22/29/9 on 58 fg%....Is there a playoff statline GOATer than This? [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

LAZERUSS

09-23-2016, 03:57 PM

He had games of 41 and 37 points in his first two playoff games, and on a combined .648 FG%. The 41 points would be a Sixer post-season high that year.

In his third playoff game, his scoring "declined" all the way down to 16 points. Of course, he added 30 rebounds, and a then-playoff record, 19 assists, as well as estimates of as high as 20 blocked shots.

Finished the first round with a 28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, triple-double series, and on a .617 FG%.

In the EDF's, he and his Sixers annihilated the eight-time defending, and 60-21 Celtics, 4-1. In fact, they were a mere four points away, in game four in Boston, of sweeping the Dynasty.

In the first game of the EDF's, Chamberlain hung a recorded quad double of 24-32-13-12, and on 9-13 shooting.

In the third game, Russell grabbed 29 rebounds. Great game to be sure...except, Wilt pulled down an all-time playoff record of 41.

In the clinching game five, Boston ran out to an early 17 point lead in the first quarter. The Sixers fought back, and by mid-way thru the 4th quarter, Philly led by a 131-104 margin...or a 44 point turn-around in about three quarters...en route to a 140-116 win. Oh, and Wilt outscored Russell, 29-4 (with 22 points coming in the first half and with the game still close); outrebounded Russell, 36-21; outassisted Russell, 13-7; outshot Russell from the field, 10-16 to 2-5; and even found time to block 7 shots.

For the series, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 21.6 ppg to 11.2 ppg (BTW, the Sixers outscored the Celtics by +10.4 ppg in the series.) He outrebounded Russell, per game, by a 32.0 to 23.4 rpg margin. He outassisted Russell, per game, 10.0 apg to 6.0 apg. And he outshot Russell from the field, .556 to .358 (Russell had shot .454 against the NBA in the regular season BTW.) And, a second consecutive triple-double series.

In the Finals, Chamberlain led the Sixers to a 4-2 series win over the Warriors. In game two, he recorded yet another quad double, 10-38-10-10. In the clinching game six win, he oustcored a peak Thurmond, 24-12; outrebounded him, 23-22; and outshot him, 8-13 to 4-13.

For the series, Wilt outscored Thurmond, per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outrebounded Nate, per game, 28.5 rpg to 26.7 rpg; outassisted him; per game, 6.8 to 4.3; and outshot him from the floor, by a .560 to .343 margin (Thurmond had shot .437 against the NBA in the regular season.) He outscored Nate in five of the six games; outrebounded him, in five of the six games; outassisted him in five of the six games; and outshot him from the floor in all six games.

As a side-note, Thurmond held a peak Kareem to three straight playoff series of .486, .428, and even .405 shooting (including outscoring KAJ, and outshooting KAJ, in their '72 playoff series H2H.)

GOAT.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

LAZERUSS

09-23-2016, 04:09 PM

22.5 Playoffs: 33rd
18.6 Finals: 44th

Of course, as EVERYONE knew at the time...the REAL NBA Finals in the decade of the 60's involved the Celtics vs WILT. Wilt and the Celtics battled eight times in the decade, with six of them coming in the EDF's.

In those EDF battles... Chamberlain hung series of 22-25-7; 22-32-10; 28-30; 31-27; and 34-27. To go along with a 29-28 series in the '64 Finals.

A "scoring" Wilt averaged 33 ppg in his six playoff seasons in that period, which included 30 of his 52 playoff games against the Celtics. In his playoff H2H's with Russell in that span... 30.2 ppg. Against non-Boston teams... 36.0 ppg.

In his "scoring" seasons, he had post-season runs of 28 ppg, 29 ppg, 33 ppg, 35 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37 ppg. He had post-season series of 37 ppg, 37 ppg, 39 ppg, and 39 ppg in that same span. In those 52 games, he had 11 games of 40+, including four of 50+ (50, 50, 53, and 56), and with the only THREE in "must win" games ever by a GOAT candidate.

He also had "must win" games of 45 (in the Finals), and 46 points.

Of course, Chamberlain didn't need to score to dominate.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12604379&postcount=10

Chamberlain scoring 11 ppg was significantly greater than the Court Jester scoring 36 ppg.

The_Pharcyde

09-23-2016, 04:17 PM

is this for wilt?

i never understood how the guy was so DOMINANT and so much ahead of everyone else

but couldnt win more than 2 titles

everyone can come up with an excuse but for me there are none

LAZERUSS

09-23-2016, 04:20 PM

is this for wilt?

i never understood how the guy was so DOMINANT and so much ahead of everyone else

but couldnt win more than 2 titles

everyone can come up with an excuse but for me there are none

John Wooden...

Had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters (and coaches), and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

Big164

09-23-2016, 04:23 PM

I put 1967 above any of Jordan's 6 or Lebron's 3.

Only Dirk and Hakeem had comparable runs.

Mr Feeny

09-23-2016, 04:26 PM

22 ppg?
Pretty lousy as far as playoffs scoring averages go, I'd say.

Dray n Klay

09-23-2016, 04:27 PM

22 ppg?
Pretty lousy as far as playoffs scoring averages go, I'd say.

Our guy is Top 3 all-time

Wilt isnt even Top 10 :oldlol: :banana:

jlip

09-23-2016, 05:03 PM

Most knowledgeable non-trolls consider Wilt's 1967 season to be one of the GOAT individual seasons.

K Xerxes

09-23-2016, 05:08 PM

I put 1967 above any of Jordan's 6 or Lebron's 3.

Only Dirk and Hakeem had comparable runs.

Dirk's run was better than any of Jordan's and LeBron's? I've heard some dumb ass shit in my time, but man...

feyki

09-23-2016, 07:33 PM

Most knowledgeable non-trolls consider Wilt's 1967 season to be one of the GOAT individual seasons.

No doubt , it is . But it also creates biggest what if ever , what happened if Wilt has played like in his 67 form along with his prime . I could have said "clearly goat" but his career has been much much worse .

NBAGOAT

09-23-2016, 07:46 PM

LAZERUSS

09-23-2016, 09:03 PM

what was his ts% btw. With Wilt's ft shooting, I'm guessing it's in the 54-55 range which doesn't sound nearly as impressive. jordan went 37/7/7 on 60ts% in 90 and that's not even his best playoff run. I say that's more impressive.

You also have to factor in league average TS%, as well.

Wilt's '67 playoff run was a deceptive .546 TS%...in a post-season that shot about a .468 TS%.

MJ's '90 playoff run was at .592, in a post-season that shot about .532.

I say about, because I was too lazy to do the .44 thing.

And I say deceptive in Wilt's case, because of the FT shooting rules at the time. Wilt probably had a minimum of 1% higher effective FT%, and probably closer to 2%. And before someone says, well, everyone in that era would have had a higher effective FT%. It would not nearly been as high as Wilt's. Chamberlain shot far more FTAs, and at a considerably worse clip...so he benefitted significantly more.

In any case, and just using the actual differentials... Chamberlain had a +.78 TS% advantage over the '67 post-season average...as compared to MJ's +.60 over the '90 post-season differential.

Of course, Chamberlain's eFG% of .579, in a post-season that shot .424, is miles ahead of Jordan's .533 eFG% in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .490.

SwayDizzle

09-23-2016, 09:08 PM

Our guy is Top 3 all-time

Wilt isnt even Top 10 :oldlol: :banana:
Slurp slurp

NBAGOAT

09-23-2016, 09:14 PM

You also have to factor in league average TS%, as well.

Wilt's '67 playoff run was a deceptive .546 TS%...in a post-season that shot about a .468 TS%.

MJ's '90 playoff run was at .592, in a post-season that shot about .532.

I say about, because I was too lazy to do the .44 thing.

And I say deceptive in Wilt's case, because of the FT shooting rules at the time. Wilt probably had a minimum of 1% higher effective FT%, and probably closer to 2%. And before someone says, well, everyone in that era would have had a higher effective FT%. It would not nearly been as high as Wilt's. Chamberlain shot far more FTAs, and at a considerably worse clip...so he benefitted significantly more.

In any case, and just using the actual differentials... Chamberlain had a +.78 TS% advantage over the '67 post-season average...as compared to MJ's +.60 over the '90 post-season differential.

Of course, Chamberlain's eFG% of .579, in a post-season that shot .424, is miles ahead of Jordan's .533 eFG% in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .490.

good point on the league average efficiency. I usually try to account for it too while viewing players. However that also opens the classic criticism of the 60's which is the pace. Wilt's not putting up 29 rebounds in today's game. He's still a goat level rebounder but I doubt he puts up much more than 15rpg in a season.

LAZERUSS

09-24-2016, 01:10 AM

good point on the league average efficiency. I usually try to account for it too while viewing players. However that also opens the classic criticism of the 60's which is the pace. Wilt's not putting up 29 rebounds in today's game. He's still a goat level rebounder but I doubt he puts up much more than 15rpg in a season.

First of all, I do enjoy actual discussions on this forum, instead of dealing with worthless trolls.

A couple of points...

You mentioned MJ's 89-90 playoff run.

During the regular season, Jordan averaged 33.6 ppg on a .550 eFG% against the NBA. In that playoff run he averaged 36.7 ppg on a .533 eFG%.

BUT, against the "Bad Boys" in the EDF's... 32.1 ppg on a .485 eFG%. Not a huge drop, but still, a drop.

How about his '88-89 season? Regular season... 32.5 ppg on a .546 eFG%. In the playoffs... 34.8 ppg on a .523 eFG%. Against the Pistons in the ECF's...
29.7 ppg on a .476 eFG%.

Let's go back another season, to '87-88. Regular season...35.0 on a .537. In the playoffs...36.3 ppg on a .533. Against the Pistons... 27.4 ppg on a .495.

Now, before you bring up his '90-91 series against the Bad Boys...which was essentially the equal of his regular season numbers,...Detroit was on a rapid decline, and were just a shell of what they had been the three previous seasons. They had dropped to a 50-32 record, and would continue the slide into the 91-92 season, when they fell to 48-34 and were bounced in the first round.

Anyway, my point was this...

Jordan's post-season scoring and efficiency took a dive against the Bad Boys from '88 thru '90. Why is that significant? Because Chamberlain faced the greatest dynasty in NBA history, with the GOAT defensive center in NBA history, and arguably the GOAT defensive team in NBA history (just check out Boston's DRtg as compared to the rest of the NBA...year-after-year in the decade of the 60's)...EIGHT times. EIGHT TIMES in a span of 10 years.

And not only that, he faced them in either the first, or second round, SEVEN times. (BTW, Wilt's surrounding cast was so bad in his '62-63 season, that his team didn't even make the playoffs...in a season in which he averaged 45 ppg.)

For instance, in Wilt's "scoring seasons", from 59-60 thru his '65-66 season, Wilt made the playoffs six times. He played in 52 playoff games, and out of those, he battled the Celtics... in 30 of them. Or 60% of his playoff games in his "scoring" seasons came against the GOAT Dynasty.

In those 30 games, he averaged 30.2 ppg on a .507 FG% (in post-seasons that averaged .420 in that same span.) In his 22 other games... 36.0 ppg. Which included series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, 38.6 ppg, and 38.7 ppg.

Continued...

NBAGOAT

09-24-2016, 01:17 AM

First of all, I do enjoy actual discussions on this forum, instead of dealing with worthless trolls.

A couple of points...

You mentioned MJ's 89-90 playoff run.

During the regular season, Jordan averaged 33.6 ppg on a .550 eFG% against the NBA. In that playoff run he averaged 36.7 ppg on a .533 eFG%.

BUT, against the "Bad Boys" in the EDF's... 32.1 ppg on a .485 eFG%. Not a huge drop, but still, a drop.

How about his '88-89 season? Regular season... 32.5 ppg on a .546 eFG%. In the playoffs... 34.8 ppg on a .523 eFG%. Against the Pistons in the ECF's...
29.7 ppg on a .476 eFG%.

Let's go back another season, to '87-88. Regular season...35.0 on a .537. In the playoffs...36.3 ppg on a .533. Against the Pistons... 27.4 ppg on a .495.

Now, before you bring up his '90-91 series against the Bad Boys...which was essentially the equal of his regular season numbers,...Detroit was on a rapid decline, and were just a shell of what they had been the three previous seasons. They had dropped to a 50-32 record, and would continue the slide into the 91-92 season, when they fell to 48-34 and were bounced in the first round.

Anyway, my point was this...

Jordan's post-season scoring and efficiency took a dive against the Bad Boys from '88 thru '90. Why is that significant? Because Chamberlain faced the greatest dynasty in NBA history, with the GOAT defensive center in NBA history, and arguably the GOAT defensive team in NBA history (just check out Boston's DRtg as compared to the rest of the NBA...year-after-year in the decade of the 60's)...EIGHT times. EIGHT TIMES in a span of 10 years.

And not only that, he faced them in either the first, or second round, SEVEN times. (BTW, Wilt's surrounding cast was so bad in his '62-63 season, that his team didn't even make the playoffs...in a season in which he averaged 45 ppg.)

For instance, in Wilt's "scoring seasons", from 59-60 thru his '65-66 season, Wilt made the playoffs six times. He played in 52 playoff games, and out of those, he battled the Celtics... in 30 of them. Or 60% of his playoff games in his "scoring" seasons came against the GOAT Dynasty.

In those 30 games, he averaged 30.2 ppg on a .507 FG% (in post-seasons that averaged .420 in that same span.) In his 22 other games... 36.0 ppg. Which included series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, 38.6 ppg, and 38.7 ppg.

Continued...

you're talking to the wrong guy. I don't really have much to criticize for Wilt playoff wise in his scoring seasons. There may have been small dropoffs in numbers but his impact was still great but that's due to facing Celtics as you said. In general, it applies to almost any player because playoff teams are better and therefore should be better defensively. Only 68 and 69 really don't look that good(and yes I've seen your posts on them. Ik there were injury issues in 68 and terrible coaching issues in 69).

LAZERUSS

09-24-2016, 01:29 AM

Continuing...

Here is another interesting fact about Wilt's playoffs in the decade of the 60's. He played in the Eastern Conference in seven of those 10 seasons. In the same conference that Russell's Dynasty resided.

And before joining the Lakers in his 68-69 season, Chamberlain faced exactly ONE Western Conference team in the playoffs. And in that seven game series, Chamberlain averaged 38.6 ppg, 23.0 rpg, and shot .559 from the field (in a post-season NBA that shot .420 overall.) ONE SERIES.

Compare that with Lebron, who had played in the POS East his entire career. Where he has basically been guaranteed three playoff rounds against pure shit teams, and then a trip to the Finals. SEVEN Finals. BTW, the ONE great team he faced in the East in that span...the '08 Celtics. How did he fare? Well, in his regular season against the entire NBA...Lebron averaged 30.0 ppg on a .518 eFG%. Against the Celtics in the ECSF's? 26.7 ppg on a .384 eFG%!

Now, think about this... Bill Russell FEASTED on the Lakers in the decade of the 60's. He faced them six times in the Finals in that decade. Throw out his '69 Finals, against Wilt, when he did absolutely nothing on the offensive end...and here were his five Finals against LA:

'62: 22.9 ppg, 27.0 rpg, 5.7 apg, and on a .543 FG%. Including a game seven of 30 points and 40 rebounds.

'63: 20.0 ppg, 26.0 rpg, 5.3 apg, and on a .467 FG%.

'65: 17.8 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 5.8 apg, and on...get this... a .702 FG%.

'66: 23.6 ppg (led Boston BTW), 24.3 rpg, 3.7 apg, and on a .538 FG%.

'68: 17.3 ppg, 21.8 rpg, 5.7 apg, and on a .430 FG%.

Against Wilt in the '69 Finals: 9.0 ppg, 21.4 rpg, and on a .399 FG%.

What does that have to do with Chamberlain? In the decade of the 60's, Wilt never faced the Lakers even ONCE in the post-season. Nada. Not ONE GAME.

Then, think about this. Wilt went up against the Lakers in the regular season in 86 games. He had... get ready... 42 games of 40+, including 19 of 50+, 7 of 60+, and 2 of 70+. Oh, and remember Russell's 30-40 game seven in the '62 Finals against LA? Wilt hung a 78-43 game on those same Lakers in the regular season. For the record, Wilt had regular seasons against LA...with between 8-13 games... of 41 ppg, 44 ppg, 48 ppg, and 52 ppg. He also had a regular season in which he averaged 28 ppg on a .759 FG% against them.

Yet...not even ONE GAME against them in the post-season.

Continued...

LAZERUSS

09-24-2016, 01:52 AM

Wilt's rebounding?

First of all, let's throw out the numbers. Instead, how about this. He LED the league 11 times in his 14 seasons. And, he was well on his way to another rebounding title in his 69-70 season, when he shredded his knee in the ninth game (he was leading the league at 20.6 rpg at the time.)

Next, how about his post-season rebounding. You know...the Wilt who some here claim "declined" in his post-seasons? He played in 29 post-season series...and was never outrebounded by an opposing center in ANY of them.

Granted, he was outrebounded in ONE series, by Jerry Lucas, who was the Kevin Love of his era. In that one four game series, Lucas outrebounded Wilt by a 21.0 rpg to 20.0 rpg.

HOWEVER, when the two met again, as CENTERS, in the '72 Finals... a 35 year old Wilt, playing 47 mpg, outrebounded the 31 year old Lucas, who played 46 mpg in that series...by a 23.2 rpg to 9.8 rpg margin.

How about this? Russell is the all-time playoff leader in rpg, at 24.9 rpg. Wilt is right behind him, at 24.5 rpg. Of course, Russell played several seasons in the 50's, while Wilt played four seasons in the 70's, where rpg declined. When Russell retired after the '69 Finals, Wilt was averaging 26.3 rpg in his post-season career.

Then, how about this? Russell and Wilt went at it in EIGHT playoff series. Guess what? Russell never outrebounded Wilt in ANY of them. In fact, Wilt had margins as high as 5 rpg, 6 rpg, and even 9 rpg against Russell in three of them.

How about against Nate Thurmond, who was the third best rebounder of his era? In their three playoff series H2H's... Wilt had margins of 28.5 rpg to 26.7 rpg; 23.0 rpg to 19.0 rpg; and in his last season, Wilt enjoyed a 23.6 rpg to 17.2 rpg margin against Thurmond (who had finished second to Wilt in the regular season.)

Chamberlain just slaughtered Willis Reed in their four post-season series...by as much as 14 rpg in a series!

Wilt routed the 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy (who BTW, Marty Blake claims was actually 7-0) in their two playoff series H2H's, and by as much as 8 rpg in a series.

An old Wilt, playing on a surgically repaired knee, outrebounded a peak Kareem in their two playoff series H2H's, and by 2 rpg.

Incidently, Wilt had a TRB% of 25.2 in his '67 EDF's against Russell (who had an 18.2 TRB% in that same series.) He also had a 24.8 TRB% to 20.4 TRB% in their '65 playoff series.

What would Chamberlain average today? We will never know, of course, but, how about Wilt in his very last post-season? He averaged 22.5 rpg, in his 17 playoff games...which came in a post-season that averaged 50.6 rpg per team. Compare that 50.6 rpg, with last year's post-season, in which the NBA averaged 42.0 rpg per team. Reduce Chamberlain's 22.5 rpg, down to the '16 post-season level, and he would have averaged 18.7 rpg.

Granted, Wilt is not playing 47 mpg in today's era, but I have no doubt that 42 mpg would have been the norm.

BTW, how did the 6-8 Kevin Love run away with the rpg crown a few years ago, at 15.2 rpg, and in only 35.8 mpg? Does anyone in their right mind honestly believe that a prime Chamberlain wouldn't have been more dominant than Love?

Again...I enjoy these intelligent discussions. Something this forum severely lacks.

Big164

09-24-2016, 03:51 PM

Our guy is Top 3 all-time

Wilt isnt even Top 10 :oldlol: :banana:
Typical Bronze stan celebrating a 3rd place finish.

Just give it up, Wilt is the only Man with arguments OVER mj. Fvck 3rd place.
https://s11.postimg.org/9u66ptjs3/per.png

Mr Feeny

09-24-2016, 04:17 PM

Typical Bronze stan celebrating a 3rd place finish.

Just give it up, Wilt is the only Man with arguments OVER mj. Fvck 3rd place.
https://s11.postimg.org/9u66ptjs3/per.pngWhat's his career PER? :eek:

Bc lebron is 2nd all time behind Jordan and Wilt is nowhere near him :roll:

Big164

09-25-2016, 01:45 PM

What's his career PER? :eek:

Bc lebron is 2nd all time behind Jordan and Wilt is nowhere near him :roll:
Career per is not as insightful because some guys like Kareem play well past their prime and end up destroying their overall per.

I gurantee if Lebron plays to age 36 he will finish below WIlt, where his short 6'8 ass belongs!

SouBeachTalents

09-25-2016, 01:47 PM

Big164

09-25-2016, 01:52 PM

But he'll finish above Wilt in titles & FMVP's
sam jones will finish ahead of Jordan in titles

and iggy will finish ahead of KG in Finals mvps

SouBeachTalents

09-25-2016, 05:12 PM

sam jones will finish ahead of Jordan in titles

and iggy will finish ahead of KG in Finals mvps

But LeBron's matched Wilt in MVP's AND surpassed him in titles & FMVP's, while averaging more ppg in the playoffs and Finals

Big164

09-25-2016, 05:35 PM

In any case, and just using the actual differentials... Chamberlain had a +.78 TS% advantage over the '67 post-season average...as compared to MJ's +.60 over the '90 post-season differential.

Of course, Chamberlain's eFG% of .579, in a post-season that shot .424, is miles ahead of Jordan's .533 eFG% in a post-season that shot an eFG% of .490.

I wish I could be as civil as you in these discussions, Laz. Brilliant post.

Big164

09-25-2016, 05:41 PM

But LeBron's matched Wilt in MVP's AND surpassed him in titles & FMVP's, while averaging more ppg in the playoffs and Finals
But Lebron is not 1st or Best in either of those categories.

Wilt has over 69 NBA records not just over Lebron, but every single player including MJ. All of Lebron's 2nd and 3rd place finishes do not impress me, wilt obviously has the higher peaks...assists, points, Rebs fg%, playoffs, everything

LAZERUSS

09-25-2016, 05:52 PM

But Lebron is not 1st or Best in either of those categories.

Wilt has over 69 NBA records not just over Lebron, but every single player including MJ. All of Lebron's 2nd and 3rd place finishes do not impress me, wilt obviously has the higher peaks...assists, points, Rebs fg%, playoffs, everything

No one knows how many NBA Records Chamberlain owns.

Harvey Pollack had Wilt with over 100.

However, I have the Dipper with HUNDREDS, and likely even THOUSANDS of NBA Records.

For example... "streak records"...

Wilt has the highest scoring single game in NBA history, at 100.
He has the highest two game total of 161.
Highest three game total of 226.
Highest four game total of 293.
Highest five game total of 351 (70.2 ppg BTW.)

You can carry that out to his 80 games in his 61-62 season... 4029 points (50.4 ppg.)
Then, you can carry that out to his first 11 seasons, when he was averaging 34 ppg in whatever number of games by that time (some 800+.)

And since Wilt was also easily the greatest rebounder in NBA history...I'm sure you could find similar "streaks" with his rebounding, as well.

And Chamberlain also had MANY POST-SEASON Record, too. Most 20-20 games; most 30-20 games; most 40-20 games; most 50-20 games; most 30-30 games; most 40-30 games; and most 50-30 games.

Furthermore, you could carry those games out in "streaks" as well. Most consecutive 20-20 games; most consecutive 30-20 games; etc.

And if we had all of Wilt's blocked shots, he would most certainly hold a TON of those records, as well. Thanks to Julizaver at nbastats.net, we do KNOW that Wilt is THE all-time playoff blocked shot king. Sorry Tim Duncan, but your 568 blocked shots in your 251 games was eclipsed by the KNOWN playoff blocks that Wilt had (590 in 81 known games.) What we don't know, is just how many more Wilt had...since we only have 81 of his 160 post-season games.
The NBA should publish TWO Record Books. One, the Wilt Book, and then two, the Everyone Else Book.

aj1987

09-25-2016, 06:02 PM

All those "records" and only 2 pathetic carried rings. :roll:

Big164

09-25-2016, 06:19 PM

All those "records" and only 2 pathetic carried rings. :roll:
He led two franchises, TWO, to 68+ wins and a ring. Bron never even helmed 1 68+ win team.

. Lebrom can only hope for a 68+ win team to be injured and beg to get the best player suspended in an elimination game.

ArbitraryWater

09-25-2016, 06:22 PM

He led two franchises, TWO, to 68+ wins and a ring. Bron never even helmed 1 68+ win team.

. Lebrom can only hope for a 68+ win team to be injured and beg to get the best player suspended in an elimination game.

yeah, he beats them

aj1987

09-25-2016, 06:23 PM

yeah, he beats them
:roll: :roll:

:applause: :applause:

Big164

09-25-2016, 06:33 PM

yeah, he beats them
He beats them to Adam Silver's crotch. That is all.

feyki

09-25-2016, 07:35 PM

yeah, he beats them

Look at that avatar :roll: :roll:

Maverick Carter

09-26-2016, 09:32 AM

Career per is not as insightful because some guys like Kareem play well past their prime and end up destroying their overall per.

I gurantee if Lebron plays to age 36 he will finish below WIlt, where his short 6'8 ass belongs!

This is hogwash. Lebron is so far ahead of Chamberlain (1+ PER lead over 13 seasons) that there's no way he falls below him in career PER if he plays an extra 4 years, even taking a slight decline into account.

Psileas

09-26-2016, 10:03 AM

This is hogwash. Lebron is so far ahead of Chamberlain (1+ PER lead over 13 seasons) that there's no way he falls below him in career PER if he plays an extra 4 years, even taking a slight decline into account.

PER is bullshit, anyway. It assumes a million things that aren't true and its huge dependence on scoring creates travesties like elite non high scorers, like Magic, Russell, post '66 Wilt, etc, not being considered all-time elite players, players like prime Rodman or prime Ben Wallace being considered merely "good starters" etc. And, obviously, it didn't even exist as a term when Wilt was playing, so where he ranks compared to players who are completely aware of it is a pointless discussion.

ClipperRevival

09-26-2016, 10:13 AM

PER is bullshit, anyway. It assumes a million things that aren't true and its huge dependence on scoring creates travesties like elite non high scorers, like Magic, Russell, post '66 Wilt, etc, not being considered all-time elite players, players like prime Rodman or prime Ben Wallace being considered merely "good starters" etc. And, obviously, it didn't even exist as a term when Wilt was playing, so where he ranks compared to players who are completely aware of it is a pointless discussion.

You do know that Wilt is 5th all time in PER right? And that Magic is 14th? If I had to pick only one advanced stat to measure a player's value, it would be PER. You can't cheat your way on this list like TS%, which is a skewed stat that favors certain type of players.

LAZERUSS

09-26-2016, 10:48 AM

Most intelligent observers rank Wilt's '67 season as one of the GOAT seasons in NBA history. And yet, he "only" had a PER of 26.5.

That is all you need to know about PER.

It is a FLAWED stat that rates scoring WAY too high.

Furthermore, it didn't even capture more advanced metrics in Wilt's era, like blocked shots. And everyone knows that Wilt was the GOAT shot-blocker in NBA history.

It obviously didn't measure his DEFENSIVE IMPACT either. He COMPLETELY shut down HOF centers Bellamy, Russell, and Thurmond in that season. Just annihilated all three of them (and then Russell and Thurmond in the post-season.)

And yes, TS% is a flawed stat as well. It doesn't reflect across era's.

Maverick Carter

09-26-2016, 11:10 AM

People who have an axe to grind or an agenda against players ranked higher all time than their favourite players are going to dimissory any stat which ranks their players lower than they'd like.
PER is probably the most trusted and widely used individual metric world wide, as the Clippers fan a couple of posts back noted.
Wilt Chamberlain - as good as he was - was never quite as dominant as a Michael Jordan or a Lebron james if you take playoffs and finals performances into account. It's no shame being below arguably the two greatest players of all time, mind you.

LAZERUSS

09-26-2016, 11:13 AM

Maverick Carter

09-26-2016, 11:16 AM

Who has the TWO highest PER seasons in NBA HISTORY????

Yes, THE GOAT...that's who.

And yet, he was even MORE dominant in his 65-66 and 66-67 seasons.

I sincerely hope you're not stupid enough to be suggesting that Wilt Chamberlain is anything close to being or resembling the goat.

That's one Michael Jeffrey Jordan. He is followed by Lebron james who has the 2nd highest career PER. They, ofcourse, are both ranked higher all time than everyone else and that includes wilt Chamberlain.

In fac, a myriad of other players including kareem Abdul-Jabbar are ranked higher than Chamberlain in most viewers'opinioj.s.

LAZERUSS

09-26-2016, 11:20 AM

I sincerely hope you're not stupid enough to be suggesting that Wilt Chamberlain is anything close to being or resembling the goat.

That's one Michael Jeffrey Jordan. He is followed by Lebron james who has the 2nd highest career PER. They, ofcourse, are both ranked higher all time than everyone else and that includes wilt Chamberlain.

In fac, a myriad of other players including kareem Abdul-Jabbar are ranked higher than Chamberlain in most viewers'opinioj.s.

Listen Mr Feeble...

NO ONE ranks the Court Jester at #2. NO ONE.

And just because the night janitors at ESPN randomly pulled names out of a hat and "drew" LeChoke at #3 means NOTHING.

Just check the NBA RECORD BOOK. See how many pages Leshrinkage has as compared to Lord Chamberlain.

Next...

Maverick Carter

09-26-2016, 11:22 AM

Listen Mr Feeble...

NO ONE ranks the Court Jester at #2. NO ONE.

And just because the night janitors at ESPN randomly pulled names out of a hat and "drew" LeChoke at #3 means NOTHING.

Just check the NBA RECORD BOOK. See how many pages Leshrinkage has as compared to Lord Chamberlain.

Next...

Who is this guy?:oldlol:

Psileas

09-26-2016, 11:32 AM

You do know that Wilt is 5th all time in PER right? And that Magic is 14th? If I had to pick only one advanced stat to measure a player's value, it would be PER. You can't cheat your way on this list like TS%, which is a skewed stat that favors certain type of players.

You could take the mpg leaders and have as many all-time great players at the top as PER. Since when is a stat putting Magic at 14 or Russell at 98 or Wilt's 1967 season at 105 (!!!) considered good? Since when is 5th a good ranking for someone who's consistently called the most dominant player ever? I bet you wouldn't like a stat that would put Jordan's impact as 5th (and that wouldn't be very hard to do, just a stat that would value rebounding, passing and shot blocking a bit more and scoring and stealing a bit less would do the trick).
We all know what it takes to "cheat" and climb your way in the PER scale: Play relatively few minutes, score efficiently (by far the stat PER is mostly based on), not commit too many TO's and fouls, which is not that hard to do if you are assigned the scorer's, not passer's, role and you're excused from playing too much defense (or, alternatively, you're excused from blatant fouling due to having built a good reputation as a defender). Else, you may do it the hard way, by not scoring much but by doing everything else on the court at ridiculous quantities. Again, look at Rodman: Young, SF Rodman, very solid rebounder, but also decent (still nothing special, obviously) scorer gets a higher PER than rebounding machine, improved passer, but with reduced scoring role Rodman. Who would most take between late 80's and early-mid 90's Rodman?

Psileas

09-26-2016, 11:44 AM

In the shot clock era, there have been only 3 times a player led in PER while scoring below 25 ppg (Wilt in '67 and '68 and Kareem in '79, who, in those seasons, did pretty much everything, and their PER lead still was a "weak" one in all-time scales). 25 times, the PER leader was the leading scorer, compared to 11 times for leading rebounders (mostly Wilt, thanks to his scoring again) and zero times (!) the leading passer.

ClipperRevival

09-26-2016, 11:56 AM

You could take the mpg leaders and have as many all-time great players at the top as PER. Since when is a stat putting Magic at 14 or Russell at 98 or Wilt's 1967 season at 105 (!!!) considered good? Since when is 5th a good ranking for someone who's consistently called the most dominant player ever? I bet you wouldn't like a stat that would put Jordan's impact as 5th (and that wouldn't be very hard to do, just a stat that would value rebounding, passing and shot blocking a bit more and scoring and stealing a bit less would do the trick).
We all know what it takes to "cheat" and climb your way in the PER scale: Play relatively few minutes, score efficiently (by far the stat PER is mostly based on), not commit too many TO's and fouls, which is not that hard to do if you are assigned the scorer's, not passer's, role and you're excused from playing too much defense (or, alternatively, you're excused from blatant fouling due to having built a good reputation as a defender). Else, you may do it the hard way, by not scoring much but by doing everything else on the court at ridiculous quantities. Again, look at Rodman: Young, SF Rodman, very solid rebounder, but also decent (still nothing special, obviously) scorer gets a higher PER than rebounding machine, improved passer, but with reduced scoring role Rodman. Who would most take between late 80's and early-mid 90's Rodman?

What's your point? No one said PER is perfect. And yes, PER does weigh scoring somewhat heavily but guess what? It should. Scoring is the most important factor in the game. You win when you score more than the other team, not get more rebounds, assists, blocks or steals. For the most part, I think PER is a great stat.

ClipperRevival

09-26-2016, 12:07 PM

If you want a joke stat, look no further than TS%.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_career.html

aj1987

09-26-2016, 12:10 PM

Who is this guy?:oldlol:
A complete and utter moron who's in love with a player who cared more about padding his stats than actually winning games. The same guy, who padded his stats massively in the RS and choked his ass of like the mental midget he is, in the PO's. 30 - 22 - 18. That's all that needs to to be said.

If you want a joke stat, look no further than TS%.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_career.html
How is TS% a "joke stat". It's actually a pretty good measure of scoring efficiency.

RoundMoundOfReb

09-26-2016, 12:14 PM

LeBron James.

ClipperRevival

09-26-2016, 12:22 PM

A complete and utter moron who's in love with a player who cared more about padding his stats than actually winning games. The same guy, who padded his stats massively in the RS and choked his ass of like the mental midget he is, in the PO's. 30 - 22 - 18. That's all that needs to to be said.

How is TS% a "joke stat". It's actually a pretty good measure of scoring efficiency.

It's a biased stat and favors either:

1) Bigs who score at an amazingly high pct down low (mostly role players who don't take too many shots) and can shoot the FT somewhat

2) Guards who can shoot the 3 and hit FTs at high pct

And completely devalues great scorers who shot mostly the 2. For example:

48 - LeBron
81 - MJ
112 - Wade
133 - Dr. J
195 - West
197 - English
198 - Kobe
217 - Drexler
230 - Melo

aj1987

09-26-2016, 12:35 PM

It's a biased stat and favors either:

1) Bigs who score at an amazingly high pct down low (mostly role players who don't take too many shots) and can shoot the FT somewhat

2) Guards who can shoot the 3 and hit FTs at high pct

And completely devalues great scorers who shot mostly the 2. For example:

48 - LeBron
81 - MJ
112 - Wade
133 - Dr. J
195 - West
197 - English
198 - Kobe
217 - Drexler
230 - Melo
Well, that's efficiency for you. Shooting 10 2's and making 50% isn't more efficient than shooting 10 3's and making 40% of them. It factors in FT% as well.

It's not a stat used to tell who the better scorer is. It's the stat used to figure out a players' EFFICIENCY. I mean, why wouldn't anyone consider FT's and 3's as part of the scoring arsenal and factor them in, when comparing efficiencies.

TS% is definitely the best stat to measure scoring efficiency.

Psileas

09-26-2016, 12:37 PM

What's your point? No one said PER is perfect. And yes, PER does weigh scoring somewhat heavily but guess what? It should. Scoring is the most important factor in the game. You win when you score more than the other team, not get more rebounds, assists, blocks or steals. For the most part, I think PER is a great stat.

Point is, if you want to judge someone's stats relative to his era, look no further than his stats themselves, forget PER. It's just a mix that won't lead you to any valuable conclusions, rather than an indication that a player with a higher PER than another is more likely to be a better scorer rather than a better all-around player.
And these are only the factors concerning boxscore stats, let alone stuff like the linear way it measures pace and minutes played, as if a team that will increase its pace by a huge 20% has any hope of getting 20% higher overall stats on the same efficiency (especially big men) or as if a player who plays 25-30 mpg isn't going to be negatively affected, on a per minute base, if he gets to 40 mpg. Which are reasons why only 3.5 players from the highest pace eras (60's-70's) are in the top 20 (.5=Kareem) - and Pettit retired early. At the same time, 6 of the all-time top 20 leaders are active, and while Dirk is on his way down, he'll soon be replaced by Westbrook. And these 6, of course, don't include Duncan.

Milbuck

09-26-2016, 03:49 PM

It's a biased stat and favors either:

1) Bigs who score at an amazingly high pct down low (mostly role players who don't take too many shots) and can shoot the FT somewhat

2) Guards who can shoot the 3 and hit FTs at high pct

And completely devalues great scorers who shot mostly the 2. For example:

48 - LeBron
81 - MJ
112 - Wade
133 - Dr. J
195 - West
197 - English
198 - Kobe
217 - Drexler
230 - Melo
No, it really doesn't devalue them at all considering most of those guys were above average efficiency scorers by TS%. In the case of guys like Lebron and MJ, extremely high efficiency scorers. Even Melo, who is often knocked for his efficiency, in his better years was a clear above average efficiency scorer by TS%.

It has no "bias", it just values inherently more efficient shots like the 3 ball, shots in the paint, and getting to the FT line...so, you know, the most efficient shots in basketball. You can like the aesthetics of the midrange game all you want but the reality is, it's one of the more inefficient shots in basketball. The exceptions are guys who are absolutely elite at it...MJ...Dirk...Kobe. But in the broad spectrum factoring in everyone, it's not a favorable shot at all.

aj1987

09-26-2016, 05:27 PM

No, it really doesn't devalue them at all considering most of those guys were above average efficiency scorers by TS%. In the case of guys like Lebron and MJ, extremely high efficiency scorers. Even Melo, who is often knocked for his efficiency, in his better years was a clear above average efficiency scorer by TS%.

It has no "bias", it just values inherently more efficient shots like the 3 ball, shots in the paint, and getting to the FT line...so, you know, the most efficient shots in basketball. You can like the aesthetics of the midrange game all you want but the reality is, it's one of the more inefficient shots in basketball. The exceptions are guys who are absolutely elite at it...MJ...Dirk...Kobe. But in the broad spectrum factoring in everyone, it's not a favorable shot at all.
Kobe by almost any metric has never been an elite midrange shooter in his career. For his career, he averaged ~40% from midrange. To put that in perspective, Dirk is at ~7% more than Kobe for their careers and same with Jordan. Both of them peaked at well over 50%. Kobe's best season from midrange was 45% (lesser than MJ's and Dirk's career average and the same as LeBron's career high). His midrange percentages are significantly closer to LeBron's than MJ and Dirk.

ClipperRevival

09-27-2016, 08:47 AM

aj1987

09-27-2016, 09:17 AM

RE: TS%

What you guys said is all true. But to me, the flaw within this metric is that it unfairly gives TOO MUCH CREDIT for 3 point shooters even though in reality, there is no bias in this stat. What I mean is, people figured out with advanced metrics that it makes more sense to shoot the 3 at a lower clip than to shoot the 2 at a higher clip. So while in mathematical terms, there is no bias in this stat, the unfair advantage of 3 points over 2 points over time skews this stat in favor of 3 point shooters. Hope this makes sense.

It's just not a stat I like. Not when you look at who the leaders are. It's just limited to a certain type of players.
That's because 3 points is MORE than 2 points. How does it not make sense than a person taking 10 shots and making 5 2's is less efficient than a person taking 10 shots and making 4 3's? How hard is that to understand? The person taking 3's is scoring MORE points than the person taking 2's and is hence, more efficient than the person taking 2's. How is that even close to being unfair? That's just simple and basic math and numbers.

Look at players who posted high percentages on 2's. Wade put ip 59% TS in '14 even though he made only 9 3's the entire season and didn't even get too many FT's. Barkley has a career TS% of 61% and he was an atrocious 3pt shooter and an average FT shooter. Those are elite efficiency numbers.

As Milbuck pointed out, the midrange jumper is one of the least efficient shots in the game. So, a player taking that shot is obviously not going to be as efficient as a player taking high percentage 2's and a player who's a good 3pt shooter. You're just getting upset because you like that inefficient shot.

It's not a flawed metric by any means. It's one of the best indicators of scoring efficiency, which takes into account FT's and 3's (you know that those get you points as well, right?). Also, TS% doesn't add any extra weightage to 3's. eFG% is another stat which can be used to measure efficiency, but it doesn't take FT's into account.

ClipperRevival

09-27-2016, 09:33 AM

That's because 3 points is MORE than 2 points. How does it not make sense than a person taking 10 shots and making 5 2's is less efficient than a person taking 10 shots and making 4 3's? How hard is that to understand? The person taking 3's is scoring MORE points than the person taking 2's and is hence, more efficient than the person taking 2's. How is that even close to being unfair? That's just simple and basic math and numbers.

Look at players who posted high percentages on 2's. Wade put ip 59% TS in '14 even though he made only 9 3's the entire season and didn't even get too many FT's. Barkley has a career TS% of 61% and he was an atrocious 3pt shooter and an average FT shooter. Those are elite efficiency numbers.

As Milbuck pointed out, the midrange jumper is one of the least efficient shots in the game. So, a player taking that shot is obviously not going to be as efficient as a player taking high percentage 2's and a player who's a good 3pt shooter. You're just getting upset because you like that inefficient shot.

It's not a flawed metric by any means. It's one of the best indicators of scoring efficiency, which takes into account FT's and 3's (you know that those get you points as well, right?). Also, TS% doesn't add any extra weightage to 3's. eFG% is another stat which can be used to measure efficiency, but it doesn't take FT's into account.

Like I said, in and of itself, the stat is not biased. My point was that 3's are too much of an advantage over 2's and that is why it unfairly props up 3 point shooters. I mean I get what you're saying.

But just take a look at the all-time leaders.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_career.html

It consists of 3 type of players primarily:

1) Low volume bigs who shot most of their shots right at the basket and can shoot the FT a bit (Tyson Chandler #3, James Donaldson #5, Darryl Dawkins #11, Bobby Jones #12)

2) Great 3 point shooters who can shoot the FT (Curry #7, Miller #8, Nash #17, Korver #22, Redick #23)

3) GOAT level low post players who were incredibly efficient down low (Gilmore #2, Dantley #6, Barkley #9, McHale #17)

aj1987

09-27-2016, 09:41 AM

Like I said, in and of itself, the stat is not biased. My point was that 3's are too much of an advantage over 2's and that is why it unfairly props up 3 point shooters. I mean I get what you're saying.

But just take a look at the all-time leaders.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_career.html

It consists of 3 type of players primarily:

1) Low volume bigs who shot most of their shots right at the basket and can shoot the FT a bit (Tyson Chandler #3, James Donaldson #5, Darryl Dawkins #11, Bobby Jones #12)

2) Great 3 point shooters who can shoot the FT (Curry #7, Miller #8, Nash #17, Korver #22, Redick #23)

3) GOAT level low post players who were incredibly efficient down low (Gilmore #2, Dantley #6, Barkley #9, McHale #17)
Ok...? What does any of that have to do with TS% being a bad metric to measure efficiency?

ClipperRevival

09-27-2016, 09:59 AM

Ok...? What does any of that have to do with TS% being a bad metric to measure efficiency?

It hampers great scorers who shoot mostly the 2 and rely a lot on the mid-range. Tell me how many guys on that TS% list were great players. Sure you had some but some were just specific role players in one of the categories I described. That's not saying THAT MUCH in the grand scheme of things.

What I do know is that MJ, Kobe and Wade have 14 rings between the 3 and the mid-range game was a big part of their games, especially MJ and Kobe. I don't care what the analytics say, the mid-range is a huge part of the game for a great, perimeter scorer. That's my point.

I could give a rats ass if Tyson Chandler is #3 and James Donaldson is #5 all time in TS%. WTF does that mean? NOTHING.