Hall of fame centers in the 60's vs team defenses in the early 00's

I dont think there is any doubt that Shaq got far more doubles than Wilt despite many claims that he was always doubled. Ive never seen a game or extended set of clips of him doubled. Not outside college footage. Ive seen him doubled in the NBA. But not like...just...instant collapse onto him swarm him time and time again doubles.

But really im not sure doubled would have even bothered wilt had he played like Shaq. he spent time setting up fadeaways and such at the expense of being able to quickly attack and score on much higher percentages. He shot well...but fact is Wilt was too big too athletic and too good to have been shooting anywhere near 50% if he were actually going all out to get easy shots. considering how many dunks he got off putbacks and quick dunks he may well have shot 40% in isolation situations in his scoring days and that is hard to imagine for someone of his ability.

If he just bullied people like shaq they would have had to double him. But he allowed teams to single cover him by scoring more off volume than just being unstoppable every time down.

That said...

In a league with only 7 other teams and more top flight bigmen per team because of it Shaq would see more single coverage too. If he played Hakeem, drob, Mutombo, Zo, and then average centers on the other 3 teams footage of him would be much more one on one as great centers had a pride about such things.

Shaq hated to accept doubleteam help on a rival. Drob too. And Mutombo(Shaq got him one on one a good bit in the finals).

Wilt was playing Russell, Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy and so on who probably didnt think they needed a double to defend anyone. Their teams leaned on them to hold down the paint and stop the other great bigmen.

Make the 90s an 8 team league where its just

Shaq
hakeem
Drob
Mutombo
Zo
Smits
Dale Davis
Chris Dudley


Or swap 2-3 out for scrubs....still..Shaq wouldnt be doubled nearly as much.

Great bigmen dont like to concede that they need the help. I cant imagine the look on Russells face if you told him you arent gonna let him guard wilt one on one because you dont think he can handle it.

Probably like if you told shaq he cant guard Duncan or Mutombo that he cant guard Drob.

Lot of pride involved.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]
But really im not sure doubled would have even bothered wilt had he played like Shaq. he spent time setting up fadeaways and such at the expense of being able to quickly attack and score on much higher percentages. He shot well...but fact is Wilt was too big too athletic and too good to have been shooting anywhere near 50% if he were actually going all out to get easy shots. considering how many dunks he got off putbacks and quick dunks he may well have shot 40% in isolation situations in his scoring days and that is hard to imagine for someone of his ability.

If he just bullied people like shaq they would have had to double him. But he allowed teams to single cover him by scoring more off volume than just being unstoppable every time down.[/QUOTE]

Whether he could've played like Shaq with the power game is up for debate because he didn't, and admitted to regretting that in a '93 interview. Though I'm not convinced he could've, at least not to that extent. A lot of that depends on lowerbody strength, ball handling, footwork ect. Though I'd agree that he could've used the power game more than he did, Tom Heinsohn mentioned that he was always relieved when Wilt would shoot the fadeaway because he knew that he was letting him off the hook.

[QUOTE]That said...

In a league with only 7 other teams and more top flight bigmen per team because of it Shaq would see more single coverage too. If he played Hakeem, drob, Mutombo, Zo, and then average centers on the other 3 teams footage of him would be much more one on one as great centers had a pride about such things.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with this due to how likely that makes foul trouble. Even in your average regular season meetings between the star centers of the 90's, double teams were common and they often weren't even guarding each other to avoid foul trouble because offense in the case of the 20-30 ppg centers, their offense was too important.

Take the '95 finals for another example. Shaq and Hakeem were both doubled a lot because of foul trouble. Hakeem was in foul trouble in game 1 and Shaq or Brian Hill made the comment that they were going to guard Hakeem 1 on 1 in game 2 and Shaq spent most of the first half in foul trouble.

[QUOTE]Wilt was playing Russell, Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy and so on who probably didnt think they needed a double to defend anyone. Their teams leaned on them to hold down the paint and stop the other great bigmen.[/QUOTE]

Not sure what Russell or Wilt thought, but Thurmond said this.

[QUOTE=Nate Thurmond]

I dont think its really up for debate that Wilt had as much of a physical advntage over his peers as Shaq did. At least before Shaq was 380-400 pounds in 02 and 03. I doubt the weight difference was there but by his prime he was around 280...7'1''+? Shaq I believe was 283 or 289 at predraft and 303 deep into his rookie season. About prime to late prime Wilts size. And by all accounts the strongest person anyone had ever had to deal with on the court was Wilt or shaq depending on if the person saying so played wilt or Shaq. They seem equally mythic for their times if not Wilt a little more so. If he set out to just knock a guy over? The guy gets knocked over. Perhaps a few could stand up to him but not any more than the Dale Davis types could bang with Shaq.

And I suspect ive seen the interview you mentioned. Ive seen...most. The costas/Russell/wilt one was pretty good. He admitted there to a lack of killer instinct.

And I said he wouldnt be doubled as much...not wouldnt be at all.

Shaq was never doubled as heavily vs teams with top flight bigmen. Drob, Duncan(even post drob), Mutombo, Dale Davis and even guys like Vlade guarded shaq one on one quite a bit. Ive seen Barkley guad shaq one on one. And rodman.

Not all the time no. Im just saying that a league minus its 22 worst centers makes for more on one one play because the top flight guys have always taken pride in not needing help.

I watched Shaq give Ewing like 45 and Ewing would still wave off help and he had some damn good help if he accepted it.

Those guys dont want to accept that they cant contend with a guy. remove the "Yes sir Mr.Riley sir!" non impact player bigmen who just play their part and Shaq would have had much more time spent one on one I think.

[QUOTE=jlauber]One other point, which I have brought up in other threads...

While I believe that if you could magically transport a 2000 Shaq to 1962, that with the shorter lane, smaller players, and faster pace, that he would have been a 40+ ppg scorer, or perhaps even a 50 ppg scorer...

I just don't believe that Shaq, born some 40 years earlier, and playing in 1962, would have been nearly the same Shaq. Even genetically, he probably would not have been as tall. And with the much more limited knowledge of the overall game, the nutrition of that era, the medical knowledge of that era, and the different physical training of that era (Wilt was among the first great athletes, involved in a major team sport, to lift weights), IMHO, Shaq would probably have been 6-11 300 lb, overweight, and less skilled player.

And, on the flip side...take a Wilt, born in say 1972...and given all the benefits of modern technology, including weight training, medicine, coaches with much more knowledge of the game, better nutrition, and better training...and how much better would he have been? And, if you factor in genetics...perhaps a 7-4, 325-350 lb. athlete beast.

We will never know, of course, but a Wilt, in 1962, would probably have not been nearly the same Chamberlain, had he been playing at his peak in 2002.[/QUOTE]


Think is Chamberlain is very disproportional (stilt nickname), his legs are long and lean, and his torso is not as balanced as the rest of his body. He tooks "tall" but not proportional. Shaq on the otherhand looked proportional and hence why he was able to staff of injuries for much of his career. Shaq has a lower center of gravity, and could easily overpower any center in any era, regardless of when he was born. No doubt, if he played in the 60's he'd still retain much of his athleticism since the nature of his body would allow him to.

[QUOTE=PHILA]'67 was his year in the pivot primarily as a play maker. Double Wilt he'd find the open teammate, all of whom were in constant motion. [/QUOTE]

After Phil Jackson signed a 5-year, $30 million deal to coach the Los Angeles Lakers, he was interviewed by The Associated Press before the 1999-2000 season opener:


[I]AP: How long does it take for a team to learn the triangle offense, and why would it take longer for that than other systems?

Jackson: It

lol at getting negative repped for the above post three minutes after I'd posted it. I don't see what was the point in bringing back "reps" in the first place.

What kind of defenses did Wilt face in his NBA career?

[url]http://biography.jrank.org/pages/233...lain-Wilt.html[/url]


Quote:
Several of the rules of college basketball had to be changed as a result of Chamberlain's talents, which simply dwarfed those of previous players. [B]Opposing players double-and triple-teamed him and played a slowed-down game rather than attempt to confront Chamberlain's offensive skills head-on.[/B] These techniques helped the University of North Carolina defeat Kansas 54-53 in triple overtime in the 1957 championship game.

Such tactics also frustrated the rapidly developing Chamberlain, who startled the basketball world by turning professional rather than returning to Kansas for his senior year. NBA rules forbade him from joining the league until the year in which he would have graduated from college, so Chamberlain played for the razzle-dazzle touring professional team the Harlem Globetrotters during the 1958-59 season. He joined the Philadelphia Warriors in 1959, having already collected a large bonus for signing.

Individual Triumphs in NBA
Chamberlain was an NBA star from the beginning, leading the league in scoring and rebounding, and taking home honors not only for Rookie of the Year but also for Most Valuable Player. [B]Frustrated by defensive tactics similar to those he had faced in college, and by what he considered biased officiating, he threatened to leave the league and return to the Globetrotters in 1960. But he did not follow through on his threat, and soon learned to outmaneuver his tormentors through sheer size, speed, and skill[/B].






[url]http://www.nba.com/home/history/lege...ain/index.html[/url]


Quote:
In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. [B]Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain[/B]. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever. [B]I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls[/B]."





[url]http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...940232,00.html[/url]


Quote:
He stood there, just to the right of the basket, a placid. 7-ft. 1 1/16-in, giant watching impassively as his teammates maneuvered the ball in backcourt. [B]The New York Knickerbockers tried to box him in; they clutched at his jersey, leaned against his chest, stepped on his toes. Then Wilt Chamberlain came alive[/B]. With the aplomb of a cop palming an apple, he reached out one massive hand and plucked the basketball out of the air. Spinning violently, he ripped clear of the elbowing surge, took a step toward the basket and jumped. For an instant, he seemed suspended in midair, his head on a level with the 10-ft.-high basket. Slowly, gently, the ball dribbled off his fingertips, through the net, and the San Francisco Warriors went on to a 142-134 victory. New York Coach Ed Donovan sadly shook his head. [B]"He's phenomenal." he sighed. "How does anyone stop Wilt Chamberlain[/B]?"





[url]http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...940232,00.html[/url]


Quote:
Most basketball stars have one great talent: Russell's is defense, Elgin Baylor's is shooting, Bob Cousy's is setting up plays and passing. [B]Chamberlain does almost everything, better than anyone else.[/B] He is the pros' fiercest rebounder, and his shooting repertory includes such inimitable specialties as the "Dipper Dunk" (in which he simply stretches up and lays the ball in the basket), the "Stuff Shot" (in which he jumps up and rams the ball through the net from above), and the [B]"Fadeaway Jump"—a delicate, marvelously coordinated push shot from 15 ft. away that defensive men literally cannot block without fouling[/B].





[url]http://wiltfan.tripod.com/quotes.html[/url]


Quote:
[Carl Braun said] "He [Wilt] disorganizes you under the basket the same way [as Bill Russell, on defense]. With Wilt, of course, there's that offense on top of it, which is better than Russell's. He hit on all those jumpers."

"[B]Yes, Wilt hit on those jumpers...Wilt did come into the league with a good touch from the outside, which made his early scoring that much more significant. He wasn't just dunking the ball then[/B]."

--Red Holzman. A View from the Bench. P.70




[url]http://wiltfan.tripod.com/quotes.html[/url]


Quote:
"[B]I would talk to Wilt about all the players pounding on him. Sometimes, he said he didn't notice it--he was so strong[/B]. [B]But I also believe that there were two sets of rules. By that, I mean because Wilt was so strong, the officials let the man guarding him get away with more--almost trying to equalize the game[/B]. I also believe that Wilt just took it because he didn't want to get thrown out, and because ithad always been like that with him. But I'd watch it and I'd get mad. It takes me a while to get my temper going, but when it does--look out. I'd see what the other players were doing to Wilt and what the officials were allowing, and I'd get more upset than if it were happening to me. So I jumped in there. It wasn't that Wilt couldn't defend himself. [B]If he ever got really hot, he'd kill people, so he let things pass. But I didn't have to worry about that. I was strong for my size, but I was not about to do anything like the kind of damage would[/B]."
--Al Attles, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 242




[url]http://wiltfan.tripod.com/quotes.html[/url]


Quote:
"People lose sight of the fact that Wilt was a 440 champion, a guy with great coordination.[B] He also was so strong that the double-teaming defenses used today wouldn't bother him[/B]."
--Wayne Embry (GM for the Cleveland Cavaliers), Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 327




Continued...

Continuing...

[url]http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-...mmy-4000-words[/url]


Quote:
[B]At 7’ 2” tall and weighing at least 250 pounds, Wilt may have been the strongest man in the league as a rookie. Despite his size, Wilt’s introduction to physical aggression in the NBA was far worse than what confronted Bill Russell. Wilt was grabbed, held, jostled and manhandled worse than any player in the short history of the league[/B].

It went beyond rookie hazing: it was a deliberate attempt to stop the taller, stronger player by frustration and intimidation. [B]Wilt was constantly double- and triple-teamed, hacked and whacked and smacked as opponents tried to knock the ball out of his hands. The tactics were all the more effective because of Wilt’s notoriously poor foul shooting. Even the referees contributed to the harassment, letting opposing players get away with often egregious fouls, but calling Wilt for the slightest infraction[/B].

Wilt’s coach and teammates encouraged Chamberlain to fight back, but unwisely the Big Dipper declined. A week after his first game against Bill Russell and the Celtics, Philadelphia played the St. Louis Hawks. The Hawks center, Clyde Lovellette, was one of the dirtiest players in the league, almost as tall as Wilt, and much thicker. At one point in the game, as Wilt and Clyde ran past each other, [B]Clyde hit Wilt in the jaw with a vicious elbow that drove two of Wilt’s lower front teeth up and into the roof of his mouth. Wilt shook it off and continued playing[/B].

Because Philadelphia was scheduled to travel immediately after the game, Wilt did not even have time to see a doctor. [B]His whole face swelled, an infection set in, yet the following night Wilt played the entire game wearing a large mask on his face. He played the next night, as well, despite a swollen mouth and an aching head, and being unable to eat solid food[/B].

[B]In that third game in as many nights, Wilt again was hit in the mouth, and, was finally examined by a doctor. The infection in his mouth was so severe he had blood poisoning and was rushed to the hospital for emergency dental surgery. He lost four teeth and missed three games[/B].

[B]As soon as he returned, the rough play and hard fouling continued[/B]. Midway through the season, in a game against St. Louis, Wilt got so angry at Bob Pettit’s pushing and shoving that he elbowed Pettit in the face, knocking him out of the game. Unlike Bill’s knockout of Ray Felix, it wasn’t enough. [B]It didn’t change the way Wilt was treated because, for every team but the Celtics, the only way to slow him down was to foul him[/B].

The Celtics didn’t have to double- or triple-team Wilt because of Bill Russell’s defense. Bill’s strategy was to deny the entry pass; if Wilt did get the ball down low, Bill stayed between him and the basket, tried to take away the lane; if Wilt got the shot off, Bill would block it if he could and always made certain to box Wilt out. Bill played Wilt clean, didn’t hack or whack, did nothing to antagonize the big man.

[B]That assignment was given to Tommy Heinsohn. When Wilt got the ball in the low post, Tommy was detailed to stop him - punch the ball, grab his arms, and, if nothing else worked, tackle the giant[/B]. Tommy’s courage was legendary, as he proved repeatedly over the course of his career, but putting him up against Wilt seemed a horrendous mismatch. Tommy was a full head shorter and fifty pounds lighter and [B]wasn’t the only one who considered Wilt the strongest man in the world[/B], once calling him “King Kong in sneakers”.




[url]http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-...mmy-4000-words[/url]


Quote:
Wilt was lucky he didn’t break any bones in his hand, but his knuckle joints were severely bruised and, by halftime, his hand was badly swollen. He continued playing but had trouble handling the ball. It was a sloppily played game by both teams and the Warriors pulled out the win.

Wilt took the floor for Game Three with his hand wrapped in a bandage. It was so swollen and sore he could hardly move his fingers. He played poorly. At one point, he pulled down a rebound, turned to look up court, and Tommy was there. Tommy punched at the ball, missed, and hit Wilt hard on the injured hand. Wilt danced around in serious pain. Tommy was called for the foul.

Wilt stood at the foul line and sent a murderous glare Tommy’s way. Tommy didn’t grab a photographer’s stool for protection. He didn’t even run out of the stadium the way he did when Red chased him over the exploding cigar. Tommy stood his ground, or, in this case, parquet, and fearlessly stared back. In their glaring contest, Wilt turned away first.

By the time his coach, Neil Johnston, removed him in the third quarter of Game Three, Wilt had only scored twelve points, his hand was practically useless, and the Celtics were running away with the game. The hand bothered him again in Game Four, which the Celtics took for a 3-1 series lead.

In Game Five in the sold-out Garden, [B]Wilt shrugged off the swollen hand and turned in the kind of performance that Bill Russell had feared: he scored fifty points and led his team to an easy 128-107 win. The result shocked the Celtics and gave the momentum back to Philadelphia[/B].




[url]http://samcelt.forumotion.net/t2803-...mmy-4000-words[/url]


Quote:
K.C. Jones, arguably the savviest team player in the history of the game, was also a rookie that year and had a front row seat for Bill and Wilt's encounters. [B]"Bill didn't do it all. We just used TEAM[/B]. That's a word that's thrown out all over the place, but the total personification of team is what we used. We used everybody's ability, and everybody had a role out there that was natural for them. Whoever was guarding the ball had four guys back there helping his ass out. The whole is bigger than the sum of the parts; we wrote that without knowing the phrase. We knew how good we were. And we knew how to use one another because we knew one another. The most important part of it was the understanding that we had of each teammate - what this guy likes and what that guy doesn't like and who can't play defense and who shoots the ball well. We used all that. If a guy couldn't play defense, we were there, picking him up. Let each guy do what he does best."

Years later, Wilt proved that he never quite understood what K.C. was saying. [B]"What people don't realize," he opined, "is that it was never Wilt versus Russell. I never got, or needed, any help guarding Russell. But for Russ, it was always one or two other guys helping him. He never guarded me straight up[/B]."

There is so much exaggeration in there that just quick glances at footage can prove untrue....

No doubt wilt was a beast and all...

But there is no footage on the NBa level suggesting he was always doubled and sure not tripled.

I have seen literally hours of footage on him between GSL, dvds, games, and highlights...

He is not doubled all the time. At all. And Russell guarded him straight up plenty of times. You can just youtube wilt vs russell and find Russell guarding him one on one. Im not sure why they or he would even say such a thing as this:

"But for Russ, it was always one or two other guys helping him. He never guarded me straight up.""

Its just factually inaccurate and can be proven so.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]There is so much exaggeration in there that just quick glances at footage can prove untrue....

No doubt wilt was a beast and all...

But there is no footage on the NBa level suggesting he was always doubled and sure not tripled.

I have seen literally hours of footage on him between GSL, dvds, games, and highlights...

He is not doubled all the time. At all. And Russell guarded him straight up plenty of times. You can just youtube wilt vs russell and find Russell guarding him one on one. Im not sure why they or he would even say such a thing as this:

"But for Russ, it was always one or two other guys helping him. He never guarded me straight up.""

Its just factually inaccurate and can be proven so.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]K.C. Jones, arguably the savviest team player in the history of the game, was also a rookie that year and had a front row seat for Bill and Wilt's encounters. "[B]Bill didn't do it all. We just used TEAM[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][B]Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain[/B]. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls[/QUOTE]

KC Jones and Tom Heinsohn...

Ahhhh, the good ol' imaginary time machine, that we use to compare eras.

Let's use our time machine for other sports as well.

1980s defenses in the NHL were far less complex than they are today. Let's pluck early Gretzky out of that era and put him in today's game. Does he even get 40 goals? Let's trivialize his 200 point and 90 goal seasons because the era was weaker.

In the 1920s, baseball players weren't paid that much, so many players had to work other jobs in the off season. Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb were playing against carpenters, farmers, and plumbers. On top of that the color barrier was not broken yet, so they never played against any black athletes. The stadiums were also more expansive, so let's trivialize Cobb's .367 career average and chalk it up to the bigger parks that he could spray the ball around. Pitchers also weren't as good. How many 95 mph fastballs do you think Ruth saw? He used a 48 oz bat. He could never get the bat speed with that to hit a 95 mph fastball with a bat that size. The porch in RF of Yankee Stadium was also short; like under 300 feet I believe. So let's trivialize all his numbers too.

They've changed the rules in the NFL to make passing much much easier. No more bumping the receivers over the middle, and the CBs can barely touch them at all. We have 3 guys who are pace this year to shatter Dan Marino's 5084 yard passing record. Let's pluck Marino out of 1984, and put him in today's game. What does he get? 6000 yards? 6500?

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Ahhhh, the good ol' imaginary time machine, that we use to compare eras.

Let's use our time machine for other sports as well.

1980s defenses in the NHL were far less complex than they are today. Let's pluck early Gretzky out of that era and put him in today's game. Does he even get 40 goals? Let's trivialize his 200 point and 90 goal seasons because the era was weaker.

In the 1920s, baseball players weren't paid that much, so many players had to work other jobs in the off season. Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb were playing against carpenters, farmers, and plumbers. On top of that the color barrier was not broken yet, so they never played against any black athletes. The stadiums were also more expansive, so let's trivialize Cobb's .367 career average and chalk it up to the bigger parks that he could spray the ball around. Pitchers also weren't as good. How many 95 mph fastballs do you think Ruth saw? He used a 48 oz bat. He could never get the bat speed with that to hit a 95 mph fastball with a bat that size. The porch in RF of Yankee Stadium was also short; like under 300 feet I believe. So let's trivialize all his numbers too.

They've changed the rules in the NFL to make passing much much easier. No more bumping the receivers over the middle, and the CBs can barely touch them at all. We have 3 guys who are pace this year to shatter Dan Marino's 5084 yard passing record. Let's pluck Marino out of 1984, and put him in today's game. What does he get? 6000 yards? 6500?[/QUOTE]

I know this is off-topic, but something to consider when comparing baseball players...

Ted Williams. In Williams' rookie year, in 1939, he batted .327 with 31 HRs. Jimmy Foxx batted .360 with 35 HRs. The year before, Foxx batted .349 with 50 HRs. Going back a little farther, in 1932, Foxx batted .364 with 58 HRs. That same year, an over-the-hill Babe Ruth batted .341 with 41 HRs.

So, here was a declining Ruth batting .341 with 41 HRs, in 1932, and in a few years, in 1939, Williams would bat .327 with 31 HRs against many of the same pitchers that Ruth faced a few years before.

Ok, in 1941 Williams hit .406 with 37 HRs. This was against pre-integration pitching. Now, how about 1957? That year Williams, at age 38, hit .388, with 38 HRs (in 420 ABs.) That came well AFTER integration. What changed?

In that same 1957 season, Hank Aaron would slug 44 HRs. In 1955 Willie Mays slugged 51 HRs. In 1956 Mickey Mantle won the triple crown, including 52 HRs.

In his least season, in 1960, Williams hit .316, with 29 HRs in 310 ABs. In 1965 Mays hit 52 HRs. In 1973 Aaron his 40 HRs in only 392 ABs.

You can see where I am going with this. These "bridges" faced many of the same pitchers that their great peers faced just a few years before. And the greats that came after them, would do the same.

And, Mantle probably hit the longest HRs EVER. Multiple times!

Nolan Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH, on a SLOW gun in a game in the eighth inning, and after throwing 162 pitches, in 1973. On his LAST pitch, at age 46, and on an injured arm, he was clocked at 98 MPH.

These "bridges" fill in the gaps quite well. You could make an argument that a prime Ruth would probably be among the best players in TODAY's era.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I know this is off-topic, but something to consider when comparing baseball players...

Ted Williams. In Williams' rookie year, in 1939, he batted .327 with 31 HRs. Jimmy Foxx batted .360 with 35 HRs. The year before, Foxx batted .349 with 50 HRs. Going back a little farther, in 1932, Foxx batted .364 with 58 HRs. That same year, an over-the-hill Babe Ruth batted .341 with 41 HRs.

So, here was a declining Ruth batting .341 with 41 HRs, in 1932, and in a few years, in 1939, Williams would bat .327 with 31 HRs against many of the same pitchers that Ruth faced a few years before.

Ok, in 1941 Williams hit .406 with 37 HRs. This was against pre-integration pitching. Now, how about 1957? That year Williams, at age 38, hit .388, with 38 HRs (in 420 ABs.) That came well AFTER integration. What changed?

In that same 1957 season, Hank Aaron would slug 44 HRs. In 1955 Willie Mays slugged 51 HRs. In 1956 Mickey Mantle won the triple crown, including 52 HRs.

In his least season, in 1960, Williams hit .316, with 29 HRs in 310 ABs. In 1965 Mays hit 52 HRs. In 1973 Aaron his 40 HRs in only 392 ABs.

You can see where I am going with this. These "bridges" faced many of the same pitchers that their great peers faced just a few years before. And the greats that came after them, would do the same.

And, Mantle probably hit the longest HRs EVER. Multiple times!

Nolan Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH, on a SLOW gun in a game in the eighth inning, and after throwing 162 pitches, in 1973. On his LAST pitch, at age 46, and on an injured arm, he was clocked at 98 MPH.

These "bridges" fill in the gaps quite well. You could make an argument that a prime Ruth would probably be among the best players in TODAY's era.[/QUOTE]


But, but, but...athletes from previous eras are always worse than today's athletes. It says so in the ISH Bible.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]There is so much exaggeration in there that just quick glances at footage can prove untrue....

No doubt wilt was a beast and all...

But there is no footage on the NBa level suggesting he was always doubled and sure not tripled.

I have seen literally hours of footage on him between GSL, dvds, games, and highlights...

He is not doubled all the time. At all. And Russell guarded him straight up plenty of times. You can just youtube wilt vs russell and find Russell guarding him one on one. Im not sure why they or he would even say such a thing as this:

"But for Russ, it was always one or two other guys helping him. He never guarded me straight up.""

Its just factually inaccurate and can be proven so.[/QUOTE]

I actually find it rather interesting. It's an advantage that comes with actually being around at the time and hearing what people say, rather than coming after the fact and trying to come up with stuff to fit an agenda.

Because I specifically remember Wilt saying the following in 1985:

[QUOTE]"The only team that played me with one man was the Celtics with Russell. They did it because Russell was the game's supreme defensive ace."[/QUOTE]

This is straight from Wilt's own mouth, a direct quote verbatim, word-for-word. So with you having said this, I just find it interesting having been an observer throughout the years, watching people change their stories, and inexplicably facts just... change, despite no games being played since then, nothing new happening.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]But, but, but...athletes from previous eras are always worse than today's athletes. It says so in the ISH Bible.[/QUOTE]

I blindly believed that a few years ago myself. I remember reading an article in 1984 comparing the '84 Nebraska Cornhuskers with their '71 peers. The average '84 player was much bigger and considerably faster. And Ara Parseghian claimed that the '88 Irish would have beaten his '66 team by 40 points.

Of course, football is a much different game than baseball and basketball. It is far more physical. And, yes, today's players are much bigger, and on average, faster. My god, we have QBs that are 260+ lbs, and other QBs that can run a 4.3 40.

BUT, having REALLY studied that...there were MANY players in previous eras who were FASTER than the FASTEST player in TODAY's NFL. Players like Deion, Hershel, Bo, and OJ would be faster than any player today. And how about Darrell Green? The man was winning "the NFL Fastest Man" competitions when he was approaching 40 years old. Hell, last year he turned 50, and then went out an ran a 4.43! And, of course, there was "Bullet" Bob Hayes, who ran a 10.06 100 meters (on a torn up track and with borrowed shoes) back in 1964. There has never been a LEGITIMATE NFL player since, who had run a faster time. BTW, Hayes averaged 42 yards per play on his 76 career TDs!

Players like Havlicek, Barry, Dr. J, Moses, and Gilmore, ...all "bridges"...give us a much better indication of just how good the players of THEIR eras really were. Of course, THE greatest "bridge" in NBA history, was Kareem. He came into the league in 1969, and retired after the '89 season. His career nearly spanned FOUR decades. He faced players like Wilt and Thurmond, then Moses, and later, Ewing and Hakeem. And amazingly, he actually fared much better against his peers, in his late 30's, than he did in his prime. And, he faced many of the same centers that a PRIME Wilt faced...and he never came close to the domination that Wilt overwhelmed them with.

[QUOTE]KC Jones and Tom Heinsohn...[/QUOTE]

And...then I have reality. which can be proven....showing Russell one on one with wilt many many many many many many many times. So...what now?

You gonna pretend to not have seen what im talking about? There are many famous individual clips of them one on one. The team flat out does NOT collapse on him on the catch and double him. this isnt my opinion.

Its...in virtually every piece of footage availiable.

[QUOTE=jlauber][QUOTE=Sarcastic]But, but, but...athletes from previous eras are always worse than today's athletes. It says so in the ISH Bible.[/QUOTE]

I blindly believed that a few years ago myself. [/QUOTE]

People need to stop "blindly" believing anything. Take the blinders from their eyes. It's exasperating how many people just "blindly" believe something. It seems precious few people are capable of forming a belief through critical thinking and careful consideration. A "majority" of beliefs are ignorant.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I actually find it rather interesting. It's an advantage that comes with actually being around at the time and hearing what people say, rather than coming after the fact and trying to come up with stuff to fit an agenda.

Because I specifically remember Wilt saying the following in 1985:



This is straight from Wilt's own mouth, a direct quote verbatim, word-for-word. So with you having said this, I just find it interesting having been an observer throughout the years, watching people change their stories, and inexplicably facts just... change, despite no games being played since then, nothing new happening.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173M7ApCNKw&feature=related[/url]

Listen at the 5 minute mark...

Really..

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5jV7WImytM[/url]

Celtics vs warriors. Wilt not being doubled.

go to 3 minutes when Wilt starts getting theb all.

You seeing some swarm of guys on him?

5:50. Wilt gets it...nobody comes. he dribbles with Russell then fades away.

Next time down....6.30. Wilt gets it. One on one. passes it. but no help comes.

At 7 Wilt rebounds it and goes right back up....nobody runs to help Russell. Russell actually kinda blocked it but it goes in.

7.20...Wilts gets it. Total one on one. travels.

Just looking at what is there..

We can prove some of those statements untrue.

This:

[QUOTE]"But for Russ, it was always one or two other guys helping him. He never guarded me straight up.""[/QUOTE]

Is just factually....wrong. It is not the truth.

[QUOTE=jlauber][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173M7ApCNKw&feature=related[/url]

Listen at the 5 minute mark...[/QUOTE]

Didn't click the link (unlike the majority of people here, I don't need to go on youtube), but I notice you conspicuously didn't address the words that Wilt himself uttered.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Didn't click the link (unlike the majority of people here, I don't need to go on youtube), but I notice you conspicuously didn't address the words that Wilt himself uttered.[/QUOTE]

"Instead of having two or three people and Russell all on me at the same time..."

And Russell was sitting right next to Wilt when he uttered those words.

[QUOTE=jlauber][QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]
Didn't click the link (unlike the majority of people here, I don't need to go on youtube), but I notice you conspicuously didn't address the words that Wilt himself uttered.[/QUOTE]

"Instead of having two or three people and Russell all on me at the same time..."

And Russell was sitting right next to Wilt when he uttered those words.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I'm done with you on this topic. I more than anyone else on this board know that some things are pointless to discuss with you, and unlike some people, I will not waste my time. Continue to believe what you want to believe, like most of the people around here.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Really..

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5jV7WImytM[/url]

Celtics vs warriors. Wilt not being doubled.

go to 3 minutes when Wilt starts getting theb all.

You seeing some swarm of guys on him?

5:50. Wilt gets it...nobody comes. he dribbles with Russell then fades away.

Next time down....6.30. Wilt gets it. One on one. passes it. but no help comes.

At 7 Wilt rebounds it and goes right back up....nobody runs to help Russell. Russell actually kinda blocked it but it goes in.

7.20...Wilts gets it. Total one on one. travels.

Just looking at what is there..

We can prove some of those statements untrue.

This:



Is just factually....wrong. It is not the truth.[/QUOTE]


Same game...

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uOGY0fftVA&feature=related[/url]

Doubled, WITHOUT the ball, at around 1:10

Doubled at 1:50

TRIPLED in the lane at around 2:15.

Doubled at 4:10.

Doubled at 5:30.

Doubled at 7:00,

Doubled at 8:20 withOUT the ball.

Doubled at 8:30.

Tripled at 9:30.

ALL of that in just ONE-FOURTH of ONE-HALF of ONE of the 142 H2H games that Russell and Wilt played in!

I jsut went t othe first one you said was a triple team to confirm my accumption that you wouldcall anything with anyone near him double/triple coverage...and yes.

2 of the 3 people you claim are on Wilt were there before he got there. And one of them was actually touching the man he was defending.

He just turns and tries to poke at the ball when wilt had it low.

And its a triple team?

As I said...the mere fact that many times in this one game russell guards wilt straight up makes this:

"But for Russ, it was always one or two other guys helping him. He never guarded me straight up.""


Flat out not true.

And its the same in every game and every set of highlights.

Wilt played one on one...a LOT. Everyone does.

People blow the double and triple team stuff up too much. Its rare anyone gets the kinda coverage fans of people claim they do when they try to make them look good.

Wilt is no exception. Ive seen a LOT of wilt footage.

He played one on one plenty. And it is not my opinion. its recorded video fact.

Im surem any games he was doubled arent recorded and shown. But the mere fact that so much that is...shows him single covered? That alone destroys the idea he was always doubled/tripled.

Its just a myth. If not an outright lie. And nobody needs to do anything more to prove it than google his name and check the videos. The man was scoring one on one...a LOT.

Wilt's numbers look at lot more in line with the rest of the era once they widened the lane from 12 to 16 feet in 64.

[QUOTE=eliteballer]Wilt's numbers look at lot more in line with the rest of the era once they widened the lane from 12 to 16 feet in 64.[/QUOTE]

Wilt averaged 36.9 ppg on .524 shooting in the 63-64 season. The NBA widened the lane before the start of the 64-65 season. In the first half of the 64-65 season, an AILING Wilt averaged 38.9 ppg on .499 shooting. He was traded at mid-season, to a somewhat better team, and cut back his shooting in the second half of the season. His average for the season? 34.7 ppg on .510 shooting. BTW, in the very next season (65-66), Wilt averaged 33.5 ppg on a then record .540 FG% (in a league that shot .433.)

Wilt also recorded a TON of 50 and 60 point games AFTER the widening of the lane. Even as late as the 68-69 season, in a league which averaged 112.3 ppg, Wilt, in a year in which he only averaged 14 FGAs per game, hung TWO 60+ games ...one of them a 66 point game on 29-35 shooting, which is the most efficient 60+ point game in NBA history. In fact, Wilt DRAMATICALLY cut back his shooting from the 66-67 season on, BUT, in the 66-67, 67-68, and 68-69 seasons, Wilt put up games of 52, 52, 53, 58, 60, 66, and 68 points...all in years in which he averaged about 14 FGAs per game.

The first season or two after a rule change are always a little odd because players and teams are still adjusting to the change. He wasn't averaging 50 and 44 ppg seasons after the rule change.

Where is there verification the first season of the expanded lane was 65? I've always read it was done in 64, whether that refers to the portion of 1964 after the 63-64 season concluded or to the season itself I dont know.

BTW, it was illegal to double a man WITHOUT the ball in the Wilt era, and yet, we have LIMITED footage, in which he was CLEARLY doubled withOUT the ball.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Wilt averaged 36.9 ppg on .524 shooting in the 63-64 season. The NBA widened the lane before the start of the 64-65 season. In the first half of the 64-65 season, an AILING Wilt averaged 38.9 ppg on .499 shooting. He was traded at mid-season, to a somewhat better team, and cut back his shooting in the second half of the season. His average for the season? 34.7 ppg on .510 shooting. BTW, in the very next season (65-66), Wilt averaged 33.5 ppg on a then record .540 FG% (in a league that shot .433.)

Wilt also recorded a TON of 50 and 60 point games AFTER the widening of the lane. Even as late as the 68-69 season, in a league which averaged 112.3 ppg, Wilt, in a year in which he only averaged 14 FGAs per game, hung TWO 60+ games ...one of them a 66 point game on 29-35 shooting, which is the most efficient 60+ point game in NBA history. In fact, Wilt DRAMATICALLY cut back his shooting from the 66-67 season on, BUT, in the 66-67, 67-68, and 68-69 seasons, Wilt put up games of 52, 52, 53, 58, 60, 66, and 68 points...all in
years in which he averaged about 14 FGAs per game.[/QUOTE]

All those numbers and only one ring on your prime, you gotta do better than that. Everyone knows Wilt got the greatest stat ever but not everyone knows the choke jobs he did on game 7s. Maybe if he was focus more on winning than self absorbed about his number, then maybe no one will question him being the GOAT. But the end justify the means, when Wilt was less concern about his numbers and became a team player he won another ring. That to me is more significant that his unfreakingbeliavable numbers in not so great era of big man.

NVM I found it [url]http://www.nba.com/history/seasonreviews/1964-65/index.html[/url]

[QUOTE=eliteballer]The first season or two after a rule change are always a little odd because players and teams are still adjusting to the change. He wasn't averaging 50 and 44 ppg seasons after the rule change.

Where is there verification the first season of the expanded lane was 65? I've always read it was done in 64, whether that refers to the portion of 1964 after the 63-64 season concluded or to the season itself I dont know.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FIH/is_9_75/ai_n17212592/[/url]

[QUOTE]The NBA went to the current 16-foot wide lane in 1964-65.[/QUOTE]

The widening of the lane had NO affect on Wilt.

[QUOTE=Rooster]All those numbers and only one ring on your prime, you gotta do better than that. Everyone knows Wilt got the greatest stat ever but not everyone knows the choke jobs he did on game 7s. Maybe if he was focus more on winning than self absorbed about his number, then maybe no one will question him being the GOAT. But the end justify the means, when Wilt was less concern about his numbers and became a team player he won another ring. That to me is more significant that his unfreakingbeliavable numbers in not so great era of big man.[/QUOTE]

Wilt's numbers in his NINE game seven's...

24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and on .626 shooting (which is the highest game seven FG% by a "great" in NBA HISTORY.)

And I won't take the time to look up all of his opposing centers, but you can be sure they were WAY below their normal numbers.

[QUOTE=eliteballer]NVM I found it [url]http://www.nba.com/history/seasonreviews/1964-65/index.html[/url][/QUOTE]

BTW, in Wilt's 11 post-season games in that 64-65 season, he averaged 29.3 ppg on .530 shooting, in a league that shot .426. And, in his seven games against Russell, he averaged 30 ppg and 31 rpg. I have never seen his FG% in that series against Russell, but in the game seven, one point loss, Chamberlain put up a 30 point game, on 12-15 shooting from the floor, with 32 rebounds. Of course, the "anti-Wilt clan" will point to Wilt's 6-13 from the line and blame WILT for that loss. Oh, and BTW, in the last 36 secs, Wilt went 2-2 from the line, as well as a thunderous dunk over Russell with five seconds left.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Wilt's numbers in his NINE game seven's...

24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and on .626 shooting (which is the highest game seven FG% by a "great" in NBA HISTORY.)

And I won't take the time to look up all of his opposing centers, but you can be sure they were WAY below their normal numbers.[/QUOTE]

What about taking only one shot in the 2nd half. What about taking himself out of the game. What about not taking advantage of Reed not playing. Well Wilt all that too. Wilt won
all the matchup. Numbers favor him but the luck favor more of the courageous ones, great players with heart which can
never be measured but you can count them on their fingers.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Okay, I'm done with you on this topic. I more than anyone else on this board know that some things are pointless to discuss with you, and unlike some people, I will not waste my time. Continue to believe what you want to believe, like most of the people around here.[/QUOTE]

Look, I consider you one of the most knowledgeable posters on this site (if not THE most.) But, you get almost as defensive with Russell, as I do with Wilt.

I have actually come to appreciate Russell's greatness in the last two years on this forum...because of posters like you and G.O.A.T. And I have acknowledged that Russell got more out of his teammates than Wilt did out of his. In fact, Russell's teammates almost always outplayed Chamberlain's, even when Wilt had comparable rosters. And I have conceded that Russell was a major reason why, and also that Wilt probably deserved some of the blame.

BTW, and as you well know, even Wilt admitted that Russell blended better with his teammates, than he (Wilt) would have.

My problem is with these myths...that Russell "owned" Wilt. Or that Wilt "choked" against Russell. Or that he "always" beat Wilt (and of course, it was Russell's TEAMs that were beating Wilt's TEAMs.)

And we both know that Russell played Wilt better than just about everybody (with the possible exception of Thurmond.) But we also know that he certainly didn't dominate Chamberlain. If anything, one-on-one, it was not even close. Having said that, it is/was a TEAM game. And Russell made his TEAMs the best in NBA history.

And that is the other problem I have here. There are the "Wilt-haters" who claim that he flopped in the post-season...and yet, they seldom mention that it was Russell and his vaunted Dynasty teams that were edging Wilt and his team's, year-after-year. Where is the praise for Russell. The majority of those posters rank Russell near the bottom of their Top-10's (if at all.)

So, if you want an apology, I will be more than glad to give you one. You are one of the few posters here that I truly respect. And I also appreciate the information that you bring to us, as well.

[QUOTE=Rooster]What about taking only one shot in the 2nd half. What about taking himself out of the game. What about not taking advantage of Reed not playing. Well Wilt all that too. Wilt won
all the matchup. Numbers favor him but the luck favor more of the courageous ones, great players with heart which can
never be measured but you can count them on their fingers.[/QUOTE]


First of all...did you actually RESEARCH those games you brought up?

In game seven of the '68 ECF's, Wilt, who normally TOUCHED the ball on the offensive end, around 15 times per quarter in that season, had NINE TOUCHES in the ENTIRE second half, and only TWO in the last quarter (and both of those came on offensive rebounds.) And, while he was NOT getting the ball, his teammates collective shot 33% in that game...a 100-96 loss. Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain played the last FIVE games of that series with an ASSORTMENT of injuries, including a tear in his calf...and was NOTICEABLY limping throughout those games. Even Russell acknowledged that a "lessor man would not have played." AND, as we KNOW, neither Reed, nor Kareem, would have played under those same circumstances.

Taking himself out of a game? The man INJURED his leg. The SAME leg that would require major surgery early on in the very next season. Furthermore, he ASKED to go back in within a couple of minutes...and his COACH REFUSED.

Not taking advantage of Reed? He battled the MVP Reed to a draw in the first four games...and before Reed came up with his injury in game five. And, in that game seven, despite what you may have read (and you can watch that game on YouTube BTW), Chamberlain was SWARMED by the Knicks. Not to mention that even West went to hell in that game. In fact, Wilt was the ONLY Laker who played decent. And a 21 point game, on 10-16 shooting, with 24 rebounds, and with Reed putting up a 4 point game, on 2-5 shooting, with 3 rebounds? Of course, you fail to mention one key FACT. Wilt was playing only FOUR MONTHS removed from MAJOR KNEE SURGERY. The SAME surgery that took Baylor over a YEAR to semi-completely recover from.

Speaking of courageous..., Wilt came back WAY AHEAD of even the most optomistic medical opinion in that season, so that he could HELP his TEAMMATES in the playoffs.

Yep...that was Wilt the "choker", the "loser", and the "failure."

[QUOTE=jlauber]BTW, in Wilt's 11 post-season games in that 64-65 season, he averaged 29.3 ppg on .530 shooting, in a league that shot .426. And, in his seven games against Russell, he averaged 30 ppg and 31 rpg. I have never seen his FG% in that series against Russell, but in the game seven, one point loss, Chamberlain put up a 30 point game, on 12-15 shooting from the floor, with 32 rebounds. Of course, the "anti-Wilt clan" will point to Wilt's 6-13 from the line and blame WILT for that loss. [B]Oh, and BTW, in the last 36 secs, Wilt went 2-2 from the line, as well as a thunderous dunk over Russell with five seconds left.[/B][/QUOTE]
Understatement. If only Havlicek didn't stole the ball.

[QUOTE=jlauber]First of all...did you actually RESEARCH those games you brought up?

In game seven of the '68 ECF's, Wilt, who normally TOUCHED the ball on the offensive end, around 15 times per quarter in that season, had NINE TOUCHES in the ENTIRE second half, and only TWO in the last quarter (and both of those came on offensive rebounds.) And, while he was NOT getting the ball, his teammates collective shot 33% in that game...a 100-96 loss. Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain played the last FIVE games of that series with an ASSORTMENT of injuries, including a tear in his calf...and was NOTICEABLY limping throughout those games. Even Russell acknowledged that a "lessor man would not have played." AND, as we KNOW, neither Reed, nor Kareem, would have played under those same circumstances.

Taking himself out of a game? The man INJURED his leg. The SAME leg that
would require major surgery early on in the very next season. Furthermore, he ASKED to go back in within a couple of minutes...and his COACH REFUSED.

Not taking advantage of Reed? He battled the MVP Reed to a draw in the first four games...and before Reed came up with his injury in game five. And, in that game seven, despite what you may have read (and you can watch that
game on YouTube BTW), Chamberlain was SWARMED by the Knicks. Not to mention that even West went to hell in that game. In fact, Wilt was the ONLY Laker who played decent. And a 21 point game, on 10-16 shooting, with 24
rebounds, and with Reed putting up a 4 point game, on 2-5 shooting, with 3 rebounds? Of course, you fail to mention one key FACT. Wilt was playing only FOUR MONTHS removed from MAJOR KNEE SURGERY. The SAME surgery that
took Baylor over a YEAR to semi-completely recover from.

Speaking of courageous..., Wilt came back WAY AHEAD of even the most optomistic medical opinion in that season, so that he could HELP his TEAMMATES in the playoffs.

Yep...that was Wilt the "choker", the "loser", and the "failure."[/QUOTE]

You forgot to mention Wilt took down 34 rebounds with his assortment of injuries and after his team leading the series 3-1 You forgot also that his coach refused because they were playing better and they don't miss an open
man. You forgot to say Wilt was guarded by smaller forwards like Dave DeBusschere and Stallworth and missing 10-11 free throws. All in all his team was leading 3-1, 3-2 and 2-2 with other team MVP not playing. I dunno if you call that choking or lack of killer instinct. You know, just a couple of Wilt shortcomings compare to thousands of his amazing numbers.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Look, I consider you one of the most knowledgeable posters on this site (if not THE most.) But, you get almost as defensive with Russell, as I do with Wilt.[/QUOTE]

[I]Tu quoque[/I]?

Categorically false.

#1) I do not post in every single thread in which Russell's name is mentioned. In fact, I don't post as much as most of the regular posters here, and I hadn't posted much of anything until recently, which is usually several posts during whenever it is I happen to come here, then it'll be a while before I appear again. I've been a member of this site twice as long as you have, yet you have seven times the number of posts.

#2) Russell is not the only player I talk about. I have discussed others at length, and have presented information on other players. My knowledge is not limited to one player. I am capable of discussing many other players, able to intelligently discuss players from the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, and those in the 21st century, though I find it less interesting to discuss the same people everyone else talks about all the time. I have a database which I've spent over three decades (longer than the majority of the posters on this site have even been alive, let alone following basketball) compiling everything I know into a definitive reference, putting anything I might want at any particular time right at my fingertips, which is why I'm able to continually produce information no one else is aware of, and know things no one else knows (such as the quote I referenced).

#3) I do not go round and round and round and round and round (etc.) with people about the same thing, posting the exact same response repeatedly. I do not spend a prolonged amount of time on the ignorant or uninformed. It is not true of me that people will say things solely to bait me, knowing that as sure as the sun rises and falls, that I will come on, see it, take the bait and respond in an utterly predictable manner.

#4) I have never once displaced some battle I've had with people over the decades onto innocent people who have nothing to do with it. Seeking to continue my battle with people who couldn't care less.

#5) I have never in my life stated one thing that I didn't have proof of. I have never uttered anything I wasn't sure of, just because I would [I]like[/I] it to be true. I never go off of what anyone else says, because other people are not as reliable as myself, nor are they as stringent about ensuring any claims are factually accurate. I go solely off information I myself have gathered and know to be true.

#6) I don't insult the intelligence of someone who clearly demonstrates that he knows what he is talking about, or treat them like some other ignorant poster who doesn't know what he's talking about, has never seen the players he's talking about or bothered to do the research.

#7) I do not feel the need to tear down another player in order to make my favorite player look good. I have no interest in tearing down other players. The only thing I tear down is falsehoods and inaccuracies, and I do so very thoroughly. Though after having done this since the advent of the internet and seeing the general audience get no more knowledgeable as a whole, I've begun to question just how much good I've actually done and whether it's worth continuing. I know what I know, and there's not much point in engaging in debate with anonymous strangers.

I think that's enough for now, but, with all due respect, as far as how we are concerning the players in question, we are nothing alike.

[QUOTE=jlauber](rest snipped.)

So, if you want an apology, I will be more than glad to give you one. You are one of the few posters here that I truly respect. And I also appreciate the information that you bring to us, as well.[/QUOTE]

To be frank, since I'm not one for BS'ing, I find it rather tiring, honestly.

Here's what the pattern's always been since my first encounter with you:

You'll praise me for being knowledgeable, you'll especially give me kudos if I've posted something favorable about Wilt you didn't know, which you'll save and cite later; then later at some point you'll get heated and rip me/jump on me with the same copy-and-pasted response you give "Wilt haters"/insult my intelligence by pasting something as if you're somehow telling me something I don't already know, or as if I'm some guy who never saw any of the players in question and thus needs you to present me with "the facts," because then in your eyes I've become one of "[B]THEM[/B]" who you've been waging war against for so long; then you'll apologize, after which point we're back at square one.

I've never been big on praise, because if there's anything I've learned during my time on this planet, it's that the people who praise you one minute, will rip you the next. It doesn't matter whether it's someone close to you, or some guy on the internet. I've never been big on words period, because while I've come to the conclusion that it might be possible one might genuinely be sincere at the moment, once the moment passes, what they said at another time no longer applies once they're in a different moment. So, no, you don't need to apologize (again).

Wilt's your idol, you've been fighting a battle for Wilt against the world for decades. It's a touchy subject with you. I simply will not reply in a topic in which you're discussing Wilt. I can't control you, but I can control me. Those who know better have a greater responsibility.

And with that, I take my leave from this subject.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r][I]Tu quoque[/I]?

Categorically false.

#1) I do not post in every single thread in which Russell's name is mentioned. In fact, I don't post as much as most of the regular posters here, and I hadn't posted much of anything until recently, which is usually several posts during whenever it is I happen to come here, then it'll be a while before I appear again. I've been a member of this site twice as long as you have, yet you have seven times the number of posts.

#2) Russell is not the only player I talk about. I have discussed others at length, and have presented information on other players. My knowledge is not limited to one player. I am capable of discussing many other players, able to intelligently discuss players from the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, and those in the 21st century, though I find it less interesting to discuss the same people everyone else talks about all the time. I have a database which I've spent over three decades (longer than the majority of the posters on this site have even been alive, let alone following basketball) compiling everything I know into a definitive reference, putting anything I might want at any particular time right at my fingertips, which is why I'm able to continually produce information no one else is aware of, and know things no one else knows (such as the quote I referenced).

#3) I do not go round and round and round and round and round (etc.) with people about the same thing, posting the exact same response repeatedly. I do not spend a prolonged amount of time on the ignorant or uninformed. It is not true of me that people will say things solely to bait me, knowing that as sure as the sun rises and falls, that I will come on, see it, take the bait and respond in an utterly predictable manner.

#4) I have never once displaced some battle I've had with people over the decades onto innocent people who have nothing to do with it. Seeking to continue my battle with people who couldn't care less.

#5) I have never in my life stated one thing that I didn't have proof of. I have never uttered anything I wasn't sure of, just because I would [I]like[/I] it to be true. I never go off of what anyone else says, because other people are not as reliable as myself, nor are they as stringent about ensuring any claims are factually accurate. I go solely off information I myself have gathered and know to be true.

#6) I don't insult the intelligence of someone who clearly demonstrates that he knows what he is talking about, or treat them like some other ignorant poster who doesn't know what he's talking about, has never seen the players he's talking about or bothered to do the research.

#7) I do not feel the need to tear down another player in order to make my favorite player look good. I have no interest in tearing down other players. The only thing I tear down is falsehoods and inaccuracies, and I do so very thoroughly. Though after having done this since the advent of the internet and seeing the general audience get no more knowledgeable as a whole, I've begun to question just how much good I've actually done and whether it's worth continuing. I know what I know, and there's not much point in engaging in debate with anonymous strangers.

I think that's enough for now, but, with all due respect, as far as how we are concerning the players in question, we are nothing alike.



To be frank, since I'm not one for BS'ing, I find it rather tiring, honestly.

Here's what the pattern's always been since my first encounter with you:

You'll praise me for being knowledgeable, you'll especially give me kudos if I've posted something favorable about Wilt you didn't know, which you'll save and cite later; then later at some point you'll get heated and rip me/jump on me with the same copy-and-pasted response you give "Wilt haters"/insult my intelligence by pasting something as if you're somehow telling me something I don't already know, or as if I'm some guy who never saw any of the players in question and thus needs you to present me with "the facts," because then in your eyes I've become one of "[B]THEM[/B]" who you've been waging war against for so long; then you'll apologize, after which point we're back at square one.

I've never been big on praise, because if there's anything I've learned during my time on this planet, it's that the people who praise you one minute, will rip you the next. It doesn't matter whether it's someone close to you, or some guy on the internet. I've never been big on words period, because while I've come to the conclusion that it might be possible one might genuinely be sincere at the moment, once the moment passes, what they said at another time no longer applies once they're in a different moment. So, no, you don't need to apologize (again).

Wilt's your idol, you've been fighting a battle for Wilt against the world for decades. It's a touchy subject with you. I simply will not reply in a topic in which you're discussing Wilt. I can't control you, but I can control me. Those who know better have a greater responsibility.

And with that, I take my leave from this subject.[/QUOTE]
If you could, please send me a zipped folder of your compiled references/data. Would greatly appreciate that. Send it through my email.