Shaq Or Wilt Or Olajuwon Or Duncan [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

zizozain

02-25-2012, 04:10 PM

In The Hakeem Olajuwon vs. Shaquille O'Neal Debate, The Dream Remains Unbeatable

Did I say debate? What I actually meant was, Houston fans put on their outrage pants rather quickly, knowing how the national debate would go. Of course the world thinks Shaq is a better player. He has the rings, he has the resume, etc. I'm not here to hate on Shaq. I think he absolutely belongs near the top of the all-time best NBA players.

But we're talking about Hakeem Olajuwon.

Now, those of you that are militant in your belief that Shaq is the better player - just hear me out. Follow these three simple steps to enlightenment:

1) Confirm that you can actually read and (this is the important part) process and retain information.
2) Read the following article.
3) Learn stuff.
4) Pop in a DVD of Kazaam to reinforce your feelings of Shaq's dominance.

Now, for those of you who think it's not even CLOSE, and Shaq is far better, follow all the above steps as written but before you begin said steps, it is important for you to GET THE FULLY-PACKED CRACK PIPE OUT OF YOUR MOUTH.

Defense is kind of important.

While Shaq, at least statistically, bests Olajuwon in the scoring department, it might be important to note that NBA players spend half their careers on the court playing defense. Why this small detail is so overlooked, I have no idea. O'Neal is absolutely no slouch when it comes to defense, but his defense was more about his physical presence than his actual ability.

Hakeem Olajuwon, while playing 18 seasons to O'Neal's 19, had roughly a thousand more blocked shots than Shaq. That's ONE THOUSAND. With ONE LESS SEASON. You want to talk about how Shaq is dominant? THAT is defensive domination. Hakeem is THE all-time leading shot-blocker in the NBA, despite the fact that Shaq was taller and allegedly more dominant. Defense is about effort. Defense is about imposing your will on the other guy. Nobody - ever - beats Hakeem Olajuwon in that category.

Olajuwon is eighth all-time in the NBA in steals. Not among centers, mind you - among ALL PLAYERS. I'm looking at the list of all-time steal leaders in the NBA, and I don't see another center among them. Eighth all-time in steals. Hakeem Olajuwon, ladies and gentlemen.

Numbers favor Shaq on offense, but who was the more complete offensive player?

Sure, Shaq has the better offensive numbers, but they're not light years better. Still, what was Shaq's game? Catch the ball in the low post, turn, and dunk. That's not a criticism - if you do something better than anyone else, you have to do it until someone stops it... and with Shaq, nobody ever did, because he was just that good.

Olajuwon on the other hand, well - he was great in the low post. He could kill you on the baseline with the Dream Shake. He had the mid-range jumper. Then, when he could already rely on his skills and was already better than all his peers, he developed a jump hook. When the jump hook showed up on the resume, it was OVER. Hakeem could officially murder you from pretty much anywhere inside of 16-18 feet.

That said, I'm not going to take anything away from Shaq's offensive game. Nobody in the history of the NBA, aside from Wilt Chamberlain, can compete with what he could do offensively under the basket.

At the end of games, Hakeem was clutch, and Shaq was non-existent.

This one really gets the Shaq-pumpers irritated. Shaquille O'Neal was SO bad at free throw shooting, that the NBA created the Hack-a-Shaq strategy. Late in games, teams would foul Shaq, then wait as he predictably clanked his free throws. This worked with alarming efficiency, so much so that Shaq's coaches would pull him out of games. A seven-foot, one-inch dominator, first ballot Hall-of-Famer, and two-time scoring champion - reduced to cheerleader. Why? Because he couldn't make free throws. Why? Because he didn't work hard enough on his free throw shooting. Oh sure, he tried to get better, but the bottom line is - it didn't work.

I'm sorry, but if you are out of games in the final minutes because of one of your liabilities, you are automatically out of the conversation for being number one at ANYTHING. On the other side, Olajuwon had a history of making clutch shots late in games... and sinking clutch free throws. After all, they're only free throws.

Shaq's celebrity and style plays into the myth that he's better than Hakeem.

I could go on for paragraphs on this topic, but I'll give one example that encapsulates my feelings on the matter with precision. When Shaquille O'Neal had the opportunity to block a shot, he would swat it ten rows up into the crowd. It is the way of the ESPN-era that his career blossomed during. Shaq would scream, beat his chest, dance around, and interact with the fans. I'M SHAQ LOOK HOW DOMINANT I AM BE SURE TO CATCH ME IN MOVIES THIS OFFSEASON I'M A CELEBRITY BRAAAAWWWRRRR!!!!

With Hakeem, he almost always made it a point to keep his blocked shots in play. Could he have swatted them into the ether and done cartwheels? Sure. But it wasn't his way. Instead, he'd block the shot and haul it in himself, or often times he'd block a shot, and ignite a fast break scoring opportunity for the Rockets. It's just as worthy of an ESPN highlight, but since Olajuwon, much like the Honey Badger, doesn't give a sh*t about any of that stuff, he didn't get the run Shaq did. And that's fine. Shaq is good for the NBA, and again, I'm not here to deride him.

Head to head in The Finals, and it wasn't even close.

I think this is worth mentioning, but it's not something I consider overwhelming evidence in Hakeem's favor. When Shaq and Hakeem met in the 1995 NBA Finals, Olajuwon was in his prime, and Shaq was still in the early part of his career. But it's not like it was close. With less talent, and without home-court advantage, the Rockets swept the Magic, and Olajuwon bested O'Neal.

On the other side of the coin, in 1999 the Rockets met the Lakers in the first round of the playoffs. Shaq absolutely dominated Hakeem in that series, but he was well past his prime. To maintain some objectivity here, it's probably safe to say that these two series effectively cancel each other out.

Shaq has the hardware, and that's impossible to refute.
Four rings to two. Shaq has Olajuwon there. Nothing I can spin can refute that, but it is certainly worth mentioning that while Shaq had Kobe, Kobe, Kobe, and Dwayne Wade at his side for his championships, Hakeem had NOBODY, and wild-shooting, 33 year old Clyde Drexler on his. While Hakeem was surrounded by role-players (and Clyde), Shaq always had a superstar.

Shaq's alleged physical dominance is overstated.

Ah yes, the go-to line for all Shaq-backers. He's the most physically-dominant NBA player ever! Well, not really. First of all, that title belongs to Wilt Chamberlain. Maybe Oliver Miller, but more for his pre-game meal performances. As Adam Wexler pointed out, Shaq never once lead the NBA in rebounding or blocked shots. Maybe people need to re-think their definition of dominant, because those are certainly two statistics that you should lead the league in at least once if you're even going to make the argument that a guy is the most dominant NBA talent of all time.

If Shaq had half of Hakeem's work ethic, this wouldn't even be a debate.
While O'Neal relied on his natural talents his entire career, Hakeem Olajuwon was constantly working, retooling, inventing, and tweaking his game. Shaq probably never felt the need to do that, and really - he was so gifted, I can hardly blame the guy. Shaq's game never truly evolved beyond his natural talent. Instead of putting in the hours tweaking, improving, and evolving, he spent a full third of his career (perhaps more than that?) out of peak shape. If he had Olajuwon's work ethic, we might be arguing about Shaq vs. Jordan vs. Chamberlain for the best all time. Instead, he never put in complete effort defensively, never developed another shot outside of that little baby hook (meh), and seemed to coast for a significant portion of his career.

Conclusions.

The simplified version is this: I'll give you that Shaq was more dominant, and perhaps even affected games on offense more than Olajuwon, but it wasn't by much. For reasons stated above, you can make a legitimate case that Olajuwon was in fact a more complete offensive player. But even if I spot you Shaq's offensive game, Hakeem Olajuwon's defense is Manny Pacqiao's fist to Shaq's Shane Mosley face, and again - Shaq was a good defender. It's just that Olajuwon was MORE dominant as a defender than Shaq was as a scorer. ONE. THOUSAND. MORE. BLOCKS. EIGHTH ALL-TIME IN STEALS. Offense is half the game. Defense is the other half. If Shaq is slightly ahead of Hakeem on offense, and Hakeem is FAR ahead of Shaq on defense, well, draw your own conclusions. I've shown you facts.

I think this is a well-reasoned, if not unbiased look at the comparison between Shaq and Hakeem. Sure, I'm a Hakeem fan, but I've got nothing at all against Shaq. I'm also a big fan of, you know, factual information - and there's more than enough out there to solidify what I will call a FACT, that on a player-to-player basis, Hakeem Olajuwon is superior to Shaquille O'Neal.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=250889

zizozain

02-25-2012, 04:10 PM

I leave you with a quote. I think this guy knows something about basketball:

If I had to pick a center, I would take Olajuwon. That leaves out Shaq, Patrick Ewing. It leaves out Wilt Chamberlain. It leaves out a lot of people. And the reason I would take Olajuwon is very simple: he is so versatile because of what he can give you from that position. It's not just his scoring, not just his rebounding or not just his blocked shots. People don't realize he was in the top seven in steals. He always made great decisions on the court. For all facets of the game, I have to give it to him.
-Michael Jordan

1. Olajuwon
2. Wilt
3. Duncan
4. Shaq

swi7ch

02-25-2012, 04:11 PM

You obviously not only never saw Chamberlain play, you have also not even viewed any video footage of him, either. Nor have you done any research into just how dominant he was against his peers, MANY of whom are in the HOF.

Diff. era. Remember, according to ISH, Wilt will be a backup to Javale McGee. :facepalm

LBJMVP

02-25-2012, 04:11 PM

wilt
shaq
olajuwon
duncan

swi7ch

02-25-2012, 04:12 PM

I leave you with a quote. I think this guy knows something about basketball:

Like I said, Olajuwon is the only C that has no weakness and I'm glad the GOAT agrees with me! :bowdown:

PTB Fan

02-25-2012, 04:21 PM

They can go in any order.. doesn't matter.

All of them were dominant forces for sure.

jlauber

02-25-2012, 04:24 PM

i think russell kareem whole different level than them:rockon:

Interesting...check out the Wilt-Russell H2H's sometime. It was pretty ugly at times.

As for the Kareem-Wilt debate... Wilt played against Kareem in ONE game before he shredded his knee, and just dominated him. In fact, here are some interesting facts:

1. Kareem came into the NBA in the 69-70 season. Just the year before, Chamberlain poured in games of 60 and 66 points, against the same centers that Kareem would face for several years. Kareem's career high game, in his 20 year career, was 55 points.

2. And how about the start to the 69-70 season? In Wilt's first nine games, he was averaging a league-leading 32.2 ppg, along with 20 rpg, and shooting .600 in the process. Included in those nine games was that pounding of Kareem. Wilt blew out his knee in that ninth game, and was never the same offensively again. Kareem finished the year with a 28.8 ppg .518 season. Now, clearly Kareem was a rookie, and would become much better, BUT, Wilt was 33 and playing in his 11th season in that 69-70 season, and was ALSO, nowhere near his prime.

3. In the entire 70-71 season, covering ten H2H games (five of them in the post-season) a statistically PRIME Kareem, in arguably his greatest season, was matched point-for-point, shot-for-shot, and rebound-for-rebound by a 34 year old Wilt, who was only a year removed from major knee surgery.

4. In the 71-72 WCF's, virtually EVERYONE who WATCHED that series, including the MILWAUKEE coach and press, claimed that a 35 year old Wilt outplayed the 25 year old Kareem. Time Magazine hailed Wilt's performance as a DECISIVE win by Wilt.

5. A PRIME Chamberlain just MURDERED HOF centers like Reed, Bellamy, and even Thurmond. In his "scoring seasons", he had entire SEASONS, ususally covering 9-10 H2H games against those three, in which he just CRUSHED them. For instance, in his 64-65 season, he played against Reed in nine H2H games, and averaged 40.1 ppg against him, including two games in which he outscored Reed by 52-23 and 58-28 margins (and another one by a 41-9 margin.)

And how about Chamberlain against Bellamy. One of the most one-sided "rivalry's" in NBA history. In his 62-63 season, Wilt bashed Bellamy to the tune of a 43.7 ppg average in their 10 H2H games, which included games of 50, 51, 54, and 57 points. And, as bad as that was, in Chamberlain's historic 61-62 season he averaged a mind-blowing 52.7 ppg against Bellamy in their 10 H2H games, including games of 50, 51, 55, 61, 61 and 73 points. In his WORST game against Bellamy that season, we now have evidence of this...a 34 point, 33 rebound, 20 block game...or his SECOND double-triple-double game of his career (his other being a 22 point, 25 rebound, 21 assist game against the Pistons in '68.)

And a PRIME "scoring" Wilt faced the 6-11 HOFer Thurmond in about a dozen games. From their last H2H game in the 64-65 season, then thru their nine H2H games in the 65-66 season, and into their first H2H game of the '67 season (a year in which Chamberlain dramatically cut back his shooting), Wilt averaged 29.9 ppg against Nate...outscoring him in 10 of those 11 H2H's, and including games of 30, 33, 34, 34, 38, and 45 points. And he was just burying Nate in those games, too (he outscored him 33-10, 38-15, and 45-13 in three of them.)

Why was that important? Because a PRIME Kareem faced all three of those guys many times, and he never came CLOSE to that kind of domination against them. He even faced Thurmond in some 50 H2H games, and very seldom even scored 30+ against him, and his HIGH game against Nate was 34 points.

Now, what we never witnessed was a PRIME "scoring" Chamberlain against any version of Kareem. Those of us that actually SAW the two play, to a man, would claim that a PRIME Wilt would outplay a PRIME Kareem, if not abuse him.

LBJMVP

02-25-2012, 04:28 PM

Interesting...check out the Wilt-Russell H2H's sometime. It was pretty ugly at times.

As for the Kareem-Wilt debate... Wilt played against Kareem in ONE game before he shredded his knee, and just dominated him. In fact, here are some interesting facts:

1. Kareem came into the NBA in the 69-70 season. Just the year before, Chamberlain poured in games of 60 and 66 points, against the same centers that Kareem would face for several years. Kareem's career high game, in his 20 year career, was 55 points.

2. And how about the start to the 69-70 season? In Wilt's first nine games, he was averaging a league-leading 32.2 ppg, along with 20 rpg, and shooting .600 in the process. Included in those nine games was that pounding of Kareem. Wilt blew out his knee in that ninth game, and was never the same offensively again. Kareem finished the year with a 28.8 ppg .518 season. Now, clearly Kareem was a rookie, and would become much better, BUT, Wilt was 33 and playing in his 11th season in that 69-70 season, and was ALSO, nowhere near his prime.

3. In the entire 70-71 season, covering ten H2H games (five of them in the post-season) a statistically PRIME Kareem, in arguably his greatest season, was matched point-for-point, shot-for-shot, and rebound-for-rebound by a 34 year old Wilt, who was only a year removed from major knee surgery.

4. In the 71-72 WCF's, virtually EVERYONE who WATCHED that series, including the MILWAUKEE coach and press, claimed that a 35 year old Wilt outplayed the 25 year old Kareem. Time Magazine hailed Wilt's performance as a DECISIVE win by Wilt.

5. A PRIME Chamberlain just MURDERED HOF centers like Reed, Bellamy, and even Thurmond. In his "scoring seasons", he had entire SEASONS, ususally covering 9-10 H2H games against those three, in which he just CRUSHED them. For instance, in his 64-65 season, he played against Reed in nine H2H games, and averaged 40.1 ppg against him, including two games in which he outscored Reed by 52-23 and 58-28 margins (and another one by a 41-9 margin.)

And how about Chamberlain against Bellamy. One of the most one-sided "rivalry's" in NBA history. In his 62-63 season, Wilt bashed Bellamy to the tune of a 43.7 ppg average in their 10 H2H games, which included games of 50, 51, 54, and 57 points. And, as bad as that was, in Chamberlain's historic 61-62 season he averaged a mind-blowing 52.7 ppg against Bellamy in their 10 H2H games, including games of 50, 51, 55, 61, 61 and 73 points. In his WORST game against Bellamy that season, we now have evidence of this...a 34 point, 33 rebound, 20 block game...or his SECOND double-triple-double game of his career (his other being a 22 point, 25 rebound, 21 assist game against the Pistons in '68.)

And a PRIME "scoring" Wilt faced the 6-11 HOFer Thurmond in about a dozen games. From their last H2H game in the 64-65 season, then thru their nine H2H games in the 65-66 season, and into their first H2H game of the '67 season (a year in which Chamberlain dramatically cut back his shooting), Wilt averaged 29.9 ppg against Nate...outscoring him in 10 of those 11 H2H's, and including games of 30, 33, 34, 34, 38, and 45 points. And he was just burying Nate in those games, too (he outscored him 33-10, 38-15, and 45-13 in three of them.)

Why was that important? Because a PRIME Kareem faced all three of those guys many times, and he never came CLOSE to that kind of domination against them. He even faced Thurmond in some 50 H2H games, and very seldom even scored 30+ against him, and his HIGH game against Nate was 34 points.

Now, what we never witnessed was a PRIME "scoring" Chamberlain against any version of Kareem. Those of us that actually SAW the two play, to a man, would claim that a PRIME Wilt would outplay a PRIME Kareem, if not abuse him.

you actually make some good arguements. i do believe wilt would be great today, but he wouldnt be the same scoring machine. though some players in the 60s could still be alltime greats today i still maintain that most of them wouldnt be in the nba

DMAVS41

02-25-2012, 04:29 PM

Based closely on the accepted criteria of ranking players:

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

Hakeem is difficult to rank for me because we simply have no idea what he would have done with the kind of help that Russell, Kareem, and Shaq had. There is a good chance that with loaded teams throughout his career...Hakeem could have gone down as the best or 2nd best center of all time.

Horry recently said that Hakeem was definitely better than Duncan and Shaq. Just one man's opinion of course, but sadly we will just never know what he could have done.

jlauber

02-25-2012, 04:34 PM

Like I said, Olajuwon is the only C that has no weakness and I'm glad the GOAT agrees with me! :bowdown:

Hakeem was not in his prime in his first two seasons, to be sure, but the same could also certainly be said of Kareem, who was 37 and 38 (actually 38 and 39) in those two years. The two played H2H (and guarded each other for nearly the entire games) in 10 games in those two years.

In those 10 straight games, Kareem averaged 31.8 ppg on .630 shooting against him, which included THREE games of 40+ (40 on 16-29 shooting, 42 on 16-24 shooting, and 46 points on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.)

In fact, Kareem, from age 37 thru 41 (here again it was actually closer to 38 thru 42), faced a 23 thru 26 year old Hakeem in 23 H2H games (when they actually guarded each other), and averaged 22.6 ppg on .610 shooting against him (Hakeem was at 22.3 ppg on .512 shooting against him.)

As a point of reference, a PRIME Shaq, and facing a fading Hakeem, in the '99 playoffs, had his career high game versus Hakeem, when he scored 37 points in the deciding game of that series.

June1026

02-25-2012, 04:37 PM

Olajuwon

there is no one in the history of NBA that deserves the statement "single handedly carried a team to championship", more than this guy.

millwad

02-25-2012, 04:39 PM

You obviously not only never saw Chamberlain play, you have also not even viewed any video footage of him, either. Nor have you done any research into just how dominant he was against his peers, MANY of whom are in the HOF.

Old fart, you only saw Wilt on youtube and after some quotes..

millwad

02-25-2012, 04:40 PM

Hakeem was not in his prime in his first two seasons, to be sure, but the same could also certainly be said of Kareem, who was 37 and 38 (actually 38 and 39) in those two years. The two played H2H (and guarded each other for nearly the entire games) in 10 games in those two years.

In those 10 straight games, Kareem averaged 31.8 ppg on .630 shooting against him, which included THREE games of 40+ (40 on 16-29 shooting, 42 on 16-24 shooting, and 46 points on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.)

In fact, Kareem, from age 37 thru 41 (here again it was actually closer to 38 thru 42), faced a 23 thru 26 year old Hakeem in 23 H2H games (when they actually guarded each other), and averaged 22.6 ppg on .610 shooting against him (Hakeem was at 22.3 ppg on .512 shooting against him.)

As a point of reference, a PRIME Shaq, and facing a fading Hakeem, in the '99 playoffs, had his career high game versus Hakeem, when he scored 37 points in the deciding game of that series.

How butthurt can someone be to mention the same regular season games OVER and OVER and OVER again from a players rookie and 2nd year as pro where he was no where close to his prime. And still the same 2nd year pro abused Kareem and the Lakers in the playoffs, you suck so much, Jlauber.:facepalm

Jotaro Durant

02-25-2012, 04:43 PM

DMAVS41

02-25-2012, 04:45 PM

u seem to be someone who is somehwat of duncan supporter so how do u feel about duncan above wilt on alltime rankings?not say duncan better player but overall espeicalley career............

I didn't see Wilt play so its really hard for me. From all the research I've done and the books I've read and what basketball historians say....it seems like Wilt should be ranked over him.

But with Russell and Wilt....I just never saw them play so its difficult for me to rank them all time.

I do think Duncan will forever be historically under-rated. If you ranked players on what they accomplished based on their circumstances....Duncan might finish 2nd all time. I don't see how anyone could pass Russell in a debate like that.

But Duncan has the best win percentage of his era (well...only parker and manu have higher ones...LOL)...he won 4 titles without an all nba player. He didn't get to immediately play for a HOF proven coach like kobe and shaq did.

Duncan was unbelievably clutch on both ends...as more information is coming out we see this on paper. He's one of the best two way players ever. He's a great leader. He is loyal and unselfish and always put the team first.

He's just the epitome of what I'd want in a franchise player. Definitely the best player of the post MJ generation in my opinion. He's just a winner...if "winning" was a trait....Duncan has it in spades.

I don't know exactly where he should end up, but he's in my top 6.

millwad

02-25-2012, 04:46 PM

4. In the 71-72 WCF's, virtually EVERYONE who WATCHED that series, including the MILWAUKEE coach and press, claimed that a 35 year old Wilt outplayed the 25 year old Kareem. Time Magazine hailed Wilt's performance as a DECISIVE win by Wilt.

Again a pure crap post by you...
"Everyone" just got a new meaning, Time Magazine wrote that he got the best of Kareem in the last game of the series.

You are so stupid that you actually used to spam about how Kareem absolutely got "murdered", "abused", "killed" and "dominated" by Wilt in that series...

Kareem freaking outscored the helpless Wilt with 23 points per game and he shot with a higher FG%...:facepalm

And please, can you act again like you "remember" that series a la writing that Kareem got 20 skyhooks blocked in that series?:facepalm

Haha, you are just so stupid, acting like you remember a 40 year old series while you even couldn't remember how "good" Wilt's era was just a few years ago..:facepalm

You changed your mind over quotes and youtube..:facepalm

millwad

02-25-2012, 04:48 PM

Olajuwon

there is no one in the history of NBA that deserves the statement "single handedly carried a team to championship", more than this guy.

Wilt does, lets not forget how Wilt won his rings while he lead his teams in scoring..

* Oops, I meant while being the tied 2nd and fourth option on offense.. :lol

PTB Fan

02-25-2012, 04:50 PM

Interesting...check out the Wilt-Russell H2H's sometime. It was pretty ugly at times.

Ugly for Russell? Not really.

4. In the 71-72 WCF's, virtually EVERYONE who WATCHED that series, including the MILWAUKEE coach and press, claimed that a 35 year old Wilt outplayed the 25 year old Kareem. Time Magazine hailed Wilt's performance as a DECISIVE win by Wilt.

Show me a proof.

millwad

02-25-2012, 04:51 PM

Oh and ranking these 4 gentlemen..

I have it like this;

1. Shaq/Hakeem (I have them tied on the all-time list currently but I don't mind Shaq over Hakeem or the other way around.

2. Duncan

3. Wilt

millwad

02-25-2012, 04:55 PM

Ugly for Russell? Not really.

Show me a proof.

The funny thing about that series is that the stat-crazy Jlauber never posts the stats of Kareem and Wilt from that series. He's too ashamed of the fact that Kareem outscored Wilt with 23 points per game in that series while shooting with a higher FG% and that Kareem also dished out more assists and shot FT's twice as good.

He's also really ashamed of the fact that Kareem that same season averaged 40 points on 50% through the regular season against prime defensive Wilt. He never mentions that but he sure mentions the fact that rookie and 2nd year pro Olajuwon let Kareem score 40+ on him..:facepalm

Before the poster Fatal9 destroyed his crap about that series, Jlauber used to write stuff about Kareem getting murdered in that series.... while he outscored his opponent (Wilt) with 23 points per game on better FG%..:facepalm

Pointguard

02-25-2012, 04:59 PM

I leave you with a quote. I think this guy knows something about basketball:
1. Olajuwon
2. Wilt
3. Duncan
4. Shaq

Jordan pretty much sucks when evaluating center talent. He picked Kwame Brown over Tyson Chandler, Paul Gasol, Samuel Dalembert, Memhet Okur, Zach Randolf and Eddie Curry,. I could even through in Diop in the conversation. Arguably he picked the worse center out of seven guys.

And MJ missed out on Allstars Tony Parker, Gerald Wallace, Joe Johnson and Gilbert Arenas. And he was convinced he had the right guy.

PTB Fan

02-25-2012, 05:01 PM

Bucks lacked Oscar Robertson big time. There were many reports about this being a huge issue for the Bucks, such as this (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QStmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HIsNAAAA)

It obviously bothered Milwaukee a lot, because their second option was injured and never the same. Big O was never fully healthy after that and the defense used that to pressure Kareem at even higher rate.

Edit: Something interesting about Kareem vs Wilt in 72. Kareem held Wilt to 37% on 9 points FG in their head to head match up in their first five games. Impressive, while scoring 31.0 points on 46.7% FG.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=iDgdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zCgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7272,547683&hl=en

StateOfMind12

02-25-2012, 05:01 PM

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

I'm not sure why Wilt is even in this ranking. He played in a different era and generation than those three did.

PTB Fan

02-25-2012, 05:03 PM

Before the poster Fatal9 destroyed his crap about that series, Jlauber used to write stuff about Kareem getting murdered in that series.... while he outscored his opponent (Wilt) with 23 points per game on better FG%..:facepalm

If he goes to his theory in which he claims that Wilt outplayed Russell because of stats, then.. Kareem outplayed Wilt too, right? That's the thing that bothers me a lot about him.

CavaliersFTW

02-25-2012, 05:11 PM

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

I'm not sure why Wilt is even in this ranking. He played in a different era and generation than those three did.

So what? Kareem is the one missing link there. Then Hakeem came along, then Shaq, then Duncan. Technically, all three aren't from exactly the same "era" because they all started in different years and "era" is nothing but a made up concept rarely agreed upon as to where one begins and another ends by NBA fans...

The People who argue about era's are either trolling or simply don't know shit about the NBA past a certain point in time (generally, this seems to be the years that pre-date the mass-media and marketing of the 1980's). And if that's what the problem is with your understanding of Wilt just say so. There aren't even any seem's along these "era's". No player in NBA history has ever been made redundant by crossing from one imaginary "era" to the next. We can all try to say "3 point line", or "Jordan Era" or "Shaq Era" or "60's" or w/e you want to define an era by, but the fact is plain and simple, in the minds and abilities of all the players that have played in the NBA they don't ever play thinking "jeez this new era we switched too iz tuff". No. They just play ball, if the game looks different it's because of rule changes not player ability. All the superstars from every "era" u could possibly create invisible lines for, have crossed at least several potential lines and yet, remained entirely effective until they were simply too old or disinterested to play, nothing made them ineffective except old age.

Wilt is in the conversation. But if you don't know about him or understand much about the seasons that he played just say so, it's better than blindly ranking him last. :facepalm

millwad

02-25-2012, 05:24 PM

PTB Fan

02-25-2012, 05:28 PM

[QUOTE=millwad]Really impressive!

Here's the boxscores for the playoff-games a la '72;

Post season

Deuce Bigalow

02-25-2012, 05:29 PM

[QUOTE=millwad]Really impressive!

Here's the boxscores for the playoff-games a la '72;

Post season

swi7ch

02-25-2012, 05:29 PM

Olajuwon

there is no one in the history of NBA that deserves the statement "single handedly carried a team to championship", more than this guy.

he also has NO WEAKNESS! can shoot, can post up, can block shots, can defend, can pass, can shoot free throws etc etc etc

someone PLEASE tell me what olajuwon's weakness is!

Deuce Bigalow

02-25-2012, 05:31 PM

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

I'm not sure why Wilt is even in this ranking. He played in a different era and generation than those three did.
I would put Russell at the 4th spot and move Wilt Chamberlain 5th.

millwad

02-25-2012, 05:35 PM

:applause:

Great find. It's impressive that Kareem even outrebounded Wilt in few of their games, which is a thing that rarely happened to Wilt when he was matched up with a HOF C.

I have to give the credit to Wilt for impacting the game with his blocks, that led to many fast brakes, not allowing easy buckets and doing his best to slow down Kareem.

Yeah, young Kareem was a stud.
And regarding the blocks, too bad that we only know how many blocks Kareem had in one of the 6 games.

millwad

02-25-2012, 05:36 PM

:oldlol:
I always here jlauber's tall tails that Wilt "owned" Kareem :lol

Not only did he "own" Kareem, according to Jlauber he also "killed" him, "abused" him, "murdered" him etc... Haha.

PTB Fan

02-25-2012, 05:39 PM

Yeah, young Kareem was a stud.
And regarding the blocks, too bad that we only know how many blocks Kareem had in one of the 6 games.

Kareem wasn't the same dominant force on the glass for some reason though in his later days. He stopped carrying for the regular seasons.. and of course as always elevated himself in the post season and finals.

CavaliersFTW

02-25-2012, 05:45 PM

My list:

Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan

That's not to sell Duncan short, this is tough to rate because in his prime he was mostly a PF so maybe I'm not being fair... Duncan could be flip flopped with Hakeem maybe. Both are effective on both ends Duncan sometimes get's underrated because he had less flash but the big fundamental was always going to play solid.

If you wanted to build a dynasty your going to get by far the most immense margin of dominance from Wilt or Shaq IF you know how to massage their ego's. Both are risky to become discontent and risk a chemistry problem. But that's because both of those guys are just flat out sick in their primes and they knew they were. I picked Wilt though, because he remained a force even pushing through injury and age with amazing recovery time in his later years because he kept him self dedicated to supreme physical conditioning programs and was amazingly adaptable to changing his game when coaches asked him too. Fitness and Shaq aren't really supposed to be used in the same sentence :lol

Duncan would probably give you the most stable dynasty if you picked him, he's just so consistent and his fundamentals get the job done regardless if he isn't as supremely athletic or flashy as those guys. His quiet demeanor off the court would make him able to play with a much wider variety of supporting cast. I'd categorize Hakeem in the same tier as Duncan but he'd be the better choice if you not only needed to win, but also needed to boost your ticket sales lol. He's a dream to watch :lol

Deuce Bigalow

02-25-2012, 05:46 PM

Not only did he "own" Kareem, according to Jlauber he also "killed" him, "abused" him, "murdered" him etc... Haha.
According to Jlauber Wilt would "own" Shaq :facepalm

millwad

02-25-2012, 05:48 PM

According to Jlauber Wilt would "own" Shaq :facepalm

According to Jlauber Wilt had a great jumpshot and was in fact a great shooter.

Deuce Bigalow

02-25-2012, 05:54 PM

According to Jlauber Wilt had a great jumpshot and was in fact a great shooter.
According to Jlauber Wilt was the 2nd greatest clutch performer ever

Timmy D for MVP

02-25-2012, 05:56 PM

Wilt (5th All Time)
Shaq (6th All Time)
Duncan (7th All Time)
Hakeem (9th All Time)

CavaliersFTW

02-25-2012, 07:03 PM

Not only did he "own" Kareem, according to Jlauber he also "killed" him, "abused" him, "murdered" him etc... Haha.

Millwad and PTB, you guys do realize that in at least 1 playoff series I'm very familiar with, Wilt did in fact "outplay" Kareem. Right? You guys like to dismiss everything jlauber says but if you want to get your facts straight you can't rip him for everything, sure he's bias but he isn't straight up wrong. What Wilt did against Kareem in 1971 was considered extraordinary in the minds of the league, the press, and the Milwaukee fans.

The two players had entirely different roles on their teams. Wilt was playing like the Bill Russell of the 60's, and yes that's probably something you guys called out jlauber for but who cares. In 1971 Baylor and West and 1 other starter (who's name escapes me) DNP against the Bucks... since Wilt wasn't part of the offensive playbook anymore that's 3 of the Laker's 4 guns... gone. No plays were ran through Chamberlain to have the ball and shoot anymore the coach liked to use him as the rebounding, defensive and intangible glue. He was nothing but a screen setter, or facilitator on the offensive end, and occasionally the spark plug if everyone else got cold. But there was nothing in the playbook that said give the ball to Wilt to score.

That means that if Wilt suddenly puts up #'s that are even in the ballpark of Kareem during a game he's having quite a night and Kareem is probably losing the battle. Kareem was the league's leading scorer and entirely integral to the Milwaukee offense. In the regular season match ups of '71 (the season after Wilt's surgery) it was clear Kareem had the edge on Chamberlain, and was now the most-dominant-center at the time as affirmed by his MVP status. But in '71 series Wilt increased his own #'s - despite not having plays run through him, and obliterated Kareem's expected productivity. He out-rebounded Kareem, he even outscored him in, 3 of the 5 games. He blocked more shots (many of the Kareem's), and he impressed the press, the league, and Milwaukee with his individual performance that seemed to come out of nowhere. He received a very sincere standing ovation from the Milwaukee Buck's crowd in G5 when the Laker's were finally ousted. Chamberlain won the battle of the centers, hands down. The stacked Bucks won the battle over the crippled Lakers. Most of the assists you see reflect Kareem's bailout passes as Chamberlain put up the roadblocks on Kareem's favorite spots to shoot. If turnovers were tracked, Kareem would have had a LOT that series.

And just in case your thinking "but Wilt (IE The Lakers) lost" - it really is beside the point that the Lakers lost that series. The 1971 Bucks are one of the top 5 teams of all time, blowing the roof off opponents that season by the widest point margin in NBA history. The Lakers were crippled with 3 missing starters including the vital 1-2 punch West and Baylor so the playbook was useless. Chamberlain and his team still wanted to win of course but that's just a pipe dream. They were going down and the media was expecting a total sweep. Wilt was an old man, Kareem was fresh into his prime. What Wilt was able to do was like any great player who was past his prime - show you a flashback of his former self. And he did that in '71 against the Bucks. He absolutely outplayed Kareem that series.

Just so this is clear.

Post season – 1970-71 – WCF playoffs

Date: Fri 04/09/71
- Chamberlain 22 pts, 20 rebs, 1 as, 8 blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA – 3 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 32 pts, 22 rebs, 1 as, 1 blocks, 14-30 FG/FGA W
Wilt diminishes Kareem's game impact by elevating his own offensive
production and diminishing Jabbars efficiency, but he does give up too
many rebounds to Jabbar.
Call it a draw.

Date: Sun 04/11/71
- Chamberlain 26 pts, 22 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA - Wilt blocked numerious shots L
-Abdul-Jabbar 22 pts, 10 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W
Wilt completely erased Kareem's individual impact on the Buck's,
he actually took Kareem in the negative. He didn't just diminish
Kareem and Increase for himself, he flat out outscored and outrebounded
him despite the fact that the Buck's GO TO Kareem to score.

Date: Wed 04/14/71
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 24 rebs, 3 as, 3 blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 19 rebs, 6 as, 0 blocks, 8-16 FG/FGA L
Same Result. Wilt individually dominated Kareem.

Date: Fri 04/16/71
- Chamberlain 15 pts, 16 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 7-14 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 20 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 14-20 FG/FGA W
Given their duties on the teams, this is the only game Kareem
had the upper hand.

Date: Fri 04/16/71
- Chamberlain 23 pts, 12 rebs, 4 as, 6 blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA – 5 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 15 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 7-23 FG/FGA W
Wilt dominated the final match up. They both did not rebound well
because Kareem tried to take his game outside (and Wilt get's most of
his rebounds defensively not offensively.) Wilt outscored Kareem again,
and obliterated Kareem's fg% - he blocked Kareem 5 times.

Video coverage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWRmCBYymM0&t=13m50s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnSEwXP_5gc&t=15m25s

bdreason

02-25-2012, 07:06 PM

Wilt > Hakeem > Shaq > Duncan

If I have to take one player for a 7 game series, gimme prime Hakeem though.

Kiarip

02-25-2012, 07:07 PM

all time rankings:

Kareem
Wilt
Russel
Shaq
Duncan
Olajuwon

bdreason

02-25-2012, 07:13 PM

^^^

You claim Kareem was the "go-to" guy, yet Wilt took as many or more shots in most games. And in the games where Kareem took more shots, he scored more, and the Bucks won.

I haven't watched the series, but based on the numbers it seems like it was a pretty nice battle. And perhaps the Bucks should have actually gone to Kareem even more throughout the series.

PTB Fan

02-25-2012, 07:55 PM

Millwad and PTB, you guys do realize that in at least 1 playoff series I'm very familiar with, Wilt did in fact "outplay" Kareem. Right? You guys like to dismiss everything jlauber says but if you want to get your facts straight you can't rip him for everything, sure he's bias but he isn't straight up wrong. What Wilt did against Kareem in 1971 was considered extraordinary in the minds of the league, the press, and the Milwaukee fans.

I don't dismiss what ever jlauber says, but i can't accept that fact that when ever we have a Russell vs Wilt debate.. he mentions the stats from those games, yet when ever the stats from Kareem vs Wilt match ups are never brought in discussion because Kareem has huge advantage.

So why the double-standard?

The two players had entirely different roles on their teams. Wilt was playing like the Bill Russell of the 60's, and yes that's probably something you guys called out jlauber for but who cares. In 1971 Baylor and West and 1 other starter (who's name escapes me) DNP against the Bucks... since Wilt wasn't part of the offensive playbook anymore that's 3 of the Laker's 4 guns... gone. No plays were ran through Chamberlain to have the ball and shoot anymore the coach liked to use him as the rebounding, defensive and intangible glue. He was nothing but a screen setter, or facilitator on the offensive end, and occasionally the spark plug if everyone else got cold. But there was nothing in the playbook that said give the ball to Wilt to score.

About why i call out jlauber, you read in the part above. And yes, i'm pretty aware that Wilt played like Russell because coach Sharman asked him to do so and it was the biggest reason why LA won a title.

That means that if Wilt suddenly puts up #'s that are even in the ballpark of Kareem during a game he's having quite a night and Kareem is probably losing the battle. Kareem was the league's leading scorer and entirely integral to the Milwaukee offense. In the regular season match ups of '71 (the season after Wilt's surgery) it was clear Kareem had the edge on Chamberlain, and was now the most-dominant-center at the time as affirmed by his MVP status. But in '71 series Wilt increased his own #'s - despite not having plays run through him, and obliterated Kareem's expected productivity. He out-rebounded Kareem, he even outscored him in, 3 of the 5 games. He blocked more shots (many of the Kareem's), and he impressed the press, the league, and Milwaukee with his individual performance that seemed to come out of nowhere. He received a very sincere standing ovation from the Milwaukee Buck's crowd in G5 when the Laker's were finally ousted. Chamberlain won the battle of the centers, hands down. The stacked Bucks won the battle over the crippled Lakers. Most of the assists you see reflect Kareem's bailout passes as Chamberlain put up the roadblocks on Kareem's favorite spots to shoot. If turnovers were tracked, Kareem would have had a LOT that series.

Fair enough. I agree with Wilt taking the edge here. Even though Kareem later cruised on to easy title.. Wilt got the upper hand in that series. BTW, do you have any links about the thoughts from the newspapers? Thanks.

However, something then also has to be taken in consideration. This is the only year, Jabbar got to play with healthy Oscar. Only season to be exact. He had no help later on in their match ups from his team mates and even bigger defensive attention.

I just want that to be taken in notice. I'm being fair here.

And just in case your thinking "but Wilt (IE The Lakers) lost" - it really is beside the point that the Lakers lost that series. The 1971 Bucks are one of the top 5 teams of all time, blowing the roof off opponents that season by the widest point margin in NBA history. The Lakers were crippled with 3 missing starters including the vital 1-2 punch West and Baylor so the playbook was useless. Chamberlain and his team still wanted to win of course but that's just a pipe dream. They were going down and the media was expecting a total sweep. Wilt was an old man, Kareem was fresh into his prime. What Wilt was able to do was like any great player who was past his prime - show you a flashback of his former self. And he did that in '71 against the Bucks. He absolutely outplayed Kareem that series.

Good post.

[QUOTE][QUOTE]Just so this is clear.

[CODE][B]Post season

millwad

02-25-2012, 08:04 PM

I don't dismiss what ever jlauber says, but i can't accept that fact that when ever we have a Russell vs Wilt debate.. he mentions the stats from those games, yet when ever the stats from Kareem vs Wilt match ups are never brought in discussion because Kareem has huge advantage.

So why the double-standard?

About why i call out jlauber, you read in the part above. And yes, i'm pretty aware that Wilt played like Russell because coach Sharman asked him to do so and it was the biggest reason why LA won a title.

Fair enough. I agree with Wilt taking the edge here. Even though Kareem later cruised on to easy title.. Wilt got the upper hand in that series. BTW, do you have any links about the thoughts from the newspapers? Thanks.

However, something then also has to be taken in consideration. This is the only year, Jabbar got to play with healthy Oscar. Only season to be exact. He had no help later on in their match ups from his team mates and even bigger defensive attention.

I just want that to be taken in notice. I'm being fair here.

Good post.

[QUOTE]

Cool.

However, i give the edge to Kareem in '72 because he arguably outplayed him in both RS and PS IMO. Just my thoughts.

THIS.

Big#50

02-25-2012, 08:54 PM

Duncan
Shaq
Wilt
Hakeem

StateOfMind12

02-25-2012, 09:16 PM

Wilt is in the conversation. But if you don't know about him or understand much about the seasons that he played just say so, it's better than blindly ranking him last. :facepalm
I would like to know the arguments of how Wilt is above Shaq. Go ahead and explain them to me.

Wilt was clearly the inferior playoff performer and he accomplished less than Shaq did.

The only way you could argue for Wilt is if you base it on stats and abilities and nothing more. The problem with basing it on stats is that he played in a different/faster pace which is why everybody's numbers were ridiculously big and high back then and also because he was a stat-padder. There were plenty of games where the game was practically over and he just decided to stat-pad because he was more interested in his stats than he was with winning.

Wilt never had as dominant of a 2-3 year stretch like Shaq had in '99-'00 to '01-'02. You could argue that Wilt had the greater season than Shaq did with his '67 season but Shaq has him beat in every other category though.

My top 5 Centers ranking would be this...
1. Kareem
2. Russell
3. Shaq
4. Hakeem
5. Wilt

I consider Duncan a PF so he does not belong.

CavaliersFTW

02-25-2012, 10:38 PM

I would like to know the arguments of how Wilt is above Shaq. Go ahead and explain them to me.

Wilt was clearly the inferior playoff performer and he accomplished less than Shaq did.

The only way you could argue for Wilt is if you base it on stats and abilities and nothing more. The problem with basing it on stats is that he played in a different/faster pace which is why everybody's numbers were ridiculously big and high back then and also because he was a stat-padder. There were plenty of games where the game was practically over and he just decided to stat-pad because he was more interested in his stats than he was with winning.

Wilt never had as dominant of a 2-3 year stretch like Shaq had in '99-'00 to '01-'02. You could argue that Wilt had the greater season than Shaq did with his '67 season but Shaq has him beat in every other category though.

My top 5 Centers ranking would be this...
1. Kareem
2. Russell
3. Shaq
4. Hakeem
5. Wilt

I consider Duncan a PF so he does not belong.

No. Basing on stats is what your doing to formulate your opinion. Such as how your looking at his playoff stats... but I can tell immediately you have no context to put them in because you aren't talking about his performances in the same way other people were. Nobody back then called Wilt a weak playoff performer except the Boston media. His numbers don't tell the story, and no - he wasn't a "choker" either - not in the sense that Lebron is a choker. He might not have been "mr. clutch" but he did not throw in the towel in games. People just try to put modern analogue's onto Wilt but there really are none.

Do you think it would be an easy task to tell some skeptical stranger how dominant Shaq was 40-50 years after he played based only on limited available data/footage and stories that people just keep calling lies anyways? Good luck. It isn't about Wilt's stats, it's about what he did to the basketball world. He was individually more dominant than Shaq, the disparity between Shaq and the next best was wide but not as wide as Chamberlain's. Same with their impact on the league and the NCAA itself. "Greatness" is variable depending on ones definition. I can't just bust out a nice Wilt Chamberlain essay on a message board that does Wilt any sort of justice... It's difficult enough to track down all the old newspapers, and interviews/footage etc. Here's a start though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4WZXiaDzyc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgbfZTQeKRk&t=5s

Watch the first one with annotations enabled for additional insight throughout the video. It covers the first part of his career, HS to NCAA, to the 100 point game. But even this is only a limited window of Wilt's rise to prominence. There's a follow up video after that linked. But it might not do much good watching highlights and such if you don't understand who he dominated either... like I said, explaining an entire career is just not possible in one swoop - especially if you don't even know much about the era. Ask more specific questions though and I'll try to answer them individually as best I can I guess.

Bigsmoke

02-25-2012, 10:40 PM

Duncan
Shaq
Wilt
Hakeem

oh yeah you're not biased:rolleyes:

SwooshReturns

02-25-2012, 10:49 PM

1) Shaq
2) Olajuwon
3) Chamberlain
4) Jabbar
5) Russell
6) D. Robinson
7) Duncan
8) M. Malone
9) Ewing
10) Walton

I honestly think D. Robinson in his prime was better than Duncan (both were Centers) ... but I don't want to get everyone all hot and bothered.

jlauber

02-25-2012, 11:44 PM

PTB Fan Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
Interesting...check out the Wilt-Russell H2H's sometime. It was pretty ugly at times.

Ugly for Russell? Not really.

Quote:
4. In the 71-72 WCF's, virtually EVERYONE who WATCHED that series, including the MILWAUKEE coach and press, claimed that a 35 year old Wilt outplayed the 25 year old Kareem. Time Magazine hailed Wilt's performance as a DECISIVE win by Wilt.

Show me a proof.

Ok, here we go...I am going to save myself a great deal of time...

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

Check out PHILA's and MY posts on the 71-72 WCF's. EVERYONE who actually WATCHED that series agreed that Wilt outplayed Kareem.

And quickly let me address the ignorant, like Dickwad, who obviously can't read, or comprehend even basic English, and who had this comment:

Dickwad Quote:
Again a pure crap post by you...
"Everyone" just got a new meaning, Time Magazine wrote that he got the best of Kareem in the last game of the series.

Umm, NO, here was the exact quote:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,879093,00.html

This year Wilt's critics have been silent—and for good reason. After leading the Lakers to the best won-lost record (69-13) in N.B.A. history during the regular season, Chamberlain was nothing short of awesome in the playoffs. In the N.B.A.'s western division title series with Milwaukee, he decisively outplayed basketball's newest giant superstar, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, eleven years his junior. Then, after shuffling uncertainly in the first game of the championship series, Wilt recovered spectacularly to lead the Lakers to a 4 games to 1 victory over the New York Knicks.

Once again, Dickwad, ...DECISIVELY OUTPLAYED and SERIES.

The REALITY of that series was that Kareem couldn't hit the ocean from a lifeboat in the last four games (three of them losses) of that series, and shot, get this... .414 from the field. And yes, Wilt was knocking the skyhook all over the gym (easily 15 blocked by the Dipper...who was 35, at over 300 lbs, and playing on a surgically repaired knee.) And Chamberlain DOMINATED Kareem in the clinching game six win in MILWAUKEE.

PTB Fan Quote
I don't dismiss what ever jlauber says, but i can't accept that fact that when ever we have a Russell vs Wilt debate.. he mentions the stats from those games, yet when ever the stats from Kareem vs Wilt match ups are never brought in discussion because Kareem has huge advantage.

So why the double-standard?

HUGE difference. When Wilt was routinely scoring 40+ against Russell, even in the playoffs, he was the ONLY player his team's had. And don't give me this nonsense about Arizin or Gola being HOFers. Arizin was at the end of his career, and Gola was arguably the worst HOF player EVER. AND, BOTH played HORRIBLE in those post-seasons with Chamberlain (and BTW, Gola played horribly in ALL of his post-seasons, whether with Wilt or not.)

Take the 61-62 post-season for instance. Chamberlain single-handedly carried that pathetic roster (which was the same basic LAST PLACE roster he joined two years prior) thru the Syracuse Nats, and then to a game seven, two-point loss to the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers. Furthermore, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354 in that post-season. Now, you tell me how in the hell did he do it????

As for the 71-72 WCF's...the Bucks were coming off a 66-16 season, and then a 12-2 romp in the playoffs to a world title. They were UNANIMOUSLY picked to repeat (and many were predicting a decade-long dynasty.) They not only had Kareem, but HOFer Oscar, star player Bobby Dandrige, the league's premier long range shooter in Jon McGlocklin, Curtis Perry (who some claimed could touch the top of the backboard...and in any case, he was a powerful rebounder), and a tenacious defender in Lucius Allen.

How about Wilt's Lakers? They were coming off of a 48-34 season, and most experts picked them for a middle-of-the-pack finish. THEN, HOFer Elgin Baylor retired after the ninth game (well, he was forced to retire.) And on top of all of that, Jerry West had the most miserable (and yes it was truly awful) post-season of his career (shooting .376 in the entire post-season.)

And yet, with all of that, Chamberlain LED the Lakers to a romp to a title, which included beating the Bucks in six games in the WCF's, including four of the last five, as well as going 4-1 against Milwaukee in the regular season.

Here again, HOW?

Back to the Russell-Wilt discussion. You wanted proof of Chamberlain's dominance?

The two played in 142 H2H games. Wilt outscored Russell in 132, and many by HUGE margins. Chamberlain also held a 92-42-8 margin in the rebounding department, and again, MANY by HUGE margins. And in their known H2H's, including entire SEASONS, Chamberlain also enjoyed a HUGE edge in FG%.

As for some more proof...how about this 40 game sample size:

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

Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13
Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21
Wilt 43-39….Russell 20-24
Wilt 53-29 Russell 22-32
Wilt 42-29 Russell 19-30
Wilt 50-35 Russell 22-27
Wilt 34-55….Russell 18-19
Wilt 39-30 Russell 6-19
Wilt 44-35 Russell 20-21
Wilt 34-38 Russell 17-20
Wilt..52-30….Russell 21-31
Wilt 41-28 Russell 11-24
Wilt 62-28 Russell 23-29
Wilt 38-31 Russell 11-18
Wilt 42-37 Russell 9-20
Wilt 45-27 Russell 12-26
Wilt 43-32 Russell 8-30
Wilt 32-27 Russell 11-16
Wilt 50-17….Russell 23-21
Wilt 35-32….Russell 16-28
Wilt 32-25 Russell…9-24
Wilt 31-30 Russell 12-22
Wilt 37-32 Russell 16-24
Wilt 27-34 Russell..12-17
Wilt 27-43 Russell 13-26
Wilt 30-39 Russell 12-16
Wilt 31-40….Russell 11-17
Wilt 37-42 Russell 14-25
Wilt 29-26 Russell 3-27
Wilt 27-36….Russell 13-20
Wilt 27-32 Russell 6-22
Wilt 32-30 Russell 8-20
Wilt 46-34 Russell 18-31
Wilt 20-41….Russell 10-29
Wilt 29-36 Russell 4-21
Wilt 31-27 Russell 3-8
Wilt 35-19 Russell 5-16
Wilt 12-42 Russell 11-18

Now, for those that argue that Russell only cared about winning...well, he didn't HAVE to produce HUGE games like Chamberlain did.

And finally...how do I know that Russell COULDN"T put up HUGE games against Wilt? Because, one, he NEVER did. And two, his team's LOST 57 times against Wilt's, including being blown out in the '67 ECF's. Don't you think that if he COULD have, he most certainly WOULD have in at least some of those losses? My god, in the clinching game five loss of the '66 ECF's, Chamberlain hung a 46-34 game on Russell. In the very next season, when Russell was faced with the EXACT same circumstances, and on the verge of a series loss in game five, Russell responded with a FOUR point game (while Chamberlain pounded him with a 29 point, 36 rebound, 13 assist, 7 block game.)

CavaliersFTW

02-26-2012, 12:24 AM

BTW, do you have any links about the thoughts from the newspapers? Thanks.

Sure thing:

Prior to the series:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-r77rhK3LrGg/T0mwP9yvgzI/AAAAAAAADAE/-Bap67Kmjcw/s800/April%25208th%25201971%2520-%2520Lakers%2520hopes%2520rest%2520in%2520Wilt%252 0%2528prior%2520to%2520Bucks%2520series%2529.jpg

Consensus of game 2: Wilt bests Lew... Wilt Devastating
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-KqUzT3hmNHM/T0mwRDj0HDI/AAAAAAAADAY/w6tAYZV4h8c/s800/April%252012th%25201971%2520-%2520Wilt%2520bests%2520lew%2520but%2520Bucks%2520 win.jpg

Consensus of game 3: Even Bucks Oscar Robertson commented - "Chamberlain made a big difference"
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-y0utVbmcpFc/T0mwR-gTNbI/AAAAAAAADA0/fperatU7Ue4/s800/April%252015%25201971%2520-%2520Chamberlain%2520integral%2520to%2520Lakers%25 20win%2520at%2520Bucks.jpg

Recap of the series 3 games in: Veteran Chamberlain has kept the NBA Most Valuable Player Alcindor from dominating the series
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-nHxWpTOo2GM/T0mwRGtb3rI/AAAAAAAADAU/zEE_ivJI4-U/s800/April%252016th%25201971%2520-%2520Recap%2520of%2520Bucks-Lakers%2520playoffs%2520after%25203%2520games.jpg

Milwaukee's recap of game 5, and the series: Despite the Buck's victory... A massive image of Wilt swatting their MVP is used to showcase the series and it takes up quite a lot of the sports page real estate... Again, this is the Milwaukee Journal :bowdown: - they extended the game description going out of their way to talk about Wilt's performance for two pages.
Part 1:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-su644QKICVc/T0mwR82cKkI/AAAAAAAADAw/hIJy1IteT1E/s800/April%252019th%25201971%2520-%2520Lakers%2520lose%252C%2520Chamberlain%2520ovat ion.jpg
Part 2:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-0zccCuQRTV4/T0mwRa6V3OI/AAAAAAAADAg/dmJz1jlgwtw/s800/April%252019th%25201971%2520-%2520Part%2520two%2520Milwaukee%2520Journal.jpg

millwad

02-26-2012, 12:44 AM

[QUOTE=jlauber
Once again, Dickwad, ...DECISIVELY OUTPLAYED and SERIES.

The REALITY of that series was that Kareem couldn't hit the ocean from a lifeboat in the last four games (three of them losses) of that series, and shot, get this... .414 from the field. And yes, Wilt was knocking the skyhook all over the gym (easily 15 blocked by the Dipper...who was 35, at over 300 lbs, and playing on a surgically repaired knee.) And Chamberlain DOMINATED Kareem in the clinching game six win in MILWAUKEE.

Haha, and still Kareem shot with better FG% through-out the series you idiot. And he did it while averaging 23 more points per game you bloody idiot. 23 points more per game on better FG%, and decisively outplayed, not through the whole series you retard...

Wilt was lucky that Oscar was injured and he was lucky that his corpse didn't have to score because with his terrible shooting performance through-out that series the Lakers would get abused big time.. Wilt could never win it all while being on top a la scoring in the playoffs, mr tied 2nd and third option..:facepalm

It's just pathetic how much you tried to make up crap about that series about how Wilt "killed" Kareem when in fact it was the other way around and that Wilt only got the better of Kareem in one of the games, what about the other 5 you little *******?

You're sad.

millwad

02-26-2012, 12:45 AM

Sure thing:

Prior to the series:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-r77rhK3LrGg/T0mwP9yvgzI/AAAAAAAADAE/-Bap67Kmjcw/s800/April%25208th%25201971%2520-%2520Lakers%2520hopes%2520rest%2520in%2520Wilt%252 0%2528prior%2520to%2520Bucks%2520series%2529.jpg

Consensus of game 2: Wilt bests Lew... Wilt Devastating
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-KqUzT3hmNHM/T0mwRDj0HDI/AAAAAAAADAY/w6tAYZV4h8c/s800/April%252012th%25201971%2520-%2520Wilt%2520bests%2520lew%2520but%2520Bucks%2520 win.jpg

Consensus of game 3: Even Bucks Oscar Robertson commented - "Chamberlain made a big difference"
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-y0utVbmcpFc/T0mwR-gTNbI/AAAAAAAADA0/fperatU7Ue4/s800/April%252015%25201971%2520-%2520Chamberlain%2520integral%2520to%2520Lakers%25 20win%2520at%2520Bucks.jpg

Recap of the series 3 games in: Veteran Chamberlain has kept the NBA Most Valuable Player Alcindor from dominating the series
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-nHxWpTOo2GM/T0mwRGtb3rI/AAAAAAAADAU/zEE_ivJI4-U/s800/April%252016th%25201971%2520-%2520Recap%2520of%2520Bucks-Lakers%2520playoffs%2520after%25203%2520games.jpg

Milwaukee's recap of game 5, and the series: Despite the Buck's victory... A massive image of Wilt swatting their MVP is used to showcase the series and it takes up quite a lot of the sports page real estate... Again, this is the Milwaukee Journal :bowdown: - they extended the game description going out of their way to talk about Wilt's performance for two pages.
Part 1:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-su644QKICVc/T0mwR82cKkI/AAAAAAAADAw/hIJy1IteT1E/s800/April%252019th%25201971%2520-%2520Lakers%2520lose%252C%2520Chamberlain%2520ovat ion.jpg
Part 2:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-0zccCuQRTV4/T0mwRa6V3OI/AAAAAAAADAg/dmJz1jlgwtw/s800/April%252019th%25201971%2520-%2520Part%2520two%2520Milwaukee%2520Journal.jpg

Why are you still spamming about the wrong series? It's not even that one we're discussing.

jlauber

02-26-2012, 12:51 AM

Why are you still spamming about the wrong series? It's not even that one we're discussing.

Why not. That was an OLD Chamberlain, who was a year removed from major knee surgery, and who arguably had his WORST season...going up against a statistically PRIME Kareem, in arguably his GREATEST season...

and not only battling him to a statistical draw in their five regular season H2H's (BTW, he held Kareem to .438 shooting in those five games),

but then repeating that performance in their five game WCF's.

Incidently, in the last game of that WCF series, Wilt outscored Kareem 23-20, while outshooting him, 10-21 to 7-23. AND, when Wilt left the floor late in that game, he received a STANDING OVATION...and the game was played in MILWAUKEE!

Oh, and in their two deciding games of the 70-71 and 71-72 WCF's, Wilt outshot Kareem, 18-33 to 23-60 (.545 to .383.) Which once again points out how much more CLUTCH Chamberlain was in their H2H's. Even an OLD Wilt who was well past his prime.

PHILA

02-26-2012, 12:52 AM

PHILA

02-26-2012, 12:55 AM

Why are you still spamming about the wrong series? It's not even that one we're discussing.
The response was to PTB Fan asking additional thoughts from the papers on the '71 series. Are you PTB Fan? :confusedshrug:

nightprowler10

02-26-2012, 12:58 AM

Jordan pretty much sucks when evaluating center talent. He picked Kwame Brown over Tyson Chandler, Paul Gasol, Samuel Dalembert, Memhet Okur, Zach Randolf and Eddie Curry,. I could even through in Diop in the conversation. Arguably he picked the worse center out of seven guys.

And MJ missed out on Allstars Tony Parker, Gerald Wallace, Joe Johnson and Gilbert Arenas. And he was convinced he had the right guy.
You somewhat neutralized your own point there. MJ sucks at picking talent period. His Hakeem quote has less to do with picking talent and more to do with playing against a dominant C, and we all know he played against a few.

jlauber

02-26-2012, 12:59 AM

Chamberlain blocked 5 of his shots in one game, on a 34 year old surgically repaired knee. How many centers from the last 30 years can block KAJ five times in a season, never mind a single playoff game? :no:

We have documentation of Chamberlain blocking 24 of Kareem's shots in just 5 games, and 11 in a span of just two games in the '72 WCF's. In another the article claimed that Wilt blocked numerous shots, including several of Kareem's.

Of course, we also have VIDEO footage of Chamberlain blocking TWO skyhooks within a span of about 5-10 seconds.

Those that actually WATCHED the Wilt-Kareem battles would acknowledge that Wilt was ROUTINELY swatting the "unblockable" skyhook.

jlauber

02-26-2012, 01:00 AM

The response was to PTB Fan asking additional thoughts from the papers on the '71 series. Are you PTB Fan? :confusedshrug:

No, he is not nearly that intelligent. He is, however, the same Duece Bigalow.

millwad

02-26-2012, 01:04 AM

We have documentation of Chamberlain blocking 24 of Kareem's shots in just 5 games, and 11 in a span of just two games in the '72 WCF's. In another the article claimed that Wilt blocked numerous shots, including several of Kareem's.

Of course, we also have VIDEO footage of Chamberlain blocking TWO skyhooks within a span of about 5-10 seconds.

Those that actually WATCHED the Wilt-Kareem battles would acknowledge that Wilt was ROUTINELY swatting the "unblockable" skyhook.

Please, can you hand out any sources regarding Wilt blocking 24 of Kareem's shots in 5 games?

jlauber

02-26-2012, 01:13 AM

Please, can you hand out any sources regarding Wilt blocking 24 of Kareem's shots in 5 games?

Actually, I made a mistake, it was 29 in just SIX games.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=170340

2. Date: Fri 11/20/70
- Chamberlain 28 pts, 23 rebs, 3 as, 10 blocks, 7-20 FG/FGA – 6 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 13 rebs, 0 as, 2 blocks, 13-32 FG/FGA W

7. Date: Fri 04/09/71
- Chamberlain 22 pts, 20 rebs, 1 as, 8 blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA – 3 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 32 pts, 22 rebs, 1 as, 1 blocks, 14-30 FG/FGA W

7. Date: Fri 04/09/71
- Chamberlain 22 pts, 20 rebs, 1 as, 8 blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA – 3 blocks against Jabbar L-Abdul-Jabbar 32 pts, 22 rebs, 1 as, 1 blocks, 14-30 FG/FGA W

8. Date: Sun 04/11/71
- Chamberlain 26 pts, 22 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA - Wilt blocked numerious shots L-Abdul-Jabbar 22 pts, 10 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W

11.Date: Fri 04/16/71
- Chamberlain 23 pts, 12 rebs, 4 as, 6 blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA – 5 blocks against Jabbar L-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 15 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 7-23 FG/FGA W

19.Date: Fri 04/14/72
- Chamberlain 7 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, 10 blocks, 1-3 FG/FGA – 6 blocks against Jabbar W
-Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 21 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 15-37 FG/FGA L

21.Date: Tue 04/18/72
- Chamberlain 12 pts, 26 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 2-3 FG/FGA - 4 blocks against Jabbar W
-Abdul-Jabbar 28 pts, 16 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 13-33 FG/FGA L

22.Date: Sat 04/22/72
- Chamberlain 20 pts, 24 rebs, 2 as, 9 blocks, 8-12 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 25 rebs, 8 as, * blocks, 16-37 FG/FGA L
Cherry has Wilt with 5 blocks against Kareem out of those nine.

And once again, one of those game recaps just mentions "numerous blocks."

millwad

02-26-2012, 01:17 AM

Actually, I made a mistake, it was 29 in just SIX games.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=170340

2. Date: Fri 11/20/70
- Chamberlain 28 pts, 23 rebs, 3 as, 10 blocks, 7-20 FG/FGA – 6 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 13 rebs, 0 as, 2 blocks, 13-32 FG/FGA W

7. Date: Fri 04/09/71
- Chamberlain 22 pts, 20 rebs, 1 as, 8 blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA – 3 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 32 pts, 22 rebs, 1 as, 1 blocks, 14-30 FG/FGA W

7. Date: Fri 04/09/71
- Chamberlain 22 pts, 20 rebs, 1 as, 8 blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA – 3 blocks against Jabbar L-Abdul-Jabbar 32 pts, 22 rebs, 1 as, 1 blocks, 14-30 FG/FGA W

8. Date: Sun 04/11/71
- Chamberlain 26 pts, 22 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA - Wilt blocked numerious shots L-Abdul-Jabbar 22 pts, 10 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W

11.Date: Fri 04/16/71
- Chamberlain 23 pts, 12 rebs, 4 as, 6 blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA – 5 blocks against Jabbar L-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 15 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 7-23 FG/FGA W

19.Date: Fri 04/14/72
- Chamberlain 7 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, 10 blocks, 1-3 FG/FGA – 6 blocks against Jabbar W
-Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 21 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 15-37 FG/FGA L

21.Date: Tue 04/18/72
- Chamberlain 12 pts, 26 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 2-3 FG/FGA - 4 blocks against Jabbar W
-Abdul-Jabbar 28 pts, 16 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 13-33 FG/FGA L

22.Date: Sat 04/22/72
- Chamberlain 20 pts, 24 rebs, 2 as, 9 blocks, 8-12 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 25 rebs, 8 as, * blocks, 16-37 FG/FGA L
Cherry has Wilt with 5 blocks against Kareem out of those nine.

And once again, one of those game recaps just mentions "numerous blocks."

So your "source" is another ISH-member who even didn't post the same amount of blocks you did? Where did he get his info from? I don't care enough to read 10 pages but it smells BS from your side, as always..

Just give me a worthy source where the source isn't another ISH-member and where the amount of BLOCKS ON Kareem shots are mentioned.

jlauber

02-26-2012, 01:28 AM

So your "source" is another ISH-member who even didn't post the same amount of blocks you did? Where did he get his info from? I don't care enough to read 10 pages but it smells BS from your side, as always..

Do you want to challenge him? He has done FAR more research than anything YOU have EVER done.

I have used other sources as well, including Charlie Rosen and Robert Cherry (who were using game recaps.)

However, YOU have NEVER came up with ONE shred of evidence to DISPUTE them.

And YOU were the idiot that challenged MY PROOF that Kareem was ROUTINELY dumping 40+ point games on a HELPLESS Hakeem (and a 31.8 ppg average on .630 shooting in TEN STRAIGHT games.) And, as always, you looked foolish. In fact, the Rockets coach was so chastised for allowing the massacre, that he then had Sampson AND Hakeem double the 39 year old Kareem in the '86 playoffs (and holding him to "only" 27 ppg.)

The SAME Dickwad who disputed my claim that Barkley was outrebounding YOUR Hakeem by over FOUR PER GAME in their '97 season.

Or the SAME Dickwad who challenged my claim that Russell was a WORLD-CLASS athlete.

The SAME Dickwad who challenged my post on the 6-4 Joey Johnson and his ability to get his chin over the rim.

The SAME Dickwad who continually disputes what EVERYONE who actually WITNESSED the '72 WCF's claim...that Wilt OUTPLAYED Kareem. You even disputed TIME MAGAZINE, and the MILWAUKEE PRESS and COACH. But, even though you never saw one minutes of that series (nor ANY of the Kareem-Hakeem H2H's), we are supposed to believe YOU???

:roll: :roll: :roll:

CavaliersFTW

02-26-2012, 01:28 AM

So your "source" is another ISH-member who even didn't post the same amount of blocks you did? Where did he get his info from? I don't care enough to read 10 pages but it smells BS from your side, as always..

Just give me a worthy source where the source isn't another ISH-member and where the amount of BLOCKS ON Kareem shots are mentioned.

:facepalm

Millwad you need to chill the f_ck out dude. You can't hate on Wilt every time he's mentioned. Give it a freaking rest already. Yah, he blocked Kareem's shots. And yah it looks like it's a lot more than other centers could. And yah a video exists of him blocking skyhooks. You gonna just keep denying shit!? who cares anyways?

The #'s come from game recaps from newspapers that were tracking advanced stats. Be glad they exist and can show us different aspects of a variety of vintage player's game's don't be such an ass about it.

For example:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=GQAdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=J5sEAAAAIBAJ&dq=allintext%3A%20wilt%20chamberlain%20blocked%20s hots&pg=5379%2C1439594
From this we can deduce:
Wilt: 18 points (8 of 13) 24 rebounds 4 assists 17 blocks

Wilt had gaudy block #'s not just points and rebounds. Perhaps he's so ahead of his time he even decided to pad future stats that will be looked at and discussed by NBA fan's in the future right?. Afterall you think he's just a stats padder among many other hard line criticisms.

millwad

02-26-2012, 01:41 AM

Do you want to challenge him? He has done FAR more research than anything YOU have EVER done.

I have used other sources as well, including Charlie Rosen and Robert Cherry (who were using game recaps.)

However, YOU have NEVER came up with ONE shred of evidence to DISPUTE them.

You idiot, I asked for a source I could trust. Do you consider a ISH-member who even couldn't post his own sources a reliable source? I asked for his sources once and he babbled some about google and he didn't confirm your nonsense about the amount of blocks Wilt had on Kareem in that series. So again, give me a source where it confirms that Wilt blocked 29 of Kareem's shots in that series. PLEASE.

And no, I am not going to do any research for a claim you put up here, if you want people to trust you, then give us a reliable source or STFU. I didn't claim that he blocked 29 of Kareem's shots in that series, you did, therefor it's your job to give me a reliable source of your statement. I don't need any evidence to dispute them, it's evidence enough that you can't find a reliable source to back it up...

Or the SAME Dickwad who challenged my claim that Russell was a WORLD-CLASS athlete.

Haha, I never challenged the fact that Russell was a world-class athlete you idiot.

The SAME Dickwad who challenged my post on the 6-4 Joey Johnson and his ability to get his chin over the rim.

I asked for a source, other then quotes...:facepalm

The SAME Dickwad who continually disputes what EVERYONE who actually WITNESSED the '72 WCF's claim...that Wilt OUTPLAYED Kareem. You even disputed TIME MAGAZINE, and the MILWAUKEE PRESS and COACH. But, even though you never saw one minutes of that series (nor ANY of the Kareem-Hakeem H2H's), we are supposed to believe YOU???

:roll: :roll: :roll:[/QUOTE]

No, Jlauber, we're supposed to believe you. The same guy who changed his mind about Wilt 40 years after he retired over some youtube-clips and quotes..:facepalm

And haha, still you are misreading the article, it didn't say that Wilt outplayed Kareem through-out the series you bloody idiot.

And you were the one who claimed that Kareem got absolutely murdered by Wilt in that series.. while outscoring Wilt with 23 points per game on better FG%:facepalm.. Obviously you got that series all wrong, Wilt didn't crush Kareem in that series at all..:facepalm

millwad

02-26-2012, 01:46 AM

CavaliersFTW

02-26-2012, 01:53 AM

This is like the time when your source was your own memory when you claimed that you saw at least 20+ Wilt blocks on Kareem's skyhooks in that series. You couldn't even "remember" how good Wilt was 'til 40 years after he retired and you used to call his competition weak and full of stiff, suddenly you remember details about how many blocks he had 40 years after the games were played..:facepalm

And when you couldn't give me a reliable source you suddenly turned it all on me on how I couldn't prove you wrong, haha..

Or like the time you tried to make a list of all the big guys Wilt played during his career and when you from no where put in ABA players who never faced Wilt, players who never even played in the NBA and players who still were in college when Wilt retired.

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

Wilt-historian.... HAHA, who couldn't get his memory straight til 40 years after the games..

Is that as bad as you continually denying things that probably happened despite good evidence?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyz-FhP2ONk&t=3m16s

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-ywBQHQ9CL78/T0mwN5lhw5I/AAAAAAAAC_8/jNAPNb3GcAM/s400/March%252024th%25201956%2520-%2520free%2520throw%2520rule%2520proposal.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ls0txYItPN0/T0mwRJURGwI/AAAAAAAADAM/UiT80PsPaOs/s800/March%252026th%25201956%2520-%2520free%2520throw%2520rule%2520accepted.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-fe4Ni9coRas/T0noVgi85OI/AAAAAAAADBM/_1tkKlTPhDI/s800/November%252028%252C%25201956%2520-%2520Wilt%2520Dunks%2520his%2520free%2520throws.jp g

If IH member's get some facts wrong or have bias (after all what is a good NBA fan w/o bias?) perhaps it's best to take some things with a grain of Salt. Not a mountain of it.

jlauber

02-26-2012, 02:13 AM

The funny thing about that series is that the stat-crazy Jlauber never posts the stats of Kareem and Wilt from that series. He's too ashamed of the fact that Kareem outscored Wilt with 23 points per game in that series while shooting with a higher FG% and that Kareem also dished out more assists and shot FT's twice as good.

He's also really ashamed of the fact that Kareem that same season averaged 40 points on 50% through the regular season against prime defensive Wilt.

He never mentions that but he sure mentions the fact that rookie and 2nd year pro Olajuwon let Kareem score 40+ on him..:facepalm

Before the poster Fatal9 destroyed his crap about that series, Jlauber used to write stuff about Kareem getting murdered in that series.... while he outscored his opponent (Wilt) with 23 points per game on better FG%..:facepalm

Dickwad...give me YOUR sources. I want LEGITIMATE sources, and it had better not be anyone that has ever posted on ISH. I want the game-by-game breakdowns. AND, if you find a source that is using a source that posted here on ISH, I won't believe it.

Once again, I want the exact numbers, from GOOGLE or YAHOO news, or they didn't happen.

BTW, I already know the numbers, because they came from an ISH poster long before ANYONE else ever posted them. BUT, we can't use him.

jlauber

02-26-2012, 02:48 AM

Dickwad quote:
And haha, still you are misreading the article, it didn't say that Wilt outplayed Kareem through-out the series you bloody idiot.

One more damned time for the ignorant like yourself...

This year Wilt's critics have been silent—and for good reason. After leading the Lakers to the best won-lost record (69-13) in N.B.A. history during the regular season, Chamberlain was nothing short of awesome in the playoffs. In the N.B.A.'s western division title series with Milwaukee, he decisively outplayed basketball's newest giant superstar, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, eleven years his junior. Then, after shuffling uncertainly in the first game of the championship series, Wilt recovered spectacularly to lead the Lakers to a 4 games to 1 victory over the New York Knicks.

SERIES
DECISIVELY OUTPLAYED

Can't be any more explicit than that.

Yes, a 35 year old Chamberlain, WAY past his peak, and NOT in defensive prime (easily the mid-60's...just take a look his defensive win shares)

OUTPLAYED a Kareem in his FINEST statistical season.

The SAME Kareem, that at ages 38 and 39, and WAY PAST his prime, just OBLITERATED your Hakeem. In TEN straight games, Kareem averaged 31.8 ppg on a staggering .630 FG%. THREE of them 40+ and one of them a 46 point game, on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes. In fact, the GAME RECAP claimed that had Kareem continued to play, that he might have bested his career high game (55 points.) Using basic math, had Kareem played 48 minutes like he routinely did against Wilt in his early years, he would actually have scored 60...and on 70% shooting!

Of course, one can only imagine the bloodbath that a 23 year old Kareem would have laid waste on that Hakeem. The same Kareem that was scoring 31.7 ppg and grabbing 16.0 rpg and shooting .577, and in 40.1 mpg, en route to winning the MVP and FMVP.

70, 80 point games?

poido123

02-26-2012, 04:13 AM

One more damned time for the ignorant like yourself...

SERIES
DECISIVELY OUTPLAYED

Can't be any more explicit than that.

Yes, a 35 year old Chamberlain, WAY past his peak, and NOT in defensive prime (easily the mid-60's...just take a look his defensive win shares)

OUTPLAYED a Kareem in his FINEST statistical season.

The SAME Kareem, that at ages 38 and 39, and WAY PAST his prime, just OBLITERATED your Hakeem. In TEN straight games, Kareem averaged 31.8 ppg on a staggering .630 FG%. THREE of them 40+ and one of them a 46 point game, on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes. In fact, the GAME RECAP claimed that had Kareem continued to play, that he might have bested his career high game (55 points.) Using basic math, had Kareem played 48 minutes like he routinely did against Wilt in his early years, he would actually have scored 60...and on 70% shooting!

Of course, one can only imagine the bloodbath that a 23 year old Kareem would have laid waste on that Hakeem. The same Kareem that was scoring 31.7 ppg and grabbing 16.0 rpg and shooting .577, and in 40.1 mpg, en route to winning the MVP and FMVP.

70, 80 point games?

Dude, you have a uncomfortable obsession for wilt, its not healthy man. Get a life. :facepalm I have never seen you NOT in a Wilt thread..

PTB Fan

02-26-2012, 12:04 PM

HUGE difference. When Wilt was routinely scoring 40+ against Russell, even in the playoffs, he was the ONLY player his team's had. And don't give me this nonsense about Arizin or Gola being HOFers. Arizin was at the end of his career, and Gola was arguably the worst HOF player EVER. AND, BOTH played HORRIBLE in those post-seasons with Chamberlain (and BTW, Gola played horribly in ALL of his post-seasons, whether with Wilt or not.)

Russell always held Wilt quite well. There're many newspapers articles in which is often said that Russell usually did a good job on Wilt.. held him to low point totals, the Celtics grabbed a big lead and when the issue wasn't important anymore.. he let him get his stats, thinking he won.

Russell was one bad @$$ with his psychological approach to the game. That's why he usually won their battles.

Take the 61-62 post-season for instance. Chamberlain single-handedly carried that pathetic roster (which was the same basic LAST PLACE roster he joined two years prior) thru the Syracuse Nats, and then to a game seven, two-point loss to the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers. Furthermore, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354 in that post-season. Now, you tell me how in the hell did he do it????

Speaking of team mates.. Wilt rarely got the best of his, wheres Russell always got the best of his. That's also one of the key things in this debate.

Russell played to win and at the end he did. And Wilt couldn't stop him from achieving his goal. Players changed in the Celtics dynasty.. retired, it still didn't matter. Russell found a way to win and outmatch Wilt in the process.

Back to the Russell-Wilt discussion. You wanted proof of Chamberlain's dominance?

The two played in 142 H2H games. Wilt outscored Russell in 132, and many by HUGE margins. Chamberlain also held a 92-42-8 margin in the rebounding department, and again, MANY by HUGE margins. And in their known H2H's, including entire SEASONS, Chamberlain also enjoyed a HUGE edge in FG%.

As for some more proof...how about this 40 game sample size:

Cherry picked stats at its finest. What was Wilt's FG% in them? Who won? In how many of those games Wilt scored his points after being slowed down as usual and after the contest was no longer in doubt.

And these stats are mostly from 61-62, the season in which Bill slowed Wilt nearly 20 points below his normal average, on 46% FG in his greatest scoring and arguably overall season. (i can do it like you can for Kareem.. but 61-62 is not even Wilt's 2nd best season).

Now, for those that argue that Russell only cared about winning...well, he didn't HAVE to produce HUGE games like Chamberlain did.

Agreed. Because he did enough good to elevate his game, his team mates, do his defensive task and win.

And finally...how do I know that Russell COULDN"T put up HUGE games against Wilt? Because, one, he NEVER did. And two, his team's LOST 57 times against Wilt's, including being blown out in the '67 ECF's. Don't you think that if he COULD have, he most certainly WOULD have in at least some of those losses? My god, in the clinching game five loss of the '66 ECF's, Chamberlain hung a 46-34 game on Russell. In the very next season, when Russell was faced with the EXACT same circumstances, and on the verge of a series loss in game five, Russell responded with a FOUR point game (while Chamberlain pounded him with a 29 point, 36 rebound, 13 assist, 7 block game.)

Never did? That's just.. wrong.

How about Russell's triple double in 65 against Wilt with 12 points, 29/31 boards, 12 blocks? There're more examples.. i'll spent some time searching them.

jlauber

02-26-2012, 01:54 PM

Russell always held Wilt quite well. There're many newspapers articles in which is often said that Russell usually did a good job on Wilt.. held him to low point totals, the Celtics grabbed a big lead and when the issue wasn't important anymore.. he let him get his stats, thinking he won.

Russell was one bad @$$ with his psychological approach to the game. That's why he usually won their battles.

Speaking of team mates.. Wilt rarely got the best of his, wheres Russell always got the best of his. That's also one of the key things in this debate.

Russell played to win and at the end he did. And Wilt couldn't stop him from achieving his goal. Players changed in the Celtics dynasty.. retired, it still didn't matter. Russell found a way to win and outmatch Wilt in the process.

Cherry picked stats at its finest. What was Wilt's FG% in them? Who won? In how many of those games Wilt scored his points after being slowed down as usual and after the contest was no longer in doubt.

And these stats are mostly from 61-62, the season in which Bill slowed Wilt nearly 20 points below his normal average, on 46% FG in his greatest scoring and arguably overall season. (i can do it like you can for Kareem.. but 61-62 is not even Wilt's 2nd best season).

Agreed. Because he did enough good to elevate his game, his team mates, do his defensive task and win.

Never did? That's just.. wrong.

How about Russell's triple double in 65 against Wilt with 12 points, 29/31 boards, 12 blocks? There're more examples.. i'll spent some time searching them.

First of all, Wilt averaged 39.7 ppg on .470 shooting against Russell in the 61-62 regular season (not .458...one game was incorrect with a 13-38 instead of the actual 13-30.) In the post-season, Wilt averaged 33.6 ppg on .468 shooting (while Russell averaged 22 ppg on .420 shooting against him.) In a league that shot .426.

Throw out Wilt's very first game against Russell in his rookie 59-60 season, and he would have averaged 40 ppg on about .475 shooting, in a league that shot .410.

In his 62-63 season, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 38.1 to 14.2 in their eight H2H's (and six of them were by single digit margins.)

Yes, Russell "held" Wilt down (actually, held on for life), and even HE would admit (and has) that it was all he could do. He seldom outplayed Wilt. In fact, Wilt CRUSHED him in DOZENS of games, including wins, losses, and in close games.

And, NO, you, nor Bill Simmons, will EVER convince me that Russell "let" Wilt score in the first three quarters, and then "shut him down" in the 4th. WAY too much evidence to the contrary. BTW, Russell's HOF-laden Celtics held an 85-57 record against Wilt's teams (including a 29-20 margin in the post-season.) So, obviously, Russell was not winning EVERY game...not even close. And you can't tell me that he was THAT great, that he could "allow" Wilt to score enough, and then hold him down, when, in fact, FOUR game seven's came down to razor-thin margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. And, was Russell THAT brilliant that he could hit a guidewire with an inbounds pass, and his team holding a one point lead with five seconds left, and KNOWING that "Havlicek steal the ball?"

And, what happened in the '67 playoffs? Here again, when Wilt was faced with elimination in game five of the '66 ECF's, he responded with a 46-34 game against Russell. And yet, when Russell was faced with the EXACT same circumstance the very next season, he quietly went like a lamb to slaughter, with a FOUR point game (while Chamberlain poured in 29 points, grabbed 36 rebounds, shot 10-16, handed out 13 assists, and blocked seven shots), in a LOSS. How come Russell couldn't step up? Where was HIS 46 point game?

And don't bother looking for games in which Russell statistically outplayed Wilt. They are few-and-far between, and they were very close even in those. The fact was, Wilt outscored Russell in 132 of their 142 H2H games, and outrebounded him by a 92-42-8 margin. In MANY of them, and as I have provided previously, Chamberlain just OVERWHELMED Russell. How in the hell does Russell get outrebounded by a 55-19 margin? Or get outscored by a 62-23 margin. Or the MANY other games in which Chamberlain hung 40-30 games on him (24 times BTW)?

And, you mentioned FG%. In almost EVERY known FG% game, series, or even SEASON, Chamberlain OUTSHOT Russell, and some by HUGE margins (unlike your Kareem reference against Wilt...who outshot Kareem .530 to .464 in their H2H's.)

In the '60 season, in Russell's career best season of .467 from the floor, in their known ten games (they met 11 times), Wilt outshot Russell, .465 to .398 (and Wilt only shot .461 in the entire season.) In the '62 ECF's, Wilt outshot Russell .468 to .420. In the '64 Finals, we KNOW that Chamberlain not only oustcored Russell, per game, 29.2 to 11.2 ppg (as well as outrebounding him, which he did in ALL eight of their H2H post-season series), but Wilt also shot .517 in that series. I don't know what Russell shot against Wilt, BUT, he only shot .356 in his ten post-season games, and FIVE of them were against Wilt.

In the 66-67 regular season, Wilt shot .549 against Russell. In the '67 ECF's, Wilt not only outshot Russell, he did so by a staggering .556 to .358 margin.

Once again, in the VAST MAJORITY of their KNOWN H2H games, series, and seasons, Wilt easily outshot Russell, and in MANY, by unfathomable margins.

Russell got the best out of his teammates, to be sure, BUT, he played alongside his HOF teammates for a TOTAL of 71 seasons. Wilt played alongside his in 24 FULL seasons. Not even close in terms of talented rosters. And, yes, Wilt's teammates repeatedly FLOPPED in their post-seasons. You want a great example? How about this? Wilt averaged 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, and shot .540 in his 65-66 season. In doing so, he led his team to the BEST RECORD in the league, at 55-25 (Russell's stacked roster went 54-26 BTW.) And in their nine regular season H2H's, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg and 30.7 rpg against Russell. Then, in the ECF's, Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 against Russell. And yet, Russell's Celtics won that series, 4-1. What happened? Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot .352. How can anyone blame Wilt, when he played the EXACT same way that he did in the regular season, when his team had the best record in the league?

I could go on, but I will let you do your research, and continue the discussion...

Helix

02-26-2012, 02:12 PM

La Frescobaldi

02-26-2012, 02:22 PM

Wrong!! Boston employed a team defense against Wilt engineered by Red Auerbach. This is well attested to by Heinsohn and K.C. Jones, among others. Russell won far more often than Wilt did, not because he was better than Wilt, but because he had the better combination of player and coaching support than Wilt did.....at least up until Hannum showed up in Philly in 66. The 66/67 season showed what could happen when Wilt had the same great support that Russell had had all those previous years. 67/68 was well on its way to the same outcome until injuries overwhelmed that 76er team.

If you're one of the people who lay the Boston dynasty at the feet of Bill Russell, then I suggest you do some research on the Boston dynasty. A good starting point is a very good video on You Tube on Red Auerbach which contains the following quotes............

Bill Walton....."Probably the key element is the authoritative figure at the top, establishing a sense of family, a sense of loyalty, a sense of trust and responsibility amongst everybody in the family. What made it all happen for the Boston Celtics was Red Auerbach."

Dave Cowens......"He was shrewd enough and clever enough to figure out how to keep those guys (the Russell years) together, compatible, and keep that edge. He kept the players hungry."

Bill Bradley........"I would consider Red Auerbach a great coach, not only because he had so many victories, and so many championships, which is the ultimate mark of the man, but because of the team that he built, the spirit that he built, the tradition that he built."

Don't get me wrong here.....I think Russell was a truly great player, and I don't disagree with "most" of what is said about him. But there was a lot more to that Boston dynasty than just Bill Russell.

Sammy Jones was just an awesome player, and when he teamed up with John Havlicek on that Celtic fast break..... brother that game didn't go into high gear, it launched off the rocket pad!!!

Sam would just make a basketball court smoulder & he'd get this certain cocky stance when he'd get fired up man that just meant Game Over.

Sam was awesome, the only guy better at his game in the league was Logo and there was no better all-round forward than Havlicek... when you factored in Satch the best D forward in the NBA well you had your self a team no question

ThatsGame

02-26-2012, 02:32 PM

I don't see why Wilt is so praised. I just looked up highlights on him on youtube and he was basically playing against little white dudes that played zero defense.

Whats so great about that.

La Frescobaldi

02-26-2012, 02:34 PM

I don't see why Wilt is so praised. I just looked up highlights on him on youtube and he was basically playing against little white dudes that played zero defense.

Whats so great about that.

you're probably watching 50s film from when he was in high school

CavaliersFTW

02-26-2012, 02:39 PM

I don't see why Wilt is so praised. I just looked up highlights on him on youtube and he was basically playing against little white dudes that played zero defense.

Whats so great about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgbfZTQeKRk&t=5s :hammerhead:

Odinn

02-26-2012, 02:41 PM

PFs and Cs in my top15 ever list.

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Bill Russell
6. Shaquille O'Neal
6. Tim Duncan
8. Wilt Chamberlain
9. Moses Malone
11. Hakeem Olajuwon
13. Karl Malone
14. Charles Barkley

DMAVS41

02-26-2012, 02:42 PM

PFs and Cs in my top15 ever list.

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Bill Russell
6. Shaquille O'Neal
6. Tim Duncan
8. Wilt Chamberlain
9. Moses Malone
11. Hakeem Olajuwon
13. Karl Malone
14. Charles Barkley

I'm curious to know why you rank Moses over Hakeem. Is that more of a career ranking or that you simply thought Moses was better?

Pointguard

02-26-2012, 02:44 PM

Odinn

02-26-2012, 02:52 PM

I'm curious to know why you rank Moses over Hakeem. Is that more of a career ranking or that you simply thought Moses was better?
That's more of a career ranking.
As for peaks, Hakeem > Moses. But I think it's closer than general consensus.
As for primes, pretty damn close. I'd say almost equal.
As for careers, I think Moses is truly overlooked for a 3 times mvp winner.

The deal with Hakeem, as for 3 year spans, Hakeem had one of the top5 peaks ever but he is the only one who ranked thanks to 3 exceptional seasons. I'm not talking about longevity exactly. Hakeem's longevity is still impressive but when you exclude 1993-95 span what do you see in Hakeem's career/legacy? He is the only one who gets this much glory mostly based on 3 seasons.

iDefend5

02-26-2012, 03:26 PM

why is KAJ above MJ?

Odinn

02-26-2012, 03:28 PM

why is KAJ above MJ?
Asking me?

In my goat list, both of them are ranked as #1.

jlauber

02-26-2012, 03:29 PM

That's more of a career ranking.
As for peaks, Hakeem > Moses. But I think it's closer than general consensus.
As for primes, pretty damn close. I'd say almost equal.
As for careers, I think Moses is truly overlooked for a 3 times mvp winner.

The deal with Hakeem, as for 3 year spans, Hakeem had one of the top5 peaks ever but he is the only one who ranked thanks to 3 exceptional seasons. I'm not talking about longevity exactly. Hakeem's longevity is still impressive but when you exclude 1993-95 span what do you see in Hakeem's career/legacy? He is the only one who gets this much glory mostly based on 3 seasons.

What criteria could you possibly be using in which Chamberlain would be ranked so low?????

PTB Fan

02-26-2012, 03:50 PM

First of all, Wilt averaged 39.7 ppg on .470 shooting against Russell in the 61-62 regular season (not .458...one game was incorrect with a 13-38 instead of the actual 13-30.) In the post-season, Wilt averaged 33.6 ppg on .468 shooting (while Russell averaged 22 ppg on .420 shooting against him.) In a league that shot .426.

I consider this to be Russell's best defensive display vs Wilt. He slowed Wilt around 18 or so points below his RS averages, shut the lowest percentage vs him and even outmatched him in few games on the boards.

Throw out Wilt's very first game against Russell in his rookie 59-60 season, and he would have averaged 40 ppg on about .475 shooting, in a league that shot .410.

Cool stuff.

In his 62-63 season, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 38.1 to 14.2 in their eight H2H's (and six of them were by single digit margins.)

Yes, Russell "held" Wilt down (actually, held on for life), and even HE would admit (and has) that it was all he could do. He seldom outplayed Wilt. In fact, Wilt CRUSHED him in DOZENS of games, including wins, losses, and in close games.

I have no problem with someone saying Wilt outplayed Russell. No problem at all. However, i have a problem when someone says Wilt crushed or dominated Russell which isn't true. And Russell played Wilt like no one ever could nor did.

And, NO, you, nor Bill Simmons, will EVER convince me that Russell "let" Wilt score in the first three quarters, and then "shut him down" in the 4th. WAY too much evidence to the contrary. BTW, Russell's HOF-laden Celtics held an 85-57 record against Wilt's teams (including a 29-20 margin in the post-season.) So, obviously, Russell was not winning EVERY game...not even close. And you can't tell me that he was THAT great, that he could "allow" Wilt to score enough, and then hold him down, when, in fact, FOUR game seven's came down to razor-thin margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. And, was Russell THAT brilliant that he could hit a guidewire with an inbounds pass, and his team holding a one point lead with five seconds left, and KNOWING that "Havlicek steal the ball?"

I don't use Bill Simmons in any of my arguments. All of the arguments i make are from my research, stats, newspaper articles and other credible sources since i have started watching basketball seriously from 05 to now. Yes, i'm not old.

Russell usually guarded Wilt well.. the Celtics made big lead and in most cases of their match ups, Chamberlain got his stats after the game was done. Of course, there're expectations but not much.

And, what happened in the '67 playoffs? Here again, when Wilt was faced with elimination in game five of the '66 ECF's, he responded with a 46-34 game against Russell. And yet, when Russell was faced with the EXACT same circumstance the very next season, he quietly went like a lamb to slaughter, with a FOUR point game (while Chamberlain poured in 29 points, grabbed 36 rebounds, shot 10-16, handed out 13 assists, and blocked seven shots), in a LOSS. How come Russell couldn't step up? Where was HIS 46 point game?

67 is the season where pretty much Wilt clearly outplayed Russell. Can't argue that.

And don't bother looking for games in which Russell statistically outplayed Wilt. They are few-and-far between, and they were very close even in those. The fact was, Wilt outscored Russell in 132 of their 142 H2H games, and outrebounded him by a 92-42-8 margin. In MANY of them, and as I have provided previously, Chamberlain just OVERWHELMED Russell. How in the hell does Russell get outrebounded by a 55-19 margin? Or get outscored by a 62-23 margin. Or the MANY other games in which Chamberlain hung 40-30 games on him (24 times BTW)?

I didn't bother because Bill didn't play for stats. He played to win. No one, neither Wilt could stop him from achieving his goals. I give Chamberlain the edge in 60, 67... 68 is also arguable.

Russell did excellent job on Wilt in the playoffs.

And, you mentioned FG%. In almost EVERY known FG% game, series, or even SEASON, Chamberlain OUTSHOT Russell, and some by HUGE margins (unlike your Kareem reference against Wilt...who outshot Kareem .530 to .464 in their H2H's.)

Russell wasn't exactly a very efficient scorer to begin with, so there's a reason why his FG% is never brought in discussion. And it's normal for me that Wilt had higher FG% than Kareem because he took less shots. But when you take a look at what Chamberlain was doing in the league.. Kareem has to be given credit for his D.

In the '60 season, in Russell's career best season of .467 from the floor, in their known ten games (they met 11 times), Wilt outshot Russell, .465 to .398 (and Wilt only shot .461 in the entire season.) In the '62 ECF's, Wilt outshot Russell .468 to .420. In the '64 Finals, we KNOW that Chamberlain not only oustcored Russell, per game, 29.2 to 11.2 ppg (as well as outrebounding him, which he did in ALL eight of their H2H post-season series), but Wilt also shot .517 in that series. I don't know what Russell shot against Wilt, BUT, he only shot .356 in his ten post-season games, and FIVE of them were against Wilt.

Cool stuff.

In the 66-67 regular season, Wilt shot .549 against Russell. In the '67 ECF's, Wilt not only outshot Russell, he did so by a staggering .556 to .358 margin.

That year, Wilt totally outplayed Russell. Even as a Russell supporter, i can't argue that.

Once again, in the VAST MAJORITY of their KNOWN H2H games, series, and seasons, Wilt easily outshot Russell, and in MANY, by unfathomable margins.

Same here.

Russell got the best out of his teammates, to be sure, BUT, he played alongside his HOF teammates for a TOTAL of 71 seasons. Wilt played alongside his in 24 FULL seasons. Not even close in terms of talented rosters. And, yes, Wilt's teammates repeatedly FLOPPED in their post-seasons. You want a great example? How about this? Wilt averaged 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, and shot .540 in his 65-66 season. In doing so, he led his team to the BEST RECORD in the league, at 55-25 (Russell's stacked roster went 54-26 BTW.) And in their nine regular season H2H's, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg and 30.7 rpg against Russell. Then, in the ECF's, Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 against Russell. And yet, Russell's Celtics won that series, 4-1. What happened? Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot .352. How can anyone blame Wilt, when he played the EXACT same way that he did in the regular season, when his team had the best record in the league?

Russell never depended on his team mates. It wasn't the crucial thing why he beat Wilt. It was the fact that he got the best of his team mates, impacted the game on both sides, slowed down Wilt and came through better in the clutch.

Call it luck, call it what ever you like.. but when it came down to the clutch moments, Russell was tougher. How come Wilt underachieved vs Russell in their duels since '64 where he had clearly the better teams? It's not a good argument.

I could go on, but I will let you do your research, and continue the discussion...

I did a little research to get some facts since i've started using the newspaper articles as valuable source for info. We can continue the discussion whenever you like to continue.

I'll be waiting.

CavaliersFTW

02-26-2012, 04:00 PM

jlauber

02-26-2012, 05:00 PM

.

I consider this to be Russell's best defensive display vs Wilt. He slowed Wilt around 18 or so points below his RS averages, shut the lowest percentage vs him and even outmatched him in few games on the boards.

Not really. Wilt averaged 39.7 ppg on .471 shooting against Russell in their 10 H2H regular season games. 33.6 ppg on .468 in a lower-scoring post-season, was not that dramatic a difference. Now, if you want to argue that Russell played him better than most everyone else (with the exception of Nate Thurmond), I will agree. BUT, keep in mind that Russell is, by most intelligent observations, regarded as the greatest defensive center (and player) in NBA history. (BTW, by most all measurements, Wilt was the SECOND greatest.)

As for game recaps, yes, ShaqAttack posted all of them, and I give Russell an edge in TWO of the seven, with one possible tie (game seven.) In game two, though, Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20, and the result? Wilt's team won by seven points. THAT was what Chamberlain was faced with in those early seasons. He HAD to have SUPER-HUMAN games in order for his pathetic rosters to be even be competitive.

In any case, no one has been able to explain to me, just how Wilt took that cast of clowns, thru Syracuse, and then to a game seven, two point loss against Russell's HOF-laden 60-20 Celtics, and with his teammates collectively shooting .354. Just how in the hell did it happen?

have no problem with someone saying Wilt outplayed Russell. No problem at all. However, i have a problem when someone says Wilt crushed or dominated Russell which isn't true. And Russell played Wilt like no one ever could nor did.

Sorry, but there were MANY games, in both wins and LOSSES, in which Russell was CRUSHED by Chamberlain. I could give you DOZENS of examples, but real quickly...a "must-win" game five of the '60 ECF's...Chamberlain outscored Russell, 50-22, and outrebounded him, 35-27, in a 128-107 win.

Once again, games in which Wilt outscored Russell by some 35+ points. Or outrebounded him by as many as 36! Holding Russell to an 0-14 game from the floor. Scoring 62 points on 27-45 shooting against Russell. TONS of other examples.

BUT, you won't find the reverse, though, at least not very often (game four of the '60 ECF's stands out, BUT, Wilt had badly injured his wrist the game before throwing a punch after being brutalized the entire game.)

I don't use Bill Simmons in any of my arguments. All of the arguments i make are from my research, stats, newspaper articles and other credible sources since i have started watching basketball seriously from 05 to now. Yes, i'm not old.

Russell usually guarded Wilt well.. the Celtics made big lead and in most cases of their match ups, Chamberlain got his stats after the game was done. Of course, there're expectations but not much.

The problem with the above is that it is truly unfair to Wilt. Chamberlain gets accused of "stats-padding" because he was playing in blowouts. The FACT was, Wilt played nearly every minute of nearly EVERY game in his entire career. If he were truly a "selfish" "stats-padder" as some here have suggested, why would he alter his game, per his coach's requests, MULTIPLE times in his career? Why didn't he strive to continue to pour in 50+ games his entire career, when it was obvious as late as his 10th and 11th seasons, that he was capable of it?

And once again, yes, Russell usually did a decent job of guarding Wilt...except, he SELDOM guarded him one-on-one. And I have produced lengthy articles, and even an interview involving both Wilt AND Russell, which substantiated that very point. And even then, "holding" Wilt to 40-30 games is hardly "containging" Chamberlain.

BTW, there were MANY games, in their 142 matchups in which Boston did not have big leads. BUT, in one, and I won't look it up now, but NYCelt produced the game recap, Chamberlain led a comeback, from 20 points down in the second half, with a 40+ point performance, in a WIN. And once again, there were MANY post-season games in which Boston just EKED out a win. You will never convince me that such a proud man as Russell, would have "let" Wilt score. And I have never read anything by HIM, that would confirm it, either.

continued...

jlauber

02-26-2012, 05:00 PM

I didn't bother because Bill didn't play for stats. He played to win. No one, neither Wilt could stop him from achieving his goals. I give Chamberlain the edge in 60, 67... 68 is also arguable.

Russell did excellent job on Wilt in the playoffs.

How about '62, when Wilt outscored, outshot, and outrebounded Russell, and with his inept teammates collectively playing WORSE than they did in the regular season (particularly his HOF teammates, Arizin and Gola), and yet, somehow, Wilt got them to a game seven, two point loss?

Or in the '64 Finals, when Wilt, outgunned in HOF teammates, 8-2 (and his lone HOF teammate was rookie Nate Thurmond, who was playing part-time and out of position), outscoring Russell, per game, 29.2 ppg to 11.2 ppg, as well as outrebounding him, 27.0 to 25.3 rpg (and pronably out shooting him by a HUGE margin), and while his team lost, 4-1, they had two losses in the last few seconds.

And, in the '65 ECF's all Wilt did was take a 40-40 team, to a game seven, one point loss, against Russell's 62-18 Celtics, in a series in which Wilt averaged 30 ppg and 31.4 rpg (BADLY outscoring AND outrebounding Russell in that series.) And, in the game seven loss, Wilt scored Philly's six of their last eight points, including 2-2 from the line with 36 secs left, and a dunk over Russell with 5 seconds left that closed the gap from 110-101 to 110-109. Once again, had "Havlicek not stolen the ball", Chamberlain might have led his Sixers to perhaps the greatest upset in NBA history. BTW, in that game seven, Wilt scored 30 points, on 12-15 from the field, and with 32 rebounds.

I'll cover their last four seasons in a few...

Russell wasn't exactly a very efficient scorer to begin with, so there's a reason why his FG% is never brought in discussion. And it's normal for me that Wilt had higher FG% than Kareem because he took less shots. But when you take a look at what Chamberlain was doing in the league.. Kareem has to be given credit for his D.

Kareem was playing with equally talented as rosters as Wilt in their four years in the league together. Wilt was a better a "winner" who had a 3-1 edge in Finals in those 4 seasons, and the only one in which his team lost, he battled Kareem to a statistical draw, and withOUT BOTH West and Baylor. Had those two played, and Wilt might have won another ring.

Russell never depended on his team mates. It wasn't the crucial thing why he beat Wilt. It was the fact that he got the best of his team mates, impacted the game on both sides, slowed down Wilt and came through better in the clutch.

Call it luck, call it what ever you like.. but when it came down to the clutch moments, Russell was tougher. How come Wilt underachieved vs Russell in their duels since '64 where he had clearly the better teams? It's not a good argument.

Russell didn't depend on his teammates???

Think about this...Sam Jones had many seasons of 20+ ppg (as did several of Russell's teammates), including one of 25.9 (and a post-season of 26.1 ppg.) Why is that significant? It is pretty clear that, had Jones been "the man" somewhere else, he likely could have been a 30 ppg scorer. AND, how about Havlicek, who routinely put up 20 ppg seasons in the Russell-era? After Russell retired, he had two seasons of 27.5 ppg and 28.9 ppg. CLEARLY Jones and Havlicek were ELITE scorers. And guys like Heinsohn and Sharman, who had multiple 20+ ppg seasons, were capable more more, as well.

And Russell more "clutch" than Wilt? You will NEVER convince me of that. Here again, all Russell had to do was try to contain Wilt, while allowing his teammates (who usually enjoyed a huge edge in talent) to outplay Wilt's. Russell never HAD to score. Wilt did. And he not only scored, he put up some staggering games against Russell.

Once again, Russell won four rings at Wilt's expense, by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. If you research those series, you will find that Wilt easily outplayed Russell in all of them. It was Russell's edge in talent, and in the clucth play of his teammates (as well as the choking play of Wilt's teammates) that won those four series.

And for those that claim that Wilt had better teammates from '66 on, the difference was marginal, at best (and Russell had an edge in HOFers in each of them, as well as deeper rosters.)

Furthermore, Wilt played EXACTLY like he did against Russell in the regular season in the '66 ECF's, BUT, his teammates puked all over themselves while collectively shooting .352!

We all know that Wilt's equal supporting cast in '67 allowed a dominating Wilt to overwhelm Russell, as he always did, and win a convincing title.

As for '68...this is truly laughable. Wilt didn't have HOF teammate Billy Cunningham at all in that series, and in game five, with the Sixers leading the series, 3-1, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones sustained injuries. Of course, no one brings up the fact that Wilt, himself, was nursing MULTIPLE injuries, including a tear in his quad (a similar injury that Reed had in the '70 Finals, and which cost him the better part of three games), and was noticeably limping. And not only did Wilt PLAY (every minute of that series BTW), he put up a 22-25 series. And with all of that, and his teammates completely ignoring him in the second half of game seven (and shooting .333 in the process), his team lost a game seven by four points.

As for '69... Wilt was ONE PLAY away, in game four, of winning that series, 4-1. His Lakers were leading the series, 2-1, and were leading late in game four, 88-87, AND they had the ball. BUT, for some reason Johnny Egan was handling the ball (why not West?), and he lost it. Sam Jones hit the game winner, at the buzzer, while falling down. In game five, LA romped to a 117-104 win, in a game in which Wilt dominated Russell. So, that ONE PLAY (coupled with a miraculous buzzer beater) cost Wilt and his Lakers a 4-1 series romp. As it was, Chamberlain was on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven, two point loss.

BTW, I enjoy the discussion...

Pointguard

02-26-2012, 05:01 PM

I consider this to be Russell's best defensive display vs Wilt. He slowed Wilt around 18 or so points below his RS averages, shut the lowest percentage vs him and even outmatched him in few games on the boards.
It was never just Russell. It was a team effort. The slower pace in the playoffs, and defensive strategies took like 15 ppg in general off of Wilt's scoring average.

Russell was a great rebounder, its fair for him to have one strong suite that was measurable. As far as rebounding is concerned, most of the time, mano a mano, it wasn't like you were comparing equals. Wilt let it be known there was rank and file. Once in awhile Dalembert is going to out-rebound Dwight Howard. That is supposed to happen. A great rebounder hardly ever gets out rebounded 80% of the time by one player - while being dominated in more games than he outrebounded Wilt. Nevermind, getting dominated scoring wise to boot.

However, i have a problem when someone says Wilt crushed or dominated Russell which isn't true. And Russell played Wilt like no one ever could nor did.
I borrowed this from one of JLauder's post. Its the first four of a much longer list:
Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13 He scored three times as much as Russ + more than doubled his rebounds.

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

To me those are domination numbers, yeah, crush numbers. And Russell had plenty of team help with handling Wilt. What do you call it? And there are number beyond these. Those are prime beast numbers. And these were years supposedly when Russell defense was said to be equal to Wilt's offense. It's beasting when you act like nobody is there defending you or stopping you from getting rebounds.

Russell never depended on his team mates. It wasn't the crucial thing why he beat Wilt. It was the fact that he got the best of his team mates, impacted the game on both sides, slowed down Wilt and came through better in the clutch.

If Russell didn't depend on his teammates he would have developed his offensive game. He leaned on them to score more so than anybody else in the GOAT argument.

DMAVS41

02-26-2012, 07:35 PM

PTB Fan

02-27-2012, 09:36 AM

It was never just Russell. It was a team effort. The slower pace in the playoffs, and defensive strategies took like 15 ppg in general off of Wilt's scoring average.

In most of the available footage, Russell guarded Wilt straight up.. 1 on 1. No double team was needed.

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

To me those are domination numbers, yeah, crush numbers. And Russell had plenty of team help with handling Wilt. What do you call it? And there are number beyond these. Those are prime beast numbers. And these were years supposedly when Russell defense was said to be equal to Wilt's offense. It's beasting when you act like nobody is there defending you or stopping you from getting rebounds.

What's the efficiency? Those numbers sure look amazing, but what's the efficiency? You can could said that AI was even a better scorer than what he's regarded now if don't look at the efficiency.

That's my problem with the stats. And like i said, Celtics used Russell to guard Wilt 1 on 1. No quotes are convincing me either wise, since in nearly 100% of the available footage, Russell always played Wilt 1 on 1.

If Russell didn't depend on his teammates he would have developed his offensive game. He leaned on them to score more so than anybody else in the GOAT argument.

Russell made the things that he was needed to. But let that not fool you about his ability to score when it was needed most.

PTB Fan

02-27-2012, 09:36 AM

*bump for PTB fan - in case you missed it

These are probably from 71, right?

Great find.

Odinn

02-27-2012, 09:44 AM

Did you watch them both play?
Yes, I did.

Helix

02-27-2012, 12:58 PM

In most of the available footage, Russell guarded Wilt straight up.. 1 on 1. No double team was needed.

You do realize the "available footage" amounts to probably about 1% of the actual game time Chamberlain and Russell faced each other? And of the available footage probably more than half of that is from the 66-67 season and on when Wilt had become a facilitator. Beginning in the 66-67 season Wilt was looking to pass first.....Boston could not double and triple team Wilt anymore because Wilt was such a good passer.

Boston certainly did double and triple team Wilt in his "scoring" years, and that is attested to by Tom Heinsohn and K.C. Jones, amongst others. Why would they lie? With well over 100 hours of actual game time between Russell and Chamberlain, and you've seen a few minutes of it, and you know better than Heinsohn and Jones, two Celtic players who were there. Yea.....OK.

PTB Fan

02-27-2012, 01:32 PM

You do realize the "available footage" amounts to probably about 1% of the actual game time Chamberlain and Russell faced each other? And of the available footage probably more than half of that is from the 66-67 season and on when Wilt had become a facilitator. Beginning in the 66-67 season Wilt was looking to pass first.....Boston could not double and triple team Wilt anymore because Wilt was such a good passer.

Boston certainly did double and triple team Wilt in his "scoring" years, and that is attested to by Tom Heinsohn and K.C. Jones, amongst others. Why would they lie? With well over 100 hours of actual game time between Russell and Chamberlain, and you've seen a few minutes of it, and you know better than Heinsohn and Jones, two Celtic players who were there. Yea.....OK.

There was some footage available of the early 60's between Russell vs Wilt, and still in it, i haven't seen Russell getting help. I'll trust what i have seen and from what i have seen, no double team was used nor or needed.

CavaliersFTW

02-27-2012, 01:32 PM

There was some footage available of the early 60's between Russell vs Wilt, and still in it, i haven't seen Russell getting help. I'll trust what i have seen and from what i have seen, no double team was used nor or needed.

All the years Wilt was on the Warriors team Boston was certainly using 2 guys on Chamberlain - there was always weak-side help from one of the forwards - and sometimes Russell wasn't guarding Wilt for stretches if he was either injured, in foul trouble, or saving energy. It definitely wasn't this 1 on 1 duel people make it out to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27tReCWl8RY&t=9m55s

Al Attles - "The only team that had a guy in front and a guy in back of Wilt was Red Aurbach and the Boston Celtics"

When Wilt played the role of facilitator they had to play him differently. But they still would put more guys on him than one or use different players to guard him. In '68 that 255+lb rock, Wayne Embry was on Chamberlain boxing him out so Russell could grab more rebounds throughout much of the series.

http://i55.tinypic.com/5cyv0l.png

Read the "He's a Bull" part at the end and you'll see Embry was guarding Wilt not Russell - Russell was kept off Wilt to "roam free" and block shots and rebound.

And you'll also see in the article the mention of Wilt's teammates like Greer needing to stay hot in order to prevent Boston "from sagging on Chamberlain". (IE back to the old double/triple teaming defense they do when he's the scorer)

This few seconds of Wilt dunking right here is a rare clip of Chamberlain in his scoring years (the first year with the 76'ers)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4WZXiaDzyc&t=13m6s
In this play both Heinson and Bill are in front of Wilt with 2 hands in his face and 2 Celtics are right behind him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c0AXu3Qljo
Also in about 50% of the plays in here there are 2 bodies on Wilt - and when there wasn't, the Celtics gave up baskets too him. Honestly, this isn't even a good example because if I showed strictly game highlights - that included Wilt's misses in this game - you'd see far more than 50% of the footage having Wilt being double-teamed. This is a straight up highlight of Wilt and that's the problem with watching highlights of Wilt or Bill to assess how often he was double teamed. There is barely any footage of Wilt before being a 76'er and if you look at highlights of course it's going to show footage of Wilt catching the Celtics defense sleeping, or Bill guarding Wilt "1 on 1" in order to showcase Russell. But what really went on in entire games- was the Celtics making Wilt's life hell with the double and triple teams. Every testimonial of him I've heard includes acknowledgement that the Celtics doubled him - even from the Celtics players. Bill definitely had help. The Celtics defended him well, Bill was certainly the integral part of it and most of the time was the man in front of Wilt - but it wasn't 1 on 1. It was team defense. Bill was best suited to defense at the top of the key and using his agility to guard a variety of players. Against Wilt, he alone couldn't effectively hold his own in the low-post, not for an entire game. He wasn't big enough to be keeping Chamberlain's #'s down by himself.

ILLsmak

02-27-2012, 01:54 PM

lol more Shaq hatred... sad shit.

-Smak

PTB Fan

02-27-2012, 01:54 PM

Not really. Wilt averaged 39.7 ppg on .471 shooting against Russell in their 10 H2H regular season games. 33.6 ppg on .468 in a lower-scoring post-season, was not that dramatic a difference. Now, if you want to argue that Russell played him better than most everyone else (with the exception of Nate Thurmond), I will agree. BUT, keep in mind that Russell is, by most intelligent observations, regarded as the greatest defensive center (and player) in NBA history. (BTW, by most all measurements, Wilt was the SECOND greatest.)

I think Russell played Wilt best. Nate Thurmond is another great choice too. I think Bill played Chamberlain because he'd held him well in the first half, which was enough for the Celtics to make a nice run and when the game was usually solved.. he let him get his.

That's why the stats in their head to head match ups don't hold too much water for me. Bill never ever played his rival the same, wheres Nate and so on did. In the playoffs, he played him closer and held him to 25 points during the years in which Wilt was still a force as a scorer in the playoffs.

As for game recaps, yes, ShaqAttack posted all of them, and I give Russell an edge in TWO of the seven, with one possible tie (game seven.) In game two, though, Wilt outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20, and the result? Wilt's team won by seven points. THAT was what Chamberlain was faced with in those early seasons. He HAD to have SUPER-HUMAN games in order for his pathetic rosters to be even be competitive.

I've got Russell in most of their playoff match ups. We'll agree to disagree here. Unfortunately, Wilt failed to beat Russ even when he had better teams in their match ups from '64.

In any case, no one has been able to explain to me, just how Wilt took that cast of clowns, thru Syracuse, and then to a game seven, two point loss against Russell's HOF-laden 60-20 Celtics, and with his teammates collectively shooting .354. Just how in the hell did it happen?

I call this the ability to carry a team and greatness.

Sorry, but there were MANY games, in both wins and LOSSES, in which Russell was CRUSHED by Chamberlain. I could give you DOZENS of examples, but real quickly...a "must-win" game five of the '60 ECF's...Chamberlain outscored Russell, 50-22, and outrebounded him, 35-27, in a 128-107 win.

Once again, games in which Wilt outscored Russell by some 35+ points. Or outrebounded him by as many as 36! Holding Russell to an 0-14 game from the floor. Scoring 62 points on 27-45 shooting against Russell. TONS of other examples.

BUT, you won't find the reverse, though, at least not very often (game four of the '60 ECF's stands out, BUT, Wilt had badly injured his wrist the game before throwing a punch after being brutalized the entire game.)

I disagree with the terms "crashed" and "dominated". It can be argued that Chamberlain outplayed Russ. You can find stats from 67, 68 and maybe another year in which Chamberlain recorded remarkable games. While i can pull up series stats from '62, '64, '65, '69.. or so where Bill slowed Wilt's production below his normal production.

BTW, what's the efficiency in those games? If Wilt scored 40 points on below 50%, that's still solid defense. That's the issue i have with those stats.

The problem with the above is that it is truly unfair to Wilt. Chamberlain gets accused of "stats-padding" because he was playing in blowouts. The FACT was, Wilt played nearly every minute of nearly EVERY game in his entire career. If he were truly a "selfish" "stats-padder" as some here have suggested, why would he alter his game, per his coach's requests, MULTIPLE times in his career? Why didn't he strive to continue to pour in 50+ games his entire career, when it was obvious as late as his 10th and 11th seasons, that he was capable of it?

That's a debate for another day.

And once again, yes, Russell usually did a decent job of guarding Wilt...except, he SELDOM guarded him one-on-one. And I have produced lengthy articles, and even an interview involving both Wilt AND Russell, which substantiated that very point. And even then, "holding" Wilt to 40-30 games is hardly "containging" Chamberlain.

I disagree with seldom and what's your definition of being outplayed? I got Russ because he put Wilt below his normal averages in the playoffs, made his other usual production and won the games.

BTW, there were MANY games, in their 142 matchups in which Boston did not have big leads. BUT, in one, and I won't look it up now, but NYCelt produced the game recap, Chamberlain led a comeback, from 20 points down in the second half, with a 40+ point performance, in a WIN. And once again, there were MANY post-season games in which Boston just EKED out a win. You will never convince me that such a proud man as Russell, would have "let" Wilt score. And I have never read anything by HIM, that would confirm it, either.

continued...

To be honest, from many articles in which i have been reading, Wilt usually redeems himself after being pour in some of their match ups, tries to make a comeback but it was all too late.

I'll respond later to the argument, i have to go now.

La Frescobaldi

02-27-2012, 02:11 PM

ralph_i_el

02-27-2012, 05:02 PM

Hakeem
Shaq
Wilt/Duncan

PTB Fan

02-27-2012, 06:00 PM

http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-wilt-meets-bill-and-tommy-4000-words

I've read some of these stories and this one is familiar. However, expect when it was on the boards, no other double team was involved. I'm sorry.. i'm stubborn and i won't give up from this claim.

PTB Fan

02-27-2012, 06:36 PM

QUOTE=jlauber]How about '62, when Wilt outscored, outshot, and outrebounded Russell, and with his inept teammates collectively playing WORSE than they did in the regular season (particularly his HOF teammates, Arizin and Gola), and yet, somehow, Wilt got them to a game seven, two point loss?

Or in the '64 Finals, when Wilt, outgunned in HOF teammates, 8-2 (and his lone HOF teammate was rookie Nate Thurmond, who was playing part-time and out of position), outscoring Russell, per game, 29.2 ppg to 11.2 ppg, as well as outrebounding him, 27.0 to 25.3 rpg (and pronably out shooting him by a HUGE margin), and while his team lost, 4-1, they had two losses in the last few seconds.[/QUOTE]

I applaud Wilt for taking the Celtics to Game 7, but i still give the credit to Bill Russell for playing just as well statistically (rare thing) yet still did great work on defense and arguably outplayed him in a tough seven game series.

In 64, i'd still give the edge to Russell. Wasn't he given the credit for taking over again Wilt and Thurmond here? Once again solid D by Russ (in fact, anything below 30 was great IMO, considering Wilt). From one article, he outrebounded him in the first game.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=NgNUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OjkNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5043,3016888&dq=bill+russell&hl=en

All i could find. Interesting. Bill played quite well overall in the series.

And, in the '65 ECF's all Wilt did was take a 40-40 team, to a game seven, one point loss, against Russell's 62-18 Celtics, in a series in which Wilt averaged 30 ppg and 31.4 rpg (BADLY outscoring AND outrebounding Russell in that series.) And, in the game seven loss, Wilt scored Philly's six of their last eight points, including 2-2 from the line with 36 secs left, and a dunk over Russell with 5 seconds left that closed the gap from 110-101 to 110-109. Once again, had "Havlicek not stolen the ball", Chamberlain might have led his Sixers to perhaps the greatest upset in NBA history. BTW, in that game seven, Wilt scored 30 points, on 12-15 from the field, and with 32 rebounds.

I disagree. Gotta give credit to Russell, who even had a triple double. Yes, a triple double with 12 points, 28 boards (outmatching him here) and 12 blocks in one of his personal best games vs Wilt ever.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=eK9GAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nvgMAAAAIBAJ&pg=981,1741748&dq=bill+russell&hl=en

Here's also another game in which he outplays Wilt.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=BpscAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wmUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6309,2389079&dq=bill+russell&hl=en

He held Wilt nearly 6 points below his normal averages. To credit the 7'2 beast, he shot 52% FG.

I'll cover their last four seasons in a few...

Russell didn't depend on his teammates???

Think about this...Sam Jones had many seasons of 20+ ppg (as did several of Russell's teammates), including one of 25.9 (and a post-season of 26.1 ppg.) Why is that significant? It is pretty clear that, had Jones been "the man" somewhere else, he likely could have been a 30 ppg scorer. AND, how about Havlicek, who routinely put up 20 ppg seasons in the Russell-era? After Russell retired, he had two seasons of 27.5 ppg and 28.9 ppg. CLEARLY Jones and Havlicek were ELITE scorers. And guys like Heinsohn and Sharman, who had multiple 20+ ppg seasons, were capable more more, as well.

Fair enough. Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, Paul Arizin were all great players who played quite well without Wilt as well. That's because the teams in the 60's were in general stacked with HOFers that guys in my generation don't understand.

And Russell more "clutch" than Wilt? You will NEVER convince me of that. Here again, all Russell had to do was try to contain Wilt, while allowing his teammates (who usually enjoyed a huge edge in talent) to outplay Wilt's. Russell never HAD to score. Wilt did. And he not only scored, he put up some staggering games against Russell.

Once again, Russell won four rings at Wilt's expense, by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. If you research those series, you will find that Wilt easily outplayed Russell in all of them. It was Russell's edge in talent, and in the clucth play of his teammates (as well as the choking play of Wilt's teammates) that won those four series.

I won't bother than. It'd be pointless.

And for those that claim that Wilt had better teammates from '66 on, the difference was marginal, at best (and Russell had an edge in HOFers in each of them, as well as deeper rosters.)

Disagree.

Furthermore, Wilt played EXACTLY like he did against Russell in the regular season in the '66 ECF's, BUT, his teammates puked all over themselves while collectively shooting .352!

We all know that Wilt's equal supporting cast in '67 allowed a dominating Wilt to overwhelm Russell, as he always did, and win a convincing title.

I admit, Wilt was a bit unlucky. and 67 was just.. ouch.

A
s for '68...this is truly laughable. Wilt didn't have HOF teammate Billy Cunningham at all in that series, and in game five, with the Sixers leading the series, 3-1, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones sustained injuries. Of course, no one brings up the fact that Wilt, himself, was nursing MULTIPLE injuries, including a tear in his quad (a similar injury that Reed had in the '70 Finals, and which cost him the better part of three games), and was noticeably limping. And not only did Wilt PLAY (every minute of that series BTW), he put up a 22-25 series. And with all of that, and his teammates completely ignoring him in the second half of game seven (and shooting .333 in the process), his team lost a game seven by four points.

As for '69... Wilt was ONE PLAY away, in game four, of winning that series, 4-1. His Lakers were leading the series, 2-1, and were leading late in game four, 88-87, AND they had the ball. BUT, for some reason Johnny Egan was handling the ball (why not West?), and he lost it. Sam Jones hit the game winner, at the buzzer, while falling down. In game five, LA romped to a 117-104 win, in a game in which Wilt dominated Russell. So, that ONE PLAY (coupled with a miraculous buzzer beater) cost Wilt and his Lakers a 4-1 series romp. As it was, Chamberlain was on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven, two point loss.

If you have read any of my previous posts, i have given this as the edge to Wilt.

BTW, I enjoy the discussion...

Me too. Really fun discussing something that happened 30 years ago before i wasn't even born. BTW, when you make your posts, don't expect me to give a response quickly because i have too much things to do in real life.

Looking forward for more. I have somewhat missed your first post. I apologize for missing this before.