Wilt's Playoff Numbers in the 60's without Russell and Thurmond

[LAZERUSS]

Take Russell and Thurmond out of Chamberlain's playoffs in the 60's, and here is what you would have...

Take Russell and Thurmond out of his playoffs in the 60's...

a 23-14 record (and series wins in all but one of those years)

And he had these series:

'60. 38.7 ppg, 22.0 rpg,

'61. 37.0 ppg, 23.0 rpg.

'62. 37.0 ppg, 23.0 rpg.

'64. 38.6 ppg, 23.0 rpg. (.559 FG%...in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .420.)

'65. 27.3 ppg, 20.0 rpg.

'67. 28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, .617 FG%

'68. 25.0 ppg, 24.2 rpg, .584 FG% (against Bellamy, whom he held to a .421 FG%.)

'69. 18.2 ppg, 25.2 rpg, .638 FG%.



His PPG and RPG averages in the 60's, without Russell and Thurmond...

31.2 ppg and 23.2 rpg

[CavaliersFTW]

Take Russell and Thurmond out of Chamberlain's playoffs in the 60's, and here is what you would have...

Take Russell and Thurmond out of his playoffs in the 60's...

a 23-14 record (and series wins in all but one of those years)

And he had these series:

'60. 38.7 ppg, 22.0 rpg,

'61. 37.0 ppg, 23.0 rpg.

'62. 37.0 ppg, 23.0 rpg.

'64. 38.6 ppg, 23.0 rpg. (.559 FG%...in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .420.)

'65. 27.3 ppg, 20.0 rpg.

'67. 28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, .617 FG%

'68. 25.0 ppg, 24.2 rpg, .584 FG% (against Bellamy, whom he held to a .421 FG%.)

'69. 18.2 ppg, 25.2 rpg, .638 FG%.



His PPG and RPG averages in the 60's, without Russell and Thurmond...

31.2 ppg and 23.2 rpg
:eek: :applause:

[LAZERUSS]

And, if you want to include them...

98 games:

52-47

26.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, .520 FG% (in leagues that shot about .435), and 4.4 apg.

[LAZERUSS]

Oh, and here were Wilt's regular season numbers in the 60's...

34.4 ppg, 24.3 rpg, 4.5 apg, and a .530 FG%

and compare them with ALL 97 of his 60's playoff's numbers...

98 games:

52-47

26.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, .520 FG% (in leagues that shot about .435), and 4.4 apg.

A drop in scoring, but again, he faced Russell in EIGHT series, and THURMOND in two more, a slight drop in FG% (Kareem couldn't hit the broadside of a barn against Nate BTW), and he ELEVATED his rebounding.

Maybe later I will post his OPPOSING CENTERS numbers in those 98 games. I can GUARANTEE you that Wilt "the choker" will look completely different after that.

[dude77]

I don't wanna hate on wilt .. but he was playing against much smaller, weaker guys .. like a man amongst boys .. those inflated numbers are the evidence .. imagine shaq playing against guys who are all shorter and smaller than him like wilt did .. not hating though .. big fan of wc .. he was a beast who could play in any era

[CavaliersFTW]

I don't wanna hate on wilt .. but he was playing against much smaller, weaker guys .. like a man amongst boys .. imagine shaq playing against guys who are all shorter and smaller than him like wilt did .. not hating though .. big fan of wc .. he was a beast who could play in any era
Shaq was also a shorter, weaker player than Wilt so...

[LAZERUSS]

I don't wanna hate on wilt .. but he was playing against much smaller, weaker guys .. like a man amongst boys .. imagine shaq playing against guys who are all shorter and smaller than him like wilt did .. not hating though .. big fan of wc .. he was a beast who could play in any era

Russell was technically 6-10, and would measure 6-11 in today's NBA (same height as Dwight), had a 7-4 wingspan, and was a world-class high-jumper.

Thurmond was a full 6-11, supposedly had a higher standing reach than Chamberlain (who had a 7-8 wingspan BTW), and would measure at over 7-0 in today's NBA.

Bellamy was 6-11, and would be listed at over 7-0 today.

He also faced the 7-0 Walter Dukes, the 7-0 Mel Counts, the 7-0 Henry Finkle, and the 7-3 Swede Halbrook, and you can add an inch to all of them, as well.

Later he battled the 6-11 Bob Lanier, who would listed at 7-0 today, and BTW, at ages 35-36, and covering 11 straight H2H games, Wilt averaged 24 ppg on a .784 FG% against him.

And we can't forget the 7-2 Kareem, whom he battled at KAJ's peak.

