Russell and Wilt's TRB% in the 64-65 EDF's

[LAZERUSS]

The 64-65 EDF's pitted a peak Russell and a peak Wilt against each other in what would be a monumental seven game series.

Russell played 340 out of the 341 minutes, and Wilt played every minute. Russell fouled out with a minute left in the OT game four.


Game 1:

Russell 32 out of 121 (TRB% of 26.4)
Wilt 31 out of 121 (TRB% of 25.6)

Game 2:

Russell 16 out of 124 (TRB% of 12.9)
Wilt 39 out of 124 (TRB% of 31.5)

Game 3:

Russell 26 out of 123 (TRB% of 21.1)
Wilt 37 out of 123 (TRB% of 30.1)

Game 4:

Russell 25 out of 142 (TRB% of 17.6)
Wilt 34 out of 142 (TRB% of 23.9)

Game 5:

Russell 28 out of 122 (TRB% of 23.0)
Wilt 21 out of 122 (TRB% of 17.2)

Game 6:

Russell 21 out of 128 (TRB% of 16.4)
Wilt 26 out of 128 (TRB% of 20.3)

Game 7:

Russell 29 out of 122 (TRB% of 23.8)
Wilt 32 out of 122 (TRB% of 26.2)

Totals:

Russell 177
Wilt 220

Total Rebounds in the series:

882

TRB% for the entire series:


Russell 20.1
Wilt 24.9


Wilt also held a 35-22 edge in known blocks, which, as we know, reduces TRB%'s.


Oh, and Chamberlain also outscored Russell, per game, in that series, 30.1 ppg to 15.6 ppg.) Overall, he outrebounded Russell, per game in the series, 31.4 rpg to 25.2 rpg. He outshot Russell from the floor in that series, .555 to .447. And, he also outshot Russell from the FT line, .583 to .472 (while, as always, outscoring Russell from the line 49-17.) Russell did hold a 47-23 assist advantage (6.7 apg to 3.3 apg.)

Keep in mind that during their 11 regular season H2H's, Russell averaged 12.9 ppg, 22.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, and shot .281 from the field. Chamberlain averaged 25.4 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 4.2 apg, and shot .473 from the floor.

So, Chamberlain DRAMATICALLY ELEVATED his play against Russell in the EDF's...all while taking his 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss, against Russell's 62-18 Celtics.

A 30 ppg, 31 rpg, 3.3 apg, 7.0 bpg (and likely higher), .555 FG% (in a post-season NBA that shot .429 overall), .583 FT%, .560 TS% series.

The ONLY 30-30 series in NBA post-season history.

[dubeta]

Who won the series?

[LAZERUSS]

Who won the series?


Obviously it was WILT.

He beat Russell like a drum.

[iamgine]

Here's a sexy pic of Wilt to fap to:

http://explorepahistory.com/kora/files/1/2/1-2-1423-25-ExplorePAHistory-a0l1a0-a_349.JPG

[SouBeachTalents]

Obviously it was WILT.

He beat Russell like a drum.

How did Wilt do in the Finals?

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Obviously it was WILT.

He beat Russell like a drum.

Why does BBref say the Celtics won the championship that year? :confusedshrug:

[dubeta]

Here's a sexy pic of Wilt to fap to:

http://explorepahistory.com/kora/files/1/2/1-2-1423-25-ExplorePAHistory-a0l1a0-a_349.JPG

Damn, i've seen people who've never seen a meal in Africa with a stronger lower body than Wilt

So much for 'strongest player who ever lived' :rolleyes:

[LAZERUSS]

Why does BBref say the Celtics won the championship that year? :confusedshrug:

Because the TEAM that went 62-18 edged out the TEAM that went 40-40 by a 110-109 margin in a game seven (and BTW, Wilt scored 8 of his team's last 10 points, including 2-2 from the line with 36 secs left, and then a dunk over Russell with 5 secs left that pulled them to with 110-109. Then, the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbounds pass turning the ball over to Philly under their basket, but alas..."Havlicek stole the ball!")

[LAZERUSS]

Damn, i've seen people who've never seen a meal in Africa with a stronger lower body than Wilt

So much for 'strongest player who ever lived' :rolleyes:

Wilt was 8 years old in that photo...

[SouBeachTalents]

Because the TEAM that went 62-18 edged out the TEAM that went 40-40 by a 110-109 margin in a game seven (and BTW, Wilt scored 8 of his team's last 10 points, including 2-2 from the line with 36 secs left, and then a dunk over Russell with 5 secs left that pulled them to with 110-109. Then, the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbounds pass turning the ball over to Philly under their basket, but alas..."Havlicek stole the ball!")

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v162/MomawNadon/Free%20Republic/JerrySeinfeldShame.jpg

[coin24]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-opKejTae-Es/UhS8FH98woI/AAAAAAAApws/PrVi2xLD_aw/s1600/wilt-chamberlain.jpg

The only puss.ies wilt ever stroked:lol

[Psileas]

Shaq-like scoring plus Rodman-like rebounding plus Eaton-like blocking (I mean after adjusting) and all these against the GOAT defender in his prime. Choker...

(Gotta love insecure idiots, mentioning irrelevant crap once again).

[MEB2kDeez]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-opKejTae-Es/UhS8FH98woI/AAAAAAAApws/PrVi2xLD_aw/s1600/wilt-chamberlain.jpg

The only puss.ies wilt ever stroked:lol
:roll:

[LAZERUSS]

Shaq-like scoring plus Rodman-like rebounding plus Eaton-like blocking (I mean after adjusting) and all these against the GOAT defender in his prime. Choker...

(Gotta love insecure idiots, mentioning irrelevant crap once again).

And can you imagine his TRB% in that series had he played defense like Rodman, and ignored shot-blocks, and just went for rebounds instead?

And then, can you imagine his TRB%'s, had he "only" played say 35-40 mpg, instead of 49 mpg?

Oh, and what that number had been had he just played defense, and completely ignored scoring, like DeAndre Jordan or Rodman?

[LAZERUSS]

Shaq-like scoring plus Rodman-like rebounding plus Eaton-like blocking (I mean after adjusting) and all these against the GOAT defender in his prime. Choker...

(Gotta love insecure idiots, mentioning irrelevant crap once again).

In any case, this blows away the theory that Wilt's rebounding was accomplished in an inflated era. TRB%, while unfair to shot-blockers, as well as those who play staggering minutes per game, still adjusts based on available rebounds. Not only that, but he just slaughtered the second greatest rebounder in NBA history in that series.

And take a look at game two...not only a 39-16 advantage...but a 31.5 TRB% to 12.9 TRB% advantage.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[dubeta]

In any case, this blows away the theory that Wilt's rebounding was accomplished in an inflated era. TRB%, while unfair to shot-blockers, as well as those who play staggering minutes per game, still adjusts based on available rebounds. Not only that, but he just slaughtered the second greatest rebounder in NBA history in that series.

And take a look at game two...not only a 39-16 advantage...but a 31.5 TRB% to 12.9 TRB% advantage.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

When everyone around you is 6'3 or shorter thats not saying much.



Prime Wilt would struggle to get 8-9 rebounds in todays league.

[LAZERUSS]

In any case, this blows away the theory that Wilt's rebounding was accomplished in an inflated era. TRB%, while unfair to shot-blockers, as well as those who play staggering minutes per game, still adjusts based on available rebounds. Not only that, but he just slaughtered the second greatest rebounder in NBA history in that series.

And take a look at game two...not only a 39-16 advantage...but a 31.5 TRB% to 12.9 TRB% advantage.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

That 39-16 beatdown pales in comparison to the game in which he outrebounded Russell by a 55-19 margin (a 36.9 TRB% to 12.8 TRB% advantage.)

[LAZERUSS]

When everyone around you is 6'3 or shorter thats not saying much.



Prime Wilt would struggle to get 8-9 rebounds in todays league.

Of course in THAT series, he was going up against a 6-9 1/2 , 7-4 wingspan, world-class high-jumper...and he just annihilated him.

And yet I am supposed to believe that Wilt would struggle against say, a Demarcus Cousins, who is also 6-9 1/2, and has a 27.5 " max vertical?

Or a 6-7 1/2 Kevin Love...and this type of athleticism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7TnbhJr8iY

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Its a shame that you guys relentlessly troll Laz.

I don't agree with a lot of what he says, nor do I agree with the notion that Wilt is the GOAT, but some of his posts contain valuable insight/facts.

Moreover, taking shots at his age/implying hes gay for Wilt is just below the belt. Totally uncalled for.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

With that said, Laz, you're not doing yourself any favours by responding to these guys; you realize that 80% of them are being facetious? They're ****ing with you lol. They have zero interest in actually debating the veracity of some of your assertions that pertain to Wilt. Zero. Don't take the bait, when these guys are literally laughing at how they're able to coax long posts out of you.

[Elosha]

Because the TEAM that went 62-18 edged out the TEAM that went 40-40 by a 110-109 margin in a game seven (and BTW, Wilt scored 8 of his team's last 10 points, including 2-2 from the line with 36 secs left, and then a dunk over Russell with 5 secs left that pulled them to with 110-109. Then, the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbounds pass turning the ball over to Philly under their basket, but alas..."Havlicek stole the ball!")

Some good points but you must be careful not to overstate your case. This dunk is on video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B7jVTJ_CIE&feature=player_detailpage#t=1684. Wilt did not dunk "over" Russell at all, more like Russell stood on the right side of the basket like a bump on the log, barely even raised his hands on defense, and made no effort to contain, block, or impede Wilt whatsoever. The Celtics were up by 3 and I assume Russell didn't want to foul with only 5 seconds left, and give Wilt the chance for a three point play to tie. However, it was lay down and concede the basket, type of defense. Wilt simply made a quick dribble around a frozen and unmoving Russell and quickly dunked. Russell simply watched him and didn't even try to make defend the shot or make it more difficult. Overall, even given the situation, it was very poor defense.

To be honest, I haven't been very impressed with much of Russell's individual defense on Wilt that's available on video. For instance, there's tons examples of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak&feature=player_detailpage#t=62, where Russell simply stands flatfooted with his arms held out to the side (WTH?) while Chamberlain does his very commonly used turnaround jumper from the left block and banks it off the glass. I don't really know what could be possibly a worse defensive stance. He's making no attempt to block or alter Chamberlain's shot and is not even crowding or bodying him. I hate to say this about an all time great, but it looks like lazy defense; it's basically allowing Wilt to go to his pet fadeaway with no resistance whatsoever. Wilt's percentages on those shots would definitely have decreased if Russell merely played average defense on those shots, rather than basically no defense at all.

I think Russell's defense may be a bit overrated, but he obviously excelled in blocked shots and rebounds. Perhaps, though, there was something to Russell's alleged habit of playing soft defense on Wilt earlier in the action, and then surprising Wilt by changing his defensive strategy and getting stops on Wilt in more crucial points of the game.

None of these comments are meant to take away from either Wilt or Russell, however, I do believe some of the video game type of scoring, rebounds, and block numbers Wilt was putting up must be taken in context. They are a function not only of the much faster pace of the game, but also the style, strategy, and yes, overall lesser skill of the league at the time. Note I said "overall." Great players then would be great players now, although to a different degree.

[LAZERUSS]

Some good points but you must be careful not to overstate your case. This dunk is on video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B7jVTJ_CIE&feature=player_detailpage#t=1684. Wilt did not dunk "over" Russell at all, more like Russell stood on the right side of the basket like a bump on the log, barely even raised his hands on defense, and made no effort to contain, block, or impede Wilt whatsoever. The Celtics were up by 3 and I assume Russell didn't want to foul with only 5 seconds left, and give Wilt the chance for a three point play to tie. However, it was lay down and concede the basket, type of defense. Wilt simply made a quick dribble around a frozen and unmoving Russell and quickly dunked. Russell simply watched him and didn't even try to make defend the shot or make it more difficult. Overall, even given the situation, it was very poor defense.

To be honest, I haven't been very impressed with much of Russell's individual defense on Wilt that's available on video. For instance, there's tons examples of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak&feature=player_detailpage#t=62, where Russell simply stands flatfooted with his arms held out to the side (WTH?) while Chamberlain does his very commonly used turnaround jumper from the left block and banks it off the glass. I don't really know what could be possibly a worse defensive stance. He's making no attempt to block or alter Chamberlain's shot and is not even crowding or bodying him. I hate to say this about an all time great, but it looks like lazy defense; it's basically allowing Wilt to go to his pet fadeaway with no resistance whatsoever. Wilt's percentages on those shots would definitely have decreased if Russell merely played average defense on those shots, rather than basically no defense at all.

I think Russell's defense may be a bit overrated, but he obviously excelled in blocked shots and rebounds. Perhaps, though, there was something to Russell's alleged habit of playing soft defense on Wilt earlier in the action, and then surprising Wilt by changing his defensive strategy and getting stops on Wilt in more crucial points of the game.

None of these comments are meant to take away from either Wilt or Russell, however, I do believe some of the video game type of scoring, rebounds, and block numbers Wilt was putting up must be taken in context. They are a function not only of the much faster pace of the game, but also the style, strategy, and yes, overall lesser skill of the league at the time. Note I said "overall." Great players then would be great players now, although to a different degree.

Excellent post.

:cheers:

But a few thoughts on the "video game stats" and context. For one, it was basically ONLY Wilt who was putting up staggering numbers. Here is an example:


Aside from Chamberlain, there have been 36 30-30 games in NBA history, and Russell is the leader of that group, with 7 (Bellamy and Thurmond are next with 3 each.)

How about Wilt? 132.


40-30 (or 30-40) games: Other than Wilt, the NBA has had 9 40-30 games, with Baylor being the only player to have 2.

Chamberlain? 73


50-30 games: Pettit and Baylor each with 1

Wilt? 32


60-20 games: Aside from Wilt, there have been four (Baylor with 3 and Shaq with 1)

Chamberlain? 28


60-30 games: Baylor with 1

Wilt? 8


40-40 games: There have been 8 in the history of the NBA, and Chamberlain had all of them.


50-40 games: Obviously, Wilt would be the only player to have ever have accomplsihed that feat, which he did 5 times.


70-30 games: Chamberlain has the only 2, 78-43 and 73-36 (against Bellamy.)


True, the "pace" of play was slightly higher, particularly in terms of rebounding. No rational poster is going to claim that Wilt would average 27 rpg in today's NBA. Nor would Wilt average 50 ppg, nor take 40 FGAs per game in the current NBA, either.

But again, CONTEXT. Chamberlain gets ripped by the "bashers" because his scoring dropped in the post-season. Well, guess what....so did his shooting. For example, in his 50 ppg season, he averaged 40 FGAs per game, but in that post-season, he averaged 29. You want a "video game" number? How about Hakeem in his '95 Finals? He took 116 of his team's 343 total FGAs, or 34% of them. So, his 32.8 ppg came on 29 FGAs per game. Furthermore, he shot an eFG% of .488 in that series, in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .504.

Compare Hakeem's '95 Finals with Wilt's '64 Finals. Chamberlain averaged 29.2 ppg on 24 FGAs per game. And he shot an FG% of .517, in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .420. And Wilt took 120 out of his team's 472 FGAs in that series, or 25% of them.

And the comparative eFG%'s are important. Transport Wilt to the '95 Finals, give him 29 FGAs, but adjust for his eFG%, and he would have shot .620 from the field...and scored 40 ppg.

And how about their TRB%'s in their respective Finals? Hakeem's was at 14.2, while Wilt's was at 22.5 in the '64 Finals (Russell was at 20.6 BTW.)


And while there is no question that rebounding numbers were "inflated" in Wilt's era, the TRB%'s now show that he was still an extraordinary rebounder...especially in his post-seasons. But even more importantly, he just shelled his peers in that area. There are numerous examples, but for instance, in the '67 EDF's, Chamberlain not only outrebounded Russell, per game by a 32.0 rpg to 23.4 rpg margin, he held a TRB% advantage of 25.2 to 18.2.

And even those TRB%'s are deceptive. As Psileas pointed out a few years ago, shot-blockers like Russell and Wilt LOSE potential rebounds with blocked shots, AND, in attempting to block shots (which often takes them out of position to get the rebound.) Furthermore, as in Russell's, and to an even greater extent, Wilt's, cases...both of them were playing heavy minutes, which surely impacted their rebounding efficiencies. On top of all of that, Chamberlain was usually carrying his team's at the offensive end, as well.


But again...great post.

:cheers:

[jongib369]

When everyone around you is 6'3 or shorter thats not saying much.



Prime Wilt would struggle to get 8-9 rebounds in todays league.
http://i.imgur.com/l3sJmeG.gif

[coin24]

Hakeem >>>> wilt

One of the most skilled big man of all time, dominated the post season and finals.
Versus wilt who routinely shrivelled and choked..

Hakeem won as the alpha of his team, wilt was a role player..

[LAZERUSS]

Hakeem >>>> wilt

One of the most skilled big man of all time, dominated the post season and finals.
Versus wilt who routinely shrivelled and choked..

Hakeem won as the alpha of his team, wilt was a role player..

You mean Hakeem dominated in the FIRST ROUND. Don't put "Finals" and "Hakeem" in the same sentence. THREE Finals in 18 seasons.

BTW, here were some of Wilt's numbers in his FIRST ROUNDS...


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.)


Obviously, Wilt should have pulled a "Hakeem" and quit while he was "ahead."

[sd3035]

Wilt was 8 years old in that photo...

There's no way he was 8 :biggums:

can't take anything this old man says seriously

[stanlove1111]

Some good points but you must be careful not to overstate your case. This dunk is on video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B7jVTJ_CIE&feature=player_detailpage#t=1684. Wilt did not dunk "over" Russell at all, more like Russell stood on the right side of the basket like a bump on the log, barely even raised his hands on defense, and made no effort to contain, block, or impede Wilt whatsoever. The Celtics were up by 3 and I assume Russell didn't want to foul with only 5 seconds left, and give Wilt the chance for a three point play to tie. However, it was lay down and concede the basket, type of defense. Wilt simply made a quick dribble around a frozen and unmoving Russell and quickly dunked. Russell simply watched him and didn't even try to make defend the shot or make it more difficult. Overall, even given the situation, it was very poor defense.

To be honest, I haven't been very impressed with much of Russell's individual defense on Wilt that's available on video. For instance, there's tons examples of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak&feature=player_detailpage#t=62, where Russell simply stands flatfooted with his arms held out to the side (WTH?) while Chamberlain does his very commonly used turnaround jumper from the left block and banks it off the glass. I don't really know what could be possibly a worse defensive stance. He's making no attempt to block or alter Chamberlain's shot and is not even crowding or bodying him. I hate to say this about an all time great, but it looks like lazy defense; it's basically allowing Wilt to go to his pet fadeaway with no resistance whatsoever. Wilt's percentages on those shots would definitely have decreased if Russell merely played average defense on those shots, rather than basically no defense at all.

I think Russell's defense may be a bit overrated, but he obviously excelled in blocked shots and rebounds. Perhaps, though, there was something to Russell's alleged habit of playing soft defense on Wilt earlier in the action, and then surprising Wilt by changing his defensive strategy and getting stops on Wilt in more crucial points of the game.

None of these comments are meant to take away from either Wilt or Russell, however, I do believe some of the video game type of scoring, rebounds, and block numbers Wilt was putting up must be taken in context. They are a function not only of the much faster pace of the game, but also the style, strategy, and yes, overall lesser skill of the league at the time. Note I said "overall." Great players then would be great players now, although to a different degree.

Its hard to say your post seriously after you questioned why Russell let Wilt score with 5 seconds left in game 7 with a 3 point lead. Of course that's what you are going to do.

As for Wilt's turnaround jumpers that Russell allowed againshows that maybe Russell is more of a thinker then you. If Russell was content with Wilt taking turn around jumpers why would he challenge them tighly? IF you put a stop to those then Wilt might be forced to take it to the basket more which might give Russell more trouble..N

Not a good idea to judge something like that unless you know why. And of course defense in general was not that good back then, so Russell could be the best defensive player in the world ( which he was ) and still not stack up to todays standards. The game has evolved.

[stanlove1111]

That 39-16 beatdown pales in comparison to the game in which he outrebounded Russell by a 55-19 margin (a 36.9 TRB% to 12.8 TRB% advantage.)


Off topic. Laz did you notice that they found a Knicks/Bullets game from 1971? They showed it on the MSG channel last night. Its the first I have heard of it, maybe you already knew.

[LAZERUSS]

Off topic. Laz did you notice that they found a Knicks/Bullets game from 1971? They showed it on the MSG channel last night. Its the first I have heard of it, maybe you already knew.

I didn't know about it, but thanks. I just checked YouTube, and I couldn't find a full game between them. There is a game from March 1st, 1973 that exists.

And on that topic...I have long claimed that Willis Reed was Zach Randolph before Zach was. And going along with the Bullets-Knicks theme, Wes Unseld was making Kevin Love outlets long before Love was.

BTW...I know you and I bump heads here, but I do enjoy the discussions. It's one thing to constantly battle the mindless trolls, or just plain morons that post here, but it is another to have debates with educated and knowledgeable posters, whether we agree, or not. I do respect your opinions.

:cheers:

[LAZERUSS]

There's no way he was 8 :biggums:

can't take anything this old man says seriously

Nor does posting a photo of a high school Wilt and mocking it as if that was a 30 year old Chamberlain, either.

Look at this wimp...

http://i.cdn.turner.com/drp/nba/magic/sites/default/files/shaqhs_500_042413.jpg

And some here call him the MDE...

[stanlove1111]

I didn't know about it, but thanks. I just checked YouTube, and I couldn't find a full game between them. There is a game from March 1st, 1973 that exists.

And on that topic...I have long claimed that Willis Reed was Zach Randolph before Zach was. And going along with the Bullets-Knicks theme, Wes Unseld was making Kevin Love outlets long before Love was.

BTW...I know you and I bump heads here, but I do enjoy the discussions. It's one thing to constantly battle the mindless trolls, or just plain morons that post here, but it is another to have debates with educated and knowledgeable posters, whether we agree, or not. I do respect your opinions.

:cheers:

Right back at you..

The Knicks/Bullet game was from Feb 28 1971. They had at least the entire first 3 quarters from what I saw. I feel asleep after that. Monroe and Frazier were in the studio talking about it as they watched the game.

[sd3035]

so these guys got the other 75% ?

http://oi58.tinypic.com/2ij5fmc.jpg

[LAZERUSS]

I just looked up Rodman's post-season history, and he had one series which topped Chamberlain's '65 EDF's. In the 88-89 post-season, and playing 26 mpg, he had a 29.4 TRB% against the Bulls. Horace Grant led that Bulls team in rpg at 9.3 rpg, and with a 14.7 TRB%.

This would make for an interesting topic, but Chamberlain's '65 EDF's might be the greatest full-time post-season TRB% series in NBA history. And when you factor in that he averaged over 49 mpg in that series, and that it came against Russell...and all while scoring 30 ppg and on an eFG% that was 12.6 percentage points higher than the post-season league average (.555 to .429), and his TS% of .570 was 9.5 percentage points above the post-season league average of .475...and it could be argued that this was the greatest post-season series ever played.

[LAZERUSS]

so these guys got the other 75% ?

http://oi58.tinypic.com/2ij5fmc.jpg

Damn...Kevin Love, Andrew Bogut, David Lee, and Spencer Hawes?

[LAZERUSS]

I guess those who may caught my gaffe were too kind to mention it.

But, I somehow forgot to add a series total rebounds in my math (which was done in my head and late at night.)

Total Rebounds:

882

Russell: 177

Wilt: 220

Russell's TRB% was 20.1
Wilt's was 24.9

Not quite as dominant as I thought, albeit, Chamberlain had a couple of monster games.

So, I will be the first to at least mention the error.

[Fire Colangelo]

And this is just proof that rebounding numbers in the 60s are inflated and shouldn't be taken seriously. Those TRB% numbers are pretty much Andre Drummond numbers.

[LAZERUSS]

And this is just proof that rebounding numbers in the 60s are inflated and shouldn't be taken seriously. Those TRB% numbers are pretty much Andre Drummond numbers.

Those two guys played 48+ mpg in that series, and probably averaged close to 6 bpg (which hurts TRB%.)

Drummond is currently playing 30.2 mpg, is an average shot-blocker, at best, and is a below average scorer.

[Fire Colangelo]

Those two guys played 48+ mpg in that series, and probably averaged close to 6 bpg (which hurts TRB%.)

Drummond is currently playing 30.2 mpg, is an average shot-blocker, at best, and can't score for his life.

That says it all.

You know why they both played 48+ mpg in that series? Because the talent pool in the league is so shallow that a tired Wilt/Russell > whoever else coming off the bench.


Unless you believe players back then in general has better conditioning/technology/training methods (by all means share them I would love to know) than players today.

[LAZERUSS]

That says it all.

You know why they both played 48+ mpg in that series? Because the talent pool in the league is so shallow that a tired Wilt/Russell > whoever else coming off the bench.


Unless you believe players back then in general has better conditioning/technology/training methods (by all means share them I would love to know) than players today.

And had they both played 30 mpg, didn't give a damn about blocks, or even defense in general, and if Chamberlain didn't bother dominating at the offensive end...just what kind of TRB%'s do you think they would have put up?

BTW, Russell was just as tall as Howard, Cousins, Drummond, and Jordan, as long, and likely a better leaper than all of them.

Chamberlain was much taller, longer, stronger, and more athletic than all of them.

And Jordan and Drummond are the two best rebounders in the game today.

[Fire Colangelo]

And had they both played 30 mpg, didn't give a damn about blocks, or even defense in general, and if Chamberlain didn't bother dominating at the offensive end...just what kind of TRB%'s do you think they would have put up?

BTW, Russell was just as tall as Howard, Cousins, Drummond, and Jordan, as long, and likely a better leaper than all of them.

Chamberlain was much taller, longer, stronger, and more athletic than all of them.

And Jordan and Drummond are the two best rebounders in the game today.

How was the ball blocked? Was it blocked into the stands? Or blocked to the opposing team? Why is Russell a better leaper? In fact, what does being a slightly better leaper have to do with anything? Rebounding is about timing if anything.

How would David Robinson, or Patrick Ewing do in the 60s? Hakeem?

Please don't post game stats of Wilt having a better game than Kareem therefore wilt > hakeem > shaq > robinson > etc. that honestly doesn't mean shit.

[LAZERUSS]

How was the ball blocked? Was it blocked into the stands? Or blocked to the opposing team? Why is Russell a better leaper? In fact, what does being a slightly better leaper have to do with anything? Rebounding is about timing if anything.

How would David Robinson, or Patrick Ewing do in the 60s? Hakeem?

Please don't post game stats of Wilt having a better game than Kareem therefore wilt > hakeem > shaq > robinson > etc. that honestly doesn't mean shit.

Just going for a BLOCK takes a player out of rebounding position. And knocking it to anyone else is not a rebound for the shot-blocker.

Robinson, and Ewing would be less than Wilt, and Russell, and no better than Thurmond. Hakeem was never a great rebounder, especially in the post-season. In fact, he was not only outrebounded by opposing centers, but teammates, as well.

And yes, it DOES mean shit. A 40 year old Kareem was a better CENTER than a 25 year old Hakeem H2H. And a 38-39 year old Kareem just annihilated him. Hell, a 35-36 year old Gilmore was abusing a 23-24 year old Hakeem.

A prime Kareem was reduced to a shot-jacking brick-layer against an aging Thurmond and Wilt, and a 34-36 year old Chamberlain was the better rebounder H2H, and against the NBA. A prime Chamberlain would have overwhelmed Kareem on the glass.

[Pointguard]

That says it all.

You know why they both played 48+ mpg in that series? Because the talent pool in the league is so shallow that a tired Wilt/Russell > whoever else coming off the bench.

Unless you believe players back then in general has better conditioning/technology/training methods (by all means share them I would love to know) than players today.
I think Wilt was one of the great super conditioned athletes ever, right there with Ali and MJ.

[Fire Colangelo]

Just going for a BLOCK takes a player out of rebounding position. And knocking it to anyone else is not a rebound for the shot-blocker.

Robinson, and Ewing would be less than Wilt, and Russell, and no better than Thurmond. Hakeem was never a great rebounder, especially in the post-season. In fact, he was not only outrebounded by opposing centers, but teammates, as well.

And yes, it DOES mean shit. A 40 year old Kareem was a better CENTER than a 25 year old Hakeem H2H. And a 38-39 year old Kareem just annihilated him. Hell, a 35-36 year old Gilmore was abusing a 23-24 year old Hakeem.

A prime Kareem was reduced to a shot-jacking brick-layer against an aging Thurmond and Wilt, and a 34-36 year old Chamberlain was the better rebounder H2H, and against the NBA. A prime Chamberlain would have overwhelmed Kareem on the glass.

Because no other great bigs go for the block right?

When are you going to realize your a>b>c logic just isn't logical?

And no, it honestly doesn't mean shit, especially when you cherry pick a few games where Wilt played better. Truth is, KAJ > Wilt for most of their overlapped careers, same with Thurmond.

Lol @ comparing to Hakeem. You act as if 35-36 year old Gilmore was a scrub, dude was putting up like 19/10 that year. It's no surprise that he would outplay a rookie/sophomore Hakeem, who peaked at around 30 years old.

To be fair, I think Wilt is one of the greatest athletes of all time, and that he'd be great in any era. But you're kidding yourself if you think he'd be able to sustain his 60s stats in any other era like the 90s against better competition as well as slower pace.


I think Wilt was one of the great super conditioned athletes ever, right there with Ali and MJ.

I think so too, but he acts like Wilt's stamina > every player who ever played because he's the only one to average 48+ minutes a game.

Michael Jordan never averaged more than 40, therefore Wilt's stamina > MJ, and it couldn't be further away from the truth....

It's simple, the talent pool was deep enough in the 80s/90s that MJ didn't need to play 48 minutes. MJ's back up, as inferior as he was, could hold out on the court for MJ to take a couple minutes rest here and there. In the 60s however, the difference between Wilt and his back up was so huge that a tired Wilt >>>>>>>>>>>> his back up. Which is why if you look at the MPG played leaderboard, most of the players came from the 60s and 70s.

Does that mean 60s/70s had better conditioning than 90s/00s/10s? I highly doubt it.

[LAZERUSS]

Because no other great bigs go for the block right?

When are you going to realize your a>b>c logic just isn't logical?

And no, it honestly doesn't mean shit, especially when you cherry pick a few games where Wilt played better. Truth is, KAJ > Wilt for most of their overlapped careers, same with Thurmond.

Lol @ comparing to Hakeem. You act as if 35-36 year old Gilmore was a scrub, dude was putting up like 19/10 that year. It's no surprise that he would outplay a rookie/sophomore Hakeem, who peaked at around 30 years old.

To be fair, I think Wilt is one of the greatest athletes of all time, and that he'd be great in any era. But you're kidding yourself if you think he'd be able to sustain his 60s stats in any other era like the 90s against better competition as well as slower pace.



I think so too, but he acts like Wilt's stamina > every player who ever played because he's the only one to average 48+ minutes a game. Th reason neither played much? Because both Wilt and Russell could play at a much higher level for a full game than any centers, then, or now.

Michael Jordan never averaged more than 40, therefore Wilt's stamina > MJ, and it couldn't be further away from the truth....

It's simple, the talent pool was deep enough in the 80s/90s that MJ didn't need to play 48 minutes. MJ's back up, as inferior as he was, could hold out on the court for MJ to take a couple minutes rest here and there. In the 60s however, the difference between Wilt and his back up was so huge that a tired Wilt >>>>>>>>>>>> his back up. Which is why if you look at the MPG played leaderboard, most of the players came from the 60s and 70s.

Does that mean 60s/70s had better conditioning than 90s/00s/10s? I highly doubt it.

Chamberlain's "backup" was a 6-9 260 lb All-Star by the name of Luke Jackson. Russell's backup was 7-0 Mel Counts, who was a serviceable backup, and a decent PF with excellent range in his career. Why did Russell, and to an even greater extent, Wilt, play 48 mpg? Because they were better in their 48th minute on the floor, than even their greatest peers were who were playing less minutes (Thurmond, Reed, and Bellamy.) Chamberlain would have more stamina than ALL of his HOF peers...guys like those mentioned, and then Hayes, Lanier, Unseld, Kareem, and even Gilmore. The only center who could full out for extended period of time in the Wilt-era, was Cowens. And he ran everyone in the ground.


Kareem was badly outplayed by a prime Chamberlain, and even in the season after his horrific knee injury, Wilt outplayed a peak Kareem in both their regular season, and post-season H2H's in their 10 overall H2H's. And even into their last 10 straight H2H's, a PEAK Kareem shot ... 434 against a 35-36 year old Wilt. Interesting too, the game recap of the clinching game six of the '72 WCF's, when by all accounts, Chamberlain had not only physically pounded Kareem to death, he then RAN him into the ground in the last quarter. talk about stamina...a 35 year old Chamberlain just crushing a 25 year old Kareem in the last period of the most important game of the season.

Furthermore, a 36 year old Chamberlain was playing 43 mpg in his LAST season, and then 47 mpg over the course of his 17 playoff games, and he destroyed the Bulls three-headed monster on the glass in the first round of the playoffs, wiped the floor with Thurmond on the boards in the WCF's, and then slaughtered the Reed-Lucas combo in the Finals.

Kareem at age 36 could score, but he was just a shell on the glass. Same with Hakeem, Shaq, Ewing, Robinson,...you name the centers, and a 36 year old Chamberlain was a far greater rebounder (and defender.)

BTW, here were Wilt's H2H's in his LAST season...


Chamberlain, at age 36, and in his LAST season vs the best centers in the league:


Vs. Cowens in 4 H2H's:

Cowens: 31.3 ppg, 19.8 rpg, .454 FG%

Wilt: 14.3 ppg, 14.5 rpg, .588 FG%



vs. Reed in 3 regular season H2H's:

Reed: 12.0 ppg, 10.0 rpg, .471 FG%

Wilt: 6.3 ppg, 23.3 rpg, .529 FG%

vs. Reed in 5 Finals' H2H's:

Reed: 16.4 ppg, 9.2 rpg, .493 FG%

Wilt: 11.6 ppg, 18.6 rpg, .525 FG%


vs. Bellamy in 4 H2H's:

Bellamy: 17.0 ppg, 18.0 rpg ( 2 known games), .400 FG% (2 known game)

Wilt: 9.8 ppg, 20.5 rpg, .593 FG%


vs. Unseld in 4 H2H's:

Unseld: 12.8 ppg, 15.3 rpg, .481 FG%

Wilt: 12.8 ppg, 20.8 rpg, .769 FG%


vs. McAdoo in 4 H2H's:

McAdoo: 16.8 ppg, 8.8 rpg, .450 FG% (3 known games)

Wilt: 20.5 ppg, 21.3 rpg, .850 FG%


vs. Thurmond in 7 regular season H2H's:

Thurmond: 12.3 ppg, 21.6 rpg, .315 FG%

Wilt: 5.1 ppg, 16.6 rpg, .684 FG%

vs. Thurmond in 5 playoff H2H's:

Thurmond: 15.8 ppg, 17.2 rpg, .373 FG%

Wilt: 7.0 ppg, 23.6 rpg, .611 FG%


vs. Lanier in 6 H2H's:

Lanier: 21.2 ppg, 13.4 rpg (5 known games), .374 FG% (5 known games)

Wilt: 19.8 ppg, 16.3 rpg, .764 FG%



vs. Kareem in 6 H2H's:

Kareem: 29.5 ppg, 17.8 rpg, .450 FG%

Wilt: 11.0 ppg, 16.0 rpg, .737 FG%

[Psileas]

I think so too, but he acts like Wilt's stamina > every player who ever played because he's the only one to average 48+ minutes a game. Th reason neither played much? Because both Wilt and Russell could play at a much higher level for a full game than any centers, then, or now.

Michael Jordan never averaged more than 40, therefore Wilt's stamina > MJ, and it couldn't be further away from the truth....

It's simple, the talent pool was deep enough in the 80s/90s that MJ didn't need to play 48 minutes. MJ's back up, as inferior as he was, could hold out on the court for MJ to take a couple minutes rest here and there. In the 60s however, the difference between Wilt and his back up was so huge that a tired Wilt >>>>>>>>>>>> his back up. Which is why if you look at the MPG played leaderboard, most of the players came from the 60s and 70s.

Does that mean 60s/70s had better conditioning than 90s/00s/10s? I highly doubt it.

MPG isn't really about talent pool, it's all mostly about keeping your star players rested and injury free. If it were about talent pool, then the NBA must have some shallow pool, since it's the only league whose leaders still get close to 40 mpg, while players in other serious leagues rest for comparatively more time. It would also mean that the 50's talent pool was bigger than the 60's and comparable to the modern NBA.
A tired MJ would still be better than his fresh backup, the same way tired Wilt was still better than his own backup. But there was a different mindset between these two eras. In Wilt's era, the mindset was that since Wilt can play 48 mpg and he's still better than his backup, let him play. Also, it was a marketing trick, since fans would pay to see Wilt, not his backup, which is the reason why he and a few others would play even during blowouts. In Jordan's era, coaches would gladly exchange a few minutes of rest and less risk of injury for their stars for a little negative marginal efficiency on the part of their backups, and even then, only during the very few last seasons have minutes really gone down, despite the fact that time-outs are more than ever, meaning that the league is becoming increasingly big on resting star players (yet, ironically, there still occur lots of injuries). Of course, playing your star players during blowouts is out of the question for the reasons already mentioned. Of course, once playoffs come, all bets are off, with star players getting huge minutes once again - and I don't think it happens because the regular season has a deeper talent pool than the playoffs (it total it does, but per average, obviously not).

[LAZERUSS]

Speaking of stamina...

In his 61-62 season, in which he played all but eight minutes, Chamberlain played a TON of back-to-back games, something like 19 three-games-in-three-nights, four "four-in-a-rows", and even a stretch of five games in five nights, and with road games in-between.

Here is how he fared in those five games...(from 1/17 to 1/21)...

62-23
54-31
53-21
44-28
62-23

Or 55 ppg, 25.2 rpg, and on a .502 FG% (in a league that would shoot .426.) Oh, and he also shot .688 from the line in that span.

Not only that, but in his two previous games, which came on 1/13 and 1/14...

Against Bellamy on 1/13: 73 points, on 29-48 FG/FGA, 15-25 from the line, and 36 rebounds.
Against Russell on 1/14: 62 points, on 27-45 FG/FGA, and 8-10 from the line, with 23 rebounds.

[Asukal]

You can take your stamina, strength, and whatever else physical feats arguments you have and shove it up your candy ass Loseruzz. Wilt can have the biggest sized dick in all of history and still won't help him win more than 2 rings. :oldlol:

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, Chamberlain had another "backup" before Luke Jackson in that same 64-65 season. Nate Thurmond. And while Wilt was with the Warriors that season, he averaged 46 mpg. After he was traded, Thurmond averaged 21 ppg (and 24 rpg in his known games.) And, as we all know...Nate went on to have a HOF career at the CENTER position.

Same with Wilt in his entire 63-64 season...in which he also played 46 mpg.

So much for the theory that Wilt played because he had a "scrub" for a backup.

[Fire Colangelo]

MPG isn't really about talent pool, it's all mostly about keeping your star players rested and injury free. If it were about talent pool, then the NBA must have some shallow pool, since it's the only league whose leaders still get close to 40 mpg, while players in other serious leagues rest for comparatively more time. It would also mean that the 50's talent pool was bigger than the 60's and comparable to the modern NBA.
A tired MJ would still be better than his fresh backup, the same way tired Wilt was still better than his own backup. But there was a different mindset between these two eras. In Wilt's era, the mindset was that since Wilt can play 48 mpg and he's still better than his backup, let him play. Also, it was a marketing trick, since fans would pay to see Wilt, not his backup, which is the reason why he and a few others would play even during blowouts. In Jordan's era, coaches would gladly exchange a few minutes of rest and less risk of injury for their stars for a little negative marginal efficiency on the part of their backups, and even then, only during the very few last seasons have minutes really gone down, despite the fact that time-outs are more than ever, meaning that the league is becoming increasingly big on resting star players (yet, ironically, there still occur lots of injuries). Of course, playing your star players during blowouts is out of the question for the reasons already mentioned. Of course, once playoffs come, all bets are off, with star players getting huge minutes once again - and I don't think it happens because the regular season has a deeper talent pool than the playoffs (it total it does, but per average, obviously not).

There are no players after the 1980s (which is considered to be the best era of basketball) to play 44+ minutes per game, while they were several players who averaged 44+ before the 1980s.

I think it's a combination of talent pool, strategy, and simply how the game is played.

Does that mean the likes of Wilt/Russell/etc have better stamina than the likes of Jordan/David Robinson/LeBron/etc? Maybe, or maybe the game is just planned differently.

But to say that players from the 60s have better stamina because they play more MPG is just absurd.... given the advances in technology and knowledge in general I find it extremely hard to believe.

[Asukal]

There are no players after the 1980s (which is considered to be the best era of basketball) to play 44+ minutes per game, while they were several players who averaged 44+ before the 1980s.

I think it's a combination of talent pool, strategy, and simply how the game is played.

Does that mean the likes of Wilt/Russell/etc have better stamina than the likes of Jordan/David Robinson/LeBron/etc? Maybe, or maybe the game is just planned differently.

But to say that players from the 60s have better stamina because they play more MPG is just absurd.... given the advances in technology and knowledge in general I find it extremely hard to believe.

Only loseruss will claim that they have more stamina since they played more mpg. Truth is if Wilt didn't play all those minutes early in his career he wouldn't have succumbed to injuries. But of course loseruss will claim otherwise. :whatever:

[LAZERUSS]

Only loseruss will claim that they have more stamina since they played more mpg. Truth is if Wilt didn't play all those minutes early in his career he wouldn't have succumbed to injuries. But of course loseruss will claim otherwise. :whatever:

:roll: :roll: :roll:

In his LAST season, a 36 year old Wilt finished 4th in MVP balloting, led the NBA in rebounding, and set an NBA FG% record. Then, in the playoffs, he led his 60-22 team to a rout over the same 47-35 Warrior team that knocked off Kareem's 60-22 Bucks, and into the Finals.

How about this...

http://static.espn.go.com/nba/news/1999/1012/110842.html


Of all his memories of Wilt Chamberlain, the one that stood out for Larry Brown happened long after Chamberlain's professional career was over.
On a summer day in the early 1980s at the Men's Gym on the UCLA campus, Chamberlain showed up to take part in one of the high-octane pickup games that the arena constantly attracted. Brown was the coach of the Bruins back then, and Chamberlain often drove to UCLA from his home in Bel Air, Calif.
"Magic Johnson used to run the games," Brown recalled Tuesday after hearing that Chamberlain, his friend, had died at the age of 63, "and he called a couple of chintzy fouls and a goaltending on Wilt.
"So Wilt said: 'There will be no more layups in this gym,' and he blocked every shot after that. That's the truth, I saw it. He didn't let one (of Johnson's) shots get to the rim."
Chamberlain would have been in his mid-40s at the time, a decade removed from one of the greatest careers any basketball player ever produced. But the advancing years meant little to Chamberlain in terms of physical conditioning.
Into his 50s and his 60s, Chamberlain remained an incredible specimen -- a mountain of a man who was as coordinated and talented athletically as he was imposing physically.
The Cleveland Cavaliers called him in the early '80s and asked him if he'd still be interested in playing. Five or six years later, when Chamberlain was 50, the New Jersey Nets had the same idea.
Neither of those potential comebacks ever came to pass, but the very idea of signing a player so old shows just how well Chamberlain kept himself in shape -- and how shocked people were when they heard he had died.

[Asukal]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

In his LAST season, a 36 year old Wilt finished 4th in MVP balloting, led the NBA in rebounding, and set an NBA FG% record. Then, in the playoffs, he led his 60-22 team to a rout over the same 47-35 Warrior team that knocked off Kareem's 60-22 Bucks, and into the Finals.

How about this...

http://static.espn.go.com/nba/news/1999/1012/110842.html

That's great! :applause:

How many titles did he win again? :oldlol:

[RoundMoundOfReb]

weak era. Adjusted to today i'd put Wilt's TRB% at 6.7. PM me for details.

[LAZERUSS]

That's great! :applause:

How many titles did he win again? :oldlol:

This crap again.

TEAM game.

MJ never won ANY titles. His TEAM won SIX times, and without players like Pippen and Grant, he had a losing post-season record, and couldn't even make the Finals.

Kareem? As great as he was,. in his PRIME, he went to TWO Finals, and won ONE ring. It wasn't until MAGIC arrived that he would beta his way to five more rings (and his last ring was won DESPITE his awful play.)

Bird? Are you serious. HOF-stacked rosters his entire career. "Only" three rings, and "only" five Finals. And he was a beta in his first ring.

Kobe? A beta in his first three rings, and then did all he could lose a ring in 2010. Single-handedly cost his team another two rings in '04 and '08.

Shaq? SWEPT SIX TIMES, and nearly EIGHT. How come? How could the self proclaimed "MDE" get SWEPT SIX times.

Hakeem? :roll: :roll: :roll: "Mr. King of the First Round Exit." Played 18 seasons, went to three Finals, and won two rings...one when the best player with the best team, took the year off, and the other when his teammates saved his ass in the Finals. The rest of his career? Getting routed in the FIRST ROUND.


The REALITY was, Chamberlain was nine points away from FOUR more rings, and a game seven in another one. And along the way....the most dominant player in NBA history. Of course, none other than John Wooden claimed that had Wilt had Russell's rosters (and coach), and it would have been Chamberlain holding all those rings.

[LAZERUSS]

weak era. Adjusted to today i'd put Wilt's TRB% at 6.7. PM me for details.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

This 6-7 1/2 stumblebum led the NBA in rpg and had a TRB% of 23.6 just a couple of years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7TnbhJr8iY

Sorry, but if that guy could get 23.6...well, Chamberlain would be in the 30's. No doubt about it.

[Stringer Bell]

Russell was greater.

It's common knowledge.

[LAZERUSS]

Russell was greater.

It's common knowledge.

Not at rebounding. That was abundantly clear.

[Asukal]

This crap again.

TEAM game.

MJ never won ANY titles. His TEAM won SIX times, and without players like Pippen and Grant, he had a losing post-season record, and couldn't even make the Finals.

Kareem? As great as he was,. in his PRIME, he went to TWO Finals, and won ONE ring. It wasn't until MAGIC arrived that he would beta his way to five more rings (and his last ring was won DESPITE his awful play.)

Bird? Are you serious. HOF-stacked rosters his entire career. "Only" three rings, and "only" five Finals. And he was a beta in his first ring.

Kobe? A beta in his first three rings, and then did all he could lose a ring in 2010. Single-handedly cost his team another two rings in '04 and '08.

Shaq? SWEPT SIX TIMES, and nearly EIGHT. How come? How could the self proclaimed "MDE" get SWEPT SIX times.

Hakeem? :roll: :roll: :roll: "Mr. King of the First Round Exit." Played 18 seasons, went to three Finals, and won two rings...one when the best player with the best team, took the year off, and the other when his teammates saved his ass in the Finals. The rest of his career? Getting routed in the FIRST ROUND.


The REALITY was, Chamberlain was nine points away from FOUR more rings, and a game seven in another one. And along the way....the most dominant player in NBA history. Of course, none other than John Wooden claimed that had Wilt had Russell's rosters (and coach), and it would have been Chamberlain holding all those rings.

Of course the beta excuse again, "Team game". :oldlol:

If its a team game why do you hold his stats in such a high regard? :roll:

The REALITY was Wilt wilted in the post season and could only win 2 rings and he wasn't the leader of the team. :oldlol:

30>22>18 :applause:

[Psileas]

There are no players after the 1980s (which is considered to be the best era of basketball) to play 44+ minutes per game, while they were several players who averaged 44+ before the 1980s.

I think it's a combination of talent pool, strategy, and simply how the game is played.

Does that mean the likes of Wilt/Russell/etc have better stamina than the likes of Jordan/David Robinson/LeBron/etc? Maybe, or maybe the game is just planned differently.

But to say that players from the 60s have better stamina because they play more MPG is just absurd.... given the advances in technology and knowledge in general I find it extremely hard to believe.

Ι'm not one to easily compare stats between separate seasons. Wilt's playing time may not be proof that he's the most durable player ever, but it does show that he's among the few players who could pull this off. Plus, even adjusting for eras, he has still led his own era in this category more times than anyone else has.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

This crap again.

TEAM game.

MJ never won ANY titles. His TEAM won SIX times, and without players like Pippen and Grant, he had a losing post-season record, and couldn't even make the Finals.

Kareem? As great as he was,. in his PRIME, he went to TWO Finals, and won ONE ring. It wasn't until MAGIC arrived that he would beta his way to five more rings (and his last ring was won DESPITE his awful play.)

Bird? Are you serious. HOF-stacked rosters his entire career. "Only" three rings, and "only" five Finals. And he was a beta in his first ring.

Kobe? A beta in his first three rings, and then did all he could lose a ring in 2010. Single-handedly cost his team another two rings in '04 and '08.

Shaq? SWEPT SIX TIMES, and nearly EIGHT. How come? How could the self proclaimed "MDE" get SWEPT SIX times.

Hakeem? :roll: :roll: :roll: "Mr. King of the First Round Exit." Played 18 seasons, went to three Finals, and won two rings...one when the best player with the best team, took the year off, and the other when his teammates saved his ass in the Finals. The rest of his career? Getting routed in the FIRST ROUND.


The REALITY was, Chamberlain was nine points away from FOUR more rings, and a game seven in another one. And along the way....the most dominant player in NBA history. Of course, none other than John Wooden claimed that had Wilt had Russell's rosters (and coach), and it would have been Chamberlain holding all those rings.
See this is what I mean, Laz. The guy is blatantly trolling you here, for the sole purpose of making you waste your time and churn out a long post. Don't fall for it.

[ILLsmak]

With that said, Laz, you're not doing yourself any favours by responding to these guys; you realize that 80% of them are being facetious? They're ****ing with you lol. They have zero interest in actually debating the veracity of some of your assertions that pertain to Wilt. Zero. Don't take the bait, when these guys are literally laughing at how they're able to coax long posts out of you.

I put LAZ and Euroleague into the same category. Both are kind of funny, but I think Euroleague wins out. He's the man at making up shit and then calling other people insane. I'd say Euroleague is by far the best troll on this site. Probably the only troll I think is funny. Well IncarceratedBob has his moments, too.

-Smak

[LAZERUSS]

See this is what I mean, Laz. The guy is blatantly trolling you here, for the sole purpose of making you waste your time and churn out a long post. Don't fall for it.

You're right, of course.

And BTW, I really do not like pointing out the "flaws" of other all-time greats. But, as you have read here...there is simply a "Wilt Double Standard", in which he is held to a far greater standard than the other GOATs.

[sd3035]

You're right, of course.

And BTW, I really do not like pointing out the "flaws" of other all-time greats. But, as you have read here...there is simply a "Wilt Double Standard", in which he is held to a far greater standard than the other GOATs.

must be his two rings