The Five Centers --- Russell, Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt, Shaq

[Duncan21formvp]

The Five Centers --- Russell, Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt, Shaq

Is it me, or is this position probably the one with the most patterns in sports history for a list of 5 guys that played one position?

QB in Football, Pitcher in Baseball, etc I don't think any other position that ranks 5 guys in virtually any order.

Each of these guys you have posters or people who rank any of them #1 or even #5.

[JohnnySic]

Indeed; its a unique group amongst all sports. Impossible to reach a consensus on how to rank them.

[D-Wade316]

No Mikan? He isn't statistically as good as those guys, but we should criticize him according in his time.

Anyway, I agree the 5 guys you just mentioned are great player although Hakeem has no case to be in the top 5.

[twintowers]

No Mikan? He isn't statistically as good as those guys, but we should criticize him according in his time.

Anyway, I agree the 5 guys you just mentioned are great player although Hakeem has no case to be in the top 5.


Haaaaah

[D-Wade316]

Haaaaah
What case does he have over MJ, Wilt, Kareem, Russell, Bird, Shaq, Duncan? Even guys like Big O, Erving?

[RRR3]

What case does he have over MJ, Wilt, Kareem, Russell, Bird, Shaq, Duncan? Even guys like Big O, Erving?
Bird was a SF, MJ was a SG, Duncan is a PF, Big O was a guard, Erving was a SF

[D-Wade316]

Bird was a SF, MJ was a SG, Duncan is a PF, Big O was a guard, Erving was a SF
Top 10 All-time, not centers.

[Yung D-Will]

What case does he have over MJ, Wilt, Kareem, Russell, Bird, Shaq, Duncan? Even guys like Big O, Erving?
:banghead:

[D-Wade316]

:banghead:
Both guys, in historical terms, are GOATs. They won chips as well.

[millwad]

No Mikan? He isn't statistically as good as those guys, but we should criticize him according in his time.

Anyway, I agree the 5 guys you just mentioned are great player although Hakeem has no case to be in the top 5.

Haha, this guy is the biggest retard on ISH!

Read the title, it says top 5 centers and Mikan over any of these guys? Haha, get real...:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[millwad]

What case does he have over MJ, Wilt, Kareem, Russell, Bird, Shaq, Duncan? Even guys like Big O, Erving?

Haha, Big O and Erving...:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

"You need to retire from this board, go sit next to Bill Walton" - Chamillionaire

I know you're Jlauber's biggest fanboy but honestly, how does Big O and Erving have a case against Hakeem?:facepalm

[Math2]

Russell
Kareem
Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem

There is your list

[PHILA]

Russ
Wilt
KAJ
Shaq

[Dave3]

Both guys, in historical terms, are GOATs. They won chips as well.
A chip as the second best player on your team playing alongside a super dominant C (Moses Malone and Kareem) is the same as the clear cut best player with your second best guy named Otis Thorpe? You're kidding right?

[SpecialQue]

Russell
Kareem
Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem

There is your list

Can't argue with that. Don't really know what case Hakeem has over Shaq. For me it's neck and neck between Wilt and Kareem, but Russell's clearly on top.

[millwad]

Russ
Wilt
KAJ
Shaq

Naw, I see what you tried to do there.. Are you just as butthurt as Jlauber? Isn't the quote's you read and your google "knowledge" helping you when people question Wilt as a winner?:cry:

[Big#50]

KAJ
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
DROB
My top five big men ever in order Then there is a big gap for #6.

[Vienceslav]

KAJ
Shaq
Wilt
Russell
The Dream

Again there is no excuse for not having KAJ at #1.

[WillC]

Russ
Wilt
KAJ
Shaq

This.

[D-Wade316]

Haha, this guy is the biggest retard on ISH!

Read the title, it says top 5 centers and Mikan over any of these guys? Haha, get real...:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
:lol Mikan was far more dominant in his time than Hakeem. He is also far more historically important than Hakeem. You can compare his stats to Hakeem, and he would be blown away. But let's not forget the fact that the NBA was 6yrs old when he won his last chip. Base Mikan's accomplishments on his time's standards, not ours. Get real idiot...

[D-Wade316]

Haha, Big O and Erving...:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

"You need to retire from this board, go sit next to Bill Walton" - Chamillionaire

I know you're Jlauber's biggest fanboy but honestly, how does Big O and Erving have a case against Hakeem?:facepalm
Yup. You are indeed butthurt. You restort to personal attacks rather than destroying the argument. Who said Hakeem>Big O and Erving is a consensus?

[nycelt84]

:lol Mikan was far more dominant in his time than Hakeem. He is also far more historically important than Hakeem. You can compare his stats to Hakeem, and he would be blown away. But let's not forget the fact that the NBA was 6yrs old when he won his last chip. Base Mikan's accomplishments on his time's standards, not ours. Get real idiot...

The game already passed Mikan by in his last season as he could not adjust to the shot clock era. He even called Bill Russell the best basketball player ever while Russell was in college. Mikan himself knew when the game passed him by.

[D-Wade316]

The game already passed Mikan by in his last season as he could not adjust to the shot clock era. He even called Bill Russell the best basketball player ever while Russell was in college. Mikan himself knew when the game passed him by.
Well, it's true that Russ>Mikan. You just can't punish him for playing before the 24 shot clock. As I said before, we must base his accomplishment in his time's standards. He is historically important as well, being the prototype of the giants that would follow his footsteps.

[nycelt84]

Well, it's true that Russ>Mikan. You just can't punish him for playing before the 24 shot clock. As I said before, we must base his accomplishment in his time's standards. He is historically important as well, being the prototype of the giants that would follow his footsteps.

Mikan did try playing in the shot clock era in the 55-56 season and it was not successful for him at all. The game clearly had passed him by but I do agree he is a legend and the prototype for all that followed.

[D-Wade316]

Mikan did try playing in the shot clock era in the 55-56 season and it was not successful for him at all. The game clearly had passed him by but I do agree he is a legend and the prototype for all that followed.
He was 31 by that time. He was nowhere near his prime. Too many people are underrating him, even the old ones here.

[trooper]

1. Russell, 2. Kareem, 3. Shaq, 4. Hakeem, 5. Wilt

This might just be my personal bias though; I rate winning and chips much, much higher than individual stats. I also feel longevity is key. Personally, RS accolades don't mean too much to me, I don't rate MVP's very highly, I base rankings off importance in titles, and longevity in contending for these titles. What good is dominance if you still lose?

Regarding Russell and Wilt, I'll admit that I have only seen YouTube clips of Wilt and Russell, and my knowledge extends only to about the millwad vs. jlauber debates regarding Wilt, so my justification may be incorrect.

Anyways, I have Russell at first, he was his team's defensive anchor and a vital piece in the offense. 10+ rings speaks for itself. (I actually also have Russ at numero uno on my GOAT list).

Kareem comes second, with 6 titles. Sure, he only has 2 FMVP's, but without him I doubt Showtime dominates and wins as many titles. Also, man was a straight up baller for 20 odd years. And as lowly as I rate RS accomplishments, 6 MVP's has to be considered.

Shaq comes third, but I really feel he could go second, and my opinion changes often on this one. Maybe tomorrow he'll be second. 3 FMVP's and 4 titles - one thing I will always admire is that he basically carried that 2000 Lakers team. MDE.

Hakeem comes fourth, primarily because of his first round exits. The reason he's this high for me are those 2 FMVP's, and just the way he carried that team to the championship.

My reasoning for Wilt being so low is because, for me, I really ignore his almost meaningless albeit GREAT/straight up DOMINANT regular season accomplishments. His play dipped in the playoffs and the one thing I will always knock Wilt on - he didn't care about winning. (for the record, I feel Wilt with Russell's mindset could have been rated so much higher - the fact he's in most people's top 6 already speaks for his dominance, despite his lack of chips)

My 2 cents anyways.

[Nash-tastic]

1) Kareem
2) Russell
3) Wilt
4) Shaq
5) Hakeem

IMO

[jlauber]

1. and 2. Russell and Wilt (you can swap either one.)
3. and 4. Kareem and Shaq (you can swap either one.)

You could make a case for Duncan at #5.

Then...

Hakeem and Moses (you can swap either one.)

[Yung D-Will]

1. and 2. Russell and Wilt (you can swap either one.)
3. and 4. Kareem and Shaq (you can swap either one.)

You could make a case for Duncan at #5.

Then...

Hakeem and Moses (you can swap either one.)

I'd pretty easily give it up to Hakeem over Moses. And I count Duncan as a Pf and even if he was a C I wouldn't have him over Hakeem.


It'd pretty much end up being

Wilt
Kareem
Russell
Shaq
Hakeem
Moses

[DMV2]

Kareem
Russel
Shaq
Wilt
Hakeem

[jlauber]

I'd pretty easily give it up to Hakeem over Moses. And I count Duncan as a Pf and even if he was a C I wouldn't have him over Hakeem.


It'd pretty much end up being

Wilt
Kareem
Russell
Shaq
Hakeem
Moses

I wouldn't argue with any of the above. I, too, have Hakeem above Moses. Still, Moses won THREE MVPs. He had far better statistical seasons. And he dominated a near prime Kareem TWICE in the playoffs in the early 80's, while we all KNOW that a 37-38 year old Kareem (nearly 39 BTW), had THREE games of 40+ on Hakeem, and an entire season, covering H2H games, in which averaged 33 ppg...on a get this... a mind-numbing .634 FG%. I just can't get over that.

My god, Kareem faced Nate Thurmond in some 50 H2H games, and Kareem's HIGH game against him was 34 points. Not only that, but Kareem seldom even scored 30 on Nate, and had SEVERAL games of under 20. In fact, in three straight playoff series, from '71 thru '73, Thurmond held Kareem to 28.6 ppg on .486; 22.8 ppg on .405 (yes, .405) AND he outscored Kareem in that series as well; and then 22.8 ppg on .428 shooting.

Furthermore, take a look at Shaq vs Hakeem H2H's in BOTH the regular season, AND the post-season. He just CRUSHES Hakeem in nearly EVERY category...some by HUGE margins.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=olajuha01&p2=onealsh01

The domination is so overwhelming that I can't help but think that Moses would surely have played O'Neal much better (as would have Nate.)

[millwad]

I wouldn't argue with any of the above. I, too, have Hakeem above Moses. Still, Moses won THREE MVPs. He had far better statistical seasons. And he dominated a near prime Kareem TWICE in the playoffs in the early 80's, while we all KNOW that a 37-38 year old Kareem (nearly 39 BTW), had THREE games of 40+ on Hakeem, and an entire season, covering H2H games, in which averaged 33 ppg...on a get this... a mind-numbing .634 FG%. I just can't get over that.

Against Akeem, not Hakeem and it was in Olajuwon's rookie and 2nd year pro season and still Olajuwon in his 2nd pro season abused the Lakers big men (Kareem included) in the playoffs. And what I can't get over is that you judge Hakeem based on his rookie and 2nd year pro season (where he also led his team to the finals and killed the Lakers in the playoffs).


And regarding Moses 3 MVP's, Wilt only won one more so in that case Moses is really close to Wilt.. And in that case Nash and Malone both are better than Hakeem and Shaq..:facepalm



My god, Kareem faced Nate Thurmond in some 50 H2H games, and Kareem's HIGH game against him was 34 points. Not only that, but Kareem seldom even scored 30 on Nate, and had SEVERAL games of under 20. In fact, in three straight playoff series, from '71 thru '73, Thurmond held Kareem to 28.6 ppg on .486; 22.8 ppg on .405 (yes, .405) AND he outscored Kareem in that series as well; and then 22.8 ppg on .428 shooting.

My god, Nate is not a top 10 center. Only top 10 center Wilt faced was Russell (who won more MVP's than Wilt and also won more than 5 times the amount of rings compared to Wilton and then Kareem).



Furthermore, take a look at Shaq vs Hakeem H2H's in BOTH the regular season, AND the post-season. He just CRUSHES Hakeem in nearly EVERY category...some by HUGE margins.


http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=olajuha01&p2=onealsh01


The domination is so overwhelming that I can't help but think that Moses would surely have played O'Neal much better (as would have Nate.)

Which again proves that you're an idiot, 13 of those games are after Hakeem's 1995 season where Hakeem no longer could be considered to be in his prime. In fact, 9 of those games where in the '99 season or after where Hakeem was 36 years and older.

And half of the playoff match-ups between Shaq and Hakeem were when Hakeem was 36 years old, you idiot.

[Kurosawa0]

Russell
Kareem
Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem

There is your list

That's mine too.

[Math2]

KAJ
Shaq
Wilt
Russell
The Dream

Again there is no excuse for not having KAJ at #1.

:roll: Russell at 4. I can live with KAJ at 1 (but disagree), but Shaq above Russell is just awful.

[jlauber]

Against Akeem, not Hakeem and it was in Olajuwon's rookie and 2nd year pro season and still Olajuwon in his 2nd pro season abused the Lakers big men (Kareem included) in the playoffs. And what I can't get over is that you judge Hakeem based on his rookie and 2nd year pro season (where he also led his team to the finals and killed the Lakers in the playoffs).


And regarding Moses 3 MVP's, Wilt only won one more so in that case Moses is really close to Wilt.. And in that case Nash and Malone both are better than Hakeem and Shaq..:facepalm



My god, Nate is not a top 10 center. Only top 10 center Wilt faced was Russell (who won more MVP's than Wilt and also won more than 5 times the amount of rings compared to Wilton and then Kareem).



Which again proves that you're an idiot, 13 of those games are after Hakeem's 1995 season where Hakeem no longer could be considered to be in his prime. In fact, 9 of those games where in the '99 season or after where Hakeem was 36 years and older.

And half of the playoff match-ups between Shaq and Hakeem were when Hakeem was 36 years old, you idiot.

First of all, take a look at Hakeem's numbers in that second season, and then compare them to either his 94 or 95 season. VERY close. If Hakeem's prime was in '94, it was CLEARLY not much better than his '86 season.

And that is major difference between a PRIME Kareem, and a 38 year old Kareem. Kareem's '71 and '72 seasons are LIGHT YEARS ahead of his 85-86 season.

And back to Hakeem's PRIME. The man played EIGHTEEN seasons, and you can only come up with TWO years in which he was in it? Kareem was DOMINANT for an ENTIRE decade. Wilt was even MORE dominant for an ENTIRE decade. And BOTH Kareem and Wilt were dominant even AFTER their primes.

Competition? Wilt faced Bellamy, Reed, Lovellette, Embry, Thurmond, Lanier, Cowens, Hayes, Unseld, McAdoo, Russell, and Kareem. All in the HOF. He even outplayed Gilmore in a few minutes of play in the 71-72 NBA-ABA all-star game. And he faced them FAR more OFTEN than the few "greats" that Hakeem faced.

I am seriously getting tired of this nonsense. Very few intelligent posters have Hakeem over Wilt in any kind of comparisons. I respect ShaqAttack, and I while I disagree with him on this topic, at least he presents a far more researched argument. Other than him, I haven't seen ANY rational post which would have Hakeem anywhere NEAR Wilt in a "ranking" system.

The reality was, and this not debatable, Hakeem was SELDOM regarded as even among the Top-FOUR in his EIGHTEEN years in the league. He won ONE MVP (and again, in a season in which MJ took the year off.) He came in second ONE time. And he finisihed in the top-4, on TWO other occasions. FOUR times in EIGHTEEN seasons he was considered in the Top-4 in HIS era. And, he wasn't even acknowledged as a Top-10 player in HALF of those 18 seasons. What does that tell you???

As far as post-season play, he won a ring in a year in which MJ took the year off. And his 58-24 team barely edged Ewing and a 56-26 Knick team that had no more surrounding talent than what Hakeem had. In his '95 run, he demolished Robinson in four of their six games. In the Finals, he might have been credited with outplaying Shaq, but still, to only outscore a young Shaq, 32-28, while being OVERWHELMINGLY outshot, .595 to .483, as well as outrebounded, outassisted, and outblocked...well, it was certainly not a domination.

But how about the rest of his other SIXTEEN seasons? His teams didn't even make the playoffs in three of them. And, as YOU know, he went down in flames, in the FIRST ROUND, in EIGHT of them.

He never led his team to the best record. His high win season was 58 wins, and he only had four other years of 50+ wins. He had SEVERAL miserable post-seasons, too. And his best statistical post-season, came in a four game series in which his team was blown out 3-1...and again, in the FIRST ROUND.

His statistical titles are not even anything extraordinary. He NEVER led the NBA in scoring, and NEVER scored more 27.8 ppg in a season. He NEVER led the NBA in FG%, and his HIGH season, of .534, came in his ROOKIE season, in an NBA that had the highest FG%, .492, in it's HISTORY. He won two rebounding titles (and barely), and he was even outrebounded by Barkley, when they were paired together, by FOUR per game. He won three block titles, but he was not even close to the best shot-blocker of HIS era (Mark Eaton, with no athleticism at all, won FOUR.)

The REALITY was, Hakeem was NOT an "immortal" type player. He was a VERY GOOD player, and has a CASE as a Top-10 player of all-time. That is IT.

Let's stop over-rating the hell out of the man.

And, his career PALES in comparison to Wilt's. Again, this is NOT debatable. In EVERY category, Wilt BLOWS Hakeem AWAY. Scoring, rebounding, FG%, passing, defense, and shot blocks. Even in the post-season, a PRIME "scoring" Wilt just CRUSHES Hakeem's BEST scoring seasons.

And Wilt won more MVPs, and he and Russell were neck-and-neck in the MVP balloting all 10 seasons in which they were in the league together.

Team success? Wilt carried TWELVE teams to the Conference Finals, and was only eliminated in the first round, ONE times (and in a series in which he hung a 37 ppg 23 rpg series, while his inept teammates shot .380.) Wilt took FAR inferior rosters to within an eyelash of beating Russell's Celtics on TWO occasions, and his teammates were AWFUL in both of them. And Wilt had SIX post-seasons in which he had virtually NO help. How does the man ever get to one Final, and two ECF's game seven losses by 2 and 1 point, with teammates that collectively shot .382, .380, .354, .352, .352, and .332?

Chamberlain also played on FOUR teams that had the best record in the league. He anchored FOUR teams that won 60+ games, including TWO that went 68-13 and 69-13, and those two teams OVERWHELMED their HOF-laden challengers en route to a title, and in which Wilt was CLEARLY their best player.

And I am getting tired of reading about Hakeem supposedly having more skills. Wilt was certainly more skilled than Shaq, and we know that Shaq pretty much abused Hakeem. And Wilt was considerably taller, bigger, longer, stronger, faster, and more athletic than Hakeem.

I will concede that a PRIME Shaq and a PRIME Wilt would be very close. But no way does Hakeem enter that conversation.

