Wilt the "Choker"

[I]And that's AGAIN lower than what Wilt had even in the early portions of his career and that includes me ignoring good players who were under 6'10 or who aren't commonly discussed and thus have no reputation amongst younger posters.

Ultimately, height is nothing more than the argument of the petulant who refuse to accept that Wilt was a dominant player and would remain so today. Even at the peak of the center in modern times, proportional competition did not match the days of old and there were some absolutely spectacular centers during Wilt's career and against whom Wilt did not falter.

* * * *

Now, something else people don't like to talk about; what about Jordan's average height advantage?

Or did we forget that Jordan was projected as a small forward coming out of North Carolina and prefer to ignore that he generally enjoyed a noticeable height advantage against his competition as well?

Between 84-85 and 97-98, just how many large guards were there? Remember, small forwards generally don't count because he had the aid of Scottie Pippen for the bulk of his career in Chicago.

I'm not going to treat this in further depth because I'm lazy, but when the big names of the mid/late 80s and the 90s come up at the 2-guard, of whom do you think?

The top scorers from the guard position during Jordan's Chicago career (84-85 through 97-98) and who played at least 600 games in this time-frame:

Michael Jordan 31.5
Mitch Richmond 23.1
Clyde Drexler 21.5
Magic Johnson 20.4
Reggie Miller 19.7
Jeff Malone 19.7
Tim Hardaway 19.6
Isiah Thomas 18.8
Reggie Theus 18.5
Rolando Blackman 18.0
Kevin Johnson 18.0

Then it drops off into players like Dale Ellis, hersey Hawkins, Joe Dumars, Gary Payton, Ricky Pierce, Kendall Gill, etc, etc.

If you look at guys who played 300+ games, you get Latrell Sprewell and Penny Hardaway.

Obviously, Payton's average in that timeframe is a bit skewed by the low-scoring days of the earliest portions of his career, so we should adjust to remember that he was a 20-24 ppg All-Star, a DPOY, center of a team dynamic with Kemp, blah blah. But he was also 2 inches shorter than Jordan.

Now, let's take out the PGs. Bye, bye Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway and Isiah Thomas (all of whom were at most 6'2). That leaves Magic (whom Jordan faced at most twice a year except in 90-91), Richmond (who was 6'5), Reggie (who was a skinny punk who couldn't D up on MJ), Jeff Malone (6'4), Reggie Theus (6'7) and Rolando Blackman (6'6).

Now, how many of those guys were truly dynamic scorers and/or really good defenders?

Cooper was gone by the time the 90s started and Alvin Robertson was never a very good scorer. Payton's there, Theus was a dynamic offensive talent (if problematic in various ways), Drexler was extremely versatile but who else, you know? The talent pool at the 2 was a lot less diverse for Jordan than was the center pool for Chamberlain.

Iverson didn't get drafted until 1996, Kobe and McGrady weren't anything special until after Jordan retired, Magic was gone after 90-91, Drexler and Payton were out West...

So where was the nightly competition for Jordan?

Jordan was outstanding, don't get me wrong. He very much deserves to be mentioned in the top 5 and in the GOAT argument, I just want to make it abundantly clear that arguing height and competition (especially in Jordan vs. Wilt) is irrational and supports neither side because it is a patently ridiculous oversimplification of the facts.

* * * * *

Ultimately, what this argument comes down to is big over small.

Wilt was a nasty volume scorer but Jordan was better at the line.

Jordan was a great defender but a great big defender (like Wilt) will ALWAYS be more valuable than a wing defender of comparable talent. Wilt's rebounding is something that Jordan could never match and Wilt has the most prolific passing years of any center in NBA history. He was a master at both low- and high-post passing (though specific high-post guys like Walton, Russell and Kareem enter the discussion if you focus on the motion offense and such). Wilt routinely took over games offensively, dominated in other ways in which Jordan could not, etc, etc.

I think in any case made for Jordan, you have to somehow overcome the overwhelming potency of Wilt's ability to play lots of minutes in almost every game of the season for about as long as Jordan played for the Bulls.

Remember, in his 14 years, Wilt played in 1,045 of 1,148 games. He played 80+ games 9 times and averaged 45.8 mpg in the regular season, averaging over 47 mpg in 160 playoff games as well. He kept his defensive and rebounding efficacy as he grew older and even overcame a fairly significant knee injury when he was 33. It limited him to 12 regular season games but he played in 17 playoff games that year and then played in 82 games for each of his final three years. Durability despite heavy minutes logged is something to consider, especially given the impact he was able to exert in that timeframe in terms of rebounding and defense.

DrawF? He was immensely effective at putting pressure on opposition frontcourts, too; Jordan drew fouls at 0.356 FTA/FGA, which is pretty good for a wing... and pretty terrible for a big, something like an Al Jefferson or a Zach Randolph. Wilt drew at about 0.50 FTA/FGA. So you're talking about a guy who's got the ability (partially because of the nature of his game) to draw loads of fouls, moreso than Jordan. And while MJ was obviously a vastly superior free throw shooter and would have scored more points per game off of those FTAs, Wilt had the Shaq effect, where he could sabotage a team's gameplan by putting their entire frontcourt into foul trouble, limiting their effectiveness for the rest of the game or outright removing them from the game more frequently than could Jordan manage himself.

More to the point, it's infinitely easier to build a contender around a dominant big guy... it's the path you see taken with a lot of championship teams.

FWIW, check out some of the biggest names in NBA centers:

Bill Russell 11 titles
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 6 titles
Wilt 2 titles, Finals appearances with Philadelphia, Los Angeles and San Francisco
Hakeem 2 titles
Shaq 4 titles, Finals appearances with Orlando, Los Angeles and Miami

Wilt consistently led his team to contention and failed primarily when he ran into the superior Boston squads built around Bill Russell. The point remains, however, that he took three different teams to the Finals, teams built different ways with him filling different roles. Jordan, however, is an outlier in basketball. He had a very specific team built around him, a very difficult one to replicate in later eras (while the ability of a big man to remain the centerpiece has remained uch less difficult to emulate).

So in terms of his ability to translate across eras, you definitely have to penalize Jordan. In the 60s, Jordan might have been Jerry West, perennially turned away in the Finals by the Celtics. In the 90s/00s, Wilt might have been Shaq, enjoying a three-peat and maybe more on account of his superior defense and rebounding.

It's all speculative but if you're talking about who's the greatest, there are many angles to consider. Wilt has Jordan's number for statistical dominance but could not benefit from the sort of defensive recognition he deserved because All-Defensive squads didn't exist until late in his career (though he was All-Defensive First Team in his final season).

Despite radically altering his game mid-career, Wilt still held a comparable hold on the league in terms of scoring titles and has records Jordan never approached there, and as a rebounder... and he did things outside of his position better than did Jordan; such as Wilt leading the league in total assists one year while coming in 2nd in APG. He was top 10 in total assists 3 times over a four-year span (4th, skip a year, 7th and 3rd before finally leading the league to get his third consecutive top-10 finish).

Even if you ignore the entertaining Wilt lore that floats around, there is but one arena in which Jordan exhibits superiority to Wilt (well, two, since he has one more MVP but that's hardly a big deal since Wilt has 4 and is one of a select few to win three in a row): championships.

And since Wilt has two championships and won them in different ways, on different teams and faced competition earlier in his career the likes of into which Jordan never ran, I think it's hardly fair to draw upon that as a factor of any value.

But even if you penalize Wilt for that, I think he still comes out ahead on account of the fact that you go big over small. Jordan may be the guy who generally bucks that trend but Wilt is the guy who brings it back.[/I]

[quote]just the facts as per basketball-reference[/quote]
Same site that has Charles Oakley listed at 225 lbs & LeBron at 240 lbs?

[QUOTE=aau]no premise . . . just the facts as per basketball-reference

those are the bigs that made the all star game that decade
if there were other bigs , obviously they weren't good
enough to make ASG , thus requiring no mention
however i did leave off one guy , , clyde lee
6'11 200

as for unseld , he was listed in the 65-70 section

didn't think i needed to spell it out[/QUOTE]

By premise I meant Wilt having a physical advantage over his competition.

As for your list, that's the part I thought was flawed, because guys like Wayne Embry weighed closer to 280 pounds. Russell was usually listed at 6'10" and just like today, a number of teams had specific guys who would guard the leagues best centers, guys who weren't all-stars but did that well.

Other than the 1990's, I can't think of a decade where there was more than one or two all-star centers who were 7'0" or taller. I could be wrong, but the 70's had smaller centers, the 80's was sporadic and Moses was short. This last decade has been Shaq, Duncan and little else.

Anyway I was confused by Unseld because he and Hayes were in the same draft class, but in different groups.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Interesting...

Here is a list of some of the players Chamberlain faced in his career. And, by the way, there is YouTube footage of Chamberlain easily outplaying 7-2 Artis Gilmore in the '71-72 NBA-ABA All-Star game...

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1R6UI738MI&NR=1[/url]

There is also a story told by Kiki Vandewege, who witnessed Chamberlain overpowering 7-4 Mark Eaton in a ummer league game in the mid-80's, and when Wilt was in his mid-40's...

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Qw1-ssViw[/url]

But, back to that that list...

[url]http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100727234728AAZxTUR[/url]



Also, regarding Russell, who was really 6-10, was that he was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper (he was ranked 7th in the WORLD in 1957), ...AND, there was a post here recently which stated that Russell had a higher standing reach than 7-2 Kareem (so does anyone really believe that Russell would not have been able to defend Kareem?)

Regarding standing reach...even Wilt admitted that Thurmond had him by an inch or so.

Furthermore, how many "great" players have been 7-3+? Virtually NONE. As for "all-star" centers in the 60's...there were only 9-10 teams...and Wilt and Russell tied up two of the four slots almost every year. BTW, how many taller centers would Ben Wallace (who was nowhere near as skilled as Russell) beaten out in the NBA if the league had only had 9-10 teams in the mid-00's?

Also, are we going to say that the ONLY reason that Shaq dominated in the NBA was that he was the ONLY 350 lb. player? Do we ignore his athleticism just as you ignore not only Wilt's, but Russell's, Thurmond's, Kareem's, and so many other GREAT centers of the 60's and 70's.

Furthermore, in Wilt's 65-66 season, when he scored 33.5 on a then record .540 FG% (and a year later shattered that with a .683 mark), there were nine teams with centers like Bellamy, Russell, Thurmond, Reed, ...all in the HOF, as well as Beatty (an all-star), and quality centers like Dierking, Counts, and Imhoff...centers who could shoot,(unlike some of the centers of the 00's.) So, Wilt was facing these centers 9 times each a year, not counting the playoffs.

As for Wilt being a "loser", I have never seen anyone here that would consider Olajuwon a "loser." Hakeem played in the NBA and won two rings. Wilt played in the NBA 14 seasons, and won two rings. But, not only that, Hakeem was part of EIGHT first-round playoff exits. Now, who was the bigger "loser?"

I also read about Bird the "winner", or Bird the "clutch" player here too. PLEASE! Bird played with loaded rosters in the 80's, and had three rings. And that doesn't even begin to take into account just how much more DOMINANT Wilt was in not only the regular season, but in the POST-SEASON. Wilt was a MUCH bigger player in the clutch and in the post-season than Bird ever was. Bird actually had some mediocre Finals, and some even worse playoff series. He also shot much lower than the LEAGUE AVERAGE in terms of FG% in the post-season, and as bad as that was, he was even WORSE in his five Finals (he NEVER even shot 50% in any of his Finals, and had Finals of .488, .481, .449, .445, and .419.) He was not nearly the scorer, nowhere near the rebounder, and not even in the same galaxy in terms of defensive impact. And Wilt was a better passer. How many assist titles did Bird ever win?

Ok, back to my take on basketball from the 60's to today...[/QUOTE]
iirc , , , wilt retired in 73

who cares that he faced gilmore on his way out

why no response to the clowns he faced earlier in his career when
he was posting rediculous numbers which is all you ever care
about . . . he sure as hell didn't hang 48/30 on artis

lmao
summer league vs mark eaton . . . you killin me

nobody in their right mind would consider hakeem a loser
you comparing wilt's 2 to hakeem's . . . repeat fmvp
vs a ring in 67 and another in a diff decade for
which he wasn't named fmvp . . . . . really?

come on man , , , , , , you reaching as usual with these
lame ass excuses . . . . shaq faced far more quality
bigs than wilt and he won . . . . . . . . no doubt
smits mutumbo and mccullough sounds more
like a law firm than a formidable opponent
but i seriously doubt i need to list the
centers that shaq faced thru out

now you want to bang on bird . . . how is this relevant
he won 3 titles during the greatest era in L history
there's no limit to the number of players you'd
shit on on wilt's behalf . . . . . that's sad

could care less about league fg% avg
how is that relevant to wilt literally
playing against a band of scrubs
just more excuses from you

as usual

[QUOTE=PHILA]Same site that has Charles Oakley listed at 225 lbs & LeBron at 240 lbs?[/QUOTE]
i'm sure you have a more reputable site of reference

why don't you list the actuals

[QUOTE=aau]nobody in their right mind would consider hakeem a loser
you comparing wilt's 2 to hakeem's . . . repeat fmvp
vs a ring in 67 and another in a diff decade for
which he wasn't named fmvp . . . . . really?[/QUOTE]

Actually, Wilt WAS FMVP in the course of "that ring in a different decade." Check your facts first.

[QUOTE=aau]shaq faced far more quality
bigs than wilt and he won . . . . . . . . no doubt
smits mutumbo and mccullough sounds more
like a law firm than a formidable opponent
but i seriously doubt i need to list the
centers that shaq faced thru out[/QUOTE]

I posted this over two years ago:

[url]http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226[/url]

I hate misinformation, regardless of who says it, regardless of what the agenda is.

[quote=aau]i'm sure you have a more reputable site of reference

why don't you list the actuals[/quote]

Basketball reference is inconsistent, plus player weights were not updated beyond college. Walt Bellamy at 225 on that site.


[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EDRWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=z-cDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1834,3749152&dq"]The Spokesman-Review - Aug 12, 1960[/URL]
[I]
"Bellamy must weigh at least 260 pounds," estimated Ex-West Virginia center Lloyd Sharrar, now with the Pipers. "What a man."[/I]


[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8mRLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lSMNAAAAIBAJ&pg=1830,2899284&dq"]The Press-Courier - Apr 12, 1970[/URL]
[I]
Guerin also plans to match Chamberlain with the Hawks two big men, starting center Walt Bellamy (6-11 and 265 pounds)



[/I]Luke Jackson is listed on BBall Reference at 240 lbs. In '68 he reported at 272 lbs.


[URL="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1081713/2/index.htm"]Sports Illustrated - October 21, 1968[/URL]

[I]Jackson tends to put on weight. He came in at 272 when Ramsay had been hoping for 240, but the extra pounds may serve big Luke well in the middle. He is no novice there, anyway. In pre-Chamberlain days the 76ers twice beat the Celtics, with Jackson battling Russell underneath.[/I]




Shaq is listed on Bball reference at 325 lbs. Late in the '02 season, he was rumored to be 382 lbs and looked a lot less explosive than he did during his first two championship years. Most likely was 400+ the next year.

Ok, hopefully we put some the ridiculous myths to rest about Wilt's competition. Chamberlain faced players nearly the same height, on average, that Shaq would face some 40 years later. BTW, who is generally regarded as the best center of the CURRENT NBA? It is 6-11 (or shorter) Dwight Howard. And we know that Wilt was not only taller than Howard, he was bigger, stronger, more athletic, and more skilled. Chamberlain was a high-jump champion, a long jumper, a sprinter, and was not only regarded as the strongest man in the NBA at the time, but there were those that believed him to be among the strongest men in the world at the time (most noteably Howard Cosell.)

And I will apologize up front to those who have read this take many times, but, here we go again...

We have a "bridge" in Kareem that we can compare different eras with. Kareem was the best player in the league in the 70's, no question. BUT, he struggled mightily against Thurmond and Wilt in his H2H games against each.

Thanks to Alexbre and Julizaver, we have virtually EVERY H2H game between Wilt and Thurmond. Kareem faced Nate 61 times, and Wilt 28 times. He seldom scored 30 points against Thurmond (in fact, I believe his high was around 34.) In the VAST MAJORITY of those 61 games, he didn't even shoot 50%. And there were MANY in the low 40's, and even some in the 30% range. In the '72 playoffs, Thurmond not only held Kareem to an awful .405 from the floor, he outscored and outshot him. In the '73 playoffs, Thurmond held Kareem to .428 shooting, and his Warriors stunned Kareem's heavily-favored Bucks. Even well past his prime, in the mid-70's, Kareem seldom shot close to 50% against Thurmond.

Meanwhile, in the 28 H2H games between Wilt and Kareem, Chamberlain held Abdul-Jabbar, who was a CAREER .559 shooter, to a .464 FG% (while shooting 53% himself.) In the '71 WCF's, and only a year removed from major knee surgery, and 11 years older (and well past his prime), Wilt battled Kareem to a statistical draw (in fact, the recaps actually credited Wilt with outplaying Kareem.) In the '72 WCF's, and despite being heavily outscored Wilt, by virtually every account, outplayed or even "decisively outplayed" (Time Magazine) the younger Kareem who had the BEST statistical season of his career. Wilt outrebounded Kareem, and held him to .457 shooting (and only .414 over the last four pivotal games of that six game series.) In fact, Chamberlain took over in the clinching game six, and dominated Kareem down the stretch. Then, in their last six regular games, Wilt not only outshot Kareem, .637 to .450, he even outscored him in one game, despite the fact that he had dramatically cut back his shooting late in his career. Furthermore, in their only H2H game before Wilt was injured in 1969-70 season, Chamberlain just buried Kareem in EVERY aspect. Granted Kareem was a rookie, but, to be fair to Wilt, he was considerably past his "scoring" seasons of the mid-60's, and his overwhelming seasons in '67 and '68.

Continuing, in Wilt's PRIME, he pounded Thurmond on numerous occassions. He had a game in which he outscored him 45-13, and another game with 38 points and 31 rebounds. Even in the '67 season, when his coach asked him to shoot in the second half of a game against Nate, he poured in 24 second half points (30 in all), along with 26 rebounds, and 12 blocks. In fact, in their three post-season series, Wilt shot a combined 54% to Nate's 37%, and outrebounded him in all three (and by over six rebounds a game in '73.) Chamberlain shot over 50% in all three series (with a high of .560), and Thurmond NEVER shot even 40% against Wilt, (with a low of .343.)

Why is all of that significant? Because Kareem would go on to be among the best centers in the 80's. In the '85 Finals, after a poor first game, he averaged 30 ppg over the last five games against Boston's HOF frontline, and won the MVP. He had one season in the 80's when he shot .604. He had another, at age 38, when he shot .599. And amazingly, at age 39, in the '85-86 season, he had three regular season games against Hakeem, in which he scored 35, 42, and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting.) He also added a couple of 30 point games in the post-season against him that season, as well. And, in the same season, he hung a 40 point game on Ewing, while Patrick only managed a 2-16 shooting performance against him. Incredibly, Kareem played three more seasons, all from age 40 on. In those three seasons, H2H against Hakeem, in 13 games, he outshot him, .567 to .475. And, in those three seasons, he had six games against Ewing. Ewing had a slight scoring edge of 18.8 to 16.5, but Kareem easily outshot him, .551 to .483.

We all KNOW that both Hakeem and Ewing went on to be two of the best centers of the 90's. In fact, by most accounts, Hakeem was THE best center of the 90's. And we KNOW that Hakeem battled Shaq to a draw in the '95 Finals (some would even say he "won" that battle.) And, of course, Shaq would go on to dominate the early 00's.

What does all of this mean? Well, if Shaq was the best center of the 00's, and Hakeem was the best center of the 90's, and if an aged, and well past his prime Kareem could outplay Hakeem in the 80's...just what does that say about the greats of the 60's, like Wilt and Thurmond, both of whom were well past their primes when they were giving Kareem fits? In fact, if Wilt were able to win his H2H battles with Kareem, at well past his prime, and on a surgically repaired knee, just what would have a PRIME Chamberlain done to him?

Furthermore, players like 6-9 Dave Cowens gave Kareem trouble in the 70's (even outplaying him in a game seven of the Finals.) 6-7 Wes Unseld outrebounded Kareem in the '71 Finals. Meanwhile, 6-11 Walt Bellamy, who was a force in the entire decade of the 60's (he was routinely among the top scorers and shooters) went on into the 70's, and near the end of his career, in Kareem's spectacular 71-72 season, Bellamy averaged 18.6 ppg on .545 shooting. There were other's, of course. Willis Reed, Bob Lanier, Elvin Hayes, Spencer Haywood, Bob McAdoo (who outscored Kareem in two seasons in the 70's), as well as 7-2 Artis Gilmore, who dominated the ABA, and then had MANY quality seasons in the 80's (he retired as the all-time FG% leader...and still is.)

The 60's and 70's also had players like the great Russell (once again, a world-class leaper with a wingspan of a condor), Jerry Lucas who could grab 20+ rebounds per game in a season, and still shoot from as far as 25 ft. (the "Lucas Layup"), McAdoo, who was 6-11 and could score from anywhere on the floor; Rick Barry who led the NBA in scoring in '66 at 35.6, and then 10 years later, in 74-75, averaged 30.6 ppg; Connie Hawkins, Oscar, David Thompson, Jerry West (who routinely dominated Walt Frazier); Walt Frazier, a truly great guard in the 60's and 70's; Nate Archibald (he and Oscar are the only two players to ever lead the league in ppg and apg in the same season); and thye magical Pete Maravich, who would make Jason "White Chocolate" Williams look ridiculous today.

Each decade gave us new great players, but keep in mind, most of those greats in that new decade, were playing against (and often times being outplayed) by the greats of the previous decade.

Finally, I always bring up this point. If you truly believe that the players of today are MUCH better than those of yesteryear, then give me the EXACT year in which the players became competitive with those of today. Would the Shaq of 2000 be as great today? Would the Hakeem of '95 be as great today? Would the MJ of '91 be as great today? Would the Magic of '87 be as great today? Would the Bird of '86 be as great today? Would the Moses of '83 be as great today? Would the Walton of '77 be as great today? Would the McAdoo of '75 be as great today. The Dr. J of '72? The Kareem of '72? Wilt in '67? Russell in '64? Oscar and Wilt in '62? And if not all of them, give the players that would in the years that they would. But be careful...because I will show the peers of those players in the same seasons, and BEFORE.

The bottom line? Yes, today's players are MARGINALLY better than those of the 60's. But they are not SIGNIFICANTLY better...in ANY sport. I recall reading a post here a while back in which the poster claimed that WNBA all-stars would beat the best of the NBA in the 60's. Just think about how ridiculous that statement is. Do you think the gals of the current WNBA could battle someone like Gus Williams, who was 6-6 235 lbs, and was shattering multiple backboards back then? Or a 6-8 225 lb Lucas who could not only pound them on the glass, but disgrace them all from over 20+ ft? Or 6-10 WORLD-CLASS Bill Russell? Or 6-11 Thurmond with his HUGE wingspan? Or 6-5 225 Oscar? Or Jerry West, who many consider had the perfect shooting form? Or 7-1 (or taller) Chamberlain, with his 300 lbs and reported 500 lb. bench press, along with his 40"+ vertical leap?

The same goes for a "good college team" of TODAY beating the best in the NBA in the 60's. Give me a break! The top players of the 60's would be among the best players in the NBA TODAY. And they would certainly smoke a "good college team."

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Actually, Wilt WAS FMVP in the course of "that ring in a different decade." Check your facts first.



I posted this over two years ago:

[url]http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226[/url]

I hate misinformation, regardless of who says it, regardless of what the agenda is.[/QUOTE]

Believe it, or not, but I had never read that take before. I say that because I have echoed so much of what you posted here...without having ever read your view.

Having said that, though, I have now saved that link.

Great stuff!

[quote=ThaRegul8r]Actually, Wilt WAS FMVP in the course of "that ring in a different decade." Check your facts first.



I posted this over two years ago:

[URL="http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226"]http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226[/URL]

I hate misinformation, regardless of who says it, regardless of what the agenda is.[/quote]

:applause:

I don't agree that Wilt didn't face competition at the center position, however, I've always felt direct competition at the center position was far more relevant for all-nba first team/DPOY and those type of awards than actual team accomplishments and championships.

A great low post center does not often go 1 on 1 down low, a lot of it depends on how good the team defense is. Why do you think Olajuwon had his best series against David Robinson? Robinson was a better defender than Shaq who Olajuwon had much lower numbers vs in the finals than vs Robinson in the conference finals. Ewing was also not a better defensive player than Robinson, yet Olajuwon's numbers in the '94 finals were much worse than the '95 conference finals.

The reason for the latter is that the Knicks TEAM played much better defense constantly swarming Olajuwon.

Look at Shaq vs Sabonis and the Blazers in 2000
25.9 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 4.3 apg, 1.9 bpg, 53.9 FG%

Now 1998
29 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.5 apg, 2.5 bpg, 65.3 FG%

1997
33 ppg, 9 rpg, 3.3 apg, 1.8 bpg, 53.4 FG%

So why is it that Shaq in those '97 and '98 series(who almost everyone would agree wasn't as good as 2000) put up better numbers against a younger, better Sabonis than the 2000 version?

Simple, the Blazers doubled and tripled Shaq almost every time he touched the ball in 2000 and their defense was considerably better.

The '97 Blazers had a 103.3 defensive rating, the '98 Blazers had a 102.4 defensive rating and the 2000 Blazers had a 100.8 defensive rating.

Perimeter players play 1 on 1 more, but even with the true elite, that is also a team effort, now more than ever.

With all of this being said, the individual defender is important, but the key is a great team defense.

And back to competition, I feel that the center position was a lot closer to what it evolved into in the 60's(particularly mid to late 60's) than the guard position. The star centers then were above average athletes for their size and would be considered mobile today. Plus they could block shots, rebound and some could hit hook shots, turnarounds and other fundamental post shots as well as pass the ball effectively. Of course, I didn't witness the era first hand, but I'm basing it on the footage I have seen and the books I've read(reading the book about the '67 Sixers now).

[QUOTE=jlauber]

So, let's finally put all of these RIDICULOUS myths to rest. Wilt was NOT a "loser", nor was he a "failure", nor was he a "choker." In fact, he was among the greatest winners of all-time; he DOMINATED not only the regular season, but in his post-seasons: and he was arguably, the MOST CLUTCH performer in post-season series history, and at the very least, very close to MJ, Russell, and Magic.[/QUOTE]
Some good points from a Wilt fan.[B]But[/B] nobody was at the same level with Michael Jordan at the post season.Jordan was the best performer,the most clutch and he has the bigger book of great moments at the post season.
I don't dispute Wilt,or KAJ but nobody was/is like MJ at the playoffs and for so long.It's not even a debate.
Wilt wasn't a loser.He was by far the best player of his Era.Russell was the greatest winner but Russell was easily the better player.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I don't agree that Wilt didn't face competition at the center position, however, I've always felt direct competition at the center position was far more relevant for all-nba first team/DPOY and those type of awards than actual team accomplishments and championships.

A great low post center does not often go 1 on 1 down low, a lot of it depends on how good the team defense is. Why do you think Olajuwon had his best series against David Robinson? Robinson was a better defender than Shaq who Olajuwon had much lower numbers vs in the finals than vs Robinson in the conference finals. Ewing was also not a better defensive player than Robinson, yet Olajuwon's numbers in the '94 finals were much worse than the '95 conference finals.

The reason for the latter is that the Knicks TEAM played much better defense constantly swarming Olajuwon.

Look at Shaq vs Sabonis and the Blazers in 2000
25.9 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 4.3 apg, 1.9 bpg, 53.9 FG%

Now 1998
29 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 3.5 apg, 2.5 bpg, 65.3 FG%

1997
33 ppg, 9 rpg, 3.3 apg, 1.8 bpg, 53.4 FG%

So why is it that Shaq in those '97 and '98 series(who almost everyone would agree wasn't as good as 2000) put up better numbers against a younger, better Sabonis than the 2000 version?

Simple, the Blazers doubled and tripled Shaq almost every time he touched the ball in 2000 and their defense was considerably better.

The '97 Blazers had a 103.3 defensive rating, the '98 Blazers had a 102.4 defensive rating and the 2000 Blazers had a 100.8 defensive rating.

Perimeter players play 1 on 1 more, but even with the true elite, that is also a team effort, now more than ever.

With all of this being said, the individual defender is important, but the key is a great team defense.

And back to competition, I feel that the center position was a lot closer to what it evolved into in the 60's(particularly mid to late 60's) than the guard position. The star centers then were above average athletes for their size and would be considered mobile today. Plus they could block shots, rebound and some could hit hook shots, turnarounds and other fundamental post shots as well as pass the ball effectively. Of course, I didn't witness the era first hand, but I'm basing it on the footage I have seen and the books I've read(reading the book about the '67 Sixers now).[/QUOTE]


I agree with much of what you just posted, but I highlighted the double and triple teams. Wilt CONSTANTLY faced that in the BULK of his career. I have quoted Heinsohn and the Celtic approach before. It was seldom Russell vs, Wilt, it was almost always, BOSTON vs Wilt. And as Heinsohn alluded to, Chamberlain took a BEATING in his career. TEAMS pounded Wilt.

And, despite what some posters have posted here, Chamberlain just did not have quality teammates in the first half of his career, and certainly nothing close to what Russell had in Boston. Russell had a 7-3 edge in HOFers in the '60 season. A 7-3 edge in '61. A 6-3 edge in '62. A staggering 8-1 edge in '63. A 7-2 edge in '64 (and somehow Wilt got that crappy roster to the Finals.) A 5-2 edge in '65 (and Wilt took that 40-40 roster to a game seven, one-point loss in a game seven against the 62-18 Celtics.) A 4-3 edge in '66. A 6-3 edge in '67 (and yet Wilt still took his Sixers to a 4-1 romp over Boston.) A 5-3 edge in '68 (and then Wilt lost one of his HOFers, Cunningham, the entire ECF's...as well as numerous other injuries.) And in their last season together, in '69, Russell STILL had a 4-3 edge. Not only that, but Russell's Celtics ALWAYS had a much deeper bench. In most cases, Wilt's bench had a 4-5 players that, to be honest, probably would not have made another roster.

One of the best examples of the talent differential between Russell's and Wilt's teams, was the beginning of the '63-64 season. Wilt's new coach, Alex Hannum came in, and had that roster scrimmage against rookies and scrubs that he knew would not make an NBA roster...and they BEAT Wilt's teammates (without Wilt, of course.) Incredibly, Chamberlain got that same roster to the Finals, where Russell's OVERWHEMING edge in talent won the series 4-1. In that series, Wilt outscored Russell, 29-11, outrebounded him 27-25, and most certainly outshot him, perhaps by as much as 200 points.

I will say this, and even Wilt said as much...Russell blended better with his teammates than Wilt did his. Chamberlain said that he, himself, would probably not have blended as well with Russell's teammates. BUT, even if that were true, does anyone here honestly believe that Russell would have taken Wilt's 62-63 roster, with ZERO other HOFers and two slightly above players, to a title? And, does anyone here believe that Wilt would NOT have won a title with Russell's roster in Boston that season, in which he had SEVEN other HOF teammates (and a HOF coach)?

Once again, not only did Russell have better teammates, and more of them...he played alongside those quality teammates in TWICE as many minutes as Chamberlain played with his.

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229[/url]

[QUOTE]"[B]Now you can see Russell's "score" is more than twice that of Wilt[/B],"

"Obviously this is just a fun exercise, and far from scientific, but you can still see that Chamberlain's teammates were in fact significantly less talented than Russell's, by both our Quality of Teammates metric and even by Bill Simmons' own ranking method. So I don't think it's quite fair to say, "let's never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain," because it's still pretty obvious that Wilt's supporting cast was inferior to Russell's by a good margin." [/QUOTE]

Finally, even Russell himself stated that Wilt could do a better job in his [Russell's] role, than what Russell could have done in Wilt's. And even the great John Wooden stated that Wilt very likely would have won just as many rings had their situations been reversed. And those that rip Wilt for "only" winning two titles, need to realize that Chamberlain's TEAMs battled the Celtic Dynasty in 10 of his 14 seasons. And after Russell retired, Chamberlain, on a surgically repaired knee, faced the great 69-70 Knicks and their FOUR HOFers. Then, in the '70-71 season, Wilt, without his TWO best teammates (West and Baylor) faced the great 66-16 Milwaukee Buck team. He LED his 71-72 Lakers to a title that season, and they mowed down the 57-25 Bulls (a 4-0 sweep actually), the great 63-19 Bucks with Kareem and Oscar, then the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers. In his last season, he faced the Knicks and their SIX HOFers. The fact was, he not only faced a HOF center in EVERY post-season, his TEAM's were outgunned by HOFers in EVERY post-season.

And, while some here scoff at Chamberlain's "close calls", the fact was, Wilt's TEAMs lost FOUR game seven's by a COMBINED total of NINE points against Russell's superior Celtics, and then in the '70 season, he took an under-dog team to a game seven loss against the great Knicks. And, had the officials not assisted the Knicks in game five, LA would have won that series in six games. So, that is NEARLY FIVE more rings. Furthermore, Wilt not only did NOT choke in the post-season, he was generally the best player on the floor, and he almost always played brilliantly, even in defeat.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I agree with much of what you just posted, but I highlighted the double and triple teams. Wilt CONSTANTLY faced that in the BULK of his career. I have quoted Heinsohn and the Celtic approach before. It was seldom Russell vs, Wilt, it was almost always, BOSTON vs Wilt. And as Heinsohn alluded to, Chamberlain took a BEATING in his career. TEAMS pounded Wilt.

And, despite what some posters have posted here, Chamberlain just did not have quality teammates in the first half of his career, and certainly nothing close to what Russell had in Boston. Russell had a 7-3 edge in HOFers in the '60 season. A 7-3 edge in '61. A 6-3 edge in '62. A staggering 8-1 edge in '63. A 7-2 edge in '64 (and somehow Wilt got that crappy roster to the Finals.) A 5-2 edge in '65 (and Wilt took that 40-40 roster to a game seven, one-point loss in a game seven against the 62-18 Celtics.) A 4-3 edge in '66. A 6-3 edge in '67 (and yet Wilt still took his Sixers to a 4-1 romp over Boston.) A 5-3 edge in '68 (and then Wilt lost one of his HOFers, Cunningham, the entire ECF's...as well as numerous other injuries.) And in their last season together, in '69, Russell STILL had a 4-3 edge. Not only that, but Russell's Celtics ALWAYS had a much deeper bench. In most cases, Wilt's bench had a 4-5 players that, to be honest, probably would not have made another roster.

One of the best examples of the talent differential between Russell's and Wilt's teams, was the beginning of the '63-64 season. Wilt's new coach, Alex Hannum came in, and had that roster scrimmage against rookies and scrubs that he knew would not make an NBA roster...and they BEAT Wilt's teammates (without Wilt, of course.) Incredibly, Chamberlain got that same roster to the Finals, where Russell's OVERWHEMING edge in talent won the series 4-1. In that series, Wilt outscored Russell, 29-11, outrebounded him 27-25, and most certainly outshot him, perhaps by as much as 200 points.

I will say this, and even Wilt said as much...Russell blended better with his teammates than Wilt did his. Chamberlain said that he, himself, would probably not have blended as well with Russell's teammates. BUT, even if that were true, does anyone here honestly believe that Russell would have taken Wilt's 62-63 roster, with ZERO other HOFers and two slightly above players, to a title? And, does anyone here believe that Wilt would NOT have won a title with Russell's roster in Boston that season, in which he had SEVEN other HOF teammates (and a HOF coach)?

Once again, not only did Russell have better teammates, and more of them...he played alongside those quality teammates in TWICE as many minutes as Chamberlain played with his.

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229[/url]



Finally, even Russell himself stated that Wilt could do a better job in his [Russell's] role, than what Russell could have done in Wilt's. And even the great John Wooden stated that Wilt very likely would have won just as many rings had their situations been reversed. And those that rip Wilt for "only" winning two titles, need to realize that Chamberlain's TEAMs battled the Celtic Dynasty in 10 of his 14 seasons. And after Russell retired, Chamberlain, on a surgically repaired knee, faced the great 69-70 Knicks and their FOUR HOFers. Then, in the '70-71 season, Wilt, without his TWO best teammates (West and Baylor) faced the great 66-16 Milwaukee Buck team. He LED his 71-72 Lakers to a title that season, and they mowed down the 57-25 Bulls (a 4-0 sweep actually), the great 63-19 Bucks with Kareem and Oscar, then the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers. In his last season, he faced the Knicks and their SIX HOFers. The fact was, he not only faced a HOF center in EVERY post-season, his TEAM's were outgunned by HOFers in EVERY post-season.

And, while some here scoff at Chamberlain's "close calls", the fact was, Wilt's TEAMs lost FOUR game seven's by a COMBINED total of NINE points against Russell's superior Celtics, and then in the '70 season, he took an under-dog team to a game seven loss against the great Knicks. And, had the officials not assisted the Knicks in game five, LA would have won that series in six games. So, that is NEARLY FIVE more rings. Furthermore, Wilt not only did NOT choke in the post-season, he was generally the best player on the floor, and he almost always played brilliantly, even in defeat.[/QUOTE]
Just shut the fukk up already.

"And WILT's game was EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE. I saw him PLAY since '65 and I've HAD a BONER for him EVER since. Once I TRIED getting INSIDE his pants but I CAME before I could EVEN make the FIRST move." :facepalm

I'm amazed at one thing, though. It's incredible how Wilt was able to average 50 ppg with you and PHILA riding his sack for his entire career. Maybe if he wasn't carrying you two around, he could've been even better. Just a thought you could try expanding on.

[QUOTE=DatWasNashty]Just shut the fukk up already.

"And WILT's game was EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE. I saw him PLAY since '65 and I've HAD a BONER for him EVER since. Once I TRIED getting INSIDE his pants but I CAME before I could EVEN make the FIRST move." :facepalm

I'm amazed at one thing, though. It's incredible how Wilt was able to average 50 ppg with you and PHILA riding his sack for his entire career. Maybe if he wasn't carrying you two around, he could've been even better. Just a thought you could try expanding on.[/QUOTE]

Just another brilliant and well-thought out post. BTW, I see you neg repped me AGAIN. I have a policy of not neg repping, but if I ever change it, you will be the first one on my list.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Just another brilliant and well-thought out post. BTW, I see you neg repped me AGAIN. I have a policy of not neg repping, but if I ever change it, you will be the first one on my list.[/QUOTE]
No, I didn't neg rep you AGAIN, idiot. Neg repping you is like picking on a fat kid with downs. It's not worthy my time. Fukking clowns like you are infesting this board with retardation.

Posting what John Wooden thinks is completely irrelevant in discussing the 60's Celtics. Red Auerbach, multiple Celtics, and Wilt himself acknowledge that if he was on that team they never would have won the way with Wilt because Wilt would have made the team a completely different team and the team would not have managed to jell the way they did. Russell was the perfect man for that team and as Red himself said a Wilt Chamberlain could never play for the Celtics and there's a reason he never issued number 13 to any Celtic for multiple years.

And every article I ever read for a game recap regarding the Celtics and Wilt's teams, not one mentioned double or triple teaming of Wilt. Tom Heinsohn mentioning something doesn't make it true as people's memories are often faulty.

This is the account of one Celtic fan who was actually around at the time who was close to the team, hung around them of some of those years in the 50's and 60's. He has a different remembering of the Russell vs Wilt games and how they played out.

[URL="http://samsbostoncelticsfansite.blogspot.com/2009/10/sams-personal-account-of-russell-years.html"]http://samsbostoncelticsfansite.blogspot.com/2009/10/sams-personal-account-of-russell-years.html[/URL]

[quote=nycelt84][URL="http://samsbostoncelticsfansite.blogspot.com/2009/10/sams-personal-account-of-russell-years.html"]http://samsbostoncelticsfansite.blogspot.com/2009/10/sams-personal-account-of-russell-years.html[/URL][/quote]Good read, subjective as it was.

[QUOTE=DatWasNashty]No, I didn't neg rep you AGAIN, idiot. Neg repping you is like picking on a fat kid with downs. It's not worthy my time. [B]Fukking clowns like you are infesting this board with retardation.[/B][/QUOTE]

Perhaps you should take a look in a mirror.

Hey jlauber.....like you, I have followed the NBA since 1963. I saw Wilt play many times throughout the 60's and on into the 70's. I saw all those televised Russell/Chamberlain "battles". I feel for you trying to defend Wilt around here, and I pretty much agree with most of what you say. Two things I'd like to say.....first, having seen all the great centers of the last 47 years play, I agree with what Rick Barry said. "Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest all around center in NBA history. No other center could do ALL the things Wilt could do, and do them so magnificently."

Secondly, all these GOAT discussions.....well, I take them with a grain of salt. There are many reasons, but I'll just give you one of them. Why do most people put Jabbar ahead of Wilt in there GOAT list? Because he has six rings to Wilt's two? That's absurd. Kareem had the benefit of playing on a GREAT team, with a GREAT coach, and a GREAT organization for ten years. Slight correction.....Riley didn't take over as coach until the 81/82 season, so almost eight years for the coach. Wilt only had that luxury in four of his fourteen years.....67, 68, 72, and 73. And by the way, Russell had that benefit his ENTIRE career. Had it not been for injuries in 68 and 73 (undoubtedly 68), Wilt may have had a couple more rings. Had Magic and Riley not come along, Kareem's career would most likely have ended quite differently.

My point is that these discussions rarely ever take into account the circumstances and "what if's" for each player. For example, how many rings would Jordan and Jabbar have if they had faced what Wilt did every year the first ten years of his career.....the Boston dynasty? How many rings would Russell have if Red Auerbach had chosen to have been a car salesman, or if he had been drafted by any other team other than Boston? The truth is, there is simply no way to level the playing field for the various GOAT candidates, so all you can do is examine their individual circumstances, and consider the "what if's". And it's all speculation. So, like I said earlier, I take all these GOAT discussions with a grain of salt.

I will say this though.....having seen all the greats for the past 47 years, if I had the first pick in a draft of every player that's ever played, my pick would be, with no hesitation whatsoever, Wilt Chamberlain.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Was Wilt a "failure", a "loser", and a "choker?"

the MOST CLUTCH performer in post-season series history, and at the very least, very close to MJ, Russell, and Magic.[/QUOTE]

Didn't want to quote your huge post, so just the first and last snippet.

The only thing I have against your post, is comparing Wilt's offensive game (scoring and shot %) to Russell's, who was never the #1, #2 or #3 option on offense for ANY of his Boston team's. He also was NEVER a great shooter, so comparing Wilt's 60+ shot % to Russell's normally sub-50% is truly unfair.

I would think you would be more inclined to compare it to ANY position, since Wilt shot that much better than EVERYONE else in the NBA, it would truly show off his bility to score and come through in the clutch.

mikku said it for me though: It's not that Wilt is a choker, a loser or a failure, it's that, a player with as much talent and athleticism as he had, we expected him to win more rings and care more about winning. Many, many individuals from his time have been quoted as saying Wilt would rather get his stats then care about wins. Russell (I do believe) was once quoted as saying that it seemed as if Wilt would rather lose, than win, because there is less pressure to continue to win, if you lose (something like that, I cannot remember the exact quote).

Now, I do know that in certain years, Wilt's teams did not have the same caliber of talent as teams he faced in the playoffs or the finals (primarily 60% of the Celtics teams they faced), but with his ability to dominate teams on either end of the floor, people believe he SHOULD have won more.

When uneducated fans see his lack of rings and his ability to not care so much about winning, they begin to label him a loser, a choker and a failure.

[QUOTE=nycelt84]Posting what John Wooden thinks is completely irrelevant in discussing the 60's Celtics. Red Auerbach, multiple Celtics, and Wilt himself acknowledge that if he was on that team they never would have won the way with Wilt because Wilt would have made the team a completely different team and the team would not have managed to jell the way they did. Russell was the perfect man for that team and as Red himself said a Wilt Chamberlain could never play for the Celtics and there's a reason he never issued number 13 to any Celtic for multiple years.

And every article I ever read for a game recap regarding the Celtics and Wilt's teams, not one mentioned double or triple teaming of Wilt. Tom Heinsohn mentioning something doesn't make it true as people's memories are often faulty.

This is the account of one Celtic fan who was actually around at the time who was close to the team, hung around them of some of those years in the 50's and 60's. He has a different remembering of the Russell vs Wilt games and how they played out.

[URL="http://samsbostoncelticsfansite.blogspot.com/2009/10/sams-personal-account-of-russell-years.html"]http://samsbostoncelticsfansite.blogspot.com/2009/10/sams-personal-account-of-russell-years.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

Of course, yes, let's dismiss Wooden's opinions, and yet post someone's with the name of Slippery Sam, who was obviously a Celtic homer. Yep, what the hell would Wooden know about the game of basketball?

Oh, and yes, more than likely Heinsohn, who played with Russell for NINE years, probably had a "faulty" memory. BTW, Chamberlain himself, who FACED Russell in 142 games, ALSO commented that it was the Celtics vs. Wilt, and not just Russell vs. Wilt. But, what would he know.

Regarding Slippery Sam's "masterpiece"...

[QUOTE]As a backdrop for getting a feel for pro basketball in the fifties, it is important to reflect on the idiosyncrasies of the game, the playing conditions and the crowds. In those days, the rules of pro basketball tended to react to evolving player abilities. The unprecedented bulk of George Mikan, the agility of Bill Russell, and the length and power of Wilt Chamberlain forced changes in the width of the lane. When the early Celtics had a one-point lead with 30 to 60 seconds to go, Bob Cousy would dribble out the clock; so they instituted the 24-second rule. [B]Russell forced the offensive goaltending rule to be instituted the year before Chamberlain entered the league[/B][/QUOTE]

Russell instituted offensive goal-tending? I wonder how come CHAMBERLAIN gets credit for it, even BEFORE he came to the NBA then...

[url]http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html[/url]

[QUOTE]During his career, his dominance precipitated many rules changes. These rules changed included widening the lane, [B]instituting offensive goaltending [/B]and revising rules governing inbounding the ball and shooting free throws (Chamberlain would leap with the ball from behind the foul line to deposit the ball in the basket).

[/QUOTE]

BTW, god forbid that the NBA would have allowed Wilt to dunk his FT's. So, instead of shooting 50% in his career, he would have merely made EVERY FT.

Back to Slippery again...

[QUOTE]In fact, during Russell's first season with the Celtics, the team was actually blessed with six future Hall of Famers (Russell, Cousy, Heinsohn, Ramsey, Risen and Phillip). Playmaker KC Jones, whom Red had also acquired in the same draft as Russell's, could have swollen the total to seven, but he was in the Army during Russ's first two seasons.

[/QUOTE]

Hmmm...interesting. Russell joined a LOADED team. How about Wilt in his rookie season? He came to a LAST-PLACE team.

Back to Sam again...

[QUOTE]Wilt and Russ unquestionably represented the ultimate mano a mano confrontation. In their very first meeting, both men grabbed a loose ball, and Wilt lifted Russ up off the floor before the refs could call a jump ball. Russ was afraid Wilt was going to dunk him. But, over the 10 years they played against one another, Russ almost invariably won their big matches, and he "out-championed" Wilt, 9 to 1.

Russ constantly psyched Wilt out. One favorite ploy of Russ was to force Wilt out just about a foot beyond his favorite spot but to do it subtly so Wilt wouldn't notice. Wilt would become frustrated because he couldn't understand why he kept missing jumpers, and his frustration only made him miss more shots. And then, when the Celtics were comfortably ahead in a game, Russ would then allow Wilt to score a few points in order to satisfy the stat-happy giant, when the gratuitous points were meaningless, in order to dissuade Wilt from steamrollering Russ next time.

[/QUOTE]

Yep, Russell psyched Wilt out. Held him to 38 ppg in his first regular season on .465 shooting (while Wilt averaged 37.6 ppg and shot .461 against the rest of the league. He would "hold" Wilt to 33 ppg over the course of Chamberlain's first seven seasons, too. All while being outrebounded him.

And Russell's psych job was brilliant in game seven of the '65 when Russell and his 62-18 Celtics "held" Wilt to 30 points on 80% shooting, along with 32 rebounds, in a 110-109 win. Let's recap the end of that game shall we? Heavily-favored Boston, and with HCA, was up 110-101 with about three minutes to play. Wilt scored six of Philly's last eight points, including 2-2 from the line, and a thrunderous dunk on Russell with five seconds left. And then the "clutch" Russell inbounded the ball, and promptly hit a guidewire giving the ball back to the Sixers with five seconds left. However, as almost was ALWAYS the case, Russell's TEAMMATE, John Havlicek "stole the ball."

Russell and his SEVEN other HOF teammates also beat Wilt and his ZERO HOF teammates, 8-1 in the 62-63 season. All Wilt did, with virtually no help was keep the Sixers in SIX of those games until either the final minute, or else that lone win. He outrebounded Russell in that season series, and outscored him by a 38-14 margin per game.

Russell also pysched Wilt out in game five of the '60 ECF's (a must-win game for Philly BTW), by holding Chamberlain to a 50 point, 35 rebound game.

Or Russell "holding" Wilt to a 46-34 game in the clinching game five loss (for Philly) in the '66 ECF's.

Or Russell psyching Wilt out in the '64 Finals, when Chamberlain, outgunned 7-2 by Russell's TEAM, outscored Russell, per game, 29-11, and outrebounded him, per game, 27-25. And, most assuredly outshot him, by perhaps over 200 points from the field.

Or Russell completely "pysching" Wilt out in the '67 ECF's, when, with his Celtics down 3-1 in a series in which Chamberlain had destroyed him and his Celtic teammates, ....Russell came thru in the "clutch" again, with a brilliant FOUR point game, on 2-5 shooting. All while pysching Wilt to the tune of holding him to "only" 29 points, on 10-16 shooting, and all while being outrebounded by Chamberlain, by a slim 36-21 margin.

Continuing...

Let's repost the MANY games that Russell, with his SUPERIOR rosters "psyched" Wilt out...

[QUOTE]For reference, the first number of the pair next to each player's name is points in that particular game, while the second is rebounds. An example would be the first one, with Wilt scoring 45 points, and grabbing 35 rebounds (45-35), while Russell's numbers were 15 points, with 13 rebounds (15-13.)


Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13
Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21
Wilt 43-39….Russell 20-24
Wilt 53-29 Russell 22-32
Wilt 42-29 Russell 19-30
Wilt 50-35 Russell 22-27
Wilt 34-55….Russell 18-19
Wilt 39-30 Russell 6-19
Wilt 44-35 Russell 20-21
Wilt 34-38 Russell 17-20
Wilt..52-30….Russell 21-31
Wilt 41-28 Russell 11-24
Wilt 62-28 Russell 23-29
Wilt 38-31 Russell 11-18
Wilt 42-37 Russell 9-20
Wilt 45-27 Russell 12-26
Wilt 43-32 Russell 8-30
Wilt 32-27 Russell 11-16
Wilt 50-17….Russell 23-21
Wilt 35-32….Russell 16-28
Wilt 32-25 Russell…9-24
Wilt 31-30 Russell 12-22
Wilt 37-32 Russell 16-24
Wilt 27-34 Russell..12-17
Wilt 27-43 Russell 13-26
Wilt 30-39 Russell 12-16
Wilt 31-40….Russell 11-17
Wilt 37-42 Russell 14-25
Wilt 29-26 Russell 3-27
Wilt 27-36….Russell 13-20
Wilt 27-32 Russell 6-22
Wilt 32-30 Russell 8-20
Wilt 46-34 Russell 18-31
Wilt 20-41….Russell 10-29
Wilt 29-36 Russell 4-21
Wilt 31-27 Russell 3-8
Wilt 35-19 Russell 5-16
Wilt 12-42 Russell 11-18

[/QUOTE]

Incidently, the list is actually much larger than that. The fact was, Wilt outplayed Russell in the VAST MAJORITY of their 142 games (BOTH regular season AND post-season), and in MANY he CRUSHED Russell. You will not find ONE game in which Russell EVER outplayed Wilt by the margin of that list above. In fact, you will probably be fortunate to find a handful of games in which Russell outplayed Wilt at all.

Here are some interesting numbers regarding the two.

Wilt outscored Russell in 132 of their 142 games. He nearly averaged 30 ppg over his entire H2H CAREER against Russell, outscoring him by a 28.7 to 14.5 margin. How about this fact for a start...Russell scored 30+ points against Wilt in THREE games, with a career HIGH of 37 points. BUT, Wilt OUTSCORED him in ALL three. Not only that, but Wilt enjoyed a 24-0 edge in 40+ point games against Russell. Chamberlain also scored 50+ points against Russell five times, including one in the post-season, with a HIGH of 62 points.

Chamberlain also outrebounded Russell by FIVE rebounds per game over the course of their entire H2H career, 28.7 to 23.7. Take a look at those two stats...28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg...a near 30-30 game EVERY single time the two played. It just boggles the mind! Wilt had a 7-1 edge in 40+ rebound games, H2H against Russell (Russell's high was exactly 40 against Wilt.) It gets better, though. Wilt set the NBA record for rebounds in one game, against Russell, with 55 (he outrebounded Russell in that game by a staggering 55-19 margin, as well as outscoring him 34-18.) Chamberlain also set the post-season NBA record of 41 against Russell. Not only that, but Chamberlain held a crushing 23-4 edge against Russell in 35+ rebound games.

We don't have a lot of their H2H FG% games, but in the one's that we do have, Chamberlain outshot him in almost every one. We have an ENTIRE H2H SEASON, in Wilt's rookie year, in which Chamberlain outshot Russell by a .465 to .398 margin. We also have an ENTIRE PLAYOFF SERIES, in which Chamberlain not only heavily outscored and outrebounded Russell ( he outscored him 22-10 per game, and buried him on the glass with a 32-23 margin per game)...in which Wilt outshot Russell by an astonishing .556 to .358 margin. Furthermore, there is a strong possibility that Wilt outshot Russell in the '64 Finals by a HUGE margin (perhaps as much as .590 to .350 or so.) We also have two game seven's between the two, in which Wilt not only heavily outscored and outrebounded Russell, but he outshot him in those two games by margins of .800 to .438, and then .875 to .286. There is even a recorded game in 1965 in which Wilt held Russell to a 0-14 game (yes, ZERO for 14!)

The facts were, Wilt outscored, outrebounded, and probably outshot Russell in EVERY regular season series in their ten H2H seasons, and in EVERY post-season series between the two. We know for a fact that he outscored and outrebounded him in EVERY one of those series, both regular season and post-season.

But, yes, Russell "psyched" Wilt out. Downright dominated him.

Im just curious, how do you dunk free throws? Do you stand at the ft line and leap to the rim? Do you get a running start? How did he do it?

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Im just curious, how do you dunk free throws? Do you stand at the ft line and leap to the rim? Do you get a running start? How did he do it?[/QUOTE]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slam_dunk[/url]

[QUOTE]Olympic Gold Medalist Bob Kurland was a 7-foot center and the first player to regularly dunk during games in the 1940's and 50's. Wilt Chamberlain was known to have dunked on an experimental 12-foot basket set up by Phog Allen at the University of Kansas in the 1950s.[5] Michael Wilson, a former Harlem Globetrotter and University of Memphis basketball player, matched this feat on April 1, 2000 albeit with an alley-oop. Dwight Howard dunked on an 12ft basket in the 2009 NBA dunk contest also off an ally-oop.

Jim Pollard[6], Wilt Chamberlain[5], Julius Erving, Clyde Drexler, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Kobe Bryant, Stromile Swift, Shawn Kemp, Grant Hill, Darrell Griffith, Korleone Young, Edgar Jones, LeBron James, James White, Vince Carter, Jason Richardson, Jamario Moon, Chris Webber, Dwight Howard, Mike Conley, Sr., Samuel Dalembert, Brent Barry and Al Thornton have each dunked while jumping from around the free throw line, which is 15 feet from the basket. [B]Unlike the others, Wilt Chamberlain did not require a full running start, but instead began his movement from inside the top half of the free throw circle.[/B][5]

[/QUOTE]

[quote=97 bulls]Im just curious, how do you dunk free throws? Do you stand at the ft line and leap to the rim? Do you get a running start? How did he do it?[/quote]

Not from the FT, but probably something as shown below:


[IMG]http://i51.tinypic.com/dyzr6.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Bird]Didn't want to quote your huge post, so just the first and last snippet.

The only thing I have against your post, is comparing Wilt's offensive game (scoring and shot %) to Russell's, who was never the #1, #2 or #3 option on offense for ANY of his Boston team's. He also was NEVER a great shooter, so comparing Wilt's 60+ shot % to Russell's normally sub-50% is truly unfair.

I would think you would be more inclined to compare it to ANY position, since Wilt shot that much better than EVERYONE else in the NBA, it would truly show off his bility to score and come through in the clutch.

mikku said it for me though: It's not that Wilt is a choker, a loser or a failure, it's that, a player with as much talent and athleticism as he had, we expected him to win more rings and care more about winning. Many, many individuals from his time have been quoted as saying Wilt would rather get his stats then care about wins. Russell (I do believe) was once quoted as saying that it seemed as if Wilt would rather lose, than win, because there is less pressure to continue to win, if you lose (something like that, I cannot remember the exact quote).

Now, I do know that in certain years, Wilt's teams did not have the same caliber of talent as teams he faced in the playoffs or the finals (primarily 60% of the Celtics teams they faced), but with his ability to dominate teams on either end of the floor, people believe he SHOULD have won more.

When uneducated fans see his lack of rings and his ability to not care so much about winning, they begin to label him a loser, a choker and a failure.[/QUOTE]

If you take a CLOSE look at Wilt's ten seasons with Russell in the NBA, you will see, as you said, that Russell had a solid edge in talent in six of them (60%.) Still, Wilt led two of those teams to game seven defeats by a COMBINED THREE points (teams that were heavily outgunned in HOFers and in W-L record, and both against HCA.)

Then, take a CLOSE look at their last four seasons. In '66, I still say that Boston was the better team, despite Philly edging them in the regular season, 55-25 to 54-26. In fact, the Sixers had to win their last 11 games to edge out Boston. And the Celtics had won the previous seven titles. And Boston held a 4-3 edge in HOFer and had a much deeper bench. The bottom line, though, was that Chamberlain's teammates were awful in that post-season series (a 4-1 loss to Boston.) All Wilt did in that series was average 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot 51% (to Russell's 15 ppg, 25 rpg, and 45% shooting against him.) Meanwhile, here were Wilt's teammates FG%...Greer, .325, Jones, .325, Walker, .375, Jackson, .429, and Cunningham, .161.

In '67 Wilt and team just crushed the Celtics, 4-1 (a near sweep BTW), and Chamberlain buried Russell in every category. He outscored him, per game, 22-10; he outrebounded him, per game, 32-23 (yes a NINE rpg difference); he outassisted Russell, per game, 10-6; and he outshot him in that series, .556 to .358.

In '68, the Sixers nearly duplicated their previous season domination, running away with the best record in the league, at 62-20 (to Boston's 54-28.) BUT, in the playoffs, they lost HOFer Cunningham to a broken wrist before the Boston series, and he would miss the rest of the playoffs. Still, even without Cunningham, they STILL forged a 3-1 series lead. But, in game three, Chamberlain suffered a severe calf bruise (and he was already nursing two other leg injuries), and he was NOTICEABLY hobbled the rest of the series. On top of that, in game five, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones suffered injuries, and both were worthless the rest of the series. Then, in game seven, Wilt's teammates completely forgot him (only passing him the ball SEVEN times in the second half), and not only that, they collectively shot 33% from the floor. The result? A game seven, FOUR point loss. Think about that: With EVERYTHING that had gone wrong, Wilt's team, DECIMATED by injuries, lost a game seven, by FOUR points. BTW, Wilt STILL outscored Russell in that game, 14-12, and he STILL outrebounded him, 34-26.

Wilt's '69 season was one of complete frustration. He was "traded" to the Lakers, where he and the incompetent coach Butch Van Breda Kolf bumped heads from day one. The brilliant Van Breda Kolf asked Wilt to play the high post so that a declining Baylor could shoot. Wilt did sacrifice his offense, and the result was that while he would only average 14 ppg in the post-season, he still shot an outstanding .545. Meanwhile, Baylor averaged 15 ppg in the playoffs, on .385 shooting!

I have documented the '69 Finals many times before, but here goes. The Lakers, with a prime West, a declining Baylor, and Wilt shackled by his coach, had virtually no one else. Meanwhile, the Celtics, despite a worse regular season record, STILL had a 4-3 edge in HOFers, and a much deeper roster. In any case, the Lakers still jumped out to a 2-0 series lead. They were leading the series, 2-1, and in game four in Boston, they had the lead of 88-87, AND the ball with some 15 seconds left. All Johnny Egan had to do was driblle out the clock. Instead, he lost the ball, and Sam Jones hit a miraculous shot, while falling down, at the buzzer, to win the game, 89-88. How significant was that ONE PLAY? The Lakers went back home, and behind Chamberlain's domination of Russell in game five (he outrebounded Russell, 31-13), the Lakers romped to a 117-104 win. Think about that...that ONE PLAY prevented the Lakers from rolling to a 4-1 series win.

In that game seven, the Lakers whittled a 17 point 4th quarter deficit down to seven with a little over five minutes left. However, Wilt injured his leg, and had to come out. After sitting for a couple of minutes, he asked to go back in. Van Breda Kolf refused, and instead rolled the dice with Mel Counts (Mel ***ing Counts!) All Counts did was miss a couple of shots down the stretch, (he would shoot 4-13 for the entire game...while Chamberlain shot 7-8), and the Celtics, behind yet ANOTHER miraculous shot (Nelson's game winner) won the game, 108-106.

That is just how close Wilt came to several more titles. Now, was HE the "loser", or the "choker", or the "failure"?

[QUOTE=Helix]Perhaps you should take a look in a mirror.

Hey jlauber.....like you, I have followed the NBA since 1963. I saw Wilt play many times throughout the 60's and on into the 70's. I saw all those televised Russell/Chamberlain "battles". I feel for you trying to defend Wilt around here, and I pretty much agree with most of what you say. Two things I'd like to say.....first, having seen all the great centers of the last 47 years play, I agree with what Rick Barry said. "Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest all around center in NBA history. No other center could do ALL the things Wilt could do, and do them so magnificently."

Secondly, all these GOAT discussions.....well, I take them with a grain of salt. There are many reasons, but I'll just give you one of them. Why do most people put Jabbar ahead of Wilt in there GOAT list? Because he has six rings to Wilt's two? That's absurd. Kareem had the benefit of playing on a GREAT team, with a GREAT coach, and a GREAT organization for ten years. Slight correction.....Riley didn't take over as coach until the 81/82 season, so almost eight years for the coach. Wilt only had that luxury in four of his fourteen years.....67, 68, 72, and 73. And by the way, Russell had that benefit his ENTIRE career. Had it not been for injuries in 68 and 73 (undoubtedly 68), Wilt may have had a couple more rings. Had Magic and Riley not come along, Kareem's career would most likely have ended quite differently.

My point is that these discussions rarely ever take into account the circumstances and "what if's" for each player. For example, how many rings would Jordan and Jabbar have if they had faced what Wilt did every year the first ten years of his career.....the Boston dynasty? How many rings would Russell have if Red Auerbach had chosen to have been a car salesman, or if he had been drafted by any other team other than Boston? The truth is, there is simply no way to level the playing field for the various GOAT candidates, so all you can do is examine their individual circumstances, and consider the "what if's". And it's all speculation. So, like I said earlier, I take all these GOAT discussions with a grain of salt.

I will say this though.....having seen all the greats for the past 47 years, if I had the first pick in a draft of every player that's ever played, my pick would be, with no hesitation whatsoever, Wilt Chamberlain.[/QUOTE]

Great post, and welcome to ISH. Always great to have someone who actually SAW these guys play comment.

:cheers:

[QUOTE=jlauber]If you take a CLOSE look at Wilt's ten seasons with Russell in the NBA, you will see, as you said, that Russell had a solid edge in talent in six of them (60%.) Still, Wilt led two of those teams to game seven defeats by a COMBINED THREE points (teams that were heavily outgunned in HOFers and in W-L record, and both against HCA.)

That is just how close Wilt came to several more titles. Now, was HE the "loser", or the "choker", or the "failure"?[/QUOTE]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, calm down, calm down, I am AGREEING with you.

I do not believe he is any of those three, but I agree with some who say he UNDERACHIEVED.

I have read transcripts (and seen the stats) from many of the playoff/finals contests between Wilt's teams and Russell's teams, so believe me we do both agree on Russell having the edge talent wise (both HC and player) and, dare I say, luck wise (injuries, huge shots, etc.).

Anyways, great discussion in this thread (and some awesome insight from a few members I had never seen much from).

should've checked

was wrong about wilt not winning fmvp in 72

got more phila but gotta go right now . . . hit you back later

[QUOTE=Bird]Whoa, whoa, whoa, calm down, calm down, I am AGREEING with you.

I do not believe he is any of those three, but I agree with some who say he UNDERACHIEVED.

I have read transcripts (and seen the stats) from many of the playoff/finals contests between Wilt's teams and Russell's teams, so believe me we do both agree on Russell having the edge talent wise (both HC and player) and, dare I say, luck wise (injuries, huge shots, etc.).

Anyways, great discussion in this thread (and some awesome insight from a few members I had never seen much from).[/QUOTE]

I wasn't directing my last comment at you, but those here in general. As for "underachieving", ...from a TEAM success standpoint, yes, to some degree. But, remember, he faced the Celtic Dynasty in 10 of his 14 seasons, and then the '70 Knicks (and their FOUR HOFers); the '71 Bucks (66-16, with Oscar and Kareem...and Chamberlain was on a 48-34 Laker team withOUT his two best players, West and Baylor; he WON a title in '72 (going thru that same Buck team again, and then wiping out the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers); and in his last season, his injury-riddled team lost four close games to a Knick team with SIX HOFers.

Once again, Wilt faced a HOF center in EVERY post-season. He was also outgunned by a HOF-laden team, in EVERY post-season.

Not only that, but here again, it is the famous DOUBLE-STANDARD. Chamberlain won two rings in his 14 seasons, and was labeled a "choker", a "failure", and a "loser." Hakeem won two rings in 18 seasons, and EIGHT of team's were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs...yet, has anyone ever accused him of being a "loser?" And Bird won one more ring in his career, and is almost universally hailed as a "winner", and a "clutch" player despite the fact that his career did not compare to Wilt's in either the regular season, or the post-season.

Here was the real crux of the DOUBLE-STANDARD. If Wilt put up a 40-30 game against Russell, to say a 10-20 game (on poor shooting) by Russell, BUT, Russell's heavily more talented TEAM won the game...well, it was a "clear-cut" win for Russell. And, if Wilt and Russell had the same exact games, and Chamberlain's TEAM won...well, Wilt's team SHOULD have won. Why? Because Wilt was bigger, stronger and more skilled. Furthermore, if Wilt only had a 20-20 game, to Russell's 10-20 game, no matter the outcome of the game, Russell "outplayed" Wilt.

Generally, Chamberlain had to significantly outscore, outrebound, and outshoot Russell for his TEAM to have a chance of winning. BUT, Russell NEVER had the same expectation level. All he had to do was to contain Chamberlain just enough so that his superior teammates could outplay Wilt's enough to win the game. And then, of course, it was WILT's fault, and Russell was applauded for having "outplayed" Wilt.

The EXPECTATION level for Wilt was unlike ANY other player who has ever played the game.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I wasn't directing my last comment at you, but those here in general.

The EXPECTATION level for Wilt was unlike ANY other player who has ever played the game.[/QUOTE]

1) Got it, thought it was aimed at me, my bad.

2) Indeed, they were set EXTREMELY high for him. Even I will admit that (and admit I think that KAJ is overrated, when compared to Wilt) and that I probably DO hold him to the double standard. I would label very few HoF and superstar type players as chokers, though Karl Malone has a special place reserved for his disappearing acts.

Also, where did you get Wilt's by game stats from? You mentioned two names (I do believe in the first post) that provided them, but I do not know where you got them from. Thanks in advance.

Jlauber, when you say that Russell played with more HOFers, don't you think he made most of them? If they were on other teams that weren't winning, they wouldn't sniff the Hall.

Larry Siegfried made the hall, even though he was cut by the STL Hawks, they actually made him give his sneakers back and left him in the car park after an exhibition game and he had to find his own way home. That sounds like he was already heading for the Hall before joining the Celtics?

Bailey Howell couldn't crack the starting 5 for the Baltimore Bullets, Red Auerbach sent Mel Counts in a trade for him. Yes before the Bullets he averaged 20 and 10 for the Pistons, but they were a terrible team.

Wayne Embry had a good career and is in the Hall, but not as a player, as a contributer.

So you could say Russell was better because he had more Hall Of Famers, but a few of these guys were waifs and strays picked up by Red Auerbach, or guys who didn't even make the Hall as players. Russel made some of these guys HOFers.

[QUOTE=Horatio33]Jlauber, when you say that Russell played with more HOFers, don't you think he made most of them? If they were on other teams that weren't winning, they wouldn't sniff the Hall.

Larry Siegfried made the hall, even though he was cut by the STL Hawks, they actually made him give his sneakers back and left him in the car park after an exhibition game and he had to find his own way home. That sounds like he was already heading for the Hall before joining the Celtics?

Bailey Howell couldn't crack the starting 5 for the Baltimore Bullets, Red Auerbach sent Mel Counts in a trade for him. Yes before the Bullets he averaged 20 and 10 for the Pistons, but they were a terrible team.

Wayne Embry had a good career and is in the Hall, but not as a player, as a contributer.

So you could say Russell was better because he had more Hall Of Famers, but a few of these guys were waifs and strays picked up by Red Auerbach, or guys who didn't even make the Hall as players. Russel made some of these guys HOFers.[/QUOTE]

Good post and I agree with much of it. First of all, though, I don't think Siegfried made the HOF. And Embry is in it as a contributor, but he was also a five time all-star. I also agree that Howell probably would not have made the Hall, nor Frank Ramsey or KC Jones, without Russell.

And, I also agree that Russell made his teammates better, overall, than what Wilt did for his. Once again, even Wilt admitted that Russell blended better with his teammates, than what Wilt would have with the same teammates.

Furthermore, I will also add that in majority of their H2H battles, we don't have all of the FG% numbers. We can probably safely assume that Wilt still outshot Russell from the floor in the vast majority of those games, but even in some of the games in which he probably outshot Russell, there comes a point where MISSING a lot more shots actually is more harmful, than merely shooting a lower percentage. For example, who would you consider the worse shooter... a player who goes 1-4, or a player who goes 10-30?

It has not been my intention to rip Russell here. He has his 11 rings, and was the MAIN reason why those team's won. His impact went well beyond stats, as well. He intimidated entire teams, and his overall play made his teammates' numbers better.

Having said that, though, there were/are many observers who mistakenly believe that Russell dominated Wilt, and that Wilt "choked" against him. Take a look at some of the game's in Chamberlain's career, (and not just against Russell.) For instance, in game seven of the '70 Finals, Chamberlain put up a 21 point, 10-16 shooting, 24 rebound game (11 points, 5-10, and 12 rebounds in the first half), against a Reed who was hobbled by an injury. Of course, no one remembers that Wilt, himself, was only four months removed from major knee surgery, and that virtually no medical opinion at the time expected him to come back as quickly as he did. In any case, Reed had a 4-3 game, and was labeled a "hero", while Chamberlain's game was far better than any of teammate's, and yet, it WILT's fault.

In the game seven of the '69 Finals, when Wilt pulled himself out of the game with a leg injury (which would be the same leg that would require surgery the very year), he asked to go back in within a couple of minutes. His coach refused, and the Lakers lost by two points. In that game, Wilt outscored Russell, 18-6, outshot Russell, 7-8 to 2-7, and outrebounded him, 27-21. Furthemore, RUSSELL was nowhere to be found in that 4th quarter, despite the fact that he was in the game. Who got the blame? Yep...Wilt "the faker" Chamberlain. Here again, the DOUBLE STANDARD. Wilt takes himself out of a game with a serious knee injury, for a couple of MINUTES, and he was labled a "faker" by no less than Russell. Kareem sprained his ankle, and missed an entire game. Reed suffers a thigh injury, and misses the better part of THREE games. And, they are labeled "heroic." Chamberlain misses two MINUTES, and he is faking it. Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain played in FOUR games of the '68 ECF's with THREE leg injuries, and was NOTICEABLY hobbled in all of those games. BUT, since his TEAM blew that series, well, Wilt was a "choker."

When Chamberlain's teammates shot around 35% in the '66 ECF's, and when Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot 51% in that same series, and in fact, had a 46-34 game in the clinching game five loss...well, it was WILT's fault.

I could go on, but there was clearly NO evidence of Wilt ever "choking" in a big game.

[QUOTE=Bird]1) Got it, thought it was aimed at me, my bad.

2) Indeed, they were set EXTREMELY high for him. Even I will admit that (and admit I think that KAJ is overrated, when compared to Wilt) and that I probably DO hold him to the double standard. I would label very few HoF and superstar type players as chokers, though Karl Malone has a special place reserved for his disappearing acts.

Also, where did you get Wilt's by game stats from? You mentioned two names (I do believe in the first post) that provided them, but I do not know where you got them from. Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]

There are some other sources with the Wilt-Russell games, but Harvey Pollack recorded every one of their 142 H2H games. Here is the link:

[url]http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Pollack_200607_Stats.pdf[/url]

I believe those H2H games start on page 270 or so.

[QUOTE=jlauber]There are some other sources with the Wilt-Russell games, but Harvey Pollack recorded every one of their 142 H2H games. Here is the link:

[url]http://www.nba.com/media/sixers/Pollack_200607_Stats.pdf[/url]

I believe those H2H games start on page 270 or so.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the link.

I plan on giving that a solid look through.

[QUOTE=PHILA]To quote from another forum:



[LEFT][I]Opposing Centers

The big names against whom Wilt played a lot were:

Bill Russell, Walt Bellamy, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Spencer Haywood (during the last 3 years of his career, Spencer's 3 best years), he got 80 games of Bob McAdoo as a rookie and a dose of healthy Bob Lanier (Lanier's first three seasons, all 80+ games played).

Bells was at least 6'11, 250 and was drafted only two years after Wilt. Forget about Walter Dukes, worry about the 31+ ppg Bells dropped as a rookie. Yes, he was really only dominant for his first five years, but he was still an important and significant player thereafter.

And yeah, Kareem was a player during the last 4 years of Wilt's career (though Wilt only played 12 regular season games in Kareem's rookie year). Still, that includes Kareem's 3 best scoring seasons and two of his three best rebounding seasons.

Oh yes, and Cowens was there for the last 3 years of Wilt's career as well.

Wilt had competition and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Yes, some of it didn't enter into the league until later in his career but you'll notice that while he didn't score as much as he did as a younger guy, his efficiency skyrocketed, his rebounding wasn't affected and he became a deadly passer while retaining his reputation for outstanding defense.

The inclusion of competition (much of it with significant size, such as Kareem, Lanier, etc) did NOTHING to affect his ability to impact the game at an elite level.

So arguing that Wilt's competition were all 6'7 white guys is not only wrong, but pointless.

For the sake of argument, let's break it down by year:

59-60 Bill Russell, Dolph Schayes, Red Kerr, Charlie Tyra, Willie Nauls, Ray Felix, Clyde Lovelette, Walter Dukes, Phil Jordon
60-61
61-62 Walt Bellamy,
62-63
63-64 Nate Thurmond*
64-65 Willis Reed
65-66
66-67 Reggie Harding, Joe Strawler, Walt Wesley, Leroy Ellis, Mel Counts, Darrall Imhoff
67-68
68-69 Wes Unseld
69-70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
70-71 Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier
71-72
72-73
72-73

* Thurmond and Wilt played together for their first two years, so I guess 65-66 is when they really became "competitors."

There were certainly shorter guys in the NBA in his earliest days but then, he also played Bill Russell and the others more often because the league was smaller.

So here, we've covered the standard argument.

QUOTE]
why list only their heights when at that time if they saw a
7 footer baggin groceries they'd sign him on the spot

what about wilt's size strength and ability advantage . . . 7'1 275
had a 3-4 inch 50-70 lb advantage in most cases -- was one of
the few players that'd even look at a weight , let alone lift 300
ran hurdles , high jumped .... a supremely conditioned athlete

NOBODY was even close to this guy . . . . .

bellamy reed and unseld couldn't bunny hop a quarter compared
to dude . . . nate thurmond , a stiff , gave up 50 lbs to wilt
russell was no match for wilt size wise but he was just
as good an athlete and cared more about winning

i hated wilt with a passion because he never beat them **
besides not winning , i just never liked his game . . . the
back-to-the-basket-fingerolls were simply the ugliest
shots in basketball history . . his game just lacked
fluidity as opposed to kareem who was fluid in his
movements dribbled and shot the ball gracefully
with touch , with either hand , from distance

think it's great the passion you have for wilt
don't like the tearing down of others just to
lift him up . . . . he had enough advantages

failed to capitalize for the most part

[QUOTE=aau][QUOTE=PHILA]To quote from another forum:



[LEFT][I]Opposing Centers

The big names against whom Wilt played a lot were:

Bill Russell, Walt Bellamy, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Spencer Haywood (during the last 3 years of his career, Spencer's 3 best years), he got 80 games of Bob McAdoo as a rookie and a dose of healthy Bob Lanier (Lanier's first three seasons, all 80+ games played).

Bells was at least 6'11, 250 and was drafted only two years after Wilt. Forget about Walter Dukes, worry about the 31+ ppg Bells dropped as a rookie. Yes, he was really only dominant for his first five years, but he was still an important and significant player thereafter.

And yeah, Kareem was a player during the last 4 years of Wilt's career (though Wilt only played 12 regular season games in Kareem's rookie year). Still, that includes Kareem's 3 best scoring seasons and two of his three best rebounding seasons.

Oh yes, and Cowens was there for the last 3 years of Wilt's career as well.

Wilt had competition and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Yes, some of it didn't enter into the league until later in his career but you'll notice that while he didn't score as much as he did as a younger guy, his efficiency skyrocketed, his rebounding wasn't affected and he became a deadly passer while retaining his reputation for outstanding defense.

The inclusion of competition (much of it with significant size, such as Kareem, Lanier, etc) did NOTHING to affect his ability to impact the game at an elite level.

So arguing that Wilt's competition were all 6'7 white guys is not only wrong, but pointless.

For the sake of argument, let's break it down by year:

59-60 Bill Russell, Dolph Schayes, Red Kerr, Charlie Tyra, Willie Nauls, Ray Felix, Clyde Lovelette, Walter Dukes, Phil Jordon
60-61
61-62 Walt Bellamy,
62-63
63-64 Nate Thurmond*
64-65 Willis Reed
65-66
66-67 Reggie Harding, Joe Strawler, Walt Wesley, Leroy Ellis, Mel Counts, Darrall Imhoff
67-68
68-69 Wes Unseld
69-70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
70-71 Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier
71-72
72-73
72-73

* Thurmond and Wilt played together for their first two years, so I guess 65-66 is when they really became "competitors."

There were certainly shorter guys in the NBA in his earliest days but then, he also played Bill Russell and the others more often because the league was smaller.

So here, we've covered the standard argument.

QUOTE]
why list only their heights when at that time if they saw a
7 footer baggin groceries they'd sign him on the spot

what about wilt's size strength and ability advantage . . . 7'1 275
had a 3-4 inch 50-70 lb advantage in most cases -- was one of
the few players that'd even look at a weight , let alone lift 300
ran hurdles , high jumped .... a supremely conditioned athlete

NOBODY was even close to this guy . . . . .

bellamy reed and unseld couldn't bunny hop a quarter compared
to dude . . . nate thurmond , a stiff , gave up 50 lbs to wilt
russell was no match for wilt size wise but he was just
as good an athlete and cared more about winning

i hated wilt with a passion because he never beat them **
besides not winning , i just never liked his game . . . the
back-to-the-basket-fingerolls were simply the ugliest
shots in basketball history . . his game just lacked
fluidity as opposed to kareem who was fluid in his
movements dribbled and shot the ball gracefully
with touch , with either hand , from distance

think it's great the passion you have for wilt
don't like the tearing down of others just to
lift him up . . . . he had enough advantages

failed to capitalize for the most part[/QUOTE]

Brilliant post. Hits the nail on the head. You can't go on about Wilt being super human then blame his team mates for his faliure.

[QUOTE=Horatio33][QUOTE=aau]

Brilliant post. Hits the nail on the head. You can't go on about Wilt being super human then blame his team mates for his faliure.[/QUOTE]

The problem with that analogu, however, is that there were far too many times when Wilt's teammates DESERVED the blame. Aside from West in '69 and '70, and Greer in '67, Chamberlain had a plethora of playoff series in which his teammates were awful. His pundits will find an occasional game like Greer's 40 point game six in '68, but they will completely ignore Greer's 8-25 game seven (in a FOUR point loss.) They will cite Meschery's 32 point game seven in the '62 ECF's, but fail to mention that he shot .397 in the post-season. Hell, even in Wilt's '72 championship season, his teammates generally played worse than they did in the regular season, particularly West, who was mired in the worst shooting slump of his career (.376 over his entire playoff run.)

There were a couple of posters here who blamed Wilt for his '66 team getting beat 4-1 by Boston. Yep...all Wilt did in that series was average 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot 51%, against Russell, who averaged 15 ppg, 25 rpg, and shot .451. How about Wilt's teammates? Greer shot .325. Walker shot .375. Jones shot .325. Jackson shot .429. And Cunningham shot .161.

And one can only wonder how many more titles Wilt would have won had he had Hannum or Sharman coaching his team's his entire career, instead of the majority of them being complete morons.

[quote=aau]

nate thurmond , a stiff , gave up 50 lbs to wilt
russell was no match for wilt size wise but he was just
as good an athlete and cared more about winning[/quote]
Thurmond a stiff? :roll: The same stiff that shut Kareem Abdul-Jabbar down in the '73 playoffs?

[quote]i hated wilt with a passion because he never beat them **
besides not winning , i just never liked his game . . . the
back-to-the-basket-fingerolls were simply the ugliest
shots in basketball history . . his game just lacked
fluidity as opposed to kareem who was fluid in his
movements dribbled and shot the ball gracefully
with touch , with either hand , from distance[/quote]
From your prior posts on the board it seems you are a Lakers fan. More specifically [B]another [/B]Chamberlain hating Lakers fan. Between this board and RealGM, I wouldn't have believed fans of the Los Angeles Lakers franchise could so vehemently despise him if I didn't see it myself. Incredible.

[quote]think it's great the passion you have for wilt
don't like the tearing down of others just to
lift him up . . . . he had enough advantages
[/quote]
Tearing down others? :facepalm

[QUOTE=Helix]Secondly, [B]all these GOAT discussions[/B].....well, I take them with a grain of salt. There are many reasons, but I'll just give you one of them. Why do most people put Jabbar ahead of Wilt in there GOAT list? Because he has six rings to Wilt's two? That's absurd. Kareem had the benefit of playing on a GREAT team, with a GREAT coach, and a GREAT organization for ten years. Slight correction.....Riley didn't take over as coach until the 81/82 season, so almost eight years for the coach. Wilt only had that luxury in four of his fourteen years.....67, 68, 72, and 73. And by the way, Russell had that benefit his ENTIRE career. Had it not been for injuries in 68 and 73 (undoubtedly 68), Wilt may have had a couple more rings. Had Magic and Riley not come along, Kareem's career would most likely have ended quite differently.

[B]My point is that these discussions rarely ever take into account the circumstances and "what if's" for each player.[/B] For example, how many rings would Jordan and Jabbar have if they had faced what Wilt did every year the first ten years of his career.....the Boston dynasty? How many rings would Russell have if Red Auerbach had chosen to have been a car salesman, or if he had been drafted by any other team other than Boston? The truth is, there is simply no way to level the playing field for the various GOAT candidates, so all you can do is [B]examine their individual circumstances, and consider the "what if's". And it's all speculation. [/B]So, like I said earlier, I take all these GOAT discussions with a grain of salt.

I will say this though.....having seen all the greats for the past 47 years, if I had the first pick in a draft of every player that's ever played, my pick would be, with no hesitation whatsoever, Wilt Chamberlain.[/QUOTE]
It's always good to see some posts with wisdom..

Just out of curiosity, according to how exactly they play or matchups and your "what if's" criterias, how do you rank Kareem and Nate Thurmond and Russell? And how do you rank Hondo, Kobe and Pistol?

BTW, welcome to ISH although I'm not a regular in this board:cheers: