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

[quote=ILLsmak]Yeah, but the Magic shooters choked in the Finals... sometimes it's better to have broke shooters with experience than good shooters without experience. Glen and Fish were WET for the Finals. And really I remember them being wet all playoffs.

-Smak[/quote]

A fine post on this in response to the Chamberlain Theory:

[URL="http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1085655#p26487345"]http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1085655#p26487345[/URL]


[I]The problem for coaches is figuring out how to best manipulate a defense with his five pieces.

Now, it's great when we all say to pound the ball into Shaq and space the floor or let Lebron create or let Jordan iso or put the ball in Wilt's hands. Yeah, that's fine. They are talented offensive players. We get it. If we get it, so will the defense. Cleveland fans have realized this the past two years. You can't just space the floor and let one guy do all the work, regardless of how efficient he is and how he creates for others. Ironically, Orlando found this out in the 09 Finals, right after they took Lebron's team out. Orlando's plan is to spread the floor with 3 point shooters and let them play a nice give-and-take game with their dominant C. I don't think Orlando lost because Dwight had limited post moves at the time. I think they lost because they couldn't manipulate the opposing defense enough with the strategy of spacing the floor with jump shooters. When LA took those 3's away, Orlando's perimeter offensive players seemed to have no idea what to do. Pietrus and Lewis looked clueless as they put the ball on the floor and took awkward looking floaters.

[B]This strategy of spacing the floor with a bunch of spot-up shooters is a dangerous trend[/B] in the modern NBA imo, because it ignores the other facets of playing off the ball that are actually more effective in the long run at manipulating a defense. Cutting, offensive rebounding, slashing off of the cross-court pass/inside-out pass, simply moving without the ball to manipulate the guy guarding you- i.e. a piece of the defense. Moving the ball unselfishly, a la Pierce, Ray, and KG in 08. Those are just as effective.

A superstar making swing passes makes an effective offense.

Look at Jordan and Pippen in the Triangle. They were wing players who weren't elite outside shooters and handled the ball. They were great off-ball players, great offensive rebounders for their position. MJ moved without the ball well. The triangle made it harder than ever to guard Jordan because instead of MJ creating with a defense able to focus on him and his effect on teammates, he was attacking at points in time when the defense had no clue it was coming. The triangle is a great offensive system imo because it rewards player movement and ball movement, instead of just standing there and watching your superstar go to work and simply playing off of him.

[B]Look at Shaq.[/B] Hill in Orlando was a horrible coach because his strategy when Shaq had the ball was simply to space the floor. You can do so many more effective things with a dominant offensive player like Shaq. The triangle took advantage of that, and Shaq had his greatest team and individual success because of that. [/I]

Sorry, but its a terrible thread. Anachronism at its worst, judgind a player from the 60's with the today standards.

Let me be anachronic too.. I'll compare myself with Galileo now. I know the tides are caused by the gravitational forces of the moon (and sun, rotation of the eath, etc). Galileo didn't think so. He disagreed with that, threfore I'm smarter than Galileo. :oldlol:

See how it is dumb? You should judge Wilt for what he did in his own era, compared with other players from those days.

I can watch a 80's game and notice a less athletic game with palyers rarely shooting 3's. Just a different game. But does that make Larry Bird any less of the great player he was? No. He was basketball genius. Even today (let alone in the future), kids like to dismiss Bird saying he could not play against current Nba players (because he is slow and whatever). Anachronism again. But guess what, the genius adapt to its time. That's why Kareem started to dominate in the early 70's and still was a great player up to the second half of the 80's.

You put any legend of the game as a young boy today with all the modern trainning and evolution of the game of basketball, and they would be great too, because the genius will always be a genius, different from common people.

what are you trying to proove based on one single footage is quite not enough, anyone can choose a specific footage in which that Shaq played poorly with much less double team and finger-pointing

without watching massive footages of that eras and then claiming Wilt was much easier to stop in the paint than Shaq is really less-wise

Chamberlain & the Sixers played the Warriors three consecutive games in late December of the '65-66 season, and he did have a 33/17/8/16 blk game against Thurmond in the 3rd game.

[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tR8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5384,5507613&dq"]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tR8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5384,5507613&dq[/URL]



He also had a 45 point effort during the 2nd game, though I am not 100% sure Nate played. Rookie Rick Barry led the Warriors to victory with 37 points & 25 rebounds.

1st game he had 23 points, again not sure if Nate played.

I've said 1000 times that people need to compare players within their era. That doesn't mean that if they played shitty teams when winning they should get off the hook, but there are so many factors that changed from 60-now that discounting a player because of the era he played in is completely unfair. Just judge players based off their era, there is no way to know how good they'd be.
Also, the limited footage used to prove the point is pretty unfair. You could make a tape of footage of Jordan getting clobbered (which people have done plenty of) and say that is proof that he played in a tougher era. It doesn't prove anything.

[QUOTE=PHILA]Chamberlain & the Sixers played the Warriors three consecutive games in late December of the '65-66 season, and he did have a 33/17/8/16 blk game against Thurmond in the 3rd game.

[URL="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tR8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5384,5507613&dq"]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tR8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5384,5507613&dq[/URL]



He also had a 45 point effort during the 2nd game, though I am not 100% sure Nate played. Rookie Rick Barry led the Warriors to victory with 37 points & 25 rebounds.

1st game he had 23 points, again not sure if Nate played.[/QUOTE]

I've checked most of the H2H stats between Wilt and Thurmond, will post it up when finish it.

regarding to the 45 point game that Wilt poured to Thurmond, here's something interesting to read:

Mon, Dec 20, 1965 Philadelphia 76ers @ San Francisco Warriors L 118 124
Wilt: 45pts Thurmond: 26rbs

[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=a9UzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MOsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=851,2186566&dq=nate+thurmond&hl=en[/url]

that's the game that Barry scored 37 pts(14-31) and took 25 rbs(yes, he did grabbed 25rbs which's just one less than Thurmond ...) when he was a rookie, even though Wilt scored 45pts, Phila lost due to Greer was held by Attles to 3 field goals which all in the first quarter... Nate Thurmond collected 26 rebounds and was fouled out.

[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rx8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4332,3076260&dq=nate+thurmond&hl=en[/url]



the first matchup between Wilt and Thurmond was after Wilt landed to Phila, Wilt scored 22pts 29rbs and 11blk:

Thu, Jan 21, 1965 Philadelphia 76ers - San Francisco Warriors W 111 102
Wilt: 22pts, 29rbs, 11blk Thurmond: 12pts
Chamberlain's debut as a Phila @ Convention Hall against Warriors: Nate Thurmond scored 12 points and held Wilt to only 22 points, but Wilt grabbed 29 rebounds and 11 block shots. In the previous game, Nate Thurmond scored 21 points against NYK, the next two games, Nate Thurmond scored 22 points against Celtics; and poured a game hich 31 points including 15pts in the last quarter against Cincinnati Royals.


I just took another look at my excel file, Wilt did have some really poor games against Thurmond, pity we will never know what a peak scoring season 1962 Wilt Chamberlain could do against Thurmond...

but look at the H2H between Kareem and Thurmond, I really do believe a peak Chamberlain is MUCH better than a peak Kareem..

I watched a bit of the video, it was like a pickup game. Guys just running and gunning. Taking pull-up jumpers within two seconds of the ball being inbounded. Guys throwing behind the back passes on an inbound had me rollin'. Guards didn't have much of a handle, but that's expected. Amazing how much the game has advanced in a few decades...

The one thing I loved was the use of the backboard. Absolutely amazing to watch. Guys need to get back to that. It's an easier shot. That, and going straight up and straight down. Too many unnecessary fadeaways and guys not being balanced on their shot.

- sorry for being completely off-thread...

[QUOTE=alexandreben]I've checked most of the H2H stats between Wilt and Thurmond, will post it up when finish it.

regarding to the 45 point game that Wilt poured to Thurmond, here's something interesting to read:

Mon, Dec 20, 1965 Philadelphia 76ers @ San Francisco Warriors L 118 124
Wilt: 45pts Thurmond: 26rbs

[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=a9UzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MOsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=851,2186566&dq=nate+thurmond&hl=en[/url]

that's the game that Barry scored 37 pts(14-31) and took 25 rbs(yes, he did grabbed 25rbs which's just one less than Thurmond ...) when he was a rookie, even though Wilt scored 45pts, Phila lost due to Greer was held by Attles to 3 field goals which all in the first quarter... Nate Thurmond collected 26 rebounds and was fouled out.

[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rx8rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pJ0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4332,3076260&dq=nate+thurmond&hl=en[/url]



the first matchup between Wilt and Thurmond was after Wilt landed to Phila, Wilt scored 22pts 29rbs and 11blk:

Thu, Jan 21, 1965 Philadelphia 76ers - San Francisco Warriors W 111 102
Wilt: 22pts, 29rbs, 11blk Thurmond: 12pts
Chamberlain's debut as a Phila @ Convention Hall against Warriors: Nate Thurmond scored 12 points and held Wilt to only 22 points, but Wilt grabbed 29 rebounds and 11 block shots. In the previous game, Nate Thurmond scored 21 points against NYK, the next two games, Nate Thurmond scored 22 points against Celtics; and poured a game hich 31 points including 15pts in the last quarter against Cincinnati Royals.


I just took another look at my excel file, Wilt did have some really poor games against Thurmond, pity we will never know what a peak scoring season 1962 Wilt Chamberlain could do against Thurmond...

but look at the H2H between Kareem and Thurmond, I really do believe a peak Chamberlain is MUCH better than a peak Kareem..[/QUOTE]

Excellent post. Wilt really only played against Thurmond, in his peak offensive seasons, from mid-way in the 64-65 season, thur the 65-66 season, and Nate missed some of those games. I have mentioned this before, though, that in their first meeting in the 66-67 season, Wilt had been facilitating the entire first half (as had been the new coaching philosophy of Hannum.) However, it had not been very successful in that game, so Hannum directed his team to start feeding Chamberlain, and Wilt scored 24 of his 30 points in the second half (to go along with 26 rebounds and 12 blocks.)

But, aside from a few 20+ point games, Wilt seldom shot the ball against Thurmond after that. He had many games under 10 points against Thurmond from the 68-69 season until he retired. But, his team's usually pummeled Thurmond's teams, and Chamberlain outshot Thurmond by HUGE margins in their playoff battles (as well as outrebounding him in every one...including a 23.6 to 17.2 margin in the '73 WCF's.) Wilt shot over 50% in all three of their H2H playoff series, while Nate never even shot 40% against him in any. In the '67 Finals, Wilt not only outscored Thurmond per game, 17.5 ppg to 14.3 ppg...he outshot him by an eye-popping .560 to .343 margin.

So, aside from a handful of games, we never really got to see a PRIME scoring Wilt against Thurmond. But, judging by the few that we do have, Wilt could have put up 40+ on him, as well.

[quote]I just took another look at my excel file, Wilt did have some really poor games against Thurmond[/quote]Indeed, early in the '67-68 season he didn't attempt a FG in a win over the Warriors, as he dished out 13 assists while [SIZE=-1]Greer,[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Jones, & Jackson combined for 83 points.[/SIZE]

Great analysts.

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