In the Playoffs: Larry Bird vs Wilt Chamberlain

[Duncan21formvp]

Who would you rather have in the playoffs and who do you trust more in the playoffs?

[Harison]

Is that a serious question? Bird everyday, and twice in Sundays.

[jlauber]

Who would you rather have in the playoffs and who do you trust more in the playoffs?

Hmmm...the Larry Bird who guided his STACKED teams to losses in the post-season SEVEN times with HCA? The Bird who shot .472 from the floor in his post-season career, in leagues that shot about .485 on average. The Bird who then shot WORSE in his five Finals, with marks of .488, .484, .450, .449, and .419? The Bird who shot less than .399 in ELEVEN of his 31 Finals games, including TWO of less than .299...which was as many as he had in shooting over .500? The Bird who shot 6-18 from the floor in his only game seven of the Finals? The Bird who shot .351 in a series against the Pistons in the '88 playoffs? The Bird who had entire post-seasons of shooting .450, .444, .427, .422, and even .408?

[Champ]

Hmmm...the Larry Bird who guided his STACKED teams to losses in the post-season SEVEN times with HCA? The Bird who shot .472 from the floor in his post-season career, in leagues that shot about .485 on average. The Bird who then shot WORSE in his five Finals, with marks of .488, .484, .450, .449, and .419? The Bird who shot less than .399 in ELEVEN of his 31 Finals games, including TWO of less than .299...which was as many as he had in shooting over .500? The Bird who shot 6-18 from the floor in his only game seven of the Finals? The Bird who shot .351 in a series against the Pistons in the '88 playoffs? The Bird who had entire post-seasons of shooting .450, .444, .427, .422, and even .408?

You're selectively highlighting certain aspects Bird's playoff record to paint a negative picture, while ignoring those of Wilt.

A more balanced approach would go a long way toward validating your argument.

[Pushxx]

Sorry I'm gonna go win some championships as the team's best player and put up godly triple double numbers.

[jlauber]

You're selectively highlighting certain aspects Bird's playoff record to paint a negative picture, while ignoring those of Wilt.

A more balanced approach would go a long way toward validating your argument.

This comment is interesting...

I could, and have, covered this very topic several times here. I have provided a TON of examples, as well. Then, I get responses like "Didn't read."

But the bottom line was, Bird was a better FT shooter, albeit, Wilt's total IMPACT at the line was at least as great. Bird was a better 3pt shooter, BUT, his post-season 3pt shooting had very little impact (he shot .321, and MADE 80 3 point shots in 164 games...or one every two games.) Bird was a slightly better passer, albeit, a peak Chamberlain was at least his equal (in fact, Chamberlain had an entire post season of 9.2 apg, which included TWO series of over 10 apg.)

After that it is not even close. Chamberlain was a FAR greater scorer (he had SIX entire post-seasons that were better than Bird's BEST post-season.) He was MILES ahead of Bird in FG% efficiency (he had EIGHT post-seasons better than Bird's BEST post-season...AND, they came in leagues that shot FAR worse than in Bird's career.) Wilt was LIGHT YEARS ahead of Bird in rebounding (Wilt's LOW post-season was 20.2 rpg in his 13 years, which was better than Bird's BEST post-season of 14.0 rpg.) Bird had 145 blocks in his post-season career. Given what we know, Wilt may very well have had that many blocks in some of his SINGLE post-seasons alone. And in terms of defensive impact, Chamberlain was the second greatest defensive player in NBA history. Bird made SECOND-team all-defense, three times in his career.

Now, you tell me...

[jlauber]

Sorry I'm gonna go win some championships as the team's best player and put up godly triple double numbers.

I agree. Wilt even had some QUAD-DOUBLE post-season games, as well.

And, BTW, Bird won one championship (and against a 40-42 team BTW), in which a little known teammate won the FMVP (in a series in which Bird shot .419.)

[Sarcastic]

Wilt Chamberlain.

[Pushxx]

And, BTW, Bird won one championship (and against a 40-42 team BTW), in which a little known teammate won the FMVP (in a series in which Bird shot .419.)

BRB averaging 22/14/6/2/1 on 47% shooting at age 24 in the 1980-1981 playoffs.

Sure he struggled scoring in the Finals but he did everything else amazingly. http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1981_finals.html

Plus, the Celtics' plan was to make Malone play defense the whole time. That's why Maxwell and Parish went to work in that series. Celtics relentlessly attacked the paint the entire series.

Also, the Rockets' game plan was to stop Bird at all costs. Watch the games. They don't give Bird an inch of room the whole series but he still averaged 15 rebounds and 7 assists. Archibald was seriously struggling in that series from the outside (he shot 36.4%).

I got a ton of respect for Wilt as a player and NBA icon, but I'm taking Larry Bird in the playoffs.

[AlphaWolf24]

http://001-jk-files.s3.amazonaws.com/images/boxscores/198105090HOU.jpg

http://001-jk-files.s3.amazonaws.com/images/boxscores/198105100HOU.jpg

http://001-jk-files.s3.amazonaws.com/images/boxscores/198105120BOS.jpg





Never seen Wilt Play....but Bird get's mad overrated on the web.

[Pushxx]

Why don't you check out the link to all the stats. I linked it above...

[Champ]

http://001-jk-files.s3.amazonaws.com/images/boxscores/198105090HOU.jpg

http://001-jk-files.s3.amazonaws.com/images/boxscores/198105100HOU.jpg

http://001-jk-files.s3.amazonaws.com/images/boxscores/198105120BOS.jpg





Never seen Wilt Play....but Bird get's mad overrated on the web.

I've always felt the opposite, in part because the essence of Bird's greatness often doesn't come across in statistics or career numbers. He also had an exceptional peak before injuries derailed him.

His "relative" lack of athleticism also doesn't conform very well to the dominant style of play in today's NBA, which dissuades some younger fans.

[Duncan21formvp]

http://001-jk-files.s3.amazonaws.com/images/boxscores/198105090HOU.jpg

http://001-jk-files.s3.amazonaws.com/images/boxscores/198105100HOU.jpg

http://001-jk-files.s3.amazonaws.com/images/boxscores/198105120BOS.jpg





Never seen Wilt Play....but Bird get's mad overrated on the web.
Wilt did average 11.7 ppg in the finals in 1969.

[StateOfMind12]

I always thought that Bird was one of the most overrated clutch players of all-time and a lot of numbers back that up. Bird isn't even a better playoff performer than Kobe really. I would still have to say Bird was a better post-season performer than Wilt was.

[Champ]

This comment is interesting...

I could, and have, covered this very topic several times here. I have provided a TON of examples, as well. Then, I get responses like "Didn't read."

But the bottom line was, Bird was a better FT shooter, albeit, Wilt's total IMPACT at the line was at least as great. Bird was a better 3pt shooter, BUT, his post-season 3pt shooting had very little impact (he shot .321, and MADE 80 3 point shots in 164 games...or one every two games.) Bird was a slightly better passer, albeit, a peak Chamberlain was at least his equal (in fact, Chamberlain had an entire post season of 9.2 apg, which included TWO series of over 10 apg.)

After that it is not even close. Chamberlain was a FAR greater scorer (he had SIX entire post-seasons that were better than Bird's BEST post-season.) He was MILES ahead of Bird in FG% efficiency (he had EIGHT post-seasons better than Bird's BEST post-season...AND, they came in leagues that shot FAR worse than in Bird's career.) Wilt was LIGHT YEARS ahead of Bird in rebounding (Wilt's LOW post-season was 20.2 rpg in his 13 years, which was better than Bird's BEST post-season of 14.0 rpg.) Bird had 145 blocks in his post-season career. Given what we know, Wilt may very well have had that many blocks in some of his SINGLE post-seasons alone. And in terms of defensive impact, Chamberlain was the second greatest defensive player in NBA history. Bird made SECOND-team all-defense, three times in his career.

Now, you tell me...

Stats can be deceiving; it's always tough to compare players from different eras in terms of numbers. Personally, I believe a more accurate marker is to rank them relative to their respective eras.

Dave Cowens, for instance, was a statistically better rebounder than Dennis Rodman over the course of his career, but was he really a better rebounder?

Wilt did have career assist numbers that reached Bird's assist averages during a particular period in his career (late 60s), but that's just a snapshot that doesn't truly illustrate his long-term consistency in this area, which pales by comparison.

Then there's the eye test. To say that Bird -- acknowledged as one of the greatest, most creative passers in NBA history -- was only a "slightly better" passer than Wilt, points to someone either not paying attention, or simply assessing two player's abilities through a veil of bias.

Perhaps you could point to some video of Wilt's passing and compare it to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhnRtgBGMl4)?

[Champ]

I always thought that Bird was one of the most overrated clutch players of all-time and a lot of numbers back that up. Bird isn't even a better playoff performer than Kobe really. I would still have to say Bird was a better post-season performer than Wilt was.

Did you watch Bird play?

[97 bulls]

You're selectively highlighting certain aspects Bird's playoff record to paint a negative picture, while ignoring those of Wilt.

A more balanced approach would go a long way toward validating your argument.
No one is balanced in this forum. I just don't see why we can't look at the accomplishments of every player as a whole.

But birds transgressions are rarely ever admonished. And when they do come up, they are excused. Bird is overrated.

[PTB Fan]

Bird. He played on an overall higher level in there, did better in the clutch, was more rounded and created better for his team mates.

[oolalaa]

Hmmm...the Larry Bird who guided his STACKED teams to losses in the post-season SEVEN times with HCA? The Bird who shot .472 from the floor in his post-season career, in leagues that shot about .485 on average. The Bird who then shot WORSE in his five Finals, with marks of .488, .484, .450, .449, and .419? The Bird who shot less than .399 in ELEVEN of his 31 Finals games, including TWO of less than .299...which was as many as he had in shooting over .500? The Bird who shot 6-18 from the floor in his only game seven of the Finals? The Bird who shot .351 in a series against the Pistons in the '88 playoffs? The Bird who had entire post-seasons of shooting .450, .444, .427, .422, and even .408?

You are OBSESSED with efficiency. It's slightly amusing (Bird shot a 55 TS% for his playoff career. Wilt shot 52 TS%. You should be embarrassed for using fg%. At least use efg%) But needless to say, Bird's greatness didn't centre around his scoring or efficiency.


He's the greatest rebounding small forward of all time (he wasn't a mile off from out rebounding Moses friggin Malone in the '81 finals for christs sake!).

He's the greatest passing/playmaking forward of all time. Lebron is close - he spreads the ball better than any forward ive ever seen, but doesn't make as many 'guaranteed bucket passes' as Bird did.

He also was a great team defender. He was stealing the ball twice a game in his prime and averaged nearly a block a game over his career. People focus too much on his man defence, which wasn't as bad as people make out anyway (he was certainly better defensively than Magic).


Oh, and what about the injuries Bird, and his teammates, had to deal with? You constantly whine about the injuries Wilt and Wilt's teammates had between '65 and '70. I could give you a pretty long list of absentees and niggling injuries the Celtics also had to contend with, especially in '83, '87 and '88.

And you put the blame for the Lakers not winning the '69 title almost exclusively on Breda Koff. But what about the Celtics in '83? I think it's a now forgotten fact that a lot of the Celtic players flat out revolted against Bill Fitch.


They are both great, and i'll admit, this comparison is close. But i know who I'm taking.

Hint: It's not the guy who lost four game 7s in 6 years....

[oolalaa]

No one is balanced in this forum. I just don't see why we can't look at the accomplishments of every player as a whole.

But birds transgressions are rarely ever admonished. And when they do come up, they are excused. Bird is overrated.

Where do you rank him all time? And where do you have Pippen as well, just out of interest?

[oolalaa]

Stats can be deceiving; it's always tough to compare players from different eras in terms of numbers. Personally, I believe a more accurate marker is to rank them relative to their respective eras.

Dave Cowens, for instance, was a statistically better rebounder than Dennis Rodman over the course of his career, but was he really a better rebounder?

Wilt did have career assist numbers that reached Bird's assist averages during a particular period in his career (late 60s), but that's just a snapshot that doesn't truly illustrate his long-term consistency in this area, which pales by comparison.

Then there's the eye test. To say that Bird -- acknowledged as one of the greatest, most creative passers in NBA history -- was only a "slightly better" passer than Wilt, points to someone either not paying attention, or simply assessing two player's abilities through a veil of bias.

Perhaps you could point to some video of Wilt's passing and compare it to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhnRtgBGMl4)?

:applause: Exactly right. I have said this to him many times. He will never concede it. Far too biased to do that :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

Where do you rank him all time? And where do you have Pippen as well, just out of interest?
I rank bird top 10. Pippen id say is top. 20-25.. I don't penalize pippen for not being the "man" in 6 title funs. Simply because I don't think you could just replace pippen with any good basketball player on the bulls and they still win.

If you were to replace him with say tayshaun prince, you'd get the defensive versitility, but his offense wasn't on pippens level and he can't run an offense. Not to mention he's not the rebounder pippen was

I use prince cuz that's what it seems like people feel pippen is just with some rings.

[colts19]

I agree. Wilt even had some QUAD-DOUBLE post-season games, as well.

And, BTW, Bird won one championship (and against a 40-42 team BTW), in which a little known teammate won the FMVP (in a series in which Bird shot .419.)

I see people use this against Bird a lot, saying he was not the best player on the team because Maxwell won FMVP. What people don't see is that Maxwell played great but him and Parish got a lot of their points because bird gave the the ball about one foot from the basket. Bird was still the best player on that team.

Also, I love wilt and hate that people underrate him to me he is only behind Russell as GOAT. However in your quest to prop up wilt you do take tear other players down in a unfair way. Just like when you say, yes bird was a better free throw shooter but Wilt's impact at the line was better. It wasn't better in 1970, in a game seven where Wilt was 1 for 11 from the line and cost his team a championship because of it.

[Pointguard]

You are OBSESSED with efficiency. It's slightly amusing (Bird shot a 55 TS% for his playoff career. Wilt shot 52 TS%. You should be embarrassed for using fg%) But needless to say, Bird's greatness didn't centre around his scoring or efficiency.


TS% is a complete utter garbage stat. Proof of it is that it works against most of the top ten greatest in the sport, moreso than it does any other ranking. But it helps a ton of scrubs look better.

Raw stats are always better than combo stats. TS is a combo stat with an objective to boost perimeter players profile. Something to compensate for their lower FG% so that you can compare perimeter players to other perimeter players. Its an inferior stat to FG% by nature. But since a majority of the GOATs Russell, Wilt, Shaq, Kareem, TD and Hakeem all loose ground in its metrix, its a FAIL. Jordan and Magic don't have much favor in it either. The fact that Kobe and Bird get the most out of it in the GOAT conversation, means the stat fails, yet one more time.

[colts19]

No one is balanced in this forum. I just don't see why we can't look at the accomplishments of every player as a whole.

But birds transgressions are rarely ever admonished. And when they do come up, they are excused. Bird is overrated.

Wow, Bird is overrated, but you rank him yourself as top 10. So is 9 overrated, or 8,7,6. Just wondering.

I would just like to add, that circumstances go a long way to forming people ranking of different players. I rank Pippen top 20, but a lot of people say if it wasn't for jordon he wouldn't be in the top 75. You hardly ever hear of people ranking Rick Barry in the top 20, but if you saw him play you would have to at least consider him for the top 20, but he has become a forgotten play much like Walt Fraizer. Times change and people memories fade but a lot of players have moved back in the alltime list because that is just how time treats our sports stars, and every generation thinks modern basketball was inverted during their generation.

[Pointguard]

I do have Bird and Kobe firmly in my top ten of Greats. Both had trouble with FG% in comparison to the others and it was noticable. I never once said but I bet they have better TS%. Both have other dimensions to their game. TS% tho, has no room in the arguments for greats is my point.

[oolalaa]

TS% is a complete utter garbage stat. Proof of it is that it works against most of the top ten greatest in the sport, moreso than it does any other ranking. But it helps a ton of scrubs look better.

Raw stats are always better than combo stats. TS is a combo stat with an objective to boost perimeter players profile. Something to compensate for their lower FG% so that you can compare perimeter players to other perimeter players. Its an inferior stat to FG% by nature. But since a majority of the GOATs Russell, Wilt, Shaq, Kareem, TD and Hakeem all loose ground in its metrix, its a FAIL. Jordan and Magic don't have much favor in it either. The fact that Kobe and Bird get the most out of it in the GOAT conversation, means the stat fails, yet one more time.

Yes, i kind of agree. It is not complete and utter garbage however (don't exaggerate), and it is better than fg%, especially for perimeter players. FACT. Look at Jason Kidd - 40 FG% shooter for his career but he has shot 4 3s a game and made a good percentage of them. He has been shafted, unfairly, for his terrible shooting.

That's why EFG% is the best. I usually look at EFG% and FT% separately...

[pauk]

how dare some of you diss Wilt based on how many TEAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS (or whatever) he had?

do you know what Wilt would have done with those teammates Bird had?

get the **** outta here... Wilt was a MUUUUUUUUUUUUCH better player... there was no more talented-dominant-productive player in NBA history....

dont be to silly now...

[oolalaa]

how dare some of you diss Wilt based on how many TEAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS (or whatever) he had?

do you know what Wilt would have done with those teammates Bird had?

get the **** outta here... Wilt was a MUUUUUUUUUUUUCH better player... there was no more talented-dominant-productive player in NBA history....

dont be to silly now...

We know what he did. He LOST a game 7 in '65. He LOST in the 1st round in '66. He LOST a game 7 in '68 (blowing a 3-1 lead and having a pathetic second half in that game 7). He LOST a game 7 in '69. He LOST ANOTHER game 7 in '70.

[Round Mound]

I see people use this against Bird a lot, saying he was not the best player on the team because Maxwell won FMVP. What people don't see is that Maxwell played great but him and Parish got a lot of their points because bird gave the the ball about one foot from the basket. Bird was still the best player on that team.

Also, I love wilt and hate that people underrate him to me he is only behind Russell as GOAT. However in your quest to prop up wilt you do take tear other players down in a unfair way. Just like when you say, yes bird was a better free throw shooter but Wilt's impact at the line was better. It wasn't better in 1970, in a game seven where Wilt was 1 for 11 from the line and cost his team a championship because of it.

:applause:

Maxwell was the Best Scorer (he always was) of the Finals because Bird struggled shooting wise.

But did Maxwelll average 15.3 RPG against Moses? or lets say deliver 7.0 APG? :no:

The Real Finals MVP was Bird. He had the Best All Around Game in the 80s

Wilt was Better than Bird as an Impact Player but Nobody made Others Better more than Bird.

Bird won with McHale as a Sub in 1981 and 1984 in a Time that the NBA had The Best Teams (it was hard to even have a winning% in the 80s) and against Kareem, Magic, Worthy, McAdoo, Nixon, Scott, Green, Thompson right there as competitors

[Bernie Nips]

http://001-jk-files.s3.amazonaws.com/images/boxscores/198105090HOU.jpg

http://001-jk-files.s3.amazonaws.com/images/boxscores/198105100HOU.jpg

http://001-jk-files.s3.amazonaws.com/images/boxscores/198105120BOS.jpg





Never seen Wilt Play....but Bird get's mad overrated on the web.

Did you seriously just post the point scores for Bird's 3 worst Finals games in the year he led Boston to the championship in only his SECOND season as the reason why Bird is overrated?

Wow.

[97 bulls]

Wow, Bird is overrated, but you rank him yourself as top 10. So is 9 overrated, or 8,7,6. Just wondering.

I would just like to add, that circumstances go a long way to forming people ranking of different players. I rank Pippen top 20, but a lot of people say if it wasn't for jordon he wouldn't be in the top 75. You hardly ever hear of people ranking Rick Barry in the top 20, but if you saw him play you would have to at least consider him for the top 20, but he has become a forgotten play much like Walt Fraizer. Times change and people memories fade but a lot of players have moved back in the alltime list because that is just how time treats our sports stars, and every generation thinks modern basketball was inverted during their generation.
I feel he's overrated in that people act like his shit don't stink. I've heard people say he's a great dribbler, he's a great man defender, every time he loss there was an excuse. And id probably be willing to accept certain things more from some posters, if there was some consistency in some of these posters.

Like you said, I really feel every players career should be ranked based on circumstances. Bird had a great 3 year run, but he did lose 7 times as the favorite to lesser teams. His fg% is relatively poor when compared to the players that played during his career. He's clutch, but half of the games he's played in the playoff, he's shot bad. Would Ali be regarded in the same light if he beat foreman, liston, and frasier. But then got his ass kicked by 7 tomatoe cans?

And its no secret I'm a pippen fan. And I can't argue a persons opinion on pippen. If they feel he shouldn't be top 50, fine. But when I hear the reasons? That's when I have to scratch my head.

Such as him not being able to take over games, even though he did, or he wasn't a great scorer even though he was, people knock him for his role in giving up that 17 pt lead to the lakers. And use it to show him as being an un-clutch player. But they have no response for what he did in 92 when he led the bulls back from being down 17 pts in the fourth quarter. I could go on and on

Or look at dwayne wade. He's a great player, but why is he ranked so high? His career accomplishments are nowhere near pippens. Wades claim to fame is his 06 run in the playoffs, and he led the league in scoring once.

Why is dennis rodman ranked so low? 5 championships? Two dpoys the multiple rebounding titles? The all defense teams? Everywhere he went his teams won.

All I'm saying is people need to get away from stats and start looking at results.

[97 bulls]

:applause:

Maxwell was the Best Scorer (he always was) of the Finals because Bird struggled shooting wise.

But did Maxwelll average 15.3 RPG against Moses? or lets say deliver 7.0 APG? :no:

The Real Finals MVP was Bird. He had the Best All Around Game in the 80s

Wilt was Better than Bird as an Impact Player but Nobody made Others Better more than Bird.

Bird won with McHale as a Sub in 1981 and 1984 in a Time that the NBA had The Best Teams (it was hard to even have a winning% in the 80s) and against Kareem, Magic, Worthy, McAdoo, Nixon, Scott, Green, Thompson right there as competitors
See. This is what I mean by bird being overrated. He didn't battle moses malone. The rockets opposing small forward was robert reid. A decent Small forward. Trying to imply that mchale wasn't very good cuz he was a "sub". Come on

[97 bulls]

Actually, bird was a power forward then. His oppostion on the rockets was billy paultz.

[oolalaa]

I feel he's overrated in that people act like his shit don't stink. I've heard people say he's a great dribbler, he's a great man defender, every time he loss there was an excuse. And id probably be willing to accept certain things more from some posters, if there was some consistency in some of these posters.

Like you said, I really feel every players career should be ranked based on circumstances. Bird had a great 3 year run, but he did lose 7 times as the favorite to lesser teams. His fg% is relatively poor when compared to the players that played during his career. He's clutch, but half of the games he's played in the playoff, he's shot bad. Would Ali be regarded in the same light if he beat foreman, liston, and frasier. But then got his ass kicked by 7 tomatoe cans?

And its no secret I'm a pippen fan. And I can't argue a persons opinion on pippen. If they feel he shouldn't be top 50, fine. But when I hear the reasons? That's when I have to scratch my head.

Such as him not being able to take over games, even though he did, or he wasn't a great scorer even though he was, people knock him for his role in giving up that 17 pt lead to the lakers. And use it to show him as being an un-clutch player. But they have no response for what he did in 92 when he led the bulls back from being down 17 pts in the fourth quarter. I could go on and on

Or look at dwayne wade. He's a great player, but why is he ranked so high? His career accomplishments are nowhere near pippens. Wades claim to fame is his 06 run in the playoffs, and he led the league in scoring once.

Why is dennis rodman ranked so low? 5 championships? Two dpoys the multiple rebounding titles? The all defense teams? Everywhere he went his teams won.

All I'm saying is people need to get away from stats and start looking at results.

I like Pippen a lot. I have him in the 25-30 range.

But he was, repeat it with me, NOT A GREAT SCORER! Nor was he a great playmaker/passer. He was a good/very good scorer and a good/very good playmaker BUT not a great one. This is a fact.

You were never, ever going to win a title with Pippen as your best player. He's similar to someone like Dwight Howard in that sense (who I don't believe is capable of winning a title as the clear cut guy). He could get you close, but he was not good enough offensively. His shooting was inconsistent. He could be erratic when driving to the rim. This is why his efficiency always dropped when facing good defences.

And lastly, I think I've said this to you before, I dont believe he had the ruthlessness required to lead a team to a championship. He striked me as being awfully comfortable playing alongside Jordan and, correct me if i'm wrong, he was glad when Jordan returned in '95.

[KevinNYC]

See. This is what I mean by bird being overrated. He didn't battle moses malone. The rockets opposing small forward was robert reid. A decent Small forward. Trying to imply that mchale wasn't very good cuz he was a "sub". Come on

You never saw Moses play did you? He didn't really care about what position you were if you were between him and the ball. He went for EVERY rebound.

Also McHale was a rookie in 80-81 and played 14 minutes a game in the 1981
Finals. He was not the Celtics 6th man yet. He was 9th in terms of minutes played and had 5 points and 3 rebounds a game. McHale was not Hall of Famer Kevin McHale yet. He was not much of an impact player in 1981. By 1984 he was the 6th man and played 30 minutes a game and had 13p and 6r in the 84 Finals.

Chris Ford, who is all but forgotten as a player now, was a bigger contributor than McHale in 1981.

[TheFrozenOne]

Did you seriously just post the point scores for Bird's 3 worst Finals games in the year he led Boston to the championship in only his SECOND season as the reason why Bird is overrated?

Wow.

Bird was already 24 years old.

[97 bulls]

You never saw Moses play did you? He didn't really care about what position you were if you were between him and the ball. He went for EVERY rebound.

Also McHale was a rookie in 80-81 and played 14 minutes a game in the 1981
Finals. He was not the Celtics 6th man yet. He was 9th in terms of minutes played and had 5 points and 3 rebounds a game. McHale was not Hall of Famer Kevin McHale yet. He was not much of an impact player in 1981. By 1984 he was the 6th man and played 30 minutes a game and had 13p and 6r in the 84 Finals.

Chris Ford, who is all but forgotten as a player now, was a bigger contributor than McHale in 1981.
Ok but what fuuny about your post is that we always hear about how great the 80s competiton was. Which is it?

[Micku]

Both are somewhat similar.

Bird's Celtics didn't have the talent like the Lakers and 76ers early on, and he won a championship. Later when he had more talent on his team, especially when Kevin Mchale became a star, they had better playoff success, but the only team they lost to would be the Lakers. Even when they beat the Lakers in 1984, it was more that the Lakers shot themselves on the foot more than the Celtics actually beating them by being the better team. But a win is a win, and the Celtics fought hard, with Bird hitting a gamewinner in the series.

This is what's similar to Wilt and Bird. Bird only really beat Magic one time. Wilt only beat Russell one time. From what I understood, Wilt didn't have the talent that Russell did to work with until later, similar to Bird vs Magic early in their career. Wilt and Bird couldn't get over the hump with their rivals for the most part.

But I would take Bird over Wilt in the playoffs because he did had more playoff success and more teamplayer than anything. And he took a team that was 29 wins to 61 wins, and was a contender as long as he was there. And he battled the 76ers, Bucks, and Lakers. And I think Wilt had a season or two where he wasn't in the playoffs? While I think Bird was always in the playoffs for his entire career, and perform good in most. His regular season stats don't match up to his playoff stats always tho. But he did a lot of things for the team besides scoring.

But I don't blame anybody for taking Wilt. Despite his failures to beat the Celtics, he always came close from what I saw. I wouldn't know too much because I hardly really watch the games.

[Round Mound]

The big difference is

Bird was the MAN in those Celtics Championships

While...Pippen was the 2nd Option All of his Career but 93-94 (he did great but was not the level of 1st Option as Bird or MJ)

McHale was a Sub in 81 and 84 and Maxwell was the PF.

Bird averaged More RPG because he Had that Skill in his Game when he was young and healthy. He could play some PF but his game Blossomed More So Freely as HE Wanted to Play.

Maxwell was always a Very Good Scorer but not in the Level of McHale was when he himself blossomed.

Bird arrived in the Celtics and they turned into a 60 plus team.

Parish? Good Defender and Rebounder but Offensively if it wasn`t for Bird and later on McHale he would not have shinned that much.

Bird was the Man in his Team while Kareem was the Man in the Lakers till 1985

Bird > Magic 79-86
Magic > Bird 87-92...mainly cause Bird began getting injured.

Bird`s Defensive Rating was the Highest of Any SF in the 80s. He Lead 2 Play-Offs in Defensive Rating and Ranked Top 10 for like 6 Years. So YES Bird was a Great Defender...mainly guarding PFs and not so much High Scoring SFs.

Bird has one of the Highest Winning% of All Time as The Man

[32Dayz]

Kind of depends on my roster...

If I have a really weak roster I might take 64 Wilt and just feed him all day and see what he can do or I might take Prime Bird and hope he can raise the quality of the entire team with his passing + leadership and hope that with his own individual play will be enough.

If I have a bunch of good shooters but no good play makers I'd take Prime Bird.
If I have a bunch of good scorers and a good or decent play maker I might take 67 Wilt.

Leaning towards Bird but I am not decided.

[97 bulls]

I like Pippen a lot. I have him in the 25-30 range.

But he was, repeat it with me, NOT A GREAT SCORER! Nor was he a great playmaker/passer. He was a good/very good scorer and a good/very good playmaker BUT not a great one. This is a fact.

You were never, ever going to win a title with Pippen as your best player. He's similar to someone like Dwight Howard in that sense (who I don't believe is capable of winning a title as the clear cut guy). He could get you close, but he was not good enough offensively. His shooting was inconsistent. He could be erratic when driving to the rim. This is why his efficiency always dropped when facing good defences.

And lastly, I think I've said this to you before, I dont believe he had the ruthlessness required to lead a team to a championship. He striked me as being awfully comfortable playing alongside Jordan and, correct me if i'm wrong, he was glad when Jordan returned in '95.

I agree, he wasn't a great scorer. But he was better than he has been given credit for.

And I don't know what your definition of a great playmaker is, but pippen fits the bill. He ran the bulls offense. The bulls were routinely one of the top teams as far as offense. And if you want to talk about assists, remember, pippen played in the triangle. The 7 assists he avg in 92 is the most ever for that offense. When he was with portland, he shared PG duties with damon stoudemire and avg 6 assts. And remember that that was in the slow paced 90s with pippen as a 34 year old. If that were the "mighty 80s", there no doubt pippen would've avg 7-9 assists per season. And that's sharing the ball with jordan.

Lastly, I strongly disagree with your assesment that pippen was "comfortable" with not being the man. Didn't he sit out that play cuz it wasn't drawn up for him?

[Micku]

I feel he's overrated in that people act like his shit don't stink. I've heard people say he's a great dribbler, he's a great man defender, every time he loss there was an excuse. And id probably be willing to accept certain things more from some posters, if there was some consistency in some of these posters.

Like you said, I really feel every players career should be ranked based on circumstances. Bird had a great 3 year run, but he did lose 7 times as the favorite to lesser teams. His fg% is relatively poor when compared to the players that played during his career. He's clutch, but half of the games he's played in the playoff, he's shot bad. Would Ali be regarded in the same light if he beat foreman, liston, and frasier. But then got his ass kicked by 7 tomatoe cans?


All I'm saying is people need to get away from stats and start looking at results.

Well, it depends what you mean by overrated. He was a good post defender, and he was pretty ok dribbler. He was similar to Magic in a way. He was a great rebounder. You're right in your criticism with the FG%. He improved in the regular season, and he had his moments in the playoffs.

I think Bird had 4 or 5 good years in the playoffs. He did took the Celtics to four straight finals. And he only lost to the Lakers 2/3 of them. The Celtics would've beat any other team. But it should sting the Celtics for losing to the Lakers. They shouldn't have lost in 1985 almost like how the Lakers shouldn't have lost in 1984. 1987 was anybody's game, but Magic's game winner screwed that up. Bird hit a clutch shot before Magic hit that game winner. Bird just missed on last one.

The Celtics didn't have the epic stacked talent until the 1985. That's when Mchale became more of a star, and Danny Ainge got better. But the Lakers in the early 80s. And unlike Magic, Bird was the man from the beginning.

[32Dayz]

Bird was really good from 84-87.

27, 10, 7 on 58-60+% TS.... sick.

not even accounting for his intangibles and leadership.

[DMAVS41]

Bird is one of my favorite players ever. Probably my third favorite player ever. But if he played today.....and he lost 7 times with HCA and played the way he did in the Finals at times.....he would get hammered in places like this.

Absolutely hammered.

[97 bulls]

Bird is one of my favorite players ever. Probably my third favorite player ever. But if he played today.....and he lost 7 times with HCA and played the way he did in the Finals at times.....he would get hammered in places like this.

Absolutely hammered.
I agree whole heartedly.

[97 bulls]

The big difference is

Bird was the MAN in those Celtics Championships

While...Pippen was the 2nd Option All of his Career but 93-94 (he did great but was not the level of 1st Option as Bird or MJ)

McHale was a Sub in 81 and 84 and Maxwell was the PF.

Bird averaged More RPG because he Had that Skill in his Game when he was young and healthy. He could play some PF but his game Blossomed More So Freely as HE Wanted to Play.

Maxwell was always a Very Good Scorer but not in the Level of McHale was when he himself blossomed.

Bird arrived in the Celtics and they turned into a 60 plus team.

Parish? Good Defender and Rebounder but Offensively if it wasn`t for Bird and later on McHale he would not have shinned that much.

Bird was the Man in his Team while Kareem was the Man in the Lakers till 1985

Bird > Magic 79-86
Magic > Bird 87-92...mainly cause Bird began getting injured.

Bird`s Defensive Rating was the Highest of Any SF in the 80s. He Lead 2 Play-Offs in Defensive Rating and Ranked Top 10 for like 6 Years. So YES Bird was a Great Defender...mainly guarding PFs and not so much High Scoring SFs.

Bird has one of the Highest Winning% of All Time as The Man
Oh come off it. Bird would've been second if jordan was on his team too.

As far as his defensive rating, and I think I've told you this about 19 times now. Defensive rating can be skewed because bird defended the weaker of the two forwards.

[TheFrozenOne]

Bird is one of my favorite players ever. Probably my third favorite player ever. But if he played today.....and he lost 7 times with HCA and played the way he did in the Finals at times.....he would get hammered in places like this.

Absolutely hammered.


I agree

[D-Wade316]

Oh come off it. Bird would've been second if jordan was on his team too.

As far as his defensive rating, and I think I've told you this about 19 times now. Defensive rating can be skewed because bird defended the weaker of the two forwards.
Player's defensive rating shouldn't be taken seriously. It's based on boxscores and defense is hardly captured in basic statistics. Offensive rating is good though.

[Pushxx]

Do people not realize that before Bird was playing without a functioning back he was unstoppable in the playoffs?

Not to mention McHale after 1986 playing with only one foot...

Haters will see what haters want to. Bird top 5 GOAT

[TheFrozenOne]

Do people not realize that before Bird was playing without a functioning back he was unstoppable in the playoffs?

Not to mention McHale after 1986 playing with only one foot...

Haters will see what haters want to. Bird top 5 GOAT


But there were threads earlier showing Bird as a mediocre player in the Finals.One person said he lost 7 playoff series with HCA:wtf:

[KevinNYC]

Ok but what fuuny about your post is that we always hear about how great the 80s competiton was. Which is it?

So you concede my point that you arguments didn't hold water and you're wrong on the facts so you figure you'll just throw out some other nonsense and see if I'll bite.

I've no idea what your point is. I don't know how the fact that McHale was a rookie in 1981 has any bearing on competition in the 80's.

[Pushxx]

97 bulls is one of the biggest trolls on this site. He said Gerald Green could beat Larry Bird in 1 on 1. LOL

Gotta ignore him.

[TheFrozenOne]

97 bulls is one of the biggest trolls on this site. He said Gerald Green could beat Larry Bird in 1 on 1. LOL

Gotta ignore him.


Well he does have alot more green bars then You.
Also he's been here alot longer.

[KevinNYC]

Do people not realize that before Bird was playing without a functioning back he was unstoppable in the playoffs?

Not to mention McHale after 1986 playing with only one foot...

Haters will see what haters want to. Bird top 5 GOAT

McHale injured his foot in 1987.

In 1981 which is being pointed out here, Bird's back was obviously healthy.

Bird was a good ball handler. He's not going to make the and1 tour, but he rarely had the ball stolen from him. How many guys who were 6'9" could handle the ball better than him were in the league at that time. The crazy versatile big men are a legacy of the Bird-Magic years.

[97 bulls]

But there were threads earlier showing Bird as a mediocre player in the Finals.One person said he lost playoff series with HCA:wtf:
His teams lost 7. 7 times his teams were eliminated even though they were favorited. And I'm sure he shot terribly in most of those series too.

Fortunately for him, his celtics played a mediocer teams or he had a lot of help

[TheFrozenOne]

His teams lost 7. 7 times his teams were eliminated even though they were favorited. And I'm sure he shot terribly in most of those series too.

Fortunately for him, his celtics played a mediocer teams or he had a lot of help


Again, can you imagine how the people here would bash him for playing so bad in the Finals and losing 7 times with HCA.

[97 bulls]

McHale injured his foot in 1987.

In 1981 which is being pointed out here, Bird's back was obviously healthy.

Bird was a good ball handler. He's not going to make the and1 tour, but he rarely had the ball stolen from him. How many guys who were 6'9" could handle the ball better than him were in the league at that time. The crazy versatile big men are a legacy of the Bird-Magic years.
He rarely had the ball sttolen cuz he was rarely ever put in a position where that could've happened to him. He was never asked to bring up the ball. The main ball handling duties were handled by johnson ainge or tiny archibald.

[jlauber]

Chamberlain was SWARMED, and often BRUTALIZED in his post-season career, especially in the first half of his career when he was saddled with rosters that couldn't beat a good college team (yes, that was true.)

And I am so sick-and-tired of reading about a "declining" Wilt in the post-season. Yeah...a "declining" Wilt was averaging 37 ppg. The uneducated posters here, of which there are many, don't realize that a prime "scoring" Chamberlain, in his first SIX straight post-seasons, was averaging 32-26-4- .510 (in leagues that shot .428 in that same span.) And that doesn't include Wilt's second greatest scoring season, in which he averaged 45 ppg, because his roster was so bad that, once again, they couldn't beat a good college team. (Before the start of the '64 season, the Warriors new coach, Alex Hannum conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, and against draft picks and scrubs...and the scrubs won.) Furthermore, Chamberlain then took that same cast of clowns to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals.

In Wilt's first seven post-seasons, in his first eight seasons, a PRIME Chamberlain averaged 30.4 ppg, 27.0 rpg, 4.5 apg, and shot .515 (once again, in leagues that averaged .430 in that span.)

Think about that...Wilt AVERAGED a 30-27-5- .515 game, EVERY time he stepped on the court in his first SEVEN post-seasons! You would be hard-pressed to find players who had ONE GAME like that in their post-season career.

Not only that, but I have repeatedly shown Wilt's OPPOSING centers in his H2H post-season matchups. He ROUTINELY reduced those centers to some 100 points below their normal FG%'s. AND, he outrebounded EVERY ONE of them in all 29 post-season series in which he played.

And the uneducated posters certainly are not aware of the fact that Wilt faced a HOF starting center in 105 of his 160 post-season games. Nor do they know that he then faced a multiple all-star starting center in another 26 pst-season games. Which, of course, means that he faced a very good, to great, center in 131 of his 160 post-season games. And once again, there were very few occasions in which Chamberlain was single covered, either...while he was not only single handedly guarding his opposing center, he was also shutting down the entire lane.

Scoring? Yep...the "declining" Wilt had entire post-seasons of 28 ppg, 29.2 ppg, 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. By comparison, Bird's HIGH post-season, was 27.5 ppg, in league's that nearly scored as much as the highest scoring league's that Wilt played in (the decade of the 80's was close to 110 ppg on average, while the decade of the 60's was about 115.) Wilt also had post-season series of 37 ppg, 37.0 ppg, 38.6 ppg and 38.6 ppg. Chamberlain even had FOUR post-season series against RUSSELL of 30+ ppg (as well as 28 and 29 ppg against him.) And Wilt had FOUR post-season games of 50+ points, including a 56-35 game in a must-win game five of a best-of-five series, and a 50-35 must-win game against RUSSELL. And speaking of Russell, Wilt had FOUR 40-30 games just against him his playoff career.

Efficiency? Once again, Bird shot .472 in his post-season career, and in leagues that shot about .485 on average. Wilt shot .522 in his post-season career, and in league's that averaged .440 in those 14 years. Wilt had EIGHT post-seasons better than Bird's BEST post-season of .524, with a high of .579. Meanwhile Bird had post-seasons of .450, .444, .427, .422, and even .408. AND, Bird shot even WORSE in his Finals, with a career Finals FG% of .455. His HIGH Finals was .488, and his low was .419. How about Chamberlain in his SIX Finals? He shot .560 over the course of his 35 Finals games, with two Finals of .600 and .625, and a LOW of .517 (against Russell, in a series in which he scored 29 ppg.)

Rebounding? This is truly laughable. For anyone to mention Bird's rebounding in the same breath with Wilt is just ridiculous. Bird was a good post-season rebounder, who had a HIGH post-season of 14.0, and a career of 10.3 rpg. Chamberlain NEVER averaged less than 20.2 rpg in his entire 13 post-season career, and he had EIGHT of 24.7+ rpg, with HIGH's of 29.1 and 30.2 rpg. I'm not even sure what Bird's high GAME was in his playoff career, but I doubt it was equal to Chamberlain's 24.5 rpg AVERAGE, covering 160 post-season games.

Defense? Chamberlain was shutting down entire TEAMS. Once again, I have posted the MANY series in which Wilt DRAMATICALLY reduced his opposing centers in terms of FG%. MANY of them at some 100 points under their regular season shooting percentages. For instance, he held Russell, in a season in which he shot .454, to .358 in the '67 ECF's. In that same Finals, he held Thurmond, who had shot .437 during the regular season, to .343 shooting. In the '68 playoffs, he reduced Bellamy, who had shot .541 in the regular season, to .421 shooting. Of course, he held Kareem to two straight post-season series of .481 and .457 shooting, in seasons in which Kareem had shot .577 and .574 respectively. And there were MANY more examples. In nearly every one of his 29 post-season series, he dramatically reduced his oppsoing centers. In fact, I could only find TWO series, in which his opposing center shot over 50%. Lucas, with an even .500 in the '72 Finals, and Beaty with a .521 in the '64 Finals (in a series in which Wilt outscored him, per game, 38.6 to 14.3 ppg, and outshot him, .559 to .521.)

And I just have to laugh at those that bring up Wilt's game seven losses. FOUR of them by a COMBINED NINE points (2, 1, 4, and 2 points), and all against the Celtic Dynasty. He was NINE points away from FOUR more rings. And Wilt was NEVER outplayed in ANY of them.

CLUTCH???

How about these games...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Incidently, you can add game five of the '60 ECF's (Philadelphia was down 3-1, so it was a must-win game), and he responded with a 50-35 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.


Bird was a great player. BUT, he was NO Chamberlain.

[97 bulls]

Chamberlain was SWARMED, and often BRUTALIZED in his post-season career, especially in the first half of his career when he was saddled with rosters that couldn't beat a good college team (yes, that was true.)

And I am so sick-and-tired of reading about a "declining" Wilt in the post-season. Yeah...a "declining" Wilt was averaging 37 ppg. The uneducated posters here, of which there are many, don't realize that a prime "scoring" Chamberlain, in his first SIX straight post-seasons, was averaging 32-26-4- .510 (in leagues that shot .428 in that same span.) And that doesn't include Wilt's second greatest scoring season, in which he averaged 45 ppg, because his roster was so bad that, once again, they couldn't beat a good college team. (Before the start of the '64 season, the Warriors new coach, Alex Hannum conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, and against draft picks and scrubs...and the scrubs won.) Furthermore, Chamberlain then took that same cast of clowns to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals.

In Wilt's first seven post-seasons, in his first eight seasons, a PRIME Chamberlain averaged 30.4 ppg, 27.0 rpg, 4.5 apg, and shot .515 (once again, in leagues that averaged .430 in that span.)

Think about that...Wilt AVERAGED a 30-27-5- .515 game, EVERY time he stepped on the court in his first SEVEN post-seasons! You would be hard-pressed to find players who had ONE GAME like that in their post-season career.

Not only that, but I have repeatedly shown Wilt's OPPOSING centers in his H2H post-season matchups. He ROUTINELY reduced those centers to some 100 points below their normal FG%'s. AND, he outrebounded EVERY ONE of them in all 29 post-season series in which he played.

And the uneducated posters certainly are not aware of the fact that Wilt faced a HOF starting center in 105 of his 160 post-season games. Nor do they know that he then faced a multiple all-star starting center in another 26 pst-season games. Which, of course, means that he faced a very good, to great, center in 131 of his 160 post-season games. And once again, there were very few occasions in which Chamberlain was single covered, either...while he was not only single handedly guarding his opposing center, he was also shutting down the entire lane.

Scoring? Yep...the "declining" Wilt had entire post-seasons of 28 ppg, 29.2 ppg, 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. By comparison, Bird's HIGH post-season, was 27.5 ppg, in league's that nearly scored as much as the highest scoring league's that Wilt played in (the decade of the 80's was close to 110 ppg on average, while the decade of the 60's was about 115.) Wilt also had post-season series of 37 ppg, 37.0 ppg, 38.6 ppg and 38.6 ppg. Chamberlain even had FOUR post-season series against RUSSELL of 30+ ppg (as well as 28 and 29 ppg against him.) And Wilt had FOUR post-season games of 50+ points, including a 56-35 game in a must-win game five of a best-of-five series, and a 50-35 must-win game against RUSSELL. And speaking of Russell, Wilt had FOUR 40-30 games just against him his playoff career.

Efficiency? Once again, Bird shot .472 in his post-season career, and in leagues that shot about .485 on average. Wilt shot .522 in his post-season career, and in league's that averaged .440 in those 14 years. Wilt had EIGHT post-seasons better than Bird's BEST post-season of .524, with a high of .579. Meanwhile Bird had post-seasons of .450, .444, .427, .422, and even .408. AND, Bird shot even WORSE in his Finals, with a career Finals FG% of .455. His HIGH Finals was .488, and his low was .419. How about Chamberlain in his SIX Finals? He shot .560 over the course of his 35 Finals games, with two Finals of .600 and .625, and a LOW of .517 (against Russell, in a series in which he scored 29 ppg.)

Rebounding? This is truly laughable. For anyone to mention Bird's rebounding in the same breath with Wilt is just ridiculous. Bird was a good post-season rebounder, who had a HIGH post-season of 14.0, and a career of 10.3 rpg. Chamberlain NEVER averaged less than 20.2 rpg in his entire 13 post-season career, and he had EIGHT of 24.7+ rpg, with HIGH's of 29.1 and 30.2 rpg. I'm not even sure what Bird's high GAME was in his playoff career, but I doubt it was equal to Chamberlain's 24.5 rpg AVERAGE, covering 160 post-season games.

Defense? Chamberlain was shutting down entire TEAMS. Once again, I have posted the MANY series in which Wilt DRAMATICALLY reduced his opposing centers in terms of FG%. MANY of them at some 100 points under their regular season shooting percentages. For instance, he held Russell, in a season in which he shot .454, to .358 in the '67 ECF's. In that same Finals, he held Thurmond, who had shot .437 during the regular season, to .343 shooting. In the '68 playoffs, he reduced Bellamy, who had shot .541 in the regular season, to .421 shooting. Of course, he held Kareem to two straight post-season series of .481 and .457 shooting, in seasons in which Kareem had shot .577 and .574 respectively. And there were MANY more examples. In nearly every one of his 29 post-season series, he dramatically reduced his oppsoing centers. In fact, I could only find TWO series, in which his opposing center shot over 50%. Lucas, with an even .500 in the '72 Finals, and Beaty with a .521 in the '64 Finals (in a series in which Wilt outscored him, per game, 38.6 to 14.3 ppg, and outshot him, .559 to .521.)

And I just have to laugh at those that bring up Wilt's game seven losses. FOUR of them by a COMBINED NINE points (2, 1, 4, and 2 points), and all against the Celtic Dynasty. He was NINE points away from FOUR more rings. And Wilt was NEVER outplayed in ANY of them.

CLUTCH???

How about these games...



Bird was a great player. BUT, he was NO Chamberlain.
It just shows how overrated bird is. Under no circumstances would I choose bird over chamberlain. And unlike wilt, bird routinely entered the playoffs as the favorite and lost.

[jlauber]

It just shows how overrated bird is. Under no circumstances would I choose bird over chamberlain. And unlike wilt, bird routinely entered the playoffs as the favorite and lost.

Not only that, but for some reason Bird is placed on a near Sainthood level, despite FAR more "flop-jobs" than Wilt, and yet Chamberlain is considered a "loser" who "choked" in his post-season career.

If I asked you who was the better game seven performer in their Finals careers, 99% would say Bird. Yet, Bird shot 6-18 (.333) in his lone game seven in his Finals, while all Chamberlain did was shoot 17-24 (.708) in his. BTW, Wilt also held his opposing center's (Russell and Reed) to a COMBINED 4-12 (.333) in those two games, while just crushing them by a 51-24 (again, COMBINED) margin on the glass.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Not only that, but for some reason Bird is placed on a near Sainthood level, despite FAR more "flop-jobs" than Wilt, and yet Chamberlain is considered a "loser" who "choked" in his post-season career.

If I asked you who was the better game seven performer in their Finals careers, 99% would say Bird. Yet, Bird shot 6-18 (.333) in his lone game seven in his Finals, while all Chamberlain did was shoot 17-24 (.708) in his. BTW, Wilt also held his opposing center's (Russell and Reed) to a COMBINED 4-12 (.333) in those two games, while just crushing them by a 51-24 (again, COMBINED) margin on the glass.
Bird - 3 rings
Wilt - 2 rings

[jlauber]

Bird - 3 rings
Wilt - 2 rings

TEAM SPORT.

So you are essentially claiming that MJ was loser in NINE of his 15 seasons; that Bird was a loser in TEN of his seasons; West and Oscar in TWELVE of their seasons; Kareem in FOURTEEN of his; Shaq in FIFTEEN of his; and Hakeem in SIXTEEN of his.

So, using YOUR approach, MJ had no excuse for not beating Bird in the '86 playoffs, right?

[Deuce Bigalow]

TEAM SPORT.

So you are essentially claiming that MJ was loser in NINE of his 15 seasons; that Bird was a loser in TEN of his seasons; West and Oscar in TWELVE of their seasons; Kareem in FOURTEEN of his; Shaq in FIFTEEN of his; and Hakeem in SIXTEEN of his.

So, using YOUR approach, MJ had no excuse for not beating Bird in the '86 playoffs, right?
:oldlol: 3 rings to 2, deal with it

[jlauber]

:oldlol: 3 rings to 2, deal with it

So you are now claiming that Russell was nearly TWICE the player that MJ was, right?

And, of course, Russell was WAY better than Kobe, then, as well?

[32Dayz]

TEAM SPORT.

So you are essentially claiming that MJ was loser in NINE of his 15 seasons; that Bird was a loser in TEN of his seasons; West and Oscar in TWELVE of their seasons; Kareem in FOURTEEN of his; Shaq in FIFTEEN of his; and Hakeem in SIXTEEN of his.

So, using YOUR approach, MJ had no excuse for not beating Bird in the '86 playoffs, right?

Agree with you there.

Winning rings is a team accomplishment and an individuals greatness should not be defined by that.

Wilt could have won 5 Rings had a few game 7's gone his way.

[Deuce Bigalow]

So you are now claiming that Russell was nearly TWICE the player that MJ was, right?

And, of course, Russell was WAY better than Kobe, then, as well?
Russell was better than Wilt
Wilt got the stat records, Russell was the greatest champion

[Deuce Bigalow]

Agree with you there.

Winning rings is a team accomplishment and an individuals greatness should not be defined by that.

Wilt could have won 5 Rings had a few game 7's gone his way.
But he was too busy bricking freethrows

[32Dayz]

Russell was better than Wilt
Wilt got the stat records, Russell was the greatest champion

Russell also generally had the better team... so...

Personally I think Wilt was a better player then Russell but the gap may not be that large.

Russell is a hard one to judge and rate because of the unique player he was and the unique role he filled.

[jlauber]

Russell was better than Wilt
Wilt got the stat records, Russell was the greatest champion

Once again, you must then have Russell WAY ahead of MJ, Kobe, Shaq, Kareem, Bird, and Hakeem, then, too, right?

[Deuce Bigalow]

Russell also generally had the better team... so...

Personally I think Wilt was a better player then Russell but the gap may not be that large.

Russell is a hard one to judge and rate because of the unique player he was and the unique role he filled.
You can't put a with 2 rings infront of a guy with 11 and the greatest defender of his era

[Deuce Bigalow]

Once again, you must then have Russell WAY ahead of MJ, Kobe, Shaq, Kareem, Bird, and Hakeem, then, too, right?
Rings are not the only thing, Russell was the best defender of his era

[Deuce Bigalow]

On a second thought, I think I might have to go with Wilt the Stilt, after all he beat up a mountain lion with his bare hands, dunked in his freethrows in high school, had a 50" vertical, slept with 20,000 women, and benched 500 pounds! MY GOD!

[Legends66NBA7]

Once again, you must then have Russell WAY ahead of MJ, Kobe, Shaq, Kareem, Bird, and Hakeem, then, too, right?

It's arguable.. but considering Russell the GOAT isn't crazy... only to the haters it is.

I do believe you have Russell higher than most of those players too, including Wilt... don't know what your arguing here J.

[Pointguard]

In Wilt's first seven post-seasons, in his first eight seasons, a PRIME Chamberlain averaged 30.4 ppg, 27.0 rpg, 4.5 apg, and shot .515 (once again, in leagues that averaged .430 in that span.)

Not only that, but I have repeatedly shown Wilt's OPPOSING centers in his H2H post-season matchups. He ROUTINELY reduced those centers to some 100 points below their normal FG%'s. AND, he outrebounded EVERY ONE of them in all 29 post-season series in which he played.

And the uneducated posters certainly are not aware of the fact that Wilt faced a HOF starting center in 105 of his 160 post-season games. Nor do they know that he then faced a multiple all-star starting center in another 26 pst-season games. Which, of course, means that he faced a very good, to great, center in 131 of his 160 post-season games. And once again, there were very few occasions in which Chamberlain was single covered, either...while he was not only single handedly guarding his opposing center, he was also shutting down the entire lane.

How about Chamberlain in his SIX Finals? He shot .560 over the course of his 35 Finals games, with two Finals of .600 and .625, and a LOW of .517 (against Russell, in a series in which he scored 29 ppg.)

Chamberlain NEVER averaged less than 20.2 rpg in his entire 13 post-season career, and he had EIGHT of 24.7+ rpg, with HIGH's of 29.1 and 30.2 rpg. I'm not even sure what Bird's high GAME was in his playoff career, but I doubt it was equal to Chamberlain's 24.5 rpg AVERAGE, covering 160 post-season games.

Defense? Chamberlain was shutting down entire TEAMS. Once again, I have posted the MANY series in which Wilt DRAMATICALLY reduced his opposing centers in terms of FG%. MANY of them at some 100 points under their regular season shooting percentages. For instance, he held Russell, in a season in which he shot .454, to .358 in the '67 ECF's. In that same Finals, he held Thurmond, who had shot .437 during the regular season, to .343 shooting. In the '68 playoffs, he reduced Bellamy, who had shot .541 in the regular season, to .421 shooting. Of course, he held Kareem to two straight post-season series of .481 and .457 shooting, in seasons in which Kareem had shot .577 and .574 respectively. And there were MANY more examples. In nearly every one of his 29 post-season series, he dramatically reduced his oppsoing centers. In fact, I could only find TWO series, in which his opposing center shot over 50%. Lucas, with an even .500 in the '72 Finals, and Beaty with a .521 in the '64 Finals (in a series in which Wilt outscored him, per game, 38.6 to 14.3 ppg, and outshot him, .559 to .521.)

