ISH's #7 Player of Alltime

[QUOTE=Inception28]Well is it not true that Wilt Chamberlain won the least championships and least finals MVP out of the group?[/QUOTE]

Now we're getting somewhere, discussion, yes!

Same number of Finals MVP's as Kareem and Bird if you give him '67 (anyone would)

Same number of titles as an alpha as Kareem and Magic, only one fewer than Shaq and Bird and for nearly Wilt's entire career he had Russell ad the Celtics in his way. Shaq only had MJ to worry about for three prime seasons, same with Bird and Magic, Kareem played in the weakest era on NBA hoops post-shot clock.

If you take Russell out of the Picture Wilt gets at least three more rings ('68, '69, '64) And probably five or six ('65, '62, '66).

There is no one else who was so consistently foiled by such a nemesis. Certainly there is no shame in being second best to Russell.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Now we're getting somewhere, discussion, yes!

Same number of Finals MVP's as Kareem and Bird if you give him '67 (anyone would)[/quote]
True, but lets face it. Kareem and Bird were the best player's on a championship team more than twice.

[quote]
Same number of titles as an alpha as Kareem and Magic, only one fewer than Shaq and Bird [/quote]
How many times were Magic and Kareem the alphas on their respective team? That being said I actually hold account into winning as a 2nd option. It's not worth a grain of salt to me like most people treat it.

[quote]
and for nearly Wilt's entire career he had Russell ad the Celtics in his way. Shaq only had MJ to worry about for three prime seasons, same with Bird and Magic, Kareem played in the weakest era on NBA hoops post-shot clock.

If you take Russell out of the Picture Wilt gets at least three more rings ('68, '69, '64) And probably five or six ('65, '62, '66).

There is no one else who was so consistently foiled by such a nemesis. Certainly there is no shame in being second best to Russell.[/QUOTE]
What is the point of this hypothetical? I don't live on what ifs, I live on what actually happened. That being said, it's nice to see for a change that Russell is being put on a high standard and I don't see the same excuses such as Wilt's teammates were a bunch of D-Leaguers and what not.

Wilt's stats did not help his team as much as one would think it would.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]

If you take Russell out of the Picture Wilt gets at least three more rings ('68, '69, '64) And probably five or six ('65, '62, '66).

There is no one else who was so consistently foiled by such a nemesis. Certainly there is no shame in being second best to Russell.


[/QUOTE]

What a terrible argument..:facepalm

Fvck it, I'll be the lone wolf here and throw in my vote for Kobe at #7.

[QUOTE=Inception28]True, but lets face it. Kareem and Bird were the best player's on a championship team more than twice.[/quote]

Kareem wasn't '71 and '80 are the only seasons he was the highest MVP vote getter on his team during title years. Magic also received higher all-NBA recognition during the other 4 title runs.

[QUOTE=Inception28]How many times were Magic and Kareem the alphas on their respective team?[/quote]

Kareem 1971, 1980
Magic 1987, 1988

You can go either way in '82 and '85. I give Magic's performance a slight edge in the former and Kareem's in the later.


[QUOTE=Inception28]That being said I actually hold account into winning as a 2nd option. It's not worth a grain of salt to me like most people treat it.[/quote]

I am with you, but I don't think it's usually anymore a sign of greatness than being the best player on a runner-up or a team that losses a competitive series to the eventual Champs. Look at the following seasons and tell me which players you think proved more and whose season meant more.

2009 -Dwight Howard (best player on runner-up or Pau Gasol (second best on Champs)

2008 - Kobe Bryant (best player on runner-up) or Paul Pierce (second best on Champs)

2001 - Allen Iverson (best player on runner-up) or Kobe Bryant (second best on Champs)

1995 - Shaq (best player on runner-up) or Clyde Drexler (second best on Champs)

1993 - Charles Barkley (best player on runner-up) or Scottie Pippen (second best on Champs)

1986 - Hakeem Olajuwon (best player on runner-up) or Kevin McHale (second best on Champs)

[QUOTE=Inception28]What is the point of this hypothetical? I don't live on what ifs, I live on what actually happened. That being said, it's nice to see for a change that Russell is being put on a high standard and I don't see the same excuses such as Wilt's teammates were a bunch of D-Leaguers and what not.

Wilt's stats did not help his team as much as one would think it would.[/QUOTE]

We're on the same page here. I don't think the 50-27 Wilt was the best version of him or even a good version relative to his potential. And I do think he lacked the mental strength to fulfill his potential, but all that said, what he did achieve is in my opinion arguably greater than all but two players. Like Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Duncan and Shaq all struggled to stay atop once they made it. Distractions, injuries or competition exceeding them eventually made all of them come up short in seasons where they had a legit chance to win.

Wilt had 38-35 (or something close) in a game seven, he has nine playoff quadruple doubles I am aware of, he is the only made to lead his team past a healthy Russell and the Celtics. Wilt's teammates were very good, but not greater and usually not as great as the other guys in this discussion had. Wilt rarely played poorly when his team lost. When Havlicek stole the ball, it was Hal Greer's pass to Chet Walker. In '62 Wilt scored the final five points to tie i and just missed swatting Sam Jones game winner away. In '64 he took a team without any legit stars in their prime to the Finals. In '72 Russell himself said Wilt was playing how Russell would have played in Wilt's body.

I understand your and anyone's frustration dealing with Wilt fans. They often miss the greater point and focus on the numbers. Russell played to win and still accumulated all-time great numbers, Wilt played to post amazing numbers and still accumulated an all-time great winning record.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Kareem wasn't '71 and '80 are the only seasons he was the highest MVP vote getter on his team during title years. Magic also received higher all-NBA recognition during the other 4 title runs.
[/QUOTE]

[B]In that case, '67 was the only season Wilt was the highest MVP vote getter on his teams during title years. [/B]

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I don't think you can say they are better playoff performers. Certainly you can't just say it and assume people will accept it as fact.

Wilt's teams went to more conference finals and NBA finals than Bird, Shaq or Duncan and Kareem and Magic did 80% of their prime damage together.

None of them ever had a playoffs that rivals Wilt's '67 campaign. [B]And really you can barely find a bad game Wilt had in a pressure spot ('68 game seven is the only one I really hold against him).[/B]

Wilt won more MVP's than anyone besides Kareem, his Prime averages of 35-24-4 are other worldly.

Yes his numbers dipped in the playoffs, and that is a good reason to suggest maybe he was lacking a quality that guys like MJ, Russ, Bird, Duncan and Magic had, but Kareem didn't have it either so that can't be it.

Wilt scored just as much in the playoffs as Kareem, averaged twice as many rebounds, more assists and if they kept the numbers probably at least twice as many blocks. His teams were also upset less often and certainly he didn't have the amount of Sweeps against him that Shaq's teams did.

I just don't see how those guys have a stronger case, let alone an obvious one.[/QUOTE]

Here is his free-throw shooting in the 1970 Finals
gm 1: [B]1-10[/B]
gm 2: [B]1-3[/B]
gm 3: 7-13
gm 4: 4-7
gm 5: 4-9
gm 6: [B]5-14[/B]
gm 7: [B]1-11[/B]

[url]http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1970.htm[/url]

and Wilt also shot [B]4-13[/B] at the free-throw line in Game 7 of the 1969 Finals

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Here is his free-throw shooting in the 1970 Finals
gm 1: [B]1-10[/B]
gm 2: [B]1-3[/B]
gm 3: 7-13
gm 4: 4-7
gm 5: 4-9
gm 6: [B]5-14[/B]
gm 7: [B]1-11[/B][/QUOTE]

27% yuck!

And here it is in '67 when his team won the title.

gm 1: 4-9
gm 2: 2-17
gm 3: 2-9
gm 4: 4-9
gm 5: 2-12
gm 6: 8-16

27% and the sweet taste of victory.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
Kareem 1971, 1980
Magic 1987, 1988

You can go either way in '82 and '85. I give Magic's performance a slight edge in the former and Kareem's in the later.[/QUOTE]
Giving one each would mean that both would have 3 which would mean that both of them would have more than Wilt.

[QUOTE]
I am with you, but I don't think it's usually anymore a sign of greatness than being the best player on a runner-up or a team that losses a competitive series to the eventual Champs. Look at the following seasons and tell me which players you think proved more and whose season meant more.[/QUOTE]
Sure but it does mean something and that was the point I was trying to make. It's better to win one as a 2nd option to never win it all. It's like choosing paths between Scottie Pippen's career and Dominique Wilkins's. Pippen was clearly the superior of the two.

[QUOTE]Like Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Duncan and Shaq all struggled to stay atop once they made it. Distractions, injuries or competition exceeding them eventually made all of them come up short in seasons where they had a legit chance to win.[/QUOTE]
I don't think winning 3 championships in a row (Shaq) is struggling to stay atop.

Magic and Kareem had seasons where he won back to back, at least Magic as the alpha in 87 and 88.


[QUOTE]We're on the same page here. I don't think the 50-27 Wilt was the best version of him or even a good version relative to his potential. And I do think he lacked the mental strength to fulfill his potential, but all that said, what he did achieve is in my opinion arguably greater than all but two players.

I understand your and anyone's frustration dealing with Wilt fans. They often miss the greater point and focus on the numbers. Russell played to win and still accumulated all-time great numbers, Wilt played to post amazing numbers and still accumulated an all-time great winning record.[/QUOTE]
So it sounds like you would understand why I would take those 4-5 over Wilt then.

kobe

[quote=Inception28]Sure, they were better playoff performers.[/quote]

How can RG say this and then have the nerve to rank Jabbar ahead of Russell?

[QUOTE=Inception28]Giving one each would mean that both would have 3 which would mean that both of them would have more than Wilt. [/quote]

Considering that they played a decade (7 mutual prime seasons) together and that Wilt spent less than half that much time with a prime West, I'd say not to bad. The point is it's very close in terms of which of these guys was better suited to guide your team to a title.


[QUOTE=Inception28]Sure but it does mean something and that was the point I was trying to make. It's better to win one as a 2nd option to never win it all. It's like choosing paths between Scottie Pippen's career and Dominique Wilkins's. Pippen was clearly the superior of the two.[/quote]

I don't follow you here. Nique never came close to a title or Scottie's overall accolades. Wilt was always close to the title and was the second most decorated player of his era. Nique is not on Pips level, Wilt is right there with Magic/Kareem/Bird/Duncan/Shaq.


[QUOTE=Inception28]I don't think winning 3 championships in a row (Shaq) is struggling to stay atop.[/quote]

I would say his inability to stay healthy throughout his prime and stop feuding with Kobe certainly lead to a premature break-up and fewer titles than they could/should have won.

[QUOTE=Inception28]Magic and Kareem had seasons where he won back to back, at least Magic as the alpha in 87 and 88.[/quote]

Indeed Magic did, but it took a blown call and a perfectly timed injury for that to happen. In Wilt's case, only the same type of perfectly timed injury stopped him from repeating. Magic deserves the credit, but it's not some great chasm between he and Wilt.



[QUOTE=Inception28]So it sounds like you would understand why I would take those 4-5 over Wilt then.[/QUOTE]

I can see the argument, but I can't see it as a clear cut thing and I certainly don't agree with the conclusion.

To me Wilt achieved nearly as much on a team level and far more on an individual level just based on what happened. No hypotheticals, what-if's etc, just reality, as we both prefer. I am surprised if you can't see how I would feel that way even if you don't agree.

[QUOTE=Inception28]Giving one each would mean that both would have 3 which would mean that both of them would have more than Wilt.
[/quote]
If you are counting like this, making a great distinction out of one are you really looking at the player? the performer? or are you just justifying your preconceived notions? Russell was the greatest team sport winners ever - he was a great obstacle for anybody. If you are going by Playoff play why isn't Russell ahead of Kareem on your list? Kareem, without Magic, is just like Wilt in your accomplishment category, except Kareem pulled it off without a great winner opposite him, nevermind the greatest winner in all sports. If you are not measuring the team accomplishment above the individual what are you measuring?

Russell is the only one that has great separation in the winning department so he is the exception and should be acknowledged as such. Magic, Jordan and Duncan are the only others that should be getting points for exceptional winning ways, everybody else in the top ten its too minimal to call. Everybody else (Shaq, Kobe, Bird, Hakeem,Kareem, Wilt, Oscar, West) it seems to be a calculation of your own bias, as they were all in the right situation (coaches, teammates) at the right time they proved they could win it, but they didn't have championship on speed dial and aren't a guarantee trip to the finals or more magical in winning. This group only differs in team support and coaching.

If Jordan plays those two years and Hakeem comes away with nothing he is no less of a player. Some guys just ran up against great dynasties. So do we add more value to them because of this? Outside of the big four winners, everybody else seems to get five or six rings in a very good situation, four in a good situations and two on average. Really, that seems consistent (Hakeem would be the exception).

[QUOTE=Inception28] Wilt shouldn't be on here yet, but I assume a lot of people are naive about him and just look at his numbers... They are all better playoff performers and every bit as accomplished, if not more accomplished than Wilt was. Wilt is more talented sure, he is more talented than anyone who has ever played but that isn't enough.[/QUOTE]
Naive??? And then you said they were better playoff performers? Do you know of Wilt's performances? Serious question.

Shaq. :cheers:

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Here is his free-throw shooting in the 1970 Finals
gm 1: [B]1-10[/B]
gm 2: [B]1-3[/B]
gm 3: 7-13
gm 4: 4-7
gm 5: 4-9
gm 6: [B]5-14[/B]
gm 7: [B]1-11[/B]

[url]http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1970.htm[/url]

and Wilt also shot [B]4-13[/B] at the free-throw line in Game 7 of the 1969 Finals[/QUOTE]

One of the WORST arguments I have EVER read.

So, players like Shaq and Russell, who won 15 rings among them, and who were only MARGINALLY better FT shooters in BOTH the regular season, AND the post-season, are considered "winners", while Wilt is considered a "choker?"

So, let's conveniently overlook these facts. That a PRIME "scoring" Wilt averaged 32 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .510 (in league's that averaged about .430 shooting) in his first six post-seasons (his first seven seasons) ...COMBINED! Or that in his first eight straight post-seasons (covering his first nine seasons), all he did was average 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg (yes, 4.8 apg) and on .518 shooting (in league's that averaged about .435 shooting)...COMBINED!

I tell you what...you find me ONE player, who EVER had even ONE post-season of 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, and on .518 shooting. And yet, here was Wilt, who supposedly "declined" in his post-seasons, who AVERAGED that over the course of EIGHT straight post-seasons...COMBINED!

How about Wilt with entire post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg (on .543 shooting), 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg? Or how about Wilt with post-season series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, and a staggering seven game series of 38.6 ppg, on .559 shooting, and with 23.0 rpg.Or how about Wilt with FOUR post-season series, just against Russell, of 30+ ppg...including a seven game series in the '65 ECF's in which he averaged 30 ppg AND 31 rpg? Or how about Wilt with FOUR post-season games of 50+ points (which is second to MJ's eight...all-time...in the post-season?) And one of them was a 56-35 game five in a best-of-series, and the other was a 50-35 game (on 22-42 shooting) against Russell in a "must-win" game five of the '60 ECF's.

Oh, and BTW, Wilt had FOUR 40-30 games, just against Russell, in his post-season career, including a 46-34 game in a "must-win" game five in the '66 ECF's. AND, in the '70 Finals, and on ONE leg, and in a "must-win" game, he hung a 45 point, on 20-27 shooting, 27 rebound game.

How about Wilt with TWO complete playoff series in which he AVERAGED a TRIPLE-DOUBLE? And in that post-season, all he did was average 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and on .579 shooting.

Defense? Of course the "anti-Wilt" clan with bring up Wilt's "decline" in the post-season...but how about these facts? In the '62 Finals, Russell shot 50% against the Lakers. However, in the '62 ECF's, and against Wilt, he was at about .420 shooting. In the '64 Finals, Wilt averaged 29 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .517 against Russell. Meanwhile, Russell averaged 11 ppg and 25 rpg against Wilt. And while we don't have Russell's H2H FG% against Wilt, we do know that Russell shot .356 in his entire post-season...and half of those ten game came against Wilt.

In the '65 Finals, Russell hung an 18 ppg .702 FG% on the Lakers. However, in the previous round against Wilt...15 ppg on .475 shooting (while Wilt averaged a 30-31 series against Russell.) In the '66 Finals, Russell LED Boston in scoring with a 23.6 ppg average against the Lakers. BUT, against Wilt in the ECF's that season? 14 ppg (while Wilt hung a 28 ppg, 30 rpg, .509 series on Russell.)

In the '67 ECF's, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 21.6 ppg to 10.2 ppg; outrebounded Russell, per game, 32.0 rpg to 23.0 rpg; outassisted Russell, per game, 10 apg to 6 apg; and outshot Russell in that series, .556 to .358 (and Russell had shot .454 during the regular season.) Then, in the Finals, and against Thurmond, Wilt outscored Nate, per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg; outrebounded Nate, per game, 28.5 rpg to 26.7 rpg; and outshot Nate by a mind-boggling, .560 to .343 margin. BTW, Wilt squared of against Thurmond in three playoff series, and he outrebounded Nate in all three, as well as outshot Nate in all three by margins of .500 to .398, .550 to .392, and .560 to .343.

In the '68 regular season, Walt Bellamy shot .541. Against Wilt in the playoffs? How about .421???

In the '71 regular season, Kareem averaged 31.7 ppg on .577 shooting. Against a 34 year-old Wilt, who was a year removed from major surgery? 25 ppg on .481 shooting!

In the '72 regular season, Kareem averaged 34.8 ppg on .574 shooting. In the WCF's, Wilt held Kareem to 33 ppg on .457 shooting, which included holding him to .414 over the course of the last four pivotal games of that series. And, BTW, Wilt also blocked some 15+ "unblockable" sky-hooks in that series.

Rebounding in the post-season? Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 playoff series. Included in those 29 series were eight against Russell, and in some of those, he just crushed Russell. He also outrebounded the likes of Reed, Bellamy, Lucas, Thurmond, and Kareem...in EVERY H2H series...some by massive margins.

But, yes, he should only be judged by his FT shooting in a few of those contests...

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm