[QUOTE=Horatio33][QUOTE=aau]
Brilliant post. Hits the nail on the head. You can't go on about Wilt being super human then blame his team mates for his faliure.[/QUOTE]
Why people do it to Lebron every year.
Lol sry had too.
Printable View
[QUOTE=Horatio33][QUOTE=aau]
Brilliant post. Hits the nail on the head. You can't go on about Wilt being super human then blame his team mates for his faliure.[/QUOTE]
Why people do it to Lebron every year.
Lol sry had too.
[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I posted this over two years ago:
[url]http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=756226[/url]
I hate misinformation, regardless of who says it, regardless of what the agenda is.[/QUOTE]
It was my first time to read this, great stuffs, and believe it or not, I wrote something very similar a year ago but in different language:cheers:
To add a few stats from my ancient post, here's some of HOFers average stats during regular facing Wilt's league(can I say that Wilt owned the league by that time?:hammerhead: ):
Bill Bussell (1959-1969): 15pts/24rbs
Walt Bellamy (1961-1973) 18.8pts/15.2rbs
Jerry Lucas (1963-1973) 17pts/19.5rbs
Willis Reed (1964-1973) 18.3pts/12.6rbs
Wes Unseld (1968-1973) 13.9pts/17.1rbs
Nate Thurmond (1965-1973) 20pts/20rbs
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1969-1973) 31.4pts/15.8rbs
Bob Lanier (1970-1973) 21.7pts/12.4rbs
Dave Cowens (1968-1973) 18.8pts/15.5rbs
[QUOTE=alexandreben]It was my first time to read this, great stuffs, and believe it or not, I wrote something very similar a year ago but in different language:cheers:
To add a few stats from my ancient post, here's some of HOFers average stats during regular facing Wilt's league(can I say that Wilt owned the league by that time?:hammerhead: ):
Bill Bussell (1959-1969): 15pts/24rbs
Walt Bellamy (1961-1973) 18.8pts/15.2rbs
Jerry Lucas (1963-1973) 17pts/19.5rbs
Willis Reed (1964-1973) 18.3pts/12.6rbs
Wes Unseld (1968-1973) 13.9pts/17.1rbs
Nate Thurmond (1965-1973) 20pts/20rbs
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1969-1973) 31.4pts/15.8rbs
Bob Lanier (1970-1973) 21.7pts/12.4rbs
Dave Cowens (1968-1973) 18.8pts/15.5rbs[/QUOTE]
I get a kick out of those posters that claim that the 90's were the "Golden Age" of centers. Wilt faced as many as 11 HOF centers in his career, and he also faced All-Stars like Zelmo Beatty and Wayne Embry. He even easily outplayed Gilmore in a brief encounter in the early 70's. I doubt that the 90's class will have more than HALF as many HOFers, and they most certainly will not come close to ELEVEN (despite league's with 29-30 teams!)
Yet, that is what Wilt faced, and mostly outplayed, or downright crushed.
[QUOTE=PHILA]Thurmond a stiff? :roll: The same stiff that shut Kareem Abdul-Jabbar down in the '73 playoffs?
From your prior posts on the board it seems you are a Lakers fan. More specifically [B]another [/B]Chamberlain hating Lakers fan. Between this board and RealGM, I wouldn't have believed fans of the Los Angeles Lakers franchise could so vehemently despise him if I didn't see it myself. Incredible.
Tearing down others? :facepalm[/QUOTE]
most definitely a stiff , , you guys love fg%
nate shot 39% , 42 , 40 , 43 , 41 , 41 , 41% his first 7 seasons
he wasn't a jumpshooter , mainly shot from pointblank range
we're talking career 60% free throw shooter . . . in '69 he
took 1394 shots to make 1524 points . . . . . . GTFO
stiff
now you want to make it personal , , , , i was a basketball fan
long before i became a laker fan . . . i hit you with some very
poignant stuff , , normally you reply with harvard-like essays
that read like bible references with quotes from Jesus . . . .
i feel cheated
according to you guys it was never wilt's fault , , , all his teammates
you guys have gone so far as to give him "close-to-the-title" points
"well if sam jones hadn't drilled that jumper in wilt's face at
the buzzer in game 7 , , , , , , , , we woulda won"
lmao
pointblank , if your team was good enough to get to the finals
and take the series to 7 games , , , , on multiple occasions
they were good enough to win multiple titles outright
no ifs , ands or buts about it
bill russell would run over his mother to win a game
wilt would rather run his mouth
[QUOTE]pointblank , if your team was good enough to get to the finals
and take the series to 7 games , , , , on multiple occasions
they were good enough to win multiple titles outright
no ifs , ands or buts about it
[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to waste too much time with any of your nonsense. Thurmond held Kareem WAY BELOW his scoring and FG% numbers over the course of 61 (yes sixty-one) games, including three straight playoff series in which Kareem had far better personnel.
As for the above quote, in the ONE series in which Chamberlain had an equal supporting cast, that was healthy, and that played half-way decent, Chamberlain crushed Russell, and his team damn near swept Russell's Celtics, in a 4-1 blowout win. So, yes, IF Wilt would have had better supporting casts, I have no doubt that he would have won his fair share of titles.
[QUOTE=jlauber]I'm not going to waste too much time with any of your nonsense. Thurmond held Kareem WAY BELOW his scoring and FG% numbers over the course of 61 (yes sixty-one) games, including three straight playoff series in which Kareem had far better personnel.
As for the above quote, in the ONE series in which Chamberlain had an equal supporting cast, that was healthy, and that played half-way decent, Chamberlain crushed Russell, and his team damn near swept Russell's Celtics, in a 4-1 blowout win. So, yes, IF Wilt would have had better supporting casts, I have no doubt that he would have won his fair share of titles.[/QUOTE]
yeah , that's why you're wasting your time replying to
a post that wasn't directed at you
miss me fool
it must hurt your feelings that thurmond said kareem was the
best center he ever faced . . . . . . just for the record
stiffs sometimes make for great defenders with their
clumsy awkwardness , that's why they stay hurt
just because nate was a great defender doesn't mean
he wasn't a stiff . . . . would you consider
mutumbo a fluid athlete
'if wilt had a better supporting cast
he still would have gotten his ass kicked'
face up , y'boy was a loser
he couldn't have cared less about winning
[quote=jlauber]I'm not going to waste too much time with any of your nonsense. Thurmond held Kareem WAY BELOW his scoring and FG% numbers over the course of 61 (yes sixty-one) games, including three straight playoff series in which Kareem had far better personnel.[/quote]
It may potentially have worked wonders for Chamberlain's legacy had there been a required compensation for a veteran free agent during his years as opposed to the days of illegal reserve clauses where the owners had complete control (abolished in large part thanks to Abdul-Jabbar's apparently overrated disgraceful choker of a teammate in [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135720"]Oscar Robertson[/URL]), allowing the Lakers to bar Chamberlain from extending his professional basketball career with the Knicks or the Conquistadors, thus indirectly ushering him into a Hall of Fame professional [URL="http://i41.tinypic.com/9hn91z.jpg"]volleyball[/URL] career. Of course without noting that the balding defensively liable role player rode a free ride to at least two of his world championships, one of which required the obligatory Laker gift in the form of two foul shots on the single [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJTsmS5MokM#t=5m45s"]worst call[/URL] in the history of professional basketball to save them from elimination.
The first generous compensation was a #1 draft pick for a veteran that had signed with another team as a free agent due to the steaming arrogance from the management refusing to financially compensate the man for his contributions to the organization (notably his being a key member of the single greatest [URL="http://i42.tinypic.com/ju7p6b.jpg"]team[/URL] in that franchise's history to date.) His new team had it's [URL="http://i38.tinypic.com/2s7gowo.jpg"]star player[/URL] suffer what was effectively a career ending injury, leading to them having the worst record in the league the next season prior to relocating (before the lottery era). That top pick they gave away ended up being [URL="http://i42.tinypic.com/uolg4.jpg"]this man[/URL]. The second one being for a #1 pick again (this time from a team that lost it's top scorer midway through the season with their new owner getting suckered into the single worst trade in the history of professional basketball) for a bench warmer. End result being [URL="http://i41.tinypic.com/10dxjyu.jpg"]this man[/URL] gift wrapped for the world champions.
It would indeed be a fantasy to have a man like Oscar Robertson teamed up with Wilt Chamberlain at any point in their careers (as opposed to Chamberlain's Warriors losing 2 of their top 3 ball players and head coach simply due to the 2500 mile move to San Francisco; not to neglect seven new ball players resulting in a rebuilding process of a team that was seconds away from dethroning the Celtics a few months earlier, merely for financial reasons).
When the Lakers did happen to face off against the [URL="http://i44.tinypic.com/2uh1krr.jpg"]top team[/URL] of the 1980's, it was a disgraceful sweep & Abdul-Jabbar was humiliated by his opponent in the pivot. Things could have been a bit interesting the year before had Chamberlain had accepted Katz' willing offer of $500,000 to play the remainder of the '82 season for the Sixers. God forbid they get to the Finals actually beat the Lakers.
[QUOTE=aau]yeah , that's why you're wasting your time replying to
a post that wasn't directed at you
miss me fool
it must hurt your feelings that thurmond said kareem was the
best center he ever faced . . . . . . just for the record
stiffs sometimes make for great defenders with their
clumsy awkwardness , that's why they stay hurt
just because nate was a great defender doesn't mean
he wasn't a stiff . . . . would you consider
mutumbo a fluid athlete
'if wilt had a better supporting cast
he still would have gotten his ass kicked'
face up , y'boy was a loser
he couldn't have cared less about winning[/QUOTE]
I already provided you with an example when Wilt had a COMPARABLE supporting cast, and he and his team, kicked Russell, and his team's, ass.
As for being a "loser", once again, Hakeem played in 18 seasons, and won two rings. And, oh, BTW, he played on EIGHT playoff teams that were eliminated in the first round. Wilt played in 14 seasons, against the greatest Dynasty in NBA history for TEN of them, and won two rings. Who was the bigger "loser?"
good thing players aren't judged on their failures seeing how
difficult it is to just win a couple . . . . . it's hard to win in
this league , that's why your successes far outweigh
your losses . . . . nobody but russell magic jordan
- and now kobe with his 5th - won all the time
think about it . . . the best that ever played the game
only won 6 titles in 14-15 attempts on average
barring russell
you really have to capitalize on the opportunities you get
hakeem did . . . jordan retired , , hakeem was like
happy halloween
[QUOTE=aau]good thing players aren't judged on their failures seeing how
difficult it is to just win a couple . . . . . it's hard to win in
this league , that's why your successes far outweigh
your losses . . . . nobody but russell magic jordan
- and now kobe with his 5th - won all the time
think about it . . . the best that ever played the game
only won 6 titles in 14-15 attempts on average
barring russell
you really have to capitalize on the opportunities you get
hakeem did . . . jordan retired , , hakeem was like
happy halloween[/QUOTE]
Yes, Jordan played on FIVE losing team's in his career, too. And, yes, Hakeem was able to win one ring in a year in which Jordan did not play. Did Hakeem ever face a "Dynasty" team, and lead his team to a title? So, if you consider Wilt a "loser" then you must also believe that Jordan was a "LOSER" in over half of his career. That Kareem was a "loser" in 14 seasons, or MORE than Wilt. Or that Shaq was a "loser" in 14 seasons, or MORE than Wilt. Or that players like Oscar, West, Robinson, Lebron, Howard, Barkley, Moses, Dr. J, Barry, and many other "greats" who either only won as many titles as Wilt, or less, were "losers."
[QUOTE=jlauber]I already provided you with an example when Wilt had a COMPARABLE supporting cast, and he and his team, kicked Russell, and his team's, ass.
As for being a "loser", once again, Hakeem played in 18 seasons, and won two rings. And, oh, BTW, he played on EIGHT playoff teams that were eliminated in the first round. Wilt played in 14 seasons, against the greatest Dynasty in NBA history for TEN of them, and won two rings. Who was the bigger "loser?"[/QUOTE]
how can you say wilt's cast wasn't comparable when
they took the celtics to 7 games with the series
being decided oftentimes at the buzzer
yeah , wilt got his ONE . . . but only a handful , if that
have ever repeated as fmvp , hakeem is one of them
just winning ONE has some kinda fluke-like feel to it
besides
hakeem faced competition that was actually comparable to him
kareem dropped back-to-back 40s on him and ralph
wilt never faced anything like that
shaq . . . who was the shaq of the 60s , , , nate thurmond?
robinson and duncan ... parish and mchale . . . ewing
please . . . .
there's a reason the celtics were the greatest dynasty in L history
they got to play against wilt-led teams
[QUOTE=aau]how can you say wilt's cast wasn't comparable when
they took the celtics to 7 games with the series
being decided oftentimes at the buzzer
yeah , wilt got his ONE . . . but only a handful , if that
have ever repeated as fmvp , hakeem is one of them
just winning ONE has some kinda fluke-like feel to it
[B]besides
hakeem faced competition that was actually comparable to him
kareem dropped back-to-back 40s on him and ralph
wilt never faced anything like that[/B]
shaq . . . who was the shaq of the 60s , , , nate thurmond?
robinson and duncan ... parish and mchale . . . ewing
please . . . .
there's a reason the celtics were the greatest dynasty in L history
they got to play against wilt-led teams[/QUOTE]
Wilt faced Kareem in 28 games. He held him to .464 shooting in those 28 games (Kareem was a career .559 shooter.) He outrebounded Kareem in the majority of them. In their only H2H game before Wilt's injury in the 69-70 season, Wilt outscored Kareem, 25-23; outrebounded Kareem, 25-20; outassisted Kareem, 5-2; outblocked Kareem, 3-2; and outshot Kareem, 9-14 to 9-21. In their last ten H2H games, Wilt held Kareem to .434 shooting (including .414 in the last four games of the '72 WCF's.) In their last season in the league, they faced each other in six regular season games. Kareem easily outscored Wilt, who was hardly shooting at that juncture of his career, BUT, Chamberlain outshot him from the floor, .637 to ,450, and in fact, he outscored Kareem in one game that season, in which he also outshot Kareem, 10-14 to 10-27.
They met in the '72 WCF's, and here were some interesting articles...
[QUOTE]Kareem’s Image as Best Suffered in Buck Defeat
Bob Wolf
The Milwaukee Journal, April 24, 1972
When the Milwaukee Bucks won the National Basketball Association championship a year ago, there was talk that they had a dynasty in the making.
But their dynasty ended before it really began, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar’s reputation as the greatest center of all time was tarnished in the process.
[B]Abdul-Jabbar failed to outplay either Nate Thurmond of the Golden State Warriors or Wilt Chamberlain of the Los Angeles Lakers in the playoffs, and his inability to contain Chamberlain finally made the difference in the Laker series that ended in disaster at the Arena Saturday[/B]
Matter of Muscle
In the first round series with the Warriors, Abdul-Jabbar outrebounded Thurmond 95-89, but was outscored, 127-114. The Bucks won the series, four games to one.
In the semifinal series with the Lakers, Abdul-Jabbar had a tremendous edge in scoring, 202-67, but was outrebounded, 116-105, and was outmuscled by a greater margin than that. [B]He actually reached the point on occasion where he was intimidated by Chamberlain as he headed toward the basket, and who ever heard of the big Buck being intimidated[/B]?
The Lakers eliminated the Bucks in six games, [B]and the turning point occurred, with the series tied 2-2, when Chamberlain took advantage of his tremendous advantage in weight and strength and began pushing Abdul-Jabbar around. Wilt is listed at 275 pounds but probably weighs 290, to Abdul-Jabbar’s 230[/B].
Perhaps the best illustration of Abdul-Jabbar’s difficulties lay in his shooting averages. He shot .574 in the regular season but only .437 in the playoffs ― .405 against Thurmond and .457 against Chamberlain.
Because of the strong defensive work of his two veteran rivals, Abdul-Jabbar often was forced away from his favorite shooting positions. He took hook shots from 12 to 15 feet away instead of from 8 to 10, and sometimes he even resorted to 15 foot jump shots.
Keep It Up
As Chamberlain put it after the fifth game in Los Angeles, which the Lakers won, 115-90, “Tonight Kareem was taking jump shots. That’s something he doesn’t usually do, but I hope he keeps on doing it.”
Abdul-Jabbar took more jump shots Saturday as the Lakers ended the series with a 104-100 victory, and Bucks Coach Larry Costello said, “I don’t want Kareem taking 15 footers. You do that and you’re just not playing your game.”
[B]But Chamberlain’s dominating presence obviously had much to do with Abdul-Jabbar’s change in tactics, and Wilt’s performance against the man who supposedly had usurped his title as king of the giants must have been one of the most satisfying of his long career[/B]. [/QUOTE]
How about this one...
[url]http://www.amazon.com/Wilt-Larger-Robert-Allen-Cherry/dp/1572436727[/url]
[QUOTE]Thirty years after he retired from basketball, Wilt still owns more NBA records then any player in history. Bill Russell may have won all those championships, but not even Russell was a match for Wilt statisically. Chamberlain almost always outscored and out rebounded Russell in every encounter. Russell no doubt almost always had the better teams. Abdul Jabbar played 20 seasons to Wilts 13, and yet Chamberlain has several thousand more lifetime rebounds. [B]In the twilight of his career, a 35 year old Wilt led the Lakers to victory over the Bucks and a 25 year old Jabbar during the 1972 playoffs. Even more astounding, was wilt blocked 20 shots in two consecutive games in that series, and 11 of those blocked shots were on Kareem. Who the heck ever did that to Jabbar. Makes you wonder what Wilt would have done in his prime. As great as Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson were, none of them had the impact or dominance of Wilt Chamberlain.[/B] The rules of the game were altered upon Wilts arrival into the league. Modern day fans talk of Shaq being the greatest center of all-time. Does anyone out there think Shaq could have blocked 11 Kareem shots in two games? Shaq wouldn't have been able to leap high enough to block a skyhook. That statistic alone, should be enough to convince anyone of Wilts athleticism.[/QUOTE]
Or this one...
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain[/url]
[QUOTE]In the post-season, the Lakers defeated the Chicago Bulls in a sweep,[85] then went on to face the Milwaukee Bucks of young superstar center and regular-season MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar again. [B]The matchup between Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar was hailed by LIFE magazine as the greatest matchup in all of sports. Chamberlain would help lead the Lakers past Jabbar and the Bucks in 6 games.[85] Particularly, Chamberlain was lauded for his final Game 6 performance, which the Lakers won 106–100 after trailing by 10 points in the fourth quarter: he scored 24 points and 22 rebounds, played a complete 48 minutes and outsprinted the younger Bucks center on several late Lakers fast breaks[/B].[86] Jerry West called it "the greatest ball-busting performance I have ever seen."[86] Chamberlain performed so well in the series that [COLOR="DarkRed"]TIME magazine stated, "In the N.B.A.'s western division title series with Milwaukee, he (Chamberlain) decisively outplayed basketball's newest giant superstar, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, eleven years his junior.[/COLOR]"[87[QUOTE]
Even if Wilt's stat's did have a pretty large drop off, he still had some of the best stats ever. He definitely didn't have the right attitude, but I don't think he's a choker, especially considering the majority of his teams weren't championship caliber with almost every player in NBA history. I'm not sure any other player is taking the 62 Celtics to 7 games with the 62 Warriors roster.
[QUOTE=jlauber]Yes, Jordan played on FIVE losing team's in his career, too. And, yes, Hakeem was able to win one ring in a year in which Jordan did not play. Did Hakeem ever face a "Dynasty" team, and lead his team to a title? So, if you consider Wilt a "loser" then you must also believe that Jordan was a "LOSER" in over half of his career. That Kareem was a "loser" in 14 seasons, or MORE than Wilt. Or that Shaq was a "loser" in 14 seasons, or MORE than Wilt. Or that players like Oscar, West, Robinson, Lebron, Howard, Barkley, Moses, Dr. J, Barry, and many other "greats" who either only won as many titles as Wilt, or less, were "losers."[/QUOTE]
this is what i'm talking about
jordan won 6 titles 6 fmvp and he's a loser?
shaq won 4 titles 3 fmvp and he's a loser?
hakeem led his team to the finals against bird and his celtics
in just his 2nd season . . . he didn't win it but he knocked
off a kareem-led laker team to get there . . that's
more impressive than finally beating the celts
without red auerbach and a warrior team
with nate thurmond and clyde lee at C
dr j a loser with 3 titles and 2 fmvp . . . . lmao
criticize the aba all you want , doc would've
dominated the nba much the same way
they had nobody like him either . . . .
that's why they had to have him and decided to take
on the other teams just to get him for without him
there would have been no merger and the nba
would have remained lifeless and boring
the difference is these other guys may not have won
a lot , , , but they actually cared about winning
wilt himself would tell you that wasn't
the reason he played the game
[QUOTE=aau]this is what i'm talking about
jordan won 6 titles 6 fmvp and he's a loser?
shaq won 4 titles 3 fmvp and he's a loser?
[B]hakeem led his team to the finals against bird and his celtics
in just his 2nd season . . . he didn't win it but he knocked
off a kareem-led laker team to get there . . that's
more impressive than finally beating the celts
without red auerbach and a warrior team
with nate thurmond and clyde lee at C[/B]
dr j a loser with 3 titles and 2 fmvp . . . . lmao
criticize the aba all you want , doc would've
dominated the nba much the same way
they had nobody like him either . . . .
that's why they had to have him and decided to take
on the other teams just to get him for without him
there would have been no merger and the nba
would have remained lifeless and boring
the difference is these other guys may not have won
a lot , , , but they actually cared about winning
wilt himself would tell you that wasn't
the reason he played the game[/QUOTE]
I could shoot holes in almost this entire post. I only claimed that those guys were "losers" based on what YOU posted. Hakeem won as many rings as Wilt, and played four more seasons.
I also bolded your comment that Hakeem's losing to Bird's Celtics was more impressive than Wilt beating a team that had won EIGHT straight NBA titles, and in that 66-67 season, Chamberlain's Sixers slaughtered that 60-21 Celtic team. BTW, how about Wilt taking a 40-40 Sixer team, that was outgunned in HOFers by a 5-2 margin, to a game seven, one-point loss against Russell's 62-18 Celtics in '65? In a series in which Wilt outscored Russell, 211-109, and outrebounded him, 221-177?
[QUOTE=magnax1]Even if Wilt's stat's did have a pretty large drop off, he still had some of the best stats ever. He definitely didn't have the right attitude, but I don't think he's a choker, especially considering the majority of his teams weren't championship caliber with almost every player in NBA history. I'm not sure any other player is taking the 62 Celtics to 7 games with the 62 Warriors roster.[/QUOTE]
Chamberlain's post-season scoring is somewhat deceptive. I have said it before, but you can basically break down Chamberlain's career into three sections. The first one, which I consider his "scoring" seasons, was from 59-60 thur 65-66. The second one, which I consider his "balanced" seasons (mainly because he finally had some quality teammates) was from the 66-67 thru the 68-69 seasons. And then, his last one, is what I consider his post-injury seasons (he was injured early on in the 69-70 season), which ran from 69-70 thru his last season, in 72-73.
But for the sake of this argument, we'll just go with two sections, or halves. The first half of Wilt's career was still those "scoring" seasons, from 59-60 thru 65-66, and then the last half would obviously be from 66-67 thru 72-73. In the first half of his regular season career, he averaged 39.4 ppg, and in the last half he averaged about 20 ppg.
However, in his post-season career, he only played 52 of his 160 total post-season games, in his "scoring" seasons. In fact, he only played in the post-season, in the first half of his career, in six of his "scoring" seasons, because his horrible 62-63 team did not make the playoffs. And that is significant, because during that season, he had his second highest scoring season, at 44.8 ppg. In any case, as you can see, he only played about one-third of his post-season games, in his "scoring" seasons. He averaged 33 ppg in those six post-seasons, which was down somewhat from 39.4 ppg, but remember, he missed one entire "scoring" season, and that was his second highest scoring season.
And not only did he only play one-third of his post-season games in the first half of his career, he was facing a HOF center in the vast majority of them. In fact, he faced Russell in 30 of those 52 games. And, for those that like to point out that Chamberlain's scoring dropped significantly in the 61-62 post-season (from 50 ppg down to 35 ppg), his COACH had him PASSING the ball inthe first four games of the five game series with Syracuse (in game five of that best-of-five series, Wilt got the green light, and he responded with a 56-35 game BTW.) Furthermore, and this is important,...during the regular season that year, and against Russell, he "only" averaged 38 ppg on about .470 shooting. In that seven game series in the ECF's, Wilt averaged 33 ppg on about 46%. So, his numbers did not drop as dramatically as they first appeared that post-season.
Chamberlain had his share of great post-seasons, and even some against Russell. He averaged a 30-31 game against Russell in the '65 ECF's (and Russell was at 15-25 BTW.) In the '64 Finals he averaged a 29-27 series (and Russell was at 11-25.) In the '66 ECF's Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 28-14, and outrebound him, per game, 30-26. So, in his "scoring" seasons, he faced Russell in four series, and averaged an almost even 30 ppg and 28 rpg against him combined.
And, the fact was, Chamberlain faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of his entire 160 post-season games, AND, his team's were outgunned by HOFers in EVERY post-season in his entire career.
Furthemore, while Wilt's scoring dropped slightly, as did his FG% (from .540 down to .522...of course, almost EVERY great player had a decline in post-season FG% BTW)...his rebounding INCREASED. And, he outrebounded his opposing center in EVERY ONE of his 29 post-season series, including Russell in all EIGHT of their H2H post-season series. And, in the series and games that we have recorded FG% in in the post-season, Wilt also held his opposing center to lower FG percentages, as well...and in many of them, by HUGE margins.
[QUOTE=Yung D-Will][QUOTE=Horatio33]
Why people do it to Lebron every year.
Lol sry had too.[/QUOTE]
It's a fair point you make. Wilt Chamberlain lacked the mental toughness to win consistantly. even said himself, that he prefered losing big games to winning them, because it builds up pressure to continue winning. Doesn't sound like a leader to me. Shaq is the same. Not a big leader, even in the 3 peat, thought the leader was Derek Fisher with Phil Jax pulling the strings to give him the neccessary motivation. Shaq always wanted things his way, like Wilt did. Wilt wanted to prove he could pass as well as he could score. So he led the league in assists, but to the detriment of his team.
[QUOTE=Horatio33][QUOTE=Yung D-Will]
It's a fair point you make. Wilt Chamberlain lacked the mental toughness to win consistantly. even said himself, that he prefered losing big games to winning them, because it builds up pressure to continue winning. Doesn't sound like a leader to me. Shaq is the same. Not a big leader, even in the 3 peat, thought the leader was Derek Fisher with Phil Jax pulling the strings to give him the neccessary motivation. Shaq always wanted things his way, like Wilt did. Wilt wanted to prove he could pass as well as he could score. So he led the league in assists, but to the detriment of his team.[/QUOTE]
First of all, it would be interesting to find out just WHEN Wilt made that comment about preferring to lose games. Why? Because it would be important to look at the context. Chamberlain was labeled a "loser" in College, for cryingoutloud, even though, in his soph year, he took a team, on his back to to the NCAA Finals, where he was tripled-teamed the entire game, and his TEAM lost in OT. And, in his junior year, his team went 18-5...but, he missed three games to an illness, and his TEAM went 0-3, which eliminated them from the tourney.
Wilt was EXPECTED to carry his TEAM's to championships...and as the frustrations mounted, year-after-year, I'm sure he became very defensive on the topic of "winning-and-losing."
Of course, Wilt "the loser" played on team's that won somewhere around 67% of their games; went to the playoffs in 13 of his 14 seasons (and in the year they didn't, all he did was lead the NBA in scoring by a HUGE margin; lead the league in rebounding; set a then record of a .528 FG%; had the highest Win Share in the league by a HUGE margin; and set a PER mark that is STILL an All-Time RECORD. In those 13 playoff seasons, he took his team to the conference Finals in TWELVE of them. His team's won their division or conference regular season crowns in SEVEN times. His team's went to SIX Finals. His team's had the best record in the league in FOUR seasons. He played on FOUR 60+ win team's. And he anchored two of the greatest team's in NBA history that won titles in dominating fashion.
As for Wilt leading the league in assists, "to the detriment of the team", Chamberlain's 67-68 Sixers RAN AWAY with the BEST record in the league that season, going 62-20, to Boston's 54-28.
[IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/2zszme1.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i51.tinypic.com/2qd0v3a.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/20psvsz.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/6r1s1z.jpg[/IMG]
I wish the admins would make this a sticky...
[QUOTE=jlauber]Was Wilt a "failure", a "loser", and a "choker?"
Here is my response taken from another thread...
The more and more research that has become available, the more we see just how horribly misguided was the PERCEPTION of Chamberlain's career...even at the time in which he played.
I wish the admins would make this a sticky...[/QUOTE]
The notion of Wilt not coming through in big games..or being a "choker"..perhaps had to do with his FT shooting. Wilt's teams lost four Game 7s to Bill's Celtics by a total of 9 points. He must have missed many more free throws than that in those games. I presume that it made Wilt not want to ask for the ball (making his team not dump the ball down low to him, a la Shaquille).
The thing is..by all accounts, Chamberlain worked extensively on his FT shooting trying a variety of techniques (even under-handed-style). From an outsider looking in, it seems that all of that may have messed up his mental approach, quite possibly costing his teams. Even if Wilt was marginally better from the charity-stripe...his teams would have had a couple more postseason wins over Russell’s Celtics (possibly a few more titles as well), in which case the perception of Wilt's career would be quite different from what it largely is today.
[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]The notion of Wilt not coming through in big games..or being a "choker"..perhaps had to do with his FT shooting. Wilt's teams lost four Game 7s to Bill's Celtics by a total of 9 points. He must have missed many more free throws than that in those games. I presume that it made Wilt not want to ask for the ball (making his team not dump the ball down low to him, a la Shaquille).
The thing is..by all accounts, Chamberlain worked extensively on his FT shooting trying a variety of techniques (even under-handed-style). From an outsider looking in, it seems that all of that may have messed up his mental approach, quite possibly costing his teams. Even if Wilt was marginally better from the charity-stripe...his teams would have had a couple more postseason wins over Russell
[QUOTE=jlauber]It just amazes me how some posters here continually rip Wilt for his poor FT shooting, but NEVER bring up the fact that he ROUTINELY reduced his OPPOSING centers to WAY BELOW their normal numbers in the post-season.
Furthermore, these "anti-Chamberlain" posters NEVER bring up the FACT that Wilt's TEAMs BENEFITTED from Wilt's IMPACT at the FT line. For instance, Wilt played in 35 Finals games...and his TEAM's outshot their opponents from the line by a 26-6-3 margin. And in MANY cases they were shooting SIGNIFICANTLY more FTs.
Once again, the best example of this...
In Wilt's 68-69 season with LA, the Lakers LED the NBA in FTAs. And in the post-season, they shot 109 MORE FTs than the next best team (Boston.)
Wilt was injured early on in the 69-70 season, and missed 70 games. The result? The Lakers dropped from FIRST down to TWELVETH (in a 14 team league.) BUT, Wilt returned for the playoffs, and the Lakers were MILES ahead of the next best team, taking 655 FTAs to the Knicks 455. And, H2H against the Knicks, the Lakers had a 256-160 advantage in FTAs, AND, a 176-122 differential in FTs MADE.
BTW, Russell and Shaq were only marginally better FT shooters in their careers, and yet they still won 15 rings between them.[/QUOTE]
If you cannot admit his troubles from the line played an integral part of the outcome those games, you simply aren't worthy of an honest discussion. Maybe if you stopped living vicariously through his corpse you would be taken a little more seriously.
Just some food for thought...
[B]Russell Rules: 11 Lessons on Leadership From the Twentieth Century's Greatest Winner[/B] - Bill Russell
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/TeHIN.png[/IMG]
[quote]if you stopped living vicariously through his corpse [/quote]
[url]http://www.thefreelibrary.com/2+MEMORIAL+SERVICES+SET+FOR+CHAMBERLAIN.-a083624199[/url]
[I]``It was Wilt's wish to be cremated, and I guess this is part of it, too,'' said former Frankford High basketball coach Vince Miller, Chamberlain's best friend since third grade.
``They're going to leave some of the ashes in L.A. after the funeral, and then bring some of them here next week.
``It's not a bad idea. It's a good idea, actually. Let's face it. He spent about half his life in each place.'' [/I]
Wilt was not one of the greatest winners. Period. For the bigger part of his career, he was an individual at first and he played for stats, records etc. That led to being traded in his peak (although that was more on his own will), had team mates calling him out for being selfish and ball hog.
Then, in 67, he decided to go for a team approach and he won a ring. He still had quality support behind him, but he was the reason behind it. And in those LA teams, he cost the teams with his bad FT shooting in the Finals.
2-15, 3-11... and similar performances in key games.That's quite bad. Chamberlain's miss FTs make him as a choker. No doubt Wilt past 67 to the end of his career, made his teams absolutely great with his all-around game and team approach.
It's a shame he didn't play like that, but what should you expect from an individual superstar expect to play for himself at first and then for everything else.
And comparing him to Russell in team accomplishment isn't a good idea, because only Bill managed to beat him well in their match ups.
[QUOTE=PHILA][url]http://www.thefreelibrary.com/2+MEMORIAL+SERVICES+SET+FOR+CHAMBERLAIN.-a083624199[/url]
[I]``It was Wilt's wish to be cremated, and I guess this is part of it, too,'' said former Frankford High basketball coach Vince Miller, Chamberlain's best friend since third grade.
``They're going to leave some of the ashes in L.A. after the funeral, and then bring some of them here next week.
``It's not a bad idea. It's a good idea, actually. Let's face it. He spent about half his life in each place.'' [/I][/QUOTE]
This is among the greatest responses of all-time!
[QUOTE=PTB Fan]Wilt was not one of the greatest winners. Period. For the bigger part of his career, he was an individual at first and he played for stats, records etc. That led to being traded in his peak (although that was more on his own will), had team mates calling him out for being selfish and ball hog.
Then, in 67, he decided to go for a team approach and he won a ring. He still had quality support behind him, but he was the reason behind it. And in those LA teams, he cost the teams with his bad FT shooting in the Finals.
2-15, 3-11... and similar performances in key games.That's quite bad. Chamberlain's miss FTs make him as a choker. No doubt Wilt past 67 to the end of his career, made his teams absolutely great with his all-around game and team approach.
It's a shame he didn't play like that, but what should you expect from an individual superstar expect to play for himself at first and then for everything else.
And comparing him to Russell in team accomplishment isn't a good idea, because only Bill managed to beat him well in their match ups.[/QUOTE]
First of all, saying Wilt was not one of the greatest "winners" is truly laughable. The man played on 12 teams in his 14 seasons that had winning records. And, he took 12 teams to the Conference Finals, and SIX teams to the Finals. For comparision sake, Bird took eight teams to the Conference Finals, and only five to the Finals.
And Wilt played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13 (and WON 33 straight games.) Here again, for comparison sake, how about Russell? Three. And his best record was 62-18.
Wilt also played on FOUR teams that had the BEST record in the league. And, aside from MJ, find me ONE other "great" player that played on team's that went 68-13 and 69-13. And MJ also played on FIVE teams that had LOSING records, too.
How about Wilt's two "non-winning" seasons? In his 62-63 season, all Wilt did was average 44.8 ppg (winning the scoring crown by +10.8 ppg); lead the league in rebounding at 24.3 rpg; set a then record FG% mark of .528 (in a league that shot .441); and even handed out 3.4 apg. He LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories, and had offensive and defensive rebounding, rebound %, and blocked shots been official stats, he probably would have led in those, as well. He even LED the league in WIN SHARES, and by a large margin. He was directly responsible for 20.9 of his team's 31 wins, or about 70%. And his PER rating of 31.8 is the ALL-TIME RECORD.
And, while his TEAM, with arguably the worst cast of clowns ever assembled, went 31-49, Wilt managed to keep them in nearly EVERY game. They lost 35 games by single digits, and had a -2.1 ppg differential. And how much help did Wilt receive from that inept roster? They collectively shot .412, which would have been well behind the WORST team in the league (Boston, at .427.)
How bad was that roster? The very next season, Wilt's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, which pitted them against draftees and players who would not make a roster. Guess which team won? Not only that, but the "anti-Wilt" posters will NEVER mention that Chamberlain then took that cast of misfits to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, where they lost two games in the waning seconds, and 4-1 overall, to the Celtics and their EIGHT HOFers. And all Wilt did in that series was outscore Russell, per game, 29-11; outrebound Russell, per game, 27-25; and Wilt also shot .517 from the floor in that series, and while we don't know what Russell shot in that series, we do know that he shot .356 in his tem post-season games, five of which were against Chamberlain.
Wilt was traded to the Sixers at mid-season the very next year. Keep in mind that Philly had gone 34-46 the year before. And Wilt guided them to a 40-40 record. THEN, he took them to a 3-1 series romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals. Following that series, Wilt led the Sixers to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics. And in that game seven, all he did was score Philly's last six points (including 2-2 from the line), and a roaring comeback from a 110-101 deficit to within 110-109. And it took a miracle steal by Havlicek to perserve Boston's win, too. In that seventh game, Wilt scored 30 points, with 32 rebounds, and on 12-15 shooting from the floor. For the series, all he did was average 30 ppg and 31 rpg.
BTW, Wilt came to a LAST PLACE team. Russell, by comparison, basically replaced Ed McCauley, AND, joined HOFer rookie Tom Heinsohn in his first season, on a team that had gone 39-33 the year before. Furthermore, the Celtics added Sam Jones the very next season. Conversely, Wilt's rosters got WORSE each season. His good teammates got older, and were not replaced.
And, think about this... in Wilt's first six post-seasons, covering his first seven seasons, his teammates collectively shot .382, .380, .354, .354, .352, and even .332 in the post-season. And yet Wilt still took two of those team's to game seven losses by 2 and 1 point against Russell's vaunted Dynasty...as well as that '64 trip to the Finals. How? How could ONE man so single-handedly carry those teams so far, and against such superior rosters?
And let's dispose of this nonsense that all Wilt played for in the first half of his career was personal stats. He did whatever his COACH's asked of him. It was NOT Wilt's idea to score 50 ppg in the 61-62 season. His coach took one look at the pathetic cast of teammates on that roster, and asked Wilt to shoot the ball. And who could blame him? Wilt shot .506 from the field, while his teammates collectively shot .402 (in a league that shot .426.) Then, somehow Wilt got that putrid cast past Syracuse (and with a game five, in a best-of-five series, of 56-35) and to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers, and with those teammates collectively shooting an awful .354 from the floor in the post-season.
Wilt finally had a quality supporting cast in the 65-66 season. And, much like his 62-63 season, when his team went 31-49, all Wilt did was lead the league in scoring, at 33.5 ppg; lead the league in rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; hand out 5.2 apg; and shoot a then-record .540 from the floor...en route to leading the Sixers to the BEST record in the league. BUT, what happened in the post-season? Wilt averaged 28 ppg, with 30.2 rpg, and on .509 shooting, while his teammates collectively shot .352. Yet, Wilt gets the blame???
And this FT shooting crap has to stop, as well. Russell had the good fortune to win SIX titles in post-seasons in which he shot less than 60% from the line(.585, .552, .526, .523, .508, and .506.) AND, he also won SIX rings while shooting .427, .423, .409, .409, .365, and .356 from the FLOOR (as well as two other post-seasons of .365 and .360 shooting.) Shaq won two of his our rings with post-season's of .456 and .374 shooting, and he had other post-seasons of .471, .466, .429, .393, and .333.
And comparing Russell to Wilt in TEAM accomplishments??? Russell played his ENTIRE career with a minimum of FOUR HOF teammates, and as many as EIGHT. Not only that, but he collectively received 71 seasons from his HOF teammates, while Wilt got 20 from his. None other than the great John Wooden commented that had Wilt had the same rosters that Russell played with in his career, he would likely have won as many rings, as well. In any case, swap their rosters in their ten H2H seasons in the league, and Wilt would have won far more than one ring in that span. As it was, Wilt was nine measley points away from going 5-3 against Russell in the post-season, instead of 1-7. And does anyone in their right mind believe that Wilt would not have murdered Russell's teams in 62-63 and 63-64 had they swapped rosters?
Basketball is a TEAM game. I give Russell credit for maximizing his surrounding talent, but he enjoyed a HUGE edge in talent in the course of their ten years in the league together, as well as a HUGE edge in coaching. While Russell had the great Auerbach, Wilt was saddled with either lazy coaches, who just asked Wilt to single-handedly carry those inept rosters, or incompetent coaches who had no idea how to use Wilt.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]This is among the greatest responses of all-time![/QUOTE]
Touche. Unfortunately, the underlying point of my post will fall upon deaf ears. Jlauber's infatuation for Chamberlain is enough to throw him into a mental asylum, straight jacket and all.
[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Touche. Unfortunately, the underlying point of my post will fall upon deaf ears. Jlauber's infatuation for Chamberlain is enough to throw him into a mental asylum, straight jacket and all.[/QUOTE]
And you are one of a handful of posters that completely waste your time, and everyone else's, with uneducated, unresearched, and unintelligent posts.
[QUOTE=jlauber]And you are one of a handful of posters that completely waste your time, and everyone else's, with uneducated, unresearched, and unintelligent posts.[/QUOTE]
Yes, because your constant whining, crying, moaning, copy and pasting is so much more liberating. As for me? No spam, I just present the facts and reality. You're wasting YOUR life sucking Wilt's dick. He's not better than Russell or Jordan, the world knows it.
[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Touche. Unfortunately, the underlying point of my post will fall upon deaf ears. Jlauber's infatuation for Chamberlain is enough to throw him into a mental asylum, straight jacket and all.[/QUOTE]
It's best to just ignore, it doesn't stop. Even when you agree with him it's never enough unless you agree with it all. Just steer clear of Wilt talk with him.
[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Yes, because your constant whining, crying, moaning, copy and pasting is so much more liberating. As for me? No spam, I just present the facts and reality. You're wasting YOUR life sucking Wilt's dick. He's not better than Russell or Jordan, the world knows it.[/QUOTE]
He is sick, seriously, the guy is not normal.
It's one thing to really like someone when you're a kid looking for role models but we are talking about a 56 year old man who's just obsessed with a basketball player who retired almost 40 years ago.
The guy is even older than my father and if my father would act like Jlauber I'd get him some professional help, his obsession is just ridiculous...
[QUOTE=millwad]He is sick, seriously, the guy is not normal.
It's one thing to really like someone when you're a kid looking for role models but we are talking about a 56 year old man who's just obsessed with a basketball player who retired almost 40 years ago.
The guy is even older than my father and if my father would act like Jlauber I'd get him some professional help, his obsession is just ridiculous...[/QUOTE]
Millwad and kuniva...quite possibly the same idiotic poster.
[QUOTE=jlauber]First of all, saying Wilt was not one of the greatest "winners" is truly laughable. The man played on 12 teams in his 14 seasons that had winning records. And, he took 12 teams to the Conference Finals, and SIX teams to the Finals. For comparision sake, Bird took eight teams to the Conference Finals, and only five to the Finals.
And Wilt played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13 (and WON 33 straight games.) Here again, for comparison sake, how about Russell? Three. And his best record was 62-18.
Wilt also played on FOUR teams that had the BEST record in the league. And, aside from MJ, find me ONE other "great" player that played on team's that went 68-13 and 69-13. And MJ also played on FIVE teams that had LOSING records, too.
How about Wilt's two "non-winning" seasons? In his 62-63 season, all Wilt did was average 44.8 ppg (winning the scoring crown by +10.8 ppg); lead the league in rebounding at 24.3 rpg; set a then record FG% mark of .528 (in a league that shot .441); and even handed out 3.4 apg. He LED the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories, and had offensive and defensive rebounding, rebound %, and blocked shots been official stats, he probably would have led in those, as well. He even LED the league in WIN SHARES, and by a large margin. He was directly responsible for 20.9 of his team's 31 wins, or about 70%. And his PER rating of 31.8 is the ALL-TIME RECORD.
And, while his TEAM, with arguably the worst cast of clowns ever assembled, went 31-49, Wilt managed to keep them in nearly EVERY game. They lost 35 games by single digits, and had a -2.1 ppg differential. And how much help did Wilt receive from that inept roster? They collectively shot .412, which would have been well behind the WORST team in the league (Boston, at .427.)
How bad was that roster? The very next season, Wilt's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage, sans Wilt, which pitted them against draftees and players who would not make a roster. Guess which team won? Not only that, but the "anti-Wilt" posters will NEVER mention that Chamberlain then took that cast of misfits to a 48-32 record, and a trip to the Finals, where they lost two games in the waning seconds, and 4-1 overall, to the Celtics and their EIGHT HOFers. And all Wilt did in that series was outscore Russell, per game, 29-11; outrebound Russell, per game, 27-25; and Wilt also shot .517 from the floor in that series, and while we don't know what Russell shot in that series, we do know that he shot .356 in his tem post-season games, five of which were against Chamberlain.
Wilt was traded to the Sixers at mid-season the very next year. Keep in mind that Philly had gone 34-46 the year before. And Wilt guided them to a 40-40 record. THEN, he took them to a 3-1 series romp over Oscar's 48-32 Royals. Following that series, Wilt led the Sixers to a game seven, one point loss against the 62-18 Celtics. And in that game seven, all he did was score Philly's last six points (including 2-2 from the line), and a roaring comeback from a 110-101 deficit to within 110-109. And it took a miracle steal by Havlicek to perserve Boston's win, too. In that seventh game, Wilt scored 30 points, with 32 rebounds, and on 12-15 shooting from the floor. For the series, all he did was average 30 ppg and 31 rpg.
BTW, Wilt came to a LAST PLACE team. Russell, by comparison, basically replaced Ed McCauley, AND, joined HOFer rookie Tom Heinsohn in his first season, on a team that had gone 39-33 the year before. Furthermore, the Celtics added Sam Jones the very next season. Conversely, Wilt's rosters got WORSE each season. His good teammates got older, and were not replaced.
And, think about this... in Wilt's first six post-seasons, covering his first seven seasons, his teammates collectively shot .382, .380, .354, .354, .352, and even .332 in the post-season. And yet Wilt still took two of those team's to game seven losses by 2 and 1 point against Russell's vaunted Dynasty...as well as that '64 trip to the Finals. How? How could ONE man so single-handedly carry those teams so far, and against such superior rosters?
And let's dispose of this nonsense that all Wilt played for in the first half of his career was personal stats. He did whatever his COACH's asked of him. It was NOT Wilt's idea to score 50 ppg in the 61-62 season. His coach took one look at the pathetic cast of teammates on that roster, and asked Wilt to shoot the ball. And who could blame him? Wilt shot .506 from the field, while his teammates collectively shot .402 (in a league that shot .426.) Then, somehow Wilt got that putrid cast past Syracuse (and with a game five, in a best-of-five series, of 56-35) and to a game seven, two point loss against the 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers, and with those teammates collectively shooting an awful .354 from the floor in the post-season.
Wilt finally had a quality supporting cast in the 65-66 season. And, much like his 62-63 season, when his team went 31-49, all Wilt did was lead the league in scoring, at 33.5 ppg; lead the league in rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; hand out 5.2 apg; and shoot a then-record .540 from the floor...en route to leading the Sixers to the BEST record in the league. BUT, what happened in the post-season? Wilt averaged 28 ppg, with 30.2 rpg, and on .509 shooting, while his teammates collectively shot .352. Yet, Wilt gets the blame???
And this FT shooting crap has to stop, as well. Russell had the good fortune to win SIX titles in post-seasons in which he shot less than 60% from the line(.585, .552, .526, .523, .508, and .506.) AND, he also won SIX rings while shooting .427, .423, .409, .409, .365, and .356 from the FLOOR (as well as two other post-seasons of .365 and .360 shooting.) Shaq won two of his our rings with post-season's of .456 and .374 shooting, and he had other post-seasons of .471, .466, .429, .393, and .333.
And comparing Russell to Wilt in TEAM accomplishments??? Russell played his ENTIRE career with a minimum of FOUR HOF teammates, and as many as EIGHT. Not only that, but he collectively received 71 seasons from his HOF teammates, while Wilt got 20 from his. None other than the great John Wooden commented that had Wilt had the same rosters that Russell played with in his career, he would likely have won as many rings, as well. In any case, swap their rosters in their ten H2H seasons in the league, and Wilt would have won far more than one ring in that span. As it was, Wilt was nine measley points away from going 5-3 against Russell in the post-season, instead of 1-7. And does anyone in their right mind believe that Wilt would not have murdered Russell's teams in 62-63 and 63-64 had they swapped rosters?
Basketball is a TEAM game. I give Russell credit for maximizing his surrounding talent, but he enjoyed a HUGE edge in talent in the course of their ten years in the league together, as well as a HUGE edge in coaching. While Russell had the great Auerbach, Wilt was saddled with either lazy coaches, who just asked Wilt to single-handedly carry those inept rosters, or incompetent coaches who had no idea how to use Wilt.[/QUOTE]
All those stats, numbers... yet two titles. That's right. And he's one of the greatest winners ever? Please... he was never one of the greatest winners ever.
He shouldn't be mentioned in same sentence with the likes of Russell, Jordan, Kareem etc when it comes to winning, period.
[QUOTE=PTB Fan]All those stats, numbers... yet two titles. That's right. And he's one of the greatest winners ever? Please... he was never one of the greatest winners ever.
He shouldn't be mentioned in same sentence with the likes of Russell, Jordan, [B]Kareem[/B] etc when it comes to winning, period.[/QUOTE]
Kareem won ONE ring in the weakest decade for champions in NBA history, and with the easiest road to a title ever in that season.
He won FIVE rings playing alongside a PRIME Magic for TEN seasons. And TWO of those came when he was LA's third and FIFTH best player. In fact, a case could be made that the Lakers won a title DESPITE Kareem's AWFUL play in '88.
Meanwhile, Chamberlain had to battle the greatest Dynasty in major professional sports history for TEN of his 14 seasons, and was heavily outgunned in surrounding personnel for the majority of that. Then, he had to battle the great 69-70 Knicks with West, an over-the-hill Baylor, and little else...and all while playing on ONE leg. In 70-71 he faced that 66-16 Bucks team, without BOTH West and Baylor. And in 72-73, he faced a Knick team with SIX HOFers.
In between, he LED two teams to dominating titles...blowing out Russell and the eight-time defending champs...and then whipping Kareem's '72 defending champion Bucks, as well as dominating the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers.
In the first half of his career, he was saddled with crappy rosters and coaches. In the last half, he took FIVE teams, in seven seasons, to the Finals, winning twice (and losing in game seven's twice.) In four of those seven years, his team's won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13.
[QUOTE=jlauber]Kareem won ONE ring in the weakest decade for champions in NBA history, and with the easiest road to a title ever in that season.
He won FIVE rings playing alongside a PRIME Magic for TEN seasons. And TWO of those came when he was LA's third and FIFTH best player. In fact, a case could be made that the Lakers won a title DESPITE Kareem's AWFUL play in '88.
Meanwhile, Chamberlain had to battle the greatest Dynasty in major professional sports history for TEN of his 14 seasons, and was heavily outgunned in surrounding personnel for the majority of that. Then, he had to battle the great 69-70 Knicks with West, an over-the-hill Baylor, and little else...and all while playing on ONE leg. In 70-71 he faced that 66-16 Bucks team, without BOTH West and Baylor. And in 72-73, he faced a Knick team with SIX HOFers.
In between, he LED two teams to dominating titles...blowing out Russell and the eight-time defending champs...and then whipping Kareem's '72 defending champion Bucks, as well as dominating the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers.
In the first half of his career, he was saddled with crappy rosters and coaches. In the last half, he took FIVE teams, in seven seasons, to the Finals, winning twice (and losing in game seven's twice.) In four of those seven years, his team's won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13.[/QUOTE]
so hes 2-3 in the Finals.....
[QUOTE=jlauber] Bla bla bla...[/QUOTE]
Greatest winners of all-time is dedicated to players who actually WON a great amount of titles.
Did Wilt win a great amount if titles? NO...
[QUOTE=jlauber]Kareem won ONE ring in the weakest decade for champions in NBA history, and with the easiest road to a title ever in that season.
He won FIVE rings playing alongside a PRIME Magic for TEN seasons. And TWO of those came when he was LA's third and FIFTH best player. In fact, a case could be made that the Lakers won a title DESPITE Kareem's AWFUL play in '88.
Meanwhile, Chamberlain had to battle the greatest Dynasty in major professional sports history for TEN of his 14 seasons, and was heavily outgunned in surrounding personnel for the majority of that. Then, he had to battle the great 69-70 Knicks with West, an over-the-hill Baylor, and little else...and all while playing on ONE leg. In 70-71 he faced that 66-16 Bucks team, without BOTH West and Baylor. And in 72-73, he faced a Knick team with SIX HOFers.
In between, he LED two teams to dominating titles...blowing out Russell and the eight-time defending champs...and then whipping Kareem's '72 defending champion Bucks, as well as dominating the Knicks and their FIVE HOFers.
In the first half of his career, he was saddled with crappy rosters and coaches. In the last half, he took FIVE teams, in seven seasons, to the Finals, winning twice (and losing in game seven's twice.) In four of those seven years, his team's won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13.[/QUOTE]
I'm giving Wilt the credit for taking it to a fully healthy Russell led Celtics team in his career. But Kareem was a bigger winner than Wilt, because he managed to use his abilities wisely and made his teams a force with it.
That's why the Bucks won a title in his second season, with him leading the way. And Kareem was more unlucky than Wilt with team mates injuries. Had that no happen, he'd have had 4 rings with the Bucks instead of two.
I'm willing to admit that Wilt had bad luck with his team mates, as they shot bad in some post season (no need to post it, as you already had covered it million times) and injuries (like in 68).
[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]so hes 2-3 in the Finals.....[/QUOTE]
And haha, "crappy rosters" is just nonsense. With all his rosters counted it's safe to say that Wilt had great teammates by his side, HOF:ers and all-stars. Sure, he had bad teammates early on but he's not the only player who've been stuck playing with less skilled players..
Jordan had crappy teammates in the early stages of his career too, big deal..