Top 50 Greatest NBA Players of All Time UPDATED, Bleacher Report

[Legends66NBA7]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/871743-the-nbas-50-greatest-players-of-all-time-where-do-lebron-and-kobe-rank

Reasons for the choices are in the link.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Magic Johnson
4. Kobe Bryant
5. Larry Bird
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Jerry West
11. Oscar Robertson
12. Karl Malone
13. Bill Russell
14. David Robinson
15. Moses Malone
16. LeBron James
17. Julius Erving
18. Elgin Baylor
19. Charles Barkley
20. Kevin Garnett
21. Scottie Pippen
22. John Stockton
23. John Havlicek
24. Isiah Thomas
25. Dirk Nowtizki
26. Patrick Ewing
27. Gary Payton
28. Jason Kidd
29. Walt Frazier
30. Clyde Drexler
31. George Gervin
32. Allen Iverson
33. Bob Pettit
34. Elvin Hayes
35. Willis Reed
36. Rick Barry
37. Dwyane Wade
38. Dominique Wilkins
39. Kevin McHale
40. Steve Nash
41. Alex English
42. Dave Cowens
43. Pete Maravich
44. George Mikan
45. Paul Pierce
46. Bob Cousy
47. Sam Jones
48. Paul Arizin
49. Nate Archibald
50. Billy Cunningham

Honorable Mention:
Robert Parish, James Worthy, Bill Walton, Ray Allen...

[AlphaWolf24]

hhmmm...Kobe in top 5....over Bird.....


they doin it right:applause:

[Duncan21formvp]

That fact that Bill Russell is 13th is a disgrace. Should be no lower than 3rd just based on accolades.

[Duncan21formvp]

hhmmm...Kobe in top 5....over Bird.....


they doin it right:applause:
Yeah I don't mind Kobe over Bird actually. Bird lost 7 series while having HCA and never won a series without it. Sure it was only 3 series, but losing 7 series with HCA is not a good thing. In fact I believe that is the most series lost with HCA when you are supposed to win in NBA History of any star player.

[AlphaWolf24]

That fact that Bill Russell is 13th is a disgrace. Should be no lower than 3rd just based on accolades.


if he jumps 10 spots based on accolades you might as well put him at #1....the man has twice as many "accolades" as anyone on that list..

the dang Finals MVP is named after him....

[Duncan21formvp]

if he jumps 10 spots based on accolades you might as well put him at #1....the man has twice as many "accolades" as anyone on that list..

the dang Finals MVP is named after him....
I'm saying accolades puts him in the top 3 no matter what, after that to be in that top 2 you need to be great on both ends and have a good amount of titles and great numbers/stats, etc.
Let's not forget as well that for his 11 titles he won 25 playoff series. To do that in the league in the 80's and forward you need to win 44 playoff series. That is totally different. Hell winning 6 titles means you won 24 playoff series.

[RRR3]

My opinions on the list.

1. Michael Jordan-Yes
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar-Yes
3. Magic Johnson No, I have him 4th
4. Kobe Bryant-WTF no:facepalm
5. Larry Bird-Yes
6. Wilt Chamberlain-Too low, I have him 3rd
7. Shaquille O'Neal-Too low, I have him 6th
8. Tim Duncan-Yeah
9. Hakeem Olajuwon-9th or 10th is fine
10. Jerry West-Too high
11. Oscar Robertson-Too low
12. Karl Malone-Too high
13. Bill Russell-Too low!
14. David Robinson-Eh maybe. close enough I guess
15. Moses Malone-Somewhere around here
16. LeBron James-Too high for the moment
17. Julius Erving-Maybe a little higher
18. Elgin Baylor-Thereabouts
19. Charles Barkley-Too low
20. Kevin Garnett-Too low
21. Scottie Pippen-Too high
22. John Stockton-Too high
23. John HavlicekEh IDK
24. Isiah Thomas-Maybe a little high
25. Dirk Nowtizki-A little too low
26. Patrick Ewing-Too high
27. Gary Payton-A bit too high
28. Jason Kidd-Meh
29. Walt Frazier-Eh
30. Clyde Drexler-Eh...
31. George Gervin-Too high
32. Allen Iverson-Too high
33. Bob Pettit-Way too low
34. Elvin Hayes-Eh
35. Willis Reed-Too high
36. Rick Barry-Too low
37. Dwyane Wade-Too low
38. Dominique Wilkins-Eh
39. Kevin McHale-Eh
40. Steve Nash-Too high
41. Alex English-Way too high
42. Dave Cowens-Too high
43. Pete Maravich-Too high
44. George Mikan-Too low
45. Paul Pierce-Too high
46. Bob Cousy-Eh
47. Sam Jones-Too high
48. Paul Arizin-eh
49. Nate Archibald-Too high
50. Billy Cunningham-Eh. High?

Honorable Mention:
Robert Parish, James Worthy, Bill Walton, Ray Allen...


LOL @ Bill Walton being an honorable mention. Dude was NEVER healthy. Might as well put T-Mac and Penny Hardaway there.

[Legends66NBA7]

LOL @ Bill Walton being an honorable mention. Dude was NEVER healthy. Might as well put T-Mac and Penny Hardaway there.

When he was healthy, he was the best all-around big man in the game.

He also won a MVP, Finals MVP, and led an underdog Portland team to a championship (was also runner-up in voting for MVP that year too). That's more than what T-Mac and Penny did in their career's.

But yeah, it arguable for Walton.

[pauk]

:facepalm

[AlphaWolf24]

I'm saying accolades puts him in the top 3 no matter what, after that to be in that top 2 you need to be great on both ends and have a good amount of titles and great numbers/stats, etc.
Let's not forget as well that for his 11 titles he won 25 playoff series. To do that in the league in the 80's and forward you need to win 44 playoff series. That is totally different. Hell winning 6 titles means you won 24 playoff series.


so his accolades jump him over 10 players but he can't be #1 because he didn't score a few more points???:confusedshrug:

if his trinormous accolades achievement alone guarantee he is in the top 3...then I don't see how you can't have him #1?...he was the greatest defensive player of his generation , the greatest winner of his generation , and a very good offensive player...

there is no way you can say he leap frogs 10 players with his huge achievement advantage and then suddenly stop at #1 - #3 and say....well "such and such scored a few more points"...when clearly Russell dominates them by far in the achievement aspect..

again...he has the Finals MVP named after him....and has won nearly double the amount of championships as Kareem , MJ and Kobe....

[Jan95]

This list is simply a joke... Lebron at 16 and Wade at 37? Oh wtf, Wade has a ring and finals MVP! Also Bryant at 4th and Russell at 13th:lol :lol

[AlphaWolf24]

This list is more accurate then the Top alltime list here that was started by G.O.A.T....

hey look they even have Wade>Cousy.....:applause:


too bad G.O.A.T was so bias he got mad and left:lol

[Math2]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/871743-the-nbas-50-greatest-players-of-all-time-where-do-lebron-and-kobe-rank

Reasons for the choices are in the link.

1. Michael Jordan Too high
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar over Russell????
3. Magic Johnson
4. Kobe Bryant HAHAHA :lol top 10 MAYBE
5. Larry Bird under Kobe????
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Shaquille O'Neal Shaq over Duncan???????
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Jerry West
11. Oscar Robertson
12. Karl Malone lol at Malone this high...
13. Bill Russell Worst ranking so far. GOAT
14. David Robinson over MOSES WTF
15. Moses Malone
16. LeBron James too high
17. Julius Erving
18. Elgin Baylor
19. Charles Barkley
20. Kevin Garnett
21. Scottie Pippen
22. John Stockton
23. John Havlicek too low
24. Isiah Thomas
25. Dirk Nowtizki
26. Patrick Ewing
27. Gary Payton
28. Jason Kidd
29. Walt Frazier
30. Clyde Drexler
31. George Gervin
32. Allen Iverson
33. Bob Pettit top 25 at the absolute least
34. Elvin Hayes
35. Willis Reed
36. Rick Barry
37. Dwyane Wade
38. Dominique Wilkins
39. Kevin McHale
40. Steve Nash
41. Alex English too high
42. Dave Cowens too low
43. Pete Maravichtoo high
44. George Mikan too low
45. Paul Pierce lol
46. Bob Cousy way too low
47. Sam Jones low
48. Paul Arizin
49. Nate Archibald
50. Billy Cunningham

Honorable Mention:
Robert Parish, James Worthy, Bill Walton, Ray Allen...

Parish is only honorable mention??? Bad list.

[Math2]

if he jumps 10 spots based on accolades you might as well put him at #1....the man has twice as many "accolades" as anyone on that list..

the dang Finals MVP is named after him....

He should be one. That is why I don't feel this person is a very educated NBA fan.

[MasterDurant24]

Walton should be more than just an HM, 40 at least. Especially if Alex English is 41:facepalm

[Psileas]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/871743-the-nbas-50-greatest-players-of-all-time-where-do-lebron-and-kobe-rank

Reasons for the choices are in the link.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Magic Johnson
4. Kobe Bryant
5. Larry Bird
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Jerry West
11. Oscar Robertson
12. Karl Malone
13. Bill Russell
14. David Robinson
15. Moses Malone
16. LeBron James
17. Julius Erving
18. Elgin Baylor
19. Charles Barkley
20. Kevin Garnett
21. Scottie Pippen
22. John Stockton
23. John Havlicek
24. Isiah Thomas
25. Dirk Nowtizki
26. Patrick Ewing
27. Gary Payton
28. Jason Kidd
29. Walt Frazier
30. Clyde Drexler
31. George Gervin
32. Allen Iverson
33. Bob Pettit
34. Elvin Hayes
35. Willis Reed
36. Rick Barry
37. Dwyane Wade
38. Dominique Wilkins
39. Kevin McHale
40. Steve Nash
41. Alex English
42. Dave Cowens
43. Pete Maravich
44. George Mikan
45. Paul Pierce
46. Bob Cousy
47. Sam Jones
48. Paul Arizin
49. Nate Archibald
50. Billy Cunningham

Honorable Mention:
Robert Parish, James Worthy, Bill Walton, Ray Allen...

Thanks for letting me know not to open this beyond awful link. #'s 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 21, 33 and 44 are way too out of place to be taken seriously (and I'm a Kobe fan). One choice way out of place alone is enough for many to laugh at a list. 8+ of them in a 50 player list goes too far.

(Initially, this "updated" word had me thinking that it was something "official" that was taking place. Then I read the "Bleacher" word that ruined it all).

[Legends66NBA7]

Thanks for letting me know not to open this beyond awful link. #'s 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 21, 33 and 44 are way too out of place to be taken seriously (and I'm a Kobe fan). One choice way out of place alone is enough for many to laugh at a list. 8+ of them in a 50 player list goes too far.

(Initially, this "updated" word had me thinking that it was something "official" that was taking place. Then I read the "Bleacher" word that ruined it all).

Yes, it was quite bizarre when I was going through it from List 50 to 1. Some of the reasoning makes no sense at all.

As you alluded to, I gave several warning signs to my fellow ISH members the pain you are about to all witness.

[PTB Fan]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/871743-the-nbas-50-greatest-players-of-all-time-where-do-lebron-and-kobe-rank

Reasons for the choices are in the link.

1. Michael Jordan-Yes
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar-Nice
3. Magic Johnson-Nice
4. Kobe Bryant-M'eh, too high
5. Larry Bird-Fine
6. Wilt Chamberlain-Ok...
7. Shaquille O'Neal- Could go higher arguably
8. Tim Duncan- Same
9. Hakeem Olajuwon- Same
10. Jerry West-Arguable choice, is up with the guys up there
11. Oscar Robertson-Same for West, same for Big O
12. Karl Malone-
13. Bill Russell-Should be top 3,5 and 7 at worst
14. David Robinson-Arguable
15. Moses Malone-Nicely
16. LeBron James-Too high
17. Julius Erving-Low
18. Elgin Baylor-Too low
19. Charles Barkley-Ok
20. Kevin Garnett-Ok


I disagree with some of the rankings, especially with Russell's, Kobe's and Baylor's rankings

[ThaRegul8r]

Why anyone would think a list from Bleacher Report means anything or would reveal any basketball knowledge or insight is beyond me.

[L8kersfan222]

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Jacks3]

Kobe is too low. Haters gonna hate.

[RRR3]

Kobe is too low. Haters gonna hate.
What the hell? You yourself ranked him 10th all time iirc.

[T.O.RapsJays]

May or may not have been mentioned before...

This is the Bleacher Report! These guys are constantly known for making bad sports ratings, I would know because I am a baseball fan too and they constantly make horrible articles/ratings on the MLB.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Larry Bird remains the most overrated player of all time. :facepalm

[RRR3]

Kobe Bryant remains the most overrated player of all time. :facepalm
fixed

[bizil]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/871743-the-nbas-50-greatest-players-of-all-time-where-do-lebron-and-kobe-rank

Reasons for the choices are in the link.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Magic Johnson
4. Kobe Bryant
5. Larry Bird
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Jerry West
11. Oscar Robertson
12. Karl Malone
13. Bill Russell
14. David Robinson
15. Moses Malone
16. LeBron James
17. Julius Erving
18. Elgin Baylor
19. Charles Barkley
20. Kevin Garnett
21. Scottie Pippen
22. John Stockton
23. John Havlicek
24. Isiah Thomas
25. Dirk Nowtizki
26. Patrick Ewing
27. Gary Payton
28. Jason Kidd
29. Walt Frazier
30. Clyde Drexler
31. George Gervin
32. Allen Iverson
33. Bob Pettit
34. Elvin Hayes
35. Willis Reed
36. Rick Barry
37. Dwyane Wade
38. Dominique Wilkins
39. Kevin McHale
40. Steve Nash
41. Alex English
42. Dave Cowens
43. Pete Maravich
44. George Mikan
45. Paul Pierce
46. Bob Cousy
47. Sam Jones
48. Paul Arizin
49. Nate Archibald
50. Billy Cunningham

Honorable Mention:
Robert Parish, James Worthy, Bill Walton, Ray Allen...


