Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

julizaver

01-01-2014, 03:27 PM

LAZERUSS

01-01-2014, 03:32 PM

As I promised:

Game 1 17.04.1973 - Lakers win 101-99

Wilt 44 min 4 pts (2-5 FG, 0-0 FT), 25 rebs, 2 asts, 8 blks
Nate 48 min 22 pts (8-21 FG, 6-7 FT), 26 rebs, 5 asts

Game 2 19.04.1973 - Lakers win 104-93

Wilt 48 min 5 pts (1-3 FG, 3-4 FT), 30 rebs, 4 asts, 5* blks
Nate 47 min 16 pts (8-20 FG, 0-0 FT), 14 rebs, 6 asts

Game 3 21.04.1973 - Lakers win 126-70

Wilt 39 min 12 pts (2-2 FG, 8-10 FT), 23 rebs, 3 asts, 8 blks
Nate 37 min 9 pts (3-13 FG, 3-4 FT), 13 rebs, 2 asts

Game 4 23.04.1973 - Warriors win 117-109

Wilt 48 min 9 pts (4-6 FG, 1-1 FT), 16 rebs, 3 asts
Nate 47 min 23 pts (10-20 FG, 3-3 FT), 18 rebs, 3 asts

Game 5 25.04.1973 - Lakers win 128-118

Wilt 46 min 5 pts (2-2 FG, 1-3 FT), 22 rebs, 7 asts, 6 blks
Nate 32 min 9 pts (2-9 FG, 5-7 FT), 15 rebs, 5 asts

*My estimation based on komwn information about Wilt blocked 70 shots in first 10 games (49 against Bulls and 21 in first 3 meetings with Warriors)

Series averages:

Wilt 45.0 mpg 7 ppg (on 0.611 FG, 0.722 FT), 23.6 rpg, 3.8 apg
Nate 42.2 mpg 15.8 ppg (on 0.373 FG, 0.810 FT), 17.2 rpg, 4.2 apg

Unofficial stats:
Wilt with 27 blocked shots in 4 known games.

Of course it is not "official" but I was actually at game three in that series, and I had Wilt with 11 blocks.

I will never forget...at halftime they had dogs catching frisbees (pretty amazing stuff), and then at the start of the second half, the Lakers went on a tear in the first couple of minutes, and essentailly blew the game wide open. After a quick timeout, a Warrior fan sitting behind me stood up, and yelled, "Bring back the frisbee show!"

As for the series...Wilt outshot Nate from the floor, .611 to .373. And during the regular season, and in their six H2H's, Chamberlain outshot Kareem, .737 to .450. Granted, Chamberlain was not taking many shots, but still, in one H2H game with Kareem that season, he outscored him, 24-21, while outshooting him, 10-14 to 10-27. Oh, and in the first round of the playoffs, Nate and the Warriors shocked the 60-22 Bucks, 4-2, in a series in which Thurmond held KAJ to .428 shooting.

Miller for 3

01-01-2014, 03:49 PM

Psileas

01-01-2014, 04:21 PM

*My estimation based on komwn information about Wilt blocked 70 shots in first 10 games (49 against Bulls and 21 in first 3 meetings with Warriors)

I didn't keep sources, but I had Wilt at 23 blocked shots in these 3 games (8+7+8). Also, I have noted that he had "many" blocks in game 4 and 6 in game 5.
To go one step beyond, I have also seen at least one sourse credit him with 7 blocks in Game 1 of the 1973 Finals, 7 in Game 3 and he had 1 or 2 in Game 5. So, this would give him 92-95 blocked shots in 14 out of his 17 playoff games that postseason.

julizaver

01-01-2014, 04:49 PM

I didn't keep sources, but I had Wilt at 23 blocked shots in these 3 games (8+7+8). Also, I have noted that he had "many" blocks in game 4 and 6 in game 5.
To go one step beyond, I have also seen at least one sourse credit him with 7 blocks in Game 1 of the 1973 Finals, 7 in Game 3 and he had 1 or 2 in Game 5. So, this would give him 92-95 blocked shots in 14 out of his 17 playoff games that postseason.

I checked again for these 3 games and you are right about 23 blocked shots after first three games. I have such info also in my notes. Also found another source about Wilt blocking nearly "two dozen shots" in those 3 games.
My initial estimation was based on article about Wilt averaging 7 bpg in first 10 games (calculate it at 70) so I will correct accordingly.

I also have Wilt with 7+7 games in the Finals.

Deuce Bigalow

01-01-2014, 04:51 PM

Wilt was a good player, very good. Just wasn't the great player Mikan once was.

dankok8

01-02-2014, 02:31 PM

Of course it is not "official" but I was actually at game three in that series, and I had Wilt with 11 blocks.

I will never forget...at halftime they had dogs catching frisbees (pretty amazing stuff), and then at the start of the second half, the Lakers went on a tear in the first couple of minutes, and essentailly blew the game wide open. After a quick timeout, a Warrior fan sitting behind me stood up, and yelled, "Bring back the frisbee show!"

As for the series...Wilt outshot Nate from the floor, .611 to .373. And during the regular season, and in their six H2H's, Chamberlain outshot Kareem, .737 to .450. Granted, Chamberlain was not taking many shots, but still, in one H2H game with Kareem that season, he outscored him, 24-21, while outshooting him, 10-14 to 10-27. Oh, and in the first round of the playoffs, Nate and the Warriors shocked the 60-22 Bucks, 4-2, in a series in which Thurmond held KAJ to .428 shooting.

There is a correlation between number of shots taken and FG% you know. Wilt took 18 shots in the series while Nate took 83. It's foolish to take the FG% difference at face value when one guy took over 4 times as many shots.

In the 72-73 season series against Kareem (where he outshot him .737 to .450) Wilt took a total of 38 shots compared to 180 for Kareem. Anyways why don't you also post what happened in the other 5 games they played that season?

In the '72 WCF (where Kareem outshot Wilt 45.7% to 45.2% BTW) Wilt took a total of 42 shots while Kareem took 197.

It's ridiculously stupid to compare FG% of players taking vastly different numbers of shots.

Congrats to the OP for another informative thread! :bowdown:

From the stats and the recaps I've read it seems Nate definitely got the better of Wilt in Game 1 and 4. Chamberlain did outplay him in the other 3 games though which is quite impressive considering his age.

LAZERUSS

01-04-2014, 01:48 PM

There is a correlation between number of shots taken and FG% you know. Wilt took 18 shots in the series while Nate took 83. It's foolish to take the FG% difference at face value when one guy took over 4 times as many shots.

In the 72-73 season series against Kareem (where he outshot him .737 to .450) Wilt took a total of 38 shots compared to 180 for Kareem. Anyways why don't you also post what happened in the other 5 games they played that season?

In the '72 WCF (where Kareem outshot Wilt 45.7% to 45.2% BTW) Wilt took a total of 42 shots while Kareem took 197.

It's ridiculously stupid to compare FG% of players taking vastly different numbers of shots.

Congrats to the OP for another informative thread! :bowdown:

From the stats and the recaps I've read it seems Nate definitely got the better of Wilt in Game 1 and 4. Chamberlain did outplay him in the other 3 games though which is quite impressive considering his age.

I agree with some of this...but your point about KAJ outshooting Chamberlain in the '72 WCF's is also mis-leading. Kareem shot .457 in that series, which was not much more than the regular season NBA at .455 (and way below Kareem's .574 regular season FG%.) Furthermore, he couldn't hit a shot for his life in the last four games of that series, only going .414...and was HURTING his team. Wilt missed a total of 20 shots in that series, so his .452 was basically meaningless.

At a certain point, it all boils down to this...who is the worse shooter, the guy who shoots 1-4, or the guy who shoots 10-30?

As for the rest of the Wilt-Nate and Wilt-KAJ post-season H2H's, Chamberlain was considerably more efficient from the field, a much better rebounder, a much better shot-blocker, and a better team defender, as well. And once again, he reduced KAJ and Nate to just horrible shooting.

La Frescobaldi

01-04-2014, 02:06 PM

:roll:

Wilt average 7ppg playing 45 minutes, who cares what % he shot? That's Kendrick Perkins type production, but against shorter, less athletic competition and with LA market hype making the refs gift him FTs and foul benefits

lulz

Chamberlain seldom took any shots at all by that time, virtually all of his scoring was putbacks. He was a purely defensive C by then, not even 4th option. You'd know that if you knew anything about '70s NBA.

Competition? This exact thread is talking about his competition, 6'11 Nate Thurmond & 7'3 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - both supremely better players than any and every center in today's NBA.
:lol

LAZERUSS

01-04-2014, 02:13 PM

lulz

Chamberlain seldom took any shots at all by that time, virtually all of his scoring was putbacks. He was a purely defensive C by then, not even 4th option. You'd know that if you knew anything about '70s NBA.

Competition? This exact thread is talking about his competition, 6'11 Nate Thurmond & 7'3 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - both supremely better players than any and every center in today's NBA.
:lol

And a prime Chamberlain dominated Thurmond FAR more than a prime KAJ did, too.

How about this...(and thanks to Julizaver BTW)...

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

And I have read others who used KAJ and Nate H2H's after that '73 season. But Thurmond was already in a rapid state of decline in that 73-74 season (a huge dropoff from 72-73), and was basically on the bench after that.

Meanwhile, a "scoring" Wilt just pummelled Thurmond at BOTH ends of the floor in their H2H's, and even into Wilt's 66-67 season (in which he dramatically cut back his scoring)...and in which Wilt had as many 30+ games in their first 12, as KAJ did against Nate in some 40-50 H2Hs. And, Chamberlain was waxing Nate by margins of 38-15 and 45-13 in two of those games. A prime KAJ never approached those numbers, nor that domination.

jlip

01-04-2014, 02:15 PM

@La Frescobaldi
Why did you waste time responding to that troll? That's just what they want, so that they can derail quality historical threads such as this with their puerile agendas. Just ignore them as the previous posters did.

La Frescobaldi

01-04-2014, 03:31 PM

dankok8

01-04-2014, 07:00 PM

I agree with some of this...but your point about KAJ outshooting Chamberlain in the '72 WCF's is also mis-leading. Kareem shot .457 in that series, which was not much more than the regular season NBA at .455 (and way below Kareem's .574 regular season FG%.) Furthermore, he couldn't hit a shot for his life in the last four games of that series, only going .414...and was HURTING his team. Wilt missed a total of 20 shots in that series, so his .452 was basically meaningless.

At a certain point, it all boils down to this...who is the worse shooter, the guy who shoots 1-4, or the guy who shoots 10-30?

As for the rest of the Wilt-Nate and Wilt-KAJ post-season H2H's, Chamberlain was considerably more efficient from the field, a much better rebounder, a much better shot-blocker, and a better team defender, as well. And once again, he reduced KAJ and Nate to just horrible shooting.

They guy with 1-4 (25%) is worse... imagine what he would shoot if he took 30 shots?

Truth is both teams in the '72 WCF shot an atrocious % that Kareem's 45.7% mark was actually pretty good. See below.

Anyways here is what Wilt himself said on the outcome of the series... "We weren't out there to beat Kareem (Jabbar). He had a fantastic series, but we just did things as a team."

And it's true... McMillian scored a career-high 42 points to save Game 2 which LA won by 1 point. If Bucks went up 2-0 it would probably be over and yet Jim is never praised for one of the greatest performances by a role player ever!

Then West who struggled all series long took over the 4th quarter of Game 6 alongside Wilt.

Here are the overall stats for the '72 WCF series:

Bucks - 43.8% shooting, 59.7 rebounds per game, 22.0 FTA's per game
Lakers - 40.5% shooting, 55.7 rebounds per game, 36.5 FTA's per game

The free throw disparity seems enormous and in fact articles mention that Bucks coach Larry Costello was complaining about the officiating a lot.

Notice the low shooting % also...

I'm willing to bet that the Bucks also lost this series because with Oscar injured and back-up guards as well (McGlocklin and Jones) their ball-handling was horrific. Their turnovers were probably through the roof.

LAZERUSS

01-04-2014, 07:15 PM

They guy with 1-4 (25%) is worse... imagine what he would shoot if he took 30 shots?

Truth is both teams in the '72 WCF shot an atrocious % that Kareem's 45.7% mark was actually pretty good. See below.

Anyways here is what Wilt himself said on the outcome of the series... "We weren't out there to beat Kareem (Jabbar). He had a fantastic series, but we just did things as a team."

And it's true... McMillian scored a career-high 42 points to save Game 2 which LA won by 1 point. If Bucks went up 2-0 it would probably be over and yet Jim is never praised for one of the greatest performances by a role player ever!

Then West who struggled all series long took over the 4th quarter of Game 6 alongside Wilt.

Here are the overall stats for the '72 WCF series:

Bucks - 43.8% shooting, 59.7 rebounds per game, 22.0 FTA's per game
Lakers - 40.5% shooting, 55.7 rebounds per game, 36.5 FTA's per game

The free throw disparity seems enormous and in fact articles mention that Bucks coach Larry Costello was complaining about the officiating a lot.

Notice the low shooting % also...

I'm willing to bet that the Bucks also lost this series because with Oscar injured and back-up guards as well (McGlocklin and Jones) their ball-handling was horrific. Their turnovers were probably through the roof.

KAJ shot .414 in the last four games of that series, three of them Laker wins, including two in Milwaukee (and a blowout win in LA in game five.)

If KAJ outplayed Wilt in that series, it was by a small margin. And once again, this was a PEAK Kareem, and an old Wilt (playing on a surgically repaired knee.)

It's too bad we didn't get to see a PEAK Chamberlain going H2H with a peak Kareem.

millwad

01-04-2014, 07:20 PM

Of course it is not "official" but I was actually at game three in that series, and I had Wilt with 11 blocks.

Haha, this shit is hilarious!

You're the same guy who couldn't even "remember" how good Wilt was until it popped up videos of him on Youtube.

It's laughable that you 41 years after the game was played claim that you remember that you counted Wilt with 11 blocks.

By that time you where like 15 years old, don't talk out of your ass.

Psileas

01-04-2014, 08:26 PM

They guy with 1-4 (25%) is worse... imagine what he would shoot if he took 30 shots?

Eh, I'd be willing to bet, quite a bit better than 25%, but yes, a guy who shots 10-30 obviously hurts his team offensively a lot more than someone who shoots 1-4. The first number looks a bad night of Kobe, the second, a Bruce Bowen night. Put these two lines in the same game, whose team is more likely to have suffered offensively?
Not to mention that his not very physical style of offensive play against a player who rarely fouled anyway must have played some role in the FT differential. How do you average like 33 FGA's and only 5 FTA's per game, with a high of 7?

Truth is both teams in the '72 WCF shot an atrocious % that Kareem's 45.7% mark was actually pretty good. See below.

Kareem shot (I guess) around 4 ptc points above his teammates. Obviously it wouldn't be fair to expect him to shoot at the 57% clip he shot in the r.season. But it's still not a good shooting display, the disparity between him and his teammates should have been bigger.

And it's true... McMillian scored a career-high 42 points to save Game 2 which LA won by 1 point. If Bucks went up 2-0 it would probably be over and yet Jim is never praised for one of the greatest performances by a role player ever!

I agree here, but unfortunately role players are never praised anyway. I can't remember a single game of a role player which is considered legendary and is widely remembered. Sleepy Floyd scored 51 on one of the GOAT teams ('87 Lakers) and nobody remembers it. Don Nelson, John Paxson, Steve Kerr, Vinnie Johnson have made title-clinching shots and only Kerr's shot is somewhat widely remembered, because the assist belonged to Jordan.

dankok8

01-04-2014, 09:34 PM

Eh, I'd be willing to bet, quite a bit better than 25%, but yes, a guy who shots 10-30 obviously hurts his team offensively a lot more than someone who shoots 1-4. The first number looks a bad night of Kobe, the second, a Bruce Bowen night. Put these two lines in the same game, whose team is more likely to have suffered offensively?
Not to mention that his not very physical style of offensive play against a player who rarely fouled anyway must have played some role in the FT differential. How do you average like 33 FGA's and only 5 FTA's per game, with a high of 7?

Kareem shot (I guess) around 4 ptc points above his teammates. Obviously it wouldn't be fair to expect him to shoot at the 57% clip he shot in the r.season. But it's still not a good shooting display, the disparity between him and his teammates should have been bigger.

I agree here, but unfortunately role players are never praised anyway. I can't remember a single game of a role player which is considered legendary and is widely remembered. Sleepy Floyd scored 51 on one of the GOAT teams ('87 Lakers) and nobody remembers it. Don Nelson, John Paxson, Steve Kerr, Vinnie Johnson have made title-clinching shots and only Kerr's shot is somewhat widely remembered, because the assist belonged to Jordan.

Of course 20 missed shots hurts a team more than 3 missed shots... What I'm trying to say is if a player is shooting 25% on 4 shots I can't even imagine how terrible that same player would shoot on 30 shots. The more you shoot the worse you shoot. A guy who shoots 1-4 is a worse offensive player than a guy who shoots 10-30.

Unfortunately you're right about role players. They are unappreciated.

Psileas

01-04-2014, 10:02 PM

Of course 20 missed shots hurts a team more than 3 missed shots... What I'm trying to say is if a player is shooting 25% on 4 shots I can't even imagine how terrible that same player would shoot on 30 shots. The more you shoot the worse you shoot. A guy who shoots 1-4 is a worse offensive player than a guy who shoots 10-30.

Unfortunately you're right about role players. They are unappreciated.

I'd never claim that a 1972 Wilt was a better offensive player than '72 Kareem.

Having said that, although you're generally correct about FG%'s falling when your FGA's rise, these trends apply better over the course of a whole season and for players who already take a decent number of shots, i.e, not for players who don't get enough chances to get hotter. A player who normally takes 15 FG's is more likely to shoot worse if he gets to 30 FGA's than a player who shoots 5 FG's if he gets to 10 FG's. In other words, I don't think Wilt taking per average some shots more would necessarily shoot worse.
30 is extreme, 1972 Wilt against young, healthy Kareem wouldn't attempt 30 shots, especially when he's playing for a title contender. But 4 FGA's in 40+ minutes already indicate no intentions to shoot, we don't know under what conditions he took each one and only made 1. They are simply too few to judge, it's like taking a 4-4 FG perfromance and estimate that even at 30 FGA's, he would still be at 60+%.

LAZERUSS

01-05-2014, 01:29 PM

Of course 20 missed shots hurts a team more than 3 missed shots... What I'm trying to say is if a player is shooting 25% on 4 shots I can't even imagine how terrible that same player would shoot on 30 shots. The more you shoot the worse you shoot. A guy who shoots 1-4 is a worse offensive player than a guy who shoots 10-30.

Unfortunately you're right about role players. They are unappreciated.

That was my point. The player shooting 10-30 IS worse than the player who shoots 1-4. Why? Because the average NBA team shoots between 45-50%. A player missing 20 shots is doing far worse than the player who misses three.

