Tim Duncan, three years, three of the biggest playoff choke jobs.

[theoneneo]

Three years at no1...
Knocked out by and 8th seed...
After going up 2 games against OKC, looses 4 straight
30 seconds away from a ring, looses the game and the series

:facepalm

What kind of top 10 player does this? Timmy is borderline 10 Below Hakeem, Shaq and Kobe. And for as much shit as Kobe gets about his %... Tim shot 41% from the field vs Det, and he's a bigman. :no:

After this years collapse, time to rethink Timmy's greatness

[Ancient Legend]

If it were LeBron who had lost these series as the man he would have been crucified.

Duncan as a player didn't choke, except maybe that little layup on game 7 and perhaps going scoreless in the 2nd half and OT in game 6. He's 37 after all.

[LAZERUSS]

Three years at no1...
Knocked out by and 8th seed...
After going up 2 games against OKC, looses 4 straight
30 seconds away from a ring, looses the game and the series

:facepalm

What kind of top 10 player does this? Timmy is borderline 10 Below Hakeem, Shaq and Kobe. And for as much shit as Kobe gets about his %... Tim shot 41% from the field vs Det, and he's a bigman. :no:

After this years collapse, time to rethink Timmy's greatness

Let's give him credit then...using your analogy that it was his fault that those teams lost...has there ever been a player like Duncan who could single-handedly win four championships, and have 50+ win seasons every year, and all on his own?

[Fudge]

He was 35, 36, 37 y/o in those series, respectively. Think about that. Their window should've been shut years ago, but they're still going strong.

4 rings, 3 FMVP's, 2 MVP's. Easily a top 10 player. Deal wid it.

[theoneneo]

He was 35, 36, 37 y/o in those series, respectively. Think about that. Their window should've been shut years ago, but they're still going strong.

4 rings, 3 FMVP's, 2 MVP's. Easily a top 10 player. Deal wid it.

I agree, def one of my favorites, but some people have him ranked high as 6th:eek:

[Eric Cartman]

Also the teams that the Spurs defeated in the finals were far from imppresive to say the least.

[The-Legend-24]

Dude is the only player in the top 10 that gets a pass for everything..

[DMV2]

He was 35, 36, 37 y/o in those series, respectively. Think about that. Their window should've been shut years ago, but they're still going strong.

4 rings, 3 FMVP's, 2 MVP's. Easily a top 10 player. Deal wid it.
This.

How many #1/#1b option 35+ years of age have led their teams to NBA championships? I can only think of Kareem and 1998 Jordan who was 34 for much of that season.

[LAZERUSS]

Three years at no1...
Knocked out by and 8th seed...
After going up 2 games against OKC, looses 4 straight
30 seconds away from a ring, looses the game and the series

:facepalm

What kind of top 10 player does this? Timmy is borderline 10 Below Hakeem, Shaq and Kobe. And for as much shit as Kobe gets about his %... Tim shot 41% from the field vs Det, and he's a bigman. :no:

After this years collapse, time to rethink Timmy's greatness

I'll bite...what does Hakeem have on his resume that puts him ahead of Duncan?

[LAZERUSS]

This.

How many #1/#1b option 35+ years of age have led their teams to NBA championships? I can only think of Kareem and 1998 Jordan who was 34 for much of that season.

And FMVP Chamberlain in '72.

[DMV2]

And FMVP Chamberlain in '72.
That's 3.

[theoneneo]

I'll bite...what does Hakeem have on his resume that puts him ahead of Duncan?

Hakeem's 2 rings were far more impressive than Tim's 4. Not trying to discredit Tim... hell, yea I am. He's extremely overrated all because he's a nice guy. He's lucky Kobe and Shaq hated each other or else he wouldn't have 4. Maybe 2.

[DMV2]

Also the teams that the Spurs defeated in the finals were far from imppresive to say the least.
2005 Pistons were better than any of the 3-peat Lakers' opponents, nobody ever devalued their championships.

1999-2007, the WCF was the real championship series.

[Warners0]

I agree, def one of my favorites, but some people have him ranked high as 6th:eek:
6th is way too low

maybe he should jump ship and sign with the heat

[Ca$H]

Dude is the only player in the top 10 that gets a pass for everything..

It is because he is a non-polarizing good guy.

[Jacks3]

Haha nobody cares when you're well past your prime and a shell of yourself (unless your name is Kobe).

[9erempiree]

Duncan's choke jobs is why I can't seriously have him over Kobe.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I'll bite...what does Hakeem have on his resume that puts him ahead of Duncan?
Coming from the guy that has Wilt over players like Kareem, Shaq, Bird, Kobe, Duncan...

[LAZERUSS]

Hakeem's 2 rings were far more impressive than Tim's 4. Not trying to discredit Tim... hell, yea I am. He's extremely overrated all because he's a nice guy. He's lucky Kobe and Shaq hated each other or else he wouldn't have 4. Maybe 2.

Hakeem's '93-94 run is vastly overrated.

1. MJ did not play. His Bulls went 55-27 without him, and barely lst a game seven to a 57-25 Knicks team, that barely lost a game seven to the 58-24 Rockets. Are you going to tell me that adding MJ to that Bulls roster would not have been enough to blow out Hakeem and his Rockets?

2. Hakeem's teammates were considerably under-rated, especially when you factor in that, hey, no other team in the playoffs had any more talent. Are you trying to tell me that The Knicks were a better team with that crappy roster. Furthermore, I am so sick of just "how little" help Hakeem had. His teammates outplayed NY's. Hakeem's second best scorer (not second best player) averaged 13.8 ppg on .386 shooting. Well, Ewing's second best scorer, averaged 17.7 ppg on .368 shooting.

3. Finally...aside from Ewing, who Hakeem admittedly outplayed, give me a list of the true centers he faced in the playoffs that year. I guarantee you that it will laughable.

