Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell 1965 EDF stats

[julizaver]

As Lebron James vs Kevin Durant duel is at the table, I post the game by game stats of Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell during the 1965 EDF 7 games series (with the famous last game - Havlicek stole the ball):

Game 1 - 04.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 48 min 33 points (13-22 FG and 7/12 FT) 31 rebs, 3 assists, 11 blocks
Russell 48 min 11 points (5-13 FG and 1/5 FT) 32 rebounds, 6 assists

Game 2 - 06.04.1965 - Phila win

Chamberlain 48 min 30 points (12-19 FG and 6/9 FT) 39 rebs, 8 assists, 8 blocks
Russell 48 min 12 points (5-12 FG and 2/3 FT) 16 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks

Game 3 - 08.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 48 min 24 points (7-21 FG and 10/15 FT) 37 rebs, 1 assist, 1 steal
Russell 48 min 19 points (9-17 FG and 1/4 FT) 26 rebounds, 8 assists, 3 steals

Game 4 - 09.04.1965 - Phila win

Chamberlain 53 min 34 points (11-24 FG and 12/20 FT) 34 rebs, 3 assists
Russell 52 min 18 points (8-19 FG and 2/7 FT) 25 rebounds, 8 assists

Game 5 - 11.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 30 points (13-23 FG and 4/8 FT) 21 rebs, 2 assists, 2 blocks
Russell 12 points (4-7 FG and 4/5 FT) 28 rebounds, 7 assists, 12 blocks, 3 steals

Game 6 - 13.04.1965 - Phila win

Chamberlain 48 min 30 points (13-22 FG and 4/8 FT) 26 rebs, 4 assists, 13 blocks
Russell 22 points (8-19 FG and 6/10 FT) 21 rebounds, 5 assists

Game 7 - 15.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 48 min 30 points (12-15 FG and 6/13 FT) 32 rebs, 2 assists, 1 block
Russell 15 points (7-16 FG and 1/2 FT) 29 rebounds, 8 assists, 6 blocks


The series averages:

W. Chamberlain - 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, 3.3 apg 55.48 FG % and 58.33 FT%
B. Russell - 15.6 ppg, 25.3 rpg, 6.7 apg 44.67 FG % and 47.22 FT %

[jlauber]

As Lebron James vs Kevin Durant duel is at the table, I post the game by game stats of Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell during the 1965 EDF 7 games series (with the famous last game - Havlicek stole the ball):

Game 1 - 04.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 48 min 33 points (13-22 FG and 7/12 FT) 31 rebs, 3 assists
Russell 48 min 11 points (5-13 FG and 1/5 FT) 32 rebounds, 6 assists

Game 2 - 06.04.1965 - Phila win

Chamberlain 48 min 30 points (12-19 FG and 6/9 FT) 39 rebs, 8 assists, 8 blocks
Russell 48 min 12 points (5-12 FG and 2/3 FT) 16 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks

Game 3 - 08.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 48 min 24 points (7-21 FG and 10/15 FT) 37 rebs, 1 assist, 1 steal
Russell 48 min 19 points (9-17 FG and 1/4 FT) 26 rebounds, 8 assists, 3 steals

Game 4 - 09.04.1965 - Phila win

Chamberlain 53 min 34 points (11-24 FG and 12/20 FT) 34 rebs, 3 assists
Russell 52 min 18 points (8-19 FG and 2/7 FT) 25 rebounds

Game 5 - 11.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 30 points (13-23 FG and 4/8 FT) 21 rebs, 2 assists, 2 blocks
Russell 12 points (4-7 FG and 4/5 FT) 28 rebounds, 7 assists, 12 blocks, 3 steals

Game 6 - 13.04.1965 - Phila win

Chamberlain 48 min 30 points (13-22 FG and 4/8 FT) 26 rebs, 4 assists, 6 blocks *at least
Russell 22 points (8-19 FG and 6/10 FT) 21 rebounds, 5 assists

Game 7 - 15.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 48 min 30 points (12-15 FG and 6/13 FT) 32 rebs, 2 assists, 1 block
Russell 15 points (7-16 FG and 1/2 FT) 29 rebounds, 8 assists, 6 blocks


The series averages:

W. Chamberlain - 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, 3.3 apg 55.48 FG % and 58.33 FT%
B. Russell - 15.6 ppg, 25.3 rpg, 6.5* apg 44.67 FG % and 47.22 FT %

* no data available for Game 4, so averages for 6 games

Great stuff, as always! Bookmarked.

[Punpun]

Holy ****, a new dupe.

[jlauber]

Aside from game two, Russell played well. His assists and block totals were exceptional.

Wilt with a 30-31 .555 series is amazing.

BOTH were brilliant in game seven.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Russell held Wilt 9 points under his regular season average. :applause:

[jlauber]

Russell held Wilt 9 points under his regular season average. :applause:

No he didn't you idiot.

Chamberlain averaged 34.7 ppg, 22.9 rpg, and shot .510 that season.

30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and .555 shooting is nowhere close to "holding" Wilt down at all.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

No he didn't you idiot.

Chamberlain averaged 34.7 ppg, 22.9 rpg, and shot .510 that season.

30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and .555 shooting is nowhere close to "holding" Wilt down at all.

Wilt as a SFW (before he was traded back to PHI) averaged 39ppg. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SFW/1965.html

[Psileas]

This was Wilt's worst shot blocking series among all the series that I have the blocking figures for at least have the games. Interestingly enough though, it's among his best rebounding ones. Probably not by chance.
His rebounding rate in this whole series was around 25.

[jlauber]

Wilt as a SFW averaged 39ppg. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SFW/1965.html


And, as a SIXER that season (he was traded at mid-season)...which BTW, he was when the two met in that playoff series...

30.1 ppg, 22.3 rpg, and .528.

Now look again at at that series...

30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, .555

[Psileas]

Wilt as a SFW (before he was traded back to PHI) averaged 39ppg. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SFW/1965.html

Thank you for showing that Russell actually held Wilt to 0 points below his averages (not to mention rebounds, FG%, all significantly up), since 30.1 was his average as a Sixer, which is what matters.

[jlauber]

This was Wilt's worst shot blocking series among all the series that I have the blocking figures for at least have the games. Interestingly enough though, it's among his best rebounding ones. Probably not by chance.
His rebounding rate in this whole series was around 25.

I believe Chamberlain's rebounding rate in the '67 ECF's, and again, against Russell, was around 27. He had three games of 27%, 28%, and 30% in that series (32 rebounds out of 120; 36 out of 128; and 41 out of 134.)

CLEARLY, Chamberlain was, BY FAR, the game's greatest post-season rebounder.

[28renyoy]

We really gonna act like Julizaver isn't Jlauber aka Phila13 aka Cavaliers FTW

:biggums:

[Horatio33]

I believe Chamberlain's rebounding rate in the '67 ECF's, and again, against Russell, was around 27. He had three games of 27%, 28%, and 30% in that series (32 rebounds out of 120; 36 out of 128; and 41 out of 134.)

CLEARLY, Chamberlain was, BY FAR, the game's greatest post-season rebounder.

Also the greatest postseason choker.

[Punpun]

We really gonna act like Julizaver isn't Jlauber aka Phila13 aka Cavaliers FTW

:biggums:

Look at my first post.

[jlauber]

Also the greatest postseason choker.

Which this series clearly showed.

He took his 40-40 Sixers up against Russell's 62-18 Celtics, and got them to a game seven, 110-109 loss. In that seventh game, Wilt scored Philly's last six points, including 2-2 from line, and a dunk on Russell with five secs left to bring his team back from a 110-101 deficit. Then, the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbounds pass, and Philly had a chance to win the game. But, as Julizaver pointed out..."Havlicek stole the ball."

And, as you can see, in that game seven, Wilt "the choker" put up a 30 point, 32 rebound, 12-15 FG% performance.

And, in the entire seven game series, Wilt "the choker" averaged 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and shot .555 from the floor.

[julizaver]

This was Wilt's worst shot blocking series among all the series that I have the blocking figures for at least have the games. Interestingly enough though, it's among his best rebounding ones. Probably not by chance.
His rebounding rate in this whole series was around 25.


It seems like that. BUT according to the old articles Wilt played strong defense. For example in game 6 Wilt played the last 12 minutes with 5 fouls and although do not score a field goal blocked at least 6 shots in that period only. The problem is that we do not have the numbers. And it seems that media at the time use it mostly when Celtics won and in Russell's favour. Not to diminish Russell's efforts, who was really great shot-blocker, just an impression from reading.
On the other side I have read about the tactics which Celtics team apply in order to avoid/prevent Wilt ("profilic shot-blocker" on their words).

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Thank you for showing that Russell actually held Wilt below his averages


Russell held Wilt 9 points under his regular season average.

Wasn't the last time Russ did it either. In the '66 EDF, he held Wilt 6ppg below his regular season average.

Speaking of Russell, as a player/coach, he was 2-0 on the road vs Wilt in game 7's. Hell, in game 6 of the 1969 NBA Finals, Wilt had an opportunity to retire the 35 yr old Russell, but scores a grand total of 2pts. YES...2PTS!!! :oldlol:

Nothing new here though. Russell dominated Wilt when it mattered most.

[Asukal]

Gotta admire Russell, Wilt was Wilt but Russell is the man. Despite being 4 inches shorter, he played like a boss. :bowdown:

[julizaver]

Wasn't the last time Russ did it either. In the '66 EDF, he held Wilt 6ppg below his regular season average.



And allow Wilt 6 reb per game more than his season average - to be objective ... :)

[Psileas]

Russell held Wilt 9 points under his regular season average.

You can maintain that 30.1-30.1=9 or (at worst) 34.7-30.1=9 all you want, it won't make it true. You can maintain that what Wilt produced as a Warrior counts more than what Wilt produced as a Sixer (or, at worst, overall), although it was Wilt the Sixer the one that faced Russell, it won't make it more logical.
Obvious trolling is obvious.

[Psileas]

And allow Wilt 6 reb per game more than his season average - to be objective ... :)

"Objective" doesn't exist as a word for anti-Wilt sheep. At least, extreme Wilt fans use some (or even lots of) facts beyond just his career statlines or the 50/25 figure (actually, 50/26 is more correct), which is the equivalent of most of the anti-Wilt "he fell by 8 ppg in the postseason"/"Russell dominated Wilt" borefests.

[jlauber]

Wasn't the last time Russ did it either. In the '66 EDF, he held Wilt 6ppg below his regular season average.

Speaking of Russell, as a player/coach, he was 2-0 on the road vs Wilt in game 7's. Hell, in game 6 of the 1969 NBA Finals, Wilt had an opportunity to retire the 35 yr old Russell, but scores a grand total of 2pts. YES...2PTS!!! :oldlol:

Nothing new here though. Russell dominated Wilt when it mattered most.

Not sure where you get your info from, but as always, it is wrong.

In that game six, which was arguably Wilt's worst playoff game, he scored EIGHT points, with 18 rebounds. Amazingly, Wilt only scored 4 points in game two of that Finals...in a WIN. Of course, lost in that series was the FACT that Wilt's COACH shackled Chamberlain in that post-season (and left him on the bench in the last five minutes of game seven.)

As for game SEVEN of the '69 Finals...Wilt outscored Russell, 18-6; outrebounded Russell, 27-21; and outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7. All while playing five minutes less. Oh, and BTW, Russell did absolutely nothing in that 4th period, and Wilt had as many rebounds, on two straight possessions with an injury, two, as Russell had the entire period (and Wilt, in five minutes less, out rebounded Russell in that quarter, 7-2.)

And how about game five? Wilt outscored Russell, 13-7, while outrebounding him, 31-13.

And I have covered that series many times before. To blame Wilt is laughable. The Lakers were ONE PLAY away from winning that series, 4-1. They were leading the series, 2-1, and had the lead late in game four, 88-87, AND they had the ball, with 15 secs left. For some unknown reason, Van Breda Kolf had Johnny Egan with the ball (and not Jerry West), who was stripped of the ball, which led to a game-winning shot by Sam Jones, who hit the shot while falling down.

And how about BAYLOR? In games three thru five, Baylor scored a TOTAL of 24 points. In game three he shot 4-14 (and he and West combined for 1-14 shooting in the last period...in a six point loss.) In that game four 89-88 loss, Baylor not only shot 2-14 from the field, he shot 1-6 from the LINE. And, in the game seven, two point loss, Baylor shot 8-22 from the floor.

Not surprisingly, Van Breda Kolf was immediately fired following that game seven loss. His incompetent coaching not only cost LA their first ever title in Los Angeles (which Wilt would deliver three years later in '72), but his coaching career, as well.

In the 66 ECF's, Russell held Wilt from his 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, .540 seasonal totals, down to 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and .509. However, in their NINE regular season meetings, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg and 30.7 rpg. I don't have Chamberlain's FG% in those nine games, but in any case, Russell really did NOT hold Chamberlain any lower than what he did during the regular season.

Which was often the case. For instance, Russell gets credit for holding Wilt to "only" 33.6 ppg in the '62 ECF's, in Chamberlain's 50.4 ppg season. HOWEVER, in their ten H2H games in the regular season, Russell AND his TEAMMATES, "held" Wilt to 39.7 ppg on .471 shooting. In the ECF's Wilt could "only" manage 33.6 ppg on .468 shooting. BTW, in that post-season, Wilt's TEAMMATES collectively shot .354. Now, how in the hell did Wilt get that cast of clowns thru the first round of the playoffs, and to a game seven, two-point loss, against a 60-20 Celtic team that had SEVEN HOFers?

In the '64 Finals, Wilt was outgunned by a Celtic team that had an EIGHT to TWO edge in HOFers (and Wilt's HOF teammate was rookie Nate Thurmond, who played part-time, out of position, and who shot .395.) True, Russell "held" Wilt down from his season average of 36.9 ppg to 29.2 ppg in that Finals, BUT, in their seven regular H2H's, Chamberlain averaged 28.7 ppg against Russell's Celtics.

In the '67 ECF's, Russell "held" Wilt to a 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, .556 series. Wilt's seasonal numbers were 24.1 ppg, 24.2 rpg, 7.8 apg, and .683. However, against Russell in their nine regular season H2H's, Wilt averaged 20.7 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and shot .549. So, if anything Wilt played even better against Russell in that post-season. BTW, Russell averaged 10.2 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, and shot .358 in that series (down from 13.3 ppg and .454 shooting in his regular season.)

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Bottom line, Chamberlain apostles: Russell and Wilt played a total of 8 series; in every single one, Russell's ppg went UP from the regular season. In every single one, Wilt's went DOWN from the regular season.

Russell has NEVER averaged 20 ppg in any season - and yet, averaged 20.7 ppg vs Wilt in 60 series games. Russell also averaged 22.0 ppg vs Wilt in the H2H 62' series - 31 pts in game 3; 31 pts in game 4; 29 pts in game 5 (and remember, Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg that season...22 pts in game 7 which was LOWER than teammate TOM MESCHERY. :oldlol:)

[jlauber]

Gotta admire Russell, Wilt was Wilt but Russell is the man. Despite being 4 inches shorter, he played like a boss. :bowdown:

Yep...badly outplayed Wilt by being outscored 30.1 to 15.6 ppg, outrebounded, 31.4 rpg to 25.3 rpg; and being outshot from the field, .555 to .447 (and even being outshot from the line, .583 to .472.)

Reminds me of Joe Frazier using his face to wear out George Foreman's hand in their two round fight in '73.

[jlauber]

Bottom line, Chamberlain apostles: Russell and Wilt played a total of 8 series; in every single one, Russell's ppg went UP from the regular season. In every single one, Wilt's went DOWN from the regular season.

Russell has NEVER averaged 20 ppg in any season - and yet, averaged 20.7 ppg vs Wilt in 60 series games. Russell also averaged 22.0 ppg vs Wilt in the H2H 62' series - 31 pts in game 3; 31 pts in game 4; 29 pts in game 5 (and remember, Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg that season...22 pts in game 7 which was LOWER than teammate TOM MESCHERY. :oldlol:)

Again...a lie.

In the '64 regular season, Russell averaged 15.0 ppg on .433 shooting. Against Wilt in the Finals... 11.2 ppg. I don't have Russell's FG% in that Finals, but he shot .356 in his 10 post-season games, and five of them were against Wilt.



In his '67 regular season, Russell averaged 13.3 ppg on .454 shooting. In the '67 ECF's, and against Wilt... 10.2 ppg on .358 shooting.

[Horatio33]

Bottom line, Chamberlain apostles: Russell and Wilt played a total of 8 series; in every single one, Russell's ppg went UP from the regular season. In every single one, Wilt's went DOWN from the regular season.

Russell has NEVER averaged 20 ppg in any season - and yet, averaged 20.7 ppg vs Wilt in 60 series games. Russell also averaged 22.0 ppg vs Wilt in the H2H 62' series - 31 pts in game 3; 31 pts in game 4; 29 pts in game 5 (and remember, Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg that season...22 pts in game 7 which was LOWER than teammate TOM MESCHERY. :oldlol:)

THIS is owning!

[jlauber]

Incidently, for those that honestly believe that Russell "dominated" Wilt in the post-season, answer me this...

In Wilt's 65-66 season, his team was down 3-1 against the Celtics in the ECF's. In the clinching game five loss, all Chamberlain could do was put up a 46 point, 34 rebound, 19-34 shooting game.

Ok, in the very next season, it was RUSSELL who was faced with the identical situation. His team was down 3-1 (and had narrowly avoided a SWEEP in game four.) In that clinching game five LOSS, Russell went out like a lamb to slaughter. He scored a TOTAL of FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and 7 assists. How about Wilt in that game? 29 points (22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and 7 blocks.

How come Russell couldn't put up a HUGE game when it was obvious that his teammates were finally being negated by Wilt's?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Again...a lie.

In the '64 regular season, Russell averaged 15.0 ppg on .433 shooting. Against Wilt in the Finals... 11.2 ppg. I don't have Russell's FG% in that Finals, but he shot .356 in his 10 post-season games, and five of them were against Wilt.



In his '67 regular season, Russell averaged 13.3 ppg on .454 shooting. In the '67 ECF's, and against Wilt... 10.2 ppg on .358 shooting.

Oscar Robertson always said "the books dont lie." Well, they don't tell the whole story either. In Wilt's 7 scoring title years, he had ZERO rings and he cracked 55%+ ZERO times (he also led the regular season in PPG seven times; only ONCE in the playoffs though). He also played complete games, which is a joke considering he didn't come out in blowout wins and losses to statpad. Not to mention the pace was far higher in the 60's, increasing stats. :oldlol:

[jlauber]

Bottom line, Chamberlain apostles: Russell and Wilt played a total of 8 series; in every single one, Russell's ppg went UP from the regular season. In every single one, Wilt's went DOWN from the regular season.

Russell has NEVER averaged 20 ppg in any season - and yet, averaged 20.7 ppg vs Wilt in 60 series games. Russell also averaged 22.0 ppg vs Wilt in the H2H 62' series - 31 pts in game 3; 31 pts in game 4; 29 pts in game 5 (and remember, Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg that season...22 pts in game 7 which was LOWER than teammate TOM MESCHERY. :oldlol:)

Bottom line...in their EIGHT post-season series, Chamberlain outscored and outrebounded Russell in EVERY one of them. Some by HUGE margins (like outscoring him 29.2 to 11.2 in the '64 Finals, or outrebounding Russell by a 32.0 to 23.4 rpg margin in the '67 ECF's.) And, I am convinced that Chamberlain outshot Russell in EVERY series, as well.

In series in which we do have FG%'s, Chamberlain outshot Russell in the '62 ECF's by a .468 to .420 margin.

We now know that he outshot Russell in the '65 ECF's by a .555 to .447 margin.

In the '67 ECF's, Wilt outshot Russell by a staggering .556 to .358 margin.

I don't have Russell's FG% in the '64 Finals, while Chamberlain shot .517 against him. BUT, in Russell's 10 playoff games, he shot .356...and HALF of those games were against Wilt.

[jlauber]

Oscar Robertson always said "the books dont lie." Well, they don't tell the whole story either. In Wilt's 7 scoring title years, he had ZERO rings and he cracked 55%+ ZERO times (he also led the regular season in PPG seven times; only ONCE in the playoffs though). He also played complete games, which is a joke considering he didn't come out in blowout wins and losses to statpad. Not to mention the pace was far higher in the 60's, increasing stats. :oldlol:

In those seven seasons, Chamberlain averaged 40 ppg and .511 shooting. What is deceptive, though, is that his FG%'s were close to a 100 points above the league average. For instance, in his 61-62 season, he shot .506, in a league that shot .426. In his 65-66 season, he averaged 33.5 ppg on .540 shooting, in a league that shot .433.

And, in those seven seasons, covering six post-seasons, and in 52 games, Chamberlain averaged 32.8 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and shot .505 in the post-season, in league's that shot .426 on average. BTW, in those 52 games, Chamberlain faced Russell and the Celtics in 30 of them.

Give me a list of players who had a 33-26 .505 GAME in the post-season.

BTW, please post Russell's post-season FG%?

[jlauber]

THIS is owning!

THIS is laughble.

Incidently how about this...


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

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


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


While Simmons may not believe that Chamberlain STATISTICALLY dominated Russell, I think the OVERWHELMING evidence suggests otherwise.


And, in their 142 H2H games, Wilt held a 92-42-8 margin in rebounding, and a 132-10 edge in scoring.

Now...THAT is OWNING!

[julizaver]

Again...a lie.

In the '64 regular season, Russell averaged 15.0 ppg on .433 shooting. Against Wilt in the Finals... 11.2 ppg. I don't have Russell's FG% in that Finals, but he shot .356 in his 10 post-season games, and five of them were against Wilt.




For that 64 finals Russell averaged 11.2 ppg on 0.386 shooting.
Wilt shooting was 0.517 (62 from 120).

[Owl]

But Russell's stats were up. And Chamberlain's were down. Never mind that Chamberlain's were so much better in the regular season that even after these changes Wilt's were still much better.

Because after all, the title is awarded to the team whose stats rise the most in the postseason. That's why everyone wants the 8 seed. :D

[jlauber]

For that 64 finals Russell averaged 11.2 ppg on 0.386 shooting.
Wilt shooting was 0.517 (62 from 120).

Damn...where have you been man?

[jlauber]

But Russell's stats were up. And Chamberlain's were down. Never mind that Chamberlain's were so much better in the regular season that even after these changes Wilt's were still much better.

Because after all, the title is awarded to the team whose stats rise the most in the postseason. That's why everyone wants the 8 seed. :D

Exactly.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter how good your teammates are, or how well they play, either.

For instance, Wilt was just as much to blame for his Warriors losing a game seven, by two points, to the 60-20 Celtics and their SEVEN HOFers (in a post-season in which Wilt's teammates shot .354)...as MJ was in his sweeping loss in the '86 playoff series against the 67-15 Celtics and their FIVE HOFers.

[jlauber]

But Russell's stats were up. And Chamberlain's were down. Never mind that Chamberlain's were so much better in the regular season that even after these changes Wilt's were still much better.

Because after all, the title is awarded to the team whose stats rise the most in the postseason. That's why everyone wants the 8 seed. :D

And using their logic, if player A averages 40 ppg in the regular season, and player B averages 2 ppg in the regular season...then, in the post-season, if player A "only" averages 38 ppg, and player B "jumps up" to 4 ppg...well, player B is clearly the better player. He ELEVATED his play, while player A DECLINED.

[jlauber]

Russell, generally playing with vastly superior rosters, (and those rosters generally played BETTER in the post-season, unlike Wilt's, which almost always played even WORSE in the playoffs) held a 7-1 H2H edge in TEAM playoff series wins over Chamberlain's TEAMs. BUT, FOUR of them came down to game seven's, in which Boston won by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. Wilt was NINE points away from holding a 5-3 margin against Russell. Where would Wilt rank all-time, with SIX rings, instead of two?

[jlauber]

For that 64 finals Russell averaged 11.2 ppg on 0.386 shooting.
Wilt shooting was 0.517 (62 from 120).

I have all four of Wilt's FG-FGAs in his four game H2H game seven's against Russell , (totals were 30-47 or .638), but I only have three of Russell's (7-14, 7-16, and 2-7.) Do you have Russell's FG-FGA in game seven of the '68 ECF's?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

...unlike Wilt

True. There has never been a player like Wilt. A guy who could score 100 points in a single game, yet get outscored in all four game 7's vs the Celtics by Sam Jones. :oldlol: Check these numbers out: Lebron averaged 17.8 ppg in the 2011 finals; that was Wilt's average in the 1967 finals to win his 1st title. :roll: And again, what about game 6 of the '69 finals?

With a chance to win it all and retire Russell, Wilt had 8 pts...to Russ' 18 PTS AT AGE 35 IN HIS 2ND TO LAST CAREER GAME. Well, we all know what happened next. Another Game 7 fright night for Wilt.

Even West's 42/13/12 wasn't enough to propel the EPIC choke job from Wilt.

[jlauber]

True. There has never been a player like Wilt. A guy who could score 100 points in a single game, yet get outscored in all four game 7's vs the Celtics by Sam Jones. :oldlol: Check these numbers out: Lebron averaged 17.8 ppg in the 2011 finals; that was Wilt's average in the 1967 finals to win his 1st title. :roll: And again, what about game 6 of the '69 finals?

With a chance to win it all and retire Russell, Wilt had 8 pts...to Russ' 18 PTS AT AGE 35 IN HIS 2ND TO LAST CAREER GAME. Well, we all know what happened next. Another Game 7 fright night for Wilt.

Even West's 42/13/12 wasn't enough to propel the EPIC choke job from Wilt.

I probably shouldn't waste my time responding to this pure nonsense, but since I waiting to watch the US Open, I will.

In the '67 Finals, Chamberlain faced off against Thurmond. Wilt outscored Thurmond in five of those six games, and outrebounded him in five of six games. In the clinching game six win, all Wilt did was score 24 points, on 8-13 shooting, with 23 rebounds, while holding Thurmond to 12 points, on 4-13 shooting, with 22 rebounds.

Furthemore, Chamberlain outshot Thurmond in that series by a mind-boggling .560 to .343 margin. This, after outscoring Russell in the '67 ECF's by a 21.6 ppg to 10.2 ppg margin, and outshooting Russell by a .556 to .358 margin. (And in the clinching game five win, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 29-4; outshot Russell, 10-16 to 2-5; outassisted Russell, 13-7; and outrebounded Russell, 36-21.)

Interesting too that Wilt faced Thurmond in three playoff series, and badly outrebounded him in all three. AND, he outshot Nate by margins of .500 to .392; .550 to .398; and that .560 to .343 margin.

Incidently, Kareem also faced Thurmond in three post-season series...and shot .486, .428, and .405 against him (and in the '72 playoffs, Thurmond outscored him 25.2 ppg to 22.8 ppg, while outshooting him .437 to .405.)

In any case, in the Sixers '67 post-season, while Greer led the team in scoring at 27 ppg, he only shot .429. Chamberlain averaged 21.7 ppg on .579 shooting. And Wilt also had the Sixer's post-season HIGH game, of 41 points (on 19-30 shooting) against the Royals. BTW, in that Royals, series, all Chamberlain did was average 28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, and shot .612.

Too bad Wilt seldom got to feast on the "average" centers of his era in the post-season. In his 160 post-season games, he faced a starting HOF center in 105 of them, and a multiple all-star in another 26. Think about that, in Chamberlain's 160 post-season games, he either faced a very good, or a great center in 131 of them.

As for Sam Jones...and once again, Chamberlain OUTSCORED Jones in their '60, '62, '64, '65, '66, and '67 H2H series.

And Chamberlain's EPIC "choke job" in that game seven of the '69 Finals? He outscored Russell, 18-6; he outrebounded Russell, 27-21; and he outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7. BTW, while Chamberlain was shooting .875 from the field in that game seven, his teammates were collectively shooting .360. And Van Breda Kolf's "favorite" (over Wilt anyway), Baylor, shot 8-22 from the field in that game seven. Which was still better than his game three of 4-14 and his game four of 2-14.

And I have covered West already, too. True, he was maginificent in that game seven. And, he was great in the first six games of the '70 Finals, too. However, he was murdered by Frazier in the seventh game of the '70 Finals.

Then, West missed the ENTIRE '71 playoffs (as did Baylor.)

And how about West in the '72 playoffs? He shot .376 in his 15 playoff games, and only .325 in his five Finals' games. Meanwhile, Chamberlain outplayed Kareem in the WCF's, and then went on to win the FMVP in the Finals. That would be West's only ring...and it was CLEARLY because of WILT.

And, in West's last post-season with Chamberlain, he not only shot .443 in the playoffs, but in the clinching game five loss in the Finals, he shot 5-17 (while Wilt, in his LAST game, scored 23 points, on 9-16 shooting, with 21 rebounds.)

[Carbine]

It's interesting to see those stats.

If that series happened today, where the two best players were going at it (oh wait, it is) and one of them got out-scored by twice as many points per game on much better percentages and got out-rebounded the other guy by a decent amount.... and ended up winning, people would be putting asterisks by that title and not counting it.

Could you imagine if LeBron put up 20 points, 7 rebounds, 6 assists on 40 percent FG percentage and 65 FT percentage to Durants 40 points, 10 rebounds, 3 assists on 50 percent from the floor and 85 percent from the FT line? What people would say in the following weeks and off-season? LeBron's title would get downgraded like a mofo.

[upside24]

Yep...badly outplayed Wilt by being outscored 30.1 to 15.6 ppg, outrebounded, 31.4 rpg to 25.3 rpg; and being outshot from the field, .555 to .447 (and even being outshot from the line, .583 to .472.)

Reminds me of Joe Frazier using his face to wear out George Foreman's hand in their two round fight in '73.
:roll:

[jlauber]

It's interesting to see those stats.

If that series happened today, where the two best players were going at it (oh wait, it is) and one of them got out-scored by twice as many points per game on much better percentages and got out-rebounded the other guy by a decent amount.... and ended up winning, people would be putting asterisks by that title and not counting it.

Could you imagine if LeBron put up 20 points, 7 rebounds, 6 assists on 40 percent FG percentage and 65 FT percentage to Durants 40 points, 10 rebounds, 3 assists on 50 percent from the floor and 85 percent from the FT line? What people would say in the following weeks and off-season? LeBron's title would get downgraded like a mofo.

To be fair, Russell played well in that series, as he did in almost all of their H2H playoff series. But the reality was, Wilt HAD to do MORE for his TEAM's to win. An even statistical battle was usually a one-sided romp for Boston.

A great example of that was in game two of the '62 ECF's. Chamberlain outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded Russell, 37-20...and his team won the game by seven points.

Wilt was not only saddled with putrid rosters in most of those H2H's, his teammates then usually played even worse.

[jlauber]

BTW,...a quick shoutout to Julizaver. One of the premier "researchers" on this site. His Kareem-Wilt H2H's have been widely used on the internet. And he was the first, that I know of, to publish those 28 H2H statlines.

[Deuce Bigalow]

jlauber got owned again

[julizaver]

I have all four of Wilt's FG-FGAs in his four game H2H game seven's against Russell , (totals were 30-47 or .638), but I only have three of Russell's (7-14, 7-16, and 2-7.) Do you have Russell's FG-FGA in game seven of the '68 ECF's?

Yes, it is 4-6 FG/FGA and 4/10 FT/FTA to go with 26 rebounds and 5 asists.
I have all the data for that series. It was not the best series Wilt had in comparision with 64,65,66 and 67. He had some injuries to deal with it as others teamates. As I remember Wilt shot something like 0.485 against 0.445 for Russell. But I can write more when at home. :)

[Asukal]

Yep...badly outplayed Wilt by being outscored 30.1 to 15.6 ppg, outrebounded, 31.4 rpg to 25.3 rpg; and being outshot from the field, .555 to .447 (and even being outshot from the line, .583 to .472.)

Reminds me of Joe Frazier using his face to wear out George Foreman's hand in their two round fight in '73.

You don't seem to understand how big of an advantage it is being taller by 4 inches. Russell still played like a boss! :bowdown:

[jlauber]

Yes, it is 4-6 FG/FGA and 4/10 FT/FTA to go with 26 rebounds and 5 asists.
I have all the data for that series. It was not the best series Wilt had in comparision with 64,65,66 and 67. He had some injuries to deal with it as others teamates. As I remember Wilt shot something like 0.485 against 0.445 for Russell. But I can write more when at home. :)

Yeah, Chamberlain was nursing MULTIPLE injuries in the '68 ECF's...including a torn quad muscle. Game recaps had Wilt NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game thru game seven. And yet, Wilt played EVERY minute in that seven game series. Russell made the comment that, "a lessor man would not have played", which pretty much meant that virtually no one else would have played under the same circumstances.

Thanks for the info, too.

That means in their four game seven's, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 21.3 ppg to 13.2 ppg; outrebounded Russell, per game, 28.5 rpg to 24.5 rpg; and outshot Russell from the field, overall, .638 to .465.

[jlauber]

You don't seem to understand how big of an advantage it is being taller by 4 inches. Russell still played like a boss! :bowdown:

I agree. That was ONE of the reasons that Chamberlain dominated his peers more than any other player in NBA history. He was nearly 7-2. He weighed anywhere from 275-300+ lbs. He had a 7-8 wingspan. He was a high-jump champ with the ability to touch the top of the backboard. There are many accounts which credit him with a 500+ lb bench (and at least one SI article in 1964 with over 400 lbs.) In the mid-60's, at age 27, and at 290 lbs, he was clocked at a 4.6 40 by Hank Stram (and Wilt himself claims that he wan a 4.4 in college.) In addition to all of that, he had up to 15 ft range, with a wide variety of post moves and shots.

Incidently, Russell seldom played Wilt one-on-one. Even his TEAMMATES have attested to the fact that Russell had PLENTY of help in guarding Chamberlain. YET, Wilt not only had to defend Russell, he was often helping out against the other Celtics.

BTW, Shaq probably seldom faced another center within 50 lbs of him, and many were 100+ lb. lighter. ONE of the reasons why he was so dominant.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I agree. That was ONE of the reasons that Chamberlain dominated his peers more than any other player in NBA history. He was nearly 7-2. He weighed anywhere from 275-300+ lbs. He had a 7-8 wingspan. He was a high-jump champ with the ability to touch the top of the backboard. There are many accounts which credit him with a 500+ lb bench (and at least one SI article in 1964 with over 400 lbs.) In the mid-60's, at age 27, and at 290 lbs, he was clocked at a 4.6 40 by Hank Stram (and Wilt himself claims that he wan a 4.4 in college.) In addition to all of that, he had up to 15 ft range, with a wide variety of post moves and shots.

Incidently, Russell seldom played Wilt one-on-one. Even his TEAMMATES have attested to the fact that Russell had PLENTY of help in guarding Chamberlain. YET, Wilt not only had to defend Russell, he was often helping out against the other Celtics.

BTW, Shaq probably seldom faced another center within 50 lbs of him, and many were 100+ lb. lighter. ONE of the reasons why he was so dominant.
:oldlol:

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/504/260/WiltChamberlain19687_display_image.jpg

That guy could bench 500 lbs :oldlol:

[jlauber]

:oldlol:

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/504/260/WiltChamberlain19687_display_image.jpg

That guy could bench 500 lbs :oldlol:


Who knows. Find me a legitimate article which DISPUTES it.

http://i48.tinypic.com/mk9pts.jpg

http://cdn3.iofferphoto.com/img/item/175/226/225/1rY1uWlg47pBJHn.jpg

[jlauber]

Or this...

http://nickgiovannetti.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/andreconanwilt.jpg

[jlauber]

And check out Wilt in his 50's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173M7ApCNKw

[jlauber]

AND, here was Wilt in his 60's, and shortly before he died...

http://www.oread.ku.edu/Oread98/OreadJan23/page4/wilt.GIF

[Pointguard]

BTW,...a quick shoutout to Julizaver. One of the premier "researchers" on this site. His Kareem-Wilt H2H's have been widely used on the internet. And he was the first, that I know of, to publish those 28 H2H statlines.
Yeah, he do work.
:cheers:

[jlauber]

Hopefully these posts will finally put to rest the idiots, like Bill Simmons, who have claimed that Russell "dominated" or "owned" Wilt.

Veteran sportswriter George Kiseda, who witnessed nearly all of the Russell-Wilt H2H's said it best: "One-third of the time, Wilt outplayed Russell. One-third of the time, Russell outplayed Wilt. And one-third of the time, Wilt dominated Russell."

And that was probably being kind to Russell...

[nycelt84]

Hopefully these posts will finally put to rest the idiots, like Bill Simmons, who have claimed that Russell "dominated" or "owned" Wilt.

Veteran sportswriter George Kiseda, who witnessed nearly all of the Russell-Wilt H2H's said it best: "One-third of the time, Wilt outplayed Russell. One-third of the time, Russell outplayed Wilt. And one-third of the time, Wilt dominated Russell."

And that was probably being kind to Russell...

Because a Philly sportswriter wrote it doesn't make it true. Jack Barry and Bob Ryan from Boston could have wrote it the other way around and that doesn't necessarily make it gospel.

[jlauber]

Yes, it is 4-6 FG/FGA and 4/10 FT/FTA to go with 26 rebounds and 5 asists.
I have all the data for that series. It was not the best series Wilt had in comparision with 64,65,66 and 67. He had some injuries to deal with it as others teamates. As I remember Wilt shot something like 0.485 against 0.445 for Russell. But I can write more when at home. :)

Julizaver, just curious, did you ever find the full stats from the '68 ECF's? I know Chamberlain had awful shooting numbers in game six (probably the worst of his post-season career), when he went 6-21 from the field, and 8-23 from the line. And Chamberlain was 4-9 from the field and 6-15 from the line in game seven.

IMHO, this was Russell's finest series against Chamberlain. In fact, he probably had his two best series against Wilt in his (Russell's) last two seasons.

[ThaRegul8r]

Hopefully these posts will finally put to rest the idiots, like Bill Simmons, who have claimed that Russell "dominated" or "owned" Wilt.

Veteran sportswriter George Kiseda, who witnessed nearly all of the Russell-Wilt H2H's said it best: "One-third of the time, Wilt outplayed Russell. One-third of the time, Russell outplayed Wilt. And one-third of the time, Wilt dominated Russell."

And that was probably being kind to Russell...

Because a Philly sportswriter wrote it doesn't make it true. Jack Barry and Bob Ryan from Boston could have wrote it the other way around and that doesn't necessarily make it gospel.

Yeah, a Philadelphia sportswriter isn't exactly going to be an impartial source. What exactly do you think he's going to say? Vice versa with a Boston sportswriter. You would have to look outside both Philadelphia and Boston that way there's no vested interest.

[ThaRegul8r]

Julizaver, just curious, did you ever find the full stats from the '68 ECF's? I know Chamberlain had awful shooting numbers in game six (probably the worst of his post-season career), when he went 6-21 from the field, and 8-23 from the line. And Chamberlain was 4-9 from the field and 6-15 from the line in game seven.

I've had those stats for decades now.


IMHO, this was Russell's finest series against Chamberlain.

Which echoes what George Kiseda said after Game 7.

[jlauber]

I've had those stats for decades now.



Which is what even George Kiseda said after Game 7.

It always amazes me that Chamberlain gets ripped for supposedly LOSING that series, and yet, how many give Russell credit for WINNING it?

[ThaRegul8r]

It always amazes me that Chamberlain gets ripped for supposedly LOSING that series, and yet, how many give Russell credit for WINNING it?

Typical of internet message board posters.

[julizaver]

Julizaver, just curious, did you ever find the full stats from the '68 ECF's? I know Chamberlain had awful shooting numbers in game six (probably the worst of his post-season career), when he went 6-21 from the field, and 8-23 from the line. And Chamberlain was 4-9 from the field and 6-15 from the line in game seven.

IMHO, this was Russell's finest series against Chamberlain. In fact, he probably had his two best series against Wilt in his (Russell's) last two seasons.

Yes, I will post them in seperate thread.

In terms of numbers it is more correct to say that it was more Chamberlain worst series than Russell's best. Their last series in 1969 finals is both players worst in my opinion. I have the Wilt's FG % for that series, but only 4 of 7 games for Russell (and it was awful) as I was searching only Wilt's numbers before. The problem is that I could not access LA Times through google archive now. When have time I will try to collect the missing data other ways.

[jlauber]

Yes, I will post them in seperate thread.

In terms of numbers it is more correct to say that it was more Chamberlain worst series than Russell's best. Their last series in 1969 finals is both players worst in my opinion. I have the Wilt's FG % for that series, but only 4 of 7 games for Russell (and it was awful) as I was searching only Wilt's numbers before. The problem is that I could not access LA Times through google archive now. When have time I will try to collect the missing data other ways.


Good points. No doubt Chamberlain's '68-69 Finals was his worst series against Russell. However, Wilt was severely shackled by a boob for a coach. There is a great example in the 4th quarter, which is on YouTube, in which Russell picks up his 5th foul early in the that period. The Lakers then go into Wilt, who goes right around Russell for an easy lay-in. That was one of the last times Chamberlain even touched the ball. And once again, Russell absolutely did nothing in that period, either. In fact, Wilt has as many rebounds, on his injured leg, two, as Russell did in the entire quarter (and Chamberlain, in his seven minutes of that quarter, had seven rebounds to Russell's two in his 12 minutes.)

Look forward to your post...

[CavaliersFTW]

We really gonna act like Julizaver isn't Jlauber aka Phila13 aka Cavaliers FTW

:biggums:
It's true, I'm all of those people...

[CavaliersFTW]

Bottom line, Chamberlain apostles: Russell and Wilt played a total of 8 series; in every single one, Russell's ppg went UP from the regular season. In every single one, Wilt's went DOWN from the regular season.

Russell has NEVER averaged 20 ppg in any season - and yet, averaged 20.7 ppg vs Wilt in 60 series games. Russell also averaged 22.0 ppg vs Wilt in the H2H 62' series - 31 pts in game 3; 31 pts in game 4; 29 pts in game 5 (and remember, Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg that season...22 pts in game 7 which was LOWER than teammate TOM MESCHERY. :oldlol:)
:facepalm

Trolling. You love rewriting history the way you see fit don't you?.

[CavaliersFTW]

You don't seem to understand how big of an advantage it is being taller by 4 inches. Russell still played like a boss! :bowdown:

Barefoot/Barefoot Russell is only 3.43 inches shorter than Wilt. To be specific. :D And their standing reach is perhaps 2 inches apart (I have unsubstantiated source that stated Russell's flat-foot reach was 9-4")

[CavaliersFTW]

Wilt was just overrated. There is no doubt about it. I can go inside the numbers..but the footage itself clearly shows he was overrated. A guy like Shaq in his prime would destroy him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDzzxVE34k&t=1m21s

I'm sorry but in "footage itself" there's nothing overrated about him. How can you be such a supporter of Bill Russell yet resort to such easy dismissal of Wilt? You must be trolling because you sound exactly like the Jlauber of Bill Russell. Jlauber get's caught up doing exactly what your doing and it is ridiculous. Supporting ur dude at all costs but incidentally discrediting his competition along the way. By alluding that his competition wasn't even any good your also implying that Russell himself is overrated and must have had an easy ride to his titles - never facing any real adversity.

Either both of those stars are overrated or neither of them are. You can't have your cake and eat it too unless you acknowledge how dominant Wilt was. If Wilt was a choker it means the Wilt/Russell rivalry is a sham, thus Bill himself is a sham. According to Russell, you aren't the best unless you beat the best. And his teammates, and Wilt and Wilt's own teammates have never once alluded that Wilt is a choker, or prone to shrink in big moments. In fact if you'd actually listened to Russell himself speak before, he very eloquently describes in books/interviews/articles how good Wilt was. No newspaper I've ever come across covering a series supports the notion that Wilt shrank in games or choked either. Get your story straight otherwise your just building a case for Russell being the most overrated player of all time. It's exactly what I sometimes feel Jlauber has done with Wilt because Jlauber insists Wilt dominated everyone all time the time too even though it isn't true. Wilt didn't have it easy against inferior competitors, and neither did Russell. Otherwise why even discuss these guys?

[jlauber]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDzzxVE34k&t=1m21s

I'm sorry but in "footage itself" there's nothing overrated about him. How can you be such a supporter of Bill Russell yet resort to such easy dismissal of Wilt? You must be trolling because you sound exactly like the Jlauber of Bill Russell. Jlauber get's caught up doing exactly what your doing and it is ridiculous. Supporting ur dude at all costs but incidentally discrediting his competition along the way. By alluding that his competition wasn't even any good your also implying that Russell himself is overrated and must have had an easy ride to his titles - never facing any real adversity.

Either both of those stars are overrated or neither of them are. You can't have your cake and eat it too unless you acknowledge how dominant Wilt was. If Wilt was a choker it means the Wilt/Russell rivalry is a sham, thus Bill himself is a sham. According to Russell, you aren't the best unless you beat the best. And his teammates, and Wilt and Wilt's own teammates have never once alluded that Wilt is a choker, or prone to shrink in big moments. In fact if you'd actually listened to Russell himself speak before, he very eloquently describes in books/interviews/articles how good Wilt was. No newspaper I've ever come across covering a series supports the notion that Wilt shrank in games or choked either. Get your story straight otherwise your just building a case for Russell being the most overrated player of all time. It's exactly what I sometimes feel Jlauber has done with Wilt because Jlauber insists Wilt dominated everyone all time the time too even though it isn't true. Wilt didn't have it easy against inferior competitors, and neither did Russell. Otherwise why even discuss these guys?

I have been one of Russell's BIGGEST supporters on this forum. The game's greatest "winner", and the game's greatest defensive force. I personally have him somewhere in my top-4. How many other's here regard him that highly.

Your second comment is not debatable. True, there were the RARE games in which Wilt moight have been outplayed, but overall, Chamberlain DOMINATED his peers, especially a PRIME Wilt. A mid-60's Chamberlain just pounded Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, and yes, Russell. The evidence is OVERWHELMING.

Now, you can argue that Wilt's teammates almost always puked all over themselves in the post-season, while Russell's teammates generally elevated their games. I have maintained that Wilt POSSIBLY deserves at least some of the blame, and that Russell does deserve credit (for a variety of reasons.)

But, the Chamberlain side of that argument is questionable. With the exception of his '69 playoffs, Wilt's post-seasons generally mirrored his regular seasons. For instance, in his 65-66 season (in a year in which he was LIGHT YEARS ahead of Thurmond, Bellamy, and Russell), Wilt led the NBA in scoring at 33.5 ppg; led the NBA in rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; and led the NBA in FG%, .540 (a record at the time...and in a league that shot .433.) He also handed out 5.2 apg. And lost in those numbers was the fact that Wilt led his TEAM to the BEST RECORD in gthe league.

However, against Russell and Boston, in the regular season, he averaged 28.3 ppg, and 30.7 rpg (I don't have his FG%, though.) Ok, in their H2H series in the '66 ECF's, Chamberlain averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509. His assists dropped to 3.2 apg, but more on that in a moment. Included in that playoff series, was a 46 point, 34 rebound, 19-34 clinching game five loss performance. So, the REALITY was, Chamberlain played almost EXACTLY the same way against Russell and Boston in the post-season, as he did in the regular season (when, again, Philly had the best record in the league.)

Ok, so why did the 55-25 Sixers get run over, 4-1, by the 54-26 Celtics? Because Wilt's TEAMMATES collectively shot .352 in that series. Which also explains Wilt's decline in assists in that series. His teammates simply could not throw the ball into the ocean from the side of a small raft.

Yet, who got the brunt of the blame? You guessed it...Wilt "the choker."

But the REALITY was, in EVERY facet of the game (except Russell defensively), a PRIME Chamberlain was not only better than his peers, he was MILES ahead of them. And a mid-60's Chamberlain was very close to Russell in terms of defensive dominance, as well. He was a MUCH better SCORER, REBOUNDER, and PASSER, and he was FAR MORE EFFICIENT, too. And, if you want to rip Wilt's FT shooting, keep in mind that he was MAKING MORE FTs in a season, than his rival centers.

As for Wilt's competition...I have maintained that the early 70's was the greatest era for centers in NBA history. Lanier, Cowens, Unseld, McAdoo, Hayes, Bellamy, Reed, Thurmond, and Kareem. Even Gilmore, considering that he was playing in the ABA at the time. But even then, in the twilight of his career, Wilt was being voted first-team all-defense, and setting FG% marks that will never be approached. Oh, and he was just CRUSHING those guys in the rebounding department. An old, Wilt, on a surgically repaired knee, was easily outrebounding EVERY one of the centers I mentioned (except for Gilmore, of course.) And then, think about this: Cowens, Unseld, Kareem, and Hayes all won rebounding titles after Wilt retired. And yet, an old Wilt was a much better rebounder than all of them. And one only needs to study Wilt's last post-season as testament to that. A 36 year old Wilt, playing in 17 playoff games, averaged 22.5 rpg (in a post-season which averaged 50.6 rpg per team)...which was the LAST time a player ever averaged more than 17.3 rpg in a post-season.

And I have been questioned on my criticisms of Kareem and Bird. However, I have Kareem at #5, and Bird at #9 all-time. And I have praised a 38-39 year old Kareem who just buried Hakeem. No question that Kareem was among the most dominant players of all-time. But I find it amusing to read those posters here who label Wilt a "loser" and a "choker", when both Kareem and Bird had FAR more "flop jobs" in their post-seasons. Here again, Chamberlain played in 29 post-season series, and he was probably never outplayed in any of them. Not only that, but he was crushing most of his opposing centers in those series. AND, he and MJ are the two greatest "Big Game" players in NBA post-season history. You would be hard-pressed to find very many games in which Chamberlain played poorly (and even if his offensive numbers were subpar in those games, he was probably playing outstanding defense, and outrebounding his opposing center.)


Now, if you want to discuss what I just posted above, I would welcome it.

[CavaliersFTW]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082282/1/index.htm

New game where Wilt has blocked shot info and a triple double - It's the last playoff game in 1969 vs the Warriors. 11 points 10 blocked shots and 27 rebounds vs Nate Thurmond. Can anyone tell me the "average" of blocked shots based on his limited shot block data? There's got to be like 75 NBA games where we have shot block data at this point

[WillC]

There is game data for 142 of the games in which Chamberlain faced Russell.

We have blocked shot data for 18 of those games.

It can therefore be calculated that Chamberlain averaged 7.3bpg versus Russell.

Meanwhile, Russell also averaged 7.3bpg versus Chamberlain.

[CavaliersFTW]

There is game data for 148 of the games in which Chamberlain faced Russell.

We have blocked shot data for 18 of those games.

It can therefore be calculated that Chamberlain averaged 6.7bpg versus Russell.

Meanwhile, Russell averaged 5.8bpg versus Chamberlain.
awesome, thanks WillC. Has anyone tried to determine the average for his entire pro career yet?

[millwad]

Easy to block white and unathletic midgets..

[WillC]

It turns out I was calculating it wrong (some of the cells on Excel weren't formatted properly, which messed up the calculation).

Both players averaged 7.3bpg each other.

[WillC]

Statistical averages in the 142 head-to-head games between Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell...

Wilt Chamberlain: 28.5ppg, 28.2rpg, 3.9apg, 7.3bpg, 2.2fpg, .493 FG%, .492 FT% in 47.4mpg, 57 wins, 85 losses

Bill Russell: 14.4ppg, 23.6rpg, 5.0apg, 7.3bpg, 3.8fpg, .389 FG%, .566 FT% in 45.1mpg, 85 wins, 57 losses

[Deuce Bigalow]

Wilt's team lost by one point in Game 7, Wilt shot 6-13 from the freethrow line that game.

Nice choke, Wilt.

[eliteballer]

What are Wilts stats before and after they widened the lane?

[Gotterdammerung]

What are Wilts stats before and after they widened the lane?
They widened the lane from 12 to 16 feet in 1964-65 season.

In 1963-64, Wilt averaged 36.9 ppg, 22.3 rpg, 3.4 apg, on 52.4% FG and 53.1% FT, with 28.7 FGpg and 12.7 FTpg, in 46.1 minutes per game.

In 1964-65, however, in 38 games with Golden State Warriors, Wilt averaged:

38.9 ppg, 23.5 rpg, 3.1 apg, 50% FG and 41.6% FT, with 33.6 FGpg and 13.2 FTpg, in 45.9 minutes per game.

:kobe:

[Duncan21formvp]

How could someone be the best defensive player all time giving up 30 ppg and 30 rpg? Hell I'm sure no one would average that on Joakim Noah yet alone a Hakeem or Duncan for a series.

[oolalaa]

How could someone be the best defensive player all time giving up 30 ppg and 30 rpg? Hell I'm sure no one would average that on Joakim Noah yet alone a Hakeem or Duncan for a series.

It was Russell's amazing versatility and shot blocking (Likely averaged 6/7 blocks per game for his career) that made him quite clearly the greatest defensive player in NBA history. By all accounts, he covered an almost absurd amount of ground - from baseline to baseline almost. He didn't just completely shut down the paint, he shut down elbow shooters, too, with that insane wingspan. He often swithced onto perimiter. He was fleet-footed and athletic enough to keep all but the quickest guards in front of him. His instincts and reflexes were second to one, and his IQ was off the charts. He always knew where he and his teammates needed to be at all times. When he missed games, the Celtics were almost a joke defensively.

There have been quite a few superior 1on1 post defenders than Russell over the years but post defense is but one (Somewhat overrated) aspect of defense.

[julizaver]

I have added new data:
Wilt with 11 blocks in Game 1, 13 blocks in Game 6 (replacing the old "6 blocks at least") and Russell with 8 assists in Game 4.

[Owl]

It was Russell's amazing versatility and shot blocking (Likely averaged 6/7 blocks per game for his career) that made him quite clearly the greatest defensive player in NBA history. By all accounts, he covered an almost absurd amount of ground - from baseline to baseline almost. He didn't just completely shut down the paint, he shut down elbow shooters, too, with that insane wingspan. He often swithced onto perimiter. He was fleet-footed and athletic enough to keep all but the quickest guards in front of him. His instincts and reflexes were second to one, and his IQ was off the charts. He always knew where he and his teammates needed to be at all times. When he missed games, the Celtics were almost a joke defensively.

There have been quite a few superior 1on1 post defenders than Russell over the years but post defense is but one (Somewhat overrated) aspect of defense.
In which sample?

In the largest sample of non-Russell games, in 56-57, Boston were the best team in the league without Russell, and with a superior win% than with Russell. I'm assuming their defence then was at least competent. This also constitutes the only example of an extended Russell absence in which the team is playing with a strategy not designed around having Russell (I'm assuming Boston didn't draw up whole new defensive schemes for 2 game injuries).

Boston did have some higher scoring games in Russell's absence. But it conveys a small part of the story, and be misleading to imply by this that a Havlicek, Jones, Sanders et al would have been helpless and was wholly dependent on Russell.

Edit: Just realized this was bumped.

[stanlove1111]

I believe Chamberlain's rebounding rate in the '67 ECF's, and again, against Russell, was around 27. He had three games of 27%, 28%, and 30% in that series (32 rebounds out of 120; 36 out of 128; and 41 out of 134.)

CLEARLY, Chamberlain was, BY FAR, the game's greatest post-season rebounder.
I guess that's why Russell has the best rebounds per game average in post season in NBA history.

And all of these h2hs that are posted of Russell and Wilt don't consider defense which Russell was the best ever at. Blocks are only part of it.

[Owl]

I guess that's why Russell has the best rebounds per game average in post season in NBA history.

And all of these h2hs that are posted of Russell and Wilt don't consider defense which Russell was the best ever at. Blocks are only part of it.
Wouldn't really go along with "clearly ... by far" the best. But per game game playoff average means equating Russell's 57-59 (and the rebounds available then) with Wilt's 70-73. And disporportionately weighting Wilt's later years because the playoffs were longer then (even though this is a time with the fewest available rebounds).

In the years both were active playoff per game numbers are
Russell 24.7
Chamberlain 26.3

Per 36 same span its
Russell 19.2
Chamberlain 19.9

Those numbers are close and may be skewed slightly by giving Russell some non-prime years whilst containing Wilt's prime. On the other hand Russell had the advantage of playing every series at Boston's typically high pace, low(ish)% game (at least for the first half of the decade, I believe Boston slowed down later).

So Wilt has, at least, a good case for the best playoff rebounder (at least off the top of my head and for that era, I don't know about comparisons with more modern specialists like Rodman).

[stanlove1111]

Wouldn't really go along with "clearly ... by far" the best. But per game game playoff average means equating Russell's 57-59 (and the rebounds available then) with Wilt's 70-73. And disporportionately weighting Wilt's later years because the playoffs were longer then (even though this is a time with the fewest available rebounds).

In the years both were active playoff per game numbers are
Russell 24.7
Chamberlain 26.3

Per 36 same span its
Russell 19.2
Chamberlain 19.9

Those numbers are close and may be skewed slightly by giving Russell some non-prime years whilst containing Wilt's prime. On the other hand Russell had the advantage of playing every series at Boston's typically high pace, low(ish)% game (at least for the first half of the decade, I believe Boston slowed down later).

So Wilt has, at least, a good case for the best playoff rebounder (at least off the top of my head and for that era, I don't know about comparisons with more modern specialists like Rodman).

Then you would also have to get into minutes per game played, and actually you would have top get into the players role and goals. Wilt we all kn9ow was obsessed with stats and numbers and rarely left the backet area. Russell was a different player.

[Owl]

Then you would also have to get into minutes per game played, and actually you would have top get into the players role and goals. Wilt we all kn9ow was obsessed with stats and numbers and rarely left the backet area. Russell was a different player.
Well mpg is cancelled out by the per 36 rates. Except to say that Wilt played more minutes and so would be more fatigued. I don't really see what being stats obsessed has to do with it, you either get a rebound or you don't (both of these guys presumably claimed all the "easy"/"team would have got them anyway" rebounds, at least for this period - Hairston and Bridges might have competed with Wilt later).

All that's left is what was required of each: it is probably fair to say Russell left the paint a bit more, but then Wilt had to expend a lot more effort on offense.

[La Frescobaldi]

Wouldn't really go along with "clearly ... by far" the best. But per game game playoff average means equating Russell's 57-59 (and the rebounds available then) with Wilt's 70-73. And disporportionately weighting Wilt's later years because the playoffs were longer then (even though this is a time with the fewest available rebounds).

In the years both were active playoff per game numbers are
Russell 24.7
Chamberlain 26.3

Per 36 same span its
Russell 19.2
Chamberlain 19.9

Those numbers are close and may be skewed slightly by giving Russell some non-prime years whilst containing Wilt's prime. On the other hand Russell had the advantage of playing every series at Boston's typically high pace, low(ish)% game (at least for the first half of the decade, I believe Boston slowed down later).

So Wilt has, at least, a good case for the best playoff rebounder (at least off the top of my head and for that era, I don't know about comparisons with more modern specialists like Rodman).
An interesting bump of an interesting old thread.
The other really significant point about Chamberlain's Laker years which stanlove has not considered when he merely looked at career numbers.... Wilt was playing alongside another elite rebounder. He & Happy Hairston are the only teammates in history to have 1000 rebounds EACH in a season.

Wikipedia: "In 1971-72, Hairston grabbed 1,045 rebounds; his teammate Wilt Chamberlain pulled down 1,572. Hairston led the Lakers in both rebounds and field goal percentage during the 1973-74 and 1974-75 seasons, and set an NBA record for most defensive rebounds in a quarter with 13 (vs. the Philadelphia 76ers, November 15, 1974).[1]" Of course Wilt retired in '73; but those are serious accomplishments by a guy who is often forgotten.

How much of a dip in #13's numbers did that create? I dunno how you'd calculate it; but I saw Wilt many times defer to Happy for rebounds. He was hardly the stat hog of legend; I also saw Russell at the scoring table arguing over assists and rebounds, just like many other stars did in those days.

[LAZERUSS]

Just a one-sided beatdown...plain-and-simple.

And from this point on, until he was injured early on in the '69-70 season, Wilt would be the most dominant player, and by a large margin, in the league. Starting the very next season, he would runaway with three straight MVPs. And he would lead his team's to the best record in the league in those three years, as well.

From the 64-65 season, to once again, his injury, he would just abuse the best centers in the league. Absolute domination. He overwhelmed Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, and Russell. And he even wiped the floor with a young Kareem in their first H2H, before shredding his knee.

And for those that claim that Wilt "declined" in his post-season play, this playoff series was a clear example of the opposite. During the regular season in 64-65, Russell and Wilt squared off in 12 games. And in those 12 games Chamberlain averaged 25.3 ppg on a .473 FG%.

In this seven game series, Chamberlain averaged 30.1 ppg on a .555 FG%. His True TS% was at .560. This, in a post-season NBA that had an eFG% of .429, and a True TS% of .478. Oh, and he held Russell to a .447 FG% and a true TS% of .450. So here was a prime Wilt shooting 8.2% above the league true TS%, and then holding Russell to 2.8% under it. Or a differential of 11.0%!

Furthermore, Wilt was traded to the Sixers for three players at mid-season. A Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before, and failed to make the playoffs. They would finish at 40-40 in 64-65. Then, behind Chamberlain, they romped over Oscar's loaded 48-32 Royal squad, 3-1 in the first round of the playoffs. And, against the Celtics, at their peak during the dynasty, and with a best-ever record for Russell, at 62-18, they took that HOF-laden Boston squad to a game seven, one point loss. And in that seventh game, Wilt poured in 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds, which included six of Philly's last eight points.

This from the "loser" and "choker" Chamberlain.

Of course the world would get to see exactly what Wilt could have achieved with an equal supporting cast, that would play to their norm, in the 66-67 season and post-season. They would trash the league, going 68-13 (setting all kinds of records at the time), and then behind another Wilt carpet-bombing of Russell in the EDF's, they would blow out the eight-time defending champions, 4-1 (and Boston narrowly avoided an embarrassing sweep in a four point win in game four.) And in the clinching game five destruction, Wilt would outscore Russell, 29-4; outshoot Russell, 10-16 to 2-5; outassist Russell, 13-7; and outrebound Russell, 36-21.

It's just too bad that that '67 Sixer squad would be devastated with injuries in the '68 EDF's. As it was, they lost a game seven, by four points, and in a series in which they led 3-1 before losing two more starters to injuries in game five (and all without HOFer Cunningham for the entire series, and a hobbled Chamberlain, who was nursing an assortment of injuries, and noticeably limping throughout.) Had the Sixers been healthy in '68, they would have probably easily repeated as champions, and Wilt's overall resume would have been that much greater.

[LAZERUSS]

I guess that's why Russell has the best rebounds per game average in post season in NBA history.

And all of these h2hs that are posted of Russell and Wilt don't consider defense which Russell was the best ever at. Blocks are only part of it.

Hmmm...the two played in eight playoff series...and Wilt outrebounded Russell in EVERY one of them. Some by huge margins (+5.2 rpg, +6.2 rpg, and even +8.8 rpg in one series.) And forget mpg in these H2H series,...Russell played nearly as many minutes as Wilt.

And Owl already smashed your "Russell is the greatest post-season rebounder" argument. When Russell retired after the '69 post-season, he had a career average of 24.9 rpg. At that time, Chamberlain was averaging 26.3 rpg in his ten season career. And once again, H2H, it was a complete mismatch. In fact, in those 143 meetings, Wilt shot about .500 from the field, to Russell's .400. Considering that Chamberlain was a career .540 shooter, and Russell a career .441 shooter, it looks like Wilt negated Russell's efficiency every bit as much as Russell did Wilt's.



Defense? No one is questioning Russell's defensive impact...but Chamberlain was the next greatest defensive center in NBA history, and a peak Wilt, in the mid-to-late 60's was probably greater than Russell in that time-frame.

And in H2H defense...well, aside from the fact that Wilt overwhelmed Russell in scoring, he also outshot Russell by about 10% from the field in their 143 career H2H meetings. In fact, in those 143 games, Wilt shot a very close estimate of .500, while Russell shot a very close estimate of .400. And given the fact that Wilt had a career .540 FG%, and Russell's was at .441...well, Wilt held Russell's efficiency down as much as Russell held Wilt's.

[Pointguard]

Bottom line, Chamberlain apostles: Russell and Wilt played a total of 8 series; in every single one, Russell's ppg went UP from the regular season. In every single one, Wilt's went DOWN from the regular season.

Russell has NEVER averaged 20 ppg in any season - and yet, averaged 20.7 ppg vs Wilt in 60 series games. Russell also averaged 22.0 ppg vs Wilt in the H2H 62' series - 31 pts in game 3; 31 pts in game 4; 29 pts in game 5 (and remember, Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg that season...22 pts in game 7 which was LOWER than teammate TOM MESCHERY. :oldlol:)
Russell averaged 10ppg one season?

First you showed you don't know how to read Basketball Reference and now you just making nonsense up. From bad to worse...

[Pointguard]

Hmmm...the two played in eight playoff series...and Wilt outrebounded Russell in EVERY one of them. Some by huge margins (+5.2 rpg, +6.2 rpg, and even +8.8 rpg in one series.) And forget mpg in these H2H series,...Russell played nearly as many minutes as Wilt.


Wilt often pulled the trump card on Russell, particularly in the rebounding area, which was Russell's claim to fame. He knew that was Russell's strong suite and used to go at him in that category. I doubt that Russell ever outrebounded him twice in a row (and if he did, I'm sure Russell saw Wilt go for 40 the next time). The domination in that area is definitely that of a guy pulling rank on a competitor. The overall record, the playoff domination, and the overall H2H superior rebounding is something you don't see anybody trying to do with say Rodman. Competitors know when another guy pulls rank on them. And Wilt rarely let Russell get the best of him in that area.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt often pulled the trump card on Russell, particularly in the rebounding area, which was Russell's claim to fame. He knew that was Russell's strong suite and used to go at him in that category. I doubt that Russell ever outrebounded him twice in a row (and if he did, I'm sure Russell saw Wilt go for 40 the next time). The domination in that area is definitely that of a guy pulling rank on a competitor. The overall record, the playoff domination, and the overall H2H superior rebounding is something you don't see anybody trying to do with say Rodman. Competitors know when another guy pulls rank on them. And Wilt rarely let Russell get the best of him in that area.

Absolutely.

In their 143 career H2H's, Chamberlain averaged 28.7 rpg to Russell's 23.8. Overall, Wilt held a 92-43-8 margin, and in MANY, he just murdered Russell. Of course, he happened to set both the regular season and post-season records, against Russell, and in both he just waxed Russell (55-19 and 41-29.)

[cltcfn2924]

Yep...badly outplayed Wilt by being outscored 30.1 to 15.6 ppg, outrebounded, 31.4 rpg to 25.3 rpg; and being outshot from the field, .555 to .447 (and even being outshot from the line, .583 to .472.)

Reminds me of Joe Frazier using his face to wear out George Foreman's hand in their two round fight in '73.


Frazier lost, Russell won. Poor analogy.

[LAZERUSS]

Frazier lost, Russell won. Poor analogy.

Russell's 62-18 TEAM beat Wilt's 40-40 TEAM by one point in a game seven. Chamberlain brutalized Russell.

[cltcfn2924]

I have been one of Russell's BIGGEST supporters on this forum. The game's greatest "winner", and the game's greatest defensive force. I personally have him somewhere in my top-4. How many other's here regard him that highly.

Your second comment is not debatable. True, there were the RARE games in which Wilt moight have been outplayed, but overall, Chamberlain DOMINATED his peers, especially a PRIME Wilt. A mid-60's Chamberlain just pounded Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, and yes, Russell. The evidence is OVERWHELMING.

Now, you can argue that Wilt's teammates almost always puked all over themselves in the post-season, while Russell's teammates generally elevated their games. I have maintained that Wilt POSSIBLY deserves at least some of the blame, and that Russell does deserve credit (for a variety of reasons.)

But, the Chamberlain side of that argument is questionable. With the exception of his '69 playoffs, Wilt's post-seasons generally mirrored his regular seasons. For instance, in his 65-66 season (in a year in which he was LIGHT YEARS ahead of Thurmond, Bellamy, and Russell), Wilt led the NBA in scoring at 33.5 ppg; led the NBA in rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; and led the NBA in FG%, .540 (a record at the time...and in a league that shot .433.) He also handed out 5.2 apg. And lost in those numbers was the fact that Wilt led his TEAM to the BEST RECORD in gthe league.

However, against Russell and Boston, in the regular season, he averaged 28.3 ppg, and 30.7 rpg (I don't have his FG%, though.) Ok, in their H2H series in the '66 ECF's, Chamberlain averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509. His assists dropped to 3.2 apg, but more on that in a moment. Included in that playoff series, was a 46 point, 34 rebound, 19-34 clinching game five loss performance. So, the REALITY was, Chamberlain played almost EXACTLY the same way against Russell and Boston in the post-season, as he did in the regular season (when, again, Philly had the best record in the league.)

Ok, so why did the 55-25 Sixers get run over, 4-1, by the 54-26 Celtics? Because Wilt's TEAMMATES collectively shot .352 in that series. Which also explains Wilt's decline in assists in that series. His teammates simply could not throw the ball into the ocean from the side of a small raft.

Yet, who got the brunt of the blame? You guessed it...Wilt "the choker."

But the REALITY was, in EVERY facet of the game (except Russell defensively), a PRIME Chamberlain was not only better than his peers, he was MILES ahead of them. And a mid-60's Chamberlain was very close to Russell in terms of defensive dominance, as well. He was a MUCH better SCORER, REBOUNDER, and PASSER, and he was FAR MORE EFFICIENT, too. And, if you want to rip Wilt's FT shooting, keep in mind that he was MAKING MORE FTs in a season, than his rival centers.

As for Wilt's competition...I have maintained that the early 70's was the greatest era for centers in NBA history. Lanier, Cowens, Unseld, McAdoo, Hayes, Bellamy, Reed, Thurmond, and Kareem. Even Gilmore, considering that he was playing in the ABA at the time. But even then, in the twilight of his career, Wilt was being voted first-team all-defense, and setting FG% marks that will never be approached. Oh, and he was just CRUSHING those guys in the rebounding department. An old, Wilt, on a surgically repaired knee, was easily outrebounding EVERY one of the centers I mentioned (except for Gilmore, of course.) And then, think about this: Cowens, Unseld, Kareem, and Hayes all won rebounding titles after Wilt retired. And yet, an old Wilt was a much better rebounder than all of them. And one only needs to study Wilt's last post-season as testament to that. A 36 year old Wilt, playing in 17 playoff games, averaged 22.5 rpg (in a post-season which averaged 50.6 rpg per team)...which was the LAST time a player ever averaged more than 17.3 rpg in a post-season.

And I have been questioned on my criticisms of Kareem and Bird. However, I have Kareem at #5, and Bird at #9 all-time. And I have praised a 38-39 year old Kareem who just buried Hakeem. No question that Kareem was among the most dominant players of all-time. But I find it amusing to read those posters here who label Wilt a "loser" and a "choker", when both Kareem and Bird had FAR more "flop jobs" in their post-seasons. Here again, Chamberlain played in 29 post-season series, and he was probably never outplayed in any of them. Not only that, but he was crushing most of his opposing centers in those series. AND, he and MJ are the two greatest "Big Game" players in NBA post-season history. You would be hard-pressed to find very many games in which Chamberlain played poorly (and even if his offensive numbers were subpar in those games, he was probably playing outstanding defense, and outrebounding his opposing center.)


Now, if you want to discuss what I just posted above, I would welcome it.


You point to all individual accomplishments. That is the problem around here.
Wilt was the greatest individual beast ever to lace them up. Did he ever elevate his teammates? Are you too young to even understand this game?

MJ, great individual stats, had to wait for the boys to retire to take his turn. He absolutely could not beat them. Lose your stats, they don't count.

[MiseryCityTexas]

hell yeah a lot of people don't know that russell had a nice handle for a center, and could run the fast break and pass the ball almost just as good as a point guard.

[julizaver]

And in H2H defense...well, aside from the fact that Wilt overwhelmed Russell in scoring, he also outshot Russell by about 10% from the field in their 143 career H2H meetings. In fact, in those 143 games, Wilt shot a very close estimate of .500, while Russell shot a very close estimate of .400. And given the fact that Wilt had a career .540 FG%, and Russell's was at .441...well, Wilt held Russell's efficiency down as much as Russell held Wilt's.

According to latest data we could say that Wilt shot 0.496 in 133 games (from 143) against Russell and Russell shot 0.390 in 124 out of 143 games against Wilt.
During their 10 NBA seasons together Wilt shot 0.530, while Russell shot 0.439.

[julizaver]

This was Wilt's worst shot blocking series among all the series that I have the blocking figures for at least have the games. Interestingly enough though, it's among his best rebounding ones. Probably not by chance.
His rebounding rate in this whole series was around 25.

Not quite sure about Wilt's worst shot blocking series. :)
According to the latest info:

Game 1 - 11 blocks
Game 2 - 8 blocks
Game 5 - 2 blocks
Game 6 - 13 blocks
Game 7 - 1 block

A total of 35 known blocks for 7 game series, which means that Wilt averaged at least 5 blocks per game in the series and 7 blocks per game for the 5 games we had the numbers.

[pudman13]

Look, people, Butch Van Breda Kolff ended this debate in 1969. Mel Counts is the only NBA center ever who was better than Wilt Chamberlain.

[Psileas]

Julizaver, I remember having read Wilt being given credit for "only" 6 blocks in games 1 and 6.
On the other hand, of course, I've also seen Wilt being given credit for 9 blocks in game 5.
Overall, it's a series with lots of ambiguous shot blocking numbers and I'm not quite sure which ones to believe.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Wow, another playoff series where Russell beat Wilt.

No shortage of those :oldlol:

[La Frescobaldi]

You point to all individual accomplishments. That is the problem around here.
Wilt was the greatest individual beast ever to lace them up. Did he ever elevate his teammates? Are you too young to even understand this game?

MJ, great individual stats, had to wait for the boys to retire to take his turn. He absolutely could not beat them. Lose your stats, they don't count.

Actually if you study Chamberlain's teammates, a great many of them had their best seasons when he was on their team. That's not real hard to do especially because he played for 3 different teams; you can trace his impact by looking at their records before, with, and after.
He did elevate a lot of guys; whole teams. Look what happened to the Sixers after he left - plunged straight down to the worst team in history in like 4 years. The Lakers went to the Finals every season he was with them (except '71 when the team blew up with injuries)....... they never touched a Finals after he retired until Magic showed up in 1980 - and they had Kareem on that team.

[LAZERUSS]

You point to all individual accomplishments. That is the problem around here.
Wilt was the greatest individual beast ever to lace them up. Did he ever elevate his teammates? Are you too young to even understand this game?

MJ, great individual stats, had to wait for the boys to retire to take his turn. He absolutely could not beat them. Lose your stats, they don't count.

Oh ok...

Glad you brought MJ into this.

First of all, I am not sure a Jordan-led 95-96 Bulls team would have been capable of beating an 85-86 Bird Celtic team (nor an 86-87 Magic-led Laker team)...

but you are essentially claiming that MJ was the main reason that his 85-86 Bulls were swept by Bird's 67-15 Celtics. In a series in which Jordan averaged 44 ppg.

Sure.

Which brings us to Wilt's 61-62 Warriors, a team which finished 49-31, and lost a game seven by two points to the HOF-laden 60-20 Celtics. Wilt's Warrior roster was basically the same last-place roster he inherited in his rookie season...only older, and worse. And yet, with that cast of clowns, you believe that he should have beaten a roster filled with HOFers, most all of whom were in their primes.

Tom Meschery said it best. That 61-62 Celtic team, aside from Wilt, were better player-for-player right down the roster. And yet Chamberlain, with his teammates collectively shooting .354 from the floor in that post-season, was able to single-handedly carry them past Syracuse in the first round (culminated by a 56-35 game in the clinching game five), and then to a game seven, two point loss against the loaded Celtics.

And do you really think that Wilt would not have won a title with Boston's roster in 62-63, and their nine HOFers, while conversely, Russell would have led that putrid Warrior roster to a title?

I would argue this. Swap rosters in Chamberlain's first six seasons, with Russell, and Wilt would have had an easy six rings. In fact, swap rosters for their entire ten years in the league; saddle Russell with incompetent coachs in some of them, or lazy coaches in others; cripple his roster with injuries in '68; have this rosters puke all over the floor in several...while giving Chamberlain clutch HOF talent throughout the roster, and give him Auerbach for the vast majority of them, and I suspect that Wilt would have gone 10-0 in that span.

The reality was, Chamberlain immediately made every team he joined into an instant title contender, and every team he left immediately became an also ran, or worse.

And it was not like Russell's Celtics were just wiping out Wilt's teams, either. In four of their eight post-season series, the games were decided in the seventh game, by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. In two more, ('60, and even '64) the games were generally very close.

Oh, and in one, in 66-67, with Chamberlain once again just waxing Russell, BUT, with his teammates now neutralizing Russell's...guess what happened? It was blowout of epic proportions. In fact, Boston narrowly avoided a sweep in game four. And in game five, the Celts led by 17 points early, and by mid-way thru the 4th quarter, they were down by 27 points.

Sorry, but your argument is nonsensical.

[LAZERUSS]

According to latest data we could say that Wilt shot 0.496 in 133 games (from 143) against Russell and Russell shot 0.390 in 124 out of 143 games against Wilt.
During their 10 NBA seasons together Wilt shot 0.530, while Russell shot 0.439.

Once again...great research. And, as this clearly depicts...Chamberlain actually reduced Russell's efficiency even moreso than Russell did to Wilt's.

I wonder how come Bill Simmons never mentioned this is his book of lies?

[LAZERUSS]

Not quite sure about Wilt's worst shot blocking series. :)
According to the latest info:

Game 1 - 11 blocks
Game 2 - 8 blocks
Game 5 - 2 blocks
Game 6 - 13 blocks
Game 7 - 1 block

A total of 35 known blocks for 7 game series, which means that Wilt averaged at least 5 blocks per game in the series and 7 blocks per game for the 5 games we had the numbers.

My god, Chamberlain just annihilated Russell in every facet of the game in that series. Of course, that explains just how Wilt could take a bottom-feeding team from the year before, and single-handedly carry them to within an eyelash of beating a Celtic team that was at the apex of it's dynasty.

BTW, looking over those 143 career H2H's, and in the games with known recorded blocks, and Wilt had a solid margin over Russell. Here again, I don't think there was any question as to who the greatest shot-blocker of all-time was.

[LAZERUSS]

If you include TS% margins, as well as virtually every other imagineable stat, this may have been the most one-sided shellacking ever between two Top-10 GOAT candidates. It was even more lopsided than the Hakeem-DRob massacre, and neither of those two were ever on the Russell-Chamberlain levels.

Of course, Wilt followed that up a couple of years later with a similar butchering, in the '67 EDF's, and with his teammates finally equalizing Russell's longtime advantage...his team just shelled the 60-21 Celtics.

[julizaver]

My god, Chamberlain just annihilated Russell in every facet of the game in that series. Of course, that explains just how Wilt could take a bottom-feeding team from the year before, and single-handedly carry them to within an eyelash of beating a Celtic team that was at the apex of it's dynasty.

BTW, looking over those 143 career H2H's, and in the games with known recorded blocks, and Wilt had a solid margin over Russell. Here again, I don't think there was any question as to who the greatest shot-blocker of all-time was.

BR had advantage in the assists department, maybe in steals and we don't know all the shot blocking data. The '67 EDF were the one that Wilt clearly dominate Russell and had outplayed him in every facet of the game.

[secund2nun]

fake stats

[LAZERUSS]

BR had advantage in the assists department, maybe in steals and we don't know all the shot blocking data. The '67 EDF were the one that Wilt clearly dominate Russell and had outplayed him in every facet of the game.

Good points, but Chamberlain's massive edge in scoring, rebounding, FG% and TS% was extraordinary. True, he had staggering margins against Russell in '67, as well as in '64, but this was a "scoring" Chamberlain, putting up 30 ppg, and still on a spectacular FG% (.555) against a prime Russell (and his Celtics.) And, as impressive as that FG% was on it's own merit, it came in a post-season NBA that had an eFG% of .429. Just how impressive? Last year's post-season eFG% was at .486. Chamberlain's .555 eFG% would be the equivalent of a .629 eFG% in the 2012-2013 playoffs.

Furthermore, he was scoring that 30 ppg on less than 21 FGAs (20.9) per game in that series. So it was not like he was shot-jacking to get them.

Having said that, and as you mentioned, in the '67 EDF's, Wilt outscored Russell by 11 ppg; outassisted Russell by 4 apg; outrebounded Russell by 9 rpg; and outshot Russell by an empathic 20% from the floor. And in the four games in which Wilt's blocked shots were recorded, he had 29, while in the three games that Russell's blocks were known, he had 8.

How Bill Simmons could ever keep a straight face in his take on the Russell-Wilt H2H's is beyond me.

[-23-]

Good points, but Chamberlain's massive edge in scoring, rebounding, FG% and TS% was extraordinary. True, he had staggering margins against Russell in '67, as well as in '64, but this was a "scoring" Chamberlain, putting up 30 ppg, and still on a spectacular FG% (.555) against a prime Russell (and his Celtics.) And, as impressive as that FG% was on it's own merit, it came in a post-season NBA that had an eFG% of .429. Just how impressive? Last year's post-season eFG% was at .486. Chamberlain's .555 eFG% would be the equivalent of a .629 eFG% in the 2012-2013 playoffs.

Furthermore, he was scoring that 30 ppg on less than 21 FGAs (20.9) per game in that series. So it was not like he was shot-jacking to get them.

Having said that, and as you mentioned, in the '67 EDF's, Wilt outscored Russell by 11 ppg; outassisted Russell by 4 apg; outrebounded Russell by 9 rpg; and outshot Russell by an empathic 20% from the floor. And in the four games in which Wilt's blocked shots were recorded, he had 29, while in the three games that Russell's blocks were known, he had 8.

How Bill Simmons could ever keep a straight face in his take on the Russell-Wilt H2H's is beyond me.


I'm trying to understand how the fk would his equivalent FG% be higher in today's modern game. If anything, it shows that Wilt was playing against SCRUBS. .486 vs .429 shows the game has evolved from his time, and how much Wilt was ahead of his peers. Wilt would be a great in an era, but the fact is, he played against WEAK competition. (don't throw BR into this) The league as a WHOLE in the 60's is weaker than today.

And why do you compare BR offensive stats to Wilt, when he was never considered a offensive player? It would be akin to comparing Dennis Rodman to Karl Malone, and claiming that Karl cropped on DR in FG%, and PPG. Where is the context?

[LAZERUSS]

I'm trying to understand how the fk would his equivalent FG% be higher in today's modern game. If anything, it shows that Wilt was playing against SCRUBS. .486 vs .429 shows the game has evolved from his time, and how much Wilt was ahead of his peers. Wilt would be a great in an era, but the fact is, he played against WEAK competition. (don't throw BR into this) The league as a WHOLE in the 60's is weaker than today.

And why do you compare BR offensive stats to Wilt, when he was never considered a offensive player? It would be akin to comparing Dennis Rodman to Karl Malone, and claiming that Karl cropped on DR in FG%, and PPG. Where is the context?

First of all, take a look at the majority of the players that played in the early 60's, and whose careers spanned into the late 60's, or even 70's. The majority of them shot better, to MUCH better, in the late 60's or early 70's. Were Darrall Imhoff and Johnny Green playing with blindfolds early in their careers? Did Jerry West suddenly change his jump shot form after his 61-62 season? Why did John Havlicek, whose career involved eight seasons in the 60's, and then eight seasons in the 70's, shoot better every single season in the 70's, than he did in his best season of the 60's? My god...look at Wilt. In his rookie season he shot .461 from the floor. Which seems impossible, but keep in mind that the NBA shot .410 as a whole.

And it would continue from those that played in the 70's and into the 80's. Players like KAJ, Dantley, and then the ultimate, Gilmore. They all shot dramatically better in the 80's. A 27 year old Gimore averaged 18.6 ppg on a .522 FG%. A 35 year old Gilmore averaged 19.1 ppg on a .623 FG%, and that was among his worst FG% seasons of the 80's.

Then, what happened to players like Hakeem, D-Rob, and Ewing? Hell, Hakeem shot a career high FG% in his rookie season. Ewing and D-Rob shot their's early on in their careers, and by the mid-90's were shooting much worse.

And, explain this. How could the NBA shoot .756 from the line in the 58-59 season, and yet only shot .753 last year? If these players of today are so much better offensively, why can't theu shoot FTs better?


And finally, you are severely under-rating Russell's scoring and shooting skills. Russell averaged over 20 ppg in several of his post-seasons. He also led Boston in scoring in two of his Finals, including one in which he averaged 24 ppg. Oh, and he had Finals of 22.9 ppg on a .543 FG%; another of 23.6 ppg on a .538 FG%; and then how about another one of 17.8 ppg on...get this... a .702 FG%. Maybe you can find Robinson's or Ewing's Finals in which they achieved those numbers for me.

[Marchesk]

I'm trying to understand how the fk would his equivalent FG% be higher in today's modern game. If anything, it shows that Wilt was playing against SCRUBS. .486 vs .429 shows the game has evolved from his time, and how much Wilt was ahead of his peers. Wilt would be a great in an era, but the fact is, he played against WEAK competition. (don't throw BR into this) The league as a WHOLE in the 60's is weaker than today.

Wilt played quite a few HOF centers in his time, and since there were less teams, he played them a lot more often.

As for the lower shooting percentage, the game was higher paced, and efficient shot selection was not the priority it is today. You can still find efficient shooters like Jerry West or bigs like Wilt and Bellamy.

[LAZERUSS]

I'm trying to understand how the fk would his equivalent FG% be higher in today's modern game. If anything, it shows that Wilt was playing against SCRUBS. .486 vs .429 shows the game has evolved from his time, and how much Wilt was ahead of his peers. Wilt would be a great in an era, but the fact is, he played against WEAK competition. (don't throw BR into this) The league as a WHOLE in the 60's is weaker than today.

And why do you compare BR offensive stats to Wilt, when he was never considered a offensive player? It would be akin to comparing Dennis Rodman to Karl Malone, and claiming that Karl cropped on DR in FG%, and PPG. Where is the context?

As for Wilt's "weak competition", how do explain Nate Thurmond, then? A prime Kareem battled an aging Thurmond in 50 career H2H games, and shot a combined .440 against him. He had a total of seven games of 30+ against Nate, with a high of only 34, and in fact, had seven games of less than 20 against him. And yet a 38-39 year old KAJ was just destroying Hakeem in a span of ten straight games. In those ten straight games, Kareem averaged 33 ppg on a .621 FG%, with high games of 40, 43, and 46 (in only 37 minutes too.)

And I have pointed it out before, but a prime KAJ faced several of the same centers in the late 60's and early 70's, that a prime Wilt had faced in the early to mid-60's, and was light years behind Chamberlain's dominance of those same centers.

It looks to me like if a prime Chamberlain had been fortunate enough to have played in the "defenseless 80's", that he might have been scoring 40-50 ppg on a .600+ FG%'s.

[-23-]

Wilt played quite a few HOF centers in his time, and since there were less teams, he played them a lot more often.

As for the lower shooting percentage, the game was higher paced, and efficient shot selection was not the priority it is today. You can still find efficient shooters like Jerry West or bigs like Wilt and Bellamy.

I'm saying the league as a whole. Of course you'd have great players in every era.

[LAZERUSS]

I'm saying the league as a whole. Of course you'd have great players in every era.

In the mid-60's, in a league of 9-10 teams, Chamberlain faced centers like Beaty, Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, and Russell, on an almost nightly basis. And even centers like Dierking, Imhoff, and Embry were decent players.

And how about a 35-36 year old Wilt, in his last two seasons, and in years in which he hardly shot the ball, battling a near-prime 6-11 HOFer in Bob Lanier, in 11 straight games, and averaging 24 ppg on a .784 FG% against him in that span? A Lanier who would go to give Moses Malone a lot of trouble by the late 70's. And we all know what Moses did to Kareem in their 40 career H2H's.

[KingBeasley08]

Pretty impressed by Russell's assists. He was one damn good outlet passer and the soul of that team. I still don't think he'd be great in today's era but he'd still be one valuable player. Dude knew how to win

[LAZERUSS]

As a sidenote, but related to OP...

This series was just one example of just how close these post-season series were between Russell's Celtics, and Chamberlain's teams.

In Wilt's rookie season, he immediately took what had been a last-place team the year before, to a 49-26 record. And in the EDF's, against Russell's 59-16 Celtics, his Warriors fell, 4-2. But, they narrowly lost the clinching game six (by two points.) Furthermore, Wilt injured his hand in a game two win, and because of it, played the worst post-season H2H game against Russell of his entire career, in as would be expected 120-90 blowout loss. He was better in the next game, but they still lost. And in a must-win game five, he exploded for a 50-35 game, in a 128-107 win. One can only wonder how that series might have played out had he not been injured.

In Chamberlain's monumental 61-62 season, he took that same roster, the core of which was now older and worse, to a game seven, one point loss against the 60-20 HOF-laden Celtics...and in a post-season in which his teammates collectively shot .354 from the field.

Wilt's 63-64 Warriors went 48-32, but this came with the same basic roster as what he had the season before, and which had gone 31-49...but now with a new coach (Alex Hannum.) Wilt had one of the greatest playoff series of all-time in the WDF's, which came in a seven game series. He put up a 39 ppg, 23 rpg, .559 FG% series (in a post-season NBA that averaged 105.8 ppg on a .420 eFG%.) Then, with very little help, and going up against a Celtic team that boasted eight HOFers, his team lost that series, 4-1. BUT, they narrowly lost the last two games, which were both decided in the last minute.

Of course, the 64-65 series was the basis for this OP. Here was Chamberlain, coming to a Philly team at mid-season, at Sixer team which had gone 34-46 the previous season, and missed the playoffs. He then took that 40-40 team past a stacked Royals team that had gone 48-32, with a 3-1 series romp. Then, against a Celtic team at the peak of their dynasty, and that had gone a Dynasty high 62-18, Chamberlain hung this staggering series on Russell, and nearly pulled off the greatest post-season upset in NBA history...losing a game seven by one point.

Wilt's 67-68 Sixers who once again ran away with the best record in the league, were then decimated by injuries in the '68 EDF's against Boston. Going into that series, they had already lost HOFer Billy Cunningham, but were still able to take a commanding 3-1 series lead. However, in game five and trailing by two points late in the third period, they would lose both Luke Jackson and Wali Jones, both starters, to leg injuries. And while both would return for game seven, they were worthless (and awful) in that game. And Wilt, himself, was nursing several injuries, and was noticeably limping throughout that series. The result? A game seven, four point loss. Clearly, had the Sixers been healthy, like the previous season, and this would have been a cakewalk for Chamberlain's Sixers.

And in the 68-69 Finals, Chamberlain's Lakers lost a game seven, by two points, and with Wilt benched by his coach in the last five minutes. There were so many reasons for this failure, but think about this...in game four, with the Lakers leading 88-87, and with the ball, with only a few seconds left...and leading in the series, 2-1, for some strange reason Van Breda Kolff had Johnny Egan handling the ball (where was West?), and he lost the ball, and Sam Jones, while falling down, hit the game-winning shot. Had Egan been able to hold onto the ball, and the Lakers would have led that series, 3-1, going back to LA. And in that game five, the Lakers easily beat Boston, 117-104, in a game in which Chamberlain abused Russell. Here again...they were one play (and then a miraculous shot) away from a 4-1 series romp.

Couple all of the above, with their absolute domination of the 60-21 Celtics in the 66-67 EDF's, and Chamberlain was within a few points, plays, injuries, or miraculous shots, from winning 5-6 rings.

[dankok8]

As for Wilt's "weak competition", how do explain Nate Thurmond, then? A prime Kareem battled an aging Thurmond in 50 career H2H games, and shot a combined .440 against him. He had a total of seven games of 30+ against Nate, with a high of only 34, and in fact, had seven games of less than 20 against him. And yet a 38-39 year old KAJ was just destroying Hakeem in a span of ten straight games. In those ten straight games, Kareem averaged 33 ppg on a .621 FG%, with high games of 40, 43, and 46 (in only 37 minutes too.)

And I have pointed it out before, but a prime KAJ faced several of the same centers in the late 60's and early 70's, that a prime Wilt had faced in the early to mid-60's, and was light years behind Chamberlain's dominance of those same centers.

It looks to me like if a prime Chamberlain had been fortunate enough to have played in the "defenseless 80's", that he might have been scoring 40-50 ppg on a .600+ FG%'s.

You're posting wrong stats. Kareem in his regular season career vs Nate Thurmond (37 games) averaged a very respectable 26.3 ppg and 14.1 rpg on 47.3 %FG and 73.3 %FT. This is from the numbers I got on NBAstats.net and I took into account only the games in which Thurmond played.

Jabbar is right around 4.0 apg as well although we only have those for 34 games. In 31 games where we have rebounds Kareem won the battle 23 times, Nate 7 times, and 1 time was a draw. Of course Nate played limited minutes from 74-75 onwards.

Now in his playoff career Kareem averaged 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, and 2.9 apg on 43.8 %FG and 61.7 %FT vs. Thurmond. He outrebounded Nate in 12 out of 16 H2H's and held Thurmond to 18.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, and 3.8 apg on 40.4 %FG and 77.6 %FT.

Wilt never had monster scoring years against Thurmond either despite playing him in 64-65 and 65-66 when he was still in his scoring prime. I can post the numbers if you wish.

[LAZERUSS]

You're posting wrong stats. Kareem in his regular season career vs Nate Thurmond (37 games) averaged a very respectable 26.3 ppg and 14.1 rpg on 47.3 %FG and 73.3 %FT. This is from the numbers I got on NBAstats.net and I took into account only the games in which Thurmond played.

Jabbar is right around 4.0 apg as well although we only have those for 34 games. In 31 games where we have rebounds Kareem won the battle 23 times, Nate 7 times, and 1 time was a draw. Of course Nate played limited minutes from 74-75 onwards.

Now in his playoff career Kareem averaged 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, and 2.9 apg on 43.8 %FG and 61.7 %FT vs. Thurmond. He outrebounded Nate in 12 out of 16 H2H's and held Thurmond to 18.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, and 3.8 apg on 40.4 %FG and 77.6 %FT.

Wilt never had monster scoring years against Thurmond either despite playing him in 64-65 and 65-66 when he was still in his scoring prime. I can post the numbers if you wish.

I see you mentioned that Nate played limited minutes from 74-75 on...

Actually your numbers are very skewed by the fact that you are including games in which Nate hardly played. For instance, KAJ had a 40 point game against Nate's Cavs late in Thurmond's career. I couldn't tell you how many points that Kareem scored against Thurmond in that game, but Nate didn't start. Jim Chones did...and he fouled out. I suspect that KAJ probably didn't reach double digits against Nate.

And MY numbers included the post-season.

But here is a much better representation...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=291462


I am posting the aggregated stats of Kareem against Nate Thurmond during the period 1969 - 1973 season by season, as in that period both players met 3 times in the playoffs and in total of 34 times (including the regular season meetings):

1969 - 1970 (Kareem's rookie season) 3 games - reg.season

Kareem - 42.0 mpg 21.67 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 4.0 apg, 0.348 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 46.7 mpg 20.67 ppg, 17.0 rpg, 3.3 apg, 0.490 FG/FGA

1970 - 1971 6 games - reg.season

Kareem - 26.67 ppg, 14.7 rpg, 0.484 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 23.83 ppg, 11.0 rpg, 0.477 FG/FGA

1970 - 1971 5 games - playoffs

Kareem - 39.2 mpg 27.8 ppg, 15.6 rpg, 0.6 apg, 0.486 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 38.4 mpg 17.60 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 3.0 apg, 0.371 FG/FGA

1971 - 1972 3 games - reg.season

Kareem - 24.00 ppg, 16.3 rpg, 0.441 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 16.33 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 0.260 FG/FGA

1972 - 1973 5 games - playoffs

Kareem - 47.0 mpg 22.8 ppg, 19.0 rpg, 5.4 apg, 0.405 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 46.0 mpg 25.40 ppg, 17.8 rpg, 5.2 apg, 0.434 FG/FGA

1972 - 1973 6 games - reg.season

Kareem - 25.83 ppg, 13.7 rpg, 0.488 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 13.67 ppg, 15.0 rpg, 0.367 FG/FGA

1972 - 1973 6 games - playoffs

Kareem - 46.0 mpg 22.83 ppg, 16.2 rpg, 2.8 apg, 0.428 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 42.5 mpg 13.5 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 3.2 apg, 0.423 FG/FGA

Look at KAJ's FG% in those games above. he was simply AWFUL. He seldom reached 50%. And this was from a PEAK Kareem, and going up against an aging Thurmond.

BTW, his actual high game against Thurmond, in which Nate played any significant minutes, was only 34 points. And he only reached 30 points against Nate in seven games.

Certainly KAJ outplayed Thurmond. BUT, he was nowhere near as dominant, and at his peak against Nate, as he was at ages 38-39 against Hakeem.

As for Wilt...

Chamberlain's "scoring" years were from '59-60 thru '65-66. And, he only faced Thurmond in 12 H2H games in that span. Now, remember, KAJ faced Nate in close to 50 relatively fulltime H2H games, and had a total of seven 30 point games. In those 12 H2H games between a scoring Wilt and Thurmond, Chamberlain had five of 30+, with high games of 38 and even 45. And, if you include their first H2H game in the 66-67 season, Chamberlain had yet another 30 point game (24 of which came in the second half after Hannum instructed his team to feed Wilt.)

And, from the 64-65 season, thru the 66-67 season, and including their six H2H's in the '67 Finals, or in their first 24 H2H games... Wilt went 21-2-1 in scoring battles. (And we know that he significantly outshot Thurmond from the field.) Keep in mind that Thurmond was at his peak in the 66-67 season (his greatest statistical season, and a year in which he finished 2nd in the MVP voting.)

And, while KAJ shot .486, .428, and .405 against Nate in their three post-season series, Chamberlain outshot Nate by margins of .500 to .392; .550 to .398; and .560 to .343 (again, in Nate's greatest season.)

Hope that sheds some more light on the real Nate-KAJ, and Nate-Wilt battles.

[dankok8]

I see you mentioned that Nate played limited minutes from 74-75 on...

Actually your numbers are very skewed by the fact that you are including games in which Nate hardly played. For instance, KAJ had a 40 point game against Nate's Cavs late in Thurmond's career. I couldn't tell you how many points that Kareem scored against Thurmond in that game, but Nate didn't start. Jim Chones did...and he fouled out. I suspect that KAJ probably didn't reach double digits against Nate.

And MY numbers included the post-season.

But here is a much better representation...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=291462



Look at KAJ's FG% in those games above. he was simply AWFUL. He seldom reached 50%. And this was from a PEAK Kareem, and going up against an aging Thurmond.

BTW, his actual high game against Thurmond, in which Nate played any significant minutes, was only 34 points. And he only reached 30 points against Nate in seven games.

Certainly KAJ outplayed Thurmond. BUT, he was nowhere near as dominant, and at his peak against Nate, as he was at ages 38-39 against Hakeem.

As for Wilt...

Chamberlain's "scoring" years were from '59-60 thru '65-66. And, he only faced Thurmond in 12 H2H games in that span. Now, remember, KAJ faced Nate in close to 50 relatively fulltime H2H games, and had a total of seven 30 point games. In those 12 H2H games between a scoring Wilt and Thurmond, Chamberlain had five of 30+, with high games of 38 and even 45. And, if you include their first H2H game in the 66-67 season, Chamberlain had yet another 30 point game (24 of which came in the second half after Hannum instructed his team to feed Wilt.)

And, from the 64-65 season, thru the 66-67 season, and including their six H2H's in the '67 Finals, or in their first 24 H2H games... Wilt went 21-2-1 in scoring battles. (And we know that he significantly outshot Thurmond from the field.) Keep in mind that Thurmond was at his peak in the 66-67 season (his greatest statistical season, and a year in which he finished 2nd in the MVP voting.)

And, while KAJ shot .486, .428, and .405 against Nate in their three post-season series, Chamberlain outshot Nate by margins of .500 to .392; .550 to .398; and .560 to .343 (again, in Nate's greatest season.)

Hope that sheds some more light on the real Nate-KAJ, and Nate-Wilt battles.

The numbers you now posted are correct. However Kareem was very good against Thurmond in the '71 season, '71 playoffs, '73 season, and '74 season (which you omitted where Nate was still a starter in GS and all-star...). Just to make the data complete...

1974 season (5 games)

Kareem: 24.2 ppg, 12.8 rpg on 57.1 %FG (!)
Nate: 8.4 ppg, 14.5 rpg on 40.7 %FG

Look at the FG%. We're missing Nate's rebounds for 1 game so his average is skewed. In games that we do have the battle on the boards was 2-2.

Nate was by far the best defender on both Kareem and Wilt. Truth is neither guy rarely ever put up great games on Thurmond.

When you talk about Wilt vs. Thurmond you focus too much on FG% and rebounding. Thurmond outscored Wilt in PPG by pretty large margins in both '69 and '73 playoffs. When you shoot more you always shoot a lower %...

Let's look at the comprehensive data of Wilt-Nate. In Wilt's '68 MVP season he was rather badly outplayed by Thurmond for example.

I looked through some their H2H data and Nate was not just defending Wilt well but outrebounded him many times. From 68-69 onwards, Nate also outscored him in virtually every game even though their regular season averages were very much on par the first few years.


1964-1965 (3 games)

Wilt averaged 26.7 ppg on exactly 50% shooting. He had individual games of 34 points on 63% shooting, 24 points on 33% shooting, and 22 points on 53% shooting. Wilt won 1-0 in the rebounding battle where we have the numbers.

1965-1966 (9 games)

Wilt averaged 28.6 ppg in his H2H's against Nate. He had a game of 45 points on 53% shooting and another of 38, 33 and 30 points but he also had games of 26, 25 (on 36% shooting), 23, 22, and even 15 points. It's likely he shot below 50%.

In 6 games where we have Nate's rebounds, the battle on the boards was 4-2 Wilt.

1966-1967 (6 games)

Wilt averaged 20.8 ppg with just one game of 30 points (albeit a triple double with 26 rebounds and 13 assists!). In 3 games that we have FG% Wilt shot a cumulative 51.1%. He shot 68.3% for the season.

In 5 games where we Nate's rebounds, 2-2 and the the fifth game was tied.

1967 Finals (6 games)

Wilt averaged 17.7 ppg on 56.0% shooting but just 30.6% from the line. Nate outrebounded Wilt in just one game but he was close throughout. Wilt took it by a paper-thin 28.5 to 26.6 rpg margin over the whole series.

1967-1968 (4 games)

Nate completely outplayed Chamberlain in what was Wilt's MVP season.

In four games Wilt averaged 13.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, and 7.0 apg on 37.9% shooting. A far cry from his season average of 24.3 ppg on 59.5% shooting. Nate averaged 15.0 ppg and 26.8 rpg as the Warriors won the season series 3-1. The rebounding battle was 2-2 but Nate won one game by a 33-17 margin!

1968-1969 (6 games)

Wilt averaged 13.7 ppg and 23.7 rpg on 54.7% shooting. The rebounding battle was 3-3. Nate averaged 17.3 ppg and 23.8 rpg.

1969 WD Round 1 (6 games)

Wilt averaged 12.0 ppg and 23.5 rpg on 50.0% shooting. The rebounding battle was 4-2 for Wilt. Nate averaged 16.7 ppg and 19.5 rpg.

1970-1971 (6 games)

Wilt averaged 10.2 ppg and 18.0 rpg on 55.3% shooting. The rebounding battle was 3-2 Thurmond with one tie. Thurmond averaged 22.7 ppg and 17.3 rpg against Chamberlain as well.

1971-1972 (6 games)

Wilt averaged 6.8 ppg and 18.0 rpg on 67.8% shooting. The rebounding battle was 3-2 Wilt with one tie. Nate averaged 18.3 ppg and 16.7 rpg.

1972-1973 (7 games)

Wilt averaged 5.3 ppg and 16.6 rpg on 68.4% shooting. Thurmond won the rebounding battles 7-0 and averaged 12.6 ppg and 21.6 rpg.

1973 WCF (5 games)

Wilt averaged 7.0 ppg and 23.6 rpg on 61.1% shooting. Wilt won the rebounding battle 3-2. Nate averaged 15.8 ppg and 17.2 rpg.

Overall out of their 47 regular season H2H's:

- Nate outscored Wilt 26 times, Wilt outscored Nate 20 times, and one game was a tie

- for the 41 games we have Nate's rebounds he won the battle 21 times, lost 17 times, and three games were a tie :bow:

- Nate held Wilt far below his averages; you can look up every single season and in most cases he was 6-7 ppg and 5+% below his averages

Overall out of their 17 playoff H2H's:

- each man outscored the other 8 times and one game was a tie

- Wilt won the rebounding battle 12 times and Nate won 5 times but the margins were thin

- Wilt's scoring volume and efficiency were drastically reduced

- Nate shot a very poor FG% against Wilt around 37% overall in their H2H's

I just want to conclude by saying you're a great poster but you cherry-pick stats occasionally. You have to post comprehensive data and let the people make their interpretations! :cheers:

[LAZERUSS]

The numbers you now posted are correct. However Kareem was very good against Thurmond in the '71 season, '71 playoffs, '73 season, and '74 season (which you omitted where Nate was still a starter in GS and all-star...). Just to make the data complete...

1974 season (5 games)

Kareem: 24.2 ppg, 12.8 rpg on 57.1 %FG (!)
Nate: 8.4 ppg, 14.5 rpg on 40.7 %FG

Look at the FG%. We're missing Nate's rebounds for 1 game so his average is skewed. In games that we do have the battle on the boards was 2-2.

Nate was by far the best defender on both Kareem and Wilt. Truth is neither guy rarely ever put up great games on Thurmond.

When you talk about Wilt vs. Thurmond you focus too much on FG% and rebounding. Thurmond outscored Wilt in PPG by pretty large margins in both '69 and '73 playoffs. When you shoot more you always shoot a lower %...

Let's look at the comprehensive data of Wilt-Nate. In Wilt's '68 MVP season he was rather badly outplayed by Thurmond for example.

I looked through some their H2H data and Nate was not just defending Wilt well but outrebounded him many times. From 68-69 onwards, Nate also outscored him in virtually every game even though their regular season averages were very much on par the first few years.



I just want to conclude by saying you're a great poster but you cherry-pick stats occasionally. You have to post comprehensive data and let the people make their interpretations! :cheers:

I completely agree with you about Nate's defense on both KAJ and Wilt. Here again, Thurmond is an important component in these discussions about how past greats would have fared with the current players. He dramatically reduced a peak KAJ's scoring and efficiency, and did so over the course of a large sample size. And yet, an old Kareem, who couldn't jump over a matchstick, was just murdering a young Hakeem by staggering margins. And, not only that, but take Kareem's entire 23 H2H's with Hakeem, in which he was between 37-42 years old, and he outscored Hakeem, and outshot him by a huge margin. Furthermore, Kareem just pounded Ewing in their career H2H's, as well.

As for Chamberlain. True, Thurmond gave him more trouble than even Russell did. But, a prime scoring Chamberlain still just blew Nate away. Once again, up thru their '67 Finals, Wilt murdered Thurmond in their 24 H2H's at that point. And his games against Thurmond were considerably higher than KAJ's. From that point on, Chamberlain dramatically cut back his scoring and shooting, against everyone.

Having said that, though, I did some research on Nate's H2H's with Russell, Bellamy, and Lanier awhile back, and he outplayed all three in his career H2H's against them. Some by solid margins (although nothing close to what a prime Chamberlain leveled Russell and Bellamy with.)

Furthermore, a prime and even peak KAJ faced several of the same centers that a prime Chamberlain did, and was nowhere near as dominant against them as Wilt was. Not even close.

[Pointguard]

When you talk about Wilt vs. Thurmond you focus too much on FG% and rebounding. Thurmond outscored Wilt in PPG by pretty large margins in both '69 and '73 playoffs. When you shoot more you always shoot a lower %...

Let's look at the comprehensive data of Wilt-Nate. In Wilt's '68 MVP season he was rather badly outplayed by Thurmond for example.

I looked through some their H2H data and Nate was not just defending Wilt well but outrebounded him many times. From 68-69 onwards, Nate also outscored him in virtually every game even though their regular season averages were very much on par the first :

Good research overall.

I can see why '69 and '73 were left out, though. Wilt just flat out should not have been playing in '69 due to major surgery. In general everybody gets a pass their last year.

[dankok8]

I completely agree with you about Nate's defense on both KAJ and Wilt. Here again, Thurmond is an important component in these discussions about how past greats would have fared with the current players. He dramatically reduced a peak KAJ's scoring and efficiency, and did so over the course of a large sample size. And yet, an old Kareem, who couldn't jump over a matchstick, was just murdering a young Hakeem by staggering margins. And, not only that, but take Kareem's entire 23 H2H's with Hakeem, in which he was between 37-42 years old, and he outscored Hakeem, and outshot him by a huge margin. Furthermore, Kareem just pounded Ewing in their career H2H's, as well.

As for Chamberlain. True, Thurmond gave him more trouble than even Russell did. But, a prime scoring Chamberlain still just blew Nate away. Once again, up thru their '67 Finals, Wilt murdered Thurmond in their 24 H2H's at that point. And his games against Thurmond were considerably higher than KAJ's. From that point on, Chamberlain dramatically cut back his scoring and shooting, against everyone.

Having said that, though, I did some research on Nate's H2H's with Russell, Bellamy, and Lanier awhile back, and he outplayed all three in his career H2H's against them. Some by solid margins (although nothing close to what a prime Chamberlain leveled Russell and Bellamy with.)

Furthermore, a prime and even peak KAJ faced several of the same centers that a prime Chamberlain did, and was nowhere near as dominant against them as Wilt was. Not even close.

Truth is Wilt shelled Thurmond (only in a few games, he struggled in others), Reed etc. and Kareem shelled Hakeem when they were very young and nowhere near their best. Thurmond in 64-65 was in his first year starting at center. Nate's peak was around '69-'73 both offensively and defensively. Reed too didn't become the great player he was until '69. Hakeem peaked late from '93-'95. While I think peak Kareem > peak Hakeem, Kareem wouldn't put up 33 ppg on 65% shooting on peak Hakeem. No way in hell... Also you miss the well-known fact that Wilt really really cared about stats while Kareem never really did. And that Wilt played at a higher pace.

Like I always said Wilt's scoring accomplishments are arguably a bigger testament to his incredible stamina than his scoring ability.

It's worth noting that Jabbar averaged 39.9 ppg, 16.3 rpg, and 5.6 apg on 59.8 %FG in 18 games that Oscar missed in 71-72. We are missing complete rpg/apg/FG% data for a few games in this stretch but regardless considering his mind-boggling averages against Wilt and Cowens that year (two elite defenders) it's not crazy at all to say he could have put up 40+ ppg that year if he was so inclined.

Unfortunately Wilt and Kareem didn't peak at the same time or played the same opponents so we can never know for sure.

[LAZERUSS]

Good research overall.

I can see why '69 and '73 were left out, though. Wilt just flat out should not have been playing in '69 due to major surgery. In general everybody gets a pass their last year.

Well, to be fair, Wilt injured his knee at the beginning of the 69-70 season. Still, he easily outrebounded Thurmond in both the '69 and '73 playoffs, and waxed him from the field in the process. Oh, and his Lakers went 4-2 (winning the last four games) in '69, and 4-1 in '73. BTW, in the clinching game six of the '69 playoffs, his Lakers beat Nate's Warriors, 118-78; and in gave three of the '73 playoffs, they went up 3-0 by destroying the Warriors, 126-70.

[LAZERUSS]

Truth is Wilt shelled Thurmond (only in a few games, he struggled in others), Reed etc. and Kareem shelled Hakeem when they were very young and nowhere near their best. Thurmond in 64-65 was in his first year starting at center. Nate's peak was around '69-'73 both offensively and defensively. Reed too didn't become the great player he was until '69. Hakeem peaked late from '93-'95. While I think peak Kareem > peak Hakeem, Kareem wouldn't put up 33 ppg on 65% shooting on peak Hakeem. No way in hell... Also you miss the well-known fact that Wilt really really cared about stats while Kareem never really did. And that Wilt played at a higher pace.

Like I always said Wilt's scoring accomplishments are arguably a bigger testament to his incredible stamina than his scoring ability.

It's worth noting that Jabbar averaged 39.9 ppg, 16.3 rpg, and 5.6 apg on 59.8 %FG in 18 games that Oscar missed in 71-72. We are missing complete rpg/apg/FG% data for a few games in this stretch but regardless considering his mind-boggling averages against Wilt and Cowens that year (two elite defenders) it's not crazy at all to say he could have put up 40+ ppg that year if he was so inclined.

Unfortunately Wilt and Kareem didn't peak at the same time or played the same opponents so we can never know for sure.

KAJ is an interesting case. I have long maintained that he hit his peak very early in his NBA career. In fact, I would argue that his best season came in his second year. In the regular season, he played 40.3 mpg, averaged 31.7 ppg, shot .577 (in a league that shot .449...and that .128 was the largest differential of his entire career BTW), 16.0 rpg, and anchored the best defense in the league. Then in the playoffs, he easily outplayed Nate, BUT, against a Wilt who was 34, and only a year removed from major knee surgery, he was statistically outplayed. And he put up a dominating Finals against Unseld.

His 71-72 season would be his best statistical season. BUT, he was badly outplayed by Thurmond in the playoffs, and while he scored 33 ppg against Wilt in the WCF's, he only shot .457 noverall, which included a .414 FG% over the course of the last four games. And in the clinching game six, Chamberlain outplayed him...especially in the 4th quarter.

But then it gets interesting. I have said this before, but in that 71-72 season, KAJ averaged 44.2 mpg, 34.8 ppg, and shot .574 from the field...all while playing for a Milwaukee team that went 63-19, and had a ppg differential of +11.1 ppg.

KAJ was traded to the Lakers before the start of the 75-76 season. A Laker team that had gone 30-52 the year before. Here was Kareem's opportunity to show what he could really do if he had to carry a team. Did he go on to average 40 ppg? Hell no, ... he played 41.2 mpg, averaged 27.7 ppg, and shot .529 from the field.

My point being...I honestly don't believe that KAJ could ever have approached Wilt's scoring marks. He just didn't have the stamina, nor the desire. He couldn't remain motivated long enough to come close. Clearly, when motivated, he could drop 40-50 on anyone. But, that was his problem. He just plain lacked the motivation to do over the course of an entire season.

And, something else. KAJ averaged 33 FGAs against Wilt in the '72 playoffs. And yet, he only scored 34 ppg. He just couldn't sustain a high efficiency when taking a huge number of FGAs.

As for Reed. Even as late as the 68-69 season, and before Chamberlain shredded his knee, Wilt crushed him in their three regular season H2H's (these occurred after Bellamy was traded away and Reed moved to center.) Chamberlain outscored Reed by a 24-15 margin in those games, including one by a 31-15 margin. And here again, this was a Wilt who was no longer the dominating scoring machine of the mid-60's (and a Wilt who had an entire season of 40 ppg against Reed in nine H2H's.)

Thurmond's offensive numbers were not much different from '67 thru '72. And, he came in second in the MVP voting that season (behind Chamberlain.) But there was one game that interesting even in that year. The two met early on, and this came in a season in which Hannum had Wilt passing the ball. However, the Sixers trailed at halftime, and Hannum instructed the team to feed Wilt. Chamberlain responded with 24 second half points (30 overall, with 26 rebounds, and 12 blocked shots.)

And even in that 66-67 season, and counting the Finals, Wilt outscored Nate, 10-1-1 in their 12 H2H games, and dramatically outshot him.


As for KAJ-Wilt... as you said, we never got to witness a prime KAJ vs a prime Chamberlain. However, the closest we got was in KAJ's rookie season. Here again, KAJ was not yet at his peak (although I would argue he was only a year removed from it), but Chamberlain was certainly not at his peak, either. In that encounter, Wilt oustcored KAJ, 25-23; outrebounded KAJ, 25-20; outassisted KAJ, 5-2; outblocked KAJ, (including a skyhook), 3-2; and outshot KAJ from the field, 9-14 to 9-21.

Keep in mind, too, that in KAJ's rookie season, Chamberlain was leading the league in scoring, at 32.2 ppg, and on a .579 FG%, when he shredded his knee in the ninth game. In those nine games, Wilt had games of 33, 35, 37 (against Boerwinkle who would give KAJ trouble throughout their careers), 38 (against the reigning MVP Unseld), 42 (against Rule...go ahead look up his numbers), and 43 points. Clearly, this was a Chamberlain that was capable of still leading the league in scoring.

And finally...how about H2H's with Bellamy? A peak KAJ's HIGH game against an aging Bellamy, in 25 career H2H games, was 41 points. A prime Chamberlain was routinely putting up 40 point games against a prime Bellamy, even as late as his 65-66 season (a 50 point game.) He had entire seasons, covering 10 H2H games in each, of 44 and 53 ppg against him, including four games of 60+ and a high game of 73 (with 36 rebounds.)

[dankok8]

KAJ is an interesting case. I have long maintained that he hit his peak very early in his NBA career. In fact, I would argue that his best season came in his second year. In the regular season, he played 40.3 mpg, averaged 31.7 ppg, shot .577 (in a league that shot .449...and that .128 was the largest differential of his entire career BTW), 16.0 rpg, and anchored the best defense in the league. Then in the playoffs, he easily outplayed Nate, BUT, against a Wilt who was 34, and only a year removed from major knee surgery, he was statistically outplayed. And he put up a dominating Finals against Unseld.

His 71-72 season would be his best statistical season. BUT, he was badly outplayed by Thurmond in the playoffs, and while he scored 33 ppg against Wilt in the WCF's, he only shot .457 noverall, which included a .414 FG% over the course of the last four games. And in the clinching game six, Chamberlain outplayed him...especially in the 4th quarter.

But then it gets interesting. I have said this before, but in that 71-72 season, KAJ averaged 44.2 mpg, 34.8 ppg, and shot .574 from the field...all while playing for a Milwaukee team that went 63-19, and had a ppg differential of +11.1 ppg.

KAJ was traded to the Lakers before the start of the 75-76 season. A Laker team that had gone 30-52 the year before. Here was Kareem's opportunity to show what he could really do if he had to carry a team. Did he go on to average 40 ppg? Hell no, ... he played 41.2 mpg, averaged 27.7 ppg, and shot .529 from the field.

My point being...I honestly don't believe that KAJ could ever have approached Wilt's scoring marks. He just didn't have the stamina, nor the desire. He couldn't remain motivated long enough to come close. Clearly, when motivated, he could drop 40-50 on anyone. But, that was his problem. He just plain lacked the motivation to do over the course of an entire season.

And, something else. KAJ averaged 33 FGAs against Wilt in the '72 playoffs. And yet, he only scored 34 ppg. He just couldn't sustain a high efficiency when taking a huge number of FGAs.

As for Reed. Even as late as the 68-69 season, and before Chamberlain shredded his knee, Wilt crushed him in their three regular season H2H's (these occurred after Bellamy was traded away and Reed moved to center.) Chamberlain outscored Reed by a 24-15 margin in those games, including one by a 31-15 margin. And here again, this was a Wilt who was no longer the dominating scoring machine of the mid-60's (and a Wilt who had an entire season of 40 ppg against Reed in nine H2H's.)

Thurmond's offensive numbers were not much different from '67 thru '72. And, he came in second in the MVP voting that season (behind Chamberlain.) But there was one game that interesting even in that year. The two met early on, and this came in a season in which Hannum had Wilt passing the ball. However, the Sixers trailed at halftime, and Hannum instructed the team to feed Wilt. Chamberlain responded with 24 second half points (30 overall, with 26 rebounds, and 12 blocked shots.)

And even in that 66-67 season, and counting the Finals, Wilt outscored Nate, 10-1-1 in their 12 H2H games, and dramatically outshot him.


As for KAJ-Wilt... as you said, we never got to witness a prime KAJ vs a prime Chamberlain. However, the closest we got was in KAJ's rookie season. Here again, KAJ was not yet at his peak (although I would argue he was only a year removed from it), but Chamberlain was certainly not at his peak, either. In that encounter, Wilt oustcored KAJ, 25-23; outrebounded KAJ, 25-20; outassisted KAJ, 5-2; outblocked KAJ, (including a skyhook), 3-2; and outshot KAJ from the field, 9-14 to 9-21.

Keep in mind, too, that in KAJ's rookie season, Chamberlain was leading the league in scoring, at 32.2 ppg, and on a .579 FG%, when he shredded his knee in the ninth game. In those nine games, Wilt had games of 33, 35, 37 (against Boerwinkle who would give KAJ trouble throughout their careers), 38 (against the reigning MVP Unseld), 42 (against Rule...go ahead look up his numbers), and 43 points. Clearly, this was a Chamberlain that was capable of still leading the league in scoring.

And finally...how about H2H's with Bellamy? A peak KAJ's HIGH game against an aging Bellamy, in 25 career H2H games, was 41 points. A prime Chamberlain was routinely putting up 40 point games against a prime Bellamy, even as late as his 65-66 season (a 50 point game.) He had entire seasons, covering 10 H2H games in each, of 44 and 53 ppg against him, including four games of 60+ and a high game of 73 (with 36 rebounds.)

I agree Kareem was rarely motivated to score 40+ let alone 50+ but you make it sound like it's a bad thing? Scoring so much doesn't help your team win. Kareem definitely had insane stamina too. He played more career minutes than any player ever by a huge margin.

We have that one 'meaningful' game of Wilt vs. Kareem before Wilt shredded his knee. But it is JUST ONE GAME. We can't infer too much from that.

As always you're right about Wilt killing Reed, Rule, Boerwinkle etc. in the 69-69 season. Truth is KAJ owned those guys pretty badly too.

[Pointguard]

I agree Kareem was rarely motivated to score 40+ let alone 50+ but you make it sound like it's a bad thing? Scoring so much doesn't help your team win. Kareem definitely had insane stamina too. He played more career minutes than any player ever by a huge margin.

We have that one 'meaningful' game of Wilt vs. Kareem before Wilt shredded his knee. But it is JUST ONE GAME. We can't infer too much from that.

As always you're right about Wilt killing Reed, Rule, Boerwinkle etc. in the 69-69 season. Truth is KAJ owned those guys pretty badly too.

Kareem minutes are more a reflexion of his health, his stamina is questionable. He definitely could have lead the league in rebounding seven or eight years if he was up to it. Plus Moses Malone wore him down MOST of the time. Wilt was a bigger/stronger/faster/taller/more skilled/more productive/ much better defensive/well rounded/ smarter/more dominant version of Malone.

Magic would often out rebound Kareem.

Also the 70's was a good time to go scoring crazy. Rick Barry could win it all and go deep in the playoffs on his scoring skills alone. And he was as successful as Kareem was during Kareem"s prime in the 70"s.

Wilt lead the league in rebounding his last year which is amazing when you consider the problem Kareem, Hakeem and Shaq had doing that in their primes! If we added up their last years together and doubled it, it's not going to touch Wilts last year.

With that said I enjoy you research.

[La Frescobaldi]

Truth is Wilt shelled Thurmond (only in a few games, he struggled in others), Reed etc. and Kareem shelled Hakeem when they were very young and nowhere near their best. Thurmond in 64-65 was in his first year starting at center. Nate's peak was around '69-'73 both offensively and defensively. Reed too didn't become the great player he was until '69. Hakeem peaked late from '93-'95. While I think peak Kareem > peak Hakeem, Kareem wouldn't put up 33 ppg on 65% shooting on peak Hakeem. No way in hell... Also you miss the well-known fact that Wilt really really cared about stats while Kareem never really did. And that Wilt played at a higher pace.

Like I always said Wilt's scoring accomplishments are arguably a bigger testament to his incredible stamina than his scoring ability.

It's worth noting that Jabbar averaged 39.9 ppg, 16.3 rpg, and 5.6 apg on 59.8 %FG in 18 games that Oscar missed in 71-72. We are missing complete rpg/apg/FG% data for a few games in this stretch but regardless considering his mind-boggling averages against Wilt and Cowens that year (two elite defenders) it's not crazy at all to say he could have put up 40+ ppg that year if he was so inclined.

Unfortunately Wilt and Kareem didn't peak at the same time or played the same opponents so we can never know for sure.

1970-1978 Jabbar could do anything he pleased against anyone he pleased. Hakeem would be no different whatsoever. Young Jabbar is entirely different levels of greatness from H.O.
Entire levels.

[julizaver]

I looked through some their H2H data and Nate was not just defending Wilt well but outrebounded him many times. From 68-69 onwards, Nate also outscored him in virtually every game even though their regular season averages were very much on par the first few years.



Maybe in near future I will post some data about Nate vs Wilt, but in another thread.
As for the numbers shown for 67-68 season I checked Wilt's FG% and I see that it is calculated only for the 3 games for which we have data, for the last game they played on 19.01.1968 (and in which Nate had season ending injury) their is no data available for the field goals attempts.
Their are some other things also.
And I am not questioning Nate great games against Wilt.
It is true that Nate limited Wilt's offensive production, but Wilt also limited Nate's. For example Nate shot around 0.360 against Wilt (from games we have data), while Wilt shot 0.536 against Nate. Wilt averaged 14.84 ppg against Nate and Nate averaged 16.3 ppg against Wilt.

[dankok8]

Kareem minutes are more a reflexion of his health, his stamina is questionable. He definitely could have lead the league in rebounding seven or eight years if he was up to it. Plus Moses Malone wore him down MOST of the time. Wilt was a bigger/stronger/faster/taller/more skilled/more productive/ much better defensive/well rounded/ smarter/more dominant version of Malone.

Magic would often out rebound Kareem.

Also the 70's was a good time to go scoring crazy. Rick Barry could win it all and go deep in the playoffs on his scoring skills alone. And he was as successful as Kareem was during Kareem"s prime in the 70"s.

Wilt lead the league in rebounding his last year which is amazing when you consider the problem Kareem, Hakeem and Shaq had doing that in their primes! If we added up their last years together and doubled it, it's not going to touch Wilts last year.

With that said I enjoy you research.

Thanks for the kind words!

In and after 81-82 when Kareem was getting outplayed by Moses and occasionally outrebounded by Magic he was WAY OUT OF HIS PRIME. People bring up the '83 Finals... Kareem was 36 years old facing a peak Moses and honestly he was still easily the best Laker on the floor in that series.

Kareem's teams in the 70's were ravaged by injuries.

1972 - Oscar, McGlocklin
1973 - Dandridge
1974 - Lucious Allen (DNP in the playoffs)
1975 - Himself (team had a winning record 35-30 when he played)
1977 - Kermit Washington (DNP in the playoffs), Lucius Allen

It's not an excuse but it did happen. Even in '81 and '83 the Lakers had serious injuries to Magic and Worthy (who DNP in the Finals) respectively.


Maybe in near future I will post some data about Nate vs Wilt, but in another thread.
As for the numbers shown for 67-68 season I checked Wilt's FG% and I see that it is calculated only for the 3 games for which we have data, for the last game they played on 19.01.1968 (and in which Nate had season ending injury) their is no data available for the field goals attempts.
Their are some other things also.
And I am not questioning Nate great games against Wilt.
It is true that Nate limited Wilt's offensive production, but Wilt also limited Nate's. For example Nate shot around 0.360 against Wilt (from games we have data), while Wilt shot 0.536 against Nate. Wilt averaged 14.84 ppg against Nate and Nate averaged 16.3 ppg against Wilt.

Good points!

What I was trying to show LAZERUSS is that Wilt didn't dominate Nate any more than Kareem did.

Wilt in 64-65 and 65-66 had seasons of 26.7 ppg on 50.0 %FG and 28.6 ppg on young Nate. Kareem from 70-71 to 73-74 had seasons of 26.6 ppg on 48.4 %FG, 24.0 ppg on 44.1 %FG, 25.8 ppg on 48.8 %FG, and 24.2 ppg on 57.1 %FG. Factor in FT shooting and Kareem was probably much more efficient overall.

[julizaver]

Good points!

What I was trying to show LAZERUSS is that Wilt didn't dominate Nate any more than Kareem did.

Wilt in 64-65 and 65-66 had seasons of 26.7 ppg on 50.0 %FG and 28.6 ppg on young Nate. Kareem from 70-71 to 73-74 had seasons of 26.6 ppg on 48.4 %FG, 24.0 ppg on 44.1 %FG, 25.8 ppg on 48.8 %FG, and 24.2 ppg on 57.1 %FG. Factor in FT shooting and Kareem was probably much more efficient overall.

We could measure how Wilt and Nate played against Russell, and Wilt and Kareem against Nate.
As we know Wilt played hardest against Russell's Celtics, and Kareem and Nate played hardest against Wilt.

[Psileas]

Maybe in near future I will post some data about Nate vs Wilt, but in another thread.
As for the numbers shown for 67-68 season I checked Wilt's FG% and I see that it is calculated only for the 3 games for which we have data, for the last game they played on 19.01.1968 (and in which Nate had season ending injury) their is no data available for the field goals attempts.
Their are some other things also.
And I am not questioning Nate great games against Wilt.
It is true that Nate limited Wilt's offensive production, but Wilt also limited Nate's. For example Nate shot around 0.360 against Wilt (from games we have data), while Wilt shot 0.536 against Nate. Wilt averaged 14.84 ppg against Nate and Nate averaged 16.3 ppg against Wilt.

About the 1967-68 matchups, I remember that Wilt completely stopped shooting in the first one, as a form of "protest" for taking too few shots early on, although he also got 13 assists. Nate still played great defense against him, but the scoring averages in that "series" are somewhat scewed by this fact.

[julizaver]

About the 1967-68 matchups, I remember that Wilt completely stopped shooting in the first one, as a form of "protest" for taking too few shots early on, although he also got 13 assists. Nate still played great defense against him, but the scoring averages in that "series" are somewhat scewed by this fact.

Yes, and Sixers won that game. And there is another game - on 28.03.1973 where Wilt had 1 points 0/1 FG 1/2 FT and again Lakers won the game. Wilt was 1 pt 18 reb 9 assists, Thurmond had 16 pts (8/20) 22 rebs and 3 assists.

[Pointguard]

Thanks for the kind words!

In and after 81-82 when Kareem was getting outplayed by Moses and occasionally outrebounded by Magic he was WAY OUT OF HIS PRIME. People bring up the '83 Finals... Kareem was 36 years old facing a peak Moses and honestly he was still easily the best Laker on the floor in that series.

Welcome and I hope you hang around.

Moses came in the league at 19 years old in '75. Within two years, by the end of '77 he was playing Kareem even in points and rebound production, and that was when Kareem was in his prime at 29 years old with one of his best years. He always got up for Kareem. Playing Kareem pretty much even at 21 years old, gave him confidence and in his third year he begins his term of greatness. But it wasn't until his fourth year that he starts his full blown assault on the league. Kareem always had his problems with Moses' determination and continuous motion.

In all fairness you talk about guys out-rebounding Wilt at 36 despite him leading the league in his last year, but Magic outrebounded Kareem at ages 34 and 35. And Kareem would play five and six years after this.

[Pointguard]

Yes, and Sixers won that game. And there is another game - on 28.03.1973 where Wilt had 1 points 0/1 FG 1/2 FT and again Lakers won the game. Wilt was 1 pt 18 reb 9 assists, Thurmond had 16 pts (8/20) 22 rebs and 3 assists.
This is why I believe you have to take out the outlier and read up on the second worse case. Because this distorts a lot.

[dankok8]

Welcome and I hope you hang around.

Moses came in the league at 19 years old in '75. Within two years, by the end of '77 he was playing Kareem even in points and rebound production, and that was when Kareem was in his prime at 29 years old with one of his best years. He always got up for Kareem. Playing Kareem pretty much even at 21 years old, gave him confidence and in his third year he begins his term of greatness. But it wasn't until his fourth year that he starts his full blown assault on the league. Kareem always had his problems with Moses' determination and continuous motion.

In all fairness you talk about guys out-rebounding Wilt at 36 despite him leading the league in his last year, but Magic outrebounded Kareem at ages 34 and 35. And Kareem would play five and six years after this.

I'm active mostly on Hoopsnation but I do go around here once in a while. People have cited my posts before too! LOL

Kareem held his own vs. Moses until '81. Moses won the rebounding battles but Kareem always had a large edge in FG% and APG and had no trouble scoring against Moses himself. Unfortunately we don't have complete numbers for Malone, just points and rebounds.

76-77 (4 games)

Kareem: 24.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 5.5 apg on 61.0 %FG
Moses: 16.5 ppg, 13.8 rpg

77-78 (3 games)

Kareem: 24.3 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 3.3 apg on 54.6 %FG
Moses: 23.3 ppg, 16.3 rpg

It's worth noting that one game was a blowout win for LA.

78-79 (3 games)

Kareem: 30.7 ppg, 11.3 rpg, 6.7 apg on 60.9 %FG
Moses: 31.0 ppg, 23.0 rpg

79-80 (2 games)

Kareem: 19.5 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 3.0 apg on 66.7 %FG
Moses: 30.5 ppg, 16.0 rpg

Stats are misleading. In the first game Kareem was ejected in the 4th quarter. In the second game Kareem only played from midway in the 3rd to the end of the game and in that 19 min stretch put up 15/6 on 86% shooting. He wasn't gonna play at all because of migraines.

80-81 (5 games)

Kareem: 23.2 ppg, 9.4 rpg, 3.6 apg on 51.1 %FG
Moses: 26.8 ppg, 16.6 rpg

In the first game Kareem suffered a cornea injury and exited in the second quarter... ended up with just 10 points and 4 boards. Kareem outscored Moses in 3 out of 5 games overall so it's definitely pretty close.

81 Playoffs

Game 1

Kareem: 21/15/7 (9/19, 3/6)
Moses: 38/23 (15/?, 8/10)

Rockets win 111-107. Malone had 15 points and 17 rebounds in the second half and 11 offensive rebounds in the game. Most of his points came against Chones but Jabbar was unable to stop Moses from owning the glass.

Game 2

Kareem: 27/17/1 (10/22, 7/10)
Moses: 33/15 (15/?, 3/8)

Lakers win 111-107. Kareem did a great job on the boards and anchoring the defense and Magic put in a valiant effort with 15/18/8. Earvin got LA a 30-8 lead in the first quarter and Houston never recovered.

Game 3

Kareem: 32/18/4 (11/24, 10/12)
Moses: 23/15 (8/?, 7/7)

Rockets win 89-86. Magic scored 10 points on 2-14 shooting but missed 2 free throws late and airballed a game-tying 3pt shot at the buzzer. Kareem missed some very makeable hook shots while defended by Paultz. Lakers lose for the second time in the series on their own floor.

Cumulative Stats

Kareem: 26.7 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 4.0 apg on 46.2 %FG/71.4 %FT/51.7 %TS
Moses: 31.3 ppg, 17.7 rpg on 72.0 %FT

Moses wins Game 1, draw in Game 2, and Kareem wins Game 3.

[Pointguard]

I'm active mostly on Hoopsnation but I do go around here once in a while. People have cited my posts before too! LOL

Kareem held his own vs. Moses until '81. Moses won the rebounding battles but Kareem always had a large edge in FG% and APG and had no trouble scoring against Moses himself. Unfortunately we don't have complete numbers for Malone, just points and rebounds.

76-77 (4 games)

Kareem: 24.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 5.5 apg on 61.0 %FG
Moses: 16.5 ppg, 13.8 rpg

77-78 (3 games)

Kareem: 24.3 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 3.3 apg on 54.6 %FG
Moses: 23.3 ppg, 16.3 rpg

It's worth noting that one game was a blowout win for LA.

78-79 (3 games)

Kareem: 30.7 ppg, 11.3 rpg, 6.7 apg on 60.9 %FG
Moses: 31.0 ppg, 23.0 rpg

79-80 (2 games)

Kareem: 19.5 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 3.0 apg on 66.7 %FG
Moses: 30.5 ppg, 16.0 rpg

Stats are misleading. In the first game Kareem was ejected in the 4th quarter. In the second game Kareem only played from midway in the 3rd to the end of the game and in that 19 min stretch put up 15/6 on 86% shooting. He wasn't gonna play at all because of migraines.

80-81 (5 games)

Kareem: 23.2 ppg, 9.4 rpg, 3.6 apg on 51.1 %FG
Moses: 26.8 ppg, 16.6 rpg

In the first game Kareem suffered a cornea injury and exited in the second quarter... ended up with just 10 points and 4 boards. Kareem outscored Moses in 3 out of 5 games overall so it's definitely pretty close.

81 Playoffs

Game 1

Kareem: 21/15/7 (9/19, 3/6)
Moses: 38/23 (15/?, 8/10)

Rockets win 111-107. Malone had 15 points and 17 rebounds in the second half and 11 offensive rebounds in the game. Most of his points came against Chones but Jabbar was unable to stop Moses from owning the glass.

Game 2

Kareem: 27/17/1 (10/22, 7/10)
Moses: 33/15 (15/?, 3/8)

Lakers win 111-107. Kareem did a great job on the boards and anchoring the defense and Magic put in a valiant effort with 15/18/8. Earvin got LA a 30-8 lead in the first quarter and Houston never recovered.

Game 3

Kareem: 32/18/4 (11/24, 10/12)
Moses: 23/15 (8/?, 7/7)

Rockets win 89-86. Magic scored 10 points on 2-14 shooting but missed 2 free throws late and airballed a game-tying 3pt shot at the buzzer. Kareem missed some very makeable hook shots while defended by Paultz. Lakers lose for the second time in the series on their own floor.

Cumulative Stats

Kareem: 26.7 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 4.0 apg on 46.2 %FG/71.4 %FT/51.7 %TS
Moses: 31.3 ppg, 17.7 rpg on 72.0 %FT

Moses wins Game 1, draw in Game 2, and Kareem wins Game 3.

Good stuff as always.

I don't doubt Kareem still outplayed him in games where the production looks in favor of Malone. So we'll say Malone held his own against Kareem in respect to the master who was already established. But Malone had a quality (whether it was his determination or work horse style I don't know) that Kareem had trouble with. And there isn't an indication that Kareem could stop him. Malone was averaging better against Kareem than the rest of the league in his early years.

The thing here is that Malone was not a tall guy with a lot of offensive moves or a killer repertoire. He was just very persistent. I just can't see Kareem bothering a young Wilt who was determined to get 40 points on everyone. And you do have to factor in, that Kareem seemingly could get wore down but a not fast, lighter (weight), limited offensive player.

[jlip]

Informative threads like this make ISH worthwhile.:applause:

[LAZERUSS]

I'm active mostly on Hoopsnation but I do go around here once in a while. People have cited my posts before too! LOL

Kareem held his own vs. Moses until '81. Moses won the rebounding battles but Kareem always had a large edge in FG% and APG and had no trouble scoring against Moses himself. Unfortunately we don't have complete numbers for Malone, just points and rebounds.

76-77 (4 games)

Kareem: 24.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 5.5 apg on 61.0 %FG
Moses: 16.5 ppg, 13.8 rpg

77-78 (3 games)

Kareem: 24.3 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 3.3 apg on 54.6 %FG
Moses: 23.3 ppg, 16.3 rpg

It's worth noting that one game was a blowout win for LA.

78-79 (3 games)

Kareem: 30.7 ppg, 11.3 rpg, 6.7 apg on 60.9 %FG
Moses: 31.0 ppg, 23.0 rpg

79-80 (2 games)

Kareem: 19.5 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 3.0 apg on 66.7 %FG
Moses: 30.5 ppg, 16.0 rpg

Stats are misleading. In the first game Kareem was ejected in the 4th quarter. In the second game Kareem only played from midway in the 3rd to the end of the game and in that 19 min stretch put up 15/6 on 86% shooting. He wasn't gonna play at all because of migraines.

80-81 (5 games)

Kareem: 23.2 ppg, 9.4 rpg, 3.6 apg on 51.1 %FG
Moses: 26.8 ppg, 16.6 rpg

In the first game Kareem suffered a cornea injury and exited in the second quarter... ended up with just 10 points and 4 boards. Kareem outscored Moses in 3 out of 5 games overall so it's definitely pretty close.

81 Playoffs

Game 1

Kareem: 21/15/7 (9/19, 3/6)
Moses: 38/23 (15/?, 8/10)

Rockets win 111-107. Malone had 15 points and 17 rebounds in the second half and 11 offensive rebounds in the game. Most of his points came against Chones but Jabbar was unable to stop Moses from owning the glass.

Game 2

Kareem: 27/17/1 (10/22, 7/10)
Moses: 33/15 (15/?, 3/8)

Lakers win 111-107. Kareem did a great job on the boards and anchoring the defense and Magic put in a valiant effort with 15/18/8. Earvin got LA a 30-8 lead in the first quarter and Houston never recovered.

Game 3

Kareem: 32/18/4 (11/24, 10/12)
Moses: 23/15 (8/?, 7/7)

Rockets win 89-86. Magic scored 10 points on 2-14 shooting but missed 2 free throws late and airballed a game-tying 3pt shot at the buzzer. Kareem missed some very makeable hook shots while defended by Paultz. Lakers lose for the second time in the series on their own floor.

Cumulative Stats

Kareem: 26.7 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 4.0 apg on 46.2 %FG/71.4 %FT/51.7 %TS
Moses: 31.3 ppg, 17.7 rpg on 72.0 %FT

Moses wins Game 1, draw in Game 2, and Kareem wins Game 3.

Moses... "the Kareem Killer."

I'm sorry, but those numbers already are a clear indicator of Moses' dominance. Moses was outscoring KAJ, and just crushing him on the glass. Furthermore, if you continue to the end of their careers, Malone just waxed KAJ. Moses was still crushing the NBA up thru his 82-83 season, and was still a major force for another couple of seasons.

Overall, in their 40 career H2H's, and Moses just owned KAJ. Outscored him in two-thirds of their games. And he had higher high games, and larger differentials. And he slaughtered even a relatively prime KAJ on the glass...even when Kareem was still grabbing 11+ per game. I suspect that Moses probably outrebounded Kareem in probably 80% of their H2H's, and many by huge margins (and I know Moses went 16-0 in their last 16 H2H games.)

And even in the FG% H2H's that we do have, Moses was very close to Kareem, despite the fact that KAJ had a considerably higher career FG%. Furthermore, Moses just murdered Kareem from the FT line in terms of FTAs and makes.


And I find it fascinating that you suggest that a peak and prime KAJ battled an old Wilt almost evenly on the glass (which he did not BTW...Wilt averaged nearly two more per game in their H2H's...and that includes their last season in the league together), and yet you excuse a KAJ 's bashing from Moses because of Kareem's age. BTW, an old Wilt, on a surgically repaired knee outrebounded KAJ 13-9 in their first 22 H2H's, and by a margin of nearly 3 per game.

Let me ask you this, how do think a 35-36 year old Kareem would have fared against a 25-26 year old Wilt on the glass?

Of course, the real question would have been...how would a series between a peak KAJ and a peak Chamberlain have gone? Especially a motivated scoring Wilt...say around 65-66 , when he was just murdering the likes of Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, and Russell. I don't think you will ever find another season in which the best center in the NBA just annihilated the best centers of the league by the margins that Wilt did to his peers in 65-66 (or even from '60 thru '67.)

[LAZERUSS]

Thanks for the kind words!

In and after 81-82 when Kareem was getting outplayed by Moses and occasionally outrebounded by Magic he was WAY OUT OF HIS PRIME. People bring up the '83 Finals... Kareem was 36 years old facing a peak Moses and honestly he was still easily the best Laker on the floor in that series.

Kareem's teams in the 70's were ravaged by injuries.

1972 - Oscar, McGlocklin
1973 - Dandridge
1974 - Lucious Allen (DNP in the playoffs)
1975 - Himself (team had a winning record 35-30 when he played)
1977 - Kermit Washington (DNP in the playoffs), Lucius Allen

It's not an excuse but it did happen. Even in '81 and '83 the Lakers had serious injuries to Magic and Worthy (who DNP in the Finals) respectively.



Good points!

What I was trying to show LAZERUSS is that Wilt didn't dominate Nate any more than Kareem did.

Wilt in 64-65 and 65-66 had seasons of 26.7 ppg on 50.0 %FG and 28.6 ppg on young Nate. Kareem from 70-71 to 73-74 had seasons of 26.6 ppg on 48.4 %FG, 24.0 ppg on 44.1 %FG, 25.8 ppg on 48.8 %FG, and 24.2 ppg on 57.1 %FG. Factor in FT shooting and Kareem was probably much more efficient overall.

Chamberlain CRUSHED Nate in Wilt's "scoring" seasons, and even up thru the '67 Finals. Once again, he had a full season in which he outscored Nate, 29 ppg to 16 ppg (and that included a game in which Nate outscored Wilt, 30-15.) Wilt had high games of 38 and even 45 against Nate that season. Furthermore, in their first 13 H2H games, Wilt had SIX games of 30+. In the 39 KAJ-Nate H2H's that spanned Kareem's rookie season (69-70) thru Nate's last quality season (73-74), and which included their 16 playoff H2H's, KAJ had a total of FIVE 30+ games. And KAJ's career high against Nate was only 34 points.

And once again, Chamberlain outscored Nate, 21-2-1 in their first 24 H2H games.

And while KAJ shot a career average of about .455 (and less in their post-season H2Hs) against Thurmond in those 39 games (and only .440 thru their complete H2H's from 69-70 thru 72-73), a prime scoring Chamberlain probably shot about .500 against Thurmond, while dramatically reducing Nate's FG%'s.

[LAZERUSS]

Maybe in near future I will post some data about Nate vs Wilt, but in another thread.
As for the numbers shown for 67-68 season I checked Wilt's FG% and I see that it is calculated only for the 3 games for which we have data, for the last game they played on 19.01.1968 (and in which Nate had season ending injury) their is no data available for the field goals attempts.
Their are some other things also.
And I am not questioning Nate great games against Wilt.
It is true that Nate limited Wilt's offensive production, but Wilt also limited Nate's. For example Nate shot around 0.360 against Wilt (from games we have data), while Wilt shot 0.536 against Nate. Wilt averaged 14.84 ppg against Nate and Nate averaged 16.3 ppg against Wilt.

Here again, as was the case with Russell, while the Wilt-detractors love to point out the few centers that Wilt faced who actually reduced his efficiency (and it was never by much either), how about the reverse?

Chamberlain probably reduced Thurmond's FG%'s considerably more than Nate did Wilt's. Just as we know that that what was what Chamberlain did to Russell.

[dankok8]

Good stuff as always.

I don't doubt Kareem still outplayed him in games where the production looks in favor of Malone. So we'll say Malone held his own against Kareem in respect to the master who was already established. But Malone had a quality (whether it was his determination or work horse style I don't know) that Kareem had trouble with. And there isn't an indication that Kareem could stop him. Malone was averaging better against Kareem than the rest of the league in his early years.

The thing here is that Malone was not a tall guy with a lot of offensive moves or a killer repertoire. He was just very persistent. I just can't see Kareem bothering a young Wilt who was determined to get 40 points on everyone. And you do have to factor in, that Kareem seemingly could get wore down but a not fast, lighter (weight), limited offensive player.

Good post!

Young Kareem could match Moses' motor IMO. Moses would be a huge match-up problem for anyone though let's make that clear.


Moses... "the Kareem Killer."

I'm sorry, but those numbers already are a clear indicator of Moses' dominance. Moses was outscoring KAJ, and just crushing him on the glass. Furthermore, if you continue to the end of their careers, Malone just waxed KAJ. Moses was still crushing the NBA up thru his 82-83 season, and was still a major force for another couple of seasons.

Overall, in their 40 career H2H's, and Moses just owned KAJ. Outscored him in two-thirds of their games. And he had higher high games, and larger differentials. And he slaughtered even a relatively prime KAJ on the glass...even when Kareem was still grabbing 11+ per game. I suspect that Moses probably outrebounded Kareem in probably 80% of their H2H's, and many by huge margins (and I know Moses went 16-0 in their last 16 H2H games.)

And even in the FG% H2H's that we do have, Moses was very close to Kareem, despite the fact that KAJ had a considerably higher career FG%. Furthermore, Moses just murdered Kareem from the FT line in terms of FTAs and makes.


And I find it fascinating that you suggest that a peak and prime KAJ battled an old Wilt almost evenly on the glass (which he did not BTW...Wilt averaged nearly two more per game in their H2H's...and that includes their last season in the league together), and yet you excuse a KAJ 's bashing from Moses because of Kareem's age. BTW, an old Wilt, on a surgically repaired knee outrebounded KAJ 13-9 in their first 22 H2H's, and by a margin of nearly 3 per game.

Let me ask you this, how do think a 35-36 year old Kareem would have fared against a 25-26 year old Wilt on the glass?

Of course, the real question would have been...how would a series between a peak KAJ and a peak Chamberlain have gone? Especially a motivated scoring Wilt...say around 65-66 , when he was just murdering the likes of Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, and Russell. I don't think you will ever find another season in which the best center in the NBA just annihilated the best centers of the league by the margins that Wilt did to his peers in 65-66 (or even from '60 thru '67.)

Did you read the recaps? Kareem played limited minutes in 3-4 games because of injury, ejections etc. Seems rather unfair to compare numbers heads up in a game when one player plays 20 min and the other 40 min. Moses was a better rebounder but Kareem was the more efficient scorer, better passer, better defender, better leader. Why did Moses not win more with a stacked Sixers team if he was that great?

In 28 H2H's between Wilt and Kareem, it's 14-14 in rebounding battles. Wilt just won his by slightly larger margins but he also played more minutes than Kareem. It's a SMALL EDGE for Wilt. I don't want to repeat myself.

And if you mention 65-66 do talk about Wilt's 15 point game on Thurmond and his four other games in the 20's... Don't just mention his best outing.

Kareem annihilated the 71-72 league rather badly... A league full of HOFers:

- Wilt
- Thurmond
- Cowens
- Reed/DeBusschere/Lucas
- Hayes
- Lanier
- Bellamy
- Unseld
- Haywood (26/13)
- Wicks (25/12)
- Smith (17/15)
- Walk (16/8)
- Boerwinkle/Ray (two 7/11 guys)


Chamberlain CRUSHED Nate in Wilt's "scoring" seasons, and even up thru the '67 Finals. Once again, he had a full season in which he outscored Nate, 29 ppg to 16 ppg (and that included a game in which Nate outscored Wilt, 30-15.) Wilt had high games of 38 and even 45 against Nate that season. Furthermore, in their first 13 H2H games, Wilt had SIX games of 30+. In the 39 KAJ-Nate H2H's that spanned Kareem's rookie season (69-70) thru Nate's last quality season (73-74), and which included their 16 playoff H2H's, KAJ had a total of FIVE 30+ games. And KAJ's career high against Nate was only 34 points.

And once again, Chamberlain outscored Nate, 21-2-1 in their first 24 H2H games.

And while KAJ shot a career average of about .455 (and less in their post-season H2Hs) against Thurmond in those 39 games (and only .440 thru their complete H2H's from 69-70 thru 72-73), a prime scoring Chamberlain probably shot about .500 against Thurmond, while dramatically reducing Nate's FG%'s.

Don't mention scoring with Nate. He wasn't a great scorer. Kareem in his career is 45-6-1 vs Nate in scoring. It doesn't mean much...

Truth is Kareem played Nate just as well as Wilt did. Don't just look at their peak performances. Look at the overall numbers. Just because Wilt had ONE 45 POINT GAME doesn't make him better.

Oh and Kareem's career high against Nate is 40 points, not 34...

[LAZERUSS]

Good post!

Young Kareem could match Moses' motor IMO. Moses would be a huge match-up problem for anyone though let's make that clear.



Did you read the recaps? Kareem played limited minutes in 3-4 games because of injury, ejections etc. Seems rather unfair to compare numbers heads up in a game when one player plays 20 min and the other 40 min. Moses was a better rebounder but Kareem was the more efficient scorer, better passer, better defender, better leader. Why did Moses not win more with a stacked Sixers team if he was that great?

In 28 H2H's between Wilt and Kareem, it's 14-14 in rebounding battles. Wilt just won his by slightly larger margins but he also played more minutes than Kareem. It's a SMALL EDGE for Wilt. I don't want to repeat myself.

And if you mention 65-66 do talk about Wilt's 15 point game on Thurmond and his four other games in the 20's... Don't just mention his best outing.

Kareem annihilated the 71-72 league rather badly... A league full of HOFers:

- Wilt
- Thurmond
- Cowens
- Reed/DeBusschere/Lucas
- Hayes
- Lanier
- Bellamy
- Unseld
- Haywood (26/13)
- Wicks (25/12)
- Smith (17/15)
- Walk (16/8)
- Boerwinkle/Ray (two 7/11 guys)



Don't mention scoring with Nate. He wasn't a great scorer. Kareem in his career is 45-6-1 vs Nate in scoring. It doesn't mean much...

Truth is Kareem played Nate just as well as Wilt did. Don't just look at their peak performances. Look at the overall numbers. Just because Wilt had ONE 45 POINT GAME doesn't make him better.

Oh and Kareem's career high against Nate is 40 points, not 34...

Chamberlain slaughtered the best centers in 65-66, including Russell in the playoffs.

Kareem was OUTPLAYED by Nate in 71-72, and shot horribly against Wilt in the playoffs.

Kareem in 70-71 was outplayed by Wilt in both the regular season and playoffs.

And after Chamberlain retired, McAdoo was routinely outscoring KAJ, Gilmore was battling him to a draws, and later, Moses just murdered him.

Kareem's HIGH game against Nate was 34 points NOT 40. Prove that he scored 40 against Nate in that game. He didn't. He probably didn't even score 10 against Thurmond in that game. Chones started and fouled out. One more damned time...KAJ's high against Thurmond...in some 50 H2H games...34 points.

A prime scoring Chamberlain SHELLED Thurmond...just as he did against Bellamy, Reed, and Russell. NONE of them were even remotely close to Wilt in the mid-60's. And a prime scoring Wilt had games of 38 and 45, in just 12 games. And he had as many 30 point games against Thurmond, in his first 13 games, as KAJ did against Nate in his entire career in fulltime matchups.

Rebounding? Are you kidding me? An old Wilt was easily outrebounding a PRIME Kareem. A prime Chamberlain would have crushed him by larger margins than he did against a prime Russell.

As for Moses...his team's went 6-1 against KAJ's in the post-season...even with much worse rosters. When he had an equal roster, he SWEPT KAJ...in a series in which he just battered Kareem. Had Moses been surrounded with MAGIC for 10 seasons, and he likely would have won have won just as many rings as KAJ.

And once again, a prime Chamberlain was a better scorer (by a huge margin), a better rebounder (by a huge margin), more efficient (.683 on 24 ppg...and then .649 and .727 later on), better passer (7.8 apg and 8.3 apg...and then even 9.0 apg in the playoffs), better defender (hell he was outvoting KAJ in first-team all-defensive teams IN the KAJ, and even past his prime), and much better shot-blocker (5.4 in his last season...a prime KAJ was at 4.0.)

[LAZERUSS]

One more time...Chamberlain's 65-66 season (and arguably his 66-67 too) was probably the most dominant single season by a center in terms of play against his best peers (and you can include Reed's 64-65 season, since he moved PF in 65-66.)

He just annihilated Reed, Bellamy, Russell and Thurmond in his H2H's. And these were 9-13 game H2H's, too.

Kareem never had a season, including the post-season, in which he just trashed all of his best peers, and to the extent that Wilt did to his in the mid-60's.

And for those that keep bringing up Nate's play after 66-67...

As an example, in the 68-69 playoffs, Thurmond held Wilt to 8 ppg. Well, Russell held Chamberlain to 11 ppg in the Finals. Oh, and aside from that Wilt outshot those two by margins of .500 to .398.

But, are you going to tell me that those two suddenly "figured" Wilt out? The same Chamberlain, who in the 65-66 season alone, put up games of 45 on Nate, and 46 on Russell (and just destroyed those two in the vast majority of their other H2H's that season.) And Wilt had entire seasons of 38 ppg, 38 ppg, and even 40 ppg against Russell earlier in his career, as well.

A mid-60's Chamberlain proved he could score just about as many points against anyone, as he wanted.

And once again, claiming that a 25-26 year old KAJ going against a 35-36 year old Wilt as some kind of an example of Kareem being capable of rebounding with Wilt? Hell, THAT Chamberlain was easily outrebounding KAJ. But how about a mid-60's Wilt who was outrebounding everyone in the league by 4-5 rpg, and slaughtering Russell in the Fianls by NINE per game?

Oh, and then how about a 25-26 year old Chamberlain going up against a 35-36 year old Kareem? Just how one-sided would that matchup have been?

[dankok8]

Chamberlain slaughtered the best centers in 65-66, including Russell in the playoffs.

Kareem was OUTPLAYED by Nate in 71-72, and shot horribly against Wilt in the playoffs.

Kareem in 70-71 was outplayed by Wilt in both the regular season and playoffs.

And after Chamberlain retired, McAdoo was routinely outscoring KAJ, Gilmore was battling him to a draws, and later, Moses just murdered him.

Kareem's HIGH game against Nate was 34 points NOT 40. Prove that he scored 40 against Nate in that game. He didn't. He probably didn't even score 10 against Thurmond in that game. Chones started and fouled out. One more damned time...KAJ's high against Thurmond...in some 50 H2H games...34 points.

A prime scoring Chamberlain SHELLED Thurmond...just as he did against Bellamy, Reed, and Russell. NONE of them were even remotely close to Wilt in the mid-60's. And a prime scoring Wilt had games of 38 and 45, in just 12 games. And he had as many 30 point games against Thurmond, in his first 13 games, as KAJ did against Nate in his entire career in fulltime matchups.

Rebounding? Are you kidding me? An old Wilt was easily outrebounding a PRIME Kareem. A prime Chamberlain would have crushed him by larger margins than he did against a prime Russell.

As for Moses...his team's went 6-1 against KAJ's in the post-season...even with much worse rosters. When he had an equal roster, he SWEPT KAJ...in a series in which he just battered Kareem. Had Moses been surrounded with MAGIC for 10 seasons, and he likely would have won have won just as many rings as KAJ.

And once again, a prime Chamberlain was a better scorer (by a huge margin), a better rebounder (by a huge margin), more efficient (.683 on 24 ppg...and then .649 and .727 later on), better passer (7.8 apg and 8.3 apg...and then even 9.0 apg in the playoffs), better defender (hell he was outvoting KAJ in first-team all-defensive teams IN the KAJ, and even past his prime), and much better shot-blocker (5.4 in his last season...a prime KAJ was at 4.0.)

Wilt didn't outplay Kareem in 1971 WCF... He played good defense but Bucks had 4 blowout wins in that series and Kareem put up a bit better numbers.

Kareem: 25.0 ppg, 17.4 rpg, 4.2 apg, 2.0 bpg on 48.1 %FG/51.0 %TS in 42.8 mpg
Wilt: 22.0 ppg, 18.8 rpg, 2.0 apg, 4.4 bpg on 48.9 %FG/47.1 %TS in 44.4 mpg

I have some numbers for Kareem vs. peak McAdoo and Jabbar killed him everywhere other than scoring... like outrebounded him 10-0 in games from '74 to '76 and Bob had some awful shooting nights.

It's true Chones defended Kareem much of that 40-point game but if you apply that logic than do mention that Kareem and Moses rarely defended each other. It was usually Billy Paultz who took the job of defending Kareem. For sure in the '81 playoffs...

When Kareem faced Gilmore and Kareem played normal minutes he dominated Artis... look up the numbers.

In the entire 70's there were very few games (let alone seasons...) that anyone outplayed Kareem. That's just the truth.


One more time...Chamberlain's 65-66 season (and arguably his 66-67 too) was probably the most dominant single season by a center in terms of play against his best peers (and you can include Reed's 64-65 season, since he moved PF in 65-66.)

He just annihilated Reed, Bellamy, Russell and Thurmond in his H2H's. And these were 9-13 game H2H's, too.

Kareem never had a season, including the post-season, in which he just trashed all of his best peers, and to the extent that Wilt did to his in the mid-60's.

And for those that keep bringing up Nate's play after 66-67...

As an example, in the 68-69 playoffs, Thurmond held Wilt to 8 ppg. Well, Russell held Chamberlain to 11 ppg in the Finals. Oh, and aside from that Wilt outshot those two by margins of .500 to .398.

But, are you going to tell me that those two suddenly "figured" Wilt out? The same Chamberlain, who in the 65-66 season alone, put up games of 45 on Nate, and 46 on Russell (and just destroyed those two in the vast majority of their other H2H's that season.) And Wilt had entire seasons of 38 ppg, 38 ppg, and even 40 ppg against Russell earlier in his career, as well.

A mid-60's Chamberlain proved he could score just about as many points against anyone, as he wanted.

And once again, claiming that a 25-26 year old KAJ going against a 35-36 year old Wilt as some kind of an example of Kareem being capable of rebounding with Wilt? Hell, THAT Chamberlain was easily outrebounding KAJ. But how about a mid-60's Wilt who was outrebounding everyone in the league by 4-5 rpg, and slaughtering Russell in the Fianls by NINE per game?

Oh, and then how about a 25-26 year old Chamberlain going up against a 35-36 year old Kareem? Just how one-sided would that matchup have been?

Wilt averaged about 5 ppg and 5% points less than his season average against Russell and Thurmond. He did well against Bellamy/Reed but notice that those two played together in New York in those days so their numbers are reduced because of that.

Wilt never averaged 40 ppg on Russell (though close...) but his efficiency wasn't good when he put up such high volume.

And Wilt was just horrific in the '69 playoffs. Even you have to admit that, coaching aside.

[Psileas]

Wilt didn't outplay Kareem in 1971 WCF... He played good defense but Bucks had 4 blowout wins in that series and Kareem put up a bit better numbers.

Kareem: 25.0 ppg, 17.4 rpg, 4.2 apg, 2.0 bpg on 48.1 %FG/51.0 %TS in 42.8 mpg
Wilt: 22.0 ppg, 18.8 rpg, 2.0 apg, 4.4 bpg on 48.9 %FG/47.1 %TS in 44.4 mpg

These are some pretty balanced numbers, really. Kareem scored a little more, Wilt shot a little better from the field and rebounded a little better, Kareem passed more, Wilt blocked more shots...And these totals don't reflect the game-by-game battles. In Game 4, Kareem clearly outplays Wilt, in Game 1 they practicaly battle to a standstill (Kareem has the better official stats, but Wilt's unofficial shot blocking margin is significant to ignore) and Wilt outplayed Kareem in the 3 other games of the series. It's just that Kareem's individual victory in Game 4 was the widest and therefore balanced the total averages, but Wilt likely outplayed Kareem more often than vice-versa in that series.

[CavaliersFTW]

Wilt didn't outplay Kareem in 1971 WCF... He played good defense but Bucks had 4 blowout wins in that series and Kareem put up a bit better numbers.

Kareem: 25.0 ppg, 17.4 rpg, 4.2 apg, 2.0 bpg on 48.1 %FG/51.0 %TS in 42.8 mpg
Wilt: 22.0 ppg, 18.8 rpg, 2.0 apg, 4.4 bpg on 48.9 %FG/47.1 %TS in 44.4 mpg

I have some numbers for Kareem vs. peak McAdoo and Jabbar killed him everywhere other than scoring... like outrebounded him 10-0 in games from '74 to '76 and Bob had some awful shooting nights.

It's true Chones defended Kareem much of that 40-point game but if you apply that logic than do mention that Kareem and Moses rarely defended each other. It was usually Billy Paultz who took the job of defending Kareem. For sure in the '81 playoffs...

When Kareem faced Gilmore and Kareem played normal minutes he dominated Artis... look up the numbers.

In the entire 70's there were very few games (let alone seasons...) that anyone outplayed Kareem. That's just the truth.



Wilt averaged about 5 ppg and 5% points less than his season average against Russell and Thurmond. He did well against Bellamy/Reed but notice that those two played together in New York in those days so their numbers are reduced because of that.

Wilt never averaged 40 ppg on Russell (though close...) but his efficiency wasn't good when he put up such high volume.

And Wilt was just horrific in the '69 playoffs. Even you have to admit that, coaching aside.
I'm sorry but this is revisionist history, yes he absolutely did outplay Jabbar and everyone from the Milwaukee fans to the Milwaukee coach would agree, it isn't even about numbers (which btw, Wilt's were still superior, defensively for example we now additionally know as of this week that he blocked 4.4 shots per game to Kareems 2 that series thanks to the efforts of Juliziver)

[CODE][B]Post season

[dankok8]

I'm well aware of the recaps and well read on the '71 WCF yet I do commend you on your effort. Looking at H2H numbers Kareem gets the edge in Game 1&4. He handily outscored and also outrebounded Wilt in both of those games and they ended in Buck blowout wins. Wilt gets the edge in Game 2&3 especially in Game 2. Game 5 is a wash. It's rather ludicrous to say Wilt outplayed Kareem over the entire series... After all, the only time in those articles where it explicitly says that Wilt has an edge over Lew is Game 2. Wilt limited Kareem's offensive production and almost played him even in numbers (while playing more minutes) but he DID NOT outplay him over the whole series. He scored less on worse efficiency, had less assists, and his team got destroyed 4-1.

The media and the Bucks fans appreciated Chamberlain for what he had done for the game but some people take it way out of proportion. I've seen a Times article say Wilt outplayed Kareem in the 4th quarter of Game 6 '72 WCF but people took that out of context to mean the entire series.

[CavaliersFTW]

I'm well aware of the recaps and well read on the '71 WCF yet I do commend you on your effort. Looking at H2H numbers Kareem gets the edge in Game 1&4. He handily outscored and also outrebounded Wilt in both of those games and they ended in Buck blowout wins. Wilt gets the edge in Game 2&3 especially in Game 2. Game 5 is a wash. It's rather ludicrous to say Wilt outplayed Kareem over the entire series... After all, the only time in those articles where it explicitly says that Wilt has an edge over Lew is Game 2. Wilt limited Kareem's offensively production and almost played him even in numbers but he DID NOT outplay him over the whole series. He scored less on worse efficiency, had less assists, and his team got destroyed 4-1.

The media and the Bucks fans appreciated Chamberlain for what he had done for the game but some people take it way out of proportion. I've seen a Times article say Wilt outplayed Kareem in the 4th quarter of Game 6 '72 WCF but people took that out of context to mean the entire series.
Denial in the face of evidence, lol. And revisionist history. You never even watched that series, all you have to go by is testimony and stats - and as any basketball fan with half a brain knows a stat sheet doesn't tell the story of how well players were playing - it adds no context, so all we have to go by outside those stats is testimony. Jabbar was held WAY under his expected numbers offensively that series. I've also got film from the Bucks documentary from 1971 and a Winek playoff documentary in 1971. Both assert the same thing, Wilt outplayed Alcindor. It all boils down to your own "I'm basing this entirely off a stat sheet" opinion against the informed opinions of those who witnessed the series happen. I'm gonna have to side with those who watched the series on this one man.

[dankok8]

Nah man, revisionist history. You never watched that series, all we have to go by is testimony and stats - and as everyone knows stats don't tell the story, so all we have to go by is testimony. I've also got film of from the Bucks documentary from 1971 and a Winek playoff documentary in 1971. Both assert the same thing, Wilt outplayed Alcindord. It's your "I'm basing this entirely on a stat sheet" opinion against the informed opinions of those who witnessed the series happen.

I've read the articles, Regul8r's recaps, looked at the stats. At best it's a draw... but Kareem has slightly superior stats (look at FT% and TS% also) and his team won 4-1, all of their wins blowouts.

Anyways some of the Wilt fans here (didn't say you...) are a bit biased and are easily exposed by their double standards. Wilt outplayed Kareem in '71 WCF (not absurd but untrue assertion) and '72 WCF (haha yea right... :lol ) but Wilt supposedly destroyed Bill Russell in their many series even though recaps show that Russell despite lesser stats has superior impact in so many instances. Wth Kareem vs. Wilt it's about IMPACT and with Wilt vs. Russell it's all about STATS.

[CavaliersFTW]

I've read the articles, Regul8r's recaps, looked at the stats. At best it's a draw... but Kareem has slightly superior stats (look at FT% and TS% also) and his team won 4-1, all of their wins blowouts.

Anyways some of the Wilt fans here (didn't say you...) are a bit biased and are easily exposed by their double standards. Wilt outplayed Kareem in '71 WCF (not absurd but untrue assertion) and '72 WCF (haha yea right... :lol ) but Wilt supposedly destroyed Bill Russell in their many series even though recaps show that Russell despite lesser stats has superior impact in so many instances. Wth Kareem vs. Wilt it's about IMPACT and with Wilt vs. Russell it's all about STATS.
With any game it's about IMPACT. If was not witness to a game where Wilt had 35 points on Russell and 22 rebounds and Russell had 19 points and 21 rebounds and I read article after article that says Russell bested Wilt despite what a stat sheet initially indicated with a few details here and there about why than I would have no reason not to side with the conclusion of the articles over the stats. After all it would be written by the people who watched the game unfold.

I don't have a double standard. Testimony > Stats. Stats are just numbers on a piece of paper when you don't have any context. Others may disagree but that's how I look at it.

Also your an idiot if you claim to have 'read all the articles' yet conclude Kareem was 'slightly better' than Wilt - the articles have quote after quote about how Wilt didn't just outplay Alcindor, he straight up dominated him :oldlol:

[LAZERUSS]

I've read the articles, Regul8r's recaps, looked at the stats. At best it's a draw... but Kareem has slightly superior stats (look at FT% and TS% also) and his team won 4-1, all of their wins blowouts.

Anyways some of the Wilt fans here (didn't say you...) are a bit biased and are easily exposed by their double standards. Wilt outplayed Kareem in '71 WCF (not absurd but untrue assertion) and '72 WCF (haha yea right... :lol ) but Wilt supposedly destroyed Bill Russell in their many series even though recaps show that Russell despite lesser stats has superior impact in so many instances. Wth Kareem vs. Wilt it's about IMPACT and with Wilt vs. Russell it's all about STATS.

And I get a kick out of those that claim that Russell had more IMPACT.

Russell had better TEAMS almost every single season the two were in the league together. And Chamberlain SHELLED him, while being doubled-tripled, and swarmed.

Not only that, but Russell's TEAMMATES were CLEARLY outplaying Wilt's...even as late as the 65-66 season, when Chamberlain's teammates completely puked all over the floor in that series. Furthermore, Russell's TEAMMATES were historically MUCH MORE CLUTCH than Wilt's. Sam Jones and Hondo repeatedly saved Russell's butt, while Arizin, Gola, and Greer repeatedly gagged.

Now, Wilt's IMPACT against KAJ was IMMENSE. Even in the 71-72 WDF's Chamberlain DRAMATICALLY reduced a prime Kareem to just AWFUL shooting...particularly in the last four pivotal games of that series (.414 overall) while blocking some 15-20 of KAJ's shots (and many were skyhooks.)

Of course, the Wilt-bashers NEVER bring up that this was a well-past his prime Chamberlain. In fact, in the ONE game in which Wilt and Kareem (Alcindor) played before Wilt's injury, Chamberlain massacred him in EVERY facet of the game. True, KAJ was a rookie, but again, this was nowhere near a peak Wilt (although, to his credit, Chamberlain averaged 32.2 ppg on .579 shooting in his nine games of that season before his injury.)

Furthermore, KAJ's teammates were every bit as talented as Wilt's Lakers. In 70-71 they went 66-16, while Chamberlain's old Lakers went 46-36 (West missed the last 1/4th of the season, and a washed up Baylor missed nearly all of it.) And keep in mind that Wilt's IMPACT in 71-72 was enough to carry that team to a title, despite West being completely worthless...and his teammates collectively shooting .414 in the entire playoffs.

Once again, though...I get a kick out of those that actually use KAJ's stats against Wilt. A PEAK Kareem, in his GREATEST two seasons, (70-71 and 71-72) against a 34-35 year old Chamberlain, only a year-or-two after major knee surgery, and nowhere near the player that a mid-60's Chamberlain had been. Not even remotely close. The mid-60's Chamberlain who just DESTROYED a Thurmond (including Nate in his greatest season), Russell, Bellamy, and Reed.

Go ahead...post every H2H game between Wilt-Reed, Wilt-Bellamy, Wilt-Nate, and Wilt-Russell...every single stat, from the 64-65, 65-66, and 66-67 seasons...including the playoffs. He absolutely ANNIHILATED those guys.

Now, how would THAT Chamberlain have fared against the PEAK Kareem?

[Psileas]

Go ahead...post every H2H game between Wilt-Reed, Wilt-Bellamy, Wilt-Nate, and Wilt-Russell...every single stat, from the 64-65, 65-66, and 66-67 seasons...including the playoffs. He absolutely ANNIHILATED those guys.

I think you'll love this:

Wilt's scoring vs Reed's, Bellamy's, Thurmond's, Russell's in the 1960-66 period: 150 wins-10 losses-2 draws.

Wilt's rebounding vs Reed's, Bellamy's, Thurmond's, Russell's in the 1960-66 period: 107-38-4 (for available games).

Also:

Wilt's scoring vs Bellamy's, Thurmond's, Russell's in the 1967-68 2-year span: 50-15-3 (Reed played PF during that period).

Wilt's rebounding vs Bellamy's, Thurmond's, Russell's in the 1967-68 2-year span: 50-13-3 (only 2 games missing).

[julizaver]

Anyways some of the Wilt fans here (didn't say you...) are a bit biased and are easily exposed by their double standards. Wilt outplayed Kareem in '71 WCF (not absurd but untrue assertion) and '72 WCF (haha yea right... :lol ) but Wilt supposedly destroyed Bill Russell in their many series even though recaps show that Russell despite lesser stats has superior impact in so many instances. Wth Kareem vs. Wilt it's about IMPACT and with Wilt vs. Russell it's all about STATS.

There is no need to be Wilt's fan to said that Wilt outplayed Kareem in '71 WCF it is obvious - the general consensus is Game 1 even, Game 2 and Game 3 clear victories for Wilt, Game 4 Kareem's and Game 5 Wilt.
So the results is 3-1-1 for Wilt. Why do you neglect Game 5 ? If you read the recaps Wilt clearly outplayed Kareem (Lew)in the first half when it matters most and not stats padding.
About '72 WCF - Wilt was not the scorer anymore (more of a defensive team player) so it's not so easy to compare. In the last 4 games he really stepped up against Jabbar and blocked 31 shots (at least 13 against Jabbar) and forced him into low field goal percentage. So you can give Jabbar edge in Game 1, Game 2 and Game 4 based on stats and recaps.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=170340&page=12

But it is a thread about Wilt vs Russell so you can continue your discussions on the Wilt vs Kareem thread:
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=170340

About Wilt and Russell - OK go through the recaps and write down in which series/games Russell was better than Wilt.
And not games in which he played superb or at his best, I mean games when he clearly outplayed Wilt.

[LAZERUSS]

I think you'll love this:

Wilt's scoring vs Reed's, Bellamy's, Thurmond's, Russell's in the 1960-66 period: 150 wins-10 losses-2 draws.

Wilt's rebounding vs Reed's, Bellamy's, Thurmond's, Russell's in the 1960-66 period: 107-38-4 (for available games).

Also:

Wilt's scoring vs Bellamy's, Thurmond's, Russell's in the 1967-68 2-year span: 50-15-3 (Reed played PF during that period).

Wilt's rebounding vs Bellamy's, Thurmond's, Russell's in the 1967-68 2-year span: 50-13-3 (only 2 games missing).

We really can't include Reed from 65-66 thru 67-68, but I mentioned 64-65 because Reed played center. In that season, Chamberlain just destroyed Reed. He outscored Reed, per game, 40-24 ppg, which incuded beatdowns of 41-9, 52-23, and 58-28. Maybe you can give me the rebounding numbers, but I suspect that it was probably a near sweep in their nine H2H's.

I already knew the 65-66 H2H's (including the post-season with Russell.) It wasn't just that Chamberlain held a 29-3-1 edge in that season, it was the fact that he just SLAUGHTERED all three of them by huge margins. KAJ never outscored Nate by margins of 38-15 or even 45-13, (as well as 33-10 and 33-17), nor Bellamy by a 50-26 margin (and of course, prior to 65-66 it was much worse.)

In nine h2h games against Thurmond, he averaged 28.8 ppg. He outscored Nate in eight of them, some by huge margins, including that 45-13 beatdown. And, as already posted, Chamberlain averaged 33.0 ppg against Bellamy that year. In the process, he held an 8-1-1 scoring edge, and his high game was 50 points.

Then, Wilt faced Russell in nine regular season h2h's, and another five playoff games. In those 14 games, Wilt outscored Russell in 13 of them, and outrebounded him in 10. In their nine regular season h2h's, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, and in the known h2h's, shot .521. In their five playoff h2h's, Wilt averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 from the field. He had a high game of 46 points in those 14 h2h's. Included were margins of 31-11, 27-6, 37-14, 27-3, 32-8, 30-5, and 46-18. And he had games in which he outrebounded Russell by margins of 30-20, 32-22, 32-18, 36-20, 42-25, 30-10, and 40-17.


And we know that Chamberlain just wiped the floor with Thurmond, Bellamy, and Russell again in the 66-67 season. Wilt's H2H's with the Knicks, and their two-headed monster of Bellamy and Reed were amazing BTW. He averaged 22.7 ppg on...get this... a .709 FG%.

And BTW, Wilt and Bellamy went at it again in the 67-68 playoffs (in a post-season in which Chamberlain was hobbled by injuries), and Wilt outscored Bells, per game, 25-20, while outshooting Bellamy, .584 to .421 (in a season in which Bellamy shot .541 against the NBA.)


I already know the complete playoff H2H's with Russell and Thurmond in 66-67. He outscored them, combined, 10-1 (and by a solid margin); he outrebounded them, 9-2 (and just waxed Russell by a staggering margin), he outassisted them, 8-1-2; and outshot them from the floor... 11-0. And again, some of those were by just staggering margins. And keep in mind that Russell was still near his prime, and Nate had his greatest season that year.

Of course, we also know that a prime Chamberlain outshot Russell by perhaps more than 10%, and maybe someone can post the FG%'s between a prime Chamberlain and Nate up thru their 66-67 seasons. I suspect it was probably at least a 10% margin.

No one, in the history of the game, was as dominant against ALL of their peers, to the extent that a mid-60's Wilt was against his. It was an absolute carpet-bombing.

[LAZERUSS]

In fact, I will just use this...


Chamberlain and Russell went h2h in 143 games.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...kFDY 3c#gid=0

Chamberlain had entire seasons, between nine and 11 h2h games, in which he averaged 38.2 ppg, 39.7 ppg, and 38.1 ppg against Russell. He also had playoff series against Russell of 33.6 ppg, 30.5 ppg, and 30.1 ppg.

He had 24 games against Russell of 40+, which included five of 50+, and a high game of 62 (on 27-45 shooting). He had playoff games of 41, 42, 42, 46, and 50 points against him, as well as a ton of 30+ point games. And how about this...17 40-30 games, including four in the playoffs.

Overall, Chamberlain averaged 28.7 ppg, 28.7 rpg, and shot about .500 against Russell in their 143 career h2h's. Think about that...on average...every time Wilt went up against Russell, he was putting up a near 30-30 game!


Bellamy? I have said it before, but there has never been another HOF center who more thoroughly dominated another HOF center in h2h battles.

In 10 h2h games in the 62-63 season, Chamberlain averaged 43.7 ppg, with a three games of 50+, and a high game of 57.

In their 10 h2h games in the 63-64 season, Wilt averaged 35.0 ppg against Bellamy, with a high game of 49.

In 10 h2h's in the 64-65 season, Chamberlain avearged 37.8 ppg against Bells, with games of 56 and 51. BTW, as a sidenote to that season, Wilt faced Wllis Reed in nine h2h games, and avearged 40.1 ppg against him, whihc included games in which he outscored Reed by margins of 41-9, 52-23, and 58-28.

In Wilt's 65-66 season, which was his last great scoring season, he and Bellamy went at it another 10 games, and Wilt averaged 33.0 ppg against him, including a high game of 50.

Chamberlain cut back his shooting after that, but how Wilt's numbers against Bellamy in their nine h2h's in the 66-67 season? "Only" 22.7 ppg, BUT, on, get this... a .709 FG%.

And Wilt was badly outscoring Bellamy in many of those h2h's, too. I won't look up the numbers, but I suspect Bellamy, who was one of the best scorers of the 60's, was lucky to outscore Wilt in two games in each of their h2h seasons up thru '67.

BTW, in their 67-68 playoff series, Bellamy came into that series having shot .541 from the field against the NBA during the regular season. In that playoff series, Wilt outscored Bellamy, per game, 25-20, and outshot him by a .584 to .421 margin.

Oh, and how could I forget about Chamberlain's 61-62 season? In 10 h2h's, all Wilt could do against Bellamy was average 52.7 ppg, with three games of 60+, including one game in which he scored 73 points (on 29-48 shooting) with 36 rebounds.


I have mentioned it before, but a prime "scoring" Chamberlain only faced Nate Thurmond in about a dozen games. From his 66-67 season on, Wilt dramatically cut back his shooting. However, in a span of 11 straight games, beginning with their last h2h in the 64-65 season, thru their nine h2h's in the 65-66 season, and even including their first h2h in the 66-67 season, Wilt averaged 30 ppg against Nate. Included were six games of 30+ (30, 33, 33, 34, 38, and 45 points), and some of those were staggering. For instance, he had margins of 33-17, 33-10, 38-15, and 45-13.

Then think about this... a prime Kareem faced Thurmond in some 30 games in which the two started against each other, and only had seven games of 30+, with a high game of 34. BTW, Nate had three games of 30+ against KAJ, with a high of 31. And not only that, but KAJ only shot about .440 against Thurmond in those 30 games., and in fact, had seasons of less 40% against him (and playoff series of .428 and .405 against Nate, as well.)



Chamberlain's 65-66 season was perhaps the best example of just how dominant he was.

In nine h2h games against Thurmond, he averaged 28.8 ppg. He outscored Nate in eight of them, some by huge margins, including that 45-13 beatdown. And, as already posted, Chamberlain averaged 33.0 ppg against Bellamy that year. In the process, he held an 8-1-1 scoring edge, and his high game was 50 points.

Then, Wilt faced Russell in nine regular season h2h's, and another five playoff games. In those 14 games, Wilt outscored Russell in 13 of them, and outrebounded him in 10. In their nine regular season h2h's, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, and in the known h2h's, shot .521. In their five playoff h2h's, Wilt averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 from the field. He had a high game of 46 points in those 14 h2h's. Included were margins of 31-11, 27-6, 37-14, 27-3, 32-8, 30-5, and 46-18. And he had games in which he outrebounded Russell by margins of 30-20, 32-22, 32-18, 36-20, 42-25, 30-10, and 40-17.


Chamberlain was nearly as dominant against the HOF centers he faced, as he was against the second tier centers,several of whom were multiple all-stars, as well.

Cased closed...

[LAZERUSS]

About Wilt and Russell - OK go through the recaps and write down in which series/games Russell was better than Wilt.
And not games in which he played superb or at his best, I mean games when he clearly outplayed Wilt.

The Wilt-bashers point out HALVES of games. They will use quotes from Celtic players (or Simmons) claiming something like, "Russell clamped down on Wilt in the first half, and when the game was decided, he "let" Wilt get his stats". Oh, and then some more nonsense, like, "Russell "allowed" Wilt to score in the first half, but then in the deciding moments, he shut him down."

Of course, I never ever read RUSSELL, himself, making those claims. And we all know that Russell was a very proud man, too.

And, keep in mind that Russell's heavily-favored Celtic teams went 29-20 against Wilt's usually pure trash rosters, including four game seven's that were decided by 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. If he were indeed "letting" Wilt get his stats, he was sure cutting it close.

Of course, the Russell-fans have never been able to answer me this...

In the clinching game five of the '66 EDF's (and after Wilt's teammates had completely blown the first four games), Chamberlain hung a 46-34 game on Russell. It still wasn't enough to overcome Russell's huge margin in surrounding talent, but at least he went down firing.

Ok, so the very next year it was now Russell who was faced with the exact same set of circumstances. His eight-time defending champion 60-21 Celtics had narrowly avoided an embarrassing sweep at the hands of Chamberlain's Sixers in game four, and now it was Russell who was facing an elimination game in game five. How did Russell perform when it was clear his teammates needed him to step up? Did he outscore Wilt 46-18 in that game five? Hell no, he went quietly like a lamb to slaughter. He scored a total of FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting....in a blowout loss. Oh, and in the meantime Chamberlain hung 29 points on him (22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting. Oh, and Wilt also outassisted Russell, 13-7, while outrebounding Russell, 36-21.

How come Russell couldn't come up huge against Wilt, when it was obvious his neutralized teammates couldn't help?

[LAZERUSS]

These are some pretty balanced numbers, really. Kareem scored a little more, Wilt shot a little better from the field and rebounded a little better, Kareem passed more, Wilt blocked more shots...And these totals don't reflect the game-by-game battles. In Game 4, Kareem clearly outplays Wilt, in Game 1 they practicaly battle to a standstill (Kareem has the better official stats, but Wilt's unofficial shot blocking margin is significant to ignore) and Wilt outplayed Kareem in the 3 other games of the series. It's just that Kareem's individual victory in Game 4 was the widest and therefore balanced the total averages, but Wilt likely outplayed Kareem more often than vice-versa in that series.

Interesting, but read the recaps CavsFan posted on that game.

Wilt held Kareem to less than his season average,... blocked FIVE of his shots, and held him scoreless for nearly 15 straight minutes at one point. This is his WORST game of that series,...in arguably the worst season and post-season of his career, and against Kareem in his greatest season (inlcuding playoffs) of his career.

Julizaver, can you check your block totals from that game four?

[Psileas]

The Wilt-bashers point out HALVES of games. They will use quotes from Celtic players (or Simmons) claiming something like, "Russell clamped down on Wilt in the first half, and when the game was decided, he "let" Wilt get his stats". Oh, and then some more nonsense, like, "Russell "allowed" Wilt to score in the first half, but then in the deciding moments, he shut him down."

Of course, I never ever read RUSSELL, himself, making those claims. And we all know that Russell was a very proud man, too.

And, keep in mind that Russell's heavily-favored Celtic teams went 29-20 against Wilt's usually pure trash rosters, including four game seven's that were decided by 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. If he were indeed "letting" Wilt get his stats, he was sure cutting it close.

Of course, the Russell-fans have never been able to answer me this...

In the clinching game five of the '66 EDF's (and after Wilt's teammates had completely blown the first four games), Chamberlain hung a 46-34 game on Russell. It still wasn't enough to overcome Russell's huge margin in surrounding talent, but at least he went down firing.

Ok, so the very next year it was now Russell who was faced with the exact same set of circumstances. His eight-time defending champion 60-21 Celtics had narrowly avoided an embarrassing sweep at the hands of Chamberlain's Sixers in game four, and now it was Russell who was facing an elimination game in game five. How did Russell perform when it was clear his teammates needed him to step up? Did he outscore Wilt 46-18 in that game five? Hell no, he went quietly like a lamb to slaughter. He scored a total of FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting....in a blowout loss. Oh, and in the meantime Chamberlain hung 29 points on him (22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting. Oh, and Wilt also outassisted Russell, 13-7, while outrebounding Russell, 36-21.

How come Russell couldn't come up huge against Wilt, when it was obvious his neutralized teammates couldn't help?

To avoid such instances, I had created some time ago a small file that separated Wilt's and Russell's games in:
1) Games when Russell's team won by 15+ and Wilt (statistically) heavily outplayed Russell.
2) Games when Russell's team won by 15+ and Wilt outplayed Russell to some smaller degree.
3) Games when Russell's team won by 15+ and they were statistically too close to call.
4-5) Games when Russell's team won by 15+ and Russell did the above to Wilt.
6-10) Games when Wilt's team won by 15+ and...all the above combinations.

11-15) Games when Russell's team won by 7-14 and...same as above.
16-20) Games when Wilt's team won by 7-14 and...same as above.

21-25) Close games (by 1-6) with all the above combinations. Here, it doesn't really matter who won.
26-28) Few games where there are too few stats to speculate anything.

Once I find the time, I'll try to find it and post the results, while reminding that we're still only talking about boxscore stats.

[Psileas]

Interesting, but read the recaps CavsFan posted on that game.

Wilt held Kareem to less than his season average,... blocked FIVE of his shots, and held him scoreless for nearly 15 straight minutes at one point. This is his WORST game of that series,...in arguably the worst season and post-season of his career, and against Kareem in his greatest season (inlcuding playoffs) of his career.

Julizaver, can you check your block totals from that game four?

That's Game 5, iirc.

[LAZERUSS]

To avoid such instances, I had created some time ago a small file that separated Wilt's and Russell's games in:
1) Games when Russell's team won by 15+ and Wilt (statistically) heavily outplayed Russell.
2) Games when Russell's team won by 15+ and Wilt outplayed Russell to some smaller degree.
3) Games when Russell's team won by 15+ and they were statistically too close to call.
4-5) Games when Russell's team won by 15+ and Russell did the above to Wilt.
6-10) Games when Wilt's team won by 15+ and...all the above combinations.

11-15) Games when Russell's team won by 7-14 and...same as above.
16-20) Games when Wilt's team won by 7-14 and...same as above.

21-25) Close games (by 1-6) with all the above combinations. Here, it doesn't really matter who won.
26-28) Few games where there are too few stats to speculate anything.

Once I find the time, I'll try to find it and post the results, while reminding that we're still only talking about boxscore stats.

And you can probably immediately throw out game three of their '60 EDF's when rookie Chamberlain was nursinga severely injured wrist, and was outscored by Russell, 26-12, and outrebounded by Russell, 39-15. Oh, and BTW, since Wilt was ineffective in that game...his TEAM lost 120-90.

Incidently, here was a rookie Chamberlain who averaged 30 ppg on .500 shooting against Russell, in a post-season NBA that shot .402...and that includes that game three.

Incidently NYCElt84 posted a game a couple of years ago, in which Wilt's Warriors trailed Russell's Celtics by 20+ points in the second half. Wilt put up something like a 47-36 game, and his team came back to win that game. Evidently Russell didn't quite calculate just how much he should have "let" Wilt score in that game.

[LAZERUSS]

That's Game 5, iirc.

I stand corrected.

[LAZERUSS]

As a sidenote...in their two clinching post-season game H2H's...Chamberlain shot a combined 18-33, or .545, while Kareem shot a combined 23-60, or .383.

[julizaver]

I stand corrected.

You can find all the shot-blocking data of Wilt from '71 WCF (I have updated the info yesterday as I find some new sources/archives recently and also thanks to fpliii) in http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=170340&page=12

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

8. Date: Sun 04/11/71
- Chamberlain 26 pts, 22 rebs, 0 as, 3 blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA - Wilt blocked numerious shots L
-Abdul-Jabbar 22 pts, 10 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W

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

10.Date: Fri 04/16/71
- Chamberlain 15 pts, 16 rebs, 2 as, 2 blocks, 7-14 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 20 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 14-20 FG/FGA W

11.Date: Sun 04/18/71
- Chamberlain 23 pts, 12 rebs, 4 as, 6 blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA – 5 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 15 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 7-23 FG/FGA W

According to an article from 19.04.1971 Wilt blocked 22 shots and Lew Alcindor blocked 10 shots for the 5 game series.

In the Game 5 Wilt blocked five shots (4 against Jabbar) in the first half and then he blocked only 1 shot for the rest of the game.

[julizaver]

The Wilt-bashers point out HALVES of games. They will use quotes from Celtic players (or Simmons) claiming something like, "Russell clamped down on Wilt in the first half, and when the game was decided, he "let" Wilt get his stats". Oh, and then some more nonsense, like, "Russell "allowed" Wilt to score in the first half, but then in the deciding moments, he shut him down."

Of course, I never ever read RUSSELL, himself, making those claims. And we all know that Russell was a very proud man, too.


If we use the Russell standard against Wilt ("Russell clamped down on Wilt in the first half, and when the game was decided, he "let" Wilt get his stats" or "Russell "allowed" Wilt to score in the first half, but then in the deciding moments, he shut him down.") and apply it for Wilt vs Kareem we could declare Wilt clear winner in '72 WCF. And that is the double standard which should be avoided when compare players.

I have said it before - if a player like Wilt is bigger and stronger and more athletic than his adversaries it is not because he was born like this, it is because he had build himself like this during the years.
Even Russell admitted that Wilt is a better individual player than him.
And also he dismissed the so called "let" Wilt get his stats". I have watched interview in which he said about the game in which Wilt scored 62 against him the following: "Do you think I will let someone to score 60 points on me for granted ?".

[LAZERUSS]

[QUOTE=julizaver]You can find all the shot-blocking data of Wilt from '71 WCF (I have updated the info yesterday as I find some new sources/archives recently and also thanks to fpliii) in http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=170340&page=12

7. Date: Fri 04/09/71
- Chamberlain 22 pts, 20 rebs, 1 as, 8 blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA

[LAZERUSS]

If we use the Russell standard against Wilt ("Russell clamped down on Wilt in the first half, and when the game was decided, he "let" Wilt get his stats" or "Russell "allowed" Wilt to score in the first half, but then in the deciding moments, he shut him down.") and apply it for Wilt vs Kareem we could declare Wilt clear winner in '71 WCF. And that is the double standard which should be avoided when compare players.

I have said it before - if a player like Wilt is bigger and stronger and more athletic than his adversaries it is not because he was born like this, it is because he had build himself like this during the years.
Even Russell admitted that Wilt is a better individual player than him.
And also he dismissed the so called "let" Wilt get his stats". I have watched interview in which he said about the game in which Wilt scored 62 against him the following: "Do you think I will let someone to score 60 points on me for granted ?".

To add to this...

I have posted it before, but in the game in which the Bucks broke LA's 33 game winning streak, at one point Kareem sucker-punched Happy Hairston, and Chamberlain immediately came charging in. Kareem retreated to the corner, and the officials stepped in before Wilt snapped KAJ in two.

But what was interesting was the very next sequence. The Lakers inbounded the ball to Chamberlain, and he steamrolled right thru and over a helpless Kareem for an easy basket.

Years later Shaq would routinely do the same thing. Of course the NBA would never have allowed Chamberlain to just brutalize his peers ala Shaq, but it would have been interesting nonetheless. Clearly, a Shaq-like Chamberlain would have been unstoppable, even well after his offensive skills had diminished.

As for Russell, I believe that that was the Bob Costas interview in which both Russell and Wilt were together. I recall at the five minute mark of that interview that Chamberlain brought up the fact that it was seldom Russell vs Wilt, but rather Russell and two or three Celtics against Wilt. And again, Russell was sitting right next to Chamberlain when he made the comment.

[julizaver]

To add to this...

I have posted it before, but in the game in which the Bucks broke LA's 33 game winning streak, at one point Kareem sucker-punched Happy Hairston, and Chamberlain immediately came charging in. Kareem retreated to the corner, and the officials stepped in before Wilt snapped KAJ in two.

But what was interesting was the very next sequence. The Lakers inbounded the ball to Chamberlain, and he steamrolled right thru and over a helpless Kareem for an easy basket.

Years later Shaq would routinely do the same thing. Of course the NBA would never have allowed Chamberlain to just brutalize his peers ala Shaq, but it would have been interesting nonetheless. Clearly, a Shaq-like Chamberlain would have been unstoppable, even well after his offensive skills had diminished.

As for Russell, I believe that that was the Bob Costas interview in which both Russell and Wilt were together. I recall at the five minute mark of that interview that Chamberlain brought up the fact that it was seldom Russell vs Wilt, but rather Russell and two or three Celtics against Wilt. And again, Russell was sitting right next to Chamberlain when he made the comment.

I have made a mistake in my previous post (I corrected it) - it should be read if apply "Russell standard" for Wilt against Kareem we could credit Wilt with clear victory in '72 WCF (not only in in '71 WCF).

[LAZERUSS]

I have made a mistake in my previous post (I corrected it) - it should be read if apply "Russell standard" for Wilt against Kareem we could credit Wilt with clear victory in '72 WCF (not only in in '71 WCF).

Time Magazine already agreed with you...


"In the N.B.A.'s western division title series with Milwaukee, he (Chamberlain) decisively outplayed basketball's newest giant superstar, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, eleven years his junior."

[julizaver]

To add to this...

Years later Shaq would routinely do the same thing. Of course the NBA would never have allowed Chamberlain to just brutalize his peers ala Shaq, but it would have been interesting nonetheless. Clearly, a Shaq-like Chamberlain would have been unstoppable, even well after his offensive skills had diminished.



In his last game (prior to his 37 birthday) he destroyed Reed "Shaq-like":

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

Watch at 8:55 and 13:25.

[LAZERUSS]

In his last game (prior to his 37 birthday) he destroyed Reed "Shaq-like":

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

Watch at 8:55 and 13:25.

And his agility was still amazing at that age, too.

I won't take the time now, but cavsFan has footage of a mid-60's Chamberlain, as well, and there is one sequence in which Chamberlain, inadvertently mind you, nearly knocks Thurmond into the stands on a followup dunk. And, as you and I both know, Nate was built like a taller, longer, Dwight Howard back in the 60's.

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, (and I know you aren't making the claim either...just using the "Russell" analogy), I would never claim that Chamberlain outplayed KAJ in the 71-72 WCF's. However, he dramatically reduced a peak KAJ to just putrid shooting levels (.457 in a season in which Kareem shot .574), especially over the course of the last four pivotal games (.414 in those four games.)

And, even into his last season, and covering six H2H meetings, he significantly lowered KAJ's FG%. He held Kareem to just .450 shooting in those six contests, in a season in which a prime KAJ would shoot .554. And he did so while shooting .737 himself...which even included one game in which he outscored Kareem, 24-21, (on 10-14 shooting, while holding KAJ to 10-27 shooting.) This from a near 37 year old Chamberlain, in his very last season.

Think about this... in Wilt's last ten straight games against a peak/prime KAJ, he held Kareem to a collective .434 FG%!

[julizaver]

I believe you noted somewhere before that Chamberlain blocked a skyhook in their very first meeting, as well. If that is correct, then that would mean that in just seven of their 28 H2H games, Wilt had a known 28 blocks just against Kareem alone...or FOUR per game. Granted, those were probably his exceptional games, but still mind-boggling.

Probably yes. As I remember Wilt "blocked a couple of Lew shots" in their first meeting and those were shots that were not supposed to be blocked (by Kareem admission after the game).
BTW maybe in future I will start posting the images from articles (saved on my local disk). I try before 15 minutes but was not successful ...

[LAZERUSS]

Probably yes. As I remember Wilt "blocked a couple of Lew shots" in their first meeting and those were shots that were not supposed to be blocked (by Kareem admission after the game).
BTW maybe in future I will start posting the images from articles. I try before 15 minutes but was not successful ...

Not really necessary. Your research has been plastered all over the internet for years now.

[dankok8]

With any game it's about IMPACT. If was not witness to a game where Wilt had 35 points on Russell and 22 rebounds and Russell had 19 points and 21 rebounds and I read article after article that says Russell bested Wilt despite what a stat sheet initially indicated with a few details here and there about why than I would have no reason not to side with the conclusion of the articles over the stats. After all it would be written by the people who watched the game unfold.

I don't have a double standard. Testimony > Stats. Stats are just numbers on a piece of paper when you don't have any context. Others may disagree but that's how I look at it.

Also your an idiot if you claim to have 'read all the articles' yet conclude Kareem was 'slightly better' than Wilt - the articles have quote after quote about how Wilt didn't just outplay Alcindor, he straight up dominated him :oldlol:

I agree it's all about impact. It's hard for me to believe that Wilt had more impact than Kareem in the '71 WCF though... The stats are slightly in favor of Kareem and the Bucks won the series 4-1 and all of their wins were blowouts.

Where is this impact you speak off? And thanks for calling me an idiot. Please find one quote in any of those articles that says that Wilt outplayed or dominated Kareem over the course of the whole series. The article mentions that Wilt beat Kareem in Game 2, that Oscar praised Wilt for his impact, and that the Milwaukee fans gave Chamberlain a standing ovation. But it doesn't say Wilt outplayed Kareem in the whole series... that's YOUR CONCLUSION.


Interesting, but read the recaps CavsFan posted on that game.

Wilt held Kareem to less than his season average,... blocked FIVE of his shots, and held him scoreless for nearly 15 straight minutes at one point. This is his WORST game of that series,...in arguably the worst season and post-season of his career, and against Kareem in his greatest season (inlcuding playoffs) of his career.

Julizaver, can you check your block totals from that game four?

Yes Wilt held Kareem below his averages in the '71 WCF like you said... but he DID NOT OUTPLAY him like CavsFTW said. Kareem put up better overall stats than Wilt and the Bucks killed the Lakers.

There is a difference between defending someone well and outplaying them.


If we use the Russell standard against Wilt ("Russell clamped down on Wilt in the first half, and when the game was decided, he "let" Wilt get his stats" or "Russell "allowed" Wilt to score in the first half, but then in the deciding moments, he shut him down.") and apply it for Wilt vs Kareem we could declare Wilt clear winner in '72 WCF. And that is the double standard which should be avoided when compare players.

I have said it before - if a player like Wilt is bigger and stronger and more athletic than his adversaries it is not because he was born like this, it is because he had build himself like this during the years.
Even Russell admitted that Wilt is a better individual player than him.
And also he dismissed the so called "let" Wilt get his stats". I have watched interview in which he said about the game in which Wilt scored 62 against him the following: "Do you think I will let someone to score 60 points on me for granted ?".

If we use that standard (and we should) we can perhaps say that Wilt outplayed Kareem in Game 6 of the '72 WCF. Not over the whole series though and I know you're not claiming that anyways.

There is one key difference when discussing impact in Wilt-Russell battles and Wilt-Kareem in battles. Russell's team won the majority of the time including 7 out of 8 playoff series whereas in Wilt and Kareem battles they are exactly even in both total game (14-14) and playoff series wins (1-1). It can be easily argued that if Oscar and McGlocklin were healthy in the '72 WCF that the Bucks would win both of their playoff encounters with LA.

Wilt struggled to win against Russell so his impact can be put into question. Kareem didn't struggle to win against Wilt so his impact cannot be put into question nearly as much. Plus we know well that Kareem never played for stats and that he was a team player from Day 1.


BTW, (and I know you aren't making the claim either...just using the "Russell" analogy), I would never claim that Chamberlain outplayed KAJ in the 71-72 WCF's. However, he dramatically reduced a peak KAJ to just putrid shooting levels (.457 in a season in which Kareem shot .574), especially over the course of the last four pivotal games (.414 in those four games.)

And, even into his last season, and covering six H2H meetings, he significantly lowered KAJ's FG%. He held Kareem to just .450 shooting in those six contests, in a season in which a prime KAJ would shoot .554. And he did so while shooting .737 himself...which even included one game in which he outscored Kareem, 24-21, (on 10-14 shooting, while holding KAJ to 10-27 shooting.) This from a near 37 year old Chamberlain, in his very last season.

Think about this... in Wilt's last ten straight games against a peak/prime KAJ, he held Kareem to a collective .434 FG%!

Kareem also defended Wilt very well in their H2H meetings in the playoffs. Wilt put up 22.0 ppg on 48.9 %FG and then 10.6 ppg on 45.2 %FG...

And that Game 6 of '72 WCF you like cherry-picking on and constantly bringing up... Kareem did shoot 43% but he still had 37 points, 25 rebounds, 8 assists, and 10 blocks!

[julizaver]

If we use that standard (and we should) we can perhaps say that Wilt outplayed Kareem in Game 6 of the '72 WCF. Not over the whole series though and I know you're not claiming that anyways.

By that standard Wilt outplayed Kareem in Game 5 (in my opinion by every standard) also and Game 3 when he blocked 5 or 6 of his shots and was praised by both coaches after the game.




There is one key difference when discussing impact in Wilt-Russell battles and Wilt-Kareem in battles. Russell's team won the majority of the time including 7 out of 8 playoff series whereas in Wilt and Kareem battles they are exactly even in both total game (14-14) and playoff series wins (1-1). It can be easily argued that if Oscar and McGlocklin were healthy in the '72 WCF that the Bucks would win both of their playoff encounters with LA.



Wilt struggled to win against Russell so his impact can be put into question. Kareem didn't struggle to win against Wilt so his impact cannot be put into question nearly as much. Plus we know well that Kareem never played for stats and that he was a team player from Day 1.

Not agree about Kareem not struggling to win against Wilt.
We could ask also what if Jerry West and other injured Lakers players had play in '71 WCF.




Kareem also defended Wilt very well in their H2H meetings in the playoffs. Wilt put up 22.0 ppg on 48.9 %FG and then 10.6 ppg on 45.2 %FG...


OK, based on stats they are almost equal but based on recaps it is clear Wilt victory 3-1-1. Can we conclude that Wilt had the edge over Kareem in '71 WCF overal ?



And that Game 6 of '72 WCF you like cherry-picking on and constantly bringing up... Kareem did shoot 43% but he still had 37 points, 25 rebounds, 8 assists, and 10 blocks!

I have read tenths of articles and never find info about Kareem blocked 10 shots in that particular game - even in Milwaukee newspapers. What is the source - if it is a valid one I will update the info in the thread about Wilt vs Kareem.

[Psileas]

OK, based on stats they are almost equal but based on recaps it is clear Wilt victory 3-1-1. Can we conclude that Wilt had the edge over Kareem in '71 WCF overal ?

That's the reason I had created this thread some time ago (case B):
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=276875


I have read tenths of articles and never find info about Kareem blocked 10 shots in that particular game - even in Milwaukee newspapers. What is the source - if it is a valid one I will update the info in the thread about Wilt vs Kareem.

I haven't found any source either. I've only read it in nbastats, without further explanation provided.

[dankok8]

By that standard Wilt outplayed Kareem in Game 5 (in my opinion by every standard) also and Game 3 when he blocked 5 or 6 of his shots and was praised by both coaches after the game.

Blocking one's shots doesn't equal outplaying them... Wilt defended him well in Game 3 but Kareem was still easily the better player in that one.

Game 3

Kareem: 33 points, 21 rebounds, 6 assists on 41% shooting
Wilt: 5 points, 11 rebounds, 4 assists, 10 blocks on 33% shooting

In Game 5 there is an argument for Wilt since he dominated the boards and really was a killer on defense not just against Kareem but he stopped the Bucks cold in a Laker blowout.

Game 5

Kareem: 28 points, 16 rebounds, 3 assists on 39% shooting
Wilt: 12 points, 26 rebounds, 6 assists, 9 blocks on 67% shooting

But honestly Game 5 is the only entire game (apart from 4th quarter of Game 6...) where Wilt has a decent argument over Kareem in '72 WCF.

For the whole series Kareem easily outplayed Wilt.


Not agree about Kareem not struggling to win against Wilt.
We could ask also what if Jerry West and other injured Lakers players had play in '71 WCF.

Sure. My point is their battles weren't one-sided in terms of wins like Wilt-Russell. And Kareem was a winner from Day 1.


OK, based on stats they are almost equal but based on recaps it is clear Wilt victory 3-1-1. Can we conclude that Wilt had the edge over Kareem in '71 WCF overal ?

I can't conclude that for the whole series. Kareem was still way better in two games (Game 1 & 4) and the fact that his team won in 4-1 including four blowout wins gives him a major edge overall.


I have read tenths of articles and never find info about Kareem blocked 10 shots in that particular game - even in Milwaukee newspapers. What is the source - if it is a valid one I will update the info in the thread about Wilt vs Kareem.


I just saw it on nbastats.net. I figured those guys were dedicated and they wouldn't make stuff up. :lol

[julizaver]

Blocking one's shots doesn't equal outplaying them... Wilt defended him well in Game 3 but Kareem was still easily the better player in that one.

Game 3

Kareem: 33 points, 21 rebounds, 6 assists on 41% shooting
Wilt: 5 points, 11 rebounds, 4 assists, 10 blocks on 33% shooting


To begin with the correct stat line for Wilt is 7 points, 14 rebounds , 4 assists and 10 blocks.
Second Wilt's shooting was not a factor in the first four games - but his defense forced not only Kareem but the whole Bucks team in low FG % and according to all articles/recaps he was the one who contributed most in the Lakers victory (I supposed you had read also some of them and there is no need to post it here). So if Wilt was the best player and his team won (Russell standard) someone could argue that he bested Kareem in that particular game. However Kareem contributed 21 rebounds and 6 assists - so also someone can argue that Kareem had bested Wilt based on numbers.
The truth for me is that both players put efforts - but Wilt was better in his job and his defense was the key to Lakers victory, while Kareem 15/37 (0.405) offense do not help Buck's cause since the Bucks were 45/105 (0.428) from the field collectively.



For the whole series Kareem easily outplayed Wilt.


Based on what criteria ? Unless you are Kareem's die hard fan or you are trolling you can't make such a ridiculous comment.



Sure. My point is their battles weren't one-sided in terms of wins like Wilt-Russell. And Kareem was a winner from Day 1.


To begin with - Wilt stats against Russell were more overwhelming than Jabbar's against Wilt. And his teams lost - on your logic Wilt easily outplayed Russell.



I can't conclude that for the whole series. Kareem was still way better in two games (Game 1 & 4) and the fact that his team won in 4-1 including four blowout wins gives him a major edge overall.


I admit that from '71 season Kareem was the best player in the NBA. But Kareem was way better only in Game 4 - Game 1 was draw (not only for me - look again at stats and recaps).
He was 31.7 ppg on 0.577 shooting in the regular season, but against Wilt his production dropped by 7 ppg and his shooting was 0.481. Wilt upped slightly his offensive production by 1.3 while his shooting dropped from 0.545 to 0.489. Both retain their rebounding numbers from reg. season while Wilt again superior in that department.
About Kareem winner from Day 1 in their battles - against Wilt in their first 11 games (1 from 1969 and the rest from 1970/71 season and playoffs) when Wilt was still going to the basket (so we don't need to separate defense and offense and it is more easy to compare both players) the numbers are:

Wilt 22.8 ppg on 0.497 shooting, 17.6 rpg, 2.8 apg, 5.1 bpg *
Kareem 26.1 ppg on 0.455 shooting, 15.6 rpg, 2.5 apg

*based on 10 from 11 games known data

Hardly a winner from D 1.



I just saw it on nbastats.net. I figured those guys were dedicated and they wouldn't make stuff up. :lol

Yes, they are dedicated but also make some mistakes as all the people in the world. You can find my nickname in their contributor's list btw. :lol

[dankok8]

To begin with the correct stat line for Wilt is 7 points, 14 rebounds , 4 assists and 10 blocks.
Second Wilt's shooting was not a factor in the first four games - but his defense forced not only Kareem but the whole Bucks team in low FG % and according to all articles/recaps he was the one who contributed most in the Lakers victory (I supposed you had read also some of them and there is no need to post it here). So if Wilt was the best player and his team won (Russell standard) someone could argue that he bested Kareem in that particular game. However Kareem contributed 21 rebounds and 6 assists - so also someone can argue that Kareem had bested Wilt based on numbers.
The truth for me is that both players put efforts - but Wilt was better in his job and his defense was the key to Lakers victory, while Kareem 15/37 (0.405) offense do not help Buck's cause since the Bucks were 45/105 (0.428) from the field collectively.

Sorry I accidentally pasted Wilt's line from Game 4. It really isn't much different... Kareem killed Wilt as far as the overall production.

The FG% argument is also rather unfair. It's difficult to shoot a very high % when you take so many shots. Wilt shot 45% on that Kareem in that series taking like 5 shots a game or something like that...


Based on what criteria ? Unless you are Kareem's die hard fan or you are trolling you can't make such a ridiculous comment.

I'm not a troll or a homer.

Ridiculous? Kareem scored 23 ppg more on better efficiency, outrebounded Wilt in 3 out of 6 games, and played pretty great defense himself. LA shot 40.5% for the series and Wilt was held about 4 ppg and 20% below his averages.




To begin with - Wilt stats against Russell were more overwhelming than Jabbar's against Wilt. And his teams lost - on your logic Wilt easily outplayed Russell.

Kareem dominated Wilt in '72 WCF more than Wilt ever dominated Russell. Find me one series where Wilt outscored Russ by 23 points (33.7 ppg vs 10.8 ppg to be exact) and also outassisted him (4.8 apg to 3.3 apg)? In fact you won't find a margin nearly that huge between Wilt and Russell in the playoffs.


I admit that from '71 season Kareem was the best player in the NBA. But Kareem was way better only in Game 4 - Game 1 was draw (not only for me - look again at stats and recaps).
He was 31.7 ppg on 0.577 shooting in the regular season, but against Wilt his production dropped by 7 ppg and his shooting was 0.481. Wilt upped slightly his offensive production by 1.3 while his shooting dropped from 0.545 to 0.489. Both retain their rebounding numbers from reg. season while Wilt again superior in that department.
About Kareem winner from Day 1 in their battles - against Wilt in their first 11 games (1 from 1969 and the rest from 1970/71 season and playoffs) when Wilt was still going to the basket (so we don't need to separate defense and offense and it is more easy to compare both players) the numbers are:

Wilt 22.8 ppg on 0.497 shooting, 17.6 rpg, 2.8 apg, 5.1 bpg *
Kareem 26.1 ppg on 0.455 shooting, 15.6 rpg, 2.5 apg

*based on 10 from 11 games known data

Hardly a winner from D 1.

Game 1 was not a draw. 32/22 vs 22/20 and Bucks blew out the Lakers. I've read the recaps. Just because a certain player is praised for their defense doesn't mean he outplayed the other.

In the span you listed Bucks went 8-3 against the Lakers and obliterated them in many of those games. That's what I meant when I said winner. Kareem's teams consistently beat Wilt's teams. Even when West was healthy in the 70-71 season Bucks still went 4-1 against LA and all four of their wins were blowouts. And in their 5 H2H's in the 70-71 regular season Kareem played 42, 34, 31, 30, and 30 minutes or just 33.4 mpg on average. We don't have minutes for all of Wilt's games but he played 48, 40 and 36 in the 3 games where we have the data or 41.3 mpg on average.

And our analysis of their match-ups thus far has completely ignored free throw shooting. If Kareem shoots anywhere around Wilt in FG% in reality he's far more efficient because of ability to make free throws. We're talking 70% vs less than 50% from the line...


Yes, they are dedicated but also make some mistakes as all the people in the world. You can find my nickname in their contributor's list btw. :lol

Fair enough.

Wilt played well against Kareem and defended him well but outplayed him seems an enormous stretch especially for '72 WCF. Did Ben Wallace outplay Shaq in '04 Finals? Did Kendrick Perkins outplay Dwight in '09 ECSF? Both Ben and Perk played good D but it's illogical to say they outplayed their opponents.

[stanlove1111]

Sorry I accidentally pasted Wilt's line from Game 4. It really isn't much different... Kareem killed Wilt as far as the overall production.

The FG% argument is also rather unfair. It's difficult to shoot a very high % when you take so many shots. Wilt shot 45% on that Kareem in that series taking like 5 shots a game or something like that...



I'm not a troll or a homer.

Ridiculous? Kareem scored 23 ppg more on better efficiency, outrebounded Wilt in 3 out of 6 games, and played pretty great defense himself. LA shot 40.5% for the series and Wilt was held about 4 ppg and 20% below his averages.





Kareem dominated Wilt in '72 WCF more than Wilt ever dominated Russell. Find me one series where Wilt outscored Russ by 23 points (33.7 ppg vs 10.8 ppg to be exact) and also outassisted him (4.8 apg to 3.3 apg)? In fact you won't find a margin nearly that huge between Wilt and Russell in the playoffs.



Game 1 was not a draw. 32/22 vs 22/20 and Bucks blew out the Lakers. I've read the recaps. Just because a certain player is praised for their defense doesn't mean he outplayed the other.

In the span you listed Bucks went 8-3 against the Lakers and obliterated them in many of those games. That's what I meant when I said winner. Kareem's teams consistently beat Wilt's teams. Even when West was healthy in the 70-71 season Bucks still went 4-1 against LA and all four of their wins were blowouts. And in their 5 H2H's in the 70-71 regular season Kareem played 42, 34, 31, 30, and 30 minutes or just 33.4 mpg on average. We don't have minutes for all of Wilt's games but he played 48, 40 and 36 in the 3 games where we have the data or 41.3 mpg on average.

And our analysis of their match-ups thus far has completely ignored free throw shooting. If Kareem shoots anywhere around Wilt in FG% in reality he's far more efficient because of ability to make free throws. We're talking 70% vs less than 50% from the line...



Fair enough.

Wilt played well against Kareem and defended him well but outplayed him seems an enormous stretch especially for '72 WCF. Did Ben Wallace outplay Shaq in '04 Finals? Did Kendrick Perkins outplay Dwight in '09 ECSF? Both Ben and Perk played good D but it's illogical to say they outplayed their opponents.

I watched the series at the time and find it laughable that anyone is actually trying to make the case that Wilt outplayed Kareem in 1972. Wilt played his role and did a good job but Kareem was clearly the better player. The whole goal of the Lakers defense was to try and contain Jabbar, you have to figure that in. Nobody was worried about Wilt's scoring at that point.

1971 was a closer matchup but again they had different roles so you just can't look at stats. I don't think its ridiculous to say that Wilt might have outplayed Jabbar in the 71 series. Proably closer to a tossup. He played great and said he played some of the best basketball of his career in that series which is what people thought at the time. Not sure who had the age advantage at the time. Jabbar was very young and far from his best, while Wilt was past his best.

[julizaver]

I watched the series at the time and find it laughable that anyone is actually trying to make the case that Wilt outplayed Kareem in 1972. Wilt played his role and did a good job but Kareem was clearly the better player. The whole goal of the Lakers defense was to try and contain Jabbar, you have to figure that in. Nobody was worried about Wilt's scoring at that point.

1971 was a closer matchup but again they had different roles so you just can't look at stats. I don't think its ridiculous to say that Wilt might have outplayed Jabbar in the 71 series. Proably closer to a tossup. He played great and said he played some of the best basketball of his career in that series which is what people thought at the time. Not sure who had the age advantage at the time. Jabbar was very young and far from his best, while Wilt was past his best.

Agree with that post - I also stated that Kareem was the best player in the NBA starting from his second season. And he already start peaking. Wilt in 27 of his 28 meetings with Kareem was past 34 obviously past his prime and returning from major injury.
And I have never said Wilt outplayed Kareem for the '72 WCF series.
My point is that if based on win-lost criteria someone claimed that Russell (and who "played his role and did a good job") outplayed Wilt, the same could be applied to Wilt and he beat Kareem in '72 WCF.

[Psileas]

Agree with that post - I also stated that Kareem was the best player in the NBA starting from his second season. And he already start peaking. Wilt in 27 of his 28 meetings with Kareem was past 34 obviously past his prime and returning from major injury.
And I have never said Wilt outplayed Kareem for the '72 WCF series.
My point is that if based on win-lost criteria someone claimed that Russell (and who "played his role and did a good job") outplayed Wilt, the same could be applied to Wilt and he beat Kareem in '72 WCF.

The outcome of a certain head to head matchup, even the Wilt-Kareem one, can't be dependent on who wins the series, because there are like 10 more different matchups going on at the same time.

Here's something to think about: Suppose there is a series that ends with a clear 4-1 score and the final margins of games are the following: +5, +2, +1, -15, +7. Total net point differential=0.
Imagine now that all the individual matchups are statistically pretty close, so the question is, who statistically outplayed whom. If someone were to base every single statistical matchup on the "it boils down to 4-1" criterion, the verdict would be that for every single matchup, the player of the winning team (let's call it "A") outplayed the of of the losing team ("B"). But if this had actually been the case, if A's players had won ALL the matchups, team A would have wiped the floor with team B, not just win by small margins.
Now, Milwaukee beat the Lakers more handily, but seeing how the Lakers' guards and forwards were outplayed by the ones of the Bucks, I find it hard to believe that the Wilt-Kareem matchup is what made the big difference in favor of the Bucks and that the "4-1" or "big margins" can be used as an argument against Wilt's performance.

[julizaver]

The FG% argument is also rather unfair. It's difficult to shoot a very high % when you take so many shots. Wilt shot 45% on that Kareem in that series taking like 5 shots a game or something like that...


This is a statement of Wilt doing his job (at that stage of his career - Kareem's average during the season was almost the same, but against others he shot 34.8 on 0.574 . In fact it will be more since in the season he shot 0.500 vs Wilt - but let's leave it like that.
Wilt's scoring was not the big factor in the series and if you want in the Wilt's last two seasons. He was the fourth scoring option.
Wilt had two post-series with more than 30 ppg on more than 0.500 against Russell in his scoring days.



Ridiculous? Kareem scored 23 ppg more on better efficiency, outrebounded Wilt in 3 out of 6 games, and played pretty great defense himself. LA shot 40.5% for the series and Wilt was held about 4 ppg and 20% below his averages.


Better efficiency ? 0.457 vs 0.452 - this is not serious argument.
Outrebound Wilt in 3 of the 6 games - Wilt won the battle in that department for the series 210 to 191.



Kareem dominated Wilt in '72 WCF more than Wilt ever dominated Russell. Find me one series where Wilt outscored Russ by 23 points (33.7 ppg vs 10.8 ppg to be exact) and also outassisted him (4.8 apg to 3.3 apg)? In fact you won't find a margin nearly that huge between Wilt and Russell in the playoffs.


Why do you point to the assists numbers ? Are they more important then rebounds for the center position. The fact is that Wilt is a better rebounder than Kareem and outrebound him in both '71 WCF and '72 WCF.
What about blocked shots - Wilt had huge advantage in '71 WCF (22 to 10) and in the last 4 games of '72WCF he blocked 31 shots.
So Kareem had advantage in points and assists, but Wilt had advantage in rebounds and blocked shots.
And I bring blocks and rebounds because you bring the assists.

In '67 series against Celtics Wilt had advantage in every major department against Russell. Outscored him by 10 ppg, outrebound him with 9 rpg, outassisted him by 4 apg, outshot him by 0.200 and probably outblocked him by 2 or 3 bpg. And his team won 4:1.

In fact Wilt always outscored and outrebound Russell, while always shooting better.

OK, if it is strictly about scoring Wilt average 29.2 ppg vs 11.2 ppg for Russell in '64 Finals - 18 ppg more, but on far better shooting 0.517 vs 0.386.



Game 1 was not a draw. 32/22 vs 22/20 and Bucks blew out the Lakers. I've read the recaps. Just because a certain player is praised for their defense doesn't mean he outplayed the other.


Not agree, Wilt shot better 10/19 vs 14/30, blocked 8 shots vs 1 for Kareem. Why do you neglect defense - if a player is praised than he deserved credit. The Lakers were doomed in that series - so let's talk about Wilt vs Kareem match-up. I called it draw at least for that game. The newspapers/recaps call it draw.



In the span you listed Bucks went 8-3 against the Lakers and obliterated them in many of those games. That's what I meant when I said winner. Kareem's teams consistently beat Wilt's teams. Even when West was healthy in the 70-71 season Bucks still went 4-1 against LA and all four of their wins were blowouts. And in their 5 H2H's in the 70-71 regular season Kareem played 42, 34, 31, 30, and 30 minutes or just 33.4 mpg on average. We don't have minutes for all of Wilt's games but he played 48, 40 and 36 in the 3 games where we have the data or 41.3 mpg on average.


Agree Wilt played more, but Lew had 6 fouls in one 30 min game and 5 in the 31 min game. So it is Lew fault and prove that he played hard against Wilt, not excuse for small numbers.



And our analysis of their match-ups thus far has completely ignored free throw shooting. If Kareem shoots anywhere around Wilt in FG% in reality he's far more efficient because of ability to make free throws. We're talking 70% vs less than 50% from the line...


For that 11 game span, where Wilt was still scoring the FTs are 0.633 for Jabbar (45 from 71) and 0.553 (57 from 103). Not so big difference.
But lets give Kareem slight edge here.



Fair enough.

Wilt played well against Kareem and defended him well but outplayed him seems an enormous stretch especially for '72 WCF. Did Ben Wallace outplay Shaq in '04 Finals? Did Kendrick Perkins outplay Dwight in '09 ECSF? Both Ben and Perk played good D but it's illogical to say they outplayed their opponents.

The same - Wilt played well against Kareem and defended him well and again I did not said that Wilt outplayed Kareem overall in the series, I said that in case we bring Russell argument.
And that was my point.

[dankok8]

The outcome of a certain head to head matchup, even the Wilt-Kareem one, can't be dependent on who wins the series, because there are like 10 more different matchups going on at the same time.

Here's something to think about: Suppose there is a series that ends with a clear 4-1 score and the final margins of games are the following: +5, +2, +1, -15, +7. Total net point differential=0.
Imagine now that all the individual matchups are statistically pretty close, so the question is, who statistically outplayed whom. If someone were to base every single statistical matchup on the "it boils down to 4-1" criterion, the verdict would be that for every single matchup, the player of the winning team (let's call it "A") outplayed the of of the losing team ("B"). But if this had actually been the case, if A's players had won ALL the matchups, team A would have wiped the floor with team B, not just win by small margins.
Now, Milwaukee beat the Lakers more handily, but seeing how the Lakers' guards and forwards were outplayed by the ones of the Bucks, I find it hard to believe that the Wilt-Kareem matchup is what made the big difference in favor of the Bucks and that the "4-1" or "big margins" can be used as an argument against Wilt's performance.

This is a reasonable post but the Bucks obliterated the Lakers and that LA team still had a lot of talent. Gail Goodrich, Hap Hairston (who averaged like 19/10 on the season), Jim McMillian etc. Oscar actually had a pretty pedestrian series averaging 15/9 on 43% shooting. Dandridge didn't seem to have outplayed Hap either at least not from the stat sheet.

I'm skeptical that Wilt had such impact that he was better than Kareem. I mean if that's the case why was his reasonably talented team completely obliterated? I mean LA lost games by 21, 18, 23, and 18 points. Even in the regular season with a healthy roster the Bucks killed them.

[dankok8]

This is a statement of Wilt doing his job (at that stage of his career - Kareem's average during the season was almost the same, but against others he shot 34.8 on 0.574 . In fact it will be more since in the season he shot 0.500 vs Wilt - but let's leave it like that.
Wilt's scoring was not the big factor in the series and if you want in the Wilt's last two seasons. He was the fourth scoring option.
Wilt had two post-series with more than 30 ppg on more than 0.500 against Russell in his scoring days.

All things considered Kareem played a VERY GOOD series against Wilt in '72.



Better efficiency ? 0.457 vs 0.452 - this is not serious argument.
Outrebound Wilt in 3 of the 6 games - Wilt won the battle in that department for the series 210 to 191.

Wilt did win overall but it's 3-3 looking at individual games. Some people pretend like the gap in rebounds is as big as that in points. It's a SMALL EDGE for Wilt in rebounding.


Why do you point to the assists numbers ? Are they more important then rebounds for the center position. The fact is that Wilt is a better rebounder than Kareem and outrebound him in both '71 WCF and '72 WCF.
What about blocked shots - Wilt had huge advantage in '71 WCF (22 to 10) and in the last 4 games of '72WCF he blocked 31 shots.
So Kareem had advantage in points and assists, but Wilt had advantage in rebounds and blocked shots.
And I bring blocks and rebounds because you bring the assists.

Fair points but Kareem probably also blocked a lot of shots in the '72 series. I mean in Game 1 he and the Bucks reportedly stifled the Lakers so he must have played some excellent D himself.

Blocks on their own don't show defensive impact all that well either. I mean we have that short clip of Wilt blocking two of Kareem's shots (including a skyhook at the apex) but if the ball ended up in the Bucks hands for the third time and they swished a basket those blocks are meaningless. On the other hand a Russell block that leads to a run-out and a lay-up is a four-point play.

Honestly the only way we can prove Wilt's impact is by somehow getting a tape of the game and watching it.


In '67 series against Celtics Wilt had advantage in every major department against Russell. Outscored him by 10 ppg, outrebound him with 9 rpg, outassisted him by 4 apg, outshot him by 0.200 and probably outblocked him by 2 or 3 bpg. And his team won 4:1.

In fact Wilt always outscored and outrebound Russell, while always shooting better.

OK, if it is strictly about scoring Wilt average 29.2 ppg vs 11.2 ppg for Russell in '64 Finals - 18 ppg more, but on far better shooting 0.517 vs 0.386.

Russell wasn't really a scorer. Still Kareem put a beatdown on Wilt in '72 WCF statistically more than Wilt ever did on Russell.


Not agree, Wilt shot better 10/19 vs 14/30, blocked 8 shots vs 1 for Kareem. Why do you neglect defense - if a player is praised than he deserved credit. The Lakers were doomed in that series - so let's talk about Wilt vs Kareem match-up. I called it draw at least for that game. The newspapers/recaps call it draw.


It just seems crazy to me to call a draw. If Wilt's team won sure... but the Bucks blew them out. Where was this impact?


Agree Wilt played more, but Lew had 6 fouls in one 30 min game and 5 in the 31 min game. So it is Lew fault and prove that he played hard against Wilt, not excuse for small numbers.

Fair point but it still seems unfair to compare numbers heads up given such a huge disparity in minutes played.


For that 11 game span, where Wilt was still scoring the FTs are 0.633 for Jabbar (45 from 71) and 0.553 (57 from 103). Not so big difference.
But lets give Kareem slight edge here.

Sampling error? Come on now Kareem was a much better FT shooter. In the '71 WCF he had a 63.6% to 42.9% edge and in the '72 WCF a 75.9% to 44.3% edge.


The same - Wilt played well against Kareem and defended him well and again I did not said that Wilt outplayed Kareem overall in the series, I said that in case we bring Russell argument.
And that was my point.

I get that and I agree.

[Psileas]

This is a reasonable post but the Bucks obliterated the Lakers and that LA team still had a lot of talent. Gail Goodrich, Hap Hairston (who averaged like 19/10 on the season), Jim McMillian etc. Oscar actually had a pretty pedestrian series averaging 15/9 on 43% shooting.

I'm skeptical that Wilt had such impact that he was better than Kareem. I mean if that's the case why was his team obliterated? I mean LA lost games by 21, 18, 23, and 18 points.

The Lakers had Jerry West, Elgin Baylor and, practically, Keith Erickson (16 ppg in the previous round vs Chicago, played only 1 game vs Bucks) missing. With them missing, the team had no depth, no bench (not to mention, rotations were somewhat smaller than today). They even gave bench warmer Pat Riley big minutes since they were out of guards.
So, for me the big difference is that the Bucks used 8 players in all their games and 2 more in 4, while the Lakers only used 6 players in all their games and 2 more in 4, meaning that there's a different mpg distribution in the 2 teams, which becomes even more different when you remove Wilt's and Kareem's close to equal big minutes (44.4 and 42.6). The rest of the Lakers' and Bucks' final stats are an illusion and this will become clear when someone posts everyone's minutes. Then it will become more clear that the Lakers' guards and forwards were getting outplayed, despite not showing in the raw ppg columns.

[CavaliersFTW]

This is a reasonable post but the Bucks obliterated the Lakers and that LA team still had a lot of talent. Gail Goodrich, Hap Hairston (who averaged like 19/10 on the season), Jim McMillian etc. Oscar actually had a pretty pedestrian series averaging 15/9 on 43% shooting.

I'm skeptical that Wilt had such impact that he was better than Kareem. I mean if that's the case why was his team obliterated? I mean LA lost games by 21, 18, 23, and 18 points.
Your ****ed in the head man, seriously :hammerhead:

[julizaver]

Sampling error? Come on now Kareem was a much better FT shooter. In the '71 WCF he had a 63.6% to 42.9% edge and in the '72 WCF a 75.9% to 44.3% edge.



No sampling error, I mean for the first 11 games from 1969 till 1971 when Wilt was still scoring. These not include '72 playoffs.

[dankok8]

The Lakers had Jerry West, Elgin Baylor and, practically, Keith Erickson (16 ppg in the previous round vs Chicago, played only 1 game vs Bucks) missing. With them missing, the team had no depth, no bench (not to mention, rotations were somewhat smaller than today). They even gave bench warmer Pat Riley big minutes since they were out of guards.
So, for me the big difference is that the Bucks used 8 players in all their games and 2 more in 4, while the Lakers only used 6 players in all their games and 2 more in 4, meaning that there's a different mpg distribution in the 2 teams, which becomes even more different when you remove Wilt's and Kareem's close to equal big minutes (44.4 and 42.6). The rest of the Lakers' and Bucks' final stats are an illusion and this will become clear when someone posts everyone's minutes. Then it will become more clear that the Lakers' guards and forwards were getting outplayed, despite not showing in the raw ppg columns.

Good post and I agree. The Laker depth was shot so the Milwaukee cast did outplay the LA cast as a whole.


Your ****ed in the head man, seriously

Throw out some arguments. So far you've done nothing to prove your points except posting articles and then inferring your own conclusions and throwing insults around.

I treat you with respect and I expect you to do the same. I appreciate what you do unearthing old footage but please don't be a ***.


No sampling error, I mean for the first 11 games from 1969 till 1971 when Wilt was still scoring. These not include '72 playoffs.

Fair enough. Wilt's free throw shooting plummeted in the playoffs though.

Anyways back to the OP we all hijacked this thread... How do people see the '65 EDF? I think Russ got the better of Wilt in some or all of Game 3, 5, and 7 but overall I think Wilt was better than Russell over the course of the whole series. Not by a lot but I'd give Wilt the edge.

[CavaliersFTW]

Good post and I agree. The Laker depth was shot so the Milwaukee cast did outplay the LA cast as a whole.



Throw out some arguments. So far you've done nothing to prove your points except posting articles and then inferring your own conclusions and throwing insults around.

I treat you with respect and I expect you to do the same. I appreciate what you do unearthing old footage but please don't be a ***.



Fair enough. Wilt's free throw shooting plummeted in the playoffs though.

Anyways back to the OP we all hijacked this thread... How do people see the '65 EDF? I think Russ got the better of Wilt in some or all of Game 3, 5, and 7 but overall I think Wilt was better than Russell over the course of the whole series. Not by a lot but I'd give Wilt the edge.
I posted articles from Milwaukee and Nationally circulated news that stated Wilt outplayed Jabbar very cut and dry, no room for interpretation. I don't have an argument, I read what has been documented by those who saw it and I trust their assessment. The stats even support it given each players role, supporting casts, etc. Your the only one 'arguing' anything and your arguing that he 'didn't' do what everyone said he did.

But the sky isn't blue to you, grass doesn't look green to you, we get it. Thus, I truthfully pointed out, your ****ed up in the head. You deserve respect? No, you deserve to get called out for being an idiot - if you say stupid shit your going to get called out for it. Honesty hurts some times I guess, you resist sensical evidence because it doesn't jive with what I can only imagine is some sort of pre-concieved opinion because no way would anyone form that opinion AFTER reading coverage of the games. You will as such get no respect from me and you don't deserve it from anyone else either. Dont' waste my time acting like a spoiled little sh*t who 'deserves' anything. Carry on with your water isn't wet argument.

[AirFederer]

:hammerhead: :rolleyes:


I posted articles from Milwaukee and Nationally circulated news that stated Wilt outplayed Jabbar very cut and dry, no room for interpretation. I don't have an argument, I read what has been documented by those who saw it and I trust their assessment. The stats even support it given each players role, supporting casts, etc. Your the only one 'arguing' anything and your arguing that he 'didn't' do what everyone said he did.

But the sky isn't blue to you, grass doesn't look green to you, we get it. Thus, I truthfully pointed out, your ****ed up in the head. You deserve respect? No, you deserve to get called out for being an idiot - if you say stupid shit your going to get called out for it. Honesty hurts some times I guess, you resist sensical evidence because it doesn't jive with what I can only imagine is some sort of pre-concieved opinion because no way would anyone form that opinion AFTER reading coverage of the games. You will as such get no respect from me and you don't deserve it from anyone else either. Dont' waste my time acting like a spoiled little sh*t who 'deserves' anything. Carry on with your water isn't wet argument.

[fpliii]

To be honest, I'm not quite sure where the 10 blocks number in G6 1972 comes from in the gamelogs. I've asked one of my colleagues from nbastats.net, maybe he can help find the origin of the entry.

Generally our blocks/steals numbers are very good/accurate, unless they're followed by "estimate" or "estimated by". Perhaps this is just an error, or maybe there's a source for it with which I'm not terribly familiar.

I'll let you guys know if I learn more about this.

[dankok8]

I posted articles from Milwaukee and Nationally circulated news that stated Wilt outplayed Jabbar very cut and dry, no room for interpretation. I don't have an argument, I read what has been documented by those who saw it and I trust their assessment. The stats even support it given each players role, supporting casts, etc. Your the only one 'arguing' anything and your arguing that he 'didn't' do what everyone said he did.

But the sky isn't blue to you, grass doesn't look green to you, we get it. Thus, I truthfully pointed out, your ****ed up in the head. You deserve respect? No, you deserve to get called out for being an idiot - if you say stupid shit your going to get called out for it. Honesty hurts some times I guess, you resist sensical evidence because it doesn't jive with what I can only imagine is some sort of pre-concieved opinion because no way would anyone form that opinion AFTER reading coverage of the games. You will as such get no respect from me and you don't deserve it from anyone else either. Dont' waste my time acting like a spoiled little sh*t who 'deserves' anything. Carry on with your water isn't wet argument.

Your articles mention that Wilt outplayed Kareem in Game 2 not in the whole series. Your articles mention Oscar praising Wilt's impact and Bucks' fans giving him an ovation. If there is a piece or even a quote there that Wilt outplayed Kareem in the whole series I'd like to see it... maybe I missed it? SHOW ME THE "EVIDENCE"... I'm unbiased and will admit fault. Everybody loses arguments myself included. I will admit fault if I was wrong.

I also find comical how you take the opinions of a certain newspaper author as fact... Since Kobe is #2 all-time player after Jordan on ESPN I guess that's fact as well?

And thanks for the psychiatric diagnosis. Scroll back a couple of pages and you'll see users complimenting my posts and telling me to stick around the boards. But I guess your opinion counts more am I right... :lol I'm here to learn things, share some insights, and discuss the NBA not argue with sour *** like you. :rolleyes:


To be honest, I'm not quite sure where the 10 blocks number in G6 1972 comes from in the gamelogs. I've asked one of my colleagues from nbastats.net, maybe he can help find the origin of the entry.

Generally our blocks/steals numbers are very good/accurate, unless they're followed by "estimate" or "estimated by". Perhaps this is just an error, or maybe there's a source for it with which I'm not terribly familiar.

I'll let you guys know if I learn more about this.

It would be nice if we found out. Thank you for all your hard work by the way!

[fpliii]

It would be nice if we found out. Thank you for all your hard work by the way!
Sure thing.

So I asked around, and it seems the source for that number was the Long Beach Independent Press-Telegram. Here are the scans for the Sun. 4/23/72 issue:

http://www12.zippyshare.com/v/23869169/file.html
http://www12.zippyshare.com/v/91726886/file.html

No mention of 10 blocks for Kareem, but Wilt had exactly that many. It appears to be a transcription error. Unless another paper is found to substantiate it in our database, we'll have it fixed in a future version.

Thanks for keeping an eye out! :cheers:

[julizaver]

Anyways back to the OP we all hijacked this thread... How do people see the '65 EDF? I think Russ got the better of Wilt in some or all of Game 3, 5, and 7 but overall I think Wilt was better than Russell over the course of the whole series. Not by a lot but I'd give Wilt the edge.

The same - it seems both players played at the height of their abilities. I also gave Wilt the edge in that series. His numbers are almost unreal. Against best defense and greatest team.
If Celtics were not winning the series we would call it domination.

[LAZERUSS]

Good post and I agree. The Laker depth was shot so the Milwaukee cast did outplay the LA cast as a whole.



Throw out some arguments. So far you've done nothing to prove your points except posting articles and then inferring your own conclusions and throwing insults around.

I treat you with respect and I expect you to do the same. I appreciate what you do unearthing old footage but please don't be a ***.



Fair enough. Wilt's free throw shooting plummeted in the playoffs though.

Anyways back to the OP we all hijacked this thread... How do people see the '65 EDF? I think Russ got the better of Wilt in some or all of Game 3, 5, and 7 but overall I think Wilt was better than Russell over the course of the whole series. Not by a lot but I'd give Wilt the edge.


Chamberlain's IMPACT against Kareem was HUGE in the '72 WCF's. Kareem not only couldn't hit the ocean from a lifeboat in the last four games of that series, his teammates were completely ignored in the series...and largely stood around while KAJ would take brick-after-brick. If anything the entire Bucks team had become demoralized by Wilt's defense against what had been an unstoppable Kareem.

I saw every game of that series, and even many of Kareem's makes were pure luck. Even the Milwaukee press commented that Kareem was INTIMIDATED by Chamberlain's presence. And it's too bad that most of their H2H recaps don't show blocked SKYHOOKS, because Wilt was knocking them all over the gym.

And you can throw out Wilt's FG% in that series. He missed 20 shots. Kareem missed 107.

And once again, TIME MAGAZINE claimed that Wilt outplayed Kareem in the SERIES. The reality was, after game one, LA took complete control of the series. Just as they did in the regular season when they went 4-1 against the defending champion Bucks, they would go 4-1 over the last five games of the '72 WCF's, and inlcuded were two close road wins, and an annihilation of the Bucks in game five.

As for the '71 WCF's, while you point out Oscar's injury in '72 (although his coach denied that Oscar was injured BTW... as well as West being mired in the worst shooting slump of his career), you completely ignored West and Baylor missing the series entirely, and Erickson going down early in it.

And, as Julizaver pointed out, in their first 11 H2H games, of which only one was played before Wilt's injury (and all well past his peak), Chamberlain outplayed KAJ. No questions about it. KAJ slightly outscored Wilt, but Wilt was easily the better rebounder and considerably more efficient. And, once again, in their one H2H before Chamberlain shredded his knee, Wilt just CRUSHED Kareem in EVERY facet of the game.

But once again, we never got to witness a PRIME Wilt going up against a peak KAJ either. Just an old, Wilt, playing on a surgically repaired knee. And those that actually watched the two play, would say that, at the very least, KAJ's edge was only marginal. But we do KNOW that a PRIME Wilt faced quite a few of the same centers that a PRIME Kareem would face, and he obliterated them to a FAR greater extent than KAJ did.


As for the '65 EDF's...Russell slightly outplayed Wilt in game three. Chamberlain outplayed him, or downright demolished him in the six other games. Much like the '62 EDF's. Chamberlain single-handedly carried his team to within an eyelash of beating a much greater team. And he just waxed Russell in the process. His beatdown of a prime Russell in '65 was perhaps the greatest shelling by one GOAT center against another in the history of the game (even Hakeem's '95 series against D-Rob was not as one-sided when you factor in TS%), and rivaled only by his carper-bombing of Russell in '67.

And for those that claim that Russell was not an offensive force...he had entire playoffs of 20+ ppg. He led Boston ins scoring in two Finals. And he put up Finals of 23 ppg on .543 shooting, 24 ppg on .538 shooting, and 18 ppg on .702 shooting (yes, .702 from the field.) Of course, in the same years, he averaged 22 ppg on .399; 14 ppg on .451; and 16 ppg on .447 against Wilt. In any case, you won't find Robinson or Ewing with Finals' series like that.

[LAZERUSS]

Russell wasn't really a scorer. Still Kareem put a beatdown on Wilt in '72 WCF statistically more than Wilt ever did on Russell.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Kareem shot .457 in that series, and was outrebounded. He only outshot Chamberlain from the field because Wilt hardly shot the ball. And over the course of the last four games, KAJ was just awful from the field (.414.)

This against a well-past his prime Wilt.

And once again, those that actually watched the series, almost to a man, including the MILWAUKEE PRESS and TIME MAGAZINE, claimed that Wilt outplayed Kareem in the '72 WCF's.

Meanwhile, Russell, with far superior teammates who almost always stepped up their games in the post-season (while Wilt's almost always puked all over the floor), was either outplayed, or downright destroyed in EVERY H2H playoff series with Wilt. Wilt outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell in EVERY series, and most by HUGE margins.

If you want domination...how about Moses just pounding KAJ in their seven playoff H2H's? (Or 40 career H2H's)?

[LAZERUSS]

I think you'll love this:

Wilt's scoring vs Reed's, Bellamy's, Thurmond's, Russell's in the 1960-66 period: 150 wins-10 losses-2 draws.

Wilt's rebounding vs Reed's, Bellamy's, Thurmond's, Russell's in the 1960-66 period: 107-38-4 (for available games).

Also:

Wilt's scoring vs Bellamy's, Thurmond's, Russell's in the 1967-68 2-year span: 50-15-3 (Reed played PF during that period).

Wilt's rebounding vs Bellamy's, Thurmond's, Russell's in the 1967-68 2-year span: 50-13-3 (only 2 games missing).

We know that Wilt outshot Russell by staggering margins in those H2H's, and in the H2H's that we do have of the other's, he outshot them by massive margins, as well. Furthermore, while Wilt's FT shooting was poor, he so dominant, that he was easily outscoring his peers from the line, as well. He, Shaq, and Moses were the premier centers in that regard.

Here again, a prime/peak Chamberlain dominated all of his peers to a far greater extent than any other center in NBA history.

[LAZERUSS]

Sure thing.

So I asked around, and it seems the source for that number was the Long Beach Independent Press-Telegram. Here are the scans for the Sun. 4/23/72 issue:

http://www12.zippyshare.com/v/23869169/file.html
http://www12.zippyshare.com/v/91726886/file.html

No mention of 10 blocks for Kareem, but Wilt had exactly that many. It appears to be a transcription error. Unless another paper is found to substantiate it in our database, we'll have it fixed in a future version.

Thanks for keeping an eye out! :cheers:

I also question Kareem's blocks in the game in which Milwaukee broke LA's 33 game winning streak. The recap had Kareem with 9 and Wilt with six. I believe I counted Kareem with FOUR in that game, which is on YouTube.

Seems that Kareem was getting a lot of "phantom" blocks in these H2H's.

[gts]

I also question Kareem's blocks in the game in which Milwaukee broke LA's 33 game winning streak. The recap had Kareem with 9 and Wilt with six. I believe I counted Kareem with FOUR in that game, which is on YouTube.

Seems that Kareem was getting a lot of "phantom" blocks in these H2H's.
A Wilt groupie complaining about phantom stats... that's rich

I love Wilt and enjoy your posts but you need to regroup, you've become a caricature of yourself

[Psileas]

A Wilt groupie complaining about phantom stats... that's rich

I love Wilt and enjoy your posts but you need to regroup, you've become a caricature of yourself

Did Wilt enjoy phantom stats, as well, aka, stats that were never posted? Let's not create another negative myth now.

This game is available to all and it's evident that Kareem's shot blocking stats received an artificial boost, while Wilt's did not. And while we are at it, Kareem's rebounds also received a boost and Wilt's a drop. The official tally was 20-12 in favor of Kareem, yet I counted either 17-16 in favor of Wilt or 17-17. I hadn't even intended to count them in the first place, but after a while, it striked me as odd how many rebounds Wilt seemed to have compared to the official mark of 12, so I later re-watched the game and did the counting.

[LAZERUSS]

Did Wilt enjoy phantom stats, as well, aka, stats that were never posted? Let's not create another negative myth now.

This game is available to all and it's evident that Kareem's shot blocking stats received an artificial boost, while Wilt's did not. And while we are at it, Kareem's rebounds also received a boost and Wilt's a drop. The official tally was 20-12 in favor of Kareem, yet I counted either 17-16 in favor of Wilt or 17-17. I hadn't even intended to count them in the first place, but after a while, it striked me as odd how many rebounds Wilt seemed to have compared to the official mark of 12, so I later re-watched the game and did the counting.

Harvey Pollack once counted Boston's official scoring in a game in the 60's, in which they had Russell with something like a 10 rebound edge. Pollack was pointing this out to an SI writer at the time, and they confirmed that Chamberlain actually had about a 10 rebound edge. Auerbach was so incensed that he didn't speak to Pollack for a number of years.

If anything, it appears that Wilt was often SHORT-CHANGED in these "stats" discussions.

[julizaver]

Harvey Pollack once counted Boston's official scoring in a game in the 60's, in which they had Russell with something like a 10 rebound edge. Pollack was pointing this out to an SI writer at the time, and they confirmed that Chamberlain actually had about a 10 rebound edge. Auerbach was so incensed that he didn't speak to Pollack for a number of years.

If anything, it appears that Wilt was often SHORT-CHANGED in these "stats" discussions.

I also have read the story and even find the game in question. in fact Wilt complained before Pollack that his stats were decreased when Warriors played as guests and Pollack attend a game in Boston when he kept track of both Russell and Chamberlain stats - so after the huge differences occurs between Harvey numbers and game statisticians the stats numbers were corrected after Harvey arguing with the statisticians.

[Psileas]

Harvey Pollack once counted Boston's official scoring in a game in the 60's, in which they had Russell with something like a 10 rebound edge. Pollack was pointing this out to an SI writer at the time, and they confirmed that Chamberlain actually had about a 10 rebound edge. Auerbach was so incensed that he didn't speak to Pollack for a number of years.

If anything, it appears that Wilt was often SHORT-CHANGED in these "stats" discussions.


I also have read the story and even find the game in question. in fact Wilt complained before Pollack that his stats were decreased when Warriors played as guests and Pollack attend a game in Boston when he kept track of both Russell and Chamberlain stats - so after the huge differences occurs between Harvey numbers and game statisticians the stats numbers were corrected after Harvey arguing with the statisticians.

Makes me wonder: Did Wilt have "only" 55 rebounds in that game against Russell? :lol :D

[La Frescobaldi]

Makes me wonder: Did Wilt have "only" 55 rebounds in that game against Russell? :lol :D

All the stars of those days spent time at the scoring table, arguing about their stats. Their salaries often depended on production. The refs would sometimes get dragged into it, too. Russell not least; he had a terribly ugly voice at times, a sort of screech that just made people turn away and when he directed it at the scoring table I wouldn't be surprised if they sometimes caved in pretty quick just to be rid of him. That well-modulated voice he had as an announcer was only one side of him.

That stuff hasn't changed, even today. Just the other night Durant was telling the scoring table 'that wasn't a shot, that was a lob pass.'

But if you track at home, or gameside, you know how hard it can be sometimes to be accurate about that stuff, especially in the days of no rewind/replay. Some of my friends still argue over that stuff 30 and 40 years later!!

[dankok8]

Chamberlain's IMPACT against Kareem was HUGE in the '72 WCF's. Kareem not only couldn't hit the ocean from a lifeboat in the last four games of that series, his teammates were completely ignored in the series...and largely stood around while KAJ would take brick-after-brick. If anything the entire Bucks team had become demoralized by Wilt's defense against what had been an unstoppable Kareem.

I saw every game of that series, and even many of Kareem's makes were pure luck. Even the Milwaukee press commented that Kareem was INTIMIDATED by Chamberlain's presence. And it's too bad that most of their H2H recaps don't show blocked SKYHOOKS, because Wilt was knocking them all over the gym.

And you can throw out Wilt's FG% in that series. He missed 20 shots. Kareem missed 107.

And once again, TIME MAGAZINE claimed that Wilt outplayed Kareem in the SERIES. The reality was, after game one, LA took complete control of the series. Just as they did in the regular season when they went 4-1 against the defending champion Bucks, they would go 4-1 over the last five games of the '72 WCF's, and inlcuded were two close road wins, and an annihilation of the Bucks in game five.

As for the '71 WCF's, while you point out Oscar's injury in '72 (although his coach denied that Oscar was injured BTW... as well as West being mired in the worst shooting slump of his career), you completely ignored West and Baylor missing the series entirely, and Erickson going down early in it.

And, as Julizaver pointed out, in their first 11 H2H games, of which only one was played before Wilt's injury (and all well past his peak), Chamberlain outplayed KAJ. No questions about it. KAJ slightly outscored Wilt, but Wilt was easily the better rebounder and considerably more efficient. And, once again, in their one H2H before Chamberlain shredded his knee, Wilt just CRUSHED Kareem in EVERY facet of the game.

But once again, we never got to witness a PRIME Wilt going up against a peak KAJ either. Just an old, Wilt, playing on a surgically repaired knee. And those that actually watched the two play, would say that, at the very least, KAJ's edge was only marginal. But we do KNOW that a PRIME Wilt faced quite a few of the same centers that a PRIME Kareem would face, and he obliterated them to a FAR greater extent than KAJ did.


As for the '65 EDF's...Russell slightly outplayed Wilt in game three. Chamberlain outplayed him, or downright demolished him in the six other games. Much like the '62 EDF's. Chamberlain single-handedly carried his team to within an eyelash of beating a much greater team. And he just waxed Russell in the process. His beatdown of a prime Russell in '65 was perhaps the greatest shelling by one GOAT center against another in the history of the game (even Hakeem's '95 series against D-Rob was not as one-sided when you factor in TS%), and rivaled only by his carper-bombing of Russell in '67.

And for those that claim that Russell was not an offensive force...he had entire playoffs of 20+ ppg. He led Boston ins scoring in two Finals. And he put up Finals of 23 ppg on .543 shooting, 24 ppg on .538 shooting, and 18 ppg on .702 shooting (yes, .702 from the field.) Of course, in the same years, he averaged 22 ppg on .399; 14 ppg on .451; and 16 ppg on .447 against Wilt. In any case, you won't find Robinson or Ewing with Finals' series like that.

The West injury in '71 playoff was legit hurting the Lakers... but the Bucks still dominated the Lakers in 70-71 even when West was healthy. In fact it was 4-1 and all Bucks wins were blowouts.

In 71-72 when Oscar was healthy the Lakers and Bucks were 1-1. With Oscar hurting/DNP Lakers were 3-0.


Kareem shot .457 in that series, and was outrebounded. He only outshot Chamberlain from the field because Wilt hardly shot the ball. And over the course of the last four games, KAJ was just awful from the field (.414.)

This against a well-past his prime Wilt.

And once again, those that actually watched the series, almost to a man, including the MILWAUKEE PRESS and TIME MAGAZINE, claimed that Wilt outplayed Kareem in the '72 WCF's.

Meanwhile, Russell, with far superior teammates who almost always stepped up their games in the post-season (while Wilt's almost always puked all over the floor), was either outplayed, or downright destroyed in EVERY H2H playoff series with Wilt. Wilt outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell in EVERY series, and most by HUGE margins.

If you want domination...how about Moses just pounding KAJ in their seven playoff H2H's? (Or 40 career H2H's)?


Kareem outscored Wilt by 22.9 ppg, outshot him by 0.5%, hit a whopping 32% better from the stripe, and outassisted him by 1.5 apg. That Time Magazine article that people take out of context was referring to the second half of Game 6 not the whole series.

And when you say outrebounded you make it sound like it was a blowout. The rebounding battle was 3-3... Wilt just won his by slightly bigger margins.


As for the '65 EDF...

Wilt did outplay Russell as in the '67 series. I'd probably give Wilt '64 as well. But many other years like '60, '62, '66, '68, and '69 Russell got the better of him for huge chunks of the series.

The '65 EDF was also probably one of those rare Wilt clutch performances. He had a phenomenal Game 7 and took over in the 4th quarter.

[julizaver]

Wilt did outplay Russell as in the '67 series. I'd probably give Wilt '64 as well. But many other years like '60, '62, '66, '68, and '69 Russell got the better of him for huge chunks of the series.

The '65 EDF was also probably one of those rare Wilt clutch performances. He had a phenomenal Game 7 and took over in the 4th quarter.

It may come as a surprise to someone but in Wilt's '62 season (50 ppg season) Wilt played strong defense in playoffs. The evidence is in the recaps of the games (even in 1964 or 1965 article it was said that Wilt played defensive), not only against Celtics but also against Syracuse Nationals.
Interesting also that after his last game of the regular season against Chicago Packers (Overtime Warriors win) Wilt stated that this is his best game of the season. Wilt was brilliant in defense and although he finished with "modest stats line" of 34 pts, 33 rebs and 4 asts, he allegedly blocked at least 20 shots and his team won the game.
Also a lot of ISH posters here ripped Wilt for his Game 7 in the same series due to his low scoring (in contrast with reg. season numbers), but according to Celtics players (B. Cousy) Wilt played terrific defense.
And Wilt himself proved in his last years that he could dominate games scoring, just by playing strong defense.

[Psileas]

It may come as a surprise to someone but in Wilt's '62 season (50 ppg season) Wilt played strong defense in playoffs. The evidence is in the recaps of the games (even in 1964 or 1965 article it was said that Wilt played defensive), not only against Celtics but also against Syracuse Nationals.
Interesting also that after his last game of the regular season against Chicago Packers (Overtime Warriors win) Wilt stated that this is his best game of the season. Wilt was brilliant in defense and although he finished with "modest stats line" of 34 pts, 33 rebs and 4 asts, he allegedly blocked at least 20 shots and his team won the game.
Also a lot of ISH posters here ripped Wilt for his Game 7 in the same series due to his low scoring (in contrast with reg. season numbers), but according to Celtics players (B. Cousy) Wilt played terrific defense.
And Wilt himself proved in his last years that he could dominate games scoring, just by playing strong defense.

The same ones that blamed Wilt fans for depending too much on boxscores...but, wait, maybe they knew about Wilt's defensive dominance, but they only did so just to give Wilt fans a taste of their own medicine...:rolleyes:

On the Syracuse series: I remember Wilt's coach had asked him for a super performance on both ends of the floor and Wilt responded. There's a (single, unfortunately) source that mentioned this classic "about a dozen blocked shots" thing. Have you also seen this reference?

BTW, in the 34-33-4 line, only the scoring part is "modest", the rest are significantly above his averages.

[julizaver]

The same ones that blamed Wilt fans for depending too much on boxscores...but, wait, maybe they knew about Wilt's defensive dominance, but they only did so just to give Wilt fans a taste of their own medicine...:rolleyes:

On the Syracuse series: I remember Wilt's coach had asked him for a super performance on both ends of the floor and Wilt responded. There's a (single, unfortunately) source that mentioned this classic "about a dozen blocked shots" thing. Have you also seen this reference?

BTW, in the 34-33-4 line, only the scoring part is "modest", the rest are significantly above his averages.

Maybe in future I will saved the sources (I already did it btw - for example I saved the article which credited Wilt with 9 blocks in Game 5 of '72 WCF and praised Wilt for giving "some lessons to Jabbar") and start to post them here, because it will looks as more valid argument.
Yes, Wilt allegedly blocked dozen shots, but played strong defense in the other games also from that series. I had more free time recently (New Year vacation) and read hundreds of articles/recaps.
Therefore I have made the conclusion that during playoff games Wilt put more efforts in defense than in the reg.season. The evidence could be found in opposing players statements after the games.
These is one of the reason why Wilt scoring averages goes down in the post season. It is not because Wilt is hiding or chocked during games. Wilt had to do more things for his team to win than Russell, not only score points. You could ask yourself how valuable was Wilt in defense, since coaches ask him to reduced his scoring in order to concentrate on defense, even given the fact that Wilt was the most efficient scorer from the field in every team he had played.
Wilt's Warriors were significantly weaker team than Celtics and they need Wilt in both ends of the floor badly.

[Pointguard]

A Wilt groupie complaining about phantom stats... that's rich

I love Wilt and enjoy your posts but you need to regroup, you've become a caricature of yourself
Not hardly, you are off base. Wilt was hardly on the favored end of stats. They seemingly refused to count blocks because of his strong presence in them.

[LAZERUSS]

Maybe in future I will saved the sources (I already did it btw - for example I saved the article which credited Wilt with 9 blocks in Game 5 of '72 WCF and praised Wilt for giving "some lessons to Jabbar") and start to post them here, because it will looks as more valid argument.
Yes, Wilt allegedly blocked dozen shots, but played strong defense in the other games also from that series. I had more free time recently (New Year vacation) and read hundreds of articles/recaps.
Therefore I have made the conclusion that during playoff games Wilt put more efforts in defense than in the reg.season. The evidence could be found in opposing players statements after the games.
These is one of the reason why Wilt scoring averages goes down in the post season. It is not because Wilt is hiding or chocked during games. Wilt had to do more things for his team to win than Russell, not only score points. You could ask yourself how valuable was Wilt in defense, since coaches ask him to reduced his scoring in order to concentrate on defense, even given the fact that Wilt was the most efficient scorer from the field in every team he had played.
Wilt's Warriors were significantly weaker team than Celtics and they need Wilt in both ends of the floor badly.

Of course we will never know, but John Wooden claimed that had Wilt had Russell's supporting casts, and Auerbach as his coach, and it would have been Chamberlain winning all those rings.

We have both pointed out Wilt's great defense before, too. Chamberlain actually reduced Russell's shooting efficiency considerably more than Russell reduced Wilt's. And he did so while crushing him in ppg, pounding him on the glass, outshooting him by staggering margins, outassisting him by huge margins later in their H2H's, and even outblocking him by solid margins in their known H2H's.

As more-and-more research has come forth (and thanks to you BTW), it has become clear that Wilt was not only outplaying Russell in the vast majority of the H2H's, he was just nuking him in many of them. And at no point did Russell ever dominate Chamberlain.

Here again, Wilt's teams, who were generally far inferior, lost to Russell's teams, four times in game seven's, and by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. Had Wilt's teams scored a couple of more points, or made a couple of more plays, and it could have been Wilt holding an edge in rings in H2H play.

[feyki]

Great information .

Give me playmaking and defending than scoring .

[LAZERUSS]

Great information .

Give me playmaking and defending than scoring .


Here's some more...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I9jddU8eNWrI8MMOPs_0l58WnjFNADvF4iIcu0Sfz7A/edit?pli=1#gid=0

and nbastats.net has a TON of info on Wilt, KAJ, Oscar, Bird, Magic, and many others...

and finally...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=332617

BTW, I haven't taken the time, but nbastats.net has provided even more information for the above.

[IllegalD]

Wilt. The M.O.E. (Most Overrated Ever).

Dude only managed 2 rings while his counterpart Russell won 11 in a weakass era and frequently came up small in the Finals. (11 rings in the modern era would be more like 5 rings, so 2 rings in the modern era would be more like 0 rings)

Couldn't even win with the Superteam of West and Baylor.

His most iconic moment is a 100 point "moon-landing" hoax game which there isn't even any footage of.

If you're over 70 and Wilt is your favorite player, then I can at least respect/understand that.

But if you're some young 20 year old who worships ghosts then you're just a sad f*ggot who's trying way to hard to be the hipster who only listens to vinyl equivalent of an NBA fan.

[DaRkJaWs]

Wilt. The M.O.E. (Most Overrated Ever).

Dude only managed 2 rings while his counterpart Russell won 11 in a weakass era and frequently came up small in the Finals. (11 rings in the modern era would be more like 5 rings, so 2 rings in the modern era would be more like 0 rings)

Couldn't even win with the Superteam of West and Baylor.

His most iconic moment is a 100 point "moon-landing" hoax game which there isn't even any footage of.

If you're over 70 and Wilt is your favorite player, then I can at least respect/understand that.

But if you're some young 20 year old who worships ghosts then you're just a sad f*ggot who's trying way to hard to be the hipster who only listens to vinyl equivalent of an NBA fan.

:facepalm :facepalm

:rolleyes:

[deja vu]

Wilt. The M.O.E. (Most Overrated Ever).

Dude only managed 2 rings while his counterpart Russell won 11 in a weakass era and frequently came up small in the Finals. (11 rings in the modern era would be more like 5 rings, so 2 rings in the modern era would be more like 0 rings)

Couldn't even win with the Superteam of West and Baylor.

His most iconic moment is a 100 point "moon-landing" hoax game which there isn't even any footage of.

If you're over 70 and Wilt is your favorite player, then I can at least respect/understand that.

But if you're some young 20 year old who worships ghosts then you're just a sad f*ggot who's trying way to hard to be the hipster who only listens to vinyl equivalent of an NBA fan.
This. Statpadder gonna statpad.

Meanwhile, Bill Russell was unselfish and so won far more titles.

You swap the two and Wilt would've won far less than 11. His play is not as conducive to winning as Bill.

[LAZERUSS]

This. Statpadder gonna statpad.

Meanwhile, Bill Russell was unselfish and so won far more titles.

You swap the two and Wilt would've won far less than 11. His play is not as conducive to winning as Bill.

None other than John Wooden claimed otherwise.

[feyki]

Here's some more...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I9jddU8eNWrI8MMOPs_0l58WnjFNADvF4iIcu0Sfz7A/edit?pli=1#gid=0

and nbastats.net has a TON of info on Wilt, KAJ, Oscar, Bird, Magic, and many others...

and finally...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=332617

BTW, I haven't taken the time, but nbastats.net has provided even more information for the above.

Wow , thanks man :rockon: .

[feyki]

Chamberlain 30 points (13-23 FG and 4/8 FT) 21 rebs, 2 assists, 2 blocks
Russell 12 points (4-7 FG and 4/5 FT) 28 rebounds, 7 assists, 12 blocks, 3 steals



[FONT="Trebuchet MS"][B][CENTER]

Game 5 in that same series, when he had 28 rebounds, 10 blocks, six steals and seven assists? Said Schayes, who had become the Philadelphia 76ers coach:

[LAZERUSS]

[QUOTE=feyki][FONT="Trebuchet MS"][B][CENTER]

Game 5 in that same series, when he had 28 rebounds, 10 blocks, six steals and seven assists? Said Schayes, who had become the Philadelphia 76ers coach:

[feyki]

Unfortunately, nba.com is just not a trust-worthy site. Up until about two years ago, they claimed that Willis Reed held Wilt to 2-9 shooting in the first half of game seven of the '70 Finals...in a game in which Chamberlain missed a total of six shots. They have since amended it, but in any case, I would definitely take Julizaver's numbers over their's. BTW, Julizaver was probably the first person ever to post the KAJ-Wilt career H2H info.

Of course, looking at the stats of both sources, and there is not much difference anyway.

Having said that...this was probably the most one-sided post-season beatdown ever by a GOAT candidate, in their prime, over another GOAT candidate, in their prime, in NBA history, with the possible exception of the '67 EDF's, when Chamberlain once again massacred Russell in every facet of the game, and in a series in which his team just demolished Russell's.

Actually , There wasn't a big margin . 12 blocks and 3 steals or 10 blocks and 6 steals .

Other numbers were matching .

I really don't like , "one outplayed another , one held another " like tags . Basketball is a team game . And All efforts only about that .

[LAZERUSS]

Actually , There wasn't a big margin . 12 blocks and 3 steals or 10 blocks and 6 steals .

Other numbers were matching .

I really don't like , "one outplayed another , one held another " like tags . Basketball is a team game . And All efforts only about that .

Basketball is a team game. And the "Wilt-bashers" (and you are not one of them) always hold that against Chamberlain.

If basketball were like boxing, or tennis, or to a lessor extent, like golf, then we could easily identify the real GOATs. But, again, it is a TEAM game. And in Wilt's case, the reality was, in his 10 years in the league with Russell, he only played in three seasons in which his teams were the equal of Russell's, and in fact, were generally either inferior, or far inferior.

And in those three seasons ('67, '68, and to a lessor extent, '69), his '69 team was horribly coached (and lost a game seven by two points); his '68 team was decimated by injuries in the post-season (and lost a game seven by four points); and his '67 team just annihilated Russell's 60-21 Celtics. Clearly, had the '68 team been healthy, and it would have been a repeat blowout of the Celtics. And, at least IMO, had he had Sharman coaching the '69 team, instead of Butch "the Butcher" Van Breda Kolff, and the Lakers would have rolled to a title. And to be honest, that '69 team was ONE PLAY away from a 4-1 series romp over Boston. Had Johnny Egan not been stripped of the ball in the waning seconds of game four (again, what coach in their right mind would have had Egan handling the ball in that situation, on a team with Jerry West), and LA would have won that game, going up 3-1 in the series. And given their easy win in game five, they would have won a convincing title.

In his seven other seasons against Russell it was a miracle that they battled Boston to near upsets in '62 and '65. And had Chamberlain not been injured late in game two of the '60 EDF's, in a series in which his team lost a game six by two points, who knows how that series would have played out. Even his '64 team's 4-1 Finals lost against Russell's overwhelmingly favored Boston team was deceptive. The last two games of that series were decided in the waning seconds.

In any case, I don't believe anyone in their right mind would have favored Russell over Wilt had they swapped rosters in their first six seasons. My god, Russell's '63 and '64 teams had EIGHT, and even NINE HOFers. And it was a testament to Chamberlain that he took a 34-46 Sixer team in '64, to a 40-40 record (21-20 after a mid-season trade) and then an easy first round knockout of Oscar's stacked 48-32 Royals, and then to a game seven, one point loss to Russell's 62-18 Celtics.

He then led the Sixers to the best record in the league in the next three seasons. BUT, his '66 team was still nowhere near as talented as Russell's. Thy had to win their last 11 straight games to edge the seven-time defending champs by one game. And even that was deceptive, since the core of that Celtic team missed a ton of games that year. In any case, while Chamberlain played brilliantly in the '66 EDF's, his teammates collectively shot .352 from the field in that series.


Again...a TEAM game.

I find it fascinating that Wilt, in his rookie season, to a last place roster to a 49-26 record, and gave the HOF-laden Celtics all they could handle in the EDF's. Yet, the "bashers" hold that against Chamberlain...but give MJ a free pass for getting swept by Bird's Celtics in back-to-back playoff series.

The reality was, Jordan didn't win a ring until he was surrounded by stacked rosters that could win 55 games without him (and narrowly missed a title.)

Or that a prime Kareem only went to two Finals, and only won one ring, in his first ten seasons...and in a decade which had the weakest NBA champions in the last half of it. Or that KAJ won his last five rings mainly due to MAGIC. Or that he was only a third wheel in one of those, and a pathetic fifth wheel in another.

At least Wilt's TEAMS were losing to the eventual champions, ten times, in his 13 playoff runs, and most all of those were truly great teams. His team's lost to the greatest dynasty in NBA history, seven times. And four of those were decided in game seven's by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. His under-dog Lakers lost another game seven to a 60-22 Knicks team in '70, as well. And his TEAMs were knocked off by the 66-16 Bucks in '71 (in a series in which Wilt outplayed Kareem); and the HOF-laden '73 Knicks in four close losses in the '73 Finals (a Knicks team that fielded SIX HOFers.)

Wilt is held to a double-standard in his playoff "failures." How many times have you read that MJ LOST nine times in his 15 seasons? Or that Bird LOST 10 times in his 13 seasons (and did so with HOF supporting casts)? Or that West LOST 13 times in his 14 season career (and without Wilt's performance in '72, he would have retired ringless)? Or that Duncan has LOST 13 times in his 18 seasons leading up to this year? Or that Kobe has LOST 14 times in his first 19 seasons, and will certainly make it 15 this year? Or that KAJ LOST 14 times in his 20 seasons? Or that Shaq LOST 15 times in his 19 season? Or that Hakeem LOST 16 times in his 18 seasons?

Again, Wilt had FIVE seasons in which his team lost game seven's to the eventual champions, and four of them were by razor-then margins...in series in which he generally played well, or was downright dominant. Think about that...Wilt was an eyelash away from winning a total of SEVEN rings (and in which case Russell would have finished with "only" seven, as well.) Where would Chamberlain rank among the GOAT candidates with SEVEN rings (and again, Russell would have the same amount)? Furthermore, and as Wooden suggested, had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters (and coaches) in their ten years in the league together, and it likely would have been Wilt holding all those rings. Is there any doubt as to where Wilt would rank all-time with 10 or 11 rings?

And keep in mind that Chamberlain was probably the best player on the floor in at least 25 of his 29 playoff series. In most of them he was overwhelmingly the best player in the series.

Hopefully that provides a little better perspective of Wilt's career.

[LAZERUSS]

Also, let's face it...rings are deceptive.

This topic is evidence of that.

Chamberlain was traded at mid-season, for three players mind you, to a bottom-feeding 34-46 team from '64. Even with Chamberlain, they only went 19-19 the last half of the regular season.

Then Wilt led them to a 3-1 series romp over Oscar' stacked 48-32 Royals, including a clinching game four performance of 38-26-5-10. And in the EDF's, Chamberlain led his team to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18 Celtics team that was at the peak of their dynasty. And in this series, Chamberlain AVERAGED a 30-31 on a .555 FG% (in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .429 BTW)...which included a clinching game seven performance of 30-32 (on 12-15 from the field)...which included Wilt scoring his team's last eight points to pull them from a 110-101 deficit to within 110-109. And had "Havlicek steals the ball!" not occurred, they were on their way to the greatest post-season upset in NBA history.

Now, compare that with say, KAJ's last ring. Kareem had a poor playoff run, a putrid Finals, and easily the worst game seven by a GOAT ever...and yet is credited with "winning" a ring.

You can find other examples, as well, but it certainly puts a better perspective on the topic of rings.

[sd3035]

Wilt all time greatest choker

[feyki]

Also, let's face it...rings are deceptive.

This topic is evidence of that.

Chamberlain was traded at mid-season, for three players mind you, to a bottom-feeding 34-46 team from '64. Even with Chamberlain, they only went 19-19 the last half of the regular season.

Then Wilt led them to a 3-1 series romp over Oscar' stacked 48-32 Royals, including a clinching game four performance of 38-26-5-10. And in the EDF's, Chamberlain led his team to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18 Celtics team that was at the peak of their dynasty. And in this series, Chamberlain AVERAGED a 30-31 on a .555 FG% (in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .429 BTW)...which included a clinching game seven performance of 30-32 (on 12-15 from the field)...which included Wilt scoring his team's last eight points to pull them from a 110-101 deficit to within 110-109. And had "Havlicek steals the ball!" not occurred, they were on their way to the greatest post-season upset in NBA history.

Now, compare that with say, KAJ's last ring. Kareem had a poor playoff run, a putrid Finals, and easily the worst game seven by a GOAT ever...and yet is credited with "winning" a ring.

You can find other examples, as well, but it certainly puts a better perspective on the topic of rings.


That's right .

Team accomplishments or rings useless to player rankings . We must look on their individual levels.

Wilt has 64,66,67,68 over Russell for me as a player .

Bill has 60,61,62,63 over Wilt for me as a player .

65 and 69 seasons close to Russell than Wilt . But They are same level at 65 and 69 .

[LAZERUSS]

That's right .

Team accomplishments or rings useless to player rankings . We must look on their individual levels.

Wilt has 64,66,67,68 over Russell for me as a player .

Bill has 60,61,62,63 over Wilt for me as a player .

65 and 69 seasons close to Russell than Wilt . But They are same level at 65 and 69 .

Well, every one is entitled to their opinions, but I don't see anything in their resumes that would elevate Russell over Chamberlain in '60, '61, '62 (especially '62), '64, '66, '67, '68, and '69.

Which, BTW, with the exception of '69, corresponds to exactly how the First-Team All-NBA voting went.

Furthermore, in '65 Wilt was ill for half the season, and was traded at mid-season, to a poor team (for three players BTW), and by the end of the EDF"s, he had just overwhelmed Russell H2H in that series.

As for '69, even the MVP voting was a joke...but here's my account...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10038363&postcount=381


68-69.

I touched on it before the start of the 68-69 topic, ...the MVP voting in 68-69 was very interesting. Wilt, who had averaged 20.5 ppg, led the league in rebounding at 21.1 rpg, and led the league in FG% at .583,...was nowhere to be found. Why?

I have said it before, but there were several more seasons in which their was a clear "anti-Wilt" bias in the MVP voting, as well. Keep in mind that it was the players who voted back then. The MVP voting process changed after the '79-80 season to a panel of sportwriters, and is what is currently used today.

Opinions vary on this topic, too. One side claims that since the players play against each other, that they are more qualified to select MVP award winners. Other's argue that sportswriters not only cover a wider variety of games, but they share their knowledge with other sportswriters.

In these Russell-Wilt discussions, it is fascinating that the players tended to be more favorable to Russell, while the sportswriters, who voted for the All-NBA teams, were definitely pro-Wilt.

In their 10 seasons in the league together, Russell and Wilt each won four MVPs, with Russell coming in 2nd once, 3rd twice, 4th twice, and not in the voting in 67-68. Meanwhile, Wilt came in 2nd twice, 4th once, 5th once, 7th once, and not at all in the 68-69 balloting.

In the All-NBA voting in their ten years in the league together, Chamberlain waxed Russell by a 7-2 margin, with the other always coming in second, except in that 68-69 season.

As you can see, the voting discrepancies were considerable between the players, and the writers. So then, who was more "right?" Pointguard on this forum has brought it up before, and I whole-heartedly agree...we both suspect that there was a strong resentment towards Wilt, and his crushing domination of his peers in his 14 seasons in the league.

How else do explain these oddities?

In Wilt's rookie season, he carried what had been a last place roster, to a 49-26 record. In the process, he just obliterated many records. He averaged 37.6 ppg, 27.0 rpg, and shot .461 from the field (which would be the only time in his career in which he would fail to shoot at least .506 from the floor. Meanwhile Russell led his Celtics to a 59-16 record, which was solid improvement over their '59 record of 52-20. And in that '60 season, Russell averaged 18.0 ppg, 24.0 rpg, and shot a career high .467 from the floor. In the MVP voting, Chamberlain won by a huge margin.

Two years later, in 61-62, Wilt had a historic season. He took that same basic roster, but which was now older and worse, to a 49-31 record, or a similar record as to what they had had in his rookie season. He averaged a staggering 50.4 ppg, 25.7 rpg, and shot .506 from the floor. Russell's Celtics went 60-20, which was actually a slight decrease from their 59-60 record, and in the process, he put up nearly identical numbers as he did in '60, averaging 18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, and shooting .457 from the field. How did the MVP voting go? Now it was Russell winning by a huge margin, and Wilt coming in a distant second (in fact, Oscar had more first place votes than Wilt did.) Again, though, take a close look at both seasons ('60 and '62.) Russell's Celtics put up almost identical records, and his stats in both were nearly the same. Wilt's Warriors had almost identical records, BUT, Wilt had a far more dominating season. Just what changed in the voting, then? And, as I alluded to earlier, Wilt was voted first-team All-NBA over Russell by the writers.

Wilt's Warriors really struggled in 62-63. Even with Wilt being a one-man wrecking crew (and that literally was the case, as his cast of clowns teammates contributed absolutely nothing), his Warriors fell to 31-49. Still, the record was deceptive, as they lost 35 games by single digits, and had a ppg differential of -2.1 ppg. And in the process, Chamberlain led the NBA in 15 of their 22 statistical categories, including Win Shares, and with a PER of 31.8, which is still the all-time record.

Ok, so how did Wilt do in the MVP balloting? Russell easily won the award in that '63 voting, and even I would not have argued against it. However, Wilt came in SEVENTH, which was completely absurd. How bad was it? Red Kerr, who averaged 16 ppg and 13 rpg, finished ahead of Wilt. Which was a complete joke, since, in their seasonal H2H's, Chamberlain outscored Kerr by a 43 ppg to 19 ppg margin, which included beatdowns of 60-21 and even 70-14. Oh, and rookie Terry Dischinger, playing on a 25-55 team, had more first place votes than Wilt.

That brings us to 63-64. Chamberlain would finish second behind Oscar (with Russell coming in third.) Now, if Wilt was punished in '63, because his team had fallen to 31-49, and Oscar came in well ahead of him with a 42-38 team that had far better surrounding personnel...how come Oscar beat out Wilt in '64, when his Royals improved by 13 games, while Chamberlain single-handedly carried his putrid roster to a 48-32 record, and with an overall improvement of 17 games? In a season in which Wilt was considerably more statistically dominant?

Chamberlain did go on to win three straight MVP from 65-66 thru 67-68. Clearly, there was just no way to NOT vote for him, since he was not only statistically crushing the league, but also carrying his rosters to the best record in the league each season. The only question would have been, why wasn't he winning them all in a unanimous fashion? (BTW, and to be honest, and I am not sure if the player voting at the time, precluded players from voting for their own teammates, which might have explained why no one was winning unanimous MVP's.)

The 68-69 voting was again, "interesting." For the first time in four years, and only the second time in their last six seasons in the league together, Russell finished ahead of Wilt in the voting. Again, Wilt was nowhere to be found. Russell finished 4th, and behind Wes Unseld (who also won ROY), Willis Reed, and Billy Cunningham. BTW, Baylor finished 5th behind Russell.

Taking a closer look at that voting, and it was a complete sham. First of all, Baylor beating Wilt out was a joke. He did average more ppg, at 24.8 to Wilt's 20.5 ppg, but Chamberlain was a much better rebounder, far more efficient, was a near equal passer, and was a far better defender. Furthermore, Baylor missed six games, and LA went 5-1 in the games he missed.

I don't have a problem with Cunningham coming in third, since he had a remarkable season, and his play enabled his Sixers to at least come reasonably close to the team that Wilt had left. But the rest of the voting was somewhat eye-raising.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10038453&postcount=382


68-69.

Wes Unseld won the '69 MVP award, along with winning the ROY(he and Wilt are the only two players in NBA history to accomplish that feat BTW.)

Unseld's play went beyond his statistics, of course, which were very good. He averaged 13.8 ppg, 18.2 rpg, 2.6 apg, and shot .476 from the field. But his biggest strength in the MVP voting came because his Bullets went from a last place 36-46, to a best record in the league, 57-25.

Still, as I mentioned earlier, those Bullet teams before he arrived were actually quit good in terms of talent, but they were always under-achieving. In the 68-69 season, Earl Monroe averaged 26 ppg, Kevin Loughery averaged 23 ppg, and Gus Johnson averaged 18 ppg and 12 rpg. Those were three excellent players, as was Jack Marin, who averaged 16.

BTW, Unseld would get to four finals in his NBA career, and went 1-3 in them, winning the FMVP in '78. Generally he played on successful teams, albeit "only" one that won 60 games (and that team was swept by the 48-34 Warriors in the Finals.)

In any case, the only real criteria in which Unseld had over Wilt in '69, was the fact that his team finished with a slightly better record (57-25 to 55-27.) In their six H2H games, the two teams split the season series, 3-3. In those six contests, and to Unseld's credit, he outrebounded Wilt in four of them. However, Chamberlain wiped the floor with him in one game, outscoring him, 25-4, and outrebounding him by a staggering 38-9 margin. Overall, in those six H2H's, Unseld averaged 11.0 ppg and 20.7 rpg, while Chamberlain averaged 21.5 ppg, 22.2 rpg, and shot a spectacular .626 from the field against him. And, of course, Wilt held a solid edge in their overall seasonal numbers, (20.5 ppg to 13.8 ppg; 21.1 rpg to 18.2 rpg; 4.5 apg to 2.6 apg; and a .583 FG% to Unseld's .476 mark.)


Reed came in second in the MVP voting in '69. His Knicks went 54-28 (just behind Wilt's Lakers, who went 55-27.) However, the Knicks conducted a mid-season trade in which they shipped out Bellamy in return for DeBusschere, and the results were a 36-11 record after the deal.

Reed's numbers were excellent all season (21.1 ppg, 14.5 rpg, 2.3 apg, and on a .521 FG%.) He was also second team all-defense. But after the trade, Reed averaged 24.3 ppg and 15.6 rpg.

However, Wilt's Lakers enjoyed a 5-1 W-L record against those Knicks, including a 2-0 mark when Reed was their center. In their entire seasonal H2H's, covering all six games (again, with Bellamy at center in four of them), Reed averaged 15.0 ppg and 12 rpg, while Wilt averaged 23.7 ppg, 22.3 rpg, and shot an amazing .712 from the field. In their two H2H's when it was Reed vs. Wilt, Reed averaged 20.0 ppg and 9.5 rpg, while Wilt averaged 28.0 ppg, 22.0 rpg, and shot an eye-popping .688 from the floor. Clearly, Wilt dominated Reed in their career H2H's before his knee surgery, and this was yet another example.


And that brings us to Russell. Just how Russell finished ahead of Wilt in the MVP voting that year was a complete mystery. There was virtually no criteria in which he had any edge over Wilt. Russell's Celtics went 48-34 (and 2-3 without him) to Wilt's Lakers' 55-27. In their six regular season H2H's, Wilt's Lakers enjoyed a 4-2 edge, which included that nationally televised beatdown in Boston late in the season by a 108-73 margin. In their six H2H's, Chamberlain easily outplayed Russell. He outscored Russell, 6-0, which included one game by a 35-5 margin. And he outrebounded Russell, 5-0-1, which included staggering margins of 21-8 and 42-18. Overall, in those six H2H's, Chamberlain outscored Russell by a 16.0 ppg to 6.7 ppg; outrebounded Russell by a 24.0 rpg to 17.0 rpg margin; and Wilt outshot Russell from the field by a .493 to .340 margin. Russell did hold a slim 35-29 assist edge, though.


There you have it. His teams went 3-3, 5-1 (2-0), and 4-2 Unseld's, Reed's, and Russell's. Only Unseld enjoyed an overall better team record (57-25 to Wilt's 55-27,...while Wilt held a 55-27 to 54-28 edge over Reed's, and a 55-27 to 48-34 margin over Russell's.) And Wilt basically clobbered Unseld, Reed, and Russell in their H2H's.

BTW, and again, West missed 21 games for LA, and the Lakers went 12-9 without him. And also again, Baylor missed six games for the Lakers, and they went 5-1 without him.

And yet... Unseld finished first, Reed finished 2nd, Russell finished 4th...and Wilt? Nowhere to be found in the MVP voting.

[feyki]

Well, every one is entitled to their opinions, but I don't see anything in their resumes that would elevate Russell over Chamberlain in '60, '61, '62 (especially '62), '64, '66, '67, '68, and '69.

Which, BTW, with the exception of '69, corresponds to exactly how the First-Team All-NBA voting went.

Furthermore, in '65 Wilt was ill for half the season, and was traded at mid-season, to a poor team (for three players BTW), and by the end of the EDF"s, he had just overwhelmed Russell H2H in that series.

As for '69, even the MVP voting was a joke...but here's my account...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10038363&postcount=381



Continued...


Do you really think 60-63 Wilt was better than Bill?

Wilt's worst season was 1969 , and you think ," Wilt clearly better" at 69 . That's interesting to me , like 60-63 comparison .

I work on calculating the individual levels . And i reached some numbers , there ;

60-65 Bill had 28 margin on offensive side , 31 margin on defensive side when adjusting the numbers (100 poss , poss rtg , reb % , ast % vs.)

60-63 Wilt had 30.5 margin on offensive side , 24.5 margin on defensive side.

66-69 Bill had 24 margin on offensive side , 29 margin on defensive side .

64-68 Wilt had 36 margin on offensive side , 26 margin on defensive side .

[sd3035]

11 > 2

[LAZERUSS]

Do you really think 60-63 Wilt was better than Bill?

Wilt's worst season was 1969 , and you think ," Wilt clearly better" at 69 . That's interesting to me , like 60-63 comparison .

I work on calculating the individual levels . And i reached some numbers , there ;

60-65 Bill had 28 margin on offensive side , 31 margin on defensive side when adjusting the numbers (100 poss , poss rtg , reb % , ast % vs.)

60-63 Wilt had 30.5 margin on offensive side , 24.5 margin on defensive side.

66-69 Bill had 24 margin on offensive side , 29 margin on defensive side .

64-68 Wilt had 36 margin on offensive side , 26 margin on defensive side .

Interesting numbers, but I don't think Russell's contributions on the offensive end were anywhere near that.

BTW, if you combine DWS and OWS, Chamberlain was light years ahead of Russell.

The reality was this...Russell was overall, a better defensive force up until '65. After that Wilt was the premier defender in the league until he retired (and obviously, excluding his injury-shortened '70 season.) BUT, Chamberlain was a far greater offensive force every year those two were in the league together.

[feyki]

Interesting numbers, but I don't think Russell's contributions on the offensive end were anywhere near that.

BTW, if you combine DWS and OWS, Chamberlain was light years ahead of Russell.

The reality was this...Russell was overall, a better defensive force up until '65. After that Wilt was the premier defender in the league until he retired (and obviously, excluding his injury-shortened '70 season.) BUT, Chamberlain was a far greater offensive force every year those two were in the league together.

Your point is seasons , let's look at the playoffs ;

http://i.hizliresim.com/ZQ5LbA.png

Also , Steals weren't recorded . And that is big negative point for Bill . You know Bill's steals numbers . Clearly ahead of Wilt on steals .

60-63 Bill clearly better player than Wilt for me , as a impacts . 64-68 Wilt had great offensive margin and top 5 all time defence .

I have 5 goat in basketball history ;

Bill
Kareem
Jordan
Wilt
Mikan

..

[LAZERUSS]

Your point is seasons , let's look at the playoffs ;

http://i.hizliresim.com/ZQ5LbA.png

Also , Steals weren't recorded . And that is big negative point for Bill . You know Bill's steals numbers . Clearly ahead of Wilt on steals .

60-63 Bill clearly better player than Wilt for me , as a impacts . 64-68 Wilt had great offensive margin and top 5 all time defence .

I have 5 goat in basketball history ;

Bill
Kareem
Jordan
Wilt
Mikan

..

WS in the post-season is flawed for several reasons, but the main ones, of course, are the number of games, and the quality of competition.

BUT, in any case, Pslieas made this point, and I reiterated it...


Psileas actually pointed this fact out long ago, but it is certainly worth repeating...

had Wilt been fortunate enough to have faced the Lakers in the post-season, from '60 thru '68, and he likely would own many playoff (or perhaps Finals) scoring records. And we are not talking about one or two "small samples" either, but rather, his entire H2H play against LA (and Minny) from '60 thru '68...and in seasons of between 7 to 12 H2H games.

Keep in mind that Russell WAS fortunate enough to have faced the Lakers FIVE times in the post-season in that span (actually six, but in the last one, he faced Wilt, and as expected, did absolutely nothing offensively), and it was against LA in which he elevated his playoff scoring and FG%. In fact, remove the Lakers from his post-seasons, and his offensive production would have dropped considerably.

Here were Russell's numbers against LA in those five series:

'62:

Russell averaged 18.9 ppg on a .457 FG% in his regular season against the NBA.

Against LA in the Finals: 22.9 ppg on a .543 FG%. Which included a game seven of 30 points and 40 rebounds.

BTW, against Wilt in the '62 EDF's: 22.0 ppg on a .399 FG%


'63:

Russell averaged 16.8 ppg on a .432 FG% in his regular season.

Against LA in the Finals: 20 ppg on a .467 FG%


'65:

Russell averaged 14.1 ppg on a .438 FG% against the NBA.

Against LA in the Finals: 17.8 ppg on a .702 FG% (yes, .702.)

BTW, against Wilt in the EDF's: 15.6 ppg on a .447 FG%


'66:

Russell averaged 12.9 ppg on a .415 FG% against the NBA.

Against LA in the Finals: 23.6 ppg on a .538 FG%

BTW, against Wilt in the EDF's: 14.0 ppg on a .423 FG%


'68:

Russell averaged 12.5 ppg on a .425 FG% against the NBA

Against LA in the Finals: 17.3 ppg on a .430 FG%

BTW, against Wilt in the EDF's: 13.7 ppg on a .440 FG%


Oh, and here were Russell's stats in the '69 Finals against Wilt:

Regular season against the NBA: 9.9 ppg on a .433 FG%

Against Wilt in the Finals: 9.0 ppg on a .397 FG%


Continued...


Again, had Wilt faced the Lakers in any of his nine seasons in the league from '60 thru '68, and he likely would own at least some, (if not a vast majority), playoff and perhaps Finals, scoring records (and perhaps FG% records, as well, since Russell shot .702 against LA in '65.)

And once again, in Wilt's regular seasons, he was facing LA between 7 to 12 games in each season, with an average of about 10.

Also keep in mind that the Lakers were in the Western Conference, and Wilt only had two seasons in the Western Conference from '60 thru '68, and in one of those, his team was so bad, that he didn't make the playoffs, despite a 44.8 ppg season on .528 shooting.


Ok, here we go:

'59-60:

Against the entire NBA that season: 37.6 ppg on a .461 FG%

Against the Lakers in 9 H2H's: 36.8 ppg on a .430 FG%

High games of 41, 41, 41, 45, and 52.


'60-61:

Against the entire NBA: 38.4 ppg on a .509 FG%

Against the Lakers in 10 H2H's: 40.1 ppg on a .506 FG%

High games were 41, 41, 43, 44, 46, and 56 points.


'61-62:

Against the entire NBA: 50.4 ppg on a .506 FG%

Against LA in 9 H2H games: 51.6 ppg on a .503 FG%

High games of 48, 56, 57, 60, 60, and 78 (with 43 rebounds.)


'62-63: Against the entire NBA: 44.8 ppg on a .528 FG%

Against LA in 12 H2Hs: 48.6 ppg on a .541 FG%

High games of 40, 40, 42, 53, 63, and 72 points.


'63-64: Against the entire NBA: 36.9 ppg on a .524 FG%

Against LA in 12 H2Hs: 44.3 ppg on a .484 FG%

High games of 40, 41, 47, 49, 50, 55, and 59 points.


'64-65: Against the entire NBA: 34.7 ppg on a .510 FG%

Against LA in 8 H2Hs: 29.9 ppg on a .476 FG%

High games of 40, 40, and 41 points.


'65-66: Against the entire NBA: 33.5 ppg on a .540 FG%

Against LA in 10 H2Hs: 40.8 ppg on a .559 FG%

High games of 42, 49, 53, and 65 points.


'66-67: Against the entire NBA: 24.1 ppg on a .683 FG%

Against LA in 9 H2Hs: 26.4 ppg on a .759 FG%

High games of 32, 37, and 39 points.


'67-68: Against the entire NBA: 24.3 ppg on a .595 FG%

Against LA in 7 H2Hs: 28.1 ppg on a .638 FG%

High games of 31, 32, 35, and 53 points.


Overall, in those 86 games:

40 Point Games: 42

50 Point Games: 19

60 Point Games: 7

70 Point Games: 2

High game of 78 points.