KAJ was HURTING his team in the last four games of the '72 WCF's...plain-and-simple. And to use Wilt's .452 against him was ridiculous. He missed 20 shots in that series, and came up huge in the clinching game six with 20 points on 8-12 shooting. Meanwhile, Kareem missed 107 overall, and again, shot .414 in the last four pivotal games of that series.

Incidently, over the course of their ten H2H's in the 70-71 season (five regular season, and five post-season), a 34 year old Chamberlain, who was a year removed from a major knee injury and major knee surgery, outplayed a PEAK Kareem. And it gets even worse if you include their one H2H meeting before Chamberlain's injury...

In those 11 games...

KAJ averaged 26.1 ppg, 15.6 rpg, 2.5 apg, and shot .450 from the field.
Chamberlain averaged 22.8 ppg, 17.5 rpg, 2.7 apg, and shot .497 from the field. And in the known blocks, Chamberlain held a whopping 51-18 edge.

Again, this from a nowhere near his prime Chamberlain (probably 63-64 thru 66-67) against a near peak/peak KAJ.

stanlove1111

01-05-2014, 02:09 PM

:roll:

Wilt average 7ppg playing 45 minutes, who cares what % he shot? That's Kendrick Perkins type production, but against shorter, less athletic competition and with LA market hype making the refs gift him FTs and foul benefits

Thats when Wilt was obsessed with FG%. He made it his goal to set records in that category. he would rarely ever shoot unless it was a great percentage shot. It was typical Wilt.

Does anyone remember the 2nd to last regular season game in 1973 when the Lakers played the Bucks and home court for the playoffs was on the line? Wilt didn't even take one shot and scored zero points and the Bucks won by one point, which almost cost the Lakers home court advantage. I remember Wilt taking heat about it at the time, and he deserved it. More worried about not missing shots then winning a huge game. Right up there with being obsessed with winning assists title and not fouling out of games. Wilt while being very dominating had many flaws.

LAZERUSS

01-05-2014, 02:24 PM

Thats when Wilt was obsessed with FG%. He made it his goal to set records in that category. he would rarely ever shoot unless it was a great percentage shot. It was typical Wilt.

Does anyone remember the 2nd to last regular season game in 1973 when the Lakers played the Bucks and home court for the playoffs was on the line? Wilt didn't even take one shot and scored zero points and the Bucks won by one point, which almost cost the Lakers home court advantage. I remember Wilt taking heat about it at the time, and he deserved it. More worried about not missing shots then winning a huge game. Right up there with being obsessed with winning assists title and not fouling out of games. Wilt while being very dominating had many flaws.

Actually in that Bucks game in which he didn't attempt a shot, while Wilt didn't intentionally try to lose that game, his reasoning was pretty simple. He knew that if his Lakers did win that game, that they would have the best record in the Western Conference, but a loss would put Milwaukee in that spot. Which would mean that whoever won that game, would likely get the Warriors and Thurmond in round one. Which is exactly what happened. And, as he reasoned, Thurmond held KAJ to yet another horrible shooting series (.428), and the 47-35 Warriors stunned the heavily-favored 60-22 Bucks, 4-2. Oh, and then in the WCF's, as evident in the OP, Chamberlain just trashed Thurmond, and he guided his 60-22 Lakers to a blowout series win against the Warriors, 4-1.

As a sidenote...in that game in which Chamberlain did not take a shot against KAJ, he held Kareem to 12-31 shooting (.387).

Nice try Stan...

stanlove1111

01-05-2014, 04:13 PM

Actually in that Bucks game in which he didn't attempt a shot, while Wilt didn't intentionally try to lose that game, his reasoning was pretty simple. He knew that if his Lakers did win that game, that they would have the best record in the Western Conference, but a loss would put Milwaukee in that spot. Which would mean that whoever won that game, would likely get the Warriors and Thurmond in round one. Which is exactly what happened. And, as he reasoned, Thurmond held KAJ to yet another horrible shooting series (.428), and the 47-35 Warriors stunned the heavily-favored 60-22 Bucks, 4-2. Oh, and then in the WCF's, as evident in the OP, Chamberlain just trashed Thurmond, and he guided his 60-22 Lakers to a blowout series win against the Warriors, 4-1.

As a sidenote...in that game in which Chamberlain did not take a shot against KAJ, he held Kareem to 12-31 shooting (.387).

Nice try Stan...
Are you joking with this garbage? Chicago had a better record then Warriors and LA barely got by the Bulls. They had to come back late in the 4th quarter, Its not like the Bulls were any safer then the Warriors. And the fact that you ignoring that Wilt might very well be giving away home court to the Bucks if they net makes you post desperate.

Unless you are actually trying to say that Wilt knew the Warriors were going to beat the Bucks..That would be a good one.

LAZERUSS

01-05-2014, 04:29 PM

Are you joking with this garbage? Chicago had a better record then Warriors and LA barely got by the Bulls. They had to come back late in the 4th quarter, Its not like the Bulls were any safer then the Warriors. And the fact that you ignoring that Wilt might very well be giving away home court to the Bucks if they net makes you post desperate.

Unless you are actually trying to say that Wilt knew the Warriors were going to beat the Bucks..That would be a good one.

Directly from Wilt himself...

"Wilt: Just Like Any Other Black Millionaire Who Lives Next Door"

Page 292...

stanlove1111

01-05-2014, 04:32 PM

Directly from Wilt himself...

"Wilt: Just Like Any Other Black Millionaire Who Lives Next Door"

Page 292...

Wilt said a lot of things. This doesn't even make sense and that should be obvious to you.

Funny in a game 2 days earlier with the Bucks and Lakers fighting for the best record, Wilt scored 20 points. Huh.

LAZERUSS

01-05-2014, 04:34 PM

Wilt said a lot of things. This doesn't even make sense and that should be obvious to you.

Actually, Chamberlain did not fear either Milwaukee or the Warriors. But he preferred to not have to battle both Nate and KAJ in the post-season.

And yes, it made perfect sense...and in fact, it worked out perfectly.

buddha

01-05-2014, 05:02 PM

Wasn't Wilt like 38 years old in 1973? their nutrition and training was shit back then. If Wilt could play that long in that era I bet he would have played into his 40's in this era.

LAZERUSS

01-05-2014, 05:06 PM

Wasn't Wilt like 38 years old in 1973? their nutrition and training was shit back then. If Wilt could play that long in that era I bet he would have played into his 40's in this era.

Larry Brown recalled a Chamberlain in his mid-40's dominating summer leagues in which Magic Johnson was playing in.

And Wilt was receiving legitimate offers to return to the NBA in his 40's, and even at age 50.

dankok8

01-05-2014, 05:58 PM

Interesting thing is in the 72-73 regular season Nate Thurmond met Wilt Chamberlain in 7 games and outrebounded him in all of them!

Incidently, over the course of their ten H2H's in the 70-71 season (five regular season, and five post-season), a 34 year old Chamberlain, who was a year removed from a major knee injury and major knee surgery, outplayed a PEAK Kareem. And it gets even worse if you include their one H2H meeting before Chamberlain's injury...

In those 11 games...

KAJ averaged 26.1 ppg, 15.6 rpg, 2.5 apg, and shot .450 from the field.
Chamberlain averaged 22.8 ppg, 17.5 rpg, 2.7 apg, and shot .497 from the field. And in the known blocks, Chamberlain held a whopping 51-18 edge.

Those numbers are heavily skewed by a single game on 03/03/71 where Kareem played very few minutes and had 15 points and 6 rebounds. Without that game Kareem is at 27.1/16.6/2.6 on 48% shooting.

Anyways you give H2H's too much weight... Kareem played everyone else better than Wilt played them. In 1971, Kareem was a much better player than Wilt.

Bottom line is we'll never know who's better peak vs peak. We can just guess.

LAZERUSS

01-05-2014, 07:16 PM

Interesting thing is in the 72-73 regular season Nate Thurmond met Wilt Chamberlain in 7 games and outrebounded him in all of them!

Those numbers are heavily skewed by a single game on 03/03/71 where Kareem played very few minutes and had 15 points and 6 rebounds. Without that game Kareem is at 27.1/16.6/2.6 on 48% shooting.

Anyways you give H2H's too much weight... Kareem played everyone else better than Wilt played them. In 1971, Kareem was a much better player than Wilt.

Bottom line is we'll never know who's better peak vs peak. We can just guess.

Kareem was never as dominant against his best peers in any of seasons, as a mid-60's Chamberlain was against his. Here again, a peak KAJ was being outplayed by both Wilt and Nate in his 70-71 and 71-72 post-seasons. And McAdoo was outplaying him in many of their H2H's after that, as was Gilmore and Lanier. And, of course, from 78-79 on, Moses just shelled Kareem.

Psileas

01-05-2014, 08:07 PM

Those numbers are heavily skewed by a single game on 03/03/71 where Kareem played very few minutes and had 15 points and 6 rebounds. Without that game Kareem is at 27.1/16.6/2.6 on 48% shooting.

So few minutes that he "only" found the time to jack 21 shots (and only make 7 of them)?
Hey, if so, then also remove Wilt's Game 4 of the series vs Kareem, he also played few minutes for his standards. Without that game, Wilt averages 23.8/19.5/2.0 and Kareem 23.5/16.5/4.0.

LAZERUSS

01-05-2014, 10:00 PM

So few minutes that he "only" found the time to jack 21 shots (and only make 7 of them)?
Hey, if so, then also remove Wilt's Game 4 of the series vs Kareem, he also played few minutes for his standards. Without that game, Wilt averages 23.8/19.5/2.0 and Kareem 23.5/16.5/4.0.

KAJ never came close to the FGAs per game, that he put up against Chamberlain in those 28 H2H's against anyone else in his career, either. And, he seldom even shot 50% against Wilt in them either (10 games out of 28, with six below .399.) And while Chamberlain has been accused of being a selfish "shot-jacker", I find it fascinating that in KAJ's biggest scoring games against Chamberlain, his team almost always lost, and the more he scored, the worse his team lost.

But here again, 27 of those 28 H2H games came against a 34-36 year old Wilt, on a surgically repaired knee. Here was a prime/peak Kareem struggling against a well-past his peak Chamberlain. We saw what a peak Kareem could do, but we never witnessed what a peak Chamberlain would have dropped on Kareem.

dankok8

01-05-2014, 10:29 PM

Kareem was never as dominant against his best peers in any of seasons, as a mid-60's Chamberlain was against his. Here again, a peak KAJ was being outplayed by both Wilt and Nate in his 70-71 and 71-72 post-seasons. And McAdoo was outplaying him in many of their H2H's after that, as was Gilmore and Lanier. And, of course, from 78-79 on, Moses just shelled Kareem.

In the '71 postseason Kareem outplayed Nate badly and let's be fair and say his battle against Wilt was a draw.

In the '72 postseason it was pretty much the reverse. It was a draw with Nate and Kareem outplayed Wilt (or at least had a much larger role :cheers: ).

Mid-60's Wilt really didn't kill his competition that much. In 65-66, 28.6 ppg against Thurmond, 28.3 ppg on 52.1 %FG against Russell, and 33.0 ppg against Bellamy/Reed.

Kareem in 71-72... averaged:

44.8/18.0/4.4 on 57.1% against Cowens
40.2/15.0/5.0 on 50.0% against Wilt
35.4/20.0 against Hayes
34.7/16.4 against Lanier
34.2/18.8 against Unseld
32.0/16.2/4.5 on 61.5% against Haywood
31.3/15.3 against Wicks
29.8/17.8 against Bellamy
24.0/16.3/5.3 on 44.1% against Thurmond

We are missing FG% for some games vs. Hayes, Lanier, Unseld, Wicks, and Bellamy but Kareem seems to have shot at around 60% against these guys.

Kareem from 70-71 to 72-73 just shelled Lanier.

Kareem killed McAdoo on the glass and everywhere other than raw scoring volume in their H2H's. In their 10 encounters from 73-74 to 75-76 where we have rebounds Kareem won 10-0. He also outassisted and outshot Bob in pretty much every game we have the numbers as well!

* - indicates one game missing data

73-74 (3 games)

Kareem: 35.0/16.0/4.0 on 58.0 %FG
McAdoo: 30.3/9.3

74-75 (4 games)

Kareem: 32.0/16.5/6.0* on 57.3 %FG*
McAdoo: 34.3/10.0

75-76 (4 games)

Kareem: 25.8/18.5/7.5 on 57.6 %FG
McAdoo: 32.0/12.3

Against Gilmore he sometimes had problems with foul trouble plus many games were blowouts. When he was on the floor though Kareem dominated Artis too. Easily scored 25+ ppg and on 60%+ shooting.

So few minutes that he "only" found the time to jack 21 shots (and only make 7 of them)?
Hey, if so, then also remove Wilt's Game 4 of the series vs Kareem, he also played few minutes for his standards. Without that game, Wilt averages 23.8/19.5/2.0 and Kareem 23.5/16.5/4.0.

My point exactly... Using cumulative stats is misleading. A player with the better line may have just killed the other player in one game and gotten slightly outplayed in all the others.

LAZERUSS

01-05-2014, 10:39 PM

In the '71 postseason Kareem outplayed Nate badly and let's be fair and say his battle against Wilt was a draw.

In the '72 postseason it was pretty much the reverse. It was a draw with Nate and Kareem outplayed Wilt (or at least had a much larger role :cheers: ).

Mid-60's Wilt really didn't kill his competition that much. In 65-66, 28.6 ppg against Thurmond, 28.3 ppg on 52.1 %FG against Russell, and 33.0 ppg against Bellamy/Reed.

Kareem in 71-72... averaged:

44.8/18.0/4.4 on 57.1% against Cowens
40.2/15.0/5.0 on 50.0% against Wilt
35.4/20.0 against Hayes
34.7/16.4 against Lanier
34.2/18.8 against Unseld
32.0/16.2/4.5 on 61.5% against Haywood
31.3/15.3 against Wicks
29.8/17.8 against Bellamy
24.0/16.3/5.3 on 44.1% against Thurmond

We are missing FG% for some games vs. Hayes, Lanier, Unseld, Wicks, and Bellamy but Kareem seems to have shot at around 60% against these guys.

Kareem from 70-71 to 72-73 just shelled Lanier.

Kareem killed McAdoo on the glass and everywhere other than raw scoring volume in their H2H's. In their 10 encounters from 73-74 to 75-76 where we have rebounds Kareem won 10-0. He also outassisted and outshot Bob in pretty much every game we have the numbers as well!

* - indicates one game missing data

73-74 (3 games)

Kareem: 35.0/16.0/4.0 on 58.0 %FG
McAdoo: 30.3/9.3

74-75 (4 games)

Kareem: 32.0/16.5/6.0* on 57.3 %FG*
McAdoo: 34.3/10.0

75-76 (4 games)

Kareem: 25.8/18.5/7.5 on 57.6 %FG
McAdoo: 32.0/12.3

Against Gilmore he sometimes had problems with foul trouble plus many games were blowouts. When he was on the floor though Kareem dominated Artis too. Easily scored 25+ ppg and on 60%+ shooting.

My point exactly... Using cumulative stats is misleading. A player with the better line may have just killed the other player in one game and gotten slightly outplayed in all the others.

Chamberlain destroyed Russell in the '66 (and '67) post-season (as well as Thurmond in '67...he outscored him in five of the six games; he outrebounded him in five of the six games; he outassisted him in five of the six games; and he outshot him from the field in all six..and overall, by a staggering .560 to .343 margin.). KAJ was outplayed by Wilt in '71, and outplayed by Thurmond in the '72 post-season.

BTW, you love to point out Kareem's edge in rebounding over McAdoo, but you ignore the fact that Moses probably outrebounded KAJ in about 80% of their H2H's, and in many by just unfathomable margins...as well as outscoring him in the vast majority of their H2Hs (especially in their seven post-season H2H's.)

LAZERUSS

01-05-2014, 10:49 PM

In fact, Chamberlain destroyed his ALL of his peers from '60 thru '67, and was easily more dominant in both '68 and '69 than Russell, Nate, Reed, and Bellamy were in his H2H's with them...including the post-season.

dankok8

01-06-2014, 05:14 PM

Chamberlain destroyed Russell in the '66 (and '67) post-season (as well as Thurmond in '67...he outscored him in five of the six games; he outrebounded him in five of the six games; he outassisted him in five of the six games; and he outshot him from the field in all six..and overall, by a staggering .560 to .343 margin.). KAJ was outplayed by Wilt in '71, and outplayed by Thurmond in the '72 post-season.

BTW, you love to point out Kareem's edge in rebounding over McAdoo, but you ignore the fact that Moses probably outrebounded KAJ in about 80% of their H2H's, and in many by just unfathomable margins...as well as outscoring him in the vast majority of their H2Hs (especially in their seven post-season H2H's.)

Wilt actually had a pretty terrible series against Russell in '66. Averaged a paltry 23.5 ppg on 48.7% shooting through the first 4 games... Even in his dominant Game 5 he missed 17 free throws in a close game. His Sixers had a better record than the Celtics in the regular season and got killed 4-1.

In Game 2 and Game 4 Russell definitely outplayed him even statistically. Here are the recaps for those two games.

[QUOTE]

1966 EDF

Game 2

Boston won Game 2 114-93 “to take an unexpected 2-0 lead in the series.” “Big Bill Russell, John Havlicek and Sam Jones set the early pace before the Celtics began taking turns at heroics in the romp before a sellout crowd of 13,909 at Boston Garden” (Herald Journal, Apr. 7, 1966). Red Auerbach called it “the best game we played all season.” Auerbach said, “it’s nice to look down the bench and see 11 guys. We haven’t had 11 guys all year. But with everyone healthy, the guys know they don’t have to pace themselves. At times this year the guys had to loaf to pace their game” (Lewington Evening Journal, April 7, 1966). Bill Russell had 10 points, a game-high 29 rebounds, and nine assists to Chamberlain’s 23 points and 25 rebounds. “Chamberlain, just Wednesday voted the NBA’s Most Valuable Player by the U.S. Basketball Writers Association, was overshadowed by the play of Boston’s Bill Russell. Chamberlain outscored Russell 23-10 but the Boston captain had 29 rebounds and nine assists,” in addition to “many steals and blocked shots.” The Celtics lead 58-44 at halftime, and Russell left the game with 2

LAZERUSS

01-06-2014, 07:44 PM

Wilt actually had a pretty terrible series against Russell in '66. Averaged a paltry 23.5 ppg on 48.7% shooting through the first 4 games... Even in his dominant Game 5 he missed 17 free throws in a close game. His Sixers had a better record than the Celtics in the regular season and got killed 4-1.

In Game 2 and Game 4 Russell definitely outplayed him even statistically. Here are the recaps for those two games.

His games against Thurmond that year also brought mixed results. He had some strong outings but also some rather weak ones. Even in 64-65 Wilt didn't put up great numbers on Nate.

As for Kareem's series against Wilt and Thurmond, we've beaten it to death in previous threads. I don't want to repeat myself. After all this is a Wilt vs Thurmond topic let's keep the discussion relevant!

This exactly what irritates me from the Russell-apologists and those that disparage Chamberlain.

Here are a couple of examples of games in which Russell did NOT outplay Chamberlain, but rather, contained him. At best, Russell battled Chamberlain to a draw.

BUT, I can give you game-after-game in their 49 playoff H2H's in which Wilt CRUSHED Russell in every aspect of the game.

And it is not the same as the Wilt-Kareem '72 series, either. When Wilt played well, he WIPED the floor with Russell. Kareem couldn't hit the Grand Canyon from the ledge against Wilt in the last FOUR games of the '72 WCF's. An old Wilt held a PRIME Kareem to .457 in the entire series, in an NBA that shot .455 during the season (and to be fair to Kareem... .439 in the post-season.) Russell never came CLOSE to that kind of a series. He "held" Chamberlain to a .468 series in '62...in a regular season NBA that shot .426...and a post-season NBA that shot .411. My god, Wilt, in his ROOKIE season, had a 30 ppg .500 series against Russell, in a post-season NBA that shot .402 (and was only .395 during the regular season.)

And I would really love to have seen all the players numbers from that '62 series, as well. We do KNOW that Chamberlain's collectively shot .354 in that post-season, while Russell's shot .396. And Russell had THREE player shooting over the league average, while Wilt's best teammate shot .397.

Here again, using the ridiculous recaps from the '62 EDF's, I would read nonsense like Russell shut Wilt down in the first half, and then Wilt put up meaningless stats in the second half. OR, Chamberlain had a huge first half, but when the game was on the line, Russell shut him down. So, in other words, Russell didn't HAVE to play a full game against Chamberlain, for his TEAM to win.

Of course, the best example of that series that I can give was in game two, when Chamberlain outscored Russell 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20...in a SEVEN point win. Wilt HAD to produce HUGE numbers for his teams to have a CHANCE at winning.

You want the REAL facts from the 65-66 EDF's, and not some Celtic-homer blathering? Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot...get this... .352 from the field in that series. The reality was, Wilt's Sixers went 6-3 against the Celtics in the regular season, and Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, and shot .525 against them in those nine games. In the 65-66 EDF's, Chamberlain averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509. So, what does THAT tell you?

As always, Chamberlain EASILY outplayed Russell in the 65-66 EDF's, just as he did in the regular season. In their 14 H2H games that season, Wilt outscored Russell in 13 of them, many by 20+ points; outrebounded him in 10 of them, some by 20+ rebounds; and outshot him from the field in every known H2H game we have...again, usually by a solid margin.

Incidently, the Sixers were NOT the better team that season. Yes, they edged Boston by one game in the regular season, BUT, take a look at the game's MISSED by Boston's key players that season. The Celtics were CLEARLY a better team. And to be honest, Chamberlain's 66-67 supporting cast was probably not much better, if at all, than Russell's (and Russell's was MUCH deeper.) BUT, at least they finally neutralized Russell's usual HUGE advantage...and the result? A 4-1 blowout epitomized by the clinching game five win, when the Sixers overcame an early 17 point deficit, and by mid-way in the 4th quarter, had built a 27 point lead. And, as ALWAYS, Chamberlain just carpet-bombed Russell in every aspect of the game in that series.

Can you imagine how many more rings Chamberlain would have won had his teammates even played SLIGHTLY better in his post-seasons? At least FOUR!
And with equal talent, playing equally well, and it would have been Wilt with 7 more rings.

LAZERUSS

01-06-2014, 08:01 PM

His games against Thurmond that year also brought mixed results. He had some strong outings but also some rather weak ones. Even in 64-65 Wilt didn't put up great numbers on Nate.

As for Kareem's series against Wilt and Thurmond, we've beaten it to death in previous threads. I don't want to repeat myself. After all this is a Wilt vs Thurmond topic let's keep the discussion relevant!

Nate outplayed Wilt in ONE game out of their NINE in that 65-66 season. Wilt either easily outplayed him, or downright demolished him in EVERY other H2H that season. He was outscoring him 33-10, 38-15, and 45-13. And it's too bad we only have a couple of their FG% games, because I relatively certain that Nate probably didn't shoot anywhere near 40% against Chamberlain (he almost NEVER did.)

Once again, a mid-60's Wilt (actually a 60-67 Wilt, and evn into 67-68 and 68-69) just slaughtered his peers.

BTW, of the many horrible MVP voting contests that were held in the 60's, just how in the hell did Russell (and even Reed and Unseld) finish ahead of Wilt? I won't go into the Reed or Unseld plasterings that Wilt administered now, but how about this...

Wilt's Lakers had a MUCH better record than Russell's Celtics, 55-27 to 48-34. In their seasonal H2H's, Chamberlain's Lakers held a 4-2 edge, which even included a nationally televised obliteration, in BOSTON, in which LA overwhelmed the Celtics, 108-73. In those six H2H's, Chamberlain outscored Russell in EVERY one of them, including one game by a 35-5 margin. Wilt also held a 5-0-1 margin their rebounding H2H's, which also included one game by a 42-18 margin. And he outshot Russell, from the field, by a .493 to .340 margin. Then there were their seasonal stats. Russell averaged 9.9 ppg, 19.3 rpg, 4.9 apg, and shot .433 from the field. Chamberlain averaged 20.5 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, and shot .583 from the field. Oh, and Jerry West missed 21 games that season, too. So, maybe a Russell apostle can explain that voting to me...

dankok8

01-06-2014, 10:11 PM

This exactly what irritates me from the Russell-apologists and those that disparage Chamberlain.

Here are a couple of examples of games in which Russell did NOT outplay Chamberlain, but rather, contained him. At best, Russell battled Chamberlain to a draw.

BUT, I can give you game-after-game in their 49 playoff H2H's in which Wilt CRUSHED Russell in every aspect of the game.

And it is not the same as the Wilt-Kareem '72 series, either. When Wilt played well, he WIPED the floor with Russell. Kareem couldn't hit the Grand Canyon from the ledge against Wilt in the last FOUR games of the '72 WCF's. An old Wilt held a PRIME Kareem to .457 in the entire series, in an NBA that shot .455 during the season (and to be fair to Kareem... .439 in the post-season.) Russell never came CLOSE to that kind of a series. He "held" Chamberlain to a .468 series in '62...in a regular season NBA that shot .426...and a post-season NBA that shot .411. My god, Wilt, in his ROOKIE season, had a 30 ppg .500 series against Russell, in a post-season NBA that shot .402 (and was only .395 during the regular season.)

And I would really love to have seen all the players numbers from that '62 series, as well. We do KNOW that Chamberlain's collectively shot .354 in that post-season, while Russell's shot .396. And Russell had THREE player shooting over the league average, while Wilt's best teammate shot .397.

Here again, using the ridiculous recaps from the '62 EDF's, I would read nonsense like Russell shut Wilt down in the first half, and then Wilt put up meaningless stats in the second half. OR, Chamberlain had a huge first half, but when the game was on the line, Russell shut him down. So, in other words, Russell didn't HAVE to play a full game against Chamberlain, for his TEAM to win.

Of course, the best example of that series that I can give was in game two, when Chamberlain outscored Russell 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20...in a SEVEN point win. Wilt HAD to produce HUGE numbers for his teams to have a CHANCE at winning.

You want the REAL facts from the 65-66 EDF's, and not some Celtic-homer blathering? Chamberlain's teammates collectively shot...get this... .352 from the field in that series. The reality was, Wilt's Sixers went 6-3 against the Celtics in the regular season, and Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, and shot .525 against them in those nine games. In the 65-66 EDF's, Chamberlain averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509. So, what does THAT tell you?

As always, Chamberlain EASILY outplayed Russell in the 65-66 EDF's, just as he did in the regular season. In their 14 H2H games that season, Wilt outscored Russell in 13 of them, many by 20+ points; outrebounded him in 10 of them, some by 20+ rebounds; and outshot him from the field in every known H2H game we have...again, usually by a solid margin.

Incidently, the Sixers were NOT the better team that season. Yes, they edged Boston by one game in the regular season, BUT, take a look at the game's MISSED by Boston's key players that season. The Celtics were CLEARLY a better team. And to be honest, Chamberlain's 66-67 supporting cast was probably not much better, if at all, than Russell's (and Russell's was MUCH deeper.) BUT, at least they finally neutralized Russell's usual HUGE advantage...and the result? A 4-1 blowout epitomized by the clinching game five win, when the Sixers overcame an early 17 point deficit, and by mid-way in the 4th quarter, had built a 27 point lead. And, as ALWAYS, Chamberlain just carpet-bombed Russell in every aspect of the game in that series.

Can you imagine how many more rings Chamberlain would have won had his teammates even played SLIGHTLY better in his post-seasons? At least FOUR!
And with equal talent, playing equally well, and it would have been Wilt with 7 more rings.

Russell OUTPLAYED Chamberlain in those games... the newspaper recaps say so. Impact goes beyond stats. And don't talk about dominance. Wilt averaged 23.5 ppg on 48.7% shooting in the first four games in the '66 EDF. That's 10 points and 5% below his season averages.

Sure his teammates dropped the ball but WILT ALSO DROPPED THE BALL. If he didn't have a 46-point Game 5 (where he missed 17 free throws in a close game by the way) to boost his stats that series would be a catastrophic failure for Chamberlain.

AND...

Outplaying someone in the first half when the game is decided means a lot. If Wilt's Warriors are down 25 points and then he scores 20 meaningless points when Russell doesn't defend him who cares? Russell could stop Wilt when he NEEDED TO... when the moment was big Russell usually got the better of Wilt. Looking at boxscores you wouldn't know that.

dankok8

01-06-2014, 10:14 PM

Nate outplayed Wilt in ONE game out of their NINE in that 65-66 season. Wilt either easily outplayed him, or downright demolished him in EVERY other H2H that season. He was outscoring him 33-10, 38-15, and 45-13. And it's too bad we only have a couple of their FG% games, because I relatively certain that Nate probably didn't shoot anywhere near 40% against Chamberlain (he almost NEVER did.)

Once again, a mid-60's Wilt (actually a 60-67 Wilt, and evn into 67-68 and 68-69) just slaughtered his peers.

BTW, of the many horrible MVP voting contests that were held in the 60's, just how in the hell did Russell (and even Reed and Unseld) finish ahead of Wilt? I won't go into the Reed or Unseld plasterings that Wilt administered now, but how about this...

Wilt's Lakers had a MUCH better record than Russell's Celtics, 55-27 to 48-34. In their seasonal H2H's, Chamberlain's Lakers held a 4-2 edge, which even included a nationally televised obliteration, in BOSTON, in which LA overwhelmed the Celtics, 108-73. In those six H2H's, Chamberlain outscored Russell in EVERY one of them, including one game by a 35-5 margin. Wilt also held a 5-0-1 margin their rebounding H2H's, which also included one game by a 42-18 margin. And he outshot Russell, from the field, by a .493 to .340 margin. Then there were their seasonal stats. Russell averaged 9.9 ppg, 19.3 rpg, 4.9 apg, and shot .433 from the field. Chamberlain averaged 20.5 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, and shot .583 from the field. Oh, and Jerry West missed 21 games that season, too. So, maybe a Russell apostle can explain that voting to me...

Thurmond was never a big time scorer. Who cares is Wilt outscores him? Point is Wilt never got near his season averages vs. Nate. 28.6 ppg is nice but it's NOT domination.

Russell outplayed Wilt in the '69 Finals. Game 1, 2, 4, and 6 at least.

LAZERUSS

01-07-2014, 01:52 AM

Thurmond was never a big time scorer. Who cares is Wilt outscores him? Point is Wilt never got near his season averages vs. Nate. 28.6 ppg is nice but it's NOT domination.

Russell outplayed Wilt in the '69 Finals. Game 1, 2, 4, and 6 at least.

Thurmond had FIVE seasons of 20+ ppg in his career, and he outplayed Russell in his H2H's (although not even remotely close to what Chamberlain trashed Russell with in his.)

But here again, the Wilt-bashers EXPECTED Chamberlain to dominate at BOTH ends of the floor, and yet give Russell (and Nate) a free pass at their offensive ends, when Chamberlain was routinely holding them to 5-10% under their career FG%'s....all while crushing them offensively, and dominating them on the glass.

As for the PRIME Wilt-Nate H2H's, which included Thurmonds '67 season (by far his greatest)...over the course of 11 straight games, from their last meeting in '65 thru their first meeting in '67 (when Hannum asked his team to get the ball to Wilt in the second half, and Chamberlain overpowered a helpless Nate for 24 second half points)...Wilt averaged 30 ppg. He had more 30+ point games, in those 11, than KAJ did against Thurmond up thru Nate's last decent season (72-73) and in 34 H2H games. And again, KAJ never came close to Wilt's 38 and 45 point plasterings against Nate, nor anyhwere near his efficiency, either. And please don't give me anything after 72-73, when Thurmond declined DRAMATICALLY (and was injured.)

LAZERUSS

01-07-2014, 02:25 AM

Russell OUTPLAYED Chamberlain in those games... the newspaper recaps say so. Impact goes beyond stats. And don't talk about dominance. Wilt averaged 23.5 ppg on 48.7% shooting in the first four games in the '66 EDF. That's 10 points and 5% below his season averages.

Sure his teammates dropped the ball but WILT ALSO DROPPED THE BALL. If he didn't have a 46-point Game 5 (where he missed 17 free throws in a close game by the way) to boost his stats that series would be a catastrophic failure for Chamberlain.

AND...

Outplaying someone in the first half when the game is decided means a lot. If Wilt's Warriors are down 25 points and then he scores 20 meaningless points when Russell doesn't defend him who cares? Russell could stop Wilt when he NEEDED TO... when the moment was big Russell usually got the better of Wilt. Looking at boxscores you wouldn't know that.

NYCelt84 had a link from a Wilt-Russell H2H in the early 60's, (I wish I would have saved it, but maybe Fpliii or Julizaver can find it), in which Chamberlain's Warriors were down by over 20 points in the second half, and they came back to win the game. Wilt had something like 47 point in that game.

And I have never read or heard anything by Russell, himself, in which he said he "let" Wilt score either in the first half, or the second halves of games. He was a proud man who was constantly being shelled by a Wilt who, very seldom used his massive edge in strength against him.

And of course, common sense would tell you this...Russell's Celtics won about 60% of their career H2H's (59% in the post-season), and many were very close games. As smart as Russell was, I don't think even he would "allow" Chamberlain to score 30 points on .800 shooting in a game seven, one point win (and then hitting a guidewire on an inbounds play that then gave Philly the chance to win the game.) His TEAM won FOUR game seven's by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. Sorry, but that was a flatout falsehood.

As for the 65-66 series, Chamberlain outscored Russell by margins of 25-13, 23-10, 31-11, and 46-18 (Russell did outscore Wilt in one game by an 18-15 margin), and outrebounded him by margins of 32-18, 27-23, 33-30, and 34-31 (and Russell outrebounded Wilt in one game by a 29-25 margin.) And I doubt you have Wilt's FG% in his first two games (but it was .487), nor Russell's, but Russell shot .475 in the post-season, and that included a 7 game Finals of .538...so he likely shot horribly against Wilt, just as he always did. We don know that Wilt shot 12-22, 7-14, and 19-34 in his last three H2H's (.543) and .509 overall, while in the two we have of Russell, he shot 7-15 and 4-11 (.423)...so I suspect that Wilt, as always, probably outshot Russell by a huge margin.

But again, you ignore what Wilt's TEAMMATES collectively shot in that series... .352 (yes .352!)

Russell may have outplayed Wilt in ONE game in that series...and that was it.

And over the course of their 14 H2H's that season, Chamberlain just ANNIHILATED Russell. Just as he did against Bellamy and Nate. (And just as he did against Reed when Willis was playing center in 64-65.)

PHILA

01-07-2014, 02:48 AM

Russell OUTPLAYED Chamberlain in those games... the newspaper recaps say so.

The recaps say that Wilt outplayed Russell in the final 3 games. He definitely picked it up after the first two games. As you said, "Impact goes beyond stats." Then the very next sentence you cite his stats. :no: The Game 4 recap states that he nearly beat Boston "by himself". It is obvious the Celtics were sagging back defensively, keeping him from the ball. Even watching highlights of the series, they would full court press the point guard with KC Jones to make them use up clock in bringing the ball up. They would also shade Wilt before the ball even got in, daring the outside shooters to beat them. Anything to keep the ball out of Wilt's hands as often as possible.

Game 1

Wilt Chamberlain did his work under the boards, taking 32 rebounds for the 76ers. But his mates couldn't get the ball into him often and he made only nine field goals in scoring 25 points.

http://i.imgur.com/YoZNrZB.png

Game 2

http://i.imgur.com/uuDN9Ho.png

Game 3

Their defense was the barbed wire. Every time they needed a key basket, Wilt Chamberlain poured through the lane and got it for them. That was how the Philadelphia 76ers got back into contention in the Eastern Division playoffs with a 111-105 victory over the Boston Celtics Thursday night at Convention Hall.

http://i.imgur.com/cjoindE.png

Game 4

http://i.imgur.com/ZwbtKI9.png

Game 5

In the 1st half of G5, Coach Schayes noted that Chamberlain was the only player to shoot 25% or better from the field on his way to a 46 point night.

http://i.imgur.com/UTOrVIF.png

Christian Science Monitor - Apr 14, 1966

Wilt took 34 shots, hitting on 19. But he was only eight for 25 with his free throws. Chamberlain scored 46 points, no small since Russell played him tight and with a maximum amount of contact. But Wilt could have gone to 63 with Bill Sharman's touch at the foul line. Boston's cornermen excelled, not only, but also on offense. John Havlicek played the full 48 minutes and scored 32 points. Tom Sanders probably had his best game of the series with 11 points and 16 rebounds. And Don Nelson, with 12 points in 18 minutes, caught the 76ers completely off guard.

LAZERUSS

01-07-2014, 02:59 AM

The recaps say that Wilt outplayed Russell in the final 3 games. He definitely picked it up after the first two games. As you said, "Impact goes beyond stats." Then the very next sentence you cite his stats. :no: The Game 4 recap states that he nearly beat Boston "by himself". It is obvious the Celtics were sagging back defensively, keeping him from the ball. Even watching highlights of the series, they would full court press the point guard with KC Jones to make them use up clock in bringing the ball up. They would also shade Wilt before the ball even got in, daring the outside shooters to beat them. Anything to keep the ball out of Wilt's hands as often as possible.

Game 1

Wilt Chamberlain did his work under the boards, taking 32 rebounds for the 76ers. But his mates couldn't get the ball into him often and he made only nine field goals in scoring 25 points.

http://i.imgur.com/YoZNrZB.png

Game 2

http://i.imgur.com/uuDN9Ho.png

Game 3

Their defense was the barbed wire. Every time they needed a key basket, Wilt Chamberlain poured through the lane and got it for them. That was how the Philadelphia 76ers got back into contention in the Eastern Division playoffs with a 111-105 victory over the Boston Celtics Thursday night at Convention Hall.

http://i.imgur.com/cjoindE.png

Game 4

http://i.imgur.com/ZwbtKI9.png

Game 5

In the 1st half of G5, Coach Schayes noted that Chamberlain was the only player to shoot 25% or better from the field on his way to a 46 point night.

http://i.imgur.com/UTOrVIF.png

Christian Science Monitor - Apr 14, 1966

Wilt took 34 shots, hitting on 19. But he was only eight for 25 with his free throws. Chamberlain scored 46 points, no small since Russell played him tight and with a maximum amount of contact. But Wilt could have gone to 63 with Bill Sharman's touch at the foul line. Boston's cornermen excelled, not only, but also on offense. John Havlicek played the full 48 minutes and scored 32 points. Tom Sanders probably had his best game of the series with 11 points and 16 rebounds. And Don Nelson, with 12 points in 18 minutes, caught the 76ers completely off guard.

More gems.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

BTW, I find it fascinating that Russell gets credit for a "win" when he barely held Chamberlain under his normal averages, while getting killed in every stat himself.

Again, the Wilt DOUBLE-STANDARD. His opposing centers were hailed for holding Chamberlain to 30 point-25 rebound games.

I won't take the time to look up the exact quote, but Darrell Imhoff, who was one of the several Knick centers to give up 100 points to Wilt, played against him again a couple of nights later. In his words he said that he battled Chamberlain all night long. He fronted him, he backed him, he pounded him. He played his heart out. And when he finally left the court near the end of the game, he received the first and only standing ovation of his career. He had "held" Chamberlain to "only" 58 points.

julizaver

01-07-2014, 10:28 AM

Thurmond was never a big time scorer. Who cares is Wilt outscores him? Point is Wilt never got near his season averages vs. Nate. 28.6 ppg is nice but it's NOT domination.

Russell outplayed Wilt in the '69 Finals. Game 1, 2, 4, and 6 at least.

Game 1 draw at least.
Game 2 Rusell.
Game 3, 4 and 5 Wilt.
Game 6 Russell.
Game 7 Wilt.

Game 1 Wilt played strong defense, blocked 13 shots. Russell 4. Lakers won.
Game 5 Wilt with 7 blocked shots. Anyway he was the better player in that game.
Game 7 Wilt with "at least 10 blocked shots" (new info - I have the article on my PC) prior to his injury.

dankok8

01-07-2014, 12:34 PM

Game 1 draw at least.
Game 2 Rusell.
Game 3, 4 and 5 Wilt.
Game 6 Russell.
Game 7 Wilt.

Game 1 Wilt played strong defense, blocked 13 shots. Russell 4. Lakers won.
Game 5 Wilt with 7 blocked shots. Anyway he was the better player in that game.
Game 7 Wilt with "at least 10 blocked shots" (new info - I have the article on my PC) prior to his injury.

We agree on Game 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.

In Game 1 though, Russell got the better of Chamberlain at least according to recaps.

[QUOTE]1969 Finals

Game 1

Los Angeles won Game 1 in LA 120-118 behind Jerry West's career playoff high of 53 points (20-41 FG, 11-13 FT) and 10 assists.

julizaver

01-07-2014, 02:19 PM

We agree on Game 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.

In Game 1 though, Russell got the better of Chamberlain at least according to recaps.

I am not agree - find this article in which West crediting Wilt with "frezeing Russell":

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19690425&id=VktSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yXsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7208,2742452

And Lakers coach after the game:

Owl

01-07-2014, 03:01 PM

So few minutes that he "only" found the time to jack 21 shots (and only make 7 of them)?
Hey, if so, then also remove Wilt's Game 4 of the series vs Kareem, he also played few minutes for his standards. Without that game, Wilt averages 23.8/19.5/2.0 and Kareem 23.5/16.5/4.0.

My point exactly... Using cumulative stats is misleading. A player with the better line may have just killed the other player in one game and gotten slightly outplayed in all the others.
I don't think this is the point being made though. It's more, you can't pick and choose your evidence.

Can I decide that Walt Wesley, Tony Delk, Willie Burton and Tracy Murray had career 50ppg averages once I remove games that I deem irrelevent. Is there any justification for saying, "Well that game isn't significant, I'll ignore it"?

Outplaying someone in the first half when the game is decided means a lot. If Wilt's Warriors are down 25 points and then he scores 20 meaningless points when Russell doesn't defend him who cares? Russell could stop Wilt when he NEEDED TO... when the moment was big Russell usually got the better of Wilt. Looking at boxscores you wouldn't know that.
So lets get this straight, your contention is that Russell consistently allowed Chamberlain get bring dead games back into contention because he knew "he could stop him when he NEEDED TO"?

Is there any contemporary evidence to suggest anything like this ever happened?

dankok8

01-07-2014, 03:11 PM

I am not agree - find this article in which West crediting Wilt with "frezeing Russell":

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19690425&id=VktSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yXsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7208,2742452

And Lakers coach after the game:

“I’m sure Wilt must have intimidated some of their shooters,” commented Laker Coach Bill Van Breda Kolff of the 7-foot-2 Chamberlain, who’s playing his first season in Los Angeles.

Here's yet another newspaper recap and it calls the Wilt-Russell battle in Game 1 a "stand-off". Honestly it seems pretty close either way.

After Game 4, this was posted:

As expected, the two giants, player-coach Bill Russell of Boston and Wilt Chamberlain, have nullified each other. Statistics for four games show Chamberlain with a slight edge. The 7-foot-2 veteran has 43 points and 99 rebounds to 42 points and 95 rebounds for his 35-year-old arch rival.

The big men as far as scoring is concerned have been West, the talented 6-foot-3 guard, and the Celtics John Havlicek, the tireless forward-guard. West is averaging 39.5 points in the four encounters including a career playoff high of 53 points while Havlicek has a 33.7 averaged with 43 points in one game for a personal playoff best.

Anyways I think I would say:

Game 1 - Draw
Game 2 - Russell
Game 3 - Wilt
Game 4 - Draw
Game 5 - Wilt
Game 6 - Russell
Game 7 - Wilt

dankok8

01-07-2014, 03:16 PM

So lets get this straight, your contention is that Russell consistently allowed Chamberlain get bring dead games back into contention because he knew "he could stop him when he NEEDED TO"?

Is there any contemporary evidence to suggest anything like this ever happened?

No, my contention is that Wilt often put up meaningless stats in garbage time. That kind of comes with playing every minute of every game as well and we have strong indication of stat-padding in the game recaps.

Owl

01-07-2014, 04:11 PM

No, my contention is that Wilt often put up meaningless stats in garbage time. That kind of comes with playing every minute of every game as well and we have strong indication of stat-padding in the game recaps.
Whilst Russell (and Robertson other 60s stars) always kept a tight limit on his minutes?

And feel free to post those recaps.

julizaver

01-07-2014, 05:10 PM

Here's yet another newspaper recap and it calls the Wilt-Russell battle in Game 1 a "stand-off". Honestly it seems pretty close either way.

After Game 4, this was posted:

Anyways I think I would say:

Game 1 - Draw
Game 2 - Russell
Game 3 - Wilt
Game 4 - Draw
Game 5 - Wilt
Game 6 - Russell
Game 7 - Wilt

I could agree with that - so we have 3:2 edge for Wilt in '69 series.

Unfortunately we could have created another thread and discussed it there.
But that's the way with Thurmond - to be overshadowed by Russell, Wilt and Kareem, even W.Reed received more recognition than him (due to two NBA titles).
Sadly he had a hell lot of injuries - it seems that they robbed him a bit of his prime. Just by memory (reading articles) - even in his first two seasons after Wilt departure from Warriors he had issues with his back, he started 66-67 relatively healthy but again he was injured, and again in the next three years when he was supposed to hit his prime he suffered multiple injuries (knees, wrist, muscle injuries and so on). He missed 90 games (roughly estimated) between 1966 and 1970. Also missed the '68 playoffs. Maybe some injuries could be due to his style of play, always giving all - chasing everything.
He was highly appreciated by his colleagues, earning respect from all of them, but was quickly forgotten by the public.
He really beat Kareem in the 3 meetings during Kareem's rookie season - and the Warriors won 2 of them. In their first meeting Kareem was 42 min (7-20 FGs, 2-3 FTs), for 16 pts., 5 rebs and 2 asts.

LAZERUSS

01-07-2014, 07:18 PM

Game 4

In Game 4, Russell had 18 points and 30 rebounds to Chamberlain’s 15 points and 33 rebounds in “a virtual standoff,” and Boston won 114-108 in overtime to take a 3-1 lead. Boston led 28-26 after one, but Philadelphia scored 13 straight points early in the second quarter to take a 54-49 lead at the half. They led 76-70 in the third quarter. Trailing 96-89, Havlicek scored, and Sam Jones was credited with a basket after a goaltend by Chamberlain. Luke Jackson hit a pair of free throws, and Satch Sanders scored from eight feet for Boston. Bill Russell scored on an offensive rebound, and Sam Jones hit a jumper to put Boston up for the first time in the second half, 99-98. Hal Greer gave the 76ers the lead with a breakaway basket, but K.C. Jones tied the score at 100 on a pair of free throws with 39 seconds left. “With the score deadlocked 100-100, Boston’s Bill Russell and Philadelphia’s Wilt Chamberlain matched brilliant defensive plays” (Gettysburg Times, Apr. 11, 1966). Russell blocked a layup by Luke Jackson with 12 seconds left, then on the other end, Chamberlain blocked a dunk by Russell with one second left to send the game into overtime. In overtime, the Celtics controlled the tip, Russell slapping it to Havlicek, who scored on an eight-footer and put Boston up to stay. Russell scored on another offensive rebound, then Dave Gambee made a free throw. Sam Jones hit a 10-footer and Larry Siegfried hit a free throw to give Boston a decisive lead. Russell out-rebounded Chamberlain 19-13 in the second half. John Havlicek led Boston with 27 points, Sam Jones had 22, Larry Siegfried had 18, and K.C. Jones, “a surprise starter after having an ailing knee heavily taped,” had 19 (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Apr. 11, 1966).

Wilt: 15/33/3 (7/14, 1/4)
Russell: 18/30/7 (7/15, 4/10)

Interesting....this is the ONE game in that series in which Russell wasn't badly outplayed ...and YOUR recap gives them a "virtual standoff"...

And then PHILA's newpaper recap of the SAME game declares that Wilt nearly beat Boston by himself.

The ONE game in that series that Russell wasn't just abused by Chamberlain.

LAZERUSS

01-07-2014, 07:36 PM

No, my contention is that Wilt often put up meaningless stats in garbage time. That kind of comes with playing every minute of every game as well and we have strong indication of stat-padding in the game recaps.

How about Chamberlain's 62-63 season then?

And yes, I know what you are going to say..."Wilt was definitely a "stats-padder" that season, his team only went 31-49."

BUT, Chamberlain played 47.6 mpg that season, and with perhaps the worst roster ever assembled (Hannum was horrified when these veterans, sans Wilt, couldn't even beat some rookies and retreads in a scrimmage the very next season)...

They lost 35 games by single digits. They only had eight games in which the margin was 20+ (and they went 4-4 in those.) And they only had a -2.1 scoring differential.

And how about their H2H's with Boston that season? Here again, a Wilt-basher would say, "look, Russell led Boston to an 8-1 record against Wilt's team." All but three of those nine games were decided by single digits, one of which was won by San Francisco, and none of them involved substantial leads going into the 4th quarter.

Here was Russell and his EIGHT other HOFers, struggling to beat a Chamberlain who had NO HOF help. In fact, take Wilt and Russell out of the equation, and man-for-man Boston was not only better...but MUCH better. And all Chamberlain did in those nine H2H's was outscore Russell by a 38-14 ppg margin, and, as always, he outrebounded him.

THAT Chamberlain would LEAD the league in 15 of their 22 statistical categories, including PER (and all-time record), and Win Shares (by a country mile at 20.9, and on a team that won 31 games.) And had the league recorded TRB%, offensive and defensive rebounds; and blocked shots, and there was a good chance that Wilt would have led in those, as well.

Of course, the Wilt-detractors will never mention that in his 65-66 season, Chamberlain again led in 13 of 23 categories, and was top-5 in four more. And, he also led them to the BEST RECORD in the league, as well. In fact, he is the only player in NBA history to lead the NBA in scoring, rebounding, and FG% in the same season (which he did three times BTW) as well as taking that team to the best record in the league.

What changed? Wilt played exactly the same way...ALL OUT...but far different results. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, his TEAMMATES had something to with that.

And HONESTLY ask yourself this...swap Wilt with Russell in '63, and who wins a ring? In fact, HONESTLY ask this...swap Wilt with Russell from '60 thru '66, and how many rings do they each win?

Had Wilt not been injured in retaliation to the brutality he was receiving in the '60 EDF's, which clearly cost his team two games, and in a series in which Boston won 4-2, with a two point game six win...and how does that series go? Even with his outmatched roster.

In '62, again, with a roster, the core of which was the same last place team that Wilt inherited in his rookie season, only older and worse...and collectively shooting .354 in that post-season...Chamberlain single-handedly carried them to a game seven, two point loss against a HOF-laden Celtic team that went 60-20.

In '64, and outgunned 8-2 in HOFers (and BTW, Wilt's lone HOF teammate was a rookie, playing part-time, out of position, and shooting .395), he still pummelled Russell in the Finals. And while Boston won that series, 4-1, the last two games were decided in the waning seconds.

In '65, Chamberlain was traded at mid-season to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before (for THREE players BTW), and led them to a 40-40 record. In the first round of the playoffs, Wilt guided his team to a 3-1 series romp over a STACKED 48-32 Royals team. Then, in the EDF's, and against a 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of their dynasty, he nearly pulled off perhaps the greatest upset in NBA history, when he single-handedly carried that team to a game seven, one point loss....in a series in which just destroyed Russell with a 30 ppg, 31 rpg, .555 FG% performance.

Tell me again...who wins those rings?

dankok8

01-08-2014, 12:47 AM

How about Chamberlain's 62-63 season then?

And yes, I know what you are going to say..."Wilt was definitely a "stats-padder" that season, his team only went 31-49."

BUT, Chamberlain played 47.6 mpg that season, and with perhaps the worst roster ever assembled (Hannum was horrified when these veterans, sans Wilt, couldn't even beat some rookies and retreads in a scrimmage the very next season)...

They lost 35 games by single digits. They only had eight games in which the margin was 20+ (and they went 4-4 in those.) And they only had a -2.1 scoring differential.

And how about their H2H's with Boston that season? Here again, a Wilt-basher would say, "look, Russell led Boston to an 8-1 record against Wilt's team." All but three of those nine games were decided by single digits, one of which was won by San Francisco, and none of them involved substantial leads going into the 4th quarter.

Here was Russell and his EIGHT other HOFers, struggling to beat a Chamberlain who had NO HOF help. In fact, take Wilt and Russell out of the equation, and man-for-man Boston was not only better...but MUCH better. And all Chamberlain did in those nine H2H's was outscore Russell by a 38-14 ppg margin, and, as always, he outrebounded him.

THAT Chamberlain would LEAD the league in 15 of their 22 statistical categories, including PER (and all-time record), and Win Shares (by a country mile at 20.9, and on a team that won 31 games.) And had the league recorded TRB%, offensive and defensive rebounds; and blocked shots, and there was a good chance that Wilt would have led in those, as well.

Of course, the Wilt-detractors will never mention that in his 65-66 season, Chamberlain again led in 13 of 23 categories, and was top-5 in four more. And, he also led them to the BEST RECORD in the league, as well. In fact, he is the only player in NBA history to lead the NBA in scoring, rebounding, and FG% in the same season (which he did three times BTW) as well as taking that team to the best record in the league.

What changed? Wilt played exactly the same way...ALL OUT...but far different results. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, his TEAMMATES had something to with that.

And HONESTLY ask yourself this...swap Wilt with Russell in '63, and who wins a ring? In fact, HONESTLY ask this...swap Wilt with Russell from '60 thru '66, and how many rings do they each win?

Had Wilt not been injured in retaliation to the brutality he was receiving in the '60 EDF's, which clearly cost his team two games, and in a series in which Boston won 4-2, with a two point game six win...and how does that series go? Even with his outmatched roster.

In '62, again, with a roster, the core of which was the same last place team that Wilt inherited in his rookie season, only older and worse...and collectively shooting .354 in that post-season...Chamberlain single-handedly carried them to a game seven, two point loss against a HOF-laden Celtic team that went 60-20.

In '64, and outgunned 8-2 in HOFers (and BTW, Wilt's lone HOF teammate was a rookie, playing part-time, out of position, and shooting .395), he still pummelled Russell in the Finals. And while Boston won that series, 4-1, the last two games were decided in the waning seconds.

In '65, Chamberlain was traded at mid-season to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before (for THREE players BTW), and led them to a 40-40 record. In the first round of the playoffs, Wilt guided his team to a 3-1 series romp over a STACKED 48-32 Royals team. Then, in the EDF's, and against a 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of their dynasty, he nearly pulled off perhaps the greatest upset in NBA history, when he single-handedly carried that team to a game seven, one point loss....in a series in which just destroyed Russell with a 30 ppg, 31 rpg, .555 FG% performance.

Tell me again...who wins those rings?

In '61 playoffs Wilt's 46-win Warriors were swept by a 38-win Nats team in the first round.

According to papers Wilt played "uninspired basketball" in the 62-63 season. I'm not gonna say those were empty stats but he wasn't particularly impactful. That much is clear when your team wins just 31 games.

In 64-65 the poor guy had heart problems so I'll cut him some slack but his Warrior team was still a woeful 10-28 before he got traded.

LAZERUSS

01-08-2014, 01:56 AM

In '61 playoffs Wilt's 46-win Warriors were swept by a 38-win Nats team in the first round.

According to papers Wilt played "uninspired basketball" in the 62-63 season. I'm not gonna say those were empty stats but he wasn't particularly impactful. That much is clear when your team wins just 31 games.

In 64-65 the poor guy had heart problems so I'll cut him some slack but his Warrior team was still a woeful 10-28 before he got traded.

In the '61 playoffs, Chamberlain averaged 37 ppg, 23 rpg, and shot .467 in a post-season NBA that shot .403. BTW, how did Wilt's TEAMMATES collectively shoot in that series? Yep... .332.

Uninspired basketball is what Kareem brought to the 75-76 Lakers. His numbers declined dramatically from his "front-running" days with the early 70's Bucks. If Chamberlain could only finish seventh in the MVP voting in '63, how in the hell did KAJ win the award in '76 (and McAdoo was clearly more deserving)? In any case, when a lowly Laker team needed Kareem to put up "Wilt-type" numbers, he folded his tent.