Well I do like the fact the more players of the 2000s are starting to be rated on a 50 greatest list. But other than that I feel the list is a joke. Russell is definitely too low. But I don't think he should be in the top 3 either. I think anywhere from 4 to 7 is cool for Russ. I DON'T have a problem with Kobe at #4. Talent wise, he's the second best perimeter player of all time behind MJ, and or course u can argue Bird and Magic for that spot. But the way MJ and Kobe can dominate the game on both ends combined with their freak athletic ability sets them apart.

I have no problem with Bron ranked in the list of course. But over somebody like Dr. J as of now is insane. Doc is the second greatest SF of all time, Bron hasnt' eclipsed him yet. People talk about Bron getting past Bird, which is very capable of. But getting past Doc is tough duty as well. Stockton rated over Isiah is a joke as well. And where in the hell is Bob McAdoo on the list? Scottie Pippen is rated WAY TOO HIGH! David Robinson is rated WAY TOO HIGH! Having Robinson over Barkley, Doc, Moses, is a joke! And u gotta have Earl the Pearl on a top 50 list as well. I say take out Arizin and Cowens and put in McAdoo and Pearl.

[CJ Mustard]

Why is Malone so overrated? SMH @ 7-8 spots ahead of Barkley and Garnett.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Bill Russell has to be top 10 atleast

[Boston C's]

I'm huge fans of ray and pierce but I feel as though the both of them are around the top 60-65 range then close to top 50... pierce shouldnt be 46 and ray shouldnt really be honorable mention because that means hes borderline top 50... like i said big fans of both of them but too high praise for them

[WillC]

Bill Russell 13th? :roll:

[Heavincent]

fixed

You seriously think that?

If so, :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Heavincent]

4 isn't too bad of a spot for Kobe. Anywhere between 4 and 10 is fine for him.

[Meticode]

It's amazing what winning a championship has done for Dirk and being clutch in the process. Amazing.

[Legends66NBA7]

It's amazing what winning a championship has done for Dirk and being clutch in the process. Amazing.

Yup.

And on the flip side, look at where the man who played horrible in the finals is ranked.

[Jacks3]

lol @ this clown always bringing up Bryant. ^:oldlol:

[Jacks3]

2001: 27/8/5/2
Last 4 games: 27/9/6/2/1/54% TS

2002:27/6/6/2/60% TS

2009:32.4/7.4/6/2/1/54% TS/29 PER

2010:29/8/5/2/53% TS/26 PER
Through 6 games: 29.8/6/5/2/55.8% TS/27 PER

****ing moron.

[Phong]

lol @ this clown always bringing up Bryant. ^:oldlol:I think he was talking about the man who's 0-2 in the Finals.

[Legends66NBA7]

I think he was talking about the man who's 0-2 in the Finals.

Thank you Phong. I'm clearly talking about LeBron. I was unaware Kobe was in the Finals this year.

Besides, Kobe has been much more impressive than LeBron in the Finals.

[Jacks3]

My bad. :facepalm

[D-Wade316]

:facepalm BullShit Report doing its thing again.

[L8kersfan222]

:facepalm BullShit Report doing its thing again.
Oh u mad? I thought you'd be happy he made it.

[D-Wade316]

Oh u mad? I thought you'd be happy he made it.
BullSHIT Report is full of crap that Wade/Kobe/Lebron stans would get mad. Kobe over Wilt? Russ? :roll: :roll: :roll:

[RRR3]

4 isn't too bad of a spot for Kobe. Anywhere between 4 and 10 is fine for him.
You just confirmed your massive bias.

[Yung D-Will]

10 Is just about the right spot for Kobe

[Jacks3]

TBH, Bryant should be higher. It's just all the off-court bullshit, the persona, being the most polarizing NBA player ever, and playing for the most hated team in the league...it's really causing him to get discredited. Give any other more likable super-star SG,preferably not one playing for the despised Lakers, the exact same combination of team success/peak play/prime play/extended prime play/longevity/raw stats/advanced stats/skill level/intangibles/accolades,accomplishments/respect,fear,awe from peers,coaches,former players/clutchness/versatility and anything else that defines a career..and they'd be getting top 5 ever talk, but you bring up Kobe being any higher than 10th and it's automatically considered a joke.

Haters gonna hate.

[RRR3]

Jacks=biggest hypocrite ever or simply schizophrenic?


I have Jordan/Kareem/Russ/Wilt/Magic/Bird/Hakeem/Duncan/Shaq indisputably ahead of him. I think KG/Barkley also have good cases.

Robinson isn't close to the play-off performer prime Bryant is and his longevity doesn't come close.

Malone? Again, not as good in the play-offs and I don't think he was as good as prime Bryant anyway. Kobe also has the better peak imo.

Not seeing anyone else with a case.

Goddamn son.

[Jacks3]

TBH, Bryant should be higher. It's just all the off-court bullshit, the persona, being the most polarizing NBA player ever, and playing for the most hated team in the league...it's really causing him to get discredited. Give any other more likable super-star SG,preferably not one playing for the despised Lakers, the exact same combination of team success/peak play/prime play/extended prime play/longevity/raw stats/advanced stats/skill level/intangibles/accolades,accomplishments/respect,fear,awe from peers,coaches,former players/clutchness/versatility and anything else that defines a career..and they'd be getting top 5 ever talk, but you bring up Kobe being any higher than 10th and it's automatically considered a joke.

Haters gonna hate.
haters gonna hate,RRR3 gonna stalk.

[RRR3]

haters gonna hate,RRR3 gonna stalk.
You're insane. You said Kobe was barely top 10, and now you're completely contradicting yourself. Obvious troll is obvious.










Next.

[Jacks3]

Obvious hater is obvious.


Next.

[RRR3]

Obvious hater is obvious.


Next.
You've been exposed. Admit you're trolling, or at least give me a reason for the disparity between your posts. You should at least attempt to explain yourself.

[Jacks3]

It was my evil twin brother, Jacks4. He wrote it.

Next.

[tontoz]

4. Kobe Bryant
5. Larry Bird
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon


:facepalm


That is just amazing.

[RRR3]

It was my evil twin brother, Jacks4. He wrote it.

Next.


Well, at least you gave an explanation. I like your evil twin brother, though. He's a cool customer. :cheers: :pimp:

[Asukal]

It was my evil twin brother, Jacks4. He wrote it.

Next.

Apparently, your evil twin brother makes more sense than you. :cheers:

[jlauber]

Russell and Wilt not in the Top-4??? Pretty much makes the entire list a complete waste of time. Any clown can blindly make a stupid list like this one. In fact, from what I can gather, it looks like they just threw 50 names in a hat and randomly pulled them out.

[rmt]

A list with Russell at #13 and Kobe at #4 - ridiculous. Russell needs to jump up 10 spots and Kobe drop back at least 5 spots.

[Odinn]

One of the worst lists I've ever seen.

[Heavincent]

You just confirmed your massive bias.

Not as biased as you. I didn't say I would put him at #4 you dipshit.

[RRR3]

Not as biased as you. I didn't say I would put him at #4 you dipshit.
You said putting him at 4 was "fine". No one except Kobe stans would agree with you there.

[Heavincent]

You said putting him at 4 was "fine". No one except Kobe stans would agree with you there.

I don't think Charles Barkley is a Kobe stan.

[millwad]

Russell and Wilt not in the Top-4??? Pretty much makes the entire list a complete waste of time. Any clown can blindly make a stupid list like this one. In fact, from what I can gather, it looks like they just threw 50 names in a hat and randomly pulled them out.

Russell have a case for top 4, but Wilt? HAHAHAHA! Kareem is ahead of Wilt, Russell is ahead of Wilt, Hakeem is ahead of Wilt and Shaq is also ahead of Wilt.

[longtime lurker]

A list with Russell at #13 and Kobe at #4 - ridiculous. Russell needs to jump up 10 spots and Kobe drop back at least 5 spots.

Russell at 13 is a bigger :facepalm than Kobe at 4. Absolutely amazing.

[jlauber]

Russell have a case for top 4, but Wilt? HAHAHAHA! Kareem is ahead of Wilt, Russell is ahead of Wilt, Hakeem is ahead of Wilt and Shaq is also ahead of Wilt.

Virtually no one with ANY intelligence has Shaq or Hakeem over Wilt.

BTW, what CRITERIA could you possibly come up with that would have Hakeem over Wilt?

There is NONE.

[Yung D-Will]

Russell have a case for top 4, but Wilt? HAHAHAHA! Kareem is ahead of Wilt, Russell is ahead of Wilt, Hakeem is ahead of Wilt and Shaq is also ahead of Wilt.
Wow you're clearly trolling. Lmao. Welcome to the ignore

[ZaaaaaH]

Great points all around about Russell but still I feel like he should be number 10 over West.

I would switch Magic with Wilt and have Magic at 5 since I do feel like Wilt can be pretty dominant in any era he does play in. For example he probably average 28/16 if he were to play today and 26/14 in the 90's.

People need to stop hating on Kobe being 4 since its pretty on point. When its all said and done Im pretty sure Kobe gonna be behind Mike but Kobe haters gonna find ways to discredit his accomplishment and his rings.

People also need to read why he place them where he did because he has pretty good point.

[jlauber]

Wow you're clearly trolling. Lmao. Welcome to the ignore

Just pathetic actually. Here again, there is NO CRITERIA in which Hakeem would have a case over Wilt. MVPs, MVP balloting, FMVPs, statistical titles, RECORDS, Playoff domination, Rings, Team success. Not even close.

Even Hakeem's ONE MVP should have an asterick. It came in a league in which the REAL best player took the year off. And, you could carry that further, as well. Does anyone in their right honestly believe that had MJ played in that season, that Hakeem would have won a ring and a FMVP? Hell, Jordan's Bulls went 55-27 without him, and lost a close seven game series to the Knicks, who lost a close seven game series to Hakeem's Rockets.

Here is what we really know about Hakeem. He had that ONE MVP. He came in second, ONCE. He finished in the top-4, two more times. That is a TOTAL of FOUR Top-10 finishes...in EIGHTEEN seasons. Not only that, but in NINE of those seasons, he didn't even finish in the top-TEN! In HALF of his career he wasn't even considered a Top-TEN player...in HIS era.

How in the hell can someone claim he is Top-4 all-time, when he was seldom a top-4 player in HIS era???

And name me another all-time "great" who was knocked out in the FIRST ROUND of the playoffs in EIGHT seasons. In fact, he had FIRST ROUND exits in over HALF of his post-season career.

THAT was Hakeem's real impact.

He barely has a case as a Top-10 player, and even that is questionable.

[ZaaaaaH]

Just pathetic actually. Here again, there is NO CRITERIA in which Hakeem would have a case over Wilt. MVPs, MVP balloting, FMVPs, statistical titles, RECORDS, Playoff domination, Rings, Team success. Not even close.

Even Hakeem's ONE MVP should have an asterick. It came in a league in which the REAL best player took the year off. And, you could carry that further, as well. Does anyone in their right honestly believe that had MJ played in that season, that Hakeem would have won a ring and a FMVP? Hell, Jordan's Bulls went 55-27 without him, and lost a close seven game series to the Knicks, who lost a close seven game series to Hakeem's Rockets.

Here is what we really know about Hakeem. He had that ONE MVP. He came in second, ONCE. He finished in the top-4, two more times. That is a TOTAL of FOUR Top-10 finishes...in EIGHTEEN seasons. Not only that, but in NINE of those seasons, he didn't even finish in the top-TEN! In HALF of his career he wasn't even considered a Top-TEN player...in HIS era.

How in the hell can someone claim he is Top-4 all-time, when he was seldom a top-4 player in HIS era???

And name me another all-time "great" who was knocked out in the FIRST ROUND of the playoffs in EIGHT seasons. In fact, he had FIRST ROUND exits in over HALF of his post-season career.

THAT was Hakeem's real impact.

He barely has a case as a Top-10 player, and even that is questionable.


Yea ur right he should be boarder line Top 10 and which he is at 9. Hakeem was great and he out classes Wilt in skill sets. Also a better shot blocker then Wilt but he does get over rated at times. Also Hakeem played in a Era when MJ was playing. No ones gonna win no MVP over MJ. (Legit)

[jlauber]

Yea ur right he should be boarder line Top 10 and which he is at 9. Hakeem was great and he out classes Wilt in skill sets. Also a better shot blocker then Wilt but he does get over rated at times. Also Hakeem played in a Era when MJ was playing. No ones gonna win no MVP over MJ. (Legit)

He was not a better shot blocker than Wilt. We don't have Wilt's seasonal blocks, because they were not "officially" kept, BUT, we do have the highly respected opinion of the game's greatest statistician, Harvey Pollack, who claimed that Wilt had SEASONS of 10+ bpg. And Psileas posted an article a while back, in which Wilt RECORDED an average of about 7-8 bpg in his 71-72 season, and around 6 in his last season. BTW, the "official" single game block mark is listed at 17, by Elmore Smith in 1974, BUT, Chamberlain RECORDED a 23 block game in a nationally televised game in 1968. He also RECORDED several quad double games, including a 24-32-13-12 game in the first round of the '67 ECF's.

As for MJ and his MVPs...sure. Very few had a case over him in most of his seasons. BUT, to only be considered a Top-2 player in TWO of his 18 seasons, and only a top-4 player in 14 of his seasons, and not even 10th in NINE of his 18 seasons, pretty much sums up just where Hakeem really ranked among HIS era.

[Harison]

That list is a BS, just for starters:

4. Kobe Bryant
13. Bill Russell

I rest my case :facepalm

[millwad]

Virtually no one with ANY intelligence has Shaq or Hakeem over Wilt.

BTW, what CRITERIA could you possibly come up with that would have Hakeem over Wilt?

There is NONE.

I don't expect much from you but I think it's fully ok to have both Shaq and Hakeem over Wilt.

Wilt lives on the fact that he was beasting in the regular season. His playoff-stats dropped alot in terms of scoring, almost 8 points per game and he did it on worse FG% compared to his regular season stats. He also averaged less assists in the playoffs.

Then people must re-think a little regarding his scoring first of all. He played extreme minutes, in the regular season he averaged more than 45 minutes per game something he wouldn't have been able to do in the modern era, just not possible even though I think he'd still average alot of minutes. I have no doubt that he'd average more than 36 minutes per game but checking his PER 36 he suddenly looks way more human. Shaq both has a higher PER 36 points per game average and also a better FG% than Wilt. Hakeem is just ahead of Wilt with a 1.7 higher scoring average per 36. And if Hakeem would have retired the same age as Wilt he'd have a higher PER 36 scoring average. This alone shatters all the talk about how more effective Wilt was. It was a matter of him averaging way more minutes than guys like Shaq and Hakeem, not about him being a crazy better effective scorer.

In the playoffs Wilt's scoring average dropped and so did his FG% as everyone knows. Hakeem who has the highest scoring average of all-time in the playoffs for a center obviously averaged more points per game than Wilt and he also did it with better FG%. So did Shaq also, he scored more per game and he also shot with better FG%.

Wilt's rebounding is obviously amazing, but also there it's also a matter of the era he played in. The game was played at a higher pace which led to more rebounds and the players shot with a worse FG% compared to the era Hakeem and Shaq played in which also led to many more rebounds available. Although rebounding among centers still held a great class in the Wilt's era, the other players weren't as strong and athletic like the modern era, you didn't see any LeBron type of player from the forward spot crashing rebounds which also made it easier for Wilt and his competitors at center position to grab more rebounds.

We are after all talking about the same era where 6-5 forward, Elgin Baylor had a season where he averaged 20 rebounds per game. Just based on the amount, then you'd have to consider him as a way greater rebounder than the modern era players.

To compare Elgin Baylor's amazing 20 rebounds per game average with the modern era, lets mention Dennis Rodman. Rodman is a 7-time league rebounding champion and he never during his career averaged even more than 18 rebounds. As if Baylor's 20 rebounds per game season wasn't enough, he also had a season where he average 18.6 rebounds per game.

And as I mentioned, in the playoffs Wilt's scoring average dropped pretty big time and during his playoff highs in scoring he didn't win any titles. When he finally won it was with 2 HOF:ers by his side and 4 guys by his side who all averaged more than 15 points per game in the playoffs and he didn't lead the team in scoring, HOF:er Hal Greer averaged more than 27 points during Wilt's first title run. And in fact, Wilt tied the 2nd highest point per game average during the 67 run on his team with Chet Walker who also averaged 21.7 points per game.

And the during the 2nd run, Chamberlain wasn't even the best center in the game by then, Kareem who also was the MVP that season was the best. Kareem averaged 40 points per game on 50% shooting on Wilt in the regular season and in the playoffs he outscored Wilt with 23 points per game while also shooting a better FG% and he also outassisted Wilt in the series.

Sure, Wilt was amazing during his title runs but he didn't dominate the way Shaq and Hakeem did during their runs. Only a fool would consider Wilt's 2 runs better than Hakeem's 2 runs and Shaq's 4 runs.

[RRR3]

@millwad
Wilt>Shaq>Hakeem. Some may take Shaq over Wilt, but most don't. No one besides you takes Hakeem over Wilt, and I honestly think you just say that to annoy jlauber.

[millwad]

Just pathetic actually. Here again, there is NO CRITERIA in which Hakeem would have a case over Wilt. MVPs, MVP balloting, FMVPs, statistical titles, RECORDS, Playoff domination, Rings, Team success. Not even close.


Hakeem and Shaq were more skilled than Wilt, no doubt.
Regarding MVP's, based on that Russell is better than Wilt and Wilt is just a little better than Moses Malone.

Shaq and Hakeem are then worse players than Steve Nash, Lebron James, Karl Malone and Bob Pettit.

Hakeem and Shaq are then on the same level as Derrick Rose, Allen Iverson, Bob Cousy, Dave Cowens, Wes Unseld and Bob McAdoo.:facepalm

And good look for Wilt to win any MVP's against Jordan..

Finals MVP's, Shaq has more FMVP's than Wilt and he dominated way more. Hakeem won 1 more than Wilt but in '67 there were no FMVP's but Hakeem's teammates obviously were way further back in winning the FMVP's than what Wilt's HOF-teammates were..

Sure, give us the great regular season records of Wilt but it's a fact that both Shaq and Hakeem had better scoring averages and FG% than Wilt in the playoffs and in all they dominted more when they won their titles. Wilt never even lead a team in scoring when he won.. So your bs about playoff-domination is just pathetic.

[D.J.]

1. Michael Jordan


Correct



2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar


Him and Wilt are interchangable. I have no problem with either at 2nd.



3. Magic Johnson


Too high.



4. Kobe Bryant


:facepalm



5. Larry Bird


He's around 4-5. I have him at 4th.



6. Wilt Chamberlain


:facepalm



7. Shaquille O'Neal


Around 7-8. I have him at 8.



8. Tim Duncan


I have him at 9.



9. Hakeem Olajuwon


I have him at 7.



10. Jerry West


About right. 10 IMO is between West and Kobe.

[millwad]

@millwad
Wilt>Shaq>Hakeem. Some may take Shaq over Wilt, but most don't. No one besides you takes Hakeem over Wilt, and I honestly think you just say that to annoy jlauber.

I used to take Wilt over both Shaq and Hakeem but when I saw the guy play I just can't take him over Shaq or Hakeem. Both Hakeem and Shaq are too skilled to be ranked lower than Wilt and Shaq won more and dominate more than Wilt when he won. And Hakeem won just as many titles as Wilt while he dominated more and while having way worse teammates compared to Wilt's HOF teammates.

Wilt's stats are amazing but he has alot to thank the era he played in and I explained the issue with his scoring (who dropped both in terms of points and FG% and it's lower than both Shaq and Hakeem's) and his rebounds and the the guy FINALLY won when he stopped statpadding.

[D.J.]

I used to take Wilt over both Shaq and Hakeem but when I saw the guy play I just can't take him over Shaq or Hakeem. Both Hakeem and Shaq are too skilled to be ranked lower than Wilt and Shaq won more and dominate more than Wilt when he won. And Hakeem won just as many titles as Wilt while he dominated more and while having way worse teammates compared to Wilt's HOF teammates.

Wilt's stats are amazing but he has alot to thank the era he played in and I explained the issue with his scoring (who dropped both in terms of points and FG% and it's lower than both Shaq and Hakeem's) and his rebounds and the the guy FINALLY won when he stopped statpadding.


Wilt flat out dominated. Him not being as fundamentally sound doesn't mean he's not great. Ranking Hakeem over Shaq is one thing, but Hakeem over Wilt? :facepalm

[millwad]

Wilt flat out dominated. Him not being as fundamentally sound doesn't mean he's not great. Ranking Hakeem over Shaq is one thing, but Hakeem over Wilt? :facepalm

I really like your posts on this site so I will only you give you my point of view and then leave it, of course you don't have to agree.. Sure, yes for his own era but it's not fair to call him as skilled as Shaq or Hakeem, he just wasn't. AND I don't expect him to be either, he didn't have the same opportunities as the players of the modern era in terms of training, nutrition etc..

I never said that Wilt wasn't great, I used to have him at number 1 too but the more footage I saw (before youtube removed them) I just felt confused. The stats, yes, the accomplishments, yes, the records, yes.. The skills? Not really...

I am all in about giving cred to the father's of basketball, without guys like Mikan, Russell and Wilt we wouldn't have had Kareem, Moses, Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq etc..

To me it's more question of whether to rank players based on accomplishments in their own era only or rank them based on pure skills combined with accomplishments. I choose the later of the two options and therefor I have both Shaq and Hakeem ahead of Wilt and based on accomplishments in terms of titles, Hakeem won just as many and he dominated more during his back-to-back than what Wilt did combined in '67 and '72 and Shaq even won more and during his 3-peat he dominated more than what Wilt did during his title runs.

And I explained earlier why some of Wilt stats are a bit overrated like his scoring and rebounding. Feel free to add why you don't agree with me but personally I don't rank players just based on what I see on basketball-reference (I'm not saying you do), I feel it's important to actually see the players and rank them based on skills and the era they played in as well.

[D.J.]

I really like your posts on this site so I will only you give you my point of view and then leave it, of course you don't have to agree..

I never said that Wilt wasn't great, I used to have him at number 1 too but the more footage I saw (before youtube removed them) I just felt confused. The stats, yes, the accomplishments, yes, the records, yes.. The skills? Not really...

I am all in about giving cred to the father's of basketball, without guys like Mikan, Russell and Wilt we wouldn't have had Kareem, Moses, Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq etc..

To me it's more question of whether to rank players based on accomplishments in their own era or rank them based on pure skills combined with accomplishments. I choose the later of the two options and therefor I have both Shaq and Hakeem ahead of Wilt and based on accomplishments in terms of titles, Hakeem won just as many and he dominated more during his back-to-back than what Wilt did combined in '67 and '72 and Shaq even won more and during his 3-peat he dominated more than what Wilt did during his title runs.

And I explained earlier why some of Wilt stats are a bit overrated like his scoring and rebounding. Feel free to add why you don't agree with me but personally I don't rank players just based on what I see on basketball-reference (I'm not saying you do), I feel it's important to actually see the players and rank them based on skills and the era they played in as well.


You can't punish guys because of the era they played in. 50 PPG and 100 points in a game is impressive no matter which era. No player has duplicated either and never will. Kobe pretty much died trying.

[L.Kizzle]

Bill Russell at 13, yeah mabe 1- 3 is where he sould be ranked.

[millwad]

You can't punish guys because of the era they played in. 50 PPG and 100 points in a game is impressive no matter which era. No player has duplicated either and never will. Kobe pretty much died trying.

Well, it depends on how you see it.
Almost every sport got their legends, like in athletics, the records are getting better and better and of course the athletes as well. I don't know how much this comparison will get to you but for an example, 100 meters sprint.

I see it like this, we had the american sprint legend Jesse Owens who won multiple Olympic golds, and who was just amazing for his own sprinting era in the 30's.

Then we have sprinters of today, guys like Usain Bolt, Asafa Powell, Yohan Blake who almost jogs as fast as Owens sprinted and so does most of the sprinters of today. Is Jesse Owens the best runner ever because he dominated his own era even though the sport nowadays have way faster sprinters, or are the legends of the 60's better than the superstars of the modern era? I don't see it as if accomplishments are equal to actual skillset. You wanna rank someone based on greatness in his own era, go ahead but I rather choose actual skillset combined with greatness and legacy in the player's era. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Virtually no one with ANY intelligence has Shaq or Hakeem over Wilt.

BTW, what CRITERIA could you possibly come up with that would have Hakeem over Wilt?

There is NONE.

:roll:

Russell is laughing at Wilts passing. Check the facts....Wilt = 673 assists in 7559 minutes in the playoffs; Russ = 770 assists in 7497 minutes in the playoffs. Russell also had 97 more assists than wilt in the playoffs..in 62 fewer minutes! Wilt played for individual numbers..and he got them, Bill Russell on the otherhand played for letters....and he got them..as in W's...

[Harison]

I really like your posts on this site so I will only you give you my point of view and then leave it, of course you don't have to agree.. Sure, yes for his own era but it's not fair to call him as skilled as Shaq or Hakeem, he just wasn't. AND I don't expect him to be either, he didn't have the same opportunities as the players of the modern era in terms of training, nutrition etc..
I agree with majority of your points, however you might be slightly underselling Wilt. Shaq and Dream were freakishly gifted athletes, but Wilt was probably the most gifted athlete to ever play the game. He wasnt stupid as well, so it wouldnt be an issue for him to use current advancements to the full extent if you would drop him in '90's, etc.

Would he rival Jordan, Bird, Shaq, Dream, etc? Sure. Would he beat them? Probably not. And not because he wasnt capable physically, he just never had the right mentality.

For Wilt it was always more important personal records, endorsements, cars, woman... but not winning, not on Russell's level. I remember in many interviews Wilt was making fun of Russ drive to win, he considered it borderline insane. Thats what separates supremely gifted athletes from the winners, and yes - Shaq's mentality isnt far off Wilts, one could even consider Shaq as Wilt 2.0, both never reached the full potential, for them glamor was more important. At least Shaq showed up better when it mattered, thats one thing he had on Wilt.

Wilt's peers like Russell or West uped their game in the Playoffs, and especially with the games and series on the line. Same can be said about Hakeem or Jordan. Wilt? A lot like Robinson. Supremely gifted athletes, powerhouses of the regular season, but their games and mentality didnt translated well to the post-season. They got their rings, but if we compare what their peer's did in the Playoffs...

[jlauber]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
Virtually no one with ANY intelligence has Shaq or Hakeem over Wilt.

BTW, what CRITERIA could you possibly come up with that would have Hakeem over Wilt?

There is NONE.




Russell is laughing at Wilts passing. Check the facts....Wilt = 673 assists in 7559 minutes in the playoffs; Russ = 770 assists in 7497 minutes in the playoffs. Russell also had 97 more assists than wilt in the playoffs..in 62 fewer minutes! Wilt played for individual numbers..and he got them, Bill Russell on the otherhand played for letters....and he got them..as in W's...

Russell may be laughing, but I didn't mention him in the above post did I?

[jlauber]

I agree with majority of your points, however you might be slightly underselling Wilt. Shaq and Dream were freakishly gifted athletes, but Wilt was probably the most gifted athlete to ever play the game. He wasnt stupid as well, so it wouldnt be an issue for him to use current advancements to the full extent if you would drop him in '90's, etc.

Would he rival Jordan, Bird, Shaq, Dream, etc? Sure. Would he beat them? Probably not. And not because he wasnt capable physically, he just never had the right mentality.

For Wilt it was always more important personal records, endorsements, cars, woman... but not winning, not on Russell's level. I remember in many interviews Wilt was making fun of Russ drive to win, he considered it borderline insane. Thats what separates supremely gifted athletes from the winners, and yes - Shaq's mentality isnt far off Wilts, one could even consider Shaq as Wilt 2.0, both never reached the full potential, for them glamor was more important. At least Shaq showed up better when it mattered, thats one thing he had on Wilt.

Wilt's peers like Russell or West uped their game in the Playoffs, and especially with the games and series on the line. Same can be said about Hakeem or Jordan. Wilt? A lot like Robinson. Supremely gifted athletes, powerhouses of the regular season, but their games and mentality didnt translated well to the post-season. They got their rings, but if we compare what their peer's did in the Playoffs...


Save myself some time...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


And one more time...

In Wilt's first seven seasons, covering his first six post-seasons (he arguably had the worst roster in NBA history in his 62-63 season, and because of it, he missed the playoffs...in a year in which he averaged 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting)

33 ppg, 27 rpg, and .510 shooting (in leagues that shot between .410 and .441)...COMBINED! He took two putrid rosters to within an eye-lash of beating the Celtic Dynasty, losing game seven's by 2 and 1 point. In the first seven game series, he averaged 34 ppg and 26 rpg, and his teammates collectively shot .354 in that post-season. In the second seven game series, he averaged 30 ppg, and 31 rpg. In the game seven, he hung a 30 point, 32 rebound game, and on 12-15 shooting.

He also took that same basic horrible roster he had in that 62-63 season, to a 48-32 record in the 63-64 season, and to the Finals. where he hung a 29-27 .517 series on Russell. And in the previous round, he plastered career five-time all-star Zelmo Beaty with a 38.6, 23.0 rpg, .559 series, including a series clinching 39 point, 26 rebound, 12 block game. BTW, he also had a 50 point game, on 22-32 shooting in that series.

And thanks to ShaqAttack, we know that Wilt averaged 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and shot .518 (in leagues that shot between .410 and .446) in his first EIGHT straight post-seasons...COMBINED.

Furthemore, Wilt had FOUR entire post-seasons of 33.2, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 rpg, as well as two more of 28 and 29 ppg. Included in those were FOUR of 30+ against Russell, including that one 30-31 seven game series. He also had FOUR 40-30 games against Russell, including that 50-35 game in a must win game in the '60 ECF's.

He also had TWO straight series, in the '67 playoffs, in which he averaged a TRIPLE DOUBLE (28 ppg, 27.5 rpg, 11.0 apg and on .612 shooting against the Royals; and then a 21.6 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 10.0 bpg, .556 series against Russell.

In the 69-70 Finals, and only four months removed from major knee surgery, he hung the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history, (23.2 rpg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 shooting), and in a must win game six he hung a 45 point, 27 rebound, 20-27 shooting game.

He also played in 29 post-seasons, and I could only find a few in which he was outscored; and only ONE in which he was out-shot from the field; and he was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of those series. In many he massively outscored, outrebounded, and outshot his opposing centers, and some in all three categories. BTW, he played in 160 post-season games, and faced a starting HOF center in 99 of them. In all but two of his 13 post-seasons, he was outgunned in HOF teammates, and some by HUGE margins (as much as 8-2.)

BTW, while so many here jump on Wilt's "decline" in the post-season, what about his OPPOSING centers?

He held multiple all-star Red Kerr to a .294 FG% in the 60 playoffs.

Russell shot .454 in the '67 regular season. Against Wilt in the '67 ECF's? .358.

Thurmond shot .437 in that '67 regular season, but against Chamberlain in the '67 Finals, he only shot .343. BTW, Wilt faced Nate in the playoffs THREE times, and outshot him by margins of .560 to .343, .500 to .398, and .550 to .392 (all while pounding him on the glass.)

Walt Bellamy shot .541 in the regular season, but only .421 against Wilt in the '68 playoffs.

And Kareem shot .577 in his '71 regular season, and .574 in his '72 regular season. Against Chamberlain in the '71 WCF's, he only shot .481. And, in the '72 WCF's, Kareem was held to .457 shooting, including .414 over the course of the last four games of that series.



But, yes, Wilt couldn't raise his game in the post-season.:facepalm

[millwad]

Save myself some time...

But, yes, Wilt couldn't raise his game in the post-season.:facepalm

Lets not get water over your head now.
Jlauber, you need to retire, go sit next to Bill Walton.

He won two rings with crazy much help, first in '67 he had two HOF:ers by his side and in the playoffs he had Hal Greer putting up more 27 points per game and then he had Chet Walker putting up 21.7 points per game. As if that wasn't enough he had two more players by his side putting up more than 15 points per game during the same run.

In '72 he was the freaking 4th option on offense and he wasn't the best center in the game by then, Kareem who also won the MVP that year was.

The way he dominated in the regular season it's completely ok to question why he dropped in the playoffs and when he finally won it wasn't no Wilt putting up crazy points and having the complete team on his shoulders. It was Wilt putting up 21.7 points per game while playing with 2 HOF:ers and in total 4 guys beside himself putting up more than 15 points per game. And in '72 we are talking about a Wilt who only managed to average around 14 points per game in the playoffs while being the fourth option on offense next to two HOF:ers. While also getting outscored by Kareem with 23 points per game in playoffs while being outshot at the same time and outassisted.

For someone who averaged what Wilt used to do in his scoring prime I think it's completely ok to question his playoff performance and especially consider that he only managed to win 2 titles.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-a8lnAwwDeJk/TfDMGGmy0oI/AAAAAAAAFaM/M3mWVENcqBg/s400/bill-russell.jpg

[Yung D-Will]

It's the same thing every thread, Millwad hates on Wilt then Jlauber comes and defends him.

=/

[jlauber]

Lets not get water over your head now.
Jlauber, you need to retire, go sit next to Bill Walton.

He won two rings with crazy much help, first in '67 he had two HOF:ers by his side and in the playoffs he had Hal Greer putting up more 27 points per game and then he had Chet Walker putting up 21.7 points per game. As if that wasn't enough he had two more players by his side putting up more than 15 points per game during the same run.

In '72 he was the freaking 4th option on offense and he wasn't the best center in the game by then, Kareem who also won the MVP that year was.

The way he dominated in the regular season it's completely ok to question why he dropped in the playoffs and when he finally won it wasn't no Wilt putting up crazy points and having the complete team on his shoulders. It was Wilt putting up 21.7 points per game while playing with 2 HOF:ers and in total 4 guys beside himself putting up more than 15 points per game. And in '72 we are talking about a Wilt who only managed to average around 14 points per game in the playoffs while being the fourth option on offense next to two HOF:ers. While also getting outscored by Kareem with 23 points per game in playoffs while being outshot at the same time and outassisted.

For someone who averaged what Wilt used to do in his scoring prime I think it's completely ok to question his playoff performance and especially consider that he only managed to win 2 titles.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-a8lnAwwDeJk/TfDMGGmy0oI/AAAAAAAAFaM/M3mWVENcqBg/s400/bill-russell.jpg


Dickwad...Chamberlain CRUSHED his peers in '67, which was THE most dominant post-season run in history. BTW, he faced TEN HOFers in those three playoff series. Give me another title run, by anyone, who faced more. Not only that, the Sixers ANNIHILATED their opposition in that run. AND, Wilt not only had Philly's HIGH game in the post-season, he was BY FAR, their most CLUTCH player in their clinching wins.

Hakeem in his first run in '94? Drexler in the first round, Barkley in the second, and Ewing in the Finals. That was IT. How about in '95? Malone and Stockton, then Barkley, and then Shaq...and he had HOFer Drexler at his side, so he was once again, NEVER outgunned by HOFers.

As for Wilt's '72 playoff run...YOU are the ONLY person that would claim that Kareem outplayed Wilt (and of course, you didn't WATCH that series, nor has there ever been any of it released either.) And BTW, Wilt won the FMVP that season, too, and was BY FAR the Lakers BEST and most CLUTCH player in that playoff run...all at age 35.

[millwad]

It's the same thing every thread, Millwad hates on Wilt then Jlauber comes and defends him.

=/

If I'm not mixing you up with some other Jazzfan I've always digged the mostpart of your posts. The so-called "hate" is not hate, it doesn't take much to trigger Jschnauzer, it's like the guy's only purpose in life is to defend Wilt on the net.

I put up my opinion like everyone else on ISH and I always motivate why I think the way I do and no one is forced to think the way I think. I never go "Oh, Wilt is a ******* and he can't do crap", I motivate why I think the way I think, I don't see that as hating.

[jlauber]

Well, it depends on how you see it.
Almost every sport got their legends, like in athletics, the records are getting better and better and of course the athletes as well. I don't know how much this comparison will get to you but for an example, 100 meters sprint.

I see it like this, we had the american sprint legend Jesse Owens who won multiple Olympic golds, and who was just amazing for his own sprinting era in the 30's.

Then we have sprinters of today, guys like Usain Bolt, Asafa Powell, Yohan Blake who almost jogs as fast as Owens sprinted and so does most of the sprinters of today. Is Jesse Owens the best runner ever because he dominated his own era even though the sport nowadays have way faster sprinters, or are the legends of the 60's better than the superstars of the modern era? I don't see it as if accomplishments are equal to actual skillset. You wanna rank someone based on greatness in his own era, go ahead but I rather choose actual skillset combined with greatness and legacy in the player's era. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

Bolt is the current record holder at 9.58. In 1964 Bob Hayes ran a 10.0. Think about that. In nearly 50 years, we have the world record shaved by .42 seconds, or about .03 per year. Now, without even giving Hayes any physical help (medicine, nutrition, and "supplements"), and just giving him the shoes, the track surfaces, and the modern training, and just what he would run today? We have no way of knowing, BUT, it is a safe bet to assume that he would be considerably faster than he was.

How about the world long jump record? Current record is 29' 4" inches, which was set 20 years ago. Then think about this... Bob Beamon long-jumped 29' 2" in 1968. So in over 40 years we have seen a 2" increase, and that was achieved 20 years ago.

Let's carry this further. Mickey Mantle hit the LONGEST HRs in major league history (SEVERAL of them BTW.) That is not even debatable, and he last played 44 years ago.

Nolan Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH in 1973, in the eighth inning of a game in which he had thrown 162 pitches. And, that was on a SLOW gun. There are those that claim that he would have topped at over 107 MPH on the current gun (including Mitch Williams, who stated as much a few months ago on the Dan Patrick show.)

AND, Ryan may not have been the fastest pitcher of his era, either. Just google the name Steve Dalkowski.

Once again, Bob Hayes ran a 10.0 100 meters in 1964. There has NEVER been a LEGITIMATE NFL player to have ever run a faster time (and BTW, Hayes averaged 42 yards per play on his 76 TDs in his career.)

Then we had Darrell Green, who was winning the "NFL Fastest Man" competition at nearly 40 years of age. There have been some accounts of him running a 4.09 40, and another at 4.15. And get this...he just ran a 4.43 a few months ago...and at age 50!

Bo Jackson was recorded with a 4.12 40 in the 1985 combine.

So, the bottom line? Yes, today's athletes, in GENERAL, are bigger, stronger, and faster. BUT, the differences between those of today...and over 50 years ago are VERY MINIMAL.

AND, give all of those I mentioned above, the same benefits of MODERN TECHNOLOGY, and there is a good chance that many of them would be the record holders TODAY.

[millwad]

Dickwad...Chamberlain CRUSHED his peers in '67, which was THE most dominant post-season run in history. BTW, he faced TEN HOFers in those three playoff series.

You're the only one on this site thinking his '67 run was the most dominant post-season run in history. Actually, we just had a thread on this subject on ISH and almost everyone put Hakeem's run in the top 3 and over Wilt's '67 run... but you...

Well, talking about competition. You fail, in '67 Wilt and the '76ers first faced a Cincinnati Royal team who only won 39 games that season and they even lost a game in that series. Then they faced an aging Boston team who still were really good but it wasn't a surprise they lost since Philly had a 8 game better record in the regular season. And in the the finals Philly played a Warrior team who only managed to win 44 games that season.

So basically, 2 out of 3 teams Wilt faced during that playoff-run wouldn't even had made the playoffs in the Western Conference this year. Hell, the Royals even had a losing record.

Lets compare that to Hakeem and the Rockets run in 1995. During that run they faced two teams who had 60+ wins that season, the Utah Jazz in the first round who had a 60-22 record that season and the Spurs who had a 62-20 record that season and as if that wasn't enough, the Suns that year won 59 games and in the finals they faced a Shaq and Penny feat. team who won 57 games. So Hakeem and the Rockets almost beat three 60+ win teams and compared to Wilt in '67 who faced one team who had a 39 win season and then in the finals a team with a 44 win season and of course an aging but still really good celtic team..:facepalm

[jlauber]

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


At the 1964 Summer Olympics, in Tokyo, Hayes had his finest hour as a sprinter. First, he won the 100m and broke the current World Record in the 100 m with a time of 10.06 seconds, even though he was running in lane 1 which had, the day before, been used for the 10 km racewalk and this badly chewed up the cinder track. He also was running in borrowed spikes because one of his shoes had been kicked under the bed when he was playing with some friends and he didn't realize until he got there.[3] This was followed by a second gold medal in the 4 x 100 meter relay, which also produced a new World Record (39.06 seconds).

His come-from-behind win for the US team in the relay was one of the most memorable Olympic moments. Jocelyn Delecour, France's anchor leg runner, famously said to Paul Drayton before the relay final that, "You can't win, all you have is Bob Hayes." Drayton was able to reply afterwards, "All you need..." The race was also Hayes' last as a track and field athlete


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9HrKZfhbCc

[millwad]

Bolt is the current record holder at 9.59. In 1964 Bob Hayes ran a 10.0. Think about that. In nearly 50 years, we have the world record shaved by .41 seconds, or about .03 per year. Now, without even giving Hayes any physical help (medicine, nutrition, and "supplements"), and just giving him the shoes, the track surfaces, and the modern training, and just what he would run today? We have no way of knowing, BUT, it is a safe bet to assume that he would be considerably faster than he was.


Which only shows your stupidity, do you know how extremely much .48 seconds (the record was 9.58 and Bob Hayes ran it in 10.06) are in a 100 meter race?

Everyone in the race Bolt beat the world record in had run better than Hayes world record time. Watch the race yourself, Hayes would have been right after the guy who came in 7th place and see how huge the difference is, it's pathetic you even wrote that crap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By1JQFxfLMM

My point was that respecting legends like Hayes, Jesse Owens, Wilt and the rest of those guys is one thing but for god sake, watch with your own eyes and see how much better the modern game is. It doesn't take a mastermind to see it.

[jlauber]

originally posted by Dickwad

Wilt lives on the fact that he was beasting in the regular season. His playoff-stats dropped alot in terms of scoring, almost 8 points per game and he did it on worse FG% compared to his regular season stats. He also averaged less assists in the playoffs.

Then people must re-think a little regarding his scoring first of all. He played extreme minutes, in the regular season he averaged more than 45 minutes per game something he wouldn't have been able to do in the modern era, just not possible even though I think he'd still average alot of minutes. I have no doubt that he'd average more than 36 minutes per game but checking his PER 36 he suddenly looks way more human. Shaq both has a higher PER 36 points per game average and also a better FG% than Wilt. Hakeem is just ahead of Wilt with a 1.7 higher scoring average per 36. And if Hakeem would have retired the same age as Wilt he'd have a higher PER 36 scoring average. This alone shatters all the talk about how more effective Wilt was. It was a matter of him averaging way more minutes than guys like Shaq and Hakeem, not about him being a crazy better effective scorer.

In the playoffs Wilt's scoring average dropped and so did his FG% as everyone knows. Hakeem who has the highest scoring average of all-time in the playoffs for a center obviously averaged more points per game than Wilt and he also did it with better FG%. So did Shaq also, he scored more per game and he also shot with better FG%.




First of all, there were essentially THREE Wilt's. The first Wilt, who was the statistically most dominant player in NBA history, and by a HUGE margin. 40 ppg, 25 rpg, and .520 shooting (in leagues that shot between .410 to .456.) Not only that, but THAT Wilt also averaged 33 ppg and 27 rpg, and .510 in those six post-seasons. And he missed a post-season in a year in which he averaged 44.8 ppg and shot .528...so you could probably have logically added another 2-3 more ppg had he played that post-season.

We ALL know his staggering statistical achievements in those first seven years. No one will ever come close. This is not debateable. And no one was NEARLY as dominant against their peers. either. Not Shaq, not Kareem, not MJ, and certainly not Hakeem (who was seldom even among the better players of his era, and who only won two rebounding titles, and was nowhere near the scoring or efficiency leaders.) Chamberlain not only had HUGE scoring and rebounding seasons, he won several of them by staggering margins. He won one scoring title by +18.8 ppg, and another by +10.8 ppg. He won rebounding titles by as much as +4.8 rpg. So, that BLOWS AWAY this theory that EVERYONE was scoring and rebounding in the Wilt era. The REALITY was, there was Wilt on one side of the universe, and everyone else on the other.

And, his post-seasons were nearly as overwhelming. FOUR 50+ point games, including a 56-35 game clinching performance; a 50-35 elimination game and against Russell; a 50 point game on 22-32 shooting; and a 53 point game on 24-42 shooting. He also had THREE more 40-30 games against Russell.

He also had post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. He had playoff series of 38.6 ppg, 37.0, and 37.0. He even had another FOUR post-season series, against Russell alone, of 30+ ppg, including one of 30 ppg and 31 rpg.

Rebounding? In those first seven seasons, he averaged 25.5 rpg. And he had TWO seasons of 27 and 27.2 rpg. And then, as always, he elevated his rebounding in the post-season to an average of 26.3 rpg.

As for the RIDICULOUS PER/36 stat, which PUNISHES a player like Wilt, who averaged 47 mpg in those first seven seasons, and it REWARDS those that play 30-40 mpg. However, even with that obvious handicap against Wilt, let's take a closer look at what Wilt REALLY accomplished.

Shaq's BEST ppg per/36 season, was 28.5. How about Wilt? He had FIVE higher, including one of 33.9 ppg and another of 37.4 ppg. Then there is Hakeem. Truly LAUGHABLE that you would, in ANY way, attempt to prop Hakeem over Wilt with that STUPID stat. Hakeem's BEST ppg per/36 season was a paltry 25.3 ppg. All SEVEN of Wilt's first seven "scoring seasons" were better than that. And, as already mentioned, SEVERAL were MILES better.

And how about rebounding, using that moronic stat? Hmmm, Hakeem's BEST season was 13.4 rpg per/36, while Shaq's best was 13.2. How about Wilt? His WORST was 14.8 rpg per/36. Even in LAST season, at age 36, it was 15.5. Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain had EIGHT of 18.2+, including TWO of 20.5 and 20.9.

So much for that desperate attempt to compare Hakeem and Shaq against a PRIME, "scoring" Wilt. Not even close. Of course, we KNOW that Wilt would be among the leaders...in fact he would BE the leader...in mpg in THIS era, just as he was in HIS era. 42+ mpg would be the norm (and he would probably have higher seasons, too.) Meanwhile Hakeem and Shaq had ONE 40.0 mpg season, in 19 years, and Hakeem also had ONE 40+ (41.0) in his 18 seasons. Neither were capable of 42 mpg, and 18 and 19 year sample sizes PROVE that point. Wilt never had ONE season at BELOW 42, and then, in the post-season, he RAISED his mpg, from 45.8 to 47.2 mpg. Just astonishing.

Ok, that covers a PRIME "scoring" Wilt. To use his CAREER stats, when he DRAMATICALLY cut back his shooting in the last HALF of his career, against him, is pure nonsense. So, your "and also a better FG% than Wilt. Hakeem is just ahead of Wilt with a 1.7 higher scoring average per 36. And if Hakeem would have retired the same age as Wilt he'd have a higher PER 36 scoring average" is just BLOWN AWAY by a PRIME Wilt. Had "Wilt retired after his first seven seasons" his career scoring ppg and rpg would be SUBSTANTIALLY higher. You can use Shaq's and Hakeem's PRIME seven seasons, and they are DWARFED by Wilt's.

And even using "pace", and Wilt's numbers are solidly higher. And, if we are using "pace" against Wilt, then you have to include LEAGUE AVERAGE FG%'s too. Wilt would have shot considerably higher in Shaq's era, and DRAMATICALLY higher in Hakeem's era. Hakeem had the good fortune to play in the "defenseless 80's" when EVERY player was shooting 50%. Example? Hakeem had his HIGHEST seasonal FG% of his career, in his ROOKIE season, at .534. It is alos no coincidence that it came in the NBA's HIGHEST FG% season EVER. Chamberlain would have added at 50-75 points to his seasonal FG%'s had he played in the 80's. And with that higher shooting would have come more FGs per attempt.

Continued...

[millwad]

First of all, there were essentially THREE Wilt's. The first Wilt, who was the statistically most dominant player in NBA history, and by a HUGE margin. 40 ppg, 25 rpg, and .520 shooting (in leagues that shot between .410 to .456.) Not only that, but THAT Wilt also averaged 33 ppg and 27 rpg, and .510 in those six post-seasons. And he missed a post-season in a year in which he averaged 44.8 ppg and shot .528...so you could probably have logically added another 2-3 more ppg had he played that post-season.

Who didn't win crap and dropped in the playoffs during his statistical prime.. Both in terms of scoring and FG%

And you idiot, he missed the playoffs in the season where he averaged 44.8 ppg because he only managed to win pathetic 31 games with his poor team that season. Poor Wilt, so you're actually using that as an excuse..:facepalm

And in that case, lets remove Hakeem's last playoff-season so we can compare them on the age since Hakeem's last playoff games was 3 years after the age Wilt retired..



And, his post-seasons were nearly as overwhelming. FOUR 50+ point games, including a 56-35 game clinching performance; a 50-35 elimination game and against Russell; a 50 point game on 22-32 shooting; and a 53 point game on 24-42 shooting. He also had THREE more 40-30 games against Russell.

Lets talk about the years he won instead, cutie.



He also had post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. He had playoff series of 38.6 ppg, 37.0, and 37.0. He even had another FOUR post-season series, against Russell alone, of 30+ ppg, including one of 30 ppg and 31 rpg.

And while he won it was on 21.7 ppg average and around 14 ppg average..



Rebounding? In those first seven seasons, he averaged 25.5 rpg. And he had TWO seasons of 27 and 27.2 rpg. And then, as always, he elevated his rebounding in the post-season to an average of 26.3 rpg.

Great rebounder, I've told you plenty of times though why those numbers can't be compared to later era's but obviously you keep denying obvious facts or is Elgin Baylor still better than Rodman? :facepalm

Lower FG% leads to more rebounds, less competition from non-centers, higher pace which leads to more shots taken etc.



As for the RIDICULOUS PER/36 stat, which PUNISHES a player like Wilt, who averaged 47 mpg in those first seven seasons, and it REWARDS those that play 30-40 mpg. However, even with that obvious handicap against Wilt, let's take a closer look at what Wilt REALLY accomplished.

It proves that his dominance also was due the heavy minutes he played, minutes he wouldn't have played in the modern era.

And it shows that Hakeem and Shaq could do everything Wilt did other than the inflated rebounding numbers based on career average. And in the playoffs his PER 36 is a sad figure compared to Shaq's and Hakeem's minus the rebounding.



Shaq's BEST ppg per/36 season, was 28.5. How about Wilt? He had FIVE higher, including one of 33.9 ppg and another of 37.4 ppg. Then there is Hakeem. Truly LAUGHABLE that you would, in ANY way, attempt to prop Hakeem over Wilt with that STUPID stat. Hakeem's BEST ppg per/36 season was a paltry 25.3 ppg. All SEVEN of Wilt's first seven "scoring seasons" were better than that. And, as already mentioned, SEVERAL were MILES better.

Stupid stat? It clearly shows that Wilt over his career based on being effective wouldn't have had the same advantage in terms of stats if he'd play in later era's.



And how about rebounding, using that moronic stat? Hmmm, Hakeem's BEST season was 13.4 rpg per/36, while Shaq's best was 13.2. How about Wilt? His WORST was 14.8 rpg per/36. Even in LAST season, at age 36, it was 15.5. Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain had EIGHT of 18.2+, including TWO of 20.5 and 20.9.

Still you don't think about the fact that the players of Wilt's era played at a much higher pace while missing way more shots, you idiot. In that case Baylor was a greater rebounder than Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing and Rodman etc..:facepalm



So much for that desperate attempt to compare Hakeem and Shaq against a PRIME, "scoring" Wilt. Not even close. Of course, we KNOW that Wilt would be among the leaders...in fact he would BE the leader...in mpg in THIS era, just as he was in HIS era. 42+ mpg would be the norm (and he would probably have higher seasons, too.) Meanwhile Hakeem and Shaq had ONE 40.0 mpg season, in 19 years, and Hakeem also had ONE 40+ (41.0) in his 18 seasons. Neither were capable of 42 mpg, and 18 and 19 year sample sizes PROVE that point. Wilt never had ONE season at BELOW 42, and then, in the post-season, he RAISED his mpg, from 45.8 to 47.2 mpg. Just astonishing.

Prime scoring Wilt is completely irrelevant since he couldn't win crap.



Ok, that covers a PRIME "scoring" Wilt. To use his CAREER stats, when he DRAMATICALLY cut back his shooting in the last HALF of his career, against him, is pure nonsense. So, your "and also a better FG% than Wilt. Hakeem is just ahead of Wilt with a 1.7 higher scoring average per 36. And if Hakeem would have retired the same age as Wilt he'd have a higher PER 36 scoring average" is just BLOWN AWAY by a PRIME Wilt. Had "Wilt retired after his first seven seasons" his career scoring ppg and rpg would be SUBSTANTIALLY higher. You can use Shaq's and Hakeem's PRIME seven seasons, and they are DWARFED by Wilt's.

Well, you idiot.
If Wilt would have retired after his first seven seasons he would have been ringless. Haha, your stupidity is amazing. The difference Jlauber, it is that Hakeem and Shaq actually won during their PRIME season's unlike Wilt, at least based on Wilt's prime stats seasons.



And even using "pace", and Wilt's numbers are solidly higher. And, if we are using "pace" against Wilt, then you have to include LEAGUE AVERAGE FG%'s too. Wilt would have shot considerably higher in Shaq's era, and DRAMATICALLY higher in Hakeem's era. Hakeem had the good fortune to play in the "defenseless 80's" when EVERY player was shooting 50%. Example? Hakeem had his HIGHEST seasonal FG% of his career, in his ROOKIE season, at .534. It is alos no coincidence that it came in the NBA's HIGHEST FG% season EVER. Chamberlain would have added at 50-75 points to his seasonal FG%'s had he played in the 80's. And with that higher shooting would have come more FGs per attempt.


You idiot, Wilt faced way less double and triple teams than Shaq and Hakeem, not even compare-able. The defenseless 80's and 90's was full of defensive schemes and double and triple teams, something the poor 60's wasn't.

There's no way that Wilt with the same skillset would be anywhere close the scoring seasons he had. You honestly believe he'd put 50 point seasons which only proves how stupid you are.

And using his highest seasonal FG% only shows how little you know about Hakeem. In his rookie season he only played in the paint, he lived on dunks and offensive rebounds and stayed in the 3 second area. He was no where close the offensive player he became later on.



Continued...

You don't have to "continued" that garbage.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

I covered Wilt's first half of his career, which was his "scoring" prime. But, just to put it in perspective, Wilt had THREE games of 50+ against HOFer Willis Reed, including a HIGH game of 58. He also had THREE games of 60+ against 6-11 HOFer, Walt Bellamy, with a HIGH game of 73. And he POUNDED Thurmond in their limited H2H's in those "scoring" seasons, with SEVERAL 30+ games, and a high game in which he outscored Nate, 45-13. He also had 24 40+ games against Russell, with FIVE of 50+, and a high of 62 (on 27-45 shooting BTW.)

And we all know the significance of that. Kareem came into the league in Wilt's last four seasons, and faced Reed, Bellamy, and Thurmond, and never came CLOSE to dominating those guys in the fashion that Wilt did. And, fortunately for Kareem, he didn't have to go up against Russell, either.

Once again, there were THREE Chamberlain's. The "scoring" Wilt, in his first seven seasons. Then the "balanced" Wilt, from 66-67 thru 68-69. And then there was the "post-injury" Wilt.

Technically, you could even add the Wilt of the promising 69-70 season. That season might very well have been among Wilt's greatest. His new coach asked that Wilt become the focal point of the offense, and he responded with a 32 ppg, 20 rpg, .600 first nine games. Unfortunately, Chamberlain shredded his knee in that ninth game, and was never the same again (although he did return to put up the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history...and with an elimination game six of 45 points, on 20-27 shooting, with 27 rebounds.) BTW, in his one meeting with rookie Kareem in those first nine games, he just abused him.

Wilt's "balanced" seasons were staggering "all-around" seasons. In '67, he averaged 24.1 ppg, 24.2 rpg, 7.8 apg, and shot a mind-boggling .683 from the field. That efficiency, with that scoring, has never been, nor will ever be approached again. Rick Barry won the scoring title that season, at 35.6 ppg, but even he "thanked" Wilt for "letting" him win it. Virtually everyone knew that had Wilt wanted the scoring title, it would have been his. The real question would have been...would Wilt have approached 40 ppg?

And all Wilt did in '68 was average 24.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, shot .595, and LED the NBA in assists (with an 8.6 apg average.)

And in 68-69 Wilt was traded to the Lakers, and unfortunately, he was stuck with perhaps the most incompetent coach in NBA history. Still, despite being asked to sacrifice his own scoring so that Baylor could shoot blanks (especially in the post-season), Wilt still averaged 20.5 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, and a league leading .583 from the field.

BTW, Wilt also had the HIGH scoring games in each of those three seasons, with games of 52, 53, 53, 58, 60, 66, and 68. His 66 point outburst came in 68-69, and on 29-35 shooting.

Chamberlain's 66-67 post-season was arguably the greatest ever. 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and on .579 shooting, in 15 games. 11 of those games were against HOFers Thurmond and Russell, and he just CRUSHED both of them, in leading his Sixers to a dominating title.

And had injuries not wracked his 68 Sixer squad it would surely have been a repeat. Still, a hobbled Wilt averaged 23.7 ppg, 24.7 rpg, 6.5 apg, and shot .534.

Once again, Wilt had a clown for a coach in 68-69, and there were MANY reasons why LA didn't win the title. It was arguably Wilt's worst post-season, too (although you could throw 70-71 in that discussion too.) But all anyone needs to know, is that Wilt's COACH kept Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven, two-point loss (and in a game in which Wilt had scored 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, and with 27 rebounds.)

I have already covered Wilt's 69-70 season. It was truly a MIRACLE that Wilt came back at all. And then he performed brilliantly, too, even on basically one leg.


The last of the three Wilt's occurred in his "post-injury" years, from 70-71 thru 72-73. He was no longer a dominant scorer, although he could still put up an occasional 30+ point game (and he had two 30-30 games, out of his career 103, in the 71-72 season, ...one of which, a 31-32 game, came against 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier.) I personally believe that his 70-71 season was the worst of his career. He "only" averaged 20.7 ppg, with a career low 18.2 rpg, and on .545 shooting, which was hardly "Wilt-like."

Still, in that 70-71 season, he faced a Kareem TEN times (five regular season, and five post-season.) And, this was a Kareem who averaged 31.7 ppg, 16.0 rpg, and shot .577 (in a league that shot .449...or a career high differential of .128.) In those ten H2H games, Kareem outscored Wilt, per game, 26-23, but Wilt outrebounded Kareem, per game, 18-16, and outshot Kareem, .490 to .454 (and Kareem only shot .437 against him in the regular season, and .481 in the playoffs.)

In his 71-72 season, at age 35, Wilt finished THIRD in the MVP balloting (where was Hakeem at age 35 BTW?) And of course, by virtually EVERY account, Wilt outplayed a PRIME Kareem in the WCF's. He held Kareem to .457 shooting, and only .414 over the course of the last FOUR pivotal games. Included, were 15+ blocks of the "unblockable" sky-hook. Kareem was reduced to a shot-jacking brick-layer, and the Bucks ONE year dominance was over. Then, in the Finals, Wilt completely dominated the Knicks, including a clinching game of 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds, and 9 blocks. Oh, and BTW, a FMVP...all at age 35.

In Wilt's LAST season, at age 36, all he did was LEAD the NBA in rebounding; was voted first-team all-defense (over the likes of Reed, Thurmond, Lanier, Hayes, Cowens, and Kareem); and he set a FG% mark of .727 that will never be approached, much less surpassed. He also battled a PRIME Kareem in six regular season H2H's, holding Kareem to .450 shooting, while an eye-popping .737 himself. He even outscored Kareem in one game, 24-21, while outshooting him, 10-14 to 10-27.

Once again, against a PRIME Kareem. In their 28 H2H games, Wilt held a PRIME Kareem to .464 shooting. Then think about this... an OLD Kareem, at age 38, averaged 33 ppg, on a mind-blowing .634 FG% against a 23 year old Hakeem (the same age in which Kareem won an MVP and a FMVP) in FIVE H2H games. Hakeem could barely outscore that 38 year old Kareem in the WCF's, too, 31-27 ppg (and Hakeem wasn't even guarding Kareem because..well, he simply couldn't.) BTW, Kareem, in his 22 known H2H's against Hakeem, shot .599 against Hakeem's teams. And that doesn't include Kareem's 84-85 season, when he had one of his THREE 40+ explosions against the helpless Hakeem. In Kareem's 46 point oputburst, he shot 21-30, and in only 37 minutes, AND, in the recap, it was mentioned that Kareem probably would have shattered his career high game of 55 had his coach not mercifully removed him from the game.

And yet, an OLD Wilt, on a surgically repaired knee, held Kareem to nearly 100 points UNDER his career FG% of .559. While an OLD Kareem shot 40 points HIGHER against Hakeem.

In Wilt's final season, Nate Thurmond once again reduced Kareem to a horrible shooting post-season, holding Abdul Jabbar to 22.8 ppg on .428 shooting (in a year in which Kareem averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 shooting), and the result was a stunning upset over Kareem's 60-22 Bucks by Nate's 47-35 Warriors.

Nate was then DECIMATED by Wilt and HIS 60-22 Lakers in the WCF's. Wilt outrebounded Thurmond in that series, 23.6 rpg to 17.2 rpg, and along the way, he outshot Nate, .550 to .392. And in the process, he led the Lakers to a 4-1 romp, which included a 126-70 blowout in game three in Oakland, and in which I was in attendance.

Wilt's Lakers were hobbled by injuries in the Finals (Hairston was just coming baack from his season-long injury, and West was nursing TWO injured knees.) Wilt played well, but the Lakers lost four close games (all decided in the last minute...losses of 4, 4, 5, and 9 points), and NY, with their SIX HOFers won the series, 4-1. In Wilt's FINAL game of his career, at nearly 37 years of age, he scored 23 points, on 9-16 shooting, with 21 rebounds.


Continued...

[jlauber]

Continuing...


Wilt's rebounding is obviously amazing, but also there it's also a matter of the era he played in. The game was played at a higher pace which led to more rebounds and the players shot with a worse FG% compared to the era Hakeem and Shaq played in which also led to many more rebounds available. Although rebounding among centers still held a great class in the Wilt's era, the other players weren't as strong and athletic like the modern era, you didn't see any LeBron type of player from the forward spot crashing rebounds which also made it easier for Wilt and his competitors at center position to grab more rebounds.

We are after all talking about the same era where 6-5 forward, Elgin Baylor had a season where he averaged 20 rebounds per game. Just based on the amount, then you'd have to consider him as a way greater rebounder than the modern era players.

To compare Elgin Baylor's amazing 20 rebounds per game average with the modern era, lets mention Dennis Rodman. Rodman is a 7-time league rebounding champion and he never during his career averaged even more than 18 rebounds. As if Baylor's 20 rebounds per game season wasn't enough, he also had a season where he average 18.6 rebounds per game.



True, in Wilt's era there were more available rebounds, but even they declined each season after it's peak in 61-62 (about 62 rpg AFTER removing TEAM rebounds.) By Wilt's LAST season, the NBA was averaging 50.6 rpg.

And, let's get real here too. Teams were not getting TWICE as many rebounds, even in the 61-62 season, as in Hakeem's or Shaq's era. In fact, Hakeem and Shaq's NBA was at nearly 70% of Wilt's 61-62 season. And, once again, that ratio would rise to over 80% in Wilt's last season.

Furthermore, take Russell and Wilt out of the equations, and there were a TOTAL of FOUR 20+ rpg seasons, with a high of Thurmond's 21.3 rpg in '67. So, here again, it was not like EVERY player was getting 20+ rpg. In fact, only THREE other players, aside from Wilt and Russell, ever had a 20+ rpg season.

And, Wilt was getting over TWICE as many rpg as PRIME Hakeem and Shaq. Oh, and then there was the post-season, where Chamberlain just DESTROYED those two in rpg, at WELL OVER twice the average. Wilt even had post-seasons of 29 and 30 rpg.

As for Rodman...yes, he was HIS era's greatest rebounder. The 6-8 Rodman just BURIED Shaq and Hakeem in his best seasons. BUT, unlike Wilt, Rodman dropped SIGNIFICANTLY in the post-season. While Wilt averaged 24.5 rpg in his post-season career, Rodman was at 9.9 rpg in his. Here again, no matter what math you use, Wilt, at two-and-half times higher, was CONSIDERABLY better in the post-season than Rodman. Of course, Wilt played in 29 post-season series, and was never outrebounded in ANY of them.


And as I mentioned, in the playoffs Wilt's scoring average dropped pretty big time and during his playoff highs in scoring he didn't win any titles. When he finally won it was with 2 HOF:ers by his side and 4 guys by his side who all averaged more than 15 points per game in the playoffs and he didn't lead the team in scoring, HOF:er Hal Greer averaged more than 27 points during Wilt's first title run. And in fact, Wilt tied the 2nd highest point per game average during the 67 run on his team with Chet Walker who also averaged 21.7 points per game.

And the during the 2nd run, Chamberlain wasn't even the best center in the game by then, Kareem who also was the MVP that season was the best. Kareem averaged 40 points per game on 50% shooting on Wilt in the regular season and in the playoffs he outscored Wilt with 23 points per game while also shooting a better FG% and he also outassisted Wilt in the series.

Sure, Wilt was amazing during his title runs but he didn't dominate the way Shaq and Hakeem did during their runs. Only a fool would consider Wilt's 2 runs better than Hakeem's 2 runs and Shaq's 4 runs.

Wilt's '67 post-season run was the greatest in NBA history, despite your pathetic assertion that either of Hakeem's were. He had Philly's HIGH game, with a 41 point game, on 19-30 shooting. He also had a 37 point game on 16-24 shooting. Both of which illustrated that had Wilt wanted to score, he would have (and keep in mind that in game five of the '66 ECF's, and just the year before, Wilt pounded Russell with a 46-34 game.)

While Greer led the Sixers in scoring, it was WILT who led Philly in the BIG games. In the clinching game five win over Russell's 60-21 Celtics, and their SIX HOFers, Wilt scored 22 first half points, while the game was still close, en route to 29 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 13 assists, and 36 rebounds. Greer did score 32 points, but on 12-28 shooting. And in the 76ers clinching ghame six win over the Warriors in the Finals, Wilt scored 24 points, on 8-13 shooting, with 23 rebounds, while holding Thurmond to 12 points, on 4-13 shooting, with 22 rebounds. Greer? 15 points on 5-16 shooting.

For the entire playoffs, Wilt had a 28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, TRIPLE DOUBLE series against the Royals, and in the process, he shot a staggering .612 from the field. Then he crushed Russell in the '67 ECF's. He outscored Russell, per game, 21.6 to 10.2 ppg; he outassisted Russell, per game, 10 apg, to 6 apg; he outshot Russell by a whopping .556 to .358 margin; and he outrebounded Russell by a CRUSHING 32 rpg to 23 rpg. He then outscored Nate, in the Finals, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outassisted him per game, 6.8 apg to 4.0 apg; outrebounded him per game, 28.5 to 26.7 (and he outrebounded Thurmond in FIVE of those six games); and he outshot Thurmond by just an astonishing margin of .560 to .343.

And Wilt had to battle three teams with collectively TEN HOFers. Name one other great who had to go thru TEN HOFers in the post-season.

And I have already covered Wilt's '72 title run previously. He was UNIVERSALLY regarded as having outplayed Kareem in the '72 WCF's (and Time Magazine hailed Wilt as DECISIVELY outplaying Kareem.) Even the MILWAUKEE players, coach, and press claimed as much.

Of course, playing with one badly sprained wrist, and the other FRACTURED, all Wilt did in the clinching game five win of the Finals was score 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 9 blocks, and 29 rebounds (and the ENTIRE Knick team only had 39 BTW)..,en route to a the FMVP. At nearly 37 years of age.

Kareem being the best center in the league in Wilt's LAST three years? True, this was a PRIME Kareem, at the PEAK of his career, and a Wilt who was 34, 35, and 36 years of age...and playing on a surgically repaired knee. HOWEVER, we never got to see what a PRIME Wilt would have won against Kareem. We do KNOW that Wilt CRUSHED many of the SAME centers by a FAR greater extent than Kareem ever did.

[jlauber]

Who didn't win crap and dropped in the playoffs during his statistical prime.. Both in terms of scoring and FG%

And you idiot, he missed the playoffs in the season where he averaged 44.8 ppg because he only managed to win pathetic 31 games with his poor team that season. Poor Wilt, so you're actually using that as an excuse..

And in that case, lets remove Hakeem's last playoff-season so we can compare them on the age since Hakeem's last playoff games was 3 years after the age Wilt retired..



Wilt didn't win CRAP in his statistical PRIME???? Hmmm, Wilt came to a LAST PLACE team, and IMMEDIATELY led them to a 49-26 record.

In his first seven years, and with PUTRID rosters,(and those HORRIBLE rosters played WORSE in the post-season BTW), Chamberlain played on FIVE winning teams. One of them, his 61-62 Warriors, who he SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried to a 49-31 record, lost a game seven to Russell's 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers. And, Wilt's teammates shot .354 in that post-season. Just how in the hell did WILT do it???

And how about his 64-65 Sixers, who went 40-40? He took THAT team to a 3-1 romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals, and then, against Russell's 62-18 Celtics, Chamberlain averaged 30-31 over the course of the seven games, in leading his team to a game seven, one point loss. In that seventh game, all Wilt did was score 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds.

Oh, and Wilt took the same basic roster that went 31-49 in 62-63, to a 48-32 record in '63-64, and a trip to the Finals, where they fell to Russell's Celtics, and their 8-2 edge in HOFers, 4-1. All Wilt did in that series was average 29 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .517 (in a league that shot .433.)

And how about this? In Wilt's 65-66 season, he LED the NBA in scoring, at 33.5 ppg. He LED the NBA in rebounding, at 24.6 rpg. And he LED the NBA in FG%, at .540. All THREE of those marks are better than ANY of Hakeem's BEST seasons, and NONE of them wer remotely close to Wilt's BEST.

But, it gets better. Wilt, while leading the league in all THREE categories, also LED his team to the BEST RECORD in the league. Now, give me EITHER of these...how many times did Hakeem lead the league in scoring? And how many times did Hakeem lead his team to the BEST RECORD in the league? Let me make it easy for you...NADA.

And, as for Wilt's teammates... in his first six post-seasons, they collectively shot .382, .380, .354, .352, .352, and even .332. Find me ONE season in which Hakeem had to overcome such inept play by his teammates in his post-seasons.

And while we are on the subject...how many times did Hakeem lead his team in scoring in the post-season, ...and then lead them to FIRST ROUND EXITS??? I believe he achieved that accomplishment SEVEN times (and he add yet another FIRST ROUND EXIT in 89-90, when he only averaged 18.5 ppg on .443 shooting.)

Talk about "not winning crap"...Hakeem is the all-time leader among the "greats" in FIRST ROUND EXITS. Something he did EIGHT times, in his 15 post-season career.


Lets talk about the years he won instead, cutie.



I already covered it, but a quick recap...

In Wilt's '67 post-season, he nearly averaged a TRIPLE DOUBLE for the ENTIRE playoffs, covering 15 games. He averaged 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and shot .579 from the field. Oh, and TWO of those THREE series were against Russell and Thurmond.

And he DID average a TRIPLE DOUBLE in TWO of those THREE series. Against the Royals, he averaged 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, and shot .612 from the field. Against Russell's 60-21 Celtics, and their SIX HOFers, he averaged 21.6 ppg, 32 rpg, 10.0 apg, and shot .556. BTW, Russell averaged 10.2 ppg, 23.0 rpg, and shot .358 against Wilt.

He also had Philly's HIGH game of 41 points, on 19-30 shooting (along with a 37 point game, on 16-24 shooting.) And while Greer led the Sixers in scoring, it was WILT scoring in the CLUTCH. In the clinching game five win over Russell's Celtics, Wilt hung a 29 point game (with 22 of the points coming in the first half when the game was still in doubt), on 10-16 shooting, with 13 assists and 36 rebounds (BTW, Russell had a 4 point, 2-5 shooting, 7 assist, 21 rebound game.) Greer did lead the Sixers in scoring in that game, with 32, but it came on 12-28 shooting.

And, in the clinching game six win in the Finals, while Greer scored 15 points, and on 5-16 shooting, Wilt outscored Thurmond, 24-12, outrebounded Nate, 23-22, and outshot Nate, 8-13 to 4-13. For the series, Wilt outscored Nate, per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outrebounded Thurmond per game, 28.5 to 26.7 (and he outrebounded him in FIVE of their six games); and he outshot Nate by a staggering .560 to .343 margin.

As for Wilt in the '72 post-season. He was UNIVERASALLY acclaimed as outplaying Kareem in the '72 WCF's. In fact, even the MILWAUKEE players, coach, and PRESS acknowledged it. He held a PRIME Kareem, who had shot .574 in the regular season, to a dismal .457 series. AND, he held Kareem to an AWFUL .414 over the course of the last FOUR pivotal games. He also dominated Abdul Jabbar in the clinching game six win, hanging a 22 point, 24 rebound game, on 8-12 shooting, while holding Kareem to 16-37 from the field. AND, in that series, Wilt blocked at least 15 of Kareem's "unblockable" sky hooks.

In the Finals, Wilt DOMINATED the Knicks, and their FIVE HOFers. And, in the clinchning game five win, and playing with TWO badly injured wrists, Wilt put up a 24 point game, on 10-14 shooting, with 9 blocks, and with 29 rebounds (the ENTIRE NY team had 39 BTW)...en route to the FMVP.


Great rebounder, I've told you plenty of times though why those numbers can't be compared to later era's but obviously you keep denying obvious facts or is Elgin Baylor still better than Rodman?

Lower FG% leads to more rebounds, less competition from non-centers, higher pace which leads to more shots taken etc

I have already covered this many times, but here goes...

Wilt averaged more than TWICE as many rpg as either Shaq or Hakeem in BOTH the regular season AND post-season. No matter what kind of "dickwad math" you use, both Hakeem and Shaq are crushed by Wilt's numbers. BTW, Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 post-season series. A supposedly PRIME Hakeem was outrebounded by a young Shaq, and then he was CRUSHED by a PRIME Shaq a couple of years later.


It proves that his dominance also was due the heavy minutes he played, minutes he wouldn't have played in the modern era.

And it shows that Hakeem and Shaq could do everything Wilt did other than the inflated rebounding numbers based on career average. And in the playoffs his PER 36 is a sad figure compared to Shaq's and Hakeem's minus the rebounding.



No, it PROVES that Hakeem and Shaq COULDN'T keep up with Wilt. Here are the facts. Shaq and Hakeem each had ONE 40+ mpg season (Shaq at an even 40 mpg, and Hakeem at 41.) We have an 18 and 19 season sample size to tell us that neither could sustain the pace that Wilt could. Wilt's LOW season was 42.3 mpg, and he averaged 43.2 in his LAST season. Not only that, but Wilt averaged 47.2 mpg over the course of his 160 post-season games, including a 47.1 mpg post-season, covering 17 games, in his LAST post-season. And keep in mind that Wilt played in a faster paced era, and with much more brutal scheduling.

So we pretty much KNOW that Wilt would be leading the league EVERY year in the current NBA, and probably playing 42+. THEN, since he would obviously be better rested with LESS minutes, and over the course of an entire season, his EFFICIENCY would RISE.

Bu contrast, make Hakeem play more minutes, and at a faster pace, and he would decline rapidly.


Still you don't think about the fact that the players of Wilt's era played at a much higher pace while missing way more shots, you idiot. In that case Baylor was a greater rebounder than Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing and Rodman etc..



I have NEVER claimed that Baylor was a better rebounder than Rodman, nor that would Baylor average 20 rpg in TODAY's NBA. However, his numbers translate to about 13 rpg at his peak. And don't forget, a 6-5 Barkley averaged 14.6 rpg one season, and then later in his career, he outrebounded Hakeem by FOUR per game, when they were paired on the same team.


Prime scoring Wilt is completely irrelevant since he couldn't win crap.



I already addressed this nonsense. In fact, a PRIME SCORING Wilt led his team to the BEST RECORD in the league. Something that Hakeem NEVER did.


Well, you idiot.
If Wilt would have retired after his first seven seasons he would have been ringless. Haha, your stupidity is amazing. The difference Jlauber, it is that Hakeem and Shaq actually won during their PRIME season's unlike Wilt, at least based on Wilt's prime stats seasons

Wilt certainly played MUCH better than Hakeem did in Hakeem's "non-winning" post-seasons, too. And Wilt did lead his team to a title in his PRIME. His '67 season is generally regarded as perhaps the greatest ever. Oh, and he even LED a team to a title in his "non-PRIME", too (although Wilt's WORST seasons would have been great for 95% of those that played in the NBA.) Shaq can make that claim, too, although not as the leader, in '06. Hakeem certainly can't, though.

Continued...

[jlauber]

You idiot, Wilt faced way less double and triple teams than Shaq and Hakeem, not even compare-able. The defenseless 80's and 90's was full of defensive schemes and double and triple teams, something the poor 60's wasn't.



I have TRASHED this flat out LIE many times, but here goes again...


What kind of defenses did Wilt face in his NBA career?

http://biography.jrank.org/pages/233...lain-Wilt.html


Quote:
Several of the rules of college basketball had to be changed as a result of Chamberlain's talents, which simply dwarfed those of previous players. Opposing players double-and triple-teamed him and played a slowed-down game rather than attempt to confront Chamberlain's offensive skills head-on. These techniques helped the University of North Carolina defeat Kansas 54-53 in triple overtime in the 1957 championship game.

Such tactics also frustrated the rapidly developing Chamberlain, who startled the basketball world by turning professional rather than returning to Kansas for his senior year. NBA rules forbade him from joining the league until the year in which he would have graduated from college, so Chamberlain played for the razzle-dazzle touring professional team the Harlem Globetrotters during the 1958-59 season. He joined the Philadelphia Warriors in 1959, having already collected a large bonus for signing.

Individual Triumphs in NBA
Chamberlain was an NBA star from the beginning, leading the league in scoring and rebounding, and taking home honors not only for Rookie of the Year but also for Most Valuable Player. Frustrated by defensive tactics similar to those he had faced in college, and by what he considered biased officiating, he threatened to leave the league and return to the Globetrotters in 1960. But he did not follow through on his threat, and soon learned to outmaneuver his tormentors through sheer size, speed, and skill.






http://www.nba.com/home/history/lege...ain/index.html


Quote:
In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."





http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...940232,00.html


Quote:
He stood there, just to the right of the basket, a placid. 7-ft. 1 1/16-in, giant watching impassively as his teammates maneuvered the ball in backcourt. The New York Knickerbockers tried to box him in; they clutched at his jersey, leaned against his chest, stepped on his toes. Then Wilt Chamberlain came alive. With the aplomb of a cop palming an apple, he reached out one massive hand and plucked the basketball out of the air. Spinning violently, he ripped clear of the elbowing surge, took a step toward the basket and jumped. For an instant, he seemed suspended in midair, his head on a level with the 10-ft.-high basket. Slowly, gently, the ball dribbled off his fingertips, through the net, and the San Francisco Warriors went on to a 142-134 victory. New York Coach Ed Donovan sadly shook his head. "He's phenomenal." he sighed. "How does anyone stop Wilt Chamberlain?"





http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...940232,00.html


Quote:
Most basketball stars have one great talent: Russell's is defense, Elgin Baylor's is shooting, Bob Cousy's is setting up plays and passing. Chamberlain does almost everything, better than anyone else. He is the pros' fiercest rebounder, and his shooting repertory includes such inimitable specialties as the "Dipper Dunk" (in which he simply stretches up and lays the ball in the basket), the "Stuff Shot" (in which he jumps up and rams the ball through the net from above), and the "Fadeaway Jump"—a delicate, marvelously coordinated push shot from 15 ft. away that defensive men literally cannot block without fouling.





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


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

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

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




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


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

--Al Attles, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 242




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


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



Continued...

[jlauber]

Once again, Dickwad LYING about what Wilt faced in his career, and of course, we KNOW that Dillweed never SAW ONE of Wilt's games...


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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


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

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

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

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

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




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


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

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

[Legends66NBA7]

You know that there is a true love in siting when a lover calls you a new name every now and then. First "Dickwad", now "Dillweed". Fantastic stuff. Keep up the good debate as usual boys.

*Goes back scrolling, sipping pepsi"

[jlauber]

And here is Dickwad's take on the '72 WCF's, ...a series in which he NEVER saw ONE game (and I did...ALL six were nationally televised.)..


And in '72 we are talking about a Wilt who only managed to average around 14 points per game in the playoffs while being the fourth option on offense next to two HOF:ers. While also getting outscored by Kareem with 23 points per game in playoffs while being outshot at the same time and outassisted.



I will defer to PHILA for this response...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=236760&page=11

[millwad]

Jlauber, shove your google-knowledge in your mom's butt. Nice copy and paste job, bastard.
I've already replied to all your nonsense dozens of times and regarding me not seeing Wilt games, I've just as many as your old ass.

You did never see his classic high scoring games, we all know that. I know you claim that you saw him play when you were young but fact still remains that they didn't broadcast many of the games and still you were only a kid. The constant spamming you do about his high scoring seasons are a joke considering the fact you were only 7 years old when he averaged 50 points per game and during his first title run you were 12 years old, haha. Sure, Jlauber, you saw Wilt play every day and you remember basketball games from the age of 7 when Wilt averaged his career high.

Actually, people! Jlauber remember the games he saw as a 7 year old (49 years ago) so much that he totally forgot how "good" that era was and he used to claim that the modern era was better, stronger, faster etc more than 40 years after the actual games but then his little butt got hurt and he go insecure about himself. After all, the guy who says he saw Wilt play so much and claims he knows so much (really it's google knowledge) used to write stuff like this on ISH more than 40 years after the games he spams about daily nowadays:


Originally Posted by jlauber
“not to diminish guys like Russell and West, two great defenders...but defense back then was nowhere near as good as it is today.”


Originally Posted by jlauber
“I know that this is getting away from the original post some, but most people tend to diminish Wilt's accomplishments because he was so much bigger, taller, stronger, and more athletic than his opposing centers. And it is true, that when Wilt was scoring 50 ppg, it was Russell at 6-9 and Bellamy at 6-11, and the rest were pretty much 6-8 or 6-9 "stiffs."


Originally Posted by jlauber
“Wilt's competition in that 61-62 season was not stellar. Basically only Russell and Bellamy were anywhere near his ability...and neither could approach him in terms of statistical domination.”


Originally Posted by jlauber
“I know both you and I will get some flak from "old-timers" about how great some of them were . . . , but realistically, todays basketball players, although many lacking in fundamental skills, are far superior to the players of the 60's.”

Seriously, you have no CREDIBILITY what so ever...

Jlauber, eat ass. You didn't see Wilt play, all your so called "knowledge" is from google and basketball-reference and random quotes. You never saw Wilt play before you saw him on youtube, haha, you saw him so "much" that you actually changed your mind about him and his era completely 40 years after the actual games over some videos on youtube and some "research" on google.

[RRR3]

Jlauber and Millwad=GOAT rivalry on ISH :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[DMAVS41]

Which only shows your stupidity, do you know how extremely much .48 seconds (the record was 9.58 and Bob Hayes ran it in 10.06) are in a 100 meter race?

Everyone in the race Bolt beat the world record in had run better than Hayes world record time. Watch the race yourself, Hayes would have been right after the guy who came in 7th place and see how huge the difference is, it's pathetic you even wrote that crap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By1JQFxfLMM

My point was that respecting legends like Hayes, Jesse Owens, Wilt and the rest of those guys is one thing but for god sake, watch with your own eyes and see how much better the modern game is. It doesn't take a mastermind to see it.

But you aren't leaving any room for adaptation. Bob Hayes is a good example. Forget modern science, food, nutrition...and 50 plus years of advances in track.

Just give Hayes the same shoes, clothing, and track surfaces as the runners have now and his time is under 10 seconds for sure.

Now if you just planted a star player from today back in the 60's and they had everything they do now....they would probably excel really well (if you ignore how the game was called)....

I think this notion of just ignoring any type of adaptation is silly. There were great athletes a long time ago....but being a great athlete isn't always what works. Nash and Love are often brought up and for good reason. Mark Price as well. That is the beauty of basketball. And if we aren't allowing for adaptation...it goes both ways. Put a guy like Wade back in the 60's with no adaptation and he's going to get killed for traveling and carrying nearly every time he does anything with the ball.

You bring Wilt into the NBA today and give him time and the ability to adapt and I have no doubt he'd easily be the best center in the game today and on par or better than any of the great modern centers.

[Yung D-Will]

Not to mention Wilt in todays game would have footage of guys like Shaq and Hakeem to learn from.

[jlauber]

Jlauber, shove your google-knowledge in your mom's butt. Nice copy and paste job, bastard.
I've already replied to all your nonsense dozens of times and regarding me not seeing Wilt games, I've just as many as your old ass.

You did never see his classic high scoring games, we all know that. I know you claim that you saw him play when you were young but fact still remains that they didn't broadcast many of the games and still you were only a kid. The constant spamming you do about his high scoring seasons are a joke considering the fact you were only 7 years old when he averaged 50 points per game and during his first title run you were 12 years old, haha. Sure, Jlauber, you saw Wilt play every day and you remember basketball games from the age of 7 when Wilt averaged his career high.

Actually, people! Jlauber remember the games he saw as a 7 year old (49 years ago) so much that he totally forgot how "good" that era was and he used to claim that the modern era was better, stronger, faster etc more than 40 years after the actual games but then his little butt got hurt and he go insecure about himself. After all, the guy who says he saw Wilt play so much and claims he knows so much (really it's google knowledge) used to write stuff like this on ISH more than 40 years after the games he spams about daily nowadays:









Seriously, you have no CREDIBILITY what so ever...

Jlauber, eat ass. You didn't see Wilt play, all your so called "knowledge" is from google and basketball-reference and random quotes. You never saw Wilt play before you saw him on youtube, haha, you saw him so "much" that you actually changed your mind about him and his era completely 40 years after the actual games over some videos on youtube and some "research" on google.

YOU didn't see Wilt play. NOR did you see a PRIME Kareem play, either.

And yes, I have changed my opinions. But I accept the TRUTH, unlike yourself. I claimed that an OLD Kareem dumped 40 and 46 on Hakeem, and you challenged me, saying that it was Sampson guarding Kareem. Well, the newpaper recap, and the youtube video footage CONCLUSIVEY proved that yes, Hakeem was SHELLED by a 38 year old Kareem.

Then you challenged my take on Wilt blocking 15 of Kareem's skyhooks in the '72 WCF's. Wrong again. (Even I was wrong.,..it was at LEAST 15. Those were from THREE of the six games.)

Then I BLEW AWAY this nonsense that Wilt wasn't doubled as often as Shaq or Hakeem (and of course, you NEVER saw ANY of Wilt's games to even such a ridiculous claim.) The FACTS were, not only was Wilt SWARMED, he was BRUTALIZED.

Then I BLEW AWAY your take that somehow Kareem outplayed Wilt in the '72 WCF's...when EVERY article out there CLEARLY had Wilt not only outplaying Kareem, but Time Magazine even claimed that Wilt DECISIVLY outplayed Kareem. Thanks to PHILA, we KNOW that Kareem's COACH claimed as much. And we have an article from the MILWAUKEE press that also proclaimed Wilt as having outplayed Kareem.

And I won't bother looking it up, because I really don't care, but I believe even Catch24 caught you in yet another lie, as well, regarding footage of David Robinson (I believe you must be the ONLY person who has it.)

As far as my opinions go, I have come to conclusion that the great athletes of the 60's (and even in the 40's in baseball) would be great today. How do I know that? Because of the BRIDGES...players like Kareem, Barry, Gilmore, Havlicek, Moses, and yes, Hakeem. Same in baseball with Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Nolan Ryan, et al. Football is the only major sport where the difference is dramatic. That is because today's players are much BIGGER. However, as we all KNOW, Bob Hayes is still the fastest NFL player of all-time. And guys like OJ, Hershel Walker, Darrell Green, and Bo Jackson would BLOW AWAY the fastest guy in the NFL right now.

And, even in track-and-field, where today's athletes have all the advantages of modern technology, the records are only slightly better than even 50 years ago. My god, the current long jump record is 29' 4", which was set 20 years ago, and the previous record was 29' 2" set in 1968. Bob Hayes ran a 10.06 in 1964 (and Jimmy Hines a 9.95 in 1968), and did so on a beaten track and with borrowed spikes. One can only wonder how fast Hayes would run today, with just better shoes and surfaces, and the modern training? And that would be before other advances like nutrition, medical technonlogy, and "supplements."

And only a complete IDIOT would dispute the greatness of Chamberlain. The man was 7-2 (and would be at 7-3 in shoes); with an enormous 7-8 wingspan; weighing between 280-300 lbs; with MASSIVE strength (as we all KNOW, he was regarded as one of the strongest ATHLETES in the world at the time); with TRACK athleticism that allowed him to WIN a high-jump championship...PART-TIME, as well as competing in the long jump, triple jump, shot put, 440, 880, and KU's 4x100 sprint team. In high school he was hurdle champion, and a marathoner, as well. And, we all KNOW from the little FOOTAGE that exists, that he was VERY SKILLED basketball player. He easily had range up to 15 ft (which is CLEARLY shown in the footages), with a myriad of post moves. AND, we also have the testimony of HOF coach Red Holzman who claimed that Wilt had a very good outside shot (which we have SEEN.)

So, with all of that, Wilt would be a DOMINANT player in TODAY's NBA...and that would be BEFORE all of the MANY advantages that he would have today, like nutrition, strength-and-conditioning, medical technology, injury prevention and healing, "suppllements", etc. Give him all of that, and he would be UNTOUCHABLE.

BUT, if a fool would claim that THAT Wilt would NOT be great in TODAY's NBA, then, he would also have to acknowledge that a PRIME Kareem would be worthless, as would a PRIME Hakeem. Because, as we KNOW through EXTENSION, Wilt was BETTER than BOTH.

And thanks to the "bridge" we KNOW that an OLD Wilt played a PRIME Kareem, far better than a young Hakeem could play an OLD Kareem. We also KNOW that Wilt DOMINATED many of the SAME centers that Kareem would face, to a FAR greater extent, and he even did so well after his PRIME. In fact, we KNOW that a "pre-injury" Wilt just ABUSED a young Kareem. And we KNOW that Wilt, in his very LAST season, at age 36, held a PRIME Kareem to .450 shooting, while shooting .737 himself, in their SIX H2H games.

So, if you can't accept the fact that a PRIME Wilt would be a MONSTER in TODAY's NBA, you are ignoring all LOGIC which says that he would be.

[jlauber]

Not to mention Wilt in todays game would have footage of guys like Shaq and Hakeem to learn from.

Not only that, but allow a PRIME Wilt to PHYSICALLY OVERPOWER the centers of today, like Shaq often did (just watch some of the Youtube footage of Shaq against Mutombo), and Wilt would be CRUSHING these guys. He would be going up, over, around,...and THROUGH them.

[jlauber]

But you aren't leaving any room for adaptation. Bob Hayes is a good example. Forget modern science, food, nutrition...and 50 plus years of advances in track.

Just give Hayes the same shoes, clothing, and track surfaces as the runners have now and his time is under 10 seconds for sure.

Now if you just planted a star player from today back in the 60's and they had everything they do now....they would probably excel really well (if you ignore how the game was called)....

I think this notion of just ignoring any type of adaptation is silly. There were great athletes a long time ago....but being a great athlete isn't always what works. Nash and Love are often brought up and for good reason. Mark Price as well. That is the beauty of basketball. And if we aren't allowing for adaptation...it goes both ways. Put a guy like Wade back in the 60's with no adaptation and he's going to get killed for traveling and carrying nearly every time he does anything with the ball.

You bring Wilt into the NBA today and give him time and the ability to adapt and I have no doubt he'd easily be the best center in the game today and on par or better than any of the great modern centers.

Basketball is really unique. How could a 6-8 Dennis Rodman just OVERWHELM guys like Shaq, Robinson, and a plethora of 7-2+ centers in his era. How could a 6-7 Ben Wallace lead the NBA in rebounding in two straight seasons, just a few years ago. How could a 6-5 Barkley not only lead the NBA in rebounding, but BLOW AWAY Hakeem in rebounding when they were paired on the same team? And how do explain a 6-5 Adrian Dantley scoring 30+ on .570+ shooting, year-after-year? Or that a 6-10 Moses Malone would just ABUSE a near-PRIME Kareem, and yet an OLD Kareem could CRUSH a young an athletic Hakeem? Or that a player from the 60's, would just OBLITERATE the same centers that a PRIME Kareem would face, and to a FAR greater extent? Or that a little known Nate Thurmond would hold Kareem to HORRIBLE numbers his ENTIRE career against him?

And yes, if someone would have suggested a few years ago, that a 6-9 WHITE guy would run away with the rebounding title in 2011, he would have been chased back to the Mikan era. And who have ever believed that a 36 year old WHITE guy would be leading the league in assists in 2011. Or another WHITE guy leading the league in blocked shots?

And, let's get real here, too. The game was started in the 1890's. There were PRO leagues as far back as the 1920's. Aside from the 24 sec shot clock, and the 3 pt shot, the game has changed very little. Sure, there have been minor tweaks, like the widening of the lane (which had NO affect on Wilt BTW), or the legalization of the zone (which is seldom used), but overall, the basketball is the roughly the same, the basket is the same heightand width, the court are dimensions are the same, and the rules are essentially the same.

Are the athletes of today better. Of course they. BUT, it is a MINIMAL difference over those of 50 years ago. And, as with those mentioned above, how much impact does ATHLETICISM really play in the sport? How come Larry Bird could dominate the sport for an entire decade, and James White can't even make an NBA roster?

And of course, there were GREAT athletes back in the 50's and 60's. Bill Russell was a WORLD CLASS high-jumper. And we all KNOW about Wilt by now.

WATCH the footage of the greats in the 60's and 70's. Pistol Pete, McAdoo, West, Oscar, Hawkins, Gus Johnson, Lucas, Kareem, Lanier, Reed, Bellamy, Frazier, Archibald, Barry, Dr. J, Russell and Wilt. You can see the SKILLS.

Give them a few weeks to ADAPT, and they would easily be among the best, if not THE best, in TODAY's game.