This.

Kind of nuts! 131 of 160 playoff games against at least allstars and 105against HOF's with none of them ever outrebounding him while usually on lockdown by Wilt is crazy. Then throw in the 30/27/4.5 over an incredible seven years with him always being among the best in FG efficiency is mind boggling. All the while, holding two elite centers to under 36% and Kareem in his scoring prime to under 42% in the last 3 games in '72 and people still want to say he didn't do enough. Wow.

[jlauber]

Rings are not the only thing, Russell was the best defender of his era

Not arguing that, BUT, a PRIME Wilt, and against a PRIME Russell, had THREE ENTIRE SEASONS (in years in which the two collided as many as 12 times in a regular season) of 38 ppg against Russell. A PRIME Chamberlain also had FIVE 50+ point games against a PRIME Russell, with a high game of 62 points. A PRIME Chamberlain also had 24 40+ point games against a PRIME Russell, including 17 40-30 games against him.

And, how about this interesting FACT? In the '66 ECF's, Wilt's Sixers were down 3-1 to Russell's Celtics. In the clinching game five loss, all Wilt did was hang a 46 point, on 19-34 shooting, 34 rebound game on Russell (who, admittedly, played well with an 18-31 game.)

Now, Russell was faced with the EXACT same situation the very next season. His Celtics had just barely avoided a sweep in game four, and were down 3-1 against Wilt and his '67 Sixers. How did Russell respond in that game fivem when it was obvious that his teammates desperately needed him to? He went quietly like a lamb to slaughter. He scored a paltry FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Meanwhile, Chamberlain poured in 29 points (22 in the first half, when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, to go along with 13 assists and 36 rebounds (and seven blocks.) What happened? How come Russell couldn't rise to the occasion?

[jlauber]

It's arguable.. but considering Russell the GOAT isn't crazy... only to the haters it is.

I do believe you have Russell higher than most of those players too, including Wilt... don't know what your arguing here J.

I have Russell by an EYELASH over Wilt (and MJ and Magic.) Once again, Wilt came within NINE points, in FOUR game seven's against Russell's vaunted Celtic dynasty, of having a 5-3 edge in H2H playoff series. And given the fact that had the officiating not been one-sided in game five of the '70 Finals (even NY TIMES writer Leonard Koppett claimed as much), Chamberlain came within a razor's edge of winning SEVEN rings. And Wilt was never outplayed by Russell in any of those series, either.

BTW, none other than John Wooden commented that, had Wilt had Russell's supporting cast his entire career, that he likely would have won eleven rings, as well.

Of course, my REAL point in bringing up Russell's rings was this...Chamberlain gets ripped here by the many uneducated posters for his lack of rings...and yet, those same posters rarely acknowledge Russell's greatness.

[Legends66NBA7]

Now, Russell was faced with the EXACT same situation the very next season. His Celtics had just barely avoided a sweep in game four, and were down 3-1 against Wilt and his '67 Sixers. How did Russell respond in that game fivem when it was obvious that his teammates desperately needed him to? He went quietly like a lamb to slaughter. He scored a paltry FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Meanwhile, Chamberlain poured in 29 points (22 in the first half, when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, to go along with 13 assists and 36 rebounds (and seven blocks.) What happened? How come Russell couldn't rise to the occasion?

Won't argue that one, it was Wilt's greatest season overall (Regular Season and Playoffs combined).

Russell said that Wilt "played his role better than he ever has"... he played "Like Bill"... only more like "Super Bill".

However, if we count high school, NCAA, Olympics, and NBA career (excluding the 1958 Finals where Russell was hurt)... Russell did raise his game and teams to win every single title/medal... in 16 of 17 healthy years... and since 1967 was the only defeat to arguably the greatest individual performance of any NBA player... I'll take the defeat and take the 16 other titles.

Win-win, J.

[jlauber]

This.

Kind of nuts! 131 of 160 playoff games against at least allstars and 105against HOF's with none of them ever outrebounding him while usually on lockdown by Wilt is crazy. Then throw in the 30/27/4.5 over an incredible seven years with him always being among the best in FG efficiency is mind boggling. All the while, holding two elite centers to under 36% and Kareem in his scoring prime to under 42% in the last 3 games in '72 and people still want to say he didn't do enough. Wow.

EXACTLY! Bird is held in god-like status, despite MANY "flop-jobs", while a DOMINATE Chamberlain is routinely declared a "choking" "loser" despite just OVERWHELMING his peers.

[Legends66NBA7]

I have Russell by an EYELASH over Wilt (and MJ and Magic.) Once again, Wilt came within NINE points, in FOUR game seven's against Russell's vaunted Celtic dynasty, of having a 5-3 edge in H2H playoff series. And given the fact that had the officiating not been one-sided in game five of the '70 Finals (even NY TIMES writer Leonard Koppett claimed as much), Chamberlain came within a razor's edge of winning SEVEN rings. And Wilt was never outplayed by Russell in any of those series, either.

BTW, none other than John Wooden commented that, had Wilt had Russell's supporting cast his entire career, that he likely would have won eleven rings, as well.

Of course, my REAL point in bringing up Russell's rings was this...Chamberlain gets ripped here by the may uneducated posters for his lack of rings...and yet, those same posters rarely acknowledge Russell's greatness.

For the first part of the bold, I think Kblaze said it best from a thread I have read before:


If there is one player I think people should throw out the stats totally on its Bill Russell. A guy whos primary value is defense/leadership/clutch play who was on a team that traded better scorers for him? And we have people talking about him getting outscored? And even if the numbers are what people want...not like he wasnt doing his thing.

Didnt feel like writing this out again so I found something I said a while back:

"He got 30 rebounds or more the last 3 games of the 59 finals. In game 7 of the 60 finals he had 22 points and 35 rebounds. He had 30 points and 38 rebounds to close out the 61 finals. He had 30 points and 40(yes...40) rebounds in the OT game 7 win vs the Lakers in the 62 finals. He was just under a triple double to close out the 63 finals with 12/24/9 assists. In 65 he had 22 points and 30 rebounds to win the title also setting the finals record for shooting percentage over 70%. Next year? Game 7....2 point win...25 points...32 rebounds. He had 26 rebounds/6 assists in the last game of his career. A game 7 win on the road. In 1968 he was playing 49 minutes a game in the finals because he played virtually every second plus over times. They only got to the finals in the first place because he led them back from being down 1-3 in the ECF and in the last 30 seconds of game 7? The celtics were up 2. He made fts, blocked a shot, and got an assist on the shot to seal it. In 11 win or go home final games of a tied series of any kind...hes 11-0. the guy only lost two playoff series of any kind from age 15 to 35 and he was injured and out in one of them(second season in the finals). HS titles. 2 NCAA titles. Gold medal. 11 NBA titles. **** he even COACHED two of the teams to NBA titles."

Russell never had wilt numbers but that doesnt really mean he was helping less. He never had Baylor numbers either. He never did 30/20 like Petitt. Or 30/19 like Bellamy. He had worse numbers than an awful lot of people yet the players themselves gave him 5 MVPs(players voted back then).

Hes probably the worst player ever to judge on his production.

I generally support Wilt and will continue to do so. I just dont see that him outscoring Bill or getting more rebounds automatically means he did more for his team. Its relevant. And when people say things like Bill shut Wilt down...it shows it to be untrue. But if anyone proved themselves to be beyond the numbers its Bill.

For the second part of the bold, I agree with you. Again, another Kblaze post brings this into proper context for both sides:


I dont much care which one anyone picks. Both Wilt and russell have the most insane **** used against him. Wilt is disrespected because he was so dominant he makes people assume his opponents sucked and he was out for himself even though he won 2 titles, made 6 finals, and led 2 of the 4 best teams ever wins wise. And Russell won so much he has people pretending someone else made him a winner because nobody could be that good....even if he was the sole common factor to 15 various champions.

These guys both did so much that the mindblowing things they accomplished are the primary thing used to discredit them and I get more annoyed with it every year.

The side I appear to be on will generally be that of who is hated on most foolishly at the moment. And reading that Bill is just Reds missing piece and that PER means some of these guys riding his coattails were better than him....

Its exactly why I dont read ISH much anymore.

There comes a point where you have to totally disregard what you see or spend every minute arguing. And its easier to not read anything.

I guess I'm a bit on your side too. Both don't get as much respect and Wilt seems to have more double standards at times from the two.

[jlauber]

Won't argue that one, it was Wilt's greatest season overall (Regular Season and Playoffs combined).

Russell said that Wilt "played his role better than he ever has"... he played "Like Bill"... only more like "Super Bill".

However, if we count high school, NCAA, Olympics, and NBA career (excluding the 1958 Finals where Russell was hurt)... Russell did raise his game and teams to win every single title/medal... in 16 of 17 healthy years... and since 1967 was the only defeat to arguably the greatest individual performance of any NBA player... I'll take the defeat and take the 16 other titles.

Win-win, J.

The thing was...Chamberlain played at that '67 ECF level in MANY of the Russell H2H's. Unfortunately for Wilt, his teammates were generally FAR inferior...and on top of that, they routinely played WORSE in the post-season. Even when Wilt finally had a quality supporting cast, they generally vomited in the post-season. Very few here probably realize that in Wilt's first six post-seasons, his teammates collectively shot .382, .380. .354, .352, .352, and even .332. Not only that, but how about his '66 team? In the regular season, they went 55-25, edging out Russell's Celtics, who went 54-26. In that regular season, Chamberlain averaged 28.3 ppg and 31 rpg against Russell (and 33.5 ppg and 24.6 rpg overall, while shooting .540.) In the '66 ECF's, Chamberlain averaged 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 against Russell. How well did his teammates' play? They collectively shot .352. Now, what changed?

[jlauber]

For the first part of the bold, I think Kblaze said it best from a thread I have read before:



For the second part of the bold, I agree with you. Again, another Kblaze post brings this into proper context for both sides:



I guess I'm a bit on your side too. Both don't get as much respect and Wilt seems to have more double standards at times from the two.

Russell WAS a CLUTCH performer. BUT, Kblaze mentions all of those huge games. Where were they against Wilt? For instance, in their four H2H game seven's, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 21.3 ppg to 13.2 ppg. He outrebounded Russell, per game, 28.5 rpg to 24.5 rpg. And, Wilt shot a staggering .638 against Russell in those four game seven's, and in the three known games by Russell, Russell shot .391 against Wilt.

Furthermore, how about this? In the '64-65 Finals, Russell put up an 18-29 .702 (yes, he shot .702 from the field in that series) against the Lakers. BUT, in the previous round, in the ECF's, Wilt outscored Russell, in a seven game series, 30 ppg to 16 ppg, and outrebounded him, 31 rpg to .26 rpg. And we know that Russell shot .451 against Wilt (which may have been the HIGHEST he shot against Chamberlain in their post-season H2H series.) We don't have Wilt's FG% for the entire series, but in the known game seven, Chamberlain shot 12-15 from the floor.

How about the '66 Finals? Russell LED the Celtics in scoring, averaging 23.6 ppg against the Lakers. However, in the previous round, in the ECF's, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 28 ppg to 14 ppg, and outrebounded him, 31 rpg to 25 rpg. We don't have Russell's FG% in that series, but Chamberlain shot .509 against him.

Regarding Russell's historic '62 Finals against the Lakers...

Think about this...

Had Wilt's pathetic cast of teammates been able to score THREE more points in that game seven against the Celtics, it would have bee Wilt in the Finals. Now, remember that Russell had a game seven in that Finals, of 30 points and 40 rebounds. Arguably the greatest game seven of all-time. BUT, in Wilt's eight regular season games against the Lakers that season, he averaged 51.5 ppg. Included in those eight games, were THREE of 60+, and get this... a 78 point, 43 rebound game. I have long maintained that had Wilt been able to get to that Finals, he would hold the Finals scoring record. Unfortunately, we will never know.

In any case, Russell had MANY great games in his post-season career. However, he had very few in which he outplayed Chamberlain.

[Kblaze8855]

What happened? How come Russell couldn't rise to the occasion?

You mean the one time he failed to win while healthy in his life? That...individual time? I mean...he won back to back national titles in college, won the gold medal on one of the most dominant teams ever, then won every title he was healthy to compete for except 1967.

I dont think you have to explain yourself when you fail once in 16 years. His only other series loss...he played like 40 total minutes in the final 3 games.

If there is one player in all sports who earned a pass for a failure...its Bill Russell.

[Pointguard]

You can't put a with 2 rings infront of a guy with 11 and the greatest defender of his era

If you are talking about playing the game you can. You are talking about team accomplishments - not the player. Was Robert Horry greater than Charles Barkley? If I showed a guy that outplayed another guy probably a 137 times out of 140 times, while breaking records on the guy in one of his strongest suites (rebounding) and flat out dominating him 40 times - (Shaq didn't have this much of an edge on Mutombo). Can you give me a modern example of a guy that gets dominated 28% of the time and he's better than the guy he almost never outplays despite having an humongous sample size? Wins are magical but they should never delete common sense.

Achievement wise Russell wins. Not as a player though.

[jlauber]

You mean the one time he failed to win while healthy in his life? That...individual time? I mean...he won back to back national titles in college, won the gold medal on one of the most dominant teams ever, then won every title he was healthy to compete for except 1967.

I dont think you have to explain yourself when you fail once in 16 years. His only other series loss...he played like 40 total minutes in the final 3 games.

If there is one player in all sports who earned a pass for a failure...its Bill Russell.

BUT, according to Simmons, Russell supposedly could turn it on anytime he wanted to against Chamberlain....despite the overwhelming evidence which suggested otherwise. Russell and his Celtics were hanging on for dear life in several of those post-season H2H's.

I'm not arguing against Russell's winning. He is the greatest "winner" in ALL of the major professional team sports. BUT, he was clearly NOT dominating Chamberlain in the process.

[Kblaze8855]

Was Robert Horry greater than Charles Barkley?

The robert horry/Steve Kerr example should be a near bannable offense at this point. Im honestly stunned every time its used.

[Legends66NBA7]

The robert horry/Steve Kerr example should be a near bannable offense at this point. Im honestly stunned every time its used.

I was about to say the same.

[Legends66NBA7]

Was Robert Horry greater than Charles Barkley?

Really, you can't say it like Russell was similar to Horry. Russell wasn't the fortuante player on his team and he wasn't some role player... It was really the opposite.

I don't have to really explain this to you...

[Pushxx]

What disappoints me is that picking Bird or Wilt turns into an argument about which person is overrated.

Why can't people just respect legends for legends and have a civilized discussion about why?

People start hating on the players and then people reply to the hate and it turns into an argument one way or another. Nobody is gonna convince another person of anything. People who link 3 box scores and say someone is unclutch is obviously not going to change his mind.

[Kblaze8855]

BUT, according to Simmons, Russell supposedly could turn it on anytime he wanted to against Chamberlain....despite the overwhelming evidence which suggested otherwise. Russell and his Celtics were hanging on for dear life in several of those post-season H2H's.

I'm not arguing against Russell's winning. He is the greatest "winner" in ALL of the major professional team sports. BUT, he was clearly NOT dominating Chamberlain in the process.

Who the **** is Bill Simmons to me? Of what relevance is his opinion or anyones for that matter? Why do you even bring him up all the time? Its just...some guy who talks about sports. Do you think most people here have even read his book for you to be arguing with its conclusions?

And dominating...when your definition of it is numbers related? Russell isnt the person to judge to begin with. His numbers are pretty irrelevant. He didnt care what they were or have any interest in anything but winning. Why should I be concerned about his output? What is he ever going to pile up? Rebounds? do you think I or anyone who looks into it...thinks wilt was scoring 12 points vs Russell?

The kind of people who care about these things have little to learn from the numbers posted and those who dont care....have opinions you cant change. I imagine you do it more for your own sake at this point so...i'll leave you to it.

[jlauber]

If you are talking about playing the game you can. You are talking about team accomplishments - not the player. Was Robert Horry greater than Charles Barkley? If I showed a guy that outplayed another guy probably a 137 times out of 140 times, while breaking records on the guy in one of his strongest suites (rebounding) and flat out dominating him 40 times - (Shaq didn't have this much of an edge on Mutombo). Can you give me a modern example of a guy that gets dominated 28% of the time and he's better than the guy he almost never outplays despite having an humongous sample size? Wins are magical but they should never delete common sense.

Achievement wise Russell wins. Not as a player though.

Granted, not all of Russell's HOF teammates, were genuine HOFers. Players like KC Jones, Satch Sanders, Frank Ramsey, and Bailey Howell should not be in the HOF. HOWEVER, they were all good players. Both Jones and Sanders were considered among the best defensive players at their respective positions, in their NBA careers. And Howell was a 20 ppg scorer at 50% shooting (in leagues that shot .450) in his Russell years.

Having said, though, if you go with FULL HEALTHY seasons, Wilt played with HOF teammates (and Gola as a HOFer is a complete joke BTW), for a TOTAL of 20 FULL HEALTHY seasons. What do I mean by that? For instance, I have seen idiots like Simmons claim that Wilt played with Baylor for four seasons. Yeah...except that Wilt shredded his knee in the '70 season, and missed nealry all of it, and was nowhere 100% in the playoffs. Or that Baylor played TWO games in the '71 season (and of course, missed the entire post-season...as did West.) Or that Baylor retired after the first nine games of the '72 season. Hell, in their ONE FULL HEALTHY season, Baylor completely choked in the post-season, shooting a team LOW .385 from the field (including 8-22 in game seven of the Finals.)

Or that Wilt played with Nate Thurmond in ONE full season. Oh, and BTW, Thurmond was a rookie, playing part-time, out of position (he was a natural center forced to play forward), and shooting .395 in the process.

Using the above...FULL HEALTHY SEASONS...and Russell enjoyed a 71-20 margin in HOF seasons by his teammates.

Not only that, but Russell's Celtics were always much deeper rosters too. There were some seasons where they could go TEN deep ('67 for instance, or in the '63 season, when they fielded NINE HOFers.)

[Pointguard]

Really, you can't say it like Russell was similar to Horry. Russell wasn't the fortuante player on his team and he wasn't some role player... It was really the opposite.

I don't have to really explain this to you...
That's cool. So explain this part.

"If I showed a guy that outplayed another guy probably a 137 times out of 140 times, while breaking records on the guy in one of his strongest suites (rebounding) and flat out dominating him 40 times - (Shaq didn't have this much of an edge on Mutombo). Can you give me a modern example of a guy that gets dominated 28% of the time and he's better than the guy he almost never outplays despite having an humongous sample size? Wins are magical but they should never delete common sense."

[KevinNYC]

What disappoints me is that picking Bird or Wilt turns into an argument about which person is overrated.

Why can't people just respect legends for legends and have a civilized discussion about why?

People start hating on the players and then people reply to the hate and it turns into an argument one way or another. Nobody is gonna convince another person of anything. People who link 3 box scores and say someone is unclutch is obviously not going to change his mind.
+1

I've joined a few of these threads, often without picking one of the other, just pointing out when folks are using bad arguments. I don't really care who they pick. I just want the facts to accurate.

[Pointguard]

The robert horry/Steve Kerr example should be a near bannable offense at this point. Im honestly stunned every time its used.
Well then try using it in the context I presented it in. Horry outplayed Barkley several times. Better players get out played by average players a lot. It rarely happens between equals that there is 90% situation where a one player is superior statistically to an equal. Please give me the example where this is true.

[Legends66NBA7]

That's cool. So explain this part.

"If I showed a guy that outplayed another guy probably a 137 times out of 140 times, while breaking records on the guy in one of his strongest suites (rebounding) and flat out dominating him 40 times - (Shaq didn't have this much of an edge on Mutombo). Can you give me a modern example of a guy that gets dominated 28% of the time and he's better than the guy he almost never outplays despite having an humongous sample size? Wins are magical but they should never delete common sense."

I would rather you respond to Kblaze on the topic (he would know a bit more than me on it...)

All I got is this though:


When he retired in 1969 Sporting News ran a feature on why Russell was the Greatest Player Ever. It cited the opinions of over 25 all-star players and NBA head coaches from the era.

In 1971 when the NBA voted for it's Silver Anniversary team, only Russell was a unanimous selection.

In 1980 when they selected the 35th Anniversary team, Russell was voted the greatest player ever.

I don't know what common sense they were on back in 69, 71, and 80... but I'm betting that those 25+ all-star players and NBA head coaches knew what they were talking about between the two.

[Jotaro Durant]

gimme wilt the stilt:rockon:

[jlauber]

+1

I've joined a few of these threads, often without picking one of the other, just pointing out when folks are using bad arguments. I don't really care who they pick. I just want the facts to accurate.

The reality was, though, that the OP was attempting to DISPARGE Chamberlain. As is so often the agenda here. Even though there are NO FACTS, or STATS, or even simple LOGIC to support it.

[jlauber]

I would rather you respond to Kblaze on the topic (he would know a bit more than me on it...)

All I got is this though:



I don't know what common sense they were on back in 69, 71, and 80... but I'm betting that those 25+ all-star players and NBA head coaches knew what they were talking about between the two.

Good points, to be sure. However, there was definitely an anti-Wilt agenda in the voting of many of the players of that era. How else do you explain Wilt easily winning the MVP in '60, and then finishing runner-up to Russell in '62 (and yet, he was voted first team all-NBA ahead of Russell)? Or Wilt coming in SEVENTH in the '63 voting (and take a look at the ridiculous voting...Terry Dischinger, who played on a 25-55 team, had more first place votes that Wilt for cryingoutloud.) Or Oscar beating Wilt out in '64, despite the fact that Wilt completely turned around the same team that had gone 31-49 the year before (when he finished SEVENTH in the balloting)? Or Chamberlain not even being in the Top-NINE in the voting in the '69 season?

BTW, Chamberlain and Russell each won FOUR MVPs in their ten seasons in the league together, so it was not like Russell was beating him out every season.

[Pointguard]

I would rather you respond to Kblaze on the topic (he would know a bit more than me on it...)

All I got is this though:

I don't know what common sense they were on back in 69, 71, and 80... but I'm betting that those 25+ all-star players and NBA head coaches knew what they were talking about between the two.

They were talking about influence on the sport. You must understand Wilt was hated for things not related to basketball. Gretsky wasn't the greatest winner in Hockey, nor was Ruth in baseball, or Jim Brown in football but Basketball has a different criteria thing going on. Every other sport was obsessed with numbers except Basketball which had the biggest numbers in terms of scoring and Wilt was at a level all his own. When Chamberlain became the defensive force in the league the media didn't want to make a big deal out of it anymore and didn't for years. They hated Wilt.

The other proof I have of that is that the nation was obsessed with numbers then. They hypnotized by Mantle and Maris at this time when they were shooting for 60 homeruns. This was the only thing that took the front page of newspaper away from a near atomic war at that time. The nation was transfixed on offense. Ask your grandfather what 714 meant to him. He knows that number like folklore. Sonny Liston was offense. Pele was offense. The president exuded this air as well in light of Russia's aggressions. Nations were rebelling all over the world. Basketball, the most offense oriented sport was the only thing going in the other direction. And basketball had never really celebrated defense before this. There were some politics about Wilt.

[Champ]

I agree whole heartedly.

Bullocks.

Up until he blew is back out, from 79-80 to 87-88, Bird's teams were 21-6 in playoff series, playing in the tougher conference during what's generally considered the golden age of the NBA.

[Champ]

Bird is one of my favorite players ever. Probably my third favorite player ever. But if he played today.....and he lost 7 times with HCA and played the way he did in the Finals at times.....he would get hammered in places like this.

Absolutely hammered.

Bird appeared in five NBA finals, played mediocre in one ('85), good in two ('81, '87) and fantastic in two more ('84, '86,).

Hammered?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Bird appeared in five NBA finals, played mediocre in one ('85), good in another ('81) and fantastic in three ('84, '86, '87).

Hammered?

Good point. Had he only won one and was content (like most superstars today), yeah, sure, he'd be hammered. But the guy won 4 titles and 3 Final MVPs. Not only that but the times Bird did lose, it was to his rival who was often renowned as the better player.

[Pointguard]

I wonder what the criteria was for calling Russell a better defender. I seen Wilt say, in front of Russell, once that he blocked 3 shots to every one of Russells when they played. This could have been in the later years which I don't doubt. But it wouldn't suprise me if Wilt did in the early years. The catch would be that the media wasn't sophisticated enough to acknowledge a Kevin Garnet type of defense and I never read where they talked of Russell's great footwork while keeping defenders out of the lane. I don't doubt Russell being a great help defender.

Russell did block shots and keep them in play, sometimes making it an instant turnover. But, lately I've seen a lot of footage where Wilt caught the ball, which is one step above keeping it in bounds. In fact, you see that as much as you will see Russell's inbound blocks despite there being equal footage of both players on youtube. I will say if the Piston's had gotten either Bosh or Wade, and Ben Wallace had equal amount of rings as Shaq, people would automatically say Wallace was the better defensive player than Mutombo. It would be law by many of you here.

Winning totally distorts everything now. But it was a new concept back then: It didn't exist for Yogi Beara who was playing for one of the greatest franchises in baseball and had 10 championships, had MVP's, was superior defensively and was the team leader but he doesn't hold a torch to Ruth, Gehrige (sp), Dimaggio and Mantle in baseball tradition, which was considered America's sport and the one the other teams sports, looked up to. Maris won MVP the year he beat out Mantle for HR race because he won the race. He wasn't the player defensively or offensively Mantle was. And this is the setting, media wise, in which Wilt was getting crazy numbers and being considered less than Russell.

Back then if you had the records you were the man. Well in all sports, except basketball, you still are. If another player had Wilt's separation and untouchable records in any team sport, it wouldn't be questionable as to who is the greatest.

[KevinNYC]

Good point. Had he only won one and was content (like most superstars today), yeah, sure, he'd be hammered. But the guy won 4 titles and 3 Final MVPs. Not only that but the times Bird did lose, it was to his rival who was often renowned as the better player.

He won three and FMVP twice.

[32jazz]

Good point. Had he only won one and was content (like most superstars today), yeah, sure, he'd be hammered. But the guy won 4 titles and 3 Final MVPs. Not only that but the times Bird did lose, it was to his rival who was often renowned as the better player.

This is the blatant ignorance about earlier players which should disqualify idiots like you from commenting.:facepalm

The 80's Celtics won 3 titles & Bird 2 move(not that they matter).


'Only lost to better renowned rival'? Like Bird & Celtics getting swept by the Bucks in 83 with home court advantage?:facepalm


This mythologizing of 80's players is ridiculous.

[KevinNYC]

Bird appeared in five NBA finals, played mediocre in one ('85), good in two ('81, '87) and fantastic in two more ('84, '86,).

So is a line of
23.8p 8.8r 5.0a 1.8s 0.7b on 45% shooting over 6 games actually mediocre? Or is it a case of mediocre for Bird, mediocre for a superstar. Because that was his stat line in 1985 which is not very different from his 1987 stas

24.2p 10.0r 5.5a 1.2s 1.2b on the same shooting percentage.

[PTB Fan]

None of these guys are overrated. They have respectable cases for GOAT. And Bird (before he was hampered by those back injuries) was a guy who led the Celtics to huge success.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

He won three and FMVP twice.

Was thinking of his MVPs (he won 3). My bad.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

This is the blatant ignorance about earlier players which should disqualify idiots like you from commenting.:facepalm


'Only lost to better renowned rival'? Like Bird & Celtics getting swept by the Bucks in 83 with home court advantage?:facepalm


This mythologizing of 80's players is ridiculous.

:roll:

This coming from a Kobe apostle. Priceless. In what universe did Bird and the Celtics lose to the Bucks in the Finals?

[La Frescobaldi]

Sorry I'm gonna go win some championships as the team's best player and put up godly triple double numbers.

Triple double numbers like these?
***************************

All-time Triple Double Leaders
Regular Season
1 Oscar Robertson 181 in 14 seasons
2 Magic Johnson 138 in 13 seasons
3 * Jason Kidd 105 in 17 seasons
4 Wilt Chamberlain 78 in 14 seasons
5 Larry Bird 59 in 13 seasons

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

Triple double numbers like these?
***************************

1967 Eastern Division Finals
Philadelphia 76ers vs. Boston Celtics
Chamberlain vs. Russell

Game 1.
Russell 20 pts 15 rebs 4 assists
Chamberlain 24 pts 32 rebs 13 assists + 12 blocks

(the blocks were reported by Sports Illustrated.)

That's a Chamberlain quadruple double.

Game 2.
Russell 14 pts 24 rebs 5 asts
Chamberlain 15 pts 29 rebs 5 asts

Game 3

Russell 10 pts 29 rebs 2 asts
Chamberlain 20 pts 41 rebs 9 asts

Chamberlain's 41 rebounds against Russell is the NBA playoff record.

Game 4
Russell 9 pts 28 rebs 5 asts
Chamberlain 20 pts 22 rebs 10 asts

Chamberlain with the triple double against Russell.

Game 5
Russell 4 pts 21 rebs 7 asts
Chamberlain 29 pts 36 rebs 13 asts

Chamberlain with the triple double against Russell.

That game 5 he had 15 (or 16) blocks but it wasn't reported by Sports Illustrated, just a couple of friends with box scores - another Quadruple Double for Chamberlain

Playoff lines:
Russell 11 ppg 23 rpg 4 apg
Chamberlain 21 ppg 32 rpg 10 apg

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

I'd say that's pretty fair, averaging a triple double for the series against the pre-free-agency stacked 8-peat Boston dynasty, wouldn't you?

[32jazz]

:roll:

This coming from a Kobe apostle. Priceless. In what universe did Bird and the Celtics lose to the Bucks in the Finals?

In the playoffs with home court advantage the Bucks swept them.
They didn't make the Finals because they choked away hca the 2nd rd to the Bucks(sweep).

Magic is my favorite player ,but unlike ignorant idiots like you who claim Bird won 4 rings with the Celtics:facepalm & 3 Finals mvps' s:rolleyes: I have let go of the past & don't mythologize Magic.

At least get your facts straight before you post.

Ignorance of history from you so just call the person a Kobe disciple although Kobe barely breaks my top 5 favorite players all time.

4 rings by Bird?:facepalm 3 Finals MVP's.:facepalm

You never saw Bird play or were to young to remember so you spout ignorance & stale facts.

I'm not the only one who called out your obvious ignorance. Move on.

[KevinNYC]

I wonder what the criteria was for calling Russell a better defender. I seen Wilt say, in front of Russell, once that he blocked 3 shots to every one of Russells when they played.

I think Wilt was talking about blocking Russell's shot and not all Celtics shots.

I am by not means an expert on 60's basketball, but I think the reason for this was Russell was his reputation as an off-the-ball defender, his lateral movement was fantastic and he claimed to be able to defend both sides of the lane equally well. He also had a reputation of absolute intimidation against the entire opposing starting five and wore a scowl on the court.

He also was incredibly smart defensively. He figured out how to play all the positions on the court for the other team's plays and once he worked out that footwork, he then figured out the what his footwork would be to defend it. He also claimed there was an invisible line in the paint, where if you came across that line he could get your shot. He said the only one who ever figured it out was Oscar Robertson. If a guy was outside that line, Russell would fake at him, seeing if he could be scared off his shot. Sometimes would let players shoot and tell them to take the shot. He hoped to get inside the guy's head and have him think he only got his shot off when Russell let him.


Also any time you read about Wilt's career, they talk about how before the 66-67 season, his coach asked him to focus more on defense. This would imply he wasn't as defensively active in previous seasons.

[KevinNYC]

The 83 Bucks were good. Better than the Lakers that year. Only team that gave Philadelphia trouble that year.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

In the playoffs with home court advantage the Bucks swept them.
They didn't make the Finals because they choked away hca the 2nd rd to the Bucks(sweep).

I wasn't talking about the playoffs, goof. Even then, most of his postseason eliminations were by the Lakers and Sixers.


Magic is my favorite player ,but unlike ignorant idiots like you who claim Bird won 4 rings with the Celtics:facepalm & 3 Finals mvps' s:rolleyes: I have let go of the past & don't mythologize Magic.

I misspoke. 3 MVPs (what I originally meant), 2 Finals MVP's, 3 rings. There. Does that make you feel better p*ssy?


Ignorance of history from you so just call the person a Kobe disciple although Kobe barely breaks my top 5 favorite players all time. You never saw Bird play or were to young to remember so you spout ignorance & stale facts.


Yeah, OK apostle. I saw Bird at the peak of his prime, and I can tell you he was better than Kobe ever was.

So did you have anything else you wanted to tell me?

[32jazz]

I wasn't talking about the playoffs, goof. Even then, most of his postseason eliminations were by the Lakers and Sixers.



I misspoke. 3 MVPs (what I originally meant), 2 Finals MVP's, 3 rings. There. Does that make you feel better p*ssy?



Yeah, OK apostle. I saw Bird at the peak of his prime, and I can tell you he was better than Kobe ever was.

So did you have anything else you wanted to tell me?

You mispoke:rolleyes: Is that a euphemism you use to excuse your obvious ignorance? No idiot you just proved your ignorance & got called out by several posters on it.. I honestly Don't care about your 'opinion' how washed up players like Bird compare to contemporary players dude.:oldlol: I truly don't.

Please get your facts straight.

Please. Just stop spreading your ignorance.

Magic (5 rings) was 2-1 versus Bird in The playoffs by the way.:cheers:

P*ssy? :oldlol: Must really hurt you when your ignorance is pointed out?

Stop hurting my feelings like that:rolleyes:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You mispoke:rolleyes: Is that a euphemism you use to excuse your obvious ignorance? No idiot you just proved your ignorance & got called out by several posters on it.. I honestly Don't care about your 'opinion' how washed up players like Bird compare to contemporary players dude.:oldlol: I truly don't.

:blah :blah :blah

Here is me reciting Bird's accomplishments years ago:

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Bird was and is the definition of Celtic Pride. He was a confident, competitive, smart hardworking player who thrived in the clutch. He inspired his teammates and made them better. Bird would force the spotlight upon himself, but also brought out the best in the players around him. Bill Russell, Hondo, Cousey, even those legendary players didn't fill Boston Garden, wowing fans and dominating games as Bird did.

Career Stats/accomplishments:
- points: 21,791 (24.3 ppg)
- assists: 5,695 (6.3 apg)
- rebounds: 9,874 (10.0 rpg)
- 3

[Pointguard]

I think Wilt was talking about blocking Russell's shot and not all Celtics shots.

I am by not means an expert on 60's basketball, but I think the reason for this was Russell was his reputation as an off-the-ball defender, his lateral movement was fantastic and he claimed to be able to defend both sides of the lane equally well. He also had a reputation of absolute intimidation against the entire opposing starting five and wore a scowl on the court.

He also was incredibly smart defensively. He figured out how to play all the positions on the court for the other team's plays and once he worked out that footwork, he then figured out the what his footwork would be to defend it. He also claimed there was an invisible line in the paint, where if you came across that line he could get your shot. He said the only one who ever figured it out was Oscar Robertson. If a guy was outside that line, Russell would fake at him, seeing if he could be scared off his shot. Sometimes would let players shoot and tell them to take the shot. He hoped to get inside the guy's head and have him think he only got his shot off when Russell let him.

Also any time you read about Wilt's career, they talk about how before the 66-67 season, his coach asked him to focus more on defense. This would imply he wasn't as defensively active in previous seasons.

:cheers: Great look at Russell defensively, Kev.

I doubt that people understood the game like that back then, tho. Heck, they didn't understand Kevin Garnett in '08 and defense was respected and applauded for awhile. Defense wasn't really something teams were buying into until the mid to late 60's. You can go to boards all over and you can see that people rarely got what KG was doing. And nobody ups KG for his great command of that defense today. I went to MSG and was stunned at hearing KG mastermind ways of keeping players out of the paint - a defense far superior than contesting shots at the rim. Yet it doesn't get him over the hump when being compared to other PF. In fact, a lot of people have Dirk as a better player and we really acknowledge defense today. And the Wilt was at three times (yeah the multiple) the scorer Russell was while being much better in accuracy/creativity/post moves/most center fundamentals and a better rebounder.

While Russ did wear a scowl do you really think he was as intimidating as Wilt? Wilt who was dislocating a Charles Barkley type player on dunks, blocking Oscar so hard the big O falls down, literally picking up one of the biggest centers in the game to get rebounding position, and snatching high arching shots at their peak. Russel was cat like quick but he seemed to get a lot of his blocks by stealth and quickness. At least from the limited youtubing I seen of Russell. When Wilt blocks shots they seem less startled than when Russell gets them. Much like Ben Wallace/Mutombo analogy. Most people didn't think Wallace could get their shot. But people just flat out avoided Mutombo. They rarely thought they could go over Mount Mutombo (We actually hear Kobe say it in an All Star game!)

[Pointguard]

Triple double numbers like these?
***************************

All-time Triple Double Leaders
Regular Season
1 Oscar Robertson 181 in 14 seasons
2 Magic Johnson 138 in 13 seasons
3 * Jason Kidd 105 in 17 seasons
4 Wilt Chamberlain 78 in 14 seasons
5 Larry Bird 59 in 13 seasons

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

I'm pretty sure Wilt would have the lead if they recorded blocks. And you have to believe his Quadruple double numbers were double digits. Guess work but a good chance.



Chamberlain's 41 rebounds against Russell is the NBA playoff record.

That game 5 he had 15 (or 16) blocks but it wasn't reported by Sports Illustrated, just a couple of friends with box scores - another Quadruple Double for Chamberlain

Playoff lines:
Russell 11 ppg 23 rpg 4 apg
Chamberlain 21 ppg 32 rpg 10 apg

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

I'd say that's pretty fair, averaging a triple double for the series against the pre-free-agency stacked 8-peat Boston dynasty, wouldn't you?

And that's the precious 30/20/10 triple double in a series, throw in a couple of Quads in there, against the greatest defender ever. Yet he can't get respect.

[Champ]

You mispoke:rolleyes: Is that a euphemism you use to excuse your obvious ignorance? No idiot you just proved your ignorance & got called out by several posters on it.. I honestly Don't care about your 'opinion' how washed up players like Bird compare to contemporary players dude.:oldlol: I truly don't.

Please get your facts straight.

Please. Just stop spreading your ignorance.

Magic (5 rings) was 2-1 versus Bird in The playoffs by the way.:cheers:

P*ssy? :oldlol: Must really hurt you when your ignorance is pointed out?

Stop hurting my feelings like that:rolleyes:

By the time April of '83 rolled around the Celtics were a team in turmoil. Most of the players openly defied Bill Fitch (with Bird being one of the exceptions) and wanted him out of town, and conducted themselves during that series accordingly against the Bucks that year to make this happen. This has been well-documented in the years since by former players.

[DMAVS41]

Bird appeared in five NBA finals, played mediocre in one ('85), good in two ('81, '87) and fantastic in two more ('84, '86,).

Hammered?

Did you even read my post? Bird lost with HCA 7 times. You seem to ignore that part and only focus on the Finals.

Look at what happened to Dirk on places like this throughout his career....Dirk is probably the better playoff performer between the two. At worst its equal.

Yet he was thought of as a choker even while routinely playing all time great basketball in the playoffs. And the Mavs actually over-achieved more than they under-achieved under Dirk.

I love Bird. Think he's a top 8 player of all time. But to pretend like he didn't have his numerous times of coming up small is not accurate. And it is true that he gets a free pass for a lot of it that other players simply wouldn't in this day and age.

[Psileas]

Kind of depends on my roster...

If I have a really weak roster I might take 64 Wilt and just feed him all day and see what he can do or I might take Prime Bird and hope he can raise the quality of the entire team with his passing + leadership and hope that with his own individual play will be enough.

If I have a bunch of good shooters but no good play makers I'd take Prime Bird.
If I have a bunch of good scorers and a good or decent play maker I might take 67 Wilt.

Leaning towards Bird but I am not decided.

Wait, I thought you (along with a couple of Jordan fans) were the one who judged everything according to PER. You tried to argue against Wilt and in favor of Shaq as playoff performers by pointing out exactly this. I guess you don't love it when the shoe is on the other foot.

[La Frescobaldi]

I'm pretty sure Wilt would have the lead if they recorded blocks. And you have to believe his Quadruple double numbers were double digits. Guess work but a good chance.



And that's the precious 30/20/10 triple double in a series, throw in a couple of Quads in there, against the greatest defender ever. Yet he can't get respect.

They never saw him, my brother.

Youtube clips of old man Laker Wilt playing defense in his last season or two just don't begin to describe seeing him in action 66-68 on that Philly squad.

Vivid memories, man, like him standing at the bench, towering over Alex Hannum while he drew up a play.... staring across the court right at the Celtics bench... Hal Greer & Sam Jones lookin like 8 year olds in a frenzy fighting over the ball, both guys holding on for dear life and then Chamberlain just rip it out of all 4 hands for the spin & jam from the circle.......

Dave DeBusschere was STRONG. I saw him rassle for a rebound against Chamberlain... Wilt palmed that rebound, and DeBusschere had BOTH HANDS on that ball trying to tear it away from Chamberlain and Wilt just LIFTED THE BALL AND THE PISTON OFF THE GROUND FOR A BASEBALL OUTLET PASS

We laughed for weeks after wondering if Wilt would have thrown that guy just to the free throw line or clear out to half court but Dave let go so we'll never know.


You know seeing Willis front Chamberlain and Bells lined up behind him, with Clyde Frazier patrolling in front trying to deny the pass to the paint but inevitable Luke Jackson finds tiny lane and DIPPERRRRRRRRRRRRRR DUNK

that primitive triangle Hannum ran was just a wrecking ball to the head

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

Nah man I can't say anything against Larry Bird, not a word. They ain't the same position so I'll just have to take both of them

Fresco's All-Time Starting Team

1992 Michael Jordan G
1966 Jerry West G
1968 Wilt Chamberlain C
1984 Larry Bird F
1977 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar F

These past few seasons I have wondered if I'm getting old and fond of the old school guys where you have LeBron & Kobe and so forth. I'm sure I'm probly outdated but Logo & Bird still hold those spots to me.

Magic Johnson? He's my 6th Man due to the fact he can play all 5 positions....... so he still plays 30-35 minutes, resting each player in turn.....

[bwink23]

They never saw him, my brother.

Youtube clips of old man Laker Wilt playing defense in his last season or two just don't begin to describe seeing him in action 66-68 on that Philly squad.

Vivid memories, man, like him standing at the bench, towering over Alex Hannum while he drew up a play.... staring across the court right at the Celtics bench... Hal Greer & Sam Jones lookin like 8 year olds in a frenzy fighting over the ball, both guys holding on for dear life and then Chamberlain just rip it out of all 4 hands for the spin & jam from the circle.......

Dave DeBusschere was STRONG. I saw him rassle for a rebound against Chamberlain... Wilt palmed that rebound, and DeBusschere had BOTH HANDS on that ball trying to tear it away from Chamberlain and Wilt just LIFTED THE BALL AND THE PISTON OFF THE GROUND FOR A BASEBALL OUTLET PASS

We laughed for weeks after wondering if Wilt would have thrown that guy just to the free throw line or clear out to half court but Dave let go so we'll never know.


You know seeing Willis front Chamberlain and Bells lined up behind him, with Clyde Frazier patrolling in front trying to deny the pass to the paint but inevitable Luke Jackson finds tiny lane and DIPPERRRRRRRRRRRRRR DUNK

that primitive triangle Hannum ran was just a wrecking ball to the head

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

Nah man I can't say anything against Larry Bird, not a word. They ain't the same position so I'll just have to take both of them

Fresco's All-Time Starting Team

1992 Michael Jordan G
1966 Jerry West G
1968 Wilt Chamberlain C
1984 Larry Bird F
1977 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar F

These past few seasons I have wondered if I'm getting old and fond of the old school guys where you have LeBron & Kobe and so forth. I'm sure I'm probly outdated but Logo & Bird still hold those spots to me.

Magic Johnson? He's my 6th Man due to the fact he can play all 5 positions....... so he still plays 30-35 minutes, resting each player in turn.....


LOL at putting Kareem at the power forward position....come on, get real.

[La Frescobaldi]

LOL at putting Kareem at the power forward position....come on, get real.

I've ALWAYS thought, from the day Lew Alcindor entered the league in 1969, that he was a forward playing out of position.

[jlauber]

This...



Triple double numbers like these?
***************************

All-time Triple Double Leaders
Regular Season
1 Oscar Robertson 181 in 14 seasons
2 Magic Johnson 138 in 13 seasons
3 * Jason Kidd 105 in 17 seasons
4 Wilt Chamberlain 78 in 14 seasons
5 Larry Bird 59 in 13 seasons

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

Triple double numbers like these?
***************************

1967 Eastern Division Finals
Philadelphia 76ers vs. Boston Celtics
Chamberlain vs. Russell

Game 1.
Russell 20 pts 15 rebs 4 assists
Chamberlain 24 pts 32 rebs 13 assists + 12 blocks

(the blocks were reported by Sports Illustrated.)

That's a Chamberlain quadruple double.

Game 2.
Russell 14 pts 24 rebs 5 asts
Chamberlain 15 pts 29 rebs 5 asts

Game 3

Russell 10 pts 29 rebs 2 asts
Chamberlain 20 pts 41 rebs 9 asts

Chamberlain's 41 rebounds against Russell is the NBA playoff record.

Game 4
Russell 9 pts 28 rebs 5 asts
Chamberlain 20 pts 22 rebs 10 asts

Chamberlain with the triple double against Russell.

Game 5
Russell 4 pts 21 rebs 7 asts
Chamberlain 29 pts 36 rebs 13 asts

Chamberlain with the triple double against Russell.

That game 5 he had 15 (or 16) blocks but it wasn't reported by Sports Illustrated, just a couple of friends with box scores - another Quadruple Double for Chamberlain

Playoff lines:
Russell 11 ppg 23 rpg 4 apg
Chamberlain 21 ppg 32 rpg 10 apg

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

I'd say that's pretty fair, averaging a triple double for the series against the pre-free-agency stacked 8-peat Boston dynasty, wouldn't you?


Kind of puts THIS into it's PROPER perspective...


Sorry I'm gonna go win some championships as the team's best player and put up godly triple double numbers.

[Deuce Bigalow]

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

Copyright

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]http://images4.fanpop.com/image/user_images/2963000/AlphaWolf-2963314_1611_930.jpg

Copyright

[Deuce Bigalow]

Once again...Chamberlain against the likes of Darko, Bogut, Hawes, and Pryzbilla.
all 7-footers

[jlauber]

BTW, is there any way we can get that stupid drawing banned from this forum? It lost any humor that it may have had about a year ago. And everytime it gets posted, it screws up the format for an entire page.

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]http://images4.fanpop.com/image/user_images/2963000/AlphaWolf-2963314_1611_930.jpg

Copyright

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/7296/28615355ddnbgli.jpg

[32Dayz]

Wait, I thought you (along with a couple of Jordan fans) were the one who judged everything according to PER.

You thought wrong. :cheers:

Shaq was a better scorer, better offensively and raised his game tremendously in the playoffs and in elimination games.
That along with the fact that he produced at a much higher level in the playoffs over his Career is why Oneal is better.

Anyway I like Wilt and rank him quite highly (Top 4) so dont start with me.

[jlauber]

You thought wrong. :cheers:

Shaq was a better scorer, better offensively and raised his game tremendously in the playoffs and in elimination games.
That along with the fact that he produced at a much higher level in the playoffs over his Career is why Oneal is better.

Anyway I like Wilt and rank him quite highly (Top 4) so dont start with me.

I think Shaq is generally under-rated on this forum. At his peak he was as dominant as just about anyone, including Wilt. However, he was NOT a better scorer. No even close. He won TWO scoring titles, and never averaged as much as 30 ppg. Chamberlain won SEVEN STRAIGHT, and had he been inclined, would have won TEN STRAIGHT. He won scoring titles by as much as 11 and even 19 ppg over his nearest rival.

And, if you are somehow implying that Wilt somehow didn't elevate his game in the post-season...well, when the man was scoring as much as 50 ppg in a season, and could "only" average 35 ppg in that particular season, you are making a fool out of yourself. Not only that, but Chamberlain took what was the same basic LAST-PLACE roster he had inherited two years earlier, who were older and more inept, and got them past the first round of the playoffs (including a 56-35 clinching game five in the a best-of-five series), and then to a game seven, two-point loss, against a 60-20 Celtic team with SEVEN HOFers. All with his teammates collectively shooting .354 in that post-season.

In Wilt's "scoring" seasons, from 59-60 thru 65-66, all he did was average 32.8 ppg, 26.4 rpg, and shot .510 from the floor, in leagues that shot about .428 on average, in his six post-seasons. Add Wilt's peak season, of 66-67, and he was at 30.4 ppg, 27.0 rpg, .515 shooting (again, in league's that shot about .430), and 4.5 apg.

Think about that...in Wilt's first seven post-seasons, he AVERAGED a 30-27-5 .515 game, PER GAME. You would be hard-pressed to find very many single GAMES by any other all-time great that could match what Chamberlain ROUTINELY put up.

And, of course, Chamberlain was BY FAR, the greatest post-season rebounder of all-time. And before someone jumps in claiming that Russell had a slightly higher rpg average in the post-season (as Simmons would surely do), Wilt had a 26.3 rpg to 24.9 rebound margin when Russell retired in '69. And even more importantly, Chamberlain outrebounded Russell, H2H, in EVERY one of their EIGHT H2H post-season series...some by MASSIVE margins (as much as NINE per game in one series.) In fact, Chamberlain outrebounded EVERY opposing center, in ALL 29 of his post-season series.

Chamberlain had entire post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg (as well as two of 28 ppg and 29.3 ppg.) He had four post-season series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, 38.6 ppg, and 38.6 ppg. Hr had four post-season series, just against Russell of 30+ ppg (including one seven game series of 30 ppg and 31 rpg.) He had FOUR 50+ point playoff games, including a 50-35 game against RUSSELL. He also had FOUR 40-30 games, just against Russell alone, including a 46-34 clinching game five loss.

Clutch? There were a TON of games in which Wilt came up HUGE. I already mentioned that game five in the first round of the '62 playoffs. He also hung a 50-35 game, on 22-42 shooting (in a league that shot .410) against RUSSELL in a must-win game five of the '60 ECF's. He had a 39-26 game seven in the '64 playoffs. Then, in the clinching game five loss of the '64 Finals (and against a Celtic team which enjoyed an 8-2 edge in HOFers) all Chamberlain could do was put up a 30-27 game against Russell. In the '65 ECF's, Wilt guided his 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss, against the 62-18 Celtics, which included a 30-32 (on 12-15 shooting from the floor) game seven. In the clinching game five loss of the '66 ECF's, Wilt pasted Russell with a 46 point (on 19-34 shooting), 34 rebound game. In the clinching game five win of the '67 ECF's, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 29-4; outshot Russell, 10-16 to 2-5, outassisted Russell, 13-7, and outrebounded Russell, 36-21. In perhaps his worst post-season series, Chamberlain still hung a game seven in the Finals (which included watching the last five minites from the bench) of 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds. In a must-win game game six of the '70 Finals, Chamberlain, on one leg, shelled the Knicks with a 45 point, on 20-27 shooting, 27 rebound game. Then, in a game seven loss, and again on one leg, he was the only Laker to play decently, posting a 21-24 game on 10-16 shooting. In the clinching game five loss in the '71 ECF's, Wilt outscored Kareem, 23-20, and outshot him, 10-21 to 7-23, with five blocks against Kareem...all only a year removed from major knee surgery. He followed that up a year later by dominating Kareem down the stretch in the clinching game six win over Kareem's Bucks, finishing with a 20-24 game on 8-12 shooting, while holding Kareem to 16-37 shooting. And, in Wilt's last game, in a clinching game five loss in the Finals, he pelted Reed with a 23 point, on 9-16 shooting, 21 rebound game.


BTW, Wilt faced a HOF center in 105 of his 160 playoff games, and either outplayed, or downright DOMINATED them ALL. Give me a list of the HOFers that Shaq played against, and give me his domination of them in the post-season. And while you are at it, give us the list of centers he outplayed in his Finals. Had a PRIME Chamberlain been able to face clods like MacCullough, he would have set Finals scoring records that would never have been approached.

So, before you go off on a tangent about Shaq being a better scorer, and far more clutch, and producing at a higher level than Chamberlain, you better be prepared to match the above FACTS.

[millwad]

BTW, Wilt faced a HOF center in 105 of his 160 playoff games, and either outplayed, or downright DOMINATED them ALL.


Kareem says hello, in '72 Kareem first destroyed prime defensive Wilt Chamberlain in the regular season averaging 40 points per game on 40% shooting on Wilt. And then he outscored Wilt in the playoffs of the same year with 23 points per game on BETTER FG% while also outassisting Wilt and ALSO shooting FT's twice as good as him in the series.




So, before you go off on a tangent about Shaq being a better scorer, and far more clutch, and producing at a higher level than Chamberlain, you better be prepared to match the above FACTS.

Shaq was a better scorer, Shaq was swarmed everytime he got the ball in the post. If you watch old footage of Wilt he rarely got double or triple team'd and NO, your silly quotes doesn't mean crap because we actually got enough footage of Wilt to see what kind of defense he faced. The amount of defensive schemes Shaq faced and the double and triple teams he faced was something Wilt would never be able to produce as well against because he wasn't as physical as Shaq, not even close. Therefor his FG% would go down and he wouldn't be as effective.

KISSES!

[La Frescobaldi]

looks more like either low-level reading ability or a complete lack of basketball knowledge.... or, it could be both.

The 60s Celtics had an all-black starting 5 that season...

[millwad]

looks more like either low-level reading ability or a complete lack of basketball knowledge.... or, it could be both.

The 60s Celtics had an all-black starting 5 that season...

No, that's a lie, as usual..
This pic shows something else.....
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/7296/28615355ddnbgli.jpg

[PHILA]

La Frescobaldi
Best to neglect the ill informed.


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6171530&postcount=172


Stop it, Bynum is better.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6171553&postcount=174


The last thing I am is a troll, I just think it's absurd to say that Wilt is a better player than Bynum. Just watch Wilt freaking play, how hard can it be? I don't care about his stats, I talk about his skills.

So I'm a troll just because I don't agree with you? Then you're a troll as well since you don't agree with me..


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6171530&postcount=172


What makes you believe he isn't?

Have you watched them both actually play the game of basketball? In what terms is Wilt better just based on skills that is.. I don't mean in numbers because Wilt played in a crappy era..

[millwad]

Best to neglect the ill informed.


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6171530&postcount=172



http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6171553&postcount=174




http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6171530&postcount=172

I feel honoured that you actually went back to check my post history. Now go back and watch your buttyboy Jlauber's post history and how he called your beloved era a weaker one and that Wilt's competition was weak and how the modern era players are better..:roll:

And regarding my post, I was provoking Jlauber. But I'm still not impressed by Wilt's skillset. Wilt gets way too much credit for his skills, just watch his pathetic post moves; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oemQKScZ7MQ

Now go and stalk your buttyboy and see his post history.

[oolalaa]

I agree, he wasn't a great scorer. But he was better than he has been given credit for.

And I don't know what your definition of a great playmaker is, but pippen fits the bill. He ran the bulls offense. The bulls were routinely one of the top teams as far as offense. And if you want to talk about assists, remember, pippen played in the triangle. The 7 assists he avg in 92 is the most ever for that offense. When he was with portland, he shared PG duties with damon stoudemire and avg 6 assts. And remember that that was in the slow paced 90s with pippen as a 34 year old. If that were the "mighty 80s", there no doubt pippen would've avg 7-9 assists per season. And that's sharing the ball with jordan.

Lastly, I strongly disagree with your assesment that pippen was "comfortable" with not being the man. Didn't he sit out that play cuz it wasn't drawn up for him?

Playmaking ability can be quite subjective. In my opinion, Assists can be pretty misleading, so I tend to just rely purely on my eyes. I didn't see Pippen as a 'great' passer/playmaker - a very good one who could undoubtedly run an offense - but not a great one.

And about that play he sat out against the Knicks....Phil Jackson obviously agreed with me :oldlol:

[La Frescobaldi]

Best to neglect the ill informed.


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6171530&postcount=172



http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6171553&postcount=174




http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6171530&postcount=172

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

When I first joined this forum a couple of months ago I thought I was gonna have conversations about basketball, but after a few days I figured out that Millwad is simply a bitter person, not just towards jlauber, but toward everyone (including the entire NBA), as far as I could tell.

No idea where that bitterness comes from, and I sure do hope his whole world view is not reflected by his posts on ISH...... but millwad's posts are

100% pure alkali.

So I blocked him after a week or so, and hadn't seen any reason to change it.

[millwad]

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

When I first joined this forum a couple of months ago I thought I was gonna have conversations about basketball, but after a few days I figured out that Millwad is simply a bitter person, not just towards jlauber, but toward everyone (including the entire NBA), as far as I could tell.

No idea where that bitterness comes from, and I sure do hope his whole world view is not reflected by his posts on ISH...... but millwad's posts are

100% pure alkali.

So I blocked him after a week or so, and hadn't seen any reason to change it.

This pathetic guy is obviously full of crap. I do think he is behind Jlauber's account because they post the same nonsense and the both of them are Wilt's biggest buttyboy's.

And being bitter? Haha, sure.. Who the hell have I even been bitter towards? Me and Psileas, who is a big Wilt fan even PM'd each other so it's not even about Wilt. My only issue with Wilt is that he's getting overrated like crazy by trolls like you and Jlauber.

Bitter towards the NBA?:facepalm
Yeah, idiot, I'm the biggest NBA fan among all the people I hang with and I'm a huge Rocket fan. I freaking picked Texas A&M as my university for my exchange year and one big reason to that was so I would be able to watch the Rockets play, so yeah, I'm bitter towards the NBA..:facepalm

This clown has been on Wilt's dikk since he joined this site and all he ever do is writing nonsense, you must be Jlauber or you're just some tool without any basketball knowledge..

And haha, you blocked me because you got butthurt over the fact that I didn't agree with you. You're a nobody and a grown man who got a man crush on a baller you never even saw.. :facepalm

[PTB Fan]

BTW, Wilt faced a HOF center in 105 of his 160 playoff games, and either outplayed, or downright DOMINATED them ALL.

All, expect two.. Kareem and Russell. Granted, he had some dominant games vs them, but in most of the case, the two arguably outplayed Wilt.

[oolalaa]

This pathetic guy is obviously full of crap. I do think he is behind Jlauber's account because they post the same nonsense and the both of them are Wilt's biggest buttyboy's.

And being bitter? Haha, sure.. Who the hell have I even been bitter towards? Me and Psileas, who is a big Wilt fan even PM'd each other so it's not even about Wilt. My only issue with Wilt is that he's getting overrated like crazy by trolls like you and Jlauber.

Bitter towards the NBA?:facepalm
Yeah, idiot, I'm the biggest NBA fan among all the people I hang with and I'm a huge Rocket fan. I freaking picked Texas A&M as my university for my exchange year and one big reason to that was so I would be able to watch the Rockets play, so yeah, I'm bitter towards the NBA..:facepalm

This clown has been on Wilt's dikk since he joined this site and all he ever do is writing nonsense, you must be Jlauber or you're just some tool without any basketball knowledge..

And haha, you blocked me because you got butthurt over the fact that I didn't agree with you. You're a nobody and a grown man who got a man crush on a baller you never even saw.. :facepalm

I'm sorry, but you can be waay too aggressive to certain people on here, and especially to jlauber.

Yes, jlauber can be pretty biased, especially when it comes to Wilt. He only ever posts good things about Wilt - according to him, it was never, ever his fault that his teams lost. This is ridiculous.

However, he is very knowledgeable, and is clearly an intelligent and articulate guy. Does he really deserve the amount of hate you direct towards him??

[millwad]

I'm sorry, but you can be waay too aggressive to certain people on here, and especially to jlauber.

Yes, jlauber can be pretty biased, especially when it comes to Wilt. He only ever posts good things about Wilt - according to him, it was never, ever his fault that his teams lost. This is ridiculous.

However, he is very knowledgeable, and is clearly an intelligent and articulate guy. Does he really deserve the amount of hate you direct towards him??

He's exposed, he is not very knowledgeable, he only saw Wilt on youtube. And I'm not aggressive to people on here, the only reason why I'm not nice towards Jlauber is because he's trolling everyone and everyone seems to think he is this expert when the guy actually never saw the guy play.

He only saw Wilt on youtube and some years ago he used to post stuff like this; http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5029077&postcount=53

And you can't discuss with him, he starts the name calling a la "Dickwad" (I didn't even know who the guy was by that time, I only knew he got butthurt because I didn't love Wilt like him) and if that doesn't work he goes OT and starts to diss other posters favourite players just to make Wilt like good. It's just pathetic. And by the looks of your earlier posts you seem a bit aggressive as well, homeboi.

[oolalaa]

He's exposed, he is not very knowledgeable, he only saw Wilt on youtube. And I'm not aggressive to people on here, the only reason why I'm not nice towards Jlauber is because he's trolling everyone and everyone seems to think he is this expert when the guy actually never saw the guy play.

He only saw Wilt on youtube and some years ago he used to post stuff like this; http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5029077&postcount=53

And you can't discuss with him, he starts the name calling a la "Dickwad" (I didn't even know who the guy was by that time, I only knew he got butthurt because I didn't love Wilt like him) and if that doesn't work he goes OT and starts to diss other posters favourite players just to make Wilt like good. It's just pathetic. And by the looks of your earlier posts you seem a bit aggressive as well, homeboi.

:roll:

The difference is that I don't get personal. You are constantly calling him (and others) an idiot or a dumbass or pathetic. Hatred oozes from your sentences. He calls you 'DICKWAD', as a retaliation to your hate.

And you post ridiculous things sometimes - Bynum better than Wilt? really? Are you ignorant or just trolling? Wilt is the most gifted all round player the league has ever seen. Why can't you see this? Because he had bad post moves? HE PLAYED IN THE 60s!! No one had great post moves. Everything is relative to the era you play in.

My issues with Wilt are all on the mental side. I get the impression he didn't care enough about winning. I'm not sure he really knew how to win - he got by on his unparalleled talent. He wasn't a very good leader. He wasn't the best teammate. He certainly wasn't clutch.

Talking to jlauber can be like talking to a brick wall sometimes, and he is too stat obsessed (especially efficiency). But he IS incredibly knowledgeable about Wilt. He just doesn't to use that knowledge appropriately

[oolalaa]

Not only that, but for some reason Bird is placed on a near Sainthood level, despite FAR more "flop-jobs" than Wilt, and yet Chamberlain is considered a "loser" who "choked" in his post-season career.

If I asked you who was the better game seven performer in their Finals careers, 99% would say Bird. Yet, Bird shot 6-18 (.333) in his lone game seven in his Finals, while all Chamberlain did was shoot 17-24 (.708) in his. BTW, Wilt also held his opposing center's (Russell and Reed) to a COMBINED 4-12 (.333) in those two games, while just crushing them by a 51-24 (again, COMBINED) margin on the glass.

Holy Moly :facepalm

Bird IS one of the greatest, if not the greatest, game 7 performers in NBA history.

Bird was 6-2 in game 7s for his career. One of the game 7s he lost was in his final season.....it was his last ever game.....he could barely move.


'81 vs 76ers....23 points (8 FGs, 6/7 FTs), game winner!! (can't find the entire box score unfortunately. does anyone have it?)

'82 vs 76ers....20/11/9 (7/18, 6/8)

'84 vs Knicks....39/12/10 (13/24, 12/12)

'84 vs Lakers....20/12/3 (6/18, 8/8)

'87 vs Bucks....31 points(9/21, 13/13), 13 points in the 4th!! (Ainge missed the entire 4th, Mchale had several injuries, Parish was hurt and Walton was out)

'87 vs Pistons....37/9/9 (13/24, 10/10), scored or assisted almost every single Celtic bucket in the last 6 minutes!! (again, Parish and Mchale were hurt and Walton was non-exsistent, and he was being guarded almost exclusively by Rodman in crunch time)

'88 vs Hawks....34/4/6 (15/24, 3/3), 20 points in the 4th!!

'92 vs Cavs....12/5/4 (6/9, 0/0), last ever game.



Wilt was 4-5 in game 7s.

Perhaps you could tell us the numbers he put up?

[millwad]

:roll:

The difference is that I don't get personal. You are constantly calling him (and others) an idiot or a dumbass or pathetic. Hatred oozes from your sentences. He calls you 'DICKWAD', as a retaliation to your hate.

No, my friend. That's not the story behind it at all. I had no idea of who the guy was before, he started to bash me and he started with the namecalling. I am not the only one he cussed out, also very respected posters like Fatal etc.. Why? We don't buy his crap.

[QUOTE=oolalaa]
And you post ridiculous things sometimes - Bynum better than Wilt? really? Are you ignorant or just trolling? Wilt is the most gifted all round player the league has ever seen. Why can't you see this? Because he had bad post moves? HE PLAYED IN THE 60s!! No one had great post moves. Everything is relative to the era you play in.

Again, read above. I have stated plenty of times that I wasn't serious about Bynum but I guess the damage is already done but again. And no, Wilt is not the most gifted all round player ever, are you serious?!:facepalm

This is a perfect example of my issue with Wilt, stupid stuff like that.



My issues with Wilt are all on the mental side. I get the impression he didn't care enough about winning. I'm not sure he really knew how to win - he got by on his unparalleled talent. He wasn't a very good leader. He wasn't the best teammate. He certainly wasn't clutch.

I don't have any problems with Wilt other then the fact that his skillset is getting crazy overrated on ISH. I used to rank him as number one before just based on his stats but seeing him play was honestly a great disappointment. It may sound weird but I don't feel like his skillset translates well in to the stats he put up and especially not if you compare with the modern era players.



Talking to jlauber can be like talking to a brick wall sometimes, and he is too stat obsessed (especially efficiency). But he IS incredibly knowledgeable about Wilt.

He is not, my friend. Basketball knowledge is something you get from watching the games, not by one-sided reports and quotes. For him Wilt is an obsession, I posted the link where he got exposed big time. If he would have known what he pretends he knows he wouldn't have put up the stuff he used to write because it's crazy contradictory. Yeah, we are supposed to believe that he watched all those games but still he changed his mind COMPLETELY about Wilt's era and competition more then 40 years after the actual games. The only available footage he could have seen at that time was some few clips on youtube. It's obvious that his "knowledge" is in real life nothing but Google and youtube.

Oh, be right back, gonna read some quotes, reports and basic info about Mikan on google and then become a self-proclaimed pro..:facepalm

[PTB Fan]

I'm sorry, but you can be waay too aggressive to certain people on here, and especially to jlauber.

Yes, jlauber can be pretty biased, especially when it comes to Wilt. He only ever posts good things about Wilt - according to him, it was never, ever his fault that his teams lost. This is ridiculous.

However, he is very knowledgeable, and is clearly an intelligent and articulate guy. Does he really deserve the amount of hate you direct towards him??

You know, he's right about Jlauber's love towards Wilt, as he(Jlauber) gets nervous and often goes on discrediting other players worse than other guys do for the 50/60's players.

[oolalaa]

And no, Wilt is not the most gifted all round player ever, are you serious?!:facepalm

I don't have any problems with Wilt other then the fact that his skillset is getting crazy overrated on ISH. I used to rank him as number one before just based on his stats but seeing him play was honestly a great disappointment. It may sound weird but I don't feel like his skillset translates well in to the stats he put up and especially not if you compare with the modern era players.

He is not, my friend. Basketball knowledge is something you get from watching the games, not by one-sided reports and quotes. For him Wilt is an obsession, I posted the link where he got exposed big time. If he would have known what he pretends he knows he wouldn't have put up the stuff he used to write because it's crazy contradictory. Yeah, we are supposed to believe that he watched all those games but still he changed his mind COMPLETELY about Wilt's era and competition more then 40 years after the actual games. The only available footage he could have seen at that time was some few clips on youtube. It's obvious that his "knowledge" is in real life nothing but Google and youtube.

Oh, be right back, gonna read some quotes, reports and basic info about Mikan on google and then become a self-proclaimed pro..:facepalm

Wilt was 7"2.
He had a 40+ inch vertical.
Incredibly fast.
One of the strongest NBA players ever.
One of the greatest scorers in history (best regular season scorer).
One of the greatest rebounders in history (imo the best).
One of the greatest passers, for a big man, in history (albeit, only for a couple of years).
One of the greatest 1 on 1 defenders in history (later in his career).
One of the greatest shot blockers in history.

:facepalm :facepalm , if you don't think he isn't at least ONE of the most talented players in history. Only Lebron could be considered a better all round talent in my opinion.


His skillset?? He scored a bucket load of points on great efficiency. What more do u want from him?? Did Shaq have a great skillset? Come on now.


Like i said, jlauber is knowledgeable about Wilt - FACTUALLY. He just doesn't use those facts properly. Peoples opinions change. I know my opinions have altered about certain players after doing more research (Russell and Oscar for example).

[PTB Fan]

Wilt was 7"2.
He had a 40+ inch vertical.
Incredibly fast.
One of the strongest NBA players ever.
One of the greatest scorers in history (best regular season scorer).
One of the greatest rebounders in history (imo the best).
One of the greatest passers, for a big man, in history (albeit, only for a couple of years).
One of the greatest 1 on 1 defenders in history (later in his career).
One of the greatest shot blockers in history.

:facepalm :facepalm , if you don't think he isn't at least ONE of the most talented players in history. Only Lebron could be considered a better all round talent in my opinion.


His skillset?? He scored a bucket load of points on great efficiency. What more do u want from him?? Did Shaq have a great skillset? Come on now.


Like i said, jlauber is knowledgeable about Wilt - FACTUALLY. He just doesn't use those facts properly. Peoples opinions change. I know my opinions have altered about certain players after doing more research (Russell and Oscar for example).

Nice post. Wilt was IMO the most talented player to step on a NBA Hardwood, period. He could succeed in any role he'd have played.. and he actually did a lot in his career.

At one his point, he was a scorer. He went on to average 40 points or so in a period of seven years. Quite excellent, regardless of the fact that he had his former team mates saying that he ball hogged too much and were better after he left.

Then, he was an all-around force (imo, the role which suited him best). He'd score efficiently, dominate the glass, almost Russell like presence in the paint, a great passer who'd lead his team mates for easy points and an overall a very very dominant presence.

Finally, he settled into a defensive mode, which also suited him fine. He was remarkable force defensively in the paint. He remained as a dominant presence on the glass, monsterous shot blocker and overall rim stopper. He created ton of fast brakes for his teams and scored pretty efficiently.

To excel in these roles, you have to be skilled and he was certainly one of the most all-around players of all time (if not arguably the most). IMO, he was the most talented player of any time.

He could have literally scored 50 points on 60%+ FG in the NBA at the time if he were more to play like O'Neal back then considering there weren't enough quality defensive schemes (double teams, traps etc) as he virtually played one on one all the time.

After i did a proper research on the players of the pre 70's and some of the 90's stars.. my opinion changed too.

[PTB Fan]

Holy Moly :facepalm

Bird IS one of the greatest, if not the greatest, game 7 performers in NBA history.

Bird was 6-2 in game 7s for his career. One of the game 7s he lost was in his final season.....it was his last ever game.....he could barely move.


'81 vs 76ers....23 points (8 FGs, 6/7 FTs), game winner!! (can't find the entire box score unfortunately. does anyone have it?)

'82 vs 76ers....20/11/9 (7/18, 6/8)

'84 vs Knicks....39/12/10 (13/24, 12/12)

'84 vs Lakers....20/12/3 (6/18, 8/8)

'87 vs Bucks....31 points(9/21, 13/13), 13 points in the 4th!! (Ainge missed the entire 4th, Mchale had several injuries, Parish was hurt and Walton was out)

'87 vs Pistons....37/9/9 (13/24, 10/10), scored or assisted almost every single Celtic bucket in the last 6 minutes!! (again, Parish and Mchale were hurt and Walton was non-exsistent, and he was being guarded almost exclusively by Rodman in crunch time)

'88 vs Hawks....34/4/6 (15/24, 3/3), 20 points in the 4th!!

'92 vs Cavs....12/5/4 (6/9, 0/0), last ever game.



Wilt was 4-5 in game 7s.

Perhaps you could tell us the numbers he put up?

:applause:

Bird was one of the best if not the best players in Game Seven.

He averaged 27 points overall in his game seven match ups.

[millwad]

Wilt was 7"2.
He had a 40+ inch vertical.
Incredibly fast.
One of the strongest NBA players ever.
One of the greatest scorers in history (best regular season scorer).
One of the greatest rebounders in history (imo the best).
One of the greatest passers, for a big man, in history (albeit, only for a couple of years).
One of the greatest 1 on 1 defenders in history (later in his career).
One of the greatest shot blockers in history.

:facepalm :facepalm , if you don't think he isn't at least ONE of the most talented players in history. Only Lebron could be considered a better all round talent in my opinion.


His skillset?? He scored a bucket load of points on great efficiency. What more do u want from him?? Did Shaq have a great skillset? Come on now.


Like i said, jlauber is knowledgeable about Wilt - FACTUALLY. He just doesn't use those facts properly. Peoples opinions change. I know my opinions have altered about certain players after doing more research (Russell and Oscar for example).

My issue with his era is that the game has changed so extremely much, for his era I have no doubt in my mind that he was the most talented players of that time.

Although all-time, his skillset doesn't translate at all in the same way in the modern era. Watch the man play for god sake, checking stats doesn't show the whole truth and his rebounding certainly is boosted by the fact that they shot with much lower FG% while attempting way more shots in his era and that the players back then were shorter, not only centers but also the rest of the positions and less athletic as well (not centers though). And assists, am I supposed to believe that Wilt was just as good as a passer as the elite point guards of today? Of course not, people are exaggerating his stats like crazy.

Although being an amazing scorer his scoring is boosted first of all by the defense. The lack of defensive schemes and double teams first of all, then the fact that the amount of shots he averaged in his stats prime ain't just possible in the modern era.

I feel like giving him credit for being the most skilled and most gifted of his own era is the right way to go. But calling him the most gifted player of all time over the likes Jordan, Magic etc is just not right. The game has changed way to much.

[Pointguard]

He's exposed, he is not very knowledgeable, he only saw Wilt on youtube. And I'm not aggressive to people on here, the only reason why I'm not nice towards Jlauber is because he's trolling everyone and everyone seems to think he is this expert when the guy actually never saw the guy play.

He only saw Wilt on youtube and some years ago he used to post stuff like this; http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5029077&postcount=53

And you can't discuss with him, he starts the name calling a la "Dickwad" (I didn't even know who the guy was by that time, I only knew he got butthurt because I didn't love Wilt like him) and if that doesn't work he goes OT and starts to diss other posters favourite players just to make Wilt like good. It's just pathetic. And by the looks of your earlier posts you seem a bit aggressive as well, homeboi.

In all fairness Millwad, oolalaa isn't the third or fourth guy to tell you this. Its been more than that. And its not so much for JLauder as it is for you to, perhaps, pick your spots and not go to the negative, evvvery time you see his post. Have you ever saw somebody go to the negative, by an obvious trigger 'every time' in real life? I don't even see it in comedies or horror flicks.

You quoted a guy above that was tracking JLauder's post for five or six years now. That's not normal behavior, its obsessive behavior.

[oolalaa]

Nice post. Wilt was IMO the most talented player to step on a NBA Hardwood, period. He could succeed in any role he'd have played.. and he actually did a lot in his career.

At one his point, he was a scorer. He went on to average 40 points or so in a period of seven years. Quite excellent, regardless of the fact that he had his former team mates saying that he ball hogged too much and were better after he left.

Then, he was an all-around force (imo, the role which suited him best). He'd score efficiently, dominate the glass, almost Russell like presence in the paint, a great passer who'd lead his team mates for easy points and an overall a very very dominant presence.

Finally, he settled into a defensive mode, which also suited him fine. He was remarkable force defensively in the paint. He remained as a dominant presence on the glass, monsterous shot blocker and overall rim stopper. He created ton of fast brakes for his teams and scored pretty efficiently.

To excel in these roles, you have to be skilled and he was certainly one of the most all-around players of all time (if not arguably the most). IMO, he was the most talented player of any time.

He could have literally scored 50 points on 60%+ FG in the NBA at the time if he were more to play like O'Neal back then considering there weren't enough quality defensive schemes (double teams, traps etc) as he virtually played one on one all the time.

After i did a proper research on the players of the pre 70's and some of the 90's stars.. my opinion changed too.

That's what happens. You shouldn't be ripped for holding a different opinion today than you did many years ago.

[millwad]

In all fairness Millwad, oolalaa isn't the third or fourth guy to tell you this. Its been more than that. And its not so much for JLauder as it is for you to, perhaps, pick your spots and not go to the negative, evvvery time you see his post. Have you ever saw somebody go to the negative, by an obvious trigger 'every time' in real life? I don't even see it in comedies or horror flicks.

You quoted a guy above that was tracking JLauder's post for five or six years now. That's not normal behavior, its obsessive behavior.

Actually, you are right, Pointguard.
I guess my feuds with him made me blind over time. I don't even dislike the guy to start with, I just get annoyed over how he constantly over-exaggerates everything and how he's always just telling one side of the story just to make Wilt look greater and that discussing with him is like talking to a wall. And when you tell him that you don't agree he copy and paste the living crap out of you with irrelevant stuff most of the time.

Anyway, I do agree with you and I guess I've been too all negative on the guy, at least he's a true fan, even if it gets a bit obsessive. I will never agree with him though.

And regarding the the guy I quoted, well, that guy's obsessive too for stalking Jlauber on the net but at the same time it takes away Jlauber credibility a lot. Anyway, I do agree with what you wrote.

[oolalaa]

My issue with his era is that the game has changed so extremely much, for his era I have no doubt in my mind that he was the most talented players of that time.

Although all-time, his skillset doesn't translate at all in the same way in the modern era. Watch the man play for god sake, checking stats doesn't show the whole truth and his rebounding certainly is boosted by the fact that they shot with much lower FG% while attempting way more shots in his era and that the players back then were shorter, not only centers but also the rest of the positions and less athletic as well (not centers though). Although being an amazing scorer his scoring is boosted first of all by the defense. The lack of defensive schemes and double teams first of all, then the fact that the amount of shots he averaged in his stats prime ain't just possible in the modern era.

I feel like giving him credit for being the most skilled and most gifted of his own era is the right way to go. But calling him the most gifted player of all time over the likes Jordan, Magic etc is just not right. The game has changed way to much.

If he played in the 2000s, he would still be 7"2. He would still have a 40+ vertical. He would still be one of the strongest players. He would still be one of the very best rebounders (if not the best). He would still be one of the best defensively. He would still be one of the best shot blockers. He would still be one of the best passing big men. He wouldn't be the scorer that he was in the 60s - of course, he would never put up 50ppg in a season, but....

I have no doubt that, if we transported him directly to this era and he played the same way as he did in the 60s, he would be a 25/14/3 and 3 blocks guy, in his prime. And if he was born in the 80s, with the benefit of hindsight and superior training etc, he could get 30/16/4 and 4 blocks in his prime.

Players have to be judged relative to era!!

[millwad]

Best to neglect the ill informed.


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6171553&postcount=174

This is actually hilarious, Phila. You know why? You quoted my reply to a poster who later thought Jlauber was garbage and actually was on my side after short discussions.. Ouch, that backlashed...

Anyway, this thread is not about me but again, I appreciate that you felt that I was important enough to stalk on..

[millwad]

If he played in the 2000s, he would still be 7"2. He would still have a 40+ vertical. He would still be one of the strongest players. He would still be one of the very best rebounders (if not the best). He would still be one of the best defensively. He would still be one of the best shot blockers. He wouldn't be the scorer that he was in the 60s - of course, he would never put up 50ppg in a season, but....

No doubt about him being one of the strongest, the best rebounder, one of the best defensively and THE BEST shotblocker BUT he would never be called the most talented if he played the exact same game he did in the 60's today..



I have no doubt that, if we transported him directly to this era and he played the same way as he did in the 60s, he would be a 25/15/3 and 3 blocks guy, in his prime. And if he was born in the 80s, with the benefit of hindsight and superior training etc, he could get 30/17/4 and 4 blocks in his prime.

No way he would be a 25 point scorer if he was transported from the 60's to today's game. Just watch his game and his post game, stuff like the video below doesn't translate to 25 points in the modern era with double and triple teams AND great defensive schemes, sorry..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oemQKScZ7MQ



Players have to be judged relative to era!!

That's what I'm saying, wow, that's what the whole discussion is about. Jlauber is trying to brainwash people about how Wilt would be even more dominant today because of the "weak" era and Wilt's never dying greatness.. That's why I'm saying that he wasn't the most talented of all-time..

Relative to his era he is the greatest or 2nd greatest after Russell, no doubt..

[Pointguard]

Although all-time, his skillset doesn't translate at all in the same way in the modern era. Watch the man play for god sake, checking stats doesn't show the whole truth and his rebounding certainly is boosted by the fact that they shot with much lower FG% while attempting way more shots in his era and that the players back then were shorter, not only centers but also the rest of the positions and less athletic as well (not centers though). Although being an amazing scorer his scoring is boosted first of all by the defense. The lack of defensive schemes and double teams first of all, then the fact that the amount of shots he averaged in his stats prime ain't just possible in the modern era.

I feel like giving him credit for being the most skilled and most gifted of his own era is the right way to go. But calling him the most gifted player of all time over the likes Jordan, Magic etc is just not right. The game has changed way to much.

I think Wilt contributed to the way most dominant big men play the position today (Mikan is great because he laid down the foundation). And he influenced that more-so than anybody else influenced their position. Which is all you can ask from a player to do in their generation. Kareem's all around game dipped when Wilt left the game because he was using the Wilt model on how to be a center. The post game, the power game, the finese game, playing big down low, being creative, playing above the rim, spinning, pump fakes, reverse layups, was marked by Chamberlain for those in the modern era. Its been 60 years later and not one center could do it all at the highest of levels since Wilt. Not only was Wilt among the most talented, but he also worked as hard as the hardest workers at his position.

Most great centers have been great at two things. Hakeem had an all around great game and he lead the league a couple of times on the boards and blocks a couple of years but he never appears on people's best scorer list, best rebounding list, most dominant list, best shot blocker list. Hakeem was the best at certain things but only for a couple of years. Same with Shaq and Kareem. Wilt is still the Model of what a center can achieve and the model of what responsibilities are the property of centers.

[ThaRegul8r]

You quoted a guy above that was tracking JLauder's post for five or six years now. That's not normal behavior, its obsessive behavior.

I find it ironic that a guy who once spoke about "slander," slanders me behind my back in a cowardly manner. Any time I have anything to say about someone, I say it directly to them when they're actually active in the thread, not when I think they're not around and won't see it. That's gutless. Anything I ever said to or about you, I said it to you like a man. When I wasn't talking directly to you, I never mentioned your name. Yet here you are still talking about me.

I've been talking basketball on the internet since the internet first came to be what it is. I've been through virtually every major basketball site that's existed since then at some point, as well as others which aren't so major, and others which no longer exist. In that time, I've come across many people. When you've been around, you remember people who resurface. In that particular instance, I was directly challenged to provide proof of something, and I did. Because unlike most people, I never say anything for which I don't have proof of.

But don't ever talk about me behind my back again, and I will continue not talking about you.

[oolalaa]

No way he would be a 25 point scorer if he was transported from the 60's to today's game. Just watch his game and his post game, stuff like the video below doesn't translate to 25 points in the modern era with double and triple teams AND great defensive schemes, sorry..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oemQKScZ7MQ



That's what I'm saying, wow, that's what the whole discussion is about. Jlauber is trying to brainwash people about how Wilt would be even more dominant today because of the "weak" era and Wilt's never dying greatness.. That's why I'm saying that he wasn't the most talented of all-time..

Relative to his era he is the greatest or 2nd greatest after Russell, no doubt..

1. Do you not watch Dwight Howard play?? The guy is LIMITED offensively, yet, he puts up 23ppg on 60% shooting. How?? It's because he is so much bigger and stronger, and quicker, and more athletic than all the other centres. We are currently witnessing the weakest era for centres the league has ever known. Trust me, Wilt could get 25ppg.


2. Alright, you're gunna have to give me your top ten rankings so I know where you stand...

[ThaRegul8r]

regarding the the guy I quoted, well, that guy's obsessive too for stalking Jlauber on the net but at the same time it takes away Jlauber credibility a lot. Anyway, I do agree with what you wrote.

You don't know me, I don't know you. I have no beef with you. I don't care about your feud with Jlauber, as it doesn't concern me. But don't talk about what you don't know. As far as I'm concerned, this is over, because I've said what I have to say. Again, I don't have a problem with you, so don't make a problem and everything with be copacetic.

[Pointguard]

No doubt about him being one of the strongest, the best rebounder, one of the best defensively and THE BEST shotblocker BUT he would never be called the most talented if he played the exact same game he did in the 60's today..



No way he would be a 25 point scorer if he was transported from the 60's to today's game. Just watch his game and his post game, stuff like the video below doesn't translate to 25 points in the modern era with double and triple teams AND great defensive schemes, sorry..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oemQKScZ7MQ



That's what I'm saying, wow, that's what the whole discussion is about. Jlauber is trying to brainwash people about how Wilt would be even more dominant today because of the "weak" era and Wilt's never dying greatness.. That's why I'm saying that he wasn't the most talented of all-time..

Relative to his era he is the greatest or 2nd greatest after Russell, no doubt..

Originals are creative and great. They are the ones that see futher than others and can make something out of nothing. Other's see their example and copy. The use it as their base of moves and figuring out how to maneuver around the basket. Nobody played like Connie Hawkins when he played. 30 years later there were 12 guys HOF bound looking very similar. Nobody played like Earl Monroe then but now you see replicas all around. But you can't always take even a little bit from a great - look at the centers of today.

Being a versatile innovator and original, Wilt would have adapted and created in any era. If he came after Hakeem, he would have Hakeem in his repertoire. No center in the game has much in their repertoire now at all. Its like nobody of greatness preceded them. DH rebounds like Wilt and that's it.

Wilt in today's game would use Shaq's power game, Ewings hop, Duncan's bank shot, Hakeem's creativity, Kareem's baby hooks, Blake's oops, Jordan's reverses, DMC's handle, Mutombo's coverage, McGee's above the rim play and Walton's passing. How do I know this? Because he's at the genesis of it all. They are enhancements of his original seed. More perimeter speed and different defenses gave birth to variations of Wilt's game. But lets be clear here: Not one center came along with the complete dominant package like Wilt since he left the game. These are variations of different aspects of Wilt's game... not his total game.

Newell's big man camp was a study of Chamberlain and his wisdom in the post. Kareem and Hakeem contributed as well but few players today can make the camp look respectable. If Wilt was in there, with today's training, nutrition, stretching, massaging, endurance, creativity, favorable refs, being allowed two steps, energy and determination, he would be a lot better than anybodynow, without question.

[PTB Fan]

That's what happens. You shouldn't be ripped for holding a different opinion today than you did many years ago.

Nah.. actually, it was better for me. I changed my opinion, because i clearly didn't understand some of the players before better. I'm not old, so because of that, i had to do a lot of research in order before entering in an argument and to know what i'm talking about.

I wasn't exactly appreciating players before the 80's much few years ago, but that all changed. Now, i respect players from all eras.

[millwad]

You don't know me, I don't know you. I have no beef with you. I don't care about your feud with Jlauber, as it doesn't concern me. But don't talk about what you don't know. As far as I'm concerned, this is over, because I've said what I have to say. Again, I don't have a problem with you, so don't make a problem and everything with be copacetic.

ThaRegul8r, I've giving you major credit for exposing Jlauber. You destroyed him and his credibility but I didn't know the history behind it all and I don't know you as a poster. I took for granted that Pointguard was telling the truth but I bought it too easy and obviously it was a stupid thing to do, I fell for it without knowing the story behind it nor your word about it. I have ZERO problem with you and you definitely have my support over Jlauber anytime.

[Pointguard]

I find it ironic that a guy who once spoke about "slander," slanders me behind my back in a cowardly manner. Any time I have anything to say about someone, I say it directly to them when they're actually active in the thread, not when I think they're not around and won't see it. That's gutless. Anything I ever said to or about you, I said it to you like a man. When I wasn't talking directly to you, I never mentioned your name. Yet here you are still talking about me.
LOL, I didn't PM the guy, I said it in the open. I told you it was strange behavior, when you and GOAT did it- I think within this year? No slander. Look at the post presented. You went back 4 years from the date it was posted. Now what you did in your post to me, I could probably legally pursue you and get a settlement. And yeah, measure my words. You lied vs I said you have obsessive traits. As a scientist you should know what you did was slander - a legal term. I described your behavior - not the same things.


Because unlike most people, I never say anything for which I don't have proof of.

I wouldn't be talking the way I do if I thought that, now would I.

[millwad]

1. Do you not watch Dwight Howard play?? The guy is LIMITED offensively, yet, he puts up 23ppg on 60% shooting. How?? It's because he is so much bigger and stronger, and quicker, and more athletic than all the other centres. We are currently witnessing the weakest era for centres the league has ever known. Trust me, Wilt could get 25ppg.

I have my doubts, Wilt and Howard doesn't play the same offensive game and I think Howard's offensive game is way more suited for today's game then Wilt's. Anyway, this is a stupid topic since none of us can prove our standpoint.



2. Alright, you're gunna have to give me your top ten rankings so I know where you stand...

I'm changing my top 10 list all the time but I have Wilt in the top 10 but I have him after Jabbar, Hakeem and Shaq. If he would have won during his stats prime I'd have him ahead of Hakeem and Shaq.

[Pointguard]

Yet here you are still talking about me.

Reg, obsessive behavior is a quality of the moment, not a statement of your being. I wouldn't take it so personal. I have obsessions and don't care when people call me out on them.

[Stringer Bell]

Bird, even with his inconsistent shooting.

[ArbitraryWater]

Bird, even with his inconsistent shooting.

Watching 'The Wire' right now... String man!

[riseagainst]

the greatest choker in NBA history vs a legend. hmm what a tough choice.

[Psileas]

the greatest choker in NBA history vs a legend. hmm what a tough choice.

I don't see any Robinson vs Wilt or K.Malone vs Wilt thread here. Bird wasn't the greatest choker ever.

[riseagainst]

I don't see any Robinson vs Wilt or K.Malone vs Wilt thread here. Bird wasn't the greatest choker ever.

then you have misunderstood. Wilt is the choker in that statement. Larry Bird is the legend, aka Larry Legend.

[Stringer Bell]

Watching 'The Wire' right now... String man!

"Where's Wallace?"

G.O.A.T show.

[ArbitraryWater]

"Where's Wallace?"

G.O.A.T show.

Yes.. I'm currently at the end of Season 1 and I have that same excitement I had when I started watching Breaking Bad.. And it's gonna get better also :D

[Stringer Bell]

I don't see any Robinson vs Wilt or K.Malone vs Wilt thread here. Bird wasn't the greatest choker ever.

As much as I can't stand that POS hebephile Karl Malone, I think his reputation as a choke artist is a little overrated.

He did have his mess-ups in the 97' Finals with his shooting from both the field & line, especially with his missed FTs in game 1, and didn't want to foul out at the end of game 5 which cost them precious time at the end of the game (they most likely would have lost anyway), but his overall production in the postseason was very similar to his regular season production. The only real drop was FG% from 51% to 46%.

Malone actually played well in the 98' Finals, but a lot of people just remember him getting stripped by Jordan at the end. It wasn't his fault that Russell couldn't stop Jordan on those last 2 shots (and can you really fault Russell much either for getting beat by Jordan of all people?).

He actually played very well in game 6, had the best game statistically out of anyone, and outplayed everyone in game 5.

While he surely was not the most clutch player, I don't think he was this huge choke artist either.


Yes.. I'm currently at the end of Season 1 and I have that same excitement I had when I started watching Breaking Bad.. And it's gonna get better also :D

The Wire & Breaking Bad are like 1A and 1B among my favorite TV dramas.

Breaking Bad is a little more entertaining and faster-paced. The Wire has more hard-hitting emotional moments, I think. Scenes I can watch over and over again due to the acting, writing, and just the way it's put together.

[ArbitraryWater]

The Wire & Breaking Bad are like 1A and 1B among my favorite TV dramas.

Breaking Bad is a little more entertaining and faster-paced. The Wire has more hard-hitting emotional moments, I think. Scenes I can watch over and over again due to the acting, writing, and just the way it's put together.

Exactly how I feel about it so far