Hell, he even schooled the 7-2 Gilmore in the 71-72 NBA-ABA ASG...

And again, the many 6-10 and 6-11 centers that Chamberlain faced would all be listed at an inch taller today.

[LAZERUSS]

Just thought about this...(and without looking it up, either)

Chamberlain played in 18 playoff series in the 60's, and was only outscored in two by his opposing centers (both in '69, and by a Thurmond who shot .392 in that series, and a Beaty who averaged 24.2 ppg.)

Furthermore, he outrebounded and outshot his opposing center in all 18 series. And some by staggering margins.

I'll have to dig up Beaty's numbers (but he only averaged 12.9 rpg and shot .432 in his 11 post-season games, five of which came against Wilt) to give an actual number to these combined H2H's, but I can assure you, it will be ONE-SIDED in EVERY one of those categories...

[dude77]

Russell was technically 6-10, and would measure 6-11 in today's NBA (same height as Dwight), had a 7-4 wingspan, and was a world-class high-jumper.

Thurmond was a full 6-11, supposedly had a higher standing reach than Chamberlain (who had a 7-8 wingspan BTW), and would measure at over 7-0 in today's NBA.

Bellamy was 6-11, and would be listed at over 7-0 today.

He also faced the 7-0 Walter Dukes, the 7-0 Mel Counts, the 7-0 Henry Finkle, and the 7-3 Swede Halbrook, and you can add an inch to all of them, as well.

Later he battled the 6-11 Bob Lanier, who would listed at 7-0 today, and BTW, at ages 35-36, and covering 11 straight H2H games, Wilt averaged 24 ppg on a .784 FG% against him.

And we can't forget the 7-2 Kareem, whom he battled at KAJ's peak.

Hell, he even schooled the 7-2 Gilmore in the 71-72 NBA-ABA ASG...

And again, the many 6-10 and 6-11 centers that Chamberlain faced would all be listed at an inch taller today.

well nevermind then lol

[LAZERUSS]

Oh, and here were Wilt's regular season numbers in the 60's...

34.4 ppg, 24.3 rpg, 4.5 apg, and a .530 FG%

and compare them with ALL 97 of his 60's playoff's numbers...

98 games:

52-47

26.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, .520 FG% (in leagues that shot about .435), and 4.4 apg.

A drop in scoring, but again, he faced Russell in EIGHT series, and THURMOND in two more, a slight drop in FG% (Kareem couldn't hit the broadside of a barn against Nate BTW), and he ELEVATED his rebounding.

Maybe later I will post his OPPOSING CENTERS numbers in those 98 games. I can GUARANTEE you that Wilt "the choker" will look completely different after that.


CORRECTION...

We can't throw Wilt's 62-63 season totals into this, because his crappy roster was so bad, that they didn't make the playoffs...

Here were Wilt's regular season numbers in the 60's (sans 62-63)...

33.3 ppg, 24.3 rpg, 4.6 apg, and a .530 FG%

Playoffs...

26.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, 4.4 apg, and a .520 FG%

I still haven't taken the time to research his FG%'s... so for now

31.2 ppg, 23.2 rpg

The "decline" dwindles even further...

[Asukal]

Gaylauber you aren't convincing anybody. All this proves is Wilt only dominated when faced with sh!tty competition. What's the matter? Couldn't do it against legit opposition? :roll:

[dankok8]

Let's not cherry-pick... here are the complete numbers for the series the OP posted with assists and FT% included.

'60. 38.7 ppg, 22.0 rpg, 2.3 apg on 49.0 %FG/40.0 %FT/48.6 %TS

'61. 37.0 ppg, 23.0 rpg. 2.0 apg on 46.9 %FG/55.3 %FT/49.2 %TS

'62. 37.0 ppg, 23.0 rpg. 3.4 apg on 46.5 %FG/62.7 %FT/50.0 %TS

'64. 38.6 ppg, 23.0 rpg. 3.9 apg on 55.9 %FG/51.2 %FT/56.3 %TS

'65. 27.3 ppg, 20.0 rpg. 6.3 apg on 48.8 %FG/52.9 %FT/51.2 %TS

'67. 28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg on 61.7 %FG%/36.4 %FT/58.6 %TS

'68. 25.5 ppg, 24.2 rpg, 6.3 apg on 58.4 %FG/31.3 %FT/53.7 %TS

'69. 18.2 ppg, 25.6 rpg, 2.0 apg on 63.8 %FG/46.8 %FT/61.0 %TS


In a few of those series his overall efficiency was atrocious. And from '60 to '65 those rebounding numbers aren't so impressive considering most teams were grabbing 65-70 rebounds per game. It was well below his season averages too.

[LAZERUSS]

Let's not cherry-pick... here are the complete numbers for the series the OP posted with assists and FT% included.

'60. 38.7 ppg, 22.0 rpg, 2.3 apg on 49.0 %FG/40.0 %FT/48.6 %TS

'61. 37.0 ppg, 23.0 rpg. 2.0 apg on 46.9 %FG/55.3 %FT/49.2 %TS

'62. 37.0 ppg, 23.0 rpg. 3.4 apg on 46.5 %FG/62.7 %FT/50.0 %TS

'64. 38.6 ppg, 23.0 rpg. 3.9 apg on 55.9 %FG/51.2 %FT/56.3 %TS

'65. 27.3 ppg, 20.0 rpg. 6.3 apg on 48.8 %FG/52.9 %FT/51.2 %TS

'67. 28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg on 61.7 %FG%/36.4 %FT/58.6 %TS

'68. 25.0 ppg, 24.2 rpg, 6.3 apg on 58.4 %FG/31.3 %FT/53.7 %TS

'69. 18.2 ppg, 25.2 rpg, 2.0 apg on 63.8 %FG/46.8 %FT/61.0 %TS


In a few of those series his overall efficiency was atrocious. And from '60 to '65 those rebounding numbers aren't so impressive considering most teams were grabbing 65-70 rebounds per game. It was well below his season averages too.

One, you are only posting Wilt's ACTUAL FT% and TS%'s, and not his EFFECTIVE FT% and TS%'s.

Oh, and PLEASE, post the POST-SEASON LEAGUE AVERAGES in eFG% and TS%, as well. For instance, Wilt's .465 series came in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .411...or WAY above it. Incidently, let's stick to what Wilt and his OPPOSING centers have CONTROL over, and not FT shooting. In anything in which they could control, you and I BOTH KNOW that he absolutely DESTROYED his peers in the post-season. Another point, Wilt's IMPACT at the LINE was considerably greater than his own FT%. He was getting opposing players in foul trouble, and because of it, his TEAMMATES benefitted by being in the bonus much quicker, and more often. So, while you are at, please post Wilt's TEAMs margins in FT/FTAs over his opposing TEAM's.

Two, Wilt's "decline" in rpg...all while just SLAUGHTERING EVERY center he faced in those series.

Three...how about YOU post his OPPOSING starting CENTERS numbers across the board, as well??????????


If you don't, I will....

[LAZERUSS]

Gaylauber you aren't convincing anybody. All this proves is Wilt only dominated when faced with sh!tty competition. What's the matter? Couldn't do it against legit opposition? :roll:


He DOMINATED ALL of his competition in the ENTIRE decade of the 60's, and I mean...DOMINATED.

BTW, he faced Beaty, twice, who was a multiple all-star; Kerr, twice (technically, three times, but the 7-3 Halbrook was the started in one series), who was a multiple all-star, Embry once, who was an all-star (hell, he is technically a HOFer), and Bellamy, once, who was a HOFer...in those series. The only "none" ASG, HOFer, was Dierking, and he just annihilated him.

[SexSymbol]

Why the **** should we take two of the best players out?
That's a loser's excuse. This is pathetic in every way imaginable.
It's like saying take out the boston big 3 and pistons and Kobe has won every finals he has played in. It doesn't change shit, you're just trying to hide the failiors of a player.
Let me spit some truth for ya, gay ass brother : ALL PLAYERS FAIL AT SOME TIMES, ACCEPT IT. Wilt isn't a basketball god, nor is he in any way close to it. He was a circus show for half of his career, and after getting to the Lakers he changed his style to play like Russell, because russell was a better player and Wilt knew it. Even then, he couldn't match BR at being him and ultimately fell, like Barry mentioned, he was known to all players as a choker, and to more and more people know when statistics arise from that time.
Wilt is a choker, get over it.

[Asukal]

He DOMINATED ALL of his competition in the ENTIRE decade of the 60's, and I mean...DOMINATED.

BTW, he faced Beaty, twice, who was a multiple all-star; Kerr, twice (technically, three times, but the 7-3 Halbrook was the started in one series), who was a multiple all-star, Embry once, who was an all-star (hell, he is technically a HOFer), and Bellamy, once, who was a HOFer...in those series. The only "none" ASG, HOFer, was Dierking, and he just annihilated him.

Wow all that dominance yet didn't win more than 2. True definition of "empty stats". :applause:

[swagga]

Take Russell and Thurmond out of Chamberlain's playoffs in the 60's, and here is what you would have...

Take Russell and Thurmond out of his playoffs in the 60's...

a 23-14 record (and series wins in all but one of those years)

And he had these series:

'60. 38.7 ppg, 22.0 rpg,

'61. 37.0 ppg, 23.0 rpg.

'62. 37.0 ppg, 23.0 rpg.

'64. 38.6 ppg, 23.0 rpg. (.559 FG%...in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .420.)

'65. 27.3 ppg, 20.0 rpg.

'67. 28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, .617 FG%

'68. 25.0 ppg, 24.2 rpg, .584 FG% (against Bellamy, whom he held to a .421 FG%.)

'69. 18.2 ppg, 25.2 rpg, .638 FG%.



His PPG and RPG averages in the 60's, without Russell and Thurmond...

31.2 ppg and 23.2 rpg

why not talk about his stats after they are adjusted per pace ? His rebounding rate is not so otherwordly and inferior to the likes of rodman, you might be surprised. http://skepticalsports.com/?tag=wilt-chamberlain
or about his playoff problems or lack focus?

[julizaver]

Take Russell and Thurmond out of Chamberlain's playoffs in the 60's, and here is what you would have...


His PPG and RPG averages in the 60's, without Russell and Thurmond...

31.2 ppg and 23.2 rpg

There is no need to take out Russell and Thurmond. His had great series against both. His '65 playoff series vs Celtics is one of the best post season series ever. And he put way more efforts on defense in the postseason in order for his teams to win. The widely cited as a choke job Game 7 of the '62 series (where he scored "only" 22 pts on 7 from 15) was in fact regarded as one of Wilt's best due to his teriffic defense.

[dankok8]

There is no need to take out Russell and Thurmond. His had great series against both. His '65 playoff series vs Celtics is one of the best post season series ever. And he put way more efforts on defense in the postseason in order for his teams to win. The widely cited as a choke job Game 7 of the '62 series (where he scored "only" 22 pts on 7 from 15) was in fact regarded as one of Wilt's best due to his teriffic defense.

Other than '65 EDF and '67 EDF, Russell has a case (not saying he did...) to have outplayed or at least played Chamberlain relatively even in all their other H2H series.

And Wilt never had a "great" series against Thurmond. Offensively he was simply rubbish against Nate.

[CavaliersFTW]

Other than '65 EDF and '67 EDF, Russell has a case (not saying he did...) to have outplayed or at least played Chamberlain relatively even in all their other H2H series.

And Wilt never had a "great" series against Thurmond. Offensively he was simply rubbish against Nate.
Nobody is going to take you seriously spewing out such hyperbole

[julizaver]

Other than '65 EDF and '67 EDF, Russell has a case (not saying he did...) to have outplayed or at least played Chamberlain relatively even in all their other H2H series.

And Wilt never had a "great" series against Thurmond. Offensively he was simply rubbish against Nate.

I though that it was already discussed here multiple times - Wilt was not guarded solely by Russell, there was team strategy for guarding Wilt. Even Russell said that Wilt bested him individually.

Could you point out clearly just one post H2H series in which Russell clearly single handily outplayed Wilt ? Not something like did his job, BUT clearly outplayed Wilt.

It is a testimony to Nate greatness (being the best man to man defensive center) that he put such a battles under the boards against Wilt and that Wilt's numbers decrease in '67 finals in comparison to Celtics series, but still Wilt's numbers were far better than Nate. But Nate never met high scoring Wilt in the post series (60-66 scoring champion) either.

[Psileas]

I don't wanna hate on wilt .. but he was playing against much smaller, weaker guys .. like a man amongst boys .. those inflated numbers are the evidence .. imagine shaq playing against guys who are all shorter and smaller than him like wilt did .. not hating though .. big fan of wc .. he was a beast who could play in any era

The bolded doesn't make much sense. It's basically like saying "imagine Shaq existing". Shaq enjoyed a similar and, at times, bigger size advantage over his opponents and nobody holds it against him. Why do so for Wilt? Like you said in the end, just recognize he was a beast and move on.

[Psileas]

Could you point out clearly just one post H2H series in which Russell clearly single handily outplayed Wilt ? Not something like did his job, BUT clearly outplayed Wilt.

Probably no such series exists. Believers of such claims use the argument of Russell "outplaying Wilt for an X amount of time" here and there, with this X amount of time rarely being more than a single half, and even then, "outplaying" is often a hyperbole to make a point seem stronger - Russell matching Wilt's scoring and rebounding for a half will be seen as "Russell outplaying Wilt", a testament to how dominant Wilt was. Russell limiting Wilt significantly below his averages is also often automatically seen as Russell outplaying Wilt, regardless of how much Wilt might also limit Russell, exactly because people were used to seeing Wilt having more responsibilities.

[LAZERUSS]

Other than '65 EDF and '67 EDF, Russell has a case (not saying he did...) to have outplayed or at least played Chamberlain relatively even in all their other H2H series.

And Wilt never had a "great" series against Thurmond. Offensively he was simply rubbish against Nate.

Chamberlain SLAUGHTERED Russell in the '60 EDF's. Just KILLED him. Not only that, but had Wilt not badly damaged his hand, at the end of game two, to the point it was so swollen it was worthless...which resulted in the ONLY playoff H2H game between Russell and Wilt, in which Russell clearly outplayed Wilt...and BTW, a 120-90 loss for Wilt's "team"...the numbers would have been even more staggering. As it was... 30-26 .500 FG% (in a post-season that shot .402.) Oh, and in a "must-win" game five, Chamberlain castrated Russell with a 50-35 game.

'62. Wilt was CLEARLY more dominant. Russell was able to "hold Wilt down" for HALVES of games, but Wilt easily outplayed him, and had a decided 4-2-1 game advantage (which INCLUDES game one, despite a loss.)

'64. BrUTALIZED Russell and his SEVEN OTHER HOF teammates. Only a complete idiot would claim that Russell was even within the other side of the Ocean in comparision. The numbers do NOT lie.

'65. Quite possibly the most one-side BEATDOWN ever administereb by one GOAT candidate on another, with perhaps only Wilt's '67 EDF's against Russell, being close.

'66. Chamberlain won 4 of the 5 matchups, and annihilated Russell in the clinching game five loss. Even in his WORST scoring game of the series, the recaps claimed that he almost SINGLE-HANDEDLY won that game.

'67. Only rivaled by his '65 MASSACRE of the great Russell. Wilt DEMOLISHED Russell in EVERY aspect of the game. And with his teammates FINALLY equalizing Russell's...well, an absolute obliteration of the eight-time defending, and 60-21 Celtics.

'68. As we BOTH KNOW, Chamberlain was hobbled the ENTIRE series (as were HALF of his quality teammates.) Still, Chamberlain CLOBBERED Russell in the first FIVE games of that series. Just beat him to death. And the ONLY game in that series in which Russell outplayed Wilt, was in game six. Wilt outplayed Russell in game seven, and at worst, equaled him.

'69. We have discussed this before, at WORST, Chamberlain held a 3-2-2 margin over Russell. And as ALWAYS, pounded him in the clinching game seven loss. Hell, Russell HID the entire 4th quarter of that game. Chamberlain, playing five minutes less in the period, outrebounded Russell 7-2. In fact, he EQUALLED Russel's TOTAL on two straight possessions with an INJURED leg.

Russell never had even ONE series....hell no more than 1-2 GAMES in a series, in which he outplayed Wilt.


And yes, Chamberlain WIPED the floor with Thurmond in '67. He outscored him in five of the six games; outrebounded in five of the six games; outassisted him in five of the six games; outshot him in EVERY game; and probably outblocked him by a huge margin, as well (maybe 40 blocks in that series.) Oh, and their overall FG%'s... Chamberlain with a STAGGERING .560 to .343 margin. Oh, and how about the clinching game six, when, as ALWAYS, Chamberlain just MURDERED Thurmond.

And, in the last FOUR games of both of their playoff series in '69, and '73 ...just WAXED Nate. You always ignore the fact that Wilt was holding Thurmond to the low 30's in FG%...and yet Nate kept shooting his teams right out games. All, while absolutely OVERWHELMING Nate on the glass.

And, as Julizaver mentioned...fortunately for Nate, he never had a playoff series against a PRIME "scoring" Wilt. It would have been the 30-40 point outbursts that he routinely gave a prime Nate in 65-66 in their nine regular season H2H's (margins of 33-17, 33-10, 38-15, and 45-13).

[LAZERUSS]

Wow all that dominance yet didn't win more than 2. True definition of "empty stats". :applause:

So I take that when MJ averaged 44 ppg against the 86 Celtics, including a double OT game of 63, in a sweeping 3-0 loss...it was purely EMPTY stats.

Or Kareem just crushing Walton with a 30 ppg 60.0 FG% series in the '77 ECF's...in a sweeping 4-0 loss...EMPTY STATS.

Or even Kareem in the '74 Finals, when he played brilliantly in the first six, and then folded his tent in a game seven blowout loss on his home floor...EMPTY STATS.

Just like Chamberlain in the '65 EDF's, when he took a 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss, to the 62-18 Celtics, and with a 30 ppg, 31 rpg, .555 FG% series... EMPTY STATS.

Right?

I really think YOUR definition of "empty stats" and mine, are completely different.

[LAZERUSS]

Probably no such series exists. Believers of such claims use the argument of Russell "outplaying Wilt for an X amount of time" here and there, with this X amount of time rarely being more than a single half, and even then, "outplaying" is often a hyperbole to make a point seem stronger - Russell matching Wilt's scoring and rebounding for a half will be seen as "Russell outplaying Wilt", a testament to how dominant Wilt was. Russell limiting Wilt significantly below his averages is also often automatically seen as Russell outplaying Wilt, regardless of how much Wilt might also limit Russell, exactly because people were used to seeing Wilt having more responsibilities.

You can add the NONSENSICAL... "well, Russell "let" Wilt get his in the first HALF, and then shut him down in the second half when the game was on the line", or the "Russell really shut Wilt down in the first HALF, and his Celtics opened up a big lead, and then he "let" Wilt score meaningly points in the second half."

All of which I have pretty much SHREDDED...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=331127


Russell, himself, would admit that he was hanging on for dear life in almost every one of their H2H battles...

[LAZERUSS]

Probably no such series exists. Believers of such claims use the argument of Russell "outplaying Wilt for an X amount of time" here and there, with this X amount of time rarely being more than a single half, and even then, "outplaying" is often a hyperbole to make a point seem stronger - Russell matching Wilt's scoring and rebounding for a half will be seen as "Russell outplaying Wilt", a testament to how dominant Wilt was. Russell limiting Wilt significantly below his averages is also often automatically seen as Russell outplaying Wilt, regardless of how much Wilt might also limit Russell, exactly because people were used to seeing Wilt having more responsibilities.

We could both find literally 40+ H2H games in which Chamberlain just CARPET-BOMBED Russell, and only a handful of games in which Russell even slightly outplayed Wilt.

George Kiseda was being very kind when he made the comment, "In one third of their H2H's, Wilt outplayed Russell. In one-third, Russell outplayed Wilt. And in the other third, Wilt dominated Russell."

The two went H2H in 143 games...and you would be hard-pressed to find a dozen in which Russell cleanly outplayed Wilt. Hell, he only had 10 games in which he outscored Chamberlain. And Wilt held a 92-43-8 margin in rebounding "wins." And I suspect that Chamberlain probably outshot Russell from the field in over a 100 of those 143 games, if not more.

Furthermore, some by staggering margins. And defensively, Wilt reduced Russell's FG%'s MORE than Russell reduced his. My god, there was one game in the '65 season in which Wilt held Russell to a game of 0-15 from the field. And entire playoff series of .399, .397, .386, and even .358.

John Wooden said it best, "Had Wilt had Russell's rosters, and Auerbach as a coach, and it likely would have been Wilt winning all those rings."

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, I am still working on the overall H2H's in the decade of the 60's. Once again, in Wilt's 18 playoff series in that decade, which included eight against Russell, and two against Nate...he outscored his opposing starting center in 16 of them; outrebounded them in all 18; and outshot them from the field in all 18 of them.

And I suspect, by HUGE margins...

[dankok8]

It's so often been mentioned that Wilt has never been outrebounded in a playoff series that I never bothered to check it. The fact is he was outrebounded once.

In the 1965 EDSF Jerry Lucas outrebounded Wilt Chamberlain 21.0 rpg to 20.0 rpg. BRef has Lucas with 84 rebounds and NBAstats.net has Wilt with 80 rebounds in the series.

[LAZERUSS]

There is no need to take out Russell and Thurmond. His had great series against both. His '65 playoff series vs Celtics is one of the best post season series ever. And he put way more efforts on defense in the postseason in order for his teams to win. The widely cited as a choke job Game 7 of the '62 series (where he scored "only" 22 pts on 7 from 15) was in fact regarded as one of Wilt's best due to his teriffic defense.

Oh I know. Chamberlain OWNED Russell AND Thurmond in their playoff series H2H's. And again, if you include the Russell and Thurmond H2H series (which are over HALF of his playoff series in the 60's)...he still put up averages of 26 ppg, 26 rpg, and shot .520 (in post-seasons that shot about .435 on average in that span.)

And, his '65 series against Russell was just staggering offensively. Only his '64 WDF's rivaled it.

BTW, glad to see you pop in now and then.

[Fazotronic]

its hilarious how guys like lazeruss and before jlauber are always trying to convince the world of how awesome wilt is and always end up forcing ppl to bring up all the ugly stuff. and the list is getting bigger

couple years ago i only thought he was overrated beacause of the competition.
the whole choking aspect puts it on a whole other level.
dude gets even subbed OUT of the game in crunch time like WTF:roll:

to bad they all hidding the videos to not show how ridicoulus some games were.
like you have to be kidding thinking anyone now or in future looks at 100 point game and goes WOW.
Its not even RECORDED:roll:

[Angel Face]

Nice... Pretty impressive considering the fact that he was guarded by defenders as tall as his waistline.

[LAZERUSS]

It's so often been mentioned that Wilt has never been outrebounded in a playoff series that I never bothered to check it. The fact is he was outrebounded once.

In the 1965 EDSF Jerry Lucas outrebounded Wilt Chamberlain 21.0 rpg to 20.0 rpg. BRef has Lucas with 84 rebounds and NBAstats.net has Wilt with 80 rebounds in the series.

Good catch...

Of course, Chamberlain was defended by Wayne Embry in that series, and outrebounded Embry, 20.0 rpg to 6.3 prg.

In their '67 playoff series matchup, it was Dierking trying to hang with Wilt, and Chamberlain outrebounded him by a 26.5 rpg to 13.0 rpg margin. Lucas did average 19.0 rpg in that series.

BUT, how about when it was actually Lucas vs. Wilt? In the '72 Finals, a 35 year old Wilt, playing 49.2 mpg, outrebounded a 31 year old Lucas, who played 46.6 mpg in that series by...get this... a 23.2 rpg to 9.8 rpg margin.

Incidently, Clyde Lee outrebounded a prime Kareem in the Warriors-Bucks 72-73 playoff series, 17 rpg to 16 rpg. Hell, when Nate got in foul trouble, he even shut down Kareem on the offensive end.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1087278/2/index.htm



It was a difference Coach Al Attles spotted long ago. But Attles couldn't start Lee regularly until the playoffs for he was injured much of the second half of the season. Over the year, he played only 22 minutes a game, averaging six points and nine rebounds. In the playoffs he was on the floor more than any other Warrior, pulled in more rebounds (17 a game) than anyone on either team and, in the fifth game, the 100-97 win that turned the series Golden State's way, it was Lee who led the Warriors.

Lee describes himself as a player "who has no moves, who can't jump and who doesn't have any kind of shot from more than a few feet away from the basket." What Lee can do is box out a freight train, tap in rebounds with the fingertip touch of a safecracker and do both of those things aggressively and tirelessly for 48 minutes. He is, in short, a consummate rebounder. He performed that job admirably in all four Golden State wins, but in the fifth game he added a couple of extra dimensions to bring the fans to their feet. He hit eight of 13 shots, two of them tough, short jumpers on which he was fouled, converting the free throws for three-point plays. More important was his defense on Abdul-Jabbar in the second half, when Milwaukee was rallying and Thurmond sat out 13 minutes after drawing his fifth foul with 7:58 to play in the third quarter. Lee guarded Kareem for all but 19 seconds of that time, holding him to one basket. It was that performance that made the folks back in Oakland, and the Warriors, stand up and put on a show of their own for Clyde Lee.

[LAZERUSS]

Nice... Pretty impressive considering the fact that he was guarded by defenders as tall as his waistline.

Since you are so knowledgeable on the subject...please provide the rest of us with that list of NBA centers whom he faced....

[LAZERUSS]

Chamberlain OWNED Thurmond in their three playoff series H2H's, but even moreso in their critical games...


For the uninformed that honestly felt that Nate Thurmond even remotely played Wilt close in the playoffs...how about their last four H2H's of each series:

'67:

Nate: 13.5 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 3.8 apg, .323 FG%
Wilt: 20.0 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 4.0 apg, .561 FG%

Last game of series:
Nate: 12 points, 22 rebounds, 5 assists, 4-13 FG/FGA
Wilt: 24 points, 23 rebounds, 4 assists, 8-13 FG/FGA



'69:

Nate: 14.5 ppg, 15.5 rpg, 4.0 apg, .353 FG%
Wilt: 12.8 ppg, 23.5 rpg, 2.8 apg, .538 FG%
Known Blocks, Wilt with a 37-11 edge, or over 9 bpg!

Last game of series:
Nate: 8 points, 14 rebounds, 1 assist, 3-13 FG/FGA
Wilt: 11 points, 25 rebounds, 1 assist, 5-9 Fg/FGA, 10 blocks




'73:

Nate: 14.3 ppg, 15.0 rpg, 4.0 apg, .371 FG%
Wilt: 8.5 ppg, 22.8 rpg, 5.0 apg, .692 FG%
Wilt with a known 21 blocks

Last game of series:
Nate: 9 points, 14 rebounds, 6 assists, 2-9 FG/FGA
Wilt: 5 points, 22 rebounds, 7 assists, 2-2 FG/FGA, 6 blocks

Total domination.

[dankok8]

Good catch...

Of course, Chamberlain was defended by Wayne Embry in that series, and outrebounded Embry, 20.0 rpg to 6.3 prg.

In their '67 playoff series matchup, it was Dierking trying to hang with Wilt, and Chamberlain outrebounded him by a 26.5 rpg to 13.0 rpg margin. Lucas did average 19.0 rpg in that series.

BUT, how about when it was actually Lucas vs. Wilt? In the '72 Finals, a 35 year old Wilt, playing 49.2 mpg, outrebounded a 31 year old Lucas, who played 46.6 mpg in that series by...get this... a 23.2 rpg to 9.8 rpg margin.

Incidently, Clyde Lee outrebounded a prime Kareem in the Warriors-Bucks 72-73 playoff series, 17 rpg to 16 rpg. Hell, when Nate got in foul trouble, he even shut down Kareem on the offensive end.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1087278/2/index.htm

Clyde Lee was a heck of a rebounder. That '72-'73 Warriors team was actually quite talented even though they were clear underdogs to the Bucks.

PG: Jim Barnett
SG: Jeff Mullins - 3x all-star and great shooter
SF: Rick Barry - superstar
PF: Clyde Lee - 1x all-star
C: Nate Thurmond - superstar

Bench: Cazzie Russell, Ron Williams

[LAZERUSS]

Clyde Lee was a heck of a rebounder. That '72-'73 Warriors team was actually quite talented even though they were clear underdogs to the Bucks.

PG: Jim Barnett
SG: Jeff Mullins - 3x all-star and great shooter
SF: Rick Barry - superstar
PF: Clyde Lee - 1x all-star
C: Nate Thurmond - superstar

Bench: Cazzie Russell, Ron Williams

Yes, Lee was one of the best of his era, in terms of TRB% (as was the little known Tom Boerwinkle.).

BTW, I was just giving you a bad time, since you brought up that Lucas-Wilt series.

Kareem was a very under-rated rebounder thru his 75-76 season. He was outrebounding Thurmond as badly as Chamberlain was in their H2H's.

I have long said, that a PEAK, Kareem, from 70-74, was not only a great scorer, rebounder, efficient, player, but his defense was brilliant, as well. He anchored FOUR of the best defensive teams of all-time from '71 thru '74.

[Helix]

Nobody is going to take you seriously spewing out such hyperbole


I quit taking him seriously a few years ago when he was posting under another name. The guy's in love with Bill Russell and will do anything to disparage Chamberlain to make him look bad and lift Russell. He can't stand the possibility that Chamberlain might have been the better player. Pretty much all of his spew has been shot down by various posters at one time or another.

[dankok8]

I quit taking him seriously a few years ago when he was posting under another name. The guy's in love with Bill Russell and will do anything to disparage Chamberlain to make him look bad and lift Russell. He can't stand the possibility that Chamberlain might have been the better player. Pretty much all of his spew has been shot down by various posters at one time or another.

Clearly you're thinking of another poster.

I never posted under another name and no I'm not a Russell lover or Wilt hater. Get a mod to do an IP scan.

Wilt sucking offensively against Thurmond in the playoffs is true though.

[Helix]

Clearly you're thinking of another poster.

I never posted under another name and no I'm not a Russell lover or Wilt hater. Get a mod to do an IP scan.

Wilt sucking offensively against Thurmond in the playoffs is true though.


Whatever you say.

[dankok8]

Whatever you say.

Seriously I never posted under another name. :facepalm

[Helix]

Seriously I never posted under another name. :facepalm


Ok, my mistake.....I apologize. It's just that your posting is eerily similar to someone else that used to post here. Also, I took your username to be a dead giveaway. I guess I was wrong.

[Stringer Bell]

:roll: at removing 2 of his best rivals to prop up Wilt's greatness.

You'd think his accomplishments would speak for themselves, but I guess not. Now you have to remove 2 of his best rivals to prove how great he was :oldlol: