Why Only Wilt? [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

jlauber

06-13-2012, 02:19 AM

One of the arguments used against Chamberlain's phenomenal numbers, was the "pace" of his era.

First of all, the "pace" has been way over-blown. At it's highest, in the 61-62 season, the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg (on .426 shooting.) However, it declined the rest of the decade, and by his 68-69 season, it was down to 112.3 ppg (on .441 shooting.)

Not only that, but Wilt was responsible for much of that pace, too. The year before he arrived, the NBA averaged 108.2 ppg on .395 shooting. In his rookie season, the scoring jumped to 115.3 ppg on .410 shooting.

And how about Wilt's Lakers in his next to last season, 71-72, when LA averaged 121.0 ppg in a league that averaged 110.2 ppg (and the next best team was at 116.3 ppg.)

In any case, much has been made about how "pace" was responsible for his astonishing numbers. Yet, how come it was ONLY Chamberlain who was putting them up?

Think about this...take Chamberlain out of the "Wilt-era", and the highest scoring season was Rick Barry's 65-66 season, at 35.6 ppg. Wilt not only had seasons of 50.4 ppg and 44.8 ppg, he AVERAGED 40 ppg in his first seven seasons...COMBINED.

BTW, before someone brings up Baylor's PART-TIME season of 38.3 ppg in 61-62, it came in only 48 games (and was not recognized among the scoring leaders that season.) Furthermore, if Baylor is allowed to have that 38.3 ppg average in 48 games...Chamberlain had three separate scoring streaks that season, covering 14, 14, and 5 games, or 33 games, in which he averaged 56 ppg ( 53 ppg, 54 ppg, and 70 ppg.) AND, in the first 16 games of the 62-63 season, Wilt was averaging 54 ppg, as well as 53 ppg thru the first 20 games.

Back to FULL-TIME scoring seasons in the Wilt-era. After Barry's 35.6 ppg comes Kareem's 34.8 ppg in 71-72; Baylor's 34.8 ppg in '61; Baylor's 34.0 ppg in 62-63; and Archibalds incredible 72-73 season, when he averaged 34.0 ppg AND 11.4 apg. The FACT was, there were not a dramatic number of 30 ppg seasons IN the Wilt-era, and the majority of them were under 32 ppg.

How about FG%'s? Chamberlain was obviously LIGHT YEARS ahead of his peers. He had seasons of .727, in a league that shot .456, and in which his closest rival was at .570; and .683, in a league that shot .441, and his closest pursuer was at .521. Those numbers are the not only the two highest seasons of all-time, their differentials and margins are also the greatest ever achieved.

Not only that, but take Wilt out of the equation, and the HIGHEST FG% season, during the 14 seasons that Wilt played, was Johnny Green's .587.

Rebounding? True, rebounding numbers in the early 60's were inflated. Today's NBA, at 44 rpg, is about 70% of what the highest season was in the Chamberlain era (and before someone argues those numbers, TEAM rebounds were included until the 68-69 season.)

HOWEVER, take Chamberlain and Russell both, out of the equation, and there were a TOTAL of FOUR 20+ rpg seasons in the Wilt-era (and the only other four ever.) Nate Thurmond had a 21.3 rpg, season; Bob Pettit had a 20.2 rpg season; and Jerry Lucas had two seasons of 21.1 and 20.4 rpg.

As for the Russell-Wilt rebounding seasons, they combined for the 18 highest in NBA history. BUT, Wilt was considerably better than Russell, particularly IN the Russell-era. When Russell retired, at his 22.5 rpg, and playoff average of 24.9 rpg, Wilt was at 26.3 rpg in both. Not only that, but in their 142 H2H's, Chamberlain just crushed Russell, outrebounding him by FIVE per game (and a 92-42-8 margin in those 142 games.)

Then, how about these numbers...

During the Chamberlain era, there were a TOTAL of FIVE 60+ point games. Baylor had four, and West had one. That was it. How about Wilt? 32! And MJ and Kobe are next, each with five. In fact, Wilt's 32 are more than all of the rest of the NBA...COMBINED! BTW, Chamberlain has the HIGHEST "efficient" 60+ point game in NBA history (.829 on 29-35 shooting), and THREE of the top-4.

Wilt also had SIX games of 70+. No one else, in NBA history has had more than ONE. And, once again, Wilt's SIX is more than the rest COMBINED (4.)

Of course, Chamberlain is MILES ahead of anyone else in career 40 and 50+ point games, as well.

Rebounding? There have been a total of 28 40+ rebound games in NBA history...and Chamberlain has 15 of them. Or, once again, more than everyone else...COMBINED. BTW, he had SEVEN against RUSSELL (Russell had one against him), including a 55-19 margin in one regular season game.

FG% games? Wilt has either the top-3, or top-4 games in NBA history. He certainly has games of 15-15, 16-16, and 18-18. And there seems to be a debate as to whether he had another game of 18-18, or 18-19.

Blocked shots? From the research that I have seen, Wilt has the ONLY 20+ block games in NBA history, and at least THREE of them. Pollack lost count at 25 in one game. Then there is a 34-33 game, with 20 credited blocks in 61-62. And, in a nationally televised game in 1968, Wilt RECORDED 23 KNOWN blocks.

Then, how about these staggering games...

There has been 131 30-30 games in NBA history. Wilt has 103 of them. The next best mark is FOUR.

There has been 61 40-30 games in NBA history. Chamberlain has 55 of them.

Wilt has ALL EIGHT 40-40 games in NBA history.

Wilt has all FOUR 50-40 games in NBA history.

Chamberlain has the only two Double-Triple-Double games in NBA history. He had that 34-33-20 game in '62, and a 22 point, 25 rebound, 21 assist game in '68.

BTW, Chamberlain recorded TWO 60+ point games in his 68-69 season...in a year in which he averaged 15 FGAs per game. Think about this. Kareem came into the league the very next season, and in his 20 year career, his career high game was 55 points.

In fact, Wilt had the HIGH point games in EVERY season in the decade of the 60's (and SEVERAL in some seasons.) Even as late as his 67-68 season, he had the FOUR highest scoring games that year (52, 53, 53, and 68.)

Speaking of Kareem...Kareem played FOUR seasons IN the Wilt-era. He never came close to matching Wilt's HIGH games against common opposing centers. And, in his 20 year career, he had ONE 30-30 game. Chamberlain, just in his 71-72 season alone, had TWO.

Or how about this. In Wilt's LAST post-season, covering 17 games, he averaged 22.5 rpg. The next highest post-season since? Kareem's 17.3 rpg in the 76-77 playoffs (covering 11 games.)

In any case...some food for thought...

BlueandGold

06-13-2012, 02:21 AM

Well said.

Wilt > 99.9% of the league today.

Which one of today's "modern" professional athletes could compete as a high jumper in the olympics?

Miserio

06-13-2012, 02:25 AM

Dude, nobody cares. Wilt sucks.

305Baller

06-13-2012, 02:26 AM

Wilt was great, the pace back then was pretty good.

Go Wilt.

SuperPippen

06-13-2012, 02:33 AM

Dude, nobody cares. Wilt sucks.

You're wrong. I care.

jlauber, can I get the tl;dr version of what you wrote? I think more people would be willing to seriously consider what you have to say if you didn't write such huge walls of text all the time.

jlauber

06-13-2012, 02:45 AM

You're wrong. I care.

jlauber, can I get the tl;dr version of what you wrote? I think more people would be willing to seriously consider what you have to say if you didn't write such huge walls of text all the time.

Had Wilt not played in the 14 seasons of the Wilt-era, the high ppg season would have been Barry's 35.6 ppg.

The high FG% season in that period would have been Johnny Green's .587.

There would have been a total of FIVE 60+ point games (four by Baylor and one by West.) Wilt had 32.

Aside from Wilt, there were 18 30-30 games IN the Chamberlain-era. Wilt had 103.

There were four 40-30 games in the Chamberlain era...other than Wilt's 55.

There were no other 40-40 games in the Wilt era, but Wilt had EIGHT.

Obviously, there were no other 50-40 games, but Chamberlain had FOUR himself.

I added quite a few other facts as well, but you get the gist.

Why ONLY Wilt?

CavaliersFTW

06-13-2012, 02:56 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDzzxVE34k&t=2m52s

Played against weak competition such as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

julizaver

06-13-2012, 04:34 AM

ShaqAttack3234

06-13-2012, 07:00 AM

This thread seems to be directed at me, so what the hell, I'll give a quick response.

One of the arguments used against Chamberlain's phenomenal numbers, was the "pace" of his era.

First of all, the "pace" has been way over-blown. At it's highest, in the 61-62 season, the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg (on .426 shooting.) However, it declined the rest of the decade, and by his 68-69 season, it was down to 112.3 ppg (on .441 shooting.)

It's not overblown, and you don't judge pace by ppg/FG%. Here's an article about the subject from Basketball-Reference

In '62, the average team took 107.7 shots per game. By comparison, this year the average team takes 80.2 FGA/G. If we use a regression to estimate turnovers & offensive rebounds, the league pace factor for 1962 was 125.5 possessions/48 minutes, whereas this year it's 91.7. Oscar's Royals averaged 124.7 poss/48, while Wilt's Warriors put up a staggering 129.7 (the highest mark in the league). On the other hand, the 2009 Cavs are averaging a mere 89.2 poss/48. It turns out that the simplest explanation for the crazy statistical feats of 1961-62 (and the early sixties in general) is just that the league was playing at a much faster tempo in those days, with more possessions affording players more opportunities to amass gaudy counting statistics.

Let's say LeBron '09 could switch paces (note that I didn't say "places", which is another argument entirely) with Oscar '62... That means we would have to scale down the Big O's per-game numbers by multiplying them by .715, giving Robertson a far more reasonable line of 22.0 PPG, 8.9 RPG, & 8.1 APG -- which are still really good numbers, to be sure, but not as crazy as they looked at the breakneck pace of '62. By contrast, we have to multiply LBJ's stats by a factor of 1.4 if we want to see what they would look like if he played at a 1962-style pace. The results: 40.1 PPG, 10.3 RPG, & 10.0 APG!! As you can see, those 35.5 extra possessions per game really make a huge difference when comparing the two players' stats.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1423

In any case, much has been made about how "pace" was responsible for his astonishing numbers. Yet, how come it was ONLY Chamberlain who was putting them up?

It's not only brought up for Wilt, I'm the one who usually argues pace with you, and I've brought it up with Oscar's triple double season too. And I've brought it up with more modern players such as Alex English and other players on run and gun 80's teams. Pace in extreme examples can really affect numbers.

Hell, I've shown how pace and the 1991 Denver Nuggets outrageous style of pressing constantly and shooting within 5-6 seconds and 1 pass to cause a breakneck pace greatly inflated Orlando Woolridge and Michael Adams numbers that season.

Wilt was a great player, we disagree on exactly hoe great, but the reason I bring up pace is because you typically make your case for Wilt on numbers, and imo, the pace and other factors(minutes) were so different from modern teams that a fair comparison based on numbers simply can't be made.

I think these things have to be included because it's misleading to bring up that Wilt averaged 50/26 in a comparison to modern players and not bring up that his team averaged 130 possessions per 48 minutes(or roughly 35-40 more than just about every team in the last 15 years), or that he was able to attempt 39.5 FGA/17 FTA per game, which was only possible because of the pace of the game and playing every minute.

These things just aren't possible in other eras of the NBA, it's still an accomplishment, and the comparison to his peers shows that, but a comparison to current players simply can't be made either way. And that's not because I think Wilt doesn't compare to modern players because I think you could take Wilt as he was in the 60's, put him in a time machine and he'd be a force in any era.

BTW, before someone brings up Baylor's PART-TIME season of 38.3 ppg in 61-62, it came in only 48 games (and was not recognized among the scoring leaders that season.) Furthermore, if Baylor is allowed to have that 38.3 ppg average in 48 games...Chamberlain had three separate scoring streaks that season, covering 14, 14, and 5 games, or 33 games, in which he averaged 56 ppg ( 53 ppg, 54 ppg, and 70 ppg.) AND, in the first 16 games of the 62-63 season, Wilt was averaging 54 ppg, as well as 53 ppg thru the first 20 games.

Actually, his season was recognized among the scoring leaders, but he didn't finish high simply because for the last time, the scoring title was given out by total points NOT points per game.

And taking into consideration all of Baylor's games(48 regular season games at 38.3 plus 13 playoff games at 38.6) is much different than cherry picking Wilt's best streaks.

Wilt was obviously better, but your denial that Baylor's season took place is sad because it was a remarkable season itself.

And we have 61 games between regular season and playoffs to show Baylor averaging 38+ that season, it's factually correct to say Baylor was a 38 ppg scorer that season.

In any event these arguments are getting old, you'll believe what you're going to believe, and I'm going to believe what I'm going to believe. I just can't see how someone can't understand that an extra 40 possessions per game isn't going to dramatically alter statistics.

Asukal

06-13-2012, 07:57 AM

Oh look its this thread again.... made during the finals no less. :facepalm

Wilt is ashamed... :crazysam:

Owl

06-13-2012, 09:58 AM

Pointguard

06-13-2012, 12:09 PM

ShaqAttack3234

06-13-2012, 01:03 PM

If Baylor only played on weekends then he shouldn't qualify. This year was a great example of why that should not be. Everybody (super iron men Lebron and DH) suffered from the attrition of the season. Back then the season was way more hectic and the pace considerably faster than today - obviously way more stop and go. Attrition is half the battle of a season. There are guys like Dirk who never really got into rebounding in the regular season because he paced himself for the whole year. Kobe and Wade are super athletes yet they have trouble pacing themselves. Let them only play on weekends and they are the best players in the game without question.

If Wilt plays only on weekends - the argument is does he get 55 and 30 for the year. Baylor had a great year, but if a player played part-time this year he would have had a distinct advantage over every player and it would be obvious, visible obvious and '62 was probably the most draining year there ever was. Baylor rarely played a full season - once his whole career, was usually sporadic and had concentration issues. So he's one of those guy that a full season kind of works on him. He definitely wasn't going thru the attrition that Wilt, Russell, Oscar and West were going thru career or season wise.

Baylor played in the Lakers first 42 games before his military service(so he wasn't just playing on weekends) and Baylor through those first 38.2, so it does not appear that his numbers were inflated by rest between games since they were the same before he was getting the extra rest.

Not to mention that you can argue he was at a disadvantage not getting to play and practice as regularly, which could lead him to be less sharp than he would have been. Don't know if that's true, but the truth is, we don't know how his situation affected his performance. Neither of us.

What we do know is between regular season and playoffs, Elgin Baylor averaged over 38 ppg in 61 total games.

senelcoolidge

06-13-2012, 02:04 PM

Dude, nobody cares. Wilt sucks.

Wilt sucks than everyone else sucks. Good comment dudette.

Pointguard

06-13-2012, 11:31 PM

Baylor played in the Lakers first 42 games before his military service(so he wasn't just playing on weekends) and Baylor through those first 38.2, so it does not appear that his numbers were inflated by rest between games since they were the same before he was getting the extra rest.

Not to mention that you can argue he was at a disadvantage not getting to play and practice as regularly, which could lead him to be less sharp than he would have been. Don't know if that's true, but the truth is, we don't know how his situation affected his performance. Neither of us.

What we do know is between regular season and playoffs, Elgin Baylor averaged over 38 ppg in 61 total games.
So you are telling me that Baylor played the first 42 games and then only played 6 more games in the regular season? No wonder he had the playoffs he did: He was fresh and everybody else was wasted.

If he paced himself for 42 games its still very different than 80 regardless. No sprinter runs the 60 yard dash the same way he would the 200. The pace and game demanded a marathon's energy, a 15 rounder, a decathaletes endurance. It's not a question as to whether or not I think it affected his performance - the better question is was it fair? 60% is never a qualifier for anything as a full-timer and flat out should not be here.

I would have a problem if Derrick Rose was had the highest ppg this season and they gave it to him over Durant, and Rose played practically the same ratio of games as did Baylor that year. I don't care what happened in the playoffs or anything - Rose was not there enough to deserve accolades of a full season player. No matter what it was it wouldn't be fair.

I heard from Baylor supporters that at one point if you crossed the 1500 point plateau you were a qualifier for the scoring title. But that's a mark Wilt could have achieved after 27 games - that's off the hook, but not fair or right. What practicality in the universe is 60% treated equal to 98%. But hey, when it comes to mitigating a Wilt feat, screw good laws of practicality, make up your own measuring sticks.

jlauber

06-13-2012, 11:46 PM

One more time, to make it easier to read...

One of the arguments used against Chamberlain's phenomenal numbers, was the "pace" of his era.

First of all, the "pace" has been way over-blown. At it's highest, in the 61-62 season, the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg (on .426 shooting.) However, it declined the rest of the decade, and by his 68-69 season, it was down to 112.3 ppg (on .441 shooting.)

Not only that, but Wilt was responsible for much of that pace, too. The year before he arrived, the NBA averaged 108.2 ppg on .395 shooting. In his rookie season, the scoring jumped to 115.3 ppg on .410 shooting.

And how about Wilt's Lakers in his next to last season, 71-72, when LA averaged 121.0 ppg in a league that averaged 110.2 ppg (and the next best team was at 116.3 ppg.)

In any case, much has been made about how "pace" was responsible for his astonishing numbers. Yet, how come it was ONLY Chamberlain who was putting them up?

Think about this...take Chamberlain out of the "Wilt-era", and the highest scoring season was Rick Barry's 65-66 season, at 35.6 ppg. Wilt not only had seasons of 50.4 ppg and 44.8 ppg, he AVERAGED 40 ppg in his first seven seasons...COMBINED.

BTW, before someone brings up Baylor's PART-TIME season of 38.3 ppg in 61-62, it came in only 48 games (and was not recognized among the scoring leaders that season.) Furthermore, if Baylor is allowed to have that 38.3 ppg average in 48 games...Chamberlain had three separate scoring streaks that season, covering 14, 14, and 5 games, or 33 games, in which he averaged 56 ppg ( 53 ppg, 54 ppg, and 70 ppg.) AND, in the first 16 games of the 62-63 season, Wilt was averaging 54 ppg, as well as 53 ppg thru the first 20 games.

Back to FULL-TIME scoring seasons in the Wilt-era. After Barry's 35.6 ppg comes Kareem's 34.8 ppg in 71-72; Baylor's 34.8 ppg in '61; Baylor's 34.0 ppg in 62-63; and Archibalds incredible 72-73 season, when he averaged 34.0 ppg AND 11.4 apg. The FACT was, there were not a dramatic number of 30 ppg seasons IN the Wilt-era, and the majority of them were under 32 ppg.

How about FG%'s? Chamberlain was obviously LIGHT YEARS ahead of his peers. He had seasons of .727, in a league that shot .456, and in which his closest rival was at .570; and .683, in a league that shot .441, and his closest pursuer was at .521. Those numbers are the not only the two highest seasons of all-time, their differentials and margins are also the greatest ever achieved.

Not only that, but take Wilt out of the equation, and the HIGHEST FG% season, during the 14 seasons that Wilt played, was Johnny Green's .587.

Rebounding? True, rebounding numbers in the early 60's were inflated. Today's NBA, at 44 rpg, is about 70% of what the highest season was in the Chamberlain era (and before someone argues those numbers, TEAM rebounds were included until the 68-69 season.)

HOWEVER, take Chamberlain and Russell both, out of the equation, and there were a TOTAL of FOUR 20+ rpg seasons in the Wilt-era (and the only other four ever.) Nate Thurmond had a 21.3 rpg, season; Bob Pettit had a 20.2 rpg season; and Jerry Lucas had two seasons of 21.1 and 20.4 rpg.

As for the Russell-Wilt rebounding seasons, they combined for the 18 highest in NBA history. BUT, Wilt was considerably better than Russell, particularly IN the Russell-era. When Russell retired, at his 22.5 rpg, and playoff average of 24.9 rpg, Wilt was at 26.3 rpg in both. Not only that, but in their 142 H2H's, Chamberlain just crushed Russell, outrebounding him by FIVE per game (and a 92-42-8 margin in those 142 games.)

Then, how about these numbers...

During the Chamberlain era, there were a TOTAL of FIVE 60+ point games. Baylor had four, and West had one. That was it. How about Wilt? 32! And MJ and Kobe are next, each with five. In fact, Wilt's 32 are more than all of the rest of the NBA...COMBINED! BTW, Chamberlain has the HIGHEST "efficient" 60+ point game in NBA history (.829 on 29-35 shooting), and THREE of the top-4.

Wilt also had SIX games of 70+. No one else, in NBA history has had more than ONE. And, once again, Wilt's SIX is more than the rest COMBINED (4.)

Of course, Chamberlain is MILES ahead of anyone else in career 40 and 50+ point games, as well.

Rebounding? There have been a total of 28 40+ rebound games in NBA history...and Chamberlain has 15 of them. Or, once again, more than everyone else...COMBINED. BTW, he had SEVEN against RUSSELL (Russell had one against him), including a 55-19 margin in one regular season game.

FG% games? Wilt has either the top-3, or top-4 games in NBA history. He certainly has games of 15-15, 16-16, and 18-18. And there seems to be a debate as to whether he had another game of 18-18, or 18-19.

Blocked shots? From the research that I have seen, Wilt has the ONLY 20+ block games in NBA history, and at least THREE of them. Pollack lost count at 25 in one game. Then there is a 34-33 game, with 20 credited blocks in 61-62. And, in a nationally televised game in 1968, Wilt RECORDED 23 KNOWN blocks.

Then, how about these staggering games...

There has been 131 30-30 games in NBA history. Wilt has 103 of them. The next best mark is FOUR.

There has been 61 40-30 games in NBA history. Chamberlain has 55 of them.

Wilt has ALL EIGHT 40-40 games in NBA history.

Wilt has all FOUR 50-40 games in NBA history.

Chamberlain has the only two Double-Triple-Double games in NBA history. He had that 34-33-20 game in '62, and a 22 point, 25 rebound, 21 assist game in '68.

BTW, Chamberlain recorded TWO 60+ point games in his 68-69 season...in a year in which he averaged 15 FGAs per game. Think about this. Kareem came into the league the very next season, and in his 20 year career, his career high game was 55 points.

In fact, Wilt had the HIGH point games in EVERY season in the decade of the 60's (and SEVERAL in some seasons.) Even as late as his 67-68 season, he had the FOUR highest scoring games that year (52, 53, 53, and 68.)

Speaking of Kareem...Kareem played FOUR seasons IN the Wilt-era. He never came close to matching Wilt's HIGH games against common opposing centers. And, in his 20 year career, he had ONE 30-30 game. Chamberlain, just in his 71-72 season alone, had TWO.

Or how about this. In Wilt's LAST post-season, covering 17 games, he averaged 22.5 rpg. The next highest post-season since? Kareem's 17.3 rpg in the 76-77 playoffs (covering 11 games.)

In any case...some food for thought...

jlauber

06-14-2012, 12:04 AM

Baylor played in the Lakers first 42 games before his military service(so he wasn't just playing on weekends) and Baylor through those first 38.2, so it does not appear that his numbers were inflated by rest between games since they were the same before he was getting the extra rest.

Not to mention that you can argue he was at a disadvantage not getting to play and practice as regularly, which could lead him to be less sharp than he would have been. Don't know if that's true, but the truth is, we don't know how his situation affected his performance. Neither of us.

What we do know is between regular season and playoffs, Elgin Baylor averaged over 38 ppg in 61 total games.

Baylor's regular season came in a year in which he barely played HALF the season.

Once again, Chamberlain had three seaparate stretches that season, covering 33 games, in which he was over 56 ppg...combined. AND, he began the 62-63 season with a 54 ppg average in his first 16 games, and a 53 ppg average thru his first 20. That is a run of 53 games in which he was over 54 ppg.

And many baseball fans acknowledge that Ted William's .406 season in 1941 was the last time a player ever batted .400. YET, after returning from MILITARY service late in 1953, went on to play 37 games, slugged 13 HRs in 91 ABs (110 PAs)...and batted .407. Why wasn't he awarded the batting title and THAT season declared the last time a player hit .400? We KNOW that Williams hit .406 in 1941, and we KNOW that, at the age of 38, in 1957, he hit .388. So, obviously he was capable of that .407 season...let's just give it to him. Where is the cut-off point?

Furthermore, Baylor NEVER had a FULL season of averaging over 34.8 ppg. That is a FACT. In that 61-62 season, which was even more compressed than the season we just witnessed (with a DRAMATIC decline in scoring and shooting because of the BRUTAL scheduling), Chamberlain played all but EIGHT MINUTES. He played in a TON of B2B's. On top of that, he played in SIX separate stretches of THREE-IN-ROWS, three more separate strecthes of FOUR-IN-ROW, and even an incredible separate stretch of FIVE-IN-A-ROW.

Baylor didn't have to endure an exhautive schedule, NOR, face the possibility of INJURY in what would have been nearly HALF of a season.

And, as Pointguard pointed out...Baylor was probably the freshest player going into the 61-62 post-season, too. He didn't have a major injury to deal with, and certainly didn't come in tired.

NOR do I see Baylor's 61-62 season listed among the highest scoring PPG seasons either...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/pts_per_g_season.html

Why?

Because it was a PART-TIME season.

One more time...Barry's 35.6 ppg season stands as the highest "non-Wilt" scoring season IN the Chamberlain-era.

Pushxx

06-14-2012, 12:20 AM

The absurd size of that picture ruins the entire thread and I'm not even gonna read it.

keepinitreal

06-14-2012, 12:25 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDzzxVE34k&t=2m52s

Played against weak competition such as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

this video is amazing

jlauber

06-14-2012, 12:30 AM

This thread seems to be directed at me, so what the hell, I'll give a quick response.

It's not overblown, and you don't judge pace by ppg/FG%. Here's an article about the subject from Basketball-Reference

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1423

It's not only brought up for Wilt, I'm the one who usually argues pace with you, and I've brought it up with Oscar's triple double season too. And I've brought it up with more modern players such as Alex English and other players on run and gun 80's teams. Pace in extreme examples can really affect numbers.

Hell, I've shown how pace and the 1991 Denver Nuggets outrageous style of pressing constantly and shooting within 5-6 seconds and 1 pass to cause a breakneck pace greatly inflated Orlando Woolridge and Michael Adams numbers that season.

Wilt was a great player, we disagree on exactly hoe great, but the reason I bring up pace is because you typically make your case for Wilt on numbers, and imo, the pace and other factors(minutes) were so different from modern teams that a fair comparison based on numbers simply can't be made.

I think these things have to be included because it's misleading to bring up that Wilt averaged 50/26 in a comparison to modern players and not bring up that his team averaged 130 possessions per 48 minutes(or roughly 35-40 more than just about every team in the last 15 years), or that he was able to attempt 39.5 FGA/17 FTA per game, which was only possible because of the pace of the game and playing every minute.

These things just aren't possible in other eras of the NBA, it's still an accomplishment, and the comparison to his peers shows that, but a comparison to current players simply can't be made either way. And that's not because I think Wilt doesn't compare to modern players because I think you could take Wilt as he was in the 60's, put him in a time machine and he'd be a force in any era.

Actually, his season was recognized among the scoring leaders, but he didn't finish high simply because for the last time, the scoring title was given out by total points NOT points per game.

And taking into consideration all of Baylor's games(48 regular season games at 38.3 plus 13 playoff games at 38.6) is much different than cherry picking Wilt's best streaks.

Wilt was obviously better, but your denial that Baylor's season took place is sad because it was a remarkable season itself.

And we have 61 games between regular season and playoffs to show Baylor averaging 38+ that season, it's factually correct to say Baylor was a 38 ppg scorer that season.

In any event these arguments are getting old, you'll believe what you're going to believe, and I'm going to believe what I'm going to believe. I just can't see how someone can't understand that an extra 40 possessions per game isn't going to dramatically alter statistics.

Put 61-62 Wilt in MJ's 86-87 season, in a league that averaged 109.9 ppg and shot .480, and here is what his numbers would translate to, BEFORE adjusting for what CLEARLY would have been on a MUCH better shooting percentage.

His 39.5 FGAs would have dropped to 32.6 FGAs. And his FTAs would have dropped from 17 down to 13.9 FTAs. Just using his actual shooting percentages, and Wilt would have made 16.5 FGs per game, or 33 ppg. He would have made 8.5 FTs per game...or, 33 + 8.5 = 41.5 ppg.

BUT, we HAVE to adjust for league average FG%, as well. Why? Because if we don't, the team's of the '62 season, which scored 118.8 ppg on average, would have dropped to around 90 ppg in '87...or WAY below the actual 109.9 ppg.

Once again, Wilt shot .506 in a league that shot .426 in '62. The NBA shot .480 in MJ's '87 season. Adjust Wilt's .506 to '87 levels (remember, we REDUCED his FGAs and FTAs to '87 levels), and he suddenly would have been shooting slightly over .570 from the field. Ok, multiply that .570 times 32.6 FGAs, and he is now making 18.5 FGs per game (instead of 16.5.) 18.5 now equals 37 ppg. Add his 8.5 ppg from the line...and he is at 45.5 ppg.

And, amazingly, it adds up, too. Why? Because MJ's '87 NBA averaged 109.9 ppg, while Wilt's '62 NBA was at 118.8 ppg. Or, MJ's NBA scored at 92.5% of Wilt's NBA. Multiply Wilt's 50.4 ppg times .925, and he is averaging 46.6 ppg at '87 levels.

Even in TODAY's NBA, Chamberlain's '62 numbers translate to close to 40 ppg.

Now, some will argue that Wilt wouldn't play 48 mpg. Why? Here again, Wilt was the ONLY player that EVER accomplished that, and he approached that number MANY times, as well.

Furthermore, how much more efficient would Chamberlain have been had he "only" played 42 mpg? How much better would he have been playing in game's 50, 60, and 80? And then multiply that by his 14 seasons.

In any case, while there are those that diminish Wilt's numbers because he was playing 47-48 mpg...think about this: In the 71-72 season, at age 35, he had a career low 42.3 mpg season (his only season under 43.2...which was in his last season.) A 25 year old Kareem, in his PRIME, led the NBA at 44.2 mpg. The two went at it in the '72 WCF's, and in the clinching game six win (a come from behind effort), Chamberlain just CRUSHED a wqorn-down Kareem in that 4th quarter (Wilt scored 9 points, held Kareem to 2-8 shooting, blocked two of his shots...most certainly skyhooks), and was OUTRUNNING Kareem in that quarter. In fact, Kareem was already well worn out long before that game. In the last FOUR games of that series, Kareem, who had shot .574 during the regular season, shot a horrid .414 combined! And before someone suggests that Kareem had to produce at both ends...what a PRIME Wilt....who was the game's greatest scorer, greatest rebounder, the greatest passing center in NBA history, the game's greatest shot-blocker (which HURT his rebounding numbers BTW), and easily the game's second greatest defensive player of all-time?

As for the Baylor argument...I already addressed that. It was a PART-TIME season, and is acknowledged as such.

jlauber

06-14-2012, 12:31 AM

The absurd size of that picture ruins the entire thread and I'm not even gonna read it.

In case you would like to read it...I reposted it above.

jlauber

06-14-2012, 01:09 AM

Nowhere is it tentended that Wilt wasn't a much better scorer than his peers. But
1) You shouldn't disqualify Baylor for military service nor should you pick and choose streaks as though that is a fair comparison.
2) Even excluding Baylor, 5 players broke 30ppg that season (no other season has seen more than 3 players doing so). Would you suggest that that was purely chance or do you think that people taking more shots (as well as the existance of racial quotas exacerbating the gap between elite talent and the rest) might have had something to do with it?
3) Re: Kareem. Some of your points such as their relative performance versus other centres have validity. But saying Jabbar played in the Wilt era ignores that Wilt's elite "stats" seasons came in the early sixties where there was a higher pace and additional competitors such as Cowens, Unseld, Reed and Thurmond whom Wilt didn't have to face (plus Wilt himself). This is not to dismiss Russell, Bellamy (though I'm not aware if he considered a particularly able defender, in any case Wilt certainly destroyed him) and Embry.
In any case I have Wilt as 3rd greatest of all time, he was very good, if someone argued pace made his numbers meaningless that would be wrong, but there's no reason not to look at his (early) numbers in the context of a very high pace.

In that '62 season, after Wilt's 50.4 ppg average, the next actual highest FULL-TIME average was Bellamy's 31.6 ppg. Now, how many 31.6+ ppg season's have there been in NBA HISTORY? 25...22 of them AFTER that season. Clearly, 31.6 ppg is not an extraordinary season.

As for Baylor's PART-TIME season, I already addressed it above. It is not even listed among the highest scoring seasons of all-time. Why? Because it was in slightly over HALF of a season. It would simply not be fair to MJ, or even Barry, to declare Baylor's PART-TIME season as the RECORD (had Wilt not played...which was one of my main points.) Do you think the MJ fans would accept it over MJ's FULL season?

Racial quotas? I know of no player, at least a great player, that was excluded from the NBA by 1961-62. Perhaps you could argue Connie Hawkins a little later, but at least he was banned based on a gambling scandal.

You could be sure that if there had been another Oscar, Russell, or Wilt out there, that some NBA owner would have jumped at the opportunity.

Kareem? You only bring up Russell and Bellamy, probably because you are mistakingly only judging Wilt's 61-62 season. Ok, in the 61-62 regular season, and covering 10 H2H games, Chamberlain averaged 39.7 ppg against Russell. And, in his 10 H2H's with Bellamy, he averaged a staggering 52.7 ppg (on an even .500 shooting BTW.) However, even into his 62-63 season, he was destroying both of those guys. In nine H2H's against Russell, he outscored Russell, per game, 38.1 to 14.2 ppg. And, in his ten H2H's with poor Bellamy, he averaged 43.7 ppg. So, in a span of two seasons, covering 19 games, Wilt averaged 39 ppg against Russell, and in 20 H2H's with Bellamy...an astonishing 48.2 ppg.

BTW, Chamberlain had FIVE 50+ point games against Russell in his career H2H's, which included a playoff game of 50 (on 22-42 shooting), and a regular season high of 62 (on 27-45 shooting.) And against Bellamy, he had MANY 50+ games, including FOUR of 60+, with a HIGH game of 73 (along with 36 rebounds in the same game.)

How about a PRIME Chamberlain in his 64-65 and 65-66 seasons? In his 64-65 season, he faced HOFer Willis Reed in NINE H2H's. He AVERAGED 40.1 ppg against him, which included games of 52 and even 58 points. In fact, he had one game in which he outscored Reed by a 41-9 margin (and 52-23 and 58-28.)

In Wilt's 65-66 season, covering nine regular season H2H's, and five more playoff games...a total of 14 games, Chamberlain averaged 28.2 ppg against Russell *and 30.5 rpg.) He shot .509 against Russell in the five playoff games, and his HIGH game against Russell that season, was 46 points in the clinching game five loss in the ECF's.

In that 65-66 season, he AVERAGED 33 ppg against Bellamy in 10 H2H's (going 8-1-1 in scoring "wins".) And once again, he even had a 50 point game against Bellamy.

Thurmond is really the interesting one. Wilt's "scoring" PRIME came from his rookie season, in 59-60, thru 65-66. So, he only faced Nate from the last half of the 64-65 season, thru 65-66, in his "scoring" prime. BUT, in a string of 11 consecutive H2H's, beginning with their last H2H in the 64-65 season, thru nine H2H's in 65-66, and into their first H2H in the 66-67 season (more on that in a moment), Chamberlain AVERAGED 30 ppg against Nate. Included in those 11 games were games of 30, 33, 33, 34, 38, and 45 points. (And by margins of 33-17, 33-10, 38-15, and a staggering 45-13.) SIX games of 30+ just in a span of 11 games.

As for that first H2H in the 66-67 season...keep in mind that Wilt was asked to faciliate the Sixer offense that season, by his new coach, Alex Hannum. So, he dramatically cut back his scoring that season (he only took 14 FGAs per game that year...albeit he averaged 24.1 ppg on an eye-popping .683 FG%.) However, in their first meeting, the Sixers were struggling with that new offense in the first half. At halftime Hannum asked his players to feed Wilt in the second half. Chamberlain responded with 24 2nd half points, en route to a 30 point, 26 rebound, 12 block game. CLEARLY, Chamberlain was capable of scoring against even the great Thurmond.

Not only that, but Wilt and Nate went at it three times in the post-season. In those three playoff series, Wilt outshot Nate by margins of .500 to .392; .550 to .398; and a mind-numbing .560 to .343 (in the '67 Finals.)

Which brings us back to Kareem. First of all, Kareem faced ALL of those guys in his career. And he never came within the Pacific Ocean of duplicating those scoring games against them.

Thurmond is really interesting, too. Kareem and Nate went at in 43 H2H games (and into the twilight of Thurmond's career.) In those 43 games, Kareem had a TOTAL of SEVEN 30+ point games...with a HIGH of 34! In fact, he had as many games of under 20, seven, as over 30 against Nate. And, in their three straight playoff series from '71 thur '73, Kareem shot .486, .405, and .428 againsty Thurmond. In fact, in my research of their H2H's, it is likely that Kareem shot well below .450 against Nate in those 43 H2H's.

And I mentioned it before, but it is worth repeating. In Wilt's 68-69 season, he hung TWO 60+ games (games of 60 and 66), on Connie Dierking and Jim Fox. This in a season in which Wilt averaged 15 FGAs per game. And Kareem came into the NBA the very next season, and never came close to those games against either of those centers (in fact, in his 20 year career, Kareem's high game was 55 points.)

In fact, at the beginning of Kareem's rookie season (in a year in which he averaged 28.8 ppg), Wilt was actually leading the league in scoring in his first nine games, at 32.2 ppg (and on .600 shooting, too.) Unfortunately, Wilt shredded his knee in that ninth game, and was never the same offensive force again. (BTW, if we are going to give Baylor credit for a 38 ppg season playing part-time, let's give Wilt the scoring title in 69-70 in his nine games.) Incidently, Wilt squared off against Kareem in one H2H meeting that year (their only H2H before Chamberlain tore up his knee), and Wilt just BURIED Kareem. He outscored him, 25-23; outrebounded him, 25-20; out assisted him, 5-2; outblocked him, 3-2 (including a documented sky-hook); and outshot him by a 9-14 to 9-21 margin. This from a 33 year old Wilt, and well past his pure "scoring" prime.

And, don't just judge Wilt on that 61-62 season. He was scoring 60+ point games up into his 68-69 season. And he was putting up 30-30 games as late as his 71-72 season. He was even outscoring Kareem in a game in his LAST season, 72-73 (24-21, and outshooting Kareem 10-14 to 10-27 in the process.)

Chamberlain was LIGHT YEARS ahead of his peers throughout his ENTIRE career.

NumberSix

06-14-2012, 01:12 AM

short white guys

CavaliersFTW

06-14-2012, 01:14 AM

short white guys

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar says hi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDzzxVE34k&t=3m56s

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/089/4/1/skyhookgif3_by_dantheman9758-d4uenol.gif

jlauber

06-14-2012, 01:20 AM

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar says hi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDzzxVE34k&t=3m56s

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/089/4/1/skyhookgif3_by_dantheman9758-d4uenol.gif

There are mentally challenged posters on this site that actually believe that Wilt only faced short white guys, but Number Six was just being facetious. He is actually one of the best posters on this site.

CavaliersFTW

06-14-2012, 01:22 AM

There are mentally challenged posters on this site that actually believe that Wilt only faced short white guys, but Number Six was just being facetious. He is actually one of the best posters on this site.

i figured :lol , but it never hurts to make that fact painfully obvious to young and impressionable

jlauber

06-14-2012, 01:26 AM

For those that discredit Wilt's rebounding numbers...think about this (sorry to those that have read it before.)

In Wilt's LAST post-season, and covering 17 games, he averaged 22.5 rpg...in a post-season in which the teams averaged 50.6 rpg. Now, in THIS post-season the NBA is averaging 44 rpg.

That translates into 19.6 rpg in THIS post-season!

Furthemore, in that post-season, Chamberlain went H2H with Nate Thurmond, who came in second in rebounding that season, five times, and outrebounded him in that series, 23.6 rpg to 17.2 rpg!

Then, think about this...

Wilt's 22.5 rpg in that 72-73 post-season, was the LAST time any player ever averaged more than 17.3 rpg (Kareem in the 76-77 playoffs, and covering 11 games.)

Sarcastic

06-14-2012, 01:28 AM

short white guys

Does this dude look short or white?
The one on the left holding Wilt's hand I mean. Not the one in the background that looks like he just smoked a spliff.

http://sharing.wpri.com/sharewwlp//photo/2010/08/08/WALT_BELLAMY_20100808172138_640_480.JPG

jlauber

06-14-2012, 01:39 AM

Does this dude look short or white?
The one on the left holding Wilt's hand I mean. Not the one in the background that looks like he just smoked a spliff.

http://sharing.wpri.com/sharewwlp//photo/2010/08/08/WALT_BELLAMY_20100808172138_640_480.JPG

In Wilt's 62 season, the average NBA starting center was 6-10. By his '72 season, the average starting center was 6-11. In TODAY's NBA it is 6-11. Then, keep in mind that players were measured bare-foot back in the 60's and 70's. Players like the above pictured Walt Bellamy, who was nearly 6-11, would have been listed at 7-0 in today's NBA. Nate Thurmond, who actually had a higher standing reach than Wilt, was a full 6-11, and would be measured at over 7-0 in today's NBA.

All of which means that the NBA in the 60's was filled with seven-footers.

CavaliersFTW

06-14-2012, 01:52 AM

In Wilt's 62 season, the average NBA starting center was 6-10. By his '72 season, the average starting center was 6-11. In TODAY's NBA it is 6-11. Then, keep in mind that players were measured bare-foot back in the 60's and 70's. Players like the above pictured Walt Bellamy, who was nearly 6-11, would have been listed at 7-0 in today's NBA. Nate Thurmond, who actually had a higher standing reach than Wilt, was a full 6-11, and would be measured at over 7-0 in today's NBA.

All of which means that the NBA in the 60's was filled with seven-footers.

I don't think your facts are correct here, I've done the research in a different thread and the average height of NBA centers his 1962 season was actually 1/4" taller than the average height of NBA centers today and this is based on the fair comparison of barefoot to barefoot. Also, the average height of modern NBA centers is 6-10.44 not 6-11. You can't compare listed heights.

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?page=avepos&year=All&source=All&draft=100&sort=

jlauber

06-14-2012, 01:53 AM

Still...no one has explained why, in the "inflated" "high-paced" era in which Wilt played (and once again, by his 68-69 season, the NBA was at 112.3 ppg and on .441 shooting)...

why it was ONLY WILT.

How come he could average 40 ppg in seven straight seasons...COMBINED, and non else in that era was over 35.6 ppg?

How come he had 103 of the 131 30-30 games in NBA history?

Or 55 of the 61 40-30 games?

Or the only EIGHT 40-40 games?

Or the only FOUR 50-40 games?

Or shooting .683 and .727 and in league's that shot .441 and .456?

Or having 15 of the 28 40+ rebound games in NBA history?

Or the only TWO double-triple-double games in NBA history?

Or having THREE 20+ block games (with Russell possibly having the only other one)?

Or having the THREE highest "perfect games" from the field?

Or making 35 STRAIGHT FGAs?

Or winning PPG tites by +10.8 and even +18.8 ppg?

Or AVERAGING 30 ppg, 27 rpg, 5 apg, .515 in his first SEVEN post-seasons and covering 67 games?

Or having post-season games of 56-35, 53-22, 50-35, 50-15-5, 46-34, 42-37, and even 45-27 and on one leg?

Or having TWO Triple-Double post-season series (not counting blocks either)?

I could go on...but why ONLY WILT?

Deuce Bigalow

06-14-2012, 01:55 AM

Why Only jlauber still talking about him 40 years after he retired?

jlauber

06-14-2012, 01:55 AM

I don't think your facts are correct here, I've done the research in a different thread and the average height of NBA centers his 1962 season was actually 1/4" taller than the average height of NBA centers today and this is based on the fair comparison of barefoot to barefoot. Also, the average height of modern NBA centers is 6-10.44 not 6-11. You can't compare listed heights.

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?page=avepos&year=All&source=All&draft=100&sort=

Well, I was using LISTED heights...which as we both know...LIE.

Hell, the tallest player in this year's Finals is only 6-10.

jlauber

06-14-2012, 01:57 AM

Why Only jlauber still talking about him 40 years after he retired?

And since you obviously don't care...why do you bother posting on these topics? You not only take the time out of your day to read them,you also waste time by posting comments in them.

Deuce Bigalow

06-14-2012, 02:00 AM

And since you obviously don't care...why do you bother posting on these topics? You not only take the time out of your day to read them,you also waste time by posting comments in them.
Do you know Wilt retired in 1973. Nineteen Seventy Three.

jlauber

06-14-2012, 02:02 AM

Do you know Wilt retired in 1973. Nineteen Seventy Three.

You obviously have researched Wilt's career. Good job.

Keep it up...

:applause:

jlauber

06-14-2012, 02:08 AM

Do you know Wilt retired in 1973. Nineteen Seventy Three.

BTW, since you brought it up (thank you)...

In that 72-73 season, Wilt's LAST...

And at age 36,...

He finished FOURTH in the MVP voting.

He was voted first-team All-Defense (over players like Cowens, Lanier, Thurmond, and Kareem)

He LED the NBA rebounding (and by TWO per game) at 18.6 rpg (which is exceeded only by Rodman's 18.7 since)

He set a STILL record mark of .727 shooting from the field.

In the post-season, and playing in 17 games, he AVERAGED 22.5 rpg...which is the LAST time ANY player has ever averaged as much as 17.3 rpg in the post-season.

He faced a PRIME Kareem in SIX regular season H2H games, and outshot him in those games by a .737 to .450 margin, which even included one game in which he outscored Kareem, 24-21 (and outshooting him by a 10-14 to 10-27 margin in the proces.)

In fact, in his LAST TEN H2H games against the great Kareem, who shot .559 in his career, he held Kareem to .434 shooting!

Not bad for a 36 year old in his LAST season...

WillyJakk

06-14-2012, 02:19 AM

Someone please tell me that they didn't play only on weekends.

Please, cause if they did then this is news to me and brings a whole entirely new dimension into the old era vs new era argument.

Anyway, nice footage of Wilt beating Lew's shots.

senelcoolidge

06-14-2012, 02:43 AM

ShaqAttack3234

06-14-2012, 04:02 AM

Baylor's regular season came in a year in which he barely played HALF the season.

48 is a lot more than half of 80. And to further erase doubt that he could sustain

Once again, Chamberlain had three seaparate stretches that season, covering 33 games, in which he was over 56 ppg...combined. AND, he began the 62-63 season with a 54 ppg average in his first 16 games, and a 53 ppg average thru his first 20. That is a run of 53 games in which he was over 54 ppg.

The difference is, you're picking stretches when Wilt was at his best, I'm just listing every game Baylor played, which includes the good and bad.

Furthermore, Baylor NEVER had a FULL season of averaging over 34.8 ppg. That is a FACT. In that 61-62 season, which was even more compressed than the season we just witnessed (with a DRAMATIC decline in scoring and shooting because of the BRUTAL scheduling), Chamberlain played all but EIGHT MINUTES. He played in a TON of B2B's. On top of that, he played in SIX separate stretches of THREE-IN-ROWS, three more separate strecthes of FOUR-IN-ROW, and even an incredible separate stretch of FIVE-IN-A-ROW.

What does this have to with anything? Baylor just happened to have his highest scoring season in '62. So did Wilt for that matter, outside of '62 when he averaged 50, he only had 1 season when he averaged a full 40, and no other seasons when he averaged a full 45.

But he averaged 50 in 1962, just like Baylor averaged 38. You can call Wilt's season more impressive, and I'd agree with you, and you could say that Wilt playing more games gives his season an advantage over Baylor's. That's not the issue I have. The issue I have is you pretending Baylor's season didn't exist.

Baylor didn't have to endure an exhautive schedule, NOR, face the possibility of INJURY in what would have been nearly HALF of a season.

NOR do I see Baylor's 61-62 season listed among the highest scoring PPG seasons either...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/pts_per_g_season.html

Why?

Because it was a PART-TIME season.

As I've said, basketball-reference is NOT an official NBA site.

As I said, had the scoring title been given out by ppg as it is now. Baylor would neither 70 games played or 1400+ points. He met the total points criteria so he would qualify.

Look at the scoring leaders in '07. Michael Redd is listed for averaging 26.7 ppg in 53 games, Ray Allen is listed for averaging 26.4 ppg in 55 games, and Joe Johnson is listed for averaging 25 ppg in 57 games. Why? Because they all scored over 1400 points.

Bernard King actually won a scoring title in '85 averaging 32.9 ppg in 55 games. Again, because he met the 1400 total points criteria.

One more time...Barry's 35.6 ppg season stands as the highest "non-Wilt" scoring season IN the Chamberlain-era.

No it's not, but I'd agree that Barry's is perhaps the most impressive non-Wilt scoring season of that era. Because 36 ppg in '67 is more impressive than 38 in '62 to me, and he shot a better percentage. Though I may take some of Oscar and West's scoring seasons over Barry's because they were quite a bit more efficient.

Either way, none are the highest scoring seasons of the 60's outside of Wilt.

Baylor's regular season came in a year in which he barely played HALF the season.

48 is a lot more than half of 80. And to further erase doubt that he could sustain

Once again, Chamberlain had three seaparate stretches that season, covering 33 games, in which he was over 56 ppg...combined. AND, he began the 62-63 season with a 54 ppg average in his first 16 games, and a 53 ppg average thru his first 20. That is a run of 53 games in which he was over 54 ppg.

The difference is, you're picking stretches when Wilt was at his best, I'm just listing every game Baylor played, which includes the good and bad.

And many baseball fans acknowledge that Ted William's .406 season in 1941 was the last time a player ever batted .400. YET, after returning from MILITARY service late in 1953, went on to play 37 games, slugged 13 HRs in 91 ABs (110 PAs)...and batted .407. Why wasn't he awarded the batting title and THAT season declared the last time a player hit .400? We KNOW that Williams hit .406 in 1941, and we KNOW that, at the age of 38, in 1957, he hit .388. So, obviously he was capable of that .407 season...let's just give it to him. Where is the cut-off point?

Baylor played 61 total games between regular season and playoffs where he averaged over 38 ppg, it's not even close to the analogy you're using. And the difference is, Williams didn't meet the AB criteria MLB uses.

Baylor would meet it in the era of points per game, but it was total points then.

In the era when scoring titles were given out by points per game you need to play 70 games or score at least 1400 points. Baylor met the latter criteria.

Furthermore, Baylor NEVER had a FULL season of averaging over 34.8 ppg. That is a FACT. In that 61-62 season, which was even more compressed than the season we just witnessed (with a DRAMATIC decline in scoring and shooting because of the BRUTAL scheduling), Chamberlain played all but EIGHT MINUTES. He played in a TON of B2B's. On top of that, he played in SIX separate stretches of THREE-IN-ROWS, three more separate strecthes of FOUR-IN-ROW, and even an incredible separate stretch of FIVE-IN-A-ROW.

What does this have to with anything? Baylor just happened to have his highest scoring season in '62. So did Wilt for that matter, outside of '62 when he averaged 50, he only had 1 season when he averaged a full 40, and no other seasons when he averaged a full 45.

But he averaged 50 in 1962, just like Baylor averaged 38. You can call Wilt's season more impressive, and I'd agree with you, and you could say that Wilt playing more games gives his season an advantage over Baylor's. That's not the issue I have. The issue I have is you pretending Baylor's season didn't exist.

Baylor didn't have to endure an exhautive schedule, NOR, face the possibility of INJURY in what would have been nearly HALF of a season.

NOR do I see Baylor's 61-62 season listed among the highest scoring PPG seasons either...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/pts_per_g_season.html

Why?

Because it was a PART-TIME season.

As I've said, basketball-reference is NOT an official NBA site.

As I said, had the scoring title been given out by ppg as it is now. Baylor would neither 70 games played or 1400+ points. He met the total points criteria so he would qualify.

Look at the scoring leaders in '07. Michael Redd is listed for averaging 26.7 ppg in 53 games, Ray Allen is listed for averaging 26.4 ppg in 55 games, and Joe Johnson is listed for averaging 25 ppg in 57 games. Why? Because they all scored over 1400 points.

Bernard King actually won a scoring title in '85 averaging 32.9 ppg in 55 games. Again, because he met the 1400 total points criteria.

One more time...Barry's 35.6 ppg season stands as the highest "non-Wilt" scoring season IN the Chamberlain-era.

No it's not unless you go by total points. I do think that averaging 36 in '67 is more impressive than 38 in '62, especially considering Barry's superior shooting %.

Put 61-62 Wilt in MJ's 86-87 season, in a league that averaged 109.9 ppg and shot .480

A mistake you're making is comparing Wilt's season to Jordan's while assuming Jordan played at the average pace of the league. He didn't, Jordan's Bulls played at by far the slowest pace in the league.

For example, Jordan's '87 Bulls averaged 95.8 possessions per 48 minutes, while Wilt's '62 Warriors averaged 129.7 possessions per 48 minutes.

And just to clear something up, Wilt averaged 35.379% of his team's 8929 FGA in '62. Jordan's Bulls attempted 7155 FGA, so if Wilt took the same % of his team's attempts, that would put his FGA at 2531. If Wilt got to the line at the same rate per FGA than he'd have 1092 FTA.

1280-2531, 669-1092

That would put him at 39.4 ppg on Jordan's '87 Bulls while attempting an insane 30.9 FGA.

And that's assuming Wilt would still play 48.5 mpg in '87, which even you seem to agree he wouldn't. Jordan played 40 mpg that year, if we give Wilt the same per minute production in Jordan's 40 mpg, he averages 32.5 ppg on 25.5 FGA, which would be a stretch for a center, but more reasonable.

Of course, these adjustments don't work. We don't know how the slower pace would affect Wilt's game, we have to consider the different rules(wider lane, 3 to make 2 and 2 to make 1 FTs) as well as how teams play and how the game is called.

And we don't know what rate Wilt would be scoring at per 40 minutes instead of 48.5. We also don't know how much Wilt's production would be affected by the different competition in '87.

So these adjustments certainly don't prove anything. Not mine, and not yours.

jlauber

06-14-2012, 04:56 AM

Could you have imagined a young Wilt facing a young Kareem. I rank Kareem behind Wilt in my GOAT list and I believe Wilt would have murdered Kareem had they faced each other as young guys or in their primes. This was a 34-36 year old Wilt against a young Kareem..in that video that is. These guys were not just big but extremely skilled. They really make the big men of today and most since look like garbage.

100% agreed. IMHO, a mid-60's Wilt just abuses any Kareem. Nearly as tall, much heavier, much stronger, longer, faster, much better leaper (capable of touching the top of the backboard), 15 ft. range, and every bit as skilled.

Interesting too that an old Wilt, on a surgically repaired knee, was easily capable of blocking a PRIME Kareem's sky-hook...in the AIR. Now, add close to a foot in leaping ability by a mid-60's Wilt, and Kareem's supposedly "unblockable" sky-hook (which an old Wilt blocked MANY times) would be flying all over the gym. If an old Wilt could hold a PRIME Kareem to .464 shooting in their 28 career H2H's (and .434 in their last ten), I suspect that a mid-60's Chamberlain would have reduced Kareem to around 40%. Not only that, but a mid-60's Wilt would be pounding Kareem on the offensive end, too. I just don't see any way a PRIME Kareem could hang at BOTH ends of the floor with a PRIME Chamberlain.

millwad

06-14-2012, 10:17 AM

48 is a lot more than half of 80. And to further erase doubt that he could sustain

The difference is, you're picking stretches when Wilt was at his best, I'm just listing every game Baylor played, which includes the good and bad.

What does this have to with anything? Baylor just happened to have his highest scoring season in '62. So did Wilt for that matter, outside of '62 when he averaged 50, he only had 1 season when he averaged a full 40, and no other seasons when he averaged a full 45.

But he averaged 50 in 1962, just like Baylor averaged 38. You can call Wilt's season more impressive, and I'd agree with you, and you could say that Wilt playing more games gives his season an advantage over Baylor's. That's not the issue I have. The issue I have is you pretending Baylor's season didn't exist.

Baylor didn't have to endure an exhautive schedule, NOR, face the possibility of INJURY in what would have been nearly HALF of a season.

As I've said, basketball-reference is NOT an official NBA site.

As I said, had the scoring title been given out by ppg as it is now. Baylor would neither 70 games played or 1400+ points. He met the total points criteria so he would qualify.

Look at the scoring leaders in '07. Michael Redd is listed for averaging 26.7 ppg in 53 games, Ray Allen is listed for averaging 26.4 ppg in 55 games, and Joe Johnson is listed for averaging 25 ppg in 57 games. Why? Because they all scored over 1400 points.

Bernard King actually won a scoring title in '85 averaging 32.9 ppg in 55 games. Again, because he met the 1400 total points criteria.

No it's not, but I'd agree that Barry's is perhaps the most impressive non-Wilt scoring season of that era. Because 36 ppg in '67 is more impressive than 38 in '62 to me, and he shot a better percentage. Though I may take some of Oscar and West's scoring seasons over Barry's because they were quite a bit more efficient.

Either way, none are the highest scoring seasons of the 60's outside of Wilt.

48 is a lot more than half of 80. And to further erase doubt that he could sustain

The difference is, you're picking stretches when Wilt was at his best, I'm just listing every game Baylor played, which includes the good and bad.

Baylor played 61 total games between regular season and playoffs where he averaged over 38 ppg, it's not even close to the analogy you're using. And the difference is, Williams didn't meet the AB criteria MLB uses.

Baylor would meet it in the era of points per game, but it was total points then.

In the era when scoring titles were given out by points per game you need to play 70 games or score at least 1400 points. Baylor met the latter criteria.

What does this have to with anything? Baylor just happened to have his highest scoring season in '62. So did Wilt for that matter, outside of '62 when he averaged 50, he only had 1 season when he averaged a full 40, and no other seasons when he averaged a full 45.

But he averaged 50 in 1962, just like Baylor averaged 38. You can call Wilt's season more impressive, and I'd agree with you, and you could say that Wilt playing more games gives his season an advantage over Baylor's. That's not the issue I have. The issue I have is you pretending Baylor's season didn't exist.

Baylor didn't have to endure an exhautive schedule, NOR, face the possibility of INJURY in what would have been nearly HALF of a season.

As I've said, basketball-reference is NOT an official NBA site.

As I said, had the scoring title been given out by ppg as it is now. Baylor would neither 70 games played or 1400+ points. He met the total points criteria so he would qualify.

Look at the scoring leaders in '07. Michael Redd is listed for averaging 26.7 ppg in 53 games, Ray Allen is listed for averaging 26.4 ppg in 55 games, and Joe Johnson is listed for averaging 25 ppg in 57 games. Why? Because they all scored over 1400 points.

Bernard King actually won a scoring title in '85 averaging 32.9 ppg in 55 games. Again, because he met the 1400 total points criteria.

No it's not unless you go by total points. I do think that averaging 36 in '67 is more impressive than 38 in '62, especially considering Barry's superior shooting %.

A mistake you're making is comparing Wilt's season to Jordan's while assuming Jordan played at the average pace of the league. He didn't, Jordan's Bulls played at by far the slowest pace in the league.

For example, Jordan's '87 Bulls averaged 95.8 possessions per 48 minutes, while Wilt's '62 Warriors averaged 129.7 possessions per 48 minutes.

And just to clear something up, Wilt averaged 35.379% of his team's 8929 FGA in '62. Jordan's Bulls attempted 7155 FGA, so if Wilt took the same % of his team's attempts, that would put his FGA at 2531. If Wilt got to the line at the same rate per FGA than he'd have 1092 FTA.

1280-2531, 669-1092

That would put him at 39.4 ppg on Jordan's '87 Bulls while attempting an insane 30.9 FGA.

And that's assuming Wilt would still play 48.5 mpg in '87, which even you seem to agree he wouldn't. Jordan played 40 mpg that year, if we give Wilt the same per minute production in Jordan's 40 mpg, he averages 32.5 ppg on 25.5 FGA, which would be a stretch for a center, but more reasonable.

Of course, these adjustments don't work. We don't know how the slower pace would affect Wilt's game, we have to consider the different rules(wider lane, 3 to make 2 and 2 to make 1 FTs) as well as how teams play and how the game is called.

And we don't know what rate Wilt would be scoring at per 40 minutes instead of 48.5. We also don't know how much Wilt's production would be affected by the different competition in '87.

So these adjustments certainly don't prove anything. Not mine, and not yours.

Great post as always!

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

06-15-2012, 07:05 PM

CavaliersFTW

06-15-2012, 07:12 PM

ShaqAttack3234

06-15-2012, 07:15 PM

jlauber

06-15-2012, 11:25 PM

Wilt was not as skilled as Kareem. :facepalm That would be like me claiming Kareem was as strong as Wilt.

Can we please stick to reality? You can prefer Wilt without claiming he was better at everything.

A PRIME Chamberlain was EASILY a MATCH for Kareem in terms of SKILLS.

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

And please, don't give me Fecal9's TWO minute piece of PURE CRAP video in which he EDITED it to show a stumbling Wilt taking a horrible shot...without mentioning that the shot clock was expiring. And even in his ONE-SIDED attempt to disparage Wilt, Chamberlain STILL went 8-13 in that edited clip (of two of Wilt's POORER games BTW.)

Thanks to CavsFan we have a CONSIDERABLE amount of in GAME footage in which Wilt is a VARIETY of shots from 15+ FT...including even SWEEPING HOOK SHOTS.

Oh, and how about this...

[Carl Braun said] "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers."
"Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then."

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

A mid-60's Chamberlain would have DESTROYED Kareem, just like he did Russell, Bellamy, Reed, and Thurmond.

ShaqAttack3234

06-15-2012, 11:50 PM

Gotterdammerung

06-16-2012, 12:07 AM

Yadda Yadda Yadda...

Lebron is second all-time with two 45+ points in elimination games.

Wilt is first with five such games. And he went 4-1 while Lebron went 1-1.

But do carry on.

lilgodfather1

06-16-2012, 12:09 AM

I bet your glad that Wilt's ***** deteriorated. Gives you an opportunity to take your mouth off of it and go on the interweb to tell the whipersnappers how good your mans splooge tastes.

Edit: P.E.N.I.S

CavaliersFTW

06-16-2012, 12:11 AM

A PRIME Chamberlain was EASILY a MATCH for Kareem in terms of SKILLS.

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

And please, don't give me Fecal9's TWO minute piece of PURE CRAP video in which he EDITED it to show a stumbling Wilt taking a horrible shot...without mentioning that the shot clock was expiring. And even in his ONE-SIDED attempt to disparage Wilt, Chamberlain STILL went 8-13 in that edited clip (of two of Wilt's POORER games BTW.)

Thanks to CavsFan we have a CONSIDERABLE amount of in GAME footage in which Wilt is a VARIETY of shots from 15+ FT...including even SWEEPING HOOK SHOTS.

Oh, and how about this...

A mid-60's Chamberlain would have DESTROYED Kareem, just like he did Russell, Bellamy, Reed, and Thurmond.
If I may offer my input, While I do agree with you that 60s Wilt > 70s Jabbar, I do not think Wilt was more skilled based on what I've seen. I do think he was a more unstoppable force and a better talent because of his physical gifts and the way he used them. But Kareem was tit for tat shooting midrange jumpers early in his career, and he had lefty/righty skyhooks with a wider variety of footwork moves and counter moves than Chamberlain and this (on Jabbar's part) was out of pure necessity because Chamberlain didn't need that kind of repertoire to be the offensive punch that he was. By the late 60's Wilt probably had 3/4ers the number of moves Jabbar would have had in his own prime which is extremely impressive, he certainly had more moves than Shaq but if we're talking # of go-to moves I think Jabbar's offense was more varied because his game was more dependent on his skill. Wilt's was more based on talent. This is not a slight to either of them.

jlauber

06-16-2012, 12:54 AM

If I may offer my input, While I do agree with you that 60s Wilt > 70s Jabbar, I do not think Wilt was more skilled based on what I've seen. I do think he was a more unstoppable force and a better talent because of his physical gifts and the way he used them. But Kareem was tit for tat shooting midrange jumpers early in his career, and he had lefty/righty skyhooks with a wider variety of footwork moves and counter moves than Chamberlain and this (on Jabbar's part) was out of pure necessity because Chamberlain didn't need that kind of repertoire to be the offensive punch that he was. By the late 60's Wilt probably had 3/4ers the number of moves Jabbar would have had in his own prime which is extremely impressive, he certainly had more moves than Shaq but if we're talking # of go-to moves I think Jabbar's offense was more varied because his game was more dependent on his skill. Wilt's was more based on talent. This is not a slight to either of them.

Well, I never said that Wilt was MORE skilled than Kareem. But Chamberlain throughout his college career, and at least early in his NBA career, had solid range, with a variety of moves. Clearly, by the late 60's and into the 70's Wilt was taking far less shots, and the vast majority of those were within 10 ft.

Having said that, though, the perception by many, most of whom didn't see him play, was that he was just overpowering the helpless. The FACT was, he SELDOM used his massive strength against his peers. Which is interesting...in the game in which the Bucks broke LA's 33 game winning streak (January 1972), there is a moment when Kareem sucker-punches the Lakers' Happy Hairston. Chamberlain rushes in, and Kareem retreats to the corner. On the very next play, the Lakers pass the ball into Wilt, who just blows right thru a helpless, and stunned, Kareem for an easy basket. Had Wilt played like that, even into his late 30's, he would have been capable of routinely putting up 30+ point games.

However, I stand by my take that the NBA would never have allowed Chamberlain to dominate in that fashion. They would have enacted even more "anti-Wilt" rules in an effort to contain him. BTW, most of the "anti-Wilt" rules had little effect on him (except the banning of the dunking of FT's.)

As for Kareem, he was as skilled a "big man" who has ever played the game. If anything, he should have dominated even more. IMHO, as great a career as he had, he under-achieved...particularly in his first ten years (and pre-Magic.) For a 38-39 year old Kareem to averaged 33 ppg on .630 shooting in ten straight games against Hakeem, just speaks volumes about gifted the man was.

Still, for those that believe that Kareem could have scored 40+ ppg had he been so inclined (and I USED to believe he could have), his '75-76 season proves otherwise. He was traded to a poor Laker roster, and yet, with the opportunity to take over, he declined in scoring and shooting.

He could get up for games against his best peers (he especially shot-jacked against Wilt in their 28 career H2H's), but over the course of entire seasons, he would lose focus. The fact was, the 70's was among the weakest eras in NBA history (at least after Wilt retired in '73), and yet Kareem couldn't win more than one ring. And he was blessed with talent throughout the decade, too. He played on Buck teams that went 56-26, 66-16, 63-19, 60-22, and 59-23, and won ONE ring. He played on a '77 Laker team that had the best record in the league (53-29), and he played with two rosters in the late 70's that had Jamaal Wilkes, Norm Nixon, Lou Hudson, and Adrian Dantley...and went to TWO Finals, and won ONE ring.

Still, he was the best player in that decade, and was dominant from 71-74. In those four straight seasons, he averaged about a 31-16-4 .560 season. Only one other center exceeded those numbers...

jlauber

06-16-2012, 01:09 AM

Wilt didn't dominate anybody, especially Russell. Common myth. Are you aware he had homecourt over Russell's teams in '68 and '69? Yet was 0-5 in games he could have eliminated Russell in. In 1968, Wilt and the Sixers were up 3-1 and choked away games 5, 6, and 7. 5 and 7 were at home. :oldlol:

In 69', Wilt up 3-2, choked away games 6 and 7; Game 7 being at home! People forget he was outscored by Sam Jones in all 4 game 7's vs Boston including gm 7 of the '69 finals (Jones' last career NBA game :oldlol:).

Chamberlain and Russell went at in 142 H2H games...and Wilt AVERAGED a 28.7 - 28.7 game against him in those 142 contests. Think about that...Wilt nearly AVERAGED a 30-30 GAME EVERY time he stepped on the court against Russell. How many other centers have even had ONE 30-30 game? And how about this...Chamberlain had 17 40-30 games against Russell (and 55 total.) Give me a list of players who have put up a 40-30 SINGLE game.

As for Jones...Chamberlain LED BOTH teams in scoring in their '60, '62, '64, '65, and '66 playoff series'. And only a complete idiot would claim that Wilt was not the BEST player on the floor in their '67 matchup (in a series in which Chamberlain averaged a 22-32-10 .560 game.) BTW, he outscored Jones in that '67 series, too.

BTW, in game seven of the '68 ECF's, Wilt's TEAMMATES shot .333 from the field. And in game seven of the '69 Finals, while Chamberlain shot .875 from the field, his TEAMMATES collectively shot .360. In game seven's in which his teams lost by 4 and 2 points. (Not to mention that the '68 Sixers were just DECIMATED by INJURIES, including Wilt, himself.)

PHILA

06-16-2012, 01:15 AM

Wilt was MORE skilled than Kareem
Lets call him a bit unorthodox. Chamberlain may be the only great center I have never seen shoot a jump hook (not including that sweeping hook he occasionally took). But I have to wonder if he even needed it due to his shot release point. If they measured this, I am sure Wilt would be the highest. I can recall seeing a brief black/white video clip from 1965 on an ESPN Classic show where it appeared that Wilt was crouched down with the ball a few feet in front of the rim, guarded by Russell and surrounded by other Celtics. All of a sudden he exploded upwards, almost shooting the ball down into the basket. I am not necessarily referring to how high his feet got off the ground, but rather how far he was able to extend himself and the height in which he was able to shoot the ball from. Almost as if he was a human spring. I have never seen him get the ball up like that in any of the Youtube videos.

CavaliersFTW

06-16-2012, 01:27 AM

Lets call him a bit unorthodox. Chamberlain may be the only great center I have never seen shoot a jump hook (not including that sweeping hook he occasionally took). But I have to wonder if he even needed it due to his shot release point. If they measured this, I am sure Wilt would be the highest. I can recall seeing a brief black/white video clip from 1965 on an ESPN Classic show where it appeared that Wilt was crouched down with the ball a few feet in front of the rim, guarded by Russell and surrounded by other Celtics. All of a sudden he exploded upwards, almost shooting the ball down into the basket. I am not necessarily referring to how high his feet got off the ground, but rather how far he was able to extend himself and the height in which he was able to shoot the ball from. Almost as if he was a human spring. I have never seen him get the ball up like that in any of the Youtube videos.
If you ever find that footage anywhere online (even if it isn't youtube) message me stat. As far as I know I have all Wilt's footage that has ever been seen on the internet in some form or another the last few years. I might even have that footage, do you have any more details that could help me figure out if I have it or not?

PHILA

06-16-2012, 01:35 AM

^I believe it was a countdown show ranking the top teams in NBA history. The camera angle if I remember correctly was some distance away from the court.

Owl

06-16-2012, 08:42 AM

^I believe it was a countdown show ranking the top teams in NBA history. The camera angle if I remember correctly was some distance away from the court.
The show sounds like ESPN's Who's Number One. Having glanced at the show there's a clip that sort of fits the bill. Wilt is wearing a facemask, he's playing Boston (with Russell, Heinsohn, Sam Jones and what I think is John Thompson wearing number 18) In clips from what certainly looks like the same series (Wilt with facemask) Havlicek is also present.

If it is that clip (and based on Havlicek and Heinsohn both being there, number 18 being Thompson and not Woody Sauldsberry) it is probably from the '65 Warriors vs Celtics series (though team being rated, as you would expect, is the '67 76ers).

The clip itself doesn't seem as exceptional as the description, but he does show some athleticism on that play and a hook shot later on in the segment.

CavaliersFTW

06-16-2012, 09:02 AM

The show sounds like ESPN's Who's Number One. Having glanced at the show there's a clip that sort of fits the bill. Wilt is wearing a facemask, he's playing Boston (with Russell, Heinsohn, Sam Jones and what I think is John Thompson wearing number 18) In clips from what certainly looks like the same series (Wilt with facemask) Havlicek is also present.

If it is that clip (and based on Havlicek and Heinsohn both being there, number 18 being Thompson and not Woody Sauldsberry) it is probably from the '65 Warriors vs Celtics series (though team being rated, as you would expect, is the '67 76ers).

The clip itself doesn't seem as exceptional as the description, but he does show some athleticism on that play and a hook shot later on in the segment.
My gut tells me it may not be the clip he's thinking of, but if it is here's 1965 facemask Wilt terrorizing the Celtics:

http://youtu.be/z4WZXiaDzyc?t=13m7s
http://youtu.be/z4WZXiaDzyc?t=14m22s

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-iVfEO4MtGew/T07L7giV8SI/AAAAAAAADHc/eEsFH6IXlqo/s640/Wilt%2520Facemask.jpg

jlauber

06-16-2012, 10:04 AM

When Chamberlain's numbers are discussed, they usually revolve around his 61-62 season. A few years ago an ESPN poll of some kind ranked Wilt's 61-62 season as the single greatest season in all of major professional sports history (and yet, amazingly, he did NOT win the MVP that season.)

In any case, Wilt put up eye-popping games and seasons in his ENTIRE career. Once again, in his LAST season he not only led the NBA in rebounding, at 18.6 rpg, there has only been one season since, Rodman's 18.7 rpg, that has been better. THEN, in his 17 post-season games, all Chamberlain could do was average an astonishing 22.5 rpg (which is near the BOTTOM of his best post-seasons BTW), in a league which averaged 50.6 that post-season. Think about that...22.5 rpg in a post-season in which the NBA averaged 50.6 rpg. In THIS year's post-season, as of today, the NBA is averaging 42.1 rpg. Chamberlain's LAST post-season translates into 18.7 rpg in THIS year's post-season.

Not only that, but in his LAST season, Chamberlain averaged 13.2 ppg on a mind-numbing .727 from the field. Tyson Chandler, taking only wide open dunk attempts, shot .679 this past season...which is the third greatest season of all-time (behind Wilt's .727 and .683 seasons.) So, there is a good chance that that .727 will stand forever.

Throw out Chamberlain's 61-62 season, and he STILL has the next three highest PPG seasons in NBA history, and four of the top-5 (44.8 ppg, 38.4 ppg, 37.6 ppg, and 36.9 ppg.) In his 44.8 ppg season, Chamberlain LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 major statistical categories (and some by HUGE margins...like winning the scoring title by +10.8 ppg.) And had offensive and defensive rebounding, rebounding percentages, and blocked shots been kept, he probably would have led in those, as well.

And he was outshooting the NBA by staggering margins, as well. Even in his high scoring years he was almost always near a 100 points higher. For instance, in his 62-63 season, he shot .528 in a league that shot .441. In his 65-66 season, when he averaged 33.5 ppg, he shot .540 in a league that shot .433. Of course, he was light years better in his 66-67 season (.683 in a league that shot .441) and 72-73 (.727 in a league that shot .456.)

As for domination, clearly he was outscoring his peers by massive margins in the early 60's, but how about the mid-60's, when the NBA had centers like Russell, Reed, Bellamy, and Thurmond? His 65-66 season was a great example.

Reed and Bellamy played on the same team in 65-66, so to compare Wilt with Reed, we just need to go back to his 64-65 season, when Reed was a startint center. In that season, Chamberlain averaged 40.1 ppg against Reed, in NINE H2H games, including games in which he outscored Reed by margins of 41-8, 52-23, and 58-28.

Now, back to the 65-66 season. Wilt faced Bellamy in TEN H2H games, and held an 8-1-1 scoring edge over him, which included margins of 34-19, 37-22, 38-23, and 50-26.

He faced Thurmond in NINE H2H games in that 65-66 season, and held an 8-1 scoring edge in those games. Included were margins of 33-17, 26-9, 33-10, 38-15, and 45-13.

And Chamberlain faced Russell in NINE H2H regular season games, and another FIVE more in the post-season, for a total of 14 games. In those 14 H2H games, Wilt held a 13-1 scoring edge, and a 10-4 rebounding edge. Included were games in which he outscored Russell by margins of 31-11, 31-11, 27-6, 37-14, 32-8, 30-5, and a series clinching playoff game margin of 46-18. He outrebounded Russell by margins of 30-20, 32-22, 32-18, 36-20, 42-25, 30-10, and 40-17.

Overall, and against the entire NBA in that 65-66 season, Chamberlain LED the NBA in THIRTEEN of their 23 statistical categories, and finished in the Top-5 in EIGHTEEN of them. He LED the NBA in scoring, at 33.5 ppg; rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; and FG% at .540 (in a league that shot .433.) And he even found time to hand out 5.2 apg. And before someone jumps in about "winning"...Wilt's Sixers had the BEST RECORD in the league, too.

A PRIME, and mid-60's, Chamberlain was just ABUSING his peers. There has probably never been any other center who so thoroughly outplayed his peers, as Chamberlain did to his in the mid-60's.

Pointguard

06-16-2012, 03:49 PM

As I said, had the scoring title been given out by ppg as it is now. Baylor would neither 70 games played or 1400+ points. He met the total points criteria so he would qualify.

Look at the scoring leaders in '07. Michael Redd is listed for averaging 26.7 ppg in 53 games, Ray Allen is listed for averaging 26.4 ppg in 55 games, and Joe Johnson is listed for averaging 25 ppg in 57 games. Why? Because they all scored over 1400 points.

Bernard King actually won a scoring title in '85 averaging 32.9 ppg in 55 games. Again, because he met the 1400 total points criteria.

Interesting,... good stuff. I don't think its right but it is the way things are done. Its totally crazy and reflects the stone ages of the criteria.

Wilt could have attained that criteria (1400 points) in 26 games ('62 the total year would be at 27 games). But Wilt would be very close to achieving qualification while only playing 33% of the total games. A football player at the same ratio would only have to play 5 games and a quarter to qualify in their sport for anything - which is totally bizarre. Baseball went thru its adjustments (games played, at bats to plate appearances), you just hope basketball would evolve according to the max limits. Very few things in life in general would 60% (Baylor's proportion of games played) is viewed as acceptable. Baylor played right at about 53% of all minutes available in '62. Fulltimers in basketball are in the 62% (which is 30 minutes per game) to 90% range. Baylor was truly a half timer - in the 45 to 55% percent range.

The Baylor argument is only of concern because of Wilt's unconscionable 19ppg lead on the runner up - a near 40% increase on Bellamy which is a joke to anything in professional sports. Even with Baylor in the mix its not like any other player ever had anything near the 12 ppg lead on the next player anyway.

Punpun

06-16-2012, 04:06 PM

Do you want to know, "why only Wilt ?" ? For a simple reason. He is, bare Russel, the sole oldass legend people try to feed down our throat.

jlauber

06-16-2012, 04:39 PM

Interesting,... good stuff. I don't think its right but it is the way things are done. Its totally crazy and reflects the stone ages of the criteria.

Wilt could have attained that criteria (1400 points) in 26 games ('62 the total year would be at 27 games). But Wilt would be very close to achieving qualification while only playing 33% of the total games. A football player at the same ratio would only have to play 5 games and a quarter to qualify in their sport for anything - which is totally bizarre. Baseball went thru its adjustments (games played, at bats to plate appearances), you just hope basketball would evolve according to the max limits. Very few things in life in general would 60% (Baylor's proportion of games played) is viewed as acceptable. Baylor played right at about 53% of all minutes available in '62. Fulltimers in basketball are in the 62% (which is 30 minutes per game) to 90% range. Baylor was truly a half timer - in the 45 to 55% percent range.

The Baylor argument is only of concern because of Wilt's unconscionable 19ppg lead on the runner up - a near 40% increase on Bellamy which is a joke to anything in professional sports. Even with Baylor in the mix its not like any other player ever had anything near the 12 ppg lead on the next player anyway.

I agree 100%. To me, there should be at least a 70 game limit. Then, if a player played in say, 65 games, he could still qualify, BUT, he would be not be given ANY points in the five games he came up short. For example, let's say player A averaged 30 ppg in 65 games, with 1950 points in those 65 games. So, he would then be given 1950 points in 70 games, or an average of 27.8 ppg. And, using MY criteria, Baylor's 61-62 season, in which he scored 1836 points in 48 games, would now be considered 1836 points in 70 games...or 26.2 ppg.

And as I mentioned earlier...IF Chamberlain had never played, and Baylor's 38.3 ppg in 48 games was indeed considered the NBA scoring record...there would be a HUGE debate as to whether Baylor's 38.3 in basically a PART-TIME season, was the ACTUAL record over MJ's 37.1 ppg (and even before MJ, Barry's 35.6 ppg in '67 would also have been a major discussion.)

That 61-62 season was even more compressed than this past season. I just find it unfathomable that a Baylor who could seldom play anywhere near a full season in his entire career, and whose next best seasons were 34.8 ppg and 34.0 ppg, would have been able to maintain that 38.3 ppg in the 32 games that he missed. And, as injury-prone as he was in his career, there would even be doubt as to whether he could have survived that full season's schedule.

And once again, Chamberlain had CHUNKS of games in that 61-62 season, THREE separate streaks of 14, 14, and 5 games, in which he averaged 53 ppg, 54 ppg, and that staggering 70 ppg string. So, in those 33 games, Wilt was around 56 ppg. Not only that, but in his first 16 games of the very next season, 62-63, he was again at 54 ppg, and even thru game 20 that year, he was nearly at 53 ppg. So, if Baylor is given credit for those 48 games, we have a strong sampling of 53 games, in which Chamberlain was at about 54-55 ppg.

jlauber

06-16-2012, 04:58 PM

Do you want to know, "why only Wilt ?" ? For a simple reason. He is, bare Russel, the sole oldass legend people try to feed down our throat.

Hmmm...what do you think of Kareem, then? The same PRIME Kareem, who was OUTPLAYED by Chamberlain in BOTH the '71 and '72 WCF's. The same PRIME Kareem who shot .464 against an old Wilt in their 28 H2H's, including .434 in their last TEN.

The Kareem, who at ages 38-39, posted TEN STRAIGHT games against Hakeem, of 32 ppg on .630 shooting, including THREE of 40+. The same 37-42 year old Kareem, who shot .610 against Hakeem in their 23 career H2H's (and outscored Hakeem overall in them, as well.) The same Kareem, who, at age 39, posted a 46 point game on Hakeem, on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes of play...and in that same week, posted a 40 point game on Ewing, in which he shot 15-22 from the field...while holding Patrick to 9 points on 3-17 shooting.

Punpun

06-16-2012, 05:02 PM

KAJ is da GOAT because, not only did he dominate the 70, but he also played in the 80.

jlauber

06-16-2012, 05:08 PM

KAJ is da GOAT because, not only did he dominate the 70, but he also played in the 80.

Ad yet an OLD Chamberlain matched him point-for-point, rebound-for-rebound, and shot-for-shot in the '71 WCF's (and in arguably Kareem's greatest all-around season/) And then, by UNIVERSAL acclamation, OUTPLAYED Kareem, in his greatest statistical season, 71-72, in the WCF's. And holding that Kareem, who had shot .574 during the regular season, to .457 shooting in that series, including .414 over the course of the last FOUR games of that six game series. Then, in his LAST season, and covering six H2H games, Chamberlain outshot Kareem, .737 to .450.

Not only that, but Kareem's effciency was reduced DRAMATICALLY by little known Nate Thurmond. In their 43 career H2H starts, Kareem seldom scored 30+ (only seven times, with a high of 34...and had as many under 20, seven.) And, in the known FG%'s in those 43 games, Kareem shot somewhere around 43%. In their three post-season series H2H's, Kareem shot .486, .428, and an unbelievable .405 (in a series in which Nate OUTSCORED and OUTSHOT him.)

As for the late 70's, Mose just ABUSED Kareem in the vast majority of their 40 career H2H's.

Punpun

06-16-2012, 05:15 PM

But dude, that's meaningless as NOBODY tries to say KAJ is da goat like some tries with Wilt. Hence why "only wilt".

Psileas

06-16-2012, 05:33 PM

But dude, that's meaningless as NOBODY tries to say KAJ is da goat like some tries with Wilt. Hence why "only wilt".

KAJ is da GOAT because, not only did he dominate the 70, but he also played in the 80.

:oldlol:

Punpun

06-16-2012, 05:48 PM

That was just my personal opinion that I voiced twice in 2K posts. Now, think about it. Who brings up KAJ in the press and the Bball fans for the GOAT post ?

NOBODY.

Pointguard

06-16-2012, 06:37 PM

I agree 100%. To me, there should be at least a 70 game limit. Then, if a player played in say, 65 games, he could still qualify, BUT, he would be not be given ANY points in the five games he came up short. For example, let's say player A averaged 30 ppg in 65 games, with 1950 points in those 65 games. So, he would then be given 1950 points in 70 games, or an average of 27.8 ppg. And, using MY criteria, Baylor's 61-62 season, in which he scored 1836 points in 48 games, would now be considered 1836 points in 70 games...or 26.2 ppg.

And as I mentioned earlier...IF Chamberlain had never played, and Baylor's 38.3 ppg in 48 games was indeed considered the NBA scoring record...there would be a HUGE debate as to whether Baylor's 38.3 in basically a PART-TIME season, was the ACTUAL record over MJ's 37.1 ppg (and even before MJ, Barry's 35.6 ppg in '67 would also have been a major discussion.)

That 61-62 season was even more compressed than this past season. I just find it unfathomable that a Baylor who could seldom play anywhere near a full season in his entire career, and whose next best seasons were 34.8 ppg and 34.0 ppg, would have been able to maintain that 38.3 ppg in the 32 games that he missed. And, as injury-prone as he was in his career, there would even be doubt as to whether he could have survived that full season's schedule.

And once again, Chamberlain had CHUNKS of games in that 61-62 season, THREE separate streaks of 14, 14, and 5 games, in which he averaged 53 ppg, 54 ppg, and that staggering 70 ppg string. So, in those 33 games, Wilt was around 56 ppg. Not only that, but in his first 16 games of the very next season, 62-63, he was again at 54 ppg, and even thru game 20 that year, he was nearly at 53 ppg. So, if Baylor is given credit for those 48 games, we have a strong sampling of 53 games, in which Chamberlain was at about 54-55 ppg.

Yeah, I think they have to double up the criteria. 32 minutes per game per 82 games which is like 65 percent of available minutes (a simple passing the grade mark). 30 minutes per game is 63% of a regular season mark - Baylor was at 26 minutes per 80 game mark which is, again, a definite half/part timer moniker.

My criteria allows you to miss 15% of the games (12 of 82 games) and you suffer if your minutes are below the magical 36 minutes per game mark - which will almost automatically happens if you go below the 70 games played mark, or missed 15% of games played.

It's practically proven that Wilt could have attained the 1400 mark within 25 game mark. Its bizarre that this standard could still be in place. Wilt could have had a 60/30 season with this crazy criteria that still stands.

Psileas

06-16-2012, 06:41 PM

That was just my personal opinion that I voiced twice in 2K posts. Now, think about it. Who brings up KAJ in the press and the Bball fans for the GOAT post ?

NOBODY.

Unless your name is "nobody", the previous phrasing was wrong. And even if we take you out of the equation, Kareem still does receive GOAT votes here.

Punpun

06-16-2012, 06:45 PM

Yeah. From me.

jlauber

06-16-2012, 07:14 PM

Yeah, I think they have to double up the criteria. 32 minutes per game per 82 games which is like 65 percent of available minutes (a simple passing the grade mark). 30 minutes per game is 63% of a regular season mark - Baylor was at 26 minutes per 80 game mark which is, again, a definite half/part timer moniker.

My criteria allows you to miss 15% of the games (12 of 82 games) and you suffer if your minutes are below the magical 36 minutes per game mark - which will almost automatically happens if you go below the 70 games played mark, or missed 15% of games played.

It's practically proven that Wilt could have attained the 1400 mark within 25 game mark. Its bizarre that this standard could still be in place. Wilt could have had a 60/30 season with this crazy criteria that still stands.

Excellent point. Of course, as it is, many try to disparage Chamberlain's records, but can you imagine the hate his "record" would have received had he been injured in game 26...and STILL qualified for the all-time scoring record...or less than one-third of the season?

We can appreciate greatness in shorter periods. I mentioned Ted Williams military duty in 1953. I have often wondered what his full-season numbers might have been? When he returned in August, he played in 37 games (of a 154 game schedule), and had 91 ABs (and 110 PAs), and in those he slugged 13 HRs, and batted .407. Those numbers translated to a full season of 54 HRs in 375 ABs, and had he maintained his SLG and OPS, they would have been at .901 and 1.410...or just unheard of "non-steroid" seasonal numbers.

Yet, aside from myself, how many times has anyone else ever brought up that season?

And, even Chamberlain had another "what-if" season in his 11th season, at age 33. In the 69-70 season, after his previous coach was fired for incompetency, his new coach, Joe Mullaney, immediately came to Chamberlain, and asked him to become the focal point of the offense. Wilt relished the opportunity. He hadn't been a true scorer since his 65-66 season (although he always had the NBA highs each season), when he averaged 33.5 ppg. In his '66-67 thru 68-69 seasons, his scoring had dropped to 24.1 ppg (albeit, on an astonishing .683 shooting, 24.3 ppg, and then down to 20.5 ppg.)

In his first nine games of the 69-70 season, Chamberlain hung games of 33, 35, 37, 38, 42 and 43 points. The 37 point game came against 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle. The 38 point game came against reigning MVP Wes Unseld. And the 42 point game came against star center Bob Rule (go ahead and look him up.) He was even LEADING the league in scoring at the time, at 32.2 ppg (and on .600 shooting, too.)

Also included in those nine games, was his first meeting with Kareem, when he outscored Kareem, 25-23; outrebounded Kareem, 25-20; outassisted Kareem, 5-2; outblocked Kareem, 3-2 (including a sky-hook); and outshot him by a solid, 9-14 to 9-21 margin.

Unfortunately, as we know, Wilt shredded his knee in that ninth game, and was never quite the same offensively again. Still, he did return WAY ahead of even the most optomistic medical opinion, and in the post-season he had two straight games of 36 and 30 in bringing his team back from a 3-1 series deficit against Phoenix. Then, in the Finals, he hung a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 FG% seven game series, which included a "must-win" 45 point, 20-27, 27 rebound game in game six.

Who knows, Wilt might have won his eighth scoring title, and a full-season at that 32.2 ppg rate might have been enough to give him the career PPG mark (instead of trailing MJ by a 30.12 to 30.07 margin.)

In any case, it is simply not fair to any athlete, in any sport, to allow a PART-TIME player, playing 60% of the time, to compete for a statistical title... (unless of course, his TOTALs were enough to win a title...e.g., hitting a league-leading number of HRs.)

And, once again, we have a solid body of evidence, which clearly illustrated Wilt's ability to score 55 ppg over the course of as many games as Baylor did in his 61-62 season, too.

The fact remains that Wilt won that scoring title by +18.8 ppg. And once again...why only Wilt?

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

06-16-2012, 07:24 PM

But dude, that's meaningless as NOBODY tries to say KAJ is da goat like some tries with Wilt. Hence why "only wilt".

Wilt WILTED in the playoffs. Its a fact. Averaged 50.4 ppg in the '62 reg season, yet Baylor had more ppg in the '62 playoffs. lol. Remember, Wilt averaged just 21.0 ppg and was 0-4 in game 7’s vs the Celtics. Russell had 15 pts 29 rbs and 9 assists vs Wilt in that game 7 in '65 - celts won 110-109. And here again, Sam Jones averaged 27.8 ppg in those gm 7's. :oldlol:

Wilt can score 100 pts vs a bad team in a meaningless reg.season game, but cant outscore Sam Jones in any of the 4 game 7’s vs Boston. Interesting. :rolleyes:

jlauber

06-16-2012, 07:31 PM

Wilt WILTED in the playoffs. Its a fact. Averaged 50.4 ppg in the '62 reg season, yet Baylor had more ppg in the '62 playoffs. lol. Remember, Wilt averaged just 21.0 ppg and was 0-4 in game 7’s vs the Celtics. Russell had 15 pts 29 rbs and 9 assists vs Wilt in that game 7 in '65 - celts won 110-109. And here again, Sam Jones averaged 27.8 ppg in those gm 7's. :oldlol:

Wilt can score 100 pts vs a bad team in a meaningless reg.season game, but cant outscore Sam Jones in any of the 4 game 7’s vs Boston. Interesting. :rolleyes:

Let's post ALL of Wilt's "must-win" and "series clinching" performances, as well as his OPPOSING center's play in those games shall we?

Ok, here are the known numbers in Wilt's "must-win" playoff games (elimination games), and clinching game performances (either deciding winning or losing games), of BOTH Chamberlain, and his starting opposing centers in those games.

1. Game three of a best-of-three series in the first round of the 59-60 playoffs against Syracuse, a 132-112 win. Wilt with 53 points, on 24-42 shooting, with 22 rebounds. His opposing center, Red Kerr, who was a multiple all-star in his career, had 7 points.

2. Game five of the 59-60 ECF's against Boston, a 128-107 win. Chamberlain had 50 points, on 22-42 shooting, with 35 rebounds. His opposing center, Russell, had 22 points and 27 rebounds.

3. Game six of the 59-60 ECF's against Boston, in a 119-117 loss. Wilt had a 26-24 game, while Russell had a 25-25 game.

4. Game three of a best-of-five series in the first round of the 60-61 playoffs , and against Syracuse, in a 106-103 loss. Chamberlain with 33 points, while his opposing center, the 7-3 Swede Halbrook, scored 6 points.

5. Game five of a best-of-five series in the first round of the 61-62 playoffs, against Syracuse, in a 121-104 win. Chamberlain had 56 points, on 22-48 shooting, with 35 rebounds. Kerr had 20 points in the loss.

6. Game six of the 61-62 ECF's, and against Boston, in a 109-99 win. Wilt with 32 points and 21 rebounds. Russell had 19 points and 22 rebounds in the loss.

7. Game seven of the 61-62 ECF's, against Boston, in a 109-107 loss. Wilt with 22 points, on 7-15 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Russell had 19 points, on 7-14 shooting, with 22 rebounds in the win.

8. Game seven of the 63-64 WCF's, and against St. Louis, in a 105-95 win. Wilt with 39 points, 26 rebounds, and 10 blocks. His opposing center, Zelmo Beaty, who would go on to become a multiple all-star, had 10 points in the loss.

9. Game five of the 63-64 Finals, and against Boston, in a 105-99 loss. Chamberlain with 30 points and 27 rebounds. Russell had 14 points and 26 points in the win.

10. Game four of a best-of-five series in the 64-65 first round of the playoffs against Cincinnati, a 119-112 win. Chamberlain with 38 points. His opposing center, multiple all-star (and HOFer) Wayne Embry had 7 points in the loss.

11. Game six of the 64-65 ECF's, against Boston, a 112-106 win. Chamberlain with a 30-26 game. Russell with a 22-21 game in the loss.

12. Game seven of the 64-65 ECF's, and against Boston, a 110-109 loss. Wilt with 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds. Russell had 15 points, on 7-16 shooting, with 29 rebounds in the win.

13. Game five of a best-of-seven series, in the 65-66 ECF's, and against Boston, in a 120-112 loss. Wilt had 46 points, on 19-34 shooting, with 34 rebounds. Russell had 18 points and 31 rebounds in the win.

14. Game four of a best-of-five series, in the first round of the 66-67 playoffs, and against Cincinnati, a 112-94 win. Wilt with 18 points, on 7-14 shooting, with 27 rebounds and 9 assists. His opposing center, Connie Dierking, had 8 points, on 4-14 shooting, with 4 rebounds in the loss.

15. Game five of the 66-67 ECF's, and against Boston, in a 140-116 win. Chamberlain with 29 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and 7 blocks. Russell had 4 points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and 7 assists in the loss.

16. Game six of the 66-67 Finals, and against San Francisco, in a 125-122 win. Chamberlain with 24 points, on 8-13 shooting, with 23 rebounds. His oppsoing center, HOFer Nate Thurmond, had 12 points, on 4-13 shooting, with 22 rebounds in the loss.

17. Game six of the first round of the 67-68 playoffs, against NY, in a 113-97 win. Wilt had 25 points, and 27 rebounds. His opposing center, HOFer Walt Bellamy, had 19 points in the loss.

18. Game seven of the 67-68 ECF's, against Boston, in a 100-96 loss. Wilt with 14 points, on 4-9 shooting, with 34 rebounds. Russell had 12 points and 26 rebounds in the win.

19. Game six of the first round of the 68-69 playoffs, against San Francisco, in a 118-78 win. Wilt with 11 points. Thurmond had 8 points in the loss.

20. Game four of the 68-69 WCF's, against Atlanta, in a 133-114 sweeping win. Chamberlain with 16 points. His opposing center, Zelmo Beaty had 30 points in the loss.

21. Game seven of the 68-69 Finals, against Boston, in a 108-106 loss. Chamberlain had 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds. Russell had 6 points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds in the win.

22. Game five of a best-of-seven series (the Lakers were down 3-1 going into the game) in the first round of the 69-70 playoffs, and against Phoenix, a 138-121 win. Wilt with 36 points and 14 rebounds. His opposing center, Neal Walk, had 18 points in the loss.

23. Game six of the first round of the 69-70 playoffs, against Phoenix, in a 104-93 win. Wilt with 12 points. Jim Fox started that game for Phoenix, and had 13 points in the loss.

24. Game seven of the first round of the 69-70 playoffs, against Phoenix, and in a 129-94 win, which capped a 4-3 series win after falling behind 3-1 in the series. Wilt with 30 points, 27 rebounds, and 11 blocks. Fox had 7 points in the loss.

25. Game four of the 69-70 WCF's, against Atlanta, in a 133-114 sweeping win. Wilt with 11 points. Bellamy had 19 points in the loss.

26. Game six of the 69-70 Finals, against NY, in a 135-113 win. Wilt with 45 points, on 20-27 shooting, with 27 rebounds. Nate Bowman had 18 points, on 9-15 shooting, with 8 rebounds in the loss.

27. Game seven of the 69-70 Finals, against NY, in a 113-99 loss. Wilt with 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds. HOFer Willis Reed had 4 points, on 2-5 shooting, with 3 rebounds in the win.

28. Game seven of the first round of the 70-71 playoffs, against Chicago, in a 109-98 win. Wilt with 25 points and 18 rebounds. 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle had 4 points for the Bulls in the loss.

29. Game five of the 70-71 WCF's, against Milwaukee, in a 116-94 loss. Wilt had 23 points, on 10-21 shooting, with 12 rebounds, 6 blocks (5 of them on Alcindor/Kareem.) Kareem had 20 points, on 7-23 shooting, with 15 rebounds, and 3 blocks in the win. Incidently, Wilt received a standing ovation when he left the game late...and the game was played in Milwaukee.

30. Game four of the 71-72 first round of the playoffs, against Chicago, in a 108-97 sweeping win. Wilt had 8 points and 31 rebounds. Clifford Ray had 20 points in the loss.

31. Game six of the 71-72 WCF's, against Milwaukee, in a 104-100 win. Chamberlain with 20 points, on 8-12 shooting, with 24 rebounds, and 9 blocks (six against Kareem.) Kareem had 37 points, on 16-37 shooting, with 25 rebounds in the loss.

32. Game five of the 71-72 Finals, against NY, in a 114-100 win. Chamberlain with 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds, and 9 blocks. HOFer Jerry Lucas had 14 points, on 5-14 shooting, with 9 rebounds in the loss.

33. Game seven of the first round of the 72-73 playoffs, against Chicago, in a 95-92 win. Wilt with 21 points and 28 rebounds. His opposing center, Clifford Ray, had 4 points.

34. Game five of the 72-73 WCF's, and against Golden St., in a 128-118 win. Wilt with 5 points. Thurmond had 9 points in the loss.

35. Game five of the 72-73 Finals, against NY, in a 102-93 loss. Wilt with 23 points, on 9-16 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Willis Reed had 18 points, on 9-16 shooting, with 12 rebounds.

That was it. 35 "must-win" elimination and/or clinching post-season games.

Incidently, against PunPun's "GOAT" Kareem, in their two clinching series H2H games, Wilt shot 18-33 from the field (.545), while Kareem shot 23-60, or .383 from the field.

PHILA

06-16-2012, 07:36 PM

The show sounds like ESPN's Who's Number One. Having glanced at the show there's a clip that sort of fits the bill.

There is a video online? I recall the face mask as well.

PHILA

06-16-2012, 07:37 PM

My gut tells me it may not be the clip he's thinking of, but if it is here's 1965 facemask Wilt terrorizing the Celtics:

http://youtu.be/z4WZXiaDzyc?t=13m7s
http://youtu.be/z4WZXiaDzyc?t=14m22s

No, the clip I remember was closer to a short jump shot than a dunk.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

06-16-2012, 07:37 PM

But he averaged 50 in 1962, just like Baylor averaged 38. You can call Wilt's season more impressive, and I'd agree with you, and you could say that Wilt playing more games gives his season an advantage over Baylor's. That's not the issue I have. The issue I have is you pretending Baylor's season didn't exist.

Call it like it is ShaqAttack. Wilt was a choker - never scored when it mattered. Wilt was 0-5 vs. Russ in potential series and Finals winning games. :oldlol: No one ever mentions that in the '68 playoffs, "Wilt's Sixers" were up 3-1 on the Celtics an lost games 5, 6, and 7...at HOME. .

And what about the '69 Finals vs. LA? :roll: Up 3-2 on Boston, he chokes the next 2....once again, AT HOME.

Hell, his defense is overrated too. Willis Reed put 31.8 ppg on Wilt's head during the '70 finals before tearing thigh muscle.

jlauber

06-16-2012, 08:03 PM

Call it like it is ShaqAttack. Wilt was a choker - never scored when it mattered. Wilt was 0-5 vs. Russ in potential series and Finals winning games. :oldlol: No one ever mentions that in the '68 playoffs, "Wilt's Sixers" were up 3-1 on the Celtics an lost games 5, 6, and 7...at HOME. .

And what about the '69 Finals vs. LA? :roll: Up 3-2 on Boston, he chokes the next 2....once again, AT HOME.

Hell, his defense is overrated too. Willis Reed put 31.8 ppg on Wilt's head during the '70 finals before tearing thigh muscle.

Regarding Reed's tron thigh muscle...in which it rendered him useless in the last three games of that '70 Finals...Chamberlain had a torn QUAD muscle which he suffered in game three of the '68 ECF's, and yet he continued to play, and play well, into game seven. In fact, he played every minute of every game in that series...and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game three on. Still, he hung a 22-25 series on Russell in that series. Oh, and his TEAM was without HOFer Billy Cunningham the ENTIRE series. Not only that, but with his team leading that series, 3-1, in game five, BOTH starters, Luke Jackson and Wali Jones suffered leg injuries, and were worthless the rest of that series.

Of course, had that '68 Sixer team been healthy, as they were in the '67 ECF's, it would have been a repeat of a 4-1 series romp (and only a 121-117 loss in Boston in game four prevented a SWEEP) they had that season. In that series, a healthy Chamberlain just crushed Russell. He outscored Russell, per game, 22-10; outrebounded him, per game by an eye-popping 32-23 margin; outassisted him, per game, 10-6; and outshot him by an unfathomable .556 to .358 margin. AND, in the clinching game five win, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 29-4 (yes, the "clutch Russell had FOUR points); outassisted Russell, 13-7; outrebounded Russell, 36-21; and outshot Russell, 10-16 to 2-5.

In the '69 Finals, BAYLOR, (yes your "clutch" Baylor) had three games of 4-14, 2-14, and 8-22 shooting (with that 8-22 coming in game seven.) Meanwhile, in game seven, Wilt, who was kept on the bench by his coach in the last five minutes, outscored Russell, 18-6; outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7; and outrebounded Russell, 27-21 (which included a 7-2 margin in the 4th quarter.) And while Wilt was shooting .875 from the field in that game seven, his teammates, including BAYLOR, collectively shot .360.

BEFORE Reed's injury in that '70 Finals, the series was TIED 2-2. And, in fact, his Knicks were down in game five, 25-15, when he went down with that injury. He was averaging 31.8 ppg on .491 shooting, with 15 rpg. Chamberlain, only FOUR MONTHS from MAJOR KNEE SURGERY, was averaging 18.8 ppg, 24.8 rpg, and was shooting .544 from the field, in those four games.

So, here was a Wilt at nowhere near 100%, battling the league MVP to what had been a draw in the first four games of that series. And, once again, while Reed was a statue after that injury, Chamberlain, playing with what had been a devastating knee injury only a few months before, continued to dominate in that series, and wound up with a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 series. Reed won the FMVP with 23.0 ppg, 10.5 rpg, and on .483 shooting.

jlauber

06-16-2012, 08:08 PM

Footage clearly shows Wilt is a joke. Many guys think he was the best without even having seen him play (you included). Wilt had WEAK dunks. Lebron's dunks are with much more power.

Lets talk about dominance, shall we? Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg in '63 - his team went 21-49. Wilt was also swept by the 38-41 Syracuse Nationals. Swept by a LOSING TEAM.

Not sure why you losers overrate him so much.

How about Bird in the post-season?

Just look at Bird's long list of playoff failures while Dirk improves his play in the postseason:

1980- Averaged a .511 TS% in the postseason. In game 5 vs. the Sixers, he shot poorly, 5-19 with just 12 points, as the Celtics lost the game. His man (Dr. J) averaged 25 PPG in this series. His team loses in 5 games despite having HCA and winning 61 games. Had a 18.3 PER in the postseason

1981- Has a .532 TS% in the postseason. He had a bad finals where he averaged just 15 PPG on .419 shooting and .460 TS%.

1982- PPG average dropped from 22.9 PPG to 17.8 PPG. He has an embarrassing .474 TS% in the playoffs. He averaged a pedestrian 18.3 PPG against the Sixers. Averages 17 PPG in the final 2 games of the series. The Celtics lose again with HCA. The Celtics won 63 games and had the #1 SRS in the league. Has a 17.9 PER in the postseason.

1983- The Celtics get swept by the Bucks. The Celtics win 56 games and had the #2 SRS in the league and lose again with HCA. Bird plays awful again. .478 TS%. His PPG average drops 2 PPG in the playoffs. Bird missed a game in the series but that game happened to be the closest one (Celtics lose by 4). In the 3 other games, the Celtics lose by 14.3 PPG with Bird on the court.

1984- Great playoffs. Averaged 27-14-4 in the Finals and had a .607 TS% in the playoffs. First great playoff of his career. Celtics win the title over the Lakers.

1985- Celtics make the finals, but Bird's numbers drop in the playoffs. His PPG drops by 2.8 PPG, Reb by 1.2 Reb, and AST by 0.7 AST. Had an average .536 TS% in the postseason. Bird plays even worse in the finals. His PPG dropped 4.9 PPG, his Reb 1.7 Reb, and AST by 1.6 AST in the finals compared to his regular season average. His Finals TS% is just .527. Not only that, but Celtics finish with 63 wins and lose once again with HCA a constant theme in Bird's career. This is the first time in Celtics history they lost in the finals with HCA.

1986- Great year. His best year ever. Wins the title. .615 TS% in the postseason and amazing finals.

1987- I think this is his most admirable playoffs up until the finals. The Celtics were quite banged up this year. Averaged 27-10-7 in the postseason with .577 TS%. Though his numbers in the finals dropped off once again. His PPG was 3.9 PPG down from the regular season, AST down by 2.1 AST and his TS% was just .534. In game 6, Bird scored just 16 points on 6-16 (.375) shooting. In the final 3 games of this series, Bird averaged just 20 PPG on .377 shooting and .492 TS% with 3.7 TOV. This is the first time Bird has played without HCA in the playoffs and his team loses.

1988- Bird's PPG drops by 5.4 PPG, Reb by 0.5 Reb. Bird shoots an awful 40-114 (.351) against the Pistons. Has a mediocre .538 TS% and 20.2 PER in the playoffs. The Celtics had HCA and the #1 SRS in the league and you probably guessed what happened next, Larry Bird loses with HCA once again.

1989- Injured doesn't play in the postseason.

1990- Bird shoots .539 TS% and has 3.6 TOV as the Celtics once again you guessed it, lose with HCA.

1991- In the first round, his team needs to go 5 vs. the 41 win Pacers. His PPG drop by 2.3 PPG and his Rebounds and Assists also drop quite a bit. Has a .490 TS% 15.8 PER in the playoffs. Against the Pistons Bird averages 13.4 PPG on .446 TS%. His 56 win team played with you guessed it HCA and loses with it.

1992- Doesn't play in the first round as the Celtics sweep the Pacers. In round 2, his team goes 7 against the Cavs, but Bird plays in 4 games and his team was 1-3 in those games. Averages a pathetic 11.3 PPG and 4.5 Reb which are 8.4 PPG and 5.2 Reb down from his regular season average. He has a .514 TS% and 16.4 PER in the postseason.

So out of 12 years, you get 9 years under .540 TS%, 5 under .520 TS%, and 3 under .500 TS%. From 80-83, he had a 19.9 playoff PER. In that span, Johnny Moore, Franklin Edwards, Gus Williams, and Bob Lanier all had better playoff PER and WS/48. Teammates Parish, McHale, Tiny Archibald, and Cedric Maxwell had better TS% in that span. From 88-92, he had a 18.8 PER which is 25th among players with 10 playoff games played. Players who had better playoff PER's in that span include Fat Lever, Terry Cummings, Roy Tarpley, Cedric Ceballos, and Sarunas Marciulionis. His teammates Reggie Lewis and Kevin McHale had better playoff PER's in that span.

With Bird you get a nice 4 year run that had 4 straight finals appearances but outside of that you get a 4 year span of .505 TS% (80-83) and a .525 TS% span (88-92). In 12 years, you get 7 losses with HCA. Basically out of Bird's 13 year career, you have 1 injury season and 3 non-descript postseasons at the end of his plus some playoff disappointments early in his career.

Bird played in an NBA that shot about .485 in his CAREER. Yet, in the post-season, he only shot .472. Which is bad enough, BUT, wait...it gets worse. He shot a CAREER .455 in his five FINALS. In fact, he shot UNDER .399 in his 31 Finals games as often as he shot over .499...ELEVEN times (including TWO games of under .299!) His HIGH Finals series was only .488, and his LOW was .419.

And how did the great "Game Seven" Bird fare in his lone game seven FINALS game? 6-18...or 33%.

Furthermore, in his five Finals, he was only the best player in TWO of them, and in fact, lost out to a TEAMMATE in the '81 Finals for the FMVP (Cedric Maxwell.) In fact, Bird wasn't even the SECOND best player on the floor in TWO more ('85 and '87 Finals.)

jlauber

06-16-2012, 08:09 PM

And how about Kareem's career?

Kareem? Where to begin. In his rookie season, in the clinching game five loss against the Knicks (132-96 BTW), Reed easily outplayed him.

He did manage to win a ring in '71, but it was probably the easiest road to a title in NBA history. His 66-16 Bucks beat a 41-41 Warrior team in round one. In round two, the only team that could have given his Bucks a run, the Lakers, were without BOTH West and Baylor. Even then, by most accounts, a Wilt, only a year removed from major knee surgery, outplayed him (nearly matching his ppg, outrebounding, and outshooting him. And in the clinching loss, Wilt horribly outplayed Kareem.) Then Kareem's Bucks swept a 42-40 Bullets team in the Finals.

In the '72 post-season, Kareem was outscored and outshot by Nate Thurmond (and Kareem, who averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 shooting, averaged 22.8 ppg on .405 shooting against Nate.) Still, his teammates carried the Bucks past that pesky Warrior team. Then, in the WCF's, Chamberlain held Kareem to .457 shooting, and even more remarkably, in the last FOUR games of that series (three of them Laker wins) Kareem shot a staggering .414 from the field. AND, in the clinching game six loss, Chamberlain just ABUSED Kareem in the 4th quarter, in leading LA to a come-from-behind win. BTW, as a sidenote, those that rip Wilt's numbers based on MPG, had better take a look at that 4th quarter. Kareem LED the NBA that season in MPG, BUT, he was completely worn out by a 35 year old Wilt in that last period.

In the first round of the '73 playoffs, Kareem took his 60-22 Bucks team down in flames (in a series in which Oscar was brilliant BTW) losing to a 47-35 Warrior team. For the series, Kareem shot .428 against Thurmond. And that was probably about what he shot against Nate in their 43 career H2H starts, too.

In the '74 Finals, Kareem, who had played exceptionally well in the first six games, was outplayed by 6-9 Dave Cowens (particularly in the 4th period, when Cowens had five fouls), and his Bucks were blownout on their home floor.

In the '75 season, Oscar retired before the start of the season...and guess what? The Bucks fell to 38-44 and didn't make the playoffs. In fact, Milwaukee tired of Kareem, and traded him off in the off-season to the Lakers. BTW, Rick Barry, with rookie Jamaal Wilkes, and cast of no-names, took his 48-34 team to a sweeping title. Keep that mind.

Kareem went to the Lakers, an average roster at best, in the 75-76 season. Now, think about this. In Kareem's 71-72 season, he played 44.2 mpg, and averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 shooting...on a team that went 63-19, and had a differential of +11.1 ppg.

How about that '76 season, when it was obvious that the Lakers needed him to step up? He SHRUNK DRAMATICALLY...playing 41.2 mpg, scoring 27.7 ppg, and shooting .529 from the floor. Needless to say, his Lakers went 40-42 and didn't make the playoffs.

In the '77 season, Kareem's Lakers had the best record in the league. Kareem was outstanding in the first round of the playoffs, but against the weak Warrior centers. He put up huge numbers, but it still took seven games to dispatch a much weaker Warrior team. THEN, in the WCF's, and against a 49-33 Blazer team, Kareem had one dominating game, and was outplayed in the other three by Walton, particularly in the 4th quarters. The result? Kareem's 53-29 Lakers were SWEPT.

The Lakers BEEFED up their roster in '78 season. Now with Jamaal Wilkes, who was coming into his prime, Lou Hudson, who was still a dangerous offensive player, Norm Nixon, and the unstoppable Adrian Dantley, ....they could only go 45-37, and were buried in the first round by a 47-35 Sonics team with only one borderline HOF player (Dennis Johnson.) Remember Barry taking his 48-34 Warrior team, along with Wilkes, to a title in '75 (and sweeping a Bullets team with Hayes, Unseld, Grevey and Chenier)? Kareem with a more prime Wilkes, and much more overall talent, couldn't beat a MUCH weaker Sonics team. Incidently, a 44-38 Bullets team won the title that year.

Ok, certainly that loaded Laker roster would dominate in '79, right? Nope, they went 47-35, and were dumped by that same Sonics team (50-32) in the second round of the playoffs, 4-1.

So, in the first half of his career, a PRIME Kareem, playing in the weakest era of champions in NBA history, won ONE ring. And, he lost with teams that went 56-26, 59-23, 60-22, and 63-19 (as well as with a team that had the best record in the league in '77.)

Then Kareem caught the break of a lifetime. MAGIC arrived. The result? An immediate 60-22 record, a wipeout of those pesky Sonics in the playoffs, and a 4-2 romp over Philly in the Finals. Kareem played brilliantly in the Finals, too...EXCEPT, he couldn't go in the road game in game six. So, as always, Magic stepped up his game, and had one of the greatest game's in Finals history (scoring 42 points, on 14-23 shooting, 14-14 FTs, 7 assists, and dominating the glass with 15 rebounds.)

In the 80-81 post-season, Kareem went up against Moses and his 40-42 Rockets. And, as always, Moses just pounded Kareem. BTW, Kareem shot .462 in that Finals...in yet ANOTHER post-season in which he failed to even shoot the league average. And, it was Moses going to the Finals.

In the 81-82 post-season, MAGIC CARRIED the Lakers, with a near TRIPLE-DOUBLE post-season, and easily won his second FMVP. Even Bob McAdoo, in considerably less minutes, matched Kareem's output in that post-season and Finals. BTW, Magic would outvote Kareem in the MVP balloting...and would continue to do so the next SEVEN seasons, as well. THAT tells you who the true LEADER of the 80's Lakers really was.

In the 82-83 Finals, albeit with even Magic playing poorly (and without an injured Worthy), the Sixers, behind Moses just MURDERING Kareem, SWEPT the Lakers. Moses easily outscored him, and CRUSHED him on the glass. BTW, in their seven H2H post-season games, Moses went 6-1 against Kareem, and just wiped the floor with him.

In the '84 Finals, while Johnson, with an 18 ppg, 8 rpg, 13 apg, .560 Finals was labeled "Tragic", Kareem once again shot below the league average in the Finals, only shooting .481. In the pivotal game five, Kareem goes 7-25.

Kareem finally had a great Finals in '85, and deservedly won the FMVP...BUT, the Lakers REAL post-season MVP was Magic, who led that Laker team to a lightning fast 126 ppg in the playoffs. He was now CLEARLY the man. And even Worthy was just as valuable now as Kareem (with an unbelievable and under-rated Finals.)

The '86 season was interesting. Kareem went H2H with Hakeem in five games, and averaged 33 ppg on .634 shooting (in fact, in their first ten straight H2H games, Kareem averaged 32 ppg on .630 shooting against Hakeem...including games of 40, 43, and 46.) BUT, in the WCF's, the Rockets moved Sampson on Kareem, and he slid to a 27 ppg .496 series. And the Lakers were stunned by the Rockets.

In '87, the vaunted Lakers go 65-17, and just annihilate the NBA. Worthy and Magic are now the two best players. In fact, while Kareem was still a good offensive player, he could no longer rebound for his life, nor play any defense. IMHO, the Lakers would have won a title without him.

And that would CLEARLY come to light the very next season ('88). Kareem is now around LA's FIFTH best player. And, he is AWFUL in the post-season. And even WORSE in the Finals (13 ppg, 4 rpg, and .414 shooting...with probably the WORST game seven ever played by a "great.") The Lakers win a title DESPITE him.

In Kareem's LAST season ('89), Magic takes LA into the Finals with an 11-0 record. However, he is injured mid-way thru game two, and is done. The result? Kareem passively watches while his Lakers are SWEPT.

Then, think about this. In Kareem's LAST season, the Lakers went 57-25. How about AFTER he retired? LA goes 63-19, which is their SECOND best record of the decade. And in the following season, Magic takes an injured and over-the-hill Laker team to a 58-24 record and yet another Finals.

Magic "retired" after that season...and the Lakers immediately dropped to 43-39. Then, the next year they slide to 39-43.

Kind of puts the Kareem-Magic 80's into a better perspective.

In any case, Kareem had MANY FLOP JOBS in his career.

oolalaa

06-16-2012, 08:31 PM

Let's post ALL of Wilt's "must-win" and "series clinching" performances, as well as his OPPOSING center's play in those games shall we?

Incidently, against PunPun's "GOAT" Kareem, in their two clinching series H2H games, Wilt shot 18-33 from the field (.545), while Kareem shot 23-60, or .383 from the field.

Dont you think you it would be a good idea to post all of Wilts "Potentially series clinching" performances, too?

jlauber

06-16-2012, 08:48 PM

Dont you think you it would be a good idea to post all of Wilts "Potentially series clinching" performances, too?

Look, I could post games MANY more BIG-TIME playoff games, too.

How about game one of the '60 ECF's, when rookie Chamberlain outscored veteran Russell, 42-19.

Or game three, in a best of five series, which could have clinched the series, in the 61-62 playoffs, in which he outscored Kerr, 40-14, but his team lost, 101-100. Or game one of the '62 ECF's, when Chamberlain outscored Russell, 33-16, or game two of that series, when Chamberlain outscored Russell, 42-9 (while outrebounding him, 37-20.)

Or Game five of the '64 playoffs, when Chamberlain hung a 50-15-5, 22-32 shooting game on Beaty. Or game two of the '64 Finals, when Chamberlain outscored Russell, 32-9 (while outrebounding him 25-24.) Or game three of the '64 Finals, when Wilt outscored Russell, 35-16.

How about game one of the '65 ECF's, when Wilt outscored Russell, 33-11. Or game two, when Chamberlain outscored Russell, 30-12, and outrebounded him by a staggering 39-16 margin. Hell, in that entire '65 ECF's Wilt AVERAGED a 30 ppg - 31rpg series!

The FACT was, Chamberlain just DOMINATED his peers in the post-season. Of course you can find a small number of games, in his 160 playoff games, in which he was outplayed, but even then, he probably played reasonably well.

continued...

jlauber

06-16-2012, 08:50 PM

Here are Wilt's first 80 playoff games, thru his "scoring" seasons, and still in his prime.

Here are Chamberlain's AND his opposing center's scoring games in Wilt's PRIME from 59-60 thru 67-68...all 80 of them. BTW, Wilt played in 160 playoff games, and these were exactly half of them.

Incidently, Wilt' "scoring" prime was from 59-60 thru 65-66.

* denotes games against Russell
** denotes games against Thurmond
*** denotes games against Bellamy

Some other sidenotes:

1. Wilt outshot Russell from the field in the '62 ECF's, .468 to .420 (a close approximation.)

2. Chamberlain shot .559 in the '64 WCF's (while scoring 38.6 ppg)

3. Chamberlain shot .517 against Russell in the '64 Finals, and outscored him per game, 29.2 to 11.2 ppg (and we don't have Russell's FG%, but Russell shot .356 in his ten post season games, five of which were against Wilt.)

4. Russell shot .462 against Wilt in the '65 playoffs (and .702 against LA in the Finals.)

5. Wilt shot .509 against Russell in the '66 ECF's (while averaging 28 ppg and 30.2 rpg)

6. Wilt outshot Russell in the '67 ECF's by a .556 to .358 margin.

7. Wilt outshot Thurmond in the '67 Finals by a .560 to .343 margin.

8. Wilt held Bellamy to .421 shooting in the '68 playoffs (Bellamy shot .541 against the league that season.)

Quote:
Prime "Scoring" Wilt

1. 35-5
2. 28-25
3. 53-7
4. 42-19 *
5. 29-15 *
6. 12-26 *
7. 24-17 *
8. 50-22 *
9. 26-25 *
10. 46-15
11. 32-12
12. 33-7
13. 32-9
14. 28-18
15. 40-14
16. 29-27
17. 56-20
18. 33-16 *
19. 42-9 *
20. 35-31 *
21. 41-31 *
22. 30-29 *
23. 32-19 *
24. 22-19 *
25. 37-24
26. 28-4
27. 46-22
28. 36-14
29. 50-6
30. 34-20
31. 39-10
32. 22-9 *
33. 32-9 *
34. 35-16 *
35. 27-8 *
36. 30-14 *
37. 26-18
38. 30-10
39. 17-16
40. 38-7
41. 33-11 *
42. 30-12 *
43. 24-19 *
44. 34-18 *
45. 30-12 *
46. 30-22 *
47. 30-15 *
48. 25-13 *
49. 23-10 *
50. 31-11 *
51. 15-18 *
52. 46-18 *

Wilt from 66-67 thru 67-68

53. 41-29
54. 37-21
55. 16-12
56. 18-8
57. 24-20 *
58. 15-14 *
59. 20-10 *
60. 20-9 *
61. 29-4 *
62. 16-24 **
63. 10-7 **
64. 26-17 **
65. 10-8 **
66. 20-17 **
67. 24-12 **
68. 37-14 ***
69. 24-26 ***
70. 18-22 ***
71. 23-28 ***
72. 26-11 ***
73. 25-19 ***
74. 33-11 *
75. 15-11 *
76. 23-13 *
77. 22-24 *
78. 28-8 *
79. 20-17 *
80. 14-12 *

Wilt outscored his opposing centers in 49 of his first 50 playoff games (and 50 of 52 in his "scoring" prime overall) MANY by HUGE margins.

Overall, in Wilt's first 80 playoff games, covering his PRIME years, he outscored his opposing starting center in 73 of them.

The Wilt who "declined" in the post-season...

Punpun

06-16-2012, 08:51 PM

The more Jlauber posts, the more I'm sure Wilt was a choker.

jlauber

06-16-2012, 08:52 PM

The more Jlauber posts, the more I'm sure Wilt was a choker.

Here is your chance to shine...go ahead and prove it...

Punpun

06-16-2012, 08:53 PM

I'm only reading what you post. And that's the conclusion I come to. So I would direct you to your posts I guess.

jlauber

06-16-2012, 09:00 PM

I'm only reading what you post. And that's the conclusion I come to. So I would direct you to your posts I guess.

And here is another one...

The idiotic Bill Simmons claims that Wilt "shrunk" in the post-season, particularly in BIG games.

Had he actually done any real research into Wilt's post-season career, he would have found that Wilt averaged 27.0 ppg in his 35 "must-win" and/or clinching games. Meanwhile, his starting opposing centers averaged 14.5 ppg in those 35 games. He also outscored his opposing starting center in 29 of those 35 games, including a 19-0 edge in his first 19 games of those 35. Furthermore, in his 13 games which came in his "scoring" seasons (from 59-60 thru 65-66), Chamberlain averaged 37.3 ppg in those "do-or-die" or clinching games. And there were MANY games in which he just CRUSHED his opposing centers in those games (e.g. he outscored Kerr in one them, 53-7.)

Wilt had THREE of his four 50+ point post-season games, in these "elimination games", including two in "at the limit" games, and another against Russell in a "must-win" game. He also had games of 46-34 and 45-27 (and only 4 months removed from major knee surgery) in these types of games. In addition he had games of 39 and 38 in clinching wins.

In the known 19 games in which we have both Wilt's, and his starting opposing center's rebounding numbers, Chamberlain outrebounded them in 15 of them, and by an average margin of 26.1 rpg to 18.9 rpg. And, had we had all 35 of the totals, it would have been by a considerably larger margin. A conservative estimate would put Wilt with at least a 30-5 overall edge in those 35 games. He also had games, even against the likes of Russell, and in "must-win" situations, where he just MURDERED his opposing centers (e.g. he had one clinching game, against Russell, in which he outrebounded him by a 36-21 margin.)

And finally, in the known FG% games in which we have, Chamberlain not only shot an eye-popping .582 in those "do-or-die" games, but he held his opposing centers to a combined .413 FG%. BTW, he played against Kareem in two "clinching" games, and held Abdul-Jabbar to a combined .383 shooting in those two games. Meanwhile, Chamberlain shot 18-33 in those two series games against Kareem (.545.)

The bottom line, in the known games of the 35 that Wilt played in that involved a "must-win" or clincher, Wilt averaged 27 ppg, 26.1 rpg, and shot .582 (and the 27 ppg figure was known for all 35 of those games.)

And once again, Chamberlain played in 11 games which went to the series limit (nine game seven's, one game five of a best-of-five series, and one game three of a best-of-three series), and all he did was average 29.9 ppg (outscoring his opposing center by a 29.9 ppg to 9.8 ppg margin in the process), with 26.7 rpg, and on .581 shooting. Or he was an eye-lash away from averaging a 30-27 game, and on nearly .600 shooting, in those 11 "at the limit" games.

Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain's TEAMs went 24-11 in those 35 games, too.

That was the same player that Simmons basically labeled a "loser", and a "choker", and who "shrunk" in his BIG games.

oolalaa

06-16-2012, 09:12 PM

How about Bird in the post-season?

:roll:

What is with your vendetta against Bird?

1980- Averaged a .511 TS% in the postseason. In game 5 vs. the Sixers, he shot poorly, 5-19 with just 12 points, as the Celtics lost the game. His man (Dr. J) averaged 25 PPG in this series. His team loses in 5 games despite having HCA and winning 61 games. Had a 18.3 PER in the postseason

He was a rookie, going against a prime Julius Erving!! And, of course, nothing is mentioned about the fact that Boston were a 29 win team before Bird arrived, and that they SWEPT your beloved Moses Molones Rockets in the previous round.

(Michael Jordan had a sub par shooting playoffs in his rookie year and was 6-16 in the close out loss to the Bucks)

1981- Has a .532 TS% in the postseason. He had a bad finals where he averaged just 15 PPG on .419 shooting and .460 TS%.

This just goes to show you how OVERRATED efficiency is :roll:

1982- PPG average dropped from 22.9 PPG to 17.8 PPG. He has an embarrassing .474 TS% in the playoffs. He averaged a pedestrian 18.3 PPG against the Sixers. Averages 17 PPG in the final 2 games of the series. The Celtics lose again with HCA. The Celtics won 63 games and had the #1 SRS in the league. Has a 17.9 PER in the postseason.

His most inexcusable post season. He flat out got outplayed by Dr J. Of course, the '82 ECFs were the exact opposite of the '81 ECFs, when Bird DESTROYED Erving (In his MVP campaign, no less) in the final 3 games of the series.

1983- The Celtics get swept by the Bucks. The Celtics win 56 games and had the #2 SRS in the league and lose again with HCA. Bird plays awful again. .478 TS%. His PPG average drops 2 PPG in the playoffs. Bird missed a game in the series but that game happened to be the closest one (Celtics lose by 4). In the 3 other games, the Celtics lose by 14.3 PPG with Bird on the court.

Coach problems. By the end of that season, pretty much all the Celtics players had stopped playing for Bill Fitch. It was a revolt. Bird was also ill throughout the series.

1985- Celtics make the finals, but Bird's numbers drop in the playoffs. His PPG drops by 2.8 PPG, Reb by 1.2 Reb, and AST by 0.7 AST. Had an average .536 TS% in the postseason. Bird plays even worse in the finals. His PPG dropped 4.9 PPG, his Reb 1.7 Reb, and AST by 1.6 AST in the finals compared to his regular season average. His Finals TS% is just .527. Not only that, but Celtics finish with 63 wins and lose once again with HCA a constant theme in Bird's career. This is the first time in Celtics history they lost in the finals with HCA.

Bird had persistent, nagging injuries. His elbow, particuarly, was a bone of contention (Literally, bone was loose and floating around in his right elbow). Also, he badly hurt his index finger in a bar fight in the middle of the ECFs (:facepalm ). His shooting was really poor from that point on.

1987- I think this is his most admirable playoffs up until the finals. The Celtics were quite banged up this year. Averaged 27-10-7 in the postseason with .577 TS%. Though his numbers in the finals dropped off once again. His PPG was 3.9 PPG down from the regular season, AST down by 2.1 AST and his TS% was just .534. In game 6, Bird scored just 16 points on 6-16 (.375) shooting. In the final 3 games of this series, Bird averaged just 20 PPG on .377 shooting and .492 TS% with 3.7 TOV. This is the first time Bird has played without HCA in the playoffs and his team loses.

Boston dont even make it past the Bucks without Bird going into "GOAT MODE". He was worn down by the end of the finals. It would have been a pretty major upset, if L.A had lost.

1988- Bird's PPG drops by 5.4 PPG, Reb by 0.5 Reb. Bird shoots an awful 40-114 (.351) against the Pistons. Has a mediocre .538 TS% and 20.2 PER in the playoffs. The Celtics had HCA and the #1 SRS in the league and you probably guessed what happened next, Larry Bird loses with HCA once again.

His body began to break down. 4 finals in 4 years, and a tough 7 game series in the previous round, had taken it's toll.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

06-16-2012, 09:16 PM

Notice that the players Jlauber criticizes have ALL had more playoff success than Wilt? :oldlol:

They aren't underachievers like the "big dipper" (dipping out of big games was his thing).

oolalaa

06-16-2012, 09:35 PM

Notice that the players Jlauber criticizes have ALL had more playoff success than Wilt? :oldlol:

They aren't underachievers like the "big dipper" (dipping out of big games was his thing).

:oldlol:

But no, seriously, just like Lebron, big games weren't a problem for him. It was the closing moments of big games that he had an issue with.

jlauber

06-16-2012, 09:56 PM

:roll:

What is with your vendetta against Bird?

Actually, it is not a "vendetta" against Bird (or Kareem.) It's that Chamberlain gets ripped in his post-season career for only winning two rings, and with VERY FEW poor games in his 160 post-season career. Yet, players like Bird and Kareem are regarded as Big-Time "clutch" players...when the reality was, both of them had many more "choke jobs" than Chamberlain did.

Once again, just examine Wilt's 160 post-season games. You would be hard-pressed to find very many in which he played poorly, or was outplayed by his opposing centers. And keep in mind that he faced a HOF starting center in 105 of those 160 playoff games (as well as a multiple All-Star starting center in another 26.)

Wilt's only flaw appears to be that his TEAMMATES puked all over themselves in many of his post-season games, and particularly in the "Big" games. Here are some examples:

In his first six post-seasons, his teammates collectively shot .383, .380, .354, .352, .352 (this, from a team that went 55-25) and even .332.

In game seven of the '68 ECF's, his starting teammates shot 25-74. In game seven of the '69 Finals, his teammates collectively shot .360. In the first half of game seven of the '70 Finals, his teammates collectively shot .333, and the result was a 69-42 halftime deficit.

And Jerry West, for all his "clutch" play, was awful in game seven of the '70 Finals. He missed the entire '71 post-season (as did Baylor.) He shot .376 in the entire '72 playoffs, and .325 in the Finals. BUT, he can thank Chamberlain, who won the FMVP, for finally winning his first ring. Then, in his last post-season with Wilt, he shot .443, which included a Finals' clinching game loss performance of 5-17.

Yet, how many times do you read anyone ripping West for his post-season play?

And here was Wilt, playing with pathetic rosters in the first half of his career, and still carrying two teams to game seven losses, by a combined three points, against HOF-laden Celtic rosters. He even took a horrible roster, which had gone 31-49 the year before, to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals.

The fact was, Chamberlain missed FOUR rings by a combined NINE points (losing four game seven's to the eventual champion Celtics by scores of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.) And his teammates were generally awful in all four of them.

Where would Wilt rank today, had his teammates just contributed a few more points in his playoff career?

jlauber

06-16-2012, 10:09 PM

Notice that the players Jlauber criticizes have ALL had more playoff success than Wilt? :oldlol:

They aren't underachievers like the "big dipper" (dipping out of big games was his thing).

And obviously you rank your beloved Sam Jones, who, according to you, beat Wilt in four game seven's, much higher than Jordan, right? After all, Jones has a 10-6 edge in rings. And we know that he single-handedly carried four teams past Wilt...and another seven past West and Baylor's Lakers, too.

oolalaa

06-16-2012, 10:42 PM

Actually, it is not a "vendetta" against Bird (or Kareem.) It's that Chamberlain gets ripped in his post-season career for only winning two rings, and with VERY FEW poor games in his 160 post-season career. Yet, players like Bird and Kareem are regarded as Big-Time "clutch" players...when the reality was, both of them had many more "choke jobs" than Chamberlain did.

Once again, just examine Wilt's 160 post-season games. You would be hard-pressed to find very many in which he played poorly, or was outplayed by his opposing centers. And keep in mind that he faced a HOF starting center in 105 of those 160 playoff games (as well as a multiple All-Star starting center in another 26.)

Wilt's only flaw appears to be that his TEAMMATES puked all over themselves in many of his post-season games, and particularly in the "Big" games. Here are some examples:

In his first six post-seasons, his teammates collectively shot .383, .380, .354, .352, .352 (this, from a team that went 55-25) and even .332.

In game seven of the '68 ECF's, his starting teammates shot 25-74. In game seven of the '69 Finals, his teammates collectively shot .360. In the first half of game seven of the '70 Finals, his teammates collectively shot .333, and the result was a 69-42 halftime deficit.

And Jerry West, for all his "clutch" play, was awful in game seven of the '70 Finals. He missed the entire '71 post-season (as did Baylor.) He shot .376 in the entire '72 playoffs, and .325 in the Finals. BUT, he can thank Chamberlain, who won the FMVP, for finally winning his first ring. Then, in his last post-season with Wilt, he shot .443, which included a Finals' clinching game loss performance of 5-17.

Yet, how many times do you read anyone ripping West for his post-season play?

And here was Wilt, playing with pathetic rosters in the first half of his career, and still carrying two teams to game seven losses, by a combined three points, against HOF-laden Celtic rosters. He even took a horrible roster, which had gone 31-49 the year before, to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals.

The fact was, Chamberlain missed FOUR rings by a combined NINE points (losing four game seven's to the eventual champion Celtics by scores of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.) And his teammates were generally awful in all four of them.

Where would Wilt rank today, had his teammates just contributed a few more points in his playoff career?

It comes across as a vendetta when you ONLY criticize them. Every Bird or Kareem post of yours seems to be 100% negative. There is a severe lack of objectivity.

And I've said this before, West doesn't get chastised like Wilt often does for 2 reasons....

1. He wasn't as good as Wilt.

2. You'll only ever read positive things said about Jerry West, by his teammates, peers, coaches etc. His teammates loved him. He was a very good leader. He was a professional in every sense of the word. All he wanted to do was win, and that, very clearly, came across to all those around him.

Unfortunately, Wilt's teammates, peers and coaches weren't exactly enamoured with him. There are many, many quotes about his lack of drive and desire, his fearfulness 'in the clutch' and his screwed up priorities. His (Team) success didn't sufficiently match his individual/statistical domination.

Excuses are for LOSERS, and the more excuses you dole out, and the more excuses people hear, the more they are inclined to succumb to that notion.

jlauber

06-16-2012, 11:24 PM

It comes across as a vendetta when you ONLY criticize them. Every Bird or Kareem post of yours seems to be 100% negative. There is a severe lack of objectivity.

And I've said this before, West doesn't get chastised like Wilt often does for 2 reasons....

1. He wasn't as good as Wilt.

2. You'll only ever read positive things said about Jerry West, by his teammates, peers, coaches etc. His teammates loved him. He was a very good leader. He was a professional in every sense of the word. All he wanted to do was win, and that, very clearly, came across to all those around him.

Unfortunately, Wilt's teammates, peers and coaches weren't exactly enamoured with him. There are many, many quotes about his lack of drive and desire, his fearfulness 'in the clutch' and his screwed up priorities. His (Team) success didn't sufficiently match his individual/statistical domination.

Excuses are for LOSERS, and the more excuses you dole out, and the more excuses people hear, the more they are inclined to succumb to that notion.

And yet...

What is with your vendetta against Bird?

Quote:
1980- Averaged a .511 TS% in the postseason. In game 5 vs. the Sixers, he shot poorly, 5-19 with just 12 points, as the Celtics lost the game. His man (Dr. J) averaged 25 PPG in this series. His team loses in 5 games despite having HCA and winning 61 games. Had a 18.3 PER in the postseason

He was a rookie, going against a prime Julius Erving!! And, of course, nothing is mentioned about the fact that Boston were a 29 win team before Bird arrived, and that they SWEPT your beloved Moses Molones Rockets in the previous round.

(Michael Jordan had a sub par shooting playoffs in his rookie year and was 6-16 in the close out loss to the Bucks)

Quote:
1981- Has a .532 TS% in the postseason. He had a bad finals where he averaged just 15 PPG on .419 shooting and .460 TS%.

This just goes to show you how OVERRATED efficiency is

Quote:
1982- PPG average dropped from 22.9 PPG to 17.8 PPG. He has an embarrassing .474 TS% in the playoffs. He averaged a pedestrian 18.3 PPG against the Sixers. Averages 17 PPG in the final 2 games of the series. The Celtics lose again with HCA. The Celtics won 63 games and had the #1 SRS in the league. Has a 17.9 PER in the postseason.

His most inexcusable post season. He flat out got outplayed by Dr J. Of course, the '82 ECFs were the exact opposite of the '81 ECFs, when Bird DESTROYED Erving (In his MVP campaign, no less) in the final 3 games of the series.

Quote:
1983- The Celtics get swept by the Bucks. The Celtics win 56 games and had the #2 SRS in the league and lose again with HCA. Bird plays awful again. .478 TS%. His PPG average drops 2 PPG in the playoffs. Bird missed a game in the series but that game happened to be the closest one (Celtics lose by 4). In the 3 other games, the Celtics lose by 14.3 PPG with Bird on the court.

Coach problems. By the end of that season, pretty much all the Celtics players had stopped playing for Bill Fitch. It was a revolt. Bird was also ill throughout the series.

Quote:
1985- Celtics make the finals, but Bird's numbers drop in the playoffs. His PPG drops by 2.8 PPG, Reb by 1.2 Reb, and AST by 0.7 AST. Had an average .536 TS% in the postseason. Bird plays even worse in the finals. His PPG dropped 4.9 PPG, his Reb 1.7 Reb, and AST by 1.6 AST in the finals compared to his regular season average. His Finals TS% is just .527. Not only that, but Celtics finish with 63 wins and lose once again with HCA a constant theme in Bird's career. This is the first time in Celtics history they lost in the finals with HCA.

Bird had persistent, nagging injuries. His elbow, particuarly, was a bone of contention (Literally, bone was loose and floating around in his right elbow). Also, he badly hurt his index finger in a bar fight in the middle of the ECFs ( ). His shooting was really poor from that point on.

Quote:
1987- I think this is his most admirable playoffs up until the finals. The Celtics were quite banged up this year. Averaged 27-10-7 in the postseason with .577 TS%. Though his numbers in the finals dropped off once again. His PPG was 3.9 PPG down from the regular season, AST down by 2.1 AST and his TS% was just .534. In game 6, Bird scored just 16 points on 6-16 (.375) shooting. In the final 3 games of this series, Bird averaged just 20 PPG on .377 shooting and .492 TS% with 3.7 TOV. This is the first time Bird has played without HCA in the playoffs and his team loses.

Boston dont even make it past the Bucks without Bird going into "GOAT MODE". He was worn down by the end of the finals. It would have been a pretty major upset, if L.A had lost.

Quote:
1988- Bird's PPG drops by 5.4 PPG, Reb by 0.5 Reb. Bird shoots an awful 40-114 (.351) against the Pistons. Has a mediocre .538 TS% and 20.2 PER in the playoffs. The Celtics had HCA and the #1 SRS in the league and you probably guessed what happened next, Larry Bird loses with HCA once again.

His body began to break down. 4 finals in 4 years, and a tough 7 game series in the previous round, had taken it's toll.

Funny how Wilt gets no excuses, despite dominating in the post-season. He was EXPECTED to win, even with very little help, and against HOF-laden rosters. He was EXPECTED to win despite injuries that would shelve players like Reed and Kareem. He was EXPECTED to win, even though he came back from a devastating knee injury, the same injury which essentially shelved Baylor for over a year, in FOUR MONTHS. He was EXPECTED to win even in his late 30's. He was EXPECTED to win, despite some HORRIBLE coaches. He was EXPECTED to win when his best teammates were INJURED or CHOKED.

Wilt had all of the above happen in his post-season career...but, he gets no excuses.

oolalaa

06-17-2012, 06:50 PM

And yet...

Funny how Wilt gets no excuses, despite dominating in the post-season. He was EXPECTED to win, even with very little help, and against HOF-laden rosters. He was EXPECTED to win despite injuries that would shelve players like Reed and Kareem. He was EXPECTED to win, even though he came back from a devastating knee injury, the same injury which essentially shelved Baylor for over a year, in FOUR MONTHS. He was EXPECTED to win even in his late 30's. He was EXPECTED to win, despite some HORRIBLE coaches. He was EXPECTED to win when his best teammates were INJURED or CHOKED.

Wilt had all of the above happen in his post-season career...but, he gets no excuses.

Then we're both guilty of it! :oldlol:

But, on the flip side, I could very easily say....Why are you giving Wilt a 'pass' for his failures and not Bird? Bird had a virus/fever in '83, as well as coach problems, are you giving him a 'pass' for losing to the (Underrated) Bucks? Bird had a right elbow injury throughout the '85 playoffs and badly hurt his finger in the ECFs, are you giving him a 'pass'? Bird CARRIED a severly banged up roster to the '87 finals, are you giving him a 'pass' for not beating L.A?

Look, what if a player - the most talented & dominant player in NBA history - was lumbered with incompetent coaches, D league players for teammates and devastating injuries throughout his entire career (All 3 in unison, every single year). We all know he was the greatest NBA player to ever step on the court (And it's not even close). When he was healthy, he has proven that to us. But, devastating knee and hand ailments made him next to useless. That, and the fact that his coach didn't have a clue what he was doing, meant he only averaged 4.3ppg, 2.9rpg and 1.0apg for his career (He was a 40/15/10 player at his best) His teams were reguarly the worst in the league, too.

Do we give him a 'pass'? remember, we all know that, when he was healthy, he was by FAR the best player in NBA history. Do we just ignore all of his issues and failures and declare him the greatest player of all time, ahead of Michael Jordan? If not, why not?

You give Wilt a 'pass' for every single one of HIS failures. You say (Paraphrasing, of course) "Well, he would have beaten Boston in '62 & '65 if his teammates didn't suck. And, he DEFINITELY would have beaten them in '68 without those injuries. And, he DEFINITELY would have beaten them in '69 if his coach wasn't so incompetent. And, he probably would have beaten the Knicks in '70 if he didn't shred his knee early in the season, too".

I'm sorry, anyone who loses 3 straight game 7s (And they weren't just any old game 7s. They were championship winning game 7s - '68 included) automatically disqualifies themselves from GOAT conversation. YOU DONT GET TO GIVE HIM A PASS!! (Well, you do, because it's your own opinion, but you now what I mean :oldlol: ) Only 3 players are worthy of such conversation; Jordan, Magic and Russell. Wilt is in that second tier with Kareem and Bird :D

Sure, you can call him unlucky, but, you cant call him the GOAT.

Deuce Bigalow

06-17-2012, 06:57 PM

jlauber

06-17-2012, 09:30 PM

I'm sorry, anyone who loses 3 straight game 7s (And they weren't just any old game 7s. They were championship winning game 7s - '68 included) automatically disqualifies themselves from GOAT conversation. YOU DONT GET TO GIVE HIM A PASS!!

In those three game seven's, Chamberlain played exceptionally well. He averaged 18 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot, get this... .637...COMBINED. His teammates shot .350, and .360 in '68 and '69, and in '70 they shot .333 in the first half, in a game in which they were down 69-42 at halftime.

Meanwhile, his opposing centers averaged 8 ppg, 17 rpg, and shot .444 in those three game seven's.

Yet you won't give HIM an excuse?

Well, I'm sorry, I WILL.

Once again, Chamberlain came up BIG in his BIGGEST games. That his team, usually with inept teammates, who choked; or with incompetent coaching ...ESPECIALLY in a game seven, when the IDIOT left arguably the game's greatest player on the bench in the last five minutes of a TWO point loss; or playing well, despite injuries that completely shelved Reed and Kareem, and with injured teammates, and then the remaining teammates shooting horribly. Sorry, I give Wilt a WELL-DESERVED FREE PASS in those three game seven's.

jlauber

06-17-2012, 09:34 PM

His coach didn't even have him in the game in the final 5 minutes of that game 7. :oldlol:

The dude was an overrated choker

Guess what...that COACH was IMMEDIATELY fired after that coaching debacle. His INCOMPETENT coaching not only cost LA their first ever title in Los Angeles, it also basically cost him his career. Of course, just three years later WILT finally delivered LA their first ever title, and won the FMVP in the process.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

06-17-2012, 11:08 PM

His coach didn't even have him in the game in the final 5 minutes of that game 7. :oldlol:

The dude was an overrated choker

:oldlol:

Wilt averaged 30ppg in the regular season..23 ppg in playoffs when the good teams were left. LMAO! How about rebounding? Wilt averaged 24.5 rpg in 47.2 mpg in his playoff career. Bill Russell on the other hand averaged 24.9 rpg in 45.4. LOL! The 6'9" 220lb Bill Russell with MORE rpg in FEWER minutes than Wilt. Sorry....that's just hilarious. :oldlol:

jlauber

06-17-2012, 11:58 PM

:oldlol:

Wilt averaged 30ppg in the regular season..23 ppg in playoffs when the good teams were left. LMAO! How about rebounding? Wilt averaged 24.5 rpg in 47.2 mpg in his playoff career. Bill Russell on the other hand averaged 24.9 rpg in 45.4. LOL! The 6'9" 220lb Bill Russell with MORE rpg in FEWER minutes than Wilt. Sorry....that's just hilarious. :oldlol:

A prime "scoring" Wilt averaged 33 ppg, 26 rpg, and shot .505 in his first six post-seasons, covering his first seven seasons. And, he faced Russell and the Celtics in 30 of those 52 games. Go ahead...give me a list of the players who ever had a 33-26 game in the post-season. And yet, Chamberlain AVERAGED that in his first 52 games.

In his first eight seasons, covering his first seven post-seasons, Chamberlain averaged 30.4 ppg, 27.0 rpg, 4.5 apg, and shot .515 (in leagues that shot .427 in that span.) So, in his first 67 post-season games, 35 of which were against Russell (and another six against Thurmond), Chamberlain was AVERAGING a 30-27-5- .515 game.

Not only that, but in those first six post-seasons, Wilt had entire post-seasons of 28, 29, 33, 35, 35, 37, and 37 ppg. Included in those were series of 37 ppg, 37 ppg, 39 ppg and 39 ppg. BTW, he had FOUR post-season series, just against Russell of 30+ ppg, including a 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, .555 seven game series in '65. Chamberlain also had FOUR 50+ point games in those 52 playoff games, THREE of which came in a "must-win" game (including one 50-35 game against Russell.) In fact, Wilt had FOUR 40-30 games, just against Russell in the post-season.

As for Russell's "edge" in post-season rebounding. One, when Russell retired after his '69 season, at 24.9 rpg, Wilt was then averaging 26.3 rpg in his post-season career at the time.

AND, even more damaging to Russell's "record", was the FACT that Wilt outrebounded Russell in EVERY ONE of their EIGHT post-season series, including a 31.4 to 25.3 rpg margin in '65, and a staggering 32.0 to 23.4 rpg margin in their '67 playoff matchup. Not only that, but Chamberlain set the single game playoff record of 41 rebounds in a playoff game against...you got it...Russell. Which was not surprising since Wilt set the regular season record of 55 against Russell, in a game in which he outrebounded Russell by a 55-19 margin.

Asukal

06-18-2012, 12:41 AM

AND, even more damaging to Russell's "record", was the FACT that Wilt outrebounded Russell in EVERY ONE of their EIGHT post-season series, including a 31.4 to 25.3 rpg margin in '65, and a staggering 32.0 to 23.4 rpg margin in their '67 playoff matchup. Not only that, but Chamberlain set the single game playoff record of 41 rebounds in a playoff game against...you got it...Russell. Which was not surprising since Wilt set the regular season record of 55 against Russell, in a game in which he outrebounded Russell by a 55-19 margin.

Wow! Wilt was the man, he outrebounded a guy 4 inches smaller than he. Great achievement! Russell is overrated! :rolleyes:

senelcoolidge

06-18-2012, 04:22 AM

Wow! Wilt was the man, he outrebounded a guy 4 inches smaller than he. Great achievement! Russell is overrated! :rolleyes:

Yeah, Russell was fortunate to play with a team with 4-5 hall of famers at all times.

Psileas

06-18-2012, 09:14 AM

Wow! Wilt was the man, he outrebounded a guy 4 inches smaller than he. Great achievement! Russell is overrated! :rolleyes:

Because it's always expected from the taller to outrebound the shorter...
No big deal if Ewing outrebounded Rodman or if Shaq outrebounded Hakeem. Both overrated feats, because height 100% determines what you are as a player...

oolalaa

06-18-2012, 10:15 AM

Yeah, Russell was fortunate to play with a team with 4-5 hall of famers at all times.

Russell MADE them Hall of Famers. That's what Russell did - turn rotten grapes into fine wine.

You think Bailey Howell would be in the HOF without Russell? He's just another forgotten 1960s relic without joining Boston in '67, and piggybacking Hondo & Russell to a couple of championships. He was one of the better small forwards, but only made 1 All-NBA team throughout his entire career.

What about KC Jones? He was a career 7 ppg scorer and only played 25 minutes a game. I mean, are you kidding?? How is he in the HOF??

Or Frank Ramsey? Again, averaged only 25 minutes a game coming off the bench. The first 6th man, he chipped in with 23 ppg in the '59 playoffs, but, never even came close to those heights again.

Bill Sharman? He has a better case to be in the HOF than the previous 3 - he was a great shooter and a lock down defender - but even he is borderline.

The only 2 players that Russell played with who are 'Dead-Cert' Hall of Famers are John Havlicek and Sam Jones.

nycelt84

06-18-2012, 10:22 AM

Russell MADE them Hall of Famers. That's what Russell did - turn rotten grapes into fine wine.

Bill Sharman? He has a better case to be in the HOF than the previous 3 - he was a great shooter and a lock down defender - but even he is borderline.

The only 2 players that Russell played with who are 'Dead-Cert' Hall of Famers are John Havlicek and Sam Jones.

Bill Sharman would have made the Hall with or without Russell. He made several All-NBA teams in the 50's and his teaming with Cousy was at the time considered the best backcourt in NBA history and he could play both ways not to mention he is perhaps one of the 10 greatest minds in NBA history. The only thing he was lacking in is perhaps that he wasn't known as a clutch player like 1 time shooting 2 for 20 in a Game 7.

Asukal

06-18-2012, 11:18 AM

Because it's always expected from the taller to outrebound the shorter...
No big deal if Ewing outrebounded Rodman or if Shaq outrebounded Hakeem. Both overrated feats, because height 100% determines what you are as a player...

You know the boxing adage "a good big man always beats a good smaller man"? In basketball height is the only constant, no amount of training will increase it. :rolleyes:

It's not 100% the only thing that defines a player specially in rebounding but it is one of the most important attribute. :no:

Psileas

06-18-2012, 11:59 AM

You know the boxing adage "a good big man always beats a good smaller man"? In basketball height is the only constant, no amount of training will increase it. :rolleyes:

It's not 100% the only thing that defines a player specially in rebounding but it is one of the most important attribute. :no:

Do you know another important attribute? Athleticism.
I don't know what your favorite all-time great is or who you list as the GOAT, but it's probably someone who had it at a higher or even much higher degree than his contemporaries and I bet you never scoffed at his advantage. Instead, you probably laughed at his weaker opponents. If you belong in this category, don't worry, you're just among the 90% of Wilt bashers who can't see the double standard unless someone blatantly points it out.

The boxing adage "a good big man always beats a good smaller man" is obviously b.s as well, as are most phrases containing "always" or "never". I'd have no problem with it if it used "usually" instead. Which is the case in basketball as well. Usually the bigger man is the better rebounder, but with lots of exceptions. Wilt was far from the only guy in his era who was bigger than Russell, yet he was the only guy who could consistently outrebound him. This says a lot about both Russell and Wilt.

CavaliersFTW

06-18-2012, 12:07 PM

Wow! Wilt was the man, he outrebounded a guy 4 inches smaller than he. Great achievement! Russell is overrated! :rolleyes:

:facepalm Here's some anthropomorphic measurements that totally supports your assumption

Dennis Rodman 6-6 TRB 23.4%
Charles Barkley 6-4.75 TRB 18.2%
Bill Russell 6-9.63 TRB <20%
Dwight Howard 6-9 TRB 21%
Ben Wallace 6-7 TRB 18.9%
Kevin Love 6-7.75 TRB 21.4%

vs

Yao Ming 7-5.5 TRB 16.5%
Zydrunas Ilgauskas 7-2 TRB 15.7%
Shawn Bradley 7-5.5 TRB 15.0%
Hasheem Thabeet 7-1.25 TRB 15.1%
Shaquille O'Neal 7-0.88 TRB 17.8%
Pau Gasol 7-0 TRB 14.6%

Go ahead and cherry pick whatever 7 foot players you want, shorter guys of their same era tend to dominate them on the boards. Except if your name was Wilt Chamberlain. For some reason Wilt out rebounded all the helpless short rebounders of his era. Guess it was simply cuz he was tall right? What the hell is wrong with all the other tall players in NBA history, why do they let the little guys rape them so bad on the boards? Either Wilt is very very good and deserves praise for his stellar rebounding abilities, or hundreds and hundreds of other players are very poor and aren't doing what they should be doing. Which conclusion makes more sense.

Owl

06-18-2012, 12:39 PM

:facepalm Here's some anthropomorphic measurements that totally supports your assumption

Dennis Rodman 6-6 TRB 23.4%
Charles Barkley 6-4.75 TRB 18.2%
Bill Russell 6-9.63 TRB <20%
Dwight Howard 6-9 TRB 21%
Ben Wallace 6-7 TRB 18.9%
Kevin Love 6-7.75 TRB 21.4%

vs

Yao Ming 7-5.5 TRB 16.5%
Zydrunas Ilgauskas 7-2 TRB 15.7%
Shawn Bradley 7-5.5 TRB 15.0%
Hasheem Thabeet 7-1.25 TRB 15.1%
Shaquille O'Neal 7-0.88 TRB 17.8%
Pau Gasol 7-0 TRB 14.6%

Go ahead and cherry pick whatever 7 foot players you want, shorter guys of their same era tend to dominate them on the boards. Except if your name was Wilt Chamberlain. For some reason Wilt out rebounded all the helpless short rebounders of his era. Guess it was simply cuz he was tall right? What the hell is wrong with all the other tall players in NBA history, why do they let the little guys rape them so bad on the boards? Either Wilt is very very good and deserves praise for his stellar rebounding abilities, or hundreds and hundreds of other players are very poor and aren't doing what they should be doing. Which conclusion makes more sense.
Danny Fortson 6'7 20.4%
Reggie Evans 6'8 21.1%
DeJuan Blair 6'6 18.3%
Kenneth Faried 6'7 19.8%

Manute Bol 7'7 12.2%
Rik Smits 7'4 13.3%
Brad Sellers 7'0 8.6%

Height is all for rebounders.

Seriously beyond a certain (minimum) height, rebounding seems to have very little to do with height. Certainly there are many elite rebounders who seem undersized at the big man positions, whilst the very tallest players have frequently been poor-adequate rebounders.

Asukal

06-18-2012, 02:43 PM

Shaquille O'Neal

06-18-2012, 02:46 PM

First of all, the "pace" has been way over-blown. At it's highest, in the 61-62 season, the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg (on .426 shooting.)

Could Wilt himself have single-handedly raised the PPG that season since he averaged 50 himself? I wonder if you just completely subtract his scoring output what the 61-62 average PPG would be.

LosBulls

06-18-2012, 02:50 PM

Well said.

Wilt > 99.9% of the league today.

Which one of today's "modern" professional athletes could compete as a high jumper in the olympics?
They can compete as high jumpers in the 60s.

TheMarkMadsen

06-18-2012, 02:54 PM

Honestly if you never saw wilt play, you shouldn't be commenting about his career. OP is obviously knows A LOT this topic than anyone here, I don't have an opinion on wilt (outside of his stats I can access) and if you've never seen him play how can you have an opinion?

Everybody wants to hate on wilt and devalue his career, but how many of you have actually seen more than 10 games of his?

CavaliersFTW

06-18-2012, 03:31 PM

They can compete as high jumpers in the 60s.
In high school and college, sure some of today's players could if they put their mind too it. Would they be winning D1 and setting school records like Wilt and Russ? No (save for maybe someone like young VC). And they especially wouldn't be World class (ranked 7th) with potential to set new records like Russ (I doubt even VC could be that good). And no center in the league today save for Dwight Howard/Javale McGee/Ryan Hollins are even capable of the elevation + body control to plausibly compete in the face-first no-cushioned high-jump of the 60s.

CavaliersFTW

06-18-2012, 03:32 PM

Owl

06-18-2012, 03:45 PM

You guys are taking it far out of the topic, this is strictly about Wilt in comparison to Russell, I merely gave an example. My initial post was against gaylauber's claim that Wilt's performance against Russell in their h2h matchup's GREATLY diminishes Russell's accomplishments. :facepalm

Also, don't compare slow unathletic bigs vs athletic forwards. Take note it says "GOOD big man vs GOOD smaller man". In the case of rebounding, a good rebounder has to be athletic, do you really believe that Rodman as great as he is could outrebound Wilt? :facepalm
Your implication was that Wilt's achievements were invalid because he was tall.

Wow! Wilt was the man, he outrebounded a guy 4 inches smaller than he. Great achievement! Russell is overrated! :rolleyes:
The fact is that basketball is a game in which height is a natural advantage. But why would you hold it against someone in evaluating what they have achieved. Basketball fundamentally requires height, athleticism, and body control/coordination, all things we have limited control over. We don't hold these things against players. If we held height against a player than this forum would be full of Bogues vs Webb vs Boykins vs Keith Jennings vs Greg Grant threads and those guys would be GOAT contenders. People might consider Calvin Murphy but dismiss him as too darned big.

But for rebounding height really isn't a great advantage we've shown the rebound rates for some of the biggest men to range between
Okay-ish Ming, Bradley, Mark Eaton (15%)
to the downright terrible for a big man
Bol, Smits.
Amongst the very tall, who, if height really were a very significant factor in rebounding would be expected to be very good indeed, only Gheorge Muresan seems particularly good at it (17%) and even that is hardly exceptional.
Meanwhile lets look at elite rebounders.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=trb_pct&c1comp=gt&c1val=21&c2stat=mp&c2comp=gt&c2val=200&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=trb_pct
Here's the 7 footers amongst that group
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=84&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=trb_pct&c1comp=gt&c1val=21&c2stat=mp&c2comp=gt&c2val=200&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=trb_pct
and here's those that aren't
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=83&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=trb_pct&c1comp=gt&c1val=21&c2stat=mp&c2comp=gt&c2val=200&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=trb_pct
As I noted by highlighting Blair, Faried, Fortson, Evans (and earlier raised with regard to Barkley and Rodman) height, beyond a basic minimum requirement, isn't significantly affected by height (unlike say blocks or to a lesser degree fg%).

In any case Russell's standing reach was very high indeed, which I would care more about than the height of the top of his head. This fact is not only in books covering Russell but has been documented on this very site.

Now I would agree that JLaubers phrasing of the post was provocative (that Russell being outrebounded was "damaging"). And if you read the early pages of the thread I (amongst others, ShaqAttack was another) argued against casually dismissing Elgin Baylor's 38 point season because of missing games due to military service, or pretending that pace isn't a real thing, even though Wilt's 50 season coincided an unprecedented 5 players breaking the 30 point barrier (plus Baylor), and Wilt, Walt Bellamy, Bob Pettit, Richie Guerin all had career highs in ppg average by a substantial margin.

So if you want to argue real things there are topics to be tackled. But dismissing a rebounder because they're tall makes no sense, and calling people names won't win people over to your argument.

Asukal

06-18-2012, 04:05 PM

The fact is that basketball is a game in which height is a natural advantage. But why would you hold it against someone in evaluating what they have achieved. Basketball fundamentally requires height, athleticism, and body control/coordination, all things we have limited control over. We don't hold these things against players. If we held height against a player than this forum would be full of Bogues vs Webb vs Boykins vs Keith Jennings vs Greg Grant threads and those guys would be GOAT contenders. People might consider Calvin Murphy but dismiss him as too darned big.

But for rebounding height really isn't a great advantage we've shown the rebound rates for some of the biggest men to range between
Okay-ish Ming, Bradley, Mark Eaton (15%)
to the downright terrible for a big man
Bol, Smits.
Amongst the very tall, who, if height really were a very significant factor in rebounding would be expected to be very good indeed, only Gheorge Muresan seems particularly good at it (17%) and even that is hardly exceptional.
Meanwhile lets look at elite rebounders.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=trb_pct&c1comp=gt&c1val=21&c2stat=mp&c2comp=gt&c2val=200&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=trb_pct
Here's the 7 footers amongst that group
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=84&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=trb_pct&c1comp=gt&c1val=21&c2stat=mp&c2comp=gt&c2val=200&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=trb_pct
and here's those that aren't
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=83&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=trb_pct&c1comp=gt&c1val=21&c2stat=mp&c2comp=gt&c2val=200&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=trb_pct
As I noted by highlighting Blair, Faried, Fortson, Evans (and earlier raised with regard to Barkley and Rodman) height, beyond a basic minimum requirement, isn't significantly affected by height (unlike say blocks or to a lesser degree fg%).

In any case Russell's standing reach was very high indeed, which I would care more about than the height of the top of his head. This fact is not only in books covering Russell but has been documented on this very site.

Now I would agree that JLaubers phrasing of the post was provocative (that Russell being outrebounded was "damaging"). And if you read the early pages of the thread I (amongst others, ShaqAttack was another) argued against casually dismissing Elgin Baylor's 38 point season because of missing games due to military service, or pretending that pace isn't a real thing, even though Wilt's 50 season coincided an unprecedented 5 players breaking the 30 point barrier (plus Baylor), and Wilt, Walt Bellamy, Bob Pettit, Richie Guerin all had career highs in ppg average by a substantial margin.

So if you want to argue real things there are topics to be tackled. But dismissing a rebounder because they're tall makes no sense, and calling people names won't win people over to your argument.

Again you totally missed the whole point..... That sarcastic post was never intended to dismiss Wilt's accomplishments and abilities. If you know any better, I just love to troll gaylauber's ass for being such a biased stan. Its disgusting how he will either diminish or prop up Russell's accomplishments to make Wilt look good in an argument.

And yeah sure I agree, height is not everything in rebounding. Other factors affect rebounds like positioning, pace, matchups, ATHLETICISM (this one is actually more important for rebounding but in Russell vs Wilt, imo height is the difference maker), etc.

CavaliersFTW

06-18-2012, 04:07 PM

jlauber

06-19-2012, 12:40 AM

Again you totally missed the whole point..... That sarcastic post was never intended to dismiss Wilt's accomplishments and abilities. If you know any better, I just love to troll gaylauber's ass for being such a biased stan. Its disgusting how he will either diminish or prop up Russell's accomplishments to make Wilt look good in an argument.

And yeah sure I agree, height is not everything in rebounding. Other factors affect rebounds like positioning, pace, matchups, ATHLETICISM (this one is actually more important for rebounding but in Russell vs Wilt, imo height is the difference maker), etc.

First of all, I have never read a post of your's in which you credit Wilt with anything.

Secondly, your so-called attempt at "trolling" me obviously fooled SEVERAL other posters here, as well.

In any case, does this now mean that virtually any of your responses to my posts can now be blown off as "trolling", ...since most all of them have no research or facts to back them up anyway?

LBJMVP

06-19-2012, 12:45 AM

Had Wilt not played in the 14 seasons of the Wilt-era, the high ppg season would have been Barry's 35.6 ppg.

The high FG% season in that period would have been Johnny Green's .587.

There would have been a total of FIVE 60+ point games (four by Baylor and one by West.) Wilt had 32.

Aside from Wilt, there were 18 30-30 games IN the Chamberlain-era. Wilt had 103.

There were four 40-30 games in the Chamberlain era...other than Wilt's 55.

There were no other 40-40 games in the Wilt era, but Wilt had EIGHT.

Obviously, there were no other 50-40 games, but Chamberlain had FOUR himself.

I added quite a few other facts as well, but you get the gist.

Why ONLY Wilt?

some great points right there.

jlauber

06-19-2012, 01:33 AM

Now I would agree that JLaubers phrasing of the post was provocative (that Russell being outrebounded was "damaging"). And if you read the early pages of the thread I (amongst others, ShaqAttack was another) argued against casually dismissing Elgin Baylor's 38 point season because of missing games due to military service, or pretending that pace isn't a real thing, even though Wilt's 50 season coincided an unprecedented 5 players breaking the 30 point barrier (plus Baylor), and Wilt, Walt Bellamy, Bob Pettit, Richie Guerin all had career highs in ppg average by a substantial margin.

I agree that "damaging" was the wrong term. Russell's post-season rebounding still stands. My points, though, were, that IN their 10 H2H seasons in the league together, Wilt was actually outrebounding Russell's marks by a considerable margin. Once again, when Russell retired in 1969, with his 24.9 rpg mark, he was well behind Wilt's 26.3 rpg, which came in Wilt's first ten seasons.

Secondly, ...and this is really the "clincher" in terms of who was the better rebounder,... was that Chamberlain outrebounded Russell in all eight of their post-season H2H series. And some by huge margins, too. Margins of 30.2 rpg to 26. 2 rpg; 31.4 rpg to 25.3 rpg; and an incredible 32.0 rpg to 23.4 rpg series.

As for the 61-62 season...yes, I have already acknowledged that it was SLIGHTLY higher than even today's pace. Wilt's '62 season was at 118.8 ppg on .426 shooting. Once again, MJ's '87 NBA averaged 109.9 ppg on .480 shooting. This past NBA season, in a "compressed schedule" season (and not even as compressed as Chamberlain's '62 BTW)...was at 96.3 ppg on .448 shooting. Go back to 2011, and in a more normal schedule, and the marks were 99.6 ppg on .459.

I have shown the "advanced" math before...reducing Wilt's '62 seasonal FGAs and FTAs down to MJ's '87 levels. Without adjusting for FG%, Wilt would have averaged 41.5 ppg in '87. BUT, if you are reducing Wilt's FGAs and FTAs down to MJ's levels, you HAVE to ELEVATE his FG% to MJ's levels, as well. Why? Because if you don't, those teams that averaged 118.8 ppg in '62, would be down to around 90 ppg in '87....in a league that averaged 110 ppg. AND, if you adjust Wilt's .506 FG% in '62, up to MJ's levels, he would have shot about .575, which would have resulted in TWO more FGM in '87. After adjusting Wilt's '62 numbers to MJ's '87 levels, Wilt would have averaged 45.5 ppg in '87.

Of course, you can do the SIMPLE math, as well. MJ's '87 season of 109.9 ppg was at 92.5% of Wilt's '62 season of 118.8 ppg. Reduce Wilt's '62 season average of 50.4 ppg down to 92.5%, and Wilt would have averaged 46.6 ppg in '87.

BTW, take a look at the shooting percentages of the CENTERS in the 80's. They were thru the roof. Kareem had, BY FAR, his highest seasons, even as late as 37 years old he was shooting .599 (and he could barely get off the floor.) And Gilmore, in his prime years in the 70's, had a high season of .575. How about the 80's? Artis had SEVEN seasons of over .600, with high's of .670 and .652. Hell, at age 35 he was scoring 19.1 ppg on .623 shooting! Meanwhile, how about IN the Chamberlain era? Take Wilt out of the equation...and the next best season, in those 14 years, was Johnny Green's .587. And keep in mind that Kareem played FOUR years in the Chamberlain era and never sniffed a .600 season.

BTW, how brutal were the shooting percentages in the early 60's? Johnny Green shot .436 in Wilt's 61-62 season (Chamberlain's 50.4 ppg year on .506 shooting.) Jerry West shot .445 (and the year before, in 60-61, he shot .419.) Darrell Imhoff, who shot .540 in the 69-70 season, shot .386. I could go on, but CLEARLY there were SEVERAL factors which contributed to the relatively poor shooting of that period. And yet Chamberlain was scoring 50.4 ppg on .506 shooting in 61-62, and 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting in 62-63 (as well as 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting in 65-66...in a league that shot .433.)

Think about that. For those that disparage Wilt's scoring because of his high number of FGAs in the early 60's...how about this? In Hakeem's highest scoring season, he averaged 27.8 ppg on .517 shooting, and in a league that shot .466. (And BTW, his HIGH season of .538, came in his rookie season...and in the 80's, in a league that shot .491.) And how about David Robinson? In his highest scoring season, he averaged 29.2 ppg on .507 shooting...in a league that shot .466.

So, CLEARLY, a Wilt in the 80's would have shot a MUCH HIGHER FG% than he did in HIS era.

Even in the CURRENT season, Chamberlain's '62 numbers are impressive. This past season was at 81.1 % of Wilt's '62 season. Which means that Wilt's numbers translate to 40.9 ppg!

As for the five players who averaged over 30 ppg in '62. Aside from Chamberlain's 50.4 ppg, the NEXT highest FULL-TIME average was Bellamy's 31.6 ppg. Pettit was at 31.1 ppg. West and Oscar were at 30.8 ppg (which, incidently, were NOT their best seasons.)

Here again, throw out Wilt's 50.4 ppg, and those numbers are not overly sensational. Bellamy's 31.6 ppg ranks 27th all-time, and there were 24 other seasons SINCE, in which that mark was bettered.

And how about this? In the '05-06 season, Kobe averaged 35.4 ppg in a league that averaged 97.0 ppg. Iverson averaged 33.1 ppg that season, and James was at 31.4 ppg. And Arenas was at 29.3 ppg.

Baylor's 38.3 ppg. No WAY should that season count. It was in 48 games in an 80 game season. And using the ridiculous 1400 point barrier...well, as Pointguard pointed out, Chamberlain had 28 games, covering two separate 14 game streaks, that would have shattered that mark. Can you imagine the uproar by virtually EVERYONE today, if Wilt had been injured in game 28, and missing the rest of the season...and that 54 ppg mark being considered the record...and coming in ONE-THIRD of the games played that season?

Baylor never came close to that mark again, nor did he have to deal with fatigue and injuries that the full-timers had to endure. And, in fact, given Baylor's propensity to injuries, it would have been doubtful that he could have played a full season, anyway.

And one more time, if we take the three separate streaks that Chamberlain had in '62, of 14, 14, and 5 games, in which he averaged 53 ppg, 54 ppg, and an astonishing 70.1 ppg...or 33 games, Chamberlain was at 56 ppg. Then, add the first 20 games of the next season, when Wilt was averaging 53 ppg...and you have 53 games in which Chamberlain was at around 55 ppg...and in only FOUR separate streaks.

And, here again...had Wilt not ever stepped on the court, and Baylor's 38.3 ppg in 48 games would the highest ever. BUT, do you honestly believe that anyone would consider that the record over Barry's 35.6 ppg in '67, and then MJ's 37.1 ppg in '87?

One more time...in this so-called era of "high pace", why was it ONLY Chamberlain who was putting up 37, 38, 38, 45, and 50 ppg seasons? Why were there only five 60+ point games in the Chamberlain era...by someone other than Wilt, and yet, Chamberlain had 32 himself?

Why ONLY Wilt?