[millwad]

Again pure nonsense by Jlauber.
Stop overrating Wilt's statistical prime, he didn't win shit and he dropped in the playoffs in terms of stats and when he finally won it was on way less impressive play than what Hakeem did during his prime when he actually WON. Hakeem won during his statistical prime, WILT DIDN'T..:lol

No one ranks Wilt's runs over Hakeem's, but you..

And stop the copy and paste job and irrelevant crap, way too much bs to respond to..

[RRR3]

Again pure nonsense by Jlauber.
Stop overrating Wilt's statistical prime, he didn't win shit and he dropped in the playoffs in terms of stats and when he finally won it was on way less impressive play than what Hakeem did during his prime when he actually WON. Hakeem won during his statistical prime, WILT DIDN'T..:lol

No one ranks Wilt's runs over Hakeem's, but you..

And stop the copy and paste job and irrelevant crap, way too much bs to respond to..
Wilt's playoff numbers look lower career-wise because a lot of his longest playoff runs came after he was out of his prime. Stop trolling jesus.

[jlauber]

prime shaq and prime hakeem>prime wilt. dont insult them putting wilt in the same class. wilt is in the class as a prime 01 matt geiger

Go back to playing your "Backyard Basketball" video game please.

[millwad]

Go back to playing your "Backyard Basketball" video game please.

Go back to wanking in front of some Wilt articles, you ph4ggot.

[jlauber]

Again pure nonsense by Jlauber.
Stop overrating Wilt's statistical prime, he didn't win shit and he dropped in the playoffs in terms of stats and when he finally won it was on way less impressive play than what Hakeem did during his prime when he actually WON. Hakeem won during his statistical prime, WILT DIDN'T..:lol

No one ranks Wilt's runs over Hakeem's, but you..

And stop the copy and paste job and irrelevant crap, way too much bs to respond to..

How about you answer me this...

WHY did Hakeem only win ONE MVP award (and in a year in which the REAL best player took the year off)? Why did he come in second, ONE time? And why did he come in fourth on only two more occasions? And why did Hakeem fail to crack the Top-10 in the MVP balloting in NINE of his 18 seasons?

WHY? Why was he SELDOM he considered among the top-4 players of HIS era? And why was he not even considered among the top-10 players in HIS era, in over HALF of his career?

What was it that YOU witnessed, that virtually EVERYONE else who saw Hakeem play in HIS era, did NOT see????

[Fazotronic]

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/user_images/2963000/AlphaWolf-2963314_1611_930.jpg
...

[millwad]

Wilt's playoff numbers look lower career-wise because a lot of his longest playoff runs came after he was out of his prime. Stop trolling jesus.

Buhu, so lets remove his '72 season when he won his 2nd title as the fourth option on offense. Lousy argument.

[BlackJoker23]

prime shaq in wilts era and the nba is lockedout forever

[RRR3]

Buhu, so lets remove his '72 season when he won his 2nd title as the fourth option on offense. Lousy argument.
Who gives a shit? He was way past his prime and still the best defender on that team. Wilt is so goddamn underrated on ISH. Jlauber exaggerates Wilt, I'll admit, but that may be because he's really frustrated with people like you underrating the **** out of him (Hakeem better than Wilt? :roll: :roll: :roll: )

[jlauber]

...

Looks like Wilt dominating Love, Bogut, Milicic, and Lee.

[IGOTGAME]

harken is overrated here. Just thats simple

[Yung D-Will]

Who gives a shit? He was way past his prime and still the best defender on that team. Wilt is so goddamn underrated on ISH. Jlauber exaggerates Wilt, I'll admit, but that may be because he's really frustrated with people like you underrating the **** out of him (Hakeem better than Wilt? :roll: :roll: :roll: )
This.

[millwad]

How about you answer me this...

WHY did Hakeem only win ONE MVP award (and in a year in which the REAL best player took the year off)? Why did he come in second, ONE time? And why did he come in fourth on only two more occasions? And why did Hakeem fail to crack the Top-10 in the MVP balloting in NINE of his 18 seasons?

Easy, Hakeem played in an era with better players than what Wilt did.

Look at the MVP's during Hakeem's era;

1984-1986 = Larry Bird (TOP 5 ever)
1987= Magic Johnson (TOP 5 ever)
1988 = Michael Jordan (GOAT)
1989-90 = Magic Johnson (TOP 5 ever)
1991-1992 = Michael Jordan (GOAT)
1993 = Barkley (TOP 3 PF ever)
1994 = Hakeem
1995 = Robinson (TOP 10 center ever)
1996 = Michael Jordan (GOAT)
1997 = Malone (TOP 3 PF ever)
1998 = Jordan ( GOAT)
1999 = Malone (TOP 3 PF ever)
2000 = Shaq (Top 10 ever)

And Hakeem had alot of his late '80's seasons completely wasted on being stuck with shitty teammates and I honestly believe that Hakeem got robbed in 1993 and I'm not the only one thinking that. Look at these guys, 5 of them are top 10 ever. And since MVP's is the only thing you care about, Jerry West never even won any MVP and still people rank him with the best of the best, I guess that's wrong then with your logic, he didn't have any MVP's..:facepalm

And since Hakeem's 1 MVP is such a huge issue for you, Shaq who won in a worse era than Hakeem and without any true competitors on the center spot also only won one, idiot.



WHY? Why was he SELDOM he considered among the top-4 players of HIS era? And why was he not even considered among the top-10 players in HIS era, in over HALF of his career?

What was it that YOU witnessed, that virtually EVERYONE else who saw Hakeem play in HIS era, did NOT see????

Hakeem is regarded as a TOP 10 player ever which I fully agree on and a top 5 center ever as well and he was also regarded as the best player in the mid-90's. Wilt and Russell are on those list based on accomplishments and legacy, I rather take actual skillset combined with accomplishments and statistics which is why I rank Hakeem and Shaq over Wilt.

[catch24]

harken is overrated here. Just thats simple

Totally.

Wait, who again?

[jlauber]

Easy, Hakeem played in an era with better players than what Wilt did.

Look at the MVP's during Hakeem's era;

1984-1986 = Larry Bird (TOP 5 ever)
1987= Magic Johnson (TOP 5 ever)
1988 = Michael Jordan (GOAT)
1989-90 = Magic Johnson (TOP 5 ever)
1991-1992 = Michael Jordan (GOAT)
1993 = Barkley (TOP 3 PF ever)
1994 = Hakeem
1995 = Robinson (TOP 10 center ever)
1996 = Michael Jordan (GOAT)
1997 = Malone (TOP 3 PF ever)
1998 = Jordan ( GOAT)
1999 = Malone (TOP 3 PF ever)
2000 = Shaq (Top 10 ever)

And Hakeem had alot of his late '80's seasons completely wasted on being stuck with shitty teammates and I honestly believe that Hakeem got robbed in 1993 and I'm not the only one thinking that. Look at these guys, 5 of them are top 10 ever. And since MVP's is the only thing you care about, Jerry West never even won any MVP and still people rank him with the best of the best, I guess that's wrong then with your logic, he didn't have any MVP's..:facepalm

And since Hakeem's 1 MVP is such a huge issue for you, Shaq who won in a worse era than Hakeem and without any true competitors on the center spot also only won one, idiot.



Hakeem is regarded as a TOP 10 player ever which I fully agree on and a top 5 center ever as well and he was also regarded as the best player in the mid-90's. Wilt and Russell are on those list based on accomplishments and legacy, I rather take actual skillset combined with accomplishments and statistics which is why I rank Hakeem and Shaq over Wilt.

I just have to give up...

[Deuce Bigalow]

millwad, you think jordan is the GOAT, but why did you vote a different player on my thread?

[millwad]

Who gives a shit? He was way past his prime and still the best defender on that team. Wilt is so goddamn underrated on ISH. Jlauber exaggerates Wilt, I'll admit, but that may be because he's really frustrated with people like you underrating the **** out of him (Hakeem better than Wilt? :roll: :roll: :roll: )

Jlauber is the first to mention other player's stats when they are out of their primes or when they haven't reached their primes yet. How many times haven't you seen Jlauber mention Kareem scoring tons of points on rookie and 2nd year pro Olajuwon? He does it every day and still Olajuwon was no where close to his prime those years and still he absolutely dominated the Lakers and Kareem in the playoffs in his 2nd pro season which Jlauber never mentions. And yes, Hakeem in his first or second season where no close to his actual prime.

And the same "best defender" was trashed by Kareem in '72 when many considered Wilt to be in his defensive prime. Kareem averaged 40 points on 50% shooting on Wilt in the regular season and that was also the same year Wilt got his 2nd ring...

[millwad]

millwad, you think jordan is the GOAT, but why id you vote a different player on my thread?

Your thread was a copy of 10000 other thread's we've had before so it was pretty meaningless to do it all.... again.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Your thread was a copy of 10000 other thread's we've had before so it was pretty meaningless to do it all.... again.

I havent seen one where you got to vote, can you link one if theres so many

[IGOTGAME]

please explain the 9 years he didn't crack top 10 in MVP balloting? It may not be perfect but top 10 shouldn't be an issue the way you portrAy hakeem. At that level you're too good too continually not be considered top 10 in the MVP race.

[IGOTGAME]

Totally.

Wait, who again?
lol, spell check on my tablet is horrible. Somehow that was supposed to say hakeem

[millwad]

I havent seen one where you got to vote, can you link one if theres so many

You can't search for them since the search function is off because the owner of this site wants to save bandwidth but everyone knows we've had plenty of them already. Still if that thread is so important for you, you can go ahead and change my vote to Jordan.:basketball

[Deuce Bigalow]

You can't search for them since the search function is off because the owner of this site wants to save bandwidth but everyone knows we've had plenty of them already. Still if that thread is so important for you, you can go ahead and change my vote to Jordan.:basketball

I know theres plenty of top 10 threads, where theres discussions of other people/sites lists, but I have not seen one where ISH gets to vote for each player
but If you want to change your vote, post that on the thread or else it will look like Im "fixing" things

[millwad]

please explain the 9 years he didn't crack top 10 in MVP balloting? It may not be perfect but top 10 shouldn't be an issue the way you portrAy hakeem. At that level you're too good too continually not be considered top 10 in the MVP race.

'85 - His rookie season and he still played well enough to be in top 12
'91 - Almost missed 30 games due his eye-injury which had it's effect on the MVP ranking, he would have won the league in rebounding that year for the third consecutive year and also he led the league in blocks per game.
'92 - A bad year for the Rocket team, early in the season he had problems with his heart and missed 2 weeks of playing. There was also alot of problems with that team and Olajuwon complained over the crappy players he had around him. The team played bad and players on crappy teams don't get MVP talks and Hakeem had an off-season.
'98 - He was 35 years old and out of his prime and he also missed almost half of the season due injury.
'99 - 36 years old and he almost made the the TOP 10 which is pretty impressive although he was out of his prime.
00 - 37 years old and obviously way out of his prime and missed almost missed half of the season due injuries
01 - 38 years old and a corpse
02 - 39 years old and Pure corpse

And for your information, he didn't crack the top 10 MVP list 8 times, not 9. And if he'd retired at the same age as Wilt he'd missed it 5 times. And in '85 he was a rookie and before the age of 35 (which he missed half of due injuries) he'd miss it 3 times while one of them was during a season he had his eye injury and the two others was in his rookie season and his off-season.

To the age of 36, Wilt missed 3 top 10 MVP rankings which gives him the total amount of 11 times on the MVP top 10 list. To the age of 36 Hakeem made the top 10 MVP list 10 times and he almost made it in '99 and in his rookie season.

[Deuce Bigalow]

thanks for ruining my thread millwad

[millwad]

thanks for ruining my thread millwad

I didn't ruin no nothing. Kobe is in the 2nd place which only shows how serious your thread is and I wasn't the only one voting for Kobe. I even changed my vote to a serious one just to please you.

And stop going OT, this thread ain't about your thread. If you have any issues with my posts in another thread, PM me or write whatever you want in the actual thread.

[PTB Fan]

It's true. No other position has had a depth like this. I mean, all of them could go in any way from 1-5. Everyone's got a case

[PTB Fan]

'85 - His rookie season and he still played well enough to be in top 12
'91 - Almost missed 30 games due his eye-injury which had it's effect on the MVP ranking, he would have won the league in rebounding that year for the third consecutive year and also he led the league in blocks per game.
'92 - A bad year for the Rocket team, early in the season he had problems with his heart and missed 2 weeks of playing. There was also alot of problems with that team and Olajuwon complained over the crappy players he had around him. The team played bad and players on crappy teams don't get MVP talks and Hakeem had an off-season.
'98 - He was 35 years old and out of his prime and he also missed almost half of the season due injury.
'99 - 36 years old and he almost made the the TOP 10 which is pretty impressive although he was out of his prime.
00 - 37 years old and obviously way out of his prime and missed almost missed half of the season due injuries
01 - 38 years old and a corpse
02 - 39 years old and Pure corpse

And for your information, he didn't crack the top 10 MVP list 8 times, not 9. And if he'd retired at the same age as Wilt he'd missed it 5 times. And in '85 he was a rookie and before the age of 35 (which he missed half of due injuries) he'd miss it 3 times while one of them was during a season he had his eye injury and the two others was in his rookie season and his off-season.

To the age of 36, Wilt missed 3 top 10 MVP rankings which gives him the total amount of 11 times on the MVP top 10 list. To the age of 36 Hakeem made the top 10 MVP list 10 times and he almost made it in '99 and in his rookie season.

Interesting post. However, for a note is the fact that in order to be considered as a good MVP candidate, you need a valid team record and Hakeem didn't always have that

[jlauber]

To the age of 36, Wilt missed 3 top 10 MVP rankings which gives him the total amount of 11 times on the MVP top 10 list. To the age of 36 Hakeem made the top 10 MVP list 10 times and he almost made it in '99 and in his rookie season.



I shouldn't waste my time, but as far as Wilt is concerned...

He played 14 seasons.

In his 69-70 season, at the nine game mark, he was averaging 32.2 ppg, 20 rpg, and on about 60% shooting (thanks Psileas.) He shredded his knee, and most medical opinion ranged from being out the entire season, to a career-ending injury. He miraculously came back early (ONLY because he wanted to helo his team in the playoffs BTW), and at nowhere near 100%. His final regular season numbers dropped considerably because in the last three games he played sparingly. In the post-season, he hung two straight game sof 30 and 36 points in leading LA back from a 3-1 hole against Phoenix. Then, in the seven game Finals, he put up a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 series, which included a must-win game six of 45 points, on 20-27 shooting, with 27 rebounds. In the seventh game blowout loss, all he did was score 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds. All accomplished on basically ONE leg,

His 70-71 season was arguably his WORST. 20.7 ppg, a career low 18.2 rpg, and on "only" .545 shooting. Still, in a year in which Kareem won the MVP (and the FMVP), and with a 31.7 ppg, 16.0 rpg, and on a .577 FG% (in a league that shot .449...and that .128 differential was the largest of his entire 20 year career)...Wilt battled Kareem in TEN H2H games (five in the regular season, and five in the post-season.) Over those ten games, Kareem outscored Wilt, per game, 26-23, while Wilt outrebounded Kareem, 17.6 to 15.6 rpg, and outshot Kareem by a sizeable .490 to .454 margin. This in probably Kareem's greatest all-around statistical season, and in perhaps Wilt's WORST.

Now, it gets interesting...

Wilt did not crack the top-10 in the 68-69 season. He was "TRADED" for THREE players, from Philly to LA. We all KNOW that he actually engineered that trade, BTW. Two of those players were Archie Clark, who had been a 19.9 ppg all-star in 67-68, and journeyman center Darrell Imhoff, who was a 9.3 ppg , 10.9 rpg guy. FURTHERMORE, the Lakers lost HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft. So, Wilt basically had to replace a TOTAL of 42 ppg and 17.6 rpg.

Philly not only dropped from 62-20 in 67-68 down to 55-27, in 68-69, Wilt's desparture had MUCH larger impact. The Sixers had somehow battled Boston to a game seven, four point loss in the '68 ECF's, with HOFer Cunningham missing the entire series, and with Luke Jackson and Wali Jones suffering leg injuries in game five...AND, Wilt playing with SEVERAL leg and foot injuries from games three thru seven.

Wilt's replacements played well in the '69 first round against that same Boston team that beat them in seven games the year before in the ECF's...Imhoff and Clark collectively averaged 37.6 ppg, 20.2 rpg, and shot .510...BUT, the Sixers were blown out in that first round, 4-1.

Back in LA, Wilt, replacing THREE quailty players, STILL led the Lakers their then best-ever record in LA, at 55-27 (and West missed 20 games.) Not only that, he got them to a game seven against that same Boston team that wiped out the Sixers in the first round. In fact, had Goodrich's replacement not botched the ball in the waning seconds of game four, and LA would have won that series, 4-1. As it was, Wilt was on the bench in the last five minutes of game seven, two point loss.

The league MVP that season was Wes Unseld. Unseld did have a very good rookie season, and the Bullets went from 36-46 to a league best 57-25. Having said that, Earl Monroe averaged 25.8 ppg and Kevin Loughery 22.6 ppg on that same team. Oh, and the Bullets were SWEPT in the FIRST ROUND 4-0 by the Knicks.

Unseld averaged 13.8 ppg, 18.2 rpg, 2.6 apg, and shot .476. How about Wilt? Chamberlain's offense was limited by his incompetent coach, but he still averaged 20.5 ppg, LED the league in rebounding at 21.1 rpg, LED the league in FG% at .583, and averaged 4.5 apg.

Now, you tell me how Unseld could finish first, and Wilt was not in the Top-10?


Then there was Wilt's 62-63 season. He finished SEVENTH. True, his team only went 31-49, BUT, they lost 35 games by single digits, and were only invlolved in eight games of 20+ (going 4-4.) Their ppg differential was -2.1, so they were in nearly every game.

And bad was that roster? They had a TOTAL of 16 different players. Collectively, aside from Wilt, they shot .412, which was way behind the worst shooting team in the league, .427. AND, the very next season, their new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, and against a bunch of scrubs, and...they lost.

In any case, how did Wilt do in that 62-63 season? He LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories. He LED the league in scoring by a HUGE margin (44.8 ppg to Baylor's 34.0 ppg.) He LED the NBA in rebounding, at 24.3 rpg. He not only LED the NBA in FG%, he set a then-record mark of .528. He even LED the NBA in WIN-SHARES, and by a large margin (20.9...out of 31 total wins.) And his PER of 31.8 is an all-time record. BTW, he faced MVP Russell, and the HOF-laden Celtics (NINE HOFers), nine times. SIX of those games were very close (Boston went 8-1), and all he did was outrebound Russell, and outscored Russell, 38-14 per game.

Now, you tell me how a player that is so completely dominant finishes SEVENTH?

Wilt was traded in the middle of his 64-65 season, and finished 5th. Still, he LED the NBA in scoring, at 34.7 ppg, and in FG% at .510, and finished second in rebounding at 22.9 rpg. However, in the post-season, he took his 40-40 team to a 3-1 romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals. Then, in the ECF's, and against Russell's 62-18 Celtics, he got his team to a game seven, one point loss. In that seventh game, all he did was score 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, and with 32 rebounds. BTW, in that seven game series, he averaged 30 ppg and 31 rpg.

Continued...

[jlauber]

Continuing...

In Wilt's LAST two seasons, at ages 35 and 36, he finished third and 4th in the MVP balloting. In his 71-72 season, he LED the Lakers to a 69-13 record, including 33 straight wins. He was voted first team all-defense, and had their been a DPOY, he would have been a unnanimous pick. He LED the NBA (and by a solid margin) in rebounding, at 19.2 rpg. And he LED the NBA in FG% at .649. In the post-season, he outplayed Kareem, and then dominated the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers en route to a crushing 4-1 win..and in the process, he won the FMVP.

In his last season, he LED the Lakers to a 60-22 record. Then he took that team, and with West nursing two injured knees, to a Finals, where they dropped four close games to the Knicks and their SIX HOFers. In the playoffs, he played 47.1 mpg, and grabbed 22.5 rpg...which is the last time any player ever had a post-season of 20+ (and in fact, the next highest since, was Kareem's 17.3 in the '77 post-season.) During the regular season, he LED the NBA in rebounding, at 18.6 rpg; was voted first-team all-defense (in a league that had Thurmond, Cowens, Hayes, Lanier, and Kareem); and set a FG% record of .727 which still stands (and will probably never be broken.)


How about his 63-64 season? Here again, take a look at what happened the year before. Wilt, with that inept cast of clowns, had gone 31-49, and he finished SEVENTH in the MVP balloting. Ok, so now, when he took that same basic putrid cast to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals...he finishes behind Oscar, who had a great supporting cast on a 55-25 team. During the regular season, Wilt LED the NBA in scoring, at 36.9 ppg, and was second in rebounding at 22.3 rpg, and was second in FG% at .524. In the playoffs, he got THAT team to the Finals, where they lost to the Celtics and their EIGHT HOFers, 4-1. However, two of those losses were in the last few seconds. And, all Wilt did was average 29 ppg, 27 rpg, and shoot .517 against Russell. And in the previous round, he hung a 38.6 ppg, 23.0 rpg, .559 series on multiple career allstar Zelmo Beaty.

Then there was Wilt's 60-61 season. I can see Russell winning the award that year, but how in the hell did Wilt finish FOURTH? He took the same basic last place roster that he inherited in 59-60 (and immediately led to a 49-26 record) to a 46-33 record, which was the third best record in the league. He LED the league in scoring, at 38.4 ppg. He set an NBA rpg record of 27.2 rpg (which will never be broken). And he LED the NBA in FG% at .509. He finished behind Pettit and Baylor. Pettit took a loaded roster to 51-28, but was nowhere near as dominant as Wilt, while Baylor, who was also far behind Chamberlain in most statistical categories, played on a 36-43 team. Makes no sense.

That brings us to the last "non-MVP" season in Wilt's career...his 61-62 season. To put that season in proper perspective, let's examine the 59-60 first. Wilt took what had been a last-place roster the year before, to a 49-26 record. Along the way, he averaged 37.6 ppg, 27.0 rpg, and shot a career low .461 from the field (the ONLY time he failed to shoot .506 or higher.) Russell and his SIX other HOF teammates went 59-16, and in the process, Russell averaged 18.2 ppg, 24.0 rpg, and shot a career high .467 from the field (BTW, Wilt outshot Russell in their H2H's that season, .465 to .398.) So, who won the MVP award in 59-60? It was Wilt (who also won ROY.)

How about the 61-62 season? Russell and his SIX other HOF teammates went 60-20. And Russell averaged 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and shot .457 from the field. Meanwhile, Wilt took another crappy roster to a 49-31 record, and all he did was average a staggeringf 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, and shoot .506. Who won the MVP? Russell.

Now think about that. Russell played the exact same way in '62 as he did in '60. His TEAM had nearly the exact same record (and at a lower winning percentage.) Meanwhile, Wilt's team in '62 performed nearly the same as they did in '60. The ONLY thing that changed, was that Wilt was FAR better in '62. And yet, Russell won the MVP.

Overall...Wilt finished in the top-10, 11 times in his 14 seasons. Of those 11 times, he had one 7th place finish, one 5th place finish, two 4th's, one 3rd, two 2nd's, and FOUR 1st's.

And once again, you could argue that he probably should have finished higher in several of those seasons, and maybe even won a couple more.

[millwad]

Jlauber, you can get your points out there without writing two essays. You know, I try to read the replies you give often but a majority of your essays have so much crap and irrelevant stuff in them that really results in no one reading them. I know you copy and paste alot but even the posts you write by yourself are often getting scrolled over due the fact that no one is going to waste that time and energy to read all that when they know that the mostpart of it is biased comments and "My god, imagine.. bla bla" and irrelevant comments.

As for the discussion, I put that up to shut you up, to be honest. You always write nonsense about Hakeem missing so many MVP top 10's and that for the mostpart of his career he wasn't on the list (which is pure garbage), in fact to the age of 36 (when Wilt retired), the difference is 1 freaking MVP top 10 nomination between Hakeem and Wilt. So now that is a fact you will recognize in the future, I hope. And I also made it clear that Hakeem had a great opportunity to even tie Wilt on that list if it wasn't for his horrible eye injury.

And regarding Shaq, he made more top 10 MVP lists than Wilt during his career. He's on 13 compared to Wilt's 11 and Hakeem's 10, suddenly it all changed....

And I posted the list of the actual MVP's from Hakeem's era and the competition is just crazy. You have Bird, Magic, Jordan, Barkley, Hakeem, Robinson, Malone and Shaq winning the MVP's in Hakeem's playing time. Beside Russell and Wilt the guys who won in Wilt's playing career was Pettit (not top 10), Unseld (not top 10, not even top 10 center) and Reed (not top 10, arguably top 10 center).

In Hakeem's era you'll see 5 top 10 players who all won the MVP and under them many all-time greats tried but failed and of course there was Michael Jordan. So I have no doubt in my mind that Wilt wouldn't have had the amount of MVP's in Hakeem's era.

[jlauber]

Jlauber, you can get your points out there without writing two essays. You know, I try to read the replies you give often but a majority of your essays have so much crap and irrelevant stuff in them that really results in no one reading them. I know you copy and paste alot but even the posts you write by yourself are often getting scrolled over due the fact that no one is going to waste that time and energy to read all that when they know that the mostpart of it is biased comments and "My god, imagine.. bla bla" and irrelevant comments.

As for the discussion, I put that up to shut you up, to be honest. You always write nonsense about Hakeem missing so many MVP top 10's and that for the mostpart of his career he wasn't on the list (which is pure garbage), in fact to the age of 36 (when Wilt retired), the difference is 1 freaking MVP top 10 nomination between Hakeem and Wilt. So now that is a fact you will recognize in the future, I hope. And I also made it clear that Hakeem had a great opportunity to even tie Wilt on that list if it wasn't for his horrible eye injury.

And regarding Shaq, he made more top 10 MVP lists than Wilt during his career. He's on 13 compared to Wilt's 11 and Hakeem's 10, suddenly it all changed....

And I posted the list of the actual MVP's from Hakeem's era and the competition is just crazy. You have Bird, Magic, Jordan, Barkley, Hakeem, Robinson, Malone and Shaq winning the MVP's in Hakeem's playing time. Beside Russell and Wilt the guys who won in Wilt's playing career was Pettit (not top 10), Unseld (not top 10, not even top 10 center) and Reed (not top 10, arguably top 10 center).

In Hakeem's era you'll see 5 top 10 players who all won the MVP and under them many all-time greats tried but failed and of course there was Michael Jordan. So I have no doubt in my mind that Wilt wouldn't have had the amount of MVP's in Hakeem's era.

I'm done with this thread.

[millwad]

I'm done with this thread.

I'm done with you on ISH, wasted my time enough already on your nonsense. Don't reply to my comments anymore, cutie, and don't try to debate me anymore because I'm too tired of your copy and paste job and your essays already.

[rodman91]

Mostly likely..

Hakeem or Shaq
Kareem
Wilt
Russell

[D-Wade316]

Wilt's playoff numbers look lower career-wise because a lot of his longest playoff runs came after he was out of his prime. Stop trolling jesus.
It's funny how Dickwad calls me the worst troll in ISH when he does nothing but post "hate" posts here.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I'm interested to see which Big is going to be voted in first on the voting thread

[iceman56]

I'm done with you on ISH, wasted my time enough already on your nonsense. Don't reply to my comments anymore, cutie, and don't try to debate me anymore because I'm too tired of your copy and paste job and your essays already.

"you are such a copy and paste boy jlauber!" :cry: , "hakeem olajuwon is the best, how dare you mr. jlauber say that Wilt is better than him?! you don't know anything about basketball!" :banana: , "People like you, point guard and Phila are very illogical, don't you know that modern players are SO MUCH BETTER than players of the past?":oldlol:.

[millwad]

It's funny how Dickwad calls me the worst troll in ISH when he does nothing but post "hate" posts here.

I don't ever call you the worst troll, but it's says pretty much about you that you have a negative rep, I get negged all the time by Wilt lovers but still I don't have a negative rep. All you do is to hang on Jlauber's nuts and post crap you have no idea about mr "Jlauber will give you a good answer so I will hide behind him". You don't even know crap about Wilt, then you're trying to put up guys like Mikan over the modern era players..:facepalm

You are even so pathetic that you use lame nicknames made up by Jlauber. Talk about being a pathetic copycat..:facepalm

[D-Wade316]

I don't ever call you the worst troll, but it's says pretty much about you that you have a negative rep, I get negged all the time by Wilt lovers but still I don't have a negative rep. All you do is to hang on Jlauber's nuts and post crap you have no idea about mr "Jlauber will give you a good so I will hide behind him". You don't even know crap about Wilt, then you're trying to put up guys like Mikan over the modern era players..:facepalm
I have a negative rep because I hate on Kobe, not because I'm poor in debates. I also don't hang on jlauber's nuts. :facepalm I follow his posts and often applause him, but I don't worship him at all. Nice try there.

It's you who don't know a crap about Wilt. You keep on saying that his PPG decreased by 8PPG in the playoffs, but you ignore the fact that in his 13 playoff appearance his first 6 years were his "scoring" years. There's many more out there that you posted that makes me :facepalm

Mikan wouldn't dominate today's game, but you have to judge him based in his time, not ours. That's like comparing Alexander to Patton. Patton would absolutely crush Alexander's pre-modern army. But if you give Alexander Patton's army, then he'd absolutely crush the Germans.

[millwad]

I have a negative rep because I hate on Kobe, not because I'm poor in debates. I also don't hang on jlauber's nuts. :facepalm I follow his posts and often applause him, but I don't worship him at all. Nice try there.

I have never even seen you put up a even decent comment about anything, yet I see you alot and it's always "come on Jlauber, you tell him now" and you are even so sad and so much a wannabe that you use Jlauber's pathetic nicknames. Like what happened with being orginal? You don't get any cred for being a buttyboy. You are poor in debates, actually, I've never even seen you debate, all you do is hide behind Jlauber... :facepalm



It's you who don't know a crap about Wilt. You keep on saying that his PPG decreased by 8PPG in the playoffs, but you ignore the fact that in his 13 playoff appearance his first 6 years were his "scoring" years. There's many more out there that you posted that makes me :facepalm

It sure as hell decreased in the playoffs, and what the hell does it matter that he had 6 scoring years when he didn't win crap? In all he played 13 playoff years compared to Hakeem's 15 so Hakeem was in the playoffs even more than Wilt and still no one goes, "oh, but Hakeem had his scoring years early on", what kind of bullshit is that...

And good job, you removed both of his rings, he got both of them after his 6 first seasons. And it says alot about that he had to drop in scoring to make his team better. While guys like Shaq and Hakeem were at their scoring primes when they won.:facepalm


Mikan wouldn't dominate today's game, but you have to judge him based in his time, not ours. That's like comparing Alexander to Patton. Patton would absolutely crush Alexander's pre-modern army. But if you give Alexander Patton's army, then he'd absolutely crush the Germans.

I judge players based on accomplishments combined with skillset and legacy and I'm sorry but Mikan is too much behind regarding skillset. He couldn't even adept to play in the 24 second era of basketball and it doesn't take a mastermind to see how much the game has developed since his time.

[Duncan21formvp]

It's true. No other position has had a depth like this. I mean, all of them could go in any way from 1-5. Everyone's got a case
Don't think everyone has a case unless you use different criteria for each.

[oolalaa]

3. Russell
4. Abdul-jabbar


7. O'neal
8. Chamberlain


11. Olajuwon

[Round Mound]

1-Wilt
2-Kareem
3-Shaq
4-Hakeem
5-Russell * / I would Put Others That Had an Offensive Game Here till about Top 10-12

[oolalaa]

1-Wilt
2-Kareem
3-Shaq
4-Hakeem
5-Russell * / I would Put Others That Had an Offensive Game Here till about Top 10-12

I can see why you think so highly of barkley :lol

[Round Mound]

I can see why you think so highly of barkley :lol

Russell had a very poor offensive game. Even his assists where inflated since he played with 7 HOFs in his Prime and Their Primes. Russell is one of the Greatest Rebounders and Defenders but other than that he wasn`t a reliable Offensive Player

Barkley would destroy todays defenses

[oolalaa]

Russell had a very poor offensive game. Even his assists where inflated since he played with 7 HOFs in his Prime and Their Primes. Russell is one of the Greatest Rebounders and Defenders but other than that he wasn`t a reliable Offensive Player

Barkley would destroy todays defenses

Quick question:

Do you rank chuck over russell?

[ThaRegul8r]

Russell had a very poor offensive game. Even his assists where inflated since he played with 7 HOFs in his Prime and Their Primes. Russell is one of the Greatest Rebounders and Defenders but other than that he wasn`t a reliable Offensive Player

Barkley would destroy todays defenses

Quick question:

Do you rank chuck over russell?

A rather dumb question considering the difference in how he talks about Barkley versus how he talks about Russell. Anyone who's been here any length of time should know the answer (edit: I see you've only been here since June, so you can be forgiven). But:


1- MJ
2- Wilt
3- Kareem
4- Shaq
5- Hakeem
6- Bird
7- Big O
8- Barkley
9- Duncan
10-Magic

As you can see, Barkley's in his top ten and Russell isn't, so that should answer your question.

[L8kersfan222]

Who do current NBA players go to for help lets rank them by that

1.Dream
2.Kareem
3.Russell
4.Shaq
5.Wilt (that nikka dead)

easy

[Bigsmoke]

No Mikan? He isn't statistically as good as those guys, but we should criticize him according in his time.

Anyway, I agree the 5 guys you just mentioned are great player although Hakeem has no case to be in the top 5.

lol **** out of here

[Bigsmoke]

He was 31 by that time. He was nowhere near his prime. Too many people are underrating him, even the old ones here.

Rodman, Karl Malone, Manu, Nash, ect were all @ their best in there 30's:hammerhead:

[B]

prime shaq and prime hakeem>prime wilt. dont insult them putting wilt in the same class. wilt is in the class as a prime 01 matt geiger:facepalm Really you think this is a real argument Matt Gieger? No wonder people laugh at you

[Duncan21formvp]

Rodman, Karl Malone, Manu, Nash, ect were all @ their best in there 30's:hammerhead:
Nash yes, but the others I beg to differ. Malone is a possibility though.

[PTB Fan]

Don't think everyone has a case unless you use different criteria for each.

I have different criteria. Anyone can be regarded with GOAT if you take a look at their greatness in another way. You can't be wrong with anyone of them

[jlip]

Russell had a very poor offensive game. Even his assists where inflated since he played with 7 HOFs in his Prime and Their Primes. Russell is one of the Greatest Rebounders and Defenders but other than that he wasn`t a reliable Offensive Player

Barkley would destroy todays defenses

@ the underlined part...That's the equivalent of saying,
"MJ's scoring was inflated because he did not play with multiple 20ppg scorers and unlike other all time greats didn't have to share the scoring load providing him a license to lead not only his team but the entire league in field goals taken in almost every full and healthy season that he played."

How many people would ever make that argument?

BTW...Russell's best strech of assists came after 1965 when the number of Celtics hall of famers were at their least, and he was either at the end or past his prime.

[millwad]

@ the underlined part...That's the equivalent of saying,
"MJ's scoring was inflated because he did not play with multiple 20ppg scorers and unlike other all time greats didn't have to share the scoring load providing him a license to lead not only his team but the entire league in field goals taken in almost every full and healthy season that he played."

How many people would ever make that argument?

BTW...Russell's best strech of assists came after 1965 when the number of Celtics hall of famers were at their least, and he was either at the end or past his prime.


Are you serious?
Both Russell's and Wilt's assist numbers are inflated.
They played in an era where teams played at a faster pace. Faster pace leads to more field goal attempts per game and more FGA leads to more assist opportunities. And then no one should forget that neither of Russell or Wilt would average the same amount of minutes in later era's as they did in the their own era. Wilt even had a season where he averaged 48.5 minutes per game, like seriously..

If you look at PER 36 it gives a fair comparison of true passing skills, Wilt and Russell averaged around 1 more assist per game compared to Shaq and Hakeem while playing in an era with more FGA which leads to more assist opportunities.

And looking at playoff-average's regarding assists a guy like Hakeem is up there with Wilt and Russell when it comes to assists when it comes to assists/minutes which is the true indicator of actual passing skills and that is even though he played in an era with fewer FGA per game.

Both Russell's and Wilt's numbers are inflated compared to Shaq's and Hakeem's.

[jlip]

Are you serious?
Both Russell's and Wilt's assist numbers are inflated.
They played in an era where teams played at a faster pace. Faster pace leads to more field goal attempts per game and more FGA leads to more assist opportunities. And then no one should forget that neither of Russell or Wilt would average the same amount of minutes in later era's as they did in the their own era. Wilt even had a season where he averaged 48.5 minutes per game, like seriously..

If you look at PER 36 it gives a fair comparison of true passing skills, Wilt and Russell averaged around 1 more assist per game compared to Shaq and Hakeem while playing in an era with more FGA which leads to more assist opportunities.

And looking at playoff-average's regarding assists a guy like Hakeem is up there with Wilt and Russell when it comes to assists when it comes to assists/minutes which is the true indicator of actual passing skills and that is even though he played in an era with fewer FGA per game.

Both Russell's and Wilt's numbers are inflated compared to Shaq's and Hakeem's.

You do realize that assist numbers have actually increased in the modern era since the 60's...Right? Especially during the 80's and early 90's. The rules for acquiring assists have become far more lenient in the modern era. During the 60's the passer did not receive credit for an assist if the scorer dribbled the ball even once. Now a player can receive an assist if he passes the ball to half court and the scorer dribbles all the way to the basket.

The rule change mentioned above is the reason the highest apg avg. during the 60's was Oscar Robertson's 11.5 in '65, and it took him 45 mpg in a "faster" era to reach that number, but players like Magic, Isiah, Stockton, Nash, and CP3 have avg. anywhere between 11-14 apg game in the modern "slower" era in 39 minutes or less.

In the famed 1962 season with all of the gaudy scoring and rebounding stats, the assists seemed to have not recived the memo. The league avg. 118.8ppg, 107.7fga per game, and 23.9apg. The team that had the most assists that season was Oscar's Royals. They avg. 123.1ppg and 26.9apg.

In the "slower" '95 season, the season that Shaq and Hakeem met in the Finals, the league avg. a mere 101.4 ppg, a paltry 81.5 fga per game, but 23.3apg. Shaq's Magic led the league in assists. They avg. only 110.9ppg but 27.8apg (more than Oscar's Royals). Wait a minute...How does a league which scores 17ppg fewer and attempts 26 fewer shots per game, yet manage to have the avg. roughly the same number of assists per game? See the description above (and increased fg%).

BTW...In 1962, Oscar Robertson led the league in assists, and in 44 mpg he avg. 11.4apg. Only one other player even reached 8 apg. In 1995, Stockton in just 35 mpg led the league with 12.3apg. In that much "slower" paced league with significantly fewer shots, six other players avg. at least 8apg. If I went back to the 80's in which Hakeem played 5 full seasons, one would see that assist numbers were inflated even much more than the 90's.

Obviously there is more to getting assists than the number of shots taken and minutes played.

[G.O.A.T]

Are you serious?
Both Russell's and Wilt's assist numbers are inflated.
They played in an era where teams played at a faster pace. Faster pace leads to more field goal attempts per game and more FGA leads to more assist opportunities. And then no one should forget that neither of Russell or Wilt would average the same amount of minutes in later era's as they did in the their own era. Wilt even had a season where he averaged 48.5 minutes per game, like seriously..

If you look at PER 36 it gives a fair comparison of true passing skills, Wilt and Russell averaged around 1 more assist per game compared to Shaq and Hakeem while playing in an era with more FGA which leads to more assist opportunities.

And looking at playoff-average's regarding assists a guy like Hakeem is up there with Wilt and Russell when it comes to assists when it comes to assists/minutes which is the true indicator of actual passing skills and that is even though he played in an era with fewer FGA per game.

Both Russell's and Wilt's numbers are inflated compared to Shaq's and Hakeem's.

I find it truly amazing how little you know relative to how much you claim to.

[millwad]

You do realize that assist numbers have actually increased in the modern era since the 60's...Right? Especially during the 80's and early 90's. The rules for acquiring assists have become far more lenient in the modern era. During the 60's the passer did not receive credit for an assist if the scorer dribbled the ball even once. Now a player can receive an assist if he passes the ball to half court and the scorer dribbles all the way to the basket.


For guards, yes. For centers? Not at all.
Do you think it's a random happening that centers like Russell, Chamberlain, Thurmond, Unseld, Jabbar, Walton, Lanier, Cowens etc. had higher assist average than any modern era players? Since '85 the league have seen 4 out of the 10 greatest centers ever (according to many) in Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq and still the old school players are far superior when it comes to assist average.

Wilt Chamberlain even had a season where he averaged 8.6 assists per game which is even higher than the modern era average in assists for starting point guards and people claim that the assist numbers back in the days were not inflated. In that case you guys imply that he'd easily crack the 10 assist average per game in the modern era...

[millwad]

I find it truly amazing how little you know relative to how much you claim to.

Now reply to the comment under you, cutie.

[jlauber]

Are you serious?
Both Russell's and Wilt's assist numbers are inflated.
They played in an era where teams played at a faster pace. Faster pace leads to more field goal attempts per game and more FGA leads to more assist opportunities. And then no one should forget that neither of Russell or Wilt would average the same amount of minutes in later era's as they did in the their own era. Wilt even had a season where he averaged 48.5 minutes per game, like seriously..

If you look at PER 36 it gives a fair comparison of true passing skills, Wilt and Russell averaged around 1 more assist per game compared to Shaq and Hakeem while playing in an era with more FGA which leads to more assist opportunities.

And looking at playoff-average's regarding assists a guy like Hakeem is up there with Wilt and Russell when it comes to assists when it comes to assists/minutes which is the true indicator of actual passing skills and that is even though he played in an era with fewer FGA per game.

Both Russell's and Wilt's numbers are inflated compared to Shaq's and Hakeem's.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Hakeem's BEST season, using that RIDICULOUS per/36 stat, was 3.3 apg. Wilt had NINE seasons better than that putrid amount, including two of 6.2 and 6.6 apg per/36. And Russell had EIGHT. Of course, that stupid per/36 stat punishes players like Wilt and Russell, who ROUTINELY played 45+ mpg, and in an era of a slightly faster pace. Hakeem had ONE year, in EIGHTEEN seasons of over 40 mpg, and that was only 41 mpg (which, BTW, was STILL lower than Chamberlain's WORST season of 42.1.) AND, Wilt averaged 43.2 mpg in his LAST season, and THEN averaged 47.1 mpg in his 17 post-season games.

And, yes, Jlip is correct. Assists were much harder to come by in the 60's. In Hakeem's supposed best season, 94-94, the average NBA team had 2000 assists. In Wilt's HIGHEST assist season, 67-68, the average NBA team had 1873.

Incidently, from the quick research that I did, Wilt's '68 season of 8.6 apg, is nearly THREE apg higher than ANY other center who has played the game. Russell had a season of 5.8, Alvan Adams of 5.6, and Kareem at 5.4 apg.

Please, can you just do some kind of research??!!

[millwad]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Hakeem's BEST season, using that RIDICULOUS per/36 stat, was 3.3 apg. Wilt had NINE seasons better than that putrid amount, including two of 6.2 and 6.6 apg per/36. And Russell had EIGHT. Of course, that stupid per/36 stat punishes players like Wilt and Russell, who ROUTINELY played 45+ mpg, and in an era of a slightly faster pace. Hakeem had ONE year, in EIGHTEEN seasons of over 40 mpg, and that was only 41 mpg (which, BTW, was STILL lower than Chamberlain's WORST season of 42.1.) AND, Wilt averaged 43.2 mpg in his LAST season, and THEN averaged 47.1 mpg in his 17 post-season games.

And, yes, Jlip is correct. Assists were much harder to come by in the 60's. In Hakeem's supposed best season, 94-94, the average NBA team had 2000 assists. In Wilt's HIGHEST assist season, 67-68, the average NBA team had 1873.

Please, can you just do some kind of research??!!


You'll get that too.

For guards, yes. For centers? Not at all.
Do you think it's a random happening that centers like Russell, Chamberlain, Thurmond, Unseld, Jabbar, Walton, Lanier, Cowens etc. had higher assist average than any modern era players? Since '85 the league have seen 4 out of the 10 greatest centers ever (according to many) in Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq and still the old school players are far superior when it comes to assist average.

Wilt Chamberlain even had a season where he averaged 8.6 assists per game which is even higher than the modern era average in assists for starting point guards and people claim that the assist numbers back in the days were not inflated. In that case you guys imply that he'd easily crack the 10 assist average per game in the modern era...

[jlauber]

You'll get that too.

For guards, yes. For centers? Not at all.
Do you think it's a random happening that centers like Russell, Chamberlain, Thurmond, Unseld, Jabbar, Walton, Lanier, Cowens etc. had higher assist average than any modern era players? Since '85 the league have seen 4 out of the 10 greatest centers ever (according to many) in Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq and still the old school players are far superior when it comes to assist average.

Wilt Chamberlain even had a season where he averaged 8.6 assists per game which is even higher than the modern era average in assists for starting point guards and people claim that the assist numbers back in the days were not inflated. In that case you guys imply that he'd easily crack the 10 assist average per game in the modern era...

Easily. In fact, Wilt would have probably put up a triple-double every night, and, since the league would also include blocks, he would have had quite a few quad doubles too.

Once again, Chamberlain's 8.6 apg season was nearly THREE apg higher than ANY other center who has EVER played.

BTW, Vlade averaged 5.3 apg at age 35 in 03-04.

As for Hakeem, his career average of 2.5 apg speaks volumes about his passing.

[RRR3]

@Millwad,

Career assist percentages
Wilt: 15.8
Hakeem: 12.1


Whoops!!

[millwad]

Easily. In fact, Wilt would have probably put up a triple-double every night, and, since the league would also include blocks, he would have had quite a few quad doubles too.

Once again, Chamberlain's 8.6 apg season was nearly THREE apg higher than ANY other center who has EVER played.

BTW, Vlade averaged 5.3 apg at age 35 in 03-04.

As for Hakeem, his career average of 2.5 apg speaks volumes about his passing.

And still Hakeem during the playoffs has just as good assist/minute as Wilt... Wilt's assist numbers are inflated and you are really stupid if you think that Wilt would average anything close to 8.6 assists per games in the modern era.

[jlauber]

@Millwad,

Career assist percentages
Wilt: 15.8
Hakeem: 12.1


Whoops!!

And Hakeem's BEST season was 18.3. Wilt had seasons of 23.2 and 21.7. And once again, assists were harder to come by in the 60's.

[millwad]

@Millwad,

Career assist percentages
Wilt: 15.8
Hakeem: 12.1


Whoops!!

I never said Hakeem was a better passer, dude..
I said that Wilt's numbers a la assists, points and rebounds are inflated.

[millwad]

And Hakeem's BEST season was 18.3. Wilt had seasons of 23.2 and 21.7. And once again, assists were harder to come by in the 60's.

Not for centers, I just pointed out 8 guys who got higher career assist average per game than any center after '85...

[jlip]

For guards, yes. For centers? Not at all.
Do you think it's a random happening that centers like Russell, Chamberlain, Thurmond, Unseld, Jabbar, Walton, Lanier, Cowens etc. had higher assist average than any modern era players? Since '85 the league have seen 4 out of the 10 greatest centers ever (according to many) in Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq and still the old school players are far superior when it comes to assist average.

Wilt Chamberlain even had a season where he averaged 8.6 assists per game which is even higher than the modern era average in assists for starting point guards and people claim that the assist numbers back in the days were not inflated. In that case you guys imply that he'd easily crack the 10 assist average per game in the modern era...

OK. It seems as if you're really reaching now. Thurmond avg. a grand total of 2.7 apg for his career and peaked at 4.2 apg. There is absolutely nothing special about that. Lanier avg. 3.1 apg for his career and peaked at 4.6. Again...Nothing special. Unseld avg. 3.9 and peaked at 5.2. Cowens avg. 3.8 and peaked at 5.0. Those are not particularly mind blowing numbers.

Compare those numbers to David Robinson who avg. 2.5apg and peaked at 4.8apg (higher than Thurmond's career high.) Or how about 1 time all star center, Vlade Divac who avg. 3.1apg for his career and peaked at 5.3 in JUST 28.6 mpg! While being a power forward and not a center, it is worth noting that 7'0" Kevin Garnett is avg. 4.1 apg for his career and peaked at 6.0apg.

The reason players such as Wilt, Russell, and Walton avg. more assists is because the teams' offense was often run through them. Their passing was so good that it was actually essential to the team. It's the same reason Webber, Divac, and KG had high assist avg. for big men in the modern era. Their teams were often running their offenses through them as big men just as teams routinely did during the 60's and 70's. Teams don't play like that too often today. Players such as Hakeem and Ewing were never really known for their passing. Offensively, they were told to score.

As to Wilt's 8.6apg season...That was as much an aberration from the norm in '68 as it would be today. NO center was doing anything like that, so it can't be chalked up to "era." At some point you have to admit that Wilt was just special.

[jlauber]

OK. It seems as if you're really reaching now. Thurmond avg. a grand total of 2.7 apg for his career and peaked at 4.2 apg. There is absolutely nothing special about that. Lanier avg. 3.1 apg for his career and peaked at 4.6. Again...Nothing special. Unseld avg. 3.9 and peaked at 5.2. Cowens avg. 3.8 and peaked at 5.0. Those are not particularly mind blowing numbers.

Compare those numbers to David Robinson who avg. 2.5apg and peaked at 4.8apg (higher than Thurmond's career high.) Or how about 1 time all star center, Vlade Divac who avg. 3.1apg for his career and peaked at 5.3 in JUST 28.6 mpg! While being a power forward and not a center, it is worth noting that 7'0" Kevin Garnett is avg. 4.1 apg for his career and peaked at 6.0apg.

The reason players such as Wilt, Russell, and Walton avg. more assists is because the teams' offense was often run through them. Their passing was so good that it was actually essential to the team. It's the same reason Webber, Divac, and KG had high assist avg. for big men in the modern era. Their teams were often running their offenses through them as big men just as teams routinely did during the 60's and 70's. Teams don't play like that too often today. Players such as Hakeem and Ewing were never really known for their passing. Offensively, they were told to score.

As to Wilt's 8.6apg season...That was as much an aberration from the norm in '68 as it would be today. NO center was doing anything like that, so it can't be chalked up to "era." At some point you have to admit that Wilt was just special.

Excellent post.

Regarding Wilt... he also had ANOTHER season of 7.8 apg, and then in that same post-season, he averaged 9.2 apg over the course of his 15 playoff games. And, in that post-season, he had TWO series of 10.0 apg and 11.0 apg (which included a then playoff record of 19 assists in one game.)

Of course, how many other players have had a 20-20-20 game? 22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists in a game in 1968.

[millwad]

OK. It seems as if you're really reaching now. Thurmond avg. a grand total of 2.7 apg for his career and peaked at 4.2 apg. There is absolutely nothing special about that. Lanier avg. 3.1 apg for his career and peaked at 4.6. Again...Nothing special. Unseld avg. 3.9 and peaked at 5.2. Cowens avg. 3.8 and peaked at 5.0. Those are not particularly mind blowing numbers..


I didn't say the difference was huge, but it's a fact that the good centers back in the days averaged more assists per game compared to the one's of the modern era.


Compare those numbers to David Robinson who avg. 2.5apg and peaked at 4.8apg (higher than Thurmond's career high.) Or how about 1 time all star center, Vlade Divac who avg. 3.1apg for his career and peaked at 5.3 in JUST 28.6 mpg! While being a power forward and not a center, it is worth noting that 7'0" Kevin Garnett is avg. 4.1 apg for his career and peaked at 6.0apg. .


I missed Vlade and Garnett is a PF.



The reason players such as Wilt, Russell, and Walton avg. more assists is because the teams' offense was often run through them. Their passing was so good that it was actually essential to the team. It's the same reason Webber, Divac, and KG had high assist avg. for big men in the modern era. Their teams were often running their offenses through them as big men just as teams routinely did during the 60's and 70's. Teams don't play like that too often today. Players such as Hakeem and Ewing were never really known for their passing. Offensively, they were told to score..


KG and Webber are PF's still. And it wasn't just Russell, Wilt and Walton. Guys like Lanier, Cowens and Unseld still put up greater numbers. The assists from the center players has decreased since the 80's.


And you mentioned Hakeem, if you've watched him play during his back to backs the ball went through his hands basically at every possession 3.6 and god knows how many shots he created for his teammates and still we have guys like Unseld who had a career average higher than peak Hakeem. No center got the average of the some of those old school centers.



As to Wilt's 8.6apg season...That was as much an aberration from the norm in '68 as it would be today. NO center was doing anything like that, so it can't be chalked up to "era." At some point you have to admit that Wilt was just special.

Wilt was special but his numbers are still inflated, it doesn't matter if your name is Wilt, Russell or anyone else.. No center would average that amount of assists in the modern era. A center leading the league in assists? Get real. The guy had higher average that season then what the average starting PG got today. Are we supposed to believe that he was a better passer than them too?

[millwad]

Excellent post.

Regarding Wilt... he also had ANOTHER season of 7.8 apg, and then in that same post-season, he averaged 9.2 apg over the course of his 15 playoff games. And, in that post-season, he had TWO series of 10.0 apg and 11.0 apg (which included a then playoff record of 19 assists in one game.)

Of course, how many other players have had a 20-20-20 game? 22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists in a game in 1968.

Which is a proof of inflated stats.
His scoring is inflated and so is his rebounding and assists.

He was a great player, a GOAT candidate without no doubt but his numbers are misleading.

[oolalaa]

I'm not sure why you two guys (millwad and jlauber) are getting bogged down in assists totals.

The hardest stat to compare across the era's are assists. We know that assists were harder to come by in the 60s but we don't know, and never will know, how much harder. This is why it's a completely futile effort. Besides, just looking at the assists totals is flawed anyway, if your goal is to evaluate who the better playmaker was. You really need to watch the games for that.

Millwad, hakeem was a very good playmaking centre and a good passer but, from what ive seen, wilt was, if not by much, superior in this department. He was one of the most accurate passers form the centre position the league has seen and however you look at it, his 67' season was impressive.

With regards to who the better/greater overall center was: Both are ovarrated. Hakeem lost four consecutive 1st round playoff series in the late 80s/early 90s and then won his only 2 rings with the GOAT out of the league. How many rings would barkley/malone/drexler have if jordan retired a couple of years sooner or later? His peak was up there with the very best but he wasn't dominant for long enough.

We all know wilts weaknesses. Questionable leader, not a great teammate, poor 'in the clutch', selfish scorer in his first 7 seasons, 68' and 69' playoffs, didn't have a hyper competitve/winning is everything mentality.

With that being said, Wilt >>> hakeem...

[Big164]

They are all top 10 as well.

2. Wilt
3. Russell
6. Kareem
8. Shaq
10. Hakeem

[millwad]

I'm not sure why you two guys (millwad and jlauber) are getting bogged down in assists totals.

The hardest stat to compare across the era's are assists. We know that assists were harder to come by in the 60s but we don't know, and never will know, how much harder. This is why it's a completely futile effort. Besides, just looking at the assists totals is flawed anyway, if your goal is to evaluate who the better playmaker was. You really need to watch the games for that.

Millwad, hakeem was a very good playmaking centre and a good passer but, from what ive seen, wilt was, if not by much, superior in this department. He was one of the most accurate passers form the centre position the league has seen and however you look at it, his 67' season was impressive.

With regards to who the better/greater overall center was: Both are ovarrated. Hakeem lost four consecutive 1st round playoff series in the late 80s/early 90s and then won his only 2 rings with the GOAT out of the league. How many rings would barkley/malone/drexler have if jordan retired a couple of years sooner or later? His peak was up there with the very best but he wasn't dominat for long enough.

We all know wilts weaknesses. Questionable leader, not a great teammate, poor 'in the clutch', selfish scorer in his first 7 seasons, 68' and 69' playoffs, didn't have a hyper competitve/winning is everything mentality.

With that being said, Wilt >>> hakeem...

I pointed out why I think his 50 ppg season is overrated and I've always felt that his actual skillset doesn't translate in the stats he put up. We all get mislead by his stats due the era he played in.

Someone with that kind of dominance who only managed to win while having HOF:ers and all-stars by his side while letting someone else take over the scoring in the playoffs like he did both in '67 and '72. I still rank his '67 very high but I would never put his 2 titles as high as Hakeem's. First of all, he didn't dominate like Hakeem during his two title runs and by '72 he wasn't even the best center in the game and he was only his team's 4th best scorer.

Sure, his defense was still amazing but at the same time, Kareem averaged 40 points per game on 50% shooting against Wilt in the regular season of '72 while outscoring him with 23 points per game on better FG% in the playoffs. If some center would demolish Hakeem like that during his back-to-backs I'd rank that run lower too, especially if Hakeem would have had 3 guys scoring loads of points for his team in the playoffs.

I have never been impressed by Wilt's skillset when I've seen any footage of him, his postgame looks slow and clumsy, his shooting looks just pathetic, although his rebounding is amazing. His rebounding is really amazing, I have no doubt he'd lead any era in rebouding easily.

[oolalaa]

I pointed out why I think his 50 ppg season is overrated and I've always felt that his actual skillset doesn't translate in the stats he put up. We all get mislead by his stats due the era he played in.

Someone with that kind of dominance who only managed to win while having HOF:ers and all-stars by his side while letting someone else take over the scoring in the playoffs like he did both in '67 and '72. I still rank his '67 very high but I would never put his 2 titles as high as Hakeem's. First of all, he didn't dominate like Hakeem during his two title runs and by '72 he wasn't even the best center in the game and he was only his team's 4th best scorer.

Sure, his defense was still amazing but at the same time, Kareem averaged 40 points per game on 50% shooting against Wilt in the regular season of '72 while outscoring him with 23 points per game on better FG% in the playoffs. If some center would demolish Hakeem like that during his back-to-backs I'd rank that run lower too, especially if Hakeem would have had 3 guys scoring loads of points for his team in the playoffs.

I have never been impressed by Wilt's skillset when I've seen any footage of him, his postgame looks slow and clumsy, his shooting looks just pathetic, although his rebounding is amazing. His rebounding is really amazing, I have no doubt he'd lead any era in rebouding easily.


You are underrating his 67' campaign. It was one of the greatest seasons the league has ever seen and imo even better than either of hakeems title runs. A 24/24/8 on 68% in the reg season, followed by a 22/29/9 on 58% is ridiculously good. It was all the more impressive considering that he toppled the great celtic dynasty and dominated russell in the ECFs.

You're also being pretty harsh with regards to his 72' championship. He may have been the 4th highest scorer but he at worst their second best player. Some might consider him the best their best player because of the way west shot in the playoffs (not me though :lol west was the leader and playmaker of those early 70s laker teams). And don't forget, he was old and had a surgically repaired knee from 1970 onwards...

[32Dayz]

Top 5 Centers.

1. Shaq
2. Kareem
3. Duncan
4. Wilt
5. Hakeem

The Top 2 really aren't really debatable.


Examining Shaq vs Kareem.

Shaq was better over their first 5, 7, 10 seasons.
Even after 13 years Shaq still has the edge over Kareem.
Its only when you compare their 14 - 16th seasons does Kareem finally have an edge over Shaq (a small one)
and he has 2 extra post seasons although his production in those final two years was far from impressive so I am not sure that really aids his case if your comparing him to Shaq.

Shaq : Post Season - PER
Peak : 31
Top 5 : 30
Top 7 : 29.56
Top 10 : 28.52
Top 13 : 26.55
14th to 16th Season (Final 3 Seasons) - 18.33

Kareem : Post Season - PER
Peak : 32.4
Top 5 : 27.4
Top 7 : 25.64
Top 10 : 25.42
Top 13 : 24.7
14th to 16th Season (3 Seasons) - 20.9
Last 2 Seasons : 12.85 (26.65 MPG)

Shaq is > Kareem.

Kareem had better luck with supporting Casts but I dont think he was a better player.

I'm sure Shaq would have won 6+ Titles if he had Kareems luck with supporting Casts and he still has the edge in FMVP's 3>2.

MVP's are kind of a BS Award and I dont put any weight on them when comparing players.
Shaq was clearly the best player from 00-02 and I'd argue from 98-02 and in 05 also but he only has one.

I'd have given him the MVP in 95,98,99,00,01,02,05.

[G.O.A.T]

Top 5 Centers.

1. Shaq
2. Kareem
3. Duncan
4. Wilt
5. Hakeem

The Top 2 really aren't really debatable.

So what would Russell have to do that he didn't to crack your top five?

Did it occur to you that Duncan is not a center and that even if you believe he plays more like one, he will not be remembered or ranked as a center, ever.?

I ask these questions because your post really doesn't really make sense really.

[32Dayz]

Russell to me was like Hakeem but much weaker offensively.

Sorry but I dont think he would have a greater impact then Hakeem or Duncan in today's game so I dont think its logical to Rank him higher then them.

And yes Duncan isnt a C but he is "arguably" the 2nd best big of all time after Shaq.

I dont understand anyone who doesnt rank Shaq as the GOAT big considering he was by far the best playoff performer of any Center in the history of the game by a wide wide margin.

Only Jordan can surpass his production/impact over 5, 7, 10 and 13 year periods of time.

[G.O.A.T]

Russell to me was like Hakeem but much weaker offensively.

Sorry but I dont think he would have a greater impact then Hakeem or Duncan in today's game.

Why would that matter though, he didn't play in today's game.

What he did do though, always without exception is adjust his game to do what was needed for his team to win.

Also why include Wilt if Russell was the better player during their respective careers according to the vast majority of their contemporaries and both official NBA polls taken in 1970 and 1980?


I dont understand anyone who doesnt rank Shaq as the GOAT big considering he was by far the best playoff performer of any Center in the history of the game by a wide wide margin.

Cause it's not true. Russell was vastly superior to Shaq in the playoffs. You know the guy only lost once in 12 healthy postseasons right?

[32Dayz]

Because Wilt was a better player?

Things like "MVP Awards" and "Rings" are so heavily based upon luck, media bias, supporting casts and Era that's its just ignorant and stupid to use them in player comparisons.

Wilt was a better player then Russell so he is ranked higher. :cheers:

[32Dayz]

Cause it's not true. Russell was vastly superior to Shaq in the playoffs. You know the guy only lost once in 12 healthy postseasons right?

You know Rings are a "Team Accomplishment" right?

All I hear you saying is that Bill was better then Shaq because he played on better teams which were thus more successful.

Its just stupid to rank an individual based on a team accomplishment.

Bill Russell was not a better player then Wilt, Shaq, Jordan, Kareem, Hakeem or even Duncan and wont be ranked higher then them on my GOAT list.

Hell Robert Horry has 7 Rings and was a "Key" player in most of those teams so is he in the top 10 also?

Not comparing Bill to Horry but my point stands that Bill wasnt nearly the offensive force that the players I listed were and Bills Hakeem like defense is not enough to put him over Shaq if Hakeem himself isnt even close to Shaq on my list.

[G.O.A.T]

Hell Robert Horry has 7 Rings and was a "Key" player in most of those teams so is he in the top 10 also?

Not comparing Bill to Horry but my point stands that Bill wasnt nearly the offensive force that the players I listed were and Bills Hakeem like defense is not enough to put him over Shaq if Hakeem himself isnt even close to Shaq on my list.

You're point doesn't stand. That is literally the dumbest argument of all-time for basketball. It's common and I promise you anyone with any experience discussing this stuff rolls their eyes instantly.

Russell was his teams best player, leader and an MVP candidate every season. Horry was never better than a non-all-star #3 guy. Can you really not see the difference?

Russell's edge defensively over Shaq is greater than Shaqs advantage offensively over Russell. Russell dominated games and series with offense, the same can not be said to nearly the same degree pertaining to Shaq's defense. Russell was the greatest defensive player of all-time and led the greatest defensive team of all-time.


Because Wilt was a better player?

Things like "MVP Awards" and "Rings" are so heavily based upon luck, media bias, supporting casts and Era that's its just ignorant and stupid to use them in player comparisons.

Wilt was a better player then Russell so he is ranked higher. :cheers:

So would you say that Russell won more MVP's than Wilt because of media bias then?

And also why, if Wilt was better did two separate committees assigned by the NBA vote Russell the greatest player ever in 1970 and 1980?

[32Dayz]

lol I doubt Russell was significantly better then Hakeem defensively.

Yes Russell would be better then Shaq defensively but offensively the comparison ends.

Shaq was one of the best defensive centers of his generation and either the greatest or 2nd greatest offensive player/force after Jordan.

and didnt u read when I said you shouldn't compare Bill to Horry?
When your the leader of a team like those Celtics that win so much sure the media is gonna make u out to be some sort of demi-god but russell wasnt that good of a player. He was just a defensive beast and leader on a really stacked team that won alot.

[G.O.A.T]

lol I doubt Russell was significantly better then Hakeem defensively.

Of course he was. His teams dominated the NBA with defense like none have ever approached.


Yes Russell would be better then Shaq defensively but offensively the comparison ends.

Why? Did Shaq ever drop 30/40 in a game seven? Did Shaq ever average 20+ of nearly 70% from the field in the Finals? Does Shaq have the highest career postseason APG of any center all-time?

Shaq is clearly a better offensive player than Russell, but Russell was also capable of offensive greatness. He just understood what he did defensively had a greater impact on the outcome of the game.



When your the leader of a team like those Celtics that win so much sure the media is gonna make u out to be some sort of demi-god but russell wasnt that good of a player.

Interesting because the media didn't vote for MVP, the players did.



He was just a defensive beast and leader on a really stacked team that won alot.

Why did the team start winning titles right when he showed up and stopped right when he left?

[oolalaa]

You know Rings are a "Team Accomplishment" right?

All I hear you saying is that Bill was better then Shaq because he played on better teams which were thus more successful.

Its just stupid to rank an individual based on a team accomplishment.

Bill Russell was not a better player then Wilt, Shaq, Jordan, Kareem, Hakeem or even Duncan and wont be ranked higher then them on my GOAT list.

Hell Robert Horry has 7 Rings and was a "Key" player in most of those teams so is he in the top 10 also?

Not comparing Bill to Horry but my point stands that Bill wasnt nearly the offensive force that the players I listed were and Bills Hakeem like defense is not enough to put him over Shaq if Hakeem himself isnt even close to Shaq on my list.

Do you know what intangibles are?

Russell was...

-a leader (the best leader in the history of the nba and maybe any sport)
-a great teammate
-completely unselfih
-did whatever it took to win
-homicidally competitive
-he threw up before the majority of games (the thought of losing literally made him sick!!)

Shaq had goat potential. He just didn't care enough about, you know, winning.

Shaq was the modern day wilt. And Russell >>> wilt :lol

[jlauber]

I'm not sure why you two guys (millwad and jlauber) are getting bogged down in assists totals.

The hardest stat to compare across the era's are assists. We know that assists were harder to come by in the 60s but we don't know, and never will know, how much harder. This is why it's a completely futile effort. Besides, just looking at the assists totals is flawed anyway, if your goal is to evaluate who the better playmaker was. You really need to watch the games for that.

Millwad, hakeem was a very good playmaking centre and a good passer but, from what ive seen, wilt was, if not by much, superior in this department. He was one of the most accurate passers form the centre position the league has seen and however you look at it, his 67' season was impressive.

With regards to who the better/greater overall center was: Both are ovarrated. Hakeem lost four consecutive 1st round playoff series in the late 80s/early 90s and then won his only 2 rings with the GOAT out of the league. How many rings would barkley/malone/drexler have if jordan retired a couple of years sooner or later? His peak was up there with the very best but he wasn't dominant for long enough.

We all know wilts weaknesses. Questionable leader, not a great teammate, poor 'in the clutch', selfish scorer in his first 7 seasons, 68' and 69' playoffs, didn't have a hyper competitve/winning is everything mentality.

With that being said, Wilt >>> hakeem...

In the 67-68 playoffs, Wilt averaged 23.7 ppg, 24.7 rpg, 6.5 apg, and shot .534 from the floor (in a league that shot .446.) Against the Knicks front-line of Bellamy and Reed, he led BOTH teams in scoring, rebounding, AND assists (and the Knicks had Walt Frazier.) If you are referring to his ECF's, when he still put up a 22-25 series, he was playing that series with an ASSORTMENT of foot and leg injuries, including a partial tear in his right calf, a strained hamstring behind his knee, arthristis, and a bum toe...all of which had him NOTICEABLY limping from game three of that series thru the seventh and final game. Oh, and BTW, Wilt averaged 48.5 mpg in his 13 playoff games, too.

And while Wilt did not score much in the '69 post-season, it was not HIS fault. His incompetent coach shackled him, and instead preferred the blind shot-jacking of Elgin Baylor. Wilt averaged a paltry 10 FGAs per game in his 18 playoff games, and shot .545. Meanwhile, Baylor averaged 15.3 ppg on .385 shooting. And in straight games in the Finals, from game's three thru five, Baylor scored a TOTAL of 24 points...and two of the games were close losses.

Of course, Wilt dominated the glass against all of his opposing centers in the playoffs (wiping out Thurmond by four per game, and Russell by three.) And how can anyone blame WILT in that game seven, two point loss? He outscored Russell, 18-6; outshot Russell from the field, 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded Russell, 27-21. AND, Wilt's COACH left Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of that game, as well.

And please, give me some examples of Wilt "being poor in the clutch."

How about these games?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Incidently, you can add game five of the '60 ECF's (Philadelphia was down 3-1, so it was a must-win game), and he responded with a 50-35, on 22-42 shooting, game against Russell in a 128-107 win. Keep in mind that game was in his rookie season, and he faced a Celtic team with SEVEN HOFers.

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

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

[32Dayz]

Do you know what intangibles are?

Russell was...

-a leader (the best leader in the history of the nba and maybe any sport)
-a great teammate
-completely unselfih
-did whatever it took to win
-homicidally competitive
-he threw up before the majority of games (the thought of losing literally made him sick!!)

Shaq had goat potential. He just didn't care enough about, you know, winning.

Shaq was the modern day wilt. And Russell >>> wilt :lol

- Hard to judge leadership but Shaq was also a leader on 3 completely different teams that made the Finals his confidence and play on the court and personality meshed well with most of his teammates outside of Kobe.

- Shaq was beloved by pretty much every player he played with outside of Kobe.

-Shaq was one of the best passers ever from the C position and very effecient offensively. He has always made players around him better and made life easier on all of his supporting Casts due to his GOAT ability to attract defensive attention.

-Shaq played his heart out on the court and always played his hardest. Outside of 97 you cant find a single post season where he lost or won where he wasnt the best player on the court. You dont put up back to back 30/15 PSeasons and averaged 30/15/4/3+ in 3 consectuvie finals without being competitive and playing ur hardest and wanting to win.

-wow he threw up amazing.

-Shaq produced at a much higher level then Wilt and won twice as many rings and 3x FMVPs.

how many players have won more titles then Shaq as the leader? how many players have 3+ FMVPs in this Era?

Cmon.. Russell was a GOAT player and arguably the best Defender ever and he played his Role perfectly for those teams but he wasn't a better player then Shaq or Hakeem or Wilt due to his relative weakness to those players in comparison to them offensively.

[G.O.A.T]

-Shaq produced at a much higher level then Wilt and won twice as many rings and 3x FMVPs.

So rings matter when it serves your side of the argument, because Russ won three times as many rings as Shaq and had the award been given out, also three times as many finals MVP's.


how many players have won more titles then Shaq as the leader? how many players have 3+ FMVPs in this Era?

Duncan is a correct answer to both. Russell, Magic and Jordan would be too if you take ERA out of the picture.


Cmon.. Russell was a GOAT player and arguably the best Defender ever and he played his Role perfectly for those teams but he wasn't a better player then Shaq or Hakeem or Wilt due to his relative weakness to those players in comparison to them offensively.

Then why did he win more MVP's than all of them?

And again, why was he voted the greatest player ever by tow panels of experts a decade apart?

[32Dayz]

I dont know but I dont think his Defense was impactful enough that he'd be a better player then Shaq, Duncan or Wilt.

If you offered me Shaq or Russell to build around it'd be a pretty simple decision.

Hell its like.. Mutombo vs Duncan.. who you pick?

Mutombo is a better defensive player by a significant margin but I'd still take Duncan without thinking.

You cant build an offense around Russell, with Shaq you can and he'll still always be one of the best defensive Centers/Anchors in the league ontop of that.

[G.O.A.T]

If you offered me Shaq or Russell to build around it'd be a pretty simple decision.

I agree. Obviously you take the guy who never lost and was always in shape.


Hell its like.. Mutombo vs Duncan.. who you pick?

If Mutombo was a five-time MVP and won eight straight titles, yes, just like it.


You cant build an offense around Russell.

Unless you count the Celtics from 1964-1969 when they won 5 of 6 titles with the offense going through Russell.

I highly recommend you do a little research into Russell's career before you continue to assume you understand him.

[32Dayz]

I agree. Obviously you take the guy who never lost and was always in shape.



If Mutombo was a five-time MVP and won eight straight titles, yes, just like it.



Unless you count the Celtics from 1964-1969 when they won 5 of 6 titles with the offense going through Russell.

I highly recommend you do a little research into Russell's career before you continue to assume you understand him.

I'll take the most unstoppable offensive force of all time and arguably the GOAT offensive player who will always be one of the top 5 best defensive 2 way centers in the league over the best Defensive Center who is mediocre offensively.

#1 0ffense + Top 5 Defense > #1 Defense + Top 250 0ffense?

[G.O.A.T]

I'll take the most unstoppable offensive force of all time and arguably the GOAT offensive player who will always be one of the top 5 best defensive 2 way centers in the league over the best Defensive Center who is mediocre offensively.

You're not talking about Shaq or Russell here though.

You're take on both is wrong.

You don't really think Shaq is a top five defensive center do you?

Regardless, good luck to you here, but I don't think it's going to go well for you.

[32Dayz]

You're not talking about Shaq or Russell here though.

You're take on both is wrong.

You don't really think Shaq is a top five defensive center do you?

Outside of Hakeem there wasnt a single Center more impactful on the defensive end who could also produce "somewhat" like Shaq on the offense end.

Duncan was only slightly better defensively since he was more dedicated to help defense but the difference in overall defensive impact between the two was small.

So... you have Hakeem, Duncan, DRob... thats it.

Only other Centers who were better defensively were specialists like Mutombo and B.Wallace.

So yea.. from 93-05 he was always one of the best defenders in the entire league at his position and really in the entire league few players had a bigger impact defensively.

Shaq was a great defender one of the best ever at his position.

[BEAST Griffin]

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Shaquille O'Neal
3. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. Hakeem Olajuwon

[jlauber]

We all know that Russell was a worthless offensive player, especially in the post-season.

Sure, he had he two entire post-seasons of 22.4 ppg and 20.3 ppg, along with three other's of 19.1 ppg, 19.1 ppg, and 18.5 ppg. And yes, you could find a Finals in which he LED Boston in scoring at 23.6 ppg. Or another Finals in which he averaged 18 ppg and on... get this... .702 shooting from the field. And, I know, he had SEVERAL 30+ point games in the playoffs, including two back-to-back 30-30 games against Wilt in '62, and then a 30-40 game seven against the Lakers in the Finals (and the year before he had a clinching game six of 30-38 against LA in the Finals). But, c'mon...that doesn't prove a thing.

Nor does TEN post-seasons of 24.4+ rebounding, with a high of 29.9 rpg. Nor does SIX post-seasons of 5.0 apg, and a high of 6.3 apg.

And, take a look at defensive win shares, while you are at it...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_season.html

Yep. How could anyone rank that guy as a GOAT candidate?

And all of that comes before this... 11 titles in 13 seasons.

[32Dayz]

Its not that Russell was useless offensively.. but the difference in offensive ability between Shaq and Bill is 100x larger then the difference in their defensive ability.

:applause:

I dont see Russell being a #1 offensive option on any Title team from the last two decades.

[Pointguard]

I pointed out why I think his 50 ppg season is overrated and I've always felt that his actual skillset doesn't translate in the stats he put up. We all get mislead by his stats due the era he played in.
So answer this: Why did Wilt have so much separation? Something no other player could get in similar portions. Relativity has no exceptions - you can pretend its not there - but its there. You are totally in your right to question his skill set but to whom are you comparing them too? Passing, rebounding, blocking, fundamentals, activity, all around game, energy, timing and all around game he's pretty much just more proven there than other centers. Whose blueprint do you think these players are following? Who is the original dominator.



Sure, his defense was still amazing but at the same time, Kareem averaged 40 points per game on 50% shooting against Wilt in the regular season of '72 while outscoring him with 23 points per game on better FG% in the playoffs.
You know Wilt had shown signs of aging by this time and you bring it up a great deal. A year before Wilt outplays Kareem in the playoffs when when Wilt was averaging less than half of his prime? While Kareem was far above his scoring average in any other year of his career. Does that ever happen in any sport with a top five rank greatest? Wilt had affected all of Kareem's numbers in big fashion. Its a desperate move on your part to go for the older Wilt nine or ten times a month now. Do you think its fair?



I have never been impressed by Wilt's skillset when I've seen any footage of him, his postgame looks slow and clumsy.
Well you can't hold that belief and then then run the inflated possessions argument. Do you really think a guy could average 40ppg and 24rebounds over seven years being slow and clumsy? Take Shaq's best two years, Hakeems best three years and Kareems best two years and just add ten to their points and rebound totals and you got Wilt's prime. I'm not saying that to hype the stats, but to give you an idea of his activity level: If he was slow and clumsy how in the world did he pull that off?

[32Dayz]

Bill Russell has two Post Seasons where he cracked 20ppg.

Bill Russell Career Playoff FG% is .430% and he has shot over 50% in the playoffs only once in his entire career.

Bill Russell Career Playoff PPG is 16.0

Wow.. what an 0ffensive force. :facepalm

[G.O.A.T]

Bill Russell has two Post Seasons where he cracked 20ppg.

Bill Russell Career Playoff FG% is .430% and he has shot over 50% in the playoffs only once in his entire career.

Bill Russell Career Playoff PPG is 16.0

Wow.. what an 0ffensive force. :facepalm

How many times did it cost his team a title?

How many times when he needed to score for his team to win did he fail?

[32Dayz]

How many times did it cost his team a title?

How many times when he needed to score for his team to win did he fail?

When did I ever deny Bill Russells greatness?

He is a "GOAT" player and is high on my Top 10 GOAT List.

However as an individual player I dont think he is better then Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem or Wilt even when you account for his (I agree) amazing intangibles.

Sorry but being a great leader/passer whatever doesnt make up for such a glaring weakness (in comparison to Wilt/Shaq/Hakeem/Duncan) on the 0ffensive end.

I would not be happy building my offense around Bill.

I mean.. to be clear there aren't many players I'd rather build around but there are some for sure.

[G.O.A.T]

When did I ever deny Bill Russells greatness?

He is a "GOAT" player and is high on my Top 10 GOAT List.

However as an individual player I dont think he is better then Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem or Wilt even when you account for his (I agree) amazing intangibles.

What would he have needed to do differently to change your mind?

[Pointguard]

If you offered me Shaq or Russell to build around it'd be a pretty simple decision.



I agree. Obviously you take the guy who never lost and was always in shape.

:lol

Good One GOAT

[32Dayz]

What would he have needed to do differently to change your mind?

He would need to be better on the 0ffensive end.

The fact that he "stepped up" in key games to score definitly aids your argument but still.. those averages are so unimpressive.

I mean.. maybe he could have scored more if he was on a different less stacked team.. but even then if that was the case I'd expect his efficiency to be way higher.

I just cant pick Bill over those players I listed with the current impression I have of his 0ffensive ability.. and dont get me wrong I like Bill.

[G.O.A.T]

He would need to be better on the 0ffensive end.

The fact that he "stepped up" in key games to score definitly aids your argument but still.. those averages are so unimpressive.

I mean.. maybe he could have scored more if he was on a different less stacked team.. but even then if that was the case I'd expect his efficiency to be way higher.

I just cant pick Bill over those players I listed with the current impression I have of his 0ffensive ability.. and dont get me wrong I like Bill.

Fair enough, but I think Russell trying to score more would have hurt his team.

The fact that when his team needed him to he turned in all-time great offensive performances in the NBA Finals is enough for me. If Russell played in the modern era I'd think he'd be a much greater offensive force because that's what would have been required of him. During his career in college, the Olympics and the pros, he did whatever his team needed him to do for them to win.

As for the efficiency, when put into context it makes more sense. The Celtics ran one play for Russell between 1957 and 1962; the number six play, an alley-oop. After that they had two plays designed for him to get the ball and score.

Additionally, for his era, his percentages were among the top ten in the league often when he played the low post. From his rookie year until 1960 he was in the top five in FG% every season. After 1962 he moved to the high post as Boston started running their offense through Russell in the half court. He got very few shots in his range, mostly shooting when he couldn't find the right pass or the clock was winding down.

[jlauber]

So answer this: Why did Wilt have so much separation? Something no other player could get in similar portions. Relativity has no exceptions - you can pretend its not there - but its there. You are totally in your right to question his skill set but to whom are you comparing them too? Passing, rebounding, blocking, fundamentals, activity, all around game, energy, timing and all around game he's pretty much just more proven there than other centers. Whose blueprint do you think these players are following? Who is the original dominator.


You know Wilt had shown signs of aging by this time and you bring it up a great deal. A year before Wilt outplays Kareem in the playoffs when when Wilt was averaging less than half of his prime? While Kareem was far above his scoring average in any other year of his career. Does that ever happen in any sport with a top five rank greatest? Wilt had affected all of Kareem's numbers in big fashion. Its a desperate move on your part to go for the older Wilt nine or ten times a month now. Do you think its fair?


Well you can't hold that belief and then then run the inflated possessions argument. Do you really think a guy could average 40ppg and 24rebounds over seven years being slow and clumsy? Take Shaq's best two years, Hakeems best three years and Kareems best two years and just add ten to their points and rebound totals and you got Wilt's prime. I'm not saying that to hype the stats, but to give you an idea of his activity level: If he was slow and clumsy how in the world did he pull that off?

Wilt being SLOW and CLUMSY is laughable. There is footage of him BLOWING by his peers. And there is footage of him hitting shots from beyond 15ft, and an entire game in the '72 Finals where he is hitting 15 ft bank shots, and whirling around Knick defenders for reverse dunks...at age 35. There is a solid amount of game footage of the '62 All-Star game, where again, he is hitting shots up to 15+ ft. feet, and streaking past players from end-to-end. And we also have HOF Coach Red Holzman confirming all of that with a quote claiming that Wilt had a good outside game when he came into the league.

And for all of those that just look at Wilt's 61-62 season, and simply dismiss it because of pace and competition...how do they explain Wilt devouring the centers in the mid-60's, like his 65-66 season, when he averaged 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting (along with 24.6 rpg and 5.2 apg)...in leagues with Beaty, Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, and Russell? Or that Psileas posted a three game stretch that season against Thurmond and Russell, where he battered Thurmond twice with games of 45 and 33 points, and outscored and outrebounded Russell with a 31-40 game to Russell's 11-13.

Or at Wilt, who the very next season overwhelmed the NBA to the tune of 24.1 ppg, 24.2 rpg, 7.8 apg, and shot a mind-boggling .683, en route to perhaps the greatest season AND post-season (where he against crushed both Thurmond and Russell) in NBA history?

Or a Wilt in the '67-69 season who averaged 24.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, LED the league in assists, and with 8.6 apg, and who shot .595. And, BTW, just to show that he still could... put up the FOUR highest scoring games of the season (games of 52, 53, 53, and 68 points.)

Or a Wilt in the 68-69 season, even with an incompetent coach who despised him, and was limited to 14 FGAs per game, still unleashed a 17 game streak in which he averaged 31.1 ppg...which included games of 30 against HOFer and ROY Elvin Hayes; 33 against star player Bob Rule; 35 against Russell; and then 60 against Dierking, and a 66 point outburst against Jim Fox. He also had a game against MVP Unseld that season in which he outscored him, 25-4, and outrebounded him, 38-9.

Or a Wilt at the beginning of the 69-70 season, when he was averaging 32.2 ppg, 20 rpg, and shooting .600 in his first nine games. Games of 33, 35, 37 (against 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle), 38 against the reigning MVP Unseld, 42 (against Rule again), and 43 points. Oh, he also pounded rookie Kareem with a 25-25 9-14 game in which he outplayed Kareem in EVERY facet of the game. Unfortunately, Chamberlain shredded his knee in the ninth game, and was never the same. BUT, he still came back, only four months removed from major knee surgery (the same surgery which basically reduced Baylor to a shell for a full season...and that also included a five month layoff in between)... to put up games of 36 and 30 (along with 27 rebounds and 11 blocks) in the first round of the playoffs, en route to overcoming a 3-1 deficit, and then the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 FG%) which included a must-win game six performance of 45 points, 20-27 shooting, and 27 rebounds.

And you already mentioned the 70-71 playoffs, where a 34 year old Wilt, a year removed from major knee surgery, and playing in arguably his WORST season, battled a Kareem who may have had his greatest all-around statistical season (if you include the post-season) in TEN games (five in the regular season, and five in the post-season) to a statistical draw. In fact, Wilt played so well against Kareem, that in the clinching game five loss of the WCF's (and in a series without BOTH West and Baylor), as Wilt left the floor in the last minute, he received a standing ovation...and the game was played in MILWAUKEE.

Or a Wilt in his 71-72 season, when, despite only shooting about 9 FGAs during the season, still found time to average 29 ppg, and in five H2H games, against 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier, who would be among the best centers of the 70's. Included in those five games, was a 31-32 game against Lanier...which was one of TWO 30-30 games that Wilt had that season (the other was a 32-34 game against Philly.) Why is that significant? Because Kareem played in the same league with Wilt for four seasons, and then another 16 years afterwards...and he only had ONE 30-30 game in his entire career (while Wilt had 103 in his 14 seasons!) Or that Chamberlain reduced Kareem to a blind brick-layer in the '72 WCF's (.457 shooting, in a year in which he shot .574, ... and only .414 over the course of the last four games of that series.) And then Wilt, with TWO badly injured wrists, hung a 24 point, 29 rebound, 10-14 shooting clinching game five performance on the Knicks, en route to the FMVP.

Or a Wilt, at aged 36, and in his LAST season, LED the NBA in rebounding, was voted first team all-defense, and shot an unworldly .727 from the field. And in the post-season, he averaged 22.5 rpg (in a league that averaged 51.6 rpg) and in a remarkable 47.1 mpg over the course of those 17 playoff games. Or a Chamberlain who battled Kareem in six regular season H2H's, and held Kareem, who shot .554 against the league, to .450 shooting...while he, himself, shot .737 against Kareem (and he even outscored Kareem in one game, 24-21, while outshooting him, 10-14 to 10-27.) Or a Wilt, battering a Thurmond to the tune of outrebounding him by a 23.6 rpg to 17.2 rpg margin, and outshooting Nate, .550 to .392, in a crushing five game series against him in the WCF's. The same Thurmond who had held Kareem to a paltry 22.8 ppg on .428 shooting in the previous round, and who took his 47-35 Warriors to a stunning upset of Kareem's 60-22 Bucks. Or a Wilt, in his very LAST NBA game, scoring 23 points, on 9-16 shooting, with 21 rebounds?

And I have mentioned it many times before, but a PRIME scoring Wilt hung three games of 50+ on HOFer Reed, and several more of 40+, including a high game of 58. He also abused 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy to the tune of three 60+ point games, including an entire season of 55 ppg, and with a high game of 73 points. And Wilt, in his limited games against 6-11 HOFer Thurmond (in the 64-65 and 65-66 seasons) had several games of 30+ points, including that one game in the 65-66 season in which he outscored Nate, 45-13. He even had a 30 point game against Thurmond in his 66-67 season, in a year in which he only shot 14 FGAs per game (and in the second half of that game, he poured in 24 points against Thurmond.) And I already brought up Wilt's two games of 60+ in the 68-69 season, in a year in which he seldom shot the ball.

And yet, Kareem, who came into the league in the 69-70 season, never came close to putting up those mind boggling numbers against those players. He faced those guys numerous times too (my god, he battled Thurmond in 50+ H2H games, and his high game was only 34 points, and he rarely even scored 30 against him.) Nor did Kareem ever come close to Wilt's greatest scoring seasons, either, despite coming into the league only seven years after Wilt's 44.8 ppg season in 62-63.

And still, a 38 year old Kareem could hang two games of 40+ on Hakeem (and a 37 year old Kareem added yet another 40 point game against him), with a high game of 46 points, and on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes of play. In fact, over the course of five H2H games that season, he averaged 33 ppg on an eye-popping .634 against Hakeem. That 38 year old Kareem even had one game against Ewing in which he outscored him, 40-9, and outshot him, 15-22 to 3-17.

And Wilt dominated the likes of Bellamy, Embry, Reed, Lovellette, Unseld, Cowens, Hayes, Lanier, McAdoo, Lanier, Thurmond, Russell, and Kareem...all in the HOF.

But we are supposed to believe that Wilt was some clumsy oaf that dunked on helpless 6-6 white centers?

[amfirst]

I would have Duncan somewhere up there. Prime Duncan went toe and toe with Shaq + Kobe. That was not easy.

[millwad]

Regarding Wilt's "amazing" FT-shooting, the guy obviously had great impact from the FT-line but all nonsense about how he never hurt his teams with all those misses is just silly.

Only god knows how many games his teams lost due his horrible FT-shooting. We've all seen guys on ISH writing about how that's not true and how Chamberlain made more FT's than Larry Bird yadi yadi and that he made 28-32 FT'S against a horrible Knick team in the regular season in a game that they won easily...

Lets instead check key games in the FINALS where the outcome could have been different if Wilt wasn't so bad from the FT-line:

GAME 4, 1964 Finals.

Celtics 98 - Warriors 95 (Wilt only made 3-8 FT's)

Game 3, 1967 Finals

Warriors 130 - 76ers 124 (Wilt only made 2-9 FT's)

Game 5, 1967 Finals

Warriors 117 - 76ers 109 (Wilt only made 2-12 FT's)

Game 3, 1969 Finals

Celtics 111 - Lakers 105 (Wilt only made 4-11 FT's)

Game 4, 1969 Finals

Celtics 89 - Lakers 88 (Wilt only made 2-11 FT's, they lost with 1 freaking point and Wilt missed 9 FT's while only making 2 of them.

Game 7, 1969 Finals

Celtics 108 - Lakers 106 (Wilt only made 4-13 FT's in a GAME 7 in the finals where they lost with 2 points...)

Game 3, 1970 Finals

Knicks 111 - Lakers 108 (Wilt only made 7-13 FT's)

Game 7, 1970 Finals

Knicks 113 - Lakers 99 (Wilt only made 1-11 FT's)

Game 2, 1973 Finals

Knicks 99 - Lakers 95 (Wilt only made 1-9 FT's)



And notice that Wilt during the '67 finals ONLY made 22 out of 72 FT's
In the '70 finals Wilt ONLY made 23 out of 67 FT's
In the '69 finals Wilt ONLY made 24 out of 66 FT's
In the '64 finals Wilt ONLY made 22 out of 48 FT's..


And these games are obviously only from the finals, the amount of losses in the regular season's and earlier rounds of the playoffs due his horrible FT-shooting would sure thing be an interesting fact to know. But sure, lets act like Wilt was the most clutch player ever and that he was an amazing shooter with great FT-shooting skills..

[32Dayz]

lol at this queer troll. phuck off to realgm. oh wait u got banned there andrews, 34Dayz and 230MVP.

http://th244.photobucket.com/albums/gg12/ChrisCBX/Kobe%20Bryant/th_Kobe-u-mad.jpg

[jlauber]

GAME 4, 1964 Finals.

Celtics 98 - Warriors 95 (Wilt only made 3-8 FT's)

Wilt 27 points and 38 rebounds
Russell 8 points


Game 3, 1967 Finals

Warriors 130 - 76ers 124 (Wilt only made 2-9 FT's)

Wilt 26 points on 12-23 shooting with 26 rebounds.
Thurmond 17 points on 6-13 shooting with 25 rebounds

Oh and BTW, your high-scoring boy Hal Greer... 6-19 from the floor



Game 5, 1967 Finals

Warriors 117 - 76ers 109 (Wilt only made 2-12 FT's)

Wilt 20 points on 9-15 shooting with 24 rebounds
Thurmond 17 points on 7-21 shooting with 28 rebounds (the only game in which he outrebounded Wilt in that six game series.

BTW, take Wilt's 9-15 from the floor away, and his teammates shot 38-104, or .365



Game 3, 1969 Finals

Celtics 111 - Lakers 105 (Wilt only made 4-11 FT's)

L.A. fails to rally in the 4th in large part due to Jerry West & Elgin Baylor shooting a combined 1-14 from the floor in the period.



Game 4, 1969 Finals

Celtics 89 - Lakers 88 (Wilt only made 2-11 FT's, they lost with 1 freaking point and Wilt missed 9 FT's while only making 2 of them.

L.A. had the ball leading 88-87 with 15 seconds left. John Egan had the ball stolen by Em Bryant.



Game 7, 1969 Finals

Celtics 108 - Lakers 106 (Wilt only made 4-13 FT's in a GAME 7 in the finals where they lost with 2 points...)

Wilt, on the bench in the last five minutes of game seven because of his idiotic COACH...outscores Russell, 18-6, outshoots Russell from the floor, 7-8 to 2-7, outscores Russell from the line, 4-2, and outrebounds Russell, 27-21. BTW, Wilt's "replacement" in those last five minutes, Mel Counts, shot 4-13 from the floor.



Game 3, 1970 Finals

Knicks 111 - Lakers 108 (Wilt only made 7-13 FT's)

Wilt with 21 points on 7-10 shooting with 26 rebounds. Baylor with 13 points on 4-13 shooting.



Game 7, 1970 Finals

Knicks 113 - Lakers 99 (Wilt only made 1-11 FT's)

Wilt with 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, and 24 rebounds. The rest of the Lakers collectively shoot 28-67 or .418 from the floor. BTW, the game was over at halftime when NY led 69-42. Wilt was the ONLY Laker to play well in that game.



Game 2, 1973 Finals

Knicks 99 - Lakers 95 (Wilt only made 1-9 FT's)

Chamberlain scores 5 points, on 2-4 shooting, with 20 rebounds. Goodrich shoots 5-15 and McMillian shoots 7-24 from the floor.



(And notice that Wilt during the '67 finals ONLY made 22 out 72 FT's..)

And he OVERWHELMED Thurmond in the process, outscoring him per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outrebounding him per game, 28.5 rpg to 26.6 rpg; and outshooting him from the field by an eye-popping .560 to .343 margin. BTW, give me a list of opposing centers who shot .560 against Thurmond in the playoffs. We KNOW that Kareem faced Nate in three straight playoff series and shot .486, .405, and .428 against him.

Oh, and Philly wiped out the Warriors to WIN the NBA title. And all Wilt did in that post-season was average 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and shoot .579 from the floor. And blowing up Russell and Thurmond along the way.

[jlauber]

And these games are obviously only from the finals, the amount of losses in the regular season's and earlier rounds of the playoffs due his horrible FT-shooting would sure thing be an interesting fact to know. But sure, lets act like Wilt was the most clutch player ever and that he was an amazing shooter with great FT-shooting skills..




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Incidently, you can add game five of the '60 ECF's (Philadelphia was down 3-1, so it was a must-win game), and he responded with a 50-35, on 22-42 shooting, game against Russell in a 128-107 win. Keep in mind that game was in his rookie season, and he faced a Celtic team with SEVEN HOFers.

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

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


And, as you well know, in Wilt's first six post-seasons, he took two teams to game sevens against the greatest dynasty in major professional sports history, losing them by 2 and 1 point. And, he also took a team that had been 31-49 the year before, to a 48-32 record and a trip to the Finals, where they lost two games in the final seconds, and the series, 4-1 to Russell and his SEVEN other HOF teammates.

BTW, how much help did Wilt get in those first six post-seasons? His teammates shot .382, .380, .354, .352, .352, and even .332.

[jlauber]

Hakeem shot .500 in one Finals, .478 in another (in a six game loss, including a 106-103 loss in a game in which he shot 8-21), and .483 against Shaq...who, BTW, shot a mind-numbing .595 against him (as well as outrebounded, outassisted, and outblocked him.) Collectively he shot .488 in his 17 Finals games.

Wilt had Finals of .625, .600, and .560 among his six Finals, and his lowest FG% was .517 against Russell in a series in which he outscored Russell, per game, 29-11, and outrebounded Russell, per game, 27-25. Oh, and while we don't know what Russell shot in that series, we do know that Russell shot .356 in his 10 post season games, and five were against Wilt. Collectively, Wilt shot .560 in his 35 Finals games. He was NEVER outshot in any of them, either, much less by a .595 to .483 margin. And he was outshooting his opposing centers by margins of .625 to .483, and .560 to .343.

Oh, and Wilt was not only NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his six Finals, he was seldom even outrebounded in single GAMES in those 35 Finals games.

[32Dayz]

Yea.. the more I here about Wilt the more I respect his rebounding and defensive ability.

Dude was definitly a beast on the boards and probably a pretty good shotblocker although I have no direct evidence of him being a good blocker.

[jlauber]

Yea.. the more I here about Wilt the more I respect his rebounding and defensive ability.

Dude was definitly a beast on the boards and probably a pretty good shotblocker although I have no direct evidence of him being a good blocker.

SI ran an article after a game in the '68 season in which Wilt blocked a RECORDED 23 shots.

Harvey Pollack, the game's pre-eminent statistician had educated estimates of Wilt with 10+ bpg SEASONS.

Wilt also had a RECORDED quad-double game in game one of the '67 ECF's (and against Russell) with a 24-32-13-12 game.

[32Dayz]

Yea... he had great length and good hops in his younger days I am sure he was great at blocking shots.

Not sure he would get 10 per game but I could see 3-5 maybe.

[millwad]

GAME 4, 1964 Finals.

Celtics 98 - Warriors 95 (Wilt only made 3-8 FT's)

Wilt 27 points and 38 rebounds
Russell 8 points


Game 3, 1967 Finals

Warriors 130 - 76ers 124 (Wilt only made 2-9 FT's)

Wilt 26 points on 12-23 shooting with 26 rebounds.
Thurmond 17 points on 6-13 shooting with 25 rebounds

Oh and BTW, your high-scoring boy Hal Greer... 6-19 from the floor



Game 5, 1967 Finals

Warriors 117 - 76ers 109 (Wilt only made 2-12 FT's)

Wilt 20 points on 9-15 shooting with 24 rebounds
Thurmond 17 points on 7-21 shooting with 28 rebounds (the only game in which he outrebounded Wilt in that six game series.

BTW, take Wilt's 9-15 from the floor away, and his teammates shot 38-104, or .365



Game 3, 1969 Finals

Celtics 111 - Lakers 105 (Wilt only made 4-11 FT's)

L.A. fails to rally in the 4th in large part due to Jerry West & Elgin Baylor shooting a combined 1-14 from the floor in the period.



Game 4, 1969 Finals

Celtics 89 - Lakers 88 (Wilt only made 2-11 FT's, they lost with 1 freaking point and Wilt missed 9 FT's while only making 2 of them.

L.A. had the ball leading 88-87 with 15 seconds left. John Egan had the ball stolen by Em Bryant.



Game 7, 1969 Finals

Celtics 108 - Lakers 106 (Wilt only made 4-13 FT's in a GAME 7 in the finals where they lost with 2 points...)

Wilt, on the bench in the last five minutes of game seven because of his idiotic COACH...outscores Russell, 18-6, outshoots Russell from the floor, 7-8 to 2-7, outscores Russell from the line, 4-2, and outrebounds Russell, 27-21. BTW, Wilt's "replacement" in those last five minutes, Mel Counts, shot 4-13 from the floor.



Game 3, 1970 Finals

Knicks 111 - Lakers 108 (Wilt only made 7-13 FT's)

Wilt with 21 points on 7-10 shooting with 26 rebounds. Baylor with 13 points on 4-13 shooting.



Game 7, 1970 Finals

Knicks 113 - Lakers 99 (Wilt only made 1-11 FT's)

Wilt with 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, and 24 rebounds. The rest of the Lakers collectively shoot 28-67 or .418 from the floor. BTW, the game was over at halftime when NY led 69-42. Wilt was the ONLY Laker to play well in that game.



Game 2, 1973 Finals

Knicks 99 - Lakers 95 (Wilt only made 1-9 FT's)

Chamberlain scores 5 points, on 2-4 shooting, with 20 rebounds. Goodrich shoots 5-15 and McMillian shoots 7-24 from the floor.



(And notice that Wilt during the '67 finals ONLY made 22 out 72 FT's..)

And he OVERWHELMED Thurmond in the process, outscoring him per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outrebounding him per game, 28.5 rpg to 26.6 rpg; and outshooting him from the field by an eye-popping .560 to .343 margin. BTW, give me a list of opposing centers who shot .560 against Thurmond in the playoffs. We KNOW that Kareem faced Nate in three straight playoff series and shot .486, .405, and .428 against him.

Oh, and Philly wiped out the Warriors to WIN the NBA title. And all Wilt did in that post-season was average 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and shoot .579 from the floor. And blowing up Russell and Thurmond along the way.

What's wrong with you?
I crushed the myth you've tried to build up regarding Wilt and his horrible FT-shooting. I didn't question his overall game during the finals so breath. I questioned his horrible FT%. He was a liability from the FT-line, end of discussion, spam all you want about him making more FT's than Bird and Wilt making 28-32 FT's in a regular season game, he was still a horrible FT-shooter and a great liability from the FT-line.

No need to put up a full essay with excuses a la "L.A. had the ball leading 88-87 with 15 seconds left. John Egan had the ball stolen by Em Bryant" in a game LA lost with 1 point while Wilt only made 2-11 FT's. Em Bryant loosing the ball doesn't work as an excuse for Wilt's horrible FT-shooting. The guy wasn't exactly clutch from FT-line...

Fact still remains that Wilt would have won more rings if he wouldn't have been so crappy from the FT-line so the nonsense about him and FT's is something you need to stop with.

[jlauber]

What's wrong with you?
I crushed the myth you've tried to build up regarding Wilt and his horrible FT-shooting. I didn't question his overall game during the finals so breath. I questioned his horrible FT%. He was a liability from the FT-line, end of discussion, spam all you want about him making more FT's than Bird and Wilt making 28-32 FT's in a regular season game, he was still a horrible FT-shooter and a great liability from the FT-line.

No need to put up a full essay with excuses a la "L.A. had the ball leading 88-87 with 15 seconds left. John Egan had the ball stolen by Em Bryant" in a game LA lost with 1 point while Wilt only made 2-11 FT's. Em Bryant loosing the ball doesn't work as an excuse for Wilt's horrible FT-shooting. The guy wasn't exactly clutch from FT-line...

Fact still remains that Wilt would have won more rings if he wouldn't have been so crappy from the FT-line so the nonsense about him and FT's is something you need to stop with.

Let's make this simple for the simple-minded...

Wilt's IMPACT at the FT line...

Chamberlain's teams played 35 Finals games, and they OUTSCORED their opponents, from the LINE, 26-6 with three ties (yes a 26-6-3 edge!) And, I didn't take the time to post the entire totals, but MANY of those 26 games were by DOUBLE-DIGIT MARGINS...some by over TWENTY POINTS!

And one more time... Wilt's 68-69 Lakers LED the NBA in FTAs. In the 69-70 season, Wilt was injured early, and missed 70 games. The result? The Lakers finished ELEVENTH in a 14 team league. BUT, he returned for the playoffs, and the Lakers attempted 200 MORE FTs than the nearest playoff team. Furthermore, in the '70 Finals, in a seven game series against the Knicks, the Lakers took 256 FTAs to the Knicks 160, AND, the Lakers MADE 176 to the Knicks 122. So, in that seven game series, they averaged 14 MORE FTAS PER GAME, and they MADE 8 MORE FTS PER GAME.

[millwad]

Let's make this simple for the simple-minded...

Wilt's IMPACT at the FT line...

Chamberlain's teams played 35 Finals games, and they OUTSCORED their opponents, from the LINE, 26-6 with three ties (yes a 26-6-3 edge!) And, I didn't take the time to post the entire totals, but MANY of those 26 games were by DOUBLE-DIGIT MARGINS...some by over TWENTY POINTS!

What is wrong with you? I am seriously starting to doubt that your mind is really working the way it should.

I am talking about FT% and his very costly FT-misses in close games in the finals and look at your stupid replies..

Players who can't be trusted from the FT-line, like Wilt, obviously gets fouled more, why is that so hard to comprehend? Why is it so hard to admit that Wilt's terrible FT-shooting costed his teams alot from time to time? I didn't question his whole game, but his FT-shooting was horrible.

[jlauber]

What is wrong with you? I am seriously starting to doubt that your mind is really working the way it should.

I am talking about FT% and his very costly FT-misses in close games in the finals and look at your stupid replies..

Players who can't be trusted from the FT-line, like Wilt, obviously gets fouled more, why is that so hard to comprehend? Why is it so hard to admit that Wilt's terrible FT-shooting costed his teams alot from time to time? I didn't question his whole game, but his FT-shooting was horrible.

What in the HELL is wrong with YOU! Don't you realize that BECAUSE of Chamberlain, his TEAM's were OUTSCORING their opponents by a HUGE MARGIN from the LINE?

I posted it above...take Wilt away from those Laker teams, and they were among the WORST team's in the league in SCORING from the LINE. Put Wilt back in the lineup, and they MASSIVELY OUTSCORED their opponents from the LINE.

WHY?????

[millwad]

What in the HELL is wrong with YOU! Don't you realize that BECAUSE of Chamberlain, his TEAM's were OUTSCORING their opponents by a HUGE MARGIN from the LINE?

I posted it above...take Wilt away from those Laker teams, and they were among the WORST team's in the league in SCORING from the LINE. Put Wilt back in the lineup, and they MASSIVELY OUTSCORED their opponents from the LINE.

WHY?????

What do you prefer? Scoring from the line on HORRIBLE % or not scoring from the line? How do you stop a horrible FT-shooter? By fouling him.

That is simple logic and fact still remains that Wilt's FT% costed him alot in the finals. Learn the difference between quality and quantity.

If my team played a close game I would rather kill myself than putting a guy like this on the FT-line: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITxDdnzpnU8

[Legends66NBA7]

Good to see the best rivalry on ISH has not lost a beat while I was in limbo/hiatus.

[Pointguard]

Yea... he had great length and good hops in his younger days I am sure he was great at blocking shots.

Not sure he would get 10 per game but I could see 3-5 maybe.
Seriously, that number sounds like the regular on Kareem's skyhooks in '72 in the playoffs, much less everybody else. Which I think he would likely get everybody else twice as much.

[Pointguard]

What is wrong with you? I am seriously starting to doubt that your mind is really working the way it should.

I am talking about FT% and his very costly FT-misses in close games in the finals and look at your stupid replies..

Players who can't be trusted from the FT-line, like Wilt, obviously gets fouled more, why is that so hard to comprehend? Why is it so hard to admit that Wilt's terrible FT-shooting costed his teams alot from time to time? I didn't question his whole game, but his FT-shooting was horrible.
Millwad, you can't isolate overall impact. FT% is not greater than FT impact. If Wilt puts his team in a situation to outscore other teams with FT's then his impact is beyond his own %. For instance Dirk is known for being incredibly clutch despite shooting 37.5% from the field in the last three games of the finals. But no-one will doubt his impact because he got others free shots.

Four (Wilt, Russell, Shaq, Duncan) out of the eight greatest of all time were poor free throw shooters, Hakeem and Kareem were mediocre. Three out of the top four centers, poor free throw shooters all of the top centers were at best mediocre. In most cases the majority of the top ten greatest were not good free throw shooters. Wilt was the worse FT shooter but his overall impact there was arguably the greatest. Two really important things here. One FT shooting is a weak argument to begin with, it shouldn't even be in the argument. Two, which one of them had an angle to impact the game from there in other ways? Wilt and Shaq most definitely did. Wilt's teammates had an advantage there a great majority of the time because of Wilt. They also were relatively league leaders in FG%. If you are talking centers you are talking FG%. The universal weakness is FT percentage - the universal strength is usually FG%.

Centers are about protecting the rim, blocking, rebounding, around the basket duties, posting, passing out of the double, defense, manning the middle, making their presence known. Yet every weak you are bringing up FT%. So just a head

[Pointguard]

Or a Wilt in the '67-69 season who averaged 24.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, LED the league in assists, and with 8.6 apg, and who shot .595. And, BTW, just to show that he still could... put up the FOUR highest scoring games of the season (games of 52, 53, 53, and 68 points.)

While being a strong defensive presence!

Can you imagine how many triple doubles he had that year. And if they counted assist like they do now he would have averaged a triple double and probably seven blocked shots per game.

[jlauber]

While being a strong defensive presence!

Can you imagine how many triple doubles he had that year. And if they counted assist like they do now he would have averaged a triple double and probably seven blocked shots per game.

Yeah...and he LED the NBA in 12 of their 23 statistical categories that season, as well as finishing in the Top-5 in 19 of them. And given the fact that he ran away with the rebounding title, had the NBA kept offensive and defensive rebounds, and rebound percentage, and blocked shots,... he would have probably LED the NBA in FOUR more categories. He was MILES ahead in Win Shares, and was even the solid leader in Defensive Win Shares. And, he led the Sixers to the BEST RECORD in the league.

[Rooster]

SI ran an article after a game in the '68 season in which Wilt blocked a RECORDED 23 shots.

Harvey Pollack, the game's pre-eminent statistician had educated estimates of Wilt with 10+ bpg SEASONS.

Wilt also had a RECORDED quad-double game in game one of the '67 ECF's (and against Russell) with a 24-32-13-12 game.


Wilt was counting his own points, rebounds, assists, and block shots .

And verify with Pollack to verify his numbers.

True definition of a STAT PADDER.

[nycelt84]

Harvey Pollack also worked for Philadelphia as a publicist. I take his numbers no differently than all the other stats guys who worked for different teams in those days.

[Psileas]

Wilt was counting his own points, rebounds, assists, and block shots .

And verify with Pollack to verify his numbers.

True definition of a MODERN SUPERSTAR.

Fixed.

[ThaRegul8r]

Wilt was counting his own points, rebounds, assists, and block shots .

And verify with Pollack to verify his numbers.

True definition of a MODERN SUPERSTAR.

Fixed.

I find this kinda funny, because people act like Jordan didn't used to do the same thing:


Jordan, like most players in the league, studied his statistics, for that was, in the end, how players were paid. Play as a team, they were told; but in negotiating sessions, statistics were always held up as the barometer of value. It was hard to find an NBA player who did not know his current statistics, and those of most of the players in the league. During the 1988-89 season, when Collins switched Jordan to point guard, he started picking up triple-doubles, and it became something of a contest to see how many he could get and whether he could pass Magic Johnson, who usually led the league in that category. For several games, Jordan would check with the official scorer during the game to see how many more rebounds or assists he needed for another triple double; it only stopped when the league got word and ordered the scorer to refrain from giving out the information during the game. But Jordan has always kept his point totals in his head as he's played: Late in the 1989-90 season, during a time-out in a close game, the overhead scoreboard in Chicago Stadium listed Jordan's point total as 38. "Go tell them it's got to be thirty-nine," Jordan told trainer Mark Pfeil. "I know I shot an odd number of free throws, so it's got to be an odd number."


Yet I don't hear any talk anymore that Jordan was a stats-padder. They either have amnesia, or they aren't old enough to have lived through the era.

[Vien]

Are you serious?
Both Russell's and Wilt's assist numbers are inflated.
They played in an era where teams played at a faster pace. Faster pace leads to more field goal attempts per game and more FGA leads to more assist opportunities. And then no one should forget that neither of Russell or Wilt would average the same amount of minutes in later era's as they did in the their own era. Wilt even had a season where he averaged 48.5 minutes per game, like seriously..

If you look at PER 36 it gives a fair comparison of true passing skills, Wilt and Russell averaged around 1 more assist per game compared to Shaq and Hakeem while playing in an era with more FGA which leads to more assist opportunities.

And looking at playoff-average's regarding assists a guy like Hakeem is up there with Wilt and Russell when it comes to assists when it comes to assists/minutes which is the true indicator of actual passing skills and that is even though he played in an era with fewer FGA per game.

Both Russell's and Wilt's numbers are inflated compared to Shaq's and Hakeem's.
Jesus man, please stop the hate. You are one of the most annoying posters in this forum, with all these hate posts and shit. Comparing you with all the trolls make them seem bearable.

Really man, PER/36 for Wilt? If ever he should be applauded for actually being able to play 48.5 MPG. Superstars today would definitely complain about fatigue for that sort of thing. Jeezus. These are the times in which people actually get to side with jlauber. Just.. stop.

[millwad]

Jesus man, please stop the hate. You are one of the most annoying posters in this forum, with all these hate posts and shit. Comparing you with all the trolls make them seem bearable.

Really man, PER/36 for Wilt? If ever he should be applauded for actually being able to play 48.5 MPG. Superstars today would definitely complain about fatigue for that sort of thing. Jeezus. These are the times in which people actually get to side with jlauber. Just.. stop.

Haha, how cute to use an alternative-account, what is your real account?
It's no hate and no one forces you to read anything at all.

And yes, per 36 is a good way to see how productive players are compared to each other, especially when comparing one era to another. In the modern era no player would play the amount of minutes some of the guy's in the 60's and it's not because the old school players are better trained..

It's not only Wilt who played extreme minutes (even during blow-out's he stayed on the court), a guy like Thurmond had 8 seasons where he played more than 40 minutes per game, Russell had 10 seasons with more than 40 minutes per game average, West had 7 seasons with more than 40 minutes per game average etc.Of course they deserve credit for being to able to play the minutes they played but it doesn't matter even how trained you are, in the modern era of basketball those kind of minutes is not a possibility. Comparing players to players with PER 36 is a good way to determine productivity and skillset.

Again, it's not only Wilt among the stars of the 60's who played more minutes than today's stars, so by your logic the stars of the 60's had greater fatigue than the players today...

[JMT]

Fact still remains that Wilt would have won more rings if he wouldn't have been so crappy from the FT-line so the nonsense about him and FT's is something you need to stop with.


Shaq fan?

[millwad]

Shaq fan?

Not really.

[Vien]

Haha, how cute to use an alternative-account, what is your real account?
It's no hate and no one forces you to read anything at all.

And yes, per 36 is a good way to see how productive players are compared to each other, especially when comparing one era to another. In the modern era no player would play the amount of minutes some of the guy's in the 60's and it's not because the old school players are better trained..

It's not only Wilt who played extreme minutes (even during blow-out's he stayed on the court), a guy like Thurmond had 8 seasons where he played more than 40 minutes per game, Russell had 10 seasons with more than 40 minutes per game average, West had 7 seasons with more than 40 minutes per game average etc.Of course they deserve credit for being to able to play the minutes they played but it doesn't matter even how trained you are, in the modern era of basketball those kind of minutes is not a possibility. Comparing players to players with PER 36 is a good way to determine productivity and skillset.

Again, it's not only Wilt among the stars of the 60's who played more minutes than today's stars, so by your logic the stars of the 60's had greater fatigue than the players today...
Err. This is my real account. I only post in Kobe/Laker threads, as I am a fan of them. I will not attempt to argue anymore since you do not seem the type of poster who has a lot of knowledge of the game basketball (no offense man, just for me). Of course props to the stat geekery knowledge, I definitely am not the type who searches for stats just to prove a point.

I just want to point out that yes, there are players who play multiple 40+ MPG seasons, but Wilt's was just out of this world: 48.5 MPG in a game that is standardly played in 48 minutes. And I believe that even he plays in blowouts, it's still a testament to the guy's stamina and durability on court; you definitely won't see that today as most stars are "saving up for the postseason".

[millwad]

Err. This is my real account. I only post in Kobe/Laker threads, as I am a fan of them. I will not attempt to argue anymore since you do not seem the type of poster who has a lot of knowledge of the game basketball (no offense man, just for me). Of course props to the stat geekery knowledge, I definitely won't attempt to search for stats just to prove a point.

I just want to point out that yes, there are players who play multiple 40+ MPG seasons, but Wilt's was just out of this world: 48.5 MPG in a game that is standardly played as a 48 minute game. And I believe that even he plays even in blowouts, it's still a testament to the guy's stamina and durability on court, you definitely won't see that today as most stars are "saving up for the postseason".

Kid, it's obvious you have this ain't your only account, you've posted 8 times on this site since you joined and you seem to be way too aware of my posts for someone who barely posts. Confess, troll. And knowledge, what kind of knowledge do a troll like you have? What you just posted is equal to obvious garbage. :facepalm

And you just pointed out an obvious fact, but still, comparing era's and PT a la the 60's and the modern era will give less than you think. 48.5 minutes per games shows great stamina, no doubt, can someone have that average in the modern era? No, not possible and it doesn't matter if your name is Wilt, Russell or Thurmond. In the modern era players don't play in blow-outs and if a star player would have done so people would label him as a statpadding fool.

Comparing star players to star players from later era's the PER 36 works just fine, it shows how effective a player is compared to another in the same amount of playing time. Per 36 is garbage when you compare players who played way less than those minutes but when a guy already is up there compared to a player over it, it will mostly show how effective they are.

[Vien]

Kid, it's obvious you have this ain't your only account, you've posted 8 times on this site since you joined and you seem to be way too aware of my posts for someone who barely posts. Confess, troll. And knowledge, what kind of knowledge do a troll like you have? What you just posted is equal to obvious garbage. :facepalm

And you just pointed out an obvious fact, but still, comparing era's and PT a la the 60's and the modern era will give less than you think. 48.5 minutes per games shows great stamina, no doubt, can someone have that average in the modern era? No, not possible and it doesn't matter if your name is Wilt, Russell or Thurmond. In the modern era players don't play in blow-outs and if a star player would have done so people would label him as a statpadding fool.

Comparing star players to star players from later era's the PER 36 works just fine, it shows how effective a player is compared to another in the same amount of playing time. Per 36 is garbage when you compare players who played way less than those minutes but when a guy already is up there compared to a player over it, it will mostly show how effective they are.
I an active lurker, no more, no less. Everyday I log in for at least 15 minutes or so. I would say I am a basketball geek, which is why I read forums such as these actively (even though there are a shitload of trolls here). I am not exactly familiar on this site, so I really don't know how to prove/show to you my post history, etc. Maybe an admin could trace my IP, to prove that I am not affiliated with the common trolls here. Your call, man.

[jlauber]

Shaq fan?

Both Shaq and Russell had their shares of poor shooting from the line. I won't waste my time looking up a handful of games as Millwad did. And, according to him, Wilt should have made EVERY FT too. He found a game where Wilt's team's lost by six points, and in which Chamberlain shot 2-9. Or lost by eight points, and Wilt went 2-12. And yet another where they lost by six points, and Wilt shot 4-11.

So, ONCE AGAIN, Wilt was held to a higher standard. He was not even supposed to miss a FT. Using that logic, Jordan should have been chastised in his 63 point playoff game, in which he missed two FTs in regulation. Had he just made even one of those (he would finish 19-21 from the line), his Bulls would have won that game, and would have not been swept.



Jesus man, please stop the hate. You are one of the most annoying posters in this forum, with all these hate posts and shit. Comparing you with all the trolls make them seem bearable.

Really man, PER/36 for Wilt? If ever he should be applauded for actually being able to play 48.5 MPG. Superstars today would definitely complain about fatigue for that sort of thing. Jeezus. These are the times in which people actually get to side with jlauber. Just.. stop.

Just another attempt to disparage Wilt. And even then, a PRIME Wilt BLOWS away the likes of Hakeem in EVERY facet. Scoring, rebounding, FG%, and passing. But, the "Chamberlain-bashers" never acknowledge that had Wilt played the minutes that Hakeem did in his career, that there is no question that Wilt's PER/36 numbers would have been far better than in his actual 45.2 mpg (and and even more astonishing 47.2 mpg in his post-season career!) Why? How could they not be? He would have been rested considerably more in EACH game. And can you imagine how much more energy he would have had in his 40th, 50th, and 80th games? And then, SEASON-by-SEASON?

And the flip side would hold true, as well. Everyone should know by now that Shaq played much better in the playoffs on two days rest instead of just one. Hell, Wilt ROUTINELY played B2B's, and as many as FIVE games in FIVE nights (and none of them home B2B's.) And he was playing EVERY minute of EVERY game when he did so. AND, Wilt's teams ROUTINELY played B2B's in the PLAYOFFS, too. There is simply NO WAY that the modern players like Hakeem could have played at the same levels that they did in their careers, had they had to face the same BRUTAL scheduling.



Wilt was counting his own points, rebounds, assists, and block shots .

And verify with Pollack to verify his numbers.

True definition of a STAT PADDER.

Wilt must have had an IQ that rivaled Christopher Langan's. Can you imagine playing 48 mpg, in an era of a slightly higher pace, and running up-and-down the floor, dominating at BOTH ends...and being able to keep track of every point, shot, rebound, block, and assist?

Just ANOTHER area where Wilt was LIGHT YEARS ahead of his peers.

[millwad]

Both Shaq and Russell had their shares of poor shooting from the line. I won't waste my time looking up a handful of games as Millwad did. And, according to him, Wilt should have made EVERY FT too. He found a game where Wilt's team's lost by six points, and in which Chamberlain shot 2-9. Or lost by eight points, and Wilt went 2-12. And yet another where they lost by six points, and Wilt shot 4-11. .


Neither of them missed the amount of important FT's Wilt did. And I wrote "could have changed the outcome", not would. And of course I didn't mean that he should have made every FT but you've been trolling and spamming about how amazing Wilt was as a shooter and how the guy made more FT's than Larry Bird etc. when in fact Wilt is the greatest FT-choker in the NBA finals of all-time.

And if Wilt only would have been a decent FT-shooter the outcome of at least 5 games in the finals he played in wouldn't have been losses. Wilt's horrible FT-shooting was a major problem and he wasn't a player you could trust at all from the FT-line. And the other games I mentioned, decent FT-shooting from Wilt could have lead to a completely different game situations a la his 1-11 FT-shooting in game 7 in the '70's finals.

In the '69 finals Wilt showcased the greatest choke-job from the line in league history. In game 2 his team lost with 1 point while Wilt went 2-11 from the FT-line. In the SAME series, in game 7 the Lakers lost with 2 points and Wilt in that game only made 4 out of 13 FT's. Very "clutch" performance..:facepalm

So yes, it's safe to say that Wilt's FT-shooting costed him rings.

[jlauber]

Neither of them missed the amount of important FT's Wilt did. And I wrote "could have changed the outcome", not would. And of course I didn't mean that he should have made every FT but you've been trolling and spamming about how amazing Wilt was as a shooter and how the guy made more FT's than Larry Bird etc. when in fact Wilt is the greatest FT-choker in the NBA finals of all-time.

And if Wilt only would have been a decent FT-shooter the outcome of at least 5 games in the finals he played in wouldn't have been losses. Wilt's horrible FT-shooting was a major problem and he wasn't a player you could trust at all from the FT-line. And the other games I mentioned, decent FT-shooting from Wilt could have lead to a completely different game situations a la his 1-11 FT-shooting in game 7 in the '70's finals.

In the '69 finals Wilt showcased the greatest choke-job from the line in league history. In game 2 his team lost with 1 point while Wilt went 2-11 from the FT-line. In the SAME series, in game 7 the Lakers lost with 2 points and Wilt in that game only made 4 out of 13 FT's.

So yes, it's safe to say that Wilt's FT-shooting costed him rings.

You and your brother duecebigalow keep harping about game seven of the '70 Finals. Obviously, neither of you EVER watched that game. Wilt was 1-8 from the line in the first half. So, had he simply made every FT, going 8-8 in that half, his Lakers would have only trailed 69-49 at the half, instead of 69-42. His 1-11 did NOT cost the Lakers that series.

Of course, Wilt was playing that series only four months removed from major knee surgery. It is a pretty safe bet to assume that virtually NO ONE else would have been playing under the same circumstances. Baylor suffered that same injury in the '65 playoffs. He had several months to recuperate, and then he could only play 65 games the entire next season, and averaged 16.6 ppg on .401 shooting. It took him well over a year before he even remotely approached his former greatness, and in fact, he was never the same player again.

You could argue that had Wilt shot better from the line in '69, that his Lakers might very well have won that series. BUT, the REALITY was, there were SEVERAL other reasons why his Lakers lost that series. Baylor went AWOL in games three thru five (two of them losses.) Or Egan's gaffe, which single-handedly cost LA game four (and he not lost the ball, and with LA's romp in game five, the Lakers would have easily won that series, 4-1.) And of course the REAL reason why LA lost that series? Their incompetent COACH. Had they just had an ordinary coach, they probably would have won going away. Only a complete IDIOT would have left Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven. Especially when his replacement, Mel f*****g Counts, shot 4-13 from the FLOOR. Ultimately, that HORRIBLE decision cost not only Van Breda Kolf's career, it also robbed the Lakers of their first title in Los Angeles.


And, as ALWAYS, you ignore the FACT that Wilt's IMPACT at the line gave his TEAM's a HUGE edge in FT disparity in his ENTIRE post-season career. One only need look at the '70 Finals (the SAME series in which you blame WILT.) BECAUSE of Chamberlain, LA outscored the Knicks by 50 points from the LINE in that series (and nearly 100 more FTAs)...in a season in which the Lakers finished ELEVENTH in FTAs, BECAUSE Wilt missed 70 games.

Take away the Lakers' HUGE edge in FT scoring in that series, and they likely would have been SWEPT.

[millwad]

You and your brother duecebigalow keep harping about game seven of the '70 Finals. Obviously, neither of you EVER watched that game. Wilt was 1-8 from the line in the first half. So, had he simply made every FT, going 8-8 in that half, his Lakers would have only trailed 69-49 at the half, instead of 69-42. His 1-11 did NOT cost the Lakers that series.

Sure, Jlauber, you "watched" the series and you remember this 41 year old series.. Just like you "remember" all his other games too.. And my brother? Haha, you are funny, I am not on his side regarding anything but Wilt's FT's..

And it wasn't just that series he choked from the FT-line and you know that.


Of course, Wilt was playing that series only four months removed from major knee surgery. It is a pretty safe bet to assume that virtually NO ONE else would have been playing under the same circumstances. Baylor suffered that same injury in the '65 playoffs. He had several months to recuperate, and then he could only play 65 games the entire next season, and averaged 16.6 ppg on .401 shooting. It took him well over a year before he even remotely approached his former greatness, and in fact, he was never the same player again.

Sure, blame his misses on his knee injury. Too bad that he was even worse from the line in the '67 season when he missed amazing 50 FT's out of 72 tries. And he was horrible from the line in the '64 finals, '69 finals as well, what injury caused his FT% during those series? And if he would have been paralegic-like during that series he wouldn't have played the 2nd highest minute per game during that finals.



You could argue that had Wilt shot better from the line in '69, that his Lakers might very well have won that series. BUT, the REALITY was, there were SEVERAL other reasons why his Lakers lost that series. Baylor went AWOL in games three thru five (two of them losses.) Or Egan's gaffe, which single-handedly cost LA game four (and he not lost the ball, and with LA's romp in game five, the Lakers would have easily won that series, 4-1.) And of course the REAL reason why LA lost that series? Their incompetent COACH. Had they just had an ordinary coach, they probably would have won going away. Only a complete IDIOT would have left Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven. Especially when his replacement, Mel f*****g Counts, shot 4-13 from the FLOOR. Ultimately, that HORRIBLE decision cost not only Van Breda Kolf's career, it also robbed the Lakers of their first title in Los Angeles.

Sure, blame it on Baylor, blame it on Egan, blame it on his coach, blame it on Mel Counts and blame it on Van Breda Kolf but it's still a fact that if Wilt would have been even a mediocre FT-shooter they would have won that year. There's no excuse and no one Wilt could hide behind when his team first lost with 1 point while Wilt only made 2-11 FT's and then in a freaking game 7 when his team lost with 2 points he went 4-13 from the FT-line. That is the greatest choking FT-performance in league history by one single player.



And, as ALWAYS, you ignore the FACT that Wilt's IMPACT at the line gave his TEAM's a HUGE edge in FT disparity in his ENTIRE post-season career. One only need look at the '70 Finals (the SAME series in which you blame WILT.) BECAUSE of Chamberlain, LA outscored the Knicks by 50 points from the LINE in that series (and nearly 100 more FTAs)...in a season in which the Lakers finished ELEVENTH in FTAs, BECAUSE Wilt missed 70 games.

Take away the Lakers' HUGE edge in FT scoring in that series, and they likely would have been SWEPT.

It wasn't because of Chamberlain that LA outscored the Knicks by 50 points from the line, it was because of Jerry West. Wilt made 23 FT's out of 67 tries during that series. Jerry West 75 FT's (52 more than WILT) on 90 tries. In fact, in that series Wilt only made the 4th most FT's, nice try.. Giving Wilt the credit in that series for the differences in FTA and FT's made when he wasn't even the reason behind it..:facepalm

Wilt made 3.2 FT's per game in that series on horrible FG%, he wasn't the reason behind the HUGE edge in FT-scoring..:facepalm

[Fazotronic]

how the **** did jlauber get such a good reputation?:wtf: