Is this the most dominant playoff game performance ever?

[CavaliersFTW]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GNC6uzGPMAI/VTwgVIhdVvI/AAAAAAAAGJc/8a-Z0x1eF_0/s0/NBA%2520EDSF%2520Warrios%2520vs%2520Nationals%2520 G5%25201962%2528better%2520version%2529.jpg

56pts (22-48fg, 12-22ft) 35reb 1a 12blks

Series clinching win:

56 points, 35 rebounds, ~ 12 blocked shots

6 NBA records of that time broken that game including:

*Most points ever scored in a playoff game up to that time (56)

*Most field goals attempted in one playoff half (25)

*Most field goals attempted in one playoff quarter (14)

*Most free throws attempted in one playoff quarter (11)

The article does not state the other two records.

Is that the most dominant playoff game ever played? If not, who's had a more dominant individual playoff statline? That's a 55+ point triple double... with 35 rebounds. If it's not at the top it's got to be one of the most dominant playoff performances.

------------------------------------------------------

Here's another candidate:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-PCHdhX62evg/VUPAqbIZ-nI/AAAAAAAAGLM/qtfGFJ0H37A/s1280/NBA%2520EDF%2520Sixers%2520vs%2520Boston%2520G1%25 201967%2520Wilt%2520quadruple%2520double.jpg

Quadruple-Double

24pts (9-13fg, 6-10ft) 35reb 12a 12blks

In an EDF first game win over the Boston Celtics - he would actually have another Quadruple-Double in the Finals against Thurmond and the Warriors, and win the title that season.

[dubeta]

No and its not even close.

[-23-]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GNC6uzGPMAI/VTwgVIhdVvI/AAAAAAAAGJc/8a-Z0x1eF_0/s0/NBA%2520EDSF%2520Warrios%2520vs%2520Nationals%2520 G5%25201962%2528better%2520version%2529.jpg

Series clinching win:

56 points, 35 rebounds, ~ 12 blocked shots

6 NBA records of that time broken that game including:

*Most points ever scored in a playoff game up to that time (56)

*Most field goals attempted in one playoff half (25)

*Most field goals attempted in one playoff quarter (14)

*Most free throws attempted in one playoff quarter (11)

The article does not state the other two records.

Is that the most dominant playoff game ever played? If not, who's had a more dominant individual playoff statline? That's a 55+ point triple double... with 35 rebounds. If it's not at the top it's got to be one of the most dominant playoff performances.

MJ > Wilt

[Jud]

Stat-wise it probably is, but then again Wilt was in a weak ass era :confusedshrug:

[LAZERUSS]

Not only that, but as always, Chamberlain came up huge in an "at-the-brink" elimination game.

Find me another GOAT candidate who put up a 50+ point game in an absolute "must-win" playoff game (other than Wilt, himself, of course, who managed to accomplish that feat THREE times...as well as a 45 point game in a "must-win" Finals game.)

[CavaliersFTW]

No and its not even close.
Present your list of other performances that push it way down the list to "not even close" territory.

[Deuce Bigalow]

22-48 fg
12-22 ft

[CavaliersFTW]

Stat-wise it probably is, but then again Wilt was in a weak ass era :confusedshrug:
How about 42 rebounds, 37 rebounds, scoring 16 points in the fourth quarter to secure a come-from-behind victory and holding Bill Russell to 4-14 shooting and 9 points? Do weak arguments apply when the competition is Bill Russell?

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4aQxqiYvy2U/VTrXhw-vKAI/AAAAAAAAGIE/6M8T_eMnPRg/s0/NBA%2520EDF%2520Warrios%2520vs%2520Boston%2520G2%2 528v2.1%2529%25201962.jpg

How about as a rookie against Russell in a must-win game, 50 points 35 rebounds setting a rookie playoff scoring record and Boston Garden field goal record:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XuSlQ4Mw-qM/VTwauDllzdI/AAAAAAAAGI8/GuFgNBMiNKY/s800/NBA%2520EDSF%2520Warrios%2520vs%2520Celtics%2520G5 %25201960%2520%2528march%252022-23%2529.jpg

I could have sworn people told me Wilt wasn't a dominant playoff performer. And not a clutch type of player. Weird finding articles like this if that is supposed to be the case.

[CavaliersFTW]

22-48 fg
12-22 ft
GOAT stamina running up and down the floor blocking all those shots only to have to catch all those entry passes and take shots and get fouled on the other end :applause:

BTW where'd you get those numbers? I've been looking for as many stats as I can on some of these games but bball reference only has total points and total field goals/FT's, it doesn't have attempts.

[LAZERUSS]

GOAT stamina running up and down the floor blocking all those shots only to have to catch all those entry passes and take shots and get fouled on the other end :applause:

BTW where'd you get those numbers? I've been looking for as many stats as I can on some of these games but bball reference only has total points and total field goals/FT's, it doesn't have attempts.

nbastats.net

also, how about EVERY ONE of the Wilt-Russell H2H's...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I9jddU8eNWrI8MMOPs_0l58WnjFNADvF4iIcu0Sfz7A/edit?pli=1#gid=0

Incidently, and as always, Deuce ignored league-wide shooting. Wilt's 22-48, or was .458...in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .411.


In your Russell-Wilt H2H above...

Chamberlain shot 22-42 from the field, or .524...in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .402.

As almost was always the case, Chamberlain's eFG% and TS% were WAY above the post-season league averages.

[LAZERUSS]

How about 42 rebounds, 37 rebounds, scoring 16 points in the fourth quarter to secure a come-from-behind victory and holding Bill Russell to 4-14 shooting and 9 points? Do weak arguments apply when the competition is Bill Russell?

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4aQxqiYvy2U/VTrXhw-vKAI/AAAAAAAAGIE/6M8T_eMnPRg/s0/NBA%2520EDF%2520Warrios%2520vs%2520Boston%2520G2%2 528v2.1%2529%25201962.jpg

How about as a rookie against Russell in a must-win game, 50 points 35 rebounds setting a rookie playoff scoring record and Boston Garden field goal record:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XuSlQ4Mw-qM/VTwauDllzdI/AAAAAAAAGI8/GuFgNBMiNKY/s800/NBA%2520EDSF%2520Warrios%2520vs%2520Celtics%2520G5 %25201960%2520%2528march%252022-23%2529.jpg

I could have sworn people told me Wilt wasn't a dominant playoff performer. And not a clutch type of player. Weird finding articles like this if that is supposed to be the case.

How about Wilt in his 37 post-season games in which they were either series-clinching, or must win games...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


W-L : 24-13

Here were Wilt's averages in those 37 games:

29.5 ppg

26.1 rpg

4.2 apg (missing one game)

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

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

[CavaliersFTW]

How about Wilt in his 37 post-season games in which they were either series-clinching, or must win games...
Might as well edit 12 blocks for the 56 point game. Also, do you have dates for all those games? I'd like to do a newspaper search on all of them. Maybe I could make a thread on it eventually with all the news recaps.

[LAZERUSS]

Might as well edit 12 blocks for the 56 point game. Also, do you have dates for all those games? I'd like to do a newspaper search on all of them. Maybe I could make a thread on it eventually with all the news recaps.

Yeah...

nbastats.net is rapidly producing all the box-scores from Wilt's era, and it won't be long and you will have not only Wilt's entire stat-lines, but everyone else's in that era.

[CavaliersFTW]

Yeah...

nbastats.net is rapidly producing all the box-scores from Wilt's era, and it won't be long and you will have not only Wilt's entire stat-lines, but everyone else's in that era.
I notice one thing though, he only had 5 blocks in the 72 Finals. I know the announcers throughout that game kept saying "8 blocks" but even the newspapers of that time only printed that he had 5 and you can count 5 on film despite them saying 8.

[LAZERUSS]

Might as well edit 12 blocks for the 56 point game. Also, do you have dates for all those games? I'd like to do a newspaper search on all of them. Maybe I could make a thread on it eventually with all the news recaps.

Both BB_Reference and NBAstats.net have the dates listed. It would just be a question of taking the time to look them up.

NBAstats.net has almost all of Wilt's complete stats now...

http://nbastats.net/

scroll down to about the bottom third of that link, and you will see a list of GOATs,... one of them being Wilt. Click on it, and it will bring up a spreadsheet.

Also, just above the those players are the speadsheets with the known box-scores from different periods.

[NZStreetBaller]

Since your wilts son. what was wilts stat line in that 100 point game??

[CavaliersFTW]

Both BB_Reference and NBAstats.net have the dates listed. It would just be a question of taking the time to look them up.

NBAstats.net has almost all of Wilt's complete stats now...

http://nbastats.net/

scroll down to about the bottom third of that link, and you will see a list of GOATs,... one of them being Wilt. Click on it, and it will bring up a spreadsheet.

Also, just above the those players are the speadsheets with the known box-scores from different periods.
Not to sound dense but how does one navigate that site to look up an individual game by Wilt? I've been shown that link many times but I've no clue how to look up specific series/games/dates like one can do with basketball reference.

[LAZERUSS]

I notice one thing though, he only had 5 blocks in the 72 Finals. I know the announcers throughout that game kept saying "8 blocks" but even the newspapers of that time only printed that he had 5 and you can count 5 on film despite them saying 8.

Actually, some sources gave him credit for 10 blocked shots in that game you mentioned. NBAstats.net lists him with 10.

And while they didn't count, he had two goal-tends that were very questionable, as well.

[LAZERUSS]

Not to sound dense but how does one navigate that site to look up an individual game by Wilt? I've been shown that link many times but I've no clue how to look up specific series/games/dates like one can do with basketball reference.

You have to go to the site...and then scroll down. Again, it is about one-third from the bottom of that page...and you will see a list of players, including Wilt. When you click on the Wilt link, it will bring up a spreadsheet with every one of his career NBA games.

[CavaliersFTW]

Actually, some sources gave him credit for 10 blocked shots in that game you mentioned. NBAstats.net lists him with 10.

And while they didn't count, he had two goal-tends that were very questionable, as well.
I believe 5 is most likely, it's exactly what I counted in spite of the announcers suggesting 8 and it's what is printed in the papers that circulated the very next day. That's just me though.

[LAZERUSS]

nbastats.net is a GOLD MINE for basketball fans.

Again, it won't be long and they will probably have complete NBA box-scores from virtually every NBA game...all-time.

[pauk]

Are you aware of poss. per game / pace CavsFTW / Lazeruss? I just want to know? How do you feel about that?

You said "Is this the most dominant playoff game performance EVER?"

If you want to go by "best stats ever" then you have to create a reasonable playing/comparing ground between that era (50s-60s) and modern era (starting from 70s somewhere, but mainly 80s and all the decades upwards)... namely only adjustment of poss. per game / pace because that is the most notable extreme difference between those two....

When you do that it just shows you should take Wilt's (or anybody elses stats from the 60s) with a grain of salt when comparing with modern era stats...

I know you love Wilt / 60s, but you need to be objective....

Have a look at this: http://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/1vta75/a_look_at_wilt_chamberlains_stats_when_adjusting/ If you think what Wilt was doing was as great as you think it is, then scroll down there to see something which may be very painful to see for you guys.

Wilt was great and would be great in any era, all im saying is his stats.... needs salt, just a small grain... its not my opinion, its facts... and i love those...

[CavaliersFTW]

nbastats.net is a GOLD MINE for basketball fans.

Again, it won't be long and they will probably have complete NBA box-scores from virtually every NBA game...all-time.
My only wonder is, where they get some of their shot block estimates from. Thanks for pointing out where to download the stats by the way.

I see also, they don't have some stats added of the games that have survived on film. For example you can get blocks and steals of Wilt from the 1970 Finals game etc, but they haven't added those for some reason.

Their contributor Matt, estimates 30 blocked shots for some games. I'll be newspaper searching these at some point now that I've got some dates to go by - but prior to this I'd not found anything beyond estimates as high as about 20 in newspapers, and Sonny Hill seems to suggest a 26 blocks against the Detroit Pistons was Wilt's best shot blocking game. I wish a source was posted for some of the estimates so I could sort of see and possibly modify or asterisk estimates if I'm not convinced of a source.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

LeBron game 6 vs Boston is the greatest playoff game ever played considering the implications.

[CavaliersFTW]

Are you aware of poss. per game / pace CavsFTW / Lazeruss? I just want to know? How do you feel about that?

You said "Is this the most dominant playoff game performance EVER?"

If you want to go by "best stats ever" then you have to create a reasonable playing/comparing ground between that era (50s-60s) and modern era (starting from 70s somewhere, but mainly 80s and all the decades upwards)... namely only adjustment of poss. per game / pace because that is the most notable extreme difference between those two....

When you do that it just shows you should take Wilt's (or anybody elses stats from the 60s) with a grain of salt when comparing with modern era stats...

I know you love Wilt / 60s, but you need to be objective....

Have a look at this: http://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/1vta75/a_look_at_wilt_chamberlains_stats_when_adjusting/
Pauk, scram.

I'm aware that you don't know jack about how "pace" effects a game or individual performances. Move along.

[Psileas]

I believe 5 is most likely, it's exactly what I counted in spite of the announcers suggesting 8 and it's what is printed in the papers that circulated the very next day. That's just me though.

I thought he had 6 blocks in that game - and a couple of minutes are missing. I don't know how announcers got 8, but announcers seemed to be wrong on such unofficial stats quite often.
Kareem's "33 win streak ending" game in '72 was probably the grossest exaggeration on this matter I've yet met: He'd been credited with 9 or 10 blocked shots, while he'd performed 3 or, at best, 4.


I see also, they don't have some stats added of the games that have survived on film. For example you can get blocks and steals of Wilt from the 1970 Finals game etc, but they haven't added those for some reason.

Their contributor Matt, estimates 30 blocked shots for some games. I'll be newspaper searching these at some point now that I've got some dates to go by - but prior to this I'd not found anything beyond estimates as high as about 20 in newspapers, and Sonny Hill seems to suggest a 26 blocks against the Detroit Pistons was Wilt's best shot blocking game. I wish a source was posted for some of the estimates so I could sort of see and possibly modify or asterisk estimates if I'm not convinced of a source.

I'm pretty sure he hasn't estimated any blocked shots number due to having watched a game (not saying he hasn't watched). His estimations seem to be based on some type of equation.
How they got the '67 and '68 blocked shots estimates is also a mystery to me, but I expect that quite a few of these estimates will be off: What strikes me as odd is that there's too little deviation in these estimates, with too many games hovering in the 8-12 range. In general, I don't think the deviation in blocked shots should be considered as small as the deviation in rebounding, where Wilt typically hovers in the 20-30 range. He probably had more "low" figure (e.g: 3-5) games and more high figure (e.g: 12+) games than estimated.

[zizozain]

yes. this is the most dominant playoff game performance ever

Wilt > MJ

[Deuce Bigalow]

"Blocks"

http://i.imgur.com/Qf4SzlT.jpg

[CavaliersFTW]

I thought he had 6 blocks in that game - and a couple of minutes are missing. I don't know how announcers got 8, but announcers seemed to be wrong on such unofficial stats quite often.
Kareem's "33 win streak ending" game in '72 was probably the grossest exaggeration on this matter I've yet met: He'd been credited with 9 or 10 blocked shots, while he'd performed 3 or, at best, 4.



I'm pretty sure he hasn't estimated any blocked shots number due to having watched a game (not saying he hasn't watched). His estimations seem to be based on some type of equation.
How they got the '67 and '68 blocked shots estimates is also a mystery to me, but I expect that quite a few of these estimates will be off: What strikes me as odd is that there's too little deviation in these estimates, with too many games hovering in the 8-12 range. In general, I don't think the deviation in blocked shots should be considered as small as the deviation in rebounding, where Wilt typically hovers in the 20-30 range. He probably had more "low" figure (e.g: 3-5) games and more high figure (e.g: 12+) games than estimated.
Ah you're right I did count 6 for some reason I thought I'd counted 5. Plus 1 steal. Yeah I'm not keen on doing any sort of estimating myself, I'll probably modify the excel I downloaded and only use cite able numbers such as writer or coach comments via game coverage of the time. Still a great great tool. I might work on a joint reddit/ISH project that will cover all those elimination games Laz cited with news coverage and game highlights where available to go even more in depth. Smash all that he wasn't a performer when it counted nonsense.

[LAZERUSS]

"Blocks"

http://i.imgur.com/Qf4SzlT.jpg

Two CLEAN blocks and at the apex of the "unblockable" sky-hook.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[coin24]

Stop trolling poor laz:oldlol:

[LAZERUSS]

I thought he had 6 blocks in that game - and a couple of minutes are missing. I don't know how announcers got 8, but announcers seemed to be wrong on such unofficial stats quite often.
Kareem's "33 win streak ending" game in '72 was probably the grossest exaggeration on this matter I've yet met: He'd been credited with 9 or 10 blocked shots, while he'd performed 3 or, at best, 4.



I'm pretty sure he hasn't estimated any blocked shots number due to having watched a game (not saying he hasn't watched). His estimations seem to be based on some type of equation.
How they got the '67 and '68 blocked shots estimates is also a mystery to me, but I expect that quite a few of these estimates will be off: What strikes me as odd is that there's too little deviation in these estimates, with too many games hovering in the 8-12 range. In general, I don't think the deviation in blocked shots should be considered as small as the deviation in rebounding, where Wilt typically hovers in the 20-30 range. He probably had more "low" figure (e.g: 3-5) games and more high figure (e.g: 12+) games than estimated.

I'm leery of those "estimations" myself, and rarely will I include them.

Having said that, though, Harvey Pollack claims that Wilt had entire SEASONS of 10+ bpg. He also claims to have lost count in one of Wilt's games in which he had him at 25 (I suspect that Wilt probably rejected several shots in one offensive sequence.)

We also KNOW that Wilt had 23 blocks in a nationally televised game (with an SI writer in attendance who counted them.)

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt's game six of the '70 Finals seems to be ignored. True, Willis Reed did not play, but Chamberlain, himself, was only four months removed from major knee surgery.

In that "must-win" game, Wilt poured in 45 points, on 20-27 shooting, with 27 rebounds, in a resounding 135-113 win.

BTW, his 27 rebounds came in a game with 101 available, or just another ho-hum 27% TRB% game (he played 46 minutes.)

Overall, and even including his 5-14 shooting from the line, he still scored 45 points on a .662 TS%.

And it was just another example of how Wilt just slaughtered his non-HOF opposing centers in his post-season career.

[Psileas]

I'm leery of those "estimations" myself, and rarely will I include them.

Having said that, though, Harvey Pollack claims that Wilt had entire SEASONS of 10+ bpg. He also claims to have lost count in one of Wilt's games in which he had him at 25 (I suspect that Wilt probably rejected several shots in one offensive sequence.)

We also KNOW that Wilt had 23 blocks in a nationally televised game (with an SI writer in attendance who counted them.)

Ι always entertain the idea that the guy has contacted Pollack (or his son, who's 68 himself, btw) and taken his info from there. I mean, some of his estimated stats (like the ones of his 2 most legendary 1968 all-around games, his triple-20 and his 53 point TD) had been heard of from both you and me before nbastats existed. I wonder how so.
Also, it's not as if I really disagree with the sums (although I guess that his 1960 or 1962 seasons would be at least as productive blocks-wise as 1967 or '68 and, therefore, more likely to be 10 bpg seasons), just with the game-by-game supposed precision offered.

[nba_55]

Sorry, but I can't put a performance as the most dominant just based on an article. Post a video please.

[LAZERUSS]

Ι always entertain the idea that the guy has contacted Pollack (or his son, who's 68 himself, btw) and taken his info from there. I mean, some of his estimated stats (like the ones of his 2 most legendary 1968 all-around games, his triple-20 and his 53 point TD) had been heard of from both you and me before nbastats existed. I wonder how so.
Also, it's not as if I really disagree with the sums (although I guess that his 1960 or 1962 seasons would be at least as productive blocks-wise as 1967 or '68 and, therefore, more likely to be 10 bpg seasons), just with the game-by-game supposed precision offered.

There is a list on the nbastats.net site with games with blocks before the 73-74 season, and Wilt has three of the five 30+ block games, and then numerous 20+ block games...and Matt uses recaps, but those recaps don't have the exact data...just "blocked so many shots", or "observers block estimate", or blocked numerous shots." Not sure how he comes up with his estimates, though.

[LAZERUSS]

Sorry, but I can't put a performance as the most dominant just based on an article. Post a video please.

Yep...for years sportwriters just plain lied in their recaps. And the interesting thing about that...NO ONE ever caught it.

Pretty amazing.

[sd3035]

22-48 fg
12-22 ft


below 50 TS%

:biggums:

[nba_55]

Yep...for years sportwriters just plain lied in their recaps. And the interesting thing about that...NO ONE ever caught it.

Pretty amazing.

Where did I say they lied? I just need to see it with my own eyes, from my own perspective to decide if I can put it as my most dominant playoffs game performance. I won't let an unknown reporter's article decide for me.
If you have a video, comeback to me, if not, keep reading those old articles and keep jerking to basketball reference stats old man, but don't talk to me.

[warriorfan]

Where did I say they lied? I just need to see it with my own eyes, from my own perspective to decide if I can put it as my most dominant playoffs game performance. I won't let an unknown reporter's article decide for me.


when does dubeta get unbanned?

[sd3035]

Where did I say they lied? I just need to see it with my own eyes, from my own perspective to decide if I can put it as my most dominant playoffs game performance. I won't let an unknown reporter's article decide for me.
If you have a video, comeback to me, if not, keep reading those old articles and keep jerking to basketball reference stats old man, but don't talk to me.

Lazeruss probably wrote that article a few days ago

[LAZERUSS]

below 50 TS%

:biggums:

Wilt's teammates shot .359 from the field in that game, and the entire Nats team shot .406.

BTW, Wilt's opposing centers (Kerr and Schayes) shot .379 (11-29.)

[Simple Jack]

I respect the hell out of Wilt despite having my gripes with his game (lack of dominating to the extent he could have just because he didn't feel like it), but citing his stats is just silly to me. Clearly those numbers aren't a reflection of what of what he'd do today, and that's not a knock against him.

I understand you can only play vs your own era and he certainly dominated his era more so than any other player when compared to their respective eras, but the stat citing in regards to "all-time" great games is just stupid.

Hypothetically, lets imagine an era of basketball where the available rebounds are half of what they were in the 60's, and teams were scoring about 75% of what they did in the 60's. When people begin to discuss "all-time" great games and someone brings up a game of Player A (in the former era mentioned with half available rebounds/75% points scored) dropping lets say 70 points and also 30 rebounds...wouldn't it be stupid to bring up a game where ___ from the 60's dropped 75 and 35 and act like it's indisputably better?

I mean you got guys like Lazerus coming on here writing novels citing stat after stat, as if it does anything to add to the discussion - without any context. I understand he has some weird obsession with Wilt and tries to defend him at the expense of being perceived as a incredibly large douche; but posting stat after stat from Wilt games in threads discussing/analyzing a huge game from players in different eras, serves no purpose.

CavaliersFTW - you seem a bit more rational/less delusional...so I'll ask you. Do you think it serves any purpose whatsoever, to comment on a thread, which lets say, is discussing a 30 rebound game from Vucevic...with paragraphs and paragraphs of Wilt stats from games where he had 30+ rebounds?

[CavaliersFTW]

I respect the hell out of Wilt despite having my gripes with his game (lack of dominating to the extent he could have just because he didn't feel like it), but citing his stats is just silly to me. Clearly those numbers aren't a reflection of what of what he'd do today, and that's not a knock against him.

I understand you can only play vs your own era and he certainly dominated his era more so than any other player when compared to their respective eras, but the stat citing in regards to "all-time" great games is just stupid.

Hypothetically, lets imagine an era of basketball where the available rebounds are half of what they were in the 60's, and teams were scoring about 75% of what they did in the 60's. When people begin to discuss "all-time" great games and someone brings up a game of Player A (in the former era mentioned with half available rebounds/75% points scored) dropping lets say 70 points and also 30 rebounds...wouldn't it be stupid to bring up a game where ___ from the 60's dropped 75 and 35 and act like it's indisputably better?

I mean you got guys like Lazerus coming on here writing novels citing stat after stat, as if it does anything to add to the discussion - without any context. I understand he has some weird obsession with Wilt and tries to defend him at the expense of being perceived as a incredibly large douche; but posting stat after stat from Wilt games in threads discussing/analyzing a huge game from players in different eras, serves no purpose.

CavaliersFTW - you seem a bit more rational/less delusional...so I'll ask you. Do you think it serves any purpose whatsoever, to comment on a thread, which lets say, is discussing a 30 rebound game from Vucevic...with paragraphs and paragraphs of Wilt stats from games where he had 30+ rebounds?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. And just a side bar I completely disagree with any assumptions put forward by some that he didn't dominate as much as he could or w/e. I'm pretty sure he dominated as good as he possibly could, being how competitive minded he was - which resulted in him being more dominating than anyone else has ever been able to do before or since so I don't know where people get this idea he could have done more. I think people confuse his lack of desire to physically hurt people with lack of dominance in the game of basketball, these are two completely different things. I think naysayers confuse what I just mentioned, as well as some just don't understand what his objectives were under his different roles that his teams and coaches needed him to perform.

Also let me just say, what the heck do you and others care so much about stats today? It's like, you always want these adjusted fake numbers. Ask yourself this, instead of complaining all the time about trying to imagine and fiddle with stats, instead of getting stuck thinking about the game today, why not learn the history of the game so you don't have to do that. Learn the stats of players from Wilt's time. What kind of numbers did players routinely put up, and what did it look like in the flow of a game - I've uploaded many individual player stats already on my YT channel players of a wide variety of talent/production. There's no such thing as an adjusted stat. If you want to know how good Wilt's numbers are in context, learn the numbers of his competition. Period. That's the only way you'll get a handle on his game and his numbers. As I said, there's no such thing as an accurately adjusted stat it's all made up and skewed to fit agendas. There's been so many subtle changes to the game, it's impossible to come up with some formula to account for all of it. Pace, for example, is like one variable among dozens I could think of. Just learn what players were doing in his time. That's the only honest way to understand his stats.

[Simple Jack]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. And just a side bar I completely disagree with any assumptions put forward by some that he didn't dominate as much as he could or w/e. I'm pretty sure he dominated as good as he possibly could, being how competitive minded he was - which resulted in him being more dominating than anyone else has ever been able to do before or since so I don't know where people get this idea he could have done more. I think people confuse his lack of desire to physically hurt people with lack of dominance in the game of basketball, these are two completely different things. I think naysayers confuse what I just mentioned, as well as some just don't understand what his objectives were under his different roles that his teams and coaches needed him to perform.

Also let me just say, what the heck do you and others care so much about stats today? It's like, you always want these adjusted fake numbers. Ask yourself this, instead of complaining all the time about trying to imagine and fiddle with stats, instead of getting stuck thinking about the game today, why not learn the history of the game so you don't have to do that. Learn the stats of players from Wilt's time. What kind of numbers did players routinely put up, and what did it look like in the flow of a game - I've uploaded many individual player stats already on my YT channel players of a wide variety of talent/production. There's no such thing as an adjusted stat. If you want to know how good Wilt's numbers are in context, learn the numbers of his competition. Period. That's the only way you'll get a handle on his game and his numbers. As I said, there's no such thing as an accurately adjusted stat it's all made up and skewed to fit agendas. There's been so many subtle changes to the game, it's impossible to come up with some formula to account for all of it. Pace, for example, is like one variable among dozens I could think of. Just learn what players were doing in his time. That's the only honest way to understand his stats.

Was going to respond to the first part myself, but I'm tired as shit and have class at 8 tomorrow so I'll quote the KBlaze post, whose sentiments I share on the topic in response to this quote


"When challenged, Wilt could do almost anything he wanted. In 1961 a new star named Walt Bellamy came into the league. Bellamy was 6-foot-10, and was scoring 30 points a game. First time they played against each other, they met at half court. Bellamy said, 'Hello, Mr. Chamberlain. I'm Walter Bellamy.' Chamberlain reached for Bellamy's hand and said, 'Hello, Walter. You won't get a shot off in the first half.' Wilt then blocked Bellamy's first nine shots. At the start of the second half Wilt said to Bellamy, 'Okay, Walter. Now you can play.'"





I like Wilt. always found him interesting. And underrated by a lot of fans. But things like this make it hard to argue against those who say he didnt have the heart to be a winner. Now...I say that knowing he made like 6 finals won 2 rings and has 2 of the 4 best records ever. But when I say "Winner" I mean the approach more than the results.

What kind of great player....winner...can stop his man EVERY time...but allows him to score in the second half? Now...other way? Ok. Let him think he has it going. Shut him down late. Doing it early does nothing but show him how great you are because showing him how little spirit you have by easing up.

Bill Russell would have let dude score just enough to see his sweet spots and how he attacks and blocked 5-6 shots in the 4th and won his team the game. Now do I know Wilt didnt win the game? No. I assume he did. Almost all his teams were good. Bellamy was a loser much of his career. I assume Wilts team won.

But its the approach that annoys me. You can stop your man at will...stop him all the time. Dont let him score...period. And if you have to be nice...block his shots in the SECOND half.

I read too much shit like this about Wilt. From his own mouth(well..words...in his book a view from Above) he flatly said he could have stolen the ball from a lot of bigmen he played. But he didnt. Why? It makes bigmen look like lumbering fools. He was sensitive to how people saw him. He didnt wanna look like a giant just getting by on size. So he didnt want others to bring down the perception of bigmen. So he lets guys dribble when he can steal it. His words. Not mine.

The **** is that?

Plus...he said he developed the fingeroll partly because it shows skill. He took fadeaways and fingerolls because just pushing a guy and dunking was what people expected bigmen to do. He wanted to be seen as skilled.

So instead of dunking 90% of the time(which he could have in the early 60s) hes throwing up jumpers, bank shots, and pretty hooks and shit because it makes him look more skilled.

If Bill Russell had wilts physical gifts(he did have some...but not all) and touch with the ball the Celtics probably lose 10 games a season and win 12 of 13 years he played instead of 11(win in 67...not when eh was injured second season).

Russell didnt care what anyone thought so long as his team won. Russell in Wilts body might put up 30/28 on 65% lose 6 games his best season and sweep the playoffs. I never respected wilts claim that Russell cared too much about winning games. Like it was a failing in his personality(even if it was).

Bill went hard for the W. You could think he was satan. He would be satan with a ring.



Regarding the second paragraph; I don't care that much about stats today. I don't care for adjusted fake numbers either. It's one thing to list these Wilt games and his numbers so we can discuss them, learn about them and analyze them...it's another thing to bring them up when the only point in doing so, is to use them as comparators, which is undoubtedly what Lazarus does ALL the time.

I'm well aware of the stats of the players from Wilt's time; and basketball history in general. I love reading about/watching film of/discussing just about any player in basketball history from any era. And as a side note, I appreciate the work you, and a few others, put in, in gathering the historical NBA articles/clips.

Back to the point though - I've never suggested there is an accurate or precise method to adjust stats. I already mentioned in my previous post about the value of looking at player performances relative to their own era. This doesn't address what I was arguing here though. What I'm arguing against, is people like Lazarus, posting statistics from historical games, without any context whatsoever, and for the sole purpose of being used as a comparator to specifically statistics/games from players today.

It's stupid for the reasons I mentioned. You seem to also think context is imperative so I'll just assume we agree.

[CavaliersFTW]

Was going to respond to the first part myself, but I'm tired as shit and have class at 8 tomorrow so I'll quote the KBlaze post, whose sentiments I share on the topic in response to this quote







Regarding the second paragraph; I don't care that much about stats today. I don't care for adjusted fake numbers either. It's one thing to list these Wilt games and his numbers so we can discuss them, learn about them and analyze them...it's another thing to bring them up when the only point in doing so, is to use them as comparators, which is undoubtedly what Lazarus does ALL the time.

I'm well aware of the stats of the players from Wilt's time; and basketball history in general. I love reading about/watching film of/discussing just about any player in basketball history from any era. And as a side note, I appreciate the work you, and a few others, put in, in gathering the historical NBA articles/clips.

Back to the point though - I've never suggested there is an accurate or precise method to adjust stats. I already mentioned in my previous post about the value of looking at player performances relative to their own era. This doesn't address what I was arguing here though. What I'm arguing against, is people like Lazarus, posting statistics from historical games, without any context whatsoever, and for the sole purpose of being used as a comparator to specifically statistics/games from players today.

It's stupid for the reasons I mentioned. You seem to also think context is imperative so I'll just assume we agree.
I disagree with Kblaze's rant. He says if a guy like Wilt can block Bellamy's first 9 shots, why doesn't he go at players like that all the time.

Well, if Kobe Bryant can score 81 points, or Wilt 100, or Hakeem can get you a Quad double... ya get me?

Same kind of thing. Wilt wanted to make a statement he made one, the reason he had the flexibility to do so is the same reason Russell had the flexibility to put a lid on the basket for key stretches of a game.

Neither Wilt, nor Russell played 100% effort/energy throughout an entire game. It isn't just Wilt. There's plenty of quotes of Russell explaining how you pick your moments in a basketball game to put your fingerprints on it - and you have that ability as a great player because you aren't always at 100% intensity and furthermore, that you CAN'T be at that kind of intensity all the time due to 80+ game seasons etc. You need to pace yourself, I think those are words Russell himself has stated.

Kblaze can have his opinions, that's fine, to be honest he just seems like he doesn't like Wilt's ego got pissed and made an emotional rant filled with what are pretty unfair criticisms as far as I can see. I've seen enough similar statements from both players (and many other players) to form my own conclusions that Russell for example, was not some pure focused competitor lacking in ego compared with Wilt. And Wilt, was not some player who drifted around care free of winning or someone who lacked focus or something despite what the popular narratives might wish to portray. Teammates/coaches people close to those players/and actually Russell and Wilt themselves generally call that stuff out as BS. The hyperbole around those two players is so overblown. And the stuff out of BOTH Wilt and Russell's mouths are that of egomaniacs. They're both hyper competitive and have huge egos, they both have said and done things that raise an eyebrow.

Bottom line as far as I can see based on what they actually did in their careers is Wilt wanted to win and tried anything to do it. Same with Russell but Russell just had a more stable environment, and generally a better oiled machine of a team on the Celtics. His role was more simple. It was the role Wilt eventually had at the end of his career, and a role that Wilt arguably did even better than Russell. Defend the interior, rebound, and start the fast break. Offense is an afterthought.

Wilt also paced himself and tried to do things (such as blocking Bellamy's first 9 shots as a rookie) to make statements from time to time. This EXACT kind of thing was done by Russell to Elvin Hayes, he told Elvin he'd block "just one" of his shots that first night they matched up than Elvin was looking over his shoulder all game. Out of nowhere Russell blocked one of his shots when he least expected it and cracked a smile as if to suggest now he could play. This sort of psych game and picking-and-choosing of battles is no different than many other great players try to do. Nate Thurmond did this same kind of thing to Kareem. You play a rookie hard once, you've got their number the rest of their career get it? So put out 100% effort on them, once, right away, that makes sense to me. So does pacing yourself through most of a season or parts of a game. Don't know why Kblaze thinks Russell or other players didn't also pace themselves and use their maximum efforts sparingly. All I can say is from what I've understood about players and the game, Wilt is being pegged wrong when people suggest he never met his potential. I don't think Wilt Chamberlain could get any better than Wilt Chamberlain was.

[LAZERUSS]

I respect the hell out of Wilt despite having my gripes with his game (lack of dominating to the extent he could have just because he didn't feel like it), but citing his stats is just silly to me. Clearly those numbers aren't a reflection of what of what he'd do today, and that's not a knock against him.

I understand you can only play vs your own era and he certainly dominated his era more so than any other player when compared to their respective eras, but the stat citing in regards to "all-time" great games is just stupid.

Hypothetically, lets imagine an era of basketball where the available rebounds are half of what they were in the 60's, and teams were scoring about 75% of what they did in the 60's. When people begin to discuss "all-time" great games and someone brings up a game of Player A (in the former era mentioned with half available rebounds/75% points scored) dropping lets say 70 points and also 30 rebounds...wouldn't it be stupid to bring up a game where ___ from the 60's dropped 75 and 35 and act like it's indisputably better?

I mean you got guys like Lazerus coming on here writing novels citing stat after stat, as if it does anything to add to the discussion - without any context. I understand he has some weird obsession with Wilt and tries to defend him at the expense of being perceived as a incredibly large douche; but posting stat after stat from Wilt games in threads discussing/analyzing a huge game from players in different eras, serves no purpose.

CavaliersFTW - you seem a bit more rational/less delusional...so I'll ask you. Do you think it serves any purpose whatsoever, to comment on a thread, which lets say, is discussing a 30 rebound game from Vucevic...with paragraphs and paragraphs of Wilt stats from games where he had 30+ rebounds?

Listen...I have NEVER suggested that Wilt would score 50 ppg, or grab 27 rpg in TODAY's NBA.

And when I have used Wilt's actual numbers, it is generally for context purposes. The "bashers" always bring up "pace" in their anti-Wilt arguments, but they can never explain his pure domination. Just a quick example...if scoring were so much easier in the Wilt-era, how do explain that, aside from Wilt, there were a TOTAL of FIVE 60+ point games from the 59-60 to 72-73 seasons? And yet, Chamberlain had 32 by himself!

You want another example? Wilt had back-to-back games (two games in two nights) against none other than the 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy, and the 6-10 HOFer Bill Russell, in which he scored 135 points (73 and 62), on 56-93 FG/FGA (29-48 and 27-45), on 23-35 FT/FTA (15-25 and 8-10), with 64 rebounds (36 and 28.) Go ahead and reduce those numbers down to current levels ... and he still would have put up games of 61-24 and 52-19. (BTW, his actual FG% in those two games of .602, would translate to .700 in today's NBA.)

And that is my main point. Go ahead and remove the pure numbers. The fact remains that Wilt was LIGHT YEARS ahead of his peers. Furthermore, Kareem played four years in the Wilt era, and he never came close to Wilt's records. Nor was he even remotely close to Wilt's domination of the same centers that the two would face in their primes.

I'll leave you with just one more small 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.)

Again...why ONLY WILT?

[bdreason]

That's what happens when you let the brothas play.

[kamil]

Not only that, but as always, Chamberlain came up huge in an "at-the-brink" elimination game.

Find me another GOAT candidate who put up a 50+ point game in an absolute "must-win" playoff game (other than Wilt, himself, of course, who managed to accomplish that feat THREE times...as well as a 45 point game in a "must-win" Finals game.)

I heard Wilt dominated the game of basketball against a bunch of 5 foot white guys.

Is this true?

[LAZERUSS]

I heard Wilt dominated the game of basketball against a bunch of 5 foot white guys.

Is this true?

Nope. Wrong era. You were thinking of this era...

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/1001/nba_g_james_gb2_576.jpg

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hayesch01.html


and 6-5 3/4" centers like this guy...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hayesch01.html

[kamil]

Nope. Wrong era. You were thinking of this era...

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/1001/nba_g_james_gb2_576.jpg

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hayesch01.html


and 6-5 3/4" centers like this guy...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hayesch01.html

I didn't know JJ Barea and Chuck Hayes are the poster boys for elite NBA defence. Is the rest of the NBA really that bad?

[LAZERUSS]

I didn't know JJ Barea and Chuck Hayes are the poster boys for elite NBA defence. Is the rest of the NBA really that bad?

Barea shut down Lebron in the 2011 Finals.

[kamil]

Barea shut down Lebron in the 2011 Finals.

Interesting. So then, is/was LeBron not a good offensive player?

[Kblaze8855]

I disagree with Kblaze's rant. He says if a guy like Wilt can block Bellamy's first 9 shots, why doesn't he go at players like that all the time.

Well, if Kobe Bryant can score 81 points, or Wilt 100, or Hakeem can get you a Quad double... ya get me?

Same kind of thing. Wilt wanted to make a statement he made one, the reason he had the flexibility to do so is the same reason Russell had the flexibility to put a lid on the basket for key stretches of a game.

Neither Wilt, nor Russell played 100% effort/energy throughout an entire game. It isn't just Wilt. There's plenty of quotes of Russell explaining how you pick your moments in a basketball game to put your fingerprints on it - and you have that ability as a great player because you aren't always at 100% intensity and furthermore, that you CAN'T be at that kind of intensity all the time due to 80+ game seasons etc. You need to pace yourself, I think those are words Russell himself has stated.

Kblaze can have his opinions, that's fine, to be honest he just seems like he doesn't like Wilt's ego got pissed and made an emotional rant filled with what are pretty unfair criticisms as far as I can see.


**** outta here. I was defending Wilt on here 10 years before you showed up. The first topic I made on ISH was in the 01 season on the subject of Wilt being underrated. Ive never been emotional in any negative way about Wilt. Ive read all his books. Ive seen virtually every scrap of film. I used to download college footage of him off Emule when it would take a week to finish a file. What I am not and will never be...is a cheerleader.

Nobody is so great at basketball as to justify every word a reasonable person says being positive regardless of the comparison at the moment.

I mentioned Wilt seeming to have a lack of desire to win compared to his desire to impress people with his skills. What else should I take it to mean when he says himself...he let others dribble by at times because to stop them would make them...and by association all bigmen...look like unskilled bumbling giants? When Wilt tells us he could have dunked whenever he wanted....but instead took fadeaways and fingerolls he usually missed because it made him appear skilled? How is that not putting the perception of others over your own best performance? In a season he gets probably 10-12 offensive rebounds and putbacks a game and makes 99% of his dunks missing a big chunk of the fadeaways is the only way he could shoot 50%.

You actually believe that Wilt in the early 60s could only score half the time he attempted to? Wilt could have probably shot 65% in his peak scoring years. He said himself....himself...he took more difficult shots not because he had to...but because he wanted to appear more skilled.

How often you see someone make him angry and he just blows by for a dunk...in his 30s? Wilt was flat out sandbagging so he wouldnt hurt people, appear to be a bully, and set bigmen back in the eyes of fans who felt they were not skilled.

These arent my opinions. He flat out said it in A view from above in the chapter on being big and how self conscious he was.

Wilt did and said things time and time again to justify questioning his will to win. He criticized Russell for just wanting to win. Implied there was much more to life.

Which is true...but it is what it is.

You are not gonna tell me you can block every shot a guy takes...go out and prove it...and then tell him "Now you can play..." and let him score.....and have me not wonder why you dont just shut him down the whole game. You dont tell me you could steal the ball from any center who dared dribble...but you DONT...so you dont make bigmen look uncoordinated....and have me believe you wanted to win first and foremost. You dont tell me you can go by/over/through everyone and dunk at will....and then miss 8-9 fadeaways you dont have to take...and not have me question your approach.


Wilt was bigger, stronger, faster, and quicker than anyone who was in his way. He could have made everyone in his path look like bums. But he didnt. Even when he went off...he played to look good and not to embarrass anyone.

Ive seen interviews with people saying they got cheered after Wilt gave them 35-40 because they made him work...and they flat out say...Wilt took it easy on them. He didnt want to make them look bad. I think it was Darryl Imhoff. And he wasnt talking about when he held Wilt to like 60 after the 100 point game and the Garden cheered him. It was from his Laker years. It was an interview from the 80s on a playground somewhere(I was gathering such things 15 years ago).

Wilt Chamberlain was first and foremost...a godly talent....but second...he was a nice guy.

He wasnt a killer. He wasnt a Jordan..a Russell...a Bird. He did not do all he could to win games....and that is not my opinion.

You find another way to take the man himself saying he took it easy on people so he didnt make them look bad....ill take it that way.

I dont see any other way.

Wilt was utterly tireless, too strong to move, jumped too high to go over, and moves his feet too well to go around. There is no reason Walt Bellamy would just....start scoring on him....unless Wilt allowed it.

And you know what?

Him telling us that he allowed it....is evidence enough for me.

You know why?

Because being a fan of Wilt doesnt mean I ignore the obvious.

Being a fan makes me more interested in him. It damn sure doesnt mean I turn a blind eye to the truth.

The guy...at least in his youth before anyone could hold a candle to him....did not do all he could to win games.

That he could go 70% and drop 50/27 is a testament to his greatness. And nobody(fair) is denying that he was great. But the fact is....he was either letting people play better than he had to or you are calling him a liar. A slippery slope considering your apparent mission to prove that all he says and what was said about him was true. What...hes honest till you dont like what he said?

Dont take it out on me. I'll start scanning pages. The books are in my closet. I may be right or wrong in my interpretations... but im not gonna pull something like that out of my ass.

Wilt did not go as hard as he could. Thats either true...or you are telling me hes full of shit. Either way...its not on me.

Ive defended Wilt on ISH since day 1. But im nobodies cheerleader. The game and the truth comes before being a fan of anyone.

[swagga]

**** outta here. I was defending Wilt on here 10 years before you showed up. The first topic I made on ISH was in the 01 season on the subject of Wilt being underrated. Ive never been emotional in any negative way about Wilt. Ive read all his books. Ive seen virtually every scrap of film. I used to download college footage of him off Emule when it would take a week to finish a file. What I am not and will never be...is a cheerleader.

Nobody is so great at basketball as to justify every word a reasonable person says being positive regardless of the comparison at the moment.

I mentioned Wilt seeming to have a lack of desire to win compared to his desire to impress people with his skills. What else should I take it to mean when he says himself...he let others dribble by at times because to stop them would make them...and by association all bigmen...look like unskilled bumbling giants? When Wilt tells us he could have dunked whenever he wanted....but instead took fadeaways and fingerolls he usually missed because it made him appear skilled? How is that not putting the perception of others over your own best performance? In a season he gets probably 10-12 offensive rebounds and putbacks a game and makes 99% of his dunks missing a big chunk of the fadeaways is the only way he could shoot 50%.

You actually believe that Wilt in the early 60s could only score half the time he attempted to? Wilt could have probably shot 65% in his peak scoring years. He said himself....himself...he took more difficult shots not because he had to...but because he wanted to appear more skilled.

How often you see someone make him angry and he just blows by for a dunk...in his 30s? Wilt was flat out sandbagging so he wouldnt hurt people, appear to be a bully, and set bigmen back in the eyes of fans who felt they were not skilled.

These arent my opinions. He flat out said it in A view from above in the chapter on being big and how self conscious he was.

Wilt did and said things time and time again to justify questioning his will to win. He criticized Russell for just wanting to win. Implied there was much more to life.

Which is true...but it is what it is.

You are not gonna tell me you can block every shot a guy takes...go out and prove it...and then tell him "Now you can play..." and let him score.....and have me not wonder why you dont just shut him down the whole game. You dont tell me you could steal the ball from any center who dared dribble...but you DONT...so you dont make bigmen look uncoordinated....and have me believe you wanted to win first and foremost. You dont tell me you can go by/over/through everyone and dunk at will....and then miss 8-9 fadeaways you dont have to take...and not have me question your approach.


Wilt was bigger, stronger, faster, and quicker than anyone who was in his way. He could have made everyone in his path look like bums. But he didnt. Even when he went off...he played to look good and not to embarrass anyone.

Ive seen interviews with people saying they got cheered after Wilt gave them 35-40 because they made him work...and they flat out say...Wilt took it easy on them. He didnt want to make them look bad. I think it was Darryl Imhoff. And he wasnt talking about when he held Wilt to like 60 after the 100 point game and the Garden cheered him. It was from his Laker years. It was an interview from the 80s on a playground somewhere(I was gathering such things 15 years ago).

Wilt Chamberlain was first and foremost...a godly talent....but second...he was a nice guy.

He wasnt a killer. He wasnt a Jordan..a Russell...a Bird. He did not do all he could to win games....and that is not my opinion.

You find another way to take the man himself saying he took it easy on people so he didnt make them look bad....ill take it that way.

I dont see any other way.

Wilt was utterly tireless, too strong to move, jumped too high to go over, and moves his feet too well to go around. There is no reason Walt Bellamy would just....start scoring on him....unless Wilt allowed it.

And you know what?

Him telling us that he allowed it....is evidence enough for me.

You know why?

Because being a fan of Wilt doesnt mean I ignore the obvious.

Being a fan makes me more interested in him. It damn sure doesnt mean I turn a blind eye to the truth.

The guy...at least in his youth before anyone could hold a candle to him....did not do all he could to win games.

That he could go 70% and drop 50/27 is a testament to his greatness. And nobody(fair) is denying that he was great. But the fact is....he was either letting people play better than he had to or you are calling him a liar. A slippery slope considering your apparent mission to prove that all he says and what was said about him was true. What...hes honest till you dont like what he said?

Dont take it out on me. I'll start scanning pages. The books are in my closet. I may be right or wrong in my interpretations... but im not gonna pull something like that out of my ass.

Wilt did not go as hard as he could. Thats either true...or you are telling me hes full of shit. Either way...its not on me.

Ive defended Wilt on ISH since day 1. But im nobodies cheerleader. The game and the truth comes before being a fan of anyone.



but how can you not cheer for an immortal 7ft black man that wrestled a black witch with rabies after he destroyed her mountain lion WHILE averaging 50ppg, 25rbd, 10blk? I pray every day that he'll come back like Jesus to teach the NBA who the real goat is :bowdown:
proof from CuckFTW's channel:
http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-28-2015/_MIce4.gif
http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-28-2015/EOZ9Yt.gif


:lol

[LAZERUSS]

**** outta here. I was defending Wilt on here 10 years before you showed up. The first topic I made on ISH was in the 01 season on the subject of Wilt being underrated. Ive never been emotional in any negative way about Wilt. Ive read all his books. Ive seen virtually every scrap of film. I used to download college footage of him off Emule when it would take a week to finish a file. What I am not and will never be...is a cheerleader.

Nobody is so great at basketball as to justify every word a reasonable person says being positive regardless of the comparison at the moment.

I mentioned Wilt seeming to have a lack of desire to win compared to his desire to impress people with his skills. What else should I take it to mean when he says himself...he let others dribble by at times because to stop them would make them...and by association all bigmen...look like unskilled bumbling giants? When Wilt tells us he could have dunked whenever he wanted....but instead took fadeaways and fingerolls he usually missed because it made him appear skilled? How is that not putting the perception of others over your own best performance? In a season he gets probably 10-12 offensive rebounds and putbacks a game and makes 99% of his dunks missing a big chunk of the fadeaways is the only way he could shoot 50%.

You actually believe that Wilt in the early 60s could only score half the time he attempted to? Wilt could have probably shot 65% in his peak scoring years. He said himself....himself...he took more difficult shots not because he had to...but because he wanted to appear more skilled.

How often you see someone make him angry and he just blows by for a dunk...in his 30s? Wilt was flat out sandbagging so he wouldnt hurt people, appear to be a bully, and set bigmen back in the eyes of fans who felt they were not skilled.

These arent my opinions. He flat out said it in A view from above in the chapter on being big and how self conscious he was.

Wilt did and said things time and time again to justify questioning his will to win. He criticized Russell for just wanting to win. Implied there was much more to life.

Which is true...but it is what it is.

You are not gonna tell me you can block every shot a guy takes...go out and prove it...and then tell him "Now you can play..." and let him score.....and have me not wonder why you dont just shut him down the whole game. You dont tell me you could steal the ball from any center who dared dribble...but you DONT...so you dont make bigmen look uncoordinated....and have me believe you wanted to win first and foremost. You dont tell me you can go by/over/through everyone and dunk at will....and then miss 8-9 fadeaways you dont have to take...and not have me question your approach.


Wilt was bigger, stronger, faster, and quicker than anyone who was in his way. He could have made everyone in his path look like bums. But he didnt. Even when he went off...he played to look good and not to embarrass anyone.

Ive seen interviews with people saying they got cheered after Wilt gave them 35-40 because they made him work...and they flat out say...Wilt took it easy on them. He didnt want to make them look bad. I think it was Darryl Imhoff. And he wasnt talking about when he held Wilt to like 60 after the 100 point game and the Garden cheered him. It was from his Laker years. It was an interview from the 80s on a playground somewhere(I was gathering such things 15 years ago).

Wilt Chamberlain was first and foremost...a godly talent....but second...he was a nice guy.

He wasnt a killer. He wasnt a Jordan..a Russell...a Bird. He did not do all he could to win games....and that is not my opinion.

You find another way to take the man himself saying he took it easy on people so he didnt make them look bad....ill take it that way.

I dont see any other way.

Wilt was utterly tireless, too strong to move, jumped too high to go over, and moves his feet too well to go around. There is no reason Walt Bellamy would just....start scoring on him....unless Wilt allowed it.

And you know what?

Him telling us that he allowed it....is evidence enough for me.

You know why?

Because being a fan of Wilt doesnt mean I ignore the obvious.

Being a fan makes me more interested in him. It damn sure doesnt mean I turn a blind eye to the truth.

The guy...at least in his youth before anyone could hold a candle to him....did not do all he could to win games.

That he could go 70% and drop 50/27 is a testament to his greatness. And nobody(fair) is denying that he was great. But the fact is....he was either letting people play better than he had to or you are calling him a liar. A slippery slope considering your apparent mission to prove that all he says and what was said about him was true. What...hes honest till you dont like what he said?

Dont take it out on me. I'll start scanning pages. The books are in my closet. I may be right or wrong in my interpretations... but im not gonna pull something like that out of my ass.

Wilt did not go as hard as he could. Thats either true...or you are telling me hes full of shit. Either way...its not on me.

Ive defended Wilt on ISH since day 1. But im nobodies cheerleader. The game and the truth comes before being a fan of anyone.

Yeah...why didn't Wilt completely shut down every playr he played against?

In that first Bellamy encounter, after he "let" Bellamy score, the final totals were... Wilt 51 points, Bellamy 14.

The same Bellamy who would average 33 ppg against RUSSELL in their 10 H2H games that same season.

Sure, Wilt could have pulled this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3FXLyNFew

For exactly ONE sequence. How do I KNOW that??? Because the NBA constantly put in RULES aimed strictly at WILT. Had Wilt just steamrolled Bellamy or Russell...he would have fouled out on that one sequence. When Chamberlain was found dunking his FTs in college...the NCAA (and of course followed by the NBA) banned such "freakish activity." When Wilt was easily scoring 50+ ppg on virtually every center in the league, including Russell...they widened the lane (of course, it had ZERO effect on Chamberlain, and a far greater impact on the rest of the league.) BTW, Alcindor came to UCLA in '67, and immediately dominated college basketball...how come they didn't widen the college lane to match the NBA?

And speaking of Alcindor/Kareem... in his 71-72 season he AVERAGED 45 ppg against Dave Cowens, including multiple 50 point games, and a career high of 55. And in the first six games of the '74 Finals, he AVERAGED 34 ppg against Cowens. Just destroyed him. What happened in game seven? Cowens completely outplayed him, particularly in the 4th quarter, and Kareem walked off his home floor with a blowout defeat. How could he have "let" that happen?

And there were MANY games in the 70's in which Kareem just "went thru the motions." Games where a Neal Walk, or a Clifford Ray would hold him to sub-par games. Then, an Elvin Hayes would go up against him, and BOOM, Kareem would unload a 40+ point game. Or a 50 point game on Walton. Even near the end of his career, while he would put up considerably less numbers against the rest of the NBA, he would absolutely DEMOLISH Hakeem (or Ewing.) Why didn't he do that EVERY game?

How about Shaq? Pounded Mutombo in the '01 Finals. 33 ppg and 15 rpg in a series rout. What happened in his '97 playoff series against a bum like Ostertag, then? 22 ppg on a .494 FG%...in a 4-1 blowout series loss? And there is footage on YouTube with the 6-8 Dennis Rodman, mostly in man-to-man coverage...just shutting him down. Hell, I can find games where a complete bust like Eddy Curry badly outplayed him.

Oh, and how about "the killer instinct" of RUSSELL?

Explain this to me...

In the clinching game five of the '66 EDF's, and with his team facing elimination, Wilt unloaded a 46-34 game on Russell and his swarming Celtics..albeit in a close loss.

Ok, let's fast forward to the very next season. Now, suddenly it was RUSSELL who was faced with the same exact situation. His Celtics were down 3-1, and facing elimination. Did the "clutch" Russell rise and completely mop the floor with Wilt, as Wilt had done to him just the year before? Hell no...he quietly led his team like a lamb lading his flock to slaughter. He put up a measley FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, all while getting crushed by Wilt at the offensive end, battered by Wilt on the glass, and watching helplessly as Wilt would pass to open teammates who hit their shots. Chamberlain scored 29 points in that game, 22 of them in the first half, when the game was still close...and on 10-16 shooting, while outrebounding a helpless Russell, 36-21, and outassisting him, 13-7.

Of course, Wilt ROUTINELY CRUSHED Russell in their H2H's, including the PLAYOFFS. What FINALLY changed for Wilt, was that his teammates FINALLY outplayed Russell's.

In any case, while you can find game-after-game in which Chamberlain just castrated Russell...where are Russell's against Wilt?


Continued...

[kamil]

Interesting. So then, is/was LeBron not a good offensive player?

Anyone? Anyone?

Or does Barea happen to be an elite defender?

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

I call it "The Wilt DOUBLE STANDARD."

Chamberlain was EXPECTED to put up 50-25 games. A 40-20 game was a disappointment. How come? How come ONLY Wilt?

Larry Bird probably choked more than any other all-time great in the post-season. And Kareem wasn't far behind. I can find game-after-big game, in which those two flat out blew chunks. Even complete SERIES. In Bird's greatest statistical season, 87-88, he has the worst post-season of his career. In Kareem's greatest statistical season, 71-72, he couldn't hit a shot for his life in the post-season.

Same with Russell in ANY series against Wilt. Russell beefed up his post-season numbers against the Lakers in the 60's. Against Wilt? He was badly outplayed in EVERY series, and in the vast majority of their games.

Yet...when these Russell-Wilt "discussions" are brought up...oh, Russell was the "winner", and Wilt was the "choking loser." Of course, what is NEVER mentioned is that Russell always had superior supporting casts, and not only that, Wilt's teammates generally played much worse in the post-season.

The 64-65 EDF's are a testament to that. Chamberlain single-handedly carried a 40-40 roster, that had gone 34-46 the year before, and traded away three players to get Wilt...to a game seven, one point loss against a stacked 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of their dynasty. And in that game seven, Wilt not only put up a 30-32 game on 80% shooting from the field...he scored eight of Philly's last 10 points, including 2-2 from the line with 36 secs left, and a dunk over Russell with 5 secs left that pulled the Sixers to within 110-109. What did the "clutch" Russell do next? He hit the guidewire above his basket with his inbounds pass, and gave Philly an opportunity to pull off the greatest upset in NBA history. Of course, and as always, a teammate saved Russell's ass, as "Havlicek stole the ball!" Oh, and in that series, all Chamberlain did was average 30 ppg, 31 rpg, and shoot .555 from the field.

How about the '62 EDF's? In game seven, Chamberlain scores his team's last five points, and pulls them into a tie with a few seconds left. Not only that, but he had been called for a controversial goal-tend on a Sam Jones shot a moments earlier. Then, Jones hits the game-winner, just past the outstretched fingertips of...you guessed it... Wilt. Think about that. While Russell had a TON of help in trying to defend Wilt...Wilt was having to guard the ENTIRE Celtic team at the other end.

BTW, even Russell has credited Sam Jones with SIX season-saving shots in their first eight title runs. Couple of always clutch Jones, with the brilliant Havlicek, and it comes as no surprise as to why Russell was holding 11 rings.

Conversely, Wilt's teammates, most of whom were trash to begin with...usually vomited all over the floor in their post-seasons. I have always found it fascinating that Jerry West was considered a "hero" in the '69 Finals...in a series in which he averaged 38 ppg...BUT, in a losing cause. Had Wilt put up those numbers, as he often did, and his team lost...well, it was because he would have been a selfish, stats-padding choker.

In fact, take away West's play in the '69 Finals, and you could make an argument that Wilt never had any other teammates play exceptionally well...in his entire post-season career. West did play well in the first five games of the '70 Finals, but Chamberlain carried them in the must-win game six, and then West was awful against Frazier in a game seven defeat.

In any case, it was the WILT DOUBLE STANDARD.

I have read a quote supposedly by Wilt, in which he said that there were more important things than winning, and that you have to learn to lose, too.
Of course, it was probably taken out of context (as he so often was), and more than likely in the mid-60's, when he would play brilliantly, but his team would invariably lose a close series-clinching game. By that time, he was already being labeled a "stats-padder" who only cared out his own stats, and not winning.

All of which is odd...since those that KNEW Wilt claimed that he HATED losing...at ANYTHING.

Furthermore...how about this quote...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8825003&postcount=26

Here was a Wilt, coming back from MAJOR KNEE SURGERY, and WAY AHEAD of even the most optomistic medical opinion...and playing in the post-season....despite not being anywhere near 100% (and then putting up a staggering post-season run, including a 23-24 .625 FG% Finals.)

Or how about Chamberlain not only PLAYING in a clinching game five of the '72 Finals...with one badly sprained wrist, and the other FRACTURED...but then DOMINATING the game with a 24-29-8 performance?

Do you think Kareem would have played with a broken wrist? You better think again, he missed CHUNKS of TWO separate season with broken wrists. Hell, he missed a clinching Finals game with an ankle sprain.

How about Wilt in the '67-68 EDF's, and playing with assortment of injuries, including a similar tear as to what Willis Reed would suffer in the '70 Finals. While Reed either missed entire games, or did nothing in the games he played...a badly hobbled Wilt played every minute of a seven game series, and put up a 22-25-7 series in the process.

Does that sound like a player who didn't care about winning?

The WILT DOUBLE STANDARD.

[CavaliersFTW]

**** outta here. I was defending Wilt on here 10 years before you showed up. The first topic I made on ISH was in the 01 season on the subject of Wilt being underrated. Ive never been emotional in any negative way about Wilt. Ive read all his books. Ive seen virtually every scrap of film. I used to download college footage of him off Emule when it would take a week to finish a file. What I am not and will never be...is a cheerleader.

Nobody is so great at basketball as to justify every word a reasonable person says being positive regardless of the comparison at the moment.

I mentioned Wilt seeming to have a lack of desire to win compared to his desire to impress people with his skills. What else should I take it to mean when he says himself...he let others dribble by at times because to stop them would make them...and by association all bigmen...look like unskilled bumbling giants? When Wilt tells us he could have dunked whenever he wanted....but instead took fadeaways and fingerolls he usually missed because it made him appear skilled? How is that not putting the perception of others over your own best performance? In a season he gets probably 10-12 offensive rebounds and putbacks a game and makes 99% of his dunks missing a big chunk of the fadeaways is the only way he could shoot 50%.

You actually believe that Wilt in the early 60s could only score half the time he attempted to? Wilt could have probably shot 65% in his peak scoring years. He said himself....himself...he took more difficult shots not because he had to...but because he wanted to appear more skilled.

How often you see someone make him angry and he just blows by for a dunk...in his 30s? Wilt was flat out sandbagging so he wouldnt hurt people, appear to be a bully, and set bigmen back in the eyes of fans who felt they were not skilled.

These arent my opinions. He flat out said it in A view from above in the chapter on being big and how self conscious he was.

Wilt did and said things time and time again to justify questioning his will to win. He criticized Russell for just wanting to win. Implied there was much more to life.

Which is true...but it is what it is.

You are not gonna tell me you can block every shot a guy takes...go out and prove it...and then tell him "Now you can play..." and let him score.....and have me not wonder why you dont just shut him down the whole game. You dont tell me you could steal the ball from any center who dared dribble...but you DONT...so you dont make bigmen look uncoordinated....and have me believe you wanted to win first and foremost. You dont tell me you can go by/over/through everyone and dunk at will....and then miss 8-9 fadeaways you dont have to take...and not have me question your approach.


Wilt was bigger, stronger, faster, and quicker than anyone who was in his way. He could have made everyone in his path look like bums. But he didnt. Even when he went off...he played to look good and not to embarrass anyone.

Ive seen interviews with people saying they got cheered after Wilt gave them 35-40 because they made him work...and they flat out say...Wilt took it easy on them. He didnt want to make them look bad. I think it was Darryl Imhoff. And he wasnt talking about when he held Wilt to like 60 after the 100 point game and the Garden cheered him. It was from his Laker years. It was an interview from the 80s on a playground somewhere(I was gathering such things 15 years ago).

Wilt Chamberlain was first and foremost...a godly talent....but second...he was a nice guy.

He wasnt a killer. He wasnt a Jordan..a Russell...a Bird. He did not do all he could to win games....and that is not my opinion.

You find another way to take the man himself saying he took it easy on people so he didnt make them look bad....ill take it that way.

I dont see any other way.

Wilt was utterly tireless, too strong to move, jumped too high to go over, and moves his feet too well to go around. There is no reason Walt Bellamy would just....start scoring on him....unless Wilt allowed it.

And you know what?

Him telling us that he allowed it....is evidence enough for me.

You know why?

Because being a fan of Wilt doesnt mean I ignore the obvious.

Being a fan makes me more interested in him. It damn sure doesnt mean I turn a blind eye to the truth.

The guy...at least in his youth before anyone could hold a candle to him....did not do all he could to win games.

That he could go 70% and drop 50/27 is a testament to his greatness. And nobody(fair) is denying that he was great. But the fact is....he was either letting people play better than he had to or you are calling him a liar. A slippery slope considering your apparent mission to prove that all he says and what was said about him was true. What...hes honest till you dont like what he said?

Dont take it out on me. I'll start scanning pages. The books are in my closet. I may be right or wrong in my interpretations... but im not gonna pull something like that out of my ass.

Wilt did not go as hard as he could. Thats either true...or you are telling me hes full of shit. Either way...its not on me.

Ive defended Wilt on ISH since day 1. But im nobodies cheerleader. The game and the truth comes before being a fan of anyone.
I still disagree with you and I'll point out why. By the way, I disagree respectfully, I hope you don't take it as disrespect I know you've been around and are a fan of the game and games history and know it well. But in this particular topic I think you may be blurring the lines between lack of desire to physically hurt people, with lack of competitiveness.

There is not a single person who knew Wilt as a teammate or competitor that I've heard testimony from that suggested he didn't have an insatiable desire to win and to be the best ever. This, being the exact same attribute a player like Russell, Bird, or MJ also had. The testimony is virtually unanimous, if you knew Wilt you got the impression he wanted to win and be the best, at everything and he wanted titles. It's pretty much a unanimous testimony from those who knew him that paint him that way.

He lacked "killer instinct" is a phrase that was used towards him by people who saw and understood that he didn't want to physically hurt his opponents. There's a huge huge difference to this, and thinking he wasn't doing everything else out there that he could to win - IE drawing some sort of conclusion that he wasn't competitive or a competitor. I don't believe you shatter records on talent, you shatter them on talent+drive to be the best ever. If he WASN'T those guys in any sort of way, it's that he wasn't those guys in terms of being willing to punch people in the face or elbow them in the ribs, or slam a dunk down on their hands so hard he might break them, you know to possibly hurt opponents as a means to gain advantage.

My mission isn't to prove everything said about him is correct. My objectives are to present the story, the whole story, as it happened, and go back to the original sources so that they aren't lost in time. I'll find the newspapers, the film, the interviews w/e to reveal what people said about him, what he said, what happened, whatever. My own opinion is more or less irrelevant here. But I can tell you with certainty, he's being pegged wrong if you lump lack of desire to win with lack of desire to physically hurt people.

Listen for a few moments of testimony here:

https://youtu.be/_B7jVTJ_CIE?t=9m49s

And honestly, I don't hold things he said with much truth, I'm consistent about that. If he wrote about his opinions in a book or in an article, well he flip flops all over the place and has a massive ego, and a massively fragile one at that. He'll often say reactionary things to criticism, boast, w/e. If he said "I wasn't out to win" in his book for example, or anything to indicate that, I'd call BS. Because everyone who knew him said otherwise, and he's been caught lying or talking out the side of his mouth many more times than they have. Take his records for example. I don't believe he ever chased a record with intent to do so at the sacrifice of a title. I believe he chased titles first, and eventually after years of media harping on the guy for not being able to win I believe he just grew accustomed to saying/owning the stance "well look at what I DID do (set records)". During the time he played? This was his attitude he expressed when being interviewed:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bavvtU3Cyrg/VUAYiuFMHBI/AAAAAAAAGKE/7aAeQnUiijw/s0/Wilt%2520Chamberlain%2520blocked%252020%2520shots% 25201962%2520vs%2520packers%2520double-triple-double.jpg

As far as Bill Russell, and Wilt blocking Bellamy's first 9 shots (inside the free throw line) than saying he'd allow him to play? I'll just say this quote by Bill Russell: "The idea isn't to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent think you can block every shot."

And post this article of Hayes on Russell:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bxnEqG4u2tY/VUAb3OmqNMI/AAAAAAAAGKQ/spw8fj2SXDc/s1280/Hayes%2520talks%2520about%2520Russell%2520and%2520 Chamberlain.jpg
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EeZVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=h-EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6635%2C3111867

It's the same thing.

[Asukal]

The reason why Wilt didn't block every shot or shutdown his man all the time was simple, HE CAN'T.

Are you seriously telling me he would allow his man to score in the playoffs so that they would look good? GTFO here! :facepalm :whatever:

The simple truth is Wilt didn't have the mental game down. He was a superstar with a role player's mentality. In ISH terms, he was a beta. :oldlol:

[Dr.J4ever]

The truth about Wilt is complex, and it will never be resolved. People on both sides will always disagree about him. That won't change.

In a game where only 1 player at a time has the ball, one dominant player can have an enormous impact. One truly great player has an enormously large say on whether Team A wins or losses. And yet, Wilt only won 2 titles, despite being the most physically dominant individual of his time, and possibly of all time.

At the end of the day, the best players are the players that make their teams win, whether it be through sheer dominance, or just leadership, fortitude, and heart. Wilt always had the former, but not the latter characteristics.

Meanwhile, basketball history is still being written as we speak with the NBA playoffs raging. I would rather focus on that.

[LAZERUSS]

The truth about Wilt is complex, and it will never be resolved. People on both sides will always disagree about him. That won't change.

In a game where only 1 player at a time has the ball, one dominant player can have an enormous impact. One truly great player has an enormously large say on whether Team A wins or losses. And yet, Wilt only won 2 titles, despite being the most physically dominant individual of his time, and possibly of all time.

At the end of the day, the best players are the players that make their teams win, whether it be through sheer dominance, or just leadership, fortitude, and heart. Wilt always had the former, but not the latter characteristics.

Meanwhile, basketball history is still being written as we speak with the NBA playoffs raging. I would rather focus on that.

Wilt's TEAM's were a mere NINE total points away from holding a 5-3 edge over Russell and his Celtics. And in those series, Chamberlain dominated Russell, and aside from ONE, he was clearly the best player on the floor in ALL of them. In some of them he annihilated Russell "the winner."

John Wooden said it best....

Had Wilt had Russell's rosters, and Auerbach, and it would have been WILT holding all those rings.

[LAZERUSS]

The truth about Wilt is complex, and it will never be resolved. People on both sides will always disagree about him. That won't change.

In a game where only 1 player at a time has the ball, one dominant player can have an enormous impact. One truly great player has an enormously large say on whether Team A wins or losses. And yet, Wilt only won 2 titles, despite being the most physically dominant individual of his time, and possibly of all time.

At the end of the day, the best players are the players that make their teams win, whether it be through sheer dominance, or just leadership, fortitude, and heart. Wilt always had the former, but not the latter characteristics.

Meanwhile, basketball history is still being written as we speak with the NBA playoffs raging. I would rather focus on that.

Let me ask you this...

How come a PEAK to PRIME Kareem won exactly ONE ring in his first ten seasons (and only went to two Finals?) Watch footage of the '77 series against Walton and his Blazers, and with a straight face, tell us all here that Walton was the better player.

How come MJ went 1-9 in his first 10 playoff games (including 0-6 against Bird's Celtics)? Or that MJ didn't have a winning playoff record in his first six post-seasons? How come a completely refreshed MJ couldn't lead his '95 Bulls...the core of which had gone 55-27 the year before (I know...no Horace Grant)...to a title?

How come Bird lost SEVEN times with HCA...including being swept in one of them (and playing horribly, as well)?

How come a prime Shaq was SWEPT SIX times in the playoffs?

How come a PEAK Kobe couldn't past the first round?

How come Hakeem was blown out EIGHT times in the First Round?

How come a dominant Moses could only win ONE ring?

How come your boy Dr. J couldn't win titles in '77, '80, and '82? He certainly had teams good enough to get to the Finals.

You can go right down the list.

Yet, Chamberlain, who lost to the eventual champion TEN times, and won two dominating rings, in his 13 post-seasons...is considered a "loser?" The same Wilt who was taking 40-40 last place rosters to a game seven, one point loss against a peak 62-18 Celtic team...in a series in which he crushed another GOAT (some claim THE GOAT), by a HUGE margin. Arguably the worst beatdown ever bestowed on another GOAT (and then he destroyed him AND his Celtics two years later)?

TEAM game.

Wilt = GOAT.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[LAZERUSS]

Chamberlain the "choking loser"...


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 (the ONLY three by a GOAT in NBA history)

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 how about this...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


W-L : 24-13

Here were Wilt's averages in those 37 games:

29.5 ppg

26.1 rpg

4.2 apg (missing one game)

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

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

[Simple Jack]

LAZERUS, what did your prior post in response to Kblaze's thoughts on Wilt have anything to do with the point he was making?

No one is doubting Wilt's greatness (no one who is to be taken seriously that is), nor is anyone saying he wasn't competitive. But I think history suggests he wasn't nearly as competitive as he could have been, at least relative to some other players who exemplify the epitome of competitive drive. What else explains his lack of dominating at times, for reasons like wanting to make big men not look unskilled? How does that mindset, in any way, suggest he was being as competitive as he possibly could have been?

Edit: LAZERUS - you are proving my point. What purpose does it serve to constantly post the same garbage thread after thread? Posting the same stats over and over again literally does nothing to further the conversation. Just makes you look like you have a serious mental illness.

[CavaliersFTW]

LAZERUS, what did your prior post in response to Kblaze's thoughts on Wilt have anything to do with the point he was making?

No one is doubting Wilt's greatness (no one who is to be taken seriously that is), nor is anyone saying he wasn't competitive. But I think history suggests he wasn't nearly as competitive as he could have been, at least relative to some other players who exemplify the epitome of competitive drive. What else explains his lack of dominating at times, for reasons like wanting to make big men not look unskilled? How does that mindset, in any way, suggest he was being as competitive as he possibly could have been?

Edit: LAZERUS - you are proving my point. What purpose does it serve to constantly post the same garbage thread after thread? Posting the same stats over and over again literally does nothing to further the conversation. Just makes you look like you have a serious mental illness.
No it absolutely does not.

https://youtu.be/_B7jVTJ_CIE?t=9m50s

"Wilt did not like to lose he always wanted to win" - former NBA player Jim Barnett

"(Wilt) Wanted to win at everything he did... Every-thing. he. did." - Kansas Journalist Bill Mayer, friend of Wilts

"There's only one other athlete that I would compare to Wilt from a standpoint of being competitive and wanting to win at everything they did and that would be Michael Jordan. If you beat him, you had to keep playing cause he was determined to be a winner." - Maurice King former teammate at KU

Want more testimony like this? I've got tons. Wilt is described by everyone who knew him as one of the most competitive people that they had ever known let alone played the game. Compared with people like Michael Jordan in that aspect of his mentality. Like I said in my last post, lack of desire to physically hurt people is in no way the same thing as competitive drive to win.

You don't go out and shatter records no one had ever thought was possible nor anyone could ever touch on talent. You do that if you've got talent but are also a psycho competitor.

[Dr.J4ever]

@Laz, Wilt is not a loser. He's an NBA champion, but he's not one of the best champions ever. If he never won a title, he would have slid further down among the Goats.

Let me address your questions by discussing 2 of the players I'm more familiar with first hand--Doc and Moses.

I might be the only person on this board that would rank Julius among the top 10 or close to it. Why is that? Could it be because Julius didn't win in '77, 80, and '82? Because if he did win those, he would outrank Bird, and he would still be ahead of Lebron. I can accept that I may be biased in ranking him higher than others on this board who are not as invested emotionally with the Doc.

Similarly, Moses couldn't even be a centerpiece of a great team until he was installed in a 76er team that was already elite and built around Julius. Moses was the final piece in a team that was 2 games away from beating Kaj's Lakers of 1982. In 1981, this same 76er team lost by a point to Bird's Celtics in game 7. Waiting in the wings that season in the Finals were the over matched and .500 ball club, Moses' Houston Rockets.

Why does 1 team's great player triumph over another? As I said, it's complex, and a myriad of factors are involved, but there's always a couple of things that sometimes stand out.

Did Doc have the will of Michael Jordan? Or even Bird, for that matter? I can say, in all honesty, no. Doc, at times, dominated the game as well any SF before or after him, but he never willed his teams to go the extra mile, in terms of team success. He was never a vocal leader, and he led by example. He was too nice of a guy. He didn't get in anyone's face. Bird and Jordan did just that.

Moses was the same as Doc. Moses worked as hard as any player ever in the paint. But he was quiet, and he deferred leadership to Doc. Once Doc aged in 1984, and was no longer as "hungry", the 76ers declined, even though Moses was arguably still in his prime.

Sometimes physical trait and raw stats won't get you to multiple titles. Remember I said there were key traits that the greatest of champions shared: leadership, fortitude, and heart. The best ever "willed" their teams to multiple titles. They had a fire inside that couldn't be quenched.

Based on some of my readings and knowledge(including Kblaze) of Wilt, can you in all honesty say he wanted to win as many titles as Russell and would pay any price like Russell did?

[Simple Jack]

No it absolutely does not.

https://youtu.be/_B7jVTJ_CIE?t=9m50s

"Wilt did not like to lose he always wanted to win" - former NBA player Jim Barnett

"(Wilt) Wanted to win at everything he did... Every-thing. he. did." - Kansas Journalist Bill Mayer, friend of Wilts

"There's only one other athlete that I would compare to Wilt from a standpoint of being competitive and wanting to win at everything they did and that would be Michael Jordan. If you beat him, you had to keep playing cause he was determined to be a winner." - Maurice King former teammate at KU

Want more testimony like this? I've got tons. Wilt is described by everyone who knew him as one of the most competitive people that they had ever known let alone played the game. Compared with people like Michael Jordan in that aspect of his mentality. Like I said in my last post, lack of desire to physically hurt people is in no way the same thing as competitive drive to win.

You don't go out and shatter records no one had ever thought was possible nor anyone could ever touch on talent. You do that if you've got talent but are also a psycho competitor.

How does taking an off-balance fadeaway for the sake of not embarrassing another player or the position of big-men in general, relate to not wanting to hurt people? It's not black or white. No one is saying he isn't a great competitor; just that he wasn't competitive enough relative to the others who you'd put in that special class of players (who would quite literally do anything to win).

There's quotes from Wilt himself discussing a very different narrative. Why should I take quotes from someone else as being conclusory on the topic?

[CavaliersFTW]

How does taking an off-balance fadeaway for the sake of not embarrassing another player or the position of big-men in general, relate to not wanting to hurt people? It's not black or white. No one is saying he isn't a great competitor; just that he wasn't competitive enough relative to the others who you'd put in that special class of players (who would quite literally do anything to win).

There's quotes from Wilt himself discussing a very different narrative. Why should I take quotes from someone else as being conclusory on the topic?
Don't get into the bad habit of making/asserting your assumptions, and then not backing them up with sources that point to where you came up with said assumptiosn. I mean you've left no citation, nothing?

When did Wilt or anyone who knows Wilt ever say that his fade-away shot was developed or taken as a means of "not embarassing opponents".

[CavaliersFTW]

Another candidate?:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-PCHdhX62evg/VUPAqbIZ-nI/AAAAAAAAGLM/qtfGFJ0H37A/s1280/NBA%2520EDF%2520Sixers%2520vs%2520Boston%2520G1%25 201967%2520Wilt%2520quadruple%2520double.jpg

Quadruple-Double

24pts (9-13fg, 6-10ft) 35reb 12a 12blks

In an EDF first game win over the Boston Celtics - he would actually have another Quadruple-Double in the Finals against Thurmond that same playoff run (10, 38 (sets playoff-half-rebound record of 26), 10 and 10) and the Sixers win the title that season.

[Psileas]

Game 5 was equally impressive: 29/36/13/7 blocked shots. And 20/41/9 in the middle (game 3). If you took these 3 games alone and spread them in 3 different postseasons of some great player's career, all 3 of them would be considered golden moments of NBA history. :lol

[La Frescobaldi]

@Laz, Wilt is not a loser. He's an NBA champion, but he's not one of the best champions ever. If he never won a title, he would have slid further down among the Goats.

Let me address your questions by discussing 2 of the players I'm more familiar with first hand--Doc and Moses.

I might be the only person on this board that would rank Julius among the top 10 or close to it. Why is that? Could it be because Julius didn't win in '77, 80, and '82? Because if he did win those, he would outrank Bird, and he would still be ahead of Lebron. I can accept that I may be biased in ranking him higher than others on this board who are not as invested emotionally with the Doc.

Similarly, Moses couldn't even be a centerpiece of a great team until he was installed in a 76er team that was already elite and built around Julius. Moses was the final piece in a team that was 2 games away from beating Kaj's Lakers of 1982. In 1981, this same 76er team lost by a point to Bird's Celtics in game 7. Waiting in the wings that season in the Finals were the over matched and .500 ball club, Moses' Houston Rockets.

Why does 1 team's great player triumph over another? As I said, it's complex, and a myriad of factors are involved, but there's always a couple of things that sometimes stand out.

Did Doc have the will of Michael Jordan? Or even Bird, for that matter? I can say, in all honesty, no. Doc, at times, dominated the game as well any SF before or after him, but he never willed his teams to go the extra mile, in terms of team success. He was never a vocal leader, and he led by example. He was too nice of a guy. He didn't get in anyone's face. Bird and Jordan did just that.

Moses was the same as Doc. Moses worked as hard as any player ever in the paint. But he was quiet, and he deferred leadership to Doc. Once Doc aged in 1984, and was no longer as "hungry", the 76ers declined, even though Moses was arguably still in his prime.

Sometimes physical trait and raw stats won't get you to multiple titles. Remember I said there were key traits that the greatest of champions shared: leadership, fortitude, and heart. The best ever "willed" their teams to multiple titles. They had a fire inside that couldn't be quenched.

Based on some of my readings and knowledge(including Kblaze) of Wilt, can you in all honesty say he wanted to win as many titles as Russell and would pay any price like Russell did?

Get real. Great teams win titles.

No player, no matter how great, can overcome a weak team roster nor injuries to his team, to win a championship.
Not Jabbar, not Bird, not Shaq, not Jordan, not Moses Malone, not Duncan, not Wilkins, not Wilt Chamberlain, not Kobe Bryant, not Magic, not LeBron James. It cannot be done, and the greatest players who ever lived have proved that for decades untold.
Every one of those guys has been the best player in the NBA in a season (and in more than just a season) when they did not win a title.

If you really still don't understand that fact after watching the NBA since Julius Erving won a ring in 1983, you aren't ever gonna understand basketball.

[Dr.J4ever]

Get real. Great teams win titles.

No player, no matter how great, can overcome a weak team roster nor injuries to his team, to win a championship.
Not Jabbar, not Bird, not Shaq, not Jordan, not Moses Malone, not Duncan, not Wilkins, not Wilt Chamberlain, not Kobe Bryant, not Magic, not LeBron James. It cannot be done, and the greatest players who ever lived have proved that for decades untold.
Every one of those guys has been the best player in the NBA in a season (and in more than just a season) when they did not win a title.

If you really still don't understand that fact after watching the NBA since Julius Erving won a ring in 1983, you aren't ever gonna understand basketball.

I keep going back to Erving's losses in 77, 80, and 82. If he won those years, how would it have changed history and how would he be judged today? Well, when you combine his full resume and winning 3 additional titles in the NBA(I won't include 83 because if Doc won other titles before Moses, I doubt Moses ever comes to Philly), and add in 2 other ABA titles, Erving is the goat SF. He would clearly be better than Bird. Today, he would still be ahead of Lebron.

Fair or not, Doc has been judged on no. of titles he has won and lost in the NBA. One standard must be applied to view other greats like Bird, Magic or Wilt. I can live with that.

Even though today's NBA is becoming less and less about one player's individual brilliance, the rules of the sport still dictate that only 1 player has full control of the ball at any one time. Therefore the impact of 1 player, offensively, is enormous. On defense, great centers can totally change teams almost overnight.

It's hard to determine how much effect one player has in winning titles, but we do know that the best players eventually break through at some point in their careers. Not only do the best players impact the play of their team mates, but front office people and GMs suddenly have the vision to build their rosters around their great players. The universe somehow conspires because it is easier to be sure on betting that Julius and Moses win titles than Dawkins and Steve Mix somehow combining to win titles. It's an extreme point, but it makes sense.

I mean, is it really a coincidence that Erving has competed for titles his entire career? Whether it is in the NBA or ABA, with the exception of Virginia, Doc has played for contenders. Sure, he has made the play of his teammates better, but there is also his charisma and other factors that have made other people build rosters around him that could win and contend. So through him, not only do his teammates improve, but so does the job of the GM. A suddenly inspired GM will find those role players that would fit well and build around their superstars.

This is why ultimately, history judges the best players ever on titles won or lost. Granted, it's not absolute and it's difficult to measure, but it's the fairest way.

[BigNBAfan]

can buy a car under 2k in that era

gtfo

[La Frescobaldi]

I keep going back to Erving's losses in 77, 80, and 82. If he won those years, how would it have changed history and how would he be judged today? Well, when you combine his full resume and winning 3 additional titles in the NBA(I won't include 83 because if Doc won other titles before Moses, I doubt Moses ever comes to Philly), and add in 2 other ABA titles, Erving is the goat SF. He would clearly be better than Bird. Today, he would still be ahead of Lebron.

Fair or not, Doc has been judged on no. of titles he has won and lost in the NBA. One standard must be applied to view other greats like Bird, Magic or Wilt. I can live with that.

Even though today's NBA is becoming less and less about one player's individual brilliance, the rules of the sport still dictate that only 1 player has full control of the ball at any one time. Therefore the impact of 1 player, offensively, is enormous. On defense, great centers can totally change teams almost overnight.

It's hard to determine how much effect one player has in winning titles, but we do know that the best players eventually break through at some point in their careers. Not only do the best players impact the play of their team mates, but front office people and GMs suddenly have the vision to build their rosters around their great players. The universe somehow conspires because it is easier to be sure on betting that Julius and Moses win titles than Dawkins and Steve Mix somehow combining to win titles. It's an extreme point, but it makes sense.

I mean, is it really a coincidence that Erving has competed for titles his entire career? Whether it is in the NBA or ABA, with the exception of Virginia, Doc has played for contenders. Sure, he has made the play of his teammates better, but there is also his charisma and other factors that have made other people build rosters around him that could win and contend. So through him, not only do his teammates improve, but so does the job of the GM. A suddenly inspired GM will find those role players that would fit well and build around their superstars.

This is why ultimately, history judges the best players ever on titles won or lost. Granted, it's not absolute and it's difficult to measure, but it's the fairest way.

Chamberlain made every teammate he ever played with better. Simple stat sheets show it blunt up front. but even more if you watched him. you talk about Erving competing, but Chamberlain didn't have the heart to compete?

!!
sorry man. it's clear as day we will never, ever agree.

[La Frescobaldi]

can buy a car under 2k in that era

gtfo

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Dodge-Charger-1969-Front.jpg
$3100 bucks new '69 Charger, man, the sleekest, fastest, coolest ride ever!!

or maybe a GTO at $3600!!

https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.hagerty.com/vehicle/web/1969%20Pontiac%20GTO.jpg