Wilt most dominant ever, Russell greatest winner ever.

[CavaliersFTW]

Everyone else with a great resume is a watered down blend of the winning and dominance precedent set by Russell and Wilt. Therefore Russell or Wilt is the greatest of all time in my opinion, just depends on my mood. They set the bar so far out of sight no one can even hope to set their sights on duplicating even a fraction of either of what these two achieved.

Kareem and MJ have the least watered down blend of anyone though. So I don't contest them being discussed at the top with Wilt and Russ so long as it is understood by the person arguing the case for MJ or Kareem that Russell won more and Wilt dominated more than either of them.

:cheers:

[NumberSix]

Robert Horry is the greatest winner of all time.

7 in the modern era > 11 in the short white guy era

[K Xerxes]

What is your definition of 'dominance' that makes Wilt the most dominant?

Then, using that, was Wilt more dominant than Jordan if we compare playoff performances?

[T_L_P]

What is your definition of 'dominance' that makes Wilt the most dominant?

Then, using that, was Wilt more dominant than Jordan if we compare playoff performances?

Jordan and Shaq were more dominant than Wilt, a career 22.5 scorer on teams that scored over 120, playing entire games, and actively looking to get his.

Wilt dominated the RS like no other though.

[CavaliersFTW]

What is your definition of 'dominance' that makes Wilt the most dominant?

Then, using that, was Wilt more dominant than Jordan if we compare playoff performances?
Total individual impact on the court.

Yes he was more dominant than Michael Jordan in the playoffs. Wilt's presence on the floor is huge, playoffs or regular season, whether he puts up 100 points, 50 points, or 15 points his presence is felt on both ends in so many more ways. Blocking shots, contesting shots, rebounding, outlet passing. Wilt grabbed 45 rebounds against Bill Russell in the 1967 playoffs. That isn't most dominant ever type dominance?

His one weakness was free throws. That's literally it. He was dominant when the game clock was running. Regular season or playoffs his dominance didn't go away, unless you think stats like 37ppg and 25rpg isn't still MDE level?

[bdreason]

1. Kareem
2. MJ
3. Russell
4. Wilt
5. Magic
6. Shaq
7. Duncan
8. Bird
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe



I have Wilt at #4 because of his individual dominance. He's the only other player (Hakeem) in the top 10 that doesn't have at least 3 titles.

[ArbitraryWater]

Come playoff time:

MJ, Kareem, LeBron, Shaq, Magic are infinitely more dominant than Wilt.

[navy]

How did you become a Wilt stan again?

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://davihundotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/jim-mora-playoffs1.jpg

[CavaliersFTW]

Jordan and Shaq were more dominant than Wilt, a career 22.5 scorer on teams that scored over 120, playing entire games, and actively looking to get his.

Wilt dominated the RS like no other though.
For every rebound and blocked shot Shaq had in the playoffs, Wilt had about 1 more. For every HOF matchup Shaq had in the playoffs, Wilt had about 2 more. He was more dominant than Shaq. Regular season or playoffs.

[CavaliersFTW]

Come playoff time:

MJ, Kareem, LeBron, Shaq, Magic are infinitely more dominant than Wilt.
Is that why Wilt outplayed Jabbar in all playoffs save for 1973 (and then his team won anyways :lol )?

[Kblaze8855]

Jordan and Shaq were more dominant than Wilt, a career 22.5 scorer on teams that scored over 120, playing entire games, and actively looking to get his.

You list wilts scoring numbers then say he was looking to get his?

You actually believe that wilt...couldnt...score more than 22 a game in his playoff career? You noticed he was shooting like 9-15 times a game for many many many of the game that make up his playoff stats right?

How is that trying to get his?

Wilt didnt care about scoring for the vast majority of his playoff career. And only once did anyone question of he could still score in those later years.....

SI questioned it.

And he scored 60...twice...the next week. 60 on the Kings and 66 on the Suns.

Then went back to passing and playing decoy.

Wilt could have scored whenever he liked his entire career.

[PsychoBe]

You list wilts scoring numbers then say he was looking to get his?

You actually believe that wilt...couldnt...score more than 22 a game in his playoff career? You noticed he was shooting like 9-15 times a game for many many many of the game that make up his playoff stats right?

How is that trying to get his?

Wilt didnt care about scoring for the vast majority of his playoff career. And only once did anyone question of he could still score in those later years.....

SI questioned it.

And he scored 60...twice...the next week. 60 on the Kings and 66 on the Suns.

Then went back to passing and playing decoy.

Wilt could have scored whenever he liked his entire career.

but....didn't? :biggums:

the "most dominant ever" chose....not to dominate? :oldlol:

this argument doesn't look too good for you.

either way, no one has scored more points in the playoffs as michael, has scored more points in one game in the playoffs as michael, has averaged more points in the finals as michael (both all-time and in one series), etc, etc.

must we go on?

[ArbitraryWater]

You list wilts scoring numbers then say he was looking to get his?

You actually believe that wilt...couldnt...score more than 22 a game in his playoff career? You noticed he was shooting like 9-15 times a game for many many many of the game that make up his playoff stats right?

How is that trying to get his?

Wilt didnt care about scoring for the vast majority of his playoff career. And only once did anyone question of he could still score in those later years.....

SI questioned it.

And he scored 60...twice...the next week. 60 on the Kings and 66 on the Suns.

Then went back to passing and playing decoy.

Wilt could have scored whenever he liked his entire career.

Yet chose to average 22 ppg in a 1968 ECF against the Celtics where his team completely gave in after game 4 and lost a 3-1 lead...

Here is Wilt in games 6 and 7:

Game 6 (L 106-114)
20 points 6-21 FG
8-23 FT

Game 7 (L 96-100)
14 points 4-9 FG
6-15 FT

Combined 10-30 FG and 14-38 FT in games 6 and 7.

[Psileas]

Jordan and Shaq were more dominant than Wilt, a career 22.5 scorer on teams that scored over 120, playing entire games, and actively looking to get his.

Wilt dominated the RS like no other though.

If he was "actively looking to get his", why was he averaging only 17 FGA's during the playoffs? Lol, anti-Wilt fairy tales make Wilt's stories look as if Wilt has been given the truth serum. looking at each postseason separately, Wilt was the most dominant player for like 8 postseasons, especially given his personal (and team) competition.

[oarabbus]

If he was "actively looking to get his", why was he averaging only 17 FGA's during the playoffs? Lol, anti-Wilt fairy tales make Wilt's stories look as if Wilt has been given the truth serum. looking at each postseason separately, Wilt was the most dominant player for like 8 postseasons, especially given his personal (and team) competition.


These counterarguments don't hold much water in light of the fact Wilt wasn't a winner, or hardly so especially relative to his contemporaries (maybe just Russell :lol). People can easily twist this to mean "So he COULD have won and CHOSE not to?" which is a fair rebuttal.

[Psileas]

Yet chose to average 22 ppg in a 1968 ECF against the Celtics where his team completely gave in after game 4 and lost a 3-1 lead...

He also "chose" to be injured at that time, as well as "choosing" to have his team lose Game 5, after having posted a dominant 28/30/7 game (I swear, I've never seen one of you ever mentioning this). And LOL at pretending that averaging 22 ppg, while playing part of the playoffs injured, in a season he averaged 24 ppg, is somehow considered a let-down.

[Kblaze8855]

Yes...he quite clearly did choose to score less....when he did not score a lot. There is no room for discussion on the issue.

This is the most physically imposing player....arguably of all time...no doubt the guy with the greatest physical advantage relative to those attempting to stop him(the only argument otherwise being Shaq of course).

Hes out there playing 48 minutes taking 12 shots.

No....I do not assume he couldnt get more shots.

I assume the obvious...he did not attempt to score.

Did he...like everyone...have off games? Of course. But anyone taking the briefest look at the era....reading what his coaches were asking of him....there is no question.

Wilt stopped scoring because he chose to accept a different role.

He clearly didnt equate scoring with dominance....and he was right not to.

He didnt do shit scoring 50 points a game.

When he puts all his energy into being a defensive disruption, not allowing offensive rebounds, making every opposing bigman play honest, and passing to his guards to run the break....he makes a bigger difference in a league that didnt lack for scoring.

Its quite simple....

If your team can score like 115 with or without you...why would you attempt to be 40 of that 115 instead of making sure the other team doesnt score 100....and your teammates play the best ball they can play?

That his unselfishness is used against him when it was what brought about his greatest winning is a joke.

He literally cut his PPG in half and won 68 games and the title....

Why would he go back to trying to do it all?

To prove the internet wrong 40 years later?

[Psileas]

These counterarguments don't hold much water in light of the fact Wilt wasn't a winner. People can easily twist this to mean "So he COULD have won and CHOSE not to?" which is a fair rebuttal.

It isn't any kind of rebuttal, Wilt did not "choose" to win or lose, I don't know how you got here from my post. Wilt had dozens of dominant playoff appearances, which are easily comparable to the ones of other GOAT playoff performers. Wilt not being a winner isn't even an argument by itself, let alone a "fact".

[ArbitraryWater]

Wilt had a dominant game 5, which by the way, ruins your injury excuse :ohwell:

Game 6 (L 106-114)
20 points 6-21 FG
8-23 FT

Game 7 (L 96-100)
14 points 4-9 FG
6-15 FT

STRONG letdown... STRONG choke.

@kblaze: No, to win the title.

I like how you always say "internet 40 years later" because he didn't have detractors back then... :rolleyes:

[PsychoBe]

wilt was not the level of winner relative to the others on the goat list. simple as that. and how could he be the "most dominant ever" if the consensus and statistically most dominant player in the post-season is michael jordan? :oldlol:

[Deuce Bigalow]

If he was "actively looking to get his", why was he averaging only 17 FGA's during the playoffs? Lol, anti-Wilt fairy tales make Wilt's stories look as if Wilt has been given the truth serum. looking at each postseason separately, Wilt was the most dominant player for like 8 postseasons, especially given his personal (and team) competition.
Name these 8 postseasons

I'll give you 1967 and 1964

[Psileas]

Wilt had a dominant game 5, which by the way, ruins your injury excuse :ohwell:

Game 6 (L 106-114)
20 points 6-21 FG
8-23 FT

Game 7 (L 96-100)
14 points 4-9 FG
6-15 FT

STRONG letdown... STRONG choke.

Wilt was injured, which, combined with the dominant Game 5 enhances his legacy and kills your choke excuse. Try harder.

[CavaliersFTW]

but....didn't? :biggums:

...Yes.

There's more to dominating than scoring points, there's more to contribute to a team than scoring points.

Ever watched any film of Wilt's playoff games? Even as an old man, even in games where he scores like 13 points (Chicago vs Lakers playoff game in '71 I believe) his finger prints are all over the games in a profoundly dominating fashion. He looks dominant on the floor no matter how much he's looking to score, he picks and chooses his moments to score... he sweeps up every rebound and goes after every shot. Is just a massive presence inside, and is a great passer to the cutters and spot up shooters. Runs the floor when the opportunity is there, throws rifle fast outlet passes. The possessions he chooses to score he just bulls right past his man or flicks in an-all-to-easy-looking finger roll on high efficiency. In his later years, he was trying to keep the team operating as a unit, the best way to do that is let everyone else have opportunities to shoot.

[PsychoBe]

...Yes.

There's more to dominating than scoring points, there's more to contribute to a team than scoring points.

Ever watched any film of Wilt's playoff games? Even as an old man, even in games where he scores like 13 points (Chicago vs Lakers playoff game in '71 I believe) his finger prints are all over the games in a profoundly dominating fashion. He looks dominant on the floor no matter how much he's looking to score, he picks and chooses his moments to score... he sweeps up every rebound and goes after every shot. Is just a massive presence inside, and is a great passer to the cutters and spot up shooters. Runs the floor when the opportunity is there, throws rifle fast outlet passes. The possessions he chooses to score he just bulls right past his man or flicks in an-all-to-easy-looking finger roll on high efficiency. In his later years, he was trying to keep the team operating as a unit, the best way to do that is let everyone else have opportunities to shoot.

i can understand if he's old and he didn't assert himself that's just common sense. but to not assert yourself in your prime and defending that is absolutely absurd. imagine if mj in the 91' season went from averaging from 28+ppg to 17 ppg in the finals. that's a hilarious drop-off :oldlol:

instead he averaged 30+ ppg as well as 11+ assists and played stellar defense. that's how true goats do. when mj focuses on another facet, his true essence doesn't suffer, unfortunately we can't say the same for wilt. if he wants to get teammates involved he goes from 30 ppg to barely 20, but if mj wants to get his teammates involved, he keeps his 30 ppg average and increases his assists/play-making dramatically as well.

[SpecialQue]

I agree. Everyone in the NBA is fvcking garbage compared to those two, with the exception of Magic and Kareem.

[Kblaze8855]

Wilt had a dominant game 5, which by the way, ruins your injury excuse :ohwell:

Game 6 (L 106-114)
20 points 6-21 FG
8-23 FT

Game 7 (L 96-100)
14 points 4-9 FG
6-15 FT

STRONG letdown... STRONG choke.

@kblaze: No, to win the title.

I like how you always say "internet 40 years later" because he didn't have detractors back then... :rolleyes:

A lot of the people you think are his detractors consider him the greatest of all time.

Half the time you see a quote posted vaguely calling him out from 40 years ago there is another clip with the same guy saying hes still better than anyone he ever saw.

The Wilt hate...especially on his playoffs ppg...just shows people are uninformed or idiots. Hate to put it that way...but when people boil down a player of that magnitude to his playoff PPG while most of his playoff games came AFTER he decided not to score so much...is just laughable.

Dude scores 35 a game his first finals...gets worked.

Next time? He had 26 points in games 1 and 2 of the finals combined.

So he lowers his finals averages.

But...anyone with a speck of fairness would consider that he put up 16/33/10 and 10/38/10 passing...and passing...and passing...and passing.

He played the game the way its meant to be played. And won. That it didnt always work doesnt mean he was wrong to keep trying to win the way...he won.

50ppg with teammates watching you...doesnt work.

18/25 the best D and great passing....wins games.

Not winning yearly doesnt make it the wrong approach.

He lowered his career playoff ppg...by playing BETTER.

Hating on it just shows what fans have become.

Not like the 35-50ppg actually won him anything. He wins...doing 20.


One finals game he goes 3-6....he only scored 10. final stat line?


10 points, 27 rebounds, 8 assists.....and 15 blocks.


this lowers his playoff ppg....but his team dominates.

You laugh...his team plays the best ball...arguably ever.

Rick Barry on the other team takes 41 shots for 43 points...loses. Had Wilt done that....it raises his playoffs/final PPG...which I suppose makes him more impressive to people like you......

Guess he should have kept scoring his ass off and alienating teammates....because PPG matters...

[navy]

Kblaze delivering dat ether.

[Hey Yo]

Come playoff time:

MJ, Kareem, LeBron, Shaq, Magic are infinitely more dominant than Wilt.
If referring to both ends of the floor, then Magic doesn't need to be mentioned.

[Psileas]

Rick Barry on the other team takes 41 shots for 43 points...loses. Had Wilt done that....it raises his playoffs/final PPG...which I suppose makes him more impressive to people like you......

Guess he should have kept scoring his ass off and alienating teammates....because PPG matters...

Wilt would actually have multiple postseasons with scoring averages higher than his regular seasons, but...he'd have needed to have lost earlier, before getting to yearly face the GOAT defender, bringing down his scoring averages. Considering how much stock people put on his playoff drops, losing earlier might even make Wilt greater in their eyes...

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Shaq and MJ

[Asukal]

You Wilt fan boys keep on going on about his dominance and all that sh!t he did. Stop making excuses, Wilt only won twice. You stat nerds know it, stats don't lie. Wilt playing hero ball or Wilt playing a different role still only resulted to 2. Think about that for a moment. You think if Jordan scored only 15 ppg in the playoffs, he would still be considered the GOAT? Let's face it, Wilt was a beta who loved being told what to do. That is why he couldn't win against Russell because he never took it upon himself to beat his opponents his own way. 30>22>18 :oldlol: :lol :roll:

[STATUTORY]

Kobe most interesting and polarizing

[Kblaze8855]

As ive said before:


Anyone who puts an "Only" before any number of titles won as a star....

I really have to question that persons respect for the NBA and how hard it is to even contend much less win rings. Plural. Rings.

Guys get hated on around here for not having enough rings.


Really makes me wonder how much these people know and respect the sport when multiple title winners get clowned over not having more.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt had a dominant game 5, which by the way, ruins your injury excuse :ohwell:

Game 6 (L 106-114)
20 points 6-21 FG
8-23 FT

Game 7 (L 96-100)
14 points 4-9 FG
6-15 FT

STRONG letdown... STRONG choke.

@kblaze: No, to win the title.

I like how you always say "internet 40 years later" because he didn't have detractors back then... :rolleyes:

Try doing some actual RESEARCH before you spew your nonsense!

Neither Wilt, nor his '68 Sixers had a "strong letdown."

How about these articles (thanks to PHILA BTW)?

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328011&postcount=14

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328006&postcount=13

Newspaper recaps had Chamberlain NOTICEABLY LIMPING throughout that series.

You want some context?

Willis Reed was hailed as hero for his play in the '70 Finals with a SIMILAR injury. What were Reed's numbers in the last THREE games of the '70 Finals?
How about a TOTAL of 11 points, 3 rebounds, and 4-10 shooting from the field...COMBINED. BTW, Chamberlain himself was playing despite only being four months removed from major knee surgery, and NOWHERE near 100% in that Finals. How about Chamberlain's stat line in those last three games (and again, basically on one leg)... 88 points, 71 rebounds, and 39-55 from the field. In a must-win game six, all Chamberlain "the choker" could do, was hang a 45-27, 20-27 shooting game.

Back to the '68 EDF's. The Sixers had built a 3-1 series lead in that series, without HOFer Billy Cunningham playing a single minute, and with Chamberlain hobbled by MULTIPLE injuries. In game five, and despite these MULTIPLE injuries, Chamberlain pounded Russell with a massive 28-30 game. However, TWO more STARTERS, Luke Jackson and Wali Jones were injured. The Sixers had SEVEN of their nine key players either playing with injuries, or not playing at all. Despite all that, they lost a game seven by FOUR points (and Wilt's teammates collectively shot .333 from the field in that game.)

Now, go back to the previous year's EDF's, when Chamberlain and his teammates were healthy...and what happened? They absolutely DEMOLISHED Russell and his eight-time defending champions. Had the '68 Sixers been reasonably healthy in the post-season, and there can be no question that they would have duplicated their '67 blowout of the Celtics.

Oh, and after the '68 EDF's, RUSSELL stated, "A lessor man would not have played." Meaning, of course, NO ONE else would have played that series with those injuries.

Next...

[LAZERUSS]

wilt was not the level of winner relative to the others on the goat list. simple as that. and how could he be the "most dominant ever" if the consensus and statistically most dominant player in the post-season is michael jordan? :oldlol:

Hmmm...why didn't MJ win a title EVERY season? And how about this... in his highest scoring season, MJ's Bulls went 40-42. True, MJ averaged 36 ppg in the first round against Bird's Celtics, but guess what...he shot .417 from the field, and his Bulls were SWEPT. Just the year before, MJ averaged 43 ppg in the playoffs...except his team only played THREE games, and were again SWEPT by Bird's Celtics. In the clinching game three defeat...the "cluctch" MJ was a shot-jacking brick-layer... shooting an unfathomable 9-30 from the field.

MJ's scoring and efficiency took a DRAMATIC fall from his regular season numbers, when he faced the "Bad Boys" in their prime and in the post-season from '88 thru '90. How come? Why couldn't MJ elevate his game and carry his team against those guys?

And I don't want ANY excuses, either. Why? Because Wilt doesn't get any. If Wilt was a "choker" despite putting up HUGE numbers in '60, '62, '64, and '65, and single-handedly carrying two of those four cast-of-clown rosters, to within 2 and 1 point of knocking off the greatest dynasty in NBA history...well, MJ choked in his first six years of his career, as well.

And how come a completely HEALTHY MJ, after playing 17 regular season games, couldn't lead a Bulls team to a title in '95? I have heard "rusty" as an excuse. The reality was, MJ was probably the only player in the playoffs that was playing completely FRESH. And 17 games was more than the equivalent of an exhibition season, so he had NO excuses (except, maybe the loss of Horace Grant was too much to overcome.)

MJ didn't start winning anything until he had the best supporting cast in the league. How good were those rosters. His '93 team went 57-25 and won a tough six game series in the Finals. WithOUT Jordan in '94, a Pippen-led Bulls team went 55-27, and subsequently lost a close (and controversial) seven game series to the 56-26 Knicks. A Knicks team that would go on to lose a close seven game series against the 58-24 Rockets (and BTW, New York outscored Houston in that series.) As you CLEARLY see, those Bulls teams were title-contenders withOUT Jordan.

And how about MJ in his last three Finals, and again with, by far-and-away the best roster in the league? FG%'s of .455, .427, and get this... .415. Sorry, but MJ needed a TON of help to win his last three rings.

Again, how come the legendary MJ couldn't win a title in SEVEN prime years (and nine overall)? If anything, he was a selfish, shot-jacking, "choking loser" in those years, right?

[RoundMoundOfReb]

As ive said before:
Wilt played in a league with few teams. Doing the rough math an average player with a 14 year career should win 1.33 rings... so winning 2 rings as the "most dominant ever" isn't really impressive.

[chazzy]

Wilt played in a league with few teams. Doing the rough math an average player with a 14 year career should win 1.33 rings... so winning 2 rings as the "most dominant ever" isn't really impressive.
:facepalm

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, Chamberlain was 2, 1, 4, and 2 points away from holding a 5-3 H2H edge over "the greatest winner" of all-time. And in those eight series H2H's, he either outplayed, or downright dominated Russell, as well.

[DatAsh]

[I]

[DatAsh]

Come playoff time:

MJ, Kareem, LeBron, Shaq, Magic are infinitely more dominant than Wilt.

Those guys were more dominant offensively than Wilt in the post season, and with Kareem and Shaq, I'm even hesitant to give them that. Wilt was one of the best distributors ever at his position.

Then there's defense. Let me just say that to judge Wilt solely on his offensive output would be to completely ignore the most significant aspect of his game. The difference between Wilt and Lebron's impact on defense is like the difference between Lebron and Nash's.

[LAZERUSS]

Those guys were more dominant offensively than Wilt in the post season, and with Kareem and Shaq, I'm even hesitant to give them that. Wilt was one of the best distributors ever at his position.

Then there's defense. Let me just say that to judge Wilt solely on his offensive output would be to completely ignore the most significant aspect of his game. The difference between Wilt and Lebron's impact on defense is like the difference between Lebron and Nash's.

The "bashers" NEVER ackowledge the FACT that Chamberlain ELEVATED his rebounding in his post-season career. And, think about this...in his 13 post-seasons, Wilt LED the NBA in rebounding in EIGHT of them (including his LAST two seasons.) Not only that, but while he didn't lead the post-season in rebounding in '60 and '64, he outrebounded the guy who did, in both of them.

Nor do the "Custerites" ever acknowledge Wilt's DEFENSE in his post-season career. He was holding a peak Russell to post-season shooting of .399 and .386 (and later, .358 and .397.) He faced Thurmond in three playoff series, and held Nate to .392, .373, and .343 shooting (a PEAK Thurmond BTW.) In the '68 playoffs, he held Bellamy, who had shot .541 against the NBA in the course of the regular season, to a .421 FG% (oh, and Chamberlain shot .584 against him, all while outscoring, outrebounding, and outassisting ALL Knick players.) And in '71 and '72, and against a PEAK Kareem...in '71, KAJ shot .577 against the NBA...in the WCF's against Wilt... .481. In '72, Kareem shot .574 against the NBA...against Wilt in the WCF's... .457 (oh, and BTW, he held Kareem to a .414 FG% in the last four pivotal games of that series.)

Not only that, but in the research that we have, Chamberlain was easily the GOAT post-season shot-blocker of all-time. And, as Psileas has pointed out...blocking 8+ shots pr game, and likely going after another 8 per game, DETRACTED from his rebounding...which was already the best ever in the post-season.

Passing? How many other GOAT centers ever had a 6.5 apg post-season, much less a 9.0 ... like Chamberlain did in '68 and '67.

Scoring? A PRIME scoring Chamberlain had post-seasons of 28.0 ppg, 29.3 ppg, 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. And during those "scoring" seasons, he had playoff series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, 38.6 ppg, and 38.7 ppg. Oh, and against Russell in that same span... 28.0 ppg, 29.2 ppg, 30.1 ppg, 30.5 ppg, and 33.6 ppg. Included were 10 40+ point games (in 52 playoff games...30 of which were against Russell.) On top of that, Chamberlain had FOUR 50+ point games (only MJ had more), and THREE of those came in "must-win" games (which is three more than MJ, or any other GOAT candidate ever had in their post-seasons.)

Wilt also had "must-win" games of 46, and 45 points (in a Finals game BTW.)

Chamberlain put up a 22-32-9 .579 post-season, which included TWO straight playoff series' of 28-27-11 .617 and 22-32-10 .556 (the latter against RUSSELL.)

He also hung the ONLY 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history... 23 ppg, 24 rpg, and a .625 FG% (in a seven game series, and only four months removed from major knee surgery.)

And the Wilt-detractors like to claim that his post-season scoring dropped, but they never acknowledge that his FGAs also dropped. For instance, in his 50 ppg season, he averaged 40 FGAs per game in the regular season. In that post-season, he averaged 35 ppg on 29 FGAs (and seven of his 12 post-season games were against RUSSELL.) So, it wasn't as if Wilt were still taking anywhere near the same number of shots.

And finally, thanks for posting this...


“In the playoffs McGuire asked for more balanced team scoring, and Chamberlain responded agreeably, going over 40 points in only three of 12 playoff games to help bring the Philadelphia team to within a bounce of the ball of beating the Celtics.” - Alex Hannum

"All season long Russell has known just which way Wilt was going to turn," Frank McGuire complained to an acquaintance as the playoffs began. But under McGuire's direction, Chamberlain was now playing out of the pivot at the top of the key. As a result, reporters were writing about a "new" Wilt Chamberlain - "Warriors' Wilt to Display New Style Against Celtics" was a headline in The Philadelphia Inquirer before the series began" - John Taylor

Boston went 8-2 in the regular season against Philly with Chamberlain averaging 50 ppg on the season. I mean even with Wilt's historic regular season ppg, they still lost the series 8-2. Boston won with an average margin of victory of +16 in their 8 wins, while Philly won by a combined 3 points in their 2. Surely with Wilt's 16.5 ppg drop off in the post season series they didn't stand a chance. With Wilt declining that badly from the RS(evidenced by the ppg), I imagine it was an easy sweep for Boston.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[-23-]

Hmmm...why didn't MJ win a title EVERY season? And how about this... in his highest scoring season, MJ's Bulls went 40-42. True, MJ averaged 36 ppg in the first round against Bird's Celtics, but guess what...he shot .417 from the field, and his Bulls were SWEPT. Just the year before, MJ averaged 43 ppg in the playoffs...except his team only played THREE games, and were again SWEPT by Bird's Celtics. In the clinching game three defeat...the "cluctch" MJ was a shot-jacking brick-layer... shooting an unfathomable 9-30 from the field.

MJ's scoring and efficiency took a DRAMATIC fall from his regular season numbers, when he faced the "Bad Boys" in their prime and in the post-season from '88 thru '90. How come? Why couldn't MJ elevate his game and carry his team against those guys?

And I don't want ANY excuses, either. Why? Because Wilt doesn't get any. If Wilt was a "choker" despite putting up HUGE numbers in '60, '62, '64, and '65, and single-handedly carrying two of those four cast-of-clown rosters, to within 2 and 1 point of knocking off the greatest dynasty in NBA history...well, MJ choked in his first six years of his career, as well.

And how come a completely HEALTHY MJ, after playing 17 regular season games, couldn't lead a Bulls team to a title in '95? I have heard "rusty" as an excuse. The reality was, MJ was probably the only player in the playoffs that was playing completely FRESH. And 17 games was more than the equivalent of an exhibition season, so he had NO excuses (except, maybe the loss of Horace Grant was too much to overcome.)

MJ didn't start winning anything until he had the best supporting cast in the league. How good were those rosters. His '93 team went 57-25 and won a tough six game series in the Finals. WithOUT Jordan in '94, a Pippen-led Bulls team went 55-27, and subsequently lost a close (and controversial) seven game series to the 56-26 Knicks. A Knicks team that would go on to lose a close seven game series against the 58-24 Rockets (and BTW, New York outscored Houston in that series.) As you CLEARLY see, those Bulls teams were title-contenders withOUT Jordan.

And how about MJ in his last three Finals, and again with, by far-and-away the best roster in the league? FG%'s of .455, .427, and get this... .415. Sorry, but MJ needed a TON of help to win his last three rings.

Again, how come the legendary MJ couldn't win a title in SEVEN prime years (and nine overall)? If anything, he was a selfish, shot-jacking, "choking loser" in those years, right?

Why don't you post MJ's first 3 peat instead of cherry picking a bad series? 6 Rings > 2 Rings. Dipshit

[LAZERUSS]

Name these 8 postseasons

I'll give you 1967 and 1964

Factoring in scoring, rebounding, passing, blocked shots, and rebounding:

Easily '60, '61, '62, '64, '65, '66, '67, '68. And a strong case could be made for '70. And he outplayed the best player in the '71 post-season, as well. Furthermore, his '72 run, while statistically not his best, was certainly a more efficient "Russell-like" run.

And before you bring up nonsense like West in '65...think about this. Chamberlain averaged 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and shot .555 from the floor against Boston in a seven game series. A series in which he single-handedly carried his 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss against the HOF-laden 62-18 Celtics. West, without Baylor in that Finals against Boston, averaged 33.8 ppg, but on a .424 FG%...in a series in which Russell destroyed LA (an 18-25 .702 FG% series), in a 4-1 rout.

Baylor in '62? Sorry, but while Wilt was basically being guarded by Russell and the entire Celtic team, Baylor had West. And Chamberlain did as much, overall, against that Celtic team, as Baylor and West, combined did. Both teams lost close game seven's. But Baylor's DEFENSIVE impact, and REBOUNDING were NOWHERE near Chamberlain's. Oh, and while Russell shot .399 against Wilt, he crushed LA with a .543 FG%. BTW, in game seven, while Baylor scored 41 points, he did so on...get this... 13-40 shooting from the floor.

Again, TOTAL IMPACT in the post-season, a PRIME Chamberlain was EASILY the best player in the post-season, and likely in at least a couple more after his prime, as well.

[Asukal]

As ive said before:

Of course winning even just one is a great accomplishment. What irks me are Wilt fanboys shoving his stats up everybody's asses. For someone who is supposedly the most dominant NBA player in history, it surely didn't amount to much as he could only lead his team to 2 titles. 30>22>18 :rolleyes:

[Asukal]

BTW, Chamberlain was 2, 1, 4, and 2 points away from holding a 5-3 H2H edge over "the greatest winner" of all-time. And in those eight series H2H's, he either outplayed, or downright dominated Russell, as well.

Came up short when needed. GOAT choker. :applause: :bowdown: :lol

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Wilt played in an era with fewer teams than there is now and he played 14 years...Doing the quick math tells me that the average player would win 1.33 rings in that amount of times playing in those seasons. So how why on earth would anybody be impressed with the "most dominant ever" winning 2?!

[Marchesk]

Wilt played in an era with fewer teams than there is now and he played 14 years...Doing the quick math tells me that the average player would win 1.33 rings in that amount of times playing in those seasons. So how why on earth would anybody be impressed with the "most dominant ever" winning 2?!

You mean if you take Boston out of the equation.

[Kblaze8855]

Of course winning even just one is a great accomplishment. What irks me are Wilt fanboys shoving his stats up everybody's asses. For someone who is supposedly the most dominant NBA player in history, it surely didn't amount to much as he could only lead his team to 2 titles. 30>22>18

So...winning one is a great accomplishment..you have sense enough to know that...but he wins two....and its a "didnt amount to much"?

80% of the hall of fame didnt even win ONE as a teams best player.

And Wilt numbers come up from both sides. But the side hating just seems to be idiots about it.

Really...talking about his finals PPG when he can score his ass off...but reduced it in favor of better team ball? Hating on his finals stats when he has games where he plays all 48 minutes....only takes 6 shots...and has a monster quadruple double leading his team to the win.

But all we get out of that...is a lower playoff/finals ppg.

If you dont see why id mention the fact that along with his mere 10 points...he had 30+ rebounds 10 assists and 15 blocks...when the issue is how well he played....you just dont have any interest in a fair assessment of what happened and why

Wilt often scored less...and played BETTER...than when he was a bigtime scorer.

Its relevant...when the issue is how well he was playing.

[julizaver]

So...winning one is a great accomplishment..you have sense enough to know that...but he wins two....and its a "didnt amount to much"?

80% of the hall of fame didnt even win ONE as a teams best player.

And Wilt numbers come up from both sides. But the side hating just seems to be idiots about it.

Really...talking about his finals PPG when he can score his ass off...but reduced it in favor of better team ball? Hating on his finals stats when he has games where he plays all 48 minutes....only takes 6 shots...and has a monster quadruple double leading his team to the win.

But all we get out of that...is a lower playoff/finals ppg.

If you dont see why id mention the fact that along with his mere 10 points...he had 30+ rebounds 10 assists and 15 blocks...when the issue is how well he played....you just dont have any interest in a fair assessment of what happened and why

Wilt often scored less...and played BETTER...than when he was a bigtime scorer.

Its relevant...when the issue is how well he was playing.

And not to mentioned that Wilt was Finals MVP few months before turn 36 years, playing with both hands injured and dominating the game at both ends. And not to mention that he played against the best defensive centers Russell and Thurmond in 11 post series and against the greatest Celtics and Knicks teams ever.

[La Frescobaldi]

Of course winning even just one is a great accomplishment. What irks me are Wilt fanboys shoving his stats up everybody's asses. For someone who is supposedly the most dominant NBA player in history, it surely didn't amount to much as he could only lead his team to 2 titles. 30>22>18 :rolleyes:
You keep insisting on talking about scoring. But the guy went game after game without taking more than 3 or 4 shots. You completely miss the point and I doubt guys like you will ever get it. Chamberlain stopped scoring because he was so great at it that it twisted his teams into complete disarray.
Examine his teammates fg% during his scoring years to see how a team needs balance in order to win regularly.

[LAZERUSS]

Came up short when needed. GOAT choker. :applause: :bowdown: :lol


Gotta love the "bashers."

Let me ask you this...

Why did MJ LOSE in his '86 post-season? Did he CHOKE? He must have been awful, since he, himself, did not win a single game, right? He gets no excuses, because the "Wilt-bashers" don't give Chamberlain any, either. So, according to YOU, Jordan absolutely CHOKED in his famous 63 point double-OT LOSS, right? In a series in which he averaged 44 ppg on a .505 FG%... HE was SWEPT.

Now, before you make some excuse like his team had finished 30-52, and he was facing a 67-15 Celtics team with FIVE HOFers, think about Chamberlain's '62 playoff run. He took a team, the core of which was the same LAST PLACE roster he inherited in just two years earlier...only older, and worse..thru the first round of the playoffs, which included a first round, "at the limit" game of 56 points and 35 rebounds, to a game seven, two point loss against a 60-20 HOF-laden Celtic team that had HCA...in a series in which he averaged a 34-27...AND, with his teammates collectively shooting...get this... .345 in that series.



How about MJ against the "Bad Boys" at their peak from '88 thru '90? And, think about this, as well...Jordan's stats dropped considerably across the board in every one of those series, too.

How about KAJ in '77. His 52-29 team was SWEPT by Walton's 49-33 Blazers...in a series in which Kareem averaged 30.3 ppg, 16.0 rpg, 3.8 apg, and shot .608 from the field, and .775 from the line. In one loss, he scored 40 points, on 17-23 shooting from the field, with 17 rebounds. And keep in mind that KAJ had played on a championship team just a few years earlier, so it was not like he didn't know how to "win."

How about Dr. J in that same year Finals against Walton's Blazers? His 50-32 Sixers were back-door swept, so he obviously must have "choked", right? Yep...with a 30.3 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 5.0 apg, and .543 FG% series. Oh, and in the series clinching game, which was a a two point loss,...40 points, on 17-29 from the field, 6 rebounds, and 8 assists. According to the "bashers"...just another CHOKER.

How about a peak Shaq in the '98 WCF's? His 61-21 Lakers were SWEPT by the 62-20 Jazz...in a series in which O'Neal could only average 32-9 and on a .560 FG%. And in the series clinching loss... 38 points on 14-24 shooting. Damn...the classic definition of a CHOKER.

West in the '69 Finals? 38 ppg, and in the game seven, two point loss... a 42-13-12 game. CHOKED.

Baylor in the '62 Finals? 40.6 ppg in a seven game series. CHOKED.

And how about the beloved Hakeem here? He was routinely getting blown out in his first rounds. You want an example of Hakeem "the choker?" In a first round series loss in which his team was easily beaten, 3-1... a 37.5 ppg, 16.8 rpg, .571 FG% series. Obviously he was a CAREER choker.



How about "the choker" Chamberlain in his '65 playoff run? Single-handedly took his 40-40 team (which had gone 34-46 the year before and missed the playoffs without him), thru a first round romp over Oscar's stacked 48-32 Royals team (which included a series-clinching 38-26-5-10 game)... and then to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of their dynasty...in a game in which Chamberlain scored 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds...and in a series in which Wilt averaged 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and on a .555 FG% (in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .429)...and with 41 blocked shots (and we are missing his blocks from two games BTW.) BTW, during his regular season H2H's with Russell, Wilt had averaged 25.3 ppg, 26.5 rpg, and shot .473 from the field...so he had a DRAMATIC ELEVATION in virtually EVERY facet of the game against Boston in that seven game series. So, using YOUR login, Wilt "choked" in that series, right?

Wilt "lost" series clinching playoff games with 26-24, 33-23, 22-22, 30-27, 30-32, 46-34, 14-34, 18-27, 21-24 (on basically one leg), 23-12 (and badly out played a peak KAJ BTW), and 23-21 (his LAST game of his career.) That was EVERY series-clinching "loss" performance in his career. Does that look a "choker" to you?


The REALITY was, Chamberlain teams were either outgunned in talent (and sometimes by HOF margins as high as 8-3), or his teammates just puked all over the floor, or he had a combination of both.

His '66 Sixers, which had the best record in the league, were pounded by Russell's Celtics in the EDF's, 4-1. Chamberlain "the choker" could only put up a 28-30 .509 series (which included a series-clinching 46-34 game.) How did his teammates perform in that series? They collectively shot .352 from the field.


Furthermore, and using that '66 EDF"s as an example...

Wilt's Sixers were down 3-1 going into that game five. He put up a 46-34 19-34 game, but they still lost, 120-112.

Let's fast forward to the very next season. Now it was RUSSELL whose team was down 3-1 going into the fifth game of the '67 EDF's. Did the legendary "clutch" Russell, whom at least some here believe dominated Wilt throughout their career H2H's, go out an hang a monster 46-34 game on Wilt? Hell no...he meekly led his Celtics to slaughter with a pathetic FOUR point game, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and six assists. Oh, and the "choker" Chamberlain in that same game? 29 points (22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and seven blocked shots. What happened to the so-called "GOAT winner" in that series?

Wilt's TEAMS lost to the eventual champion, TEN times (five of which were in game seven's, and four of those by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.) His TEAMS lost to the greatest dynasty in NBA history, SEVEN times. His TEAM's lost to the HOF-laden Knicks (FOUR and then SIX HOFers) in two more. And then his TEAM lost to the 66-16 Bucks, and in a series in which Wilt was without his TWO top players, and in a series in which he outplayed a PEAK Alcindor (Kareem.)

Oh, and his TEAMs did WIN in two post-seasons. One in which they crushed the eight-time defending, and 60-21 Celtics, 4-1. And in the other, they knocked off the defending champion, and 63-19 Bucks, 4-2, en route to routing the HOF-laden Knicks (FIV HOFers), 4-1 in the Finals. Chamberlain was the FMVP in that '72 Finals, and surely would have been in the '67 Finals, had the award existed at the time. BTW, the "Custerites" continually use the phrase, "50-22-18" against Wilt. In those two finals, Chamberlain averaged 17.5 ppg and 19.0 ppg. Of course, in one of them, he also averaged 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg, and on a .560 FG% (against THURMOND), which included a series-clinching game of 24-23 on a .615 FG%; and in the other, he also averaged 23.2 rpg, 7.4 bpg, and shot .600 from the field, with a series-clinching performance of 24-29-8 (bks), and on a .714 FG%.


So, according to YOU...THAT was a "choking" resume, right?

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[nycelt84]

Gotta love the "bashers."


Let's fast forward to the very next season. Now it was RUSSELL whose team was down 3-1 going into the fifth game of the '67 EDF's. Did the legendary "clutch" Russell, whom at least some here believe dominated Wilt throughout their career H2H's, go out an hang a monster 46-34 game on Wilt? Hell no...he meekly led his Celtics to slaughter with a pathetic FOUR point game, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and six assists. Oh, and the "choker" Chamberlain in that same game? 29 points (22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and seven blocked shots. What happened to the so-called "GOAT winner" in that series?

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

So Russell wasn't clutch and isn't the GOAT winner? Nice to know.

[LAZERUSS]

So Russell wasn't clutch and isn't the GOAT winner? Nice to know.

I don't recall posting that, do you?

Having said that, though, Chamberlain's TEAMs were 2, 1, 4, and 2 points away from holding Wilt holding a career 5-3 playoff H2H margin over Russell...in series in which Wilt either outplayed, or downright dominated Russell.

[navy]

So Russell wasn't clutch and isn't the GOAT winner? Nice to know.
Curious, How do you know if Russel was clutch?

[bizil]

Got mad respect for big Russ, but peak wise, I don't even have him as a top ten center of all time:

Wilt
Kareem
Shaq
Hakeem
Moses
Ewing
Robinson
Walton
McAdoo
Gilmore


Off the top of my head,I would take all of these guys over Russell peak wise. I also think Howard, Reed, Thurmond, Bellamy, and Lanier arent far off either and probably arguable. In terms of PF's, Duncan has an elite center's skillset so of course I would take him too. Wilt had a TELLING STATEMENT when Kareem came around. He said Kareem was the first center than he actually needed help guarding at times. HE NEVER made that claim when it came to Russ. But Russ was a freakish athlete ahead of his time who was epic on defense, IQ, and rebounding. But his scoring ability is what brings him down in my opinion.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt would actually have multiple postseasons with scoring averages higher than his regular seasons, but...he'd have needed to have lost earlier, before getting to yearly face the GOAT defender, bringing down his scoring averages. Considering how much stock people put on his playoff drops, losing earlier might even make Wilt greater in their eyes...

Here were some examples...


As examples, in Wilt's first eight post-seasons, and in his first round, he averaged

38.7 ppg

37.0 ppg

37.0 ppg

38.6 ppg and on .559 shooting (in a post-season NBA of 105.8 ppg on .420 shooting)

27.8 ppg (and then 30.1 ppg, on .555 shooting, and against Russell)

28.0 ppg

28.0 ppg (and a great example of FG% at .612 in a post-season at .424)

25.5 ppg (and on .584 shooting, while his opposing center, Bellamy was at 20.0 on .421 shooting.)

Even in his 11th season, and only four months removed from major knee surgery, Chamberlain put up a first round of 23.7 ppg., 20.3 rpg, and .549.

And, in his 71-72 post-season, he had a 14.5 ppg, 20.8 rpg, .629 first round series (and in an NBA post-season of .446.)



In his "scoring" prime (59-60 thru 65-66), Chamberlain averaged 34.5 ppg in the first round. And think about this...his team was so rancid in 62-63, they didn't make the playoffs...in a season in which Wilt averaged 44.8 ppg on a .528 FG%.

[Asukal]

You keep insisting on talking about scoring. But the guy went game after game without taking more than 3 or 4 shots. You completely miss the point and I doubt guys like you will ever get it. Chamberlain stopped scoring because he was so great at it that it twisted his teams into complete disarray.
Examine his teammates fg% during his scoring years to see how a team needs balance in order to win regularly.

You wanna hear what I really think about Wilt?

I do believe he is a top 10 player all time but his lack of success makes me doubt his top 5/GOAT status. I didn't get watch him so I cannot in all honesty give a fair assessment and no amount of stat research will give justice to how good he actually was.

Wilt stans like LAZ makes me troll him a lot. He loves to flaunt his stats without taking into context the era he played in. Not to mention they never talk about how bad he was at the FT line. Let me ask you this, do you believe without a doubt that Wilt could average 50 ppg in the 80s or 90s or today's era?

Everytime somebody disses Wilt, all I hear are excuses of how he didn't have enough help. Then when he did have enough help, it's the coach's fault that he was asked to do less. Seems to me Wilt lacked that leadership quality that Russell had.

All these rebuttal to my posts... :facepalm

There's a bit of truth in them that's why you're all getting butthurt? :oldlol:

[Asukal]

So...winning one is a great accomplishment..you have sense enough to know that...but he wins two....and its a "didnt amount to much"?

80% of the hall of fame didnt even win ONE as a teams best player.

And Wilt numbers come up from both sides. But the side hating just seems to be idiots about it.

Really...talking about his finals PPG when he can score his ass off...but reduced it in favor of better team ball? Hating on his finals stats when he has games where he plays all 48 minutes....only takes 6 shots...and has a monster quadruple double leading his team to the win.

But all we get out of that...is a lower playoff/finals ppg.

If you dont see why id mention the fact that along with his mere 10 points...he had 30+ rebounds 10 assists and 15 blocks...when the issue is how well he played....you just dont have any interest in a fair assessment of what happened and why

Wilt often scored less...and played BETTER...than when he was a bigtime scorer.

Its relevant...when the issue is how well he was playing.

When we are talking about THE "greatest of all time" then yes, 2 rings is underwhelming specially when people like LAZ consider him "far and away the most dominant player ever". :confusedshrug:

[LAZERUSS]

You wanna hear what I really think about Wilt?

I do believe he is a top 10 player all time but his lack of success makes me doubt his top 5/GOAT status. I didn't get watch him so I cannot in all honesty give a fair assessment and no amount of stat research will give justice to how good he actually was.

Wilt stans like LAZ makes me troll him a lot. He loves to flaunt his stats without taking into context the era he played in. Not to mention they never talk about how bad he was at the FT line. Let me ask you this, do you believe without a doubt that Wilt could average 50 ppg in the 80s or 90s or today's era?

Everytime somebody disses Wilt, all I hear are excuses of how he didn't have enough help. Then when he did have enough help, it's the coach's fault that he was asked to do less. Seems to me Wilt lacked that leadership quality that Russell had.

All these rebuttal to my posts... :facepalm

There's a bit of truth in them that's why you're all getting butthurt? :oldlol:

You made this comment earlier:


Came up short when needed. GOAT choker.

But, you didn't reply this...


Gotta love the "bashers."

Let me ask you this...

Why did MJ LOSE in his '86 post-season? Did he CHOKE? He must have been awful, since he, himself, did not win a single game, right? He gets no excuses, because the "Wilt-bashers" don't give Chamberlain any, either. So, according to YOU, Jordan absolutely CHOKED in his famous 63 point double-OT LOSS, right? In a series in which he averaged 44 ppg on a .505 FG%... HE was SWEPT.

Now, before you make some excuse like his team had finished 30-52, and he was facing a 67-15 Celtics team with FIVE HOFers, think about Chamberlain's '62 playoff run. He took a team, the core of which was the same LAST PLACE roster he inherited in just two years earlier...only older, and worse..thru the first round of the playoffs, which included a first round, "at the limit" game of 56 points and 35 rebounds, to a game seven, two point loss against a 60-20 HOF-laden Celtic team that had HCA...in a series in which he averaged a 34-27...AND, with his teammates collectively shooting...get this... .345 in that series.



How about MJ against the "Bad Boys" at their peak from '88 thru '90? And, think about this, as well...Jordan's stats dropped considerably across the board in every one of those series, too.

How about KAJ in '77. His 52-29 team was SWEPT by Walton's 49-33 Blazers...in a series in which Kareem averaged 30.3 ppg, 16.0 rpg, 3.8 apg, and shot .608 from the field, and .775 from the line. In one loss, he scored 40 points, on 17-23 shooting from the field, with 17 rebounds. And keep in mind that KAJ had played on a championship team just a few years earlier, so it was not like he didn't know how to "win."

How about Dr. J in that same year Finals against Walton's Blazers? His 50-32 Sixers were back-door swept, so he obviously must have "choked", right? Yep...with a 30.3 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 5.0 apg, and .543 FG% series. Oh, and in the series clinching game, which was a a two point loss,...40 points, on 17-29 from the field, 6 rebounds, and 8 assists. According to the "bashers"...just another CHOKER.

How about a peak Shaq in the '98 WCF's? His 61-21 Lakers were SWEPT by the 62-20 Jazz...in a series in which O'Neal could only average 32-9 and on a .560 FG%. And in the series clinching loss... 38 points on 14-24 shooting. Damn...the classic definition of a CHOKER.

West in the '69 Finals? 38 ppg, and in the game seven, two point loss... a 42-13-12 game. CHOKED.

Baylor in the '62 Finals? 40.6 ppg in a seven game series. CHOKED.

And how about the beloved Hakeem here? He was routinely getting blown out in his first rounds. You want an example of Hakeem "the choker?" In a first round series loss in which his team was easily beaten, 3-1... a 37.5 ppg, 16.8 rpg, .571 FG% series. Obviously he was a CAREER choker.



How about "the choker" Chamberlain in his '65 playoff run? Single-handedly took his 40-40 team (which had gone 34-46 the year before and missed the playoffs without him), thru a first round romp over Oscar's stacked 48-32 Royals team (which included a series-clinching 38-26-5-10 game)... and then to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of their dynasty...in a game in which Chamberlain scored 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds...and in a series in which Wilt averaged 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, and on a .555 FG% (in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .429)...and with 41 blocked shots (and we are missing his blocks from two games BTW.) BTW, during his regular season H2H's with Russell, Wilt had averaged 25.3 ppg, 26.5 rpg, and shot .473 from the field...so he had a DRAMATIC ELEVATION in virtually EVERY facet of the game against Boston in that seven game series. So, using YOUR login, Wilt "choked" in that series, right?

Wilt "lost" series clinching playoff games with 26-24, 33-23, 22-22, 30-27, 30-32, 46-34, 14-34, 18-27, 21-24 (on basically one leg), 23-12 (and badly out played a peak KAJ BTW), and 23-21 (his LAST game of his career.) That was EVERY series-clinching "loss" performance in his career. Does that look a "choker" to you?


The REALITY was, Chamberlain teams were either outgunned in talent (and sometimes by HOF margins as high as 8-3), or his teammates just puked all over the floor, or he had a combination of both.

His '66 Sixers, which had the best record in the league, were pounded by Russell's Celtics in the EDF's, 4-1. Chamberlain "the choker" could only put up a 28-30 .509 series (which included a series-clinching 46-34 game.) How did his teammates perform in that series? They collectively shot .352 from the field.


Furthermore, and using that '66 EDF"s as an example...

Wilt's Sixers were down 3-1 going into that game five. He put up a 46-34 19-34 game, but they still lost, 120-112.

Let's fast forward to the very next season. Now it was RUSSELL whose team was down 3-1 going into the fifth game of the '67 EDF's. Did the legendary "clutch" Russell, whom at least some here believe dominated Wilt throughout their career H2H's, go out an hang a monster 46-34 game on Wilt? Hell no...he meekly led his Celtics to slaughter with a pathetic FOUR point game, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and six assists. Oh, and the "choker" Chamberlain in that same game? 29 points (22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and seven blocked shots. What happened to the so-called "GOAT winner" in that series?

Wilt's TEAMS lost to the eventual champion, TEN times (five of which were in game seven's, and four of those by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.) His TEAMS lost to the greatest dynasty in NBA history, SEVEN times. His TEAM's lost to the HOF-laden Knicks (FOUR and then SIX HOFers) in two more. And then his TEAM lost to the 66-16 Bucks, and in a series in which Wilt was without his TWO top players, and in a series in which he outplayed a PEAK Alcindor (Kareem.)

Oh, and his TEAMs did WIN in two post-seasons. One in which they crushed the eight-time defending, and 60-21 Celtics, 4-1. And in the other, they knocked off the defending champion, and 63-19 Bucks, 4-2, en route to routing the HOF-laden Knicks (FIV HOFers), 4-1 in the Finals. Chamberlain was the FMVP in that '72 Finals, and surely would have been in the '67 Finals, had the award existed at the time. BTW, the "Custerites" continually use the phrase, "50-22-18" against Wilt. In those two finals, Chamberlain averaged 17.5 ppg and 19.0 ppg. Of course, in one of them, he also averaged 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg, and on a .560 FG% (against THURMOND), which included a series-clinching game of 24-23 on a .615 FG%; and in the other, he also averaged 23.2 rpg, 7.4 bpg, and shot .600 from the field, with a series-clinching performance of 24-29-8 (bks), and on a .714 FG%.


So, according to YOU...THAT was a "choking" resume, right?

[CavaliersFTW]

When we are talking about THE "greatest of all time" then yes, 2 rings is underwhelming specially when people like LAZ consider him "far and away the most dominant player ever". :confusedshrug:
He statistically is far and away the most dominant player ever... this is measurable statistical mathematical fact. You can't refute it. On top of it, first hand testimonial backs up his numbers. He's the most dominant individual player ever, just as I stated in the OP. Russell is also measurably and irrefutably the greatest winner ever.

You denying Wilt's dominance, is like people denying the moon landings. The body of evidence is so profound it leaves only room for lunatics and dumbasses to deny it. Which one are you, a lunatic, or a dumbass?

[hahaitme]

I equate Bill Russell to Rod Laver, who achieved a calendar grand slam twice while no other player in history has done it even once. Just like 11 rings, a record that will probably never be broken. :applause:

Though I don't think either of them are the GOAT's they have the best achievements of all time.

[Asukal]

He statistically is far and away the most dominant player ever... this is measurable statistical mathematical fact. You can't refute it. On top of it, first hand testimonial backs up his numbers. He's the most dominant individual player ever, just as I stated in the OP. Russell is also measurably and irrefutably the greatest winner ever.

You denying Wilt's dominance, is like people denying the moon landings. The body of evidence is so profound it leaves only room for lunatics and dumbasses to deny it. Which one are you, a lunatic, or a dumbass?

I bet you believe he will average 50 ppg today too. :rolleyes:

Let me repeat, HE ONLY WON 2. :oldlol:

You denying Wilt's lack of success, is like people denying the moon landings. The body of evidence is so profound it leaves only room for lunatics and dumbasses to deny it. Which one are you, a lunatic, or a dumbass? :rolleyes:

[LAZERUSS]

I bet you believe he will average 50 ppg today too. :rolleyes:

Let me repeat, HE ONLY WON 2. :oldlol:

You denying Wilt's lack of success, is like people denying the moon landings. The body of evidence is so profound it leaves only room for lunatics and dumbasses to deny it. Which one are you, a lunatic, or a dumbass? :rolleyes:

What is your definition of success?

If MJ were truly a god, why didn't he win a championship in '86, or '87? Hell how did not win a title NINE times in his career?

How come KAJ couldn't even make the playoffs in two straight seasons in his prime?

Why did Hakeem repeatedly get blown out in the first round of the playoffs?

How come Bird lost seven times with HCA?

Why was Kobe so horrible in '04, and '08?

How come Russell got slaughtered by Wilt in '67?

How come an old Wilt easily "beat" a PEAK Kareem in '72?

How come KAJ, with a team that went 52-29, were swept by Walton's Blazers?

How come Shaq was SWEPT SIX times in his post-season career?

I could go on...but you seem to equate success with TEAM success. If ON player could single-handedly win titles, what happened to everyone not named Russell? And if Russell were invincible, how come Chamberlain just annihilated him in '67?

[CavaliersFTW]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sVw7g0srOHI/TkxSx2faFbI/AAAAAAAAIqI/nagCYeJ7Qgk/s400/tinfoil2.jpg
we get it

[Asukal]

What is your definition of success?

If MJ were truly a god, why didn't he win a championship in '86, or '87? Hell how did not win a title NINE times in his career?

How come KAJ couldn't even make the playoffs in two straight seasons in his prime?

Why did Hakeem repeatedly get blown out in the first round of the playoffs?

How come Bird lost seven times with HCA?

Why was Kobe so horrible in '04, and '08?

How come Russell got slaughtered by Wilt in '67?

How come an old Wilt easily "beat" a PEAK Kareem in '72?

How come KAJ, with a team that went 52-29, were swept by Walton's Blazers?

How come Shaq was SWEPT SIX times in his post-season career?

I could go on...but you seem to equate success with TEAM success. If ON player could single-handedly win titles, what happened to everyone not named Russell? And if Russell were invincible, how come Chamberlain just annihilated him in '67?

Success = winning it all. Funny you mention all those guys, apart from Hakeem they all have more rings than Wilt. :oldlol:

[Asukal]

we get it

Took you this long? :oldlol:

But seriously tho, Wilt is not GOAT material. :banana:

[LAZERUSS]

Success = winning it all. Funny you mention all those guys, apart from Hakeem they all have more rings than Wilt. :oldlol:

TEAM success.

Again, answer me this...why didn't MJ win a title in his first six seasons? Why didn't he win a title in '95 when he was clearly the freshest player in the post-season (after a nice 17 game regular season run)?

Kareem? Won ONE title in his Prime. Couldn't even make the playoffs in two of those ten seasons. Was swept by a team with a worse record. Lost twice to a team that had ONE borderline HOF player. Lost twice with 60+ win teams in that span.

Bird? Lost seven times with HCA. Hell, he barely won a title against a team that had gone 40-42 in the regular season (and BTW, beat Kareem's Lakers in the first round), in a series in which he averaged 15 ppg on a .419 FG% (and he wasn't even Boston's best player in that series.)

Hakeem? King of the "first round exits." If he were so great, why only THREE Finals in 18 seasons?

Four of the GOATs...just utterly "choking" according to you.

[Asukal]

TEAM success.

Again, answer me this...why didn't MJ win a title in his first six seasons? Why didn't he win a title in '95 when he was clearly the freshest player in the post-season (after a nice 17 game regular season run)?

Kareem? Won ONE title in his Prime. Couldn't even make the playoffs in two of those ten seasons. Was swept by a team with a worse record. Lost twice to a team that had ONE borderline HOF player. Lost twice with 60+ win teams in that span.

Bird? Lost seven times with HCA. Hell, he barely won a title against a team that had gone 40-42 in the regular season (and BTW, beat Kareem's Lakers in the first round), in a series in which he averaged 15 ppg on a .419 FG% (and he wasn't even Boston's best player in that series.)

Hakeem? King of the "first round exits." If he were so great, why only THREE Finals in 18 seasons?

Four of the GOATs...just utterly "choking" according to you.

Why didn't Wilt win more when he had enough help? :rolleyes:

[LAZERUSS]

Why didn't Wilt win more when he had enough help? :rolleyes:

Give me the post-season stats of those surrounding teammates (all of them) "when he had enough help"?

And give me the seasons in which Chamberlain SHOULD have won.

[Asukal]

Give me the post-season stats of those surrounding teammates (all of them) "when he had enough help"?

And give me the seasons in which Chamberlain SHOULD have won.

Jordan ultimately ended up with 6. All I hear is excuse after excuse for Wilt. Not GOAT material if you ask me. K bye I'm done trolling you grandpa. :oldlol:

[LAZERUSS]

Jordan ultimately ended up with 6. All I hear is excuse after excuse for Wilt. Not GOAT material if you ask me. K bye I'm done trolling you grandpa. :oldlol:

But you are basically arguing that ONE player can single-handedly win titles.

Again, if that were true, how come MJ was SWEPT in the FIRST ROUND in the '86 playoffs, and doing so while averaging 44 ppg on a .505 FG%. Wasn't he good enough?

If ONE PLAYER could win championships, then surely you would think Kareem would have won more than ONE title in the 10 PRIME seasons of his career, right?

[La Frescobaldi]

You wanna hear what I really think about Wilt?

I do believe he is a top 10 player all time but his lack of success makes me doubt his top 5/GOAT status. I didn't get watch him so I cannot in all honesty give a fair assessment and no amount of stat research will give justice to how good he actually was.

Wilt stans like LAZ makes me troll him a lot. He loves to flaunt his stats without taking into context the era he played in. Not to mention they never talk about how bad he was at the FT line. Let me ask you this, do you believe without a doubt that Wilt could average 50 ppg in the 80s or 90s or today's era?

Everytime somebody disses Wilt, all I hear are excuses of how he didn't have enough help. Then when he did have enough help, it's the coach's fault that he was asked to do less. Seems to me Wilt lacked that leadership quality that Russell had.

All these rebuttal to my posts... :facepalm

There's a bit of truth in them that's why you're all getting butthurt? :oldlol:
I hear you on this one. Most of what you write about those times are pretty lame just to be real honest.
Let's compare something here a minute. You say context of eras.
Most everyone, even on the often-demented Isle of Ish, has Russell as a top 5 center to ever play hoops. Nate Thurmond is either top 10 or on the ragged edge of it. Kareem is a top 5 center. Willis is so forgotten that most don't even know who he is, really; but if his knees held up, and they prolly would with today's medical field.... he'd be the best center any year since Shaq slowed down. Say 2006. Smarter and stronger than Howard, with explosive offense and great team play mentality. I mention Lovellette, Kerr, Unseld, Lanier only in passing as HoF guys that were on lesser teams in that League.
These are guys Chamberlain had to get through; but of course basketball, unlike Ish, is no island. The Celtics were stacked every year 6 to 8 deep with Hall of Famers; the Warriors had Rick Barry who was a great playmaker and torrential scorer; the Bucks are often listed as one of the best teams ever; Reed's Knicks starting 5 was literally 4 Top 50 guys and a Hall of Famer.

Meanwhile O'Neal is listed as a top 5 center and many - universally young guys who didn't ever see Chamberlain - say he was the better Center of the two.
In his days he wrestled with Hakeem, Robinson, and Ewing, and the rest of the league was very far below those guys. Now Olajuwon is often rated a top 5 center - he wasn't, IMO, but he's on that edge anyhow so we'll let that go.
None of them had great teams around them, although when Duncan showed up the Spurs started making waves instantly.

The competition Chamberlain faced was vastly stronger, not only at his position, but for full teams.... than anything Shaq ever saw except Jordan's Bulls and maybe the later Spurs.
Nobody seems to hold it against Shaq that his Orlando squad couldn't get it done, or that he was swept 6 times in playoffs. Nor that he had Bryant at his full powers on his team and later, Wade.
So it is strange that people say O'Neal was MDE... when he was lining up on guys like Jason Collins or Rik Smits.... while playing on a really loaded Lakers team around him with probably the greatest coach the NBA ever saw (Willis Reed's 6th man) P Jax.... and then with Wade and that b@d@ss on the bench Riles.

Meanwhile, the old guys, who saw Chamberlain and know what a complete basketball player he was and what level of competition he faced.... are howled at by guys who weren't even born when he was retired.
This was a guy who on the Sixers had 12 go-to moves. TWELVE. Who would get 8, 10, 12 blocks in a game and was ferocious on the boards.

Guys who saw Shaq saw one of the greatest centers to ever wear a jersey; but Chamberlain was so much better than that.

[juju151111]

Give me the post-season stats of those surrounding teammates (all of them) "when he had enough help"?

And give me the seasons in which Chamberlain SHOULD have won.
How many points did Wilt lose all those finals wcf games by. Wasn't it like 2 points or a few. Wasn't his team always in range?

[LAZERUSS]

How many points did Wilt lose all those finals wcf games by. Wasn't it like 2 points or a few. Wasn't his team always in range?

And you are holding that against him? The fact that he could single-handedly carry crappy rosters to within an eyelash of beating the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and on multiple occasions? Or the fact that when he finally had a roster the equal of Russell's, that he was a mere four points away in game four of sweeping those Celtics, en route to a 4-1 carpet-bombing, and then a dominating title?

[Psileas]

The competition Chamberlain faced was vastly stronger, not only at his position, but for full teams.... than anything Shaq ever saw except Jordan's Bulls and maybe the later Spurs.

Μany years ago, I had posted a game-by-game list of Wilt's opponents in his 1967 season, compared to Shaq's in 2000. The difference was ludicrous.
It would be an interesting project to make something like a top-100 GOAT center list and then find out the average position of the centers that Wilt and Shaq faced in these 2 seasons (or more). It would highlight this difference even more.



Meanwhile, the old guys, who saw Chamberlain and know what a complete basketball player he was and what level of competition he faced.... are howled at by guys who weren't even born when he was retired.

Basically at guys, many of whom used to believe up to a few years ago (some still do) that Wilt faced midgets as opponents. It doesn't take more to realize that, knowledge-wise, these people are so much left behind, it's like debating on evolution with some people who still believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

[Asukal]

I hear you on this one. Most of what you write about those times are pretty lame just to be real honest.
Let's compare something here a minute. You say context of eras.
Most everyone, even on the often-demented Isle of Ish, has Russell as a top 5 center to ever play hoops. Nate Thurmond is either top 10 or on the ragged edge of it. Kareem is a top 5 center. Willis is so forgotten that most don't even know who he is, really; but if his knees held up, and they prolly would with today's medical field.... he'd be the best center any year since Shaq slowed down. Say 2006. Smarter and stronger than Howard, with explosive offense and great team play mentality. I mention Lovellette, Kerr, Unseld, Lanier only in passing as HoF guys that were on lesser teams in that League.
These are guys Chamberlain had to get through; but of course basketball, unlike Ish, is no island. The Celtics were stacked every year 6 to 8 deep with Hall of Famers; the Warriors had Rick Barry who was a great playmaker and torrential scorer; the Bucks are often listed as one of the best teams ever; Reed's Knicks starting 5 was literally 4 Top 50 guys and a Hall of Famer.

Meanwhile O'Neal is listed as a top 5 center and many - universally young guys who didn't ever see Chamberlain - say he was the better Center of the two.
In his days he wrestled with Hakeem, Robinson, and Ewing, and the rest of the league was very far below those guys. Now Olajuwon is often rated a top 5 center - he wasn't, IMO, but he's on that edge anyhow so we'll let that go.
None of them had great teams around them, although when Duncan showed up the Spurs started making waves instantly.

The competition Chamberlain faced was vastly stronger, not only at his position, but for full teams.... than anything Shaq ever saw except Jordan's Bulls and maybe the later Spurs.
Nobody seems to hold it against Shaq that his Orlando squad couldn't get it done, or that he was swept 6 times in playoffs. Nor that he had Bryant at his full powers on his team and later, Wade.
So it is strange that people say O'Neal was MDE... when he was lining up on guys like Jason Collins or Rik Smits.... while playing on a really loaded Lakers team around him with probably the greatest coach the NBA ever saw (Willis Reed's 6th man) P Jax.... and then with Wade and that b@d@ss on the bench Riles.

Meanwhile, the old guys, who saw Chamberlain and know what a complete basketball player he was and what level of competition he faced.... are howled at by guys who weren't even born when he was retired.
This was a guy who on the Sixers had 12 go-to moves. TWELVE. Who would get 8, 10, 12 blocks in a game and was ferocious on the boards.

Guys who saw Shaq saw one of the greatest centers to ever wear a jersey; but Chamberlain was so much better than that.

You are one of the more reasonable posters around so I'm not going to troll you. Since you saw him play, give me your non biased assessment of Wilt's weaknesses and why he couldn't lead his team to more titles (let's say around 67-73, exclude the title years 67 and 72).

[mehyaM24]

- huge statistical postseason dropoff
- has some of THE biggest chokes of all time
- stat padded like nobody ever has to increase his averages
- horrific record against russell (the best player of his era)

a top 10 player for sure, but you cannot ignore his 48-32 playoff record in the 5 years he was a laker (with jerry west AND elgin baylor).

checkout "retrobreakdown:1970 nba finals game 7 - lakers at knicks - jerry west goes south" and see wilt's fade at 3:35. in the waning moments of a criticical, do or die game 7, wilt settles for fadeaway against a hobbled center. a freaking fadeaway. THIS right here (lack of playoff success) is why i cannot take his "GOAT" candidacy serious.

[LAZERUSS]

- huge statistical postseason dropoff
- has some of THE biggest chokes of all time
- stat padded like nobody ever has to increase his averages
- horrific record against russell (the best player of his era)

a top 10 player for sure, but you cannot ignore his 48-32 playoff record in the 5 years he was a laker (with jerry west AND elgin baylor).

checkout "retrobreakdown:1970 nba finals game 7 - lakers at knicks - jerry west goes south" and see wilt's fade at 3:35. in the waning moments of a criticical, do or die game 7, wilt settles for fadeaway against a hobbled center. a freaking fadeaway. THIS right here (lack of playoff success) is why i cannot take his "GOAT" candidacy serious.

Averaged a 30-27-5-8 .515 FG% (in post-seasons that shot about .420 in that same span...or nearly 10% higher than the post-season league eFG%)...in his first six post-seasons, and covering 67 playoff games (35 of which were against RUSSELL, and another six against Thurmond.) How many GOATs even had ONE single playoff SERIES with those numbers? Hell, even one GAME.

Outplayed Russell in all EIGHT post-season series (badly outscored him, easily out-rebounded, and dramatically outshot him from the field in EACH one.)

Put up this stat-line in MUST WIN PLAYOFF games:


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

12-11 W-L record

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


3 games of 50+ points (BTW, the ONLY three by a GOAT in a "must-win game)

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

13 games of 30+ points

6 games of 30+ rebounds

20 games of 20+ rebounds

And this...


Wilt "lost" series clinching playoff games with 26-24, 33-23, 22-22, 30-27, 30-32, 46-34, 14-34, 18-27, 21-24 (on basically one leg), 23-12 (and badly out played a peak KAJ BTW), and 23-21 (his LAST game of his career.) That was EVERY series-clinching "loss" performance in his career. Does that look a "choker" to you?


Played TWO post-seasons with Baylor in Wilt's five seasons as a Laker. And Baylor was absolutely THE reason why his Lakers lost in '69.

Played FOUR post-seasons with West in his five years as a Laker. West was brilliant in ONE, was exceptional in another...BUT, CHOKED in game seven (Frazier just torched him), was poor in another one ('73), and was downright awful in their title run in '72.

A one-legged WILT was the ONLY Laker to play well in that game seven of the '70 Finals (just butchered a helpless Reed, who either fouled him or had a TON of help in defending him)...and finished the '70 Finals with a 23 ppg, 24 rpg, .625 FG% seven game series. Included was a MUST WIN game six performance of 45 points, on 20-27 shooting, with 27 rebounds.

Next...

[mehyaM24]

...and 22ppg on 52% TS in the postseason. the end.

[LAZERUSS]

...and 22ppg on 52% TS in the postseason. the end.

And won a FMVP with a 19.3 ppg average, and would have won another had the award existed with a 17.5 ppg average.

Also outshot the league eFG% by nearly 10% in his post-season career.

Was the leading rebounder in 28 of his 29 post-season series, and outrebounded his opposing center in ALL of them. And, in the one series in which he did not lead both teams in rebounding, he was outrebounded by Jerry Lucas, by a 21.0 to 20.0 rpg margin. BUT, how about this. The two would meet as starting centers in the '72 Finals. Lucas was 31 and played 46 mpg in that series. Wilt was 35 and played 47 mpg in that series. And,...Chamberlain outrebounded Lucas, 23.2 to 9.8 rpg. Oh, and he EELEVATED his rpg in his post-season career from 22.9 rpg to 24.5 rpg (and outrebounded the career post-season record holder, Russell in ALL EIGHT of their post-season H2H's.)

Was never outshot by an opposing center in any of his Finals...and was the leading FG% shooter on both teams in all of them. In fact, he ELEVATED his regular season FG% of .540 to .559 in his six Finals (oh, and held his opposing starting centers to a collective .439 FG% in those six Finals.)

Completely shut down his opposing centers in the vast majority of his 29 post-season series, including holding Kareem, who had seasons of .577 and .574, to .481 and .457 in their two post-season H2H's.

Next...

[mehyaM24]

And won a FMVP with a 19.3 ppg average, and would have won another had the award existed with a 17.5 ppg average.

that's nice. OTH, real GOAT candidates like jordan, kareem, and shaq won multiple FMVPS averaging roughly 30ppg on supreme efficiency.


Also outshot the league eFG% by nearly 10% in his post-season career.

while averaging tyson chandler esque PPG numbers. not impressive in the least when you consider he admitted padding his FG% numbers.

the MOST negative number in wilt's career, are his winshares per 48 minutes in the postseason.

for a "superstar", you simply wont find a bigger dropoff in the postseason than wilt's ws/48.

regular season: .248
post season: .200

his teammate jerry west, had a .203 ws/48 in the postseason (.213 in the regular season). which is why i've maintained jerry west was THE best player on those Laker teams - along for the ride was wilt.

[LAZERUSS]

that's nice. OTH, real GOAT candidates like jordan, kareem, and shaq won multiple FMVPS averaging roughly 30ppg on supreme efficiency.



while averaging tyson chandler esque PPG numbers. not impressive in the least when you consider he admitted padding his FG% numbers.

the MOST negative number in wilt's career, are his winshares per 48 minutes in the postseason.

for a "superstar", you simply wont find a bigger dropoff in the postseason than wilt's ws/48.

regular season: .248
post season: .200

his teammate jerry west, had a .203 ws/48 in the postseason (.213 in the regular season). which is why i've maintained jerry west was THE best player on those Laker teams - along for the ride was wilt.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

"Tyson Chandler-esque numbers"

Chandler has averaged 6.7 ppg on a .558 eFG% (in leagues that shot FAR higher eFG% than in Wilt's era.)



And

:roll: :roll: :roll:

W/S per 48. Great stat.

You really need to do some actual research.


West was the Lakers best player in ONE of his FOUR post-seasons with Wilt. Oh, and Chamberlain played in ALL FIVE post-seasons in his years with West.

[mehyaM24]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

"Tyson Chandler-esque numbers"

Chandler has averaged 6.7 ppg on a .558 eFG% (in leagues that shot FAR higher eFG% than in Wilt's era.)

what's so funny? chandler also averaged ~12ppg (nearly identical to wilt the season he averaged ~13ppg). they both led the league in FG%.

:hammerhead:


W/S per 48. Great stat.

You really need to do some actual research.

jerry west had more impact on those laker teams, evidenced by his consistent winshare advantage over wilt.

FACTS.

[LAZERUSS]

what's so funny? chandler also averaged ~12ppg (nearly identical to wilt the season he averaged ~13ppg). they both led the league in FG%.

:hammerhead:



jerry west had more impact on those laker teams, evidenced by his consistent winshare advantage over wilt.

FACTS.

So then you agree that Chamberlain was far greater than Shaq, right?

Wilt's post-season career W/S per 48 = .199

Shaq's = .184.

BTW, Bird's was at .173 and RUSSELL's was at .178.

[mehyaM24]

So then you agree that Chamberlain was far greater than Shaq, right?

Wilt's post-season career W/S per 48 = .199

Shaq's = .178.
nope. winshares are NOT adjusted across eras (maybe you need to read up on the actual statistic?)

jerry west was absolutely THE best player on those laker teams, however. :applause:

[LAZERUSS]

nope. winshares are NOT adjusted across eras (maybe you need read up on the actual statistic?)

jerry west was absolutely THE best player on those laker teams, however. :applause:

Wilt .199
Russell .178

Chamberlain was obviously the greater "winner" using mehyaM24's stat.

Good to know.

[LAZERUSS]

AND, how about actual post-season WIN-SHARES:

Wilt: 31.46
West: 26.75

Both played in 13 post-seasons in their careers.

Furthermore, in their Laker seasons together:

West: 10.9
Wilt: 12.1

[mehyaM24]

Wilt .199
Russell .178

Chamberlain was obviously the greater "winner" using mehyaM24's stat.

Good to know.

wilt has better stats than russell. what a revelation :eek:

russell was arguably his teams 3rd or 4th best scorer, so yeah, again, not exactly surprising.

of course, i am not the one using this stat to compare other players on other teams, across eras. :no:

[LAZERUSS]

wilt has better stats than russell. what a revelation :eek:

russell was arguably his teams 3rd or 4th best scorer, so yeah, again, not exactly surprising.

of course, i am not the one using this stat to compare other players on other teams, across eras. :no:

As was Chamberlain in his Laker seasons with West.

[mehyaM24]

As was Chamberlain in his Laker seasons with West.
ws/48 > ws - they account for wilt's outrageous, padded minutes per game. something to keep in mind :cheers:

[AintNoSunshine]

Yet chose to average 22 ppg in a 1968 ECF against the Celtics where his team completely gave in after game 4 and lost a 3-1 lead...

Here is Wilt in games 6 and 7:

Game 6 (L 106-114)
20 points 6-21 FG
8-23 FT

Game 7 (L 96-100)
14 points 4-9 FG
6-15 FT

Combined 10-30 FG and 14-38 FT in games 6 and 7.
That is both dominant and efficient:applause:

[La Frescobaldi]

wilt has better stats than russell. what a revelation :eek:

russell was arguably his teams 3rd or 4th best scorer, so yeah, again, not exactly surprising.

of course, i am not the one using this stat to compare other players on other teams, across eras. :no:

This is the most shameless crawfish from a position I've seen in years.

[La Frescobaldi]

You are one of the more reasonable posters around so I'm not going to troll you. Since you saw him play, give me your non biased assessment of Wilt's weaknesses and why he couldn't lead his team to more titles (let's say around 67-73, exclude the title years 67 and 72).
'68 a quote from those days.......

"Alex Hannum says this is the most courageous team he's ever coached," says Harvey Pollack, the 76ers' statistician. "The locker room looks like a hospital ward every time I walk in."

Pollack ticked off some of the cases, which read like a medical diary:

-Wilt Chamberlain (partial tear of the calf muscle in his right leg, a strain in his right thigh and an injured right toe):

-Wally Jones (injured knee cartilage):

-Luke Jackson (pulled hamstring muscle):

-Hal Greer (bursitus in his right knee):

-And, Billy Cunningham (broken right wrist).

"That's not mentioning (rookie) Jim Reid who had a knee operation after injuring it the first game of the season," said Pollack, "and Larry Costello," the veteran guard who tore an ankle tendon after one-third of the season was gone.

The most recent injury was to Chamberlain in Friday night's Eastern Division playoff contest with the Celtics. The dipper was given whirlpool treatments for the calf muscle tear, but Pollack wasn't sure how he'd respond.

The 76ers have nine men in uniform for the best-of-seven playoffs, which they lead, two games to one. But whether they'll have anybody left for the finals against the Western Division winner is anybody's guess.

The team's troubles multiplied in the Eastern Division semifinals against the New York Knickerbockers. Cunningham broke his wrist, knocking him out for the season, Jones and Jackson suffered their injuries and Chamberlain aggravated his perennial toe injury.
'69
Chamberlain went down with a knee injury in the Finals. Although that series shouldn't have gone 7 games. Elgin Baylor completely disappeared.

'70
My Knicks were a better team than the Lakers, Chamberlain missed the season with knee injury, but above all, Walt Frazier had the greatest Finals game in history... the Willis Reed game. They just shelled the Lakers from outside and everything they threw at the basket went right in!

'71 both West & Baylor drew DNP-injured for the playoffs.

[Asukal]

'70
My Knicks were a better team than the Lakers, Chamberlain missed the season with knee injury, but above all, Walt Frazier had the greatest Finals game in history... the Willis Reed game. They just shelled the Lakers from outside and everything they threw at the basket went right in!


70 finals game 7 is up on youtube. I watched most of the first half only but a couple of things I noticed:
- players are great at shooting from mid range
- passing is a bit sloppy but ok
- perimeter players aren't as skilled compared to today (footwork and drive to the basket)
- wilt really sucks at free throws (that shooting form) :facepalm
- there is no evidence of wilt's strength in this game (he didn't back down willis reed like when shaq completely overpowered his opponents)
- dunno if he was just having a bad night but wilt's finger rolls are awkward looking and doesn't strike me as an efficient offensive go to move like say the skyhook
- i feel like the lakers could have rallied more if they tried, most of the knicks early points were from transition and the lakers didn't run back faster when they should have

will rewatch the full game later when I have time, these are just my observations. Feel free to refute. :confusedshrug:

[La Frescobaldi]

70 finals game 7 is up on youtube. I watched most of the first half only but a couple of things I noticed:
- players are great at shooting from mid range
- passing is a bit sloppy but ok
- perimeter players aren't as skilled compared to today (footwork and drive to the basket)
- wilt really sucks at free throws (that shooting form) :facepalm
- there is no evidence of wilt's strength in this game (he didn't back down willis reed like when shaq completely overpowered his opponents)
- dunno if he was just having a bad night but wilt's finger rolls are awkward looking and doesn't strike me as an efficient offensive go to move like say the skyhook
- i feel like the lakers could have rallied more if they tried, most of the knicks early points were from transition and the lakers didn't run back faster when they should have

will rewatch the full game later when I have time, these are just my observations. Feel free to refute. :confusedshrug:

Film changed everything - everything. Game film and skills camps were bigger factors in creating today's NBA even than the 3 point line. Of course skills are higher; I would sure hope so, after 40 years.

As far as that game? Yeah. What you are seeing and describing is Red Holzman's impact.
He was a master at pacing, at seeing the key areas, at knowing the critical times in a game, above all at adjustments - there's a reason he's in the Hall!!

Have you even heard of Joe Mullaney? Guy was a pretty good coach.... but his teams did the same thing when he moved over in the ABA. Two entirely different levels of coaching - on full display.

Ya Chamberlain was like Shaq or Howard at the stripe. Great players but big fat fail at the free. Russell was horrific too.

[LAZERUSS]

One of the constants that the Wilt-bashers bring into every argument is... he only won two rings.

Let me ask them this...given the quality of the opposition his team's faced; his surrounding supporting casts; how well his teammates played in those post-seasons; and injuries...

how many SHOULD he have won?

[Ariza4three]

One of the constants that the Wilt-bashers bring into every argument is... he only won two rings.

Let me ask them this...given the quality of the opposition his team's faced; his surrounding supporting casts; how well his teammates played in those post-seasons; and injuries...

how many SHOULD he have won?
wilt is a choker

[LAZERUSS]

wilt is a choker

Go ahead...continue...

[Ariza4three]

Yet chose to average 22 ppg in a 1968 ECF against the Celtics where his team completely gave in after game 4 and lost a 3-1 lead...

Here is Wilt in games 6 and 7:

Game 6 (L 106-114)
20 points 6-21 FG
8-23 FT

Game 7 (L 96-100)
14 points 4-9 FG
6-15 FT

Combined 10-30 FG and 14-38 FT in games 6 and 7.
Absolutely embarrassing. Pathetic performance from Wit.

[LAZERUSS]

Absolutely embarrassing. Pathetic performance from Wit.

Is that it? That's all you can argue...by using someone else's non-researched post?

I'll save myself some time here...(BTW, this came from a post by PHILA)


Pollack ticked off some of the cases, which read like a medical diary:

-Wilt Chamberlain (partial tear of the calf muscle in his right leg, a strain in his right thigh and an injured right toe):

-Wally Jones (injured knee cartilage):

-Luke Jackson (pulled hamstring muscle):

-Hal Greer (bursitus in his right knee):

-And, Billy Cunningham (broken right wrist).

"That's not mentioning (rookie) Jim Reid who had a knee operation after injuring it the first game of the season," said Pollack, "and Larry Costello," the veteran guard who tore an ankle tendon after one-third of the season was gone.

The most recent injury was to Chamberlain in Friday night's Eastern Division playoff contest with the Celtics. The dipper was given whirlpool treatments for the calf muscle tear, but Pollack wasn't sure how he'd respond.

The 76ers have nine men in uniform for the best-of-seven playoffs, which they lead, two games to one. But whether they'll have anybody left for the finals against the Western Division winner is anybody's guess.

The team's troubles multiplied in the Eastern Division semifinals against the New York Knickerbockers. Cunningham broke his wrist, knocking him out for the season, Jones and Jackson suffered their injuries and Chamberlain aggravated his perennial toe injury.

The reality was...Chamberlain played every minute of that seven game series, with an assortment of injuries. Game recaps had him NOTICEABLY LIMPING throughout the series. '

His muscle tear was similar to what Reed suffered in the '70 Finals. You remember that don't you? The injury that basically reduced Reed to playing one quarter of one game, a little more than a half of another, and completely missing a third.

BTW, despite the numerous injuries, Wilt was still somehow able to grab 27 and 34 rebounds in those two games.

Oh, and with his injury-plagued Sixers holding a 3-1 series lead, all Chamberlain could do in game five was score 28 points, on 11-21 shooting, with 30 rebounds.

Bill Russell said after that series, "A lessor man would not have played." Which was basically stating...NO ONE else would have played under those conditions.


Next argument...

[Elosha]

I've followed these Wilt threads for years on ISH before joining. It's actually quite fascinating and informative to hear the diametrically opposed positions of Wilt proponents and detractors.

I have opinions on the issue too, but first I pose a question. The thread's premise is that Wilt was the most dominant individual player, and one of the main arguments is how to treat Wilt's point decrease from 30 regular season to 22 in the playoffs and 18 in the Finals. Detractors consider this a big negative; proponents state Wilt continued stellar defense, rebounding and passing even when he wasn't the primary scorer and also point out that he had a number of big scoring games and series in his prime years and also scored very well in close out games.

My question is what is Wilt's ppg playoff average during his prime scoring years? Maybe that time frame goes up to 1968, or whatever cut off one wishes to use. In any event I'm curious as to whether he averaged 35+, 30, 26, etc. It would give a better indication of what level of scoring he generally provided in the years in which he was expected to be a big time scorer. I know he didn't make the playoffs one year (50 ppg season or 44 ppg season?), which may skew the average a bit since it takes away from what he could have been averaging in the playoffs during his prime. But what I'm curious about, from a scoring perspective, is whether Wilt experienced a significant drop off in his playoff scoring during his prime years, or whether he maintained or increased his scoring average.

[Ariza4three]

Is that it? That's all you can argue...by using someone else's non-researched post?

I'll save myself some time here...(BTW, this came from a post by PHILA)



The reality was...Chamberlain played every minute of that seven game series, with an assortment of injuries. Game recaps had him NOTICEABLY LIMPING throughout the series. '

His muscle tear was similar to what Reed suffered in the '70 Finals. You remember that don't you? The injury that basically reduced Reed to playing one quarter of one game, a little more than a half of another, and completely missing a third.

BTW, despite the numerous injuries, Wilt was still somehow able to grab 27 and 34 rebounds in those two games.

Oh, and with his injury-plagued Sixers holding a 3-1 series lead, all Chamberlain could do in game five was score 28 points, on 11-21 shooting, with 30 rebounds.

Bill Russell said after that series, "A lessor man would not have played." Which was basically stating...NO ONE else would have played under those conditions.


Next argument...
Is that why he missed all those freethrows? Is that his excuse? LOL.

[LAZERUSS]

I've followed these Wilt threads for years on ISH before joining. It's actually quite fascinating and informative to hear the diametrically opposed positions of Wilt proponents and detractors.

I have opinions on the issue too, but first I pose a question. The thread's premise is that Wilt was the most dominant individual player, and one of the main arguments is how to treat Wilt's point decrease from 30 regular season to 22 in the playoffs and 18 in the Finals. Detractors consider this a big negative; proponents state Wilt continued stellar defense, rebounding and passing even when he wasn't the primary scorer and also point out that he had a number of big scoring games and series in his prime years and also scored very well in close out games.

My question is what is Wilt's ppg playoff average during his prime scoring years? Maybe that time frame goes up to 1968, or whatever cut off one wishes to use. In any event I'm curious as to whether he averaged 35+, 30, 26, etc. It would give a better indication of what level of scoring he generally provided in the years in which he was expected to be a big time scorer. I know he didn't make the playoffs one year (50 ppg season or 44 ppg season?), which may skew the average a bit since it takes away from what he could have been averaging in the playoffs during his prime. But what I'm curious about, from a scoring perspective, is whether Wilt experienced a significant drop off in his playoff scoring during his prime years, or whether he maintained or increased his scoring average.

Wilt's "scoring" prime was from '59-60 thru '65-66. True, he could still hang 60+ point games up thru his '69 season (last season before shredding his knee), but in terms of being asked to single-handedly carry teams...it was from '60 thru '66.

In that span, he averaged 40 ppg in his regular seasons, which included his 44.8 ppg season in '63...when his team did not make the playoffs. In the post-season, his scoring "dropped" to 34 ppg. HOWEVER, he played in 52 playoff games in that span, and faced RUSSELL in 30 of them. BTW, and against Russell, in that span he averaged 30 ppg on a .507 FG%...in post-seasons that shot about .420.

The "Russell" factor is HUGE. For instance, the "bashers" bring up his '62 regular season, when Wilt averaged 50 ppg against the league, and "only" 35 ppg in his post-season. Well, Chamberlain faced Russell in seven of his 12 playoff games in that post-season. In his 10 regular season H2H's with Russell, he averaged 40 ppg on a .468 FG%. In his seven playoff games against Russell, he averaged 34 ppg on a .468 FG%. Keep in mind that in the regular season, the NBA averaged 119 ppg on a .426 eFG%. In the post-season, the NBA averaged 113 ppg on a .411 FG%.

As an example...

I won't bother looking up MJ's, or Shaq's numbers (I have posted them before), but in MJ's three straight playoff series against the prime "Bad Boys" from '88 thru '90, both his scoring and efficiency took a considerable plunge from his regular season numbers against the league. Same with Shaq's numbers against the Robinson-led Spurs from '99 thru '02.

And a PEAK KAJ, in his '71 and '72 regular seasons, averaged 32 ppg on a .563 FG% against the NBA. In his five post-season series against both Wilt and Nate Thurmond, he averaged 26 ppg on a .456 FG% in those same two post-seasons.

Furthermore, there can be no question, that had Wilt been fortunate enough to have played the Lakers during the decade of the '60's, like Russell did five times...his post-season scoring and efficiency would have sky-rocketed.


Again, had Wilt faced the Lakers in any of his nine seasons in the league from '60 thru '68, and he likely would own at least some, (if not a vast majority), playoff and perhaps Finals, scoring records (and perhaps FG% records, as well, since Russell shot .702 against LA in '65.)

And once again, in Wilt's regular seasons, he was facing LA between 7 to 12 games in each season, with an average of about 10.

Also keep in mind that the Lakers were in the Western Conference, and Wilt only had two seasons in the Western Conference from '60 thru '68, and in one of those, his team was so bad, that he didn't make the playoffs, despite a 44.8 ppg season on .528 shooting.


Ok, here we go:

'59-60:

Against the entire NBA that season: 37.6 ppg on a .461 FG%

Against the Lakers in 9 H2H's: 36.8 ppg on a .430 FG%

High games of 41, 41, 41, 45, and 52.


'60-61:

Against the entire NBA: 38.4 ppg on a .509 FG%

Against the Lakers in 10 H2H's: 40.1 ppg on a .506 FG%

High games were 41, 41, 43, 44, 46, and 56 points.


'61-62:

Against the entire NBA: 50.4 ppg on a .506 FG%

Against LA in 9 H2H games: 51.6 ppg on a .503 FG%

High games of 48, 56, 57, 60, 60, and 78 (with 43 rebounds.)


'62-63: Against the entire NBA: 44.8 ppg on a .528 FG%

Against LA in 12 H2Hs: 48.6 ppg on a .541 FG%

High games of 40, 40, 42, 53, 63, and 72 points.


'63-64: Against the entire NBA: 36.9 ppg on a .524 FG%

Against LA in 12 H2Hs: 44.3 ppg on a .484 FG%

High games of 40, 41, 47, 49, 50, 55, and 59 points.


'64-65: Against the entire NBA: 34.7 ppg on a .510 FG%

Against LA in 8 H2Hs: 29.9 ppg on a .476 FG%

High games of 40, 40, and 41 points.


'65-66: Against the entire NBA: 33.5 ppg on a .540 FG%

Against LA in 10 H2Hs: 40.8 ppg on a .559 FG%

High games of 42, 49, 53, and 65 points.


'66-67: Against the entire NBA: 24.1 ppg on a .683 FG%

Against LA in 9 H2Hs: 26.4 ppg on a .759 FG%

High games of 32, 37, and 39 points.


'67-68: Against the entire NBA: 24.3 ppg on a .595 FG%

Against LA in 7 H2Hs: 28.1 ppg on a .638 FG%

High games of 31, 32, 35, and 53 points.


Overall, in those 86 games:

40 Point Games: 42

50 Point Games: 19

60 Point Games: 7

70 Point Games: 2

High game of 78 points.

Just some food for thought...

[LAZERUSS]

Is that why he missed all those freethrows? Is that his excuse? LOL.

Wilt was a poor FT shooter...just like Shaq. And even Russell was only slightly better.

Shaq won titles with Finals' FT%'s of .387 and .292. Wilt won titles with FT%'s of .305 and .543.

And not only was Russell only a little better than both of them, he won titles in post-seasons in which he shot .365 and .356 from the FIELD.

BTW, Chamberlain was never OUTSCORED by his opposing centers from the line in his six Finals. Furthermore, I won't take the time to break it down now (but I have before), but Wilt's IMPACT from the line was HUGE. He was not only getting his teammates into the bonus much earlier, he was oftn sending opposing players to the bench with foul trouble.

[La Frescobaldi]

I've followed these Wilt threads for years on ISH before joining. It's actually quite fascinating and informative to hear the diametrically opposed positions of Wilt proponents and detractors.

I have opinions on the issue too, but first I pose a question. The thread's premise is that Wilt was the most dominant individual player, and one of the main arguments is how to treat Wilt's point decrease from 30 regular season to 22 in the playoffs and 18 in the Finals. Detractors consider this a big negative; proponents state Wilt continued stellar defense, rebounding and passing even when he wasn't the primary scorer and also point out that he had a number of big scoring games and series in his prime years and also scored very well in close out games.

My question is what is Wilt's ppg playoff average during his prime scoring years? Maybe that time frame goes up to 1968, or whatever cut off one wishes to use. In any event I'm curious as to whether he averaged 35+, 30, 26, etc. It would give a better indication of what level of scoring he generally provided in the years in which he was expected to be a big time scorer. I know he didn't make the playoffs one year (50 ppg season or 44 ppg season?), which may skew the average a bit since it takes away from what he could have been averaging in the playoffs during his prime. But what I'm curious about, from a scoring perspective, is whether Wilt experienced a significant drop off in his playoff scoring during his prime years, or whether he maintained or increased his scoring average.
It's an interesting thing when talking about his "scoring era." He had 3 distinct careers - scoring, all-round, and defensive. Convention has it that his first career ran to 1966 - after all, he led the league in scoring all 7 years - but it really ended in '64, when Coach Hannum offered Chamberlain a game of fisticuffs.

The other players broke them up before they went to the mats. But Hannum won that fight where it counted I mean mentally and Chamberlain went on to become the player I saw on the Sixers - a triple double machine, a man-to-man and team defender of terrifying greatness, still with his full physical powers and complete offensive prowess, but now surrounded by fine players and a coach he respected and trusted.

When you look at his career numbers today, they seem to show a drop.... but imagine Harden, Bryant or Anthony allowing their coach to drop their shooting by 30 or 40% a game. Not happening tho the roof cave in and all the waters of Noah's flood fall on their heads. Guys like that care about winning; but they have to be the star and their teammates are lesser mortals. That is a required ego for all scoring monstrosities.

Not only did he take the plunge and completely change his game.... he became the best all-round center the game has ever seen.
And after he wrecked his knee, he dropped his offense clear off the map and became such a great defensive specialist that Russell himself said Chamberlain was playing Russell's style better than Russell ever did.

So stats, strangely enough, are the least important thing to look at in Chamberlain's career.
Guys that know nothing but bb-ref can't hope to understand what that man did for basketball. He showed us a glimpse of what it could be

[Elosha]

Wilt's "scoring" prime was from '59-60 thru '65-66. True, he could still hang 60+ point games up thru his '69 season (last season before shredding his knee), but in terms of being asked to single-handedly carry teams...it was from '60 thru '66.

In that span, he averaged 40 ppg in his regular seasons, which included his 44.8 ppg season in '63...when his team did not make the playoffs. In the post-season, his scoring "dropped" to 34 ppg. HOWEVER, he played in 52 playoff games in that span, and faced RUSSELL in 30 of them. BTW, and against Russell, in that span he averaged 30 ppg on a .507 FG%...in post-seasons that shot about .420.

The "Russell" factor is HUGE. For instance, the "bashers" bring up his '62 regular season, when Wilt averaged 50 ppg against the league, and "only" 35 ppg in his post-season. Well, Chamberlain faced Russell in seven of his 12 playoff games in that post-season. In his 10 regular season H2H's with Russell, he averaged 40 ppg on a .468 FG%. In his seven playoff games against Russell, he averaged 34 ppg on a .468 FG%. Keep in mind that in the regular season, the NBA averaged 119 ppg on a .426 eFG%. In the post-season, the NBA averaged 113 ppg on a .411 FG%.

As an example...

I won't bother looking up MJ's, or Shaq's numbers (I have posted them before), but in MJ's three straight playoff series against the prime "Bad Boys" from '88 thru '90, both his scoring and efficiency took a considerable plunge from his regular season numbers against the league. Same with Shaq's numbers against the Robinson-led Spurs from '99 thru '02.

And a PEAK KAJ, in his '71 and '72 regular seasons, averaged 32 ppg on a .563 FG% against the NBA. In his five post-season series against both Wilt and Nate Thurmond, he averaged 26 ppg on a .456 FG% in those same two post-seasons.

Furthermore, there can be no question, that had Wilt been fortunate enough to have played the Lakers during the decade of the '60's, like Russell did five times...his post-season scoring and efficiency would have sky-rocketed.



Just some food for thought...

Thanks, very interesting and good observations. Will post more thoughts later. You're right to end his scoring "prime" in 1966, the next season under Alex Hannum, he started shooting less.

[kurple]

how can wilt be the most dominant when russell dominated that era with 11 championships

[Ariza4three]

Wilt was a poor FT shooter...just like Shaq. And even Russell was only slightly better.

Shaq won titles with Finals' FT%'s of .387 and .292. Wilt won titles with FT%'s of .305 and .543.

And not only was Russell only a little better than both of them, he won titles in post-seasons in which he shot .365 and .356 from the FIELD.

BTW, Chamberlain was never OUTSCORED by his opposing centers from the line in his six Finals. Furthermore, I won't take the time to break it down now (but I have before), but Wilt's IMPACT from the line was HUGE. He was not only getting his teammates into the bonus much earlier, he was oftn sending opposing players to the bench with foul trouble.
Shaq 4
Wilt 2 (wasn't even the best player on the team either.)
Wilt's rings have as much weight as Chris Bosh's.

[La Frescobaldi]

Thanks, very interesting and good observations. Will post more thoughts later. You're right to end his scoring "prime" in 1966, the next season under Alex Hannum, he started shooting less.
He played for Hannum before that, too, on the Warriors.

[La Frescobaldi]

how can wilt be the most dominant when russell dominated that era with 11 championships
How can Shaq be MDE when Jordan dominated that era with 6 championships? And then Duncan won 3 more?

[mehyaM24]

cont.. its just a fact that wilt, WILTED in the playoffs. you simply have no case for "GOAT" when in the regular season you can average 50 for a season, yet get outscored by elgin baylor in the playoffs. how is that NOT choking? how is going 0-4 in game 7's vs the celtics and being outscored by sam jones in all game 7's NOT choking?

point being, there is NO WAY i am putting wilt in my goat disucssion with postseason mediocrity (i value the postseason more than shallow regular season statistics).

[Psileas]

Shaq 4
Wilt 2 (wasn't even the best player on the team either.)
Wilt's rings have as much weight as Chris Bosh's.

Payton's ring has as much weight as Adam Morrison's. Too bad Morrison has 2.

[LAZERUSS]

Shaq 4
Wilt 2 (wasn't even the best player on the team either.)
Wilt's rings have as much weight as Chris Bosh's.

Interesting...

So who won the '72 FMVP award again?

And, how often have you read ANYTHING in which the article claims that it was Hal Greer who LED the '67 76ers to a title?

As a point of reference, pick up a copy of Wayne Lynch's book, "The Season of the 76ers"....

..."The Story of WILT CHAMBERLAIN and the 1967 NBA Champion Philadelphia 76ers."

[LAZERUSS]

cont.. its just a fact that wilt, WILTED in the playoffs. you simply have no case for "GOAT" when in the regular season you can average 50 for a season, yet get outscored by elgin baylor in the playoffs. how is that NOT choking? how is going 0-4 in game 7's vs the celtics and being outscored by sam jones in all game 7's NOT choking?

point being, there is NO WAY i am putting wilt in my goat disucssion with postseason mediocrity (i value the postseason more than shallow regular season statistics).

Shaq "wilted" against the Spurs from '99 thru '02, as well. Scoring and efficiency dropped considerably. I guess playing against David Robinson had something to do with that, don't you think?

And if Wilt "wilted" against Russell, how do explain GREG OSTERTAG's 8-1 career playoff record against Shaq? Or the 6-7 Ben Wallace holding a 14-8 career playoff record against Shaq?

And being outscored in the post-season by Baylor is a disgrace? You do realize that Baylor averaged 41 ppg in the '62 Finals, right? BTW, was Russell defending Baylor in that Final?

And Sam Jones was not being guarded by Chamberlain in those game sevens, and furthermore, Wilt outscored Jones in SIX of their eight playoff series.

[mehyaM24]

Shaq "wilted" against the Spurs from '99 thru '02, as well. Scoring and efficiency dropped considerably. I guess playing against David Robinson had something to do with that, don't you think?

against david robinson AND tim duncan - but its a myth that SA was shaq's "kryptonite"

in the 2001 wcf, for example, against duncan and drob:
duncan: 23ppg/12.3reb/4.3ast/4.3blk/4.5to 47%fg
shaq: 25.7ppg/13.3reb/2.2ast/1.3blk/3.7to on .553%fg

2003 wcsf against duncan and drob
duncan: 28ppg/11.8reb/4.8ast/1.3blk on .529%fg
shaq: 25.3ppg/14.3reb/3.7ast/2.8blk on .559%fg

but of course - this is just straying away from the point. shaq is a much, MUCH better postseason player than wilt. in fact, many basketball gurus rank shaq among the GREATEST finals performers ever. wilt? not so much...unfortunately.


And if Wilt "wilted" against Russell, how do explain GREG OSTERTAG's 8-1 career playoff record against Shaq? Or the 6-7 Ben Wallace holding a 14-8 career playoff record against Shaq?

is greg ostertag a HOFer? does ben wallace actually have an offensive game? you are straying away from the topic.

now i wouldn't say wilt being outscored by baylor was a "disgrace" - but it was another one of wilt's epic let downs when you consider what he did in the regular season. how do you not grasp that?


And Sam Jones was not being guarded by Chamberlain

sam jones outscored wilt in all game 7's H2H. name another HOFer on an opposing team that outscored shaq (efficiently) in multiple do-or-die playoff games. you cant!

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

MJ, Kareem, Russell, Shaq and Hakeem are the big 5 no one is close to those guys overall

Bird would be there if he didnt struggle with injuries so much. Kobe would be if he had a better peak

[LAZERUSS]

against david robinson AND tim duncan - but its a myth that SA was shaq's "kryptonite"

in the 2001 wcf, for example, against duncan and drob:
duncan: 23ppg/12.3reb/4.3ast/4.3blk/4.5to 47%fg
shaq: 25.7ppg/13.3reb/2.2ast/1.3blk/3.7to on .553%fg

2003 wcsf against duncan and drob
duncan: 28ppg/11.8reb/4.8ast/1.3blk on .529%fg
shaq: 25.3ppg/14.3reb/3.7ast/2.8blk on .559%fg

but of course - this is just straying away from the point. shaq is a much, MUCH better postseason player than wilt. in fact, many basketball gurus rank shaq among the GREATEST finals performers ever. wilt? not so much...unfortunately.



is greg ostertag a HOFer? does ben wallace actually have an offensive game? you are straying away from the topic.

now i wouldn't say wilt being outscored by baylor was a "disgrace" - but it was another one of wilt's epic let downs when you consider what he did in the regular season. how do you not grasp that?



sam jones outscored wilt in all game 7's H2H. name another HOFer on an opposing team that outscored shaq (efficiently) in multiple do-or-die playoff games. you cant!

I see you didn't post Shaq's '99 or '02 series against D-Rob's Spurs.

'99 regular season: 26.3 ppg, 10.7 rpg, .576 FG%
'99 against D-Rob (4-0 sweeping loss BTW): 23.8 ppg, 13.0 rpg, .493 FG%

'02 regular season: 27.2 ppg, 10.7 rpg, .579 FG%
'02 against D-Rob: 21.4 ppg, 12.2 rpg, .447 FG%

Of course, his scoring dropped by over 4 ppg in their '01 series (and his efficency declined as well.)

Robinson was a shell by '03, and was no longer a factor.


Ostertag had his moments against Shaq. You want an embarrassing series?
How about their '97 playoff series H2H:

Shaq in the '97 regular season: 26.2 ppg, 12.2 rpg, .557 FG%
Shaq vs. Ostertag in the '97 playoffs (4-1 series loss): 22.0 ppg, 11.6 rpg, ,494 FG%


What does Wallace's offense have to do with BEATING Shaq, any more than Russell's offense had to do with Boston beating Wilt's teams? I'll give you that Russell was a considerably better offensive player than Wallace, but having said that though, in his 143 career H2H's with Wilt, Russell shot .382 from the field. Oh, and while Wallace POUNDED Shaq on the glass in the '04 Finals, and in fact, did so over the course of their 22 playoff H2H's, Wallace outrbounded Shaq by over a rpg. Chamberlain outrebounded Russell in EVERY one of their EIGHT playoff series H2H's, and some by margins of 5, 6, and even 9 rpg.


And no, Shaq was never a MUCH better post-season player than Wilt. Sure, he scored more over the course of his career, but then again, a PRIME "scoring" Chamberlain scored considerably more than Shaq. And before you bring up the Finals, a prime "scoring" Wilt played in exactly ONE. And that was against RUSSELL.

Of course, why don't you point out each one of Shaq's FOUR 50+ playoff games while you are at it (THREE of which were in must-win elimination games, and one of those was against RUSSELL.)

Oh, and please give me the centers that Chamberlain faced in his six Finals that were the equivalent of Smits, McCullough, and Dampier.

I have said it before, but if Chamberlain would have had the good fortune to have faced the Lakers in the post-season in the decade of the 60's, as Russell did FIVE times, (and he overwhelmed them in the process), he likely would hold every post-season scoring, rebounding, and FG% efficiency record. He had several entire seasons of 40+ ppg (even 50 ppg), as well as seasons of over 70% shooting.

Of course, had Wilt been allowed to play like this against his opposing centers...well needless to say...the NBA would have folded...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ2nOlFru9g


There was easily 2-3 offensive fouls in that one sequence, alone.

Also, had Shaq played with the rules in Wilt's era, he would have been called for travling and especially palming, many times, as well.


Again, Wilt outscored Sam Jones, who BTW was as clutch as Jerry West in the post-season (Russell claimed that Jones won six "win-or-go-home" playoff games), in SIX of their eight playoff series, and some by huge margins. And again, Jones was not defending Wilt... the greatest defensive player in NBA, and with HELP, was.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html


In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever.. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."

And finally, you, like all of the other uneducated "bashers" on this forum, continually hold Wilt to blame for "only" winning two rings (in 14 seasons BTW.) Well, Shaq's TEAMs "only" won four, and he was a second banana in one of those, and had his ass saved by Kobe against the Spurs in another two.

In any case, Shaq was a "loser" in 15 of his post-seasons, including an unfathomable SIX SWEEPING losses (and it would have been SEVEN had not Kobe made a miracle shot in the '04 Finals.) If Wilt were to blame for his "losses", then surely Shaq was an even bigger "loser."

[LAZERUSS]

MJ, Kareem, Russell, Shaq and Hakeem are the big 5 no one is close to those guys overall

Bird would be there if he didnt struggle with injuries so much. Kobe would be if he had a better peak

Hakeem's career resume is no longer that of a Top-10 player (Lebron passed him last year.) And to be honest, Moses was more of a force. And if you include the ABA years, Dr. J also has a case as being ranked ahead of him.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Hakeem's career resume is no longer that of a Top-10 player (Lebron passed him last year.) And to be honest, Moses was more of a force. And if you include the ABA years, Dr. J also has a case as being ranked ahead of him.
I dont care about "resumes"
i care about how good players actually were and none of those guys touch Keem

[LAZERUSS]

I dont care about "resumes"
i care about how good players actually were and none of those guys touch Keem

Hakeem was SELDOM even considered a Top-4 player in HIS era (FOUR times in 18 seasons.) On top of that, he wasn't even considered Top-TEN in HIS era for nearly HALF of his 18 seasons (EIGHT times he wasn't a Top-10 player.)

KAJ's resume would be pretty empty without MAGIC.

A PRIME Kareem, in his first ten seasons... won ONE ring, went to TWO Finals (losing one of them in a blowout loss in a game seven on his hom floor), was knocked out in the first round TWICE (and one of those with a 60-22 team that lost to a 47-35 team), was SWEPT with HCA in another, was blown out TWO years in a row by a team that had ONE borderline HOF player, and missed the playoffs TWICE in his pure prime.

[deja vu]

All that dominating and he could only muster 2 rings. Only one of which was in his prime.

If only he deferred more to his teammates and stopped being a black hole earlier he would have won more.

Which makes me think that Wilt had a huge ego and cared about his stats and how to look good on the court.

While Bill concentrated on unselfish team play Wilt was jacking shots like there's no tomorrow. :lol

[dunksby]

Hakeem was SELDOM even considered a Top-4 player in HIS era (FOUR times in 18 seasons.) On top of that, he wasn't even considered Top-TEN in HIS era for nearly HALF of his 18 seasons (EIGHT times he wasn't a Top-10 player.)

KAJ's resume would be pretty empty without MAGIC.

A PRIME Kareem, in his first ten seasons... won ONE ring, went to TWO Finals (losing one of them in a blowout loss in a game seven on his hom floor), was knocked out in the first round TWICE (and one of those with a 60-22 team that lost to a 47-35 team), was SWEPT with HCA in another, was blown out TWO years in a row by a team that had ONE borderline HOF player, and missed the playoffs TWICE in his pure prime.
I wonder why it took this inferior Kareem less time to win a ring than the MOST DOMINATING PLAYER EVER!!!! Magic would be nothing without Kareem, what did Magic accomplish after Kareem? Go away you old fart.

[Psileas]

I wonder why it took this inferior Kareem less time to win a ring than the MOST DOMINATING PLAYER EVER!!!! Magic would be nothing without Kareem, what did Magic accomplish after Kareem? Go away you old fart.

Do you also wonder why it took Jordan so much to win a ring, much like Wilt? Shaq? I guess Kobe has to be ranked above them, as well...
What did Magic accomplish after Kareem? How about leading the Lakers past a 63-win team to the NBA Finals, winning an MVP, being runner up once, plus winning a championship, leading the Lakers to a 11-0 playoff record in the West and winning another MVP after Kareem actually mattered? Using classical Wilt haterboy logic here, Magic seemingly got better without Kareem, lol.

[LAZERUSS]

Do you also wonder why it took Jordan so much to win a ring, much like Wilt? Shaq? I guess Kobe has to be ranked above them, as well...
What did Magic accomplish after Kareem? How about leading the Lakers past a 63-win team to the NBA Finals, winning an MVP, being runner up once, plus winning a championship, leading the Lakers to a 11-0 playoff record in the West and winning another MVP after Kareem actually mattered? Using classical Wilt haterboy logic here, Magic seemingly got better without Kareem, lol.

I was going to respond to dunksby....but you covered it already.

[LAZERUSS]

All that dominating and he could only muster 2 rings. Only one of which was in his prime.

If only he deferred more to his teammates and stopped being a black hole earlier he would have won more.

Which makes me think that Wilt had a huge ego and cared about his stats and how to look good on the court.

While Bill concentrated on unselfish team play Wilt was jacking shots like there's no tomorrow. :lol

You really need to do some actual research before you post gibberish.

It was Wilt's COACH who asked Chamberlain to score 50 ppg...NOT Chamberlain.

And why? Just the year before, in the first round of the playoffs, the Warriors were swept by the Nats, 3-0. Chamberlain did his share... 37 ppg and 23 rpp. How about his teammates? They collectively shot .332 from the field. Wilt's two top teammates shot .325 and .206 respectively.

What was interesting, though...is that Wilt's COACH then had Chamberlain shooting less in the '62 post-season. And it nearly paid off. They lost a game seven to the 60-20 Celtics by two points.

[dunksby]

Do you also wonder why it took Jordan so much to win a ring, much like Wilt? Shaq? I guess Kobe has to be ranked above them, as well...
What did Magic accomplish after Kareem? How about leading the Lakers past a 63-win team to the NBA Finals, winning an MVP, being runner up once, plus winning a championship, leading the Lakers to a 11-0 playoff record in the West and winning another MVP after Kareem actually mattered? Using classical Wilt haterboy logic here, Magic seemingly got better without Kareem, lol.
I have Kareem over Jordan and Shaq so yes it matters, I have problem with jlauber here trying to prop up Wilt by putting down Kareem. I try to let it go but his constant jabs irk me.

[LAZERUSS]

Do you also wonder why it took Jordan so much to win a ring, much like Wilt? Shaq? I guess Kobe has to be ranked above them, as well...
What did Magic accomplish after Kareem? How about leading the Lakers past a 63-win team to the NBA Finals, winning an MVP, being runner up once, plus winning a championship, leading the Lakers to a 11-0 playoff record in the West and winning another MVP after Kareem actually mattered? Using classical Wilt haterboy logic here, Magic seemingly got better without Kareem, lol.

Those that make the argument that Magic didn't win a ring without Kareem, are deluding themselves.

He CLEARLY would have won a ring in '88 without Kareem. Hell, Stanley Hudson could have put up KAJ's awful post-season numbers that year. To be honest, they won a ring that year DESPITE Kareem's horrific post-season.

Furthermore, their '86-87 team was good enough to have won with Thompson and Green taking KAJ's minutes, as well.

You mentioned '89. They were 11-0 going into the Finals with the Pistons. Had they not lost Byron Scott in the last game of the WCF's, and then Magic in game two of that year's Finals, they might well have won a ring that year, too. In any case, KAJ didn't pick up the slack.

And, go back to the '82 post-season, and particularly the Finals. Bob McAdoo nearly matched KAJ's numbers, and in way less mpg. Again, as easily as they waltzed to the title in '82, and with Magic putting up a near triple-double post-season, and Finals, and they probably would have won a title THAT year, without Kareem.

And finally...technically, they did win a ring, and in Kareem's last great season...withOUT Abdul-Jabbar. In Magic's rookie season, they handily won the title-clinching game, on the road no less, with Kareem watching the game from his couch. And, as everyone here knows...Magic had a HISTORIC game in that clincher. A 42-15-7 game (BTW, his 15 rebounds were WAY more than anyone else on the floor that night.)


And I always found Magic's '90 post-season as an indication of what his true scoring potential. In the last two games of the series against the Suns, albeit in a series loss, all Magic did was hang consecutive 43 point games. So, we had Magic, at the beginning of his career with a 42 point Finals game, and a Magic, nearing the end of his career, with back-to-back 43 point games.


Oh, and one more thing. In their 10 seasons in the league together, KAJ went 61-40 (.604) in games in which Magic missed. How about Magic in games in which Kareem missed? 24-8 (.750.) BTW, Magic had a CAREER W-L percentage of .743 withOUT Kareem.

Needless to say, Magic was a considerably better "winner" than Kareem was in their overall careers.

[KingBeasley08]

You could definitely make the case but let's also remember that Bill would be a slightly better Joel Anthony today and Wilt would be at best a Dwight Howard caliber player. More likely a Javale McGee that's not mentally retarded. These facts have to be taken into consideration

[LAZERUSS]

You could definitely make the case but let's also remember that Bill would be a slightly better Joel Anthony today and Wilt would be at best a Dwight Howard caliber player. More likely a Javale McGee that's not mentally retarded. These facts have to be taken into consideration

:roll: :roll: :roll:

So Russell would basically be worthless, and a Wilt, who was taller, longer, bigger, stronger, faster, at least as athletic, and more skilled than Howard is today...would be about HALF the player he was at his peak?