Wilt Chamberlain vs Nate Thurmond 1973 WCF

[QUOTE=dankok8]Russell OUTPLAYED Chamberlain in those games... the newspaper recaps say so. Impact goes beyond stats. And don't talk about dominance. Wilt averaged 23.5 ppg on 48.7% shooting in the first four games in the '66 EDF. That's 10 points and 5% below his season averages.

Sure his teammates dropped the ball but WILT ALSO DROPPED THE BALL. If he didn't have a 46-point Game 5 (where he missed 17 free throws in a close game by the way) to boost his stats that series would be a catastrophic failure for Chamberlain.

AND...

Outplaying someone in the first half when the game is decided means a lot. If Wilt's Warriors are down 25 points and then he scores 20 meaningless points when Russell doesn't defend him who cares? Russell could stop Wilt when he NEEDED TO... when the moment was big Russell usually got the better of Wilt. Looking at boxscores you wouldn't know that.[/QUOTE]


NYCelt84 had a link from a Wilt-Russell H2H in the early 60's, (I wish I would have saved it, but maybe Fpliii or Julizaver can find it), in which Chamberlain's Warriors were down by over 20 points in the second half, and they came back to win the game. Wilt had something like 47 point in that game.

And I have never read or heard anything by Russell, himself, in which he said he "let" Wilt score either in the first half, or the second halves of games. He was a proud man who was constantly being shelled by a Wilt who, very seldom used his massive edge in strength against him.

And of course, common sense would tell you this...Russell's Celtics won about 60% of their career H2H's (59% in the post-season), and many were very close games. As smart as Russell was, I don't think even he would "allow" Chamberlain to score 30 points on .800 shooting in a game seven, one point win (and then hitting a guidewire on an inbounds play that then gave Philly the chance to win the game.) His TEAM won FOUR game seven's by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. Sorry, but that was a flatout falsehood.

As for the 65-66 series, Chamberlain outscored Russell by margins of 25-13, 23-10, 31-11, and 46-18 (Russell did outscore Wilt in one game by an 18-15 margin), and outrebounded him by margins of 32-18, 27-23, 33-30, and 34-31 (and Russell outrebounded Wilt in one game by a 29-25 margin.) And I doubt you have Wilt's FG% in his first two games (but it was .487), nor Russell's, but Russell shot .475 in the post-season, and that included a 7 game Finals of .538...so he likely shot horribly against Wilt, just as he always did. We don know that Wilt shot 12-22, 7-14, and 19-34 in his last three H2H's (.543) and .509 overall, while in the two we have of Russell, he shot 7-15 and 4-11 (.423)...so I suspect that Wilt, as always, probably outshot Russell by a huge margin.

But again, you ignore what Wilt's TEAMMATES collectively shot in that series... .352 (yes .352!)

Russell may have outplayed Wilt in ONE game in that series...and that was it.

And over the course of their 14 H2H's that season, Chamberlain just ANNIHILATED Russell. Just as he did against Bellamy and Nate. (And just as he did against Reed when Willis was playing center in 64-65.)

[quote]Russell OUTPLAYED Chamberlain in those games... the newspaper recaps say so.[/quote]

The recaps say that Wilt outplayed Russell in the final 3 games. He definitely picked it up after the first two games. As you said, [I]"Impact goes beyond stats."[/I] Then the very next sentence you cite his stats. :no: The Game 4 recap states that he nearly beat Boston [I]"by himself"[/I]. It is obvious the Celtics were sagging back defensively, keeping him from the ball. Even watching highlights of the series, they would full court press the point guard with KC Jones to make them use up clock in bringing the ball up. They would also shade Wilt before the ball even got in, daring the outside shooters to beat them. Anything to keep the ball out of Wilt's hands as often as possible.




[SIZE=4] [B]Game 1[/B][/SIZE]

[I]Wilt Chamberlain did his work under the boards, taking 32 rebounds for the 76ers. But his mates couldn't get the ball into him often and he made only nine field goals in scoring 25 points.[/I]



[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/YoZNrZB.png[/IMG]





[SIZE=4][B]Game 2[/B][/SIZE]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/uuDN9Ho.png[/IMG]





[SIZE=4][B]Game 3[/B][/SIZE]

[I]Their defense was the barbed wire. Every time they needed a key basket, Wilt Chamberlain poured through the lane and got it for them. That was how the Philadelphia 76ers got back into contention in the Eastern Division playoffs with a 111-105 victory over the Boston Celtics Thursday night at Convention Hall.[/I]


[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cjoindE.png[/IMG]






[SIZE=4][B]Game 4[/B][/SIZE]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ZwbtKI9.png[/IMG]





[SIZE=4][B] Game 5[/B][/SIZE]

In the 1st half of G5, Coach Schayes noted that Chamberlain was the only player to shoot [B]25%[/B] or better from the field on his way to a 46 point night.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/UTOrVIF.png[/IMG]



[I]Christian Science Monitor - Apr 14, 1966

Wilt took 34 shots, hitting on 19. But he was only eight for 25 with his free throws. Chamberlain scored 46 points, no small since Russell played him tight and with a maximum amount of contact. But Wilt could have gone to 63 with Bill Sharman's touch at the foul line. Boston's cornermen excelled, not only, but also on offense. John Havlicek played the full 48 minutes and scored 32 points. Tom Sanders probably had his best game of the series with 11 points and 16 rebounds. And Don Nelson, with 12 points in 18 minutes, caught the 76ers completely off guard.[/I]

[QUOTE=PHILA]The recaps say that Wilt outplayed Russell in the final 3 games. He definitely picked it up after the first two games. As you said, [I]"Impact goes beyond stats."[/I] Then the very next sentence you cite his stats. :no: The Game 4 recap states that he nearly beat Boston [I]"by himself"[/I]. It is obvious the Celtics were sagging back defensively, keeping him from the ball. Even watching highlights of the series, they would full court press the point guard with KC Jones to make them use up clock in bringing the ball up. They would also shade Wilt before the ball even got in, daring the outside shooters to beat them. Anything to keep the ball out of Wilt's hands as often as possible.




[SIZE=4] [B]Game 1[/B][/SIZE]

[I]Wilt Chamberlain did his work under the boards, taking 32 rebounds for the 76ers. But his mates couldn't get the ball into him often and he made only nine field goals in scoring 25 points.[/I]



[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/YoZNrZB.png[/IMG]





[SIZE=4][B]Game 2[/B][/SIZE]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/uuDN9Ho.png[/IMG]





[SIZE=4][B]Game 3[/B][/SIZE]

[I]Their defense was the barbed wire. Every time they needed a key basket, Wilt Chamberlain poured through the lane and got it for them. That was how the Philadelphia 76ers got back into contention in the Eastern Division playoffs with a 111-105 victory over the Boston Celtics Thursday night at Convention Hall.[/I]


[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cjoindE.png[/IMG]






[SIZE=4][B]Game 4[/B][/SIZE]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ZwbtKI9.png[/IMG]





[SIZE=4][B] Game 5[/B][/SIZE]

In the 1st half of G5, Coach Schayes noted that Chamberlain was the only player to shoot [B]25%[/B] or better from the field on his way to a 46 point night.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/UTOrVIF.png[/IMG]



[I]Christian Science Monitor - Apr 14, 1966

Wilt took 34 shots, hitting on 19. But he was only eight for 25 with his free throws. Chamberlain scored 46 points, no small since Russell played him tight and with a maximum amount of contact. But Wilt could have gone to 63 with Bill Sharman's touch at the foul line. Boston's cornermen excelled, not only, but also on offense. John Havlicek played the full 48 minutes and scored 32 points. Tom Sanders probably had his best game of the series with 11 points and 16 rebounds. And Don Nelson, with 12 points in 18 minutes, caught the 76ers completely off guard.[/I][/QUOTE]

More gems.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

BTW, I find it fascinating that Russell gets credit for a "win" when he barely held Chamberlain under his normal averages, while getting killed in every stat himself.

Again, the Wilt DOUBLE-STANDARD. His opposing centers were hailed for holding Chamberlain to 30 point-25 rebound games.

I won't take the time to look up the exact quote, but Darrell Imhoff, who was one of the several Knick centers to give up 100 points to Wilt, played against him again a couple of nights later. In his words he said that he battled Chamberlain all night long. He fronted him, he backed him, he pounded him. He played his heart out. And when he finally left the court near the end of the game, he received the first and only standing ovation of his career. He had "held" Chamberlain to "only" 58 points.

[QUOTE=dankok8]Thurmond was never a big time scorer. Who cares is Wilt outscores him? Point is Wilt never got near his season averages vs. Nate. 28.6 ppg is nice but it's NOT domination.

Russell outplayed Wilt in the '69 Finals. Game 1, 2, 4, and 6 at least.[/QUOTE]

Game 1 draw at least.
Game 2 Rusell.
Game 3, 4 and 5 Wilt.
Game 6 Russell.
Game 7 Wilt.

Game 1 Wilt played strong defense, blocked 13 shots. Russell 4. Lakers won.
Game 5 Wilt with 7 blocked shots. Anyway he was the better player in that game.
Game 7 Wilt with "at least 10 blocked shots" (new info - I have the article on my PC) prior to his injury.

[QUOTE=julizaver]Game 1 draw at least.
Game 2 Rusell.
Game 3, 4 and 5 Wilt.
Game 6 Russell.
Game 7 Wilt.

Game 1 Wilt played strong defense, blocked 13 shots. Russell 4. Lakers won.
Game 5 Wilt with 7 blocked shots. Anyway he was the better player in that game.
Game 7 Wilt with "at least 10 blocked shots" (new info - I have the article on my PC) prior to his injury.[/QUOTE]

We agree on Game 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.

In Game 1 though, Russell got the better of Chamberlain at least according to recaps.

[QUOTE][U]1969 Finals[/U]

[B]Game 1[/B]

Los Angeles won Game 1 in LA 120-118 behind Jerry West's career playoff high of 53 points (20-41 FG, 11-13 FT) and 10 assists.

[QUOTE=dankok8]We agree on Game 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.

In Game 1 though, Russell got the better of Chamberlain at least according to recaps.

[/QUOTE]

I am not agree - find this article in which West crediting Wilt with "frezeing Russell":

[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19690425&id=VktSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yXsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7208,2742452"]http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19690425&id=VktSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yXsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7208,2742452[/URL]

And Lakers coach after the game:

[QUOTE=Psileas]So few minutes that he "only" found the time to jack 21 shots (and only make 7 of them)?
Hey, if so, then also remove Wilt's Game 4 of the series vs Kareem, he also played few minutes for his standards. Without that game, Wilt averages 23.8/19.5/2.0 and Kareem 23.5/16.5/4.0.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=dankok8][B]My point exactly... Using cumulative stats is misleading[/B]. A player with the better line may have just killed the other player in one game and gotten slightly outplayed in all the others.[/QUOTE]
I don't think this is the point being made though. It's more, you can't pick and choose your evidence.

Can I decide that Walt Wesley, Tony Delk, Willie Burton and Tracy Murray had career 50ppg averages once I remove games that I deem irrelevent. Is there any justification for saying, "Well that game isn't significant, I'll ignore it"?

[QUOTE=dankok8]Outplaying someone in the first half when the game is decided means a lot. [B] If Wilt's Warriors are down 25 points and then he scores 20 meaningless points when Russell doesn't defend him who cares? Russell could stop Wilt when he NEEDED TO[/B]... when the moment was big Russell usually got the better of Wilt. Looking at boxscores you wouldn't know that.[/QUOTE]
So lets get this straight, your contention is that Russell consistently allowed Chamberlain get bring dead games back into contention because he knew "he could stop him when he NEEDED TO"?

Is there any contemporary evidence to suggest anything like this ever happened?

[QUOTE=julizaver]I am not agree - find this article in which West crediting Wilt with "frezeing Russell":

[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19690425&id=VktSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yXsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7208,2742452"]http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19690425&id=VktSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yXsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7208,2742452[/URL]

And Lakers coach after the game:

“I’m sure Wilt must have intimidated some of their shooters,” commented Laker Coach Bill Van Breda Kolff of the 7-foot-2 Chamberlain, who’s playing his first season in Los Angeles.[/QUOTE]

Here's yet another newspaper recap and it calls the Wilt-Russell battle in Game 1 a "stand-off". Honestly it seems pretty close either way.

After Game 4, this was posted:

[QUOTE][B]As expected, the two giants, player-coach Bill Russell of Boston and Wilt Chamberlain, have nullified each other.[/B] Statistics for four games show Chamberlain with a slight edge. The 7-foot-2 veteran has 43 points and 99 rebounds to 42 points and 95 rebounds for his 35-year-old arch rival.

The big men as far as scoring is concerned have been West, the talented 6-foot-3 guard, and the Celtics John Havlicek, the tireless forward-guard. West is averaging 39.5 points in the four encounters including a career playoff high of 53 points while Havlicek has a 33.7 averaged with 43 points in one game for a personal playoff best. [/QUOTE]

Anyways I think I would say:

Game 1 - Draw
Game 2 - Russell
Game 3 - Wilt
Game 4 - Draw
Game 5 - Wilt
Game 6 - Russell
Game 7 - Wilt

[QUOTE=Owl]

So lets get this straight, your contention is that Russell consistently allowed Chamberlain get bring dead games back into contention because he knew "he could stop him when he NEEDED TO"?

Is there any contemporary evidence to suggest anything like this ever happened?[/QUOTE]

No, my contention is that Wilt often put up meaningless stats in garbage time. That kind of comes with playing every minute of every game as well and we have strong indication of stat-padding in the game recaps.

[QUOTE=dankok8]No, my contention is that Wilt often put up meaningless stats in garbage time. That kind of comes with playing every minute of every game as well and we have strong indication of stat-padding in the game recaps.[/QUOTE]
Whilst Russell (and Robertson other 60s stars) always kept a tight limit on his minutes?

And feel free to post those recaps.

[QUOTE=dankok8]Here's yet another newspaper recap and it calls the Wilt-Russell battle in Game 1 a "stand-off". Honestly it seems pretty close either way.

After Game 4, this was posted:



Anyways I think I would say:

Game 1 - Draw
Game 2 - Russell
Game 3 - Wilt
Game 4 - Draw
Game 5 - Wilt
Game 6 - Russell
Game 7 - Wilt[/QUOTE]

I could agree with that - so [B]we have 3:2 edge for Wilt in '69 series[/B].

Unfortunately we could have created another thread and discussed it there.
But that's the way with Thurmond - to be overshadowed by Russell, Wilt and Kareem, even W.Reed received more recognition than him (due to two NBA titles).
Sadly he had a hell lot of injuries - it seems that they robbed him a bit of his prime. Just by memory (reading articles) - even in his first two seasons after Wilt departure from Warriors he had issues with his back, he started 66-67 relatively healthy but again he was injured, and again in the next three years when he was supposed to hit his prime he suffered multiple injuries (knees, wrist, muscle injuries and so on). He missed 90 games (roughly estimated) between 1966 and 1970. Also missed the '68 playoffs. Maybe some injuries could be due to his style of play, always giving all - chasing everything.
He was highly appreciated by his colleagues, earning respect from all of them, but was quickly forgotten by the public.
He really beat Kareem in the 3 meetings during Kareem's rookie season - and the Warriors won 2 of them. In their first meeting Kareem was 42 min (7-20 FGs, 2-3 FTs), for [B]16 pts., 5 rebs and 2 asts[/B].

[QUOTE=dankok8]

[QUOTE]Game 4

In Game 4, Russell had 18 points and 30 rebounds to Chamberlain’s 15 points and 33 rebounds in “a virtual standoff,” and Boston won 114-108 in overtime to take a 3-1 lead. Boston led 28-26 after one, but Philadelphia scored 13 straight points early in the second quarter to take a 54-49 lead at the half. They led 76-70 in the third quarter. Trailing 96-89, Havlicek scored, and Sam Jones was credited with a basket after a goaltend by Chamberlain. Luke Jackson hit a pair of free throws, and Satch Sanders scored from eight feet for Boston. Bill Russell scored on an offensive rebound, and Sam Jones hit a jumper to put Boston up for the first time in the second half, 99-98. Hal Greer gave the 76ers the lead with a breakaway basket, but K.C. Jones tied the score at 100 on a pair of free throws with 39 seconds left. “With the score deadlocked 100-100, Boston’s Bill Russell and Philadelphia’s Wilt Chamberlain matched brilliant defensive plays” (Gettysburg Times, Apr. 11, 1966). Russell blocked a layup by Luke Jackson with 12 seconds left, then on the other end, Chamberlain blocked a dunk by Russell with one second left to send the game into overtime. In overtime, the Celtics controlled the tip, Russell slapping it to Havlicek, who scored on an eight-footer and put Boston up to stay. Russell scored on another offensive rebound, then Dave Gambee made a free throw. Sam Jones hit a 10-footer and Larry Siegfried hit a free throw to give Boston a decisive lead. Russell out-rebounded Chamberlain 19-13 in the second half. John Havlicek led Boston with 27 points, Sam Jones had 22, Larry Siegfried had 18, and K.C. Jones, “a surprise starter after having an ailing knee heavily taped,” had 19 (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Apr. 11, 1966).

Wilt: 15/33/3 (7/14, 1/4)
Russell: 18/30/7 (7/15, 4/10)[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

Interesting....this is the ONE game in that series in which Russell wasn't badly outplayed ...and YOUR recap gives them a "virtual standoff"...


And then PHILA's newpaper recap of the SAME game declares that Wilt nearly beat Boston by himself.



The ONE game in that series that Russell wasn't just abused by Chamberlain.

[QUOTE=dankok8]No, my contention is that Wilt often put up meaningless stats in garbage time. That kind of comes with playing every minute of every game as well and we have strong indication of stat-padding in the game recaps.[/QUOTE]


How about Chamberlain's 62-63 season then?

And yes, I know what you are going to say..."Wilt was definitely a "stats-padder" that season, his team only went 31-49."

BUT, Chamberlain played 47.6 mpg that season, and with perhaps the worst roster ever assembled (Hannum was horrified when these veterans, sans Wilt, couldn't even beat some rookies and retreads in a scrimmage the very next season)...

They lost 35 games by single digits. They only had eight games in which the margin was 20+ (and they went 4-4 in those.) And they only had a -2.1 scoring differential.

And how about their H2H's with Boston that season? Here again, a Wilt-basher would say, "look, Russell led Boston to an 8-1 record against Wilt's team." All but three of those nine games were decided by single digits, one of which was won by San Francisco, and none of them involved substantial leads going into the 4th quarter.

Here was Russell and his EIGHT other HOFers, struggling to beat a Chamberlain who had NO HOF help. In fact, take Wilt and Russell out of the equation, and man-for-man Boston was not only better...but MUCH better. And all Chamberlain did in those nine H2H's was outscore Russell by a 38-14 ppg margin, and, as always, he outrebounded him.

THAT Chamberlain would LEAD the league in 15 of their 22 statistical categories, including PER (and all-time record), and Win Shares (by a country mile at 20.9, and on a team that won 31 games.) And had the league recorded TRB%, offensive and defensive rebounds; and blocked shots, and there was a good chance that Wilt would have led in those, as well.

Of course, the Wilt-detractors will never mention that in his 65-66 season, Chamberlain again led in 13 of 23 categories, and was top-5 in four more. And, he also led them to the BEST RECORD in the league, as well. In fact, he is the only player in NBA history to lead the NBA in scoring, rebounding, and FG% in the same season (which he did three times BTW) as well as taking that team to the best record in the league.

What changed? Wilt played exactly the same way...ALL OUT...but far different results. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, his TEAMMATES had something to with that.

And HONESTLY ask yourself this...swap Wilt with Russell in '63, and who wins a ring? In fact, HONESTLY ask this...swap Wilt with Russell from '60 thru '66, and how many rings do they each win?

Had Wilt not been injured in retaliation to the brutality he was receiving in the '60 EDF's, which clearly cost his team two games, and in a series in which Boston won 4-2, with a two point game six win...and how does that series go? Even with his outmatched roster.

In '62, again, with a roster, the core of which was the same last place team that Wilt inherited in his rookie season, only older and worse...and collectively shooting .354 in that post-season...Chamberlain single-handedly carried them to a game seven, two point loss against a HOF-laden Celtic team that went 60-20.

In '64, and outgunned 8-2 in HOFers (and BTW, Wilt's lone HOF teammate was a rookie, playing part-time, out of position, and shooting .395), he still pummelled Russell in the Finals. And while Boston won that series, 4-1, the last two games were decided in the waning seconds.

In '65, Chamberlain was traded at mid-season to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before (for THREE players BTW), and led them to a 40-40 record. In the first round of the playoffs, Wilt guided his team to a 3-1 series romp over a STACKED 48-32 Royals team. Then, in the EDF's, and against a 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of their dynasty, he nearly pulled off perhaps the greatest upset in NBA history, when he single-handedly carried that team to a game seven, one point loss....in a series in which just destroyed Russell with a 30 ppg, 31 rpg, .555 FG% performance.

Tell me again...who wins those rings?

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]How about Chamberlain's 62-63 season then?

And yes, I know what you are going to say..."Wilt was definitely a "stats-padder" that season, his team only went 31-49."

BUT, Chamberlain played 47.6 mpg that season, and with perhaps the worst roster ever assembled (Hannum was horrified when these veterans, sans Wilt, couldn't even beat some rookies and retreads in a scrimmage the very next season)...

They lost 35 games by single digits. They only had eight games in which the margin was 20+ (and they went 4-4 in those.) And they only had a -2.1 scoring differential.

And how about their H2H's with Boston that season? Here again, a Wilt-basher would say, "look, Russell led Boston to an 8-1 record against Wilt's team." All but three of those nine games were decided by single digits, one of which was won by San Francisco, and none of them involved substantial leads going into the 4th quarter.

Here was Russell and his EIGHT other HOFers, struggling to beat a Chamberlain who had NO HOF help. In fact, take Wilt and Russell out of the equation, and man-for-man Boston was not only better...but MUCH better. And all Chamberlain did in those nine H2H's was outscore Russell by a 38-14 ppg margin, and, as always, he outrebounded him.

THAT Chamberlain would LEAD the league in 15 of their 22 statistical categories, including PER (and all-time record), and Win Shares (by a country mile at 20.9, and on a team that won 31 games.) And had the league recorded TRB%, offensive and defensive rebounds; and blocked shots, and there was a good chance that Wilt would have led in those, as well.

Of course, the Wilt-detractors will never mention that in his 65-66 season, Chamberlain again led in 13 of 23 categories, and was top-5 in four more. And, he also led them to the BEST RECORD in the league, as well. In fact, he is the only player in NBA history to lead the NBA in scoring, rebounding, and FG% in the same season (which he did three times BTW) as well as taking that team to the best record in the league.

What changed? Wilt played exactly the same way...ALL OUT...but far different results. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, his TEAMMATES had something to with that.

And HONESTLY ask yourself this...swap Wilt with Russell in '63, and who wins a ring? In fact, HONESTLY ask this...swap Wilt with Russell from '60 thru '66, and how many rings do they each win?

Had Wilt not been injured in retaliation to the brutality he was receiving in the '60 EDF's, which clearly cost his team two games, and in a series in which Boston won 4-2, with a two point game six win...and how does that series go? Even with his outmatched roster.

In '62, again, with a roster, the core of which was the same last place team that Wilt inherited in his rookie season, only older and worse...and collectively shooting .354 in that post-season...Chamberlain single-handedly carried them to a game seven, two point loss against a HOF-laden Celtic team that went 60-20.

In '64, and outgunned 8-2 in HOFers (and BTW, Wilt's lone HOF teammate was a rookie, playing part-time, out of position, and shooting .395), he still pummelled Russell in the Finals. And while Boston won that series, 4-1, the last two games were decided in the waning seconds.

In '65, Chamberlain was traded at mid-season to a Sixer team that had gone 34-46 the year before (for THREE players BTW), and led them to a 40-40 record. In the first round of the playoffs, Wilt guided his team to a 3-1 series romp over a STACKED 48-32 Royals team. Then, in the EDF's, and against a 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of their dynasty, he nearly pulled off perhaps the greatest upset in NBA history, when he single-handedly carried that team to a game seven, one point loss....in a series in which just destroyed Russell with a 30 ppg, 31 rpg, .555 FG% performance.

Tell me again...who wins those rings?[/QUOTE]

In '61 playoffs Wilt's 46-win Warriors were swept by a 38-win Nats team in the first round.

According to papers Wilt played "uninspired basketball" in the 62-63 season. I'm not gonna say those were empty stats but he wasn't particularly impactful. That much is clear when your team wins just 31 games.

In 64-65 the poor guy had heart problems so I'll cut him some slack but his Warrior team was still a woeful 10-28 before he got traded.

[QUOTE=dankok8]In '61 playoffs Wilt's 46-win Warriors were swept by a 38-win Nats team in the first round.

According to papers Wilt played "uninspired basketball" in the 62-63 season. I'm not gonna say those were empty stats but he wasn't particularly impactful. That much is clear when your team wins just 31 games.

In 64-65 the poor guy had heart problems so I'll cut him some slack but his Warrior team was still a woeful 10-28 before he got traded.[/QUOTE]

In the '61 playoffs, Chamberlain averaged 37 ppg, 23 rpg, and shot .467 in a post-season NBA that shot .403. BTW, how did Wilt's TEAMMATES collectively shoot in that series? Yep... .332.

Uninspired basketball is what Kareem brought to the 75-76 Lakers. His numbers declined dramatically from his "front-running" days with the early 70's Bucks. If Chamberlain could only finish seventh in the MVP voting in '63, how in the hell did KAJ win the award in '76 (and McAdoo was clearly more deserving)? In any case, when a lowly Laker team needed Kareem to put up "Wilt-type" numbers, he folded his tent.

In the 64-65 season, Wilt was traded mid-season to a 34-46 Sixer team that had not made the playoffs the year before. He SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried that 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss to a HOF-laden 62-18 Celtic team at their apex...and blew Russell away in the process.

Interesting too, that Chamberlain's second best player on his 63-64 Warrior team was Tom Meschery, who averaged 13 ppg. And that 64-65 Warrior team went 7-36 without Wilt (and with Nate filling in.) In any case, in 65-66 they essentially moved Thurmond to Wilt's slot, where he would become a HOFer, and added rookie Rick Barry. The result... 35-45. Here were TWO HOFers essentially replacing one, and still not equalling Wilt's dominance in '64.

But it gets even better. The Warriors then add Jeff Mullins, Fred Hetzel, Jim King, and Clyde Lee to their 66-67 roster. Meschery would go on to average 11 ppg in that '67 season, too...and was SF's SEVENTH best player. Hell, Thurmond had an 18-20 season, and Rick Barry put up the highest fulltime "non-Wilt" scoring season in the Chamberlain era, with a 35.6 ppg season. With that LOADED roster, and in an expansion season... a 44-37! With all of the talent that 66-67 Warrior roster had, they could not even equal Chamberlain's one-man wrecking crew season of 48-32 in 63-64.

Of course, Chamberlain would lead the Sixers to the best record in the NBA in his three full seasons there, and a dominating world title. Oh, and they easily dispatched the Warriors in the Finals, too.

[QUOTE=julizaver]I could agree with that - so [B]we have 3:2 edge for Wilt in '69 series[/B].

Unfortunately we could have created another thread and discussed it there.
But that's the way with Thurmond - to be overshadowed by Russell, Wilt and Kareem, even W.Reed received more recognition than him (due to two NBA titles).
Sadly he had a hell lot of injuries - it seems that they robbed him a bit of his prime. Just by memory (reading articles) - even in his first two seasons after Wilt departure from Warriors he had issues with his back, he started 66-67 relatively healthy but again he was injured, and again in the next three years when he was supposed to hit his prime he suffered multiple injuries (knees, wrist, muscle injuries and so on). He missed 90 games (roughly estimated) between 1966 and 1970. Also missed the '68 playoffs. Maybe some injuries could be due to his style of play, always giving all - chasing everything.
He was highly appreciated by his colleagues, earning respect from all of them, but was quickly forgotten by the public.
[B]He really beat Kareem in the 3 meetings during Kareem's rookie season - and the Warriors won 2 of them. In their first meeting Kareem was 42 min (7-20 FGs, 2-3 FTs), for [B]16 pts., 5 rebs and 2 asts[/B][/B].[/QUOTE]

From 69-70 thru his last good season, 72-73, Thurmond DRAMATICALLY reduced KAJ's scoring and efficiency.

Think about this.. from the 69-70 season, thru the 72-73 season, KAJ averaged 31.4 ppg on .556 against the entire NBA. In the span of 34 total H2H's (regular season and playoffs) with Nate, he averaged about 24 ppg on .440 shooting...with a high game of 34 points (and only five of 30+.)

And in those 16 playoff H2H games... 24.3 ppg on .442 shooting, with only TWO 30+ point games, and a high of 33 points. A PEAK KAJ against an aging Nate.

Actually Kareem from 69-70 to 73-74 averaged 24.9 ppg, 13.9 rpg, and 3.8 apg on 47.8% shooting against Nate in the regular season. In the playoffs 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, 2.9 apg on 43.8% shooting. He struggled offensively but he also held Nate to 18.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.8 apg on 40.4% shooting in the postseason.

Starting from 67-68 season Wilt was almost always either outplayed by Nate or at least played to a draw. From 64-65 to 66-67 he had some good games (and also many games where he struggled... we have the full numbers) but Nate was young then and not nearly at his best as you claim. Thurmond's peak was from '69 to '73 both offensively and defensively.

[QUOTE]1964-1965 (3 games)

Wilt averaged 26.7 ppg on exactly 50% shooting. He had individual games of 34 points on 63% shooting, 24 points on 33% shooting, and 22 points on 53% shooting. Wilt won 1-0 in the rebounding battle where we have the numbers.

1965-1966 (9 games)

Wilt averaged 28.6 ppg in his H2H's against Nate. He had a game of 45 points on 53% shooting and another of 38, 33 and 30 points but he also had games of 26, 25 (on 36% shooting), 23, 22, and even 15 points. It's likely he shot below 50%.

In 6 games where we have Nate's rebounds, the battle on the boards was 4-2 Wilt.

1966-1967 (6 games)

Wilt averaged 20.8 ppg with just one game of 30 points (albeit a triple double with 26 rebounds and 13 assists!). In 3 games that we have FG% Wilt shot a cumulative 51.1%. He shot 68.3% for the season.

In 5 games where we Nate's rebounds, 2-2 and the the fifth game was tied.

1967 Finals (6 games)

Wilt averaged 17.7 ppg on 56.0% shooting but just 30.6% from the line. Nate outrebounded Wilt in just one game but he was close throughout. Wilt took it by a paper-thin 28.5 to 26.6 rpg margin over the whole series.

1967-1968 (4 games)

Nate completely outplayed Chamberlain in what was Wilt's MVP season.

In four games Wilt averaged 13.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, and 7.0 apg on 37.9% shooting. A far cry from his season average of 24.3 ppg on 59.5% shooting. Nate averaged 15.0 ppg and 26.8 rpg as the Warriors won the season series 3-1. The rebounding battle was 2-2 but Nate won one game by a 33-17 margin!

1968-1969 (6 games)

Wilt averaged 13.7 ppg and 23.7 rpg on 54.7% shooting. The rebounding battle was 3-3. Nate averaged 17.3 ppg and 23.8 rpg.

1969 WD Round 1 (6 games)

Wilt averaged 12.0 ppg and 23.5 rpg on 50.0% shooting. The rebounding battle was 4-2 for Wilt. Nate averaged 16.7 ppg and 19.5 rpg.

1970-1971 (6 games)

Wilt averaged 10.2 ppg and 18.0 rpg on 55.3% shooting. The rebounding battle was 3-2 Thurmond with one tie. Thurmond averaged 22.7 ppg and 17.3 rpg against Chamberlain as well.

1971-1972 (6 games)

Wilt averaged 6.8 ppg and 18.0 rpg on 67.8% shooting. The rebounding battle was 3-2 Wilt with one tie. Nate averaged 18.3 ppg and 16.7 rpg.

1972-1973 (7 games)

Wilt averaged 5.3 ppg and 16.6 rpg on 68.4% shooting. Thurmond won the rebounding battles 7-0 and averaged 12.6 ppg and 21.6 rpg.

1973 WCF (5 games)

Wilt averaged 7.0 ppg and 23.6 rpg on 61.1% shooting. Wilt won the rebounding battle 3-2. Nate averaged 15.8 ppg and 17.2 rpg.

Overall out of their 47 regular season H2H's:

- Nate outscored Wilt 26 times, Wilt outscored Nate 20 times, and one game was a tie

- for the 41 games we have Nate's rebounds he won the battle 21 times, lost 17 times, and three games were a tie :bow:

- Nate held Wilt far below his averages; you can look up every single season and in most cases he was 6-7 ppg and 5+% below his averages

Overall out of their 17 playoff H2H's:

- each man outscored the other 8 times and one game was a tie

- Wilt won the rebounding battle 12 times and Nate won 5 times but the margins were thin

- Wilt's scoring volume and efficiency were drastically reduced

- Nate shot a very poor FG% against Wilt around 37% overall in their H2H's [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=dankok8]Actually Kareem from 69-70 to 73-74 averaged 24.9 ppg, 13.9 rpg, and 3.8 apg on 47.8% shooting against Nate in the regular season. In the playoffs 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, 2.9 apg on 43.8% shooting. He struggled offensively but he also held Nate to 18.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.8 apg on 40.4% shooting in the postseason.

Starting from 67-68 season Wilt was almost always either outplayed by Nate or at least played to a draw. From 64-65 to 66-67 he had some good games (and also many games where he struggled... we have the full numbers) but Nate was young then and not nearly at his best as you claim. Thurmond's peak was from '69 to '73 both offensively and defensively.[/QUOTE]

Nate peak was from 1966-67 season, he finished second behind Wilt for MVP race.

[QUOTE=julizaver]Nate peak was from 1966-67 season, he finished second behind Wilt for MVP race.[/QUOTE]

66-67 was his first prime season but his MVP finish has more to do with a down year from the Celtics and Lakers. In subsequent years Nate became a better player. He had more defensive impact (DWS and team defense) as well as significantly better scoring with superior efficiency and improved passing. In '67 Nate was just 25 years old playing his 2nd year as a full-time center. I bet his jumper improved and he got a lot of invaluable experience under his belt as well.

[QUOTE=julizaver]I could agree with that - so [B]we have 3:2 edge for Wilt in '69 series[/B].

Unfortunately we could have created another thread and discussed it there.
But [B]that's the way with Thurmond - to be overshadowed by Russell, Wilt and Kareem, even W.Reed received more recognition than him (due to two NBA titles). [/B]
Sadly he had a hell lot of injuries - it seems that they robbed him a bit of his prime. Just by memory (reading articles) - even in his first two seasons after Wilt departure from Warriors he had issues with his back, he started 66-67 relatively healthy but again he was injured, and again in the next three years when he was supposed to hit his prime he suffered multiple injuries (knees, wrist, muscle injuries and so on). He missed 90 games (roughly estimated) between 1966 and 1970. Also missed the '68 playoffs. Maybe some injuries could be due to his style of play, always giving all - chasing everything.
He was highly appreciated by his colleagues, earning respect from all of them, but was quickly forgotten by the public.
He really beat Kareem in the 3 meetings during Kareem's rookie season - and the Warriors won 2 of them. In their first meeting Kareem was 42 min (7-20 FGs, 2-3 FTs), for [B]16 pts., 5 rebs and 2 asts[/B].[/QUOTE]

Not just the two rings about Willis Reed though.

[img]http://www.joelkimmel.com/uploaded_images/1970-761951.jpg[/img]

Dude played in a huge media bubble, especially in the 1960s. Unlike today... when anybody with cable tv can watch just about any game they want, and even more with league pass, internet, etc..... back then even local tv might not cover games. National tv wasn't going to be happening at all except for the Sunday afternoon Celtics - Sixers matchups. San Francisco was remote, isolated from the East Coast by an entire continent in days when 2 lane interstate highways were not just a novelty, they were [I]amazing[/I] feats of engineering. It was [I][B]the Jet Age[/B][/I], you follow?

Still, Reed was an incredible presence on the court, with a game style for a center that was almost unique in history. He was incredibly strong with a powerful core that couldn't be moved at all. It was like trying to move an oak tree. His passing was better than Nate's and that's saying a lot. When Reed was on fire he could just ignite the entire arena with excitement.
Of course too, his teammates were immeasurably better than Frisco, which only made Captain Reed shine all the brighter.

[QUOTE=dankok8]66-67 was his first prime season but his MVP finish has more to do with a down year from the Celtics and Lakers. In subsequent years Nate became a better player. He had more defensive impact (DWS and team defense) as well as significantly better scoring with superior efficiency and improved passing. In '67 Nate was just 25 years old playing his 2nd year as a full-time center. I bet his jumper improved and he got a lot of invaluable experience under his belt as well.[/QUOTE]

DWS are dependent on how many wins your team gets, so, as long as Phili and Boston dominated the W's, this number doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. Even worse, Thurmond missed 16 games in the 1967 season, meaning his DWS numbers are deflated. Also, his career high in assists came in 1968 and in 1966-69, he was at his apex as a rebounder, as well. Apart from added experience, I see no real reason to believe that 1970-1974 Thurmond was any better or impactful than his 1967-69 version.

[QUOTE=dankok8]Actually Kareem from 69-70 to 73-74 averaged 24.9 ppg, 13.9 rpg, and 3.8 apg on 47.8% shooting against Nate in the regular season. In the playoffs 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, 2.9 apg on 43.8% shooting. He struggled offensively but he also held Nate to 18.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.8 apg on 40.4% shooting in the postseason.

Starting from 67-68 season Wilt was almost always either outplayed by Nate or at least played to a draw. From 64-65 to 66-67 he had some good games (and also many games where he struggled... we have the full numbers) but Nate was young then and not nearly at his best as you claim. Thurmond's peak was from '69 to '73 both offensively and defensively.[/QUOTE]


In Chamberlain's "scoring" prime (64-65 thru 65-66), in 12 H2H's with Nate, he averaged 28.8 ppg, 25.2 rpg and in the five H2H's we have the FG%'s, he shot .517. Nate averaged 16.8 ppg in all of 12, and we only have his rebounding data from seven, in which he averaged 22.1 rpg.

And we do have all the info from Wilt's three 64-65 H2H's... 29.7 ppg, 24.3 rpg, and on an unfathomable .565 FG%. Think about that... 30-24- .565. No one else approached those numbers against Nate.

You claim that you believe that Chamberlain shot less than 50% against Nate in 65-66, and I would argue that he shot over it. Here again, we only have TWO of his 9 H2H games, and he shot 17-32 in one and 8-22 in the other. He shot .565 in all three of his H2H's in 64-65, and over the course of the entire 65-66 season, he shot much better against the NBA than he did in 64-65.

Not only that, but in their first 12 H2H games, Wilt not only outscored Thurmond 11-1, he was outscoring him by margins of 34-25, 33-19, 33-17, 26-9, 30-10, 38-15, and an eye-popping 45-13.

And in their seven games in which we have rebounding data, Wilt went 5-2. Nate did beat him in one 32-21, but Chamberlain outrebounded Thurmond by margins of 31-23, 30-19, and even 29-10.


If you include their very first H2H game in the 66-67 season (which came after his "scoring" seasons), in which Hannum instructed his Sixers to feed Wilt in the second half, and he responded with 24 second half points (demonstrating his REAL scoring capability)...in a game in which he outscored Thurmond, 30-13, Wilt averaged 28.9 ppg, 25.2 rpg, and again, probably well over 50% from the field.

Furthermore, if you include their five regular season H2H's and six H2H's in the Finals, with their first 12 H2H games, a "prime" Wilt outscored Nate by a 20-2-1 margin, and outrebounded him in their 17 known H2H's, 12-5.

And we don't know what Nate shot against Chamberlain in the vast majority of their H2H's, but we do have their H2H FG% numbers in their three playoff series, covering 17 games. Wilt outshot Nate by margins of .500 - .392; .560 - .343 (a prime Wilt and a prime Nate BTW); and .611 to .373.

And as Julizaver's research has shown, Chamberlain easily outplayed Nate in the '69 and '73 playoffs, and Wilt just crushed him in every aspect of the '67 Finals.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]In Chamberlain's "scoring" prime (64-65 thru 65-66), in 12 H2H's with Nate, he averaged 28.8 ppg, 25.2 rpg and in the five H2H's we have the FG%'s, he shot .517. Nate averaged 16.8 ppg in all of 12, and we only have his rebounding data from seven, in which he averaged 22.1 rpg.

And we do have all the info from Wilt's three 64-65 H2H's... 29.7 ppg, 24.3 rpg, and on an unfathomable .565 FG%. Think about that... 30-24- .565. No one else approached those numbers against Nate.

You claim that you believe that Chamberlain shot less than 50% against Nate in 65-66, and I would argue that he shot over it. Here again, we only have TWO of his 9 H2H games, and he shot 17-32 in one and 8-22 in the other. He shot .565 in all three of his H2H's in 64-65, and over the course of the entire 65-66 season, he shot much better against the NBA than he did in 64-65.

Not only that, but in their first 12 H2H games, Wilt not only outscored Thurmond 11-1, he was outscoring him by margins of 34-25, 33-19, 33-17, 26-9, 30-10, 38-15, and an eye-popping 45-13.

And in their seven games in which we have rebounding data, Wilt went 5-2. Nate did beat him in one 32-21, but Chamberlain outrebounded Thurmond by margins of 31-23, 30-19, and even 29-10.


If you include their very first H2H game in the 66-67 season (which came after his "scoring" seasons), in which Hannum instructed his Sixers to feed Wilt in the second half, and he responded with 24 second half points (demonstrating his REAL scoring capability)...in a game in which he outscored Thurmond, 30-13, Wilt averaged 28.9 ppg, 25.2 rpg, and again, probably well over 50% from the field.

Furthermore, if you include their five regular season H2H's and six H2H's in the Finals, with their first 12 H2H games, a "prime" Wilt outscored Nate by a 20-2-1 margin, and outrebounded him in their 17 known H2H's, 12-5.

And we don't know what Nate shot against Chamberlain in the vast majority of their H2H's, but we do have their H2H FG% numbers in their three playoff series, covering 17 games. Wilt outshot Nate by margins of .500 - .392; .560 - .343 (a prime Wilt and a prime Nate BTW); and .611 to .373.

And as Julizaver's research has shown, Chamberlain easily outplayed Nate in the '69 and '73 playoffs, and Wilt just crushed him in every aspect of the '67 Finals.[/QUOTE]

You're posting some wrong stats.

In 64-65 (3 games) Wilt averaged 26.7 ppg, 27.3 rpg, and 2.7 apg on exactly 50.0% from the field. He games of 34, 24, and 22 points.

In 65-66 (9 games) Wilt averaged 28.6 ppg and 25.4 rpg on Nate. In the 2 games we have FG% he shot 46.3% from the field. He had games of 45, 38, 33, 30, 26, 25, 23, 22, and 15 points.

Those scoring averages are well in line with what Kareem put up on prime Nate in the early 70's.

In 66-67 (7 games) Wilt averaged 20.8 ppg, 25.0 rpg, and 8.5 apg on Nate and in the 3 games we have FG% he shot 51.1%. He had games of 30, 27, 23, 16, 15, and 14 points.

In the '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but not by some kind of enormous margin. Rebounding was rather close and Nate played some pretty inspired defense in the series.

[B]'67 Finals[/B]

Wilt: 17.7 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg on 56.0 %FG/30.6 %FT/49.7 %TS in 47.8 mpg
Nate: 14.2 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 3.3 apg on 34.3 %FG/54.8 %FT/37.7 %TS in 47.3 mpg

In 67-68 (4 games) Wilt averaged 13.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, and 7.0 apg on Nate. We have FG% in 3 of the 4 games and Wilt shot a pathetic 37.9%. Nate averaged 15.0 ppg and 26.8 rpg in his games against Wilt.

[B]Overall in the 29 games (including 6 finals) that Wilt faced Nate in his prime (64-65 until 67-68) he had JUST 6 games of 30+ points.[/B]

Beyond this point from 68-69 and later Wilt was out of his prime and Nate outscored and outrebounded him in the majority of the remaining games.

And Wilt did not easily outplay Nate in '69 Round 1 or '73 WCF. That's just crazy talk. Instead of looking at just rpg and FG% also look at the number of shots each person took, the assists, and the free throw shooting. I don't want to break down each game now and pull out articles but take my word for it Wilt didn't clearly outplay let alone dominate Thurmond in either series.

[B]'69 Round 1[/B]

Wilt: 12.0 ppg, 23.5 rpg, 2.5 apg on 50.0 %FG/32.4 %FT/47.2 %TS in 43.7 mpg
Nate: 16.7 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 4.7 apg on 39.2 %FG/58.8 %FT/42.7 %TS in 42.2 mpg

[B]'73 WCF[/B]

Wilt: 7.0 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 3.8 apg on 61.1 %FG/72.2 %FT/62.7 %TS in 45.0 mpg
Nate: 15.8 ppg, 17.2 rpg, 4.2 apg on 37.3 %FG/81.0 %FT/42.8 %TS in 42.2 mpg

[QUOTE=dankok8]You're posting some wrong stats.

In 64-65 (3 games) Wilt averaged 26.7 ppg, 27.3 rpg, and 2.7 apg on exactly 50.0% from the field. He games of 34, 24, and 22 points.

In 65-66 (9 games) Wilt averaged 28.6 ppg and 25.4 rpg on Nate. In the 2 games we have FG% he shot 46.3% from the field. He had games of 45, 38, 33, 30, 26, 25, 23, 22, and 15 points.

Those scoring averages are well in line with what Kareem put up on prime Nate in the early 70's.

In 66-67 (7 games) Wilt averaged 20.8 ppg, 25.0 rpg, and 8.5 apg on Nate and in the 3 games we have FG% he shot 51.1%. He had games of 30, 27, 23, 16, 15, and 14 points.

In the '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but not by some kind of enormous margin. Rebounding was rather close and Nate played some pretty inspired defense in the series.

[B]'67 Finals[/B]

Wilt: 17.7 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg on 56.0 %FG/30.6 %FT/49.7 %TS in 47.8 mpg
Nate: 14.2 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 3.3 apg on 34.3 %FG/54.8 %FT/37.7 %TS in 47.3 mpg

In 67-68 (4 games) Wilt averaged 13.3 ppg, 23.8 rpg, and 7.0 apg on Nate. We have FG% in 3 of the 4 games and Wilt shot a pathetic 37.9%. Nate averaged 15.0 ppg and 26.8 rpg in his games against Wilt.

[B]Overall in the 29 games (including 6 finals) that Wilt faced Nate in his prime (64-65 until 67-68) he had JUST 6 games of 30+ points.[/B]

Beyond this point from 68-69 and later Wilt was out of his prime and Nate outscored and outrebounded him in the majority of the remaining games.

And Wilt did not easily outplay Nate in '69 Round 1 or '73 WCF. That's just crazy talk. Instead of looking at just rpg and FG% also look at the number of shots each person took, the assists, and the free throw shooting. I don't want to break down each game now and pull out articles but take my word for it Wilt didn't clearly outplay let alone dominate Thurmond in either series.

[B]'69 Round 1[/B]

Wilt: 12.0 ppg, 23.5 rpg, 2.5 apg on 50.0 %FG/32.4 %FT/47.2 %TS in 43.7 mpg
Nate: 16.7 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 4.7 apg on 39.2 %FG/58.8 %FT/42.7 %TS in 42.2 mpg

[B]'73 WCF[/B]

Wilt: 7.0 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 3.8 apg on 61.1 %FG/72.2 %FT/62.7 %TS in 45.0 mpg
Nate: 15.8 ppg, 17.2 rpg, 4.2 apg on 37.3 %FG/81.0 %FT/42.8 %TS in 42.2 mpg[/QUOTE]

You are right about 64-65. Nate had a habit of "ducking" Wilt thorughout their career H2H's, and the one game I looked at was a Wilt 33-18 game on 13-25 shooting. So, a "scoring" Wilt averaged 28.1 ppg against Nate in his first 12 games, and if you include their first H2H in '67, it was 28.2 ppg in 13. And in their last H2H game of '65, thru their nine H2H's in '66, and even into their first H2H of '67, covering 11 straight games, Chamberlain averaged 29.2 ppg.

Oh, and in their first 13 H2H games, a prime "scoring" Chamberlain had those SIX 30+ point games, which was more than KAJ put on a healthy Nate in their 39 H2H's thru the 73-74 season (and actually Nate was nowhere near healthy in 73-74 either, and was already beginning a steep decline after the 72-73 season.) And again, KAJ never put up games of 38 against Nate, much less than an overwhelming 45 point game.

And yes, Julizaver's recaps of both '69 and '73 were clearly a solid "win" by Wilt over Nate. And Chamberlain just crushed Thurmond in the '67 Finals. He outscored him in five of the six games; outrebounded him in five of the six games; outassisted him in five of the six games; and outshot him in all six (and by a staggering margin.)

Here were their 68-69 H2H's...

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=321075[/url]

I would give them a tie in game one, and perhaps a tie in game five (Nate outscored Wilt in that game, but Chamberlain slaughtered him on the glass, and blocked 10 shots.) After that, a solid 4-0 for Wilt.

And, of course, we have the OP, in which I would give Nate game four, possibly a "win" in game one (but more likely a tie), and then Wilt handily "won" the other 3... in a blowout series win. Interesting too, because Nate led the Warriors over KAJ's 60-22 Bucks in the first round, but was easily outplayed by Wilt in this series.

And the 66-67 Finals were really epitomized by the clinching game six. Wilt outscored Nate, 23-12; outrebounded him, 23-22; and dramatically outshot him the field, 8-13 to 4-13. He was doing that the entire series. And in the games in which blocks were recorded, Chamberlain had at least two games of 10 (and in one of them, probably 15.)

[QUOTE]In the '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but not by some kind of enormous margin. Rebounding was rather close and Nate played some pretty inspired defense in the series.

'67 Finals

Wilt: 17.7 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg on 56.0 %FG/30.6 %FT/49.7 %TS in 47.8 mpg
Nate: 14.2 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 3.3 apg on 34.3 %FG/54.8 %FT/37.7 %TS in 47.3 mpg[/QUOTE]

Given that, not only did he outperform Thurmond in every single category in which they didn't guard each other (btw, since you count FT's, count fouls as well: Thurmond commited 20, Wilt 16), he did so practically game-by-game. He outscored him all but once, outrebounded him all but once (though by small margins), outassisted him in all games (and not by small margins), outshot him in all games and probably outblocked him overall as well (more references exist about Wilt's blocked shots), so for me that's some pretty thorough outplaying.
Look at it this way: In the 1992 Finals, Jordan held a decisive advantage only in scoring and FG%. Drexler actually beat Jordan in some fields, yet it's still considered domination on Jordan's part. This series, to be, belongs in the same category. Yes, Wilt wasn't putting up 30-40 point games, but he wasn't giving up 25-30 point games, either.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Of course it is not "official" but I was actually at game three in that series, and I had Wilt with 11 blocks.
[B]
I will never forget...at halftime they had dogs catching frisbees (pretty amazing stuff), and then at the start of the second half, the Lakers went on a tear in the first couple of minutes, and essentailly blew the game wide open. After a quick timeout, a Warrior fan sitting behind me stood up, and yelled, "Bring back the frisbee show!"[/B]

As for the series...Wilt outshot Nate from the floor, .611 to .373. And during the regular season, and in their six H2H's, Chamberlain outshot Kareem, .737 to .450. Granted, Chamberlain was not taking many shots, but still, in one H2H game with Kareem that season, he outscored him, 24-21, while outshooting him, 10-14 to 10-27. Oh, and in the first round of the playoffs, Nate and the Warriors shocked the 60-22 Bucks, 4-2, in a series in which Thurmond held KAJ to .428 shooting.[/QUOTE]

:lol :lol :lol

In '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but he did not DOMINATE him. The stats are a bit close though in Wilt's favor for sure.

The comparison to Jordan-Drexler is a huge stretch. Jordan put up 11 more ppg on better efficiency and also outassisted Clyde. MJ killed Clyde in that series and I can say so because I watched it as well.

[QUOTE][B]'69 Round 1[/B]

Game 1 26.03.1969 - SFW win 99-94

Wilt 48 min 11 pts (5-11 FG, 1-3 FT), 30 rebs, 3 asts
Nate 48 min 15 pts (6-16 FG, 3-6 FT), 27 rebs, 8 asts

Game 2 28.03.1969 - SFW win 107-101

Wilt 41 min 10 pts (4-10 FG, 2-9 FT), 17 rebs, 1 asts
Nate 48 min 27 pts (11-18 FG, 5-6 FT), 28 rebs, 4 asts, 14 blks

Game 3 31.03.1969 - Lakers win 115-98

Wilt 44 min 22 pts (9-14 FG, 4-13 FT), 28 rebs, 5 asts, 8 blks
Nate 44 min 22 pts (8-20 FG, 6-11 FT), 20 rebs, 5 asts, 8 blks

Game 4 02.04.1969 - Lakers win 103-88

Wilt 42 min 11 pts (4-10 FG, 3-6 FT), 14 rebs, 3 asts, 9 blks
Nate 36 min 10 pts (3-13 FG, 4-5 FT), 15 rebs, 4 asts, 3 blks

Game 5 04.04.1969 - Lakers win 103-98

Wilt 48 min 7 pts (3-6 FG, 1-3 FT), 27 rebs, 2 asts, 10 blks
Nate 48 min 18 pts (9-22 FG, 0-3 FT), 13 rebs, 6 asts

Game 6 05.04.1969 - Lakers win 118-78

Wilt 39 min 11 pts (5-9 FG, 1-3 FT), 25 rebs, 1 ast, 10 blks
Nate 29 min 8 pts (3-13 FG, 2-3 FT), 14 rebs, 1 ast[/QUOTE]

Game 1 and 2 are a win for Nate. Game 3, 4, and 5 look pretty damn close either way and Game 6 is clear edge Wilt.

Overall in the series even if you want to give Wilt an edge in another game he still didn't dominate or even clearly outplay Nate all-together. In fact there is as much of an argument for the opposite Nate > Wilt.

And if I remember correctly a big reason cited for the Warriors' collapse from a 2-0 lead in the series was the injury of all-star guard Jeff Mullins. He scored 56 points in the first two games and just 30 points in the last four games combined.

[QUOTE][B]'73 WCF[/B]

Game 1 17.04.1973 - Lakers win 101-99

Wilt 44 min 4 pts (2-5 FG, 0-0 FT), 25 rebs, 2 asts, 8 blks
Nate 48 min 22 pts (8-21 FG, 6-7 FT), 26 rebs, 5 asts

Game 2 19.04.1973 - Lakers win 104-93

Wilt 48 min 5 pts (1-3 FG, 3-4 FT), 30 rebs, 4 asts, 7* blks
Nate 47 min 16 pts (8-20 FG, 0-0 FT), 14 rebs, 6 asts

Game 3 21.04.1973 - Lakers win 126-70

Wilt 39 min 12 pts (2-2 FG, 8-10 FT), 23 rebs, 3 asts, 8 blks
Nate 37 min 9 pts (3-13 FG, 3-4 FT), 13 rebs, 2 asts

Game 4 23.04.1973 - Warriors win 117-109

Wilt 48 min 9 pts (4-6 FG, 1-1 FT), 16 rebs, 3 asts
Nate 47 min 23 pts (10-20 FG, 3-3 FT), 18 rebs, 3 asts

Game 5 25.04.1973 - Lakers win 128-118

Wilt 46 min 5 pts (2-2 FG, 1-3 FT), 22 rebs, 7 asts, 6 blks
Nate 32 min 9 pts (2-9 FG, 5-7 FT), 15 rebs, 5 asts[/QUOTE]

Game 1 is definite edge Nate.

Game 2 and 3 are slight edge Wilt.

Game 4 is definite edge Nate.

Game 5 is definite edge Wilt.

Overall this series is a wash. It's 3:2 Wilt but it seems Nate won his games by larger margins.

[QUOTE=dankok8]In '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but he did not DOMINATE him. [B]The stats are a bit close[/B] though in Wilt's favor for sure.[/QUOTE]
Twelve percent gap in TS%. Close?!?!

All else being equal that's a huge amount.

The 76ers took roughly 120.2503704 true shots per game (fg+(fta*.48))/81 (for 81 games).
Lets suppose for the purposes of illustration all things are equal and their opponents had the same number of true shot attempts.

So lets say the whole Sixers team outshot their rivals by that amount (or a team of Chamberlains did so to a team of Thurmonds)

120.2503704*.12 (representing the twelve percent difference)= 14.43004444

Now lets turn that from a true shooting based calculation into a points per possession based one (double it) 28.86008889.

Applied to a team level, at '67 Sixers pace, Chamberlain's efficiency scoring edge, would represent a gap of 28.86 points per game. That's a ridiculous margin.

Now given they were only individiuals it was probably roughly a five or six point edge that Chamberlain was worth in this area. Still losing by that much at one position is huge (not to mention Wilt had advantages elsewhere).

You might argue Wilt held Thurmond below his usual output offensively, but you can't argue it was close, because it wasn't.

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]Not just the two rings about Willis Reed though.

[img]http://www.joelkimmel.com/uploaded_images/1970-761951.jpg[/img]

Dude played in a huge media bubble, especially in the 1960s. Unlike today... when anybody with cable tv can watch just about any game they want, and even more with league pass, internet, etc..... back then even local tv might not cover games. National tv wasn't going to be happening at all except for the Sunday afternoon Celtics - Sixers matchups. San Francisco was remote, isolated from the East Coast by an entire continent in days when 2 lane interstate highways were not just a novelty, they were [I]amazing[/I] feats of engineering. It was [I][B]the Jet Age[/B][/I], you follow?

Still, Reed was an incredible presence on the court, with a game style for a center that was almost unique in history. He was incredibly strong with a powerful core that couldn't be moved at all. It was like trying to move an oak tree. His passing was better than Nate's and that's saying a lot. When Reed was on fire he could just ignite the entire arena with excitement.
Of course too, his teammates were immeasurably better than Frisco, which only made Captain Reed shine all the brighter.[/QUOTE]

I am not questioning his greatness, I am just saying that Reed received more recognition than Nate due to his two titles. In future I can do some W. Reed vs N. Thurmond research.

[QUOTE=dankok8]Actually Kareem from 69-70 to 73-74 averaged 24.9 ppg, 13.9 rpg, and 3.8 apg on 47.8% shooting against Nate in the regular season. In the playoffs 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, 2.9 apg on 43.8% shooting. He struggled offensively but he also held Nate to 18.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.8 apg on 40.4% shooting in the postseason.

Starting from 67-68 season Wilt was almost always either outplayed by Nate or at least played to a draw. From 64-65 to 66-67 he had some good games (and also many games where he struggled... we have the full numbers) but Nate was young then and not nearly at his best as you claim. Thurmond's peak was from '69 to '73 both offensively and defensively.[/QUOTE]

I insist that Nate was peaking from 1966-67 season. Anyway, since we bring another centers for comparison from the known data I have at the moment:

How Nate shot vs Russell, Kareem and Wilt ?

vs Russell - 19,6 ppg on 0.409
vs Kareem - 18.6 ppg on 0.413
vs Wilt - 16.3 ppg on [B]0.382[/B]

And how the others shot against him ?

Kareem vs Nate - 24.76 ppg on 0.447
Wilt vs Nate - 14.84 ppg on [B]0.530[/B]
Russell vs Nate - 11.59 ppg on 4.34

The data covers the 1965-1973 period. The data for Wilt vs Nate and Russell vs Nate is still incomplete (but I have the majority of the games data).

[QUOTE]In '67 Finals Wilt outplayed Nate but he did not DOMINATE him. The stats are a bit close though in Wilt's favor for sure.

The comparison to Jordan-Drexler is a huge stretch. Jordan put up 11 more ppg on better efficiency and also outassisted Clyde. MJ killed Clyde in that series and I can say so because I watched it as well.[/QUOTE]

You're the same one who claimed that Wilt's rebounding edge over Thurmond was insignificant, yet you mention Jordan's outassisting of Drexler as a significant margin (else, you would claim that it was insignificant, like I did for Wilt-Thurmond rebounding)? There are 2 statistical fields where Jordan clearly outplayed Drexler and they even are interconnected. There are 2 statistical fields where Wilt clearly outplayed Thurmond and they're not even interconnected (FG% and passing). Drexler beat Jordan in rebounding (leaving aside marginal victories, like shot blocking and FT%), Thurmond beat Wilt in FT% and nowhere else. Drexler arguably outplayed Jordan in at least 1 game. Thurmond outplayed Wilt in none.

[QUOTE=Owl]Twelve percent gap in TS%. Close?!?!

All else being equal that's a huge amount.

The 76ers took roughly 120.2503704 true shots per game (fg+(fta*.48))/81 (for 81 games).
Lets suppose for the purposes of illustration all things are equal and their opponents had the same number of true shot attempts.

So lets say the whole Sixers team outshot their rivals by that amount (or a team of Chamberlains did so to a team of Thurmonds)

120.2503704*.12 (representing the twelve percent difference)= 14.43004444

Now lets turn that from a true shooting based calculation into a points per possession based one (double it) 28.86008889.

Applied to a team level, at '67 Sixers pace, Chamberlain's efficiency scoring edge, would represent a gap of 28.86 points per game. That's a ridiculous margin.

Now given they were only individiuals it was probably roughly a five or six point edge that Chamberlain was worth in this area. Still losing by that much at one position is huge (not to mention Wilt had advantages elsewhere).

You might argue Wilt held Thurmond below his usual output offensively, but you can't argue it was close, because it wasn't.[/QUOTE]

Honestly it wasn't 5 or 6 points because Wilt was only the 5th leading scorer on his team. Wilt contributed only 106/747 or 14.2% of his team's points. Take 14.2% of 28.86 and that's 4.1 points a game...

TS% is also flawed because a FT back then (no 3pt shots) was worth half of a FG so Wilt bricking his free throws was hurting his team more than it would today.

People bring up rebounding edge like it's a big deal. Wilt grabbed 11 extra rebounds over 6 games. That's not really significant at all. And we know that Nate had 3 games at around 8-10 blocked shots.

I wouldn't respond in such detail to such minor points but you're the one who did the analysis! :cheers:
Wilt OUTPLAYED Nate and I said so but he DID NOT DOMINATE him.

[QUOTE]I insist that Nate was peaking from 1966-67 season. Anyway, since we bring another centers for comparison from the known data I have at the moment:

How Nate shot vs Russell, Kareem and Wilt ?

vs Russell - 19,6 ppg on 0.409
vs Kareem - 18.6 ppg on 0.413
vs Wilt - 16.3 ppg on 0.382

And how the others shot against him ?

Kareem vs Nate - 24.76 ppg on 0.447
Wilt vs Nate - 14.84 ppg on 0.530
Russell vs Nate - 11.59 ppg on 4.34

The data covers the 1965-1973 period. The data for Wilt vs Nate and Russell vs Nate is still incomplete (but I have the majority of the games data).
[/QUOTE]

Wilt shot a much higher FG% against Nate but on far fewer shots than Kareem. If Wilt took 25 shots a game I suspect he wouldn't shoot well either.

[QUOTE]You're the same one who claimed that Wilt's rebounding edge over Thurmond was insignificant, yet you mention Jordan's outassisting of Drexler as a significant margin (else, you would claim that it was insignificant, like I did for Wilt-Thurmond rebounding)? There are 2 statistical fields where Jordan clearly outplayed Drexler and they even are interconnected. There are 2 statistical fields where Wilt clearly outplayed Thurmond and they're not even interconnected (FG% and passing). Drexler beat Jordan in rebounding (leaving aside marginal victories, like shot blocking and FT%), Thurmond beat Wilt in FT% and nowhere else. Drexler arguably outplayed Jordan in at least 1 game. Thurmond outplayed Wilt in none.[/QUOTE]

That's fair but see my post above. Wilt really didn't dominate Nate. He just outplayed him but it wasn't a blowout by any means.

My initial response was primarily to LAZERUSS who said Wilt KILLED Nate in '67 Finals. I strongly disagree with that.

[QUOTE=dankok8]Honestly it wasn't 5 or 6 points because Wilt was only the 5th leading scorer on his team. Wilt contributed only 106/747 or 14.2% of his team's points. Take 14.2% of 28.86 and that's 4.1 points a game...

TS% is also flawed because a FT back then (no 3pt shots) was worth half of a FG so Wilt bricking his free throws was hurting his team more than it would today.[/QUOTE]
A 4 point advantage per game (even if that was the only area Wilt had an advantage) at one position is still a big deal. Indeed it accounts for more than half the per game points differential over the series.

I don't see how missing a ft is more harmful because there were no threes. TS% is (or may be) imperfect for that era but it's not to do with 3s. The extra value of the three is factored in by using points (thereby accounting for the extra value of the three) rather than field goal attempts, if there aren't three point attempts it still works fine. With different free throw rules and different values of a typical free throw relative to a possession it might shift at the margins. Even so it would be marginal, especially relative to Chamberlain's substantial edge in this area.

While I don't have the complete breakdown, game-by-game, I now have the totals for Chamberlain in their six regular season H2H's in 66-67.

Thanks to nbastats.net, we know that Wilt faced the Warriors in all nine regular season games in 66-67, while Nate only played in six (more on that in a moment.) And, fortunately, we have the complete totals for Wilt's three games in which Nate ducked him.

Those three games were played on 3/2, 3/14, and 3/16:

On 3/2: Wilt scored 24 points, on 8-20 from the field, with 38 rebounds, and 13 assists.

On 3/14: Wilt scored 21 points, on 9-13 from the field, with 25 rebounds, and 9 assists.

On 3/16: Wilt scored 16 points, on 6-18 from the field, with 20 rebounds, and 6 assists.

Totals: 61 points, 23-51 from the field, 83 rebounds, and 28 assists.


OK, in the book Season of the Sixers, Wilt's season totals are listed against each team.


Versus the Warriors, in his nine games:

186 points, 233 rebounds, 79 assists, and 73-130 from the field.


[B]So, in his six H2H's with Nate:

125 points, 150 rebounds, 51 assists, and 50-79 from the field.

Or, 20.8 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 8.5 apg, and get this... a [COLOR="DarkRed"].633 FG%[/COLOR] against Thurmond[/B].


Here were their known numbers from those six H2H's:

11/4/66: Wilt with 13 FGM, 30 points, 26 rebounds, 13 assists, and 12 blocks (Season of the Sixers.) Nate with 13 points.

11/24/66: Wilt 10-16, 27 pts, 31 rebs, 7 ast. Nate 11 pts, 16 rebs.

12/22: Wilt 6-12, 14 pts, 22 rebs, 8 ast. Nate 9 pts, 25 rebs.

2/2/67: Wilt 7-17, 16 pts, 26 rebs, 6 ast, 5 blk. Nate 16 pts, 23 rebs.

2/4/67: Wilt 10 FGM, 23 pts, 19 rebs, 8 ast. Nate with 21 pts, 29 rebs.

2/7/67: Wilt 4 FGM, 15 pts, 26 rebs, 9 ast. Nate with 9 pts, 26 rebs.

In the three H2H games in which we have Wilt's FG/FGA, he went 23-45, which means that in the three we don't, he shot, get this... 27-34, or a .794 FG% from the floor.


Factor in that Chamberlain just annihilated Thurmond in the '67 Finals, and this season was perhaps an even greater domination of Thurmond that his 65-66 season (when he just shelled Nate by a staggering margin.)

BTW, Nate almost always had a case of "Wiltitis" in each of his seasons, as well. It seems like he was always missing H2H games against Chamberlain. But how about this 66-67 season.

Nate missed games with Wilt on 3/2, 3/14, and 3/16, ...BUT, he played in other games on 3/10, 3/11, 3/13, 3/17 and 3/18. Hmmm...

[QUOTE]So, in his six H2H's with Nate:

125 points, 150 rebounds, 51 assists, and 50-79 from the field.

Or, 20.8 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 8.5 apg, and get this... a .633 FG% against Thurmond.


Here were their known numbers from those six H2H's:

11/4/66: Wilt with 13 FGM, 30 points, 26 rebounds, 13 assists, and 12 blocks (Season of the Sixers.) Nate with 13 points.

11/24/66: Wilt 10-16, 27 pts, 31 rebs, 7 ast. Nate 11 pts, 16 rebs.

12/22: Wilt 6-12, 14 pts, 22 rebs, 8 ast. Nate 9 pts, 25 rebs.

2/2/67: Wilt 7-17, 16 pts, 26 rebs, 6 ast, 5 blk. Nate 16 pts, 23 rebs.

2/4/67: Wilt 10 FGM, 23 pts, 19 rebs, 8 ast. Nate with 21 pts, 29 rebs.

2/7/67: Wilt 4 FGM, 15 pts, 26 rebs, 9 ast. Nate with 9 pts, 26 rebs.

In the three H2H games in which we have Wilt's FG/FGA, he went 23-45, which means that in the three we don't, he shot, get this... 27-34, or a .794 FG% from the floor.[/QUOTE]

Cool...so it seems like prime Wilt "slightly" outplayed Thurmond. Decent, halfway impressive. :cheers:
(Am I doing it right?)

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]While I don't have the complete breakdown, game-by-game, I now have the totals for Chamberlain in their six regular season H2H's in 66-67.

Thanks to nbastats.net, we know that Wilt faced the Warriors in all nine regular season games in 66-67, while Nate only played in six (more on that in a moment.) And, fortunately, we have the complete totals for Wilt's three games in which Nate ducked him.

Those three games were played on 3/2, 3/14, and 3/16:

On 3/2: Wilt scored 24 points, on 8-20 from the field, with 38 rebounds, and 13 assists.

On 3/14: Wilt scored 21 points, on 9-13 from the field, with 25 rebounds, and 9 assists.

On 3/16: Wilt scored 16 points, on 6-18 from the field, with 20 rebounds, and 6 assists.

Totals: 61 points, 23-51 from the field, 83 rebounds, and 28 assists.


OK, in the book Season of the Sixers, Wilt's season totals are listed against each team.


Versus the Warriors, in his nine games:

186 points, 233 rebounds, 79 assists, and 73-130 from the field.


[B]So, in his six H2H's with Nate:

125 points, 150 rebounds, 51 assists, and 50-79 from the field.

Or, 20.8 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 8.5 apg, and get this... a [COLOR="DarkRed"].633 FG%[/COLOR] against Thurmond[/B].


Here were their known numbers from those six H2H's:

11/4/66: Wilt with 13 FGM, 30 points, 26 rebounds, 13 assists, and 12 blocks (Season of the Sixers.) Nate with 13 points.

11/24/66: Wilt 10-16, 27 pts, 31 rebs, 7 ast. Nate 11 pts, 16 rebs.

12/22: Wilt 6-12, 14 pts, 22 rebs, 8 ast. Nate 9 pts, 25 rebs.

2/2/67: Wilt 7-17, 16 pts, 26 rebs, 6 ast, 5 blk. Nate 16 pts, 23 rebs.

2/4/67: Wilt 10 FGM, 23 pts, 19 rebs, 8 ast. Nate with 21 pts, 29 rebs.

2/7/67: Wilt 4 FGM, 15 pts, 26 rebs, 9 ast. Nate with 9 pts, 26 rebs.

In the three H2H games in which we have Wilt's FG/FGA, he went 23-45, which means that in the three we don't, he shot, get this... 27-34, or a .794 FG% from the floor.


Factor in that Chamberlain just annihilated Thurmond in the '67 Finals, and this season was perhaps an even greater domination of Thurmond that his 65-66 season (when he just shelled Nate by a staggering margin.)

BTW, Nate almost always had a case of "Wiltitis" in each of his seasons, as well. It seems like he was always missing H2H games against Chamberlain. But how about this 66-67 season.

Nate missed games with Wilt on 3/2, 3/14, and 3/16, ...BUT, he played in other games on 3/10, 3/11, 3/13, 3/17 and 3/18. Hmmm...[/QUOTE]

Ok kudos to you! I'll assume this info is all true...

That would make Wilt's 66-67 season by far his best season against Nate. However 20.8 ppg even on 63.3% shooting isn't an amazing scoring performance. Shaq shelled Mutombo for 33 ppg and 60% shooting just to put things in perspective. Now that classifies as domination not outscoring someone by 3.5 ppg like Wilt in the Finals...

[QUOTE=Psileas]Cool...so it seems like prime Wilt "slightly" outplayed Thurmond. Decent, halfway impressive.

(Am I doing it right?)[/QUOTE]

LOL mocking me are we?

Wilt clearly dominated more in the regular season than the finals.

As I stated earlier, Lynch has Wilt's numbers vs every team in that 66-67 season.

For now, I will just give you his FG/FGA vs each team, (9 games against each.):

Baltimore: .........113-151... .74.8%
Cincinnati: ........105-151 ....69.5%
Los Angeles: .....101-133 ....75.9%
Chicago: ............94-118 ... 79.7%
New York: ..........83-117 ... 70.0%
St. Louis: ...........80-117....68.4%
San Francisco: ....73-130....56.2% (again... 50-79 against Nate, or .633.)
Boston................67-122....54.9
Detroit................69-111....62.2%


Totals: ............785-1150...68.3%

[QUOTE=dankok8]Ok kudos to you! I'll assume this info is all true...

That would make Wilt's 66-67 season by far his best season against Nate. However 20.8 ppg even on 63.3% shooting isn't an amazing scoring performance. Shaq shelled Mutombo for 33 ppg and 60% shooting just to put things in perspective. Now that classifies as domination not outscoring someone by 3.5 ppg like Wilt in the Finals...



LOL mocking me are we?

Wilt clearly dominated more in the regular season than the finals.[/QUOTE]

I am still not sure what Chamberlain shot against Thurmond in 65-66. Obviously, as we now know, using the TWO game's that we, out of their NINE H2H's that season, as some kind of guide has been trashed. We do know that he routinely shelled Thurmond for 30+ points, and KAJ never came close to what Chamberlain carpet-bombed Nate with. And he was KILLING Nate in scoring. Take away the one game in which Thurmond outscored Wilt, 30-15, and Wilt would have held an eight game margin of 242-115, or 30.1 ppg to 14.4 ppg.

As for Shaq-Mutombo...Dikembe also averaged 16 ppg on a .600 FG% against Shaq. You will NEVER find an opposing center who had a series close to that against Wilt. In fact, in his 29 post-season series, I could only find TWO in which his starting opposing center shot over 50%. One, in the 63-64 WDF's, Zelmo Beaty shot .521. However, Chamberlain not only outshot Zelmo, .559 to .521, he outscored him, per game, 38.6 to 14.3 ppg. And Beaty would go on to be a multiple All-Star in his career. The other was in the '72 Finals, when Jerry Lucas averaged 20.0 ppg on a .500 FG%. However, after the first half of game one, in which he shot 9-11, he only shot 37-81 (.457) the rest of the series. For those that actually were lucky enough to have seen Lucas play, he was Kevin Love long before Love was. For Chamberlain to defend Lucas, who had 25 ft. range, and still block 7.4 shots, as well as grab 23.2 rpg in that series (and averaged 19 ppg on .600 shooting, too) was an amazing testament to Wilt's incredible athleticism, even at age 35.

In any case, a prime "scoring" Wilt dominated Nate far more than a prime KAJ ever did, and we know that a 38-39 year old KAJ would go and crush the Hakeem in 10 straight H2H games with a 33 ppg .621 FG% mark. A 39 year old KAJ also had a game against Ewing in which he outscored him, 40-9, and outshot him, 15-22 to 3-17.

And keep in mind that a 69-73 Nate held Kareem to .440 shooting in their 39 H2H games, too. From what we know, Chamberlain probably shot well over 50% against Nate, (and likely even in his scoring seasons.)

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]

And keep in mind that a 69-73 Nate held Kareem to .440 shooting in their 39 H2H games, too. From what we know, Chamberlain probably shot well over 50% against Nate, (and likely even in his scoring seasons.)[/QUOTE]

Maybe you haven't seen my earlier post. Taken into consideration your 66-67 calculation I could repost:

How Nate shot vs Russell, Kareem and Wilt ?

vs Russell - 19,6 ppg on 0.409
vs Kareem - 18.6 ppg on 0.413
vs Wilt - 16.3 ppg on [B]0.382[/B]

And how the others shot against him ?

Kareem vs Nate - 24.76 ppg on 0.447
Wilt vs Nate - 14.84 ppg on [B]0.548[/B]
Russell vs Nate - 11.59 ppg on 4.34

The data covers the 1965-1973 period. The data for Wilt vs Nate and Russell vs Nate is still incomplete (but I have the majority of the games data).

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]I am still not sure what Chamberlain shot against Thurmond in 65-66. Obviously, as we now know, using the TWO game's that we, out of their NINE H2H's that season, as some kind of guide has been trashed. We do know that he routinely shelled Thurmond for 30+ points, and KAJ never came close to what Chamberlain carpet-bombed Nate with. And he was KILLING Nate in scoring. Take away the one game in which Thurmond outscored Wilt, 30-15, and Wilt would have held an eight game margin of 242-115, or 30.1 ppg to 14.4 ppg.

As for Shaq-Mutombo...Dikembe also averaged 16 ppg on a .600 FG% against Shaq. You will NEVER find an opposing center who had a series close to that against Wilt. In fact, in his 29 post-season series, I could only find TWO in which his starting opposing center shot over 50%. One, in the 63-64 WDF's, Zelmo Beaty shot .521. However, Chamberlain not only outshot Zelmo, .559 to .521, he outscored him, per game, 38.6 to 14.3 ppg. And Beaty would go on to be a multiple All-Star in his career. The other was in the '72 Finals, when Jerry Lucas averaged 20.0 ppg on a .500 FG%. However, after the first half of game one, in which he shot 9-11, he only shot 37-81 (.457) the rest of the series. For those that actually were lucky enough to have seen Lucas play, he was Kevin Love long before Love was. For Chamberlain to defend Lucas, who had 25 ft. range, and still block 7.4 shots, as well as grab 23.2 rpg in that series (and averaged 19 ppg on .600 shooting, too) was an amazing testament to Wilt's incredible athleticism, even at age 35.

In any case, a prime "scoring" Wilt dominated Nate far more than a prime KAJ ever did, and we know that a 38-39 year old KAJ would go and crush the Hakeem in 10 straight H2H games with a 33 ppg .621 FG% mark. A 39 year old KAJ also had a game against Ewing in which he outscored him, 40-9, and outshot him, 15-22 to 3-17.

And keep in mind that a 69-73 Nate held Kareem to .440 shooting in their 39 H2H games, too. From what we know, Chamberlain probably shot well over 50% against Nate, (and likely even in his scoring seasons.)[/QUOTE]

Kareem "dominated" Nate just as much as Wilt.

[U]Wilt vs Nate[/U]

64-65: 26.7 ppg on 50.0% shooting
65-66: 28.6 ppg on ? shooting (46.3% in 2 available games)
66-67: 20.8 ppg on 63.3% shooting

[U]Kareem vs Nate[/U]

70-71: 26.6 ppg on 48.4% shooting
71-72: 24.0 ppg on 44.1% shooting
72-73: 25.8 ppg on 48.8% shooting
73-74: 24.2 ppg on 57.1% shooting

That's right in the same ballpark... And in '71 playoffs Kareem outplayed Nate by a much bigger margin than Wilt ever did in the postseason.

Kareem: 27.8 ppg, 15.4 rpg on 48.6 %FG/52.8 %TS
Nate: 17.6 ppg, 10.2 rpg on 37.1 %FG/41.6 %TS