Prime Walton vs Prime Duncan

[oolalaa]

Prime Bill Walton (1976/77):

Regular season - 34.8 mpg, 18.6 ppg/14.3 fga on .528%, 14.4 rpg, 3.8 apg, 3.4 bpg
2nd in MVP voting, All-NBA 1st team, All-defensive 2nd team, Rebounding champ, Blocks champ

Post season ---- 39.7 mpg, 18.2 ppg/15.9 fga on .507%, 15.2 rpg, 5.5 apg, 3.4 bpg
Finals MVP

VS

Prime Tim Duncan (2002/03):

Regular season - 39.3 mpg, 23.3 ppg/17.2 fga on .513%, 12.9 rpg, 3.9 apg, 2.9 bpg
MVP, All-NBA 1st team, ALL-Defensive 1st team

Post season ---- 42.5 mpg, 24.7 ppg/17.2 fga on .529%, 15.4 rpg, 5.3 apg, 3.3 bpg
Finals MVP


In my opinion, Walton would have been a top 10 player of all time if he stayed healthy. His career would probably have been very similar to Duncans - likely 3/4 rings, a couple of mvps & maybe a couple of defensive player of the year awards aswell. Unfortunately we will never know.

In their primes, who would you take?

[Miserio]

WOULDA COULDA BLABLABLABLABLA.

Duncan > Walton

[chips93]

just the other day i was thinking how similar they were.

walton was more passive, duncan the better scorer

ill take duncan

[colts19]

Career is not close it's Duncan.
Prime is not close it's Walton.

Bill Walton was what playing Center should be. He was the hub of his team on both ends of the floor. It was a beautiful thing to watch.:bowdown: :bowdown:

[colts19]

Career is not close it's Duncan.
Prime is not close it's Walton.

Bill Walton was what playing Center should be. He was the hub of his team on both ends of the floor. It was a beautiful thing to watch.:bowdown: :bowdown:

[Bigsmoke]

Career is not close it's Duncan.
Prime is not close it's Walton.

Bill Walton was what playing Center should be. He was the hub of his team on both ends of the floor. It was a beautiful thing to watch.:bowdown: :bowdown:

STFU.

Duncan better.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Walton's prime was so short that it can really only be compared to Duncan's '03 peak which the OP did.

If you want an idea of the impact Walton made just look at the Blazers with and without him.

The '77 Blazers were 44-21 in the regular season with Walton and of course a championship team. They were just 5-12 without him.

The '78 Blazers were even more dominant and many thought they were better than the champion Blazers. The team was 48-10 with him and 10-14 without him. Before his injury, many thought they were going to make a run at the '72 Lakers then record 69-13 season.

I truly believe that during Walton's short prime he elevated his teammates as much as anyone in the history of the game. The Blazers got contributions from a lot of guys and as you can see by their records with and without Walton, they relied heavily on them. But he didn't carry them by averaging 30, he carried them by making his teammates better. You could say that Duncan did something similar in the '03 playoffs as well.

It really is a great comparison because both were very similar.

Walton's jump hook was almost automatic and he had a great bank shot, much like Duncan who scored mostly on jump hooks/short turnarounds and 15 foot bank shots.

Duncan did have more range though. Duncan regularly hit 18-20 foot jumpers from straight away to go along with the 15 foot bank shots while I haven't seen many games where Walton shot beyond 15 feet.

Duncan was also better at taking his man off the dribble, though I've seen remarkable versatility for a big man of Walton's era. I've seen him hit mid-range jumpers off the dribble and I've seen him use ball fake moves like the one Olajuwon made famous on more than one occasion.

Both were excellent rebounders, very fundamentally sound, though I might give Walton the edge. Both were also elite defensive players, though Duncan may have been even better, but one of the things that made both great defensively was that they were so fundamentally sound and could block shots without biting on fakes.

As good of a passer as Duncan is, I'd give the advantage to Walton who is regularly called the best passing big man of all time(I'm not saying that he is the best, but an argument can be made). Walton was also one of the best outlet passers, Duncan has always been a good outlet passer, but it made more of a difference in the fast-paced 70's than the 2000's.

You could argue that both had top 10 peaks, Duncan was more individually dominant in '03, but I'm not sure if he was any more effective. I'd give the edge to him for being able to play more minutes, but their skill set and ability were very similar.

In a comparison like this, you also have to throw stats out the window. Walton's stats don't do him justice. Bill's stats from his peak are almost identical to '10 Pau Gasol, while it's obvious that Bill was on another level.

I saw some articles from Bill's era where people were calling him the best center ever.

[magnax1]

Everything I read about Walton is exaggerated. He was a good player, but best center ever? Not a chance in hell. To say something like he's a Duncan light with better passing is fair.

[Lucifer]

http://images.quizilla.com/S/scarecrow819/1061408326_izGoldberg.jpgp

[ballsohard247]

I've only seen a couple of Walton's games, so I'm definitely not an expert on him, but watching him play his passing is what stands out the most to me. He blocks shots, rebounds, and scores around the basket like you expect a center to but he makes great passes to cutters and when doubled he almost always finds the open man. He was really impressive and it's a shame his body couldn't hold up. That said I would have to take Duncan because of his longevity.

[1987_Lakers]

Everything I read about Walton is exaggerated. He was a good player, but best center ever? Not a chance in hell. To say something like he's a Duncan light with better passing is fair.

Peak Walton is up there with Duncan & Hakeem. Most fundamentally sound player of all time along with Bird. Elite rebounder/shot blocker/defender, greatest passing big man ever, could score (although not like the other dominant centers). Terrific leader & teammate. His teammates loved him & it amazes me how Walton never took credit for his team's success, he just constantly praised his teammates & ignored his impact.

[Pushxx]

It's a close call. I'm gonna go prime Duncan even though his teams had more around him.

Watching Walton in his prime is a thing of beauty though. :bowdown:

[IGotACoolStory]

Peak Walton>Peak any center except Shaq

[Scoooter]

At their respective peaks they played different positions. I'd like to see those two on the same team. I'd give a small edge Walton though, based on what I've seen. Duncan dad one of the greatest centers to ever play holding down the paint with him.

[Bigsmoke]

Peak Walton>Peak any center except Shaq

^ shit like that is why weed is illegal.

[32Dayz]

I give the Edge to Walton.

Although statistically its very close I believe Walton at his Peak faced better competition.

Walton destroyed Prime/Peak Kareem in the playoffs which is pretty impressive.

[Bigsmoke]

I give the Edge to Walton.

Although statistically its very close I believe Walton at his Peak faced better competition.

Walton destroyed Prime/Peak Kareem in the playoffs which is pretty impressive.

didn't Kareem averaged close to 34/20 that series?

[Odinn]

I give the Edge to Walton.

Although statistically its very close I believe Walton at his Peak faced better competition.

Walton destroyed Prime/Peak Kareem in the playoffs which is pretty impressive.
Another 32Dayz classic.:roll: :roll:

[32Dayz]

Eh.. so maybe Kareem had the slight individual edge but Walton played better team ball / defense and still put up some beastly numbers himself and his team won the series.

Walton: 19.3 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 2.3 bpg, 51 FG%.

One of the best passing Centers ever.

Remember this was Kareem at his absolute Peak... pretty impressive to put up those numbers against him and win the series.

[Bigsmoke]

Eh.. so maybe Kareem had the slight individual edge but Walton played better team ball / defense and still put up some beastly numbers himself and his team won the series.

Walton: 19.3 ppg, 14.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 2.3 bpg, 51 FG%.

One of the best passing Centers ever.

Remember this was Kareem at his absolute Peak... pretty impressive to put up those numbers against him and win the series.

Walton IS the best passing center ever.

but back to the Kareem Walton debate, Kareem kicked that ass but didnt win because his supporting cast wasnt as good. Simple as that. Not saying Bill didnt contribute which he truly was the key to the Blazers success but are we forgetting Maurice Lucas?

[KevinNYC]

Walton IS the best passing center ever.

but back to the Kareem Walton debate, Kareem kicked that ass but didnt win because his supporting cast wasnt as good. Simple as that. Not saying Bill didnt contribute which he truly was the key to the Blazers success but are we forgetting Maurice Lucas?

Well as pointed out above. The Blazers really took a hit when Walton was out of the line up. The Blazers were a great team unit. And Walton's contribution that was huge, I don't think Lucas contribution was near that. I don't know their record when Lucas didn't play for a comparison. With those speedy Blazer guards and the their fast break philosophy, Walton was a perfect match.

Walton led that team in assists in 78 and shot a much higher fg%. I think Walton would have just stepped up more in the offense if Lucas went out and they still would have had a winning record.

[jlauber]

Walton IS the best passing center ever.

but back to the Kareem Walton debate, Kareem kicked that ass but didnt win because his supporting cast wasnt as good. Simple as that. Not saying Bill didnt contribute which he truly was the key to the Blazers success but are we forgetting Maurice Lucas?

Chamberlain was EASILY the greatest passing center in NBA history. The man won an ASSIST title for cryingoutloud. He came in THIRD in another season. His 8.6 and 7.8 apg seasons are MILES ahead of the next best passing season by a center. He also had TWO consecutive triples-double playoff series (28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, .612 shooting, and then 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, .556 shooting.) At one time he shared the post-season assist record of 19 assists in a game (a 16-30-19 game BTW.) He also had the only 20-20-20 game in NBA history (22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists), as well as the most staggering triple-double game in NBA history (53 points, on 24-29 shooting, with 32 rebounds, and 14 assists, as well as 7 blocks.) And he had a playoff qaud double (against Russell no less) of 24, 32, 13, 12 (as well as series clinching game five of 29-36-13-7.). He had NINE straight triple-doubles, which is also a record.

Not only that, but his outlet passing in the Lakers' 71-72 season, led LA to an average of 121 ppg, in a league that averaged 110 ppg (and the second best team was a mile away at 116 ppg.)

And Wilt led the NBA in scoring in 65-66, at 33.5 ppg, and still handed out 5.2 apg...as well as leading the league in rebounding, and setting a then-record .540 FG% mark...all while leading his team to the best record in the league. BTW, for those that would somehow suggest that Wilt was "stats-padding" when he led the NBA in assists in '68...his Sixers ran away with the best record in the league. In fact, Wilt averaged 5.2 apg, 7.8 apg, and 8.6 apg from his '66 thru '68 seasons in Philly, and the Sixers had the best record in the league each season.

Once again, Chamberlain was the greatest passing center (and greatest passing big man) in NBA history, and I'm sorry, it has never been close.

[hkfosho]

I'm about to get a shit tonne of hate for this but here goes:

I have no clue how Walton played or how good he was, I just knew him as a commentator.

So based on my limited knowledge of him and his biased bitch-ass commentating, I am going to assume that he was a phony hyped up little bitch in his prime who played with a bunch of incompetent unathletic fools.

Have a nice day

[jlauber]

I'm about to get a shit tonne of hate for this but here goes:

I have no clue how Walton played or how good he was, I just knew him as a commentator.

So based on my limited knowledge of him and his biased bitch-ass commentating, I am going to assume that he was a phony hyped up little bitch in his prime who played with a bunch of incompetent unathletic fools.

Have a nice day

Why would you waste your time to make a worthless, pointless, baseless, post like this?

[hkfosho]

Why would you waste your time to make a worthless, pointless, baseless, post like this?

Because I fvcking hated his commentating with his old-hag bias tendencies with the lakers

Fvck him

And fvck his stupid ass no talent son too

[Harison]

I would take TD, but its close. They would be perfect together :cheers:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Chamberlain was EASILY the greatest passing center in NBA history. The man won an ASSIST title for cryingoutloud. He came in THIRD in another season. His 8.6 and 7.8 apg seasons are MILES ahead of the next best passing season by a center. He also had TWO consecutive triples-double playoff series (28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, .612 shooting, and then 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, .556 shooting.) At one time he shared the post-season assist record of 19 assists in a game (a 16-30-19 game BTW.) He also had the only 20-20-20 game in NBA history (22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists), as well as the most staggering triple-double game in NBA history (53 points, on 24-29 shooting, with 32 rebounds, and 14 assists, as well as 7 blocks.) And he had a playoff qaud double (against Russell no less) of 24, 32, 13, 12 (as well as series clinching game five of 29-36-13-7.). He had NINE straight triple-doubles, which is also a record.

Not only that, but his outlet passing in the Lakers' 71-72 season, led LA to an average of 121 ppg, in a league that averaged 110 ppg (and the second best team was a mile away at 116 ppg.)

And Wilt led the NBA in scoring in 65-66, at 33.5 ppg, and still handed out 5.2 apg...as well as leading the league in rebounding, and setting a then-record .540 FG% mark...all while leading his team to the best record in the league. BTW, for those that would somehow suggest that Wilt was "stats-padding" when he led the NBA in assists in '68...his Sixers ran away with the best record in the league. In fact, Wilt averaged 5.2 apg, 7.8 apg, and 8.6 apg from his '66 thru '68 seasons in Philly, and the Sixers had the best record in the league each season.

Once again, Chamberlain was the greatest passing center (and greatest passing big man) in NBA history, and I'm sorry, it has never been close.

Right, because assist numbers, particularly across eras comparing guys who played on different teams and different amounts of minutes really sum up who the best passer was.....nothing else matters, just assist numbers. :rolleyes: Not to mention that it's well documented Wilt aimed to lead the league in assists. When you aim for a statistical achievement, it makes it hard to compare the numbers to others.

Wilt was a great passer, I'm not sure if he always was, or that he always had the ability and became more willing later, but I have no doubt that he was an elite passing big man with the Sixers and Lakers.

But to say nobody is close? Or that it's clear? If that's the case, then why do so many call Walton, Sabonis ect. the best? Because it's subjective. There have been many great passing big men, whether it's those guys, Webber, Divac or Kareem.

If assist numbers(without factoring in the context) prove everything, then why do I, and so many others think that Sabonis was such a phenomenal passer? After all, his high apg season was 3.0.

[chips93]

Right, because assist numbers, particularly across eras comparing guys who played on different teams and different amounts of minutes really sum up who the best passer was.....nothing else matters, just assist numbers. :rolleyes: Not to mention that it's well documented Wilt aimed to lead the league in assists. When you aim for a statistical achievement, it makes it hard to compare the numbers to others.

Wilt was a great passer, I'm not sure if he always was, or that he always had the ability and became more willing later, but I have no doubt that he was an elite passing big man with the Sixers and Lakers.

But to say nobody is close? Or that it's clear? If that's the case, then why do so many call Walton, Sabonis ect. the best? Because it's subjective. There have been many great passing big men, whether it's those guys, Webber, Divac or Kareem.

If assist numbers(without factoring in the context) prove everything, then why do I, and so many others think that Sabonis was such a phenomenal passer? After all, his high apg season was 3.0.

just curious, but who do you think is the best passing big man in nba history?

[jlauber]

Right, because assist numbers, particularly across eras comparing guys who played on different teams and different amounts of minutes really sum up who the best passer was.....nothing else matters, just assist numbers. :rolleyes: Not to mention that it's well documented Wilt aimed to lead the league in assists. When you aim for a statistical achievement, it makes it hard to compare the numbers to others.

Wilt was a great passer, I'm not sure if he always was, or that he always had the ability and became more willing later, but I have no doubt that he was an elite passing big man with the Sixers and Lakers.

But to say nobody is close? Or that it's clear? If that's the case, then why do so many call Walton, Sabonis ect. the best? Because it's subjective. There have been many great passing big men, whether it's those guys, Webber, Divac or Kareem.

If assist numbers(without factoring in the context) prove everything, then why do I, and so many others think that Sabonis was such a phenomenal passer? After all, his high apg season was 3.0.

Statistics can be distorted to be sure. Iverson led the NBA in scoring while shooting 40%. Biedrins led the NBA in FG%, but couldn't shoot from 5+ ft. And Bowen won a 3 pt title in a year in which he shot .404 from the FT line.

Having said that, though, EVERYONE measures STATISTICAL titles based on STATISTICAL achievements. Who have been the greatest running backs in the NFL? The greatest HR hitters in MLB? Or the greatest scorers in NBA history?

Chamberlain's assists came in an era when they were considerably more difficult to come by. Teams averaged nearly as many assists, last year, as they did in '68.

Not only that, but Wilt had seasons of 7.8 apg and 8.6 apg...and there has never been another center who even averaged 6.0. Then, in the post-season he went 9.2 apg and 6.5 apg.

As for setting out with an assist title as a goal...so what? It certainly wasn't a selfish stat. His TEAM went 62-20, and RAN AWAY with the best record in the league.

And, great passing IS linked with assists. Compare the passing of Jason Williams with that of John Stockton. On occasion Williams would make a sensational no-look, behind-the-back pass. And then follow it up with a pass into the seats when he had a wide-open player under the basket. Meanwhile Stockton was less exciting, and far more efficient with his passing.

Once again, Chamberlain had STAGGERING assist numbers for a big man. You simply can't diminish what he accomplished. And he was doing so while leading his team's to the best record in the league. And his '67 post-season run was unquestionably the greatest passing ever seen by a big man in the playoffs. Two straight triple-double series, and nearly an entire post-season, covering 15 games, of a triple-double average.

And, had assists been as easy to come by as they were in the Magic-Stockton era, and there were have been a strong possibility that Chamberlain would have had 1-2 triple-double SEASONS. Especially when you consider the fact that team's generally shot much worse in the 60's than they did in the 80's.

I have always marveled at Chamberlain's 62-63 season, when along with his 44.8 ppg and .528 shooting (in a league that shot .441), he averaged 3.4 apg...and with his teammates collectively shooting .412 from the floor. How many apg did he lose that season simply because his teammates were incapable of shooting? Of course, when he was finally given a decent supporting cast, with the Sixers, he could hand out 5.2 apg while still leading the league in scoring at 33.5 ppg (and in the process, taking his team to the best record in the league.)

In any case, Chamberlain's best passing seasons stand on their own. And yes, no other center (or big man) ever came close.

[oolalaa]

Chamberlain was EASILY the greatest passing center in NBA history. The man won an ASSIST title for cryingoutloud. He came in THIRD in another season. His 8.6 and 7.8 apg seasons are MILES ahead of the next best passing season by a center. He also had TWO consecutive triples-double playoff series (28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, .612 shooting, and then 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, .556 shooting.) At one time he shared the post-season assist record of 19 assists in a game (a 16-30-19 game BTW.) He also had the only 20-20-20 game in NBA history (22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists), as well as the most staggering triple-double game in NBA history (53 points, on 24-29 shooting, with 32 rebounds, and 14 assists, as well as 7 blocks.) And he had a playoff qaud double (against Russell no less) of 24, 32, 13, 12 (as well as series clinching game five of 29-36-13-7.). He had NINE straight triple-doubles, which is also a record.

Not only that, but his outlet passing in the Lakers' 71-72 season, led LA to an average of 121 ppg, in a league that averaged 110 ppg (and the second best team was a mile away at 116 ppg.)

And Wilt led the NBA in scoring in 65-66, at 33.5 ppg, and still handed out 5.2 apg...as well as leading the league in rebounding, and setting a then-record .540 FG% mark...all while leading his team to the best record in the league. BTW, for those that would somehow suggest that Wilt was "stats-padding" when he led the NBA in assists in '68...his Sixers ran away with the best record in the league. In fact, Wilt averaged 5.2 apg, 7.8 apg, and 8.6 apg from his '66 thru '68 seasons in Philly, and the Sixers had the best record in the league each season.

Once again, Chamberlain was the greatest passing center (and greatest passing big man) in NBA history, and I'm sorry, it has never been close.

:facepalm

Why did Wilt lead the league in assists? Was it because his was just that good? No! It was because he made it a goal of his, to the detriment of his scoring.

Like ive said to you before - from what ive seen, Wilts playmaking/passing involved getting the ball with his back to the basket 10-12 feet out, waiting for a teammate to run through a couple of screens (whilst doing his 1-handed round the head ball fake) then dumping the ball off and watching said teammate drain a 15 foot jumper.

When you consider the pace of the league in the mid 60s, and the fact that he played almost every minute of every game, it's not hard to see why he put up such impressive apg numbers.

Wilt was a great passing Centre - one of the greatest of all time, but he was not "EASILY the greatest passing center in NBA history". That distinction goes to Bill Walton.

[jlauber]

:facepalm

Why did Wilt lead the league in assists? Was it because his was just that good? No! It was because he made it a goal of his, to the detriment of his scoring.

Like ive said to you before - from what ive seen, Wilts playmaking/passing involved getting the ball with his back to the basket 10-12 feet out, waiting for a teammate to run through a couple of screens (whilst doing his 1-handed round the head ball fake) then dumping the ball off and watching said teammate drain a 15 foot jumper.

When you consider the pace of the league in the mid 60s, and the fact that he played almost every minute of every game, it's not hard to see why he put up such impressive apg numbers.

Wilt was a great passing Centre - one of the greatest of all time, but he was not "EASILY the greatest passing center in NBA history". That distinction goes to Bill Walton.

Here again, the "Wilt-bashers" ignore REALITY. "To the detriment of his scoring?" So, a 24.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, 8.6 apg, .595 FG% season, on a team that RAN AWAY with the best record in the league makes "not hard to see why he put up such impressive numbers."

And that was on the heels of a 24.1 ppg, 24.2 rpg, 7.8 apg, .683 season, in which he led the Sixers to a 68-13 record, and a dominating world-title.

And yet I am supposed to believe that Walton was a better passer???:facepalm

The REALITY was, Chamberlain's 66-67 and 67-68 seasons, in league that were MORE DIFFICULT to get assists, were LIGHT-YEARS ahead of Walton's BEST regular seasons, and his best POST-SEASONS.

And once again, take Wilt's 66-67 and 67-68 seasons, and put them in the mid-80's, when it was FAR easier to get an assist and to SHOOT efficiently, and Wilt's overall numbers would have been off the charts. He would have been a 20-18-10 player, and on just staggering FG%'s of perhaps as high as .735. Not to mention that he would have blown away Eaton's 5.6 bpg mark, as well.

Once again...there was Wilt and his astonishing 7.8 apg and 8.6 apg seasons, on teams that were MILES ahead of the next best team...

and then there are the many other good passing centers who averaged 4-5 apg in their best seasons.

In one of the three post-seasons that Walton played in, in a championship run, he averaged 18.2 ppg, 15.2 rpg, 5.5 apg, on .507 shooting. In Wilt's first championship run, he averaged 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and shot .579 (while crushing Russell and Thurmond.) Just LIGHT YEARS ahead of Walton's BEST post-season.

And ONLY Wilt would take a hit for a drop in his scoring. He was accused of being selfish when he was scoring 45-50 ppg with rosters that couldn't make a YMCA league, and with teammates that collectively struggled to shoot 40%. Then, when he hangs a 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, .540 , 5.2 apg season, on a team that was the best in the league...he gets the blame with a 28 ppg, 30 rpg, .509 post-season (and against Russell), while his teammates collectively shoot .352 in that post-season.

And now he gets ripped for dropping to a 24.1 ppg, 24.2 rpg, 7.8 apg, .683 season, and anchoring arguably the greatest team of all-time????

[hkfosho]

vlade divac was a better passer than all of the aforementioned players. He played in an evolutionalized league of highly skilled players unlike walton and chamberlain. Just watch those old footages, look how slow paced their games were and fundamentally lacking those players were.

[chazzy]

vlade divac was a better passer than all of the aforementioned players. He played in an evolutionalized league of highly skilled players unlike walton and chamberlain. Just watch those old footages, look how slow paced their games were and fundamentally lacking those players were.
What??

[hkfosho]

What??

Ok let's be real here, if you took prime walton and chamberlain and put them into this era with the skills that they developed during that era, do you honestly think they would show such HOF-esque performances?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybv618uKanM

What the hell is that?

You compare that game to something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY06eaFaplw

and everything seems so much more crisp; the footwork, the defense/offense setup, the pace of the game, even the goddamn attire their wearing. You put a prime Walton with his stupid short-shorts in that game and he'll be looking like Omer Asik.

[MooseJuiceBowen]

these comparison threads are all ****ing pathetic

[jlauber]

Ok let's be real here, if you took prime walton and chamberlain and put them into this era with the skills that they developed during that era, do you honestly think they would show such HOF-esque performances?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybv618uKanM

What the hell is that?

You compare that game to something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY06eaFaplw

and everything seems so much more crisp; the footwork, the defense/offense setup, the pace of the game, even the goddamn attire their wearing. You put a prime Walton with his stupid short-shorts in that game and he'll be looking like Omer Asik.

That was a 28 year old Kareem scoring 30 points against Walton.

Of course, a 38 year old Kareem just SHELLED Hakeem and Ewing within a few days of each other. He outscored Hakeem, 46-18 (one of THREE 40+ point games he plastered Hakeem with), and then followed that up with a 40-9 beatdown of Ewing.

And a PRIME Kareem shot FAR worse against an OLD Chamberlain and Thurmond in the early 70's. In fact, both OUTPLAYED Kareem in playoff series in the early 70's. And a near-prime Kareem was outplayed by Moses in both the '81 and '83 post-seasons.

Now, keep in mind that a prime Hakeem battled a young Shaq to a near-draw in the '95 Finals, too.

So, let's connect the dots...Thurmond and Wilt battled a PRIME Kareem to a draw. Kareem outplayed Walton, but those that witnessed that series would claim that it was close. And Moses outplayed Kareem in their two H2H post-seasons.

And yet an OLD OLD Kareem carpet-bombed the likes of Ewing and Hakeem. In fact, neither could guard him AT ALL. Both Ewing and Hakeem went on to be considered the best centers of the 90's, and Hakeem basically held his own with a Shaq, who would go on to just crush the NBA in the 00's.

Now, if you are willing to claim that players like Shaq, Hakeem, and Ewing wouldn't be worth a crap in today's NBA...then I might agree that Walton, Moses, Thurmond, Kareem, and Wilt probably wouldn't be worth a damn either.

But, otherwise....

[hkfosho]

these comparison threads are all ****ing pathetic

Exactly. Why would you even compare players from different eras? Fvcking stupid.

[Smoke117]

vlade divac was a better passer than all of the aforementioned players. He played in an evolutionalized league of highly skilled players unlike walton and chamberlain. Just watch those old footages, look how slow paced their games were and fundamentally lacking those players were.

lol, Sabonis was a much better passer than Divacs so even if these older players weren't better, the best passing center of all time certainly wouldn't be Vlade, it would be Sabas.

[hkfosho]

lol, Sabonis was a much better passer than Divacs so even if these older players weren't better, the best passing center of all time certainly wouldn't be Vlade, it would be Sabas.

I aint disagreein, he's definitely a great passer. Much flashier for sure.

[oolalaa]

Here again, the "Wilt-bashers" ignore REALITY. "To the detriment of his scoring?" So, a 24.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, 8.6 apg, .595 FG% season, on a team that RAN AWAY with the best record in the league makes "not hard to see why he put up such impressive numbers."

And that was on the heels of a 24.1 ppg, 24.2 rpg, 7.8 apg, .683 season, in which he led the Sixers to a 68-13 record, and a dominating world-title.

And yet I am supposed to believe that Walton was a better passer???:facepalm

The REALITY was, Chamberlain's 66-67 and 67-68 seasons, in league that were MORE DIFFICULT to get assists, were LIGHT-YEARS ahead of Walton's BEST regular seasons, and his best POST-SEASONS.

And once again, take Wilt's 66-67 and 67-68 seasons, and put them in the mid-80's, when it was FAR easier to get an assist and to SHOOT efficiently, and Wilt's overall numbers would have been off the charts. He would have been a 20-18-10 player, and on just staggering FG%'s of perhaps as high as .735. Not to mention that he would have blown away Eaton's 5.6 bpg mark, as well.

Once again...there was Wilt and his astonishing 7.8 apg and 8.6 apg seasons, on teams that were MILES ahead of the next best team...

and then there are the many other good passing centers who averaged 4-5 apg in their best seasons.

In one of the three post-seasons that Walton played in, in a championship run, he averaged 18.2 ppg, 15.2 rpg, 5.5 apg, on .507 shooting. In Wilt's first championship run, he averaged 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and shot .579 (while crushing Russell and Thurmond.) Just LIGHT YEARS ahead of Walton's BEST post-season.

And ONLY Wilt would take a hit for a drop in his scoring. He was accused of being selfish when he was scoring 45-50 ppg with rosters that couldn't make a YMCA league, and with teammates that collectively struggled to shoot 40%. Then, when he hangs a 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, .540 , 5.2 apg season, on a team that was the best in the league...he gets the blame with a 28 ppg, 30 rpg, .509 post-season (and against Russell), while his teammates collectively shoot .352 in that post-season.

And now he gets ripped for dropping to a 24.1 ppg, 24.2 rpg, 7.8 apg, .683 season, and anchoring arguably the greatest team of all-time????

1. Please don't insinuate that i am a 'Wilt basher', it's insulting to me, especially when i ended my post with "Wilt was a great passing Centre - one of the greatest of all time". I try to be as objective as i possibly can.

You on the other hand are basing Wilt's passing skills by the amount of assists he averaged per game. And even then you have failed to acknowledge the difference in era (yes, assists were supposedly a little harder to come by in the 60s but there were more posessions too) and the amount of minutes he played per game. Incidentally, i find it funny that you decided to put Wilt in the mid 80s rather than the mid 70s (Waltons era). They werent giving away assists in the 70s like they were in the 80s.

2. Are you really so fanatical about Wilt that you won't even admit his quest to lead the league in assists hindered the amount of points he was able to score??

He went from 33.5 ppg in 1965/66 to 24.1 ppg in 66/67 (the season in which his apg took a dramatic spike). That's a 9.4 ppg drop off in one season!! 9.4 ppg!!! In one season!!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: But of course, my comment about his scoring taking a hit because of his increased unselfishness is ludicrous. I MUST be a Wilt hater.

Edit:

Oh and btw. I mistakenly thought that Wilt led the league in apg in 67/68. He actually was a distant second to Oscar and a distant 3rd to his favourite point guard and old teammate Guy Rodgers the year before. His 'assist title' you mentioned in the same sentence with 'cryingoutloud' was won because he played an absurd amount of minutes :lol

[jlauber]

1. Please don't insinuate that i am a 'Wilt basher', it's insulting to me, especially when i ended my post with "Wilt was a great passing Centre - one of the greatest of all time". I try to be as objective as i possibly can.

You on the other hand are basing Wilt's passing skills by the amount of assists he averaged per game. And even then you have failed to acknowledge the difference in era (yes, assists were supposedly a little harder to come by in the 60s but there were more posessions too) and the amount of minutes he played per game. Incidentally, i find it funny that you decided to put Wilt in the mid 80s rather than the mid 70s (Waltons era). They werent giving away assists in the 70s like they were in the 80s.

2. Are you really so fanatical about Wilt that you won't even admit his quest to lead the league in assists hindered the amount of points he was able to score??

He went from 33.5 ppg in 1965/66 to 24.1 ppg in 66/67 (the season in which his apg took a dramatic spike). That's a 9.4 ppg drop off in one season!! 9.4 ppg!!! In one season!!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: But of course, my comment about his scoring taking a hit because of his increased unselfishness is ludicrous. I MUST be a Wilt hater.

Edit:

Oh and btw. I mistakenly thought that Wilt led the league in apg in 67/68. He actually was a distant second to Oscar and a distant 3rd to his favourite point guard and old teammate Guy Rodgers the year before. His 'assist title' you mentioned in the same sentence with 'cryingoutloud' was won because he played an absurd amount of minutes :lol

First of all, you weren't being "objective" when YOU claimed that "that distinction goes to Walton." Now you tell me...just what the hell is that based on? Because YOU think he was making BETTER passes that a Chamberlain who had seasons in which he nearly DOUBLED Walton's assists?

Look, I was a HUGE fan of Walton. I have long claimed that his '73 NCAA Finals was the greatest college game ever played by an individual. And yes, he was a brilliant passer. BUT, just as in my example of John Stockton...the numbers don't lie. Stockton was seldom a "flashy" passer, but he was a deadly accurate one. Chamberlain was a GREAT passer. And no, he was not just passing to an open shooter who was burying 15 footers. He was lobbing passes over double-teams, and making behind-the-back passes, to cutters who were scoring on easy layups.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak

Watch the above video from about the 5:45 mark on. (In fact, I would encourage those that have not seen it, to watch the entire video.)

And please, why do so many here punish Chamberlain because he was playing 45-48 mpg? I have said it before, but had Wilt "only" played around 40-42 mpg in his career, just how much more EFFICIENT would he have been, especially late in the seasons? And perhaps he would not have shredded his knee in '69 had he been allowed to "pace" himself earlier in his career.

Of course, the "anti-Chamberlain clan" will immediately point out that Wilt took himself out of a game seven, with about five minutes left. However, they will never mention that he asked to go back in within a couple of minutes, and his idiotic coach refused. The blatant-lying Bill Simmons jumped all over that in his book. BUT, he forgot to mention that Wilt played FIVE straight games in the '68 ECF's with an ASSORTMENT of injuries, including a tear in his calf muscle (a similar injury which kept the "heroic" Reed out of one complete Finals game, and out of major portions of two more.) Or that Wilt played with one badly sprained wrist in the clinching game five of the '72 Finals. Oh, and BTW, his other wrist was FRACTURED. So, not only did Wilt PLAY with those two injuries...unlike the statue Reed, who stumbled around for 27 minutes and put up a 4-3 game in game seven of the '70 Finals...Wilt DOMINATED the game with a 24 point, 29 rebound, 9 block game. Now, keep in mind that Kareem missed CHUNKS of TWO separate seasons with a broken wrist (and he also missed a clinching game six Finals' game on the road with a sprained ankle.) Yet, if Wilt missed TWO MINUTES of a game...well, he was "faking it."

As ALWAYS, Wilt was in a no-win situation. If he scored 45-50 ppg, he was selfish (despite the fact that it was his COACH who encouraged it.) If he had a 34-25-5 season, as in '66, and in doing so, he led them to the best record in the league...BUT, if his teammates blew chunks in the playoffs...well, it must have been Chamberlain's fault. After all, he was a "loser" and a "choker."

And then, even YOU, made the comment that when he was PASSING the ball, it was cutting into his scoring. And then he gets BLAMED because he was "only" passing to lead the league in assists. Never mind that he was STILL scoring 24 ppg, grabbing 24 rpg, and shooting .595...all on a team that had the best record in the league. And all of that on the heels of a season in which he went 24-24-8 .683, and led his team to an overwhelming title.

It just amazes me. If he scored 45-50 ppg, he was a selfish "stats-padder." BUT, if his scoring dropped, even slightly, in the post-season...well that proves that he was a "stats-padder" and a "choker." And, if he led the league in assists (and STILL scored 24 ppg), he was doing so for "selfish" reasons. Even though his team's obliterated the league in the process. BTW, in that 67-68 season, Chamberlain had FOUR games with 52 points, 53 points, 53 points (along with 32 rebounds, 14 assists, and on 24-29 shooting), and a 68 point game (with 37 rebounds.) So, it was pretty obvious to all that actually played in that season, that had Chamberlain been so inclined, he would have led the league in scoring.

If he played 48 mpg, again, he was doing so only for the purpose of "stats-padding." BUT, if he did come out for two minutes...well, he was a "choker", and a "faker." He has to be the ONLY athlete to ever get ripped for playing nearly every minute of every game. Even late in his career, when he was certainly not shooting nearly as much, he was among the leaders in mpg. And very few acknowledge the FACT that Wilt averaged 47.2 mpg in his post-season CAREER, and covering 160 games.

Once again, if any other player would have had a 24-24-9 season, while leading the league in FG% (as well as Win Shares, and Defensive Win Shares)...well they would still be talking about it as one of the greatest seasons ever. I still occasionally read those that bring up Magic's '81-82 season, when he nearly averaged a triple-double with an 18.6 ppg, 9.6 rpg, and 9.5 apg season (on .537 shooting)...but when Chamberlain had a 24.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, 8.6 apg, .595 season...well, he was "selfish." And, once again, had Wilt been fortunate enough to have played in the 80's, and he might very well have had a 10+ apg season (and he would surely have shot a mind-numbing FG%, too.)

And ONLY Wilt would get ridiculed when he was doing so, while leading his team to the BEST RECORD in the league.

Just more examples of the Wilt DOUBLE STANDARD. No matter what he did, it was never enough.

[oolalaa]

First of all, you weren't being "objective" when YOU claimed that "that distinction goes to Walton." Now you tell me...just what the hell is that based on? Because YOU think he was making BETTER passes that a Chamberlain who had seasons in which he nearly DOUBLED Walton's assists?

Look, I was a HUGE fan of Walton. I have long claimed that his '73 NCAA Finals was the greatest college game ever played by an individual. And yes, he was a brilliant passer. BUT, just as in my example of John Stockton...the numbers don't lie. Stockton was seldom a "flashy" passer, but he was a deadly accurate one. Chamberlain was a GREAT passer. And no, he was not just passing to an open shooter who was burying 15 footers. He was lobbing passes over double-teams, and making behind-the-back passes, to cutters who were scoring on easy layups.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak

Watch the above video from about the 5:45 mark on. (In fact, I would encourage those that have not seen it, to watch the entire video.)

And please, why do so many here punish Chamberlain because he was playing 45-48 mpg? I have said it before, but had Wilt "only" played around 40-42 mpg in his career, just how much more EFFICIENT would he have been, especially late in the seasons? And perhaps he would not have shredded his knee in '69 had he been allowed to "pace" himself earlier in his career.

Of course, the "anti-Chamberlain clan" will immediately point out that Wilt took himself out of a game seven, with about five minutes left. However, they will never mention that he asked to go back in within a couple of minutes, and his idiotic coach refused. The blatant-lying Bill Simmons jumped all over that in his book. BUT, he forgot to mention that Wilt played FIVE straight games in the '68 ECF's with an ASSORTMENT of injuries, including a tear in his calf muscle (a similar injury which kept the "heroic" Reed out of one complete Finals game, and out of major portions of two more.) Or that Wilt played with one badly sprained wrist in the clinching game five of the '72 Finals. Oh, and BTW, his other wrist was FRACTURED. So, not only did Wilt PLAY with those two injuries...unlike the statue Reed, who stumbled around for 27 minutes and put up a 4-3 game in game seven of the '70 Finals...Wilt DOMINATED the game with a 24 point, 29 rebound, 9 block game. Now, keep in mind that Kareem missed CHUNKS of TWO separate seasons with a broken wrist (and he also missed a clinching game six Finals' game on the road with a sprained ankle.) Yet, if Wilt missed TWO MINUTES of a game...well, he was "faking it."

As ALWAYS, Wilt was in a no-win situation. If he scored 45-50 ppg, he was selfish (despite the fact that it was his COACH who encouraged it.) If he had a 34-25-5 season, as in '66, and in doing so, he led them to the best record in the league...BUT, if his teammates blew chunks in the playoffs...well, it must have been Chamberlain's fault. After all, he was a "loser" and a "choker."

And then, even YOU, made the comment that when he was PASSING the ball, it was cutting into his scoring. And then he gets BLAMED because he was "only" passing to lead the league in assists. Never mind that he was STILL scoring 24 ppg, grabbing 24 rpg, and shooting .595...all on a team that had the best record in the league. And all of that on the heels of a season in which he went 24-24-8 .683, and led his team to an overwhelming title.

It just amazes me. If he scored 45-50 ppg, he was a selfish "stats-padder." BUT, if his scoring dropped, even slightly, in the post-season...well that proves that he was a "stats-padder" and a "choker." And, if he led the league in assists (and STILL scored 24 ppg), he was doing so for "selfish" reasons. Even though his team's obliterated the league in the process. BTW, in that 67-68 season, Chamberlain had FOUR games with 52 points, 53 points, 53 points (along with 32 rebounds, 14 assists, and on 24-29 shooting), and a 68 point game (with 37 rebounds.) So, it was pretty obvious to all that actually played in that season, that had Chamberlain been so inclined, he would have led the league in scoring.

If he played 48 mpg, again, he was doing so only for the purpose of "stats-padding." BUT, if he did come out for two minutes...well, he was a "choker", and a "faker." He has to be the ONLY athlete to ever get ripped for playing nearly every minute of every game. Even late in his career, when he was certainly not shooting nearly as much, he was among the leaders in mpg. And very few acknowledge the FACT that Wilt averaged 47.2 mpg in his post-season CAREER, and covering 160 games.

Once again, if any other player would have had a 24-24-9 season, while leading the league in FG% (as well as Win Shares, and Defensive Win Shares)...well they would still be talking about it as one of the greatest seasons ever. I still occasionally read those that bring up Magic's '81-82 season, when he nearly averaged a triple-double with an 18.6 ppg, 9.6 rpg, and 9.5 apg season (on .537 shooting)...but when Chamberlain had a 24.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, 8.6 apg, .595 season...well, he was "selfish." And, once again, had Wilt been fortunate enough to have played in the 80's, and he might very well have had a 10+ apg season (and he would surely have shot a mind-numbing FG%, too.)

And ONLY Wilt would get ridiculed when he was doing so, while leading his team to the BEST RECORD in the league.

Just more examples of the Wilt DOUBLE STANDARD. No matter what he did, it was never enough.

Okay, some clarification...

I have a problm with you saying that Chamberlain was EASILY the greatest passing centre in NBA history & that it's not even close. Wilt certainly has a legitimate case to be the greatest, and i wouldn't quarrel too much with someone who genuinely thought so, but, frankly, it's ridiculous to suggest that he was MILES better than Walton. That shows extreme ignorance and/or bias. I think i know which it is in your case.

When i said - 'that distinction goes to bill Walton', i was saying that in my opinion Walton is the greatest passing big man ever. I didn't mean that he was EASILY the best like you have claimed Wilt was.

The biggest reason i consider him to be the greatest passing big man ever was beacuse of his outlet passing (probably the greatest outlet passer the league has ever seen. Wes Unseld was supposedly great as well though). You very rarely get an assist for an outlet pass but a great one can lead to a 2on2 or 2on1 fastbreak. It is one of the most underrated aspects of a big mans game and something i havn't seen Wilt do much of in all the videos ive seen of him.


With regards to wilt's minutes - i have never bashed Wilt for playing almost every minute of every game (and who would?). It was great that he could play that many minutes without getting tired (or at least not as tired as most players would) BUT, and it's a big but, his stats were inflated as a consequence. This is undeniable.

He became a 'stat padder' as a bi-product of the minutes he played. He was selfish beacuse he was shooting the ball 30+ times a game, regardless of whether it was encouraged by his coach or not. He WAS a selfish stat padder early on in his career, even though it may not have been intentional.
I don't blame Wilt for not not winning a championship in his first 6 years. He didn't have the teammates to overcome Boston and i doubt that him playing more unselfishly would have made much difference.

I do blame him for not winning in '66, '68, '69 and '70 though. In my opinion, he had a good enough team around him to win 3 or 4 more rings. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT HIS INJURIES. I care about how he performed. I care that he he had a good enough team to win in '66, as shown by the very next season, but was still in his "i'm gunna pour in as many points as i can and hope it's enough to win" mode. I care that in '68 he blew a 3-1 lead to Boston in the ECFs. I care that he had a pathetic post season in '69. I care that he lost ANOTHER game 7 in '70.

Wilt was/is the most talented player the league has ever seen. That doesn't make him the best though. He was good enough to get you to game 7s against the great Celtics dynasty. But he was missing something that gets you over the top. Unfortunately, it's looking like Lebron is heading in the same direction :cry:

[LBJDWADE63]

Another 32Dayz classic.:roll: :roll:

Duncan konusu gorunce hemen girdim odin burdadir diye ilk sayfada seni goremeyince cok sasirdim ama 2. sayfada odinn ismini gorunce yanilmadigimi gordum.

Reyizsin odinn:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

[jlauber]

Okay, some clarification...

I have a problm with you saying that Chamberlain was EASILY the greatest passing centre in NBA history & that it's not even close. Wilt certainly has a legitimate case to be the greatest, and i wouldn't quarrel too much with someone who genuinely thought so, but, frankly, it's ridiculous to suggest that he was MILES better than Walton. That shows extreme ignorance and/or bias. I think i know which it is in your case.

When i said - 'that distinction goes to bill Walton', i was saying that in my opinion Walton is the greatest passing big man ever. I didn't mean that he was EASILY the best like you have claimed Wilt was.

The biggest reason i consider him to be the greatest passing big man ever was beacuse of his outlet passing (probably the greatest outlet passer the league has ever seen. Wes Unseld was supposedly great as well though). You very rarely get an assist for an outlet pass but a great one can lead to a 2on2 or 2on1 fastbreak. It is one of the most underrated aspects of a big mans game and something i havn't seen Wilt do much of in all the videos ive seen of him.


With regards to wilt's minutes - i have never bashed Wilt for playing almost every minute of every game (and who would?). It was great that he could play that many minutes without getting tired (or at least not as tired as most players would) BUT, and it's a big but, his stats were inflated as a consequence. This is undeniable.

He became a 'stat padder' as a bi-product of the minutes he played. He was selfish beacuse he was shooting the ball 30+ times a game, regardless of whether it was encouraged by his coach or not. He WAS a selfish stat padder early on in his career, even though it may not have been intentional.
I don't blame Wilt for not not winning a championship in his first 6 years. He didn't have the teammates to overcome Boston and i doubt that him playing more unselfishly would have made much difference.

I do blame him for not winning in '66, '68, '69 and '70 though. In my opinion, he had a good enough team around him to win 3 or 4 more rings. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT HIS INJURIES. I care about how he performed. I care that he he had a good enough team to win in '66, as shown by the very next season, but was still in his "i'm gunna pour in as many points as i can and hope it's enough to win" mode. I care that in '68 he blew a 3-1 lead to Boston in the ECFs. I care that he had a pathetic post season in '69. I care that he lost ANOTHER game 7 in '70.

Wilt was/is the most talented player the league has ever seen. That doesn't make him the best though. He was good enough to get you to game 7s against the great Celtics dynasty. But he was missing something intangible that gets you over the top. Unfortunately, it's looking like Lebron is heading in the same direction :cry:

I have addressed this many times, but here goes again...

In the '66 regular season, Chamberlain averaged 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, 5.2 apg, and shot .540, BUT, against Russell in the regular season, he averaged 28.3 ppg and 30.6 rpg. (I couldn't find his regular season FG% against Russell, though.) And, Wilt and his Sixers had the best record in the league. Having said that, though, they had to win their last 11 games to edge out the seven-time defending Celtics by one game. IMHO, Boston was coasting down the stretch, too. Keep in mind that the Celtics had gone 62-18 the season before, and there roster was essentially the same.

In any case, and one more time, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg and 30.6 rpg against Boston in the regular season. In the ECF's Chamberlain averaged 28.0 ppg and 30.2 rpg, and on .509 shooting. How about his teammates? They collectively shot .352. What changed?


Next, you say that you don't care about HIS injuries, ... which indeed were significant. He was HOBBLED by SEVERAL of them, including a tear in his calf. Once again, Reed had a similar injury in the '70 Finals, and he was basically worthless after it. He missed a half of one game, three-quarters of another, and an entire game in the '70 Finals. It is well documented that Wilt PLAYED the last FIVE games of the '68 ECF's with an assortment of injuries, and was NOTICEABLY limping.

But, it was not just Wilt injuries, BUT those that affected his teammates. Here again, during the regular season, the 76ers just blew thru the NBA en route to a 62-20 record, and an eight game spread over the Celtics. HOWEVER, in the post-season, they lost HOFer Billy Cunningham before the ECF's to a broken wrist. And even without him, they still forged a 3-1 series lead. Even Red Auerbach all but gave up after that 4th game. Then, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones sustained leg injuries in game five, and were worthless the rest of the series. And this was a team that basically only went eight deep during the regular season.

On top of that, in game seven, Chamberlain's teammates did not PASS him the ball. He TOUCHED the ball on the offensive end NINE times in the second half, and only TWICE in the 4th quarter (and both were on offensive rebounds.) The result? His Sixers, with all of the above (no Cunningham, injuries to Jackson and Jones, a hobbled Wilt, and forgetting about Chamberlain in the seventh game),...lost a game seven by a 100-96 score. Now, how do you think that series would have played out had the Sixers been healthy for it? IMHO, it would have been a repeat of the '67 ECF's, when they came within four points, in game four, of SWEEPING Boston (and annihilating the Celtics in game five, en route to a 4-1 series win.) As for Wilt's numbers,...a hobbled Chamberlain averaged 22.1 ppg and 25.1 rpg in that series. AND, even Russell commented that "a lessor player would not have played." (Or basically stating that virtually NO other player would have played under the same conditions.)


I will be the first to agree that Wilt's '69 playoffs were probably his worst. Of course, he had an incompetent coach, who shackled him for much of the regular season, and virtually all of the playoffs. All anyone needs to know about the idiotic Van Breda Kolf was put forth by this comment during the season, "When we pass the ball into Wilt, he will score. But, it is an ugly offense to watch." And there was never a better exmaple of that, than early in the 4th quarter of game seven of the Finals (which is on YouTube BTW.) Russell picked up his 5th foul at the start of the period, and on the next play, the Lakers went into Wilt, who went right around Russell for an easy basket. It would be about the last time Chamberlain would touch the ball.

Continued...

[jlauber]

Continuing...

Excuses? They say that excuses are for losers, but it is impossible to ignore the MANY that the '69 Lakers had in the Finals. They were up 2-1 late in game four, and they had both the lead, 88-87, and the ball, with only seconds left. Johnny Egan, who was a pitiful replacement for the off-season losses caused by the Wilt trade, lost the ball...and then Sam Jones, while falling down, hit the game-winning shot. So, instead of LA leading that series, 3-1, it was now 2-2. How significant was that ONE PLAY by Egan? The Lakers blew out Boston in game, in a game in which Wilt pounded Russell, to take a 3-2 series lead. Had Egan been able to hold onto the ball in that game four, LA would have had an easy 4-1 series romp.

Then there was the play of Baylor. He and West combined for 1-14 shooting in the 4th quarter of a 111-105 game three loss (and Baylor went 1-6 from the line.) In fact, in games three thru five (two losses), Baylor scored a TOTAL of 24 points. This from a player who averaged 24 ppg during the regular season. And, in game seven, Baylor shot 8-22 from the floor, in a two point loss. Over the course of the entire playoffs, Baylor shot a team-WORST .385 from the field.

And I have already documented the incompetence of the Laker coach. He NEVER had any idea on how to best use Chamberlain, and at times during the regular season, he even BENCHED Chambelain. And it was well known that he didn't like Wilt, either. Of course, he BENCHED Wilt in the last five minutes of that game seven, two-point loss, and it ultimately cost the city of LA there first ever title, ...and it ultimately cost him his NBA coaching career, as well. He was promptly fired after that series. Of course, it was WILT who would get the brunt of the blame. Even though, in that game seven, and in his 43 minutes, Wilt scored 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds. His replacement, the great Mel Counts, had a turnover in the last two minutes, and missed a key shot with 29 seconds left,... en route to a 4-13 game.

And while Wilt was shooting .875 from the floor in that game seven, his teammates collectively shot .360. But, yes, it was Wilt who "choked."


As for the '70 Finals. It was a MIRACLE that Wilt even PLAYED in that post-season. He shredded his knee in the ninth game of the season, and even the most OPTOMISTIC medical opinion had him out for at least the rest of the season. (Baylor suffered a similar injury in the mid-60's, and it was over a year-and-half before he regained anything close to his former playing level.) There were even some that believed that Wilt's career was over. He was 33, and around 300 lbs, and it was felt that his knee would not hold up to his age or size.

Remarkably, Wilt DID come back, and despite being nowhere near 100%, he still played well. The "Wilt-bashers: almost never bring up the fact that his Lakers were down 3-1 against Phoenix in the first round of the playoffs, and then Wilt, with games of 30 and 36 points, engineered a stunning comeback, to win that series, 4-3.

And the Knicks were solid favorites going into the Finals. They had gone a league-best 60-22. They had home court. They had wiped out Kareem's 56-26 Bucks, 4-1. They had FOUR HOFers, all in the primes of their careers, and a HOF coach. They had a much deeper bench than LA, too.

Still, a hobbled Wilt battled the MVP Reed to a draw in the first four games, and the series was tied 2-2. In game five, Reed went down with his injury, and with NY already down by ten points. However, the Knicks, with major help from the officiating (and this was documented by NY Times writer Leonard Koppett), came back to win that game, 107-100, and take a 3-2 series lead. Wilt and West were so thoroughly manhandled in that game, that they could only combine for FIVE second half shots.

In a "must-win" game six, Chamberlain exploded for 45 points, on 20-27 shooting, with 27 rebounds, and the Lakers annihilated the Knicks, 135-113. Of course, very few fans are aware of THAT game in Wilt's career.

And in game seven, Reed hobbled out, and hit his first two shots. And while everyone remembers that, very few probably know that the ENTIRE Knick team were hitting their shots from all over the floor. They started out 15-21 from the field, and with Frazier finally outplaying West, and with the rest of Wilt's teammates collectively shooting 33.3% in the first half (Chamberlain went 5-10 from the field, with 12 rebounds, albeit 1-8 from the line in that half)...the game was essentially over, and NY led 69-42. The rest of the game was just a matter of playing it out, and NY easily won, 113-99.

I have long maintained, though, that even a team with five Jordan's would not have beaten the Knicks that game.

In any case, all Wilt did in that series, and only four months removed from major knee surgery, was post the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 from the floor.) BUT, he was the "choker", while Reed, who basically contributed absolutely NOTHING in the last three games of that series, was the "hero." Oh, and Wilt "the choker" put up a 21 point, 10-16 shooting, 24 rebound game in that game seven....while his teammates, including WEST, were simply AWFUL.


As for the rest of your post...Wilt was NOT a "stats-padder." If that would have been the case, he would have put the all-time scoring and ppg marks out of reach in the second half of his career. Instead, he did whatever his COACH's asked of him (even the incompetent one's...of which he had a few), and dramatically cut back his shooting.

And I have always found it interesting that Wilt was labled a "loser" even though he carried several crappy teams to within an eyelash of beating Russell's dynasty...and in fact, he DID beat that dynasty on one occasion. BUT, players like Oscar, Lucas, West, and Baylor...all of whom who routinely lost to that great Celtic dynasty, were considered "unfortunate."

And, I agree with John Wooden, who claimed that had Wilt been surrounded with Russell's supporting cast his entire career, that he likely would have won all those rings, too.

[jlauber]

The biggest reason i consider him to be the greatest passing big man ever was beacuse of his outlet passing (probably the greatest outlet passer the league has ever seen. Wes Unseld was supposedly great as well though). You very rarely get an assist for an outlet pass but a great one can lead to a 2on2 or 2on1 fastbreak. It is one of the most underrated aspects of a big mans game and something i havn't seen Wilt do much of in all the videos ive seen of him.



You better research the 71-72 Lakers. They started FOUR players over the age of 30...and they just obliterated the league with a devastating fast-break that was usually ignited by Chamberlain's defense, rebounding, and then OUTLETs.

That team was LIGHT YEARS ahead of the rest of the NBA in scoring (121.0 ppg.) They had a TON of 130+ point games, and even several of 150+ (including a 162-99 blowout of the 51-31 Warriors.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzNMqC69qZc&feature=related

[oolalaa]

I have addressed this many times, but here goes again...

In the '66 regular season, Chamberlain averaged 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, 5.2 apg, and shot .540, BUT, against Russell in the regular season, he averaged 28.3 ppg and 30.6 rpg. (I couldn't find his regular season FG% against Russell, though.) And, Wilt and his Sixers had the best record in the league. Having said that, though, they had to win their last 11 games to edge out the seven-time defending Celtics by one game. IMHO, Boston was coasting down the stretch, too. Keep in mind that the Celtics had gone 62-18 the season before, and there roster was essentially the same.

In any case, and one more time, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg and 30.6 rpg against Boston in the regular season. In the ECF's Chamberlain averaged 28.0 ppg and 30.2 rpg, and on .509 shooting. How about his teammates? They collectively shot .352. What changed?


Next, you say that you don't care about HIS injuries, ... which indeed were significant. He was HOBBLED by SEVERAL of them, including a tear in his calf. Once again, Reed had a similar injury in the '70 Finals, and he was basically worthless after it. He missed a half of one game, three-quarters of another, and an entire game in the '70 Finals. It is well documented that Wilt PLAYED the last FIVE games of the '68 ECF's with an assortment of injuries, and was NOTICEABLY limping.

But, it was not just Wilt injuries, BUT those that affected his teammates. Here again, during the regular season, the 76ers just blew thru the NBA en route to a 62-20 record, and an eight game spread over the Celtics. HOWEVER, in the post-season, they lost HOFer Billy Cunningham before the ECF's to a broken wrist. And even without him, they still forged a 3-1 series lead. Even Red Auerbach all but gave up after that 4th game. Then, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones sustained leg injuries in game five, and were worthless the rest of the series. And this was a team that basically only went eight deep during the regular season.

On top of that, in game seven, Chamberlain's teammates did not PASS him the ball. He TOUCHED the ball on the offensive end NINE times in the second half, and only TWICE in the 4th quarter (and both were on offensive rebounds.) The result? His Sixers, with all of the above (no Cunningham, injuries to Jackson and Jones, a hobbled Wilt, and forgetting about Chamberlain in the seventh game),...lost a game seven by a 100-96 score. Now, how do you think that series would have played out had the Sixers been healthy for it? IMHO, it would have been a repeat of the '67 ECF's, when they came within four points, in game four, of SWEEPING Boston (and annihilating the Celtics in game five, en route to a 4-1 series win.) As for Wilt's numbers,...a hobbled Chamberlain averaged 22.1 ppg and 25.1 rpg in that series. AND, even Russell commented that "a lessor player would not have played." (Or basically stating that virtually NO other player would have played under the same conditions.)


I will be the first to agree that Wilt's '69 playoffs were probably his worst. Of course, he had an incompetent coach, who shackled him for much of the regular season, and virtually all of the playoffs. All anyone needs to know about the idiotic Van Breda Kolf was put forth by this comment during the season, "When we pass the ball into Wilt, he will score. But, it is an ugly offense to watch." And there was never a better exmaple of that, than early in the 4th quarter of game seven of the Finals (which is on YouTube BTW.) Russell picked up his 5th foul at the start of the period, and on the next play, the Lakers went into Wilt, who went right around Russell for an easy basket. It would be about the last time Chamberlain would touch the ball.

Continued...

1. The regular season and playoffs cannot and should not be compared. The intensity & standard of play (especially defence) increases and strategies change. I do not know this for sure but, to me, it's entirely plausible and likely that the Celtics strategy against Philly in the '66 playoffs (and every other playoff series against Wilt for that matter) was to let Wilt get his points and shut down his teammates. They did this knowing that it's incredibly hard for one player to single handily win a playoff series, let alone a championship.


2. You say Wilt's teammates didn't pass him the ball and that he touched the ball only twice in the 4th quarter. WHY WAS THIS?

You tell me, knowing that his teammates were injured and struggling offensively, why the hell didn't Wilt demand the ball?? Why didn't he say - "Cmon guys. I'm the best player on the court and the most unstoppable scorer in NBA history. Get on my back. I'll lead you to a victory"??

He didn't do this for 2 reasons. Firstly, he wasn't a leader. Secondly, he wanted no part of crunch time in big games. He was happy just to sit back and hope for the best.

Who knows if they would have beaten Boston if everyone was healthy. Wilt and Russell aside, Philly were superior to Boston imo and, yeh i agree, they probably would have prevailed BUT THEY DIDN'T!!
I care about performances and results, not excuses and certainly not ifs, buts and maybes.


3. With regards to this shackling business: I personally think Wilt was indifferent to Van Breda 'making' him take less shots. My guess is that he was secretly very comfortable taking a back seat to West and Baylor. I mean, if he if really wasn't happy with the situation, and he believed that taking less shots was hurting the team, then he could have done something about it, right? He was Wilton Norman Chamberlain!! If it was a choice between him and his coach, who would the Lakers front office choose?


I'll reply to your continuation when i have time...

[jlauber]

1. The regular season and playoffs cannot and should not be compared. The intensity & standard of play (especially defence) increases and strategies change. I do not know this for sure but, to me, it's entirely plausible and likely that the Celtics strategy against Philly in the '66 playoffs (and every other playoff series against Wilt for that matter) was to let Wilt get his points and shut down his teammates. They did this knowing that it's incredibly hard for one player to single handily win a playoff series, let alone a championship.


2. You say Wilt's teammates didn't pass him the ball and that he touched the ball only twice in the 4th quarter. WHY WAS THIS?

You tell me, knowing that his teammates were injured and struggling offensively, why the hell didn't Wilt demand the ball?? Why didn't he say - "Cmon guys. I'm the best player on the court and the most unstoppable scorer in NBA history. Get on my back. I'll lead you to a victory"??

He didn't do this for 2 reasons. Firstly, he wasn't a leader. Secondly, he wanted no part of crunch time in big games. He was happy just to sit back and hope for the best.

Who knows if they would have beaten Boston if everyone was healthy. Wilt and Russell aside, Philly were superior to Boston imo and, yeh i agree, they probably would have prevailed BUT THEY DIDN'T!!
I care about performances and results, not excuses and certainly not ifs, buts and maybes.


3. With regards to this shackling business: I personally think Wilt was indifferent to Van Breda 'making' him take less shots. My guess is that he was secretly very comfortable taking a back seat to West and Baylor. I mean, if he if really wasn't happy with the situation, and he believed that taking less shots was hurting the team, then he could have done something about it, right? He was Wilton Norman Chamberlain!! If it was a choice between him and his coach, who would the Lakers front office choose?


I'll reply to your continuation when i have time...


I'll agree that Wilt's TEAMMATES shrunk dramatically in most of his post-seasons. Perhaps Wilt was partially to blame, but the fact remains that Russell's teammates generally played considerably better, and were much more "clutch."

But, if you are going to blame Wilt for his TEAM's post-season failures, than you can also blame MJ for losing in his first six seasons (and not winning a title in nine seasons.) You can blame Bird for "losing" in ten of his thirteen seasons. West and Oscar were "losers" in 12 of their 13 seasons. Kareem, despite winning six rings, lost in 14 seasons. Shaq was a loser in 15 seasons. And Hakeem, who some here rank in their top-5's, was a loser in 16 of his 18 seasons.


As for the '68 ECF's, only a complete idiot would ignore all of the injuries that the Sixers dealt with in that series. Including the SEVERAL that Wilt was hobbled with. Once again, the man put up a 22-25 playoff series, despite PLAYING the last five games of that series with multiple injuries, including a torn calf muscle. Why is Reed's performance in the '70's Finals considered heroic, despite missing the better portions of three games, and yet Wilt, who put up better numbers, with more injured teammates, and injured considerably worse than Reed was, is somehow considered a "choker" for his efforts in the '68 ECF's.

And regarding Chamberlain's lack of touches in that game seven...why do you blame Wilt? The man was constantly ripped for being "selfish", and a "ball-hog", despite doing whatever his COACH's asked. Can you imagine the uproar that he would have created had he stopped the game and started barking at his teammates? If anything, Hannum should have been blamed. Still, I recall Shaq being ignored in the '04 Finals, despite his just overwhelming the Pistons, while Kobe was shot-jacking. Where was Phil Jackson in similar circumstances?


He didn't do this for 2 reasons. Firstly, he wasn't a leader. Secondly, he wanted no part of crunch time in big games. He was happy just to sit back and hope for the best.

Chamberlain not a leader? Not big in crunch 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 9 block game.


Continued...

[jlauber]

Continued...

The fact was, Chamberlain was DOMINANT in big games, and in clutch moments. Even in the last seconds of "big" games. In game seven of the '62 ECF's, Wilt dunked a shot and made the FT to tie the game with seconds left (but, Sam Jones hit the game winner over...guess who...and Jones wasn't even Wilt's man.)

In game seven of the '65 ECF's, Wilt put up a 30 point game, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds, including scoring eight of Philly's last ten points, (including 2-2 from the line with 36 secs left), bringing his team back from a 110-101 defict to within 110-109. And, after the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire on the inbounds pass, the 40-40 Sixers had a chance to pull off one of the greatest upsets in NBA history against the 62-18 Celtics...but alas, "Havlicek stole the ball."

I listed the MANY big games that Chamberlain had, especially in "must win" games, but he was unstoppable in the clinching game five of the '67 ECF's; dominated a prime Kareem down the stretch in the clinching road win in the '72 WCF's; and, despite BOTH hands badly injured and heavily-wrapped, he shredded the Knicks in the clinching game five win in the '72 Finals.

And a couple of points regarding the above. First, in the clinching game five loss of the '66 ECF's, Chamberlain hung a 46-34 game on Russell. Now, how did Russell perform against Wilt the very next year when he was faced with the same circumstances in the '67 ECF's. I have said it many times, but he went quietly, like a lamb being led to slaughter. He put up a FOUR point game, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Meanwhile, Wilt hung a 29 point, 10-16 shooting, 36 rebound, 13 assist game on him...including 22 first half points when the game was still close.

And I have already mentioned the "heroic" Reed in the '70 Finals. Reed missed one half of one game, three-fourths of another, and then missed another complete game, in the last three pivotal games of that series. And, in game seven, he was essentially a statue who pretty much just fouled Wilt. He put up a meager 4-3 game (on 2-5 shooting), while Wilt, only a few months removed from major knee surgery, put up a 21-24 game. For the series, Chamberlain, at way less than 100%, still put up a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 Finals. Yet, Reed was the "hero", and Wilt was the "choker."

Which was interesting. Most NBA fans know about the "heroic" Reed's performance. I believe it was ranked #1 in Knick basketball history. Yet, how many fans remember anything about Wilt's performance in the '72 Finals? Unlike Reed, who did virtually nothing in that game seven, except to watch his teammates hit shots from all over the floor, Wilt not only played with his injuries (including a broken wrist), he DOMINATED in that clinching win.

Once again, it is the Wilt DOUBLE STANDARD. No matter what he did, it was never enough.

[305Baller]

I would take Duncan. I barely know anything about Walton other than him being good and then getting injured.

Getting injured sucks but for the sake of argument I will take the longevity and consistency of Duncan.

Especially if you use a car metaphor.

Would you prefer a Sports car that had problems and may be a little faster at it's peak or a car that was fast and it lasted?

You know what I'm saying?

[305Baller]

Oh this is a prime argument.

Forget everything I just posted.

[La Frescobaldi]

1. The regular season and playoffs cannot and should not be compared. The intensity & standard of play (especially defence) increases and strategies change. I do not know this for sure but, to me, it's entirely plausible and likely that the Celtics strategy against Philly in the '66 playoffs (and every other playoff series against Wilt for that matter) was to let Wilt get his points and shut down his teammates. They did this knowing that it's incredibly hard for one player to single handily win a playoff series, let alone a championship.


2. You say Wilt's teammates didn't pass him the ball and that he touched the ball only twice in the 4th quarter. WHY WAS THIS?

You tell me, knowing that his teammates were injured and struggling offensively, why the hell didn't Wilt demand the ball?? Why didn't he say - "Cmon guys. I'm the best player on the court and the most unstoppable scorer in NBA history. Get on my back. I'll lead you to a victory"??

He didn't do this for 2 reasons. Firstly, he wasn't a leader. Secondly, he wanted no part of crunch time in big games. He was happy just to sit back and hope for the best.

Who knows if they would have beaten Boston if everyone was healthy. Wilt and Russell aside, Philly were superior to Boston imo and, yeh i agree, they probably would have prevailed BUT THEY DIDN'T!!
I care about performances and results, not excuses and certainly not ifs, buts and maybes.


3. With regards to this shackling business: I personally think Wilt was indifferent to Van Breda 'making' him take less shots. My guess is that he was secretly very comfortable taking a back seat to West and Baylor. I mean, if he if really wasn't happy with the situation, and he believed that taking less shots was hurting the team, then he could have done something about it, right? He was Wilton Norman Chamberlain!! If it was a choice between him and his coach, who would the Lakers front office choose?


I'll reply to your continuation when i have time...

******************************

My friend I applaud your heart, but you're wildly overmatched here.

I may do some tongue-in-cheek bashing of jlauber for his WRITING style, and his sentence structure can be pretty crude at times but let me tell you plainly - you have been warned!!

Jlauber is one of the very finest basketball writers I have seen anywhere (and believe me I was devouring articles by Frank DeFord & Bob Ottum when they were puppy reporters at Sports Illustrated back in the '60s).

His outpouring of facts on ISH have helped me remember games from 40 years ago and more & I'm just gonna take a sec and tip the hat his way.

He's armed with knowledge that is vast & deep, and you are attempting to debate him with "I do not know this for sure but, to me.... " "I personally think...." " My guess is....." Well, that ain't gonna get it.

By all means, take on jlauber in a debate about Wilt. But do it with facts, not speculations about players & coaches motives or emotions. That is in my opinion the greatest failure of most guys who talk about Wilt - they read some Boston sports writer and think they know Chamberlain. But on this thread right now yer lookin all played out like Sonny Liston when the pepper spray he put on his gloves didn't stop Cassius Clay

It's fatal to your chances to guess about those kinds of things. My advice is to spend the time and watch as much footage as you can find.... not just of Chamberlain, but of 60s hoops. It was in many real respects a different game from today's. Those guys ran. My guess is, if you watch it with an open mind, you'll come away with an entirely different point of view.

I gotta warn you again though brother.... I'll be coming after ya too.

Chamberlain had a completely rounded skillset at his position, fearsome defense, blazing footwork (which he trailblazed) immensely tall and powerful, overwhelming rebounder...... I watched 13 from the bleachers, and there has never been a better player, not just at his position, but in basketball.
lol I personally think!!

Kudos and I'll be reading the debate for sure!

[oolalaa]

******************************

My friend I applaud your heart, but you're wildly overmatched here.

I may do some tongue-in-cheek bashing of jlauber for his WRITING style, and his sentence structure can be pretty crude at times but let me tell you plainly - you have been warned!!

Jlauber is one of the very finest basketball writers I have seen anywhere (and believe me I was devouring articles by Frank DeFord & Bob Ottum when they were puppy reporters at Sports Illustrated back in the '60s).

His outpouring of facts on ISH have helped me remember games from 40 years ago and more & I'm just gonna take a sec and tip the hat his way.

He's armed with knowledge that is vast & deep, and you are attempting to debate him with "I do not know this for sure but, to me.... " "I personally think...." " My guess is....." Well, that ain't gonna get it.

By all means, take on jlauber in a debate about Wilt. But do it with facts, not speculations about players & coaches motives or emotions. That is in my opinion the greatest failure of most guys who talk about Wilt - they read some Boston sports writer and think they know Chamberlain. But on this thread right now yer lookin all played out like Sonny Liston when the pepper spray he put on his gloves didn't stop Cassius Clay

It's fatal to your chances to guess about those kinds of things. My advice is to spend the time and watch as much footage as you can find.... not just of Chamberlain, but of 60s hoops. It was in many real respects a different game from today's. Those guys ran. My guess is, if you watch it with an open mind, you'll come away with an entirely different point of view.

I gotta warn you again though brother.... I'll be coming after ya too.

Chamberlain had a completely rounded skillset at his position, fearsome defense, blazing footwork (which he trailblazed) immensely tall and powerful, overwhelming rebounder...... I watched 13 from the bleachers, and there has never been a better player, not just at his position, but in basketball.
lol I personally think!!

Kudos and I'll be reading the debate for sure!

This is directed at jlauber as well as you:

"He's armed with knowledge vast and deep" - I agree. jlauber is incredibly knowledable about Wilt. He seemingly knows every available stat. But i am not questioning Wilt's abilities as a basketball player or the stats he put up.

I have said this on more than one occasion - Wilt is the most talented player the league has ever seen. More talented than Jordan. More talented than Kareem. More talented than Kobe. More talented than Hakeem. And yes, even more talented than Lebron. He was an unbelievable all round player but, I hate to keep repeating this over and over again, INTANGIBLES PLAY A HUGE ROLE IN BASKETBALL. They just do, and this is what jlauber doesn't seem to grasp. He is STAT OBSESSED. Players such as Russell, Magic, Bird, Duncan and Isiah Thomas prove that leadership, clutchness and competitiveness make up for deficiences in talent and ability.

Look at Lebron James, the most gifted player all round of the last 35 years. The similarities with Wilt are striking. He carried a bad team to the finals in '07 but LOST to the spurs. He LOST against Boston in '08 despite putting up 45 points in game 7. He LOST against the Orlando Magic in '09 despite a monster, Chamberlain esque statistical series. He LOST against Boston in '10 thanks to floating through games 5 & 6. He LOST against the Mavericks in '11 thanks to his disappearing act in the 4th quarters.

Lebron is the most talented player in the league right now by MILES but how can anyone say he's the best? (not until he proves us that he can get over the hump at least). He isn't even the best player on the Heat, Dwyane Wade is. Wade isn't as good a scorer as Lebron. Wade isn't as good a playmaker as Lebron. Wade isn't as good a rebounder as Lebron. Wade doesn't put up the stats that Lebron does. But Wade is the leader of that team and the better crunch time scorer. These two things offset Lebron's superior basketball playing ability.



When i read quotes form Wilt like - "To Russell, every game - every championship game - was a challenge, a test to his manhood. He took the game so seriously that he threw up in the locker room before almost every game. But i tend to look at basketball as a game, not a life or death struggle. I don't need scoring titles or championships to prove that i'm a man. There are too many other beautiful things in life - food, cars, girls, friends, the beach, freedom - to get that emotionally wrapped up in basketball. I think he (Russell) may have felt that with my natural ability and willingness to work hard, my teams could have won an NBA championship every year if i was totally committed to victory as he was."

and

"I get constant reminders from fans who equate 'that game' and my career as one of the same."

and

"I guarentee you, if you could give me 10 points in all those 7th games against the Boston Celtics, instead of Bill Russell having 11 rings, i could've had at least 9 or 8."

and the definitive

"In a way, I like it better when we lose. It's over and i can look forward to the next game. If we win, it bulids up the tension and i start worrying about the next game."

it shows me that Wilt didn't care whether he won or lost. It shows me that Wilt wasn't very competitive. It shows me that Wilt wasn't consumed with winning. It shows me that all those game 7 losses against Boston and the Knicks were no accident.

Regarding that '70 finals - Willis Reed was playing on 1 leg for nearly half the series! (and was demolishing Wilt in the other half :lol ). Why didn't Wilt pound Reed into the ground? Why didn't he exploit his injured opponent? I know he had a great game 6 but what happened in games 5 and 7? Let me guess, it was the coaches fault or his teammates fault or Jerry Wests fault or his injured knees fault. Am I right? There's always some excuse.



I've read that Wilt almost retired in 1960, after just one season in the league (HE ALMOST RETIRED!! Did he even like basketball? :facepalm ). He was supposedly upset with the pounding and rough treatment he received during his rookie season as well as the refereeing injustices against him. He was eventually persuaded to change his mind by his teams owner, Ed Gottlieb....

Thoma Whalen (author) - "Gottlieb (warriors owner) told his young superstar that if he continued playing, he stood an excellent chance of breaking every major record in the book. The challenge was one Chamberlain could not easily ignore. The subject of greatness was constantly on his mind. His burning ambition was to become the greatest basketball player in history.
The only problem was that in his efforts to be the best, Chamberlain more times than not sacrificed the good of the team for individual statistical glory. Indeed, winning never seemed to be high on his list of priorities. Breaking records and grabbing headlines were. And therin lay the paradox of Chamberlain. He was an individualist in a game that demanded teamwork and personal sacrifice."

Then, Wilt went from a player obsessed with scoring to one obsessed with distributing. Great....but the problem was that he couldn't/didn't vacillate in between. He could have played unselfishly for 3 quarters - passed the ball, made his teammates better, rebounded, played great defence - and then taken over in the 4th with his unbelievable scoring ability. He would have been unstoppable. He just didn't get it.

Oh and did you know, in 1965 when the Warriors wanted to trade Wilt (they wanted to trade Wilt Chamberllain! :confusedshrug: ), Lakers owner Bob Short submitted a vote to his players on whether or not they should acquire him. The players voted against it! 9-2 against it! What?! Why?!

Wilt was eventually traded to the 76ers mid-way through the season, but do you know who he was traded for? Paul Neumann (who?), Connie Dierking (who?) and Lee Shaffer (who?). WOW. :eek:



When i read even more quotes, this time from his peers such as Jerry West - "I don't want to rap Wilt because i believe only Russell was better, and i really respect what Wilt did. But i have to say he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him."

and

Rick Barry - "I'll say what most people feel, Wilt is a loser. He has a complex about this. He thinks the world is picking on him. He resents criticism...When it comes to the closing moments of a tough game, an important game, he doesn't want the ball, he doesn't want any part of the pressure. It is at these times that greatness is determined, and Wilt doesn't have it. There is no way you can compare him as a pro to a Bill Russell ot Jerry West. If Jerry West had been a centre, his team would have won as many championships as Russell's. These are clutch performers."

and

Bill Bradley (SF for the Knicks in the early 70s) - "Wilt played the game as if he had to prove his worth to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed out his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant, certainly nonessential. The point of the game is not how well the individual does, but whether the team wins. This is the beautiful heart of the game, the blending of personalities, the mutual sacrifices for group success....I have the impression that Wilt might have been more secure with losing. In defeat, after carefully covering himself with allusions to his accomplishments, he could be magnanimous....Wilt's emphasis on individual accomplishments failed to gain him the public affection and made him the favourite to win the game. And simultaneously, it assured him of losing."

and


Continuing.....

[rugrats]

obviously its timmy doe like

[oolalaa]

Continued.....


Bill Russell - "It did seem to me that Wilt was often ambivalent about what he wanted to get out of basketball. Anyone who changes the character and style of play several times over a career is bound to be uncertain about which of many potential accomplishments he wants to pursue. It's perfectly possible for a player not to make victory his first priority against all others - money, records, personal fame - and i often felt Wilt made some deliberate choices in his ambitions."

it merely strengthens the notion that he was Stat obsessed, anti clutch & had screwed up priorities.



Now, I wouldn't go as far as calling Wilt a "loser". His '67 and '72 seasons were 2 of the greatest the league has ever seen, all things considered. But i will say that he was certainly not a "winner".

He lost because of injuries. He lost because of bad teammates. He lost because of incompetent coaches. According to jlauber, it was never, ever his fault that he lost.

Maybe jlauber thinks Wilt is the unluckiest player of all time and perhaps he's right. But, if that is the case, I certainly wouldn't want him on my team. Would you?

[La Frescobaldi]

Sorry but yer excellent thread about Timmy Dunkin & Bill Walton has been hijacked.

We oughta throw this onto its own thread. I'm new to this stuff, don't even know how to start one. Maybe you or jlauber could point out an older post, or a new one is fine.... can you invite guys?

I'd wanna see Pointguard & Shaqattack, GOAT & Sarcastic, Oolalaa, roundmound all those more or less Old School guys on there but minus the personal attack guys that lurk like vultures on these boards if you know what I mean. Is that all just wishful thinking?

If I knew how to start a thread I'd call it

Oolalaa picks up the Gauntlet!!

[oolalaa]

Sorry but yer excellent thread about Timmy Dunkin & Bill Walton has been hijacked.

We oughta throw this onto its own thread. I'm new to this stuff, don't even know how to start one. Maybe you or jlauber could point out an older post, or a new one is fine.... can you invite guys?

I'd wanna see Pointguard & Shaqattack, GOAT & Sarcastic, Oolalaa, roundmound all those more or less Old School guys on there but minus the personal attack guys that lurk like vultures on these boards if you know what I mean. Is that all just wishful thinking?

If I knew how to start a thread I'd call it

Oolalaa picks up the Gauntlet!!

hmmmm i'm not sure. I'm relatively new to this forum myself. If you wanted to start a Wilt Chamberlain thread (i can tell you how. It's incredibly easy), I would certainly contribute to it but i know that there's been a lot of Wilt threads in the past, even in my short time on this forum. I'm not sure there will be the required appetite for it and i have no idea if those posters you mentioned (shaqattack, GOAT, pointguard etc or even jlauber) would be interested in debating, although you could message them to find out. It's entirely up to you.

[jlauber]

Continued.....


Bill Russell - "It did seem to me that Wilt was often ambivalent about what he wanted to get out of basketball. Anyone who changes the character and style of play several times over a career is bound to be uncertain about which of many potential accomplishments he wants to pursue. It's perfectly possible for a player not to make victory his first priority against all others - money, records, personal fame - and i often felt Wilt made some deliberate choices in his ambitions."

it merely strengthens the notion that he was Stat obsessed, anti clutch & had screwed up priorities.



Now, I wouldn't go as far as calling Wilt a "loser". His '67 and '72 seasons were 2 of the greatest the league has ever seen, all things considered. But i will say that he was certainly not a "winner".

He lost because of injuries. He lost because of bad teammates. He lost because of incompetent coaches. According to jlauber, it was never, ever his fault that he lost.

Maybe jlauber thinks Wilt is the unluckiest player of all time and perhaps he's right. But, if that is the case, I certainly wouldn't want him on my team. Would you?

Oolalaa...most all of your arguments come from the book by the legendary LIAR, Bill Simmons.

I have shredded that idiots's claims here many times.

I reopened the threads to avoid making any more of a mess on this topic...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=160893

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=223621

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=194899

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=191969

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=222675

[miggyme1]

bill walton never reached his prime so therefore its timmy

[La Frescobaldi]

I moved it to new thread, intangibles vs. facts, myth vs. reality.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=245643

[La Frescobaldi]

During those fleeting moments of Walton's prime he was the face of the league.

I always thought Jabbar felt challenged by Walton in those couple of years, and went way beyond to get the MVP. He has always had insecurity issues IMO, never more evident than his really lame attacks on Chamberlain.

But Walton was definitely the Man at the end of the 70s, while Duncan was never more than a top 5 guy of his era. Many people were saying he was the best center ever, at least in the level of Wilt & Russell.

Hes a strange character, that Walton. He was the arch rebel hippie but he was the most conservative guy you ever saw on the court. He never lost control of a game even when guys like Issel and Gervin and Dr. J were trying to throw the frantic switch.

[oolalaa]

During those fleeting moments of Walton's prime he was the face of the league.

I always thought Jabbar felt challenged by Walton in those couple of years, and went way beyond to get the MVP. He has always had insecurity issues IMO, never more evident than his really lame attacks on Chamberlain.

But Walton was definitely the Man at the end of the 70s, while Duncan was never more than a top 5 guy of his era. Many people were saying he was the best center ever, at least in the level of Wilt & Russell.

Hes a strange character, that Walton. He was the arch rebel hippie but he was the most conservative guy you ever saw on the court. He never lost control of a game even when guys like Issel and Gervin and Dr. J were trying to throw the frantic switch.

Duncan was the best player in the league for at the very least least a couple of seasons - 02/03 & 04/05. You could certainly make a good case for 98/99 & 01/02 as well and maybe 03/04, although Garnett was a beast that year.

But regardless, between '99 and '05 he was never not a top 3 player, in a league that had prime Shaq, young Kobe, prime Garnett, prime Iverson & Prime tmac.

I love Walton but let's not underrate Duncan please. This comparison is VERY close....

[Lebron23]

Prime Tim Duncan

1999 Finals

27.4 ppg, 14.0 rpg, 2.4 apg, 2.20 bpg, .537 FG% 5 games W

2003 Finals

24.2 ppg, 17.0 rpg, 5.3 apg, 5.33 bpg, .495 FG% 6 games W

[La Frescobaldi]

Duncan was the best player in the league for at the very least least a couple of seasons - 02/03 & 04/05. You could certainly make a good case for 98/99 & 01/02 as well and maybe 03/04, although Garnett was a beast that year.

But regardless, between '99 and '05 he was never not a top 3 player, in a league that had prime Shaq, young Kobe, prime Garnett, prime Iverson & Prime tmac.

I love Walton but let's not underrate Duncan please. This comparison is VERY close....
*********************
well I didn't know top 5 meant underrated.... But not sure he can go higher in that league, why would you say #1? Nash, Kobe, lebron, shaq, dirk were all right there at the top the first half of the decade

[oolalaa]

*********************
well I didn't know top 5 meant underrated.... But not sure he can go higher in that league, why would you say #1? Nash, Kobe, lebron, shaq, dirk were all right there at the top the first half of the decade

1. Nash and Lebron were "right at the top" the first half of that decade? ummmmm.....no. I think you mean the second half of that decade.

2. Let's go through the years then.....

98/99 - With Jordan retiring, the chance to be the NBAs best player was now wide open.
- Shaq was dominant but this was probably his worst season since his rookie year. He still wasn't completely dedicated to winning at this point and the Lakers got swept by Duncan's Spurs in the 2nd round.
- Iverson. A slashing point guard who was shooting 41% from the floor :facepalm What more can I say? He also got swept in the 2nd round.
- Who else? Malone was poor, Garnett wasn't quite Garnett yet, neither was Kobe.
- Duncan upped his play in the playoffs (as he always did) and led the Spurs to their first ever championship. He was the best of a mediocre bunch in a mediocre year but, none the less, he was still the best.

99/00 & 00/01 - Shaq was Shaq :pimp: Duncan was the 2nd best player in '00 and 3rd best in '01.

01/02 - Although Shaq was getting fat at this point, he did carry a sub par kobe to a 3rd title in a row (even if it was under fishy circumstances). And he beat Duncan's Spurs in the 2nd round despite Duncan putting up 34/25/4/2 in the deciding game 5 loss. To be honest, it's a coin flop between Shaq & Duncan to me.

02/03 - Both Kobe and Dirk were phenomenol (Tmac was pretty good as well) but Duncan was even better. This was Duncan at his absolute peak - Top 3 defensive big man and rebounder in the league along with Garnett & Ben Wallace, very good scorer, great passer out of the post and, as always, a great leader and teammate.

He beat Shaqobe's Lakers in the WCSF, closing them out with a 37/16/4/2 in game 6.
He beat Nowitzkis Mavericks in the WCF (To be fair, Dirk did go down in game 3 & never returned. We missed out on a potential all time great series :cry: Duncan wasn't losing it though :no: )
He demolished Kidd's Nets in the finals, averaging a 24/17/5/5 and closing them out with an absurd 21/20/10/8 in game 6 :bowdown:

03/04 - This was Garnett's MVP year and he let us know the award was no fluke come playoff time. He was superb, and had a better series against the Lakers in the WCF than Duncan did in the previous round. That was the only thing that separated Garnett from Duncan in my mind :confusedshrug:

There was no one else either - Shaq was morbidly obese, Kobe was complaining the whole year that Shaq was morbidly obese, Dirk had a far from stellar regular season & got bounced out of the 1st round by the Kings and.....ummmmmmm.....yeh. It was a pretty crappy year :oldlol:

04/05 - Again, who else? Garnett and Kobe missed the playoffs, Shaq wasn't Shaq anymore, Lebron was just a kid. I guess Nash was Duncan's biggest competition :lol

Duncan meanwhile led the Spurs to a 3rd championship in 7 years. Need i say more?


So to sum up,

Best player = '99, '02 (tie), '03, '05
2nd best player = '00, '04
3rd best player = '01

Don't underrate Timmy!

[Duncan21formvp]

Better Question is Duncan vs Hakeem not Walton.

[La Frescobaldi]

1. Nash and Lebron were "right at the top" the first half of that decade? ummmmm.....no. I think you mean the second half of that decade.

2. Let's go through the years then.....

98/99 - With Jordan retiring, the chance to be the NBAs best player was now wide open.
- Shaq was dominant but this was probably his worst season since his rookie year. He still wasn't completely dedicated to winning at this point and the Lakers got swept by Duncan's Spurs in the 2nd round.
- Iverson. A slashing point guard who was shooting 41% from the floor :facepalm What more can I say? He also got swept in the 2nd round.
- Who else? Malone was poor, Garnett wasn't quite Garnett yet, neither was Kobe.
- Duncan upped his play in the playoffs (as he always did) and led the Spurs to their first ever championship. He was the best of a mediocre bunch in a mediocre year but, none the less, he was still the best.

99/00 & 00/01 - Shaq was Shaq :pimp: Duncan was the 2nd best player in '00 and 3rd best in '01.

01/02 - Although Shaq was getting fat at this point, he did carry a sub par kobe to a 3rd title in a row (even if it was under fishy circumstances). And he beat Duncan's Spurs in the 2nd round despite Duncan putting up 34/25/4/2 in the deciding game 5 loss. To be honest, it's a coin flop between Shaq & Duncan to me.

02/03 - Both Kobe and Dirk were phenomenol (Tmac was pretty good as well) but Duncan was even better. This was Duncan at his absolute peak - Top 3 defensive big man and rebounder in the league along with Garnett & Ben Wallace, very good scorer, great passer out of the post and, as always, a great leader and teammate.

He beat Shaqobe's Lakers in the WCSF, closing them out with a 37/16/4/2 in game 6.
He beat Nowitzkis Mavericks in the WCF (To be fair, Dirk did go down in game 3 & never returned. We missed out on a potential all time great series :cry: Duncan wasn't losing it though :no: )
He demolished Kidd's Nets in the finals, averaging a 24/17/5/5 and closing them out with an absurd 21/20/10/8 in game 6 :bowdown:

03/04 - This was Garnett's MVP year and he let us know the award was no fluke come playoff time. He was superb, and had a better series against the Lakers in the WCF than Duncan did in the previous round. That was the only thing that separated Garnett from Duncan in my mind :confusedshrug:

There was no one else either - Shaq was morbidly obese, Kobe was complaining the whole year that Shaq was morbidly obese, Dirk had a far from stellar regular season & got bounced out of the 1st round by the Kings and.....ummmmmmm.....yeh. It was a pretty crappy year :oldlol:

04/05 - Again, who else? Garnett and Kobe missed the playoffs, Shaq wasn't Shaq anymore, Lebron was just a kid. I guess Nash was Duncan's biggest competition :lol

Duncan meanwhile led the Spurs to a 3rd championship in 7 years. Need i say more?


So to sum up,

Best player = '99, '02 (tie), '03, '05
2nd best player = '00, '04
3rd best player = '01

Don't underrate Timmy!

Well we can disagree.

Shaq was the #1 player in the early 00s. It may be a coin toss to you, but not to me. Shaq was completely unguardable, great at rebounding, real strong on defense. That he blew up mentally later doesn't change what he did.

Steve Nash on the Mavs was a force. Kobe8 was incredible. Jason Kidd took the Nets (!!!??!!) to the Finals. KG was rockin the freaking planet.

I don't agree with sportswriters deciding the MVP but it's been 30 years since the players decided it themselves, and I doubt that will change.

Duncan has been an awesome, elite player, & I hear you, he should not be underrated. I just don't think he's been what Walton was in the late 70s. Walton was above the rest of the elite in the league. Duncan was part of the elite. He never separated himself from his competition like that.

But, Walton was injured from first to last. It was huge news in basketball when Walton was finally injury free, and everybody was watching in amazement. How could he even play at all? But if you were to ask me which I'd rather have on an all-time team that would be easy. I'd take Duncan, because Walton was going to be in the hospital the whole time.

[oolalaa]

Well we can disagree.

Shaq was the #1 player in the early 00s. It may be a coin toss to you, but not to me. Shaq was completely unguardable, great at rebounding, real strong on defense. That he blew up mentally later doesn't change what he did.

Steve Nash on the Mavs was a force. Kobe8 was incredible. Jason Kidd took the Nets (!!!??!!) to the Finals. KG was rockin the freaking planet.

I don't agree with sportswriters deciding the MVP but it's been 30 years since the players decided it themselves, and I doubt that will change.

Duncan has been an awesome, elite player, & I hear you, he should not be underrated. I just don't think he's been what Walton was in the late 70s. Walton was above the rest of the elite in the league. Duncan was part of the elite. He never separated himself from his competition like that.

But, Walton was injured from first to last. It was huge news in basketball when Walton was finally injury free, and everybody was watching in amazement. How could he even play at all? But if you were to ask me which I'd rather have on an all-time team that would be easy. I'd take Duncan, because Walton was going to be in the hospital the whole time.

Kareem was at his peak in '77 and Dr J still had his hops. Walton was incredible :bowdown: but I disagree that he was "above the rest of the elite in the league".

And yes Jason Kidd took the Nets to the finals :rockon: but don't forget, the eastern conference was incredibly weak at the time.

[La Frescobaldi]

Kareem was at his peak in '77 and Dr J still had his hops. Walton was incredible :bowdown: but I disagree that he was "above the rest of the elite in the league".

And yes Jason Kidd took the Nets to the finals :rockon: but don't forget, the eastern conference was incredibly weak at the time.

lolol
so my friend ...........

IMPASSE

[La Frescobaldi]

hey oolalaa you know what?

This last few days I went back and looked at some of Duncan's early 2000s games, and some of Walton's too........ Duncan has been for real

I'm wrong, you're right.

Chump. :lol

:cheers:

[UtahJazzFan88]

Prime Luke >>> Prime Duncan any day of the week.

[linZoMourning]

Prime Luke >>> Prime Duncan any day of the week.

troll much?

[KevinNYC]

Everything I read about Walton is exaggerated. He was a good player, but best center ever? Not a chance in hell. To say something like he's a Duncan light with better passing is fair.

Now you're going in the opposite direction. A Healthy Walton is not a good player. A healthy Walton is better than 99% of NBA players ever.

This is a guy who shot went 21 for 22 in the NCAA Finals-at a time when dunks were illegal.

His 1977 and 78 Seasons are crazy good. His Defensive Rating for 58 games in 78 is 89.5. That's ridiculous. There have been 9 better seasons since 1973. The record is
Ben Wallace 87.48 2003-04

The 1986 Celtics are considered the best team ever by many and it's not mere coincidence that Walton was their backup center. At 33 he had the number 1 Defensive Rating in the NBA that year. He came into the game and, Boom! The best team in league got better defensively and their ball movement opened up. They had a lethal bench that year.

Bill Walton is the All Time NBA leader in Defensive Rebounding %. His Defensive Rating is 8th All Time in the NBA.
(Probably Wilt and Rusell would be higher if they kept the stats back then.)

[KevinNYC]

:facepalm
Now you're going in the opposite direction. A Healthy Walton is not a good player. A healthy Walton is better than 99% of NBA players ever.

This is a guy who shot went 21 for 22 in the NCAA Finals-at a time when dunks were illegal.

His 1977 and 78 Seasons are crazy good. His Defensive Rating for 58 games in 78 is 89.5. That's ridiculous. There have been 9 better seasons since 1973. The record is
Ben Wallace 87.48 2003-04

The 1986 Celtics are considered the best team ever by many and it's not mere coincidence that Walton was their backup center. At 33 he had the number 1 Defensive Rating in the NBA that year. He came into the game and, Boom! The best team in league got better defensively and their ball movement opened up. They had a lethal bench that year.

Bill Walton is the All Time NBA leader in Defensive Rebounding %. His Defensive Rating is 8th All Time in the NBA.
(Probably Wilt and Rusell would be higher if they kept the stats back then.)
:facepalm Should have checked the date on this first post.

[RonySeikalyFTL]

I saw some articles from Bill's era where people were calling him the best center ever.

I saw some articles in 2007 calling Baron Davis the best athlete in the world.

People tend to exaggerate things in the heat of the moment. They also like being original.

[CavaliersFTW]

Prime Luke >>> Prime Duncan any day of the week.

This.

Career it's pretty obviously Duncan. But prime? GTFO if you pick Duncan. Prime Duncan is 2/3rds prime Walton - and that's a compliment.

[Whoah10115]

This.

Career it's pretty obviously Duncan. But prime? GTFO if you pick Duncan. Prime Duncan is 2/3rds prime Walton - and that's a compliment.



Taking that way too far.

[CavaliersFTW]

Taking that way too far.
:D

[Bigsmoke]

http://i946.photobucket.com/albums/ad302/crazygreen1309/holidays/timmy.jpg

[Odinn]

This.

Career it's pretty obviously Duncan. But prime? GTFO if you pick Duncan. Prime Duncan is 2/3rds prime Walton - and that's a compliment.
Your obsession about past is truly ridicilous.:facepalm

[Round Mound]

Come on Bill was a Great Defender, Shot Blocker, Rebounder and Passer but he wasn`t an Offensive Force Individual Wise while Duncan was.

Duncan was Threat Offensively and Defensively. He was a Better Total Player than Walton

[CavaliersFTW]

Your obsession about past is truly ridicilous.:facepalm

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/096/044/trollface.jpg

[La Frescobaldi]

This.

Career it's pretty obviously Duncan. But prime? GTFO if you pick Duncan. Prime Duncan is 2/3rds prime Walton - and that's a compliment.

Are you really, truly certain?

I thought I was, until I went back and really looked at the film.

I've always held Walton up as a standard for all centers, but Duncan meets that standard in every way. He really is one of the greats.

[CavaliersFTW]

Are you really, truly certain?

I thought I was, until I went back and really looked at the film.

I've always held Walton up as a standard for all centers, but Duncan meets that standard in every way. He really is one of the greats.

I was only trying to elicit a few mad responses by some casual trolling but in all seriousness - no I'm not certain, both are awesome though. I'd need to look more into Bill Walton's game, but footage and break-downs of him in his prime reveals he is an extremely fundamental player with high IQ - just like Duncan

[chips93]

I was only trying to elicit a few mad responses by some casual trolling but in all seriousness - no I'm not certain, both are awesome though. I'd need to look more into Bill Walton's game, but footage and break-downs of him in his prime reveals he is an extremely fundamental player with high IQ - just like Duncan

if your interested, here is all 6 games from the 1977 nba finals

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240225

[La Frescobaldi]

I was only trying to elicit a few mad responses by some casual trolling but in all seriousness - no I'm not certain, both are awesome though. I'd need to look more into Bill Walton's game, but footage and break-downs of him in his prime reveals he is an extremely fundamental player with high IQ - just like Duncan

oolalaa is not millwad tho, at all.

[CavaliersFTW]

if your interested, here is all 6 games from the 1977 nba finals

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240225

Pure gold. Thanks! :cheers:

[chips93]

Pure gold. Thanks! :cheers:

you're welcome

:cheers:

i should say though, that i didnt upload the videos, i just made the thread

its a great series, i watched about 3 or 4 of the games. walton's passing, and dr. J's athleticism really stood out. julius would be an elite player today

[G-train]

http://www.bballbreakdown.com/why-bill-walton-was-the-best-center-of-all-time-game-6-1977-nba-finals/

interesting viewpoint

[Joshumitsu]

Walton won against league MVP Kareem and Dr. J aka the Lebron/Jordan of his era.

After winning the championship and before he got injured, the Blazers had a 50-10 record and were on pace to match 68+ wins. They were being compared to the great Laker and Celtics teams who won 69 and 68 wins respectively.

Unfortunately, injuries kept that "dynasty" from ever occurring.


Damn. Actually, if you think about it, the Blazers have had so many "what if" teams. If Sabonis arrived in his prime/stayed healthy. If the Blazers didn't choke in the 2000 WCF. If Roy and Oden stayed healthy. This franchise would be up there with the Celts and Lakers.

[oolalaa]

hey oolalaa you know what?

This last few days I went back and looked at some of Duncan's early 2000s games, and some of Walton's too........ Duncan has been for real

I'm wrong, you're right.

Chump. :lol

:cheers:

Well that's good to know :cheers:


oolalaa is not millwad tho, at all.

I'm not sure that's much of a compliment :oldlol:

[Bigsmoke]

Walton won against league MVP Kareem and Dr. J aka the Lebron/Jordan of his era.

After winning the championship and before he got injured, the Blazers had a 50-10 record and were on pace to match 68+ wins. They were being compared to the great Laker and Celtics teams who won 69 and 68 wins respectively.

Unfortunately, injuries kept that "dynasty" from ever occurring.


Damn. Actually, if you think about it, the Blazers have had so many "what if" teams. If Sabonis arrived in his prime/stayed healthy. If the Blazers didn't choke in the 2000 WCF. If Roy and Oden stayed healthy. This franchise would be up there with the Celts and Lakers.

Kareem school'd the mess out of Walton :no:

Walton just had a better roster.

[bizil]

Skill for skill, Walton is arguably the best center of all time in that regard. It seemed he was very good to great at everything. This is similar to how Duncan is at PF. The difference is Duncan put up the resume to be a top 10 GOAT and the GOAT PF. These two are actually very similar players flat out. I've always thought the players that Duncan was most similar to were Walton, McHale, with a touch of Olajuwon. But in particular Walton was the guy for me when it came to Duncan. Prime for prime I would go with Duncan in a narrow margin. But who know how good Walton would have got if not for the injuries. He got hit with the bug damn early in his career. I feel Duncan was the more dominant scorer which tilts it for me.

[La Frescobaldi]

Skill for skill, Walton is arguably the best center of all time in that regard. It seemed he was very good to great at everything. This is similar to how Duncan is at PF. The difference is Duncan put up the resume to be a top 10 GOAT and the GOAT PF. These two are actually very similar players flat out. I've always thought the players that Duncan was most similar to were Walton, McHale, with a touch of Olajuwon. But in particular Walton was the guy for me when it came to Duncan. Prime for prime I would go with Duncan in a narrow margin. But who know how good Walton would have got if not for the injuries. He got hit with the bug damn early in his career. I feel Duncan was the more dominant scorer which tilts it for me.

ya if you read over this thread man I started off just about tellin OP to shut up because Walton was too incredible but the more i thought about it.... ya these guys were both all-time elite

[JMT]

Skill for skill, Walton is arguably the best center of all time in that regard. It seemed he was very good to great at everything. This is similar to how Duncan is at PF. The difference is Duncan put up the resume to be a top 10 GOAT and the GOAT PF. These two are actually very similar players flat out. I've always thought the players that Duncan was most similar to were Walton, McHale, with a touch of Olajuwon. But in particular Walton was the guy for me when it came to Duncan. Prime for prime I would go with Duncan in a narrow margin. But who know how good Walton would have got if not for the injuries. He got hit with the bug damn early in his career. I feel Duncan was the more dominant scorer which tilts it for me.


Agreed for the most part. IMO, at their pure peak (which, for Walton, was terribly short), there has never been a better, all round big man than Walton. His ability to change a game without shooting the ball was unequalled with the possible exception of Russell.