Bill Simmons skyhook

[CavaliersFTW]

http://i.minus.com/istzbJxcJARBJ.gif

This is the guy who is obsessed with trashing Wilt Chamberlain's legacy... :coleman:

[Purch]

Simmons knows basketball, and he's proven it numerous times, so his opinion really doesn't need to validated by playing ball well. That only really comes into play with dumbasses like Skip bayless trashing people, and having nothing to back up his opinion. So people call him out on the fact he's never really played, and he provides no real insight

[kurple]

i honestly believe you have to have played the game to completely understand it

simmons looks like he's never touched a ball before

[TheReturn]

i honestly believe you have to have played the game to completely understand it

simmons looks like he's never touched a ball before
Let's not get carried away.. he misses a awkward looking hook badly, could happen to most people.

[kurple]

Let's not get carried away.. he misses a awkward looking hook badly, could happen to most people.
i'm not saying he doesnt know basketball. but its obvious he hasnt played a lot.

i havent missed an uncontested hook like that since i was 13

[Chicago Brawls]

Better post moves than Dwight Howard.

:applause:

[kamil]

Let's not get carried away.. he misses a awkward looking hook badly, could happen to most people.

Bosh misses them all the time. Maybe he'd make a great analyst?

[kurple]

Better post moves than Dwight Howard.

:applause:
half of ish is more skilled with a basketball than dwight. too bad none of us are athletic freaks

but we do have many freaks

[Budadiiii]

i'm not saying he doesnt know basketball. but its obvious he hasnt played a lot.

i havent missed an uncontested hook like that since i was 13
Ok, internet tough guy.

Even the best in the world miss uncontested hooks just like that. Daily.

You're clearly a piece of shit scumbag.

[KyrieTheFuture]

People expect Bill Simmons to know post moves? He's probably never not been the smallest guy on the court

[DuMa]

"dream Shake!"

[NuggetsFan]

I never understood the whole playing it to understand it, or being good I should say. Tons of coaches weren't great players, esp at the lower levels. Basketball is really dependent on size and athletic ability, natural gifts. A guy may know how to properly utilize a skyhook in game but not having the physical tools to pull it off.

Bill Simmons has been around the game long enough to know what he's talking about IMO, rather listen to him than some random who has a good skyhook that plays pickup :oldlol:

[kurple]

Ok, internet tough guy.

Even the best in the world miss uncontested hooks just like that. Daily.

You're clearly a piece of shit scumbag.
really? that shit is like a layup

maybe my coach was better than i thought. i always hated the fat bastard

[kurple]

I never understood the whole playing it to understand it, or being good I should say. Tons of coaches weren't great players, esp at the lower levels. Basketball is really dependent on size and athletic ability, natural gifts. A guy may know how to properly utilize a skyhook in game but not having the physical tools to pull it off.

Bill Simmons has been around the game long enough to know what he's talking about IMO, rather listen to him than some random who has a good skyhook that plays pickup :oldlol:
you dont have to have played on a high level. but you have to know what a basketball game feels like on the floor and not just on a TV screen

it's my personal opinion. cause i believe theres a hella lot more to basketball than just stats and athletic ability

[Purch]

I don't belive you have to play ball at the competitive level to understand it. I played ball at the park like every other day, but I never played on a structured team. Yet after all of the time I spent talking about basketball with nearly anyone who knew anything about it in my school, nearly 60% of my yearbook comments included something about me working for espn one day. Its funny cause thinking back on it, 95% of my knowledge about ball came from the constant discussions I read and took part of on Ish/Rgm/Psd. I remember talking about Bird to a group of friends, then I went home and realized half of what I was saying I got from Shaqattack and Julbar's debates surrounding him

[moe94]

Didn't this guy argue Russell was better than Chamberlain and that Stockon is overrated? :facepalm

[LAZERUSS]

A drunken Stevie Wonder in the middle of a hurricane would have a better chance of a making that shot.

[NuggetsFan]

you dont have to have played on a high level. but you have to know what a basketball game feels like on the floor and not just on a TV screen

it's my personal opinion. cause i believe theres a hella lot more to basketball than just stats and athletic ability

Basketball is tons of athletic ability tho. A skyhook? Can't happen if your uncoordinated. You can know everything about the defense your facing, when to properly execute it, have played for 15 years but if you lack the skills it's not going in.

Stats are irrelevant, look at guys like Luke Walton. Smart as hell but don't have the means to pull it off, that's at the NBA level. Guy's like Steve Nash are 6'3 and while may not be athletic at the NBA level, put regular humans to shame in terms of what they can do at there size vs the average person.

Bill Simmons can have all the basketball IQ in the world, guy has wrote books on basketball. If he doesn't have the physical talent? Doesn't mean he can't talk ball, just means he's not good at basketball.

[LAZERUSS]

Basketball is tons of athletic ability tho. A skyhook? Can't happen if your uncoordinated. You can know everything about the defense your facing, when to properly execute it, have played for 15 years but if you lack the skills it's not going in.

Stats are irrelevant, look at guys like Luke Walton. Smart as hell but don't have the means to pull it off, that's at the NBA level. Guy's like Steve Nash are 6'3 and while may not be athletic at the NBA level, put regular humans to shame in terms of what they can do at there size vs the average person.

Bill Simmons can have all the basketball IQ in the world, guy has wrote books on basketball. If he doesn't have the physical talent? Doesn't mean he can't talk ball, just means he's not good at basketball.

The reality is, he is not good at either.

[Budadiiii]

Basketball is tons of athletic ability tho. A skyhook? Can't happen if your uncoordinated. You can know everything about the defense your facing, when to properly execute it, have played for 15 years but if you lack the skills it's not going in.

Stats are irrelevant, look at guys like Luke Walton. Smart as hell but don't have the means to pull it off, that's at the NBA level. Guy's like Steve Nash are 6'3 and while may not be athletic at the NBA level, put regular humans to shame in terms of what they can do at there size vs the average person.

Bill Simmons can have all the basketball IQ in the world, guy has wrote books on basketball. If he doesn't have the physical talent? Doesn't mean he can't talk ball, just means he's not good at basketball.
And then one could argue that since he's never competed at a high level, or maybe even at all, that he may not have a big dick.

[CavaliersFTW]

Basketball is tons of athletic ability tho. A skyhook? Can't happen if your uncoordinated. You can know everything about the defense your facing, when to properly execute it, have played for 15 years but if you lack the skills it's not going in.

Stats are irrelevant, look at guys like Luke Walton. Smart as hell but don't have the means to pull it off, that's at the NBA level. Guy's like Steve Nash are 6'3 and while may not be athletic at the NBA level, put regular humans to shame in terms of what they can do at there size vs the average person.

Bill Simmons can have all the basketball IQ in the world, guy has wrote books on basketball. If he doesn't have the physical talent? Doesn't mean he can't talk ball, just means he's not good at basketball.
Yeah, he wrote books on basketball that contain nothing but sensationalist journalism fluff that has little to know value in terms of actually understanding how players play the game. He even lies in his books, quite literally just like how our famous ISH troll Euroleague lies. He says something, and doesn't/can't cite it, and assumes people will just take his word for it. The problem is people HAVE just taken accepted his word. But the guy is a journalist and an entertainer NOT a basketball expert, and especially not a basketball historian. Some of the crap he wrote in his books and passed off as truths is downright shameful. People need to understand, Simmons is not a basketball guru.

[moe94]

People need to understand, Simmons is not a basketball guru.
Says the guy who thinks Wilt would be putting up better than peak Shaq numbers today.

[Jailblazers7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyE_qS0snzs

^Looks like a decent old guy shooting hoops to me

OP just has a sore asshole because Simmons said something bad about Wilt.

[NuggetsFan]

The reality is, he is not good at either.

It's all pretty subjective. He doesn't deal in facts and in his profession your going to get alot of people disagreeing with you regardless of your stance. What isn't arguable is how much he's done as an online sports writer. Dude has put in work in that area, has two books as well. Both best sellers I believe.

Just because some dude can knock down a jumper better or can jump higher or is taller doesn't mean I'm going to believe he knows more about basketball than somebody who's been passionately following it for how long? I'm almost positive Simmons gave his kid the initials BOS :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

Says the guy who thinks Wilt would be putting up better than peak Shaq numbers today.
At least my opinions are formed by actually studying archive footage and listening to the peers, contemporaries and former players of that era that ARE experts.

[abuC]

The Wilt Chamberlain defense force.

[NuggetsFan]

Yeah, he wrote books on basketball that contain nothing but sensationalist journalism fluff that has little to know value in terms of actually understanding how players play the game. He even lies in his books, quite literally just like how our famous ISH troll Euroleague lies. He says something, and doesn't/can't cite it, and assumes people will just take his word for it. The problem is people HAVE just taken accepted his word. But the guy is a journalist and an entertainer NOT a basketball expert, and especially not a basketball historian. Some of the crap he wrote in his books and passed off as truths is downright shameful. People need to understand, Simmons is not a basketball guru.

Says who? The dude who posts on a message board and uploads videos to youtube?

People on ISH talk as if basketball deals in facts. As if the term basketball guru isn't completely subjective and isn't entirely based on one's opinion. I'm not 7 years old, I can think for myself like most functioning adults. Nobody is pretending Bill Simmons word is that of a god, just that because he can't hit a skyhook doesn't mean he doesn't have an understanding of the game.

I actually haven't read his books, I thought one was about baseball. I heard the book of basketball was actually a good read tho, or whatever the latest one is. I know the guy has been writing about basketball for a long time. Didn't he get a job offer from ESPN based on a website he created?

I'm not even that big of a fan. Nobody is going to be right all the time, everybody is guilty of a stupid opinion when it comes to sports. We all have are personal bias.

[NuggetsFan]

At least my opinions are formed by actually studying archive footage and listening to the peers, contemporaries and former players of that era that ARE experts.

Once again that's your opinion. We've seen how peers think of eachother, Jordan was amazing but has been terrible in the FO. Isiah Thomas? Brian Shaw is a headcoach, how many players were better than him? Just because some guy was 6'7 and had all world talent or athletic ability doesn't mean what he says goes.

Yeah that guy who has made his living starting his own sports websites and working for ESPN probably doesn't study archive footage. Just because you don't agree with his OPINIONS doesn't mean he doesn't watch basketball.

[iznogood]

It's not a skyhook, it's a jump hook (only he doesn't jump).

[moe94]

Just because you don't agree with his OPINIONS doesn't mean he doesn't watch basketball.

I think this dude is a troll anyway. No way someone is that invested in Wilt and his era without some sort of irony and even then that's too much effort for any sane person.

[abuC]

I think this dude is a troll anyway. No way someone is that invested in Wilt and his era without some sort of irony and even then that's too much effort for any sane person.


The worst part about it is that it's so painfully obvious why he's going at Simmons.

If he's not a troll, then he's clearly an obsessed weirdo.

[inclinerator]

bill is only 44 not even that old

[ILLsmak]

Yea I don't know if he ever played ball well in his life. He is a writer more than a bball analyst.

Although it is funny because if you should a clip of Toine playing bball and missing a shot in the gym, people might think he's ass, too.

I know people have always thought I was ass at bball during warm ups. lol.

I think in order to understand bball you have to play it and watch it. Basically you begin to see the floor from two perspectives. I know I posted this before, but when I played ball on my first team in 4th or 5th grade, I didn't know WTF was going on.

I watched bball and that was helpful, but just as much so the first time I picked up a basketball video game really helped my understanding of basketball. It allowed me to see the floor in a different way when I played. As long as someone has those two points of view, they should understand the game.

You will never understand the game until you see it played. You will never understand your game until you watch yourself play, period.

If there was some world where there were only people who had only watched bball and people who had only played bball, I am sure the watchers would understand the game better. They wouldn't have the level of depth in one role that the players would, but they would have a better understanding to, say, discuss a topic or write an article.

-Smak

[moe94]

This "he can't play therefore he cannot comment on the sport" thing is silly. It's the same argument people use against critics of anything. How dare you criticize his food if you could never make that dish! He has intense knowledge and experience with basketball. He knows what's talking about, regardless of whether his has the shot of a stereotypical old man.

[Dr. Cheesesteak]

here's the thing. I think having played the game at some level obviously helps you understand it better, particularly the degree of ease or difficulty involved in its various aspects.

But!

I don't think playing the game automatically makes you some authoritative figure on basketball. Plenty of players who only understand the game from their own perspective (position play, ease/difficulty for them, etc), rather than the overall game itself.

Basically, I can respect someone like Bill Simmons who seems to know bball (for the most part. Sometimes I disagree w/ what he says, but it's mostly re: scouting stuff), even if they haven't played. But I'm not going to think someone like Shaq or Monta Ellis would make a great analyst/columnist (or even coach/scout) just b/c they played.

The perfect analyst/columnist would be an ex-player w/ a high IQ who completely understands the game in and out. But those are few and far between. Simmons is acceptable.



This "he can't play therefore he cannot comment on the sport" thing is silly. It's the same argument people use against critics of anything. How dare you criticize his food if you could never make that dish! He has intense knowledge and experience with basketball. He knows what's talking about, regardless of whether his has the shot of a stereotypical old man.
agreed. It's actually a logical fallacy, too. Called the Appeal to Authority.

[stephanieg]

Simmons does play basketball. I don't think he ever claimed to be any good though. He mostly references it when he talks about which players would be fun to play with, or how much getting old sucks for recovery time and ways to heal your body up.

[avonbarksdale]

dead @ you trying to make it seem like you are more knowledgeable than bill simmons

[Breezy]

Hold up people. Watch out for logical fallacies. they're abundant on this thread. Ability and knowledge are two separate skills. If you want to cast doubt on simmons opinions, do it because he's angling for a storyline. Not because he hasn't played. Did anyone watch The NBA pregame shows on Espn last year? It was a case study in the reality that playing in the nba is no guarantee that you know what your talking about. The 2 smartest guys on that show were Wilbon and Simmons. Their argument over Rudy gay for instance. Even worse than that (AND I WILL NEVER STOP BEATING THIS DRUM!!!) is Bruce Bowen. Listen to the most recent NBA Lockdown podcast. it will take you about 2 seconds to realize that Bruce couldn't be more diluted about everything he thinks and says and Isreal Gutierrez, who's never played hoops, knows Infinitely more about the game.

[Droid101]

You people are idiots.

So, what's the cut-off? How many years must you have played as a pro to write a book about the NBA? 4? 10? 15?

Please.

[chazzy]

A gif of Bill Simmons shooting a hook shot has sparked a debate on whether basketball ability should determine a writer's credibility... wow

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I'm not a Bill Simmons fan but his ability to play basketball has nothing to do with his ability to analyze it.

[moe94]

A gif of Bill Simmons shooting a hook shot has sparked a debate on whether basketball ability should determine a writer's credibility... wow

It's a widely used ad hominem here. Tons of people on the internet flat out say your opinion on ball is meaningless if you've never played some sort of organized basketball.

[CavaliersFTW]

A gif of Bill Simmons shooting a hook shot has sparked a debate on whether basketball ability should determine a writer's credibility... wow
:lol hey, it's ISH :banana:

[KyleKong]

So Simmons can't hit a skyhook, and you make a thread about it because he trashes Wilt's legacy?

I make fun of Tom Brady, and I can't throw a 70 yard TD pass, why are there no threads about me?!

[Deuce Bigalow]

"No one has any clutch stories on Chamberlain. If they existed, I'd pass them along."

- Bill Simmons

My man :cheers: :applause: He's a great basketball mind just because of that quote tbh

[plowking]

half of ish is more skilled with a basketball than dwight. too bad none of us are athletic freaks

but we do have many freaks

:oldlol:

Dwight would cross you up so badly, and not to mention beat you easily in a free throw contest outside of the NBA court.

Some of the shit people say on here. :oldlol:

[moe94]

and not to mention beat you easily in a free throw contest outside of the NBA court.
:
Nah...maybe you, son. If I lost in a freethrow contest against that guy, I might consider suicide.

[TonyMontana]

OP is butthurt because Simmons talked shit about Wilt in his book(pretty good read, lol @ saying its lies all his shit is cited) and because Simmons gets paid big bucks for his opinion while the OP puts hours upon hours of work on his youtube channell only for dudes to steal his footage and use it to boost their own articles. :roll:

The OP is 130 pounds too so Simmons might even beat him in a 1v1 game. :roll:

[Deuce Bigalow]

A drunken Stevie Wonder in the middle of a hurricane would have a better chance of a making that shot.
Would you be willing to say that Wilt Chamberlain has a better chance of making a freethrow in the NBA Finals?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

lol

[moe94]

Would you be willing to say that Wilt Chamberlain has a better chance of making a freethrow in the NBA Finals?
shots fired

[Marchesk]

Says the guy who thinks Wilt would be putting up better than peak Shaq numbers today.

Well, why not? There's quite a few people who think that. Or are you just talking peak finals Shaq?

Anyway, what was Shaq better at than Wilt, other than running dudes over and dunking?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Well, why not? There's quite a few people who think that. Or are you just talking peak finals Shaq?

Anyway, what was Shaq better at than Wilt, other than running dudes over and dunking?
How is that not a valuable skill?

[Marchesk]

I think this dude is a troll anyway. No way someone is that invested in Wilt and his era without some sort of irony and even then that's too much effort for any sane person.

Well, there was a time when Wilt opponents would claim that he didn't have much more than 24" vertical, that he just stood under the basket and dominated 6'6" white guys just because of his height. People would swear that it was impossible that Wilt could have anywhere near a 40" vertical, but not anymore, or that he could beat guards down the floor.

Now even the trolls have backed off most of that, except for the silly 6'6 white center BS. Thanks to people like Cavs, we have video proof that Wilt was very athletic, and he did more than just stand under the basket and dunk.

Whatever people want to say about the inflated pace of the 60s, and the competition compared to today, it doesn't change the fact that Wilt put up numbers across the board which have never been repeated by anyone in history, including the best players of those days.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Well, why not? There's quite a few people who think that. Or are you just talking peak finals Shaq?

Anyway, what was Shaq better at than Wilt, other than running dudes over and dunking?
To put it quickly. Shaq did not choke in the Finals, Wilt did. As we all know Wilt tended to wilt come playoff time. Shaq on the other hand dominated the playoffs and especially the Finals. He was a much better scorer and more efficient.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Well, there was a time when Wilt opponents would claim that he didn't have much more than 24" vertical, that he just stood under the basket and dominated 6'6" white guys just because of his height.

Now even the trolls have backed off most of that, except for the silly 6'6 white center BS. Thanks to people like Cavs, we have video proof that Wilt was very athletic, and he did more than just stand under the basket and dunk.
According to this he has a 24 inch vert http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98884

Also he scored 100 on a 6'6" center.

[CavaliersFTW]

According to this he has a 24 inch vert http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98884

Also he scored 100 on a 6'6" center.
He scored 100 on Darrall Imhoff, who was listed 6-10... in an era when list heights weren't total BS. Kareem also played against Imhoff. Never even scored 50 on him. And according to that link he had a '7-2' wingspan which is total BS - goes to show how accurate that 'source' is doesn't it?

[PHILA]

writer's credibility

He is not credible, given the lies in his book attempting to put down the '67 Sixers. At least two separate instances in the book he states that Billy Cunningham's rookie year was 1967, when it was actually his 2nd year. The tone of his comments to hint that a "rookie" wasn't as valuable as he would later be. I will say though he is a great fit at ABC Disney and their deliberate coverage of the NBA.

[Marchesk]

According to this he has a 24 inch vert http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98884

Also he scored 100 on a 6'6" center.

So tell me, where is the ball in relation to the backboard on this shot block:

http://youtu.be/tCtmgxwsiJY?t=19s

[Mr. Jabbar]

dwights mentor

[Deuce Bigalow]

So tell me, where is the ball in relation to the backboard on this shot block:

http://youtu.be/tCtmgxwsiJY?t=19s
I can't even see the rim.

What do you think his vertical was?

[Marchesk]

I can't even see the rim.

What do you think his vertical was?

40-42" range. Wilt exaggerated a lot, but it looks like with his reach that he could get to the top of the backboard. Too bad there's no video of him dunking on that 12 foot experimental rim at KU, or dunking from the foul line.

But just going off that video, which I've seen enough times, I'd say he elevates close to 36". There's a better version of the video with Wilt and the ball colored in. But it is really hard to say exactly how high up it was. If you look at his feet, it seems like they are at waist height of the other players. The one thing I know for sure is that his vertical is a lot better than 24". It was this video which convinced that Wilt's athleticism was for real. I had my doubts before then. And then I started watching Wilt Chamberlain Archive.

[Deuce Bigalow]

40-42" range. Wilt exaggerated a lot, but it looks like with his reach that he could get to the top of the backboard. Too bad there's no video of him dunking on that 12 foot experimental rim at KU, or dunking from the foul line.

But just going off that video, which I've seen enough times, I'd say he elevates close to 36". There's a better version of the video with Wilt and the ball colored in. But it is really hard to say exactly how high up it was. If you look at his feet, it seems like they are at waist height of the other players. The one thing I know for sure is that his vertical is a lot better than 24". It was this video which convinced that Wilt's athleticism was for real. I had my doubts before then. And then I started watching Wilt Chamberlain Archive.
Okay, cool now let's do the math.

Wilt is 7'2" with shoes. 7'2" = 86 inches.

Add in a 40" vertical. 86" + 40" = 126"

Basketball rim is 10 feet = 120"

So a 40" vertical means that he could get the top of his head 6 inches ABOVE THE RIM. A head is like what..9", so a 40" vertical for a 7'2" means he could nearly get his entire head above the rim. He would basically be at risk of hitting his head at the rim going up for rebounds with a 40" vertical. There is not ONE photo that shows Wilt's head CLOSE to the rim. In videos he is not close to getting rim level at anytime. These are just the facts.

[Collie]

The guy's in his late 40's. He probably hasn't really played much, if at all, in years. That doesn't mean that he didn't play ball during his younger years. You don't need to be good to understand the flow of a game or the euphoria of hitting an all-net basket. I'm sure Simmons knows what it feels like to be playing in an actual game, he just can't pull off moves like crossovers or finger rolls.

[Teanett]

And then one could argue that since he's never competed at a high level, or maybe even at all, that he may not have a big dick.

his dick is tight. i sucked it.

[moe94]

Some people really believe Wilt had a 40+ vert as a 7 footer. Christ. Wow.

[HomieWeMajor]

http://i.minus.com/istzbJxcJARBJ.gif

This is the guy who is obsessed with trashing Wilt Chamberlain's legacy... :coleman:
Looks like the average center playing in the 1960s

[kshutts1]

Simmons certainly looked awkward in the OP gif... but in other videos I just watched on youtube, he casually makes some shots. Very nonchalant. I'm pretty confident in saying that while he may not be that athletic, he has a certain degree or skill honed through years and years of shooting.

Not to say that those of us that on this board that have actually been players aren't better, but he's certainly better than your average Dad going out and picking up a ball for the first time in years.

[Marchesk]

Okay, cool now let's do the math.

Wilt is 7'2" with shoes. 7'2" = 86 inches.

Add in a 40" vertical. 86" + 40" = 126"

Basketball rim is 10 feet = 120"

So a 40" vertical means that he could get the top of his head 6 inches ABOVE THE RIM. A head is like what..9", so a 40" vertical for a 7'2" means he could nearly get his entire head above the rim. He would basically be at risk of hitting his head at the rim going up for rebounds with a 40" vertical. There is not ONE photo that shows Wilt's head CLOSE to the rim. In videos he is not close to getting rim level at anytime. These are just the facts.

First of all, who jumps their max vertical when going for a rebound? Secondly, he does get his head above the rim in that video, if you look at the red line I drew going from the back of the iron threw his shoulder blade. Now his head is tilted to the right, but it's clear that it is still above the rim. It's easy to see that Wilt could have gotten his head 6 inches above the rim. Another poster on here said that he saw Bill Russell get half his head above the rim, which isn't surprising. Russell was a 6'9" high jumper in college before the Fosbury flop.

http://s24.postimg.org/rpg5auhb9/wilt.jpg

[Marchesk]

Some people really believe Wilt had a 40+ vert as a 7 footer. Christ. Wow.

Some people actually believe Wilt averaged 45.8 minutes per game as a 7 footer in a faster paced era. There's simply no way a big could do that, right? Even greatly conditioned athletes today would wear down with those kind of minutes. It's just insane to think someone could go an entire season playing all but 8 minutes while scoring 50 and grabbing 25.

Not. Possible. Except it's fact.

If you think about it, Wilt's stamina (on the court), is more impressive than his vertical.

You naysayers need to get it through your head that Wilt was a freak. A once in a generation player. Like a Shaq or a Lebron.

[305Baller]

wow. HAHAHAHAH

[Deuce Bigalow]

First of all, who jumps their max vertical when going for a rebound? Secondly, he does get his head above the rim in that video, if you look at the red line I drew going from the back of the iron threw his shoulder blade. Now his head is tilted to the right, but it's clear that it is still above the rim. It's easy to see that Wilt could have gotten his head 6 inches above the rim. Another poster on here said that he saw Bill Russell get half his head above the rim, which isn't surprising. Russell was a 6'9" high jumper in college before the Fosbury flop.

http://s24.postimg.org/rpg5auhb9/wilt.jpg
I can't change your mind. I just gave you the facts, it's for you to decide to accept it or not. Wilt did not have anywhere close to a 40" vertical.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Some people really believe Wilt had a 40+ vert as a 7 footer. Christ. Wow.
Jlauber told me he had a 50" vert.

[Marchesk]

Jlauber told me he had a 50" vert.

Somewhere in between the myth and the nay saying is the truth. It was never measured, so it's just guess work. I don't know how you can say he had anything lower than 36" based on video evidence we have available. That isn't the only one where he goes up high to block a shot.

[LAZERUSS]

Would you be willing to say that Wilt Chamberlain has a better chance of making a freethrow in the NBA Finals?

Chamberlain had a better chance of making a FT in an NBA Finals than your boy Kobe did a FGA.

[CavaliersFTW]

Chamberlain had a better chance of making a FT in an NBA Finals than your boy Kobe did a FGA.
:oldlol: :applause:

[Deuce Bigalow]

Chamberlain had a better chance of making a FT in an NBA Finals than your boy Kobe did a FGA.
Kobe's FG% is higher than Wilt's FT% in the Finals though

[Deuce Bigalow]

Somewhere in between the myth and the nay saying is the truth. It was never measured, so it's just guess work. I don't know how you can say he had anything lower than 36" based on video evidence we have available. That isn't the only one where he goes up high to block a shot.
36" vert means the top of his head would reach the rim. And we have never seen a picture or video of this. If he had a 36" vert then we would have seen plenty of picture and video of him getting very close to the rim. One video where the footage is shady and the angle is questionable isn't proof.

[KevinNYC]

i honestly believe you have to have played the game to completely understand it

This is totally not true.

Bill James who sucked at little league baseball created sabermetrics and revolutionized the game.

There was pro football scout from Brooklyn who used to create a yearly book covering every player in the NFL. Pretty much every team in the league bought it and paid mid five figures for his understanding of the game. He never played a down.


That said, that is one shitty hook shot.

[SilkkTheShocker]

half of ish is more skilled with a basketball than dwight. too bad none of us are athletic freaks

but we do have many freaks

Shut you fat ass up, b.itch

[G-train]

Simmons is cheap entertainment, but that hook has nothing to do with it.

[Marchesk]

36" vert means the top of his head would reach the rim. And we have never seen a picture or video of this. If he had a 36" vert then we would have seen plenty of picture and video of him getting very close to the rim. One video where the footage is shady and the angle is questionable isn't proof.

http://s7.postimg.org/5zcz477uz/wilt2.png

[Marchesk]

http://s2.postimg.org/y63uwmreh/wilt3.png

[CavaliersFTW]

There's also this courtside close up clip from the Globetrotters, Wilt's head is within inches of the rim and he's still in his warmups:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-SB8X1etha50/UpQZoPGMPQI/AAAAAAAAE2U/YVfgjCMw74A/s640/Sequence%252001.Still008.jpg

If that was shot with a modern zoom lens from across court like how modern sports photographers would shoot this rather than a basic 35mm from up close, his head would appear to be 'over' the rim just like any cliche Blake Griffin or Deandre Jordan "omg his head is over the rim!" shot. Because when ANY players head appears to be over the rim from a cross court zoom lens replay camera it always isn't - usually it's never even close on the main camera or one of the alternate sideline cams. The 'head above the rim' thing is just an NBA photography gimmick - and is a cache 22 that Deuce loves resorting too. Any in-game head at rim level photograph or video is pretty much a trick perspective. Very few players, regardless of their vertical leaping abilities, will ever jump to the point that their head is rim level during the flow of a game even if they could unless it is joking around in practice like Gerald Green did. Because in a game it is an incredibly redundant - not to mention a totally out of control - thing to do.

[Marchesk]

Now I've shown you three pictures where the ball is about the same height in relation to the backboard. The first one you have to watch the video to see the ball in motion, but they are all within a few inches of each other. In two of them, Wilt swats them, and the first with the red line running from the back of the rim through is shoulder, Wilt tips it to himself and catches it on the way down.

The last one should be the clearest. Let's do a little math. The rim is 10 feet, and the top of the backboard is 13. The ball in the last one is around 3/4 of the way up (near the top). 3/4 * 36 inches = 27 inches or 12'5".

Wilt's standing reach was 9'7", which is 5 inches from the rim. 12'5" is 7 inches from the top, so that's 5 + 36 - 7 = 34 inch vertical in the photo. In his 30s, after I believe he had that knee injury. The second photo where his head is right at or right below rim level is after his knee surgery, according to Cavs fan.

If he could do 34" in his 30s after knee surgery in the middle of a game, what do you think he could have done at KU, whom he was playing in the first photo?

[CavaliersFTW]

Now I've shown you three pictures where the ball is about the same height in relation to the backboard. The first one you have to watch the video to see the ball in motion, but they are all within a few inches of each other. In two of them, Wilt swats them, and the first with the red line running from the back of the rim through is shoulder, Wilt tips it to himself and catches it on the way down.

The last one should be the clearest. Let's do a little math. The rim is 10 feet, and the top of the backboard is 13. The ball in the last one is around 3/4 of the way up (near the top). 3/4 * 36 inches = 27 inches or 12'5".

Wilt's standing reach was 9'7", which is 5 inches from the rim. 12'5" is 7 inches from the top, so that's 5 + 36 - 7 = 34 inch vertical in the photo. In his 30s, after I believe he had that knee injury. The second photo where his head is right at or right below rim level is after his knee surgery, according to Cavs fan.

If he could do 34" in his 30s after knee surgery in the middle of a game, what do you think he could have done at KU, whom he was playing in the first photo?
Wilt's standing reach was measured at 9 feet 6 inches. Wilt's PROJECTED standing reach in modern shoes is 9 feet 7 inches because modern shoes are about an inch thicker than Chucks. He's playing in Chucks in all those clips, so your baseline is 9 feet 6 inches.

[moe94]

Just missing Laz and the trinity will be complete. My favorite posters, without irony. You guys are seriously entertaining and quite knowledgable eventhough your beliefs can be construed as borderline trolling.

[Deuce Bigalow]

There's also this courtside close up clip from the Globetrotters, Wilt's head is within inches of the rim and he's still in his warmups:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-SB8X1etha50/UpQZoPGMPQI/AAAAAAAAE2U/YVfgjCMw74A/s640/Sequence%252001.Still008.jpg

If that was shot with a modern zoom lens from across court like how modern sports photographers would shoot this rather than a basic 35mm from up close, his head would appear to be 'over' the rim just like any cliche Blake Griffin or Deandre Jordan "omg his head is over the rim!" shot. Because when ANY players head appears to be over the rim from a cross court zoom lens replay camera it always isn't - usually it's never even close on the main camera or one of the alternate sideline cams. The 'head above the rim' thing is just an NBA photography gimmick - and is a cache 22 that Deuce loves resorting too. Any in-game head at rim level photograph or video is pretty much a trick perspective. Very few players, regardless of their vertical leaping abilities, will ever jump to the point that their head is rim level during the flow of a game even if they could unless it is joking around in practice like Gerald Green did. Because in a game it is an incredibly redundant - not to mention a totally out of control - thing to do.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-We1wfpMhSWM/UOSqQ6BwApI/AAAAAAAAENM/VE7aCgGFzK0/s1600/christian-bale-wtf.gif

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://s2.postimg.org/y63uwmreh/wilt3.png

http://s7.postimg.org/5zcz477uz/wilt2.png
Not buying it with those angles. Look at the floor as well, you telling me his feet are at least 3 feet above the ground?

[TylerOO]

Was he purposely trying to look like the least athletic, most white person ever?

[royalbluecosby]

http://youtu.be/dOXjZD8jX-o

Jacoby vs Simmons in a game of HORSE

[LAZERUSS]

Kobe's FG% is higher than Wilt's FT% in the Finals though

Just barely.

How about this though. Let's go with TS% in game seven's of their Finals shall we?

Kobe a solid .365.

Chamberlain a pathetic .542.

BTW, Wilt's HOF opposing centers shot a TS% of .358 in those game seven's.

You would be hard-pressed to find another GOAT center outshooting their opponents (whether HOFers or not) by a TS% differential of .184 (or 18.4%) in their career game seven's. Oh, and Chamberlain outrebounded those HOF centers by a combined margin of 51-24, too.

BTW, when Kobe faced a HOF guard in his prime in the Finals, he was outscored by a 36-24 margin (although to his credit, Kobe outshot AI by a staggering .415 to .407 margin from the field in that series.)

And, furthermore, thanks to Kobe's only made shot in the '04 Finals, he helped Shaq avoid his SEVENTH playoff SWEEP (in a series in which the Lakers were prohibitive favorites.)

[LAZERUSS]

"No one has any clutch stories on Chamberlain. If they existed, I'd pass them along."

- Bill Simmons

My man :cheers: :applause: He's a great basketball mind just because of that quote tbh

How about these performances in MUST-WIN and CLINCHING PLAYOFF games...


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 (23-60) 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.

[LAZERUSS]

"No one has any clutch stories on Chamberlain. If they existed, I'd pass them along."

- Bill Simmons

My man :cheers: :applause: He's a great basketball mind just because of that quote tbh

Oh and let's post EVERY one of those 35 MUST-WIN and CLINCHING PLAYOFF performances while we are at it, shall we?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lebron23]

I'll do the skyhook in my next video.

[Dr.J4ever]

Yeah, he wrote books on basketball that contain nothing but sensationalist journalism fluff that has little to know value in terms of actually understanding how players play the game. He even lies in his books, quite literally just like how our famous ISH troll Euroleague lies. He says something, and doesn't/can't cite it, and assumes people will just take his word for it. The problem is people HAVE just taken accepted his word. But the guy is a journalist and an entertainer NOT a basketball expert, and especially not a basketball historian. Some of the crap he wrote in his books and passed off as truths is downright shameful. People need to understand, Simmons is not a basketball guru.

He's not a basketball guru in the sense that he can get you tips on how to play the game on a tactical level, but I respect him all the same.

I think he knows what he's talking about historically since he experienced all those Celtic games he watched going all the way back. Not a lot of people on this board can claim that.

His documentary/interview with Russell in Russel's House, I thought was great. When you realize how Russell took a last throes Celtic team against the mighty Lakers in 69, that was a great story and makes me think that Russel was the greatest player ever. Bar none.

Simmons is a NY Times best selling author, and I loved the Book of Basketball even if he doesn't put Doc in the top 10.

[Stringer Bell]

Simmons still ranked Wilt 6th all-time.

It's not like he solely bashed him and didn't acknowledge him as one of the all-time greats.

You don't have to be good at the sport to be a historian of it.

Jack Newfield wasn't much of a boxer.

[ImKobe]

It's not like he airballed it...it was just a little wide

analysts aren't supposed to be great at playing basketball - they are supposed to be good/great at analyzing the game itself. Knowing the rules, the history of the game, the statistics, being a good writer/blogger.

Here's a gif of Kobe airballing a hook shot

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7w26XTg4JEM/UqVBVqgNNnI/AAAAAAAAWiA/xsALaTUZIVg/s1600/KobeAirball.gif

And he is a professional basketball player, top 5 in scoring all-time in both the RS and the POs.

[iznogood]

It's not like he airballed it...it was just a little wide

analysts aren't supposed to be great at playing basketball - they are supposed to be good/great at analyzing the game itself. Knowing the rules, the history of the game, the statistics, being a good writer/blogger.

Here's a gif of Kobe airballing a hook shot

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7w26XTg4JEM/UqVBVqgNNnI/AAAAAAAAWiA/xsALaTUZIVg/s1600/KobeAirball.gif

And he is a professional basketball player, top 5 in scoring all-time in both the RS and the POs.
It's not about making or missing it's just that his balance and mechanics are awful. Also it doesn't make sense comparing him against somebody who missed a shot while being defended in a competitive game.

[CavaliersFTW]

Let me just give you guys one example. And this is one example among many, and clearly Illustrates that Bill Simmons is a journalist a-la just another Skip Bayless pushing a story or a narrative and he is not an expert on basketball history looking to spread truth and objectivity.

I have an estimated 2-3% of career footage of Wilt right?, random clips from high school all the way up to his final NBA game. I'd be willing to bet I've seen, and have studied more clips and games of Bill Russell, let alone Wilt than Bill Simmons. In these clips the majority of all blocked shots at all levels of competition and age, probably 7 out of every 10 reveals Wilt - just like Bill Russell - showing monumental awareness and effort to keep the ball in play whenever possible to either his teammates or himself, and very few clips (if any) that I recall exist where one could assertain that he deliberately ommitted an opportunity to keep the ball in play and instead opted to swat the ball like a volleyball style spike out of bounds or w/e to sort of intimidate or send a message. Where as Nate Thurmond for example, does appear to do that a few times on film.

So why on earth did Bill Simmons claim one of the things that "seperated" Wilt and Bill Russell was that (according to him) Wilt "volleyball spiked" the ball when he blocked shots, while he asserted the cleverer Russell understood to keep it in play? If it doesn't come from the footage where in gods name does this come from? I mean, even in high school Wilt clearly tip blocks his shots to teammates or better yet, CATCHES the damn shot in mid-air and runs full court and scores. Was Simmons just banking on the idea that nobody would ever be able to prove him wrong and assuming that everyone would just take his word for it?

To further pick apart Simmons claim, I have an interview with Wilt on film where Wilt specifically explains how his objective when blocking shots is always to KEEP THE BALL IN PLAY for teammates to start the fast break... JUST like Bill Russell.

Simmons probably hasn't seen enough. I think he's got Boston homer goggles and only hears what he wants to hear, sees what he wants to see, and writes what he wants to write in regards to this topic. He pushed many false narratives about the Wilt and Russell rivalry. It's unfair, because he wrote things about one of the legends of the sport that aren't true, and his book actually sold a lot of copies. And with that said, who knows what else in his book is equally untrue? All I know is his attempt to tell the story about Russell and Chamberlain is a dishonest one at worst, and a poorly researched one at best.

[Dr.J4ever]

Let me just give you guys one example. And this is one example among many, and clearly Illustrates that Bill Simmons is a journalist a-la just another Skip Bayless pushing a story or a narrative and he is not an expert on basketball history looking to spread truth and objectivity.

I have an estimated 2-3% of career footage of Wilt right?, random clips from high school all the way up to his final NBA game. I'd be willing to bet I've seen, and have studied more clips and games of Bill Russell, let alone Wilt than Bill Simmons. In these clips the majority of all blocked shots at all levels of competition and age, probably 7 out of every 10 reveals Wilt - just like Bill Russell - showing monumental awareness and effort to keep the ball in play whenever possible to either his teammates or himself, and very few clips (if any) that I recall exist where one could assertain that he deliberately ommitted an opportunity to keep the ball in play and instead opted to swat the ball like a volleyball style spike out of bounds or w/e to sort of intimidate or send a message. Where as Nate Thurmond for example, does appear to do that a few times on film.

So why on earth did Bill Simmons claim one of the things that "seperated" Wilt and Bill Russell was that (according to him) Wilt "volleyball spiked" the ball when he blocked shots, while he asserted the cleverer Russell understood to keep it in play? If it doesn't come from the footage where in gods name does this come from? I mean, even in high school Wilt clearly tip blocks his shots to teammates or better yet, CATCHES the damn shot in mid-air and runs full court and scores. Was Simmons just banking on the idea that nobody would ever be able to prove him wrong and assuming that everyone would just take his word for it?

To further pick apart Simmons claim, I have an interview with Wilt on film where Wilt specifically explains how his objective when blocking shots is always to KEEP THE BALL IN PLAY for teammates to start the fast break... JUST like Bill Russell.

Simmons probably hasn't seen enough. I think he's got Boston homer goggles and only hears what he wants to hear, sees what he wants to see, and writes what he wants to write in regards to this topic. He pushed many false narratives about the Wilt and Russell rivalry. It's unfair, because he wrote things about one of the legends of the sport that aren't true, and his book actually sold a lot of copies. And with that said, who knows what else in his book is equally untrue? All I know is his attempt to tell the story about Russell and Chamberlain is a dishonest one at worst, and a poorly researched one at best.

While we need people like you to document what actually took place lo those many moons ago, 2-3% of the footage, as you freely admit, is still only 2-3%. Therefore, other than stats and records, how do we go deeper to find the truth?

In other fields of research dealing with history, you need to get a compilation of opinions and credible stories of what actually took place from people on the ground. So for example, when researching the bible, other than the bible itself, you might want to take a look at what the enemies of the Jews themselves said about specific events during that particular time. Check Egyptian records. Check the Philistines. What did Roman historians say? Just to get a more unbiased presentation.

By compiling all relevant information(including You Tube videos), expert opinions, and credible stories from people(journalists) who saw, sniffed,and lived through that great Russell/Wilt era, you come closer to the truth.

I imagine Simmons, living in the heart(Boston) of what was enemy territory for Wilt, would have a jaded, but valid opinion of Wilt. While Simmons didn't live through that era, I assume he must have studied many expert opinions on Wilt and Russell, just because they are readily available. It is probable that much of Simmons material comes from stories of people who were the conquerors(historical term) of Wilt himself. Whether totally accurate or not is questionable, but hearing it from Wilt's nemesis' is important too.

Again, other than the records themselves(blocked shots were not recorded), expert opinion from many sources I heard over the years have repeated again and again that Russell would keep the ball in bounds. This is something that I never heard said about Wilt. While it may have been Wilt's intention to keep balls in bounds after the blocked shot, we don't know if this is what actually transpired during actual games except for a little bit of footage. We also don't know if Wilt said this in response to criticism directed at him on this matter(I am just speculating here).

While I'm sure your clips would show many blocked shots by Wilt that are kept in bounds, I remember watching as a child 1 Laker game in 1972 when Wilt did a volleyball block out of bounds. I'm not making a conclusion based on 1 game, but when I read the other expert opinions regarding the matter, I understand where Simmons is coming from.

After all, Russell's Celtic teammates and coaches unanimously give Russell credit for triggering fast breaks with those blocked shots. With Wilt, I don't know. Maybe you can enlighten us.

[SpecialQue]

Stick to giving blow jobs, Bill.

[LAZERUSS]

While we need people like you to document what actually took place lo those many moons ago, 2-3% of the footage, as you freely admit, is still only 2-3%. Therefore, other than stats and records, how do we go deeper to find the truth?

In other fields of research dealing with history, you need to get a compilation of opinions and credible stories of what actually took place from people on the ground. So for example, when researching the bible, other than the bible itself, you might want to take a look at what the enemies of the Jews themselves said about specific events during that particular time. Check Egyptian records. Check the Philistines. What did Roman historians say? Just to get a more unbiased presentation.

By compiling all relevant information(including You Tube videos), expert opinions, and credible stories from people(journalists) who saw, sniffed,and lived through that great Russell/Wilt era, you come closer to the truth.

I imagine Simmons, living in the heart(Boston) of what was enemy territory for Wilt, would have a jaded, but valid opinion of Wilt. While Simmons didn't live through that era, I assume he must have studied many expert opinions on Wilt and Russell, just because they are readily available. It is probable that much of Simmons material comes from stories of people who were the conquerors(historical term) of Wilt himself. Whether totally accurate or not is questionable, but hearing it from Wilt's nemesis' is important too.

Again, other than the records themselves(blocked shots were not recorded), expert opinion from many sources I heard over the years have repeated again and again that Russell would keep the ball in bounds. This is something that I never heard said about Wilt. While it may have been Wilt's intention to keep balls in bounds after the blocked shot, we don't know if this is what actually transpired during actual games except for a little bit of footage. We also don't know if Wilt said this in response to criticism directed at him on this matter(I am just speculating here).

While I'm sure your clips would show many blocked shots by Wilt that are kept in bounds, I remember watching as a child 1 Laker game in 1972 when Wilt did a volleyball block out of bounds. I'm not making a conclusion based on 1 game, but when I read the other expert opinions regarding the matter, I understand where Simmons is coming from.

After all, Russell's Celtic teammates and coaches unanimously give Russell credit for triggering fast breaks with those blocked shots. With Wilt, I don't know. Maybe you can enlighten us.

FACT: Chamberlain consistently played on higher scoring teams than Russell.
FACT: Chamberlain consistently played on more efficient teams than Russell.
FACT: In their known games with blocked shots, including H2H's, Wilt had a MASSIVE edge...not even close.

So, to say that Russell was tipping blocks to teammates, and Wilt was not, DESPITE video footage and overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary was just another blatant stab at Wilt.

FACT: Simmons never saw one minute of Wilt and Russell live.

FACT: Simmons only uses quotes from players in which they bashed Wilt...DESPITE the FACT that most all of them later on claimed Wilt was probably the greatest player whoever played (Barry and West come to mind.) BTW, RUSSELL, himself, claimed Wilt as the GOAT just a few years ago (as have Bird, Oscar, and with context, probably Kareem.)

FACT: Simmons could "only" find ONE game in Wilt's post-season career as being memorable. His own words. And yet, there are literally DOZENS, including stomping Russell's ass on several occasions.

FACT: Simmons' "research" on the Russell-Wilt era was overwhelmingly flawed. BTW, how come Simmons NEVER mentioned that Chamberlain held a 7-2 margin in First-Team All-NBA selections over Russell in their 10 years in the league together? Or that Chamberlain badly outplayed Russell in their post-season H2H's, and even in their "must-win" games? Or that Russell put up a feeble game against Wilt in the clinching blowout loss against Wilt in the '67 EDF's?

Or that it was a KNOWN FACT that Russell needed HELP from his HOF teammates in defending Wilt, while Chamberlain was not only defending Russell by himself, he was often covering his teammates' as well.

Simmons is a complete idiot.

[DatAsh]

FACT: Chamberlain consistently played on higher scoring teams than Russell.
FACT: Chamberlain consistently played on more efficient teams than Russell.
FACT: In their known games with blocked shots, including H2H's, Wilt had a MASSIVE edge...not even close.

So, to say that Russell was tipping blocks to teammates, and Wilt was not, DESPITE video footage and overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary was just another blatant stab at Wilt.

FACT: Simmons never saw one minute of Wilt and Russell live.

FACT: Simmons only uses quotes from players in which they bashed Wilt...DESPITE the FACT that most all of them later on claimed Wilt was probably the greatest player whoever played (Barry and West come to mind.) BTW, RUSSELL, himself, claimed Wilt as the GOAT just a few years ago (as have Bird, Oscar, and with context, probably Kareem.)

FACT: Simmons could "only" find ONE game in Wilt's post-season career as being memorable. His own words. And yet, there are literally DOZENS, including stomping Russell's ass on several occasions.

FACT: Simmons' "research" on the Russell-Wilt era was overwhelmingly flawed. BTW, how come Simmons NEVER mentioned that Chamberlain held a 7-2 margin in First-Team All-NBA selections over Russell in their 10 years in the league together? Or that Chamberlain badly outplayed Russell in their post-season H2H's, and even in their "must-win" games? Or that Russell put up a feeble game against Wilt in the clinching blowout loss against Wilt in the '67 EDF's?

Or that it was a KNOWN FACT that Russell needed HELP from his HOF teammates in defending Wilt, while Chamberlain was not only defending Russell by himself, he was often covering his teammates' as well.

Simmons is a complete idiot.

Simmons is far from an idiot, but his anti-Wilt bias is certainly unfortunate.

[ImKobe]

It's not about making or missing it's just that his balance and mechanics are awful. Also it doesn't make sense comparing him against somebody who missed a shot while being defended in a competitive game.

Kobe's a professional NBA player and the master of making a contested shot, everyone misses an easy shot, NBA players airball/brick wide open shots all the time. One .gif of him doing so does not prove anything. It's just funny to the Wilt stans and some of the Laker fans that hate him to death

by the way, this is the funniest Bill Simmons video to me :roll: :roll:

at the 2010 Finals Game 7, Bill was at the game (everyone knows he's a die-hard Celtic fan), some random fan trolls the shit out of him

"hey Simmons!!! You're going down tonight!" Bill gives a slight smirk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgoV5u2WWJs

"I told you Bill!!"

[SamuraiSWISH]

http://i.minus.com/istzbJxcJARBJ.gif

This is the guy who is obsessed with trashing Wilt Chamberlain's legacy... :coleman:
Dork status PROVEN ... my god that's disgusting. Almost as bad as some of the ISH poster videos in the 100 shot challenge thread.

I mean when he talks he knows about the history of the game, the value of players within context. But you can tell he doesn't talk from a basketball science perspective of someone who truly knows the game. Like say Doug Collins.

But this ... ugh, this is just scary bad. Totally un-athletic. Would not want on my pick up team.

BTW, was this from a recent episode of Grantland that I missed? Can someone help me find it? Simmons is always talking about his pick up games with the crew from Grantland.

[Foster5k]

Are people really using a game of horse, which Bill Simmons actually won, to discredit his basketball knowledge?

Only on ISH. :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

While we need people like you to document what actually took place lo those many moons ago, 2-3% of the footage, as you freely admit, is still only 2-3%. Therefore, other than stats and records, how do we go deeper to find the truth?

In other fields of research dealing with history, you need to get a compilation of opinions and credible stories of what actually took place from people on the ground. So for example, when researching the bible, other than the bible itself, you might want to take a look at what the enemies of the Jews themselves said about specific events during that particular time. Check Egyptian records. Check the Philistines. What did Roman historians say? Just to get a more unbiased presentation.

By compiling all relevant information(including You Tube videos), expert opinions, and credible stories from people(journalists) who saw, sniffed,and lived through that great Russell/Wilt era, you come closer to the truth.

I imagine Simmons, living in the heart(Boston) of what was enemy territory for Wilt, would have a jaded, but valid opinion of Wilt. While Simmons didn't live through that era, I assume he must have studied many expert opinions on Wilt and Russell, just because they are readily available. It is probable that much of Simmons material comes from stories of people who were the conquerors(historical term) of Wilt himself. Whether totally accurate or not is questionable, but hearing it from Wilt's nemesis' is important too.

Again, other than the records themselves(blocked shots were not recorded), expert opinion from many sources I heard over the years have repeated again and again that Russell would keep the ball in bounds. This is something that I never heard said about Wilt. While it may have been Wilt's intention to keep balls in bounds after the blocked shot, we don't know if this is what actually transpired during actual games except for a little bit of footage. We also don't know if Wilt said this in response to criticism directed at him on this matter(I am just speculating here).

While I'm sure your clips would show many blocked shots by Wilt that are kept in bounds, I remember watching as a child 1 Laker game in 1972 when Wilt did a volleyball block out of bounds. I'm not making a conclusion based on 1 game, but when I read the other expert opinions regarding the matter, I understand where Simmons is coming from.

After all, Russell's Celtic teammates and coaches unanimously give Russell credit for triggering fast breaks with those blocked shots. With Wilt, I don't know. Maybe you can enlighten us.
Wilt gave the same effort to tip or block shots to teammates, it's visibly there in every defensive play. One of these days I'm going to do a "scouting tool" type video with every known blocked shot/defensive play and you guys will see, that at every level of competition Wilt was constantly focused on keeping that ball in play for his team to gain points out of it. The narrative Bill Simmons pushed is straight up inconsistent with all footage of Wilt. It's only 2-3%... but it's a random 2-3% and probably is perhaps one to several hundred blocks spanning his entire career, showing no matter what team he was on or what system, he was always trying to keep his eye on his teammates to trigger fast breaks.

From actually studying footage, the real difference between Wilt and Russell's shot blocking was neither approach, nor volume (in fact Harvey Pollock claims Wilt likely blocked more shots per-game), nor the "effort" given (both regularly got called for goal tending, trying to shut down the rim). The difference lies in their physical abilities. Wilt was longer, taller, much much stronger, and though shockingly mobile for a guy with his stature, he was not as mobile or "quick" as Bill Russell. Wilt tended to stay slightly closer to the basket. Maybe one or two steps closer. Bill Russell was a contortionist on defense. He could gamble slightly further out, and he's got some wild highlights where he'll block shots with the back of his hand while not even looking at you, he seemed to reach shots out of nowhere. Wilt didn't seem to sneak up on players like Russell. If Bill Simmons wanted to state something honest that separated them based on film analysis THAT'S some of the things he should have said, but I've heard none of that from him, only myths that aren't supported at all by film. The "Wilt volleyball swatted shots, Russell didn't" honestly looks like absolute bullshit after studying film and after listening to interviews where Wilt states specifically otherwise.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt gave the same effort to tip or block shots to teammates, it's visibly there in every defensive play. One of these days I'm going to do a "scouting tool" type video with every known blocked shot/defensive play and you guys will see, that at every level of competition Wilt was constantly focused on keeping that ball in play for his team to gain points out of it. The narrative Bill Simmons pushed is straight up inconsistent with all footage of Wilt. It's only 2-3%... but it's a random 2-3% and probably is perhaps one to several hundred blocks spanning his entire career, showing no matter what team he was on or what system, he was always trying to keep his eye on his teammates to trigger fast breaks.

From actually studying footage, the real difference between Wilt and Russell's shot blocking was neither approach, nor volume (in fact Harvey Pollock claims Wilt likely blocked more shots per-game), nor the "effort" given (both regularly got called for goal tending, trying to shut down the rim). The difference lies in their physical abilities. Wilt was longer, taller, much much stronger, and though shockingly mobile for a guy with his stature, he was not as mobile or "quick" as Bill Russell. Wilt tended to stay slightly closer to the basket. Maybe one or two steps closer. Bill Russell was a contortionist on defense. He could gamble slightly further out, and he's got some wild highlights where he'll block shots with the back of his hand while not even looking at you, he seemed to reach shots out of nowhere. Wilt didn't seem to sneak up on players like Russell. If Bill Simmons wanted to state something honest that separated them based on film analysis THAT'S some of the things he should have said, but I've heard none of that from him, only myths that aren't supported at all by film. The "Wilt volleyball swatted shots, Russell didn't" honestly looks like absolute bullshit after studying film and after listening to interviews where Wilt states specifically otherwise.

Just another MYTH with absolutely no evidence to support it.

Just like the MYTH that Wilt stopped playing defense with five fouls. That one is really laughable for several reasons. One, virtually EVERY great player becomes much more "selective" in their defense when saddled with foul trouble. Two, and this one is HUGE, we have actual game documentation with Wilt blocking key shots in a title game, and doing so with five fouls (and BTW, also with one sprained wrist, and the other, fractured.) And finally...Wilt averaged 2.0 PF's in his entire regular season career, and then 2.5 PF's in his 160 post-season games. The man was seldom even sniffing foul trouble.

And these Simmonites would have you believe that Wilt was a selfish, stats-padding, ball-hog, when the reality was, it was Chamberlain's COACHES who asked Wilt to score. Furthermore, there is an interview available on YouTube, with Wilt's teammate, Al Attles, who claimed that Chamberlain's teammates SUPPORTED that strategy of just feeding the ball into Wilt. They realized that with their very limited surrounding talent, that their only hope was Chamberlain.

And I always found it laughable that Simmons ripped Wilt in his '68 season, by going for the assist title. First of all, Chamberlain's Sixers ran away with the best record in the league. And secondly, does anyone in their right mind honestly believe that Chamberlain PASSING the ball to his teammates would have been something that his teammates would have considered "selfish?"

Simmons also claims that Wilt had as many "HOF" teammates as Russell did, but then somehow forgets to mention that Russell played alongside his for FAR longer, and had a HUGE margin each season in their H2H's.

Simmons even mentions Nate Thurmond, who was essentially Wilt's backup for their season-and-a-half in the league together, and who played part-time, and out of position, at the forward slot when he was in the game with Wilt.

Or claiming that Wilt played with Baylor for four seasons. The two were healthy for ONE full season together...and even then Baylor blew chunks all over the floor in that post-season.

Hell, Chamberlain played with West for five seasons, but again, Wilt was nowhere near 100% in the '70 playoffs, and then West missed the '71 post-season completely. Furthermore, West was awful in both his '72 and '73 playoff runs.

You can go right down the list of Simmons' Six Myths in his chapter on the Russell-Wilt rivalry, and shred them all. Total "Wilt-bashing", and nothing else.

[Stringer Bell]

Simmons ranked Wilt 6th all-time.

So amazingly low, behind scrubs like Jordan, Russell, Kareem, Magic, and Bird.

Shows you his bias and homerism

[Psileas]

I think there's a good statistical indication that Wilt was not really the "volleyball" type of shot blocker: From the available boxscores of Wilt's teams where rebounds are mentioned (mostly against Russell), I don't remember any hard evidence that Wilt's opponents were gaining lots more team rebounds than average, which is what you get when someone blocks your shot and then fails to keep the ball in bounds. This would mean either that Wilt's teams, including Wilt, were only average in the field of shot blocking, which I find extremely improbable, or that Wilt's "volleyball" shot blocking is wildly exaggerated.
Maybe I'll have the numbers checked when I'm in the mood to do so, but that's what I remember.


Simmons still ranked Wilt 6th all-time.

It's not like he solely bashed him and didn't acknowledge him as one of the all-time greats.

You don't have to be good at the sport to be a historian of it.

Jack Newfield wasn't much of a boxer.

And how is ranking the most dominant individual player in the history of the game 6th perceived as a praise? Can you tell me another team sport the most dominant player in the history of which is ranked 6th?
The book may not be solely bashing him (it still has a "book of basketball" title to defend, right?), but it's making a clear point that it's not going to rank Wilt very high and covers a huge part of the Wilt section by explaining the reasons. If a book has an inclination of posting an 80-20 or even 90-10 positive picture of an "average" legend, but only a 60-40 positive picture of a specific one (and one of the biggest ones), it's going to raise issues.

[Psileas]

And I always found it laughable that Simmons ripped Wilt in his '68 season, by going for the assist title. First of all, Chamberlain's Sixers ran away with the best record in the league. And secondly, does anyone in their right mind honestly believe that Chamberlain PASSING the ball to his teammates would have been something that his teammates would have considered "selfish?"

Isn't it funny, btw, that even the ones blaming Wilt for being selfish in that 1968 season only mention the regular season (when they "only" won 62 games)? Even extreme haters struggle to find any evidence that Wilt was dodging assists in the playoffs. Ironically, the only postseason someone might try to blame him for this was the 1967 one. :oldlol:

[iznogood]

Kobe's a professional NBA player and the master of making a contested shot, everyone misses an easy shot, NBA players airball/brick wide open shots all the time. One .gif of him doing so does not prove anything. It's just funny to the Wilt stans and some of the Laker fans that hate him to death

That's exactly what I said, everybody misses shots in a competitive game. When I was referring to bad balance and mechanics I was referring to Simmons's jump hook, not Kobe's sky hook.

[Stringer Bell]

#6 doesn't seem like a high praise or insult either. It's pretty difficult to rank across eras. Wilt statistically dominated his era to the point where it looked like video game stats. Some might find it questionable that Wilt is rated behind Magic and Bird, neither of whom came even close to the statistical domination of a Wilt. But does anyone really think that the quality of play in the 80s was not considerably better than that of the 60s?

Magic is considered the best PG ever and Bird likewise at the 3 spot. They played in a better era and had more team success than Wilt.

I haven't really tried to compare players across eras due to a combination of its difficulty and my own laziness.

He ranked Wilt below Earvin Johnson, not Ervin Johnson.

The player I thought Simmons was the harshest on (besides Kareem, and he makes it clear that he's doing it tongue-in-cheek) was Dr. J. Not his ranking, but what he says in the ranking.

He undersold his overall skills and abilities and was way too critical on his weaknesses. He made his weaknesses, or areas in which he was merely okay in, sound like it was the equivalent of Shaq at the foul line.

[Haymaker]

i honestly believe you have to have played the game to completely understand it

simmons looks like he's never touched a ball before


I kinda agree with this. How can you be so passionate about a sport, make a living out of writing about it while not taking the time during your youth to play it? Some of those guys, most of them actually write about basketball because they're good sports writers, were assigned to that particular sport early on by their journalism department and made their careers/name on that.

[Nowitness]

And how is ranking the most dominant individual player in the history of the game 6th perceived as a praise? Can you tell me another team sport the most dominant player in the history of which is ranked 6th?
The book may not be solely bashing him (it still has a "book of basketball" title to defend, right?), but it's making a clear point that it's not going to rank Wilt very high and covers a huge part of the Wilt section by explaining the reasons. If a book has an inclination of posting an 80-20 or even 90-10 positive picture of an "average" legend, but only a 60-40 positive picture of a specific one (and one of the biggest ones), it's going to raise issues.

Playoff averages of 23, 25 (even though he was only grabbing about 21% of available rebounds) and 4 makes him the most dominant? :roll: :roll: :roll:

And, make no mistake, he played in by far the weakest era of NBA basketball.

So 23/25/4 against little white men, with huge chokejobs and just two titles, makes him the most dominant ever? :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Psileas]

#6 doesn't seem like a high praise or insult either. It's pretty difficult to rank across eras. Wilt statistically dominated his era to the point where it looked like video game stats. Some might find it questionable that Wilt is rated behind Magic and Bird, neither of whom came even close to the statistical domination of a Wilt. But does anyone really think that the quality of play in the 80s was not considerably better than that of the 60s?
Magic is considered the best PG ever and Bird likewise at the 3 spot. They played in a better era and had more team success than Wilt.

To answer the question, yes, at least when it comes to individual matchups at the center position, it can be argued that Wilt's (and a bit beyond him) era held the most intense competition ever. People talk about the "Magic vs Bird" battles and we all know they very rarely even guarded each other, not to mention that Bird didn't win or lose most of his title chances vs Magic and vice-versa. Plus, they may call them "clutch gods" and Wilt "choker", but all I know is that they lost to non-champions more often than Wilt did.
Now, if you argue that the 80's were better because of the general development of basketball, please find me a reason why today's era isn't better than the 80's (which many are not willing to admit) for the exact same reason.


The player I thought Simmons was the harshest on (besides Kareem, and he makes it clear that he's doing it tongue-in-cheek) was Dr. J. Not his ranking, but what he says in the ranking.

He undersold his overall skills and abilities and was way too critical on his weaknesses. He made his weaknesses, or areas in which he was merely okay in, sound like it was the equivalent of Shaq at the foul line.

Granted, it would be hard for a Boston homer to only blast a certain player.
But, Kareem? Harsh or not (I don't remember his section), he still ranks him 3rd.


Playoff averages of 23, 25 (even though he was only grabbing about 21% of available rebounds) and 4 makes him the most dominant? :roll: :roll: :roll:

And, make no mistake, he played in by far the weakest era of NBA basketball.

So 23/25/4 against little white men, with huge chokejobs and just two titles, makes him the most dominant ever? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Post a few more rolling emoticons to strengthen your point even more. The F outta here, doofus. :sleeping

[LAZERUSS]

Playoff averages of 23, 25 (even though he was only grabbing about 21% of available rebounds) and 4 makes him the most dominant? :roll: :roll: :roll:

And, make no mistake, he played in by far the weakest era of NBA basketball.

So 23/25/4 against little white men, with huge chokejobs and just two titles, makes him the most dominant ever? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Give me a list of the other "GOATS" who put up those "meager" post-season averages...

Or matching a prime Wilt's stat-line, covering 67 playoff games...of 30 ppg, 27 rpg, 5 apg, a .515 FG% (and shooting nearly 10% over the post-season league average in that same span), and likely 8 bpg.

Hell, find me ONE GAME in which a "GOAT" put up that stat-line, much less over the course of 67 straight games.

Oh, and how about his performances in his "must win" post-season games...


Wilt's numbers in those 23 games...13 of which came against HOF starting centers.

12-11 W-L record

31.1 ppg (Regular season career average was 30.1 ppg)
26.1 rpg (Regular season career average was 22.9 rpg)
3.4 apg (Regular season career average was 4.4 apg)
.540 FG% (Regular season career average was .540 FG%)


3 games of 50+ points (which, BTW, is THREE more than anyone else who has ever played the game.)

5 games of 40+ points (including a Finals 40+ elimination game)

13 games of 30+ points

6 games of 30+ rebounds

20 games of 20+ rebounds

Or how about his play in his 37 "must-win" or series clinching games?


Wilt actually played in 37 "elimination games",...games where either his team faced elimination, or could have clinched the series:

1. W: 53-22-2, 24-42 FG/FGA

2. W: 50-35-2, 22-42

3. L: 26-24-0, 8-18

4. L: 33-23-1, 13-29

5. W: 56-35-1, 22-48

6. W: 32-21-1, 12-29

7. L: 22-22-3, 7-15

8. W: 39-30-?, 19-29

9. L: 30-27-2, 12-28

10. W: 38-26-5, 14-22, 10 blks (Triple-Double)

11. W: 30-26-4, 13-22, 13 blks (Triple-Double)

12. L: 30-32-2, 12-15

13. L: 46-34-?, 19-34

14. W: 18-27-9, 7-14

15. W: 29-36-13, 10-16, 7 blks (Triple-Double)

16. W: 24-23-4, 8-13

17. W: 25-27-3, 10-19

18. L: 28-30-7, 11-21

19. L: 20-27-8, 6-21

20. L: 14-34-5, 4-9

21. W: 11-25-1, 5-9

22. W: 16-29-3, 5-11, 16 blks (Triple-Double)

23. L: 8-18-4, 1-5

24. L: 18-27-3, 7-8

25. W: 36-14-3, 12-20

26. W: 12-26-11, 4-11, 11 blks (Quad-Double)

27. W: 30-27-6, 11-18, 11 blks (Triple-Double)

28. W: 45-27-3, 20-27

29. L: 21-24-4, 10-16

30. W: 25-19-9, 7-12

31. L: 23-12-4, 10-21

32. W: 8-31-8, 4-6

33. W: 20-24-2, 8-12, 10 blks (Triple-Double)

34. W: 24-29-4, 10-14, 8 blks

35. W: 21-28-4, 10-17, 8 blks

36. W: 5-22-7, 2-2

37. L: 23-21-3, 9-16


W-L : 24-13

Here were Wilt's averages in those 37 games:

29.5 ppg

26.1 rpg

4.2 apg (missing one game)

.546 FG% (in post-seasons that shot about .440 on average in that span.)

Keep in mind that 24 of those 37 games came after his "scoring seasons" (59-60 thru 65-66)

[LAZERUSS]

#6 doesn't seem like a high praise or insult either. It's pretty difficult to rank across eras. Wilt statistically dominated his era to the point where it looked like video game stats. Some might find it questionable that Wilt is rated behind Magic and Bird, neither of whom came even close to the statistical domination of a Wilt. But does anyone really think that the quality of play in the 80s was not considerably better than that of the 60s?

Magic is considered the best PG ever and Bird likewise at the 3 spot. They played in a better era and had more team success than Wilt.

I haven't really tried to compare players across eras due to a combination of its difficulty and my own laziness.

He ranked Wilt below Earvin Johnson, not Ervin Johnson.

The player I thought Simmons was the harshest on (besides Kareem, and he makes it clear that he's doing it tongue-in-cheek) was Dr. J. Not his ranking, but what he says in the ranking.

He undersold his overall skills and abilities and was way too critical on his weaknesses. He made his weaknesses, or areas in which he was merely okay in, sound like it was the equivalent of Shaq at the foul line.

Bird?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Bird played with HOF-laden rosters his ENTIRE career. His "team success" with those stacked rosters amounted to ONE more ring. Oh, and his team's lost with HCA SEVEN times, including SEVERAL series in which Bird's play was well below normal.

And there is simply NO comparison between Bird's and Wilt's resumes, either. Aside from FT shooting and 3 pt shooting, Chamberlain was considerably better at every aspect of the game (including passing, from the CENTER position, since he was winning assist titles, and putting up playoff runs of 9 apg.)

And while Bird shot better from the line, Chamberlain MADE 2000 MORE Fts in his career (and roughly the same span of games.) And Bird's 3pt shooting advantage disappeared in the post-season, when he not only only shot .321 from the arc, he only made 80 total, in his 164 post-season games (or less than one every two games.)

And Bird had FAR more post-season "flop jobs" than Wilt did.


And how about Kareem? How come a PRIME Kareem could only win ONE ring, and only get to TWO finals? How come a PRIME KAJ missed two post-seasons, and was trounced in the early rounds several times?

How come a PEAK Kareem, playing FOUR years IN the Wilt-era, couldn't come close to the domination that a PRIME Chamberlain had wrought? Furthermore, how come a PEAK Kareem couldn't come close to the carpet-bombing that a PRIME Chamberlain leveled against the same centers that the two faced in their careers?

And while Wilt's teams were losing seven times to the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and then to a 60-22 Knicks team in seven games, and the 66-16 '71 Bucks...KAJ was "losing" to 47-35, 49-33, 47-35, and 50-32 teams, the last two of which had ONE borderline HOF player.

When did Kareem start winning his rings? Oh, when MAGIC arrived. Hell, ROOKIE Magic, withOUT Kareem, carried the Lakers to a series-clinching win in the Finals. BTW, while the two were playing together for ten years, KAJ won .604 of his games in which Magic missed, while Magic won .750 of his games in which Kareem missed. Furthermore, Magic had a higher winning percentage AFTER Kareem retired, than with Kareem (.743 to .740.)

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, how about Simmons' ranking of his all-time Top-10 teams?

He has the '72 Lakers at #9, which is a joke in itself, but then he doesn't even include the '67 Sixers at all.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[robert de niro]

BTW, how about Simmons' ranking of his all-time Top-10 teams?

He has the '72 Lakers at #9, which is a joke in itself, but then he doesn't even include the '67 Sixers at all.

:roll: :roll: :roll:
http://i.imgur.com/vM1v5mu.jpg

[JohnFreeman]

People are seriously crying over one failed skyhook? :lol

[Psileas]

BTW, how about Simmons' ranking of his all-time Top-10 teams?

He has the '72 Lakers at #9, which is a joke in itself, but then he doesn't even include the '67 Sixers at all.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

But, no, he's not trying to bash Wilt or something...
What was his teams ranking?

[LAZERUSS]

But, no, he's not trying to bash Wilt or something...
What was his teams ranking?

Oh, of course, the '86 Celtics were #1, despite the fact that they didn't play a 60 win team, nor were even particularly dominant in their post-season.

BTW, Wilt's '72 Lakers beat KAJ's Bucks in six games, with Kareem having a virtual identical roster as his '71 Bucks...and yet, Simmons lists the '71 Bucks at #7 (which is way low, BTW), and Chamberlain's '72 Lakers (who have a legitimate case as #1)...at #9.

[LAZERUSS]

This...


10. 91 Bulls
09. 72 Lakers
08. 83 Sixers
07. 71 Bucks
06. 97 Bulls
05. 01 Lakers
04. 89 Pistons
03. 87 Lakers
02. 96 Bulls
01. 86 Celtics

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Stringer Bell]

Bird?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Bird played with HOF-laden rosters his ENTIRE career. His "team success" with those stacked rosters amounted to ONE more ring. Oh, and his team's lost with HCA SEVEN times, including SEVERAL series in which Bird's play was well below normal.

And there is simply NO comparison between Bird's and Wilt's resumes, either. Aside from FT shooting and 3 pt shooting, Chamberlain was considerably better at every aspect of the game (including passing, from the CENTER position, since he was winning assist titles, and putting up playoff runs of 9 apg.)

And while Bird shot better from the line, Chamberlain MADE 2000 MORE Fts in his career (and roughly the same span of games.) And Bird's 3pt shooting advantage disappeared in the post-season, when he not only only shot .321 from the arc, he only made 80 total, in his 164 post-season games (or less than one every two games.)

And Bird had FAR more post-season "flop jobs" than Wilt did.


And how about Kareem? How come a PRIME Kareem could only win ONE ring, and only get to TWO finals? How come a PRIME KAJ missed two post-seasons, and was trounced in the early rounds several times?

How come a PEAK Kareem, playing FOUR years IN the Wilt-era, couldn't come close to the domination that a PRIME Chamberlain had wrought? Furthermore, how come a PEAK Kareem couldn't come close to the carpet-bombing that a PRIME Chamberlain leveled against the same centers that the two faced in their careers?

And while Wilt's teams were losing seven times to the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and then to a 60-22 Knicks team in seven games, and the 66-16 '71 Bucks...KAJ was "losing" to 47-35, 49-33, 47-35, and 50-32 teams, the last two of which had ONE borderline HOF player.

When did Kareem start winning his rings? Oh, when MAGIC arrived. Hell, ROOKIE Magic, withOUT Kareem, carried the Lakers to a series-clinching win in the Finals. BTW, while the two were playing together for ten years, KAJ won .604 of his games in which Magic missed, while Magic won .750 of his games in which Kareem missed. Furthermore, Magic had a higher winning percentage AFTER Kareem retired, than with Kareem (.743 to .740.)

3 > 2
5 > 2
80s basketball > 60 basketball
Russell > Wilter
Root canal > spending hours and hours writing essays defending a legend who passed 15 years ago

[Myth]

http://i.minus.com/istzbJxcJARBJ.gif

This is the guy who is obsessed with trashing Wilt Chamberlain's legacy... :coleman:

And Jordan drafted Kwame. What's your point?

[Stringer Bell]

To answer the question, yes, at least when it comes to individual matchups at the center position, it can be argued that Wilt's (and a bit beyond him) era held the most intense competition ever. People talk about the "Magic vs Bird" battles and we all know they very rarely even guarded each other, not to mention that Bird didn't win or lose most of his title chances vs Magic and vice-versa. Plus, they may call them "clutch gods" and Wilt "choker", but all I know is that they lost to non-champions more often than Wilt did.
Now, if you argue that the 80's were better because of the general development of basketball, please find me a reason why today's era isn't better than the 80's (which many are not willing to admit) for the exact same reason.


I think sports are often peaks and valleys rather than simple evolution. For instance, boxing's quality has gone down as a whole due to diminished interest and lack of teaching. The technically skills of fighters, as a whole, in the 60s-90s are just far better and deeper than today. In-fighting, footwork, subtle defense and counters, etc...The big increases in boxing's talent and technique came during the 40s. The gap is huge.

With basketball, I just think that it got better from the 60s to 80s due to various reasons. "The eye test", which is just another way of saying "my opinion". There's no way to prove anything. Since the 80s/90s, the quality of the players has increased in some ways and decreased in others. Compare the center position of the past few years to that of 20 years ago, centers like Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, Shaq, were all in on near their primes, or up-and-coming and performing at an extremely high level. But in other positions, you have players like Dirk who are unique.

I don't know if the current era is "better" than the 80s and 90s. I do think it was more fun to watch back then.

But anyway, Simmons has his own opinion like anyone else and I don't have a problem with Wilt at 6, he's only putting fellow legends ahead of him. You can put him at 1 for domination and changing the rules by being so great, or have him below those other guys for the reasons he gave, I don't care.

Now people on this board who say crap like "Wilt/Russell would be D-leaguers or benchwarmers in today's era", that's a different story and I think that is hogwash.



Granted, it would be hard for a Boston homer to only blast a certain player.
But, Kareem? Harsh or not (I don't remember his section), he still ranks him 3rd.


"Harsh" may be the wrong word to use in Simmons's description of Kareem. He just likes making fun of Kareem.

But the criticism on Erving's game I thought was too much and inaccurate.

He ranks him high (16) for historical impact. He said Erving couldn't shoot a 15 footer, was more style than substance, and was a subpar defender. Erving was an okay mid-range shooter. I've seen him make many mid-range shots, some of them in traffic and awkward angles, use the glass on them, fadeaway on them...An 18 footer basically sealed the 83' title. Of course this is a small sample size, but most accounts have him as an average to okay shooter from mid range and the outside. Not some serial bricklayer.

His defense wasn't bad either. Gambled a bit too much, but wasn't subpar IMO.

There was plenty of substance in addition to style. Not just the ABA MVPs and titles, but in the NBA in his late 20s and early 30s, he was consistently scoring in the early to mid 20s per game on respectable efficiency, along with 7-8 boards and 4 assists per game. Finishing 2nd, 1st, 3rd, and then 5th in MVP voting from 80-83, 5 All-NBA 1st team appearances in 6 years.

Edit: Actually, looking at it again, he just contradicts himself on Erving. In regards to the "more style than substance", Simmons had Erving as a top 5 player in 4 of 5 seasons from 1978-83, and then top 10 in 1984 at age 34.

It seems to make little sense to me to downplay the "substance" of a player, making it sound like the guy was more just exciting than a real great player, and then saying he was one of the 5 best players in the league for a 5 year period (barring one season).

I also do not get how Doc "barely outplayed" Bob Gross in the 77' Finals. Doc played great. He just happened to play great in the same series when Bill Walton had one of the best, most complete, performances in Finals History.

Walton was the best player in the series, Doc was 2nd. Whomever was 3rd was a distant 3rd.

[Stringer Bell]

http://youtu.be/wWWzkt7FVs0

Wilt blaming it on West at the 8:45 mark, making shit up about Frazier always kicking West's ass.

West of course doesn't blame Wilt for 69.

[LAZERUSS]

http://youtu.be/wWWzkt7FVs0

Wilt blaming it on West at the 8:45 mark, making shit up about Frazier always kicking West's ass.

West of course doesn't blame Wilt for 69.

Hmmm...

Page 236 from 'Wilt---Just Like Any Other 7 Seven Foot Black Millionaire Who Lives Next Door'...(written in 1973)


"Their coach, Red Holzman, is the best in basketball, and their leader, Walt Frazier, is a superb clutch player. He whipped Jerry's ass that night, as he OFTEN does. Walt got 36 points and 19 assists that night (an all-time playoff record), and he must have stolen the ball the ball right out of Jerry's hands five or six times in the first half alone. But the papers somehow forgot to mention that particular duel; all they talked about was how poor, crippled Willis Reed "beat" Wilt Chamberlain."


Maybe Wilt made that comment in another book of his, but he certainly didn't do in that one. More than likely he did not, and more than likely, he was mis-quoted...INTENTIONALLY.

And there was absolutely nothing in that quote that was not accurate, BTW. Frazier murdered West in the '72 Finals, and outplayed him in the '73 Finals (particularly in the clinching game.)

[Swaggin916]

i honestly believe you have to have played the game to completely understand it

simmons looks like he's never touched a ball before

You don't need to play to understand it... I don't need to actually hammer a nail into wood to understand the concept. It certainly helps if you have played, but some people are just very visual and can understand things very well not even doing them yet. I mean does an engineer need to build a building by hand to know how to build it and what materials to use?

But yea I agree you won't understand the little nuances that can only be felt by doing, not conceptualized. Overall though no it is not necessary.

[hahaitme]

To be fair, hook shots aren't really the easiest shots for guards, who would rarely if ever practice them.
Although it looked like he shot that really awkwardly.

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, Chamberlain did NOT blame West for that game seven loss. He merely stated fact that Frazier badly outplayed him. However, if anyone would have taken the time to have read Wilt's book in that West video (which obviously they did not), Wilt basically claimed that the Knicks were a team of destiny that season. And, unfortunately for LA, it came down to a game seven, in New York. He made the point that the game was never close. The entire Knick team came out on fire, and collectively, they buried 15 of their of first 21 shots. The game was over by half-time, when NY had forged a 27 point lead.


And to be honest, those games happen. I personally have claimed that a team of five Michael Jordan's wouldn't have beaten the Knicks that night, either. I recall several other games in my lifetime which were similar. In the first game of the '72 WCF's, Wilt's Lakers simply couldn't a hit a shot for lives. Here was a team that have averaged 121 ppg during the regular season, and only scoring 72 points. Fortunately for Laker fans, it was a best-of-seven series, and LA went on to win four of the next five games. And in game one of the Finals that year, the Knicks shot 72% in the first quarter, and led by 18 at the half, en route to a 22 point win. Chamberlain took over the rest of the series, and LA won the next four straight games.

Same thing with the '85 Finals. The Celtics came out in game one, and put on perhaps the greatest shooting exhibition ever in a Finals game, en route to a 148-114 win. And again, fortunately for LA fans, it was a best-of-seven series. The Lakers stormed back, and won four of the next five, including a 136-111 blowout win in game three.


Obviously Wilt's quote was taken out of context. However, it was still a valid point. Reed, who did absolutely nothing in the last THREE games of that series, won the FMVP. Meanwhile, Frazier outplayed West in the pivotal game five upset, and then wiped the floor with him in game seven. If anything, Frazier was robbed of the FMVP that year. He put up an 18 ppg, 8 rpg, 10 apg, .541 FG% Finals, and carried his team to wins in their biggest games. But, as Wilt mentioned...Reed was labeled a "hero", and as always, it was WILT who saddled as the "choker."

[AlphaWolf24]

I never really listen to Simmons...in fact if it wasn't for ISH I would have never heard of him...

Obviously the guy doesn't know how to play...therefore it just adds another reason to not listen to him.

- someone earlier posted the that they only played BBALL at the park ...but never played organized Ball....but still knew a lot???

I don't think that makes sense......that's like trying to talk about Olympic level Swimming ( or teach swimming) when the only experience you have with water , is taking a Bath in a Bathtub...

would anyone listen?...probably not

[IGOTGAME]

I never really listen to Simmons...in fact if it wasn't for ISH I would have never heard of him...

Obviously the guy doesn't know how to play...therefore it just adds another reason to not listen to him.

- someone earlier posted the that they only played BBALL at the park ...but never played organized Ball....but still knew a lot???

I don't think that makes sense......that's like trying to talk about Olympic level Swimming ( or teach swimming) when the only experience you have with water , is taking a Bath in a Bathtub...

would anyone listen?...probably not

thing is that same logic can be applied to you. Imo, high school basketball isnt really teaching you anything.

[dr.hee]

Wilt basically claimed that the Knicks were a team of destiny that season.

So Wilt wasn't that intelligent apparently. Destiny? Gimme a break. What's next? Wilt missed all these freethrows because Russell had a Voodoo doll, cursing him with shitty mechanics?

:facepalm

[LAZERUSS]

So Wilt wasn't that intelligent apparently. Destiny? Gimme a break. What's next? Wilt missed all these freethrows because Russell had a Voodoo doll, cursing him with shitty mechanics?

:facepalm

Well, the Knicks were clearly the better team that year.

And Wilt "lost" all those H2H's with Russell, not because of poor FT shooting (BTW, Russell wasn't much better in his post-season career, either), but because Chamberlain was cursed with pathetic rosters that played even worse in the post-season. And that is undeniable.

BTW, as poorly as Wilt's teammates played, most all of them played better WITH Chamberlain, than withOUT Wilt.

In fact, later on, I will challenge Simmons' take that Wilt played with just as many HOFers as Russell did. Not only did Russell play with his much longer (and far more games), they of course, played much better than Wilt's, as well. Again, though, Wilt still generally got more out of his "HOFers", than they did without him.

[Nowitness]

Well, the Knicks were clearly the better team that year.

And Wilt "lost" all those H2H's with Russell, not because of poor FT shooting (BTW, Russell wasn't much better in his post-season career, either), but because Chamberlain was cursed with pathetic rosters that played even worse in the post-season. And that is undeniable.

BTW, as poorly as Wilt's teammates played, most all of them played better WITH Chamberlain, than withOUT Wilt.

In fact, later on, I will challenge Simmons' take that Wilt played with just as many HOFers as Russell did. Not only did Russell play with his much longer (and far more games), they of course, played much better than Wilt's, as well. Again, though, Wilt still generally got more out of his "HOFers", than they did without him.


8 less ppg from regular season to playoffs.

who isn't improving their play now?

[SpecialQue]

Simmons needs to stick to talking about things he has actual first-hand knowledge of, like removing your gag reflex.

[dr.hee]

Well, the Knicks were clearly the better team that year.

And Wilt "lost" all those H2H's with Russell, not because of poor FT shooting (BTW, Russell wasn't much better in his post-season career, either), but because Chamberlain was cursed with pathetic rosters that played even worse in the post-season. And that is undeniable.

BTW, as poorly as Wilt's teammates played, most all of them played better WITH Chamberlain, than withOUT Wilt.

In fact, later on, I will challenge Simmons' take that Wilt played with just as many HOFers as Russell did. Not only did Russell play with his much longer (and far more games), they of course, played much better than Wilt's, as well. Again, though, Wilt still generally got more out of his "HOFers", than they did without him.

Holy shit, Simmons scared already. Hopfefully we can talk him out of suicide after getting totally owned. Another essay incoming? My god, Wilt...:oldlol:

[AlphaWolf24]

thing is that same logic can be applied to you. Imo, high school basketball isnt really teaching you anything.


True....

yet I don't get payed to talk hoop...nor is it my Profession...


yet I'm sure I know 1,000% more then Simmons about the actual game.....


My point was....I'm not taking swimming lessons from someone who obviously never been in the water...





my opinions only

[Stringer Bell]

Hmmm...

Page 236 from 'Wilt---Just Like Any Other 7 Seven Foot Black Millionaire Who Lives Next Door'...(written in 1973)



Maybe Wilt made that comment in another book of his, but he certainly didn't do in that one. More than likely he did not, and more than likely, he was mis-quoted...INTENTIONALLY.

And there was absolutely nothing in that quote that was not accurate, BTW. Frazier murdered West in the '72 Finals, and outplayed him in the '73 Finals (particularly in the clinching game.)


Excuses.....excuses.

No wonder you are such a Wilt "stan".

Misquoted :oldlol: :roll: :roll:

[SamuraiSWISH]

And Jordan drafted Kwame. What's your point?
And? ...

He was the consensus number 1 pick, it wasn't like MJ took some gamble when there was vastly superior prospects to be taken ahead of him. All GMs in his situation were going to take him.

Pepetually one of the dumbest things to get on MJ's case about.

:facepalm

[Legends66NBA7]

**** Bill Simmons.

[LAZERUSS]

**** Bill Simmons.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[DatAsh]

I think sports are often peaks and valleys rather than simple evolution. For instance, boxing's quality has gone down as a whole due to diminished interest and lack of teaching. The technically skills of fighters, as a whole, in the 60s-90s are just far better and deeper than today. In-fighting, footwork, subtle defense and counters, etc...The big increases in boxing's talent and technique came during the 40s. The gap is huge.

With basketball, I just think that it got better from the 60s to 80s due to various reasons. "The eye test", which is just another way of saying "my opinion". There's no way to prove anything. Since the 80s/90s, the quality of the players has increased in some ways and decreased in others. Compare the center position of the past few years to that of 20 years ago, centers like Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, Shaq, were all in on near their primes, or up-and-coming and performing at an extremely high level. But in other positions, you have players like Dirk who are unique.

I don't know if the current era is "better" than the 80s and 90s. I do think it was more fun to watch back then.

But anyway, Simmons has his own opinion like anyone else and I don't have a problem with Wilt at 6, he's only putting fellow legends ahead of him. You can put him at 1 for domination and changing the rules by being so great, or have him below those other guys for the reasons he gave, I don't care.

Now people on this board who say crap like "Wilt/Russell would be D-leaguers or benchwarmers in today's era", that's a different story and I think that is hogwash.



"Harsh" may be the wrong word to use in Simmons's description of Kareem. He just likes making fun of Kareem.

But the criticism on Erving's game I thought was too much and inaccurate.

He ranks him high (16) for historical impact. He said Erving couldn't shoot a 15 footer, was more style than substance, and was a subpar defender. Erving was an okay mid-range shooter. I've seen him make many mid-range shots, some of them in traffic and awkward angles, use the glass on them, fadeaway on them...An 18 footer basically sealed the 83' title. Of course this is a small sample size, but most accounts have him as an average to okay shooter from mid range and the outside. Not some serial bricklayer.

His defense wasn't bad either. Gambled a bit too much, but wasn't subpar IMO.

There was plenty of substance in addition to style. Not just the ABA MVPs and titles, but in the NBA in his late 20s and early 30s, he was consistently scoring in the early to mid 20s per game on respectable efficiency, along with 7-8 boards and 4 assists per game. Finishing 2nd, 1st, 3rd, and then 5th in MVP voting from 80-83, 5 All-NBA 1st team appearances in 6 years.

Edit: Actually, looking at it again, he just contradicts himself on Erving. In regards to the "more style than substance", Simmons had Erving as a top 5 player in 4 of 5 seasons from 1978-83, and then top 10 in 1984 at age 34.

It seems to make little sense to me to downplay the "substance" of a player, making it sound like the guy was more just exciting than a real great player, and then saying he was one of the 5 best players in the league for a 5 year period (barring one season).

I also do not get how Doc "barely outplayed" Bob Gross in the 77' Finals. Doc played great. He just happened to play great in the same series when Bill Walton had one of the best, most complete, performances in Finals History.

Walton was the best player in the series, Doc was 2nd. Whomever was 3rd was a distant 3rd.


Erving was not a sub-par defender.

[SpecialQue]

**** Bill Simmons.

:cheers:

[Paul George 24]

http://i.minus.com/istzbJxcJARBJ.gif

This is the guy who is obsessed with trashing Wilt Chamberlain's legacy... :coleman:

skyhook

http://usspost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Kareem-Abdul-Jabbar.jpg

[Rake2204]

Interesting topic. I think it's quite possible to learn and know an incredible amount about the game of basketball without having much playing experience, but it's a tough road. Some of my best coaches were guys who had less-than-mediocre basketball playing success throughout their lives. They were excellent X's and O's guys, knew how to manage time, drilled correctly, understood how to adjust and handle player personalities, and they could read the court well enough to understand what was occurring and how they could adjust their team to counter.

On the other hand, my best individual-skill builder was a former minor league ballplayer with a near endless amount of legitimate basketball ability and experience.

And, in yet another category, some of the best basketball players I've ever played amongst had relatively awful basketball knowledge. They had incredible instincts that those on the outside looking in would never fully understand but they may never fully grasp the intricacies of the game itself.

So I guess, as an analyst, I'm not sure it takes being a former high level player to analyze games, roster management, and organizations. It wouldn't take rocket science for a guy like Bill Simmons, even with his poor ability, to recognize bad plays or moves in games. Would his inexperience on the hardwood affect his ability to truly understand why certain decisions may have been made by certain players? Maybe. And if his job was to give detailed instruction of how a player could physically improve specific maneuvers, I think that could be a problem.

Otherwise, I think there's a lot that a studious fan of the game could have to offer in lieu of an incredible basketball playing background. That said, I feel it'd be in their best interest to be forthright in what they do not know. It can be pretty easy to pluck out those types once they step into the realm of the unknown.

[hawkfan]

Learning basic fundamentals of basketball isn't difficult.

[Lebron23]

I think Simmons won the Grantland Horse challenge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOXjZD8jX-o

[Rake2204]

Learning basic fundamentals of basketball isn't difficult.I think it's all relative. As a player and a coach, I've come across an entire realm of players, some of whom have proven that learning basketball basics can be both difficult and visually displeasing. I've come across an endless stream of ball players in my life who've put in years and years of work into their game, but it still reeks of bizarre form and variable effectiveness.

Watching the Simmons video in context (quoted below) doesn't make Simmons' hookshot look any better. I virtually never shoot sweeping hook shots in games (not to be confused with a standard jump hook) and I never practice the sweep but I still know it'd never look as bad as Simmons'. That said, while Simmons would never be confused for a guy with legitimate playing experience, the rest of the video at least shows a guy who does have some basic fundamentals. They're still very iffy, but not of the realm of his awful sweeping hook.


I think Simmons won the Grantland Horse challenge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOXjZD8jX-o

[Stringer Bell]

"wilt was misquoted" :oldlol:

[LAZERUSS]

"wilt was misquoted" :oldlol:

1.) Yes he was.

2.) And he was right.

[Human Error]

half of ish is more skilled with a basketball than dwight. too bad none of us are athletic freaks

but we do have many freaks
Lol idiot, you obviously have not read an article that reveals Dwight Howard is an 88% free throw shooter in practices. NBA athletes are crazy good. They can look bad at times against NBA level defense or with heat of the moment pressure put on them but it is just downright retarded to think that you are more skilled than a top 10 NBA player. I recommend you to watch the Scallenge where retired Brian Scalabrine tear down idiots like you - amateur fans who think they are better than Scalabrine.

[SpecialQue]

**** Bill Simmons.