[LAZERUSS]

Coming from the guy that has Wilt over players like Kareem, Shaq, Bird, Kobe, Duncan...

Well, if generaly being considered the best player in a full decade, like Wilt was, and wo dominated his peers far more than those guys did, is not a better resume, then I'm sorry, YOUR criteria is extremely flawed. Hell, a peak KAJ faced quite a few of the same centers that a prime Wilt did...care to compare their h2h numbers? Furthermore, and this is just using KAJ...Wilt was a better scorer, more efficient shooter, a better rebounder, a better passer, a better defender, and a better shot blocker. I'll give Kareem an edge in FT shooting...but even then, Wilt averaged 100 more FTs MADE per season...and his IMPACT at the line carried over to his teammates, who routinely outscored their opposing teams by huge margins from the line in both the regular season, and even moreso in the post-season. Other than that, Kareem was a better player.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Hakeem's '93-94 run is vastly overrated.

1. MJ did not play. His Bulls went 55-27 without him, and barely lst a game seven to a 57-25 Knicks team, that barely lost a game seven to the 58-24 Rockets. Are you going to tell me that adding MJ to that Bulls roster would not have been enough to blow out Hakeem and his Rockets?

2. Hakeem's teammates were considerably under-rated, especially when you factor in that, hey, no other team in the playoffs had any more talent. Are you trying to tell me that The Knicks were a better team with that crappy roster. Furthermore, I am so sick of just "how little" help Hakeem had. His teammates outplayed NY's. Hakeem's second best scorer (not second best player) averaged 13.8 ppg on .386 shooting. Well, Ewing's second best scorer, averaged 17.7 ppg on .368 shooting.

3. Finally...aside from Ewing, who Hakeem admittedly outplayed, give me a list of the true centers he faced in the playoffs that year. I guarantee you that it will laughable.
Wilt's two titles are overrated. He wasn't even the leading scorer both years in the playoffs, in fact he wasn't even the second leading scorer either. Hakeem was leading the team in everything. Hakeem also cannot control if MJ played or not. That is like me saying Wilt would have one ring if the Celtic dynasty didn't get old, since Wilt's '72 ring came 3 years after Bill Russell retired.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Well, if generaly being considered the best player in a full decade, like Wilt was, and wo dominated his peers far more than those guys did, is not a better resume, then I'm sorry, YOUR criteria is extremely flawed. Hell, a peak KAJ faced quite a few of the same centers that a prime Wilt did...care to compare their h2h numbers? Furthermore, and this is just using KAJ...Wilt was a better scorer, more efficient shooter, a better rebounder, a better passer, a better defender, and a better shot blocker. I'll give Kareem an edge in FT shooting...but even then, Wilt averaged 100 more FTs MADE per season...and his IMPACT at the line carried over to his teammates, who routinely outscored their opposing teams by huge margins from the line in both the regular season, and even moreso in the post-season. Other than that, Kareem was a better player.
Well, Wilt was not the best player for a full decade, that would be Bill Russell. So your argument is flawed.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt's two titles are overrated. He wasn't even the leading scorer both years in the playoffs, in fact he wasn't even the second leading scorer either. Hakeem was leading the team in everything. Hakeem also cannot control if MJ played or not. That is like me saying Wilt would have one ring if the Celtic dynasty didn't get old, since Wilt's '72 ring came 3 years after Bill Russell retired.

Well we all know that Chamberlain could have easily been his team;s leading scorer had he so chosen. Of course, averaging 21.7 pg on .579 shooting, and dominating in the biggest games of the playoffs...and I mean dominating...was not really second to a Greer, who shot .429 and disappeared in the biggest playoff game. A game in which Chamberlain just shelled Thurmond. BTW, just the year before, in the last game of the season, Wilt hung a 46-34 game on Russell (in the ECF's), and in that same season, had a game in which he slaughtered Thurmond by outscoring him, 45-13. Just ask KAJ how easy that was.

Wilt was FAR more dominant in '67. He outscored, outrebounded, outshot (and by .200+ points from the field), outassisted, and outblocked all three of his opposing centers...and in dominating fashion. Show me where Hakeem accomplished all of that against his opposing centers in his two title runs. I'll answer it for you right now...he didn't come close. He was badly outrebounded by three players, including a teammate in the '94 Finals, and while barely outscoring a young Shaq (by taking 10 more FGAs per game), he was outrebounded, outassisted, outblocked, and dramatically outshot him (by a whopping .595 to .483 margin.)

[TheBigVeto]

He plays for the Spurs. The Commish and the refs are against them. It's a testament to the Spurs' and Duncan's greatness that they could won 4 rings despite all these.

[TheTenth]

Well, Wilt was not the best player for a full decade, that would be Bill Russell. So your argument is flawed.
Jlauber vs. Deuce Bigalow/Millwad hasn't this played out enough yet? :confusedshrug:

Maybe you should argue with me since my stance is Chamberlain > Russell, just for something new?

[SpecialQue]

Hakeem's 2 rings were far more impressive than Tim's 4. Not trying to discredit Tim... hell, yea I am. He's extremely overrated all because he's a nice guy. He's lucky Kobe and Shaq hated each other or else he wouldn't have 4. Maybe 2.

And Hakeem's lucky Jordan decided to retire briefly. Now THOSE are two big asterix titles, but no one says shit.

[LAZERUSS]

Well, Wilt was not the best player for a full decade, that would be Bill Russell. So your argument is flawed.

He wasn't? Let's examine that a little closer shall we? Wilt not only won ROY in '60, he also easily won the MVP. In fact, he would win as any MVPs as Russell in that decade, and considering that he was robbed in '62 and again in '64, well, it should have been 6-3. Furthermore, by the mid-60's on, Chamberlain ran away from Russell in the MVP voting (and Russell had no business outvoting him in the '69 voting.)

Of course, my "flawed" thinking is also based on the FACT that Chamberlain held a 7-2 edge in first-team all-NBA's over Russell in that decade.

I think that is pretty solid evidence that Chamberlain was widely acknowledged as the best player, and by a solid margin, in the decade of the 60's.

[TheTenth]

He wasn't? Let's examine that a little closer shall we? Wilt not only won ROY in '60, he also easily won the MVP. In fact, he would win as any MVPs as Russell in that decade, and considering that he was robbed in '62 and again in '64, well, it should have been 6-3. Furthermore, by the mid-60's on, Chamberlain ran away from Russell in the MVP voting (and Russell had no business outvoting him in the '69 voting.)

Of course, my "flawed" thinking is also based on the FACT that Chamberlain held a 7-2 edge in first-team all-NBA's over Russell in that decade.

I think that is pretty solid evidence that Chamberlain was widely acknowledged as the best player, and by a solid margin, in the decade of the 60's.
Chamberlain's 1964 season is probably one of the most underrated season of all time. I think it's up there with 62, 67, and 72 but it's hardly ever mentioned.

On the flip side of your argument, I think both Russell and Chamberlain had undeserving HoFers on their side. Tom Gola, KC Jones, and Frank Ramsey are some of the worst candidates in the hall.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Well we all know that Chamberlain could have easily been his team;s leading scorer had he so chosen. Of course, averaging 21.7 pg on .579 shooting, and dominating in the biggest games of the playoffs...and I mean dominating...was not really second to a Greer, who shot .429 and disappeared in the biggest playoff game. A game in which Chamberlain just shelled Thurmond. BTW, just the year before, in the last game of the season, Wilt hung a 46-34 game on Russell (in the ECF's), and in that same season, had a game in which he slaughtered Thurmond by outscoring him, 45-13. Just ask KAJ how easy that was.

Wilt was FAR more dominant in '67. He outscored, outrebounded, outshot (and by .200+ points from the field), outassisted, and outblocked all three of his opposing centers...and in dominating fashion. Show me where Hakeem accomplished all of that against his opposing centers in his two title runs. I'll answer it for you right now...he didn't come close. He was badly outrebounded by three players, including a teammate in the '94 Finals, and while barely outscoring a young Shaq (by taking 10 more FGAs per game), he was outrebounded, outassisted, outblocked, and dramatically outshot him (by a whopping .595 to .483 margin.)
This is just great. You start off by comparing FG% of a center to a perimeter player. Anyways, last time I checked Hakeem led the Rockets in points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals in the 94 playoffs. Yet you're going to tell me one of Wilt's championship runs were better when he was not even the second leading scorer in both of them and actually had HOF teamates when Hakeem didn't have any? Bbbut bbut but look at how much Wilt outrebounded shorter players!

[LAZERUSS]

Chamberlain's 1964 season is probably one of the most underrated season of all time. I think it's up there with 62, 67, and 72 but it's hardly ever mentioned.

On the flip side of your argument, I think both Russell and Chamberlain had undeserving HoFers on their side. Tom Gola, KC Jones, and Frank Ramsey are some of the worst candidates in the hall.

100% agreed across the board...with the exception of his '65 playoff run, in which he single-handedly carried a 40-40 team to a monumental upset over the 62-18 Celtics (with a 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, .555 EDF's), and his '66 season, in which he TRASHED Bellamy, Thurmond, and Russell in his h2h's. It was the most dominant season against top-quality peers in NBA history. Of course, had he chosen to score against them in '67, it likely would have been even more dominant.

[DMAVS41]

Haha nobody cares when you're well past your prime and a shell of yourself (unless your name is Kobe).

Nah...Kobe has been graded on a different curve since 2010. the only difference is his fans.

Nobody is claiming Duncan is the best player in the league or better than lebron or something. But you get that from time to time with Kobe fans.

The problem is that fans...even hardcore fans...will always say Kobe is better than he actually is because of his scoring output and proven track record as a great player.

But if you have really watched closely since the 10 finals...Kobe's game has slipped...and the fact that he's such a great scorer has masked it a little.

[TheTenth]

100% agreed across the board...with the exception of his '65 playoff run, in which he single-handedly carried a 40-40 team to a monumental upset over the 62-18 Celtics (with a 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, .555 EDF's), and his '66 season, in which he TRASHED Bellamy, Thurmond, and Russell in his h2h's. It was the most dominant season against top-quality peers in NBA history. Of course, had he chosen to score against them in '67, it likely would have been even more dominant.
Sorry to hijack this thread, OP, but do you know why the ones I listed above even made the hall? It's seems Jones got in because of Championships + Defense, Ramsey for pioneering the 6th man spot, and Tom Gola because...? Any good information on those three?

[Deuce Bigalow]

Jlauber vs. Deuce Bigalow/Millwad hasn't this played out enough yet? :confusedshrug:

Maybe you should argue with me since my stance is Chamberlain > Russell, just for something new?
Look at 1969. Russell in his last season ended up winning the title (again) over Wilt when Wilt had the best player in the league as a teammate - Jerry West. For all the talk about how Russell had the help in the early years knocking off Wilt year after year, '69 was one of the few times where Wilt had more help. And what did Wilt end up doing? Choking from the free-throw line by going 4-13 and Russell escapes in a 2 point win in Game 7 like it's the early to mid '60s all over again.

[steve]

Sorry to hijack this thread, OP, but do you know why the ones I listed above even made the hall? It's seems Jones got in because of Championships + Defense, Ramsey for pioneering the 6th man spot, and Tom Gola because...? Any good information on those three?

Tom Gola was considered one of the truly great all around players during his era. A player that could give a team anything they needed.

[Young X]

It's not only Duncan, the WHOLE SPURS TEAM are chokers. Duncan choked at the end of game 7, but he was the only reason why SA was even compettitive in that game.

Parker, Manu, Pop, and Splitter are the real chokers.

[SyRyanYang]

This.

How many #1/#1b option 35+ years of age have led their teams to NBA championships? I can only think of Kareem and 1998 Jordan who was 34 for much of that season.

How many haven't? Tons, and Tim Duncan is one of them. What's your point?

[LAZERUSS]

This is just great. You start off by comparing FG% of a center to a perimeter player. Anyways, last time I checked Hakeem led the Rockets in points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals in the 94 playoffs. Yet you're going to tell me one of Wilt's championship runs were better when he was not even the second leading scorer in both of them and actually had HOF teamates when Hakeem didn't have any? Bbbut bbut but look at how much Wilt outrebounded shorter players!

Check Hakeem's opposing rosters. Yep, Ewing...with no HOFers. The fact was, Hakeem's run thru the '94 playoffs was a joke. If he didn't have any surrounding talent, wlell, neither did anyone else.

Furthermore, and once again, give me a list of the TRUE centers that Hakeem faced in his FOUR playoff series. It was downright embarrassing.

How about Wilt's runs. In three playoff series in '67 (unlike the four in which Hakeem could stats pad against)...Chamberlain not only battled two of the three greatest defensive centers in NBA history (with Wilt obviously being the other), he absolutely destroyed them. Ask KAJ how many times in his three playoff series h2hs against Thurmond, did he shoot .560 against Nate. Well, I'll answer it for you. He was not even CLOSE (.486, .428, and .405.)

Then, in the '67 run, and in three playoff series, he battled against TEN HOFers. Even in his '72 run, and again in only three series, he faced EIGHT.

Did Wilt have more help? Yes. But he also faced MUCH more stacked teams in his playoff runs. Furthermore, his teams just wiped the floor with them. There were never any seven game series in his two title runs, and in fact, they were romps.

[LikeABosh]

He got old, its not choking....

[TheTenth]

Look at 1969. Russell in his last season ended up winning the title (again) over Wilt when Wilt had the best player in the league as a teammate - Jerry West. For all the talk about how Russell had the help in the early years knocking off Wilt year after year, '69 was one of the few times where Wilt had more help. And what did Wilt end up doing? Choking from the free-throw line by going 4-13 and Russell escapes in a 2 point win in Game 7 like it's the early to mid '60s all over again.
Lol I never thought you would respond since it seems you are just troll. According to you, Bill Russell was the best player in the league not Jerry West.
According to the voters, Wes Unseld was the mvp, not Jerry West.

Well, Wilt was not the best player for a full decade, that would be Bill Russell. So your argument is flawed.
It seems your argument is flawed.

I've seen your free-throw argument before and it's not very strong (at least in this case.) Wilt went 7-8 shooting, thoroughly out-playing Russell, even with a freak injury. Interestingly enough, Russell still probably had the better cast with Havlicek and Jones having stellar performances and Howell underperforming while Chamberlain had West playing spectacular and Baylor playing lousy.

[LAZERUSS]

This is just great. You start off by comparing FG% of a center to a perimeter player. Anyways, last time I checked Hakeem led the Rockets in points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals in the 94 playoffs. Yet you're going to tell me one of Wilt's championship runs were better when he was not even the second leading scorer in both of them and actually had HOF teamates when Hakeem didn't have any? Bbbut bbut but look at how much Wilt outrebounded shorter players!

Chamberlain slaughtered his opposing centers in rebounding in that post-season (especially Russell.)

But, in any case, the 6-8 Charles Oakley easily outrebounded Hakeem in the '94 Finals (in fact, Hakeem wasn't even the best rebounder on his own team.)

BTW, a couple of years later, a 6-5 Charles Barkley, and playing on the SAME team, outrebounded Hakeem by a 13.5 to 9.2 rpg margin.

Hakeem was not even in the same galaxy when it came to rebounding as Chamberlain was.

[TheTenth]

Tom Gola was considered one of the truly great all around players during his era. A player that could give a team anything they needed.
He is highly overrated in that way then, he was a poor scorer, a solid passer, and an above average rebounder but hardly holds a candle to probably 90% of the other hall of famers.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Check Hakeem's opposing rosters. Yep, Ewing...with no HOFers. The fact was, Hakeem's run thru the '94 playoffs was a joke. If he didn't have any surrounding talent, wlell, neither did anyone else.

Furthermore, and once again, give me a list of the TRUE centers that Hakeem faced in his FOUR playoff series. It was downright embarrassing.

How about Wilt's runs. In three playoff series in '67 (unlike the four in which Hakeem could stats pad against)...Chamberlain not only battled two of the three greatest defensive centers in NBA history (with Wilt obviously being the other), he absolutely destroyed them. Ask KAJ how many times in his three playoff series h2hs against Thurmond, did he shoot .560 against Nate. Well, I'll answer it for you. He was not even CLOSE (.486, .428, and .405.)

Then, in the '67 run, and in three playoff series, he battled against TEN HOFers. Even in his '72 run, and again in only three series, he faced EIGHT.

Did Wilt have more help? Yes. But he also faced MUCH more stacked teams in his playoff runs. Furthermore, his teams just wiped the floor with them. There were never any seven game series in his two title runs, and in fact, they were romps.
How about you tell me the height and weight of Wilt's opposing centers compared to Wilt himself? All I know is that none of them were 7 foot and weighed over 250 pounds while Wilt was 7'1" and around 300. You mentioned "Ewing and no HOFers", Hakeem himself had no HOFers either.

[LAZERUSS]

Tom Gola was considered one of the truly great all around players during his era. A player that could give a team anything they needed.

Gola was arguably the worst post-season "HOFer" in NBA history. And his FG%'s were just awful, both with, and without Chamberlain. He had a career .336 FG% in his five post-seasons, including his last two with Chamberlain, in which he shot .271 and .206 from the field.

[steve]

He is highly overrated in that way then, he was a poor scorer, a solid passer, and an above average rebounder but hardly holds a candle to probably 90% of the other hall of famers.

Well, he does doing that rebounding from the backcourt. He was one of the first truly big guards in the NBA. Not that I'm really defending him here, but this was the perception of him at the time. Also keep in mind (as far as his Hall of Fame status), he was one of the handful of All-Time great college players (the only other players I can think of who were three time first team All-Americans are Jabbar, Walton, and Sampson).

[TheTenth]

Gola was arguably the worst post-season "HOFer" in NBA history. And his FG%'s were just awful, both with, and without Chamberlain. He had a career .336 FG% in his five post-seasons, including his last two with Chamberlain, in which he shot .271 and .206 from the field.
I know you are more of a "debater/arguer" but I am really interested in the learning aspect of a forum debate. Do you have any good information on why the three I mentioned above are in the hall of fame? What about the 1961 Warriors' playoff run? Gola and Arizin were absolutely atrocious in that series and it seemed Chamberlain had a subpar rebounding effort. I've always wanted to learn more about it...

[LAZERUSS]

How about you tell me the height and weight of Wilt's opposing centers compared to Wilt himself? All I know is that none of them were 7 foot and weighed over 250 pounds while Wilt was 7'1" and around 300. You mentioned "Ewing and no HOFers", Hakeem himself had no HOFers either.

Educate yourself...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=306527

It turns out that Chamberlain was facing a TON of 7-0 and 7-1+ centers in his career. And, yes, many were well over 250 lbs, too. You can't use their listed ROOKIE weights in your pathetic arguments.

Of course, you still haven't answered my question about Hakeem's title run. First of all, he outplayed the 6-11 (not 7-0) Patrick Ewing...but that is just the tip of the iceberg...give me a list of the TRUE centers, and their MPG, that he faced in that post-season run. It was atrocious.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Lol I never thought you would respond since it seems you are just troll. According to you, Bill Russell was the best player in the league not Jerry West.
According to the voters, Wes Unseld was the mvp, not Jerry West.

It seems your argument is flawed.

I've seen your free-throw argument before and it's not very strong (at least in this case.) Wilt went 7-8 shooting, thoroughly out-playing Russell, even with a freak injury. Interestingly enough, Russell still probably had the better cast with Havlicek and Jones having stellar performances and Howell underperforming while Chamberlain had West playing spectacular and Baylor playing lousy.
I never said Russell was the best player in '69. I already said multiple times that I think and have heard that Jerry West was the best player that year along with '70. "According to the voters"? Who cares about MVP voting when determing the best player. MVP =/= best player. Don't make me list the past couple of MVP winners to prove my point.

[fsvr54]

2005 Pistons were better than any of the 3-peat Lakers' opponents, nobody ever devalued their championships.

1999-2007, the WCF was the real championship series.


That's why the Pistons beat the WC champion in 04?

:facepalm

[TheTenth]

Well, he does doing that rebounding from the backcourt. He was one of the first truly big guards in the NBA. Not that I'm really defending him here, but this was the perception of him at the time. Also keep in mind (as far as his Hall of Fame status), he was one of the handful of All-Time great college players (the only other players I can think of who were three time first team All-Americans are Jabbar, Walton, and Sampson).
Oh no, I'm just trying to make sense of it all and I thank you for taking the time to respond. I forgot that college has alot to do with HoF status (since it's a basketball hall of fame, not an NBA one.) And was he really a guard? I thought he and Arizin were basically interchangeable and thus had no real set positions.

[TheTenth]

I never said Russell was the best player in '69. I already said multiple times that I think and have heard that Jerry West was the best player that year along with '70. "According to the voters"? Who cares about MVP voting when determing the best player. MVP =/= best player. Don't make me list the past couple of MVP winners to prove my point.
Jerry West had one of his worst seasons in 1969. If I were picking an MVP that year, I would take Willis Reed but that's besides my point. Btw, as long as 1969 is part of the 1960's decade, you did state Bill Russell was the best.


Well, Wilt was not the best player for a full decade, that would be Bill Russell. So your argument is flawed.

1969 is part of the 1960's decade, correct?

Maybe you are a troll...

[LAZERUSS]

I never said Russell was the best player in '69. I already said multiple times that I think and have heard that Jerry West was the best player that year along with '70. "According to the voters"? Who cares about MVP voting when determing the best player. MVP =/= best player. Don't make me list the past couple of MVP winners to prove my point.

And don't make me give you a list of the SEVERAL qestionable MVP votes in the 60's either. There was no criteria that existed in which Chamberlain would win the MVP in '60 (and highly deserved BTW), and not win in '62. And since he was completely forgotten in '63, playing for a horrible team, why didn't he win the MVP in '64 when he essentially carried that same roster to the WDF's in '64?

And he dominated Unseld, Reed, and particularly Russell in his h2h's in the '69 season, and had better h2h w-l records against both (5-1 against Reed, and 4-2 against Russell...and 3-3 against Unseld), while playing on a team that had a better record. Yet, they all finished ahead of him in the voting. Just ridiculous.

The FACTS were, Chamberlain dominated the entire decade of the 60's. And everyone accepted it.

[LAZERUSS]

I know you are more of a "debater/arguer" but I am really interested in the learning aspect of a forum debate. Do you have any good information on why the three I mentioned above are in the hall of fame? What about the 1961 Warriors' playoff run? Gola and Arizin were absolutely atrocious in that series and it seemed Chamberlain had a subpar rebounding effort. I've always wanted to learn more about it...

Chamberlain dominated the 6-9 Red Kerr and the 7-3 Swede Halbrook in the '61 playoffs, but when his teammates, including those two awful performances by Gola and Arizin, collectively shot .332 from the field...well, I suspect that he would have fared better playing against Syracuse by himself.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Educate yourself...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=306527

It turns out that Chamberlain was facing a TON of 7-0 and 7-1+ centers in his career. And, yes, many were well over 250 lbs, too. You can't use their listed ROOKIE weights in your pathetic arguments.

Of course, you still haven't answered my question about Hakeem's title run. First of all, he outplayed the 6-11 (not 7-0) Patrick Ewing...but that is just the tip of the iceberg...give me a list of the TRUE centers, and their MPG, that he faced in that post-season run. It was atrocious.
I was only able to find two players that were 7 foot/230+ pounds minus Wilt

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=252158

And if they didn't add the inch from the shoes to the height, that means they did it to Wilt's height too, Wilt was 7'2" without shoes, so the large height advantage is still there.

[Nevaeh]

Look at 1969. Russell in his last season ended up winning the title (again) over Wilt when Wilt had the best player in the league as a teammate - Jerry West. For all the talk about how Russell had the help in the early years knocking off Wilt year after year, '69 was one of the few times where Wilt had more help. And what did Wilt end up doing? Choking from the free-throw line by going 4-13 and Russell escapes in a 2 point win in Game 7 like it's the early to mid '60s all over again.

Lazerus sure uses a lot of "if, would have, could have, almost, should haves" in all of his posts, even when he's trying to throw Jordan under the bus.

Leading off every post with what the Bulls "almost" did without MJ is like celebrating what Wilt "almost" did against Boston, had he not been petrified of Russell, even when he's had chances to beat him.

http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

[Deuce Bigalow]

Jerry West had one of his worst seasons in 1969. If I were picking an MVP that year, I would take Willis Reed but that's besides my point. Btw, as long as 1969 is part of the 1960's decade, you did state Bill Russell was the best.



1969 is part of the 1960's decade, correct?

Maybe you are a troll...
Yeah no shit 1969 is part of the 60's but you are not understanding what best player of the decade means. Best player of the decade means that over the course of the entire decade added up, Russell was the best. For example, most people have Kobe or Duncan as the best player of the last decade, that doesn't mean that they were the best in every single year of the '00s, but from 2000-2009 they were the best.

[TheTenth]

Yeah no shit 1969 is part of the 60's but you are not underatanding what best player of the decade means. Best player of the decade means that over the course of the entire decade added up, Russell was the best. For example, mist people have Kobe or Duncan as the best player of the last decade, that doesn't mean that they were the best in every single year of the '00s, but from 2000-2009 they were the best.
But you said best player for a full decade, not best player of the decade. If Russell was not the best in 1969, he would not best the best player for a full decade...


Well, Wilt was not the best player for a full decade, that would be Bill Russell. So your argument is flawed.

[LAZERUSS]

I was only able to find two players that were 7 foot/230+ pounds minus Wilt

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=252158

And if they didn't add the inch from the shoes to the height, that means they did it to Wilt's height too, Wilt was 7'2" without shoes, so the large height advantage is still there.

First of all, I need to reiterate that those "weights" were their ROOKIE weights. Hell, Tom Boerwinkle was 280 lbs, not 260. Do you think Moses Malone was 215 lbs? That Bob Lanier was 250 lbs? That Nate Thurmond was 225 lbs? That Artis Gilmore was 240 lbs (and once again, Robert Parish played against both Gilmore and Shaq, and claimed that Gilmore was stronger)? Those weights were as meaningless as the listed heights of the players in the last 30 years.

Secondly, the 6-7 Ben Wallace easily outrebounded Shaq in the '04 Finals. How? Or that he led the NBA in rebounding twice? Or that the 6-5 Charles Barkley led the NBA in rebounding one year? Or that the 6-8 Dennis Rodman was blowing away Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, and Hakeem, year-after-year?

My god, the actual 6-8 and white Kevin Love, averaged 15.2 rpg and in only 35 mpg a couple of years ago, and ran away with the rebounding title. How?

[LAZERUSS]

Yeah no shit 1969 is part of the 60's but you are not understanding what best player of the decade means. Best player of the decade means that over the course of the entire decade added up, Russell was the best. For example, most people have Kobe or Duncan as the best player of the last decade, that doesn't mean that they were the best in every single year of the '00s, but from 2000-2009 they were the best.

How is Russell considered the best player of the decade of the 60's, when Chamberlain held a 7-2 edge in first-team All-NBA selections? And even using the flawed MVP voting, they only split the MVPs in that decade...and from the middle of the decade on (until the laughable '69 voting) Wilt was running away with them. Hell, Chamberlain was MVP and frst-team all-NBA his very first season, and by the middle of the decade he was blowing everyone away (in the voting, first-team selections, and in h2h play.)

[Deuce Bigalow]

But you said best player for a full decade, not best player of the decade. If Russell was not the best in 1969, he would not best the best player for a full decade...
Full means in its entirety. If I was trying to say what you're thinking then I would have said Bill was the best player in every year of the 60's decade.

Btw West in '69 led the playoffs in scoring and won FMVP.

[TheTenth]

Full means in its entirety. If I was trying to say what you're thinking then I would have said Bill was the best player in every year of the 60's decade.
But the meaning still stands with your statement.


Btw West in '69 led the playoffs in scoring and won FMVP.
Congratulations to Mr. West.

This has been a nice deviation from the original thesis you brought up though.

[Deuce Bigalow]

First of all, I need to reiterate that those "weights" were their ROOKIE weights. Hell, Tom Boerwinkle was 280 lbs, not 260. Do you think Moses Malone was 215 lbs? That Bob Lanier was 250 lbs? That Nate Thurmond was 225 lbs? That Artis Gilmore was 240 lbs (and once again, Robert Parish played against both Gilmore and Shaq, and claimed that Gilmore was stronger)? Those weights were as meaningless as the listed heights of the players in the last 30 years.

Secondly, the 6-7 Ben Wallace easily outrebounded Shaq in the '04 Finals. How? Or that he led the NBA in rebounding twice? Or that the 6-5 Charles Barkley led the NBA in rebounding one year? Or that the 6-8 Dennis Rodman was blowing away Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, and Hakeem, year-after-year?

My god, the actual 6-8 and white Kevin Love, averaged 15.2 rpg and in only 35 mpg a couple of years ago, and ran away with the rebounding title. How?
And "white" Kevin Love? What are you trying to say? Speaking of white players....the 1960s were filled with them. Look, a 4" or 5" advantage is a big one whether or not you like to admit it. You're the one always talking about how much Wilt "outplays" his opposing centers who are 6'10". 7'2" Wilt with shoes doesn't have a huge advantage there?

[LAZERUSS]

Lazerus sure uses a lot of "if, would have, could have, almost, should haves" in all of his posts, even when he's trying to throw Jordan under the bus.

Leading off every post with what the Bulls "almost" did without MJ is like celebrating what Wilt "almost" did against Boston, had he not been petrified of Russell, even when he's had chances to beat him.

http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

"Petrified of Russell." The same Russell whom hem heavily outscored in 133 of their 143 h2h's, with 24 games of 40+, five of 50+, and a high of 62? The same Russell whom he outrebounded by a 92-43-8 margin in those career h2h's (including a 7-1 edge in 40+ rebound games, and a 23-4 margin in 35+ rebounding games?) The same Russell whom he outshot by a .500 to .400 margin in those 143 meetings? The same Russell whom he heavily outscored, heavily outrebounded, and heavily outshot in their eight post-season h2h's.

Yep, he must have been scared out of his wits when he was routinely outscoring Russell by 30+ points in games, including a 62-23 margin in one. And he must have been shaking in his shoes in the many games in which he outrebounded Russell by double digits, including one by a 55-19 margin. And he was scrambling for the hills in the many games in which he shelled Russell from the field (including one game in which he held Russell to 0-14 shooting), as well as outshooting him from the field in a playoff series by a .556 to .358 margin.

He was truly terrified....

[LAZERUSS]

And "white" Kevin Love? What are you trying to say? Speaking of white players....the 1960s were filled with them. Look, a 4" or 5" advantage is a big one whether or not you like to admit it. You're the one always talking about how much Wilt "outplays" his opposing centers who are 6'10". 7'2" Wilt with shoes doesn't have a huge advantage there?

Well, the 6-8 Jerry Lucas was Kevin Love, long before Kevin Love was. In every aspect of their games. BTW, even using your TRB%, Lucas was putting up some very formidable seasons.

True, Chamberlain was taller than MOST of his peers. BTW, he waxed the taller Kareem in the rebounding department, too. But, as I just illustrated earlier, what the hell does height have to do with rebounding?

[Deuce Bigalow]

"Petrified of Russell." The same Russell whom hem heavily outscored in 133 of their 143 h2h's, with 24 games of 40+, five of 50+, and a high of 62? The same Russell whom he outrebounded by a 92-43-8 margin in those career h2h's (including a 7-1 edge in 40+ rebound games, and a 23-4 margin in 35+ rebounding games?) The same Russell whom he outshot by a .500 to .400 margin in those 143 meetings? The same Russell whom he heavily outscored, heavily outrebounded, and heavily outshot in their eight post-season h2h's.

Yep, he must have been scared out of his wits when he was routinely outscoring Russell by 30+ points in games, including a 62-23 margin in one. And he must have been shaking in his shoes in the many games in which he outrebounded Russell by double digits, including one by a 55-19 margin. And he was scrambling for the hills in the many games in which he shelled Russell from the field (including one game in which he held Russell to 0-14 shooting), as well as outshooting him from the field in a playoff series by a .556 to .358 margin.

He was truly terrified....
He was terrified when he was missing 9 free-throws in a 1 or 2 point loss to Russell :oldlol:

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, it was Deuce who introduced Wilt into this topic, not me.

[Legends66NBA7]

It's not a legacy killer or anything. If anything, he'll get a pass. Lot's all-time great players get passes when they get older, it is what it is.


Coming from the guy that has Wilt over players like Kareem, Shaq, Bird, Kobe, Duncan

Whom many would agree on.

[Deuce Bigalow]

BTW, it was Deuce who introduced Wilt into this topic, not me.
I still would like to here why Wilt is above players with more rings than him like Kareem, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, and Bird "the choker according to you even though he has more rings than Wilt"?

[LAZERUSS]

He was terrified when he was missing 9 free-throws in a 1 or 2 point loss to Russell :oldlol:

And still OUTSCORING Russell from the line in nearly all of them. Not to mention him holding Russell to playoff series FG%'s of .399 (in Russell's greatest FG% season BTW), .398, .386, and even .358. And having post-seasons against Russell of .509, .517, .534, .555, and .556.

[LAZERUSS]

I still would like to here why Wilt is above players with more rings than him like Kareem, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, and Bird "the choker according to you even though he has more rings than Wilt"?

Last time I checked, basketball is/was a TEAM game.

He had FAR less "choke" jobs than Kobe, KAJ, and Bird BTW.

And since you tend to rank Hakeem above Wilt...how? Yu can't use TEAM against Wilt, either. How come Hakeem best W-L record was only 58-24. Or that he only played on five 50+ win teams. Or that he lost in the first round in eight of his 15 post-season series?

[Mrofir]

Hakeem's '93-94 run is vastly overrated.

1. MJ did not play. His Bulls went 55-27 without him, and barely lst a game seven to a 57-25 Knicks team, that barely lost a game seven to the 58-24 Rockets. Are you going to tell me that adding MJ to that Bulls roster would not have been enough to blow out Hakeem and his Rockets?

2. Hakeem's teammates were considerably under-rated, especially when you factor in that, hey, no other team in the playoffs had any more talent. Are you trying to tell me that The Knicks were a better team with that crappy roster. Furthermore, I am so sick of just "how little" help Hakeem had. His teammates outplayed NY's. Hakeem's second best scorer (not second best player) averaged 13.8 ppg on .386 shooting. Well, Ewing's second best scorer, averaged 17.7 ppg on .368 shooting.

3. Finally...aside from Ewing, who Hakeem admittedly outplayed, give me a list of the true centers he faced in the playoffs that year. I guarantee you that it will laughable.


I agree with the entire post, except the very first sentence. Nobody overrates that 93-94 run except for people who are clueless about basketball, flailing desperately to make an argument.

The ISH crowd would undoubtedly be calling both of Hakeem's titles "asterisk" titles if a similar circumstance played out now.

I'm not saying they are, I just think it's :facepalm when people somehow try to argue that Hakeem's title runs were any more impressive than the Spurs title runs. I can make argument that the 2005 Suns were good enough to win the 93-94 chip.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Last time I checked, basketball is/was a TEAM game.

He had FAR less "choke" jobs than Kobe, KAJ, and Bird BTW.

And since you tend to rank Hakeem above Wilt...how? Yu can't use TEAM against Wilt, either. How come Hakeem best W-L record was only 58-24. Or that he only played on five 50+ win teams. Or that he lost in the first round in eight of his 15 post-season series?
I got Wilt 9th, Hakeem 10th btw. Wilt's 6 Finals appearances and records give him the edge.

Titles mean a lot when comparing the all-time greats, especially ones where much of their impact played a role in winning those titles. But I also look at Finals MVPs, All-NBA teams, and All-Star teams to rank players.

Titles
Kareem-6
Kobe-5
Shaq-4
Duncan-4
Bird-3
Wilt-2
Hakeem-2

Finals MVPs
Shaq-3
Duncan-3
Bird-should have 3, robbed in '81
Kareem-should have 3, robbed in '80
Kobe-2
Wilt-would have 2, '67 award didnt exist
Hakeem-2

All-NBA teams/First teams
Kobe-15/11
Kareem-15/10
Duncan-14/10
Shaq-14/8
Hakeem-12/6
Bird-10/9
Wilt-10/7


All-Star teams
Kareem-19
Kobe-15
Shaq-15
Duncan-14
Wilt-13
Bird-12
Hakeem-12

[LAZERUSS]

I got Wilt 9th, Hakeem 10th btw.

Titles mean a lot when comparing the all-time great, especially ones where much of their impact played a role in winning those titles. But I also look at Finals MVPs, All-NBA teams, and All-Star teams to rank players.

Titles
Kareem-6
Kobe-5
Shaq-4
Duncan-4
Bird-3

Finals MVPs
Shaq-3
Duncan-3
Bird-should have 3, robbed in '81
Kareem-should have 3, robbed in '80
Kobe-2
Wilt-would have 2, '67 award didnt exist

All-NBA Team/First Team
Kobe-15/11
Kareem-15/10
Duncan-14/10
Shaq-14/8
Bird-10/9
Wilt-10/7

All-Star teams
Kareem-19
Kobe-15
Shaq-15
Duncan-14
Wilt-13
Bird-12

Hmmm...no Magic and HIS role in KAJ's five rings?

Put Magic with Chamberlain for an entire decade, and there is a strong possibility Wilt wins more than five rings.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Hmmm...no Magic and HIS role in KAJ's five rings?

Put Magic with Chamberlain for an entire decade, and there is a strong possibility Wilt wins more than five rings.
We have already gone over this, Wilt played with the best player in he league for two years and didn't win a title. And Kareem's last 2 rings are not that impactfull, but still leaves him with 4 solid rings on his resume, 2 more than Wilt.

[Psileas]

Chamberlain's 1964 season is probably one of the most underrated season of all time. I think it's up there with 62, 67, and 72 but it's hardly ever mentioned.

On the flip side of your argument, I think both Russell and Chamberlain had undeserving HoFers on their side. Tom Gola, KC Jones, and Frank Ramsey are some of the worst candidates in the hall.

Correct. I had this season in mind when I created some time ago a thread about Wilt's 2nd best season after 1967.

[TheTenth]

Correct. I had this season in mind when I created some time ago a thread about Wilt's 2nd best season after 1967.
Do you have a link? I don't have enough posts yet to view your created threads (though if I get wrapped up in these silly "debates" more I will :lol.) I'm actually very interested in learning more about the time period but I don't have access to see some old threads/not sure who to pm to ask about some of the older periods.

[Funnyfuka]

Three years at no1...
Knocked out by and 8th seed...
After going up 2 games against OKC, looses 4 straight
30 seconds away from a ring, looses the game and the series

:facepalm

What kind of top 10 player does this? Timmy is borderline 10 Below Hakeem, Shaq and Kobe. And for as much shit as Kobe gets about his %... Tim shot 41% from the field vs Det, and he's a bigman. :no:

After this years collapse, time to rethink Timmy's greatness
Yeah, because his teammates and coach s **** ups have nothing to do with their losses right. Go **** yourself ****tard.

[Psileas]

Do you have a link? I don't have enough posts yet to view your created threads (though if I get wrapped up in these silly "debates" more I will :lol.) I'm actually very interested in learning more about the time period but I don't have access to see some old threads/not sure who to pm to ask about some of the older periods.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=233999

[rmt]

And yet all you naysayers probably would prefer this year's Tim Duncan over the center on your team - even in his 37 year old state. Think about that.

[sportjames23]

Also the teams that the Spurs defeated in the finals were far from imppresive to say the least.


It's not their fault who they played, but yeah. The only impressive teams they played were Detroit and Miami. If Detroit hadn't let Horry go off on them in that one game, they probably would have beaten the Spurs.

The other teams they beat--a depleted Knicks team, an weak Nets team, and a young Cavs team--not impressive.

[mentallooser]

Any other year I might give you. Ya he missed an easy shot late that decided the game, but he was the only thing keeping the Spurs in that game 7 to begin with. He's too ****ing old to be a super hero in a game 7 against the best player in the game with no help from his best players. That was crazy. Is what it is.

[DMAVS41]

Yep. What a choker...

Just put up 30/17 and 24/12 in the two biggest games of the year...all while anchoring the defense.