Kareem Abdul Jabbar vs Wilt Chamberlain

[PTB Fan]

Interesting debate. Who was better in your opinion?

[Odinn]

I'd rather Kareem. It's too close but.

[millwad]

Kareem, no doubt. Kareem is the greatest center EVER!

Kareem won more MVP's, 6 to 4.
Kareem won more titles, 6 to 2.
Kareem made more all-star teams, 19 to 13.
Kareem made more ALL-NBA first teams, 10 to 7.
Kareem made more ALL-NBA second teams, 5 to 2.
Kareem was on the TOP 10 MVP list 17 times compared to Wilt's 11.

http://images.paraorkut.com/img/wallpapers/1600x1200/k/kareem_abdul-jabbar-797.jpg

[PHILA]

^Now that is his signature dunk. :applause:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWRmCBYymM0#t=5m38s

[SuperPippen]

Wilt was the more effective scorer during the regular season, mostly dues to the fact that he was a stronger finisher inside. However, he wasn't quite as good offensively as his numbers might lead you to believe, IMO. Kareem was more skilled on the offensive end and had a significantly wider variety of moves on that end of the floor. Kareem's numbers generally went up in the playoffs, and he remained a very serviceable scorer well into his 40's, as well. I'd give the edge to Kareem as a scorer.

As rebounders, Wilt has the distinct edge over Kareem. Kareem, although he was always a good, and sometimes very good rebounder, was never truly as great as guys like Russell, Wilt, or even Moses or Rodman. Wilt can be considered the greatest rebounder ever, including the playoffs, and he would definitely hold the record for career offensive rebounds if that was a statistic that was officially recorded throughout his career. Kareem was just never that good of a rebounder, perhaps due to the fact that he wasn't as physically strong.

Defensively, it's close, but I'd give a slight edge to Wilt. He was always a devastating shotblocker, but later in his career he reinvented himself a true defensive anchor and one of the best overall defensive centers in NBA history. Kareem was also a great shotblocker, but his defensive prowess never quite equaled that of Wilt, especially when Wilt was on the Lakers.

All in all, though, I'd give the edge to Kareem, simply because he was so consistent for such an astoundingly long period of time.

[alwaysunny]

I think head-to-head Wilt was superior, but Kareem seemed more versatile in different eras due to his skill set. "who was better" seems pretty vague as a lot of these threads don't usually get anywhere.

[millwad]

^Now that is his signature dunk. :applause:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWRmCBYymM0#t=5m38s

Great video, Phila! Thanks!

[SuperPippen]

No harm in trying to have a respectful, insightful discussion every once in a while.

[Flagrant 2]

No harm in trying to have a respectful, insightful discussion every once in a while.
You're on the wrong Message Board for that.

[jlauber]

I wonder how many rings Wilt would have won had he had the game's two greatest point guards for 14 seasons?

[RRR3]

Hmm...this is a hard one. Great thread, however! I honestly could go either way here. Kareem and Wilt are the top two candidates for the best center ever IMO, and I also believe they are the two players with the best case(s) to be ranked over MJ as the GOAT (although I personally have MJ as the GOAT). I really can't choose one, though, the two are very close in my book. Both top 3 all-time IMO :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

If I were a GM, I'd go with Cap. Without hesitation either.

Wilt was very overrated (and protected by the refs). Good player, but a pansy who didnt play physical. Here's a foul comparison between John Stockton and Wilt...

Wilts averaged 2075 fouls in 47,859 minutes
Stockton averaged 3942 fouls in 47,764 minutes

John Stockton was called for almost double the amount of fouls Wilt was called for, and Stockton played in fewer minutes. :oldlol: Look at a contemporary like Hakeem; 4383 fouls in 44,222 minutes. As much flack Dwight Howard receives, even he would shut Chamberlain down. Remember, Wilt failed in scoring titles yrs....his scoring is irrelevant.

[RRR3]

If I were a GM, I'd go with Cap. Without hesitation either.

Wilt was very overrated (and protected by the refs). Good player, but a pansy who didnt play physical. Here's a foul comparison between John Stockton and Wilt...

Wilts averaged 2075 fouls in 47,859 minutes
Stockton averaged 3942 fouls in 47,764 minutes

John Stockton was called for almost double the amount of fouls Wilt was called for, and Stockton played in fewer minutes. :oldlol: Look at a contemporary like Hakeem; 4383 fouls in 44,222 minutes. As much flack Dwight Howard receives, even he would shut Chamberlain down. Remember, Wilt failed in scoring titles yrs....his scoring is irrelevant.

I HIGHLY doubt you would call Wilt Chamberlain a pansy to his face.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8_ENa7sVpug/TNOqUi-Sn8I/AAAAAAAAPZI/aTjtJoLSikI/s1600/Wilt+Chamberlain++1963+5.jpg

[jlauber]

If I were a GM, I'd go with Cap. Without hesitation either.

Wilt was very overrated (and protected by the refs). Good player, but a pansy who didnt play physical. Here's a foul comparison between John Stockton and Wilt...

Wilts averaged 2075 fouls in 47,859 minutes
Stockton averaged 3942 fouls in 47,764 minutes

John Stockton was called for almost double the amount of fouls Wilt was called for, and Stockton played in fewer minutes. :oldlol: Look at a contemporary like Hakeem; 4383 fouls in 44,222 minutes. As much flack Dwight Howard receives, even he would shut Chamberlain down. Remember, Wilt failed in scoring titles yrs....his scoring is irrelevant.

I have read some interesting statistical comparisons before, but never one quite like this.

A truly convincing argument. You have converted me.

Wilt....the biggest pansie of all-time.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I HIGHLY doubt you would call Wilt Chamberlain a pansy to his face.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8_ENa7sVpug/TNOqUi-Sn8I/AAAAAAAAPZI/aTjtJoLSikI/s1600/Wilt+Chamberlain++1963+5.jpg

I don't doubt, I'd throw you through 10 walls.

[RRR3]

I don't doubt, I'd throw you through 10 walls.
:rolleyes:

[Gundress]

I am going with Kareem Abdul Jabbar cause I just think Kareem got more skilled than Wilt.

[jlauber]

I don't doubt, I'd throw you through 10 walls.

I'd put my money on Wilt's corpse.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I have read some interesting statistical comparisons before, but never one quite like this.

A truly convincing argument. You have converted me.

Wilt....the biggest pansie of all-time.

:applause:

Wilt was less imposing than Shaq and boring as well. Thats why he couldnt even get 5,000 people to come watch him score 100, and that was well into the season in which he averaged 50 ppg. Nobody wanted to see boring old wilt shoot fadeaways. Wilts era = had more exposed white thighs than a baywatch episode...nice competition.

[RRR3]

I'd put my money on Wilt's corpse.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[BEAST Griffin]

Wilt Chamberlain was Kareem's daddy.

[Harison]

The Cap.

[Duncan21formvp]

I wonder how many rings Wilt would have won had he had the game's two greatest point guards for 14 seasons?

Well he did play with West for 5 years and only got 1 title with him. Not to mention he needed to be traded in the first place in order to win.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I wonder how many rings Wilt would have won had he had the game's two greatest point guards for 14 seasons?

Wilt might of won 3-4 rings if he didnt shoot a combined 5-24 from the freethrow line in game 7 of the '69 and '70 Finals

[D.J.]

Wilt was simply more dominant. And head-to-head, Wilt did get the better of Kareem. Kareem obviously has the longevity advantage, but he wasn't nearly as dominant as Wilt was.

[oolalaa]

Wilt:
+ The greatest regular season player of all time.
+ Arguably the greatest rebounder of all time.
+ Arguably the best shot blocker of all time.

- His standard of play dropped come playoff time.
- Sucked in crunch time.
- Lacked leadership.
- Wasn't a great teammate, especially early in his career.

Kareem:
+ Extreme longevity.
+ Great crunch time scorer.

- In 10 years and in a relatively weak era he only managed to win 1 ring and missed the playoffs two years in a row in 75' and 76'.
- Won 5 of his 6 mvps in a weak era.
- Only won 1 ring without magic.
- Was the lakers 3rd best player for his final 2 rings.


Both are overrated but Kareem > Wilt...

[oolalaa]

Wilt was simply more dominant. And head-to-head, Wilt did get the better of Kareem. Kareem obviously has the longevity advantage, but he wasn't nearly as dominant as Wilt was.


What, are you kidding? :facepalm

The lakers and the bucks played each other 28 times in the early 70s (regular season and playoffs). These are their stats:

Wilt, 16.1 ppg, 18.2 rpg, 3.4 apg, 52.6 FG %
Kareem, 31.0 ppg, 16.4 rpg, 3.9 apg, 46.4 FG %

Wilt did a great job defensively on kareem but to say that wilt got 'the better of kareem', when he got outscored by 15 points a game, is ludicrous.

[Round Mound]

What, are you kidding? :facepalm

The lakers and the bucks played each other 28 times in the early 70s (regular season and playoffs). These are their stats:

Wilt, 16.1 ppg, 18.2 rpg, 3.4 apg, 52.6 FG %
Kareem, 31.0 ppg, 16.4 rpg, 3.9 apg, 46.4 FG %

Wilt did a great job defensively on kareem but to say that wilt got 'the better of kareem', when he got outscored by 15 points a game, is ludicrous.

Those stats where in Wilts end of career. :facepalm

In his Prime Wilt would have murdered Kareem.

Wilt was Mix of Karl Malone and Dwight Howard at 7`1

[PTB Fan]

I'd go with Kareem.

Offensively, he was more superior (because he was more reliable in the playoffs and finals), was more consistent, achieved more, was a better team mate, was better in the clutch and won more.

[oolalaa]

Those stats where in Wilts end of career. :facepalm

In his Prime Wilt would have murdered Kareem.

Wilt was Mix of Karl Malone and Dwight Howard at 7`1

Wow, thanks for reminding me :facepalm

Wilt in his prime would 'murder' (:rolleyes:) kareem through 3 1/2 quarters and then proceed to get abused in crunch time (you know, because of his woeful free throw shooting and his obsession with not fouling out) :roll:

[Inception28]

Kareem, the better playoff performer and the more accomplished player.

[bdreason]

Simply too many accolades not to rank Kareem higher. He won at every level of the game, and was the best player on the court for the majority of the time.

[jlauber]

Well he did play with West for 5 years and only got 1 title with him. Not to mention he needed to be traded in the first place in order to win.

Wilt played TWO full post-seasons in which he and West were HEALTHY. In fact, West completely MISSED the ENTIRE 70-71 playoffs (as did Baylor BTW.) Wilt shredded his knee in the 69-70 season, and while he came back way ahead of the most optomistic medical opinion, he was nowhere near 100% in the post-season (and he STILL hung a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 FG% Finals that year...including a 45-27 "elimination game" six. And West was nursing TWO injured knees in the 72-73 post-season (Wilt's LAST)...and while he played, he was subpar.

THEN, in the 71-72 playoffs, West was mired in the WORST shooting slump of his career, and shot .376 combined...which included shooting .325 in the Finals (and in that same Finals, Wilt won the FMVP.)

As for being "traded in the first place in order to win"...in Wilt's THREE full seasons in Philadephia, his TEAM had the BEST RECORD in the league in EACH season. His 66-67 team went 68-13 and overwhelmed the league en route to a title. And his 67-68 Sixer team ran away with the BEST RECORD in the league, going 62-20. And had HOFer Cunningham not missed the ENTIRE ECF's, as well as Luke Jackson and Wali Jones suffering leg injuries in game five of that series (and with the Sixers leading Boston 3-1 at the time), AND, with Wilt NOTICEABLY limping from games three thru seven...from MULTIPLE foot and leg injuries...well, losing a game seven by four points was a miracle in itself. Only a complete idiot would have claimed that a healthy Sixer team would not have blown out the Celtics that season.

And, BTW, Wilt FORCED that trade from the Sixers to the Lakers. He was NOT voluntarily traded by Philly.

[jlauber]

Wilt might of won 3-4 rings if he didnt shoot a combined 5-24 from the freethrow line in game 7 of the '69 and '70 Finals

This is truly laughable...

Wilt going 5-24 from the line in TWO GAMES cost him THREE to FOUR rings. Yep, gotta love that new math.

And, let's examine those two games, while we are at it.

Once again, the Wilt detractors will completely DISTORT REALITY.

Ok, in that game seven of the '69 Finals, Wilt, pulled up lame with six minutes left in the game, and in the process of grabbing a rebound, and his outlet led to a fast break basket. Before he could come out, Boston missed another shot, and Wilt, on ONE leg, grabbed THAT rebound...which ultimately led to two West FTs. He HAD to come out. Within a couple of minutes he asked to go back in. His incompetent coach refused, instead preferring the brilliant play of Mel Counts, who missed two shots down the stretch, en route to a 4-13 game from the floor.

Oh, and how about Russell in that game? Here again, those that rip Wilt for his "declining" numbers in the post-season, NEVER bring up the FACT that Wilt DRAMTICALLY reduced his OPPOSING center's numbers (and he faced a HOF center in 99 of his 160 playoff games.) Wilt, on that one leg, and in those two possessions, matched Russell's entire rebounding totals in that 4th quarter.

And here were their overall numbers from that game...

Russell shot 2-7 from the floor, 2-4 from the line, had 21 rebounds, and scored six points.

Wilt shot 7-8 from the field, that 4-13 from the line, grabbed 27 rebounds, and scored 18 points (in five less minutes than Russell BTW.)


How about game seven of the '70 Finals?

The Knicks hit 15 of their first 21 shots, and exploded to a huge lead. And, in that run, Frazier was all over West, stealing the ball several times.

In that first half, Wilt went 5-10 from the field, (along with 12 rebounds), and only 1-8 from the line. BUT, his teammates, including West, collectively shot 33% from the field in that half...and the result? The Knicks led at the half, 69-42. Now, as you can plainly see, had Wilt somehow managed to go 8-8 from the line in that first half, his team would STILL have been down by 20 points!

Now, how about his battle with Reed...

Reed, with his teammates swarming Wilt, and committing all four of his personal fouls on Wilt in that first half...played 27 minutes and scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with THREE rebounds.

How about Wilt in that game seven? 21 points on 10-16 shooting, that 1-11 from the line, and 24 rebounds. Oh, and BTW, Wilt played 47.5 mpg in that seven game series...and only FOUR MONTHS removed from MAJOR KNEE SURGERY!

[Deuce Bigalow]

It is not laughable, its true

1-11 from the freethrow line in game 7 of the 1970 finals
you really think if he shot better they wouldnt win?

and in game 7 of the 1969 finals
4-13 from the freethrow line, and they lost by 4
you think they couldnt win if he didnt shoot better?

[jlauber]

What, are you kidding? :facepalm

The lakers and the bucks played each other 28 times in the early 70s (regular season and playoffs). These are their stats:

Wilt, 16.1 ppg, 18.2 rpg, 3.4 apg, 52.6 FG %
Kareem, 31.0 ppg, 16.4 rpg, 3.9 apg, 46.4 FG %

Wilt did a great job defensively on kareem but to say that wilt got 'the better of kareem', when he got outscored by 15 points a game, is ludicrous.



In their first H2H game, in the 69-70 season, Wilt crushed Kareem, outscoring him, 25-23; outrebounding him, 25-20; outassisting Kareem, 5-2; outblocking him, 3-2, and outshooting him from the floor, 9-14 to 9-21 (.643 to .429.)

Wilt shredded his knee shortly after that game, and had major knee surgery. He would face Kareem in 27 games after that injury, and from age 34 to 36.

How about this?

In the 70-71 season, which was Wilt's last 20+ ppg season (and arguably his WORST season of his career), Chamberlain and Kareem met five times in the regular season, and five times in the post-season.

Now, keep in mind that this was perhaps Kareem's greatest season (if you include the post-season.) He LED the NBA in scoring, at 31.7 ppg, shot .577 from the floor (in a league that shot .449...and that .128 differential over the league average was the highest in Kareem's 20 year career), and 16.0 rpg.

In their five regular season games, Kareem outscored Wilt, per game, 27.8 ppg to 23.2 ppg. Wilt outrebounded Kareem, per game, 15 rpg to 13.2 rpg. And Wilt outshot Kareem from the floor, .467 to .438.

In their five H2H playoff games, Kareem outscored Wilt, per game, 25 ppg to 22 ppg. Wilt outrebounded Kareem, per game, 18.8 rpg to 17.2 rpg. And Wilt outshot Kareem from the floor, .489 to .481.

So, over the course of their first 11 games, when Wilt was still somewhat capable of routinely scoring 20+ ppg, Kareem held a 26.1 ppg to 22.6 ppg scoring edge, BUT, Wilt outrebounded Kareem, per game, 17.6 rpg to 15.6 rpg, and Chamberlain outshot Kareem overall, .490 to .454.

And once again, TEN of those eleven games were played by a 34 year old Wilt, and only a year removed from major knee surgery.


As for Wilt's defense against Kareem? In the '72 WCF's, Chamberlain held Kareem, who had shot .574 during the regular season, to .457 in their six H2H games. AND, in the last FOUR pivotal games of that series, Kareem could only shoot .414. Furthermore, Wilt blocked some 15+ "unblockable" sky-hooks in that series. All from a 35 year old Wilt, and against a Kareem at his scoring PEAK.

THEN, in Wilt's LAST season, he and Kareem faced off in SIX regular season games. Kareem outscored Wilt, per game, 29 ppg to 11 ppg, BUT, Wilt outhsot Kareem by a .737 to .450 margin. Included in those six games, was one game in which Wilt outscored Kareem, 24-21, while outshooting Jabbar, 10-14 to 10-27.


As for a PRIME "scoring" Wilt...

Chamberlain, in his 68-69 season, in a year in which he averaged 14 FGAs per game, hung TWO games of 60+ points (one of them was a 66 point game, on 29-35 shooting, which is the highest FG% game in a 60+ point game in NBA history.) Why is that significant? Because Kareem came into the league in the VERY next season, and faced those same two centers on several occasions...and yet, he never came close to duplicating those numbers against those two centers...NOR over the course of his ENTIRE 20 year career (his high game was 55 points.)

And, Wilt hung THREE games of 50+ on HOFer Willis Reed (and several more of 40+), with a HIGH game of 58 points. Chamberlain also had THREE games of 60+ against 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy, (and a season of 55 ppg against him) with a HIGH game of 73 points! Furthermore, Wilt faced 6-11 HOFer Nate Thurmond in about a dozen, or so, games in Wilt's "scoring" prime. He had SEVERAL 30+ point games against Thurmond, including one game in which he outscored Thurmond, 45-13.

Now, Kareem faced all three of those guys MANY times in his career...and never APPROACHED those games. In fact, he faced Thurmond in some 50+ H2H games, and his high game against Nate was only 34 points (and only a few of 30+.)

How come? How come a PRIME Wilt could just OBLITERATE the MANY of the same centers that Kareem would face...and yet Kareem couldn't come within MILES of a PRIME Wilt's domination?

[jlauber]

It is not laughable, its true

1-11 from the freethrow line in game 7 of the 1970 finals
you really think if he shot better they wouldnt win?

and in game 7 of the 1969 finals
4-13 from the freethrow line, and they lost by 4
you think they couldnt win if he didnt shoot better?

Once again, in that game seven of the '70 Finals, the Lakers were down by 27 points at halftime. They managed to chip away in the second half, but the outcome was never in doubt, and the final score was 113-99. I don't see how Wilt going 1-11 from the line affected that game at all.

And yes, he shot 4-13 from the line in game seven of the '69 Finals. Think about this...had Jordan not missed two FTs late in his 63 point playoff game against the Celtics, his Bulls would have won that game in regulation.

Now, while Wilt shot 4-13 from the line, he also shot 7-8 from the field. Take away his 7-8 shooting from game, and his teammates collectively shot .360 from the field in that game. Now you tell me who was REALLY at fault for that TWO point loss (and with Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of that game)???

[jlauber]

Wow, thanks for reminding me :facepalm

Wilt in his prime would 'murder' (:rolleyes:) kareem through 3 1/2 quarters and then proceed to get abused in crunch time (you know, because of his woeful free throw shooting and his obsession with not fouling out) :roll:


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

[QUOTE]In the post-season, the Lakers defeated the Chicago Bulls in a sweep,[85] then went on to face the Milwaukee Bucks of young superstar center and regular-season MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (he had changed his name) again. The matchup between Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar was hailed by LIFE magazine as the greatest matchup in all of sports. Chamberlain would help lead the Lakers past Jabbar and the Bucks in 6 games.[85] [B]Particularly, Chamberlain was lauded for his performance in Game 6, which the Lakers won 106

[jlauber]

Continung...

And how about this...


So, let's conveniently overlook these facts. That a PRIME "scoring" Wilt averaged 32 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .510 (in league's that averaged about .430 shooting) in his first six post-seasons (his first seven seasons) ...COMBINED! Or that in his first eight straight post-seasons (covering his first nine seasons), all he did was average 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg (yes, 4.8 apg) and on .518 shooting (in league's that averaged about .435 shooting)...COMBINED!

I tell you what...you find me ONE player, who EVER had even ONE post-season of 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and on .518 shooting. And yet, here was Wilt, who supposedly "declined" in his post-seasons, who AVERAGED that over the course of EIGHT straight post-seasons...COMBINED!

How about Wilt with entire post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg (on .543 shooting), 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg? Or how about Wilt with post-season series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, and a staggering seven game series of 38.6 ppg, on .559 shooting, and with 23.0 rpg.Or how about Wilt with FOUR post-season series, just against Russell, of 30+ ppg...including a seven game series in the '65 ECF's in which he averaged 30 ppg AND 31 rpg? Or how about Wilt with FOUR post-season games of 50+ points (which is second to MJ's eight...all-time...in the post-season?) And one of them was a 56-35 game five in a best-of-series, and the other was a 50-35 game (on 22-42 shooting) against Russell in a "must-win" game five of the '60 ECF's.

Oh, and BTW, Wilt had FOUR 40-30 games, just against Russell, in his post-season career, including a 46-34 game in a "must-win" game five in the '66 ECF's. AND, in the '70 Finals, and on ONE leg, and in a "must-win" game, he hung a 45 point, on 20-27 shooting, 27 rebound game.

How about Wilt with TWO complete playoff series in which he AVERAGED a TRIPLE-DOUBLE? And in that post-season, all he did was average 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and on .579 shooting.

Defense? Of course the "anti-Wilt" clan with bring up Wilt's "decline" in the post-season...but how about these facts? In the '62 Finals, Russell shot 50% against the Lakers. However, in the '62 ECF's, and against Wilt, he was at about .420 shooting. In the '64 Finals, Wilt averaged 29 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .517 against Russell. Meanwhile, Russell averaged 11 ppg and 25 rpg against Wilt. And while we don't have Russell's H2H FG% against Wilt, we do know that Russell shot .356 in his entire post-season...and half of those ten game came against Wilt.

In the '65 Finals, Russell hung an 18 ppg .702 FG% on the Lakers. However, in the previous round against Wilt...15 ppg on .451 shooting (while Wilt averaged a 30-31 series against Russell.) In the '66 Finals, Russell LED Boston in scoring with a 23.6 ppg average against the Lakers. BUT, against Wilt in the ECF's that season? 14 ppg (while Wilt hung a 28 ppg, 30 rpg, .509 series on Russell.)

In the '67 ECF's, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 21.6 ppg to 10.2 ppg; outrebounded Russell, per game, 32.0 rpg to 23.0 rpg; outassisted Russell, per game, 10 apg to 6 apg; and outshot Russell in that series, .556 to .358 (and Russell had shot .454 during the regular season.) Then, in the Finals, and against Thurmond, Wilt outscored Nate, per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outrebounded Nate, per game, 28.5 rpg to 26.7 rpg; and outshot Nate by a mind-boggling, .560 to .343 margin. BTW, Wilt squared of against Thurmond in three playoff series, and he outrebounded Nate in all three, as well as outshot Nate in all three by margins of .500 to .398, .550 to .392, and .560 to .343.

In the '68 regular season, Walt Bellamy shot .541. Against Wilt in the playoffs? How about .421???

In the '71 regular season, Kareem averaged 31.7 ppg on .577 shooting. Against a 34 year-old Wilt, who was a year removed from major surgery? 25 ppg on .481 shooting!

In the '72 regular season, Kareem averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 shooting. In the WCF's, Wilt held Kareem to 33 ppg on .457 shooting, which included holding him to .414 over the course of the last four pivotal games of that series. And, BTW, Wilt also blocked some 15+ "unblockable" sky-hooks in that series.





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.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Continung...

And how about this...

Wilt was a full blown choker, you cannot deny the facts. Don't even try. Shaq for instance had a goal to double up Wilt in rings...mission accomplished. :oldlol: Wilt had back to back game 7 home playoff losses to Bill Russell in the 68 and 69 playoffs; lost to Russell on his last legs too. Wilt's goal(s) consisted of leading the NBA in statistical categories. Mission accomplished...Russell actually had goals to win rings. You know, the sole purpose in competitive sports? Ironically enough, Russ' wins were mostly at wilts expense. Where is your evidence? Everyone knows I bring the evidence, especially you. :oldlol:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Once again, in that game seven of the '70 Finals, the Lakers were down by 27 points at halftime. They managed to chip away in the second half, but the outcome was never in doubt, and the final score was 113-99. I don't see how Wilt going 1-11 from the line affected that game at all.

And yes, he shot 4-13 from the line in game seven of the '69 Finals. Think about this...had Jordan not missed two FTs late in his 63 point playoff game against the Celtics, his Bulls would have won that game in regulation.

Now, while Wilt shot 4-13 from the line, he also shot 7-8 from the field. Take away his 7-8 shooting from game, and his teammates collectively shot .360 from the field in that game. Now you tell me who was REALLY at fault for that TWO point loss (and with Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of that game)???

Was it Jerry west's fault, who had 42/13/12 in game 7 and was better player
4-13 from the line, and your teammate goes 42/13/12 and you lose by 4, the player that shot 4-13 is at fault, no paragraph response is going to change that

[Smoke117]

kareem.

[jlauber]

How about the "clutch" Kareem?

In his 71-72 season, he averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 during the regular season. In the first round of the playoffs, and against Thurmond, Nate outscored Kareem, per game, 25.2 ppg to 22.8 ppg, and outshot Kareem, .437 to .405. In the WCF's, Wilt held Kareem to 33 ppg on .457 shooting (including .414 over the last four pivotal games of that series...and decisively outplayed Kareem in the clinching game six win.)

In the 72-73 first round, Kareem took his 60-22 Bucks down in flames against Thurmond's 47-35 Warriors, averaging 22.8 ppg on .428 shooting.

Kareem played well in the 73-74 Finals, BUT, in game seven, and on his home floor, and against the underdog Celtics,...he was outplayed by 6-9 Dave Cowens in every facet of the game, and his Bucks were blown out.

Oscar retired after that season, and Kareem's Bucks went 38-44. True, he broke his hand, and missed 16 games...but even when he played, the Bucks were only 35-31. BTW, Wilt PLAYED in the clinching game five win of the '72 Finals with one badly sprained wrist...and the other, FRACTURED! Yet, Kareem would miss CHUNKS of TWO seasons with a broken wrist. Oh, and Rick Barry with rookie Jamaal Wilkes, and a cast of no-names, won the NBA title with a 48-34 record.

Kareem was shipped off to the Lakers before the start of the 75-76 season. Paired with HOF Gail Goodrich, Cazzie Russell, and a decent roster, the Lakers only went 40-42, and again, Kareem missed the playoffs. And, think about this... in Kareem's 71-72 season, he averaged a career high 44.2 mpg, and a career high, 34.8 ppg, on .574 shooting. That Bucks team went 63-19, and had a scoring differential of +11.1 ppg. So how come a more physically prime Kareem, could only play 41.2 mpg, and only average 27.7 ppg on .529 shooting in that 75-76 season, when his Laker team obviously needed him to step up? Wilt gets accused of "stats-padding", and yet, what about Kareem?

Kareem's 76-77 Lakers had the best record in the league. And, true, Kareem played brilliantly in the post-season. BUT, his team was SWEPT by Walton's 49-33 Blazers (who would go on to win the title.) Wilt had SEVERAL huge post-seasons in his career, and yet, when his teammates played horribly (as they ALWAYS did in his "scoring" seasons), it was WILT's fault. Yet, no blame for Kareem?

The 77-78 Lakers had arguably the most loaded roster in the league. They had Kareem, Norm Nixon, Lou Hudson, a Jamaal Wilkes with a couple of seasons under his belt since his title run with Barry in '75...and then they acquired Adrian Dantley, who was averaging 26.5 ppg when they got him. How did that pan out? They were were wiped out in the first round by a 47-35 Sonics team that had ONE borderline HOF player (Dennis Johnson.) BTW, the 44-38 Bullets won the title that season.

Ok, that Laker team returned nearly their entire roster for the 78-79 season. Once again, Kareem, Nixon, Hudson, Wilkes (who Barry could take to a title, and with FAR less talent), and Dantley. The result? A 47-35 record, and a 4-1 second round blowout loss against that same Sonics roster which would go 52-30 and win the NBA title.

All of that was B.M...Before Magic.

Magic arrived in the 79-80 season, and the result? A 60-22 record. A 4-1 annihilation of the same Sonics team that had manhandled Kareem's Lakers the two seasons before. And a trip to the Finals. Kareem once again played exceptionally, BUT, he suffered an ankle sprain in game five...and couldn't play in game six. Wait a second, didn't WILT PLAY FIVE games in the '68 ECF's with SEVERAL foot and leg injuries, including a tear in his quad? So, while Kareem nursed his sore ankle, all Magic did was hang a 42 point game, on 14-23 shooting from the field, and 14-14 from the line, a game-high 15 rebounds (and the next best player on the floor had 10), and seven assists...in a clinching game six win on the road.

Magic was injured for nearly half of the 80-81 season, and was nowhere near 100% in the first round against the 40-42 Rockets. Did Kareem step up his game like Magic did without him in the '80 Finals? No, instead the 6-10 Moses Malone outplays Kareem, and the Lakers were eliminated in the first round. BTW, Kareem shot .462 in that three game series...which was now the THIRD time in his post-season career in which he shot UNDER the league average (and two of them, at .437 and .428, were miles behind.)

Magic was clearly LA's best player in both the '82 regular season, AND the post-season, and along the way, he won his SECOND FMVP. BTW, Magic would outvote Kareem in the MVP balloting in that '82 season...as he would the rest of Kareem's career (covering a total of EIGHT straight seasons.)

Kareem and Moses met again in the '83 Finals...and the result? Moses just POUNDED Kareem (including a staggering 10 rpg margin), and the Sixers SWEPT the Lakers, 4-0. And Moses made all the big plays down the stretch, too.

The Lakers and Celtics met in the '84 Finals. And had Magic and Worthy not blown games two and four, LA would have swept that series. However, Kareem contributed to their demise, as well, with a 7-25 shooting performance in game five, which gave Boston a 3-2 lead. And I always found it fascinating that MAGIC was blamed for that series loss...despite averaging 18.1 ppg, LEADING the Lakers in rebounding, at 7.7 rpg; handing out 13.6 apg; and shooting a mind-numbing .560 from the field. How about Kareem? He shot .481 in that Finals (and FMVP Bird shot .488.)

Kareem did play well in the '85 Finals, and deserved the FMVP, but, Magic was their playoff MVP. He guided an attack that averaged 126 ppg in the post-season. Still, Kareem dominated the Finals, and at age 37.

In the '86 regular season, Kareem just annihilated Hakeem. In their five H2H games, he averaged 33 ppg on an eye-popping .634 FG% against Hakeem. Included were two games of 40+, including one of 46 points, on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes. HOWEVER, in the WCF's, Kareem was outplayed Hakeem, and Houston stunned the Lakers, 4-1. Still, it was hard to blame a 38 year old Kareem (who also averaged 27 ppg in that series.)

Kareem was no longer LA's second best player by the 86-87 season. He was now behind both Magic and Worthy. And MAGIC had one of the greatest post-seasons in NBA history. And in the Finals, against Bird's Celtics, all Magic did was average a team-leading 26 ppg, a team-leading 8.0 rpg, a team-leading 13.0 apg, and on .541 shooting.

By the 87-88 Kareem was just a shell. He was arguably LA's FIFTH best player, and in fact, Mychal Thompson was a better center. And Kareem played poorly in the post-season. In fact, LA won the title DESPITE him. He averaged 14.1 ppg, 5.5 rpg, and shot .464 (in a league that shot .480.) And he was AWFUL in the Finals. Over the course of that seven game series, Kareem averaged 13 ppg, 4.1 rpg, and shot a miserable .414 from the floor. And how about his game seven, which was arguably the WORST game seven by an all-time "great" in NBA history. Four points, on 2-7 shooting, with three rebounds, three TO's, and five PF's...in 29 minutes.

Kareem was in his final season in 88-89, and was nothing more than a role player. Magic led LA to an 11-0 record in the playoffs going into the Finals, but he was injured in game two (in a tie game), and without him (and Scott before the series even started), LA was swept. In Kareem's last finals, he averaged 12.5 pppg, 5.0 rpg, and shot .435.

Kareem retired after that season, and Magic then took his Lakers to a 63-19 mark (a sizeable improvement over their 57-25 record in Kareem's last season.) And then, in the 90-91 season, Magic took his injury-riddled Lakers to a 58-24 record, and yet another trip to the Finals (where MJ's Bulls won easily, 4-1.)

Magic retired after that season, and LA plummetted back to the pre-Magic days, with a 43-39 record, and then followed that up with an even worse 39-43 record.

Hopefully all of the above gives everyone here a little bit better perspective on Kareem's career.

[KingBeasley08]

Kareem easily

Wilt is the biggest stat-padder in history. How can you "dominate and be the best NBA player ever" and win only 2 titles? :roll:

[jlauber]

Kareem easily

Wilt is the biggest stat-padder in history. How can you "dominate and be the best NBA player ever" and win only 2 titles? :roll:

So you have Russell WAY ahead of Kareem then, right? 11 rings in 13 seasons, compared to only six in 20 (and the last two Kareem was not even LA's second best player.)

[oolalaa]

In their first H2H game, in the 69-70 season, Wilt crushed Kareem, outscoring him, 25-23; outrebounding him, 25-20; outassisting Kareem, 5-2; outblocking him, 3-2, and outshooting him from the floor, 9-14 to 9-21 (.643 to .429.)

Wilt shredded his knee shortly after that game, and had major knee surgery. He would face Kareem in 27 games after that injury, and from age 34 to 36.

How about this?

In the 70-71 season, which was Wilt's last 20+ ppg season (and arguably his WORST season of his career), Chamberlain and Kareem met five times in the regular season, and five times in the post-season.

Now, keep in mind that this was perhaps Kareem's greatest season (if you include the post-season.) He LED the NBA in scoring, at 31.7 ppg, shot .577 from the floor (in a league that shot .449...and that .128 differential over the league average was the highest in Kareem's 20 year career), and 16.0 rpg.

In their five regular season games, Kareem outscored Wilt, per game, 27.8 ppg to 23.2 ppg. Wilt outrebounded Kareem, per game, 15 rpg to 13.2 rpg. And Wilt outshot Kareem from the floor, .467 to .438.

In their five H2H playoff games, Kareem outscored Wilt, per game, 25 ppg to 22 ppg. Wilt outrebounded Kareem, per game, 18.8 rpg to 17.2 rpg. And Wilt outshot Kareem from the floor, .489 to .481.

So, over the course of their first 11 games, when Wilt was still somewhat capable of routinely scoring 20+ ppg, Kareem held a 26.1 ppg to 22.6 ppg scoring edge, BUT, Wilt outrebounded Kareem, per game, 17.6 rpg to 15.6 rpg, and Chamberlain outshot Kareem overall, .490 to .454.

And once again, TEN of those eleven games were played by a 34 year old Wilt, and only a year removed from major knee surgery.


As for Wilt's defense against Kareem? In the '72 WCF's, Chamberlain held Kareem, who had shot .574 during the regular season, to .457 in their six H2H games. AND, in the last FOUR pivotal games of that series, Kareem could only shoot .414. Furthermore, Wilt blocked some 15+ "unblockable" sky-hooks in that series. All from a 35 year old Wilt, and against a Kareem at his scoring PEAK.

THEN, in Wilt's LAST season, he and Kareem faced off in SIX regular season games. Kareem outscored Wilt, per game, 29 ppg to 11 ppg, BUT, Wilt outhsot Kareem by a .737 to .450 margin. Included in those six games, was one game in which Wilt outscored Kareem, 24-21, while outshooting Jabbar, 10-14 to 10-27.


As for a PRIME "scoring" Wilt...

Chamberlain, in his 68-69 season, in a year in which he averaged 14 FGAs per game, hung TWO games of 60+ points (one of them was a 66 point game, on 29-35 shooting, which is the highest FG% game in a 60+ point game in NBA history.) Why is that significant? Because Kareem came into the league in the VERY next season, and faced those same two centers on several occasions...and yet, he never came close to duplicating those numbers against those two centers...NOR over the course of his ENTIRE 20 year career (his high game was 55 points.)

And, Wilt hung THREE games of 50+ on HOFer Willis Reed (and several more of 40+), with a HIGH game of 58 points. Chamberlain also had THREE games of 60+ against 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy, (and a season of 55 ppg against him) with a HIGH game of 73 points! Furthermore, Wilt faced 6-11 HOFer Nate Thurmond in about a dozen, or so, games in Wilt's "scoring" prime. He had SEVERAL 30+ point games against Thurmond, including one game in which he outscored Thurmond, 45-13.

Now, Kareem faced all three of those guys MANY times in his career...and never APPROACHED those games. In fact, he faced Thurmond in some 50+ H2H games, and his high game against Nate was only 34 points (and only a few of 30+.)

How come? How come a PRIME Wilt could just OBLITERATE the MANY of the same centers that Kareem would face...and yet Kareem couldn't come within MILES of a PRIME Wilt's domination?

With regards to their first h2h meeting, i get the feeling you are using that one game to justify to yourself that wilt > kareem. Can you not see the absurdity of using just 1 game to draw a meaningful conclusion, especially when you consider wilt was just past his prime and kareem was only a rookie?

I gave you the combined stats of all their h2h meetings. Yes, it is not a fair comparison. Wilt was on his last legs and kareem was young. It is impossible to say how they would have fared against each other in their primes but even if wilt 'dominated' kareem does that automatically make him a better player? Of course not. Wilt 'dominated' russell (statistically anyway) but i think most fair minded, objective, knowledgeable basketball fans would conclude that russell was the greater player (russells intangibles made up for the disparity in scoring).


Wilt is the greatest regular season player of all time!! I have conceded this many times. No one can touch him and i will lambast anyone who disputes this.

But did wilt hang 50, 60 & 70 point games on reed, bellamy and thurmond in the playoffs (you know, when it really mattered)? Nope.

It's also funny that you brought up his 68/69 season exploits considering the fact that he went on to average a 14/25/3 on 55% (and 39% from the line!!!) against thurmond, zelmo beaty and a 35 year old russell in the playoffs...


Look, i rank kareem over wilt on my all time list partly because of his amazing longevity. This has to be taken into account. If he retired 5/6 years earlier then i would have to rethink things but he didn't.

I think kareem gets overrated. Just not as overrated as wilt :lol

[jlauber]

With regards to their first h2h meeting, i get the feeling you are using that one game to justify to yourself that wilt > kareem. Can you not see the absurdity of using just 1 game to draw a meaningful conclusion, especially when you consider wilt was just past his prime and kareem was only a rookie?

I gave you the combined stats of all their h2h meetings. Yes, it is not a fair comparison. Wilt was on his last legs and kareem was young. It is impossible to say how they would have fared against each other in their primes but even if wilt 'dominated' kareem does that automatically make him a better player? Of course not. Wilt 'dominated' russell (statistically anyway) but i think most fair minded, objective, knowledgeable basketball fans would conclude that russell was the greater player (russells intangibles made up for the disparity in scoring).


Wilt is the greatest regular season player of all time!! I have conceded this many times. No one can touch him and i will lambast anyone who disputes this.

But did wilt hang 50, 60 & 70 point games on reed, bellamy and thurmond in the playoffs (you know, when it really mattered)? Nope.

It's also funny that you brought up his 68/69 season exploits considering the fact that he went on to average a 14/25/3 on 55% (and 39% from the line!!!) against thurmond, zelmo beaty and a 35 year old russell in the playoffs...


Look, i rank kareem over wilt on my all time list partly because of his amazing longevity. This has to be taken into account. If he retired 5/6 years earlier then i would have to rethink things but he didn't.

I think kareem gets a little overrated. Just not as overrated as wilt :lol

Wilt never faced Bellamy, Reed, or Thurmond, in the post-season, in his SCORING seasons. He DID face Beaty, though. The result? 38.6 ppg, 23.0 rpg, and on .559 shooting. In game seven of that series, he hung a 39 point, 26 rebound, 12 block game on Beaty, and in game five, he poured in 50 points on 22-32 shooting.

And a SCORING Wilt faced Russell MANY times. Included in those playoff H2H's were a 50-35 game (on 22-42 shooting) and in a "must win" win. He also had FOUR 40-30 games against Russell, including a 46-34 game in a "must win" loss. In fact, he had FOUR entire series against Russell of 30+, including a 30-31 seven game series in '65. And he also had a 29-27 .517 series (in a league that shot .433) against Russell in the '64 Finals, as well as 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, .509 series against him in '66 (again, in a league that shot .433.)

And, how about his three series against Thurmond? He outrebounded him, 28.5 rpg to 26.7 rpg in '67, and outshot Nate in that series, .560 to .343. In the '69 playoffs against Thurmond, he outrebounded Nate, 23.5 rpg to 19.5 rpg, while outshooting Thurmond, .500 to .398. And in Wilt's LAST post-season, and in the '73 WCF's, he outrebounded Thurmond, 23.6 rpg to 17.2 rpg, and outshot Nate, .550 to .392.

As for Bellamy, in the '68 playoffs, he held Bellamy to .421 shooting, and in the process, he LED BOTH teams in scoring, rebounding, AND assists.

Of course, Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 post-season series, and that included EIGHT against Russell, THREE against Reed, THREE against Thurmond, THREE against Lucas, TWO against Kareem, and one against Bellamy.

[jlauber]

Kareem easily

Wilt is the biggest stat-padder in history. How can you "dominate and be the best NBA player ever" and win only 2 titles? :roll:

I wonder how many more rings Wilt would have won had he been paired with a PRIME Magic for TEN seasons?

[G.O.A.T]

Wilt is my choice, superior on both ends and a better athlete. For all of Wilt's mental shortcomings, Kareem wasn't any better. Most of Wilt's teammates liked him and despised the system coaches set up (some thought Wilt was unbearable sure) Kareem's teammates, either feared, hated or felt distant from him.

[ThaRegul8r]

Kareem easily

Wilt is the biggest stat-padder in history. How can you "dominate and be the best NBA player ever" and win only 2 titles? :roll:

So you have Russell WAY ahead of Kareem then, right? 11 rings in 13 seasons, compared to only six in 20 (and the last two Kareem was not even LA's second best player.)

But Russell was CRUSHED (IN CAPS FOR EXTRA EMPHASIS!!!) by Wilt, as you are oh-so-fond of reiterating, so if Kareem is "easily" over Wilt, then Russell—WHO WAS CRUSHED BY WILT (ALL CAPS FOR EXTRA EMPHASIS!!!)—would be behind Kareem as well.

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]But Russell was CRUSHED (IN CAPS FOR EXTRA EMPHASIS!!!) by Wilt, as you are oh-so-fond of reiterating, so if Kareem is "easily" over Wilt, then Russell

[PTB Fan]

Russell was the game's greatest winner...and I have always acknowledged that fact. His teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's, and I have acknowledged that, as well. And yes, Russell deserves much of the credit for that, and Chamberlain probably deserves some of the blame.

But yes, there were games, series, and even seasons in which Wilt buried Russell. Not that Russell probably ever cared.

I don't have a problem with those that rank Russell over Wilt. But I do have a problem with those that claim that Wilt was just a "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in post-season.

Now this is wrong.

You claim that Wilt outplayed Russell, but Russell is better?

No sense at all.

[PTB Fan]

By the way, Wilt never understood to fully use his talents. As a scorer, he could never win because he took too many chances out of his team mates. As a defender he did much better, but his best came as an all-around force.

Wilt's lack of consistent play hurt him when it mattered. And he was a choker in some way. He played to put stats, which he did, but didn't play to win which is why he was defeated in the post season.

I acknowledge him as a GOAT candidate, but there are other guys with much better cases for GOAT and Kareem is one of those.

[jlauber]

Now this is wrong.

You claim that Wilt outplayed Russell, but Russell is better?

No sense at all.

Here is 40+ reasons...

[QUOTE]I have pointed out the some 40 games in which Chamberlain just hammered Russell, and here they are again:

For reference, the first number of the pair next to each player's name is points in that particular game, while the second is rebounds. An example would be the first one, with Wilt scoring 45 points, and grabbing 35 rebounds (45-35), while Russell's numbers were 15 points, with 13 rebounds (15-13.)


Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13
Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21
Wilt 43-39

[oolalaa]

Russell was the game's greatest winner...and I have always acknowledged that fact. His teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's, and I have acknowledged that, as well. And yes, Russell deserves much of the credit for that, and Chamberlain probably deserves some of the blame.

But yes, there were games, series, and even seasons in which Wilt buried Russell. Not that Russell probably ever cared.

I don't have a problem with those that rank Russell over Wilt. But I do have a problem with those that claim that Wilt was just a "stats-padding" "loser" who "choked" in post-season.

:eek: :applause:

[jlauber]

By the way, Wilt never understood to fully use his talents. As a scorer, he could never win because he took too many chances out of his team mates. As a defender he did much better, but his best came as an all-around force.

Wilt's lack of consistent play hurt him when it mattered. And he was a choker in some way. He played to put stats, which he did, but didn't play to win which is why he was defeated in the post season.

I acknowledge him as a GOAT candidate, but there are other guys with much better cases for GOAT and Kareem is one of those.

Wilt played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13. He led his team's to the best record in the league on four separate occasions. He even led his TEAM to the BEST RECORD in the league while LEADING the league in SCORING (and rebounding, and FG%, and averaging 5.2 apg in that same season.)

How well did his teammates perform in the post-season? Keep in mind that Wilt camme to a LAST PLACE team, and immediately took them to a 49-26 record. But, as remarkable as that was, how about this fact? In his first six post-seasons, his teammates collectively shot .382, .380, .354, .352, .352, and .332. And yet, he STILL had two of those team's lose game seven's to Russell's Dynasty by margins of 2 and 1 point. And he took a last place roster to a championship in '64, where he played brilliantly, but his team, outgunned EIGHT to TWO in HOFers, was beaten by Russell's Celtics.

How good were Wilt's teammates early in his career? When Alex Hannum took over the team before the start of the 63-64 season, he conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, and against some draftees and benchwarmers. To Hannum's shock, the "scrubs" beat his Warriors. And yet, Wilt took that inept group of clowns to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals.


As for Kareem as the GOAT...you obviously didn't read my post on just how "clutch" Kareem was. Take MAGIC away, and Kareem would have retired somewhere in the mid-80's with one ring, and his career would have been considered a major disappointment. Kareem FLOPPED SEVERAL times in the post-season.

And I always find this fact interesting...

In Kareem's 71-72 season, he played 44.2 mpg, and averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 shooting. His Bucks went 63-19, and had a whopping +11.1 point differential. BUT, when he played with the 40-42 Lakers in the 75-76 season, he could only play 41.2 mpg, with 27.7 ppg and on .529 shooting. Oh, and BTW, how did Kareem play in the post-season in that 71-72 season? 28.8 ppg on .437 shooting. And yet Wilt gets accused of "stats-padding?"

[Duncan21formvp]

Here is 40+ reasons...



And there were many other 30-20+ games by Wilt, as well. You would be hard-pressed to find a handful of games in which Russell statistically outplayed Wilt, and you most certainly won't find any in which he trashed Wilt.

And this doesn't include efficiency either, in which Wilt has quite a few knwon games, series, and even SEASONS in which he outshot Russell by HUGE margins.

Now, if you want to argue team success, no question, Russell had a solid edge (although his 7-1 H2H edge in post-season play was nine points away from Wilt holding a 5-3 margin over him.) Russell also had a considerable edge in quality teammates, too.

Of course, if you are measuring greatness by team success...then Russell is the all-time greatest, and by a whopping margin. But, once again, Wilt came within an eyelash of beating Russell's Celtics on four occassions, and he DID beat him once.

You are also forgetting that from 1966-1969 that Wilt had HCA all 4 years over Russell and lost 3 series to him including being up 3-1 in the 1968 series and up 3-2 in 1969.

[PTB Fan]

Here is 40+ reasons...



And there were many other 30-20+ games by Wilt, as well. You would be hard-pressed to find a handful of games in which Russell statistically outplayed Wilt, and you most certainly won't find any in which he trashed Wilt.

And this doesn't include efficiency either, in which Wilt has quite a few knwon games, series, and even SEASONS in which he outshot Russell by HUGE margins.

Now, if you want to argue team success, no question, Russell had a solid edge (although his 7-1 H2H edge in post-season play was nine points away from Wilt holding a 5-3 margin over him.) Russell also had a considerable edge in quality teammates, too.

Of course, if you are measuring greatness by team success...then Russell is the all-time greatest, and by a whopping margin. But, once again, Wilt came within an eyelash of beating Russell's Celtics on four occassions, and he DID beat him once.

Wilt played for the numbers. He got them. And most of the stats came when the game were done. Russell has edge in most of their head to head plays like in 62, 64, 65, 69 i think. This is off the top of my head. Wilt has edge in 67, 66... i'm not sure about 63.

Russell holds the edge in wins and titles though.

[PTB Fan]

Wilt played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13. He led his team's to the best record in the league on four separate occasions. He even led his TEAM to the BEST RECORD in the league while LEADING the league in SCORING (and rebounding, and FG%, and averaging 5.2 apg in that same season.)

How well did his teammates perform in the post-season? Keep in mind that Wilt camme to a LAST PLACE team, and immediately took them to a 49-26 record. But, as remarkable as that was, how about this fact? In his first six post-seasons, his teammates collectively shot .382, .380, .354, .352, .352, and .332. And yet, he STILL had two of those team's lose game seven's to Russell's Dynasty by margins of 2 and 1 point. And he took a last place roster to a championship in '64, where he played brilliantly, but his team, outgunned EIGHT to TWO in HOFers, was beaten by Russell's Celtics.

It's not like i said that Wilt didn't make any impact at all. However, it's clear that Wilt as a scorer couldn't push those teams. Why? Because he couldn't provide great play (other than scoring and rebounding) when it mattered. He took too many chances away from his team mates, didn't let them to get in rhythm which would hurt them later on and it's easy to blame them for that.

But, when Wilt past 67 took a back seat to scoring, his teams became truly tough to stop. Especially in that 67 famous squad, wheres Wilt was at his personal best. That's my point, and no numbers will convince me otherwise.


How good were Wilt's teammates early in his career? When Alex Hannum took over the team before the start of the 63-64 season, he conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, and against some draftees and benchwarmers. To Hannum's shock, the "scrubs" beat his Warriors. And yet, Wilt took that inept group of clowns to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals.

Past 67, he had outstanding team mates. West, Baylor, Greer, Goodrich, McMilan etc. These guys were outstanding. It's a shame that he won a total of 2 rings with these guys.



As for Kareem as the GOAT...you obviously didn't read my post on just how "clutch" Kareem was. Take MAGIC away, and Kareem would have retired somewhere in the mid-80's with one ring, and his career would have been considered a major disappointment. Kareem FLOPPED SEVERAL times in the post-season.

Kareem's clutch abilities are underrated here. Kareem was arguably the finest big man who could take over scoring wise in crunch time as he numerous times did.

Example is in the 5th game of the 1980 Finals, where despite being injured, he dropped 16 points in the fourth en route to a 40 point performances versus a very good Philly team.

And this is one of the numerous. Kareem had many bad luck with his team mates early in his career, which is why he has only 6 and not 8 titles.
And I always find this fact interesting...


In Kareem's 71-72 season, he played 44.2 mpg, and averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 shooting. His Bucks went 63-19, and had a whopping +11.1 point differential. BUT, when he played with the 40-42 Lakers in the 75-76 season, he could only play 41.2 mpg, with 27.7 ppg and on .529 shooting. Oh, and BTW, how did Kareem play in the post-season in that 71-72 season? 28.8 ppg on .437 shooting. And yet Wilt gets accused of "stats-padding?"

Kareem had a different role in the Lakers. He wasn't asked to score, he was asked to be also a passer (as he averaged 6 dimes in one period of the season), was a dominant rebounder, shot blocker and still torched teams offensively. In other words, just the perfect center.

That's like saying that Wilt in 67 lost his scoring ability from 32 to 24 points or something, wheres he was just playing a different role.

[IGotACoolStory]

I'd put my money on Wilt's corpse.

:oldlol: