% to 65% for his career? Or shouldn't the top FG% leaders just take almost every single shot in a game? Cause other then towering dominant big men (Wilt, Shaq, Howard), the FG% leaders are usually role players. Thats ridiculous. By the way, for the two finals he's talking about he shot 56% on 23 FGA per game in 91 and 51% on 33 FGA in 93. So he does shoot worse with more FGA.
He did take 30+ shots routinely. But no I don't think he should been shoting that much cuz that's not condusive to winning. And regardless, the team FG% leader is normally a bigman.

Your rhythm point would make more sense if a player was shooting 10 shots per game instead of 5. Pippen during the dynasty was shooting 15-20 every night, and was shooting 17 and 21 in the Finals in question. It doesn't take that many shots to get into rhythm. Your rhythm point would also make more sense if these weren't professional basketball players who play basketball pretty much all day everyday.

A player's FG% is expected to go down when they shoot more cause they are the center of the defense's attention, are expected to take more tougher shots, and will expend more energy.
I think it depends on the player. Some players are pure shooters. They don't need to take a lot of shot to shoot a high %. The problem is most pure shooters aren't great athletes. Which makes them easy to defend. Another thing about pure shooters is they rarely take bad shots. Jordan was a great jumpshooter, but he wasn't a pure shooter. Like a ray allen, larry bird, or reggie miller.

Jordan's efficiency was significantly better then Pippen's especially in the playoffs when they had to face tougher teams. His FG%, FT%, and 3P% were all better on a higher volume of shots. That is a significant difference.
That's cuz jordan is the greatest ever. I just take excepttion to the assumption that the bulls were the worse offense in the last 30 years. And then base that off of 5 or 6 games. You can't honestly feel that if those bulls teams were playing in the 70s and 80s were layup drills were common, that the FG% and ppg don't go up.


No one has ever said that Jordan's teams in the 90s weren't still significantly better then his in the 80s. They just still had flaws, specifically offensively.
I guess it depends on what you consider flaws. The bulls were the top offensive team in 96. I believe 3rd in 97 and 8th in 98. And they would've been higher in 98 if pippen hadn't missed half the season

Alot of those stats from OSB were for whole playoff runs, not just the Finals, where they play much better teams (with their best effort) on average then in the regular season. Its a significant point. And I don't see anyone saying he did it by himself. Just that he carried a huge weight that most championship players haven't had to.
This isn't totally the truth either. He shouldered the load more than most offensively. But pippen shouldered more of the defense and rodman the rebounding. I really can't see them winning without the 3. Even in 97 and 98. Rodman may notve had a lot of rebounds. But he spent a lot of his time concentrating on the jazz best player. And he frustrated malone. I remember them posting a stat that showed when rodman was on malone, he shot around 41% or something. When caffey or longley defended him, he avg aroun 50%.

I really don't understand this new fad of degrading the players on championship teams to prop the best player. Trying to make it seem like 1 player wins a championship in spite of his teammates. And then when they can't, its cuz of his support, not him. Its the stupidest reasoning in sports.

[N0Skillz]

I would put mj around 4th or 5th place

[jlauber]

That's no different though than putting Jordan's '87-'93 dominance into perspective by pointing out that Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Barkley, Robinson, Ewing and Malone were posting really impressive stats on their own right. Yet, people still usually pick out Jordan through this period, because he usually was still a notch more dominant. Same with Wilt. Inflated stats or not, Wilt's 50/26/(a huge number of blocked shots) is more impressive than 31/13/11 or 38/19/5. Another point to be made here is the incredibly low number of fouls Wilt commited: 1.5 while never resting, compared to 3.2 and 3.3, respectively. He had a stretch of 7 games (336+ minutes played) in which he commited a total of 5 fouls. Before commenting that this shows lack of defense, Russell also commited a pretty low number of fouls himself - not as low as Wilt, but still lower than other high-profiled centers of the era like Bellamy or than other All-Stars like Oscar and Baylor.

Catch24, the number of All-Stars Wilt and Russell played with isn't all that matters. You know very well that it's the depth of the whole team that does. If All-Stars mattered, then the '63 Warriors should be expected to perform just as well as the '63 Celtics, which is ludicrous, since the Celtics were much deeper and much healthier. Hell, Sam Jones wasn't an All-Star that season, yet Tom Meschery was? Not to mention guys like Havlicek or the defensive specialists Sanders and KC Jones. And, btw, Meschery still missed 16 games, which is another reason why I don't trust All-Star appearances. What matters if you are an All-Star if you can't stay healthy throughout the whole season? Other valuable teammates of Wilt also missed plenty of games or were traded. Among Russell's valuable teammates? Nobody missed more than 4 games (except if you count old Lovellette) and nobody was traded. One was a real team, the other was a ruined club. How many All-Stars each one had is a hollow point.
This is why I also negate arguments about Wilt having all the time deeper rosters in the '66-'69 period than Russell. Because these rosters weren't always available during the biggest time of the season. In 1966, Cunningham (let's say the equivalent of young Havlicek) was having various issues during the postseason and missed a game, playing like trash in the others. Even worse, in 1968, he missed the ECF entirely. The Sixers without Cunningham were NOT better than the Celtics. Yes, they still led 3-1, but if Cunningham was there, who's to tell that they don't start 4-0 or, at worst, that they don't win Game 6 or 7?

Using "All-Stars" as some kind of measuring stick is meaningless. But, look no further than the Pistons-Bulls of '87-88 and 88-89. Each had ONE All-Star...the Pistons had Isiah, the Bulls had MJ. In FACT, I could carry Catch24's RIDICULOUS assertions even FURTHER. The '87-88 Pistons did not have ONE player make either the All NBA First-Team, OR the Second-Team. And it gets even more hilarious. The '88-89 Pistons didn't have ONE player make either the All-NBA First-Team, Second Team, or THIRD Team...and yet they pummelled Jordan's Bulls 4-1 and 4-2 in the playoffs. OBVIOUSLY, Isiah was the greater player than Jordan.

BTW, the "All-Star" games take place at MID-SEASON. To use that as some kind of desperate attempt to give Russell some shred of an argument in these talented rosters discussions is just absurd.

I already pointed it out, but from Wilt's rookie season, thru the '63-64 season (and half-way thru the 64-65 season), Chamberlain played with exactly ONE player who EVER had a 20+ ppg season...Paul Arizin, who played with Chamberlain for THREE of those SIX seasons. BTW, I am not counting Willie Naulls, who was a washed up has-been in the half season he played with Chamberlain after he was traded to the Warriors (and BTW, he played even WORSE with Russell the very next season), or Nate Thurmond, who was a rookie, playing part-time, and out of position when he played with Chamberlain. Once again...ONE player, in THREE seasons, out of SIX, that had a 20 ppg season.

Meanwhile, Russell, in the same span, played with Sharman, Cousey, Sam Jones, and Tommy Heisohn...ALL of whom had MULTIPLE 20 ppg seasons in their careers. He also played with Havlicek in that span, and Hondo had 19.9 ppg and 18.3 ppg seasons (and, of course, he would go on to have a TON of 20+ ppg seasons immediately after that period...with THREE more in Russell's era, and then another FIVE afterwards.) Havlicek is really interesting BTW. His highest season WITH Russell was at 21.6 ppg...and AFTER Russell, he had two seasons of 27.5 ppg and 28.9 ppg. All of which gives you an idea of his REAL firepower. He was basically Boston's "sixth man" in the Russell era, but was certainly CAPABLE of 25-30+ ppg games. And Sam Jones never played withOUT Russell, and his highest scoring season was at 25.9 ppg. However, he had 40+ point playoff games, and CLEARLY, he COULD have scored MUCH more.

Wilt's two "all-stars" in that 62-63 season were an absolute JOKE. How Meschery even made that team was a mystery, as Psileas pointed out. I will say it was his BEST season (for those that claim that Chamberlain "hindered" his teammates), BUT, it was only a 16.0 ppg, 9.8 rpg, .425 season. And Meschery was Wilt's BEST teammate. And while Guy Rodgers was a good playmaker, he was arguably the WORST shooter in NBA HISTORY. He was WAY behind the league average in FG% EVERY season. In that 62-63 season, he shot .387 (which was among his BEST seasons.) The man was so pathetic, that he had a full-time season in 67-68, in which he shot .347, in a league that shot .446. It wouldn't have been so bad, except that he CONTINUED to shoot. I haven't taken the time to check lately, but at one time the second half of a game of the '64 Finals was on YouTube. In that game, Chamberlain goes 7-11 in that second half, BUT, here was Rodgers just firing shot-after-horrible shot (many which didn't draw iron.) While Wilt almost always praised Rodgers, the fact was, he was a LIABILITY. And he certainly would not have cracked the Celtic roster.

In just that 62-63 season alone, in which BOTH Russell and Wilt each had two "all-star" teammates...Russell's all-star teammates were Heinsohn, who averaged 18.9 ppg, and a part-time Cousey (who played 26 mpg, and nearly matched Rodgers numbers, who played 41 mpg.) BUT, Boston also had Sam Jones, who did not make the all-star team, at 19.7 ppg; Hondo, with his 14.3 ppg, HOFer Ramsey with his 10.9 ppg; HOFer Sanders, who was defensive specialist, and who scored 10.8 ppg; and defensive HOFer KC Jones, at 7.5 ppg.

Only a complete idiot would claim that the "all-star" arguments evened the rosters that season. And you could go right down the line in ANY of those '60-'65 rosters. Russell had a HUGE edge in talent. Chamberlain SINGLE-HANDEDLY had to battle those GREAT teams...and he nearly upset them in two playoff series, and battled them brilliantly in two others.


I am fully aware of that. Just wanted to shed some light on the whole "Russell had MUCH MORE HELP" bs. Wilt had multiple seasons where his teams (not just all-stars) were deeper/more talented.

First of all, you were OBVIOUSLY NOT aware of that fact. Russell had BY FAR, greater surrounding talent in those first six seasons. AND, he had an EDGE in talent in the last FOUR, too, MORE HOFers, and MUCH deeper rosters. I would agree that Wilt's rosters were the EQUAL of Russell's in both 66-67 and 67-68. And, they RAN AWAY with the best record in the league in both seasons. They annihilated Boston in '67, and would have duplicated that feat in '68 had they not been DECIMATED by injuries.

The other two seasons? Russell's '66 team was better, plain-and-simple. They were the seven-time defending champions, and again, MUCH deeper, player-for-player. AND, it was his TEAMMATES who thoroughly OUTPLAYED Chamberlain's in that post-season. Now, you could make an argument that Wilt had a better roster in '69...except that team had NO DEPTH. It was basically West, Wilt, and a declining Baylor (who was AWFUL in the post-season), and NO ONE else. On top of that, they had an incompetent COACH.

I have long maintained that had Russell and Wilt swapped rosters in their 10 H2H seasons, that Chamberlain would have at LEAST won SEVEN rings, and likely could have won TEN.

BUT, using the "all-star" argument, even MJ should have EASILY won in '88 and '89 ...unless you want to claim that Isiah was a better player those two seasons.

And once again, Chamberlain faced HOF-LADEN teams in EVERY single season of his post-season career. How many times did MJ beat a team with FOUR HOFers? He did manage to beat an old Piston team with three HOFers one post-season, but he was routed by the Celtic teams of '86 and '87...both of which had FIVE HOFers. He couldn't even win a single game. Yet, Chamberlain, outgunned by HUGE margins in HOFers (and just pure talent) nearly knocked off the Celtic Dynasty in '62 and '65. And, take a look at just how much "help" he had in that '62 post-season, too. His TEAMMATES collectively shot .354 in the playoffs. Yes, .354. And somehow Chamberlain STILL got that LAST-PLACE roster (which it was when Wilt arrived in '60) to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their SEVEN HOFers. And he nearly defeated the 62-18 Celtics, with their SIX HOFers, in '65, with a team that had gone 34-46 the year before (Wilt was traded to them at mid-season, and even then they only finished 40-40.) And all Wilt did in that post-season was average 29.3 ppg, 27.2 rpg, and shot .530 (in a league that shot .426 (yes, .426.) AND, against Russell in that seven game series, all Chamberlain did was average 30 ppg and 31 rpg.

BTW, take a look at MJ's '92 post-season run. His Bulls beat FOUR playoff teams...that had a COMBINED TOTAL of TWO HOFers (Ewing and Drexler.)

[catch24]

First of all, you were OBVIOUSLY NOT aware of that fact..

Here's a post of mine from the last page...


that saw Philadelphia putting 3 all-stars on the floor (not including Chet Walker who put up all-star like numbers, and was one the year prior and after), where as the Celtics had only two, with Hondo playing at an all-star caliber level. Philadelphia lost in 7.

Sounds like I was was fully aware acknowledging both Chet Walker and Hondo's play, despite them not being "all-stars".

[jlauber]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber


First of all, you were OBVIOUSLY NOT aware of that fact..


Here's a post of mine from the last page...


Quote:
that saw Philadelphia putting 3 all-stars on the floor (not including Chet Walker who put up all-star like numbers, and was one the year prior and after), where as the Celtics had only two, with Hondo playing at an all-star caliber level. Philadelphia lost in 7.


Sounds like I was was fully aware acknowledging both Chet Walker and Hondo's play, despite them not being "all-stars".

Hmmm. If that was the '67-68 post-season...and it MUST have been since that supposed series went to Boston, 4-3...

Boston had THREE "all-stars", Russell, Havlicek, and Sam Jones...while Philly only had Chamberlain and Greer. Secondly, Philly played that ENTIRE series without Billy Cunningham...and STILL had a 3-1 series lead. What happened after that? BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones (two more of a roster that only went seven deep) suffered knee injuries, and were worthless the rest of that series. Of course, the real reason that Philly lost that close seven game series? Chamberlain was nursing SEVERAL different injuries, and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from games three thru seven. With all of that, Boston beat a crippled Sixer team in a game seven, by four points.

[catch24]

Hmmm. If that was the '67-68 post-season...and it MUST have been since that supposed series went to Boston, 4-3...Boston had THREE "all-stars", Russell, Havlicek, and Sam Jones...while Philly only had Chamberlain and Greer. Secondly, Philly played that ENTIRE series without Billy Cunningham...and STILL had a 3-1 series lead. What happened after that? BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones (two more of a roster that only went seven deep) suffered knee injuries, and were worthless the rest of that series. Of course, the real reason that Philly lost that close seven game series? Chamberlain was nursing SEVERAL different injuries, and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from games three thru seven. With all of that, Boston beat a crippled Sixer team in a game seven, by four points.

Not sure what any of this has to do with with my post or your original assertion. And no, it was the 1964-65 season; Hondo was NOT an all-star.

[JaskoX1]

You the old farts debating this pointless discussion?

where's Bruce Blitz when you need him lol.

[jlauber]

Not sure what any of this has to do with with my post or your original assertion. And no, it was the 1964-65 season; Hondo was NOT an all-star.

Oh, that season, when Russell's 62-18 Celtics, with SIX HOFers, beat Chamberlain's 40-40 Sixers, and their TWO...in a game seven, by ONE point. Yep...pretty even rosters there...

:facepalm

BTW, Boston had THREE "all-stars" that year...Russell, Sam Jones, and Tommy Heisohn. And also, those two "non All-stars" Wilt's Walker averaged 13.2 ppg that season, while Russell's Hondo averaged 18.3 ppg.

[catch24]

Oh, that season, when Russell's 62-18 Celtics, with SIX HOFers, beat Chamberlain's 40-40 Sixers, and their TWO...in a game seven, by ONE point. Yep...pretty even rosters there...

Yeah, lets pretend all six of those players from Boston were playing at an HoF level. Reality: Philadelphia had 3 all-stars (not including Wilt or Chet walker who both were putting up all-star like numbers) during the 1965 season. Not including Russell, Boston had just two all-stars with Hondo playing all-star like. Again, Philadelphia lost in 7.

[TAC602]

Oh, that season, when Russell's 62-18 Celtics, with SIX HOFers, beat Chamberlain's 40-40 Sixers, and their TWO...in a game seven, by ONE point. Yep...pretty even rosters there...

:facepalm

BTW, Boston had THREE "all-stars" that year...Russell, Sam Jones, and Tommy Heisohn.

Did you ever think that perhaps Chamberlain's impact wasn't as great as you believe it to be? God knows how many lies and distorted facts you've twisted and weaved in this thread. It's a different kind of troll behavior. It's disturbing.

[EricForman]

anyway, can we all agree that these are the players with a case/argument for GOAT:

Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Magic, Bird, Russell.

That's it. I, and the majority, believe Jordan has the best case, but it is reasonable for others to believe Kareem, or say, Wilt, has a better case.

Also, Kobe has an outside shot of entering that above realm because his career is still going on and he's in a good spot to add to his resume.

We need to all agree on this first, before continue to argue and throw out novels.

And while I'm at it, here are several more laws:

Shaq is above Hakeem, stop if you believe otherwise.

Kobe is definitely top 10, order is gonna be heated topic of debate but he's in there. Although as of now he has to be below Duncan and Shaq. Could change in a season or two.

This sh*t should be like terms of agreement that everyone agrees on before discussion.

[jlauber]

Did you ever think that perhaps Chamberlain's impact wasn't as great as you believe it to be? God knows how many lies and distorted facts you've twisted and weaved in this thread. It's a different kind of troll behavior. It's disturbing.

Give me the examples...

[jlauber]

Yeah, lets pretend all six of those players from Boston were playing at an HoF level. Reality: Philadelphia had 3 all-stars (not including Wilt or Chet walker who both were putting up all-star like numbers) during the 1965 season. Not including Russell, Boston had just two all-stars with Hondo playing all-star like. Again, Philadelphia lost in 7.

Where do you get your information from? Oh, from ME...(yes, I see I slighted Russell's "all-stars" in my original take...it was even MORE.)

Greer, Jackson, and a Wilt who joined this team at mid-season (a team that had gone 34-46 the year before)...while Boston had THREE ...Russell, Sam Jones, and Tommy Heinsohn.

[catch24]

Where do you get your information from? Oh, from ME...(yes, I see I slighted Russell's "all-stars" in my original take...it was even

The information I gathered is what I've researched on my own. Unfortunately, you're just not relevant enough to pledge off of.


Greer, Jackson, and a Wilt who joined this team at mid-season (a team that had gone 34-46 the year before)

More extraneous garbage. Together, Philadelphia still fielded more all-stars (and talent) that season.

[juju151111]

I assumed people put MJ above Wilt because he was better, but hey that's just a wild guess. Everyone wants a shot at MJ. The kobenutgaggers, The Kareem fans, and now Wilt fans. MJ is the majority Goat for a reason for the last 15 years.

[jlauber]

Did you ever think that perhaps Chamberlain's impact wasn't as great as you believe it to be? God knows how many lies and distorted facts you've twisted and weaved in this thread. It's a different kind of troll behavior. It's disturbing.

I wasnt going to waste my time to respond, but what the hell...

How is this for Wilt's IMPACT...

In his ROOKIE season, he came to what had been a LAST-PLACE team the year before, and immediately took them to a 49-26 record (which was a team record at the time), and shattered all kinds of scoring and rebound records in that season. He then took that LAST-PLACE roster to a first round playoff win, THEN, a game six loss, by two-points, against the 59-16 Celtics and their SEVEN HOFers. BTW, in game three he injured his hand, and played poorly that and the next game...both losses. In an "elimination game" game five, he hangs a 50 point, 35 rebound game on Russell, en route to a 128-107 win.

How much IMPACT did Chamberlain have that ROOKIE season? He not only won the ROY, he also won the MVP.

How about two years later, when he OBLITERATES the RECORD BOOK, with a 50.4 ppg , 25.7 rpg, .506 FG% (in a league that shot .426)? Was he "stats-padding" that season? Well, his TEAM went 49-31, and following a game five win over Syracuse in a best-of-series, in a game in which Chamberlain scored 56 points and grabbed 35 rebounds, his Warriors squared off against the 60-20 Celtics and their SEVEN HOFers. He LED that team, which was essentially the same remnants of the last place that he joined in '60... to a game seven, two-point loss. AND, how much help did he have in that post-season? His teammates collectively shot .354. Now, you tell me how much IMPACT Chamberlain had that season???!!!!

ShaqAttack and Fecal9 love to point out Wilt's 62-63 season. Why? Because playing with a cast of clowns, and arguably the WORST roster in NBA history, Chamberlain's TEAM went 31-49. Now, let's take a closer look shall we? That team lost 35 games by single digits, and had a -2.1 ppg differential. So, at least they were competitive. How did Wilt perform? All he did was average 47.6 mpg, and LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories. For the second straight season he RAN AWAY withe scoring title, at 44.8 ppg to Baylor's 34.0 ppg. He also LED the NBA in rebounding at 24.3 rpg, AND, he set a then-record FG% mark of .528. He even LED the league in WIN-SHARES (and by a wide margin.) In fact, using that stat, he was directly responsible for over 67% of his team's wins. He also had a PER of 31.8, which is the ALL-TIME record. How well did his teammates play? They collectively shot .412, ...which was WAY worse than the WORST TEAM in the league (.427.) BTW, in his NINE H2H games with Russell, Chamberlain not only outrebounded him, he outscored him, per game, 38-14. And SIX of those nine games were very close.

Once again...how bad was that 62-63 roster? Chamberlain's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, and against a group of draft picks and scrubs. Guess which team won? THEN, Wilt takes that putrid roster to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, where they lose 4-1 to the Celtics and their EIGHT HOFers, and two of the losses were in the finals seconds. BTW, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 29-11, and outrebounded him, per game, 27-25.

How was that for IMPACT???!!!


In the 64-65 season, a sick Wilt is traded at mid-season, for THREE players (and a boatload of cash) to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before. He then takes that bottom-feeding team (and that also had to give up three players to get Wilt) to a 3-1 rout of the 48-32 Royals. THEN, he takes that same team to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics, and their SIX HOFers...in a series in which Chamberlain averaged 30 ppg and 31 rpg (and with a game seven of 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds.) Now, you tell me how much IMPACT Wilt had with that team???!!! He took a 34-46 team, and that gave up THREE players to get him, to within ONE point, in a game SEVEN, of beating the 62-18 Celtics. Go ahead...give me your thoughts on just how much Wilt was worth to that team! A 34-46 team the year before, to within an eye-lash of beating a 62-18 team.

In Wilt's 65-66 season, all he did was LEAD the league in scoring, at 33.5 ppg; rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; and set a then-record FG% mark of .540. He also handed out 5.2 apg, too. Oh, and BTW, he LED his team to the BEST RECORD in the league. How much IMPACT did he have that season???!!!

Then, in the playoffs, he averaged 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 against Russell. ..including a clinching game five loss of 46 points and 34 rebounds. Yep, it was WILT who was blamed for that 4-1 series loss...despite the fact that his five other teammates shot .429, .375, .352, .325, and .161 on that series. Wilt averaged about what he did during the regular season...and his teammates completely crumbled.

continued...

[guy]

He did take 30+ shots routinely. But no I don't think he should been shoting that much cuz that's not condusive to winning. And regardless, the team FG% leader is normally a bigman.

Jordan never averaged 30 shots per game and the he averaged 22-26 FGA per game during the 3-peats.



I think it depends on the player. Some players are pure shooters. They don't need to take a lot of shot to shoot a high %. The problem is most pure shooters aren't great athletes. Which makes them easy to defend. Another thing about pure shooters is they rarely take bad shots. Jordan was a great jumpshooter, but he wasn't a pure shooter. Like a ray allen, larry bird, or reggie miller.

First of all, Jordan's great efficiency has just as much to do with his great ability to get to the rim as it does with his great jumpshooting.

Second of all, even if Jordan is a streaky shooter, he was just as likely to start off a game going 9-14 as he is 6-14 (going back to your previous example), while ending the game with the same efficiency on his remaining shots, so your point about rhythm when it comes to Jordan doesn't hold much weight.

Anyway, if Jordan is regulated to shooting 10-15 shots per game instead of 20-25, he's not just going to play his regular game and shoot 6-14 and then all of a sudden stop shooting in the middle of the 3rd quarter. If he was only to shoot that many shots, he would space it out through 4 quarters meaning he would pick his shots more carefully meaning he would take a greater percentage of easier shots. Seriously, if Jordan only shot that much, you might've seen 57%-60% seasons in his prime .



That's cuz jordan is the greatest ever. I just take excepttion to the assumption that the bulls were the worse offense in the last 30 years. And then base that off of 5 or 6 games. You can't honestly feel that if those bulls teams were playing in the 70s and 80s were layup drills were common, that the FG% and ppg don't go up.

Worst offense in the last 30 years? I'm pretty sure he was only talking about championship teams, which is a small sample. And I believe he was only talking about these championship teams w/o there star player. If thats the case, its not a stretch at all to say they were the worst or one of the worst.

And you have a point about the 80s, but even then no one in their right mind would take a half-court offense of Pippen/Rodman/Kukoc/etc. over Kareem/Worthy/Scott/etc or McHale/Parish/DJ/Ainge/etc.



The bulls were the top offensive team in 96. I believe 3rd in 97 and 8th in 98. And they would've been higher in 98 if pippen hadn't missed half the season

Well when you have arguably the greatest offensive player ever, its not a surprise. No one's saying the Bulls weren't an elite offensive team, just that without Jordan they were not close to that.



This isn't totally the truth either. He shouldered the load more than most offensively. But pippen shouldered more of the defense and rodman the rebounding. I really can't see them winning without the 3. Even in 97 and 98. Rodman may notve had a lot of rebounds. But he spent a lot of his time concentrating on the jazz best player. And he frustrated malone. I remember them posting a stat that showed when rodman was on malone, he shot around 41% or something. When caffey or longley defended him, he avg aroun 50%.

Okay, but the thing is Jordan DID shoulder much of the load defensively. Pippen didn't shoulder anywhere near as much of a load defensively as Jordan did offensively. Jordan wasn't someone like Dominique Wilkins who didn't much outside of score and especially didn't play any defense. He wasn't someone like Kobe Bryant, who's lived off his defensive reputation while conserving alot of energy on that end. Jordan took a slightly lesser or equal load defensively as Pippen except for 98 arguably.

If Jordan wasn't taking a larger load then most other championship superstars, who was? You can argue Hakeem and Duncan in 03 and maybe 99. Certainly not Bird or Magic who didn't take as much of a load offensively, and CLEARLY didn't defensively either. Not Shaq when he was arguably a liability at the end of games and leaned on the eventual 2nd greatest SG of all-time to close out games. Not Duncan in the other years when he depended alot offensively on Manu and Parker as he declined. Not Wade, Kobe, or Dirk who arguably did have the load offensively, but definitely not anywhere close defensively. Obviously not Isiah, Chauncey, or KG who all played on ensemble casts.



I really don't understand this new fad of degrading the players on championship teams to prop the best player. Trying to make it seem like 1 player wins a championship in spite of his teammates. And then when they can't, its cuz of his support, not him. Its the stupidest reasoning in sports.

Its a forum. No one is degrading anyone. Just pointing out the arguable truth. No one has said Jordan won in spite of them.

[G.O.A.T]

Only Kareem has had as complete of a career as Jordan has had; in terms of impact, playoff performances, championships, defensive prowess and personal accolades...Kareem is right there with Michael; Wilt falls drastically short in the championship department.

Wilt's a lot closer to Kareem in terms of Championship impact than Kareem is to Russell.

I have it

Wilt best player on two Champs
Kareem best player on three Champs
Russell best player on ten or eleven Champs

[jlauber]

Continuing...

How about Wilt's IMPACT in his 66-67 season? Finally playing with a quality supporting cast that can match Russell's HOF-laden roster, he LED his Sixers to a then best-ever NBA record, of 68-13. He averaged 24.1 ppg, 24.2 rpg, 7.8 apg, and shot a mind-boggling .683 from the field (in a league that shot .441.) In the first round of the playoffs, he averaged 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg and shot .612 (yes, a TRIPLE-DOUBLE series.) In the ECF's, and against Russell's 60-21 Celtics (with perhaps the deepest roster in NBA history), Chamberlain CRUSHED Russell. He again averaged a TRIPLE-DOUBLE series, by outscoring Russell, per game, 21.6 ppg to 10.2 ppg; outrebounding Russell, per game, 32.0 rpg, to 23.0 rpg (yes, a full NINE RPG); outassisting Russell, per game, 10.0 apg to 6.0 apg; and outshooting Russell in that series, .556 to .358. In the clinching game five win, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 29-4 (with 22 coming in the first half when the game was still in doubt); outshot Russell, 10-16 to 2-5; outassisted Russell, 13-7; and outrebounded Russell, 36-21. In the Finals, he POUNDS HOFer Nate Thurmond, outscoring, outrebounding, and outshooting him (by a staggering .560 to .343 margin), en route to LEADING his team to a dominating world title.

How much IMPACT did Wilt have that season???

In the 67-68 season, Chamberlain again led his Sixers to a run-away best record in the league, AND, in the process, he finished in the top-5 in NINETEEN of the league's 23 statistical categories...including leading the league in ASSISTS. However, and as I have documented MANY times, his team was DECIMATED by injuries, and they blew a 3-1 series lead to Boston, losing a game seven by four points. Still, Chamberlain played brilliantly, despite being noticeably hobbled from game three on. And, BTW, his teammates completely forgot about him the second half of that game seven...and they collectively shot .333. And it was WILT who was ripped afterwards, despite a 14-34 game. Overall, though, it was a DOMINATING season by Chamberlain, who also LED the league in DEFENSIVE WIN SHARES.

Chamberlain was "traded" to the Lakers after that 67-68 season...again, for THREE players, two of whom were quality players (more on that in a second.) Not only did Wilt have to replace those players ppg and rpg numbers from the season before, but LA also lost HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft. Overall, Wilt replaced 42 ppg and 18 rpg worth of production. And even with West missing 20 games, the Lakers posted a then best ever record of 55-27. Meanwhile, Chamberlain's former team, the Sixers, "only" dropped from 62-20 to 55-27. BUT, despite Wilt's two "replacements" collectively averaging 36 ppg, 20 rpg, and shooting .510...the Sixers are blown out in the first round by the 48-34 Celtics, 4-1. Think about that...Wilt's replacements average a 36-20 .510...and they are crushed 4-1, by the same Celtic team that struggled to beat an injured-riddled Sixer team, led by Chamberlain, in seven games, just the year before.

I have documented the 68-69 Lakers game seven, two-point loss against that Celtic team in the Finals MANY times before. I won't even rehash it now, except to say that Wilt was left on the bench by his idiotic coach in the last five minutes of that game seven, two point loss. We know that the Lakers obviously could not win without Wilt, though. BTW, in that season, all Chamberlain did was average 20.5 ppg, led the NBA in rebounding, at 21.1 rpg, and led the NBA in FG% at .583.

Continued...

[catch24]

More crap that has nothing to do with whats being discussed. We've already seen this information. You've cut and pasted it on this board ad nauseam.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6235384&postcount=11
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=200099&page=5
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=190701&page=5
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=222675

Your past jobs are of no value or substance. I can see why you prefer spamming though. An alternative would shred any ounce of credibility you had left.

[OldSchoolBBall]

I just take excepttion to the assumption that the bulls were the worse offense in the last 30 years.

I didn't say they had the worst offense in the last 30 years, I said that Jordan won with less offensive help in '91-'93 and '98 than any championship team of the last 30 years save for 1 or 2 of them. The Bulls had as great an OFFENSE as they did largely because of Jordan's offensive brilliance, the way Pippen and the role players fit their roles, and the Triangle, not because they had a ton of offensive TALENT/ABILITY/PRODUCTION. They didn't. There's a difference between those two statements.

[Fatal9]

Chamberlain was "traded" to the Lakers after that 67-68 season...again, for THREE players, two of whom were quality players (more on that in a second.) Not only did Wilt have to replace those players ppg and rpg numbers from the season before, but LA also lost HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft. Overall, Wilt replaced 42 ppg and 18 rpg worth of production.
What the phuck kind of logic is this? Have you ever watched basketball? You really think adding up the traded players stat totals is what the new player has to "replace"?

LeBron got replaced by Sessions, Gee, Samuels and Eygenga this season...all of whom combined averaged 35/14/8 this year, how could the Cavs lose so many games when replacing LeBron with that sort of production. Herp Derp, great logic and understanding of the game :facepalm

There's a reason he wasn't even a serious MVP Candidate. He goes over to a team and seemingly fixes the one weakness they had all decade (no legit centers) but improves the team by only 3 games (and that's with West playing 10 more games) while the actual SRS of the team declined when he joined the team and won exactly one more game in the playoffs. GOAT impact :rolleyes:

Lead team to 31 wins in statistical prime while playing every game. Lead team to the worst record in the league before getting traded for scrubs, and then have basically no impact on the W-L record of the team you joined (Sixers 20-20 or something before trade, finished 40-40). Teammates talk about how glad they are that you got traded and all. I can definitely see all these things happening to MJ :rolleyes:. We're not even discussing the post season, or taking into account clutch performances/scoring or intangibles, where MJ takes a shyt all over Wilt. Comparing Wilt with MJ (literally...the anti-Wilt) is an insult to MJ.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

Wilt suffered a devastating knee injury early in the 69-70 season (BTW, in those first nine games, Wilt was leading the NBA in scoring at 32.2 ppg.) This was the same injury that shelved Baylor for over a full year, and in fact, dramatically affect his offense afterwards. Yet, despite even the most optomistic medical opinion of Wilt missing the rest of the season, Chamberlain came back WAY AHEAD of schedule (even though he was nowhere near 100%.) And then Chamberlain "the choker" led his team back from a 3-1 series deficit to a 4-3 win over the Suns in the first round of the playoffs. Then, in the Finals, and basically on one leg, he averaged 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625. In an "elimination game" six, he posted a 45 point, 20-27, 27 rebound game. In the game seven loss (the famous Reed game...of 4 points and 3 rebounds), Chamberlain was the ONLY Laker to play well, with a 21 point, 24 rebound, 10-16 game...but since LA lost to the heavily-favored 60-22 Knicks, it was WILT's fault. Yep...Reed playing like a statue with his leg injury (suffered in game five, with the series tied, 2-2, and his team down by 10 points at the time)...and Chamberlain only four months removed from major knee surgery, and hanging a typical 20-20 game in the process...and Reed was hailed as the hero, and Chamberlain once again was tagged as a "choker" and a "loser."

In the 70-71 season, Baylor is injured in the second game of the season, and misses the remainder, including the playoffs. West is injured in the last fourth of the season, and he too, missed the post-season. Somehow, Chamberlain gets that team to a 48-34 record, and even into the WCF's, where despite playing a prime Kareem to a statistical draw, his Lakers lose that series, 4-1. Chamberlain was outscored by Kareem in that series, per game, 25-22, but he outrebounded him, per game, 19-17, and outshot him, .489 to .481. Think about that, too, a well-past his prime Wilt, playing on a surgically repaired knee, battling a PRIME Kareem to a draw. Once again, how great was Wilt's DEFENSE? Kareem averaged 31.7 ppg on .577 shooting against the NBA in the regular season. Against Wilt in the '71 WCF's... 25 ppg on .481 shooting.

Before the start of the 71-72 season, virtually no one gave the Lakers a chance in hell of winning the title. The reigning champion Bucks, fresh off of that 66-16 season, and with a young roster, was a unanimous pre-season selection to win it all. The Lakers were an old, injury-plagued team, that had all five starters over the age of 30. Their new coach, Bill Sharman, coaxed Baylor into retirement after game number nine...and, using a blistering fast-break, led by Wilt's defense, rebounding, and outlet passes...went on a 33 game winning streak...en route to a 69-13 season, which is STILL a Laker team record. In the playoffs, by all accounts, he outplayed a PRIME Kareem, holding him to .457 shooting (and only .414 in the last four games), including blocking 15+ sky-hooks in that series... in leading LA to a 4-2 series win. In the clinching game six win, Chamberlain played a spectacular 4th quarter, in leading LA back from a 10 point deficit, and he finished with 22 points, 24 rebounds, and shot 8-12.

And, in the Finals, Chamberlain, playing with TWO badly injured wrists, puts up a 24 point, 10-14, 29 rebound, 9 block clinching game five performance, in leading the Lakers to their first ever title in LA, and in the process, he won the Finals MVP.

In his LAST season, at age 36, all Chamberlain did was once again LEAD the NBA in rebounding, was voted first-team all-defense (for the second straight season), and set a FG% mark of .727 that will probably never be broken. He also led the Lakers to a 60-22 mark, and yet another trip to the Finals, where his injury-wracked Lakers lose four close games to the Knicks and their SIX HOFers. In his LAST post-season, covering 17 games, he averaged 22.5 rpg (in a league that averaged 51.6 rpg), AND, in his very LAST game, he scored 23 points, with 21 rebounds.

That was Chamberlain's career in a relatively quick run-down. The man STILL holds some 130 records, and in many cases, he also holds the next mark, as well. And MANY of those records woill never be broken, either.

For those that rip Wilt's "decline" in his post-seasons...

How many other NBA players, in the HISTORY of the game, had ENTIRE post-seasons of 37-23, 35-27, 33-26, and 35-25? Or even entire post-seasons like 29-27, or 28-30? How many other players had even one 50-30 game in the playoffs (Wilt had TWO, with games of 56-35, and 50-35...with the latter against Russell.) He had FOUR 40-30 games, just against Russell alone. He had playoff series of 37 ppg, 37 ppg, and 39 ppg. He had multiple 30+ ppg series, with FOUR against Russell alone (including a 30-31 seven game series average.) How many other NBA players had a QUAD DOUBLE game in the post-season, especially one like this... 24-32-13-12. Chamberlain even had TWO TRIPLE-DOUBLE playoff series ( one of them a 22-32-10 series...against Russell.)

Chamberlain gets ripped...

and yet how about Jordan? MJ joined a 27-55 team in his rookie season. True, he led them to a 38-44 record in that season...BUT, Chamberlain took a 32-40 team to a 49-26 record in HIS rookie season. MJ only plays 18 games in the following season...and his team only drops to 30-52. In the next season, he puts up a 37.1 ppg season, and his team goes 40-42. Chamberlain was a "stats-padder" with his 50 ppg season on a 49-31 team, but MJ is a hero in his 37 ppg season, on a 40-42 team.

Everyone knows about MJ's six rings. Here again, how good were those rosters? They were good enough to go 55-27 WITHOUT him in his first retirement...a drop of two games. Chamberlain gets slapped by some here, when his former Sixer team "only" dropped from 62-20 to 55-27, BUT, Philly acquired THREE players in that deal. When MJ retired, the Bulls didn't get anything in return. MJ is replaced by Kukoc and Pete Myers, and they drop two games (and then lose a close game seven to the Knicks, who would lose a close game seven to eventual champion Rockets.) AND, let's face it...when they added Rodman (as well as having Kukoc and Kerr) in the second "three-peat", those were LOADED rosters.

MJ's teams went 1-9 in his first ten playoff games. Hell, his team's were LOSERS in his first three seasons. It wasn't until Pippen and Grant arrived that MJ played on a winning team or even win a playoff series.

Yes, MJ played brilliantly in the post-season. But how come no one mentions his flops? Everyone remembers his 61 point game in the '87 playoffs (in a loss BTW.) BUT, how about his other two games of that sweeping series loss? He averaged 23 ppg on, get this, on .326 shooting. In his first playoff series he shot .436. And how about his last three Finals, when he shot .455, .427, and even .415?

Basketball is a TEAM game. Chamberlain DOMINATED his peers like no other player in HISTORY, even in the POST-SEASON (here again, give me a list of players with who had ONE post-season of 29.3, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, on .518 shooting (in leagues that shot about .435 on average) with 7-8 bpg. And yet, that was what Chamberlain AVERAGED in his first EIGHT post-seasons...COMBINED. He took several crappy rosters to even the Finals (in '64), and had two other putrid rosters come within a total of three points, in two game sevens, of knocking off the greatest dynasty in major professional team sports history. And when he was given quality rosters, that were healthy, they OVERWHELMED the league en route to dominating titles...and in against HOF-laden teams like the '67 Celtics and their SIX HOFers, and the '72 Knicks and their FIVE HOFers (and then lost to the '73 Knicks and their SIX HOFers the very next season.) Once again, he battled a HOF center in TWO-THIRDS of his 160 post-season games. He also faced the greatest dynasty in professional sports history, in TEN of his 14 seasons. And then he had to battle the 60-22 '70 Knicks (on one leg), and the 66-16 '71 Bucks (wthout BOTH West and Baylor.) And, as I alluded to earlier, the '73 Knicks (who had SIX HOFers, and who also beat the 68-14 Celtics in the ECF's.)

Was Jordan the G.O.A.T? Well, he certainly is ONE of those that has a case...along with Russell, Magic, Kareem, and yes, Chamberlain. There has never been an individual in any major professional team sport who dominated the sport with his dominance. The RECORD BOOK says so.

[N0Skillz]

Continuing...

Wilt suffered a devastating knee injury early in the 69-70 season (BTW, in those first nine games, Wilt was leading the NBA in scoring at 32.2 ppg.) This was the same injury that shelved Baylor for over a full year, and in fact, dramatically affect his offense afterwards. Yet, despite even the most optomistic medical opinion of Wilt missing the rest of the season, Chamberlain came back WAY AHEAD of schedule (even though he was nowhere near 100%.) And then Chamberlain "the choker" led his team back from a 3-1 series deficit to a 4-3 win over the Suns in the first round of the playoffs. Then, in the Finals, and basically on one leg, he averaged 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625. In an "elimination game" six, he posted a 45 point, 20-27, 27 rebound game. In the game seven loss (the famous Reed game...of 4 points and 3 rebounds), Chamberlain was the ONLY Laker to play well, with a 21 point, 24 rebound, 10-16 game...but since LA lost to the heavily-favored 60-22 Knicks, it was WILT's fault. Yep...Reed playing like a statue with his leg injury (suffered in game five, with the series tied, 2-2, and his team down by 10 points at the time)...and Chamberlain only four months removed from major knee surgery, and hanging a typical 20-20 game in the process...and Reed was hailed as the hero, and Chamberlain once again was tagged as a "choker" and a "loser."

In the 70-71 season, Baylor is injured in the second game of the season, and misses the remainder, including the playoffs. West is injured in the last fourth of the season, and he too, missed the post-season. Somehow, Chamberlain gets that team to a 48-34 record, and even into the WCF's, where despite playing a prime Kareem to a statistical draw, his Lakers lose that series, 4-1. Chamberlain was outscored by Kareem in that series, per game, 25-22, but he outrebounded him, per game, 19-17, and outshot him, .489 to .481. Think about that, too, a well-past his prime Wilt, playing on a surgically repaired knee, battling a PRIME Kareem to a draw. Once again, how great was Wilt's DEFENSE? Kareem averaged 31.7 ppg on .577 shooting against the NBA in the regular season. Against Wilt in the '71 WCF's... 25 ppg on .481 shooting.

Before the start of the 71-72 season, virtually no one gave the Lakers a chance in hell of winning the title. The reigning champion Bucks, fresh off of that 66-16 season, and with a young roster, was a unanimous pre-season selection to win it all. The Lakers were an old, injury-plagued team, that had all five starters over the age of 30. Their new coach, Bill Sharman, coaxed Baylor into retirement after game number nine...and, using a blistering fast-break, led by Wilt's defense, rebounding, and outlet passes...went on a 33 game winning streak...en route to a 69-13 season, which is STILL a Laker team record. In the playoffs, by all accounts, he outplayed a PRIME Kareem, holding him to .457 shooting (and only .414 in the last four games), including blocking 15+ sky-hooks in that series... in leading LA to a 4-2 series win. In the clinching game six win, Chamberlain played a spectacular 4th quarter, in leading LA back from a 10 point deficit, and he finished with 22 points, 24 rebounds, and shot 8-12.

And, in the Finals, Chamberlain, playing with TWO badly injured wrists, puts up a 24 point, 10-14, 29 rebound, 9 block clinching game five performance, in leading the Lakers to their first ever title in LA, and in the process, he won the Finals MVP.

In his LAST season, at age 36, all Chamberlain did was once again LEAD the NBA in rebounding, was voted first-team all-defense (for the second straight season), and set a FG% mark of .727 that will probably never be broken. He also led the Lakers to a 60-22 mark, and yet another trip to the Finals, where his injury-wracked Lakers lose four close games to the Knicks and their SIX HOFers. In his LAST post-season, covering 17 games, he averaged 22.5 rpg (in a league that averaged 51.6 rpg), AND, in his very LAST game, he scored 23 points, with 21 rebounds.

That was Chamberlain's career in a relatively quick run-down. The man STILL holds some 130 records, and in many cases, he also holds the next mark, as well. And MANY of those records woill never be broken, either.

For those that rip Wilt's "decline" in his post-seasons...

How many other NBA players, in the HISTORY of the game, had ENTIRE post-seasons of 37-23, 35-27, 33-26, and 35-25? Or even entire post-seasons like 29-27, or 28-30? How many other players had even one 50-30 game in the playoffs (Wilt had TWO, with games of 56-35, and 50-35...with the latter against Russell.) He had FOUR 40-30 games, just against Russell alone. He had playoff series of 37 ppg, 37 ppg, and 39 ppg. He had multiple 30+ ppg series, with FOUR against Russell alone (including a 30-31 seven game series average.) How many other NBA players had a QUAD DOUBLE game in the post-season, especially one like this... 24-32-13-12. Chamberlain even had TWO TRIPLE-DOUBLE playoff series ( one of them a 22-32-10 series...against Russell.)

Chamberlain gets ripped...

and yet how about Jordan? MJ joined a 27-55 team in his rookie season. True, he led them to a 38-44 record in that season...BUT, Chamberlain took a 32-40 team to a 49-26 record in HIS rookie season. MJ only plays 18 games in the following season...and his team only drops to 30-52. In the next season, he puts up a 37.1 ppg season, and his team goes 40-42. Chamberlain was a "stats-padder" with his 50 ppg season on a 49-31 team, but MJ is a hero in his 37 ppg season, on a 40-42 team.

Everyone knows about MJ's six rings. Here again, how good were those rosters? They were good enough to go 55-27 WITHOUT him in his first retirement...a drop of two games. Chamberlain gets slapped by some here, when his former Sixer team "only" dropped from 62-20 to 55-27, BUT, Philly acquired THREE players in that deal. When MJ retired, the Bulls didn't get anything in return. MJ is replaced by Kukoc and Pete Myers, and they drop two games (and then lose a close game seven to the Knicks, who would lose a close game seven to eventual champion Rockets.) AND, let's face it...when they added Rodman (as well as having Kukoc and Kerr) in the second "three-peat", those were LOADED rosters.

MJ's teams went 1-9 in his first ten playoff games. Hell, his team's were LOSERS in his first three seasons. It wasn't until Pippen and Grant arrived that MJ played on a winning team or even win a playoff series.

Yes, MJ played brilliantly in the post-season. But how come no one mentions his flops? Everyone remembers his 61 point game in the '87 playoffs (in a loss BTW.) BUT, how about his other two games of that sweeping series loss? He averaged 23 ppg on, get this, on .326 shooting. In his first playoff series he shot .436. And how about his last three Finals, when he shot .455, .427, and even .415?

Basketball is a TEAM game. Chamberlain DOMINATED his peers like no other player in HISTORY, even in the POST-SEASON (here again, give me a list of players with who had ONE post-season of 29.3, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, on .518 shooting (in leagues that shot about .435 on average) with 7-8 bpg. And yet, that was what Chamberlain AVERAGED in his first EIGHT post-seasons...COMBINED. He took several crappy rosters to even the Finals (in '64), and had two other putrid rosters come within a total of three points, in two game sevens, of knocking off the greatest dynasty in major professional team sports history. And when he was given quality rosters, that were healthy, they OVERWHELMED the league en route to dominating titles...and in against HOF-laden teams like the '67 Celtics and their SIX HOFers, and the '72 Knicks and their FIVE HOFers (and then lost to the '73 Knicks and their SIX HOFers the very next season.) Once again, he battled a HOF center in TWO-THIRDS of his 160 post-season games. He also faced the greatest dynasty in professional sports history, in TEN of his 14 seasons. And then he had to battle the 60-22 '70 Knicks (on one leg), and the 66-16 '71 Bucks (wthout BOTH West and Baylor.) And, as I alluded to earlier, the '73 Knicks (who had SIX HOFers, and who also beat the 68-14 Celtics in the ECF's.)

Was Jordan the G.O.A.T? Well, he certainly is ONE of those that has a case...along with Russell, Magic, Kareem, and yes, Chamberlain. There has never been an individual in any major professional team sport who dominated the sport with his dominance. The RECORD BOOK says so.


I think thats a knockout

[97 bulls]

Jordan never averaged 30 shots per game and the he averaged 22-26 FGA per game during the 3-peats.
if I said 30 shots per as an average, my mistake. I meant he had a lot of games where he took 30 shots.


First of all, Jordan's great efficiency has just as much to do with his great ability to get to the rim as it does with his great jumpshooting.
True

Second of all, even if Jordan is a streaky shooter, he was just as likely to start off a game going 9-14 as he is 6-14 (going back to your previous example), while ending the game with the same efficiency on his remaining shots, so your point about rhythm when it comes to Jordan doesn't hold much weight.
Sure it does. A typical jordan game went like this... 1st 10pt 2nd 3pts 8pts 4th 12pts

Anyway, if Jordan is regulated to shooting 10-15 shots per game instead of 20-25, he's not just going to play his regular game and shoot 6-14 and then all of a sudden stop shooting in the middle of the 3rd quarter. If he was only to shoot that many shots, he would space it out through 4 quarters meaning he would pick his shots more carefully meaning he would take a greater percentage of easier shots. Seriously, if Jordan only shot that much, you might've seen 57%-60% seasons in his prime .
quite possible. I'm not really comparing pippen to jordan offensivly I'm comparing pippen to your typical 25 ppg scorer.


Worst offense in the last 30 years? I'm pretty sure he was only talking about championship teams, which is a small sample. And I believe he was only talking about these championship teams w/o there star player. If thats the case, its not a stretch at all to say they were the worst or one of the worst.
I know what he meant. I still disagree. Cuz your comparing them to teams that played in a high scoring era. And after that, short of the celtics, how many teams were really that much better offensively than the bulls? Gasol, odom, and bynum? Hamiton, prince and wallace? Ginobli parker and and old robinson? Bryant fox and fisher? Drexler, smith horry? And aside from bryant and shaq the teams I named didn't have a player as ball dominant as jordan.

And you have a point about the 80s, but even then no one in their right mind would take a half-court offense of Pippen/Rodman/Kukoc/etc. over Kareem/Worthy/Scott/etc or McHale/Parish/DJ/Ainge/etc.

Again, same concept. Put pippen, kukoc and longley in the 80s and their ppg probably look like 24 for pippen, 16 for kukoc and 12 for longley. Add their ppg up and it comes out to 52 pts. And that's taking for granted that they don't play in an uptempo offense, and shared the ball with a player like jordan which the other players you mentioned did have to do. On the 87 lakers, kareem avg 18, worth 20 and scott 17 that's 55 pts. The celtics players typical ppg was roughly 22 for mchale, 18 for parrish and 16 for DJ. That's 56 pts

Well when you have arguably the greatest offensive player ever, its not a surprise. No one's saying the Bulls weren't an elite offensive team, just that without Jordan they were not close to that.



Okay, but the thing is Jordan DID shoulder much of the load defensively. Pippen didn't shoulder anywhere near as much of a load defensively as Jordan did offensively. Jordan wasn't someone like Dominique Wilkins who didn't much outside of score and especially didn't play any defense. He wasn't someone like Kobe Bryant, who's lived off his defensive reputation while conserving alot of energy on that end. Jordan took a slightly lesser or equal load defensively as Pippen except for 98 arguably.

If Jordan wasn't taking a larger load then most other championship superstars, who was? You can argue Hakeem and Duncan in 03 and maybe 99. Certainly not Bird or Magic who didn't take as much of a load offensively, and CLEARLY didn't defensively either. Not Shaq when he was arguably a liability at the end of games and leaned on the eventual 2nd greatest SG of all-time to close out games. Not Duncan in the other years when he depended alot offensively on Manu and Parker as he declined. Not Wade, Kobe, or Dirk who arguably did have the load offensively, but definitely not anywhere close defensively. Obviously not Isiah, Chauncey, or KG who all played on ensemble casts.




Its a forum. No one is degrading anyone. Just pointing out the arguable truth. No one has said Jordan won in spite of them.
Don't get me wrong. Jordan is the greatest. I'm just not gonna allow the jordan cult to spout a bunch of nonsense. At least not without a rebutal.

[97 bulls]

I didn't say they had the worst offense in the last 30 years, I said that Jordan won with less offensive help in '91-'93 and '98 than any championship team of the last 30 years save for 1 or 2 of them. The Bulls had as great an OFFENSE as they did largely because of Jordan's offensive brilliance, the way Pippen and the role players fit their roles, and the Triangle, not because they had a ton of offensive TALENT/ABILITY/PRODUCTION. They didn't. There's a difference between those two statements.
I know what you meant and I still disagree. Ojordan shouldered much of the load cuz that was his mentality. I'm glad he did do it. But based on 94 and 95, its obvious that it was a choice as opposed to he had to. Now granted, he had to on occasion. But that wasn't very often. If it was, the bulls would've basically been the smae as they were in the mid 80s.

[OldSchoolBBall]

I know what you meant and I still disagree. Ojordan shouldered much of the load cuz that was his mentality. I'm glad he did do it. But based on 94 and 95, its obvious that it was a choice as opposed to he had to.

No, looking at 1994 makes it even easier to see that he had to shoulder that load offensively, because despite their win total that year (which was due to a number of factors - by SRS, which correlates with actual W/L better than any other metric, the Bulls should have won 49-50 games that season; any games they won above this # were essentially luck), the Bulls' offense fell off a cliff:

1991: 114.6 ORtg (110.0 ppg/51.0% FG)
1992: 115.5 ORtg (109.9 ppg/50.8% FG)
1993: 112.9 ORtg (105.2 ppg/48.2% FG)
1994: 106.1 ORtg (98.0 ppg/47.6% FG)

Offensive numbers like that would have put the '94 Bulls in the bottom few teams in the league in '92 or '93. So yes, Jordan did have to carry that load, and it was the wisest course of action for him to do so, as his teammates could not generate good offense without him even with a sterling offensive system in place which mitigates defensive pressure. Without the triangle, the '94 Bulls, who had been running that system for years, would have been even worse off offensively.

[guy]

Sure it does. A typical jordan game went like this... 1st 10pt 2nd 3pts 8pts 4th 12pts

What's your point? Those are point totals not FG totals. Like I said, he was equally as likely to be hot the whole game as he was to be hot then cold or just cold the whole game. Rhythm didn't have much to do with it cause in the end its kind of wash. He wasn't on average significantly better in the 4th quarter as he was in the 1st quarter. And like I said, if he took less shots meaning he would pick better shots, his FG% would undoubtedly go up. And thats not just for Jordan, thats for all volume scorers.



I know what he meant. I still disagree. Cuz your comparing them to teams that played in a high scoring era. And after that, short of the celtics, how many teams were really that much better offensively than the bulls? Gasol, odom, and bynum? Hamiton, prince and wallace? Ginobli parker and and old robinson? Bryant fox and fisher? Drexler, smith horry? And aside from bryant and shaq the teams I named didn't have a player as ball dominant as jordan.

Jordan didn't have one reliable scoring teammate other then Pippen and even he was still shaky in comparison to others. And yes, all those teams you mentioned had overall better secondary scoring options then the Bulls except for maybe the Rockets. Its the main reason why Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, and Billups didn't need to score 30+ as much for them to win.

Like OSB said, Bulls didn't win cause they had these multiple scoring weapons. They won cause they arguably the greatest offensive player ever, arguably the greatest closer ever that was almost completely immune to pressure (moreso then arguably anyone in all of sports), an offensive system that everyone bought into, and arguably the greatest defense ever.



Again, same concept. Put pippen, kukoc and longley in the 80s and their ppg probably look like 24 for pippen, 16 for kukoc and 12 for longley. Add their ppg up and it comes out to 52 pts. And that's taking for granted that they don't play in an uptempo offense, and shared the ball with a player like jordan which the other players you mentioned did have to do. On the 87 lakers, kareem avg 18, worth 20 and scott 17 that's 55 pts. The celtics players typical ppg was roughly 22 for mchale, 18 for parrish and 16 for DJ. That's 56 pts

You're really overstating things. In the 80s, the most a team like the Bulls would score is like 10 points more assuming they play a pace more like the Celtics not the showtime Lakers or run and gun Nuggets. The 96 Bulls scored 105 ppg and the 86 Celtics scored 114 ppg for example. If this is the 96 team you're talking about, then you're saying Pippen would score 5 points more, Kukoc 3 points more, and Longley 3 points more. You're basically splitting the increase among 3 out of 12 players. More then likely, the increase is more like Jordan with 3+, Pippen with 2+, Kukoc with 1+, and the other 3-5+ is split among the role players.

Like I said, no in their right mind is taking a half court offense of Pippen/Kukoc/etc. over one that is played through Kareem or McHale and Parish. And even if you want to switch it up to the 80s, no way would Bird or Magic would've been better off with Pippen/Kukoc/Rodman then with Parish/McHale/DJ/Ainge or Kareem/Worthy/Scott/Cooper. I'd still take the 90s Bulls over the 80s Lakers and Celtics just cause of Jordan and the Bulls played much better defense, but that doesn't mean Jordan didn't take a larger load then those guys.

If Bird or Magic replaced Jordan on the 90s Bulls, they aren't as successful as Jordan was in the 90s or they were in the 80s on there teams, cause they have less offensive help around them and the Bulls take a significant step back defensively. I can't really say the same thing vice-versa though.


Don't get me wrong. Jordan is the greatest. I'm just not gonna allow the jordan cult to spout a bunch of nonsense. At least not without a rebutal.

Its really not a bunch of nonsense though and there's alot of logic to it. You can look at it as degrading or whatever, but its a basketball forum where the thing most posters do is make comparisons. There's always going to be one player or group that is looked at as less then the other.

[The Iron Fist]

Kobe didn't even led the 3-peat Lakers:facepalm He also wasn't the target of Detroit's suffocating defense, Shaq was.

Howard let LA score 100+ throughout the series. There defense was nowhere to be seen on that series.

He choked, but thanks to his team, he won.

:no:
2000: Reggie Miller MVP contention
2001: Allen Iverson MVP Dikembe Motumbo DPOY
2002: Jason Kidd Runner Up MVP, most people felt Kidd was screwed over for that award.
2004: Ben Wallace Runner up DPOY
2008: Kevin Garnett DPOY, 3rd in MVP voting, Pierce FMVP, Allen Top 5 in 3pfg and ft%
2009: Howard DPOY, 4th MVP voting
2010: Boston Celtics, best starting 5 in the league with former MVP and DPOY, FMVP and 3 time 3pfg made winner.

So in reality, Jordan only faced an MVP or DPOY 3 times in the finals. Kobe on the other hand, faced 3 DPOY and one of those DPOY was also a teammate of the MVP for that season.

Doesn't make who Kobe was and who he played against any different.


So in reality, Jordan only faced an MVP or DPOY 3 times in the finals. Kobe on the other hand, faced 3 DPOY and one of those DPOY was also a teammate of the MVP for that season.

[97 bulls]

No, looking at 1994 makes it even easier to see that he had to shoulder that load offensively, because despite their win total that year (which was due to a number of factors - by SRS, which correlates with actual W/L better than any other metric, the Bulls should have won 49-50 games that season; any games they won above this # were essentially luck), the Bulls' offense fell off a cliff:

1991: 114.6 ORtg (110.0 ppg/51.0% FG)
1992: 115.5 ORtg (109.9 ppg/50.8% FG)
1993: 112.9 ORtg (105.2 ppg/48.2% FG)
1994: 106.1 ORtg (98.0 ppg/47.6% FG)

Offensive numbers like that would have put the '94 Bulls in the bottom few teams in the league in '92 or '93. So yes, Jordan did have to carry that load, and it was the wisest course of action for him to do so, as his teammates could not generate good offense without him even with a sterling offensive system in place which mitigates defensive pressure. Without the triangle, the '94 Bulls, who had been running that system for years, would have been even worse off offensively.
All teams are gonna fall offensively if their best offensive player leaves and is replaced by a player that wasn't good enough to stay in the nba.since you think the celtics are so great, why don't you go back and check what they did when larry bird hurt his back in 89. They dropped of considerably. And at least they had a solid replacement for bird in reggie lewis.

Or go check the vaunted lakers offense when magic retired. At least they replaced him with sedale threatt. Who was a solid PG.

Lol without the triangle. All the bulls improved their scoring when jordan left for that year.

[97 bulls]

What's your point? Those are point totals not FG totals. Like I said, he was equally as likely to be hot the whole game as he was to be hot then cold or just cold the whole game. Rhythm didn't have much to do with it cause in the end its kind of wash. He wasn't on average significantly better in the 4th quarter as he was in the 1st quarter. And like I said, if he took less shots meaning he would pick better shots, his FG% would undoubtedly go up. And thats not just for Jordan, thats for all volume scorers.
I don't even know why I'm debating this pippen routinely shot a solid % throughout his career with the bulls. Except for 96. And as I said all the players shot bad that finals not just pippen


Jordan didn't have one reliable scoring teammate other then Pippen and even he was still shaky in comparison to others. And yes, all those teams you mentioned had overall better secondary scoring options then the Bulls except for maybe the Rockets. Its the main reason why Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, and Billups didn't need to score 30+ as much for them to win.
really? Aside from kobe. Manu has never been a better scorer than pippen, rip hamilton? Gasol? Come on.

Like OSB said, Bulls didn't win cause they had these multiple scoring weapons. They won cause they arguably the greatest offensive player ever, arguably the greatest closer ever that was almost completely immune to pressure (moreso then arguably anyone in all of sports), an offensive system that everyone bought into, and arguably the greatest defense ever.
This is true. But their offense was by no means bad.


You're really overstating things. In the 80s, the most a team like the Bulls would score is like 10 points more assuming they play a pace more like the Celtics not the showtime Lakers or run and gun Nuggets. The 96 Bulls scored 105 ppg and the 86 Celtics scored 114 ppg for example. If this is the 96 team you're talking about, then you're saying Pippen would score 5 points more, Kukoc 3 points more, and Longley 3 points more. You're basically splitting the increase among 3 out of 12 players. More then likely, the increase is more like Jordan with 3+, Pippen with 2+, Kukoc with 1+, and the other 3-5+ is split among the role players.
The team would score about 15 pts more. But the players would have more shot attempts. Thus more pts. Its simple math. And you can't. Calculate this by adding up their avgs.

Like I said, no in their right mind is taking a half court offense of Pippen/Kukoc/etc. over one that is played through Kareem or McHale and Parish. And even if you want to switch it up to the 80s, no way would Bird or Magic would've been better off with Pippen/Kukoc/Rodman then with Parish/McHale/DJ/Ainge or Kareem/Worthy/Scott/Cooper. I'd still take the 90s Bulls over the 80s Lakers and Celtics just cause of Jordan and the Bulls played much better defense, but that doesn't mean Jordan didn't take a larger load then those guys.
I don't get this, the bulls style was different from the lakers and celtics. Magic wouldn't do as well cuz the bulls tyle was different as well as bird. And I never implied that jordan didn't shoulder the lions share of the offense. I said the bulls offense wasn't nearly as bad as you and osb are trying to make them out to be.

If Bird or Magic replaced Jordan on the 90s Bulls, they aren't as successful as Jordan was in the 90s or they were in the 80s on there teams, cause they have less offensive help around them and the Bulls take a significant step back defensively. I can't really say the same thing vice-versa though.
the bulls didn't win by outscoring their opposition they won by stangling the opposition offense. But they didd lead the legue in offense, scoring, in 96, were 3rd in 97 and 8th in 98. And they would've been higher had pippen not missed almost 40 games.


Its really not a bunch of nonsense though and there's alot of logic to it. You can look at it as degrading or whatever, but its a basketball forum where the thing most posters do is make comparisons. There's always going to be one player or group that is looked at as less then the other.
Its logical? Sure its logical in that if a team loses their best scorer and then replace him with a guy that scored almost 3 times less the offense is gonna suffer. But why hold that against the bulls? That holds true for any team. And it sure as hell doesn't mean the bulls offense was bad without jordan.