Ranking the top 100 players in NBA history

[WillC]

I have combined the rankings from nine different publications (including – but not limited to – Bill Simmons’ ‘Book of Basketball’, Slam magazine’s ‘Top 500’, Elliot Kalb’s ‘Who’s Better Who’s Best in Basketball?’, Sport magazine’s 50th anniversary rankings and InsideHoops' very own GOAT List) to create a master list.

Some of the rankings were written a few years ago and, as a result, active players were ranked too low. To accommodate for this, I have adjusted the rankings of active players accordingly (by simply weighting them more towards the most recent rankings).

I have included the major awards won by each player, their career statistics along with revealing quotes (admittedly with a generous dose of hyperbole) from players and well-respected basketball authors.

The results are fascinating and, in my opinion, the most accurate rankings I have seen. Let me know what you think. Hopefully this leads to some good discussion.

http://basketballjournalist.blogspot.com/2011/07/ranking-top-100-players-in-nba-history.html

I also just wrote this about the debate surrounding the ranking of players from the 1950s, which has caused quite a buzz since I wrote the article above: http://basketballjournalist.blogspot.com/2011/08/remembering-stars-of-1950s.html

[FatComputerNerd]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=143465

Also, decent list but IMO you have Payton ranked way too low, and Dirk way too high.

[WillC]

FatComputerNerd, the GOAT list you posted a link you was one of the rankings used in the compilation of my article. It is an excellent list.

[RobertdeMeijer]

Nice work, indeed!
Russell is #2, so it is valid.

Did you use Simmon's revised (2010) version of the Book of Basketball? There are quite some changes (Kobe and Wade higher, Iverson lower)

[WillC]

Nice work, indeed!
Russell is #2, so it is valid.

Did you use Simmon's revised (2010) version of the Book of Basketball? There are quite some changes (Kobe and Wade higher, Iverson lower)

Yes, I used the rankings from his paperback, which have Kobe and Wade much higher than his hard back rankings.

[WillC]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=143465

Also, decent list but IMO you have Payton ranked way too low, and Dirk way too high.

Nowitzki right now is 7th in all-time Playoff PER, and 5th all-time in Playoffs WS/48.

He has a ring, an MVP, and a Finals MVP. There is nothing wrong ranking Dirk around 17-18.

[L.Kizzle]

You forgot ISHs Top 100 started by me in ike 2008.

[WillC]

You forgot ISHs Top 100 started by me in ike 2008.

Have you got a link? I'd be interested to see those.

I used GOAT's rankings because I know he has some good credentials. I tried to stay away from internet message board rankings because some of them are pretty poor, i.e. they just looked at stats rather than watched tape.

But I'd be really interested to see yours because I've seen you commenting on the best guards ever and you've got some intelligent things to say, which is more than can be said for some people.

[DMAVS41]

Nowitzki right now is 7th in all-time Playoff PER, and 5th all-time in Playoffs WS/48.

He has a ring, an MVP, and a Finals MVP. There is nothing wrong ranking Dirk around 17-18.

Yep. Add in 11 straight seasons over 50 wins. Add in one of 4 players 25/10 in playoff history. Definitely deserves to be ranked right in that range.

LOL @ far too high.

[L.Kizzle]

Have you got a link? I'd be interested to see those.

I used GOAT's rankings because I know he has some good credentials. I tried to stay away from internet message board rankings because some of them are pretty poor, i.e. they just looked at stats rather than watched tape.

But I'd be really interested to see yours because I've seen you commenting on the best guards ever and you've got some intelligent things to say, which is more than can be said for some people.
I'm at work but on the ish search function, type in 100 greatest players according to ish.

[WillC]

It says I don't have permission. Annoying!

[L.Kizzle]

It says I don't have permission. Annoying!
The Top 100 Greatest NBA Players Of All Time According To ISH (http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57766)

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

So after winning a title, a Finals MVP, two 2nd all-nba and 1 first team all-nba after you made the list... yeah Dirk should probably be moved into the 20ish category.

[WillC]

The Top 100 Greatest NBA Players Of All Time According To ISH (http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57766)

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading it.

Kevin Johnson's 46th place ranking seems a bit outrageous though.

[GP_20]

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading it.

Kevin Johnson's 46th place ranking seems a bit outrageous though.

Yeah he should be Top 40

[Kblaze8855]

KJ got there because two people wouldnt stop overrating the hell out of him every vote from like...the 20s on. Two points in the 90s were often ranked over him in his prime....but people were talking him up as top 30 because of numbers on a 119ppg team that ran all day with like 4 all stars. When the numbers were not even special for the 80s and early 90s west.

[WillC]

KJ got there because two people wouldnt stop overrating the hell out of him every vote from like...the 20s on. Two points in the 90s were often ranked over him in his prime....but people were talking him up as top 30 because of numbers on a 119ppg team that ran all day with like 4 all stars. When the numbers were not even special for the 80s and early 90s west.

That's the problem with doing message board votes. There will always be homers who warp the results.

[Fatal9]

That's the problem with doing message board votes. There will always be homers who warp the results.
These results are even worse.

Bob Cousy 5 spots ahead of David Robinson? Can anyone really justify that? Stockton above D-Rob when he wasn't even thought to be close to as good as him in the same era? Some things are arguable but that's just...wrong. Kobe/West/Oscar over Hakeem?

I mean SLAM's top 500 ranking was used as one of the contributing lists...which literally is the worst of these lists I've ever seen.

http://www.interbasket.net/news/7683/2011/04/top-500-nba-players-of-all-time-slam/

[GP_20]

That's the problem with doing message board votes. There will always be homers who warp the results.
Cases were made for KJ, and if those cases were good enough to get people to change their mind then they must have been good cases. It's not like KJ is universally overrated. He is actually universally underrated, and when people make cases to rating him properly he lands in at least in the Top 50.

[Timmy D for MVP]

I think Hakeem should be ahead of Big O. So I think Oscar is a little high. But I agree that Payton is low and Dirk a might high. Other than that this is a decent list.

[GP_20]

KJ got there because two people wouldnt stop overrating the hell out of him every vote from like...the 20s on. Two points in the 90s were often ranked over him in his prime....but people were talking him up as top 30 because of numbers on a 119ppg team that ran all day with like 4 all stars. When the numbers were not even special for the 80s and early 90s west.

This is completely false. 1st of all, "two people"? GMAT wasn't posting back then. It was only me. If GMAT was there, KJ would be ranked in the 30s not 40s. 2nd, I can only think of 1 PG who had a better 90s than KJ. 3rd, when you have 4 all-stars, that negatively affects your numbers. Let's not forget Hornacek also handled the ball a lot and made a lot of plays for that team. So not sure if you realized you were just contradicting yourself using 4 all-stars and numbers in the same argument.


If Nash can be in the Top 30 for some people, I don't see how KJ can't at least be in the Top 40.

[Kblaze8855]

Cases were made for KJ, and if those cases were good enough to get people to change their mind then they must have been good cases.

So...you think minds only change when a reasonable argument is made?

People have been convinced to kill themselves by a guy saying he was the return of jesus and had a comet coming to take them to heaven if they drank the killer kool aid.

There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people who are convinced that the dark lord Xenu stranded alien souls in earths volcanoes 75 million years ago and blew them up with atomic bombs that killed the dinosaurs.

I think humans have given us enough reason not to conclude that people coming to believe something makes it true or even.....halfway reasonable.





This is completely false. 1st of all, "two people"? GMAT wasn't posting back then. It was only me. If GMAT was there, KJ would be ranked in the 30s not 40s.

Excuse me if I mixed up both of you posting with just you...posting his words.



2nd, I can only think of 1 PG who had a better 90s than KJ.

You misunderstood. I was saying that players considered better than him at the time....were ranked in the 90s on the list. And they were.


3rd, when you have 4 all-stars, that negatively affects your numbers. Let's not forget Hornacek also handled the ball a lot and made a lot of plays for that team. So not sure if you realized you were just contradicting yourself using 4 all-stars and numbers in the same argument.


For a point guard...on a running team that in the halfcourt just has him dribble around to find a shooter or slash quickly...

Having 2 all star knockdown shooters and one of the best finishers in the NBA hurts you?

I suppose Amare, Marion, and all those shooters hurt nash has well. Pointguards dont benefit from talented finisher after all.

Im sure with the 03 Nuggets in place of the teams he had Nash would have done better than the 18/12 he did.

And im sure Karl Malone, Jeff Malone, Hornacek, and so on really bogged down stockton. And imagine magic without Kareem, Worthy, and Byron? He might have done 25/15 huh?

Because all star teammates...no matter how well their strengths fit yours...make for worse numbers.



If Nash can be in the Top 30 for some people, I don't see how KJ can't at least be in the Top 40.

Two wrongs.....

[GP_20]

So...you think minds only change when a reasonable argument is made?

People have been convinced to kill themselves by a guy saying he was the return of jesus and had a comet coming to take them to heaven if they drank the killer kool aid.

There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people who are convinced that the dark lord Xenu stranded alien souls in earths volcanoes 75 million years ago and blew them up with atomic bombs that killed the dinosaurs.

I think humans have given us enough reason not to conclude that people coming to believe something makes it true or even.....halfway reasonable.



I should've added 'majority' somewhere there. The majority that was listening agreed KJ should be up there. Besides people back then were generally stupid. Try convincing millions about lord Xenu today. You will convince some, but it won't be close to the majority listening to you. When we had those votes, KJ was a landslide winner for his spot, majority agreed based upon the arguments.







You misunderstood. I was saying that players considered better than him at the time....were ranked in the 90s on the list. And they were.

KJ was considered better than PGs in their respective primes ranked over him on the list too. What's your point? And some analysts, writers, were comparing KJ to Magic at their respective peaks. So once again, what's your point? I want to see 1 comparison between one of your '90s' PGs to Magic Johnson the GOAT PG.





For a point guard...on a running team that in the halfcourt just has him dribble around to find a shooter or slash quickly...

Having 2 all star knockdown shooters and one of the best finishers in the NBA hurts you?

I suppose Amare, Marion, and all those shooters hurt nash has well. Pointguards dont benefit from talented finisher after all.

Im sure with the 03 Nuggets in place of the teams he had Nash would have done better than the 18/12 he did.

And im sure Karl Malone, Jeff Malone, Hornacek, and so on really bogged down stockton. And imagine magic without Kareem, Worthy, and Byron? He might have done 25/15 huh?

Because all star teammates...no matter how well their strengths fit yours...make for worse numbers.



Two wrongs.....

I guess you missed the Jeff Hornacek part. :facepalm
He was a big playmaker on the Suns too. And yes having another playmaker on your team hurts the PGs stats. Ask Magic how life was with and without Nixon.

[Kblaze8855]

Besides people back then were generally stupid. Try convincing millions about lord Xenu today.

People back when? how old do you think scientology is?


I should've added 'majority' somewhere there. The majority that was listening agreed KJ should be up there.


You will convince some, but it won't be close to the majority listening to you. When we had those votes, KJ was a landslide winner for his spot, majority agreed based upon the arguments.

A majority agreed nash was the MVP for 2 years. yet...you didnt. Nice how the majority is right when you agree but a bunch of know nothing followers when you dont. And i assure you...the majority of people wont put KJ in the top 30 or 40..or 50...or 60...probably not 75. He didnt make top 50 or the expanded top 60 years later.

All that happened was a bunch of people who dont even remember KJ in his prime reading 20 pages of arguments on how good he is and disregarding the fact that he wasnt even considered an elite player at the time. Coaches didnt see fit to make him an all star in 2 of his 4 best years but now...hes top 25-30 to some. Based on nothing but numbers and the nothing he won in the most inflated PG numbers era of all time....with a stacked team...and running like nobody has since.

Tim hardaway is chosen by NBA coaches to make the ASG...KJ is not...Timmy is all nba second team...KJ is 3rd...the Warriors win more games..with less talent. But 20 years later people who dont remember either one act like KJ is top 40 and Timmy barely cracks top 100....because of inflated late 80s numbers(magic doing 23/12/7, Adams 27/12, Timmy 23/10, Stockton 17/15 and on and on) only one season of 70 games played in the next 7 years and disregarding that timmy was all nba first team which KJ never was(same for Mark Price, Stockton, and Penny).

Its a joke.



KJ was considered better than PGs in their respective primes ranked over him on the list too. What's your point? And some analysts, writers, were comparing KJ to Magic at their respective peaks. So once again, what's your point? I want to see 1 comparison between one of your '90s' PGs to Magic Johnson the GOAT PG.

Some writers? you mean the articles Gmat posted which serves to prove only that everything stupid has been in writing at some point? I can show you articles with people ranking Nash over every point guard since Magic. There are articles calling Michael Ray Richardson a smaller faster Magic Johnson.

What Randy Harvey and Michael wilbon said in 1989 means nothing. If Wilbon says hes the second best point in the NBA...but the media as a whole puts Stockton over him...or coaches put Tim Hardaway in the ASG over him..where is your "Well the majority says..." line of thinking then?

I care as much that wilbon said what he said of KJ as I care about him saying Lebron is the best player since Jordan in his prime. doesnt mean Lebron is better than Duncan in 03, prime Hakeem, or 2000 Shaq. It just means Wilbon said it. Which does not move me in the least. I heard wilbon laugh at the idea that Lebron could score 20ppg in his first few years......



I guess you missed the Jeff Hornacek part.

I did not. He was one of the shooters I mentioned. But I do see how you disregarded the obvious fact that great shooters and finishers help a PG in favor of mentioning one person who averaged 5 assists a game...on a team that scored 114 to 119 a game for 3 or 4 years.

KJ played with so many scorers and shooters he got left on islands to blow past guys. They were running breakneck speeds all game. They were putting up 121 ppg at home. They had over 1200 more posessions some seasons than the Hornets had last year. Dude had a chance to stack numbers like few ever get. Having another capable playmaker didnt keep the ball out of KJs handed. dude dribbled. A lot. He dominated the ball plenty of games. Isolations in the corner and top of the key over and over. He wasnt hurting for touches in any way. The talent he played with did nothing to hurt his game or his numbers.

Remove Chambers, Thunder dan, eddie, Jeff, and so on over those years hes getting less assists as worse player miss shots and fail to finish at the rim like Dan and Chambers could.

He did digits. Like anyone good would...on a 120 ppg team that ran all day and had too much talent to let anyone be doubled.


He was a big playmaker on the Suns too. And yes having another playmaker on your team hurts the PGs stats. Ask Magic how life was with and without Nixon.

Yes...because all teams are the same and an established star point will have the same impact on the playmaking of a guy who was pretty much a point forward as a good passing swingman will on a ball dominating pointguard who is given the keys to the team....

Hornacek did as much to take the ball out of KJs hands as cooper did to magic. Cooper got 6 assists a game a couple times. But only an idiot would act like it was hurting magic. Especialy considering how many times he was on the finishing end of plays from Magic.

Jeff was a 20ppg scorer and a knockdown shooter. That alone helped KJ more than him being abe to handle the ball hurt him(which is..not at all).

Its clear as day KJ benefitted from his teammates. A lot. Dude wasnt hurting for the ball in any way.

[WillC]

I think Hakeem should be ahead of Big O. So I think Oscar is a little high. But I agree that Payton is low and Dirk a might high. Other than that this is a decent list.

A lot of people rate Oscar highly because of his eye-catching statistics (i.e. he averaged a triple-double for a 3-year stretch) but I personally rate him highly for the fact he played on one of the truly great teams of all-time. In the book 'NBA From Top To Bottom', they rate the best teams of all-time based on a formula that looks at number of wins as well as point differentials, etc. The Bucks team with Oscar and Kareem comes out on top.

[jlauber]

A lot of people rate Oscar highly because of his eye-catching statistics (i.e. he averaged a triple-double for a 3-year stretch) but I personally rate him highly for the fact he played on one of the truly great teams of all-time. In the book 'NBA From Top To Bottom', they rate the best teams of all-time based on a formula that looks at number of wins as well as point differentials, etc. The Bucks team with Oscar and Kareem comes out on top.

Most posters here are probably unaware of the fact that Oscar's Bucks went 56-26 the year before he arrived, and a blowout 4-1 loss to the Knicks in the ECF's.. to a 66-16 champion in '71. Then, the next three years they also went 63-19, 60-22, and 59-23 (with yet another a trip to the Finals.) Oscar retired following that 73-74 season, and the Bucks IMMEDIATELY plunged to a 38-44 record.

[Hondo]

Did Patrick Ewing do something to offend you?

[pauk]

good list........

1-9 is easy to rank

10-11 is harder... Jerry West or Kobe...

after 11....... it gets ridicilously hard to order everybody correctly

HE MADE ONLY ONE MAJOR ULTRA STUPID MISTAKE.......... WITH DIRK NOWITZKI...

[WillC]

Did Patrick Ewing do something to offend you?

No.

But maybe he did something to offend the 9 publications whose rankings I used?

[WillC]

HE MADE ONLY ONE MAJOR ULTRA STUPID MISTAKE.......... WITH DIRK NOWITZKI...

How so?

I think I ought to write a blog entry to explain/defend Dirk's ranking.

[DMAVS41]

good list........

1-9 is easy to rank

10-11 is harder... Jerry West or Kobe...

after 11....... it gets ridicilously hard to order everybody correctly

HE MADE ONLY ONE MAJOR ULTRA STUPID MISTAKE.......... WITH DIRK NOWITZKI...


Where do you rank Dirk?

[WillC]

I'm still waiting for pauk's reply...

[greensborohill]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=143465

Also, decent list but IMO you have Payton ranked way too low, and Dirk way too high.

lol @ the very first response being about Dirk being too high. I love the backlash at dude going HAM and winning the

[pauk]

I'm still waiting for pauk's reply...

Dirk does not belong over Karl Malone, Isiah Thomas, Bob Cousy, George Mikan (ridiciously underrated), David Robinson (who is ridicilously underrated in that list... just sad.. look at his accomplishments and you could argue he is even close to as good as Hakeem was...) etc. just yet......... you dont need to wait for my reply... compare the accomplishments, achievements, milestones, records, productions and most importantly the impact to the evolution of NBA's future (in bob cousys.. mikans case).....

dirk was never that high on ANYONES list......... EVER.... until now... what is the difference? 1 RING? well whoopedifreakindooooooooo

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Dirk has a ring, Finals MVP and reg MVP. Ranking him in the top 20 is not absurd anymore. He has legit cases over guys like Malone, Barkley, KG, etc. Not to mention, he had 50+ wins every season for a decade, right? (correct me if I'm wrong) That's great consistency right there. The Mavericks were contenders, but seemed to be extremely unlucky.(Cuban''s big mouth might've cost the Mavs the title in 06)

Kobe's rank is just fine. You can opt to put him as high as 7, or as low as 10, not ridiculous at all.

I didn't read the whole list, but in the top 10, I disagree. Bump Hakeem into the top 10, bump Oscar out. My Top 3 would be Jordan, Russell/Kareem, Kareem/Russell. Wilt and Oscar put up great statistics but were not exactly "winning". After all the ultimate goal in basketball is winning titles, and that should account to a player's legacy in some way.

As for Wilt, he had one prime year where he seemed to be a real winner(though his team was incredibly loaded), and that same team won 55 games the year after he left, just 7 less than they won the previous year with him, and that's also with power forward Luke Jackson going from 82 games played in '68 to 25 in '69.

And in '68, they blew a 3-1 lead. Now Billy Cunningham was injured, but they got the 3-1 lead with him injured, and everyone knows about Wilt's game 7(14 points, 4/9 FG, 6/15 FT and I believe only took 1 shot in the second half), but even worse was his game 6.

With a chance, to close out the Celtics for a second straight year, Wilt's teammate Hal Greer had a very efficient 40 points(15/24 FG, 10/13 FT). What did Wilt do? 20 points on an unbelievably bad 6/21 FG and 8/23 FT.

In '66, Wilt led the 76ers to the best record in the NBA, but again he lost to Boston. The team didn't play well, but Wilt was a cancer at the time, feuding with his coach and skipping practice. And as Philly fell down 3-1, he oly averaged 23 or 23.5 ppg those first 4 games and shot like 48-49% from the field with his usual poor FT%, even in game 5, his 46/34 game was too little too late and his efficiency still wasn't great(19/34 FG, 8/25 FT) and he ended the series 28 ppg, 51 FG%, 41 FT%, 50 TS%, well below his season averages as usual in the playoffs.

'69 was among the worst. coming off 3 straight MVPs, he joins Baylor and West on the Lakers who had consistently made the finals(including the previous season). Despite West playing 10 more games, they only improved from 52 wins to 55 wins. Wilt's regular season scoring average of 20.5 ppg(58.3 FG%, 56.4 TS%) fell to 13.9 ppg(54.5 FG%, 51.8 TS%) in the playoffs and 11.7 ppg in the finals.

Of course they lost despite Jerry West having a 40 point triple double in game 7 and playing so well that he was named finals MVP. Definitely a worse failure than Lebron and his big 3 this past year.

That covers a lot of Wilt's prime, and there are other huge black marks throughout it as well. Leading a team to an 11-33 record in his prime before getting traded midseason, leading a team to a 31-49 record in his statistical prime(makes you question how much his stats mean).

All that is way too much against Wilt to consider him a top 5. His career is smoke and mirrors.

If '67 didn't seem so much like an anomaly then he might rank higher(even so, his skill set is really unimpressive compared to other top 10 big men, just my 2 cents), but if we are all questioning Lebron's mentality this year, then I definitely have to question Wilt's. The same guy who said that he sometimes preferred to lose because there was less pressure heading into the next game. The same guy who prefers stats over winning. That's what Bill Russell has over him.

[greensborohill]

Dirk does not belong over Karl Malone, Isiah Thomas, Bob Cousy, George Mikan (ridiciously underrated), David Robinson (who is ridicilously underrated in that list... just sad.. look at his accomplishments and you could argue he is even close to as good as Hakeem was...) etc. just yet......... you dont need to wait for my reply... compare the accomplishments, achievements, milestones, records, productions and most importantly the impact to the evolution of NBA's future (in bob cousys.. mikans case).....

dirk was never that high on ANYONES list......... EVER.... until now... what is the difference? 1 RING? well whoopedifreakindooooooooo

Yeah, I think you care too much. Must've been one of those "Dirk will never win a ring" types before this year. Now you're trying to justify what you just witnessed.

[WillC]

It's quite sad how some people fail to recognise Dirk's brilliance. Instead, he'll retire, and they'll look back when it's too late and think "damn, I never appreciated how great he was", which is a real shame.

[Big#50]

It's quite sad how some people fail to recognise Dirk's brilliance. Instead, he'll retire, and they'll look back when it's too late and think "damn, I never appreciated how great he was", which is a real shame.
He is top 20 in my list. If only he played better defense. I would have him in my top 10 if he was a good defender. He is one of the toughest match ups of all time. How the **** do you guard a ***** 7ft shooting guard?

[WillC]

Is there any statistical evidence to prove he was a bad defender though?

Don't get me wrong, he's obviously not on the same level as Duncan or Garnett, but I'll take Dirk's defense over Barkley's in a heart beat.

[jlauber]

Dirk has a ring, Finals MVP and reg MVP. Ranking him in the top 20 is not absurd anymore. He has legit cases over guys like Malone, Barkley, KG, etc. Not to mention, he had 50+ wins every season for a decade, right? (correct me if I'm wrong) That's great consistency right there. The Mavericks were contenders, but seemed to be extremely unlucky.(Cuban''s big mouth might've cost the Mavs the title in 06)

Kobe's rank is just fine. You can opt to put him as high as 7, or as low as 10, not ridiculous at all.

I didn't read the whole list, but in the top 10, I disagree. Bump Hakeem into the top 10, bump Oscar out. My Top 3 would be Jordan, Russell/Kareem, Kareem/Russell. Wilt and Oscar put up great statistics but were not exactly "winning". After all the ultimate goal in basketball is winning titles, and that should account to a player's legacy in some way.

As for Wilt, he had one prime year where he seemed to be a real winner(though his team was incredibly loaded), and that same team won 55 games the year after he left, just 7 less than they won the previous year with him, and that's also with power forward Luke Jackson going from 82 games played in '68 to 25 in '69.

And in '68, they blew a 3-1 lead. Now Billy Cunningham was injured, but they got the 3-1 lead with him injured, and everyone knows about Wilt's game 7(14 points, 4/9 FG, 6/15 FT and I believe only took 1 shot in the second half), but even worse was his game 6.

With a chance, to close out the Celtics for a second straight year, Wilt's teammate Hal Greer had a very efficient 40 points(15/24 FG, 10/13 FT). What did Wilt do? 20 points on an unbelievably bad 6/21 FG and 8/23 FT.

In '66, Wilt led the 76ers to the best record in the NBA, but again he lost to Boston. The team didn't play well, but Wilt was a cancer at the time, feuding with his coach and skipping practice. And as Philly fell down 3-1, he oly averaged 23 or 23.5 ppg those first 4 games and shot like 48-49% from the field with his usual poor FT%, even in game 5, his 46/34 game was too little too late and his efficiency still wasn't great(19/34 FG, 8/25 FT) and he ended the series 28 ppg, 51 FG%, 41 FT%, 50 TS%, well below his season averages as usual in the playoffs.

'69 was among the worst. coming off 3 straight MVPs, he joins Baylor and West on the Lakers who had consistently made the finals(including the previous season). Despite West playing 10 more games, they only improved from 52 wins to 55 wins. Wilt's regular season scoring average of 20.5 ppg(58.3 FG%, 56.4 TS%) fell to 13.9 ppg(54.5 FG%, 51.8 TS%) in the playoffs and 11.7 ppg in the finals.

Of course they lost despite Jerry West having a 40 point triple double in game 7 and playing so well that he was named finals MVP. Definitely a worse failure than Lebron and his big 3 this past year.

That covers a lot of Wilt's prime, and there are other huge black marks throughout it as well. Leading a team to an 11-33 record in his prime before getting traded midseason, leading a team to a 31-49 record in his statistical prime(makes you question how much his stats mean).

All that is way too much against Wilt to consider him a top 5. His career is smoke and mirrors.

If '67 didn't seem so much like an anomaly then he might rank higher(even so, his skill set is really unimpressive compared to other top 10 big men, just my 2 cents), but if we are all questioning Lebron's mentality this year, then I definitely have to question Wilt's. The same guy who said that he sometimes preferred to lose because there was less pressure heading into the next game. The same guy who prefers stats over winning. That's what Bill Russell has over him.

Pure TRASH.

:facepalm

Do some REAL research on the '66, '68, and '69 seasons and post-seasons, and then get back to me. BTW, you forgot to mention Chamberlain taking horrible rosters to within an eyelash of beating Russell's HOF-laden teams.

[WillC]

I hate it when people try to devalue what Wilt did in the NBA. He's a legend and definitely a top 5 player of all-time.

I really like Bill Simmons and tend to agree with him on most things but it annoys me that he only has Wilt ranked 7th all-time.

[97 bulls]

Is there any statistical evidence to prove he was a bad defender though?

Don't get me wrong, he's obviously not on the same level as Duncan or Garnett, but I'll take Dirk's defense over Barkley's in a heart beat.
This isntt saying much. And dirk has always been hid on defense.

[97 bulls]

Denniss rodman is way to low. He should be top 30. The disrespect defensive players get never ceases to amaze me. He's more accomplished than most of the players on this list. And arguubly the greatest defender ever. As well as rebounder.

[Math2]

Pure TRASH.

:facepalm

Do some REAL research on the '66, '68, and '69 seasons and post-seasons, and then get back to me. BTW, you forgot to mention Chamberlain taking horrible rosters to within an eyelash of beating Russell's HOF-laden teams.

Chamberlain had horrible rosters? HA. What a joke. Let's list his best teammates:

1960: Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, and Guy Rodgers...wins? 49 and lost to Boston in East Finals...is that horrible?

1961: Arizin, Gola, Rodgers...46 wins and SWEPT by the Nationals in the first round

1962: Tom Meschery, Arizin, Gola, Rodgers, 49 wins

1963: Tom Meschery, Rodgers...31 wins (this was a kinda bad team...)

1964: Tom Meschery, ROdgers, Thurmond 48 wins

1965: Hal Greer, Luke Jackson, Chet Walker...40 wins.....that is his best team yet. Not including other relevant players past their primes....

1966: Greer, Walker, Billy Cunningham....55 wins

1967: Wilts first unselfish year since 1964....Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Wali Jones....68 wins

1968: Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Wali JOnes, Luke Jackson....62 wins

1969 on: West Baylor...is that horrible?

Most of the HOFs on Russell's Celtics wouldn't have made it without Russell...lets look at them and whether they would make the HOF with out Russell........

Cousy....Yes
Heinsohn...Maybe
Andy PHillip...Yes (one of those veteran signings....way past his prime)
Frank Ramsey...Probably not
Arnie Risen: Yes (vet signings)
Bill Sharman: Yes
Sam Jones: Most likley not
KC JOnes: No
Clyde Lovellette: Yes (vet sign)
Hondo: Yes
Bailey Howell: Most likley yes
Satch Sanders: No

Most of the HOFers were past their primes: Here's the list, Phillip, Risen, Lovellette, and Howell. Cousy and Sharman were going to make in because of their 50s. Ramsey may have been an early sixth man....but if he was on a bad team...he wouldn't get recognized. Jones would be known more as a bad defender with out Russell, and his contributions would be as big. KC made it solely because of RUssell, same with Sanders. Howell was probably helped a little by his efforts, but was better before.

[DMAVS41]

This isntt saying much. And dirk has always been hid on defense.

This is somewhat misleading. Dirk is actually an above average man to man defender. In fact, since the 06 season....I'd say he's been a solid to good man to man defender.

He's also very good on the defensive glass....which is absolutely part of defense.

Where Dirk has always struggled is on rotations to protect the rim, pick and roll defense (although he's not terrible), and recovering from help to close out on shooters.

His defense is certainly not great or anything....but he's a far cry from a steve nash or someone that is truly a historically bad defender. You also have to understand that Dirk spent the first part of his career playing in a run and gun system under Nelson.....When Dirk was asked to focus more on defense under Avery...he did, and his defensive play saw a noticeable increase in quality.

[G.O.A.T]

Most of the HOFs on Russell's Celtics wouldn't have made it without Russell...lets look at them and whether they would make the HOF with out Russell........

Cousy....Yes
Heinsohn...Maybe
Andy PHillip...Yes (one of those veteran signings....way past his prime)
Frank Ramsey...Probably not
Arnie Risen: Yes (vet signings)
Bill Sharman: Yes
Sam Jones: Most likley not
KC JOnes: No
Clyde Lovellette: Yes (vet sign)
Hondo: Yes
Bailey Howell: Most likley yes
Satch Sanders: No


I don't think Howell and Heinsohn don't make it without the rings. They are basically Rudy LaRusso without defense at that point and Rudy never got a sniff. And Satch isn't in as a player, but as a contributor. As you point out, Sharman, Cousy and Hondo were the only sure thing HOF guys Russell played with. I do think Sam Jones had the talent to be HOF without the Celtics, but I'm not sure he'd have seen it through. Regardless, it's fair to add him to the list because he was such a tremendous player.

[Math2]

I don't think Howell and Heinsohn don't make it without the rings. They are basically Rudy LaRusso without defense at that point and Rudy never got a sniff. And Satch isn't in as a player, but as a contributor. As you point out, Sharman, Cousy and Hondo were the only sure thing HOF guys Russell played with. I do think Sam Jones had the talent to be HOF without the Celtics, but I'm not sure he'd have seen it through. Regardless, it's fair to add him to the list because he was such a tremendous player.

So there isn't much point in saying Wilt had horrible rosters while Wilt suffered...Good point with Howell...though he was a consistant 20 point scorer in Detroit and Baltimore...

[G.O.A.T]

So there isn't much point in saying Wilt had horrible rosters while Wilt suffered...Good point with Howell...though he was a consistant 20 point scorer in Detroit and Baltimore...

IWilt had one horrible roster...1963. The move to SF cost them Arizin and Gola, probably their second and third best player from 1962. The '64 team wasn't great either, but Hannum had Wilt maximizing the talent around him by playing such good defense and sharing the scoring load more.

I'm with you on that though. Wilt had good to very good rosters from the majority of his career. From '66-'69 his teams had the best top six in the NBA.

[PowerGlove]

This is somewhat misleading. Dirk is actually an above average man to man defender. In fact, since the 06 season....I'd say he's been a solid to good man to man defender.

Stop it. No, no rebuttal, just stop it.

[RRR3]

This is somewhat misleading. Dirk is actually an above average man to man defender. In fact, since the 06 season....I'd say he's been a solid to good man to man defender.

He's also very good on the defensive glass....which is absolutely part of defense.

Where Dirk has always struggled is on rotations to protect the rim, pick and roll defense (although he's not terrible), and recovering from help to close out on shooters.

His defense is certainly not great or anything....but he's a far cry from a steve nash or someone that is truly a historically bad defender. You also have to understand that Dirk spent the first part of his career playing in a run and gun system under Nelson.....When Dirk was asked to focus more on defense under Avery...he did, and his defensive play saw a noticeable increase in quality.
http://i36.tinypic.com/1ptcn5.jpg

[DMAVS41]

Stop it. No, no rebuttal, just stop it.

This just shows how you people have honestly spent no time watching Dirk play and are living off his reputation back from 2011.

Did you watch the playoffs this year? Did you see him play much better man to man defense on LA in the Blazers series than any Mavs player including Tyson Chandler?

I'm all for criticizing his defense, but at least prove that you know what you are talking about by criticizing his actual weaknesses.

Dirk is absolutely not a bad man to man defender.....and he's a great defensive rebounder for his career in the playoffs.

He struggles with help side, rim protection, and closing out on shooters in zones or off rotations. Not man to man defense. He's actually very solid in that area.

Educate yourself please. Hilarious how uninformed you actually are about Dirk....hilarious.

[WillC]

This just shows how you people have honestly spent no time watching Dirk play and are living off his reputation back from 2011.

Did you watch the playoffs this year? Did you see him play much better man to man defense on LA in the Blazers series than any Mavs player including Tyson Chandler?

I'm all for criticizing his defense, but at least prove that you know what you are talking about by criticizing his actual weaknesses.

Dirk is absolutely not a bad man to man defender.....and he's a great defensive rebounder for his career in the playoffs.

He struggles with help side, rim protection, and closing out on shooters in zones or off rotations. Not man to man defense. He's actually very solid in that area.

Educate yourself please. Hilarious how uninformed you actually are about Dirk....hilarious.

Get used to it. People see Dirk's skin colour and nationality and just assume he's soft. Heaven forbid they should actually watch him play and educate themselves rather than relying on outdated stereotypes.

[TrueAristotle]

There is no reason why Olajuwon shouldn't be in the top 10 and there is no reason why Oscar should be in the top 10 and above Kobe Bryant.

[WillC]

There is no reason why Olajuwon shouldn't be in the top 10 and there is no reason why Oscar should be in the top 10 and above Kobe Bryant.

Ok, I'll give you a few reasons...

- Oscar Robertson played on arguably the greatest team of all-time (go read "The NBA From Top To Bottom" which ranks the best teams ever, and Oscar and Kareem's Bucks rank 1st).

- Oscar is the only player ever to average a triple-double and was arguably the greatest all-around player ever.

- As for Olajuwon, you could argue that he only won 2 championships because Jordan retired prematurely.

Obviously you could argue the case for any of those players, but I'm just saying, it's not as stupid as you seem to think it is to have Oscar above them both.

[DMAVS41]

There is no reason why Olajuwon shouldn't be in the top 10 and there is no reason why Oscar should be in the top 10 and above Kobe Bryant.

Depends on what you value....they are both pretty much locks for the top 12 all time....so its not like its some absurd stretch to rank Oscar a couple spots higher or something.

I personally have Hakeem at 9 and Oscar outside the top 10...but this notion that is gaining ground here that its some absurd idea to rank Oscar a little higher in a subjective area is ridiculous

[ThaSwagg3r]

- Oscar Robertson played on arguably the greatest team of all-time (go read "The NBA From Top To Bottom" which ranks the best teams ever, and Oscar and Kareem's Bucks rank 1st).
The main reason why that team was great was because of Kareem not Oscar. Oscar was a second fiddle and not the alpha of the team like Hakeem was in '94 and '95 or Kobe was in '09 and '10.


- Oscar is the only player ever to average a triple-double and was arguably the greatest all-around player ever.
Funny alone that when he did average a triple-double that season Bill Russell won the MVP award over him. And just for the record, Magic Johnson technically did average a triple-double in '81-'82.

Magic's '81-'82 stats...
18.6 ppg, 9.5 apg, 9.6 rpg... looks like a triple double to me.

I can think of a few guys who were more well-rounded than Oscar was and the first guy would be Michael Jordan. I would say Kobe was too, Oscar never made the all-defensive team multiple times like Kobe has.


- As for Olajuwon, you could argue that he only won 2 championships because Jordan retired prematurely.

Jordan was playing in '95 so I don't think you could argue that. The Bulls just weren't good enough to beat the Magic in a 7 game series while the Rockets were. I would still say the Rockets would have beat the Bulls in a 7 game series though. I think that matchup would have favored the Rockets more than the Bulls.

[DMAVS41]

Get used to it. People see Dirk's skin colour and nationality and just assume he's soft. Heaven forbid they should actually watch him play and educate themselves rather than relying on outdated stereotypes.

I'm used to it....I just thought it would die down a little after Dirk pretty much gave a giant middle finger to all his haters this year and did something they claimed was always impossible for Dirk.

Now they are clinging to more BS perceptions and over-rating his supporting cast beyond belief in order to rationalize what they saw with their own eyes. Its actually quite comical, but also frustrating because its quite clear a lot of people have never really watched Dirk closely and have no business commenting on his game.

[Math2]

The main reason why that team was great was because of Kareem not Oscar. Oscar was a second fiddle and not the alpha of the team like Hakeem was in '94 and '95 or Kobe was in '09 and '10.

Funny alone that when he did average a triple-double that season Bill Russell won the MVP award over him. And just for the record, Magic Johnson technically did average a triple-double in '81-'82.

Magic's '81-'82 stats...
18.6 ppg, 9.5 apg, 9.6 rpg... looks like a triple double to me.

I can think of a few guys who were more well-rounded than Oscar was and the first guy would be Michael Jordan. I would say Kobe was too, Oscar never made the all-defensive team multiple times like Kobe has.

Jordan was playing in '95 so I don't think you could argue that. The Bulls just weren't good enough to beat the Magic in a 7 game series while the Rockets were. I would still say the Rockets would have beat the Bulls in a 7 game series though. I think that matchup would have favored the Rockets more than the Bulls.


Magic's wouldn't be close to a trip-doub when Oscar played...I bet those #s translate to 6-7 assists in the 60s. Oscar is more impressive. All-D teams weren't around until 1969, that's why Oscar didn't make any (I don't know if he would if they were around though.

[jlauber]

Chamberlain had horrible rosters? HA. What a joke. Let's list his best teammates:

1960: Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, and Guy Rodgers...wins? 49 and lost to Boston in East Finals...is that horrible?

1961: Arizin, Gola, Rodgers...46 wins and SWEPT by the Nationals in the first round

1962: Tom Meschery, Arizin, Gola, Rodgers, 49 wins

1963: Tom Meschery, Rodgers...31 wins (this was a kinda bad team...)

1964: Tom Meschery, ROdgers, Thurmond 48 wins

1965: Hal Greer, Luke Jackson, Chet Walker...40 wins.....that is his best team yet. Not including other relevant players past their primes....

1966: Greer, Walker, Billy Cunningham....55 wins

1967: Wilts first unselfish year since 1964....Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Wali Jones....68 wins

1968: Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Wali JOnes, Luke Jackson....62 wins

1969 on: West Baylor...is that horrible?

Most of the HOFs on Russell's Celtics wouldn't have made it without Russell...lets look at them and whether they would make the HOF with out Russell........

Cousy....Yes
Heinsohn...Maybe
Andy PHillip...Yes (one of those veteran signings....way past his prime)
Frank Ramsey...Probably not
Arnie Risen: Yes (vet signings)
Bill Sharman: Yes
Sam Jones: Most likley not
KC JOnes: No
Clyde Lovellette: Yes (vet sign)
Hondo: Yes
Bailey Howell: Most likley yes
Satch Sanders: No

Most of the HOFers were past their primes: Here's the list, Phillip, Risen, Lovellette, and Howell. Cousy and Sharman were going to make in because of their 50s. Ramsey may have been an early sixth man....but if he was on a bad team...he wouldn't get recognized. Jones would be known more as a bad defender with out Russell, and his contributions would be as big. KC made it solely because of RUssell, same with Sanders. Howell was probably helped a little by his efforts, but was better before.

I have covered this NONSENSE many times here before. I'll give you '66 thru '69, BUT, I will also address WHY Wilt's '66, '68, and '69 teams didn't win in a few.

As for the rest...

First of all, Chamberlain was drafted, while in HIGH SCHOOL (a territorial draft...and yes, Auerbach wanted Wilt BADLY.) He had the misfortune to join a what had been a LAST PLACE team the year before he arrived. BTW, Russell was "traded" to a 39-33 Celtics team, BUT, he also had the good fortune to join rookie Tom Heinsohn in his first year (and Heinsohn would go on to win the ROY.) THEN, in his second season, the Celts grabbed Sam Jones.

Back to Wilt. Gotta love placing Gola in that list. Gola has as much business in the HOF as I do. He was a career 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, .431 shooter. AND, then, he was arguably the WORST post-season shooter among all of the "HOF" players in NBA history. He had a CAREER post-season FG% of .336 (and yes, he was AWFUL with, and WITHOUT Wilt.)

BTW, Russell played with a PLETHORA of players who had MULTIPLE 20+ scoring seasons. From Wilt's rookie season, thru the mid-way point in his 64-65 season, he played with... ONE. And I am talking about players who EVER had a 20+ ppg season. Granted, I am excluding Willie Naulls, who was a complete bust by the time he joined Wilt in '63 (and BTW, he was even WORSE when he joined Russell the very next season), and Thurmond, who was a rookie in Chamberlain's '64 season, and was playing part-time and out of position. Once again, Chamberlain played with ONE legitimate 20+ ppg scorer, whether they played with, or WITHOUT, Wilt, in his first five seasons. Meanwhile, Russell had Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, all of whom had MULTIPLE 20 ppg seasons in their careers, and a Havlicek who had a 19.9 ppg season (and would go on to have as high as 28.9 ppg seasons later in his career)...in those same five seasons that Wilt had ONE (Arizin.)

And then you have the audacity to mention Meschery. Meschery??? A ONE-TIME All-star, who had his BEST of his entire CAREER, WITH Wilt. In that one season, he averaged 16.0 ppg (and missed quite a few games), 9.8 rpg, and shot .425. Think about that. In that SAME season (62-63) he would have been firmly planted at the very END of the Boston bench...with their NINE HOF players. THAT was Wilt's SECOND BEST player that season.

And, then there was Guy Rodgers. Now, Rodgers was an exceptional passer, to be sure. The problem was, he THOUGHT he was also a good SHOOTER. Unfortunately, he was perhaps the WORST shooter in NBA HISTORY. He had a CAREER FG% of .378, and the vast majority of that came in the 60's (not in the 50's), when leagues were shooting .410 to .446. He had unquestionably the WORST shooting season, by a full-time player, in his '68 season (after Wilt BTW), in which he shot .347, in a league that shot .446. The second half of game four of the '64 Finals is available on YouTube, and it was a great example of just how bad he was. Chamberlain goes 7-11 in that half, while Rodgers in running amok, throwing up prayers from all over the court, and bricking shot-after-shot. Had he just PASSED the ball, he would have been far more valuable. Unfortunately, he had a "gunner" mentality, and because of that, his PER ratings were among the WORST of virtually EVERY guard who played in his era.

Chamberlain did join a pretty talented team in the '65 Sixers. BUT, it must also be mentioned that they had gone 34-46 just the year before. So, it was not like he was joining even a good team. And he immediately CARRIED that roster, to a 3-1 romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals in the playoffs. THEN, he CARRIED them to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics (and in the PEAK of their dynasty)...with a 30 ppg, 31 rpg SERIES (and a game seven of 30 points, 32 rebounds, and on 12-15 shooting from the floor.)

That covers Chamberlain's first SIX seasons. He played with FAR inferior rosters to Russell's. BTW, in Russell's career, he played with HIS HOF teammates for a combined total of 71 full seasons. Wilt played with HIS HOF teammates for a combined total of 20 full seasons. What you ask? Take Baylor for example. If you just looked at basketball reference.com, you would see that Baylor and Wilt played together from the '68-69 season thru the '71-72 season? HOWEVER, they only played ONE full season together, that 68-69 season (and Baylor was AWFUL in that post-season BTW.) Wilt was injured in game nine of the 69-70 season, and missed nearly the entire season (and was nowhere near 100% in his post-season...and he was STILL a much better performer than Baylor that post-season.) Baylor played the first TWO games of the 70-71 season, and was injured, and did not play again at ALL that season. Then, he was forced to retire after the ninth game of the 71-72 season (and the Lakers IMMEDIATELY won 33 straight games BTW.)

As for Wilt's '65-66 thru '68-69m teams...

continued...

[ShaqAttack3234]

Magic's wouldn't be close to a trip-doub when Oscar played...I bet those #s translate to 6-7 assists in the 60s. Oscar is more impressive. All-D teams weren't around until 1969, that's why Oscar didn't make any (I don't know if he would if they were around though.

:oldlol: And Oscar would have probably averaged around 6 or so rpg on Magic's Lakers. With over 20 more possessions to work with(never mind being a 6'8" guard in 1962 or likely playing more minutes), Magic's numbers would have probably skyrocketed.

[PHILA]

Pure TRASH.

:facepalm

Do some REAL research on the '66, '68, and '69 seasons and post-seasons, and then get back to me. BTW, you forgot to mention Chamberlain taking horrible rosters to within an eyelash of beating Russell's HOF-laden teams.There is no need to respond to a 19 year old child who ranks Odom ahead of Chamberlain. :no:


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6292600&postcount=29

[jlauber]

Continuing...

How about Wilt's 65-66 thru 68-69 teams? In his 65-655 season, Chamberlain LED the league in scoring (33.5 ppg), rebounding (24.6 rpg), and set a then-record FG% mark of .540 (in a league that shot .433 BTW.) The result? A 55-25 record, which was the BEST record in the league that season. However, Boston, the reigning SEVEN-TIME world champs, went 54-26, and realistically, they were still a better team. In any case, how about their H2H post-season series?

Of course the "anti-Wilt" clan will claim that Chamberlain "declined" in that series. Yep...he "only averaged 28 ppg instead of 33.5 ppg, and he "only" shot .509 (instead of his .540 mark during the regular season.) However, he UPPED his rebounding from 24.6 to a staggering 30.2 AND, included in that series, and in the clinching game five defeat, was a 46 point, 34 rebound game (on 19-34 shooting.)

Ok, how about his teammates? Greer had averaged 22.7 ppg on .445 during the regular season. Against Boston... 16.4 ppg on .352 shooting. Walker had averaged 15.3 ppg on .451 shooting during the regular campaign. Against the Celtics... 14.6 ppg on .375 shooting. Wali Jones was at 9.0 ppg on .370 shooting in the regular season. He did manage to increase his scoring against Boston in the playoffs, to 13.0 ppg, BUT, on .325 shooting. Then, there was Cunningham. Billy had averaged 14.3 ppg on .426 shooting in the regular season. Against Boston in the playoffs? 5.3 ppg on .161 shooting (yes, 5.3 ppg on .161 shooting.) Only Luke Jackson had any kind of a decent playoff series, averaging 12.0 ppg, 8.8 rpg, and shooting .429.


Now, there is no question in my mind that Chamberlain's 67-68 76ers were CLEARLY a better team than Russell's Celtics. Philly romped to the best record in the league, at 62-20, while Boston was a distant second at 54-28. However, the Sixer team that dominated the league that season, was NOT the SAME team that Boston faced in the ECF's. The 76ers lost Cunningham and his 18.9 ppg BEFORE that series even started to a broken wrist, and he missed the rest of the season. STILL, Philly jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. And even Auerbach had given up at that point. BUT, in game five, BOTH Sixer starters, Wali Jones and Luke Jackson sustained leg injuries, and were worthless the rest of the series. And their injuries, combined with Cunningham's, were HUGE. This was NOT a deep team (unlike Boston, which could easily go 10 deep.) They had basically played eight players all season, and now were battling injuries to THREE of them.

On top of all of that, WILT, himself, was nursing SEVERAL foot and leg injuries, including a TEAR in his thigh, and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game three thru the game seven. Even Russell commented that a "lessor man would not have played" (which essentially covers EVERY other player whoever played the game.) THEN, in game seven, Wilt's teammates completely forgot about him. He only had a TOTAL of NINE offensive "touches" in the entire second half, and only TWO in the 4th quarter (both on offensive rebounds.) With ALL of that, Boston eked out a 100-96 game seven win. I have long maintained that a healthy Sixer squad, like the one in the previous season, would have demolished Boston in that post-season (just as they did the prior season, en route to a world title.)

Ok, how about the 68-69 season? The "anti-Chamberlain" groupies love to use this season as an example of Wilt's "failures." They argue that Wilt went from a 62-20 team, to a Laker team that had been 52-30 the season before, and the results were... his new Laker team "only" improved to 55-27, while his old Sixer team "only" declined to 55-27 (and with Jackson only playing a third of the season.)

Ok, let's take a closer look shall we? First, the Sixers. True, they only dropped seven games. BUT, they were wiped out in the FIRST round of the playoffs, 4-1, by a 48-34 Celtic team. AND, and get this... TWO of the players that they acquired in that Chamberlain trade, Archie Clark and Darrell Imhoff, averaged 36 ppg, 20 rpg, and shot .510 COMBINED in that Boston playoff series...and they were STILL crushed. The previous season, an injured Wilt, and playing without one HOF teammate in the Celtic series, and two others significantly banged up...STILL were narrowly beaten by the Celtics in the ECF's. AND, the 68-69 Sixers were only TWO seasons removed from going 68-13 and crushing their opposition en route to a title. BTW, the Sixers were get progressively worse each season after that, and by Wilt's LAST season, in 72-73, they put up a 9-73 season.

How about Wilt's 68-69 Lakers? Yes, they "only" improved from 52-30 to 55-27. BUT, the "anti-Wilt" clan will NEVER mention these FACTS. The Lakers TRADED THREE players to get Wilt. One of them was All-Star Archie Clark, and the other was journeyman center Darrell Imhoff. So, Chamberlain was already replacing 29.2 ppg and 15.1 rpg with just those two. HOWEVER, the Lakers also lost HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft. How significant were the losses of Clark and Goodrich? Well, LA went from a solid three-deep guard rotation, with West (and those two would have to make up 30 games he missed in 67-68), to ONE quality guard...West (who would miss 20 more games in '68-69.) In attempt to patch up those holes, the Lakers acquired veteran Johnny Egan from the scrape-heap. More on that later. Ultimately, Wilt had to replace Clark's, Imhoff's, and Goodrich's combined totals of 42 ppg and 18 rpg. (Egan filled in with 8 ppg BTW.)

BTW, I always found it fascinating that Chamberlain did not even finish in the top-NINE in the MVP balloting. Why? All he did that season was average 20.5 ppg (which was WAY below his previous low of 24.1 ppg in '67), LED the league in rebounding at 21.1 rpg, shot a league-leading .583 from the floor, and even handed out 4.5 apg. Meanwhile, Baylor finished fifth, with a 24.8 ppg, 10.6 rpg, .447 FG%, and 5.4 apg.

Of course, the REAL issue with that Laker team "underachieving" was that their COACH had no clue how to use Wilt. He asked that Wilt sacrifice HIS offense, so that Baylor could get HIS shots. He had Wilt playing the high-post...so that Baylor could roam the baselines. And he even BENCHED Wilt at times during the season. PHILA posted a quote from Van Breda Kolf that has become a classic... "If we pass the ball to Wilt, sure, he will score. But it is an ugly offense to watch." So, instead he preferred the shot-jacking of Baylor, who went on to average 15.3 ppg on .385 in the post-season (while Wilt was at 13.9 ppg on .545.)

Still, West and Chamberlain, with a declining Baylor, and virtually no one else, were able to get to the Finals, where they faced the aging 48-34 Celtics. Now, they say that "excuses are for losers", BUT, if there was ever an example to the contrary, it was the '69 Finals. First of all, the Lakers, despite having a very weak roster from players 4-10 (and more on Baylor in a moment), STILL jumped out to a 2-0 lead against the Celtics. AND, in game four, leading the series, 2-1, they had the lead, 88-87, AND the ball, with some 15 seconds left. Van Breda put his faith in Egan, and the result ultimately cost LA the title. Egan was stripped of the ball...and that led to the first of TWO miraculous shots, that led to Boston wins. Sam Jones, while falling down, hit the game-winner at the buzzer, to win the game, 89-88. How important was that ONE PLAY? The Lakers, behind Wilt's pounding of Russell in game five, easily won that fifth game, 117-104. So, instead of winning the series in a romp, 4-1, they were only leading 3-2.

How about Baylor's play? In games three thru five, he scored a TOTAL of 24 points. And TWO of those games were losses. Had he played even remotely close to a normal game in either of those two losses, and LA would have again easily won that series.

Of course, everyone knows the rest. The Lakers, with Chamberlain being benched in the last five minutes, lost game seven, 108-106, which included the SECOND miraculous game-winning shot...by Don Nelson. Wilt's replacement, the great Mel Counts, went 4-13 (Wilt shot 7-8 BTW), and missed a couple of shots down the stretch. Ultimately, it was VAN BREDA KOLF who cost the city of Los Angeles a title, and he was fired shortly thereafter, BUT, it was WILT who was blamed.

HOWEVER, in Wilt's five seasons with the Lakers, he got them to FOUR Finals. He led two of those teams to records of 60-22, and 69-13, and even that 55-27 was a team-best until their record-breaking 71-72 season. And, in two of those four Finals, his teams were beaten in game seven's. AND, he did lead them to their first ever title in LA, in that 71-72 season, and in which he won the Finals MVP. And after he retired, the Lakers dropped to 47-35 (from 60-22) and were quickly eliminated in the first round of the playoffs, 4-1 by the Bucks. And the very next season, they dropped to 30-52. Even after they acquired Kareem before the start of the 75-76, they still only went 40-42. In fact, they would not taste a title (or even a Finals) again, until Magic arrived in the 79-80 season.

Just a little better perspective on Wilt's TRUE IMPACT in his career...

[jlauber]

There is no need to respond to a 19 year old child who ranks Odom ahead of Chamberlain. :no:


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6292600&postcount=29

I know. I realize that reposting much of the same information gets old...but I always hold out some hope that new readers will actually get a REAL history lesson in these discussions, instead of relying on someone like Simmons, who never actually witnessed one live game between Russell and Wilt, and who clearly had an "anti-Wilt" agenda in his book.

[WillC]

jlauber, if you want to convince people (and I wish you the best of luck because I agree with you), I think it would be wise to summarise those extremely long posts. I just don't see many people (especially kids) taking the time to read it.

I'm a teacher and I know from experience that they have an extremely short attention span. They're not used to reading long prose like what you've posted above.

[Math2]

Continuing...

How about Wilt's 65-66 thru 68-69 teams? In his 65-655 season, Chamberlain LED the league in scoring (33.5 ppg), rebounding (24.6 rpg), and set a then-record FG% mark of .540 (in a league that shot .433 BTW.) The result? A 55-25 record, which was the BEST record in the league that season. However, Boston, the reigning SEVEN-TIME world champs, went 54-26, and realistically, they were still a better team. In any case, how about their H2H post-season series?

Of course the "anti-Wilt" clan will claim that Chamberlain "declined" in that series. Yep...he "only averaged 28 ppg instead of 33.5 ppg, and he "only" shot .509 (instead of his .540 mark during the regular season.) However, he UPPED his rebounding from 24.6 to a staggering 30.2 AND, included in that series, and in the clinching game five defeat, was a 46 point, 34 rebound game (on 19-34 shooting.)

Ok, how about his teammates? Greer had averaged 22.7 ppg on .445 during the regular season. Against Boston... 16.4 ppg on .352 shooting. Walker had averaged 15.3 ppg on .451 shooting during the regular campaign. Against the Celtics... 14.6 ppg on .375 shooting. Wali Jones was at 9.0 ppg on .370 shooting in the regular season. He did manage to increase his scoring against Boston in the playoffs, to 13.0 ppg, BUT, on .325 shooting. Then, there was Cunningham. Billy had averaged 14.3 ppg on .426 shooting in the regular season. Against Boston in the playoffs? 5.3 ppg on .161 shooting (yes, 5.3 ppg on .161 shooting.) Only Luke Jackson had any kind of a decent playoff series, averaging 12.0 ppg, 8.8 rpg, and shooting .429.


Now, there is no question in my mind that Chamberlain's 67-68 76ers were CLEARLY a better team than Russell's Celtics. Philly romped to the best record in the league, at 62-20, while Boston was a distant second at 54-28. However, the Sixer team that dominated the league that season, was NOT the SAME team that Boston faced in the ECF's. The 76ers lost Cunningham and his 18.9 ppg BEFORE that series even started to a broken wrist, and he missed the rest of the season. STILL, Philly jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. And even Auerbach had given up at that point. BUT, in game five, BOTH Sixer starters, Wali Jones and Luke Jackson sustained leg injuries, and were worthless the rest of the series. And their injuries, combined with Cunningham's, were HUGE. This was NOT a deep team (unlike Boston, which could easily go 10 deep.) They had basically played eight players all season, and now were battling injuries to THREE of them.

On top of all of that, WILT, himself, was nursing SEVERAL foot and leg injuries, including a TEAR in his thigh, and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game three thru the game seven. Even Russell commented that a "lessor man would not have played" (which essentially covers EVERY other player whoever played the game.) THEN, in game seven, Wilt's teammates completely forgot about him. He only had a TOTAL of NINE offensive "touches" in the entire second half, and only TWO in the 4th quarter (both on offensive rebounds.) With ALL of that, Boston eked out a 100-96 game seven win. I have long maintained that a healthy Sixer squad, like the one in the previous season, would have demolished Boston in that post-season (just as they did the prior season, en route to a world title.)

Ok, how about the 68-69 season? The "anti-Chamberlain" groupies love to use this season as an example of Wilt's "failures." They argue that Wilt went from a 62-20 team, to a Laker team that had been 52-30 the season before, and the results were... his new Laker team "only" improved to 55-27, while his old Sixer team "only" declined to 55-27 (and with Jackson only playing a third of the season.)

Ok, let's take a closer look shall we? First, the Sixers. True, they only dropped seven games. BUT, they were wiped out in the FIRST round of the playoffs, 4-1, by a 48-34 Celtic team. AND, and get this... TWO of the players that they acquired in that Chamberlain trade, Archie Clark and Darrell Imhoff, averaged 36 ppg, 20 rpg, and shot .510 COMBINED in that Boston playoff series...and they were STILL crushed. The previous season, an injured Wilt, and playing without one HOF teammate in the Celtic series, and two others significantly banged up...STILL were narrowly beaten by the Celtics in the ECF's. AND, the 68-69 Sixers were only TWO seasons removed from going 68-13 and crushing their opposition en route to a title. BTW, the Sixers were get progressively worse each season after that, and by Wilt's LAST season, in 72-73, they put up a 9-73 season.

How about Wilt's 68-69 Lakers? Yes, they "only" improved from 52-30 to 55-27. BUT, the "anti-Wilt" clan will NEVER mention these FACTS. The Lakers TRADED THREE players to get Wilt. One of them was All-Star Archie Clark, and the other was journeyman center Darrell Imhoff. So, Chamberlain was already replacing 29.2 ppg and 15.1 rpg with just those two. HOWEVER, the Lakers also lost HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft. How significant were the losses of Clark and Goodrich? Well, LA went from a solid three-deep guard rotation, with West (and those two would have to make up 30 games he missed in 67-68), to ONE quality guard...West (who would miss 20 more games in '68-69.) In attempt to patch up those holes, the Lakers acquired veteran Johnny Egan from the scrape-heap. More on that later. Ultimately, Wilt had to replace Clark's, Imhoff's, and Goodrich's combined totals of 42 ppg and 18 rpg. (Egan filled in with 8 ppg BTW.)

BTW, I always found it fascinating that Chamberlain did not even finish in the top-NINE in the MVP balloting. Why? All he did that season was average 20.5 ppg (which was WAY below his previous low of 24.1 ppg in '67), LED the league in rebounding at 21.1 rpg, shot a league-leading .583 from the floor, and even handed out 4.5 apg. Meanwhile, Baylor finished fifth, with a 24.8 ppg, 10.6 rpg, .447 FG%, and 5.4 apg.

Of course, the REAL issue with that Laker team "underachieving" was that their COACH had no clue how to use Wilt. He asked that Wilt sacrifice HIS offense, so that Baylor could get HIS shots. He had Wilt playing the high-post...so that Baylor could roam the baselines. And he even BENCHED Wilt at times during the season. PHILA posted a quote from Van Breda Kolf that has become a classic... "If we pass the ball to Wilt, sure, he will score. But it is an ugly offense to watch." So, instead he preferred the shot-jacking of Baylor, who went on to average 15.3 ppg on .385 in the post-season (while Wilt was at 13.9 ppg on .545.)

Still, West and Chamberlain, with a declining Baylor, and virtually no one else, were able to get to the Finals, where they faced the aging 48-34 Celtics. Now, they say that "excuses are for losers", BUT, if there was ever an example to the contrary, it was the '69 Finals. First of all, the Lakers, despite having a very weak roster from players 4-10 (and more on Baylor in a moment), STILL jumped out to a 2-0 lead against the Celtics. AND, in game four, leading the series, 2-1, they had the lead, 88-87, AND the ball, with some 15 seconds left. Van Breda put his faith in Egan, and the result ultimately cost LA the title. Egan was stripped of the ball...and that led to the first of TWO miraculous shots, that led to Boston wins. Sam Jones, while falling down, hit the game-winner at the buzzer, to win the game, 89-88. How important was that ONE PLAY? The Lakers, behind Wilt's pounding of Russell in game five, easily won that fifth game, 117-104. So, instead of winning the series in a romp, 4-1, they were only leading 3-2.

How about Baylor's play? In games three thru five, he scored a TOTAL of 24 points. And TWO of those games were losses. Had he played even remotely close to a normal game in either of those two losses, and LA would have again easily won that series.

Of course, everyone knows the rest. The Lakers, with Chamberlain being benched in the last five minutes, lost game seven, 108-106, which included the SECOND miraculous game-winning shot...by Don Nelson. Wilt's replacement, the great Mel Counts, went 4-13 (Wilt shot 7-8 BTW), and missed a couple of shots down the stretch. Ultimately, it was VAN BREDA KOLF who cost the city of Los Angeles a title, and he was fired shortly thereafter, BUT, it was WILT who was blamed.

Just a little better perspective on Wilt's TRUE IMPACT in his career...

You say he declined....and why is that not a big deal? It's that playoffs! Wilt would always shrink away from the spotlight. He never really wanted to win. Of course you can say Wilt is better with Stats (except Championships of course), he had the highest stats of anyone. But he never had the desire to win.

You'd think Wilt would have played with more 20 point scorers if he actually shared the ball earlier in his career. But of course, he decided that it was best for him to have the ball 90% of the time. Russell may have played more years with his HOFers...but remember in my post I said most wouldn't be htere without Russell. Russell maximized their powers....Wilt didn't.

Maybe Wilt's earlier rosters WERE worse at the beginning... but not really that far back..

Russell's HOFers weren't as great as you proclaim. Did you subract the 23 years of HOFers that wouldn't make it without him or were veteran signings....Risen, Phillip, Frank Ramsey, and KC Jones. Or maybe 26, if you think Howell would be in only on his Detroit/Baltimore years.

WHy did Wilt not win MVP? Because he wasn't respected around the league! No one actually thought he was better than Russell! And he wasn't...just look at championships to prove it. Only a few of the years was Wilt's rosters worse. He had better ones all the way from 1966 on.

Wilt should be blamed for his losses. He failed to capitalize and to adjust to teammates, therefore eliminating his chances to win.

[jlauber]

You say he declined....and why is that not a big deal? It's that playoffs! Wilt would always shrink away from the spotlight. He never really wanted to win. Of course you can say Wilt is better with Stats (except Championships of course), he had the highest stats of anyone. But he never had the desire to win.

You'd think Wilt would have played with more 20 point scorers if he actually shared the ball earlier in his career. But of course, he decided that it was best for him to have the ball 90% of the time. Russell may have played more years with his HOFers...but remember in my post I said most wouldn't be htere without Russell. Russell maximized their powers....Wilt didn't.

Maybe Wilt's earlier rosters WERE worse at the beginning... but not really that far back..

Russell's HOFers weren't as great as you proclaim. Did you subract the 23 years of HOFers that wouldn't make it without him or were veteran signings....Risen, Phillip, Frank Ramsey, and KC Jones. Or maybe 26, if you think Howell would be in only on his Detroit/Baltimore years.

WHy did Wilt not win MVP? Because he wasn't respected around the league! No one actually thought he was better than Russell! And he wasn't...just look at championships to prove it. Only a few of the years was Wilt's rosters worse. He had better ones all the way from 1966 on.

Wilt should be blamed for his losses. He failed to capitalize and to adjust to teammates, therefore eliminating his chances to win.

I guess WillC was right. You obviously didn't take the time to read my previous posts.

Wilt didn't have the 20 ppg scorers in his first 5 1/2 seasons, other than Arizin...period! NONE of his teammates in that span, EVER proved they could score 20 ppg over the course of a full season...whether they played with, or WITHOUT, Chamberlain.

As for your comment about Wilt keeping the ball for himself, "90% of the time." Do you honestly believe that Chamberlain's COACHES in those years were AGAINST Chamberlain shooting 30-40 times per game? My god, his COACH in his 61-62 season, Frank McGuire, came to Wilt before the start of the season, and ASKED Chamberlain to shoot. Why? Because he took one look at that pathetic roster and realized that the only hope they had was for Wilt to score. BTW, the very next season, Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting...along with 3.4 apg. Now, think about this. His teammates collectively shot .412 (and the WORST team in the league shot .427.) First of all, given the fact that his teammates obviously couldn't hit the ocean from a lifeboat, how many assists did he lose because of that? And secondly, why was he passing the ball as all?

Of course, when Wilt's other coaches asked him to change his game, he did so. Hannum had him become more of a facilitator in mid-career, albeit, still occasionally exploding for huge games. Then the incompetent Van Breda Kolf had no idea what to do with him, so he essentially just shackled him offensively. The very next season, Wilt's next new coach, Joe Mullaney, came to Chamberlaain before the start of the season, and asked that Wilt, once again, become the focal point of the offense. Here was Wilt, in his 11th season, suddenly being asked to score again, and he responded by averaging 32.2 ppg in his first nine games. Unfortunately, he shredded his knee, and was never quite the same. In his last two seasons, Bill Sharman had him anchoring the defense (in fact, his defensive strategy was to funnel everything into Wilt), dominated the glass, and ignite the fast-break...and the result? The 71-72 Lakers ran away with the highest scoring mark in the league, at 121.0 ppg, in a league that averaged 110, and not only held their opponents to 108.7 ppg, but outshot them, .490 to .432.

And you are right about some of Russell's teammates. Ramsey, KC Jones, Sanders, and Bailey Howell probably don't make the HOF without him. Still, they were all very GOOD players. Howell was a 20 ppg scorer on 50% shooting with Russell. Ramsey was among the best "6th men" in the league. And Jones and Sanders were considered the best defenders at their positions in the league. But, even if you only use Russell's real HOF teammates, like Sam Jones, Havlicek, Cousy, Heinsohn, and Sharman, that is still collectively, 40 seasons played with Russell. Wilt's total full seasons with all of his HOF temamates? 20 seasons. And that includes Tom Gola's three. If you are going to dismiss Russell's borderline HOFers, then you certainly have to do the same with Gola. Which STILL leaves Russell with a 40-17 edge in full seasons with legitimate HOF teammates (instead of the actual 71-20 margin.)

Regarding Wilt's MVPs. In their ten H2H seasons, they EACH had FOUR MVPs (Russell picked up another one BEFORE Wilt.) And the rest of those ten seasons were very close. Wilt had a 2-1 edge with second place finishes. Russell had a 2-0 edge with third place finishes. And Russell had a 2-1 edge in fourth pkace finishes. Somehow Chamberlain finished fifth in 64-65 and seventh in '63. And as amazing at it was, Russell did not finish near the leaders in voting in '68, nor did Wilt in '69. So, considering that Wilt "wasn't respected around the league", he seemed to hold his own against Russell. BTW, Russell beating Chamberlain out in '62 was an absolute disgrace.

Shrinking in the post-season? In their ten H2H seasons in the league together, Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 26 rpg, 4.5 apg, and shot .520 (in leagues that shot about .430 on average) in the post-season And that does not include his '63 season, when he averaged 44.8 ppg, 24.3 rpg, and shot .528...but his teammates were so inept that his TEAM didn't make the playoffs.

And while Russell enjoyed a 7-1 edge in H2H playoff series (and 9-1 overall), it must be mentioned that FOUR of those series came down to game seven's, in which Russell's TEAMs edged Wilt's TEAMs by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. A few more points, here-or-there, and Wilt would have held a 5-3 edge in rings in that span, despite having inferior rosters for much of those seasons.

[Math2]

I guess WillC was right. You obviously didn't take the time to read my previous posts.

Wilt didn't have the 20 ppg scorers in his first 5 1/2 seasons, other than Arizin...period! NONE of his teammates in that span, EVER proved they could score 20 ppg over the course of a full season...whether they played with, or WITHOUT, Chamberlain.

As for your comment about Wilt keeping the ball for himself, "90% of the time." Do you honestly believe that Chamberlain's COACHES in those years were AGAINST Chamberlain shooting 30-40 times per game? My god, his COACH in his 61-62 season, Frank McGuire, came to Wilt before the start of the season, and ASKED Chamberlain to shoot. Why? Because he took one look at that pathetic roster and realized that the only hope they had was for Wilt to score. BTW, the very next season, Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting...along with 3.4 apg. Now, think about this. His teammates collectively shot .412 (and the WORST team in the league shot .427.) First of all, given the fact that his teammates obviously couldn't hit the ocean from a lifeboat, how many assists did he lose because of that? And secondly, why was he passing the ball as all?

Of course, when Wilt's other coaches asked him to change his game, he did so. Hannum had him become more of a facilitator in mid-career, albeit, still occasionally exploding for huge games. Then the incompetent Van Breda Kolf had no idea what to do with him, so he essentially just shackled him offensively. The very next season, Wilt's next new coach, Joe Mullaney, came to Chamberlaain before the start of the season, and asked that Wilt, once again, become the focal point of the offense. Here was Wilt, in his 11th season, suddenly being asked to score again, and he responded by averaging 32.2 ppg in his first nine games. Unfortunately, he shredded his knee, and was never quite the same. In his last two seasons, Bill Sharman had him anchoring the defense (in fact, his defensive strategy was to funnel everything into Wilt), dominated the glass, and ignite the fast-break...and the result? The 71-72 Lakers ran away with the highest scoring mark in the league, at 121.0 ppg, in a league that averaged 110, and not only held their opponents to 108.7 ppg, but outshot them, .490 to .432.

And you are right about some of Russell's teammates. Ramsey, KC Jones, Sanders, and Bailey Howell probably don't make the HOF without him. Still, they were all very GOOD players. Howell was a 20 ppg scorer on 50% shooting with Russell. Ramsey was among the best "6th men" in the league. And Jones and Sanders were considered the best defenders at their positions in the league. But, even if you only use Russell's real HOF teammates, like Sam Jones, Havlicek, Cousy, Heinsohn, and Sharman, that is still collectively, 40 seasons played with Russell. Wilt's total full seasons with all of his HOF temamates? 20 seasons. And that includes Tom Gola's three. If you are going to dismiss Russell's borderline HOFers, then you certainly have to do the same with Gola. Which STILL leaves Russell with a 40-17 edge in full seasons with legitimate HOF teammates (instead of the actual 71-20 margin.)

Regarding Wilt's MVPs. In their ten H2H seasons, they EACH had FOUR MVPs (Russell picked up another one BEFORE Wilt.) And the rest of those ten seasons were very close. Wilt had a 2-1 edge with second place finishes. Russell had a 2-0 edge with third place finishes. And Russell had a 2-1 edge in fourth pkace finishes. Somehow Chamberlain finished fifth in 64-65 and seventh in '63. And as amazing at it was, Russell did not finish near the leaders in voting in '68, nor did Wilt in '69. So, considering that Wilt "wasn't respected around the league", he seemed to hold his own against Russell. BTW, Russell beating Chamberlain out in '62 was an absolute disgrace.

Shrinking in the post-season? In their ten H2H seasons in the league together, Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 26 rpg, 4.5 apg, and shot .520 (in leagues that shot about .430 on average) in the post-season And that does not include his '63 season, when he averaged 44.8 ppg, 24.3 rpg, and shot .528...but his teammates were so inept that his TEAM didn't make the playoffs.

And while Russell enjoyed a 7-1 edge in H2H playoff series (and 9-1 overall), it must be mentioned that FOUR of those series came down to game seven's, in which Russell's TEAMs edged Wilt's TEAMs by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. A few more points, here-or-there, and Wilt would have held a 5-3 edge in rings in that span, despite having inferior rosters for much of those seasons.

Incredibly, I did read it. It's bad coaching encouraging a ball hog to continue to hog it. Arizin is weak? Rodgers, and Gola is weak? It's not that bad. Chamberlain did have weaker rosters...but they aren't much worse than Russell. Chamberlain could have chose to try to win, but he didn't...simple as that.

ANd if you claim that he did want to win...How come he only won two? If he put his mind to it, he could have beaten Russell's teams more than he did. Wilt playing like Russell is better than RUssell's teams most of the time. BUt he chose not to.

If you think he did, how do you explain him never fouling out? Him spiking blocks out of bounds more often than to teammates? His obsesion with stats, thinking that it made him better when it really cost his team ring?

[jlauber]

Incredibly, I did read it. It's bad coaching encouraging a ball hog to continue to hog it. Arizin is weak? Rodgers, and Gola is weak? It's not that bad. Chamberlain did have weaker rosters...but they aren't much worse than Russell. Chamberlain could have chose to try to win, but he didn't...simple as that.

ANd if you claim that he did want to win...How come he only won two? If he put his mind to it, he could have beaten Russell's teams more than he did. Wilt playing like Russell is better than RUssell's teams most of the time. BUt he chose not to.

If you think he did, how do you explain him never fouling out? Him spiking blocks out of bounds more often than to teammates? His obsesion with stats, thinking that it made him better when it really cost his team ring?

Wilt's "obsession" with losing was obvious. Sure the man only played on two losing teams in his 14 season career. And sure, they reached the Conference Finals in TWELVE of them. Oh, and yes, they had the best record in the conference SIX times. And yes, they had they had the best record in their division, SIX times. True, they made it to SIX Finals. And I can't argue with his team's having the BEST record in the league, FOUR times. And, yep, he played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games. And, yes, he played on TWO title teams that went 68-13 and 69-13 (and won 33 straight games.)

And, I know that virtually EVERY team he joined became MUCH better, and EVERY team he left became MUCH worse...especially in the post-season. In fact, his team's set franchise seasonal W-L records while he was there (and TWO of the three are STILL all-time team records.)

And, yes, he took FOUR teams to game seven's, against the greatest Dynasty in professional team sports history, losing them by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.

But, one can only imagine how well they would have done had he been interested in winning. I think it was very likely that none of them would ever have lost a game. THAT is just how dominant Wilt COULD have been. Instead, he focused on losing and choking, all while setting some 130 NBA records that STILL stand today.

[Math2]

Wilt's "obsession" with losing was obvious. Sure the man only played on two losing teams in his 14 season career. And sure, they reached the Conference Finals in TWELVE of them. Oh, and yes, they had the best record in the conference SIX times. And yes, they had they had the best record in their division, SIX times. True, they made it to SIX Finals. And I can't argue with his team's having the BEST record in the league, FOUR times. And, yep, he played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games. And, yes, he played on TWO title teams that went 68-13 and 69-13 (and won 33 straight games.)

And, I know that virtually EVERY team he joined became MUCH better, and EVERY team he left became MUCH worse...especially in the post-season. In fact, his team's set franchise seasonal W-L records while he was there (and TWO of the three are STILL all-time team records.)

And, yes, he took FOUR teams to game seven's, against the greatest Dynasty in professional team sports history, losing them by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.

But, one can only imagine how well they would have done had he been interested in winning. I think it was very likely that none of them would ever have lost a game. THAT is just how dominant Wilt COULD have been. Instead, he focused on losing and choking, all while setting some 130 NBA records that STILL stand today.