In the 64-65 season, Wilt was traded mid-season to a 34-46 Sixer team that had not made the playoffs the year before. He SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried that 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss to a HOF-laden 62-18 Celtic team at their apex...and blew Russell away in the process.

Interesting too, that Chamberlain's second best player on his 63-64 Warrior team was Tom Meschery, who averaged 13 ppg. And that 64-65 Warrior team went 7-36 without Wilt (and with Nate filling in.) In any case, in 65-66 they essentially moved Thurmond to Wilt's slot, where he would become a HOFer, and added rookie Rick Barry. The result... 35-45. Here were TWO HOFers essentially replacing one, and still not equalling Wilt's dominance in '64.

But it gets even better. The Warriors then add Jeff Mullins, Fred Hetzel, Jim King, and Clyde Lee to their 66-67 roster. Meschery would go on to average 11 ppg in that '67 season, too...and was SF's SEVENTH best player. Hell, Thurmond had an 18-20 season, and Rick Barry put up the highest fulltime "non-Wilt" scoring season in the Chamberlain era, with a 35.6 ppg season. With that LOADED roster, and in an expansion season... a 44-37! With all of the talent that 66-67 Warrior roster had, they could not even equal Chamberlain's one-man wrecking crew season of 48-32 in 63-64.

Of course, Chamberlain would lead the Sixers to the best record in the NBA in his three full seasons there, and a dominating world title. Oh, and they easily dispatched the Warriors in the Finals, too.

LAZERUSS

01-08-2014, 02:22 AM

I could agree with that - so we have 3:2 edge for Wilt in '69 series.

Unfortunately we could have created another thread and discussed it there.
But that's the way with Thurmond - to be overshadowed by Russell, Wilt and Kareem, even W.Reed received more recognition than him (due to two NBA titles).
Sadly he had a hell lot of injuries - it seems that they robbed him a bit of his prime. Just by memory (reading articles) - even in his first two seasons after Wilt departure from Warriors he had issues with his back, he started 66-67 relatively healthy but again he was injured, and again in the next three years when he was supposed to hit his prime he suffered multiple injuries (knees, wrist, muscle injuries and so on). He missed 90 games (roughly estimated) between 1966 and 1970. Also missed the '68 playoffs. Maybe some injuries could be due to his style of play, always giving all - chasing everything.
He was highly appreciated by his colleagues, earning respect from all of them, but was quickly forgotten by the public.
He really beat Kareem in the 3 meetings during Kareem's rookie season - and the Warriors won 2 of them. In their first meeting Kareem was 42 min (7-20 FGs, 2-3 FTs), for 16 pts., 5 rebs and 2 asts.

From 69-70 thru his last good season, 72-73, Thurmond DRAMATICALLY reduced KAJ's scoring and efficiency.

Think about this.. from the 69-70 season, thru the 72-73 season, KAJ averaged 31.4 ppg on .556 against the entire NBA. In the span of 34 total H2H's (regular season and playoffs) with Nate, he averaged about 24 ppg on .440 shooting...with a high game of 34 points (and only five of 30+.)

And in those 16 playoff H2H games... 24.3 ppg on .442 shooting, with only TWO 30+ point games, and a high of 33 points. A PEAK KAJ against an aging Nate.

dankok8

01-08-2014, 01:46 PM

Actually Kareem from 69-70 to 73-74 averaged 24.9 ppg, 13.9 rpg, and 3.8 apg on 47.8% shooting against Nate in the regular season. In the playoffs 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, 2.9 apg on 43.8% shooting. He struggled offensively but he also held Nate to 18.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.8 apg on 40.4% shooting in the postseason.

Starting from 67-68 season Wilt was almost always either outplayed by Nate or at least played to a draw. From 64-65 to 66-67 he had some good games (and also many games where he struggled... we have the full numbers) but Nate was young then and not nearly at his best as you claim. Thurmond's peak was from '69 to '73 both offensively and defensively.

1964-1965 (3 games)

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

1965-1966 (9 games)

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

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

1966-1967 (6 games)

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

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

1967 Finals (6 games)

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

1967-1968 (4 games)

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

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

1968-1969 (6 games)

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

1969 WD Round 1 (6 games)

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

1970-1971 (6 games)

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

1971-1972 (6 games)

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

1972-1973 (7 games)

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

1973 WCF (5 games)

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

Overall out of their 47 regular season H2H's:

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

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

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

Overall out of their 17 playoff H2H's:

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

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

- Wilt's scoring volume and efficiency were drastically reduced

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

julizaver

01-08-2014, 03:02 PM

dankok8

01-08-2014, 03:33 PM

Nate peak was from 1966-67 season, he finished second behind Wilt for MVP race.

66-67 was his first prime season but his MVP finish has more to do with a down year from the Celtics and Lakers. In subsequent years Nate became a better player. He had more defensive impact (DWS and team defense) as well as significantly better scoring with superior efficiency and improved passing. In '67 Nate was just 25 years old playing his 2nd year as a full-time center. I bet his jumper improved and he got a lot of invaluable experience under his belt as well.

La Frescobaldi

01-08-2014, 08:42 PM

I could agree with that - so we have 3:2 edge for Wilt in '69 series.

Unfortunately we could have created another thread and discussed it there.
But that's the way with Thurmond - to be overshadowed by Russell, Wilt and Kareem, even W.Reed received more recognition than him (due to two NBA titles).
Sadly he had a hell lot of injuries - it seems that they robbed him a bit of his prime. Just by memory (reading articles) - even in his first two seasons after Wilt departure from Warriors he had issues with his back, he started 66-67 relatively healthy but again he was injured, and again in the next three years when he was supposed to hit his prime he suffered multiple injuries (knees, wrist, muscle injuries and so on). He missed 90 games (roughly estimated) between 1966 and 1970. Also missed the '68 playoffs. Maybe some injuries could be due to his style of play, always giving all - chasing everything.
He was highly appreciated by his colleagues, earning respect from all of them, but was quickly forgotten by the public.
He really beat Kareem in the 3 meetings during Kareem's rookie season - and the Warriors won 2 of them. In their first meeting Kareem was 42 min (7-20 FGs, 2-3 FTs), for 16 pts., 5 rebs and 2 asts.

Not just the two rings about Willis Reed though.

http://www.joelkimmel.com/uploaded_images/1970-761951.jpg

Dude played in a huge media bubble, especially in the 1960s. Unlike today... when anybody with cable tv can watch just about any game they want, and even more with league pass, internet, etc..... back then even local tv might not cover games. National tv wasn't going to be happening at all except for the Sunday afternoon Celtics - Sixers matchups. San Francisco was remote, isolated from the East Coast by an entire continent in days when 2 lane interstate highways were not just a novelty, they were amazing feats of engineering. It was the Jet Age, you follow?

Still, Reed was an incredible presence on the court, with a game style for a center that was almost unique in history. He was incredibly strong with a powerful core that couldn't be moved at all. It was like trying to move an oak tree. His passing was better than Nate's and that's saying a lot. When Reed was on fire he could just ignite the entire arena with excitement.
Of course too, his teammates were immeasurably better than Frisco, which only made Captain Reed shine all the brighter.

Psileas

01-08-2014, 11:05 PM

66-67 was his first prime season but his MVP finish has more to do with a down year from the Celtics and Lakers. In subsequent years Nate became a better player. He had more defensive impact (DWS and team defense) as well as significantly better scoring with superior efficiency and improved passing. In '67 Nate was just 25 years old playing his 2nd year as a full-time center. I bet his jumper improved and he got a lot of invaluable experience under his belt as well.

DWS are dependent on how many wins your team gets, so, as long as Phili and Boston dominated the W's, this number doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. Even worse, Thurmond missed 16 games in the 1967 season, meaning his DWS numbers are deflated. Also, his career high in assists came in 1968 and in 1966-69, he was at his apex as a rebounder, as well. Apart from added experience, I see no real reason to believe that 1970-1974 Thurmond was any better or impactful than his 1967-69 version.

LAZERUSS

01-08-2014, 11:58 PM

Actually Kareem from 69-70 to 73-74 averaged 24.9 ppg, 13.9 rpg, and 3.8 apg on 47.8% shooting against Nate in the regular season. In the playoffs 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, 2.9 apg on 43.8% shooting. He struggled offensively but he also held Nate to 18.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.8 apg on 40.4% shooting in the postseason.

Starting from 67-68 season Wilt was almost always either outplayed by Nate or at least played to a draw. From 64-65 to 66-67 he had some good games (and also many games where he struggled... we have the full numbers) but Nate was young then and not nearly at his best as you claim. Thurmond's peak was from '69 to '73 both offensively and defensively.

In Chamberlain's "scoring" prime (64-65 thru 65-66), in 12 H2H's with Nate, he averaged 28.8 ppg, 25.2 rpg and in the five H2H's we have the FG%'s, he shot .517. Nate averaged 16.8 ppg in all of 12, and we only have his rebounding data from seven, in which he averaged 22.1 rpg.

And we do have all the info from Wilt's three 64-65 H2H's... 29.7 ppg, 24.3 rpg, and on an unfathomable .565 FG%. Think about that... 30-24- .565. No one else approached those numbers against Nate.

You claim that you believe that Chamberlain shot less than 50% against Nate in 65-66, and I would argue that he shot over it. Here again, we only have TWO of his 9 H2H games, and he shot 17-32 in one and 8-22 in the other. He shot .565 in all three of his H2H's in 64-65, and over the course of the entire 65-66 season, he shot much better against the NBA than he did in 64-65.

Not only that, but in their first 12 H2H games, Wilt not only outscored Thurmond 11-1, he was outscoring him by margins of 34-25, 33-19, 33-17, 26-9, 30-10, 38-15, and an eye-popping 45-13.

And in their seven games in which we have rebounding data, Wilt went 5-2. Nate did beat him in one 32-21, but Chamberlain outrebounded Thurmond by margins of 31-23, 30-19, and even 29-10.

If you include their very first H2H game in the 66-67 season (which came after his "scoring" seasons), in which Hannum instructed his Sixers to feed Wilt in the second half, and he responded with 24 second half points (demonstrating his REAL scoring capability)...in a game in which he outscored Thurmond, 30-13, Wilt averaged 28.9 ppg, 25.2 rpg, and again, probably well over 50% from the field.

Furthermore, if you include their five regular season H2H's and six H2H's in the Finals, with their first 12 H2H games, a "prime" Wilt outscored Nate by a 20-2-1 margin, and outrebounded him in their 17 known H2H's, 12-5.

And we don't know what Nate shot against Chamberlain in the vast majority of their H2H's, but we do have their H2H FG% numbers in their three playoff series, covering 17 games. Wilt outshot Nate by margins of .500 - .392; .560 - .343 (a prime Wilt and a prime Nate BTW); and .611 to .373.

And as Julizaver's research has shown, Chamberlain easily outplayed Nate in the '69 and '73 playoffs, and Wilt just crushed him in every aspect of the '67 Finals.

dankok8

01-09-2014, 01:18 AM

In Chamberlain's "scoring" prime (64-65 thru 65-66), in 12 H2H's with Nate, he averaged 28.8 ppg, 25.2 rpg and in the five H2H's we have the FG%'s, he shot .517. Nate averaged 16.8 ppg in all of 12, and we only have his rebounding data from seven, in which he averaged 22.1 rpg.

And we do have all the info from Wilt's three 64-65 H2H's... 29.7 ppg, 24.3 rpg, and on an unfathomable .565 FG%. Think about that... 30-24- .565. No one else approached those numbers against Nate.

You claim that you believe that Chamberlain shot less than 50% against Nate in 65-66, and I would argue that he shot over it. Here again, we only have TWO of his 9 H2H games, and he shot 17-32 in one and 8-22 in the other. He shot .565 in all three of his H2H's in 64-65, and over the course of the entire 65-66 season, he shot much better against the NBA than he did in 64-65.

Not only that, but in their first 12 H2H games, Wilt not only outscored Thurmond 11-1, he was outscoring him by margins of 34-25, 33-19, 33-17, 26-9, 30-10, 38-15, and an eye-popping 45-13.

And in their seven games in which we have rebounding data, Wilt went 5-2. Nate did beat him in one 32-21, but Chamberlain outrebounded Thurmond by margins of 31-23, 30-19, and even 29-10.

If you include their very first H2H game in the 66-67 season (which came after his "scoring" seasons), in which Hannum instructed his Sixers to feed Wilt in the second half, and he responded with 24 second half points (demonstrating his REAL scoring capability)...in a game in which he outscored Thurmond, 30-13, Wilt averaged 28.9 ppg, 25.2 rpg, and again, probably well over 50% from the field.

Furthermore, if you include their five regular season H2H's and six H2H's in the Finals, with their first 12 H2H games, a "prime" Wilt outscored Nate by a 20-2-1 margin, and outrebounded him in their 17 known H2H's, 12-5.

And we don't know what Nate shot against Chamberlain in the vast majority of their H2H's, but we do have their H2H FG% numbers in their three playoff series, covering 17 games. Wilt outshot Nate by margins of .500 - .392; .560 - .343 (a prime Wilt and a prime Nate BTW); and .611 to .373.

And as Julizaver's research has shown, Chamberlain easily outplayed Nate in the '69 and '73 playoffs, and Wilt just crushed him in every aspect of the '67 Finals.

You're posting some wrong stats.

In 64-65 (3 games) Wilt averaged 26.7 ppg, 27.3 rpg, and 2.7 apg on exactly 50.0% from the field. He games of 34, 24, and 22 points.

In 65-66 (9 games) Wilt averaged 28.6 ppg and 25.4 rpg on Nate. In the 2 games we have FG% he shot 46.3% from the field. He had games of 45, 38, 33, 30, 26, 25, 23, 22, and 15 points.

Those scoring averages are well in line with what Kareem put up on prime Nate in the early 70's.

In 66-67 (7 games) Wilt averaged 20.8 ppg, 25.0 rpg, and 8.5 apg on Nate and in the 3 games we have FG% he shot 51.1%. He had games of 30, 27, 23, 16, 15, and 14 points.

In the '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but not by some kind of enormous margin. Rebounding was rather close and Nate played some pretty inspired defense in the series.

'67 Finals

Wilt: 17.7 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg on 56.0 %FG/30.6 %FT/49.7 %TS in 47.8 mpg
Nate: 14.2 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 3.3 apg on 34.3 %FG/54.8 %FT/37.7 %TS in 47.3 mpg

In 67-68 (4 games) Wilt averaged 13.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, and 7.0 apg on Nate. We have FG% in 3 of the 4 games and Wilt shot a pathetic 37.9%. Nate averaged 15.0 ppg and 26.8 rpg in his games against Wilt.

Overall in the 29 games (including 6 finals) that Wilt faced Nate in his prime (64-65 until 67-68) he had JUST 6 games of 30+ points.

Beyond this point from 68-69 and later Wilt was out of his prime and Nate outscored and outrebounded him in the majority of the remaining games.

And Wilt did not easily outplay Nate in '69 Round 1 or '73 WCF. That's just crazy talk. Instead of looking at just rpg and FG% also look at the number of shots each person took, the assists, and the free throw shooting. I don't want to break down each game now and pull out articles but take my word for it Wilt didn't clearly outplay let alone dominate Thurmond in either series.

'69 Round 1

Wilt: 12.0 ppg, 23.5 rpg, 2.5 apg on 50.0 %FG/32.4 %FT/47.2 %TS in 43.7 mpg
Nate: 16.7 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 4.7 apg on 39.2 %FG/58.8 %FT/42.7 %TS in 42.2 mpg

'73 WCF

Wilt: 7.0 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 3.8 apg on 61.1 %FG/72.2 %FT/62.7 %TS in 45.0 mpg
Nate: 15.8 ppg, 17.2 rpg, 4.2 apg on 37.3 %FG/81.0 %FT/42.8 %TS in 42.2 mpg

LAZERUSS

01-09-2014, 02:38 AM

You're posting some wrong stats.

In 64-65 (3 games) Wilt averaged 26.7 ppg, 27.3 rpg, and 2.7 apg on exactly 50.0% from the field. He games of 34, 24, and 22 points.

In 65-66 (9 games) Wilt averaged 28.6 ppg and 25.4 rpg on Nate. In the 2 games we have FG% he shot 46.3% from the field. He had games of 45, 38, 33, 30, 26, 25, 23, 22, and 15 points.

Those scoring averages are well in line with what Kareem put up on prime Nate in the early 70's.

In 66-67 (7 games) Wilt averaged 20.8 ppg, 25.0 rpg, and 8.5 apg on Nate and in the 3 games we have FG% he shot 51.1%. He had games of 30, 27, 23, 16, 15, and 14 points.

In the '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but not by some kind of enormous margin. Rebounding was rather close and Nate played some pretty inspired defense in the series.

'67 Finals

Wilt: 17.7 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg on 56.0 %FG/30.6 %FT/49.7 %TS in 47.8 mpg
Nate: 14.2 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 3.3 apg on 34.3 %FG/54.8 %FT/37.7 %TS in 47.3 mpg

In 67-68 (4 games) Wilt averaged 13.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, and 7.0 apg on Nate. We have FG% in 3 of the 4 games and Wilt shot a pathetic 37.9%. Nate averaged 15.0 ppg and 26.8 rpg in his games against Wilt.

Overall in the 29 games (including 6 finals) that Wilt faced Nate in his prime (64-65 until 67-68) he had JUST 6 games of 30+ points.

Beyond this point from 68-69 and later Wilt was out of his prime and Nate outscored and outrebounded him in the majority of the remaining games.

And Wilt did not easily outplay Nate in '69 Round 1 or '73 WCF. That's just crazy talk. Instead of looking at just rpg and FG% also look at the number of shots each person took, the assists, and the free throw shooting. I don't want to break down each game now and pull out articles but take my word for it Wilt didn't clearly outplay let alone dominate Thurmond in either series.

'69 Round 1

Wilt: 12.0 ppg, 23.5 rpg, 2.5 apg on 50.0 %FG/32.4 %FT/47.2 %TS in 43.7 mpg
Nate: 16.7 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 4.7 apg on 39.2 %FG/58.8 %FT/42.7 %TS in 42.2 mpg

'73 WCF

Wilt: 7.0 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 3.8 apg on 61.1 %FG/72.2 %FT/62.7 %TS in 45.0 mpg
Nate: 15.8 ppg, 17.2 rpg, 4.2 apg on 37.3 %FG/81.0 %FT/42.8 %TS in 42.2 mpg

You are right about 64-65. Nate had a habit of "ducking" Wilt thorughout their career H2H's, and the one game I looked at was a Wilt 33-18 game on 13-25 shooting. So, a "scoring" Wilt averaged 28.1 ppg against Nate in his first 12 games, and if you include their first H2H in '67, it was 28.2 ppg in 13. And in their last H2H game of '65, thru their nine H2H's in '66, and even into their first H2H of '67, covering 11 straight games, Chamberlain averaged 29.2 ppg.

Oh, and in their first 13 H2H games, a prime "scoring" Chamberlain had those SIX 30+ point games, which was more than KAJ put on a healthy Nate in their 39 H2H's thru the 73-74 season (and actually Nate was nowhere near healthy in 73-74 either, and was already beginning a steep decline after the 72-73 season.) And again, KAJ never put up games of 38 against Nate, much less than an overwhelming 45 point game.

And yes, Julizaver's recaps of both '69 and '73 were clearly a solid "win" by Wilt over Nate. And Chamberlain just crushed Thurmond in the '67 Finals. He outscored him in five of the six games; outrebounded him in five of the six games; outassisted him in five of the six games; and outshot him in all six (and by a staggering margin.)

Here were their 68-69 H2H's...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=321075

I would give them a tie in game one, and perhaps a tie in game five (Nate outscored Wilt in that game, but Chamberlain slaughtered him on the glass, and blocked 10 shots.) After that, a solid 4-0 for Wilt.

And, of course, we have the OP, in which I would give Nate game four, possibly a "win" in game one (but more likely a tie), and then Wilt handily "won" the other 3... in a blowout series win. Interesting too, because Nate led the Warriors over KAJ's 60-22 Bucks in the first round, but was easily outplayed by Wilt in this series.

And the 66-67 Finals were really epitomized by the clinching game six. Wilt outscored Nate, 23-12; outrebounded him, 23-22; and dramatically outshot him the field, 8-13 to 4-13. He was doing that the entire series. And in the games in which blocks were recorded, Chamberlain had at least two games of 10 (and in one of them, probably 15.)

Psileas

01-09-2014, 10:55 AM

In the '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but not by some kind of enormous margin. Rebounding was rather close and Nate played some pretty inspired defense in the series.

'67 Finals

Wilt: 17.7 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg on 56.0 %FG/30.6 %FT/49.7 %TS in 47.8 mpg
Nate: 14.2 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 3.3 apg on 34.3 %FG/54.8 %FT/37.7 %TS in 47.3 mpg

Given that, not only did he outperform Thurmond in every single category in which they didn't guard each other (btw, since you count FT's, count fouls as well: Thurmond commited 20, Wilt 16), he did so practically game-by-game. He outscored him all but once, outrebounded him all but once (though by small margins), outassisted him in all games (and not by small margins), outshot him in all games and probably outblocked him overall as well (more references exist about Wilt's blocked shots), so for me that's some pretty thorough outplaying.
Look at it this way: In the 1992 Finals, Jordan held a decisive advantage only in scoring and FG%. Drexler actually beat Jordan in some fields, yet it's still considered domination on Jordan's part. This series, to be, belongs in the same category. Yes, Wilt wasn't putting up 30-40 point games, but he wasn't giving up 25-30 point games, either.

clutchinho

01-09-2014, 11:03 AM

dankok8

01-09-2014, 01:02 PM

In '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but he did not DOMINATE him. The stats are a bit close though in Wilt's favor for sure.

The comparison to Jordan-Drexler is a huge stretch. Jordan put up 11 more ppg on better efficiency and also outassisted Clyde. MJ killed Clyde in that series and I can say so because I watched it as well.

'69 Round 1

Game 1 26.03.1969 - SFW win 99-94

Wilt 48 min 11 pts (5-11 FG, 1-3 FT), 30 rebs, 3 asts
Nate 48 min 15 pts (6-16 FG, 3-6 FT), 27 rebs, 8 asts

Game 2 28.03.1969 - SFW win 107-101

Wilt 41 min 10 pts (4-10 FG, 2-9 FT), 17 rebs, 1 asts
Nate 48 min 27 pts (11-18 FG, 5-6 FT), 28 rebs, 4 asts, 14 blks

Game 3 31.03.1969 - Lakers win 115-98

Wilt 44 min 22 pts (9-14 FG, 4-13 FT), 28 rebs, 5 asts, 8 blks
Nate 44 min 22 pts (8-20 FG, 6-11 FT), 20 rebs, 5 asts, 8 blks

Game 4 02.04.1969 - Lakers win 103-88

Wilt 42 min 11 pts (4-10 FG, 3-6 FT), 14 rebs, 3 asts, 9 blks
Nate 36 min 10 pts (3-13 FG, 4-5 FT), 15 rebs, 4 asts, 3 blks

Game 5 04.04.1969 - Lakers win 103-98

Wilt 48 min 7 pts (3-6 FG, 1-3 FT), 27 rebs, 2 asts, 10 blks
Nate 48 min 18 pts (9-22 FG, 0-3 FT), 13 rebs, 6 asts

Game 6 05.04.1969 - Lakers win 118-78

Wilt 39 min 11 pts (5-9 FG, 1-3 FT), 25 rebs, 1 ast, 10 blks
Nate 29 min 8 pts (3-13 FG, 2-3 FT), 14 rebs, 1 ast

Game 1 and 2 are a win for Nate. Game 3, 4, and 5 look pretty damn close either way and Game 6 is clear edge Wilt.

Overall in the series even if you want to give Wilt an edge in another game he still didn't dominate or even clearly outplay Nate all-together. In fact there is as much of an argument for the opposite Nate > Wilt.

And if I remember correctly a big reason cited for the Warriors' collapse from a 2-0 lead in the series was the injury of all-star guard Jeff Mullins. He scored 56 points in the first two games and just 30 points in the last four games combined.

'73 WCF

Game 1 17.04.1973 - Lakers win 101-99

Wilt 44 min 4 pts (2-5 FG, 0-0 FT), 25 rebs, 2 asts, 8 blks
Nate 48 min 22 pts (8-21 FG, 6-7 FT), 26 rebs, 5 asts

Game 2 19.04.1973 - Lakers win 104-93

Wilt 48 min 5 pts (1-3 FG, 3-4 FT), 30 rebs, 4 asts, 7* blks
Nate 47 min 16 pts (8-20 FG, 0-0 FT), 14 rebs, 6 asts

Game 3 21.04.1973 - Lakers win 126-70

Wilt 39 min 12 pts (2-2 FG, 8-10 FT), 23 rebs, 3 asts, 8 blks
Nate 37 min 9 pts (3-13 FG, 3-4 FT), 13 rebs, 2 asts

Game 4 23.04.1973 - Warriors win 117-109

Wilt 48 min 9 pts (4-6 FG, 1-1 FT), 16 rebs, 3 asts
Nate 47 min 23 pts (10-20 FG, 3-3 FT), 18 rebs, 3 asts

Game 5 25.04.1973 - Lakers win 128-118

Wilt 46 min 5 pts (2-2 FG, 1-3 FT), 22 rebs, 7 asts, 6 blks
Nate 32 min 9 pts (2-9 FG, 5-7 FT), 15 rebs, 5 asts

Game 1 is definite edge Nate.

Game 2 and 3 are slight edge Wilt.

Game 4 is definite edge Nate.

Game 5 is definite edge Wilt.

Overall this series is a wash. It's 3:2 Wilt but it seems Nate won his games by larger margins.

Owl

01-09-2014, 02:31 PM

In '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but he did not DOMINATE him. The stats are a bit close though in Wilt's favor for sure.
Twelve percent gap in TS%. Close?!?!

All else being equal that's a huge amount.

The 76ers took roughly 120.2503704 true shots per game (fg+(fta*.48))/81 (for 81 games).
Lets suppose for the purposes of illustration all things are equal and their opponents had the same number of true shot attempts.

So lets say the whole Sixers team outshot their rivals by that amount (or a team of Chamberlains did so to a team of Thurmonds)

120.2503704*.12 (representing the twelve percent difference)= 14.43004444

Now lets turn that from a true shooting based calculation into a points per possession based one (double it) 28.86008889.

Applied to a team level, at '67 Sixers pace, Chamberlain's efficiency scoring edge, would represent a gap of 28.86 points per game. That's a ridiculous margin.

Now given they were only individiuals it was probably roughly a five or six point edge that Chamberlain was worth in this area. Still losing by that much at one position is huge (not to mention Wilt had advantages elsewhere).

You might argue Wilt held Thurmond below his usual output offensively, but you can't argue it was close, because it wasn't.

julizaver

01-09-2014, 03:15 PM

Not just the two rings about Willis Reed though.

http://www.joelkimmel.com/uploaded_images/1970-761951.jpg

Dude played in a huge media bubble, especially in the 1960s. Unlike today... when anybody with cable tv can watch just about any game they want, and even more with league pass, internet, etc..... back then even local tv might not cover games. National tv wasn't going to be happening at all except for the Sunday afternoon Celtics - Sixers matchups. San Francisco was remote, isolated from the East Coast by an entire continent in days when 2 lane interstate highways were not just a novelty, they were amazing feats of engineering. It was the Jet Age, you follow?

Still, Reed was an incredible presence on the court, with a game style for a center that was almost unique in history. He was incredibly strong with a powerful core that couldn't be moved at all. It was like trying to move an oak tree. His passing was better than Nate's and that's saying a lot. When Reed was on fire he could just ignite the entire arena with excitement.
Of course too, his teammates were immeasurably better than Frisco, which only made Captain Reed shine all the brighter.

I am not questioning his greatness, I am just saying that Reed received more recognition than Nate due to his two titles. In future I can do some W. Reed vs N. Thurmond research.

julizaver

01-09-2014, 03:43 PM

Psileas

01-09-2014, 04:23 PM

dankok8

01-09-2014, 05:33 PM

Twelve percent gap in TS%. Close?!?!

All else being equal that's a huge amount.

The 76ers took roughly 120.2503704 true shots per game (fg+(fta*.48))/81 (for 81 games).
Lets suppose for the purposes of illustration all things are equal and their opponents had the same number of true shot attempts.

So lets say the whole Sixers team outshot their rivals by that amount (or a team of Chamberlains did so to a team of Thurmonds)

120.2503704*.12 (representing the twelve percent difference)= 14.43004444

Now lets turn that from a true shooting based calculation into a points per possession based one (double it) 28.86008889.

Applied to a team level, at '67 Sixers pace, Chamberlain's efficiency scoring edge, would represent a gap of 28.86 points per game. That's a ridiculous margin.

Now given they were only individiuals it was probably roughly a five or six point edge that Chamberlain was worth in this area. Still losing by that much at one position is huge (not to mention Wilt had advantages elsewhere).

You might argue Wilt held Thurmond below his usual output offensively, but you can't argue it was close, because it wasn't.

Honestly it wasn't 5 or 6 points because Wilt was only the 5th leading scorer on his team. Wilt contributed only 106/747 or 14.2% of his team's points. Take 14.2% of 28.86 and that's 4.1 points a game...

TS% is also flawed because a FT back then (no 3pt shots) was worth half of a FG so Wilt bricking his free throws was hurting his team more than it would today.

People bring up rebounding edge like it's a big deal. Wilt grabbed 11 extra rebounds over 6 games. That's not really significant at all. And we know that Nate had 3 games at around 8-10 blocked shots.

I wouldn't respond in such detail to such minor points but you're the one who did the analysis! :cheers:
Wilt OUTPLAYED Nate and I said so but he DID NOT DOMINATE him.

I insist that Nate was peaking from 1966-67 season. Anyway, since we bring another centers for comparison from the known data I have at the moment:

How Nate shot vs Russell, Kareem and Wilt ?

vs Russell - 19,6 ppg on 0.409
vs Kareem - 18.6 ppg on 0.413
vs Wilt - 16.3 ppg on 0.382

And how the others shot against him ?

Kareem vs Nate - 24.76 ppg on 0.447
Wilt vs Nate - 14.84 ppg on 0.530
Russell vs Nate - 11.59 ppg on 4.34

The data covers the 1965-1973 period. The data for Wilt vs Nate and Russell vs Nate is still incomplete (but I have the majority of the games data).

Wilt shot a much higher FG% against Nate but on far fewer shots than Kareem. If Wilt took 25 shots a game I suspect he wouldn't shoot well either.

You're the same one who claimed that Wilt's rebounding edge over Thurmond was insignificant, yet you mention Jordan's outassisting of Drexler as a significant margin (else, you would claim that it was insignificant, like I did for Wilt-Thurmond rebounding)? There are 2 statistical fields where Jordan clearly outplayed Drexler and they even are interconnected. There are 2 statistical fields where Wilt clearly outplayed Thurmond and they're not even interconnected (FG% and passing). Drexler beat Jordan in rebounding (leaving aside marginal victories, like shot blocking and FT%), Thurmond beat Wilt in FT% and nowhere else. Drexler arguably outplayed Jordan in at least 1 game. Thurmond outplayed Wilt in none.

That's fair but see my post above. Wilt really didn't dominate Nate. He just outplayed him but it wasn't a blowout by any means.

My initial response was primarily to LAZERUSS who said Wilt KILLED Nate in '67 Finals. I strongly disagree with that.

Owl

01-09-2014, 07:10 PM

Honestly it wasn't 5 or 6 points because Wilt was only the 5th leading scorer on his team. Wilt contributed only 106/747 or 14.2% of his team's points. Take 14.2% of 28.86 and that's 4.1 points a game...

TS% is also flawed because a FT back then (no 3pt shots) was worth half of a FG so Wilt bricking his free throws was hurting his team more than it would today.
A 4 point advantage per game (even if that was the only area Wilt had an advantage) at one position is still a big deal. Indeed it accounts for more than half the per game points differential over the series.

I don't see how missing a ft is more harmful because there were no threes. TS% is (or may be) imperfect for that era but it's not to do with 3s. The extra value of the three is factored in by using points (thereby accounting for the extra value of the three) rather than field goal attempts, if there aren't three point attempts it still works fine. With different free throw rules and different values of a typical free throw relative to a possession it might shift at the margins. Even so it would be marginal, especially relative to Chamberlain's substantial edge in this area.

LAZERUSS

01-09-2014, 08:27 PM

While I don't have the complete breakdown, game-by-game, I now have the totals for Chamberlain in their six regular season H2H's in 66-67.

Thanks to nbastats.net, we know that Wilt faced the Warriors in all nine regular season games in 66-67, while Nate only played in six (more on that in a moment.) And, fortunately, we have the complete totals for Wilt's three games in which Nate ducked him.

Those three games were played on 3/2, 3/14, and 3/16:

On 3/2: Wilt scored 24 points, on 8-20 from the field, with 38 rebounds, and 13 assists.

On 3/14: Wilt scored 21 points, on 9-13 from the field, with 25 rebounds, and 9 assists.

On 3/16: Wilt scored 16 points, on 6-18 from the field, with 20 rebounds, and 6 assists.

Totals: 61 points, 23-51 from the field, 83 rebounds, and 28 assists.

OK, in the book Season of the Sixers, Wilt's season totals are listed against each team.

Versus the Warriors, in his nine games:

186 points, 233 rebounds, 79 assists, and 73-130 from the field.

So, in his six H2H's with Nate:

125 points, 150 rebounds, 51 assists, and 50-79 from the field.

Or, 20.8 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 8.5 apg, and get this... a .633 FG% against Thurmond.

Here were their known numbers from those six H2H's:

11/4/66: Wilt with 13 FGM, 30 points, 26 rebounds, 13 assists, and 12 blocks (Season of the Sixers.) Nate with 13 points.

11/24/66: Wilt 10-16, 27 pts, 31 rebs, 7 ast. Nate 11 pts, 16 rebs.

12/22: Wilt 6-12, 14 pts, 22 rebs, 8 ast. Nate 9 pts, 25 rebs.

2/2/67: Wilt 7-17, 16 pts, 26 rebs, 6 ast, 5 blk. Nate 16 pts, 23 rebs.

2/4/67: Wilt 10 FGM, 23 pts, 19 rebs, 8 ast. Nate with 21 pts, 29 rebs.

2/7/67: Wilt 4 FGM, 15 pts, 26 rebs, 9 ast. Nate with 9 pts, 26 rebs.

In the three H2H games in which we have Wilt's FG/FGA, he went 23-45, which means that in the three we don't, he shot, get this... 27-34, or a .794 FG% from the floor.

Factor in that Chamberlain just annihilated Thurmond in the '67 Finals, and this season was perhaps an even greater domination of Thurmond that his 65-66 season (when he just shelled Nate by a staggering margin.)

BTW, Nate almost always had a case of "Wiltitis" in each of his seasons, as well. It seems like he was always missing H2H games against Chamberlain. But how about this 66-67 season.

Nate missed games with Wilt on 3/2, 3/14, and 3/16, ...BUT, he played in other games on 3/10, 3/11, 3/13, 3/17 and 3/18. Hmmm...

Psileas

01-09-2014, 09:47 PM

So, in his six H2H's with Nate:

125 points, 150 rebounds, 51 assists, and 50-79 from the field.

Or, 20.8 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 8.5 apg, and get this... a .633 FG% against Thurmond.

Here were their known numbers from those six H2H's:

11/4/66: Wilt with 13 FGM, 30 points, 26 rebounds, 13 assists, and 12 blocks (Season of the Sixers.) Nate with 13 points.

11/24/66: Wilt 10-16, 27 pts, 31 rebs, 7 ast. Nate 11 pts, 16 rebs.

12/22: Wilt 6-12, 14 pts, 22 rebs, 8 ast. Nate 9 pts, 25 rebs.

2/2/67: Wilt 7-17, 16 pts, 26 rebs, 6 ast, 5 blk. Nate 16 pts, 23 rebs.

2/4/67: Wilt 10 FGM, 23 pts, 19 rebs, 8 ast. Nate with 21 pts, 29 rebs.

2/7/67: Wilt 4 FGM, 15 pts, 26 rebs, 9 ast. Nate with 9 pts, 26 rebs.

In the three H2H games in which we have Wilt's FG/FGA, he went 23-45, which means that in the three we don't, he shot, get this... 27-34, or a .794 FG% from the floor.

Cool...so it seems like prime Wilt "slightly" outplayed Thurmond. Decent, halfway impressive. :cheers:
(Am I doing it right?)

dankok8

01-09-2014, 10:04 PM

LAZERUSS

01-10-2014, 01:58 AM

As I stated earlier, Lynch has Wilt's numbers vs every team in that 66-67 season.

For now, I will just give you his FG/FGA vs each team, (9 games against each.):

Baltimore: .........113-151... .74.8%
Cincinnati: ........105-151 ....69.5%
Los Angeles: .....101-133 ....75.9%
Chicago: ............94-118 ... 79.7%
New York: ..........83-117 ... 70.0%
St. Louis: ...........80-117....68.4%
San Francisco: ....73-130....56.2% (again... 50-79 against Nate, or .633.)
Boston................67-122....54.9
Detroit................69-111....62.2%

Totals: ............785-1150...68.3%

LAZERUSS

01-10-2014, 02:18 AM

Ok kudos to you! I'll assume this info is all true...

That would make Wilt's 66-67 season by far his best season against Nate. However 20.8 ppg even on 63.3% shooting isn't an amazing scoring performance. Shaq shelled Mutombo for 33 ppg and 60% shooting just to put things in perspective. Now that classifies as domination not outscoring someone by 3.5 ppg like Wilt in the Finals...

LOL mocking me are we?

Wilt clearly dominated more in the regular season than the finals.

I am still not sure what Chamberlain shot against Thurmond in 65-66. Obviously, as we now know, using the TWO game's that we, out of their NINE H2H's that season, as some kind of guide has been trashed. We do know that he routinely shelled Thurmond for 30+ points, and KAJ never came close to what Chamberlain carpet-bombed Nate with. And he was KILLING Nate in scoring. Take away the one game in which Thurmond outscored Wilt, 30-15, and Wilt would have held an eight game margin of 242-115, or 30.1 ppg to 14.4 ppg.

As for Shaq-Mutombo...Dikembe also averaged 16 ppg on a .600 FG% against Shaq. You will NEVER find an opposing center who had a series close to that against Wilt. In fact, in his 29 post-season series, I could only find TWO in which his starting opposing center shot over 50%. One, in the 63-64 WDF's, Zelmo Beaty shot .521. However, Chamberlain not only outshot Zelmo, .559 to .521, he outscored him, per game, 38.6 to 14.3 ppg. And Beaty would go on to be a multiple All-Star in his career. The other was in the '72 Finals, when Jerry Lucas averaged 20.0 ppg on a .500 FG%. However, after the first half of game one, in which he shot 9-11, he only shot 37-81 (.457) the rest of the series. For those that actually were lucky enough to have seen Lucas play, he was Kevin Love long before Love was. For Chamberlain to defend Lucas, who had 25 ft. range, and still block 7.4 shots, as well as grab 23.2 rpg in that series (and averaged 19 ppg on .600 shooting, too) was an amazing testament to Wilt's incredible athleticism, even at age 35.

In any case, a prime "scoring" Wilt dominated Nate far more than a prime KAJ ever did, and we know that a 38-39 year old KAJ would go and crush the Hakeem in 10 straight H2H games with a 33 ppg .621 FG% mark. A 39 year old KAJ also had a game against Ewing in which he outscored him, 40-9, and outshot him, 15-22 to 3-17.

And keep in mind that a 69-73 Nate held Kareem to .440 shooting in their 39 H2H games, too. From what we know, Chamberlain probably shot well over 50% against Nate, (and likely even in his scoring seasons.)

julizaver

01-10-2014, 12:24 PM

And keep in mind that a 69-73 Nate held Kareem to .440 shooting in their 39 H2H games, too. From what we know, Chamberlain probably shot well over 50% against Nate, (and likely even in his scoring seasons.)

Maybe you haven't seen my earlier post. Taken into consideration your 66-67 calculation I could repost:

How Nate shot vs Russell, Kareem and Wilt ?

vs Russell - 19,6 ppg on 0.409
vs Kareem - 18.6 ppg on 0.413
vs Wilt - 16.3 ppg on 0.382

And how the others shot against him ?

Kareem vs Nate - 24.76 ppg on 0.447
Wilt vs Nate - 14.84 ppg on 0.548
Russell vs Nate - 11.59 ppg on 4.34

The data covers the 1965-1973 period. The data for Wilt vs Nate and Russell vs Nate is still incomplete (but I have the majority of the games data).

dankok8

01-10-2014, 02:15 PM

I am still not sure what Chamberlain shot against Thurmond in 65-66. Obviously, as we now know, using the TWO game's that we, out of their NINE H2H's that season, as some kind of guide has been trashed. We do know that he routinely shelled Thurmond for 30+ points, and KAJ never came close to what Chamberlain carpet-bombed Nate with. And he was KILLING Nate in scoring. Take away the one game in which Thurmond outscored Wilt, 30-15, and Wilt would have held an eight game margin of 242-115, or 30.1 ppg to 14.4 ppg.

As for Shaq-Mutombo...Dikembe also averaged 16 ppg on a .600 FG% against Shaq. You will NEVER find an opposing center who had a series close to that against Wilt. In fact, in his 29 post-season series, I could only find TWO in which his starting opposing center shot over 50%. One, in the 63-64 WDF's, Zelmo Beaty shot .521. However, Chamberlain not only outshot Zelmo, .559 to .521, he outscored him, per game, 38.6 to 14.3 ppg. And Beaty would go on to be a multiple All-Star in his career. The other was in the '72 Finals, when Jerry Lucas averaged 20.0 ppg on a .500 FG%. However, after the first half of game one, in which he shot 9-11, he only shot 37-81 (.457) the rest of the series. For those that actually were lucky enough to have seen Lucas play, he was Kevin Love long before Love was. For Chamberlain to defend Lucas, who had 25 ft. range, and still block 7.4 shots, as well as grab 23.2 rpg in that series (and averaged 19 ppg on .600 shooting, too) was an amazing testament to Wilt's incredible athleticism, even at age 35.

In any case, a prime "scoring" Wilt dominated Nate far more than a prime KAJ ever did, and we know that a 38-39 year old KAJ would go and crush the Hakeem in 10 straight H2H games with a 33 ppg .621 FG% mark. A 39 year old KAJ also had a game against Ewing in which he outscored him, 40-9, and outshot him, 15-22 to 3-17.

And keep in mind that a 69-73 Nate held Kareem to .440 shooting in their 39 H2H games, too. From what we know, Chamberlain probably shot well over 50% against Nate, (and likely even in his scoring seasons.)

Kareem "dominated" Nate just as much as Wilt.

Wilt vs Nate

64-65: 26.7 ppg on 50.0% shooting
65-66: 28.6 ppg on ? shooting (46.3% in 2 available games)
66-67: 20.8 ppg on 63.3% shooting

Kareem vs Nate

70-71: 26.6 ppg on 48.4% shooting
71-72: 24.0 ppg on 44.1% shooting
72-73: 25.8 ppg on 48.8% shooting
73-74: 24.2 ppg on 57.1% shooting

That's right in the same ballpark... And in '71 playoffs Kareem outplayed Nate by a much bigger margin than Wilt ever did in the postseason.

Kareem: 27.8 ppg, 15.4 rpg on 48.6 %FG/52.8 %TS
Nate: 17.6 ppg, 10.2 rpg on 37.1 %FG/41.6 %TS

julizaver

01-10-2014, 04:49 PM

LAZERUSS

01-10-2014, 08:56 PM

Kareem "dominated" Nate just as much as Wilt.

Wilt vs Nate

64-65: 26.7 ppg on 50.0% shooting
65-66: 28.6 ppg on ? shooting (46.3% in 2 available games)
66-67: 20.8 ppg on 63.3% shooting

Kareem vs Nate

70-71: 26.6 ppg on 48.4% shooting
71-72: 24.0 ppg on 44.1% shooting
72-73: 25.8 ppg on 48.8% shooting
73-74: 24.2 ppg on 57.1% shooting

That's right in the same ballpark... And in '71 playoffs Kareem outplayed Nate by a much bigger margin than Wilt ever did in the postseason.

Kareem: 27.8 ppg, 15.4 rpg on 48.6 %FG/52.8 %TS
Nate: 17.6 ppg, 10.2 rpg on 37.1 %FG/41.6 %TS

First of all, you simply can't conclude that Wilt shot .463 against Nate in his NINE H2H games in 65-66, based on two games (one of which Wilt shot 17-32 and scored 45 points.) You also claimed that he shot .518 in the known three H2H's against Nate in 66-67. And you were right, but we now KNOW (at least if ALL of the data on nbastats.net is correct) that Chamberlain shot .794 in the three games in which we didn't have his FG%'s.

Wilt POUNDED Thurmond with games of 33-10, 33-17, 38-15 and 45-13 in that 65-66 season. Find me a season in which KAJ did that too Nate.

Furthermore, Nate was on a severe decline in 73-74. WAY down from his 72-73 season (his last quality season.) He missed 20 games, and was never the same. His numbers dropped dramatically from 72-73. And then, in 74-75 he was just a shell.

And, as Julizaver posted, you failed to include the 71-72 and 72-73 playoff games in your above totals, when KAJ shot .428 and .405 in those two series, which covered 11 games.

Nope, KAJ never approached the domination that a prime Wilt just leveled Thurmond with, including a Nate in his peak season.

So, no more of that nonsense.

LAZERUSS

01-10-2014, 09:07 PM

LAZERUSS

01-10-2014, 10:49 PM

That's right in the same ballpark... And in '71 playoffs Kareem outplayed Nate by a much bigger margin than Wilt ever did in the postseason.

Kareem: 27.8 ppg, 15.4 rpg on 48.6 %FG/52.8 %TS
Nate: 17.6 ppg, 10.2 rpg on 37.1 %FG/41.6 %TS

Here were KAJ's and Nate's stats in their FIVE game series.

KAJ outscored Nate by margins of 25-19, 26-18, 33-23, 32-17, and 23-11 in those five games.

Now, I know you mentioned post-season, but we never got to see a "scoring" Wilt against Nate in the post-season (of course, Wilt was even more dominant against Nate in the '67 Finals, if you factor in assists, blocks, and...FG%, in which he ousthot Nate by a .560 to .343 margin.)

But, lets' use their NINE H2H's in the 65-66 regular season, shall we?

Nate outscored Wilt in their very first encounter, by an unbelieveable margin of 30-15 (as we will see, it had to have been an anomaly)...

then in their next eight H2H games, Wilt outscored Nate by margins of:

22-13, 26-9, 25-20, 38-15, 23-18, 45-13, 33-17, and 30-10.

Kareem's highest margin over Nate in the '71 playoffs was +15 (32-17.) In their 65-66 H2H's, Wilt had margins of +16, +17, +20, +23, and get this... +32.

I didn't include the rebounding numbers, because all we have for Nate is five of their nine games. Nor did I include any FG% because all we have are two of Wilt's (games of 8-22 and 17-32), and none of Nate's.

Again, a peak KAJ was nowhere near as dominant as a prime Chamberlain was against Nate.

Psileas

01-10-2014, 10:58 PM

Psileas

01-10-2014, 11:01 PM

PS. Irrelevant, but noteworthy: That season, he was averaging a triple-double vs Detroit (20.1-22.4-10.4), although he was only playing 37.7 mpg against the Pistons.

LAZERUSS

01-10-2014, 11:28 PM

I do have the book, and the numbers you posted at http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=321988 are what it mentions.
So, 73-130 vs SF. Total numbers: 186 pts, 233 rebs, 79 asts in 411 minutes (9 games).

Thanks!

And if the stats are correct at nbastats.net (and I have no reason to doubt them), he shot 23-51 in the three games in which Nate missed. So, that means he shot 50-79 against Thurmond, or .633!

Thanks again.

LAZERUSS

01-10-2014, 11:41 PM

PS. Irrelevant, but noteworthy: That season, he was averaging a triple-double vs Detroit (20.1-22.4-10.4), although he was only playing 37.7 mpg against the Pistons.

The Wilt-bashers would claim that Detroit had his number that season.

As a sidenote, of which you are aware, but maybe some other's are not...Chamberlain had a 20-20-20 game against Detroit the very next season (22 points, 25 rebounds, and 21 assists...and nbastats has an estimated 14 blocks.)

It's just too bad we don't have more full stat-lines from the Wilt-Nate H2H's in the 65-66 season. From what we do have, it was already brutal.

Oh, and another side-note, and this one I got from you...

In that 65-66 season, he had three straight games in the middle of the season, in which he faced Nate twice, and then Russell...

In the first one against Nate, he outscored Thurmond 45-13 (Nate did outrebound him, 26-21); then he put up a 33-30 game against Nate's 17-19 game; and then he pounded Russell with a 31-40 game to Russell's 11-17. Just an incredible three-game run.

LAZERUSS

01-12-2014, 11:08 AM

julizaver

01-12-2014, 12:23 PM

If you have time, you should create a new topic with those H2H's...

I could think about it. First I want to obtain some additional data, because it is incomplete at the moment.
I am making some researches, but will see how it goes.

dankok8

01-12-2014, 01:08 PM

Here were KAJ's and Nate's stats in their FIVE game series.

KAJ outscored Nate by margins of 25-19, 26-18, 33-23, 32-17, and 23-11 in those five games.

Now, I know you mentioned post-season, but we never got to see a "scoring" Wilt against Nate in the post-season (of course, Wilt was even more dominant against Nate in the '67 Finals, if you factor in assists, blocks, and...FG%, in which he ousthot Nate by a .560 to .343 margin.)

But, lets' use their NINE H2H's in the 65-66 regular season, shall we?

Nate outscored Wilt in their very first encounter, by an unbelieveable margin of 30-15 (as we will see, it had to have been an anomaly)...

then in their next eight H2H games, Wilt outscored Nate by margins of:

22-13, 26-9, 25-20, 38-15, 23-18, 45-13, 33-17, and 30-10.

Kareem's highest margin over Nate in the '71 playoffs was +15 (32-17.) In their 65-66 H2H's, Wilt had margins of +16, +17, +20, +23, and get this... +32.

I didn't include the rebounding numbers, because all we have for Nate is five of their nine games. Nor did I include any FG% because all we have are two of Wilt's (games of 8-22 and 17-32), and none of Nate's.

Again, a peak KAJ was nowhere near as dominant as a prime Chamberlain was against Nate.

Except 65-66 Nate in his first full year starting at C wasn't as good as 70-71 Nate.

Wilt vs Nate:

Season Average

26.7 ppg on 50.0%
28.6 ppg
20.8 ppg on 63.3%

Playoff Average

17.7 ppg on 56.0%

Kareem vs Nate:

Season Average

26.6 ppg on 48.4%
24.0 ppg on 44.1%
25.8 ppg on 48.8%
24.2 ppg on 57.1%

Playoff Average

27.8 ppg on 48.6%
22.8 ppg on 40.5% (injured)
22.8 ppg on 42.8%

That's pretty much a wash. Remember Kareem took a lot more shots in the playoffs against Nate than Wilt ever did. You can't blindly compare raw FG% when one player is taking way more shots than the other.

LAZERUSS

01-12-2014, 01:29 PM

Except 65-66 Nate in his first full year starting at C wasn't as good as 70-71 Nate.

Wilt vs Nate:

Season Average

26.7 ppg on 50.0%
28.6 ppg
20.8 ppg on 63.3%

Playoff Average

17.7 ppg on 56.0%

Kareem vs Nate:

Season Average

26.6 ppg on 48.4%
24.0 ppg on 44.1%
25.8 ppg on 48.8%
24.2 ppg on 57.1%

Playoff Average

27.8 ppg on 48.6%
22.8 ppg on 40.5% (injured)
22.8 ppg on 42.8%

That's pretty much a wash. Remember Kareem took a lot more shots in the playoffs against Nate than Wilt ever did. You can't blindly compare raw FG% when one player is taking way more shots than the other.

And of course, KAJ's ONLY decent shooting season against Nate came in that 73-74 season, when Nate was fighting injuries, missed 20 games, and was already in a severe state of decline from his last quality season of 72-73. And in his very next season, 74-75, he was basically a shell.

Overall, KAJ only shot .447 against Nate in anything close to his norm. His 24.2 ppg .571 season was against that rapidly declining (and injury-plagued) Nate. You can throw that one out. Nate was a considerably better, in his 65-66 season. And that season came just before his greatest season, 66-67 (when he finished a distant second to Wilt in the MVP voting.) And, of course, the numbers clearly show a prime Chamberlain just slaughtering a prime Nate in that season beyond recognition.

And again, in Wilt's 65-66 season, he pounded Nate with scoring margins of 33-17, 26-9, 30-10, 38-15 and a staggering 45-13. KAJ never approached that domination against Thurmond.

Oh, and this "Nate who was not as good as the 70-71 Nate"...

Here were his 10 H2H's against RUSSELL in 65-66:

Game 1:
Nate: 18 pts, 27 rebs
Russell: 17 pts, 22 rebs, 7-13 FG/FGA

Game 2:
Nate: 19 pts, 12 rebs
Russell: 8 pts, 20 rebs, 4-9 FG/FGA

Game 3:
Nate: 20 pts
Russell: 8 pts, 28 rebs

Game 4:
Nate: 21 pts, 31 rebs
Russell: 13 pts, 24 rebs, 4-11 FG/FGA

Game 5:
Nate: 19 pts
Russell: 16 pts, 24 rebs

Game 6:
Nate: 25 pts, 27 rebs
Russell: 15 pts, 11 rebs, 6-12 FG/FGA

Game 7:
Nate: 24 pts, 24 rebs
Russell: 10 pts, 28 rebs

Game 8:
Nate: 34 pts, 19 rebs
Russell: 8 pts, 24 rebs, 2-8 FG/FGA

Game 9:
Nate: 23 pts, 23 rebs
Russell: 12 pts, 19 rebs

Game 10:
Nate: 11 pts, 14 rebs
Russell: 11 pts, 23 rebs, 5-13 FG/FGA

Known season averages:

Nate: 20.2 ppg, 22.2 rpg
Russell: 11.8 ppg, 22.3 rpg, .429 FG%

Without knowing all of their FG% numbers, I would think that Thurmond easily outplayed Russell.

dankok8

01-12-2014, 03:22 PM

And of course, KAJ's ONLY decent shooting season against Nate came in that 73-74 season, when Nate was fighting injuries, missed 20 games, and was already in a severe state of decline from his last quality season of 72-73. And in his very next season, 74-75, he was basically a shell.

Overall, KAJ only shot .447 against Nate in anything close to his norm. His 24.2 ppg .571 season was against that rapidly declining (and injury-plagued) Nate. You can throw that one out. Nate was a considerably better, in his 65-66 season. And that season came just before his greatest season, 66-67 (when he finished a distant second to Wilt in the MVP voting.) And, of course, the numbers clearly show a prime Chamberlain just slaughtering a prime Nate in that season beyond recognition.

And again, in Wilt's 65-66 season, he pounded Nate with scoring margins of 33-17, 26-9, 30-10, 38-15 and a staggering 45-13. KAJ never approached that domination against Thurmond.

Oh, and this "Nate who was not as good as the 70-71 Nate"...

Here were his 10 H2H's against RUSSELL in 65-66:

Nate was a much better scorer in the early 70's then in 65-66 though... averaged 4-5 ppg more on 3-4% better efficiency.

And Nate ALWAYS missed a ton of games to injury including in 66-67.

The truth is Nate at his peak shot pretty terribly against Kareem in many games... In 70-71 we have two season games where Nate shot 4-17 and 10-22. In 71-72 we have two season games where he shot 1-9 and 4-11.

In '71, '72, and '73 playoffs Nate shot 37.1%, 43.4%, and 39.7% from the field against Jabbar.

And in the '71 and '73 playoffs Kareem outplayed Nate by a bigger margin than Chamberlain ever did in the postseason. Kareem outscored Nate by 10+ ppg, outrebounded him by 6+ rpg and outshot him by a ton as well in both series.

Overall Kareem and Wilt both struggled against Nate and both "dominated" him to about the same degree.

LAZERUSS

01-12-2014, 04:06 PM

Nate was a much better scorer in the early 70's then in 65-66 though... averaged 4-5 ppg more on 3-4% better efficiency.

And Nate ALWAYS missed a ton of games to injury including in 66-67.

The truth is Nate at his peak shot pretty terribly against Kareem in many games... In 70-71 we have two season games where Nate shot 4-17 and 10-22. In 71-72 we have two season games where he shot 1-9 and 4-11.

In '71, '72, and '73 playoffs Nate shot 37.1%, 43.4%, and 39.7% from the field against Jabbar.

And in the '71 and '73 playoffs Kareem outplayed Nate by a bigger margin than Chamberlain ever did in the postseason. Kareem outscored Nate by 10+ ppg, outrebounded him by 6+ rpg and outshot him by a ton as well in both series.

Overall Kareem and Wilt both struggled against Nate and both "dominated" him to about the same degree.

A PRIME Chamberlain was FAR more dominant, even in the post-season (when you factor in every statistical category) against a prime Nate, than KAJ EVER was. Not even close.

Again, a PRIME Chamberlain just slaughtered a near peak Nate by FAR greater scoring margins that a PRIME KAJ did against a fading Nate. Where were KAJ's 38-15 and 45-13 obliterations? Where were the seasons (not including an rapidly declining, injury-plagued Nate in the twilight of his career, in 73-74) where he was outscoring Nate by 29-16 ppg margins. Where were his regular seasons when he was outscoring a PEAK Nate by a 21-13 ppg margin, and outshooting him by a .633 to .327 margin. Or post-seasons where he was outshooting a PEAK Thurmond by a .560 to .343 margin?

Come on...get over it. A PRIME Chamberlain was FAR more dominant against ALL of his peers, than KAJ ever was.

I might take the time later to post a peak/prime Wilt's numbers against a peak/prime Bellamy, and then compare them with the aging Bellamy/prime KAJ H2H's, too.

dankok8

01-12-2014, 04:18 PM

A PRIME Chamberlain was FAR more dominant, even in the post-season (when you factor in every statistical category) against a prime Nate, than KAJ EVER was. Not even close.

Again, a PRIME Chamberlain just slaughtered a near peak Nate by FAR greater scoring margins that a PRIME KAJ did against a fading Nate. Where were KAJ's 38-15 and 45-13 obliterations? Where were the seasons (not including an rapidly declining, injury-plagued Nate in the twilight of his career, in 73-74) where he was outscoring Nate by 29-16 ppg margins. Where were his regular seasons when he was outscoring a PEAK Nate by a 21-13 ppg margin, and outshooting him by a .633 to .327 margin. Or post-seasons where he was outshooting a PEAK Thurmond by a .560 to .343 margin?

Come on...get over it. A PRIME Chamberlain was FAR more dominant against ALL of his peers, than KAJ ever was.

I might take the time later to post a peak/prime Wilt's numbers against a peak/prime Bellamy, and then compare them with the aging Bellamy/prime KAJ H2H's, too.

In 70-71 and 71-72 we don't have enough FG% data but in the 4 games we do have Nate shot 19/59 or 32.2%.

In 73-74 Kareem outscored Nate 24.2 ppg to 8.4 ppg and outshot him 57.1% to 40.7% (we only have Nate's FG% for 2 out of 5 games).

Kareem never outshot Nate by .560 to .343 margin in the postseason but he outscored him by 27.8 ppg to 17.3 ppg and outshot him by 48.6% to 37.1% margin in the same series! And also outrebounded him 15.6 to 10.2 by the way. Scoring volume also matters not just efficiency.

For example Wilt outshooting Nate in '69 and '73 is almost meaningless considering how many fewer shots he took!

LAZERUSS

01-12-2014, 04:26 PM

In 70-71 and 71-72 we don't have enough FG% data but in the 4 games we do have Nate shot 19/59 or 32.2%.

In 73-74 Kareem outscored Nate 24.2 ppg to 8.4 ppg and outshot him 57.1% to 40.7% (we only have Nate's FG% for 2 out of 5 games).

Kareem never outshot Nate by .560 to .343 margin in the postseason but he outscored him by 27.8 ppg to 17.3 ppg and outshot him by 48.6% to 37.1% margin in the same series! And also outrebounded him 15.6 to 10.2 by the way. Scoring volume also matters not just efficiency.

For example Wilt outshooting Nate in '69 and '73 is almost meaningless considering how many fewer shots he took!\

Again, this was a rapidly declining and injury-plagued Nate (who was far worse that season than he was in his rookie season for cryingoutloud), and who would be just a shell in his very next season. Sorry, this doesn't count.

If we are using that season, then KAJ's 87-88 season was a true indication of his career, as well.

BTW, and including the post-season (as well as mpg), KAJ had his greatest statistical season (and probably his greatest season, period), in his SECOND season. Furthermore, take a look at Kareem's Bucks team defense in his second and third seasons. He was probably at his defensive peak by then, as well. So, to suggest that Nate in his second season was nowhere close to his prime, and when his PEAK season came in only his THIRD, is a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

LAZERUSS

01-12-2014, 04:29 PM

In 70-71 and 71-72 we don't have enough FG% data but in the 4 games we do have Nate shot 19/59 or 32.2%.

In 73-74 Kareem outscored Nate 24.2 ppg to 8.4 ppg and outshot him 57.1% to 40.7% (we only have Nate's FG% for 2 out of 5 games).

Kareem never outshot Nate by .560 to .343 margin in the postseason but he outscored him by 27.8 ppg to 17.3 ppg and outshot him by 48.6% to 37.1% margin in the same series! And also outrebounded him 15.6 to 10.2 by the way. Scoring volume also matters not just efficiency.

For example Wilt outshooting Nate in '69 and '73 is almost meaningless considering how many fewer shots he took!

In the 71-72 playoffs, Nate outscored KAJ, 25.4 ppg to 22.8 ppg, and outshot him from the field, by a .437 to .405 margin. Thurmond CLEARLY outplayed Kareem in that post-season series. Despite barely outscoring Wilt in two of their post-season H2H's, he was outshot by staggering margins (.500 to .392, and then .611 to .373), and was shelled on the glass by Wilt 23.5 rpg to 19.5 rpg, and then 23.6 to 17.2 rpg. NO ONE would have EVER claimed that Nate outplayed Wilt in ANY of their playoff series H2H's. And of course, a PRIME Chamberlain only faced him in one other one, and absolutely annihilated him in five of the six games (and just killed him in the clinching game six win.)

LAZERUSS

01-12-2014, 06:50 PM

In 70-71 and 71-72 we don't have enough FG% data but in the 4 games we do have Nate shot 19/59 or 32.2%.

In 73-74 Kareem outscored Nate 24.2 ppg to 8.4 ppg and outshot him 57.1% to 40.7% (we only have Nate's FG% for 2 out of 5 games).

Kareem never outshot Nate by .560 to .343 margin in the postseason but he outscored him by 27.8 ppg to 17.3 ppg and outshot him by 48.6% to 37.1% margin in the same series! And also outrebounded him 15.6 to 10.2 by the way. Scoring volume also matters not just efficiency.

For example Wilt outshooting Nate in '69 and '73 is almost meaningless considering how many fewer shots he took!

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

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

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

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

1970 - 1971 6 games - reg.season

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

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

1970 - 1971 5 games - playoffs

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

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

1971 - 1972 3 games - reg.season

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

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

1971 - 1972 5 games - playoffs

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

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

1972 - 1973 6 games - reg.season

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

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

1972 - 1973 6 games - playoffs

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

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

Again, thanks to Julizaver.

dankok8

01-12-2014, 07:00 PM

\

Again, this was a rapidly declining and injury-plagued Nate (who was far worse that season than he was in his rookie season for cryingoutloud), and who would be just a shell in his very next season. Sorry, this doesn't count.

If we are using that season, then KAJ's 87-88 season was a true indication of his career, as well.

BTW, and including the post-season (as well as mpg), KAJ had his greatest statistical season (and probably his greatest season, period), in his SECOND season. Furthermore, take a look at Kareem's Bucks team defense in his second and third seasons. He was probably at his defensive peak by then, as well. So, to suggest that Nate in his second season was nowhere close to his prime, and when his PEAK season came in only his THIRD, is a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

LOL Nate was was way better in 73-74 than his rookie season. In the games he played that year he was 5th in rebounding, 6th in blocks, and made 2nd team all-defense. He played 40 mpg too so it was surely still his prime...

In the 71-72 playoffs, Nate outscored KAJ, 25.4 ppg to 22.8 ppg, and outshot him from the field, by a .437 to .405 margin. Thurmond CLEARLY outplayed Kareem in that post-season series. Despite barely outscoring Wilt in two of their post-season H2H's, he was outshot by staggering margins (.500 to .392, and then .611 to .373), and was shelled on the glass by Wilt 23.5 rpg to 19.5 rpg, and then 23.6 to 17.2 rpg. NO ONE would have EVER claimed that Nate outplayed Wilt in ANY of their playoff series H2H's. And of course, a PRIME Chamberlain only faced him in one other one, and absolutely annihilated him in five of the six games (and just killed him in the clinching game six win.)

Kareem's left knee was injured in the '72 playoffs...

And as your stats show Kareem individually obliterated Nate in the '71 and the '73 series by a much bigger margin than Wilt ever did in the playoffs.

LAZERUSS

01-12-2014, 07:18 PM

LOL Nate was was way better in 73-74 than his rookie season. In the games he played that year he was 5th in rebounding, 6th in blocks, and made 2nd team all-defense. He played 40 mpg too so it was surely still his prime...

Kareem's left knee was injured in the '72 playoffs...

And as your stats show Kareem individually obliterated Nate in the '71 and the '73 series by a much bigger margin than Wilt ever did in the playoffs.

In 65-66 Nate averaged 16.3 ppg, 18.0 rpg, and while he just shot .406 from the field, it came in an NBA that shot .433. The very next season he came in second in the MVP voting with an 18.7 ppg, 21.3 rpg, .437 season (league shot .441.)

In 73-74, and missing 20 games, he averaged 13.0 ppg, 14.2 rpg, and shot .444 (in a league that shot .459.) Just the previous season, in 72-73, he averaged 17.1 ppg, 17.1 rpg, and shot .446. And, following his 73-74 season, Nate averaged 7.9 ppg, 11.3 rpg, and shot .364 from the field.

Clearly, he was a MUCH better player in 65-66 than he was in 73-74.

dankok8

01-12-2014, 07:37 PM

In 65-66 Nate averaged 16.3 ppg, 18.0 rpg, and while he just shot .406 from the field, it came in an NBA that shot .433. The very next season he came in second in the MVP voting with an 18.7 ppg, 21.3 rpg, .437 season (league shot .441.)

In 73-74, and missing 20 games, he averaged 13.0 ppg, 14.2 rpg, and shot .444 (in a league that shot .459.) Just the previous season, in 72-73, he averaged 17.1 ppg, 17.1 rpg, and shot .446. And, following his 73-74 season, Nate averaged 7.9 ppg, 11.3 rpg, and shot .364 from the field.

Clearly, he was a MUCH better player in 65-66 than he was in 73-74.

The league was much faster paced in 65-66 than 73-74 so rebounds are pretty even. Nate also averaged more assists in 73-74, shot much better (even compared to league average) and was much more experienced.

In 74-75 he was washed up and I agree it seems ridiculous to give numbers against him much merit from that point on but in 73-74 he was still a force.

LAZERUSS

01-12-2014, 07:42 PM

The league was much faster paced in 65-66 than 73-74 so rebounds are pretty even. Nate also averaged more assists in 73-74, shot much better (even compared to league average) and was much more experienced.

In 74-75 he was washed up and I agree it seems ridiculous to give numbers against him much merit from that point on but in 73-74 he was still a force.

Once again, if you claiming that Nate was near his peak in 73-74, then evidently KAJ was near his 87-88.

GOATbe

01-12-2014, 07:45 PM

They'd be poor mans JaVale McGees in this era who cares. :rolleyes:

LAZERUSS

01-12-2014, 08:07 PM

They'd be poor mans JaVale McGees in this era who cares. :rolleyes:

Evidently YOU did. You not only took the time to read the topic, you even wasted more of it by taking the time to comment on it.

Ed Wachter

01-12-2014, 08:08 PM

They'd be poor mans JaVale McGees in this era who cares. :rolleyes:
:facepalm

LAZERUSS

01-13-2014, 01:18 AM

Maybe you haven't seen my earlier post. Taken into consideration your 66-67 calculation I could repost:

How Nate shot vs Russell, Kareem and Wilt ?

vs Russell - 19,6 ppg on 0.409
vs Kareem - 18.6 ppg on 0.413
vs Wilt - 16.3 ppg on 0.382

And how the others shot against him ?

Kareem vs Nate - 24.76 ppg on 0.447
Wilt vs Nate - 14.84 ppg on 0.548
Russell vs Nate - 11.59 ppg on 4.34

The data covers the 1965-1973 period. The data for Wilt vs Nate and Russell vs Nate is still incomplete (but I have the majority of the games data).

Thanks again, Julizaver.

Dankok8 keeps mentioning Wilt and Nate's 67-68 H2H's, as if Thurmond were just waxing Chamberlain. So, I looked up their FOUR H2H games:

1.
Nate: 11 pts, 33 rebs
Wilt: 1 pt., 18 rebs, 13 ast, and get this 0-0 FG/FGA

2.
Nate: 18 pts, 26 rebs
Wilt: 20 pts, 27 rebs, 4 ast, 8-18 FG/FGA

3.
Nate: 13 pts, 25 rebs
Wilt: 12 pts, 23 rebs, 4 ast, 3-11 FG/FGA

4.
Nate: 18 pts, 23 rebs
Wilt: 20 pts, 27 rebs, 7 ast, 8/? FG/FGA

So, this was supposed to be some kind of major beatdown from Nate? First of all, we don't have any of Thurmond's FG%'s, and historically, he shot way less than 40% against Wilt. And just the season before in 12 H2H's with Wilt he shot about .335. So, there was a very good chance that he was shooting horribly against him in 67-68, too.

Then, as always, he uses a very small sampling as some kind of examples. Here again, we only have two of their NINE H2H's from 65-66, and in those two Wilt shot 8-22 and 17-32, or a total of .463. So, he assumes that Chamberlain, in a season in which he was routinely dumping 30+ points on Nate, would have only shot .463 in those NINE games.

For instance, in their 3 H2H's in the 64-65 season, Chamberlain had games of 22 points, on 9-17 shooting; 24 points, on 7-21 shooting; and then 34 on 13-20 shooting...or a combined 26.7 ppg on .500 shooting. Now, how many times in their MANY H2H games did Wilt shoot something 7-21 against Nate? Obviously that was an aberration.

Then, in the 66-67 season, we now know that in six regular season H2H's, Chamberlain averaged 20.8 ppg on an unfathomable .633 FG% (while holding Nate to 13.0 ppg on a .327 FG%.) And again, in the Finals, covering six H2H's, Chamberlain outscored Nate, per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg, and outshot Thurmond by a .560 to .343 margin. (BTW, the Wilt-bashers would use this as an example of Wilt's decline in the post-season.)

So, all we have to go by in that 67-68 season were one game in which Chamberlain didn't even attempt a shot, and another, in which he scored 20 points, we don't have any FG% data. So, he uses the two examples, in which Wilt collectively shot 11-29, and claims that Thurmond held him a .379 FG%.

In any case, Wilt had the two highest scoring games in those H2H's, and went 2-2 in their rebounding battles (albeit Nate outrebounded in total by a 107-86 margin.)

All of which got me thinking. Just how bad did Wilt shoot over the course of the rest of their H2H's?

Here we go:

68-69 regular season: 6 games
Chamberlain averaged 13.8 ppg on a .547 FG%.

68-69 playoffs: 6 games
Wilt averaged 12.0 ppg on a .500 FG%
(Nate averaged 16.7 ppg on a .392 FG% BTW)

70-71 regular season: 6 games
Wilt averaged 10.2 ppg on a .553 FG%

71-72 regular season: 6 games
Wilt averaged 6.8 ppg on a .731 FG%

72-73 regular season: 6 games
Wilt averaged 6.0 ppg on a .722 FG%

72-73 playoffs: 5 games:
Wilt averaged 7.0 ppg on a .611 FG%
(Nate averaged 15.8 ppg on a .373 FG%.)

I just hold out a glimmer of hope that more info will turn up regarding their missing seven games from their 65-66 H2H's. Oh, and it would great if we had more of Nate's FG%'s, as well (and thanks for posting Nate's three known H2H's from that 65-66 season, as well.)

dankok8

01-13-2014, 01:49 AM

LAZERUSS

01-13-2014, 02:01 AM

LAZERUSS please don't misquote me.

I did say Nate outplayed Wilt during entirety of the 67-68 season and that's a fact.

For 65-66 I didn't say Wilt shot 46.3% for all 9 games. I simply said if we reasonably assume he took 20 shots per game in the remaining 7 games that would put him at 47.9%. And therefore I have doubts that he shot a great % in 65-66. Of course I can't be sure but I think so.

And when Wilt shot very high %'s against Nate from '69 onwards it was always on very small numbers of shots.

You persistently compare Wilt's FG% when he takes 5 shots a game to Kareem's FG% when he takes 25 shots a game. You consistently cherry-pick stats that suit you and ignore games where Wilt struggles. It's also clear that you're not willing to admit that Wilt ever did anything wrong.

I on the other hand SHARE ALL NUMBERS and then simply post my view. That allows other people to take a look and form their own conclusions. And I try to be as unbiased as possible. Kareem (who isn't even my fave player or anything like that by the way...) has had plenty of crappy games and even entire series.

Sorry. I apologize.

You are certainly one of the more knowledgeable posters here, and you do a great job of researching your your opinions.

Look, I have KAJ very high on my all-time list (#5...and I can see him even being considered a GOAT.) In fact, I have long maintained that his 69-70 post-season; his entire 70-71 season, including playoffs ; and his entire 71-72 regular season, were one of the greatest PEAKS in NBA history.

My problem with Kareem was that, after that, for whatever reasons, he slowly lost the will to get better. Once again, when motivated, he could hang 48-50 point games on Walton (hell, he hung a 50 point game on Wilt), or put up a huge playoff run like his 76-77 post-season; or put up five great games in the '80 Finals, or win a FMVP at age 37. But overall, he SHOULD have been more dominant.

And my other problem with KAJ is that so many here place him on this pedalstal, and ignore his share of flops and failures. But, many of those same posters will continuously trash Chamberlain's career, despite the fact that he seldom had a poor playoff game, much less a series.

And again, I honestly have not seen any research which would put any other center over Wilt's run in the mid-60's. There were very few games in those years, hell, from '60 thru '67 even, in which he was, at least statistically, outplayed. And he was just annihilating his HOF centers beyond recognition. ALL of them. Including the playoffs.

In any case, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

:cheers: