The notion that Wilt had little help is utterly false.

[ClipperRevival]

Wilt played with many HOFer during his 14 year career. Paul Azrin, Chet Walker, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West and Gail Goodrich.

He had something bordering on a super team from 1966 through 1968 (3 seasons) with the 76ers in Walker, Greer and Cunningham. That team won 55 games in 1966, 68 games in 1967 (won title) and 62 games in 1968. His team had HCA in the 1968 finals against, guess who? Yeah, Russell and the Celtics. So Wilt has every advantage he can dream of heading into the 1968 finals. Better team and HCA. This series ends up going 7 games. What does he do in game 7 at home? His team loses and he scores 14 points. So that's a huge opportunity he let go.

So what does Wilt do after leaving the 76ers super team? Joins another super team with the Lakers and teams up with Baylor and West. And guess who they play again in the finals the very next year in 1969? Yup, those Celtics again. And guess which team has HCA again? You guessed it, the Lakers. This is Russell's last year in the league and he's on his last legs. Wilt again has the advantage with the better team and HCA. This finals also goes 7 games. So what does he do in game 7? Lays another egg. 18 points and 4/13 .308% from the FT line. And he also asked to be taken out early in game 7 due to an "injury" when his team is way down but late in the game, when his Lakers have mounted a big comeback and had the lead, he asked to be put back in but his coach refused. They end up losing by 2 points. Does his team win if he plays all out in game 7? Who knows. But another golden opportunity Wilt let's go.

So two straight years, he has the better team against the aging Russell and his Celtics and has HCA in game 7 and loses both games at home to give Russell 2 rings he could've had and probably should've had.

Now on to 1970. Wilt and his Lakers meet the Knicks in the finals. He scores 21 points in game 7 and shoots 1/11 .091% from the FT.

By 1971, Baylor retires but Goodrich comes on board. And Wilt, West and Goodrich dominate the league and win the title handily in 1972. But guess what? He was the 4th leading scorer both in the regular season and the playoffs. So he was far from being "the man".

When he won the title in 1967, he was the 2nd leading scorer in the playoffs. When he won the title in 1972, he was the 4th leading scorer.

[ClipperRevival]

Also, basically all of Wilt's out of this world stats were put up early in his career from 1960 to 1965, when he was with the Philadelphia Warriors. He didn't have much help outside of Paul Azrin so what did he do? He shot the hell out of the ball, averaging 32.5 FG attempts per game during this time and averaging 40.6 ppg.

But starting 1966, when he played in stack teams until he retired, he averaged 21.7 ppg. This is not a typo. 21.7 ppg. And this is the time he actually competed for titles with other help. And what does he do during this time? Goes 2/5 in the finals.

[kennethgriffin]

nobody said wilt didnt have help


people just said russell had the all time most stacked HOF packed unbeatable roster that ever existed in pro sports


wilt had 2 HOFers each time he won



russell had like 7

[ClipperRevival]

nobody said wilt didnt have help


people just said russell had the all time most stacked HOF packed unbeatable roster that ever existed in pro sports


wilt had 2 HOFers each time he won



russell had like 7

Russell didn't play with all of them at once. Like Wilt, he had some come as some went. And Wilt played with 3 other HOFers when he won in 1967.

[Psileas]

Dude, please, all this has been talked to death and every time counter-arguments are mentioned, you (and others) fail to respond:

1966: Sixers were not better than the Celtics. They won 1 game more, but the Celtics had played some games without Russell, so, their 54-26 record isn't telling the whole truth. They were coached by someone who, when he left the Sixers in that season, was never trusted again by any NBA team for the nest 5 seasons (you'd expect from someone who won 55 games to have had a lot more demand in the market) and when he was, it was from the worst team in the league, for only a single season. Also Billy C was a rookie, played like absolute shit in the playoffs and even missed a game. Not to mention the obvious vast difference in playoff experience.

1967: Healthy team, good coach, destroyed the league.

1968: An injury plagued team in the playoffs. When they faced the Celtics, 4 out of their 5 most impactful players were hurt (Cunningham didn't even play). Knowing that this series still went to 7 games and that 3 of their 4 losses were close, it's pretty easy to assume that a healthy Sixers team (or, at least, a Sixer team equally healthy to the Celtics) could still have won the series.

1969: Whose fault is Game 7 defeat? Wilt had 18/27 on 7-8 FG's (LMAO at "laying an egg"). Got injured, stepped outside for a couple of minutes, his asshole coach refused to put him in. I'm actually glad they lost, it proved he wasn't all that smart after all...
Baylor was way worse during the whole season, while having missed plenty of games, yet, nobody mentions this.

1970: Your case against Wilt here is as weak as I'd expect from a typical troll. If you want to sound objective, you have to do way better than this "1-11" crap. Oh, and you failed to mention that Wilt won a series after being behind 3-1 (to the Suns), as well as sweeping a team without HCA. Or that Baylor, again, was unhealthy and performed way worse than Wilt during the whole season again. Or that Wilt was coming off an injury (interesting that the "rust" argument only applies for Jordan)...

1971: Wilt plays with only Goodrich next to him. Interestingly, you missed again that he beat the '71 Bulls without HCA.

1972: Wilt wasn't "the man" for this team to the same degree that Russell wasn't "the man" for his own. Another sad effort to belittle his winning.

1973: Who had more help here, Wilt? The Knicks had 5 ****ing of the top 50 GOAT on their team plus Bill Bradley, for God's sake. :oldlol:

[kennethgriffin]

Russell didn't play with all of them at once. Like Wilt, he had some come as some went. And Wilt played with 3 other HOFers when he won in 1967.




1969:

Bill Russell - HOF
Baily Howell - HOF
John Havlicek - HOF
Tom Sanders - HOF
Sam Jones - HOF
Don Nelson - HOF





1965:

Bill Russell = HOF
Sam Jones = HOF
John Havlicek = HOF
Tom Heinsohn = HOF
Tom Sanders = HOF


1962:

Bill Russell = HOF
Bob Cousy = HOF
Sam Jones = HOF
Tom Heinsohn = HOF
Tom Sanders = HOF
KC Jones = HOF
Frank Ramsay = HOF



1959:

Bill Russell = HOF
Bob Cousy = HOF
Bill Sharman = HOF
Tom Heinsohn = HOF
Frank Ramsay = HOF
Sam Jones = HOF
KC Jones = HOF



my bad..he had 5-6 HOF's at a time



:rolleyes:

[ClipperRevival]

Dude, please, all this has been talked to death and every time counter-arguments are mentioned, you (and others) fail to respond:

1966: Sixers were not better than the Celtics. They won 1 game more, but the Celtics had played some games without Russell, so, their 54-26 record isn't telling the whole truth. They were coached by someone who, when he left the Sixers in that season, was never trusted again by any NBA team for the nest 5 seasons (you'd expect from someone who won 55 games to have had a lot more demand in the market) and when he was, it was from the worst team in the league, for only a single season. Also Billy C was a rookie, played like absolute shit in the playoffs and even missed a game. Not to mention the obvious vast difference in playoff experience.

1967: Healthy team, good coach, destroyed the league.

1968: An injury plagued team in the playoffs. When they faced the Celtics, 4 out of their 5 most impactful players were hurt (Cunningham didn't even play). Knowing that this series still went to 7 games and that 3 of their 4 losses were close, it's pretty easy to assume that a healthy Sixers team (or, at least, a Sixer team equally healthy to the Celtics) could still have won the series.

1969: Whose fault is Game 7 defeat? Wilt had 18/27 on 7-8 FG's (LMAO at "laying an egg"). Got injured, stepped outside for a couple of minutes, his asshole coach refused to put him in. I'm actually glad they lost, it proved he wasn't all that smart after all...
Baylor was way worse during the whole season, while having missed plenty of games, yet, nobody mentions this.

1970: Your case against Wilt here is as weak as I'd expect from a typical troll. If you want to sound objective, you have to do way better than this "1-11" crap. Oh, and you failed to mention that Wilt won a series after being behind 3-1 (to the Suns), as well as sweeping a team without HCA. Or that Baylor, again, was unhealthy and performed way worse than Wilt during the whole season again. Or that Wilt was coming off an injury (interesting that the "rust" argument only applies for Jordan)...

1971: Wilt plays with only Goodrich next to him. Interestingly, you missed again that he beat the '71 Bulls without HCA.

1972: Wilt wasn't "the man" for this team to the same degree that Russell wasn't "the man" for his own. Another sad effort to belittle his winning.

1973: Who had more help here, Wilt? The Knicks had 5 ****ing of the top 50 GOAT on their team plus Bill Bradley, for God's sake. :oldlol:

1966 - Blame anyone but Wilt.
1968 - What are you talking about? Greer averaged 26.1 ppg and Walker averaged 22.1 ppg in the finals. Only Cunningham was out.
1969 - Blame anyone but Wilt.
1970 - Blame anyone but Wilt.

That about sum it up?

[LAZERUSS]

Dude, please, all this has been talked to death and every time counter-arguments are mentioned, you (and others) fail to respond:

1966: Sixers were not better than the Celtics. They won 1 game more, but the Celtics had played some games without Russell, so, their 54-26 record isn't telling the whole truth. They were coached by someone who, when he left the Sixers in that season, was never trusted again by any NBA team for the nest 5 seasons (you'd expect from someone who won 55 games to have had a lot more demand in the market) and when he was, it was from the worst team in the league, for only a single season. Also Billy C was a rookie, played like absolute shit in the playoffs and even missed a game. Not to mention the obvious vast difference in playoff experience.

1967: Healthy team, good coach, destroyed the league.

1968: An injury plagued team in the playoffs. When they faced the Celtics, 4 out of their 5 most impactful players were hurt (Cunningham didn't even play). Knowing that this series still went to 7 games and that 3 of their 4 losses were close, it's pretty easy to assume that a healthy Sixers team (or, at least, a Sixer team equally healthy to the Celtics) could still have won the series.

1969: Whose fault is Game 7 defeat? Wilt had 18/27 on 7-8 FG's (LMAO at "laying an egg"). Got injured, stepped outside for a couple of minutes, his asshole coach refused to put him in. I'm actually glad they lost, it proved he wasn't all that smart after all...
Baylor was way worse during the whole season, while having missed plenty of games, yet, nobody mentions this.

1970: Your case against Wilt here is as weak as I'd expect from a typical troll. If you want to sound objective, you have to do way better than this "1-11" crap. Oh, and you failed to mention that Wilt won a series after being behind 3-1 (to the Suns), as well as sweeping a team without HCA. Or that Baylor, again, was unhealthy and performed way worse than Wilt during the whole season again. Or that Wilt was coming off an injury (interesting that the "rust" argument

1971: Wilt plays with only Goodrich next to him. Interestingly, you missed again that he beat the '71 Bulls without HCA.

1972: Wilt wasn't "the man" for this team to the same degree that Russell wasn't "the man" for his own. Another sad effort to belittle his winning.

1973: Who had more help here, Wilt? The Knicks had 5 ****ing of the top 50 GOAT on their team plus Bill Bradley, for God's sake. :oldlol:

I'm glad you covered this.

I just don't have time right now to destroy every argument he presented.

As a sidenote, he must have read Charley Rosen's take on game seven of the '69 Finals...which was completely FALSE. Wilt's team was down 17 points with 10 minutes to play. He helped engineer a comeback which cut the margin down seven in a little over four minutes. That's when he injured his knee, and asked to come out for a couple of minutes. He then asked to come back in with three minutes left, and VBK refused. His replacement, mel Counts shot 4-13 (Wilt was 7-8), missed a shot late, and had a key turnover in the last minute, of a two point loss. BTW, Van Breda Kolff was essentially immediately fired right after that game, and his coaching career was basically ruined.

So, it's OBVIOUS that Clippersfan did ZERO RESAERCH on this entire topic. Which is fully expected from a known "basher."

[Psileas]

1966 - Blame anyone but Wilt.
1968 - What are you talking about? Greer averaged 26.1 ppg and Walker averaged 22.1 ppg in the finals. Only Cunningham was out.
1969 - Blame anyone but Wilt.
1970 - Blame anyone but Wilt.

That about sum it up?

Good, we're on equal terms. Why should I also blame Wilt, since you do exactly this and nothing more? I'm not going to pretend that I'll be objective when I respond to someone who isn't objective to begin with. Sorry, you're not going to have the pie and have it eaten as well.

Wilt averaged 22.1 ppg in the Finals as well. If you don't see any issues with Greer and Walker (like FG%'s), I don't find with Wilt.

[ClipperRevival]

1969:

Bill Russell - HOF
Baily Howell - HOF
John Havlicek - HOF
Tom Sanders - HOF
Sam Jones - HOF
Don Nelson - HOF





1965:

Bill Russell = HOF
Sam Jones = HOF
John Havlicek = HOF
Tom Heinsohn = HOF
Tom Sanders = HOF


1962:

Bill Russell = HOF
Bob Cousy = HOF
Sam Jones = HOF
Tom Heinsohn = HOF
Tom Sanders = HOF
KC Jones = HOF
Frank Ramsay = HOF



1959:

Bill Russell = HOF
Bob Cousy = HOF
Bill Sharman = HOF
Tom Heinsohn = HOF
Frank Ramsay = HOF
Sam Jones = HOF
KC Jones = HOF



my bad..he had 5-6 HOF's at a time



:rolleyes:

Nice try buddy.

Tom Sanders - Inducted as "contributor".

Don Nelson - Inducted as "coach".

K.C. Jones - Very weak HOFer. Made it decades after retiring. He's one of those players that probably doesn't get in if he doesn't win all those rings. Career 7.4 ppg, 3.5 rpg and 4.3 apg.

Frank Ramsay - Another weak HOFer who never gets in if he doesn't win all those rings.

[ClipperRevival]

Good, we're on equal terms. Why should I also blame Wilt, since you do exactly this and nothing more? I'm not going to pretend that I'll be objective when I respond to someone who isn't objective to begin with. Sorry, you're not going to have the pie and have it eaten as well.

Wilt averaged 22.1 ppg in the Finals as well. If you don't see any issues with Greer and Walker (like FG%'s), I don't find with Wilt.

I'm not bashing. I'm calling it like I see it. The guy has a history of choking. And you said that 4 of their 5 main guys were hurt in 1968, which is completely false. Any other lies you want to spew?

[ClipperRevival]

I'm glad you covered this.

I just don't have time right now to destroy every argument he presented.

As a sidenote, he must have read Charley Rosen's take on game seven of the '69 Finals...which was completely FALSE. Wilt's team was down 17 points with 10 minutes to play. He helped engineer a comeback which cut the margin down seven in a little over four minutes. That's when he injured his knee, and asked to come out for a couple of minutes. He then asked to come back in with three minutes left, and VBK refused. His replacement, mel Counts shot 4-13 (Wilt was 7-8), missed a shot late, and had a key turnover in the last minute, of a two point loss. BTW, Van Breda Kolff was essentially immediately fired right after that game, and his coaching career was basically ruined.

So, it's OBVIOUS that Clippersfan did ZERO RESAERCH on this entire topic. Which is fully expected from a known "basher."

I did enough research to know that what I said in my OP is factually true. That he did lose twice to Russell's Celtics in game 7 of the finals in 1968 and 1969 despite having HCA. And the players he played with, etc.

[Psileas]

I'm not bashing. I'm calling it like I see it. The guy has a history of choking. And you said that 4 of their 5 main guys were hurt in 1986, which is completely false. Any other lies you want to spew?

It's not false, Phila had posted multiple newspaper clips from back then, showing pretty much any of the 5 main Sixers apart from 1 guy (Wilt, Cunningham, Jackson for sure, plus another main guy) was facing injury issues in the postseason.

When it comes to choking, it has also been shown that Wilt stacks up fine against the GOAT's when it comes to performances in crucial games. Do for all the top 10 GOAT what you did for Wilt, you'll see each one of them having his fair share of underperformances.

[LAZERUSS]

I'm not bashing. I'm calling it like I see it. The guy has a history of choking. And you said that 4 of their 5 main guys were hurt in 1968, which is completely false. Any other lies you want to spew?

Thanks to PHILA...

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

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

The Sixers were DECIMATED with INJURIES in the '68 ECF's...including Wilt, himself, who played every minute of that series while NOTICEABLY LIMPING. BTW, he had the same injury that Reed suffered in the '70 Finals, and then missed one-half of one game, three-quarters of another, and completely missed the third.

DO SOME RESEARCH before spewing your CRAP!

[ClipperRevival]

Thanks to PHILA...

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

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

The Sixers were DECIMATED with INJURIES in the '68 ECF's...including Wilt, himself, who played every minute of that series while NOTICEABLY LIMPING. BTW, he had the same injury that Reed suffered in the '70 Finals, and then missed one-half of one game, three-quarters of another, and completely missed the third.

DO SOME RESEARCH before spewing your CRAP!

Lol. Ok. Cunningham was out but Greer and Walker played all 7 games and put up 26 and 22 ppg. No player is 100% by the time they play in the finals. But yeah, poor Wilt. It's never his fault. 14 points in game 7 at home.

[ClipperRevival]

The only reason why the Bulls lost in the 1997 finals was because Jordan suffered from flu like symptoms. Oh wait.

[LAZERUSS]

Lol. Ok. Cunningham was out but Greer and Walker played all 7 games and put up 26 and 22 ppg. No player is 100% by the time they play in the finals. But yeah, poor Wilt. It's never his fault. 14 points in game 7 at home.

I'm getting tired of making a fool out of you, but...

Ok, Philly had a 3-1 series lead, and in what could have been the clinching game five, a HOBBLED Chamberlain WIPED the floor with Russell, oustcoring him, 28-8; outshooting him from the floor, 11-21 to 4-10; and outrebounding him, 30-24. BUT, he not only didn't have HOFer Cunningham in that game (nor the ENTIRE series), BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones went down with injuries in the third quarter, and missed the rest of the game.

As for Greer and Walker in game seven... Greer shot 8-25, and Walker shot 8-22. In fact, the entire team, aside from Wilt, collectively shot 33% in that game.

As a side-note...

In game seven of the '69 Finals, Wilt shot 7-8 from the field, and Russell shot 2-7 from the floor. Meanwhile, Russell's TEAMMATES outshot Wilt's TEAMMATES from the field, by a .477 to .360 margin...in a two point Boston win. But, yes, blame WILT for that loss (especially since his incompetent coach kept Chamberlain on the bench in the last five minutes.)

[LAZERUSS]

The only reason why the Bulls lost in the 1997 finals was because Jordan suffered from flu like symptoms. Oh wait.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Remove Pippen from MJ's career and what was his post-season record again?

BTW, Pippen went on to have a winning career without MJ.

BTW, did MJ ever face teams with between FIVE to NINE HOFers?

[CavaliersFTW]

Nobody says he didn't have help. They say he didn't have the right help or enough help to beat Boston. And most of the time that was true.

https://youtu.be/G94iJr8ZbzM?t=59m20s

Listen to his former opponent and teammate Jerry West say exactly that. Or is he no good at evaluating teams and talent?

This has been discussed a million times. It isn't just shit that fans make up. Players, coaches, peers of that era are what started these discussions. Not fans. You can't make a thread 50 years after the fact and try and change the story up. :hammerhead:

[ClipperRevival]

I'm getting tired of making a fool out of you, but...

Ok, Philly had a 3-1 series lead, and in what could have been the clinching game five, a HOBBLED Chamberlain WIPED the floor with Russell, oustcoring him, 28-8; outshooting him from the floor, 11-21 to 4-10; and outrebounding him, 30-24. BUT, he not only didn't have HOFer Cunningham in that game (nor the ENTIRE series), BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones went down with injuries in the third quarter, and missed the rest of the game.

As for Greer and Walker in game seven... Greer shot 8-25, and Walker shot 8-22. In fact, the entire team, aside from Wilt, collectively shot 33% in that game.

As a side-note...

In game seven of the '69 Finals, Wilt shot 7-8 from the field, and Russell shot 2-7 from the floor. Meanwhile, Russell's TEAMMATES outshot Wilt's TEAMMATES from the field, by a .477 to .360 margin...in a two point Boston win. But, yes, blame WILT for that loss (especially since his incompetent coach kept Chamberlain on the bench in the last five minutes.)

So they can't clinch it in game 5. Why couldn't they finish them off in games 6 and 7? Right, always someone else's fault huh?

Look man. I really have nothing against Wilt personally. I really don't. However, I do have a problem with people like you who distort reality. You perceive Wilt as this poor victim time and time again and how circumstances outside of himself always prevented him from coming through when it mattered most. And you bombard us with empty stats time and time again as if that alone proves greatness. But I hold clutchness and ability to come up big in big games a lot. You obviously don't. If you did, you can't be a Wilt fan.

[ClipperRevival]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Remove Pippen from MJ's career and what was his post-season record again?

BTW, Pippen went on to have a winning career without MJ.

BTW, did MJ ever face teams with between FIVE to NINE HOFers?

6/6. 6 fmvps. Highest scoring average ever in regular season and playoffs history. Higher PER ever both regular season and playoffs. He came, he saw, he conquered. :cheers:

[LAZERUSS]

Nobody says he didn't have help. They say he didn't have the right help or enough help to beat Boston. And most of the time that was true.

https://youtu.be/G94iJr8ZbzM?t=59m20s

Listen to his former opponent and teammate Jerry West say exactly that. Or is he no good at evaluating teams and talent?

This has been discussed a million times. It isn't just shit that fans make up. Players, coaches, peers of that era are what started these discussions. Not fans. You can't make a thread 50 years after the fact and try and change the story up. :hammerhead:

We can play the "quote" game until the cows come home...


More quotes from Wilt's peers...

http://www.nba.com/history/wilt_appreciation.html

Jerry West in 1999:


Quote:

"He was the most unbelievable center to ever play the game in terms of domination and intimidation. There's no one that's ever played the game better than Wilt Chamberlain. This was a man for all ages."


or this ...from Bill Russell



Quote:

"Nobody seems to appreciate what an incredible player Wilt was," Russell said at 1997 All-Star Game when the league named and honored its 50 greatest players. "He was the best player of all time because he dominated the floor like nobody else ever could. To be that big and that athletic was special."

or this from Kareem...



Quote:

"Chamberlain played the game the same way Russell did, except he scored so much more. But his teams had to get more points from him. He'd score 45 points and his teams would still lose."

and also from Kareem...



Quote:

"Wilt had to fight people's dissatisfaction that his teams didn't win. There he was, this great dominating player, and his teams didn't win championships. Well, Wilt wasn't playing for the right team. As an individual, he was in a class by himself, but his teammates--they were OK, but not the supporting cast Russell had."


and still more from Kareem...



Dear Scottie,

I have nothing but respect for you my friend as an athlete and knowledgeable basketball mind. But you are way off in your assessment of who is the greatest player of all time and the greatest scorer of all time. Your comments are off because of your limited perspective. You obviously never saw Wilt Chamberlain play who undoubtedly was the greatest scorer this game has ever known. When did MJ ever average 50.4 points per game plus 25.7 rebounds? (Wilt in the 1962 season when blocked shot statistics were not kept). We will never accurately know how many shots Wilt blocked. Oh, by the way in 1967 and 68, Wilt was a league leader in assists. Did MJ ever score 100 points in a game? How many times did MJ score more than 60 points in a game? MJ led the league in scoring in consecutive seasons for 10 years but he did this in an NBA that eventually expanded into 30 teams vs. when Wilt played and there were only 8 teams.



Every team had the opportunity to amass a solid nucleus. Only the cream of the basketball world got to play then. So MJ has to be appraised in perspective. His incredible athletic ability, charisma and leadership on the court helped to make basketball popular around the world -- no question about that. But in terms of greatness, MJ has to take a backseat to The Stilt.



And how about Rick Barry?

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

BTW, there are TWO interviews in the above with Barry. One in the 70's, and the other a couple of years ago. And he STILL claims that Wilt was the GOAT.

Next...

[LAZERUSS]

1966 - Blame anyone but Wilt.
1968 - What are you talking about? Greer averaged 26.1 ppg and Walker averaged 22.1 ppg in the finals. Only Cunningham was out.
1969 - Blame anyone but Wilt.
1970 - Blame anyone but Wilt.

That about sum it up?


'66 ECF's:
Wilt averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 from the field.
Wilt's TEAMMATES collectively shot ...get this... .352 from the field!

'68 ECF's:
Wilt with a 22-25-7 series...with ALL seven games played with essentially the same injury that reduced Reed to a statue in the last three games of the '70 Finals. Newspaper recaps had Wilt NOTICEABLY LIMPING throughout the series. And Russell commented: "A lessor man would not have played", which was essentially saying that NO ONE ELSE would have played under the same circumstances. And in a game seven, four point loss,...Wilt's teammates collectively shot .333 from the field.

'69 Finals:
Worst series of Wilt's career, and he deserved PARTIAL blame, albeit, it was his COACH who shackled him in that series. And, as always, Chamberlain outplayed Russell, and just crushed him in the game seven loss. BTW, Baylor had games of 2-14, 4-18, and 8-22 from the field in three losses. In the game seven loss, Wilt shot .875 from the field, Russell shot .286 from the field, and Russell's teammates outshot Wilt's by a .477 to .360 margin.

'70 Finals:
Chamberlain was only FOUR MONTHS removed from MAJOR KNEE SURGERY. The same surgery that took Baylor a year-and-a-half to semi recover from.
And, in a must win game six, Chamberlain hung a 45-27 game (on 20-27 shooting), and then in the must-win game seven, a 21-24 game (on 10-16 shooting from the field.) For the series, Wilt put up the ONLY 20-20 .600+ FG% series in Finals history (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and on a .625 FG%)...and all accomplished on basically ONE LEG.

BTW, his teammate, Jerry West, was just abused by Walt Frazier in that game seven loss.

[LAZERUSS]

So they can't clinch it in game 5. Why couldn't they finish them off in games 6 and 7? Right, always someone else's fault huh?

Look man. I really have nothing against Wilt personally. I really don't. However, I do have a problem with people like you who distort reality. You perceive Wilt as this poor victim time and time again and how circumstances outside of himself always prevented him from coming through when it mattered most. And you bombard us with empty stats time and time again as if that alone proves greatness. But I hold clutchness and ability to come up big in big games a lot. You obviously don't. If you did, you can't be a Wilt fan.

Wilt is arguably the GOAT "Big Game" player in NBA post-season history.

Don't believe me? How about these...


23 Elimination Games...

12-11 record.

31.1 ppg
26.4 rpg
.540 FG% (in post-seasons that shot about .440 in that same span.)

3 50+ point Games in those 23 games
5 40+ point games in those 23 games
Games of 53-22, 50-35, 50-35, 46-34, and 45-27 (In a Finals Game)

BTW, Lebron is the career leader in ppg in "must-win" playoff games at 31.8 ppg, MJ is next at 31.3 ppg, and guess is who is third...none other that your "choker" Wilt. Oh, and Chamberlain has the ONLY THREE 50+ must-win playoff games by a GOAT candidate in NBA history.

Absolutely crushed his opposing centers in those elimination games, as well.


Of course there were his "Elimination" and "Clinching" games...37 of them:

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)

Yep...Wilt wasn't a "Big Game" player was he?

Again, please do some actual RESEARCH before you post your typical nonsense.

[LAZERUSS]

How about Wilt's post-season DEFENSE?




Wilt's post-season FG% allowed:

59-60:

Kerr regular season FG% against the league: .392
Kerr against Wilt in the playoffs: .294

Dierking regular season FG%: .365
Dierking vs Wilt in the post-season: .333

Russell regular season: .467
Russell vs. Wilt in the post-season: .446


60-61:

Kerr regular season: .397
Kerr vs Wilt: .321

Halbrook regular season: .335
Halbrook vs Wilt: .387


61-62:

Kerr regular season: .443
Kerr vs. Wilt: .376

Russell regular season: .457
Russell vs Wilt: .399


63-64:

Beaty regular season: .444
Beaty vs. Wilt: .520

Russell regular season: .433
Russell vs. Wilt: .386


64-65:

Embry regular season: .456
Embry vs Wilt: .438

Russell regular season: .438
Russell vs. Wilt: .446


65-66:

Russell regular season: .415
Russell vs. Wilt: .424


66-67:

Dierking regular season: .399
Dierking vs Wilt: .427

Russell regular season: .454
Russell vs. Wilt: .358

Thurmond regular season: .437
Thurmond vs. Wilt: .343


67-68:

Bellamy regular season: .541
Bellamy vs. Wilt: .421

Russell regular season: .425
Russell vs. Wilt: .440


68-69:

Thurmond regular season: .410
Thurmond vs Wilt: .392

Beaty regular season: .470
Beaty vs. Wilt: .383

Russell regular season: .433
Russell vs. Wilt: .397


69-70:

Walk regular season: .470
Walk vs Wilt: .395

Fox regular season: .524
Fox vs Wilt: .362

Bellamy regular season: .523
Bellamy vs Wilt: .456

Reed regular season: .507
Reed vs Wilt: .483


70-71:

Boerwinkle regular season: .485
Boerwinkle vs Wilt: .463

Fox regular season: .458
Fox vs Wilt: .434

Kareem regular season: .577
Kareem vs Wilt: .481


71-72:

Ray regular season: .499
Ray vs Wilt: .529

Kareem regular season: .574
Kareem vs Wilt: .457

Lucas regular season: .512
Lucas vs Wilt: .500


72-73:

Awtry regular season: .480
Awtry vs Wilt: .542

Thurmond regular season: .446
Thurmond vs Wilt: .373

Reed regular season: .474
Reed vs Wilt: .493

[TheMan]

Wilt has a history of choking, this is a well known fact by everyone but Wilt stans. In other news, water is still wet...

[AceManIII]

Wilt, in his own autobiography, stated Bill Russell had more will to win than himself...ain't no way he's the most clutch player.

[ClipperRevival]

'66 ECF's:
Wilt averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 from the field.
Wilt's TEAMMATES collectively shot ...get this... .352 from the field!

'68 ECF's:
Wilt with a 22-25-7 series...with ALL seven games played with essentially the same injury that reduced Reed to a statue in the last three games of the '70 Finals. Newspaper recaps had Wilt NOTICEABLY LIMPING throughout the series. And Russell commented: "A lessor man would not have played", which was essentially saying that NO ONE ELSE would have played under the same circumstances. And in a game seven, four point loss,...Wilt's teammates collectively shot .333 from the field.

'69 Finals:
Worst series of Wilt's career, and he deserved PARTIAL blame, albeit, it was his COACH who shackled him in that series. And, as always, Chamberlain outplayed Russell, and just crushed him in the game seven loss. BTW, Baylor had games of 2-14, 4-18, and 8-22 from the field in three losses. In the game seven loss, Wilt shot .875 from the field, Russell shot .286 from the field, and Russell's teammates outshot Wilt's by a .477 to .360 margin.

'70 Finals:
Chamberlain was only FOUR MONTHS removed from MAJOR KNEE SURGERY. The same surgery that took Baylor a year-and-a-half to semi recover from.
And, in a must win game six, Chamberlain hung a 45-27 game (on 20-27 shooting), and then in the must-win game seven, a 21-24 game (on 10-16 shooting from the field.) For the series, Wilt put up the ONLY 20-20 .600+ FG% series in Finals history (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and on a .625 FG%)...and all accomplished on basically ONE LEG.

BTW, his teammate, Jerry West, was just abused by Walt Frazier in that game seven loss.

Translation. It wasn't Wilt's fault.

[ClipperRevival]

Wilt is arguably the GOAT "Big Game" player in NBA post-season history.

Don't believe me? How about these...



Yep...Wilt wasn't a "Big Game" player was he?

Again, please do some actual RESEARCH before you post your typical nonsense.

Serious question, what was his team's series record against Russell led teams in the playoffs along with his record against Russell led teams in playoff elimination games?

[SHAQisGOAT]

Baily Howell - HOF
Tom Sanders - HOF
Don Nelson - HOF
KC Jones = HOF
Frank Ramsay = HOF



Nellie got in as a coach.

Sanders didn't get in as a player.

Ramsey and KC Jones are definitely not HoF worthy let's call it, without all that big quantity of rings and whatnot they're not making it.

And the best, most impactful player for the vast majority of those 11 titles was Bill Russell, that's why he was the only one winning MVP's (that's 5 of them), and if FMVP was awarded back then he would win most of them too.

Plus, those Celtics were always at the bottom in terms of ranked offenses, and almost always #1 in terms of defense. They were winning more based on their defense than anything else... And guess who was their best, most impactful defender, the GOAT defensive player at that?
And Russell also is one of the GOAT rebounders, one of the all-time best passing bigs and still a nice scorer.

[Psileas]

How about Wilt's post-season DEFENSE?

These are some great numbers here.
I'm too lazy to look up the specific numbers of every single of these players, but, if we assumed that all of them played the same number of games and took the same number of shots, their average regular season %'s would be 45.9 and theirs against Wilt, 42.1.

Which is actually an even bigger difference, because

1) high % shooters like Kareem and Bellamy took a lot more shots than mediocre % shooters like Halbrook or Dierking

2) their r.s FG%'s include games vs Wilt. When taking them out, almost all these numbers will be inflated by at least a few decimals.

[LAZERUSS]

Serious question, what was his team's series record against Russell led teams in the playoffs along with his record against Russell led teams in playoff elimination games?

Serious answer...

TEAM GAME.

How come a pre-Pippen MJ had a losing record, and a 1-9 playoff record? And in his greatest scoring season, his team was swept the first round in a series in which he shot .417 from the field?

How come a pre-Magic Kareem, in his first ten seasons, only went to to two Finals, and only won one ring (and was outplayed by a 34 year-old Wilt who was a year removed from major knee surgery)?

How come Bird lost seven times with HCA?

How come Shaq was swept six times in the post-season?

How come Hakeem was brutalized in the first round in eight of his 15 playoff seasons (and most were blowouts)?


Wilt gets ripped for his TEAM losing to Russell's teams seven times, and losing to a 66-16 Kareem-led team, and to a Reed-led Knicks (and their 4-6 HOFers) twice.

How about Shaq's playoff record against Ostertag of 1-8 in their two series H2H's?

And how come MJ had a 1-3 record against Dumars?

Kareem was losing to the likes of Webster (in the first round), and Sikma (1-4 record in that series), as well as losing to Thurmond (in the first round), Cowens (getting creamed by the red-head in a game seven blowout loss on his home floor no less.) And the real truth...when he faced Moses, he was not only badly outplayed in both series, he led his 54-28 team down the toilet against Malone's 40-42 Rockets, and then when he faced a Moses with equal talent, he was not only slaughtered by Moses, he led his Lakers to a sweeping loss.

Bird? Bad enough having a losing record against Dr. J, but how about a sweeping playoff series loss to Junior Bridgeman? And not only losing to Adrian Dantley, but being held to a .351 FG% in that series, as well. Ad he had a losing record against Michale Cooper, too.

Hakeem? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Not only putting up pure crap numbers in a typical first round loss to Eaton (who also shut down Sampson), or losing to HOFer Parish; but how about losing to the likes of Alton Lister, Mychal Thompson, Oliver Miller, and a slew of no-names that would beat his ass in the first round. Hell, in his '94 title run, he didn't face a legitimate starting center until the Finals.

TEAM GAME.

None other than John Wooden said it best...had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, and coaches, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

[ClipperRevival]

Serious answer...

TEAM GAME.

How come a pre-Pippen MJ had a losing record, and a 1-9 playoff record? And in his greatest scoring season, his team was swept the first round in a series in which he shot .417 from the field?

How come a pre-Magic Kareem, in his first ten seasons, only went to to two Finals, and only won one ring (and was outplayed by a 34 year-old Wilt who was a year removed from major knee surgery)?

How come Bird lost seven times with HCA?

How come Shaq was swept six times in the post-season?

How come Hakeem was brutalized in the first round in eight of his 15 playoff seasons (and most were blowouts)?


Wilt gets ripped for his TEAM losing to Russell's teams seven times, and losing to a 66-16 Kareem-led team, and to a Reed-led Knicks (and their 4-6 HOFers) twice.

How about Shaq's playoff record against Ostertag of 1-8 in their two series H2H's?

And how come MJ had a 1-3 record against Dumars?

Kareem was losing to the likes of Webster (in the first round), and Sikma (1-4 record in that series), as well as losing to Thurmond (in the first round), Cowens (getting creamed by the red-head in a game seven blowout loss on his home floor no less.) And the real truth...when he faced Moses, he was not only badly outplayed in both series, he led his 54-28 team down the toilet against Malone's 40-42 Rockets, and then when he faced a Moses with equal talent, he was not only slaughtered by Moses, he led his Lakers to a sweeping loss.

Bird? Bad enough having a losing record against Dr. J, but how about a sweeping playoff series loss to Junior Bridgeman? And not only losing to Adrian Dantley, but being held to a .351 FG% in that series, as well. Ad he had a losing record against Michale Cooper, too.

Hakeem? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Not only putting up pure crap numbers in a typical first round loss to Eaton (who also shut down Sampson), or losing to HOFer Parish; but how about losing to the likes of Alton Lister, Mychal Thompson, Oliver Miller, and a slew of no-names that would beat his ass in the first round. Hell, in his '94 title run, he didn't face a legitimate starting center until the Finals.

TEAM GAME.

None other than John Wooden said it best...had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, and coaches, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

"Your honor, we refuse to answer the question on the basis that answering the question would make my client look like a loser so we will have to go with the "team game" defense. Please refrain from asking any more questions regarding my client's and Mr. Russell's Celtics head to head series records in the playoffs and in game 7s. We will continue to come come back with the "team game" defense. On the contrary, if you were to inquire about my client's individual brilliance, I would be more than happy to oblige with whatever information you need."

[LAZERUSS]

Nellie got in as a coach.

Sanders didn't get in as a player.

Ramsey and KC Jones are definitely not HoF worthy let's call it, without all that big quantity of rings and whatnot they're not making it.

And the best, most impactful player for the vast majority of those 11 titles was Bill Russell, that's why he was the only one winning MVP's (that's 5 of them), and if FMVP was awarded back then he would win most of them too.

Plus, those Celtics were always at the bottom in terms of ranked offenses, and almost always #1 in terms of defense. They were winning more based on their defense than anything else... And guess who was their best, most impactful defender, the GOAT defensive player at that?
And Russell also is one of the GOAT rebounders, one of the all-time best passing bigs and still a nice scorer.

And neither Tom Gola, nor Guy Rodgers should be in the HOF, either. Nor did Wilt play with a HOF Thurmond, either (for one full season, and when Thurmond was a rookie, playing part-time, out of position, and shooting .395 from the field. Hell, Chamberlain was stuck with those two in the '64 Finals, and Thurmond shot .326 from the field, while Rodgers shot his usual .258.

How about Gola in his three post-seasons with Wilt? He shot .412, .271, and even .206. Which was about what he shot without Wilt in his post-season career.

And Baylor? Chamberlain played exactly ONE FULL season with Baylor, and in that post-season, Baylor blew chunks all over the floor.

West? The two played together for five seasons, but only three full time seasons. Overall, West had one great post-season, another very good one (but alas, in a game seven, he was humiliated by Frazier), one below average one, and one awful one. Oh, and he completely missed yet another one.

Still, most every player that Chamberlain played with, had their best seasons alongside Wilt. Players like Goodrich, Greer, Gola (yes, as bad as he was with Wilt, it was still his best season), Hairston, McMillian, Meschery, and others. And amazingly, when Wilt joined the Warriors, Paul Arizin's numbers only declined slightly, despite Chamberlain taking as many as 40 FGAs per game in a season.


As for Russell's squads. Massive edge in talent for most of their ten years in the league together, and no worse than equal talent in two (and Wilt's '68 team was wiped out by injuries, or they would surely have repeated their annihilation of the '67 Celtics.)

Auerbach was always ADDING talent to Russell's teams. In Russell's rookie season, he not only joined with Cousy and Sharman, but he also had the ROY in Heinsohn. The next year they added Sam Jones. By the '62-63 season, they were fielding NINE HOFers, with Clyde Lovellette, who had averaged 20 ppg just the previous season, being their EIGHTH best player.

In the mid-60's they added bailey Howell, who was a 20+ ppg scorer before Russell, and a 20 ppg scorer with Russell.

And not only did they ALWAYS have HOF-laden teams, but they were always the deepest teams in the league. Furthermore, Russell played alongside those guys from between five to twelve seasons.

Even Russell, himself, admitted that Sam Jones saved the Celtic season, SIX times with crucial game-winning shots. And Havlicek was a 20 ppg scorer, who exploded to a near 30 ppg scorer after Russell.

Without being surrounded by players who were capable of MULTIPLE 20+ ppg seasons, Russell's defense would have been an exercise in futility.

[LAZERUSS]

"Your honor, we refuse to answer the question on the basis that answering the question would make my client look like a loser so we will have to go with the "team game" defense. Please refrain from asking any more questions regarding my client's and Mr. Russell's Celtics head to head series records in the playoffs and in game 7s. We will continue to come come back with the "team game" defense. On the contrary, if you were to inquire about my client's individual brilliance, I would be more than happy to oblige with whatever information you need."

Nor did YOU answer MY questions, either.

Here was REALITY. When Chamberlain had a supporting cast the equal of Russell's, and that was healthy...they not only beat Russell's 60-21 Celtics, they demolished them (only a four point loss in Boston in game four prevented a sweep, and then they murdered Boston in game five.)

BTW, answer me this...

When Chamberlain's Sixers were down 3-1 in the '66 ECF's, and facing elimination in game five, Wilt responded with a monster 46-34 game...albeit, in a close loss, and in which his teammates contributed absolutely nothing.

Ok, move to the very next season. Now it was Russell whose team was down 3-1, and facing elimination. Did Russell arise and hang a 46-34 game on Wilt? Hell no. He quietly led his team like sheep to slaughter, with a pathetic FOUR point game (on 2-5 shooting.) How come? How come this Russell who supposedly "owned" Wilt, couldn't even muster a feeble effort, when it was clear that his teammates were neutralized by Wilt's? Oh, and just how equal were those rosters? Chamberlain outscored Russell in that series by a 21.6 ppg to 10.2 ppg margin...in a series in which Wilt's team outscored Russell's team, per game, by a +10.4 ppg margin!

[LAZERUSS]

These are some great numbers here.
I'm too lazy to look up the specific numbers of every single of these players, but, if we assumed that all of them played the same number of games and took the same number of shots, their average regular season %'s would be 45.9 and theirs against Wilt, 42.1.

Which is actually an even bigger difference, because

1) high % shooters like Kareem and Bellamy took a lot more shots than mediocre % shooters like Halbrook or Dierking

2) their r.s FG%'s include games vs Wilt. When taking them out, almost all these numbers will be inflated by at least a few decimals.

And there were several series in which Chamberlain held his opposing HOF starting centers to about a full 10 percentage point drop, or more, from their regular season FG%'s, including Bellamy, and Kareem TWICE.

Not only that, but in his two series' clinching games against a PEAK Kareem, he outshot Kareem by a combined, .545 (18-33) to .383 (23-60) margin.

[Asukal]

Hahahahaha the insecurity of these wilt stans so hilarious. Wilt isn't GOAT material, no goat candidate has such a weak mental toughness. :oldlol: :roll: :lol

[LAZERUSS]

Hahahahaha the insecurity of these wilt stans so hilarious. Wilt isn't GOAT material, no goat candidate has such a weak mental toughness. :oldlol: :roll: :lol

Take a look at the RECORD BOOK, which has Wilt's name PLASTERED all over it, and including MANY POST-SEASON records, as well. The same Wilt who ROUTINELY destroyed a Russell who is the greatest "winner" (well, no, actually it is MAGIC) in NBA history. The same Russell who was beaten to a pulp by Chamberlain and his '67 roster, which was finally the equal of Russell's.

Russell and his overwhelming edge in surrounding talent, went 7-1 against Wilt in their eight post-season H2H's, but FOUR of them went to game SEVEN's, and were decided by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. And Wilt either outplayed, or downright obliterated Russell in EVERY one of those eight playoff H2H's.

[Asukal]

Take a look at the RECORD BOOK, which has Wilt's name PLASTERED all over it, and including MANY POST-SEASON records, as well. The same Wilt who ROUTINELY destroyed a Russell who is the greatest "winner" (well, no, actually it is MAGIC) in NBA history. The same Russell who was beaten to a pulp by Chamberlain and his '67 roster, which was finally the equal of Russell's.

Russell and his overwhelming edge in surrounding talent, went 7-1 against Wilt in their eight post-season H2H's, but FOUR of them went to game SEVEN's, and were decided by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. And Wilt either outplayed, or downright obliterated Russell in EVERY one of those eight playoff H2H's.

Yet 11 rings to 2. Wilt dominated paper, Russell dominated the game. :lol :oldlol: :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

Yet 11 rings to 2. Wilt dominated paper, Russell dominated the game. :lol :oldlol: :roll:

In their ten years in the league together, Chamberlain enjoyed a 7-2 margin in First Team All-NBA selections.

But thanks for playing...

[Asukal]

In their ten years in the league together, Chamberlain enjoyed a 7-2 margin in First Team All-NBA selections.

But thanks for playing...

I'd pick a ring over first team selection any day. :oldlol: :lol :roll:

[sportjames23]

Asukal, ClipperRevival and warriorfan are destroying Wilt stans. :oldlol:

[AirFederer]

Oh, and Wilt would manhandle Shaq as a ragdoll/tea cup :rockon:

http://boxinghalloffame.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/11224-SAMMY-DAVIS-JR.jpg

[Horatio33]

Love how on of the posts was going on about the Celtics playing a team game which helped Russell, when Chamberlain was the biggest ball hog in league history his first few seasons. Even when he lead the league in assists it was done selfishly.

[AirFederer]

Almost broke his arm :eek: :eek: :eek:

http://media.giphy.com/media/yoJC2w450c0oK2a87u/giphy.gif

Nice block, old geezer! Too bad your stans are unbearable

[ClipperRevival]

And neither Tom Gola, nor Guy Rodgers should be in the HOF, either. Nor did Wilt play with a HOF Thurmond, either (for one full season, and when Thurmond was a rookie, playing part-time, out of position, and shooting .395 from the field. Hell, Chamberlain was stuck with those two in the '64 Finals, and Thurmond shot .326 from the field, while Rodgers shot his usual .258.

How about Gola in his three post-seasons with Wilt? He shot .412, .271, and even .206. Which was about what he shot without Wilt in his post-season career.

And Baylor? Chamberlain played exactly ONE FULL season with Baylor, and in that post-season, Baylor blew chunks all over the floor.

West? The two played together for five seasons, but only three full time seasons. Overall, West had one great post-season, another very good one (but alas, in a game seven, he was humiliated by Frazier), one below average one, and one awful one. Oh, and he completely missed yet another one.

Still, most every player that Chamberlain played with, had their best seasons alongside Wilt. Players like Goodrich, Greer, Gola (yes, as bad as he was with Wilt, it was still his best season), Hairston, McMillian, Meschery, and others. And amazingly, when Wilt joined the Warriors, Paul Arizin's numbers only declined slightly, despite Chamberlain taking as many as 40 FGAs per game in a season.


As for Russell's squads. Massive edge in talent for most of their ten years in the league together, and no worse than equal talent in two (and Wilt's '68 team was wiped out by injuries, or they would surely have repeated their annihilation of the '67 Celtics.)

Auerbach was always ADDING talent to Russell's teams. In Russell's rookie season, he not only joined with Cousy and Sharman, but he also had the ROY in Heinsohn. The next year they added Sam Jones. By the '62-63 season, they were fielding NINE HOFers, with Clyde Lovellette, who had averaged 20 ppg just the previous season, being their EIGHTH best player.

In the mid-60's they added bailey Howell, who was a 20+ ppg scorer before Russell, and a 20 ppg scorer with Russell.

And not only did they ALWAYS have HOF-laden teams, but they were always the deepest teams in the league. Furthermore, Russell played alongside those guys from between five to twelve seasons.

Even Russell, himself, admitted that Sam Jones saved the Celtic season, SIX times with crucial game-winning shots. And Havlicek was a 20 ppg scorer, who exploded to a near 30 ppg scorer after Russell.

Without being surrounded by players who were capable of MULTIPLE 20+ ppg seasons, Russell's defense would have been an exercise in futility.

Translation: Again, not Wilt's fault.

[ClipperRevival]

Nor did YOU answer MY questions, either.

Here was REALITY. When Chamberlain had a supporting cast the equal of Russell's, and that was healthy...they not only beat Russell's 60-21 Celtics, they demolished them (only a four point loss in Boston in game four prevented a sweep, and then they murdered Boston in game five.)

BTW, answer me this...

When Chamberlain's Sixers were down 3-1 in the '66 ECF's, and facing elimination in game five, Wilt responded with a monster 46-34 game...albeit, in a close loss, and in which his teammates contributed absolutely nothing.

Ok, move to the very next season. Now it was Russell whose team was down 3-1, and facing elimination. Did Russell arise and hang a 46-34 game on Wilt? Hell no. He quietly led his team like sheep to slaughter, with a pathetic FOUR point game (on 2-5 shooting.) How come? How come this Russell who supposedly "owned" Wilt, couldn't even muster a feeble effort, when it was clear that his teammates were neutralized by Wilt's? Oh, and just how equal were those rosters? Chamberlain outscored Russell in that series by a 21.6 ppg to 10.2 ppg margin...in a series in which Wilt's team outscored Russell's team, per game, by a +10.4 ppg margin!

You keep bringing up scoring numbers when comparing Russell/Wilt but you KNOW for a fact that this doesn't do Russell justice as his main fortay was defense, rebounding, leadership (yes, an intangible that's huge) and winning. Yet you continue to force their stats down our throats.

How about trying to be more objective? Like I said, I have no problem with Wilt. My only issue is with biased fans like you who think Wilt had no shortcomings and whatever failures he had in the playoffs were always someone else's fault. This thread is a perfect example. You bring up one excuse after another and after that, just copy and paste the same old Wilt stats as if that alone proves his greatness. Just man up and admit that your player wasn't clutch and choked several times and i'll leave you alone.

[LAZERUSS]

You keep bringing up scoring numbers when comparing Russell/Wilt but you KNOW for a fact that this doesn't do Russell justice as his main fortay was defense, rebounding, leadership (yes, an intangible that's huge) and winning. Yet you continue to force their stats down our throats.

How about trying to be more objective? Like I said, I have no problem with Wilt. My only issue is with biased fans like you who think Wilt had no shortcomings and whatever failures he had in the playoffs were always someone else's fault. This thread is a perfect example. You bring up one excuse after another and after that, just copy and paste the same old Wilt stats as if that alone proves his greatness. Just man up and admit that your player wasn't clutch and choked several times and i'll leave you alone.


You didn't answer MY questions.

How come MJ went 1-9 in his first three playoff series, and was swept in his highest scoring season in the first round, and in a series in which he shot .417 from the field, and 9-30 in the clinching game three defeat.

How come MJ couldn't win a game against the 67-15 Celtics? And if you say it was because he was under-manned...well, welcome to Wilt's entire post-season career.

As for Russell. He played with between 4-8 HOFers EVERY season in his career. And even he admitted that Wilt could his job (Russell's) better than Russell could do Wilt's. The reality was, Chamberlain was nearly Russell's equal defensively, and from the mid-60's on, he was at least his equal (actually Chamberlain was more dominant defensively from '67 thru '69.)

BTW, Wilt reduced Russell's FG%'s FAR more than Russell reduced Chamberlain's (in fact, it was almost a negligible difference in their post-season H2H's from Wilt's regular season FG% in that same span.)

Wilt badly outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell in their career H2H's. It was a one-sided beat-down. And again, when Chamberlain had a roster that was the equal of Russell, and healthy, with a quality coach, it was a blowout of the 60-21 and eight-time defending champs, in a series that Wilt just overwhelmed Russell in EVERY facet of the game. As a side-note on that series...remove Wilt and Russell, and the two teams scored almost exactly the same amount of points. Add in the difference between Wilt and Russell, and it was an epic blowout.

Again...I can find FAR more post-season "flop" jobs from guys like Bird and Kareem. And EVERY "GOAT" had their fair share of them.

And aside from '69, in a series in which Wilt STILL outplayed Russell, and then crushed him in game seven...give me your list of the "several choke" jobs that Wilt had in his post-season career. And I also want to know not only Wilt's ENTIRE stat-line in those series, but his opposing center's numbers, as well.

Oh, and keep in mind that Wilt played the entire '68 EDF's with a similar injury that rendered Reed a statute in the last three games of the '70 Finals. Oh, and in that series, Wilt played the entire series on a leg that had major knee surgery just four months before.

Let me give you an example of Wilt's durability. Kareem broke his hand twice in his career, and missed 16 and 21 games each time. Chamberlain broke his hand just before game five of the '72 Finals, and then proceeded to put up one of the GOAT clinching finals' performances of all-time, with a 24-29-8 (10-14 FG/FGA) game in which he nearly outrebounded the entire Knick team by himself.

And I have already given you Wilt's "must-win" and potential "series clinching" games, and he has a solid case as the most CLUTCH performer in playoff history. And BTW, he reduced a peak Kareem to a .383 FG% shooter in their two series clinching H2H games (outshooting him .545 to .383...18-33 to 23-60.)

Next...

[AirFederer]

And I have already given you Wilt's "must-win" and potential "series clinching" games, and he has a solid case as the most CLUTCH performer in playoff history. And BTW, he reduced a peak Kareem to a .383 FG% shooter in their two series clinching H2H games (outshooting him .545 to .383...18-33 to 23-60.)
:biggums: :wtf: ::roll:
:lol :cheers:

[ClipperRevival]

You didn't answer MY questions.

How come MJ went 1-9 in his first three playoff series, and was swept in his highest scoring season in the first round, and in a series in which he shot .417 from the field, and 9-30 in the clinching game three defeat.

How come MJ couldn't win a game against the 67-15 Celtics? And if you say it was because he was under-manned...well, welcome to Wilt's entire post-season career.

As for Russell. He played with between 4-8 HOFers EVERY season in his career. And even he admitted that Wilt could his job (Russell's) better than Russell could do Wilt's. The reality was, Chamberlain was nearly Russell's equal defensively, and from the mid-60's on, he was at least his equal (actually Chamberlain was more dominant defensively from '67 thru '69.)

BTW, Wilt reduced Russell's FG%'s FAR more than Russell reduced Chamberlain's (in fact, it was almost a negligible difference in their post-season H2H's from Wilt's regular season FG% in that same span.)

Wilt badly outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell in their career H2H's. It was a one-sided beat-down. And again, when Chamberlain had a roster that was the equal of Russell, and healthy, with a quality coach, it was a blowout of the 60-21 and eight-time defending champs, in a series that Wilt just overwhelmed Russell in EVERY facet of the game. As a side-note on that series...remove Wilt and Russell, and the two teams scored almost exactly the same amount of points. Add in the difference between Wilt and Russell, and it was an epic blowout.

Again...I can find FAR more post-season "flop" jobs from guys like Bird and Kareem. And EVERY "GOAT" had their fair share of them.

And aside from '69, in a series in which Wilt STILL outplayed Russell, and then crushed him in game seven...give me your list of the "several choke" jobs that Wilt had in his post-season career. And I also want to know not only Wilt's ENTIRE stat-line in those series, but his opposing center's numbers, as well.

Oh, and keep in mind that Wilt played the entire '68 EDF's with a similar injury that rendered Reed a statute in the last three games of the '70 Finals. Oh, and in that series, Wilt played the entire series on a leg that had major knee surgery just four months before.

Let me give you an example of Wilt's durability. Kareem broke his hand twice in his career, and missed 16 and 21 games each time. Chamberlain broke his hand just before game five of the '72 Finals, and then proceeded to put up one of the GOAT clinching finals' performances of all-time, with a 24-29-8 (10-14 FG/FGA) game in which he nearly outrebounded the entire Knick team by himself.

And I have already given you Wilt's "must-win" and potential "series clinching" games, and he has a solid case as the most CLUTCH performer in playoff history. And BTW, he reduced a peak Kareem to a .383 FG% shooter in their two series clinching H2H games (outshooting him .545 to .383...18-33 to 23-60.)

Next...

I'm done with this. Sad to say this but your posts about Wilt leaves me think LESS of the guy given how hard you try to prop him up. If he was that great, you wouldn't have to try to prop him up. His legacy would speak for itself. Yet, you reek of insecurity by always deflecting blame away from his playoff failures.

Like I said, I'm done. You are simply incapable of conceding anything. It's always someone else's fault.

[dankok8]

Obviously no player should be blamed solely for his team's loss but Wilt as the best player/superstar was responsible for his team's collapse in 1968, 1969, 1970. In fact I have never blamed Wilt for his early years but this 3-year stretch really damaged his legacy.

In 1968 it's completely true that his team suffered from injuries and that if healthy they would have likely won the series but it still doesn't excuse Wilt's play.

Game 6: 20 points, 27 rebounds, 8 assists on 6/21 (29%) FG and 8/23 (35%) FT

Game 7: 14 points, 34 rebounds, 5 assists on 4/9 (44%) FG and 6/15 (40%) FT

Both games were Sixers' losses and Wilt just wasn't assertive enough offensively. In game 7 at home he took 2 shots after half time. That's unacceptable.


In 1969 he was awful really the entire series... 11.7 ppg on 50% shooting. Again not assertive enough on offense. West was sorely waiting for someone to step up (Baylor tried but couldn't...). This series reminds me of Lebron in 2011.

In 1970, the Lakers actually weren't favorites before the series but when Reed went down early in Game 5 with the score 2-2, they suddenly became the favorites. A dominant Game 6 only proved that Wilt had it in him to carry his team to a win in Game 7 but again he had little impact.

Game 7: 21 points, 24 rebounds, 4 assists on 10/16 (63%) FG and 1/11 (9.1%) FT

He also had 6 turnovers and 0 blocks in this game in a blowout loss. He should have gone out and dominated the hobbled Reed.

[LAZERUSS]

Obviously no player should be blamed solely for his team's loss but Wilt as the best player/superstar was responsible for his team's collapse in 1968, 1969, 1970. In fact I have never blamed Wilt for his early years but this 3-year stretch really damaged his legacy.

In 1968 it's completely true that his team suffered from injuries and that if healthy they would have likely won the series but it still doesn't excuse Wilt's play.

Game 6: 20 points, 27 rebounds, 8 assists on 6/21 (29%) FG and 8/23 (35%) FT

Game 7: 14 points, 34 rebounds, 5 assists on 4/9 (44%) FG and 6/15 (40%) FT

Both games were Sixers' losses and Wilt just wasn't assertive enough offensively. In game 7 at home he took 2 shots after half time. That's unacceptable.


In 1969 he was awful really the entire series... 11.7 ppg on 50% shooting. Again not assertive enough on offense. West was sorely waiting for someone to step up (Baylor tried but couldn't...). This series reminds me of Lebron in 2011.

In 1970, the Lakers actually weren't favorites before the series but when Reed went down early in Game 5 with the score 2-2, they suddenly became the favorites. A dominant Game 6 only proved that Wilt had it in him to carry his team to a win in Game 7 but again he had little impact.

Game 7: 21 points, 24 rebounds, 4 assists on 10/16 (63%) FG and 1/11 (9.1%) FT

He also had 6 turnovers and 0 blocks in this game in a blowout loss. He should have gone out and dominated the hobbled Reed.

Two can play that same game, though.

Kareem was badly outplayed in the clinching game five blowout loss by Reed in the '70 ECF's. True, Kareem outplayed him before that game...but since Wilt was expected to dominate EVERY game...then the same standard has to apply to KAJ.

Kareem was held a shot-jacking brick-layer in the last four games of the '72 WCF's, and in a series in which virtually everyone claimed that Wilt outplayed him.

Kareem took his 60-22 team down the drain in the first round of the '73 playoffs against Thurmond and his 47-35 Warriors, in a series in which Kareem shot .428 from the field.

Kareem was outplayed by Dave Cowens in a game seven, in a blowout loss on his home court in the '74 Finals. Again, Kareem easily outplayed Cowens for the series, but sorry...no excuses.

Kareem couldn't even get his '75 and '76 teams into the playoffs.

And since Wilt gets ripped for losing to Russell in the '60, '62, '64, '65, '66, and '68 playoff H2H's, in series in which Russell had far better supporting casts (in '68 Wilt's teammates were just decimated with injuries), and in series in which C hamberlain just shelled Russell,....well, even though Kareem mopped the floor with Walton in the '77 WCF's..well, Walton led his 49-33 Blazers to a sweeping win over KAJ's 52-29 Lakers. So, yes, Kareem's fault.

Kareem was nowhere near as dominant as he should have been against the Sonics, who had far less overall talent, in '78 and '79...so, yes, KAJ's fault.

Moses battered KAJ in their '81 first round series, and shocked KAJ's heavily favored Lakers.

Moses again just murdered KAJ in the '83 Finals, in a sweeping win over the Lakers.

KAJ shot 7-25 from the floor in a pivotal game five of the '84 Finals...en route to a game seven loss.

And KAJ gets credit for a ring in '88, with a 13-4 .414 Finals, which included a game seven of 4 points, on 2-7 shooting, with 3 rebs, and 5 PFs.

[dankok8]

Two can play that same game, though.

Kareem was badly outplayed in the clinching game five blowout loss by Reed in the '70 ECF's. True, Kareem outplayed him before that game...but since Wilt was expected to dominate EVERY game...then the same standard has to apply to KAJ.

Kareem was held a shot-jacking brick-layer in the last four games of the '72 WCF's, and in a series in which virtually everyone claimed that Wilt outplayed him.

Kareem took his 60-22 team down the drain in the first round of the '73 playoffs against Thurmond and his 47-35 Warriors, in a series in which Kareem shot .428 from the field.

Kareem was outplayed by Dave Cowens in a game seven, in a blowout loss on his home court in the '74 Finals. Again, Kareem easily outplayed Cowens for the series, but sorry...no excuses.

Kareem couldn't even get his '75 and '76 teams into the playoffs.

And since Wilt gets ripped for losing to Russell in the '60, '62, '64, '65, '66, and '68 playoff H2H's, in series in which Russell had far better supporting casts (in '68 Wilt's teammates were just decimated with injuries), and in series in which C hamberlain just shelled Russell,....well, even though Kareem mopped the floor with Walton in the '77 WCF's..well, Walton led his 49-33 Blazers to a sweeping win over KAJ's 52-29 Lakers. So, yes, Kareem's fault.

Kareem was nowhere near as dominant as he should have been against the Sonics, who had far less overall talent, in '78 and '79...so, yes, KAJ's fault.

Moses battered KAJ in their '81 first round series, and shocked KAJ's heavily favored Lakers.

Moses again just murdered KAJ in the '83 Finals, in a sweeping win over the Lakers.

KAJ shot 7-25 from the floor in a pivotal game five of the '84 Finals...en route to a game seven loss.

And KAJ gets credit for a ring in '88, with a 13-4 .414 Finals, which included a game seven of 4 points, on 2-7 shooting, with 3 rebs, and 5 PFs.

We are discussing Wilt here, not Kareem. Besides Kareem's only choke is 1973 against the Warriors. All the other series you listed he was either the underdog, he played well, and/or other players screwed it up more than he did. Prime Kareem obviously had games where he struggled (as did any other great...) but he never laid an egg in the ENTIRE FINALS like Wilt did in 1969 or took 9 shots and 2 after half time in a Game 7. Never happened... What Wilt did is REALLY REALLY BAD...

I never rip Wilt for his losses 1960-1966 (though he could have played better in 1966...) but from 1968-1970 he lost three potential championships with his subpar play. He is not solely to blame but he should be blamed for sure.

[LAZERUSS]

We are discussing Wilt here, not Kareem. Besides Kareem's only choke is 1973 against the Warriors. All the other series you listed he was either the underdog, he played well, and/or other players screwed it up more than he did. Prime Kareem never laid an egg in the ENTIRE FINALS like Wilt did in 1969 or took 9 shots and 2 after half time in a Game 7. Never happened... What Wilt did is REALLY REALLY BAD...

I never rip Wilt for his losses 1960-1966 (though he could have played better in 1966...) but from 1968-1970 he lost three potential championships with his subpar play. He is not solely to blame but he should be blamed for sure.

Kareem missed a key Finals game with a sprained ankle. Chamberlain basically played the entire '68 EDF's, and the entire '70 Finals on one leg, and worst case, was NOWHERE near 100%. And even in the '70 Finals, he was the BEST player on the floor in the last three games (and battled a much healthier and peak Reed to a draw in the first four games.)

Furthermore, Chamberlain, despite being NOTICEABLY HOBBLED, still put up a HUGE game five in the '68 EDF's, which would have been enough to win the series had ANY of his teammates stepped up in that game. And, in game seven, Chamberlain only TOUCHED the ball NINE times the entire second half, and only TWICE in the 4th quarter. And please don't say that he should have demanded the ball, either. His COACH, who was generally brilliant, flat out blew that game seven...as did Wilt's TEAMMATES who collectively shot 33% from the floor.

And Wilt played well enough in game seven of the '69 Finals to have won that game...had his TEAMMATES not collectively shot .360 from the floor in a two point loss. In any case, he wiped the floor with Russell in that game.

And no, KAJ did not JUST play poorly in the '73 playoffs. His shooting was atrocious against Chamberlain in the '72 WCF's (and he was outplayed by Wilt in their '71 playoff H2H as well.) Furthermore, in his biggest game of the '74 Finals, he flat out choked.

And how come KAJ didn't put a 30-35 ppg series against the Sonics with their cast of clown centers in both '78 and '79. You would have expected Chamberlain to do so I'm sure.

And clearly, Moses outplayed Kareem in both their '81 and '83 playoff H2H's, and because of it, his team lost. True, you can blame a rusty Magic too...but then, blame Baylor and Greer for their HORRID play in game seven's of the '68 EDF's, and '69 Finals...and West for being destroyed by Frazier in game seven of the '70 Finals.

[dankok8]

Kareem missed a key Finals game with a sprained ankle. Chamberlain basically played the entire '68 EDF's, and the entire '70 Finals on one leg, and worst case, was NOWHERE near 100%. And even in the '70 Finals, he was the BEST player on the floor in the last three games (and battled a much healthier and peak Reed to a draw in the first four games.)

Furthermore, Chamberlain, despite being NOTICEABLY HOBBLED, still put up a HUGE game five in the '68 EDF's, which would have been enough to win the series had ANY of his teammates stepped up in that game. And, in game seven, Chamberlain only TOUCHED the ball NINE times the entire second half, and only TWICE in the 4th quarter. And please don't say that he should have demanded the ball, either. His COACH, who was generally brilliant, flat out blew that game seven...as did Wilt's TEAMMATES who collectively shot 33% from the floor.

And Wilt played well enough in game seven of the '69 Finals to have won that game...had his TEAMMATES not collectively shot .360 from the floor in a two point loss. In any case, he wiped the floor with Russell in that game.

And no, KAJ did not JUST play poorly in the '73 playoffs. His shooting was atrocious against Chamberlain in the '72 WCF's (and he was outplayed by Wilt in their '71 playoff H2H as well.) Furthermore, in his biggest game of the '74 Finals, he flat out choked.

And how come KAJ didn't put a 30-35 ppg series against the Sonics with their cast of clown centers in both '78 and '79. You would have expected Chamberlain to do so I'm sure.

And clearly, Moses outplayed Kareem in both their '81 and '83 playoff H2H's, and because of it, his team lost. True, you can blame a rusty Magic too...but then, blame Baylor and Greer for their HORRID play in game seven's of the '68 EDF's, and '69 Finals...and West for being destroyed by Frazier in game seven of the '70 Finals.

He had a good Game 5 in 1968 but I wouldn't call it dominant. 28 points on decent efficiency is expected from a league MVP and GOAT candidate in his prime. Then he totally stunk it up in Game 6 and 7.

1969 was just a terrible showing all around through the series. Game 4 and Game 6 were absolutely awful for Wilt (8 points in each with horrid shooting) and both were close losses could have ended the series for LA.

I have no issue with how Wilt played in the 1970 Finals apart from Game 7. I mean he had to destroy a hobbled Reed. You never post 1-11 from the line, 0 blocks, and 6 turnovers. He had a BAD GAME.

[LAZERUSS]

He had a good Game 5 in 1968 but I wouldn't call it dominant. 28 points on decent efficiency is expected from a league MVP and GOAT candidate in his prime. Then he totally stunk it up in Game 6 and 7.

1969 was just a terrible showing all around through the series. Game 4 and Game 6 were absolutely awful for Wilt (8 points in each with horrid shooting) and both were close losses could have ended the series for LA.

I have no issue with how Wilt played in the 1970 Finals apart from Game 7. I mean he had to destroy a hobbled Reed. You never post 1-11 from the line, 0 blocks, and 6 turnovers. He had a BAD GAME.

A 28-30 11-21 game (while holding Russell to an 8-24 4-10 game) is not a dominant game? How many of those 28-30 games did Kareem have in his playoff career? Furthermore, and you know it too, Chamberlain was fighting an assortment of injuries, and was nowhere near 100%. And yes, he played relatively poorly in game's 6 and 7, BUT, he still took down 34 rebounds in game seven. But sorry, and overall 22-25-7 series has not been done very often by anyone other than Chamberlain. And this was an injured and worn out Wilt. My god, Kareem shot a combined .414 from the field against Wilt in a span of four straight games in the '72 WCF's, on a HUGE number of attempts, and basically shot his team right down the drain. Do you BLAME Kareem for that AWFUL shooting?

And I would agree that Wilt played poorly, by his standards anyway, in the '69 Final, and his play in game six was his worst of his Finals career. BUT, I could list poor game-after-poor game by Kareem, Bird, Kobe...you name it, in their post-season, and Finals careers. . And again, Chamberlain played well enough in game seven, that had his teammates even played an ordinary game, that he would have added another ring. BTW, the Lakers were ONE PLAY away from winning that series, 4-1 (and Egan essentially cost them the series with that one play.)

And a game seven of 21-24 on 10-16 is a BAD GAME? Geezus...the famous Wilt DOUBLE-STANDARD! BTW, his 1-11 FT shooting had no bearing on that game, nor did Reed's play, either. The Knicks came out on fire, hitting 15 of their first 21 shots, and aside from the Wilt-Reed matchup, just dominated LA man-for-man right down the roster in that game seven.

Yep...a 23-24 .625 series, on one leg, and it is WILT who gets the blame.

[ClipperRevival]

He had a good Game 5 in 1968 but I wouldn't call it dominant. 28 points on decent efficiency is expected from a league MVP and GOAT candidate in his prime. Then he totally stunk it up in Game 6 and 7.

1969 was just a terrible showing all around through the series. Game 4 and Game 6 were absolutely awful for Wilt (8 points in each with horrid shooting) and both were close losses could have ended the series for LA.

I have no issue with how Wilt played in the 1970 Finals apart from Game 7. I mean he had to destroy a hobbled Reed. You never post 1-11 from the line, 0 blocks, and 6 turnovers. He had a BAD GAME.

Don't even bother with this guy. He's not worth your time. You could make perfect sense, concede a little here and there but he simply won't budge. He will never concede that Wilt choked in some of his playoff series. It's always someone else's fault. Trust me, just let it go. People see who is making sense and who is completely unwilling to concede anything.

[LAZERUSS]

Don't even bother with this guy. He's not worth your time. You could make perfect sense, concede a little here and there but he simply won't budge. He will never concede that Wilt choked in some of his playoff series. It's always someone else's fault. Trust me, just let it go. People see who is making sense and who is completely unwilling to concede anything.

And they see idiots who do zero research, like yourself, making up complete lies, and phony story lines.

The "bashers" have to resort to SINGLE GAMES, and even HALVES of single games, to find fault with him. Yet I can post game-after-game of the other GOATs, and even entire SERIES in which they puked all over the floor...and then the EXCUSES POUR IN.

[ClipperRevival]

We are discussing Wilt here, not Kareem. Besides Kareem's only choke is 1973 against the Warriors. All the other series you listed he was either the underdog, he played well, and/or other players screwed it up more than he did. Prime Kareem obviously had games where he struggled (as did any other great...) but he never laid an egg in the ENTIRE FINALS like Wilt did in 1969 or took 9 shots and 2 after half time in a Game 7. Never happened... What Wilt did is REALLY REALLY BAD...

I never rip Wilt for his losses 1960-1966 (though he could have played better in 1966...) but from 1968-1970 he lost three potential championships with his subpar play. He is not solely to blame but he should be blamed for sure.

And this is where legacies are set. He had a CHANCE to be up their with the GOAT discussion with MJ if he had won from 1968 - 1970. That would've put him at 5 instead of 2. 5/6 instead of 2/6. That's what the transcendent talents do. Impose their will on the game and win. Disappearing in game 7s saids a lot to me. Shows me that maybe he didn't care that much about winning.

[LAZERUSS]

And this is where legacies are set. He had a CHANCE to be up their with the GOAT discussion with MJ if he had won from 1968 - 1970. That would've put him at 5 instead of 2. 5/6 instead of 2/6. That's what the transcendent talents do. Impose their will on the game and win. Disappearing in game 7s saids a lot to me. Shows me that maybe he didn't care that much about winning.

Please post the 18-27 .875 FG% games, the 34 rebound games, and the 21-24 .625 game seven's by these other "GOATS" in their GAME SEVENs. Hell, Hakeem shot 10-25 in his game seven in the '94 Finals, and luckily his teammates played well enough to a win.

If he didn't care enough, he certainly could have pulled a Kareem or Reed, or even Russell excuse, and just plain missed games in those series. Even Russell acknowledged that "a lessor man would not have played" in the '68 ECF's (and yet Chamberlain played every minute of that seven game series.)

And he didn't even have to comeback at all in the '70 season. Hell, even the most OPTIMISTIC medical opinion had Wilt out for the entire year. And yet he came back, and BTW, played a game seven for the ages in round one (and again, on one leg) with a 30-26 game...in leading his team back froma 3-1 series deficit against the Suns. And then he led his Lakers to a sweeping win in the next series, and without HCA. And to take a 46-36 team to a game seven against the same 60-22 Knick team that annihilated Kareem's 56-26 Bucks in the ECF's, 4-1 (including a 30 point blowout win in the clinching game five)...well, that would have been remarkable for a HEALTHY GOAT candidate.

But, again...the WILT DOUBLE STANDARD...

[ClipperRevival]

It's amazing how Wilt's numbers continued to dip as the stakes got higher.

Regular season - 30.1
Playoffs - 22.5
Finals - 18.7

Even more interesting, in his first 6 years in the league, when he played with teams that weren't as talented as the teams he had later in his career, he averaged a whooping 40.6 ppg while attempting a mind boggling 32.5 attempts per game. No player has ever had the green light to just go get his like Wilt in his first 6 years.

But after his first 6 years, as he started to play with teams that actually had talent and could compete for titles, his ppg for the rest of his career was 21.7.

[ClipperRevival]

On the flip side, a guy like Hakeem improved his scoring as the stakes got higher.

Regular season - 21.8
Playoffs - 25.9
Finals - 27.5 (6th all time)

[ClipperRevival]

KAJ was very consistent throughout.

Regular season - 24.6
Playoffs - 24.3
Finals - 23.5

[ClipperRevival]

Shaq got better.

Regular season - 23.7
Playoffs - 24.3
Finals - 28.9 (4th all time)

[LAZERUSS]

On the flip side, a guy like Hakeem improved his scoring as the stakes got higher.

Regular season - 21.8
Playoffs - 25.9
Finals - 27.5 (6th all time)

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[QUOTE][/And, had he had the good "fortune" to have been eliminated in the first round of the playoffs, EIGHT times, as was the case with Hakeem, his first round numbers were often HIGHER. And, I have read an idiot post claiming that Hakeem outshot Wilt from the field in the post-season (by a .528 to .522 margin), BUT, I will be comparing their post-season LEAGUE AVERAGES, (and even including eFG%'s), which CLEARLY gives Chamberlain a HUGE edge.

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

38.7 ppg

37.0 ppg

37.0 ppg

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

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

28.0 ppg

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

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

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

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

So while Chamberlain was shooting .522 in his post-season career, it came in post-seasons of between .402 to .455.) Meanwhile Hakeem's .528 came in post-seasons of as high as .492, and an efg% as high as .500. MANY in the .485+ range, as well.

And, keep in mind two more interesting points. One, in Wilt's second greatest scoring season (44.8 ppg on .528 shooting) his all-time worst roster kept him from playing in the post-season (which probably cost him another 2-3+ ppg in his post-seasob career average.) And two, he faced a starting HOF center in 105 of his 160 post-season games, including Russell in 49, Thurmond in 17, and a PRIME Kareem in 11.QUOTE]

Chamberlain would have put up HUGE numbers had he had the good fortune to get wiped out in the FIRST ROUND, EIGHT times.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

CLUTCH????

[QUOTE][/
And CLUTCH?

[QUOTE][/Ok, here are the known numbers in Wilt's "must-win" playoff games (elimination games), and clinching game performances (either deciding winning or losing games), of BOTH Chamberlain, and his starting opposing centers in those games.

1. Game three of a best-of-three series in the first round of the 59-60 playoffs against Syracuse, a 132-112 win. Wilt with 53 points, on 24-42 shooting, with 22 rebounds. His opposing center, Red Kerr, who was a multiple all-star in his career, had 7 points.

2. Game five of the 59-60 ECF's against Boston, a 128-107 win. Chamberlain had 50 points, on 22-42 shooting, with 35 rebounds. His opposing center, Russell, had 22 points and 27 rebounds.

3. Game six of the 59-60 ECF's against Boston, in a 119-117 loss. Wilt had a 26-24 game, while Russell had a 25-25 game.

4. Game three of a best-of-five series in the first round of the 60-61 playoffs , and against Syracuse, in a 106-103 loss. Chamberlain with 33 points, while his opposing center, the 7-3 Swede Halbrook, scored 6 points.

5. Game five of a best-of-five series in the first round of the 61-62 playoffs, against Syracuse, in a 121-104 win. Chamberlain had 56 points, on 22-48 shooting, with 35 rebounds. Kerr had 20 points in the loss.

6. Game six of the 61-62 ECF's, and against Boston, in a 109-99 win. Wilt with 32 points and 21 rebounds. Russell had 19 points and 22 rebounds in the loss.

7. Game seven of the 61-62 ECF's, against Boston, in a 109-107 loss. Wilt with 22 points, on 7-15 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Russell had 19 points, on 7-14 shooting, with 22 rebounds in the win.

8. Game seven of the 63-64 WCF's, and against St. Louis, in a 105-95 win. Wilt with 39 points, 26 rebounds, and 10 blocks. His opposing center, Zelmo Beaty, who would go on to become a multiple all-star, had 10 points in the loss.

9. Game five of the 63-64 Finals, and against Boston, in a 105-99 loss. Chamberlain with 30 points and 27 rebounds. Russell had 14 points and 26 points in the win.

10. Game four of a best-of-five series in the 64-65 first round of the playoffs against Cincinnati, a 119-112 win. Chamberlain with 38 points. His opposing center, multiple all-star (and HOFer) Wayne Embry had 7 points in the loss.

11. Game six of the 64-65 ECF's, against Boston, a 112-106 win. Chamberlain with a 30-26 game. Russell with a 22-21 game in the loss.

12. Game seven of the 64-65 ECF's, and against Boston, a 110-109 loss. Wilt with 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds. Russell had 15 points, on 7-16 shooting, with 29 rebounds in the win.

13. Game five of a best-of-seven series, in the 65-66 ECF's, and against Boston, in a 120-112 loss. Wilt had 46 points, on 19-34 shooting, with 34 rebounds. Russell had 18 points and 31 rebounds in the win.

14. Game four of a best-of-five series, in the first round of the 66-67 playoffs, and against Cincinnati, a 112-94 win. Wilt with 18 points, on 7-14 shooting, with 27 rebounds and 9 assists. His opposing center, Connie Dierking, had 8 points, on 4-14 shooting, with 4 rebounds in the loss.

15. Game five of the 66-67 ECF's, and against Boston, in a 140-116 win. Chamberlain with 29 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and 7 blocks. Russell had 4 points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and 7 assists in the loss.

16. Game six of the 66-67 Finals, and against San Francisco, in a 125-122 win. Chamberlain with 24 points, on 8-13 shooting, with 23 rebounds. His oppsoing center, HOFer Nate Thurmond, had 12 points, on 4-13 shooting, with 22 rebounds in the loss.

17. Game six of the first round of the 67-68 playoffs, against NY, in a 113-97 win. Wilt had 25 points, and 27 rebounds. His opposing center, HOFer Walt Bellamy, had 19 points in the loss.

18. Game seven of the 67-68 ECF's, against Boston, in a 100-96 loss. Wilt with 14 points, on 4-9 shooting, with 34 rebounds. Russell had 12 points and 26 rebounds in the win.

19. Game six of the first round of the 68-69 playoffs, against San Francisco, in a 118-78 win. Wilt with 11 points on 5/9 FG, 25 rebounds and 1 assist. Thurmond had 8 points in the loss.

20. Game four of the 68-69 WCF's, against Atlanta, in a 133-114 sweeping win. Chamberlain with 16 points on 5/11 FG, 29 rebounds and 10 blocks. His opposing center, Zelmo Beaty had 30 points in the loss.

21. Game seven of the 68-69 Finals, against Boston, in a 108-106 loss. Chamberlain had 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds. Russell had 6 points, on 2-7 shooting, with 21 rebounds in the win.

22. Game five of a best-of-seven series (the Lakers were down 3-1 going into the game) in the first round of the 69-70 playoffs, and against Phoenix, a 138-121 win. Wilt with 36 points on 12/20 FG 14 rebounds and 3 assists. His opposing center, Neal Walk, had 18 points in the loss.

23. Game six of the first round of the 69-70 playoffs, against Phoenix, in a 104-93 win. Wilt with 12 points on 4/11 FG, 26 rebounds, 11 assists and 12 blocks (unofficial quad). Jim Fox started that game for Phoenix, and had 13 points in the loss.

24. Game seven of the first round of the 69-70 playoffs, against Phoenix, and in a 129-94 win, which capped a 4-3 series win after falling behind 3-1 in the series. Wilt with 30 points on 11/18 FG, 27 rebounds, 6 assists and 11 blocks. Fox had 7 points in the loss.

25. Game four of the 69-70 WCF's, against Atlanta, in a 133-114 sweeping win. Wilt with 11 points on 5/10 FG, 21 rebounds and 10 blocks. Bellamy had 19 points in the loss.

26. Game six of the 69-70 Finals, against NY, in a 135-113 win. Wilt with 45 points, on 20-27 shooting, with 27 rebounds. Nate Bowman had 18 points, on 9-15 shooting, with 8 rebounds in the loss.

27. Game seven of the 69-70 Finals, against NY, in a 113-99 loss. Wilt with 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds. HOFer Willis Reed had 4 points, on 2-5 shooting, with 3 rebounds in the win.

28. Game seven of the first round of the 70-71 playoffs, against Chicago, in a 109-98 win. Wilt with 25 points on 7/12 FG,18 rebounds and 9 assists. 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle had 4 points for the Bulls in the loss.

29. Game five of the 70-71 WCF's, against Milwaukee, in a 116-94 loss. Wilt had 23 points, on 10-21 shooting, with 12 rebounds, 6 blocks (5 of them on Alcindor/Kareem.) Kareem had 20 points, on 7-23 shooting, with 15 rebounds, and 3 blocks in the win. Incidently, Wilt received a standing ovation when he left the game late...and the game was played in Milwaukee.

30. Game four of the 71-72 first round of the playoffs, against Chicago, in a 108-97 sweeping win. Wilt had 8 points on 4/6, 31 rebounds and 8 assists. Clifford Ray had 20 points in the loss.

31. Game six of the 71-72 WCF's, against Milwaukee, in a 104-100 win. Chamberlain with 20 points, on 8-12 shooting, with 24 rebounds, and 9 blocks (six against Kareem.) Kareem had 37 points, on 16-37 shooting, with 25 rebounds in the loss.

32. Game five of the 71-72 Finals, against NY, in a 114-100 win. Chamberlain with 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds, and 9 blocks. HOFer Jerry Lucas had 14 points, on 5-14 shooting, with 9 rebounds in the loss.

33. Game seven of the first round of the 72-73 playoffs, against Chicago, in a 95-92 win. Wilt with 21 points on 10/17 FG, 28 rebounds, 4 asissts and 8 blocks. His opposing center, Clifford Ray, had 4 points.

The article about this series sad that Wilt blocked Chicago from playoffs after blocking 49 shots in 7 games.

34. Game five of the 72-73 WCF's, and against Golden St., in a 128-118 win. Wilt with 5 points on 2/2 FG, 22 rebounds, 7 assists. Thurmond had 9 points on 2/9 FG, 18 or 15 rebounds and 5 assists in 32 minutes in the loss.

35. Game five of the 72-73 Finals, against NY, in a 102-93 loss. Wilt with 23 points, on 9-16 shooting, with 21 rebounds. Willis Reed had 18 points, on 9-16 shooting, with 12 rebounds.

That was it. 35 "must-win" elimination and/or clinching post-season games.QUOTE]QUOTE]

Wilt
Kareem
Russell
Shaq

Duncan

Moses
Hakeem

[ClipperRevival]

The sun comes up, the sky is blue and Laz copies and pastes the same sh*t over and over again. :banghead:

[ClipperRevival]

Bill Russell also got better, even if slightly.

Regular season - 15.1
Playoffs - 16.2
Finals - 16. 4

[LAZERUSS]

The sun comes up, the sky is blue and Laz copies and pastes the same sh*t over and over again. :banghead:

Only because the same idiots keep posting the same idiotic nonsense over-and-over.

[LAZERUSS]

Bill Russell also got better, even if slightly.

Regular season - 15.1
Playoffs - 16.2
Finals - 16. 4

Please give us Russell's post-season numbers against WILT, as well as his post-season FG%.

A HUGE decline.

Russell's numbers against Wilt in the Finals:

'64: 11.2 ppg on a .386 FG%
'69: 9.0 ppg on a .399 FG%.

And, of course, Chamberlain SLAUGHTERED him in scoring, rebounding, and FG%, in their post-season H2H's as well. And had they swapped rosters, it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

[ClipperRevival]

Please give us Russell's post-season numbers against WILT, as well as his post-season FG%.

A HUGE decline.

And, of course, Chamberlain SLAUGHTERED him in scoring, rebounding, and FG%, as well. And had they swapped rosters, it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

Wilt was the superior talent but Russell was the superior winner. Wilt had like 4 inches and 50 lbs on Russell, of course he should get the better of the match up. But Russell was a winner, your man wasn't.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt was the superior talent but Russell was the superior winner. Wilt had like 4 inches and 50 lbs on Russell, of course he should get the better of the match up. But Russell was a winner, your man wasn't.

Russell had better TEAMS.

Plain-and-simple.

And when Wilt had EQUAL rosters, that were healthy, and reasonably coached...

A 4-1 rout of the eight-time defending and 60-21 Celtics in a series in which the Sixers outscored Boston by +10.4 ppg....and Chamberlain outscored Russell by +11.4 ppg. THERE is your answer my friend.

[dankok8]

A 28-30 11-21 game (while holding Russell to an 8-24 4-10 game) is not a dominant game? How many of those 28-30 games did Kareem have in his playoff career? Furthermore, and you know it too, Chamberlain was fighting an assortment of injuries, and was nowhere near 100%. And yes, he played relatively poorly in game's 6 and 7, BUT, he still took down 34 rebounds in game seven. But sorry, and overall 22-25-7 series has not been done very often by anyone other than Chamberlain. And this was an injured and worn out Wilt. My god, Kareem shot a combined .414 from the field against Wilt in a span of four straight games in the '72 WCF's, on a HUGE number of attempts, and basically shot his team right down the drain. Do you BLAME Kareem for that AWFUL shooting?

And I would agree that Wilt played poorly, by his standards anyway, in the '69 Final, and his play in game six was his worst of his Finals career. BUT, I could list poor game-after-poor game by Kareem, Bird, Kobe...you name it, in their post-season, and Finals careers. . And again, Chamberlain played well enough in game seven, that had his teammates even played an ordinary game, that he would have added another ring. BTW, the Lakers were ONE PLAY away from winning that series, 4-1 (and Egan essentially cost them the series with that one play.)

And a game seven of 21-24 on 10-16 is a BAD GAME? Geezus...the famous Wilt DOUBLE-STANDARD! BTW, his 1-11 FT shooting had no bearing on that game, nor did Reed's play, either. The Knicks came out on fire, hitting 15 of their first 21 shots, and aside from the Wilt-Reed matchup, just dominated LA man-for-man right down the roster in that game seven.

Yep...a 23-24 .625 series, on one leg, and it is WILT who gets the blame.

You should stop mentioning rebounds when making a point because everyone knows they were inflated by the era Wilt was in. Just because nobody in later era was grabbing 30 boards doesn't mean they were lesser players. Wilt couldn't either when every team is grabbing 45 a game instead of 70+ a game.

Anyways a 28 point game on 52% shooting is not dominant for a GOAT candidate in his prime. A very good game but not dominant. And then he followed it up with two awful efforts in Game 6 and Game 7.

Glad we agree that Wilt was subpar in 1969.

Again in Game 7 of the 1970 Finals. 0 blocks and 6 turnovers. Wilt had to see Reed hobbling and say "I'm gonna kill this guy tonight and make him regret he ever came out on the court!" or when the Knicks guard were flying into the paint for what was a lay-up line, clotheline somebody and send them to the hardwood. Wilt had no defensive impact and he seemed passive. He had to dominate on both ends and the path was wide open for him with Reed injured. His 45/27 dominating Game 6 only confirms that he was ABLE TO do it. Wilt just lacked the killer instinct. You just know that Shaq and Kareem would show no mercy in that situation.

Basically Wilt had the ability to be GOAT. He should have been the GOAT. But he wasn't...

[LAZERUSS]

You should stop mentioning rebounds when making a point because everyone knows they were inflated by the era Wilt was in. Just because nobody in later era was grabbing 30 boards doesn't mean they were lesser players. Wilt couldn't either when every team is grabbing 45 a game instead of 70+ a game.

Anyways a 28 point game on 52% shooting is not dominant for a GOAT candidate in his prime. A very good game but not dominant. And then he followed it up with two awful efforts in Game 6 and Game 7.

Glad we agree that Wilt was subpar in 1969.

Again in Game 7 of the 1970 Finals. 0 blocks and 6 turnovers. Wilt had to see Reed hobbling and say "I'm gonna kill this guy tonight and make him regret he ever came out on the court!" or when the Knicks guard were flying into the paint for what was a lay-up line, clotheline somebody and send them to the hardwood. Wilt had no defensive impact and he seemed passive. He had to dominate on both ends and the path was wide open for him with Reed injured. His 45/27 dominating Game 6 only confirms that he was ABLE TO do it. Wilt just lacked the killer instinct. You just know that Shaq and Kareem would show no mercy in that situation.

Basically Wilt had the ability to be GOAT. He should have been the GOAT. But he wasn't...

Honest question...

what was KAJ's stat-line in game six of the '80 Finals?

[LAZERUSS]

You should stop mentioning rebounds when making a point because everyone knows they were inflated by the era Wilt was in. Just because nobody in later era was grabbing 30 boards doesn't mean they were lesser players. Wilt couldn't either when every team is grabbing 45 a game instead of 70+ a game.

Anyways a 28 point game on 52% shooting is not dominant for a GOAT candidate in his prime. A very good game but not dominant. And then he followed it up with two awful efforts in Game 6 and Game 7.

Glad we agree that Wilt was subpar in 1969.

Again in Game 7 of the 1970 Finals. 0 blocks and 6 turnovers. Wilt had to see Reed hobbling and say "I'm gonna kill this guy tonight and make him regret he ever came out on the court!" or when the Knicks guard were flying into the paint for what was a lay-up line, clotheline somebody and send them to the hardwood. Wilt had no defensive impact and he seemed passive. He had to dominate on both ends and the path was wide open for him with Reed injured. His 45/27 dominating Game 6 only confirms that he was ABLE TO do it. Wilt just lacked the killer instinct. You just know that Shaq and Kareem would show no mercy in that situation.

Basically Wilt had the ability to be GOAT. He should have been the GOAT. But he wasn't...

Another honest question...

Kareem broke his wrist twice in his career, and can you tell me how many games he missed each time?

And then, we KNOW that Chamberlain broke his wrist in game four of the '72 NBA Finals. Can you tell me if he played in game five of that series, and if he did, what kind of a game did he have?

[LAZERUSS]

Just because nobody in later era was grabbing 30 boards doesn't mean they were lesser players.

????

A Chamberlain in his LAST post-season, covering 17 games, averaged 22.5 rpg in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg per team. Tell me how many times KAJ even remotely approached those kind of numbers in his post-season career...FOUR of which came IN the Wilt-era, and at his absolute PEAK?

[LAZERUSS]

Another honest question...

Reed had a tear in his leg muscle in the '70 Finals, and in the last three games of that series, he scored a total of 11 points, on 4-10 shooting, with 3 rebounds.

Now, Chamberlain had a similar tear in his leg muscle in the '68 ECF's, along with several other injuries...now can you refresh my memory and tell me how games did he play in that '68 series, and how many mpg, ppg, and apg did he average in that seven game series?

[ClipperRevival]

Wilt is arguably the best rebounder ever. Even at an older age, when he was past his prime, he was still leading the league in rebounding. But still, it doesn't change the fact that the guy had a flawed career. He came up short when it mattered. He lacked that killer instinct. And all the individual stats in the world can't change this simple fact. You play to win the game, not just put up great, individual numbers. Many guys have put up great individual numbers but didn't win (Melo, Dantley, Nique, etc).

[CavaliersFTW]

Wilt is arguably the best rebounder ever. Even at an older age, when he was past his prime, he was still leading the league in rebounding. But still, it doesn't change the fact that the guy had a flawed career. He came up short when it mattered. He lacked that killer instinct. And all the individual stats in the world can't change this simple fact. You play to win the game, not just put up great, individual numbers. Many guys have put up great individual numbers but didn't win (Melo, Dantley, Nique, etc).
A guy who changes his game by cutting his shot attempts in half, twice, in order to win is being criticized for putting up great numbers here? I've heard everything now.

[ClipperRevival]

A guy who changes his game by cutting his shot attempts in half, twice, in order to win is being criticized for putting up great numbers here? I've heard everything now.

I'm criticizing him for coming up short when it mattered most. He had several chances to legitimately win rings and choked it away. That I hold against him. He had a chance to change his legacy and impose his will on the game when it mattered most but didn't.

[CavaliersFTW]

I'm criticizing him for coming up short when it mattered most. He had several chances to legitimately win rings and choked it away. That I hold against him. He had a chance to change his legacy and impose his will on the game when it mattered most but didn't.
He won 2 rings anchoring 2 of the greatest teams that ever played. Against matchups like Nate Thurmond, Bill Russell, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

Changed his game by sacrificing his stats too.

You JUST tried to say neither of those things happened. Back peddling now?

[LAZERUSS]

I'm criticizing him for coming up short when it mattered most. He had several chances to legitimately win rings and choked it away. That I hold against him. He had a chance to change his legacy and impose his will on the game when it mattered most but didn't.

A hobbled Chamberlain had a 28-30 game five in the '68 EDF's, and with HALF of his roster injured or missing...which would have clinched the series...but just not enough firepower to overtake a healthy 54-28 Celtic team in that game. It was a MONSTER effort and he SHELLED Russell in that game. He did play poorly in game six, but still had a 26 rebound game (and 20 points.) And his teammates didn't pass him the ball in game seven, and instead they shot something like 34-96...in a four point loss.

In game seven of the '69 Finals, all he could do in his 43 minutes, was hang an 18-27 game on an .875 FG% (while crushing Russell and his 6-21 .286 effort in 48 minutes.)

And in game seven of the '70 Finals, a Wilt, four months removed from major knee surgery hung a 21-24 10-16 game.

Your definition of a "choker" are far different than mine.

[LAZERUSS]

He won 2 rings anchoring 2 of the greatest teams that ever played. Against matchups like Nate Thurmond, Bill Russell, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

Changed his game by sacrificing his stats too.

You JUST tried to say neither of those things happened. Back peddling now?

He statistically outplayed KAJ in their '71 WCF's, and then, by all accounts, outplayed him in their '72 WCF's (holding a peak KAJ to .414 shooting in the last four games of that series.)

Oh, and in those two series' clinching games against a peak Kareem...a 34 and 35 year old Wilt outshot him by a .545 to .383 margin (18-33 to 23-60.)

CLUTCH. While, as was often the case, Kareem CHOKED.

[ClipperRevival]

He won 2 rings anchoring 2 of the greatest teams that ever played. Against matchups like Nate Thurmond, Bill Russell, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

Changed his game by sacrificing his stats too.

You JUST tried to say neither of those things happened. Back peddling now?

The guy had a chance to really be in the GOAT conversation (he already is according to some which shows you how great his legacy is as it stands) but choked away chances in 1968, 1969 and 1970. It's just that simple. We can make excuses for him and point to others but he had his chances and didn't take advantage.

[ClipperRevival]

A hobbled Chamberlain had a 28-30 game five in the '68 EDF's, and with HALF of his roster injured or missing...which would have clinched the series...but just not enough firepower to overtake a healthy 54-28 Celtic team in that game. It was a MONSTER effort and he SHELLED Russell in that game. He did play poorly in game six, but still had a 26 rebound game (and 20 points.) And his teammates didn't pass him the ball in game seven, and instead they shot something like 34-96...in a four point loss.

In game seven of the '69 Finals, all he could do in his 43 minutes, was hang an 18-27 game on an .875 FG% (while crushing Russell and his 6-21 .286 effort in 48 minutes.)

And in game seven of the '70 Finals, a Wilt, four months removed from major knee surgery hung a 21-24 10-16 game.

Your definition of a "choker" are far different than mine.

:roll: You are just a ball of laughs. Really, you are.

[CavaliersFTW]

The guy had a chance to really be in the GOAT conversation (he already is according to some which shows you how great his legacy is as it stands) but choked away chances in 1968, 1969 and 1970. It's just that simple. We can make excuses for him and point to others but he had his chances and didn't take advantage.
Kinda like how MJ choked the 80's away right? Or how he always choked without Pippen? Or how he choked is way out of even making the playoffs in his 3rd come back? I'm taking MJ out of my top group because he choked so many more opportunities away.

*You're logic, not mine.*

People who just try to look at what they consider failures and ignore accolades - accolades which are absolutely stupendous and actually totally unrivaled in a player like Wilt Chamberlain - are sad. Every player failed at some point. Even the greatest winner of all time Bill Russell failed a few times. You're judgements come off as petulant.

[AirFederer]

Laz, Cavs etc are like the few offisers in the bunker still supporting AH after everybody else admitted defeat :lol

Seen Der Untergang? :roll:

[AceManIII]

Kinda like how MJ choked the 80's away right? Or how he always choked without Pippen? Or how he choked is way out of even making the playoffs in his 3rd come back? I'm taking MJ out of my top group because he choked so many more opportunities away.

*You're logic, not mine.*

People who just try to look at what they consider failures and ignore accolades - accolades which are absolutely stupendous and actually totally unrivaled in a player like Wilt Chamberlain - are sad. Every player failed at some point. Even the greatest winner of all time Bill Russell failed a few times. You're judgements come off as petulant.

Wilt your personal GOAT player?

[CavaliersFTW]

Laz, Cavs etc are like the few offisers in the bunker still supporting AH after everybody else admitted defeat :lol

Seen Der Untergang? :roll:
There's a growing social media brand and young fanbase surrounding his namesake and film clips.

You're right that the bunker is located here, on ISH. But the last stand is actually just you and a few other people.

[CavaliersFTW]

Wilt your personal GOAT player?
He's my favorite of the guys who I feel have are the 4 players with the greatest resume's.

Wilt - Most dominant

Russell - Greatest winner

KAJ - best resume that met half way between the bars Wilt and Russ set

MJ - same as KAJ

[ClipperRevival]

Kinda like how MJ choked the 80's away right? Or how he always choked without Pippen? Or how he choked is way out of even making the playoffs in his 3rd come back? I'm taking MJ out of my top group because he choked so many more opportunities away.

*You're logic, not mine.*

People who just try to look at what they consider failures and ignore accolades - accolades which are absolutely stupendous and actually totally unrivaled in a player like Wilt Chamberlain - are sad. Every player failed at some point. Even the greatest winner of all time Bill Russell failed a few times. You're judgements come off as petulant.

I don't hamper players when they didn't have sufficient help. Like Wilt from 60-66. However, i do hamper guys who had help and didn't come through. Wilt had HCA in 68 and 69 against an aging Russell and lost. And even worse, in game 7 at home. And in 70, against a one legged gimp, and lose game 7.

It's called being clutch. If MJ had lost a few finals, i'm sure his fans would have excuse after excuse for why he lost. But he didn't. He took his game to higher levels as the stakes got higher. 30.1 reg season and 33.6 in the finals. It is what it is. Losers give excuses, winners win.

[Horatio33]

Jesus, Wilt Stans! Even Davy Crokett would have had the brains to realise he can't win this one.

[LAZERUSS]

Jesus, Wilt Stans! Even Davy Crokett would have had the brains to realise he can't win this one.

I'm sure that is what Wilt felt like for much of his career, having a huge disadvantage in surrounding talent.

[dankok8]

You can't have it both ways LAZERUSS...

I have seen you argue (and I agree given the evidence...) that Wilt right prior to his knee injury in Dec 1969 could score huge if he was asked too. Like the night that article said Wilt couldn't score and before it hit the stands Wilt exploded for 66 points and then followed it up with another 60 point game a few days later.

Since he was clearly capable of such monstrous efforts why not do something like that in 1968 EDF or the 1969 Finals? I'm not impressed by 28 points in Game 5 followed by 20 points and then 14 points. Or by an entire series where he averaged 11.7 ppg on 50% shooting. Forget 60 points... Why couldn't he average 25-27 ppg? His team probably wins those series easily.

That's always been my problem with Wilt. He had it in him. But he didn't go for it. Even in the 1970 Finals after his knee surgery he had a 45/27 in Game 6. Why couldn't he do it in Game 7? If he was injured then he was also injured in Game 6 no?

[LAZERUSS]

You can't have it both ways LAZERUSS...

I have seen you argue (and I agree given the evidence...) that Wilt right prior to his knee injury in Dec 1969 could score huge if he was asked too. Like the night that article said Wilt couldn't score and before it hit the stands Wilt exploded for 66 points and then followed it up with another 60 point game a few days later.

Since he was clearly capable of such monstrous efforts why not do something like that in 1968 EDF or the 1969 Finals? I'm not impressed by 28 points in Game 5 followed by 20 points and then 14 points. Or by an entire series where he averaged 11.7 ppg on 50% shooting. Forget 60 points... Why couldn't he average 25-27 ppg? His team probably wins those series easily.

That's always been my problem with Wilt. He had it in him. But he didn't go for it. Even in the 1970 Finals after his knee surgery he had a 45/27 in Game 6. Why couldn't he do it in Game 7? If he was injured then he was also injured in Game 6 no?

The problem in his '69 season was his COACH. Hell, watch the 4th quarter of game seven. Russell picked up his 5th personal foul, and LA immediately went into Wilt, who went right around the matador defense of Russell (geez that guy used to quit playing defense when he was in foul trouble.) That was the last time Wilt touched the ball on the offensive end...and with 10 minutes left.

Interesting, too, that the REASON why VBK was essentially fired immediately after that game seven, was BECAUSE of his MISUSE of Chamberlain. And when the Lakers brought in their new coach in '70, Joe Mullaney...his first order of business was to build the offense around WILT. And we saw the results. 32.2 ppg, 20.6 rpg, and on a .579 FG% (BTW, West was STILL scoring 30.8 ppg in that same span.) Chamberlain was even more dominant against Dierking in THAT season (and FAR more dominant in previous seasons, including the '69 season), than Kareem would ever be against Dierking.

Unfortunately, Wilt shredded his knee in that ninth game, and basically, was never the same again.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2202&dat=19691108&id=Q05AAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tfIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1702,5098849&hl=en

Read that article. It says that Kerlan claimed that that injury was nearly identical to the one that Baylor had suffered a few years prior. It occurred in game one of the '65 playoffs, on April 3rd. He played his first game on October 15th in '66. A full six months after the injury. BUT, he was just a SHELL the ENTIRE season. He missed 15 games that year, and his production went from 27.1 ppg in '65, down to 16.6 ppg in '66. In fact, he would never be the same player he had been again.

So, it took Baylor essentially a YEAR-AND-A-HALF to semi fully recover from the SAME injury that Wilt "recovered" from in FOUR MONTHS (Nov 7th when he injured it, to March 18th.)

And the reality was, Chamberlain was NOWHERE NEAR 100%. I have said it before. WATCH game seven of the '70 Finals on YouTube, and then watch game five of the '72 Finals on YouTube. Just a STAGGERING difference. In the '70 game, he runs stiff-legged, with no elevation. In the '72 game h is sprinting down the court, chasing shooters all over the floor, and not only blocking 8 shots, he is getting called for very borderline goal-tends.

And please, don't give me this nonsense that Wilt SHOULD have done better in game seven, based on his 45-27 game in game six. Why didn't KAJ ALWAYS put up a 40 point Finals game? Hell, why couldn't he summon another "game six" in game seven of the '74 Finals, when he was outplayed by Cowens, in a blowout loss on his home floor? The one point you could make about Wilt's game six was pretty obvious, though. Had Wilt routinely played the "Todd McCullough's" of his era in the post-season, instead of HOFer-after-HOFer, he would have set scoring and efficiency records that would still stand today.

Again...the WILT DOUBLE STANDARD.

Do you think that Wilt would have missed game six of the '80 Finals with a sprained ankle, when we KNOW that he played with foot and leg injuries in the EDF's, ...all while NOTICEABLY LIMPING the entire series? Do you think he would have missed the majority of three games in the '70 Finals with an injury that he played with for every minute of the seven game '68 EDF's?

HELL NO. Not only that, as Psileas mentioned. If Wilt had played that game seven in '70, and put up the PALTRY and INSIGNIFICANT numbers that Reed did...and somehow his team won, ...instead of being a FMVP, he would have REALLY been ripped.

The WILT DOUBLE STANDARD.

BTW, CavsFTW printed a google article that I won't take the time to find right now (maybe he can dig it up), in which Wilt said that he should NOT have come back early after that surgery, and that he knew he was nowhere near 100%, but that he did it for the good of the TEAM.

Instead of being labeled heroic, like the useless statute Reed was in game seven...Wilt was considered a "failure"...in a game in which he put up 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds...in a series in which he was clearly the best player on the floor, with a 23 ppg, 24 rpg, .625 seven game Finals.

The WILT DOUBLE STANDARD.

[dankok8]

The problem in his '69 season was his COACH. Hell, watch the 4th quarter of game seven. Russell picked up his 5th personal foul, and LA immediately went into Wilt, who went right around the matador defense of Russell (geez that guy used to quit playing defense when he was in foul trouble.) That was the last time Wilt touched the ball on the offensive end...and with 10 minutes left.

Interesting, too, that the REASON why VBK was essentially fired immediately after that game seven, was BECAUSE of his MISUSE of Chamberlain. And when the Lakers brought in their new coach in '70, Joe Mullaney...his first order of business was to build the offense around WILT. And we saw the results. 32.2 ppg, 20.6 rpg, and on a .579 FG% (BTW, West was STILL scoring 30.8 ppg in that same span.) Chamberlain was even more dominant against Dierking in THAT season (and FAR more dominant in previous seasons, including the '69 season), than Kareem would ever be against Dierking.

Unfortunately, Wilt shredded his knee in that ninth game, and basically, was never the same again.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2202&dat=19691108&id=Q05AAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tfIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1702,5098849&hl=en

Read that article. It says that Kerlan claimed that that injury was nearly identical to the one that Baylor had suffered a few years prior. It occurred in game one of the '65 playoffs, on April 3rd. He played his first game on October 15th in '66. A full six months after the injury. BUT, he was just a SHELL the ENTIRE season. He missed 15 games that year, and his production went from 27.1 ppg in '65, down to 16.6 ppg in '66. In fact, he would never be the same player he had been again.

So, it took Baylor essentially a YEAR-AND-A-HALF to semi fully recover from the SAME injury that Wilt "recovered" from in FOUR MONTHS (Nov 7th when he injured it, to March 18th.)

And the reality was, Chamberlain was NOWHERE NEAR 100%. I have said it before. WATCH game seven of the '70 Finals on YouTube, and then watch game five of the '72 Finals on YouTube. Just a STAGGERING difference. In the '70 game, he runs stiff-legged, with no elevation. In the '72 game h is sprinting down the court, chasing shooters all over the floor, and not only blocking 8 shots, he is getting called for very borderline goal-tends.

And please, don't give me this nonsense that Wilt SHOULD have done better in game seven, based on his 45-27 game in game six. Why didn't KAJ ALWAYS put up a 40 point Finals game? Hell, why couldn't he summon another "game six" in game seven of the '74 Finals, when he was outplayed by Cowens, in a blowout loss on his home floor? The one point you could make about Wilt's game six was pretty obvious, though. Had Wilt routinely played the "Todd McCullough's" of his era in the post-season, instead of HOFer-after-HOFer, he would have set scoring and efficiency records that would still stand today.

Again...the WILT DOUBLE STANDARD.

Do you think that Wilt would have missed game six of the '80 Finals with a sprained ankle, when we KNOW that he played with foot and leg injuries in the EDF's, ...all while NOTICEABLY LIMPING the entire series? Do you think he would have missed the majority of three games in the '70 Finals with an injury that he played with for every minute of the seven game '68 EDF's?

HELL NO. Not only that, as Psileas mentioned. If Wilt had played that game seven in '70, and put up the PALTRY and INSIGNIFICANT numbers that Reed did...and somehow his team won, ...instead of being a FMVP, he would have REALLY been ripped.

The WILT DOUBLE STANDARD.

BTW, CavsFTW printed a google article that I won't take the time to find right now (maybe he can dig it up), in which Wilt said that he should NOT have come back early after that surgery, and that he knew he was nowhere near 100%, but that he did it for the good of the TEAM.

Instead of being labeled heroic, like the useless statute Reed was in game seven...Wilt was considered a "failure"...in a game in which he put up 21 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds...in a series in which he was clearly the best player on the floor, with a 23 ppg, 24 rpg, .625 seven game Finals.

The WILT DOUBLE STANDARD.

There is no double standard. You my friend have lost all standards and are seemingly praising Wilt for putting up 11.7 ppg over the course of the 1969 Finals and then 18 points in Game 7. Those performances were pathetic!

Why couldn't Wilt who dropped three games of 60+ from 1967-1969 average at least 25 ppg in the last two games of the 1968 EDF or the 1969 Finals? Why couldn't he average 25 ppg?

As for the 1970 Finals, you yourself posted an article in another thread that proves that Wilt and West both choked in Game 5 as well. Had a big lead but they shot the ball a combined 5 times in the 2nd half. Both ended up playing bad in Game 5 and Game 7.

Honestly West deserves a ton of blame for 1970. Not just Wilt. Both should be criticized.

[LAZERUSS]

There is no double standard. You my friend have lost all standards and are seemingly praising Wilt for putting up 11.7 ppg over the course of the 1969 Finals and then 18 points in Game 7. Those performances were pathetic!

Why couldn't Wilt who dropped three games of 60+ from 1967-1969 average at least 25 ppg in the last two games of the 1968 EDF or the 1969 Finals? Why couldn't he average 25 ppg?

As for the 1970 Finals, you yourself posted an article in another thread that proves that Wilt and West both choked in Game 5 as well. Had a big lead but they shot the ball a combined 5 times in the 2nd half. Both ended up playing bad in Game 5 and Game 7.

Honestly West deserves a ton of blame for 1970. Not just Wilt. Both should be criticized.

I have never "praised" Chamberlain for his '69 Finals performance. It was, by far, the worst post-season series of his career. But I would like to think that we BOTH know that his COACH hated his guts. Plain-and-simple. The idiot had the greatest low post presence in NBA history, playing the high post. Not only that, but there were times during the season when he BENCHED Chamberlain.

And speaking of benching Wilt...the man's hatred for Chamberlain was never more evident, than keeping him on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven that his team would lose by two points. Robert Cherry made the comment that VBK's hatred of Wilt cost the city of LA their very first title, and Van Breda Kolff his career.

I saw a lot of the Lebron-Wade (Bosh) chemistry issues in that first year in LA with West-Wilt (Baylor.) Lebron was tentative because he just didn't know what his real role was in his first year in Miami. Same with Chamberlain in '69. VBK told Wilt from day one that he didn't want him clogging the low post, so that Baylor could roam the baseline. And the Finals were just a mess. I wish I could find the quote (it came from an article that PHILA had found), in wish Van Breda Kolff said something along this, "When we pass the ball into Wilt, sure he will score. But it is an ugly offense to watch."

And again, the main reason that VBK was fired right after the '69 Finals (alright, technically he quit, since he knew the ax was about to fall), was his handling of Chamberlain. And as I alluded to earlier...Mullaney came in and immediately structured the offense around Wilt (albeit West was still getting his points.)

And while this was not a peak Wilt (he was having physical problems dating back to early '67-68), he was about to have one of the GOAT seasons in NBA history. In his first nine games, he was leading the league in scoring, rebounding, and likely FG% (32.2 ppg, 20.6 rpg, and on a .579 FG%.) And those numbers were not inflated by 1-2 big games, but rather seven excellent games in the nine he played. Games of 33. 35, 37, 38, 42, and 43 points...along with a 25-23-5 9-14 game against Alcindor (Kareem.) And even those numbers were lower than what he would have had had he not shred his knee in the third quarter in game nine, when he had already scored 33 points (on 13-14 shooting) in only 28 minutes. He was likely on his way to a 40+ point game (hell, probably a 50+ point game.) Had he played 48 minutes in that game, and say scored 43 points, which was very reasonable, he would have finished that game with a season average of 33.3 ppg at the time.

Think about that. A slightly declining Wilt was on his way to a 33-21-3 .579 season in '70, when he blew out his knee. Why do I bring that up? Because a peak Kareem's greatest statistical season would come two years later, at 35-17-5 .574.

Of course, what the "bashers" won't acknowledge, was his INJURY and subsequent SURGERY. Again, just WATCH the footage of game seven of the '70 Finals, and game five of the '72 Finals. Only a blind man would not see the HUGE physical difference in Wilt's play. In '70 he ran stiff-legged, with zero lift, while in '72 he was outsprinting the majority of players, and chasing Knick shooters all over the floor, with an amazing display of leaping ability. Even you acknowledged that he had ZERO blocks in game seven of '70. In the '72 game, he had EIGHT (and again a couple of very questionable goal-tends.)

And even playing on one leg, he hung a 23-24 .625 series, and in the last three games of the '70 Finals, he averaged 29 ppg, 24 rpg, and on a .709 FG%. You can say that Reed was injured in those games, but Wilt was NOWHERE NEAR 100% the entire post-season.

As for that game seven...I have long maintained that a team of Jordan's would not have beaten the Knicks that day. The Knicks came out on fire, hitting 15-21, and never looked back. And West (injured) was simply destroyed by Frazier in that game. Which at least you acknowledged (the bashers never bring that up.) Those games happen. I recall game one of the '72 Finals, when NY was hitting shots from the 405 Freeway. Same with game one of the '85 Finals, when Boston couldn't miss (the Memorial Day Massacre.) The difference between the '70 game, and the '72 and '85 games was, unfortunately for Wilt, was that the '70 game occurred in a game seven.


Look, I do respect your opinions, and you generally back them up with research. But, yes, it is a WILT DOUBLE STANDARD, when he was expected to put up super human games when he was hurting beyond what any other player would have endured. Even Russell said after the '68 series, that "a lessor man would not have played." Which pretty much was saying...NO ONE ELSE would have been playing under the same circumstances.

And the reality of the '68 EDF's was that Chamberlain just flat ran out of gas. I pointed out his effort in what could have been a close out in game five. And while you seem to diminish it, even you can't find too many examples of another player putting up a 28-30 game on a .500+ FG% (and just crushing Russell at the other end, as well.) The reality was, at the end of game five, Wilt's series stat-line was 24-23-7 .539. I'm sorry, but that is an IMMENSE series. And again, he accomplished that while being hobbled by SEVERAL leg and foot injuries.

And again...his COACH, one of the best ever, just plain blew game seven. Wilt TOUCHED the ball a TOTAL of NINE times on the offensive end in that game (and two of those were offensive rebounds.) And his teammates were just AWFUL in that game seven, too. I believe it was something along the lines of 34-96 from the field. In a FOUR point loss.

Of course, that series would never have even com close to a game seven had the Sixers been reasonably healthy. In fact, even without HOFer Cunningham, they still went up 3-1, and were on their way to duplicating their blowout in the '67 EDF's. BUT, in a close game five (at the time), BOTH starters, Luke Jackson and Wali Jones went down with injuries, and missed the rest of the game, and were basically worthless in the last two.

And, if Wilt is to blame for his game seven's, with only the '68 game seven being anywhere near a poor game, then you can blame Kareem for blowing the '74 Finals. And Wilt never had the luxury of a Magic, either (West was not on the same level as Magic), who could dominate win a series clinching game six on the road without him.

And that was not the only poor playoff game that KAJ had either. He had a poor SERIES against Thurmond twice, but was lucky enough to win on of those. In the clinching game five of the '70 ECF's, he was outplayed by Reed, in a blowout loss. In the '72 WCF's, he couldn't hit the Grand Canyon from the ledge in the last four games of that series (and was badly outplayed by Wilt in the clinching game six at home.) He couldn't hit a shot to save his life in a critical game five of the '84 Finals. And he was abused by Moses in both '81 and '83. In fact, it was a downright choke job to allow his 54-28 team to get beaten by a 40-42 team, in a series in which he was outplayed.

And my god, he won a ring in '88 with a poor post-season, a putrid Finals, and a horrific game seven. The Lakers won that series DESPITE him. And if you factor in that he didn't even play in game six of the '80 Finals...well there was simply NO WAY that Chamberlain would have missed that game.

Furthermore, Bird seems to get an endless number of free passes for his many games and series in which he "supposedly" hurt. Hell, Chamberlain came back four months from major knee surgery, while Bird missed almost an entire season in 88-89, including the playoffs. And Wilt at least returned to close to a dominating presence after his surgery, while Bird was a shell after his. And the reality was, Bird was putting up sub-par, to even awful, post-season games and series in which he was hurt, while Chamberlain was hanging 20-20's in his.

And the Hakeem fans here point out his "clutch" play in the post-season, and give him excuses for poor teammates, but had Chamberlain been routinely getting bounced in the first round in his post-season career, and his numbers would have been more impressive, as well (especially pre-injury.) Furthermore, Hakeem's title run in '94 involved three series in which he didn't even face a legitimate starting center (and came in a league in which MJ's Bulls went 55-27 without him.) And in his '95 Finals, he shot-jacked his way to an eFG% of .488, in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .504, while allowing Shaq to nearly match his scoring, but on a .590 FG%. And had his teammates not badly outplayed Shaq's, he might not have won a ring that year, either.

Yet, Chamberlain was carrying last place rosters to game seven losses by razor thin margins, in series in which he was averaging 34-27 and 30-31. And when he finally had a roster the equal of Russell's, that was healthy, and reasonably coached...a dominating world title that included a 4-1 blowout of Russell's 8-time defending, and 60-21 Celtics.

So, yes...the WILT DOUBLE STANDARD.

[ClipperRevival]

:facepalm :rolleyes:

[LAZERUSS]

:facepalm :rolleyes:


:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[AirFederer]

Lazeruss excuse game>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wilt's finals game

[LAZERUSS]

And the bottom line from the OP...

None other than John Wooden claimed that had Wilt swapped rosters, and coaches, with Russell, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

And no rational poster would claim that Wilt had any semblance of Russell's supporting casts from '60 thru '66, so the clear assumption would have been a MINIMUM of SEVEN rings in that span, and then '67, and then later on '72...or a TOTAL of NINE rings...MINIMUM.

And you could make a reasonable argument that Chamberlain might have won TEN rings in the Russell-era had they swapped rosters, which would have given Chamberlain ELEVEN.

Where would Wilt rank with between nine to 11 rings?

[ClipperRevival]

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

For all his records, the "most dominant big ever" was never the leading scorer for his team in the playoffs when he won in 1967 (2nd) and 1972 (4th).

Now go and paste away with your empty stats and your array of lame excuses. That's what you do best. :cheers:

[LAZERUSS]

Lazeruss excuse game>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wilt's finals game

Only a complete idiot would blame Wilt for losses in '68, and '70. And his game seven in '69 was easily good enough to have won that game, despite a relatively poor series overall, had his teammates not been outshot by Russell's teammates by a .477 to .360 margin in that two point loss.

And yes, those were LEGITIMATE "excuses", as well. Losing game sevens, and by margins of 4 and 2 points, and then to a heavily-favored Knick team...well, sorry, but it was not like Kareem's game seven in the '74 Finals, when he was outplayed by Cowens, and his team was blown out on their home court.

[J Shuttlesworth]

Words

2412

0




Characters (including spaces)

13275

0




Characters (without spaces)

10776

0




Sentences

183

0




Paragraphs

35

0




Difficult Words Readability level

592 (25%)

0 (0%)




Short Words (<5 characters)

1501 (62%)

0 (0%)




Avg. Word Length (char)

4.5

0




Avg. Sentence Length (word)

13.2

0




Dale-Chall Readability Score

8.2

0




Readability level Readability level

11-12th

< 4th

[LAZERUSS]

For all his records, the "most dominant big ever" was never the leading scorer for his team in the playoffs when he won in 1967 (2nd) and 1972 (4th).

Now go and paste away with your empty stats and your array of lame excuses. That's what you do best. :cheers:

BUT, he was BY FAR the most dominant player in those Finals (winning the FMVP in '72, and would have won it in '67 had the award existed.) Furthermore, in the clinching games of those series, he crushed his HOF opposing centers, and hung games of 24-22 8-13, and 24-29 10-14 with 8 blocks.

BTW, in his first two playoff games in that '67 post-season...games of 41 points on 19-30 shooting, and 37 points on 16-24 shooting. So, had Wilt WANTED to, he could have averaged 39 ppg on a .648 FG% in that series. Instead, he returned to a more "balanced" Wilt in the rest of that series, with an amazing 16-30-19 game, and in which he had an estimated 20 blocks. Oh, and in the clinching game five win over the eight-time defending and 60-21 Celtics...he outscored Russell by a 29-4 margin; outshot him by a 10-16 to 2-5 margin; outassisted him by a 13-7 margin; and outrebounded him by a 36-21 margin.

But thanks for playing.

[LAZERUSS]

For all his records, the "most dominant big ever" was never the leading scorer for his team in the playoffs when he won in 1967 (2nd) and 1972 (4th).

Now go and paste away with your empty stats and your array of lame excuses. That's what you do best. :cheers:

And find me another "GOAT" who took a 40-40 team (that had gone 34-46 the year before without him, and that traded three players away to get him at mid-season)...past a stacked 48-32 team in the first round, and then to a game seven, one point loss, to a 62-18 team at the peak of their dynasty. And with a game seven of 30 points, on 80% shooting from the floor, with 32 rebounds, which included scoring his team's last eight points...in a series in which he would average 30 ppg, 31 rpg, and on a .555 FG% (in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .429.)

Go ahead...I will be waiting.

[Elosha]

I wish - I REALLY wish - that ISH could have an overall mature and constructive debate about Wilt. I mean, there is room for constructive debate about him. What I don't think is debatable is that he's one of the greatest (and polarizing) players of all time, has a case for GOAT (not the absolute strongest, imo, but certainly a real case), and a strong case for the GOAT center. I mean how can anyone deny that? He has the most dominant stats of all time and won two championships on two all time great teams. And yes, all of that must be put into context of the fact that he also lost plenty of times and lost more 4 finals as well.

The problem (or the interesting challenge if you will) is the question of how to rank him or put his skill level/athleticism and mental fortitude/success into context of today era AND overall NBA history. Of course, we have to couple that with the "eye test" which is certainly very relevant to this conversation. Thanks to Cavs and others, video footage of Wilt has never been more accessible, yet it's still only a small fraction of his career.

Of course, criticism of Wilt also includes his rather dramatic (overall) drop in points in the playoffs and even more so in his six Finals appearance. Yet people get angry or contemptuous when Laz offers detailed and quite plausible reasons/context to help explain it. Now I still don't think overall Wilt was the absolute greatest playoff performer, and I still think he came up short on a number of crucial occasions, but context is important here. Wilt was not the absolute hardest working, most clutch, most competitive player but he was no choker either, unless you cherry pick certain aspects of his game like free throw shooting. But you could do the same cherry picking for any all time great. He had absolutely enormous playoff games/series where he played extremely well on offense and defense. And his game 7 stats overall are tremendous and cannot be denied. It's too bad we have no footage to put such stats into a better perspective.

Now there may be some valid criticism and documentation that Wilt did not also bond with his teammates and coaches and may even have alienated them. I don't think he was necessarily the perfect teammate at all times. But like any all time great, you can hear a lot of good and bad things thrown out there by teammates and colleagues. Take them both with a grain of salt.

Another reason Wilt may draw such venom from ISH and other sites is because people get annoyed at how boastful Wilt could be and how he sometimes disparaged other greats in his books and interviews. I know this has always bothered me considerably, because Wilt seemed quite personal in his attacks and really came off as looking insecure, imo. It doesn't helps that he also wildly exaggerated some aspects of his considerable physical prowess and the whole 20,000 women schtick. But c'mon how many of the 80's and 90's players downplay and mock today's era? It happens all the time. Any all time great is going to feel more protective and vindicated by his own era then anyone else's. It's one reason they are so great, their ego is boundless.

As to the eye test, some detractors downgrade or criticize Wilt for what they consider to be clunky or less skillful types of moves, or claim that the footage shows less athleticism that what all the stories about him claim. Or some will claim that the era/style Wilt played in the late 50's through early 70's was overall less skillfull/athletic than today, especially when looking at the entire rosters. Wilt proponents counter than the NBA was as good or overall better than today and that Wilt faced more overall great centers on a far more frequent basis. I don't think this is a bad type of debate, and I think both sides of the argument has some merit.

But what I really hate is when people ignore or scoff at all of the details about Wilt, that his proponents, (many of whom watched him play), provide us. I must say I also get annoyed when Wilt proponents almost never want to concede any constructive criticism or find any fault in him, which is certainly an untenable position. There is personal and basketball fault in Wilt, MJ, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Lebron, any one. They all have professional and personal failures that made them "less" than what they could have been, in a perfect hypothetical world. But they are all flawed humans like the rest of us. What makes them great is how often they succeeded, often in transcendent style, learned from/triumphed over their failings.

We are all limited by, and even prisoners of, our own bias, but that doesn't mean we have to be ruled by them. Acknowledge that Wilt was an all time great and likely would have been in any era. But also acknowledge that great's of today/yesterday would have been great in the 50's/60's/70's.

ISH is ultimately just a basketball forum, but all of us can learn proper argumentation, respect for fellow debaters, and appreciation for true greatness in these debates. There are actually some "life lessons" of how to interact with other opposing viewpoints in a respectful and rational manner, how to analyze complex and sometimes conflicting data, and most importantly how to understand someone else perspective without necessarily fully agreeing with it.

[LAZERUSS]

I wish - I REALLY wish - that ISH could have an overall mature and constructive debate about Wilt. I mean, there is room for constructive debate about him. What I don't think is debatable is that he's one of the greatest (and polarizing) players of all time, has a case for GOAT (not the absolute strongest, imo, but certainly a real case), and a strong case for the GOAT center. I mean how can anyone deny that? He has the most dominant stats of all time and won two championships on two all time great teams. And yes, all of that must be put into context of the fact that he also lost plenty of times and lost more 4 finals as well.

The problem (or the interesting challenge if you will) is the question of how to rank him or put his skill level/athleticism and mental fortitude/success into context of today era AND overall NBA history. Of course, we have to couple that with the "eye test" which is certainly very relevant to this conversation. Thanks to Cavs and others, video footage of Wilt has never been more accessible, yet it's still only a small fraction of his career.

Of course, criticism of Wilt also includes his rather dramatic (overall) drop in points in the playoffs and even more so in his six Finals appearance. Yet people get angry or contemptuous when Laz offers detailed and quite plausible reasons/context to help explain it. Now I still don't think overall Wilt was the absolute greatest playoff performer, and I still think he came up short on a number of crucial occasions, but context is important here. Wilt was not the absolute hardest working, most clutch, most competitive player but he was no choker either, unless you cherry pick certain aspects of his game like free throw shooting. But you could do the same cherry picking for any all time great. He had absolutely enormous playoff games/series where he played extremely well on offense and defense. And his game 7 stats overall are tremendous and cannot be denied. It's too bad we have no footage to put such stats into a better perspective.

Now there may be some valid criticism and documentation that Wilt did not also bond with his teammates and coaches and may even have alienated them. I don't think he was necessarily the perfect teammate at all times. But like any all time great, you can hear a lot of good and bad things thrown out there by teammates and colleagues. Take them both with a grain of salt.

Another reason Wilt may draw such venom from ISH and other sites is because people get annoyed at how boastful Wilt could be and how he sometimes disparaged other greats in his books and interviews. I know this has always bothered me considerably, because Wilt seemed quite personal in his attacks and really came off as looking insecure, imo. It doesn't helps that he also wildly exaggerated some aspects of his considerable physical prowess and the whole 20,000 women schtick. But c'mon how many of the 80's and 90's players downplay and mock today's era? It happens all the time. Any all time great is going to feel more protective and vindicated by his own era then anyone else's. It's one reason they are so great, their ego is boundless.

As to the eye test, some detractors downgrade or criticize Wilt for what they consider to be clunky or less skillful types of moves, or claim that the footage shows less athleticism that what all the stories about him claim. Or some will claim that the era/style Wilt played in the late 50's through early 70's was overall less skillfull/athletic than today, especially when looking at the entire rosters. Wilt proponents counter than the NBA was as good or overall better than today and that Wilt faced more overall great centers on a far more frequent basis. I don't think this is a bad type of debate, and I think both sides of the argument has some merit.

But what I really hate is when people ignore or scoff at all of the details about Wilt, that his proponents, (many of whom watched him play), provide us. I must say I also get annoyed when Wilt proponents almost never want to concede any constructive criticism or find any fault in him, which is certainly an untenable position. There is personal and basketball fault in Wilt, MJ, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Lebron, any one. They all have professional and personal failures that made them "less" than what they could have been, in a perfect hypothetical world. But they are all flawed humans like the rest of us. What makes them great is how often they succeeded, often in transcendent style, learned from/triumphed over their failings.

We are all limited by, and even prisoners of, our own bias, but that doesn't mean we have to be ruled by them. Acknowledge that Wilt was an all time great and likely would have been in any era. But also acknowledge that great's of today/yesterday would have been great in the 50's/60's/70's.

ISH is ultimately just a basketball forum, but all of us can learn proper argumentation, respect for fellow debaters, and appreciation for true greatness in these debates. There are actually some "life lessons" of how to interact with other opposing viewpoints in a respectful and rational manner, how to analyze complex and sometimes conflicting data, and most importantly how to understand someone else perspective without necessarily fully agreeing with it.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

There is no question that the majority, if not all, of the Chamberlain fans would agree with this.

Again, no Wilt fan is going to completely excuse his '69 Finals. It was the worst playoff series of his career. His game six was just pathetic. But, as you stated, we need to add CONTEXT. Anyone that has researched that Laker season would tell you that his COACH so hated Wilt, that he put the team, and his career, on the line, by keeping Wilt on the bench in the last few minutes of a game seven, two point loss (in a game in which Chamberlain had scored 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds in 43 minutes.) The move clearly backfired, and it cost the city of LA their very first title, and basically ruined his coaching career. Of course, Wilt ultimately delivered a title a couple of years later, and proved that it was the COACHING that made a difference between those two seasons.

And, as you alluded to, Wilt's very few post-season "flop jobs" are held against him, far more than than any other GOAT.

The Wilt Double Standard.

[AirFederer]

:cheers:

I have Wilt as an ATG but cannot stand the myths and excuses that his stans use to prop him to GOAT level. It's so stupid.


I wish - I REALLY wish - that ISH could have an overall mature and constructive debate about Wilt. I mean, there is room for constructive debate about him. What I don't think is debatable is that he's one of the greatest (and polarizing) players of all time, has a case for GOAT (not the absolute strongest, imo, but certainly a real case), and a strong case for the GOAT center. I mean how can anyone deny that? He has the most dominant stats of all time and won two championships on two all time great teams. And yes, all of that must be put into context of the fact that he also lost plenty of times and lost more 4 finals as well.

The problem (or the interesting challenge if you will) is the question of how to rank him or put his skill level/athleticism and mental fortitude/success into context of today era AND overall NBA history. Of course, we have to couple that with the "eye test" which is certainly very relevant to this conversation. Thanks to Cavs and others, video footage of Wilt has never been more accessible, yet it's still only a small fraction of his career.

Of course, criticism of Wilt also includes his rather dramatic (overall) drop in points in the playoffs and even more so in his six Finals appearance. Yet people get angry or contemptuous when Laz offers detailed and quite plausible reasons/context to help explain it. Now I still don't think overall Wilt was the absolute greatest playoff performer, and I still think he came up short on a number of crucial occasions, but context is important here. Wilt was not the absolute hardest working, most clutch, most competitive player but he was no choker either, unless you cherry pick certain aspects of his game like free throw shooting. But you could do the same cherry picking for any all time great. He had absolutely enormous playoff games/series where he played extremely well on offense and defense. And his game 7 stats overall are tremendous and cannot be denied. It's too bad we have no footage to put such stats into a better perspective.

Now there may be some valid criticism and documentation that Wilt did not also bond with his teammates and coaches and may even have alienated them. I don't think he was necessarily the perfect teammate at all times. But like any all time great, you can hear a lot of good and bad things thrown out there by teammates and colleagues. Take them both with a grain of salt.

Another reason Wilt may draw such venom from ISH and other sites is because people get annoyed at how boastful Wilt could be and how he sometimes disparaged other greats in his books and interviews. I know this has always bothered me considerably, because Wilt seemed quite personal in his attacks and really came off as looking insecure, imo. It doesn't helps that he also wildly exaggerated some aspects of his considerable physical prowess and the whole 20,000 women schtick. But c'mon how many of the 80's and 90's players downplay and mock today's era? It happens all the time. Any all time great is going to feel more protective and vindicated by his own era then anyone else's. It's one reason they are so great, their ego is boundless.

As to the eye test, some detractors downgrade or criticize Wilt for what they consider to be clunky or less skillful types of moves, or claim that the footage shows less athleticism that what all the stories about him claim. Or some will claim that the era/style Wilt played in the late 50's through early 70's was overall less skillfull/athletic than today, especially when looking at the entire rosters. Wilt proponents counter than the NBA was as good or overall better than today and that Wilt faced more overall great centers on a far more frequent basis. I don't think this is a bad type of debate, and I think both sides of the argument has some merit.

But what I really hate is when people ignore or scoff at all of the details about Wilt, that his proponents, (many of whom watched him play), provide us. I must say I also get annoyed when Wilt proponents almost never want to concede any constructive criticism or find any fault in him, which is certainly an untenable position. There is personal and basketball fault in Wilt, MJ, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Lebron, any one. They all have professional and personal failures that made them "less" than what they could have been, in a perfect hypothetical world. But they are all flawed humans like the rest of us. What makes them great is how often they succeeded, often in transcendent style, learned from/triumphed over their failings.

We are all limited by, and even prisoners of, our own bias, but that doesn't mean we have to be ruled by them. Acknowledge that Wilt was an all time great and likely would have been in any era. But also acknowledge that great's of today/yesterday would have been great in the 50's/60's/70's.

ISH is ultimately just a basketball forum, but all of us can learn proper argumentation, respect for fellow debaters, and appreciation for true greatness in these debates. There are actually some "life lessons" of how to interact with other opposing viewpoints in a respectful and rational manner, how to analyze complex and sometimes conflicting data, and most importantly how to understand someone else perspective without necessarily fully agreeing with it.

[Elosha]

:applause: :applause: :applause:

There is no question that the majority, if not all, of the Chamberlain fans would agree with this.

Again, no Wilt fan is going to completely excuse his '69 Finals. It was the worst playoff series of his career. His game six was just pathetic. But, as you stated, we need to add CONTEXT. Anyone that has researched that Laker season would tell you that his COACH so hated Wilt, that he put the team, and his career, on the line, by keeping Wilt on the bench in the last few minutes of a game seven, two point loss (in a game in which Chamberlain had scored 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds in 43 minutes.) The move clearly backfired, and it cost the city of LA their very first title, and basically ruined his coaching career. Of course, Wilt ultimately delivered a title a couple of years later, and proved that it was the COACHING that made a difference between those two seasons.

And, as you alluded to, Wilt's very few post-season "flop jobs" are held against him, far more than than any other GOAT.

The Wilt Double Standard.

Thanks Laz. I really have a deepening appreciation for you, Psileas, Cavs, La Frescobaldi, Marschek, and others who have insightful commentary on Wilt. And I have a definite level of respect for those who constructively criticize aspects of Wilt's career like dankok8. The best perspective for Wilt, along with any other all time great, is to acknowledge the considerable and overwhelming greatness, but not be blind to the fact that some areas of their game/career could be lacking in some aspect.

I feel that you and other Wilt proponents have had to defend him so much from often unwarranted attacks over the years, that it probably makes it harder for you to legitimately concede any weakness/failing. Indeed, when I first began coming to ISH way back in 2010, my first reflex reaction was to dismiss what JLauber/you :D were saying. My first impulse was to sign up on ISH and try to dismiss what you were saying. But I didn't; instead I just read much of what you/JLauber wrote over the years and the opponents of your positions. Over time, I realized that

(1) I was underrating Wilt and knew far less about his career than I thought, along with his era and great contemporaries,

(2) I was projecting an enormous amount of bias in favor of my own formative years watching the NBA in the 80's and 90's, (which I still struggle with) and

(3) that it was damn hard to separate Wilt the myth from Wilt the actual, historical player. Sure, there's lots of praise/awe for Wilt but there was also some troubling and consistent undercurrents about his ability to bond with teammates/coaches and a certain level of pride and arrogance to his career that may have limited his success. But again, this isn't to say he's not a GOAT candidate, it just once again highlights human foibles.

Last thing about the 69 Finals. I was watching a Jerry West documentary and they discussed the coach's decision to not bring Wilt back in. One of the eyewitness commentators (and I can't remember if it was teammate or a reporter) said someone like an assistant coach told van Breda Kauff that Wilt was ready to go back in. And the coach, van Breda Kauff basically said, almost verbatim, "F**k that, we don't need him." That certainly supports the idea of his animosity and lack of respect toward Wilt.

I also think it sheds some interesting light on the different attitude between coaches and superstars then as compared to today. Here's Wilt, an all time great, playing comparably well, and apparently he did not get up in his coach's face in a time out or whenever and demand to go back in. At least there's no evidence I know of to suggest that he did. And I'm not blaming Wilt for that, and I'm not entirely blaming the coach either, he may have had his reasons unrelated to any bias against Wilt, not to play him. The Lakers did cut a big lead with Wilt on the bench if I remember correctly. But what struck me is that today truly dominant players like Lebron dictate commands to their coach just as often as not. Prime example: Lebron waiving off the inbounds play against the Bulls and telling the coach that he would get the pass for the gamewinning shot. Just a different attitude. One's not necessarily better or worse, but it goes to show how it's becoming more and more a player's league.

[Elosha]

:cheers:

I have Wilt as an ATG but cannot stand the myths and excuses that his stans use to prop him to GOAT level. It's so stupid.

I can understand your perspective. And yes I do find it sometimes annoying when Wilt proponents cannot concede a weakness. Or instead of addressing a particular shortcoming in Wilt, they sometimes point out that other GOAT's did the same thing or worse. It's not that it's not true, but it would be better to say something like, "yes I'll admit Wilt didn't play well in this game or this aspect, but certainly he's not the only all great to have that problem" and then point out such examples. If we could all do that consistently, we'd eliminate a lot of the "noise" in these debates and get down to the substance of the debate.

I suppose if you went way back to whenever JLauber and other posters first began to post on ISH, you could tell if there were exaggerations/hype that was posted about Wilt which in turn caused the backlash against him. But whatever the cause, I do find it more annoying to see the ungracious comments about Wilt's game and skills than to see Laz and others sometimes over the top defense of him. To me, they are reacting (sometimes overreacting) to the often ludicrous attacks against Wilt.

At least I was glad to see almost universal disdain for the poster who recently said Dirk was greater than Wilt. Cheapens Wilt, cheapens Dirk too.

[LAZERUSS]

Thanks Laz. I really have a deepening appreciation for you, Psileas, Cavs, La Frescobaldi, Marschek, and others who have insightful commentary on Wilt. And I have a definite level of respect for those who constructively criticize aspects of Wilt's career like dankoke. The best perspective for Wilt, along with any other all time great, is to acknowledge the considerable and overwhelming greatness, but not be blind to the fact that some areas of their game/career could be lacking in some aspect.

I feel that you and other Wilt proponents have had to defend him so much from often unwarranted attacks over the years, that it probably makes it harder for you to legitimately concede any weakness/failing. Indeed, when I first began coming to ISH way back in 2010, my first reflex reaction was to dismiss what JLauber/you :D were saying. My first impulse was to sign up on ISH and try to dismiss what you were saying. But I didn't; instead I just read much of what you/JLauber wrote over the years and the opponents of your positions. Over time, I realized that

(1) I was underrating Wilt and knew far less about his career than I thought, along with his era and great contemporaries,

(2) I was projecting an enormous amount of bias in favor of my own formative years watching the NBA in the 80's and 90's, (which I still struggle with) and

(3) that it was damn hard to separate Wilt the myth from Wilt the actual, historical player. Sure, there's lots of praise/awe for Wilt but there was also some troubling and consistent undercurrents about his ability to bond with teammates/coaches and a certain level of pride and arrogance to his career that may have limited his success. But again, this isn't to say he's not a GOAT candidate, it just once again highlights human foibles.

Last thing about the 69 Finals. I was watching a Jerry West documentary and they discussed the coach's decision to not bring Wilt back in. One of the eyewitness commentators (and I can't remember if it was teammate or a reporter) said someone like an assistant coach told van Breda Kauff that Wilt was ready to go back in. And the coach, van Breda Kauff basically said, almost verbatim, "F**k that, we don't need him." That certainly supports the idea of his animosity and lack of respect toward Wilt.

I also think it sheds some interesting light on the different attitude between coaches and superstars then as compared to today. Here's Wilt, an all time great, playing comparably well, and apparently he did not get up in his coach's face in a time out or whenever and demand to go back in. At least there's no evidence I know of to suggest that he did. And I'm not blaming Wilt for that, and I'm not entirely blaming the coach either, he may have had his reasons unrelated to any bias against Wilt, not to play him. The Lakers did cut a big lead with Wilt on the bench if I remember correctly. But what struck me is that today truly dominant players like Lebron dictate commands to their coach just as often as not. Prime example: Lebron waiving off the inbounds play against the Bulls and telling the coach that he would get the pass for the gamewinning shot. Just a different attitude. One's not necessarily better or worse, but it goes to show how it's becoming more and more a player's league.

Again, most of your post is basically spot on.

Regarding that game seven...

There is some mis-information about the events that actually took place. Charley Rosen, in his book on the '72 Lakers, ripped Wilt for pulling himself out of the game after his team had blown a big lead. Which was completely FALSE.

The 4th quarter is there to watch on Youtube, but I will condense the events from that game. Boston had controlled the entire game, and by late in the third quarter, they had built a 15 point lead. On top of that, Chamberlain picked up his fifth personal foul late in that period, as well.

Early in the 4th quarter, it was now Russell who picked up his 5th foul. And, to no one's surprise, the Lakers immediately went into Wilt, who went right around Russell's matador defense, for an easy layin. What was a surprise, however, was the fact that the Lakers didn't go back to Wilt again.

With about 10 minutes left in the game, Boston had extended the lead to 17 points. However, this was an aging team, and the pace was definitely affecting them. Soon after that, Sam Jones fouled out, and LA went on a furious rally. With around the five minute mark, Wilt grabbed a rebound (his second in a row on an injured leg...which matched Russell's rebounding total for the entire quarter BTW), and with his outlet pass, West was fouled. Wilt HAD to come out (and even his coach would later acknowledge that Wilt was hurting.) West hit the ensuing FTs, to cut the margin to seven points. So, in about a span of five minutes, the Lakers had cut Boston's lead from 17 down to 7.

Now, that begs the REAL question. IF Chamberlain were indeed "feigning" an injury, to perhaps somewhat limit the damage to his career, why didn't he choose to pull that stunt when he picked up his 5th foul late in the third quarter, and down by 15 points? Why would he pick a time when it was becoming clear that Boston was now running on fumes, and were ripe for the taking with a full five minutes left?

And yes, the Lakers continued to cut into the deficit, getting to within one point with about a minute remaining. However, Wilt's "replacement", Ml Counts, missed a shot, and then committed a key turnover in that last minute, and Boston, behind a miraculous shot by Nelson, held on to win the game by two points.

The bottom line, though, was that Wilt played well enough in that game. In his 43 minutes, he had scored 18 points, on 7-8 FG/FGA (albeit, 4-13 from the line) with 27 rebounds. And he certainly outplayed Russell, who put up a 6 point game, on 2-7 shooting (and 2-4 from the line), with 21 rebounds in 48 minutes. In fact, if you watch that 4th quarter, it becomes readily apparent, that Russell completely hid in that 4th quarter. Even Counts put up a couple of baskets against him.

Just thought I would add what REALLY happened in that game.

[Elosha]

^^ Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I'd watched the fourth quarter of that game on youtube before, just hadn't in awhile. So it sounds like the Lakers definitely went on their run while Wilt was in there and then continued it after he was on the bench. But the run definitely started with Wilt as a catalyst.

I have never thought Wilt faked his injury in 1969, is that something Rosen claimed? It sounds absurd. It must have been bad enough for him to feel he had to take a rest. Given that it was game 7, it must have been excruciating for him to want to take even a short break. You can tell by how heavily he is limping and grimacing that it was intense pain.

Here's another tidbit. When he sits down on his break, it looks like he sat down right next to van Breda Kauff. You can see it on the video. So the coach has to basically ignore Wilt the entire rest of the game while he's sitting next to him.

It's totally speculative to guess what would have happened if Wilt would have come back in, but it really is pretty crappy for the Lakers and Wilt to have to end the 69 season on a "what if" scenario. I can understand why the coach quit before he got canned the next season. BTW, is there some source for you stating he was going to be fired? I'm sure there is, I just don't recall it.

[dankok8]

Wilt fans have to make up their minds.

Wilt's underperformance from 1968-1970 in key playoff games has to be explained by either:

1) Wilt is incapable of dominating.

OR

2) Wilt is injury prone.

OR

3) Wilt was neither incapable nor too injured to dominate but he just didn't do it because of his mental/intangible weaknesses.

I subscribe to theory #3 but it's got to be one of the above. Pick one LAZERUSS.

If you make excuses about his injuries then we must call him injury prone. I mean if his injuries cost his teams titles for three consecutive years then he was an injury prone player and should be docked for that.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt fans have to make up their minds.

Wilt's underperformance from 1968-1970 in key playoff games has to be explained by either:

1) Wilt is incapable of dominating.

OR

2) Wilt is injury prone.

OR

3) Wilt was neither incapable nor too injured to dominate but he just didn't do it because of his mental/intangible weaknesses.

I subscribe to theory #3 but it's got to be one of the above. Pick one LAZERUSS.

If you make excuses about his injuries then we must call him injury prone. I mean if his injuries cost his teams titles for three consecutive years then he was an injury prone player and should be docked for that.

In the '68 EDF's, he DOMINATED the series thru the first five games, including what could have been the series clincher in game five....all while noticeably limping throughout the series. Of course, he wasn't the only Sixer having injury issues...basically all of his key players were either hampered with injuries, or missed the entire series. Again, in the first five game... 24-23-7 .539, with a game five of 28-30 on 11-21 shooting (all while slaughtering Russell.)

Of course, RUSSELL gets credit for a ring in that series, despite being brutalized for much of it. AND, Wilt's injury-riddled teammates flat choked in game seven. Again, if you are blaming Wilt for the last two games, then blame Kareem for his game seven of the '74 Finals, and say it was completely his fault that his team lost that series.

Wilt's game seven in '70, on a surgically repaired knee, and only four months after the major surgery????? In a game in which he played well (geezus, find me all the 21-24 10-16 games that a HEALTHY KAJ put up in a game seven of the Finals.) BTW, how about that MUST WIN game six performance? 45-27 on 20-27 shooting? I don't care if he was facing Betty White, he completely dismantled the Knicks entire team in that game.

Of course...back to the WILT DOUBLE STANDARD. He was EXPECTED to hang a 45-27 game EVERY time he played, right?

And finally...the '69 Finals. Virtually every Wilt fan would concede it was the worst post-season series of his career. BUT, it certainly went beyond WILT. His COACH has to take the BRUNT of the blame.

How about game four? The Lakers were leading 88-87, and had the ball, with only around 20 secs left. Any reasonable coach would have put the ball in WEST's hands, right? Nope, not the "Butcher" van Breda Kolff. He had journeyman Johnny Egan, who only made the roster because had to trade Archie Clark away to get Wilt, and then lost Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft...had the damn ball, was stripped, and then Sam Jones, while falling down, hit the game winning shot at the buzzer.

How important was that ONE PLAY? It cost LA a 3-1 series lead, and given the fact that Chamberlain crushed Russell in game five, in a 117-104 romp...that ONE PLAY cost the Lakers a 4-1 series win.

And then, how about Baylor? The Baylor who had games of 2-14, 4-18, and 8-22 in losses (one of them that 89-88 loss...which included going 1-6 from the LINE.)


You seem to think it is all cut-and-dry. Why?

I have never once read you blaming KAJ for losing the '74 Finals. Just like Wilt, he dominated for much of it. BUT, unlike Wilt, who was outplaying his HOF peers in game sevens (and massively in '69 and '70)...Kareem was outplayed by Dave Cowens, and on his home floor, in a blowout loss. And again, unlike Wilt, he wasn't playing with major injuries.

How come MJ couldn't duplicate his 63 point performance in the clinching game three loss in the first round of the '86 playoffs? Instead, he scored 19 points on 8-18 shooting. And then he followed that up the next year with a 9-30 game in a clinching game (a sweeing loss) in the first round. And how about MJ in a game five of the '89 ECF's, in a series that was tied 2-2. He QUIT on his team (4-8 from the field), in a game that essentially cost the Bulls the series.


Bird? My god, the Bird fans here will tell you he was injured in EVERY playoff series loss in his entire post-season career. And unlike Wilt, he played horribly in most of the biggest games in those series. My god, the man lost with HCA seven times. Yet, I have once read where you labeled Bird a player that was "incapable" of taking over in a big game. Hell, like Kareem, he actually won rings with horrid series. While Chamberlain was losing a game seven to a 62-18 team by one point while putting up a 30-32 game on .800 shooting from the field, in a series in which he averaged 30-31 .555. How is that fair?


Look, you are one of the more knowledgeable posters here, but your anti-Wilt, and anti-Magic stances shine right through.

If Wilt were somehow a "choker", then KAJ, Bird, and others were as well.

[dankok8]

LAZERUSS...

After a certain point INJURIES stop being a valid excuse. If Wilt was indeed severely limited by injury in the 1968 EDF, the 1970 Finals, and also got hurt in Game 7 of the 1969 Finals then maybe he's an injury prone player. Three straight years in a row he gets hurt and costs his team a title. That's pretty bad.

If you wanna go that injury route... But that's a far more unfavorable image for Wilt. It's better to "choke" and under-perform than to be injury prone.

Larry Bird is a perfect example of an injury prone player. I rank him #6 or #7 all time but if I was drafting a player to build my franchise around he might drop below Duncan, Kobe, and maybe even a few more guys. Not being durable is a major minus.

[LAZERUSS]

LAZERUSS...

After a certain point INJURIES stop being a valid excuse. If Wilt was indeed severely limited by injury in the 1968 EDF, the 1970 Finals, and also got hurt in Game 7 of the 1969 Finals then maybe he's an injury prone player. Three straight years in a row he gets hurt and costs his team a title. That's pretty bad.

If you wanna go that injury route... But that's a far more unfavorable image for Wilt. It's better to "choke" and under-perform than to be injury prone.

Larry Bird is a perfect example of an injury prone player. I rank him #6 or #7 all time but if I was drafting a player to build my franchise around he might drop below Duncan, Kobe, and maybe even a few more guys. Not being durable is a major minus.

So a 22-25-7, and 23-24 .625 series COST his team titles, and an 18-27 .875 FG% game seven also COST his team another title.

Same with KAJ, then. His 33-12-5 .524 series COST his '74 Bucks a title, only because he was outplayed by Cowens in game seven of a blowout loss, with a relatively poor 26-13 10-21 shooting game (which by your standards would have been a very poor game for Chamberlain.)

Really, I think even you have to acknowledge how ridiculous those assertions are.

BTW, when Wilt had major knee surgery, he STILL hung a seven game Finals of 23-24 .625. How well did Bird perform in his '89 playoffs?

[Asukal]

And find me another "GOAT" who took a 40-40 team (that had gone 34-46 the year before without him, and that traded three players away to get him at mid-season)...past a stacked 48-32 team in the first round, and then to a game seven, one point loss, to a 62-18 team at the peak of their dynasty. And with a game seven of 30 points, on 80% shooting from the floor, with 32 rebounds, which included scoring his team's last eight points...in a series in which he would average 30 ppg, 31 rpg, and on a .555 FG% (in a post-season NBA that shot an eFG% of .429.)

Go ahead...I will be waiting.

There is only one GOAT, his name is Michael Jordan. :bowdown:

Wilt? Not even top 5 really, arguable top 10 but choked too much so he's most probably at the bottom. All he did was dominate weak competition then choked against the number 2 GOAT. :oldlol: :lol :roll:

[AirFederer]

Tell me more about Charlie Rosen. Why would he lie in his book? :rolleyes:

[LAZERUSS]

Tell me more about Charlie Rosen. Why would he lie in his book? :rolleyes:

You tell me...

http://airjudden2.tripod.com/books/thepivotalseason.html


It is obvious quickly that Rosen is no fan of Wilt Chamberlain and worships Jerry West and Bill Sharman. Don't get me wrong, Wilt had his faults, and West was phenomenal, and Sharman should be in the hall of fame for his coaching, but I will present four passages to prove how much of a vendetta Rosen has:

Page 14 :
"Indeed, the Lakers were in firm control of the game when Chamberlain committed his fifth personal foul late in the third quarter. Coach Butch van Breda Kolff immediately sent Mel Counts, a lanky seven foot jump shooter, in for Chamberlain.
Unfortunately, one of Chamberlain's most cherished personal records was his never having fouled out of a game. So when van Breda Kolff called for Chamberlain to reenter the fray midway through the fourth quarter, the big man refused, mumbling something about an aching knee. Infuriated by Wilt's monumental selfishness, van Breda Kolff vowed to keep Chamberlain on the bench and win the game, and the championship, with Counts.
As the game raced toward the wire with the Celtics relentlessly eating into the Lakers' lead, Chamberlain approached his coach and asked to return to the action. But the always stubborn van Breda Kolff refused, and Chamberlain sat on the bench for the duration."

Now, let's analyze the outright lies of this passage:

#1) Wilt did not leave the game in the 3rd, but rather, there was 5:13 left in the 4th quarter.

#2) The Lakers were not "in firm control of the game" when Chamberlain left. They were down by 9 points.

#3 & 4) Wilt did not leave because he picked up his 5th foul, nor did he refuse to reenter the game when asked. He left because he went up for a rebound and when he came down, he banged his knee. After hobbling around on the court, he went to the bench to get topical spray applied. Wilt said, "They helped me off the court, and i just needed a breather for a second. Butch put in Mel Coutns for me, but after a minute I said I was ready to come back in. Butch ignored me." Van Breda Kolff even said, "Wilt was hurting and you could see him limping. I put in Counts, he hit a couple of shots and we made the comeback...Wilt told me that he was okay, but I said we'd keep things as they were. He told me a second time he wanted to go back in, but I told Wilt the truth. I said, 'We're playing better without you.' Earl Strom, who officiated the game, said, "In a sense, I respect Butch for making one of the dumbest moves any coach has ever made. You just don't try to win a title with Mel Counts when you have Wilt Chamberlain, but...He always was his own man and he would coach his own way." [All quotes taken from Tall Tales, by Terry Pluto.] For the record, Chamberlain played 43 minutes, and shot 7-for-8, scoring 18 points and pulling down 21 rebounds. Counts was 4-for-13 shooting with 5 points.

#5) The Celtics did not relentlessly eat into the Lakers lead with Chamberlain on the bench, rather, L.A. cut Boston's lead to 1 point.

There - five outright lies in one short passage. This is not obscure information. This can be found in many different books and articles. Rosen decided research was not needed, since he found his own brand of fiction is more entertaining, at least to himself.



Here is Rosen's account of the legendary "Willis Reed" game 7 in 1970: "Chamberlain, clearly intimidated by Reed's dramatic display of courage, was rendered passive and impotent." (p.15) Reed had 4 points and 2 rebounds. Chamberlain had 21 points and 24 rebounds. The Knicks' Walt Frazier, a guard mind you, had 39 points and 19 assists. Either West got burned or his coach lacked the faith in him to defend the hot hand. Do you see this mentioned? No. What Rosen also neglected to mention was that when Reed went down in game 5, the Lakers collapsed on Chamberlain and Rosen's idol Jerry West took only 2 shots the 2nd half, missing both, while the Lakers committed 30 turnovers, trying to force the ball into Wilt, rather than taking the open shot.

In another passage (p. 116), Rosen says after the 1970 finals, Chamberlain and Bill Russell never spoke again. Rosen obviously missed the Bob Costas interview with the 2 of them at the 1997 All-Star game, in which Russell made a public apology, and he must have missed the 1999 (2nd) retiring of Russell's number, in which Wilt was invited and attended, despite being in bad health, 5 months away from his death.

In another passage (p.136), Rosen is writing of Coach Sharman's ponderings about his player's ability to handle the pressure of winning the title. He writes, "West would probably be pressure proof...that left El Foldo (Chamberlain) himself.

Let's analyze this joke:

#1) Number of Championships at that point in time: Chamberlain 1, West 0.
#2) West had lost in the finals in 1962, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, and 70, 4 times losing in game 7. West never defeated Russell in the post-season. Chamberlain had (1967).
#3) West's only championship came after Chamberlain joined the team.
#4) In the 1972 post-season, West went cold in the conference finals against Milwaukee and in the finals against the Knicks. In the Milwaukee series, West shot 31-for-101 in 4 of the games. In the Finals, West shot 38-for-117, while "El Foldo", the Finals' MVP, averaged 21.6 ppg and 23.2 rpg, playing with a broken arm in a soft cast.

[LAZERUSS]

As a side not to the above...

Technically the Lakers were down by seven when Wilt left the game. He left on a play in which West was fouled, and when West returned, he hit both FTs, cutting the margin to seven.


Secondly, Rosen's book on the '72 Lakers is actually a very good read. And while Rosen does his best to disparage Wilt with a few digs, ultimately, even he concedes that Chamberlain was the real hero of that season, and in fact, much of the focus in that book is on Wilt.

[MiseryCityTexas]

Guy Rogers and Wali Jones are two forgotten legends that has played with Wilt also.

[AceManIII]

LAZERUSS...

After a certain point INJURIES stop being a valid excuse. If Wilt was indeed severely limited by injury in the 1968 EDF, the 1970 Finals, and also got hurt in Game 7 of the 1969 Finals then maybe he's an injury prone player. Three straight years in a row he gets hurt and costs his team a title. That's pretty bad.

If you wanna go that injury route... But that's a far more unfavorable image for Wilt. It's better to "choke" and under-perform than to be injury prone.

Larry Bird is a perfect example of an injury prone player. I rank him #6 or #7 all time but if I was drafting a player to build my franchise around he might drop below Duncan, Kobe, and maybe even a few more guys. Not being durable is a major minus.

Laz won't answer you directly, but he's going the "Wilt is injury-prone" route and Wilt playing through his injury (along with his teammates "choking") hurt the Lakers overall.

Problem is the 1969 Celtics had an injury-riddled and old team so the injury excuse is out the window.

Did Cunningham's injury affect the 1968 76ers??? Didn't stop them from going up 3-1 on the Celtics and being the first team in history to lose while being up 3-1!

Won't even get into the 1970's Reed Finals injury.


I believe Wilt is a polarizing, yet amazing figure...but I believe we wanted him to be the best more so than Wilt wanted for himself.

Wilt is extremely similar to LeBron. A man so athletic with a skill set to be so dominant...A "clear" GOAT...both have displayed this dominance during the regular season and few playoff games...but whether it comes to their coaches, teammates, bad luck, voodoo, or w/e...they come up short.

For NFL Fans, think Peyton Manning as well.

[Poochymama]

2) Wilt is injury prone.


Side effect of a 7'1" near 300 pound dude playing 48 minutes a game so that he can get his stats.

[LAZERUSS]

Laz won't answer you directly, but he's going the "Wilt is injury-prone" route and Wilt playing through his injury (along with his teammates "choking") hurt the Lakers overall.

Problem is the 1969 Celtics had an injury-riddled and old team so the injury excuse is out the window.

Did Cunningham's injury affect the 1968 76ers??? Didn't stop them from going up 3-1 on the Celtics and being the first team in history to lose while being up 3-1!

Won't even get into the 1970's Reed Finals injury.


I believe Wilt is a polarizing, yet amazing figure...but I believe we wanted him to be the best more so than Wilt wanted for himself.

Wilt is extremely similar to LeBron. A man so athletic with a skill set to be so dominant...A "clear" GOAT...both have displayed this dominance during the regular season and few playoff games...but whether it comes to their coaches, teammates, bad luck, voodoo, or w/e...they come up short.

For NFL Fans, think Peyton Manning as well.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

How about this...

Give me David Robinson's stat-line in the '97 playoffs.
Duncan's in the 2000 post-season.
West's in the '67, '71, and '73 post-seasons.
Baylor's in the '65 post-season.
Reed in the '72 post-season.
Bird in his '89 post-season.
Kobe's in his '13 post-season.

Give me Russell's number of games he played in the '58 Finals.
How about Kareem's contribution in the clinching game six of the '80 Finals.

How many full seasons did Shaq play in his career?
Same with Hakeem?


You "Wilt-bashers" are something else. The man not only PLAYED with injuries, he was putting up 20-20 playoff series with them.

And please don't use game seven of the '69 Finals as an "injury-prone" Chamberlain. He twisted his knee, and had to come out for a couple of minutes. After two minutes, he asked to go back in. Do you think he is the only GOAT to have had to come out for a couple of minutes in a game with a minor injury?

[dankok8]

So a 22-25-7, and 23-24 .625 series COST his team titles, and an 18-27 .875 FG% game seven also COST his team another title.

Same with KAJ, then. His 33-12-5 .524 series COST his '74 Bucks a title, only because he was outplayed by Cowens in game seven of a blowout loss, with a relatively poor 26-13 10-21 shooting game (which by your standards would have been a very poor game for Chamberlain.)

Really, I think even you have to acknowledge how ridiculous those assertions are.

BTW, when Wilt had major knee surgery, he STILL hung a seven game Finals of 23-24 .625. How well did Bird perform in his '89 playoffs?

Actually these are the full exact stats Wilt averaged in those series.

1968 EDF: 22.1 ppg, 25.1 ppg, 6.7 apg on 48.7 %FG/42.9 %FT/48.5 %TS in 47.9 mpg

Playoff average was 49.6 %TS.

He was beyond awful in Game 6 and Game 7.

1969 Finals: 11.7 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 3.0 apg on 50.0 %FG/36.4 %FT/47.1 %TS in 47.3 mpg

Playoff average was 48.0 %TS.

1970 Finals: 23.3 ppg, 24.1 rpg, 4.0 apg on 62.5 %FG/34.3 %FT/57.6 %TS in 47.6 mpg

Playoff average was 49.8 %TS.

He was actually just solid offensively in the 1970 series (his numbers really inflated by monster Game 6) and his defense was just bad. First Reed was lighting him up through the first four games. Then we have Game 5 and Game 7 on tape and he had ZERO impact blocking shots and protecting the paint. In Game 7 he failed to go hard at the hobbled Reed on offense too.

He clearly underperformed so was he A) incapable B) injured or C) choked? Pick one.

[LAZERUSS]

Actually these are the full exact stats Wilt averaged in those series.

1968 EDF: 22.1 ppg, 25.1 ppg, 6.7 apg on 48.7 %FG/42.9 %FT/48.5 %TS in 47.9 mpg

Playoff average was 49.6 %TS.

He was beyond awful in Game 6 and Game 7.

1969 Finals: 11.7 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 3.0 apg on 50.0 %FG/36.4 %FT/47.1 %TS in 47.3 mpg

Playoff average was 48.0 %TS.

1970 Finals: 23.3 ppg, 24.1 rpg, 4.0 apg on 62.5 %FG/34.3 %FT/57.6 %TS in 47.6 mpg

Playoff average was 49.8 %TS.

He was actually just solid offensively in the 1970 series (his numbers really inflated by monster Game 6) and his defense was just bad. First Reed was lighting him up through the first four games. Then we have Game 5 and Game 7 on tape and he had ZERO impact blocking shots and protecting the paint. In Game 7 he failed to go hard at the hobbled Reed on offense too.

He clearly underperformed so was he A) incapable B) injured or C) choked? Pick one.

INJURED in '68, and he still wiped the floor with Russell, whom, BTW, shot a TS% of .446.

Poorly COACHED in '69, and still outplayed Russell, whom BTW, shot a .420 TS% in that series.

Was NOWHERE NEAR 100% in '70, and still SHUTDOWN a much healthier Reed in two of the first four games, holding him to a .423 FG% in those two games, as well as outrebounding him by a 49-27 margin. Oh, and for the series, he held Reed to a .496 TS%.

CHOKED?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

That is a HEALTHY Kareem folding his tent in game five of the '70 EDF's in a 36 point loss; or shooting 7-23 against Wilt in the clinching game five of the '71 playoffs; or going 8-22 against Thurmond in the clinching game five of their '71 playoff series; or shooting .414 from the field against Wilt in the last four games of the '72 WCF's, including 2-8 in the 4th quarter of the clinching game six loss at home; or taking his 60-22 Bucks down the toilet in the first round against Thurmond's 47-35 Warriors, with a .428 series FG%; or game seven of the '74 Finals when he was outplayed by Cowens in a blowout loss on his home floor; or failing to take either his '75 Bucks, or '76 Lakers into the playoffs; or not playing at all in a series clinching Finals game in '80 with a sprained ankle (Wilt was playing and dominating, with FAR worse injuries);or being beaten to a pulp by Moses in the first round of the '81 playoffs, and taking his 54-28 Lakers down the drain against Moses' 40-42 Rockets; or getting slaughtered by Moses in a sweeping Finals series loss in '83; or shooting 7-25 from the field in a pivotal game of the '84 Finals, and in fact, shooting .481 overall, in a seven game series loss; or disgracefully winning a ring in '88 with a poor post-season, that included an awful Finals, and arguably the worst game seven ever played by a GOAT in NBA history.

Next...

[Elosha]

You tell me...

http://airjudden2.tripod.com/books/thepivotalseason.html

Well, Lazeruss' quotes from Rosen's book in the above above certainly show that Rosen got lots of crucial details wrong about game 7 of the 69 Finals. I don't know if he "lied" about it rather than just displaying sloppy research, but either way, it's pretty inexcusable. So no, Wilt was not treated fairly at all in Rosen's portrayal.

[LAZERUSS]

Well, Lazeruss' quotes from Rosen's book in the above above certainly show that Rosen got lots of crucial details wrong about game 7 of the 69 Finals. I don't know if he "lied" about it rather than just displaying sloppy research, but either way, it's pretty inexcusable. So no, Wilt was not treated fairly at all in Rosen's portrayal.

I mentioned it earlier, though, that his book on the '72 Lakers is a good read. He covers their 33 game winning streak, and all five of their regular season H2H's with the Bucks (among the many recaps from that season), and of course, all their playoff games, with an in-depth study of their six playoff H2H's with KAJ's Bucks.

And again, he reluctantly credits Wilt with leading that team to a title.