A Prime Shaq vs. Hakeem

[jlauber]

Interesting footage of what a PRIME Shaq could do to Hakeem...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zehfeZyNB8s

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Nphmersok

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7tmS1UaTo4&feature=relmfu

Continued...

[JtotheIzzo]

Prime Shaq was a force unseen to the NBA. Unstoppable.

[EnoughSaid]

A 36 year old Hakeem past his prime. :roll: Do we need to talk about the 95 Finaks?

[jlauber]

Continued...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcAIrJfI7EM&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WirznrXxFz0&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M46dV41CnvE&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA79Jte9veM&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TJDdHxRXLU&feature=relmfu

[jlauber]

A 36 year old Hakeem past his prime. :roll: Do we need to talk about the 95 Finaks?

When a 32 year old Hakeem battled a 22 year old Shaq? The same Shaq would outshot him by a .595 to .483 margin, while outrebounding, outassisting, and outblocking him?

Just goes to show you what a PRIME Shaq could do.

[jlauber]

A 36 year old Hakeem past his prime. :roll: Do we need to talk about the 95 Finaks?

And how about a young Hakeem, ages 22-23, against a 38-39 year old Kareem?

The same Kareem who, in TEN STRAIGHT GAMES...AVERAGED 33 ppg on .630 shooting? Who had THREE games of 40+? And in his 46 point game, it came in only 37 minutes, and on 21-30 shooting?

[jlauber]

Prime Shaq was a force unseen to the NBA. Unstoppable.

Acually, as dominating as this game proved, in which Shaq scored 37 points on 14-22 shooting against the helpless Hakeem...

think about this...

A 38-39 year old Kareem hung THREE games of 40+ on a 22-23 year old Hakeem, including a 46 point explosion in only 37 minutes.

Once again...a 38-39 YEAR OLD Kareem.

[Djahjaga]

And how about a young Hakeem, ages 22-23, against a 38-39 year old Kareem?

The same Kareem who, in TEN STRAIGHT GAMES...AVERAGED 33 ppg on .630 shooting? Who had THREE games of 40+? And in his 46 point game, it came in only 37 minutes, and on 21-30 shooting?

I don't disagree with the original Shaq post, but you conveniently overlook their only playoff matchup in 1986, where Olajuwon destroyed Kareem.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=abdulka01&p2=olajuha01

Kareem did average 27 ppg (which is impressive even though Olajuwon outdid him here, as well as almost every other statistical category), but if you watch the series, you can see Kareem had no idea how to guard Olajuwon.

[JGXEN]

so whats your point? Kareem, hakeem, shaq are three of the most dominant centers ever. They can put up crazy numbers even against each other no matter at which phase of their careers. So are you trying to downplay hakeem just because he got torched by two of the best centers ever?

[Clippersfan86]

In Hakeem's defense Shaq mentally felt defeated in their 95 matchup. To this day Shaq will say the only center that dominated him was Hakeem and that Hakeem is greater than him. I've heard him say it on live TV a few times.

[jlauber]

I don't disagree with the original Shaq post, but you conveniently overlook their only playoff matchup in 1986, where Olajuwon destroyed Kareem.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=abdulka01&p2=olajuha01

Kareem did average 27 ppg (which is impressive even though Olajuwon outdid him here, as well as almost every other statistical category), but if you watch the series, you can see Kareem had no idea how to guard Olajuwon.

Hakeem DID guard Kareem in 23 regular season H2H's, HOWEVER, in the '86 WCF's, it was SAMPSON who was the primary defender on the 39 year old Kareem (with Hakeem doubling.)

[jlauber]

so whats your point? Kareem, hakeem, shaq are three of the most dominant centers ever. They can put up crazy numbers even against each other no matter at which phase of their careers. So are you trying to downplay hakeem just because he got torched by two of the best centers ever?

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

ONE MVP (in a season in which MJ did not play...oh, and not coincidently, Hakeem eked out a ring.)

ONE second place finish in the MVP balloting.

TWO other Top-FOUR's.

So, FOUR Top-4's in the MVP balloting, in his 18 seasons.

Oh, and BTW, EIGHT FIRST ROUND playoff exits.

And yet we have uneducated posters trying to claim that he was a better player than Shaq?

Let's take a closer look shall we?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=onealsh01&p2=olajuha01

[Djahjaga]

Hakeem DID guard Kareem in 23 regular season H2H's, HOWEVER, in the '86 WCF's, it was SAMPSON who was the primary defender on the 39 year old Kareem (with Hakeem doubling.)

Really? It seems strange that Hakeem would guard Kareem when they had 7'4'' Sampson to check him. Is there any way we could double check this?

All I know is, in that '86 series, Kareem was outclassed by Hakeem. Head to head over their careers, Kareem does have the advantage, though, I'll give you that. :cheers:

[jlauber]

Really? It seems strange that Hakeem would guard Kareem when they had 7'4'' Sampson to check him. Is there any way we could double check this?

All I know is, in that '86 series, Kareem was outclassed by Hakeem. Head to head over their careers, Kareem does have the advantage, though, I'll give you that. :cheers:

There was actual footage of Kareem's 40 point game against Hakeem on YouTube, but sadly, it has since been removed.

But we do have an LA Times article (thanks to PHILA BTW)...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=206575


Worthy after the game: "Kareem always plays better against Olajuwon. It's because of all the comparisons. He's been around 17 years but he still has to show the kids that he's the best."

Hakeem after the game: "He played real tough. I tried to go around him and steal the ball but he slipped around me and went to the basket."


Los Angeles Times:

While Akeem Olajuwon spent the whole game trying to steal the ball from Abdul-Jabbar, the Laker center spent the whole game throwing down a breathtaking series of hook shots on his way to a 46-point explosion.

For some reason, Rocket Coach Bill Fitch thinks it is a good idea to let Olajuwon go one-on-one with Abdul-Jabbar. It proved to be the biggest coaching blunder in any Laker game this season.

Abdul-Jabbar made 21 of 30 shots in 37 minutes to reach his high this season. He probably could have scored 50 points (his career high is 55) had he played any longer.

[Odinn]

Hakeem Olajuwon; 1993-95
RS: 27.0ppg / 12.0rpg / 3.6apg / 2.2spg / 3.8bpg / 3.3tpg / 0.525fg% / 0.751ft%
PO: 29.8ppg / 11.4rpg / 4.4apg / 1.5spg / 3.7bpg / 3.5tpg / 0.524fg% / 0.754ft%
1x MVP; 1x 2nd(1.680 total MVP share). 2x FMVP. 2x DPoY. 2x All-NBA 1st Team. 1x All-NBA 3rd Team. 2x All-Defensive 1st Team. | 2x NBA Finals. 2x Championship.

Shaquille O'Neal; 2000-02
RS: 28.6ppg / 12.4rpg / 3.5apg / 0.6spg / 2.6bpg / 3.1tpg / 0.575fg% / 0.529ft%
PO: 29.9ppg / 14.5rpg / 3.0apg / 0.5spg / 2.4bpg / 3.0tpg / 0.552fg% / 0.533ft%
1x MVP; 2x 3rd(2.016 total MVP share). 3x FMVP. 3x All-NBA 1st Team. 2x All-Defensive 2nd Team. | 3x NBA Finals. 3x Championship.

[Djahjaga]

There was actual footage of Kareem's 40 point game against Hakeem on YouTube, but sadly, it has since been removed.

But we do have an LA Times article (thanks to PHILA BTW)...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=206575

Nice find, PHILA. Goddamnit, Bill Fitch haha

Any ideas on when he decided Sampson might be a better cover, with Hakeem doubling?

[Clippersfan86]

Hakeem Olajuwon; 1993-95
RS: 27.0ppg / 12.0rpg / 3.6apg / 2.2spg / 3.8bpg / 3.3tpg / 0.525fg% / 0.751ft%
PO: 29.8ppg / 11.4rpg / 4.4apg / 1.5spg / 3.7bpg / 3.5tpg / 0.524fg% / 0.754ft%
1x MVP; 1x 2nd(1.680 total MVP share). 2x FMVP. 2x DPoY. 2x All-NBA 1st Team. 1x All-NBA 3rd Team. 2x All-Defensive 1st Team. | 2x NBA Finals. 2x Championship.

Shaquille O'Neal; 2000-02
RS: 28.6ppg / 12.4rpg / 3.5apg / 0.6spg / 2.6bpg / 3.1tpg / 0.575fg% / 0.529ft%
PO: 29.9ppg / 14.5rpg / 3.0apg / 0.5spg / 2.4bpg / 3.0tpg / 0.552fg% / 0.533ft%
1x MVP; 2x 3rd(2.016 total MVP share). 3x FMVP. 3x All-NBA 1st Team. 2x All-Defensive 2nd Team. | 3x NBA Finals. 3x Championship.

Both so dominant :bowdown:

[jlauber]

Nice find, PHILA. Goddamnit, Bill Fitch haha

Any ideas on when he decided Sampson might be a better cover, with Hakeem doubling?

It is also interesting that Kareem and Hakeem line up directly in the boxscores, too.

Here are a couple of examples...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198512060LAL.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198603160LAL.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198602060HOU.html

[Clippersfan86]

It is also interesting that Kareem and Hakeem line up directly in the boxscores, too.

Here are a couple of examples...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198512060LAL.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198603160LAL.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198602060HOU.html

Damn I knew Ralph was a beast but 32,9 and 9? Was he really that good of a passer? Or just one game deal?

[Djahjaga]

It is also interesting that Kareem and Hakeem line up directly in the boxscores, too.

Here are a couple of examples...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198512060LAL.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198603160LAL.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198602060HOU.html

Yeah, I guess, but Sampson and Magic line up in two of those, as well.

[jlauber]

Nice find, PHILA. Goddamnit, Bill Fitch haha

Any ideas on when he decided Sampson might be a better cover, with Hakeem doubling?

BTW, while I can't confirm if Gilmore was defended by Hakeem, or Sampson, Artis just DOMINATED the Rockets in the 84-85 and 85-86 seasons, and at ages 35 and 36. In their first TEN STRAIGHT GAMES, he averaged 23.7 ppg on .677 shooting.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=gilmoar01&p2=olajuha01

[millwad]

Haha, Jlauber is such a clown..

Yeah, you want to prove that a 36 year old Shaq dominated Olajuwon? Put a 36 year old Shaq vs a prime Olajuwon and you'll get the same result. People age.. :facepalm

And still you're the only retard on this forum who claims that Olajuwon got outplayed by Shaq in '95 because it fits your agenda. In every other case where you spam about your beloved Wilt you use cherry picked articles from the media to prove your point. Now go and find any media that actually gave Shaq the edge in the '95 series.. :facepalm

Even Shaq himself is the first one to tell everyone that he got outplayed, you're the only one who actually claims anything else.

And then again you spam about rookie and 2nd year pro Olajuwon having major problems guarding Kareem. But as always you "forget to mention that 2nd year pro Olajuwon absolutely destroyed Kareem in the '86 playoffs.

Your hatred towards Olajuwon is hilarious, you cherry pick certain events and stats to make him look bad, like his early games vs Jabbar (while never mentioning that Kareem got badly outplayed in the playoffs by 2nd year pro Olajuwon) or Hakeem at age 36 getting outplayed by Shaq.. :facepalm

I mean, you're a clown, can't you tell us some about your old quotes about that Bill Russell would be a Ben Wallace in the modern era.. :oldlol:

[millwad]

BTW, while I can't confirm if Gilmore was defended by Hakeem, or Sampson, Artis just DOMINATED the Rockets in the 84-85 and 85-86 seasons, and at ages 35 and 36. In their first TEN STRAIGHT GAMES, he averaged 23.7 ppg on .677 shooting.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=gilmoar01&p2=olajuha01


Haha, you try so hard.. :facepalm

So if you can't confirm it, it's obvious you use it because it fits your agenda.

And what's your obsession with rookie and 2nd year pro in meaningless regular season games?

[millwad]

Acually, as dominating as this game proved, in which Shaq scored 37 points on 14-22 shooting against the helpless Hakeem...

think about this...

A 38-39 year old Kareem hung THREE games of 40+ on a 22-23 year old Hakeem, including a 46 point explosion in only 37 minutes.

Once again...a 38-39 YEAR OLD Kareem.

Exactly, there's nothing in between called prime.

So you're basically juding Hakeem's defense based on games from his rookie season and 2nd year as a pro and Hakeem as a 36 year old..

[jlauber]

Haha, you try so hard.. :facepalm

So if you can't confirm it, it's obvious you use it because it fits your agenda.

And what's your obsession with rookie and 2nd year pro in meaningless regular season games?

And yet you have NO proof to the contrary DESPITE the FACT that Hakeem AND Gilmore were listed as CENTERS.

As for meaningless games...yeah, let's brag about a center who led his team down in flames in the FIRST ROUND of the playoffs in EIGHT of his FIFTEEN post-seasons.

[jlauber]

Haha, Jlauber is such a clown..

Yeah, you want to prove that a 36 year old Shaq dominated Olajuwon? Put a 36 year old Shaq vs a prime Olajuwon and you'll get the same result. People age.. :facepalm

And still you're the only retard on this forum who claims that Olajuwon got outplayed by Shaq in '95 because it fits your agenda. In every other case where you spam about your beloved Wilt you use cherry picked articles from the media to prove your point. Now go and find any media that actually gave Shaq the edge in the '95 series.. :facepalm

Even Shaq himself is the first one to tell everyone that he got outplayed, you're the only one who actually claims anything else.

And then again you spam about rookie and 2nd year pro Olajuwon having major problems guarding Kareem. But as always you "forget to mention that 2nd year pro Olajuwon absolutely destroyed Kareem in the '86 playoffs.

Your hatred towards Olajuwon is hilarious, you cherry pick certain events and stats to make him look bad, like his early games vs Jabbar (while never mentioning that Kareem got badly outplayed in the playoffs by 2nd year pro Olajuwon) or Hakeem at age 36 getting outplayed by Shaq.. :facepalm

I mean, you're a clown, can't you tell us some about your old quotes about that Bill Russell would be a Ben Wallace in the modern era.. :oldlol:


Onced again, Hakeem did NOT guard Kareem in the '86 WCF's. Why? Because it was a proven FUTILITY.

And, you bragging about Hakeem outscoring a 39 year old Kareem by a 31-27 ppg margin? Or outshooting him by a .520 to .496 margin (thanks to Ralph BTW)?

Yet, you boast about a Hakeem whose TEAMMATES badly outplayed Shaq's TEAMMATES in the '95 Finals (and a YOUNG Shaq...younger than the Hakeem who was just SHELLED by an OLD Kareem)?

A Hakeem who had one teammmate who averaged 17 ppg and 10 rpg in that Finals, another who was at 21.5 ppg and 9.5 rpg, and yet another teammate who averaged 16.3 ppg, on get this... .629 shooting?

Whose teammates outshot Shaq's by HUGE margins from the field and the arc...and then OUTSCORED them by 50 points from the line?

[millwad]

Onced again, Hakeem did NOT guard Kareem in the '86 WCF's. Why? Because it was a proven FUTILITY.

And, you bragging about Hakeem outscoring a 39 year old Kareem by a 31-27 ppg margin? Or outshooting him by a .520 to .496 margin (thanks to Ralph BTW)?

Yet, you boast about a Hakeem whose TEAMMATES badly outplayed Shaq's TEAMMATES in the '95 Finals (and a YOUNG Shaq...younger than the Hakeem who was just SHELLED by an OLD Kareem)?

A Hakeem who had one teammmate who averaged 17 ppg and 10 rpg in that Finals, another who was at 21.5 ppg and 9.5 rpg, and yet another teammate who averaged 16.3 ppg, on get this... .629 shooting?

Whose teammates outshot Shaq's by HUGE margins from the field and the arc...and then OUTSCORED them by 50 points from the line?

Haha, this is beyond retarded.

You put the players who fit the opponent the best, rookie and 2nd year pro Olajuwon was nowhere close the defender he was in his prime as a rookie and a 2nd year pro. And Olajuwon guarded him from time to time in that series as well.

And why are you talking about stats? Watch the freaking series, every single reporter who was covering made it clear that Olajuwon was killing the Lakers and Jabbar. And again you do it in cherry picked matters, you only mention the scoring, Olajuwon outplayed Jabbar in way more ways than just scoring the series.

And Hakeem Olajuwon outplayed Shaq in the '95 finals, other players aside, Hakeem Olajuwon OUTPLAYED Shaq and everyone knows it. You're the only on ISH who claims that it was the other way around, you use your cherry picked media finds when you try to prove something about Wilt.

Now go and find anyone but yourself who claims that Shaq outplayed Hakeem in '95.

[millwad]

And yet you have NO proof to the contrary DESPITE the FACT that Hakeem AND Gilmore were listed as CENTERS.

As for meaningless games...yeah, let's brag about a center who led his team down in flames in the FIRST ROUND of the playoffs in EIGHT of his FIFTEEN post-seasons.

Wow, you're such a retard.. :facepalm

You're the one who mentions it in a try to discredit Olajuwon so you're the one who's supposed to prove that Olajuwon was actually guarding him.

And yeah, lets brag about Wilt who shrunk in the playoffs and only won two rings (one when Russell wasn't even around) and the other as a tied 2nd option on offense.. :facepalm

[jlauber]

Haha, this is beyond retarded.

You put the players who fit the opponent the best, rookie and 2nd year pro Olajuwon was nowhere close the defender he was in his prime as a rookie and a 2nd year pro. And Olajuwon guarded him from time to time in that series as well.

And why are you talking about stats? Watch the freaking series, every single reporter who was covering made it clear that Olajuwon was killing the Lakers and Jabbar. And again you do it in cherry picked matters, you only mention the scoring, Olajuwon outplayed Jabbar in way more ways than just scoring the series.

And Hakeem Olajuwon outplayed Shaq in the '95 finals, other players aside, Hakeem Olajuwon OUTPLAYED Shaq and everyone knows it. You're the only on ISH who claims that it was the other way around, you use your cherry picked media finds when you try to prove something about Wilt.

Now go and find anyone but yourself who claims that Shaq outplayed Hakeem in '95.

I don't need to "find" anyone. Shaq's TEAMMATES blew that series. Plain-and-simple.

They were BADKY outplayed and yet YOU have ALWAYS claimed that Hakeem had NO help in his Finals.

He had WAY more help than Shaq in THAT series, my friend.

Shaq's biggest mistake was passing the ball at all.

[KOBE143]

Both were better than Wilt The Choker..

[jlauber]

Wow, you're such a retard.. :facepalm

You're the one who mentions it in a try to discredit Olajuwon so you're the one who's supposed to prove that Olajuwon was actually guarding him.

And yeah, lets brag about Wilt who shrunk in the playoffs and only won two rings (one when Russell wasn't even around) and the other as a tied 2nd option on offense.. :facepalm

First of all, and remember this...it was YOU who brought WILT into this thread.

I tell you what Dickwad...POST Hakeem's ENTIRE "must-win" and "series-clinching" post-season games, and get back to me. AND, also post his OPPOSING center's numbers, as well. I'll post Wilt's right now...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. Game six of the first round of the 68-69 playoffs, against San Francisco, in a 118-78 win. Wilt with 11 points on 5/9 FG, 25 rebounds and 1 assist. Thurmond had 8 points in the loss.

20. Game four of the 68-69 WCF's, against Atlanta, in a 133-114 sweeping win. Chamberlain with 16 points on 5/11 FG, 29 rebounds and 10 blocks. His opposing center, Zelmo Beaty had 30 points in the loss.

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

22. Game five of a best-of-seven series (the Lakers were down 3-1 going into the game) in the first round of the 69-70 playoffs, and against Phoenix, a 138-121 win. Wilt with 36 points on 12/20 FG 14 rebounds and 3 assists. His opposing center, Neal Walk, had 18 points in the loss.

23. Game six of the first round of the 69-70 playoffs, against Phoenix, in a 104-93 win. Wilt with 12 points on 4/11 FG, 26 rebounds, 11 assists and 12 blocks (unofficial quad). Jim Fox started that game for Phoenix, and had 13 points in the loss.

24. Game seven of the first round of the 69-70 playoffs, against Phoenix, and in a 129-94 win, which capped a 4-3 series win after falling behind 3-1 in the series. Wilt with 30 points on 11/18 FG, 27 rebounds, 6 assists and 11 blocks. Fox had 7 points in the loss.

25. Game four of the 69-70 WCF's, against Atlanta, in a 133-114 sweeping win. Wilt with 11 points on 5/10 FG, 21 rebounds and 10 blocks. Bellamy had 19 points in the loss.

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

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

28. Game seven of the first round of the 70-71 playoffs, against Chicago, in a 109-98 win. Wilt with 25 points on 7/12 FG,18 rebounds and 9 assists. 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle had 4 points for the Bulls in the loss.

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

30. Game four of the 71-72 first round of the playoffs, against Chicago, in a 108-97 sweeping win. Wilt had 8 points on 4/6, 31 rebounds and 8 assists. Clifford Ray had 20 points in the loss.

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

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

33. Game seven of the first round of the 72-73 playoffs, against Chicago, in a 95-92 win. Wilt with 21 points on 10/17 FG, 28 rebounds, 4 asissts and 8 blocks. His opposing center, Clifford Ray, had 4 points.

The article about this series sad that Wilt blocked Chicago from playoffs after blocking 49 shots in 7 games.

34. Game five of the 72-73 WCF's, and against Golden St., in a 128-118 win. Wilt with 5 points on 2/2 FG, 22 rebounds, 7 assists. Thurmond had 9 points on 2/9 FG, 18 or 15 rebounds and 5 assists in 32 minutes in the loss.

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

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



Continued...

[millwad]

I don't need to "find" anyone. Shaq's TEAMMATES blew that series. Plain-and-simple.

They were BADKY outplayed and yet YOU have ALWAYS claimed that Hakeem had NO help in his Finals.

He had WAY more help than Shaq in THAT series, my friend.

Shaq's biggest mistake was passing the ball at all.

Haha, now you're just getting beyond pathetic.

I'm not talking about his teammates, in that case I can spam all I want about how much help Wilt had when he won, and he did have crazy much more help than Olajuwon.

Hakeem Olajuwon outplayed Shaq in the '95 playoffs, plain and simple. You're the ONLY one who claims that he didn't, even Shaq himself is the first one to tell you. Teammates aside, OLAJUWON OUTPLAYED SHAQ.

[jlauber]

And this...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[millwad]

First of all, and remember this...it was YOU who brought WILT into this thread.

I tell you what Dickwad...POST Hakeem's ENTIRE "must-win" and "series-clinching" post-season games, and get back to me. AND, also post his OPPOSING center's numbers, as well. I'll post Wilt's right now...



Continued...

Haha, so obvious..

You've posted those stats a thousand of times and it's cherry picked like everything else you do.

In his prime ('93-'95), he faced elimination 10 times and his record was 9-1 in those games and the one game he lost was in '93 in a highly controversial game.

This is what Hakeem did in those games;

31/21/7/3/3
23/17/9/3/2
37/17/5/3
25/10/7/3
40/8/3
33/10/4
31/16/3
30/8/10/5
29/11/4

Now go and find Wilt's failures from the FT-line where his horrible FT-shooting cost him a ring.. :facepalm

[millwad]

And this...

2 rings as a fourth option on offense and tied 2nd option.. :facepalm

In a league with way less talent and way less teams..

[jlauber]

Haha, now you're just getting beyond pathetic.

I'm not talking about his teammates, in that case I can spam all I want about how much help Wilt had when he won, and he did have crazy much more help than Olajuwon.

Hakeem Olajuwon outplayed Shaq in the '95 playoffs, plain and simple. You're the ONLY one who claims that he didn't, even Shaq himself is the first one to tell you. Teammates aside, OLAJUWON OUTPLAYED SHAQ.

List the HOFers that each Hakeem title team went thru. Hell, Hakeem had more HOFers on his roster than his oppostion in his '95 post-season run.

Meanwhile, in Wilt's two title runs, he faced teams that had as many as FIVE and SIX HOFers on them.

Chamberlain also faced a starting HOF center in 105 of his 160 post-season games, and yet, he was only eliminated in the first round in ONE series (and he just CRUSHED his opposing center in that series BTW.) He battled a PRIME Kareem in 11 games, Thurmond in 17, Reed in 18, and Russell in 49.

Meanwhile, Hakeem battled a starting HOF center in 35 of his 145 playoff games, including a 39 year old Kareem in six. And, he took his team down in flames in EIGHT first round series.

[Djahjaga]

First of all, and remember this...it was YOU who brought WILT into this thread.

I tell you what Dickwad...POST Hakeem's ENTIRE "must-win" and "series-clinching" post-season games, and get back to me. AND, also post his OPPOSING center's numbers, as well. I'll post Wilt's right now...



Continued...

Ahh dude...don't fall for the blatant change of topic. The point you were making still stands; whenever Hakeem guarded Kareem, Kareem burned him. Hakeem destroyed the Laker frontcourt in '86, but he didn't have to guard Kareem one-on-one in that series.

Millwad is right that Hakeem wasn't close to his defensive prime, but that doesn't make Kareem's outscoring of Hakeem at a better efficiency any less blatant.

I haven't watched the games, but I'm tempted (only tempted) to think that Kareem got a ton of baskets on the break, and was helped in guarding Olajuwon on defense (because that would make sense). The fact that Hakeem destroyed Kareem on the boards in the matchups points to the fact that Kareem wasn't exactly posting up Hakeem every possession.




But this thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with Wilt. If anything, I got a little off topic talking about Hakeem vs. Kareem, when this is about Shaq vs. Hakeem.

[millwad]

Ahh dude...don't fall for the blatant change of topic. The point you were making still stands; whenever Hakeem guarded Kareem, Kareem burned him. Hakeem destroyed the Laker frontcourt in '86, but he didn't have to guard Kareem one-on-one in that series.

Millwad is right that Hakeem wasn't close to his defensive prime, but that doesn't make Kareem's outscoring of Hakeem at a better efficiency any less blatant.

I haven't watched the games, but I'm tempted (only tempted) to think that Kareem got a ton of baskets on the break, and was helped in guarding Olajuwon on defense (because that would make sense). The fact that Hakeem destroyed Kareem on the boards in the matchups points to the fact that Kareem wasn't exactly posting up Hakeem every possession.




But this thread has absolutely NOTHING to do with Wilt. If anything, I got a little off topic talking about Hakeem vs. Kareem, when this is about Shaq vs. Hakeem.

He's always waiting for someone to mention Wilt just so he can spam essays about him.

Kareem sure thing got the best of Olajuwon as a rookie and 2nd year pro in the regular season, but Olajuwon absolutely destroyed the Laker big men in the playoffs in '86. Jlauber never mentions it because it doesn't fit his agenda.

He's basically judging Hakeem's defense based on meaningless regular season games against Kareem, Gilmore (in which he doesn't know if Olajuwon guarded Gilmore) and Hakeem's defense as a 36 year old against prime Shaq..

[jlauber]

2 rings as a fourth option on offense and tied 2nd option.. :facepalm

In a league with way less talent and way less teams..

Tell you what...

Let's compare Hakeem's "first option" performances in his THREE Finals, to Wilt's "2nd and 4th options" in his SIX.

How many series was Wilt outshot in his SIX Finals? One, in his last season, and NOT by his opposing center, either (he outshot EVERY opposing center in EVERY one of his SIX Finals.) In that ONE series, Dick Barnett outshot him by a .531 to .525 margin. Incidently, in Wilt's SIX Finals, he shot .517, .525, .534, .560 (against Thurmond no less, and in Nate's greatest season....the same Nate who held Kareem to .486, .428, and even .405 shooting in their three H2H post-season series), .600, and .625 (on one leg, and in a seven game series.)

How about Hakeem in his THREE Finals? He was NEVER the leading shooter in ANY of them. Hell, he wasn't even the leading shooter on his own team in ANY of them. He was only the FIFTH best shooter in his '86 Finals (and SIXTH if you include Walton and his .621 off the bench), at .479. He had a TEAMMATE who shot .588 (McCray.)

How about '94? He shot a Finals' high, for him, .500, and finished behind his TEAMMATE, Otis Thorpe (and BTW, Thorpe shot .572 in the entire post-season.) Interesting too, that his BEST Finals, is considerably behind Wilt's WORST (and LIGHT YEARS behind his BEST.) And that does not include the LEAGUE AVERAGE post-season FG%, either, in which Chamberlain's WORST was MILES ahead of Hakeem's BEST.

How about that Shaq Finals? Interesting. Shaq not only outshot Hakeem by an unfathomable .595 to .483 margin (you won't find ANY center outshooting Chamberlain in his Finals, much less by over a 100 points!), Hakeem's TEAMMATE, Mario Ellie averaged 16.3 ppg on, get this... .629 shooting.

Now, go ahead and find me ONE of Wilt's SIX Finals, in which he had a TEAMMATE shoot as high as .588 or .629. Or find me one of his SIX Finals, in which he had a center outshoot him by a .595 to .483 margin.

Overall, Chamberlain shot about .560 in his SIX Finals, covering 35 games, while Hakeem shot .488 in his THREE, and covering 17 games.


Now, how about REBOUNDING?

Wilt played in SIX Finals, and absolutely CRUSHED his opposing centers in ALL of them!

Hakeem played in THREE Finals, and was not only outrebounded by his OPPOSING CENTER in TWO of them, he was outrebounded by a TEAMMATE in one, and was only the THIRD best rebounder in one series, and the FOURTH best rebounder in the other.

[Djahjaga]

He's always waiting for someone to mention Wilt just so he can spam essays about him.

Kareem sure thing got the best of Olajuwon as a rookie and 2nd year pro in the regular season, but Olajuwon absolutely destroyed the Laker big men in the playoffs in '86. Jlauber never mentions it because it doesn't fit his agenda.

He's basically judging Hakeem's defense based on meaningless regular season games against Kareem, Gilmore (in which he doesn't know if Olajuwon guarded Gilmore) and Hakeem's defense as a 36 year old against prime Shaq..


Yeah, yeah, I know he's got essays upon essays on Wilt, but provoking him to spam them and then complaining that he spams them is pretty asinine.

And after the '86 series between them, especially after Sampson got hurt and never really recovered, Kareem still torched Hakeem in the regular season (in scoring and efficiency, never on the boards).

So, he's not just making stuff up. But I do disagree with posts where Kareem/Hakeem matchups are used to somehow argue that Wilt > Hakeem.
If KAJ schooled Hakeem and Wilt schooled KAJ, that doesn't necessarily mean that Wilt would have schooled Hakeem. That's way too much conjecture for my liking.

But it is true that Kareem got the better of Hakeem when Hakeem guarded Kareem.


Now, my question is, did Kareem regularly guard Hakeem in these matchups? We know that in '86, he did, and he was ineffective. But with Sampson injured, he could be hidden on someone else and allow someone else to guard Hakeem. But who? A double team scheme of Cooper and Worthy, maybe?

Anyone who's seen these Rockets-Lakers regular season games, feel free to jump in.

[jlauber]

Furthermore, and regarding Wilt's "decline" in the post-season...

Had Wilt had the "good fortune" to have allowed his teammates to drag him down enough to lose EIGHT times in the FIRST ROUND, what would have his scoring numbers looked like?

I'll be glad to help...


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.


Furthermore, the "declining" Chamberlain had FOUR post-season's of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and even 37.0 ppg. He also had FOUR post-season series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, 38.6 ppg, and 38.7 ppg. Furthermore, he not only had FOUR 50+ point games in his post-season career, he had THREE of them in "must-win" games (including a 50-35 game against Russell in one of them.)

In fact, in his first six post-seasons, covering 67 games (35 of which were against Russell, and six more against Thurmond), he AVERAGED 30.4 ppg, 27.0 rpg, 4.5 apg, and shot .515 (and probably at least 8 bpg)...COMBINED.

Give me a list of Hakeem's 30-27-5 .500 games in the post-season.

[millwad]

Yeah, yeah, I know he's got essays upon essays on Wilt, but provoking him to spam them and then complaining that he spams them is pretty asinine.

And after the '86 series between them, especially after Sampson got hurt and never really recovered, Kareem still torched Hakeem in the regular season (in scoring and efficiency, never on the boards).

So, he's not just making stuff up. But I do disagree with posts where Kareem/Hakeem matchups are used to somehow argue that Wilt > Hakeem.
If KAJ schooled Hakeem and Wilt schooled KAJ, that doesn't necessarily mean that Wilt would have schooled Hakeem. That's way too much conjecture for my liking.

But it is true that Kareem got the better of Hakeem when Hakeem guarded Kareem.


Now, my question is, did Kareem regularly guard Hakeem in these matchups? We know that in '86, he did, and he was ineffective. But with Sampson injured, he could be hidden on someone else and allow someone else to guard Hakeem. But who? A double team scheme of Cooper and Worthy, maybe?

Anyone who's seen these Rockets-Lakers regular season games, feel free to jump in.

As for the '86 playoffs the Lakers put all their bigs on Olajuwon and changed alot, no one could really contain Olajuwon so they had Jabbar, Lucas, Kupchak etc. on him.

And no, Jabbar didn't really torch Olajuwon after '86. He had good games but also bad and having Magic raises anyone's FG%. But his longetivity was beyond amazing and I rank Jabbar over Olajuwon of course.

But not only that, he only judges Olajuwon's defense based on him guarding Jabbar as a rookie and 2nd year pro and guarding Shaq as a 36 year old. It takes an idiot to judge a player based on his 2 first years in the league and then when he's 36 years old..

[millwad]

Give me a list of Hakeem's 30-27-5 .500 games in the post-season.

Only a retard would actually ask for something like that.

Wilt played in an era where they played at a much higher pace with players shooting really low FG% which results in crazy many rebounds and considering how guards and forwards were way less athletic back then than the modern era, rebounds was a much easier thing to grab for a guy like Wilt.

By the way, why are you STILL writing about Wilt?

[jlauber]

Haha, so obvious..

You've posted those stats a thousand of times and it's cherry picked like everything else you do.

In his prime ('93-'95), he faced elimination 10 times and his record was 9-1 in those games and the one game he lost was in '93 in a highly controversial game.

This is what Hakeem did in those games;

31/21/7/3/3
23/17/9/3/2
37/17/5/3
25/10/7/3
40/8/3
33/10/4
31/16/3
30/8/10/5
29/11/4

Now go and find Wilt's failures from the FT-line where his horrible FT-shooting cost him a ring.. :facepalm

:roll: :roll: :roll:

CHERRY PICKED????!!!!

I just gave you EVERY ONE of Wilt's 35 post-season games in which he faced elimination, or was in a series clincher.

I asked you to do the same...and what do you reply with.

A HANDFUL of Hakeem's CAREER post-season games.

Let me "cherry pick" Wilt's TOP-TEN playoff games, ok?

56-35
53-22
50-35
50-17
46-34
45-27
42-37
41-34
39-26
29-36-13-12

BTW, I could post a ton of other's including some higher scoring one's as well.

And furthemore, how about his OPPOSING centers? In that 53 point game, his opposing center had 7 points.

In that 42-37 game, his opposing center (RUSSELL), had 9 points and 20 rebounds.

In his 39 point game, his opposing center had 10 points.

These were BRUTAL massacres.

Hell, he had a playoff game against Russell in which he scored 20 points with 41 rebounds. And another in which he outscored Russell, 27-8, while outrebounding him, 38-19.

And had we had recorded block shots in ALL of his games, I am CERTAIN that he would have had MANY with double digit blocks. Hell, he blocked 33 of Milwaukee's shots in the last four games of the '72 WCF's, and half of them were against Kareem.

[Deuce Bigalow]

jlauber, just admit that you're mad that Hakeem has as much rings as Wilt.

[jlauber]

As for the '86 playoffs the Lakers put all their bigs on Olajuwon and changed alot, no one could really contain Olajuwon so they had Jabbar, Lucas, Kupchak etc. on him.

And no, Jabbar didn't really torch Olajuwon after '86. He had good games but also bad and having Magic raises anyone's FG%. But his longetivity was beyond amazing and I rank Jabbar over Olajuwon of course.

But not only that, he only judges Olajuwon's defense based on him guarding Jabbar as a rookie and 2nd year pro and guarding Shaq as a 36 year old. It takes an idiot to judge a player based on his 2 first years in the league and then when he's 36 years old..

Yet you constantly bring up a 25 year old Kareem, scoring 40 ppg on .500 shooting, in five H2H games against a 35 year old Wilt, (and his 50 point game came on 39 FGAs in a blowout loss, and in which Chamberlain outrebounded him by a 25-8 margin) and yet you NEVER bring up the fact that in their LAST TEN H2H games, a 35 and 36 year old Wilt held Kareem to .434 shooting! Or that in that same season, Wilt held Kareem to .457 in the WCF's, and a horrible .414 in the last FOUR games of that series.

Of course, we will never know what a PRIME Chamberlain would have carpet-bombed Kareem with. However, we do KNOW that he was FAR more dominant against MANY of the SAME centers that a PRIME Kareem would face.

[millwad]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

CHERRY PICKED????!!!!

You're all about cherry picking, now please all Wilt's scoring averages in the finals and don't forget his FT'S.

And finally, why the hell are you always talking about Wilt outscoring his fellow centers? What great scoring centers did Wilt even face early on in his career?

Sure, some of the guys could score, like Bellamy but most where "stiffs" like you used to say when it came to scoring and FG%..

[millwad]

Yet you constantly bring up a 25 year old Kareem, scoring 40 ppg on .500 shooting, in five H2H games against a 35 year old Wilt, (and his 50 point game came on 39 FGAs in a blowout loss, and in which Chamberlain outrebounded him by a 25-8 margin) and yet you NEVER bring up the fact that in their LAST TEN H2H games, a 35 and 36 year old Wilt held Kareem to .434 shooting! Or that in that same season, Wilt held Kareem to .457 in the WCF's, and a horrible .414 in the last FOUR games of that series.

Yet he outshot Wilt and outscored Wilt with 23 points per game in the playoffs while also outassisting him..

And I mention it because it's something you NEVER mention, you'll just cherry picking stats and writing stuff like "yeah, Kareem got murdered by Wilt in the '72 playoffs".

Suddenly your walls of stats completely fades away and you're happy with just writing that Wilt won the series and that the newspapers crowned him as the champ...

The first time I actually saw you mention the fact that Wilt got outscored with 23 points per game on better FG% by Kareem while also getting his ass busted in the regular season a la allowing Kareem to average 40 points on 50% shooting was when Fatal9 absolutely demolished you. How come that is the only time you don't mention stats?

You only mention the stuff that makes Wilt look great, you're cherry picking like crazy.

[jlauber]

Yet he outshot Wilt and outscored Wilt with 23 points per game in the playoffs while also outassisting him..

And I mention it because it's something you NEVER mention, you'll just cherry picking stats and writing stuff like "yeah, Kareem got murdered by Wilt in the '72 playoffs".

Suddenly your walls of stats completely fades away and you're happy with just writing that Wilt won the series and that the newspapers crowned him as the champ...

The first time I actually saw you mention the fact that Wilt got outscored with 23 points per game on better FG% by Kareem while also getting his ass busted in the regular season a la allowing Kareem to average 40 points on 50% shooting was when Fatal9 absolutely demolished you. How come that is the only time you don't mention stats?

You only mention the stuff that makes Wilt look great, you're cherry picking like crazy.

Chamberlain was UNIVERSALLY acclaimed as having outplayed Kareem in that series. Even the MILWAUKEE PRESS claimed as much. And as you KNOW, TIME MAGAZINE hailed his play in that SERIES, as "DECISIVELY OUTPLAYING a Kareem, who was ten years younger."

And Fecal9 has never come close to "demolishing me" in any of his "anti-Chamberlain" trash. Hell, he hightailed it outta here as more footage of Wilt has surfaced. BTW, why do you still hang around?

[Deuce Bigalow]

Chamberlain was UNIVERSALLY acclaimed as having outplayed Kareem in that series. Even the MILWAUKEE PRESS claimed as much. And as you KNOW, TIME MAGAZINE hailed his play in that SERIES, as "DECISIVELY OUTPLAYING a Kareem, who was ten years younger."

And Fecal9 has never come close to "demolishing me" in any of his "anti-Chamberlain" trash. Hell, he hightailed it outta here as more footage of Wilt has surfaced. BTW, why do you still hang around?
Then what about Bill Russell? Didn't he win against Wilt? Didn't he also have less points?
But you only use the stats when it's in favor of Wilt, right?

[millwad]

Chamberlain was UNIVERSALLY acclaimed as having outplayed Kareem in that series. Even the MILWAUKEE PRESS claimed as much. And as you KNOW, TIME MAGAZINE hailed his play in that SERIES, as "DECISIVELY OUTPLAYING a Kareem, who was ten years younger."

And Fecal9 has never come close to "demolishing me" in any of his "anti-Chamberlain" trash. Hell, he hightailed it outta here as more footage of Wilt has surfaced. BTW, why do you still hang around?

Fatal9 has demolished you plenty of times.
And he left because the guy had better things to do, not like you, a lonely 57 year old man who later in life got a man crush on basketball player who retired like 40 years ago.. :facepalm

Oh, "universally" but still you only spam about like 2 articles and still you're the first one to spam about how the media are wrong when they UNIVERSALLY (not two papers like your case) claimed that Olajuwon outplayed Shaq in '95..

Such a hypocrite.. :facepalm

[jlauber]

Then what about Bill Russell? Didn't he win against Wilt? Didn't he also have less points?
But you only use the stats when it's in favor of Wilt, right?

Russell was playing with teams that routinely had far more talent, and won considerably more games.

Chamberlain's '72 Lakers, albeit at 69-13, beat a Bucks team that not only went 63-19 in '72, they were the defending champions, coming off of a 66-16 season (while Wilt's OLD Lakers had gone 48-34.)

A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE don't you think?

Not only that, but Chamberlain not only outscored Russell in every series, he outshot and outrebounded him in ALL of them, as well. And his FG% margins against Russell were staggering, too.

Regarding that FG% comment. Chamberlain's LOWEST FG% against Russell came in the '62 ECF's, when he shot .468 (while holding Russell to .399.) That came in a post-season NBA that shot .411. Chamberlain also had a 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, .555 seven game series against Russell, in an NBA post-season that averaged 113.7 ppg on .429 shooting.

Chamberlain was taking pure trash rosters, and single-handedly carrying them to within an eyelash of beating Russell's HOF-laden rosters, in series in which Wilt was demolishing Russell in scoring, rebounding, and FG% shooting.

[Djahjaga]

Russell was playing with teams that routinely had far more talent, and won considerably more games.


Chamberlain was taking pure trash rosters, and single-handedly carrying them to within an eyelash of beating Russell's HOF-laden rosters, in series in which Wilt was demolishing Russell in scoring, rebounding, and FG% shooting.


What do you have to say about the argument Simmons makes in his book (which I know you hate because he trashes Wilt every chance he gets) regarding the talent level on Wilt's and Russell's respective teams? The argument seems sound, even if Simmons had an agenda.


1957. Russell joins Boston mid-January after banging out military duty, then the Celts squeak by Philly (featuring Hall of Famers Paul Arizin and Neil Johnston) in the Playoffs and meet St. Louis in the Finals. Boston has two stud guards in their prime (Bill Sharman and ’57 MVP Bob Cousy) and three terrific rookies (Russell, Heinsohn, and Frank Ramsey), while St. Louis has Bob Pettit (two-time MVP), Macauley (Hall of Famer) and Slater Martin (Hall of Famer, second-team All NBA that season), as well as Charlie Share, Jack Coleman and Jack McMahon (three highly regarded role players). Since Boston won Game 7 in double OT, it’s safe to say these two teams were equally talented. 1958. The Hawks exact revenge thanks to up-and-comer Cliff Hagan (second-team All-NBA, Hall of Famer) and Russell’s badly sprained ankle. Again, even talent on both sides.

1959. Boston starts to pull away: three All-NBA First-teamers (Russell, Cousy, and Sharman), two promising guards (Sam and KC Jones), the best sixth man (Ramsey) and one of the best scoring forwards (Heinsohn). Even then, they needed seven games to get past Syracuse (led by NBA Top 50 members Dolph Schayes and Hal Greer) before easily sweeping Elgin and the Lakers. Through three years and two titles, Russell and the Celtics had the most talent exactly once.

1960. Boston handles Philly in six and needs seven to defeat a Hawks team with four Hall of Famers (including newcomer Lenny Wilkens). Meanwhile, Wilt wins the MVP as a rookie playing with Arizin (ten straight All-Stars), Tom Gola (Five straight All-Stars, Hall of Famer), Guy Rodgers (four All-Stars) and Woody Sauldsberry (’58 Rookie of the Year, ’59 All-Star). Boston had more firepower, but not by much. Wilt wasn’t exactly stuck playing with Eric Snow, Drew Gooden, Sasha Pavlovic, Larry Hughes, and Turdo Sandowich like 2007 LeBron.

1961. We’re kicking off a two-year stretch for the most loaded NBA team ever: Boston easily handles Syracuse and St. Louis for title number four. Meanwhile, Philly gets swept by a weaker Nats team in the first round, leading to Wilt throwing his first coach under the bus after the season (a recurring theme).

1962. Still loaded to the gills, Boston needs seven games to defeat Wilt’s Sixers and an OT Game 7 in the Finals to defeat Baylor, Jerry West and the Lakers. I’m telling you, everyone had a good team back then.

1963. The first sign of trouble: Sharman retires, Cousy and Ramsey are slipping, and rookie John Havlicek isn’t Hondo yet. Boston needs seven games to hold off Cincy (led by Hall of Famers Oscar Robertson, Jack Twyman, and Wayne Embry) and another six to beat the Lakers. Meanwhile, Philly moves to San Fran, finishes 31–49 and misses the playoffs with Wilt, Rodgers, Tom Meschery (an All-Star), Al Attles (KC Jones’ equal as a defensive stopper) and Willie Naulls (four-time All-Star). But hey, if they’d won more games, maybe Wilt wouldn’t have averaged 44.8 points that season.

1964. Cousy retires and no Celtic makes first-team All-NBA, but that doesn’t stop Boston from beating a stacked Cincy team (led by Oscar and rookie of the year Jerry Lucas) and easily handling Wilt’s Warriors in the Finals (the same group as the ’63 Sixers, only with future Hall of
Famer Nate Thurmond aboard). Boston won without a point guard or power forward this season—other than Russell, they didn’t have a top twenty rebounder or anyone average more than 5 assists—but we’ll give them a check mark in the “most talent” department for the last time in the Russell era.

1965. Ramsey retires and Heinsohn fades noticeably in his final season. Undaunted, the Celts finish with their best record of the Russell era (62–18) and smoke L.A. in the Finals thanks to their Big Three (Russell, Havlicek, and Sam Jones) and a bunch of role players (including a monster year from Satch Sanders). As for the Warriors, they self-destruct and lose seventeen in a row, eventually trading Wilt for 30 cents on the dollar to Philly midway through the season. For the first time, Wilt’s team matches Boston’s talent with shooting guard Hal Greer (ten straight All-Star games), Lucious Jackson (an All-Star power forward who finished eighth in rebounding that season), swingman Chet Walker (seven-time All-Star), point guard Larry Costello (six-time All-Star) and two quality role players (Dave Gambee and Johnny Kerr). That’s why the Sixers-Celtics series comes down to the final play of Game 7 at the Garden, with Havlicek stealing the inbounds pass as Johnny Most screams, “Havlicek stole the ball! Havlicek stole the ball!”

1966. Heinsohn coughs up a fifteen-pound oyster and retires, KC Jones is fading fast, and the Celts are forced to rely on aging veterans (Naulls and Mel Counts) and castoffs from other teams (Don Nelson and Larry Siegfried) to help the Big Three in Auerbach’s final season. For the first time with Russell, they don’t finish with the league’s best record as Philly edges them (55 wins to 54). As usual, it doesn’t matter—Boston beats Philly in five and wins Game 7 of the Finals against L.A. by two points. Philly had more talent this season. On paper, anyway.

1967. KC retires, another veteran castoff comes aboard (future Hall of Famer Bailey Howell), and Russell struggles mightily to handle the first year of his player-coach duties. From day one, it’s Philly’s year: given an extra boost by rookie Billy Cunningham and Wilt’s sudden revelation that he doesn’t need to score to help his team win (more on this in a second), the Sixers roll to their famous 68-win season, topple the Celtics in five, and beat the Warriors in six for Wilt’s first title. This was the perfect storm for Wilt—his strongest possible team against Boston’s weakest possible team.

1968. Wilt leads the league in assists. And Philly finishes eight games better than the Celtics. The aging Celts rally from a 3–1 deficit in the Eastern Finals to advance, then beat a really good Lakers team for Russell’s tenth title. After the season, Philly trades Wilt to L.A. for 40 cents on the dollar.

1969. With Russell and Jones running on fumes, everyone writes the Celtics off after they finish fourth in the East. In the first round, they beat a favored Sixers team in five. In the second round, they beat a favored Knicks team in six—the same group that wins the 1970 title and gets blown for the next twenty-five years by the New York media as the Greatest Team Ever. In the Finals, as 9-to-5 underdogs to Baylor, West, Wilt, and the Lakers, they rally back from a 3–1 deficit and win Game 7 in Los Angeles.

So here’s the final tally: Over a ten-year span, Russell’s teams clearly had more talent than Wilt’s teams for four seasons (’61, ’62, ’63, and ’64) and a slight edge in Wilt’s first season (1960). In ’65, Philly and Boston were a wash. From ’66 through ’69, Wilt played for stronger teams, making the final record 5–4–1, Russell. For six of those ten seasons, you could have described the talent disparity as “equal” or “relatively equal.” After Russell retired that summer, the ’70 Lakers lost the famous Willis Reed game in Game 7 of the Finals; the ’71 Lakers suffered a season-ending injury to Jerry West and lost to the eventual champions, the Bucks; the ’72 Lakers won 69 games and cruised to Wilt’s second title; and the ’73 Lakers lost a Finals rematch to the Knicks. Wilt retired after a ten-year stretch in which he played in the 1964 Finals and lost, then played for teams talented enough to win a championship every single year for the next nine. So much for Russell being blessed with a better supporting cast than Chamberlain. If there’s a legitimate gripe on Wilt’s behalf, it’s that Russell was lucky enough to have Auerbach coaching him for ten years. Then again, Red is on record saying he never could have coached a prima donna like Wilt. Also, if you’re scoring at home: Russell played with four members of the NBA’s Top 50 at 50 (Havlicek, Cousy, Sharman and Sam Jones); Wilt played with six members (Baylor, West, Greer, Cunningham, Arizin, and Thurmond). And Russell’s teammates from 1957 to 1969 were selected to twenty-six All-Star games, while Wilt’s teammates from 1960 to 1973 were selected to twenty-four. Let’s never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain. Thank you.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Chamberlain was taking pure trash rosters, and single-handedly carrying them to within an eyelash of beating Russell's HOF-laden rosters, in series in which Wilt was demolishing Russell in scoring, rebounding, and FG% shooting.
6 Hall of Fame teammates
5 of them in the Top 50 greatest OF AllTime

Talk about garbage. :facepalm :banghead:

[Yung D-Will]

Two of the greatest centers to ever play the game, not really understading the point of this thread.

[Owl]

What do you have to say about the argument Simmons makes in his book (which I know you hate because he trashes Wilt every chance he gets) regarding the talent level on Wilt's and Russell's respective teams? The argument seems sound, even if Simmons had an agenda.
I would go through the quality of those arguments, perhaps looking at the win shares provided by Wilts teammates and those of Russell and suggest, approximate as those ratings may be to actual level of contribution towards wins, that Russell's teammates were clearly significantly better, especially up to the mid-sixties.

But google Chamberlain Russell Simmons the first three results come from billsimmonsbogusbook.blogspot.com/ which looks at the talent systematically year by year (rather than chucking out total number of HOFers played with regardless of the point in their career they were at and how long they played together). Another attempt at a more systematic comparison of teammates comes from the basketball-reference blog http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229

There are arguments for both sides as to who was better (I myself am firmly in the Chamberlain camp), but I have yet to see a compelling argument that Wilt had superior supporting casts. The only time they were remotely comparable is once Wilt joined the '76ers. This happened in the middle of the '65 season on a team which didn't yet have Billy Cunningham and had a major roster adjustment mid-season. There can be reasonable discussions of the relative merits for the 66-69 period (though if we're comparing playoff series then injuries should be accounted for). TBOB doesn't have them.

Just from the section posted, logic such as "Since Boston won Game 7 in double OT, it

[Psileas]

[QUOTE]1960. Boston handles Philly in six and needs seven to defeat a Hawks team with four Hall of Famers (including newcomer Lenny Wilkens). Meanwhile, Wilt wins the MVP as a rookie playing with Arizin (ten straight All-Stars), Tom Gola (Five straight All-Stars, Hall of Famer), Guy Rodgers (four All-Stars) and Woody Sauldsberry (

[jlauber]

I have covered the Simmons' NONSENSE many times here before. And as always, the quality posters here, like Owl and Psileas, two posters who have actually RESEARCHED their opinions have addressed the idiot, as well.

In their TEN seasons in the league together, Russell played with more HOF teammates EVERY season. Most by considerable margins. And, in their first SIX straight seasons together, those margins were the size of the Grand Canyon. And even in their last four seasons, in which their quality supporting casts were nearly equal, Russell's Celtics not only had more HOF teammates, he had DEEPER rosters, too. I have said it before, but his 66-67 Celtics, which went 60-21 were probably the deepest team in NBA history. And the only other team that could challenge them, was Russell's '63 Celts team, which boasted NINE HOFers (and in a season in which Chamberlain had ZERO HOF teammates...and perhaps the WORST roster in NBA history.)

Let's begin with Russell's rookie season. He was essentially traded to Boston, in deal for their center, Ed McCauley. He came to a Celtic team that had gone 39-33 and already had players like Cousy, Risen, and Sharman. Not only that, but the Celtics also drafted Tom Heinsohn, who would go on to win ROY, and become a solid HOFer himself. THEN, in the next season, the Celtics snatched Sam Jones, who would go on to become one of the most clutch playoff performers of all-time, and a KEY component to the Celtic Dynasty.

And, as each season went by, Boston got BETTER. When Cousy finally hung it up, they had already had the foresight to have drafted HOFer John Havlicek. Later in the Celtic run, they added players like Bailey Howell, who may not have been a legitimate HOFer (more on that later), but was not only a 20 ppg scorer, he was doing it on over 50% shooting in a league that shot way below that.

And the pieces they added were carefully planned to form pieces to a perfect puzzle. Satch Sanders and KC Jones were considered among the best defensive players at their respective positions. They also filled in with players like Wayne Embry (another HOFer) who was a beast and could play both the PF and Center position (in the few minutes in which Russell was resting.) Players like Em Bryant and later Don Chaney were excellent bench players, who could give quality minutes.

How about Chamberlain's rookie season? Keep in mind that he was drafted while in HIGH SCHOOL by the Warriors. By the time he arrived, he had come to a LAST PLACE team that was in a severe decline. And, as bad as that was, the core of that putrid group would get older, and WORSE.

The Warrior organization did NOTHING to help Chamberlain in his 5 1/2 years there. His two HOF teammates, Paul Arizin and Tom Gola were on the decline, and in fact, Arizin would retire after playing alongside Wilt for three seasons. Gola? He was no more of a HOF NBA player than myself. Yes, he is in the HOF, but it is based SOLELY on his college career. He was a good, but certainly far from a great NBA player. His career averages were 11 ppg 8 rpg, and on .431 shooting. AND, Gola was perhaps the WORST post-season shooting "HOF" player of all-time, as well. And before someone jumps in and claims that it was because of Chamberlain, be advised that he was every bit as awful BEFORE Wilt. In his three post-seasons with Wilt, he shot .412, .271, and .206 (yes, that is not a misprint... .206.) And even Arizin, who was the ONE teammate in Wilt's Warrior years that was a great player, shot poorly in his two post-seasons with Chamberlain, with marks of .375 and .325.

Continued...

[jayfan]

This thread is just silly. Anyone who says something like this....



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

...is just flaming.

But I'll take a couple of moments to humor the "flamer." I'm not much of a stat guy. Stats often don't tell the whole story, and sometimes skew it. They don't account for intangibles and time of game situations that can only be absorbed by watching the game and the flow of the game.

To me, the issue of who was better can often be reduced to one simple question: Game 7, nba Finals, who would you rather have playing on your team? For me, the answer is unquestionably Hakeem. He's more versatile, more clutch, can do more things on the floor to help the team, is better defensively, and of course, isn't a liability at the free throw line.

In spite of my disdain for stats, I'll throw out a couple of playoff stats which seem to reflect my position. Why playoffs, by the way? Because playoffs separate men form boys. The pressure's on, the opponents are better, and the stakes are raised. So lets compare the career playoff per game averages of Shaq and Hakeem, shall we?

POINTS Hakeem-25.9 Shaq-24.3

ASSISTS Hakeem-3.2 Shaq-2.7

BLOCKS Hakeem-3.3 Shaq-2.1

STEALS Hakeem-1.7 Shaq-0.5

REBOUNDS Hakeem-11.2 Shaq-11.6

Sense the point?

Let's move on. Our thread author criticizes Hakeem for winning only 1 league mvp... which is exactly the same number that Shaq won. Huh.

Conversely, Hakeem was 2x nba defensive POY, and 5x first-team all-defense. Shaq was never either.

To summarize, this thread is nonsense. Peace.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

How good were Russell's teammates? I won't bother looking up their individual seasons, but players like Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, Havlicek, and Sam Jones ALL put up MULTIPLE 20+ ppg seasons. Sam Jones had seasons as high as 26 ppg and post-seasons as high as 29 ppg. Havlicek had multiple 20 ppg seasons with Russell, and then REALLY exploded AFTER Russell. He would have two straight seasons, AFTER Russell, in which he averaged 28 and 29 ppg.

In Chamberlain's 5 1/2 seasons with the Warriors, he had ONE teammate who EVER averaged 20+ ppg...and that was an aging Arizin. That was IT. (Granted, I am not counting Willie Naulls, who was a shell when he played with Wilt, and who played WORSE with Russell afterwards, or Thurmond, who basically was a part-timer playing out of position in his 1 1/2 years with Chamberlain.)

And here again, before some uneducated idiot (like Simmons) jumps up and claims that, "see, Wilt made his teammates worse,", the fact was, MOST of them had their best seasons WITH Chamberlain. Meschery, Gola, Greer, West, Goodrich, et.al. And, one more time, Wilt's teammates in his Warrior seasons, aside from Arizin, not only didn't have 20 ppg seasons with Wilt, NONE of them EVER had 20+ ppg seasons, even in their years on other teams.

Meanwhile, Russell's rosters were LOADED with FIREPOWER. And, as great as Russell was, players like Cousy, Sharman, and Havlicek had 20 ppg seasons on teams without Russell. Furthermore, as evidenced by Hondo, those players, and players like Sam Jones and Heinsohn, would probably have had HIGHER scoring seasons elsewhere. The fact was, those Celtic rosters were so loaded, that they had to share the scoring.

Comtinued...

[jlauber]

This thread is just silly. Anyone who says something like this....




...is just flaming.

But I'll take a couple of moments to humor the "flamer." I'm not much of a stat guy. Stats often don't tell the whole story, and sometimes skew it. They don't account for intangibles and time of game situations that can only be absorbed by watching the game and the flow of the game.

To me, the issue of who was better can often be reduced to one simple question: Game 7, nba Finals, who would you rather have playing on your team? For me, the answer is unquestionably Hakeem. He's more versatile, more clutch, can do more things on the floor to help the team, is better defensively, and of course, isn't a liability at the free throw line.

In spite of my disdain for stats, I'll throw out a couple of playoff stats which seem to reflect my position. Why playoffs, by the way? Because playoffs separate men form boys. The pressure's on, the opponents are better, and the stakes are raised. So lets compare the career playoff per game averages of Shaq and Hakeem, shall we?

POINTS Hakeem-25.9 Shaq-24.3

ASSISTS Hakeem-3.2 Shaq-2.7

BLOCKS Hakeem-3.3 Shaq-2.1

STEALS Hakeem-1.7 Shaq-0.5

REBOUNDS Hakeem-11.2 Shaq-11.6

Sense the point?

Let's move on. Our thread author criticizes Hakeem for winning only 1 league mvp... which is exactly the same number that Shaq won. Huh.

Conversely, Hakeem was 2x nba defensive POY, and 5x first-team all-defense. Shaq was never either.

To summarize, this thread is nonsense. Peace.

I'll also "summarize" to save some time here. Hakeem built up his playoff stats in eight first round exits. He had one four game series of 37 ppg and 17 prg, his career high playoff numbers...in a first round exit.

I pointed it out earlier, but take a look at Chamberlain's first round playoff numbers. He probably averaged about 33 ppg in the bulk of them. He had FOUR of 37, 37, 39, and 39 ppg. And before someone claims that he must have really declined after the first round, he was putting up monster scoring series against Russell in SEVERAL second round and Finals battles, as well.

And, as great as Hakeem was in his three Finals (well, really only TWO of them), Shaq was FAR more dominant in his FOUR (well, THREE for sure.) In fact, teams waved the "white flag" and just basically conceded him the Finals with a parade at the FT line. It was NOT a strategy, either, so much as a concession. They simply couldn't stop him.

As for comparing Hakeem's ONE MVP to Shaq's ONE MVP...two points. One, Hakeem won his in a season in which Jordan took off (as well as his Rockets barely beating a Knick team in the Finals...a Knick team that eked out a game seven win over the MJ-less Bulls earlier in the playoffs.)

Meanwhile, that was IT for Hakeem. He was never the best player in the league. Shaq? He was arguably the best player in the league from '99 thru '05, and CLEARLY the best from '00 to '02. Had there been any type of "general draft" in those years, and you can be sure that Shaq would have been the first player taken.

Finally, just take a look at their CAREER H2H's. Shaq was FAR-AND-AWAY thed better player. Even a young Shaq, and against a prime Hakeem was, at worst, a draw. After that, it was a rout. Shaq DOMINATED Hakeem in EVERY category in their career H2H's. It was not even close.

[G.O.A.T]

[QUOTE=Owl]I would go through the quality of those arguments, perhaps looking at the win shares provided by Wilts teammates and those of Russell and suggest, approximate as those ratings may be to actual level of contribution towards wins, that Russell's teammates were clearly significantly better, especially up to the mid-sixties.

But google Chamberlain Russell Simmons the first three results come from billsimmonsbogusbook.blogspot.com/ which looks at the talent systematically year by year (rather than chucking out total number of HOFers played with regardless of the point in their career they were at and how long they played together). Another attempt at a more systematic comparison of teammates comes from the basketball-reference blog http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229

There are arguments for both sides as to who was better (I myself am firmly in the Chamberlain camp), but I have yet to see a compelling argument that Wilt had superior supporting casts. The only time they were remotely comparable is once Wilt joined the '76ers. This happened in the middle of the '65 season on a team which didn't yet have Billy Cunningham and had a major roster adjustment mid-season. There can be reasonable discussions of the relative merits for the 66-69 period (though if we're comparing playoff series then injuries should be accounted for). TBOB doesn't have them.

Just from the section posted, logic such as "Since Boston won Game 7 in double OT, it

[CavaliersFTW]

What a surprise, shots bein fired at Millwad (I mean Hakeem) :facepalm

This Jlauber Millwad feud will never end :roll:

[jlauber]

Back to the already derailed "Simmons" discussion.

Take a look at the number of HOF teammates that Russell and Chamberlain had in their first SIX seasons in the league together.

'60. Russell with a 6-2 edge.

'61. Russell with a 7-2 edge.

'62. Russell with a 6-2 edge.

'63. Russell with an 8-0 edge. (Yes, and 8-0 margin!)

'64. Russell with a 7-1 edge (and Wilt's lone HOF teammate was rookie Thurmond, who played part-time, out of position, and shot .395.)

'65. Russell with a 5-1 edge. And once again, Wilt came to that Sixer team in mid-season.


Ok, I will agree that not all of Russell's teammates were "HOFers", or were "HOFers" when he played with them. Players like KC Jones (who was never even an all-star) Ramsey, Sanders, and even Howell, would not be in the HOF without Russell. And players like Lovellette and Embry (who is in the HOF as a contributor) were not HOF players when paired with Russell.

But, the idiotic Simmons would have you believe that Wilt was playing with a slew of HOF teammates, himself. I have already covered the disgraceful "HOFer" Gola. He was no more of a HOFer than I am (and once again, he was just AWFUL in his post-season play.)

Simmons cites players like Thurmond and Baylor, as examples. However, does he also mention that Thurmond was basically Wilt's BACKUP in the ONE-AND-A-HALF seasons they were paired together? Baylor? He would have you believe they played FOUR seasons together. However, the REALITY was, a severely declining Baylor, and Chamberlain, played ONE FULL season together...in their first season as teammates (68-69.) And, Baylor was just HORRID in that post-season. In fact, Baylor personally cost the Lakers THREE games in the '69 Finals.

Chamberlain shredded his knee the very next season, missed 70 games, and was nowhere near 100% in the playoffs (although he was STILL a FAR greater player in that post-season.)

After that? Baylor played TWO games in the '71 season, and didn't play at all in the post-season. And in his LAST season, he played nine games, was forced to retire (and then the Lakers immediately went on a 33 game winning streak.)

So instead of looking at Simmons number of HOF teammates...why not look at how many FULL seasons Russell was paired with his HOF teammates, and how many Wilt played with his.

Here is the answer: Russell played alongside HIS HOF teammates in 71 FULL seasons. Chamberlain played with HIS in 24.

Continued...

[jlauber]

The blog you cite does everything it accuses Simmons of doing but to a worse degree. A lot of the comparisons uses individual stats which is as flawed an argument as is possible when comparing players like Russell and Wilt.

It is not debatable that Wilt was a player who made his teammates stats worse and Russell a play who made his teammates stats better. Their styles of play dictated it so. That doesn't mean Wilt makes the teams he is on worse (he didn't) it just means you can't expect a team to have five guys scoring double figures when one guy is getting over 1/3 of the shots most nights and touching the ball nearly every possession.




That's Simmons point. Every team had a lot of talent, the Celtics did not have discernibly more than anyone as evidenced by their regular season win percentages relative to teams in the expansion era and the fact that most of their playoff series were highly competitive and very very rarely was there ever a sweep.

After the move to SF in '63 and '64 sure, huge edge for Boston as Arizin and Gola did not make the move. Prior to that and after the trade, Philly's (warriors & sixers) top five supporting Wilt were nearly as good as Boston's top five supporting Russ.


PURE GARBAGE. See above.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

As I have already CONCLUSIVELY proven...in their first SIX seasons in the league together, Russell played with OVERWHEMINGLY superior talent. Not even a debate.

Not only that, but Wilt's surrounding talent dramatically SHRANK in the post-season, too. And, once again, they generally played as bad in the post-season, with and WITHOUT Wilt. So it was NOT a case of Wilt somehow detracting from their performances. Only Arizin's scoring declined, as expected with Wilt's shots, but even that decline was minimal.

Let's break down those first six seasons, shall we?

'60. Chamberlain joins what had been a LAST PLACE team, and immediately takes them to a 49-26 record, and after crusing Syracuse in the first round, he takes that overmatched squad of mis-fits to a game six, two point loss against a 59-16 Celtic team and their 7-3 egde in HOFers. Furthermore, Chamberlain may have broken his hand in two, and was played the worst game of his post-season H2H's with Russell in a game three, 120-90 loss. He did storm back in a "must-win" game five performance for the ages, with a staggering 50 point, 35 rebound game, in a blowout win over a helpless Russell. In any case, Wilt's Warriors were just overwhelmed, and they had no business even winning two games.

'61. Well, despite a monumental effort from Chamberlain (37 ppg and 23 rpg), his teamamtes contribute absolutely nothing, and collectively they shoot an unfathomable .332 from the field, in a sweeping loss to Syracuse. So, not even a herculean effort by Chamberlain can overcome his HOF teammates, Arizin and Gola, who shot .325 and .206 respectively.

'62. Wilt takes that same basic core of the last placed team he inherited in '60, on his back, and in the greatest scoring season in NBA history, he single-handedly gets them to a 49-31 record. In the playoffs, Wilt puts up the greatest "absolute elimination" game in NBA history, with a 56-35 performance in leading an aged and crappy Warrior team past Syracuse in the first round. In the ECF's, he takes his team to a game seven, two point loss, against a 60-20 Celtic team, with an whopping 7-3 edge in HOFers. In that series, he outscores Russell, per game, 34-22; outrebounds Russell, per game, 26-25; and outshoots Russell overall, .468 to .399 (in a post-season NBA that shot .411.) Oh, and BTW, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354 in that post-season. Tom Meschery commented after the devastating loss, that player-for-player, Boston was the better team. No one would have argued with him, either.

Continued...

[millwad]

Like we didn't know that Jlauber was going to make yet another thread completely about Wilt.. :facepalm

14 essays about Wilt already.. :facepalm

[Anaximandro1]

Hakeem at the peak of his powers was utterly unstoppable.The man played out of his mind for a couple of years.Since then, no one has dominated their peers to the level Olajuwon did.

Playoffs (1994 and 1995)

Hakeem vs Ewing (Record: 4 -3)

Hakeem - 26.9 pt (50%),9.1 rb,3.6 as,3.9 blk

Ewing - 18.9 pt (36.3%),12.4 rb,1.7 as,4.3 blk

Hakeem vs Robinson (Record: 4 -2)

Hakeem - 35.3 pt (56%),12.5 rb,5.0 as,4.2 blk

Robinson - 23.8 pt (44.9%),11.3 rb,2.7 as,2.2 blk

Hakeem vs Shaq (Record: 4 - 0)

Hakeem - 32.8 pt (48.3%),11.5 rb,5.5as,2.0 blk

Shaq - 28.0 pt (59.4%),12.5 rb,6.3as,2.5 blk


Barkley and Malone are PFs,but here's the comparison

Hakeem vs Barkley (Record: 8 -6 )

Hakeem - 29.1 pt (54.9%) ,11.3 rb,4.1 as,3.1 blk

Barkley - 22.9 pt (46.0%), 13.1 rb,3.6 as,0.9 blk

Olajuwon vs Karl Malone (Record: 7 - 3)

Hakeem - 31.4 pt (53.9%),9.4 rb,4.2 as,3.6 blk

Malone - 28.1 pt (44.9%),12.9 rb,4.5 as,0.5 blk




Prime Shaq was a force unseen to the NBA.Unstoppable.

:no:

Shaq played 30 playoff games against the Spurs.He only scored 30+ points four times.It doesn't matter because he always had very talented teams.

LINK (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=onealsh01&p2=duncati01)


Head2Head (Playoffs: 1999 - 2003)

Duncan 27.4 pt,13.1 rb,4.3 as,2.6 blk

Shaq 24.3 pt,13.2 rb,2.6 as,2.3 blk


1999 (Spurs 4 - Lakers 0)

Duncan 29.0 pt,10.8 rb,3.3 as,2.0 blk

Shaq 23.8 pt,13.0 rb,0.5 as,1.8 blk


2001 (Lakers 4 - Spurs 0)

Shaq 27.0 pt,13.0 rb,2.5 as,1.3 blk

Duncan 23.0 pt,12.3 rb,4.3 as,4.3 blk


2002 (Lakers 4 - Spurs 1)

Shaq 21.4 pt,12.2 rb,3.2 as,3.0 blk

Duncan 29.0 pt,17.2 rb,4.6 as,3.2 blk


2003 (Spurs 4 - Lakers 2)

Duncan 28.0 pt,11.8 rb,4.8 as,1.3 blk

Shaq 25.3 pt,14.3 rb,3.7 as,2.8 blk


Shaq only looked incredible dominant against the Kings and the weak East.You can say the same thing about prime Duncan against the Mavs.


Head2Head (Playoffs: 2001 - 2006) (Record: 9 -6 )

Duncan 31.1 pt (55.2%),14.9 rb,4.1 as,2.5 blk

Dirk 25.4 pt (47.8%),11.3 rb,2.1 as,0.6 blk

LINK
(http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=duncati01&p2=nowitdi01)

Shaq? He was arguably the best player in the league from '99 thru '05

Duncan was clearly the best player in '99

The Spurs will no longer be known as the "San Antonio softies" and if Tim Duncan wasn't considered as the best player in the NBA, he is now.

LINK (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/1999/playoffs/news/1999/06/25/spurs_knicks_game5/)


and from '03 - '05.


GM Survey: If you were starting a franchise today and could sign any player in the NBA, who would it be?

2002
1. Shaquille O'Neal,L.A. Lakers
2. Tim Duncan,San Antonio

2003
1. Tim Duncan,San Antonio
2. Shaquille O'Neal,L.A. Lakers

2004
1 Tim Duncan, San Antonio 47.6%
2 Kevin Garnett, Minnesota 28.6%
3 LeBron James, Cleveland 14.3%
4 Shaquille O'Neal, Miami 9.5 %

2005
1. Tim Duncan, San Antonio 40.0%
2. LeBron James, Cleveland 36.0%
3. Shaquille O'Neal, Miami 8.0%
4. Amare Stoudemire, Phoenix 8.0%



Shaq? CLEARLY the best from '00 to '02.
Sure,but Shaq benefited immensely from Duncan's injury that caused him to miss the playoffs in 2000,and the fact that the Spurs' second option was the 20-year-old rookie Tony Parker (2002)

[Freedom Kid7]

http://i.imgur.com/qB7b6.gif
Jlauber, I do think it's incredibly unfair you put a prime Shaq vs a past-prime Hakeem. I disagree with your analysis on the '95 Finals, but at the very least it's fair and logical analysis.

[Owl]

This thread is just silly. Anyone who says something like this....




...is just flaming.

But I'll take a couple of moments to humor the "flamer." I'm not much of a stat guy. Stats often don't tell the whole story, and sometimes skew it. They don't account for intangibles and time of game situations that can only be absorbed by watching the game and the flow of the game.

To me, the issue of who was better can often be reduced to one simple question: Game 7, nba Finals, who would you rather have playing on your team? For me, the answer is unquestionably Hakeem. He's more versatile, more clutch, can do more things on the floor to help the team, is better defensively, and of course, isn't a liability at the free throw line.

In spite of my disdain for stats, I'll throw out a couple of playoff stats which seem to reflect my position. Why playoffs, by the way? Because playoffs separate men form boys. The pressure's on, the opponents are better, and the stakes are raised. So lets compare the career playoff per game averages of Shaq and Hakeem, shall we?

POINTS Hakeem-25.9 Shaq-24.3

ASSISTS Hakeem-3.2 Shaq-2.7

BLOCKS Hakeem-3.3 Shaq-2.1

STEALS Hakeem-1.7 Shaq-0.5

REBOUNDS Hakeem-11.2 Shaq-11.6

Sense the point?

Let's move on. Our thread author criticizes Hakeem for winning only 1 league mvp... which is exactly the same number that Shaq won. Huh.

Conversely, Hakeem was 2x nba defensive POY, and 5x first-team all-defense. Shaq was never either.

To summarize, this thread is nonsense. Peace.
All that the playoff stats tell us is that Shaq went on more post-prime deep playoff runs than Olajuwon did. Olajuwon is one of the great playoff performers, and I'm uncertain as to the purpose of this thread. However the numbers posted are unfair both because they place more emphaisis on Hakeem's prime than Shaq and because turnovers and field goal percentage are ignored.

If you want to compare their primes this can be done easily. Here are eaches numbers through 12th season

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=onealsh01&y1=2004&p2=olajuha01&y2=1996

Olajuwon is certainly closer to Shaq in the playoffs than the regular season. Still each advanced metric gives Shaq a clear advantage.

Similarly it's odd that you pick and choose accolades, you list DPoY and All-Defensive Teams, but ignore career MVP Shares (Shaq 7th 4.380, Hakeem 16th 2.611) or All-NBA First Team choices (Shaq 8, Hakeem 6). I'm not going to say these prove Shaq was superior (though these are more presitgious awards) because one could argue the merits of their level of competition for these awards. But your argument is based on partial and selectively chosen evidence.

[jlauber]

Coninuing...

As bad as it was in Wilt's first three seasons, his surrounding talent would become MUCH worse (yes, I know, hard to believe.)

'63. Wilt's roster was arguably the WORST in NBA history. He played alongside FIFTEEN different players, many of whom were clowns that couldn't have made another NBA roster, and in fact, would be out of the league shortly.

Still, he put up a remarkable season. He won the scoring title by over 10 ppg. He won the rebounding title. He set a then record FG% mark (that he would shatter SEVERAL more times after that.) In fact, he LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories...including WIN SHARES (and by a HUGE margin), and PER (his 31.8 mark is still the all-time record.)

However, while he shot .528 from the field, his inept teammates shot .412, in a league that shot .441. The worst team in the league shot .427.

And despite their 31-49 record, they lost 35 games by single digits, and had a -2.1 ppg differential. Oh, and while they only went 1-8 against the Celtics, who had a NINE to ONE edge in HOFers, they lost six close games, and even won a blowout. In fact, they were in ALL nine games going into the 4th quarters. And all Chamberlain did was outscore Russell, per game, 38 ppg to 14 ppg.

Simmons would have you believe that Wilt had two "All-Star" teammates that season, too. First of all, as Owl brilliantly pointed out before, no team could send more than three players to the All-Star game. Secondly, Wilt's "All-Star" teammates were Tom Meschery, (his ONLY appearance BTW...and here again, his BEST season of his career) who would play 64 games, and average 16 ppg, 10 ppg, and shoot .425. His other all-star teammate was Guy Rodgers. Now, Rodgers was an exceptional passer, to be sure. However, he was arguably the WORST shooter in NBA history (especially when compared with LEAGUE AVERAGE FG%. In that '63 season, he actually had one of the best seasons of his career in terms of his shooting, at ... .387. And, as bad a shooter as Rodgers was, the man simply kept trying, too. Instead of realizing that Ray Charles would have shot better, he continued to mis-fire. Had he just PASSED the ball into Wilt, they might have won considerably more games.

Continued...

[jlauber]

Like we didn't know that Jlauber was going to make yet another thread completely about Wilt.. :facepalm

14 essays about Wilt already.. :facepalm

And all started by whom?

[millwad]

And all started by whom?

I wrote a freaking sentence about Wilt, as usual you just wait for someone to mention Wilt so you can completely hi-jack the thread with your irrelevant Wilt spam.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

How bad was Wilt's '63 roster? His new coach in the '64 season, Alex Hannum conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, and against draft picks and scrubs. Guess which team won? Hannum was shocked at how dependent that the Warriors roster had become on Chamberlain. Not that it was a surprise, though. Chamberlain's previous coach's took one look at the pathetic rosters that they had, and decided to roll their dice exclusively with Wilt. And who could blame them? Chamberlain was shooting .530, and his teammates were shooting .400.

Still, with excellent coaching, and the part-time play of rookie Nate Thurmond, the Warriors miraculously went 48-32...with essentially the same roster that had gone 31-49 the year before.

Then, Chamberlain put up one of the greatest playoff runs in NBA history. In the first round, seven game series against the Hawks, Wilt single-handedly won the series with a 39 ppg, 23 rpg, .559 series. Which included a game five performance of 50 points on 22-32 shooting, and a clinching game seven performance of 39 points, 26 rebounds, and 10 blocks (while holding Beaty to 10 points.)

Of course, as would be the case for nearly his entire playoff career, he ran into Russell and the Celtic Dynasty in the Finals. And while Boston won the series, 4-1, the last two losses were decided in the waning seconds, and in games in which Chamberlain just crushed Russell. Oh, and BTW, Russell's Celtics enjoyed an 8-2 edge in HOFers. For the series, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 29.2 to 11.2 ppg; outrebounded Russell, per game, 27.6 rpg to 25.2 rpg; and outshot Russell overall, .517 to .386.

Continued...

[jlauber]

I wrote a freaking sentence about Wilt, as usual you just wait for someone to mention Wilt so you can completely hi-jack the thread with your irrelevant Wilt spam.

Think about that the NEXT time I make a thread.

[jlauber]

Hakeem at the peak of his powers was utterly unstoppable.The man played out of his mind for a couple of years.Since then, no one has dominated their peers to the level Olajuwon did.

Playoffs (1994 and 1995)




:no:

Shaq played 30 playoff games against the Spurs.He only scored 30+ points four times.It doesn't matter because he always had very talented teams.

LINK (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=onealsh01&p2=duncati01)




Shaq only looked incredible dominant against the Kings and the weak East.You can say the same thing about prime Duncan against the Mavs.



LINK
(http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=duncati01&p2=nowitdi01)


Duncan was clearly the best player in '99


LINK (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/1999/playoffs/news/1999/06/25/spurs_knicks_game5/)


and from '03 - '05.


GM Survey: If you were starting a franchise today and could sign any player in the NBA, who would it be?




Sure,but Shaq benefited immensely from Duncan's injury that caused him to miss the playoffs in 2000,and the fact that the Spurs' second option was the 20-year-old rookie Tony Parker (2002)

Post Shaq's and Duncan's H2H FG%'s too. AND, how about their FOURTH QUARTER numbers, when they actually DEFENDED each other in those games. Without looking them up, I suspect that Duncan shot under 40% in those 4th quarters (and I believe the entire game logs are available at ESPN.com.)

[millwad]

Think about that the NEXT time I make a thread.

You're retarded, you don't understand how stupid you look.
So everytime anyone mentions Wilt's name you have to follow that up with writing 15 huge essays about him?

First you make a completely crappy thread about a 36 year old Olajuwon vs prime Shaq, something you've spammed a thousand times about.

And now you've written 15 posts about Wilt in this thread, are you mentally challenged? Do you have anything to do in your life other than spamming about Wilt? Do you have friends and family? I mean, the amount of time you spend on spamming about Wilt on the net is creepy and this ain't the only forum where you're active at. I remember Fatal9 posting a handful of other sites where you spammed about Wilt?

What about Wilt makes you so obsessed with him and why did it happend just a few years ago?

[jlauber]

http://i.imgur.com/qB7b6.gif
Jlauber, I do think it's incredibly unfair you put a prime Shaq vs a past-prime Hakeem. I disagree with your analysis on the '95 Finals, but at the very least it's fair and logical analysis.

Well, it has long been a fallacy here that Hakeem outplayed Shaq in the '95 Finals. It was Hakeem's TEAMMATES who BADLY outplayed Shaq's. Aside from the FACT that Hakeem's TEAMMATES badly outshot Shaq's from the field and the arc...



Think about this...

Game one. Houston wins 120-118 (with Anderson going 0-4 in the last ten seconds.) Hakeem's TEAMMATES outscored Shaq's from the line by an 11-7 margin.

Game two. Houston wins 117-106. Hakeem's TEAMMATES outscore Shaq's by a whopping 28-9 margin from the line.

Game three. Houston wins 106-103. Hakeem's TEAMMATES outscore Shaq's from the line by an 18-13 margin.

Game four. Houston wins 113-101. Hakeem's teammates outscore Shaq's from the line by a 17-8 margin (the only game in which the FT shooting did not completely save Hakeem.)


In any case, I get sick-and-tired of continually reading about how Hakeem outplayed Shaq in the '95 Finals. Even if I were to concede that fact, (and I never will), this was a PRIME Hakeem, and going up against a 22 year old Shaq.

From that point on, Shaq just ABUSED Hakeem. And by the time this game took place, Shaq's career against Hakeem was a one-sided rout.

[millwad]

So when Wilt's teammates badly outplayed Kareem's in '72 and where Wilt got outscored with 23 points per game on better FG% you don't give a crap about teammates or stats, but when it's Olajuwon it's all about stats and all about his teammates ALTHOUGH everyone knows Olajuwon outplayed Shaq.

Such a hypocrite... :facepalm

[jlauber]

So when Wilt's teammates badly outplayed Kareem's in '72 and where Wilt got outscored with 23 points per game on better FG% you don't give a crap about teammates or stats, but when it's Olajuwon it's all about stats and all about his teammates ALTHOUGH everyone knows Olajuwon outplayed Shaq.

Such a hypocrite... :facepalm

Kareem shot .457 in that series, in a year in which he shot .574. Oh, and BTW, he shot .414 over the course of the last four games (three of them Laker wins.) Kareem outshot Wilt, .457 to .452, BUT, he missed 107 shots, while Chamberlain missed a TOTAL of 20. And, in the clinching game six win, Wilt scored 20 points on 12 shots, while Kareem scored 37 on 37.

Still, that was a PRIME Kareem, going up against a 35 year old Wilt, on a surgically repaired knee, and nowhere the player that destroyed many of the SAME centers that a PRIME Kareem would face, by a a FAR greater margin.

Meanwhile, a PRIME Hakeem barely outscored a YOUNG Shaq, 33 pp to 28 ppg, by taking TEN more FGAs per game, and in a series in which Shaq outshot him by an unfathomable .595 to .483 margin, while easily outrebounding, outassisting, and even outblocking him.

[jlauber]

You're retarded, you don't understand how stupid you look.
So everytime anyone mentions Wilt's name you have to follow that up with writing 15 huge essays about him?

First you make a completely crappy thread about a 36 year old Olajuwon vs prime Shaq, something you've spammed a thousand times about.

And now you've written 15 posts about Wilt in this thread, are you mentally challenged? Do you have anything to do in your life other than spamming about Wilt? Do you have friends and family? I mean, the amount of time you spend on spamming about Wilt on the net is creepy and this ain't the only forum where you're active at. I remember Fatal9 posting a handful of other sites where you spammed about Wilt?

What about Wilt makes you so obsessed with him and why did it happend just a few years ago?

What makes YOU so obsessed with Wilt that you have to enter EVERY topic in which his name is mentioned, and go out of your way to disparage him? Whether it be his UNEQUALED athleticism, scoring skills, shooting skills, rebounding skills, passing skills, and defensive skills?

[millwad]

Kareem shot .457 in that series, in a year in which he shot .574. Oh, and BTW, he shot .414 over the course of the last four games (three of them Laker wins.) Kareem outshot Wilt, .457 to .452, BUT, he missed 107 shots, while Chamberlain missed a TOTAL of 20. And, in the clinching game six win, Wilt scored 20 points on 12 shots, while Kareem scored 37 on 37.

He still outshot Wilt and outscored him with the huge margin of 23 points.



Still, that was a PRIME Kareem, going up against a 35 year old Wilt, on a surgically repaired knee, and nowhere the player that destroyed many of the SAME centers that a PRIME Kareem would face, by a a FAR greater margin.


Not my point, my point is that you overlook the fact that Wilt's teammates badly outplayed Kareem's and that stats is not important in that series. And your proof of Wilt "dominating" Kareem is two articles. Actually you called it, Wilt "murdering" Kareem.. :facepalm

But when it comes to Hakeem and Shaq in '95 you spam about cherry picked stats, never have you mentioned Shaq's crazy many TO's, and you are all about Shaq's teammate getting outplayed by Hakeem's. And your beloved media is suddenly nothing you care about, even though all media made it clear that Olajuwon outplayed Shaq you don't give a damn about it. But 2 articles about Wilt and Kareem suddenly means everything.



Meanwhile, a PRIME Hakeem barely outscored a YOUNG Shaq, 33 pp to 28 ppg, by taking TEN more FGAs per game, and in a series in which Shaq outshot him by an unfathomable .595 to .483 margin, while easily outrebounding, outassisting, and even outblocking him.

Why are you again talking about stats? Lets talk about stats in the '72 series where you claim that Wilt "murdered" Kareem when Kareem outscored Wilt with 23 points PER GAME, shot with a higher FG% and outassisted Wilt.. To you stats doesn't matter in that series.. :facepalm

You're such a hypocrite, stuff you use to prove that Wilt got the best of Kareem suddenly doesn't count when it is about Hakeem.. :facepalm

[jlauber]

Back to Simmons'...

The IDIOTIC Simmons is on record as claiming that Wilt was twice traded for "pennies on the dollar", including at mid-season in the 64-65 season. Actually, a panic-stricken Warrior team, told by their team doctors that Wilt had a heart condition, traded Chamberlain for THREE players and a BOATLOAD of cash (at the time.)

In any case, this is particularly interesting...

In Wilt's last full season with the Warriors, they went 48-32, and made it to the Finals, despite their only other talent being players like Meschery, Rodgers, and an under-rated Al Attles (who, despite his ordinary stats, was really Wilt's second best player that season.)

Chamberlain was traded to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before, and missed the playoffs. He immediately took that 40-40 team thru a first round romp over the 48-32 Royals, and then to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team at their PEAK. And in that series, Chamberlain averaged 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and shot .555 from the field. Perhaps the greatest post-season series in NBA history, especially when you consider he was doing it against Russell and his swarming Celtics.

And, Wilt would then take that Sixer roster to the best record in the league in the next three seasons, including a dominating world title in '67.

Yet, where does Simmons mention anything about that?

Furthermore, how about Wilt's IMPACT with those crappy Warrior rosters from '60 thru the first half of '65?

Remember, in Wilt's LAST full season with SF, he led that team to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals. Now, he was basically replaced by Nate Thurmond, who would go on to have a HOF career himself. Then, the Warriors were so bad, that they were able to draft Rick Barry. The result in their first full season together, in '66? That Warrior team could only go 35-45. Here was Chamberlain replaced by TWO HOFers, and they could only go 35-45, while Chamberlain himself had taken the rest of that crappy roster to a 48-32 record just the full season before.

And it gets even better, too. After the '66 season, the Warriors, (and STILL with holdovers like Meschery and Attles) added players like high-scoring Jeff Mullins, rebounding force Clyde Lee, and talented Fred Hetzel to their '66 roster. Guess what? With all of that talent, the '67 Warriors could STILL only go 44-37 (and were blown out by Wilt's 68-13 Sixers in the Finals.)

Think about that Mr. Simmons. How come Chamberlain could SINGLE-HANDEDLY carry a Warrior team to a 48-32 record in '64, and yet, with many of the same holdovers (players like Meschery and Attles), a '67 Warrior team with HOFers Thurmond, Barry, and quality players like Mullins, Lee, and Hetzel...could only go 44-37. WHY?

Continued...

[Freedom Kid7]

Well, it has long been a fallacy here that Hakeem outplayed Shaq in the '95 Finals. It was Hakeem's TEAMMATES who BADLY outplayed Shaq's. Aside from the FACT that Hakeem's TEAMMATES badly outshot Shaq's from the field and the arc...
No argument with the teammate portion. If I remember correctly, I think Kenny Smith set a record with 8 3-pointers in one of the games.



Think about this...

Game one. Houston wins 120-118 (with Anderson going 0-4 in the last ten seconds.) Hakeem's TEAMMATES outscored Shaq's from the line by an 11-7 margin.
Oh God those 4 shots :lol . Those Freethrows were textbook choking. While Hakeem's teammates certainly did help him that game, Hakeem put the dagger in that thing with tipping in Clyde's miss with five seconds to go. In addition you could also argue that Hakeem outscored Shaq (albeit with lesser fg%) as well as turned the ball over less, along with the extra clutch play allowing him to outplay Shaq for that game, but I'll give you credit that Nick Anderson screwed up badly and that really changed the series moreso than anything else.


Game two. Houston wins 117-106. Hakeem's TEAMMATES outscore Shaq's by a whopping 28-9 margin from the line.
That they did. Also, Hakeem played solid D on Shaq, putting Shaq about 3.2% less than his average field goal percentage.


Game three. Houston wins 106-103. Hakeem's TEAMMATES outscore Shaq's from the line by an 18-13 margin.
Okay.


Game four. Houston wins 113-101. Hakeem's teammates outscore Shaq's from the line by a 17-8 margin (the only game in which the FT shooting did not completely save Hakeem.)
Okay.

Look, for both of these I understand your argument. Stats and jazz. Stats never tell the whole story. The fact that Shaq (who he himself admitted this in an interview) couldn't get into Hakeem's mind during when they played doesn't show in the stats. The fact that pissed the hell out of Shaq doesn't show in the stats. But it was there in the games. The thing about good players in there prime as well is that they bring the best out of there teammates. Hakeem certainly did it throughout that series making Sam Cassell able to get 30 points, making Clyde stay useful, etc. etc. Shaq wasn't close to his prime at this time so he couldn't get the best out of his teammates at this point. I tend to feel the leader of the team shows true importance once he helps his teammates get better (and yes, I do believe Shaq was pivotal in Kobe's development)

Another thing about the whole 'higher FG%' was Shaq had Goddamn Penny to set him up for good shots and positioning. Penny was an elite PG in those days. Hakeem had frikkin Sam Cassell and Kenny Smith. Sure as hell not elite. With a better PG, you're gonna get higher percentage shots.

Also, Shaq may have averaged more assists, but he turned the ball over quite a bit and Hakeem had a higher AST/TO ratio against him in those finals.


In any case, I get sick-and-tired of continually reading about how Hakeem outplayed Shaq in the '95 Finals. Even if I were to concede that fact, (and I never will), this was a PRIME Hakeem, and going up against a 22 year old Shaq.
I understand your viewpoint and respect it. Just tryin' to say mine.


From that point on, Shaq just ABUSED Hakeem. And by the time this game took place, Shaq's career against Hakeem was a one-sided rout.
Of course though. Hakeem was past his heyday and Shaq entered his. That stuff is bound to happen.

I get your logic and hate towards Kareem, Hakeem and Bird, really I do. People tear down Wilt all the time yet the other three have similar flaws in their resume but people prop them up still. I just feel it's slightly unfair to attack Hakeem/Bird/Kareem for the same reasons those who bash Wilt use.
'Tis all.

[Owl]

The blog you cite does everything it accuses Simmons of doing but to a worse degree. A lot of the comparisons uses individual stats which is as flawed an argument as is possible when comparing players like Russell and Wilt.

I cited two blogs are you saying boths methodologies are flawed? In any case I'm happy to argue any specific point and am not wedded to nor do I take my opinions from a specific source. If there are specific issues you disagree with on the sites I'm happy to discuss them. I wasn't thinking particularly of a stat based section of the site when I reffered to it, which section are you thinking of?


It is not debatable that Wilt was a player who made his teammates stats worse and Russell a play who made his teammates stats better. Their styles of play dictated it so. That doesn't mean Wilt makes the teams he is on worse (he didn't) it just means you can't expect a team to have five guys scoring double figures when one guy is getting over 1/3 of the shots most nights and touching the ball nearly every possession.
This is debatable. Not over the totality of their careers, but because you're making a blanket statement there are caveats and points in their career where this is certainly not a clear and unquestionable fact. To be sure early Wilt damaged his teammates scoring averages. I suspect running an offense so heavily through a single player is unlikely to provide the hoped for increase in shooting from other players because they get "cold" from lack of participation in the offense. Note that the 50ppg season was the idea of Frank McGuire, not Wilt, though.

But I'm not sure if Philly Wilt was hurting his teammates statlines. The passer. The double team commander. Do we think near 70% shooter wasn't taking defensive attention away from Chet Walker, Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham? And the '72 Lakers thrived on a fast break started by Wilt (and Happy Hairston)'s rebounding and outlet passing led to easy baskets by Jerry West and Gail Goodrich (Goodrich's best years in terms of combining scoring and efficiency were in 72 and 73). Wilt probably cannibalised a lot of rebounds (i.e. got rebounds his team would have gotten anyway). But I would imagine Russell did too.

I would also question what you mean when you say Russell made his teammates stats better. Better than they were before he arrived then after he left? Better than they would have been with an average center. In any case the improvements to the fast break system (already in place) will have led to a few easy baskets. And Russell was a skilled passer (though later career Chamberlain seems to have been at least comparable). But a simple blanket "Russell made his teammates stats better" is a bit hard to swallow. Boston's field goal percentage fell in Russell's first year. This wasn't Russell being a worse shooter, he was marginally superior to his predecessor Ed Macauley. No this was teammates getting worse numbers. This doesn't seem prinarily to have been a matter of squad turnover though it could be a contributing factor (though of the squads 4 previous .400+ shooters, 3 remained on the club and Macauley was replaced by Russell himself).

And when Russell (and Sam Jones) retired John Havlicek's stock rose greatly. He increased his points per game whilst taking less shots. His field goal percentage increased by 6% on the previous year. He also grabbed more rebounds and passed for more assists. After Russell left Havlicek started getting better stats and more accolades including first team All-NBA selections and MVP votes.

None of this is to say that Chamberlain was a great positive influence on his teammates numbers, nor that Russell wasn't. But the points should be made with caveats and nuance. After leaving the Warriors I certainly don't think Wilt was harming his teammates numbers. Russell probably allowed players to leak out and get easier baskets and could pass well, but we should be specific as to what we mean when we say he was improving his teammates numbers, and be able to back it up.


That's Simmons point. Every team had a lot of talent, the Celtics did not have discernibly more than anyone as evidenced by their regular season win percentages relative to teams in the expansion era and the fact that most of their playoff series were highly competitive and very very rarely was there ever a sweep.
Talent is relative. If you were playing in a league with with 3 teams each with a 5 man roster , having Dirk Nowitzki (or whatever players are in the 10-15 range) would be a weakness rather than a strength. Psileas is rightly pointing out that every team had a larger portion of accolade winners back then because there were less teams, but more or less the same number of accolades. That doesn't make the league more equal.
I don't know how having tight series is a better proof of parity (given its tiny sample size) than points differential and SRS.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tsl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=advanced&lg_id=NBA&year_min=1957&year_max=1965&franch_id=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=srs#stats::none

Through to '65 it's unquestionably clear that Boston was a much better regular season team than any of its competitors. They didn't win in the playoff because Russell had some magic winning potion, nor because they "wanted it more". They won because they had the best team. Part of that is the top of the ticket, Russell was certainly better than most teams stars. But the Celtics were also stronger 2-12 than any other team. Every single year (up to and including 1965).

Post edited to correct typo

[jlauber]

Continuing...

As I have conclusively proven, Chamberlain was saddled with just horrible surrounding personnel in his first six seasons in the league. And, despite that lack of talent, he single-handedly carried THREE of those six teams to the ECF's, and one Final where he would run into the Dynastic HOF-laden Celtics. And, in those four series, his TEAM was beaten in one, 4-1, BUT, lost the last two games in the last seconds; were beaten 4-2 in another, and when Chamberlain badly injured his hand, they were wiped out in one of those games, or who knows how that series might have played out; were beaten in a game seven, by two points in another one; and were edged by ONE point in a game seven, in yet another.

Swap those six rosters and I am CONVINCED that it would have been WILT with a 6-0 margin in rings (and I seriously doubt ANY of those series would have been close, either.)

That brings us to the last four seasons in which Russell and Chamberlain went H2H.

Simmons would argue that since Wilt's TEAMs had better records, that Chamberlain naturally had better supporting casts...which was simply NOT true. I would argue that he finally had EQUAL supporting casts (and, they were not nearly as deep, either.)

Ok then, why did Russell's TEAMs STILL go 3-1 against Wilt's?

The ONLY one of those years that was perplexing was in '66. And even that is somewhat explainable. In the '66 season, Wilt's Sixers had to win their final 11 games to surpass Boston, 55-25 to 54-26. Of course, the seven-time defending Celtics were probably on cruise control, and were still far more experienced.

Of course, the goofball Simmons will point out that Chamberlain averaged 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, shot .540, and handed out 5.2 apg during the regular season...and "declined" in the ECF's against Russell.

Here are the REAL facts. In the '66 regular season, Chamberlain's Sixers went 6-3 against Russell's Celtics. And, in those nine games, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg, and 30.7 rpg (yes, 30.7 rpg.) I don't have his FG%, but it won't matter in a moment.

In the '66 ECF's, Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 from the field. And, yes, he "only" handed out 3.2 apg (instead of the 5.2 apg that he had in tyhe regular season.) Think about that, other than his apg, his playoff numbers against Russell were nearly IDENTICAL to those that he had against him in their nine regular season H2H's.

So, how come Wilt's Sixers, who had gone 6-3 against Boston in the regular season, were wiped out 4-1, in the ECF's? Wilt's TEAMMATES collectively shot .352 from the field. Yes... .352 from the field. To a man they were AWFUL. And, THAT also explains why Wilt's apg were down. His teammates simply couldn't hit the ocean from a lifeboat.

BTW, in the clinching game five loss, all Chamberlain did was score 46 points, on 19-34 shooting (and yes, an awful 8-25 from the line), with 34 rebounds. More on that later.

The bottom line...Wilt's '66 Sixers were simply not as good as Russell's Celtics. That they were beaten by Boston had absolutely NOTHING to do with Chamberlain.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

We'll skip Chamberlain's '67 post-season for now.

Once again, in Wilt's last four H2H seasons with Russell's Celtics, the two had about equal rosters. Why did Russell still hold a 3-1 margin?

I already addressed '66. Ultimately, Russell's TEAM was actually SUPERIOR. And his TEAMMATES badly outplayed Chamberlain's in that series.

How about '68? Ok, I will be the first to admit that this Chamberlain team probably had a superior roster to Russell's. For the second straight season his Sixers just ran away with the best record in the league.

So, how did his TEAM lose to Russell's? Easy answer. The team that had romped to the best record in the league with a 62-20 mark (to Boston's 54-28) was NOT the team that would lose a game seven by four points to the Celtics in the ECF's.

For instance, HOFer Billy Cunningham was injured in the first round against the Knicks, and did not play again. Still, the Sixers were able to forge a 3-1 series lead. Even Red Auerbach had all but given up by that point ("It's a shame that people will probably forget just how good he (Russell) was.")

Then the unthinkable happened. In game five, the Sixers, already under-manned and with nowhere the depth that Boston had, lost BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones to leg injuries. Down 81-79 late in the third period, and with no depth, they were trounced in the 4th quarter.

To add to all of the above, Wilt, HIMSELF, was beset with a series of injuries, including a tear in his quad. Game recaps mentioned that Wilt was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game three on. Even Russell commented that "a lessor man would have not played"....which, of course meant that virtually NON ONE ELSE would have been playing. Not only did Wilt play (he would play every minute of that series) he played reasonably well. Overall, while it was not nearly his best series against Russell, he still put up a 22-25 .487 series.

The series went to a game seven, and for some mysterious reason, Chamberlain's teammates did NOT pass him the ball. He only touched the ball on the offensive end, in the second half, NINE times, and only TWICE in the 4th quarter. And with Wilt's teammates collectively shooting 25-74 in that game seven, Boston eked out a 100-96 win.

I am completely convinced that a healthy Sixer squad duplicates their previous season 4-1 destruction of Boston. Furthermore, just how bad would it have been for Boston had the roles been completely reversed, and Russell had been hobbled, with perhaps Havlicek not playing, and then Sanders and Siegfried crippled late in the series?

Continued...

[jlauber]

No argument with the teammate portion. If I remember correctly, I think Kenny Smith set a record with 8 3-pointers in one of the games.



Oh God those 4 shots :lol . Those Freethrows were textbook choking. While Hakeem's teammates certainly did help him that game, Hakeem put the dagger in that thing with tipping in Clyde's miss with five seconds to go. In addition you could also argue that Hakeem outscored Shaq (albeit with lesser fg%) as well as turned the ball over less, along with the extra clutch play allowing him to outplay Shaq for that game, but I'll give you credit that Nick Anderson screwed up badly and that really changed the series moreso than anything else.


That they did. Also, Hakeem played solid D on Shaq, putting Shaq about 3.2% less than his average field goal percentage.


Okay.


Okay.

Look, for both of these I understand your argument. Stats and jazz. Stats never tell the whole story. The fact that Shaq (who he himself admitted this in an interview) couldn't get into Hakeem's mind during when they played doesn't show in the stats. The fact that pissed the hell out of Shaq doesn't show in the stats. But it was there in the games. The thing about good players in there prime as well is that they bring the best out of there teammates. Hakeem certainly did it throughout that series making Sam Cassell able to get 30 points, making Clyde stay useful, etc. etc. Shaq wasn't close to his prime at this time so he couldn't get the best out of his teammates at this point. I tend to feel the leader of the team shows true importance once he helps his teammates get better (and yes, I do believe Shaq was pivotal in Kobe's development)

Another thing about the whole 'higher FG%' was Shaq had Goddamn Penny to set him up for good shots and positioning. Penny was an elite PG in those days. Hakeem had frikkin Sam Cassell and Kenny Smith. Sure as hell not elite. With a better PG, you're gonna get higher percentage shots.

Also, Shaq may have averaged more assists, but he turned the ball over quite a bit and Hakeem had a higher AST/TO ratio against him in those finals.


I understand your viewpoint and respect it. Just tryin' to say mine.


Of course though. Hakeem was past his heyday and Shaq entered his. That stuff is bound to happen.

I get your logic and hate towards Kareem, Hakeem and Bird, really I do. People tear down Wilt all the time yet the other three have similar flaws in their resume but people prop them up still. I just feel it's slightly unfair to attack Hakeem/Bird/Kareem for the same reasons those who bash Wilt use.
'Tis all.

Excellent post.

I may not agree with all of it, but it was well thought out...which is refreshing...

:cheers:

[Freedom Kid7]

Excellent post.

I may not agree with all of it, but it was well thought out...which is refreshing...

:cheers:
:cheers: . Always good to have a conversation with Mr. Jlauber

[Odinn]

Post Shaq's and Duncan's H2H FG%'s too. AND, how about their FOURTH QUARTER numbers, when they actually DEFENDED each other in those games. Without looking them up, I suspect that Duncan shot under 40% in those 4th quarters (and I believe the entire game logs are available at ESPN.com.)
With excluding 2008, 1999-2001-2002-2003-2004 Shaq vs. Duncan in the playoffs;

Shaq; 23.9ppg / 13.5rpg / 2.5apg / 2.8bpg / 0.6spg / 3.0tpg / .536fg% / .532ft% / 27.52eff
Tim; 25.8ppg / 12.9rpg / 4.1apg / 2.4bpg / 0.9spg / 4.0tpg / .483fg% / .727ft% / 29.44eff

basketball-reference.com has 4th fgs-fgas for 2001-2002-2003-2004 and your argument about Duncan shooting lower than 40% is pretty wrong. In those 4 series, Duncan shot exactly 40%(34/85) in the 4th quarters.

But what you wrong about is;
Duncan dominated the Spurs-Lakers series in 2003, his 4th q fg% .304 (7/23), but 3 of those 6 games were blow-out and Duncan didn't matchup Shaq as much as you claim. Duncan's 4th q fg% is .550(11/20) in 2004 series. He matched up with Shaq more than usual and he shot over .500. Yet 2004 Spurs-Lakers series arguably is the only choke-job Duncan had in his prime. So... I see so much fail in that post.

[Freedom Kid7]

With excluding 2008, 1999-2001-2002-2003-2004 Shaq vs. Duncan in the playoffs;

Shaq; 23.9ppg / 13.5rpg / 2.5apg / 2.8bpg / 0.6spg / 3.0tpg / .536fg% / .532ft% / 27.52eff
Tim; 25.8ppg / 12.9rpg / 4.1apg / 2.4bpg / 0.9spg / 4.0tpg / .483fg% / .727ft% / 29.44eff

basketball-reference.com has 4th fgs-fgas for 2001-2002-2003-2004 and your argument about Duncan shooting lower than 40% is pretty wrong. In those 4 series, Duncan shot exactly 40%(34/85) in the 4th quarters.

But what you wrong about is;
Duncan dominated the Spurs-Lakers series in 2003, his 4th q fg% .304 (7/23), but 3 of those 6 games were blow-out and Duncan didn't matchup Shaq as much as you claim. Duncan's 4th q fg% is .550(11/20) in 2004 series. He matched up with Shaq more than usual and he shot over .500. Yet 2004 Spurs-Lakers series arguably is the only choke-job Duncan had in his prime. So... I see so much fail in that post.
I wouldn't call it a choke-job in '04 as much as I'd call it incredible luck ala .4.

[Odinn]

I wouldn't call it a choke-job in '04 as much as I'd call it incredible luck ala .4.
Yeah. Before that lucky shot, Duncan made an amazing shot over the Shaq. It could be his best game-winning shot. IMO, it was even more impressive than that 3 pointer against the Suns in 2008 playoffs.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

I have covered the '69 Finals many times before. But in any case, let's review it.

Simmons would have you believe that when Chamberlain was traded to a Laker team that had Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, they should have been a SUPER team. And, Simmons would have you believe that Wilt was traded for "40 cents on the dollar."

First of all, I have long maintained that had the Sixers made an unhappy Chamberlain happy, that they would not have been FORCED to trade him. Furthermore, the Sixers of the late 60's were in the process of building a "mini-dynasty." Greer, Walker, Jackson, and Chamberlain were all near their prime, and an up-and-coming Cunningham was nearing his. Had that core remained together, I honestly believe that the Sixers would have gone on to win 3-4 more rings.

In any case, Wilt not only had to replace the two main pieces in the trade, journeyman center Darrall Imhoff and all-star guard Archie Clark, but the Lakers also lost future HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft (by FAR the biggest loss by any team in that draft.) So, in essence, Wilt had to replace 42 ppg and 18 rpg from the '68 Laker team.

Not only that, but the Lakers had gone from a three-deep guard rotation of West, Clark, and Goodrich...down to now ONE guard. Ultimately the second guard position was handed to journeyman Johnny Egan...and ultimately, it would probably cost LA a world title.

In addition, Baylor was on a severe decline, and it would REALLY surface in the post-season. He never did fully recover from his knee injury in '65, and he was only an offensive player at this point...albeit, not a very efficient one.

And finally, that '69 Laker team may have had the most incompetent COACH of all-time, as well. It was bad enough that he was routinely outcoached in terms of strategy, but his stubborn disrespect for Chamberlain was truly out of line. The clown even made this comical remark, "When we pass the ball into Wilt, he will score. But it is an ugly offense to watch."

So, instead of asking an aging and declining Baylor to take a diminished scoring load, he slapped Chamberlain with it. To his credit, Chamberlain obliged.

And, as mentioned ealier, Baylor was simply AWFUL in the post-season, and even WORSE in the Finals. The Lakers had jumped out to a 2-0 lead in that series, but in game three Baylor shot 4-14 (and he and West shot a combined 1-14 from the field in the 4th quarter), in a six point loss. In game four, Baylor not only shot an unfathomable 2-14 from the floor, but he even contributed a 1-6 from the line...in a one point loss. Then, in the game seven, two point loss, and with Wilt sitting on the bench in the last five minutes...Baylor shot 8-22 from the field.

I mentioned Egan previously, as well. He and Van Breda Kolf combined to probably cost the Lakers their first title in LA, with ONE PLAY. With the Lakers leading the series, 2-1, and leading late in game four, 88-87, and with the BALL, Van Breda Kolf made the second biggest blunder of his career (the other being when he left Chamberlain on the bench in the last five minutes of game seven.) Instead of having WEST handling the ball in the last few seconds, he had EGAN with it. The result? Of course Egan was stripped, and, of course, Sam Jones, while falling down, hit the game winner at the buzzer.

Had Van Breda Kolf put the ball in WEST's hands, and likely LA would have won the game. That, combined with a 117-104 win in game five, and the Lakers would have romped 4-1 to a world title. Instead, that coaching blunder ultimately cost the Lakers the series.

Van Breda Kolf was fired shortly after game seven...but it was too late. His coaching had not only basically cost him his career, it also deprived West and Chamberlain a ring.

[Freedom Kid7]

Yeah. Before that lucky shot, Duncan made an amazing shot over the Shaq. It could be his best game-winning shot. IMO, it was even more impressive than that 3 pointer against the Suns in 2008 playoffs.
The shot over Shaq was more difficult and impressive
The 3-pointer was unexpected and borderline hilarious (goes to show how poor that Suns defense was)

[G.O.A.T]

I cited two blogs are you saying boths methodologies are flawed? In any case I'm happy to argue any specific point and am not wedded to nor do I take my opinions from a specific source. If there are specific issues you disagree with on the sites I'm happy to discuss them. I wasn't thinking particularly of a stat based section of the site when I reffered to it, which section are you thinking of?

Speaking of the simmonsbogusbook blog. It mentions the all-star and all-league selections of Andy Phillip and Arnie Rison as a case for those guys being better than the St. Louis Hawks core of support guys. It ignores the coaching change the Hawks made that season and the move of Hagan from back-up guard to starting forward. It uses point differential to make a case in it's favor but ignores how the same stat can be used to make a case against. Here is an example of how limited the person who made it's knowledge is or how selective)

"The problem here is that Boston had three more Hall-of-Fame players on its roster. Now I know Jack Coleman, Jack McMahon, and Charlie Share were highly regarded and all, but Bill Sharman, Andy Phillip, and Arnie Risen were much more highly regarded."

Coleman, McMahon and Share were all in their primes, Risen and Phillip were essentially done. This is a worse misrepresentation than anything Simmons can be accused of.




This is debatable. Not over the totality of their careers, but because you're making a blanket statement there are caveats and points in their career where this is certainly not a clear and unquestionable fact. To be sure early Wilt damaged his teammates scoring averages. I suspect running an offense so heavily through a single player is unlikely to provide the hoped for increase in shooting from other players because they get "cold" from lack of participation in the offense. Note that the 50ppg season was the idea of Frank McGuire, not Wilt, though.

But I'm not sure if Philly Wilt was hurting his teammates statlines. The passer. The double team commander. Do we think near 70% shooter wasn't taking defensive attention away from Chet Walker, Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham? And the '72 Lakers thrived on a fast break started by Wilt (and Happy Hairston)'s rebounding and outlet passing led to easy baskets by Jerry West and Gail Goodrich (Goodrich's best years in terms of combining scoring and efficiency were in 72 and 73). Wilt probably cannibalised a lot of rebounds (i.e. got rebounds his team would have gotten anyway). But I would imagine Russell did too.

I would also question what you mean when you say Russell made his teammates stats better. Better than they were before he arrived then after he left? Better than they would have been with an average center. In any case the improvements to the fast break system (already in place) will have led to a few easy baskets. And Russell was a skilled passer (though later career Chamberlain seems to have been at least comparable). But a simple blanket "Russell made his teammates stats better" is a bit hard to swallow. Boston's field goal percentage fell in Russell's first year. This wasn't Russell being a worse shooter, he was marginally superior to his predecessor Ed Macauley. No this was teammates getting worse numbers. This doesn't seem prinarily to have been a matter of squad turnover though it could be a contributing factor (though of the squads 4 previous .400+ shooters, 3 remained on the club and Macauley was replaced by Russell himself).

And when Russell (and Sam Jones) retired John Havlicek's stock rose greatly. He increased his points per game whilst taking less shots. His field goal percentage increased by 6% on the previous year. He also grabbed more rebounds and passed for more assists. After Russell left Havlicek started getting better stats and more accolades including first team All-NBA selections and MVP votes.

None of this is to say that Chamberlain was a great positive influence on his teammates numbers, nor that Russell wasn't. But the points should be made with caveats and nuance. After leaving the Warriors I certainly don't think Wilt was harming his teammates numbers. Russell probably allowed players to leak out and get easier baskets and could pass well, but we should be specific as to what we mean when we say he was improving his teammates numbers, and be able to back it up.

My fault, as the rest of my quote you didn't bold suggests, I was talking about Wilt and Russell before 1964. An in those years it's not debatable.

Wilt's teammates sacrificed every part of their offensive game to build around his amazing talents.

Russell focused on defense (allowing other players to use more energy on offense as well as creating more fast breaks for easy scores and assists) never had a play run for him and was a top fg% guy in the entire league most years.



Talent is relative. If you were playing in a league with with 3 teams each with a 5 man roster , having Dirk Nowitzki (or whatever players are in the 10-15 range) would be a weakness rather than a strength. Psileas is rightly pointing out that every team had a larger portion of accolade winners back then because there were less teams, but more or less the same number of accolades. That doesn't make the league more equal.



I don't know how having tight series is a better proof of parity (given its tiny sample size) than points differential and SRS.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tsl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=advanced&lg_id=NBA&year_min=1957&year_max=1965&franch_id=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=srs#stats::none

srs=made up number by people with agenda, I have no interest.

If it were just one series, fine, but it was over the course of four years, three series. '57 went to 7, Hawks won in six when Russell missed 3 games in '58, Celtics won in 7 in '60....If those two teams aren't evenly matched then no two teams are.


Through to '65 it's unquestionably clear that Boston was a much better regular season team than any of its competitors.

I don't think that's fair or accurate. Sure you could make a case, but it'd be based on what happened, not on what was expected. No one at the time felt that way. Most years the preseason articles were predicting that the Celtics would fall from 1960 on.


They didn't win in the playoff because Russell had some magic winning potion, nor because they "wanted it more". They won because they had the best team. Part of that is the top of the ticket, Russell was certainly better than most teams stars. But the Celtics were also stronger 2-12 than any other team. Every single year (up to and including 1965).

Minor detail, but most years they didn't even have 12 guys on rosters then. Major detail, they were the best team because they won the title, not the other way around (they won the title because they were the best team). Russell Celtics won the title 3 of 4 times when they didn't end the regular season with the best record as well.

Clearly Russell understood something other players of his era didn't about how to win big games consistently. He never lost a do-or-die game for both teams, that tells you all you need to know.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

I have pretty much destroyed EVERY argument that Simmons drummed up about the Wilt-Russell post-season battles.

Now, lets get to '67. For the first time in Wilt's ten years in the league with Russell, he FINALLY had a roster that was the EQUAL of Russell's. Early in the season, the Sixers made a statement by routing Boston by an unthinkable 138-96 margin, and they never looked back as they roared to a 68-13 record. Not only that, but for one of the few times in his post-season, his supporting cast played reasonably well (and were healthy.)

The result? A 4-1 blowout of the eight-time defending champions. And this was a 60-21 Celtic team that was LOADED and perhaps one of the best Celtic teams in their "dynasty-era."

And even the 4-1 record was deceptive. The Sixers coasted to easy wins in the first three games of the series, and only a poor performance in Boston in a close 121-117 loss prevented a sweep. In the clinching game five win, the final score of 140-116, as bad as it was, was nowhere as dominant as that final score would indicate. The Celtics came out with a fury, and actually led by 17 points late in the first period. After that, Chamberlain and his Sixers just carpet-bombed Boston the rest of the game. With four minutes left, Philly had forged a 131-104 lead...or a 44 point turnaround in less than three quarters.

And for those, like Simmons, who claim that Russell somehow "owned" Wilt (which was NEVER the case...it was more like "holding on for dear life")...give me an answer to this...

In the clinching game five loss of the '66 ECF's, and in a "must-win" situation, Chamberlain responded with an explosive fury, unleashing a 46-34 game on Russell.

Ok, in the '67 ECF's, it was now RUSSELL who was faced with elimination in game five. And how did the "clutch" Russell respond, when it was obvious that Wilt's teammates had finally neutralized his teammates, and that he needed to step up to prevent the five game rout? Russell quietly went out like a lamb to slaughter, waving the white flag along the way. He meekly scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and seven assists. How about Chamberlain "the choker" in that game? He just CRUSHED Russell. He poured 29 points on him, including 22 in the first half, and when the game was still in doubt, on 10-16 shooting. He also swamped Russell with 36 rebounds, handed out 13 assists, and blocked seven shots.

Chamberlain could hang 40-50 point "must-win" games on Russell, and yet, where were Russell's scoring games against Wilt in elimination games?

In any case, hopefully those that blindly read Simmons trash, have a little better understanding of what ACTUALLY took place in those monumental Russell-Wilt post-season battles. It was hardly one-sided. In fact, Chamberlain was a TOTAL of a mere NINE points (four game seven losses by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points) from holding a 5-3 career H2H edge over Russell. Not only that, but Wilt was outplaying, or downright dominating Russell in all of them.

[Djahjaga]

Jlauber, Simmons' point was not that Wilt's teammates played otherworldly every year in the playoffs and that he choked. Rather, his point was that, while Wilt was dominating statistically, his teammates were getting frozen out. He was the cause of their poor play, or at least a major part of it (a lot of credit has to be given to the Boston defense).

The point of comparing the talent level, and not the head to head stats, is that we can see how good the players were in a vacuum. When Russell and Wilt are involved in the games, the statistics of their teammates are different because, according to Simmons, Russell wanted to do what he could to put his teammates in the position they were most likely to succeed, while Wilt thought him scoring the most was the best way for them to play. Do you disagree that this was Wilt's state of mind?

When Wilt adopted Russell's style of play in LA (wherein his stats almost completely looked like Russell's), he won a title. This CANNOT be a coincidence. And Jerry West and Elgin Baylor are better teammates than anyone Russell EVER had. (Yes, I know he didn't have Elgin the year he won, which brings up the point that HE LOST WITH ELGIN BAYLOR AND JERRY WEST ON HIS TEAM)






But none of that is going to change your mind, just like none of your statistics will change mine. Of course Wilt outscored Russell on a better efficiency -- that was his game. Wilt himself said that if Russell played for stats, he would have averaged something like 25 ppg.

What I want to know is what you have to say about Wilt being obsessive with statistics? We already know about scoring, but Simmons also brings up Wilt's desire to never foul out of a game (another statistic), which made him a liability on D whenever he grabbed 4 fouls. And the years he had great assist numbers, it's a known fact that he would deliberately only pass to players that would immediately shoot, and he would freeze out players that were likely to pass or dribble the ball after receiving the pass.

Whatever Wilt did statistically, these above things definitely were to the detriment of the team. There's a reason that Wilt, the king of statistics, only won 2 titles. It wasn't that he choked or that he had terrible teammates. It was that his Hall of Fame level teammates played like absolute dick because he didn't play the game the right way. And when he did, they won a title in LA.

[Djahjaga]

Now, lets get to '67. For the first time in Wilt's ten years in the league with Russell, he FINALLY had a roster that was the EQUAL of Russell's.


How did Wilt not have more talent on that team? The Celtics had old, declining players. Their leading scorer was 33 and limited to something like 32 min a game. Their best perimeter defender was 34 and sucking more statistically than ever (you never do mention how much KC Jones sucked statistically when you're comparing Russ and Wilt's teammates). Havlicek played well, but wasn't the late game killer he would be in the future. Russell was the only player playing more than 32 minutes per game.

[G.O.A.T]

How did Wilt not have more talent on that team? The Celtics had old, declining players. Their leading scorer was 33 and limited to something like 32 min a game. Their best perimeter defender was 34 and sucking more statistically than ever (you never do mention how much KC Jones sucked statistically when you're comparing Russ and Wilt's teammates). Havlicek played well, but wasn't the late game killer he would be in the future. Russell was the only player playing more than 32 minutes per game.

Don't bother arguing with him, he's delusional and/or a liar.

[Djahjaga]

Don't bother arguing with him, he's delusional and/or a liar.

Fair enough. I just want him to answer my question about Wilt's detrimental obsession with statistics. The term stat-padder is thrown a lot around here, but I've never seen or heard of someone more single minded in their quest for the best numbers.

I agree with Jlauber that Wilt had no equal in terms of physical gifts and maybe even pure basketball talent (though this one is very easily arguable), but he clearly didn't play the game the right way for the majority of his career and paid the price for it.

[G.O.A.T]

Fair enough. I just want him to answer my question about Wilt's detrimental obsession with statistics. The term stat-padder is thrown a lot around here, but I've never seen or heard of someone more single minded in their quest for the best numbers.

I agree with Jlauber that Wilt had no equal in terms of physical gifts and maybe even pure basketball talent (though this one is very easily arguable), but he clearly didn't play the game the right way for the majority of his career and paid the price for it.

Here, I'll do it for him.

"Wilt always did exactly what his coaches asked of him. It wasn't his fault that his teammates were hopelessly PATHETIC. Every team he ever played on he made instantly into a contender and as soon as he left they became a bottom feeder. Why wouldn't you let Wilt shoot every time when his teammates people like Guy Rodgers the WORST shooter in NBA history to be a starter."

Something to that effect with some 5,000 copy and pasted words added on.

[ILLsmak]

The shot over Shaq was more difficult and impressive
The 3-pointer was unexpected and borderline hilarious (goes to show how poor that Suns defense was)

We gonna act like Duncan's shot over Shaq wasn't pure luck, too? That was just as ridiculous as Fisher's shot. The reason Fishers shot was more luck was because there's no way he could have got that shot off in .4.

-Smak

[oolalaa]

Here, I'll do it for him.

"Wilt always did exactly what his coaches asked of him. It wasn't his fault that his teammates were hopelessly PATHETIC. Every team he ever played on he made instantly into a contender and as soon as he left they became a bottom feeder. Why wouldn't you let Wilt shoot every time when his teammates people like Guy Rodgers the WORST shooter in NBA history to be a starter."

Something to that effect with some 5,000 copy and pasted words added on.

Mmmmm exactly right.

There is a great quote from Bob Cousy (From Simmons TBOB) - "Basketball is a team game. When it becomes a one-man operation, as it did after Chamberlain came to Philadelphia, it just doesn't work. You cannot expect nine other guys to submerge themselves and their abilities to one man. It particuarly doesn't work when the man everybody else is feeding isn't helping the others whenever and wherever he can....the argument can be made that Chamberlain only suffers from a poor supporting cast. If you have a man who makes better than 50 percent of his shots, the argument goes, why shouldn't you concentrate on getting the ball to him whenever possible? Carrying it to it's logical conclusion, I would have to ask why should you ever let any other player on the team shoot at all. No, statistics mean nothing in basketball."


There was a correlation between the amount of FGs Wilt attempted in the post season and the FG% of his teammates. The more he shot, the worse his teammates performed. Coincidence? :oldlol:

[-23-]

awful thread

[Owl]

Speaking of the simmonsbogusbook blog. It mentions the all-star and all-league selections of Andy Phillip and Arnie Rison as a case for those guys being better than the St. Louis Hawks core of support guys. It ignores the coaching change the Hawks made that season and the move of Hagan from back-up guard to starting forward. It uses point differential to make a case in it's favor but ignores how the same stat can be used to make a case against. Here is an example of how limited the person who made it's knowledge is or how selective)

"The problem here is that Boston had three more Hall-of-Fame players on its roster. Now I know Jack Coleman, Jack McMahon, and Charlie Share were highly regarded and all, but Bill Sharman, Andy Phillip, and Arnie Risen were much more highly regarded."

Coleman, McMahon and Share were all in their primes, Risen and Phillip were essentially done. This is a worse misrepresentation than anything Simmons can be accused of.
Fair enough. But it doesn't undermine the majority of their general points. Or those on the basketball-reference blog. And for what it's worth whether or not it was a worse error in terms of its blatentness or the degree to which it was wrong, in terms of importance to the general argument I think Simmons' "Wilt played with more players in the NBA 50 at 50" is certainly more misleading in terms of big picture importance to the debate.


My fault, as the rest of my quote you didn't bold suggests, I was talking about Wilt and Russell before 1964. An in those years it's not debatable.

Wilt's teammates sacrificed every part of their offensive game to build around his amazing talents.

Russell focused on defense (allowing other players to use more energy on offense as well as creating more fast breaks for easy scores and assists) never had a play run for him and was a top fg% guy in the entire league most years.
Through '64 I don't a have a problem with that.
I would say I thought the Celtics always had the same 7 plays and Ed Macauley seemed to do alright as the center in the offense so the "never had a play called for him" seems, if not false then certainly a limited part of the picture.


srs=made up number by people with agenda, I have no interest.
Every single number in basketball is "made up" basketball doesn't exist in a state of nature. But if you mean it's a number in which complicated calculations are done fine I won't try to persuade you of its merits, other than to say it's a better predictor of titles than regular season record.

Regarding the "agenda" I'm curious as to what you think that is. And why Kyle Wright independently developed his POST formula which comes to the same conclusions both generally, in terms of which teams are the most dominant and specifically, in with regard to the Celtics being the best team each year.

But if you don't like those two how about raw points differential http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tsl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=team_totals&lg_id=NBA&year_min=1957&year_max=1965&franch_id=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=mov#stats::none


If it were just one series, fine, but it was over the course of four years, three series. '57 went to 7, Hawks won in six when Russell missed 3 games in '58, Celtics won in 7 in '60....If those two teams aren't evenly matched then no two teams are.
Russell wasn't the only one injured. Cousy was injured too. So was Sharman.
And why on earth would 3 series be more reliable than three whole seasons. The West was horribly weak '57 the Hawks were the only team with a winning record the other three teams were the worst 3 in the league. This is important because the Hawks, who went 41-31, did so playing each of these weaker teams 12 times, rather than the 9 times they played the tougher teams in the East. Someone had to come out of the West. Even the series the Hawks won they won by margins of 2, 3, 2 and 1 and lost by 24 and 11. The Hawks were lucky.

If the Hawks were even nearly on a par with the Celtics why did they get eliminated in 1959 by a Lakers team with a 33-39 record? A team that the Celtics swept.


I don't think that's fair or accurate. Sure you could make a case, but it'd be based on what happened, not on what was expected. No one at the time felt that way. Most years the preseason articles were predicting that the Celtics would fall from 1960 on.
The best team doesn't always win. If a team featuring LeBron, Kobe, Dwight, Chris Paul and whoever you think the best power forward is teamed up went 82-0, then were all struck down by a serious virus were unable to play, or in some sort of accident and their team was bounced in the first round, would they be worse than the team that won the title. Of course not. And that's not to diminish the team that wins it. You can only beat what's put in front of you. They're the rightful champions and thats what people care about, not the best team.

And that was an extreme example. But the best team doesn't always win. Injuries happen. Matchups happen. "Getting hot" happens. And like I say the team that wins it gets the prize, and nothing can take that away. But it doesn't make them the best team. And measuring dominance over the regular season isn't perfect. Teams know it doesn't count as much and so rest players manage minutes etc. But it gives you a very good idea of who's best, and a genuine league format is a better, fairer way of getting a deserving champion based on sustained excellence.

In sports other than the american team sports, you don't have long seasons and then suddenly say that doesn't really matter, the champion is the winner of this much smaller tournament. The playoffs is a way of adding drama. In soccer the season can be effectively over weeks before it's actually finished. Basketball does a great deal of earning revenue through using a dramatic tournament at the end of the season. And that drama is there because any team can win because luck and injuries and getting hot and matchups happen a team that wasn't the best can win it. It's not likely that a team will fluke a win in the playoffs. But it's more likely than compiling a dominant regular season.

Minor detail, but most years they didn't even have 12 guys on rosters then. Major detail, they were the best team because they won the title, not the other way around (they won the title because they were the best team). Russell Celtics won the title 3 of 4 times when they didn't end the regular season with the best record as well.

They did so in
'66: when Celtics had the best regular season Margin of Victory (or points differential) and the best SRS. They lost more games because they lost Russell for 4 games, Sam Jones for 15, John Havlicek for 11, Tom Sanders for 10 etc. The Warriors top 6 all played at least 79 games. Full strength the Celtics were better. Over the season even with those injuries the Celtics were better.
'67: When the 76ers won
'68: When the 76ers lost Billy Cunningham in the first round, and suffered other injuries in the Celtics series.
'69: When the Celtics were a close 2nd (behind New York) in Margin of Victory (points differential) and SRS. The Celtics were misfortunate in losing a lot of close games and were substantially better than their record indicated. When you account for the extra minutes they would give Russell and Havlicek in the playoffs (they basically played whole games) tightening their rotation more than most would, it's possible to see that the Celtics had given every indication of being capable of winning a title in their regular season.

In any case all of those years are outside the time frame in which I stated that the Celtics were clearly the best team 2 through however many of the 12 available roster spots a team chose to utilize. As such it is of limited relevence to my original point.

Clearly Russell understood something other players of his era didn't about how to win big games consistently. He never lost a do-or-die game for both teams, that tells you all you need to know.
Why a do or die game for both teams. If it was a do-or-die game for his team is all that matters to Bill Russell and the Boston Celtics. That's just an excuse to exclude the games he lost. There aren't many of them. But admitting he wasn't perfect would make your stance more reasonable and your arguments more persuasive. It would also allow you to include a few more wins like when the '68 76ers had the Celtics on the rack at 3-1 but came back (though I would add that the 76ers had misfortune with injuries that series).

But no I don't believe he was responsible for Havlicek stealing the ball or Frank Selvy missing or Sam Jones' miracle shot or Don Nelson's lucky bounce. He was just very good indeed at basketball and played with very good teammates. Was he better at handling pressure than other players? Yes, he (and other Celtics) was.

[jlauber]

Jlauber, Simmons' point was not that Wilt's teammates played otherworldly every year in the playoffs and that he choked. Rather, his point was that, while Wilt was dominating statistically, his teammates were getting frozen out. He was the cause of their poor play, or at least a major part of it (a lot of credit has to be given to the Boston defense).

The point of comparing the talent level, and not the head to head stats, is that we can see how good the players were in a vacuum. When Russell and Wilt are involved in the games, the statistics of their teammates are different because, according to Simmons, Russell wanted to do what he could to put his teammates in the position they were most likely to succeed, while Wilt thought him scoring the most was the best way for them to play. Do you disagree that this was Wilt's state of mind?

When Wilt adopted Russell's style of play in LA (wherein his stats almost completely looked like Russell's), he won a title. This CANNOT be a coincidence. And Jerry West and Elgin Baylor are better teammates than anyone Russell EVER had. (Yes, I know he didn't have Elgin the year he won, which brings up the point that HE LOST WITH ELGIN BAYLOR AND JERRY WEST ON HIS TEAM)






But none of that is going to change your mind, just like none of your statistics will change mine. Of course Wilt outscored Russell on a better efficiency -- that was his game. Wilt himself said that if Russell played for stats, he would have averaged something like 25 ppg.

What I want to know is what you have to say about Wilt being obsessive with statistics? We already know about scoring, but Simmons also brings up Wilt's desire to never foul out of a game (another statistic), which made him a liability on D whenever he grabbed 4 fouls. And the years he had great assist numbers, it's a known fact that he would deliberately only pass to players that would immediately shoot, and he would freeze out players that were likely to pass or dribble the ball after receiving the pass.

Whatever Wilt did statistically, these above things definitely were to the detriment of the team. There's a reason that Wilt, the king of statistics, only won 2 titles. It wasn't that he choked or that he had terrible teammates. It was that his Hall of Fame level teammates played like absolute dick because he didn't play the game the right way. And when he did, they won a title in LA.

I'll respond to you and Oolalaa's comments at the same time.

Chamberlain came to a LAST PLACE team, that basically got old and DECLINED each year he was there. On the flip side, came to a 39-33 team, replacing Ed McCauley, AND with HOFer Heinsohn in his first season. THEN, they added Sam Jones in the next season. And each season they plugged in more talent and role players and then replaced HOF losses with HOFers (Havlicek was there already when Cousy packed it in.)

And, regarding Wilt's so-called obsession with stats, keep in mind that it was his COACH's decision to have Chamberlain taking 30+ FGAs per game. And why not? His teammates were pure crap. And this NONSENSE that the more he shot, the worse his teammates shot is just that...NONSENSE. True, Gola was horrible in the post-season with Chamberlain. However, he was just as horrible in the post-season without him. Arizin hardly lost any shots, but he just became worse, and retired after Wilt's last season.

Other players like Meschery, Greer, West, and Goodrich...ALL had their BEST seasons WITH Chamberlain. And, my god, look who was shooting more in LA. It was West (and Baylor) who shot-jacked, not Wilt.

Once again, Wilt SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried those Warrior teams. Did you not read this?


The IDIOTIC Simmons is on record as claiming that Wilt was twice traded for "pennies on the dollar", including at mid-season in the 64-65 season. Actually, a panic-stricken Warrior team, told by their team doctors that Wilt had a heart condition, traded Chamberlain for THREE players and a BOATLOAD of cash (at the time.)

In any case, this is particularly interesting...

In Wilt's last full season with the Warriors, they went 48-32, and made it to the Finals, despite their only other talent being players like Meschery, Rodgers, and an under-rated Al Attles (who, despite his ordinary stats, was really Wilt's second best player that season.)

Chamberlain was traded to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before, and missed the playoffs. He immediately took that 40-40 team thru a first round romp over the 48-32 Royals, and then to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team at their PEAK. And in that series, Chamberlain averaged 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and shot .555 from the field. Perhaps the greatest post-season series in NBA history, especially when you consider he was doing it against Russell and his swarming Celtics.

And, Wilt would then take that Sixer roster to the best record in the league in the next three seasons, including a dominating world title in '67.

Yet, where does Simmons mention anything about that?

Furthermore, how about Wilt's IMPACT with those crappy Warrior rosters from '60 thru the first half of '65?

Remember, in Wilt's LAST full season with SF, he led that team to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals. Now, he was basically replaced by Nate Thurmond, who would go on to have a HOF career himself. Then, the Warriors were so bad, that they were able to draft Rick Barry. The result in their first full season together, in '66? That Warrior team could only go 35-45. Here was Chamberlain replaced by TWO HOFers, and they could only go 35-45, while Chamberlain himself had taken the rest of that crappy roster to a 48-32 record just the full season before.

And it gets even better, too. After the '66 season, the Warriors, (and STILL with holdovers like Meschery and Attles) added players like high-scoring Jeff Mullins, rebounding force Clyde Lee, and talented Fred Hetzel to their '66 roster. Guess what? With all of that talent, the '67 Warriors could STILL only go 44-37 (and were blown out by Wilt's 68-13 Sixers in the Finals.)

Think about that Mr. Simmons. How come Chamberlain could SINGLE-HANDEDLY carry a Warrior team to a 48-32 record in '64, and yet, with many of the same holdovers (players like Meschery and Attles), a '67 Warrior team with HOFers Thurmond, Barry, and quality players like Mullins, Lee, and Hetzel...could only go 44-37. WHY?



Continued...

[jlauber]

What I want to know is what you have to say about Wilt being obsessive with statistics? We already know about scoring, but Simmons also brings up Wilt's desire to never foul out of a game (another statistic), which made him a liability on D whenever he grabbed 4 fouls. And the years he had great assist numbers, it's a known fact that he would deliberately only pass to players that would immediately shoot, and he would freeze out players that were likely to pass or dribble the ball after receiving the pass.



Regarding "Chamberlain's defense with four fouls" this was addressed a while back in a similar thread by CavsFan, and I won't take the time to search for it now. In any case, CavsFan research did not find ONE game in which Wilt's defense supposedly lapsed when he was in foul trouble. He found SEVERAL in which a Wilt with five fouls was blocking shots to SAVE the game at the end, I believe. And here is one for sure:

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

[QUOTE]In the 1972 NBA Finals, the Lakers again met the New York Knicks; the Knicks were shorthanded after losing Willis Reed to injury, and so, undersized 6'8" Jerry Lucas had the task to defend against the 7'1" Chamberlain.[91] However, prolific outside shooter Lucas helped New York to win Game 1, hitting 9 of his 11 shots in the first half alone; in Game 2, which the Lakers won 106

[jlauber]

Here, I'll do it for him.

"Wilt always did exactly what his coaches asked of him. It wasn't his fault that his teammates were hopelessly PATHETIC. Every team he ever played on he made instantly into a contender and as soon as he left they became a bottom feeder. Why wouldn't you let Wilt shoot every time when his teammates people like Guy Rodgers the WORST shooter in NBA history to be a starter."

Something to that effect with some 5,000 copy and pasted words added on.

Actually, I couldn't have said it better myself. That is 100% correct as to what ACTUALLY occurred I might add.

:applause:

:cheers:

[TheBigVeto]

Shaq did well against Hakeem in those videos.

But Hakeem >>>>>>>>>>>> Wilt Chamberlain.

/thread

[NumberSix]

Not surprising to see that plenty of people's analysis is:

Hakeem's team won = Hakeem shit on Shaq.

[keepinitreal]

Shaq was a beast, but I dunno.. that series was during the lockout season, so some people might not count it as evidence:confusedshrug: :confusedshrug:

[DatAsh]

Not surprising to see that plenty of people's analysis is:

Hakeem's team won = Hakeem shit on Shaq.


There was a lot more going on there than just stats. It should fairly clear to anyone who watched the series that Hakeem was the better player, just like it should be clear to anyone that watched the Olympics this year that Lebron was the best player on the team, despite not having the best statistics.

[millwad]

Lets act like Jlauber started this thread so he could discuss Shaq and Hakeem..

Which is exactly why he's now written 23 posts about Wilt Chamberlain in this thread, what a retard.. :facepalm

[Owl]

Speaking of the simmonsbogusbook blog. It mentions the all-star and all-league selections of Andy Phillip and Arnie Risen as a case for those guys being better than the St. Louis Hawks core of support guys. It ignores the coaching change the Hawks made that season and the move of Hagan from back-up guard to starting forward. It uses point differential to make a case in it's favor but ignores how the same stat can be used to make a case against. Here is an example of how limited the person who made it's knowledge is or how selective)

"The problem here is that Boston had three more Hall-of-Fame players on its roster. Now I know Jack Coleman, Jack McMahon, and Charlie Share were highly regarded and all, but Bill Sharman, Andy Phillip, and Arnie Risen were much more highly regarded."

Coleman, McMahon and Share were all in their primes, Risen and Phillip were essentially done. This is a worse misrepresentation than anything Simmons can be accused of.

Fair enough. But it doesn't undermine the majority of their general points. Or those on the basketball-reference blog. And for what it's worth whether or not it was a worse error in terms of its blatentness or the degree to which it was wrong, in terms of importance to the general argument I think Simmons' "Wilt played with more players in the NBA 50 at 50" is certainly more misleading in terms of big picture importance to the debate.

An additional note with regard to the blog in question rereading it, it does have flaws.

In "Part 1" (the only section I have re-read thus far) in response to a passage
[QUOTE-p61, TBoB Hardback]Boston has two stud guards in their prime (Bill Sharman and

[G.O.A.T]

Fair enough. But it doesn't undermine the majority of their general points. Or those on the basketball-reference blog.

Simmons was laying out the case for Russell and against Wilt, not a full and unbiased analysis. I thought he did an excellent job of framing an entertaining if hyperbolic argument. I think your criticism is fair and accurate though in that he did not do his due diligence to satisfy the extreme fan like you or I, but it's not as if there is one right answer or explanation of when it comes to one of Basketball oldest debates.



And for what it's worth whether or not it was a worse error in terms of its blatentness or the degree to which it was wrong, in terms of importance to the general argument I think Simmons' "Wilt played with more players in the NBA 50 at 50" is certainly more misleading in terms of big picture importance to the debate.

Simmons tongue was firmly in cheek with that like, A natural salvo toward the tired HOFer argument.


Through '64 I don't a have a problem with that.
I would say I thought the Celtics always had the same 7 plays and Ed Macauley seemed to do alright as the center in the offense so the "never had a play called for him" seems, if not false then certainly a limited part of the picture.

The Celtics ran one play for Russ during the during the seven seasons he and Cousy shared the Parquet. A backdoor lob play called the "number six or number eight" play. Cousy and Red Auerbach are my source for this information.



Every single number in basketball is "made up" basketball doesn't exist in a state of nature. But if you mean it's a number in which complicated calculations are done fine I won't try to persuade you of its merits, other than to say it's a better predictor of titles than regular season record.

Regarding the "agenda" I'm curious as to what you think that is. And why Kyle Wright independently developed his POST formula which comes to the same conclusions both generally, in terms of which teams are the most dominant and specifically, in with regard to the Celtics being the best team each year.

But if you don't like those two how about raw points differential http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tsl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=team_totals&lg_id=NBA&year_min=1957&year_max=1965&franch_id=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=mov#stats::none-

I must confess my ignorance as far as the actual formulas and working of most advanced stats. My issue is how easy it is to tweak numbers like that arbitrarily when evaluating something that already happened. Even the greatest statistical minds with access to every conceivable stat advanced or otherwise, can only predict with 54-58% accuracy the likelihoods of sporting event outcomes. So the idea that I would put my faith in something that has essentially been proven (to me) to fail more often at explaining something I witnessed than not, is not one I choose to entertain.



Russell wasn't the only one injured. Cousy was injured too. So was Sharman.
And why on earth would 3 series be more reliable than three whole seasons. The West was horribly weak '57 the Hawks were the only team with a winning record the other three teams were the worst 3 in the league. This is important because the Hawks, who went 41-31, did so playing each of these weaker teams 12 times, rather than the 9 times they played the tougher teams in the East. Someone had to come out of the West. Even the series the Hawks won they won by margins of 2, 3, 2 and 1 and lost by 24 and 11. The Hawks were lucky.

If the Hawks were even nearly on a par with the Celtics why did they get eliminated in 1959 by a Lakers team with a 33-39 record? A team that the Celtics swept.

Last question first, Elgin Baylor. After a closely contested game one of the '59 Finals Russell was asked the same question. His response was to praise the Lakers and predict a grueling series. He was wrong, but the Lakers came on strong to end that season and were, like many teams in that era, much better than their record would indicate.

But to the bulk of your point...Cousy and Sharman played, so their injuries mean little to me. Russell sat games, as you noted, lots of players are injured or hurt during the postseason. If they can, they play through it. If they can't, it's a pretty significant factor.

The Hawks were not a team built for the regular season and being the Western-most franchise during the period in question may have had a lot to do with their struggles during the grind. They had a lot of long road trips and even played a number of "home games" in Louisiana because of Bob Pettit's roots there. One season they traveled almost twice as many miles as the next most nomadic NBA team. Note owner Ben Kerner's take from Terry Pluto's Tall Tales..."We'd have these losing spells; 5, 6, 7 games, sometimes in a row. I'd blame the coaches and they'd say 'we're tired, we've got no legs' Eventually if the coach didn't find the legs, I'd give him a bus ticket out of town." Also Easy Ed Macauley on the same topic..."(Walter) Brown did me a favor sending me to St. Louis and I was glad to be home. But once the season started I spent more time in New York than Missouri...In Boston we'd play Syracuse, Rochester and the Knicks for more than half our games. We never left New England for more than a week." Not sure this is a great argument, but food for thought to be sure.

[G.O.A.T]

The best team doesn't always win. If a team featuring LeBron, Kobe, Dwight, Chris Paul and whoever you think the best power forward is teamed up went 82-0, then were all struck down by a serious virus were unable to play, or in some sort of accident and their team was bounced in the first round, would they be worse than the team that won the title. Of course not. And that's not to diminish the team that wins it. You can only beat what's put in front of you. They're the rightful champions and thats what people care about, not the best team.

And that was an extreme example. But the best team doesn't always win. Injuries happen. Matchups happen. "Getting hot" happens. And like I say the team that wins it gets the prize, and nothing can take that away. But it doesn't make them the best team. And measuring dominance over the regular season isn't perfect. Teams know it doesn't count as much and so rest players manage minutes etc. But it gives you a very good idea of who's best, and a genuine league format is a better, fairer way of getting a deserving champion based on sustained excellence.

In sports other than the american team sports, you don't have long seasons and then suddenly say that doesn't really matter, the champion is the winner of this much smaller tournament. The playoffs is a way of adding drama. In soccer the season can be effectively over weeks before it's actually finished. Basketball does a great deal of earning revenue through using a dramatic tournament at the end of the season. And that drama is there because any team can win because luck and injuries and getting hot and matchups happen a team that wasn't the best can win it. It's not likely that a team will fluke a win in the playoffs. But it's more likely than compiling a dominant regular season.

It's a good point and nothing you say in untrue, but 11 times in 12 seasons where Russell was healthy enough to play out the playoffs his team won. Regardless of HCA, level of talent, injuries, good/bad luck, bad calls, goats, support beams, Wille Naulls elbows etc.

No other player or franchise has had that sort of success rate for even half as long. Was the Celtics "luck" so profound over Russell's years as to tie up every loose end that could have been?


They did so in
'66: when Celtics had the best regular season Margin of Victory (or points differential) and the best SRS. They lost more games because they lost Russell for 4 games, Sam Jones for 15, John Havlicek for 11, Tom Sanders for 10 etc. The Warriors top 6 all played at least 79 games. Full strength the Celtics were better. Over the season even with those injuries the Celtics were better.
'67: When the 76ers won
'68: When the 76ers lost Billy Cunningham in the first round, and suffered other injuries in the Celtics series.
'69: When the Celtics were a close 2nd (behind New York) in Margin of Victory (points differential) and SRS. The Celtics were misfortunate in losing a lot of close games and were substantially better than their record indicated. When you account for the extra minutes they would give Russell and Havlicek in the playoffs (they basically played whole games) tightening their rotation more than most would, it's possible to see that the Celtics had given every indication of being capable of winning a title in their regular season.

In any case all of those years are outside the time frame in which I stated that the Celtics were clearly the best team 2 through however many of the 12 available roster spots a team chose to utilize. As such it is of limited relevence to my original point.

"Most years" I said. 9 of 13 = most.

And from '66 to '69 the Celtics were not exactly world betters in terms of talent.

Russ and Sam while still very good players, were past their prime.
Hondo was just coming into his own.
Satch was even more limited as the league's athleticsm increased and his eroded.
Bailey Howell was well past his prime. Think of him as Dallas Adrian Dantley.
KC Jones was essentially, then actually done.
Em Bryant was maybe the worst starter in the NBA in terms of talent.
Siegfried and Nelson were cut by multiple other NBA teams.

They just weren't supposed to be an elite team anymore. After the 76ers thrashed them in 1967 the Philadelphia crowd chanted "Boston's Dead"

That seemed to be the sentiment around the league then. Two titles later...luck?, magic?, russell? caps lock?



Why a do or die game for both teams. If it was a do-or-die game for his team is all that matters to Bill Russell and the Boston Celtics. That's just an excuse to exclude the games he lost. There aren't many of them. But admitting he wasn't perfect would make your stance more reasonable and your arguments more persuasive. It would also allow you to include a few more wins like when the '68 76ers had the Celtics on the rack at 3-1 but came back (though I would add that the 76ers had misfortune with injuries that series).

But no I don't believe he was responsible for Havlicek stealing the ball or Frank Selvy missing or Sam Jones' miracle shot or Don Nelson's lucky bounce. He was just very good indeed at basketball and played with very good teammates. Was he better at handling pressure than other players? Yes, he (and other Celtics) was.

First of all you win. (not that that was your goal) Your arguments throughout this whole exchange have been better and more well supported than mine.

However I maintain that in single elimination games everyone feels the same pressure and luck/talent/adjustments/execution have been remarkably equal or at least malleable to the point of the seventh game.

That pressure in my experience and based on the accounts I've seen and read is unique.Everything either slows down or speeds up depending on your approach and your mettle.

As far as the times Russell lost when his team faced elimination in general, it happened once (to a healthy Russell) against arguably the greatest team ever in Wilt Chamberlain's greatest season and while Russell's body was at it's most broken down and he was acting as the first African American coach in American team sports and still playing 44 minutes a night anchoring the defense and initiating the fast break and half court offense. Perfect Storm anyone?

Russell was of course not perfect, but his resume is so much closer than anyone elses in any sport ever and amid the climate he came up in...HOLY effing-ess. If that's luck, Russ is gonna live to 200.

[jlauber]

Russell's TEAM's were the winningest Dynasty in major professional team(US...for the benefit of Nightprowler) sports history. 11 titles in 13 seasons.

And Russell anchored everyone of those teams. But let's put some of the "Russell-mystique" in a better perspective, shall we?

As I posted earlier, Russell was basically traded for Ed McCauley, to a Boston team that had gone 39-33 the season before, and had players like Cousy, Sharman, Ramsey, and Risen. AND, they also drafted Tommy Heinsohn, who would go on to win ROY, and have a HOF career.

So, right off the bat, Russell joined the most LOADED team in the league.

Interesting, too, that in Russell's rookie season, he missed 24 games. The Celtics, WITHOUT Russell, went 16-8, and went 28-20 WITH him. So, they actually had a better record withOUT him.


Furthermore, Boston got BETTER almost every season after that. In Russell's second season they added Sam Jones. And, they basically replaced HOFers, like Heinsohn and Cousy, with HOFers like KC Jones and John Havlicek. On top of all of that, they would add significant "role" players to those rosters, too. Players like defensive stawart Satch Sanders, bruising PF-C Wayne Embry, skilled Clyde Lovellette, and Bailey Howell, who was scoring 20 ppg on 50% shooting in leagues that shot far worse.

And, with LOADED rosters EVERY season in his 13 year career, Russell's Celtics won 11 rings. And from '57 thru '65 they, or nine straight seasons, they had the BEST record in the league. And, even in Russell's last four seasons, when Wilt's Sixers had the best record in the league (and a better record in '69), Russell's team's still had the second best record in the league in two of them, (going 60-21 in '67, and in a season in which Chamberlain's Sixers just murdered them.) And, as Owl pointed out, they finished one game behind Philly in '66, but had a ton of injuries that regular season, and were healthy in the playoffs. Furthermore, had the '68 Sixers not been DECIMATED by injuries, there is no way Boston would have won that series (hell, they were down 3-1 to a Philly team that didn't have HOFer Cunningham, and with a HOBBLED Wilt...and then they lost Luke Jackson and Wali Jones to injuries after that.)

Using the above, Boston had the BEST TEAMs in the league from Russell's rookie season, in 56-57, thru his 10th season, 65-66 (once again, that injury-riddled team finished one game behind Wilt's Sixers in the regular season, but were healthy in the post-season.) And they would not have beaten a healthy Sixer squad in '68. So that gives Russell the best team in the league in 11 of his 13 seasons. What happened in the other two? They did overachieve in Russell's last season, when they won a title without HCA in three straight series. More on that in a moment, though. And, they were crushed by Chamberlain's Sixers in '67.

They also lost with the best team in '58, to the 41-31 Hawks (Boston went 49-23), but in Russell's defense, he was injured in game three, and missed games four and five, and only played 20 minutes in the game six loss. However, even that was deceptive. When Russell was injured in game three, they still outscored the Hawks in the 4th quarter, withOUT Russell (in a 111-108 loss.) In game four the Celtics WON (and by a solid margin) withOUT Russell. In game five, and withOUT Russell, they lost by a 102-100 margin. And in that clinching game six loss, they outscored the Hawks in the 2nd half, withOUT Russell, and in a 110-109 loss.

So, CLEARLY the Celtics were a STRONG team, even withOUT Russell. Not only that, but Russell is often credited with going 10-0 in his game seven's in his career. Which was true, of course, but what is interesting, however, is that in SEVEN of those game seven's, (again, out of 10), his team won by FOUR points, or less. His team won two of them in OT.

Think about that for a moment. Playing with the most stacked rosters in NBA history, Russell's titles came down to SEVEN series, in his 13 season career, in which his TEAM won by FOUR points, or less.

Here is a quick breakdown of Russell's CELTICS "close-calls" in his post-seasons...

'57. Boston beats the Hawks in the Finals, in a double OT game seven by a 125-123 margin.

'58. I have covered it above, but here it is again. Boston loses a game six against the Hawks in the Finals, by a 110-109 margin.

'59. In the ECF's, the 59-16 Celtics eke out a 130-125 game seven win over a 35-37 Syracuse team.

'60. Boston thumps the Lakers in game seven, 122-103.

'61. The Celtics dominate in that post-season, and are not challenged.

'62. The 60-20 Celtics beat Wilt's 49-31 Warriors in a game seven, by a 119-117 margin. Then they beat LA in OT in game seven of the Finals, 110-107.

'63. In the ECF's, Boston, and with NINE HOFers, and at 58-22, beats 42-38 Cincy in a game seven, 142-131.

'64. The Celtics, with EIGHT HOFers, romp thru the post-season.

'65. The 62-18 Celtics, with their best record in the Dynasty run, beat Wilt's 40-40 Sixers in game seven of the ECF's, by a 110-109 margin.

'66. In the first round of the playoffs, the 54-26 Celtics find themselves down 2-1 against a 45-35 Royals team, in a best-of-five series, but comeback to win game five, 112-103.

'67. Wilt's 68-13 Sixers blowout Russell's 60-21 Celtics, 4-1 in the ECF's (only a narrow loss in Boston in game four prevents a sweep.)

'68. Boston comes back from a 3-1 series deficit in the ECF's, and against a Sixer team that was just a shell of what they had been in the regular season, to win a game seven, 100-96.

'69. The 48-34 Celtics beat a 55-27 Laker team that is horribly coached, in a game seven, by a 108-106 margin (with Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes of that game.) In fact, had Egan not lost the ball in game four (and with Sam Jones subsequently hitting the game-winner at the buzzer), LA romps to a 4-1 series win.

Russell retired after that season, and true, Boston plummetted to a 34-48 record the next season. But, keep in mind that Sam Jones also retired after the '69 Finals, and the Celtics went that 34-48 with Henry Finkel replacing Russell.

Boston then drafted Dave Cowens, and in Cowen's first season, in 70-71, the Celts rise to 44-38. In his 71-72 season, Boston goes 56-26. In his third season, in 72-73, Boston sets an all-time team record of 68-14. In his 73-74 season, the Celtics win the title. And they would win the championship again two years later in 75-76.

[Hands of Iron]

Not surprising to see that plenty of people's analysis is:

Hakeem's team won = Hakeem shit on Shaq.

Not sure if posted yet, but Shaq more than held his own against him from his ROOKIE Season through 1995, atleast collectively. This is Shaq's first three years in the league vs Hakeem at his absolute peak.

Regular Season 1993-1995 : 6 Games
Shaq = 23ppg / 14rpg / 3.5apg / 1.5bpg | 59% shooting
Hakeem = 25ppg / 11rpg / 5apg / 3bpg | 46% shooting

Post Season 1995 : 4 Games
Shaq = 28ppg / 12.5rpg / 6.3apg / 2.5bpg | 60% shooting
Hakeem = 32ppg / 11.5rpg / 5.5apg / 2bpg | 48% shooting

The Big... Coincidence?

At some point you need to extend a little credit for the sake of your own credibility. Shaq is vastly underrated by a lot of people here it would seem, because I see nothing but excuses and bitching and whining about his physical and athletic attributes. Well Guess What? This is Athletic Competition and a Man's game. Take your ball and go home if you can't handle it. Guys like Shaq, Wilt, Lebron... Thorough. Irate. Deal with it, Seriously. :lol:

[millwad]

Not sure if posted yet, but Shaq more than held his own against him from his ROOKIE Season through 1995, atleast collectively. This is Shaq's first three years in the league vs Hakeem at his absolute peak.

Regular Season 1993-1995 : 6 Games
Shaq = 23ppg / 14rpg / 3.5apg / 1.5bpg | 59% shooting
Hakeem = 25ppg / 11rpg / 5apg / 3bpg | 46% shooting

Post Season 1995 : 4 Games
Shaq = 28ppg / 12.5rpg / 6.3apg / 2.5bpg | 60% shooting
Hakeem = 32ppg / 11.5rpg / 5.5apg / 2bpg | 48% shooting

The Big... Coincidence?

At some point you need to extend a little credit for the sake of your own credibility. Shaq is vastly underrated by a lot of people here it would seem, because I see nothing but excuses and bitching and whining about his physical and athletic attributes. Well Guess What? This is Athletic Competition and a Man's game. Take your ball and go home if you can't handle it. Guys like Shaq, Wilt, Lebron... Thorough. Irate. Deal with it, Seriously. :lol:

Shaq's first years in the league is yes indeed very underrated, the '95 version of Shaq is scary, probably one of the nastiest players I've seen.

Although Shaq's underrated he still got outplayed by Olajuwon in the '95 finals, not by agreat margin but he still got outplayed. But people who say that Shaq got "killed" and stuff like that are completely wrong, he still held his own vs Olajuwon which is damn impressive.

The stats above don't tell the whole truth though, Shaq had major problems in the series with turnovers and he averaged 5.25 turnovers per game which hurt his team as well.

But overall you're completely right, young Shaq is damn impressive and underrated. I hate when people overlook greatness based on the fact that the players weren't able to win anything at that time.

[Hands of Iron]

Shaq's first years in the league is yes indeed very underrated, the '95 version of Shaq is scary, probably one of the nastiest players I've seen.

Although Shaq's underrated he still got outplayed by Olajuwon in the '95 finals, not by agreat margin but he still got outplayed. But people who say that Shaq got "killed" and stuff like that are completely wrong, he still held his own vs Olajuwon which is damn impressive.

The stats above don't tell the whole truth though, Shaq had major problems in the series with turnovers and he averaged 5.25 turnovers per game which hurt his team as well.

But overall you're completely right, young Shaq is damn impressive and underrated. I hate when people overlook greatness based on the fact that the players weren't able to win anything at that time.

I think Hakeem's '95 run as a whole is probably the greatest there's ever been. Unfortunately people want to go with one extreme or the other: Either Olajuwon owned him or Shaq was vastly superior based on numbers. Hakeem outplayed him as far as the flow of the game, key points and stages. He had more skill to take any shot when he wanted. On the flip side, you don't just casually drop 28/13/6 on 60% in the Finals. It was no accident, it was raw talent and yes Shaq could already be considered Elite by '95, so good W for Hakeem. Shaq would get back and throw down some of the most dominant Finals ever and 3-peat. My two favorite Centers ever.

[ILLsmak]

I think Hakeem's '95 run as a whole is probably the greatest there's ever been. Unfortunately people want to go with one extreme or the other: Either Olajuwon owned him or Shaq was vastly superior based on numbers. Hakeem outplayed him as far as the flow of the game, key points and stages. He had more skill to take any shot when he wanted. On the flip side, you don't just casually drop 28/13/6 on 60% in the Finals. It was no accident, it was raw talent and yes Shaq could already be considered Elite by '95, so good W for Hakeem. Shaq would get back and throw down some of the most dominant Finals ever and 3-peat. My two favorite Centers ever.

Hard to say because Shaq's teammates didn't show up.

You can't compare two Cs when ones teammates show up and the others don't. Especially considering their numbers were close.

I know it's been said before, but if Nick hadn't missed those FTs Magic probably win that series. That was just a huge blow to them.

I think the idea that Hakeem outplayed Shaq was due to the fact that it was a sweep. If Shaq had won with those same numbers, then Shaq would have been seen as outplaying Hakeem.

-Smak

[millwad]

Hard to say because Shaq's teammates didn't show up.

You can't compare two Cs when ones teammates show up and the others don't. Especially considering their numbers were close.

I know it's been said before, but if Nick hadn't missed those FTs Magic probably win that series. That was just a huge blow to them.

I think the idea that Hakeem outplayed Shaq was due to the fact that it was a sweep. If Shaq had won with those same numbers, then Shaq would have been seen as outplaying Hakeem.

-Smak

First of all, I doubt it very much that Magic would have won that series if it wasn't for Anderson's choke job. They lost 3 more games, 2 of them were blow out where Shaq got clearly outplayed.

And I'm not even talking about teammates, Hakeem clearly outplayed Shaq in 2 of the games. In game 2 Olajuwon had a huge first half and gave the Rockets a comfortable lead and Shaq had a bad first half, Shaq's points came in garbage time when the game already was over.

Game 4 was also a game that clearly went Hakeem's way and there was no question who of them got the best of the other.

Game 1 was the only one were Shaq got Hakeem, game 3 was a tie at best.

And Shaq DIDN'T win and he got outplayed in two of the games they lost with out no doubt, no matter what the outcome was.

[millwad]

I think Hakeem's '95 run as a whole is probably the greatest there's ever been. Unfortunately people want to go with one extreme or the other: Either Olajuwon owned him or Shaq was vastly superior based on numbers. Hakeem outplayed him as far as the flow of the game, key points and stages. He had more skill to take any shot when he wanted. On the flip side, you don't just casually drop 28/13/6 on 60% in the Finals. It was no accident, it was raw talent and yes Shaq could already be considered Elite by '95, so good W for Hakeem. Shaq would get back and throw down some of the most dominant Finals ever and 3-peat. My two favorite Centers ever.

My two favorite centers as well, although I rank Kareem a big step over them I have them both tied as 2nd best center ever.

It's a shame that Shaq's prime was in an era without any elite centers, it would be epic to see prime Shaq against all-time great bigs.

[necya]

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

ONE MVP (in a season in which MJ did not play...oh, and not coincidently, Hakeem eked out a ring.)

ONE second place finish in the MVP balloting.

TWO other Top-FOUR's.

So, FOUR Top-4's in the MVP balloting, in his 18 seasons.

Oh, and BTW, EIGHT FIRST ROUND playoff exits.

And yet we have uneducated posters trying to claim that he was a better player than Shaq?

Let's take a closer look shall we?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=onealsh01&p2=olajuha01

look how you are stupid, i have already told you like 17 times (yeah, it's been 17 times you come with this false story again and again) that Hakeem did not guard Jabbar. Jabbar scored like 4 buckets on Olajuwon in the first QT and then Sampson defended on Jabbar. the next game, Hakeem was responsible for like 15pts defending Jabbar for the whole game. he defended on him sometimes, depending on who was on the court...
concerning the FG% how it's a surprise when you know that Shaq isn't even able to take a jumpshot from the the FT line area...Hakeem also shot 60% around the basket...
and of course, there is no way Shaq has been a better player than Olajuwon. while i won't waste my time to write a sentence on the defensive advantages Hakeem brought to a team, i will underline how it's a reel plus to have your center able to shot the ball for 18 foot from the base line or on top of the paint. it brings so many offensive solutions in the flow of the game. Shaq's game is half interested, you need to work to pass the ball in the low post, causing so many motionless offenses...without talking about the handicap he is at the FT line.

i will add that i don't hate him, in fact, i would like to write something more positive but when oyu have assholes who come with 99 boring videos to prove stupid point, i had to remind some facts. i like the Shaq as much as Hakeem, but just NO.

[ILLsmak]

First of all, I doubt it very much that Magic would have won that series if it wasn't for Anderson's choke job. They lost 3 more games, 2 of them were blow out where Shaq got clearly outplayed.

And I'm not even talking about teammates, Hakeem clearly outplayed Shaq in 2 of the games. In game 2 Olajuwon had a huge first half and gave the Rockets a comfortable lead and Shaq had a bad first half, Shaq's points came in garbage time when the game already was over.

Game 4 was also a game that clearly went Hakeem's way and there was no question who of them got the best of the other.

Game 1 was the only one were Shaq got Hakeem, game 3 was a tie at best.

And Shaq DIDN'T win and he got outplayed in two of the games they lost with out no doubt, no matter what the outcome was.

You're underestimating the value of shooters to a big man. You're also taking two things that happened AFTER the supposed morale crushing event. So how can you say it would happen the same.

I don't think you understand how important that moment was. I don't think there are many moments in NBA history that have effected a player as much as that. He literally turned into a bad player after that point.

I was pretty young and I knew that when they came back and won that the Magic were ****ed. It was like when Tim Duncan made that 3 in Spurs vs Phoenix... one play truly can change a whole series especially when it comes to inexperienced players.

-Smak

[millwad]

You're underestimating the value of shooters to a big man. You're also taking two things that happened AFTER the supposed morale crushing event. So how can you say it would happen the same.

I don't think you understand how important that moment was. I don't think there are many moments in NBA history that have effected a player as much as that. He literally turned into a bad player after that point.

I was pretty young and I knew that when they came back and won that the Magic were ****ed. It was like when Tim Duncan made that 3 in Spurs vs Phoenix... one play truly can change a whole series especially when it comes to inexperienced players.

-Smak

I'm actually not, Olajuwon is the same guy who one year earlier had Vernon Maxwell as his best scoring guard and 2nd option on offense, the guy averaged 13.8 points on 38% shooting in '94 playoffs and still the Rockets won.

Although Nick Anderson choked so badly they still lost 3 games, sure, some may say that it would have been way closer but it was a sweep and blaming 3 straight loss on game 1 is just too much.

Anyway, Shaq still got outplayed so I can say it like this, I understand where you're coming from but Shaq still clearly got outplayed. And again, it wasn't by a big margin or anything, but Hakeem still outperfomed Shaq in that series, with or without chokes and with or without teammates. Head to head..

[Hands of Iron]

My two favorite centers as well, although I rank Kareem a big step over them I have them both tied as 2nd best center ever.

It's a shame that Shaq's prime was in an era without any elite centers, it would be epic to see prime Shaq against all-time great bigs.

I don't think it hurts him as much as it could've, primarily due to what he was able to prove through other avenues with some of them not even encompassing his peak. Shaq faced three all-time great defenders in the Finals. One of those times, he was in his 3rd season in the league and another he was past his peak with Kobe playing hero ball shooting the Lakers out of the Finals. Olajuwon, a 2x DPOY who had won the Award the previous two seasons before their meeting in 1995. Mutombo, a 4x DPOY who had won the Award the season he faced Shaq in the Finals. Wallace, a 4x DPOY who had had won the Award the previous two seasons before their meeting in 2004 and would win it again the two following years in 2005-2006.

Collectively: 29/13/4 on 60% from the field.

Can anybody honestly see him doing worse against '04 Wallace (and more so the Pistons as a unit) and '95 Hakeem by pitting the '02 and '00 versions of Shaq against them? I seriously doubt it. It'd probably be somewhere in the middle of what he did against them already and what the Nets and Pacers experienced which would still rate amongst the best ever pretty easily.

[Hands of Iron]

It's a fair question to ask for ANY player in NBA history:

How many ATG defensive players did see/were they matched up with in the Finals, what do their resumes look like, where were they at during that particular time and how did he perform against them?

I think Shaq comes out looking ok.

[Hands of Iron]

concerning the FG% how it's a surprise when you know that Shaq isn't even able to take a jumpshot from the the FT line area...Hakeem also shot 60% around the basket...and of course, there is no way Shaq has been a better player than Olajuwon. while i won't waste my time to write a sentence on the defensive advantages Hakeem brought to a team, i will underline how it's a reel plus to have your center able to shot the ball for 18 foot from the base line or on top of the paint. it brings so many offensive solutions in the flow of the game. Shaq's game is half interested, you need to work to pass the ball in the low post, causing so many motionless offenses...without talking about the handicap he is at the FT line.

i will add that i don't hate him, in fact, i would like to write something more positive but when oyu have assholes who come with 99 boring videos to prove stupid point, i had to remind some facts. i like the Shaq as much as Hakeem, but just NO.

Starting a team, the top three players I'd choose (in no order) would be Olajuwon, Jordan and Bird. Shaq likely fourth, as I think they're a little bit more valuable commodities. The only thing with the FG% and such is that being more skilled and versatile as a scorer doesn't necessarily translate to being more productive or efficient. Raw results and impact. Shaq's volume+efficiency is amongst the best ever and better than Hakeem in this particular area. Lebron is highly comparable to Bird despite the difference in skill sets and better than Kobe. How many players could score 27-30 ppg on 56-60% annually, often leading the league in FG efficiency at a Top 3 scoring level? It doesn't necessarily matter how and why because the game and successful possessions don't know any better or account for it. All that matters is that he's producing it and nobody else is. Shaq actually did develop some nice moves, fakes and footwork down there during his peak (1998-02, 03 at the latest). The Free Throws hurt, but then again at the same time he's still scoring more points from the line than his peers and doing more damage to a team as a result of it. Kobe stans always bring up FT%. Which threepeat years did Kobe score more at the line than Shaq in the playoffs? Those percentages might mean a little more then.

[necya]

Starting a team, the top three players I'd choose (in no order) would be Olajuwon, Jordan and Bird. Shaq likely fourth, as I think they're a little bit more valuable commodities. The only thing with the FG% and such is that being more skilled and versatile as a scorer doesn't necessarily translate to being more productive or efficient. Raw results and impact. Shaq's volume+efficiency is amongst the best ever and better than Hakeem in this particular area. Lebron is highly comparable to Bird despite the difference in skill sets and better than Kobe. How many players could score 27-30 ppg on 56-60% annually, often leading the league in FG efficiency at a Top 3 scoring level? It doesn't necessarily matter how and why because the game and successful possessions don't know any better or account for it. All that matters is that he's producing it and nobody else is. Shaq actually did develop some nice moves, fakes and footwork down there during his peak (1998-02, 03 at the latest). The Free Throws hurt, but then again at the same time he's still scoring more points from the line than his peers and doing more damage to a team as a result of it. Kobe stans always bring up FT%. Which threepeat years did Kobe score more at the line than Shaq in the playoffs? Those percentages might mean a little more then.

nothing to add with your good posts.
i would just give my point of view on the FG% story : beside their style of play - Shaq's game exclusively around the basket - Hakeem, like Robinson, did spend a lot more energy on the defensive hand...that's what i really find incredible when i look at their 93, 94 and 95 campaigns.

[Jacks3]

Yeah Kobe shot them out of the 04 Finals...even though the rest of the team outside Shaq shot 33% on wide-open shots for the series. Extraordinarily.

And the game where he only took 13 shots...was by far the biggest blow-out loss for the Lakers.

What a ****ing moron.

[Hands of Iron]

Yeah Kobe shot them out of the 04 Finals...even though the rest of the team outside Shaq shot 33% on wide-open shots for the series. Extraordinarily.

And the game where he only took 13 shots...was by far the biggest blow-out loss for the Lakers.

What a ****ing moron.

:lol

Chill out, Brah.

http://www.amothersthoughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Vagisil.jpg

[Kovach]

Well, it has long been a fallacy here that Hakeem outplayed Shaq in the '95 Finals. It was Hakeem's TEAMMATES who BADLY outplayed Shaq's. Aside from the FACT that Hakeem's TEAMMATES badly outshot Shaq's from the field and the arc...
Nope, it's pretty much a well established fact which approximately 2 people on this planet disagree with. What actually happened was that Hakeem outplayed Shaq AND Hakeem's trammates outplayed Shaq's.

As for your tiresome repetition of dry stats without context, a single particular rebound by Hakeem in that series >>> all of Shaq's combined.

[Asukal]

Mmmmm exactly right.

There is a great quote from Bob Cousy (From Simmons TBOB) - "Basketball is a team game. When it becomes a one-man operation, as it did after Chamberlain came to Philadelphia, it just doesn't work. You cannot expect nine other guys to submerge themselves and their abilities to one man. It particuarly doesn't work when the man everybody else is feeding isn't helping the others whenever and wherever he can....the argument can be made that Chamberlain only suffers from a poor supporting cast. If you have a man who makes better than 50 percent of his shots, the argument goes, why shouldn't you concentrate on getting the ball to him whenever possible? Carrying it to it's logical conclusion, I would have to ask why should you ever let any other player on the team shoot at all. No, statistics mean nothing in basketball."

There was a correlation between the amount of FGs Wilt attempted in the post season and the FG% of his teammates. The more he shot, the worse his teammates performed. Coincidence? :oldlol:

This I completely agree with. This is something only people who play the game would understand. Basketball is a team game and great teamwork will beat any one man team any day. :cheers:

[jlauber]

This I completely agree with. This is something only people who play the game would understand. Basketball is a team game and great teamwork will beat any one man team any day. :cheers:

That's true of course. BUT, the best TEAMs generally have the best PLAYERS. If Jordan were truly the GOAT, how come he couldn't win a title in his first six seasons? How come he couldn't win with a team that had gone 55-27 WITHOUT him the year before?

Kareem could only sniff TWO Finals in his first TEN seasons, and the only ring he won came in a post-season in which his team beat a 41-41 Warrior team, a 48-34 Laker team withOUT both West and Baylor, and a 42-40 Bullets team in the Finals.

Bird only won THREE rings playing his entire career surrounded by HOF-laden casts.

Malone and Stockton couldn't win ONE ring in damn near two decades.

West and Baylor were shutout together.

Reed played on a losing team early in his career, and couldn't win when he had Bellamy on his team.

Barry and Thurmond went 35-45 in their first season together, and only 44-37 with players like Jeff Mullins, Fred Hetzel, and Clyde Lee. And Barry won a title without all of those guys (well, Mullins was reduced to a part-time role) and a bunch of non-names.

How come Hakeem could only win two titles in 18 seasons, and needed his teammates to outplay his opposing center's teammates in order to win in the Finals? He couldn't win with players like Sampson, and later with Drexler and Barkley.

Even Russell watched his team get destroyed by Wilt's team in '67, in a post-season in which Wilt's teammates finally neutralized his, and allowed Wilt to thoroughly dominate Russell in every facet of the game.

So, please, don't make it sound like only Wilt was the only one having those problems. The FACTS were, Chamberlain took the core of what had been a LAST PLACE roster, to a game seven, two point loss against Russell's HOF-laden 60-20 Celtic team in the '62 ECF's. Then, in the '65 ECF's, Chamberlain single-handedly carried his 40-40 Sixers to a game seven, one point loss, against the a Celtics team that was at it's peak in the Dynasty, and which had gone 62-18. BTW, all Wilt did in that series was average 30 ppg, 31 rpg, and shoot .555 against Russell.

Chamberlain was flat playing with CRAPPY rosters in the first half of his career, and he still gave LOADED Celtic teams all they could handle in FOUR post-season series. And, once again, when he finally had an equal supporting cast, he took his team to a dominating series win over Russell's 60-21 Celtics.

[millwad]

That's true of course. BUT, the best TEAMs generally have the best PLAYERS. If Jordan were truly the GOAT, how come he couldn't win a title in his first six seasons? How come he couldn't win with a team that had gone 55-27 WITHOUT him the year before?

Kareem could only sniff TWO Finals in his first TEN seasons, and the only ring he won came in a post-season in which his team beat a 41-41 Warrior team, a 48-34 Laker team withOUT both West and Baylor, and a 42-40 Bullets team in the Finals.

Bird only won THREE rings playing his entire career surrounded by HOF-laden casts.

Malone and Stockton couldn't win ONE ring in damn near two decades.

West and Baylor were shutout together.

Reed played on a losing team early in his career, and couldn't win when he had Bellamy on his team.

Barry and Thurmond went 35-45 in their first season together, and only 44-37 with players like Jeff Mullins, Fred Hetzel, and Clyde Lee. And Barry won a title without all of those guys (well, Mullins was reduced to a part-time role) and a bunch of non-names.

How come Hakeem could only win two titles in 18 seasons, and needed his teammates to outplay his opposing center's teammates in order to win in the Finals? He couldn't win with players like Sampson, and later with Drexler and Barkley.

Even Russell watched his team get destroyed by Wilt's team in '67, in a post-season in which Wilt's teammates finally neutralized his, and allowed Wilt to thoroughly dominate Russell in every facet of the game.

So, please, don't make it sound like only Wilt was the only one having those problems. The FACTS were, Chamberlain took the core of what had been a LAST PLACE roster, to a game seven, two point loss against Russell's HOF-laden 60-20 Celtic team in the '62 ECF's. Then, in the '65 ECF's, Chamberlain single-handedly carried his 40-40 Sixers to a game seven, one point loss, against the a Celtics team that was at it's peak in the Dynasty, and which had gone 62-18. BTW, all Wilt did in that series was average 30 ppg, 31 rpg, and shoot .555 against Russell.

Chamberlain was flat playing with CRAPPY rosters in the first half of his career, and he still gave LOADED Celtic teams all they could handle in FOUR post-season series. And, once again, when he finally had an equal supporting cast, he took his team to a dominating series win over Russell's 60-21 Celtics.

It's funny, in a try to hype up your beloved Wilt you bash every other player who played..

Can you for once give a reply without bashing other player's when people mention Wilt's failures?

[Asukal]

That's true of course. BUT, the best TEAMs generally have the best PLAYERS. If Jordan were truly the GOAT, how come he couldn't win a title in his first six seasons? How come he couldn't win with a team that had gone 55-27 WITHOUT him the year before?

Kareem could only sniff TWO Finals in his first TEN seasons, and the only ring he won came in a post-season in which his team beat a 41-41 Warrior team, a 48-34 Laker team withOUT both West and Baylor, and a 42-40 Bullets team in the Finals.

Bird only won THREE rings playing his entire career surrounded by HOF-laden casts.

Malone and Stockton couldn't win ONE ring in damn near two decades.

West and Baylor were shutout together.

Reed played on a losing team early in his career, and couldn't win when he had Bellamy on his team.

Barry and Thurmond went 35-45 in their first season together, and only 44-37 with players like Jeff Mullins, Fred Hetzel, and Clyde Lee. And Barry won a title without all of those guys (well, Mullins was reduced to a part-time role) and a bunch of non-names.

How come Hakeem could only win two titles in 18 seasons, and needed his teammates to outplay his opposing center's teammates in order to win in the Finals? He couldn't win with players like Sampson, and later with Drexler and Barkley.

Even Russell watched his team get destroyed by Wilt's team in '67, in a post-season in which Wilt's teammates finally neutralized his, and allowed Wilt to thoroughly dominate Russell in every facet of the game.

So, please, don't make it sound like only Wilt was the only one having those problems. The FACTS were, Chamberlain took the core of what had been a LAST PLACE roster, to a game seven, two point loss against Russell's HOF-laden 60-20 Celtic team in the '62 ECF's. Then, in the '65 ECF's, Chamberlain single-handedly carried his 40-40 Sixers to a game seven, one point loss, against the a Celtics team that was at it's peak in the Dynasty, and which had gone 62-18. BTW, all Wilt did in that series was average 30 ppg, 31 rpg, and shoot .555 against Russell.

Chamberlain was flat playing with CRAPPY rosters in the first half of his career, and he still gave LOADED Celtic teams all they could handle in FOUR post-season series. And, once again, when he finally had an equal supporting cast, he took his team to a dominating series win over Russell's 60-21 Celtics.

The bolded proves my point even more. :confusedshrug:

As for Jordan's comeback, the 95 Bulls isn't the same as the 94 Bulls. The team lost Grant, the team's 3rd option during the 1st 3peat. So please don't treat the 95 Bulls the same as the 94 version. :facepalm

[G.O.A.T]

The bolded proves my point even more. :confusedshrug:

As for Jordan's comeback, the 95 Bulls isn't the same as the 94 Bulls. The team lost Grant, the team's 3rd option during the 1st 3peat. So please don't treat the 95 Bulls the same as the 94 version. :facepalm

He makes a good point though. I mean we know Wilt's not GOAT since he couldn't even win the title when he was added for a full season to a that won 52 games the year before. And this was coming off of an MVP season, not 18 months off like MJ who hadn't been league MVP for almost three years.

[jlauber]

He makes a good point though. I mean we know Wilt's not GOAT since he couldn't even win the title when he was added for a full season to a that won 52 games the year before. And this was coming off of an MVP season, not 18 months off like MJ who hadn't been league MVP for almost three years.

Of course, Chamberlain basically replaced THREE players (Imhoff and Clark, and Goodrich, who was lost in expansion and replaced by the worthless Johnny Egan)...or 42 ppg and 18 rpg, and as usual, West missed his 20 games. The result? A then team-record of 55-27, and a seven game series loss in the Finals, when his coach left him on the bench in the last five minutes of a game in which they lost by two points (and was promptly fired afterwards.) Meanwhile Chamberlain's former team, with his two replacements collectively averaging 36 ppg, 20 rpg, and shooting .510, were wiped out in the first round of the playoffs.

Jordan left the Bulls high-and-dry after '93 (he wasn't TRADED), and was basically replaced by Toni Kukoc. The result? The team declined from a 57-25 record down to 55-27, and lost a close game seven to the Knicks in the playoffs. A Knick team that would go on to lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals.

[millwad]

He makes a good point though. I mean we know Wilt's not GOAT since he couldn't even win the title when he was added for a full season to a that won 52 games the year before. And this was coming off of an MVP season, not 18 months off like MJ who hadn't been league MVP for almost three years.

People will never learn, Jlauber is actually right, Wilt never did anything wrong in his career and all his losses and failures were due bad coaching and horrible teammates...

[G.O.A.T]

Of course, Chamberlain basically replaced THREE players (Imhoff and Clark, and Goodrich, who was lost in expansion and replaced by the worthless Johnny Egan)...or 42 ppg and 18 rpg, and as usual, West missed his 20 games.

Yeah but I knew that wasn't necessary to mention since you were so wise as to make sure not to mention that Horace Grant and Bill Cartwright who were starters on three title teams left that year.


The result? A then team-record of 55-27, and a seven game series loss in the Finals, when his coach left him on the bench in the last five minutes of a game in which they lost by two points (and was promptly fired afterwards.) Meanwhile Chamberlain's former team, with his two replacements collectively averaging 36 ppg, 20 rpg, and shooting .510, were wiped out in the first round of the playoffs.

A good point, Wilt's ego did get in the way of the Lakers winning the title that year even though they had a better record, HCA and VASTLY (was that the right word to capitalize) superior roster. And even though Butch Van Breda Kolff wasn't fired but actually resigned, I get your point. Wilt choked. I am a little surprised to here you say that. I have always maintained that Wilt was not a choker, but you make a good point with the above.


Jordan left the Bulls high-and-dry after '93 (he wasn't TRADED), and was basically replaced by Toni Kukoc. The result? The team declined from a 57-25 record down to 55-27, and lost a close game seven to the Knicks in the playoffs. A Knick team that would go on to lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals.

That reminds me of when Wilt forced the Warriors to trade him for three players who never did anything significant and yet the Warriors MIRACULOUSLY went to the the Finals just two years later and came closer to winning a title than they ever did with Wilt. Crazy stuff for sure.

We've clearly proven that neither Wilt or Jordan could ever be considered GOAT.

[G.O.A.T]

People will never learn, Jlauber is actually right, Wilt never did anything wrong in his career and all his losses and failures were due bad coaching and horrible teammates...

Oh I agree. I mean a guy like Paul Arizin was barely even the best player on the 1956 Champions. That guy is supposed to help him win a title?

And don't get me started on how washed up all-NBA first team selection Elgin Baylor was in 1969. Then when he would have been value again in 1970 (unlike his 1969 season where he hurt the team) Wilt was cost another title because he couldn't overcome losing West and Baylor. Had he had just one of them he would have won 2 titles that year it's safe to say.

[oolalaa]

Of course, Chamberlain basically replaced THREE players (Imhoff and Clark, and Goodrich, who was lost in expansion and replaced by the worthless Johnny Egan)...or 42 ppg and 18 rpg, and as usual, West missed his 20 games.


Incidentally, the Lakers were 12 & 9 without West, which included a 66 point game by Wilt against the Suns (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196902090LAL.html ........ http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=c0MxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UREEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7288,1724254&dq=wilt+chamberlain+66&hl=en).

He also had a 60 point game 2 weeks earlier against the Royals, this time with West in the lineup (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196901260CIN.html ........ http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CAhHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u-kMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3487,5235280&dq=wilt+chamberlain&hl=en).


Shame about the postseason.

[jlauber]

Yeah but I knew that wasn't necessary to mention since you were so wise as to make sure not to mention that Horace Grant and Bill Cartwright who were starters on three title teams left that year.



A good point, Wilt's ego did get in the way of the Lakers winning the title that year even though they had a better record, HCA and VASTLY (was that the right word to capitalize) superior roster. And even though Butch Van Breda Kolff wasn't fired but actually resigned, I get your point. Wilt choked. I am a little surprised to here you say that. I have always maintained that Wilt was not a choker, but you make a good point with the above.



That reminds me of when Wilt forced the Warriors to trade him for three players who never did anything significant and yet the Warriors MIRACULOUSLY went to the the Finals just two years later and came closer to winning a title than they ever did with Wilt. Crazy stuff for sure.

We've clearly proven that neither Wilt or Jordan could ever be considered GOAT.

That's the first I have ever heard that Van Breda Kolf resigned. It must have been within about 48 hours, too, since West went ballistic when he heard that Van Breda Kolf had actually BENCHED Wilt in the last minutes of that game. And if you honestly believe that Van Breda Kolf would have been coaching the Lakers the next year, you are delusional my friend.

Grant and Cartwright also played on the '94 team, that dropped two games from the '93 team.

As for the VASTLY superior roster. Yep. A Prime West, a shackled Wilt, and a severely declining Baylor who was THE reason why the Lakers lost THREE games in that Finals. Who else?

Boston? Players like Havlicek and his 22 ppg (28 ppg in the Finals), Sam Jones and his 16 ppg (and 19 ppg in the Finals), Bailey Howell and his 20 ppg (on near .500 shooting), Don Nelson, Satch Sanders, Larry Siegfried, and even Em Bryant (and his 20 points in that game seven.) The Celtics were MUCH deeper than the Lakers, who, of course, lost players like Clark, Imhoff, and Goodrich from the year before.


And I'm glas you brought up the Warriors. In the 63-64 season, Wilt single-handedly carried that roster (which couldn't beat a team of scrubs in a pre-season scrimmage without Wilt), to a 48-32 record. His best teammate was Tom Meschery. Wilt was traded in mid-season in the 64-65 season. He was basically replaced by Nate Thurmond (who was a part-timer backing up Wilt in 63-64 and shooting .395), who would go on to have a HOF career. And, they drafted HOFer Rick Barry the very next season. In that 65-66 season, the Warriors with Barry, Thurmond, and even Meschery, went 35-45. Then, in the 66-67 season, they added high-scoring Jeff Mullins, Fred Hetzel, and PF Clyde Lee to the roster of Barry, Thurmond, and Meschery...and went 44-37, and were routed by a Sixer team in the Finals, that Wilt had taken from the depths of a 34-46 record in 63-64 to three straight seasons with the BEST record in the league.

Think about that. Wilt was able to take a team with Meschery, to a 48-32 record. And yet players like Barry, Thurmond, Mullins, Hetzel, Lee, and Meschery could only get to a 44-37 record. Hmmm...

[KG215]

I thnk I've figured jlauber out, and excuse me for being a little slow but....all that really matters to him are stats, right? He started the players peak thread about all these all-time greats peaking in their early and mid-20s because that's when they had their best statistical seasons. When someone calls him out on another Wilt Chamberlain postseason failure, he just comes back with nothing but numbers.

Maybe someday he'll realize there's more to playing winning basketball then putting up big numbers. There's other things that don't show-up in the boxscore that lead to championships.

If you don't value winning when comparing one player to another, fine. I thought that's why they played the game, though, but that may just be me.

[jlauber]

Incidentally, the Lakers were 12 & 9 without West, which included a 66 point game by Wilt against the Suns (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196902090LAL.html ........ http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=c0MxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UREEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7288,1724254&dq=wilt+chamberlain+66&hl=en).

He also had a 60 point game 2 weeks earlier against the Royals, this time with West in the lineup (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196901260CIN.html ........ http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CAhHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u-kMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3487,5235280&dq=wilt+chamberlain&hl=en).


Shame about the postseason.

It sure was. Chamberlain was again shackled by Van Breda Kolf in the post-season, while Baylor shotjacked his way to a .385 post-season.

Of course, the brilliant Van Breda Kolf made this famous remark, "When we pass the ball into Wilt, he will score. But it is an ugly offense to watch." So, that's why BAYLOR was shooting the Lakers out of THREE games in the '69 Finals.

[millwad]

Oh I agree. I mean a guy like Paul Arizin was barely even the best player on the 1956 Champions. That guy is supposed to help him win a title?

And don't get me started on how washed up all-NBA first team selection Elgin Baylor was in 1969. Then when he would have been value again in 1970 (unlike his 1969 season where he hurt the team) Wilt was cost another title because he couldn't overcome losing West and Baylor. Had he had just one of them he would have won 2 titles that year it's safe to say.

Hey, don't even try to blame Wilt's loss in the finals of '69 on Wilt.

Wilt only missed 9 FT's (2 of 11 shooting from the line) in game 4, which they lost with 1 point.

And he only missed 9 ft's again in game 7 (4-13 FT-shooting) which they lost with 2 points.

WILT never did anything wrong, he had terrible teammates. Like in '67 he only had Greer, Walker, Jones and Cunningham who did the scoring while settled as the teams 5th best scorer in the finals.


Stop hating!

[jlauber]

I thnk I've figured jlauber out, and excuse me for being a little slow but....all that really matters to him are stats, right? He started the players peak thread about all these all-time greats peaking in their early and mid-20s because that's when they had their best statistical seasons. When someone calls him out on another Wilt Chamberlain postseason failure, he just comes back with nothing but numbers.

Maybe someday he'll realize there's more to playing winning basketball then putting up big numbers. There's other things that don't show-up in the boxscore that lead to championships.

If you don't value winning when comparing one player to another, fine. I thought that's why they played the game, though, but that may just be me.

For a "loser" Wilt was sure bad at it. TWELVE winning seasons in 14 years. 12 conference Finals. Six division and Six conference champions. FOUR teams that won 60+ games. And he anchored two teams that went on to win dominating world titles with records of 68-13 and 69-13 (which included 33 straight wins.)

[Asukal]

Wilt never did anything wrong. FACT. :rolleyes:

His team's failures were all due to his scrubby team mates and coaches while playing against unbeatable teams in the POs. Stop hating! :rolleyes:

[KG215]

For a "loser" Wilt was sure bad at it. TWELVE winning seasons in 14 years. 12 conference Finals. Six division and Six conference champions. FOUR teams that won 60+ games. And he anchored two teams that went on to win dominating world titles with records of 68-13 and 69-13 (which included 33 straight wins.)

And after all that, after all those record breaking regular seasons where he put up record numbers that are so far out of reach, it would take God himself returning to earth and playing half a decade in the NBA to break them all, how many rings did Wilt retire with? And don't do that thing where you point out how many times the other all-time greats didn't win a ring at the end of the season. I don't care. All I care about is Wilt because you constantly defend him and make excuses to all ends of the earth. Nothing is ever his fault and he never played poorly in a critical game during his entire career, right?

[millwad]

The thing that stands out the most is Wilt's amazing stats in the regular season, especially his crazy scoring but in the finals? Not so much.

Like in '67, Wilt led his team in scoring in the regular season, in the finals he suddenly had 4 teammates who scored more than him in that final series while he himself averaged 17 points per contest.

From the leading scorer in the regular season to the 5th best in the finals, interesting.

[KG215]

The thing that stands out the most is Wilt's amazing stats in the regular season, especially his crazy scoring but in the finals? Not so much.

Like in '67, Wilt led his team in scoring in the regular season, in the finals he suddenly had 4 teammates who scored more than him in that final series while he himself averaged 17 points per contest.

From the leading scorer in the regular season to the 5th best in the finals, interesting.

What's the go-to jlauber excuse for that series? I mean Wilt's team won so that may be all he needs.

[millwad]

What's the go-to jlauber excuse for that series? I mean Wilt's team won so that may be all he needs.

Once he tried to bash them all while he hyped up Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, Mario Elie and Otis Thorpe.

He got excuses for everything.

[KG215]

Once he tried to bash them all while he hyped up Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, Mario Elie and Otis Thorpe.

He got excuses for everything.

Well, looking at the boxscores, Chamberlain did average 18-28.5-7 in the series, which is pretty damn impressive. But if he's trying to argue Hakeem's teammates outplayed Chamberlain's then I could see what you mean. It's not like Hakeem wasn't the clear-cut best player on either Rockets team, though.

And before jlauber says anything, I"m not saying Chamberlain wasn't the best player in the Finals for his team, either, although Hal Greer had an impressive 26-8-6 series. He only shot .427 from the floor but he did shoot .826 from the FT line compared to Wilt's .305.

[millwad]

Well, looking at the boxscores, Chamberlain did average 18-28.5-7 in the series, which is pretty damn impressive. But if he's trying to argue Hakeem's teammates outplayed Chamberlain's then I could see what you mean. It's not like Hakeem wasn't the clear-cut best player on either Rockets team, though.

And before jlauber says anything, I"m not saying Chamberlain wasn't the best player in the Finals for his team, either, although Hal Greer had an impressive 26-8-6 series. He only shot .427 from the floor but he did shoot .826 from the FT line compared to Wilt's .305.

Absolutely, you're completely right.

I just found it interesting that he dropped in terms of scoring anytime he won, everything else is just outstanding.

But regarding rebounds and assists he was a beast, no doubt. Although those stats are highly inflated due the amount of field goal attempts in the series.

As a comparison, the 76ers in the finals of '67 averaged 106 FGA per game, Miami Heat who won the finals this year averaged 77 FGA per game. They played at a MUCH higher pace back then and lower FG% which led to way more available rebounds.

[KG215]

Absolutely, you're completely right.

I just found it interesting that he dropped in terms of scoring anytime he won, everything else is just outstanding.

But regarding rebounds and assists he was a beast, no doubt. Although those stats are highly inflated due the amount of field goal attempts in the series.

As a comparison, the 76ers in the finals of '67 averaged 106 FGA per game, Miami Heat who won the finals this year averaged 77 FGA per game. They played at a MUCH higher pace back then and lower FG% which led to way more available rebounds.

Yeah, I should've mentioned that.

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1967.htm

I know the pace in the 60s was insane, but damn. Look at the FGA by each team game-by-game:

Game 1
Warriors: 140
76ers: 116

Game 2
Warriors: 129
76ers: 118

Game 3
Warriors: 117
76ers: 109

Game 4
Warriors: 125
76ers: 100

Game 5
Warriors: 119
76ers: 98

Game 6
Warriors: 113
76ers: 98

The Warriors averaged 123.8 FGA per game and the 76ers 106.5 FGA per game.

[millwad]

Yeah, I should've mentioned that.

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1967.htm

I know the pace in the 60s was insane, but damn. Look at the FGA by each team game-by-game:

Game 1
Warriors: 140
76ers: 116

Game 2
Warriors: 129
76ers: 118

Game 3
Warriors: 117
76ers: 109

Game 4
Warriors: 125
76ers: 100

Game 5
Warriors: 119
76ers: 98

Game 6
Warriors: 113
76ers: 98

The Warriors averaged 123.8 FGA per game and the 76ers 106.5 FGA per game.

Yeah, the pace is why I never really took some of those numbers seriously.

And then look at the FG% in some of those games, in game 2 the Warriors missed 91 shots..

That is 14 more shots than what the Miami Heat averaged in field goal attempts in this years final...

[jlauber]

Well, looking at the boxscores, Chamberlain did average 18-28.5-7 in the series, which is pretty damn impressive. But if he's trying to argue Hakeem's teammates outplayed Chamberlain's then I could see what you mean. It's not like Hakeem wasn't the clear-cut best player on either Rockets team, though.

And before jlauber says anything, I"m not saying Chamberlain wasn't the best player in the Finals for his team, either, although Hal Greer had an impressive 26-8-6 series. He only shot .427 from the floor but he did shoot .826 from the FT line compared to Wilt's .305.

Here is what Wilt ACTUALLY did in that '67 title run.

In the first round, he AVERAGED 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg (yes a TRIPLE DOUBLE), and on .612 shooting. In the very FIRST game of the playoffs, Wilt hung a 41 point game on the Royals (on 19-30 shooting), which would be the HIGH game for the Sixers in the ENTIRE post-season. And he followed that up with a 37 point game the very next game, and on 16-24 shooting from the field. And how about his game three? 16 points, 30 rebounds, and get this... 19 assists. Oh, and he held Dierking to .427 shooting in that series.

Then, in the next round against the eight-time defending, and 60-21 Celtics, Chamberlain AVERAGED 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg (yes, 32.0 rpg...more on that later), 10.0 apg (yep...ANOTHER TRIPLE DOUBLE series), and on .556 shooting. How about Russell in that series? 10.2 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6 apg, and on .358 shooting (yes, Wilt outshot Russell by a .556 to .358 margin.)

In game one of the ECF's, Wilt hung a QUAD DOUBLE on Russell, with 24 points, on 9-13 shooting, with 32 rebounds (Russell had 15), 13 assists, and 12 blocks. In game three Chamberlain outrebounded Russell by a 41-29 margin. And in the clinching game five win, while Russell was waving the white flag with a FOUR point, (on 2-5 shooting), 21 rebound, 7 assist game...Chamberlain was CRUSHING him with a 29 point game (22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close), 10-16 shooting, 13 assist, seven block, and 36 rebound game.

As for rebounding, how about these three games? In game one, Wilt grabbed 32 of the entire total of 120 available rebounds. In game five he ripped down 36 rebounds out of a total of 128. And in that record-setting game three performance, he grabbed 41 out of the 134 total available. Overall, he was at 25% of the available rebounds and with three games of 27, 28, and 30%!


In the Finals, Chamberlain not only outrebounded Thurmond, 28.5 rpg to 26.7 rpg, he outrebounded him in FIVE of the six games (including a 38-33 edge in one of them.) He outscored Thurmond, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg, as well. Now, think about this: Chamberlain outshot Thurmond by a .560 to .343 margin! Keep in mind that Thurmond had his greatest season that year, and came in second, behind Wilt, in the MVP balloting.

And, in the clinching game six win, and while Greer was scoring 15 points on 5-16 shooting, Chamberlain was outscoring Thurmond, 24-12, while outshooting Nate, 8-13 to 4-13.

All-in-all, and given the TOTAL DOMINATION of Dierking, Russell, and Thurmond, it was quite possibly the greatest playoff run of all-time.

[millwad]

Here is what Wilt ACTUALLY did in that '67 title run.

In the first round, he AVERAGED 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg (yes a TRIPLE DOUBLE), and on .612 shooting. In the very FIRST game of the playoffs, Wilt hung a 41 point game on the Royals (on 19-30 shooting), which would be the HIGH game for the Sixers in the ENTIRE post-season. And he followed that up with a 37 point game the very next game, and on 16-24 shooting from the field. And how about his game three? 16 points, 30 rebounds, and get this... 19 assists. Oh, and he held Dierking to .427 shooting in that series.


Against a 39 win team.

And yeah, he held Dierking to 43% shooting, which was way even a higher FG% than what Dierking averaged in the regular season, haha.

And not only that, in the regular season of that seaon Dierking averaged: 9.3 points, 7.8 rebounds and 2.1 assists.

In the first round against Wilt he averaged: 17.5 points, 13 rebounds and 3.5 assists per game.

Haha, so against Chamberlain he scored way more, rebounded way more and dished out more assists and he did it on better FG% than what he did in the regular season.. :facepalm

I like how you bragged about Wilt letting him average a higher FG% than what Dierking did in the regular season.. :facepalm



Then, in the next round against the eight-time defending, and 60-21 Celtics, Chamberlain AVERAGED 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg (yes, 32.0 rpg...more on that later), 10.0 apg (yep...ANOTHER TRIPLE DOUBLE series), and on .556 shooting. How about Russell in that series? 10.2 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6 apg, and on .358 shooting (yes, Wilt outshot Russell by a .556 to .358 margin.)


The Celtics were less talented and sure, post us the rebounds per game but also post the amount of FGA.. :facepalm




In the Finals, Chamberlain not only outrebounded Thurmond, 28.5 rpg to 26.7 rpg, he outrebounded him in FIVE of the six games (including a 38-33 edge in one of them.) He outscored Thurmond, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg, as well. Now, think about this: Chamberlain outshot Thurmond by a .560 to .343 margin! Keep in mind that Thurmond had his greatest season that year, and came in second, behind Wilt, in the MVP balloting.


A 5 rebound difference is nothing over 6 games and both their rebounds were crazy inflated due the massive amount of FGA attempts and misses in that series.

Outscoring Thurmond is not a big deal and outshooting him is not either a big deal, Thurmond never shot with good FG%.



And, in the clinching game six win, and while Greer was scoring 15 points on 5-16 shooting, Chamberlain was outscoring Thurmond, 24-12, while outshooting Nate, 8-13 to 4-13.


I like how you're cherry picking games... :facepalm



All-in-all, and given the TOTAL DOMINATION of Dierking, Russell, and Thurmond, it was quite possibly the greatest playoff run of all-time.

Dierking had his best playoff-series ever against Wilt Chamberlain, haha, and he played with a 39 win team.. :facepalm

Boston were damn good but not as talented as '76ers and in the finals he faced a 44 win team against Thurmond who had no where close the qualities of Wilt.

Best playoff-season ever, NEVER. A damn good one but no where close to the best ever.. :facepalm

[millwad]

Connie Dierking had his best playoff-series against Wilt Chamberlain.

Connie looked like this and he was 6'9;

http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/119/ddcf7c9fb438482bbc0c6b554c9f0611/l.jpg

In the series against Chamerlain he averaged 17.5 points, 13 rebounds and 3.5 asisists. And as if that wasn't enough, he had higher FG% in the series vs Wilt than what he had in the regular season.

[jlauber]

Connie Dierking had his best playoff-series against Wilt Chamberlain.

Connie looked like this and he was 6'9;

http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/119/ddcf7c9fb438482bbc0c6b554c9f0611/l.jpg

In the series against Chamerlain he averaged 17.5 points, 13 rebounds and 3.5 asisists. And as if that wasn't enough, he had higher FG% in the series vs Wilt than what he had in the regular season.

Only YOU would post NONSENSE like this. A Wilt who outscored him by a 28-17 margin; outrebounded him by a 27-14 margin; outassisted him by an 11-4 margin; and outshot him by .612 to .427 margin.

How about Hakeem's performance against Mychael Thompson in the '90 playoffs? 18.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, and on .443 shooting? Oh, and in Divac's limited minutes in that four game series, he shot 14-17 from the field (.824!)

Chamberlain also had the Sixers HIGH playoff game of 41 against him...which BTW, was Kareem's high game agains Dierking in their career H2H's. Oh, and Wilt dumped a 60 point game on Dierking in '69, just the year before Kareem arrived. And on top of that, Chamberlain then poured in 43 points in a game against him in the '70 season, which was Kareem's rookie season.

[millwad]

Only YOU would post NONSENSE like this. A Wilt who outscored him by a 28-17 margin; outrebounded him by a 27-14 margin; outassisted him by an 11-4 margin; and outshot him by .612 to .427 margin.

How about Hakeem's performance against Mychael Thompson in the '90 playoffs? 18.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, and on .443 shooting? Oh, and in Divac's limited minutes in that four game series, he shot 14-17 from the field (.824!)

Chamberlain also had the Sixers HIGH playoff game of 41 against him...which BTW, was Kareem's high game agains Dierking in their career H2H's. Oh, and Wilt dumped a 60 point game on Dierking in '69, just the year before Kareem arrived. And on top of that, Chamberlain then poured in 43 points in a game against him in the '70 season, which was Kareem's rookie season.

Connie Dierking, dude, Connie Dierking had his best series ever vs Wilt Chamberlain.

As far as Mychal Thompson, against Olajuwon in '90 he averaged 7.4 points, 4.4 rebounds and 0.2 assists.

That can't be compared to letting Connie Dierking having his best playoff-series ever against Wilt..

Connie averaged 10 points, 9 rebounds and 3 assists more than Dierking. The difference between the two of them in those series are even better than Thompson's stats, haha.

[jlauber]

Connie Dierking, dude, Connie Dierking had his best series ever vs Wilt Chamberlain.

As far as Mychal Thompson, against Olajuwon in '90 he averaged 7.4 points, 4.4 rebounds and 0.2 assists.

That can't be compared to letting Connie Dierking having his best playoff-series ever against Wilt..

Connie averaged 10 points, 9 rebounds and 3 assists more than Dierking. The difference between the two of them in those series are even better than Thompson's stats, haha.

Hakeem shot .443 in that series. BTW, how about Divac, in his limited minutes, shooting 14-17 from the FLOOR, or .824?

[KG215]

Only YOU would post NONSENSE like this. A Wilt who outscored him by a 28-17 margin; outrebounded him by a 27-14 margin; outassisted him by an 11-4 margin; and outshot him by .612 to .427 margin.

How about Hakeem's performance against Mychael Thompson in the '90 playoffs? 18.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, and on .443 shooting? Oh, and in Divac's limited minutes in that four game series, he shot 14-17 from the field (.824!)

Chamberlain also had the Sixers HIGH playoff game of 41 against him...which BTW, was Kareem's high game agains Dierking in their career H2H's. Oh, and Wilt dumped a 60 point game on Dierking in '69, just the year before Kareem arrived. And on top of that, Chamberlain then poured in 43 points in a game against him in the '70 season, which was Kareem's rookie season.

Ummm..yeah, he wasn't saying who outplayed who. He's saying Dierking bested his season averages by quite a bit in the first round against Chamberlain.

[jlauber]

Ummm..yeah, he wasn't saying who outplayed who. He's saying Dierking bested his season averages by quite a bit in the first round against Chamberlain.

In a first round series in which Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, handed out 11 apg, and shot .612. Which included games of 41 points on 19-30 shooting; 37 points on 16-24 shooting; and a 16-30-19 game.

Of course, as I pointed out in another thread, I could find a game in which Wilt outscored Dierking, 59-4, too. And an OLD Chamberlain poured in a 60 point game against him in the 68-69 season.

[millwad]

In a first round series in which Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, handed out 11 apg, and shot .612. Which included games of 41 points on 19-30 shooting; 37 points on 16-24 shooting; and a 16-30-19 game.

Of course, as I pointed out in another thread, I could find a game in which Wilt outscored Dierking, 59-4, too. And an OLD Chamberlain poured in a 60 point game against him in the 68-69 season.

Don't be mad, I just found it hilarious how you bragged about how Wilt held him down in the first round and then you posted his FG%. And then it backlashed right back at you considering that he had a higher FG%, higher scoring average, higher rebounding average and higher assist average in the series against Wilt by far compared to his other trips to the playoffs and compared to his season average that season.

[DatAsh]

He makes a good point though. I mean we know Wilt's not GOAT since he couldn't even win the title when he was added for a full season to a that won 52 games the year before. And this was coming off of an MVP season, not 18 months off like MJ who hadn't been league MVP for almost three years.

I'm not entirely sure I understand your point here. Coming off an 18 month break is not a good thing for a player's game. I'd even argue that it's not only not a good thing, but it's a very bad thing in almost any sport.

Basketball, and most sports for that matter(especially at that high of a level) is not something you can just take an 18 month break from and expect to return as the same player you were before. It's just not gonna happen.

[KG215]

In a first round series in which Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, handed out 11 apg, and shot .612. Which included games of 41 points on 19-30 shooting; 37 points on 16-24 shooting; and a 16-30-19 game.

Of course, as I pointed out in another thread, I could find a game in which Wilt outscored Dierking, 59-4, too. And an OLD Chamberlain poured in a 60 point game against him in the 68-69 season.

Again, not his point. How hard is that to understand? He's not trying to argue that Dierking outplayed Wilt or played him kinda sorta even.

He's pointing out that, against Chamberlain in the first round Dierking's averages were better than they were in the regular season (by quite a bit if they're correct #'s) and had the best playoff series of his career.

I don't care about other seasons, games, series, etc. I'm strictly talking about that first round series in 1967 where Dierking raised his numbers from teh regular season. That's it, that's my ONLY point.

[jlauber]

Again, not his point. How hard is that to understand? He's not trying to argue that Dierking outplayed Wilt or played him kinda sorta even.

He's pointing out that, against Chamberlain in the first round Dierking's averages were better than they were in the regular season (by quite a bit if they're correct #'s) and had the best playoff series of his career.

I don't care about other seasons, games, series, etc. I'm strictly talking about that first round series in 1967 where Dierking raised his numbers from teh regular season. That's it, that's my ONLY point.

And these are typical "anti-Wilt" trash posts. Here we have someone TRYING to disparage Wilt in a series in which Chamberlain just MURDERED him. ONLY Wilt would take a hit in a playoff series in which he outscored his opposing center by a 28 ppg to 17 ppg; outrebound him, 27 rpg to 14 rpg; outassist him, 11 apg to 4 apg; and outshoot him, .612 to .427.

I have seen some here claim Wilt "choked" in his '65 ECF's against Russell, too. Here was Wilt, taking a 40-40 team, to a game seven, one point loss against a 62-18 Celtic team. And all he did in that series was to outscore Russell, per game, 30 ppg to 16 ppg; outrebound Russell, per game, 31 rpg to 25 rpg; and outshoot Russell from the field, .555 to .447. Oh, and BTW, he also outshot Russell from the line, as well, .583 to .472 (and outscored him from the line by a 49-18 margin.)

In fact, you can go right down the line with Wilt's post-seasons. Even in his worst post-season, in '69, he was still outplaying his opposing centers.

And in his best post-seasons, he was destroying his opposing centers, just like he did to Dierking.

[KG215]

And these are typical "anti-Wilt" trash posts. Here we have someone TRYING to disparage Wilt in a series in which Chamberlain just MURDERED him. ONLY Wilt would take a hit in a playoff series in which he outscored his opposing center by a 28 ppg to 17 ppg; outrebound him, 27 rpg to 14 rpg; outassist him, 11 apg to 4 apg; and outshoot him, .612 to .427.

I have seen some here claim Wilt "choked" in his '65 ECF's against Russell, too. Here was Wilt, taking a 40-40 team, to a game seven, one point loss against a 62-18 Celtic team. And all he did in that series was to outscore Russell, per game, 30 ppg to 16 ppg; outrebound Russell, per game, 31 rpg to 25 rpg; and outshoot Russell from the field, .555 to .447. Oh, and BTW, he also outshot Russell from the line, as well, .583 to .472 (and outscored him from the line by a 49-18 margin.)

In fact, you can go right down the line with Wilt's post-seasons. Even in his worst post-season, in '69, he was still outplaying his opposing centers.

And in his best post-seasons, he was destroying his opposing centers, just like he did to Dierking.

I'm not trying to disparage Wilt or make an anti-Wilt post. I will admit, though, I just wanted to see what other wall of excuses and numbers you'd come up with to defend him. Obviously Wilt outplayed him. It was freaking Connie Dierking vs. Wilt Chamberlain.

My next question would be, do you think it was ever Wilt's fault when his team lost a playoff series, but I already know your answer.

[jlauber]

I'm not trying to disparage Wilt or make an anti-Wilt post. I will admit, though, I just wanted to see what other wall of excuses and numbers you'd come up with to defend him. Obviously Wilt outplayed him. It was freaking Connie Dierking vs. Wilt Chamberlain.

My next question would be, do you think it was ever Wilt's fault when his team lost a playoff series, but I already know your answer.

Did Wilt have some poor post-season games? Yes, but not many...and he played in 160 of them. His worst post-season was in '69, and even then he outplayed his opposing center in every series. And the reality was, it was BAYLOR who lost that series.

How about '68? Well, given the fact that Chamberlain's TEAM was devastated by injuries, and Wilt himself was nursing SEVERAL injuries (including a tear in his quad)...and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game two, on...it was a miracle that they managed to get to a game seven, where they lost by a 100-96 margin. And an injured Wilt still had a 22-25 .487 series.

Those are the ONLY two in which you could question Wilt AT ALL.

Some idiots have pointed out Wilt's 46-36 Lakers losing a game seven to the 60-22 Knicks in the '70 Finals. Except that Wilt was only four months removed from major knee surgery, and he STILL had a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 Finals (the ONLY 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history), and in a must-win game six, he hung a 45-27 game (on 20-27 shooting), and in the game seven loss, he had a 21 point, game on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds.

Aside from those, go ahead and give me YOUR list in which Wilt was responsible for "losing" in the playoffs.

[jlauber]

I'm not trying to disparage Wilt or make an anti-Wilt post. I will admit, though, I just wanted to see what other wall of excuses and numbers you'd come up with to defend him. Obviously Wilt outplayed him. It was freaking Connie Dierking vs. Wilt Chamberlain.

My next question would be, do you think it was ever Wilt's fault when his team lost a playoff series, but I already know your answer.

BTW, yes, it was "freaking" Connie Dierking against Wilt. And guess what? Wilt just ANNIHILATED him. BUT, how often did Chamberlain battle a less than multiple All-Star opposing center in the playoffs? 29 games total. Out of 160. He went H2H with a HOF starting center in 105 of those 160 games, and then a multiple all-star starting center in 26 more playoff games. Think about that...he was facing a very good, to great, opposing center in 131 of his 160 post-season games.

[KG215]

Did Wilt have some poor post-season games? Yes, but not many...and he played in 160 of them. His worst post-season was in '69, and even then he outplayed his opposing center in every series. And the reality was, it was BAYLOR who lost that series.

How about '68? Well, given the fact that Chamberlain's TEAM was devastated by injuries, and Wilt himself was nursing SEVERAL injuries (including a tear in his quad)...and was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game two, on...it was a miracle that they managed to get to a game seven, where they lost by a 100-96 margin. And an injured Wilt still had a 22-25 .487 series.

Those are the ONLY two in which you could question Wilt AT ALL.

Some idiots have pointed out Wilt's 46-36 Lakers losing a game seven to the 60-22 Knicks in the '70 Finals. Except that Wilt was only four months removed from major knee surgery, and he STILL had a 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, .625 Finals (the ONLY 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history), and in a must-win game six, he hung a 45-27 game (on 20-27 shooting), and in the game seven loss, he had a 21 point, game on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds.

Aside from those, go ahead and give me YOUR list in which Wilt was responsible for "losing" in the playoffs.

I don't know know enough about Wilt and that era to say with any kind of authority in which series or games he was responsible for losing. It just seems like every time someone like G.O.A.T comes back with viable reasons as to why Wilt could've been responsible for a series loss, you respond with the same type of excuse filled stat riddled posts. I also think you tend overplay the gap between Wilt's teammates and Russell's teammates. And please, I don't need to see your post comparing the supporting casts for each player. I've seen it before and I've read rebuttals from other knowledgeable posters. I'm not counting Bill Simmons either.

For all I know you could be completely and 100% correct about everything. I'm 25 and just haven't done enough research on that era and the Chamberlain/Russell debate. However, I do believe there are two somewhat distinct groups of basketball fans when it comes to debating which player is/was better: those who put more emphasis on individual play and numbers, and those who put more emphasis on team play and team success. There's sub-categories for each like valuing things like peak play over longevity, but I think those two categories encompass nearly everyone that likes to debate historical rankings.

I happen to fall into the team success category. I grew up in a very basketball oriented household in which my dad was (and still is) a high school coach, and I played year round (little league/school ball from winter to spring, and traveling teams in the spring and summer) starting in the 3rd grade through high school. I was taught from a young age that, above all else, winning matters most. And I learned over the years, mostly from my father who as a coach, obviously, was always trying to find any kind of advantage that would help his team win. Points, rebounds, assists, blocks, etc. were always secondary. If I scored 25 points, had 5-7 rebounds, and 4 or 5 assists in a game, and my team lost, those numbers were meaningless. As I got older I also started to gain the understanding that there's a very distinct mental aspect to basketball. That, when playing a team or player with more talent than you, you had to find any mental edge you could; whether it was playing your opponent to his/their weaknesses, or slowing your game down and being more intentional in your decisions; and, sometimes, even if at the end of the game your match-up has better numbers than you, it doesn't necessarily mean he or his team were better if you beat them. Not saying that's always the case but I personally believe there's a lot of truth to that.

Now, what I have read on Russell and Chamberlain, it has led me to believe Russell had a better understanding of the team aspect of basketball, and had a better understanding of what it took to win. It very well could have been as simple as Russell had a vastly superior supporting cast most years in his 11 championship seasons. But i do think there is something to the "it's about more than just the numbers" argument when it comes to Russell vs. Wilt.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to what you personally believe as a basketball fan. If, in your mind, the player who had the better stats in H2H match-ups against a specific player, is the better player, that's fine; it doesn't mean you're wrong. And if you believe the player whose team won more games and championships is the better player, it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, either. I think at its very core the "Russell vs. Chamberlain" debate is a perfect example of this. One player has the superior numbers, to the point where you might be considered a fool for thinking his main rival was better; and the other player has more wins and championships. It just comes down to what you value more in these type of debates.

[G.O.A.T]

I'm not entirely sure I understand your point here. Coming off an 18 month break is not a good thing for a player's game. I'd even argue that it's not only not a good thing, but it's a very bad thing in almost any sport.

Basketball, and most sports for that matter(especially at that high of a level) is not something you can just take an 18 month break from and expect to return as the same player you were before. It's just not gonna happen.

The post was completely satirical and tongue-in-cheek.

[jlauber]

I don't know know enough about Wilt and that era to say with any kind of authority in which series or games he was responsible for losing. It just seems like every time someone like G.O.A.T comes back with viable reasons as to why Wilt could've been responsible for a series loss, you respond with the same type of excuse filled stat riddled posts. I also think you tend overplay the gap between Wilt's teammates and Russell's teammates. And please, I don't need to see your post comparing the supporting casts for each player. I've seen it before and I've read rebuttals from other knowledgeable posters. I'm not counting Bill Simmons either.

For all I know you could be completely and 100% correct about everything. I'm 25 and just haven't done enough research on that era and the Chamberlain/Russell debate. However, I do believe there are two somewhat distinct groups of basketball fans when it comes to debating which player is/was better: those who put more emphasis on individual play and numbers, and those who put more emphasis on team play and team success. There's sub-categories for each like valuing things like peak play over longevity, but I think those two categories encompass nearly everyone that likes to debate historical rankings.

I happen to fall into the team success category. I grew up in a very basketball oriented household in which my dad was (and still is) a high school coach, and I played year round (little league/school ball from winter to spring, and traveling teams in the spring and summer) starting in the 3rd grade through high school. I was taught from a young age that, above all else, winning matters most. And I learned over the years, mostly from my father who as a coach, obviously, was always trying to find any kind of advantage that would help his team win. Points, rebounds, assists, blocks, etc. were always secondary. If I scored 25 points, had 5-7 rebounds, and 4 or 5 assists in a game, and my team lost, those numbers were meaningless. As I got older I also started to gain the understanding that there's a very distinct mental aspect to basketball. That, when playing a team or player with more talent than you, you had to find any mental edge you could; whether it was playing your opponent to his/their weaknesses, or slowing your game down and being more intentional in your decisions; and, sometimes, even if at the end of the game your match-up has better numbers than you, it doesn't necessarily mean he or his team were better if you beat them. Not saying that's always the case but I personally believe there's a lot of truth to that.

Now, what I have read on Russell and Chamberlain, it has led me to believe Russell had a better understanding of the team aspect of basketball, and had a better understanding of what it took to win. It very well could have been as simple as Russell had a vastly superior supporting cast most years in his 11 championship seasons. But i do think there is something to the "it's about more than just the numbers" argument when it comes to Russell vs. Wilt.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to what you personally believe as a basketball fan. If, in your mind, the player who had the better stats in H2H match-ups against a specific player, is the better player, that's fine; it doesn't mean you're wrong. And if you believe the player whose team won more games and championships is the better player, it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, either. I think at its very core the "Russell vs. Chamberlain" debate is a perfect example of this. One player has the superior numbers, to the point where you might be considered a fool for thinking his main rival was better; and the other player has more wins and championships. It just comes down to what you value more in these type of debates.

Russell having better teammates the vast majority of his career is indisputable. For those that haven't seen the numbers, Wilt played 24 FULL seasons (or mostly full seasons) with HOF teammates. Russell played with 71! Granted, not all of Russell's teammates were true HOFers. KC Jones, Frank Ramsey, Bailey Howell, and Satch Sanders were not legitimate HOFers (although Sanders and Jones were considered the best defenders at their positions, and Howell was a 20 ppg scorer on 50% shooting with Boston.)

But the same applies to Wilt's "HOF" teammates. No one is ever going to convince me that Gola was a legitimate HOF player. He put up average stats, and was awful in his post-seasons, even those in which he did not play with Wilt.

Now, you MIGHT be able to argue that Russell elevated the play of his teammates, while Chamberlain MAY have diminished the play of his. However, Russell was the beneficiary of CLUTCH performances by players like Sam Jones and John Havlicek. Not only that, but Russell's teams were ALWAYS much deeper than Wilt's.

Meanwhile, Wilt's best teammates usually puked all over themselves in their biggest games. West had ONE truly great series, and another outstanding one, in which he completely blew chunks in a game seven.

And I really couldn't find post-season series in which Wilt's better teammates shot considerably less than they did in the regular season, either. A great example of that was in Wilt's 65-66 season. In that regular season, he led his team to the best record in the league (55-25 to Boston's 54-26), and in doing so he averaged 33.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, handed out 5.2 apg, and shot .540 from the floor.

Now, as Owl pointed out, Boston's regular season record was very deceptive. They had a number of players who missed games, and ultimately it cost them that one game. Still, they were the seven-time defending champs, and were healthy in the post-season.

Furthermore, during the regular season, Wilt's Sixers went 6-3 against Russell's Celtics. And in their regular season H2H's, Chamberlain averaged 28.3 ppg, and .30.7 rpg (I don't know what he shot, however.)

Then, in the post-season, Chamberlain averaged 28 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 from the field against Russell and the Celtics. Which was nearly IDENTICAL to his regular season numbers. Granted, his apg dropped from 5.2 to 3.2, but you will see why in a moment.

Boston blew out Wilt's 76ers in that series, 4-1. And here again, while Wilt's numbers were nearly identical to his regular season numbers against Russell, his teammates suddenly shot .352 in that series. Now, whose fault was it for losing that series?

On top of all of that, while Russell's HOF-laden rosters went 7-1 against Wilt's teams in post-season series H2H play, it is worth noting that Boston won FOUR game seven's by a COMBINED NINE points (margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.) So, the REALITY was, Chamberlain was only a few points away from owning a 5-3 H2H advantage over Russell. It was not like Russell was dominating Wilt, and his team's were just routing Wilt's.

And yes, the stats were one-sided. Wilt not only heavily outscored Russell, he massively outshot Russell from the floor, as well. And on top of that, he outrebounded him in EVERY series...some by HUGE margins.

And, when Chambelain's roster was equal to Russell's, and when they neutralized Russell's usual advantage, Wilt's individual dominance over Russell resulted in a 4-1 blowout of the eight time defending Celtics.

I tend to agree with none other than John Wooden on this...had Wilt had Russell's rosters his entire career, he likely would have won 11 rings, too. In any case, he would have won considerably more than two.

[DatAsh]

The post was completely satirical and tongue-in-cheek.

I can see that now after having re-read it. I've never had the greatest eye for those kinds of things, though I probably would have caught on had a read your posts immediately following that one.

[DatAsh]

Russell was the beneficiary of CLUTCH performances by players like Sam Jones

How many playoff game winners did Sam Jones hit?

[jlauber]

How many playoff game winners did Sam Jones hit?

I see where this is going...yes, I didn't cross check Fpliii's claim that Jones hit some enormous some of game-winners. My fault, but he did have access to may google archives, and to be honest, I never paid attention to what Jones clinching performances were. I will say this, Jones had some OUTSTANDING post-seasons, including one of 28.6 ppg.

As for game-winners...why not ask RUSSELL?

http://celticspride.pixnet.net/blog/post/24729388-mr.-clutch---sam-jones

[QUOTE]

[Asukal]

Everybody.... its not Wilt's fault. Its.. its... all due to his god damned team mates... his horrible coaches.... heck its the mountain lion's fault! Wilt didn't do anything wrong! Stop picking on Wilt!

http://media.nowpublic.net/images//0c/3/0c319c3ba9d52aa9ac0e41bd066a704a.jpg