Kareem & Wilt- Unstoppable

[jongib369]

Check out my new highlight video, just a SMALL sample of these 2 greats career's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL46YUxHFOE

The music ended before the highlights did, so I just threw in another similar song. Not the usual highlight music but it doesn't hurt mixing it up


LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS THINK! :rockon:

[jongib369]

Credit too garioldwin, dantheman9758 (cavsFTW) and Jrylaarsdam on youtube for the great footage!

:lebronamazed: :lebronamazed: :lebronamazed:

[fpliii]

cool vid!

Wilt's two go-to moves are obviously the fadeaway and finger roll (as well as some dunks/layups), while KAJ obviously had the sky hook

I'm wondering if Wilt ever developed a hook, or if Kareem faded away at times?

[jongib369]

cool vid!

Wilt's two go-to moves are obviously the fadeaway and finger roll (as well as some dunks/layups), while KAJ obviously had the sky hook

I'm wondering if Wilt ever developed a hook, or if Kareem faded away at times?
oh yeah both of them for sure had what you mentioned...I've watched some early 80's late 70's games of Kareem and he had a really good jumpshot/fadeaway. And Although it looked a LOT different, Wilt had a really good hookshot himself. Surprisingly, even Russell had a great hook...hell..almost ALL players from the 60's had a decent hook in there rep...even cousy!!

[fpliii]

oh yeah both of them for sure had what you mentioned...I've watched some early 80's late 70's games of Kareem and he had a really good jumpshot/fadeaway. And Although it looked a LOT different, Wilt had a really good hookshot himself. Surprisingly, even Russell had a great hook...hell..almost ALL players from the 60's had a decent hook in there rep...even cousy!!

the hook was big in the 60s from my understanding, both inside and outside the post (especially since most standard outside attempts were set shots, before Pettit came along of course)...from reading articles, a lot of writers have noted that Wilt's fade was great, but he had a supbar hook (at least in his first few seasons)

I've watched a lot of Kareem's Lakers years, but haven't seen many fadeaways, though I'm sure a couple have based through unnoticed; if you happen to see any clips for either guy, be sure to let me know (I'm interested in comparing their forms, since both guys were noted for one move but not so much the other)! :cheers:

[Punpun]

>Putting Wilt with Kareem

Smh. It's not like they have anything to do in common. They didn't even really play each other. Jlauber can testify for that last phrase.

[jongib369]

Will do! I could be wrong about kareem doing a fadeaway, but I dont see how its possible that he didnt do it a couple of times lol

[senelcoolidge]

Wilt had a hook shot. Actually Wilt had more moves in his repertoire than Kareem. Wilt being probably the only or one of the few that could stop the sky hook. Both had superb foot work. They are like gods in the basketball world.

[jongib369]

Wilt had a hook shot. Actually Wilt had more moves in his repertoire than Kareem. Wilt being probably the only or one of the few that could stop the sky hook. Both had superb foot work. They are like gods in the basketball world.
Since you seem to have a good idea on the history of the game, can you give a list of each of there moves and who was better at each possibly?

[Deuce Bigalow]

Wilt is stoppable. Just put him in a pressure situation. Boom. Done.

[jlauber]

Wilt is stoppable. Just put him in a pressure situation. Boom. Done.

Interesting...

Doesn't speak very much for Kareem, then. The two met in two straight WCF's in 70-71 and 71-72, and in the two series clinching games, Kareem shot 23-60 (.383) from the field, while Chamberlain shot 18-33 (.545.)

In fact, Kareem had FAR more "choke jobs" in his post-season career than Chamberlain did.

[RRR3]

Dunce "thinkin' slow" is stoppable. Just put him in a logical situation. boom. done.

[jlauber]

Dunce "thinkin' slow" is stoppable. Just put him in a logical situation. boom. done.

Well, to his credit, he is on record as claiming that Wilt shooting 1-11 from the line in game seven of the '70 Finals (in a blowout loss), cost him 3-4 rings.

Amazing how ONE game could cost him so much. Had he just hit a few more FTs in a couple of other game seven's, and Chamberlain likely would have won 10+ rings.

[fpliii]

lol can someone dig up the Sam Jones numbers?

call me nuts, but as I've said a few times on this board, he has a case for most clutch offensive player in league history

perhaps I'm a broken record, from reading articles, he's had 25+ playoff game winners easy

[b1imtf]

Wilt is stoppable. Just put him in a pressure situation. Boom. Done.
:eek: :applause: :bowdown:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Well, to his credit, he is on record as claiming that Wilt shooting 1-11 from the line in game seven of the '70 Finals (in a blowout loss), cost him 3-4 rings.

Amazing how ONE game could cost him so much. Had he just hit a few more FTs in a couple of other game seven's, and Chamberlain likely would have won 10+ rings.
link? Never said one game cost him 2 games :facepalm

[KOBE143]

Kareem was unstoppable

Wilt was statppable

:lol

[jlauber]

link? Never said one game cost him 2 games :facepalm

Actually you made the claim that his 4-13 shooting in game seven of the '69 Finals cost him 3-4 rings.

I won't take the time to look up the actual quote right now, but you didn't deny making that claim when I posted it here...

http://207.58.151.151/forum/showthread.php?t=239468&page=6

[TheBigVeto]

Kareem was unstoppable

Wilt was statppable

:lol

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Horatio33]

Well, to his credit, he is on record as claiming that Wilt shooting 1-11 from the line in game seven of the '70 Finals (in a blowout loss), cost him 3-4 rings.

Amazing how ONE game could cost him so much. Had he just hit a few more FTs in a couple of other game seven's, and Chamberlain likely would have won 10+ rings.

Well you can go on about Wil hitting a few free throws and he would have some rings. But he choked free throws in those games so your point is moot.

[jlauber]

Well you can go on about Wil hitting a few free throws and he would have some rings. But he choked free throws in those games so your point is moot.

Russell shot much worse from the field against Wilt, and nearly as bad from the line (and without nearly the IMPACT or points that Wilt had from the line), and he won 11 rings.

Just goes to show you that when you have great teammates, who play great, you can barely beat the most dominant player ever and his cast of clowns who played worse in the post-season.

Of course, when Wilt's teammates did finally neutralize Russell's, in the '67 ECF's, even with awful FT%, Chamberlain led his team to a 4-1 romp over the 8-time defending champion and 60-21 Celtics, in series in which he battered Russell in every facet of the game.

[jongib369]

Trolls :facepalm

[Deuce Bigalow]

Actually you made the claim that his 4-13 shooting in game seven of the '69 Finals cost him 3-4 rings.

I won't take the time to look up the actual quote right now, but you didn't deny making that claim when I posted it here...

http://207.58.151.151/forum/showthread.php?t=239468&page=6
Exactly, I never said it. Nice link with the quote...

[jlauber]

Exactly, I never said it. Nice link with the quote...

You were rigt Duncewood,

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=237677&page=2


Wilt might of won 3-4 rings if he didnt shoot a combined 5-24 from the freethrow line in game 7 of the '69 and '70 Finals

So, shooting 5-24 from the line in TWO games cost Wilt 3-4 rings.

And here was my response...


This is truly laughable...

Wilt going 5-24 from the line in TWO GAMES cost him THREE to FOUR rings. Yep, gotta love that new math.

And, let's examine those two games, while we are at it.

Once again, the Wilt detractors will completely DISTORT REALITY.

Ok, in that game seven of the '69 Finals, Wilt, pulled up lame with six minutes left in the game, and in the process of grabbing a rebound, and his outlet led to a fast break basket. Before he could come out, Boston missed another shot, and Wilt, on ONE leg, grabbed THAT rebound...which ultimately led to two West FTs. He HAD to come out. Within a couple of minutes he asked to go back in. His incompetent coach refused, instead preferring the brilliant play of Mel Counts, who missed two shots down the stretch, en route to a 4-13 game from the floor.

Oh, and how about Russell in that game? Here again, those that rip Wilt for his "declining" numbers in the post-season, NEVER bring up the FACT that Wilt DRAMTICALLY reduced his OPPOSING center's numbers (and he faced a HOF center in 99 of his 160 playoff games.) Wilt, on that one leg, and in those two possessions, matched Russell's entire rebounding totals in that 4th quarter.

And here were their overall numbers from that game...

Russell shot 2-7 from the floor, 2-4 from the line, had 21 rebounds, and scored six points.

Wilt shot 7-8 from the field, that 4-13 from the line, grabbed 27 rebounds, and scored 18 points (in five less minutes than Russell BTW.)


How about game seven of the '70 Finals?

The Knicks hit 15 of their first 21 shots, and exploded to a huge lead. And, in that run, Frazier was all over West, stealing the ball several times.

In that first half, Wilt went 5-10 from the field, (along with 12 rebounds), and only 1-8 from the line. BUT, his teammates, including West, collectively shot 33% from the field in that half...and the result? The Knicks led at the half, 69-42. Now, as you can plainly see, had Wilt somehow managed to go 8-8 from the line in that first half, his team would STILL have been down by 20 points!

Now, how about his battle with Reed...

Reed, with his teammates swarming Wilt, and committing all four of his personal fouls on Wilt in that first half...played 27 minutes and scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with THREE rebounds.

How about Wilt in that game seven? 21 points on 10-16 shooting, that 1-11 from the line, and 24 rebounds. Oh, and BTW, Wilt played 47.5 mpg in that seven game series...and only FOUR MONTHS removed from MAJOR KNEE SURGERY!

[Deuce Bigalow]

You were rigt Duncewood,

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=237677&page=2



So, shooting 5-24 from the line in TWO games cost Wilt 3-4 rings.

And here was my response...
Now that is what I said, that those 2 games cost him from HAVING 3-4 rings. He already has 2 rings, so it's 1-2 cost rings is what I said. Read it again.

I changed my stance on '70 since I now know it was a blowout, but '69 is easily a cost ring. Also some other Game 7s, like the one where he didn't even get half his regular season ppg ('62), and others cost him rings.

[jlauber]

Now that is what I said, that those 2 games cost him from HAVING 3-4 rings. He already has 2 rings, so it's 1-2 cost rings is what I said. Read it again.

I changed my stance on '70 since I now know it was a blowout, but '69 is easily a cost ring. Also some other Game 7s, like the one where he didn't even get half his regular season ppg ('62), and others cost him rings.

I get so sick-and-tired of having to address these ridiculous "FT" claims.

1. As I have posted MANY times, while Chamberlain was a relatively poor FT shooter (at least in the last half of his career), his overall IMPACT was a BENEFIT to his teammates. Wilt's TEAMS invariably outshot and outscored their opponents from the line in virtually every post-season...some by HUGE margins.

I could give you a TON of examples, but I will just give a couple for now. In his 68-69 season, Chamberlain's Lakers LED the NBA in FTAs. Same in the post-season (where theu just torched Boston from the line.) Then, in the very next season, 69-70, Wilt was injured early in the season, and missed a total of 70 games. Guess what? The Lakers dropped to 12th in FTAs, in a 14 team league! But, it gets better. Wilt then came back for the playoffs, and his Lakers were MILES ahead of the next team in FTAs (200 more than the Knicks.)

And how about his '67 Finals, when he shot 22-72? His Sixers just waltzed to a title. And how about the clinching game six win? While Wilt was shooting a dismal 2-17 from the line, he had gotten virtually every Warrior player in foul trouble in the process. Do you want an example of IMPACT? Wilt shot 2-17, while his teammates, aside from Wilt, outshot the Warriors by a 39-47 to 22-29 margin (obviously a 41-64 to 22-29 margin overall.)

2. Chamberlain was probably the king of the "And-One's"...or baskets with a bonus shot, in NBA history (and only Shaq would have been with the other side of the ocean from him in that regard.) So, even if he shot 33% on those shots, it is still more than a normal player simply scoring a basket.

3. Russell and Shaq were poor post-season FT shooters, as well, and yet they collectively won 15 rings. Shaq WON two rings in the Finals with a .387 and a .292 FT%. And Russell not only shot below average from the line in the post-season, he won SEVERAL rings by shooting less than 40% from the FIELD.

4. And let's put this FT weakness in perspective, too. While Kareem, Duncan, and Hakeem were decent FT shooters for CENTERS, they were BELOW AVERAGE overall. Wilt was a 50% FT shooter, and those guys were around 70% (with series well below that.) There have been MANY centers who shot MUCH better. Yao, McAdoo, even Moses (who had FOUR post-seasons of .900+.) In any case, the ACTUAL difference between Kareem and Hakeem shooting 5-7, compared to Wilt's 5-10, is very minimal.

5. And while Wilt gets ripped for poor FT shooting, how come he NEVER gets praised for his unfathomable FG%'s (especially against the LEAGUE AVERAGE and in BOTH the regular season, AND the post-season)? Duncewood harps about 4-13 from the line, but what about 7-8 from the FIELD (especially in a game seven, two point loss, in which his teammates collectively shot .360 from the field?) He had another game seven, one point loss, in which he shot 6-13 from the line, BUT, he also shot 12-15 from the field (80%!)

6. And, here again, Chamberlain gets slammed for poor FT shooting, but how often do you read anyone calling Bird, Kobe, or Kareem "chokers" for their AWFUL poor FG% series? I have listed them all, many times, but those guys had SEVERAL post-season series (even in wins) in which they were just HORRIBLE from the line. Chamberlain shot .708 from the field in his game seven's in the Finals. Kobe shot .365.

7. AND, finally, what about Wilt's rebounding and defense in the post-season? While Wilt shot .708 (17-24) from the field in his game seven's, and averaged 25.5 rpg, his two opposing starting centers shot 4-12 (.333), and averaged 12 rpg.

I could go on for hours about that. Wilt played in 29 post-season series, and was NEVER outrebounded in ONE series. And he faced Russell in eight, Reed in three, Thurmond in three, and Kareem in two.

And he was DRAMATICALLY lowering his opposing centers FG% in the post-season. Russell rarely shot over .400 against him (while Chamberlain was around 50% against him.) Wilt held Russell to post-season series of as low as .399, .387, .396, and even .358.

Wilt faced HOF center Nate Thurmond in three post-season series, and outshot him by margins of .500 to .392; .550 to .398; and an unbelievable .560 to .343 margin (in the '67 Finals, and against a Thurmond who finished second in the MVP balloting.)

Wilt outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Bellamy in the '68 playoffs, by a .584 to .421 margin, in a season in which Bellamy had shot .541 against the NBA.

An OLD Wilt, playing against a PRIME Kareem, held Kareem to .481 and .457 shooting in two straight WCF's, in seasons in which Kareem had shot .577 and .574 against the rest of the NBA. BTW, in the last four games of the '72 WCF's, Wilt held Kareem to .414 shooting. Oh, and in their two series clinching H2H games, Wilt outshot Kareem by a .545 to .383 margin.

But, nope. Let's forget all of that. Or that Wilt's teammates routinely shot miserably in the post-season. He had SIX post-season in which his teammates shot less than .383 from the field. He had numerous game seven's in which theu shot well below .399. He had players like Baylor going 4-14, 2-12, and 8-22 from the FIELD in three games of the '69 Finals (all losses.)

Nope. Let's focus exclusively on Wilt's poor FT shooting instead. He was the ONLY reason why his team's lost so often in the post-season (even in a seven game series in which he put up a 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and .555 FG% against Russell.)

Too bad his teammates were saddled with such a choking loser. Can you imagine how many more rings they would have won without Wilt?

[Round Mound]

Wilt the GOAT Center :bowdown:

[jongib369]

Wilt the GOAT Center :bowdown:
are you being sarcastic or no? It's hard to tell on these boards haha. He's my favorite player and I'd have to agree, but it is arguable. not going to sit here on my computer thinking Im master of the basketball universe lol

[Horatio33]

Russell shot much worse from the field against Wilt, and nearly as bad from the line (and without nearly the IMPACT or points that Wilt had from the line), and he won 11 rings.

Just goes to show you that when you have great teammates, who play great, you can barely beat the most dominant player ever and his cast of clowns who played worse in the post-season.

Of course, when Wilt's teammates did finally neutralize Russell's, in the '67 ECF's, even with awful FT%, Chamberlain led his team to a 4-1 romp over the 8-time defending champion and 60-21 Celtics, in series in which he battered Russell in every facet of the game.

Goes to show you that the game is more than stats. Russell cared about making his teammates better and winning. Wilt cared about his stats and himself. One guy won 11 rings and was the big reason that his teams won big games, one guy won 2 didn't make his teammates better and choked multiple big games.

Here is a stat for you. In all game 5's, game 7's, NCAA elimination games and Olympic elimination games that Russell played in, he was 21-0. I know you will say "He played on great teams." Yes he did, but it's not an accident that Russell's teams won all those games. He was the only constant. So you can go on about Wilt having better stats, but basketball is about more than stats.

Shareef Abdur-Rahim was a 20-10 guy for years. So was Elton Brand. So was Tim Duncan. I know if I want to win I'd choose Duncan, and the reason isn't stats. It's leadership, it's wanting your team to win. It's WILLING your team to win. Russell did that. A lot. Wilt didn't do that. A lot.

So you can keep your stats. Stats are meaningless in the context of the game. You can use them as a barometer. But it will never beat watching games and seeing how a certain player or team do in a pressure situation.

[josh99]

Goes to show you that the game is more than stats. Russell cared about making his teammates better and winning. Wilt cared about his stats and himself. One guy won 11 rings and was the big reason that his teams won big games, one guy won 2 didn't make his teammates better and choked multiple big games.

Here is a stat for you. In all game 5's, game 7's, NCAA elimination games and Olympic elimination games that Russell played in, he was 21-0. I know you will say "He played on great teams." Yes he did, but it's not an accident that Russell's teams won all those games. He was the only constant. So you can go on about Wilt having better stats, but basketball is about more than stats.

Shareef Abdur-Rahim was a 20-10 guy for years. So was Elton Brand. So was Tim Duncan. I know if I want to win I'd choose Duncan, and the reason isn't stats. It's leadership, it's wanting your team to win. It's WILLING your team to win. Russell did that. A lot. Wilt didn't do that. A lot.

So you can keep your stats. Stats are meaningless in the context of the game. You can use them as a barometer. But it will never beat watching games and seeing how a certain player or team do in a pressure situation.
It doesnt matter how much you want your team to win, if their team>your team it isnt going to happen. (I'm not choosing sides just saying this is a bad argument)

[Deuce Bigalow]

Wilt the GOAT Center :bowdown:
1. Russell
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Hakeem
5. Wilt

[G.O.A.T]

It doesnt matter how much you want your team to win, if their team>your team it isnt going to happen. (I'm not choosing sides just saying this is a bad argument)

It's not as simple as wanting it, but if winning is most important and you consistently identify the correct way to play to win, that is far more significant than any statistical edge.

[jlauber]

Goes to show you that the game is more than stats. Russell cared about making his teammates better and winning. Wilt cared about his stats and himself. One guy won 11 rings and was the big reason that his teams won big games, one guy won 2 didn't make his teammates better and choked multiple big games.

Here is a stat for you. In all game 5's, game 7's, NCAA elimination games and Olympic elimination games that Russell played in, he was 21-0. I know you will say "He played on great teams." Yes he did, but it's not an accident that Russell's teams won all those games. He was the only constant. So you can go on about Wilt having better stats, but basketball is about more than stats.

Shareef Abdur-Rahim was a 20-10 guy for years. So was Elton Brand. So was Tim Duncan. I know if I want to win I'd choose Duncan, and the reason isn't stats. It's leadership, it's wanting your team to win. It's WILLING your team to win. Russell did that. A lot. Wilt didn't do that. A lot.

So you can keep your stats. Stats are meaningless in the context of the game. You can use them as a barometer. But it will never beat watching games and seeing how a certain player or team do in a pressure situation.

TEAM game. FIVE vs FIVE. Best TEAM wins.

Answer me this...

How come Jordan played on NINE teams that did NOT win a title (and FIVE that were losers)...andwas 1-9 in his first three playoff series?

How come the "clutch" Kareem played on 14 that did NOT win a title?

Or Bird on TEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Shaq on FIFTEEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Duncan on ELEVEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or the saint Hakeem, who not only played on SIXTEEN teams that did NOT win a title, but EIGHT that couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND?

Furthermore, IF Russell were indeed the better player, how come Chamberlain and his Sixers just trashed Russell and his eight-time defending 60-21 Celtics in '67? And in the clinching game five loss, Russell went like a meek lamb to the slaughterhouse with a simply pathetic performance?

And to EXPECT Chamberlain's '62 and '65 teams to even get to a game seven against the HOF-laden Celtics was a miracle unto itself, but Chamberlain took them within a total of THREE points of beating those heavily-favored teams, and in series in which he outplayed Russell in every category. Oh and BTW, his cast of clowns teammates, most of which would play worse withOUT Wilt in their careers, played even more horribly than they did in the regular season. How? How could Chamberlain take a 49-31 team, that had been a LAST PLACE team when he arrived, to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers...and all the while his surrounding cast of stooges shot .354 in that post-season?

Or a Chamberlain taking a 40-40 team, that had been 34-46 the year before he arrived, to a game seven, one point loss, against a Celtic team with a Russell-led record of 62-18, and in a series in which Chamberlain just blasted Russell in EVERY facet of the game (including FT%)?

Explain all that to me...

I'll go with John Wooden's opinion. He claimed that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, that it very likely would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Furthermore, IF Russell were indeed the better player, how come Chamberlain and his Sixers just trashed Russell and his eight-time defending 60-21 Celtics in '67? And in the clinching game five loss, Russell went like a meek lamb to the slaughterhouse with a simply pathetic performance?

Wow, can you believe this guy?
You cherry pick one year ignoring every other matchup where Bill's team sent Wilt fishing.

[jlauber]

WOW, can you believe this guy?

Go ahead an argue your point then? Tell us all why Russell and his 60-21 Celtics were blown to shreds in the '67 ECF's.

[jlauber]

Wow, can you believe this guy?
You cherry pick one year ignoring every other matchup where Bill's team sent Wilt fishing.

TEAM game. FIVE vs FIVE. Best TEAM wins.

Answer me this...

How come Jordan played on NINE teams that did NOT win a title (and FIVE that were losers)...andwas 1-9 in his first three playoff series?

How come the "clutch" Kareem played on 14 that did NOT win a title?

Or Bird on TEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Shaq on FIFTEEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Duncan on ELEVEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or the saint Hakeem, who not only played on SIXTEEN teams that did NOT win a title, but EIGHT that couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND?

Furthermore, IF Russell were indeed the better player, how come Chamberlain and his Sixers just trashed Russell and his eight-time defending 60-21 Celtics in '67? And in the clinching game five loss, Russell went like a meek lamb to the slaughterhouse with a simply pathetic performance?

And to EXPECT Chamberlain's '62 and '65 teams to even get to a game seven against the HOF-laden Celtics was a miracle unto itself, but Chamberlain took them within a total of THREE points of beating those heavily-favored teams, and in series in which he outplayed Russell in every category. Oh and BTW, his cast of clowns teammates, most of which would play worse withOUT Wilt in their careers, played even more horribly than they did in the regular season. How? How could Chamberlain take a 49-31 team, that had been a LAST PLACE team when he arrived, to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers...and all the while his surrounding cast of stooges shot .354 in that post-season?

Or a Chamberlain taking a 40-40 team, that had been 34-46 the year before he arrived, to a game seven, one point loss, against a Celtic team with a Russell-led record of 62-18, and in a series in which Chamberlain just blasted Russell in EVERY facet of the game (including FT%)?

Explain all that to me...

I'll go with John Wooden's opinion. He claimed that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, that it very likely would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

[millwad]

Haha, Jlauber bashes Olajuwon constantly over the fact that he didn't win rings in 16 of his 18 years.

But as soon as it fits his agenda it's a "team game"..

Jlauber, you're like an open book, your crappy posts are so biased and silly that I just would like to vomit all over my laptop.. :facepalm

[Horatio33]

TEAM game. FIVE vs FIVE. Best TEAM wins.

Answer me this...

How come Jordan played on NINE teams that did NOT win a title (and FIVE that were losers)...andwas 1-9 in his first three playoff series?

How come the "clutch" Kareem played on 14 that did NOT win a title?

Or Bird on TEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Shaq on FIFTEEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Duncan on ELEVEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or the saint Hakeem, who not only played on SIXTEEN teams that did NOT win a title, but EIGHT that couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND?

Furthermore, IF Russell were indeed the better player, how come Chamberlain and his Sixers just trashed Russell and his eight-time defending 60-21 Celtics in '67? And in the clinching game five loss, Russell went like a meek lamb to the slaughterhouse with a simply pathetic performance?

And to EXPECT Chamberlain's '62 and '65 teams to even get to a game seven against the HOF-laden Celtics was a miracle unto itself, but Chamberlain took them within a total of THREE points of beating those heavily-favored teams, and in series in which he outplayed Russell in every category. Oh and BTW, his cast of clowns teammates, most of which would play worse withOUT Wilt in their careers, played even more horribly than they did in the regular season. How? How could Chamberlain take a 49-31 team, that had been a LAST PLACE team when he arrived, to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers...and all the while his surrounding cast of stooges shot .354 in that post-season?

Or a Chamberlain taking a 40-40 team, that had been 34-46 the year before he arrived, to a game seven, one point loss, against a Celtic team with a Russell-led record of 62-18, and in a series in which Chamberlain just blasted Russell in EVERY facet of the game (including FT%)?

Explain all that to me...

I'll go with John Wooden's opinion. He claimed that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, that it very likely would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

I'll go with Bob Cousy who said the Celtics wouldn't have won 11 titles with Wilt in place of Russell. He only played on 6 of those title teams.

[jlauber]

Haha, Jlauber bashes Olajuwon constantly over the fact that he didn't win rings in 16 of his 18 years.

But as soon as it fits his agenda it's a "team game"..

Jlauber, you're like an open book, your crappy posts are so biased and silly that I just would like to vomit all over my laptop.. :facepalm

Hakeem is the most over-rated player on this forum.

Not only did he not win rings in 16 of his 18 seasons, he couldn't even get past the first round in EIGHT of his 15 post-seasons. And most of those series weren't close, either.

Had Chamberlain had the "good fortune" to have been blown away in the first round...


BTW, I will be posting some new info regarding his "decline" in the post-season, as well. It is amazing, but given the actual scoring and especially shooting percentages in the Wilt-era POST-SEASONS, he was consistently at or near his regular season numbers.

And, had he had the good "fortune" to have been eliminated in the first round of the playoffs, EIGHT times, as was the case with Hakeem, his first round numbers were often HIGHER. And, I have read an idiot post claiming that Hakeem outshot Wilt from the field in the post-season (by a .528 to .522 margin), BUT, I will be comparing their post-season LEAGUE AVERAGES, (and even including eFG%'s), which CLEARLY gives Chamberlain a HUGE edge.

As examples, in Wilt's fist eight post-seasons, and in his first round, he averaged

38.7 ppg

37.0 ppg

37.0 ppg

38.6 ppg and on .559 shooting (in a post-season NBA of 105.8 ppg on .420 shooting)

27.8 ppg (and then 30.1 ppg, on .555 shooting, and against Russell)

28.0 ppg

28.0 ppg (and a great example of FG% at .612 in a post-season at .424)

25.5 ppg (and on .584 shooting, while his opposing center, Bellamy was at 20.0 on .421 shooting.)

Even in his 11th season, and only four months removed from major knee surgery, Chamberlain put up a first round of 23.7 ppg., 20.3 rpg, and .549.

And, in his 71-72 post-season, he had a 14.5 ppg, 20.8 rpg, .629 first round series (and in an NBA post-season of .446.)

So while Chamberlain was shooting .522 in his post-season career, it came in post-seasons of between .402 to .455.) Meanwhile Hakeem's .528 came in post-seasons of as high as .492, and an efg% as high as .500. MANY in the .485+ range, as well.

And, keep in mind two more interesting points. One, in Wilt's second greatest scoring season (44.8 ppg on .528 shooting) his all-time worst roster kept him from playing in the post-season (which probably cost him another 2-3+ ppg in his post-seasob career average.) And two, he faced a starting HOF center in 105 of his 160 post-season games, including Russell in 49, Thurmond in 17, and a PRIME Kareem in 11.


Oh, and BTW, Hakeem won ONE MVP, came in second ONE time, was voted in the Top-FOUR...FOUR times in his ERIGHTEEN seasons. And in fact, wasn't even in the Top-10 in EIGHT of them.

The man seldom led his team's to even 50 wins (with a HIGH of 58.) Couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND in over HALF of them. Won a title in the year in which MJ took off (and in which his Rockets edged the Knicks in the seventh game of the Finals...the same Knicks team that barely beat the Jordan-less Rockets in a seventh game earlier in the playoffs.) In fact, his 58-24 Rockets beat a 56-26 Knick team with less talent than what he had.

And even in '95, and playing with Drexler...how many HOF-laden rosters did he have to go thru to win a ring? Shaq's Magic were no more talented, and in fact, were wiped out by Hakeem's teammates in the Finals.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Hakeem is the most over-rated player on this forum.

Not only did he not win rings in 16 of his 18 seasons, he couldn't even get past the first round in EIGHT of his 15 post-seasons. And most of those series weren't close, either.

Had Chamberlain had the "good fortune" to have been blown away in the first round...



Oh, and BTW, Hakeem won ONE MVP, came in second ONE time, was voted in the Top-FOUR...FOUR times in his ERIGHTEEN seasons. And in fact, wasn't even in the Top-10 in EIGHT of them.

The man seldom led his team's to even 50 wins (with a HIGH of 58.) Couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND in over HALF of them. Won a title in the year in which MJ took off (and in which his Rockets edged the Knicks in the seventh game of the Finals...the same Knicks team that barely beat the Jordan-less Rockets in a seventh game earlier in the playoffs.) In fact, his 58-24 Rockets beat a 56-26 Knick team with less talent than what he had.

And even in '95, and playing with Drexler...how many HOF-laden rosters did he have to go thru to win a ring? Shaq's Magic were no more talented, and in fact, were wiped out by Hakeem's teammates in the Finals.
Are you mentally retarded?

WILT ONLY WON 2 NBA CHAMPIONSHIPS, as much as Hakeem did. And Hakeem did it with worse teammates and with one of the smallest championship contending "windows" for an all-time great.

[Deuce Bigalow]

TEAM game. FIVE vs FIVE. Best TEAM wins.

Answer me this...

How come Jordan played on NINE teams that did NOT win a title (and FIVE that were losers)...andwas 1-9 in his first three playoff series?

How come the "clutch" Kareem played on 14 that did NOT win a title?

Or Bird on TEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Shaq on FIFTEEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or Duncan on ELEVEN teams that did NOT win a title?

Or the saint Hakeem, who not only played on SIXTEEN teams that did NOT win a title, but EIGHT that couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND?

Furthermore, IF Russell were indeed the better player, how come Chamberlain and his Sixers just trashed Russell and his eight-time defending 60-21 Celtics in '67? And in the clinching game five loss, Russell went like a meek lamb to the slaughterhouse with a simply pathetic performance?

And to EXPECT Chamberlain's '62 and '65 teams to even get to a game seven against the HOF-laden Celtics was a miracle unto itself, but Chamberlain took them within a total of THREE points of beating those heavily-favored teams, and in series in which he outplayed Russell in every category. Oh and BTW, his cast of clowns teammates, most of which would play worse withOUT Wilt in their careers, played even more horribly than they did in the regular season. How? How could Chamberlain take a 49-31 team, that had been a LAST PLACE team when he arrived, to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers...and all the while his surrounding cast of stooges shot .354 in that post-season?

Or a Chamberlain taking a 40-40 team, that had been 34-46 the year before he arrived, to a game seven, one point loss, against a Celtic team with a Russell-led record of 62-18, and in a series in which Chamberlain just blasted Russell in EVERY facet of the game (including FT%)?

Explain all that to me...

I'll go with John Wooden's opinion. He claimed that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, that it very likely would have been Wilt holding all those rings.
Very simple. Every player only gets a limited championship contending window of opportunity. Not every year does a an all-time great have a championship caliber team, so they are obviously not going to win every single year and even if they had a championship contending team every year they wouldn't win everytime unless you are Michael ****ing Jordan.

Wilt had a large amount of time on championship contending teams and only came out with 2 rings. Wilt had THE BEST PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE as his teammate in '69 and '70 along with other hall of famers Baylor and Goodrich, and STILL LOST, even with HCA.

[jlauber]

Are you mentally retarded?

WILT ONLY WON 2 NBA CHAMPIONSHIPS, as much as Hakeem did. And Hakeem did it with worse teammates and with one of the smallest championship contending "windows" for an all-time great.

Chamberlain played with as bad, iof not worse rosters, for nearly HALF of his career. And, BTW, he had SIXC post-seasons in which his teammates collectively shot .383, .380, .354, .352, .352 (on a 55-25 team), and even .332. Give me a list of rosters that Hakeem had that shot that poorly in the post-season.

And, of course, Chamberlain LED his teams to TWELVE conference Finals, SIX Finals, played on SIX division winners, played on FOUR 60+ win teams, and anchored two of the most dominant title teams in NBA history (that went 68-13 and 69-13.)

And how did each of Wilt's team's do before he arrived, when he arrived, and how did each do after he left?

[jlauber]

Very simple. Every player only gets a limited championship contending window of opportunity. Not every year does a an all-time great have a championship caliber team, so they are obviously not going to win every single year and even if they had a championship contending team every year they wouldn't win everytime unless you are Michael ****ing Jordan.

Wilt had a large amount of time on championship contending teams and only came out with 2 rings. Wilt had THE BEST PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE as his teammate in '69 and '70 along with other hall of famers Baylor and Goodrich, and STILL LOST, even with HCA.

Hmmm, you obviously didn't read my post above then...

Jordan played on NINE teams, in his 15 seasons, that did NOT win a ring. Hell, he couldn't beat Bird in the post-season, going 0-6 against his team's. And Bird was one of the biggest playoff choke performers of the all-time greats (losing with HCA in SEVEN of his post-seasons, and shooting like crap in SEVERAL.) Hell, MJ played on FIVE teams that had losing records.

Wilt played with atrocious rosters for nearly HALF of his career, and not only that, he went up against the Celtic Dynasty, and their FIVE to NINE HOFers, in EIGHT of his ten seasons in the league with Russell. Then he battled the Knicks in FOUR post-seasons with rosters that had been FOUR to SIX HOFers. As well as the Kareem-Oscar-Dandridge Bucks of 70-71 and 71-72 (66-16 and 63-19 records.)

It wasn't just a case of having a talented supporting cast, it was also the fact that his team's were usually heavily outgunned in the post-season.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Chamberlain played with as bad, iof not worse rosters, for nearly HALF of his career. And, BTW, he had SIXC post-seasons in which his teammates collectively shot .383, .380, .354, .352, .352 (on a 55-25 team), and even .332. Give me a list of rosters that Hakeem had that shot that poorly in the post-season.

And, of course, Chamberlain LED his teams to TWELVE conference Finals, SIX Finals, played on SIX division winners, played on FOUR 60+ win teams, and anchored two of the most dominant title teams in NBA history (that went 68-13 and 69-13.)

And how did each of Wilt's team's do before he arrived, when he arrived, and how did each do after he left?
Wilt had Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich with the Lakers
Wilt had Hal Greer who was the leading scorer on the '67 team on the Sixers

That is 4 HOFers

Let me tell you about '69 and '70 again since you can't get it in your head.

Jerry West - best player in the league in '69 and '70
'69 Playoffs: 31-4-8 46%, Finals: 37.9 PPG (2nd highest EVER), 42-13-12 in Game 7
'70 Playoffs: 31-4-8 47%, Finals: 31-3-8 45%

The Lakers did NOT win the championship both those years

Gail Goodrich - leading scorer on the '72 team
'72 Playoffs: 24-3-3 45%



Now tell me who Hakeem's teammates are, and tell me why Hakeem has as much rings as Wilt :roll:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Hmmm, you obviously didn't read my post above then...

Jordan played on NINE teams, in his 15 seasons, that did NOT win a ring. Hell, he couldn't beat Bird in the post-season, going 0-6 against his team's. And Bird was one of the biggest playoff choke performers of the all-time greats (losing with HCA in SEVEN of his post-seasons, and shooting like crap in SEVERAL.) Hell, MJ played on FIVE teams that had losing records.

Wilt played with atrocious rosters for nearly HALF of his career, and not only that, he went up against the Celtic Dynasty, and their FIVE to NINE HOFers, in EIGHT of his ten seasons in the league with Russell. Then he battled the Knicks in FOUR post-seasons with rosters that had been FOUR to SIX HOFers. As well as the Kareem-Oscar-Dandridge Bucks of 70-71 and 71-72 (66-16 and 63-19 records.)

It wasn't just a case of having a talented supporting cast, it was also the fact that his team's were usually heavily outgunned in the post-season.
Jordan's team barely even won 30 games that season you moron. :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm His team was the 8th seed. How are you so ****ing stupid?
Jordan did not have a championship caliber team until 1991, and we all know what happened from there on.

[jlauber]

Wilt had Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich with the Lakers
Wilt had Hal Greer who was the leading scorer on the '67 team on the Sixers

That is 4 HOFers

Let me tell you about '69 and '70 again since you can't get it in your head.

Jerry West - best player in the league in '69 and '70
'69 Playoffs: 31-4-8 46%, Finals: 37.9 PPG (2nd highest EVER), 42-13-12 in Game 7
'70 Playoffs: 31-4-8 47%, Finals: 31-3-8 45%

Gail Goodrich - leading scorer on the '72 team


'72 Playoffs: 24-3-3 45%



Now tell me who Hakeem's teammates are, and tell me why Hakeem has as much rings as Wilt :roll:

Baylor was a complete bust. Arguably one of the worst post-season runs in NBA history by an "alltime great" in '69, when he personally cost LA THREE games, and ultimately the title.

Goodrich played with Wilt in '71, '72, and '73. Goodrich played alongside Chamberlain in '71, in a series in which Baylor and West missed, and they battled a 66-16 Bucks team with Kareem-Oscar-Dandridge-McGlocklin-and Allen. And BTW, he shot .425 in that '71 post-season.

West played brilliantly in '69. Played great until a game seven meltdown in '70. Missed the ENTIRE post-season in '71. And was awful in '72 and '73. So Basically a West for NEARLY two post-seasons.

Greer? ONE decent playoff series in the FOUR post-seasons in which he played with Chamberlain. And the "scoring" leader Greer shot .429 in a post-season in which Chamberlain averaged 22 ppg, 29 rpg, 9 apg, and shot .579 (and BTW, it was WILT who dominated in the BIG post-season games, and Chamberlain with the Sixers HIGH game of that post-season.)

Of course, Hakeem played with a prime Sampson, and later with Drexler AND Barkley, and still did not win a title. He played with Thorpe who shot lights out in the '94 playoffs, and was their leading rebounder in the Finals. Kenny Smith, Robert Horry, too. And, once again, who did those Rocket title teams BEAT? No one in their right mind would claim the '94 Knicks or the '95 Magic were memorable teams. Oh, and where was MJ in '94? And did his 55-27 Bulls do without him?

Here again, it is not just about the surrounding personnel, but the opposing personnel, as well. Did Hakeek have to go thru TEN HOFers in three straight series to win a title? Did he ROUTINELY face teams that had between FIVE to NINE HOFers (and later Knick teams that had between FOUR to SIX)?

[Owl]

Goes to show you that the game is more than stats. Russell cared about making his teammates better and winning. Wilt cared about his stats and himself. One guy won 11 rings and was the big reason that his teams won big games, one guy won 2 didn't make his teammates better and choked multiple big games.

Here is a stat for you. In all game 5's, game 7's, NCAA elimination games and Olympic elimination games that Russell played in, he was 21-0. I know you will say "He played on great teams." Yes he did, but it's not an accident that Russell's teams won all those games. He was the only constant. So you can go on about Wilt having better stats, but basketball is about more than stats.

Shareef Abdur-Rahim was a 20-10 guy for years. So was Elton Brand. So was Tim Duncan. I know if I want to win I'd choose Duncan, and the reason isn't stats. It's leadership, it's wanting your team to win. It's WILLING your team to win. Russell did that. A lot. Wilt didn't do that. A lot.

So you can keep your stats. Stats are meaningless in the context of the game. You can use them as a barometer. But it will never beat watching games and seeing how a certain player or team do in a pressure situation.
Shareef was an actual (not ballpark) 20-10 guy exactly once. During his prime he shot above 48% precisely once. He never blocked as much as 1.1 shots per game over a season. His career rebound % is 12.5. His peak year PER is 21.1, his career PER is 19.

For Duncan it's 9 20-10s (and would have had 3 or 4 more if the Spurs weren't being cautious with his minutes). Duncan's career field goal percentage is above 50%. He has consistently blocked over 2 shots per game. Duncan's career rebound % is 18.5. His peak PER is 27.1 and over his career it is 24.7 . An awful lot Duncan's advantage over Abdur-Rahim is very tangiable through stats.

If you don't look at stats properly using broad generalisations like 20-10, or ignore efficiency they can be misleading. But looked at properly they tell you most of the important things that are going in a basketball game. On the defensive end the numbers are still lacking (so far as I can tell anyway). Bill Russell does seem to have been very good indeed at that end from the numbers we do have. That doesn't mean we need to credit Russell with a magic influence over deciding games (presumably including making Frank Selvy miss, Havlicek steal the ball etc) through the virtue of wanting it more and leadership. Fortune has a significant role in deciding tight games. Fortunately many of these game sevens weren't close. That comes from being the better team. Of course having Russell would be a big part of being the better team, but that, being the better team, not some magic Bill Russell hoodoo, is why the Celtics (and the American Olympic team, though I really don't know why anyone would count that, as though Team USA was going to lose back then, and USF) won game sevens (though phrasing it as such is a convenient way of avoiding game 6 (4-2) and game 5 (4-1) series losses (I assume by Game 5s you mean game five of a best of 5 series).

[Owl]

I'll go with Bob Cousy who said the Celtics wouldn't have won 11 titles with Wilt in place of Russell. He only played on 6 of those title teams.
Find me someone not affiliated with the Celtics who didn't have an interest in the Celtic mystique, without the personal ties to Russell who says the Wilt, Russell swap would have led to different results.

For what it's worth Nate Thurmond also said Wilt would have matched Russell's record with the Celtics. Nate did play with Wilt for 1 1/2 years though.

[jlauber]

Shareef was an actual (not ballpark) 20-10 guy exactly once. During his prime he shot above 48% precisely once. He never blocked as much as 1.1 shots per game over a season. His career rebound % is 12.5. His peak year PER is 21.1, his career PER is 19.

For Duncan it's 9 20-10s (and would have had 3 or 4 more if the Spurs weren't being cautious with his minutes). Duncan's career field goal percentage is above 50%. He has consistently blocked over 2 shots per game. Duncan's career rebound % is 18.5. His peak PER is 27.1 and over his career it is 24.7 . An awful lot Duncan's advantage over Abdur-Rahim is very tangiable through stats.

If you don't look at stats properly using broad generalisations like 20-10, or ignore efficiency they can be misleading. But looked at properly they tell you most of the important things that are going in a basketball game. On the defensive end the numbers are still lacking (so far as I can tell anyway). Bill Russell does seem to have been very good indeed at that end from the numbers we do have. That doesn't mean we need to credit Russell with a magic influence over deciding games (presumably including making Frank Selvy miss, Havlicek steal the ball etc) through the virtue of wanting it more and leadership. Fortune has a significant role in deciding tight games. Fortunately many of these game sevens weren't close. That comes from being the better team. Of course having Russell would be a big part of being the better team, but that, being the better team, not some magic Bill Russell hoodoo, is why the Celtics (and the American Olympic team, though I really don't know why anyone would count that, as though Team USA was going to lose back then, and USF) won game sevens (though phrasing it as such is a convenient way of avoiding game 6 (4-2) and game 5 (4-1) series losses (I assume by Game 5s you mean game five of a best of 5 series).

Good catch Owl.

Comparing Shareef to Duncan.

As for Russell and Wilt in the post-season. Russell's CELTICS went 7-1 in playoff series, which seems one-sided. BUT, they only had a 29-20 W-L record, and won FOUR game SEVEN's, by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. So, the REALITY was, Chamberlain could easily have held a 5-3 edge over Russell in their post-season H2H's. It was not as if Russell and his Celtics were dominating Wilt in every series, the way that Wilt's '67 Sixers did to his team.

Give Russell his due. He WON. He won more than BIRD, HAKEEM, KAREEM, and MJ, too.

But even in beating Wilt's TEAMS, Chamberlain was the more dominant player...and in some series, by HUGE margins.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Baylor was a complete bust. Arguably one of the worst post-season runs in NBA history by an "alltime great" in '69, when he personally cost LA THREE games, and ultimately the title.
:roll::roll: :roll:

Goodrich played with Wilt in '71, '72, and '73. Goodrich played alongside Chamberlain in '71, in a series in which Baylor and West missed, and they battled a 66-16 Bucks team with Kareem-Oscar-Dandridge-McGlocklin-and Allen. And BTW, he shot .425 in that '71 post-season.
Leading scorer on the '72 team. HOFer, jersey retired by the Lakers.

West played brilliantly in '69. Played great until a game seven meltdown in '70. Missed the ENTIRE post-season in '71. And was awful in '72 and '73. So Basically a West for NEARLY two post-seasons.
The same game 7 where Wilt shot 1-11 from the line :oldlol:

Greer? ONE decent playoff series in the FOUR post-seasons in which he played with Chamberlain. And the "scoring" leader Greer shot .429 in a post-season in which Chamberlain averaged 22 ppg, 29 rpg, 9 apg, and shot .579 (and BTW, it was WILT who dominated in the BIG post-season games, and Chamberlain with the Sixers HIGH game of that post-season.)
Leading scorer on the team, don't try to downplay him :facepalm

Of course, Hakeem played with a prime Sampson, and later with Drexler AND Barkley, and still did not win a title. He played with Thorpe who shot lights out in the '94 playoffs, and was their leading rebounder in the Finals. Kenny Smith, Robert Horry, too. And, once again, who did those Rocket title teams BEAT? No one in their right mind would claim the '94 Knicks or the '95 Magic were memorable teams. Oh, and where was MJ in '94? And did his 55-27 Bulls do without him?
How old were they when Drexler, Barkely, and Hakeem were together? :oldlol:
Drexler: 35
Hakeem: 34
Barkley: 34
:roll:

Here again, it is not just about the surrounding personnel, but the opposing personnel, as well. Did Hakeek have to go thru TEN HOFers in three straight series to win a title? Did he ROUTINELY face teams that had between FIVE to NINE HOFers (and later Knick teams that had between FOUR to SIX)?
You know what Hakeem did? He WON AS MANY TITLES as Wilt with LESS help.

[Owl]

It's not as simple as wanting it, but if winning is most important and you consistently identify the correct way to play to win, that is far more significant than any statistical edge.
And so Red Auerbach GM/Coach is better than Wilt Chamberlain?

[DatAsh]

Are you mentally retarded?

WILT ONLY WON 2 NBA CHAMPIONSHIPS, as much as Hakeem did. And Hakeem did it with worse teammates and with one of the smallest championship contending "windows" for an all-time great.


It's a fair point. Both players did indeed win 2 championships. Wilt did indeed have a MUCH better supporting cast over his career, but Wilt also had to compete with the Celtics dynasty for most of it.

[oolalaa]

Basketball (And any sport, frankly) is about identifying the things you need to do to win and executing them (Particuarly important in late and close situations). i.e "Our deficit is becoming too big, I need to score some points right now or we're going to lose" or "We're getting murdered on the glass. I'm gunna make a concerted effort to box out & not stray too far from the paint" or "So & So is hurting/gassed. I'm going to abuse him off the dribble or in the post".

Wilt was consistency personified - one of the most consistent performers in NBA history. I get the strong impression he played the same way almost every single game. His mindset was "I'm gunna get my 25 boards, 20+ points & 5+ assists, and hope it's enough to win. And if it's not, then it wasn't my fault", rather than Russell's, Magic's, Bird's and Timmy's mindset of taking and adjusting to what the game gave them.

But, to be fair, Wilt's sheer, overwhelming talent and domination meant that making those "Winning plays" were less important for his teams success than other less gifted players (Russell, Timmy, Magic etc).

Of course, this is all conjecture. I could be wrong. There's no real way of knowing.


Also, I HATE it when people disregard leadership and will to win (i.e competitiveness) as negligible to a teams success.

Horatio33's comment about Elton Brand, Abdur-Rahmin and Tim Duncan all having similar stats was right on the money. One player can have an inordinate amount of effect on the chemistry, cohesion and colletive psyche of a team. MINIONS FOLLOW THEIR LEADER. If your best player has a homicidal desire to win, If the thought of losing makes him feel physically sick (Or in the case of Russell, it's not just a feeling), that trickles down and rubs off on everyone on that team. A "winning" desire and focus floods the locker room, and a collective belief sets in. It's no coincidence that Jordan's and Russell's teammates routinely stepped it up in big moments of big games.


Ultimately, raw stats are incredibly overrated. HOW and WHEN you go about compiling your stats, and your "intangibles", are FAR more important.

[jlauber]

:roll::roll: :roll:

Leading scorer on the '72 team. HOFer, jersey retired by the Lakers.

The same game 7 where Wilt shot 1-11 from the line :oldlol:

Leading scorer on the team, don't try to downplay him :facepalm

How old were they when Drexler, Barkely, and Hakeem were together? :oldlol:
Drexler: 35
Hakeem: 34
Barkley: 34
:roll:

You know what Hakeem did? He WON AS MANY TITLES as Wilt with LESS help.

He won ONE in a season in which MJ did not play (and his Bulls barely lost a game seven to the Knick team, with less talent than Hakeem's team had, that would lose a close game seven to the champion Rockets.)

BTW, he also won his ONLY MVP that season, too.

Of course, Chamberlain went to 12 Conference Finals, and SIX Finals in his career,covering 14 seasons, while Hakeem couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND in EIGHT of his 15 post-seasons (and 18 seasons overall.)

Oh, and Chamberlain won as many MVPs in his ten seasons with Russell, as Russell did. And he SHOULD have won in '62 (instead of Russell.) And, the reality was, Wilt was the best player in the league in EVERY season of the '60's.

[jlauber]

:roll::roll: :roll:

Leading scorer on the '72 team. HOFer, jersey retired by the Lakers.

The same game 7 where Wilt shot 1-11 from the line :oldlol:

Leading scorer on the team, don't try to downplay him :facepalm

How old were they when Drexler, Barkely, and Hakeem were together? :oldlol:
Drexler: 35
Hakeem: 34
Barkley: 34
:roll:

You know what Hakeem did? He WON AS MANY TITLES as Wilt with LESS help.

He won ONE in a season in which MJ did not play (and his Bulls barely lost a game seven to the Knick team, with less talent than Hakeem's team had, that would lose a close game seven to the champion Rockets.)

BTW, he also won his ONLY MVP that season, too.

Of course, Chamberlain went to 12 Conference Finals, and SIX Finals in his career,covering 14 seasons, while Hakeem couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND in EIGHT of his 15 post-seasons (and 18 seasons overall.)

Oh, and Chamberlain won as many MVPs in his ten seasons with Russell, FOUR, as Russell did. And he SHOULD have won in '62 (instead of Russell.) And, the reality was, Wilt was the best player in the league in EVERY season of the '60's.

[oolalaa]

And i'll leave this here....


From the poster Alan Shore:

"(Individual) dominance does not correlate with greatness in a team sport."

Well said Alan Shore, well said.

[Round Mound]

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

Wilt Lead the League in Scoring With the Highest FG% of His Era Many Times
Wilt Lead the League In Rebounding Many Times
Wilt lead the League In Assists at the Center Position...When Has This Been Done Before or Since? Never
He Forced Rule Changes More than Any Other Player
He Probably Lead the League in Shot Blocks Many Times Too

Wilt is by Far the Greatest Center of All Time

[jlauber]

Wilt Lead the League in Scoring With the Highest FG% of His Era Many Times
Wilt Lead the League In Rebounding Many Times
Wilt lead the League In Assists at the Center Position...When Has This Been Done Before or Since? Never
He Forced Rule Changes More than Any Other Player

Wilt is by Far the Greatest Center of All Time

Don't forget this (which, BTW, is NOT all of his records...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Wilt_Chamberlain

[Deuce Bigalow]

He won ONE in a season in which MJ did not play (and his Bulls barely lost a game seven to the Knick team, with less talent than Hakeem's team had, that would lose a close game seven to the champion Rockets.)
The Playoff run where he led his team in ppg, rpg, apg, bpg, spg? yeah that run, known as one of the GOAT seasons ever.

BTW, he also won his ONLY MVP that season, too.
One of the few times where his team gave him enough support to win around the 50 game win mark which is what is need to even be close to winning MVP, not by how good you really are.

Of course, Chamberlain went to 12 Conference Finals, and SIX Finals in his career,covering 14 seasons, while Hakeem couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND in EIGHT of his 15 post-seasons (and 18 seasons overall.)
2 Championships. WHo the **** cares about Conference Finals? :facepalm
5 losses with HCA :oldlol:

Oh, and Chamberlain won as many MVPs in his ten seasons with Russell, as Russell did. And he SHOULD have won in '62 (instead of Russell.) And, the reality was, Wilt was the best player in the league in EVERY season of the '60's.
Too bad he didn't win as much championships :oldlol:

[oolalaa]

And, the reality was, Wilt was the best player in the league in EVERY season of the '60's.

WROOOOOOOOOONG.


Russell was the best in '60, '61, '63, '65 & '66.

Wilt was the best in '62, '64, '67 & '68.

West was the best in '69 & '70.

[jlauber]

WROOOOOOOOOONG.

Russell was the best in '60, '61, '63, '65 & '66.

Wilt was the best in '62, '64, '67 & '68.

West was the best in '69 & '70.

Wilt won the MVP (and ROY) in '60 after taking a LAST PLACE roster to a then best-ever record (49-26.) In the process, Chamberlain averaged 37.6 ppg, 27.0 rpg and shot a career low .461. Russell had a 18-24-.467 (his career high...although he only shot .399 against Wilt)...and came in second with his 59-16 Celtics and SEVEN HOFers.

In the '62 season, Chamberlain took the core of that same basic LAST PLACE roster he inherited in '60, to a 49-31 record, with probably the greatest statistical season, by anyone in any major (American...for Nightprowler's benefit) professional team sport...with a 50 ppg, 26 rpg, .506 season. Russell and his SEVEN HOFers went 60-20, in a season in which Russell averaged 19-24-.457.

Now, given the fact that Russell and his TEAM played nearly the SAME in '60 and '62. And, given the fact Wilt's crappy roster performed worse, and yet, because of Chamberlain's monumental season, they still finished 49-31...just what changed?

As for '64...Chamberlain came in second and Russell third, behind Oscar, (even though Wilt took what had been a 31-49 team to a 48-32 record and a trip to the Finals.)

Wilt should have won in '60, '62, '64, 66, '67, '68. And he certainly should have finished higher than SEVENTH in '63, and was nowhere to be found in '69 (despite pounding Unseld, Reed, and Russell in his H2H's.)

[Owl]

Basketball (And any sport, frankly) is about identifying the things you need to do to win and executing them (Particuarly important in late and close situations). i.e "Our deficit is becoming too big, I need to score some points right now or we're going to lose" or "We're getting murdered on the glass. I'm gunna make a concerted effort to box out & not stray too far from the paint" or "So & So is hurting/gassed. I'm going to abuse him off the dribble or in the post" or

Wilt was consistency personified - one of the most consistent performers in NBA history. I get the strong impression he played the same way almost every single game. His mindset was "I'm gunna get my 25 boards, 20+ points & 5+ assists, and hope it's enough to win. And if it's not, then it wasn't my fault", rather than Russell's, Magic's, Bird's and Timmy's mindset of taking and adjusting to what the game gave them.

But, to be fair, Wilt's sheer, overwhelming talent and domination meant that making those "Winning plays" were less important for his teams success than other less gifted players (Russell, Timmy, Magic etc).

Of course, this is all conjecture. I could be wrong. There's no real way of knowing.


Also, I HATE it when people disregard leadership and will to win (i.e competitiveness) as negligible to a teams success.

Horatio33's comment about Elton Brand, Abdur-Rahmin and Tim Duncan all having similar stats was right on the money. One player can have an inordinate amount of effect on the chemistry, cohesion and colletive psyche of a team. MINIONS FOLLOW THEIR LEADER. If your best player has a homicidal desire to win, If the thought of losing makes him feel physically sick (Or in the case of Russell, it's not just a feeling), that trickles down and rubs off on everyone on that team. A "winning" desire and focus floods the locker room, and a collective belief sets in. It's no coincidence that Jordan's and Russell's teammates routinely stepped it up in big moments of big games.


Ultimately, raw stats are incredibly overrated. HOW and WHEN you go about compiling your stats, and your "intangibles", are FAR more important.
Abdur-Rahim, Brand and Duncan have substantially different stats, with the gap between Abdur-Rahim and Duncan's so large it's ridiculous and could only be ignored if you don't look at stats remotely closely, round stats to the nearest 10, and completely ignore shooting percentages.

So if "raw stats" is rounded points and rebounds, yeah I wouldn't go with that. Just as I wouldn't use players' teams' records to judge a single player from that team. But defense aside stats do an very good job of what a player did. There are exceptions, Russell played pre-blocks and so his boxscores don't do him justice. Drew Gooden breaks plays and is a crummy defender so his metrics overrate him. But on the whole they're very good at telling you who did what.

[millwad]

He won ONE in a season in which MJ did not play (and his Bulls barely lost a game seven to the Knick team, with less talent than Hakeem's team had, that would lose a close game seven to the champion Rockets.)


You're beyond retarded, the Knicks didn't have less talent, they had way more talent.

You love to talk about Wilt's "bad" teammates, come back to me me when Wilt won the finals with a player like Maxwell as the 2nd option who averaged 13.4 points in the finals on crappy 36% shooting.

While Olajuwon had Maxwell as the 2nd option in '94, Ewing had Starks who averaged 17 points and then he had Harper who averaged 16 points per game and both shot with higher FG% than Ewing himself. As if Maxwell's terrible FG% wasn't enough, Horry who made the third most points in the finals for the Rockets only made 32% of his shots.

Only the fact that you wrote that the Knicks were less talented proves that you're beyond retarded.

And lets forget that Olajuwon and the Rockets faced Jazz who had Malone and Stockton, the same Malone and Stockton who always were trouble for MJ.

And that the Rockets faced KJ, Barkley and Majerle who faced MJ in '93 and who challenged the Bulls as well in the finals.

And in the first round they faced Portland who were in the finals just years earlier. Sure, they weren't as good as earlier but they got destroyed.



BTW, he also won his ONLY MVP that season, too.


And he won, unlike Wilt.



Of course, Chamberlain went to 12 Conference Finals, and SIX Finals in his career,covering 14 seasons, while Hakeem couldn't get past the FIRST ROUND in EIGHT of his 15 post-seasons (and 18 seasons overall.)


And only won 2 rings as tied 2nd option and 4th option on offense and his first ring he faced a team with 39 wins in the first round and in the finals he faced a 44 win team.. And there were so few teams that they only played 3 series.. :facepalm

And it's all about rings and Hakeem won just as many and he played better than Wilt in those 2 years as well.



Oh, and Chamberlain won as many MVPs in his ten seasons with Russell, as Russell did. And he SHOULD have won in '62 (instead of Russell.) And, the reality was, Wilt was the best player in the league in EVERY season of the '60's.

Too bad he only won 2 rings, haha, as the tied 2nd and fourth option... :facepalm

And big deal that he won as many MVP's as Bill Russell, you're the same guy who claimed that Bill Russell would be like Ben Wallace today.. :facepalm

[Round Mound]

Player Efficiency Rating

1959-60 NBA 28.0 (1)
1960-61 NBA 27.8 (2)
1961-62 NBA 31.8 (1)
1962-63 NBA 31.8 (1)
1963-64 NBA 31.6 (1)
1964-65 NBA 28.6 (1)
1965-66 NBA 28.3 (1)
1966-67 NBA 26.5 (1)
1967-68 NBA 24.7 (1)
1968-69 NBA 21.9 (2)

Wilt was the Best and Most Dominant Player Overall in the 60s

[DatAsh]

Find me someone not affiliated with the Celtics who didn't have an interest in the Celtic mystique, without the personal ties to Russell who says the Wilt, Russell swap would have led to different results.

For what it's worth Nate Thurmond also said Wilt would have matched Russell's record with the Celtics. Nate did play with Wilt for 1 1/2 years though.


Didn't Wilt himself say that he couldn't have won 11 titles had they swapped? I'm not positive about that, but I do think I remember him saying that at some point. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

But for heaven's sake, don't listen to Jlauber or Deuce if you want a truly objective and reasonable opinion. Both sides are obviously biased as hell and can't be trusted to provide anything even close to resembling an un-biased opinion(though I have a feeling Deuce is just doing it for kicks).

Jlauber would have you believe that Russell played with a better supporting cast 8 of the 9 seasons they played against one another. He'll routinely, and without hesitation post extremely specific and somewhat arbitrary stats that degrade Wilt's teammates, while "conveniently" leaving off anything that paints Wilt in any sort of negative light what so ever. He never gives you the big picture, because the big picture doesn't distort the truth to fit his agenda.

The way I see it, and I was actually alive at the time ...

Of the nine years that Russell and Chamberlain went head to head:

Russell played with three clearly better supporting casts -
Russell won all three of those years.

Russell played with one moderately better supporting cast -
Russell won that year.

Russell played with one slightly better supporting cast -
Russell won that year.

They played with with equal supporting casts for one year -
Russell won that year.

Wilt played with two moderately better supporting casts -
Russell won both of those years.

Wilt played with one clearly better supporting casts -
Wilt won that year.


Russell decimates Chamberlain on the defensive end. Virtually all eye witness testimony, and even what little stats we have to go by back up this claim. Chamberlain decimates Russell twice as hard on the offensive end(if not more), and I don't think anyone would really debate that. Chamberlain was by far the better all around individual player, no questions asked: better rebounder, better passer(in his passing prime), MUCH better scorer, but it's REALLY hard to completely ignore the team success.

Both are undoubtedly two of the greatest to ever play the game(both are in my top 3). A case can be made for either.


P.S. - Jlauber don't even bother with the inevitable


I've addressed this GARBAGE before but here it goes again

<insert meaningless statistical essay that downplay's Wilt's teammates>...


...<insert meaningless statistical essay that focuses on H2Hs>...


... my god, we can only imagine what the results would have been were there situations reversed

Until you can truly admit the real reason that Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's(despite Wilt having better teammates in several of their match-ups), I can't take anything you say seriously.

I love the fact that you're one of the few that sticks up for the older generation around here, but seriously, tone down the bias.

[millwad]

Baylor was a complete bust. Arguably one of the worst post-season runs in NBA history by an "alltime great" in '69, when he personally cost LA THREE games, and ultimately the title.


HAHA!



Goodrich played with Wilt in '71, '72, and '73. Goodrich played alongside Chamberlain in '71, in a series in which Baylor and West missed, and they battled a 66-16 Bucks team with Kareem-Oscar-Dandridge-McGlocklin-and Allen. And BTW, he shot .425 in that '71 post-season.


HAHA!



West played brilliantly in '69. Played great until a game seven meltdown in '70. Missed the ENTIRE post-season in '71. And was awful in '72 and '73. So Basically a West for NEARLY two post-seasons.


HAHA!



Greer? ONE decent playoff series in the FOUR post-seasons in which he played with Chamberlain. And the "scoring" leader Greer shot .429 in a post-season in which Chamberlain averaged 22 ppg, 29 rpg, 9 apg, and shot .579 (and BTW, it was WILT who dominated in the BIG post-season games, and Chamberlain with the Sixers HIGH game of that post-season.)


HAHA!



Of course, Hakeem played with a prime Sampson, and later with Drexler AND Barkley, and still did not win a title. He played with Thorpe who shot lights out in the '94 playoffs, and was their leading rebounder in the Finals. Kenny Smith, Robert Horry, too. And, once again, who did those Rocket title teams BEAT? No one in their right mind would claim the '94 Knicks or the '95 Magic were memorable teams. Oh, and where was MJ in '94? And did his 55-27 Bulls do without him?

Prime Sampson lasted two years, Olajuwon's rookie and 2nd year as pro.

Drexler wasn't even in his prime when he joined and the BIG 3 was a 34 year old Drexler, 34 year old Olajuwon and 33 year old Barkley. And those guys gave the Jazz a really tough series, the same Jazz who took it to game 6 against the Bulls and barely lost.

Haha, are you really going to hype Thorpe? Olajuwon was doubled and tripled by every single team, how was Thorpe supposed to shoot with a bad FG% and he only made 52% of his shots in the finals which is decent but not anything great when you're wide open.. :facepalm

And Kenny Smith, haha, now you're getting desperate. You dissed Jerry West, Baylor and Greer but when it comes to Olajuwon you hype a guy like Smith who got dominated by every single PG during the Rockets back-to-back.. You're retarded.. :facepalm



Here again, it is not just about the surrounding personnel, but the opposing personnel, as well. Did Hakeek have to go thru TEN HOFers in three straight series to win a title? Did he ROUTINELY face teams that had between FIVE to NINE HOFers (and later Knick teams that had between FOUR to SIX)?

Stop it, retard, Wilt is the same guy who got a ring after his great team beat a 39 win team in the first round, a Celtic team who was great but not as good as Wilt's 76'ers and a 44 win team. And he only had to play 3 series, not 4 like the modern era.. :facepalm

And LOL at you whining about what teams the Rockets faced in the finals, Wilt faced a 44 win team in '67, HAHA! 44 wins... :facepalm

And in '72 his team faced a 48 win Knick team who were much less talented..

How funny, you whine about Hakeem's competition when he won but you forgot the fact that Wilt only had to beat a 44 win team and a 48 win team to win it all.. :facepalm

[millwad]

Until you can truly admit the real reason that Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's(despite Wilt having better teammates in several of their match-ups), I can't take anything you say seriously.

I love the fact that you're one of the few that sticks up for the older generation around here, but seriously, tone down the bias.

Jlauber didn't even see those guys play.
He is the same guy wrote that Bill Russell would be like Ben Wallace if he would have played in the modern era.. :facepalm

He'll bash every single player there is just to make Wilt look better and everyone else worse.

Like in this thread, I replied to him after he wrote a bogus comment regarding Olajuwon and look at the aftermath. He hyped up guys like Robert Horry and Kenny Smith and totally dissed Greer, West and Baylor in an attempt to act like Wilt didn't have any talent while Hakeem played with "amazing" guys like Horry and Smith.. :facepalm

No poster on ISH is as biased as Jlauber, NONE.

And he's already been exposed before, just watch this:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5029077&postcount=53

He didn't really see those guys play, he claims that he saw 'em all play but suddenly a couple of years ago he changed his mind about Wilt's era over youtube videos, yahoo-comments and quotes..

[oolalaa]

Wilt won the MVP (and ROY) in '60 after taking a LAST PLACE roster to a then best-ever record (49-26.) In the process, Chamberlain averaged 37.6 ppg, 27.0 rpg and shot a career low .461. Russell had a 18-24-.467 (his career high...although he only shot .399 against Wilt)...and came in second with his 59-16 Celtics and SEVEN HOFers.


A last place roster that still won 32 games despite Guy Rodgers missing half the season. Larry Bird, for example, had SIGNIFICANTLY more impact on the 29 win, last but one place '79 Celtics in his rookie campaign.



In the '62 season, Chamberlain took the core of that same basic LAST PLACE roster he inherited in '60, to a 49-31 record, with probably the greatest statistical season, by anyone in any major (American...for Nightprowler's benefit) professional team sport...with a 50 ppg, 26 rpg, .506 season. Russell and his SEVEN HOFers went 60-20, in a season in which Russell averaged 19-24-.457.

Now, given the fact that Russell and his TEAM played nearly the SAME in '60 and '62. And, given the fact Wilt's crappy roster performed worse, and yet, because of Chamberlain's monumental season, they still finished 49-31...just what changed?

What changed with regard to what exactly? Not sure what you mean. I already conceded that Wilt was better in '62, anyway.

If you're asking for the difference between '60 Wilt and '62 Wilt....13 more points per game and 2 more wins against Boston.



As for '64...Chamberlain came in second and Russell third, behind Oscar, (even though Wilt took what had been a 31-49 team to a 48-32 record and a trip to the Finals.)

Wilt should have won in '60, '62, '64, 66, '67, '68. And he certainly should have finished higher than SEVENTH in '63, and was nowhere to be found in '69 (despite pounding Unseld, Reed, and Russell in his H2H's.)

You are talking about MVPs. I am talking about who the better player was. Who the player you would want on your team was. And post season play. And again, I condeded '64 to Wilt (the 1st year of his prime).

[oolalaa]

Abdur-Rahim, Brand and Duncan have substantially different stats, with the gap between Abdur-Rahim and Duncan's so large it's ridiculous and could only be ignored if you don't look at stats remotely closely, round stats to the nearest 10, and completely ignore shooting percentages.

So if "raw stats" is rounded points and rebounds, yeah I wouldn't go with that. Just as I wouldn't use players' teams' records to judge a single player from that team. But defense aside stats do an very good job of what a player did. There are exceptions, Russell played pre-blocks and so his boxscores don't do him justice. Drew Gooden breaks plays and is a crummy defender so his metrics overrate him. But on the whole they're very good at telling you who did what.

Elton Brand had four 20/10 seasons. A LEGIT 20/10 threat every single year of his prime (And before). He also averaged around 2 blocks per game for nearly a decade. His stats are not dissimilar to Duncan's '04 to '10 stats. Yet, their respective team success was VAAAASTLY different, and there's no way you can pin it all on defense and teammates (Obviously).

[oolalaa]

But defense aside stats do an very good job of what a player did.

Stats can give you a good, general idea of what areas a players strengths and weaknesses are, and what he contributed to his team.

However, they can't tell you that Dwight Howard has an incredibly limited offensive game - that he has almost no consistent 'go to' post moves, which effects him and his team in crunch time of a close game, and in the post season when things slow down.

They can't tell you the offensive system a player played in. They can't tell you that Jeremy Lin's assists were inflated last year (He had an 11 game stretch where he averaged almost 10apg) as a result of playing in D'Antoni's PG ball hogging, slash and kick system.

They can't tell you the calibar of rebounders a player with a high rebounding total plays with (*Cough* Kevin Love *Cough*).

There are many more things they can't tell you, too.


Lies, damned lies and stats.

[DatAsh]

Abdur-Rahim
But on the whole they're very good at telling you who did what.


I can't really agree with that. The more you really delve into these stats, the more you start to see that stats are a much better measure of a player's role than they are a player's impact/ability/skill.

[jlauber]

You're beyond retarded, the Knicks didn't have less talent, they had way more talent.

You love to talk about Wilt's "bad" teammates, come back to me me when Wilt won the finals with a player like Maxwell as the 2nd option who averaged 13.4 points in the finals on crappy 36% shooting.

While Olajuwon had Maxwell as the 2nd option in '94, Ewing had Starks who averaged 17 points and then he had Harper who averaged 16 points per game and both shot with higher FG% than Ewing himself. As if Maxwell's terrible FG% wasn't enough, Horry who made the third most points in the finals for the Rockets only made 32% of his shots.

Only the fact that you wrote that the Knicks were less talented proves that you're beyond retarded.

And lets forget that Olajuwon and the Rockets faced Jazz who had Malone and Stockton, the same Malone and Stockton who always were trouble for MJ.

And that the Rockets faced KJ, Barkley and Majerle who faced MJ in '93 and who challenged the Bulls as well in the finals.

And in the first round they faced Portland who were in the finals just years earlier. Sure, they weren't as good as earlier but they got destroyed.



And he won, unlike Wilt.



And only won 2 rings as tied 2nd option and 4th option on offense and his first ring he faced a team with 39 wins in the first round and in the finals he faced a 44 win team.. And there were so few teams that they only played 3 series.. :facepalm

And it's all about rings and Hakeem won just as many and he played better than Wilt in those 2 years as well.



Too bad he only won 2 rings, haha, as the tied 2nd and fourth option... :facepalm

And big deal that he won as many MVP's as Bill Russell, you're the same guy who claimed that Bill Russell would be like Ben Wallace today.. :facepalm

Dickwad,

I have already addressed all of this nonsense many times. The bottom line. Hakeem lost with HCA four times, couldn't get his past the first round in HALF of his NBA post-season career, was not even among the top-4 players in his era in FOURTEEN of his 18 seasons, and couldn't crack the top-10 in nearly HALF of his entire 18 seasons. And played poorly in several.

His entire career HERE is based on him outplaying Ewing, who CLEARLY had less talent than his Rockets in '94, ina seven game Finals, in a year in which MJ did not play; and he badly outplayed Robinson in the '95 WCF's, over a span of four of six games.

Those, liek yourself who blindly believe that he outplayed Shaq in the '95 Finals are deluding themselves. He shotjacked his way to a 32 ppg to 28 ppg edge in scoring, while taking TEN more FGAs per game. Shaq outrebounded, outassisted, outblocked, and HEAVILY outshot him (once again, Hakeem allowed an unfathomable FG% in that series) .595 to .483.

And of course, the REST of his 42 career H2H's favor Robinson, who not only outshot him, .488 to .441, but who led his team to a 30-12 record against him.

As for Shaq, he not only outplayed Hakeem in the '95 Finals (while Hakeem's TEAMATES badly outplayed his), he just MURDERED him in the '99 playoffs. And overall, in their 28 career H2H's, he POUNED Hakeem in EVERY facet of the game, including outshooting him by a .554 to .447 margin.

Hell, an OLD Kareem, who couldn't jump over a match-stick, SLAUGHTERED him H2H, in their first ten straight meetings, and by a HUGE margin. And Gilmore, who MORE-THAN-LIKELY was ALSO guarded by Hakeem, ALSO just dominated him in scoring, and FG% (a whopping .677 to .492 margin in their first ten straight H2H's.)

18 seasons. And basically TWO series in which he made his career.

[jlauber]

Didn't Wilt himself say that he couldn't have won 11 titles had they swapped? I'm not positive about that, but I do think I remember him saying that at some point. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

But for heaven's sake, don't listen to Jlauber or Deuce if you want a truly objective and reasonable opinion. Both sides are obviously biased as hell and can't be trusted to provide anything even close to resembling an un-biased opinion(though I have a feeling Deuce is just doing it for kicks).

Jlauber would have you believe that Russell played with a better supporting cast 8 of the 9 seasons they played against one another. He'll routinely, and without hesitation post extremely specific and somewhat arbitrary stats that degrade Wilt's teammates, while "conveniently" leaving off anything that paints Wilt in any sort of negative light what so ever. He never gives you the big picture, because the big picture doesn't distort the truth to fit his agenda.

The way I see it, and I was actually alive at the time ...

Of the nine years that Russell and Chamberlain went head to head:

Russell played with three clearly better supporting casts -
Russell won all three of those years.

Russell played with one moderately better supporting cast -
Russell won that year.

Russell played with one slightly better supporting cast -
Russell won that year.

They played with with equal supporting casts for one year -
Russell won that year.

Wilt played with two moderately better supporting casts -
Russell won both of those years.

Wilt played with one clearly better supporting casts -
Wilt won that year.


Russell decimates Chamberlain on the defensive end. Virtually all eye witness testimony, and even what little stats we have to go by back up this claim. Chamberlain decimates Russell twice as hard on the offensive end(if not more), and I don't think anyone would really debate that. Chamberlain was by far the better all around individual player, no questions asked: better rebounder, better passer(in his passing prime), MUCH better scorer, but it's REALLY hard to completely ignore the team success.

Both are undoubtedly two of the greatest to ever play the game(both are in my top 3). A case can be made for either.


P.S. - Jlauber don't even bother with the inevitable



Until you can truly admit the real reason that Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's(despite Wilt having better teammates in several of their match-ups), I can't take anything you say seriously.

I love the fact that you're one of the few that sticks up for the older generation around here, but seriously, tone down the bias.

Sorry, but you are so far off-base I can't take ANYof your post as a reasonable argument.

Russell and Chamberlain played together in the NBA in TEN seasons. In SIX of them, Russell had a HUGE edge in talent. A HUGE margin. Not even debatable. Anywhere from a 6-3 to a 9-1 edge in HOFers.

In their last FOUR seasons together, they had equal talent in '66, close talent in '69, and Chamberlain had SLIGHTLY more talent in '67 and '68.

In '66, Chamberlain's young Sixers had to win their last 11 games to edge past the seven-time defending Celtics, by ONE game. Then, in one of the most perplexing flop jobs of all-time, Chamberlain's TEAMMATES collectively shot .352 in the ECF's. Think about this. During the regular season, Wilt's Sixers went 6-3 against Russell's Celtics. And in those nine games, Chamberlain just destroyed Russell, and in the process, he averaged 28.3 ppg, and 30.7 rpg against Russell. In the post-season, Chamberlain averaged 28 ppg and 30.2 rpg against Russell,while shooting .509. What changed?

In the '69 Finals, Wilt's Lakers, while slightly stronger at the top of their respective rosters, were nowhere near as deep. And, we all know that it was BAYLOR who lost that series (of course, in reality it was Wilt's COACH who BUTCHERED that series.) The Lakers lost game three by six points, game four by 1 point, and game seven (with Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes) by two points. How did the HOFer Baylor perform? In game three he shot 4-14 from the floor (and he and WEST combined to shoot 1-14 in the 4th quarter.) In game four, Baylor not only shot a horrid 2-14 from the field, he also shot 1-6 from the LINE (remember, a ONE point loss.) And in game seven, while Wilt shot 7-8 from the field in his 43 minutes, Baylor shot 8-22. Not only that, but Van Breda Kolf had Johnny Egan handling the ball in the last seconds of game four, with LA leading 88-87, and with the ball. Why not WEST? Of course, Egan lost the ball, and SAM JONES, as usual, hit the game winner at the buzzer while falling down.

The other two seasons? Only a complete idiot would claim that the Sixer team that just obliterated the league during the regular season in '68, and running away with the best record in the league...and the Sixer team that would lose a game seven to Boston in the ECF's was the SAME team. The fact was, the Sixers didn't have HOFer Cunningham AT ALL, in that series. And even without him, they STILL led that series 3-1. However, in game five, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones went down with leg injuries, and were worthless the rest of the series. On top of that, Chamberlain was battling an assortent of injuries, including a torn thigh muscle (similar to Reed's torn quad in '70) for FIVE games, and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING in the last FIVE games. With all of that, Boston eked out a game seven, four point win. A healthy Sixer squad probably blows the Celtics out in four games. And how bad would that series have gone had the Sixers been completely healthy, and Boston would have been without say Havlicek, and then losing say Sanders and Jones later...and with an injured Russell for the last half of the series?

Of course, when Wilt had teammates that equaled Russell's, as was the case in '67 (and keep in mind that Boston went 60-21 that season), and that were healthy, and it was a one-sided blowout, and a near SWEEP (only a game four 121-117 win in Boston prevented a sweep.) As always, Chamberlain just pounded Russell, but for once his teammates neutralized Russell's, and as you can see, the results weren't close.

Again, had the '69 Lakers even had a mediocre coach, instead of a completely incompetent one, they probably win that series in a romp (as it was, Egan's gaffe cost them a 4-1 series win.)

The only series that was a complete mystery, was the '66 ECF's. Chamberlain's teammates just puked all over themselves. In a series in which Wilt played just as well as he did during the regular season against Russell.

[jlauber]

Stats can give you a good, general idea of what areas a players strengths and weaknesses are, and what he contributed to his team.

However, they can't tell you that Dwight Howard has an incredibly limited offensive game - that he has almost no consistent 'go to' post moves, which effects him and his team in crunch time of a close game, and in the post season when things slow down.

They can't tell you the offensive system a player played in. They can't tell you that Jeremy Lin's assists were inflated last year (He had an 11 game stretch where he averaged almost 10apg) as a result of playing in D'Antoni's PG ball hogging, slash and kick system.

They can't tell you the calibar of rebounders a player with a high rebounding total plays with (*Cough* Kevin Love *Cough*).

There are many more things they can't tell you, too.


Lies, damned lies and stats.

I get so tired of those that defend their favorites by claiming that stats don't tell the whole story. Of course they don't ALWAYS tell the whole story. However, they GENERALLY do. KG played with pathetic rosters for the bulk of his career. He went toa good Boston team, and immediately made them great, and easily won a ring.

Oscar didn't sniff a ring until he joined Kareem and Dandridge. The result? Four seasons of 66-16, 63-19, 60-22, and 59-23, with a ring in '71. After Oscar retired? The Bucks went 38-44.

Chamberlain suffered with just putrid rosters for nearly half of his career. Hell, before the start of the '64 season, his new coach, Alex Hannum conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, and against some draft picks and scrubs...and he was shocked when the scrubs won. And yet, Chamberlain took that cast of clowns to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals. Then, think about this. Chamberlain was traded at mid-season the very next year. I'll get to what he did with his new team in a moment, but the Warriors went 35-45 with BOTH Barry and Thurmond (who replaced Wilt at center.) Then, they added Clyde Lee, and Jeff Mullins, and went 44-37. Look at the overwhelming difference in talent in those two teams, and yet, Chamberlain carried his team farther with way less help.

Then, Chamberlain goes to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before, and immediately takes his 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss against a 62-18 Celtic team, and in a series in which Wiult averaged 30 ppg, 31 rpg, and shot .555. Then, over the course of the next three seasons, he leads the Sixers to the BEST RECORD in the league each season. They not only won a dominating title in '67, they surely would have repeated in '68 had they not just been DECIMATED by injuries (including multiple injuries to Wilt himself.)

Had Chamberlain been surrounded by the talent levels of those Sixer teams his entire career (like Russell had his ENTIRE career), and had they been reasonably healthy, they surely would have won MANY rings.

[DatAsh]

Sorry, but you are so far off-base I can't take ANYof your post as a reasonable argument.

Russell and Chamberlain played together in the NBA in TEN seasons. In SIX of them, Russell had a HUGE edge in talent. A HUGE margin. Not even debatable. Anywhere from a 6-3 to a 9-1 edge in HOFers.

In their last FOUR seasons together, they had equal talent in '66, close talent in '69, and Chamberlain had SLIGHTLY more talent in '67 and '68.

rehashed biased garbage that I said you'd post

The only series that was a complete mystery, was the '66 ECF's. Chamberlain's teammates just puked all over themselves. In a series in which Wilt played just as well as he did during the regular season against Russell.


Wilt's team was clearly better than Russell's team in 67. The fact that you count them as equal is downright laughable. Why are you completely incapable discussing anything to do with Wilt objectively?

I don't see the HOF argument as a valid argument really. Are you counting anyone that made the HOF that played with Russell that season regardless of whether or not they were playing HOF level basketball at the time? If you are, that's being a bit dishonest(surprise surprise).


I missed a year in my first post, but I'd still pretty much break it down like I had it . Russell had four teams that were clearly better, and two teams that were moderately better. The one year where they had basically even talent around them was 66. Wilt had two teams that were moderately better(68 and 69) and one team that was clearly better(67).

Russell won all four years that his teams were clearly better.
Russell won both years that his teams were moderately better.
Russell won the year when they had equal talent.
Russell won the two years when Wilt's team's were moderately better.
Wilt won the one year his team was clearly better.

Now I do agree that much of that probably isn't Wilt's fault, Baylor "choking", injuries, and coaching problems all played a big part in that, but's there's simply no way you can brush all the blame off of Wilt(which is what it seems like you're trying to do).

[jlauber]

Wilt's team was clearly better than Russell's team in 67. The fact that you count them as equal is downright laughable. Why are you completely incapable discussing anything to do with Wilt objectively?

I don't see the HOF argument as a valid argument really. Are you counting anyone that made the HOF that played with Russell that season regardless of whether or not they were playing HOF level basketball at the time? If you are, that's being a bit dishonest(surprise surprise).


I missed a year in my first post, but I'd still pretty much break it down like I had it . Russell had four teams that were clearly better, and two teams that were moderately better. The one year where they had basically even talent around them was 66. Wilt had two teams that were moderately better(68 and 69) and one team that was clearly better(67).

Russell won all four years that his teams were clearly better.
Russell won both years that his teams were moderately better.
Russell won the year when they had equal talent.
Russell won the two years when Wilt's team's were moderately better.
Wilt won the one year his team was clearly better.

Now I do agree that much of that probably isn't Wilt's fault, Baylor "choking", injuries, and coaching problems all played a big part in that, but's there's simply no way you can brush all the blame off of Wilt(which is what it seems like you're trying to do).

'60. Wilt joins a last place team that had gone 32-40 the year before. He takes that team on his back to a 49-26 record (a then franchise record.) Russell's '60 Celtics went 59-16, a year after winning the title with a 52-20 team.

'61. Pretty much the same. Wilt once again takes the same basic core of that last place team he inherited, to a 46-33 record, while Russell's HOF-laden Celtic team goes 57-22. BTW, Wilt's two "HOF" teammates shoot .325 and .206 in the post-season.

'62. Again...the same. Chamberlain is now carrying that last place roster, which is older and even worse, to a 49-31 record. Russell's HOF-laden Celtics (with SEVEN HOFers) go 60-20. Chamberlain single-handedly takes that putrid roster thru the first round of the playoffs, and to a game seven, two point loss against the Celtics in the ECF's. How well do Wilt's way over-matched teammates play? They collectively shoot .354 in that post-season. BTW, Tom Meschery made the comment that Boston was, player-for-player, better than Philly....and that WILT was the reason they almost won a title.

'63. This is truly laughable. Chamberlain plays with arguably the worst roster ever assembled (see next season), that has SIXTEEN different players, many of whom would only play a very limited number of minutes in their careers. Wilt has virtually no HOF teammates, and his best player, Tom Meschery...would have been about Boston's 7th or 8th best player. The Celtics field an all-time record NINE HOFers in that season.

'64. Wilt's new coach conducts a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, with the Warriors against draft picks and scrubs. He was stunned when the scrubs won. Somehow Wilt takes that inept cast of dorks to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, where they lose 4-1 to a Celtic team with EIGHT HOFers.

Ok, excluding Arizin, and Thurmond, who backed Wilt up while Chamberlain was with the Warriors, Chamberlain does not play with ONE player who EVER averaged 20 ppg in their CAREERS (and excluding Naulls who was awful with Wilt and even WORSE with Russell.) Meanwhile, Russell plays with players like Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and John Havlicek...ALL with MULTIPLE 20+ ppg seasons!

'65. Chamberlain joins a team at mid-season, that had gone 34-46 the year before. Even with Chamberlain, they only finish 40-40. He then single-handedly carries them past a 48-32 Royals team with Oscar and Lucas. Then, he puts up a 30-31 .555 series, in taking that basic bottom-feeding roster, to a game seven, one point loss, against a Celtic team that was at it's PEAK in the "Dynasty", which went 62-18.

'66. Dead even rosters. Cunningham, Jackson, Walker and Greer, probably slightly better at the top, but with no depth, while Boston has Havlicek, S. Jones, and a considerably deeper roster. Oh, and during the regular season, Philly beat Boston, 6-3. Chamberlain plays the EXACT same way in the ECF's, as he did against Russell in the regular season...BUT, while Russell's teammates elevate their play, Chamberlain's vomit...shooting a collective .352.

'67. Slight edge (yes, slight edge) to the Sixers. Better at the top, but little depth (albeit Cunningham is their sixth man), while Boston can now go TEN DEEP. And, for once, Chamberlain's teammates neutralize Russell's. With Chamberlain once again just crushing Russell, the result? A Sixers blowout series win over a 60-21 Celtic team.

'68. Covered this. Philly was definitely the better team. HOWEVER, they were NOT the same team in the ECF's. Cunningham didn't play a minute. Jackson and Jones were injured in game five (and with Philly leading the series, 3-1.) And Chamberlain was hobbled by an assortment of injuries. The result? Boston eked out a game seven, four point win, and in game in which Wilt's teammates shot 25-74.

'69. West and Wilt, with a declining Baylor who, quite simply cost the Lakers THREE games in that seven game series. Against Havlicek and S. Jones, and a deep Celtic roster. TWO against NINE. And on top of that, Chamberlain was shackled by a coach who made this famous comment, "When we pass the ball into Wilt, sure he will score. But it is an ugly offense to watch." So, while Wilt averaged 13.9 ppg in the playoffs, on .545 shooting, Baylor averaged 15.4 ppg on .385 shooting, including three games in the Finals of 4-14, 2-14, and 8-22 shooting.

Sorry, I see Boston with a clear 6-0 margin in their first six seasons. In their last four, two about even, and two in which Chamberlain enjoyed a slight margin. And in one of those, they were wiped out by injuries.

Blame Wilt's teammates for losing in '66. Blame injuries for them losing in '68. And blame both their incompetent coach, and Baylor in '69.

And in '67...well, that season just showed what Chamberlain, paired with quality rosters, that were healthy, could REALLY accomplish. A one-sided blowout of the greatest Dynasty in major professional team sports history.

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://i.imm.io/zXQ1.png

jlauber, as you can see, a young Hakeem clearly outplays Kareem in their only Postseason matchup.

[Owl]

Didn't Wilt himself say that he couldn't have won 11 titles had they swapped? I'm not positive about that, but I do think I remember him saying that at some point. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

But for heaven's sake, don't listen to Jlauber or Deuce if you want a truly objective and reasonable opinion. Both sides are obviously biased as hell and can't be trusted to provide anything even close to resembling an un-biased opinion(though I have a feeling Deuce is just doing it for kicks).

Jlauber would have you believe that Russell played with a better supporting cast 8 of the 9 seasons they played against one another. He'll routinely, and without hesitation post extremely specific and somewhat arbitrary stats that degrade Wilt's teammates, while "conveniently" leaving off anything that paints Wilt in any sort of negative light what so ever. He never gives you the big picture, because the big picture doesn't distort the truth to fit his agenda.

The way I see it, and I was actually alive at the time ...

Of the nine years that Russell and Chamberlain went head to head:

Russell played with three clearly better supporting casts -
Russell won all three of those years.

Russell played with one moderately better supporting cast -
Russell won that year.

Russell played with one slightly better supporting cast -
Russell won that year.

They played with with equal supporting casts for one year -
Russell won that year.

Wilt played with two moderately better supporting casts -
Russell won both of those years.

Wilt played with one clearly better supporting casts -
Wilt won that year.


Russell decimates Chamberlain on the defensive end. Virtually all eye witness testimony, and even what little stats we have to go by back up this claim. Chamberlain decimates Russell twice as hard on the offensive end(if not more), and I don't think anyone would really debate that. Chamberlain was by far the better all around individual player, no questions asked: better rebounder, better passer(in his passing prime), MUCH better scorer, but it's REALLY hard to completely ignore the team success.

Both are undoubtedly two of the greatest to ever play the game(both are in my top 3). A case can be made for either.


P.S. - Jlauber don't even bother with the inevitable



Until you can truly admit the real reason that Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's(despite Wilt having better teammates in several of their match-ups), I can't take anything you say seriously.

I love the fact that you're one of the few that sticks up for the older generation around here, but seriously, tone down the bias.
I haven't heard the Wilt quote, which isn't to say it doesn't exist.

I've read enough that I'm not going to be hugely influenced by any one source especially not Jlauber versus people trolling him battles.

I'd be interested in terms of how you have those years (which years Wilt had better teammates etc). From what I can tell it was clear cut Celtics advantage for the first half of the 60s. The 76ers and Boston were generally close and LA being slightly like first year "Heatles", legendary talent at the top (albeit slightly or in Baylor's case significantly, after their peak), thinner lower down (not as much as the heat but compared to Boston), and with chemistry/logistical issues (except waaaay more off court stuff because BvBK hated Wilt and the feeling was mutual).

Off the top of my head the only one you could argue Wilt "should" have won (and I'd say that it's arguable and prefer to use 76ers rather Wilt) would be '66 (not '68 after Cunningham went down versus New York). Even that series to me seems like (With the exception of Wilt having a down game in Game 4) Boston won through superior wing play. Perhaps Russell shut down the lane and spooked Greer, Walker and Cunningham. Perhaps Wilt didn't run the Sixers offense well. It's just not clear to me that Wilt was outperformed.

Maybe '69 but that just seemed like a toxic situation, not that Wilt wasn't partially responsible but I don't understand why BvBK hadn't been moved on when he was so clearly a poor fit personally and strategically (his Princeton offense) with their new superstar center. I'd probably have this year as the one Wilt was most responsible for the team failure.

Russell decimates everyone as a defender but Wilt wasn't a bad one by any strech (I've heard it said on here by a poster I respect that Chamberlain was the superior man defender, albeit obviously Russell was a beast of a help defender). I don't know if Chamberlain was the better passer even in his playmaking prime or whether he just handled the ball more (certainly you could run your offense through either).

I'm not anti-Russell but I do think there's a new anti-Chamberlain school of thought, and it also includes putting down the other Celtics in order to boost Russell's achievements.

Anyway, I would be interested in your analysis of their team's relative strengths.

[Owl]

Elton Brand had four 20/10 seasons. A LEGIT 20/10 threat every single year of his prime (And before). He also averaged around 2 blocks per game for nearly a decade. His stats are not dissimilar to Duncan's '04 to '10 stats. Yet, their respective team success was VAAAASTLY different, and there's no way you can pin it all on defense and teammates (Obviously).
Not looking closely enough at the stats. It's not as absurd as the Abdur-Rahim comparison but it still doesn't stand up. Brands 20/10s came by virtue of playing long minutes, he only once got a 20/10 per 36 minutes (Duncan has ten 20/10 per36 seasons). I would argue the defensive gap is substantial too. Duncan is one of the best defenders ever, and has anchored one of the best defenses ever, Elton Brand never made any all-defense team. Elton Brand has 1 year with a PER above 24, Duncan has 9 and his career average PER is above 24. Duncan's rebound % is 18.1, Brand's is 15.

The difference in team performance can be credited to teammate calibre (post-Jordan Bulls and the Clippers for Brand's prime), coaching, consistency (the Spurs low turnover helped them significantly and the same is true of the 50's and 60's Celtics) and the very significant difference in performance between Elton Brand and Tim Duncan in both boxscore stats and on defense.

The advantage Duncan has over Elton Brand is for the most part either defensive or very tangiable and visible through statistical analysis.

[Owl]

I can't really agree with that. The more you really delve into these stats, the more you start to see that stats are a much better measure of a player's role than they are a player's impact/ability/skill.
Well I did say who did what, not a players hypothetical, non-contextual skill level.

But given the caveats I gave (regarding defense and low IQ play breakers) I'd be interested to hear some examples of where stats have been substantially misleading as to what a player did and the impact they had.

[Owl]

Stats can give you a good, general idea of what areas a players strengths and weaknesses are, and what he contributed to his team.

However, they can't tell you that Dwight Howard has an incredibly limited offensive game - that he has almost no consistent 'go to' post moves, which effects him and his team in crunch time of a close game, and in the post season when things slow down.

They can't tell you the offensive system a player played in. They can't tell you that Jeremy Lin's assists were inflated last year (He had an 11 game stretch where he averaged almost 10apg) as a result of playing in D'Antoni's PG ball hogging, slash and kick system.

They can't tell you the calibar of rebounders a player with a high rebounding total plays with (*Cough* Kevin Love *Cough*).

There are many more things they can't tell you, too.


Lies, damned lies and stats.
What limits Dwight Howard at cruch time is that he's a foul line liability. His career average playoff stats are actually superior to his regular season ones. This in part because his playoff numbers don't include his first two years when he wasn't as good but Dwight has been consistently strong in the playoffs.

Pace stats can tell you exactly how fast a team play. Even on a game to game basis you can calculate the number of possessions. In any case such a system will increase turnovers so advanced stats or closer looks at the box score means you won't be fooled by that. Pace does nonetheless lead to some easier baskets and thus better stats (even by advanced metrics) and sensible perusers of stats can account for that. Yes, contextual information is useful, but primarily so at the margins.

Stats tell you that the T'Wolves (when including Love) were an above average offensive rebounding team http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2012.html#misc::13 and an average defensive rebounding team, http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2012.html#misc::17 . From this you can tell both that Love's numbers were probably a little inflated because of below average rebounding teammates, and that Love made them above average overall and (doing so with poor rebounding teammates) had a very large impact on the boards.

There are some things they can't tell you, primarily defense (there's not a defensive metric I'm happy with yet, though I can't say that I've dedicated my time looking for one and comparing their relative advantages, so there might be one out there) but the tired "damned lies" phrase doesn't explain what huge aspects of the game stats miss.

[millwad]

Dickwad,

I have already addressed all of this nonsense many times. The bottom line. Hakeem lost with HCA four times, couldn't get his past the first round in HALF of his NBA post-season career, was not even among the top-4 players in his era in FOURTEEN of his 18 seasons, and couldn't crack the top-10 in nearly HALF of his entire 18 seasons. And played poorly in several.

Dick in your mothers throat, you are full of crap.

Hakeem didn't get kicked out of the playoffs because he played bad, go check his rosters. I have asked you plenty of times what years he underachieved and you always reply with "all of those years".. :facepalm

And you're the last one who should whine about Hakeem getting kicked out of the playoffs with HCA...

Wilt is the same guy who got SWEPT with HCA in the first round against a 38 win team.. HAHA! :facepalm

Wilt is the same guy who lost in the first round in '66 with HCA..

Wilt lost in the division finals again in '68 with HCA..

Wilt lost again in the finals in '69 with HCA..

And he lost again in the finals with HCA advantage in '73..

So haha, that crap backlashed big time on you, you retard. :facepalm





His entire career HERE is based on him outplaying Ewing, who CLEARLY had less talent than his Rockets in '94, ina seven game Finals, in a year in which MJ did not play; and he badly outplayed Robinson in the '95 WCF's, over a span of four of six games.

Again, it's pure BS that you even dare to call the Knicks less talented than the Rockets. They were more talented and it's not even close, Starks abused Maxwell, Harper killed Smith, Robert Horry was locked down big time and hardly made 30% of his shots.

The difference in the finals in '94 was that Olajuwon absolutely destroyed Ewing.

Hakeem in the '94 finals averaged: 26.9 points (50% shooting), 9.1 rebounds, 3.6 assists, 1.6 steals and 3.9 blocks.

Ewing in the '94 finals averaged: 18.9 points (36% shooting), 12.4 rebounds, 1.7 assists, 1.3 steals and 4.3 blocks.

Ewing got destroyed in the finals and he even got outshot by both his guards, Harper and Starks.

And yeah, lets act like Hakeem's career was just him winning in '94 and then winning again in '95. In that case, Wilt's career was only him being the tied 2nd option in '67 and fourth option in '72 and nothing else.. :facepalm



Those, liek yourself who blindly believe that he outplayed Shaq in the '95 Finals are deluding themselves. He shotjacked his way to a 32 ppg to 28 ppg edge in scoring, while taking TEN more FGAs per game. Shaq outrebounded, outassisted, outblocked, and HEAVILY outshot him (once again, Hakeem allowed an unfathomable FG% in that series) .595 to .483.


MENTION ONE PERSON IN BUT YOURSELF WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT HAKEEM GOT OUTPLAYED IN '95, JUST ONE. You're the only troll who claims that Hakeem got outplayed and we know you didn't even see the series because I proved you were a fraud.

Haha, again you mention the '95 finals, you didn't even see the games to start with and EVERYONE knows Hakeem outplayed Shaq.

If you want to talk about stats, you're the same guy who spams about Wilt killing Kareem while getting outscored by 23 points per game on BETTER FG%, outassisted, outshot but from the court and the FT-line.. :facepalm



And of course, the REST of his 42 career H2H's favor Robinson, who not only outshot him, .488 to .441, but who led his team to a 30-12 record against him.


It's the playoffs where it counts, you spam about meaningless regular season games a la Hakeem vs Kareem and Robinson vs Hakeem when we all know that Hakeem absolutely destroyed both of them in the playoffs.



As for Shaq, he not only outplayed Hakeem in the '95 Finals (while Hakeem's TEAMATES badly outplayed his), he just MURDERED him in the '99 playoffs. And overall, in their 28 career H2H's, he POUNED Hakeem in EVERY facet of the game, including outshooting him by a .554 to .447 margin.


A 36 year old Hakeem, haha... Now put 36 year old Shaq vs prime Olajuwon and you'll get the same result.. :facepalm



Hell, an OLD Kareem, who couldn't jump over a match-stick, SLAUGHTERED him H2H, in their first ten straight meetings, and by a HUGE margin. And Gilmore, who MORE-THAN-LIKELY was ALSO guarded by Hakeem, ALSO just dominated him in scoring, and FG% (a whopping .677 to .492 margin in their first ten straight H2H's.)


Now you're just trolling and again spamming about meaningless regular season games, again, Kareem did his thing vs a non-prime Olajuwon and the same non-prime Olajuwon killed Kareem in the playoffs as a 2nd year pro.

And you don't even know if Hakeem guarded Gilmore so again you're just trolling.. :facepalm



18 seasons. And basically TWO series in which he made his career.
[/QUOTE]

The same is said about Wilt, the difference was that Wilt was a tied 2nd option on offense when he got his first ring and a pathetic 4th option when he got his second. Hakeem was killing the whole league when he won..

[millwad]

Wilt's team was clearly better than Russell's team in 67. The fact that you count them as equal is downright laughable. Why are you completely incapable discussing anything to do with Wilt objectively?


I've discussed the level of talent both Wilt and Russell had in '67 and you're obviously right.

Jlauber just can't admit that Wilt played with talented players, yesterday when he tried to trash Olajuwon in a thread he dissed players like Baylor, West and Hal Greer in an attempt to make Wilt look even greater.

He followed that up with hyping up Kenny Smith, Robert Horry and Otis Thorpe.. :facepalm..

He is the same guy who wrote that Bill Russell would be like Ben Wallace in the modern era..