Yep, but he never did get it done against Russell. His records are meaningless unless he actually helped his team by making them. He didn't care as much about winning as Russell...and amazingly, he won only one against Russell. No Wilt wouldn't win every game...but he sure could have won 5-10 championships if he didn't wilt under pressure...and go for records....and try not to ever foul out, putting him out of games.

[WillC]

Lets just agree that Russell and Chamberlain are ranked perfectly at 2 and 3, respectively, and move on :cheers:

[RRR3]

Yep, but he never did get it done against Russell. His records are meaningless unless he actually helped his team by making them. He didn't care as much about winning as Russell...and amazingly, he won only one against Russell. No Wilt wouldn't win every game...but he sure could have won 5-10 championships if he didn't wilt under pressure...and go for records....and try not to ever foul out, putting him out of games.
Wilt averaged 29 and 29 against Russell. GTFO

[SuperPippen]

Lets just agree that Russell and Chamberlain are ranked perfectly at 2 and 3, respectively, and move on :cheers:

Unfortunately, things are RARELY ever that easy, WillC.

[PowerGlove]

This just shows how you people have honestly spent no time watching Dirk play and are living off his reputation back from 2011.

Did you watch the playoffs this year? Did you see him play much better man to man defense on LA in the Blazers series than any Mavs player including Tyson Chandler?

I'm all for criticizing his defense, but at least prove that you know what you are talking about by criticizing his actual weaknesses.

Dirk is absolutely not a bad man to man defender.....and he's a great defensive rebounder for his career in the playoffs.

He struggles with help side, rim protection, and closing out on shooters in zones or off rotations. Not man to man defense. He's actually very solid in that area.

Educate yourself please. Hilarious how uninformed you actually are about Dirk....hilarious.
:facepalm

You said he was an above average m2m defender. Coaches dont hide above average man to man defenders dude, they utilize them. Use common sense, no one said Dirk was garbage defensively or anything close to that. :rolleyes:


This is somewhat misleading. Dirk is actually an above average man to man defender. In fact, since the 06 season....I'd say he's been a solid to good man to man defender.

What's really hilarious is your reading comprehension.

[D-Wade316]

dickwad has nothing to say about jlauber's long essays:lol

[DMAVS41]

:facepalm

You said he was an above average m2m defender. Coaches dont hide above average man to man defenders dude, they utilize them. Use common sense, no one said Dirk was garbage defensively or anything close to that. :rolleyes:



What's really hilarious is your reading comprehension.

I am not going to argue much on this because it seems like we agree. I will say that coaches hide players on defense all the time that can play quality D. Kobe comes to mind. He rarely guards the other teams best guard or perimeter player. That doesn't mean he can't, it just means that the Lakers want him fresh on offense....that is his job and what is most important to the team.

You act like I'm saying Dirk is a defensive stopper. I simply said that since around the 06 season when he was asked to focus on defense and improve that part of his game...he has. And while he still struggles (especially now that he's losing some of his athleticism) rotations, rim protection, and closeouts....he remains a solid man to man defender. That is all....and its just the truth.

[Math2]

Wilt averaged 29 and 29 against Russell. GTFO

How many series did he win?

GTFO

[PTB Fan]

Wilt averaged 29 and 29 against Russell. GTFO

Wilt averaged 25 points and 27 rebounds (i think the rebound numbers are better though) versus Russell in the post season. See the difference? Russell contained Wilt to 17.8 points below his normal scoring average in 62 playoffs.

Then, Russell does another good job in '64 Finals where he slows Wilt to nearly 8 points below his scoring average and on 50% shooting. He had other good years. But then again, Chamberlain often played for stats and pursued individual goals. It's a fact.

All of those numbers that jluaber or what ever his name is, are stats and only stats. That was part of basketball where The Big Dipper clearly dominated and no one was better.

Wilt rarely cared about the team. As a superb big man who was outstanding on the court he made impact. You cannot deny it. He led those "weaker" Philly rosters to near upsets versus the Celtics, who had advantage in terms of having a better team until 65.

But those teams were focused on him. He either led them to huge wins, or was the reason why they lost. That's why the Celtics consistently defended the others and let Wilt get good numbers for some time. Then, Russell did great work in the clutch and Boston wins the game.

This is why his teams lost when ever he faced Bill Russell. His team mates couldn't bail him out later, because they didn't take many shots, neither there was some ball movement.

From '65, Chamberlain has an admirable edge in terms of having the more talented and better teams overall. He clearly whooped everyone in the MVP races, as he won the awards easily.

I'd say he outplayed Russell in '67, '68 with ease. When he played team ball, he was an unstoppable figure, period. He led his team mates to easy points, created free shots for him, dominated the glass, scored with legendary efficiency, was top league tier in defense etc.

After he won a title, he continued to pursue individual goals. He quit from being the scoring leader, and then went to win an assist title, which he did win. But then again, it's another individual goal.

Chamberlain, because he was so obsessed with passing, he then didn't take over in crucial games and he's the reason why his teams loses again. In '68, he suffered a huge lost from 3-1 because his team mates were injured. I'll admit that.

In '69, he was clearly slowed by Bill Russell but even so, he scored efficiently and did nice work. Wilt was always an individual, wheres Russell was clearly a team oriented player. That's why the difference between the two is big.

However, from '69 to the end of his career, Wilt was a team oriented player who played like Russell (being the top defender in most of the seasons from that year but with much bigger efficiency).

Nonetheless, Wilt is a legend and he was arguably the best player in the NBA History. Period. Everyone should admit that, regardless do they like him or not.

[WillC]

Let the Wilt vs Russell debate resume.

[Math2]

Russell>Wilt

That's all there is to it.

[jlauber]

Wilt averaged 25 points and 27 rebounds (i think the rebound numbers are better though) versus Russell in the post season. See the difference? Russell contained Wilt to 17.8 points below his normal scoring average in 62 playoffs.

Then, Russell does another good job in '64 Finals where he slows Wilt to nearly 8 points below his scoring average and on 50% shooting. He had other good years. But then again, Chamberlain often played for stats and pursued individual goals. It's a fact.

All of those numbers that jluaber or what ever his name is, are stats and only stats. That was part of basketball where The Big Dipper clearly dominated and no one was better.

Wilt rarely cared about the team. As a superb big man who was outstanding on the court he made impact. You cannot deny it. He led those "weaker" Philly rosters to near upsets versus the Celtics, who had advantage in terms of having a better team until 65.

But those teams were focused on him. He either led them to huge wins, or was the reason why they lost. That's why the Celtics consistently defended the others and let Wilt get good numbers for some time. Then, Russell did great work in the clutch and Boston wins the game.

This is why his teams lost when ever he faced Bill Russell. His team mates couldn't bail him out later, because they didn't take many shots, neither there was some ball movement.

From '65, Chamberlain has an admirable edge in terms of having the more talented and better teams overall. He clearly whooped everyone in the MVP races, as he won the awards easily.

I'd say he outplayed Russell in '67, '68 with ease. When he played team ball, he was an unstoppable figure, period. He led his team mates to easy points, created free shots for him, dominated the glass, scored with legendary efficiency, was top league tier in defense etc.

After he won a title, he continued to pursue individual goals. He quit from being the scoring leader, and then went to win an assist title, which he did win. But then again, it's another individual goal.

Chamberlain, because he was so obsessed with passing, he then didn't take over in crucial games and he's the reason why his teams loses again. In '68, he suffered a huge lost from 3-1 because his team mates were injured. I'll admit that.

In '69, he was clearly slowed by Bill Russell but even so, he scored efficiently and did nice work. Wilt was always an individual, wheres Russell was clearly a team oriented player. That's why the difference between the two is big.

However, from '69 to the end of his career, Wilt was a team oriented player who played like Russell (being the top defender in most of the seasons from that year but with much bigger efficiency).

Nonetheless, Wilt is a legend and he was arguably the best player in the NBA History. Period. Everyone should admit that, regardless do they like him or not.

All-in-all, a pretty good post.

But, some points need to be addressed here. One, while Russell "held" Wilt to 17 ppg less than his regular season average in the '62 ECF's, it must be noted that during their regular season H2H's, Wilt "only" averaged 38 ppg on .470 shooting against Russell and the Celtics. So, his 34 ppg on .468 shooting against him in the '62 ECF's was not nearly as dramatic a decline as so many claim. Furthermore, in the '62 playoffs, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354, which again illustrates just how impressive Wilt's post-season really was. He took what was the same basic last-place roster he joined in '60, to a 49-31 record, and then carried them to a 3-2 series win over Syracuse in the first round of the playoffs (which included a 56-35 clinching game five win.) And, then took that putrid roster to a game seven, two-point loss against the 60-20 Celtics and their seven HOFers. Now, can anyone explain to me how all of that was possible, when his teammates couldn't hit the ocean from a life-boat?

Also, I am constantly amazed at how many observers blame Wilt for being selfish and "stats-padding." It was Wilt's COACHES who asked that Wilt score 45 and 50 ppg. And why not? Take his '63 season for example. He averaged 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting, while his teammates collectively shot .412. In fact, and as PHILA pointed out, before the start of the very next season, his newest coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage with that roster, sans Wilt, against a bunch of scrubs...and guess who won?

And, yes, Russell "held" a PRIME Wilt down more than any other player (with the possible exception of Thurmond...whom Chamberlain only faced in a dozen, or so, games in his "scoring" PRIME.) Still, Chamberlain had THREE full SEASONS of 38 ppg against Russell, and he averaged 33 ppg against Russell in his first seven seasons. He also had FOUR post-seasons against Russell in which he averaged 30+ ppg. He also had three known post-seasons of 50%+ shooting against Russell, and quite possibly at least a couple more. On the other side of the ball, Wilt routinely held Russell considerably below his normal shooting percentages (as he did against virtually EVERY opposing center he faced.) In Wilt's rookie season, he faced Russell in 11 H2H regular season games, and in the known ten, he held Russell to .398 shooting...in a season in which Russell shot a career high .467. In the '67 ECF's, Wilt outshot Russell from the floor, .556 to .358. In fact, in their known H2H games, there were very few in which Russell outshot Chamberlain, and in many cases, Wilt outshot Russell by a huge margin. Of course, in terms of rebounding, Wilt held a MASSIVE edge against Russell. The bottom line... in their 142 H2H games, which included 49 H2H post-season games, Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg...or a near 30-30 game every time he stepped on the floor against Russell.

I also can't see where anyone could fault Wilt for his assist title in '68. Why? Because his TEAM ran away with the best record in the league. True, he made that an individual goal, but I have never heard anyone getting ripped for passing the ball to teammates, as much as Wilt was in '68...all while leading his team to the best record in the league.

And I won't take the time to rehash the poor play and shooting by his teammates in so many post-seasons. Maybe Wilt was partially to blame, but I could never understand why Wilt's overall numbers in his post-seasons mirrored his regular seasons, while his teammates dropped dramatically from their regular season numbers. Wilt basically played the same way, but his surrounding personnel went to hell in the majority of his post-seasons. I mentioned his teammates shooting in the '62 playoffs. How about in the '66 playoffs? Wilt shot .509, and his teammates shot .352. And how about the '61 playoffs? Chamberlain at .469 (in a league that shot .415), and his teammates shot...get this... .332.

In any case, PTB's post was well done.

:applause: